博碩士論文 92126001 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:19 、訪客IP:54.221.145.174
姓名 王聖閎(Sheng-Hung Wang)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 藝術學研究所
論文名稱 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)
相關論文
★ 台灣廟宇敘事性雕繪題材分析-以桃竹苗地區廟宇為例★ 從三峽祖師廟中學院背景作品談李梅樹主導之意義
★ 荒誕寫實 夏卡爾之《死魂靈》插畫 (1923-27)★ 流動的疆界:以漫畫為例看民初上海高階與通俗美術的分類與界線問題
★ 「自由談」刊頭女性圖像研究 ( 1911-1935 )★ 陳子福電影海報研究
★ 唐納•賈德藝術中的曖昧與深度★ 從狄德羅的沙龍評論 看夏爾丹的靜物畫在法國繪畫史上的地位與影響
★ 延伸的邊界:傑洛姆(Jean-Léon Gérôme)1847-1867年間歷史畫研究★ 怪誕的存有,優雅的死亡- 湯姆斯.羅蘭森的《英國死亡之舞》
★ 宜蘭老畫家王攀元★ 日治時期台灣地方意識的建立:以顏水龍美術、廣告與工藝創作為例
★ 清末民初女子藝術教育之研究-以上海地區為例★ 民國初年觀畫論畫的現代轉型--以上海地區的西畫活動為例
★ 藝術自主性與社會功能的結合—以費農.雷傑(Fernand Léger, 1881-1955)1918-1955年作品為例★ 流動的現代性符號— 法蘭西.畢卡畢亞1913-1920年的機械作品
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 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。
摘要(英) 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.
關鍵字(中) ★ 體制化
★ 哲學化
★ 觀念藝術
關鍵字(英) ★ Conceptual Art
★ diaspora
★ Philosophizing
★ Institutionalization
論文目次 中文提要
……………………………………………………………………i
英文提要
……………………………………………………………………ii
誌謝辭…
……………………………………………………………………iii
目錄……
……………………………………………………………………vi
導論……
……………………………………………………………………1

觀念主義與觀念藝術之界說……………………………………5

研究方法與範圍設限……………………………………………7
第一章
觀念藝術的顯現及其核心理念群………………………………10

現代主義美學及批評觀…………………………………………10

去美學化…………………………………………………………13

自低限主義中脫離………………………………………………14

觀念藝術的核心理念群…………………………………………17
小結
……………………………………………………………………25
第二章
觀念藝術的分析性、哲學性取徑………………………………26

Kosuth:哲學的終結與藝術的開始……………………………26

Danto:從藝術性賦權到藝術終結論……………………………29

寓居於書寫、文字中的觀念藝術………………………………33

Art & Language的觀念藝術極端型……………………………35

從美學在觀念藝術中的批評接受到載體批判…………………39
小結
……………………………………………………………………43
第三章
觀念藝術的體制性批判取徑……………………………………
47

現成物挪用策略中隱含的唯名論與體制性言說………………48

歷史前衛主義的理論化與觀念藝術的體制性基礎……………51

Dickie的藝術體制理論進路—本質論或社會定義論…………55

從體制性批判的體制化到體制性批判的批判…………………59
小結
……………………………………………………………………63
第四章
觀念藝術的遺產或延續:觀念主義及其之後…………………65

一個內在於我們的體制:觀念藝術是否終結?………………65

A Point of No Return:從觀念藝術到觀念主義…………………69

概念與資訊傳遞範式—觀念藝術的可能轉型…………………73
小結
……………………………………………………………………76
結論
……………………………………………………………………79

