约瑟夫·科苏斯与语言学观念主义审美模式研究
BY: 肖胜伟
TRANS: 鲁春丽 REV： 杜非 章闻哲
ORIGINAL VERSION SEE:ARGUMENTS OF LITERATURE AND ART
In the narration of the artistic history textbook after the world war II, the linguistic conceptualism was usually taken as aesthetic theory that is dominated by the conceptualism. Joseph Kosuth and his most intimate colleague Terry Atkinson, Michael Baldwin, and works of British Art and Language Group members can best present this theoretical model. The conceptual art in this genealogy had started to be active since the late of 1960 , and flourished in 1970s. Whether in theory or on practice aspect, Kosuth is a representative of this aesthetic model, and usually be regarded as one of the most significant artist and theoretical forerunner. In February of 1969, Kosuth , Douglas Huebler, Robert Barry , Lawrence Weiner respectively gave an interview to Arthur R. Rose’s ( Kosuth’ pen name) which later published by Arts Magazine . This originality didn’t start from the critic Kosuth, but from the artist Kosuth’ creative practice. His pen name is obviously a salute to R.Rose. Selavy which is Marcel Duchamp’s virtual female pen name. Kosuth said in an interview with himself : “ nowadays, to be an artist , means to question the essence of art. If an artist questions the essence of drawing, he then can not question the essence of art. If an artist accepts the form of painting ( or statue), then at the same time he accepts the artistic tradition following with it as well. Because art, is in broad sense, while the painting is just in narrow sense. The painting is a sort of art , if you create painting , that means you have already accept ( not question)the nature of art, and thus means you also accept taking the European tradition the dichotomy between painting and statue as nature of art.” These ideas represented in the interviews mentioned above, were further expounded in an article titled Art after Philosophy. This article published by International Painting Periodicals in October and November of 1969, is taken as a manifesto of the Movement of Conceptual Art. The title of this article , has two meanings, that is, one, about the art’ s form that after the philosophy declined; the other , of the art that following the philosophy for the “after” also has means of “pursue” and “learn”. Maybe, this is a consciously using of pun: indicating precisely not only the art’s inheriting philosophy after the latter’s declining, but also art’s pursuing the philosophy.
展开剩余89%在“二战”后的艺术史教科书叙述中，语言学观念主义（Linguistic Conceptualism）通常被视作观念主义主导性的审美理论。约瑟夫·科苏斯和他最亲密的同事特里·阿特金森（Terry Atkinson）、迈克尔·鲍德温（Michael Baldwin），以及英国艺术与语言小组（Art&Language Group）成员的作品最能体现这一理论模型。观念艺术这一谱系从20世纪60年代晚期开始活跃，在70年代初形成了繁荣局面。无论在理论还是实践层面上，科苏斯堪称是这一审美模式的代表人物，通常也被认为是最重要的观念艺术家和理论先驱之一。1969年2月，《艺术杂志》（Arts Magazine）发表了四篇对道格拉斯·休伯勒（Douglas Huebler）、罗伯特·巴里（Robert Barry）、劳伦斯·韦纳（Lawrence Weiner）和约瑟夫·科苏斯的采访，由亚瑟·R.罗斯（Arthur R.Rose，约瑟夫·科苏斯的笔名）完成。这个创意不是来源于批评家的科苏斯，而是源自艺术家科苏斯的创作实践。他的笔名明显是对马塞尔·杜尚的虚拟女性笔名R.罗斯·瑟拉维（R.Rose Sélavy）的致敬。科苏斯在他的自我采访中这样说道：“如今要成为一个艺术家，意味着要质疑艺术的本质。如果一个艺术家质疑绘画的本质，那么他就不能追问艺术的本质。如果艺术家接受绘画（或雕塑）的形式，同时他也接受了与之相随的艺术传统。因为‘艺术’这个词是广义的，而‘绘画’是狭义的。绘画是一种艺术，假如你创作绘画你已接受了（不是疑问）艺术的性质，这样也就接受了绘画——雕塑二分法的欧洲传统作为艺术的性质。”科苏斯上述访谈中所表述的这些想法，在后来Art after Philosophy(Ⅰ、Ⅱ)一文中得以进一步阐发。这篇在《国际画刊》1969年10月与11月号推出的文章，被认为是一场观念艺术运动的宣言书。这篇文章的标题，就表面意思而言，可以译成《哲学之后的艺术》，但考虑到“beafter”有“追求、效法”之意，因此也可译成《追求哲学的艺术》或《艺术效法哲学》。或许这是作者有意使用的“双关”手法：既指明了哲学衰微之后艺术的承继，又标明了艺术对哲学品格的追求。
