论文部分内容阅读
写实语言作为油画艺术的一种表述形式,其终极行为一直以描摹自然物象为对话语境。它不仅为照相写实主义铺陈了坦途,而且也为其它写实流派营造了语境氛围。如果我们真的把再现自然物象视为写实语言的极至,恐怕除了照相写实主义能尽现写实语言的全部语素外,就再也无从找到更令人迷狂的独语行为了。不过,其它写实主义流派对某种语素的精确提纯,也着实令人神往。比如古典派写实对“形”语素的精辟见解,浪漫派写实对“色”语素的放达表现,印象派写实对“光”语素的耐心捕捉,尽管它们没有照相写实那样宽阔的对话空间,但其独语行为却也各自趋近对话语境的某一极点。与照相写实主义相比,写实主义诸流派的某种语素,只有傍依整个艺术语境的精神脊梁,才能维系其独语的可能性。这样看来,无论是照相写实主义的全因素的语境走极,还是写实主义诸流派的单因素的语言提纯,似乎与其终极行为都不相矛盾,也无可非议。因为,写实须要有凭藉的参照体系与指向的终极落点。至于如何体现语言自身的独语状态与行为动势,则大可不必介意。缘此,我认为,往日的迷狂与迷失,恰在于我们太折服于写实语言的逼真终极,恰恰在于我们太轻视于写实语言的独语行为。写实语言作为一种纯粹的语境走极,是否仅以逼近客观真实为落点?写实语素在什?
Realistic language as a form of expression of oil painting art, its ultimate behavior has been traced to the natural image of the dialogue context. It not only provides a smooth way for photorealism, but it also creates a context for other realistic schools. If we really regard the reproduction of natural images as extreme realism, I am afraid that besides photorealism can do the full morpheme of the real language, we can no longer find a more insane monologue. However, other realist genres of the precise purification of a certain morpheme, but also really fascinating. For example, the classical writing realism on “shaped” morpheme insights, romantic writers on the “color” morpheme performance, Impressionist realistic “light” morpheme patience to capture, although they do not photographic realistic as broad space for dialogue, but its However, the soliloquy practices also each approach a certain pole of the dialogue context. Compared with photographic realism, the realism of the various genres of a certain morpheme, only by relying on the spiritual backbone of the entire artistic context in order to maintain the possibility of its own language. In view of this, both the context of the full factor of photorealism and the single-factor linguistic purification of realist schools seem to be incompatible with their ultimate behavior and are beyond reproach. Because, realistic must have by virtue of the reference system and the ultimate point. As for how to embody the language’s own language status and behavior, you probably do not have to mind. For this reason, I think the past madness and lostness just lie in the ultimate truth that we are too impressed by the realistic language. It is precisely because we are too despising the fact that the language of the language is too soliloquy. Realistic language as a purely contextualist pole, whether only to approach objective reality as a reality?