書畫之間：寫與字的離合關係
Between Calligraphy and Painting: On the Convergence and Divergence of Writing and Characters
文｜沈裕昌
By Shen Yu-Chang
古代東亞世界將「書法」納入「諸藝」之列，更有「書畫同源」之說，其重要性不言而喻。然而，日本在明治維新後「文明開化」的浪潮下，對傳統文化產生質疑，甚至出現「書法是否為美術」的論辯，並隱然將「書法的現代化」指向「書法的美術化」與「書法的繪畫化」。與此同時，日本也曾經將「書法」視為「繪畫現代化」的阻礙，並選擇了「書畫分離」。當「書法的現代化」繼踵「繪畫的現代化」，亦步亦趨地走向「美術化」與「繪畫化」時，「書」與「畫」或將再次「同源」，但此「源」將不再是東亞古代的「諸藝」，而是西歐現代的「美術」。那麼，我們又該如何思考「書法的現代化」與「書法的繪畫化」？問題的關鍵或在於：「書法」的「本質」究竟是「書寫」還是「文字」？在東亞諸國中，最早通過創作實踐，對上述問題進行深入思考的，是日本的前衛書道家們。
In the ancient East Asian world, calligraphy was ranked among the “various arts,” and the idea of the “common origin of calligraphy and painting” was widely held, its significance was beyond question. However, following the “civilization and enlightenment” movement after Japan’s Meiji Restoration, traditional culture came under scrutiny, even prompting debates over whether calligraphy could be considered fine art. These discussions implicitly pushed the modernization of calligraphy toward the “aestheticization” or even the “pictorialization of calligraphy.” At one point, it was believed that calligraphy hindered “the modernization of painting,” prompting Japan to separate the two disciplines. Yet when calligraphy itself began “the modernization of calligraphy,” following “the modernization of painting” and painting’s path toward aestheticization and pictorialization, calligraphy and painting were once again seen as having a shared origin, but this time, their point of origin was no longer the ancient East Asian constellation of the “arts,” but rather the Western concept of modern fine art. This raises pressing questions: How should we understand the modernization of calligraphy and its pictorialization? What is the essence of calligraphy? Is it rooted in the act of writing or the character? Among East Asian nations, it was Japan’s avant-garde calligraphers who first grappled deeply with these questions through artistic practice.
井上有一與「墨人會」的夥伴們，曾經深陷在「非文字作品」的創作狂熱之中，甚至認為「應該否定文字」，並試圖通過「美術」來打破「書法」的傳統桎梏，最後卻迷失了方向，並在強烈的自我批評中，結束「向繪畫搖擺的時期」，回到「文字性」的創作上。井上有一在「抽象繪畫」與「書寫文字」之間作出「徹底決斷」，須田剋太卻選擇「並行創作」。或許受到道元禪師哲學思想的影響，在須田剋太的創作實踐中，「抽象繪畫」與「具象繪畫」既非無法相容，「抽象繪畫」與「書寫文字」也非絕對矛盾。對他而言，與其作出「徹底決斷」，不如專注在提升「線條」的品質，使其無論出現在「畫作」或「書法」中，皆具備強烈的表現性與豐富的層次性。
Inoue Yuichi and his fellow members of the Bokujinkai were once swept up in a fervor of creating “non-character works,” even suggesting that the character should be negated altogether. They sought to use “art” to shatter the traditional shackles of calligraphy, but this path soon led to disorientation. In the end, they abandoned their “period of oscillation toward painting” in a wave of intense self-criticism, returning to a focus on the character. Inoue Yuichi made a “decisive break” between abstract painting and written character. Suda Kokuta, on the other hand, chose a path of “parallel creation.” Perhaps influenced by the philosophy of Zen Master Dogen, Suda saw no necessary contradiction between abstract and figurative painting, nor between abstract painting and written character. Rather than making a “decisive break,” he focused instead on elevating the expressive quality of the line, striving to imbue it with layered richness, whether in painting or in calligraphy, infusing it with expressive power and layered complexity.
然而，我們是否思考過其它的可能性？當我們在思考「書法」的「本質」究竟是「文字」還是「書寫」時，似乎已經先驗地認定「文字」必然只能通過「書寫」來傳遞，卻未曾考慮到，在媒介技術的不斷變革下，「文字」的傳遞方式，早已不只「書寫」一途。如果「書法的現代化」與「書法的藝術化」真的走向「書法的繪畫化」，在「書法抽象」的「捨棄文字，保留書寫」，與「墨人會」的「保留文字，保留書寫」之外，是否還存在著「保留文字，捨棄書寫」的可能性？易言之，我們是否能在保留「文字」的前提下，捨棄「書寫」並創作「繪畫」？臺灣的書畫創作者，李君毅與顏妤庭，即是上述發展策略的實踐者。
Yet have we considered other possibilities? When we contemplate the essence of calligraphy, whether it lies in the character or in the act of writing, we often presuppose that the character can only be transmitted through writing. What we fail to acknowledge is that, in an age of ever-evolving media technologies, the transmission of the written character is no longer limited to handwriting alone. If the modernization of calligraphy and its aestheticization ultimately lead to its pictorialization, then beyond the path of calligraphic abstraction, which abandons the character but preserves the act of writing, and the approach of the Bokujinkai group, which preserves both the character and writing, might there not also be a third possibility: preserve the character while discarding the act of writing? That is, could one retain the textual element while relinquishing handwriting altogether, in order to create painting? This alternative path has been realized by two Taiwanese artists working in calligraphy and painting: Lee Chun-Yi and Yen Yu-Ting.
