【作者】 喻琴；

【导师】 余子侠；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 教育史， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪上半叶,是一个动荡和充满挑战的时代,西方文化艺术在中国的传播,极大地催化了中国美术教育思想和实践的变革。在美术教育领域,涌现出了一大批具有时代创新精神的高等美术院校及其领导者。林风眠与其主长的国立杭州艺术专科学校,就是民国后期的美术最高学府,林风眠也因之成为美术教育界的领军人物。既然一滴水能得窥大海,那么一个人或一所学校,便或可反映民国时期的美术高等教育的发展情况。研究林风眠,既可纵向研讨他的平生经历,亦可横向研讨某一时间点上他活动的方方面面。本文重点选取林风眠主长杭州艺专的10年,并聚焦于他作为校长所需要且具有的素养进行研讨,试图回答如后问题：(1)杭州艺专的办理过程以及绩效若何；(2)林风眠的个人素养与学校的成功办理有无关系；(3)担任美术院校校长所必备的素养有哪些；(4)林风眠在学养、品格和能力各方面有哪些优长或不足；(5)通过比较,能为当今的美术高等教育提供哪些借鉴。具体研讨思路为：首先,从杭州艺专的创设和办理入手,介绍并论述林风眠的办学实绩；其次,专门探讨林风眠学养的积淀,以及这种学养与他艺术创作和教学的关系；再次,专门探讨林风眠品格的形成,以及这种品格与他待人接物和团结师生的关系；复次,专门探讨林风眠能力的构成,以及这种能力与他治校办学和教育研究的关系；最后,通过林风眠与蔡元培的学养比较、与徐悲鸿的品格比较、与刘海粟的能力比较,相对客观地评价林风眠的优长或不足,进而得出自己的结论。本研究所假设的中心命题是：林风眠在学养、品格或能力等单方面,均非真正意义上的出类拔萃的人物；然而若就综合素养而言,他却具备了无意偶得的优势,并且正是凭借了这种优势,使他成为民国时期美术高校校长中的佼佼者。本文试图论证这个中心命题,并试图揭示理想中美术高校乃至其他高校校长所必须具备的素养。如就教育家的层面研讨,以学养见长者,或可称为“学者教育家”；以品格见长者,或可称为“君子教育家”；以管理能力见长者,或可称为“教育行政家”。那么,在民国时期,是哪一种教育家治教或长校有成呢?又是哪一种教育家居多呢?在中华人民共和国成立后,教育家的内涵及其构成究竟发生了哪些改变,并且这种改变对高等教育的影响何在呢?当今呼唤“教育家”又将如何致力呢?此类问题虽已溢出了本文的研究范畴,但却是笔者在进行本研究时经常思考的问题。对林风眠素养的研究,当然与之相关；但若想获得真切的答案,尚须进行扩展并深入的研究。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the First Half of the Twentieth Century, which was full of turbulence and challenges, the spread of western culture and arts in China had stimulated the reforms of Chinese art education thought and practice greatly. As a result, there were large quantities of higher fine arts universities and colleges and the leaders concerned who were characterized with the initiative spirit in the field of fine art education at that time. Among them, Lin Fengmian became the core leader of fine arts educational circle due to his contribution as the founder of Hangzhou National College of Art which represented the highest level in the advanced fine arts education during the late period of the Republic of China.The study on Lin Fengmian can not only focus on his personal history diachronically but also synchronically on the every side of his activities at a certain time. This dissertation centers on his ten-year work at Hangzhou National College of Art from the perspective of his qualities required as a president there, and attempts to answer the following questions:(1) How about the procedure of running Hangzhou National College of Art and its performance and influence as well?(2) Whether is Lin’s personalities related to the accomplishment of running the college?(3) What qualities are required as the president of a Fine Art College?(4) What are the strengths and weaknesses of Lin’s on the aspects of education, quality and capacity respectively?(5) What enlightenment can be offered for the current higher education of fine arts through comparison?The detailed discussion is shown as follows:Firstly, to introduce and expound Lin’s performance in terms of designing and running the college.Secondly, to illustrate Lin’s knowledge accumulation and its relationship with arts creation and teaching.Thirdly, to center on the forming of Lin’s personalities, and its relationship with his link between teachers and students as well as his hospitality. Fourthly, to discusse the forming of his ability, and its relationship with his ability to run the college and deal with education & research.Finally, to evaluates objectively his merits and demerits by the comparison with those of Cai Yuanpei and Xu Beihong respectively in terms of scholarship and self-cultivation and with Liu haisu from the perspective of abilityThe central hypothesis of the research is that Lin is not substantially the outstanding one as to the individual aspect of scholarship, self-cultivation, personality and ability. However, he is unexpectedly one with unique advantage in terms of comprehensive accomplishment. As a result, he had been one of the distinguished presidents among those of Fine Arts Colleges before 1949. This dissertation tries to demonstrate the essential scholarship and self-cultivation required for a president of a Fine arts college by confirming the central hypothesis.When discussing different educationists, we could divide them into three kinds: "scholar-type educationists" for their outstanding scholarship;"gentleman-type educationists" for their fine character; and "administrator-type educationists" for their remarkable management ability. Then, which type of educationists was successful and was in the majority before 1949? In the process of making the study, the author keeps thinking such questions as the changes in the connotation and construction as educationists, their significance on higher education and the direction of the current educationists’ devotion and so on after 1949, which may be beyond the central topic of the thesis but are connected with the study on Lin’s cultivation. Therefore, the real answer to those central propositions lies in the extensive and profound research.更多还原