Why is beauty in imagery urgent ！！！！！！！

Mr. Ye Lang's recent book "Principles of Aesthetics" puts forward the proposition of "Beauty is in the Imagination" based on the inheritance of Chinese and Western aesthetics traditions, and argues with a large number of Chinese and Western philosophical and aesthetical ideas. From this proposition, we can see Mr. Yelang's efforts to integrate Chinese and Western aesthetic traditions. Undeniably, the proposition of "beauty is in the image" is more transparent in solving many problems facing aesthetics. But to a certain extent, it can be said that the proposition of "beauty is in the image" is an imperfect grafting of Chinese and Western aesthetics.

The problem of beauty

1. As we know, aesthetics is a Western discipline, and Western aesthetics has for a long time taken "beauty" as its object of study; whereas the core category of classical Chinese aesthetics (in fact, it may be more appropriate to say poetics) is imagery. In this way, Mr. Yelang defines "beauty", the core concept of Western aesthetics, with the category of "imagery" in Chinese tradition, in order to achieve the purpose of bridging the East and the West. In the West, aesthetics is first and foremost an inquiry into the origin of beauty, i.e., what makes a thing beautiful, the essence and ultimate source of beauty (not the source of when and where it comes from). In Chinese aesthetics, "imagery" is mainly about the root of the work of art. It is a bit abrupt to graft the "imagery" of Chinese poetics onto the category of "beauty" in Western aesthetics.

2. He opposed the idea of taking "beauty" as the object of aesthetic study, but his starting point was still "beauty", and his main object was still various types of "beauty". He first analyzes beauty and the sense of beauty, and then he spends most of his book analyzing various types of beauty. From the beauty of various carriers to the beauty of various styles. "Beauty remains the centerpiece of his aesthetic research. In fact, the general proposition that "beauty is imagery" indicates that the object of his research is "beauty" rather than aesthetic activity.

3. In the study of aesthetics, we should not abandon the "beauty" of daily life to the outside of the research field of vision, or else it will produce many contradictory problems. In fact, the birth of the discipline of aesthetics is to solve the problem of "beauty" encountered in daily life. However, Mr. Yelang has separated the concept of "beauty" in daily life from that in the discipline of aesthetics, which is unreasonable. He explicitly says that the beauty (imagery) he refers to is broad rather than narrow, and he also thinks that the beauty in the narrow sense is beauty as a special category, and the beauty as a special category is also imagery, but this beauty is what he calls beauty in the sense of Ancient Greece, but the beauty of Ancient Greek aesthetics is also the abstraction of the beauty in the sense of everyday life. Then it is questionable whether his broad sense of beauty includes beauty in the everyday sense.

4. He said that beauty is imagery. But when he analyzes the social nature of beauty, he speaks of the beauty of the human body and clothing in aesthetic fashion, which is necessarily the beauty of form in the everyday sense. He also says that the beauty of everyday life is the beauty of atmosphere, the atmosphere of beauty. Is ambience a kind of beauty? Atmosphere involves togetherness or not, happiness or not, comfort or not, but it cannot be said that atmosphere is beautiful or ugly.

5. In criticizing Western affirmative aesthetics, he argues that "there are high and low aesthetic values of natural objects" (187). But in the ensuing discussion, he only talks about the differences and discrepancies in people's sense of beauty for natural objects, and does not argue why there can be a distinction between high and low, because differences do not indicate high or low superiority. And he cited as the basis of the high and low "Guilin landscape good world", "the five mountains do not look at the return of the mountains, Huangshan return do not look at the mountains" are from people's daily aesthetics. How is it that the beauty of aesthetics is not the beauty of daily life?

6, for scientific beauty, Mr. Ye Lang is obviously also unable to do anything. He admitted that beauty is imagery can not explain the scientific beauty, did not avoid the problem of scientific beauty is Mr. respectable. If this is the case, how can we still define "beauty is imagery"?

The Problem of Imagery

1, Mr. Yelang's "beauty is in the imagery" is derived from Zhu Guangqian's aesthetics. The so-called "imagery" is also "situational harmony". Where does the "emotion" in "situational harmony" come from is something that needs to be seriously considered. Where does the "meaning" come from in the "fullness of meaning" in the so-called "imagery"? The same is what we should think about. When he talks about "ugliness" in Chinese philosophy, it seems that the meaning is not the subjective feelings of the aesthetician, for example, ugliness shows the "vitality of the universe" and the character's "inner spiritual sublimity and power".

2. When we appreciate the beauty of nature, whether the aesthetic object is the so-called imagery. If we look at a pole of bamboo, our aesthetic object is the bamboo in front of us or in our imagination, that is, in the eyes of the bamboo or the bamboo in the chest? Mr. Ye Lang said that it is "the bamboo in the chest", but in fact, the bamboo in the chest is the artist in the creation of works of art from the bamboo in the eyes of the bamboo in the hands of the bamboo in the transition stage, if only appreciate the bamboo in front of the eyes, it may not be necessary to produce "the bamboo in the chest".

