劉禮賓 文 岳中生 譯/

編者按：本文重提的“超越性”，實(shí)際是作者對(duì)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)再次梳理和反思的過程中所理出的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)發(fā)展的可能性線索。現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)發(fā)展的背景、當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的紛繁現(xiàn)象、藝術(shù)家的身份都結(jié)合現(xiàn)象得以論及。藝術(shù)史、藝術(shù)理論、藝術(shù)評(píng)論的各個(gè)層次，也由于作者在這些層面的廣泛涉獵而有所展現(xiàn)。中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)怎么來，到哪里去，作者書寫了一些方向。

Editor’s note: The issue of “transcendence” readdressed in this paper is, in fact, a possible clue that the author draws through a reexamining effort to developing contemporary Chinese art. Also under scrutiny are this period’s background,art phenomena, and artists’ identity. Besides, art history, theory and criticism at all levels are touched upon thanks to the author’s extensive reading. And the paper, too, offers an insight into the origins and developmental trends of China’s contemporary art.

“超越性”和“介入性”應(yīng)該是中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的兩個(gè)指向，但在時(shí)下，相對(duì)于“介入性”各種變體的發(fā)展來講，“超越性”的缺失是亟須提醒的問題。凸顯這個(gè)問題，明確這一長(zhǎng)期被忽視的維度，列舉它被遮蔽的原因，所造成的對(duì)諸多藝術(shù)現(xiàn)象的或遮蔽，或拔高，從而可以引起從業(yè)者和旁觀者的警覺。正本清源，可以給諸多藝術(shù)家尋找一個(gè)理論的棲息之地，創(chuàng)作的著力之點(diǎn)，為中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)開啟一扇長(zhǎng)久半閉半掩、時(shí)開時(shí)合的“門”。

一、“超越性”為何被遮蔽？

1.十九世紀(jì)中葉以來，國(guó)家危亡的遭遇，對(duì)“民族國(guó)家”確立的期待，列強(qiáng)侵略的痛楚，藝術(shù)服務(wù)對(duì)象的明確，對(duì)“現(xiàn)代”的憧憬與期待，乃至強(qiáng)國(guó)富民的迫切感等等，均使“美術(shù)”（以及各種藝術(shù)門類）轉(zhuǎn)向“現(xiàn)實(shí)”，自動(dòng)或者被迫的“工具化”，使“超越性”成為一個(gè)懸置的問題。

從“美術(shù)改良說”到“美術(shù)革命說”，再到徐悲鴻對(duì)于“寫實(shí)主義”的強(qiáng)調(diào)以及與“現(xiàn)代主義”的爭(zhēng)論，“國(guó)畫”一詞的出現(xiàn)以及“國(guó)畫家”的艱難探索，新興版畫運(yùn)動(dòng)（亦包括隨著印刷業(yè)發(fā)展而興起的漫畫創(chuàng)作）的如火如荼，倏然由為寺廟、陵墓服務(wù)的傳統(tǒng)雕塑轉(zhuǎn)為指向現(xiàn)實(shí)的中國(guó)現(xiàn)代雕塑的出現(xiàn)，20世紀(jì)上半葉，各個(gè)門類的視覺藝術(shù)家均有一大部分在尋找一個(gè)“路徑”——藝術(shù)介入外在現(xiàn)實(shí)之路徑。在如此國(guó)民慘痛遭遇之際，愛國(guó)志士乃思自身化為槍林彈雨射向侵略者，何況藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作哉？

1949年新中國(guó)成立后，服務(wù)對(duì)象的明確，服務(wù)意識(shí)的強(qiáng)調(diào)，在改革開放之前，藝術(shù)家的“超越性”追求多被歸類為“小資情調(diào)”“風(fēng)花雪月”“封建迷信”等等，藝術(shù)傾向被迫與陣營(yíng)相連接，此時(shí)，再談“超越性”已經(jīng)不僅是一個(gè)藝術(shù)問題。

“Transcendence” and “engagement” may be deemed two directions in contemporary Chinese art. However, the absence of the former becomes an urgent concern in contrast to the latter’s varieties. It helps warn professionals and laymen of this long-neglected dimension to highlight this issue, study its background, and explore why many art phenomena are under- or over-estimated. Such an illuminating effort may lend artists a support for theoretical explanation and creation, and reveal a secret, untold “gate” leading to China’s contemporary art.

I. Why Has “Transcendence” Been Shrouded?

1. Since the mid-19th century, “transcendence” has been suspended because “fine arts” （and other art categories） became more “realistic”and “tool-like,” willingly or unwillingly, due to China’s suffering and humiliation from foreign invasions, a clearer body of art consumers, and an urgent demand of Chinese nationals for making their home country powerful in the international community.

In the first half of the 20th century, the majority of Chinese visual artists were seeking a “path” engaging art in external reality.China witnessed “Fine Art Reform,” “Fine Art Revolution,” the painter Xu Beihong’s emphasis on “realism” and his debate with those who advocated “modernism,” the appearance of the term “traditional Chinese painting” and the painstaking explorations of traditional Chinese painters, the vigorous New Woodcut Movement （including cartoonists who rose with the growing print industry）, and the sudden change from traditional sculpture （which used to serve monasteries and ancient tombs）to modern sculpture relating to reality. In those sorrowful days some patriots even wished to become revengeful bullets at foreign invaders, to say nothing of the community of artists.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, with service object made clear and awareness of service emphasized, artists’pursuit of “transcendence” was labeled as “a taste of petty bourgeoisie,”“a manner of romance,” “a feudal superstition,” and the like, until China launched its economic reform and opening up. Artistic notions would be ill-intentionally interpreted as signs of incorrect political stances. So,“transcendence” was no longer an art topic.

After the 1980s, behind social obsession with “modernity,” “post-modernity,” and current discussion over “contemporaneity” was a sense of urgency, a longing of “evolution” up to the highest level, which had long been hidden in the creation of Chinese artists. This partly comes from a desire for an equal “dialogue,” partly from a sense of apprenticelike inferiority, which has been more than one century old. A state of mind like catching up in GDP growth index is not rare in China’s art community.

上世紀(jì)80年代之后，起初對(duì)于“現(xiàn)代”的癡迷，此后對(duì)“后現(xiàn)代”的推崇，再到時(shí)下對(duì)“當(dāng)代”的討論，其實(shí)都潛藏著一種時(shí)間的緊迫感，對(duì)“進(jìn)化”最高層級(jí)的向往，一直潛藏于藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)作之中。這既源自對(duì)平等“對(duì)話”的渴望，也源自百余年來一直處于“學(xué)徒”地位的自卑心理。趕超GDP增長(zhǎng)指數(shù)的心態(tài)在藝術(shù)界并不乏見。

分段論、進(jìn)化論基礎(chǔ)上的時(shí)間模式構(gòu)建了一個(gè)“咬尾蛇”怪圈，個(gè)體陷入其中，在“過去”“當(dāng)下”“未來”三段之間的穿越、突圍、延續(xù)，都會(huì)陷入模式之中。個(gè)人如此，一個(gè)國(guó)家民族何嘗不是如此？

2．知識(shí)分子所推崇的“反思”所蘊(yùn)含的“平視”視角，使“敬畏”變得稀缺。再加上上世紀(jì)后半葉的“打倒”，90年代“后學(xué)”的洗禮，本來幾近隔絕的“傳統(tǒng)”體無(wú)完膚，而西學(xué)的引進(jìn)多在“經(jīng)世致用”層面，而其理論的超越性維度被忽視，這表現(xiàn)在各個(gè)學(xué)科，各個(gè)領(lǐng)域。

俯視使人愧怍，仰視使人失節(jié)，平視方不卑不亢?；蛟S，“平視”是知識(shí)分子最可貴的品質(zhì)之一。笛卡爾的“我思故我在”或許是中國(guó)流傳最廣的諺語(yǔ)之一，所有一切，必須放在“懷疑”的放大鏡下來重新審視，沒有經(jīng)過“反思”的經(jīng)驗(yàn)、歷史、人物乃至生活是不值得肯定的。

問題在于：反思者本身的知識(shí)結(jié)構(gòu)、道德水平、反思動(dòng)機(jī)、特殊時(shí)代給他們留下的心理架構(gòu)很少作為被考量的對(duì)象！

敢把皇帝拉下馬，有的是勇氣、膽量，缺少的是什么呢？借助知識(shí)量的占有，很多知識(shí)分子把歷史人物與自己的水平扯平。“扯平”是“平視”嗎？

孔子、老子、孟子等等皆被解構(gòu)，或成“喪家犬”，或稱營(yíng)營(yíng)茍且之徒。津津樂道朱熹之時(shí)，并非談他的“理學(xué)”主張，而是流傳的逸聞趣事。經(jīng)考證老子可能并無(wú)其人，釋迦牟尼也只是一個(gè)歷史的虛構(gòu)。在考古學(xué)、歷史學(xué)、地理學(xué)等學(xué)科的新發(fā)現(xiàn)之下，儒道釋三家的核心要義變得虛無(wú)縹緲，人們只是看到一把把好似剪斷云彩的剪刀和斧頭。

“西學(xué)”引進(jìn)百余年，各學(xué)科奉為圭臬的先哲無(wú)數(shù)。在突出其在各學(xué)科的獨(dú)特貢獻(xiàn)之時(shí)，背后錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的知識(shí)背景往往被過濾。尤其在當(dāng)下的語(yǔ)境下，他們的宗教背景，或者我們稱之為的“神秘學(xué)”背景或者被弱化，或者被剔除。比如美術(shù)史學(xué)家瓦爾堡和“占星術(shù)”之間的淵源、福音派教義對(duì)羅斯金的重要影響、牛頓乃至笛卡爾的宗教背景、榮格與《易經(jīng)》的關(guān)系、包豪斯機(jī)構(gòu)中的宗教人士的影響力、蒙德里安的宗教信仰、導(dǎo)演大衛(wèi)·林奇的禪學(xué)背景等等均被忽視?！敖?jīng)世致用”可得一時(shí)之利，但削足適履的閹割所引入的學(xué)科知識(shí)往往是孱弱的。無(wú)源之水在本地尚且難以長(zhǎng)流，何況在中國(guó)？我們嚴(yán)重低估了他們知識(shí)的諸多來源對(duì)他們的影響?；蛘呶覀冎皇橇?xí)慣了俯視、“偽平視”，放棄了仰望星空。

3．“簡(jiǎn)單的二元對(duì)立思維”——“社會(huì)決定論”——“意義明確論”（推崇“有效性”）——“再現(xiàn)論”，形成了環(huán)環(huán)相扣的鏈條，彌漫于創(chuàng)作、教學(xué)、批評(píng)的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域。創(chuàng)作者、研究者對(duì)自身的思維模式缺少反思。

“二分法”本來是人類正常的思維方法之一，但是忽視復(fù)雜性、多面性、歷史性的簡(jiǎn)單“二分”，從而形成的長(zhǎng)期以來的“簡(jiǎn)單的二元對(duì)立思維”卻是具體時(shí)空下的產(chǎn)物。簡(jiǎn)單抽象，分成陣營(yíng)，制造“對(duì)立”，目的是一方壓倒另一方，是這一過程的習(xí)慣步驟。

在此，“分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”是一個(gè)關(guān)鍵問題。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在特定時(shí)期是多變的，“財(cái)產(chǎn)”曾經(jīng)作為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，“出身”曾經(jīng)作為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，“貧富”可能是當(dāng)下的主要變體。

So, a temporal mode on the basis of stage theory and evolution theory helped form an “ouroboros-like” vicious circle. Individuals were trapped into it and struggled in vain to survive through the stages of “the past,” “the present,” and “the future.” Incidentally, it is also true with a nation.

