绘画/常州博物馆50周年典藏丛书 电子书 mobi pdf txt word 2024 下载

《常州博物馆50周年典藏丛书:绘画》内容简介：常州，地处富饶美丽的长江三角洲，是一座具有悠久历史的江南文化名城。能更好地展示常州和谐、持续发展的独特资源优势，是增强城市文化软实力、科学发展实践和运用的体现，也是常州博物馆的全体人员对常州经济、文化发展所做出的贡献。

吴伟 醉樵图轴

谢时臣 凌云乔翠图轴

吴之管潇湘夜雨图四屏条

吕纪（传） 幽泉聚禽图轴

周之冕 雉鸡芭蕉花卉图轴

张复 函关紫气图轴

张元举 古柏飞泉图轴

尤求 二乔图轴

陈元素 兰花图轴

恽向 董巨遗意图轴

张宏钟 馗图轴

萧云 从栖霞揽胜图卷

唐宇昭 荷鹭图轴

弘仁 山水册页，

罗牧 古木图轴

蔡远帆 转孤峰图轴

吴宏 仿元人笔法山水图轴

胡士昆 高松幽兰图轴

王建章 仿梅花道人笔意山水扇面

朱耷 有余图轴

恽寿平 蔬果册页

恽寿平 苍松翠竹图轴

杨晋 芦滩双牛图轴

禹之鼎 绘王麓台小像图轴

王巩 山水册页

沈宗敬 古树空山图轴

渚升竹 石图轴

薛宜 仿李营丘山水图轴

沈铨群仙祝寿图轴

上官周 山水册页

黄慎 杂画册页

王原祁 小孤山图轴

道悟 黄海云舫图轴

马元驭 兰芝图轴

李鳏 石榴蜀葵图轴

郑燮 荆棘兰竹石图轴

闵贞 戏蟾图轴

童钰 梅花图轴

郑岱 梅花高士图轴

高凤翰 梅竹石图轴

钱球 山阁云峰图轴

钱维城 松梅芝仙图轴

金农 达摩图轴

李世焯 酹月大江图轴

沈风 竹麓隐居图轴

华岩 泰岱云海图轴

钱维乔 山水图册

毕涵 山水图卷

恽冰 玉堂富贵图轴

顾洛 仕女妙清图轴

汤贻汾 铁笛楼图轴

倪璨 青峦叠嶂图轴

汪昉 仿黄鹤山樵笔意图轴

沙馥 书馆婴戏图轴

任颐 苏武牧羊图轴

黄山寿 竹阴高士图轴

戴熙 高荫论古图轴

王礼 松鹤图轴

赵之谦 牡丹图轴

阮元 枇杷图轴

吴昌硕 芭蕉枇杷图轴

朱昂之 匡庐飞瀑图轴

糜凖 抚唐寅笔意仕女图轴

毕简 林亭高逸图扇面

汤禄名 桃岸氍鹆鸟图轴

蒲华山 水书法双面扇

吴庆云 春溪新绿图轴

陈衡恪 翠叶邀凉图轴

吴毂祥 涛意山水人物四屏条

李宝嘉 眉寿图轴

高邕 山深幽涧图轴

顾麟士 仿王麓台笔意图轴

张玄 翠池风雨图轴

冯超然 烟峦夕照图轴

邓春澍 三秋图轴

瞿世玮 法耕烟山水图轴

汤涤寿 山图轴

张爰 双仕女图轴

徐悲鸿 秋树图轴

龚铁梅 秋菊双禽图轴

齐璜 蔬果图轴

房毅 墨龙图轴

林风眠 柳岸高憩图轴

谢月眉 红叶小鸟图轴

马万里 三秋图轴

戴元俊 松涛猿鸣图轴

沈云霞 秋菊佳色图轴

李淦 仕女看磨镜图轴

程十发 少女与牛图轴

谢稚柳 青绿山水图轴

俞云阶 秋红图轴

赵素吾 听雨声中图轴

吴青霞 双鲤图轴

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：绘画/常州博物馆50周年典藏丛书在线阅读

在线听书地址：绘画/常州博物馆50周年典藏丛书在线收听

在线购买地址：绘画/常州博物馆50周年典藏丛书在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

编辑推荐

常州，地处富饶美丽的长江三角洲，是一座具有悠久历史的江南文化名城。能更好地展示常州和谐、持续发展的独特资源优势，是增强城市文化软实力、科学发展实践和运用的体现，也是常州博物馆的全体人员对常州经济、文化发展所做出的贡献。

书籍介绍

《常州博物馆50周年典藏丛书:绘画》内容简介：常州，地处富饶美丽的长江三角洲，是一座具有悠久历史的江南文化名城。能更好地展示常州和谐、持续发展的独特资源优势，是增强城市文化软实力、科学发展实践和运用的体现，也是常州博物馆的全体人员对常州经济、文化发展所做出的贡献。

