達彌施論繪畫表達徵候

Damisch's Treatise on Symptoms in Painterly Expression

劉佳宜(Chia-Yi Liu)

余伯特．達彌施 ； 徵候 ； 再現 ； 形式 ； 符徵 ； Hubert Damisch ； symptom ； representation ； form ； signifier

藝術學報

109期（2021 / 12 / 01）

109 - 136

繁體中文

本文旨在揭示達彌施論繪畫表達徵候的觀點。面對十九世紀末、二十世紀初的繪畫變革，達彌施提出了繪畫表達徵候的界定問題，從而指出徵候並非所見特徵，更無絕對定義，而是在不同理論思考模式之間的空隙。透過辯證探討「徵候」和理論概念的關係，輔以實際例子，達彌施勾勒了「徵候」的樣貌。其所用提問有三：其一，「表達的『再現』面發生什麼變化？」；其二，「表達的『形式』面發生什麼變化？」；最後，「徵候開展的路徑是什麼？」這一系列的探測不只重新定位了十九世紀末至二十世紀繪畫變革的要旨，更重要的是，從中發現了繪畫表達實踐和分析表達的分析思考更為接近的地位。

The purpose of this essay is to pinpoint Damisch's theoretical perspective in his treatise on painterly expression and its ＂symptom＂. In his account of the historical turns in painting during the late 19th century to the early 20th century, Damisch raises the idea of a ＂symptom＂ at play. Hence pointing out that ＂symptom＂ does not equal features presented to the eye, nor does it possess an absolute definition. Instead, ＂symptom＂ stands for the very gap between modes of thought. Thus, Damisch outlines ＂symptom＂ through a series of dialectical inquiries, investigating its relation to certain theoretical concepts. In this essay, I will elaborate on the three investigations applied by Damisch, which are: (1)＂What is at stake in the field of 'representation' of expression?＂ (2)＂What is at stake in the field of 'form'?＂ (3) ＂What further development does this 'symptom' lead to?＂ It is shown that these investigations do not merely reinterpret the significance of the historical turn of painting during the late 19th century to the early 20th century, but also bring together the act of painting and that of discursive analysis, amplifying their resemblance.

1. (1966).Sens et non-sens.
2. Barnes, J.(Ed.).(1991).The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
3. Bernard, É. (1904). Paul Cézanne. L’Occident, 32, 17-30.
4. Damisch, H.(1972).Théorie du /Nuage/: Pour une Histoire de la Peinture.Paris, France:Seuil.
5. Damisch, H.,Bann, S.(2005).Hubert Damisch and Stephen Bann: A Conversation.Oxford Art Journal,28(2),155-181.
6. Damisch, H.,Llyod, J.(Trans.)(2002).A Theory of /Cloud/ : Toward a History of Painting.Redwood City, CA:Stanford University Press.
7. Danto, A.(2005).Nietzsche as Philosopher.New York, NY:Columbia University Press.
8. Deleuze, G.,Smith, D. W.(Trans.)(2003).Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation.London, England:Continuum.
9. Derrida, J.,Spivak, G. C.(Trans.)(1997).Of Grammatology.Baltimore, MD:The John Hopkins University Press.
10. Fishman, S.(1963).The Interpretation of Art.London, England:Cambridge University Press.
11. Jullien, F.(2005).Forme: ou du non-objet par la peinture.Paris, France:Seuil.
12. Merleau-Ponty, M.,Landes, D. A.(Trans.)(2012).Phenomenology of Perception.London, England:Routledge.
13. Merleau-Ponty, M.,Lingis, A.(Trans.)(1968).The Visible and the Invisible.Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press.
14. Nietzsche, F.,Naukhoff, J.(Trans.)(2001).The Gay Science.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
15. Panofsky, E.,Wood, C.S.(Trans.)(1991).Perspective as Symbolic Form.New York, NY:Zone Books.
16. Robinson, H. (2020). “Substance”. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/substance/
17. Ruskin, J. (1907). Modern Painters vol. 1. London, England: J. M. Dent and sons.
18. Ryckmans, P.(1984).Les propos sur la peinture du moine Citrouille-Amère.Paris, France:Hermann.
19. 石濤,周遠斌（點校）(2008).苦瓜和尚畫語錄.濟南:山東畫報出版社.
20. 余建章,葉舒憲(1990).符號：語言與藝術.臺北:九大文化.
21. 林志明（譯）,張婉真（譯）,Jullien, François(2007).本質或裸體.天津:百花文藝出版社.
22. 陳瑞文(2018).德勒茲與藝術理論.臺北:五南.
23. 董強（譯）,Damisch, Hubert(2002).雲的理論：為了一種新的繪畫史.臺北:楊智出版社.
24. 諸升,王質,王概（編）(1982).芥子園畫傳.北京:北京市中國書店.