Revolution with Creativity

革命中的創造力

葉明勳

《藝術學報》 72期 (2003/08) Pp. 99-112

https://doi.org/10.6793/JNTCA.200308.0099

摘要

1962年Thomas Kuhn（1962）提出了「典範」 ”Paradigm”的科學哲史新價值觀後，延續多年處於傳統科學界與社會、人文、政治學界間的戰爭進入了一個新的紀元（Sardar,Z.,2000）。作為一個原本為物理學家後來轉為科學哲史學家， Kuhn學說所形成的「新典範」除了受到同時期來自科學傳統的嚴正批判外，許多社會研究、甚至藝術人文領域的研究反而開始引用典範的新概念，作為其思想史的脈絡準則。
就一個科學哲史研究的「先鋒」概念而言（當然Kuhn自己並不承認，指出典範概念乃是引用自原先在藝術、社會人文研究領域早就已有的想法），首先當然必須承受很多的贊同與批判，也因此才能夠有更完整深入的修正。其中Kuhn曾針對科學與藝術之關連性，以”Comment on the Relations of Science and Art”一文來分析科學與藝術在發展過程中的相似與相異之處。但事過境遷，文中許多的想法與概念正在做「典範的轉移中」（甚至「典範」本身的概念也在轉移），且就藝術的層面上並不十分確切，故本文嘗試以新的角度來分析，並將後現代的藝術現象與觀念加入討論的行列中。
就視覺藝術的角度來看，「藝術心理學」領域所研究的「創造力」”Creativity”相關議題乃是近二、三十年來的熱門話題，沿用至今，教育心理學、發展心理學、人工智能等領域莫不重視此一議題的相關研究成果。有趣的是，藝術心理學家Csikszentmihalyi（1988）於1988年所發表”Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity”一文中的思想脈絡與Kuhn的概念有異曲同工之妙－兩者皆以社會文化的系統面向來看整個的發展過程。在此文中，Csikszentmihalyi除了以許多例子來說明藝術發展過程中，「創造力」如何演進外，更以其著名的「動態模型」”dynamic model”來說明此一演進的歷程。本文除分析其論述外，並嘗試將此模型中，創造力演進過程的動態模型與孔恩的「典範轉移」概念作一比較，並探討「典範」於此模型中的位置，此為本研究的目的一。
再者，後現代科學與藝術間的關係是筆者十分感興趣的，尤其是「常態」理論發展與社會文化發展的不確定性相結合，各種可能性讓兩個領域間的交流愈趨頻繁，以當代的藝術創作為例，科技所扮演的角色往往會讓人質疑藝術的「價值」在哪裡，此外由攝影成為藝術創作一枝以來，到現今的數位藝術、科技藝術，許多的觀念正在轉移中，複製的衝擊與大眾文化的矛盾讓兩者的關係更加緊密，許多傳統對立的觀念便開始產生轉變。筆者嘗試於另一篇論述：”The Mystery of Pairs”一文中，以更高的層次與面向視角，來分析這些彼此對立的概念演進過程，因此，本文的另一目的便是為此文的研究作基礎回顧與分析的工作。

並列摘要

Since Thomas Kuhn (1962) introduced the new value in 1962 -”paradigm” - in history and philosophy of science, the situation that traditional science had been in the war against sociology, arts, and politics, which lasted for many years, had entered a new age (Sardar, Z., 2000). Kuhn himself was a physicist before he became a researcher in history and philosophy of science. His doctrine, which created a new ”paradigm,” aroused sharp criticism from other traditional science researchers at the same period. However, many researchers of sociology, arts and humanities started to use Kuhn's new ”paradigm” as the principle for their researches and thinking.
”Paradigm,” as a ”pioneer” concept in historical and philosophical researches, would definitely encounter many endorsements and critiques. (Kuhn himself didn't admit that paradigm was a ”pioneer” concept and pointed out that it originated from the researches in arts, humanity, and social science.) Therefore, it should be corrected more completely and deeply. Kuhn once put his focus on the relationship between science and art, and he analyzed the similarities and differences between the development of science and art in the essay -”Comment on the Relations of Science and Art.” However, the situation has changed, and a lot of ideas and concepts are now ”shifting” on paradigm (even the concept ”paradigm” itself is shifting too.). Several parts in his essay that are mentioned above are not exactly precise and correct. Thus I'm going to try new angles to analyze these issues and discuss the phenomenon and concepts of post-modem art in this essay.
From the views of visual art, the researches and related issues on ”Creativity” in psychology of art have been hot during these 20 or 30 years. Up to now, people in several research fields, such as educational psychology, developmental psychology, or artificial intelligence, can hardly neglect the importance of the research achievements on these issues. What's more interesting is, art psychologist ”Csikszentmihalyi” (1988) published an essay in 1988: ”Society, culture, and person: a system's view of creativity,” and the idea in his essay was similar to Kuhn's concept. Both of them analyzed the development with a system's view on society and culture. In his essay, he used many examples to illustrate the developmental process of art, and how the revolution of ”creativity” works, and he also used his famous ”dynamic model” to illustrate this process. In this essay, I would like to discuss his issue and compare the process in that dynamic model with Kuhn's concepts of ”paradigm shifts”. Besides, I would like to find out the Position of ”paradigm” in this model. That is one of my research purposes in this essay.
Furthermore, I am very interested in the relationship between post-modem science and art. When the development of the ”normal” theory meets the uncertainty in development of societies and cultures, many possibilities will make these two fields interact more frequently. Take contemporary art for example, the role that science and technology play becomes so important that people start to wonder where the ”value” of art is. Photography became one of the branches in art creation, and many ideas are now shifting in contemporary digital art and tech-art. The impact from reproduction and the contradiction in mass culture shorten the distance between science and art. Many ideas against tradition are changing. I would like to use higher levels and angles to discuss the evolution processes of these opposite ideas in my next essay: ”The Mystery of Pairs”. Thus, another purpose of this essay is to do the works of basic review and analysis.