English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 70585/70585 (100%)
Visitors : 23219628      Online Users : 528
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version

    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/63382

    Title: 1900-1937 中國畫壇對「折衷畫」(中西融合畫風)之評論;Chinese Critiques on “Compromised Painting” (Styles Blending East and West) from 1900 to 1937
    Authors: 周芳美
    Contributors: 國立中央大學藝術學研究所
    Keywords: 藝術
    Date: 2012-12-01
    Issue Date: 2014-03-17 14:28:46 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 行政院國家科學委員會
    Abstract: 研究期間:10108~10207;The term “compromised painting” (zhezhong hua, sometimes called “eclectic painting”) usually refers to the Lingnan school and its blending of Chinese and Western painting styles, but the scope of the term is actually not limited to the Lingnan school—it refers broadly to any painting that blends Chinese and Western styles. In the 1930s, the painting community recognized four different types of these artists, depending on their training: (1) artists who had studied Western painting, and then returned to do Chinese painting; (2) artists who studied Japanese methods and applied them in Chinese painting; (3) artists who were firmly rooted in Chinese painting, but who later incorporated Western methods in their work; (4) artists who used traditional Chinese paper, brush, and pigments to execute watercolors and who claimed to be doing Chinese painting. From this classification, one can tell that there were different levels of acceptance at the time for paintings that blended Chinese and Western styles. To what extent could Western methods be applied in a painting for it still to be considered a “Chinese painting”? Was an artist’s training background one of the standards for criticism? Such questions were frequently raised in the Chinese painting community before the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, and they affected how paintings were classified in various exhibitions, including the National Fine Arts Exhibitions. This also explains why early Republican-era artists like Tao Lengyue (1895-1985) and the Shanghai calendar artists, who were once considered reformers of Chinese painting, were later denied and not accepted into the circle of Chinese painting, and why the painting methods attempted by Xu Beihong (1895-1953) and others came to replace them. To this day, people are still discussing whether painting with watercolors and ink should be called “Chinese painting.” Since no scholar has thus far attempted to unravel the origins of this debate in the early Republic or its background, I hope to re-present the aesthetic standards in the art and education areas that had been applied on paintings blending Chinese and Western styles during the Republic era.
    Relation: 財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心
    Appears in Collections:[藝術學研究所 ] 研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat

    All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    ::: Copyright National Central University. | 國立中央大學圖書館版權所有 | 收藏本站 | 設為首頁 | 最佳瀏覽畫面: 1024*768 | 建站日期:8-24-2009 :::
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback  - 隱私權政策聲明