Pictures and Visuality in Early Modern China is not simply a survey of sixteenth-century images, but rather, a thorough and thoughtful examination of visual culture in China's Ming Dynasty, one that considers images wherever they appeared—not only paintings, but also illustrated books, maps, ceramic bowls, lacquered boxes, painted fans, and even clothing and tomb pictures.
Pictures and Visuality in Early Modern China is not simply a survey of sixteenth-century images, but rather, a thorough and thoughtful examination of visual culture in China's Ming Dynasty, one that considers images wherever they appeared—not only paintings, but also illustrated books, maps, ceramic bowls, lacquered boxes, painted fans, and even clothing and tomb pictures.
Clunas's theory of visuality incorporates not only the image and the object upon which it is placed but also the culture which produced and purchased it. Economic changes in sixteenth-century China—the rapid expansion of trade routes and a growing class of consumers—are thus intricately bound up with the evolution of the image itself. Pictures and Visuality in Early Modern China will be a touchstone for students of Chinese history, art, and culture.
Pictures and Visuality in Early Modern China的创作者
· · · · · ·
Craig Clunas is Senior Lecturer in the History of Art at the University of Sussex. He has published extensively on the culture of the Ming period. His books include Fruitful Sites: Garden Culture in Ming Dynasty China; Art in China; and Superfluous Things: Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China.
Adroit writing, intriguing topic, but I am not very fond of his research. I think he is a historian who claimed to be an art historian. And to him, it is almost impossible to make an argument without ...Adroit writing, intriguing topic, but I am not very fond of his research. I think he is a historian who claimed to be an art historian. And to him, it is almost impossible to make an argument without revisiting the past scholarship, which is so clumsy. The book also
needs unpacking owing to the habitual digressions. Not a pleasant reading. (展开)
*CH2: Iconic circuit vs. Style; CH3: the very link between the representation and the represented; P115: 1650s antique store; CH4: Guan, Kan, Du & word choice issues; CH5: privatisation of vision; the...*CH2: Iconic circuit vs. Style; CH3: the very link between the representation and the represented; P115: 1650s antique store; CH4: Guan, Kan, Du & word choice issues; CH5: privatisation of vision; the absence of traces; CH6: erotic reference in 漢宮春曉; Conclusion: complementary bipolarity. (展开)
Adroit writing, intriguing topic, but I am not very fond of his research. I think he is a historian who claimed to be an art historian. And to him, it is almost impossible to make an argument without ...Adroit writing, intriguing topic, but I am not very fond of his research. I think he is a historian who claimed to be an art historian. And to him, it is almost impossible to make an argument without revisiting the past scholarship, which is so clumsy. The book also
needs unpacking owing to the habitual digressions. Not a pleasant reading. (展开)
《早期现代中国的图像与视觉性》（Pictures and Visuality in Early Modern China，下文简称《视觉性》）一书虽早自1997年便问世，不过新近中文译本之出版却丝毫无减其引领中国近世视觉文化研究的先锋理念。于柯律格（Craig Clunas）而言，这本章节内容看似纷杂、内里却一脉相...
(展开)
纯美术史，绘画史看多了，有时免不了障目。Craig Clunas通过图像学的角度来阐释明朝艺术之大环境，且不说史料的丰富，单就这个角度也是让后来做艺术史的人有所启发。Richard Vinogard 在“stones from Other Mountains: Chinese Painting Studies in Postwar America"一文中就...
(展开)
This book address some basic questions about Chinese visual arts. A basic proposition is that from 1400-1700 there was a transition in painting and other visual arts from referential to self-referential, e.g. from mimesis to symbolic. This book defies sim...
(展开)
![[英国] 柯律格](https://img2.doubanio.com/img/author/medium/public/1565702723.01.jpg)
柯律格 作者
66号公路
北京大学出版社2011版
鵬鵬 James
北京大学出版社2011版
之犬
刘化童
北京大学出版社2011版
三衍九思
北京大学出版社2011版
jeromemorrow
0 有用 田波男 2023-10-29 08:58:22 广东
很好，明白易懂，理论清楚，不胡扯，特别适合我这样文化知识欠缺、历史糊里糊涂的人。
0 有用 桃花靜年 2013-02-18 06:29:02
wow！很期待
0 有用 Edelirium 2017-11-09 10:46:15
不太记得了，印象就读了关于“观”和“读”概念的两章很有趣
0 有用 闻朵 2018-04-28 10:58:06
print culture那一章用本雅明的理论有些见地
0 有用 Advenue 2020-05-20 04:52:48
Adroit writing, intriguing topic, but I am not very fond of his research. I think he is a historian who claimed to be an art historian. And to him, it is almost impossible to make an argument without ... Adroit writing, intriguing topic, but I am not very fond of his research. I think he is a historian who claimed to be an art historian. And to him, it is almost impossible to make an argument without revisiting the past scholarship, which is so clumsy. The book also needs unpacking owing to the habitual digressions. Not a pleasant reading. (展开)
0 有用 田波男 2023-10-29 08:58:22 广东
很好，明白易懂，理论清楚，不胡扯，特别适合我这样文化知识欠缺、历史糊里糊涂的人。
0 有用 安可期 2023-01-02 00:59:13 中国香港
明代的圖像與視覺性。
1 有用 L 2022-02-08 12:29:30
方法论上以"Iconic circuit"研究视觉文化，强调图像的“位置”及图像如何附着于多种“物”的表面流通、和由此产生的visual economy；史观上强调明代的图（视觉文化）的繁盛反而激发了“画”成为文人划定品味和圈层界限的discursive object。图和画之间的辩证关系也许只是一种视角；第三章和第四章描述出的纷繁的”视觉文化地形“也许可以有其他的观望方式？理想的分析或许是既能俯... 方法论上以"Iconic circuit"研究视觉文化，强调图像的“位置”及图像如何附着于多种“物”的表面流通、和由此产生的visual economy；史观上强调明代的图（视觉文化）的繁盛反而激发了“画”成为文人划定品味和圈层界限的discursive object。图和画之间的辩证关系也许只是一种视角；第三章和第四章描述出的纷繁的”视觉文化地形“也许可以有其他的观望方式？理想的分析或许是既能俯瞰这片地形，又能在其中某个具体的地点游走。 (展开)
0 有用 _iaalaf_ 2021-02-25 23:10:44
*CH2: Iconic circuit vs. Style; CH3: the very link between the representation and the represented; P115: 1650s antique store; CH4: Guan, Kan, Du & word choice issues; CH5: privatisation of vision; the... *CH2: Iconic circuit vs. Style; CH3: the very link between the representation and the represented; P115: 1650s antique store; CH4: Guan, Kan, Du & word choice issues; CH5: privatisation of vision; the absence of traces; CH6: erotic reference in 漢宮春曉; Conclusion: complementary bipolarity. (展开)
0 有用 Advenue 2020-05-20 04:52:48
Adroit writing, intriguing topic, but I am not very fond of his research. I think he is a historian who claimed to be an art historian. And to him, it is almost impossible to make an argument without ... Adroit writing, intriguing topic, but I am not very fond of his research. I think he is a historian who claimed to be an art historian. And to him, it is almost impossible to make an argument without revisiting the past scholarship, which is so clumsy. The book also needs unpacking owing to the habitual digressions. Not a pleasant reading. (展开)