外文翻譯--政府政策與動(dòng)畫(huà)

1、<p><b>　　中文3400字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Government policy and comics</p><p>

2、　　The article discusses the role of government policy in the societal process of producing definitions for ‘a(chǎn)rt’ and in becoming established as an artistic field. The discussion is based on an empirical case which demons

3、trates the complex role of public policy in defining a certain area as one of the arts and as eligible for government support for the arts. The analysis makes use of the concepts of artistic classification systems introd

4、uced by Paul DiMaggio and artistic fields by Pierre Bourdieu. </p><p>　　Under suspicion</p><p>　　When comics first appeared within the realm of government policy, it was not in connection with c

5、ultural policy but with legal policy. The issue was not whether comics could be defined as a form of art, but whether the production and distribution of comics should be defined as a crime. In the background of the issue

6、 was a campaign against comics launched in the USA.</p><p>　　Fredrick Wertham’s book Seduction of the Innocent (1954) became a handbook for the campaign against comics, which expanded to Europe as well. Acco

7、rding to Wertham, comics were harmful to children and increased, among other things, juvenile delinquency. In the USA,the campaign resulted in an agreement to voluntary self-censorship by the publishers. The principles o

8、f this censorship were documented under the name Comics Code.4 The cause of events can be characterized as a moral panic, in the sense</p><p>　　time, especially in these two countries. However, also in sever

9、al European countries on the Continent,the contents of comics were at the time circumscribed either by voluntary agreements of publishers or by legal action.6The campaign against comics was also felt in Finland, where an

10、 abbreviated version ofWertham’s book was published in the Finnish version of Readers’ Digest (Valitut Palat). In 1956, when the Finnish Parliament passed alterations to the law against the distribution of obscene pub<

11、;/p><p>　　The case demonstrates well the specific authority of the state in the field of cultural production, and its power to bestow – and also to deny – the right of the actors to their positions and actions.

12、</p><p>　　In its report, the comics committee nominated by the Ministry of Justice stated that even the subject matter of comics was often morally harmful and inclined to lead the readers in the direction of

13、 ‘wrong attitudes towards the society’. It also feared that comics could supersede ‘real literature’. However, the committee came to the conclusion that, according to the prevailing legislation, the production and distri

14、bution of comics could not be considered criminal. Nor did the committee recommend </p><p>　　In the realm of cultural policy, the 1960s witnessed the formulation of a state arts policy in its present sense.

15、The objectives of this new systematic policy for promoting the arts were defined according to the principle of excellence and in terms of traditionally defined high culture.9 It was quite clear that comics did not belong

16、 to the realm of the arts policy. The report of the committee formulating the principles of the new arts policy particularly emphasized the importance of making a dis</p><p>　　At this stage, the policy defin

17、itions of art clearly excluded comics. The position of comics outside the realm of arts policy was so self-evident that there was no need to make it explicit. For government authorities, comics belonged to the jurisdicti

18、on of legal policy, not cultural policy. In the realm of the (legal) policy definition concerning comics, the issue was whether comics could be defined as a criminal offence. This can be considered a case of regulative c

19、lassification, in which regul</p><p>　　Qualified acceptance</p><p>　　Meanwhile, during the 1970s, the field of comics had experienced several changes that were inclined to make the field more ac

20、ceptable in the eyes of cultural policy makers and the art world.One of these was the emergence of markets for comic albums, sold at bookstores. This change brought with it comics made for adults and also raised the stat

21、us of the authors. It was easier to accept comics of the new type than the traditional magazines and comic books at news stands or strips in the newspapers</p><p>　　1991, pp. 30–32.) The transformation was t

22、o a large extent based on the advent of translations into Finnish of new types of comics albums, especially of French origin. It resulted in widening the prevailing concept of comics from the traditional Anglo-American i

23、magery towards more artoriented and varied continental ideas of the time.</p><p>　　A Finnish field of comics was also emerging. A new magazine Sarjis (1972–74) published Finnish comics, the Finnish Society o

24、f Comics was established in 1971, and several local comics societies were founded at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. The development created an organizational foundation for those actors and interest

