美術史書中，對於十八世紀活躍於京都地區的畫家圓山應舉有些固定評價：一是主張他透過學習西洋作品，開創嶄新的寫生／寫實畫風，而此畫風反映了客觀主義或科學精神；二是指出應舉廣受十八世紀後期京都市民（町人、庶民、平民）的喜愛。有些更進一步推論，強調應舉藝術的時代意義，在於體現新興階層對當代當地事物的興趣。如此書寫，不僅是對圓山應舉個人的評價，更反映了廣泛的江戶美術史觀。然而，這些評價須被檢驗的問題甚多。本文擬探討此史觀之源頭與發展歷程，並思考專業研究與美術通論之間的論述策略。 本文包括「圓山應舉的評價及其『代表作』」、「近世美術觀的首倡者」、「寫實、市民、近代性：1960至70年代學者的論述」及「尚未反映在通史書寫的新史觀」等部份。首先將以美術通史及美術全集之類的書籍為例，分析現代學者的書寫要點，以及選取插圖之策略，如何形塑圓山應舉的特定形象。接著，比較數種二十世紀初期之著作，包括費諾羅沙、岡倉天心、藤岡作太郎之著述，及日本官方編纂的美術史，探討此特定形象論述之源頭。之後討論1960、70年代的著作，如何發展所謂日本「近世」美術特點，並將應舉推為「近世」美術代表。最後則探討1990年代以來，學者提出的嶄新見解，包括對既有美術史觀的反思。其中最值得深思的，便是原史觀中對於東亞近世美術的評述，過於仰賴西方的思考模式。然而，筆者也將對比現今通行的美術通史書籍，指出新史觀並未在通史書寫中清楚呈現，並探討今後之課題。

Art historical books provide certain conventional appraisals on Maruyama Ōkyo, a painter active in Kyoto in the eighteenth-century Japan. One argues that through learning Western art works, Ōkyo pioneered an entirely new realistic style reflective of the objectivism and scientific spirit of his time. A second points out that he was widely appreciated by ordinary Kyoto residents. Some scholars even argue that Ōkyo's works are expressive of their time, particularly in revealing the interest of the newly rich in the things around them at that time. These comments concern not only Ōkyo's art but also reflect widely held views of Edo painting history. However, these appraisals should be further examined. This paper will examine the origins and the development of these views and discuss the differences in writing strategies between specialized research studies and art survey books directed to the general public. This paper includes the following topics: “The appraisal of Ōkyo and his representative works,” “The initial stage of the arguments for the early modern art history,” “Realism, citizens, and modernity: the arguments of the 1960's and 70's,” and “New views not yet reflected in the survey books.” I will first examine several survey books to shape the generally accepted view about Ōkyo and his time. Then I will compare several art historical books written in the early twentieth century, including the works by Ernest Francisco Fenollosa, Okakura Tenshin, Fujioka Sakutarō, and an official version of art history published by the Japanese government, and identify particular perspectives on Ōkyo. Following that is a discussion on how these discourses further developed in the 1960's and 70's. I will argue that although new research studies present a much more complex views of Edo art history, the simplified view, in which early modern East Asian art is evaluated through Western ways of thinking, still prevails in most of the survey texts.