王蒙、倪瓒山水画艺术风格比较研究
详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文
摘要
元代山水画作为中国绘画史上的一座高峰,出现了一大批隐逸的文人画家,而王蒙、倪瓒正是这批优秀的隐逸画家的代表。他们同属文人画家,同样重视对描绘对象的体悟观察,重视个人情感的抒发并追求艺术个性的表现,他们的山水画艺术代表着元代的时代风貌,体现着中国传统绘画的艺术精神。但王蒙、倪瓒有着迥乎不同的艺术风格,王蒙诗文、书法皆能,他的山水画布局繁密,精于对繁山复水的描写,其笔墨技法多变,皴擦点线完美结合,用笔用墨似枯实润,恰当地表现了南方植被覆盖的浓郁葱翠的山体,繁密苍郁,苍茫深秀,不仅极大地丰富和发展了山水画的表现技巧,更形成了独有的审美创造;而作为典型高士代表的倪瓒开创了疏简高逸、冷寂幽淡之风,其山水画独具一格,描写景物极简,一江两岸,简逸空灵、静穆荒寒。王画繁密、倪画疏简,面貌各异,作为繁简二体代表的大家,他们为后世山水画的发展提供了典范,影响了一大批画家,在中国山水画史上都占有不可或缺的地位。
     王蒙、倪瓒山水画艺术风格的差异性主要体现在以下几个方面,第一,体现在物象选择上,王蒙多描绘结构复杂的山石和茂密旺盛的树木且其间多穿插人物活动,而倪瓒画面中则无人物活动,山石结构单一,树木修长挺拔且多在近景处出现;第二,体现在构图章法上,王蒙布局繁茂,层次丰富,山势脉络复杂,结构扭转多变,极具动势,画中题跋相对较短,画面繁满但不窒闷,而倪瓒则作简而不能再简的一江两岸的“三段式”构图,且以较长的题跋来丰富其构图,另外,倪瓒在构图上较之王蒙更多地运用了空白,这是二人在构图上最显著的不同;第三,则体现在笔墨语言上,王蒙的笔墨繁复多变,皴点互用,焦墨提醒,枯中见润,浑厚苍茫,皴法上多用解索皴、牛毛皴、卷云皴等等,并且将它们与多种墨点相结合,而倪瓒则以线为主,皴法上多为折带皴、披麻皴等,以长短不一、似苍实润的线条来表现山石的质感与树木的生机。第四,王蒙和倪瓒在意境表达上都代表了元代隐逸的时代特征,所不同的是,王蒙的山水画深邃苍茫、繁密朴茂,蕴含勃勃生机,反映出了他对隐逸生活的向往及对人世间的眷念与渴求,充满了情意美和诗意美,而倪瓒的作品中则荒寒萧疏、静穆淡远,较多地让人体会到淡泊超脱、宁静平和的禅意美。王蒙、倪瓒山水画艺术风格的共性主要为:首先,他们同为“元四家”,是文人画家,注重以书入画、以画传情;其次,他们都是师法董巨而又独辟新貌的大家;最后,他们的山水画以隐逸为题,画品高逸清逸。
     王蒙、倪瓒的山水画艺术风格之所以呈现不同的面貌,其形成原因是多方面因素共同作用的结果,元代特殊的时代环境是王蒙、倪瓒画风形成的前提条件,其动荡的社会、统治者的态度及管理制度使得王蒙、倪瓒寄情自然与山水,不同的家庭环境又造就了王蒙、倪瓒不同的性格特征,一个热心仕途、无奈隐居,另一个却无意官场、全心隐居,他们均认真耐心地临习传统并将之与各自隐居所处的自然物象加以巧妙融合,从而在长期的创作实践后最终形成了自己独特的艺术风格。
The landscape painting of Yuan Dynasty is the peak in the whole of Chinese paintings,and it appears alarge number of scholar-painters which representative figures are Wang Meng and Ni Zan. Asscholar-painters, both of them think highly of describing objects, individual emotions and personal artisticstyles. Their landscape paintings embody the spirit of Yuan Dynasty and Chinese traditional artisticessence.Wang Meng and Ni Zan’s artistic styles are different, Wang Meng is good at poet and handwriting,his landscape painting achieves a complexing in the extreme, his skills of brush and ink are changeable andperfect, it looks withered but moist which can express the south mountains covering with numerous trees.His landscape is boundless and beautiful, which not only adding the traditional painting skills but alsoforming a unique formal beauty of Chinese Landscape Painting. As a typical model of scholar, Ni Zan opena new style of simple and desolate, his paintings are unique which summarized as one river and two banks.As the masters of complicated and simply styles, they produce an effects on large quantities of painters andtake an irreplaceable status.
