意图主义的检验:以朝戈和丁方为例

Intentionalism and Anti-Intentionalism: A Case Study of Chao Ge and Ding Fang

在举办“精神的维度———朝戈、丁方画展”之后,《文艺研究》编辑部召开了一次研讨 会。参加会议的美学及文化研究者从各自的学术背景出发,就两位艺术家的创作发表了许多引申 的论述。这正好符合我们举办此次画展的目的:艺术作品不仅可以承载艺术本身的理想与审美价 值,还应该承载更为丰富的社会思想内涵。 以往的美术理论著作,多是关于风格、流派的演变和作品如何进入艺术史并给予其恰当定位 的文字。把作品和理论表述联系起来(以文字来理解视觉的内容和感受以及关于意义的解说),倒 是应当感谢现代主义艺术。正是现代主义艺术将“观念”凸显在重要的位置上,使文字的表述变得 异常重要和不可或缺。 由艺术作品导引新思潮的兴起和观念的演变的事例也同样不胜枚举。事实上,艺术行为总是 不同程度地折射出社会的脉动,并参与着文化的创建。人们对具体艺术作品的接受与否不仅体现 着审美的差异,更重要地是反映出基于不同立场的价值判断,其本身就与社会生活、历史观和意识 形态紧密相联。 二十多年来,中国艺术在经历了各种思潮的冲击之后,从形式和内容上均有了迥异于以往的 变化。

There is nothing more authoritative in determining the meaning of an artwork than its author’s intention. There is nothing more authoritative in clarifying the artist’s intention than the explanation by himself. This is so-called intentionalism in the interpretation of artwork. However, facts do not satisfy this intentionalist claim. In some cases, one can gain a better understanding of the work even if he or she does not follow the guide of its author’s intention. An artwork is an object waiting for interpretation from the public, which, as soon as it is finished, is out of its author’s control. This is anti-intentionalism, so to speak. This paper holds that Ding Fang satisfies the claims of intentionalism very well, while Chao Ge those of anti-intentionalism, though both are claimed to be very similar in many aspects, and the complexity of art interpretation is thus shown clearly.