Modern painter criticism

Author: None
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-10-01
Features: In over a decade of research in the field of calligraphy and painting, while art history shares significant disciplinary relevance with calligraphy and painting, and I have read many works on art history, I never felt the urge to engage in art history research. My entry into art history research was purely accidental, entirely inspired by a close friend. The decision to write a Critique of Modern Painters was largely driven by a sense of the weakness in modern art criticism and a desire to conduct a critical, holistic reflection on modern art history. Once this writing intention was set, I realized that my accumulated knowledge of art history greatly supported my smooth transition into the writing process. Without this theoretical foundation, I might not have had the courage to start writing this book.
During the writing of Critique of Modern Painters, I consistently adhered to the academic principle that all historical issues ultimately manifest as critical issues. In other words, the understanding of history is always accompanied by the subject's interpretation and value judgment. History, in this open-ended interpretation and explanation, continuously generates new meanings. Criticism, as a signifier, first appears as an active subjective discourse stance—it does not passively narrate but, within the horizon of expectations, offers preconceptions and insights into history and historical objects. The complexity and entanglement of the entire history of modern Chinese art in the past century have determined that research methods lacking a subjective historical perspective and critical awareness are powerless. They cannot deeply penetrate and reveal the meaning structure and problem implications of modern art history, nor can they provide accurate historical evaluations and positioning of the masters and great figures in modern art history. In fact, the conceptual confusion in modern art history research and the lack of a subjective perspective and rationalized criticism are highly correlated. This is particularly evident in the binary value opposition between tradition-modernity and local-Western in the fields of modern art theory and practice, as well as in the one-sided understanding and misinterpretation of representatives of modern art history.
The radical Westernization trend triggered by the 85 New Wave movement fiercely attacked traditional painting, plunging Chinese painting into crisis. Arguments like "Chinese painting is at its end" and "the abolition of Chinese painting" gained momentum, almost repeating the tragic decline of traditional literati painting during the May Fourth New Culture Movement. Under the dominance of Westernization theories, modern Chinese art rushed through the path that Western modern art took almost a century to complete, attempting to replace Chinese painting with modern abstraction. The Westernization art trend of the 1980s, while highlighting the issue of modernity (modernité) in Chinese art, also pushed traditional painting into a confined position, leading to strong backlash from traditionalists and creating a tension and ideological confrontation between modernism and traditionalism.
Entering the 1990s, with the decline of the radical Westernization art trend, traditional painting moved from the margins to the center, and traditional literati painting began to become a dominant discourse. This is clearly reflected in the four masters of the 20th century—Wu Changshuo, Qi Baishi, Huang Binhong, and Pan Tianshou—all being traditional literati painters. Later, the return to Song-Yuan literati painting by the Zhejiang School and the rise of the New Literati Painting movement further demonstrated this point. The tension and confrontation between tradition/modernity and local/Western in the fields of modern art theory and practice have significantly influenced the modernization of Chinese art and also caused intentional misunderstandings in the understanding of Chinese art's modernity.
What exactly is the modernization of Chinese art? "The modernization of Chinese art is a spiritual and cultural movement in the field of plastic arts that matches the modernization of Chinese society, and a creative activity with modern aesthetic characteristics in appearance. The modernity of Chinese art refers to modern aesthetic characteristics—it is not modern in the general sense but modern in contrast to tradition, reflecting a special ideology of industrial civilization and social openness." (Zheng Gong, Evolution and Movement)
In the above conceptual definition of the modernization of Chinese art, the de-Chinese and de-Westernization are first excluded, making the dilemma of being both Chinese and modern a necessary premise for the modern construction of Chinese art. Thus, abandoning localization to pursue globalization and cultural identity, or preserving localization and ethnic identity at the expense of modernization, both contradict the theme of modernization of Chinese art.
Due to the inability of contemporary art creation and criticism to transcend the discourse tension between tradition/modernity and local/Western, it inevitably leads to a binary value opposition in discourse practice. Either standing on the side of modernity to oppose tradition, or standing on the side of tradition to oppose modernity, it creates a subjectivity dilemma, preventing a constructive, cross-cultural perspective on tradition/modernity and local/Western issues. The intense debate in the late 20th century art world over Wu Guanzhong's "brushwork is zero" once again fully illustrates this point.
Lacking a mutual subjectivity and coexistence awareness, contemporary Chinese art lacks dialogue and exchange between tradition and modernity, which fundamentally affects the legitimacy and public value recognition standards of contemporary art criticism. The prevalence of harsh criticism, the clamor of "the paper theory" and "Chinese painting is at its end," as well as the fierce competition and confrontation between radical Westernization theories and traditionalism, all indicate the crisis of legitimacy in modern art. Under this non-theoretical domination, contemporary art criticism also shows a fluctuation and de-historicalization of critical value standards. For example, the four painting masters promoted in the late 20th century art world were all traditional literati painters, while outstanding figures like Xu Beihong, Lin Fengmian, and Liu Haisu, who made significant contributions to the modernization of Chinese art, were ignored or criticized, raising doubts about the value standards of contemporary art criticism.
In fact, we cannot examine modern Chinese painters without the central context of modernity. Traditional brushwork can only possess depth and historical significance when it is grounded in a match with modern spirit and modern mentality. Without this, the evaluation standards of masters will inevitably suffer severe value distortion.
As an independent discourse system, art criticism is not simply about saying good or bad. Rather, criticism itself is part of history, and perhaps even the most sensitive and important part. Thus, criticism is a subjective interpretation rooted in historical context, maintaining the intertextuality between tradition and the individual—mutual subjectivity between history and the individual becomes the primary prerequisite for the legitimacy of criticism. It cannot be detached from historical principles and holistic principles, merely becoming a personalized of discourse.
Critique of Modern Painters covers 39 masters and great figures in modern and contemporary art history, posing an immense challenge to my critical concepts and practices. What I strive to follow is the integration of historical consensus and individual perspectives—the principle of mutual subjectivity between the holistic historical principle and individual insights, rigorously avoiding the abuse of speculative and personalized critical discourse. Of course, whether I have achieved this remains to be tested and reviewed by the art criticism community.
After completing Critique of Modern Painters, I also finished History of Regional Styles in Contemporary Chinese Painting Schools. These two books have close internal connections and continuity—one focuses on case studies of modern masters and great figures, while the other on the sorting and review of contemporary art painting schools and regional styles, including trends. These two books basically represent my current views and understanding of modern and contemporary art history.
After spending two years writing four theoretical works on calligraphy and painting—History of Chinese Calligraphy Theory, Critique of Modern Calligraphers, Critique of Modern Painters, and History of Regional Styles in Contemporary Chinese Painting Schools—I will temporarily pause my research in calligraphy and painting and turn my full attention to the long-desired study of New Confucianism. After completing relevant works, I may return to the fields of calligraphy and painting research. At that time, my understanding of calligraphy and painting may gain new perspectives and deeper theoretical support.