Scholarship about the art of the Dutch golden age has long been characterized by seemingly insurmountable rifts. From the 1960s on, the iconological approach, which discerned hidden meaning even in simple still lifes and landscapes on the basis of emblem books, was pitted against skeptics who felt that the “reading” of Dutch paintings as texts did not do justice to their visual qualities. Whereas this debate has subsided in recent years, another, deeper fault line has opened: between historical scholarship—preferring to look at art through the eyes of its original public, using archival documents, painting treatises, and epigrams to reconstruct actor’s categories—and those who prefer a more holistic view that also involves recent literature, including philosophy, aesthetics, and literary theory. Although most art historians remain averse to anachronism, notable names in the other camp include Mieke Bal (Reading Rembrandt, 1991), Hanneke Grootenboer (The Rhetoric of Perspective, 2005), and Benjamin Binstock (Vermeer’s Family Secrets, 2009).1 All three would probably subscribe to the approach of “cultural analysis” and defend its anachronistic elements, since these make it possible to acknowledge how one’s own position as a researcher is shaped by the social and cultural present. The present, judging from these three authors, follows French-oriented Continental philosophy (Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty) rather than analytic philosophy or the Frankfurt school. The latest branch on this cultural-analytic tree is Nicola Suthor’s Rembrandt’s Roughness, a very ambitious book that analyzes Rembrandt’s main works with the help of the aforementioned Frenchmen and also Maurice Blanchot, Jean Genet, Louis Marin, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Paul Valéry. To their lot, the author—who was trained in Germany—adds early twentieth-century Protestant art historians such as Werner Weisbach and Carl Neumann, the NeoKantian sociologist Georg Simmel (author of Rembrandt: An Essay in the Philosophy of Art, 1916), and, most important, the founding father of philosophical phenomenology, Edmund Husserl. From the latter, the book under review takes the concepts of the “phenomenal” and “intentionality” as its main addition to the state of research in Dutch art. Husserl’s Phantasy and Image-Consciousness (1904–5) highlighted the division between the concrete artwork and what it refers to: he identified this as the “physical image” versus the “image subject” (or signifier versus signified). In between these two is a third category: the “image object,” namely, the image as it is perceived by the viewer—as it appears, filtered through the senses, in the mind’s eye.2 According to Husserl, the material properties of the physical image determine the conditions for the “image object” as it “makes its appearance to us on the basis of color sensations, form sensations, and so forth” (p. 196). This theory basically corresponds to the ancient practice of ekphrasis, which is not the description of an artwork but rather of the person or situation that the artwork refers to. In short: an ekphrasis of a bust of Homer does not describe a carved piece of stone but rather dwells in synesthetic fashion on the appearance and character of the ancient poet. The image of Homer that is evoked before the mind’s eye is thus by no means identical to the sculpture but, in terms of the available range of associations, it is surely connected to the work’s formal qualities, such as the warm tone of the marble or the bust’s facial expression. Rembrandt’s Roughness contends that Husserl’s differentiation provides a key to interpret the motivation and meaning for Rembrandt’s idiosyncratic brushwork, memorably characterized by Simon Schama as “daubing, dragging, twisting, dabbing, drizzling, coating, sloshing wet-into-wet, kneading, scraping, building into monumental constructions of pigment that had the mass and worked density of sculpture.”3 Earlier scholars have explored Rembrandt’s “rough manner” as understood by his contemporaries, via historical concepts such as grace and irony, sprezzatura, non finito, facilitas, obscuritas, and brevitas.4 This book, by contrast, focuses on phenomenology, and makes three basic assumptions: (1) Rembrandt’s rough manner of painting calls attention to the fundamental difference between the materiality of the artwork and the mental image it evokes; (2) the unfinished quality of some 2. For instance, Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966); N. Munn, The Fame of Gawa: The Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); and Georg Simmel, The Philosophy of Money (London: Routledge, 1978).

