近七十年來,中國藝術史論圍繞怎樣評判齊白石(1864年—1957年)花鳥寫意,一顯一隱地糾纏著兩條路徑。其中,"以論帶史""以論代史"為標識的蘇式路徑之特點,是在用蘇聯理論模式把齊白石虛構為"人民畫家",強調是齊的貧農身世造成了其繪畫的民間趣味暨工筆寫實(近乎"現實主義")。其始作俑者是王朝聞,這一路徑自1952年至2013年,至少綿延了六十余年,堪稱顯性"主流"。另一條非蘇式路徑之標識是"以史鑒論""論從史出",其要害是解構"人民畫家"說,還齊白石在藝術史的本來面目,證明齊之所以成為"齊白石",關鍵在其"衰年變法"(1920年—1930年),遂使其"畫法"(技)從簪花工筆變為寫意粗筆,其"畫風"(藝)從冷逸寒鳥變為紅花墨葉(溫情蟲草),其"活法"(道)從湘土畫匠變為吳昌碩(1844年—1927年)后足以標志中國現代水墨之高峰的世紀傳人。這條隱性"邊緣"路徑的代表是齊白石本人,其生前留下的《白石老人自傳》《齊白石詩集》《談藝錄》作為非造型性文獻(史料),當能啟示后學從中讀出另一條真正無愧于中國藝術經驗的史學路徑。

Two approaches, one explicit and one implicit, exist in the past seventy years of art history to evaluate Qi Baishi’s(1864-1957) flower-and-bird painting. One is the Soviet approach, which is characterized by "theory guiding history" and "theory replacing history". It frames Qi Baishi as a "people’s painter", emphasizing that Qi’s poor peasant family origin has resulted in his folk taste of paintings and his realistic brushwork(close to "realism"). This approach, initiated by Wang Zhaowen, lasts for at least sixty years, which can be seen as the "mainstream". The other(non-Soviet) approach is characterized by "history exemplifying theory" and "theory drawn from history", which aims to undermining the label of "people’s painter," so as to return Qi Baishi back to the art history. It claims that the key to understand Qi Baishi lies in his "changes of art style in his old age"(1920-1930), during which Qi’s "painting method"(technique) changes from a fine brushwork to a freehand brushwork, his "painting style"(art) changes from cold figures of birds to warm flowers with leaves, and his "life style"(Dao) changes from a Hunan local painter to a new peak of modern Chinese ink painting after Wu Changshuo(1844-1927). The representative of this implicit "marginalized" approach is Qi Bishi himself. Historical materials such as The Autobiography of Old Baishi, Collection of Qi Baishi’s Poems, and Notes on Literature and Art, may illuminate a historical path that can fully demonstrate unique Chinese art experience.