| 當代性：取決於“表達”
——寫于第三屆上海多倫青年美術大展之前
杭春曉
當代藝術，在今天的語境下，爭議頗多，它往往與前衛藝術、觀念藝術、現代藝術發生混淆。産生這種認知結果，一方面是二十世紀西方藝術譜係自身的複雜性導致，一方面則是中國三十年新藝術發展在“嫁接”、“引進”過程中時間壓縮性的紊亂，從而導致原本就非線性發展的上述概念之間的邏輯關係更加複雜。其實，與其糾纏西方藝術譜係中的概念，為所謂“當代藝術”正身，還不如回到中國藝術自我語境，從“藝術是什麼”這樣一個簡單問題入手，討論怎樣的當下藝術才具有當代性。
藝術是什麼？看似很簡單，卻是大多人忽視的本質問題，並相應産生認識上的誤區。比如，在普通人群與一些專業人群中，關於“架上”、“非架上”的判斷就截然相反：普通人士多認為“非架上”不是藝術，“架上”才是藝術的代表；而一些專業人士則認為“架上”已經不能代表藝術，是沒落的形式，只有“非架上”才是藝術發展的方向。同樣的對象，判斷結果完全相反，難道我們能夠簡單地以專業身份來評判答案的正確與否？顯然，我們不能這樣做！因為不是“非架上”就一定代表了新藝術，大量沒有任何表達意義、一味追求形式新穎的所謂“非架上”已經成為“皇帝新衣”式的偽藝術。
簡單從“架上”、“非架上”這樣的形式判斷藝術，本身就是“專業人士”犯下的最簡單的專業錯誤。而産生這樣的錯誤，原因何在？其實，就在於沒有考慮“藝術到底是什麼”這樣一個看似簡單、但卻本質的問題。藝術到底是什麼？就構成而言，它是由語言形式與語義指向共同組成的表達結構。因此，藝術是通過一定的語言形式，表達特定的關於“人的精神”的語義指向，其關鍵在於，無論用怎樣的語言形式，都是為了獲得一種藝術表達。基於此，“架上”、“非架上”都屬於語言形式的範疇，並不能作為判斷藝術與否的標準。判斷的標準應該在於你是否通過恰當的語言形式進行了恰當的表達，無論你採用“架上”，抑或“非架上”，只要能夠準確地“表達”，就是好的藝術。否則，即使採用了前衛的形式，也僅是媚俗的偽藝術。
那麼，怎樣的表達，在今天能夠呈現當代性價值呢？回答這一問題，首先還要回到藝術的語言、語義雙重結構上。因為這種結構的存在，藝術史往往會呈現兩種偏向性的演進邏輯：以語言形式為主的風格化演進和以語義指向為主的社會化演進。前者多帶有趣味化傾向，後者則多帶有問題意識，兩者在有所側重之下互有影響。就中國自身的藝術語境而言，傳統的藝術演進多以語言形式為中心，偏風格化演進。而上世紀八十年代以來，中國藝術，尤其是以架上油畫為代表的藝術，卻從借鑒古典主義、美國鄉土藝術之類風格化演進轉而過渡為玩世現實主義、政治波普之類的社會化演進。其後，當代藝術的發展多呈現為問題意識的發展，無論早期社會化的政治反思，還有稍後個人化的生存體驗，藝術的演進、轉化無疑多以語義指向為中心。那麼，在這種邏輯下，作品表達中對人的反思性的問題意識，往往成了衡量作品當代性強弱的重要標準。雖然，這一標準之外，語言形式有時也會影響到問題表達的真誠、強弱，但卻時常退居二線，成為輔助性尺度，而非決定性因素。也就是説，在當代中國的藝術環境中，判斷一件作品的當代性很大程度上以表達出的當下問題意識為首要標準，其次才會考慮藝術呈現的語言形態等等。
然而，當“提問”成為當下藝術的主要評判標準之後，很多投機性的藝術行為亦相應出現——將問題意識轉化為技術手段，不是為了反思而設問，而是為了問題而設問。一時間，重復複製性的問題、簡單流行化的視角，以及一味偏奇而缺少深度的形式，忽然大量出現在我們的視野中，製造出當代藝術極度繁榮的假相。但，假相的背後，卻是藝術表達上的“集體貧弱”，缺少真正具有反思價值的問題。比如因為早期“圖式化”的成功表達，便大量複製類似的符號化圖式，仿佛前人的成功便能夠保證類似問題的當下成功，而全然不考慮真正的問題是從自我出發，發人所未發的問題或視角，重復別人已經提出的問題，只能落下“鸚鵡學舌”的笑柄，是缺乏創造性的極端表現；當然，還有一類貌似新穎，實際並未提問的藝術在一味追求表達形式的驚人、怪異中，同樣流於膚淺之弊。比如只求效果震撼，甚至餐飲死嬰，全然未考慮他所借用的形式可能引發的真正思考，並怎樣將這種思考背後深度的精神性開發出來，而只是一味追求“噱頭”，表面上好像存在很深的問題，實際上卻極度簡單、平庸。
