藝術武器─喬治?葛洛茲的政治諷刺圖像; Art as a Weapon- George Grosz's Political and Satirical Images

NCU Institutional Repository > 文學院 > 藝術學研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/4864

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/4864

題名:	藝術武器─喬治?葛洛茲的政治諷刺圖像;Art as a Weapon- George Grosz's Political and Satirical Images
作者:	吳柏毅;Bo-yi Wu
貢獻者:	藝術學研究所
關鍵詞:	共產主義;柏林達達;傾向性藝術;文化政治;communism;Berlin Dada;tendentious art;cultural politics
日期:	2008-06-23
上傳時間:	2009-09-22 09:34:27 (UTC+8)
出版者:	國立中央大學圖書館
摘要:	二十世紀前半期西方社會經歷著巨大的轉變，工業物質文明前所未有的進展，為人類帶來了巨大的衝擊，具體地以兩次世界大戰為歷史現象，其影響所及橫跨政治、社會、經濟、文化等各個層面。而作為活躍於此階段的藝術家，葛絡茲的藝術創作活動與上述的時代脈絡更有著緊密的互動聯繫，特別是表現在其政治諷刺漫畫的創作，旁則觸及傳統油畫形式，與柏林達達運動下的攝影蒙太奇作品。在此特定歷史時空下，「藝術」與「政治」兩個人類活動的不同範疇，發揮著糾結的辯證關係，一方面是藝術面對政治的批判行為，另一方面則是政治面對藝術的權威支配，而這正是葛絡茲所處理的核心議題。基於上述背景，本論文將焦點集中在葛絡茲三個階段的文化反叛行為，分別是1920年前受德國表現主義與義大利未來主義的風格影響，於作品內容中描繪現代工業社會下人類內心的慌亂與不安，像是象徵性地描繪都市叢林中，人類互相攻擊殘殺活動下所傳遞的狂野與激烈情感，以及柏林達達活動時期，藉由攝影蒙太奇機械複製技術的創作手法，挪用自報刊雜誌上的照片圖像、商業廣告與政治宣傳口號，去批判一次世界大戰後德國資本主義商業社會。第二階段為1920年到1933年參與德國共產黨活動時期，透過政治色彩濃厚的諷刺漫畫，傳達無產階級工人的革命理念。葛絡茲此時更發表數篇藝術評論，倡導「傾向性藝術」的概念，除了呼籲藝術創作應為特定階級，特別是無產階級服務外，更轉而批評表現主義「藝術為藝術」的理念。第三階段則為1933年赴美定居後，葛絡茲至此完全脫離藝術創作乃為特定政治目的服務的發展脈絡，重新回歸到從藝術自身批判任何人類社會文明體系，與佔據統治地位的意識形態立場。特別是於1920年代後半遭遇來自黨中央的批評後，葛絡茲進而與美國反史達林左派知識份子有著理念上的親密關係，更於其《空位期》作品中，表現出對左右不同政治陣營，對藝術所強加的意識形態箝制情形作出批判。因此，本論文嘗試以葛絡茲創作生涯三階段為時間縱軸，以文化批判概念為緯，去發掘畫家不同時期，不論是針對顯性的政治事件，或是隱性的文化社會，透過藝術所表現的建設性批判精神。像是兩次大戰間，批判布爾喬亞社會的抽象文化虛構物，或是1933年後，對資本主義或是共產主義價值體系的譴責，皆能發揮批判與匡正集權政治的精神，凸顯了葛絡茲於二十世紀紛雜的藝術潮流中，能引發我們深思藝術與社會互動關係的全新視野。 In the first half of the 20th century, western society has gone through a dramatic transition. The industrial civilization has made a great impact on human beings in all aspects, such as politics, society, economics and culture, and it is particularly embodied by the historical phenomena of two world wars. Being an active artist in this period, Grosz has connected his artistic activities closely with this specific historical condition. This kind of connection is especially shown in his political caricatures, traditional easel paintings and photomontages. In this specific context, we can perceive an entwined dialectical relationship between two different categories of human activities, “art” and “politics.” The relationship consists of art’s criticism of politics and politics’ control over art, which is also the central issue Grosz tries to deal with. This thesis tries to focus on Grosz’s different cultural subversion in three periods. They are respectively 1) In the time before 1920, Grosz’s style was influenced by German Expressionism and Italian Futurism. He depicted the confusion and anxiety of the people in the modern industrial society, such as the strong sensation provoked by the savageness shown in his paintings of the assaults between people in the urban jungle. Grosz also employed the mechanical reproduction method of photomontages by appropriating photos in mass media, commercial advertisements and political propagandas to criticize German capitalistic society after WWI. 2) During the time between 1920 and 1933, Grosz participated in the activities held by German communist party and conveyed the ideal of proletarian revolution in his political caricatures. He also issued several artistic criticisms to propagate the concept of “tendentious art”, claiming that artistic creativity should be in the service of a specific class, especially the proletariat, and criticized the idea of “art’s for art’s sake” espoused by expressionism. 3) In the time after 1933, Grosz turned away completely from the philosophy of art in the service of politics and returned to art itself as a standpoint to criticize every civilized system and dominant ideology. After being criticized by the communist party in the second half of 1920s, Grosz had developed an intimate relationship with some American anti-Stalinist intellectuals, which could be manifested in his later works published in Interregnum, where he denounced the efforts exercised by different political camps to control artistic activities. To sum up, based on the three periods of Grosz’s artistic life and the idea of cultural criticism, this thesis tries to explore the constructive critical spirit revealed in his criticisms either of some obvious political events or of the latent cultural society. For example, this spirit could be manifested in artist’s criticism of the fabrication of cultural fictions in a bourgeois society during two world wars, or of authoritarianism espoused by capitalism and communism in politics after 1933. Hence, Grosz’s spirit leads us to open a new field for reconsidering the interaction between art and society.
顯示於類別:	[藝術學研究所 ] 博碩士論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	大小	格式	瀏覽次數

在NCUIR中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

資料載入中.....