艺术的终结与《暴风雨》中的魔法放弃  

The End of Art and Abjuration of Charm in The Tempest

作　　者：陈艳 Chen Yan(Department of Chinese Language and Literature,Fudan University)

机构地区：[1]复旦大学中文系 [2]云南大学外国语学院

出　　处：《美学与艺术评论》2024年第2期116-126,255,256,共13页Journal of Aesthetics and Art Review

摘　　要：学界对《暴风雨》的文学批评,视角多见于殖民主义、生态批评、新历史主义、女性主义以及基督教的和解宽恕主题等,争论的焦点,则每每集中于普洛斯彼罗为什么放弃魔法及其意义。这类批评大都是从“人”和“人性”的角度出发,来阐发内心世界,突出对人性尊严和自由的关注。但是假若从艺术发展的规律,来探索《暴风雨》的哲学内涵,又当何论?保罗·考特曼受到罗伯特·皮平启发,从艺术终结论的角度解读《暴风雨》,进而探求普洛斯彼罗放弃魔法的意义所在,应是开辟了新的解读路径,也激发了新的讨论。从文艺复兴时代瓦萨里所开创的艺术史写作出发,结合黑格尔和丹托在艺术终结论方面的差异,我们可以进一步考究这一解读路径的合理性,并在考特曼研究的基础上进一步说明:魔法终结所昭示的也许是现有艺术史的终结,但绝不是艺术本身的消逝。The Tempest,the last romance by Shakespeare has aroused heated discussion among critics upon the reason and the meaning of Prospero's abjuration of magic.The previous studies,ranging from the Christian interpretation,to new historicist perspective,or to feminist and colonial approaches,mainly center upon the human aspect,especially the self-cognition of Prospero,which reflects humanism in Renaissance.This kind of studies is definitely necessary and important,but to explore the profound philosophical meaning of The Tempest,it is also advisable to observe the play from the developing rules of art.Paul A.Kottman,inspired by Robert Pippin,interprets The Tempest from the perspective of the end(or the pastness)of art,which starts a different way of reading the play and triggers a series of discussions.Based on Kottman's interpretation,this research further investigates the legitimacy of this way of interpretation from Giorgio Vasari's“art world”,and by combing the differences between Hegel and Danto in this light proposes that abjuration of magic seems to indicate the end of the present art history,instead of the end of art.

关 键 词：《暴风雨》 考特曼 放弃魔法 艺术终结论 

分 类 号：I561.073[文学—其他各国文学]