Week Three: April 12 Calligraphy, Amateur Art, and Individual Expression

Chinese theory of calligraphy as an art. Issues of individualism and personal style. The case of the Six Dynasties and Tang periods. Comparison with other cultures.

Assignments:

Read: John Hay, "The Human Body as a Microcosmic Source of Macrocosmic

Values in Calligraphy," in Susan Bush and Christian Murck, eds., Theories of the Arts in China, pp. 74-102.

Liu Xie, The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons, pp. 154-74 (chapters on spiritual thought, style and nature, wind and bone, flexible adaptability, choice of style).

Robert Harrist, "Reading Chinese Calligraphy," in The Embodied Image, pp. 2-27.

Wen C. Fong, "Chinese Calligraphy: Theory and History," in The Embodied Image, 28-84.

Recommended further reading:

Shen C. Y. Fu, Traces of the Brush: Studies in Chinese Calligraphy.

Shen C. Y. Fu, "Huang T'ing-chien's Cursive Script and its Influence,"in

Alfreda Murck and Wen Fong, eds., Words and Images: Chinese

Poetry, Painting and Calligraphy,, pp. 107-22.

Robert E. Harrist, "A Letter from Wang Hsi-chih and the Culture of Chinese Calligraphy," in The Embodied Image, pp. 240-59.

Jay Xu, "Opposite Paths to Originality: Huang T'ing-chien and Mi Fu," in

The Embodied Image, pp. 260-79.

Questions for reading and class discussion

John Hay, "The Human Body as a Microcosmic Source of Macrocosmic Values in Calligraphy"

1. The "Battle Formation of the Brush" (Bi chen tu), attributed to Lady Wei (follower of Zhong Yu and followed by Wang Xizhi), states, "Calligraphy by those good in brush strength has much bone; that by those not good in brush strength has much flesh. Calligraphy that has much bone but slight flesh is called sinew-writing.... Calligraphy with much strength and rich in sinew is of sage-like quality; that with neither strength nor sinew is sick." (Hay, 85) Looking at real calligraphy, where and how do we see the features of "bone," "flesh," and "sinew"? Or is all this meant metaphorically? I.e., is this pure theory, or is it visually applicable?

2. Hay suggests that there is a relationship between calligraphic quality and physical wellbeing ("health," "sickness," "physical immortality"). (85) What is this all about? Does he mean this literally, in relation to calligraphic practice?

3. Hay writes that "Within calligraphy texts, physiological metaphors are applied more to the cursive styles than to the seemingly more somatic structures of regular script." (75-8) Is there any reason to be surprised by this, or reason to justify it? What is "seemingly more somatic" about the structures of regular script? If Hay tells us to look at cursive script physiologically and Ledderose (257-8, 269) has emphasized cursive script's greater spirituality, do we need to reconcile these two viewpoints, and how?

4. Hay notes that the dating of the "Battle Formation of the Brush" attributed to Lady Wei is uncertain but he has "ignored this complication." (99, n. 4) To what degree has Hay ignored virtually all chronological development in China's calligraphic history and what problems might this present?

5. Hay claims that in "figure painting, paradoxically but not surprisingly, it was clothes rather than flesh which proved the most suitable medium for representing patterns of energy." (89) What is his basis for saying this, and why is this 'paradoxical but not surprising'?

Liu Xie, The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons

1. How applicable, or consonant, (or neither) are Liu Xie's thoughts on literary production with calligraphic practice and theory, and why? Speaking historically and specifying particular time periods: of the overlapping development of literary, medical, and calligraphic theories, which of the three do you think played a leading role and which tended to be derivative?

2. How consistent are Liu Xie's descriptions of "wind" and "bone" with Hay's treatment of these and related terms/concepts?

Robert Harrist, "Reading Chinese Calligraphy"

1. If Harrist is correct, and it is impossible for anyone fully literate in Chinese to look at a piece of calligraphy without the meanings of the words coloring his perception of the work, where does that leave viewers who are illiterate in Chinese or not fully literate (capable of recognizing particular characters, but not necessarily understanding the mood it creates as a literary work)?

2. Harrist discusses several different types of copying and distinguishes all forms of copying existing texts from pieces in which the calligrapher is also the author. How do these differences shape the experience of reading/viewing a piece of calligraphy? How do they impinge on the choices available to calligraphers?

Wen C. Fong, "Chinese Calligraphy: Theory and History"

1. Fong cites many traditional calligraphic critics in this chapter. What different sorts of statements did traditional critics make about particular pieces of calligraphy? What sorts of statements did they make about particular calligraphers? In what ways do the sorts of statements Fong makes about calligraphic works and calligraphers differ from these traditional ones?

2. How does Fong interpret the recurrent efforts to revive, revitalize, or draw from earlier calligraphic styles? Can you think of other possible interpretations?

3. Look at the five versions of the character guan on page 46 (fig. 24), with particular attention to how the left and right half relate to each other. What differences do you see? Then re-read the paragraph in the middle of the page. What do you think Fong means by saying that the final example (Yan Zhenqing's) integrates the two halves into a single design?