|
|
|
| Intermediary, Media, History: The Materiality of Calligraphy and Its Canon Formation |
| Chen Shuo |
| Research Center for Literary Theory and Aesthetics, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract One of the primary reasons why the evolution of Chinese calligraphy history is different from other literature and art categories is that the generation of the lineage of the canon masters and masterpieces is based on the beitie and rubbings derived from them. Although calligraphy is believed to be a kind of visual art, it has a very complicated materiality. Limited by the reproduction technology and transmission mode of ancient China, most original works of calligraphy masters were difficult to be directly involved in the appreciation, copying and research of later generations. In fact, their large-scale dissemination depends on beitie, which are essentially derivative products, and the more famous the original works were, the more frequent and tanglesome the reproduction of beitie became. In numerous cases, the developed practices of reproduction dissolve the exclusive status of the original author and the original work, so that it has become an independent field of study and historical tradition. Rubbings, as the material presentation of beitie, are the main carrier of the calligraphy model. As the production process of rubbings is seriously affected by a lot of subjective and objective factors, it is plastic. Whether it can accurately convey the original information is very difficult to generalize, and whether it has reliable academic value also needs to be carefully evaluated by experienced scholars. In addition, rubbings are made by converting three-dimensional inscriptions and images into two-dimensional paper, which is to reduce the materiality of the original object in a quite special way. We can call it the “planarity” of rubbings, which directly influenced the writing style of countless later calligraphers. Obviously, the functional properties, physical characteristics, production processes, preservation methods and transmission channels of all kinds of beitie and rubbings have had an extremely profound impact on the form of calligraphy and the narration of calligraphy history. By taking the famous “Lanting Preface” as the primary example, this study analyzes the formation process of its most significant version “Dingwu Lanting” after the Song Dynasty, especially the process of the rumor that great calligrapher Ouyang Xun in the Tang Dynasty was forcibly attached as the copyist of it. This helps us to understand: how beitie with ever-changing forms and rubbings with diverse appearances can be strongly integrated into the canonization of a specific calligraphy work so that the canon itself is subject to change; and, in the process of canonization, how people’s imagination, speculation, attachment and misinterpretation based on beitie and rubbings play their roles. However, the plasticity of canon has its limits. After the rise of “Stele School” in the Qing Dynasty, various types of calligraphy works from the Qin-Han Period to the Six Dynasties challenged the canon of the past, and partially dissolved its authority. Therefore, the status of the famous calligraphy works in the Pre-Ming Period such as the “Xia Cheng Monument” and “Guo Youdao Monument” has plummeted, and numerous versions of “Lanting Preface” have gradually been overlooked. The materiality of beitie and rubbings have played a historic role in it. Many great researchers have found the break between virtual and actual fractures in the canon through it, thus opening the way for the generation of new knowledge and the construction of new lineage. There is no denying that the perspective of the materiality can help contemporary scholars to go beyond the way of overly focusing on texts and images in the previous studies of calligraphy history, take a plural perspective of authors, works, lineage and traditions, so as to better place various works in the specific historical context and help explore the spread of calligraphy models, the intermediary factors and operating mechanism of shaping canon, and ultimately transform the research paradigm of the history of calligraphy.
