中国美术大学的范景中教授在邵宏的《美术史的观念》（中国美术学院出版社2003年10月版）一书的“序言”中写道：“在当代，知识分子所做的种种不负责任的事情中又多了一件，即写一些空洞无物的大作，让求知的读者枉费心神，浪费掉重于尺璧的珍贵光阴。在这种学术空疏的气氛中写作，一部呕心沥血的作品，则往往明珠暗投，被淹没在出版物的海洋中。”范景中教授的这种感叹确实道出了当代某些知识分子写作中的一种实情，但我在这里想再补充“这种种不负责任的事情中”的另一件更不负责任、更自欺欺人、更无耻的事情，那就是知识分子的“学术抄袭”现象。近年来这种现象被揭露的不少，关于这种现象的讨论也颇多，这里不拟对这种现象做空泛的议论，只是想告诉人们这种现象又一次在学术界不幸地发生了，并被堂而皇之地当作“呕心沥血的作品”出版了。我所指的就是邵宏这部范景中教授表达了“钦佩和敬意”的“呕心沥血的作品”。

　　我不敢说也不能说邵宏的《美术史的观念》全都是从别人那里抄来的，这样说是不负责任的，因为我并没有把这本书全部读完，只因我对艺术的概念演变问题有一点兴趣而首先读了其中的《艺术的概念衍变》。当我发现该书第三章“艺术的概念衍变”几乎完全照搬了保罗·奥斯卡·克里斯特莱尔(Paul Oskar Kristeller)的《现代艺术体系》(The modern system of the Arts)时，我就再也无法读下去了。克里斯特莱尔的文章发表于Journal of the History of Ideas, 12(1951), pp.465-527; 12(1952), pp.17-46。该文也被收录在W. E. 肯尼克(W. E.Kennick)所编的《艺术与哲学》(Art and Philosophy)中，该书1979年由纽约圣马丁出版社(St. Martin Press, New York, 1979)出版，该文集收录的第一篇文章就是克里斯特莱尔(Paul Oskar Kristeller)的《现代艺术体系》，本人所看到的克里斯特莱尔的文章属于这个版本的文集（这部书的英文版可以在北京的国家图书馆外借库里借到）。我在这里做这些交待，是想说明，克里斯特莱尔的文章发表在邵宏的文章之前半个世纪，从而时间老人的眼睛充分地证明是邵宏抄袭克里斯特莱尔，而不是克里斯特莱尔抄袭邵宏。再强调一下，克氏的文章发表于20世纪50年代初，邵宏的书出版于21世纪初。

　　邵宏是如何抄袭克里斯特莱尔的《现代艺术体系》的？克里斯特莱尔的文章共有9个部分，邵宏的《艺术的概念衍变》共7个部分，他不是从头到尾全抄，而是掐头去尾抄。他掐掉了《现代艺术体系》的第1部分和第9部分，因此邵宏的文章变成了7部分。邵宏文中的第1部分有所删节地抄自克氏文章的第2部分，这一部分删得多一点，第2部分也有所删节地抄自克氏的第3部分，从第3部分到第7部分除删节了少数句子外几乎全部抄自克里斯特莱尔的《现代艺术体系》第4-8部分。克里斯特莱尔论文的第9部分是对现代艺术概念生成的总结性理论思考，抄袭者可能觉得不合适就没有要这一部分。邵宏的书是以章节出现的，为了在章节之间有个“承上启下”，他在《艺术的概念衍变》的末尾加了一个属于他自己的“尾巴”，除了这条可有可无的尾巴外，此文全部来自克里斯特莱尔的《现代艺术体系》。

　　据我所知，克氏的文章尚未译成中文，读者们不好找。为了证明以上所说的真确性，也为了让一时难以找到原文的读者能够两相对照，只好不嫌麻烦（抄录英文“原文”）和恶心（抄录邵宏的“大作”），同时连贯性地抄录克里斯特莱尔“原文”和邵宏“大作”的六段文字如下，以飨读者。

　　The greatest contribution to the history of our problem in the interval between Baumgarten and Kant came from Mendelssohn, Sulzer, and Herder. Mendelssohn, who was well acquainted with French and English writings on the subject, demanded in a famous article that the fine art (painting, sculpture, music, the dance, and architecture) and belles lettres (poetry and eloquence) should be reduced to some common principle better than imitation, and thus was the first among the Germans to formulate a system of the fine arts. Shortly afterwards, in a book review, he criticized Baumgarten and Meier for not carried out the program of their new science, aesthetics. They wrote as if they had been thinking exclusively in terms of poetry and literature, whereas aesthetic principle should be formulated in such a way as to apply to the visual arts and music as well. In his annotations to Lessing’s Laokoon, published long after his death, Mendelssohn persistently criticizes Lessing for not giving any consideration to music and to the system of arts as a whole; we have seen how Lessing in the fragmentary notes for a continuation of the laokoon, tried to meet the criticism. Mendelssohn also formulated a doctrine of the three faculties of the soul corresponding to the three basic realms of goodness, truth and beauty, thus continuing the work of the Scottish philosophers. He did not work out an explicit theory of aesthetics, but under the impact of the French and English authors he indicated the direction in which German aesthetics was to develop from Baumgarten to Kant.