2. A “head-up” or equal perspective, implied in “reflection” that China’s intellectuals value most, makes “reverence” a rarity. Even worse,tradition, which was almost separated from us, has been reduced to misery due to China’s political movements marked by “Down With ...！”in the second half of the last century, and the baptism of postics in the 1990s. Moreover, Western sciences mostly remain pragmatic in China:their theoretical transcendence has been neglected, as shown in a variety of disciplines or fi elds.

In fact, a critical attitude developed from arrogant overlooking or from humble looking-up is a shame or disgrace. Only an equal perspective prevents haughtiness and humility, which may be mostly valued in intellectuals. That explains why René Descartes’ statement that “Cogito ergo sum ” （ I think, therefore, I am ） is among the most widespread in China. Everything must be placed under the magnifying glass of “doubt” for re-examination. No experience, history, fi gures or life is trustworthy unless they have been “ref l ected upon.”

However, the problem is this: little is considered about a ref l ector’s own knowledge structure, morality, motives, and psychological framework shaped in a special period！

For one who dares to unhorse the emperor, he does have enough courage. But what lacks in him, may we ask? With the aid of their abundant knowledge, a good many intellectuals try to reduce historical fi gures to the same level as theirs. But, is this an “equal” footing?

For example, they choose to deconstruct historical fi gures including Confucius, Laozi and Mencius as “poor homeless dogs” or low fellows.When they speak about the theorist Zhu Xi, they never care about his philosophical ideas but his anecdotes. They may claim there was no such a person as Laozi or Sakyamuni in history after so-called “investigation.”They, with new archaeological, historical, and geographical discoveries,may even declare core Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist ideas are illusory,which, in the eyes of the public, seem to be scissors or axes attempting to cut clouds.

Over the past more than 100 years of importing “Western learning”to China, outstanding academicians rose in their fi elds. However, their multiple backgrounds behind their achievements tend to have been fi ltered. Particularly, in the current context, religious or “mystical” （as we call it） impacts on them are lessened or removed in China. Examples are: astrology upon the art historian Aby Warburg; evangelicalism upon the critic John Ruskin; religious beliefs upon Sir Isaac Newton,Descartes and the painter Piet Mondrian; The Book of Changes upon the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung; religious people upon art institutions like Bauhaus; and Zen upon the director David Lynch. “Pragmatic”knowledge can be temporarily useful, but a “castrated” learning must always be vulnerable. This, like a sourceless river, will not last long even in a home country, let it alone in a foreign land like China. Actually, we have gravely underestimated the role of sources upon their knowledge.Or, we may have long been accustomed to “overlooking,” “pseudolooking head up,” and have given up the thought of “l(fā)ooking up to the sky overhead.”

3. “Simplistic binary opposition thinking” —“social determinism”—“meaning-clarifying theory” （where “validity” is valued） —“representational theory” —all of these form an interlocking chain,operating in art creation, teaching and criticism. However, artists and researchers seldom ref l ect on their own thinking patterns.

Basically, “dichotomy” is one of normal ways of human thinking.However, if complexity, all-sidedness and historicity are neglected, it will be reduced to “simplistic binary opposition thinking,” an outcome of specif i c time and space—simplif i ed and abstract, causing sharp division into hostile camps and forming “opposition” purposefully to overwhelm one’s rival, which are the habitual steps of this process.

Here lie a key issue—“classif i cation criteria,” which may change in a particular period: historically from “property,” “family background,”to “class stratif i cation due to gap of wealth,” which may be currently a primary variety.

去除復(fù)雜，掩蓋問題，減弱問題意識(shí)，最后堅(jiān)持的只能是立基于自己存在“偽立場(chǎng)”。站位易得，“立場(chǎng)”難求。

既然不能寄托于“超越性”，則走向“現(xiàn)實(shí)性”。而這個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)性，又桎梏在“社會(huì)決定論”強(qiáng)硬的框架之中。由于“簡(jiǎn)單抽象思維”的隔膜，此“現(xiàn)實(shí)”非彼“現(xiàn)實(shí)”，而是各種話語(yǔ)，尤其是主流話語(yǔ)所制造的浮光掠影。在這里，“話語(yǔ)”的真實(shí)性恰恰是不容置疑的，它不僅是認(rèn)知問題，文化問題，也是政治問題，國(guó)家意識(shí)形態(tài)問題。

為了追求藝術(shù)的有效性，必然強(qiáng)調(diào)意義的明確性，如此便需要?jiǎng)h繁就簡(jiǎn)，喪失的是藝術(shù)的微妙性、模糊性，而“微妙性”“模糊性”正是藝術(shù)的價(jià)值所在。比如，將繪畫作品削減為一個(gè)口號(hào)容易做到，但可能得到的只是一張具有明確意義的宣傳畫。如果還是詞不達(dá)意，可以在畫上面寫上標(biāo)語(yǔ)。

“簡(jiǎn)單的二元對(duì)立思維”恰恰與20世紀(jì)所推崇的“再現(xiàn)論”暗渠相通。主客觀世界分裂，無(wú)論如何再現(xiàn)、表現(xiàn)，都可以視為主客觀世界溝通的一個(gè)橋梁，但此時(shí)喪失了主客體相容、相融、合一的可能性。何況，“再現(xiàn)論”有一層華麗的外衣，那就是科學(xué)。當(dāng)科學(xué)求真精神變?yōu)椤拔茖W(xué)主義”的時(shí)候，它又變成一套更加強(qiáng)硬的桎梏，對(duì)其不能有絲毫懷疑，科學(xué)所推崇的實(shí)證反而退居二位，乃至煙消云散了。

如此之“再現(xiàn)”，其實(shí)只是模仿，或者照抄，對(duì)象可能是風(fēng)景、山水、特定人群，抑或是圖像構(gòu)成的第二現(xiàn)實(shí)，但除了證明自己具有不明所以然的技法能力之外，實(shí)在看不到其他什么價(jià)值。

傳統(tǒng)藝術(shù)形式，比如繪畫、雕塑等如此，觀念藝術(shù)、裝置藝術(shù)、多媒體藝術(shù)等等無(wú)不落入窠臼。創(chuàng)作如此，教學(xué)亦然。作品藝術(shù)形式的花哨，并不能掩蓋固化模式的影響，乃至限制。

4．現(xiàn)實(shí)世界的迫切性、長(zhǎng)期的劣勢(shì)地位所導(dǎo)致的民族自卑心理使“超越性”似乎遙不可及。

“平視”是平等對(duì)話的前提。但百余年來，國(guó)力的衰落，民族的屈辱，經(jīng)濟(jì)的劣勢(shì)，科技的落后，這些集體性的記憶已經(jīng)深深影響了個(gè)體心理狀態(tài)。我們不但不能仰望星空，還仰視“西方”。

“西方”當(dāng)然是一個(gè)包含著太多信息的術(shù)語(yǔ)。它有自己的歷史淵源，也有自己的盛衰曲折。但當(dāng)這個(gè)“西方”被抽象化為一個(gè)籠統(tǒng)的概念的時(shí)候，它的能指早就發(fā)生了無(wú)盡的漂移。而在中國(guó)百余年的歷史中，對(duì)它的觀照、憧憬、反叛、抗?fàn)幎荚趶?qiáng)化它的存在。

隔在星空之間的這團(tuán)云層可能百余年后會(huì)淡淡略去，但此時(shí)它的存在毋庸置疑。暴雨之下，怎能妄談“超越之維”？至少大多數(shù)的民眾是很難做到的。

在這樣一種心理之下，即使有藝術(shù)家取得了全球意義上的某種成就，當(dāng)其作品涉及某種“超越性”時(shí)，吊詭的是，反而被國(guó)內(nèi)環(huán)境下成長(zhǎng)起來的一些批評(píng)家所不容。批評(píng)的邏輯也極為簡(jiǎn)單與粗暴——這些藝術(shù)家借用了“中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)符號(hào)”。

簡(jiǎn)單抽象的思維往往看不到藝術(shù)作品的價(jià)值所在以及其微妙性，而最容易捕捉到的就是“符號(hào)”。這類閱讀模式的背后，其實(shí)還是追求明確意義的沖動(dòng)，仍然是簡(jiǎn)單“再現(xiàn)論”的比照邏輯。

5．20世紀(jì)特定的知識(shí)構(gòu)成使對(duì)中國(guó)古代畫論核心詞的理解蛇影杯弓，也影響到對(duì)中國(guó)畫的闡釋。

在“唯科學(xué)主義”“再現(xiàn)論”的背景下，對(duì)中國(guó)古代畫論核心詞的理解往往發(fā)生了扭曲。比如“外師造化，中得心源”。

在現(xiàn)有的慣常闡釋中，對(duì)它的解釋是：“造化”，即大自然，“心源”即作者內(nèi)心的感悟?！巴鈳熢旎械眯脑础币簿褪钦f藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作來源于對(duì)大自然的師法，同時(shí)源自自己內(nèi)心的感受。在這樣的一種解釋中，可以注意到幾個(gè)問題：

If complexity is removed, problems are concealed, and questioning consciousness is weakened, what is then left is a “pseudo stance” for one to hold on. For us a spot is easy to get, while a “stance” is hard to fi nd.

When we cannot depend on “transcendence,” we have to turn to “reality.” However, this reality is shackled within the iron-clad framework of “social determinism.” With the hindering of “simplistic abstract thinking”, this distorted “reality” is but a body of broken pieces created by a variety of discourses, especially by mainstream ones. Here,the authenticity of “discourse” is precisely beyond doubt, which is not only cognitive, cultural, but also political, and nationally ideological.

If we are to ensure the effectiveness of art, the clarity of meaning must be emphasized. Then simplif i cation is a sure choice, but at the cost of subtlety and ambiguity, which precisely ref l ect the value of art. For example, it is easy to reduce a piece of painting to a slogan, but what is left may be just a poster with a definite meaning. Then, if still the meaning is not well expressed, a slogan may be added to the painting.

In fact, “simplistic binary opposition thinking” coincides with“representational theory” in a secret way, which was greatly valued in the 20th century. When the subjective and objective worlds are divided, either representation or expression can be regarded as a bridge connecting the two, but at the cost of chances of combining or blending them. Further, “representation” has a gorgeous cloak with it—science.When the spirit of truth-seeking in science devolves into “scientism,” it turns into even tougher shackles bearing the least doubt. At this point,positivism, which was originally valued in science, has retired or even disappeared.

Accordingly, such “representation” is nothing but imitation. Though the painter’s object may be scenery, landscape, a given population, or a second reality consisting of images, little value can be seen from his work, except proving the artist’s skills whose wherefores he might not know himself.

