论文部分内容阅读
冯蜂鸣《赤楠盆景观后感》(本刊95·5期)中的看法,值得商榷。找想从两方面来谈。一、“恐龙衔树”能成立否? 把并不象恐龙的东西说成恐龙,这是很不实在的。恐龙是中生代(地质年代)繁衍的爬行类动物,种类很多。人们对其最深的印象莫过于“庞大”二字。“赤楠”的根形有一丝儿庞大感么?如果一定要把它说成“象形式”的话,“象”乌龟倒差不多:正前方略向右弯的根活脱是爬行中的乌龟腿,短得快没有了的一截树干也活如强直的龟头。话说回来:就算是恐龙吧,按冯文强调的“树的比例协调”逻辑来看。那树的宽度(“恐龙”二倍)又该是多少呢?
Von bee “red chinquat landscape sense” (95.5 period issue) in the view, is debatable. Looking to think from two aspects. First, the “Dinosaur title tree” can be set up? Do not say something like a dinosaur dinosaurs, it is very unrealistic. Dinosaurs are reptiles of the Mesozoic era (geological age), many species. The deepest impression on people is the “huge” word. If you have to say that it is “like-shaped”, the “like” turtle is similar: the right-angled root in front of you is the turtle’s leg in the crawl, A short truncated tree trunks also live as straightforward glans. Having said that: even dinosaurs, according to Feng Wen stressed the “tree proportionally coordinated” logic point of view. What is the width of the tree (twice the size of the dinosaur)?