文/徐虹
從中世紀後期逐漸獨立出來的風景畫，經過幾百年不間斷的發展以後，已經變得不那麼單純了。自從印象派畫家們將眼前的自然景象畫得“比自然還自然”，使得完全要按自然原貌畫風景的畫家們感到“前途”無著。從此後想有作為的畫家只能將自然景象作為一種參照，去豐富想像中的“風景”，借助自然之物表達自己的感情，思想和觀念。當然，在已往那些被稱作風景畫的藝術品裏，我們能夠感到畫家表達的關於時間和空間的各種感受，以及有關人生的哲理觀念體現。但這是借助於一幅非常逼真的風景來敘述，因此人們常常因身臨其境陶醉於景色之中而忽略思考。現代人開始將風景畫得不再讓人神醉心迷，而是複雜和猜不透，因為裏面加入了各種深奧的東西，如德國畫家基弗的“風景”。他的畫可以不作風景畫看，畫裏充滿對歷史的追尋和疑問，並含有關於人類命運的哲學思考，類似于我們常説的“主題性”創作。由此可以看到現代“風景”畫的定義已經充滿歧義，風景不再是風景，而是畫家個人感情和觀念的載體。畫家完全按照個人的意思對“風景”作解釋。但風景又還是風景，因為畫家還必須借助風景的元素表達自己的觀念……現代的觀眾而對一幅畫有看似樹木和湖泊、草地和農田的繪畫，心裏更多要思考的是畫家借助這些看起來像自然景色的東西要説些什麼呢？反正絕不會像直觀畫面那樣地“如此、這般”。
徐曉燕的農村系列油畫中的“風景”，就屬於需要“思考”，而不僅僅是“觀賞”的藝術。
她描繪的對像是被收割後的莊稼地景象，從不同的情景反覆描繪——有時是陽光燦爛充滿生機；有時是陰鬱沉重難以預測；有時又充滿傷感抒情遣懷……但這只是畫面所看到的最具情緒性和感覺性的東西。作品不僅僅傳導這些內容，它更是借助情緒傳達內心的感情。首先是有關畫家對“農村的土地”的概念和內涵的理解，比如豐茂、深厚、質樸、永恒，生生不息和裸露、貧瘠、傷痕、沉重等。但這些只是通過第一層面那些能感動人的描繪來給予人思考和探究，並不升到文化的聯繫。畢竟，畫家留給人的意象中，有一條主線在敘述著和連接著有關的詞彙和單個的意象，那就是當面對這片土地時，畫家實際的內心活動，以及思考和形式的表達。
所以，徐曉燕的畫和傳統牧歌式的田無風景完全不同，她畫中的景象不只是在敘述一個季節的特徵，儘管看上去她的作品都和深秋初冬季節的景色有關。季節在這兒只是一種喻指，這使得畫面充滿象徵意味，比如人和生存環境的關係，人對生命活動的關注和人對社會現實的反思等。但這仍然比較籠統，因為這些概念都可以用別的方式和畫面來表達。屬於她個的藝術特徵又是什麼呢？看上去畫面上有一種揮之不去的惆悵情緒，溫暖寬厚的情懷以及粗獷厚重的肌理表層，畫家將種種矛盾的因素整合在一幅畫面上，並用風景的形式——富有韻律感的節奏和濃郁的色彩以及寬廣的結構……這一切的綜合因素集于一畫，使得很難用簡單的方式解讀她的作品，但能感覺到畫中豐富複雜但又單純的美感。
她的畫面主體是豐厚的黑土，有時被夕陽映成金紅色，有時呈陰沉沉的黑褐色。黑土地上的乾枯玉米桿，與七零八落的雜草混雜在一起，在夕陽余暉中閃顯輝煌。雖然一部分玉米稈還保持著挺立，但更多的已經倒在泥土裏，變為更深的棕色，開始了化作泥土的過程……這種景象好像是在講述一個無保留的不斷奉獻的故事。當然這是以風景畫作為比喻，是讓觀者去試著解釋和想像這些內涵。但是作為女性藝術家，尤其是生活在當代文化環境裏的徐曉燕，顯然有不一般的感受，並且與她的人生際遇相聯繫。她的畫表達一種對事物的敏感性，對時間和空間的變化以及事物之間關係的生理和心理的聯繫。特別是繼她的《樂土》系列作品後的《輝煌》作品系列，《輝煌》系列更少一些風景意味，而更多一些象徵意味。而《樂土》系列畫得更多的是遠景和全景，畫面有天空大地和地平線，觀者的視線往往向地平線深遠處聚集，而産生對大地的一種廣袤無邊的茫然。於是畫面更多的給人空間感而不是厚厚的黑土所蘊含的豐實感。相對來説，同樣也可作為風景看待的《輝煌》系列，畫面更集中于土地和植物，視覺拉近，聚焦于局部具體的放大和細緻。作品的主體厚土和植物更突出，畫家表現這部分內容更深入，於是想説的話和想要表達的意思也更明確。
對於這類作品可以從兩方面作也解釋，一是有關土地的比喻和聯想，即母親的聯想。關於母親無私奉獻的意象，已經有評論家解釋了，不再贅述。另一方面是基於個人對生命的感悟作出的解釋。這種解釋充滿特殊的個人色彩，具有詩意的想像。畫面上土地和植物之間關係的描繪，像是畫家在對生命和生活態度的探究和質疑。從表面看，這些畫與傳統風景畫的形式相距不遠，但畫上那些金黃色的枯玉米稈和葉子畫得像是一種祭獻物——具有莊嚴的悲劇色彩；而土地是祭壇——與祭獻物一起構成完整的結構，既是形式的，也是內容的。農作物和土地的組合既天衣無縫讓人感到自然和熟悉，又有些陌生感和不安——來自一種非常個人的解釋，顯示了不確定性和特殊性。它讓人感到祭壇和祭物關係的一種非常態的解釋。一般來説，祭壇本身是更替的易變化的——農作物根據季節和生長的規律奉獻了果實以後，枝葉和桿莖“化作泥土再護花”，成就祭獻的系列過程。作為祭壇——它作為祭獻物的陪襯顯得默然無語；但它也是祭獻物的一部分——作為呈現它與祭獻物一起不可分割。而作為祭壇的土地，農作物在這身上成長，吸取它的養分，靠它的庇護種子才能發芽……所以 ，祭壇和祭獻物之間的關生活費是一種合二為一的關係，實際上就是讚美土地。
耐人尋味的是徐曉燕將乾枯的收割後的莊稼地也作為歌頌對象，好像是將殘破景色當作美景欣賞，體現一種對宿命的感嘆。這種融會了人生理爭的“變調”，在她的《月亮灣》以及最近的《蝴蝶泉》等作品中顯得更為突出。《月亮灣》相對於她的《樂土》和《輝煌》系列的金黃色高調，這件作品是暗晦深重的低調，儘管前景有一片金黃色，但相對於〈輝煌〉係理那種濃郁厚實的金色來説可以用“無可奈何花落去”的慘澹來形容，這是不再是平整寬廣肥沃的厚土，而是河邊斜坡的薄土，無法掩蓋地下堅硬、參差不齊的石床。遠處的天空也是一片灰暗，河水沉寂不動，顯示淩亂淺顯的殘留麥草，而這也將被黑褐色的環境所吞噬……與以前那些系列油畫一樣，這種對時間流逝的傷感和關注也同樣隱含著一種象徵意義。在徐曉燕的敘述中，以前那是一個破爛和淤泥的河道，還有一睦收廢品的人住的破舊棚窩，現在卻蓋起了漂亮的“度假村”……但有意思的是徐曉燕原意追憶曾經是“破爛”的月亮灣，而不是現在“漂亮”的月亮灣，好像破爛的月亮灣上還可以追尋土地原始的氣息以及人為了生存的基本衝動——懷舊的描述有了一種新的樣本，不再充滿田園牧歌式的詩情，而是像一具歷史學家對曾經是真實情境的“活色生香”的記憶……
在描繪垃圾堆和臭水溝的〈翠橋〉、〈小溪溝〉中，畫家對現實處境的描畫更具有了當下性的時間特徵——已經不再追憶不久的“事實”，而是直面當下的現實環境。雖然她曾經描畫的田野和莊稼也是現實生活中見到的場景，但那是帶著“過去”時段的心緒描寫，使用過去時段的心理抽射于當下時段。因此地畫面中，總也揮不去古典風景描繪追求完美和整體氣氛的經典影子。但現在所畫的那些和臭水溝相連的地方，卻是一種直接“面對”，沒有加回避和浪漫想像的景象，人們可以從中讀出作者的意思：“這曾經是一片美麗的地方”。而現在這是一片被污染的土地，上面是生活垃圾和雜草，在暗色的背景和陰影中，一些工業和生活排泄物撒在臭水溝邊的草叢裏，不協調的顏色刺激我們的眼睛，就像糜爛之花閃著不祥的色澤。“罪惡的花朵”盛開，而健康的自然之花就會枯萎凋謝，水溝邊的排污管子更象裸露的，醜露的傷口，給這片異樣的景致添上更怪異的色彩。這裡只剩下一個美麗的名稱，人們將美麗的名稱對應于眼前的醜陋，更加感到莫名地失落。畫家就是一位生活在當代碼，面對現實的處境，無法想像有過美妙名稱的過去光景，就如觀者只能看到被邪惡侵淩的自然而無從引起浪漫的美感一樣，只有沉重和一些憤怒。一向讚頌大自然的徐曉燕，在這裡超越了風景畫的傳統樣式，她從詩意的嚮往下落到現實的泥土之中，使風景畫浸透當代文化的問題意識。
