English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 51948/87093 (60%)
Visitors : 8509427      Online Users : 95
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/101815


    Title: 俄羅斯革命時期實踐概念之研究(1918-1925年)
    Other Titles: The concept of praxis in revolutionary Russia (1918-1925)
    Authors: 陳家韡;Chen, Chia-Wei
    Contributors: 淡江大學歐洲研究所博士班
    馬良文;Maliavin, V. V.
    Keywords: 實踐;馬克思主義;前衛藝術;生產藝術;科技;表演;日常生活;Praxis;Marxism;Avant-Garde Art;productionist art;technics;Performance;everyday life
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2015-05-04 09:18:54 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本論文的研究範圍注重在俄羅斯1917年十月革命之後至1925年的實踐概念發展上。以馬克思理論的實踐概念作為俄羅斯社會、文化轉型的基礎,成為本文探究的對象。在開放的政治氛圍推波助瀾下,前衛藝術家與理論家開始在馬克思的實踐概念基礎上發展各自的觀點,尤其是對生產勞動和理想的社會形式,提出創新的見解。本文在第二章節先分析馬克思和列寧的實踐概念思想,接著將布爾什維克的文化政策、盧納察爾斯基等人的見解加以說明清楚。
    接著依據法國社會主義者:亨利‧勒菲伏爾(Henri Lefebvre)的全面性實踐觀點,將實踐概念分為三個部分。而筆者套用勒菲伏爾的理論在俄羅斯革命上,在每一章分探討具有代表性的人物。第三章的焦點放在創意勞動理論的發展,強調集體主義的博格丹諾夫,與泰勒主義的葛斯契夫是本章的焦點。兩人的理論對於蘇聯社會與文化的發展均產生重要的影響。第四章裡,馬克思的唯物主義見解成為革命後最熱門的關鍵字,實踐概念與「物」的結合,反映在藝術與生產之間的關聯,引起了各個前衛藝術家的關注,並紛紛獻身於實踐的行列。其中包括馬列維奇在十月革命前創立的至上主義、與塔特林的構成主義運動,還有阿爾瓦托夫的生產者藝術和塔拉布金的環境機械理論,皆是對實踐概念最好的回應。最後在第五章的主題是以日常生活做為實踐概念的進階對象,日常生活與節日成為革命藝術(這時藝術家們已自生為左派,或革命藝術家)嚮往改變社會的方式,期待在新世界創造出新人類的構想。此時,戲劇、電影與群眾行動成為實現實踐概念的必要途徑,企圖向社會揭露日常生活的本質。
    本文的研究發現是,根據上述的內容,重新以年代將俄羅斯革命的實踐概念成作一劃分:
    1. 1918-1920年為實驗性階段 2. 1920-1922年為生產階段
    3.1922-1923年為日常生活的階段 4. 1923-1925年漸漸走向式微的階段
    新的實踐概念的核心是各種生命的實驗的形式匯集了技術創新和藝術創造力,正好符合了新的歷史條件的發展,但其主要缺陷在於,它無法實現和人類活動一樣的整體創意行動,只能片面的創造單一的個體。1925年後無論是藝術家還是理論家皆被困在無對象的界限裡,耗盡了自己的創意,且找不到出路。很遺憾的是,所謂的社會實踐最後還是以失敗收場,並在史達林的政權下,很快的被社會主義現實主義所取代。
    This dissertation focuses on the concept of social Praxis in the years immediately following the Russian revolution of 1917. This concept is fundamental in Marxist theory where it comprises both productive labor and ideological forms related to it. The author analyzes the meaning of Praxis in Marxist theory in the second and 3rd chapters and its interpretation by the leading figures of Russian revolution, among them Lenin, Trotsky, Lunacharsky, Bogdanov and Gastev. Non-Marxist theories of praxis originated at this time, notably that of Gershenson and Muraviev are analyzed too.
    The 4th chapter is devoted to the concept of revolutionary practice and the union of art and labor that became quite influential in the aftermath of Bolshevik revolution. It contains a meticulous study of the evolution of Russian pre-revolutionary avant-garde art (in particular Suprematism founded by Malevich), the formation of Constructivist movement, the concept of productionist art by Arvatov and Brik and discussions on the meaning of technological environment. The 5th chapter deals with the performing arts and, more generally, playful components of praxis including revolutionary mass performances, theater plays, photography and especially a new concept of realistic cinema art destined to reveal the essence of everyday life. The idea of revolutionizing the life itself is analyzed and assessed.
    In the course of this research the author have worked out a new chronology of revolutionary movement in Russia which includes four stages: 1918-1920, 1920-1922, 1922-1923 and the final stage which lasted through 1923-1925. This development reflected the attempts to apply the ideal of revolutionary praxis to ever wider spheres of social life starting from the artistic creativity and industrial labor and finishing with everyday life itself. The desire to reunite art and life culminated in the new idea of documentary cinema as well as theater performance which eventually eradicated the very idea of social reality.
    In this way the new revolutionary movement exhausted itself and paved way to the “agitprop” politics of later totalitarian regime. Yet the movement was crushed by the Stalinist totalitarianism because it still preserved the ambition to disclose the truth of life. Although the search for the new synthesis of social practice in the 20-ies failed, it influenced greatly the historical development of modern society. Its Problematik
    is still very much actual today.
    Appears in Collections:[歐洲研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML94View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback