文/何桂彥
繪畫，對於庹光焰而言，在絕大多數時候，是作為現實與心靈的鏡像而存在的。現實與心靈，一個是客體，一個是主體，彼此既相對的獨立，也可以密切維繫。在庹光焰的作品中，現實是意義生效的起點，但藝術家並不希望作品僅僅停留在現實的表層，因為一旦現實成為畫面的絕對主體，那麼藝術的價值就會喪失。同樣，藝術家也不希望自己的作品去構築一個精神的烏托邦，一個形而上的世界，因為在他看來，一旦脫離了現實，繪畫自然會走向虛無。庹光焰希望在現實與精神，抑或説表像世界與心靈世界之間，找到一個臨界點，建立一個通道。實際上，庹光焰是一個十分迷戀繪畫的藝術家，這種迷戀不只是因為源於繪畫的各種技巧，而是每一次的繪畫創作都是對自我的剝離，是與心靈的對話，更重要的是自我在場的證明。從這個意義上講，現實是創作的起點，而繪畫的歸宿則是自我的心靈，而之間的過程，則是不斷的勞作與精神的磨礪。
Most of the time, painting is like the mirror of reality and spirit for Guangyan Tuo. Reality and spirit, one is object with another is subject, they are relatively independent while closely connected. Among the works of Guangyan Tuo, reality is the initiative but an artist doesn’t want their works only to stay on the surface, because once reality became the subject the value of art would be lost. At the same time, an artist wouldn’t hope to use their works to build a spirit of Utopia, a formal world. As in his eyes painting will lose its meaning once they divorce reality. Guangyan Tuo hopes to find a critical point, build a bridge between reality and spirit or the idea world and spirit world. In fact, Guangyan Tuo is an artist who has been obsessed into painting. This obsession is not only about all kinds of techniques, but every creation is a conversation with his inner heart, the journey of sublimation, more importantly it is a proof of self-attendance. On this level, reality is the foundation of creation but the purpose of painting is his soul and the process is the combination of continually work and spirit evaluation.
2000年以來，儘管庹光焰的作品在題材上出現過幾次較大的變化，但大致可以將其分為兩個階段。以2010年為界，前期的作品立足於都市文化與消費時代的語境，注重對現實生存境遇的關注；後一個階段的作品主要圍繞“風景”展開。90年代中後期，“都市題材”在中國當代繪畫領域曾掀起一股新的潮流。庹光焰的《城市•面孔》系列顯然與這一潮流是有內在關聯的。從一開始，藝術家並不追求對“城市”進行真實的視覺再現，而是用一種主觀的、多少有些超現實的手法呈現出當代都市的景觀化特徵。為了突出“景觀化”的特點，藝術家以挪用與並置的手法相結合，將各種與都市相關的、片段的場景作為畫面的主體。而在“面孔”的背後，我們則看到了生活在都市之中的蕓蕓眾生。即便我們不知道他/她們的身份、職業、階層，但生存的境況卻是共同的，均被都市森林所圍困。沒有重心的構圖讓畫面傳遞出一種失衡感——那是一種淩亂、無序、充滿焦慮的生活；那些錯位、碎片化的都市景觀則讓畫面形成了一種巨大的張力，不僅讓人感到壓抑，而且會産生莫名的荒誕。由於放棄了“再現”，所以，畫面的敘事是非線性的、斷裂的，它們既在我們的經驗之內，又似乎在經驗之外，最終在介於現實與超現實之間，藝術家表達了當代都市人那種獨特的生存感受。注重符號化的表達，利用“波普化”的視覺經驗，同時，藝術家在表現與具像之間所做的調和，讓這一系列作品在語言上有了個人化的特點。多少有些遺憾的是，《城市•面孔》系列並沒有在後來的創作中予以推進，直到2010年，與“城市”相關的創作才重新回到藝術家的視野。
Since 2000, Guangyan Tuo’s works could be roughly divided into two phases even though the topics went through several major changes. Divided by 2010, his former works are based on city culture and consumption discourse, focused on real survival environment. The works of later phase are mainly surround “landscape”. In late 90s, “urban topic” has set off a fresh trend. His series of City.Face was clearly connected to this trend. Ever since the beginning, artists didn’t pursue the real visual expression of “cities”; they used a subjective and