It is also true with traditional art forms, e.g. painting, sculpture. So is it with conceptual art, installation art, multimedia art, and whatsoever.Such a situation exists in both art creation and teaching. Therefore, the diversity of art forms cannot hide the effects or restrictions of stereotyped modes.

4. “Transcendence” seems unattainable due to the urgency of the real world and the national inferiority complex caused by China’s longterm vulnerable status.

“An equal perspective” is a prerequisite for equal dialogue. But over the past a hundred years, miserable collective memories—China’s poor strength, historical humiliation, disadvantageous economy, backward technology—all have deeply affected individuals’ psychological state.Chinese nationals would not look up to the sky—thinking about their nation’s future; they would even worship “the West.”

To speak of “the West,” this is truly a broad term. It has its own origin, rise and decline. But when it is so abstract as to become a general concept, its signif i er has long been drifting endlessly. In fact, any effort of contemplating on, longing, disobeying or fi ghting with the West has strengthened its existence over the past a hundred years of Chinese history.

Though such an impediment may fi nally disappear a century later,its presence is beyond doubt for the time being. In this context, how can we address the “dimension of transcendence?”

Under such a mentality, even if an artist makes certain achievement in a global sense, whose work involves “transcendence,” some Chinese critics who have grown up in a domestic environment will not accept him. This is surprising enough. Their logic of criticism is extremely rude and simple—use of “traditional Chinese symbols.”

With simplistic abstract thinking, one tends to neglect the value of artwork and its subtlety; “symbols” will be so near at hand. Behind this reading mode, in fact, is still an impulse to pursue a clear meaning, a comparative logic of simplistic “representational theory.”

5. The particular 20th century knowledge composition led to a distorted understanding of core concepts in ancient Chinese painting theory and artworks.

Such a misunderstanding occurs in the context of “scientism” and“representational theory.” Let us take the ancient painter Zhang Zao’s statement “Wai Shi Zao Hua, Zhong De Xin Yuan” （ the division comes in a psychological source ） as an example.

As a usual interpretation, Zao Hua is taken as nature, and Xin Yuan as the artist’s inner comprehension. So, that idea means that art creation derives from imitating nature, and from the painter’s own feelings at the same time. However, here four doubts arise as follows:

第一，“造化”被物質(zhì)化、靜態(tài)化、客觀對(duì)象化為“大自然”，“萬(wàn)物相生，生生不息”的演變之理、動(dòng)態(tài)特征在這樣的解釋中完全看不到?！拔镔|(zhì)化”“靜態(tài)化”過程和20世紀(jì)流行的“唯科學(xué)主義”有關(guān)，當(dāng)然，唯物論在此起了至關(guān)重要的作用。而“客觀對(duì)象化”很大程度上是主客觀二分法的流行所造成的必然。

第二，“師”，在“再現(xiàn)論”的背景下，多被理解為“模仿”“臨摹”。在這個(gè)詞組中，“師”是一個(gè)動(dòng)詞，除了有“觀察”等視覺層面上的含義之外，應(yīng)該包含了“人”（不僅是藝術(shù)家）面對(duì)“造化”所構(gòu)建關(guān)系的所有題中之意，比如“體悟”“感知”，也包含“敬畏”“天人合一”等更深層的哲學(xué)含義。這個(gè)問題看起來只是個(gè)理論問題，其實(shí)直接影響到藝術(shù)家的“觀看之道”，“創(chuàng)作之法”。

第三，“中”被時(shí)代化了。按照對(duì)仗要求來講，“外師造化，中得心源”中的“中”應(yīng)該為“內(nèi)”，或者“里”，但是張璪寫的是“中”。而恰恰“中”與儒道釋三家都密切相關(guān)。比如“中庸”等，又和三家實(shí)踐者靜坐、打坐、修行的身心經(jīng)歷以及追求相關(guān)。問題是，“中”所普遍理解成的“內(nèi)”，是個(gè)什么樣的內(nèi)？是翻江倒海、瞬息萬(wàn)變之念頭，還是現(xiàn)代主義所推崇的精神癲狂，極致追求之渴求，抑或是澄明之境，還是洛克的“白板”，以及“中庸”“涅槃”“悟道”？幾種狀態(tài)，哪一種可談“得”物象相生之法，氣韻貫通之理，萬(wàn)物自在之道？如果聯(lián)系到“致中和，天地位焉，萬(wàn)物育焉”，“中”在此處更多的是一種修為狀態(tài)，而非慣常解釋之“內(nèi)心”。

第四，時(shí)下的理解，“中得心源”“得”到了情緒、感知、情感波動(dòng)、靈感時(shí)刻，乃至激情。將“心之波動(dòng)”理解為“心源”，這就類似把河流的波紋理解為河流的源頭了。

對(duì)中國(guó)古代畫論核心概念作“當(dāng)下理解”的情況比比皆是。每個(gè)時(shí)代都會(huì)對(duì)以往的概念進(jìn)行重新闡釋，這不足為奇，奇怪之處在于，當(dāng)宏大的、被刪除了超越性的西方學(xué)科系統(tǒng)籠罩在本不以學(xué)科劃分的“畫論”之上時(shí)，基本切斷了“畫論”更深層的精神指向，尤其簡(jiǎn)單化了畫論作者經(jīng)史子集的治學(xué)背景，以及個(gè)人道德訴求，更甚之，曲解了他們的生命狀態(tài)。這不僅是對(duì)于畫論作者，也包含我們現(xiàn)在所稱的“畫家”。

二、忽視“超越性”遮蔽了什么？

1．“主體”問題的被忽視。反映在美術(shù)界，“當(dāng)代藝術(shù)家”被單層面化，“藝術(shù)家”精神活動(dòng)的復(fù)雜性、個(gè)體性、超越性被忽視。

從歷史維度上來講，“文人”向“知識(shí)分子”的轉(zhuǎn)變，本來就是“主體”的嚴(yán)重撕裂。知識(shí)分子的反思和批判，當(dāng)遭遇各種壁壘，而沒有體制為其保駕護(hù)航的時(shí)候，其影響力和時(shí)效性就更值得懷疑，知識(shí)分子找尋自我定位的痛苦也就可想而知了。修身，未必齊家，更別說平天下了。

20世紀(jì)以來，以往的讀書人一直在找尋自己新的定位，不舍傳統(tǒng)，又能積極入世，“新儒家”基本是在這樣的時(shí)空節(jié)點(diǎn)上產(chǎn)生的。如今看來，這一脈在現(xiàn)實(shí)中的實(shí)踐并不得意。

自覺歸類為“知識(shí)分子”一員的“藝術(shù)家”，只能放入這一更宏觀的身份角色定位中去考量。目前，“藝術(shù)家”如何看待自己的藝術(shù)實(shí)踐、現(xiàn)實(shí)定位、傳承節(jié)點(diǎn)、與西學(xué)關(guān)系？盡管當(dāng)下沒有多少藝術(shù)家做此類思考，但不思考不見得問題消失。事實(shí)是，這些問題在更深層面不停地?cái)噭?dòng)著藝術(shù)家的神經(jīng)，呈現(xiàn)出價(jià)值取向，乃至藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的混亂。

雪上加霜的是，對(duì)藝術(shù)家的深度個(gè)案分析至今依然嚴(yán)重欠缺。符號(hào)化解讀的結(jié)果，致使很多藝術(shù)家被單層面化了。優(yōu)秀的藝術(shù)家不停地向前探索，而“標(biāo)簽”似乎卻不消失。有些藝術(shù)家本身也在藏家期待、市場(chǎng)行為的作用中不得不屈服，成為符號(hào)、專利的復(fù)制者。

First, “Zao Hua,” when regarded as nature, gets materialized, static,and objectif i ed. Nonetheless, no dynamic characteristics and evolutionary truth of “endless mutual generation of all things” can be seen at all in this interpretation！ “Getting materialized” and “static” is related to“scientism,” which was popular in the 20th century. Of course, in this process materialism plays a crucial role. Moreover, “objectif i cation” is largely an inevitable outcome of dichotomy popularization involving the subjective and the objective.

Secondly, “Shi” is often misunderstood only as “copy”, a verb with a visual meaning of “observe,” under the background of “representational theory.” In fact it should include both connotations involving “humans”（not only artists） and their opposite “Zao Hua”, e.g. “experience,”“perceive,” and deeper philosophical meanings, e.g. “revere,” “unite heaven and man.” This seems a mere theoretical issue, which in fact directly affects the artist’s ways of “viewing” and “creating.”

Thirdly, “Zhong” is wrongly given a contemporary meaning. As required for traditional Chinese antithesis, it should have been replaced herein by “Nei” or “Li”, meaning the inner. However, Zhang purposefully chose such a different word, which precisely has close ties with three Chinese beliefs: Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism （as in “Zhong Yong,” the doctrine of mean） and their followers who sit in meditation for moral purif i cation. Then our doubt is: if we take “Zhong” as “Nei,” what does it mean then? Wild, capricious inner thoughts? A modernism-valued crazy state of mind, or an extreme longing for ultimate perfection? A calm, clear saintly scene, or tabula rasa as put in John Locke’s theory?Or “the doctrine of mean,” “Nirvana,” “approaching the ultimate truth of the universe?” Which of them can “l(fā)ead to” the law of mutual generation of things and images; the fl ow of artistic resonance; and fi nal freedom of all things? However, if we remember the statement “Zhi Zhong He,Tian Di Wei Yan, Wan Wu Yu Yan,” meaning the heaven and the earth are put in good order and all things begin to prosper when moderateness is achieved, it is safe to say that “Zhong” is rather a show of self-discipline state or kind of religious cultivation state than inner feelings as generally understood to be.

Fourthly, it is wrong to take “the fl uctuations of the mind” as “the origin of the mind,” like taking ripples on the river as the source of it. A current misunderstanding is that, with “Zhong De Xin Yuan,” we “get”emotions, perceptions, emotional fluctuations, moments of inspiration,and even passion.

Such examples of “contemporary misunderstanding” are countless.It is natural that every generation reinterprets historical concepts.But it is surprising that “painting theories,” which should have never been categorized like disciplines, are overshadowed by broad Western disciplinary systems, from which transcendence has been unfortunately removed in China. So, deeper, spiritual dimensions that “painting theories” may concern are basically cut off. Particularly, painting theorists’ academic background involving Confucian classics, history,philosophy, belles-lettres, and their moral pursuit are oversimplified.Even worse, their life status may be misinterpreted. This is also true with painting theorists and “painters” that we call today.

II. What Has Been Shrouded When We Neglect“Transcendence?”

1. “The subject.” As shown in the community of Chinese fine arts, “contemporary artists” are unilaterally understood; the complexity,individuality and transcendence in their mental activity are neglected.

Historically, the transition from “l(fā)iterati” to “intellectuals” suggests deterioration of the status of “the subject.” The inf l uence and timeliness of intellectuals’ reflection and criticism are doubtful particularly when they face various barriers and no off i cial system stands by them. Then it is easy for us to understand their pain in seeking their own position. In fact cultivating one’s moral character does not necessarily bring good luck to his family or his country.

Since the 20th century, intellectuals have been looking for a new position, struggling to balance themselves between tradition and the secular world. It was in this spatio-temporal node that “Neo-Confucianism” was born. So far their practice has been unsuccessful in reality.

