Aesthetics Frontier

Author: Du Hanfeng et al. / Country:
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2002-01-01
Features: Given the lessons from past experiences, I believe that to build a Marxist aesthetics with Chinese characteristics, we must focus on addressing and resolving the following three relationships. First, Marxist aesthetics and general methodology. Marxist aesthetics is based on dialectical materialism and historical materialism as its philosophical foundation. The worldview and methodology of Marxism not only absorbed the reasonable core of Hegel's idealist philosophy but also integrated new achievements and methods from various disciplines of the time. As a result, it is connected with many methodologies: such as philosophical speculation, psychological methods, sociological methods, anthropological methods, and even scientific empirical methods and scientific analytical methods, all of which are incorporated into Marxist methodology and are things we must continuously learn from and absorb when building Marxist aesthetics. However, during the era of extreme "leftism" politics, psychology, sociology, education, and anthropology were all labeled as "idealistic," "bourgeois," and "reactionary," and their methods were naturally abandoned. Although some compensation was gradually made later, the path to building a mature Marxist aesthetics remains long. Methods are relative; there is no absolute good or bad. Any method is a result of historical development. It must not only learn from other methods but also draw nourishment from history. The application and experimentation with new methods do not mean discarding all existing methods, including Marxist methods. In the 1980s, people widely used the "three theories" (systems theory, information theory, and control theory) to study literary theory and aesthetics, creating a flurry of activity that seemed to threaten to replace all old methods (including Marxist methods), only to fade away shortly after. Looking back, the original methods remain more reliable. Because methods are designed to solve problems. If a new method can solve the same problems as an old method at the same level, such a new method is meaningless except for novelty. Second, Marxist aesthetics and traditional culture. Marxist aesthetics did not emerge out of thin air. Like the entire Marxist system, it is both an inheritance of history and a development of history. The three major components of Marxism—dialectical materialism and historical materialism, political economy, and scientific socialism—have their ideological origins in German classical philosophy, British classical economics, and French utopian socialism, which are well-recognized facts. Marxist aesthetics is no exception. It is a critical inheritance of history, upon which innovation is built. For example, Marx and Engels' ideas on realism, tragedy, sublimity, beauty, and comedy were developed as unique insights based on inheriting the artistic and aesthetic thought of ancient Greece, particularly the bourgeois artistic thought of the modern era. To oppose Marxist aesthetics to tradition and history is ignorant and highly harmful. Marxist aesthetics shares common ground with traditional Chinese culture and traditional Chinese aesthetics, despite their fundamental differences. For instance, Marx and Engels' ideas on the social function of art and its educational role align with ancient Chinese Confucian thought, while their discussions on the relationship between art and practice, beauty and labor, and the "laws of beauty" can fully compensate for the shortcomings of traditional Chinese aesthetics. This is precisely the basis and possibility for building a Marxist aesthetics with Chinese characteristics. Third, drawing on Western Marxist aesthetics and absorbing nutrients from a series of Western Marxist aesthetic achievements is also an indispensable experience and resource for building Chinese Marxist aesthetics. The value and significance of Western Marxist aesthetics must be approached objectively and fairly. We cannot be "Marxist alone" and label Western Marxist aesthetics that do not suit our tastes as "revisions" or "rebellions" against Marxist aesthetics. To this end, Western Marxist aesthetics must be studied systematically rather than sporadically, deeply rather than superficially. Only through genuine study can we have the right to speak.
