| 摘要: | 二十世紀初葉西方近代文明，隨著日本的統治而傳至台灣，學校教育普及，加速台灣近代新美術發展。隨著「近代化教育」的逐步展開，台灣早期的美術教育亦經由初等教育或師範教育中的「圖畫教育」課程而被加以推行。來自於西方近代教育影響下的「圖畫教育」課程內容，反映當時西方近代化美術觀念，新美術之觀念亦自此傳台灣。 受此新美術影響下的台灣前輩畫家們，亦因接受「圖畫教育」課程的啟蒙，進而至日本、法國深造，並完成專業美術的訓練；其中以顏水龍與劉啟祥留日、法的美術教育背景最為鮮明、突出。然而二人並未固步自封，且藉由專業美術才能，將自己所學、所知盡情傾瀉於美術教育的傳承，培養後代工藝製作、美術創作的人才，對於台灣的美術發展有顯著的貢獻和影響。 戰後初期台灣的文化藝術活動移至北部，美術界也呈現重北輕南的現象，有別於台灣其他美術家往北部發展，顏水龍與劉啟祥眼見戰後初期南台灣的文化美術環境低落，皆不約而同選擇以南台灣為「美育」實踐的地區，使得南部地區不致全面成為文化沙漠。 顏水龍藝術教學的領域涉獵相當廣泛 (包括工藝、建築設計、廣告、印刷、馬賽克壁畫製作等)，而且藉由推廣「工藝美術」的契機，推出三個企劃方案：運用台灣本地資材、改良產品設計、宣傳經營台灣工藝品，並以自己長期推廣工藝美術的經驗，培養工藝美術專業人才；尤其當德國包浩斯Bauhaus 的工藝美學、設計理念，與顏水龍實際經驗吻合時，他更期望建立一所如包浩斯般的工藝美術學校。因此顏水龍再度提出設立工藝指導所的方案，其主要目的：其一、圖謀台灣工藝產業之近代化，其二、促進工藝品全面外銷，二大方針為藍本。以實際調查世界各地的相關工藝美術技術，提供原料生產、工具，以及機械製造等之設施和作業經驗，作為將來舉辦各種工業指導訓練、宣傳和指導的依據，因此他的工藝指導所的設立方案之構思，乃調查和參考包浩斯的建築設計模式，以及基本教育精神，進而編製完成。 劉啟祥由於臨摹寫生歐洲古典派、浪漫派、印象派等大師的畫作，因此在長期耳目斯染下，影響所及，使他有心栽培美術人才。自一九五0年代搬到高雄之後，不僅個人的創作以各地方風光為藍圖，亦參與南台灣各項美術研討會，或成立畫會、畫展活動，期望將藝術教育種子散播在台灣這塊土地上，並隨時呼籲政府當局在各地成立美術館，以作為「美育」養成的殿堂；因為像美術館這類擔負美術教育的機構，除蒐集本國畫家的佳作之外，更應盡力購藏世界性的傑作，以供研習參考。 另外，顏水龍與劉啟祥，強調並推廣「藝術生活化」、「美化生活」等涵養，其思想乃源自於二人「生活美學」的理念，主要在於表現「台灣本土美術」特色，本質上是基於對台灣社會的關懷，及期望台灣全民文化素養的提昇。因此二人在「美育」實踐的方法，表現在創作美學觀面向，為以印象主義之後興起的立體畫派、超現實主義，和抽象繪畫的美學思想為創作元素；其次，表現於生活面向，主要由生活中汲取繪畫養分，認為藝術源於生活，生活是一切文化滋長的泉源，而藝術亦應反映人類生活史。顏水龍推廣“生活美學＂，和劉啟祥“美育種子＂向下紮根(以台灣全民)理念實踐，顯示二人「關懷社會」的心態，亦反映對本土「美育」的實踐。 雖然二人「美育」實踐方向不同，但其精神卻是一致，皆秉持延襲捨模仿、重寫生的新觀念，強調智、感、情自由流露；以及手、眼、腦協同作業和並用能力，乃至以「地方色彩」樣式為題材的精神，且其「美育」對象亦由台灣社會民眾的文化美術教育開始，對「台灣本土美術」發展具有顯著的意義。
In the early 20th century, modern Western civilization, via Japan’s reign and colonization, spread to Taiwan, which generalized school education and accelerated the development of new contemporary art in Taiwan. was established as the very place where “the modern education” had been put into effect. Before long, the “Drawing Education” was set in both Elementary and Normal school. Introduced by Japanese educationists like Izawa, the idea of “Drawing Education” originated from the West now was taken into Taiwan, in the meantime, the so-called “New Arts” was hence transplanted to Taiwan, too. Under the influence of this new art form, many Taiwanese forerunning artists were enlightened by the “Graphic Education” curriculum and decided to pursue advanced artistic studies in Japan and France; they later completed professional training in art accordingly. Among these efforts, artistic education devised by Shui-long Yan and Chi-Siong Liu, who studied in Japan and France, respectively, are the most conspicuous and prominent. Bothartists used their professional artistic abilities and acquired skills and knowledge to cultivate a new generation’s crafts production and artistically creative talents; they made remarkable contributions to the artistic development in Taiwan. During the early days of the postwar period, Taiwan's cultural and artistic movement started migrating to north Taiwan. The fine arts academia also appeared to value the artistic development in north Taiwan more than south Taiwan. Differentiating themselves from those artists who chose to pursue their careers in north Taiwan, Shui-long Yan and Chi-Siong Liu witnessed the deterioration of cultural and artistic environment in south Taiwan during the early postwar period and selected, independently, south Taiwan as the region for their implementation of “aesthetic education,” which prevented south Taiwan from becoming a cultural desert. The scope of Shui-long Yan’s artistic education was vast. While advocating the “arts and crafts” movement, he presented three (3) business plans: The use of Taiwan’s materials, the improvement