理论家去实践或实践者去理论,这一现象的发生,笔者以为其作用是积极的,对于建立艺术价值意义和推动当今艺术发展也是必要的。纵观艺术史,成功的艺术工作者大多在艺术表达和思想诠释上具备了较好的综合能力——“学”与“术”兼备。对于不同研究领域,产生的“学术”观也大相径庭。“学术”在过去其本身就意味着理论研究。然而,“学术”摆脱原意,转为“学”与“术”不同专业方向后,相对于艺术行业而言,似乎彰显了艺术领域不同的研究特征。但是,艺术行业长期“学”与“术”分类或谓分工,最终将面对的是一种价值瓦解后果。可以说,这一后果是因艺术价值的汇集作用而产生。艺术价值汇集作用是无法避免的艺术终结问题——“学”与“术”的合流。然而,在中国当代艺术领域,对“学术”理解却是模棱两 Theorists practice or practice to theory, the occurrence of this phenomenon, I think its role is positive, for the establishment of artistic value and promote the development of today’s art is also necessary. Throughout the history of art, successful art workers mostly have better comprehensive skills in artistic expression and ideological interpretation - both “learning” and “surgery”. For different areas of study, the concept of “academic” is quite different. “Academic” in the past by itself meant theoretical research. However, after the different academic directions of “academic” getting rid of their original meaning and turning into “learning” and “surgery”, they seem to highlight different research characteristics in the art field relative to the art industry. However, the long-term “learning” and “surgery” classification or division of labor in the art industry will eventually face the consequences of a disintegration of value. It can be said that this consequence is due to the collective effect of artistic value. The function of artistic value pooling is the unavoidable end of art - the combination of “learning” and “surgery”. However, in the field of contemporary Chinese art, the understanding of “academic” is ambiguous