（克里斯特莱尔：《现代艺术体系》第8部分第5段，肯尼克编：《艺术与哲学》，第28页。）

　　从鲍姆加登到康德之间，对西方艺术观念史有重要贡献的人物是摩西·孟德尔松、苏尔泽和赫尔德。孟德尔松十分熟悉法国和英国作家们对文艺的讨论，因此他在一篇文章里要求美的艺术（绘画、雕塑、音乐、舞蹈、建筑）和美文(belles lettres)，即诗歌和修辞术应该统一在某种共同原则之下，这个共同原则不应该是模仿原则。由此，孟德尔松被看作是第一位建立美的艺术体系的德国学者。不久他在一篇书评里又批评鲍姆加登和迈耶没有坚持他们的新科学——美学计划。他们只讨论诗歌和文学，这是不对的；应当将美学原则运用到视觉艺术和音乐中去。孟德尔松在给莱辛《拉奥孔》作的注解里又批评莱辛没有将音乐纳入研究范围，也没有考虑一个完整的艺术体系。莱辛在后来准备《拉奥孔》的续篇的笔记里，曾表示要考虑孟氏的批评。此外，孟氏还针对真、善、美系统，构思了心灵三官能理论，这也继续了苏格兰学派的工作。他虽然没有提出一个明确的美学理论，但在法国和英国思想家的影响下，他起到了使德国美学从鲍姆加登到康德的桥梁作用。

（邵宏：《艺术的概念衍变》第7部分，《美术史的观念》，第70-71页。）

　　What Mendelssohn had merely set forth in a general outline and program, the Swiss thinker Sulzer, who was well versed in French literature, but spent the greater part of his life in Northern Germany, was able to develop in a more systematic and elaborate fashion. Sulzer began his literary activity with a few short philosophical articles in which his interest for aesthetics was already apparent, and in which he also learned toward the conception of an aesthetic faculty of the soul separate from the intellectual and moral faculties, a conception in whose development Mendelssohn and the philosopher Tetens also took the part. Some years later, Sulzer was prompted by the example of Lacombe’s little dictionary of the fine arts to compile a similar dictionary in German on a much large scale. This General Theory of Fine Arts, which appeared in several editions, has been disparaged on account of its pedantic arrangement, but it is clear, comprehensive and learned, and had a considerable importance in its time. The work covers all the fine arts, not only poetry and eloquence, but also music and the visual arts, and thus represents the first attempt to carry out on a large scale the program formulated by Baumgarten and Mendelssohn. Thanks to its wide diffusion, Sulzer’s work went a long way to acquaint the German public with the idea that all the fine arts are related and connected with each other. Sulzer’s influence extended also to France, for when the great Encyclopédie was published in Switzerland in a second edition, many additions were based on his General Theory, including the article on aesthetics and the section on the fine arts.

（克里斯特莱尔：《现代艺术体系》第8部分第6段，肯尼克编：《艺术与哲学》，第28-29页。）

　　孟德尔松粗略涉足的领域，后来由苏尔泽深入下去。苏尔泽对法国文学十分熟悉，但是一生中大部分时间呆在德国北部。他的文学生涯是由写一些哲学短文开始的，在这些短文里就已经显露出他对美学的兴趣，并且有意识地讨论了心灵的美感概念，将其与认识功能和道德感区别开来。后来，由于受拉康伯所编的《美的艺术小词典》影响，苏尔泽打算编一本更大的德文《美的艺术词典》，其中有关美的艺术的总论所具有的综合特征和学术性，在当时有着重要的影响。这部词典不仅包括诗歌和修辞术，同时还涉及音乐和视觉艺术，标志继续着鲍姆加登和孟德尔松的计划，并且规模更大。由于这部词典的广泛传播，使德国公众接受了这么一个观念：所有美的艺术都是相互联系互为补充的。苏尔泽的影响及至法国，当大百科全书在瑞士出第二版时，许多增写的部分都依据苏尔泽的总论，包括美学的文章和有关美的艺术部分。

（邵宏：《艺术的概念衍变》第7部分，《美术史的观念》，第71-72页。）

　　In the decades after 1760, the interest in the new field of aesthetics spread rapidly in Germany. Courses on aesthetics were offered at a number of universities after the example set by Baumgarten and Meier, and new tracts and textbooks partly based on these courses appeared almost every year.

