Aesthetic Appreciation and the Dependence Between Deep and Surface Interpretation
Aesthetic Appreciation and the Dependence Between Deep and Surface Interpretation
复制标题
审美与深层与表面解读的依赖
DOI：
10.1515/jlt-2020-0006
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bartosz Stopel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bartosz Stopel
摘要本文追溯了文学的表层的审美解释与深层的语义的理论驱动的解释之间的关系。前者被认为是分析艺术哲学中典型的理解方式，而后者则属于大陆文学理论，从而将讨论框定在两大著名哲学流派所从事的相关辩论中。具体来说，这篇文章支持一些主张。它讨论了表面解释的概念，被理解为对文学作品的普遍关注所涉及的知情实践，目的是获得美学上有益的体验（欣赏）。表面解释将文学作品置于特定的艺术史语境中，至少承认作者与作品的体裁、总体目标和代表性内容有关的类别意图。本文还反对这样一种观点，即被认为是表面解释的主要目的的欣赏是纯粹感性的（卡罗尔，拉马克），因此审美经验不涉及情感经验。情感体验中的基础欣赏（莱文森）使我认识到一个重要的连续性之间的充分形成的审美经验和更本能的或“毫不费力”的方式参加一个工作，例如当一个“只是享受”的情绪所提供的，说，一个恐怖故事，而不是与充分的审美关注的工作，其中情感成分占主导地位，但在我这里提供的概念框架内，它们的结构不太适合被称为美学。因此，我把欣赏艺术品的乐趣分为本能的、享乐的乐趣和适当的审美的乐趣，这两者构成了阅读的两种基本模式。审美模式并没有完全与享乐模式分离，相反，通过直接利用人类固有的认知-情感结构，它为更高阶的审美模式的出现提供了一个总体框架和参数，在这种模式中，更突出的是艺术史知识，更关注设计和形式/内容的相互关系。重要的是，审美模式并不与享乐模式的缺失一起运作，尽管它们可以同时产生不同的评价（例如： 快乐上积极的，美学上/艺术上消极的）。这两种模式可以说有不同的模式读者与相应的能力水平。与审美读者相反，享乐读者在很大程度上会忽视艺术史背景，在关注作品方面会更有选择性，依赖于直接的情感触发文本线索。解释的努力也会减少。我还讨论了我的模型参考的心理历史框架的艺术欣赏的研究开发的Bullot和Reber，试图解释如何艺术响应者获得更复杂的类型的关注的工作，或立场，从单纯的接触到工作的感性内容，以跟踪因果的历史和历史背景整合成一个更全面的方法来艺术欣赏。我的论点的一个重要部分是表明，非习惯性的模式隔离负责识别结构，作品元素之间的相互关系，并在阅读过程中形成对其发展的预测，这是审美经验的重要组成部分。接下来，我继续讨论深度解释，这通常被视为与美学解释相距甚远。有时人们认为，深层的语义解释忽略了表面的解释，包括作者的意图和艺术史背景，并强调读者在产生不受约束的内涵漩涡中的积极作用。这样的实践要么被看作是一种布利斯的源泉（巴特），要么被看作是一种纯粹的智力追求，试图增强对作品的理解（桑塔格）。我反对这三种观点，并将深入的解释整合到迄今为止所描绘的模型中。把深层解释看作是不受约束和无限制的（拉马克）是一个无情的稻草人。这样的愿景会使语义解释变得不可理解和随意，但事实并非如此。通过研究罗兰巴特自己的作品中的一些例子，这是现代理论驱动的解释的基础之一，我认为，尽管他夸夸其谈的索赔，他是无法开始他的深入解释项目，而不承认类别的意图和艺术历史背景的工作的创作。因此，将他的观点与当代关于作品、作者、意图和美学的辩论进行比较，他的作品是对这些概念的一种相当过时的理解的攻击。理论驱动的解释可能是有缺陷的或延伸的，如果它不支付其应付表面解释。接下来，我认为，无论是表面和深层的解释操作根据价值最大化（戴维斯）的原则，可以凌驾于作者的意图，她的工作的意义的细节。运用特定的理论框架进行深层解读，是对非习惯模式隔离原则的延伸，有助于在忠实于作品基本内容的同时，识别更多的模式，增加作品的复杂性，从而增强作品的体验。采取语义阅读的立场已经意味着采取潜在的美学立场，以及更遥远的享乐主义立场。最后，理论驱动的解读形成了第三种阅读模式，这种模式从部分受限的审美模式中产生了一个相应更有能力的模范读者。
Abstract The article traces the relationship between what is called surface, aesthetic interpretation and deep, semantic, theory-driven interpretation of literature. The former is identified with how interpretation is typically understood in analytic philosophy of art, whereas the latter as belonging to continental literary theory, thus framing the discussion within the relevant debates that the two eminent philosophical schools engage in. Specifically, the article argues in favor of a number of claims. It discusses the notion of surface interpretation, understood as the informed practice involved in general attention to a literary work with an aim of attaining an aesthetically rewarding experience (appreciation). Surface interpretation locates a literary work in a specific art-historical context and at minimum acknowledges the author’s categorial intentions pertinent to genre, general aims and representational content of the work. The article also argues against the notion that appreciation, which is supposed to be the main aim of surface interpretation, is purely perceptual (Carroll, Lamarque) and that consequently aesthetic experience does not involve affective experiences. Grounding appreciation in affective experiences (Levinson) leads me to acknowledge an important continuity between fully formed aesthetic experience and more instinctive or »effortless« ways of attending to a work, such as when one »just enjoys« the emotions afforded by, say, a horror story rather than with full aesthetic attention to the work, where the affective component dominates, but which are less structured to be properly called aesthetic within the conceptual framework I offer here. As a result, I divide the pleasures of attending to an artwork into the instinctive, hedonic ones and the properly aesthetic ones, which both constitute two basic modes of reading. The aesthetic mode is not fully separate from the hedonic one, but on the contrary, by