辛蒂雪曼〈歷史肖像〉與森村泰昌〈藝術史〉中的時光機器及時間之解構
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2014
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
美國當代藝術家Cindy Sherman （1954年出生），及日本當代藝術家 Yasumasa Morimura （森村泰昌，1951年出生）經常被一起討論比較。不僅因為他們同在80年代成名，同時也因為他們創作方式相似，都採用攝影為主要創作媒材，並且本身都扮裝成各式典型角色入鏡，成為作品的主角。在Sherman的〈歷史肖像〉（History Portraits）系列，以及Morimura的〈藝術史〉（Art History）系列之中，兩位藝術家不約而同地選擇了西方藝術史為創作主題，模仿西方經典名畫中的人物並創出系列作品。除了性別以及文化議題，〈歷史肖像〉以及〈藝術史〉事實上也對歷史以及時間之議題提出疑問。透過矛盾的時間呈現方式，Sherman及Morimura質疑由現代博物館所形塑的藝術史概念。雖然這兩系列作品都以「歷史」（history）為題，但作品卻呈現矛盾的時間觀及明顯的時空錯置（anachronism）現象，此現象雖來自後現代主義的影響，但應被進一步分析，並追溯回兩個於19世紀時所發展，連結不同時空的異境（heterotopias）同時也是異時（heterochronies） – 博物館（museum）及電影（cinema）。
本論文的第一章討論〈歷史肖像〉以及〈藝術史〉作品中所展現的時空錯置現象。雖然Sherman及Morimura使用的策略不同，這兩系列作品都表現出身份認同以及時空上的矛盾與混亂。Sherman和Morimura創造了他們自己版本的藝術史，並進而提出他們對歷史的疑問。根據「拼湊」（pastiche）的原理，Sherman的〈歷史肖像〉其實正符合Lévi-Strauss （李維史陀）所提之 “bricolage” 概念。bricolage為法文，在Lévi-Strauss的定義下，指的是運用手邊可及的材料來創作，而非經過精密的事前計畫或安排。 另一方面，Morimura則有計劃的創造出一個既非東方也非西方，既非男性也非女性，既非過去也非現在的「灰色地帶」。 Sherman和Morimura以過去的畫作為靈感，拼貼來自不同時空的創作材料，使這兩系列作品散發出一種奇異的人造感及詭態（grotesque）。而Sherman及Morimura似乎將自身處於一個不能確定位置的「過去」，我們可以說，Sherman及Morimura透過他們的作品進行了一場時空旅行（Time Travel）。
第二章探討Sherman 及Morimura如何在這兩系列作品中質疑現代博物館及西方藝術史的形成與結構。 透過將其收藏依時間順序及其對應之風格作有系統的分類，現代博物館形塑了西方藝術史。博物館依時間作科學分類的方法可追溯至十六世紀Paolo Giovio擁有龐大收藏的肖像畫廊（portrait gallery），並特別顯示於十九世紀的「時代展示間」（period room）。雖然〈歷史肖像〉及〈藝術史〉可分別與肖像畫廊及時代展示間相比，但Sherman 及Morimura並未以科學的方式建構其作品，也未將這兩系列的作品依時分類，反而將西方藝術史中的經典之作當成現成之物，與不同來源的材料拼貼在一起，並忽視了時間的合理及連貫性。藉此，Sherman與Morimura對經典西方藝術史表達了他們的看法與意見，也為博物館裡時間概念的轉變提供了例證。
第三章討論電影及其中之蒙太奇（montage）手法對〈歷史肖像〉及〈藝術史〉時間觀念的影響。除在其作品中扮演各種角色甚或刻板印象（stereotypes），Sherman及Morimura分別曾運用電影的概念於其創作之〈無題電影停格〉(Untitled Film Stills) 及〈女明星〉(The Actress) 系列。但〈歷史肖像〉及〈藝術史〉其實也運用了蒙太奇（montage）語法，將不同時空背景的材料並置，卻不在乎其中的一致性及內在的整合。在相似的時空背景之下，八〇年代的電影〈回到未來〉（Back to the Future）三部曲可作為電影中蒙太奇手法的例子，並示範電影如何作為時光機器。這兩系列作品和蒙太奇手法的關係可藉由與其相比進一步被解釋。在不同時空的碰撞之下，〈歷史肖像〉、〈藝術史〉及〈回到未來〉皆展示矛盾的時間觀念，並呈現出詭態（grotesque）及滑稽（caricatural）版本的歷史。〈回到未來〉不僅是以時空旅行作為主題的電影經典之一，其內容實際上也探討了電影的本質及蒙太奇的運用，並回顧了電影史。 我們可以說〈歷史肖像〉及〈藝術史〉和〈回到未來〉在高級藝術（high art）及當代大眾文化之間互相參照，而這兩系列作品中諷刺及時空錯置的設定與電影領域相比，也並不遙遠。
The American artist Cindy Sherman (born January 19, 1954) and the Japanese artist Yasumasa Morimura (born June 11, 1951) were often compared and discussed together. Not only because they both became famous in the 1980s, but also because they both use photography as medium and perform themselves a variety of archetypal characters in their artistic works. Both Sherman in her History Portraits series (1988 to1990) and Morimura in his Art History series (1985 to 2001) chose Western art history as subject matter and appropriated canonical paintings to create their artworks. In addition to sexual and cultural issues, the two series of works actually question the issues of time and history. They put into question the notion of art history, as for example the one illustrated and shaped in the museums. Although History Portraits and Art History put history in the title, the two series show paradoxical relations to time and obvious anachronisms. This phenomenon derives from the postmodernist posture, but cannot only be related to postmodernism. It should be traced back to the heterotopias and heterochronies introduced by the end of the 19th century through the multiplication of museums and the invention of cinema. In this thesis, chapter one discusses the anachronisms represented in History Portraits and Art History. Although