物、形式、在场性:论极少主义语境实践下的艺术物性批评  

Object,Form and Presence:On the Critique of Artistic Objecthood in Minimalist Contextual Practice

作　　者：刘一娴 LIU Yixian(China Academy of Art,Hangzhou 310009,China)

机构地区：[1]中国美术学院,浙江杭州310009

出　　处：《美育学刊》2024年第1期57-64,共8页Journal of Aesthetic Education

基　　金：国家社会科学基金艺术学重大项目“中国美术史学的自主体系研究”(23ZD11)子课题“中国与世界:全球美术视野下中国美术史学的自主之路”的研究成果。

摘　　要：1967年,艺术批评家迈克尔·弗雷德发表其对极少主义的“物性”批判,重构了后现代雕塑艺术与观者的关系,认为特定艺术场域的生成是决定一件艺术作品是否为物的先决条件。在维也纳美术史学派艺术史家阿洛伊斯·李格尔对19世纪末现代文化的批判中,他亦从艺术媒介的质料特征出发,批评了将风格史等同于技艺进步论的理论模式。弗雷德与李格尔的物性批评着眼于艺术作品膜拜价值的消逝,将一件图像的制作视为可触、可感之物的生成过程。回到李格尔的文本,可以考察现代具身理论的源头,而弗雷德对极少主义的批评,则代表了具身性概念在当代艺术批判中的一种辩证法式演绎。In 1967,art critic Michael Fried proposed his critique of Minimalism s“objecthood”,which reconstructs the relationship between postmodern sculpture and the“viewer”,arguing that the production of a particular artistic field is a prerequisite for determining whether a work of art is an object.In the context of late nineteenth-century modern culture,the Viennese art historian Alois Riegl criticized the theoretical model that equates the history of style with the theory of technological progress in terms of the material characteristics of the artistic medium.Fried and Riegl s criticism of“materiality”throws light on the demise of the cult value of the work of art,viewing the production of an image as a process of generating a palpable,sensible object.Returning to Riegl's text allows for an re-examination of the origins of modern embodiment theory,while Fried's critique of Minimalism represents a dialectical rendition of the notion of“embodiment”which consistently plays a vital role in the critique of contemporary art.

关 键 词：审美距离 观者 具身 在场 物性 

分 类 号：J05[艺术—艺术理论]