By Long Museum West Bund
Long Museum
The Long Museum began its collection of ancient Chinese art works with paintings, calligraphic works, porcelain, and artifacts. In terms of painting and calligraphy, the Museum has been able to accumulate, piece by piece, a series of works that are extremely important in the history of Chinese calligraphy and painting. We have selected a number of representative items from the entire collection for the "Opening Exhibition of Long Museum West Bund."this section is arranged under three themes: "Converse with Delight," where communication is established between some ancient works and a few contemporary ones; "Interpret the Subtlety," where modern texts are interpreted alongside ancient ones; and "Observe in Silence," where to grasp the pith and marrow of an art work through observation with one's heart and soul is emphasized and encouraged.
Gongfu Tie Calligraphy by Su ShiLong Museum West Bund
The calligraphic work "Gongfu Tie Calligraphy" by Su Shi has been making news recently, and we have heard different voices about this issue. The perspectives and argumentations of these voices will certainly help us perceive this work and Su Shi's calligraphic achievement more closely and with a better chance of unveiling its true essence. They may also help us know more about the identification, history, style, and demonstration of Chinese painting and calligraphy. The "knack" can only be obtained through studies.
《功甫帖》近期观点呈现:
2013年12月21日《新民晚报》
题名：苏轼书法《功甫帖》被指“伪本”
作者：钟银兰单国霖凌利中
观点摘录：上海博物馆书画部三位研究员钟银兰、单国霖、凌利中对书画史中的“双钩廓填”之法制造鹰品的现象进行了深入的考证与研究，并辅以晚清李佐贤《书画鉴影》中著录《苏米翰札合册》中苏轼《刘锡救》的研究，得出《功甫帖》系钩摹自清鲍漱芳辑刻的《安素轩石刻》，制作时间约为道光四年(1820)至同治十年(1871)的结论。
2014年1月1日《中国文物报》
题名:“从法帖中双钩”—谈《刘锡敦》、《功甫帖》墨迹的钩摹性质
作者：钟银兰凌利中
观点摘录：通过对《功甫帖》墨迹本所呈现的书风与苏书传世墨迹相较，墨迹本具有石刻“拓本”特有的形态，如莫名的笔触、不明斑源等，得出《功甫帖》墨迹本钩摹自鲍漱芳《安素轩石刻》，进一步指出《功甫帖》墨迹本并非安岐旧藏。其钩摹手法与《刘锡救》伪本如出一辙，即“双钩廓填”，时间约为道光四年至同治十年。且除许汉卿题记、藏印外，其余鉴藏印皆伪，翁方纲题跋、印章亦颇可疑。
题名：苏轼《功甫帖》辨析
作者：单国霖
观点摘录：作者首先从书法本体出发，将《功甫帖》墨迹本中苏书与传世苏轼真迹作对比，得出此帖书法不符合苏轼笔性特点形体虽相似，但气韵不畅。其次对翁方纲题跋提出质疑：(1)字数和文句与翁氏文集有出入(2)题跋书法、印鉴与传世所见均有差异。第三对安岐《墨缘汇观》著录中缘何不录项元沐收藏印的质疑。第四对张珩、徐邦达先生著录的质疑，文章认为张珩先生所见的是影本，由于年代、印刷品质量问题，张珩先生误以为在形体上和苏体上十分吻合的《功甫帖》墨迹本真而佳。徐邦达并没有言明是否见过《功甫帖》墨迹本原迹。
2014年1月8日(个人博客)
题名：论《功甫帖》墨迹本正是安岐著录本—与钟银兰、凌利中先生商榷
作者：陈萧羽
观点摘录：作者对刊于2014年元旦《中国文物报》中上
海博物馆书画部钟银兰、凌利中《从法帖中双钩—析(刘锡救)、(功甫帖)墨迹钩摹的性质》一文中因果逻辑关系一一进行了辩驳。得出如下结论:
1.《功甫帖》墨迹本不是《安素轩石刻》的双钩廓填本，反倒是《安素轩石刻》的母本。
2.《功甫帖》墨迹本比安素轩石刻本更接近苏轼真迹。
3.《功甫帖》墨迹本就是安岐《墨缘汇观》著录的原件。
2014年1月8日(雅昌艺术网)
题名：苏轼《功甫帖》的形态特色与比较
作者：李跃林
观点摘录：文章以上海博物馆书画部单国霖先生《苏轼(功甫帖)辨析》一文中认为《功甫帖》墨迹本中“别扭”、“瑕疵”、“赘笔”等不合苏轼笔法的特征与传世的苏轼墨迹进行图像对比研究，指出这些点画的形态特征并非《功甫帖》墨迹本中所独有的证据，而是大量存在于苏轼的各种传世墨迹中的，是符合苏轼的笔法和书法思想的，不能作为《功甫帖》是“摹写本”或“勾摹本”的证据。同时比较《功甫帖》真迹的聚墨痕与双钩本的勾线。更证实了其点画不可能用双钩的方法造成。
2014年1月13日(新浪官方微博)
题名：苏富比对有关苏轼《功甫帖》质疑的回应
作者：纽约苏富比中国古代书画部