也就是説，我們在衡量藝術品的當代性時，不是看似有“表達”就可以了，還要進一步追問作品“表達”的有效性——其問題是否新穎、視角是否獨特、思考是否深刻。如果提出的問題沒有真正涉及人的深度反思，而只是他人問題的翻版或形式的噱頭，那麼也就只能淪為“當代偽藝術”的代表。類似偽藝術在今天商業化潮流中比比皆是，如果置身798藝術區，你會看到穿中山裝的龍頭、氣球乳房等大量樣式化作品，以及一些“吳冠中走進798”、“栗憲庭先生在回避什麼”之類充滿炒作意味的噱頭。面對這些行為或作品，我們絲毫未能感受當代藝術對於當代社會、人的精神的反思或批判，我們只能感到利益化的商業機制對於藝術的腐蝕以及藝術自甘墮落的“偽態化”。
那麼，面對如此眾多的偽問題下的偽藝術“表達”，藝術真正的“當代性”出路何在？我想，這首先取決於我們對自身藝術“表達”的重新反省！而這，也正是此次多倫青年美術大展的主題確定為“表達與姿態”的出發點——希望通過類似展覽對學院畢業生的成果、問題進行集中性展示，並借此引發大家關於藝術“表達”的思考，從而在今後的創作中呈現真正的問題意識，實現當代藝術的自我認知與推進。
2008年7月26日于中國藝術研究院
Contemporariness:：Depends on “Expression”
——for the 3rd Shanghai Duolun Fine Arts Exhibition of Young Artists
Chunxiao Hang
Contemporary art, a quite controversial issue nowadays, is easily confused with avant-garde art, conceptual art and modern art. There are two causes for the wrong recognition, one is the complex succession of the 20th century western art, and the internal one is the disorder triggered by the intensely compressed developing process of Chinese new art, which makes the originally complex succession even more so. So it is wiser for us to come back to the Chinese art context and start discussion with the simple question “What is art?” and what kind of contemporary art is of contemporariness , rather than being entangled with the concepts of western art and fighting for a justifiable name for the so called “contemporary art”.
What is art? A seemingly simple but essential question, ignored and misunderstood by many. For instance, the opinion about “easel” and “non easel” is totally different in the public and the professionals: the public hold that only what is “easel” can be called art; however some of the professionals think that “easel” is nothing but a declining form and can no longer be the whole of art. Same object with contrasting conclusions, is it possible for us to judge the right and wrong simply by the professional or amateur standard? Of course not! “Non easel” is not equal to new art, a lot of meaningless, blindly new forms seeking works of “non easel” are actually pseudo-art.
