Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/55147
|
| Title: | 阿多諾《美學理論》中的藝術雙重性
The Duality of Art in Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory |
| Authors: | 吳冠緯
Wu, Kuan Wei |
| Contributors: | 孫善豪
Sun, Shan Hao
吳冠緯
Wu, Kuan Wei |
| Keywords: | 文化工業
前衛藝術
現代美學
藝術自主性
Culture Industry
Avant-garde
Modern Aesthetic
Autonomy of Art. |
| Date: | 2012 |
| Issue Date: | 2012-11-01 13:59:46 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 面對著文化工業 (culture industry) 的崛起，藝術家高喊著「藝術自主性」 (autonomy of art) ，來對抗國家機器與資本主義對藝術的侵蝕。前衛的藝術家就已經面臨內部矛盾的論證：一部分認為藝術應該當作社會真實的反映工具，進而觸發社會的整體革命，另一部分則抱持著「為藝術而藝術」 (l`art pour l`art) ，不應該被任何社會的風潮牽動。本文挑選阿多諾的美學思想作為研究的課題，研究其批判文化工業的藝術哲學，並且就《啟蒙的辯證：哲學的片簡》 (Dialec-tics of Enlightenment) 的篇章〈文化工業：大眾欺騙的啟蒙〉 (The Culture Indus-try: Enlightenment of Mass Deception) 以及《美學理論》 (Aesthetic Theory) 當作本文研究之原典。
除了緒論與結論，本文共分為三個章節。第一章分析的是「文化工業」：藉由商品拜物教的形式，文化工業從藝術的外部性質──傳播媒體──來取得藝術的社會形式，卻也因此異化藝術本身的內在邏輯，甚至使得傳播媒體異化且取代了藝術作品本身。第二章分析的是「前衛藝術」：雖然前衛藝術是文化工業的對立面，但是它們都享有共同的外在語法與邏輯。因此，前衛藝術與文化工業的對立是基於什麼原因，則是本章所要分析的。第三章分析的是「藝術的雙重性」：藝術的雙重性是阿多諾《美學理論》的重要貢獻，也一直是後繼者研究其藝術哲學的重點。藝術的雙重性──社會性與自主性──都是藝術作品內部精神，而表現在它的物質形式上，這都可被視為藝術作品本身的物化。
從阿多諾的觀點中分析，藝術的自主性──就如同資本主義對於自由的形容──是不切實際的虛假意識，藝術是物質的、社會的產物，也只是反映下層建築的菱鏡、主體的附庸；另一方面，藝術卻又渴望不被他者束縛的自由，對於現實的理所當然是不屑一顧的，而試圖在化外之地找尋更好的理念。在阿多諾的美學理論，藝術的雙重性是其自身內部矛盾的辯證過程，卻也是藝術最迷人之處，無論傾向哪一個層面之體現，都無法完整表達藝術的真面目而使之終結。如果要為藝術找尋其雙重性的辯證，最終必然為找尋其動態的平衡，時而接近主體，時而離開主體，與主體展開曖昧不明又難分難捨的關係。也因為如此，藝術為達到自身辯證的平衡，就成為了縈繞於社會邊緣的遊蕩者。
The artistic manifestation for “autonomy of art” is against the rise of culture in-dustry which corrupts art’s sake in the capitalist society. Those artists who claim self as the avant-garde argue whether their artwork should be the reflection of social real-ity or should be “l`art pour l`art”. My thesis is focus on T.W. Adorno’s aesthetic theory, and his critique against the culture industry. T.W. Adorno’s aesthetic theory should be rediscovered from his “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment of Mass Deception” from Dialectics of Enlightenment and his masterpiece Aesthetic Theory.
Besides the epilogue and the conclusion, there are other three chapters. The first chapter is focus on “culture industry”: from commodity fetishism, the culture industry claims art’s form by its externality: media. However, it also reifies the internal logics of art which media takes over art in its own sake. The second chapter is on “avant-garde art”: though it is the counterpart of culture industry, avant-garde art shares the same syntax and logic with the culture industry. The reason of their conflicts should be explored by the history of modern art. The third chapter is on “the duality of art”: as the most important part in Adorno’s aesthetic theory, the duality of art contributes the essential idea in the aesthetic history. Nevertheless, the autonomy and social faux are both elements of art’s spiritual perpective which will be reified as its form.
