WEKO3
アイテム
{"_buckets": {"deposit": "2b7868f4-7834-4d53-9a72-a6296790141c"}, "_deposit": {"created_by": 3, "id": "6079", "owners": [3], "pid": {"revision_id": 0, "type": "depid", "value": "6079"}, "status": "published"}, "_oai": {"id": "oai:tobunken.repo.nii.ac.jp:00006079", "sets": ["961"]}, "author_link": ["27915", "27914"], "item_10001_biblio_info_7": {"attribute_name": "書誌情報", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"bibliographicIssueDates": {"bibliographicIssueDate": "2015-03-20", "bibliographicIssueDateType": "Issued"}, "bibliographicIssueNumber": "415", "bibliographicPageEnd": "21", "bibliographicPageStart": "21", "bibliographic_titles": [{"bibliographic_title": "美術研究"}, {"bibliographic_title": "The bijutsu kenkyu : the journal of art studies", "bibliographic_titleLang": "en"}]}]}, "item_10001_description_5": {"attribute_name": "抄録", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"subitem_description": " The Department of Art Research, Archives and Information Systems, National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo (NRICPT) presented the “International Symposium on the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, Reconsidering ‘Form’: Towards a More Open Discussion” in January 2014. The symposium focused on the keyword “form” (katachi), as it is used in all art forms, including those that seem at first glance to be intangible or “without form,” such as literature and music. Indeed, without giving a set definition to this term, this symposium provided a forum for a discussion of “form” by scholars from both Japan and overseas, and from a diverse range of disciplines, including those in the art, architecture, archaeology, literature and performing arts fields. The aim of the symposium was to come together to talk about how we look at artworks, particularly amidst the situation whereby discussion of artworks from the vantage points of sociology or the history of the institutionalization of “bijutsu” (fine art) by Japan’s art history discipline has flourished since the late 1980s.\n A Shortened History of Japan’s Fine Arts (1900) was Japan’s first government-produced history of Japanese art, in which Okakura Tenshin played an important role. That book stated that artworks (bijutsuhin) had existed both in Japan and in the West from antiquity, and discussed the Buddhist and Shinto institutional treasures of Japan’s ancient to pre-modern era against a background of social history. In contrast to that “series of art object biographies” type approach, in the latter half of the 1920s, Yashiro Yukio introduced to Japan the Western art/art object theories based on the stylistic comparison methods of Giovanni Morelli. He left a considerable legacy in the field of research on artists and artworks that unified textual materials with images of artworks, both through establishing an art library for stylistic analysis of artists and artworks, and founding the journal The Bijutsu Kenkyu. Today, art history studies in Japan thus enjoy the resources of a rich accumulation of so-called survey studies. Conversely, in terms of methodological theories, it would probably be good to say that scholars continue to experiment with applying Western art historical methodologies to Japanese and East Asian art.\n Amidst the post-modernist trends of recent years, however, skepticism has arisen regarding recognized methodological theories and how we view Western art form categories, physical objects (mono) and intangible objects (koto). Even in the traces of the history of the reception of the art (bijutsu) concept that was the inception of Japan art historiography, the “art” that is thought to be a concept that surpasses geographic and temporal boundaries has been clarified as a product of Japan’s reception of Western concepts. This process itself is in line with post-modernist trends.\n Working from the results of this history of the discipline, how can we discern a starting point for talking once again about physical objects (mono)? If we attempt to inter-relate the discussions being held in each separate discipline, what can we see? Wouldn’t the establishment of some entry point, an opening at that junction between disciplines, make it easier for comparisons to be made. These were the aims of this symposium.\n A discussion between Ikemura Leiko and Tanaka Atsushi at the beginning of the symposium acted as an opening for a discussion of “form” (katachi) as we heard from a “form” maker. The first session “ ‘Form’ as Groups” discussed “form” that takes multiples as its subject, while Sesson 2 “‘Form’ as Individual” discussed “forms” that are unexpected variants unlike all others. Session 3 “That Which Supports ‘Form’” took as its subject that which forms the background for “form.” The presentations made at the symposium were published as proceedings in the report Reconsidering ‘Form’: Towards a More Open Discussion (Heibonsha, December 2014).