八大山人和黄宾虹山水画艺术特征比较研究
|
摘要
将八大山人和黄宾虹的山水画艺术特征进行比较研究,主要是针对当下中国画的发展现状所提出的。考量一个能够代表某个时代的艺术家,不仅仅是他执着于个人精神的追求,更重要的是他能担当起历史的主人。这样的艺术家及其艺术才能为社会服务,被社会所接纳认可。但真正能够成为历史主人的艺术家都是在伟大的时代和肥沃的传统文化土壤的滋养下成长起来的,而绝非偶然。本文以八大山人和黄宾虹的生平和艺术特征为研究对象,展示出中国画的真正活力、生命力、魅力之所在。本文共分成七个部分,各部分主要内容为：
第一部分：导论。阐述了本研究题目的选题起源、研究意义、研究思路、文献综述。
第二部分：八大山人和黄宾虹生平及山水画艺术分期。总结出俩家在不同时期所呈现出的不同风格。
第三部分：八大山人和黄宾虹的师承溯源。这部分通过对其二人的师承溯源的探究与罗列,显而易见,虽然二人并未发生直接的师承关系,但发生了间接的师承关系。二人曾经在自己的研习传统时期,注目于倪瓒、董源以及黄公望等诸名山水画家,并从他们那里获得自己艺术园地所需的艺术手法。并且,二人在学习前辈画家的过程中,在学习技法上边有共同之处,即,取其大意、得起大略而已。黄宾虹早期师从渐江,渐江师承倪瓒,而八大山人的画风吸收了倪瓒的萧疏简远,成为其画风特征之一。
第四部分：艺术流派。这部分总结出八大山人与“江西派”、黄宾虹与“新安画派”之间的关系。对俩家所处的艺术流派做出新的解释,从客观上评价了他们在各自流派中的地位及二人所作出的贡献。
第五部分：八大山人和黄宾虹的艺术思想。这部分研究出俩家对传统山水画及画家的认识、对山水画继承与发展的认识。其后者还包括了在功用意识上的比较、在创作立意上的比较、在传情达意上的比较、在创作方法上的比较、在审美趣味上的比较、在美感认识上的比较、在继承创新上的比较。在对两人于画功、创作立意、传情达意、创作方法、审美趣味、继承创新等层面的比较研究。可以看到两人实在具有各方面的一致性,他们艺术上的追求具有同样的倾向。绘画功用意识上,都反对艺术的纯粹自娱性,而是融合了时代的思潮,用自己的艺术去承担自己的历史责任。创作立意层面,除了追求艺术的自然美之外,都强调文人画的自我表现,用山水画隐喻自己的人生。在传情达意的选着上,都避免了矫情与造作,而是直抒其情。而在审美的趣味上,两人也是存共同之处,不庸俗,不媚俗。八大山人在穷困的日子里,靠卖画为生,也只是按照自己的艺术品味作画,而拒绝仰仗别人的眼色来作画。黄宾虹在评价自己的画作时说五十年后才被世人读懂。在对待传统的层面,两人在继承的基础上都有所创新,走出了属于自己的艺术道路。八大山人摆脱了明代画坛沉闷的摹古风气,重新具有了活力。黄宾虹也在八大山人的基础上,开拓进取,摆脱了有清以来的肉糜之风。虽然在美感认识上,两人有所差别,这也理所当然。八大山人的画有一种病态之美,而黄宾虹的画风雄健,但在本质上两人又是共同的,都崇尚“丑”中高贵的美。
第六部分：八大山人和黄宾虹山水画审美价值的认识。在这章,从主体因素的“内美”,客体因素的“内美”以及本体因素的“内美”三方面讨论研究。在主体因素的“内美”比较中,八大山人和黄宾虹虽然生活在不同的时代,相互间的跨度近三百年,但是两个人的人格品质、学问、情感、思想大体上一致,尤其是民族气节上,这决定了两人的“内美”共存同一性。山水画的客体对象都在大自然中,这是所有山水画家共同的对象。在处理客体的“内美”时,八大山人和黄宾虹又站在了同一立场,两人都反对形似,而追求客观对象的神韵。本体因素上的“内美”,两人在笔墨、章法、造型上各有千秋,但都建立在对传统的继承与发扬,他们在丰富山水画层面上均贡献自己的作用,推进了山水画。
第七部分为总结与展望。
The comparative study on the feature of Badashanren (Zhu Da) and Huang Binhong's landscape painting is mainly based on the current situation of Chinese painting. The measurement of a great artist . presenting an age is not only based on his pursuit of spirit, but focused more on his undertaking of historic responsibility, because such an artist and his work can serve the society and accepted by the society. But the artists mastering the history all grow up from great times and fertile earth of traditional culture, not by chance. This essay will show the real vitality, life and charm of Chinese painting by studying the life and artist feature of Badashanren and Huang Binhong. This essay includes seven parts:
Part one:Introduction. It mainly explains the origin of research, significance of research, research approach and literature review.
