From Bayang to Qing Teng - A Glimpse of
the Evolution of the Freestyle Flower-and
-Bird Paintings of Chen Chun and Xu Wei
Chen Chun’s “Transcendence” and
Xu Wei’s “Zen” - A Discussion of Principle
Trends and Changes in Literati Painting
Xue Yongnian
Cai Xingyi
薛永年　Professor
Art History Department, Central Academy of Fine Arts
蔡星儀　Visiting Professor
UC Berkeley
In the development of traditional Chinese painting, freestyle painting first appeared as an effort to paint
The art of Chen Chun (1484—1544) and Xu Wei (1521—1593) — respected as the pioneers of flower-and-
from nature in the composition of flower-and-bird paintings, a form of painting that contained such subject
bird painting in ink and great freehand — is a milestone in the evolutionary history of Chinese literati painting.
matter as the “Four Gentlemen”, the four plants that acted as traditional subject matter in Chinese paint-
The appearance of flower-and-bird painting in ink and freehand was the result of a combination of historical
ing — the orchid, bamboo, the chrysanthemum and the plum blossom. Freestyle painting sought to make
inevitability and fortuitous individual circumstances. This text conducts a study of the birth of this new art
breakthroughs in two areas. The first was “writing”, namely, the introduction of calligraphy in paintings; the
form in literati painting from the perspective of the developmental process arising from both the opposition
second was yi, or inner consciousness, which meant allotting more importance to expression of the subjective
and mutual complementation between orthodoxy and heterodoxy in Chinese thought and culture, and the
emotional world than reproduction of the physical appearance, principle and state of the subject matter.
relationship of that process to the history and progress of literati painting. It also analyses and compares the
differences and similarities in the artistic styles of two individuals, and discusses the objective and subjective
Much has been discussed regarding the “writing” aspect, or inscribed calligraphy, in the paintings of
causes that gave rise to the differences in the two individuals’ artistic styles.
Chen Chun and Xu Wei, two artists whose great freehand style flower-and-bird paintings are milestones of Chinese art. Of course, such discussion is completely necessary but different types of “writing” involve different
This text provides a clear-cut textual reference of the discrepancies in the varied records of the dates of
types of inner consciousness. Because research into inner consciousness in the two artists’ paintings — especially
Chen Chun’s birth and death, conducts additional examination and correction of the poetry in the Collection
discussion of the differences in the inner consciousness of the two artists’ paintings — is very rare, this article
of Chen Chun’s Works, and also offers a rational deduction of his cause of death. At the same time, it examines
adopts as its research subject the peonies, pomegranates and grapes in the works of the two artists and, com-
Xu Wei’s turbulent life and thinking and points out that while Chen Chun led a calm, leisurely and ultimately
bined with the artists’ corresponding poetry inscriptions and poetry contained in their collected works of
short life (the reason for his early demise, in fact, can most likely be attributed to his Taoist fondness, even
literature or other related material, relates the two artists’ life experiences, ambitions and living environments
addiction, to nature), Xu Wei, despite his troubled existence, lived like a cat with nine lives into his seventies,
in an effort to analyse and understand the different meanings each artist draws from similar material.
supported by the unquenchable fervour of his high hopes from life.
Although Chen Chun’s great freehand style flower-and-bird paintings injected unrestrained vividness into
Chen Chun delighted in Taoism and approached becoming an “immortal”. His art, uninterested in mun-
the graceful but still undeveloped freestyle flower-and-bird paintings of the Wumen School of painting of
dane affairs, is transcendent in demeanour. Xu Wei showed great respect to Taoism but was finally drawn
which Shen Zhou was representative, and because he personally resided outside the focal points of social
to “Chan Buddhism”. His art — exalting Buddha at the expense of the ancestors and paying no heed to past
contradiction, his spiritual content still constitutes an intonement tainted by the free, leisurely aesthetics of
or present — projects a “mad Zen” character. Chun Chen’s renouncement of worldly affairs was a conscious
the urban literati. On the other hand, because Xu Wei had personally experienced a host of misfortunes at the
decision taken on his own initiative; his calligraphy and paintings, therefore, like his poems, are carefree,
hands of society, his works express his unwillingness to be destroyed and his abstinence in resisting his en-
distant, unrestrained and at ease with themselves. They project the bearing of a man who has left the secular
vironment, while his calligraphy also tends towards cursive style. It was his art therefore that blazed the trail
world behind and is without desire. Xu Wei’s departure from worldly affairs was imposed upon him with
for Bada Shanren, Shi Tao, the Eight Eccentrics of Yangzhou and other idiosyncratic painters to independently
express their emotions and characters in great freehand style flower-and-bird paintings.
