※ 引述《redbeam (溺斃的海綿)》之銘言： : please help me : Aestheticism and Diabolism : 講的主義是指對立的嗎？ : Aesthesticism => 美學主義應該是 為藝術而藝術 不該與社會文化道德有關？ : Diabolism => 真正的文學應該是跟道德 文化有關才是好的文學？ : 因為一直聽不出來老師講的到底是啥dia......在字典找到最可能的字了只是不確定 : 只知道老師在講的是跟美學主義有關的19th的主義.....請高手幫各忙 quote: "Aestheticsim [...] was a European phenomenon during the latter 19th century that had its chief headquarters in France. In opposition to the dominance of scientific thinking, and in defiance of the widespread in- difference or hostility of the middle-class society of their time to any art that was not useful or did not teach moral values, French writers de- veloped the view that a work of art is the supreme value among human pro- ducts precisely becauses it is self-efficient and has no use or moral aim outside its own being. The end [purpose] of a work of art is simply to ex- ist in its formal perfection; that is, to be beautiful and to be contem- plated as an end in itself. A rallying cry of Aestheticism became the phr- ase 'l'art pour l'art'--art for art's sake" (M. H. Abrams, _A Glossary of Literary Terms 3). 至於跟美學運動所主要反對的對象, 比較像是強調實用價值或道德教化的中產階級; 不過我覺得直得注意的是, 這些美學運動的propoent, 本身也往往都市中上階級. 你們老師說的應該是版友推文所說的didacticism; diabolism看字根大概知道跟魔鬼有關, 我想美學運動應該容易被強調道德教訓教化 的中上階級是為魔道吧(XD...) Didacticism"有點"像是唐朝韓愈所提倡的"文以載道"; 英國文學很有名的didacticism的時期大概是18, 19th世紀; 不過說實在的, 文學作品很難只有純粹的道德實用價值(extrinsic values) or 純粹的美學價值(intrinsic value), 像Kant那種"純粹"(pure)的境界, 其實也不容易達到吧. 依照Abrams最簡單的定義, "didactic" means "intended to give instruction" (65); 也就是說, to give instruction is to some extent to be didactic, then how about the instruction of being aesthetic in opposition to being useful and moral? -- 縱然陽光可以帶給人們希望 但也要心中充滿希望 才看得到陽光!! --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.224.53.136