| 当代性：取决于“表达”
——写于第三届上海多伦青年美术大展之前
杭春晓
当代艺术，在今天的语境下，争议颇多，它往往与前卫艺术、观念艺术、现代艺术发生混淆。产生这种认知结果，一方面是二十世纪西方艺术谱系自身的复杂性导致，一方面则是中国三十年新艺术发展在“嫁接”、“引进”过程中时间压缩性的紊乱，从而导致原本就非线性发展的上述概念之间的逻辑关系更加复杂。其实，与其纠缠西方艺术谱系中的概念，为所谓“当代艺术”正身，还不如回到中国艺术自我语境，从“艺术是什么”这样一个简单问题入手，讨论怎样的当下艺术才具有当代性。
艺术是什么？看似很简单，却是大多人忽视的本质问题，并相应产生认识上的误区。比如，在普通人群与一些专业人群中，关于“架上”、“非架上”的判断就截然相反：普通人士多认为“非架上”不是艺术，“架上”才是艺术的代表；而一些专业人士则认为“架上”已经不能代表艺术，是没落的形式，只有“非架上”才是艺术发展的方向。同样的对象，判断结果完全相反，难道我们能够简单地以专业身份来评判答案的正确与否？显然，我们不能这样做！因为不是“非架上”就一定代表了新艺术，大量没有任何表达意义、一味追求形式新颖的所谓“非架上”已经成为“皇帝新衣”式的伪艺术。
简单从“架上”、“非架上”这样的形式判断艺术，本身就是“专业人士”犯下的最简单的专业错误。而产生这样的错误，原因何在？其实，就在于没有考虑“艺术到底是什么”这样一个看似简单、但却本质的问题。艺术到底是什么？就构成而言，它是由语言形式与语义指向共同组成的表达结构。因此，艺术是通过一定的语言形式，表达特定的关于“人的精神”的语义指向，其关键在于，无论用怎样的语言形式，都是为了获得一种艺术表达。基于此，“架上”、“非架上”都属于语言形式的范畴，并不能作为判断艺术与否的标准。判断的标准应该在于你是否通过恰当的语言形式进行了恰当的表达，无论你采用“架上”，抑或“非架上”，只要能够准确地“表达”，就是好的艺术。否则，即使采用了前卫的形式，也仅是媚俗的伪艺术。
那么，怎样的表达，在今天能够呈现当代性价值呢？回答这一问题，首先还要回到艺术的语言、语义双重结构上。因为这种结构的存在，艺术史往往会呈现两种偏向性的演进逻辑：以语言形式为主的风格化演进和以语义指向为主的社会化演进。前者多带有趣味化倾向，后者则多带有问题意识，两者在有所侧重之下互有影响。就中国自身的艺术语境而言，传统的艺术演进多以语言形式为中心，偏风格化演进。而上世纪八十年代以来，中国艺术，尤其是以架上油画为代表的艺术，却从借鉴古典主义、美国乡土艺术之类风格化演进转而过渡为玩世现实主义、政治波普之类的社会化演进。其后，当代艺术的发展多呈现为问题意识的发展，无论早期社会化的政治反思，还有稍后个人化的生存体验，艺术的演进、转化无疑多以语义指向为中心。那么，在这种逻辑下，作品表达中对人的反思性的问题意识，往往成了衡量作品当代性强弱的重要标准。虽然，这一标准之外，语言形式有时也会影响到问题表达的真诚、强弱，但却时常退居二线，成为辅助性尺度，而非决定性因素。也就是说，在当代中国的艺术环境中，判断一件作品的当代性很大程度上以表达出的当下问题意识为首要标准，其次才会考虑艺术呈现的语言形态等等。
然而，当“提问”成为当下艺术的主要评判标准之后，很多投机性的艺术行为亦相应出现——将问题意识转化为技术手段，不是为了反思而设问，而是为了问题而设问。一时间，重复复制性的问题、简单流行化的视角，以及一味偏奇而缺少深度的形式，忽然大量出现在我们的视野中，制造出当代艺术极度繁荣的假相。但，假相的背后，却是艺术表达上的“集体贫弱”，缺少真正具有反思价值的问题。比如因为早期“图式化”的成功表达，便大量复制类似的符号化图式，仿佛前人的成功便能够保证类似问题的当下成功，而全然不考虑真正的问题是从自我出发，发人所未发的问题或视角，重复别人已经提出的问题，只能落下“鹦鹉学舌”的笑柄，是缺乏创造性的极端表现；当然，还有一类貌似新颖，实际并未提问的艺术在一味追求表达形式的惊人、怪异中，同样流于肤浅之弊。比如只求效果震撼，甚至餐饮死婴，全然未考虑他所借用的形式可能引发的真正思考，并怎样将这种思考背后深度的精神性开发出来，而只是一味追求“噱头”，表面上好像存在很深的问题，实际上却极度简单、平庸。
也就是说，我们在衡量艺术品的当代性时，不是看似有“表达”就可以了，还要进一步追问作品“表达”的有效性——其问题是否新颖、视角是否独特、思考是否深刻。如果提出的问题没有真正涉及人的深度反思，而只是他人问题的翻版或形式的噱头，那么也就只能沦为“当代伪艺术”的代表。类似伪艺术在今天商业化潮流中比比皆是，如果置身798艺术区，你会看到穿中山装的龙头、气球乳房等大量样式化作品，以及一些“吴冠中走进798”、“栗宪庭先生在回避什么”之类充满炒作意味的噱头。面对这些行为或作品，我们丝毫未能感受当代艺术对于当代社会、人的精神的反思或批判，我们只能感到利益化的商业机制对于艺术的腐蚀以及艺术自甘堕落的“伪态化”。
那么，面对如此众多的伪问题下的伪艺术“表达”，艺术真正的“当代性”出路何在？我想，这首先取决于我们对自身艺术“表达”的重新反省！而这，也正是此次多伦青年美术大展的主题确定为“表达与姿态”的出发点——希望通过类似展览对学院毕业生的成果、问题进行集中性展示，并借此引发大家关于艺术“表达”的思考，从而在今后的创作中呈现真正的问题意识，实现当代艺术的自我认知与推进。
2008年7月26日于中国艺术研究院
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
|
