本文以William Anderson（安得森，1842-1900）、Herbert A. Giles （翟理斯，1845-1935）及Laurence Binyon（賓揚，1869-1943）的著作內容，探討十九、二十世紀之交西方人撰寫東亞畫史時，知識架構的形塑特性。
本文首先指出：Anderson 1886 出版的《日本繪畫藝術》，書名中雖無「中國」，卻開啟了西方人評價中日宗教人物畫的模式。他兼重日本傳統文獻記載與實存畫跡，研究取徑近於今日美術史學科。其次，對比Anderson 與Giles 著作內容特性，可發現這兩位分別居於日本與中國多年的作者，在研究方法上頗為不同。筆者認為此須歸因於中日兩地，在世紀之交，文化環境上的巨大差異，尤其牽涉到古代畫史中的名作是否可見。
In this study, I focus on three English writers, William Anderson (1842-1900), Herbert A. Giles (1845-1935), and Laurence Binyon (1869-1943), whose books on East Asian painting were published during the late 19th and the early 20th centuries.
Many researchers have investigated the historiography of the East Asian art history, but only limited attention has been paid to developments at the turn of the 20th century. Most publications deal either the art history of China or Japan, with only limited attention paid to the relationship between the two.
Anderson published The Pictorial Arts of Japan in 1886. Even though this book was on Japanese painting, the author's discussion established a new way of viewing the East Asian religious figure painting and greatly influenced later writers. Relying on both documents and art works, Anderson approached writing his book in a manner similar to that of today's art historians. Moreover, comparing Anderson and Giles, we find that Westerners living in Japan and China employed different research methods when writing about East Asian painting histories. I consider the major reason for their distinctive means of studying was due to the differing availability of ancient paintings in different areas.
Binyon represents another type of writer. When he published his book, Painting in the Far East, in 1908, he had no experience of traveling in the East Asia. This paper will also probe the issue of the type of materials available to overseas Westerners. I consider whether materials from China and Japan were of different natures, and what were the key elements influencing Western writers' approaches to East Asian art histories.