Interactions between Western and Chinese Aesthetics（作者：王柯平）

This paper is included in Essays on Comparative Aesthetics edited by Robert Wilkenson et al (forthcoming, 2006) and Aesthetics and Culture: East and West co-edited by Gao Jianping and Wang Keping (forthcoming, 2006).

Wang Keping


Modern Chinese aesthetics emerged in the process of exchange and collision between Western and Chinese cultures. It made progress along with a continuous interaction and communication between Western and Chinese aesthetics, and acquired a unique form and style in placing Western ideas in close contact with Chinese heritage. In view of its method and content, the defining characteristic of Chinese aesthetics is the integration and assimilation of the historical into the modern in terms of East-West cultural transformation.
Historically speaking, there have emerged five main paradigms regarding modern Chinese aesthetics in its development from infancy to maturity over a span of a hundred years. Each of the paradigms has its own focus of interest and stands as a pre-condition to and exerts influence upon the others. When all of them grow to a greater extent, they work out a linear sketch of different stages of the progression of modern Chinese aesthetics and its path of academic thinking. In sum, the five include the model of fragmentary elaboration based on translation and introduction, the model of systematic disciplinary construction based on transplantation, the model of theoretical incorporation through creative reformation based on the East-West communication, the model of cross-disciplinary and comprehensive art education based on the efficiency of applied sciences, and the model of cross-cultural considerations based on the inquiry into distinct cultural origins.
It should be noted that although modern Chinese aesthetics began with translation, introduction, and transplantation of Western aesthetics, it was not an instance of simple imitation or mechanical reproduction. Rather, its selection of subjects that were the most suitable for maximal elaboration and reconstruction eventually created favorable conditions for communication between Western and Chinese aesthetics and theoretical incorporation. These initial efforts owed to the deep-rooted and far-reaching humane tradition in China. For the same reason, the very beginning of the introduction of “Western Sciences” (西学) once encountered strong resistance from native culture. To a great extent, the obstinate forces came in protest from cultural conservatism. However, in the process of passive correction, those extreme and biased cultural ideas were rectified accordingly. For instance, facing the opposition and contention between “Old Learning”(Chinese) and “New Learning”(Western), Wang Guowei (王国维) enthusiastically championed a truth-seeking and prejudice-free academic environment. As is noticed in the preface he wrote in 1911 for the Journal of Chinese Studies, he called for “a wider cultural vision against the distinction between Old and New Learning and between Western and Chinese learning”. [1] With regard to the widely held conception of cultural eclecticism, many scholars voiced their criticisms. Zong Baihua (宗白华), for example, contributed to the Current Issues an article on Chinese Scholars—Communication—Mediation (1919). [2] Thereby he expressed his objection against the practice of looking for “similarities” between Chinese culture and other cultures for the sake of mutual understanding or mediation. He encouraged Chinese scholars to break up with the idea of communication and eclecticism in their study of Western and Chinese theories and pursued truth only for truth’ sake. With regard to “Complete Westernization” as a trend of thought and the permeation of heterogeneous cultures, ten professors in Shanghai jointly published Manifestation of the Construction of Chinese Native Culture in 1935, openly holding high the “banner of native culture.” [3] With respect to the cultural consciousness at two opposite extremes, Zhang Dainian (张岱年) and other scholars came up with a more constructive proposition of “synthetic creation.” This proposal emphasized that, in dealing with cultural issues, equal attention should be paid to what is the best both in Western culture and its Chinese counterpart. Meanwhile, the distinguished Chinese cultural legacy should be cherished and carried forward. In assimilating the valuable accomplishments in Western culture, a new culture would be created into being in the long run. What was needed in China then was creative synthesis rather than mediocre mediation. The agenda of so-called “creative synthesis” asked for endeavors to fulfill a many-fold mission, say, to oppose the biased practice of cultural conservatives, cultural radicals and cultural eclecticism, eradicate the obsolete and outworn conceptions in native culture, absorb new spirit in foreign cultures, promote progress in revitalizing traditional culture, speed up the input and digestion of the cream of foreign cultures, and finally bring into being a new form of Chinese culture that should be propitious to metabolism and renaissance. Later on, Zhang Dainian also introduced “cultural creationism” and uplifted the realistic significance of “synthetic creation” to the level of facilitating as well as actualizing the rebirth of Chinese culture and national rejuvenation. Similar conception of culture and the consciousness of innovation and modernization greatly encouraged and inspired those Chinese scholars, who attended to the construction of Chinese culture and consciously took up the responsibility for the future of the nation and its people. This influence reached so far as to the field of aesthetic culture and modified to various degrees the developing paradigms of modern Chinese aesthetics.

