However, putting forward new concepts does not mean that these two concepts are really open to scrutiny. From these two concepts, there are many things worth discussing and discussing. First of all, we should understand the relationship between the three concepts of "practical calligraphy", "artistic calligraphy" and "calligraphy" Calligraphy itself is an art, a kind of line art and lyrical art used by China people to express their special feelings and aesthetic tastes. This ontological definition made from the aesthetic point of view has long been recognized by the calligraphy academic community. Since calligraphy itself is an art, what is "practical calligraphy"? We all know that practicality and art are a pair of contradictions and paradoxes. So isn't there a logical contradiction between "practical calligraphy" and art? Since it is already a kind of "practical calligraphy", why is it still an art? Contradiction is not impossible, but what we are talking about here is philosophical contradiction rather than logical contradiction. Philosophical contradictions are everywhere, especially in the art of calligraphy, but logical contradictions are man-made and absolutely wrong, which is itself a grammatical error. Therefore, it is not advisable to say "practical calligraphy". So, what is "artistic calligraphy"? Since calligraphy itself is an art, isn't it repetitive and redundant to say "artistic calligraphy"? Obviously, according to the concept given by Mr. Wang Sifeng, most of the classic calligraphy texts in ancient China are "practical calligraphy", while a large number of modern calligraphy dross are "artistic calligraphy". Obviously, this logic is extremely absurd.
There are problems in Wang Wenzhong's two concepts, but this cannot deny Wang Wenzhong's significance and value. In fact, Wang Wen's central idea is mainly discussed from the perspective of the value and function of calligraphy rather than the ontology of calligraphy, that is, the value and function of calligraphy from ancient times to the present mainly experienced the transformation and transition from practicality to artistic appreciation. This kind of thinking is generally correct. However, Wang Wen is prone to misunderstanding and misunderstanding that ancient calligraphy (mainly before Ming and Qing Dynasties) only paid attention to its practical value, while modern calligraphy only paid attention to its artistic appreciation value. Actually, it's not like this at all. China's calligraphy has been a kind of literati art with great artistic aesthetics since ancient times. Even those simple, simple, simple, clumsy and ugly folk calligraphy and inscription calligraphy also have artistic aesthetic characteristics. What we call the practicality of ancient calligraphy is mainly in terms of its function and value attributes. Ancient calligraphy is more used as a text tool for calligraphers to realize their political career, and the forms of ancient calligraphy are mostly personal and practical things such as manuscripts, notes, letters, handwritten letters and official letters, focusing on their communicative and social practical attributes. However, this does not deny its own artistic aesthetic value. On the contrary, calligraphy in the modern context is completely different. The social function and political mission of calligraphy in the traditional context have been greatly degraded and dissolved, and it has been transformed into artistic aesthetic value and social public value, which is the prosperity of modern exhibitions. Therefore, in modern society, the practical attributes of calligraphy have been gradually replaced by artistic attributes and commodity attributes.
since this issue is mentioned, I would like to extend the following issue, that is, the issue of "practicality" in contemporary calligraphy. If we must use the concept of "practical calligraphy" to discuss it, then I think the calligraphy of some calligraphers and even some first-class calligraphers can be classified as "practical calligraphy". As mentioned earlier, "practical calligraphy" itself is a contradiction and paradox, and its contradiction and paradox lies in that, under the banner of "art" and the slogan of "creating literary works that are loved by the people", a large number of "practical calligraphy" which is the same and lacks artistic aesthetic value but is loved by the people is produced. However, we can't help asking, since it has become "practical" writing, what is the artistry? Since there is no artistry, how can it be called "calligraphy"? In fact, a considerable number of calligraphy theory workers have neglected such a problem: that is, they mistakenly regard "creating literary and artistic works that are loved by the people" as the core of calligraphy creation, and think that the more people they like, the higher the value of calligraphy. This view of literature and art is only influenced by the "class theory" in the 195s and 196s, which has great historical limitations. Moreover, this view of literature and art may not be suitable for calligraphy. What the broad masses of people like and recognize may not be of artistic aesthetic value in a short period of time; What has not been recognized by the broad masses of the people in a short period of time may not have no artistic aesthetic value. For example, although the current "popular book style" has not been recognized by most people, it does not necessarily have high artistic aesthetic value. I think many people who engage in theory can accept this truth, but those who engage in creation may not be able to accept it.