以風景畫中的人物重構弗里德的田園性

Figures in Landscape and Michael Fried’s Pastoral Paradox

本文重審弗里德對十八世紀法國風景畫「田園性」的界定，指出其核心悖論：同一套牽引觀者入景的策略，卻又被描述為反劇場、抹除觀者在場。為釐清此矛盾，本文改以「人物」為分析支點：一方面，由德．皮勒至狄德羅的評論顯示，人物素被視為生成戲劇意義的要角；另一方面，細讀弗里德論韋爾內與霍貝，可見人物在景中生成局部劇情，此面向未被其田園模型納入。據此，本文將田園性重構為兼具沉浸與戲劇的動態觀看結構，回應其理論的不一致。

This article reconsiders Michael Fried’s concept of the“pastoral”in eighteenth-century French landscape painting through an exam-ination of a central paradox in his argument. Fried maintains that the same pictorial device intended to absorb the beholder into the scene also serves to secure antitheatricality by removing any indication of the beholder’s presence. Absorption, understood in this context, pre-supposes the beholder’s presence in order to draw them into the image, yet simultaneously seeks to eliminate the beholder to avoid theatrical address. This contradiction remains unresolved within Fried’s model. To clarify this issue, the study shifts attention from the representation of nature to the function of the landscape figure. Art criticism from Roger de Piles to Denis Diderot consistently identifies figures as the principal bearers of dramatic meaning—a dimension that Fried’s nature-focused reading of Diderot tends to neglect. A close examination of Fried’s analyses of Claude-Joseph Vernet and Hubert Robert demonstrates that the figures in their paintings generate localised dramatic episodes within the scene—precisely the effects that the pastoral framework is intended to exclude. By foregrounding these human figures, the article proposes a revised understanding of the pastoral as a dynamic structure of viewing that coordinates immersion with dramatic tension, rather than simply erasing the beholder. In this way, the article addresses the inconsistency in Fried’s account and contributes to current debates on antitheatricality in eighteenth-century French landscape art.