The year 2016 was when the art world “discovered” the Egyptian Surrealists. Two large-scale international exhibitions opened within weeks of each other: When Art Becomes Liberty: The Egyptian Surrealists (1939–65) and Art et Liberté: Rupture, War, and Surrealism in Egypt (1938–48). The former—cocurated by Hoor al-Qasimi (director of the Sharjah Art Foundation), Salah Hassan (director of the Institute for Comparative Modernities, Cornell University), Ehab Ellaban (Ufuq Gallery), and Nagla Samir (American University in Cairo)—opened in Cairo’s Palace of the Arts on September 28, 2016. It then traveled to the National Museum of Modern Art in Seoul. The latter—curated by Sam Bardaouil and Till Fellrath, with the support of Qatar’s Sheikh Hassan al-Thani—was inaugurated at the Centre Pompidou in Paris on October 19, 2016, before traveling to Museo Reina Soia, Madrid; Kunstsammlung K20, Dusseldorf; Tate Liverpool; and Moderna Museet, Stockholm. Debates surrounding the two exhibitions raged on social media and in the local Egyptian press for months. Many were critical of the increasing rivalry between the United Arab Emirates and Qatar over the regime of cultural patronage that has come to dominate the region in recent decades. Others voiced concerns about forgery, most notably claims made by May Telmissany (Kamel el-Telmisany’s niece, who spells her name slightly diferently) regarding several of her uncle’s works in the Art et Liberté exhibition, including The Woman in the City, which was subsequently reproduced in Bardaouil’s monograph Surrealism in Egypt: Modernism and the Art and Liberty Group, a companion text to the curator’s exhibition. (Bardaouil was quick to dismiss these allegations.) Both exhibitions, rich in archival material, were critiqued with regard to scope; critics pointed to a lack of focus and coherence as a consequence of an overexpansive and all-encompassing deinition of Egyptian Surrealism. Such framing left audiences with the impression that Surrealism was by far the most prevalent artistic movement in mid-twentieth-century Egypt, while simultaneously compromising its speciicity. Bardaouil’s Surrealism in Egypt must be read in the context of these broader conversations. His archival research and ieldwork is impressive in scope, drawing on an incredible wealth of primary sources, including press material, manifestos, personal communications, and photographs, as well as literary texts and artworks. Surrealism in Egypt is an invaluable resource for students and scholars of Surrealism and modern Egyptian or Arab art and literature more broadly. The study includes over thirty color plates, as well as over forty additional images; these beautiful reproductions allow readers to engage with and appreciate works by Art and Liberty. Finally, the appendix comprises translated primary documents, making them accessible to an English-language readership for the irst time. Art and Liberty (Jama‘at al-Fann wa-l-Hurriyya) was founded in Cairo in December 1938 by the poet and essayist Georges Henein (1914–1973) and included painters, critics, and theorists such as Kamel el-Telmisany (1915–1972), Ramses Younane (1913–1966), and the brothers Anwar (1913–1973) and Fouad Kamel (1919–1966). As well as regularly contributing to various publications including the journal Don Quichotte (in French and Arabic, 1939–40), the group established its own periodical, alTatawwur (Evolution, 1940–42), and organized a number of exhibitions beginning in 1940. The group was active until the mid-1940s, when several of its members left the country after a government crackdown on left-wing dissidents. In his introduction to Surrealism in Egypt, Bardaouil asserts his intention to avoid the “exonerating didactics of postcolonial polemics” and “the lens of Saidian Orientalism” by instead focusing on Art and Liberty’s “contributions to Surrealism as an art-historical movement” (31). However, it is not until his concluding pages that he attempts to lesh out this theoretical paradigm or problematize “the lens of Saidian Orientalism” to which he repeatedly refers. While producing scholarship in a postOrientalist mode is certainly an important endeavor, Bardaouil presents this as a rather novel idea, failing to engage with a growing body of literature that has sought over the last decade to build on, but also to complicate, the narrative of colonized and colonizer, self and other. Recent studies in the ields of Arabic literary and translation theory and intellectual history could have provided Bardaouil with alternative theoretical lenses through which to develop his argument in an art historical context, while situating his study within a broader conversation. There is no doubt that existent scholarship in the ield of Egyptian and Arab art is beholden to the categories of the local/authentic versus the Western/derivative. However, these binaries—which are by no means hermeneutically sealed—far predate a postcolonial or Saidian moment, and can instead be traced to debates going back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Bardaouil contends that members of Art and Liberty were able to evade the dominant position whereby “the art of the colonized can be legitimate only if it aligns itself to nationalism, or emulates the art of the colonizer” (240). Yet it is not clear how by doing so they were preemptively rejecting “what would become the prevailing rhetoric of both Saidian Orientalism and post colonial studies,” at the very least because this summary misinterprets and simpliies both (240). Given the forceful critiques outlined in the introduction, it is surprising to see chapter 1, “Art and Liberty: A Pre-History,” represent the standard art historical narrative, one that begins with Muhammad ‘Ali and the translation expeditions of the early nineteenth century, and takes us to the outbreak of the Second World War. This chapter largely focuses on mapping out intellectual thought in Egypt, often dubbed nationalist, particularly in the early decades of the twentieth century, with the primary purpose of demonstrating how Art and Liberty represented a radical departure from what preceded it. The following chapters are presented as a series of corrective reinterpretations of the contributions of Art and Liberty “to Surrealism as an art-historical movement” (31). Bardaouil begins chapter 2 by tracing the group’s founding, paying particular attention to its 1938 manifesto and how it elucidates the group’s connections to an international movement and moment, but

