Click on the "Included in Topics" category to view all.
Tip: The graphic information comes from the Internet, and the copyright belongs to the original author. The picture is not sure of the authenticity of the work, not as the basis for investment collection, only for everyone to share and learn, if the author believes that it involves infringement, please contact us, we will verify and delete it immediately.
To study the phenomenon of "brushwork" in ancient Chinese calligraphy, it is necessary not only to look at the handwriting of the Fa Ti tablets circulating in China; but also to use the convenience of exchanging facts between Chinese and foreign calligraphy in the ancient and medieval periods, to analyze and judge the "original appearance" of Chinese calligraphy in the ancient and medieval eras from the handwriting circulating outside the region, and in the research of the so-called "Erwang Pen Method" or "Wei and Jin Pen Method" that everyone is currently cited as authentic, but it is difficult to explain clearly, due to the generational transposition and continuous interpretation after the Song and Yuan Dynasties for nearly a thousand years, It is difficult for us to analyze clearly what is the "essence" of classical calligraphy and what is the "original appearance" of the later generations that has been interpreted and established by later generations; thus, a positioning and interpretation of the erwang brushwork technique has been said by everyone throughout the ages.
There have always been Mi Fu-style interpretations, Zhao Mengfu-style interpretations, Dong Qichang-style interpretations, Wang Duo-style interpretations, and more recent Shen Yinmo-style interpretations. The Guo Moruo-style interpretation that appeared through the "Lanting Debate" was also popular in the world at that time.
▲ Part of "Long Live the Heavenly Post"
However, in the final analysis, what kind of style the "Wei and Jin Brushwork" or the "Jin Thesis Brushwork" of the Time of the Second King, or more accurately, the "Wei and Jin Penmanship" of Wang Xizhi's era, is probably still difficult for people today to determine simply. The world puts the reason for this,
Mainly attributed to Wang Xizhi, there is no reliable authentic handwriting left in later generations, and all that is left behind is the Tang facsimile or Linben, so it is not enough to rely on. This is, of course, a very good reason. But even if you rely on facsimiles, is there bound to be no trace of what to follow? In the Tang facsimile of "master's own use" and the Tang facsimile of "following the trend", is it possible to distinguish some sources of the Tang dynasty's pen method?
Regarding Wang Xizhi's Tang facsimiles, in addition to the "Aunt Post" and "First Moon Post" collected in the "Long Live Tongtian Post", the famous posts involved in the Tang Facsimile that have been handed down so far mainly include "Han Qie Ti", "Yuan Eunuch Ti", "Feng Orange Ti", "Sister Zhi Ti", "Xing Rang Ti", "Youmu Ti", "Qing Ti when the Snow Is Fast", "Xu Tian Ti" and so on. The "Funeral Posts" (in the collection of the Japanese Imperial Household Agency) and the "Kong Shi Zhong Ti" (Maeda Yutoku Collection) borrowed from Japan this time should be two of these imitations. In addition, "Deshi Ti Ti", "Er Xie Ti" and "Frequent Lamentation Post" should also be a very important part of it.
▲ Kong Shi Zhongti
The level of Tang double hook filling is extremely high, and it is due to the hobby of Tang Taizong, the emperor of calligraphy, who strives for excellence, refuses to be meticulous, and is the proper meaning of the title, such as feng chengsu, Zhao Mo and other famous hands, the level is still high and low, and when it is copied, there is a distinction between mixing their own intentions and being faithful to the original work, and in this batch of double hook filled facsimiles, it is still possible to distinguish some and rough types of differences.
For example, we can take "Yuan Eunuch Post", "Ping An Post", "Feng Orange Post", "Sister To Thee", "Youmu Post", "旃罽帖", "Qing Ti when the Snow Is Fast" and so on as a category, which is very in line with the angle and way of interpretation of the "Jin Tie" brushwork in later generations. It also takes "funeral posts", "Kong ShiZhong posts", "first moon posts", "two thank you posts", "deshi posters", "frequent lamentation posts", "xingyong posts", etc. as a category, which is not in line with the type of later generations' impression of the "Jin Post" brushwork.
