評論
打印
It maybe that a master signing a work was simply making a declaration that the work met the standards of the shop.
大師在一個作品上簽名也許只是在聲明這件作品達(dá)到了工作室的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
And it wasn’t just painters. Sculptors also worked together.
不僅是畫家，雕塑家也會一起合作。
In fact, assistants were even more necessary if you were a master sculptor because statues take longer to make than paintings.
事實(shí)上，如果你是一位雕塑大師，你可能更需要助手，因?yàn)樽龅袼芑ǖ臅r間比畫畫長。
And the master had to arrange for marble to be quarried, things like that.
大師必須安排人去采大理石，諸如此類。
Perhaps the most collaborative of all was architecture.
可能合作性最強(qiáng)的是建筑。
There we see a real division of labor, but with carpenters, masons, unskilled labor just to carry materials to and fro, and so on.
在那兒我們能看到一個真正的分工合作，不過是木匠、泥瓦匠和沒有技術(shù)的勞工把材料搬來搬去等等。
Plus, of course, your skilled artisans who carried out the master architect’s design.
當(dāng)然了，還有技術(shù)嫻熟的工匠把大師的建筑設(shè)計(jì)變成現(xiàn)實(shí)。
Think of it, like, um, a ballet, you know. All the dancers work together.
可以把它想成芭蕾，所有的舞者都在一起合作。
There’s a division of labor. People have different roles.
他們之間有分工，每個人都有不同的角色。
And in order for the thing to come together, everyone needs to be aware of what others are doing and coordinate their work and have good timing.
為了把這件事整合起來，每個人需要知道其他人在做什么，并且協(xié)調(diào)他們的工作，掌握好時機(jī)。
So for architecture, it’s almost impossible to know who was responsible for any given detail.
那么就建筑而言，幾乎不可能弄清楚誰負(fù)責(zé)哪個具體的細(xì)節(jié)。
Was it the master architect? The mason? An assistant mason?
是建筑大師、泥瓦匠還是助理泥瓦匠？
Maybe it was even the patron, the client who was paying for the art.
也許甚至是主顧，這個付錢買下這件藝術(shù)品的客戶。
Remember, it wasn’t yet customary for architects to give their assistants measured drawings to work from.
記住，那時候建筑設(shè)計(jì)師給他們的助手標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的圖來實(shí)施工作還沒成為習(xí)慣。
Instructions were given orally, not in writing.
指令都是口頭給出的，不是書面的。
So we don’t have those documents to tell us what exactly the master architect’s plans were.
所以我們沒有那些文件能告訴我們建筑大師具體的計(jì)劃是什么。
