Talk:Chinese calligraphy/Archive 1

message: I would like to suggest an article on one of the gratest caligraphers in modern Japan, the master Seiseki Abe. Besides being one best shodo teachers in the world today, he's also an Aikido master, holder of 10th degree. A direct disciple of the founder of Aikido (Ueshiba), and at the same time Ueshiba's caligraphy teacher. His work is simply breathtaking. I recomend urgency on this matter due to fact that Abe sensei is very old.
I see lists of great calligraphers -- added his name (unfortunately in Romaji, only) ot the list. 
Nikevich (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be recognized as good by some people, but I don't think he deserves to be listed among the likes of Ono Michikaze and Fujiwara no Yukinari. Wait a few years after he's dead, and then see if he's worthy. IMO not even Qigong should be on there.174.23.214.78 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seiseki Abe 

message: The brief references to the origin of seal and clerical script were misleading or unclear. Note (briefly) that seal evolved organically out of the Zhou bronze script, and contrary to popular conceptions, the style of small seal was already established before Qin Shihuang or Li Si were even born. Similarly, clerical script arose not from the official Qin script (seal) but from its vulgar counterpart. Furthermore, this evolution began during the Warring States period; thus clerical script was not born in the Han dynasty. Rather, it matured partway through the Han. I will be updating the seal, clerical and Chinese writing pages to reflect a more modern scholarly understanding, and will expound upon this, with references, in the relevant discussion pages in the near future.Dragonbones 10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of seal and clerical script updated 

message: After "The Regular Script (often called standard script or simply kǎishū) is one of the last major calligraphic styles to develop, emerging..." I've added "between the Hán and Wèi Dynasties, gaining dominance in the Southern and Northern Dynasties, and maturing in the Táng Dynasty. It emerged from a neatly written, early period semi-cursive form of clerical script." The reference is the authoritative Qiu Xigui (pp142-9) which I've added to the references section. I'll incorportate similar but more detailed information on the main page for that script soon.Dragonbones 07:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  origins of standard, or regular, script updated 

message: This is to correct a common misconception about ancient scripts. None of them, not even the Shang script, was fundamentally a carved form as opposed to brush-written. The brush has existed since Neolithic times, as evidenced by brush-marks in the pigment on painted potteries of the time. In the Shang script, characters for brush and book are present, and some of the oracle bones still have vermillion ink graphs on them (uncarved). The misconception arises because the vast majority of early writing has survived in carved form, which is of course because perishable wood, bamboo, and later silk and paper media didn't survive as well as harder ones. See Qiu Xigui (ref. on main page) for evidence. Dragonbones 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every script was originally brush written 

message: There is a new image available :Image:Japanese calligraphy.jpg if anyone wants to use it, I don't know anything about the subject, so I might put it in the wrong place. - cohesion 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: I believe this page should be renamed to Chinese calligraphy. Either that, or Chinese calligraphy should be a separate page. "East Asian" calligraphy is Chinese calligraphy. The only exception is Hangul calligraphy, which is (as far as I know from glossing over Hangul entries in international calligraphy competitions) written with Kaishu-style strokes. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The term "East Asian" calligraphy is inaccurate and it is basically Chinese calligraphy using Chinese characters. We should move this page to Chinese calligraphy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
We have East Asian calligraphy for the same reason that we have Islamic calligraphy instead of, say, Arabic calligraphy. Although Islamic calligraphy is done in the Arabic alphabet, it is done not only by Arabs but also by Muslims of many other ethnicities, and is done in not just the Arabic language but also many other languages spoken by Muslims. Similarly, calligraphy is used by Japanese and Koreans to write in the Japanese and Korean languages. -- ran (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it would be better to have a separate article on Chinese, Japanese, and Korean calligraphy?
... I merged Chinese calligraphy and Japanese calligraphy together in the first place because I found that 90%+ of each article applied to the other one as well. -- ran (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ran, I think you're envisioning "this-and-that calligraphy" as "national" identities... What I'm saying is, all forms of "East Asian calligraphy" are derived from Chinese characters, and as such should be called Chinese calligraphy. Another problem with "East Asian calligraphy" is that it assumes this form of calligraphy to be practiced by all East Asian peoples... and that isn't really true. -- Миборовский 02:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: The image of brush holding does not look right to me.  It seems too laxed.  I don't know about other people, but my habit is to use the first segment of my index finger to control the brush.  And the little finger should be on the nameless finger, not on the brush itself.Hillgentleman 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way brushes are held depends on the calligrapher and and style. There is no such thing as a "Chinese way" or "Japanese way" or whatever, although some ways of holding a brush are more popular in certain regions. There is no one correct way. You can cite 田英章《九成宮碑技法精解》.Asoer (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what I am talking about.  There is a standard way which every Chinese calligrapher more or less follows, which is not followed by the Japanese.  Please get beyond your one-book reference and check with the outside world. Best, Hillgentleman (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image for Brush Holding

