:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:論荊浩《筆法記》對北宋畫壇之影響
作者:張禮權
作者(外文):Li-Chuan Chang
校院名稱:中國文化大學
系所名稱:史學系
指導教授:王吉林
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2012
主題關鍵詞:荊浩筆法記北方山水畫派正典化文化政治Jing HaoNotes on Painting Techniques and thoughtnorthern school of landscape paintingcanonizationcultural politics
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:158
論荊浩《筆法記》對北宋畫壇之影響
摘 要
研究水墨山水畫之學者,皆知唐末、五代水墨山水畫家荊浩,就是北方畫派水墨山水畫之開山祖師。其所撰著《筆法記》之重要性,對北宋山水畫論與水墨山水畫創作影響甚巨。他身處一個從人物畫過渡到山水畫之時代,在水墨山水畫之理論與創作,皆尚未發展成熟之情況下,其憑藉自己天賦及經驗,整合建立了自晉代至唐末之間水墨山水畫之理論,並將之落實於作品之中。可謂現今水墨山水畫派發展關鍵先驅人物之一。
過去研究荊浩之學者,多半帶著事後論之看法,以當下荊浩在畫壇之宗師地位,回朔他自唐末至五代之間之藝術成就,認為荊浩從一開始,就是一名水墨山水畫之大師,所以對其畫論以及畫作,同時都帶有高度之評價。認為,他在當時之水墨山水畫藝術中,已經具備了相當之影響力,然而,這並不符合歷史實情。細究荊浩所處混亂之唐末五代時期,以及從五代流傳至今之《筆法記》畫論,根據文本種種記載,都足以合理推斷,荊浩就是一位學者型之隱居畫家,避禍隱身於太行山洪谷自稱「洪谷子」,數畝之田耕而食之自給自足,至於水墨山水畫思想與創作之成績無幾人知悉。既然如此,也就少有人明白,荊浩水墨山水畫藝術畫論之成就。然而,其思想與創作,怎麼可能會是當時之經典呢?事實上,他極有可能是到了北宋時期才成名。根據宋代郭若虛《圖畫見聞誌》荊浩條下顯示,此乃由於,其友人上表進獻《筆法記》一卷,得知其山水畫論,受到宋代官方畫院之重視而加以秘藏。以及許多五代末年、北宋時期之畫壇新秀,皆對外宣稱是師法荊浩,因此,才讓荊浩之名氣開始流傳開來。《筆法記》畫論文本,也因官方典藏而「正典化」,取得了水墨山水畫理論,於北宋畫壇之經典地位。
於是,荊浩成名之過程,除了,其本身獨特之水墨山水畫論思想與創作技法之外,也是一次綜合性「文化政治」之進程。也就是說,著名之山水畫家所在多有,何以荊浩特別受到北宋官方推崇?此其中,有特別「揀選」與「打造」畫壇領袖之况味存在。可以推知,北宋官方之所以將荊浩,推向水墨山水畫宗師之地位,很可能是其《筆法記》文本,在山水畫論與創作之成就與影響。其次,是為了與「南方」爭奪水墨山水畫之話語權。本文即是在探究此一思想與創作之始末,非僅是在作畫家個人傳記或作品之介紹。其中對晚於荊浩,並自稱為荊浩弟子門人或受其影響,而公開推崇荊浩之畫壇大師們,筆者,稱他們為北方水墨山水畫之「荊關畫派」。荊浩之所以成名於後世,除了,北宋官方因素之外,還有這群「荊關畫派」之門人,無論是荊浩門生或再傳弟子,皆居功厥偉功不可沒,本文將之逐一介紹。
當然,這種研究之方法與焦點,在台灣之藝術史領域中尚不多見,因之,本文只能是一個初步之嘗試,可能會有所缺漏與疏失,這點尚祈前輩先進們海涵,並請惠予批評指教。
關鍵詞:荊浩、筆法記、北方山水畫派、正典化、文化政治
A Discussion on the Influence of Jing Hao’s “Notes on Painting Techniques and thought” on the Painting World of the Northern Song Dynasty
Abstract
All people studying Chinese ink landscape painting have known that Jing Hao, an ink landscape painter in the late Tang Dynasty and Five dynasties, was seen as the founder of the northern school and the ink landscape painting, whose writing “Notes on Painting Techniques and thought” was one of the important works that had a great influence on the theory of landscape painting in the Northern Song Dynasty. Jing Hao, living through the transitional period from the figure painting to the landscape painting, had integrated and founded the theory of the ink landscape painting between the Jin Dynasty and the Tang Dynasty and carried out it through his painting works relying on his own gift and experience under the circumstances of an immature theory and creation of the ink landscape painting. He can be exactly regarded as one of the pioneers in the development of the present landscape painting.