1. Fragmentary Elaboration of Western Aesthetics

Since the 20th Century, China had undergone a series of domestic political turmoil and invasion from other countries. A lot of conscientious, aspiring, and patriotic academics deeply felt the destiny of the nation and its people. They were severely challenged and tried every possible means to look for the road of cultural reform for salvation and survival of the country. At that time, the introduction of Western Sciences or the pursuit of cultural transformation had shifted their attention and emphasis from cultural implements (like modern technology-equipped gunboat) to cultural system (like education system) and cultural ideology (like natural sciences, philosophy, aesthetics, literature and arts). Although the debate between “Old Learning” (Chinese) and “New learning” (Western) still lingered on, the latter had forced its way into prominence while the former gradually withdrew to obscurity. Against this larger social background, the notion developed by Wang Guowei advocated his conception of “Go beyond the distinction between Chinese and Occidental Learning” (xue wu zhong xi) while Lu Xun (鲁迅) recommended his strategy of “Look for new voices in foreign cultures” (bie qiu xinsheng yu yibang). Those views turned out to be so prevailing that all sorts of Western theories and ideologies flooded into China through translated versions. At that time, in the fields of Chinese aesthetics, literature, and arts, a lot of translators and scholars made joint efforts to promote cultural and social reform, followed one another to criticize conservative attitudes and took an active part in the import of Western aesthetics in particular. They assumed that Western theories in this domain could be employed to resolve the problems in the practice of Chinese literature and arts.
This is the rudimentary stage of the development of modern Chinese aesthetics as a discipline. Under the specific historical and cultural conditions, it was impossible for these founding fathers to conduct a systematic study of the complete history of Western aesthetics; instead, according to social and cultural needs, personal tastes, and individual artistic ideals, they selected some influential theories in Western aesthetics, incorporated them with relevant elements in Chinese artistic tradition, and boldly proposed and developed new theories of their own. Among those Western aesthetic theories were Kant’s theory of “disinterestedness” and “the beautiful and the sublime”, Schiller’s theory of “play” and aesthetic education, Schopenhauer’s theory of “will to live” and “serene contemplation”, and Nietzsche’s notion of “genius and over-man” and theory of tragedy. Naturally problems occurred within their practice of fragmentary elaboration, such as one-sided understanding, mechanical imitation, deliberate exaggeration, farfetched argumentation, textual misinterpretation and misappropriation, contextual misplacement and deformation. In terms of academic norms, the internal structures of their theories appeared quite loose, sloppy, and lack of disciplinary order. In terms of scientific principles, all these defects could be considered as unavoidable consequences of fragmentary selection and elaboration or a lack of systematic research. However, in the perspective of cultural conflict and cultural selection, the above-mentioned phenomena appeared so natural and inevitable in a social context that was in urgent need of solution for salvation and survival.
In spite of partial understanding of Western sciences, modern Chinese aesthetics at its rudimentary stage witnessed some cases that fruitfully accommodated newly arrived Western theories and insightful observations apart from the invention of new categories, wise choice of conceptual shift, and creative theoretical attainments. Wang Guowei’s theory of “yijing”(poetic excellence) and “guya”(classical grace) are often considered as best evidences in this regard. All this directly owed to his original thinking, endless pursuit of innovation, profound erudition of traditional culture, and self-consciousness of theoretical redevelopment. It should be noted that when Western aesthetic concepts and relevant theoretical thinking were changed into Chinese form of expression, cultural variation immediately followed to take place. As we know, culture engages in an interactive relationship with language. Culture is capable of exerting influence upon the content and structure of language, such as the advent of new terminology and vocabulary, the variation of grammar and sentence pattern. Language can modify the connotations of cultural concepts in a new setting composed of the symbols of a second language, as a result of a so-called creative misunderstanding that recognizes meaning only word by word. Edward Sapir, an analyst in the inter-relationship between language and culture, believes that language is not only capable of enumerating what constitutes our environmental background, but also of living up to its role as a real imposing force. The reason why language can define our experiences is that it possesses completeness in its own form. At the same time it is because we always subconsciously project into the realm of our experiences the ideas expected to be articulated to the full by language. [4] For example, the Chinese equivalent of aesthetics, Meixue (美学), was introduced via Japan into China, but its meaning does not correspond to the origin of the term of aesthetics derived from ancient Greek αισθητικος. The latter usually signifies the perceptual faculty or a science of perception, and its antonym is αναισθητος, which denotes the lack of sensation or an insensitive state (English version of its Latin form is anaesthetic which means anaesthesia, apathetic or narcotic). Aισθητικος as a discipline mainly studies sensible perception, artistic creation, and aesthetic judgment. Westerners can easily recognize the logic and semantic relationship in the combination of letters and consequently come to understand the basic categorical features. In Chinese, the intuitive implication of “mei” (美) as a pictographic symbol easily dissolves the logical relationship between the part and the whole that the term of aesthetics contains. At the same time, in Chinese culture and particularly in traditional doctrines of Confucianism, due to its semantic feature as interchangeable with “shan” (善, good or benevolence) and its moral and ethic significance, “mei” is attributed with “imposing power” to confine the way of how to read its meaning. Therefore the resulting creative misunderstanding and cultural variation naturally had their impact on the commencement of modern Chinese aesthetics.

