审美中的欲望维度——在西方美学视野下 摘　要在审美领域中存在着对待欲望的两种不同态度：超越式的和非超越式的。两种不同的态度的根源在于它们对欲望和美的不同界定，这些界定决定了审美中欲望存在层次的深度和广度。马克思把人的欲望特性归纳为能动性和受动性的统一，同时强调这种统一只有在社会关系中才能表现出来。这种对欲望二重性的分析，为我们提供了把两种欲望观沟通起来的钥匙，使我们能够在三个递进的层次上兼顾这两种视野。首先，欲望能否存在于审美领域：超越式审美在理性精神主导下，把理性作为人的本质，强调欲望自然受限性的一面，而美则是要摆脱人的现实受限性，达到人的理想性存在状况。所以在这种态度下，欲望的存在维度不得不停留在审美边界处。这种欲望观一方面承认人的肉身是审美体验的物质基础，另一方面又致力于把由肉身而来的欲望排除于审美过程之外。因此审美对欲望的讨论仅限于如何超越它的探讨。超越欲望的途径大致有三种：认知理性把审美过程归属于客观精神的展开或反映；宗教理性把审美附属于对上帝的信仰；而以“无功利”为名的审美用纯粹理想状态的标准，回避了欲望问题。非超越式审美都从人的身体性存在角度出发，肯定欲望在审美当中占有一席之地。但从生命整体的角度来肯定欲望，无法真正现实性地见出欲望在审美中的具体表现过程；而从欲望本身出发考察审美，则无法摆脱解构审美、使审美失去自主独特性的结局。马克思对欲望二重性的分析能沟通这两种观点。因为欲望的能动性和受动性属于人的自然属性，与此同时，人也是社会存在物，这双重属性统一于以生产劳动为基础的实践活动。阶级社会的生产实际是：劳动总是异化的。异化劳动使人的欲望和审美活动也异化了，但人的理想是能够实现按照“美的规律”去创造的存在状态。所以马克思的欲望观存在着审美理想和异化现实两个层面，这两个层面的统一又要在社会发展和人的全面发展中统一起来，审美理想与异化现实的相互影响和作用就凸现出欲望的具体存在过程和现实功能。其次，欲望如何存在于审美领域：从“美的规律”的理想性角度来看，审美过程也是人的本质力量对象化的过程。“本质力量”是人的自然性和社会性的统一，也是人生命整体的各种力量能够在社会历史中得到对象化实现的过程。但异化劳动使生命力无法作为整体对象化，异化欲望的对象化过程使审美物化为满足欲望的手段。当然，这种异化状况是一种极端现象，正是这一极端和审美理想的极端构成了一个欲望表达的张力空间。所以，借鉴精神分析对欲望研究的贡献，当我们谈到欲望时，其实也是在讲人的欲望如何表达的问题。建立在马克思欲望观基础上的欲望表达是：欲望产生于本能需要和社会性需求的交叉地带，在想象界、象征界、真实界交互作用下形成受社会关系制约的结构系统。从个体欲望角度分析对象化的过程，总是围绕自我认同问题展开。自我不是一出生就自然成形的，而是不断被建构的过程。自我的被建构通过个体想象来完成。想象原本是超越式审美使主体摆脱欲望的重要途径，正因为想象是自由的，审美主体才能在想象中摆脱欲望的受限性，完成超越；但从被建构的欲望来看，想象根本就不自由，因为想象总要通过对象性的形象来完成，而这个形象受到了先于个体存在、以语言为代表的文化符号的制约；所以通过想象形成的那个自我之像，总不可能是那个原初的真实“我”，真实界总是呈现出个体无法认知的“虚空”，这一虚空是唤起欲望的那个动力源，而艺术创造的核心就是使这种虚空“呈现”出来。 这种“呈现”由主体的“凝视”开始，然后建立起一种“看”与“被看”的关系。在多种艺术形式中，新兴的影像媒介集中体现了这种“凝视”的功能。最后，欲望的审美功能：由欲望在审美中的具体表达机制，我们更容易从历史发展的高度去看待审美理想与异化现实的交互作用，这可以直接改变我们对审美关系的旧有看法，把审美主体与客体之间的线性关系转变为由审美主体、象征符号（文化机制）、审美客体构成的结构性关系。这使得审美交流能够从不同层面上得到丰富。从审美交流的总体语境上，审美主体走向更全面、更贴近现实的自我确认，在审美欣赏方面也由“教化”转向“对话”；从审美维度方面，非超越式的审美不但拓宽着当今时代的审美视野，更重要的是提供了一条反观审美活动历史发展变化的线索；从个体角度看，身体形象的“解放”在带来很多问题的同时，至少也使不“纯粹”的审美活动起到慰藉欲望创伤的作用；而审美形态的丰富则毫无疑问是审美活动发展的进步表现。 审美交流的丰富意味着审美价值的流动。审美价值的流动带来了一个开放的审美价值系统。虽然开放，但这一系统又不是无标准的，审美价值标准既不应该是某种高标准的审美理想，也不应该去迁就欲望宣泄的极少体验，而应该是一种价值参考，一种对某一社会绝大多数人来讲，能够扩展审美的自由度、丰富审美体验的意义参考。

The Desire Dimension in the Western Aesthetics ABSTRACTThere are two different attitudes towards desire in the aesthetic fields: transcendental and non-transcendental, which rooted in the varied definition of the desire and aesthetics determining the depth and scope. Marx concluded that the nature of desire consisted of the initiative nature and passive nature in the social production. This dual analysis provides us a bridge of communication between these two views of desire, and developed the desire theory in a further stage embracing the former two. The First problem is whether there is the desire in aesthetics. Dominated by the rationalism, the transcendental aesthetics, taking ration as the nature of human beings, emphasizes the natural restriction, and the beauty, actually the ideal living condition, provides a word escaping from the restriction of the real word. In this condition, the desire has to acknowledge that the mortal body is the basis of aesthetic experience on one hand, and the mortal desire must be removed from the aesthetic process. The discussion about desire in the transcendental aesthetics limits within how transcendent could be. There are three transcendental ways. Cognitive ration holds that the aesthetic process happens in the emerge and reflection of objective spirit; religious ration ranks aesthetics in believing god; the aesthetics so called ‘non-utility’ considers the pure ideal condition as a criterion, evading the problem of desire. From the perspective of mortal body, the transcendental aesthetics approves the place of desire in aesthetics, but could not really reveal the particular, actual process in the dimension of entirety of mortal body, and could not avoid deconstruction of aesthetics ceasing the individual and special ending form the desire itself. The dual nature of Marxism could link up these two points of view, because of its definition of the man’s nature as the summation of all the social relations and the problem of alienation