外文翻譯--政府政策與動畫

1、<p><b>　　中文3400字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計）</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>　　政府政策與動畫</b></p><p>　　這篇文章討論政府政策角色在社會對文化進行定義和形成藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的過程中發(fā)揮的作用。這一討論是以一個經(jīng)驗性的事例為依據(jù)的，這一事例表明公共政策在定義某一特定領(lǐng)域為藝術(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。文章將追溯芬蘭領(lǐng)域動畫和政府從二十世紀(jì)五十年代至今的漫畫政策。動畫的例子顯示了文化產(chǎn)品的某一領(lǐng)域從備受懷疑發(fā)展到一個國家支持的行業(yè)，同時也表明在一個新興的藝術(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)漫畫剛出現(xiàn)在政府政策所能涉及的領(lǐng)域里的時候，它還和文化政策沒有聯(lián)系，而僅僅規(guī)定了其法律政策。當(dāng)時，漫畫不被定義為藝術(shù)的一種形式，反而動畫的生產(chǎn)和銷售被定義為一種犯罪。在這一事件的背后是在美國發(fā)起了反抗動畫的活動。</p><p>　　弗里德克的《對天真的誘惑》一書成為反對動畫運動的指南。該書還傳播到歐洲。弗里德克指出漫畫對兒童是有害的，它使美國青少年的犯罪率有所上升。這

50、場反抗運動最終導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果是同意出版社對漫畫的出版，但是要經(jīng)過無償?shù)淖孕袑彶?。審查的原則在《漫畫法規(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的。另一個形似的反抗運動是由議會帶動的，該運動導(dǎo)致“可怕的漫畫”的出版和銷售變成不合法行為。這些事件可能在很長一段時間內(nèi)影響了公眾對于漫畫的態(tài)度，特別是在美國和英國這兩個國家。然而，也就是在這些歐洲大陸的幾個國家，漫畫的內(nèi)容被自愿的出版商的協(xié)議或者

51、是法律所界定。反抗漫畫的運動也在芬蘭發(fā)起了，在芬蘭，弗里德克《對天真的誘惑》的縮寫版也在芬蘭版的《讀者文摘》雜志上發(fā)表。1956年，芬蘭議會改動法律條款，是為了針對低級出版物的銷售，法律要求政府做出行動來限制“所謂的質(zhì)量低劣的漫畫”的銷售，因為漫畫可以被分類為道德上有害的事物。結(jié)果，正義的部長開始和出版商協(xié)商，目標(biāo)是使漫畫受到無償審查。協(xié)商并沒有達到預(yù)期的目的，部長任命了一個委員會來管理。事件很好地表明了政府在文化生產(chǎn)</p>

52、;<p>　　在正義部長任命的漫畫委員會發(fā)表的報告中稱，即使是漫畫的從屬部分，通常也是不道德的，并傾向于將讀者引向“對社會的錯誤態(tài)度”。報告中也表示害怕漫畫取代“真正的藝術(shù)”。但是，委員會的結(jié)論是，根據(jù)現(xiàn)行的立法，漫畫的生產(chǎn)和銷售并不是犯罪行為。然而委員會也沒有建議制定相關(guān)法律，因為“在定義犯罪的特點時，不可能避免一定程度的不準(zhǔn)確”，最終，沒有相關(guān)法律規(guī)定要阻止漫畫的生產(chǎn)和銷售。 </p><p>

