- UID
- 774610
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-6-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
疑似文章：
For artists and writers alike, book illustration’s threat was double: it challenged the fine arts via their shared visual medium, and literature through the shared pages of the book. As such, critics needed a way to invalidate illustration’s artistic claims on both fronts. They did so by codifying the genre as industrial and mercantile, a lethal combination. The landscape painter Raoul de Croy (1802-79) led the charge, chastising the press for its use of what he described as ‘‘crude wood engravings’’ that transform ‘‘beautiful vignettes’’ into ‘‘black ink stains.’’ Here de Croy sets up a polarity between wood and metal engraving: the former being ‘‘crude’’ and ‘‘mechanical,’’ the latter representative of ‘‘this art so perfect, so difficult, so worthy of encouragement.’’ De Mercey followed suit, noting the ‘‘difficulty’’ and ‘‘length of work’’ involved with copper and steel engraving, as well as etching. Lithography and wood engraving, on the other hand, were ‘‘much less difficult to produce and much less expensive.’’
Although the Romantics, and de Croy himself, championed lithography as a spontaneous, emotive medium that captured the visible traces of the artist’s pencil— metonymic references to the artist’s thoughts and emotions the lithography of the 1840s fell on the side of ‘‘popular’’ art more often than not, as it was primarily used in the press and for low-end prints, with subject matter ranging from political and social caricature to licentious images. Accordingly, the medium took on the attributes of its publication venues and content: mechanical, commercial, destined for a popular audience.De Mercey’s and de Croy’s distinction between lithography/wood en- graving and metal engraving/etching establishes a series of dichotomies— mechanical versus hand-produced, mass-reproduced versus limited reproduction, industrial versus individual creation—which correspond to Bourdieu’s breakdown of the cultural field. These distinctions also testify to the very real nature of image reproduction in the nineteenth century: metal engraving was a lengthy and costly procedure where the bulk of the work was often done by one engraver, while wood engraving and lithography were much less expensive and easier to produce, with individual authorship giving way to the collaborative process of publishing illustrated newspapers and books. These differences fuel de Mercey’s and de Croy’s attacks on book illustration in that each critic attributes value to time, cost of production, and individual workmanship: thus metal engraving and etching are placed at the high end of the aesthetic scale, while lithography and especially wood engraving fall to the bottom. Yet ironically, by placing illustration within the academic hierarchy of mediums, de Mercey and de Croy suggest that it is gaining not only economic but also cultural capital. Despite its ‘‘crude’’ and ‘‘mechanical’’ nature, it has earned a place on the artistic ladder, albeit the lowest rung.
Critics reinforced the high-versus-low art dichotomy by adding commercialism, what Bourdieu qualifies as the ‘‘generative principle’’ of the field of cultural production. According to de Mercey, publishers turn to book illustration because they want ‘‘to produce bargains, common goods.’’Il- lustration is a step backwards towards ‘‘the mercantile civilization of America’’; ‘‘no other century has pushed as far as ours this debauchery of illustrations commercially conceived’’; ‘‘literature has become a counter, a boutique open on the street, with display windows and a sign.’’ In short, illustration is not art; it is simply a means to ‘‘build a fortune.’’
De Mercey plays on a related fear when he protests that both wood en- graving and lithography ‘‘largely contributed . . . to the democratization of minds [esprits].’’ De Croy grants that one may applaud the press’s efforts to ‘‘bring the taste for the arts to the poor person’s home,’’ but this must not be done by way of ‘‘assassinating the fine arts’’: ‘‘Where, thus, will good taste find refuge if we inundate the poor public in such a manner?’’ De Croy’s metaphor of a flood or wave of images signals the growing anxiety that illustration will eventually drown out or homogenize the visual arts. De Mercey and de Croy fear not wood engraving and lithography per se, but rather their infiltration and subversion of high art. And in many ways book illustration did just that, for as Philippe Kaenel notes, the majority of visual artists from 1830 to 1880 sold images to newspapers and booksellers at one time or another, blurring the boundaries between painting, engraving, caricature, and illustration. As Kaenel points out, the entry for the
letter ‘‘d’’ in Marcus Osterwalder’s Dictionnaire des illustrateurs (1983) in- cludes ‘‘Dargent, Daubigny, Daumier, Debucourt, Decamps, Delacroix, Denis, Derain, Deve ?ria, Dore ?, Durf, Du Maurier, etc.’’66 When such a varied collection of painters, caricaturists, and engravers illustrate books, how does one distinguish between the artist and the commercial hack?
The same question arises in the context of literature, for as de Mercey and fellow critics argue, book illustration’s attack on the artistic field targets both visual and literary aesthetics. The critic Elias Regnault warns that in order to maintain literature’s integrity, ‘‘the publisher must bring to this new path sureness in judgment, a purity of taste, which raises him to the ranks of an artist, if he doesn’t want to descend to the role of sketch sales- man.’’ Regnault cites a number of cases where the publisher fills books with too many images, poor quality images, or images that do not correspond to the text. Worst of all is the publisher who ‘‘brazenly changes the first words of a paragraph in order to offer hospitality to his illuminated letters.’’ Here Regnault targets publishers as the instrument behind illustration’s degradation of literature: ‘‘their most common error is to take on the airs of an artist vis-a`-vis the public and to reserve their merchant ways for the writer.’’ The publisher’s true crime is that he usurps the writer, taking over the book via illustration, all under the guise of ‘‘art’’ although he is in fact a salesman in artist’s clothing.
For de Mercey, illustration’s threat to literature is even greater as it not only corrupts aesthetics but, more importantly, it distorts the reading process by substituting image for word. As he explains, there is a certain ‘‘vague- ness’’ inherent to ‘‘verbal painting’’: ‘‘Nothing is precise, the reader’s mind is constantly required to call forth its reminiscences and its personal emotions in order to interpret, as it were, the poet’s idea.’’ But illustration makes this kind of creative individual reading impossible. The reader be- comes lazy, the mind weakened from the passive viewing of images: ‘‘When the illustrator gives precise forms to the writer’s reveries, his stories, it necessarily happens that the mind is no longer accustomed to understanding these stories, these reveries, unless in the clothes that the painter has dressed them. The illustrator thus substitutes himself for the poet; he imposes his personal interpretation in place of that multiple and living interpretation that each person can create according to his imagination or his nature.’’
Yet despite the critics’ attempts to discredit illustration, de Mercey, de Croy, and Regnault actually attest to its success, in that their articles amass a body of critical discourse devoted to wood engraving and lithography. By making book illustration a topic of discussion and interpretation, the critics actually validate its entry into the cultural field. What is more, the critics’ fervent attacks suggest that illustration succeeded at destabilizing, however temporarily, the cultural field. The threat to aesthetic hierarchies was real.
V1 640 v28)关键词wood engraving, artistic...France... 有一问是说第二段提一个人(De Mocoy貌似)是为了干嘛?
V2：阅读有一篇讲什么graphic illustration....里面提到了什么印刷在wood 或metal上的 然后法国有个人叫什么re.xxxx的 反正讲来讲去没看懂多少。。。
V3不确定是不是这里的)貌似一种印刷和出版相关的
P1.讲了貌似法国的一种印刷在publication中的应用, 初始遭到critics的不认同(好像是artistic不是上非常有价值之类)云云.这里有个对比部分和金属蚀刻(etching)相关的对比. 然后艺术家怎么怎么了(总之是正态度)
P2.完全忘了
V4：講法國有關什麼art的,是book illustration被criticize, 兩段文, 後段關鍵字lithography 幾乎整篇都在講printed art 還有各種印刷方法(木工..鐵工...有說明鐵工耗時所以lithography好使的樣子..)
V5: wood那道我怎么记得看到过 说17century france的 一个艺术家用这种方法 第二段说的是另外个高等社会bourgeois的另外个人说的话好像说这种比较省钱 报纸还是神马的反正用的范围广 还说对政治有帮助咩 还说了个silver还是什么的很复杂的engraving
V6: illustrations受到critics的批评，artists怎么怎么，提到了一个具体艺术家(名字很长貌似法文名字)说wood和mental 的engraving，wood的不好，后者好。第二段还说这个engraving，什么lithography什么，说steer的less dufficult.....最后说lithograpgy应用到popular side，用于publish newspapers，ranging from political issues to social issues。
V7: Book illustration. 还有讲印刷啥的东西。
第一段：某个鸟人很支持Copper Engrave啥的
第二段：另一个人提出一些不同观点，说木头什么比金属的好。因为比较便宜，且好做。
V8： 法国关于illustration 其中有类型应用(主要应用于newspaper的politics 和
Social issues类?)
V9：考题全部是细节题
V10: 第2段 法国的什么人讲 STEEL WOOD 这些方法没有很难 而且花费小 然后还说印刷是一直持续怎么着的,还有第2段开头提到很长的法国名字 问那人的观点
V11： 法国的艺术家，book illustration。。。。一个人创造了一个新的方法，然后另一个人跟着学，然后这种方法就成了popular，导致了本来的一种方法沦落到报纸印刷才用的
V12: (700 v36)还有那个etching 第一段是说de croy?觉得wood engraving不好，XX技术好，具有艺术性。 第二段是说 某派人觉得wood 挺好的好像。但是浪漫派和de croy喜欢的litography 最后还是变成low-end 用来传播政治阿社会啊的主观事情(这里有题)
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-9-12 12:36:26
收藏
收藏
发表于 2013-9-12 12:37:08