Part two:This part is about the art staging of landscape painting for Badashanren and Huang Binhong. I will summarize the different features of art of the two artists in different stages.
Part three:Tracing of learning experience. By study and enumerating, it is clear that Badashanren and Huang Binhong have indirect but not direct relationship in learning. The two artists all have ever focused on famous landscape painters like Ni Zan, Dong Yuan and Huang Gongwang when they studied the tradition, and learned the means of artistic expression for their own future usage. Besides, they have something in common in learning skills in their modeling of elder painters, that is, just learn the idea. Huang Binhong learned from Jianjiang in his early age, and Jianjiang learned from Ni Zan, and one of Badashanren's painting styles——desolate, simple and distant——learned from Ni Zan's style.
Part four:Schools of art. This part summarizes the relationship between Badashanren and Jiangxi school, and the relationship between Huang Binhong and Xinan School. I will give a new explanation for the two schools that they belonged, and evaluate the two artists'position in their schools and their contributions.
Part Five:Artistic thought of Badashanren and Huang Binhong. This part studies the two artists'knowledge in traditional landscape paintings and painters, and in the inheriting and development of landscape paintings, the later one also includes the comparation in function conscience, in creation idea, in meaning conveying, in creation method, in aesthetic taste, in the test of aesthetic and in inheriting and innovation. Compare their painting skill, creation idea, meaning conveying, creation method, aesthetic taste, test of aesthetic, inheriting and innovation and so on, you will find the consistency in every respect of them, and their pursuit of art share the same inclination. In painting function conscience, they all agreed that art was not a pure self-entertainment, but blended with the trend of the times. They thought their art should undertake its historic responsibility. For creation idea, apart from the pursuit of natural beauty, they all emphasized self-expression in literati paintings, and would like to reveal their life in landscape paintings. In meaning conveying, they all avoid false sentimentality and liked to express their feelings directly. In aesthetic taste, they also shared something in common——neither vulgar nor kitsch. Even when Badashanren led a hard life and lived on selling his paintings, he insisted on his artistic taste in painting and refused to paint according to others'tastes. Huang Binhong said after fifty years later would people understand his works. As for attitudes to tradition, both of them innovated from the tradition they inherited, and found their own way of art. Badashanren got rid of the dullish modeling fashion in painting circle of Ming Dynasty and his paintings as a result regained vitality. Shouldered by Badashanren, Huang Binhong forged ahead and cast the worm's wind in Ming and Qing Dynasty. Though their knowledge in aesthetics differed, but it is very reasonable for such difference. Badashanren's paintings showed a morbid beauty, and Huang Binhong's paintings were vigorous, but in nature they were the same, that is, the two artists all advocated the noble beauty in "ugly".
Part six:This part is about Badashanren_and Huang Binhong's knowledge in aesthetic value for landscape paintings. This section will study the "inner beauty" of subject factors, object factors and ontology factors. For "inner beauty" of subject factors, though Badashanren and Huang Binhong lived in different times——300 thousand years difference, their personality, knowledge, emotion and idea are generally the same, especially ethnic integrity, which decide the coexistence identity of their "inner beauty". The objects of landscape paintings, which are the objects of all landscape painters', all exist in the nature. As for"innerbeauty" of objects, Badashanren and Huang Binhong were all against just following the appearance of the objects and tended to capture the spirit of the objects. For "inner beauty" of ontology factors, they had individual advantages in words, art of composition, and modeling, though, their painting all based on the inheriting and developing of tradition. They contributed in enriching the landscape paintings and boosting the development of landscape paintings.
Part seven:Summary and prospect.
