此書感人 (這本的全文參見Full text of "Moholy Nagy Experiment In Totality"
其實，他是 Gropius 的愛將，在芝加哥設立 設計學院的夫人(第2任)寫的先生(Laszlo Moholy-Nagy，1895—1946)的回憶錄。
值得一讀。 他認為，動手可影響心靈和感情的。
作為"設計學院"的主持人 他在戰時還是有魅力每年取得約6000美金之贊助
它的 motto 乃取 Alice in Wonderland 首章一句
"And she tried to fancy what the flame of a candle looks like after the candle is blown out, for she could not remember ever having seen such a thing."
Matrix of man : an illustrated history of urban environment / Sibyl Moholy-Nagy New York : Praeger, 1968 台灣有翻印
Sibyl Moholy-Nagy (1903 – 1971) was the daughter of Werkbund architect Martin Pietzsch and an architectural and art historian. Originally a German citizen, she became the second wife of the Hungarian Bauhaus artist László Moholy-Nagy and accompanied him in his move to the United States. She is the author of one of the most important and influential[by whom?] studies of his work, Moholy-Nagy: Experiment in Totality.
Bibliography
- Paine, Judith, "Sibyl Moholy-Nagy: A Complete Life." Archives of American Art Journal 15:4 (1975), 11-16.
- Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, Moholy-Nagy: Experiment in Totality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969.
*****
這本書很有意思 (很深)
翻譯錯誤很多 尤其是末章
譬如說 將 拼貼翻譯成抽象藝術
將 平面 (plane) 翻譯飛機
將金鋼經 翻譯鑽石經......
拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉/世界攝影大師傳記叢書
- 作者：(美)路易斯·卡普蘭|譯者:陸漢臻//朱瓊//聶玉莉
- 出版社：浙江攝影
- ISBN：9787806868287
- 出版日期：2010/01/01
- 裝幀：
- 頁數：132
內容大鋼
本書為紀念拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉(Laszlo Moholy-Nagy，1895—1946)誕辰100周年而出版。它以全新手法展示了這位包豪斯藝術家、理論家的多面人生和創作——這種手法對傳記寫 作的概念進行了重新定義。
在本書中，作者路易斯·卡普蘭將「簽名效應」的德里達解構主義模式應用到一位構成主義藝術家的思想傳記中，解構 了「莫霍利」的簽名是如何在兩個空間運作的——交織著能指和所指、自傳和親筆簽名。通過對20多件藝術作品的解讀，卡普蘭非常形象地展現了莫霍利的簽名效 應。他向我們展示這種效應是如何在藝術原創性與抄襲、作者身份與匿名性等一系列關係中，以及在機械複製時代藝術作品的地位等方面發揮作用的。由此，本書揭 示了莫霍利的藝術實踐是如何預見后現代主義論爭的諸多問題的，闡明了先鋒構成主義和當代解構主義的關係。
本書作者路易斯·卡普蘭是耶路撒 冷希伯萊大學弗朗茨·羅森茨韋格研究中心的博士后研究員，從事德國猶太文學與文化歷史的研究。他還著有《查爾斯·福特的奇異世界》，與人合著《甘姆比傳： 世上最受人喜愛的泥人》。
在本書中，作者路易斯·卡普蘭將「簽名效應」的德里達解構主義模式應用到一位構成主義藝術家的思想傳記中，解構 了「莫霍利」的簽名是如何在兩個空間運作的——交織著能指和所指、自傳和親筆簽名。通過對20多件藝術作品的解讀，卡普蘭非常形象地展現了莫霍利的簽名效 應。他向我們展示這種效應是如何在藝術原創性與抄襲、作者身份與匿名性等一系列關係中，以及在機械複製時代藝術作品的地位等方面發揮作用的。由此，本書揭 示了莫霍利的藝術實踐是如何預見后現代主義論爭的諸多問題的，闡明了先鋒構成主義和當代解構主義的關係。
本書作者路易斯·卡普蘭是耶路撒 冷希伯萊大學弗朗茨·羅森茨韋格研究中心的博士后研究員，從事德國猶太文學與文化歷史的研究。他還著有《查爾斯·福特的奇異世界》，與人合著《甘姆比傳： 世上最受人喜愛的泥人》。
作者介紹
(美)路易斯·卡普蘭|譯者:陸漢臻//朱瓊//聶玉莉
本書作者路易斯·卡普蘭是耶路撒冷希伯萊大學弗朗茨·羅森茨韋格研究中心的博士后研究員，從事德國猶太文學與文化歷史的研究。他還著有《查爾斯· 福特的奇異世界》，與人合著《甘姆比傳：世上最受人喜愛的泥人》。
本書作者路易斯·卡普蘭是耶路撒冷希伯萊大學弗朗茨·羅森茨韋格研究中心的博士后研究員，從事德國猶太文學與文化歷史的研究。他還著有《查爾斯· 福特的奇異世界》，與人合著《甘姆比傳：世上最受人喜愛的泥人》。
鳴謝
導言：簽上莫霍利的名
第一章 生產—再生產
第二章 偽造：剽竊的瘟疫
第三章 它很 管用
第四章 匿名之手
第五章 莫霍利：簽名的意義
簽名的附言：莫霍利似的/像莫霍利一樣
註釋
*****
A Life of Light and Shadow
FRANKFURT — Like many émigrés fleeing from Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy sought refuge in various countries: the Netherlands, England and, finally, the United States. Wherever he and his family went, they took an enormous metal and glass machine, which looked so odd that it always caused a rumpus at customs.
Skip to next paragraph
Courtesy Galerie Berinson, Berlin Photo: Friedhelm Hoffmann, Berlin © VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2009
Photogram with Eiffel Tower and Peg Top, by László Moholy-Nagy, 1928.
Blog
Courtesy Bauhaus-Archive, Berlin/ © VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2009
Lázló Moholy-Nagy in overalls in Dessau, in 1926, by Lucia Moholy.
Courtesy Hattula Moholy-Nagy © VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2009
"A 19" by Lázló Moholy-Nagy, 1927, oil on canvas.
Courtesy Collection of George Eastman House
Bauhaus Balconies, by Lázló Moholy-Nagy, 1926, Gelatin silver print.
