現代的中國人有一個特點——單獨的個體常常成為民族的象徵。尤其是當個人遠離家國，在遙遠的海外生活，而又沒有一種獨闖天下打開局面為價值的傳統文化為支撐，單獨的個體便會覺得缺乏支撐，産生不安全和孤獨感。在其他民族那裏，情況似乎不是這樣，例如很少聽到有某一個普通的俄羅斯人認為他個人可以代表俄羅斯民族……當然這和他們的優秀人物被“整個”民族推薦為“代表”是另一回事。而我們常常聽到的民族身份想像，給人一種“投靠”的感覺。
聯想到從海外回來和從大陸去海外的當代藝術家們，尤其從事抽象藝術的藝術家，比較常見的借用書法為母題探索抽象藝術並且認為這樣才是具有中國特色的抽象藝術。這種狀況不一概而論，可以作分析。
是將身份認同作為首要任務，將書法作為一種民族文化的標誌，突出它的地域文化特徵呢，還是從對抽象藝術的理解和需要出發，在中國的自然環境和傳統符號中，在書法本身具有的線條、節奏和象形中發現抽象的因素和意義，將這些提煉、轉化成抽象藝術的語言？不同的目的，就會有不同的結果。雖然我們可以認為，當中國藝術家採用書法作為當代藝術創作載體時，這種選擇本身就含有文化特殊性。但如果將書法直接挪用，淺嘗輒止，缺少經過提煉和轉化，認為這才是中國老祖宗的法寶，象徵中國精粹，那麼不僅會讓欣賞當代藝術的觀眾覺得不過癮，還在於這種做法遠離了藝術最根本的精神——永遠在已有的、熟悉的事物中發現不熟悉的、陌生的意義。不管是人的自身還是外部環境，是人的創造物或者是習慣，都應該不斷發現並且超越它。如果我們從對人的生命的這種發展過程去理解現實生活，進而理解抽象藝術，從傳統和民族的藝術中發展出的抽象性過程，大概可以避免那種簡單挪用和貼標簽的方法。也可以避免動不動就將抽象藝術和寫實性藝術比較高下優劣，動不動就討論富有線條節奏的抽象藝術是否符合傳統書法規範等等爭論。這類爭論就像小説和哲學的比較，而不是小説與小説比，哲學與哲學比，抽象藝術與抽象藝術比。因此，對於劉永剛的藝術，因該是在抽象藝術範疇內，和其他的抽象藝術比，例如利普西茨的青銅作品和考爾德的不銹鋼固定雕塑比較……抽象藝術不是沒有標準的，它與自然的關係，包含的感情深度以及作品的感染力，抽象形式因素的提煉等，都是可以比較和談論的主題。所以我不將劉永剛的作品與現有的書法比較——無論是漢字還是巴斯巴斯字。而是在抽象藝術的範疇裏，與相類似的藝術作品比較。
傳統的漢字，在先民創造和使用中，已經在“物”和“象”的關係中有了固定的符號意義。其中有象形成分，也有指事和表意成分。但劉永剛的作品“愛擁”已經將文字的“象”、“意”功能進行了轉換和整合，使得“象”不僅是一種屬於知覺的事物的“象”，上升一層與人的更複雜的精神活動關聯。這個“象”是精神活動的創造性事物，是在對外在事物的不斷揚棄和不斷變化的過程中確立自己的主體性。而關於“意”，在“愛擁”裏體現的不是孤立和若隱若現的，在黑暗裏遊蕩、沉沒的“幽靈”，而是已經和“象”結合一起的，能讓人認識到的現實意義。“象”和“意”的結合和重疊，以及這過程所體現的無比豐富的精神可能性，也就是“愛擁”應該具有的完整的“形”的抽象觀念。所以，抽象藝術往往更多地體現為觀念和人的精神活動。
這裡的“形”，作為抽象的意義，就是能體現完整性，並且具有能被看見和能引起交流的形式，精神通過形狀體現整體性。從人與世界的關係來説，“形”就是一個完整的人和世界的關係，包括和他人的關係。所以，劉永剛的作品“愛擁”，絕不是也不應該是簡單的文字的放大。否則就寫出“愛擁”兩個字即可，所有識字的人都會明白。作為完整意義上的“形”，是人的情感和精神在作品中的完整體現。它還是一個開放的體系，是在不斷包容和整合它與外界的關係中完善和豐富自己。因此，它不會是一個將一成不變的、已趨凝固的符號，規範限制自身，以及自己和周圍的關係。這也就是區別劉永剛的“愛擁”作品和關於“愛”、“擁”這兩個字的本質。這種動態的關係不是受動或被動的，而是主動和能動的，包括自身的不斷變動以和外在於它的事物的接納和對話，自身又在這種雙向流動中進一步完善豐富，並趨以完整。所以，這個“形”是一個關於這一主題的既簡潔單純，又有更多發展潛力的形式。它不是自閉、對立和冷漠的孤立形態。
從這個意義上説，劉永剛的“愛擁”的“形狀”，是一個可以辨識，並能聯想過去以及展示未來的動態體系；是從原本的文字意義給出的一個想像空間，並與不斷發展的生命和精神狀態發生關係。在宇宙中有很多類似的現象——不同的事物互相糾纏融合，但又能在其中辨識出它們的共性，而且這一切也還在不斷地變化中。在劉永剛的作品中，作為形態的動詞“擁”的狀態主要體現“愛”的普遍性，“擁”只是作為“愛”的共相來顯示，來達到“愛”應該具有的精神形式。但是“愛”同時又具有無限的可能性，所以也有無限可能的外在“形狀”。“愛”的特性不僅僅顯示在動物世界、人的世界裏，也顯示于植物世界、微生物世界以及宇宙天體中。只要我們以“愛”這一概念去命名和理解世界萬物，人就會對“愛”的形式作不知疲倦的探索。當然，從劉永剛的“愛擁”看他關於“愛”的理解，大部分在和人有關的觀念中體現。他的作品像兩個分開站立的腿腳，從下往上逐漸收縮，再擴大，就如兩個往上的片狀相擁。上半部分的線條狀態具有迎合俯就的趨勢，呈現動感的是由於線條的時間性和不是作為“形狀”的其他特性，比如：“擁狀”有各種顯示特性，“敏感”、“承重”、“混雜”、“欲説還休”、“剪不斷理還亂”等等。從作品的現狀看，劉永剛是較多從文字書寫的規定和習慣中提取形式要素，比如書法的平面性，書寫的時間性，都是從上往下和從左到右或從右到左的直線流通展現方式，以及將“愛”比擬為人與人之間的關係等，都有直接的聯繫。