53、　　在文化政策這一領(lǐng)域里，二十世紀(jì)六十年代見證了政府關(guān)于藝術(shù)政策的形成過程。為促進藝術(shù)發(fā)展的新的政策系統(tǒng)的目標(biāo)是根據(jù)優(yōu)點的原則定義文化。很明顯的一點是漫畫并不屬于藝術(shù)政策所管轄的范圍。委員會的報告形成了一些關(guān)于新的藝術(shù)政策的規(guī)則，其中尤其強調(diào)區(qū)分“真正的藝術(shù)”和“低級的、膚淺的、廉價的”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，漫畫顯然不被定義為藝術(shù)。漫畫被排除在藝術(shù)政策管轄的領(lǐng)域之外，這是一個不言自明的事實，以至于不需要什么明確的理由。對于政府權(quán)力而言，漫畫屬于法律政策而不是文化政策的管轄范圍。法律政策關(guān)于漫畫的定義存在著是否將漫畫定義為刑事犯罪的爭議。定義漫畫被認(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“不是犯罪”，但是很明顯的是漫畫也不會受到藝術(shù)政策的保護。</p><p>

55、<b>　　資格認(rèn)定</b></p><p>　　同時，在二十世紀(jì)七十年代，漫畫領(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)界人士開始慢慢接受漫畫。其中的一個變化是市場上出現(xiàn)了在書店銷售的漫畫集。這一改變使漫畫成為成人的消費品，并提高了漫畫作者的地位。漫畫以這種新的形式出現(xiàn)，比起曾經(jīng)登載在雜志上或在報刊亭銷售的漫畫書或刊載在報紙上來說，變得更易于為大眾所接受。這個發(fā)展過程中逐漸形成了“

56、高級漫畫”這一概念。將漫畫集，尤其是法國的漫畫集翻譯成芬蘭版的，更加促進了這一改變的擴大化。這導(dǎo)致了漫畫的新概念使傳統(tǒng)的英美肖像畫得到了發(fā)展，擴展了藝術(shù)導(dǎo)向型內(nèi)容和想法的多樣化。芬蘭的漫畫領(lǐng)域也逐漸興起，一份新的芬蘭漫畫雜志開始發(fā)售，1971年成立了芬蘭漫畫協(xié)會，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協(xié)會。這些發(fā)展為該領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的參與者和利益集團創(chuàng)造了一個有組織的基金，使其從商業(yè)市場中劃分出了一個細(xì)分市場，開始發(fā)展漫畫

57、的這個子領(lǐng)域。國家漫畫生產(chǎn)在二十世紀(jì)八十年代擴大它的市場占有率。八十年代，書店的漫畫集發(fā)行量和市場的針對成年人的漫畫集在芬蘭鞏固了自己的地位，而且這些市場的芬蘭漫畫供應(yīng)量在不斷上升。漫畫發(fā)展的最主要因素是專門從事漫畫</p><p><b>　　逐漸包括</b></p><p>　　二十世紀(jì)八十年代末，數(shù)個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。這

58、些希望被包括在國家支持的領(lǐng)域包括馬戲表演、漫畫和稱自己為“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。從這方面來說，二十世紀(jì)九十年代并不是一個尋求新領(lǐng)域被包括進政府支持領(lǐng)域的好時機。因為當(dāng)時的經(jīng)濟蕭條使政府的開支縮減。雖然政府對藝術(shù)的支持并沒有遭受這一縮減的很大影響，但是政府也沒有心情去考慮增加政策保護的新領(lǐng)域。成立一個新決策群以代表新興國

59、家系統(tǒng)文化專業(yè)理事會的建議也被當(dāng)時的文化理事會否決了。</p><p><b>　　成為一個藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域</b></p><p>　　二十一世紀(jì)初，芬蘭的漫畫領(lǐng)域經(jīng)歷了很多的變化。領(lǐng)域的專業(yè)利益集團在1995年被組織起來，專業(yè)漫畫家協(xié)會也在當(dāng)年成立。這個協(xié)會在1998年開始接受政府的支持。協(xié)會的會員，那些認(rèn)為自己是該領(lǐng)域的專家，并滿足會員標(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)利益集團和該領(lǐng)域被包括在藝術(shù)政策保護之下，這兩者是相互包含的，并時常同步發(fā)展。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　漫畫的事件給了我們一個政府政策在定義藝術(shù)的社會發(fā)展過程中所發(fā)揮的多重角色功能的例子。在這

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