对三种艺术史模式的分析研究
发布时间：2018-10-10 16:26
【摘要】：纵观16——19 世纪的西方艺术史研究,瓦萨里、温克尔曼、黑格尔、李格尔和沃尔夫林这五位艺术史家都系统地建立了把握、描述艺术史的理论构架,将艺术史的发展看成是一个连续的逻辑过程。在论述时,他们分别采用了生物学模式、进化论模式以及形式主义模式。这三种模式的确立在艺术史研究方法论方面具有里程碑式的意义,大大推动了西方艺术史研究的进程。首先,瓦萨里由于不满足于枯燥地描述艺术家的生平及其作品,他指出了作为整体的艺术的发展有着超越任何一位艺术家个人贡献的、类似于生物生命发展的周期性,由此确立了用生物学模式阐述艺术史的写作方法。尽管生物学的艺术史循环理论不是他首创的,但是他却是第一个在这一模式中将建筑、雕刻和绘画三门艺术的发展当作一个整体来论述,并对艺术风格产生的根源作解释的人。瓦萨里这一模式的确立,凸现了艺术史研究的主体和方向。其次,温克尔曼对瓦萨里的生物学模式进行了修正,他将艺术史的写作从艺术家传记转向了侧重艺术作品及艺术的审美特征,从而使其论述的内容与生物学模式有机地结合在一起。再次,黑格尔摒弃了原始的生物学模式,他以辩证统一的发展理论来透视艺术的历史,从而否定了艺术史的循环论观点。黑格尔的螺旋式进化论模式的意义,在于为艺术史的发展提供了完整而清晰的逻辑线索。同样采用进化论模式的李格尔,突破了黑格尔纯粹哲学思辨的方法,将心理学的研究成果引入艺术史研究,以此来揭示知觉方式从古代到现代的发展图式,企图为他的进化论观点找到科学的证明。李格尔持久的影响力在于将艺术史研究的“宏观把握与微观经验主义考察相统一致的方法”[1]。最后,与前三种模式不同,沃尔夫林的形式主义模式将艺术史的研究全部集中于艺术作品的形式因素,通过探讨视觉方式的演变,来揭示艺术的内在发展规律,从而彻底将对艺术史的主观性阐释转移到经验主义的研究上来。因此,对于任何一位研究西方艺术史的人来说,这三种模式所奠定的基础是不能绕过的。 整体看来,三种模式都热衷于构建系统性阐释结构,即这些艺术史家首先确立一种独立于具体题材内容的一般性概念,个体艺术家或特定时期的艺术风格就成为一般概念的具体解释,然后在此基础上以不同的方式构建起论述的框架,从而达到对艺术史发展系统性阐释的目的。因此,本文对三种模式的分析是通过论
[Abstract]:Throughout the 16th and 19th centuries of Western art history studies, Vasari, Winkelman, Hegel, Ligel and Wolflin, five art historians, have systematically established a theoretical framework to describe the history of art. The development of art history is regarded as a continuous logical process. In the discussion, they adopted biological model, evolutionary model and formalism model respectively. The establishment of these three models has a milestone significance in the methodology of art history research, and has greatly promoted the process of western art history research. First of all, not content with describing the life of an artist and his work, Vasari points out that the development of art as a whole has a periodicity similar to that of biological life that transcends the individual contribution of any artist. Therefore, it establishes the writing method of expounding the history of art with biological model. Although the theory of art history cycle of biology was not his first, he was the first to discuss the development of architecture, sculpture and painting as a whole and explain the origin of artistic style in this model. The establishment of Vasari model highlights the subject and direction of art history research. Secondly, Winkelmann revised Vasari's biological model by shifting the writing of art history from an artist's biography to an emphasis on artistic works and aesthetic features. So that the content of its discussion and biological models are organically combined. Third, Hegel abandoned the original biological model, he perspective the history of art with dialectical and unified development theory, thus negating the theory of circulation of art history. The significance of Hegel's spiral evolutionary model lies in providing a complete and clear logical clue for the development of art history. Ligel, who also adopted the evolutionary model, broke through Hegel's method of pure philosophical speculation and introduced the research results of psychology into the study of art history, thus revealing the development schema of perception from ancient to modern. Trying to find scientific proof of his theory of evolution. Ligel's lasting influence lies in the method of unifying macroscopic grasp and microscopic empiricism in the study of art history [1]. Finally, different from the first three models, Wolflin's formalism model focuses the study of art history on the formal factors of art works, and reveals the inherent development law of art by exploring the evolution of visual way. Thus, the subjective interpretation of art history will be transferred to empiricism. Therefore, for anyone who studies the history of Western art, the foundation laid by these three models cannot be bypassed. On the whole, the three models are keen to construct a systematic interpretation structure, that is, these art historians first establish a general concept independent of the content of the specific subject matter. The individual artist or the artistic style of a particular period becomes the concrete explanation of the general concept, and then, on this basis, the frame of discussion is constructed in different ways, so as to achieve the purpose of systematic interpretation of the development of the history of art. Therefore, the analysis of the three models in this paper is based on the theory of