|
|
Received: 13 May 2022
|
|
|
|
1 施安昌： 《善本碑帖论稿》，上海：上海书画出版社，2017年。
2 叶昌炽： 《语石》，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2018年。
3 意］毕罗： 《尊右军以翼圣教》，成都：四川人民出版社，2020年。
4 赵希鹄： 《洞天清录》，见《丛书集成初编》第1552册，上海：商务印书馆，1935年。
5 桑世昌： 《兰亭考》，见桑世昌、俞松： 《兰亭考 兰亭续考》，杭州：浙江人民美术出版社，2013年。
6 姜夔： 《续书谱》，见孙过庭、姜夔： 《书谱 续书谱》，陈硕评注，杭州：浙江人民美术出版社，2012年。
7 陈忠康： 《范式千载：历代〈兰亭〉版本流变与传习》，北京：文化艺术出版社，2019年。
8 俞松： 《兰亭续考》，见桑世昌、俞松： 《兰亭考 兰亭续考》，杭州：浙江人民美术出版社，2013年。
9 安世凤： 《墨林快事》，见《四库全书存目丛书》子部第118册，济南：齐鲁书社，1995年。
10 阮元： 《揅经室集》，北京：中华书局，1993年。
11 阮元： 《小沧浪笔谈 定香亭笔谈》，济南：山东人民出版社，2018年。
12 薛龙春： 《古欢：黄易与乾嘉金石时尚》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2019年。
13 美］ 巫鸿： 《说“拓片”：一种图像再现方式的物质性与历史性》，见《时空中的美术：巫鸿中国美术史文编二集》，梅玫、肖铁、施杰等译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2009年，第83-108页。
14 薛龙春： 《黄易友朋往来书札辑考》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2021年。
15 马子云： 《金石传拓技法》，北京：人民美术出版社，1988年。
16 白谦慎： 《吴大澂和他的拓工》，北京：海豚出版社，2013年。
17 徐树钧： 《宝鸭斋题跋》，见新文丰出版公司编辑部编： 《石刻史料新编》第2辑第19册，台北：新文丰出版公司，1979年。
18 马子云、施安昌： 《碑帖鉴定》，桂林：广西师范大学出版社，1993年。
19 陆游： 《老学庵笔记》，北京：中华书局，1979年。
20 启功： 《论书绝句一百首》，见《启功丛稿·艺论卷》，北京：中华书局，2004年。
21 周宪： 《经典的编码和解码》，《文学评论》2012年第4期，第85-96页。
22 詹福瑞： 《试论中国文学经典的累积性特征》，《文学遗产》2015年第1期，第4-13页。
23 方波： 《书法史中一线单传观念的嬗变与流派意识的产生及发展》，《文艺研究》2010年第2期，第114-123页。
24 张彦远纂辑： 《法书要录校理》，刘石校理，北京：中华书局，2021年。
25 方波： 《东晋以来王羲之及其书法形象的重塑与变形》，《书法研究》2017年第3期，第125-141页。
26 李零： 《简帛古书与学术源流》（修订本），北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2008年。
27 张隆溪： 《经典之形成及稳定性》，《文艺研究》2021年第10期，第5-18页。
28 王澍： 《翰墨指南》，见崔尔平编： 《明清书论集》，上海：上海辞书出版社，2011年，第771-788页。
29 祁小春： 《迈世之风：有关王羲之资料与人物的综合研究》，北京：文物出版社，2012年。
30 欧阳修： 《集古录跋尾》，见《欧阳修全集》，北京：中华书局，2001年。
31 王连起： 《关于〈兰亭序〉的若干问题》，见《中国书画鉴定与研究·王连起卷》，北京：故宫出版社，2018年，第610-668页。
32 朱熹： 《朱子遗集》，见朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔编： 《朱子全书》第26册，上海：上海古籍出版社，合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002年。
33 翁方纲： 《复初斋文稿》（手稿影印本），台北：文海出版社，1974年。
34 赵明诚： 《金石录校证》，金文明校证，北京：中华书局，2019年。
35 陈硕： 《经典、传说与典故——论〈夏承碑〉接受史中的若干问题》，《中国书法·书学》2016年第18期，第185-192页。
36 李零： 《何枝可依：待兔轩读书记》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2009年。
37 欧阳辅： 《集古求真》，见新文丰出版公司编辑部编： 《石刻史料新编》第1辑第11册，台北：新文丰出版公司，1977年。
38 汪中： 《述学校笺》，李金松校笺，北京：中华书局，2014年。
39 藤原楚水： 「蘭亭敍の異本と若干の考察」，『書菀』1938年第2巻第4号，64-72頁。
40 伊立勋： 《石琴吟馆题跋》，［出版者不详］，1929年刻本。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
