Erwin Panofsky's Perspective as Symbolic Form is one of the great works of modern intellectual history, the legendary text that has dominated all art historical and philosophical discussions on the topic of perspective in this century. Finally available in English, it is an unrivaled example of Panofsky's early method that placed him within broader developments in theories of knowledge and cultural change. Here, drawing on a massive body of learning that ranges over Antique philosophy, theology, science, and optics as well as the history of art, Panofsky produces a type of "archaeology" of Western representation that far surpasses the usual scope of art historical studies.<br /> <br /> Perspective in Panofsky's hands becomes a central component of a Western "will to form," the expression of a schema linking the social, cognitive, psychological, and especially technical practices of a given culture into harmonious and integrated wholes. Yet the perceptual schema of each historical culture or epoch is different, and each gives rise to a different but equally full vision of the world. Panofsky articulates these different spatial systems, demonstrating their particular coherence and compatibility with the modes of knowledge, belief, and exchange that characterized the cultures in which they arose. Our own modernity, Panofsky shows, is characterized by its peculiarly mathematical expression of the concept of the infinite, within a space that is necessarily both continuous and homogeneous.
Christopher S. Wood is Professor in the Department of History of Art, Yale University. He is the author of Albrecht Altdorfer and the Origins of Landscape, and the editor of The Vienna School Reader: Politics and Art Historical Method in the 1930s (Zone Books, 2000).
评分
评分
评分
评分
1920-1940
评分注解比正文还厚,感觉很用心。然而我艺术史基础太差了。
评分一直听说,终于读了。1、纵深透视两个条件:等质空间&消失点作图。这种透视只是将心理空间转换为抽象形式的纯粹数学空间,因而以此为基础的写实实际上只是虚构。2、近代绘画的两个侧面的转向:(1)对象面-描写主题由宗教历史向平凡的人和风景转变,瓦解了原本崇高的宗教历史对象,这正是写实主义的突出特征;(2)象征形式面-采取透视法以期在二维空间中突显深度,表现手法转向以远近法为基础的写实——以第三人称客观为手段(实际上是“自我表现”/反写实
评分文笔很好,很多不错的formal analysis,只是现在再读的话argument还行,构建在formal analysis上的论点总觉得不够硬。
评分注解比正文还厚,感觉很用心。然而我艺术史基础太差了。
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有