of product design, as well as the nurturing of arts and crafts professional talents based on his experience in supporting the “arts and crafts” movement. Especially after he realized that German Bauhaus “crafts and arts” aesthetics and design ideas were consistent with his own practical experience, he wished to establish an arts and crafts school similar to Bauhaus’s. Therefore, Shui-long Yan proposed the plan for founding a crafts instruction institute whose main functions were: 1) to achieve modernization of Taiwan’scrafts industry, 2) to increase the export of crafts. In addition to using these two main policies as blueprint, he hoped to compile the basics for various industries’ instructions, training, and promotion by thoroughly examining related arts and crafts technology in theworld, by understanding the production of raw material, and by acquiring operational experience in the usage of tools and machineries. The plan for his crafts instruction institute was thus based on his examining and referencing Bauhaus’s architectural design and his possession of the fundamental educational spirit. Because of his experience in duplicating and imitating the work of European masters of classicism, romanticism, and impressionism, Chi-Siong Liu was influenced by these masters’work, which ignited his desire to nurture artistic talent. After moving to KaoHsiung in the 1950s, he not only chose the sceneries of various places as blueprint for his work but also participated in south Taiwan’s fine arts seminars, or organized meetings for artists, exhibits and related activities, and encouraged the government to establish art museums in numerous locations where “aesthetic education” would flourish. Art museums not only should focus on art education and on the collection of this country’s fine work but also on the acquisition of world-class masterpieces for research and reference purposes. Moreover, Shui-long Yan and Chi-Siong Liu emphasized and advocated the movement of “adaptation of arts in daily living” and “beautification of life,” which originated from their beliefs in “living aesthetics.” To express their concerns for Taiwan’s society, they wished to showcase the art of Taiwan’s native culture and hoped to improve cultural literacy of Taiwan’s citizens. In the implementation of “aesthetic education,” and in the aspect of creative aesthetics, both of them relied on post-impressionism’s painting-oriented aesthetics philosophy as the creativity foundation. Next, in the aspect of living, they believed that the essence of a painting could be obtained from life and living, that art originated from life which is the source for the nourishment of culture. Art, on the other hand, reflects life history of the human race. “Living aesthetics” advocated by Shui-long Yan and “the seed aesthetics education” planted by Chi-Siong Liu revealed their concerns for the society, at the same time reflected their implementation of aesthetic education in Taiwan. Although their implementation directions for“aesthetic education” were different, their beliefs and spirit were the same. They forsook imitation and upheld continuity; their new concept of the emphasis on painting from nature promoted free revelation of wisdom, sensitivity, sentiment, as well as the coordination of hands, eyes, and brain; they picked themes that were with “local characteristics.” They started their implementation of “aesthetic education” in cultural and art education, eventually contributed significantly to thedevelopment of Taiwan’s native art. |
