• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    The Legacy and Future of Saussurean Semiology in the Study of Art and Visual Communication

    2022-11-26 02:51:46MajaRudloffRasmusKjrboe
    Language and Semiotic Studies 2022年1期

    Maja Rudloff & Rasmus Kj?rboe

    Roskilde University, Denmark

    The Hirschsprung Collection, Denmark

    Abstract

    Keywords: visual communication, semiology, images, art, art history

    If we are to discover the true nature of language we must learn what it has in common with all other semiological systems; linguistic forces that seem very important at first glance (e.g., the role of the vocal apparatus) will receive only secondary consideration if they serve only to set language apart from the other systems. This procedure will do more than to clarify the linguistic problem. By studying rites, customs, etc. as signs, I believe that we shall throw new light on the facts and point up the need for including them in a science of semiology and explaining them by its laws.” (Course, 1966, p. 17)

    Although Ferdinand de Saussure, the founding father of semiology, based and developed his seminal work on linguistic theory, he also introduced the idea that human communication in a much wider sense functions as a “system of signs.” In his most famous and cited work,Cours de linguistique générale(1916)1, Saussure was, as Christensen (2016, p. 489) has recently argued, not explicit about the relation between word and image. However, in the quote chosen to begin our essay, he suggests that linguistics should one day be part of a more comprehensive study of signs, which would study the production of meaning in culture and society. Throughout his work,we find indications and suggestions that Saussure himself considered “semiology”,defined as a “…science that studies the life of signs within society” (Course, 1966,p. 16), to be universal in understanding human culture and communication. By emphasizing that language is not the only set of symbols to carry meaning, Saussure laid the groundwork for analyzing any given form of human communication as a structure once one understands how the general structure of language works.Consequently, his work has had tremendous impact not only on studies of language and literature but also on other fields such as visual studies, albeit through its theoretical application and development by others.

    While Saussure’s influence on linguistic and literary studies has been widely discussed and well-documented, studies about his effect on theoretical approaches to visual culture, images and art have been scarcer. Saussure expert Jonathan Culler has argued that the articulation and establishment of a new academic discipline, like semiology, is not just a rare event: it will also almost certainly affect other disciplines,opening up the possibility for the founding of new disciplines and causing selfreflection and scrutiny within the ranks of those already established (1981, pp. 22-23).Culler specifically states that “[t]he emergence of a new discipline […] creates a past,articulates a present, and projects a future…” (1981, p. 24). Following Culler’s line of thought, it seems pertinent to ask how the emergence of semiology has outlined a new trajectory for visual and pictorial studies, and how it has affected art history, an already established discipline devoted to the study of visuality as communication at the time of Saussure’s lectures and the later publication ofCours. In this essay, we interrogate precisely these questions: First, we outline how Saussure’s thoughts on the sign and its relation to visual communication, and “still” images in particular,has developed. Second, we look at its impact on art history, an already established science of visuality, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Third, we briefly discuss whether art history’s answer to reading Saussure is a denial or a positive affirmation of political responsibility shared by visual studies in general. This is by no means an exhaustive analysis; rather, we want to highlight what, to us, seem a few of the most pertinent parts of the Saussurean legacy for the study of visual communicationas a system, and some of the challenges and opportunities this legacy has created.

    1. Developing a Theory of Pictorial Language

    Saussure’sCoursdid not just turn into a foundation for the advancement of present-day linguistics and semiotics; it laid the preparation for the achievement of structuralism in the late 1950s and mid-1960s and inspired later poststructuralist thinking (Christensen, 2016, p. 489; Culler, 1976, p. 93). It was the French structuralists in particular who followed Saussure’s request to study “rites, customs,etc. as signs” (Course, 1966, p. 17), that is, to study human communication in broader terms, thereby exploring the structural systematics of human communication as a set of relations in which meaning is created by differences between signifying elements.One main strand of exploration concerning visual sign language and its relationship to written and verbal language. Discussions on iconic versus linguistic language have always centered on the question of articulation, i.e., whether iconic language possesses an equivalent to letters and phonemes or not, and what constitutes the pictorial signs’ relation to reality. The French scholar Roland Barthes was a pioneer in exploring the language of images and other “imitative arts”, which he insisted had a different, discontinuous structure than that of written text and, consequently, must be studied as such (Barthes, 1977, p. 16). InMythologies(1957), Barthes rooted visual semiology in his interrogation of cultural objects in everyday life, but it was in a number of essays written between 1963 and 1971 (collected and translated by Stephen Heath in the still widely readImage, Music, Text) that he explored and developed his thoughts on a language of images and thus tried to translate the meaning-making processes of pictorial signs into structural terms.