李君毅受到劉國松「革中鋒的命」影響，從早年即選擇用軟木製作一兩公分見方的印章，通過軟木顆粒狀表面及壓印角度與力道差異，創造畫面質地與墨色調子的微妙變化，畫作多為規整的方格結構，遠觀雖有照相寫實般的明確物形，近看則每一方格中皆拓有如碑刻般的字跡。儘管捨棄了「筆」，軟木印章在紙上拓印出的質地，仍被論者視為「皴法」，但其「文字」與「圖像」之間，在內容方面卻經常是脫節的。畫面上的網格，也讓人想起數位點陣圖中的「像素」。顏妤庭近年的水墨創作使用線條粗細均等而無變化、彷如黑體字般的規整字體，以筆墨乾擦在紙張上，抄寫報紙上的新聞文字，且使字跡彼此重疊，最後形成某種如金石拓片般特殊的畫面質地。她將此一通過抄寫文字，使資訊在大量堆積的過程中自我消解的繪畫方式，視為某種對記憶和心理狀態進行描寫的「皴法」。其以書寫文字的方式創作繪畫，既遙指向古代「書畫同源」的思想，也呼應當代資訊社會通過「編碼」（書）對「圖像」（畫）進行生產、複製與調控的技術現象。
Lee Chun-Yi was influenced by Liu Kuo-Sung’s call to “overthrow the center-tip brush.” Early in his practice, he began using cork to make stamps approximately two centimeters square. By leveraging the granular texture of the cork and varying the pressure and angle of each impression, he produced subtle modulations in surface texture and ink tonality. His paintings often take the form of rigorously structured grids. From a distance, they appear to depict clearly defined forms in a photorealistic manner; up close, however, each square reveals the imprint of a character resembling a stele inscription. Though he has abandoned the use of the brush, the textures produced by these cork stamps have nevertheless been interpreted by some critics as a form of cun (texturing) method. Yet in terms of content, the relationship between the “text” and the “image” in his works is often discontinuous. The grids on his surfaces also recall the pixel structure of digital raster images. In her recent ink paintings, Yen Yu-Ting employs a uniform, unmodulated line reminiscent of a sans-serif typeface. Using a dry-brush technique, she transcribes newspaper texts onto paper, allowing the characters to overlap and accumulate into a surface with a distinctive texture akin to a stone rubbing. She regards this method of transcribing written information, where data, through its own accumulation, dissolves into abstraction, as a personal form of cun method for expressing memory and psychological states. Her use of written text to create painting gestures toward the ancient belief in the “common origin of calligraphy and painting,” while also resonating with the conditions of our contemporary information society, in which images (painting) are generated, reproduced, and manipulated through processes of coding (character/text).
東亞繪畫自古即有「詩畫如一」與「書畫同源」之說。但是，東亞諸國在現代化的過程中，卻曾一度主張「言文一致」與「書畫分離」。臺灣以紙本水墨為媒材的繪畫創作者，如何以本展覽為契機，與日本前衛書道展開對話，同時並肩思考「詩」、「書」、「畫」的離合等歷史問題，及數位時代的「文字」與「圖像」如何通過編碼被統一等時代問題？期待臺、日雙方，能通過本展覽，邀請觀眾與井上有一、須田剋太、李君毅、顏妤庭的作品，一起回顧我們共通的文化傳統，並從彼此的差異取徑，思考當前的文化處境，以及東亞文化與書法藝術的可能未來。
In East Asia, the idea of “poetry and painting as one” and “the common origin of calligraphy and painting” has long held sway. Yet with the onset of modernization, East Asian cultures once embraced concepts such as “unified spoken and written language” and the separation of “calligraphy and painting.” For Taiwanese artists working with ink on paper, this exhibition provides an opportunity to enter into dialogue with Japan’s avant-garde calligraphers, jointly examining the historical dynamics of “poetry,” “calligraphy,” and “painting,” as well as the challenges of unifying word and image through encoding in the digital age. We hope that, through this exhibition, artists and audiences from Taiwan and Japan can revisit our shared cultural heritage, engaging with the works of Inoue Yuichi, Suda Kokuta, Lee Chun-Yi, and Yen Yu-Ting, and from the differences between us, forge new understandings of our present condition and imagine new futures for East Asian culture and the art of calligraphy.
——
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)