【学位授予单位】：山东师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2005
【分类号】：J110.9
本文编号：2262463
[Abstract]:Throughout the 16th and 19th centuries of Western art history studies, Vasari, Winkelman, Hegel, Ligel and Wolflin, five art historians, have systematically established a theoretical framework to describe the history of art. The development of art history is regarded as a continuous logical process. In the discussion, they adopted biological model, evolutionary model and formalism model respectively. The establishment of these three models has a milestone significance in the methodology of art history research, and has greatly promoted the process of western art history research. First of all, not content with describing the life of an artist and his work, Vasari points out that the development of art as a whole has a periodicity similar to that of biological life that transcends the individual contribution of any artist. Therefore, it establishes the writing method of expounding the history of art with biological model. Although the theory of art history cycle of biology was not his first, he was the first to discuss the development of architecture, sculpture and painting as a whole and explain the origin of artistic style in this model. The establishment of Vasari model highlights the subject and direction of art history research. Secondly, Winkelmann revised Vasari's biological model by shifting the writing of art history from an artist's biography to an emphasis on artistic works and aesthetic features. So that the content of its discussion and biological models are organically combined. Third, Hegel abandoned the original biological model, he perspective the history of art with dialectical and unified development theory, thus negating the theory of circulation of art history. The significance of Hegel's spiral evolutionary model lies in providing a complete and clear logical clue for the development of art history. Ligel, who also adopted the evolutionary model, broke through Hegel's method of pure philosophical speculation and introduced the research results of psychology into the study of art history, thus revealing the development schema of perception from ancient to modern. Trying to find scientific proof of his theory of evolution. Ligel's lasting influence lies in the method of unifying macroscopic grasp and microscopic empiricism in the study of art history [1]. Finally, different from the first three models, Wolflin's formalism model focuses the study of art history on the formal factors of art works, and reveals the inherent development law of art by exploring the evolution of visual way. Thus, the subjective interpretation of art history will be transferred to empiricism. Therefore, for anyone who studies the history of Western art, the foundation laid by these three models cannot be bypassed. On the whole, the three models are keen to construct a systematic interpretation structure, that is, these art historians first establish a general concept independent of the content of the specific subject matter. The individual artist or the artistic style of a particular period becomes the concrete explanation of the general concept, and then, on this basis, the frame of discussion is constructed in different ways, so as to achieve the purpose of systematic interpretation of the development of the history of art. Therefore, the analysis of the three models in this paper is based on the theory of
【学位授予单位】：山东师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2005
【分类号】：J110.9
【引证文献】
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 陈宁;德意志造型美学中的古典意识问题研究[D];黑龙江大学;2011年
，本文编号：2262463
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenyilunwen/yishull/2262463.html