If we consider of the explicit indication in the Kosuth’ article: the twentieth century is “ the end of philosophy and the beginning of art”, then according to this , the title can only be comprehended as “ the art developed after the declining of philosophy”,which is rather consistent with the author’s original meaning. Just as Kosuth himself asserts, that , to be an artist, means to question the essence of art, hence the first task of artist, is to discuss the essence of art, namely to focus on the relation between “art and defining of art”. What Kosuth raises here is obviously aiming the conceptual art, because to the artists that belongs to “formalism” before the conceptual art, not questioning the art’s essence, but rather the creation of art works that is of aesthetic and valuable , is their most important task. Nonetheless, to Kosuth, in art of formalism before conceptual art, between the “form” and “aesthetic”, actually formed a closed loop, just like the theoretical representative of the formalism Clive Bell said in Art: what is the essence of art? Bell answers : the form of being meaningful.
如果考虑到科苏斯在文中的明示：20世纪是“哲学的终结与艺术的开启”（the end of philosophy and the beginning of art）的时代，那么依照此意，标题译成《哲学之后的艺术》应该比较符合作者的原意。正如科苏斯自己所主张的，如今要成为一个艺术家，就意味着要质疑艺术的本质，所以艺术家的首要任务，就是对“艺术本质”（the nature of art）进行探讨，也就是要聚焦于“艺术与艺术定义”之间的关系。科苏斯这里提出的要求显然是针对观念艺术来说的，因为对于观念艺术之前的“形式主义”艺术家而言，创造出具有审美意味和价值的艺术作品才是他们最切要的任务，绝非是对艺术的本质的质疑。不过，在科苏斯看来，在观念艺术之前的“形式主义艺术”（formalist art）那里，“形式”与“审美”之间，实际上形成了一个封闭的环路，正如形式主义理论代表克莱夫·贝尔在《艺术》中所言：艺术的本质是什么？贝尔的回答是：有意味的形式。
The art of abstract form is art ,only because it can bring about the aesthetic affection of audience. He thinks that the simplification and abstract of things, can be recovered to the line and color, while the line and colour combined in special pattern, can move audiences, cause the aesthetic affection. This relation between the particular form and some other forms, is just the “ meaningful form”. In this discussion of Bell, we can see his stipulating the nature of art as “ form of meaningful”. Then what on earth is this meaningful form? According to his theoretical logic, the only answer can be is those which can inspire audience’s aesthetic affection. If it is the fact, then we can ask : what caused the audience’s aesthetic affection on earth ? The only answer can be is the meaningful form. Precisely, Bell’s probing of the nature of art, is dropped in a vicious circle between the form and aesthetics. About how to resolve this dilemma, Bell rather got no idea,but to prevaricate that “there is no need to endlessly discuss this problem” “ no need to west time”.