There are “artists” who consciously regard themselves as“intellectuals.” Only when they are placed in this broader identity role can we measure them. Currently, how do “artists” treat their own practice, positioning in reality, tradition-inheriting nodes, and relationship with Western learning? Although not many of them think about these,such concerns remain there, which, in fact, trouble their nerves from time to time in a profound way, showing confusion in value orientation and even in creation.

現(xiàn)實(shí)層面如此，在此語(yǔ)境中，再談“超越性”，仿佛是一種奢侈。藝術(shù)家是一個(gè)時(shí)代最有可能接近“超越性”的群體，事實(shí)上，很多藝術(shù)家的確在做此類探索。

問題是，對(duì)中國(guó)藝術(shù)家傳統(tǒng)轉(zhuǎn)化創(chuàng)作的闡釋常常遇到歸類于“玄學(xué)”的困境，無(wú)論這位藝術(shù)家動(dòng)用的何種傳統(tǒng)哲學(xué)理念，都引不起觀眾或者批評(píng)者的興趣。“神道兒了”，“玩玄的”！諸如此類的口語(yǔ)評(píng)價(jià)，可以折射出批評(píng)界對(duì)此類創(chuàng)作的興趣索然。這一方面可能在于藝術(shù)家創(chuàng)作的無(wú)力，更可能是批評(píng)家自身對(duì)傳統(tǒng)的無(wú)知。以基督教作為自己精神寄托的藝術(shù)家也面臨類似的尷尬。

與此相類似的是，高名潞所提出的“意派論”所受到的冷遇。高名潞指出西方藝術(shù)史仍然受困于“二元對(duì)立”的理論架構(gòu)，“再現(xiàn)論”依然是其最根本的理論核心。他在對(duì)中國(guó)哲學(xué)的梳理中，期望給當(dāng)代藝術(shù)以傳統(tǒng)銜接之可能，由此提出了“意派論”觀點(diǎn)，并做了細(xì)致的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)梳理。尷尬的是，由于過多觸及到“傳統(tǒng)”，至今在批評(píng)界并無(wú)有效的回應(yīng)，也無(wú)有效的分析。一曲獨(dú)奏，滿座動(dòng)容，而無(wú)觥籌交互。

2．“藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言”問題的被忽視，背后是對(duì)“藝術(shù)本體”的無(wú)視?！罢Z(yǔ)言”相對(duì)于“題材”、“立場(chǎng)”而言，變得好像不太重要。

在三十多年的中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的發(fā)展歷程中，“題材批判”“前衛(wèi)批判”發(fā)揮了作用，但“藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言的批判性”在文本梳理、展覽展示中一直被忽視。在“事件”優(yōu)先、“戾場(chǎng)”至上的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)氛圍中，前兩種批判中的潛在的“藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言”線索也被遮蔽。深層原因是對(duì)“藝術(shù)本體”的嚴(yán)重忽略，更深的原因來自于“庸俗社會(huì)文化論”的扭曲變形，無(wú)孔不入。

如果細(xì)致梳理中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)史，從吳冠中對(duì)“形式美”重要性的提出，到“85美術(shù)新潮”藝術(shù)家在語(yǔ)言層面的探索（比如浙江美術(shù)學(xué)院張培力、耿建翌有意識(shí)地以“平涂”對(duì)抗“傷痕美術(shù)”藝術(shù)家的蘇聯(lián)、法國(guó)繪畫技法傳承），乃至90年代的“政治波普”藝術(shù)家的語(yǔ)言特質(zhì)（比如張曉剛這段時(shí)期繪畫語(yǔ)言特征的轉(zhuǎn)變），以及新媒體藝術(shù)、裝置藝術(shù)、攝影、行為藝術(shù)等等，都可以發(fā)現(xiàn)“語(yǔ)言”一直是困擾、促成藝術(shù)家創(chuàng)作的一個(gè)最敏感也最具挑戰(zhàn)性的命題。更毋論中國(guó)抽象藝術(shù)家的持續(xù)探索，實(shí)驗(yàn)水墨藝術(shù)家融合中西，這些在現(xiàn)在看來并不十分成功的努力。

時(shí)下，當(dāng)代藝術(shù)家的“藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言探索”已經(jīng)彌漫出視覺語(yǔ)言層面，或者抽象藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域，已經(jīng)成為“主體”自我呈現(xiàn)的一種方式?！拔镔|(zhì)性”“身體在場(chǎng)”被反復(fù)提及，兩者緊密的咬合關(guān)系也已經(jīng)建立，他們的“批判”已經(jīng)沖出“題材優(yōu)先”“立場(chǎng)優(yōu)先”這一彌漫于20世紀(jì)中國(guó)藝術(shù)的迷霧，并與西方藝術(shù)界對(duì)此問題的探索表現(xiàn)出相當(dāng)大的差異。如果此時(shí)不把這樣一種探索進(jìn)行充分展現(xiàn)，可能是我們的失職。

3．忽視的藝術(shù)現(xiàn)象：

（1）恪守“傳統(tǒng)”一脈的水墨創(chuàng)作被忽視，近幾年有轉(zhuǎn)機(jī)，比如盧甫圣、丘挺、泰祥洲、侯拙吾、何建丹等。相對(duì)于求新圖變的國(guó)畫家來講，這些藝術(shù)家避免陷入二元對(duì)立的“再現(xiàn)論”窠臼，從宋元明清，乃至先秦尋找探尋國(guó)畫產(chǎn)生的源頭，于筆墨方寸間，將自己對(duì)文化傳承的體悟、時(shí)代格局的判斷注入其中。在風(fēng)格求異求新的今天，其作品不是讓人興奮，而是讓人敬畏和沉靜。

（2）“素人”畫家被忽略。他們是沒有經(jīng)過專業(yè)訓(xùn)練，但基于特殊經(jīng)歷從事藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的藝術(shù)家，這類藝術(shù)家在中國(guó)數(shù)量龐大，且很多作品藝術(shù)價(jià)值很高，比如最近幾年出現(xiàn)的“美院食堂畫家”汪化。前幾年，長(zhǎng)征空間推出“素人藝術(shù)家”郭鳳儀，上一屆威尼斯雙年展，郭鳳儀作品參加了主題展。網(wǎng)上的討論集中在郭鳳儀的“神婆”身份，以及她知識(shí)結(jié)構(gòu)中的道教淵源。其實(shí)，中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)界對(duì)如此“身份”、如此“玄學(xué)背景”的藝術(shù)家是缺少容納度的，本來“素人藝術(shù)家”在國(guó)內(nèi)藝術(shù)圈一直不被關(guān)注，他們的出路主要在于獲得國(guó)外諸多素人藝術(shù)家博物館的“發(fā)現(xiàn)”。網(wǎng)上一面風(fēng)傳著澳大利亞一位老太太80歲才開始學(xué)畫，作品價(jià)值上百萬(wàn)的“傳奇”，一面對(duì)自己本國(guó)的“素人藝術(shù)家”嗤之以鼻。這里真是出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)奇妙的滑稽風(fēng)景！更有問題的是，這背后到底出了什么問題？

Worse is the fact that there is still a serious lack of in-depth case study of individual artists. As a result symbolic interpretation leads to underrating many of them. Brilliant artists continue their exploring efforts, but the “l(fā)abel” on them remains untouched. Some yield to expectations from collectors or to market behavior, degrading themselves to the position of symbol and patent copiers.

In such a realistic context, any debate over “transcendence”seems to be a luxury. Arguably, artists are a community that is likely to be closest to “transcendence,” many of whom are on their way in this direction indeed.

The problem is: any effort to interpret Chinese artists’transformation from tradition often encounters the dilemma of“metaphysics.” Whatever traditional philosophical ideas an artist deals with will arouse no interest from critics or the audience. Their responses are “Greek to me！” “Too mysterious！’ and the like, which unmistakably reflect critics’ indifference about such creation. This is likely to have resulted from artists’ inability of creation, but more likely from critics’own ignorance of tradition. Artists who believe in Christianity face similar embarrassment.

Again similarly, the critic Gao Minglu’s “Yi Pai theory” has been coldly greeted. He notes that Western art history remains trapped in the theoretical structure of “binary opposition,” whose core is still“representational theory.” While examining Chinese philosophy, he hopes to connect contemporary art with tradition by his Yi Pai theory,and has done a careful study of it. However, it is embarrassing that his ideas have received no effective response or analysis because they touch on “tradition” too frequently. His innovation has aroused just concern, no interaction.

2. “Art language” as well as “art itself” are ignored. “Language”seems less important than “subject matter” and “stance.”

In the course of more than 30 years development of contemporary Chinese art, “subject matter criticism” and “avant-garde criticism”have showed their significance. However, the “criticality of artistic language” has always been neglected in text study and exhibitions.In an art atmosphere where “event” is given priority and “emotional aggressiveness” prevails, potential “art language” clues in the first two criticisms are no longer seen. For this, a deep reason is the serious neglect of “art itself,” and another further one is all-pervasive, distorted,“vulgar socio-culturalism”.

A close look at contemporary Chinese art history shows that“l(fā)anguage” is a most sensitive and challenging issue which has troubled and contributed to artists’ creation, from the painter Wu Guanzhong addressing the value of “ beauty in form” to “’85 New Wave” activists exploring in the perspective of language （e.g. Zhang Peili and Geng Jianyi of Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts consciously rose against “Scar”artists who followed Soviet and French painting techniques with their technique of even application of color）, to the 1990s’ “political pop”artists showing language idiosyncrasy （e.g. Zhang Xiaogang, whose painting language characteristics changed in this period）, and to those engaging in new media art, installation art, photography and performance.A more telling example is China’s abstract artists continuing their similar efforts, and experimental ink painters absorbing Chinese and Western elements, though without much success so far.

Present-day “artistic language exploration” has gone beyond the level of visual language or the scope of abstract art, and has become a self-presenting way of “the subject”. “Materiality” and “presence of the body” have been so repeatedly mentioned that close engaging ties between the two have formed. Their “criticisms” have dispersed the mist of “subject matter priority” and “stance priority” which overshadowed China’s art over the 20th century, showing a signif i cant difference from efforts in the Western art world. So, if we fail to seize this opportunity to present such explorations, that would be our substantial neglect of duty.

3. Artistic phenomena neglected:

（1） The school of “traditional” ink painting. However, recent years have seen improvement, e.g. in the works of the artists Lu Fusheng,Qiu Ting, Tai Xiangzhou, Hou Zhuowu, and He Jiandan. In contrast to reformist traditional Chinese painters, they try to avoid the trap of“representational theory” of binary opposition. They trace the origin of traditional Chinese painting back to the dynasties of Qing, Ming,Yuan, Song, even back to the pre-Qin period, and translate their insights into tradition and modernity into works. In this novelty-seeking age,their works are not to bring the audience excitement but reverence and serenity.