In the past, most researchers studied Jing Hao with the wisdom of hindsight, and thus their studies very frequently started from his present position of a grand master in the painting world back to his artistic accomplishments between the late Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties. They seemed to think he was a grand master of the ink landscape painting at the very beginning and therefore may offer a higher appraisal of the theory of painting he proposed and the painting works he created. They thought further he had a considerable influence in the art field of ink landscape painting at that time. However, it should be not the historical truth. After probing carefully the disorderly Period of late Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties he lived in and his writing “Notes on Painting Techniques and thought” which was gone down from the Five Dynasties to the present, we can infer reasonably from the content of the text that Jing Hao was exactly a scholarly painter living as a hermit and supported himself by cultivating lands in the valley of the Taihang Mountains during the period of the late Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties, who thus called himself as “Hung Ku Tzu”, when his attainments whether for his thoughts or creation in the ink landscape painting were seldom known. So people understanding his accomplishments in the art field of ink landscape painting were actually very few then. But why can his thoughts and creation be the classic in that period? I thought Jing Hao did not become famous until the Northern Song Dynasty. The fame of Jing Hao was gradually established thanks to that the Notes on Painting Techniques and thought by Jing Hao presented to the court by his friend triggered the attention of the Official Art Academies of the Song Dynasty to his writings relating to the theory of landscape painting and their further action of collecting them concealedly as specified in the Record of Experiences in Painting written by Kuo Jo-hsu in the Song Dynasty, and the statement of the eminent painters during the Period of the late Five Dynasties and the Northern Song Dynasty that they painted following Jing Hao’s painting techniques. His painting theories thus were canonized and won the classic place in the ink landscape painting.
In the process of Jing Hao’s success, we can find out not only his unique thought on the theory of ink landscape painting and creative technique but also the course of the advancement of cultural politics. The latter is the key point of this study. Jing Hao being specially treated with high respect in so many famous landscape painters by the court of Northern Song Dynasty was from the manipulation of certain officials with intent to select him to be a cultural leader in the landscape painting world. According to the said arguments, we can reason out the reasons that the court of Northern Song Dynasty promoted Jing Hao to climb the position of the grand master of the ink landscape painting were the huge influence of the writing “Notes on Painting Techniques and thought、by Jing Hao on the landscape theory and creation and his individual accomplishments in the field of ink landscape painting as well as the competition with the southern school for a voice in the field of ink landscape painting. The purpose of this paper was to explore the development of Jing Hao’s thoughts and creation in addition to his individual biography and the introduction of his outstanding works. This paper called those, including self-alleged disciples or pupils of Jing Hao and painters with master standing whose painting theories or techniques were influenced by him publicly supporting him, a “Jing Hao Group” of the northern ink landscape painting. Jing Hao became famous in later ages, in addition to the power of the court of Northern Song Dynasty, mostly from the contribution of the cultural group, whether disciples of Jing Hao or his 2nd generation disciples. For details, please see the next chapters of this paper.
The research method and concentration I undertook in the sphere of art history are not so many in Taiwan presently, so I hope it can serve as a helpful reference for future researchers.