4. The fate of aesthetic education. In the process of a hundred years of aesthetic development, aesthetic education has experienced greater twists and turns and has been more neglected than its theory. History has proven that the presence or absence of aesthetic education directly affects the cultivation of talent and the improvement of national quality. Both positive and negative experiences must be carefully summarized and deeply reflected upon to become a driving force for continued progress. The early builders of a hundred years of aesthetics placed great importance on aesthetic education, believing it to be an indispensable part of cultivating well-rounded individuals and an important way to enrich spiritual life and inspire interest in life. Wang Guowei, one of the pioneers of a hundred years of aesthetics, proposed the educational principle of comprehensive development in intellect, morality, physique, and aesthetics, advocating the use of literature and art to heal the spiritual emptiness, boredom, and stagnation of the upper class. Although the Qing government ignored his good advice, it planted excellent seeds for the emergence of modern Chinese education. Another pioneer of a hundred years of aesthetics, Cai Yuanpei, established aesthetic education as one of the national educational policies with the help of the democratic republic. Although he was frustrated by Yuan Shikai's feudal restorationist forces, the historical trend could not be reversed. Cai Yuanpei not only absorbed the educational experiences of modern capitalist countries, strengthening scientific education, but also inherited the fine traditions of ancient Chinese education, emphasizing artistic education. He chose the better of two worlds, integrating Chinese and Western methods, and finally established a new educational system with comprehensive development in intellect, morality, physique, and aesthetics. Under Cai Yuanpei's strong advocacy, famous figures in the cultural, educational, literary, and academic fields, such as Liang Qichao, Lu Xun, Lü Ji, Li Shizeng, Zhang Junmai, Zhu Guangqian, and Zong Baihua, all contributed ideas and efforts to the implementation of aesthetic education, promoting its development and closely linking their aesthetic theory with practice, driving the great progress of aesthetic education. The establishment of the new educational system with comprehensive development revitalized Chinese education. From the time Cai Yuanpei became president of Peking University (1917) to the late 1940s, it was a turbulent and difficult era marked by fierce political struggles and frequent wars. The predecessors, with their foresight and dedication to the cause of "saving the nation through education," worked tirelessly for over thirty years, cultivating and recruiting a generation after another of talented and dedicated individuals. Many scientists, artists, educators, entrepreneurs, politicians, and scholars became world-renowned first-class talents. History has proven that the new education system established by the predecessors, led by Cai Yuanpei, was successful, and the principle of comprehensive development was correct. Unfortunately, after the 1950s, the educational environment greatly improved, but the education of New China did not advance from this good historical starting point. Instead, it turned its back on history and fundamentally opposed it. First, the principle of comprehensive development was replaced by one of one-sided development. The formulation of educational policies did not consult educators or undergo deliberation but was arbitrarily imposed by those in power, with no reason to eliminate aesthetic education while retaining only morality, intellect, and physique. Moral education was replaced by political indoctrination. Morality and emotion were excluded from education and left to their own devices, while social human relationships became political relationships. Justice, conscience, sympathy, and benevolence were forbidden, and spiritual life and aesthetic interests were swallowed up by dull political life. Independence of character and freedom of the individual became unknown. The slogans "Learn mathematics, physics, and chemistry, and you will be feared everywhere" and "politics is everything" lured people into ignorance and distortion. Today, national quality has declined, morality has deteriorated, emotions have become crude, people are shameless, ignorant of etiquette, and lack public morality, even becoming cruel, vicious, and beastly. Is this not the bitter fruit of decades of one-sided education? The emergence of these ugly phenomena has multiple causes, but educational failures are fundamental. Of course, immoral, uncivilized, fraudulent, corrupt, theft, robbery, and sexual misconduct are inevitable in any society, but in our country, which was once a "land of rites," such phenomena are so widespread and persistent that they are appalling. Second, the existing educational system was overthrown and replaced with a more backward new system. Starting in the 1950s, not only was the principle of comprehensive development dismantled, but a series of so-called "educational revolutions" were launched, aimed at destroying the original system of "professors governing the school" and "democracy governing the school" and replacing it with a bureaucratic system of "outsiders leading the insiders." In reality, it was the "bureaucratic" system that Cai Yuanpei had rectified at Peking University that was resurrected. Moreover, to consolidate the bureaucratic system of schools, ideological criticism campaigns were often launched. Those who still advocated "professors governing the school" were cruelly criticized and labeled as rightists. Respect for teachers and education, a fine tradition in Chinese education, was brutally criticized. Even worse, the teacher-student relationship was inverted, creating conflicts between them, and it was proposed that schools should be student-centered, with lectures and textbooks written by students, while teachers were expected to humbly accept the criticism of their students. Everything was turned upside down, a precedent in educational history, perhaps the best or worst ever. Third, various cultural (including artistic and aesthetic) clubs organized by teachers and students in schools were abolished, there was no freedom of academic discussion or mutual criticism, only ideological and political criticism campaigns targeting academic authorities, with no right of rebuttal for those criticized. The democratic and free, vibrant and lively academic atmosphere of the past decades was completely swept away.