surreal technique to show us the character of scenery. In order to emphasize “scenery”, artists use methods of borrow and apposition, put all kinds of city pictures and scenery fractions as paintings core body. But under the “Face”, we see all living things in the city. Even though we don’t know their IDs, occupations, level, but the circumstances are the same, are trapped by the urban jungles. Compositions without core would express a statement of losing balance——which is a life of chaos, disorder and full of anxieties; That malposition, fraction image of cities would give the painting a huge tension which will make people feel not only depression but also inexplicable absurd. Since giving up “representation” the plot of the painting is nonlinear, cracked. They are living in our experience or stay out of it. Finally, between reality and surreal artists showed us the unique living experience of contemporary city dwellers. Lay emphasize on symbolism, using “popularize” experience as well as blending expression and appearance, all of these made this series full of personal characteristic. Sadly on one aspect, City.Face series weren’t promoted in later creation, up until 2010, works related “city” has returned to the field of art.
以2000年前後的《粉色》，到2007—2008年的《Pose》系列，呈現出庹光焰另一條創作軌跡。《粉色》畫的是一些女性裸體，在手法上注重意象與表現。在這一系列作品中，藝術家並沒有過多去強調性別的指向性，而是讓作品圍繞“身體”話語而展開。那麼，“身體”是如何在場的呢？藝術家沒有描繪一個所謂“自在”的身體，反而使其處於一種扭動、糾結的狀態。同時，這也是一些性別模糊，被慾望所支配的身體，曖昧、異化是它們的共同症候。“粉色”在這一系列作品中，也不再是視覺上的，或色調意義上的表達，反而更像是一種暗示，因為畫面從一開始就充斥著情色話語。《Pose》系列是《粉色》系列的延續。與此前的作品比較，一個重要的變化，是藝術家強化了“身體”的那種不適感。身體再也無法承載過多的慾望，它們開始掙扎，它們感到顫慄。由於外部世界帶給身體的傷害，在這種景況下，身體也不再純粹，更不是赤裸的肉身。在《Pose之四》《Pose之五》中，我們看到了藝術家力圖將身體的“傷害”視覺化的努力。
From Pink around 200 to Pose series between 2007-2008, Guangyan Tuo has showed us another creation track. Pink was about some female nudity which he focused on idea and expressions. In this series, the artist didn’t pay much attention on the gender aspect, but on “body” language. So how does the “body” present? He didn’t describe a so-called “free” body but in a twisted and struggled statement. Meanwhile, they are some bodies which have been trapped in gender confusion and desires, ambiguity and alienation are their common symptom. In this series, Pink is not about visual or color, it is an imply because it full of erotic expressions. Pose is an extension of Pink. Compare to former works, one important change was he strengthens the uncomfortable feeling of “body”. The bodies are no long undertake excessive desires, they start to struggle, trembling. Due to injuries from outside world, at this situation, the body isn’t just a pure or nude flesh. In Pose IV and Pink V, we saw he tried to visualize the “injures” of the body.