中文翻译：

---

伦勃朗的粗糙度，尼古拉·苏瑟（Nicola Suthor）

长期以来，关于荷兰黄金时代艺术的奖学金一直以似乎无法克服的裂痕为特征。从1960年代开始，以图标学为基础的方法论在怀疑论者的怀抱中产生了怀疑，他们甚至在简单的静物和风景中也根据徽记书来辨别隐藏的含义，这些怀疑论者认为将荷兰油画作为文本来“阅读”并不能使他们的视觉获得公允。品质。近年来，这种辩论逐渐平息，但又出现了一个更深层次的断层线：在历史学问（喜欢通过原始公众的眼光看艺术，使用档案文献，绘画论着和墓志词来重建演员的类别）之间，以及那些谁更喜欢一种整体的观点，这种观点也涉及到最近的文学作品，包括哲学，美学和文学理论。尽管大多数艺术史学家仍然反对过时，但其他阵营中的著名人物包括Mieke Bal（阅读伦勃朗，1991年），Hanneke Grootenboer（视角的修辞学，2005年）和Benjamin Binstock（Vermeer的家庭秘密，2009年）。1所有这三个可能会赞成“文化分析”的方法并捍卫其过时的元素，因为它们使人们有可能认识到自己作为研究者的地位是如何受到社会和文化现状的影响的。从这三位作者的观点来看，目前的研究遵循的是法国导向的大陆哲学（罗兰·巴特，吉尔斯·德勒兹，雅克·德里达，雅克·拉康和莫里斯·梅洛·庞蒂），而不是分析哲学或法兰克福学派。这种文化分析树的最新分支是尼古拉·苏索尔（Nicola Suthor）的伦勃朗（Rembrandt）的粗糙度，一本非常雄心勃勃的书，在上述法国人以及莫里斯·布兰科特，让·吉内特，路易·马林，让·卢克·南希和保罗·瓦莱里的帮助下，分析了伦勃朗的主要作品。作者（在德国受过训练）为此增加了20世纪初期的新教艺术史学家，例如维尔纳·魏斯巴赫（Werner Weisbach）和卡尔·诺依曼（Carl Neumann），新康德社会学家格奥尔格·西梅尔（Georg Simmel）（《伦勃朗：艺术哲学论文》的作者，1916年），最重要的是，哲学现象学的创始者埃德蒙·胡塞尔（Edmund Husserl）。从后者来看，这本书回顾了“现象”和“意图”的概念，作为对荷兰艺术研究现状的主要补充。胡塞尔的《幻想与图像意识》（1904-5）强调了具体艺术品与其所指之间的区别：他将其识别为“物理图像”与“图像主题”（或指称对象与指称对象）。在这两者之间是第三类：“图像对象”，即观看者感知到的图像-看起来是通过心灵眼中的感官过滤出来的。2据胡塞尔说，物理图像决定了“图像对象”的条件，因为它“基于颜色感觉，形式感觉等向我们展示”（第196页）。该理论基本上与古老的内脏法实践相对应，这不是艺术品的描述，而是艺术品所指的人或情况。简而言之：荷马的半身像的缩略词没有描述一块石雕，而是以合成的方式停留在这位古代诗人的外貌和性格上。因此，霍默在脑海中唤起的形象与雕塑完全不同，但就可用的联想范围而言，它肯定与作品的形式特质有关，例如大理石的温暖色调或胸像的表情 伦勃朗的粗糙感认为，胡塞尔的差异性为解释伦勃朗特有笔法的动机和意义提供了关键，西蒙·沙玛（Simon Schama）难忘地将其描绘为“涂抹，拖动，扭曲，涂抹，下毛毛雨，上光，湿润，湿润，揉捏，刮擦，将建筑物建造成具有纪念物质量和密度的巨大颜料构造。” 3较早的学者通过诸如恩典和讽刺，sprezzatura，non finito，facilitas，obscuritas和brevitas之类的历史概念，探索了伦勃朗同时代人所理解的“粗糙方式”。4相比之下，这本书侧重于现象学和做出三个基本假设：（1）伦勃朗的粗略绘画方式引起人们注意艺术品的实质性与所唤起的心理形象之间的根本区别；（2）大约2的未完成质量。例如，Pierre Bourdieu，《区别：对品味的判断的社会批判》，译。理查德·尼斯（理查德·尼斯）（剑桥，马萨诸塞州：哈佛大学出版社，1987年）；George Lakoff和Mark Johnson，《我们赖以生存的隐喻》（芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，1980年）；克劳德·列维·斯特劳斯（ClaudeLévi-Strauss），《野蛮的心灵》（伦敦：Weidenfeld＆Nicolson，1966年）；N. Munn，《 Gawa的名望》：Massim（巴布亚新几内亚）社会的价值转换的符号研究（剑桥：剑桥大学出版社，1986）；和乔治·西梅尔（Georg Simmel），《货币哲学》（伦敦：Routledge，1978年）。