160Used with permission of University of Chicago Press̶Journals, from Toward a Fusion of Art History and Material Culture Studies, Michael Yonan, volume18, 2011; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.and History, and Material Culture 18 (2011), pp. 232, 238, 240. より。 必要に応じて原文の一部を省略するなどした。） One of the great success stories of modern scholarship has been the proliferation of interdisciplin-ary material culture studies. 〔1〕 Originally emerging out of the related fields of anthropology, sociol-ogy, and archaeology. inquiries into material culture began as an attempt to extract information from objects left by prehistoric and nonliterate cultures. Lacking textual records from such societ-ies, scholars turned to their material artifacts̶bowls, architectural remains, religious objects, tools̶to reconstruct long -lost or otherwise inaccessible ways of life. Originally such investigations were the purview of scholars interested in the distant past or in precapitalist societies, but recent years have seen the field broaden decisively. 〔2〕 Materiality has rarely been formulated as an essential component of interpretation, and this is because art history has persistently privileged the visual aspects of art over the material, an orien-tation that can be traced back to some of the disciplineʼs foundational thinkers. Heinrich Wölfflinʼs formalism stressed the comparative method as a means of exploring artistic style, but the actual materiality of the paintings analyzed is only a minor part of his equation. 〔3〕 I would take this line of thinking a step further to argue that art history has tricked itself into 掲載を控えておりますbelieving that it is a discipline of images. when really it has always been a discipline of objects. Some of these objects are bearers of images, some are harder to understand as such, but all are objects nonetheless. 〔4〕 More crucially, that object status insistently inflects and determines a work of artʼs potential meanings, a fact that the best art history has always recognized. [5] Recate-gorizing art history so that it is not focused around the image might seem like a misstep. but art-his-torical thinking has been flirting with this possibility foe at least a century. Michael Baxandall touched on it as well when he argued that the material of German Renaissance sculpture, lime-wood, bore meanings that vivified the subjects carved out of it, that limewood was more than just a basis for conveying ideas but was itself an idea. T. J. Clark saw it too when he argued that the out-raged critical response to Édouard Manetʼs Olympia (1863) was triggered not just by its choice of subject matter or even its unorthodox technique but by the paint itself, which conveyed through its insistent materiality an untranscendent modem existence. （From Michael Yonan, ʻToward a Fusion of Art History and Material Culture Studies,ʼ West 86th: A Journal of Decorative Arts, Design, 2025年1月24日（金）実施著作権保護のため2025年1月24日（金）実施2025年1月24日（金）実施各専攻、研究領域ごとに実施英語 ［60分］小論文 ［90分］面接問題 ｜ 次の英文を読んで、設問に日本語で答えなさい。 （1） 下線部〔1〕を和訳しなさい。 （2） 下線部〔2〕を和訳しなさい。 （3） 下線部〔3〕を和訳しなさい。 （4） 下線部〔4〕を和訳しなさい。 （5） 下線部〔5〕を和訳し、 notはなぜイタリックになっているのか書き手の意図を説明しなさい。問題 ｜ 表現のオリジナリティについて考えたことを、1,200字以内で自由に論じなさい。各専攻、研究領域ごとに実施芸術学専攻提出論文
元のページ ../index.html#162