文/徐虹
从中世纪后期逐渐独立出来的风景画，经过几百年不间断的发展以后，已经变得不那么单纯了。自从印象派画家们将眼前的自然景象画得“比自然还自然”，使得完全要按自然原貌画风景的画家们感到“前途”无着。从此后想有作为的画家只能将自然景象作为一种参照，去丰富想象中的“风景”，借助自然之物表达自己的感情，思想和观念。当然，在已往那些被称作风景画的艺术品里，我们能够感到画家表达的关于时间和空间的各种感受，以及有关人生的哲理观念体现。但这是借助于一幅非常逼真的风景来叙述，因此人们常常因身临其境陶醉于景色之中而忽略思考。现代人开始将风景画得不再让人神醉心迷，而是复杂和猜不透，因为里面加入了各种深奥的东西，如德国画家基弗的“风景”。他的画可以不作风景画看，画里充满对历史的追寻和疑问，并含有关于人类命运的哲学思考，类似于我们常说的“主题性”创作。由此可以看到现代“风景”画的定义已经充满歧义，风景不再是风景，而是画家个人感情和观念的载体。画家完全按照个人的意思对“风景”作解释。但风景又还是风景，因为画家还必须借助风景的元素表达自己的观念……现代的观众而对一幅画有看似树木和湖泊、草地和农田的绘画，心里更多要思考的是画家借助这些看起来像自然景色的东西要说些什么呢？反正绝不会像直观画面那样地“如此、这般”。
徐晓燕的农村系列油画中的“风景”，就属于需要“思考”，而不仅仅是“观赏”的艺术。
她描绘的对象是被收割后的庄稼地景象，从不同的情景反复描绘——有时是阳光灿烂充满生机；有时是阴郁沉重难以预测；有时又充满伤感抒情遣怀……但这只是画面所看到的最具情绪性和感觉性的东西。作品不仅仅传导这些内容，它更是借助情绪传达内心的感情。首先是有关画家对“农村的土地”的概念和内涵的理解，比如丰茂、深厚、质朴、永恒，生生不息和裸露、贫瘠、伤痕、沉重等。但这些只是通过第一层面那些能感动人的描绘来给予人思考和探究，并不升到文化的联系。毕竟，画家留给人的意象中，有一条主线在叙述着和连接着有关的词汇和单个的意象，那就是当面对这片土地时，画家实际的内心活动，以及思考和形式的表达。
所以，徐晓燕的画和传统牧歌式的田无风景完全不同，她画中的景象不只是在叙述一个季节的特征，尽管看上去她的作品都和深秋初冬季节的景色有关。季节在这儿只是一种喻指，这使得画面充满象征意味，比如人和生存环境的关系，人对生命活动的关注和人对社会现实的反思等。但这仍然比较笼统，因为这些概念都可以用别的方式和画面来表达。属于她个的艺术特征又是什么呢？看上去画面上有一种挥之不去的惆怅情绪，温暖宽厚的情怀以及粗犷厚重的肌理表层，画家将种种矛盾的因素整合在一幅画面上，并用风景的形式——富有韵律感的节奏和浓郁的色彩以及宽广的结构……这一切的综合因素集于一画，使得很难用简单的方式解读她的作品，但能感觉到画中丰富复杂但又单纯的美感。
她的画面主体是丰厚的黑土，有时被夕阳映成金红色，有时呈阴沉沉的黑褐色。黑土地上的干枯玉米杆，与七零八落的杂草混杂在一起，在夕阳余晖中闪显辉煌。虽然一部分玉米秆还保持着挺立，但更多的已经倒在泥土里，变为更深的棕色，开始了化作泥土的过程……这种景象好像是在讲述一个无保留的不断奉献的故事。当然这是以风景画作为比喻，是让观者去试着解释和想象这些内涵。但是作为女性艺术家，尤其是生活在当代文化环境里的徐晓燕，显然有不一般的感受，并且与她的人生际遇相联系。她的画表达一种对事物的敏感性，对时间和空间的变化以及事物之间关系的生理和心理的联系。特别是继她的《乐土》系列作品后的《辉煌》作品系列，《辉煌》系列更少一些风景意味，而更多一些象征意味。而《乐土》系列画得更多的是远景和全景，画面有天空大地和地平线，观者的视线往往向地平线深远处聚集，而产生对大地的一种广袤无边的茫然。于是画面更多的给人空间感而不是厚厚的黑土所蕴含的丰实感。相对来说，同样也可作为风景看待的《辉煌》系列，画面更集中于土地和植物，视觉拉近，聚焦于局部具体的放大和细致。作品的主体厚土和植物更突出，画家表现这部分内容更深入，于是想说的话和想要表达的意思也更明确。
