解構哲學之探討及其對審美教育學之啟示
作者:洪如玉(國立嘉義大學教育學系)、陳惠青(國立嘉義大學教育學系)
卷期：61卷第1期
日期：2016年3月
頁碼：115-137
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(1).05
摘要：
本研究欲詮釋及闡述J. Derrida之解構思想及其所蘊含之審美教育學的意義。由於藝術鑑賞教育為思考與實踐審美教育學的重要途徑，本研究以藝術鑑賞教育之政策論述為例，說明解構取向的審美教育學之啟示。現行藝術鑑賞教育存在的問題反映出傳統審美教育學的限制，包括下述五點：一、藝術鑑賞教育尚過度依賴於西方的美學詮釋體系；二、多數藝術鑑賞教育活動之實施仍以精緻藝術為主；三、藝術鑑賞教育內容缺乏培養學生批判思考的能力；四、忽略不同文化背景學生藝術鑑賞能力之個別差異；五、藝術教育蘊含強烈工具化傾向。透過對Derrida解構思想之探討，揭示出傳統審美教育學預設了內在理路－邏各思（logos），基於前述，本研究提出四點解構概念對於審美教育學之啟示，可作為思考審美教育學及其在藝術鑑賞教育的參照：一、顛覆精緻藝術較為優位之教育主張；二、瓦解精緻藝術和通俗藝術之間的藩籬；三、化解藝術作品中作者主體中心的霸權迷思；四、建構開放的藝術對話空間以展現他者的多元性。
關鍵詞：解構、審美素養、審美教育學、藝術鑑賞教育、J. Derrida
《詳全文》
參考文獻：
- 王秀雄（1998）。觀賞、認知、解釋與評價：美術鑑賞教育的學理與實務。臺北市：國立歷史博物館。【Wang, H.-H. (1998). Appreciation, recognition, explanation and evaluation: Theory and practice of fine arts appraisal education. Taipei, Taiwan: National Museum of History.】
- 王岳川（2008）。當代西方最新文論教程。上海市：復旦大學出版社。【Wang, Y.-X. (2008). Contemporary western essays. Shanghai, China: Fudan University Press.】
- 王麗雁（2008）。視覺藝術教育篇－臺灣學校視覺藝術教育發展概述。載於鄭明憲（主編），臺灣藝術育史（pp. 105-161）。臺北市：國立臺灣藝術教育館。【Wang, L.-Y. (2008). Visual arts education: The introduction of the development of visual arts education of Taiwan’s schools. In M.-T. Cheng (Ed.), Taiwan arts education history (pp. 105-161). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.】
- 呂燕卿（1994）。國民小學美勞課程標準修訂與審美領域教學之研究。新竹市：妏晟。【Lu, Y.-C. (1994). The study of the revision of curriculum guidelines of arts education of primary school and teaching aesthetics. Hsinchu, Taiwan: Wenchen.】
- 林文昌（1990）。美感人格形成的前奏－談高中（職）的美術教育。文訊月刊，58，15-18。【Lin, W.-C. (1990). The preface of formation of aesthetic personality: On the arts education at senior high schools. Wensun, 58, 15-18.】
» 展開更多
- 王秀雄（1998）。觀賞、認知、解釋與評價：美術鑑賞教育的學理與實務。臺北市：國立歷史博物館。【Wang, H.-H. (1998). Appreciation, recognition, explanation and evaluation: Theory and practice of fine arts appraisal education. Taipei, Taiwan: National Museum of History.】
- 王岳川（2008）。當代西方最新文論教程。上海市：復旦大學出版社。【Wang, Y.-X. (2008). Contemporary western essays. Shanghai, China: Fudan University Press.】
- 王麗雁（2008）。視覺藝術教育篇－臺灣學校視覺藝術教育發展概述。載於鄭明憲（主編），臺灣藝術育史（pp. 105-161）。臺北市：國立臺灣藝術教育館。【Wang, L.-Y. (2008). Visual arts education: The introduction of the development of visual arts education of Taiwan’s schools. In M.-T. Cheng (Ed.), Taiwan arts education history (pp. 105-161). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.】
- 呂燕卿（1994）。國民小學美勞課程標準修訂與審美領域教學之研究。新竹市：妏晟。【Lu, Y.-C. (1994). The study of the revision of curriculum guidelines of arts education of primary school and teaching aesthetics. Hsinchu, Taiwan: Wenchen.】
- 林文昌（1990）。美感人格形成的前奏－談高中（職）的美術教育。文訊月刊，58，15-18。【Lin, W.-C. (1990). The preface of formation of aesthetic personality: On the arts education at senior high schools. Wensun, 58, 15-18.】
- 袁汝儀（1994）。由戰後臺灣的五種視覺藝術教育趨勢探討視覺藝術教師自主性之重要性與培養。美育月刊，54，39-54。【Yuan, R.-Y. (1994). The study on the importance and cultivation of the autonomy of visual arts teacher via five trends of visual arts education in postwar Taiwan. Aesthetic Education, 54, 39-54.】
- 高宣揚（1999）。後現代論。臺北市：五南。【Gao, X.-Y. (1999). Postmodernism. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.】
- 高宣揚（2003）。當代法國思想五十年。臺北市：五南。【Gao, X.-Y. (2003). Half century of contemporary French thought. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.】
- 教育部（2003）。92年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_ 92.php【Ministry of Education. (2003). 2003 curriculum guidelines of primary and secondary education. Retrieved from http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_92.php】
