CAJ | 학술논문

从解释学的理论来看，郭沫若在《由王谢墓志的出土论到（兰亭序〉的真伪》一文中的考证明显观念先行，说明艺术史研究对史料的考证与风格的判断不可能脱离主观的前理解，以及由此而展开的循环论证。前理解在艺术史研究中的影响使艺术史研究必须意识到自身方法的限度，从而更客观地探索艺术史研究的方法，更谨慎地下判断。事实也证明，古史辨派的诸多辨伪其实均非古书为伪，而只是现代人不懂得古代的书体。就中国艺术史而言，善意的前见远比彻底颠覆传统的前见更为可靠与有意义。
종해석학적이론래간，곽말약재《유왕사묘지적출토론도（란정서〉적진위》일문중적고증명현관념선행，설명예술사연구대사료적고증여풍격적판단불가능탈리주관적전리해，이급유차이전개적순배론증。전리해재예술사연구중적영향사예술사연구필수의식도자신방법적한도，종이경객관지탐색예술사연구적방법，경근신지하판단。사실야증명，고사변파적제다변위기실균비고서위위，이지시현대인불동득고대적서체。취중국예술사이언，선의적전견원비철저전복전통적전견경위가고여유의의。
Textual research and interpretation relevant to the history of art is an activity of hermeneutics. The discussion stirred up by Guo Moruo＇s article The Discovery of Wang, Xie Epitaph and the Authenticity of the Orchid Pavilion Preface has not ceased so far. The academic significance of this discussion goes far beyond the authenticity of the Orchid Pavilion Preface ,and constitutes an excellent example of hermeneutics. First of all, Guo Moruo＇s historical research method towards ancient historical data, his premise and assumptions on the counterfeit works in particular, has already contained a procedure of hermeneutics, in which an assumption is made in advance and then a collection of relating data follows up. This method depends mainly on hypothesis. The indirect historical data correlate with each other through logic and reasoning that rely on subjective imagination. Secondly, the historical dating method centering on stylistic and ideological histories depends on the circular argument and procedure of hermeneutics, too. That＇s why a textual research which applies basically the same materials tends to reach widely divergent, even opposed results. The collision of textual research proves a crisis it is faced with, because the so-called significance of historical materials and facts shows in organizing the messy historical facts to an overall layout and organic integrity, not in any new historical materials. History itself doesn＇t automatically present significance. The purely objective historical research builds on researchers＇ recognition to their limitations and their constant self-reflection. Then, a real sense of history is a comprehensible and meaningful diagram view constituted by a series of related historical documents. It is unnecessary to study the history, if the historical materials themselves can beings constantly rewrite historical truth. But every speak. Because historical materials need to be interpreted, human history. Generally, we claim that historical texts communicate real statement of facts is not the guarantee of a historical diagram view without distortion. Therefore, simple literature criticism can＇t restore the original truth of history. What we get from literary documents is fragments in the historical perpetual flow. How to collage historical fragments to the complete conception and thought and even a concrete thought is not only the task of textual criticism but it depends on ideologists＇ explanations. Actually, any textual criticism is impossible without explanation, and it shows certain tension in their relation. In the research of art history, textual criticism of historical materials and judgment of styles can＇t shake off the pre-understanding and circular argument from subjective value standpoint. Only when admitting the effect of pre-understanding in the research of art history, the researchers can be more conscious in the limitations of their research methods, more objective to explore methods of the research of art history and more prudent to make a judgment. As the fact proves, to distinguish between truth and fake in the ＂Ku-shih-pien＂ school fails to distinguish true ancient books from those fake ones, but to misunderstand ancient book＂ formats in modern perceptions. In other words, when we doubt ancient books, we would rather allow those ancient books change our concept than judge their authenticity. It is in this sense that the pre-knowledge with goodwill is more reliable and meaningful than the pre-knowledge with complete subversion of the tradition in the research of traditional culture.