哲学的艺术史“修正”与新旧图像学之争——基于“原作”的辩难  

The“Revision”of Philosophy through Art History and the Dispute between New Image Philosophy and Old Iconology:Debate Based on“Original Works”

作　　者：鲁明军 Lu Mingjun(the School of Philosophy,Fudan University,Shanghai 200433,China)

机构地区：[1]复旦大学哲学学院,200433

出　　处：《文艺理论研究》2022年第6期65-74,共10页Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art

摘　　要：1968年,迈耶·夏皮罗针对海德格尔在《艺术作品的本源》中关于凡·高画“鞋子”的观点撰文指出,事实并非如海氏所言,凡·高画中的“鞋子”是农民的鞋子,而是画家自己的“鞋子”;且“鞋子”只是作为一个物品存在,并不指向绘画本身。1990年,乔治·迪迪-于贝尔曼针对潘诺夫斯基的“图像学”提出,后者高度透明、智性和模式化的封闭逻辑忽视了绘画(图像)的细节、局部及其视觉症候。而在他看来,后者才是绘画的真实。如果说夏皮罗是希望将绘画从哲学的不透明中解放出来,回到透明的艺术史中的话,那么迪迪-于贝尔曼则希望将图像从透明的机制中解放出来,回到不透明的图像哲学中。两次“论争”都不同程度地涉及“原作”问题,但目的并不是澄清“原作”,而是揭示其透明性与不透明性这一辩证关系,探求艺术史与(艺术)哲学对话的基础以及二者相互解放的可能。In 1968,Meyer Schapiro wrote an article to argue against Martin Heidegger’s statement about Van Gogh’s painting of“shoes”in“The Origin of the Work of Art”,pointing out that the shoes in Van Gogh’s painting were not as what Heidegger claimed the peasants’shoes,but actually the painter’s.In addition,the shoes were only an object,rather than a reference to painting in itself.In 1990,Georges Didi-Huberman argues that Erwin Panofsky’s“iconology”,which is highly transparent,intelligent and patterned,nevertheless ignores the details,parts and visual symptoms of painting(image).In Didi-Huberman’s opinion,the latter elements of painting are its reality.In other words,if Schapiro hopes to release painting from the opacity of philosophy and return to the transparent art history,then Didi-Huberman aims at liberating images from the mechanism of transparency and returning to the opacity of image philosophy.Both“debates”engage the“original work”at varying degrees.However,their purposes are not to clarify the original in itself,but to reveal the dialectical relationship between transparency and opacity,as well as explore the premise for dialogue between art history and(art)philosophy.

关 键 词：艺术史 艺术哲学 图像 透明性 不透明性 次媒介 

分 类 号：J0-02[艺术—艺术理论]