历史、理论与价值：我的美学史观——访刘成纪教授

• 作者： 易冬冬 ¹
• 作者单位：
  1.  中国青年政治学院马克思主义学院
• 提交时间：2024-05-06

摘要: 在当代形态的中国美学研究中，存在着两个传统：一是数千年的古典传统，二是自王国维以降形成的现代传统。两者同等重要，但只有前者具有更强的中国性。这样，如果试图伸张出中国美学之于当代世界的独特贡献，对它历史传统的研究将是决定性的。但是从美学角度看中国历史，有其先天的困难。这是因为，在中国本土性的知识分类体系中，有基于“六经”的《诗》学、《书》学、礼学、乐学、《易》学、《春秋》学，或者基于“四部”分类的经学、史学、子学和集学，但并没有一个自觉的美学学科存在。这样，包括美学在内的现代形态的中国史研究，大抵是以西方现代学科体系为框架对中国历史进行重建的产物，“西方出理论，中国出材料”成为常态。在这种背景下，如果外来的知识前设已成为现代中国人文科学的基础，那么相关的中国美学史研究保有中国性的最佳方式，就必须是弱化它的学科边界，以与中国固有的知识分类方式和解、兼容，从而生成一种宽口径的介入中国历史的视角。据此可以看到，如果中国历史中有一种潜在的“美学”存在，那么它的视域并不仅仅止于现象性的美和艺术，而是涉及人生观、世界观、宇宙观和人的现实实践等诸多方面，甚至中国哲学也不过是一种宽泛意义上的美学。换言之，美在中国历史中的存在是全域性的，由此形成的与其说是一门学科，倒不如说是一种看待世界的方式及相关实践。可以预期的是，这种美学资源的庞大和浩瀚，使中国美学史研究成为一项永难穷尽的事业，同时也为以中国为主体重定美学规则、甚至“弯道超车”提供了全新可能——这是一个从接受西方给予的规则、利用这一规则到进一步以我为主制定、推广新规则的过程。但这也极易导致两种结果：一是美学因描述了中国人的普遍经验而成为一切传统人文学科的基础，这为以美育作为通识教育提供了历史依据；二是因为它的“无远弗届”而失去基本限定，从而与一般文明史或文化史相混同。对此，可能需要为中国美学区分出两种历史：一种是关于美和艺术自身的历史，这是核心；二是从美和艺术出发的历史，这是必要的外向延伸。“中心清晰，边缘模糊”是这门学科在中国历史中展现的基本特征。

Abstract: History, Theory, and Value: On the History of Chinese Aesthetics
—An Interview with Professor Liu ChengjiYi DongdongIn the study of contemporary Chinese aesthetics, there are two main traditions: one is the classical tradition formed over thousands of years, and the other is the modern tradition that was started by Wang Guowei in the early part of the last century. Both are equally important, but the former maintains a strictly Chinese character. Therefore, if one attempts to assert the unique contribution of Chinese aesthetics to the contemporary world, the study of the classical tradition will be decisive. However, it is inherently difficult to observe Chinese history from an aesthetic point of view, because in the Chinese indigenous system of knowledge classification, one must reckon with a vast array of transmitted texts each with their own traditions of study and exegesis, including the Six Classics and the Four Categories. However, these writings give no clear conception of a modern understanding of aesthetics. Thus, the modern study of Chinese history including aesthetics, is mostly the product of the reconstruction of Chinese history in the framework of modern Western disciplinary systems, and it is commonly pursued under the methodology of “theories from the West, materials from China”. In so far as foreign knowledge provides the preconditions of modern Chinese humanities, the best way to preserve the Chinese character of Chinese aesthetic history is to weaken these imported disciplinary boundaries by reconciling them in their compatibility with native Chinese methods of knowledge classification, thereby to generate a broad perspective able to adequately manage Chinese history. Therefore, if there is a potential “Aesthetics” in Chinese history, its vision will not only convey the semblance of beauty and art, but it will also involve many aspects of the Chinese outlook on life, the world, and cosmology as well as actual historical reality, since even Chinese philosophy is understandable as a kind of Aesthetics in a broad sense. In other words, its presence in Chinese history covers all regions, not so much as a discipline but as a way of looking at the world and its actual practices. It can be expected that the vast aesthetic resources make the study of Chinese aesthetic history an endless undertaking. At the same time, it provides new possibilities for China to establish its own aesthetic rules and even “overtake on the curve”. This would entail a process that accepts the rules given by the West, but using them to further develop and promote new rules based on our own historically aesthetic experience. This can easily lead to two results: on the one hand, aesthetics becomes the basis for all traditional humanities because it describes the universal experience of the Chinese, which provides a historical basis for aesthetic education as a liberal education; on the other hand, aesthetics is bound to lose its narrowly basic definition because of its “infinite range”. Hence, it can be merged with the general history of civilization or cultural history. In this regard, it may be necessary to distinguish two sorts of aesthetics at play in Chinese history: one is core and internal (closely bound to beauty and art), and the other is outwardly extensing, as suggested by the idea that “the center is clear, the edges are blurred”.

• 分类： 哲学 >> 美学
• 说明： “人物访谈”专栏
• 稿件状态： 已在期刊出版
期刊名称： 《哲学动态》 2024年 第3期 “人物专访”专栏
• 引用： PSSXiv:202405.00142 (或此版本 PSSXiv:202405.00142V1)
  DOI:10.12451/202405.00142
  CSTR:32012.36.PSSXiv.202405.00142
• 推荐引用方式： 易冬冬.历史、理论与价值：我的美学史观——访刘成纪教授.哲学动态,2024(3).[PSSXiv:202405.00142V1] (点此复制)