專文｜書畫之間：寫與字的離合關係｜文：沈裕昌
Between Calligraphy and Painting: On the Convergence and Divergence of Writing and Characters
By Shen Yu-Chang
東亞古典文化源於中國，東亞的現代化則始於日本。中國古代貴族將「書法」視為「六藝」（禮樂射御書數）之一，中世以降的文人亦將「書法」納入「四藝」（琴棋書畫）之列。因此，在古代的東亞世界，「書法」的重要性不言而喻。然而，明治維新以後，日本在「文明開化」的浪潮下，對東亞傳統文化產生質疑，甚至出現「書法是否為美術」的論辯。書法的改革，在當時似乎已經勢在必行。「書法是否為美術」的論辯，則隱然將「書法的現代化」指向「書法的美術化」，後者更曾一度被想像為「書法的繪畫化」。
Classical East Asian culture finds its roots in China, while East Asia’s path to modernity began in Japan. In ancient China, calligraphy was esteemed by the aristocracy as one of the “Six Arts” (rites, music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy, and mathematics), and later, from the medieval period onward, it was counted among the “Four Arts” (qin, Chinese chess, calligraphy, painting) of the literati. Thus, the cultural significance of calligraphy in ancient East Asia was beyond question. However, following the Meiji Restoration and Japan’s sweeping embrace of “civilization and enlightenment,” traditional East Asian culture came under scrutiny, even prompting debates about whether calligraphy should be considered fine art. Reform in calligraphy seemed inevitable, and the question of its status as art subtly steered the discourse toward its modernization, namely, the “aestheticization” or even the “pictorialization of calligraphy.”
東亞古代存在著所謂「書畫同源」的思想。日本在思考（東亞傳統）「繪畫的現代化」時，選擇了「書畫分離」，因為「書法」曾經一度被視為「繪畫現代化」的阻礙。然而，當「書法的現代化」繼踵「繪畫的現代化」，亦步亦趨地跟著走向「美術化」與「繪畫化」時，「書」與「畫」或將再次「同源」，只是其「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」？
In antiquity, East Asia upheld the concept of the “common origin of calligraphy and painting.” Yet as Japan pursued “the modernization of painting” in the context of East Asian tradition, it chose to sever this link, believing that calligraphy hindered “the modernization of painting.” Ironically, 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 shift raises fundamental questions: How, then, should we understand “the modernization of calligraphy” and the “pictorialization of calligraphy?”
問題的關鍵或在於：「書法」的「本質」究竟為何？是「文字」還是「書寫」？「書法」的本質若為「文字」，在「書寫工具」變革之後，「書寫」還是「書法」中不可或缺的必要存在嗎？「書法」的本質若為「書寫」，在「抽象繪畫」出現之後，「文字」還是「書法」中不可或缺的必要存在嗎？在東亞諸國之中，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。
Perhaps a deeper inquiry lies at the heart of the issue: What is the essence of calligraphy? Is it rooted in the act of writing or the character? If the essence of calligraphy lies in the character, then with the evolution of writing tools and media, does the act of writing remain indispensable? Conversely, if calligraphy’s essence lies in writing itself, then after the advent of abstract painting, is “character” still necessary? Among East Asian nations, it was Japan’s avant-garde calligraphers who first grappled deeply with these questions through artistic practice.
