本文試圖依循民國初年中國美術革命的相關論述，分從魯迅、康有為、蔡元培、呂澂、陳獨秀到徐悲鴻等人的論說，作一觀念進化軸線來看，說明中國傳統繪畫所遭逢的時代問題。這個時期爭執焦點主要落入文人論畫的處境，他們思想根源多是來自於對西方文化衝擊的回應，因此觀察自我與他者美術範圍時，幾乎不出於寫意與寫實之間的糾葛，最後清代四王繪畫成了眾人抨擊目標。到了一九三○年代，中西美術之間已經出現強調差異到趨向於同質表述，除了看到中國對西方美術觀點的游移性和複雜性之外，亦透過上述美術文獻資料的分析，瞭解他們所闡釋和理解的中西美術，實際經歷了革命批判、反思重建到強調文化本位過程，所以它並不具備一個明確清晰的理路與邊界，反而是不斷被詮釋和修正的歷史。

The present essay summarizes early Republican discourse on the issue of revolution in the fine arts. By surveying writings on this issue by figures as Lu Hsun, K’ang Yu-wei, Ts’ai Yuan-p’ei, Lu Ch’eng, Ch’en Tu-hsiu, and Hsu Pei-hung, it explains the problems that traditional Chinese painting encountered as it moved into the early decades of the twentieth century. Disputes during this period focused on the topic of literati painting; most commentators, inflored by self-and-other paradigms conditioned by the response to the assault of Western culture, essentially failed to move beyond the conflict between realism (hsien-shih) and personal expressiveness (hsieh-i). The “Four Wangs” style of the Ch’ing dynasty thus became the focus of criticism. However, by the 1930s, discussion of Western and Chinese art had begun to de-emphasize their respective differences. In part, this resulted from an increased Chinese awareness for the vacillations and complexities of Western art. The intellectual diablve writings, which demonstrate a move from (1) revolutionary criticism, through (2) reflection and reconstruction, to (3) an emphasis on original culture, show that the early Republican interpretation of both Chinese and Western art was not characterized by fixed perspectives, but rather underwent constant reassessment and correction. (Abstract translated by Jeffrey Moser).