POETIC LONGINGS AND THE REALITY----XU XIAOYAN,S OIL LANDSCAPES SERIES OF RURAL SCENERIES
Landscape painting, which gradually gained independence as a fine art genre in the latter half or the middle Ages, is not as simple as it used to be after centries of uninterrupted development, The Impressionists, who made the natural scenes before human eyes “more natural than nature itself”, have left those artists specialized in replicating natural spectacles on the canvas at a loss about thire “future”. Since then, the natural ivew has been used as something like raw materials to be enriched with the artist’s imagination; nature has become a medium for the painter to express their emotions, thoughts, and ideas. Admittedly, the old-style landscapes in some cases also conveyed the painter’sdiverse experiences of time and space as well as their philosophical reflections on existence, but their extremely vived details would often overwhelm the undience with the visual beauty and make them ignore the thoughts in it. Nowadays,it seems that landscapes are made not to enchant, but to perplex, thanks to the assortment of abstruse elements in them. Take the German neo-expressionist Anselm Kiefer for example, his paintings, which can hardly be viewed as landscapes, are full of searching and questioning of history as well ruminations on the destiny of humanity, which corresponds with the notion of “thematic” creation in our vocabulary. Therefore, landscape its modern definition is somewhat a misnomer, as the scenery is no longer treated as scenery, but as a medium for expressing the painter’s individual feelings and ideas. In short, the artist is interpreting the “scenery” personally. In another sense, however, the scenery is still the scenery, because the elements in the natural view are essential as a medium for conveying the artist’s thoughts. Looking at the woods, lake, pasture, and farmland in a painting, the modern audience is tempted to query what the artist is trying to express through what appeared to a natural spectacle; they can never see it as it is.
The landscapes in Xu Xiaoyan’s rural scenery series belong to the above category of paintings to be “contemplated”, instead of being “appreciated” with the eye.
The sceneries that Xu Xiaoyan paints are spectacles of farmland after harvesting, and the subject is persistently represented in the different moods of vigorous liveliness, unpredictable bleakness, and sorrowful lyricism, among others, There moods, which are apparent to the eye, are just a medium used to convey the emotions in the recesses of the painter’s mind. Underlying these images and moods is the artist’s understanding of the concept of “rural land”, which signifies profusion, profundity, simplicity, and eternity, as well as dismalness, barrenness, injury, and distress. Through her depiction of the emotions that touch the audience’s heart, the artist has achieved a kind of cultural association.In effect, all the individual images and ideas the painter presents are united by a single purpose, which is the expression of the painter’s introspection and contemplation.
