In a 1925 article on the flower paintings of well-known Australian artist Hans Heysen, prominent critic Lionel Lindsay, while highly admiring of Heysen's work, described flowers themselves as the ‘apotheosis of Useless Beauty’. Taking this as her critical point of departure, Ann Elias argues that, far from being useless, flowers were in fact of great importance to Australia artists of the pre-modern and modern era. Largely, flowers represented the traditional European belief in beauty as a universal marker of aesthetic purity – nature free from the weight of cultural influence (hence having no specific ‘use’). Yet flowers also played a significant artistic role in the development of a more cosmopolitan, sociopolitically informed vision of Australian culture. Elias's study is important in that it convincingly reveals an area of art history that has been otherwise overlooked in the canonical version of Australian art often dominated by the celebration of masculine colonial/landscape imagery. While artists such as Margaret Preston and Thea Proctor are well known for their flower paintings, usually as enclaved examples of ‘feminine art’, male artists’ studies of flowers have received little attention. In Elias’ research, both are given greater depth of consideration, and Elias shows how flowers in art up until the 1950s were linked to broader issues of gender, sexuality, race, war, politics, and questions and hierarchies of taste. Elias also foregrounds another important historical context, referencing contemporary Aboriginal artists’ holistic integration of flowers into a complex semiotic system of connection to country and identity. Elias begins with the earliest portrayal of flowers in Australian art, before introducing how flowers were predominantly seen in the first part of the twentieth century as elevated exercises in art for art's sake. Lindsay's comment on useless beauty was in no way meant to discredit flower paintings or Heysen. Instead, his aim was to reinforce a view of flowers as lending themselves to the realm of momentary, aesthetic delicacy – an almost secularly spiritual mark of reverence and taste. Elias then addresses how certain early modern Australian artists explored flowers, their shifting meaning and cultural appreciation. The approach

中文翻译：

---

无用之美：鲜花和澳大利亚艺术，Ann Elias

在 1925 年一篇关于澳大利亚著名艺术家汉斯·海森的花卉画的文章中，著名评论家莱昂内尔·林赛在高度赞赏海森的作品的同时，将花朵本身描述为“无用之美的典范”。安·埃利亚斯以此为出发点，认为鲜花远非无用，事实上，对前现代和现代时代的澳大利亚艺术家来说，鲜花非常重要。在很大程度上，鲜花代表了欧洲传统的美感，它是审美纯洁性的普遍标志——自然不受文化影响的影响（因此没有特定的“用途”）。然而，在澳大利亚文化的国际化、社会政治化视野的发展过程中，鲜花也发挥了重要的艺术作用。埃利亚斯的 的研究很重要，因为它令人信服地揭示了艺术史的一个领域，而这个领域在澳大利亚艺术的规范版本中经常被忽视，而这一领域通常以对男性殖民/风景意象的庆祝为主。虽然玛格丽特·普雷斯顿 (Margaret Preston) 和西娅·普罗克特 (Thea Proctor) 等艺术家以其花卉画而闻名，通常作为“女性艺术”的飞地例子，但男性艺术家对花卉的研究却很少受到关注。在埃利亚斯的研究中，两者都得到了更深入的考虑，埃利亚斯展示了直到 1950 年代艺术中的花朵如何与更广泛的性别、性、种族、战争、政治以及品味问题和等级的问题相关联。埃利亚斯还提出了另一个重要的历史背景，参考当代土著艺术家将花卉整体整合到与国家和身份联系的复杂符号系统中。埃利亚斯从澳大利亚艺术中最早对花卉的描绘开始，然后介绍了在 20 世纪上半叶，花卉如何主要被视为为艺术而艺术的高级练习。林赛对无用之美的评论绝不是要诋毁花画或海森。相反，他的目标是强化一种观点，即鲜花属于瞬间的、审美的精致领域——一种近乎世俗的崇敬和品味的精神标志。埃利亚斯接着谈到了某些早期的澳大利亚现代艺术家如何探索花卉、它们不断变化的意义和文化欣赏。该方法 埃利亚斯从澳大利亚艺术中最早对花卉的描绘开始，然后介绍了在 20 世纪上半叶，花卉如何主要被视为为艺术而艺术的高级练习。林赛对无用之美的评论绝不是要诋毁花画或海森。相反，他的目标是强化一种观点，即鲜花属于瞬间的、审美的精致领域——一种近乎世俗的崇敬和品味的精神标志。埃利亚斯接着谈到了某些早期的澳大利亚现代艺术家如何探索花卉、它们不断变化的意义和文化欣赏。该方法 埃利亚斯从澳大利亚艺术中最早对花卉的描绘开始，然后介绍了在 20 世纪上半叶，花卉如何主要被视为为艺术而艺术的高级练习。林赛对无用之美的评论绝不是要诋毁花画或海森。相反，他的目标是强化一种观点，即鲜花属于瞬间的、审美的精致领域——一种近乎世俗的崇敬和品味的精神标志。埃利亚斯接着谈到了某些早期的澳大利亚现代艺术家如何探索花卉、它们不断变化的意义和文化欣赏。该方法 对无用之美的评论绝不是要诋毁花画或海森。相反，他的目标是强化一种观点，即鲜花属于瞬间的、审美的精致领域——一种近乎世俗的崇敬和品味的精神标志。埃利亚斯接着谈到了某些早期的澳大利亚现代艺术家如何探索花卉、它们不断变化的意义和文化欣赏。该方法 对无用之美的评论绝不是要诋毁花画或海森。相反，他的目标是强化一种观点，即鲜花属于瞬间的、审美的精致领域——一种近乎世俗的崇敬和品味的精神标志。埃利亚斯接着谈到了某些早期的澳大利亚现代艺术家如何探索花卉、它们不断变化的意义和文化欣赏。该方法