• 作者： 发布时间：2021-03-20 01:10:47

  生活中的纠葛最终都归于血缘，是应该这样么？

• 作者： フ。 发布时间：2021-10-17 18:12:04

  挺浅显的一本 结尾可爱并温柔

• 作者： 发布时间：2020-11-19 16:19:04

  许愿

• 作者： 琛辰鍖趁 发布时间：2016-05-11 11:04:06

  看了前三章 后面都是税法内容了 突然感恩地觉得自己这份工作还是很nice的。

• 作者： 闪闪 发布时间：2016-06-07 11:03:41

  阿曼达

• 作者： 陈小爱 发布时间：2017-11-30 11:07:24

  这个写作水平...功底太糟糕了。鲜少有看传记那么累的。看开头第一章险些认为自己看的是言情小说，第二章开始就是盲目引用，把能找到的史料直接堆砌成文，为了能把蒙古和大宋的关系说明白，上一段还在写忽必烈如何如何，下一段马上跳到大宋国内如何如何，缺乏连贯性，看的力不从心。

• 看自己的妻子长大

  作者：阿北 发布时间：2005-07-29 14:27:55

  从小到大，我在时间旅行的故事面前没有任何招架之力。好的肯定不会错过，即便明明知道是烂小说、烂电影，还是忍不住要去看。所以在Amazon上订了几本在豆瓣上得知的小说之后，被推荐The Time Traveler's Wife, 结果自不必说。何况它的归类是fiction, 不是sci-fi。想想看，一本给成年人看的时间旅行故事!

  Henry和Clare各自用第一人称的叙述方式穿插讲完了两个人从小到老的故事。Henry, 一个图书馆员，因为神秘的基因病变，经常不由自主地消失，在地上留下一堆衣服，然后突然一丝不挂地在另外的时间和地点出现。为了生存，他学会了撬锁、扒钱包、和警察赛跑。他不能控制出现的时间和地点，但是经常会发现自己掉在在他过去和将来大的感情事件附近，比如他小时候妈妈出车祸的路上，又比如他的妻子Clare小的时候独自玩耍的地方。Clare 8岁的时候认识了这个会突然消失在空气中的成年男子，几年之后知道这是自己未来的丈夫在时间旅行。Clare知道了自己的未来，但等待中她仍然需要一天一天地自己长大。

  这是女作家Audrey Niffenegger的第一本小说。小说里关于时间旅行的逻辑处理是自洽的， 细节也慎密可信。比如"改变"过去不会影响将来，因为未来的成因里已经包括了你将做出的"改变。” 但这些都不是这个故事成功的关键。The Time Traveler's Wife首先是一个成长和感情的故事，有清楚的核心线索、生动的周边人物和细致的时间地理环境。好的感情故事多有非同寻常的冲突和考验，对这个故事来讲核心是情感的成长和时间的错位。读者对时间旅行可以猎奇地去看，但对其中的心理细节和情感的冲突应该觉得熟悉和感动。

  在故事开始的一幕里，Clare 20岁的时候第一次遇到了在“现在时间”里28岁的Henry，在十几年的等待终于结束的激动中她也发现，这不是他熟悉的从未来回来, 三、四十岁，真正懂得关爱的Henry。眼前的Henry年轻、自私，对两人的未来还一无所知。Clare突然从被关照变成了关照的角色，决定透露多少未来定数的责任突然移到了她的肩上。她又开始等待，等Henry成熟。

  其实我们在寻常的情感经历里多少能找出相似的感触来。The Time Traveler's Wife是一个凭借非凡的想像力编出的好故事，然后被懂得讲故事的人慢慢说出来，所以读者喜欢它。里面有时间旅行，最后对我来说只是额外的惊喜。

• BOOK REVIEW: HANS ULRICH OBRIST: A BRIEF HISTORY OF CURATING

  作者：沧佽° 发布时间：2015-10-11 01:23:54

  Museums have long been considered as “the cemetery for art” and “the heaven for dead useless objects.” In his conversation with HOU, Seth Siegelaub stipulates that the old-fashioned definition of the functions of a museum is “historicization,” that museums are to “kill things” and “distance them from people by taking them out of their real everything context.” The reason why all the curators interviewed in this book are regarded as pioneers of curating is that they are all fighting against such a traditional definition of museums by doing exactly the opposite: to make works of art alive and bring them closer to people and their life, giving the museum an open and experimental character.

  There are quite a few points around the subject of art museums that are shared by these interviewees. Walter Zanini and Lucy Lippard both highlighted the importance of a curator being as close as possible to the artists; documentation and archives take considerable spaces and importance in the curatorial practices of Pontus Hultén and Harald Szeemann; one can easily observe a strong focus on interdisciplinarity and the inclusion of multimedia in shows organized by Jean Leering, Zanini and Hultén; etc.

  Apart from these, I would like to point out that I think Hultén really made his point on the role of collection to the curators and visitors (shared by Anne d’Harnoncourt and others): “I think the encounter between the collection and the temporary exhibition is an enriching experience… A collection isn’t a shelter into which to retreat. It’s a source of energy for the curator as much as the visitor.” I have to admit that I have since long treated the temporary exhibition separately from the collection. It is indeed hard for the public to establish such a link by themselves. Maybe what the curators should do is to reference works in a temporary exhibition to the permanent collection. Such a practice already exhibits in some museums (from my personal experiences, MFA Boston does a great job), but has not been fully exploited and requires more discretion. The programing of the temporary exhibitions should therefore also takes into consideration what can be on view in the permanent collection.

