普列汉诺夫文艺起源于劳动说批判

劳动说一如前此的文艺起源论,并无特别,基本是偏颇谬误的.普列汉诺夫之说取材全以西方视野,只字未提东方的资料,根本是道地的西方中心文化论.即以我国诸多古籍对文艺起源的叙论就可驳斥其说.其说的种种主要理由诸如引劳动创造了人本身之说、出土文物之事、鲁迅之语等等都不足为据.它看不到艺术是主客体的融和统一,只见文艺起源的外因而不见内因,是机械反映论.按理而论,文艺起源只能出自多种社会实践,而绝非单纯的原由,它是一个运动变化的渐变过程.

Critical Comments on Literary and Artistic Origin of Piliehannofu

The theory of labor, as well as literary and artistic origin, is an error to some degree. The theory of Pulihannofu, which can be refuted by many theories of literary and artistic origin in our ancient books, is a thorough-going Western-centered cultural one, for it collects its materials all from the western point of view, with no regard to the eastern materials. There is no convincing proof of the reasons for his theory, such as 'labor produces human being', 'unearthed artifacts', 'words of Luxun', 'origin of human being'. Being a mechanical materialism, it doesn't notice that art is the union of host and guest and it only sees the external reasons not internal reasons for literary and artistic origin. Normally, literary and artistic origin only derives from various social practice, not some simple reasons only, for it is an ever-changing process of movement.