However, seal, inscription and postscript can be used as one of the basis for identifying calligraphy and painting, but the premise is brushwork. We can't rule out the possibility of ghostwriting. Some authors find others to paint pictures and stamp them at their own expense. There are ghostwriting problems in Qi Baishi's later works. Because he is old, he was painted by Lou Shibai or Qi Ziru, the son of Qi Baishi. Finally, Qi Baishi added a few strokes to the ghost painting symbol, one is to cover up possible shortcomings, and the other is to increase credibility. Such paintings and calligraphy can often be faked and circulated. The promotion of others is the inscription of the previous generation's works, and we can't rely on it completely. For example, in the Northern Song Dynasty, Wu Zongyuan's "Yuan Xian Zhang Tu", the inscription and postscript in the Southern Song Dynasty admitted that it was written by Wu Daozi, and Yuan Zhao Mengfu dialectically identified the painting schools of Wu Daozi and Wu Zongyuan in the Northern Song Dynasty, thinking that it was Wu Zongyuan rather than Wu Daozi. When we can't understand Wu Zongyuan's school of painting, and the person of the era of "Yuan Chao's current picture" is proved to be the Northern Song Dynasty, the inscription of the Southern Song Dynasty people has had the opposite effect. Seal is very easy to forge, especially after the appearance of zinc plate, the seal carved out can be almost identical. Description is written description, which has been wrongly recorded since ancient times. Qing Gufu's Magnificence of Life is a descriptive book about Ni Yunlin's Spring Scenes in Wusong. He said that Dong Qichang and Wang Maodeng said that the painting (with inscriptions by Dong and Wang) was wrong, and he thought it was written by Yuan Zizheng. When Spring Scenes in Wusong itself was proved to be Ni Yunlin's brush, the "magnificence of life" was reversed. The ability to use other words as a basis is even weaker. In Qing Dynasty, Zheng Xie wrote the word "fire" instead of "swim" under the word "diarrhea", and Shan Li wrote the word "horn" instead of "fish". The word "Xie" was written by Zheng Xie. Therefore, when the calligraphy and painting itself is proved to be true, these words are counterproductive. When we use taboos to identify the age of calligraphy and painting, we should also take the brushwork as the standard, because some copies copy the taboos of the previous dynasty, such as those copied from the Song Dynasty to the Tang Dynasty. In this case, in order to identify the authenticity, it is necessary to put the taboo words together with the style of the times and the brushwork characteristics of the works. Another example is the cursive script "Luo Shen Fu" written in the Southern Song Dynasty, in which the word "Shu" is missing, and the word "Shu" is the English Sect of the Northern Song Dynasty. Time often backfires. The following examples are all original paintings and calligraphy. For example, in the "Narcissus Roll" by Badashanren, there is a poem inscribed by Shi Tao, which reads, "Badashanren was the snow of that year, and the immortal has gone, so I will pay attention to the occasional topic." The date was Ding Chou, the thirty-sixth year of Kangxi, and Badashan was 72 years old and not dead. This year has backfired. Calligraphy and painting itself is the subject of appraisal. Only by establishing this foundation can we use the circumstantial evidence such as seals, inscriptions, descriptions, other words, years, taboos and money knowledge. If we abandon painting and calligraphy itself, we will make full use of the periphery of painting and calligraphy, forcing painting and calligraphy itself to be in a passive position. The basis of this method is only circumstantial evidence, one-sided and dangerous. Therefore, this appraisal method can not only solve the contradiction, but also cause more serious contradictions, and finally lead to the consequences of confusing the fake with the real and confusing the fake with the real. The conclusion is that calligraphy and painting are not epistemological. In fact, the power of circumstantial evidence does not play a decisive role in the authenticity of calligraphy and painting itself. Because its relationship with painting and calligraphy is not the same thing, but subordinate to painting and calligraphy, it can only play a supporting role in painting and calligraphy. And sometimes it doesn't work or even backfire. Only after a concrete analysis of calligraphy and painting itself can we know whether it can play a role within its specific scope and to what extent. Therefore, calligraphy and painting itself is the subject of appraisal and the most exact basis. Only if this basis is independent, it is possible to use all circumstantial evidence.