3, as an aesthetic object of the image, only exists in the artist's creation of the work of art, and the aesthetic subject in the appreciation of the mind is only "like" rather than the image, because the aesthetic mind that "like" is the imagination of the object constructed, and the aesthetic subject in the appreciation of the mind is only "like" rather than the image, because the aesthetic mind that "like" is the imagination of the object constructed. Because the "image" that appears in the mind during aesthetics is the object constructed by imagination, and the sense of beauty that the aesthetic subject produces is directed to the imaginary object, and this kind of emotion is not in the object of aesthetics, that is, it is not the object constructed by imagination, which is different from the artist's emotion contained in the work of art, and that kind of emotion is objectified in the work of art. Take Mr. Ye's example of Mr. Ji Xianlin's "The Moon is Bright in the Hometown", if Mr. Ji thinks of the small moon in his hometown when he is in a foreign country, what comes out of his mind is not an image but only an image of the heart ("elephant" in his heart), and the feeling of nostalgia for the small moon is directed to the small moon's "elephant" and is not objectified in the artwork. The feelings of nostalgia for the little moon are directed to the "image" of the little moon and are not objectified in the "image" of the little moon, but if he writes in prose, the feelings are objectified in the work of art, and the image is activated by the reader.

4. Mr. Ye's important conclusion is: "In the view of traditional Chinese aesthetics, imagery is the essence of beauty, and imagery is also the essence of art." From the above analysis, we can say that imagery can be said to be the ontology of art, but it is difficult to say that it is the ontology of all beauty. For example, to say that the beauty of the human body is imagery is what we find hard to accept. He originally thought that imagery is situational, so how can we explain how human beauty is situational? In fact, his description of the female human body is also entirely about the shape of the body and there is no subjective emotion that makes it as beautiful as it is.

5. He talked about a number of works of art that express scenes of daily life, but the expression of works of art is only a purification of some aspects of the people's daily life, what we see on the screen may be a certain kind of interest, but in fact, life should be a full range of sweet and sour, bitter, spicy, salty and all the flavors. That's not the world of imagination, that's the real world.

The problem of beauty and ugliness

1. Mr. Yelang thinks that the "beauty" in the "beauty in imagery" he proposed is a broad definition of beauty. Beauty in the broad sense includes beauty, but also includes ugliness and other forms of aesthetic objects. He not only says that beauty is in the imagery, but also says that beauty is in the imagery. In his case, "in" and "is" are synonymous. In his book, Mr. Ye also clearly points out that ugliness is also a kind of imagery world, and since beauty is imagery and imagery is beauty, then ugliness (the imagery of ugliness) is also a kind of beauty (beauty in the broad sense). Obviously, Mr. Ye is supposed to incorporate "ugliness" into the aesthetics of "beauty," but emphasizes that "ugliness" here is imagery, not life. He emphasizes that the "ugly" here is imagery, not the ugly in life. He also argues that the "ugliness" of life is the opposite of beauty in the narrow sense. Because he has clearly stated that beauty in the narrow sense is "beauty" as an aesthetic object, then "ugliness" in life is the opposite of "beauty" as an aesthetic object. So is there any "beauty" in life? Anyway, if we say that there are the following four kinds of beauty and ugliness in Mr. Ye's case, it can be established: the beauty in the broad sense, the beauty in the narrow sense, the ugliness of life, and the ugliness of imagery.

2. The antithesis of beauty in the broad sense of the word is "curbing or dissolving the production of aesthetic imagery"; is such a thing or activity ugly? He doesn't say. He is quoting Listowel to illustrate the antithesis of beauty in the broad sense, but Listowel has the same problem in that he does not make a strict distinction between beauty and aesthetics.

3. Social life is the main area of human life world, social beauty is also the world of imagery. Ugliness is also a kind of imagery, and the ugliness in society can become imagery, which is also beauty.

4. Ugly is an aesthetic image as an aesthetic category, and I agree that it is not an objective physical existence, but to say that it is an imaginative world of situational fusion with beauty is somewhat arbitrary. He thinks that the ugliness in the "ugliness" of everyday language is imagery, because he is using Rodin's sculpture "Omidyar" as an example, that is, all "ugliness" is imagery, and since imagery is also beauty (even in a broad sense), then Is "ugly" a positive or negative category?

5. How to understand the imagery of "ugliness". Zhao Shuli wrote about the Three Immortal Nuns in Xiao Er Hei Marriage: "It's a pity that the official powder can't smooth out the wrinkles on her face, and she looks as if the donkey's dung egg has been frosted." We say that the simile is an image (ugly) relative to her face, so is her ugly face an image? Likewise, is Omriel's appearance an image? But Mr. Yap does not make this distinction in his use of "ugly".