acknowledging the theory that the nature of social life is actually a production practicality. Alienated labor makes the alienation of aesthetics. So, the desire thought of Marx exists in both the aesthetic ideal and the alienated reality, and it unified these two sides. The mutual influence between aesthetic ideal and alienated reality highlights the particular process and function in the reality of the desire. The second question is how the desire exists in aesthetics.The thought of ‘the law of beauty’ tells us that the aesthetic process is the course of the implication of man's essential power. ‘The essential power’ is the union of man’s nature and social character, and the objective implication of all kinds of power in human life in the social history. However, alienated labor stops the implication of the whole life, and the implication of desire makes aesthetics a method of fulfilling desire. Of course, it is an extremity, but it composes a tension with the extreme aesthetic ideal. In order to study this problem, Jacques Lacan’s comprehensive desire system, having a connection with Marxist theory of desire, should be introduced: desire is the crossroad of need and social demands, and a system of imagination, symbol and reality word. Analyzing the object from the perspective of individual desire is always arranged around the self-identity. Not naturally formed after birth, self is a constant constructive process. The self construction is completed through individual imagination. As a crucial way to release the subject from desire by the transcendental aesthetics, imagination is free, because of which aesthetic subject could escape from the restriction of desire in the imagination and finish the transcendental program. However, the imagination is not free at all thinking through the constructed desire. Imagination must complete through a certain of objects as a media, and this media restricted by the pro-individual, linguistic and cultural symbols. So the self image formed through imagination is not the original and real ‘self’, and reality often appears as a ‘vacuum’ which the individual could not understand and which arouses the original power of desire. The aim of art expressing is to ‘meet’ this ‘vacuum’ suddenly. The ‘meet’ starts there where the subject ‘gazing’, then building up a relation between the ‘seeing’ and the ‘was saw’. The new media of movies typifies this character among various art forms nowadays. The last question is the aesthetic function of the desire.The particular mechanism of desire expressing in aesthetics provides use an easier way to thinking of the mutual relation between aesthetic ideal and alienated reality in the dimension of developing history which could directly change the old view of aesthetic relation and transform the line relation between aesthetic subject and aesthetic object into a system relation among aesthetic subject, symbols and aesthetic object. It would enrich the aesthetic communication unprecedentedly. Based on the reality of living condition, the comfort dimension of aesthetics, around the hurt caused by desire, encourages individuals to make wishes, and accepts the reality in the desire expressing course. The change of productive force and social relation brings new art media, which produces new aesthetic relation; consequently, the reduction of desire expressing taboo enriches the aesthetic form. The constant expansion of production is the continuous desire; the process of non-transcendental aesthetics challenging and complementing transcendental aesthetics is also the moving course of aesthetic value.This movement may help us give up the monism of aesthetic value regarding as an open system. The criterion of aesthetic value should neither be an aesthetic ideal with high standard, nor an accommodation to draining desire; it is a value for reference, a reference to expand freedom of aesthetics and enrich aesthetic experience for the most people.