![]()
AHCI论文“拆解-仿写”系列文章适读人群：
1. 有英文论文发表需求的硕博士生、大学青椒群体
2. 英文写作拉垮、还不想花高昂润色费的抠门学渣群体（bushi
3. 想碎片化积累学术英语的考研、考博、留学生群体
论文题目：《李禹焕的矛盾他者身份与艺术史学》（Lee Ufan's ambivalent otherness and art historiography）发表期刊：《国际亚洲研究》（INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ASIAN STUDIES）投稿方式：关注本公众号后，后台发送“IJAS”自动获取
![]()
This article aims to reexamine the relationship between the artist Lee Ufan and nationalist art history through his idea of “ambivalent otherness,” which he defined as both “suffering” and “power.” Traditional art history is established upon a nationalist framework that emphasizes the artists' nationality, leading to the marginalization of national others at the border. As a zainichi Korean, Lee has undergone the “suffering” of being excluded by the art world and art historiography. However, he transformed it into his source of “power” to challenge art historiography based on nationality. This study analyzes the art criticism of “Japanese Contemporary Art History” written by Minemura Toshiaki and Chiba Shigeo in the 1970s and 1980s and highlights the ruptures that the artist's in-between identity wrought on nationalist art history. This shows how both the Mono-ha movement and the artist were marginalized in the construction of “Japanese Contemporary Art History.” Furthermore, this study scrutinizes how Lee attempted to rewrite art history using Mono-ha art theory and a perspective committed to “overcoming coloniality” from the postcolonial in-between position, by reinterpreting Lee's article on Chosŏn minhwa, written amidst an aesthetic controversy across the border between Japan and Korea.1. 背景
开篇目的阐述：首先明确文章的目的，即“This article aims to reexamine the relationship between the artist Lee Ufan and nationalist art history through his idea of ‘ambivalent otherness.’” 这不仅点明了研究的主题，也提出了研究的核心视角——“ambivalent otherness”。
概念定义：紧接着对核心概念“ambivalent otherness”进行解释，指出它包含“suffering”和“power”两个方面，为后续分析奠定基础。
传统框架的批判：随后，作者对传统艺术历史框架进行批判，指出其建立在民族主义之上，强调艺术家国籍，从而边缘化了边境上的其他民族艺术家。这为研究提供了背景和问题意识。
2. 研究内容/方法
个人经历与理论转化：通过介绍Lee Ufan作为在日朝鲜人的身份，描述他因被艺术界和艺术史书写边缘化而经历的“suffering”，并说明他是如何将这种经历转化为挑战基于国籍的艺术史书写的“power”。
具体案例分析：分析20世纪70年代和80年代由Minemura Toshiaki和Chiba Shigeo撰写的“Japanese Contemporary Art History”的艺术批评，强调Lee Ufan的“中间人”身份如何对这一民族主义艺术史造成断裂。这里具体展示了研究的材料和方法，即通过具体文本分析揭示问题。
Mono-ha运动与艺术家的边缘化：进一步分析Mono-ha运动及Lee Ufan本人在构建“Japanese Contemporary Art History”过程中的边缘化状态，深化了对研究问题的理解。
重写艺术史的努力：探讨Lee Ufan如何利用Mono-ha艺术理论和“克服殖民性”的后殖民视角，从“中间人”的位置出发，通过重新解读他在朝鲜民画（Chosŏn minhwa）上的文章，尝试重写艺术史。这部分展示了研究的核心内容和深度分析。
3. 结论/意义
总结：背景+研究内容/方法+结论/意义。
