This question was closed without grading. Reason: Other
May 15, 2016 09:30
7 yrs ago
Chinese term
其間姚最以前，間有採及日人金原省吾之著述，然見解不能苟同處，亦復不少。
Chinese to English
Art/Literary
Art, Arts & Crafts, Painting
As above. This was written by the artist Liu Haisu in 1931.
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 | Among/for those works |
Frank Zou
|
| 4 | prior to Yao Zui, some peple had quoted the Japanese... |
jarv95888
|
| 3 | 见下 |
Intotheworld
|
| 3 | 见下 |
tanglsus
|
References
| cited source text |
tanglsus
|
Proposed translations
2 hrs
Intotheworld
United States
United States
Native in Chinese
United States
Accuracy and Completeness
Native in: Chinese (Variant: Mandarin) 
Works in: English to Chinese, Chinese to English
见下
During that period of the time before 姚最（？），from time to time (I) would take a quote from the works/writings of a Japanese writer(artist) named 金原省吾, however, there were indeed many topics that I actually didn't agree with.
找不到原文，只能根据字义理解。
找不到原文，只能根据字义理解。
4 hrs
Among/for those works
”其间“ should be "for those works before Yao Zui"
17 hrs
见下
This publication (中国绘画中的六法论) traces/outlines ( 中国绘画/六法论) its theory/history to pre Yao Zui eras, and cited the publications of Seigo Kimbara; however, there is no lack of areas where our view/theory differs (I have different views in many areas /I couldn't agree with them in quite a few areas).
供参考
供参考
20 hrs
prior to Yao Zui, some peple had quoted the Japanese...
(Meanwhile/During that period,) prior to Yao Zui, there had already some people quoting the Japanese scholar, Seigo Kimbara; however, quite a few of them held different opinions in disagreement from him.
Reference comments
16 hrs
Reference:
cited source text
1931年初，刘海粟受德国法兰克福中国学院之聘，讲授中国艺术，在其所撰写的《中国绘画中的六法论》讲稿的“序言”中，他这样写道：“其间姚最以前，间有采及日人金原省吾之著述，然见解不能苟同之处，亦复不少。” 1933年3月，傅抱石进入东京帝国美术学院学习，并拜金原省吾为师。后来，又将其部分论述变成了所著<中国绘画理论》中的按语，“吾师金原省吾先生，于我国画论研究垂数十年，今就先生著述中，凡有关者，皆译入之，虽间及别家之说，要以先生为主。至平生得之于先生，及个人拙见，则不标名，仍分列之，共约三百则。”1935年4月，上海良友图书印刷公司出版了丰子恺的<艺林丛话》，其中收录的两篇译文，都出自《支那上代画论研究》。《中国的绘画思想》是对书中第二章“顾恺之”和第四章“谢赫”的译允《东洋画六法的论理的研究》则是对书下编部分，即第七章“东洋画基础的概念即六法的意义´’的译允这两篇译文原均载于<东方杂志》1930年27卷l期。
Discussion
However, the quoted text is still equivocal about the subject of "然見解不能苟同處." It is unclear whether it is the speaker or those citing the Japanese scholars that hold different opinions.
Since Tanglsus seems to have the source of the quoted line, his may be a correct interpretation to the sentence.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/姚最