藝術自主性及其不滿

The Autonomy of Art and Its Discontent

蘇風銘(Feng-Ming Su)

指導教授 ： 林宏璋

國立臺北藝術大學/美術學院學術論文/美術學系碩士班美術史組/碩士(2013年)

摘要

十八世紀末由康德(Immanuel Kant, 1724~1804)以及席勒(Friederich Schiller, 1759~1805)確立的藝術自主性概念，在十九世紀初的法國轉化為「為藝術而藝術」的口號。這個口號延續著無利害性與無目的性的思想，卻未見康德的判斷力作為知性與理性的橋樑作用以及席勒為藝術設計了擔當社會改革的使命，於是造成了藝術與生活之間的隔閡；同時，這種隔閡的狀態以否定性的概念被理解為是對於社會的批判性。但是，透過馬克思(Karl Marx, 1818~1883)的宗教批判模式卻可以發現藝術自主性的否定性的偽批判性，換言之，藝術自主性實際上是「除魅化」之後的資本主義社會的宗教性意識形態。二十世紀之後，藝術自主性變成是葛林柏格(Clement Greenberg, 1909~1994)所謂的現代藝術的自我批判的概念，甚至，在丹托(Arthur Danto, 1924~ )、迪基(George Dickie, 1926~ )以及卡羅爾(Noël Carroll, 1947~ )等人的分析美學理論當中，還可以發現藝術自主性所形成的機制效應。
對立於藝術自主性的路線，在十九世紀法國空想社會主義者的前衛藝術概念、本雅明(Walter Benjamin, 1892~1940)的「藝術政治化」以及布爾格(Peter Bürger, 1936~ )的前衛藝術理論中，則可以看到否定藝術自主性的思想線索；換言之，前衛藝術以及政治藝術實際上都是對於藝術自主性不滿的概念。而如果布迪厄(Pierre Bourdieu, 1930~2002)的研究以及政治哲學理論中的消極自由學說，對於藝術自主性與新古典自由主義和資本主義生產邏輯之間的共謀性結構可以證成的話，那麼在此共謀性結構仍然會再生產社會不平等的情況之下，前衛藝術對於藝術整合進生活實踐的訴求就必須轉換為追求政治哲學理論中所探討的政治自由的政治藝術，才能夠對於整個資本主義社會結構產生真正的批判性。

關鍵字

藝術自主性 ； 前衛藝術 ； 現代藝術 ； 藝術機制 ； 政治藝術

並列摘要

The idea of the autonomy of art was developed by Kant and Schiller at the end of 18th century, then it became the battlecry of “l'art pour l'art” at the beginning of 19th century in French. This famous formula “l'art pour l'art” associated itself only with the concept of “disinterestedness” and “purposiveness without a purpose”, but it never conveyed that sense of that Kant draws the connection between understanding and reason which aesthetic judgment mediates, and that Schiller conceives the social mission which art undertakes, so it finally came about the alienation between art and life. In addition, this kind of alienation has been taken as the negation to society, then as the criticism to society. However, with the model of Marx’s criticism of religion, the pseudo-critique of the negation of the autonomy of art can be revealed. In other words, the autonomy of art is a kind of religious-ideology in “disenchanted” bourgeois society. In 20th century, the autonomy of art became the concept of self-critical tendency which Greenberg pointed out, furthermore, the institutional effects concerning with the autonomy of art can be also found in the analytic aesthetics which is mainly in relation to Danto, Dickie, and Carroll.
Counter to the autonomy of art, it can be analysed with regard to the idea of avant-garde which utopian socialism in 19th century claimed, the “Politicisation of Art” which Benjamin advocated, and the theory of avant-garde which Bürger addressed, they all illustrated the denial of the autonomy of art. With all of them, it can be additionally understood that avant-garde is political art as discontent with the autonomy of art. If Bourdieu’s theory and the doctrine of negative liberty in political philosophy can manifest the complicity among the autonomy of art, neoliberalism, and the production logic in bourgeois society, and so, this complicity structure even reproduces the social inequality, then it seems that the central principle of reintegrating art and life-praxis of avant-garde have to be realized as a kind of political art which pursuits the political liberty in political philosophy, and as an attempt to develop a sincere critical capacity to the bourgeois society as a whole.

並列關鍵字

the autonomy of art ； avant-garde, modern art ； art institution ； political art

參考文獻

Arthur C. Danto. (1981). The Transfiguration of the Commenplace. London: Harvard University Press. (1981).

Arthur C. Danto. (1986). The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art. New York: Columbia University Press. (1986).

Arthur C. Danto. (1992). Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective. New York, Farrar Straus Giroux. (1992).

Arthur Schopenhauer. (1819). Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co. (1987).

Bernard Bosanquet. (1915). Three Lectures on Aesthetic. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited. (1923).