The problem was describing what it was. Telling the truth did not work. Custom officers snorted in disbelief when Mr. Moholy-Nagy explained that he had designed the Light Space Modulator, as the machine was called, to create pools of light and shadow so he could study their movement. They were almost as skeptical when he tried passing it off as a robot, fountain and mixing machine. Eventually he fobbed them off by claiming that it was “hairdressing equipment.”
Mr. Moholy-Nagy had labored over his strange machine throughout the 1920s, paying for more of it to be made whenever he could afford it. It was worth it. His Light Space Modulator observations helped to formulate the theories of the moving image that he propagated as a designer, artist, writer and teacher in the 1930s and 1940s. The results of his experiments will appear in “Bauhaus 1919–1933: Workshops for Modernity,” an exhibition on the German art and design school where he taught in the 1920s, which opens Nov. 8 at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. They can also be seen in a retrospective of Mr. Moholy-Nagy’s work at the Schirn Kunsthalle in Frankfurt until Feb. 7.
After decades of playing a “best supporting” role in 20th-century art and design, albeit an intriguing and seductive one, Mr. Moholy-Nagy is being bumped up to a leading role. Long praised for pioneering film and photography, as well as for working across different creative disciplines, he is now recognized as a critical influence over the increasingly important medium of digital imagery that flickers across our computer and mobile telephone screens.
Rather than exploring this aspect of his work, the Schirn Kunsthalle exhibition adopts the conventional art historical approach to Mr. Moholy-Nagy, presenting him as a cross-disciplinarian. Beginning with the Constructivist paintings he produced as an art student in his native Hungary after serving in the army during World War I, the exhibition mixes drawings, paintings, photography, films, stage sets, graphic design and sculpture, ending with the experimental color photographs he worked on until his death in the United States in 1946.
Mr. Moholy-Nagy left Hungary in 1919, fleeing first to Vienna, then Berlin, where he joined the Dadaist artists linked to the avant-garde gallery Der Sturm. It was then that he started work on the Light Space Modulator, and created his most influential paintings, the so-called Telephone Pictures of 1922, which Mr. Moholy-Nagy “ordered” from a sign factory by phoning in the instructions. In 1923, he joined the Bauhaus at the invitation of its founder, Walter Gropius, and helped to rebuild the school in the Constructivist spirit of technocracy. A charismatic figure who taught his classes in red factory overalls to symbolize his belief in the creative potential of industry and technology, he was a popular and inspiring teacher.
When Mr. Gropius left the Bauhaus in 1927, Mr. Moholy-Nagy resigned in sympathy, and moved to Berlin, where he worked on graphic and theater design projects while completing the Light Space Modulator. He hired a young Hungarian artist-turned-filmmaker, Gyorgy Kepes, who was to accompany him into exile in Amsterdam and London, and then to Chicago, where Mr. Gropius had arranged for Mr. Moholy-Nagy to open the New Bauhaus — American School of Design.
Shortly after arriving in the United States, Mr. Moholy-Nagy wrote a book, “The New Vision,” a manifesto for the future of art and design education and the then new media of film and photography. It was a critical and commercial success, unlike the New Bauhaus, which struggled financially, as did its successor, the School of Design, which Mr. Moholy-Nagy founded in 1939. Five years later, he was forced to resign as its director.
Until his death in 1946, he devoted his life to teaching, painting, photography, sculpture and writing his final book, “Vision in Motion,” which was published posthumously, in 1947.
Charismatic, dynamic and prolific, Mr. Moholy-Nagy made a huge impact on his contemporaries. A pivotal figure at the most famous art and design school of the 20th century, he also founded two other schools, as well as publishing books, making experimental films and exhibiting widely. Yet he is not nearly as well known as many of his peers.
One reason is that he died relatively young, at 51, before his best-selling book was published. Also, his relationship with other Bauhaus figures, including Mr. Gropius, had been strained since their arrival in the United States at a time when they were defining what has since been accepted as the “official” version of the school’s history in books and exhibitions. Battling to establish new schools also made him less visible and more vulnerable than Mr. Gropius and Marcel Breuer, who had prestigious teaching posts at Harvard; Mies van der Rohe, who taught at the Illinois Institute of Technology; and Josef Albers, who had similar difficulties at the Black Mountain College of Art before settling at Yale.
But the main reason is that, while Mr. Moholy-Nagy’s more famous peers were leaders in disciplines whose importance was recognized throughout the 20th century — Mr. Gropius, Mr. Breuer and Mr. Mies in architecture and Mr. Albers in painting — his own influence was greatest in the younger medium of digital design, whose cultural significance is only just starting to be appreciated.
Mr. Moholy-Nagy not only influenced the construction of digital imagery through his writing, but has a direct connection to contemporary software designers, like John Maeda, Ben Fry and Casey Reas, who studied in the visual design program founded by his protégé, Mr. Kepes, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fascinating though it is to see his work at the Schirn Kunsthalle, it is tempting to hope that a future exhibition will probe his digital legacy and position Mr. Moholy-Nagy as the stellar Bauhäusler of the 21st century.
*****
ART IN REVIEW
ART IN REVIEW; Laszlo Moholy-Nagy
By KEN JOHNSON
Published: December 1, 2000
Ubu
16 East 78th Street
Through Dec. 22
Painter, photographer, graphic designer, Bauhaus educator and writer-theorist, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy (1895-1946) was one of the most influential artists of his time; yet today he is only hazily remembered. This extensive sampling of small works shows why.
One reason is that while he always followed the imperatives of Constructivist abstraction, he worked in so many different media that no singular visual achievement has come to be associated with his name. Promiscuously inventive, he started exploring photograms -- of which there are many in this show -- at the same time as Man Ray, and he created kinetic light sculptures (represented here only in photographs) that would influence sculptors of the 1950's and 60's.
But he was not deeply original. Perusing the prints, drawings, collages, small paintings, photographs, book covers and posters in this show -- all stamped by a lucid, linear geometry -- is like walking through a hall of mirrors that palely reflect many other, more interesting artists: El Lissitzky, Rodchenko, Mondrian, Man Ray, Kandinsky, Klee and even Duchamp.
Moholy-Nagy had a vision, but that is another problem. As a writer and teacher (at the Bauhaus and later, the New Bauhaus, which he founded in Chicago in 1937) he promoted a fusion of art, science, technology and industry. This makes him a godfather to commercial artists, industrial packagers and architects, but not for today's fine art world where fantasies of anti-technocratic idiosyncrasy prevail. Moholy-Nagy's ideology shows most palpably in a formalism that, while not unplayful, has a bland, corporate impersonality. KEN JOHNSON
16 East 78th Street
Through Dec. 22
Painter, photographer, graphic designer, Bauhaus educator and writer-theorist, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy (1895-1946) was one of the most influential artists of his time; yet today he is only hazily remembered. This extensive sampling of small works shows why.