雖然文字有自己的“形”，但它並不是絕對的精神體現。這是因為人的精神世界是不斷變化和豐富，並不斷追求完善的過程。作為追求的無限多樣性來講，已有的顯示和符號，只能是一個階段性的和過程性的展示，不是絕對的“形”。作為從文字的“形狀”發展的抽象藝術的“形”，必然是要以藝術的精神性追求為動力，超越文字的形狀，自為地朝自由的目標發展。這也表明本文開頭所述的關於挪用文字做標簽，和抽象藝術所追求的精神形式之間的根本性區別。
The Form andMeaning of Abstractness: Liu Yonggang’s Embrace of Love
Ms. Xu Hong,vice director of the academic division of NAMOC, famous critic offine arts
A special thingabout modern Chinese is that an individual often regards himself orherself as a symbol of the whole nation. That is especially truewhen he or she lives far away from the native land. The lack of atraditional culture that values the individual’s efforts to blaze anew trail makes the individual feel insecure and lonely. This doesnot seem to be the case with other nations. For instance, yourarely hear that an ordinary Russian considers himself the symbolof the whole Russian nation. Excellent persons may be regarded assymbolic of a nation, of course, but that is a different matter.The imagination of ‘ethnic identity’ that we are familiar withsuggests the attempt to ‘join the group’.
I think ofcontemporary Chinese artists who have gone abroad and those whohave returned, especially those who engage in abstract art. Most ofthem use calligraphy as the subject matter in their exploration ofabstract art, and they think that is the only way to createChina-specific abstract art. Instead of drawing a generalconclusion, we need to analysis that.
An artist maygive priority to his cultural identity and use calligraphy as acultural symbol, stressing its regional and cultural features; or,based on his understanding of abstract art and what he needs, hemay discover abstract factors and meanings in the naturalenvironment and traditional signs of China, and in the lines,rhythm and symbolic meanings of calligraphy itself, extract theessence of these and turn it into the language of abstract art.Different objectives will lead to different results. Though we maybelieve that the choice to use calligraphy as the subject matter isin itself culture-specific, yet the direct, superficial use of itin the belief that it symbolizes the essence of Chinese culturewill be a failure, not only because it will disappoint viewers, butalso because it deviates far from the fundamental principle ofart—to always discover unfamiliar meanings in familiar objects andevents. Everything—men or environment, things created orhabits—should be constantly discovered and transcended.
