【作者】 高波；

【导师】 马龙潜；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 文艺学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 本文主要以现象学哲学家和美学家关于艺术现象的思想为依据,考察现象学方法和他们所使用的主要概念,特别是意向性概念和视域概念对于艺术审美本质研究有何意义与价值。导言部分主要讨论艺术审美本质研究在我国美学和文艺学理论中的地位和面临的问题,以及西方现象学哲学和美学对这一问题的研究情况。我国美学和文艺学在艺术审美本质研究上主要的问题是对艺术现象界定不明确,其原因是各自存在着非自明的理论设定。现象学方法能够悬置我们对事物理解中存在的成见,对文艺美学的艺术审美本质研究具有重要意义。现象学的美学思想一方面体现为对具体的艺术创作、作品和接受的分析,另一方面体现为对艺术与存在或真理等关系的分析,这两个方面分别与意向性和视域概念相关,这两个概念在不同现象学家那里既有明显的传承性又有很大差异,因此需要综合起来进行考察,才能帮助我们理解艺术现象的本质结构。第一章主要讨论“美的艺术”观念的形成以及传统哲学美学和艺术学的艺术本质观。“美的艺术”观念的确立是一个长期过程,艺术自身的发展是人们对“艺术”的理解和对“美”的理解明确起来的条件。传统哲学美学的艺术本质观的内在矛盾是一方面将美理解为感性的,另一方面试图将其与理性观念联系起来,其根源则在于主体性哲学感性与理性、主体与客体二元对立的立场；艺术学以实证科学的方法研究艺术,但却将艺术现象与审美现象割裂开来,以艺术起源和艺术要素问题取代艺术审美本质问题。第二章和第三章分别以意向性和视域概念为出发点,讨论艺术审美本质与审美意识和存在及真理的关系。第二章主要分析胡塞尔的意向性概念,包括以此概念为基础的客体化行为与非客体化行为、奠基、观念直观、价值直观等概念之间的关系,以及意向性概念的不同变体,如海德格尔的忧虑概念、萨特的意向性概念和梅洛一庞蒂的身体意向性概念之间的关系,从而考察从审美意识的角度如何来界定艺术的审美本质。第一节讨论现象学的意向性概念和本质还原方法的重要意义,它们能够克服本质与现象、存在与现象的二元论,从而克服艺术本质观念的理性、感性和主客体二元对立的内在矛盾。现象学方法的重要意义在于改变了对本质与现象关系的传统理解,但由于胡塞尔坚持意识哲学立场,将本质理解为观念,而由于艺术的特殊存在方式,它的本质——美不能被理解为一般的观念；现象学的本质直观与“艺术直观”有相近之处,但前者是理论行为而后者是感性活动,二者还是根本不同的。第二节依据客体化和奠基概念分析审美意识,审美意识包含审美直观和审美感受两个部分,应该是这两个部分的统一,但根据胡塞尔的意识分析,特别是将感受划为非客体化行为,即不具有自身独特对象的行为,我们将推导出审美直观与审美感受相分离的结论。舍勒则将本质还原理解为价值还原,即将胡塞尔理解的非客体化的感受(情感、意愿等)行为理解为指向价值客体的行为,从而使审美意识能够构造自身的对象,成为一种独立的意识行为。但舍勒理解的价值是超感性的,这就又导致审美意识感性与非感性的矛盾。因此在意识哲学立场上理解艺术现象还是存在着很大局限性。第三章主要分析胡塞尔的视域概念,包括以此概念为基础的本真性与非本真性、体现与共现、在场与不在场、存在、交互主体性、生活世界等概念的关系,以及视域概念的不同变体,如海德格尔的大地、萨特的前反思的我思、梅洛一庞蒂的肉身、伽达默尔的历史视域等概念的关系,从而考察从艺术与世界的关系角度如何来界定艺术的审美本质。第一节讨论视域概念的重要意义,它改变了我们关于世界的客观存在的理解,即我们能够作为对象来把握的在场的存在是以不在场的存在为前提的,现象学首次将不在场引入了西方哲学。现象学要研究的不只是个别的存在物,更重要的是一般的存在,因此个体的视域就要拓展为世界视域,而这种拓展必须以交互主体性为基础,胡塞尔、萨特、梅洛一庞蒂等人都对交互主体性问题做了深入分析,但仍然存在着主体性立场与交互主体性立场的矛盾。交互主体性问题对艺术本质研究有重要意义,萨特、英伽登等都将艺术理解为交互主体性的活动,这对于解决艺术之美的主观性与客观性之间的矛盾很有意义。第二节根据胡塞尔关于生活世界、科学世界和哲学世界的划分,讨论艺术作为一种把握世界的独特方式的属性。生活世界是非课题化的世界视域,而在科学、哲学以及其他的文化活动中世界作为对象被把握,但不同属性的文化活动在对世界或存在理解的深度上是不同的。海德格尔认为存在本身不是在场的存在物而是不在场的,而人这种特殊的存在者既是对存在的遮蔽又能够进行去蔽,或者说人的文化“世界”与它的存在基础“大地”之间总是处于遮蔽与去蔽的辩证关系之中,艺术比科学更能揭示不在场之物的意义。这种对艺术与世界关系的辩证理解由于引入了不在场这一概念,比传统的表现论和再现论都更为深刻。但这种对艺术本质的理解比较抽象,而在受海德格尔影响的解释学美学尤其是接受美学中,总体的、抽象的视域转化为历史的、具体的视域,因此艺术的主观性与客观性问题又凸显出来。第三节依据海德格尔对真理概念的理解讨论艺术审美本质与真理的关系。海德格尔理解的真理不是“符合论”的真理,因为符合论的真理只与在场之物有关,而海德格尔理解的真理是在场与不在场辩证关系中呈现的真理,在此意义上的真理就与艺术之美具有密切的关系。这种观点启示我们不应当仅仅将艺术审美本质理解为某种抽象的、固定的东西,而是应当理解为一种活生生的、在每次具体的艺术活动当中自身显现的东西。第四章和第五章分别从艺术创作和艺术接受的角度分析审美感知、审美想象、图像意识、符号意识和审美情感之间,以及它们与作为审美对象的艺术作品之间的关系问题。第四章主要讨论艺术创作与审美感知和审美想象的关系。审美感知和审美想象是艺术创作的关键环节,但艺术创作最终要落实到技术性的操作层面,梅洛-庞蒂将胡塞尔意识主体的感知转化为身体主体的感知,使感知与客观事物融为一体,进而与不在场的世界的整体相协调,从而克服了艺术创作中审美感知与技术操作的矛盾,同时也克服了感知与情感的矛盾；在此基础上我们对艺术形式在创作中的作用进行了分析,认为形式不仅是客观的艺术作品的特性,而且渗透到了整个艺术创作过程中。萨特则将想象理解为对自在存在的克服和对人的自由世界的构造,认为现实世界是破碎的而想象能够构造一种不在场的完整性,指出美和艺术的本质就在于创造性的、自由的想象活动,他强调了审美想象的实践性,从而也解决了想象与情感的矛盾；在此基础上我们对虚构在艺术创作中的作用进行了分析,认为虚构是建立在想象的创造性和自由性基础上的对现实时空关系的克服和对虚拟时空关系的构造的活动。但由于哲学立场的局限,梅洛-庞蒂和萨特都没有将审美感知和审美想象视为一个整体,反而有使它们对立的倾向,因而都具有片面性。第五章主要以文学和视觉艺术这两种艺术类型为例,讨论艺术作品的存在方式和艺术接受的问题。英迦登的作品存在论与形式主义的、结构主义的作品存在论的区别在于,他将作品理解为意向性存在而不是实体性存在,因此我们可以将艺术作品的存在方式还原为艺术接受的过程,作品不是纯客观的,接收过程不是纯主观的,二者不可分割。