the strategies used by Sherman and Morimura are different, both of the two series of works represent the confusion of identity and further reflect the confusion of time and space. Sherman and Morimura create their own vision of art history in order to question it. Based on the principles of pastiche, Sherman’s works are kind of bricolage in the sense given by Lévi-Strauss. On the other hand, Morimura creates Art History series with great self-awareness and deliberately designs a realm in which different spaces and times coexist. The two series of works provide also a strange sensation of artificiality and grotesque. It seems that Sherman and Morimura are projecting themselves into a past where they are totally out of place, and the anachronism and incoherence we can detect in their reconstruction of the art history are not without having to do with a paradoxical time travel. Chapter two discusses how Sherman and Morimura put into question the traditional and canonical coherence and structure of the modern museum and the art history. The modern museums have shaped the art history through systematically and chronologically categorizing their collections into different periods and styles. The scientific way of classification can be traced back to the historical portraits gallery of Paolo Giovio during the 16th century and demonstrated by the development of period room in the 19th century. History Portraits and Art History indeed can be paralleled respectively with the portrait gallery and the period room. Rather than reconstructing the past in a coherent way as does the portrait gallery or the period room, the two series neither reconstruct the past and arrange the series in a coherent and chronological way, nor classify them into schools or categories as does the museum. On the other hand, the museum and “museum without wall” free the revered paintings from their own context and scale, and become something ready to combine with other sources. By juxtaposing canonical paintings with fragments of various sources, Sherman and Morimura express their opinion to the canonical art history, and demonstrate the transformation of the notion of time within the museum. Chapter 3 discusses how cinema and the idea of montage influence the notion of time in History Portraits and Art History. In addition to performing different “roles” or stereotypes in their works, both Sherman and Morimura apply cinematic model respectively to their Untitled Film Stills and The Actress series. By assembling heterogeneous sources from various contexts without an integrated consistency, History Portrait and Art History indeed also demonstrate the practice of montage. Under similar context, the 80s science fiction movie Back to the Future trilogy offersan example illustrating the technique of montage and how cinema works as a time machine. Similar to History Portraits and Art History, the movie demonstrates the grotesque and caricatural version of history after the collision of times. While Sherman and Morimura do their time travel in the art history, Back to the Future also illustrates the essence of cinema and reviews the history of it. Morimura’s and Sherman’s series might be in the field of high art, an iconic counterpart of the contemporary popular fiction movie Back to the Future. The way of experiencing the past with irony and assumed anachronism is not so far from the field of movie.
