遼畫的社會文化背景、定義與誤歸問題探討

Abstract

遼（907–1125）由契丹族所建立之多民族國家，漢族為其中之多數居民。其統治疆域橫跨今日中國東北、華北及蒙古草原地區，藝術文化亦兼具草原遊牧與漢地制度之雙重特性。然當代學界對遼代繪畫之認識，長期偏重於墓室壁畫，對紙絹繪畫之創作制度、社會背景、風格樣貌、圖像題材及其歷代流傳等議題，尚乏系統性之研究。本文首先透過對遼代社會族群結構與文化政策之梳理，可見其農耕與遊牧並行之雙軌文化體制，以及貴族階層（如耶律倍、遼聖宗）與宮廷畫院（如翰林畫待詔陳升）之繪畫活動，共同構成紙絹畫實踐之社會環境與制度基礎。再者，葉茂台七號墓所出土之掛軸實物，與北京趙德鈞墓室壁畫〈觀畫圖〉中卷軸觀賞情境之描繪，亦可作為紙絹畫存在形式之具體證據。在論證遼代紙絹畫之創作基礎後，本文進一步整理出土實物與傳世作品，並歸類提出「遼畫」作為一具有文化主體性的藝術術語，以及遼畫之題材，典型風格特徵等。為解答「遼畫之形象為何模糊不清？」本文進一步對藝術史知識建構的歷史進行反思，指出北宋早、中、晚期的文獻記載逐步遮蔽了遼畫相關資訊，導致遼畫在後世的藝術史知識建構中逐漸失名。宋元以來的書畫編纂系統，基於文化偏見、政治立場，將遼畫錯誤歸入如陳居中等宋代畫家名下，最終由清代《石渠寶笈》系統性地鞏固此一錯誤命名邏輯，導致遼畫在當代藝術史體系中幾近消隱。本文使用社會文化史研究-圖像風格比較-畫史文獻比對三重遞進式的方法，嘗試重建遼代紙絹畫的創作背景、風格圖像定位、與認知歷史。「遼畫」之提出，嘗試突破過往中國藝術史研究中漢族王朝中心主義的限制，建構去中心化的多元視角，進而促發對既有藝術史知識之建構歷程的批判性思考。The Liao dynasty (907–1125), established by the Khitan people, ruled a vast territory spanning present-day Northeast China, North China, and the Mongolian steppe. Its artistic culture embodied a dual identity, combining steppe nomadic traditions with Han Chinese institutional frameworks. Contemporary scholarship on Liao painting has predominantly focused on tomb murals, while the existence of paintings remains underexplored. This study first proves the social environmental and institutional foundation of Liao paintings. At meanwhile, material evidences such as the hanging scroll excavated from Tomb No. 7 at Yemotai and the depiction of scroll-viewing scenes in the mural Viewing Paintings from Zhao Dejun’s tomb in Beijing substantiate the presence of silk and paper painting practices and their formats.Building upon this evidence, this study continues reconstructing the stylistic features of Liao painting, asserting that it was not a mere imitation of Song models, but rather a fusion of Tang visual language and steppe realist aesthetics. By proposing “Liao painting” as an independent, regional, and historical artistic term, this article aims to highlight the cultural subjectivity of Liao painting and provide a conceptual foundation for comparative studies with mainstream artistic traditions such as Tang and Song painting. Compared to “Khitan painting,” which emphasizes ethnic affiliation, the term “Liao painting” focuses more on image practices based on political space, thereby revealing its multi-ethnic nature and institutionalized cultural production.Finally, this study reflects on the historiographical classification of Liao painting, revealing how it gradually “lost its name” in the art historical canon. Article reveals that literary records from the early, middle, and late Northern Song dynasty gradually obscured information related to Liao painting, leading to its gradual disappearance from art historical knowledge construction in later generations. This process was ultimately solidified in the Qing dynasty’s Shiqu Baoji, leading to the near-total erasure of Liao painting from current chinese art historical discourse.