Therefore, Xu Xiaoyan,s paintings are entirely different from the conventional idyllic pastoral landscapes. The sceneries in her works don’t belong to any season, though they all seem to be taken from late autumn and early winter. Here, season is a mere metaphor, which gives the imagery various senses of symbolism, like the relationship between humanity and its environment, or people’s concern about life and their reflections on social reality. The above generalization, however, is still not precise enough, as those elements can find expression through other methods and imagery. The artistic characteristic that sets Xu Xiaoyan apart from all other painters is the melancholy yearning in her works. With a crushing feel of warmth and generosity, the painter has created a crushing feel of warmth and generosity, the painter has created a rugged texture for a composition in which a variety of conflicting elements coexist in perfect harmony. The melodious rhythm, striking palette, and sweeping format, which make it impossible to read her works in a simplistic manner, effectively conveys to the audience the rich, complex, yet undecorated sense of beauty.
In Xu Xiaoyan,s paintings, the compositions are mostly dominated by expanses of dark-colored soil, sometimes in a golden red lit by the setting sun, sometimes in a murky black, as the withered corn stalks amidst messy weeds look splendid in the twilight at sunset. While some corn stalks still stand erect, more of them have fallen to the ground to be absorbed into the soil. The spectacle looks like a story about an unreserved sacrifice. The audience is lde to interpret the metaphor of the landscape through their own imagination. As a woman artist living in the contemporary cultural environment of China, Xu Xiaoyan apparently has her own distinctive feelings about her work, which has been a product of her life experience. Her paintings often express a kind of sensitivety to the world, or a psychological and physical association with the changes of space and tiem and the interaction between different things. Following her “Paradise” series,the “Glory” series departed farther from landscape and displays richer symbolism. In the “Paradise” series, the subjects were mostly wide views of the open country. As the vastness of the sky and earth led the audience’s attention to the horizon at a remote distance, what the paintings conveyed was a sense of space, instead of the impressive physical existence of the black soil. By contrast, in the “Glory” series, which also qualifies for landscapes, the focus has been pulled closer onto the earth and the plants, the details of which were effectively represented. As greater prominence was given to the soil and plants, the painter was able to go deeper and find more room for expressing the feeling inside her.