（克里斯特莱尔：《现代艺术体系》第8部分第7段，肯尼克编：《艺术与哲学》，第29页。）

　　1760年之后的数十年里，对美学这一新领域的兴趣迅速在德国蔓延，许多大学都按照鲍姆加登和迈耶的模式开设美学课程，有关的教材和讲义几乎每年都有出版。

（邵宏：《艺术的概念衍变》第7部分，《美术史的观念》，第72页。）

　　It is interesting to note the reaction to this aesthetic literature of the leaders of the younger generation, especially Goethe and Herder. Goethe in his early years published a review of Sulzer which was quite unfavorable. Noticing the French background of Sulzer’s conception, Goethe ridicules the grouping together of all the arts which are so different from each other in the aims and means of expression, a system which reminds him of the old-fashioned system of the seven liberal arts, and adds that this system may be useful to the amateur but certainly not to the artist. This reaction shows that the system of the fine arts was something novel and not yet firmly established, and that Goethe, just like Lessing, did not take an active part in developing the notion that was to become generally accepted. Toward the very end of his life, in the Wanderjahre, Goethe shows he had by then accepted the system of the fine arts, for he assigns a place to each of them in his pedagogical province. Yet his awareness of the older meaning of art is apparent when in a group of aphorisms originally appended to the same work he defines art as knowledge and concludes that poetry, being based on genius, should not be called an art.

（克里斯特莱尔：《现代艺术体系》第8部分第8段，肯尼克编：《艺术与哲学》，第29页。）

　　对这么一股美学热，年轻的一代做出了反应。最有影响的是歌德和赫尔德。歌德在早期曾发表过评价苏尔泽的文章，谈到苏尔泽的艺术概念所具有的法国背景，讽刺地说这种把所有艺术概念都统在一起的做法让他想起从前的自由七艺说，而事实上这些艺术在表现手法和表现目的方面却互不相同。歌德进一步说，这么一个体系也许对业余爱好者有用，但是对艺术家毫无用处。这种反应表明，“美的艺术”分类在当时还是个新奇的事，并没有被广泛认可。歌德与莱辛一样，没有积极参与这个讨论。但是，歌德晚年又表示出他接受了美的艺术体系，并在他的教育分类里给予艺术以不同的位置。不过，他将艺术视为知识，诗歌在于天才，因此诗歌不能称为艺术。

（邵宏：《艺术的概念衍变》第7部分，《美术史的观念》，第72-73页。）

　　Herder, on the other hand, took an active part in the development of the system of the fine arts and used the weight of his literary authority to have it generally accepted. In an early but important critical work(Kritische Waeder, 1769), he dedicates the entire first section to a critique of Lessing’s Laokoon, Lessing shows merely, he argues, what poetry is not, by comparing it with painting,. In order to see what its essence is, we should compare it with all its sister arts, such as music, the dance, and eloquence…

（克里斯特莱尔：《现代艺术体系》第8部分第8段，肯尼克编：《艺术与哲学》，第29-30页。）

　　赫尔德倒是积极参与确立美的艺术体系，并且利用自己的文学权威使这一观念被广泛接受。在他早期的重要著作《批评之林》（Kritische Waeder, 1769）里，他用整个第一部分专门批评莱辛的《拉奥孔》。他批评将诗与画作比较，只是想说明诗如何不同于画；如果真想弄清诗的本质，那就应该将诗与其他姊妹艺术如音乐、舞蹈和辩论术作比较。

（邵宏：《艺术的概念衍变》第7部分，《美术史的观念》，第73页。）

　　I should like to conclude this survey with Kant, since he was the first major philosopher who included aesthetics and the philosophical theory of arts as an integral part of his system. Kant’s interest in aesthetics problems appears already in his early writing on the beauty and sublime, which was influenced in its general conception by Burke. He also had occasion to discuss aesthetic problems in several of his courses. Notes based no this courses extant in manuscript have not been published, but have been utilized by a student of Kant’s aesthetics. It appears that Kant cited in this lectures many authors he does not mention in his published works, and that he was thoroughly familiar with most of the French, English and German writers on aesthetics. At the time when he published the Critique of Pure Reason, he still used the term aesthetics different from the common one, and explains in an interesting footnote ,that he does not follow Baumgarten’s terminology since he does not believe in the possibility of a philosophical theory of the arts. In the following years, however, he changed his view, and in his Critique of judgment, which constitutes the third and concluding part of his philosophical system, the larger of its two major division is dedicated to aesthetics, whereas the other section deals with teleology. The system of the three Critiques as presented in the last volume is based on a threefold division of faculties of the mind, which adds the faculty of judgment, aesthetic and teleological, to pure and practical reason. Aesthetics, as the philosophical theory of beauty and the arts, acquires equal standing with the theory of truth (metaphysics or epistemology) and the theory of goodness (ethics).

