English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 78852/78852 (100%)
Visitors : 35466154      Online Users : 220
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version

    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/4862

    Title: 從哲學化到體制化:早期觀念藝術的終結、離散或轉型;From Philosophizing to Institutionalization: The End, Diaspora or Transformation of Early Conceptual Art
    Authors: 王聖閎;Sheng-Hung Wang
    Contributors: 藝術學研究所
    Keywords: 體制化;哲學化;觀念藝術;Conceptual Art;diaspora;Philosophizing;Institutionalization
    Date: 2008-06-25
    Issue Date: 2009-09-22 09:34:24 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 國立中央大學圖書館
    Abstract: 在本論文中,早期觀念藝術在70年代後所產生的流變將會是我們的核心關懷。但這也要求我們回頭仔細檢視它的美學主張。如果說,當代藝術的面貌乃是奠基在早期觀念藝術的遺產上,那麼它究竟是如何終結的?是否,過去它曾主張信奉的,如今成為我們嗤之以鼻的;而它曾極力摧毀的,如今成為我們戮力擁抱的?它的藝術言說方式是如何失去批判性力量的?而它的美學理念又是如何崩壞的?反之,倘若早期觀念藝術並未終結,只是離散(Diaspora )或轉型,那麼我們又應當如何檢視這個演變過程?更重要地,促使它離散或轉型的力量是什麼,我們又該如何詮釋、把握之?從70年代到我們所位處的當下(特別是從一個對歐美藝術史發展的想像位置),無論這段時間內究竟發生了什麼事,都必然將我們導向一種或數種「敘事」的需求。許多理論家、哲學家們不斷地回應這樣的需求——不管是「現代vs.後現代」、「觀念藝術vs.後觀念藝術」、「前衛vs.新前衛」,這些關於當代藝術史起承轉合的敘事是否能提供我們足夠的線索,以闡明早期觀念藝術在70年代之後的蹤跡?甚至,是否還有某種依然謹守觀念藝術原初意義的藝術存在著?我將試圖通過討論早期觀念藝術最重要的兩個策略取徑:(1)分析性與哲學性取徑,及(2)體制性批判取徑,來釐清它的主要批評意識。同時藉由整理耙梳相關理論和文獻,以評估這兩大取徑的有效性、背後的意涵,乃至最終它們可能的去向。而對這兩大取徑的討論,將構成本論文嘗試回答觀念藝術終結、離散或轉型的基礎。 In this thesis, the transformations of early conceptual art in the 1970s will be our core concern. But it requires us to go back to its early stages and reexamine its aesthetic appeals. If the legacies of early conceptual art did become the fundamental ground of contemporary art, then we must answer these questions: how did it end? Is it possible that those strong convictions once held by its believers now become what we resent desperately? Or, is it possible that those it once seek to destroy now becomes what we embrace wholeheartedly? How did its discourses lose their critical power? And how did its aesthetic ideas collapse? Or on the contrary, if early conceptual art didn’t end but was only transformed or continued in the form of diaspora, then how do we remark on this whole process? More importantly, what led to its diaspora or transformation? How do we grasp and interpret it? In the past three or four decades, there already have been several narratives proposed by many theoreticians and philosophers to interpret the art history from 70s to what is happening now, such as “modern vs. postmodern,” “conceptual art vs. post-conceptual art,” and “avant-garde vs. new avant-garde.” Can these narratives assist us in tracing the contexts of conceptual art after 70s? Or, is there any art that still preserves the original meanings of conceptual art? I will try to clarify the critical consciousness of early conceptual art through the discussion of two of its most important strategic approaches: (1) the analytic and philosophical approach, and (2) the institutional approach. By systematically examining and reviewing those related theories, documents and texts, I will verify the validities of these two approaches, explore the meanings behind them, and finally comment on their developments after 70s. The investigations of these two approaches interdependently constitute the arguments in this thesis that attempts to answer the end, diaspora or transformation of early conceptual art.
    Appears in Collections:[藝術學研究所 ] 博碩士論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    ::: Copyright National Central University. | 國立中央大學圖書館版權所有 | 收藏本站 | 設為首頁 | 最佳瀏覽畫面: 1024*768 | 建站日期:8-24-2009 :::
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 隱私權政策聲明