346 347
Beauty of Form in the Paintings of Xu
Wei and Chen Chun
Chen Chuanxi
Professor
Renmin University of China
no alternative available. The grief, indignation and melancholy that filled his bosom poured out in torrents
through brush and paper, the uninhibited character of his brushstrokes giving full vent to his discontent as
they transmitted his cry of distress.
This text will further compare Chen Chun, Xu Wei and the later Dong Qichang (1555—1636) and discuss
the differences between literati painting and Chan Buddhist painting. It postulates that during the great conflict in the late Ming between new and old in traditional culture, literati painting performed a “triple-jump”
— from Chen Chun to Xu Wei and then to Dong Qichang, and that that was an important historical turning
point. Chen came first and adopted “escape”; next came Xu who, unable to “escape”, could only “fight”;
Dong Qichang, adopting neither “escape” nor “fight”, opted to “transcend”. Dong’s position that “once there
is transcendence, one goes directly to the land of the Buddha” surmounted the conflict between orthodoxy
and heterodoxy and constituted a giant leap in cultural thought. As a result, the Four Monks, the Four Wangs
and other 17th Century masters were each able to locate their own desired place in this new universe. In this
great leap, Chen Chun and Xu Wei played the historical role of initiators and dauntless foot soldiers.
陳傳席　In the annals of painting, Xu Wei and Chen Chun ushered in a new era in Ming Dynasty freestyle flowerand-bird painting. Chen Chun’s painting and brush techniques were fresh and vigorous, and his painting style
bold and unrestrained. Xu Wei’s paintings, on the other hand, were even more uninhibited. His brush, full of
energy, added details with ease and wildly splashed on the ink. His paintings have “no past and no present”.
They shook a generation and have remained unequalled through the ages. Almost without exception, his works
stun even the most seasoned calligraphy enthusiast. But if Chen Chun and Xu Wei have been studied by ambitious calligraphers who wield their ink brush freely in an attempt to emulate them, the works of all but a tiny
group of these enthusiasts will be regarded as vulgar and unworthy. And yet, they use ink just like Xu Wei and
Chen Chun, and their strokes likewise have variations in thickness and wetness. On the surface, their works
may even appear to be more or less similar to those of Xu Wei and Chen Chun but in reality a world separates
their works from the works of the two great artists. One work is of incomparable quality, while the other is of
intolerably poor quality. What is the key difference? It lies in “beauty of form” and “vulgarity of form”. The
outer appearances are similar but the inner structures differ vastly.
Poetry, calligraphy and painting all rely heavily on structure. Gu Kaizhi wrote in On Painting, “There is
strange form that is also beautiful” and “form is extremely wonderful”. Of course, form and brushstrokes are
related. The second principle in Xie He’s “Six Principles of Chinese Painting” states, “Form lies in the brush”.
Xie was referring to the form achieved with brush and ink. In Praise of Style states, “If the form is strong and the
surface is polished, the result is magical”; while On Painting declares, “In the compactness and beauty of his
calligraphy, he exceeded his father but in strength of form he was weaker”. Commentary in Response to Tao Yinju
says, “If weight is properly balanced, the form is in proportion”.
All these statement put an emphasis on form. Liu Xie’s The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons also discusses literary form in the section entitled “Wind and Bone”. Without form, a poem, literary work, calligraphy
work or painting cannot succeed. That being the case, form is classified as refined, vulgar, ugly and beautiful.
Literary works are classified as “vulgar literature” and “refined literature”. The core element of refined
literature is “beauty of form”. “Vulgar literature” lacks this beauty of form and, strictly speaking, does not attain
the level at which it can be called art. Xu Wei’s paintings have a rough external appearance but a refined inner
quality. Those who are less skilled and attempt to do what he did end up with a work of rough external appearance and no inner refinement. Thus, “inner refinement” is required for “beauty of form” to exist.
Poetry, literature, calligraphy and painting — whether or not they are handed down, whether or not they
are vulgar, whether they are noble or base — are all determined by beauty of form. Beauty of form is always
noble, while the lack of it invariably results in a lack of nobility. Works with beauty of form are refined. Works
with vulgarity of form are inevitably vulgar. Works with beauty of form will be handed down. Works lacking it
will not be handed down even if the artist desperately so desires.
348 349