（3）藝術(shù)界、學(xué)院創(chuàng)作中的“有機(jī)”“世界”傾向被忽視。如果對(duì)此現(xiàn)象不太明了，我們可以設(shè)想美國(guó)著名女性藝術(shù)家奧基弗，如果在中國(guó)，她會(huì)是怎樣的遭遇？

與此相對(duì)應(yīng)，是對(duì)“愛”的表述的乏力。2015年11月，配合在林冠畫廊的個(gè)展，小野洋子的講座在中央美術(shù)學(xué)院美術(shù)館舉行。在講座之前，小野洋子用毛筆寫下“世界人民團(tuán)結(jié)幸福福福福”幾個(gè)大字。后期對(duì)講座的報(bào)道，多集中在她看似怪異的行為，其實(shí)“愛”是小野洋子在整個(gè)過程中最為關(guān)注的話題，這不禁讓“恨意”彌漫的中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)界尷尬。

其實(shí)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)圈、美院都不缺乏有著豐富的個(gè)人世界、從動(dòng)植物世界汲取作品意象的藝術(shù)家和學(xué)生。她們的世界豐富、富饒，充滿著神奇豐富的線條與色彩，那是一個(gè)絢麗多彩、愛意充盈的世界。在尋找“意義”的觀眾面前，她們的作品多是“無(wú)效”的。太愛找尋意義了，哪怕給你一個(gè)世界，他們也會(huì)毫不感動(dòng)！

（4）抽象風(fēng)格（或者“意象”風(fēng)格）藝術(shù)的精神內(nèi)涵長(zhǎng)期被忽視，近幾年有好轉(zhuǎn)跡象，比如尚揚(yáng)、譚平、馬路青等人的創(chuàng)作逐漸被重視。出現(xiàn)這一現(xiàn)象，和“藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言”長(zhǎng)期被忽視密切相關(guān)。更深層面講，抽象絕非僅僅是語(yǔ)言問題，藝術(shù)形式問題，它所呈現(xiàn)的藝術(shù)家對(duì)完整主體性的追求，對(duì)傳統(tǒng)淵源當(dāng)代轉(zhuǎn)化的探索，都蘊(yùn)含著豐富的基因。

在他們的創(chuàng)作中，筆觸如有溫度的生命印記，顏料交織融合的肌理似張開的毛孔，呼吸著，證明不為再現(xiàn)服務(wù)的自我的在場(chǎng)。筆觸作為身體與物質(zhì)觸碰的結(jié)果，成為身體與物質(zhì)交互生成的異質(zhì)存在。當(dāng)這一存在的目的，不再僅僅服務(wù)于客觀世界的圖像再現(xiàn)時(shí)，筆觸自身的特性便得以在畫布上自由顯現(xiàn)。筆觸仿佛成為了物質(zhì)與畫家的精神肉體，時(shí)而轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)，時(shí)而狂奔，時(shí)而跳躍，時(shí)而慢行。畫家通過動(dòng)作牽動(dòng)著筆觸，體驗(yàn)著生命運(yùn)動(dòng)的痕跡——上一刻的速度、這一刻的力度以及下一刻的方向；另一方面，筆觸自我激活的強(qiáng)烈的在場(chǎng)性也對(duì)身體形成強(qiáng)大的吸引力：由身體所控制的每一次落筆都由前一筆所引導(dǎo)，筆筆相生。

藝術(shù)家身體內(nèi)的氣息游動(dòng)與心念變化伴隨雙手的游走穿附藝術(shù)品。稍對(duì)畫面用心的觀者便能感知這種精神上的氣息是如何穿透毛孔，隨著呼吸進(jìn)入心靈。因此，身體與作品的關(guān)系不再僅發(fā)生于藝術(shù)家身上，而向觀眾身上蔓延，形成一種即時(shí)的觀看現(xiàn)場(chǎng)。此時(shí)，“劇場(chǎng)”存在與否已經(jīng)不是關(guān)鍵因素。

藝術(shù)家的主體構(gòu)建既需要時(shí)刻內(nèi)省式的自我反觀，也需要保持對(duì)于“物”的敏感與反思。這雙重體驗(yàn)是參透心性與物性的起點(diǎn)，若將這兩種省思深入下去，主體構(gòu)建的過程便逐漸清晰地顯現(xiàn)成“物我同化”的過程，并通過藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作最終于作品中展現(xiàn)其融合的成果。

由于每個(gè)人的心性不同，面對(duì)的物性不同，“物我同化”過程及落實(shí)在“體”上的語(yǔ)言轉(zhuǎn)譯也就豐富不同。物性與心性的交織讓外在的“體”變成一種實(shí)在的錯(cuò)覺，并只有相信這是一種錯(cuò)覺，才能看到主體的心性與物性是以何種樣貌交融于這個(gè)世界的，從而成為中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)家拒絕再現(xiàn)主義、堅(jiān)持語(yǔ)言純化的一種獨(dú)特方式。藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言使“物”的實(shí)在結(jié)構(gòu)與文化心理之間形成巨大的張力——隱秘的力量。

（2） “Outsider artists” as a group. They are an untrained body of artists whose creation depends on special past experience. They are great in number, and many of their works are high in artistic value. A recent example is Wang Hua, an “outsider” working with a dining hall at China Central Academy of Fine Arts. There is Guo Fengyi, a female“outsider artist”. She fi rst appeared in public in Long March Space years ago. She also attended the thematic exhibition in the previous Venice Biennale. However, debate online focused on her identity—“a witch”—and her connection with Taoism. In fact, the Chinese art community lacks due recognition of those with such “identity” and “metaphysical background.” Domestically, they gain little attention, who expect to “be discovered” by foreign museums open to “outsider artists” just like them.To our delight, there is a success story far out in Australia—a “l(fā)egend”:an old lady began to learn drawing at the age of 80, and her artwork is worth over one million dollars now！ So, what a sharp difference！Ridiculous！ What is the matter behind the contrast?

（3） The “organic” and “internationalization” tendencies in the creation of art professionals and college teachers. If we know little about this, we can imagine: what would happen to Georgia O’Keeffe, a famous U.S. female artist, if she were in China?

Therefore, the expression of “l(fā)ove” is pale in China. I remember Yoko Ono, who delivered a lecture at China Central Academy of Fine Arts in November 2015, in support of a solo show at Faurschou Beijing. Before the lecture, she brushed out 11 Chinese words with big strokes: “Shi Jie Ren Min Tuan Jie Xing Fu Fu Fu Fu,” meaning that the united world people are all happy. Later, the coverage of her lecture mostly focused on her seemingly odd behavior. In fact, “l(fā)ove” was her primary concern in the whole process, and that embarrassed China’s contemporary art world, which is fi lled with “hatred”.

In fact, either China’s contemporary art circle or academies of fi ne arts do not lack artists and students with colorful, personal worlds, who absorb images from habitats of animals and plants. Their worlds are full of rich, magical lines and colors—a rosy, charitable space. However, in the eyes of the audience who pursue “meaning,” most of their works are“invalid.” If people only keep their eye on “meaning,” they would never be moved even for the whole world！

（4） The spiritual connotations in abstract-style （or “image” style）art. Neglect in this field has been long, though signs of improvement have shown in recent years （for example, the artworks of Shang Yang,Tan Ping, and Ma Luqing have gained wide attention）. This phenomenon is closely related to the long-neglected “art language.” From the deep sense, abstraction involves not just language or artistic form at all;actually, it suggests clues to an artist’s pursuit of complete subjectivity,and exploration of transforming age-old tradition to meet contemporary needs.

In the process of creation, their drawing strokes are like emotional imprints of life. Textures of intertwining pigments seem to be open pores, breathing and proving that the self is being present, no longer for the sake of representation. Strokes, as an interacting result of the body and the material, become a heterogeneous existence outside them. When this existence ceases to represent the images of the objective world,strokes’ own characteristics unfold freely on the canvas. They seem a spiritual body for both the material and the artist: moving around,running, jumping, or slowing down from time to time. The painter,while maneuvering his strokes through movements, is experiencing the traveling traces of life: the previous moment’s speed, this moment’s strength, and the next moment’s direction. On the other hand, the intense presence of strokes through self-activation creates a strong appeal to the body in turn: every ending stroke controlled by the body is ushered in by its predecessor; and this cycle repeats.

Then, the running energy within the artist’s body, his active mind and his moving hands begin to act upon the work. A careful viewer can perceive how this spiritual breath penetrates into his pores, and into his mind together with inhalation. Therefore, what exists between the body and the work no longer remains in the artist alone, but extends to the audience, forming a real-time scene. At this moment, whether the“theater” exists or not is no longer a key factor.

For an artist, subjectivity-constructing requires both introspection and lasting sensitivity to “object” and reflection. This dual experience is the starting point of comprehending temperament and objecthood.If the two channels of thinking go deeper, the process of subjectivityconstructing will, more clearly, evolve into that of “the continuity of object and self,” whose result will eventually come in the form of fi nalized artwork.

（5）對(duì)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)家的近期創(chuàng)作轉(zhuǎn)型闡釋的無(wú)力，如面對(duì)隋建國(guó)《盲人摸象》、展望《應(yīng)形》近幾年無(wú)明確主題指向、符號(hào)或者材質(zhì)無(wú)明確含義的創(chuàng)作，很多批評(píng)處于“失語(yǔ)”狀態(tài)。作為中國(guó)最具代表性的兩位藝術(shù)家、雕塑家，為何幾乎同一時(shí)期出現(xiàn)了這一轉(zhuǎn)向？這是偶然嗎？顯然不是，是他們?cè)谂c“物”（雕塑泥，不銹鋼）幾十年浸潤(rùn)中，激活了身體與材質(zhì)的互通性，而這與中國(guó)人注重觸覺的感知方式息息相關(guān)！

“物”是什么？“物”在被披上“實(shí)在”這層外衣的同時(shí)，其實(shí)處于了真空狀態(tài)?！皹O簡(jiǎn)主義”在進(jìn)行極致的“物”展示時(shí)，企圖以“實(shí)在”凸顯物性，只是停留于物質(zhì)的物理外表層面，并配合劇場(chǎng)化的情境從視覺上對(duì)觀者進(jìn)行“欺騙”?！靶问健敝皇俏镔|(zhì)的形貌。即使“極簡(jiǎn)主義”藝術(shù)家參與了“形貌”的制作，這樣的“介入”也并沒有將“藝術(shù)家”糅入作品之中。藝術(shù)家還是“物質(zhì)”的“觀望者”，其背景仍然是主客體對(duì)立關(guān)系的世界觀。

關(guān)注“物我相融”關(guān)系，不僅表現(xiàn)在中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)文化的各種文本中，作為哲學(xué)，抑或玄學(xué)，也缺少與當(dāng)下銜接的土壤。但這一關(guān)系，在日常生活層面，依然影響著人們對(duì)物我關(guān)系的理解，也影響著藝術(shù)家在創(chuàng)作過程中對(duì)材質(zhì)的感受方式和介入方式。

“主體”感知方式的特殊性，會(huì)導(dǎo)致作品藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言的差異性。受弗雷德所質(zhì)疑的“劇場(chǎng)”中的“物性”，因中國(guó)藝術(shù)家對(duì)“物質(zhì)”的特殊理解與感知，再加上其身體所承載的歷史記憶，在創(chuàng)作過程中將這一感受糅入作品材質(zhì)之中，反而使作品具備了相對(duì)的“自足性”——沒有劇場(chǎng)，這些作品依然可以成立。

