《弗莱、威利和狄更森的剑桥三重奏：关于在英国的中国现代艺术之讨论》在英国出版

▼

新书首发

《弗莱、威利和狄更森的剑桥三重奏：

关于在英国的中国现代艺术之讨论》

【作者】（中国大陆）杨虹仪

【编辑与校审】Irene Galstian & 秦雨晨

01 

左中括号

图书介绍

左中括号

《弗莱、威利和狄更森的剑桥三重奏：关于在英国的中国现代艺术之讨论》（Roger Fry, Arthur Waley and Goldsworthy Dickinson: The Cambridge Trio and the Discussion of the Modernity of Chinese Art in England）主要讲述了20世纪初，剑桥大学国王学院的三位重要人物——罗杰·弗莱(Roger Fry)、亚瑟·威利(Arthur Waley)和戈德斯沃西·狄更森(Goldsworthy Dickinson)，在英国共同发起的与传统中国艺术相关的艺术史辩论。他们通过形式主义美学、历史研究和社会学分析，对中国艺术得出了一致和确凿的结论——中国艺术具有现代性，能够被西方社会所接纳。

罗杰·弗莱是英国著名艺术史家和美学家，英国形式主义批评家，开创了西方现代主义美术。他以研究意大利古典绘画为主，确立了形式主义批判方法，是现代主义美学理论的奠基者。

亚瑟·威利是英国著名汉学家、文学翻译家，有部分德国血统。他精通汉文、满文、蒙文、梵文、日文和西班牙文等语种，一生撰著和译著共200余种，其中大部分都与中国文化有关。他非常热爱语言和文学，致力于东方学与中国学的研究，曾将多部中国古典名著翻译成英文。

狄更森是英国古典文学家国王学院的奖学金，曾在剑桥大学国王学院讲授政治学。他是一名和平主义者和国际主义者，是英国最早提出“国际联盟”理念的人之一。

尽管学界对于罗杰·弗莱的文学评论、亚瑟·威利的翻译作品和戈德斯沃西·狄更森的政治著作进行了大量的研究，但迄今为止，他们与中国艺术相关的著作却鲜有发表。

本书通过审视“剑桥三人组”对中国艺术的个人看法和研究方法，就他们的方法论和理论学进行对比，论证了其达成高度一致的知识结构的存在。这三位思想家可以说是改变西方对中国艺术看法的功臣，是在国王学院和剑桥大学的培育和支持下的开创性举措。

《剑桥三重奏》前言

上个世纪20年代初，浪漫主义诗人、作家徐志摩（1897-1931）曾在剑桥大学国王学院做了18个月的特别生。在那段时间里，他结识了布鲁姆斯伯里团体的艺术家、知识分子和作家，其中包括国王学院的财务主管约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）。那里也是他创作著名诗篇《再别康桥》的地方，开篇如下：

“我轻轻地走了，

正如我轻轻地来；

我轻轻地招手，

作别西天的云彩。”

20世纪20年代早期，约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯在国王学院做研究员，并任财务主管。他是一名经济学家和哲学家，也是一名艺术赞助人、艺术收藏家，是布鲁姆斯伯里团体的关键人物。戈德斯沃西·洛斯·狄更森（Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson，1862-1932）是一位哲学家和政治思想家，于1887年成为国王学院的研究员，同时也是布鲁姆斯伯里团体的成员之一。他在国王学院教授历史和政治。在罗杰·弗莱（Roger Fry, 1866 - 1934）于剑桥学习的最后一年间（1887-1888），他与这位比他小许多的年轻人结下了深厚的友谊。

戈德斯沃西·洛斯·狄更森（Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson，1862-1932）

东方学家亚瑟·大卫·威利（Arthur David Waley, 1889 - 1966）于1907年至1910年在国王学院学习古典文学，1913年被任命为大英博物馆东方版画和手稿的助理保管员，并于1929年退位。然而，他最出名的，还是他的写作作品，以及中国和日本诗歌的译作。他也与布鲁姆斯伯里团体有着十分密切的关系。这三位学者都是剑桥大学得以接收到中国艺术的重要媒介。

2016年至2017年，我指导了克莱尔学院的学生杨虹仪，她在剑桥大学艺术与建筑史系攻读历史艺术与建筑学硕士学位。虹仪展现出了我们常常在北京清华大学这所顶尖院校的毕业生身上的特质：智慧、勤奋、充满好奇心，并且渴望为该领域做出一流的贡献。她成为了一位出色的学者和讲师，也是为数不多的获得一等学位的学生之一。