抽象形式的艺术之所以是艺术，是因为它能激起观者的审美情感。他认为艺术家对物象的简化和抽象，可以还原到线条和色彩，而以一种特殊的方式组合起来的线条与色彩，能够打动观众，引起人们的审美情感。这种特定的形式和若干形式间的关系，即为“有意味的形式”。在贝尔这段论述中，我们可以看到他将艺术的本质属性规定为“有意味的形式”，那么到底什么样的形式才是有意味的？依照他的理论逻辑，答案只能是那些能激发观众审美情感的形式。假如事实确实如此，我们就可以提出这样一个问题：究竟什么引起了观众的审美情感呢？对此问题的回答只能是有意味的形式。很显然，贝尔对艺术本质的追问陷入了“形式”与“审美”之间的恶性循环之中，对于如何解答这一困境，贝尔可以说无计可施，只能以“没有必要无休止地讨论这个问题”或“不必再多费周折”加以搪塞了事。
这种艺术为什么叫达达？ 现代艺术以概念开启了新的艺术征程
Kosuth pointed out this in Art after Philosophy, hence fiercely criticized the formalism of art and criticism. He raises that, the consideration of aesthetic had no relation with function of a matter or “the reason of existence”, except that the existential reason of that matter is strictly on the sense of aesthetics. The pure aesthetic things are decorates, and the basic function of decoration is “to add something to it so as to make it more appealing; dressing up; decorates”, and this would directly relate to the spice. The art of formalism is such an avant garde of decoration, it is purely an operation on aesthetics, can completely not be called as art. Obviously, Kosuth is quite dissatisfied with the perfect combination of the art and aesthetic , actually, the beauty has relation with the art from the perspective of the essence of decoration, but as he says that : “ the disposal of beauty, even any philosophical branch of the interests, neither can avoid the duty of bearing the discussion of art. Such habit is then to produce such a viewpoint: there is a conceptual connection between art and aesthetics, however, there isn’t.” which aims directly to the Clement Greenberg, accusing him of “ being a critic of interest”, because every conclusion he made is based on the judgement of aesthetics, the comments of formalism is actually reduced to Greenberg’s own hobby. Kosuth thinks that the convention integrating the art with aesthetics is wrong, he explains: the criticism of formalism is only a sort of analysis on physical nature of individual things that occasionally exists in certain relation of form. This rather do not , however, increase our comprehension of any knowledge (or fact )about nature and function of art, nor can this interpret whether the things analyzed is art works, here, the critic of formalism is always avoiding the conceptual factor in art works. Kosuth indicates here the symptom of the criticism of formalism, that is , only doing analysis from the morphology of art work.” which can lead to a circulating arguments between the form and aesthetic on sense of morphology, therefore the essence of art might not be asked and explored at all.
科苏斯在《哲学之后的艺术》一文中正是看到了这一点，所以对形式主义的艺术和评论也展开了激烈批判。他为此提出，审美的考虑对于一个事物的功能或“存在的理由”来说并无干系，除非那个事物的存在理由是严格地在审美意义上的。纯粹的审美物品是装饰物，而装饰的基本功能是“增加一些东西使其更有吸引力；装扮；饰品”，而这直接与趣味相关联。形式主义艺术就是这样装饰之先锋，它只是纯粹的审美上的操练，完全不能称其为艺术。很显然，科苏斯对于将艺术与美学完美结合在一起深为不满，美从修饰的本质上讲的确和艺术有着间接关系，但正如他所说：“所以处理‘美’、乃至趣味的任何一个哲学分支，都不可避免地同时承担起探讨艺术的责任。这种‘习惯’于是产生这样一个观点：艺术和美学之间有概念联系（conceptual connection），其实并非如此。”把矛头直接对准克莱门特·格林伯格，控诉他是“趣味批评家”，因为他所做的每个结论都是基于审美的判断，形式主义评判实际上沦为格林伯格自己的个人喜好。科苏斯认为像格林伯格把艺术和审美结合在一起的惯例看法是错误的，他对此解释说：“形式主义批评只不过是一种对偶然存在于某种形态关系的个别事物的物理属性的分析。但这并不增长我们理解艺术的性质和功能的任何知识（或事实），而且这也不能解释被分析的事物是不是艺术作品，在这里，形式主义批评家总是回避艺术作品中的概念性因素。”科苏斯在这里指出了形式主义批评的症结所在，那就是只限于从艺术品的形态学进行分析，这样会陷入形态学意义上的形式与审美之间的循环论证之中，根本无从追问艺术的本质。
达达观念艺术影响下的时尚艺术
When even the essence of art can not be confirmed, let alone to interpret whether analyzed things are art works. He goes further to point out that, the essence of art implied by the traditional morphological art, only be taken as a sort of “ concept of priori”, which as a preset premise can not be truly asked, let alone grasp it, in his own words, it is : “ the most powerful opposition against the defence of traditional morphology that people can register, is what the morphological concept of art embodies a priori concept of artistic potentials. But such a priori concept about the essence of art, exactly makes it become a sort of priori that the art essence can not be questioned .” Then how can we break away from the dilemma of priori caused by the artistic morphology? To Kosuth, if only to criticize the artistic morphology from the negative aspects, then ,even if to indicate that its concept contained the essence of art being a priori idea, the essential problem about art can also not be resolved at all.