观点摘录：文章针对上博研究员质疑，就鉴藏印真伪、翁方纲题跋与印章、双钩廓填、张葱玉徐邦达有无过目、墨迹本身等问题一一予以辩析。坚持认为《功甫帖》是一件流传有绪，历经清初安岐《墨缘汇观》等历代专著著录，经张葱玉、徐邦达先生鉴定并肯定为苏轼真迹的墨迹本。
2014年1月20日(雅昌艺术网)
题名：苏轼《功甫帖》考辨
作者：朱绍良
观点摘录：作者列举了去岁上海博物馆书画部三位研究员质疑苏轼《功甫帖》墨迹本的诸多疑点，并针对这些疑点一一进行反驳，推断出《功甫帖》墨迹本是最早著录安岐《墨缘汇观》，符合苏轼的书法风格，是流传完整且有绪的作品。关键论点摘录如下:
1.项子京收藏印钟银兰、凌利中在文章中认为:“按照项元沐的收藏习惯，不可能不在《功甫帖》上留印。”朱文则举出王羲之的《此事帖》、郭忠恕《雪霹江行图》等现存经项子京收藏的真迹，作品本幅上均没有项氏收藏印。得出项元沐收藏铃印不一定盖于藏品的本幅之上的结论。
2.翁方纲题跋、书法问题上海博物馆的三位研究员对照《复初斋文集》发现二者文字有出入，且翁字应该是稍瘦长，不应这般略显方些。朱文则以上海博物馆藏苏轼(传)《六君子图》中翁方纲题跋为据，认为其符合翁方纲的书法“略显扁方”的形态；且上面的跋文与《复初斋文集》差异更大。可见书法墨迹与文集记载有出入不足为怪。
3.纸张问题 《功甫帖》用纸属于北宋褚皮纸，不具备勾描使用的透明性，“双钩廓填”之说不能成立。
2014年2月16日(个人博客)
题名:“义阳世家”印断代与《功甫帖》的早期流传
作者：赵华
观点摘录：作者首先在朱绍良先生发现骑缝印为“义阳世家”的基础之上，通过中国姓氏血统观念的“郡望”与“祖籍”推断出“义阳世家”可能姓傅，即从义阳迁居闽南仙游的傅氏家族。另一方面又通过台北故宫博物院藏《真诲帖》推断出“义阳世家”的时代属性及曾经的递藏者—傅清叔(约118X-119X )，并推测出《功甫帖》的书写年代和宋代递藏史。
2014年2月18日(龙美术馆苏轼《功甫帖》媒体见面会)
题名:《功甫帖》纸张检测报告的说明(附“近墨堂书法研究基金会”检测报告)
作者：林霄
观点摘录：通过对《功甫帖》墨迹本背光照相、微观目视
等高科技检测，得出结论如下:
1.《功甫帖》墨迹本用纸不是“罗纹纸”。
2.《功甫帖》墨迹本用纸与一种已知的宋纸形态相同。
3.《功甫帖》墨迹本纸张较厚，不适合精细勾摹映写。
4.《功甫帖》墨迹本是自然书写。
The Sketching of Rare Birds (handscroll) by Zhao JiLong Museum West Bund
"The Sketching of Rare Birds" (xieshengzhenqintujuan) of the Emperor Huizong of the Song dynasty is surely a masterpiece in the history of painting and calligraphy, a work worshiped across generations, and a textbook example for learning and copying.
Copying the Sketching of Rare Birds by Emperor Huizong (handscroll) (1942) by Yu Fei’anLong Museum West Bund
To draw inspirations from the heritage, I managed to see quite a few excellent paintings owned by brokers. For instance, it cost me considerable time and resources to get Zhao Ji's "The Sketches of Rare Birds" (xieshengzhenqintu) home for copying. The painting was executed on paper and divided into twelve sections, with the impression of his Seal of Two Dragons (shuanglongxi) on each joining seam. Two more seal impressions reading "Zhenghe" and "Xuanhe" (two regnal titles of Zhao Ji as an Emperor of the Song Dynasty) were found on the fore part. The rear part was shorter and probably had been clipped a bit, leaving only the right half of an impression of the "Royal Calligraphy" (yushu) seal. The content of each section varies from one or two birds to flowers and cypress twigs, while four sections are devoted to ink-painted bamboos. The recorded approach to painting bamboo: "using pure ink to depict bamboos and leaving minute blank stripes in dense clumps" was illustrated in this work. I made a copy on paper of the Song Dynasty. From the painting, one can tell the close relation between Chinese painting and calligraphy: the beaks and claws of birds as well as the stems and leaves of bamboos resembled the emperor's calligraphicy style "Slender Gold" (shoujinti).
Director:Wang Wei
Curator:Wang Huangsheng,Cao Qinghui,Guo Xiaoyan
