论文部分内容阅读
在探讨艺术的起源时,朱光潜的实践论美学仅就人的本质力量的展现来论说人对世界的艺术掌握和实践精神的掌握之间的密切关联,未免对人的实践乃是有着多重的价值维度这一人文本体事实有所疏忽,而且就异化不能有所谓美或令人起美感来区别这两种掌握,也不免过分粗略。在这疏忽和粗略的背后,则是朱光潜所理解的实践论方法对以“自由”为根罧的在对象化活动意味上的马克思实践范畴,在相当程度上的偏离。真正的实践论美学的建构尚需回味马克思的“自由王国”之说,因为只有在这个处于“必然王国”彼岸的地方,才可能找到有着“实践”内涵的“美”或有着“美”的内涵的“实践”得以生发的契机。
When discussing the origin of art, Zhu Guangqian’s practical aesthetics only has multiple values to human practice because it only shows the close relationship between man’s mastery of art and practice spirit. The dimension of the human body has been overstated, and the distinction between the two kinds of mastery of alienation can not be so-called beauty or aesthetically pleasing, nor can it be overly sketchy. Behind this negligence and sketchyness are the categories of Marxist practice understood by Zhu Guangqian’s practice theory, which are rooted in “freedom,” to a large extent deviate from the Marxist realm of practice that objectifies activities. The construction of real practical aesthetics still needs to recall the “free kingdom” of Marx because only in the place where “the inevitable kingdom” is on the other side can we find the “beauty” with “practical” connotation or the “beautiful” Connotation of “practice” to be a turning point.