第一部分：导论。阐述了本研究题目的选题起源、研究意义、研究思路、文献综述。
第二部分：八大山人和黄宾虹生平及山水画艺术分期。总结出俩家在不同时期所呈现出的不同风格。
第三部分：八大山人和黄宾虹的师承溯源。这部分通过对其二人的师承溯源的探究与罗列,显而易见,虽然二人并未发生直接的师承关系,但发生了间接的师承关系。二人曾经在自己的研习传统时期,注目于倪瓒、董源以及黄公望等诸名山水画家,并从他们那里获得自己艺术园地所需的艺术手法。并且,二人在学习前辈画家的过程中,在学习技法上边有共同之处,即,取其大意、得起大略而已。黄宾虹早期师从渐江,渐江师承倪瓒,而八大山人的画风吸收了倪瓒的萧疏简远,成为其画风特征之一。
第四部分：艺术流派。这部分总结出八大山人与“江西派”、黄宾虹与“新安画派”之间的关系。对俩家所处的艺术流派做出新的解释,从客观上评价了他们在各自流派中的地位及二人所作出的贡献。
第五部分：八大山人和黄宾虹的艺术思想。这部分研究出俩家对传统山水画及画家的认识、对山水画继承与发展的认识。其后者还包括了在功用意识上的比较、在创作立意上的比较、在传情达意上的比较、在创作方法上的比较、在审美趣味上的比较、在美感认识上的比较、在继承创新上的比较。在对两人于画功、创作立意、传情达意、创作方法、审美趣味、继承创新等层面的比较研究。可以看到两人实在具有各方面的一致性,他们艺术上的追求具有同样的倾向。绘画功用意识上,都反对艺术的纯粹自娱性,而是融合了时代的思潮,用自己的艺术去承担自己的历史责任。创作立意层面,除了追求艺术的自然美之外,都强调文人画的自我表现,用山水画隐喻自己的人生。在传情达意的选着上,都避免了矫情与造作,而是直抒其情。而在审美的趣味上,两人也是存共同之处,不庸俗,不媚俗。八大山人在穷困的日子里,靠卖画为生,也只是按照自己的艺术品味作画,而拒绝仰仗别人的眼色来作画。黄宾虹在评价自己的画作时说五十年后才被世人读懂。在对待传统的层面,两人在继承的基础上都有所创新,走出了属于自己的艺术道路。八大山人摆脱了明代画坛沉闷的摹古风气,重新具有了活力。黄宾虹也在八大山人的基础上,开拓进取,摆脱了有清以来的肉糜之风。虽然在美感认识上,两人有所差别,这也理所当然。八大山人的画有一种病态之美,而黄宾虹的画风雄健,但在本质上两人又是共同的,都崇尚“丑”中高贵的美。
第六部分：八大山人和黄宾虹山水画审美价值的认识。在这章,从主体因素的“内美”,客体因素的“内美”以及本体因素的“内美”三方面讨论研究。在主体因素的“内美”比较中,八大山人和黄宾虹虽然生活在不同的时代,相互间的跨度近三百年,但是两个人的人格品质、学问、情感、思想大体上一致,尤其是民族气节上,这决定了两人的“内美”共存同一性。山水画的客体对象都在大自然中,这是所有山水画家共同的对象。在处理客体的“内美”时,八大山人和黄宾虹又站在了同一立场,两人都反对形似,而追求客观对象的神韵。本体因素上的“内美”,两人在笔墨、章法、造型上各有千秋,但都建立在对传统的继承与发扬,他们在丰富山水画层面上均贡献自己的作用,推进了山水画。
第七部分为总结与展望。
The comparative study on the feature of Badashanren (Zhu Da) and Huang Binhong's landscape painting is mainly based on the current situation of Chinese painting. The measurement of a great artist . presenting an age is not only based on his pursuit of spirit, but focused more on his undertaking of historic responsibility, because such an artist and his work can serve the society and accepted by the society. But the artists mastering the history all grow up from great times and fertile earth of traditional culture, not by chance. This essay will show the real vitality, life and charm of Chinese painting by studying the life and artist feature of Badashanren and Huang Binhong. This essay includes seven parts:
Part one:Introduction. It mainly explains the origin of research, significance of research, research approach and literature review.
Part two:This part is about the art staging of landscape painting for Badashanren and Huang Binhong. I will summarize the different features of art of the two artists in different stages.
Part three:Tracing of learning experience. By study and enumerating, it is clear that Badashanren and Huang Binhong have indirect but not direct relationship in learning. The two artists all have ever focused on famous landscape painters like Ni Zan, Dong Yuan and Huang Gongwang when they studied the tradition, and learned the means of artistic expression for their own future usage. Besides, they have something in common in learning skills in their modeling of elder painters, that is, just learn the idea. Huang Binhong learned from Jianjiang in his early age, and Jianjiang learned from Ni Zan, and one of Badashanren's painting styles——desolate, simple and distant——learned from Ni Zan's style.