\n From its inception the aim of this symposium was to raise issues, and it did not intend that any kind of conclusions would be reached in just three days of discussion. On March 13, 2014, we held a research group meeting to look back on what was suggested by the symposium, and to further deepen the discussion. Some of the issues recognized in this March meeting were some new directions for experimentation, such as a reexamination of the text/context duality (such as intertextuality, etc.), a reexamination of the categories and differentiation of tangible/intangible, and a reconsideration of working from the premise of each art work’s autonomy (questions of the place where the work is placed, where the work is used, etc.). During that March 2014 meeting, we decided to ask two of the symposium session coordinators, Fujikawa Satoshi and Satô Naoki, to speak on the theme of “form” based on our experiences of the symposium. Thus the following reports were presented at a research meeting held on May 22, 2014 at the NRICPT.\n\n “Katachi” in the Field of Contemporary Art: Focusing on the International Art Fair (FUJIKAWA Satoshi)\nThe Potential of “Katachi” in Japanese Art History: Suggestions from a Western Art History Viewpoint (SATÔ Naoki)\n\n Both papers were richly suggestive about how to approach and talk about “form” as related to previously raised issues. Those of us who participated in that May 2014 session realized that a simple oral presentation of the papers was not enough to grasp their complex contents, and thus we ensured that written versions of those papers remain for further study.\n This was just the beginning of the reconsideration of “form.” I hope that we can continue to experiment with opening up the discussion as we straddle the normal disciplinary divides.", "subitem_description_type": "Abstract"}]}, "item_creator": {"attribute_name": "著者", "attribute_type": "creator", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"creatorNames": [{"creatorName": "山梨, 絵美子"}], "nameIdentifiers": [{"nameIdentifier": "27914", "nameIdentifierScheme": "WEKO"}]}, {"creatorNames": [{"creatorName": "Yamanashi, Emiko", "creatorNameLang": "en"}], "nameIdentifiers": [{"nameIdentifier": "27915", "nameIdentifierScheme": "WEKO"}]}]}, "item_files": {"attribute_name": "ファイル情報", "attribute_type": "file", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"accessrole": "open_date", "date": [{"dateType": "Available", "dateValue": "2017-10-05"}], "displaytype": "detail", "download_preview_message": "", "file_order": 0, "filename": "415_21_Yamanashi_Redacted.pdf", "filesize": [{"value": "1.1 MB"}], "format": "application/pdf", "future_date_message": "", "is_thumbnail": false, "licensetype": "license_11", "mimetype": "application/pdf", "size": 1100000.0, "url": {"label": "415_21_Yamanashi_Redacted.pdf", "url": "https://tobunken.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/6079/files/415_21_Yamanashi_Redacted.pdf"}, "version_id": "35ff51ee-0dfc-4115-8da1-79e7ca45688d"}]}, "item_language": {"attribute_name": "言語", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"subitem_language": "jpn"}]}, "item_resource_type": {"attribute_name": "資源タイプ", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"resourcetype": "journal article", "resourceuri": "http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]}, "item_title": "国際シンポジウム「「かたち」再考―開かれた語りのために」を踏まえて", "item_titles": {"attribute_name": "タイトル", "attribute_value_mlt": [{"subitem_title": "国際シンポジウム「「かたち」再考―開かれた語りのために」を踏まえて"}, {"subitem_title": "International Symposium on the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property – Reconsidering “Form”: Towards a More Open Discussion", "subitem_title_language": "en"}]}, "item_type_id": "10001", "owner": "3", "path": ["961"], "permalink_uri": "https://tobunken.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/6079", "pubdate": {"attribute_name": "公開日", "attribute_value": "2017-10-05"}, "publish_date": "2017-10-05", "publish_status": "0", "recid": "6079", "relation": {}, "relation_version_is_last": true, "title": ["国際シンポジウム「「かたち」再考―開かれた語りのために」を踏まえて"], "weko_shared_id": 3}
国際シンポジウム「「かたち」再考―開かれた語りのために」を踏まえて
https://tobunken.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/6079
https://tobunken.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/6079daf0f91a-8399-47d3-8feb-679fb9073cfd
名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
---|---|---|
415_21_Yamanashi_Redacted.pdf (1.1 MB)
|
Item type | 学術雑誌論文 / Journal Article(1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
公開日 | 2017-10-05 | |||||
タイトル | ||||||
タイトル | 国際シンポジウム「「かたち」再考―開かれた語りのために」を踏まえて | |||||
タイトル | ||||||
言語 | en | |||||
タイトル | International Symposium on the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property – Reconsidering “Form”: Towards a More Open Discussion | |||||
言語 | ||||||
言語 | jpn | |||||
資源タイプ | ||||||
資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||
資源タイプ | journal article | |||||
著者 |
山梨, 絵美子
× 山梨, 絵美子× Yamanashi, Emiko |
|||||
抄録 | ||||||
内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||
