Calligraphic Iconology on Literature: The Image Relationship Between Language Art and Writing Art

1 The Art of Writing Is Not Immitation

The theory of imitation, also known as the reproduction theory or reflection theory, is fundamental in art history and continues to exert significant influence. It asserts that art’s relationship with the real world is one of regeneration, with art imitating, reproducing, or reflecting elements of nature, society, and humanity. This perspective suggests that the physical reality serves as the primary subject for artistic imitation. While art may seem to imitate non-physical aspects like thoughts and emotions, these abstract concepts are often represented through tangible objects. Without such tangible representations, art risks becoming a mere conduit for ideological concepts and emotional slogans, straying from its essence and falling into the realm of “non-art”. Therefore, the discipline of art necessitates that objects serve as both carriers and direct subjects of artistic imitation. This principle forms the cornerstone of the classical theory of imitation, particularly evident in realistic paintings, which epitomize the reflection of the physical world. In essence, the theory of imitation is indispensable and indisputable, particularly in painting and other pictorial arts. It underscores the fundamental principle that objects of imitation and reproduction primarily derive from the physical world, embodying the essence of classical artistic theory.

If this is the case, what can be done by applying this theory to explain the art of writing--calligraphy, and to propose or construct an aesthetics of calligraphy? Is it equally valid and unquestionable? Liu Gangji, in A Brief Introduction to the Aesthetics of Calligraphy (1979), contends that calligraphy, like other forms of literature and art, emerges from the calligrapher’s reflection on the beauty of form and dynamics in real life (Liu 2006, p. 6).

In the writing of Chinese characters, each point and stroke form a shape that, while not an exact replica of real-life objects, bears a resemblance to them. For example, a point may resemble a stone, and a stroke may evoke the image of a sharp knife. This notion forms the basis of the “reflection theory of calligraphy”, which posits that the forms created in calligraphy, like those in other art forms, imitate and replicate aspects of the physical world. It is precisely because the writing of Chinese characters with dots and strokes is able to create a variety of forms that are similar to real-life forms that when we face these forms, just as when we face real-life forms, there is a feeling of beauty or unattractiveness (Liu 2006, pp. 6-7). According to his theory, the “forms of characters” (or calligraphic icons), akin to other art forms, serve as a representation and reproduction of the physical reality. The distinction between “calligraphic images” and “painting images” lies in their visual experience, with the former emphasizing calligraphy’s unique characteristics in imitating the physical world.

In discussing the similarity between the “form of characters” and the real world, Mr. Liu overlooks the subjectivity inherent in interpretation. While he sees a point （）as resembling a stone and a stroke （）as akin to a sharp knife, others might perceive the same characters differently. For instance, what Mr. Liu views as a point resembling a stone might appear to others as a drop of water, and what he sees as a stroke resembling a sharp knife might be interpreted by others as a windswept ribbon. This variability in perception illustrates that such “similarity” is subjective and lacks the objective stipulation of physical resemblance.^[2] Unlike paintings, where distinctions between objects like a “stone” and a “drop of water” or a “sharp knife” and a “ribbon” are clearly delineated on the canvas, the subjective associations triggered by calligraphy can blur such boundaries. Even if there were illusions or visual errors, vastly different portraits wouldn’t be confused. It seems Mr. Liu conflated the imitation of objects in painting with the subjective associations evoked by calligraphy, failing to distinguish between the two. This confusion arises from his rigid adherence to the theory of reflection as a universal law, leading to a misrepresentation of the text due to a lack of clarity regarding the nature of the object.

Why doesn’t the theory of reflection (imitation theory) apply to calligraphy? To understand this, we must return to Aristotle’s “four causes”. The concept of “imitation” in the material reflection theory originates from Aristotle,^[3] and the “four causes”, rooted in the physical world, form the philosophical foundation of his theory of imitation. Therefore, the inherent connection between imitation theory and objects is intertwined with its relationship to the “four causes”.

According to Aristotle, any artifact, including art, has four general causes: material, formal, motivational, and purpose. “Material” refers to the original substance from which things are made, such as bricks and mortar for building a house. “Form” encompasses the essential definition of things and their manner of existence, representing the overall structure of the house, for instance. “Motivation” pertains to the force driving a material toward a specific form, which could be the craftsmanship and skills of those constructing the house. “Purpose” signifies the end or goal for which a specific thing exists, like whether the house serves as a church or a dwelling. Aristotle classifies the last three causes as “formal causes” because they share the same nature. Consequently, the “four causes” effectively condense into two primary types: material and formal. Material represents the potentiality of things, while formal embodies their reality (Zhao 2008).