2. Systematic Construction of Aesthetics as a Discipline

The May Fourth New Culture Movement (Wusi xinwenhua yundong) propelled Chinese aesthetic studies onto to a higher plane. In particular, the groundbreaking practice of art education attempted to incorporate aesthetics in joint efforts with literature and arts in order that it take collective responsibility for enlightenment education of the public and even for rebuilding national identity. This stirred up among scholars the passion to build up a systematic discipline of aesthetics and thus stimulated the birth of a systematic paradigm of aesthetic inquiry. The leading principle of this paradigm was intended to make the most of Western scientific methods by virtue of proper application, take in selectively the valid elements of traditional Chinese learning, clarify the historical development of aesthetics with reference to its cultural background, object of study, basic categories, theoretical pattern, and philosophical ground, etc. It was then on this basis to reconstruct its disciplinary structure and improve its theoretical system. This guideline proved very helpful to the elimination and correction of the resulting disequilibrium in fragmentary aesthetic exploration (for example, the mode of argument with focus on one point but with no heed to the others), and to the development of art criticism and the research of literature and arts from updated perspectives. Additionally it contributed to the systematic probing of Chinese aesthetic thought and all branches of arts. All this can be regarded as the logical necessity of the development of modern Chinese aesthetics.
The leading figure that promoted systematic aesthetic studies was Can Yuanpei (蔡元培). He himself received philosophical training when he approached aesthetics in the university of Leipzig and other universities in Germany. After his return to China, he took an active part by promoting The Approaches to Aesthetics (1921), lecturing on Western aesthetics, and drafting an outlined the textbook On Aesthetics (in fact he wrote out two chapters on The Tendency of Aesthetics and The Object of Aesthetics). Since he became president of Beijing University, his project of art education exerted nationwide influence, laid a solid social foundation, evoked academic interest among researchers, and greatly inspired their initiative spirit.
Another contributing factor to systematic aesthetic studies was found in the large amount of translationed works. The author of the earliest translation was Liu Renhang (刘仁航) whose rendering of Modern Aesthetics was published in 1920. Later on, Zhu Guangqian (朱光潜) and others continued to translate many aesthetic classics. In the 1980s and the 1990s, it was under the guidance of chief editor of Li Zehou (李泽厚) that the large-scale project of “Translation Series of Aesthetic Works” was launched. These translations provided much-needed materials and frames of reference for and constituted to a certain extent the part and parcel of Chinese systematic aesthetic studies.
The construction of the system of modern Chinese aesthetics acquired substantial accomplishments in the 1930s and the1940s. Aestheticians represented by Lü Cheng (吕澂), Chen Wangdao (陈望道), Li Anzhai (李安宅), Fan Shoukang (范寿康), Zhu Guangqian (朱光潜), Cai Yi (蔡仪), and Fu Tong (傅统), etc., followed one another to produce many treaties on aesthetics, introduction to aesthetics, outline of aesthetics, psychology of art, and history of Western aesthetics. Some of them chose to define the characteristics of the discipline of aesthetics in accordance with the triple division of truth, goodness, and beauty, or to analyze the nature of aesthetics in the perspective of scholarship, spirit, value and norm, or to reorganize the developmental structure of aesthetics through the main theoretical models that focused on sense of beauty, or to establish new aesthetics against the old one in the perspective of the principle of rule-conforming in artistic creation. In the entire process of attaining perfection, there arose a diversity of theories or systems. Some of them had the tendency to simplify a complicated situation, stay on a superficial and too general level, copy another similar structure, distort in a way what was appropriated, or presented more or less mechanical and forced arguments. But many others succeeded in defining the basic features, principles, and methodologies of the discipline of aesthetics in a systematic fashion. At the same time, a systematic paradigm also effectively brought about a great advance in the systematic study of Chinese art theory and laid a solid foundation for the well-organized establishment of Chinese classic aesthetic thought in the future. In this respect, significant achievements included Zhu Guangqian’s theory of poetry, Feng Zikai’s theory of paintings, Deng Yizhe’s theory of calligraphy, etc. Meanwhile there was a flourishing period for history books on Chinese aesthetics written respectively by Li Zehou (李泽厚), Liu Gangji (刘纲纪), Ye Lang (叶朗), and Min Ze (敏泽) among others. In view of the mode of argument and the systematic structure, there were obvious traces of theoretical appropriation, conceptual shift, and semantic transfer. Yet, they all basically embedded their arguments in Chinese cultural background and traditional thinking, and presented the history of Chinese aesthetics and its uniqueness in a vertical and horizontal dimension.