《城市•面孔》《粉色》《Pose》從題材上看儘管有很大的差異，但在藝術家創作觀念的生成中，卻有內在的一致性：它們源於對現實的關照，也與個體的生存境遇有關，與當下充斥著整個社會的消費話語有關。從這個角度講，《粉色》《Pose》中的身體，也是一種被“男性”凝視和消費的身體。再後來，消費話語在《玩偶秀》《秀系列》中有了更進一步的呈現。當西方社會進入工業與消費時代不久，馬克思就創造了一個新的概念——商品拜物教。“拜物教”（Fetish）這個詞彙原本是法國哲學家布羅斯（Charles De Brosses）于1757年創造的。而對商品拜物教最簡單的理解，也就是在消費社會的背景下，商品開始被賦予了各種象徵性的價值，使其具有了某種神秘的誘惑力，驅使著人們去迷戀它、崇拜它。《秀系列》並沒有著重對內衣進行表現，而是去揭示，那些被時尚、審美等話語所包裹的消費慾望。因此，在《秀系列》的背後，人們不僅將內衣看作是時尚之物，而與此同時，人們在觀看、欣賞這些內衣時，實質隱藏了對模特身體的消費。同理，“玩偶”不僅僅只是物理意義上的“物品”，它們的存在同樣被各種消費話語所支配。實際上，從《粉色》以來，在庹光焰的作品中，青春與殘酷、身體與慾望、消費與傷害始終是溶于一體的，藝術家以個人化的方式，去言説這個社會帶給自己的生存感受，也呈現出對當代過度物欲化生活的反思。
City.Face, Pink and Pose have big differences topic-wise, but from the creation concept they share the same root: they are all originated from realities, as well as related to living circumstances and contemporary consumption discourse. From this point, bodies in Pink and Pose are the ones that’s been staring and consuming by “males”. Later then consumption discourse got further exhibit in Puppet Show and Show Series. Soon after western society entered industry and consuming era, Marx created a new concept——commodity fetishism. “Commodity fetishism” was created by French philosopher Charles De Brosses in 1757. The simple understanding of commodity fetishism is under the background of consuming society, commodities have been given all kinds of symbolism which would give them some mysterious attraction that would drive people to abscessed into it, worship it. Show Series uncovers the consuming desires which were wrapped by fashionable, aesthetic word instead of emphasizing the expression of underwear. Therefore in the Show Series people not only see underwear as fashion items but also when they enjoy these underwear they actually hide the consumption of the bodies. In the same way, “Puppet” is not only the actually “objects”, they are also dominated by kinds of consumption discourse. In fact, ever since Pink, in Guangyan Tuo’s works, youth and cruelty, bodies and desires, consumption and injure are all merged together, he uses his personal way to explain the feelings of this society, as well as the reflection of the overly physical life.
（二）
2010年，《道口》《橋》等作品的出現，預示著庹光焰的作品開始轉向。“道口”和“立交橋”在現實生活中都有自己的“原型”，它們位於北京大山子附件，只是不在同一條道路上。庹光焰在黑橋藝術區生活了多年，每次驅車出門，藝術家就會經過其中的一個地方。但是在作品中，這些日常熟悉的景觀變得十分陌生，在視覺與心理上都有一種疏離感。與《城市•面孔》呈現出的“錯位”與不穩定性比較起來，我們在這些畫作中，看不到城市既有的喧囂與混雜，相反變得異常的寧靜。就畫面中的日常景觀來説，它們既熟悉又陌生，雖近猶遠；既源於現實，又多少具有超現實的意味。這種獨特的審美體驗，在於畫面中，“人物”是缺席的。譬如，在《立交橋》這件作品中，觀眾能感受的僅僅是都市建築物背後的理性與秩序，以及一個冷冰冰的軀體。作為這些場景的觀看者，藝術家本人也是缺席的。不過，之所以畫面會彌散出一種疏離感，就在於，藝術家把自己當作是一個局外人，一個旁觀者，一個棲息于都市但又期望逃離都市的“他者”。而“他者的眼光”實質發端于藝術家長期對都市生存狀態的關注與反思。或許，在這些畫面中，唯一富有詩意的便是漂浮在空氣中的氣球——它們讓這冰冷冷的場景有了情感的溫度。
In 2010, Crossing and Bridge and etc. indicated Guangyan Tuo’s work has been turned to another direction. “Crossing” and “overpass” have their “prototype” which is located in near Da Shan Zi in Beijing, just not in the same street. Guangyan Tuo has been living in Heiqiao Art Zone for years, every time when he drives out he passes one of them. But in the painting, the familiar scenery become very strange ones, it has an alienation feeling. Compare to the “misplace” and unstable in City.Face, we see unusual peacefulness instead of chaos. As for the daily scene in the painting, they are familiar and strange, close and far, from reality and full of surreal feeling. This unique aesthetic experience is absent to the “people” in the painting. For example, in Overpass, audience only can feel the ration and order behind constructions and a cold body. As to the viewer of the scene, artist himself is absent. But the reason why it shows a sense of alienation is the artist consider himself as an outsider, a spectator, a “the other” who is living in the city but want to escape. And the “view of the other” is actually originated from his long focus and reflection on the living situation of the city. Maybe in these paintings, the only most poetic thing is the floating balloons——they give the cold scene emotions.
