The Spatiotemporal Dimensions of China’s Autonomous Aesthetic Knowledge System
Prof. Zhan Donghua
Institute of Contemporary Morphological Literary Studies, Jiangxi Normal University
The discussion of China’s autonomous aesthetic knowledge system through the lens of spatiotemporal dimensions is chosen due to the foundational and original nature of space and time, which gives it precedence over other perspectives. Philosophers, aestheticians, literary critics, poets, and artists from both the East and the West, across different eras, have all placed significant emphasis on the issue of space and time, whether through philosophical inquiry or poetic reflection. It can be stated that space and time permeate human perception, thought, and emotional experiences, shaping our worldviews, views on life, and aesthetic sensibilities. Western theories of space and time are extensive and systematic, with profound contributions from thinkers such as Aristotle, Augustine, Kant, Hegel, Bergson, Husserl, Heidegger, Lefebvre, Harvey, and Stiegler. Although ancient China did not have a formalized theory of space and time, the ancients’ contemplations and insights into these concepts were by no means inferior. The construction of China’s spatiotemporal aesthetic knowledge system should not be confined to a single perspective but should mobilize the best intellectual and cultural resources related to space and time from both Chinese and foreign sources, achieving an organic integration of academic insights from different traditions.
Constructing China’s autonomous aesthetic knowledge system from a spatiotemporal perspective requires refining existing research paradigms. Current research in Chinese spatiotemporal aesthetics primarily unfolds in two directions: First, it examines the issue of space and time from the viewpoint of aesthetic perception and experience, such as exploring the temporal lamentations in poetry and prose about the passing of seasons or the spatial transitions like leaving one’s homeland, as well as the narrative of space and time in novels and operas, to achieve an “aestheticized space and time.” Second, it focuses on space and time within the realm of aesthetic experience, particularly artistic experience, to gain diverse perspectives for understanding artistic aesthetics, which is referred to as "space and time within aesthetics." The former tends to start with space and time, excavating the aesthetic and cultural information or connotations within, and then relating them to aesthetic issues, following a research trajectory of “space and time first, then aesthetics.” The latter primarily begins with the aesthetic experience of literature, calligraphy, painting, music, architecture, and other arts, as well as related theoretical categories, propositions, and concepts, to explore the spatiotemporal thematic content and organizational forms (temporality and spatiality) within, thereby paving new avenues for aesthetic and poetic studies, following a research trajectory of “aesthetics first, then space and time.”
It is important to note that both “aestheticization of space and time” and “spatialization of aesthetics” treat space and time as objectified issues, neglecting their methodological significance or foundational role in aesthetics, poetics, and art theory. For instance, how do artists’ perceptions and experiences of space and time influence the formation and consolidation of literary concepts; what is the subtle connection between artists’ views on space and time and their experiences of artistic imagination; what key roles do spatiotemporal factors play in the establishment of literary classics; what significant impacts does regional space have on literary and artistic production; what are the temporal secrets behind the evolution of literature and art; and so on. For these more fundamental questions, it is necessary to break away from the objectified research mindset and conduct a holographic examination from a methodological standpoint.
In the meantime, current research often concentrates on specific theoretical issues or textual interpretations, lacking a systematic historical or even comprehensive historical review of Chinese spatiotemporal aesthetics. Undoubtedly, without the support of “history,” relying solely on the “theoretical” level is insufficient to complete the construction of an autonomous knowledge system.
Published on July 11, 2024