而一旦艺术的本质都难以真正确定下来，那么去解释被分析的事物是不是艺术品又何从谈起呢？他进一步指出，传统形态学意义上的艺术所隐含的艺术本质，只是将之作为一种“先验的概念”，它作为一种预设的前提不可能真正得到追问，也就无从把握了，用他自己的话说：“人们可以提出的最有力的对传统艺术形态学辩护的反对，就是艺术的形态学概念体现了一个意味着艺术可能的先验概念。但是这样一个关于艺术的本质的先验概念，确实使它变成了一种对艺术的本质不可能表示质疑的先验。”那么怎样才能从艺术形态学所导致的先验困局中挣脱出来呢？在科苏斯看来，如果只是从否定方面对艺术形态学进行批判，即便指出它潜藏着关于艺术的本质的概念是先验的，也不能从根本上解决有关艺术的本质问题。
And if to break this dilemma, the only way is to convert, adjust the mentality, defining art from a positive aspect, the initiator of this respect is no doubt Marcel Duchamp. Kosuth argues that , “ the function of art , as a problem, is firstly raised by Duchamp. Which in fact, is the only man we can assume that revealed the genuine status of art . Why it is Duchamp makes art obtained its own identity? In Kosuth’ eye, the relation of the “modern”art to the former works, seems to be morphology only, and such relation to the asking of essence of art, is no more than providing a sort of “artistic condition”, and the artistic condition depends on the idea of art. Only on the layer of idea of art to grasp the essence of art, the knowledge about the nature and function of art would increase, and thereby whether the analyzed matters are art works can be interpreted.
而要突破这种困局的唯一办法就是转换、调整思路，必须从积极的方面来定义艺术，而这方面的开创先行者无疑是杜尚。科苏斯指出，“艺术之功能，作为一个问题，首先是由马塞尔·杜尚提出来的。其实，杜尚才是我们可以认为揭示了艺术的真实身份的人”。为什么是杜尚才真正使艺术获得了自身的身份呢？在科苏斯眼里，“现代”艺术与以往作品的关联，似乎只是形态学上的，而这种关联对于追问艺术的本质而言，最多只是提供了一种“艺术条件”，而艺术条件依赖于艺术理念。只有在艺术理念层面对艺术的本质予以把握，关于艺术的性质和功能的知识才能得以增长，也才能解释被分析的事物是不是艺术品。
达利的超现实主义作品之一：《永恒的记忆》作为观念艺术的一种，强调概念赋能艺术
It was just in the realm of art that Duchamp’s ready-made works launched an “action”, this event of thoroughly changing the artistic symbolic order let art “say another language” , just like Kosuth says, with the emergence of the ready-made works, art turns its attention to the content from the form of language. This means , it transfers the problem of the essence of art from morphology to the function. This change-- from the ‘appearance’ to ‘concept’--is the beginning of the ‘modern’ art and ‘conceptual’ art. Obviously, Duchamp’s ready-made works turn from the ‘appearance’ to the ‘concept’, namely turn to the problem what makes art be art, in other words, turn to the problem of function of art.