其實(shí)，隋建國(guó)和展望的近期創(chuàng)作讓我看到了可能性！

（6）因?yàn)椴环蠒r(shí)下主流批評(píng)話語(yǔ)的理論架構(gòu)，“隱士”藝術(shù)家的被大量忽視。山西大張的自殺，可能是中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)界繞不過去的一個(gè)話題。在過多以市場(chǎng)價(jià)格、知名度、出鏡率為追逐對(duì)象的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)界，諸多默默探索、體系龐雜、精神指向超越的藝術(shù)家并沒有獲得關(guān)注，任其自生自滅。

三、忽視“超越性”抬高了什么？

1．“主體”的簡(jiǎn)單化，“戾場(chǎng)”優(yōu)先、“立場(chǎng)”缺失的藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的嘩眾取寵。

在當(dāng)代藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域，藝術(shù)家也需要表態(tài)，通過藝術(shù)作品進(jìn)行言說，表達(dá)自己的文化批判性和前衛(wèi)性。“表態(tài)”是藝術(shù)家藝術(shù)立場(chǎng)、思考狀態(tài)的呈現(xiàn)，也是藝術(shù)家獲得“前衛(wèi)”身份的必備條件。筆者質(zhì)疑的是，當(dāng)“表態(tài)”變成一種身份從而獲得籌碼的時(shí)候，這種表態(tài)已經(jīng)變得無(wú)足輕重，只是名利場(chǎng)的賭注、噱頭，和出身鑒定、血親認(rèn)祖沒有任何區(qū)別。尤其值得注意的是，在商業(yè)利益充斥的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域里，這種表態(tài)成了獲得經(jīng)濟(jì)成功的途徑，以及故作姿態(tài)而全然沒有實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)涵的“前衛(wèi)”藝術(shù)家的一部分，有點(diǎn)類似激憤的小丑，做著文化巨人的美夢(mèng)。

強(qiáng)調(diào)文化多元、突出身份差異、做虛擬的政治批判、對(duì)時(shí)下全球格局進(jìn)行后殖民主義分析……在所有的現(xiàn)實(shí)政治環(huán)境和意識(shí)形態(tài)控制的氛圍中，這些姿態(tài)都具有背離現(xiàn)實(shí)、反思現(xiàn)實(shí)的正確性。但在藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域，判斷這種正確性的基礎(chǔ)是什么？是不是僅有一種姿態(tài)就夠了？批評(píng)家是不是看到一種反叛的姿態(tài)，就要贊譽(yù)有加？在當(dāng)代藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域，對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)社會(huì)的反叛姿態(tài)已經(jīng)具有一種無(wú)法討論的“正確性”，對(duì)這種姿態(tài)的質(zhì)疑仿佛就是和主流的合謀，但是我要質(zhì)疑的是，如果一種沒有立場(chǎng)的“反叛”淪落為“時(shí)尚”和投機(jī)取巧的“捷徑”以后，它的針對(duì)性是什么？批判性何在？如果說主流藝術(shù)是在給現(xiàn)實(shí)涂抹脂粉，那么在我看來，這些偽前衛(wèi)藝術(shù)家是在用貌似鮮血的紅顏料使自己在前衛(wèi)藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域“紅光亮”。

The process of “the continuity of object and self” and the rendering of language into the “carrier” vary considerably with an artist’s temperament and objecthood he faces, the interaction of which makes the external “carrier” into a real illusion. Only when this is convinced to be an illusion can we see how the temperament of the subject and object are blended in this world, thus forming a unique way for contemporary Chinese artists to reject representational theory and adhere to language purification. The artistic language creates a huge tension possible between the real structure of the “object” and cultural psychology—a hidden force.

（5） Interpretation of the transition in recent works of contemporary artists. For example, little criticism is available to the sculptor Sui Jianguo’s The Blind Men and the Elephant, and the sculptor Zhan Wang’s Morph, which show no clear theme, or whose symbols and material show no def i nite meaning. Why did they—China’s most representative sculptors—make this shift almost at the same time? Is this a coincidence?Obviously not. In fact, decades of their contact with “objects” （sculpture clay, stainless steel） have activated an intercommunication between the body and the material, which is closely linked to Chinese people’s way of sensing, which emphasizes a sense of touch！

What is “object” then? Since the moment it is given a “l(fā)iteralist”meaning, it starts to remain in a vacuum state. When “minimalism”displays an “object” in an extreme way, it is attempting to highlight“objecthood” with “l(fā)iteralness,” which remains only at an external,physical surface level, and visually “deceives” the viewer, with the support of the theatrical scene. “Form” is nothing but physical appearance. Even if “minimalists” participate in the making of the“appearance,” such an “intervention” never incorporates “the artist” into his work, who is still an observer of “substance”, and whose background still reflects a world view in which the subject and the object conflict with each other.

The “object and one self in harmony,” which is attributed to philosophy or metaphysics in traditional Chinese cultural texts, lacks a link to our age, because both philosophy and metaphysics are currently overlooked. Such a relationship plays its role in the public’s daily life,and also influences the artist’s ways of perceiving the material and intervening in it in creation.

The particular mode of the subject’s perception will lead to differentiation of artistic language concerning works. In opposition to the “objecthood” in “theatricality” questioned by Fried, Chinese artists have a special understanding and perception of “substance.” Further with historical memories their body has carried, they incorporate this feeling into the material of works in the process of creation, which enables the work itself to possess relative “self-suff i ciency”—without theatricality,these works can stand themselves.

In fact, the recent works of Sui Jianguo and Zhan Wang give the author hopes of such a possibility！

（6） “Hermit” artists. They are largely overlooked, whose artworks clash with the theoretical framework provided by current prevailing critic discourses. The suicide of the performance artist Zhang Shengquan may be a topic that the community of China’s contemporary art cannot elude.Countless honest, marginalized and noble-minded artists are left at the mercy of fate in an age when high market value, popularity and frequent public appearances are worshiped.

III. What Has Resulted from Neglect of“Transcendence?”

1. The simplif i cation of the “subject,” lack of stance, and “emotional aggressiveness” priority to please the audience.

In the fi eld of contemporary art, artists need to air their attitudes—their own cultural criticality and avant-garde via artwork. This is a presentation of their artistic mind and stance, and a prerequisite to acquire his identity as an “avant-garde artist.” However, the author suspects that, once such an identity is acquired and then used as a bargaining counter, this airing will be worthless—nothing but another form of bet or stunt in Vanity Fair, nothing different from blood ties identif i cation.Particularly, it is noteworthy that, in the circle of contemporary art where commercialism prevails, this act is a shortcut to profiteering success,reminding so-called affected, “avant-garde” artists who seem to be kind of angry clowns daydreaming to become cultural giants some day.

“僅作為表態(tài)的前衛(wèi)性”之所以成為可能，在于許多藝術(shù)家僅將“前衛(wèi)”視為一種表態(tài)，而這種表態(tài)和自己的立足點(diǎn)卻了無(wú)關(guān)系，前衛(wèi)成為一種可以標(biāo)榜的身份，一種貌似叛逆的、言不由衷的站位。與“傳統(tǒng)”的簡(jiǎn)單對(duì)立和盲目逃離，不見得就是“前衛(wèi)”，缺少現(xiàn)實(shí)批判性的“前衛(wèi)”，就像射出去的無(wú)靶之箭，看似極具穿刺性，實(shí)則輕歌曼舞，毫無(wú)用處。

盡管在現(xiàn)實(shí)情況下，各類“他者”的現(xiàn)實(shí)權(quán)利并沒有實(shí)質(zhì)性的增長(zhǎng)，但以“他者”為立足點(diǎn)的各類藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作卻在藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域有了獨(dú)特的地位。一方面，進(jìn)行此類創(chuàng)作的部分藝術(shù)家，或者放大自己的真實(shí)邊緣狀態(tài)，或者已經(jīng)金銀滿屋、名車豪宅，依然標(biāo)榜自己的邊緣狀態(tài)，并基于此進(jìn)行創(chuàng)作。另一方面，以“他者”為處理對(duì)象的一部分藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作僅將選擇“他者”視為一種策略，作為自己進(jìn)軍當(dāng)代美術(shù)界的利器，于是，只有邊緣人群成為被選擇的對(duì)象，唯有血腥暴力成為吸引眼球的誘餌，第三世界反而成為國(guó)際展覽的“主角”。在這樣的正確性中，作品的藝術(shù)性無(wú)人問津，藝術(shù)評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)成為“題材決定論”的時(shí)下變體，藝術(shù)作品則淪為理論的注腳，“他者”權(quán)利在藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域被虛擬地?zé)o限擴(kuò)張。

自文藝復(fù)興以來，“藝術(shù)家”這個(gè)稱呼開始在歐洲獲得獨(dú)立身份，經(jīng)歷過現(xiàn)代主義的“藝術(shù)英雄”階段，“藝術(shù)家”獲得更加自由的空間，強(qiáng)調(diào)“藝術(shù)自律”的現(xiàn)代主義藝術(shù)史無(wú)疑慢慢將這些藝術(shù)家奉上了神壇。從尼采說“上帝死了！”之后，藝術(shù)家在某種程度上侵占了神壇的一角。盡管在中世紀(jì)以及以前，他們更多是為神壇服務(wù)的奴婢。

自古以來，中國(guó)的職業(yè)“畫家”“雕塑家”（或者統(tǒng)稱為“職業(yè)藝術(shù)家”）從來沒有很高的社會(huì)地位。只是更多文人介入繪畫，才使其地位得以抬升，但是他們身份的真正獲得是在20世紀(jì)。西方的社會(huì)分層機(jī)制影響了中國(guó)，“藝術(shù)家”逐漸成為一個(gè)可以與“讀書人”（20世紀(jì)分化的一支被稱為“知識(shí)分子”）平起平坐的社會(huì)角色。

這是我們談?wù)摗八囆g(shù)家”的歷史語(yǔ)境。當(dāng)我們說“藝術(shù)家”，我們?cè)谡f什么？說的是哪個(gè)類型的藝術(shù)家？

我想很多人反映出的是現(xiàn)代主義的“藝術(shù)英雄”們，梵高、塞尚、高更、畢加索、馬蒂斯……中國(guó)與之對(duì)應(yīng)的林風(fēng)眠、龐薰琹、關(guān)良、常玉、潘玉良、趙無(wú)極、吳冠中……杜尚顛覆了現(xiàn)代主義的藝術(shù)自律模式之后，我們?cè)趺纯此囆g(shù)家呢？隨之而來的社會(huì)文化史的研究方法更是從各種角度指點(diǎn)出這些“藝術(shù)英雄”與社會(huì)的更深層的關(guān)聯(lián)性。

杜尚之后又出現(xiàn)了博伊斯，隨后的安迪·沃霍爾、杰夫·昆斯、村上隆，接連顛覆“藝術(shù)”和“非藝術(shù)”的界限，于是有藝術(shù)史學(xué)者驚呼：“藝術(shù)死亡了！”

這一得到發(fā)展的藝術(shù)史脈絡(luò)以共時(shí)性的方式在中國(guó)紛紛登場(chǎng)，各有一批擁戴者。中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)以其“批判性”“介入性”“問題針對(duì)性”為其主要基點(diǎn)，其實(shí)和康有為、陳獨(dú)秀、徐悲鴻及其學(xué)生、國(guó)統(tǒng)區(qū)、根據(jù)地新興木刻運(yùn)動(dòng)，乃至“藝術(shù)為工農(nóng)兵服務(wù)”政策有更多的潛在的關(guān)聯(lián)性。

上述兩個(gè)貌似對(duì)立的藝術(shù)史闡釋模式無(wú)時(shí)不在影響著中國(guó)藝術(shù)家。

但有兩個(gè)問題一直是中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的軟肋：藝術(shù)家主體性的自我建構(gòu)；中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言的獨(dú)立性。

It sounds correct to take a ref l ective attitude in any real political or ideologically-controlled environment, e.g. emphasizing cultural diversity,highlighting identity difference, making virtual political criticism,conduct post-colonialism analysis of current global patterns.... But what is the basis for correctness judgment in the art world? Is it enough to take a single attitude only? Is it right for a critic to praise whatever defying attitude he spots? In the fi eld of contemporary art, any rebellious gesture against the real world possesses “correctness” beyond discussion, any questioning of which is taken as a conspiracy with the mainstream. But my suspect is: if a stance-less, indiscriminate rebellion is reduced to a“fashion” and “shortcut” for prof i teering, what are its targets then? What is it critical of? Personally speaking, if the mainstream art is assumed to overpraise reality, those pseudo-avant-garde artists can be deemed to be making themselves striking in avant-garde art with seemingly blood-like red pigment.

