论文部分内容阅读
胡传海先生曾在《中国艺术报》上这样总结2006年的书法理论状况:“当今书法批评的薄弱和落后,从而导致了书法理论研究”跛脚“状态的出现……应该说这种现象已经存在了很长的时间,在2006年依然没有得到足够的重视,依然没有得到很好的解决。”胡文在最后呼吁中国书法理论研究的“跛脚”状态早日结束,时至今日,不知胡先生是否认为书法理论的“跛脚”局面得到了扭转,书法批评是否有了实质性的进展。但笔者一直在思考一个问题,即古代是否有过真正意义上的书法批评,现代意义上的书法批评又是从何时开始的,当今书法的颓废是否应该由书法批评者来埋单?这是我们该当心中有数的问题,因为批评的最终目的是要促进书法的发展而非赢得批评本身的繁荣。如果在批评者过了嘴瘾、书法批评百家争鸣之后书法的发展仍然是一潭死水,那么这种批评是可悲的;若批评只能止步于理论建设层面而不能在书法实
Mr. Hu Chuanhai once summed up the situation of calligraphic theory in 2006 in the “China Art Newspaper” in the following way: “The current weakness and backwardness of calligraphic criticism led to the appearance of” lameness “in the study of calligraphic theory ... It should be said that this phenomenon It has existed for a long time and still has not been given enough attention in 2006 and has not been well resolved. ”“ Hu Wen finally called for the ”lame“ state of Chinese calligraphy theory to come to an early end. Today, I do not know whether Mr. Hu believes that the calligraphy theory ”lame " situation has been reversed, calligraphy criticism whether there has been substantial progress. However, the author has been thinking about the question whether ancient calligraphy criticism in the true sense of the calligraphy criticism in the modern sense is the time, the decadent of today’s calligraphy should calligraphy critics to pay the bill? This is us There are countless questions to beware of because the ultimate goal of criticism is to promote the development of calligraphy rather than to win the criticism itself. If critics are addicted to calligraphy criticism after a hundred schools of thought contend for the development of calligraphy is still stagnant, then this criticism is deplorable; if criticism can only stop at the theoretical level and can not be in calligraphy