What changes have taken place in the practical and aesthetic functions of China's calligraphy from the traditional society to today's society?

This is the most weighty article in the discussion of "artistic calligraphy". -The editor read Mr. Wang Sifeng's article "From Practical Calligraphy to Artistic Calligraphy" (hereinafter referred to as Wang Wen) in Art Newspaper, and he was deeply touched. Mr. Wang Sifeng put forward a very important research perspective on the history of calligraphy development in China: practical calligraphy-artistic calligraphy. I think Wang Wen has provided a good reference angle for the study of China's calligraphy history, which is worth learning from the calligraphy circle. In the long development of calligraphy, there is indeed an artistic and practical problem. For example, in the traditional context, the value and function of calligraphy pay more attention to practicality rather than artistry and appreciation. Only in the late Ming Dynasty, after a large number of hall-style masterpieces appeared, the practical value of calligraphy gradually turned to appreciation value and artistic aesthetic value. Especially the vigorous development of modern calligraphy display mechanism makes people pay more attention to the pure artistic aesthetic function of calligraphy. Therefore, I think it is of great academic significance to put forward the concepts of "practical calligraphy" and "artistic calligraphy".

However, the introduction of new concepts does not mean that these two concepts can really be reviewed. Starting from these two concepts, there are many things worth discussing and discussing. First of all, it is necessary to understand the relationship among the three concepts of "practical calligraphy", "artistic calligraphy" and "calligraphy". This ontological definition from the aesthetic point of view has long been recognized by the calligraphy circle. Since calligraphy itself is an art, what is "practical calligraphy"? We all know that practicality and artistry are a pair of contradictions and paradoxes. So there is no logical contradiction between "practical calligraphy" and art? Since it is already a kind of "practical calligraphy", why is it still an art? Contradiction is not impossible, but what we are talking about here is philosophical contradiction rather than logical contradiction. Philosophical contradictions are everywhere, especially the art of calligraphy, but logical contradictions are artificial and absolutely wrong, which is itself a grammatical error. Therefore, "practical calligraphy" is not desirable. So, what is "artistic calligraphy"? Since calligraphy itself is an art, isn't it repetitive and redundant to say "artistic calligraphy"? Obviously, according to the concept given by Mr. Wang Sifeng, most of the classical calligraphy texts in ancient China are "practical calligraphy", while a large number of modern calligraphy dross are "artistic calligraphy". Obviously, this logic is extremely absurd.

There are problems in Wang Wenzhong's two concepts, but this cannot deny the significance and value of Wang Wenzhong. In fact, Wang Wen's central idea is mainly discussed from the perspective of the value and function of calligraphy rather than the ontology of calligraphy, that is, the value and function of calligraphy from ancient times to the present mainly experienced the transformation and transition from practicality to artistic appreciation. This kind of thinking is generally correct. However, Wang Wen is prone to misunderstanding that ancient calligraphy (mainly before Ming and Qing Dynasties) only pays attention to its practical value, while modern calligraphy only pays attention to its artistic appreciation value. Actually, it's not like this at all. China's calligraphy has been a kind of literati art with great artistic aesthetics since ancient times. Even those simple, simple, plain, clumsy and ugly folk calligraphy and inscription calligraphy have artistic aesthetic characteristics. What we call the practicality of ancient calligraphy is mainly in terms of its function and value attributes. Ancient calligraphy is more used as a writing tool for calligraphers to realize their official career, and the forms of ancient calligraphy are mostly personal and practical things such as manuscripts, notes, letters, handwritten books, official letters, etc., focusing on their communicative and social practical attributes. However, this does not deny its own artistic aesthetic value. On the contrary, calligraphy in the modern context is completely different. In the traditional context, the social function and political mission of calligraphy have been greatly degraded and dissolved, and transformed into artistic aesthetic value and social public value, which is the prosperity of modern exhibitions. Therefore, in modern society, the practical attributes of calligraphy have been gradually replaced by artistic attributes and commodity attributes.

Now that I have mentioned this issue, I want to extend the following issue, that is, the "practicality" of contemporary calligraphy. If we must discuss the concept of "practical calligraphy", then I think the calligraphy of some calligraphers and even some first-class calligraphers can be classified as "practical calligraphy". As mentioned above, "practical calligraphy" itself is a contradiction and paradox. Its contradiction and paradox lies in that under the banner of "art" and the slogan of "creating literary works that the people like to see and hear", a large number of "practical calligraphy" which are stereotyped and lack artistic aesthetic value but are loved and heard by the people have been produced. However, we can't help asking, since it has become "practical" writing, what is the artistry? Since there is no artistry, how can it be called "calligraphy"? In fact, a considerable number of calligraphy theory workers have neglected such a problem: that is, they mistakenly regard "creating literary and artistic works that people like" as the core of calligraphy creation, thinking that the more people they like, the higher the value of calligraphy. This view of literature and art is only influenced by the "class theory" in the 1950s and 1960s, which has great historical limitations. Moreover, this view of literature and art is not necessarily suitable for calligraphy. What the broad masses of people like and recognize may not have artistic aesthetic value in a short time; What has not been recognized by the broad masses of the people in a short time may not have no artistic aesthetic value. For example, although the current "popular book style" has not been recognized by most people, it does not necessarily have high artistic aesthetic value. I think many people who engage in theory can accept this truth, but those who engage in creation may not.