    Building on Saussurean structuralism Barthes explored images as “paroles”that must be understood in relation to “l(fā)angue” and to “l(fā)anguage” (the underlying signifying system). One of his main arguments was that the pictorial sign system differs from that of the language system in that it is not, to the same extent and in the same manner at least, characterized by a double articulation (1957). In the language system, there is significant difference between the signifier and the signified.Consequently, Saussure was adamant that the code between signifier and signified was arbitrary, or unmotivated, though he admitted there are some cases of “relative arbitrariness” exclusively, however, in a sign’s relationship to other existing signs in the system and not to reality (Course, 1966, pp. 131-132). In opposition, the analogue,or motivated, relationship between the signifier and signified of pictorial signs is exactly what distinguishes the iconographic system, like other visual reproductions of reality, from its written counterpart according to Barthes (1977). This does not indicate that pictorial language in all its variety functions by identical codes or rules of transformation. Rather, Barthes distinguished between the varying analogical natures of different types of images, such as photography, drawing and painting, by arguing that their respective signifiers provide different treatments of reality. Barthes gave special status to the photograph due to its “copy”-like quality and described it as a “perfect analogon” (1977, p. 17) to reality. Importantly though, he clearly distinguished it from reality itself, insisting that there is a qualitative difference between objects and their photographic renditions. Thus, while Barthes considered the denoted message of a photograph to be codeless, and thus different than other pictorial and iconographic messages such as drawings and paintings, which even in their denoted state are coded, motivated by cultural and historical factors such as aesthetics, style and ideology, he did not consider the photograph to be without invested meaning. The link between signifier and signified (the code of connotation)remains entirely historical and cultural, and thus conventional, even in photography(Barthes, 1977, pp. 27-28). Despite the immediate similarity, then, between a visual signifier and its signified (between concept and image acoustique) their relationship is not as straightforward as one would initially assume.

    The analytical insight that it is exactly the analogue, or imitative, quality of an image, and photography in particular, which blurs its representational character and makes it appear purely denotative was a highly important contribution to subsequent structural inquiries of pictorial language; not least to the development of poststructuralism. The discovery of the image’s lack of inherent truth, or its “antirealism”, was one, which also severely challenged existing aesthetic and philosophical thinking about visual art and art history, as we shall later discuss.

    2. Towards a Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Semiology

    Barthes’ development of the Saussurean idea of the unmotivated sign, i.e., that there exists no “natural” meaning, only “historical”, “conventional” or “cultural”, inevitably involved philosophical theorizing on the role of signs and sign systems other than the linguistic in the construction of knowledge about our social life and society, as Saussure had predicted. The revolutionary assertion that language, far from simply naming an objective reality, actually plays an important role in constructing it (ultimately impacting the way we think and feel about it) was what made German philosopher Ernst Cassirer compare the importance of Saussure’s new science of linguistics to that of the seventeenth century science of Galileo (Culler, 1976, p. 114). It provided Barthes(and others) with the tools for critically engaging with whole regimes of signifying systems that are not exclusively verbal. Barthes’ extremely influential work on popular culture and mass-produced images in the texts “The Photographic Image” (1961)and “Rhetoric of the Image” (1964) paved the way for cultural and critical studies to engage structuralism and semiotics in the analysis of other and related areas of visual communication—often in combination with disciplines such as psychoanalysis and theory of the gaze. Art, film and advertising are all examples of forms of primarily visual sign language that benefitted from these insights. It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine Thomas Mitchell’s reflections on images and art (1974), Judith Williamson’s analysis of gender advertisement (1978), Christian Metz’s theory of film (1974) or Stuart Hall’s work on cultural representation (1997) without Saussure’s insights onlangueand Barthes’ later reworking and application of his theories.