25、s in the field which were separated from the commercial market, and initiated the development of a new professional subfield of comics.</p><p>　　National comics production extended its share of the comics ma

26、rket during the 1980s. In this decade, the bookstore circulation of comics albums and the market for albums meant for adults established themselves in Finland, and these markets had a growing supply of Finnish comics.The

27、 main factor in this development was the rise of small publishers specializing in comics. The number of Finnish comics in the newspapers also grew, partly due to the setting up of a Finnish comics syndicate at the begi&l

28、t;/p><p>　　Within the realm of cultural policy, the traditional divisions and borderlines changed during the 1980s in many respects. Comics were one of the reevaluated areas. After the early years of the decade

29、, restrictive measures against producing and distributing comics were no longer proposed by the makers of cultural policy. Demands for censorship and restrictions focused on videos instead of comics (see, e.g., Samola 19

30、89). Concerning comics, cultural policy adopted a double orientation.</p><p>　　The first signs of this double orientation were already expressed in the Government’s report to Parliament on the arts policy in

31、 1978. Besides restrictions for importing and distributing ‘material that seriously endangers the development of children and young people’, the report also proposed measures to ‘increase the supply of alternative materi

32、al of high quality’ (Hallituksen taidepoliittinen selonteko 1979, pp. 27–31). The 1979 ad hoc committee on children’s culture also exemplifies this doub</p><p>　　acceptance. Although the committee suggested

33、that the proposed comics tax should cover all material classified as comics, comics which were ‘suitable for children and of high quality’ could be exempted from the tax. In addition, the committee proposed discretionary

34、 support for the national production of children’s culture, which, in principle, could be granted to comics, too (Kom.miet. 1979, pp. 109–110, 118–125).</p><p>　　The explicit cultural policy definitions prod

35、uced by this double orientation were twofold. On the one hand, comics were still excluded from the arts and deemed as harmful, especially for children and young people. On the other hand, the field of comics was defined

36、as a potential target area for government support aimed at promoting children’s culture. The key words qualifying this partial acceptance were ‘national’, ‘quality’ and ‘suitable for children’. As a potential area for st

37、ate support for</p><p>　　Gradual inclusion</p><p>　　In the late 1980s, several of the areas defined as outsiders regarding state support for the arts began to organize themselves as active inter

38、est groups. Among the areas seeking inclusion were circus, comics and a group of artists calling themselves ‘others’.14 The official response from arts policy makers – administration, politicians, and the expert organiza

39、tions representing artistic fields in the decision-making – was positive in principle. However, it was also made clear that full inclusion</p><p>　　Towards an established field of art</p><p>　　B

40、y the beginning of the 2000s, the Finnish field of comics had experienced several changes. The field’s professional interests were organized in 1995, when the association of professional comics artists (Sarjakuvantekij&#

41、228;t) was established. The association began receiving state support in 1998.</p><p>　　Judging from its membership, the number of persons who consider themselves professionals in the field, and fulfill the

42、membership criteria of the association, increased in ten years from about twenty to approximately one hundred.21 The development illustrates well the constant interaction of artistic fields and arts policy in the Nordic

43、model of artists’ support, where decision-making is based on the representation and expertise of artistic fields. Organization of professional interests in a fie</p><p>　　conclusion</p><p>　　The

44、 case of comics has offered an example of the various roles government policy can have in the societal process of producing definitions for art. In this case, other policy sectors besides cultural policy have played majo

45、r roles as well, and the effects have been both intentional and unintentional, sometimes even unrecognized. The emerging definitions have long excluded comics from the arts. There is also reason to consider how much the

46、specific nature of the field has contributed to the story</p><p>　　Source：Merja Heikkinen，2008， “Government policy and definitions of art – Thecaseofcomics”,InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy,vol.14,no.1,F

47、ebruary,pp.79-93</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p><b>　　政府政策與動(dòng)畫(huà)</b></p><p>　　這篇文章討論政府政策角色在社會(huì)對(duì)文化進(jìn)行定義和形成藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的過(guò)程中發(fā)揮的作用。這一討論是以一個(gè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)性的事例為依據(jù)的，這一事例表明公共政策在定義某一特定領(lǐng)域?yàn)樗囆g(shù)和該領(lǐng)域是否夠

