论文部分内容阅读
改革开放,中国人的眼界开阔了。短短的十年中,有过西方艺术思想较集中地涌入的现象,也有过西方人对中国传统文化热中的时期。你来我往,相互促进,不无裨益。不过,由于有时在理论上各执一端,在探讨过程中又难免有偏颇之处,从而产生某种失落感或固步自封的自足情绪。在此国际交流日益频繁的今天,也许有必要更多地关注一个理论问题,就是应该全面地把握中西艺术的美学特质——艺术研究应该如此,艺术教育亦应如此。其实,如果把中西艺术放在同一座标上去考察,不难发现两者悖异之中还有更深刻的趋同。只要采取科学的态度,必将更有便于东西方观念上的融通与交流,并且从而更能体现出各自的伟大。陈醉先生的文章就想对这一问题作一初步探讨。也许,这一命题大家都已相当熟悉,即每每论及中西艺术,人们往往清楚地道出它们的差异。一个常惯的结论是:中国艺术是传神的,重写意;西方艺术是科学的,重写实。自然,这种基本把握,总体上是正确的。尽管,其中个别概念及逻辑未尽精确,如乍一听,容易引起是否中国艺术就不“科学”、西方艺术就不“传神”的疑问,但毕竟约定俗成、通俗易懂。不过,如果对它们作些必要的阐述和历史回顾,也就不至产生误会了。而且,更重要的是,通过追源溯始,多方比较,我们还将会发现中西艺术除了差异之外,也还有它们的共同之点,它们的相互影响以及它们在追求上的殊途同归。也许,这将更有助于对我们各自民族传统之伟大的认识和对总体艺术规律的探究。
With the reform and opening up, Chinese people have broadened their horizons. In a short period of ten years, there has been a phenomenon of more concentrated Western art influx, and there has also been a period during which Westerners are enthusiastic about Chinese traditional culture. You come to me, promote each other, not without merit. However, since sometimes in theory one ends up, it is inevitable that there will be some biases in the process of exploration, resulting in some sense of loss or restless self-sufficiency. With the increasingly frequent international exchanges, it may be necessary to pay more attention to a theoretical issue. That is, we should comprehensively grasp the aesthetics characteristics of Chinese and Western art - so should art research and arts education. In fact, if the Chinese and Western art on the same coordinates to inspect, not difficult to find the two paradox there is a more profound convergence. As long as we adopt a scientific attitude, we will certainly be more conducive to the integration and exchange of ideas between the East and the West, and will thus better reflect our respective greatness. Chen drunk’s article would like to make a preliminary discussion of this issue. Perhaps everyone in this proposition is quite familiar with the fact that people tend to make clear their differences when it comes to the art of Chinese and Western art. It is a common practice to conclude that Chinese art is vivid and rewriting; Western art is scientific and re-written. Naturally, this basic grasp is generally correct. Although some of the individual concepts and logic are not accurate enough, if they are heard at first glance, they easily lead to questions as to whether Chinese art is not “science” or western art does not “express itself.” But after all, conventions and simple understandings are easy to understand. However, it would not have been misleading to give them the necessary elaboration and historical review. What is more important is that we can also find that apart from the differences, there are also their common points and their mutual influence as well as their respective differences in pursuit. Perhaps this will be more conducive to the great understanding of our own national traditions and the exploration of the general law of art.