而杜尚的现成品正是在艺术领域发起了一场“行动”，这种彻底改变既有艺术象征秩序的事件让艺术“说另一种语言”，正如科苏斯所说，“随着‘现成品’的产生，艺术把它的注意力从语言的形式转到所说的内容方面。这意味着，它把艺术的本质从形态学问题转向功能问题。这一转变——从‘外表’到‘概念’——是‘现代’艺术和‘观念’艺术的开端”。很显然，杜尚制作的现成品就从“外表”转到了“概念”，也就是转向于追问到底是什么使艺术成为艺术，即转向艺术功能的问题。
Like the urinal why such a general industrial production ,was taken as art work, not because this article somehow had certain quality and value of aesthetics , but because it was endowed with a certain view /idea, hence in production of ready-made works, it comes to be a quite important thing that inscription and signature means work given idea, and why something be called as art just for this progress through which selected materials are “endowed with viewpoint”.Duchamp’s “ready-made works” were the most early artistic works according to this . Therefore, such consequence was given as following necessarily: “all of the arts (that follow Duchamp )are essentially of conceptual, because arts exist only in viewpoint. The value of those critical artists who like to imitate Duchamp and being fastidious, can be measured by asking to what degree the essence of art is questioned by them; ... artists question the essence of art through presenting new proposition about the artistic essence.” Here, we finally understand why Kosuth said ,that to be an artist , the first task was to question the essence of art. Under such idea, it is necessary to speculate that, the value of artists can only be measured by asking the essence of art, we can make deep exploration of “what does artist add to the view of art?” Such addition in Kosuth’ idea is just to raise new proposition about the essence of art. To him, although only Duchamp really made art obtained its own status, the trend of such self-identification began with Manet, Cezanne , till the cubism in deed, because the distinction of cubistic drawing from the past painting is that, it is not an art of imitation, but a conceptual art. Namely, the cubism’s value in artistic realm is its view/idea, not the visual or physical feature , or some distinguishable feature on colors or shapes in a particular painting ,for these colors and shapes as certain language of art are not on the conceptual sense of art.
杜尚和他的小便器打开了观念艺术史的序幕
像小便器这样一件普通的工业制品之所以被视作艺术品，不在于这物品本身形式上具有怎样的质感和审美价值，而在于赋予它某种观念/理念，所以在现成品制作中，题字签名即赋予作品理念变得极其重要，正是通过对所选材料“赋予观念”的过程，某物被指称为艺术。据此可以说，杜尚的“现成品”（ready made）是最早的观念艺术。所以，得出如下结论是自然的：“所有（追随杜尚）的艺术（在本质上）都是观念的，因为艺术仅仅是观念上的存在。那些模仿杜尚爱挑剔的艺术家的‘价值’，可以根据他们在多大程度上拷问艺术的本质来衡量；……艺术家们通过提出关于艺术本质的新命题来质疑艺术的本质。”行文至此，我们终于明白科苏斯为何说当今要成为一个艺术家，首要的任务是去质疑艺术的本质。既然如此，那么自然地推断就是，艺术家的价值也只能以拷问艺术的本质来衡量，可以深究“艺术家在艺术的观念里增添了什么？”这种增添科苏斯以为是通过提出关于艺术的本质的新命题。在他看来，尽管是杜尚才真正使艺术获得了自身的身份，但这种自我确认（self-identification）的倾向发端于马奈、塞尚直到立体主义，因为立体派绘画与过去绘画的区别就是，它并不是一种模仿的艺术，而是一种观念艺术。也就是说，立体派在艺术领域的价值在于它的观念/理念，而不是一幅特定绘画中的物理的或视觉上的特性，抑或是某些颜色或形态上的特别之处，因为在其中颜色和形态这类艺术“语言”不是作为艺术的观念上的意义。
In other words, only when the artistic language like color and shape and so on,come to be conceptual, can the drawing of cubism be the art. Hence comparing the conceptual art of Manet, Cezanne and cubism with the ready-made conceptual art of Duchamp, the former seems to be a little bit timid in steps, at the same time implicit in connotation. From the perspective of conceptual art which is more radical, maybe, the cubism hasn’t been the art entirely , for since Duchamp, art is only an existence of concept, only the thorough “conceptualized” art is the art.
