手法主义与方法:安东尼·布伦特写作中的阶级和艺术家能动性,1934-1949  

Mannerism and Method:Class and Artistic Agency in the Writing of Anthony Blunt,1934 to 1949

作　　者： 王雨林(译) Matthew Critchley

机构地区：[1]苏黎世联邦理工学院建筑历史与理论研究所 [2]同济大学建筑与城市规划学院 [3]苏黎世联邦理工学院

出　　处：《城市环境设计》2023年第2期291-300,共10页Urban Environment Design

基　　金：国家自然科学基金“现代建筑观念的图像表现研究”(批准号:51978473)资助;国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目资助(202106260204)。

摘　　要：尼古拉斯·佩夫斯纳在其文《手法主义建筑》(The Architecture of Mannerism)(1946)中评道:英格兰鲜有手法主义研究发表出版,手法主义建筑研究则更稀少,而安东尼·布伦特就是为数不多的、活跃于该领域的英国学者之一。布伦特最早出版的两部书《意大利艺术理论:1450-1600》(1940)和《弗朗索瓦·孟莎与法国古典建筑的起源》(1941)都在处理艺术和建筑中的“手法主义”风格。若与其巴洛克研究相比,他的手法主义研究则相对简略;但却因其方法具有偶然性而有特殊的史学意义。他的艺术史路径有惊人的易塑性(malleable),不仅反映出诸多个人层面的影响,也反映了围绕手法主义的方法和话题而产生的广泛争论。布伦特原本是一位“为艺术而艺术”的形式主义者,又戏剧性地反身投入某种艺术社会史的诸多实验中;这种艺术社会史至少部分是以阶级的作用为基础的。其方法论对手们(rivals)将会猛烈抨击这些方法,他们的批判又将反过来呼吁重新关注艺术家的能动性。在布伦特对“手法主义”时期的关注行将结束之际,他做了一场题为《建筑中的手法主义》(1949)的讲座。该讲座既反映出这些不同的方法论立场,也以对手法主义建筑作社会解读标志了他部分个人的立场,又在其中重申建筑师的能动性。一者强调社会力量,一者则肯定能动性一一这两种互有分歧的历史立场在布伦特论著中形成的紧张态势并非意外,亦非深入探究手法主义就会必然推演得出。这些方法其实是以布伦特所处环境的独特条件为特征:首先是他在20世纪30年代为共产主义献身,其后有弗雷德里克·安塔尔的影响,最后是诸如鲁道夫·维特科尔等人物的反向影响。其中一些偶然因素成为支撑布伦特历史方法的基柱。本文考查布伦特作品中手法主义和历史方法的关系,并将该命题拓展到他的诸多同仁与他�In his essay"The Architecture of Mannerism"(1946),Nikolaus Pevsner remarked that while little had been published on Mannerism in England,and even less on Mannerist architecture,Anthony Blunt was one of the few English scholars active in the field.Blunts first two published books,Artistic Theory in Italy 1450-1600(1940)and Francois Mansart and the Origins of French Classical Architecture(1941),dealt with the style in both art and architecture.While comparatively brief when set beside his work on the baroque,Blunts engagement with Mannerism has particular historiographic significance because of the contingency of its methods.His approach to art history was incredibly malleable,reflecting personal influences and the wider debates surrounding both method and the topic of Mannerism itself.Originally an"art for arts sake"formalist,Blunt dramatically turned around this time to experiments in a social history of art,one which was atleast partly based on the role of class.These methods would come under fervent criticism from their methodological rivals which called,in turn,for a renewed focus on artistic agency.Blunts lecture"Mannerism in Architecture"(1949),which he gave towards the end of his focus on this period,reflects these methodological positions while also marking a partial personal denouement with a social reading of Mannerist architecture,therein reaffirming the agency of the architect.The tension between these two divergent historical positions in Blunts work—one which emphasises social forces,the other asserting agency—was neither an accident nor the inevitable deductive result of probing into Mannerism.Instead,they were methods marked by the unique conditions of Blunts circumstances.Firstly,his commitment to communism in the 1930s,then the influence of Frederick Antal and finally the counter-influence of such figures as Rudolf Wittkower.These were some of the contingent factors underpinning Blunts historical methods.This paper investigates this relation between Mannerism and historical method in Blunts w

关 键 词：安东尼·布伦特 艺术家能动性 恩斯特·贡布里希 弗雷德里克·安塔尔 手法主义 艺术社会史 

分 类 号：TU-89[艺术—艺术设计]