1、外文翻译 之 一 CHINESE PAINTING AS VISION OF SOCIAL AND COSMIC ORDER 作者： ESTHER JACOBSON-LEONG 国籍： United States 出处： The Structurist 原文正文： ESTHER JACOBSON-LEONG is Associate Professor of Art History at the University of Oregon at Eugene. Her research interests center the Chinese pe
2、rception of landscape, as revealed through their art. and on Eurasian nomadic art. In the history of Chinese landscape painting. The Tang dynasty (630-906) and the Northern Sung dynasty(960-1127) have a particular significance: it was during the T'ang that there first emerged the indications of
3、a maturing consciousness of landscape； and it was during the Northern Sung that these indications reached full flowering. The vision of nature in this early period of Chinese landscape painting was that of a world in harmony. In the context of mountains, rivers, trees and mist, the inhabitants of th
4、ese paintings appear to exist with an ease which suggests that they, too, participate in the harmony of nature, Such is the general understanding of T'ang and Sung landscape painting: and it is, at least in part, correct, But the early Chinese vision of nature and of man's place in the unive
5、rse is more complex and profound. By considering the writings of two major theorists of early Chinese painting, Chang Yen-yuan (act. mid-ninth c.) and Kuo Hsi (act, latter eleventh century), we may deepen our understanding of that vision. Now painting is a thing which perfects the civilizing t
6、eachings of the Sages and helps to maintain the social relationships. It penetrates completely the divine permutations of Nature and fathoms recondite and subtle things.It proceeds from Nature itself and not from human invention.
7、 - - With these assertions Chang Yen-yuan, art critic and connoisseur, began his Record of the Famous Painters of All the Dynasties (Li tai ming hua chi), completed in 847 A.D. We cannot be certain that Chang was speaking for his age in making the above
8、statements. But, to our knowledge, no major critic contemporary with or later that Chang ever directly took exception to his introductory comments. We may therefore take Chang's essay as our window onto painting of the T'ang dynasty (630-906) and its role in the shaping of human imagination.
9、 According to Chang, painting was a gift from Nature, in order that men might reveal both good and evil. Through the revelations of painting men could learn the shape of negative influences, the appearance of right conduct and the positive power of virtue. By giving form to lessons of history, paint
10、ings ware "the great treasures symbolizing Empire.the strand and leading ropes which can regulate disorders. For men of the T'ang, such as Chang, reality included not only humans and the material human realm, but also dragons, goblins and spirits both good and evil. The role of the artistic
11、 imagination was to give shape to visible and invisible forms which exist absolutely, without dependence on individual vision. Painting was therefore practical: it conferred on the viewer knowledge and the magical control over dangerous influences which knowledge affords. But above all painting was
12、didactic: within the context of a Confucian view of society based on morality, hierarchy, and order, the artist's responsibility was not to elaborate on what might be, or to share his personal tears, hopes, joys, and sorrows with the viewer-indeed, Chang did not even recognize this as a possibil
13、ity-but rather to re-affirm the wisdom and morality of the ages. Given these assumptions, it is not surprising that Chang insisted that only educated, "lofty-minded men" of good family could excel in painting.' Reading Chang's essay, one is struck by the extent to which he was conc
14、erned with the individual concrete object rather that with a unified pictorial context out of which objects could emerge. For example, of the T'ang painter Wei Wu-t'ien. Chang noted that Wu" excelled at saddle horses, likenesses of falcons and pictures of eagles,” only in speaking of la
15、ndscape painters did Chang consider objects embedded in a larger context. Of the T'ang painter, Li Ssu-hsun, he wrote: - - In his paintings of mountains and waters. Trees and rock
16、s, his brush-character was firm and strong. Rushing rapids dash, in torrents. Clouds and mist are here thick, there thin so that at times one sees the doings of the gods and immortals, mysterious among the recesses of the cliffs and summits. The scanty remains of Tang painting indicate that artists,
17、 also, saw the world in terms of individual, strongly defined objects, sometimes placed against a plain background or sometimes arranged into prop-like settings for human activity. In a Sung dynasty copy of a Tang painting associated with Li Ssu-hsun, for example, space is divided into three parts h
18、orizontally and vertically； within that space, objects stand out with a clarity and strength of brushstroke which denies atmospheric perspective ( Fig.1) Despite his assumption that the force of painting lay in its representation of moral lessons, Chang appears to have believed that as long as a pai
19、nting did not glorify evil, one subject was no better than another. All objects may not be of equal didactic value, but each has value as a concrete thing. In one part of his essay, however, Chang offered some clues about his own preferences for subjects worthy of painting； With regard to terraces a
20、nd pavilions, trees and rocks, carriages and palanquins, and utensils and objects in general, there is nothing about them which life-movement could seek to embody, and nothing which spirit-resonance might strive to equal Such subjects only require proper placing and alignment and that is enough. As
21、Ku Kaichih once said, “Man is the most difficult subject to paint, then landscapes and then dogs and horses. As for terraces and pavilions, they are nothing but fixed objects and pavilions, they are nothing but fixed objects and are comparatively easy to do. These words fully express the idea Despit
22、e his initial statement regarding trees and rocks, Chang proceeded to suggest through his quotation of Ku that landscapes have a kind of vitality which distinguishes them from “fixed objects”. Since nowhere else did Chang clarify this apparent confusion, we might conclude that, for Chang, the individual objects of nature, being incapable of recording the deeds of history or revealing influences both