美感回歸:觀念藝術的智識傾向與其回應……………………79

當代藝術中的反美感基礎………………………………………81

歸屬感:一種可能的出路………………………………………83

後續………………………………………………………………85
vi
參考文獻
……………………………………………………………………88
書目……
……………………………………………………………………88
篇目……
……………………………………………………………………89
附錄……
……………………………………………………………………91
作品圖例
……………………………………………………………………91
參考文獻 參考資料:
中文資料
篇目:
高千惠,〈偷天換日:當‧代‧美‧術‧館〉,《典藏今藝術》,151 期,2005 年 4
月,頁 86-90。
曾少千,〈漢斯‧哈克的文化政治探索〉,《臺大美術史研究集刊》,12 期,2002
年 3 月,頁 213-284。
英文資料
書目:
Alberro, Alexander and Blake Stimson ed. Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology.
Boston: Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999.
Alberro, Alexander and Sabeth Buchmann. ed. Art After Conceptual Art. Cambridge,
Mass. : MIT Press ; Vienna, Austria : Generali Foundation, 2006.
Ayer, A. J. Language, Truth, and Logic. New York: Dover, 1946.
Bender, John W. and H. Gene Blocker. ed. Contemporary philosophy of art : readings
in analytic aesthetics, Englewood Cliffs, N.J : Prentice Hall, 1993.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated
by Richard Nice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Bürger, Peter. Theory of the avant-garde. Translated by Michael Shaw. Minneapolis :
University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Burnham, Judith Benjamin. ed. Software, Information Technology: Its New Meaning
for Art. New York: The Jewish Museum, 1971.
Crow, Thomas. Modern Art in the Common Culture. New Haven: Yale University,
1996.
Danto, Arthur. The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1986.
Danto, Arthur. After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Deleuze, Gilles. Foucault, Translated by Sean Hand. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1988.
Dickie, George. Introduction to Aesthetics: An Analytical Approach. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1997.
Foster, Hal. The Return of Real: the avant-garde at the end of century. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press, 1996.
89
Greenberg, Clement. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, ed.
John O'Brian. Vol. IV. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986-1993.
Gevers, Ine. ed. Place, Position, Presentation, Public. Maastricht: Jan Van Eyck
Akademin; Amsterdam: De Balie, 1993.
Godfrey, Tony. Conceptual Art. London: Phaidon, 1998.
Harrison, Charles and Paul Wood. ed. Art in theory, 1900-1990 : an anthology of
changing ideas. Oxford, UK Cambridge, Mass., USA : Blackwell, 1993.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of the Power of Judgment, ed. Paul Guyer, Translated by
Paul Guyer, Eric Matthews. Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition, 2001.
Kosuth, Joseph. Art After Philosophy and After: Collected Writings,
1966-1990 ,edited with an introduction by Gabriele Guercio. Massachusetts,
London:The MIT Press, 1993.
Krauss, Rosalind E. The Originality of the Avant-garde and Other Modernist Myths.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.
Lippard, Lucy R.. ed. Six years: the dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to
1972. New York, Praeger, 1973.
Morris, Michael. ed. Conceptual Art: Theory, Myth, and Practice. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Newman, Michael and Jon Bird Peter Osborne. ed. Rewriting conceptual art.
London : Reaktion, 1999.
O’Doherty, Brian. Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of Gallery Space. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1986.
Osborne, Peter. Conceptual art. London ; New York : Phaidon, 2002.
Rosenberg, Harold. The De-definition of Art: Action Art to Pop to Earthworks. New
York: Horizon Press, 1972.
Shusterman, Richard. Analytic Aesthetics. Oxford, New York: B. Blackwell, 1989.
Stolnitz, Jerome. Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism: A Critical Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960.
Welchman, John C. ed. Institutional Critique and After, SoCCAS Symposia vol. 2.
Zurich: JRP/Ringier, 2006.
Wood, Paul. Conceptual Art. New York : Delano Greenidge, 2002.
篇目:
Art & Language, “Voice Off: Reflection on Conceptual Art,” Critical Inquiry
33(Autumn, 2006), pp. 113-135.
Buchloh, Benjamin H. D. “Conceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of
Administration to the Critique of Institutions,” October, Vol. 55. Winter 1990, pp.
90
105-143.
Graves, David C. “Philosophical Art and the Zen Master’s Tea Pot: The Role of
Aesthetics in Institutional Theory of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism,
60. Fall 2002, pp. 341-352.
Guyer, Raul. “Kant’s Conception of Fine Art,” Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism,
52. Summer 1994, pp. 275-285.
Osborne, Peter. “Art Beyond Aesthetics: Philosophical Criticism, Art History and
Contemporary Art,” Art History 27, September 2004, pp. 651-670.
Shusterman, Richard. “The End of Aesthetic Experience,” Journal of Aesthetics & Art
Criticism, 55. Winter 1997, pp. 29-41.
指導教授 曾少千、蕭振邦、吳方正
(Shao-chien Tseng、Jenn-bang Shiau、Fang-cheng Wu)
審核日期 2008-7-21
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明