项穆书法“三鉴”论辩

明代书法家项穆,把书法鉴赏划分为三个层次,即耳鉴、目鉴、心鉴,并对三鉴范围分别作了界定,提出了批评。这在古典书论中是不可多得的。但由于历史的局限,项穆对三鉴的划分是含糊不清的,持论亦失之偏颇。本文对项氏的论点进行了修正和补充,以期有助于当今书法鉴赏问题的研究。

Application of otolith shape analysis for stock discrimination and species identification of five goby species(Perciformes: Gobiidae) in the northern Chinese coastal waters

We tested the use of otolith shape analysis to discriminate between species and stocks of five goby species( Ctenotrypauchen chinensis, Odontamblyopus lacepedii, Amblychaeturichthys hexanema, Chaeturichthys stigmatias, and Acanthogobius hasta) found in northern Chinese coastal waters. The five species were well differentiated with high overall classification success using shape indices(83.7%), elliptic Fourier coefficients(98.6%), or the combination of both methods(94.9%). However, shape analysis alone was only moderately successful at discriminating among the four stocks(Liaodong Bay, LD; Bohai Bay, BH; Huanghe(Yellow) River estuary HRE, and Jiaozhou Bay, JZ stocks) of A. hasta(50%–54%) and C. stigmatias(65.7%–75.8%). For these two species, shape analysis was moderately successful at discriminating the HRE or JZ stocks from other stocks, but failed to effectively identify the LD and BH stocks. A large number of otoliths were misclassified between the HRE and JZ stocks, which are geographically well separated. The classification success for stock discrimination was higher using elliptic Fourier coefficients alone(70.2%) or in combination with shape indices(75.8%) than using only shape indices(65.7%) in C. stigmatias whereas there was little difference among the three methods for A. hasta. Our results supported the common belief that otolith shape analysis is generally more effective for interspecific identification than intraspecific discrimination. Moreover, compared with shape indices analysis, Fourier analysis improves classification success during inter- and intra-species discrimination by otolith shape analysis, although this did not necessarily always occur in all fish species.

项穆书法“三鉴”论辩

明代书法家项穆，把书法鉴赏划分为耳鉴、目鉴、心鉴三个层次。并对三鉴范围分别作了界定．提出了批评．这在古典书论中是不可多得的。但由于历史的局限，项穆对三鉴的划分是含糊不清的，持论亦失之偏颇。本文对项氏的论点进行了修正和补充．以期有助于当今书法鉴赏问题的研究。

心灵独白

走近王改民的书法世界,会发现要真正地认识一个书家,决非易事。目下,人们对书法作品的品鉴与针砭,常重“耳鉴”而轻“目鉴”。所谓耳鉴,即用耳朵来评判优劣,连眼睛也不怎么重要了,更遑论走进一个书法家的心灵世界去悉心体认书法家那种“心灵独白”式的艺术语言给人带来的魅力。作书法的审美判断,非得以目代耳方能知之,否则,便会神惑目迷,不得要领。庚辰孟冬,海内外著名书法家创作邀清展在北京中国美术馆展出期间,我有幸聆听各种不同读者对不同作品的不同反映。

贵耳贱目造“著名”

一友得当代著名书法家某公一册页，珍惜异常，邀数书友共赏。打开来一睹真迹，一友叹曰：盛名之下。我也觉得不过尔尔。朋友急了：我这可是花大价钱买来的，据说还有上涨的趋势。大家照例议论了一番。便作鸟兽散去。近翻闲书．见黄鲁直一首小诗：“驴耳对轩轩，争酬价一千。眈眈两虎视，不值一文钱。”当指当时的贵耳贱目现象。沈括在《梦溪笔谈》中也提出在书画界存在“耳鉴”的问题．他说“藏书画者．多取空名偶传为钟、王、顾、陆之笔．见者争售，此所谓‘耳鉴”’。可见．起码在宋代人们就已经贵耳贱目了．这也算是古已有之一例。