句子一：This article aims to reexamine the relationshipbetween the artist Lee Ufan and nationalist art history through his idea of “ambivalent otherness,” which he defined as both “suffering” and “power.主干：This article（主语）+ aims（谓语）+ to reexamine the relationship（宾语），使用一般现在时，表示“本文旨在重新审视...关系”between the artist Lee Ufan and nationalist art history是介词短语作定语，修饰relationship，表示“艺术家李禹焕与民族主义艺术史之间的关系”。through his idea of “ambivalent otherness”是介词短语作状语，表示“通过他的‘矛盾的他者性’理念”。which he defined as both “suffering” and “power”是非限制性定语从句，修饰限定先行词his idea of “ambivalent otherness”，使用一般过去时，表示“他将其定义为‘痛苦’和‘力量’”。句子二：Traditional art history is established upon a nationalist framework that emphasizes the artists' nationality, leading to the marginalization of national others at the border.主干：Traditional art history（主语）+ is established（谓语）+ upon a nationalist framework（宾语），使用一般现在时的被动语态，表示“传统艺术史是建立在民族主义框架之上的”。that emphasizes the artists' nationality是定语从句，修饰限定先行词a nationalist framework，表示“强调艺术家国籍的”。leading to the marginalization of national others at the border是现在分词短语作结果状语，表示“导致边境上的民族他者被边缘化”。句子三：As a zainichi Korean, Lee has undergone the “suffering” of being excluded by the art world and art historiography.主干：Lee（主语）+ has undergone（谓语）+ the “suffering”（宾语），使用现在完成时，表示“李禹焕已经经历了...痛苦”。As a zainichi Korean是介词短语作状语，表示“作为在日韩国人”。of being excluded by the art world and art historiography是介词短语作定语，修饰the “suffering”，表示“被艺术界和艺术史所排斥的”。句子四：This study analyzes the art criticism of “Japanese Contemporary Art History” written by Minemura Toshiaki and Chiba Shigeo in the 1970s and 1980s and highlights the ruptures that the artist's in-between identity wrought on nationalist art history.主干：This study（主语）+ analyzes（谓语）+ the art criticism（宾语），使用一般现在时，表示“本研究分析了...艺术批评”。并列谓语：and highlights the ruptures，与analyzes并列，共同作谓语，表示“并强调了...断裂”。of “Japanese Contemporary Art History”是介词短语作定语，修饰the art criticism，表示“《日本当代艺术史》的”。written by Minemura Toshiaki and Chiba Shigeo in the 1970s and 1980s是过去分词短语作定语，修饰the art criticism，表示“由水村敏明和千叶繁雄在20世纪70年代和80年代所写的”。that the artist's in-between identity wrought on nationalist art history是定语从句，修饰限定先行词the ruptures，表示“艺术家中间身份对民族主义艺术史造成的断裂”。句子五：Furthermore, this study scrutinizes how Lee attempted to rewrite art history using Mono-ha art theory and a perspective committed to “overcoming coloniality” from the postcolonial in-between position, by reinterpreting Lee's article on Chosŏn minhwa, written amidst an aesthetic controversy across the border between Japan and Korea.主干：this study（主语）+ scrutinizes（谓语）+ how Lee attempted（宾语从句），使用一般现在时，表示“本研究仔细研究了李禹焕如何尝试...”。宾语从句：how Lee attempted to rewrite art history using Mono-ha art theory and a perspective committed to “overcoming coloniality” from the postcolonial in-between position，表示“李禹焕如何尝试使用物派艺术理论和致力于‘克服殖民性’的后殖民中间立场来重写艺术史”。方式状语：by reinterpreting Lee's article on Chosŏn minhwa, written amidst an aesthetic controversy across the border between Japan and Korea，表示“通过重新解释李禹焕关于朝鲜民画的文章，该文章是在日本与韩国之间的一场美学争议中写成的”。using Mono-ha art theory and a perspective committed to “overcoming coloniality” from the postcolonial in-between position是介词短语作状语，修饰to rewrite art history，说明改写艺术史所用的方法和立场。written amidst an aesthetic controversy across the border between Japan and Korea是过去分词短语作定语，修饰Lee's article on Chosŏn minhwa，表示该文章是在日本与韩国之间的一场美学争议中写成的。我是狄安娜，