3. Theoretical Incorporation through East-West Communication

Modern Chinese aesthetics has evolved out of the conflict and interaction between Chinese and Western cultures and is therefore always accompanied by comparison between Western and Chinese aesthetics in different forms. This comparison requires an academic vision of cross-cultural study, consciousness of dialogue based on equal footing, erudite knowledge of both Western and Chinese cultures, and the capacity to assimilate different ideas and methods. Only by so doing is it possible to realize innovation and transcendence by integrating relevant theories into a whole.
Fortunately, there emerged high achievers in the field of modern Chinese aesthetics. Among them are aestheticians Zhu Guangqian, Feng Zikai, and Zong Baihua, etc. What is common to all of them could be the reception of systematic philosophical training during their stay in Western countries, the acceptance of the scientific spirit of Western culture and aesthetics, and the familiar acquaintance with the standards and norms of academic research. On the other hand it involves the background of traditional education, the influence of Chinese culture, their well-founded knowledge of Chinese learning, rare wisdom of oriental understanding, commitment to the historical mission of rejuvenating Chinese culture, and longing for the ideal of an artisticized life.
In terms of his accomplishments reflected in the Psychology of Literature and Art, [5] On Beauty [6] and other early works, Zhu Guangqian based his argument and analysis on some key theories of Western modern aesthetics and as a result effectively removed the feeling of strangeness of imported ideas by means of semantic transfer, conceptual comparison, and quotation of examples selected from Chinese traditional art theory and poetry. Such notions, for instance, of “qingjing jiaorong” (fusion of emotion and scene) and “chaoran wubiao” (identifying oneself with the object contemplated) in Chinese classic art theory were employed to interpret Lipps’ doctrine of “Einfühlung” and Bullough’s principle of “psychic distance”. Similarly, in bringing Kant’s theory of “disinterested contemplation” and “free beauty”, Schiller’s theory of “play” and others in conjunction with Daoism, he proposed an important theory of “artisticized life.” Later on, in his book On Poetry, [7] Zhu tried to assimilate and synthesize Western and Chinese learning in general, and incorporate Western and Chinese poetics in particular. Through scientific analysis and comparison of rhythm, rhyme, taste, grammar, and rhyming systems, etc., he exposed authentically the basic and respective features of the techniques in Western and Chinese poems. His proper style, sound reasoning, convincing proofs, and well-grounded conclusions marked a new milestone for Chinese modern poetics and Western-Chinese comparative study of poetry. It is no surprise that Zhu himself declared that he published many books but wrote this one only in his lifetime. In contrast, Feng Zikai and Zong Baihua started their comparative study of Western and Chinese aesthetics with more focus on the genres of calligraphy and painting. In dealing with the aesthetic ideals, characters of value, rules of artistic creation, the functions of constitutive elements, and other factors in Western and Chinese paintings, they opened up a new area of comparative study, successfully came up with theoretical generalizations, and perceived predictably a promising future for the development of comparison between distinct cultures and art forms. Their practice and success set an example for succeeding scholars.
It should be pointed out that the communication between Western and Chinese aesthetics in a real sense does not simply mean transplantation of concepts. Instead, it is based upon carefully examining the differences in learning and thinking and therefore crops up a good harvest of new ideas. The common practice is to apply Western scientific method and spirit to the examination and interpretation of Chinese aesthetic culture, which is mainly composed of theories of traditional poetry, prose, and painting, in order to clarify the implicit, ambiguous, and vague conceptions and to realize cross-cultural communication and assimilation between the West and China against a mutual textual background. The distinguishing characteristic of the communication between Western and Chinese aesthetics is, as Mu Zongsan (牟宗三) put in his analysis of the communication between Western and Chinese philosophies, to “dissolve antinomy”, i.e., to admit both generality and particularity and to pursue the universal truth rather than the integration of the two in the process of communication and assimilation. [8] On the contrary, the two parties retain their respective characters; China keeps to its own traditional traits, so does the West. They should not turn out to identify with each other. Therefore, generality does not exclude particularity while the particular does not negate the general. Only by this becomes possible the communication between and the preservation of the diversity of Western and Chinese philosophies. It is the same with the communication between Western and Chinese aesthetics. In this respect, the notion of “sedimentation” developed by Li Zehou is a typical example. It is largely based on practical philosophy and inspired by Clive Bell’s hypothesis of “the significant form” and Carl Jung’s conception of “the collective unconscious.” At the same time, it reflects the great influence of Chinese thinking pattern, which holds that “What is perceived cannot be expressed through words.” Although this notion is not all-encompassing in a way of manifesting the dynamic process of theoretical study and the activity of aesthetic creation through which human beings continue their pursuit of transcendence, its efforts and workable mode to integrate the West and China has greatly inspired contemporary Chinese scholars in the field of aesthetics.