毫無疑問，“風景”是庹光焰這一時期創作的重要母體。在我看來，《道口》《橋》《城市》系列在廣義的範疇應屬於“社會風景”。所謂的“社會風景”，就是自然的風景或景觀只是一種現實的表像，一種通道，社會學的敘事則隱藏在表像之下。和這些傾向於外在的、社會學敘事的“風景”比較起來，《公園》《暮光》系列代表著另一種風景類型——即內在的、自我的、充滿心理現實主義意味的風景。藝術家將五彩的現實在表現過程中予以語言上的純化，使其籠罩在單一的色彩氛圍中，物理意義上的“褪色”反而強化了視覺心理上的疏離感。對於這一時期的“風景”來説，它們既是現實的，也是想像的；既是視覺的，也是記憶中的。不僅如此，在這些寧靜的風景背後，實質隱藏著另一個世界。在《暮光》之五中，表面看，這是一個日常風景的片段，平淡無奇，波瀾不驚，然而，當觀眾仔細打量畫面，不禁會發現，裏面會散發出一種神秘的氣息，場景中好像曾發生過什麼，又似乎沒有任何頭緒。藝術家並沒有提供給我們太多的線索，即便如此，畫面中那種莫名的焦慮，抑或是驚詫卻呼之欲出。在《暮光》之十、《暮光》之十一這兩件作品中，畫面出現了一些異樣的情節，但它們是沒有上下文的，沒有一個清晰的邏輯，其敘事方式也是斷裂的。在平靜的外衣下，故事卻在悄然的展開，不知道它們從哪開始，又到哪結束。顯然，畫作中的世界既是一個自足的世界，也是一個荒誕的世界。
No doubt, “landscape” is the matrix for Guangyan Tuo’s creation at this phase. For my point of view, Crossing, Bridge and City series are all belong to “society landscape”, which is nature landscape is just the appearance of a reality, sociology has been hidden under it. Compare to these exterior, sociology “landscape”, Park and Twilight series represent another type of landscape——the inner, self-reveal and full of psychological realism. Artist purifies the colorful realities, cover it with single color. Physical “fade” emphasize psychological alienation. For the “landscape” at this phase, they are real and imaginative; visual and memorized. Furthermore, under the quiet landscape, there hide another world. In Twilight V, it’s just a daily fraction on the surface, ordinary, boring and peaceful. However when you look at it closely, you’ll find there is a feeling of mysterious. It looks like something happened but no clue. Artist didn’t give much information, even though the unknown anxiety or surprise is ready to come out. In Twilight Ⅹ and Twilight XI, there is some unusual scenery but they don’t have content and logic and their narrative is fracture. Under the peaceful scene, story is going on. You don’t know where to start and where to stop. Apparently the world in the painting is self-sufficient and absurd.