48、資格獲得政府的支持方面所扮演的復(fù)雜角色。本文的分析將應(yīng)用保羅的藝術(shù)分類系統(tǒng)的概念和皮埃爾的藝術(shù)專業(yè)知識(shí)。文章將追溯芬蘭領(lǐng)域動(dòng)畫(huà)和政府從二十世紀(jì)五十年代至今的漫畫(huà)政策。動(dòng)畫(huà)的例子顯示了文化產(chǎn)品的某一領(lǐng)域從備受懷疑發(fā)展到一個(gè)國(guó)家支持的行業(yè)，同時(shí)也表明在一個(gè)新興的藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展中，政府政策所能扮演的多重角色，所能涉及的不同領(lǐng)域和所能采取的不同措施。</p><p><b>　　受到質(zhì)疑</b>&l

49、t;/p><p>　　當(dāng)漫畫(huà)剛出現(xiàn)在政府政策所能涉及的領(lǐng)域里的時(shí)候，它還和文化政策沒(méi)有聯(lián)系，而僅僅規(guī)定了其法律政策。當(dāng)時(shí)，漫畫(huà)不被定義為藝術(shù)的一種形式，反而動(dòng)畫(huà)的生產(chǎn)和銷售被定義為一種犯罪。在這一事件的背后是在美國(guó)發(fā)起了反抗動(dòng)畫(huà)的活動(dòng)。</p><p>　　弗里德克的《對(duì)天真的誘惑》一書(shū)成為反對(duì)動(dòng)畫(huà)運(yùn)動(dòng)的指南。該書(shū)還傳播到歐洲。弗里德克指出漫畫(huà)對(duì)兒童是有害的，它使美國(guó)青少年的犯罪率有所上升。這

50、場(chǎng)反抗運(yùn)動(dòng)最終導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果是同意出版社對(duì)漫畫(huà)的出版，但是要經(jīng)過(guò)無(wú)償?shù)淖孕袑彶?。審查的原則在《漫畫(huà)法規(guī)》中有所表述。上述事件的起因被定義為“道德恐慌”，這一概念在真正意義上是由大不列顛的科恩提出來(lái)的。另一個(gè)形似的反抗運(yùn)動(dòng)是由議會(huì)帶動(dòng)的，該運(yùn)動(dòng)導(dǎo)致“可怕的漫畫(huà)”的出版和銷售變成不合法行為。這些事件可能在很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間內(nèi)影響了公眾對(duì)于漫畫(huà)的態(tài)度，特別是在美國(guó)和英國(guó)這兩個(gè)國(guó)家。然而，也就是在這些歐洲大陸的幾個(gè)國(guó)家，漫畫(huà)的內(nèi)容被自愿的出版商的協(xié)議或者

51、是法律所界定。反抗漫畫(huà)的運(yùn)動(dòng)也在芬蘭發(fā)起了，在芬蘭，弗里德克《對(duì)天真的誘惑》的縮寫(xiě)版也在芬蘭版的《讀者文摘》雜志上發(fā)表。1956年，芬蘭議會(huì)改動(dòng)法律條款，是為了針對(duì)低級(jí)出版物的銷售，法律要求政府做出行動(dòng)來(lái)限制“所謂的質(zhì)量低劣的漫畫(huà)”的銷售，因?yàn)槁?huà)可以被分類為道德上有害的事物。結(jié)果，正義的部長(zhǎng)開(kāi)始和出版商協(xié)商，目標(biāo)是使漫畫(huà)受到無(wú)償審查。協(xié)商并沒(méi)有達(dá)到預(yù)期的目的，部長(zhǎng)任命了一個(gè)委員會(huì)來(lái)管理。事件很好地表明了政府在文化生產(chǎn)</p>