The landscapes I discussed above are subject to two interpretations. The first is the metaphor and association about the earth, or the imagery of maternity. As it has been sufficiently explained in other reviews, I choose to focus on the second one, that is ,an individual’s reflections on life. This second interpretation is one of unique individual color and poetic imagination. In depicting the relationship between the earth and plants in her paintings, the artist seems to be questioning life itself and a certain about life. In from the landscapes look similar to their traditional predecessors, but the yellowing corn stalks and leaves are depicted to look like something offered as a sacrifice, something with a solemn sense of tragedy on the altar that is the earth. Here, the sacrificial offerings and the altar merge into each other in both form and content. The combination of crops and the earth seems natural and familiar as well as strange and restless, as the extremely individual interpretation is demonstrating its uncertainty and peculiarity. The audience is forced to perceive and abnormal interpretation of the relationship between the altar and offerings. Generally speaking, the altar itself, as a part of the offering ceremony, was offered together with the sacrifice in the process. But here, the offerings in the case are subject to constant changes; the crops grow, mature, and yield their fruits in accordance with the laws of nature, before the stalks and leaves fall to the ground and join the soil to nourish future crops, which completes the cycle of sacrificial offering. The altar calls for no attention as a foil to the offerings; but actually as a carrier it is an essential and inseparable part of the offerings. The earth, in its role as the altar, is providing the necessary conditions for the growing and ripening of the crops; therefore, the coalescence of the altar and offerings is in effect a celebration of the earth.
In celebrating the crop fields that have dried up after harvesting, Xu Xiaoyan seems to be appreciating the desolate, dismal spectacle as something beautiful. Such a plaintive exclamation conveys a “variation” on the painter’s understanding of life and existence, which is ever more visible in her “Moon Bay” and recent works like “Butterfly Springs”. In contrast with the loud palette of golden and yellow of the “Glory” series, “moon Bay” as a painting is low-key, gloomy, and bleak. The expanse of yellow at the foreground,compared with the rich, heavy, lush golden in “Glory”, seems helplessly dejected and depressing. In the place of the heavy masses of fertile, life-giving earth, a thin layer of soil on the river bank makes an ineffectual attempt to disguise the disguise the rugged, hostile rock underneath. The dark sky in the distance, the stale water in the river, and the messy crop stalks on the ground are ready to get swallowed by the formidable gloom of their environment. Like all her previous works, Xu Xiaoyan has buried kind of symbolism in the expression of her melancholy and concern for the time that has elapsed. According to her narration, the river once filled with stinking mud and garbage, along with garbage collector’s dilapidated shelters have now given way to a beautiful “resort”. What the painter prefers, however, turns out to be the former “shabby” Moon Bay, instead of the new “beautiful” one; at least, the shabby, undeveloped Moon Bay would have displayed some pristine innocence of the earth and aroused basic impulses for human existence. This fresh expression of nostalgia, no longer filled with the lyricism of pastoral songs, looks like a historian’s remembrance of the “liveliness” of something that has actually existed.
In “Jade Bridge” and “Little Brook”, which depict a heap of garbage and a stinking canal, the painter demonstrates more chronological features of the present in her portrayal of the reality, as the subject is no longer the “facts” from the reent the recent past, but the reality that exists right now. Although the open country and crops she used to paint were also taken directly from the reality, the depiction was executed with a mood from “the past”. As the psychology of the past was being projected onto the process of their creation, those works were haunted, or limited by the pursuit of perfection and overall ambience typical of classical landscapes. In the more recent paintings, however, there is no shunning and imagining in dealing with the subjects like a stinking canal; it has come as a direct “confrontation”. The audience can easily read the statement of the painter, “this place used to be beautiful”. Now, however, it has become a polluted piece of land plagued by omnipresent garbage and rampant weeds; in the dark-colored background, some industrial and everyday wastes are littered in the weeds beside the gutters, and the dissonance of the colors, which shine ominously likd the flower of corruption, is hurting our eyes. The “flower of evil” is blossoming at the expense of the health of nature. The refuse outlets beside the canals, like some ugly, bare wounds, add an uncanny feel to the bizarre scenery. Whatever beauty that is left is in the title; in contrast to the attractiveness of the title, the ugliness before the eye provokes in the spectators and indescribable sense of boss. The painter, who lives in the modern world and therefore has to face the reality, is finding it difficult to see the lost sceneries behind the winsome titles even in her mind’s eye, while the wickedly savaged nature, which has been robbed of any possibility of romantic beauty, leads to a profound anger in her heart. Xu Xiaoyan, who has been consistently celebrating nature, has transcended the conventional pattern of landscapes. As she descended from the poetic yearnings to the soil of the reality, her landscapes have become saturated with an awareness of the problems in our contemporary culture.