如何傳統繪畫適應現代性，這一問題自本世紀初來一直困惑著中國的畫家和學者。面對儒家觀念的衰退和現代西方的強勢，本世紀初中國知識階層似乎陷入一兩難困境，躊躇於自己的傳統和西方的現代性之間。在美術界，所關注的焦點是中國繪畫需要革新，但是在西方藝術的影響和衝擊下，如何對具數千年歷史的傳統繪畫加以定位；中國畫家如何回應現代性，是應該徹底摒棄傳統以“全盤西化”，還是固守傳統，抵制任何西方影響，或者用什麼樣的方式來改良或革新傳統繪畫。這些難解的問題於1920年1930年代引發了一場全國範圍的激烈的論爭。美術界因此基本上分成了兩大陣營，一為“革新派”，另一為“國粹派”。 “革新”與“國粹”雙方都意識到歷經數百年的沉滯後，傳統繪畫中無意義的摹古不可能適應現代社會的需要，中國繪畫的革新不可迴避。然而，“革新派”，其大多成員在歐洲或日本接受西方美術教育，感嘆於西方畫家們的造型方法和技巧，認為中國繪畫的革新務必採西方之法。這一陣營的代表有徐悲鴻，林風眠，高劍父，和汪亞塵，盡管對如何用西方之法革新中國畫各有不同的看法。 在另一方，“國粹派”，面對西方影響的挑戰和“革新派”的抨擊，試圖在傳統中國畫自身之中尋找出路，並視捍守中國畫傳統為己任。實際上，他們並不拒絕對中國畫加以革新，也同樣試圖摒棄清代的摹古風氣，但他們堅持應以復興唐，宋，元期的繪畫風格來拯救傳統繪畫，而非引入西方影響。金紹城，陳師曾，黃賓虹，賀天健，鄭午昌可視為這一觀點的代表。 本文將通過對兩方在這場論爭中的主要論點的回顧，把這一論爭放入這一時期中國社會政治和文化發展的大背景中加以闡釋和理解，探討這場論爭對現代中國美術發展的意義和作用。

　　　　　How traditional painting should respond to Chinese modernity has been a puzzle over which Chinese artists and scholars have agonized since the beginning of the century. Facing the collapse of the moral authority of Confucianism and the glaring superiority of the modern West, Chinese intellectuals of the early twentieth century were caught in a difficult bind, both attracted to and repelled by their own tradition and the Western model of modernity. In the art world, the major concerns were how to evaluate the thousand-year-old heritage of traditional Chinese painting in the light of Western art's powerful new influence, how traditional Chinese painting might best respond to modernity, should Chinese artists accepts a "totalistic" attack on tradition and adopt "wholesale Westernization," or instead entrench themselves in tradition to resist any Western influence, and what kind of reform, if any, Chinese artists should implement for traditional painting. To answer these questions, an intensive debate about traditional Chinese painting emerged nationally in the 1920s and 1930s. many famous artists, writers, and scholars and most major art journals were involved in this debate. The art world was basically divided into two groups, one called "Reformist," the other "National Essence." Both "Reformist" and "National Essence" groups realized that meaningless imitation in traditional painting, the result of hundred years of stagnation, left it unable to meet the needs of modern society, and that the reform of Chinese painting was inevitable. However, the "reformists," most of whom had received western training in Europe of Japan and were impressed by West artists' abilities to depict objects directly from nature, believed that the reform of traditional Chinese painting required assimilating the methods of Western art. Representatives of this group were Hsu Pei-hung, Lin Feng-mien, Kao Chien-fu, and Wang Ya-ch'en. As to how to reform Chinese painting with Western methods, however, there several different opinions among the reformists. On the other side, facing the challenge of Western influence and attacks from the "reformists, " the "national Essence" group tried to find a way out within the tradition of Chinese painting itself, and regarded defending the tradition of Chinese painting as their inescapable responsibility. They, in fact, did not reject the reform of Chinese painting, and they also wanted to break away from the painting style of the late Ch'ing period, but they tried to reform painting with ancient master's styles and techniques of the T'ang, Sung, and Yuan periods, not with those of Western art. The representatives of the "National Essence" group were Chin Shao-ch'eng, Ch'en Shi-tseng, Huang Pin-hung, He T'ien-chien, and Cheng Wu-ch'ang. This paper, through reviewing the major points of view of both groups in the debate and putting them into the political and cultural contexts of Chinese of the time, evaluates the meaning and value of this debate to the development of modern Chinese art.