• <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).

    九色成人免费人妻av| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 在现免费观看毛片| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 精品人妻视频免费看| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| or卡值多少钱| 草草在线视频免费看| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 麻豆成人av视频| 在线播放国产精品三级| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 精品一区二区免费观看| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| a级毛色黄片| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 黑人高潮一二区| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 午夜免费激情av| 欧美zozozo另类| 丰满的人妻完整版| 亚洲成人久久性| www.av在线官网国产| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 黑人高潮一二区| 日本与韩国留学比较| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 黄片wwwwww| 熟女电影av网| 亚洲图色成人| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 69人妻影院| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 精品人妻视频免费看| 国产三级中文精品| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 草草在线视频免费看| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 精品人妻视频免费看| ponron亚洲| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频 | 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| av免费在线看不卡| 久久精品影院6| 嫩草影院精品99| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 色5月婷婷丁香| 亚洲最大成人av| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 22中文网久久字幕| 欧美区成人在线视频| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 久久人人爽人人片av| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 三级毛片av免费| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 青春草国产在线视频 | 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 春色校园在线视频观看| 精品久久久久久久末码| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 日本色播在线视频| 久久99精品国语久久久| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 一级黄片播放器| 一级黄片播放器| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 老司机影院成人| 一本久久中文字幕| av卡一久久| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 黄色日韩在线| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 国产 一区精品| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 久久久色成人| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| av免费观看日本| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 亚洲最大成人av| 综合色丁香网| av卡一久久| 热99re8久久精品国产| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 老司机福利观看| 高清毛片免费看| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| av福利片在线观看| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 国产乱人视频| 国产三级在线视频| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 午夜a级毛片| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 搞女人的毛片| 18+在线观看网站| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 欧美区成人在线视频| 国产 一区精品| 久久久成人免费电影| 在线免费观看的www视频| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 国产极品天堂在线| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 日韩高清综合在线| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 亚洲精品自拍成人| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 1024手机看黄色片| 性欧美人与动物交配| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产av在哪里看| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 欧美zozozo另类| 禁无遮挡网站| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 久久久久网色| 国产亚洲欧美98| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 亚洲最大成人中文| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 99久久精品热视频| 中国国产av一级| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 国产亚洲欧美98| 男女那种视频在线观看| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 免费观看精品视频网站| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 黄色配什么色好看| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 免费观看精品视频网站| 看免费成人av毛片| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 免费观看在线日韩| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 国产精华一区二区三区| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚州av有码| or卡值多少钱| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 少妇丰满av| 97超视频在线观看视频| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 22中文网久久字幕| avwww免费| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 日本黄色片子视频| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 插逼视频在线观看| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 嫩草影院精品99| 老司机影院成人| 高清毛片免费看| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 日本成人三级电影网站| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 色吧在线观看| av在线播放精品| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 99久久人妻综合| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 丰满的人妻完整版| 欧美zozozo另类| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 亚洲成人久久性| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 99久久人妻综合| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 国产精品一国产av| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 性色av一级| 午夜影院在线不卡| www.av在线官网国产| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看 | 高清不卡的av网站| 青春草国产在线视频| 蜜桃在线观看..| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 久久久精品区二区三区| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 婷婷色综合www| 日韩电影二区| 超色免费av| 黄片播放在线免费| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 国产在线视频一区二区| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 蜜桃在线观看..| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 曰老女人黄片| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 蜜桃在线观看..| 久久久久久久久大av| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 日本wwww免费看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 久久97久久精品| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 精品亚洲成国产av| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 午夜视频国产福利| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 久久影院123| 如何舔出高潮| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 亚洲国产色片| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 免费av中文字幕在线| 婷婷成人精品国产| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 高清不卡的av网站| 成年av动漫网址| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 观看av在线不卡| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 日日撸夜夜添| av不卡在线播放| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 亚洲综合色惰| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 欧美人与善性xxx| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 亚洲第一av免费看| 91久久精品电影网| 免费大片18禁| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 22中文网久久字幕| 色哟哟·www| 午夜激情av网站| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 51国产日韩欧美| 免费看不卡的av| 亚洲精品视频女| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 韩国av在线不卡| 久久久欧美国产精品| 日韩中字成人| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 亚洲av.av天堂| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 欧美97在线视频| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 国产精品免费大片| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 少妇高潮的动态图| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 曰老女人黄片| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 日日撸夜夜添| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 九草在线视频观看| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 性色av一级| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 久久久久国产网址| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲国产色片| 欧美+日韩+精品| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 久久久久精品性色| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 精品久久久久久电影网| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 九色成人免费人妻av| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 中文字幕制服av| 久久99一区二区三区| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线 | 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 午夜91福利影院| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 久久久久视频综合| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 高清av免费在线| 精品一区二区三卡| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 国产毛片在线视频| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 18禁观看日本| 午夜日本视频在线| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 视频区图区小说| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 欧美xxⅹ黑人| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 久久久精品94久久精品| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 黄片播放在线免费| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 国产视频首页在线观看| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 如何舔出高潮| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 一级毛片我不卡| 午夜视频国产福利| 亚洲av.av天堂| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 亚洲精品第二区| 免费观看在线日韩| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 人人澡人人妻人| 亚洲无线观看免费| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 七月丁香在线播放| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区 | 欧美+日韩+精品| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 成人国语在线视频| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 日本wwww免费看| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 91国产中文字幕| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 久久99一区二区三区| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 国产在线免费精品| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 桃花免费在线播放| 18禁观看日本| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 全区人妻精品视频| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 伦精品一区二区三区| 日韩强制内射视频| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 国产男女内射视频| 久久狼人影院| 亚洲内射少妇av| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| xxx大片免费视频| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 少妇丰满av| 飞空精品影院首页| 国产精品成人在线| 久久人人爽人人片av| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 一本一本综合久久| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 在现免费观看毛片| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 永久网站在线| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线 | 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 国产极品天堂在线| 日本黄色片子视频| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 日本与韩国留学比较| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 大香蕉久久成人网| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 少妇人妻 视频| av黄色大香蕉| 在线观看三级黄色| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 日韩强制内射视频| 亚洲性久久影院| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| av免费观看日本| 亚洲不卡免费看|