《变动中的疆界艺术史与考古学的学科对话》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《变动中的疆界艺术史与考古学的学科对话（3页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、 黃翠梅主編 台南：國臺南藝術大學，2005 ，頁 1-24。 2003 海峽岸 2003 海峽岸 藝術史學與考古學方法研討會文集藝術史學與考古學方法研討會文集 變動中的疆界 藝術史與考古學的學科對話 黃翠梅 HUANG Tsuimei 美國賓州匹茲堡大學藝術與建築史學系博士，現任國台南藝術大學藝術史與藝術評研究所教授、藝術 史學系主任。主要研究域為中國古代玉器、青銅器和裝飾藝術史。近代表性著作有傳承與變： 新石器時代晚期玉琮形制與角色之發展 、 考古美術話渚 、 是藝術也是史：藝術史的本質 與困境 、 中國新石器時代玉器文化譜系初探 、 中原商代墓葬出土玉器之分及相關問題 、Gender D
2、ifferentiation in Jin-State Jade Regulations、 從紅山與渚文化玉器藝術形式與材源的因果關係 （與貴玉合著） 、 自然環境與玉礦資源：以新石器時代晉陝地區的玉器發展為 （與貴玉合著）等 文。 2003 海峽兩岸藝術史學與考古學方法研討會 變動中的疆界變動中的疆界 藝術史與考古學的學科對話藝術史與考古學的學科對話 摘要 摘要 藝術史與考古學乃系出同源，直到十九世紀，在實證主義與進化的影響 下，才各自發展出獨的學科方法和，而自然科學方法的引入考古學，進 一步開二者的距。 二十世紀藝術史和考古學共同朝向人文學科發展的傾向 ， 以及考古發掘快速 積的成果，尤其
3、是藝術品出土比重的增加，終於為它們之間中斷將近一個世紀 的繫提供機。考古學者開始積極投身於藝術的研究，而藝術史學者則除 以考古發掘品為主要研究素材外，也致於學習考古學和資分析。在這個 互動過程中最顯著且值得觀察的現象，則莫過於 美術考古學 的迅速興起。 可惜它雖具有綜合考古學、藝術史和史學等各種學科於一的想，卻缺乏堅 實並有系統的與輯依據。 學科合作等於合併，或以此代彼，而在於借助他山之石，或以彼之眼己所 。因為學科的疆界可以與時俱變，其核心與足點卻容偏移。藝術史與考 古學所處的材雖然頗有重疊，惟二者僅有其專屬的研究標的、和研究 方法，也有其各自的侷限。建在尊重與解對方本質的大前提之上，藝術史
4、與 考古學的合作，非但無損於原本因借鏡競爭而須自我再界定的必要性；相反的 使二者間的對話有如綿絕的經緯線 ， 同為織就人生生息的文明版圖而貢 獻心。 關鍵字：藝術史、考古學、文獻史學、美術考古、風格分析、學科整合 Proceedings of 2003 Cross-Straits Conference on Methods in Art History and Archaeology Shifting Boundaries A Dialogue between Art History and Archaeology Abstract Art and archaeology derive fro
5、m the same origins. But in the 19th century, under the influence of positivism and the theory of evolution, they began to develop separate academic methodologies and theories. And when natural science became subsumed into archaeology, the divergence between the two disciplines widened further. In th
6、e 20th century, both art history and archaeology veered toward the humanities, and when archaeological excavations in quick succession unearthed increasing numbers of art objects, the century-long gap between the two related disciplines began to narrow. Archaeologists devoted themselves whole-hearte
7、dly to the study of artifacts and art objects, while art historians, aside from focusing on excavated artifacts as main research material, also worked hard to study archaeological theory and material analysis. In this interchange, the most conspicuous and noteworthy phenomenon is the quick and wides
8、pread emergence of art archaeology, (or archaeology of art) as a unified discipline in an attempt to integrate the related but distinct fields of art history, archaeology and history. Not less remarkable, however, is its regrettable lack of solid theoretical basis and systematic logic. Scientific co
9、llaboration does not mean unification or amalgamation, or the substitution of one for the other. Rather, it is in the borrowing of each others materials, using the others eyes to see what one doesnt see oneself. This is because whilst the disciplinary boundaries may change any time, their respective
10、 cores and points of departure remain steadfast and hard to change. Although the subject materials studied by art history and archaeology may overlap, the two disciplines not only have their respective research goals, theories and research methods, they also have their respective limitations. Only b
11、y listening attentively, respectfully and understanding the other, can one properly utilize the others strengths to make up for ones own shortcomings. In doing so, one should be able to keep ones disciplinary thrust and import in tact and never go astray. Key words: art history, archaeology, textural historiography, art archaeology, stylistic analysis, integration of disciplines.
