【摘要】：對(duì)于藝術(shù)的沉思和考察,總是要服從一種雙重的歷史性。這種歷史性既是藝術(shù)本身的,也是學(xué)科性質(zhì)的。正如海德格爾所言,夕U乎從人們專門考察藝術(shù)和藝術(shù)家以來,這種考察就被稱之為美學(xué)的考察。今人我們可以看到,在德意志思想史中,美學(xué)源起,繼而發(fā)展到最為成熟完備,并最終逸出了其學(xué)科范圍的這一歷史路向有跡可循。對(duì)美學(xué)的這一歷史的思考,不僅有助于我們認(rèn)清美學(xué)的學(xué)科性質(zhì),而且對(duì)建設(shè)我國(guó)新世紀(jì)美學(xué)理論亦有助益。 雖然如今美學(xué)已經(jīng)獲得了其獨(dú)立的學(xué)科地位,但對(duì)美學(xué)哲學(xué)基礎(chǔ)的認(rèn)知仍具有根本的決定性。美學(xué)的發(fā)展與西方哲學(xué)史的發(fā)展密切關(guān)聯(lián)。任何一種理論視域,都具有在根本意義上起作用的理論預(yù)設(shè)。任何一種理論視域的興衰變遷,歸根結(jié)底乃是其理論預(yù)設(shè)的興衰變遷。正如海德格爾在《藝術(shù)作品的本源》一文的后記中所言,對(duì)藝術(shù)的沉思并不在于解答藝術(shù)之謎,而在于認(rèn)識(shí)這個(gè)謎。這即是說,企圖在一種固有的、主客對(duì)立的認(rèn)識(shí)論立場(chǎng)上探究藝術(shù)之謎的做法是行不通的。這一現(xiàn)成的立場(chǎng)既遮蔽了藝術(shù)本身固有的歷史性,又遮蔽了對(duì)藝術(shù)進(jìn)行觀照的各種理論視域的歷史性。這一雙重的遮蔽有礙于美學(xué)或者說藝術(shù)考察本身的發(fā)展。當(dāng)今學(xué)界,一些有識(shí)之士已經(jīng)意識(shí)到這方面的問題,并對(duì)此進(jìn)行了開創(chuàng)性的探索。 有鑒于此,在這本關(guān)注理論問題的文章中,我嘗試用“藝術(shù)處境”這樣一個(gè)術(shù)語來代替對(duì)藝術(shù)之本質(zhì)的現(xiàn)成規(guī)定。對(duì)藝術(shù)本質(zhì)的現(xiàn)成規(guī)定將關(guān)于“藝術(shù)之謎”的問題域弄得狹隘了。如果不突破這種對(duì)藝術(shù)現(xiàn)成的、框架式的規(guī)定,就無法觸摸到藝術(shù)與真理之間生成性的、永葆活力的關(guān)系。因此,在本文中從一開始,藝術(shù)處境問題就不是以定義方式提出的,而是通過對(duì)兒位思想家之間對(duì)話的鉤稽展示出來的。我希望展示出這個(gè)問題所具有的一種動(dòng)態(tài)的、不斷展開、不斷豐富的狀態(tài)。 在這項(xiàng)考察中,藝術(shù)處境問題所涉及到的理論視域的哲學(xué)預(yù)設(shè)問題總是以一種相對(duì)于藝術(shù)處境問題本身的優(yōu)先性而被提出來。關(guān)于藝術(shù)處境問題的理論視域,涉及到西方思想史上的根本性爭(zhēng)論。此處姑且用“古今之爭(zhēng)”來指明這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論的性質(zhì)。這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論事關(guān)西方思想中·種根木性的理論視域的變遷。這種理論視域便是歷史的視域。歷史視域在西方哲學(xué)史中并非從來就有的,而是隨著西方思想的“古今之爭(zhēng)”而興起的。而關(guān)于歷史視域的問題在木文所涉及到的幾位德國(guó)大思想家的筆下(或者說從黑格爾到列奧·施特勞斯的思想史)得到了最集中的表達(dá)和反思。與此相應(yīng),關(guān)于藝術(shù)處境的問題,這兒位大思想家也在不同程度上涉及和思考到了。從而形成了關(guān)于這一問題的豐富的思想資源。 因此,本文關(guān)注“藝術(shù)處境”t“歷史意識(shí)”之關(guān)系問題,并帶著這個(gè)問題考察自黑格爾以來的德意志思想史。本文無論上篇還是下篇的考察,都不是一般意義仁的思想史或者藝術(shù)思想史的研究,恰切地說應(yīng)該是一種問題史。這種研究并不要求面面俱到,例如對(duì)所涉及到的大思想家作個(gè)而的研究;向是帶著針對(duì)性的問題發(fā)掘相關(guān)的思想資源,從而得出對(duì)此問題的認(rèn)識(shí)和識(shí)斷。
[Abstract]:As Heidegger said, this kind of investigation has been called aesthetic investigation since people have studied art and artists specially. Now we can see that it is in the history of German thought. The historical direction of aesthetics, which originates from, develops to the most mature and complete, and finally escapes from the scope of its subject, is to be followed. This historical reflection on aesthetics will not only help us to understand the disciplinary nature of aesthetics, but also contribute to the construction of aesthetic theory in the new century in China.
Although aesthetics has acquired its independent status as a discipline, its cognition of the philosophical foundation of aesthetics is still fundamentally decisive. The development of aesthetics is closely related to the development of the history of Western philosophy. As Heidegger put it in his postscript to The Origin of Art, the contemplation of art does not lie in solving the mystery of art, but in understanding it. That is to say, it is impractical to attempt to explore the mystery of art from an inherent, subjective and objective epistemological standpoint. This ready-made position not only obscures the inherent historicity of art itself, but also obscures the historicity of the various theoretical horizons in which art is viewed. This dual obscurity hinders the development of aesthetics or art research itself. In the present academic circles, some insightful people have realized and made pioneering efforts in this regard. Exploration.
In view of this, I try to use the term "artistic situation" instead of the existing regulations on the essence of art in this article which focuses on theoretical issues. The existing regulations on the essence of art narrow the scope of the question of "the mystery of art". So, from the very beginning of this article, the question of artistic situation is not put forward by definition, but is revealed by the dialogues between children thinkers. The state.
In this investigation, the philosophical presupposition of the theoretical horizon involved in the question of artistic situation is always put forward as a priority over the question of artistic situation itself. This controversy is related to the change of the theoretical horizon of roots and roots in Western thought. This theoretical horizon is the historical horizon. The historical horizon is not always existed in the history of Western philosophy, but rises with the "controversy between the ancient and the modern" of Western thought. German great thinker's works (or the history of thought from Hegel to Leo Strauss) have been expressed and reflected in the most concentrated way. Accordingly, the great thinker here has also touched on and pondered on the problem of artistic situation to varying degrees, thus forming a wealth of ideological resources on this issue.
Therefore, this paper focuses on the relationship between the "artistic situation" t "historical consciousness" and examines the history of German thought since Hegel with this question. The first and the second parts of this paper are not the study of the history of general benevolence or of artistic thought, but rather a history of problem. It is not necessary to be all-inclusive, for example, to make a study of the great thinkers involved, and to explore the relevant ideological resources with a specific problem, so as to come to an understanding and judgment of the problem.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：四川師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：J01

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 劉小楓;歷史終結(jié)了?——從約阿希姆到柯耶夫[J];浙江學(xué)刊;2002年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：2233018