    In recent decades, semiological research on visual and other forms of human communication has also inspired and expanded into studies of the convergence and interaction ofdifferentsign systems. From the latter part of the 20th century onwards,Gunther Kress (2001) and Theo van Leeuwen (2010) in particular have been driving forces in developing an independent theory on multimodal semiotics. They attempt to understand and interpret the complex interactions between different types of modes and semiotic resources in various kinds of “texts”. In doing so, they expand Saussure’s mono-modal approach to include an understanding that contemporary communication most often includes several different modes of expression that are all equal in status and importance to written or spoken language.

    3. Structuralist Hierarchy between Words and Images

    Considering Saussure’s influence throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, there is no doubt, as Newton (1988, p. 83) has argued, that the utilization of language as a model for understanding parts of reality that are predominantly non-linguistic in character sets up structuralism as a ground-breaking option compared to other strategies such as positivism or empiricism. While a linguistic model of analysis has provided an important new set of tools to interpret communication and meaning making, the transfer of this model to other areas of human interaction and culture has also had a significant impact on these other research areas and their subjects, including visual and pictorial studies.

    The Saussurean root of semiology in linguistics is mirrored by a terminology and methodology that favors textual analysis and thus treats other semiological systems,including the visual, as systems that can be “read”. Within the field of art and iconography this approach is exposed in a large amount of research occupied with “reading” art and images, such asThe Language of Images(Mitchell, 1974),Reading Images(Kress &van Leeuwen, 1990) andThe Language of Displayed Art(O’Toole, 1994). Throughout his structuralist phase even Barthes, like Saussure before him, considered language to be the superior system of human communication, and so he insisted on a hierarchy between words and images that favored linguistic supremacy (Christensen, 2016, p. 495). From an even more skeptical point of view, the heavy influence of structuralism on the elevation of speech and writing as a prime model of communication has affected academic approaches to visual modes of human communication negatively. According to visual arts scholar Michael Jay (1994, pp. 14-15), the “essentially ocularphobic” and “antivisual” discourse in namely French 20th century thought led to an outright “denigration of vision” and “hostility to visual primacy”.

    Yet, it is hardly an overstatement that the history of modernity is also the history of images and their consumption. By the second half of the 20th century, the immensity of cheap and effective visual production, dissemination and reception certainly necessitated new approaches; thus, new types of cultural and specifically visual studies were created.The increasing ubiquity of images and not least the increasing willingness of scholars in different disciplines to consider pictures and other visual materials as subjects of inquiry on the same level as texts resulted in new research areas such as visual anthropology,visual culture studies and visual methodologies to name but a few. An obvious and important strand of this research, albeit not given any further attention here, comes from the technological development of digital media, the overflow of visual resources, and the new forms of use they have generated. Through a continued process of adaptation and permutation, the fundamental idea of analysing the visual as a language of differences has been an ongoing project. However, when the new visual communication studies were beginning to come into being, the study of visuality had long been the domain of a well-established and specialized university discipline: art history.

    4. Art History and the Challenge from Semiology

    What happens when thisother, much older discipline devoted to the study of visuality—art history—is confronted with a not quite defined discipline, which poses several fundamental challenges to the ideas of what the visual is, and how it signifies? What happens to the privileged discipline of art history in light of the fresh and vital ideas that visuality is now a semiologicalsystem, and that no meaning or value originates outside of that same system? Given the immense prestige of art history for most of the 20th century and its inertness in the post-war period, the Saussurean “challenge” is important. This would become a battle over methods and the justification of what to study … and what not to.

    Art history—which to some degree is based on a range of “common sense”ideas about images ranging far beyond academia—is especially challenged by two consequences of Saussure’s semiology and its later elaboration in visual and cultural studies: anti-realism and relativism. Of these, anti-realism would prove the easiest for art history to overcome or simply bypass, but not without problems. If concepts and their expression are not motivated—i.e., if everything is conventional and a naturalist painting of a tree is not much closer to the actual tree than any other sign, such as the word “tree” or a few superimposed triangles denoting a Christmas fir—then classical art history is in trouble. For much of the existence of art commentary and criticism in the Western tradition, an essential relationship between a picture and its referent has been presupposed. Naturalism and “truth to life” have similarly been held as important standards by which to judge order and understand art production. This was the premise in writings from antiquity in, for example, Pliny’sNatural History,and to those of the “first art historian”, Giorgio Vasari, writing in late Renaissance Florence in the 1560s. It was also the undisputed premise in the writings of J.J.Winckelmann, the idealist founder of modern art history in the late 18th century,and it can be argued that this premise underpinned most of art historical writing as it developed into a university discipline in the latter half of the 19th century (Podro,1984). Very broadly said, to classical art history, as it developed in dialogue with centuries of commentaries and judgements on art, the highest level of civilization and knowledge—and even pleasure—would result from those depictions considered most realistic or rooted in Nature. Judgments on pictorial realism and truthfulness—to whatever prevailing standard—would be an important methodological concern and aim for the discipline of art history as it emerged.

