【摘要】：后現(xiàn)代主義習(xí)慣于文本拼貼和文化元素的復(fù)制,并將此視為觀念狂歡的創(chuàng)舉。但在現(xiàn)實的社會語境中,后現(xiàn)代主義的文化任性并不意味著"剽竊"的說法銷聲匿跡。后現(xiàn)代主義文學(xué)"剽竊"加身使人正視后現(xiàn)代主義文本狂歡的限度。此外,后現(xiàn)代主義藝術(shù)界的復(fù)制風(fēng)潮比起文學(xué)界來有過之而無不及,但人們似乎并不從這些妄為的復(fù)制中追究"版權(quán)"的歸屬。在復(fù)制、原創(chuàng)和剽竊的問題上,不同的后現(xiàn)代主義文化場域給出了不同答案。后現(xiàn)代主義文論界未能彌合文學(xué)內(nèi)部空間和外在運作機制之間的差異,但藝術(shù)界卻很好填平了藝術(shù)品內(nèi)外部的邏輯鴻溝。
[Abstract]:Post-modernism is used to text collage and reproduction of cultural elements, which is regarded as the creation of idea carnival. But in the realistic social context, postmodernism's cultural willfulness does not mean that "plagiarism" has disappeared. Plagiarism in postmodernist literature makes people face the limits of revelry in postmodernist texts. In addition, the post-modernist art world has more copying than the literary world, but it seems that people do not seek copyright ownership from these perverse replicas. Different postmodernist cultural fields give different answers to the questions of reproduction, originality and plagiarism. The postmodernist literary theory fails to bridge the difference between the internal space and the external operating mechanism of literature, but the art circle has filled up the logical gap between the internal and external works of art.
【作者單位】： 福建師范大學(xué)文學(xué)院;
【分類號】：I0
，

本文編號：2209189