評分標準 / Judging Criteria

本賽事評分採用 0-100 分制，評審團將從書法技術、藝術表達、作品完整性等多維度綜合考量參賽作品，兼顧傳統規範與青少年創作特色，具體評分細則如下：
 

一、評分細則

1. 技術精度（40%）

核心考察參賽者對書法基礎技法的掌握與規範性：

1. 筆法把控：起筆、行筆、收筆的完整性（如楷書的頓筆、行書的牽絲），用筆力度的均勻度與變化合理性，避免出現「枯筆斷墨」「用力失控」等問題；

2. 結字規範：單字結構的均衡性（如間架佈局、偏旁比例），是否符合所選書體的經典結字原則（如楷書「橫平豎直」、隸書「蠶頭燕尾」），避免字形歪斜、比例失調；

3. 章法佈局：整幅作品的排版合理性（如字距、行距的疏密度），落款、印章（若有）的位置與大小是否得當，避免出現「擁擠留白失衡」「落款壓主文」等問題。
    

2. 藝術表達（30%）

聚焦參賽者透過筆墨傳達的藝術韻味與個人風格：

1. 墨色層次：能否通過墨量控制呈現濃、淡、幹、濕的變化（如行書的「飛白」、國畫書法的「破墨」），讓作品更具立體感與韻律感；

2. 風格契合：是否準確把握所選書體的藝術特質（如篆書的古樸厚重、行書的流暢灑脫），避免出現「楷書寫得過於潦草」「隸書失去波磔韻味」等風格偏差；

3. 情感蘊含：作品能否透過筆觸節奏（如緩急、輕重）傳達內容情感（如書寫豪放詩作時筆力飽滿，書寫清雅短句時筆觸柔和），避免「筆墨與內容割裂」。
    

3. 作品完整性（20%）

衡量參賽作品的整體完成度與細節把控：

1. 內容準確：書寫文字無錯字、漏字、多字，繁簡字使用統一（如全篇用簡體或全篇用繁體），引用經典詩文時無斷句錯誤；

2. 細節打磨：紙面整潔度（無多餘墨漬、塗改痕跡），筆觸的幹淨度（無「毛刺」「暈染失控」），確保作品呈現「工整精緻」的視覺效果；

3. 形制規範：符合所選形制（豎幅、橫幅、鬥方）的常規要求，無「紙張裁切不齊」「書寫內容超出紙張邊界」等問題。
    

4. 選材與匹配度（10%）

關注作品內容、書體選擇與參賽者能力的契合度：

1. 難度適配：能否依據自身技術水準選擇合適難度的書體與內容（如低年齡段避免挑戰篆書等複雜書體，高年齡段不局限於簡單楷書單字）；

2. 特長發揮：選材能否充分展現個人優勢（如擅長細膩筆法者選擇楷書，擅長流暢節奏者選擇行書），達到「以作品揚長」的效果，避免「盲目追求難度導致技術漏洞」。
    

二、評審機制

1. 雙重獨立評分：每件參賽作品由 2 位專業評審分別獨立打分，取兩者平均分作為最終成績，最大限度降低主觀偏差，保障評分公平性；

2. 權威評審團構成：評審團成員涵蓋中國書法協會資深會員、青少年書法教育研究專家、知名書法培訓機構教研負責人及傳統書法傳承者，兼具「傳統書法規範把控能力」與「青少年藝術教育視角」，既能以專業標準評判技法，也能尊重青少年在筆墨中的童真與探索精神，挖掘每位參賽者的藝術閃光點。
    

Judging Criteria
This competition employs a 0-100 point scoring system. The judging panel will comprehensively evaluate entries across multiple dimensions, including calligraphic technique, artistic expression, and overall integrity, while balancing traditional standards with the distinctive characteristics of youth creativity. Specific scoring details are as follows:
 

I. Scoring Details

1. Technical Precision (40%)

Core assessment of the entrant's mastery and adherence to fundamental calligraphic techniques:

1. Brushstroke Control: Completeness of initial stroke, continuous stroke, and final stroke (e.g., pauses in regular script, thread-like strokes in cursive script), uniformity and appropriate variation in brush pressure, avoiding issues like “dry brush/broken ink” or “uncontrolled force”;

2. Character Structure: Balance of individual character composition (e.g., skeletal layout, radical proportions), adherence to classical principles of the chosen script (e.g., “horizontal strokes level, vertical strokes straight” in regular script; “silkworm heads and swallow tails” in clerical script), avoiding slanted forms or disproportionate elements;

3. Composition and Layout: The rationality of the overall arrangement (e.g., spacing between characters and lines), and the appropriateness of the placement and size of the signature and seals (if any), avoiding issues like “crowded composition with imbalanced negative space” or “signature overshadowing the main text.”

2. Artistic Expression (30%)

Focuses on the artistic charm and personal style conveyed through brushwork and ink:

1. Ink Layering: Ability to control ink volume to achieve variations in density, lightness, dryness, and wetness (e.g., “flying white” in running script, “broken ink” in Chinese ink painting calligraphy), enhancing the work's three-dimensionality and rhythmic quality;

2. Style Consistency: Accurate capture of the chosen script's artistic essence (e.g., the archaic weight of seal script, the fluid grace of running script), avoiding stylistic deviations like “cursive script rendered too hastily” or “clerical script lacking its characteristic wave-like rhythm”;

3. Emotional Conveyance: Does the work convey the content's emotion through brushstroke rhythm (e.g., variations in speed and pressure), such as using robust strokes for bold poetry and gentle touches for elegant verses, avoiding a disconnect between brushwork and content.

3. Work Integrity (20%)

Evaluates the overall completion and attention to detail of the submitted work:

1. Content Accuracy: No misspellings, omissions, or extra characters in written text; consistent use of traditional or simplified characters (e.g., entirely simplified or entirely traditional); no punctuation errors when quoting classical poetry or prose.

2. Refined Details: Paper cleanliness (no excess ink stains or erasure marks), brushstroke precision (no “frayed edges” or “uncontrolled bleeding”), ensuring a “neat and refined” visual presentation;

3. Format Compliance: Adherence to standard requirements for the selected format (vertical scroll, horizontal scroll, square panel), with no issues such as uneven paper trimming or content extending beyond paper borders.
    

4. Material Selection and Suitability (10%)

Evaluate the alignment between content, chosen script, and the entrant's skill level:

1. Appropriate Difficulty: Whether the selected script and content match the entrant's technical proficiency (e.g., younger age groups should avoid challenging scripts like seal script, while older age groups should not be limited to simple regular script characters).

2. Strength Highlighting: Whether the chosen material fully showcases personal strengths (e.g., selecting regular script for those skilled in delicate brushwork, or running script for those adept at fluid rhythm), achieving the effect of “showcasing strengths through the work” and avoiding “blind pursuit of difficulty leading to technical flaws.”

II. Judging Mechanism

1. Dual Independent Scoring: Each entry receives separate scores from two professional judges, with the final score being the average to minimize subjective bias and ensure fairness.

2. Authoritative Panel Composition: The judging panel comprises senior members of the China Calligraphers Association, experts in youth calligraphy education research, heads of teaching and research departments from renowned calligraphy training institutions, and traditional calligraphy inheritors. This diverse group combines “traditional calligraphic standard oversight” with a “youth art education perspective,” enabling both professional technical evaluation and respect for the childlike innocence and exploratory spirit in young artists' brushwork. This approach uncovers the artistic brilliance within each participant.