关于中国美学史研究的对象和分期问题

发布时间：2018-06-16 03:38

本文选题：中国美学史研究 + 分期问题　；参考：《哲学动态》1993年06期

【摘要】：关于中国美学史研究的对象和分期问题聂振斌对于中国美学史研究的一般对象与方法，近几年已有不少学者发表了看法，主要有三种意见。第一种意见认为，，美学史是研究审美意识淡展史的。审美意识有两种表现形态：一是抽象的理论形态；二是具体的感性形态。广义的美学史把以上两种形态作为研究对象，而狭义的美学史则仅研究抽象的理论形态的审美意识。第二种意见反对把美学史分为＂广义＂和＂狭义＂两种，认为美学史的对象范围只能是审美意识中已经形成为理论形态的那一部分。第三种意见认为中国美学史应当研究中国的艺术美和体现这些艺术美的理论。我认为美学史研究的对象范围，除了专门的美学家的思想、著述外，还要把哲学家、思想家、教育家、文艺家、文艺批评家等思想体系中的审美观点、文艺观点包括在内。至于审美对象（艺术、社会、自然）史只能作为历史背景材料和某些理论观点的具体印证而被吸收到美学史的撰写范围之内。关干中国近代美学的历史分期习惯套用社会发展的一般历史分期，即以＂五四＂为界．把从鸦片战争到中华人民共和国成立这段历史，分为＂近代＂与＂现代＂两个住质不同的社会阶段，并作为美学史的划界依据，我认为应该依据美学思想自身的发展过程，不应该机械地套用一般历史学的分期
[Abstract]:On the object and stages of the study of Chinese Aesthetic History Nie Zhenbin has expressed his views on the general objects and methods of the study of Chinese Aesthetic History in recent years. The first view is that the history of aesthetics is to study the history of aesthetic consciousness. There are two forms of aesthetic consciousness: one is abstract theoretical form, the other is concrete perceptual form. The broad aesthetic history takes the above two forms as the object of study, while the narrow aesthetic history only studies the aesthetic consciousness of the abstract theoretical form. The second is against classifying the history of aesthetics into "broad sense" and "narrow sense", and holds that the object scope of aesthetic history can only be the part of aesthetic consciousness which has been formed into theoretical form. The third view is that the history of Chinese aesthetics should study Chinese artistic beauty and the theory of embodying it. I think the object scope of the study of the history of aesthetics is not only the thoughts and writings of specialized aestheticians, but also the aesthetic and literary viewpoints of philosophers, thinkers, educators, literary critics and so on. The history of aesthetic objects (art, society, nature) can only be absorbed into the writing scope of aesthetic history as the concrete confirmation of historical background materials and some theoretical viewpoints. The customs of historical division of modern Chinese aesthetics apply the general historical division of social development to the "May 4th" period. From the Opium War to the founding of the people's Republic of China, Divided into "modern" and "modern" two different social stages, and as the basis for the demarcation of the history of aesthetics, I think should be based on the development of aesthetic thought itself, should not mechanically apply the general history of the stages

【相似文献】