As the only masterpiece of Dong Yuan in the Five Dynasties, Riverside Map was bought by Xu Beihong in Yangshuo, Guilin on 1938. In the early autumn of the same year, Zhang Daqian went to Guilin, but he just "carried my giant frame of Dong Yuan". 1968, Zhang Daqian and C.C. Wang exchanged river maps, 1997 in May, which was bought by Tang Kui. In August of the same year, The New Yorker magazine published a signed article, quoting Gao Juhan, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a famous art historian in China, who thought that The Riverside Map was a fake of Zhang Daqian, causing an uproar. At the seminar, Gao Juhan made a speech on "Fourteen Questions about Riverside Map", arguing once again that the Riverside Map was forged by Zhang Daqian. China scholars retort that it was at least written by Song people. According to common sense, not many people are interested in this highly professional seminar, but not only nearly a thousand people attended, but the Americans present applauded for a long time after the high speech. Americans "don't understand" when China experts state their views. After learning, like me, I have no doubt about the appraisal and have no chance to see the true face of the "Xitu". I dare not say anything about it. However, after reading relevant reports, I feel like I am in my throat and want to vomit. Needless to say, the western "scientific" appraisal method is not necessarily better than China's traditional "looking at the sky" and "looking at the eyes" when appraising China's paintings and calligraphy. Some phenomena in the single seminar have explained the bullying of China culture by western strong culture. In this regard, even Croig Cluns, an American art historian, pointed out that this seminar "can even be interpreted as an unpleasant, racial challenge from western scholars to China scholars." Therefore, I also think that there are similar problems in the field of art history research and art criticism. In the field of art history and art criticism, we have introduced a large number of western art theory systems in the past hundred years. In the study of contemporary China art history and art criticism, there is indeed a great degree of emptiness and mystery. Especially in artistic criticism, The Eight Diagrams of Zhouyi, The Book of Hutuluo, The Thought of Laozi and Zhuangzi, and The Metaphysics of Wei and Jin Dynasties are like mysterious chapters, which are absolutely wonderful but illusory. The reader is at a loss what to say, and the author himself doesn't know the true meaning. The introduction of western art theory has undoubtedly played an important role in correcting the development of China's art history research and art criticism. Naturally, the more you introduce, the better. However, in the case of introducing a large number of western art theories, should we calmly reflect on the western art theories based on the evolution of western art, whether we can move to China intact and simply establish China art? As far as Chinese painting is concerned, after thousands of years of development and evolution, Chinese painting has formed its own complete aesthetic system, value standard and appreciation mode, which is very different from western painting, such as six methods, exquisite theory, vivid depiction and artistic conception style. What's more, it is not the "scattered perspective" assumed by modern people. Simply applying the western painting theory that we haven't really understood and digested to the evaluation of Chinese painting is tantamount to fiddling with rubber columns. The relative strength of western economy and military does not mean that culture is necessarily profound, but under the violent impact of strong culture, many people are at a loss. On the one hand, they don't study China's cultural spirit deeply and don't understand the deep connotation of China's art, but they are self-righteous without entering the palace of China culture. On the other hand, they don't have a real and thorough understanding of western culture. They read several semi-translated western works, blindly borrowed a few foreign terms they didn't understand, and criticized China's traditional art. Therefore, some people emphasize the "scientificity" of western painting, think that "Chinese painting is unscientific", hold high "pen and ink equals zero", and deliberately seek novelty, strangeness and wildness. Dazzle people's eyes and ears, lead them astray, it is still difficult to convince themselves, and it is even more wishful thinking to convince others. The cultural heritage and aesthetic style of Chinese and western art are at the same pole, and they are independent artistic systems. Many wise and sober artists have realized that it is impossible to save traditional art by blindly looking for "real classics" from the West. The profound connotation of China's traditional art makes it have unimaginable vitality. It is indispensable to absorb the experience of others, and it is more important to tap and carry forward our own fine traditions. Should we also reflect on our art history research and art criticism? We don't have to stick to the laws of our ancestors, nor should we abandon them. Today's art historians, while introducing western art theories accurately and systematically, should devote more energy to the in-depth and comprehensive study of China's traditional art theory, revive it and apply it to the current art history research