论文部分内容阅读
本文考察了自20世纪70年代以来艺术和历史编纂学领域中围绕理论产生的冲突。文中所给的论证假定,艺术和人文学科在各个层次的学术实践中都存在冲突或对抗。理论既是批判,也是理性化,本文在此维护理论在解构方面的激进作用。通过将艺术当作理论讨论,作者对那些视政治凌驾于理论、视机构高于智力的艺术和学术实践进行了分析。他首先探讨了洛杉矶当代艺术博物馆的艺术审查制度,从而让与实践相关的理论议题变得更加尖锐。文章最长的一节探讨了历史编纂学内部的冲突,重点关注怀特(White)“元史学”的接受情况及其遭到进步派史家的(种种)抵制,旨在梳理加州大学体系当中进步派史学家为何最激烈地反对批判史学。总之,本文论证说,自20世纪70年代以来批判理论的价值就遭到了低估,不但受到传统历史学家低估,而且受到进步派“圈内人’’的低估,他们对其制度的特权和优势存有担忧。
This article examines the conflicts that surround theory in art and historiography since the 1970s. The arguments given in this article assume that there are conflicts or confrontations between the arts and humanities in all levels of academic practice. Theory is both criticism and rationalization. This article maintains the radical role of theory in deconstruction. By using art as a theoretical discussion, the author analyzes the art and academic practices that place politics above the theory and view institutions above intelligence. He first explored the art review system at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, thereby sharpening the theoretical issues related to practice. The longest section of the paper explores the internal conflicts in historiography, with a focus on the acceptance of White’s meta-history and the boycott of progressive historians, with the aim of combing the University of California system Why progressive political scientists oppose critical historiography the most. In summary, this article argues that the value of critical theory has been underestimated since the 1970s, not only being underestimated by traditional historians but also underestimated by progressive ”insiders," their prejudice over their institutions and There are concerns about the advantages.