换言之，只有当颜色、形态等艺术“语言”成为观念上的，立体派绘画才成其为艺术。因而马奈、塞尚和立体主义的观念艺术与杜尚的现成品观念艺术相比，在迈开的步子上显得较为胆怯，同时在内涵上也不大明确。从观念艺术更为激进的眼光来看，立体派艺术也许还不完全是艺术，因为自杜尚后艺术仅仅是观念上的存在，只有彻底“观念化”的艺术才是艺术。
It is no doubt that, Kosuth as a typical conceptual artist, his first task is to question the essence of art, because the value of artist is measured by asking the essence of art, then how did he ask the essence of art? To Kosuth, to the function of art or the essence of art, “ a work of art is a proposition, it pose the remark of art in the context of art . thence we can get further to analyze these type of proposition. This means you must add something to the art’s concept if you want to question the essence of art, namely to pose new proposition about the essence of art. Then what new proposition had Kosuth posed? What is the type of such proposition ? He indicates in the article The Art after Philosophy: “ the artistic works are analytic proposition. That means ,if taking it as art from a vision of artistic context, they can not provide such information about facts. The artistic works are tautology, for it embodies the intention of artist, namely, that peculiar art work is art, and this just means it is the definition of art. Hence, this is art , means an innately true proposition ( this is what Donald Judd says that “ if one calls it art ,it is art.).
毋庸置疑，科苏斯作为一位典型的观念艺术家，他的首要任务是要去质疑艺术的本质，因为艺术家的价值是以拷问艺术的本质来衡量的，那么他又是如何拷问艺术的本质呢？在科苏斯看来，对于艺术功能或艺术的本质而言，“一件艺术品是一种命题，它是在艺术语境里提出的对艺术的评论。于是我们就能更进一步分析这些‘命题’的类型”。这意味着要拷问艺术的本质就必须要给艺术的观念里增添点什么，也就是要提出关于艺术的本质的新命题，那么科苏斯到底提出了怎样的新命题呢？该命题又属于什么样的类型？他在《哲学之后的艺术》一文中接下来指出：“艺术作品是分析命题（analytic proposition）。这就是说，如果从艺术语境的视野里——把它当作艺术——那么它们不能提供关于事实的如此这般的信息。艺术作品是一个同义反复，因为它体现了艺术家的意图，也就是，他是在说，那个特殊的艺术作品是艺术，而这意味着它就是艺术的定义。因此，这是艺术，先天地为真（这就是唐纳德·贾德所说‘如有人说它是艺术，它就是艺术’的意思）。”
A new proposition about the essence of art posed by Kosuth is that, “art is the definition of art” ,a circulating proposition. Then what does this proposition of tautology belong to? Kossus raised here a kind of principle form logic positivism----especially from Language, Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer-----to support the expounding of linguistic conceptualism. Kosuth follows A.J. Ayer to distinguish the proposition of analysis from the comprehension, in book Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer maintains the two logic of Kant’s distinguishing these two proposition, which he proposes on the basis of this that, when the calibration of a proposition only adheres to the definition of those marks it contains, we call it analytic proposition, when the calibration of a proposition is determined by the experiential fact, we call it comprehensive proposition.
科苏斯在这段论述里提出了关于艺术的本质的新命题，那就是“艺术就是艺术定义”这样一个循环命题。那么这一个同义反复的命题是属于哪种类型的命题呢？科苏斯在这里提出了一种来自逻辑实证主义原则——特别是出自A.J.艾耶尔的《语言、真理和逻辑》——支持对语言观念主义的阐述。科苏斯追随A.J.艾耶尔对分析命题和综合命题的区分，在《语言、真理和逻辑》一书中，艾耶尔保留了康德区分这两种命题的逻辑意义，他在此基础上提出，当一个命题的效准仅依据于它所包括的那些符号的定义，我们称之为分析命题，当一个命题的效准决定于经验事实，我们就称之为综合命题。
Briefly, the former depends on “the meaning that the mark includes”, the later ,its efficiency is determined by the empirical fact”. Hence, according to Ayer’s definition, “ art is the definition of art”,---such a circulating proposition, is just what a tautological proposition must be an analytic proposition.” In fact, any apodeictic proposition is analytic proposition without exception , or, in other words, is tautological proposition.” Ayer did further expounding of it, he points out that , no analytic proposition provides any report of facts. In other words, the analytic proposition hasn’t entirely the content of fact. More over,no experience can refute these analytic proposition, just because of this reason. Although the analytic proposition do not provide us any report of situation of experience, it actually enlightens us through manifesting our method of using these marks. Therefore, on one sense, the analytic proposition gives us new knowledge. And requires us to pay attention to the certain usage of language, without its mentioning, this usage would not be realized by us, further more, those annotations that we haven’t been aware of it in our assertion and faith, are also revealed by it.