If we seereality in terms of development of human life, and then understandabstract art and the abstract processes developing from traditionaland ethnic art, we may avoid simplistic borrowing and labeling, aswell as arguments about the superiority or inferiority of abstractart and realistic art, and about whether the abstract art rich inthe rhythm of lines comply with the norms of traditionalcalligraphy. Such arguments are comparable to the practice ofcomparing novels with philosophy instead of comparing novels withnovels, philosophy with philosophy, and abstract art with abstractart. Therefore, Liu’s art should be compared with other types ofabstract art, such as Lipsitz’s bronze works and Calder’s fixedsculptures made of stainless steel. It is not true that there is nocriterion for abstract art. Its relationship with nature, theemotional depth, the appeal, and the distillation of abstractformal elements—all these are subjects for comparison anddiscussion. So I do not intend to compare Liu’s works withcalligraphy, be it the calligraphy of Chinese characters or Basibawords. Instead, I will compare them to similar works of abstractart.
TraditionalChinese characters, in their creation and use by our ancestors,have acquired fixed meanings—hieroglyphic, self-explanatory andideographic—in the relationship between the signified and thesignifier. But in Liu’s Embrace of Love, the symbolic andideographic functions of characters are transformed and integrated,so that ‘symbols’, instead of being only about perceived things,are elevated to more complicated spiritual connections with humans.Created by spiritual activities, they establish their subjectivityby constantly discarding or changing of their outside. As for‘meanings’, they are not isolated, half visible ‘specters’wandering and sinking in the dark, but perceivable practicalmeanings fused together with ‘symbols’. The blending andoverlapping of ‘symbols’ and ‘meanings’, as well as the extremelyrich spiritual possibilities embodied by the process, are theabstract idea of the complete ‘form’ that Embrace of Love issuppose to have. Therefore, abstract art tends to be expressed asideas and spiritual activities.
The ‘form’, asabstract meaning, is the form that embodies completeness, isperceivable and could lead to communication; the completeness ofthe spirit is expressed through the form. In terms of therelationship between a person and the world, the ‘form’ is completerelationship between the two, including the relationship betweenhis and others. So Liu’s Embrace of Love is definitely not simplythe magnification of characters; otherwise it would suffice towrite the title down—that would be intelligible to anyone who canread. The ‘form’ in its complete sense is the full embodiment ofhuman feelings and spirit in the work. It is also an open system,which enriches and perfects itself by constantly modifying itsrelationship with the outside world. So it will not be anunchanging sign that tends to fossilize and to limit itself and itsrelations with the surroundings. That is the essence of thedifference between Embrace of Love and the two characters—‘love’and ‘embrace’. In his work the two words are not passive butactive; they are always changing in order to communicate with theoutside world, and are being enriched and perfected in the doubleexchange. So instead of being isolated and cold, that ‘form’ issimple and capable of development.
In that sense,the ‘shape’ of Liu’s Embrace of Love is an intelligible dynamicsystem that is associated with the past and the future; it is animaginary space derived from the original meanings of characters,and interacts with constantly developing life and spiritual states.There are many similar phenomena in the universe—different thingsblend, with their commonness remaining visible, and all is alwayschanging. In Liu’s works, the state of ‘embracing’ as an actionmainly embodies the universality of ‘love’; it is only presented assome spiritual form of ‘love’. But meanwhile ‘love’ has infinitepossibilities, and therefore infinite varieties of outside ‘forms’.The traits of ‘love’ are not shown in the world of animals andhuman beings, but also in the world of plants, the world ofmicrobes, and heavenly bodies. As long as we use it as a concept toname and understand everything in the world, we will makeindefatigable explorations of its forms. Of course, as indicated byEmbrace of Love, Liu’s understanding of love is mostly reflected inhuman-related ideas. His sculpture is like two legs standing apart,contracting and then expanding from bottom to top. The upper linestend to bend down, and the effect of movement is produced by thetemporal quality of the lines instead of other traits of it as‘shape’. For instance, the ‘embrace’ could be sensitive, weighty,mixed, or confused. Judging from the present state of the work, Liutend to extract formal elements from the rules and habits ofwriting, such as the two dimensional quality of calligraphy and thetemporal quality of writing. The writing of lines from top tobottom, from left to right or from right to left is directly linkedwith the likening of ‘love’ to personal relations.
Thoughcharacters have their own ‘shapes’, they are not absolute spiritualembodiments, because the human spiritual world is always changing,being enriched, and in pursuit of perfection. In terms of theinfinite variety of that pursuit, the existent signs are onlytemporary displays rather than absolute ‘form’. The ‘form’ ofabstract art, developed from the ‘shapes’ of characters, is boundto be driven by the spiritual pursuit of art and to transcend theshapes of characters in order to attain the objective of freedom ofits own accord. That also bears out the fundamental differencebetween the borrowing of characters as labels and the pursuit ofspiritual form in abstract art．