and art criticism. In this way, many disadvantages in this field are expected to be improved. Art criticism needs communication and dialogue. Li (associate professor, flower-and-bird painter, Fine Arts Department, Shaoxing University of Arts and Sciences) Human culture has no eternal model and no absolute center. When discussing the dialogue between Chinese and Western art theories, the arguer should have China's local problem consciousness and specific context requirements. The object of artistic criticism is usually works of art and artists, therefore, its relationship with artists should be quite close. In today's era when material pursuits such as desire and money become the key words of daily life through the logic of market consumption, some painters, driven by money interests, favor artistic criticism in order to package and sell themselves. Other artists are indifferent or even dismissive of artistic criticism. There are artists' own reasons, such as low theoretical quality and narrow academic vision, which make them not interested in art criticism. But there are also reasons for dissatisfaction with the present situation of art criticism. A painter said to me, "Those who write art criticism articles read several theoretical books and get confused everywhere." . They may have rich knowledge of philosophy, aesthetics and art history, but they don't know painting. How can they know why I use this color, and how can they see the beauty of this color? "Although this statement is somewhat extreme, it is also reasonable. For art theorists, it is necessary to strengthen equal communication and dialogue with artists and even readers with a tolerant academic mind. Here I take the liberty to talk about some superficial views on some phenomena in art criticism. First of all, many articles lack specific analysis or the analysis of visual form characteristics is unconvincing. In the artist's mind, everything he sees and hears is transformed into the form of art media that he understands and grasps, while other factors are relegated to the potential background of artistic creation. Without in-depth analysis of the "particularity" of this artistic aesthetic creation form, it is difficult to cut into the ontology of the work. You know, most of the influential theoretical works in China's painting history were written by great painters. For example, China's earliest theoretical monographs, On Painting and On Painting, were written by Gu Kaizhi and Sheikh. The author of Lin Zhi in the Northern Song Dynasty is Guo; Lv Wang, who wrote Preface to Huashan in Ming Dynasty, Dong Qichang, who advocated the theory of Northern and Southern Dynasties, and Shi Tao, who wrote Quotations of Paintings by Bitter Melons and Monks in Qing Dynasty, are all famous painters. These works are not only regarded as classics by painters of past dynasties, but also shine brilliantly in the aesthetic history of China. It is not easy to feel and understand various visual forms. As the saying goes: "Interlacing is like a mountain", even a professional painter can't fully interpret his works of art outside his major. When a China painter looks at oil paintings, most of them can only stay at the appreciation level, and it is difficult to make a profound analysis that convinces the oil painters at the formal level. The scope of criticism of art critics involves China, oil, prints, sculptures, years, serials, propaganda, walls, folk art, art design and even architecture, calligraphy and so on. We can't expect theorists to practice all the styles of art, but critics must make great efforts to study the characteristics of their formal language in order to truly gain the right to speak. If you can't get to the point, it makes no difference for an artist to scratch his boots, and it doesn't help. It is a common phenomenon in art criticism that critics write articles praising works, but painters think that they are not necessarily good paintings. Some recommended articles don't have much analysis of the works themselves, but write a lot of knowledge about the history of literature, art and even philosophy, which is rigidly related to the object he wants to comment on, giving people the feeling that they can't comment on anything but insist on saying something. There are also some comments on artistic phenomena, which are hard to be recognized. For example, an article says: the descendants of Qi (Baishi) are "represented by Wu Zuoren"; Ink figure painting is divided into Xu () and Jiang (). It is said that in terms of light and shade modeling, Xu's paintings are mainly dyed, and Jiang's paintings are mainly chapped, which is classified as Xu School, and a large number of painters such as Liu Wenxi are classified as Jiang's disciples. This statement is quite arbitrary. Because in the eyes of China painters, Jiang's figure painting is suspected of using a brush instead of charcoal. As a special brushwork in Chinese painting, "Bian" is completely different from the light and shade in western painting, and the technique of dyeing has been used in figure painting for a long time. How did it become Jiang's patent? Who became his disciple by the method of Bian? Secondly, great changes have taken place in the discourse mode of art criticism since the mid-1980s, and a large number of new terms, terms and concepts of western cultural trends have been introduced. Based on this appearance, some avant-garde theorists who pretend to be elites