4. Cross-Disciplinary and Comprehensive Practice of Art Education

At the beginning of 20th century, many scholars like Wang Guowei were plunged in deep worries about the current educational system and the decaying society plagued with opium. Wang himself issued his crying demand for the awareness of the importance of art education in his investigation of educational principles, human likings, and the Confucian notions of education through rites, music and poetry. His contemporary Liang Rengong (梁任公), in his proposal for “education by taste,” also realized the role of art education as indispensable in life. However, restricted by social situation and historical conditions, they did not do much in putting their ideas into practice even though they had done what they could in the theoretical aspect. In contrast, their successor Cai Yuanpei made a breakthrough. As he became president of Beijing University, he committed himself to saving the country through education and social reform. His outstanding achievement is renowned even today for his theory of “replacing religion with art education” and for the first art course provided and conducted in the university. His pioneering practice opened up a new area of art education in China and laid for his successors a theoretical and practical foundation.
It is quite recently that the endeavors of art education analysts in China have turned out to be fairly fruitful regarding the outcome of relevant theories and praxes. Among many others in this domain, the most noticeable is the eco-model of art education. For it is not merely different from the conventional “spoon-feeding model” that is teacher-based and indifferent to students’ initiative as well as creativity, but also different from the “gardener-centered model” with overemphasis upon students’ self-representation and indifference to artistic inspiration and teacher’s role. In brief, the eco-model is designed to develop the intuitive and creative capacity in students through a synthesis of diverse but interrelated disciplines apart from art works and routine experiences in real life. Just as Teng Shouyao (滕守尧) claims in Art and Generative Wisdom, the “ecological system” of nature in its most propitious configuration involves all kinds of things living in an interdependent, inter-complementary, vigorous and sustainable relationship. Art education needs to fully manifest ecological wisdom and constantly put it into practice. For instance, it should work to level down the walls separating aesthetics, art history, art criticism, artistic creation, art psychology, art sociology, and cultural anthropology, only to establish and retain an ecological relationship among these subjects. Stress should therefore be laid on mutual assimilation and infiltration between art appreciation and art making, through which it is qualified to set up a potentially close link between the aesthetic sensitivity and artistic creativity. All this is based on the perception and analysis of artistic and organic forms in diversity, hence encouraging an exploration of the ecological interaction between distinct components in works of art, say, the clear versus the murky, the large versus the small, the short versus the long, the fast versus the slow, the sad versus the joyful, the strong versus the tender, the high versus the low, the outward versus the inward, the thick versus the thin, the abstract versus the real, etc. Such a training to be conducted in the form of art education features a gradual nurturing process and will in the long run enable human psychic structure to grow as much open as that of great works of art. [9]
