Belabored: Style as Work
Belabored: Style as Work
复制标题
详述：风格即工作
DOI：
10.1353/frm.2012.0005
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Rhodes
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Rhodes
因此，风格是一个动词，而不是像语法本身可能误导我们的那样是一个名词。-Berel Lang 1世界就是劳动。- -迈克尔·哈特和安东尼奥·尼格里2.什么是风格，哪里是风格？它在艺术作品中无处不在吗？当然不是，因为那样的话，它将仅仅是一个重言式的名称，我们有一个词来形容它：形式。然而，如果它不是均匀地分布在作品中，或者不是与作品的所有部分及其协调一致，我们仍然会对苏珊·桑塔格的评论留下印象，当我们谈论风格时，我们谈论的是“艺术作品的整体”。[3]然而，谈论作品的“整体”并不一定要谈论它的所有部分，或者同时谈论它们。风格在作品中无处不在，但也许并不是所有地方都有相同的含义。例如，如果我们认为道格拉斯·瑟克在一部电影中的一个不寻常的框架是引人注目的，形式上是独特的，我们会倾向于（就像许多评论家所做的那样）认为这个框架是瑟克风格的典范--这种风格使他与匿名的好莱坞同时代人（那些我们不根据其特殊性来研究其作品的导演）区分开来。如果我们注意到这个框架，这个镜头是显着的，是塞克的风格的指示，什么镜头之前，并将遵循它？我们为什么不也谈谈他们呢？它们仅仅是风格上独特的镜头脱颖而出的中立地带吗？但它的突出地位肯定取决于这一点。如果是这样的话，那么这个基础又怎么能与这个非凡的形象分开呢？风格是不是充满整个作品的能量、力量或智慧，是不是它决定了卓越的形象及其与不太卓越的部分之间的关系，这些部分与之协调，与之相连？因此，风格不仅存在于非凡的形象中，而且存在于其外观的时间性与整个电影持续时间的时间性之间的关系中。风格可能在电影的某个时刻感觉更明显，但这种密度将取决于-至关重要的-更轻，更透明的时刻，其余的电影。这个问题是一个棘手的问题--对于现代美学来说，或许比对于早期的美学理论来说更棘手，在早期的美学理论中，风格是理解由地理、历史时期或流派联系在一起的美学作品类型的名称和分类媒介。我们当代对风格的理解往往取决于我们对个人、造型师、作家/导演/艺术家的评价，这些人使他或她自己与众不同。(If每个人都有相同的风格，风格可能不存在，我们担心。但是，后来把风格理解为“个人的”与早期的理解相联系的是这样一个事实，即无论我们倾向于把风格看作是“属于”一个人或一群人的东西，它“属于”的事实是一样的。风格是一个人或一个团体所拥有的东西。它是解决财产纠纷的一种方式和手段。(If如果不是这样，鉴定艺术品就不会像现在这样昂贵。）4.如果我们不把风格看作艺术家或艺术品所拥有的东西，而是把它看作艺术家或艺术品所做的东西，会怎么样？也就是说，如果我们不把风格看作是财产，而是劳动呢？我们知道，艺术品之所以成为艺术品，是因为在生产它们的过程中花费了一些劳动，但如果我们把重点放在这里--放在作品的工作上，放在作品作为风格的可见性上，又会怎样呢？以下是对这种强调的含义进行思考的一些尝试。这些被写为注释：如果风格是一个群体或个人的签名，那么风格就是这样的个性化，以及作为包容的个性化（不完全消失，但肯定是去个性化的一种形式），这也就是说风格是签名和擦除。…
Style, then, is a verb, not as grammar alone might mislead us, a noun. -Berel Lang1 The world is labor. -Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri2 What or where is style? Is it everywhere in a work of art? Surely not, for then it would be merely a tautological designation of something for which we have a word: form. And yet, if it is not spread equally across the work or is not consubstantial with all of the work's parts and their coordination, we are still leftwith an impression of the general rightness of Susan Sontag's remark that when we speak of style, we speak "about the totality of a work of art."3 To speak about the work's "totality" is not, however, necessarily to speak about all of its parts, or to speak about them all at once. Style is everywhere in the work, but perhaps not everywhere in the same mea sure. For instance, if we regard an unusual piece of framing in a film by Douglas Sirk as striking, formally par tic u lar, we would tend (as many critics have done) to suggest that this framing is exemplary of Sirk's style- a style that distinguishes him from his anonymized Hollywood contemporaries (those directors whose works we do not study on the basis of their particularity). If we note that this framing, this shot is remarkable and is indicative of Sirk's style, what of the shots that came before and will follow after it? Why do we not also talk about them? Are they merely the neutral ground against which the stylistically par tic u lar shot stands out? But surely its standing out as such depends on this ground. If this is so, then how can that ground be separated from the remarkable image? Is style the energy, agency, or intelligence that has suffused the work as a whole, and that has determined the remarkable image and its relation to the less- remarkable parts with which it is coordinated, and to which it is connected? Style then, would not merely consist in the remarkable image, but in the temporality of its appearance in relation to the temporality of the entire film's duration. Style might feel more palpably dense in one moment in the film, but that density would depend- vitally-on the lighter, more transparent moments of the rest of the film. The problem is a tricky one- perhaps more so for modern aesthetics than for aesthetic theory in earlier periods in which style was the name and taxonomizing agent for the apprehension of types of aesthetic production bound together by geography, historical period, or school. Our contemporary understanding of style tends to hinge on our valuation of the individual, the stylist, the author/director/artist who has distinguished him- or herself from others. (If everyone had the same style, style might not exist, we fear.) But what connects this later understanding of style as "individual" to earlier understandings is the fact that whether we tend to think of style as something "belonging" to an individual or to a group of individuals, the fact of its "belonging to" remains the same. Style is something a person or a group has. It is a manner and a means of settling property disputes. (If it were not, authenticating works of art would not be the expensive business that it is.)4 What if, instead of thinking about style as something that an artist or artwork has, we thought of it as something the artist or artwork does? That is, what if we thought of style not as property, but as labor? We know that works of art get to be what they are because some labor has been expended in producing them, but what if we place the emphasis exactly here- on the work of the work, and on the making visible of that work as style? What follows are some attempts at thinking about the implications of such an emphasis. These are written as notes: provisional, partial, and incomplete.5 If style is the signature of a group or an individual, then style is individuation- as- such, and individuation- as- subsumption (not quite disappearance, but certainly a form of deindividuation), which is also to say that style is signature and erasure. …
论形而上诗人
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
The Rising Generation November
影响因子：
--
作者：
Saito;Miwa.
通讯作者：
Miwa.