中文翻译：

---

在地方与国际之间：1940 年代的埃及超现实主义

2016 年是艺术界“发现”埃及超现实主义者的一年。两个大型国际展览在几周内相继开幕：当艺术成为自由时：埃及超现实主义者（1939-65）和艺术与自由：埃及的破裂、战争和超现实主义（1938-48）。前者——由 Hoor al-Qasimi（沙迦艺术基金会主任）、Salah Hassan（康奈尔大学比较现代研究所所长）、Ehab Ellaban（乌福克画廊）和 Nagla Samir（开罗美国大学）共同策划—— 2016 年 9 月 28 日在开罗艺术宫开幕，随后前往首尔国立现代艺术博物馆。后者——由 Sam Bardaouil 和 Till Fellrath 策划，在卡塔尔的谢赫哈桑 al-Thani 的支持下——于 2016 年 10 月 19 日在巴黎蓬皮杜中心开幕，在前往马德里雷纳索亚博物馆之前；Kunstsammlung K20，杜塞尔多夫；泰特利物浦；和斯德哥尔摩现代美术馆。围绕这两个展览的争论在社交媒体和埃及当地媒体上持续了数月之久。许多人批评阿拉伯联合酋长国和卡塔尔之间在近几十年来主导该地区的文化赞助制度方面日益激烈的竞争。其他人表达了对伪造的担忧，最显着的是 May Telmissany（Kamel el-Telmisany 的侄女，她的名字拼写略有不同）就她叔叔在 Art et Liberté 展览中的几件作品提出的指控，包括城市中的女人，随后在 Bardaouil 的专着《埃及超现实主义：现代主义与艺术与自由集团》中再现，这是策展人展览的配套文本。（Bardaouil 很快驳回了这些指控。）这两个拥有丰富档案材料的展览都在范围方面受到了批评。批评者指出，由于对埃及超现实主义的过度膨胀和无所不包的定义，缺乏重点和连贯性。这种框架给观众留下的印象是，超现实主义是迄今为止 20 世纪中叶埃及最流行的艺术运动，同时也损害了其特殊性。必须在这些更广泛的对话的背景下阅读 Bardaouil 在埃及的超现实主义。他的档案研究和实地工作的范围令人印象深刻，利用了大量的原始资料，包括新闻材料、宣言、个人通信和照片，以及文学文本和艺术品。埃及的超现实主义对于研究超现实主义以及更广泛的现代埃及或阿拉伯艺术和文学的学生和学者来说是一种宝贵的资源。该研究包括三十多个色板，以及四十多个附加图像；这些精美的复制品让读者能够接触和欣赏艺术与自由的作品。最后，附录包括翻译的主要文件，使英语读者首次可以访问它们。艺术与自由 (Jama'at al-Fann wa-l-Hurriyya) 于 1938 年 12 月由诗人和散文家 Georges Henein (1914–1973) 在开罗创立，成员包括画家、评论家和理论家，如 Kamel el-Telmisany ( 1915–1972)、Ramses Younane (1913–1966)，以及 Anwar (1913–1973) 和 Fouad Kamel (1919–1966) 兄弟。除了定期为包括 Don Quichotte 杂志（法语和阿拉伯语，1939-40 年）在内的各种出版物做出贡献外，该组织还创办了自己的期刊 alTatawwur（进化，1940-42 年），并从 1940 年开始组织了一些展览。该组织一直活跃到 1940 年代中期，当时其几名成员在政府镇压左翼持不同政见者后离开了该国。在他对埃及超现实主义的介绍中，巴尔道伊断言他的意图是通过关注艺术和自由的“对超现实主义作为艺术史运动的贡献”来避免“后殖民论战的无罪说教”和“赛德东方主义的镜头”（31 ）。然而，直到他的最后几页，他才试图摆脱这种理论范式或对他反复提及的“赛德东方主义的镜头”进行问题化。虽然以后东方主义模式产生学术研究肯定是一项重要的努力，但 Bardaouil 将其视为一个相当新颖的想法，未能与越来越多的文学作品接触，这些文学作品在过去十年中一直寻求建立，但也使叙事复杂化。殖民者和殖民者，自我和他人。最近在阿拉伯文学和翻译理论以及思想史领域的研究可以为 Bardaouil 提供替代的理论视角，通过这些视角在艺术史背景下发展他的论点，同时将他的研究置于更广泛的对话中。毫无疑问，埃及和阿拉伯艺术领域的现有学术研究受制于本土/真实与西方/衍生品的类别。然而，这些二进制文件——绝不是在诠释学上密封的——远远早于后殖民时代或赛德时代，而是可以追溯到 19 世纪末和 20 世纪初的辩论。Bardaouil 认为，Art and Liberty 的成员能够逃避主导地位，即“被殖民者的艺术只有在与民族主义保持一致或效仿殖民者的艺术时才能合法”（240）。然而，尚不清楚他们如何通过这样做先发制人地拒绝“赛德东方主义和后殖民研究将成为盛行的修辞”，至少因为这个总结曲解和简化了两者（240）。鉴于引言中概述的有力批评，令人惊讶的是，第 1 章“艺术与自由：史前史”代表了标准的艺术史叙事，以穆罕默德·阿里和 19 世纪初的翻译远征开始。世纪，并把我们带到第二次世界大战的爆发。本章主要关注描绘埃及的知识分子思想，通常被称为民族主义思想，特别是在 20 世纪的最初几十年，主要目的是展示艺术与自由如何代表与之前的彻底背离。以下章节是对艺术与自由“对超现实主义作为艺术史运动”（31）的贡献的一系列纠正性重新解释。Bardaouil 在第 2 章开始追踪该组织的成立，