|Table of Contents|

Paradox and reconciliation of Confucius’s philosophy of art(PDF)

《长安大学学报（社科版）》[ISSN:1671-6248/CN:61-1391/C]

Issue:
2017年01期
Page:
81-91
Research Field:
文学艺术
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Paradox and reconciliation of Confucius’s philosophy of art
Author(s):
PENG Li-zhi
School of Literature, Art and Communication, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, Shaanxi, China
Keywords:
Confucius;  philosophy of art;  “small Tao”;  “large Tao”;  “small skill”;  “large skill”;  view of Jiantong
PACS:
B222.2
DOI:
-
Abstract:
In order to study Confucius’s philosophy of art, this paper clarified the formation of Confucius’s art form by reviewing relevant literature and analyzed the paradox between “there must be merits in small skills” and “gentlemen do not engage in small skills”. The results show that there is difference between the large and the small, the one and the many, the beginning and the ending in Confucius’s art philosophy. However, from the standpoint of “one principle runs through it all”, the size of art is dependent on whether the technician can thoroughly understand heaven, earth and humanity; the difference between the large and the small of Tao is whether one can stick to one skill and master all, which means even “small skill” can make one achieve the ultimate realm of the art. “Small skill” is synonymous with ancient art, which includes the different categories of ancient art, but Confucius thinks that Tao includes not only art but also all the things in nature. He emphasizes Tao and art are complementary with each other, and his view “there must be merits in small skills” is endowed with the aesthetic spirit of “You” and the life realm of “Tong”, which is the essence of Confucius’s aesthetics of existence. The so called “gentlemen do not engage in these small skills” actually refers to that the gentleman is not limited to one skill. And it is directly related to “the large, the small, the beginning and the end” of Tao and art as well as its function and reflects the difference between governor and technician in their status hierarchy. The difference between desirable and undesirable art lies in the tendency to be simple or perfect. Confucius upgrades “art” which originally contain the technical components to a new philosophical level of “Tao”, and promotes it to be an art theory with the metaphysical color and universal value, making this paradox in surface integrated from argumentation and application.

References:

［1］黄怀信，孔德立，周海生.大戴礼记汇校集注［M］.西安：三秦出版社，2005. ［2］郑玄.贾公彦.周礼注疏［M］.赵伯雄，整理.王文锦，审定.北京：北京大学出版社,1999. ［3］何晏.皇侃.论语集解义疏［M］.赵伯雄，整理.王文锦，审定.上海：商务印书馆，1937. ［4］程树德.论语集释［M］.程俊英，蒋见元，点校.北京：中华书局，1990. ［5］赵纪彬.赵纪彬文集［M］.郑州：河南人民出版社，1991. ［6］黄怀信，周海生，孔德立.论语汇校集释［M］.上海：上海古籍出版社，2008. ［7］孙希旦.礼记集解［M］.沈啸寰，王星贤，点校.北京：中华书局，1989. ［8］黄晖.论衡校释［M］.北京：中华书局，1990. ［9］刘宝楠.论语正义［M］.北京：中华书局，1990. ［10］杨伯峻.论语译注［M］.北京：中华书局，1980. ［11］钱穆.论语新解［M］.北京：三联书店，2002. ［12］康有为.论语注［M］.北京：中华书局，1984. ［13］刘向，赵善诒.说苑疏证［M］.上海：华东师范大学出版社，1985. ［14］施昌东.先秦诸子美学思想评述［M］.北京：中华书局，1979. ［15］王先谦.庄子集解［M］.北京：中华书局，1999. ［16］孙钦善.论语译注［M］.成都：巴蜀书社，1990. ［17］杨伯峻.春秋左传注［M］.北京：中华书局，1981. ［18］赵壹.非草书［C］//上海书画出版社，华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海：上海书画出版社，1979：2-3. ［19］董治安，郑杰文.荀子汇校汇注［M］.济南：齐鲁书社，1997. ［20］杨雄，汪荣宝.法言义疏［M］.北京：中华书局，1987. ［21］王僧虔.论书［C］//上海书画出版社，华东师范大学感知整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海：上海书画出版社，1979：57-61. ［22］颜之推.颜氏家训集解［M］.王利器，集解.上海：上海古籍出版社，1980. ［23］朱长文.续书断下［C］//上海书画出版社，华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海：上海书画出版社，1979：317-352. ［24］孙诒让.周礼正义［M］.王文锦，陈玉霞，点校.北京：中华书局，1987. ［25］丛文俊.《周礼》 “三德”、“道艺”古义斠诠［J］.史学集刊，1998（2）：58-61. ［26］丛文俊.中国书法史?先秦卷［M］.南京：江苏教育出版社，2002. ［27］汪荣宝.法言义疏［M］.北京：中华书局，1987. ［28］李来源，林木.中国古代画论发展史实［M］.上海：上海人民美术出版社，1997. ［29］曹植.与杨德祖书［C］//郭绍虞，王文生.中国历代文论选：第1册.上海：上海古籍出版社，1979：165. ［30］刘勰，周振甫.文心雕龙注释［M］.北京：人民文学出版社，1981. ［31］李修生.全元文［M］.南京：江苏古籍出版社，1999. ［32］郑玄，孔颖达.礼记正义［M］.上海：上海古籍出版社，1990. ［33］挚虞.文章流别论［C］//郭绍虞，王文生.中国历代文论选：第1册.上海：上海古籍出版社，1979：190-205. ［34］张怀瓘.书议［C］//上海书画出版社，华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海：上海书画出版社，1979：144-149.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2017-03-07