我一开始见到她时感到很担忧，因为她很安静，在指导的过程中很少说话。但是后来她提交的第一份作业，给艺术史带来了重要的贡献，她还口述了她的研究，非常具有权威性。以中国和欧洲的资料为基础，她完成了她的第二篇长论文《观世音：中国出口陶瓷的影响和德化观音像的西化》，该文章受到了来自果阿的印度葡萄牙象牙的影响。观音因其与圣母像相似而成为耶稣会士的慈悲女神。这些陶瓷像通常出口到西方，但也会在中国国内市场上出现，因而观音像的西化中国本国市面上也得到了蓬勃的发展。

虹仪的第一篇论文《中国佬——形式主义与中国艺术》让她对《剑桥三重奏》这本书中的主角之一罗杰·弗莱有了初步的了解。该论文的标题源于古德斯沃西·洛斯·迪金森于1901年出版的《约翰中国佬的来信）。作为一名画家和艺术评论家，弗莱从未到过访过中国，也没有亲身接触过中国的文化和语言，但他将自己对中国艺术的兴趣融入到了他的形式主义当中。

弗莱主要通过法国商人的活动了解中国艺术，他的形式主义方法使他能够在不了解其具体内容的情况下做解读，但他认为这是一种折中的研究方式，因为在当时的西方，这一领域没有真正的学术基础。因此，他将意大利14世纪中叶的雕塑与唐代（618年至907年）早期的出家人形象进行了对比。通过对汉代（公元前206年至公元220年）艺术中一些线性和平面设计，以及东方山水画的研究，他认识到了中国艺术的现代性。他将其视为西方人类中心主义观念在中国对动植物形态的关注中的对立面，由此而形成了一种“自由和快乐的艺术”。虹仪指出了弗莱研究方法的趣味和细微之处，但也指出了这种方式的缺点：“弗莱无法通过稀缺的中国商朝时期的资料和非常少数的参考对象，察觉到中国艺术表现力上的微妙差异。”

由于无法同时对比观察两件物品的实物，他只能依靠他的记忆、不够清晰的照片和他从未见过的对照物来做参照。这是对于弗莱收藏品描述的存疑，主要针对一些普通的艺术品，这其中的大部分艺术品都从未得到过合理的评估。它们为“现代眼光的发展提供了宝贵的艺术历史记录”，提供了“弗莱形式主义的棱镜”，并呈现了“布鲁姆斯伯里品鉴力的生动表达”。在这一点和其他方面，虹仪基于她具备的中国古代文物知识和经验，通过适当的现代评估，纠正了弗莱的观点，这也是她的另一个优秀的地方。

猫头鹰形状的罐子，周(公元前1046 - 256年)，

陶器，高16.2厘米(muse Cernuschi，巴黎)

基于她的硕士论文，本书（《弗莱、威利和狄更森的剑桥三重奏：关于在英国的中国现代艺术之讨论》）涉及上述三位，都与剑桥大学国王学院有关。他们在20世纪初发起了关于中国传统艺术的艺术史辩论，通过形式主义美学的神话、历史研究和社会学分析，得出了关于中国艺术的现代性、古典精神和可及性的结论。在第一手资料匮乏的时代，“剑桥三人组”的开创性和前瞻性的研究，在改变西方对中国艺术的看法方面起到了至关重要的作用，影响了西方对现代艺术、文学和社会政治的研究。他们的研究方法交织在一起，相互印证，就像他们的相互分享的个人生活一样。本书通过深入研究“剑桥三人组”与中国艺术相关的著作，填补了引发对中国艺术及其历史进行进一步（重新）评估的过渡时期里的空缺。

我很高兴看到虹仪在她作为艺术史学家的事业有不错的发展，最近，她正在伦敦苏富比拍卖行任古典绘画副主任和专家，以一种非常不同的方式开创了更多的跨文化对话。这几年，当我以朋友的身份与她相处时，我常常被她的好奇心和学习热情，以及她对艺术、音乐、文学和语言的广泛兴趣和知识所感动。

Perface 

The romantic poet and writer Xu Zhimo (徐志摩) (1897 – 1931) was an associate member for 18 months at King’s College, Cambridge in the early 1920s. While he was there he met artists, intellectuals and writers of the Bloomsbury group, including John Maynard Keynes, Bursar of the College, and wrote there his famous poem Zaibie Kangqiao (再別康橋), ‘Taking leave of Cambridge again’, starting with the following verses:

“Softly I am leaving, 

Just as gently as I came; 

I gently wave goodbye

To the clouds in the western sky”.

