关系主义的艺术作品本体论

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2021.01.231

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (891 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The paradigm shift from essentialism to relationalism in modern philosophy has foreshadowed a relationalist model and its concept of “work” in reformulating the ontology of artworks, showing its theoretical superiority over the traditional essentialist model and its notion of “text” in grasping the fundamental way of being artworks regarding their synchronic and diachronic structures. Relationalism adopts a distinct ontological outlook from that of essentialism in conceiving existence as “a relational being”, in removing the essentialist distinction of “external phenomenon” and “internal essence”, and, rather than seeing things in isolation and in one side as having singular essence according to the essentialist doctrine, in attempting to understand things relationally and multi-perspectively with a pluralist notion of “relation”.Relationalism was inaugurated by phenomenology in the 20th Century and enjoyed a broader philosophical interest amongst Dewey, Wittgenstein, Martin Buber and Bakhtin, etc. This philosophical trend has attracted attention from Chinese academics to the experiential dimension of relation, but Chinese scholars, up to now, have not yet widely taken into account the metaphysics of relationalism. The relationalist theory of artworks here endorses a phenomenological concept of a moderate relationalism which lends to its methodology and definition of artworks. Instead of defining artwork as a sort of Spinozan “substance”, this relationalist theory characterizes artworks as a three-fold connection constituted by a subject-object relation, an intersubjective relation, and an interrelation between works, which enclose an artwork in terms of all the possible relations it could have.The relationalist theory shows its edge on properly capturing all these three folds that have not been fully addressed altogether by any single aesthetic thesis in the past. Wittgenstein’s idea of “family resemblance” has been an inspiration in understanding the interrelation between artworks with respect to their similarities, but it missed out the relation between artworks and their viewers along with the underlying intersubjective relation of the authors and the viewers. Gadamer’s hermeneutics shed light on the subject-object relation within the intentional framework but left out the interrelation of artworks. Nevertheless, these relationalist theses in the history of philosophy contributed to the formation of the relationlist theory of art articulated here.The relationalist characterization of artworks consists of three crucial ontological points. One is that it defines artworks from the “exterior”, which echoes the French phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty’s criticism toward the philosophical concept of “interiority” from the perspective of “exteriority”. Another is that it comprehends an artwork as a historical being which embodies the ontological proposition of “being is becoming”. The last point introduces a distinction of this relationalist art theory from M. H. Abrams’ thesis of four elements in literature. Abrams provides this toolkit mainly for making sense of the history of literary theory rather than formulating an interpretation or ontology of artworks. In other words, the three relations between the four elements involved in the row picture mapped out by Abrams are exclusively confined to temporal/historical relations, whereas the relationalist model that theorizes a three-fold connection in artworks, albeit being able to accommodate the historical being of artworks in an ontological sense, is in the first place aiming at revealing the logical/synchronic structures of the relations that associate artworks.

Key words： relationalism art works ontology intentionality intersubjectivity

Received: 23 January 2021

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Guo Yongjian

TRENDMD:

Cite this article:

Guo Yongjian. As a Kind of Relationalism's Ontology of Art Works[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2021, 51(6): 105-118.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2021.01.231 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2021/V51/I6/105

德］黑格尔：《小逻辑》，贺麟译，北京：商务印书馆，1997年。2 德］伊瑟尔：《文本的召唤结构》，章国锋译，见周启超主编：《外国文论与比较诗学》第3辑，北京：知识产权出版社，2015年，第153-174页。3 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编：《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷，北京：人民出版社，1995年。4 德］马丁·布伯：《我和你》，杨俊杰译，成都：四川人民出版社，2019年。5 美］肯尼思·J.格根：《关系性存在：超越自我与共同体》，杨莉萍译，上海：上海教育出版社，2019年。6 法］莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂：《知觉的世界：论哲学、文学与艺术》，王士盛、周子悦译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2020年。7 南帆：《关系与结构》，长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司，2009年。8 古希腊］亚里士多德：《诗学》，陈中梅译，北京：商务印书馆，1999年。9 法］莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂：《知觉的世界：论哲学、文学与艺术》，王士盛、周子悦译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2019年。10 美］斯蒂芬·戴维斯：《艺术哲学》，王燕飞译，上海：上海人民美术出版社，2008年。11 德］伽达默尔、［法］德里达等：《德法之争：伽达默尔与德里达的对话》，孙周兴、孙善春编译，北京：商务印书馆，2015年。12 李长之：《王国维文艺批评著作批判》，见伍杰、王鸿雁编：《李长之书评》（四），石家庄：河北教育出版社，2006年，第243-283页。13 宗白华：《艺境》，北京：北京大学出版社，1987年。14 傅雷：《傅雷文集·艺术卷》，合肥：安徽文艺出版社，1998年。15 谈锡永：《谈锡永谈艺》，上海：上海文艺出版社，2021年。16 美］乔治·迪基：《何为艺术Ⅱ》，见［美］M.李普曼编：《当代美学》，邓鹏译，北京：光明日报出版社，1986年，第101-117页。17 德］沃·伊瑟尔：《阅读行为》，金惠敏等译，长沙：湖南文艺出版社，1991年。18 蒲松龄：《聊斋志异》，朱晶注释，南昌：二十一世纪出版社，2011年。19 德］奥瑟·瑙卡利恁：《环境艺术》，肖双荣译，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2014年。20 英］约翰·凯里：《艺术有什么用》，刘洪涛、谢江南译，南京：译林出版社，2007年。21 马克思、恩格斯：《马克思恩格斯论艺术》第一卷，北京：中国社会科学出版社，1983年。22 美］斯坦利·费什：《读者反应批评：理论与实践》，文楚安译，北京：中国社会科学出版社，1998年。23 法］罗兰·巴特：《从作品到文本》，钱翰译，见周启超主编：《外国文论与比较诗学》第2辑，北京：知识产权出版社，2015年，第153-160页。24 叶嘉莹：《叶嘉莹说汉魏六朝诗》，北京：中华书局，2007年。25 英］托·斯·艾略特：《传统与个人才能：艾略特文集·论文》，卞之琳、李赋宁等译，上海：上海译文出版社，2019年。26 美］米哈伊·奇凯岑特米哈伊：《创造性：发现和发明的心理学》，夏镇平译，上海：上海译文出版社，2001年。27 德］恩斯特·卡西尔：《人文科学的逻辑》，关子尹译，上海：上海译文出版社，2013年。28 德］马丁·海德格尔：《依于本源而居——海德格尔艺术现象学文选》，孙周兴编译，杭州：中国美术学院出版社，2010年。29 美］M.H.艾布拉姆斯：《镜与灯：浪漫主义文论及批评传统》，郦稚牛、张照进、童庆生译，北京：北京大学出版社，2004年。30 美］雅克·马凯：《审美经验》，吕捷译，北京：商务印书馆，2016年。