(226)
|
| 藤島武二的中國服飾女性像 |
| Images of Wom e n in Chinese Dress by Fujishima Takeji |
 |
| 作者 |
兒島薰 著 林怡利 譯 |
| Author |
Kojima Kaoru Translated by Yi Li Lin |
| 關鍵詞 |
藤島武二、
鉸剪眉、
中國服、
東洋趣味、
芳蕙
|
| Keywords |
Fujishima Takeji,
Kōsenbi,
China dress,
Tōyō shumi,
Hōkei
|
| 摘要 |
藤島武二（1867-1943）不但是一位傑出的油畫家，也是東京美術學校教授，並曾任帝國展覽會之審查員。從 1915 年起，他曾多次於官方展覽會中展出身著中國服女性的畫作。由三封 1917 年藤島寄給木下杢太郎的信，可得知畫家對中國文化的嚮往，以及對於描繪身著中國服年輕女性的想法。
1920 年代，藤島展出數幅側面像作品，畫中人物為身著中國服的日本女性，構圖則基於義大利文藝復興肖像。其中以《東洋模樣》（1924）、《芳蕙》（1926）、《鉸剪眉》（1927）最為著名。透過這些作品，藤島企圖融合東方精神與西方油畫傳統。
《鉸剪眉》為松下末三郎所購，但現狀不明。由現有之照片資料可知，有數幅類似的作品曾經展出。由保存於松下家的相關資料，以及其他資料，可知於帝展中展出的原作曾經過修改。這說明了為何諸照片中的畫作看來有相異的細節。我認為這些於不同展覽中的相似作品，應是同一畫作於不同階段的樣貌。 |
| Abstract |
Fujishima Takeji(1867-1943) was a prominent oil painter and a professor at the Tokyo School of Fine Arts as well as a member of the board of judge for the Exhibition of the Imperial Academy. He submitted paintings of images of women in Chinese dress for several official exhibitions, starting in 1915. Three letters sent by Fujishima to Kinoshita Mokutarō in 1917 revealed Fujishima’s admiration for Chinese culture and his idea of painting young women in Chinese dress.
In the 1920s, Fujishima exhibited some works which depicted in profile a Japanese woman in Chinese dress based on the composition of the Italian Renaissance portraits. Of these,“ Tōyō-buri ” (In a Manner of the “East”) (1924), Hōkei ”Woman with an Orchid)(1926),“ Kōsen bi ” (A Chinese style Coiffure)(1927) are well known. In these paintings, Fujishima intended to unite the Eastern spirit and Western tradition of oil painting.“
Kōsenbi ” was purchased by Matsushita Suesaburō, but currently the location of the work is unkno wn. It is known that photographs of several versions of the similar works have exist. The related documents have been kept by the Matsushita family; other materials proving that the original work exhibited at the Exhibition of the Imperial Academy must hav e been restored, which is why several different paintings with altered details have appeared over time. Thus, I conclude that the similar works said to have existed must be versions of the same single painting from different stages. |
|
|
|
