mMK

Venturi在第14章conclusion篇,還提了一個頗有趣的觀點,其以為"it is the experience of contemporary art that teaches us to see the art of the past and not the reverse"..."this is confirmed Winckelmann and Hegel who, just because they based the interpretation of all art on the absolute pre-eminence of Greek art, ended by misunderstanding both Greek and contemporary art."(p.348)這立刻就使我想到Harold Rosenberg於Criticism and Its Premises中的類似說法:"Art Criticism is art history today. The critic sees art history backwards."相比於如藝術史專攻過去,藝評專攻現在,這多少有理卻無甚理據基礎的想法,這把問題好像又說得有哲學味點.然而Venturi另外所說:"Art transcend history while participating in it."(p.350),則使我想起了Michael Newman在芝加哥藝評座談跟History of Art Criticism課堂中所說的另一觀點,但那個觀點我依仍未能好好把握,大意是藝術的性質本就不該是以歷史作為其系統論述的基礎.我有次同友人談起,她說她不甚明白,但就她所理解的,就覺得我很錯,我聽了都幾開心,因為我從美國學了些真的前衛極端的想法,容我再去推敲.