The American artist Cindy Sherman (born January 19, 1954) and the Japanese artist Yasumasa Morimura (born June 11, 1951) were often compared and discussed together. Not only because they both became famous in the 1980s, but also because they both use photography as medium and perform themselves a variety of archetypal characters in their artistic works. Both Sherman in her History Portraits series (1988 to1990) and Morimura in his Art History series (1985 to 2001) chose Western art history as subject matter and appropriated canonical paintings to create their artworks. In addition to sexual and cultural issues, the two series of works actually question the issues of time and history. They put into question the notion of art history, as for example the one illustrated and shaped in the museums. Although History Portraits and Art History put history in the title, the two series show paradoxical relations to time and obvious anachronisms. This phenomenon derives from the postmodernist posture, but cannot only be related to postmodernism. It should be traced back to the heterotopias and heterochronies introduced by the end of the 19th century through the multiplication of museums and the invention of cinema. In this thesis, chapter one discusses the anachronisms represented in History Portraits and Art History. Although the strategies used by Sherman and Morimura are different, both of the two series of works represent the confusion of identity and further reflect the confusion of time and space. Sherman and Morimura create their own vision of art history in order to question it. Based on the principles of pastiche, Sherman’s works are kind of bricolage in the sense given by Lévi-Strauss. On the other hand, Morimura creates Art History series with great self-awareness and deliberately designs a realm in which different spaces and times coexist. The two series of works provide also a strange sensation of artificiality and grotesque. It seems that Sherman and Morimura are projecting themselves into a past where they are totally out of place, and the anachronism and incoherence we can detect in their reconstruction of the art history are not without having to do with a paradoxical time travel. Chapter two discusses how Sherman and Morimura put into question the traditional and canonical coherence and structure of the modern museum and the art history. The modern museums have shaped the art history through systematically and chronologically categorizing their collections into different periods and styles. The scientific way of classification can be traced back to the historical portraits gallery of Paolo Giovio during the 16th century and demonstrated by the development of period room in the 19th century. History Portraits and Art History indeed can be paralleled respectively with the portrait gallery and the period room. Rather than reconstructing the past in a coherent way as does the portrait gallery or the period room, the two series neither reconstruct the past and arrange the series in a coherent and chronological way, nor classify them into schools or categories as does the museum. On the other hand, the museum and “museum without wall” free the revered paintings from their own context and scale, and become something ready to combine with other sources. By juxtaposing canonical paintings with fragments of various sources, Sherman and Morimura express their opinion to the canonical art history, and demonstrate the transformation of the notion of time within the museum. Chapter 3 discusses how cinema and the idea of montage influence the notion of time in History Portraits and Art History. In addition to performing different “roles” or stereotypes in their works, both Sherman and Morimura apply cinematic model respectively to their Untitled Film Stills and The Actress series. By assembling heterogeneous sources from various contexts without an integrated consistency, History Portrait and Art History indeed also demonstrate the practice of montage. Under similar context, the 80s science fiction movie Back to the Future trilogy offersan example illustrating the technique of montage and how cinema works as a time machine. Similar to History Portraits and Art History, the movie demonstrates the grotesque and caricatural version of history after the collision of times. While Sherman and Morimura do their time travel in the art history, Back to the Future also illustrates the essence of cinema and reviews the history of it. Morimura’s and Sherman’s series might be in the field of high art, an iconic counterpart of the contemporary popular fiction movie Back to the Future. The way of experiencing the past with irony and assumed anachronism is not so far from the field of movie.
Description
Keywords
辛蒂雪曼, 森村泰昌, 藝術史, 攝影, 肖像, 時空錯置, 異境, 博物館, 蒙太奇, 時光機器, Cindy Sherman, Yasumasa Morimura, Art History, Photography, Portraits, Anachronism, Heterotopias, Museum, Montage, Time Machine