Ink and Brush Are the Language of Landscape Painting

Xu Qinsong

Xu Qinsong is a national first-class artist and an expert who enjoys the special allowance of the State Council. He is currently the deputy director of the Painting and Calligraphy Office of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference， a consultant of the Chinese Artists Association， and a researcher and doctoral supervisor of the Chinese Academy of Arts. He is a famous landscape painter， and his works have been collected by the National Art Museum of China， the National Museum of China， and other institutions.

This book is a collection of dialogues between Xu Qinsong and nine art historians and art critics， namely Shao Dazhen， Lang Shaojun， Xue Yongnian， Pan Gongkai， Yi Ying， Zhu Liangzhi， Yin Jinan， Yu Hui， and Wu Weishan.

Panelists -- Lang Shaojun， Xu Qinsong

Host -- Zhao Chao

Zhao Chao: Today， I am delighted to have Mr. Lang Shaojun and Mr. Xu Qinsong discuss the topic of “ink and brush.” In both traditional and modern Chinese painting， “ink and brush” is a core concept of great significance. In today’s world， where writing tools and communication methods are constantly evolving， what modern significance does “ink and brush” hold? One of the gentlemen is an art historian specializing in the issue of ink and brush， and the other is a prominent landscape painter. Surely， they have many insightful views on this.

Xu Qinsong: Originally， “ink and brush” was a literary concept， which then transformed into a calligraphic concept before finally integrating into the philosophy of Chinese painting. In the early history of Chinese painting， the concepts of “brush” and “ink” were not combined. Specifically， the term “ink and brush” emerged during the Han Dynasty， used rhetorically by literati to describe the eloquent style of poets or prose writers， referring to their literary flair. By the Wei and Jin dynasties， “ink and brush” not only referred to literary flair but also began to describe artists， specifically the distinctive styles of calligraphers. At that time， “ink and brush” was still not what it later became in Chinese painting art. Discussions mainly focused on explaining calligraphic techniques. For instance， the teacher of Wang Xizhi， Lady Wei， wrote a treatise on calligraphy titled The Stroke Patterns， discussing issues related to brushwork. At that time， “brush” was a significant concept in calligraphy， whereas “ink” was relatively overlooked. By the middle to late Tang Dynasty， as the arts of painting and calligraphy evolved， techniques like splashed ink and ink wash emerged， and calligraphy began to value ink more. The importance of “ink and brush” is exemplified in the significant landscape painting theory Notes on Brushwork by Jing Hao during the Five Dynasties. From that point onward， the concept of “ink and brush” in Chinese art， particularly in painting， can be said to have been formally established.

Zhao Chao: Ink and brush are central to Chinese art. With the rapid modernization of culture after China entered the modern era， this core component of traditional painting has become fragmented. Thus， discussions on the issue of ink and brush in modern Chinese painting are fraught with controversy. Specifically， many assertions are quite arbitrary， such as negative comments like “Chinese painting is no longer viable.” Mr. Lang， could you share your understanding of this issue?

Lang Shaojun: The debate over Chinese painting includes the issue of ink and brush. However， throughout the debates of the 20th century， ink and brush were not particularly emphasized. In the 1920s， there was a debate about ink and brush. By the early 1930s， Yao Yuxiang compiled a collection titled Chinese Painting Discussion Collection， which included major viewpoints from the debates on Chinese painting from the 1920s to the early 1930s. This included debates from the Guangdong Chinese Painting Research Society and the Lingnan School of Painting， as well as comments from famous painters like Chen Shicen， but there were no articles specifically addressing ink and brush. The 1930s， 1940s， and 1950s saw ongoing debates about Chinese painting.

So， what were the previous debate topics? What is the fate of Chinese painting? Should it be modernized? How should it be modernized? Should we learn from the West? How should we learn from the West? Who has learned it well? Who has not learned it well? All these issues are tied to the fate of Chinese painting. Should we learn from the West or return to tradition? How should modernization be approached? What are the characteristics of Chinese painting? What are its strengths? Can it meet the demands of the modern era today? These are all profound questions. After 1949， art historical debates finally touched on the issue of ink and brush. Mr. Wang Xun from the Central Academy of Fine Arts， who is both a painter and a theorist， wrote an article discussing the ink and brush issue. He considered ink and brush to be minor and foundational issues. Old Beijing painter Mr. Qin Zhongwen also wrote an article suggesting that from ink and brush， one could ascend to the issue of whether to inherit the tradition of Chinese painting， though it did not spark widespread discussion. In fact， before the 1980s， debates on Chinese painting never focused on the issue of ink and brush because traditional painters， who held sway， did not see it as a topic worth discussing. Historically， discussions on ink and brush have been diverse and varied， with no right or wrong， good or bad distinctions.