- 教育部（2005）。藝術教育政策白皮書。取自http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/94_12%E8%97%9D%E8 %A1%93%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf【Ministry of Education. (2005). White paper: Arts education. Retrieved from http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/94_12% E8%97%9D%E8%A1%93%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf】
- 教育部（2008）。97年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_ 97.php?header【Ministry of Education. (2008). 2008 curriculum guidelines of primary and secondary education. Retrieved from http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php?header】
- 教育部（2013）。教育部美感教育中長程計畫。取自http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20150225 102817/%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E7%BE%8E%E6%84%9F%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E4%B8%AD%E9%95%B7%E7%A8%8B%E8%A8%88%E7%95%AB.pdf【Ministry of Education. (2013). The long-term and medium-term project on aesthetic education of Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20150225102817/%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9 %83%A8%E7%BE%8E%E6%84%9F%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E4%B8%AD%E9%95%B7%E7%A8%8B%E8%A8%88%E7%95%AB.pdf】
- 教育部（2014）。「美感教育第一期五年計畫：計畫目標、發展策略、具體執行方案、師資精進與培育方案」書面報告。取自http://lis.ly.gov.tw/lydb/uploadn/103/1030507/12.pdf【Ministry of Education. (2014). Report: Aesthetic education, the first stage of 5 years. Retrieved from http://lis.ly. gov.tw/lydb/uploadn/103/1030507/12.pdf】
- 陳木金（1999）。美感教育的理念與詮釋之研究。載於國立臺灣藝術學院教育學程中心主辦之「全人教育與美感教育詮釋與對話研討會」學術研討會論文集（pp. 36-51），臺北市。【Chen, M.-J. (1999). The study of the idea and interpretation of aesthetic education. In National Taiwan University of Arts, Teacher Education Centre (Ed.), Proceedings of the conference: Interpretation and dialogue of holistic education and aesthetic education (pp. 36-51), Taipei, Taiwan.】
- 陳榮華（2007）。從語言的中介性論高達美的意義理論—兼論本質主義與反本質主義。臺大文史哲學報，66，153-178。doi:10.6258/bcla.2007.66.06【Chan, W.-W. (2007). Gadamer’s theory of meaning from the perspective of language as medium: With essentialism and anti-essentialism as a subordinate thesis. Humanitas Taiwanica, 66, 153-178. doi:10.6258/bcla.2007.66.06】
- 楊大春（1995）。德希達。臺北市：生智。【Yang, D.-C. (1995). Jacques Derrida. Taipei, Taiwan: Shen-Chih.】
- 廖敦如（2005）。解構、思考、批判、再建構—從解構主義探討全球化下視覺文化的藝術教學。載於國立臺東大學（主編），第一屆台東大學人文與藝術學術研討會論文集（pp. 19-42）。臺東市：編者。【Liao, D.-Z. (2005). Deconstruction, thinking, critique and reconstruction: The global visual arts culture from the perspective of deconstructivism. In National Taitung University (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st Taitung University conference on humanities and arts (pp. 19-42). Taitung, Taiwan: Editor.】
- 趙惠玲（2011）。臺灣中小學藝術鑑賞教育的啟蒙與發展。載於國立臺灣師範大學（主編），臺灣首屆國民中小學藝術教育年會論文集（pp. 23-29）。臺北市：教育部。【Chao, H.-L. (2011). The initiation and development of artistic appreciation education at the primary and secondary school in Taiwan. In National Taiwan Normal University (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st annual meeting of arts education at the primary and secondary schools (pp. 23-39). Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.】
- 劉豐榮（1991）。艾斯納藝術教育思想研究。臺北市：洪葉。【Liu, F.-J. (1991). The study of Eisner’s artistic education. Taipei, Taiwan: Hungyeh.】