Both sculpture and painting share the essence of portraying the world of objects through lines, colors, and textures. Regardless of the medium, the object of imitation or reproduction belongs to the physical realm. The distinction lies in the method: sculpture involves carving away excess material until it matches the figure, while painting entails adding lines, colors, and other materials to a blank surface until it resembles the envisioned object. In the creative process, the artist first envisions the image, reflecting the physical world in their mind, before giving form to the material. This process underscores the argument that “art is the imitation of the world”, establishing the material nature of the object of imitation. It asserts that artistic creation mirrors the world through the artist’s interpretation. In these judgments, the object world typically denotes the physical realm, emphasizing that “imitation” is intrinsically linked to physical objects. Thus, the theory of imitation asserts that art replicates the physical world.

Let’s consider calligraphy. The object of writing appears to be the text itself, and the writing process seems to be the imitation of the words, but this perception is flawed. Text is not an objective entity; it is a human creation, not inherent to the material world. So, how can we label it as an “imitation”? Words originate as mental constructs before being transcribed onto paper. Once written, printed, and disseminated, text becomes a communal product recognized by users. However, this is the “used” word, not the word itself. Words, from their inception, exist as mental images. When written, they externalize and materialize these imagined concepts. Thus, as the object of writing, words aren’t material but “images of words”. These images aren’t just the origin but also the enduring form of words. In everyday speech, words are stored in human memory. Writing emerged as a tool to represent language, shifting language’s referentiality from spoken to written form. In this sense, Derrida describes words as “the signifer of the signifier” (Derrida 2005, pp. 8–9).

Certainly, “words” exist in both visible written forms and in unseen mental representations. This duality imbues the concept of “word image” with both visible and invisible meanings. However, are the visible words written out considered a material existence? Not quite, as tools like pen, ink, paper, and ink stone merely facilitate the writing process – they are not equivalent to the words themselves. Different writing tools may influence the appearance and aesthetic of the written words, but they do not alter the sound or meaning of the words. In essence, writing tools impact the visual representation of the words, not their auditory or referential qualities.

Words are neither objective entities nor tangible “things”; they exist objectively only as linguistic codes, becoming social public goods in this sense. This objectivity is limited to their universal recognition as symbols, not in terms of the inherent nature of the symbols themselves. Words, as language codes, are as subjective and psychological as language itself because any symbol, whether linguistic or textual, is ideographic. Each word or phrase originates from the calligrapher’s mind, resulting in different interpretations of the word image among calligraphers. Once written and externalized into a calligraphic icon, handwriting varies due to factors like intentionality, physical movement, and writing tools, akin to a unique “finger print” that serves as the calligraphers’ signature. While the symbolic aspect of calligraphy is objectively recognized, the personal writing style remains subjective. It is essential to distinguish between the immateriality of the calligraphic icon and its physical existence – the latter being the result of writing rather than writing itself. Writing technique, being immaterial, underscores why UNESCO recognizes Chinese calligraphy as an “intangible cultural heritage”.^[4]

It appears that Liu Zangji’s initial reliance on the reflection (imitation) theory of calligraphy lacked thorough consideration, leading to a misunderstanding. Perhaps prompted by criticism, he revised his perspective in The Beauty of Calligraphy (1993), published 14 years later, introducing the “theory of analogical icons” to address the shortcomings of the reflection theory. Liu posited that while in the poetic world there is “Bixing (comparision)”, and “Bide (comparision of morality)” in appreciating the natural beauty, “Bixiang (comparison of icons, or analogical icons)” exists in the arts of crafts, music, dance, calligraphy, and architecture. Unlike “Bixing” and “Bide”, “Bixiang” involves complex comparisons, not based on verbal or realistic depictions but on the creation of visual or auditory images. It compares the changes of yin and yang expressed in all things in heaven and earth through the representation of “images” (Liu 2006, pp. 90–100). Liu’s concept of “comparison of icons” involves comparing not items found in reality but rather the “images produced by vision or hearing”, effectively rejecting his own reflection theory of calligraphy. This rejection stems from the understanding that visual and auditory “images” such as “stone” or “water droplets”, “sharp knife” or “ribbon”, are subjective and immaterial. While Liu’s shift is significant, he doesn’t extensively elaborate on the term “Bixiang”, instead associating it vaguely with “the change of yin and yang in all things in heaven and earth,” which remains too abstract and general.