By the 1980s， with the onset of reform and opening up and the liberation of thought， issues of East-West and ancient-modern art received more focused discussion. Adopting Western influences was no longer controversial， especially for the younger generation， who saw it as a non-issue. Because even their teachers， and their teachers’ teachers， had backgrounds in both Chinese and Western education， modern art education has become the mainstream. As early as 1906， the establishment of the Department of Drawing and Fine Arts at the Nantong Normal School marked the beginning of our modern art education that combined Chinese and Western styles， led primarily by Western art and Western artists. The heads of significant art schools held this view， including Liu Haisu， Xu Beihong， and Lin Fengmian.

Xu Qinsong: They all studied Western painting， and then applied Western methods to improve Chinese painting.

Lang Shaojun: This includes the ongoing reforms in ink and brush， but the focus of the discussion has not centered on the fundamental issues of Chinese painting. Ink and brush became an issue after the 1980s. After the introduction of modern art， the issue of ink and brush became less important or less emphasized among young painters. For example， the Western painter Wu Guanzhong was very free and skilled in using ink and brush for ink painting， but he deemed ink and brush as unimportant. Thus， he stated， “Ink and brush equal zero.” From his experience， he was not wrong.

Wu Guanzhong wrote an article titled Emerging from the Ivory Tower， describing the learning and life experiences of students at the Hangzhou Academy of Fine Arts during wartime evacuations. It mentioned that while they were in Hangzhou， they rarely studied Chinese painting. Their morning classes were all about Western painting， with only two afternoons a week dedicated to Chinese painting， which no one took seriously， so he studied independently by copying many ancient works. Pan Tianshou also recalled that when the Hangzhou Academy was established， he was the only chief instructor for Chinese painting， along with an assistant teacher， Cai Weilian， the daughter of Cai Yuanpei. Later， another assistant teacher was added. In the 1930s， the Chinese painting course at the Hangzhou Academy gradually expanded. But Lin Fengmian decreed that students from the first grade onward should study only Western painting， with no foundation in Chinese painting. What is basic education? It involves writing with a brush and understanding the properties of brush， paper， silk， and ink. As a painter， you can imagine what the students would be like without this education. Thus， Mr. Wu Guanzhong taught himself Chinese painting and held great respect for Mr. Pan Tianshou.

This educational philosophy continued until after 1949. After 1949， the art community opposed both nihilism and conservatism to some extent， reversing the situation where students only learned Western painting and not Chinese painting， although Chinese painters were only somewhat recognized. For example， at the Central Academy of Fine Arts， Western painters or those combining Chinese and Western styles still dominated. Landscape painting was led by Mr. Li Keran， and flower-and-bird painting was overseen by Mr. Guo Weiqu for some time. At the beginning of the Republic， Li Kuchan worked in the documentation room， and Li Keran taught watercolor painting for a period. At that time， the school temporarily canceled the Chinese painting department， which was not reinstated until 1954.

After all this， my point is that Chinese art education has long been dominated by Western painting， and the undifferentiated nature of art education led to figure painting dominating absolutely. Figure painting mainly involves brushwork， making ink and brush much simpler. The courses for teaching figure painting are called “outline classes.” The initial purpose of offering “outline classes” at the Central Academy of Fine Arts was to teach students how to create comic strips， not to study ink and brush. As a result， by the eighties and nineties， the younger generation supported or agreed with the notion that “Ink and brush equal zero.” However， there was still a group of old masters who taught traditional arts and held opposing views， such as Mr. Pan Tianshou. Between 1959 and 1961， he， as the vice-president of the East China Branch of the Central Academy of Fine Arts， proposed that Chinese painting be departmentalized， offering separate courses for students studying landscape and flower-and-bird painting， and they must copy ancient paintings to learn ink and brush.

Thus， in the most challenging years around 1960， the Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts still trained a group of painters who valued ink and brush. At that time， the school emphasized “cold desks and warm chairs，” inviting talents back to teach. Mr. Pan Tianshou brought back people like Mr. Sha Menghai and others to the school. They advocated copying ancient paintings， and later in the cultural reforms， they also borrowed and referenced techniques from the Shanghai School， particularly Lin Fengmian’s approach to flower-and-bird painting， to create figure paintings， forming what we now call the “New Zhejiang School.” For instance， Mr. Li Keran， who merged Chinese and Western styles， leaned more towards tradition as he aged. Mr. Shi Lu also proposed stretching one hand towards tradition and the other towards life. They nurtured a group of painters who understood ink and brush， leading to opposing positions in the debates of the eighties and nineties.