     The differences between Wang Meng and Ni Zan’s painting styles incamate on several sides: Firstly isobject choice, Wang Meng usually selects complicated mountains and vigorous trees and alternating figureactivities. In Ni Zan’s painting, figures are never be seen, he only portrays simple mountains and tall andstraight trees. Secondly is composition of a picture, Wang Meng adopts panorama composition of a picturewith gao yuan, ping yuan and shen yuan which is plentiful, the structure of mountains intricacy andtwisting, the handwriting in the picture is relative short. Ni Zan selects one river and two bankscomposition of a picture and long handwriting enriches it. Thirdly is brush and ink language, the brush andink language of Wang Meng is rich and changeable, cun and dot often be used, Jiesuo Cun, Niumao Cunand Juanyun Cun are mainly Cunfa. Ni Zan usually uses lines such as Zhedai Cun and Pima Cun, the lineexpress the mountains and trees properly. At last, the artistic conceptions of Wang Meng and Ni Zan’spainting are dissimilar, Wang Meng’s painting painting full of his enthusiasm of life but Ni Zan’s fill withhis peaceful and ignoring of fame and wealth.
     The common between Wang Meng and Ni Zan’s painting styles incamate on three sides:One, both of them are “Yuan Si Jia”, they are scholar-painters who think highly of painting with handwriting ways andexpressing oneself with paintings; Two, both of them are great artists who learned from Dongju; Three,both of them painted the life living in seclusion.
     The reasons of the difference between Wang Meng and Ni Zan’s painting are not in one, the timesenvironment, personal characters, their studying of traditional arts and the geography environment theylived are playing a part in the forming of their painting style.
引文
①杜哲森.中国绘画断代史.元代绘画.人民美术出版社,2004:1-5.
    ①陈传席.中国山水画史.天津人民美术出版社,2001:238.
    ②皮道坚.当代美术与文化选择.江苏美术出版社,1998:256.
    ③李福顺.中国美学术史﹒辽宁美术出版社,2000:296﹒
    ①王璜生,胡光华.中国画艺术专史.山水卷.江西美术出版社,2008:340.
    ①王璜生,胡光华.中国画艺术专史.山水卷.江西美术出版社,2008:339.
    ②王璜生,胡光华.中国画艺术专史.山水卷.江西美术出版社,2008:331.
    ①王璜生,胡光华.中国画艺术专史.山水卷.江西美术出版社,2008:339.
    ①潘天寿.中国绘画史.团结出版社,2005:117.
    ②姜今.画境.湖南美术出版社,1982:16.
    ①赵运虎.中国山水绘画体系研究.中国文联出版社,2008:283.
    ②傅抱石.中国绘画理论.江苏教育出版社,2005:84.
    ③李可染﹒李可染谈国画﹒书画艺术,10月号:32﹒
    ④宗白华﹒艺境﹒北京大学出版社,1997:172﹒
    ①李福顺﹒中国美学术史﹒辽宁美术出版社,2000:300-301﹒
    ①何志明,潘运告.唐五代画论.湖南美术出版社,2004:158.
    ②南羽.黄宾虹谈艺录.湖南美术出版社,1998:86-87.
    ①傅抱石﹒中国绘画理论﹒江苏教育出版社,2005:207﹒
    ①宗白华﹒艺境﹒北京大学出版社,1997:118-119﹒
    ②转引自金哲弘﹒倪瓒山水画研究﹒中国美术学院博士研究生学位论文,2008,6﹒
    ①潘运告﹒明代画论﹒湖南美术出版社,2002:201﹒
    ②傅抱石﹒中国绘画理论﹒江苏教育出版社,2005:113﹒
    ③傅抱石﹒中国绘画理论﹒江苏教育出版社,2005:109﹒
    ①宗白华﹒艺境﹒北京大学出版社,1997:160﹒
    ①王宏建﹒艺术概论﹒文化艺术出版社,2000:105﹒
    ①李泽厚﹒美的历程﹒天津社会科学出版社,2001:281﹒
    ②宗白华﹒意境﹒北京大学出版社,1997:162﹒
    ③陈传席﹒山水画史话﹒江苏美术出版社,2001:109﹒
    ④李福顺﹒中国美术史﹒辽宁美术出版社,2000:296﹒
    ①王璜生,胡光华.中国画艺术专史.山水卷.江西美术出版社,2008:337.
    ①转引自金哲弘﹒倪瓒山水画研究﹒中国美术学院博士研究生学位论文,2008,6﹒
    ①傅抱石.中国绘画理论.江苏教育出版社,2005:109.
    ①余剑华.中国古代画论类编.人民美术出版社,2000:700.
    ②尚辉.中国画派研究丛书.松江画派.吉林美术出版社,2002:173-186.
    ①同上
    ①余剑华.中国古代画论类编.人民美术出版社,2000:965.
    ①王璜生,胡光华.中国画艺术专史.山水卷.江西美术出版社,2008:337.
    ②李福顺﹒中国美学术史﹒辽宁美术出版社,2000:293﹒
    ①李福顺﹒中国美学术史﹒辽宁美术出版社,2000:293﹒
    ②徐复观﹒中国艺术精神﹒华东师范大学出版社,2001:195﹒
    ①赵运虎.中国山水绘画体系研究.中国文联出版社,2008:314-315.
