传记体还属于艺术史吗?--从温克尔曼与韦勒克等人对传记体的批评谈起  

Does Biography belong to Art History?A Discussion of Winckelmann,Wellek,and Others'Critique of Biography

作　　者：周景崇[1] ZHOU Jingchong(Faculty of Humanities and Arts,Macao University of Science and Technology,Macao 999078)

机构地区：[1]浙江理工大学艺术与设计学院,杭州310018

出　　处：《文化艺术研究》2021年第4期102-110,116,共10页Studies in Culture and Art

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“南传佛教石窟造像中心史迹探查”(项目编号:18BZS165)的研究成果。

摘　　要：温克尔曼在《古代艺术史》一书中批评了当代艺术史写作中惯用的某些传记体方法。在他看来,有一些作家或艺术家存在夸大天才与作品的现象。埃尔韦·菲舍尔“否定了整个19世纪流行的历史观”,甚至提出了“传记体还属于艺术史吗?”等质问。与之相反的是,乔吉奥·瓦萨里、乔治·库伯勒等批评家则对艺术史当中的传记体持认同态度。这些争论实际上就是在探讨传记体艺术史是否还属于艺术史应有的结构和范围的问题。在观念流变中,艺术势必进入历史,历史也将磨炼艺术。本文试从中西方对“纪传式”著述的不同观点,去解读艺术史从传记或历史中寻找研究依据的关键作用,并对传记体作品的历史与传记的双重溯源进行简单梳理。In History of the Art of Antiquity,Winckelmann criticizes some of the wildly used biographical approaches in contemporary art history writing,arguing that some writers or artists are used to exaggeration.HervéFischer rejects"the historical view that prevailed in the nineteenth century"and asks"Does biography belong to art history?"On the contrary,critics such as Giorgio Vasari and Georg Kubler approve of biography in art history.The core of these debates is whether biographical art history is within art history’s frame.The alteration of thoughts decides that art is part of history and that history refines art.This article explores the Chinese and Western thoughts on biographical writings to understand the role of art history in finding academic evidence from biography and history and sorts out the dual origin of biographical art history in history and biography.

关 键 词：艺术史 传记体 文艺批评 艺术家 

分 类 号：J110.9[艺术—艺术理论]