think that the process of China's fine arts should also realize the same pattern transformation, but they give contemptuous denial to the local national culture and realistic painting style. They do not treat western modern culture with an equal attitude and make a critical understanding, but immerse themselves in modern superstitions and are eager to establish a modern utopia. Some theorists are proud of their submission to the center of western discourse. They impose the value standard of western culture on the colorful local art under different historical backgrounds and cultural traditions with a single linear thinking of either/or. According to dissipative structure theory, evolution does not follow a single trajectory. Therefore, human culture has neither an eternal model nor an absolute center. When discussing the dialogue between Chinese and Western art theories, the arguer should have China's local problem consciousness and specific context requirements. Art criticism is still unsatisfactory. For example, some articles are mysterious and the language is obscure. Who should the article be written for? There should be room. Reading some articles is far more difficult than reading Hegel's works, and painters can't understand them, let alone ordinary readers. If you just read it to people in your own small circle, there is no need to publish it in some articles. If you think about it carefully, it turns out to be very common and simple, with little knowledge and deep articles, which will only make people hate it. What's more, some critics have a condescending attitude, where they think they are telling the truth and can't tolerate other voices, which is of course disgusting. Some impetuous theorists are communicating with some painters for mutual benefit, which will inevitably lead to the vulgarization of artistic criticism and the decline of academic personality. These are limited to space, so I won't go into details here. Gu Liu (editor of Henan Fine Arts Publishing House, art historian), a real art critic, should have the minimum historical consciousness and critical ability, a sacred sense of mission and a quiet and free soul that does not serve things. This is the card of a real art critic. All history is contemporary history, and all comments on art come from the inner or subordinate myths of shepherds. Shepherds can be not only gods, but also art critics. To some extent, without a shepherd, there would be no sheep, no sheep, no shepherd, no shepherd, no world and history about this world, and no food and water necessary for shepherds and sheep. Since there is a shepherd, there must be his sheep, his food and his water. In order to find and get food and water smoothly, art critics don't have to care about face, and they are embarrassed to rape and occupy the original meaning of artistic creation with a kind of decent circle discourse that is sometimes applauded by artists like imperialism, and call it guiding creation and guiding fashion in the name of imperialism until good artists are ruined to the point where they can't draw. I feel sorry for all the artists in the world, but I told the shepherd that he was too embarrassed to stop his business and take stock. It is one of the bounden duties of art critics. Art is the creation of a real artist and a real genius, and it is a valuable discourse text, but there are good and bad points. As the British art historian Gombrich said in "Art and Self-transcendence", "The amazing Rembrandt works in the Stockholm National Gallery-only for these works, we are worth coming here-have different values from a Watto treasure in the same gallery. "However, in any era, artists like Hua Tuo, even painting practitioners who can't be compared with Hua Tuo at all, are really a dime a dozen, which has given birth to the so-called hotbed of art critics. There is a fashionable view that the art world is composed of artists, galleries, art critics and art dealers. In the logic of artistic situation in the noisy market, art critics even act as art brokers without shame, so that the price of craftsmen's works is often mistaken for valuable. Misleading comments seem to have a halo of value, even higher than the original words-the value of real works of art. In fact, in this case, real works of art are often lacking or even absent, and comment words are often not original-it has no diachronic value but only practical significance. Zhao's Who Criticizes Pictures defines the simple standards of artistic criticism: descriptive news reports; Explanatory notes are auxiliary notes; Analysis is the real academic art criticism. Believe it! This is also a proverb. So, what kind of person should be a real art critic? He is neither a totalitarian nor an art market speculator, nor an art theory enthusiast or self-deprecating participant without the breadth and depth of professional knowledge. Instead, it should be literary erudite people who really have profound practice and insight into the present era-such as art historians, writers and related research scholars specializing in a certain art field. They should have a basic sense of history and critical ability, a sacred sense of mission and a quiet and free soul that does not serve things. This is the card of a real art critic. Unfortunately, most noisy people nowadays don't have cards! Besides, there is no card at all! What I played was actually "borrowing" somebody else's cards! What a pity! What a pity!