.jpg)
.jpg)
井上有一與「墨人會」的夥伴們，曾經在1955到1956年間，深陷在「非文字作品」的創作狂熱之中，甚至指出「應該否定文字」，並試圖通過「美術」來打破「書法」的傳統桎梏，以期開啟更廣闊的創作視野，沒想到最後卻迷失了方向，並在強烈的自我批評中，結束了「向繪畫搖擺的時期」。多年以後，井上有一回顧當時情況，指出：「當我把借租的房子塗得到處瓷漆一年過後，發現心性的自由本來就沒有，本來沒有即無處不在，根本不必為此丟掉歐美沒有的優秀漢字。丟掉文字，我才明白了書寫的精彩。我向自己宣布：『堂堂正正疾書文字』，寫下『愚徹』宣告了瓷漆的結束。」
In 1955 and 1956, Inoue Yuichi and his fellow members of the Bokujinkai were swept up in a fervor of producing “non-character works.” They even declared that the character should be negated altogether and sought to use “art” to shatter the traditional shackles of calligraphy, hoping to open up broader creative horizons. However, this path soon led to disorientation. Ultimately, the group emerged from what they called their “period of oscillation toward painting” with sharp self-criticism. Years later, Inoue Yuichi reflected on that time: “After spending a year covering every inch of my rented house with enamel paint, I realized that spiritual freedom never truly existed. That which does not exist is, paradoxically, everywhere. There was never a need to abandon the excellence of Chinese characters, which the West lacks. In casting away the character, I came to understand the brilliance of writing. I declared to myself: ‘Write characters boldly and honestly!’ With the word ‘Foolish Clarity,’ I announced the end of my work with enamel.”
.jpg)
.jpg)
井上有一在「抽象繪畫」與「書寫文字」之間作出了「徹底決斷」。相較之下，須田剋太卻選擇了「並行創作」。1949年，長谷川三郎曾經建議須田剋太接觸日本曹洞宗始祖道元禪師的思想。此後，須田剋太在其餘生中多次反覆研讀了道元禪師的著作《正法眼藏》，更以此作為其創作的理論基礎。或許是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。與其在看似對立的兩者之間作出「徹底決斷」，他更願意專注在提升「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。
In this moment, Inoue made a “decisive break” between abstract painting and written character. In contrast, Suda Kokuta chose to pursue a path of “parallel creation.” In 1949, art theorist Hasegawa Saburo had encouraged Suda to study the thought of Dogen, founder of the Soto Zen school in Japan. Suda would go on to read Dogen’s Treasury of the True Dharma Eye throughout his life, using it as a cornerstone for his artistic practice. Perhaps due to Dogen’s influence, Suda never saw a conflict between abstract painting and figurative painting, or between abstract painting and written character. Rather than making a “decisive break” between seemingly opposing modes, he focused instead on elevating the expressive quality of the line, striving to imbue it with layered richness, whether in painting or in calligraphy.
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？也就是說，我們是否能夠在保留「文字」的前提下，捨棄「書寫」來創作「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.
李君毅以「繪畫」作為主要創作媒材。他過去的繪畫創作以純水墨為主，近年則轉向複合媒材。他曾受教於劉國松，受到劉氏「革中鋒的命」的影響，從早年即選擇用軟木製作一兩公分見方的印章，通過軟木顆粒狀的表面，以及每次壓印的角度與力道的差異，來產生畫面質地與墨色調子的微妙變化。他的畫作經常呈現為規整的方格結構，遠觀如以照相寫實概念描繪的畫作，近看則每一方格中皆拓有如碑刻般的字跡。儘管捨棄了「筆」，這些軟木印章在紙張上拓印出的質地，仍被某些論者視為「皴法」。
Lee Chun-Yi works primarily in painting. His early works focused on pure ink painting, while more recently he has turned to mixed media. A student of Liu Kuo-Sung, Lee was influenced by Liu’s call to “overthrow the center-tip brush.” Early in his career, Lee chose to create small stamps, roughly two centimeters square, carved from cork. These stamps, with their porous surfaces and the subtle variations produced through differing pressure and angles, became a tool for generating nuanced textures and ink tones. His paintings often take the form of meticulous grids. Viewed from afar, they resemble photorealistic images; upon closer inspection, each cell contains what appears to be a character carved like a stele inscription. Though the brush has been abandoned, some scholars still interpret his stamped surfaces as a kind of modern cun (texturing) method.
