从古至今,对顾恺之的评价褒贬不一,各抒其言。至谢赫《古画品录》中将顾恺之列为第三品伊始,就如一石入水中波浪四起。从姚最到张彦远,对顾恺之的评价进行各种各样的反证,以图为其正名。其实,我以为作为一个美术史评论家不应当在言辞和考据上作过多的纠缠,比较欣赏沃尔夫林的美术史观,一个画家的评述应当从艺 Since ancient times, the evaluation of Gu Kaizhi mixed, each express their words. To Sheikh “Ancient Pictorial Record” will be listed as the beginning of Gu Kai third products, like a stone into the water waves. From Yao to Yan-Yuan Zhang, Gu Kaizhi’s evaluation carried out a variety of anti-card, in order to correct its name. Actually, I think that as a critic of art history, we should not make too many entanglements in words and textual criticism and appreciate Wolfen’s view of art history. The comment of an artist should be based on art