Judgment only form the form “easel” or “non easel”, is the most ignorant professional mistake the professionals have ever made. Why? The reason is, their negligence of the question “what is art?” Then what on earth is art? In the sense of formation, it is an expressive structure composed of language form and meaning. Hence, art expresses certain meaning of the “human spirit” through a selected language form, the key is, no matter what kind of language form is applied, it is for artistic expression. According to this, both “easel” and “non easel” are language forms, and should not be the judging standard. The real standard is whether you make yourself precisely expressed with appropriate language form, it can be good art as long as it is doing precise expression. Otherwise, although in avant-garde form, it is but Kitsch.
Then, what kind of expression is of contemporary significance? Before answering the question, we have to first go back to the double structure of art: language form and meaning. This structure contributes to the two differing development trend: development of language form-oriented stylization and development of meaning-oriented socialization. The former with a tendency towards taste and the latter with problem consciousness, at the same time influence each other. In the context of Chinese art, the development of traditional art centers on language form, stylization inclined. However from 1980s onwards, a transition occurred in Chinese art, especially easel oil painting, from the stylization-oriented development which used to learn lessons from classicism and American folk art, etc. to cynical realism and politic pop art. Thereafter, the contemporary art had been developing towards problem consciousness, no matter political reflection or later individualized living experience, most of the developments in art are undoubtedly meaning-oriented. Under the circumstances, the problem consciousness of human reflectibility is often referred as an important measure standard for the contemporariness. Though, in addition to the standard, language form sometime does exert influence to the expression, but in the final analysis a secondary standard, not a decisive one. In another words, in contemporary Chinese art context, as a standard used in the judgment of the contemporariness of works, the expression of contemporary problem consciousness is of vital importance of all, then come standards such as language form, atc.
Unexpectedly, when “raising question” becomes the main judging standard, many speculative artistic behaviors emerges——converting problem consciousness to technical means, which question not for reflection, but question for question. All at a time, the problem of repeated duplication, the perspective of simple popularization and forms in lack of profundity burst to sight, making us a false impression of the high prosperity of contemporary art. But, what behind the appearance is “the needy group” with few questions of real value for reflection. Take the early “schematization” for example, an abundance of similar symbolized schemas were duplicated in faith that the forerunners’ success ensures theirselves, totally disregarding that the real question is self questioning and issuing what no one issues, to parrot what other says only makes one a laughing stock and is the manifest of extremely lacking of creativity; surely there still another type of art exists, seemingly novel but not actually raising any question, but in blind pursuit of the shocking, monstrous effect of the form, which as well can only be deemed as superficial. Without probe into the reflection the shocking effect of the form that it may bring and then exploring the spirituality behind the reflection, it is a piece of work of depth in the appearance but in fact is no more than simple, mediocre..
That is to say, when we are weighing the contemporariness of a work, only the seeming “expression” is never enough, we have to further examine the effectiveness of its “expression”——is the question new, is the perspective unique and the reflection profound. If the question being raised is but a duplication of other’s or does not even reach the depth of human thinking, the work can only be representative of “contemporary pseudo-art”. Such pseudo arts flood in the commercialization trend nowadays. If you were in the 798 Art Zone, you would see a quantity of stylized works such as “dragon clothed in Chinese tunic suit”, “balloon breasts”, etc. and works created to be hypes like “Wu Guanzhong walking into 798”, “what is Li xianting evading?”, etc. being confronted with these, we can hardly find any reflection or criticism of contemporary art, on the contrary, what we experience is the corrupted and self abandoned art.
In the midst of the “expressions” of the numerous pseudo arts, then where can the real “contemporariness” fight its way out? I believe it firstly depends on our self-examination toward the artistic expression! And this is just the reason the Dolun fine arts exhibition for young people was set as “expression and posture”——hoping that through such exhibitions of the works of college graduates, the reflection on artistic “expression” could be kindled among us, and the real problem consciousness would appear in future creations, for the realization of the self-cognition and promotion of contemporary art
July 26th, 2008.
Chinese National Academy of Arts
|