In existing research, the concept of “Bixiang” primarily appears as rhetoric on calligraphic studies, where “Bixiang” mainly pertains to poetry composition. Meanwhile, “Bide” is not limited to the “appreciation of natural beauty”. Many paintings featuring nature as their subject matter aim to embody “Bide” in their artistic purpose. For instance, paintings depicting plum, orchid, bamboo, and chrysanthemum are likened to the “Four Gentlemen,” drawing parallels between natural objects and the virtues they symbolize. This association of “Bide” with the aesthetic psychology of the Chinese people has permeated into artistic creation, appreciation, propositions, and theories, particularly in painting art, blurring the lines between these activities.

2 Verbal Icons, Analogical Icons and Calligraphic Icons

As text serves as a substitute for speech, character icon likewise acts as a substitute for verbal icon. Consequently, the primary focus of analogical icons in calligraphy should be the verbal icons, and verbal icons turn to be the calligraphic icons through the analogical process. Wei Shuo even applied the method of analogical icons to stroke analysis, that is, (horizontal) resembles “thousands of miles of cloud formation”, (point) resembles “a falling stone from high mountain”,(apostrophe) resembles “a broken rhino horn or elephant tusk”, (hook) resembles “a powerful crossbow firing an arrow”, (vertical) resembles “withered vines of ten thousand years”, (down) resembles “crashing waves, or thunder breaking through clouds”, (horizontal folding hook) resembles “crossbows tendons and joints” … so on and so forth (Chen and Cui 2013, p. 5). “In short, it is a structure that conforms to the laws of nature, a ‘likeness’ or ‘analogy’ to the infinite variety of structures in the heavens and the earth.” (Liu 2006, p. 103) Undoubtedly, Mr Liu’s list of examples is very common and well-known in the field of calligraphic studies, and we might call it “rhetoric of comparison”, i.e., describing or praising the art of calligraphy by way of rhetoric of comparison. Our question is: What prompted the frequent use of comparative rhetoric in ancient Chinese calligraphy theories?

The rationale appears straightforward: firstly, the calligraphic icon is not a direct representation of an object, so abstract lines may take on figurative qualities, thereby inviting comparison with tangible images, referred to as “analogical icons”. Conversely, there is no necessity to compare tangible images, as they inherently represent objects. Secondly, concerning the particular beauty of calligraphy, the calligraphic icon serves as a representation of pen and ink modeling, conveying a meaning that defies verbal expression. Because this meaning is ineffable, it necessitates comparison with tangible images to articulate the inexpressible. In this context, the rhetoric of comparing images serves to articulate the ineffable.

Now that the inevitability of the rhetoric of comparison is evident, it is imperative to delve deeper into the act of writing itself: does a natural connection exist between the rhetoric of comparison and the creation of calligraphy? Is the thought process behind writing truly as objective as the rhetoric of comparison suggests? The answer seems to be affirmative. Most Chinese calligraphy theories are not founded on logical deduction, contrasting sharply with Western aesthetic “logos”, but rather stem from calligraphers’ personal experiences. In essence, ancient Chinese calligraphy theories emerge directly from the hands of practitioners, who are both calligraphers and scholars. These “calligraphy theories” essentially represent calligraphers’ introspection on their own writing experiences. This dual role of evaluation and practice embodies a fundamental aspect of ancient Chinese epigraphy: evaluation and practice are inseparable, forming a unified whole. Thus, the rhetoric of analogical icons, or comparison of images, authentically reflects the process of calligraphers’ contemplation on writing, capturing the essence of their thought process. Consequently, we can define the rhetoric of comparison at the level of thought: it encapsulates the essence of calligraphic art, akin to how the theory of imitation embodies the essence of painting and other art forms. In essence, “analogical icon” not only serves as the rhetorical pattern of Chinese calligraphy but also represents the thought process underlying the entire art of calligraphy.