  The point that curators have the mission to help visitors establish a link between temporary exhibitions and collections also reveals the primary task of a curator or a museum director: to create a public and to make connections between art and the public, reckoned by Hultén, Leering and d’Harnoncourt. The issue of audience participation is therefore a central point here. For example, in the show Poetry Must Be Made By All! Transform the World! organized by Hultén in 1969, a wall was created for local organizations could affix documents stating their principles and goals. To me, audience participation goes beyond just making art closer to the public by facilitating exactly the reverse: bring the public closer to art. However, participation has to remain relevant in the context of the artwork and the exhibition. In Poetry (1969), the participation of local political groups is justified by the fact that the intention of the show was originally political. However, if we look back at the Céleste Boursier-Mougenot show at Palais de Tokyo, where visitors were invited to ride a boat inside the museum, the participation was purely entertaining, making Palais de Tokyo a playground.

  Inviting the public into the realization of exhibitions isn’t in itself sufficient unless the programming of exhibitions actually takes into account the interests of the people. People could be tired of playing meaningless games in the museums. It just makes them feel worse about the fact that they can’t comprehend contemporary art. I loved what Leering had said in his interview: “in a certain way, art was being “used” to get people to think and be aware of their own situations.” This explains why, for example, several shows organized by Hultén or Zanini in the 60s and 70s were very political in their nature. Those were issues that the public cared about at that time. I’m not saying that art should serve for something larger, such as politics or society. Rather, the role of the curators is to present the many different possibilities of thinking about these issues. I think people very often confuse between “political” shows and “propaganda” shows. Personally, I have always enjoyed the interaction between art and politics, like the Dinh Q. Lê: Memory for Tomorrow show I saw at the Mori Art Museum in Tokyo last summer.

  The issue of audience participation therefore opens up a deeper and larger debate on the democratization of a museum, as discussed widely by the 11 interviewees. The first level of the democratization of a museum lies again in its relation to the public. Talking about an unrealized project, d’Harnoncourt said hers was “to make the entire museum always free to the public.” Both d’Harnoncourt and Leering compared the “ideal” art museum of a public library: the principle is that everybody should have access to it. Johannes Cladders talks about the second level of democratization, which is to free the audience of the route of visit: “I want a museum that has no predetermined route.” A predetermined route implies an imposed vision. The public is therefore restricted in their appreciation of an exhibition. It also reduces possibilities of confrontation. The democratization of allowing people to wonder around and to move back and forth was perfectly experienced, for example, in the exhibition What’s Happening! (2015) at the National Gallery of Denmark (Read my piece here). The third interpretation of democratization lies in the possibility of liberating art from the museums by creating new exhibition spaces. For instance, the Museum in Progress in Vienna organized exhibition on billboards.

  The interviewees and HOU also made interesting points on aspects that are normally marginalized in discussions about exhibitions, such as the role of texts and catalogues. I tend to echo with d’Harnoncourt that “a thoughtful text of some kind is really helpful because even if you disagree with the text, it gives the visitor something to push back against.” Even though many artists today claim that the public only need to “sense” with their art, we have to admit that the practices of contemporary artists have had a strong tendency on the valorisation of extensive researches into history, society, religion and cultures. It is to somewhat extent almost impossible today to echo with an artwork without any given framework to understand. Among the 11 interviewees, we see quite a divergence in their attitudes towards catalogues. William Sandberg, Siegelaub and Lippard all produced wonderful publications accompanying their shows, while Szeemann, at some point, even stopped publishing catalogued and just printed newspapers. I reckon that a strategy of segmentation could be employed here. Many museums have been doing this. The Tinguely Museum in Basel and National Gallery of Denmark produce on one hand small newspaper-magazine style brochure free for the public and on the other hand, academic catalogues for a smaller group of people who would love to dig further into the subject, a perfect demonstration of a balance between the popular and the specialized field.

  In my opinion, however, HUO is not a good interviewer. He raised a few interesting questions in his conversations but often failed to question them further in order to discuss them more profoundly with the interviewees. For example, he raised the question of whether exhibition has become the new artwork. Such a question to me is beyond the innovation of exhibition design and penetrates to the deeper issue of the role of the curators and their relations to artists. Are curators becoming too powerful? Are artists sometimes overshadowed by curators? In my opinion, it is exactly what is happening today, for example, in the Inside show at Palais de Tokyo last year. (Read my article on this exhibition here.)

  I would like to end my review with the energetic statement of Cladders, that summarizes very well the passion that is shared by all of the 11 interviewees:

  "I have always believed that it is the artist who creates a work, but a society that turns it into a work of art, an idea that is already in Duchamp and a lot of other places… So it was always clear to me that I did not need to do anything for works already declared art by common consent. Instead, I was interested in those that had not found that consent and so that were still works, not works of art…Art must move forward!"