話中有「畫」：王爾德與惠斯勒的美學論戰

Abstract

王爾德與惠斯勒(James McNeill Whistler, 1834-1903)皆是十九世紀後期英倫海峽兩岸藝文界，極具爭議性的人物。王爾德曾公開表示，惠斯勒是「英國」最傑出的畫家，同樣地，惠斯勒對這位年少輕狂的後輩亦頗為惺惺相惜，但自一八八五年起，兩人卻為「何謂藝術」及「什麼是最崇高的藝術」展開一連串的美學論戰，各自為其所獻身的領域，而發聲論辯。表面上看來，你來我往的唇槍舌戰，似乎圍繞著批評家與畫家的階層順序及發言權等等議題，但深層透露的，實是世紀末如何「觀看」及「再現」世界的焦慮，觸及了「完整」、「擬像」的世界鬆動後，符號挪用、流動及轉換、再生的問題。王爾德在其作品，特別是批評論述中，常大膽擷取及錯置文學與藝術經典中的人物、用語，時而嘲仿、時而擬仿，以似是而非或幾近剽竊的方式，逾越傳統文類的框架，甚而藝術領域間的界線。他認為「藝術」固然無所不包，但唯有文字才能表述、窮盡藝術的可能性，「批評」可以教導人如何觀看，打開觀者視界，是藝術中的藝術，創作中的創作，所有的藝術作品必須經過批評的「再創造」，才有意義，其內涵方能隨時代轉化，生生不息。王爾德創作他的印象詩作時，曾借用惠斯勒作品具音樂性的名稱，對畫家極盡戲謔之能事；而惠斯勒則抨擊王爾德只會剽竊、拼貼他人話語，作品缺乏原創性，根本沒有資格談論藝術。惠斯勒的繪畫揚棄當時流行的主題及故事性，拒絕為文學作嫁，轉而強調色彩在畫布上固有的張力與特質，對他而言，色彩之間的對話與共鳴才是繪畫的本質所在，觀者與觀看物間獨特私秘的關係尤為重要。儘管惠斯勒處心積慮欲將文字符號趕出繪畫世界，拒絕批評與詮釋，但卻矛盾地陷入語言符號的天羅地網。本文試圖藉由兩人的美學論戰，重新審視文學與繪畫間既親近又疏遠的關係，探索不同藝術間如何彼此反叛對抗、吸納滋養，並將此論戰放入歷史框架下，檢視十九世紀下半葉，急遽工業化與都市化、以及科技發明與發現所帶來人類對時間、空間感知的重大改變，如何促使敏感的文學家與藝術家開闢出嶄新的創作方向與表現形式。

The aesthetic quarrel between Oscar Wilde, “the Poet”, and James McNeill Whistler, “the Painter”, creates a controversial chapter out of the late nineteenth-century English literary and artistic scenery. From 1885 onwards, each defends his own art by developing arguments around the questions such as “what is art” and “what is the highest art”. In appearance, the debate seems to center on the status and hierarchy between critics and painters. Nonetheless, it has something to do with the question or rather the anxiety of the representation of the reality, particularly the (over)flow, exchange, appropriation and regeneration of the sign, which is produced by the disruption of the complete whole. Wilde tends to borrow and displace the traditional (literary and/or artistic) figures and usages in his own way, thereby (via irony or mockery) transgressing the identity of the genre and even the boundaries between different fields. For him, Art is omnipotent but only words can express all the possibilities of Art. Since criticism teaches us how to observe, it is no doubt the art of arts, the creation of creation. Accusing Wilde of his plagiarism and lack of originality, Whistler asserts that Wilde is not qualified for a serious discussion of the issues of art. His own painting discards the dominant subject matters and narration of his time. Instead, he puts stress on the immanent tensions and qualities of painting, refusing its submission to literature. For him, the dialogue and echo between the colors is what is essential to painting. Even though he strives to chase words from the universe of painting, most of all by reducing the value of criticism and interpretation, he falls, in spite of himself, into the trap of language. Over all, the debate reveals not only the competition, affiliation and mutual illumination between the arts, but also the radical change of perception of space and time in the second half of the 19th century, which in turn brings out new ways and forms of creation and expression.