质言之，前者依赖于“符号所包含的意义”，后者的“有效性则取决于经验事实”。因此，按照艾耶尔的定义，“艺术就是艺术定义”这样一个循环命题，即一个同义反复的重言命题应该是分析命题。“事实上，任何必然命题无例外地都是分析命题，或者，换句话说，都是重言式命题。”艾耶尔对此做了进一步阐述，他指出没有一个分析命题提供任何关于事实的报道。换言之，分析命题是完全没有事实内容的。并且，就因为这个理由，没有经验可以反驳这些分析命题。尽管分析命题没有给我们提供关于任何经验状况的报道，但是分析命题用说明我们使用某些符号的方法来使我们得到启发。因此，在一种意义上，分析命题是给予我们新的知识的。分析命题要求注意语言的某些用法，否则，这种用法我们可能不会意识到的，并且，分析命题揭示出我们的那些断定和信念中所没有想到的涵义。
Nonetheless, we can see that , in another sense, the analytic proposition might be seen as which adds nothing to our knowledge. Because, this analytic proposition only tells us those what we have known. A calibration of analytic proposition is available only from the definition of those items, hence it definitely do not depend on this proposition to be deduced from the other analytic propositions. To Kosuth, since the tautological proposition “art is the definition of art” is an analytic proposition, so according to Ayer, the availability of this artistic proposition rather do not rely on any advance hypothesis of experience concerning the essence of matter, and less depending on aesthetics. To artist, he is just an analyst,” he don’t pay attention directly the physical feature of things. The only way it is connected with:” 1) in which the concept of art is increased ; 2) how can the artistic proposition follow this increase logically. In other words, the proposition about art is not fact, but linguistic------namely, they do not describe the behavior of body, even do not describe the object of spirit; they are expressing the definition of art, or the consequence of the artistic definition on sense of formalization.
但是，我们也能够看到，在另一种意义上，分析命题可能被认为对我们的知识没有增加任何东西。因为，这些分析命题只告诉我们那些可以说是已经知道的东西。一个分析命题的效准只由包含于它的那些项的定义得出，所以它绝不依靠这个命题从其他分析命题中推演出来。在科苏斯看来，既然“艺术即艺术之定义”这个重言式命题是一个分析命题，那么按照艾耶尔的说法，这个艺术命题的有效性就不依赖于任何关于事物本质的经验的、更少依赖于审美的预先假设。对于艺术家而言，他就是一个分析家，“他并不直接关注事物的物理特性。仅与之相关的方法途径是：（1）其中使得艺术的观念得以增长；（2）艺术命题如何能从逻辑上追随这种增长。换言之，关于艺术的命题不是事实的，而是语言学性质的——也就是说，它们不描述身体行为，甚至不描述心灵对象；它们在表达艺术的定义，或者艺术定义的形式结果。
Therefore, we can say that art is operated on the logic layer. We’ll see that , the conspicuous mark of the pure logic research, only relates to the consequence of form of (artistic) definition, without referring to the problem of experiential fact”. Thus, from the viewpoint of analytic proposition, Kossus directly excludes the problem of experiential fact from the conceptual art, art can only become the “ self -concerned” which points to its own view, the essence of art should be the self-concerned. In other words, “ the tautological proposition that “ art is the definition of art” is a kind of truth of logic and mathematics, the reason why it is taken as true by nature, just because we prove, “why the truth of pure reason, do not effect relying on any experience , only because they lack the content of fact. To say that a proposition is true by nature, is just to say that it is a tautological proposition. Although the tautological proposition can guide us to explore the experience and knowledge, it doesn’t include any report about the fact. Thereby, the special character of form or the physical feature, such as the trait of a picture, or the whole gestalt ,relentless materials of a “ special article”, are all superfluous.
