美学概念的逻辑

I. C. Hungerland
{"title":"美学概念的逻辑","authors":"I. C. Hungerland","doi":"10.5840/apapa2013329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are two sorts of descriptions, or accounts, that we can give of works of art or of anything else that makes up our world of relatively stable objects. I can describe a painting, a chair, a mountain, or a man in terms of colors, shapes, spatial relation of parts, and so on. I can also describe the same four objects by talking about the dynamic tensions of the first, or its lack of visual balance; the grace and elegance of the second; the gloominess or majesty of the third; and the trimness or gawkiness of the fourth. The first sort of description, or account, may answer a wide variety of general purposes, central among them that of identifying particular objects. A museum curator might so describe a painting for future reference in identifying the particular work of one painter; an auctioneer identifies pieces of furniture by such descriptions; a map-maker, a mountain; and a police department, a Man Wanted. The second sort of account of the same objects could not usefully serve such purposes. The second sort, usually if not always, is found in the context of the evaluating of objects. \"This is a fine Sheraton chair-it is graceful, but sturdy.\" Here, relevant reasons are furnished for an aesthetic rating of an object, and the first sort of description does not, and could not, serve this function. Furthermore, there are the following prima facie differences between the two sorts of features attributed to things in the two sorts of description. The features corresponding to terms like \"garish,\" \"graceful,\" \"balanced,\" seem to require for their apprehension a special sensitivity or training on our part and their presence or absence does not appear to be determinable-at least, not in a straightforward way-by intersubjective tests. (I shall call both features and terms \"aesthetic\" and employ A and \"A\", respectively, as short-hand for aesthetic features and terms.) The features corresponding to terms like \"red,\" \"rectangular,\" \"continuous to,\" seem, in contrast, to require for their apprehension no special sensitivity or training beyond the ordinary and their presence or absence appears'to be determinable by intersubjective tests","PeriodicalId":443144,"journal":{"name":"The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series","volume":"21 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Logic of Aesthetic Concepts\",\"authors\":\"I. C. Hungerland\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/apapa2013329\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are two sorts of descriptions, or accounts, that we can give of works of art or of anything else that makes up our world of relatively stable objects. I can describe a painting, a chair, a mountain, or a man in terms of colors, shapes, spatial relation of parts, and so on. I can also describe the same four objects by talking about the dynamic tensions of the first, or its lack of visual balance; the grace and elegance of the second; the gloominess or majesty of the third; and the trimness or gawkiness of the fourth. The first sort of description, or account, may answer a wide variety of general purposes, central among them that of identifying particular objects. A museum curator might so describe a painting for future reference in identifying the particular work of one painter; an auctioneer identifies pieces of furniture by such descriptions; a map-maker, a mountain; and a police department, a Man Wanted. The second sort of account of the same objects could not usefully serve such purposes. The second sort, usually if not always, is found in the context of the evaluating of objects. \\\"This is a fine Sheraton chair-it is graceful, but sturdy.\\\" Here, relevant reasons are furnished for an aesthetic rating of an object, and the first sort of description does not, and could not, serve this function. Furthermore, there are the following prima facie differences between the two sorts of features attributed to things in the two sorts of description. The features corresponding to terms like \\\"garish,\\\" \\\"graceful,\\\" \\\"balanced,\\\" seem to require for their apprehension a special sensitivity or training on our part and their presence or absence does not appear to be determinable-at least, not in a straightforward way-by intersubjective tests. (I shall call both features and terms \\\"aesthetic\\\" and employ A and \\\"A\\\", respectively, as short-hand for aesthetic features and terms.) The features corresponding to terms like \\\"red,\\\" \\\"rectangular,\\\" \\\"continuous to,\\\" seem, in contrast, to require for their apprehension no special sensitivity or training beyond the ordinary and their presence or absence appears'to be determinable by intersubjective tests\",\"PeriodicalId\":443144,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series\",\"volume\":\"21 5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/apapa2013329\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/apapa2013329","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

对于艺术作品或构成我们这个相对稳定物体世界的任何东西,我们可以给出两种描述或描述。我可以用颜色、形状、各部分的空间关系等来描述一幅画、一把椅子、一座山或一个人。我也可以通过谈论第一个物体的动态张力,或者它缺乏视觉平衡来描述同样的四个物体;第二种是优雅和高雅;第三者的阴暗或威严;第四个的整洁或笨拙。第一种描述或叙述可以回答各种各样的一般目的,其中最主要的是识别特定的物体。博物馆馆长可能会这样描述一幅画,以供将来识别某个画家的特定作品时参考;拍卖师通过这样的描述来鉴别家具;一个地图制作者,一座山;还有一个警察局,一个通缉犯对同一物体的第二种描述不能有效地达到这种目的。第二种,通常,如果不是总是,是在评估对象的上下文中发现的。“这是一把很好的喜来登椅子——既优雅又坚固。”在这里,为一个对象的审美评价提供了有关的理由,而第一种描述没有,也不可能起到这种作用。此外,在两种描述中赋予事物的两类特征之间存在以下初步差异。与“花哨”、“优雅”、“平衡”等术语相对应的特征,似乎需要我们对它们的理解有一种特殊的敏感性或训练,而且它们的存在或不存在似乎无法通过主体间测试来确定——至少,不是以一种直接的方式。(我将把特征和术语都称为“美学的”,并分别使用A和“A”作为美学特征和术语的简写。)相反,与“红色”、“矩形”、“连续”等术语相对应的特征,似乎不需要超越普通的特殊敏感性或训练来理解,它们的存在或不存在似乎可以通过主体间测试来确定
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Logic of Aesthetic Concepts
There are two sorts of descriptions, or accounts, that we can give of works of art or of anything else that makes up our world of relatively stable objects. I can describe a painting, a chair, a mountain, or a man in terms of colors, shapes, spatial relation of parts, and so on. I can also describe the same four objects by talking about the dynamic tensions of the first, or its lack of visual balance; the grace and elegance of the second; the gloominess or majesty of the third; and the trimness or gawkiness of the fourth. The first sort of description, or account, may answer a wide variety of general purposes, central among them that of identifying particular objects. A museum curator might so describe a painting for future reference in identifying the particular work of one painter; an auctioneer identifies pieces of furniture by such descriptions; a map-maker, a mountain; and a police department, a Man Wanted. The second sort of account of the same objects could not usefully serve such purposes. The second sort, usually if not always, is found in the context of the evaluating of objects. "This is a fine Sheraton chair-it is graceful, but sturdy." Here, relevant reasons are furnished for an aesthetic rating of an object, and the first sort of description does not, and could not, serve this function. Furthermore, there are the following prima facie differences between the two sorts of features attributed to things in the two sorts of description. The features corresponding to terms like "garish," "graceful," "balanced," seem to require for their apprehension a special sensitivity or training on our part and their presence or absence does not appear to be determinable-at least, not in a straightforward way-by intersubjective tests. (I shall call both features and terms "aesthetic" and employ A and "A", respectively, as short-hand for aesthetic features and terms.) The features corresponding to terms like "red," "rectangular," "continuous to," seem, in contrast, to require for their apprehension no special sensitivity or training beyond the ordinary and their presence or absence appears'to be determinable by intersubjective tests
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The APA Presidential Addresses 1901–1910 Philosophical Legacies of the 1920s Philosophy in America during the 1970s Continental Philosophy: Idealism and Critique,1921–1940 Philosophy in the Age of Fascism: Reflections on the Presidential Addresses of The APA, 1931–1940
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1