在《夜花》與《糜夜》系列中，庹光焰為作品營造了一個由慾望與消費構築的語境。同樣是將熟悉的景觀陌生化，同樣是在視覺與心理的關照中，為其注入一種疏離感，但和《暮光》系列內部隱藏的荒誕感有較大的區別，《糜夜》更側重對內心情感世界的挖掘，只不過，內在情感的顯現，大多是以隱喻的方式完成的。五彩斑斕的燈光原本會讓夜晚的叢林顯得熠熠生輝，然而，在畫面中，我們卻很難捕捉到這樣的審美氣息。相反，由內向外散發出的是一種莫名的孤獨與焦慮。多少充滿悖論的是，在一個個五光十色、絢爛之極的景觀背後，在精神上卻更接近於荒蕪，在一個由慾望所支配的消費時代反而更能讓人觸及到心靈世界的孤獨。
In the series of Night Flower and Deep Night, Guangyan Tuo created a situation of desire and consumption for the painting. It’s also about defamiliarization the familiar scene, implant alienation visually and psychologically. But the different from the absurd in Twilight, Deep Night is more focus on the dig of the inner emotions; most of them are expressed implicitly. Colorful lights were supposed to make the nigh sparkling but in the painting we hardly capture this feeling, on the contrary, it’s all about loneliness and anxiety. Most in paradox, under a multicolor and splendid scene, the spirit is almost desolate. People feel more truly loneliness in the desire-dominated society.
（三）
繪畫最終成為藝術家遊弋于現實與心靈之間的重要媒介，借助這一個通道，在表達現實的時候，藝術家也在不斷與內心對話。就作品的表現而言，有必要提及的是藝術家對“光”的把握與控制。而事實上，在庹光焰幾乎所有的“風景”作品中，不僅僅是物理意義上，還是對畫面的情緒渲染，“光”都扮演著重要的角色。而觀眾的視線，則追隨“光”的足跡，漸漸地進入藝術家所營建的世界。當然，在近年來的創作中，藝術家為什麼會如此癡迷“風景”，在我個人看來，不管是從視覺還是精神上的考慮，每一個人的內心都會有一片屬於自己的風景。正是在這個意義上，庹光焰也不例外。當然，藝術家自己的解釋也許更具説服力，他曾寫道， “日常之景總是隱含著另一層真相，平靜的表面下似乎總有一種隱隱的騷動，它關於我們內心深處的某種神秘。風景放大了自我內心與外在現實的距離，個人感悟的焦慮和疑惑揮之不去，我試圖將熟悉的場景陌生化，所呈現的疏離彰顯著關於現實世界的荒誕感悟，它來自風景，更來自於內心，它訴説著世界，更是關於自我的低吟。每個人內心裏都有不一樣的風景，凝視它與我們內心的距離，玩味這風景之外的風景，或許正是我的應景之道。”
Painting finally became the important media for artists to cruise the reality and soul. By using this channel, artist could constantly communicate with his inner heart when he wants to express himself. As for the works, it is necessary to mention the grasp and control of “light”. In fact, among almost all of Guangyan Tuo’s works, “light” has been play an important role not only physically but also when rendering the emotion in the painting. Audiences could follow the footprint of “light” to enter the world he builds. Of course, in recent creations why he has been so obsessed into “landscape” is, in my opinion, no matter visually or spiritually everyone has his/her own landscape. At this very point of view, Guangyan Tuo is no exception. Of course, his own explanation might be more convincing, he once wrote: “daily landscape always hold another truth, an indistinct turmoil which is about our deep down mystery seems always hide under the peaceful surface. Landscapes have widened the distance between my heart and reality, the anxiety and puzzle never goes away. I tried to unfamiliar the familiar scene which shows the absurd of the real world. It comes from the landscape and my inner heart; it narrates the world, more about the whisper of me. Everyone has their own different landscape and we gaze into the distance from it to our inner heart. Ponder over the landscape might be my path to fit in”.
2014年8月于望京東園
East Wangjing garden
August 2014