涵盖在普遍艺术概念之下的历史

History Brought Under the General Concept of Art

本文是克罗齐对19世纪末"历史知识认识论性质"问题的讨论,作者试图通过厘清艺术、历史、科学三者的概念来论证历史的艺术性本质。克罗齐首先区分出科学与艺术两种认知模式,前者通过概念来把握普遍真理,后者则通过非概念性的、直观的、个别的方式把握实在。在此基础上,克罗齐分别批判了感性主义、理性主义和形式主义美学,并改造了黑格尔"具体的观念论"美学,将美定义为对现实内容的完满表现。历史并不寻求普遍规律或概念,而是对具体的、个别之物的真实表现,因而历史是一种艺术活动。二者的区别在于,艺术是一种旨在表现可能性的活动,历史是一种旨在表现真实发生事件的活动。艺术家可以通过想象来建构现实的诸多要素,而受限于史料,历史学家很难完成一部完美的叙事作品。克罗齐将艺术与历史视为一种表现活动,表现是对实在的非概念性把握,这为其后来的表现主义美学理论奠定了基础。

This paper is Croce’s discussion of the epistemological status of historical knowledge at the end of the nineteenth century,in which he attempts to argue for the artistic nature of history by clarifying the concepts of art,history,and science.Croce first distinguishes two kinds of cognition:science,which grasps universal truths through concepts,and art,which grasps the real in a non-conceptual,intuitive,and individual way.On this basis,Croce criticizes sensualism,rationalism,and formalism in aesthetics,and transformed Hegel’s concrete idealism.He regards beauty as the complete expression of the content of reality.History is an artistic production because it does not seek universal laws or concepts,but rather the true representation of concrete and individual things.The difference between them is that art is an activity that aims to represent possibilities,and history is an activity that aims to represent events that really happened.The artist can construct several elements of reality through imagination,while the historian is limited by documents,thus making it difficult for the historian to complete a perfect narrative work.Croce views art and history as a representational activity,which is a non-conceptual grasp of the reality,this opinion laid the foundation for his later aesthetic theory of expressionism.