|
|
|
| A Study of the History of Calligraphy and the Formation of a Theoretical Framework for Chinese Calligraphy |
| Bai Qianshen |
| School of Art and Archaeology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract This article is divided into four parts. The first part examines two debates on Chinese calligraphy, one in the 1930s and the other in the 1980s. The 1930s debate was modest in scale, yet its participants were leading figures of the intellectual world. The central question was whether Chinese calligraphy could be regarded as “fine art”. Although Zheng Zhenduo argued strongly that calligraphy should not be classified as art and he received little support, the debate itself remains thought-provoking. This paper contends that the assertion that calligraphy is not art cannot be explained simply by the absence of a Western equivalent; more crucially, it derives from the distinctive nature and social functions of Chinese calligraphy, such as the blurred boundary between everyday writing and artistic creation, which came into conflict with the imported Western notions of “art” and “artistic creation”. The discussion in the early 1980s on the nature of calligraphy involved not only calligraphers but also prominent scholars such as Zong Baihua and Li Zehou, and it may be regarded as the first collective effort in contemporary China to construct a theoretical framework for Chinese calligraphy.The second part argues that an important field of calligraphy studies, the history of calligraphy, began to take shape in the 1980s, thanks to the participation of scholars who were both passionate practitioners of calligraphy and trained in disciplines such as history, paleography, and philology. The study of calligraphic history, which examines past and present calligraphers, works, theories, schools, and related phenomena, provides a foundation for a deeper understanding of the nature of Chinese calligraphy. The paper highlights several historically distinctive phenomena, including the high level of elite participation, the relatively low degree of commodification, the frequent use of calligraphy as a gift, and the diverse means of reproducing canonical works.The third part discusses how the achievements of Western art history might be brought into the study of Chinese calligraphy. Owing to its unique characteristics, calligraphy was the last of the Chinese arts to attract sustained scholarly attention in the West, beginning roughly only after the Second World War. Because of this late start and considerable difficulties, overseas research on calligraphy has been far less developed than research on painting. While these studies contain invaluable contributions, Chinese scholars have been playing a crucial role in introducing calligraphy to the West. This paper highlights four influential figures: Lin Yutang, Chiang Yee, Wen C. Fong, and Fu Shen. Among overseas scholarship, Japanese research on Chinese calligraphy has been particularly abundant.The fourth part addresses the issue of translating classical Chinese writings on calligraphy and contemporary research into foreign languages. Since the beginning of the Reform and Opening-up period, the study of calligraphic history in China has made remarkable progress, producing numerous valuable scholarships, yet high-quality translations have lagged far behind. The paper concludes that, with the advent of the era of artificial intelligence, sustained attention to the historical phenomena of calligraphy, critical engagement with overseas scholarship and related fields such as comparative paleography and visual psychology, and the judicious application of new technologies will be indispensable for constructing an autonomous knowledge system for the study of Chinese calligraphy and, more broadly, Chinese art.
|
|
Received: 01 July 2025
|
|
|
|
1 朱光潜：《谈美》，见《朱光潜全集：谈美·文艺心理学》（新编增订本），北京：中华书局，2012年。
2 邱振中：《艺术的泛化——从书法看中国艺术的一个重要特征》，见《书法的形态与阐释》，重庆：重庆出版社，1993年，第229-261页。
3 白谦慎：《白谦慎书法论文选》（增订本），上海：上海三联书店，2024年，第584-585页。
4 班固：《汉书》第8册，北京：中华书局，1970年。
5 范晔：《后汉书》第12册，李贤等注，北京：中华书局，1965年。
6 虞龢：《论书表》，见上海书画出版社、华东师范大学古籍整理研究室选编：《历代书法论文选》（上），上海：上海书画出版社，1979年，第49-55页。
7 包伟民：《走出“汉学心态”：中国古代历史研究方法论刍议》，《中国社会科学评价》2015年第3期，第60-68页。
8 林语堂：《吾国与吾民》，长沙：湖南文艺出版社，2013年。 |
| [1] |
. [J]. , 2004, 34(3): 102-. |
|
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