52、;<p>　　在正義部長(zhǎng)任命的漫畫(huà)委員會(huì)發(fā)表的報(bào)告中稱，即使是漫畫(huà)的從屬部分，通常也是不道德的，并傾向于將讀者引向“對(duì)社會(huì)的錯(cuò)誤態(tài)度”。報(bào)告中也表示害怕漫畫(huà)取代“真正的藝術(shù)”。但是，委員會(huì)的結(jié)論是，根據(jù)現(xiàn)行的立法，漫畫(huà)的生產(chǎn)和銷售并不是犯罪行為。然而委員會(huì)也沒(méi)有建議制定相關(guān)法律，因?yàn)椤霸诙x犯罪的特點(diǎn)時(shí)，不可能避免一定程度的不準(zhǔn)確”，最終，沒(méi)有相關(guān)法律規(guī)定要阻止漫畫(huà)的生產(chǎn)和銷售。 </p><p>

53、　　在文化政策這一領(lǐng)域里，二十世紀(jì)六十年代見(jiàn)證了政府關(guān)于藝術(shù)政策的形成過(guò)程。為促進(jìn)藝術(shù)發(fā)展的新的政策系統(tǒng)的目標(biāo)是根據(jù)優(yōu)點(diǎn)的原則定義文化。很明顯的一點(diǎn)是漫畫(huà)并不屬于藝術(shù)政策所管轄的范圍。委員會(huì)的報(bào)告形成了一些關(guān)于新的藝術(shù)政策的規(guī)則，其中尤其強(qiáng)調(diào)區(qū)分“真正的藝術(shù)”和“低級(jí)的、膚淺的、廉價(jià)的”的“取代物”的區(qū)別。在由藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的代表和政府官員代表所組成的委員會(huì)里，哪些應(yīng)該被定義為藝術(shù)并被包括到藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域中，哪些將被排除在藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域，這一切都是不言自

54、明的。在這種政策背景下，漫畫(huà)顯然不被定義為藝術(shù)。漫畫(huà)被排除在藝術(shù)政策管轄的領(lǐng)域之外，這是一個(gè)不言自明的事實(shí)，以至于不需要什么明確的理由。對(duì)于政府權(quán)力而言，漫畫(huà)屬于法律政策而不是文化政策的管轄范圍。法律政策關(guān)于漫畫(huà)的定義存在著是否將漫畫(huà)定義為刑事犯罪的爭(zhēng)議。定義漫畫(huà)被認(rèn)為是規(guī)范分類的內(nèi)容，規(guī)范的政府政策將間接影響ACS。雖然最后的判決是漫畫(huà)“不是犯罪”，但是很明顯的是漫畫(huà)也不會(huì)受到藝術(shù)政策的保護(hù)。</p><p>

55、<b>　　資格認(rèn)定</b></p><p>　　同時(shí)，在二十世紀(jì)七十年代，漫畫(huà)領(lǐng)域也發(fā)生了很大的變化，這讓文化政策的制定者和藝術(shù)界人士開(kāi)始慢慢接受漫畫(huà)。其中的一個(gè)變化是市場(chǎng)上出現(xiàn)了在書(shū)店銷售的漫畫(huà)集。這一改變使漫畫(huà)成為成人的消費(fèi)品，并提高了漫畫(huà)作者的地位。漫畫(huà)以這種新的形式出現(xiàn)，比起曾經(jīng)登載在雜志上或在報(bào)刊亭銷售的漫畫(huà)書(shū)或刊載在報(bào)紙上來(lái)說(shuō)，變得更易于為大眾所接受。這個(gè)發(fā)展過(guò)程中逐漸形成了“

56、高級(jí)漫畫(huà)”這一概念。將漫畫(huà)集，尤其是法國(guó)的漫畫(huà)集翻譯成芬蘭版的，更加促進(jìn)了這一改變的擴(kuò)大化。這導(dǎo)致了漫畫(huà)的新概念使傳統(tǒng)的英美肖像畫(huà)得到了發(fā)展，擴(kuò)展了藝術(shù)導(dǎo)向型內(nèi)容和想法的多樣化。芬蘭的漫畫(huà)領(lǐng)域也逐漸興起，一份新的芬蘭漫畫(huà)雜志開(kāi)始發(fā)售，1971年成立了芬蘭漫畫(huà)協(xié)會(huì)，隨后又在二十世紀(jì)七十年代末到二十世紀(jì)80年代初成立了若干漫畫(huà)協(xié)會(huì)。這些發(fā)展為該領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的參與者和利益集團(tuán)創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)有組織的基金，使其從商業(yè)市場(chǎng)中劃分出了一個(gè)細(xì)分市場(chǎng)，開(kāi)始發(fā)展漫畫(huà)