message: What about the typical topics of calligraphy? Not a word on that. Can I safely say that the topics of Chinese calligraphy are classic and religious writings on the one hand, and Poetry and proverbs on the other? UncleMatt 12:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics of Calligraphy 

message: As one of the possible meanings of the first character 草 can be "draft" (according to EDICT dictionary[note1]), I wonder if it woulden't be more logical to call it "Draft script".
Note:
[1] Copyright (c) 1994 James William Breen http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~grosenth/manual.html
Jyorudy 22:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass script 

message: Chaps, this really is about calligraphy with Chinese characters, not 'East Asian' calligraphy. I'm proposing a re-name to Chinese Calligraphy, as is only meet and right. There's no reason why there should be a separate Japanese calligraphy article while this one is stupidly-named 'East Asian calligraphy'. The article on the characters is Chinese characters, with Kanji and Hanja as daughter articles, not 'East Asian characters'. The same should apply to an article on various written forms of those same characters. InfernoXV (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If one looks at what this article is about, an accurate title would be "Han Character Calligraphy" or "Chinese Character Calligraphy." However, a reasonable title would be "Chinese Calligraphy," "Chinese" referring to Chinese script, which should be obvious given that the article is about script. Although each region in the Sinosphere has their own variations and styles, their calligraphic works still primarily use Chinese characters. If one wants to account for these differences, one should create separate articles, for example, Japanese calligraphy, Vietnamese calligraphy, Korean calligraphy, etc. For calligraphy in scripts that aren't Chinese, but still native to East Asia, I also recommend separate articles, or a section in an article about calligraphy in a region, for example a section about Kana calligraphy in the Japanese calligraphy article. Asoer (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If nobody says otherwise within the next few days, I'll attempt to move this article. Asoer (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempt to re-name 

message: In ancient China, the "書法" was not considered an art, but simply the (correct) way of writing. Its main goals were to ensure that characters can be read, to ensure that they are concise, and to ensure that the characters look good. Only recently was it considered an art, and calligraphers started departing from the aforementioned three goals. You can cite 田蘊章《每日一題每日一字》. Asoer (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While making an edit, 128.195.141.204 asked the question "How can calligraphy be consider by the chinese to not be an art form until recently. Even the cited reference uses aethetics as a criteria for good calligraphy." Even though one of the objectives is to produce something that looks good, something with an objective of producing something that looks good isn't necessarily art. Characters are often aesthetically pleasing by themselves if the other objectives are met. No legitimate calligrapher seeks anything special in the aesthetics of a character. An artist may actively seek something special in the aesthetics of their work. This is one of the differences between 書法 and art. Asoer (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calligraphy was not art 

message: To be most helpful to users, the list should be of notable calligraphers and not famous calligraphers. Ding Shimei is a modern "calligrapher" who won modern rewards that are given by modern people. Such rewards and recognition isn't necessarily indicative of his level of calligraphy. The list in the article is for notable calligraphers that should at least be superior if not in the same league as Qigong. A criterion I recommend is that if people who are added are still alive, there is a high chance that person shouldn't be there. Also, there's a format to the list. If someone randomly adds a name that doesn't follow the format or is out of order, the added name likely shouldn't be there. It also helps if there's an article about that person.
Same with Liu Bingsen. Don't let his high position like "Vice-Chairman of the Chinese Calligrapher Association" automatically make his calligraphy better. Such positions are often poor indicators of their level of calligraphy.
I know there's a lot of random people in the Japanese and perhaps Korean list. I'll look into it later.
But from now on, watch addition of new names, especially modern calligraphers. Asoer (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of calligraphers 

