美術史的研讀上經常論及「風格」，我們也好像懂得使用「風格」這兩個字，但當進一步討論這個概念，它似乎又變得抽象和模糊。這個時候，我們好像只剩下以例子去說明的能力：什麼巴洛克時期的風格；梵高的風格；畢加索的藍色時期風格。其實說到底，就是真正去研究的人少之有少，也使得我們繼續忽視當中的問題。那麼，具體上有什麼潛在的藝術議題與風格相關？簡單地說，普遍美術史學家會認為風格是一個史實的問題，比如說：Rembrandt屬巴洛克時期的風格。這似乎是理所當然的。那麼來看看Richard
Wollheim 怎樣反對這種我們眼中的「常識」吧。
Richard Wollheim 是當代其中一個重要的美學家，也是繼Heinrich Wölfflin 後嚴肅和有系統地研究藝術風格的學者 ── 但可能他在其他美學議題的想法非常深刻，很多人還是忽視了他在藝術風格上的貢獻。這裡我嘗試節錄他兩篇有關風格的論文 ── Pictorial Style: Two Views (1979) 和 Style in Painting (1995) ── 並加以解釋當中的概念。
Wollheim 首先把風格分成兩大類，分別是：總體風格 (general
style) 和個人風格 (individual style)。
“Sometimes
we think about and talk of general style: sometimes we think about and talk of
individual style.” (1979: p.183)
“The essay opens with a broad distinction
between general style and individual style.” (1995: p. 37)
然後，他又把總體風格分了三種形式，並提供了一些例子：(1) 普遍風格 (universal style)，如：古典主義和自然主義; (2)
歷史風格 (Historical
or period style)，如：新古典主義和社會現實主義; (3) 學派風格 (School style) ── 以畫家名字或地名指稱的風格 (1979: pp.183-184)。
“General style is subdivided into
universal style, historical or period style, and school style” (1995:
p.37)
而個人風格就是指屬於一個畫家的風格。
“Individual
style is what we characteristically refer to when we use the phrase “style of
a,” where a stands in for the name of a painter.” (1979; p.184)
然後，Wollheim便開始講解兩種風格的特質。但在解釋之前，他提供了自己對於詮釋藝術品的見解，這也是他為何要把兩種風格分開的原因。他認為，要詮釋一件藝術品，必須知道藝術家的心理狀態 ── 這是他所說的“a
psychological framework”，或者是現今哲學家所說的 “an
intentionalist framework”。簡單地說，他認為要知道作者的創作意圖，才能知道作品的意思。
“This framework is
essentially an interpretative framework,
and it presupposes that, in trying to understand a painting, in trying to grasp its
meaning, we should always see it as (what
after all it is) the product of a human mind: the mind of its painter.” (1995: p. 38)
而他論及藝術家的心理狀態，目的是要指出：其實我們平時所說的總體風格，並沒有心理真實性
(psychological reality)，因此只是分類學上的問題 ── 這也是總體風格和個人風格的根本分別。
“The starting-point of
my consideration of pictorial style calls for the deployment of two of the
distinctions I have reviewed: that between individual style and general style,
and that between a generative conception of style and a merely taxonomic
conception of style. (The word 'merely' here is all important.)” (p.
40)
“individual style has reality. That is, there is a fact of the matter
to a painter's having a style: having a
style makes a difference to the painter.” (p. 41) And also “has psychological reality. That a
painter has a style is a fact of
psychological matter: the difference that having a style makes is a difference in the mind
of the painter.” (p. 41) While, on
the other hand, general style, “unlike individual style, lacks reality.
There is no fact of the matter to
it.” (p. 47)
由他的論旨：詮釋作品需要依賴作者的心理真實性；加上：總體風格沒有心理真實性，Wollheim 認為總體風格並沒有解釋的價值── “has no explanatory value” (p. 47) 。然後，他進一步解釋：總體風格只是分類學上的概念；嚴格來說，美術史學家可以自己喜歡，或覺得方便的方式去分類。
“It cannot explain why
paintings in a given general style look as they
do. On the contrary, they are in whatever general style they are in because of how they look. And
another consequence to follow from the fact
that general style lacks reality is that ... art
historians may reconstruct or redefine general styles as they find helpful.
They may tamper with the identities of styles by amalgamating, subdividing, or gerrymandering them, and they may tamper with the contents of styles
by altering the properties that
define them. They may do so for a number of reasons, but the reason can never be that they
thereby do better justice to the styles
themselves. By contrast all justified rewritings of style-descriptions of individual styles will, if
justified, be justified in this
way.” (p. 47-48)
雖然我不認同 Wollheim 的觀點，但他的見解還是有趣和值得思考。至少，他使得其他哲學家對他作出回應，不少有價值的文章亦由此而生。
Wollheim,
R. (1979) “Pictorial Style: Two Views,” in B. Lang (ed.) The Concept of Style,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
——(1995)
“Style in Painting,” in C. Van Eck, J. McAllister and R. van de Vall (eds) The
Question of Style in Philosophy and the Arts, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
0 意見:
張貼留言