消逝的画框-“艺术史终结”语境下艺术批评的重构

The Vanishing Frame:The Reconstruction of Art Criticism in the Context of the “End of Art History”

21世纪以来, 关于艺术批评的危机乃至死亡的争议不绝于耳, 其争议点之一在于艺术批评锐度的削弱, 在艺术体制当中更多扮演着依附权力而非批判者的角色, 在学术体制当中又因为其携带的主观性而被认为缺乏学术性, 在艺术传播的语境下, 专业的艺术批评在新兴的传播途径中不再具有公众影响力。以上讨论皆围绕着艺术世界外部展开, 本文以汉斯·贝尔廷提出的“艺术史终结论”为特定视角, 从艺术史的角度对艺术批评危机产生的原委展开学理上的思考, 通过历史分析与理论比较的方法, 探讨阿瑟·丹托的“艺术终结”的观点与汉斯·贝尔廷“艺术史终结”的内在逻辑、差异及其对当代艺术生态的影响。之后进一步揭示传统艺术史叙事崩溃后, 当代艺术陷入“破框”与“重构”的悖论以及艺术批评因价值标准的消解而走向理论化转向、主观化倾向与市场化依附的三重困境。之后, 通过贝尔廷“全球艺术”概念的再审视, 提出艺术批评的转型方向, 即从“价值判断”转向“意义追踪”, 以游牧姿态在全球化与在地性、体制批判与现场介入之间保持张力。

Since the 21st century, debates about the crisis or even the death of art criticism have been ongoing. One of the points of controversy is the weakening of the sharpness of art criticism, which plays a role of relying on power rather than being a critic in the art system. In academia system, it is considered to lack academic rigor due to its subjectivity. In the context of art communication, professional criticism no longer has the public influence in emerging communication channels. These discussions largely focus on external factors affecting the art world. This paper uses Hans Belting’s concept of the “End of Art History” as a lens to explore the theoretical reasons behind the crisis of art criticism from an art historical perspective. Through historical analysis and theoretical comparison, it explores internal logic, differences, and implications of Arthur Danto’s “End of Art” and Hans Belting’s “End of Art History” for the contemporary art scene. Subsequently, it further reveals that after the collapse of traditional art history narrative, contemporary art has fallen into the paradox of “breaking the frame” and “reconstruction”, as well as the triple dilemma of art criticism turning towards theoretical orientation, subjective tendency, and market-oriented dependence due to the dissolution of value standards. Afterwards, through the reexamination of the concept of “global art” by Belting, the transformation direction of art criticism was proposed, that is, from “value judgment” to “meaning tracing”, maintaining tension between globalization and locality, institutional criticism and on-site intervention in a nomadic posture.