One reason is that while he always followed the imperatives of Constructivist abstraction, he worked in so many different media that no singular visual achievement has come to be associated with his name. Promiscuously inventive, he started exploring photograms -- of which there are many in this show -- at the same time as Man Ray, and he created kinetic light sculptures (represented here only in photographs) that would influence sculptors of the 1950's and 60's.
But he was not deeply original. Perusing the prints, drawings, collages, small paintings, photographs, book covers and posters in this show -- all stamped by a lucid, linear geometry -- is like walking through a hall of mirrors that palely reflect many other, more interesting artists: El Lissitzky, Rodchenko, Mondrian, Man Ray, Kandinsky, Klee and even Duchamp.
Moholy-Nagy had a vision, but that is another problem. As a writer and teacher (at the Bauhaus and later, the New Bauhaus, which he founded in Chicago in 1937) he promoted a fusion of art, science, technology and industry. This makes him a godfather to commercial artists, industrial packagers and architects, but not for today's fine art world where fantasies of anti-technocratic idiosyncrasy prevail. Moholy-Nagy's ideology shows most palpably in a formalism that, while not unplayful, has a bland, corporate impersonality. KEN JOHNSON
PHOTOGRAPHY VIEW; THE VISUAL WIT OF MOHOLY-NAGY
If ever form could be said to equal content in photography, it is in the work produced in the 1920's by Laszlo Moholy-Nagy. Moholy's program for a ''New Vision'' was more than a platform for formalism; it was a radical instrument intended to liberate modern man from the constraints of habit and history. In his 1925 book ''Painting, Photography, Film,'' Moholy proclaimed that through the new photography ''everyone will be compelled to see that which is optically true, is explicable in its own terms, is objective, before he can arrive at any possible subjective position.'' In short, seeing was to make possible a new way of believing.
Moholy's photographic work of the time, however, can hardly be construed as ''objective.'' His investigations of the medium's formal potentials quickly led him past the ''optically true'' camera, to create abstractionist shadow pictures he named photograms and metaphorical photomontages he called photoplastics. His photograms - which are surprisingly similar to the Rayographs that Man Ray made simultaneously but independently - have become quite well known and are frequently shown. But the photomontages, except for one or two that have been repeatedly reproduced, are seldom seen, at least in this country. However, for the next two months, thanks to the Bronx Museum of the Arts and Chicago collector Arnold Crane, we have the opportunity to see a whole collection of vintage Moholy photomontages.
The exhibition, assembled by Julie Saul and directed by Philip Verre, consists of 75 works by Moholy, of which some 60 are photomontages. Most were executed during the artist's tenure at the Bauhaus, the innovative German architecture and design school where Moholy taught from 1923 to 1928. Using photographs taken by himself and his wife, Lucia, as well as images culled from magazines and newspapers (we might credit Moholy with belonging to an early generation of ''appropriators''), he cut and pasted and drew until a coherent image emerged. In most cases the resulting assemblages were then photographed, so that the final image bears none of the rough edges inherent in the process; however, the exhibition providently includes several original mock-ups, in which one can see first-hand evidence of the artist's skill with a razor blade.
Moholy made his photomontages for a number of reasons, which for the purposes of organization Miss Saul has divided into such categories as advertising, politics and ''personal themes.'' Yet their look is remarkably consistent throughout the exhibition. It is a look greatly indebted to Russian Constructivism, and if one were to imagine a close equivalent to the photomontages it would be an El Lissitsky Proun painting onto which someone had pasted little paper dolls. In ''Leda and the Swan; The Myth Inverted'' (1925), for example, photographic images of a swan, an ear and a female diver share spaces with a web of intersecting straight lines. The influence of Constructivism is also to be found in the artist's deliberate and austere paintings, of which the show includes one example, and photograms, of which there are five on view.
Precedents for Moholy's use of photomontage are not difficult to find, either. George Grosz, Raoul Hausmann, Hannah Hoch, John Heartfield and Kurt Schwitters all were practicing the art in Germany at the beginning of the 20's, as were El Lissitsky and Alexander Rodchenko in Russia. Miss Saul, in her catalogue text, observes that Moholy's first photomontage was done while he was sharing a studio with Schwitters, in 1922-23. But as with the photogram, which had been ''invented'' first of all by William Henry Fox Talbot, Moholy's use of photomontage remains distinctive not because he originated the form but because of what he did with it. Just as his theoretical program was distinct from those of the Dadaists and the Constructivists, so, too, was his imagery. The Dadaists were satirists and the Constructivists were social idealists; Moholy, a romantic who managed to be both a utopian and a pragmatist, was able to span both positions, and more.
Whether attempting to promote pneumatic tires, decry the world arms build-up or hint at the difficulties in his marriage, Moholy worked with economy and wit, which together give his photomontages a spare force that is uniquely his. While the substantial number of prints that the museum has borrowed from Mr. Crane's wonderful collection are not up to Stieglitzian standards in terms of appearance - the historian Beaumont Newhall has observed that Moholy ''had no interest whatsoever in what we call 'the fine print' '' - they are right for what they are: small, modest and just clear enough to convey their charms without showing their seams. Their titles, too, seem just right for their subjects: ''Love Thy Neighbor,'' alternately titled ''Murder on the Railway'' (1925), or ''A Chick Remains A Chick.'' It comes as no surprise to learn that the artist's definition of a ''photoplastic'' was ''a compressed interpenetration of visual and verbal wit.''
What does come as a surprise are the photomontages in the ''personal themes'' section, which according to the researches of Miss Saul (which are indebted to those of Irene-Charlotte Lusk of Berlin) reveal a great deal about the emotional difficulties afflicting the artist during the Bauhaus period. The major element in ''The Fool,'' for instance, is a portrait of Moholy taken by his wife. His image also appears in ''Jealousy,'' perhaps his most famous montage, in which the image of a female sniper, which has been positioned within his chest, takes aim at a buxom bathing beauty. Here and in several other images with man/ woman themes, Moholy abandons his typical playfulness to exorcise feelings of bitterness and loss.
