Giving a methodological and ontological explanation to the art history is the core thought of “a theory of /cloud/” of Hubert Damisch. It shows that there is no uniform explanation for art history. And the explanation of art history can only be placed in the framework of history. Language is the main reason for this, because it is historical, and through it the art history can be narrated and explained. As an explanatory activity, art history needs to plan a historical horizon which is different from the present, and integrate with the current horizon to explain historical events. Therefore, all art history is bound to be a historical explanation. This is the logic of why art history needs to be constantly renovated. On the other hand, because art history is inseparable from language, it must rely on linguistic methods in the specific analysis process. Taking this as his starting point, Damisch takes semiotics as the dominant method of explaining the art history. In his eyes, semiotics, as a method of combining meaning reading and characterization analysis, can effectively reconcile the contradiction between formal analysis and iconology. Not only that, the symbol as a kind of representation of representation can also make the painting back to the field of representation. Because representation is the basic purpose of painting. As a symbol, cloud precisely emphasizes that painting should pay attention to representation. And the sensibility and materiality of cloud in painting indicates that the painterly should become the mainstream of the representation. This kind of painterly is exactly what “A Theory of /Cloud/” aims to reveal. According to this, the painterly of painting should become the main focus of the writing of art history.
| Published in |
International Journal of Literature and Arts (Volume 8, Issue 3)
This article belongs to the Special Issue Humanity and Science: China’s Intercultural Communication with the Outside World in the New Era |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19 |
| Page(s) | 162-168 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Theoretical Object, Art History, A Theory of /Cloud/, Art Semiotics
| [1] | Hubert Damisch. A Theory of /Cloud/: Toward a history of Painting. Trans. Dong Qiang. Nanjing: Jiangsu Fine Arts Press, 2014. |
| [2] | Yve-Alain Bois, Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss and Hubert Damisch. “A conversation with Hubert Damisch”, October, 85 (Summer 1998): 3–17. |
| [3] | Jonathan Kahler. Introduction to Literary Theory. Trans. Li ping. Nanjing: Yilin press, 2008. |
| [4] | Hubert Damisch. The Origin of Perspective. trans. John Goodman. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1994. |
| [5] | Hubert Damisch. “Semiotics and Iconography”. Trans. Yu Huoxing. Journal of Hundred Schools in Arts, 2014 (4): 105-107. |
| [6] | Chen huaien. Iconography: The Meaning and Interpretation of Visual Arts. Shi Jiazhuang: Hebei Fine Arts Press, 2011. |
| [7] | Norman Bresson. “Semiotics and Art History”. Trans. Yu Huoxing. The Art World. Ed. Wang Tingxin. Nanjing: Jiangsu Fine Arts Press, 2013. |
| [8] | Merleau-Ponty. Eye and Mindt: Collection of Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenological Aesthetics, Trans. Liu yunhan. China Social Sciences Press, 1992. |
| [9] | Gadamer. Truth and Method. Trans. Hong Handing. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Press, 2004. |
APA Style
Chai Dongdong. (2020). The Writing of History and Return of Language: Art History as An Explanation Object-On Hubert Damsich’s “A Theory of /Cloud/”. International Journal of Literature and Arts, 8(3), 162-168. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19
ACS Style
Chai Dongdong. The Writing of History and Return of Language: Art History as An Explanation Object-On Hubert Damsich’s “A Theory of /Cloud/”. Int. J. Lit. Arts 2020, 8(3), 162-168. doi: 10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19
AMA Style
Chai Dongdong. The Writing of History and Return of Language: Art History as An Explanation Object-On Hubert Damsich’s “A Theory of /Cloud/”. Int J Lit Arts. 2020;8(3):162-168. doi: 10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19,
author = {Chai Dongdong},
title = {The Writing of History and Return of Language: Art History as An Explanation Object-On Hubert Damsich’s “A Theory of /Cloud/”},
journal = {International Journal of Literature and Arts},
volume = {8},
number = {3},
pages = {162-168},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijla.20200803.19},
abstract = {Giving a methodological and ontological explanation to the art history is the core thought of “a theory of /cloud/” of Hubert Damisch. It shows that there is no uniform explanation for art history. And the explanation of art history can only be placed in the framework of history. Language is the main reason for this, because it is historical, and through it the art history can be narrated and explained. As an explanatory activity, art history needs to plan a historical horizon which is different from the present, and integrate with the current horizon to explain historical events. Therefore, all art history is bound to be a historical explanation. This is the logic of why art history needs to be constantly renovated. On the other hand, because art history is inseparable from language, it must rely on linguistic methods in the specific analysis process. Taking this as his starting point, Damisch takes semiotics as the dominant method of explaining the art history. In his eyes, semiotics, as a method of combining meaning reading and characterization analysis, can effectively reconcile the contradiction between formal analysis and iconology. Not only that, the symbol as a kind of representation of representation can also make the painting back to the field of representation. Because representation is the basic purpose of painting. As a symbol, cloud precisely emphasizes that painting should pay attention to representation. And the sensibility and materiality of cloud in painting indicates that the painterly should become the mainstream of the representation. This kind of painterly is exactly what “A Theory of /Cloud/” aims to reveal. According to this, the painterly of painting should become the main focus of the writing of art history.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - The Writing of History and Return of Language: Art History as An Explanation Object-On Hubert Damsich’s “A Theory of /Cloud/” AU - Chai Dongdong Y1 - 2020/04/23 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19 DO - 10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19 T2 - International Journal of Literature and Arts JF - International Journal of Literature and Arts JO - International Journal of Literature and Arts SP - 162 EP - 168 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2331-057X UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijla.20200803.19 AB - Giving a methodological and ontological explanation to the art history is the core thought of “a theory of /cloud/” of Hubert Damisch. It shows that there is no uniform explanation for art history. And the explanation of art history can only be placed in the framework of history. Language is the main reason for this, because it is historical, and through it the art history can be narrated and explained. As an explanatory activity, art history needs to plan a historical horizon which is different from the present, and integrate with the current horizon to explain historical events. Therefore, all art history is bound to be a historical explanation. This is the logic of why art history needs to be constantly renovated. On the other hand, because art history is inseparable from language, it must rely on linguistic methods in the specific analysis process. Taking this as his starting point, Damisch takes semiotics as the dominant method of explaining the art history. In his eyes, semiotics, as a method of combining meaning reading and characterization analysis, can effectively reconcile the contradiction between formal analysis and iconology. Not only that, the symbol as a kind of representation of representation can also make the painting back to the field of representation. Because representation is the basic purpose of painting. As a symbol, cloud precisely emphasizes that painting should pay attention to representation. And the sensibility and materiality of cloud in painting indicates that the painterly should become the mainstream of the representation. This kind of painterly is exactly what “A Theory of /Cloud/” aims to reveal. According to this, the painterly of painting should become the main focus of the writing of art history. VL - 8 IS - 3 ER -
Email: