晚期馬勒與維也納現代主義

Abstract

晚期馬勒與維也納現代主義 由於許多知識分子從中歐移民至美國，以及戰後美國學界的全球性影響，1900年 前後的世紀末維也納文化仍是當今世界的重要源流之一。在卡爾休斯克劃時代的 巨著《世紀末的維也納》（1980）中，這個文化被視為「美學現代主義」，其肇 因於「自由主義的挫敗」，而資產階級的關注點由政治轉向精神心靈層面與藝術。 然而，九零年代中期的研究，開始傾力於「再思1900年的維也納」。它質疑所謂 自由派挫敗以致藝術疏離的休斯克典範，轉而聚焦於一個「批判性現代主義」的 道德及批判面向，而在其中猶太背景為主要驅力。事實上在維根斯坦與阿多諾以 哲學化觀點透視其個別流亡經驗時，他們皆受卡爾克勞斯、阿道夫洛斯、以及阿 諾德荀白克的維也納現代主義之影響。而本研究將論證這個路線甚可回溯至被荀 白克譽為聖者的馬勒。本計畫嘗試銜接奧地利研究以及哲學及音樂學間的斷層， 首先將重新檢視馬勒於維也納當代文化的定位，尤其他是與重感官的分離派與重 文化批判的現代主義者的關係。然後本研究將依兩個方向來進行：一方面，馬勒 晚期風格的特點，與貝多芬晚期風格作出比較，連結著阿多諾否定性美學的兩個 典範；另一方面，在馬勒及維根斯坦間共通的現代主義特點，諸如在「沒有價值」 及「焦慮不安」等方面，儘管維根斯坦認為馬勒的音樂是沒價值的，並對之是否 堪稱為藝術存疑。

LATE MAHLER AND VIENNESE MODERNISM Through the emigration of many intellectuals from Central Europe to the US, and the global impact of post-war American academia, the culture of Vienna 1900 remains one important source of our present world. In Carl Schorske’s landmark book Fin-de-scièle Vienna (1980), this culture is viewed as “astheticist modernism,” which results from the “failure of liberalism,” when the bourgeoisie turns from politics to the psyche and arts. Research since the mid-90s, however, has engaged in “Rethinking Vienna 1900.” It questions the Schorskean paradigm of liberal failure and artistic alienation, and draws attention to the ethical and critical dimensions of a “critical modernsim,” with its Jewish background as the major driving force. Indeed in philosophising their individual exil experience, both Wittgenstein and Adorno were influenced by a Viennese modernism of Karl Kraus, Adolf Loos, and Arnold Schoenberg. This study argues that this linkage can be traced back to Mahler, whom Schoenberg declares as a saint. Attempting to bridge the gaps between Austrian studies, philosophical and musicological research, this project will first reexamine Mahler’s stand in the Viennese milieu between the sensibility of the Secessionists and the cultural critique of the Modernists. Then research will be done in two directions; on the one hand, aspects of late style in Mahler, with reference to late Beethoven, thus connecting the two paragons of Adorno’s “aesthetics of negativity;” on the other hand, aspects of modernism resonating in both Mahler and Wittgenstein such as worthlessness and restlessness, despite the fact that Wittgenstein believes Mahler’s music to be worthless and doubts its status as art.