Yet, in the overwhelming majority of these photomontages formal dexterity is of greater consequence than subject matter - which is to say that ultimately they seem more concerned with form than with metaphor. There is precious little difference in appearance between those Miss Saul tells us have to do with emotionally loaded ''personal themes'' and those designed as theatrical posters or advertisements. This may make the work seem revolutionary (especially today, when the conflation of art and commerce is perceived as a radical virtue), but it also is its limitation. As Lucia Moholy, the artist's first wife and collaborator, noted in 1972, ''At present it would appear that advertising, more than humor, has followed in the wake of those early beginnings.'' The same could be said of most innovative European photography of the 20's and 30's: that its legacy is more visible in the apparatus of advertising - where image counts for everything, and consumption substitutes for comprehension - than in the rarefied world of art and ideas from which it emerged.
The notable exception to this tendency is - or was, until recently - American art photography, which through much of the postwar period was dominated by formalist ideas that can be traced directly to Moholy through the Institute of Design in Chicago. Moholy came to the United States to found the school (originally called the New Bauhaus) in 1937, after his dream of revolutionizing European consciousness failed, and he ran it until his death in 1946. But even here his New Vision was assimilated into something less than radical, becoming by the 1970's a ''look,'' a ''Chicago school'' with a fixed repertory of ''experimental'' techniques and styles.
This devolution from radical practice to mere style is characteristic of what has happened to the accomplishments of the Bauhaus. In architecture, the building style meant to enhance commonplace life has been used primarily for corporate headquarters; in design, the chairs and tables intended for ''the workers'' have become the chic furniture available only through one's interior decorator. Consequently, Moholy's marvelous experiments using photography have a vivid poignancy. The photomontages and other photographs on view in this exhibition are evidence of a faith in form as adamant and uncompromising as that of American Modernists such as Edward Weston, and as historical. Today we have largely lost that faith, having stripped form of all its ideological underpinnings. No longer able to conceive of a visual world of infinite possibilities, we think and act largely in terms of style, form's empty shell, quoting from Constructivism and other creeds the way designers quote from fashions of the 20's.
(The Bronx Museum of the Arts, which is in its new home but still undergoing renovation, is located at 1040 Grand Concourse, at 165th Street. The exhibition runs through Sept. 25; a catalogue reproducing some 20 of the pictures and containing Miss Saul's text is available.)
****
On the Paths of Two Giants, Voyagers in Modernism
Correction Appended
Josef Albers and Laszlo Moholy-Nagy were like ships that passed in broad daylight, paused to assess each other’s tonnage and sailed on, not terribly impressed. Never close, they came from opposite directions to intersect at the Bauhaus as teachers in the 1920s. Then both went their separate ways to the United States, where they spent their final years in quite different places, both artistically and geographically.
Skip to next paragraph
Hattula Moholy-Nagy/DACS
“CH for R1 Space Modulator” (1942) by Laszlo Moholy-Nagy is one of the more than 170 works on display at the Whitney.
Readers’ Opinions
Nonetheless, their discoveries helped open large areas of the globe of Modernism to exploration that still continues, and their teachings, writings and artwork were important to the development of postwar American art and design. All this is clear in “Albers and Moholy-Nagy: From the Bauhaus to the New World,” an inspirational exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art.
The voyage-of-discovery characterization may be too colonial, considering the modest, multimedia nature of Albers’s and Moholy’s endeavors. Their works make the Whitney’s second floor seem as much like an atelier as a carefully plotted and well-installed exhibition. For more conventional artistic dominance and master-novice narratives, visit “Picasso and American Art” on the Whitney’s fourth floor.
The Albers/Moholy show, organized by Achim Borchardt-Hume, curator at the Tate Modern, was overseen at the Whitney by Carter Foster, the museum’s curator of drawings. Whittled down to more than 170 from around 300 objects, it is still a large show, not least because of its heady diversity. At a moment when younger artists like Wade Guyton, Kelley Walker, Alice Könitz, Sara VanDerBeek and others are operating in the interstices between painting, design, graphic design, photography and sculpture, this show is especially pertinent.
It demonstrates the way the Bauhaus aesthetic fused notions of evident craft and structure with Duchamp’s concept of the readymade to bring Russian Constructivism down to earth, but also domesticated it a bit. And of course there are the contrasting ideas of artistic endeavor, development and comportment of its two leads.
Basically, Albers progresses deliberately from medium to medium, finally arriving at his reverential, influential proto-Minimalist “Homage to the Square” paintings, with their pulsating colors and proportions.
Moholy, meanwhile, pirouettes around, doing everything at once, but mainly alternating between delirious riffs on the Russian avant-garde and more commercial endeavors. In his cantankerous old age, Albers, who really didn’t find himself as an artist until his late 50s, would claim that Moholy, who died of leukemia at 51, was unoriginal.
Although the Bauhaus founder Walter Gropius announced their hiring on the same day, Feb. 13, 1923, the two came at the Bauhaus along very different routes. Born to working-class stock in the Ruhr Valley in Germany in 1888, Albers came to art through craft, the rudiments of which he learned from his father, a house painter. Moholy was born to the comfortable middle class in southern Hungary in 1895 and backed into art when he took up sketching as a soldier during World War I, building on already strong interests in avant-garde poetry and revolutionary thought.
In photographs, Albers projects an air of perpetual innocence that seems almost dogged. Throughout his life, he resembled a local boy who continuously made good with the help of sudden revelations. Trained in glassmaking, he had upgraded to studying salon painting with Franz von Stuck in Munich when news of the Bauhaus’s opening in Weimar, Germany, jolted him into, as he said, starting all over again.
He began as a student at the Bauhaus in 1920, and three years later was put in charge of the glass workshop. Albers remained until the end, when the school closed in 1933, after Hitler came to power. The rise of Hitler jolted him to the United States, where he taught in relatively cosseted situations, first at Black Mountain College in North Carolina, then at Yale. He died in 1976.
In his essay in the exhibition catalog, Mr. Borchardt-Hume reproduces a wonderful caricature of Albers, an etching by Marcel Breuer from 1920-21, and notes how the subject, who carried a T square like a crusader’s cross, resembles a “tonsured monk.” Fittingly, when Albers first arrived at the Bauhaus, he walked the streets of Weimar with a sack and a hammer, looking for shards of glass and broken bottles for use in the radiant glass reliefs from 1922, seen at the start of the show.