由于文学以语言符号为载体,而视觉艺术是一种图像,文学和视觉艺术这两类艺术可以还原为符号意识和图像意识,胡塞尔对图像意识和符号意识的分析表明,图像对象和符号对象比直观对象复杂,它们是三重对象,即它们的物质载体、它们的意义内容和它们所指向的对象的复合体,文学与视觉艺术的特殊存在方式,或者说它们与一般的符号和图像的区别则在于,它们的对象既不是实在的观念也不是实在的实体,具体说它们的三重对象之间的关系不同于一般符号和图像,它们的意义内容与客观对象之间的联系被削弱,从而构造出具有虚拟性的对象,此虚拟对象既是有限的、在场的形象对象,又包含着无限的、不在场的总体性的意蕴。但将艺术接受还原为图像意识和符号意识,并不意味着艺术接受与审美感知的脱离,艺术接受中的图像意识、符号意识,包括审美情感,都是以审美感知为基础的。杜夫海纳的审美经验分析表明,感知是审美经验中的关键因素,想象、情感以及图像意识和符号意识等都包含在感知当中,这是作为审美对象的艺术作品的客观性的保证。第六章试图借鉴现象学的理论对中国传统美学概念“意象”和“情”“景”进行分析。意象概念和情、景这对范畴集中体现了中国传统哲学思想中有与无、虚与实的辩证关系,同时与现象学关于在场与不在场、有限性与无限性的思想相通,我们根据现象学的相关理论对它们进行重新阐释,试图更深入地分析艺术创作和艺术接受现象。具体地说,意象概念包含的言、象、意之间的辩证关系以及情与景之间的辩证关系,体现了具体的审美直观、艺术接受中的图像和符号意识与艺术的独特审美意蕴和审美情致的本质联系。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper mainly researched the thoughts about art of the phenomenology theorists, and analyzed the methods and concepts of phenomenology such as intentionality and horizon which were important for our research about art nature.The introduction discussed how the phenomenology and the aesthetics and artistics of our country researched art nature. The problem of our aesthetics and artistics was we did not have a clear definition about art and had many prejudices about this question. The phenomenology methods could overcome the prejudices. The aesthetics thoughts of phenomenology included the analysis about art creation、works and acceptance which was connected with intentionality, and the relationships between art and being or the truth which was connected with vision. Both the concepts were used by different phenomenology theorists but have some different meanings. So we should compare them to understand them deeply.The task of "Chapter 1" was to explain the idea of "beautiful art" and the idea about art nature of traditional aesthetics and artistics. The idea of "beautiful art" became an important question during the art became mature. The traditional aesthetics thought art was perceptible, but on the other hand it should be connected with rationality. There was contradictions in the idea which was based on the position of dualism. The art researched art nature by empiricism methods, but distinguished art and beauty, and replaced art nature with the origin and elements of art.The "Chapter 2" and "Chapter 3" discussed the relationship between art nature and aesthetic consciousness and between it and being or truth.The task of "Chapter 2" was to explain the intentionality concept, including objectivating、founding、eidetic intuition、value intuition and the variants of intentionality concept, such as "care" of Heidegger、"intentionality" of Sartre、"body intentionality" of Merleau-Ponty. By analyzing these concepts we researched the aesthetic consciousness. The first part discussed the intentionality and eidetic intuition which could overcome the dualism. The methods of phenomenology changed the idea about the relationship between nature and phenomenon. But Husserl insisted on the position of consciousness philosophy, and looked nature as idea. At the same time, art nature——beauty could not be looked as idea. And eidetic intuition was similar with