顏妤庭以「繪畫」和「陶塑」作為主要創作媒材。她過去的繪畫創作，以工筆膠彩為主，近年則轉向純水墨。她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」。
Yen Yu-Ting works primarily in painting and ceramic sculpture. Her earlier paintings were executed in meticulous gouache on silk, but in recent years she has turned toward pure ink. She employs a uniform, unmodulated line reminiscent of a sans-serif typeface, using a dry-brush technique to transcribe newsprint texts onto paper. The characters overlap one another, gradually building into a surface with a distinctive texture akin to a stone rubbing. She regards this method of copying text, through which accumulated information ultimately dissolves itself, as a personal form of cun method, used to depict states of memory and the psyche.
李君毅與顏妤庭的創作，雖然皆是繪畫，但是兩者皆試圖以「文字」構成畫作，亦皆創造出某種彷如「碑拓」般的質地。李君毅以「拓碑」的方式取代「書寫」來製作「文字」，同時以「鈐印」的方式取代「筆」來進行「描繪」，也遙指向古代「詩中有畫，畫中有詩」的思想。但其「文字」與「圖像」之間，在內容方面卻經常是脫節的。李君毅畫面上的網格，也讓人想起數位點陣圖中的「像素」。
Though both Lee Chun-Yi and Yen Yu-Ting work in the medium of painting, each seeks to construct pictorial compositions using “characters” as the primary element, and both generate a surface texture reminiscent of stone rubbings. Lee Chun-Yi replaces handwriting with a “rubbing” technique to produce his characters and substitutes the brush with stamping to carry out his image-making, an approach that also gestures toward the ancient notion of “painting within poetry, poetry within painting.” However, in terms of content, the relationship between “text” and “image” in his work is often fragmented or discontinuous. The grid structure of his compositions also evokes the pixelated structure of digital raster graphics.
顏妤庭雖然通過抄寫文字創作繪畫，但其用筆方式卻無意突顯任何書法性。且其先以透明樹脂書寫在紙張上，再以筆墨乾擦書寫其上，呈現出字跡交疊的效果，此一書寫過程本身，亦讓人聯想到「拓碑」。而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。
Although Yen Yu-Ting creates paintings through the act of transcribing text, her brushwork deliberately avoids any expression of calligraphic style. She first writes with transparent resin on paper, then dry-brushes ink over it, producing a layered, overlapping effect that recalls the aesthetic of stone rubbings. Her use of written text as a mode of painting not only gestures toward the ancient notion of the “common origin of calligraphy and painting,” but also resonates with the condition of our contemporary information society, in which images (painting) are generated, reproduced, and manipulated through processes of coding (character/text).
綜合上述，李君毅與顏妤庭的創作，似乎更多地從「文字」與「拓印」的角度，思考當代資訊社會中的「圖像」（畫）如何通過「數位編碼」（書）被形構的問題。因此，我們是否可將兩位藝術家的創作旨趣，理解為：如何越過傳統的「書寫」，達致「詩畫如一」與「書畫如一」？儘管他們的創作形式既非狹義的「書法」，也非廣義的「書寫」，但是他們的繪畫創作所思考與回應的主題，卻皆為數位技術的視覺思維，如何重新縫合「書」（編碼）與「畫」（圖像）的時代問題。
In sum, the works of Lee Chun-Yi and Yen Yu-Ting appear to approach the question of contemporary imagery from the perspective of “character” and “rubbing.” Their practices explore how visual images (painting) are shaped by digital coding (writing) in today’s information society. As such, might we understand their creative intentions as an effort to move beyond traditional modes of “writing,” in pursuit of “unity between poetry and painting,” or between “calligraphy and painting?” While their works fall outside the narrow definition of “calligraphy” and even the broader scope of “writing,” the conceptual concerns they engage with, namely, how digital technology reconfigures visual thought, directly address how “calligraphy” (as text and code) and “painting” (as image) might be sutured together once more in the digital age.
東亞繪畫自古即有「詩畫如一」與「書畫同源」之說。但是，東亞古典文化在現代化的過程中，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，能夠通過本展覽，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，以思考當前的文化處境，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 character 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.
///
Related Exhibition：