These are followed by furniture designs, elegantly straightforward photographs and woodcuts that seem derived from simple doodles. In the late 1920s, Albers made what Donald Judd would later call “specific objects”: bright little squares of sandblasted glass whose repeating lines and bars resemble the weavings of his wife, Anni Albers, an innovator in modern textiles.
In contrast to Albers, Moholy was a high-powered operator, adept at networking and delegating, yet idealistic. With a jutting jaw and dark hair, he resembled a Machiavellian prince; he liked to wear a shirt and tie with a red mechanic’s jumpsuit.
After the war, Moholy began a four-year crash course in Modernism that moved rapidly from Cubism to Constructivism and from Budapest to Vienna to Berlin. He was already something of a star when he met Gropius in 1922. Their bond was firm. Moholy resigned from the Bauhaus in 1929, around the same time Gropius did, and went to work as a graphic designer and photographer in Berlin, Amsterdam and then London. In 1937, when Gropius restarted what was briefly called the New Bauhaus, American School of Design in Chicago, Moholy became director. Moholy also lined up wealthy patrons after the school foundered, restarting it as the School of Design. It survives today as the Institute of Design.
Moholy maintained the Russian avant-garde in several guises, sometimes past its prime. His paintings echoed the swirling space of Malevich and Lissitzky’s Suprematist works until his death in 1946, by which time they were burly period pieces, with some nice passages of color and texture. Meanwhile, the Constructivist impulse toward three dimensions, utilitarianism and idiosyncratic tinkering is evident in his sculptures, commercial and book designs and especially photographs. The most innovative of these are his ghostly photograms, which seem to have influenced his sculpture and led to film. He was in love with light; among the show’s high points is a reconstruction of his rotating magic-lantern sculpture, “Light Prop for an Electric Stage” (1928-30), an early example of kinetic art. It is exhibited beside the film he made with it, “Light Play: Black-White-Gray.”
Moholy also made some specific objects, painting on glass, plastic or metal in works that stood on their own or projected from the wall. The best are his “Telephone Picture” reliefs from 1922, which he claimed to have ordered over the phone. It seems doubtful, given their delicate composition of floating crosses on white. But they were fabricated by a sign-painting company, the same motif in three sizes, in porcelain enamel on steel. They bring together the aerial space of Suprematist painting and the sturdiness of functional Constructivist objects in a way that rarely happened in Russia, Malevich’s teacups notwithstanding. Even today, they look freshly minted and brazen.
