Bridging Tradition and Innovation: The Semiotic and Cultural Significance of the New Zhejiang School of Figure Painting
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The New Zhejiang School of figure painting blends traditional Chinese aesthetics with modern artistic influences, shaping contemporary Chinese art. This study examines its contributions through semiotic and cultural analysis, focusing on (1) its role as a cultural bridge between tradition and modernity, (2) its contrast with other contemporary Chinese painting styles, and (3) its aesthetic strategies and innovations.
Using a qualitative methodology, the study applies semiotic and comparative analysis to eight selected paintings, interpreting their brushwork, composition, and symbolism. Peirce’s triadic model of the sign and Panofsky’s three-tier analysis provide theoretical insights into how the school negotiates cultural identity and artistic expression. Comparisons with the Beijing School and abstract ink painting highlight its distinct approach.
Findings reveal that the New Zhejiang School preserves traditional brush techniques and philosophical aesthetics while incorporating modern composition and Western influences. Paintings such as Zhou Changgu’s Smoke by the Field and Liu Guohui’s Earth Wall demonstrate its commitment to cultural heritage, while Fang Zengxian’s Mother and Wu Xiansheng’s The Women in Daliang Mountain engage with contemporary social themes. The school’s ability to merge tradition with modernity ensures its relevance in a globalized artistic landscape.
This study contributes to understanding Chinese figure painting’s evolution, highlighting the New Zhejiang School’s role in cultural continuity and artistic innovation. It offers insights into the adaptation of traditional aesthetics in modern contexts, enriching discussions on Chinese art’s future.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions appearing in the Journal it is the responsibility of the author of the article, and does not constitute the view and responsibility of the editorial team.
References
Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of semiology. Hill and Wang.
Chang, K. C. (1974). Art, myth, and ritual: the path to political authority in ancient China. Harvard University Press.
Chen, Y. Y. (2017). Analysis of the kernel of Pan Tianshou’s Chinese painting teaching system. Art Education Journal, 102(3), 34–38.
Clunas, C. (1997). Art in China. Oxford University Press.
Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press.
Fan, B. (2023). On the aesthetic form of Chinese painting. China Social Sciences Press.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. SAGE.
Lotman, Y. M. (2001). Universe of the mind: a semiotic theory of culture. Indiana University Press.
Panofsky, E. (1955). Iconography and iconology: an introduction to the study of Renaissance art. In Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the visual arts (pp. 51-81). Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Peirce, C.S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vols. 1-6, C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Vols. 7-8, A.W. Burks (Ed.), (pp. 1931-1935). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Xu, B. (2008). Artistic conception and its relation to traditional Chinese painting. Journal of Chinese Aesthetic Studies, 22(3), 10–18.