内容記述 | The Department of Art Research, Archives and Information Systems, National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo (NRICPT) presented the “International Symposium on the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, Reconsidering ‘Form’: Towards a More Open Discussion” in January 2014. The symposium focused on the keyword “form” (katachi), as it is used in all art forms, including those that seem at first glance to be intangible or “without form,” such as literature and music. Indeed, without giving a set definition to this term, this symposium provided a forum for a discussion of “form” by scholars from both Japan and overseas, and from a diverse range of disciplines, including those in the art, architecture, archaeology, literature and performing arts fields. The aim of the symposium was to come together to talk about how we look at artworks, particularly amidst the situation whereby discussion of artworks from the vantage points of sociology or the history of the institutionalization of “bijutsu” (fine art) by Japan’s art history discipline has flourished since the late 1980s. A Shortened History of Japan’s Fine Arts (1900) was Japan’s first government-produced history of Japanese art, in which Okakura Tenshin played an important role. That book stated that artworks (bijutsuhin) had existed both in Japan and in the West from antiquity, and discussed the Buddhist and Shinto institutional treasures of Japan’s ancient to pre-modern era against a background of social history. In contrast to that “series of art object biographies” type approach, in the latter half of the 1920s, Yashiro Yukio introduced to Japan the Western art/art object theories based on the stylistic comparison methods of Giovanni Morelli. He left a considerable legacy in the field of research on artists and artworks that unified textual materials with images of artworks, both through establishing an art library for stylistic analysis of artists and artworks, and founding the journal The Bijutsu Kenkyu. Today, art history studies in Japan thus enjoy the resources of a rich accumulation of so-called survey studies. Conversely, in terms of methodological theories, it would probably be good to say that scholars continue to experiment with applying Western art historical methodologies to Japanese and East Asian art. Amidst the post-modernist trends of recent years, however, skepticism has arisen regarding recognized methodological theories and how we view Western art form categories, physical objects (mono) and intangible objects (koto). Even in the traces of the history of the reception of the art (bijutsu) concept that was the inception of Japan art historiography, the “art” that is thought to be a concept that surpasses geographic and temporal boundaries has been clarified as a product of Japan’s reception of Western concepts. This process itself is in line with post-modernist trends. Working from the results of this history of the discipline, how can we discern a starting point for talking once again about physical objects (mono)? If we attempt to inter-relate the discussions being held in each separate discipline, what can we see? Wouldn’t the establishment of some entry point, an opening at that junction between disciplines, make it easier for comparisons to be made. These were the aims of this symposium. A discussion between Ikemura Leiko and Tanaka Atsushi at the beginning of the symposium acted as an opening for a discussion of “form” (katachi) as we heard from a “form” maker. The first session “ ‘Form’ as Groups” discussed “form” that takes multiples as its subject, while Sesson 2 “‘Form’ as Individual” discussed “forms” that are unexpected variants unlike all others. Session 3 “That Which Supports ‘Form’” took as its subject that which forms the background for “form.” The presentations made at the symposium were published as proceedings in the report Reconsidering ‘Form’: Towards a More Open Discussion (Heibonsha, December 2014). From its inception the aim of this symposium was to raise issues, and it did not intend that any kind of conclusions would be reached in just three days of discussion. On March 13, 2014, we held a research group meeting to look back on what was suggested by the symposium, and to further deepen the discussion. Some of the issues recognized in this March meeting were some new directions for experimentation, such as a reexamination of the text/context duality (such as intertextuality, etc.), a reexamination of the categories and differentiation of tangible/intangible, and a reconsideration of working from the premise of each art work’s autonomy (questions of the place where the work is placed, where the work is used, etc.). During that March 2014 meeting, we decided to ask two of the symposium session coordinators, Fujikawa Satoshi and Satô Naoki, to speak on the theme of “form” based on our experiences of the symposium. Thus the following reports were presented at a research meeting held on May 22, 2014 at the NRICPT. “Katachi” in the Field of Contemporary Art: Focusing on the International Art Fair (FUJIKAWA Satoshi) The Potential of “Katachi” in Japanese Art History: Suggestions from a Western Art History Viewpoint (SATÔ Naoki) Both papers were richly suggestive about how to approach and talk about “form” as related to previously raised issues. Those of us who participated in that May 2014 session realized that a simple oral presentation of the papers was not enough to grasp their complex contents, and thus we ensured that written versions of those papers remain for further study. This was just the beginning of the reconsideration of “form.” I hope that we can continue to experiment with opening up the discussion as we straddle the normal disciplinary divides. |
|||||
書誌情報 |
美術研究 en : The bijutsu kenkyu : the journal of art studies 号 415, p. 21-21, 発行日 2015-03-20 |