Part four:Schools of art. This part summarizes the relationship between Badashanren and Jiangxi school, and the relationship between Huang Binhong and Xinan School. I will give a new explanation for the two schools that they belonged, and evaluate the two artists'position in their schools and their contributions.
Part Five:Artistic thought of Badashanren and Huang Binhong. This part studies the two artists'knowledge in traditional landscape paintings and painters, and in the inheriting and development of landscape paintings, the later one also includes the comparation in function conscience, in creation idea, in meaning conveying, in creation method, in aesthetic taste, in the test of aesthetic and in inheriting and innovation. Compare their painting skill, creation idea, meaning conveying, creation method, aesthetic taste, test of aesthetic, inheriting and innovation and so on, you will find the consistency in every respect of them, and their pursuit of art share the same inclination. In painting function conscience, they all agreed that art was not a pure self-entertainment, but blended with the trend of the times. They thought their art should undertake its historic responsibility. For creation idea, apart from the pursuit of natural beauty, they all emphasized self-expression in literati paintings, and would like to reveal their life in landscape paintings. In meaning conveying, they all avoid false sentimentality and liked to express their feelings directly. In aesthetic taste, they also shared something in common——neither vulgar nor kitsch. Even when Badashanren led a hard life and lived on selling his paintings, he insisted on his artistic taste in painting and refused to paint according to others'tastes. Huang Binhong said after fifty years later would people understand his works. As for attitudes to tradition, both of them innovated from the tradition they inherited, and found their own way of art. Badashanren got rid of the dullish modeling fashion in painting circle of Ming Dynasty and his paintings as a result regained vitality. Shouldered by Badashanren, Huang Binhong forged ahead and cast the worm's wind in Ming and Qing Dynasty. Though their knowledge in aesthetics differed, but it is very reasonable for such difference. Badashanren's paintings showed a morbid beauty, and Huang Binhong's paintings were vigorous, but in nature they were the same, that is, the two artists all advocated the noble beauty in "ugly".
Part six:This part is about Badashanren_and Huang Binhong's knowledge in aesthetic value for landscape paintings. This section will study the "inner beauty" of subject factors, object factors and ontology factors. For "inner beauty" of subject factors, though Badashanren and Huang Binhong lived in different times——300 thousand years difference, their personality, knowledge, emotion and idea are generally the same, especially ethnic integrity, which decide the coexistence identity of their "inner beauty". The objects of landscape paintings, which are the objects of all landscape painters', all exist in the nature. As for"innerbeauty" of objects, Badashanren and Huang Binhong were all against just following the appearance of the objects and tended to capture the spirit of the objects. For "inner beauty" of ontology factors, they had individual advantages in words, art of composition, and modeling, though, their painting all based on the inheriting and developing of tradition. They contributed in enriching the landscape paintings and boosting the development of landscape paintings.
Part seven:Summary and prospect.
引文
①黄宾虹.黄宾虹文集.书画编(下)[M].长春：吉林美术出版社,2003年11月第一版.
①赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1992年06月第一版.
②乌力吉.八大山人画传[M].北京：中国广播电视出版社,2006年01月第一版.
①石泠.八大山人[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004年1月第一版.
①赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1992年06月第一版.
①清.陈鼎《八大山人传》
②高鹏.八大山人.第39页[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2006年02月第一版.
①高鹏.八大山人.第89页[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2006年02月第一版.
②郭若虚《图画见闻志》卷五
③刘克诚.色彩的中国绘画.第107页[M].长沙：湖南美术出版社,2002年02月第一版.
①黄铸夫.墨海青山[M].第21页.济南：山东教育出版社,1988年08月第一版.
②赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].第47页.北京：人民美术出版社,1992年06月第一版.
③赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].第189页.北京：人民美术出版社,1992年06月第一版.
①陈传席.山水画史话[M].南京：江苏美术出版社,2001年08月第一版.
②赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱.第145页[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1992年6月第一版.
③云雪梅.黄宾虹画论.第41页[M].郑州：河南人民版社,1999年7月第一版.
①云雪梅.黄宾虹画论.第118页[M].郑州：河南人民版社,1999年7月第一版.
[1]刘曦林.《黄宾虹的影响与启示》[J],美术,1994年04期
[2]洪再新.《试论黄宾虹的“道咸画学中兴说”》[J],美术,1994年04期
[3]俞建华.《高山深壑曲径通幽》[J],美术之友,1995年03期
[4]王中秀.《黄宾虹的苦与涩》[J],美术之友,1995年04期
[5]段炼.《黄宾虹绘画艺术的理与法》[J],美术观察,1996年04期
[6]蔡敏.宋代画院教育[J],艺术·生活,2007年04期
[7]王非.《黄宾虹的绘画史观》[J],南京艺术学院学报(美术设计版),1998年01期
[8]陈志强、周宗岱.《黄宾虹山水画释读》[J],湘潭师范学院学报,1998年第02期
[9]鲍弘达.《黄宾虹晚年画学思想窥微》[J],美术,1999年09期
[10]伊尔·赵荣璋.《黄宾虹先生的绘画理论与技法》[J],美术向导,1999年09期
[11]卢辅圣.《走近黄宾虹》[J],美术之友,1999年04期
[12]李维.《浅析黄宾虹的美学观》[J],阜阳师范学院学报(社科版),1999年04期
[13]辛守臣.《国画艺术所体现的哲学思考》[J],东北师大学报,哲社版,2001年特
[14]郎绍君.《笔墨论稿》[J],文艺研究,1999年03期
[15]丁绍光.《中国现代绘画在世界的地位和前途》[J],文艺研究,19999年01期
[16]蒋纯利.《从传统中来,到传统中去》[J],镇江市高等专科学校学报,1999年04期
[17]王永敬.《走向现代：中国画内部的突破一回眸黄宾虹》[J],美术,2000年04期
[18]宫鸿友.《金声玉振遗泽绵长》[J],延边大学学报(社会科学版),2000年 04期
[19]薛永年.《黄宾虹与近代美术史学》[J],南京艺术学院学报(美术设计版),2004年04期
[20]邹安刚.《论黄宾虹中国画“笔墨”观》[J],晋中师范高等专科学校学报,2001年04期
[21]李一著.八大山人[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,2003年6月第一版.
[22]顾家彝著.评画论美集[M].沈阳：辽宁美术出版社,2002年8月一版.
[23]刘墨著.八大山人[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,2003年7月第一版.
[24]石泠.八大山人[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004年1月第一版.
[25]陈传席.中国绘画美学史[M].北京：人民美术出版社,2002年7月第一版.
[26]伍鑫甫.中国画论研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1983年7月第一版.
[27]南羽.黄宾虹谈艺录[M].郑州：河南美术出版社,1998年10月第一版.
[28]彭修银.中国绘画艺术论[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2001年12月第一版.
[29]张少侠、李小山.中国现代绘画史[M].南京：江苏美术出版社,1986年12月第一版.
[30]刘克诚.色彩的中国绘画[M].长沙：湖南美术出版社,2002年2月第一版.
[32]钟跃英.气韵论[M].上海：上海人民美术出版社,2000年5月第一版.
[33]单国霖.扬州画派研究文集[M].天津：天津人民美术出版社,1999年6月第一版.
[35]俞剑华.中国古代画论类编[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1957年12月第一版.
[36]陈传席.山水画史话[M].南京：江苏美术出版社,2001年8月第一版.
[38](苏)叶·查瓦茨卡娅著,陈训明译.中国占代绘画美学问题[M].长沙：湖南美术出版社,1987年8月版.
[39]萧鸿鸣.八大山人生平及作品系年[M].北京：北京燕山出版社,1991年12月第一版.
[40]高鹏.八大山人[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2006年2月第一版.
[41]黄宾虹.黄宾虹文集.书画编(下)[M].长春：吉林美术出版社,2003年11月第一版.
[42]赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1992年6月第一版.
[43]乌力吉.八大山人画传[M].北京：中国广播电视出版社,2006年1月第一版.
[44]云雪梅.黄宾虹画论[M].郑州：河南人民版社,1999年7月第一版.
①赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1992年06月第一版.
②乌力吉.八大山人画传[M].北京：中国广播电视出版社,2006年01月第一版.
①石泠.八大山人[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004年1月第一版.
①赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1992年06月第一版.
①清.陈鼎《八大山人传》
②高鹏.八大山人.第39页[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2006年02月第一版.
①高鹏.八大山人.第89页[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2006年02月第一版.
②郭若虚《图画见闻志》卷五
③刘克诚.色彩的中国绘画.第107页[M].长沙：湖南美术出版社,2002年02月第一版.
①黄铸夫.墨海青山[M].第21页.济南：山东教育出版社,1988年08月第一版.
②赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].第47页.北京：人民美术出版社,1992年06月第一版.
③赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].第189页.北京：人民美术出版社,1992年06月第一版.