An art review in Weekend on Nov. 3 about “Albers and Moholy-Nagy: From the Bauhaus to the New World,” an exhibition at the
László Moholy-NagyLászló Moholy-Nagy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn 1923, Moholy-Nagy replaced Johannes Itten as the instructor of the foundationcourse at the Bauhaus. ...世界攝影大師傳記叢書：拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉
作者： （美）卡普蘭著，陸漢臻，朱瓊，聶玉莉譯出 版 社： 浙江攝影出版時間： 2010-1-1字 數：版 次： 1頁 數： 132印刷時間： 2010-1-1開 本： 16開印 次： 1紙 張： 膠版紙I S B N ： 9787806868287包 裝： 平裝編輯推薦本書意在為人們重新認識和評價莫霍利－納吉這位包豪斯藝術家和理論家提供一個新的視角。該書不是傳統的傳記作品，不是按照時間順序講述傳主的生平和成就。作者運用了德里達解構主義理論中的“簽名效應”闡釋了莫霍利－納吉這位構成派藝術家。該書游移於莫霍利－納吉的生平和作品之間，展示了“莫霍利”這一簽名是如何混雜了能指和所指，自傳與筆跡。全書力求隱去現實意義上的那個拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉，避開對藝術家生活和創作故事的敘述，而是通過對藝術家的藝術理念、創作手法和最終作品的細緻解讀，揭示出一個符號意義上的拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉。
內容簡介本書為紀念拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉(Laszlo Moholy-Nagy，1895—1946)誕辰100週年而出版。它以全新手法展示了這位包豪斯藝術家、理論家的多面人生和創作——這種手法對傳記寫作的概念進行了重新定義。在本書中，作者路易斯·卡普蘭將“簽名效應”的德里達解構主義模式應用到一位構成主義藝術家的思想傳記中，解構了“莫霍利”的簽名是如何在兩個空間運作的——交織著能指和所指、自傳和親筆簽名。通過對20多件藝術作品的解讀，卡普蘭非常形像地展現了莫霍利的簽名效應。他向我們展示這種效應是如何在藝術原創性與抄襲、作者身份與匿名性等一系列關係中，以及在機械複製時代藝術作品的地位等方面發揮作用的。由此，本書揭示了莫霍利的藝術實踐是如何預見後現代主義論爭的諸多問題的，闡明了先鋒構成主義和當代解構主義的關係。本書作者路易斯·卡普蘭是耶路撒冷希伯萊大學弗朗茨·羅森茨韋格研究中心的博士後研究員，從事德國猶太文學與文化歷史的研究。他還著有《查爾斯·福特的奇異世界》，與人合著《甘姆比傳：世上最受人喜愛的泥人》。
作者簡介本書作者路易斯·卡普蘭是耶路撒冷希伯萊大學弗朗茨·羅森茨韋格研究中心的博士後研究員，從事德國猶太文學與文化歷史的研究。他還著有《查爾斯·福特的奇異世界》，與人合著《甘姆比傳：世上最受人喜愛的泥人》。
目錄總序鳴謝導言：籤上莫霍利的名第一章 生產—再生產第二章 偽造：剽竊的瘟疫第三章 它很管用第四章 匿名之手第五章 莫霍利：簽名的意義簽名的附言：莫霍利似的/像莫霍利一樣註釋
書摘插圖它在文化空間裡翱翔，此空間是開放的、無邊界的、無分區的、無等級的。在那裡我們能識別模仿作品、剽竊，甚至欺詐——一句話，“複製”的所有形式，即被所謂的資產階級藝術判為恥辱的行為。 ——羅蘭·巴特《馬森的症狀記錄》在簽名替換的偷竊中，人們從生產一再生產轉變到藝術剽竊的問題。在許多詐術(策略)中，莫霍利生產一再生產的邏輯演算威脅會偷走或簽字讓渡合法授權和藝術作品的自有作者，這為假冒偽造和藝術簽名的複制打開了方便之門。簽名生產一再生產的能力刻畫了名為剽竊的東西，被原創性和身份的所有邏輯取締和刪除的東西。當然，對剽竊的譴責並沒有構成永恆的要素。巴特的引文明確地稱其為藝術配音的資產階級分子的經歷，作為財產和商品的藝術經歷，但是如果人們研究十六七世紀早期的法國歷史，對剽竊行為就會有完全不同的評估。在《論賣弄學問》一文中，蒙田貶低了所有的版權概念，版權在法律或道德上賦予原始佔有以權利，反之又提到了引用的輸送程序，從“這本或那本書”上“節選”“刪除”的程序。這裡不妨引用這位法國作家的話：在作品裡，我創作的絕大部分是整體和完全同一的事情麼？我曾經在這兒那兒，從這本書那本書上挑一些我滿意的句子，不是為了保存(我沒有庫房來保存)，而是把它們搬到這兒，說實話，它們根本上已經不屬於我了。與資產階級版權“保留所有權”的思想相比，蒙田的敘述中沒有什麼可以保留。“我沒有庫房來保存。”然而，蒙田的箴言可以在瞬間的重新書寫和復制聲明中被解讀為“保留所有權”。版權為複印的權利所代替，因為他的文本“根本上”不屬於他。無論歷史解釋是否使用認知的範疇，作為私有財產的思想，以及個人或者自有主體的概念，它只會對剽竊進行負面評論。在它開始破裂或者碎成某種還難以形容的其他東西的時候，如果蒙田站在一方，人們或許能夠在離題的另一方找到像拉茲洛，莫霍利一納吉這樣的藝術形象。的確，莫霍利在《建築學素材》一書的前言提出了所有權問題，因為這與藝術及經驗有關。當手邊的語言含義聲稱藝術經驗屬於自己或想佔為已有時，莫霍利鼓勵讀者對之持懷疑態度。莫霍利這樣寫道，“藝術工作的經驗永遠不可能通過描述佔為己有。”無法從以上描述中弄清楚莫霍利是否相信對侵占特許的非解釋方法，或更確切地說，抽象藝術家相信，就佔有而言，就是一無所有。在特定時刻，或許以下閱讀把莫霍利及其藝術活動宣稱是對剽竊譴責的勇敢爭論和取消。人們必須回想起偽造簽名的雙重約束，它同樣破壞了歷史主體。因為偽造簽名對能夠進行如此防衛的純粹的自有主體之存在表示質疑，那就是能避開簽名破壞性及又可再生的銘文。偽造限制了為支持剽竊的作者辯解，或向其致敬的任何企圖。因為偽造者在扮演這種支持角色時，爭奪其作為權威作者或主體的地位。隨著剽竊瘟疫的蔓延，即使人們揭露偽造簽名是如何讓莫霍利處於風險之中，即便是撕裂的，人們也必須把莫霍利的位置定位在作者上。因此就簽名而言，這並不是訊問而是徬徨問題的登台。它不是被標為問號而是對語言含義及其本身的質問模式。