The two different types may not have a question of whether the level is good or bad, but it will reflect the difference in the understanding ability of the early Tang Dynasty imitators to understand the "JinFa":
Some imitators abandon their own subjective interpretation methods and try to be faithful to the morphological transmission of the original lines (with the pen) in the "no-self" realm;
The other part of the imitators have integrated their own (era) aesthetic tastes in the process of imitation, or they cannot suppress their personality due to insufficient self-control, thus showing the unavoidable taste and line understanding as people in the early Tang Dynasty in the process of imitation.
If the former is reduced to the "faithful school" of craftsmen who follow suit and abandon their individuality, then the latter is an artist-style "exertion school" wrapped in individual understanding. From the point of view of personal ability, it is obvious that the "play school" is high; but from the standpoint of accurately conveying the original meaning of the "Jinfa" (which is the purpose of imitation and not the purpose of the practice), it is the "faithful school" that wins. What is right and wrong is sometimes really difficult to determine.
In order to understand the true meaning of "Jin Ti" and "Jin Ren PenManship", of course, we should pay more attention to the imitation effect of the "Faithful" who are not without the skills of craftsmen - because it is in this same trend that more information is conveyed in the "Jin" handwriting rather than the "Jin Method" mixed with the tastes of the early Tang Dynasty. In this way, we have found the first foothold: the thinking process and the actual examination process based on the Tang facsimile Wang Xizhi's handwriting as the entry point and the above-mentioned Wei and Jin brushwork, especially the "Jin Ti" style. The Tang facsimile is a general object, in which there is a distinction between the "play faction" and the "loyal faction", and what we can rely on should be the latter rather than the former.
▲ Get the post The funeral post
Taking this as a criterion, among the French posters that have long been lost overseas, the extant Japanese "Funeral Posts" (in the collection of the Japanese Imperial Household Agency), the "Kong Shi Zhong Ti" (in the collection of Maeda Yutokukai in Japan), the "Er Xie Ti", the "Deshi Ti" (in the Japanese Imperial Family Collection), and the "Xing Yong Ti" (in the collection of the Princeton University Museum of Art in the United States) should receive our wide attention as representatives of the "faithful" imitation.
Of course, at the same time, the extant Chinese mainland "Aunt Thesis" (Liaoning Provincial Museum Collection) and "Chuyue Post" (Liaoning Provincial Museum Collection) should also be classified as such. The explanation for extension is that Feng Chengsu's "Preface to the Orchid Pavilion", which was passed down as Wang Xizhi, is obviously not of this category; in turn, Wang Xianzhi's "Duck Head Pill Thesis" in the Shanghai Museum and Wang Xun's "Boyuan Thesis" in the Palace Museum in Beijing, although written by Wang Xi's later generations, also reflect the typical "Jin Thesis" style, which can be shoulder to shoulder with the "faithful" Jinti in the facsimiles of the various families.
What is the basis for distinguishing between the "faithful faction" and the "exertion faction" of the Tang Dynasty?
Compared with the sketching of the handwriting, the difference in the shelf between the glyphs should be small - the pro-writing is face-to-face. It is natural that the glyphs between the pro-ben and the original work are different from the original work - this is a very normal phenomenon in the imitation process, but the facsimile of the hard yellow ring double hook is different: the copy is the copying process of covering the paper (silk) on the original, and it can almost be done without any deviation, which is the most "faithful" effect. The frame between the glyphs is still like this, as large as the layout of the chapter, of course, there will be no mistakes.
The only differences that can occur should be lines, "pens", and brushwork. In the process of copying, only the thickness of the line is dried up and wet, and because it is restored again, it is impossible to reproduce it 100% faithfully, whether it is the action at that time or the quality of the pen and ink. The original trace is a disease and the trace is Xu, the original trace is dry and the trace is run, the original trace is folded and copied into a turn, the original trace is sharp and the trace is blunt... These are highly probable.
Needless to say, even if they are first-class masters, they can only narrow the gap as much as possible, but it is impossible to guarantee that there is no one hundred percent. It is more involved in the specific line shape and quality, and it is more likely to show obvious differences due to various reasons such as the pressure of the times and the different angles of understanding. And this is becoming one of the most important grasps of our classification of the "faithful faction" and "exertion faction" of various Tang facsimiles.
Click: "Included in the topic" Next article, turn the page to read.