    Saussure’s semiology seemingly throws a wrench into the workings of motivated signs. There is no outside and true standard with which to judge a signifier’s essential relation to a signified, which also means there is no way to judge an artwork’s fidelity to nature; Saussure’s swift and decisive dismissal of onomatopoeia serves as a pertinent example (Course, 1966, p. 176). This critique of representation as “truthful”holds even though Saussure says little about imagesper se, and Barthes at some point argues for a degree of motivation. Pragmatically, most visual representations appeal to some referent through likeness, but likeness seems to be mostly a conventional,and probably a culturally defined, concept, with no way to distinguish quality—i.e.,“more” or “l(fā)ess” likeness. There is no way to conclude that, for example, ancient Greek art with its foreshortenings and attention to anatomy is “truer” and therefore more essential and “advanced” than ancient Egyptian art which had comparatively different means of expression. Brilliant portraitists such as Hans Holbein the Younger could therefore no longer be regarded as representing “the final truth” about the person portrayed or any other truth verifiableoutsideof the semiology of art as a system or the semiology of visuality overall. Brilliant artists go from visionary seers and truthtellers to merely skilled manipulators of a given visuallangue.

    Yet, anti-realism and pragmatism have always been obvious elements in art production, and therefore unsurprisingly also of commentary on the arts. Witness Jacob Cats’ emblem books of the 17th century, which made a sport out of assigning complicated moral lessons to complex and often outlandish pictures (Luijten, 1996).Consider when, in the 20th century, German-American art historian Erwin Panofsky,who was in turn indebted to philosopher Ernst Cassirer’s work on symbolic forms,practically refounded iconography as the encyclopaedic knowledge of pictorial conventions of different ages and environments (Hasenmueller, 1978). Austrian-British art historian Ernst Gombrich published his widely readArt and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representationin 1960 to bring to light a century’s worth of quiet art historical scepsis toward the idea of natural representation, and would almost become an early advocate for visual culture studies by seemingly giving up on art(Wood, 2009). Certainly, in art criticism, and especially in the commentary trying to make sense of artistic modernism and avant-gardism, the move away from naturalism and the exponential increase in experimentation saw various pragmatic, anti-realist defences against the proponents of “truth to Nature”, until eventually elements of semiology, semiotics and structuralism would be directly referenced, albeit sparingly, in art history and commentary from the 1970s onwards (e.g., Krauss, 1977; Bryson, 1981).Finally, in 1991, the by-then substantial Saussurean legacy developed elsewhere would symbolically arrive in an embattled article, “Semiotics and Art History”, by semioticians Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson, beginning with the line: “The basic tenet of semiotics,the theory of sign and sign-use, is antirealist” (1991). But by then, somewhat ironically,the swift entry of Saussure into art history curricula would come wrapped in his poststructuralist interpreters: Jacques Derrida, Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard and the late authorship of Barthes. This meant a considerable disconnect between its critics—who already presupposed a passing knowledge of structuralist thought—and an art history which in many respects had given up on “theory”, and was therefore still mired in a very implicit Hegelian-type idealism (Elkins, 1988; Summers, 1989).Institutionally, this disconnect would lead more than a few art historians to simply dismiss serious concerns over the discipline as indeed mere “theory”, at least in the experience of the authors of the present article.

