未终结的艺术与未完成的自由——“后历史艺术”三种理论方案的批判性考察  

Unended Art and Incomplete Freedom——A Critical Examination of Three Theoretical Proposals on“Post-Historical Art”

作　　者：李斯扬 Li Siyang

机构地区：[1]北京大学艺术学院

出　　处：《美术观察》2025年第4期71-84,共14页Art Observation

基　　金：国家社科基金艺术学重大项目“中国式现代化背景下艺术理论发展研究”阶段性成果,项目编号:22ZD04。

摘　　要：丹托的“艺术终结与后历史艺术”论,弗鲁塞尔的“技术图像作为后历史艺术”论,史密斯、福斯特和戴维斯的“后当代”“后批判”与“后文化”艺术论,是20世纪80年代以来西方学界探讨“后历史艺术”的三种主要理论方案。三者皆指向了“后历史艺术何以自由”的关键议题,并基于各自的理论语境与问题关切提示了不同的自由构想:“后风格多元主义”自由、“后装置投射主义”自由与“后当代前卫主义”自由。然而,后风格论虽开启艺术多元自由,却未能超越西方艺术史精英叙事、体制认证与作品中心主义;后装置论虽试图以技术媒介革命突破技术封建主义与主体异化,却忽视了数字资本主义的操控逻辑;后当代论虽直面后资本主义的体制与技术危机,却陷入隐性霸权叙事与抵抗姿态修辞化的风险。后历史中的“艺术”并未终结,而“自由”也处于未完成状态。Arthur Danto's theory of“the end of art and post-historical art”,Vilém Flusser's proposition of“technical images as post-historical art”,and Terry Smith,Hal Foster,and Ben Davis's discourses on“post-contemporary”,“post-critical”,and“post-cultural”art constitute three major theoretical frameworks in Western scholarship since the 1980s to address the concept of“post-historical art.”All three approaches converge on the pivotal question of“how post-historical art achieves freedom”,proposing distinct solutions grounded in divergent theoretical contexts:“post-stylistic pluralism”,“post-apparatus projectionism”,and“post-contemporary avant-gardism”.However,while post-stylistic pluralism advocates for democratic pluralism of art,it remains confined by the elite narratives of Western art history,institutional validation,and artwork-centric paradigm;post-apparatus projectionism attempts to transcend technofeudalism and subject alienation through technological media revolution but overlooks the manipulative logic of digital capitalism;post-contemporary avant-gardism confronts the institutional and technological crises of post-capitalism,yet risks reinforcing implicit hegemonic narratives and rhetorical resistance.In the post-historical condition,“art”persists unended,while“freedom”remains an unfinished project.

关 键 词：后历史艺术 自由 后风格多元主义 后装置投射主义 后当代前卫主义 

分 类 号：J0[艺术—艺术理论]