①陈传席.山水画史话[M].南京：江苏美术出版社,2001年08月第一版.
②赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱.第145页[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1992年6月第一版.
③云雪梅.黄宾虹画论.第41页[M].郑州：河南人民版社,1999年7月第一版.
①云雪梅.黄宾虹画论.第118页[M].郑州：河南人民版社,1999年7月第一版.
[1]刘曦林.《黄宾虹的影响与启示》[J],美术,1994年04期
[2]洪再新.《试论黄宾虹的“道咸画学中兴说”》[J],美术,1994年04期
[3]俞建华.《高山深壑曲径通幽》[J],美术之友,1995年03期
[4]王中秀.《黄宾虹的苦与涩》[J],美术之友,1995年04期
[5]段炼.《黄宾虹绘画艺术的理与法》[J],美术观察,1996年04期
[6]蔡敏.宋代画院教育[J],艺术·生活,2007年04期
[7]王非.《黄宾虹的绘画史观》[J],南京艺术学院学报(美术设计版),1998年01期
[8]陈志强、周宗岱.《黄宾虹山水画释读》[J],湘潭师范学院学报,1998年第02期
[9]鲍弘达.《黄宾虹晚年画学思想窥微》[J],美术,1999年09期
[10]伊尔·赵荣璋.《黄宾虹先生的绘画理论与技法》[J],美术向导,1999年09期
[11]卢辅圣.《走近黄宾虹》[J],美术之友,1999年04期
[12]李维.《浅析黄宾虹的美学观》[J],阜阳师范学院学报(社科版),1999年04期
[13]辛守臣.《国画艺术所体现的哲学思考》[J],东北师大学报,哲社版,2001年特
[14]郎绍君.《笔墨论稿》[J],文艺研究,1999年03期
[15]丁绍光.《中国现代绘画在世界的地位和前途》[J],文艺研究,19999年01期
[16]蒋纯利.《从传统中来,到传统中去》[J],镇江市高等专科学校学报,1999年04期
[17]王永敬.《走向现代：中国画内部的突破一回眸黄宾虹》[J],美术,2000年04期
[18]宫鸿友.《金声玉振遗泽绵长》[J],延边大学学报(社会科学版),2000年 04期
[19]薛永年.《黄宾虹与近代美术史学》[J],南京艺术学院学报(美术设计版),2004年04期
[20]邹安刚.《论黄宾虹中国画“笔墨”观》[J],晋中师范高等专科学校学报,2001年04期
[21]李一著.八大山人[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,2003年6月第一版.
[22]顾家彝著.评画论美集[M].沈阳：辽宁美术出版社,2002年8月一版.
[23]刘墨著.八大山人[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,2003年7月第一版.
[24]石泠.八大山人[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004年1月第一版.
[25]陈传席.中国绘画美学史[M].北京：人民美术出版社,2002年7月第一版.
[26]伍鑫甫.中国画论研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1983年7月第一版.
[27]南羽.黄宾虹谈艺录[M].郑州：河南美术出版社,1998年10月第一版.
[28]彭修银.中国绘画艺术论[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2001年12月第一版.
[29]张少侠、李小山.中国现代绘画史[M].南京：江苏美术出版社,1986年12月第一版.
[30]刘克诚.色彩的中国绘画[M].长沙：湖南美术出版社,2002年2月第一版.
[32]钟跃英.气韵论[M].上海：上海人民美术出版社,2000年5月第一版.
[33]单国霖.扬州画派研究文集[M].天津：天津人民美术出版社,1999年6月第一版.
[35]俞剑华.中国古代画论类编[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1957年12月第一版.
[36]陈传席.山水画史话[M].南京：江苏美术出版社,2001年8月第一版.
[38](苏)叶·查瓦茨卡娅著,陈训明译.中国占代绘画美学问题[M].长沙：湖南美术出版社,1987年8月版.
[39]萧鸿鸣.八大山人生平及作品系年[M].北京：北京燕山出版社,1991年12月第一版.
[40]高鹏.八大山人[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2006年2月第一版.
[41]黄宾虹.黄宾虹文集.书画编(下)[M].长春：吉林美术出版社,2003年11月第一版.
[42]赵志钧.画家黄宾虹年谱[M].北京：人民美术出版社,1992年6月第一版.
[43]乌力吉.八大山人画传[M].北京：中国广播电视出版社,2006年1月第一版.
[44]云雪梅.黄宾虹画论[M].郑州：河南人民版社,1999年7月第一版.