    ②潘运告﹒明代画论﹒湖南美术出版社,2002:251-252﹒
    ①边平恕﹒李可染画语录图释﹒西泠印社出版社,2000:38﹒
    ②薛永年﹒从李可染论黄秋园看他晚年的艺术思想﹒当代中国画,2007,114﹒
    [1]宗白华.意境[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997:118-172.
    [2]陈传席.山水画史话[M].南京:江苏美术出版社,2001:109.
    [3]宗白华.中国美学史论集[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2006:126.
    [4]贺西林﹒赵立﹒中国美学史简编[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
    [5]傅抱石.中国绘画理论[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2005:84-109.
    [6]尚辉.中国画派研究丛书.松江画派[M].吉林:吉林美术出版社,2002:173-186.
    [7]南羽.黄宾虹谈艺录[M].郑州:河南美术出版社,2002:10-93.
    [8]杜哲森.中国绘画断代史.元代绘画[M].北京:人民美术出版社,2004:1-5.
    [9]陈传席.中国山水画史[M].天津:天津人民美术出版社,2001:238.
    [10]皮道坚.当代美术与文化选择[M].南京:江苏美术出版社,1998:256.
    [11]李福顺.中国美术史下卷[M].辽宁美术出版社,2000:293-298.
    [12]潘天寿.中国绘画史[M].北京:团结出版社,2005:117.
    [13]何志明,潘运告.唐五代画论[M].长沙:湖南美术出版社,2004:158.
    [14]宗白华﹒艺境[M]﹒北京:北京大学出版社,1997:118-165﹒
    [15]王宏建﹒艺术概论[M]﹒北京:文化艺术出版社,2000:105﹒
    [16]边平恕﹒李可染画语录图释[M]﹒西泠印社出版社,2000,38﹒
    [17]赵运虎.中国山水绘画体系研究[M].中国文联出版社,2008:139-303.
    [18]方闻.心印中国书画风格与结构分析研究[M].江西人民出版社,2004:145-195.
    [19]李新生.美术鉴赏理论基础[M].郑州:河南美术出版社,2009:177-179.
    [20]姜松荣.中国美术史[M].湖北美术出版社,2004:173-187.
    [21]张少侠,李小山.中国现代绘画史[M].江苏美术出版社,1986:29-32.
    [22]徐复观.中国艺术精神[M].华东师范大学出版社,1987:1-42.
    [23]王璜生,胡光华.中国画艺术专史.山水卷[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,2008:274-347.
    [24]李泽厚.美的历程[M].天津:天津社会科学出版社,1989:281.
    [25]薛永年﹒从李可染论黄秋园看他晚年的艺术思想[J]﹒当代中国画,2007,114﹒
    [26]元四家.元四家画集[M].北京:人民美术出版社,2005.
    [27]沈周.沈周画集[M].北京:人民美术出版社,2005.
    [28]紫曦.镜真楼画谈--贾又福谈画录[M].北京:新华出版社,1991:31-54.
    [29]胡东放.中国画黑白体系论[M].北京:人民美术出版社,1991:247-276.
    [30]潘运告﹒明代画论[M]﹒长沙:湖南美术出版社,2002:201-252﹒
    [31]刘墨﹒中国美学与中国画论[M]﹒北京:人民美术出版社,2003:105-244﹒
    [32]李君毅.刘国松谈艺录[M].郑州:河南美术出版社,2002:117-127.
    [33]中央美术学院美术史系中国美术史教研室编.中国美术简史[M].北京:北京高等教育出版社,1990:20-68.
    [34]段七丁.中国山水画技法[M].重庆:西南师范大学出版社,2003:17-22.
    [35]黄廷海.南方山水画派[M].长春:吉林艺术出版社,2002:10-80.
    [36]陈浩.中国绘画文化观[M].北京:中华书局,2001:73-95.
    [37]潘茂.常州画派[M].长春:吉林艺术出版社,2002:70-179.
    [38]熊志庭,刘城淮,金五德﹒宋人画论[M]﹒长沙:湖南美术出版社,2003:25-87﹒
    [39]金哲弘﹒倪瓒山水画研究[D]﹒长沙:中国美术学院,2008.
    [40]张瑞﹒论王蒙、倪瓒山水画的意境美[D]﹒保定:河北师范大学,2008.
    [41]杨永俭﹒论元代山水画的美学特征[D]﹒南京:南京师范大学,2006.
    [42]翟坤﹒王蒙山水画艺术研究[D]﹒石家庄:河北大学,2010.
    [43]刘中玉﹒元代士风丕变下的画学思想[D]﹒北京:中央美术学院,2010.
    [44]冯晓贞﹒王蒙山水画艺术风格嬗变之研究[D]﹒广州:华南师范大学,2003.
    [45]薛永年.百年山水画之变[J].艺术研究,2007,1.

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址:北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编:100083

电话:办公室:(+86 10)66554848;文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新:66554700