From Adorno’s theory, art’s autonomy and social faux are dialectical. Art must seek its own autonomy from its heteronomy, which avoids itself from its own fetish character. It circulates it own vital experience, then it terminates itself in the reification. Therefore, in Adorno’s theory, art’s duality is both dialectical and mysterious. Whether any aspect could not embody the truth content of art, and hence art is so amusing. The dialectical duality of art comes with its equilibrium with the social; real-ity, while the former is object and the latter is subject. While art approaches with the society, it also detaches from the society. The dialectical relationships has made art and society both indistinct and inseparable, therefore, art must become the edge of so-ciety in its own sake as the “flâneur”. |
| Reference: | 原典
Adorno, T.W. ,1973, Ästhetische Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Adorno, T.W. , 2004, Aesthetic Theory. (Robert Hullot-Kentor) . New York: Continuum.
Adorno, T.W. 著，林宏濤、王華君 譯，2002，《美學理論》（上冊）。台北：美學書房。
Adorno, T.W. 著，王柯平 譯，1998，《美學理論》。成都：四川人民出版社。
Horkheimer, M & Adorno, T.W., 1955, “Kulturindustrie – Aufklärung als Massenbe-trug” en Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt: Gesammelte Schriften.
Horkheimer, M & Adorno, T.W., 2001, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment of Mass Deception” in Dialectic of Enlightenment. (John Cumming). New York: Continuum.
Horkheimer, M & Adorno, T.W., 2002, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment of Mass Deception” in Dialectic of Enlightenment. (Edmund Jephcott). California: Standford University
Horkheimer, M & Adorno, T.W.著，林宏濤 譯，2008，《啟蒙的辯證─哲學的片簡》。台北：商周出版。
外文專書
Adorno, T.W., 1991, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass culture. (J.M. Bern-stein). New York: Routledge.
Bürger, Peter, 1984, Theory of the Avant-garde. (Michael Shaw). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gebauer, Gunter & Christoph Wulf, 1995, Mimesis: Culture, Art, Society. (Don Reneau). California: University of California Press.
Haug, Wolfgang Fritz, 1987, Commodity Aesthetics, Ideology & Culture. New York: International General.
Huhn, Tom & Lambert Zuidervaart, 1997, The Semblance of Subjectivity: Essays in Adorno`s Aesthetic theory. Massachusetts: Massachuestts Institute of Technology Press.
Jay, Martin, 1996, the Dialectical Imagination: a History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950. California: University of California Press.
Rush, Fred, 2004, the Cambridge Companion to Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
中文專書
李弢，2008，《非總體的星叢︰對阿多諾〈美學理論〉的一種文本解讀》。上海：人民出版社。
王才勇，2000，《現代審美哲學：法蘭克福學派美學論述》。臺北：書林出版。
陳瑞文，2010，《阿多諾美學論：雙重的作品政治》。臺北：五南文化出版。
楊小濱，1995，《否定的美學──法蘭克福學派的文藝理論和文化批評》。臺北：麥田出版。
Jay, Martin著，單世聯 譯，1996，《法蘭克福學派史》。廣東：人民出版社。
Jimenez, Marc著，欒棟、關寶艷 譯，1990，《阿多諾：藝術、意識型態與美學理論》。台北：遠流出版社。
外文論文
Huyssen, Andrea, 1983, “Adorno in Reverse: From Hollywood to Richard Wagner.” New German Critique. 29: 8-38.
Martin, Stewart, 2007, “The Absolute Artwork meets the Absolute Commodity.” Radical Philosophy. 146: 15-25.
Pérez, Berta M., 2011, “Aesthetics without Autonomy: Heidegger and Adorno.” Pro-ceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics. 3: 235-252.
Waldman, Diana, 1977, “Critical Theory and Film: Adorno and The Culture Industry Revisited.” New German Critique. 12: 39-60.
Zuidervaart, Lambert, 1990, “The Social Significance of Autonomous Art: Adorno and Bürger.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 48 (1) : 61-77.
中文論文
何乏筆，2004，〈如何批判文化工業？阿多諾的藝術作品論與美學修養的可能〉。《中山人文學報》19：17-35。
黃聖哲，2002，〈美的物質性──論阿多諾的藝術作品理論〉。《師大學報》 (47) ：1-10。
黃聖哲，2010，〈阿多諾的非同一性思維及其與後結構主義的關係〉。《社會理論學報》13 (1) ：141-160。
黃聖哲，2008，〈模擬的動力──論阿多諾藝術理論的核心主題〉。《社會理論學報》11 (2) ：157-171。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國家發展研究所
98261004
101 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0982610041 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [國家發展研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 380 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
