论文部分内容阅读
文艺是一大堆莫名其妙的东西,绝对如此。关于文艺本质的种种争论象一桩桩永不了结的公案,搅得批判界的福尔摩斯们寝食不安。文艺的起源是情感还是模仿,巫术还是神话;文艺的功能是抒情还是言志,表现还是再现;文艺欣赏过程是感受还是认识,获取还是创造;以及文艺形象是个体还是典型,是个性还是共性,等等,等等。这些使我们大开眼界的争论确实都针锋相对,各不相让,具有极大的排他性。每一种完备的艺术理论似乎都须在其中作出选择,并加入这场论战。但是,我们是否可以用一种更超然的态度平息胸中的激情,用旁观者的姿态欣赏争论双方的诚挚态度,同时坐收渔利,寻找论战双方的契合点,以此建立一种文艺的中间理论?让我们暂且试试。当某位艺术家说他的创作源自心中难以抑止的创作冲动,他的作品火山爆发般喷涌而出,他的每一个词语每一个意象都充溢着自己强烈的感情时,我们没有必要、也没有充足的理由怀疑他的叙述的真实性。但是,在艾略特和苏珊‘朗格看来,这种陈述大可怀疑。当艾略特和朗格声称艺术家表现的不是个人的情感而是普遍的情感时,他们的驳斥
Literature and art is a lot of inexplicable things, absolutely true. Various controversies about the nature of literature and art resembled the unforgiving public prosecutions of Holmes who had stirred up critics. Whether the origin of literature and art is emotion or imitation, witchcraft or mythology; whether the function of literature and art is lyrical or rhetorical, performance or reproduction; whether the process of appreciation of literature and art is feeling or acquiring, acquiring or creating; and whether the image of literature and art is individual or typical, individual or common ,Etc., etc. These are the arguments that have opened our eyes to the world. They are all diametrically opposed to each other and each has its own exclusion. Every sound art theory seems to have to make choices in it and join the polemics. However, can we use a more detached attitude to quell the passion in our hearts and appreciate the sincerity of both parties in the spectator’s attitude, and at the same time, take a lucrative approach and look for the meeting point between the two sides of the debate so as to establish an intermediate theory of literature and art Let’s try for a while. When an artist says that his creation stems from an impulsive creative impulse in the heart, his work erupts volcanic eruptions, every image of his word is filled with his strong feelings, we are not necessary nor Sufficient reason to doubt the authenticity of his narrative. However, Eliot and Susan ’Lange, this statement can be very doubtful. When Eliot and Lange claim that artists do not express individual emotions but universal emotions, they refute