57、的這個(gè)子領(lǐng)域。國(guó)家漫畫(huà)生產(chǎn)在二十世紀(jì)八十年代擴(kuò)大它的市場(chǎng)占有率。八十年代，書(shū)店的漫畫(huà)集發(fā)行量和市場(chǎng)的針對(duì)成年人的漫畫(huà)集在芬蘭鞏固了自己的地位，而且這些市場(chǎng)的芬蘭漫畫(huà)供應(yīng)量在不斷上升。漫畫(huà)發(fā)展的最主要因素是專門(mén)從事漫畫(huà)</p><p><b>　　逐漸包括</b></p><p>　　二十世紀(jì)八十年代末，數(shù)個(gè)不被政府包含在文化政策支持范圍內(nèi)的領(lǐng)域組織成活躍的利益集團(tuán)。這

58、些希望被包括在國(guó)家支持的領(lǐng)域包括馬戲表演、漫畫(huà)和稱自己為“其他人”的藝術(shù)家。藝術(shù)政策制定者、政治家、專業(yè)組織的藝術(shù)家代表的官方回憶在原則上是積極的。然而，明顯的是，完全地被包括其中還需要更多的支持者。從這方面來(lái)說(shuō)，二十世紀(jì)九十年代并不是一個(gè)尋求新領(lǐng)域被包括進(jìn)政府支持領(lǐng)域的好時(shí)機(jī)。因?yàn)楫?dāng)時(shí)的經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條使政府的開(kāi)支縮減。雖然政府對(duì)藝術(shù)的支持并沒(méi)有遭受這一縮減的很大影響，但是政府也沒(méi)有心情去考慮增加政策保護(hù)的新領(lǐng)域。成立一個(gè)新決策群以代表新興國(guó)

59、家系統(tǒng)文化專業(yè)理事會(huì)的建議也被當(dāng)時(shí)的文化理事會(huì)否決了。</p><p><b>　　成為一個(gè)藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域</b></p><p>　　二十一世紀(jì)初，芬蘭的漫畫(huà)領(lǐng)域經(jīng)歷了很多的變化。領(lǐng)域的專業(yè)利益集團(tuán)在1995年被組織起來(lái)，專業(yè)漫畫(huà)家協(xié)會(huì)也在當(dāng)年成立。這個(gè)協(xié)會(huì)在1998年開(kāi)始接受政府的支持。協(xié)會(huì)的會(huì)員，那些認(rèn)為自己是該領(lǐng)域的專家，并滿足會(huì)員標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的人數(shù)由十年前的20人上升到現(xiàn)

60、在的將近100人。這些發(fā)展很好的表明北歐模式的藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域和藝術(shù)政策的持續(xù)互動(dòng)是有效的，北歐的政策制定是以藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的專家為代表的。某一領(lǐng)域的專業(yè)利益集團(tuán)和該領(lǐng)域被包括在藝術(shù)政策保護(hù)之下，這兩者是相互包含的，并時(shí)常同步發(fā)展。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　漫畫(huà)的事件給了我們一個(gè)政府政策在定義藝術(shù)的社會(huì)發(fā)展過(guò)程中所發(fā)揮的多重角色功能的例子。在這

61、個(gè)事例中，除了文化政策，其他政策部門(mén)也發(fā)揮了重要角色，所得到的效果或是有意的，或是無(wú)意的，或是未被組織的。新興的文化定義曾經(jīng)一度將漫畫(huà)排除在外。我們也有理由考慮漫畫(huà)的哪些具體特點(diǎn)使他逐漸被社會(huì)接納，被最終被政府納入藝術(shù)定義。漫畫(huà)的根源是大眾文化，也許這使得漫畫(huà)成為藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域之一的道路顯得更加漫長(zhǎng)而困難重重。漫畫(huà)最初被理解為以兒童為受眾，可能因此增加了對(duì)該領(lǐng)域的限制和審查。</p><p>　　上個(gè)時(shí)代，政策定義似乎