As is discerned, the eco-model of art education bears an inter-disciplinary trait by nature. It attempts to introduce as a guiding principle the integration of several disciplines into classroom teaching and students’ performance in a democratically interactive manner. This seems to be inspired by the hypothesis of “discipline-based art education” proposed in early 1990s in the New World. According to Ralph Smith as a leading theorist and practitioner in this field, discipline-based art education is literally an approach to rendering the teaching about visual arts more effective through the incorporation of concepts and activities from a number of interrelated disciplines, namely, artistic creation, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. However, it does not mandate that these four disciplines be taught separately without reference to one another. Instead, it employs them to provide justification, subject matter, and methods, as well as exemplify attitudes, that are relevant to the cultivation of percipience in matters of art. This is mainly because “they offer different analytical contexts to aid our understanding and aesthetic enjoyment, contexts such as the making of unique objects of visual interest (artistic creation), the apprehension of art under the aspects of time, tradition, and style (art history), the reasoned judgment of artistic merit (art criticism), and the critical analysis of basic aesthetic concepts and puzzling issues (aesthetics). Discipline-based art education thus assumes that an ability to engage works of art intelligently requires not only our having attempted to produce artworks and gained some awareness of the mysteries and difficulties of artistic creation in the process, but also our having acquired familiarity with art’s history, its principle of judgment, and its conundrums. All are prerequisite to building a sense of art in the young, which is the overarching objective aesthetic learning.” [10] The above statement is verifiable to the extent that the meaning and significance of many artworks are by no means easy to be got hold of because they are lying in the bygone contexts of specific history, culture, and society, etc. Hence what would be highly desirable and helpful are relevant description, analysis, interpretation and comparative study in terms of time, tradition, style and even ethos. All this could be supplied and clarified by such professionals as art historians, art critics, and art philosophers or aestheticians. Accordingly, “we may say that a well-developed understanding and enjoyment of art presupposes some familiarity with the arts of creation (the making of artworks), the arts of communication (works of art as artistic statements), the arts of continuity (the understanding of artworks in historical context), and the arts of criticism (criticism that interprets artistic statements as well as philosophically analyzes aesthetic concepts).” [11] In a word, the discipline-based art education is comprehensive par excellence owing to its dynamic synthesis of four interrelated subjects. It is meanwhile systematic in fostering a sense of art according to the general curriculum divided into five phases of aesthetic learning as follows: simple exposure to artworks, familiarity and perceptual training, historical awareness, exemplar appreciation, and critical analysis.
Nevertheless, the eco-model of art education is trying ambitiously to go beyond the discipline-based approach aforementioned. Apart from the four disciplines in question, it demonstrates a kind of intercultural dimension by selectively adopting certain positive factors from ancient Chinese doctrines of education through music-poetry and corresponding exercise in art education, and assimilating some interesting contents of environmental ecology, psychic ecology, and modern and post-modern designing culture. For example, it argues that environmental and ecological protection is not merely a technical notion that deals only with natural objects rather than human beings. Instead, based on the traditional ethics of “loving people and treasuring things” (renmin aiwu), and the modern idea of sustainable development, it aims to cultivate the consciousness of protecting external (physical) ecological environment and adjusting internal (psychical) ecological environment in order to rediscover and facilitate harmony between individual and collective, between humankind and nature, between emotion and reason, between matter and spirit….
Appealing and thought-provocative as it appears to be, the eco-model itself requires further questioning and investigation as it still leaves some room for theoretical clarification and practical justification. In this case, an intercultural comparison will be of need for pursuing some more insights.