換句話說，根據著作所有權、佔有和剽竊概念，偽造簽名寫出了概要，對資產法及傳記主體的邊界提出了限制。穩步前進，證據的累積有利於簽名再加倍——滑落了含義，清除了來源。這是不能被標記的東西(就像莫霍利會問作者“這裡誰需要標籤”)。但是卻被禁止和審查，並冠以剽竊(錯誤)之名。或許是這種情況，這個或任何一個法庭劇——其傳記評論和判決的通過—— 只有簽名被複製和偽造的能力才能開始進入議程。剽竊的瘟疫，以相反的方式顯示了歷史判決的通過是如何依靠簽名的偽造而成功的。審視莫霍利生活的線性歷史(把生產一再生產使參照架構成問題的事放到一邊)，此章節按時間順序、發現剽竊的順序、之前之後偷竊的順序展開。在藝術生涯的每個方面，莫霍利被指控有剽竊行為，如果他沒有屬於自己的一席之地，人們都不願提及他的職業。形勢對莫霍利越來越不利。指控是剽竊，即使把書扔向他，人們同時必須考慮如何把偽造的簽名問題也扔向書。在視覺藝術生涯伊始，幼稚的學生還沒有學會辨明差異。他有眼睛卻看不到。的確，他的視覺能力是如此的不協調，以至於他似乎只能聽見繪畫後面的故事。他不能把開始(“原本”)從掩飾開端(“複製品或者贗品”中)區別開來。當像拉茲洛·莫霍利一納吉這樣的藝術家回想起他最早期視覺推測時，他也失去了這種明顯差異：“我的方法是更多地'傾聽'圖畫的文字意義，而不是欣賞形式和視覺要素……我可能還不會區別原本、複製品或贗品。莫霍利聲稱，一開始他還不能區分原本、贗品和復製品，但後來他學會了。按照再生產之生產邏輯，來自複本的起源常識姍姍來遲。當然，據推測，莫霍利寫這篇文章時，他很清楚自己想要說什麼。但這並不是閱讀或傾聽的唯一的方法，尤其是涉及到復製或偽造以及與此有關的常識時。其他東西潛伏於陰影中，模擬了第一次閱讀，外表貌似意味深長的方案，或許這本身也是一種掩飾，簽名之偽造，與普羅米修斯偷竊火種有類似之處。情節隨著火種偽造鋪開，這裡提到兩個情節：1.他對原本和副本之間的區別一無所知，寫作的時候非常困惑。單純的莫霍利仍然堅持將來完成時的條件式，這樣他“就不會”知道也不會宣揚自己。 2.他已經知道了另一個簽名和自己簽名之間的區別，事後成了偽造者——讀者對這點難以了解。因此他對他的過去(他已知)或他的現在(他未知)撒了謊。正如他們進行偽造的行為，這些鬼鬼祟祟的嫌疑把懷疑放在了主體上，放在了書寫的一切內容裡——如果那樣會起作用時，莫霍利的全部作品就會飽受剽竊和謊言的指控。根據莫霍利對自己個人藝術簽名回顧的自傳體敘述，迎來了活動高度活躍的時期。他描述了跨度相對較短的一段時間，從“受影響”的再生產和實驗到原創和私有財產。在第二個十年間，莫霍利來到了充滿活力的大都市柏林，他開始使用“他們自己的名義”拍攝照片。莫霍利用以下的戲劇術語上演他與匈牙利活動家協會(MA)絕交的場景：“那時，我花光了所有的錢去買複製品的書，我繼續學習圖片：舊的、新的，無論我碰到什麼。直到1920年在MA的影響下，我的作品還都是實驗。從1920年開始，我的圖片、造型藝術和其他作品形成了自己的特色。”1921年，區別“新”“舊”的這些假定特徵發展近一年之後，莫霍利再現了此場景，即莫霍利對匈牙利活動家協會對準的剽竊指控提出了異議。他們不允許莫霍利翻閱赫維西的信件，莫霍利(一個好複製者，即使信的實質否認這些指控)在回復中說，讀者滿腦子都是這些指控。莫霍利承認，過去或開始，他也受到了影響。有一次，他是一個蹩腳作品的處理單元，改造其他舊作品的再循環工廠，或用他自己的話來說，“人的貯藏器”。但幾年內，他能聲稱其作品絲毫沒有受“國外影響”，他已改頭換面，做回自己，是個“大人物”、“名人”，一個擁有“獨立思維”的人。在這封信裡，莫霍利試圖用權威作家的口吻表示同意簽署合同，對忽視簽名可鍛狀態的創造性形式進行研究——這超越了作者的原創性(無論“我……說句話或有個想法”)，給予了超越影響的作品外來或被剝奪的特性。pp.38-40
作者： （美）卡普蘭著，陸漢臻，朱瓊，聶玉莉譯出 版 社： 浙江攝影出版時間： 2010-1-1字 數：版 次： 1頁 數： 132印刷時間： 2010-1-1開 本： 16開印 次： 1紙 張： 膠版紙I S B N ： 9787806868287包 裝： 平裝編輯推薦本書意在為人們重新認識和評價莫霍利－納吉這位包豪斯藝術家和理論家提供一個新的視角。該書不是傳統的傳記作品，不是按照時間順序講述傳主的生平和成就。作者運用了德里達解構主義理論中的“簽名效應”闡釋了莫霍利－納吉這位構成派藝術家。該書游移於莫霍利－納吉的生平和作品之間，展示了“莫霍利”這一簽名是如何混雜了能指和所指，自傳與筆跡。全書力求隱去現實意義上的那個拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉，避開對藝術家生活和創作故事的敘述，而是通過對藝術家的藝術理念、創作手法和最終作品的細緻解讀，揭示出一個符號意義上的拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉。
內容簡介本書為紀念拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉(Laszlo Moholy-Nagy，1895—1946)誕辰100週年而出版。它以全新手法展示了這位包豪斯藝術家、理論家的多面人生和創作——這種手法對傳記寫作的概念進行了重新定義。在本書中，作者路易斯·卡普蘭將“簽名效應”的德里達解構主義模式應用到一位構成主義藝術家的思想傳記中，解構了“莫霍利”的簽名是如何在兩個空間運作的——交織著能指和所指、自傳和親筆簽名。通過對20多件藝術作品的解讀，卡普蘭非常形像地展現了莫霍利的簽名效應。他向我們展示這種效應是如何在藝術原創性與抄襲、作者身份與匿名性等一系列關係中，以及在機械複製時代藝術作品的地位等方面發揮作用的。由此，本書揭示了莫霍利的藝術實踐是如何預見後現代主義論爭的諸多問題的，闡明了先鋒構成主義和當代解構主義的關係。本書作者路易斯·卡普蘭是耶路撒冷希伯萊大學弗朗茨·羅森茨韋格研究中心的博士後研究員，從事德國猶太文學與文化歷史的研究。他還著有《查爾斯·福特的奇異世界》，與人合著《甘姆比傳：世上最受人喜愛的泥人》。
作者簡介本書作者路易斯·卡普蘭是耶路撒冷希伯萊大學弗朗茨·羅森茨韋格研究中心的博士後研究員，從事德國猶太文學與文化歷史的研究。他還著有《查爾斯·福特的奇異世界》，與人合著《甘姆比傳：世上最受人喜愛的泥人》。
目錄總序鳴謝導言：籤上莫霍利的名第一章 生產—再生產第二章 偽造：剽竊的瘟疫第三章 它很管用第四章 匿名之手第五章 莫霍利：簽名的意義簽名的附言：莫霍利似的/像莫霍利一樣註釋