Keywords: Jing Hao, Notes on Painting Techniques and thought, northern school of landscape painting, canonization, cultural politics
一、古籍資料
(南朝宋)沈約:《宋書》〈百官志下〉王智深《宋紀》,序在別傳。
(南朝宋)沈約:《宋書》〈百官志下〉《續漢書,百官志四》。
(南朝齊)謝赫:《古畫品錄》(北京,人民美術出版社,2004.5)。
(唐)朱景玄:《唐朝名畫錄》王維。(長沙,湖南美術出版社 1997、2004)。
(唐)彥悰:《後畫錄》(台北:華正書局,1977)。
(唐)張彥遠:《歷代名畫記》(北京,人民美術出版社,2004.5)。
(唐)陸贄:《翰苑集》 (台北:商務印書館,民67年),卷17。
(唐)崔韜:《太平廣記》卷四三三,引唐,薛用弱《集異記》。
(五代)荊浩:(台北,國立故宮博物院編著,讀者文摘出版發行,1981)。
(五代)荊浩:《筆法記》《中國畫論類編》(台北,華正書局,1977.10)。
(五代)荊浩:〈匡廬圖〉(台灣,台北故宮博物院,1949)。
(五代)劉昫、張昭:《舊唐書》〈第150下‧黃巢傳〉(北京,中華書局,2001)。
(五代)劉昫、張昭:《舊唐書》,卷190(北京,中華書局,2001)。
(五代)劉昫、張昭:《舊唐書》,肆柒經籍志下(北京,中華書局,2001)。
(五代)劉昫、張昭:《舊唐書》王維本傳(北京,中華書局,2001)。
(五代)北周,衛元嵩《齊三教論》七卷(北京,中華書局,2001)。
(宋)王闢之:《澠水燕談錄》,(台北,台北木鐸出版社,1982年出版)。
(宋)王薄:《唐會要》卷八十八(北京:中華書局,2001)。
(宋)司馬光:《資治通鑑》,(北京:中華書局,2001),巻第二百五十二。
(宋)郭熙:《林泉高致》(濟南,山東畫報出版社,2010.08)。
(宋)郭若虛:《圖畫見聞誌》(北京,人民美術出版社,2005,11,三刷)。
(宋)歐陽修:《新唐書》卷二百二,列傳第一百二+七,文藝(中)「王維」條。
(宋)歐陽修:《新唐書》〈列傳第150下‧黃巢傳〉(北京,中華書局,2001)。
(宋)劉道醇:《宋朝名畫評》,《山水林木門第二》(台北,華正書局,1977.10)。
(宋)劉道醇:《五代名畫補遺》,(《四庫全書》)(台北,華正書局,1977.10)。
(宋)劉道醇:《聖朝名畫評》(台北,國立故宮博物院,1987,4)。
(宋)計有功:《唐詩紀事》,(台北,台灣中華書局,1971)。卷56。
(宋)韓拙:《山水純全集》(台北,華正書局,1977.10)。
(宋)蔡京、蔡卞:徽宗《宣和畫譜》卷十山水門一,關仝條下。
(宋)蔡京、蔡卞:徽宗《宣和畫譜》卷十山水門一,王洽條下。
(元)湯垕:《古今畫鑑》(台北,華正書局,1977.10)。
(元)湯垕:《畫鑒》,四庫全書本。(台北,華正書局,1977.10)。
(明)朱謀垔:《畫史會要》(台北,華正書局,1977.10)。
(明)沈周:《論畫》(台北,華正書局,1977.10)。
(清)彭定求:《全唐詩》(北京:中華書局,2000)卷125。
(清)彭定求:《全唐詩》《送水墨項處士歸天台》(北京:中華書局,2000)。
(清)彭定求:《全唐詩》卷304《送從弟赴上都》劉商(北京:中華書局,2000)。
(清)鄒一桂:《小山畫譜》,(北京:中華書局,2000)
(清)紀曉嵐:《四庫全書》荊浩:《筆法記》1782編成。
(清)張照:《石渠寶笈》《故宮書畫錄》卷五,1782。

二、今人研究
于麗燕:《美術大觀》第01期,2009年。
尹培如:《范疇的移植》,(北京:中央美術學院美術學系博士論文,2008.5)。
孔仲起、王霖:〈心隨筆運‧隱跡立形—荊浩《筆法記》及「六要」簡論〉,《新美術》,2000:3。
王小甫:《隋唐五代史》,(台北,三民書局,2008.6)。
王吉林:《唐代南詔與李唐關係之研究》,(台北:花木蘭文化出版社,2011.3)。new window
王國瓔:《中國山水詩研究》(古北,聯經出版社 1986.)。
王耀庭:《周澄書畫作品集》,(北京:榮寶齋出版社,2006)。
白雪紅:《荊浩的「六要」論和現代山水畫創作》,(蘭州:西北師範大學美術學院美術學系碩士論文2006.5)。
何志明、潘運告,《唐五代畫論》(長沙,湖南美術出版社 1997、2004)。
余嘉錫:《四庫提要辨證》(昆明,雲南人民出版社,2004/2006)。
余毅《松樹百態》(台北,中華書畫出版社),1985年。
吳春艷:《五代山水畫家──荊浩研究》,(長春:東北師範大學美術學院中國畫系碩士論文,2007.4)。