对于这类作品可以从两方面作也解释，一是有关土地的比喻和联想，即母亲的联想。关于母亲无私奉献的意象，已经有评论家解释了，不再赘述。另一方面是基于个人对生命的感悟作出的解释。这种解释充满特殊的个人色彩，具有诗意的想象。画面上土地和植物之间关系的描绘，像是画家在对生命和生活态度的探究和质疑。从表面看，这些画与传统风景画的形式相距不远，但画上那些金黄色的枯玉米秆和叶子画得像是一种祭献物——具有庄严的悲剧色彩；而土地是祭坛——与祭献物一起构成完整的结构，既是形式的，也是内容的。农作物和土地的组合既天衣无缝让人感到自然和熟悉，又有些陌生感和不安——来自一种非常个人的解释，显示了不确定性和特殊性。它让人感到祭坛和祭物关系的一种非常态的解释。一般来说，祭坛本身是更替的易变化的——农作物根据季节和生长的规律奉献了果实以后，枝叶和杆茎“化作泥土再护花”，成就祭献的系列过程。作为祭坛——它作为祭献物的陪衬显得默然无语；但它也是祭献物的一部分——作为呈现它与祭献物一起不可分割。而作为祭坛的土地，农作物在这身上成长，吸取它的养分，靠它的庇护种子才能发芽……所以 ，祭坛和祭献物之间的关生活费是一种合二为一的关系，实际上就是赞美土地。
耐人寻味的是徐晓燕将干枯的收割后的庄稼地也作为歌颂对象，好像是将残破景色当作美景欣赏，体现一种对宿命的感叹。这种融会了人生理争的“变调”，在她的《月亮湾》以及最近的《蝴蝶泉》等作品中显得更为突出。《月亮湾》相对于她的《乐土》和《辉煌》系列的金黄色高调，这件作品是暗晦深重的低调，尽管前景有一片金黄色，但相对于〈辉煌〉系理那种浓郁厚实的金色来说可以用“无可奈何花落去”的惨淡来形容，这是不再是平整宽广肥沃的厚土，而是河边斜坡的薄土，无法掩盖地下坚硬、参差不齐的石床。远处的天空也是一片灰暗，河水沉寂不动，显示凌乱浅显的残留麦草，而这也将被黑褐色的环境所吞噬……与以前那些系列油画一样，这种对时间流逝的伤感和关注也同样隐含着一种象征意义。在徐晓燕的叙述中，以前那是一个破烂和淤泥的河道，还有一睦收废品的人住的破旧棚窝，现在却盖起了漂亮的“度假村”……但有意思的是徐晓燕原意追忆曾经是“破烂”的月亮湾，而不是现在“漂亮”的月亮湾，好像破烂的月亮湾上还可以追寻土地原始的气息以及人为了生存的基本冲动——怀旧的描述有了一种新的样本，不再充满田园牧歌式的诗情，而是像一具历史学家对曾经是真实情境的“活色生香”的记忆……
在描绘垃圾堆和臭水沟的〈翠桥〉、〈小溪沟〉中，画家对现实处境的描画更具有了当下性的时间特征——已经不再追忆不久的“事实”，而是直面当下的现实环境。虽然她曾经描画的田野和庄稼也是现实生活中见到的场景，但那是带着“过去”时段的心绪描写，使用过去时段的心理抽射于当下时段。因此地画面中，总也挥不去古典风景描绘追求完美和整体气氛的经典影子。但现在所画的那些和臭水沟相连的地方，却是一种直接“面对”，没有加回避和浪漫想象的景象，人们可以从中读出作者的意思：“这曾经是一片美丽的地方”。而现在这是一片被污染的土地，上面是生活垃圾和杂草，在暗色的背景和阴影中，一些工业和生活排泄物撒在臭水沟边的草丛里，不协调的颜色刺激我们的眼睛，就像糜烂之花闪着不祥的色泽。“罪恶的花朵”盛开，而健康的自然之花就会枯萎凋谢，水沟边的排污管子更象裸露的，丑露的伤口，给这片异样的景致添上更怪异的色彩。这里只剩下一个美丽的名称，人们将美丽的名称对应于眼前的丑陋，更加感到莫名地失落。画家就是一位生活在当代码，面对现实的处境，无法想象有过美妙名称的过去光景，就如观者只能看到被邪恶侵凌的自然而无从引起浪漫的美感一样，只有沉重和一些愤怒。一向赞颂大自然的徐晓燕，在这里超越了风景画的传统样式，她从诗意的向往下落到现实的泥土之中，使风景画浸透当代文化的问题意识。
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.