Then, why is “avant-garde just as an attitude” possible? The reason is that many artists just hold “avant-garde” as an attitude,which, however, has nothing to do with their standing points, and has become a show-off of identity, an apparently rebellious yet insincere stance. Simplistic opposition to or blind escape from “tradition” is not necessarily “avant-garde.” If any “avant-garde” is not critical of reality, it would be like an aimless arrow, which looks so penetrative at fi rst sight,but will end up feathery and useless.

Although all kinds of actual rights for “the other” have not gained substantial growth in practice, the creation based on “the other” has won a unique position in art. On the one hand, part of such artists exaggerate their true marginal status, or claim they are still on such a status even if they live a luxurious life. On the other hand, others who deal with “the other” select it only as a strategy of rising to prominence in contemporary art. Then only marginalized groups are chosen, and only bloody violence is sensational. Accordingly, the third world countries have become the“arena” of international exhibitions. For so-called correctness, few care about artistry; and art evaluation criterion become a current version of“subject matter determinism.” Works are reduced to the footnotes of theory, and the rights of “the other” are extended unrestrainedly in a virtual manner.

Since the Renaissance, the term “artist” has gained an independent identity in Europe. After the stage of modernist “artistic heroes,” it has won larger space of freedom. Undoubtedly, modernist art history, which emphasizes “the autonomy of art,” has inched its way to enshrine artists.Since the moment the philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche declared,“God is dead！” artists, to some degree, have stealthily occupied a corner of the altar, though they were mostly only servants in service of the altar in the Middle Ages and before.

In ancient times, China’s professional “painters” and “sculptors”（or collectively referred to as “professional artists”） never achieved a high social status. Only after China’s literati joined painting, the former’s status began to rise. However, they had not actually reached their identity until the 20th century. Thanks to the inf l uence of Western social stratif i cation mechanism upon China, “artists” have gradually acquired a social role equal with that of “scholars” （part of whom have been called“intellectuals” after a division in the 20th century）.

The above is the historical context in which we speak about “artists.”So, when we discuss the word, what do we really mean? What type of them we mean?

Many, the author believes, would remember a list of “art heroes”involving modernism: Van Gogh, Paul Cézanne, Paul Gauguin, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, etc. And their Chinese counterparts would be:Lin Fengmian, Pang Xunqin, Guan Liang, Chang Yu, Pan Yuliang, Zao Wou-ki, Wu Guanzhong, etc. How should we treat artists after Marcel Duchamp overturned the art autonomy model in modernism? Then, the approaches to socio-cultural history revealed deeper associations between“art heroes” and society from a variety of perspectives.

Duchamp was followed by Joseph Beuys, Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, and Takashi Murakami, who successively subverted the bounds between “art” and “non-art.” It is no surprise that some art historians announced: “Art is dead！”

Synchronically, this developmental trend of art history is replayed in China, having won waves of supporters. But contemporary Chinese art is mainly based on “criticality,” “intervention,” and “problem-orientation,”which, in fact, have more potential connections with thinkers like Kang Youwei and Chen Duxiu, Xu Beihong and his followers, the KMT-controlled areas, New Woodcut Movement in base areas, and even CPC’s policy that “Art Should Serve the Workers, Peasants and Soldiers.”

在潮流的激蕩中，在現(xiàn)今的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化語(yǔ)境的籠罩下，很少有青年人能成為時(shí)代的“沖浪者”。技術(shù)難以對(duì)付情景的時(shí)候，做一兩聲尖叫，或許能引來更多的關(guān)注，這也就是“戾場(chǎng)”的由來?？v觀這十幾年的中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)，多少青年藝術(shù)家采用這樣的方式，并策略性地充當(dāng)“事件藝術(shù)家”，當(dāng)短暫的浪花平息之時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)自己只是一個(gè)尷尬的裸奔哥？

不“立”何來“場(chǎng)”？中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的轉(zhuǎn)型期是否已經(jīng)到來？包括我在內(nèi)的所有人可能都只感覺到一個(gè)朦朧的意象。但基于對(duì)自我主體的塑造與深入挖掘、對(duì)社會(huì)問題更細(xì)致關(guān)注的心態(tài)已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)，這不能不讓人驚喜。

“從戾場(chǎng)到立場(chǎng)”與其說是一個(gè)判斷，不如說是一份期盼。拋出這個(gè)問題本身可能會(huì)引來更多的警覺，這份警覺不僅對(duì)藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作有益，對(duì)批評(píng)行為、策展活動(dòng)、當(dāng)代藝術(shù)史的書寫可能都有所價(jià)值？

2.“藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言”的大量簡(jiǎn)單模仿：比如“德表風(fēng)”“里希特風(fēng)”“霍克尼風(fēng)”“李松松風(fēng)”“王音風(fēng)”，當(dāng)下市場(chǎng)推動(dòng)的“視覺抽象”風(fēng)，前些年海外市場(chǎng)大行其道的“抽象水墨風(fēng)”等等。

在攝影術(shù)發(fā)明之后，藝術(shù)家便在借用各種藝術(shù)手段“突圍”。某種程度上說，一部西方現(xiàn)代主義藝術(shù)史可以視為一部藝術(shù)家突圍史。更罔論伴隨著印刷術(shù)的進(jìn)步，各時(shí)期視覺資源、經(jīng)典作品通過書籍的傳播，現(xiàn)在隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)、移動(dòng)終端的興起，世界已經(jīng)形成一個(gè)圖像的海洋。除去我們慣稱的“自然”（Nature）之外（其實(shí)我們觀看“自然”的方式，也受到了圖像傳播的極大影響），藝術(shù)家如何處理這一“海洋”，已經(jīng)是一個(gè)無(wú)法回避的問題。

中國(guó)改革開放之后，藝術(shù)界更多遇到的是西方藝術(shù)作品圖像的轟炸問題。當(dāng)時(shí)能看到比較精美的印刷圖片，或更幸運(yùn)，能出國(guó)看到原作的藝術(shù)家，在某種程度上都改變了原有的對(duì)藝術(shù)作品的模糊認(rèn)識(shí)，澄清了對(duì)這類藝術(shù)形式的誤讀。當(dāng)然，他們也感知到一種重壓。面對(duì)西方繪畫語(yǔ)言的精彩紛呈，一部分藝術(shù)家選擇了模仿，或者不自覺地撞車，由此也引發(fā)了當(dāng)代藝術(shù)批評(píng)對(duì)上世紀(jì)80年代部分藝術(shù)家的否定。另一部分藝術(shù)家在語(yǔ)言自覺的自我提示下，開始了漫長(zhǎng)的藝術(shù)語(yǔ)言探索之路。

在中國(guó)藝術(shù)界，“與圖像的對(duì)話”催生了幾個(gè)重要事件：

（1）80年代初鄉(xiāng)土寫實(shí)主義繪畫的誕生；（2）與之相對(duì)應(yīng)的杭州“池社”藝術(shù)家對(duì)四川畫派部分藝術(shù)家的批判，對(duì)平涂技法的選擇；（3）盡管出發(fā)點(diǎn)與“池社”不同，“北方藝術(shù)團(tuán)體”部分藝術(shù)家也在風(fēng)格上選擇了忽略激情的冷靜筆觸；（4）上世紀(jì)90年代早期“新生代藝術(shù)家”以及“政治波普”藝術(shù)的出現(xiàn)；（5）世紀(jì)交接時(shí)“里希特式平涂技法”的流行，一直持續(xù)至2008年里希特個(gè)展在中國(guó)美術(shù)館舉辦；（6）隨之是“李松松式厚涂技法”各種樣式的時(shí)下流行，伴隨著后兩者的，是在“解構(gòu)主義”的名義下，各種“簡(jiǎn)單挪用方法”的泛濫，政治家、明星頭像成為最多出現(xiàn)在畫面中的符號(hào)；（7）2006年左右，第四代批評(píng)家開始在這個(gè)問題上發(fā)力，并側(cè)面導(dǎo)致了“抽象藝術(shù)”的“繁榮”?？墒?0年不到，我們悲哀地發(fā)現(xiàn)，大多數(shù)抽象藝術(shù)便成為了“裝飾畫”，或者“觀念的工具畫”。盡管有奧利瓦的中國(guó)行為興奮劑，但“抽象”正在被市場(chǎng)提前透支。

其實(shí)“與圖像的對(duì)話”遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)沒有結(jié)束……在中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)已經(jīng)受到更多關(guān)注的當(dāng)下，在市場(chǎng)起主導(dǎo)作用、批評(píng)逐漸式微的處境中，在國(guó)外藝術(shù)大師頻頻來訪，引起一個(gè)個(gè)潮起潮落（里希特風(fēng)、基弗風(fēng)、弗洛伊德風(fēng)、霍克尼風(fēng)，或者即將爆發(fā)的……）的今天，這一“無(wú)根之木，無(wú)源之水”的境遇如何改變？又如何談?wù)撝袊?guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的語(yǔ)言邏輯、自足特征？已經(jīng)成為一個(gè)不得不回答的問題！

The above two interpretation modes of art history, seemingly opposite to each other, always exert an inf l uence upon China’s artists.

However, there have been two soft spots in contemporary Chinese art: self-construal in artists’ subjectivity; language independence in contemporary Chinese art.

In the context of current political, economic, and cultural storms,few young people can become “surfers” of their times. When they cannot tackle a diff i cult situation with their art skills, one or two outcries may capture attention, which explains why “emotional aggressiveness”occurs. A look at the past decade of contemporary Chinese art will show that many young artists choose this method, and strategically act as “event artists,” who eventually fi nd themselves just an art streaker when shortlived pomp dies out！

How can one develop his “standpoint” if he is not “independent?”Has the transitional period of contemporary Chinese art come? Everyone,including the author, may have just a vague idea about this. Nonetheless,it is amazingly encouraging that a new state of mind has emerged, which is based on self-construal and probing as the subject, and pays further detailed attention to social concerns.