5. Trans-cultural Pondering in View of Cultural Origins

The study of aesthetics and aesthetic culture continues to explore Sino-Occidental philosophy of culture and cultural poetics in order to achieve a better understanding of their respective cultural spirit and aesthetic character. This requires not only a vertical survey and induction, but also horizontal analysis and comparison. Meanwhile it requires the researcher to be capable of not only assimilating the historical and the modern, the native and the foreign, but also incorporating his knowledge of literature, history, and philosophy into a productive whole. In this respect, the achievements made by Fang Dongmei (方东美), Tang Junyi (唐君毅), and Xu Fuguan (徐复观) deserve much of our attention.
For example, in many of his works such as the Three Kinds of Wisdom of Philosophy, The Mood of Life and Sense of Beauty, the Poetry and Life, the Boundless and Harmonious Spirit of Life, On Human Beings and Nature in Chinese Culture in the Perspective of Comparative Philosophy, and the Artistic Spirit of Chinese People, [12] Fang Dongmei explored distinct cultural origins in a trans-cultural paradigm and demonstrated the cultural spirit and aesthetic character of ancient Greece, Europe, and China in both vertical and horizontal dimensions. First, he adopted an overall perspective and looked into the three different kinds of wisdom in ancient Greece, Europe, and China. He came to reveal each different thought-way, cultural spirit, and the character of national life.
According to his observation, the Greeks would be preoccupied with the faculties of intelligence and reason that conduced to the wisdom of reality and produced the culture of rationality. They were therefore liable to pursue and justify truth with the power of reason. Their national life was characterized with three forms of spirit in connection with Dionysus, Apollo, and Olympus symbolizing passion, reason and lack of emotion each. Among them the Apollonian spirit would be regarded as the main stream. The Europeans would be preoccupied with seeking after beneficial momentum and convenience that led to the wisdom of convenience and nourished industrial power or craftiness. They therefore developed the culture of worshipping might and right, thus driving emotion and feeling into illusion. Their national life featured such three types of spirit as were reflected in the Renaissance, the Baroque and the Rococo. The Renaissance was attributed to artistic enthusiasm, the Baroque to the scientific enlightenment, and the Rococo to the contradiction between emotion and reason. They could be integrated into the Faustian spirit. The Chinese would be preoccupied with the delight in a subtle understanding of nature and change. They would rely on the wisdom of reality, make use of the wisdom of convenience, and accomplish the wisdom of equality. They therefore developed a culture of subtleness and naturalness, attempting mainly to control the illusive and return to the sincere. As a result the treats of their national life are embodied by three historical figures including Laotzu, Confucius, and Motzu.
As what Fang Dongmei believed, the respective spirit and features of the three cultures aforementioned naturally had impact on corresponding forms of artistic expression and aesthetic styles. In addition, Fang as a philosophical poet asserted that culture was a complete manifestation of the soul and presented a picture of human life, feeling, and reasoning. In order to understand the sense of beauty or aesthetic traits pertaining to a nationality, one should bear in mind the particular features of a national life and put into due consideration the cosmic view of a nation all together. Relatively speaking, the Greeks and modern Europeans tend to approach the universe from a scientific perspective whereas the Chinese tend to approach it from an artistic perspective. Hence there arise some differences in their tastes, aesthetic characteristics and expressions. They might be demonstrated on a well-lighted stage as follows:

Cast Ancient Greek Modern Westerner Chinese
Background Limited cosmos Boundless cosmos Deserted wildness
Setting The Pantheon in Athens Gothic church Ancient temples in remote mountains
Accessory scene Sculpture of naked body Oil painting and musical instrument Landscape painting and flowers
Subject Imitation of nature Governing the nature and objects Flow of Dao and unconscious of the object and self
Heroine Apollo Faust Poet
Acting Singing eulogy Dancing Composing poetry
Music Seven-stringed plucked instrument Violin and piano Bamboo flute and inverted bell
Situation Sunny day after raining Lightening in a sunny day The sound of flute in the moonlight
Scene Lifelike Real Illusion Illusionary reality
Season A clear autumn day Hot summer and cold winter Warm spring
Mood Outward expression of simplicity & elegance Struck by thunder, shocked and stirred up Flower into dream and relaxation of mind