- 劉豐榮（2001）。後現代主義對當前藝術批評教學之啟示。載於中華民國藝術教育研究發展學會（主編），2001國際藝術教育學會－亞洲地區學術研討會暨第三屆海峽兩岸美術教育交流研討會－藝術‧人文‧科技論文集（pp. 177-185）。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所。【Liu, F.-J. (2001). The implications of teaching postmodern art criticism. In Taiwan Art Education Association (Ed.), Proceedings of 2001 international conference of arts education (pp. 177-185). Changhua, Taiwan: National Chuanghua University of Education, Department of Art.】
- 劉豐榮（2005）。人文主義與反人文主義美學：現代到後現代藝術教育理論基礎之變遷。藝術研究期刊，1，83-104。【Liu, F.-J. (2005). Humanist and anti-humanist aesthetics: Transition of theoretical foundation from modern to postmodern art education. Journal of Arts Research, 1, 83-104.】
- Allan, J. (2004). Deterritorializations: Putting postmodernism to work on teacher education and inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(4), 417-432. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2004. 00078.x
- Beardsley, M. C. (1969). Aesthetic experience regained. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 28(1), 3-11. doi: 10.2307/428903
- Beardsley, M. C. (1981). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
- Beardsley, M. C. (1991). Aesthetic experience. In R. A. Smith & A. Simpson (Eds.), Aesthetics and arts education (pp. 72-84). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
- Biesta, G. (2003). Jacques Derrida: Deconstruction=Justice. In M. A. Peters, M. Olssen, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Futures of critical theory: Dreams of difference (pp. 141-154). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Biesta, G. (2009). From critique to deconstruction: Derrida as a critical philosopher. In M. A. Peters & G. Biesta (Eds.), Derrida, deconstruction and the politics of pedagogy (pp. 81-96). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
- Biesta, G. (2010). ‘This is my truth, tell me yours.’ Deconstructive pragmatism as a philosophy for education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(7), 710-727. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008. 00422.x
- Derrida, J. (1984). Language and institutions of philosophy. Semiotic Inquiry/Recherches Semiotiques, 4(2), 91-154.
- Derrida J. (1991). Letter to a Japanese friend. In P. Kamuf (Ed.), A Derrida reader: Between the blinds (pp. 270-276). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
- Derrida, J. (1992). Force of law: The mystical foundation of authority. In D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, & D. G. Carlson (Eds.), Deconstruction and the possibility of justice (pp. 3-67). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Derrida, J. (1995). The time is out of joint. In A. Haverkamp (Ed.), Deconstruction is/in America: A new sense of the political (pp. 14-41). New York, NY: New York University Press.
- Derrida, J. (1996). As if I were dead: An interview with Jacques Derrida. In J. Branningan, R. Robbins, & J. Wolfreys (Eds.), Applying: To Derrida (pp. 212-227). Hampshire, UK: MacMillan Press.
- Derrida, J. (1998). Monolingualism of the other, or, the prosthesis of origin (P. Mensah, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1996)
- Derrida, J., & Caputo, J. D. (Eds.). (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida (No. 1). New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
- Derrida, J., & Nancy, J. L. (2011). The deconstruction of dualism: Death and the subject. In C. Howells (Ed.), Mortal subjects (pp. 175-215). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
- Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Penguin.
- Dickie, G. (1983). Aesthetics: A critical anthology. New York, NY: St Martin’ s Press.
- Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Evans, J. C. (1991). Strategies of deconstruction: Derrida and the myth of the voice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
- Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- Greene, M. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln center institute lectures on aesthetic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- Holland, N. (1999). Deconstruction. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/deconst/
- Hume, D. (1987). Of the standard of taste. In E. Miller (Ed.), Essays: Moral, political, and literary (pp. 226-249). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
- Johnson, B. (1981). Translator’s introduction. In J. Derrida (Ed.), Dissemination (pp. vii-xxxiii). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
- Jagodzinski, I. (1997). Postmodern dilemmas: Outrageous essays in art & art education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment (P. Guyer, Ed., P. Guyer & E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1790)
- Kearney, R. (1984). Dialogues with contemporary continental thinkers: The phenomenological heritage: Paul Ricoeur, Emmanuel Levinas, Herbert Marcuse, Stanislas Breton, Jacques Derrida. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
- Kemp, G. (1999). The aesthetic attitude. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 39(4), 392-399. doi:10. 1093/bjo.esthetics/39.4.392
- Peters, M. A. (2009a). Derrida as a profound humanist. In M. A. Peters & G. Biesta (Eds.), Derrida, deconstruction and the politics of pedagogy (pp. 39-57). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
- Peters, M. A. (2009b). Derrida, Nietzsche, and the return to the subject. In M. A. Peters & G. Biesta (Eds.), Derrida, deconstruction and the politics of pedagogy (pp. 59-80). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
- Peters, A. M., & Biesta, G. (2009). Introduction. In M. A. Peters & G. Biesta (Eds.), Derrida, deconstruction and the politics of pedagogy (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
- Rolfe, G. (2004). Deconstruction in a nutshell. Nursing Philosophy, 5(3), 274-276. doi:10.1111/j. 1466-769X.2004.00179.x
- Rolfe, G. (2005). The deconstructing angel: Nursing, reflection and evidence‐based practice. Nursing Inquiry, 12(2), 78-86. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1800.2005.00257.x
- Schiller, F. (2012). On the aesthetic education of man. Mineola, NY: Courier Dover.
- Shusterman, R. (1992). Pragmatist aesthetics: Living beauty, rethinking art. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
- Smith, R. A. (2004). Aesthetic education: Questions and issues. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 163-187). London, UK: Routledge.
- Sturken, M., & Cartwright, L. (2001). Practice of looking: An introduction to visual culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Tolstoy, L. (1960). What is art? (A. Maude, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1899)
- Ulmer, G. (1985). Applied grammatology: Post(e)-Pedagogy from Jacques Derrida to Joseph Beuys. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
| 中文APA引文格式 | 洪如玉、陳惠青(2016)。解構哲學之探討及其對審美教育學之啟示。教育科學研究期刊，61(1)，115-137。doi:10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(1).05
|
|---|
| APA Format | Hung, R., & Chen, H.-C. (2016). Exploring Deconstruction and Its Implications for Aesthetic Education. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 61(1), 115-1137. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(1).05
|
|---|
Journal directory listing - Volume 61 (2016) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【61(1)】March
Exploring Deconstruction and Its Implications for Aesthetic Education
Author: Ruyu Hung(Department of Education, National Chiayi University), Hui-Ching Chen(Department of Education, National Chiayi University)
Vol.&No.：Vol. 61, No. 1
Date：March 2016
Pages：115-137
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(1).05
Abstract：
This article aims to interpret and expound on Derrida’s notion of deconstruction and reveal the implications for aesthetic education. Art appreciation education plays a crucial role in thinking and practicing aesthetic education. Hence, this paper focuses on art appreciation education and explores the implications of the deconstructive approach for aesthetic education. This paper also discusses the limits of conventional aesthetic education by identifying the problems of the current practice of art appreciation education. Five problems are identified: (1) aesthetic education still relies heavily on the Western aesthetic traditions; (2) most materials for art appreciation activities are based on fine art; (3) the content of aesthetic education instruction does not include critical thinking; (4) the individual differences based on different cultural backgrounds are neglected during teaching; (5) the strong instrumentalism tendency is implied in current art education. Exploring Derrida’s concept of deconstruction is helpful for suggesting improvements to aesthetic education by revealing the logos implied in conventional art appreciation education. This paper concludes with the following four suggestions: (1) the traditional premise that fine art is superior to popular art is questioned; (2) the conventional line between fine art and popular art is blurred; (3) the hegemonic myth of author subject-centric artwork is challenged; (4) the artistic dialogue space should be diverse and available to everyone.
Keywords：deconstruction, aesthetic literacy, aesthetic education, art appreciation education, J. Derrida