In what aspect does calligraphy differ from painting in terms of imitation? Firstly, it is crucial to understand that the images being compared are “images of objects”. However, this is merely a standalone observation. When placed in a specific context, these “images of objects” are clearly products of imagination inspired by verbal writing. In essence, these “images” originate from “verbal images” and are closely intertwined with the realm of language, belonging to the psychological realm rather than the physical world directly imitated by painting. More precisely, “analogical icon” represents the emotional expression arising from a particular writing context and scene, influenced by the characters penned by the calligrapher. Moreover, the concept of “analogical icon” in calligraphy arises directly from the act of writing itself, as the written characters trigger the imagination of objects. Therefore, the essence of calligraphic comparison lies in the delayed manifestation of the verbal icons conveyed by the written characters, rather than a direct reflection of the physical world.

Unlike the direct object in imitation theory, which is visible and bears resemblance to the depicted object, the object in calligraphic comparison is intertwined with the character’s meaning, becoming part of the verbal icon. Here, the direct object of comparison is the character itself, its meaning, rather than the physical entity it represents. This comparison process relies on free association rooted in the calligraphers’ inspiration from the text or induced by the verbal icon of the text. Considering that calligraphers inevitably contemplate the meaning of the characters they write, the act of writing is deeply influenced by this verbal icon. For instance, when we hear, say, write, or recognize the character “tree”, an image of a tree simultaneously emerges in our minds.^[5]

When calligraphers write characters, they engage in a complex interplay between the verbal icons, the character icons and the calligraphic icons. This relationship is founded on the heterogeneous isomorphism of these elements (Zhao 2021, pp. 73–88). The “six principles in Chinese character formation” underscores the similarity between the character icon and its reference, namely the meaning. Although modern Chinese characters are predominantly morphophonetic rather than pictograms, the sound remains the sole carrier of meaning in spoken language. When spoken language transitions to written text, the character icon supplants speech, with sound transforming into the silent undercurrent within the character icons. Consequently, visual perception takes precedence over auditory comprehension in linguistic behavior. In this context, readers must initially recognize the character icon, subsequently activating its pronunciation and grasping its meaning. The essence of morphophonetic characters lies in the convergence of the character icon and character meaning. In morphophonetic characters, the auditory component is contingent upon the form of a character, with text primarily deciphered through its visual shape before fully realizing its auditory aspect. Monograms, predominantly pictograms and ideograms, vividly illustrate the alignment between character image and meaning. Composite characters, on the other hand, can be viewed as a synthesis of multiple monograms.

The essence of the Chinese character formation principles underscores the alignment between character icon and meaning, implying that in analogical icon, only the verbal icon can be the object of comparison, with other images serving as indirect rather than direct subjects. This limitation is further reinforced by the fact that the calligraphic icon results from the formalization of the character icon. The process of the “formalization of character icon” involves manipulating strokes or adding, modifying, or distorting them to imbue the static character icons with dynamic intentionality. Although the reference of the written character icon may be an “object”, this “object”, as a reference (meaning), pertains more to semantics than the existence of an actual object. Consequently, the icon being compared enjoys complete freedom. This freedom allows various legitimate icons to be compared with the same object (calligraphic icon). For instance, a point（）can be likened to “a stone” or “a drop of water”, while a stroke（）can evoke the imagery of “a sharp knife” or “a windswept ribbon”. This flexibility underscores the rhetorical nature of Chinese calligraphy, which tends to emphasize the beauty of the calligraphic icons rather than unveil the laws of writing.

Indeed, the verbal icon to which the comparison is made is not isolated from the material world; rather, their relationship is indirect. This relationship mirrors that between character icon and the physical world. Given this, it is natural to understand that “analogical icons in calligraphy” is synonymous with “taking the image as a metaphor”. Therefore, natural objects in calligraphy are analogized to the verbal icon, constituting indirect elements in the analogical icon.

3 A New Field: Calligraphic Iconology

As previously discussed, the verbal icon and analogical icon are inseparable in the conception of calligraphic icon, akin to two sides of a coin, deeply integrated into the organic whole of calligraphy. Despite this inherent unity, traditional studies of calligraphy and contemporary aesthetics often bifurcate into pure technical analysis or vague comments like “the writing style mirrors the calligrapher”, failing to fully comprehend calligraphy’s holistic nature. Recognizing this division, the theory of calligraphic icons introduces a novel field to the study of calligraphic art, departing from past conceptions, methodologies, and foundational theses. This emergence of calligraphic icons as a new domain underscores the need for its distinctiveness and its potential to provide a more comprehensive understanding of calligraphy.