（克里斯特莱尔：《现代艺术体系》第8部分第8段，肯尼克编：《艺术与哲学》，第30页。）

　　至于康德，一般被看作是把美学和关于艺术的哲学理论纳入自己的思想体系的第一位哲学家。康德对美学的兴趣在他早期论美和崇高的文章里就显露出来，其中的主要观点显然是受英国政治家博克的影响。康德在课堂上也曾讨论过美学问题，从他学生的笔记本上我们得知康德熟知法国、英国和德国思想家对美学的讨论。在发表《纯粹理性批判》时用了“美学”一词，但在注释里又说明他用的是不同于鲍姆加登的意义，因为他不相信艺术哲学理论。然而在几年后他又改变了看法，在《判断力批判》一书里，其最主要的两大部分专门用来讨论美学。三大“批判”由此构成了看的有关心灵官能划分的三个部分，也就是将判断力、美感、目的加入原有的纯粹理性和实践理性。这样，美学作为关于美和艺术的哲学便与有关的真的哲学（形而上学或认识论）、关于善的（伦理学）出于同样重要的位置了。

（邵宏：《艺术的概念衍变》第7部分，《美术史的观念》，第73页。）

　　这里抄录的仅仅是克里斯特莱尔《现代艺术体系》和邵宏《艺术的概念衍变》中小小的六段。邵宏没有标明这些段落取自于克氏文章的注释，也没有引号。恳请有兴趣的读者最好找到克里斯特莱尔的原文，并与邵宏《美术史的观念》的第三章《艺术的概念衍变》比照一下，邵宏书中的这一章完全来自《现代艺术体系》就昭然确然。

　　邵宏的抄袭与范教授没有任何关系，本文开头引用他为《美术史的观念》所写“序言”中的话，没有任何想把范教授牵扯进来的意思，只是想顺带说明一下“写序”与“学术责任”的问题。邵宏（曾获暨南大学文艺学方向的文学博士学位，后在中国美术大学攻读了美术史方向的博士学位，有“中西打通”、“学科打通”、“专业打通”的“三通”学术雄心，见该书“缘起”）是范教授的美术史方向的博士生，导师为学生的“著作”美言几句似乎理所当然、义不容辞，提携后学吗。但如今博导们带的学生实在太多了，无论如何博学的导师也有看不过来的时候，何况博导们也有自己未涉猎的方面或领域呢？更重要的是，如今的博导们都很忙，没有时间看弟子们写的东西，可有的弟子又偏偏不诚实（邵宏是双料博士、大学教授，带着研究生，也是正在“为人师表”的“先生”，他不该不诚实，尤其不该蒙骗在美术史翻译和研究界很有影响的自己的范景中先生，他的这种做法实则是对导师的大不敬，是对一向治学严谨的范教授的亵渎），学生求“序言”导师似乎又推迟不得，于是乎只好非常乐意地、“不揣冒昧”地写。故而，一不小心就非常冒昧地陷入了弟子设置的陷阱之中，被自己的学生给骗了。于是乎也就冒昧地写下了“他理想中的学术大师就在他的面前，他的心胸已被提到了一种高度”，“写了这篇短文，以表达我对作者的钦佩和敬意”的谬赞。这样的谬赞不但不可能使弟子成为学术“大师”，反而更有可能使弟子成为学术“大盗”。

　　由此我想，名人为非名人写序，导师为学生作序，能不慎而写之乎？能不读而“序”之乎？能不审而赞之乎？能不察而美之乎？如今，抄袭的博导有之，抄袭的教授有之，抄袭的博士有之，导致这种比“空洞无物”的大作更不负责任、更恶劣、更无耻的抄袭现象之原因，究竟是什么呢？难道真的是无耻者无畏吗？！这值得深入的研究和讨论，值得给予高度的重视和严肃的反思，尤其应对知识分子的学术良知和学术责任进行思考，应对学术管理体制等等、等等、等等进行深刻的反思。