    5. The Challenge to Art History from Saussurean Relativism

    If art history had less trouble overcoming Saussurean anti-realism as it directly relates to a critique of representation and truth in visual representations, then the other, and very much related, challenge remains unresolved: relativism. How do we justify the intense study of pictorial artworks—mostly produced in the West during the last 500 years—out of so many different “semiological systems”? How do we even separate art from non-art, let alone good art worthy of many hours of study from “bad” or simply unimportant art? Traditional art history was, and is, in thrall to an idea of genius artists rising above the crowd and leading the way to vaguely defined “insights” via their art (Soussloff, 1997). Even art history indebted to critical theory and Marxism could be criticized of carrying around the heavy baggage of a “notion of immanent aesthetic value” (Moxey, 1991). The radical consequence of Saussure’s legacy—that there is no outside to the semiological system—is that there are no permanent,transcendent or immanent values with which to justify the obsessive study of pictorial art in the Western tradition at the expense of other signifying systems. If we want to know about pictures, and if we deem visuality an important semiological system, the elitist, exclusionary history of Western art, which privileges easel painting, seems a very narrow slice of the whole of the field of visual production and consumption of images and pictures in both the past and future. And yet, art history has indeed held a place as the most prestigious discipline directly devoted to visual study: it is the “corpse that cannot be buried” (Soussloff, 2005, p. 204). Consequently, in the wake of poststructuralism, academic art history saw prolonged critiques of its field of study and its delimitation and hierarchies (e.g., Pollock, 1988; Preziosi, 1991), but also of the difficulty art history had with addressing visuality beyond the narrow confines of “high art,” sculpture and easel painting (Walker & Chaplin, 1997, pp. 31-48).

    Art history obviously still exists as a discipline in the second decade of the 21st century, and mainstream art history is still kept separate from other types of visual studies, such as visual culture, even in the face of the challenge from post-structuralist semiotics. In practice—even when the justification for it no longer makes sense—some areas of visual production receive a lot of positive attention, while others do not. The continued status of art history as a distinct approach to visuality skews the whole study of visuality, which is a problem both from the standpoint of politics and of common sense. One might even say that art historians have seized upon Saussure’s insight that semiological systems are self-referential and conventional while ignoring the relativism.With a slight shift in focus, the interpretive power of art history remains unscathed by now becoming a mastery of “codes”. The discipline has done so while paying lipservice to its many feminist and post-colonialist critics that have questioned the biases of art history and the discipline’s complicity in racism, sexism and classism. And it has done so while ignoring other types of radical challenge to its hierarchies of value,immanent aesthetics, and its separation from the study of the larger system of visuality going back to Saussure’s original semiology. The prestige and money invested in art and art history is considerable, and as Western capitalism has been able to contain, embrace and even capitalize on all of its critics, so has art history.

    Some prominent art historians have indeed engaged vividly with the breadth of the Saussurean legacy, as much of the referenced literature shows, but this engagement does not seem to have fundamentally changed the discipline. As argued, the larger institution of art history has been markedly schizophrenic in meeting semiology’s wider consequences by gradually acknowledging the “l(fā)esser evil” of anti-realism,all the while ignoring relativism. This state of affairs leads the authors to two not necessarily mutually exclusive interpretations of the future—one pessimistic, and one optimistic—that concern art history in particular, but also, by implication, a wider field of visual studies.

    6. The Future

    From a pessimistic viewpoint, tradition and the prestige of art history serve as effective brakes on any challenge to the narrowness and exclusivity of the field of study. If the divisions between “art” and “the rest of visuality” stand, the whole field of visual studies is potentially skewed. A case in point is the emergence of “visual culture studies” as an answer to the shortcomings of art history and its subsequent failure of overtaking or reforming the scope of its “parent” or “sibling”. First institutionalised at the University of Rochester in 1989, later emerging in connection to art history departments across the(Western) world (Smith, 2008), for a moment, the discipline of visual culture studies did seem to be a way forward to those disillusioned with the failures of art history to meet the challenges of its relativist critics. As a sub-department or a bachelor’s or graduate degree, visual culture might have been imagined as a kind of Trojan Horse by those who hoped to radically reorient art history from within.

    But as it stands today, visual culture seems to stand at a remove while the priorities and topic of study of institutionalised art history have not fundamentally changed. In some instances, visual culture rather seems to have become a kind of supplementary art history (without history) dedicated to examining contemporary fine art. In this pessimistic version of events, the Saussurean legacy has contributed tremendously to the emergence of new ways of studying visual communication, but the legacy’s various interpreters have only had an impact where there was not already a strong tradition such as art history in place.

