【作者】 郭景华；

【导师】 胡晓明；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本文以当代著名学者饶宗颐的中国古典艺术史论作为研究对象,试图通过对饶宗颐艺术史研究之研究,揭示20世纪最后一位通儒如何运用文化史眼光来观照中国古典艺术之发生及嬗变之过程,并对饶宗颐这种文化史研究方法论思想在艺术批评实践中的具体运用和理论意义做出评述。饶宗颐的这一学术思想的生成与他所继承的传统考据学方法以及他与20世纪下半叶以来的国际汉学界频繁的学术文化交流的历史语境有着重要的关系。由此思路出发,本文行文主要由四个部分构成:从对研究对象的“前理解”出发,第一章介绍了饶宗颐的学术及艺术渊源,重点涉及了饶宗颐学术思想生成及其治学旨趣和审美兴味,对饶宗颐学艺结合的关联也作了一定勾勒。第二章介绍饶宗颐如何在中国近代考古学背景下进行古典艺术风格、精神诸源头研究,该章旨在强调历来艺术史研究中所忽略的20世纪上半叶艺术考古学研究,并对楚文化影响因子如何规范、影响着后代艺术的风貌也做了一定揭示。第三章主要围绕黄公望、八大山人、龚贤等艺术家,来呈现元明时期艺术家与文化思想潮流进行互动共生的思想状态,此章旨在揭示元明时期“三教合流”文化精神与主体艺术精神如何互动的动态表现过程,对过去静态的文人画审美形态研究作出反思。第四章主要介绍饶宗颐如何在融通的视野下对中国古典绘画与其他人文学科资源进行整合研究,从而得出新颖别致的结论;此章主要强调在艺术史研究当中进行跨学科研究的必要性和可能性。第五章通过回顾20世纪以来中国学者在艺术史研究中采用的视角与方法,初步总结了饶宗颐艺术史研究中的新实证方法;余论部分主要结合当下艺术史研究的现状,通过对饶宗颐“作为精神史的艺术史”研究范式意义的抉发,来凸显饶宗颐艺术史论研究的价值之所在。20世纪以来,中国现代学术从学科建构及研究方法,无不笼罩着西方现代学术话语的色彩;而20世纪晚近以来,后现代主义者所宣扬的对于艺术主体的遗忘,对于文本意义的游移,对于文本生成语境的有意忽略,尤其是对人类知识整一性、历史连续性的破坏,更是给中国学术界的学术思想及方法造成很大的震荡。而饶宗颐的艺术史研究,以其文化史的眼光,历史考证的方法,把对传统艺术的诠释与理解与中国自身文化的生成、发展紧密联系的研究思路,却给人以很大的启迪和警示作用。当然,由于研究者与其研究对象的“先见”,历史的理解总不免有研究主体自身阐释不可避免的历史局限性,职是之故,饶宗颐的艺术史研究及我们对饶宗颐研究的理解,其研究的结论应该是开放的而不是唯一的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Using the contemporary famous scholar Jao Tsung-i’s study of the history of Chinese classic art as the research object, through the study of Jao Tsung-i’s study of the history of art, this paper tries to show how the 20th century last general talented Confucius viewed the process of the ocurrence and development of Chinese classical art from the viewpoints of the history of culture, and assess the practical use and theoritical meanings of Jao Tsung-i’s research methods of the history of culture. The formation of the academic thoughts of Jao Tsung-i is due to the tradition of Textology he inherited and the latter half of 20th century’s academic environment of frequent communication between him and the western sinologist. Starting from the upper standpoint, the paper consists of the following parts: starting from the "pre-understanding" of the research object, the first chaper introduces the resourses of Jao Tsung-i’s academic and art, focusing on the formation of Jao Tsung-i’s academic thoughts and taste of scholarship and aesthetics , with certain description on the corelation between his academics and art. The second chapter introduces how Jao Tsung-I study the resourses of the style and spirit of classic art in the bachground of Chinese modern archeology, aiming at the study of archeology of art in the first half of the 20th century ingored by researchers in the study of the history of arts, showing how the Chu culture had standadised and affected its descedant art to certain degree. The third chapter displays the thoughts status that the artists and trends of cultural thoughts affected each other and co-existed in Yuan and Ming dynasty, through introducing the artists such as Huang Gongwang, Badashanren and Gongxian, etc. the chapter’s aim is to point out the dynamic expressing process how the cultural spirit of a junction of Three types of religious thought and the subjects of arts affected each other in Yuan and Ming period, and think critically about the previous static studies of wenrenhua in aesthetic form. The fourth chapter introduces how Jao Tsung-I studied integrately Chinese classic paintings and other resourses of Humanities fields under the broad integration vision, and drew an original conclusion, focusing on the neccessity and possibilty of cross-fields studies of the history of arts. The fifth chapter pointed out Jao Tsung-I’s new empirical methods in the history of art, through previewing the viewpoints and methods have been used in the sdudies of the history of arts by Chinese scholars since the 20th century. The last chapter emphasizes the meanings of Jao’s study of the history of art by explaining his research modality of "the history of art as the history of spirit", and taking into account the current status in the studing of art history. Since the 20th century, from the Chinese modern academic disciplines construction and research methods, all over the West in modern academic discourse color; and since the late 20th century, post-modernism promoted by forgotten the subject of the art, wavering the meaning of the text , deleberately ignored the Context of the text producing, especially attacking the continuity of history and one of the whole of human knowledge, these caused a great deal of shock in Chinese thinking of academics and research methods. But Jao Tsung-i’s study of art history gives a lot of inspiration and a warning by using cultural history vision, taking empirical approach methods,and insist on the research ideas that closely linked the interpretation and understanding of traditional art and culture of China’s own production and development. Of course, researchers and research subjects because of their "foresight," leading to the unavoidable historic limitations in understanding of history, for this reason, the research conclusions of Jao’s study and our study about Jao’s study should be open, not be unique.更多还原