“Going from emotional aggressiveness to stance” is more an expectation than a judgment. Such a concern itself may draw more awareness, which may be of value to creation, criticism, curatorial activities, and contemporary art history writing?

2. Mere, massive imitation of “artistic language.” Artistic fashions come and go, successively after “German expressionism,” “Gerhard Richter,” “David Hockney,” “Li Songsong,” “Wang Yin,” “abstract ink”popular in overseas markets a few years ago, currently market-driven“visual abstraction,” etc.

After the invention of photography, artists borrowed a variety of media for “breakthroughs.” To a certain extent, a modernist Western art history can be seen as a history of breakthroughs. With the progress of printing, visual resources and classic works of individual periods spread extensively via books. Currently, with the rise of internet and mobile terminals, our world has already been a sea of images. Except to “Nature”as we habitually call it （in fact, even our ways of seeing “Nature” have greatly been affected by image communication）, how to deal with this“sea” is already a challenging issue artists have to confront.

After China’s reform and opening up, art world encountered a more pressing problem: image bombing from Western artworks. Chinese artists who were able to see exquisite print pictures, or who had the luck to go abroad and see original Western works changed their vague understanding of such works to some extent, and corrected their previous misinterpretation. Of course, they felt pressure on them. In the face of striking Western painting language, some Chinese artists chose to imitate, or unconsciously resemble their Western counterparts, which led to contemporary critics’ negation of part of the 1980s artists. Others, with the hint of language self-consciousness, began a long way to explore artistic language.

In China’s art circles, “the dialogue with images” triggered several signif i cant events:

（1） Local realism appeared in the early 1980s. （2） At the same time, Hangzhou-based “Pond Society” artists criticized part of Sichuan Painters, and chose the technique of even application of color. （3）Though from different starting points, some “Northern Art Club” artists chose calming strokes in style, neglecting passionate ones. （4） “New Generation Artists” and “Political Pop” artists rose in the early 1990s.（5） “Richter-style even application of color” became widespread at the turn of 21st century until a Richter solo show was held at National Art Museum of China in 2008. （6） “Li Songsong-style impasto” gained popularity in various forms. Along with the latter two, all kinds of“simple appropriation” flooded in the name of “deconstruction,” and head portraits of politicians and fi lm stars were most common symbols in paintings. （7） China’s fourth generation critics began to attack this situation around 2006, and indirectly contributed to the “prosperity” of“abstract art.” Unfortunately, even within 10 years, we are sad to see that most of abstract art has turned into “decorative painting,” or “tool painting of concepts.” Though stimulated by Archile Bonito Oliva’s visit to China, such an art is being overdrafted by the market in advance.

In fact, that “dialogue with images” is far from ending up. How will such an artistically rootless trend improve, when contemporary Chinese art has caused more concern; when the market is playing a leading role,and criticism is declining; and when foreign art masters continually visits China, causing rounds of imitation （after Richter, Anselm Kiefer,Lucian Freud, Hockney, or forthcoming…）? Further, how can we address the language logic and self-sufficient characteristics of contemporary Chinese art? Indeed, a tough question we have to answer！

從上世紀(jì)80年代，王廣義基于對(duì)貢布里?！皥D式修正”概念的個(gè)人理解開始了《后古典》系列作品的創(chuàng)作，到90年代《大批判》使他成為“政治波普”的重要代表人物，中國(guó)畫家和“圖像”的對(duì)話持續(xù)展開，到現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)30年了。

在所謂的“圖像時(shí)代”，“與圖像的對(duì)話”可以和以前畫家的“對(duì)景寫生”相提并論，不過現(xiàn)在更像是“對(duì)鏡寫生”，這個(gè)“鏡子”就是圖像所構(gòu)建的“第二現(xiàn)實(shí)”。時(shí)下繪畫界問題出在更多畫家難以審視圖像，只是將它作為現(xiàn)實(shí)的替代品，既往速寫工具的替代品，繪畫的“拐杖”。對(duì)圖像的簡(jiǎn)單處理常見兩種方法：一是采取“小李飛刀式”的短平快方法，對(duì)圖像進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)單截取、挪用、嫁接、對(duì)比；二是“金鐘罩式”的濾鏡化的處理方法，在圖像之上覆蓋上一層個(gè)人化“筆法”。前者偏重題材，后者偏重技法。體弱者對(duì)“拐杖”更多是依賴，或者產(chǎn)生近乎“戀物癖”的眷戀，而非審視，這無(wú)疑和任何圖像理論都形成了南轅北轍的關(guān)系。

在電子媒體時(shí)代，繪畫存在的空間愈加狹小，這可能是一種悲哀，但如果運(yùn)用好這個(gè)狹小的空間所給出的“局限性”，或許能帶給畫家更多的創(chuàng)作可能性。面對(duì)“圖像”的壓力，如何面對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)？如何面對(duì)虛擬？好像都不再是單極的問題。具體的創(chuàng)作縫隙要由畫家來尋找、擴(kuò)大，并實(shí)現(xiàn)為具體的作品。“破圖”不失為一種選擇，“集合”其成果便可以呈現(xiàn)一代畫家的努力軌跡。

3．以“點(diǎn)子”為核心，動(dòng)用各種材質(zhì)，視覺化為“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)作品”的情況泛濫。

各種類型的“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)”喧囂于當(dāng)下，比如：

（1）標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化了的“壞畫”。微信公眾號(hào)“繪畫藝術(shù)壞蛋店”里的“壞”畫藝術(shù)家其實(shí)很多只是為了“壞”而怪。一個(gè)不會(huì)顛球的足球運(yùn)動(dòng)員，直接抱著球沖向球門，把足球當(dāng)橄欖球打，誰(shuí)又能說什么呢？即使看似“怪”，也基本陷入在套路里面。一點(diǎn)涂鴉，幾件現(xiàn)成品釘在畫布上，再寫幾句英文臟話；里希特＋霍克尼＋視錯(cuò)覺＋青春記憶等等。寫實(shí)＋偶然肌理（俗稱“鼻涕畫”）。一種樣式一旦出現(xiàn)，立即泛濫成災(zāi)。

（2）材料轉(zhuǎn)化試驗(yàn)品。與繪畫類似，用一截木頭局部雕出一個(gè)西瓜，涂一些鮮艷的色；用硅膠翻制一個(gè)正在融化的石碑，或者坦克；把石頭雕成的鎖鏈和鐵質(zhì)鎖鏈組合在一起；用透明塑料復(fù)制一下過安檢的衣物等等。基本是靜態(tài)“蒙太奇”，簡(jiǎn)單的二元轉(zhuǎn)化。

在現(xiàn)在的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)展覽中，還有諸多類型化的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作，在表面炫酷的背后，其實(shí)是簡(jiǎn)單的思維習(xí)慣在作祟。

結(jié)語(yǔ)

重提“超越性”的目的在于期待出現(xiàn)真正的平視視角，平視是完整的人之間的問題交流的基礎(chǔ)，而不受沒經(jīng)思考的思維模式、知識(shí)結(jié)構(gòu)以及民族心理的限制。正本清源，滌蕩以往對(duì)中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的獵奇眼光以及意識(shí)形態(tài)濾鏡。真正的平視，并不需要自絕于“超越性”，而是對(duì)其傳統(tǒng)淵源、現(xiàn)實(shí)處境、個(gè)人經(jīng)歷的充分尊重。

當(dāng)然，也是自重！

2016年9月2日于中央美術(shù)學(xué)院

劉禮賓：中央美術(shù)學(xué)院美術(shù)學(xué)研究所副研究員 博士

岳中生：中國(guó)民航大學(xué)副教授

The painter Wang Guangyi, based on his personal understanding of E.H. Gombrich’s “schema and correction,” began his “The Postclassical” series in the 1980s. About ten years later, his “Mass Criticism”series made him an important representative of “Political Pop.” And the dialogue between Chinese painters and “images” has been continuing for three decades now.

In a so-called “image age,” the “dialogue with images” can be mentioned in the same breath with “painting from nature,” as in the past.But the present case is more like “painting from the mirror,” a “second reality” built with images. A serious problem is that a great number of painters are unable to examine images, which they just take as a substitute for reality, for past sketch tools, and as “a pair of crutches”for painting. There are two simple, common ways of image processing:1） quick interception, transferring, and contrast; 2） fi lter-type treatment,i.e. covering individualized “strokes” onto images. The former focuses on subject matter while the latter on techniques. Undoubtedly, this has nothing to do with any image theory, as an invalid depends on rather than examines his crutches, for which he might develop a liking close to“fetishism.”

Admittedly, to our sadness, the survival space for painting is gradually narrower in an era of electronic media. However, good use of the “l(fā)imitations” provided by this small space may bring artists additional creative possibilities. Under the pressure of “images,” how should artists face reality? And the virtual? Seemingly no longer unilateral problems.Specifically, the creation space has to be discovered and enlarged by painters before artworks are materialized. “Image breaking” may, after all, be an option, and the trajectory of a generation of painters’ efforts can be displayed by “combining” its results.

3. “Idea-centered” overuse of materials before visualizing the idea into a “standard contemporary art work”.

All sorts of “standard contemporary art” are reigning as follows:

（1） Standardized “bad paintings.” An example is seen in a WeChat public account “Painting Art Bad Guys Shop,” in which many artists seem bizarre just to make their works “bad.” What can we say if we fi nd a football player, who even does not know how to juggle a ball, directly rushing to the goal with the ball held with two hands as in a rugby match?Even so, there are some tricks behind them: a little graff i ti, a few pieces of ready-made articles nailed on the canvas, and then a few English dirty words; Richter + Hockey + visual illusion + youth memory; realism +accidental texture （colloquially known as “snot painting”）. Once a new pattern emerges, it will be imitated immediately, widely and excessively.

（2） Experimental articles of material conversion. For example,as in painting, a chunk of wood is locally carved into a watermelon,then painted with bright colors; silica gel is made into a melting stone tablet or tank; a chain carved out of stone is combined with an iron one; transparent plastic is used to copy clothing under security check.Basically, those are created by static “montage,” a simple dualistic transformation.

In present-day contemporary art exhibitions, there are also many other stereotyped contemporary artworks. What actually support those cool show-offs are simplistic thinking habits always working there.

Conclusion

The purpose of readdressing “transcendence” is to expect the arrival of a true, “equal” perspective, which is the basis for communication between integrated people, without being limited by thoughtless thinking modes, knowledge structure and national psychology. Such a perspective will lead to a fundamental interpretation, helping clean up a novelty-seeking mentality and ideological filters on contemporary Chinese art. A true, “equal” perspective does not need to break away with“transcendence;” instead it pays full respect to its origins and tradition,realistic situation, and personal experience.

Of course, that means self-respect, too.

China Central Academy of Fine Arts, September 2, 2016

Liu Libin: doctor, associate research fellow at Fine Arts Research Institute,China Central Academy of Fine Arts

Yue Zhongsheng: associate professor at Civil Aviation University of China