    In an optimistic version of the future, the discipline of art history is indeed changing,but not by dissolving itself into a mist of relativism. Saussure held his lectures that would in time become theCoursat a time when academia prided itself on objectivity and stringent logic, as did art history, but the afterlife of his thoughts would do more than perhaps any other single influence to undermine belief in a value-free and objective science of the cultural. A solution to the Saussurean “challenge” for a number of art historians has been to take a stand probably alien to the theorist himself and explicitly acknowledge the politics of their discipline. This no longer means to abandon art history, but to be pragmatic and mobilize its prestige as a potential power for change and to commence a gradual, revisionist course of re-distribution of attention and scope.

    Parts of art history have since the 1990s sought to allocate real prestige to new and often deprived groups of people—producers and audiences alike—or to marginalized areas of study, chiefly including more focus on women artists and artists of color.Critical self-examination of the in- and exclusionary structures that govern the making of art and its history/ies has also led to the admission of new forms of visual (and increasingly aural) products from around the world as worthy of study under the prestigious label of “art”. Some of this change of focus has happened in alliance with other related and developing areas of study, such as critical museum studies and activist ideas of social change (e.g., Simon, 2010). The “new museology” (e.g., Vergo, 1989) has broadened the critical attention in art history to include its institutions, their curatorial practices and their audiences, identifying for example the mechanisms of visiting art museums as social structures that are culturally and historically contingent rather than stable and pre-defined categories (see also Bourdieu, Darbel & Schnapper, 1991).

    In this optimistic view, then, the legacy of Saussure is contributing to a long and slow expansion of art history. This no longer means to abandon art history, but to be pragmatic, “working with what you have got”, and mobilize its prestige as a potential power for change. Instead of dismantling the discipline—which has proved impossible in practice—it is being opened up and harnessed for change.

    Glimmers of a political project are perhaps most visible when seen in an old and entrenched discipline such as art history, but all over the various fields of visual studies, it has been a central concern how to address ethics and politics for decades.This development is also—at least in part—related to questions raised by relativism.In the end, the answer to the Saussurean challenge might not be to hope for more relativism in the future of what to study—in art, in pictures or in visuality—but rather to admit to and then live with the inherent absurdity of ever privileging one topic.From that admission, the legacy of Saussure might be a necessary “reality check”,a prerequisite for continuing to do studies that from a contemporary perspective are both considered and responsible.

    Note

    1 Published three years after his death by Charles Bally and Albert Séchehaye, the book was based on edited student notes from three series of lectures that Saussure gave at the Université de Genève 1907-1911 (Christensen, 2016, p. 490).

