Towards the end of her book, Anna Tietze comments that “a prescriptive stress on nation building” (as required by the 2013 Revised White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage) should be balanced by “a concern with what has already been built, in the near or distant past, and especially a concern with those pasts that do not harmonise with current orthodoxy” (p. 202). An accurate, detailed documentation of those pasts is indeed essential for our understanding of the present and future. This is what Tietze sets out to do in her book. Her impeccable archival research, arrangement of the text, and handling of contentious issues make this an important contribution to the history of public institutions in South Africa, and to reflections on art and national identity in general. Tietze constructs the body of her text in accordance with the tenures of different directors (or governance structures) and their impact on the development of the collections and policies. She bookends her five chapters with a lengthy introduction and conclusion in which she discusses issues which are often controversial but need to be voiced. One could quibble with how she discusses classificatory boundaries (fine art versus design, fine art versus craft),1 her overview of western art galleries (or museums),2

中文翻译：

---

Iziko 南非国家美术馆的历史：对艺术和民族认同的反思，Anna Tietze

在她的书的结尾，安娜·蒂茨评论说，“对国家建设的规定性压力”（按照 2013 年修订的艺术、文化和遗产白皮书的要求）应该通过“关注已经建成的、在近或远的过去，尤其是对那些与当前正统观念不一致的过去的关注”（第 202 页）。对这些过去进行准确、详细的记录对于我们理解现在和未来确实是必不可少的。这就是 Tietze 在她的书中所要做的。她无可挑剔的档案研究、文本的安排和对有争议的问题的处理使这本书对南非公共机构的历史以及对艺术和民族认同的总体反思做出了重要贡献。Tietze 根据不同董事（或治理结构）的任期及其对馆藏和政策发展的影响构建了她的正文。她以冗长的介绍和结论结束了她的五章，其中讨论了经常引起争议但需要表达的问题。有人可能会质疑她如何讨论分类界限（美术与设计、美术与手工艺）、1 她对西方艺术画廊（或博物馆）的概述、2