藝術評論就是評價好壞，這可能是最廣為接受的論述；然而，在美學的討論上，對於藝術評論的本質問題（或稱meta-criticism）仍存在不少立場。對於
Frank Sibley, Michael Baxandall 和 Arnold Isenberg，藝術評論的目的是要幫助讀者察覺 (perceive) 到作品某些特徵。Sibley 和 Baxandall 都是我喜歡的美學家和史學家，感覺上他們有不少觀點值得介紹，所以這次可以先談談 Isenberg 的觀點吧。
Isenberg 對藝術評論的看法可見於他的文章 ‘Critical Communication’ (1949) 。在文章的起首，他把我們所見的藝術評論分為三部分 ── 價值判斷(V)， 說明原因(R)，和 訴諸準則(N)：
“A good starting point is a theory
of criticism, widely held in spite of its deficiencies, which divides the
critical process into three parts. There is the value judgment or verdict (V): "This picture or poem
is good ─ ." There is a particular statement or reason (R): "─ because it has such-and-such a quality ─." And there is a general statement or norm (N): " ─ and
any work which has that quality is pro
tanto good"” (p. 330).
接著，他說明 (V) 需要以 (R) 作為依據；而 (R) 又需要由 (N) 支持── 也就是說，當評論一幅畫為好的時候，需要以某些原因作為依據；同時，這個原因之所以能證明一幅畫為好，是由於它符合了某些準則 ：
“V has been construed, and will be
construed here, as an expression of feeling – an utterance manifesting praise
or blame. But among utterances of that class it is distinguished by being in
some sense conditional upon R” (p. 331).
“Now if we ask what makes a
description critically useful and relevant, the first suggestion which occurs
is that it is backed up by N” (p.
331).
Isenberg 在說明三者的關係後，便開始講述 原因(R) 不能用以證立 價值判斷(V) ── “The truth of R never adds the
slightest weight to V” (p. 338) ── 因為，雖然 (R) 有描述事實的成分，但這種事實描述卻無助於作有效價值判斷：
“R is a statement describing the
content of an art work; but not every such descriptive statement is a case of
R. The statement, “There are just twelve flowers in the picture” (and with it
nine out of ten descriptions in Crowe and Cavalcaselle), is without critical relevance,
that is, without any bearing upon V” (p. 331).
到目前為止，我們看到
Isenberg 認為原因 (R) 分為規範性與描述性 ── “V and R, it should be said, are
often combined in sentences which are at once normative and descriptive”
(p.331) ── 而只有規範性那部分，才是人們所說的藝術評論的重心。繼而，他認為在一方面規範性的陳述需要依賴於歸納上正確的準則 (N)；而在另一方面，這個準則卻不存在：
“The necessity for sound inductive
generalizations in any attempt at aesthetic explanation is granted. We may now
consider, very briefly, the parallel role in normative criticism which has been
assigned to N. Let us limit our attention to those metacriticial theories which
deny a function in criticism to N”
(p. 333).
“It is said that we know of no law
which governs human tastes and preferences, no quality shared by any two works
of art that makes those works attractive or repellent. The point might be debated;
but it is more important to notice what it assumes. It assumes that if N were based on a sound induction, it
would be (together with R) a real ground for the acceptance of V” (pp. 333-4).
Isenberg 在這段所說的是一種感官上的準則，是關乎人類心理學上和生物學上共同性的問題。雖然他沒有延伸這個討論，但這裡我可以加點自己的看法。其實，即使在感官上我們有共同的準則 ── 在欣賞一幅畫時有共同的感受 ── 也不能推論出藝術評論有一套準則用以支持價值判斷。原因是，藝術不只有感官上的面向，還包括作品背後的意思，舉例說：在欣賞畢加索的 Guernica 時，即使畫作帶給我們共同的感受，理解背後理念的人較能欣賞作品，也有較好的價值判斷。美學家 Kendall Walton 甚至認為，對背後理念的理解本身就決定了我們所感知 (perceive)到的東西（基本上可用科學哲學上
Thomas Kuhn 的觀點去理解）。
接著，他引用了藝術評論家
Ludwig Goldscheider 對 El Greco 畫作 The Burial of Count Orgaz 的討論：
“Like the contour of a violently
rising and falling wave is the outline of the four illuminated figures in the
foreground: steeply upwards and downwards about the grey monk on the left, in
mutually inclined curves about the yellow of the two saints, and again steeply
upwards and downwards about... the priest on the right. The depth of the wave
indicates the optical center; the double curve of the saints' yellow garments
is carried by the greyish white of the shroud down still farther; in this
lowest depth rests the bluish-grey armor of the knight” (p. 335)
在這段評論中，出現了一些對畫作特徵的描述，但Isenberg 卻認為這些特徵不是使得一幅畫作為之好的準則，原因在於：同樣的特徵常在其他地方發現，而在其他地方時，評論家卻不會認為它們那些是好的畫作：
“But the same quality ("a
steeply rising and falling curve," etc.) would be found in any of a hundred
lines one could draw on the board in three minutes. It could not be the
critic's purpose to inform us of the presence of a quality as banal and obvious
as this” (pp.335-6).
到了最後，指出評論家的作出就是要讀者以他們的角度觀察作品：
“It seems reasonable to suppose
that the critic is thinking of another quality, no idea of which is transmitted
to us by his language, which he sees
and which by his use of language he gets
us to see” (p. 336)
這其實是一種訴諸最佳解釋(IBE)
的論證方法，或者我們可以參考 The Critical Imagination 作者 James Grant的論證建構：
(A1) If the
truth of R supports the value judgement, then there are true norms to the
effect that any work with the property attributed by R is pro tanto good.
(A2) But
there are no true norms to this effect.
Therefore,
(A) The
truth of R offers no support for the value judgement.
(B) If the
truth of R offers no support for the value judgement, the best explanation of
R’s function is that using it is a way of getting the reader to perceive.
Therefore,
(C) The
best explanation of R’s function is that using it is a way of getting the
reader to perceive.
結語：雖然我認為 Isenberg 並沒有成功否決一切價值判斷（留待之後再說），但至少有些觀點是對的。至少，我認為藝術評論可以是幫助讀者觀察作品。
Arnold Isenberg, ‘Critical Communication’, Philosophical Review 58 (4): 330-344
(1949)
0 意見:
張貼留言