message: Since the article is about calligraphy of four Asian countries, the article splitting and merging should not be unilaterally decided by one person. Raise the issue to WP:CHINA, WP:JAPAN, WP:KOREA, WP:VIETNAM. I don't see any discussion for the splitting decision.--Caspian blue 03:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#What_to_call_East_Asian_calligraphyAsoer (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive blanking by [[User:Asoer]] 

message: This is related to the debate about whether east-asian calligraphy is an art or not: I think there are other calligraphic traditions than simply brush-writing in the “big five” styles.  I’m thinking in particular of the so-called Zen calligraphy, called Bokuseki 墨跡 in Japanese.  I might be mistaken here, but I’m under the impression that bokuseki is 1) very individualistic and æsthetics-driven, thus closer to our idea of “art” than 書道 and 2) kind of lived outside the (past) rigidity of 書道 tradition.  It seems to me that, in the tea ceremony, bokuseki is more popular as an alcove-scroll exhibit than pure shodō; if that’s true, it would be another point for bokuseki-as-art.
---lazy anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.10.219 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand correctly, Japanese themselves distinguish between the traditional art/craft of calligraphy, and the modern individual and aesthetics-driven styles. The latter are motivated by the Western concept of "art" and the "artist" (the concept popularised by 19th century France). The former is "tradition", and does not allow the artist to express his/her personality. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bokuseki 

message: Redone, added, moved, or displayed sections:
* #Definition (redone)
** Names (added)
** Art or practice debate (not balanced -> summarize + moved to Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art)
* #Evolution section (added)
* #Technique: principles (added)
* #Evaluation (hidden -> display)
* #Influences (1 Japanese and Korean calligraphies; 2 Other arts) (added)
Consensual contributions welcome. Creation of article Korean Calligraphy welcome.
Yug (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 May major expansion 

message: Qigong, although considered good in his time, is average at best when considering China's entire history (田蘊章(2006).《每日一題每日一字》). When I cleaned up the list before, I left him on, but he was on the very edge, the lowest common denominator. He is not in the same league as the rest of the people on the list of notable calligraphers in China. Seiseki Abe is still alive. It takes time, among other things, for one to be recognized as notable in this field. As a precaution against a conflict of interest, I recommend not adding people who are still alive. Asoer (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Asoer, I added some sources (Stanley-Baker). If you have time, take a look at it. It's mainly on Chinese painting, but that's closely relate (nice for our understanding!), there is some direct mentions of calligraphy and the importance of motion. I did read Stanley-Baker 2010a and extracted the key content relate to calligraphy. I didn't did it for Stanley-Baker 2010b, which should be more focused on Chinese painting in modernity. Yug 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About 啟功 and 阿部醒石 

message: John Robert Morrison (1814 - 1843) accompanied Edmund Roberts to Cochin-China and Siam, as Chinese interpreter and translator. As he was fluent only in Mandarin, many negotiations where conducted by means of Chinese characters on Chinese black paper using white ink and pencil brush.  --Pawyilee (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black paper, white ink, and pencil brush 

message: With this table : "  "
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.39.175 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem laying out 

message: I reverted today a set of edits to the intro between 27 February and 8 March 2013; some were clearly vandalism by anonymous users, deleting material (also parts of words); other ones were partially in good faith, but were deleting the resulting nonsense instead of reverting the vandalism. Some deletions might have been intended and legitimate, but without an explanation I assumed otherwise. In particular, I restored the sentence "There is a general standardization of the various styles of calligraphy in this tradition.", even though it's rather vague and hard to understand - but I think it probably just deserves rewriting.
So:
# should we protect the page from anonymous edits, given the amount of vandalism by anonymous users?
# if you want to redo some of the edits, please do them as clearly non-vandalic edit, with a username and an explanation. Thanks!
--Blaisorblade (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting (mostly) vandalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese calligraphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708220741/http://www.daikynguyen.com/eet/print_archive/united_states/chicago/2006/05-May/26/B7.pdf to http://www.daikynguyen.com/eet/print_archive/united_states/chicago/2006/05-May/26/B7.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514232132/http://www.mildchina.com/shanghai-travel-deals/china-ground-calligraphy.html to http://www.mildchina.com/shanghai-travel-deals/china-ground-calligraphy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified