論Daniel Arasse的細節理論與近看的繪畫史

Abstract

本論文旨在探究繪畫史闡述與繪畫詮釋的多樣性，並以法國藝術史學家丹尼爾．阿哈斯的《細節——為了建立一部近看的繪畫史》（Le Détail : Pour une histoire rapprochée de la peinture）為研究對象，關注作品本身的闡述策略、建構方式，以及阿哈斯的研究方法與理論模式。內容環繞著幾個主要的問題：以細節論述繪畫史的效益性、細節如何揭示古典繪畫體系的建立與變化、阿哈斯如何建立近看繪畫的經驗秩序、近看的經驗會導引出什麼樣的陳述空間，以及阿哈斯如何連結理性古典繪畫體系與近看繪畫的感知經驗之間的矛盾。本論文的研究方法乃依據上述問題為論文發展的中心，首先遵循作品自身的形式法則與結構邏輯，分析各構成要素之間的關係與規則，藉以釐清這些要素之間的關係如何建立與表達，接著才進一步廣泛比較並整合學界的相關研究結果。作品優先的方法論旨在避免主觀詮釋的文獻分析篡奪作品自身的訊息與位置，使得一部以「細節」建構的繪畫史更為離散。研究結果發現阿哈斯在《細節》中，藉由「細節—徽志」與「細節—高點」的概念，區分了可述與可視二種建構模式，並透過三重面向的關聯，連結四個異質的陳述空間。可述的形式是「言說的」，對應於古典的繪畫模仿之語言與秩序的機械論，可視的形式觸及的是「非言說的」觀看經驗與私密的場域。事實上可視的陳述空間才是阿哈斯的理論核心，在本文所得出的凝視理論架構下，可以發現阿哈斯區分二對繪畫細節概念（「切分的細節與特定的細節」、「圖像性細節與繪畫性細節」）之目的是為了凸顯圖像的無意義與多重意義的詮釋問題。繪畫並非如圖像學觀點所認為的只具有一種主導意義，它可能因私密的原因而具有多重意義，其中無意義也是一種意義。阿哈斯以近看繪畫所看到的細節思考建構，並以系譜學方式陳述的繪畫史，透過其所建立的細節關係與凝視理論架構，將歷史再度置於天平之上。其目的並非要還原一部「細節史」，而是要透過細節建立一種藝術符號學的繪畫史，藉以將詮釋繪畫與陳述繪畫史的觀念網絡予以更新並加以重新定位。This study aims to explore the diversity of the history of painting and the interpretation of painting based on the French art historian Daniel Arasse's "Details-To Build a Close-up History of Painting" (Le Détail: Pour une histoire rapprochée de la peinture) which focuses on the work's own explanatory strategy, construction method, and Arasse's research Methods and theoretical models. The content centers around several main questions: discussing the effectiveness of painting history in details, how the details reveal the establishment and changes of the classical painting system, how Arasse established the order of experience in looking close-up at a painting, the narratives that a close-up looking experience will lead to, and how Arasse connects the contradiction between the rational classical painting system and the perceptual experience of a painting up close.The research method of this thesis is based on the above-mentioned points as the center of the development of the thesis. Firstly it follows the formal rules and structural logic of the work itself, analyzes the relationship and rules between the constituent elements, and then clarifies how the relationship between these elements is established and expressed. Then it further compares and integrates the relevant research results of the academia. The work-first methodology aims to avoidsubjectively interpreted literature analysis from altering the message and position of the work itself, making a painting history constructed with"details" more scattered.

This study found that within details, through the concepts of “details-emblems” and “details-high points”, Arasse distinguished the two construction modes of what can be seen and what can be narrated and through three perspectives, brought together four heterogeneous narratives. What can be narrated (verbal), corresponds to the mechanistic theory of language and order of classical painting imitating. What can be seen (non-verbal) is the viewing experience and private field. In fact, this visual statement space is the core of Arasse's theory. Under the gaze theory structure outlined in this article, it can be said that Arasse distinguishes two pairs of painting details ("divided details and particular details" and "iconic details and pictorial details") to highlight the meaninglessness of images and the interpretation of multiple meanings. Painting does not have only one dominant meaning as believed by the iconology perspective. It may have multiple meanings for intimate reasons, and meaninglessness is also a meaning.Arasse thinks and constructs with the details seen by looking closely at a painting, and describes the history of painting in the form of genealogy. Through the detailed relationship and gaze theory established, such history is once again re-evaluated. The purpose is not to restore a"history of details", but to establish an art semiotic painting history through details, thereby renewing and repositioning the conceptual network that interprets painting and narrates the history of painting.