art intuition, but one was theory act the other was perceptible, they were different. The second part analyzed the aesthetic consciousness by objectivating and founding concepts. The aesthetic consciousness should include aesthetic intuition and aesthetic feeling, but according to Husserl’ thought, feeling was not objectivating act, so it had no object of itself. We could not unified aesthetic intuition and aesthetic feeling. Scheler looked eidetic intuition as value intuition, thought feeling had its object——value, so aesthetic consciousness had its object too. But Scheler’ value was beyond perceptible things and it was different from the beauty of art. So we could not research art nature only by aesthetic consciousness.The task of "Chapter 3" was to explain the horizon concept, including primordial、absent、being、intersubjectivity、life-world and the variants of vision concept, such as "earth" of Heidegger、cogito of Sartre、"flesh" of Merleau-Ponty、"history horizon" of Gadamer. By analyzing these concepts we researched the relationship between art and the world. The first part discussed the horizon concept, which changed our thoughts about being and took "absent" into west philosophy. The world horizon was not based on subjectivity but intersubjectivity, so the being of the world was based on intersubjectivity. Husserl、Sartre and Merleau-Ponty researched this concept, but they did not overcome the contradictions between intersubjectivity and subjectivity. Sartre and Ingarden looked art as communication among different people, which was important for the objectivity of art. The second part discussed the attributions of art as a way to look at the world by the distinction between life-world and science world and philosophy world. Life-world was not an object but a world horizon, which was looked as a topic by science and philosophy and so on. Heidegger thought being was absent, and human could cover being at the same time uncover being. Or there was dialectical relationship between the culture world and "the earth", and art was better than science at uncovering the meaning of the absent being. This idea was meaningful because it took "absent" into our research. In hermeneutics and reception aesthetics, the horizon concept was changed with history horizon which was more specific, but the question about the subjectivity and objectivity of art appeared again. The third part discussed the relationship between art and "the truth" by Heidegger’thought about truth. Heidegger’ thought about truth was different from the traditional thought, because the traditional thought was only connected with present things, but Heidegger’ truth was connected with the absent things, so it was connected with beauty. This idea told us that art nature was not abstract and fixed, but appeared livingly during the art activities.The "Chapter 4" and "Chapter 5" discussed the relationship between art works and aesthetic consciousness.The task of "Chapter 4" was to explain the aesthetics perception and imagination. Both of them were the