This macro-study and intercultural comparison do not take every factor into consideration, however. They can provide a general picture of the essential elements of cultural tradition, cultural spirit, and characteristic sense of beauty in ancient Greece, modern Europe and China, in addition to their differences and individuality of each type of culture. This pattern of intercultural and comparative study that traces back to the cultural origins is not intended to compare for the sake of comparison. In fact, in order to bring to light the difference and similarity between Western and Chinese cultures, it aims to create new possibilities through reviewing the origins and strive for transcendence through assimilating different elements, for a higher purpose of fulfilling the mission of upgrading culture and bettering human being. As Fang Dongmei (方东美) said, Nietzsche’s notion of Overman (Übermensch), who carried himself with all meanings of a secular world and fascinated with a rediscovery of all established values, was only an empty ideal. If this ideal could take a reasonable attitude to assimilate all sorts of valuable cultures, that is, to synthesize the philosophical wisdom of ancient Greek, modern European, and Chinese, it should be able to carry with itself the newly-discovered value in the universe and therefore succeeded in taking up the cultural responsibility. For the time being, what we really needed was open-mindedness, honesty, and sincerity rather than resistance and contempt towards Western culture. The so-called Overman should be the one who transcends the defects of ancient Greek and becomes ideal European and Chinese, transcends the defects of the European and becomes graceful Chinese and ancient Greek, and transcends the defects of Chinese and becomes distinguished European and ancient Greek. Only the perfect being that embodies the three different kinds of wisdom is entitled to be an Overman. This is obviously a romantic and idealistic vision of the attempt of trans-cultural incorporation, and its possibility mainly resides in people’s imagination and expectation. However, in a contemporary context of cultural globalization in a new century, we have no doubt as to the internal inspiration of this theory. It is especially the same with intercultural aesthetic studies.
In sum, the five paradigms as briefly aforementioned denote to certain extent a logical and historical process of developing modern Chinese aesthetics. Particularly, the latter three patterns mark of a more mature phase. According to our understanding, the theoretical incorporation represents both the creative transformation of Western aesthetics in the Chinese context and the inspiring development of Chinese aesthetic theory in connection with its own heritage. Above all, the trans-cultural approach appears to be more instructive, forward-looking, and directing to the future of aesthetics in spite of its idealistic touch.


Notes:
[1] Cf. Wang Guowei. “Guoxue congkan xu”(《国学丛刊》序), in Wangguowei Wenji (《王国维文集》［Collected Works of Wang Guowei］), vol. 4, Zhongguo Wenshi Chubanshe, 1997, pp. 366-367.
2 Cf. Zong Baihua. “Zhongguo xuewenjia—goutong—tiaohe”(中国的学问家－沟通－调和), on Shishi Ribao（《时事日报》）Nov. 27, 1919.
3 Cf. Zhang Dainian et al. “Zgongguo benwei wenhua jeanshe xuanyan” (中国本位文化建设宣言), in Zhang Dainian wenji (《张岱年文集》[Collected Works of Zhang Dainian], vol. 1, Tsinghua University Press, 1989, p. 265; also see Fu Changzhen. “Wenhua yu zhexue de zhenghe: lun Zhang Dainian xiansheng zaoqi de wenhua zhexue guan” (文化与哲学的整合：论张岱年先生早期的文化哲学观 ［A Synthesis between culture and philosophy: on the Early Philosophic View of Mr. Zhang Dainian］), in Xuehai (《学海》[The Journal for Scholars]), No. 1, 2001, pp. 136-137.
4 Cf. Edward Spir. “Conceptual Categories in Premieire languages,” in Science, 74 (1931), p. 578; also see Carol R. Ember & Melvin Ember. Cultural Anthropology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1985 (Chinese version. Wenhua de bianyi [《文化的变异》] Shenyang: Liaoning Renmin Chubanshe, 1988, pp. 136-137).
5 Cf. Zhu Guangqian. Wenyi xinlixue (《文艺心理学》).
6 Cf. Zhu Guangqian. Tan mei (《谈美》).
7 Cf. Zhu Guangqian. Shi lun (《诗论》).
8 Cf. Mou Zongsan. Zhongxi zhexue zhi huitong shisi jiang (《中西哲学之会通十四讲》[Fourteen Lectures on the Transformation between Chinese and Occidental Philosophies]), Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 1998, pp. 5-6.
9 Cf. Teng Shouyao. Yishu yu chuangshen (《艺术与创生》), Xian: Shanxi Normal University Press, 2002, pp. 47, 50, 337-338.
10 Cf. Albert W. Levi & Ralph A. Smith. Art Education: A Critical Necessity (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991), p. xi.
11 Ibid., pp. xiv-xv.
12 Cf. Fang Dongmei. Zhexue sanhui (《哲学三慧》)；Shengming qingdiao yu meigan（《生命情调与美感》）；Shi yu shengming（《诗与生命》）；Guangda hexie de shengming jingsheng（《广大和谐的生命精神》）；Cong bijiao zhexueguan kuangguan zhongguo wenhua li de ren yu ziran （《从比较哲学观旷观中国文化里的人与自然》）；Zhongguoren de yishu jingshen（《中国人的艺术精神》）.

来源：网络