呂佛庭:《中國畫史評傳、荊浩傳》,(台北:國防研究院出版)。
阮璞:〈禪宗盛行影響繪畫發展之說幾成濫調〉(上海:上海書畫出版社,1998)。
周積寅:《中國畫論輯要》,(南京,江蘇美術出版社,1997.1.4版)。
俞崑:《中國畫論類編》,(台北,華正書局,1977,10)。
俞劍華:《中國古代畫論類編》,(北京,人民美術出版社,1998.10)。
胡宗勇:《藝術探索》,第20卷,第4期,2006年,。
凌嵩郎:《藝術概論》(台北,國立藝術專校印刷廠, 1981)。
孫丹研:《中國山水畫通鑒~三家鼎峙》(上海,上海書畫出版社,2006,1)。
徐復觀:《中國藝術精神》(台北,台灣學生書局,1982)。new window
高明芳:《荊浩研究》,(台北:中國文化大學藝術研究所碩士論文,民62年6月)。
張正忠:〈從荊浩美學思想看現代主義藝術的歧途〉,《美術》,2002:3。
張春記:《謝稚柳談藝錄》,(鄭州市:河南美術出版社,2001年版)。
張郁乎:《畫史心香》,(北京,北京大學出版社 2010.6.)。
張郁乎:〈石濤〈歸棹冊〉研究〉,《民族藝術》,第4期,2006。
張禮權:《水墨經驗》,(台北:唐代文化,1991)。
莊申:「王維研究」卷二,(香港:萬有圖書公司1971年)。
郭建平:〈北方山水畫之祖荊浩〉,《滄桑》,1994:2。
陳代湘,〈荊浩繪畫美學的開拓性〉,《湘潭大學社會科學學報》,1996:3。
陳寅恪:《唐代政治史述論稿》下篇(上海,上海古籍出版,1942)。
陳寅恪:《唐代政治史述論稿》中篇(上海,上海古籍出版,1942)。
陳傅席,《中國山水畫史》,(天津,人民美術出版社,2001)。
陳傳席:《中國繪畫美學史》,(北京,人民美術出版社,2002.)。
陳貽焮:《唐代隱逸求仙的政治目的》(湖南,湖南人民出版社,1980-9)。
陳葆真:《李後主與他的時代》(南唐藝術與歷史)(北京,北大出版社,2009,7。
陳滯冬:《張大千談藝錄》(鄭州市:河南美術出版社1998年)。
彭萊:《中國山水畫通鑒》,(上海,上海書畫出版社,2006,1)。
黃永年:《全唐文‧楊妃碑記偽證》,(台北:聯經,2005)。
劉典章:《中國畫論輯要》,(南京,江蘇美術出版社,1985-1997.4刷)。
潘公凱:《中國繪畫史》(上海,上海古籍出版社 2004.5.一刷)。
潘運告,《宣和畫譜》(長沙,湖南美術出版社 1997、2004)。
潘運告:《宋人畫論》(長沙,湖南美術出版社 2010.7)。
潘運告:《明代畫論》(長沙,湖南美術出版社 2002)。
潘運告:《唐五代畫論》(長沙,湖南美術出版社,1997)。
蔣鑫:《從《筆法記》到〈匡廬圖〉探究荊浩對「真」追求的統一性》,(南京,南京藝術大學美術學系碩士論文,2010.4)。
蔡全法:〈荊浩山水畫《匡廬圖》賞析〉《中原文物》,第03期,1998。
鄭昶:《中國畫學全史》(北京,中華書局,1999)。
盧建榮:《聚歛的迷思》(台北,五南圖書出版社,2009年12月初版一刷)。
薛永年:《橫看成嶺側成嶺峰》(台北,東大書局,1996.11)。
羅振賢:《中國山水畫風之地域因素》(台北,中國美術出版社,1980)
嚴耕望:〈五代十國人文地理〉(台北,中央研究院史語所專刊之83,1986)。
嚴耕望:〈唐五代時期之成都〉(台北,中央研究院史語所專刊之83,1986)。new window
嚴耕望:〈唐代交通圖考〉(台北,中央研究院史語所專刊之83,1986)。
嚴耕望:〈唐人習業山林寺院之風尚〉(台北中央研究院史語所專刊之83,1986)。new window
嚴耕望:(唐五代時期之成都)(台北,中央研究院史語所專刊之83,1986)。new window
顧平:〈荊浩《筆法記》對中國山水畫理論發展的貢獻〉《安徽師範大學學報(人文社會科學版)》,26卷3期(1998)。
鈴木敬著:魏美月譯《中國繪畫史》(台北,國立故宮博物院,1987,4)。

Lee,Chinese Landscape Painting Chu-tsing Li「Chinese Painting in the Charles A. Drenowatz Collection」, Asiatische Studien, XXI(1967)。
Wen C. Fong,`Monumental Landscape Painting’,in his “Possession the Past”, (New York:The Metropolitan Museum of Art,1996) 。


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top