key links of art creation, but making the material carrier was also important. Merleau-Ponty changed the consciousness intentionality with body intentionality, which unified the perception and things, even the absent things. So the contradiction between intentionality and substantiality of the aesthetic object was overcame, so did the contradiction between perception and emotion. We analyzed the art form by perception concept, and thought art form influenced all the process of art creation. Sartre looked imagination as transcendental from existence to freedom, and the real world was meaningless but the imagination could create absent totality, so imagination was the art nature. We analyzed the art fiction by imagination concept, and thought fiction, which was based on aesthetics imagination, could be beyond the real time and space, create a fictional world. But both Merleau-Ponty and Sartre had not unified perception and imagination.The task of "Chapter 5" was to explain the art works and art acceptance. The difference between Ingarden’ thought about art works and those of formalism and structuralist was that he looked works as intentional but not substantial. So the works were equal to art acceptance, works were not objective thoroughly and acceptance was not subjective thoroughly. Both of them should be unified. Literature was based on language and visual arts were based on image, so we could look literature as symbols consciousness and visual arts as image consciousness. According to Husserl’ analysis about symbol and image, they both had three objects, including material carrier、meaning and the object. Literature and visual arts were different from general symbols and image, because they were not idea or entities, the relationship of the three objects was different from that of general symbols and image, the relationship between meaning and objects were weakened, and they created fictional objects, which were not only present and limited, but also absent and unlimited. But the symbols consciousness and image consciousness in art acceptance were not split from aesthetics perception, Dufrenne thought that aesthetics perception was the key factor in art acceptance, and it included the aesthetics imagination、emotion、symbols consciousness and image consciousness, this ensured the objectivity of art works.The "Chapter 6" tried to explain Chinese traditional concepts such as "yixiang"、"qing"and"jing". These concepts reflected the Chinese traditional philosophy thoughts about "you"and"wu"、"xu"and"shi", at the same time, they were similar to the phenomenology concepts such as present and absent、limited and unlimited, so we could explain them with phenomenology concepts and got deeper knowledge about art creation and acceptance. Yixiang reflected the dialectical relationship among "yan" "xiang" and "yi", and there was dialectical relationship between "qing" and "jing", the relationships could be compared with that of aesthetics perception、imagination、emotion、symbols consciousness and image consciousness.更多还原