書摘插圖它在文化空間裡翱翔，此空間是開放的、無邊界的、無分區的、無等級的。在那裡我們能識別模仿作品、剽竊，甚至欺詐——一句話，“複製”的所有形式，即被所謂的資產階級藝術判為恥辱的行為。 ——羅蘭·巴特《馬森的症狀記錄》在簽名替換的偷竊中，人們從生產一再生產轉變到藝術剽竊的問題。在許多詐術(策略)中，莫霍利生產一再生產的邏輯演算威脅會偷走或簽字讓渡合法授權和藝術作品的自有作者，這為假冒偽造和藝術簽名的複制打開了方便之門。簽名生產一再生產的能力刻畫了名為剽竊的東西，被原創性和身份的所有邏輯取締和刪除的東西。當然，對剽竊的譴責並沒有構成永恆的要素。巴特的引文明確地稱其為藝術配音的資產階級分子的經歷，作為財產和商品的藝術經歷，但是如果人們研究十六七世紀早期的法國歷史，對剽竊行為就會有完全不同的評估。在《論賣弄學問》一文中，蒙田貶低了所有的版權概念，版權在法律或道德上賦予原始佔有以權利，反之又提到了引用的輸送程序，從“這本或那本書”上“節選”“刪除”的程序。這裡不妨引用這位法國作家的話：在作品裡，我創作的絕大部分是整體和完全同一的事情麼？我曾經在這兒那兒，從這本書那本書上挑一些我滿意的句子，不是為了保存(我沒有庫房來保存)，而是把它們搬到這兒，說實話，它們根本上已經不屬於我了。與資產階級版權“保留所有權”的思想相比，蒙田的敘述中沒有什麼可以保留。“我沒有庫房來保存。”然而，蒙田的箴言可以在瞬間的重新書寫和復制聲明中被解讀為“保留所有權”。版權為複印的權利所代替，因為他的文本“根本上”不屬於他。無論歷史解釋是否使用認知的範疇，作為私有財產的思想，以及個人或者自有主體的概念，它只會對剽竊進行負面評論。在它開始破裂或者碎成某種還難以形容的其他東西的時候，如果蒙田站在一方，人們或許能夠在離題的另一方找到像拉茲洛，莫霍利一納吉這樣的藝術形象。的確，莫霍利在《建築學素材》一書的前言提出了所有權問題，因為這與藝術及經驗有關。當手邊的語言含義聲稱藝術經驗屬於自己或想佔為已有時，莫霍利鼓勵讀者對之持懷疑態度。莫霍利這樣寫道，“藝術工作的經驗永遠不可能通過描述佔為己有。”無法從以上描述中弄清楚莫霍利是否相信對侵占特許的非解釋方法，或更確切地說，抽象藝術家相信，就佔有而言，就是一無所有。在特定時刻，或許以下閱讀把莫霍利及其藝術活動宣稱是對剽竊譴責的勇敢爭論和取消。人們必須回想起偽造簽名的雙重約束，它同樣破壞了歷史主體。因為偽造簽名對能夠進行如此防衛的純粹的自有主體之存在表示質疑，那就是能避開簽名破壞性及又可再生的銘文。偽造限制了為支持剽竊的作者辯解，或向其致敬的任何企圖。因為偽造者在扮演這種支持角色時，爭奪其作為權威作者或主體的地位。隨著剽竊瘟疫的蔓延，即使人們揭露偽造簽名是如何讓莫霍利處於風險之中，即便是撕裂的，人們也必須把莫霍利的位置定位在作者上。因此就簽名而言，這並不是訊問而是徬徨問題的登台。它不是被標為問號而是對語言含義及其本身的質問模式。換句話說，根據著作所有權、佔有和剽竊概念，偽造簽名寫出了概要，對資產法及傳記主體的邊界提出了限制。穩步前進，證據的累積有利於簽名再加倍——滑落了含義，清除了來源。這是不能被標記的東西(就像莫霍利會問作者“這裡誰需要標籤”)。但是卻被禁止和審查，並冠以剽竊(錯誤)之名。或許是這種情況，這個或任何一個法庭劇——其傳記評論和判決的通過—— 只有簽名被複製和偽造的能力才能開始進入議程。剽竊的瘟疫，以相反的方式顯示了歷史判決的通過是如何依靠簽名的偽造而成功的。審視莫霍利生活的線性歷史(把生產一再生產使參照架構成問題的事放到一邊)，此章節按時間順序、發現剽竊的順序、之前之後偷竊的順序展開。在藝術生涯的每個方面，莫霍利被指控有剽竊行為，如果他沒有屬於自己的一席之地，人們都不願提及他的職業。形勢對莫霍利越來越不利。指控是剽竊，即使把書扔向他，人們同時必須考慮如何把偽造的簽名問題也扔向書。在視覺藝術生涯伊始，幼稚的學生還沒有學會辨明差異。他有眼睛卻看不到。的確，他的視覺能力是如此的不協調，以至於他似乎只能聽見繪畫後面的故事。他不能把開始(“原本”)從掩飾開端(“複製品或者贗品”中)區別開來。當像拉茲洛·莫霍利一納吉這樣的藝術家回想起他最早期視覺推測時，他也失去了這種明顯差異：“我的方法是更多地'傾聽'圖畫的文字意義，而不是欣賞形式和視覺要素……我可能還不會區別原本、複製品或贗品。莫霍利聲稱，一開始他還不能區分原本、贗品和復製品，但後來他學會了。按照再生產之生產邏輯，來自複本的起源常識姍姍來遲。當然，據推測，莫霍利寫這篇文章時，他很清楚自己想要說什麼。但這並不是閱讀或傾聽的唯一的方法，尤其是涉及到復製或偽造以及與此有關的常識時。其他東西潛伏於陰影中，模擬了第一次閱讀，外表貌似意味深長的方案，或許這本身也是一種掩飾，簽名之偽造，與普羅米修斯偷竊火種有類似之處。情節隨著火種偽造鋪開，這裡提到兩個情節：1.他對原本和副本之間的區別一無所知，寫作的時候非常困惑。單純的莫霍利仍然堅持將來完成時的條件式，這樣他“就不會”知道也不會宣揚自己。 2.他已經知道了另一個簽名和自己簽名之間的區別，事後成了偽造者——讀者對這點難以了解。因此他對他的過去(他已知)或他的現在(他未知)撒了謊。正如他們進行偽造的行為，這些鬼鬼祟祟的嫌疑把懷疑放在了主體上，放在了書寫的一切內容裡——如果那樣會起作用時，莫霍利的全部作品就會飽受剽竊和謊言的指控。根據莫霍利對自己個人藝術簽名回顧的自傳體敘述，迎來了活動高度活躍的時期。他描述了跨度相對較短的一段時間，從“受影響”的再生產和實驗到原創和私有財產。在第二個十年間，莫霍利來到了充滿活力的大都市柏林，他開始使用“他們自己的名義”拍攝照片。莫霍利用以下的戲劇術語上演他與匈牙利活動家協會(MA)絕交的場景：“那時，我花光了所有的錢去買複製品的書，我繼續學習圖片：舊的、新的，無論我碰到什麼。直到1920年在MA的影響下，我的作品還都是實驗。從1920年開始，我的圖片、造型藝術和其他作品形成了自己的特色。”1921年，區別“新”“舊”的這些假定特徵發展近一年之後，莫霍利再現了此場景，即莫霍利對匈牙利活動家協會對準的剽竊指控提出了異議。他們不允許莫霍利翻閱赫維西的信件，莫霍利(一個好複製者，即使信的實質否認這些指控)在回復中說，讀者滿腦子都是這些指控。莫霍利承認，過去或開始，他也受到了影響。有一次，他是一個蹩腳作品的處理單元，改造其他舊作品的再循環工廠，或用他自己的話來說，“人的貯藏器”。但幾年內，他能聲稱其作品絲毫沒有受“國外影響”，他已改頭換面，做回自己，是個“大人物”、“名人”，一個擁有“獨立思維”的人。在這封信裡，莫霍利試圖用權威作家的口吻表示同意簽署合同，對忽視簽名可鍛狀態的創造性形式進行研究——這超越了作者的原創性(無論“我……說句話或有個想法”)，給予了超越影響的作品外來或被剝奪的特性。pp.38-40
沒有留言:
張貼留言