In the early 1920s, John Maynard Keynes was a Fellow as well as bursar of King’s College; he was both an economist and a philosopher but also a patron of the arts, an art collector and a key figure within the Bloomsbury group. Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson (1862 – 1932), too, was a philosopher and political thinker who became a Fellow of King’s College in 1887 and was also part of the Bloomsbury set. In King’s College, he taught history and politics. He became a close friend of the much younger Roger Fry (1866 – 1934), during the latter’s last year of study at Cambridge (1887–1888). The orientalist Arthur David Waley (1889 – 1966) studied Classics at King’s from 1907 to 1910; he was appointed Assistant Keeper of Oriental Prints and Manuscripts at the British Museum in 1913, where he worked until 1929; he is best known however for his writings and his translations of Chinese and Japanese poetry. He too was close to the Bloomsbury set. These three scholars were all important intermediaries for the reception of Chinese art in Cambridge.

In 2016-17, I supervised Hongyi Yang, of Clare College, for the MPhil in History of Art and Architecture at the Department of History of Art of the University of Cambridge. A graduate of Tsinghua University in Beijing, Hongyi exhibited the qualities we often associate with the best students from that university: intelligence, diligence, curiosity and a desire to make first rate contributions to the field. Hongyi became an excellent scholar and lecturer, and one of the very few students who completed the program with Distinction.

When I met her, I was concerned at the beginning, as she was quiet and did not speak much during her supervisions. But then she produced her first assignment, which was an important contribution to the history of art, and gave oral accounts of her research with great authority. Using Chinese and European sources, her second long essay was on Goddess of Mercy: The Influence of Chinese Export Ceramics and the Westernization of Dehua Guanyin, under the influence of Indo-Portuguese ivories from Goa. The Chinese Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara or Guanyin became the goddess of mercy for the Jesuits because of her iconographic similarity with the Virgin. Ceramic figures were exported to the West, but they are also found in the Chinese domestic sphere as the Westernization of Guanyin also blossomed in the domestic market. Hongyi’s first Essay had given her a first insight into the ‘Cambridge Trio’: Roger Fry: The Chinaman – Formalism and Chinese Art (The title is based on Goldworthy Lowes Dickinson’s Letters from John Chinaman of 1901). A painter and art critic, Fry, who never visited China nor had a first-hand exposure to its culture and language, integrated his interest in Chinese art within his Formalism. Fry mainly knew Chinese art through the activities of French dealers and his formalistic approach allowed him to interpret it without knowledge of its content, but he saw this as a compromise as the field at this time had no real scholarly basis in the West. So he contrasted an Italian mid-fourteenth century sculpture with an earlier Tang dynasty (618 – 907) rendering of Bhikshu. The modernity of Chinese art became apparent to him through his study of some linear and flat designs in Han (206 BC – AD 220) art as well as oriental landscape paintings. He saw it as an antithesis to the Western anthropocentric attitude in the Chinese interest in animals and plant forms leading to an “art of freedom and gaiety”. The interest and subtlety of Fry’s approach are noted by Hongyi, but also his shortcomings: “Relying on scarce Shang material and few reference objects, Fry failed to notice subtle differences in expressive forces”. Unable to physically scrutinize both items concurrently, he instead relied on his memory, low quality photographs and on comparative objects he had never encountered”. This reservation is followed by an account of Fry’s collection; mainly modest pieces, most of them have never been properly assessed before. They offer “a precious art-historical record for the development of the modern eye”, provide “a prism into Fry’s formalism”, and present “a vivid expression of the ‘Bloomsbury taste’”. Here as elsewhere, Hongyi corrected Fry’s opinions by giving a proper modern assessment of the pieces based on her knowledge and experience with Chinese antiquities, another of her areas of excellence.

Based on her MPhil dissertation, the present book (Roger Fry, Arthur Waley and Goldsworthy Dickinson: The Cambridge Trio and the Discussion of the Modernity of Chinese Art in England) deals with the three figures mentioned above, all associated with King’s College, Cambridge. They initiated art-historical debate about traditional Chinese art in the early decades of the twentieth century, reaching conclusions about the modernity, classic spirit, and accessibility to Chinese art through mythologies of formalist aesthetics, historical study, and sociological analysis. At a time when first-hand material was scarce, the Cambridge Trio’s ground- breaking and visionary research was pivotal in changing Western perceptions of Chinese art, influencing studies of modern art, literature, and social politics in the West. Their approaches intertwined and corroborated, as did their shared personal lives. This book fills a void by examining in depth the writings of the Trio on Chinese art, during a transitional period that led to further future (re-)assessment of Chinese art and its history.

I was delighted to see Hongyi blossom in her career as an art historian and most recently as Deputy Director and Specialist for Old Master Paintings at Sotheby’s, London, where she created more cross-cultural dialogues, although in a very different manner. As I came to know her as a friend in more recent years, I am constantly surprised by her curiosity and enthusiasm to learn, as well as her wide interests and knowledge of arts, music, literature, and languages.

Professor Jean Michel Massing

King’s College, 

University of Cambridge