所以，我们可以说艺术是在逻辑层面上运作的。我们将会看到，纯粹逻辑研究的显著标志，就是只和（艺术的）定义的形式后果相关，而并不涉及经验事实的问题”。这样，从分析命题角度，科苏斯就直接把经验事实的问题排除在了观念艺术之外，艺术只能成为指向自身观念的“自我指涉”，艺术本质将是自我指涉的。换句话说，“艺术即艺术之定义”这样一个重言式命题是一种逻辑和数学的真理，它之所以先天为真，就是因为我们证明，“纯粹理性的真理，即我们所知道的不依赖于一切经验而有效这种命题之所以如此，只是由于它们缺乏事实内容。说一个命题是先天地真，就是说它是一个重言式命题。重言式命题虽然可以指导我们去进行对知识的经验探索，但重言式命题本身并不包括关于任何事实的报道”。所以，特殊的形式品质或物理特性，诸如一幅画的平面性，或者一个“特定物品”的整个格式塔、冷酷无情的材料，都是多余的。
希腊罗马时代的雕塑重在反映宗教与现实，而不在概念
From an idealistic view, the conceptual artists will surely omit articles completely, to exclude any potential of judgement out of logic or concepts: “ one couldn’t be surprised at all that, the art with morphology least fixed , is an good example of which we use to decipher the nature of this general word ----art.” obviously Kosuth’ linguistic conceptualism is only in consider of the general art, thus, the drawing and statue such morphological art should be abandoned, the new general conceptual art makes them illegal and decayed. For the morphological art is taken as a comprehensive proposition form, which can be proved by the outer world, its nature lying on the outer experience rather leads to a probability not the necessity, “ demonstrates that the proposition of the empiricism, is impossible to have the concrete innate knowledge .” This is why “ when an artist ask the essence of drawing, he would not any more to question the essence of art”. Only when being emancipated from the morphological art of drawing or statue on narrow sense, can the art come back to itself. To Kosuth, the true art, has been different from the past art of formalism which only being confined to the tautology of form and aesthetics, but formed a tautology of being more philosophical, that is , “ art is the definition of art”. This proposition actually includes the commonality between art and mathematics: art is a sort of “tautology” similar to the synonym wordily , supposing that artistic concepts ( or works) and art are synonym, more over , it can be taken as art to be appreciated, without needing a verification out of the vein of art.
从理想角度说，观念艺术家必然完全省掉物品，以排除逻辑或观念之外的任何判断的可能性：“没什么奇怪的是，带着最少固定形态学的艺术，是我们借以破解艺术这个一般词的性质的范例。”显然，科苏斯的语言学观念论主义只考虑到一般艺术，这样绘画和雕塑这样的形态学艺术应该招致摒弃，新的一般的观念艺术让它们变得非法和陈腐。因为形态学艺术是作为综合命题的形式，尽管它能在外部世界得到证实，但是由于它依赖于外部经验，所以只是或然性的而不具有先天的必然性，“证明了经验主义的主张，即不可能有关于实在的先天知识”。这也就是为什么“一个艺术家质疑绘画的本质，那么他就不能追问艺术的本质”。只有从狭义的作为绘画或雕塑的形态学艺术中解放出来，艺术才能真正回到它自身。在科苏斯看来，真正的艺术，已不同于以往形式主义艺术那种仅囿于形式与审美的同义反复，而是形成了更具哲学意味的同义反复，那就是“艺术即艺术之定义”。这一命题实际蕴含着艺术与逻辑、数学有着共通点：艺术是一种类似文字同义字的“重言”，认为艺术观念（或作品）与艺术是同义字，而且可以作为艺术来欣赏，并不需要艺术脉络以外的证实。
发布于：浙江省