tapping directly into the hardwired human cognitive-affective architecture, it provides a general framework and parameters for the emergence of the higher-order aesthetic mode where more prominence is given to art-historical knowledge and more attention to the design and form/content interrelation. Importantly, aesthetic mode does not operate with the absence of the hedonic one, though they can simultaneously produce different evaluations (e. g. hedonically positive, aesthetically/artistically negative). The two modes could be said to have distinct model readers with corresponding levels of competence. The hedonic reader, as opposed to the aesthetic one, would be largely oblivious to art-historical contexts and would be more selective in terms of attention to the work, relying on direct affect-triggering textual cues. Interpretive effort would be reduced, too. I also discuss my model with reference to the psycho-historical framework for the study of art appreciation as developed by Bullot and Reber which attempts to explain how art responders acquire more complex types of attention to the work, or stances, from mere exposure to the work’s perceptual content to tracing causal history and integrating historical contexts into a more rounded approach to art appreciation. An important part of my argument is the indication that non-habitual pattern isolation responsible for identifying structures, interrelations between a work’s elements and forming predictions about its development in the process of reading is a crucial component of aesthetic experience. Next, I move on to discuss deep interpretation, which typically is seen as miles apart from aesthetic interpretation. It is sometimes assumed that deep, semantic interpretation disregards surface interpretation, including authorial intentions and art-historical contexts and emphasizes reader’s active, playful role in generating an unconstrained swirl of connotations. Such a practice is seen either as being a source of bliss (Barthes) or as a purely intellectual pursuit attempting at enhancing the understanding of the work (Sontag). I argue against all three views and integrate deep interpretation into the model sketched so far. Seeing deep interpretation as unconstrained and purposeless (Lamarque) is an uncharitable straw man. Such a vision would render semantic interpretation unintelligible and random, but this is not the case. By looking into some examples taken from Roland Barthes’ own work which is one of the foundations of modern theory-driven interpretation, I argue that despite his bombastic claims, he is unable to start his deep interpretation project without acknowledging categorial intentions and art-historical context of the work’s creation. Consequently, and comparing his views to contemporary debates on work, authorship, intentions and aesthetics, his work is an attack on a rather dated understanding of these concepts. Theory-driven interpretation can be flawed or stretched, if it does not pay its dues to surface interpretation. Next, I argue that both surface and deep interpretation operate according to the principles of value-maximization (Davies) which can override author’s intentions about the details of her work’s meaning. Using a specific theoretical framework in deep interpretation is an extension of the non-habitual patterns isolation principle and serves to enhance the experience of the work by trying to recognize more pattern that add up to the work’s complexity while remaining faithful to the work’s basic contents. Taking up the semantic reading stance already entails taking up the underlying aesthetic and, more distantly, hedonic stances. In the end, theory-driven interpretation forms the third reading mode which emerges with a correspondingly more competent model reader from the partly-constraining aesthetic mode.