    亚洲国产色片| 色综合站精品国产| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | 中文字幕制服av| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 亚州av有码| av国产免费在线观看| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 国产 一区精品| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产成人精品福利久久| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 嫩草影院入口| 亚洲av.av天堂| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕 | 99热网站在线观看| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 国产三级在线视频| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| eeuss影院久久| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 久久99精品国语久久久| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 身体一侧抽搐| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| av网站免费在线观看视频 | 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 只有这里有精品99| 男人舔奶头视频| 22中文网久久字幕| 午夜福利在线在线| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 久久99精品国语久久久| 黄色配什么色好看| 免费av观看视频| 亚洲性久久影院| 日本熟妇午夜| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 赤兔流量卡办理| 亚洲图色成人| 久久久久久久国产电影| 久久草成人影院| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| av卡一久久| 大片免费播放器 马上看| av卡一久久| 一本久久精品| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 99热6这里只有精品| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 六月丁香七月| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 日本色播在线视频| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 亚洲av男天堂| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 国产 亚洲一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 美女国产视频在线观看| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 97在线视频观看| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 久久人人爽人人片av| 99久国产av精品| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| av线在线观看网站| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 久久久久久久久中文| 久久久久国产网址| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 久久久久国产网址| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 国产av在哪里看| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 国产精品一及| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 国产在视频线精品| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 欧美3d第一页| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 人妻一区二区av| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 精品久久久精品久久久| 三级毛片av免费| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 国产高清三级在线| 高清视频免费观看一区二区 | 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 久久久色成人| 极品教师在线视频| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 欧美日韩在线观看h| av国产免费在线观看| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产单亲对白刺激| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| av在线亚洲专区| 插逼视频在线观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| av黄色大香蕉| 日韩成人伦理影院| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 欧美日本视频| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 午夜福利视频精品| 欧美3d第一页| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 超碰97精品在线观看| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 天堂√8在线中文| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 男女边摸边吃奶| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 国产在线男女| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 美女国产视频在线观看| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 97热精品久久久久久| 午夜激情欧美在线| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 精品久久久久久电影网| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 免费观看av网站的网址| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 在线免费观看的www视频| 午夜福利视频精品| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 91狼人影院| 身体一侧抽搐| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 一级毛片电影观看| av在线播放精品| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 亚洲不卡免费看| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 国产成人福利小说| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 精品国产三级普通话版| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 国产在视频线精品| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 国产精品久久视频播放| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 男女国产视频网站| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 日日啪夜夜爽| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 全区人妻精品视频| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 日韩视频在线欧美| 在线天堂最新版资源| 草草在线视频免费看| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 欧美区成人在线视频| 久久久久久久久大av| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 国产91av在线免费观看| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 如何舔出高潮| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 美女主播在线视频| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 欧美3d第一页| 尾随美女入室| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 禁无遮挡网站| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 日韩大片免费观看网站| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 极品教师在线视频| 国产成人freesex在线| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 色视频www国产| 黄色配什么色好看| 黄片wwwwww| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 日韩成人伦理影院| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 国内精品宾馆在线| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 免费观看av网站的网址| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 免费看a级黄色片| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 中文字幕制服av| 大香蕉久久网| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版 | 一级毛片我不卡| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久 | 精品久久久久久久末码| 老女人水多毛片| 身体一侧抽搐| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 久久久久网色| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲av成人av| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 精品久久久噜噜| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 直男gayav资源| av在线蜜桃| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 国产高清三级在线| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 一级a做视频免费观看| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产 一区精品| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 国产91av在线免费观看| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 老司机影院成人| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久av| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 中文字幕制服av| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 色吧在线观看| 在线 av 中文字幕| 国产成人精品一,二区| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 秋霞伦理黄片| 免费看a级黄色片| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 熟女电影av网| 精品久久久久久久久av| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 少妇丰满av| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 欧美性感艳星| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 日本色播在线视频| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 精品久久久久久成人av| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 午夜日本视频在线| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 久久久色成人| 九草在线视频观看| 97在线视频观看| 观看免费一级毛片| 免费av不卡在线播放| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 国产乱人视频| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 亚洲在线观看片| 美女主播在线视频| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| .国产精品久久| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 99热这里只有精品一区| 国产乱人视频| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 午夜视频国产福利| 99久久精品热视频| 国产乱来视频区| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 亚洲美女视频黄频| 三级国产精品片| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版 | 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 七月丁香在线播放| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 在线播放无遮挡| 一级a做视频免费观看| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 在线免费观看的www视频| 国产乱来视频区| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 日日撸夜夜添| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 国产精品.久久久| 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲在线观看片| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 91精品国产九色| 免费观看在线日韩| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 91久久精品电影网| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 国产成人精品福利久久| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 免费av毛片视频| 成人二区视频| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 麻豆成人av视频| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 三级国产精品片| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 黄片wwwwww| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 中文天堂在线官网| 亚洲四区av| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 亚州av有码| 午夜久久久久精精品| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 91精品国产九色| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 亚洲在线观看片| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| or卡值多少钱| 午夜视频国产福利| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 国产成人a区在线观看| 国产精品一及| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 免费看日本二区| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| ponron亚洲| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 欧美成人a在线观看| .国产精品久久| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 国产精品久久视频播放| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 国产探花极品一区二区| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 国产探花极品一区二区| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 日本免费a在线| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| www.av在线官网国产| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 三级经典国产精品| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 免费观看av网站的网址| 在现免费观看毛片| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 午夜激情福利司机影院| av播播在线观看一区| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 久热久热在线精品观看| 日本色播在线视频| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 日韩中字成人| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 好男人视频免费观看在线| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 毛片女人毛片| 久久热精品热| 欧美3d第一页| 日本wwww免费看| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| www.色视频.com| 天堂网av新在线| 久久久精品94久久精品| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| av在线播放精品| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 成年免费大片在线观看| 91av网一区二区| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 在线免费观看的www视频| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 成人无遮挡网站| av.在线天堂| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 国产精品一及| 欧美潮喷喷水| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲四区av|