亚洲高清不卡|国产午夜激无码av毛片久久|www.色啪啪.com|刮伦真实厨房|日韩伦理一区

 

 

作者：王明賢

 

 

壹
　　觀看《歷史中國(guó)眾生相：1966--1976》，我感受到心靈上真正的震撼。徐唯辛對(duì)人物的肖像有一種深刻的理解力，能從中解讀人的性格、經(jīng)歷、命運(yùn)，甚至解讀一部中國(guó)的歷史。他的眾生相系列不僅僅是對(duì)歷史的緬懷，更是對(duì)歷史的追問(wèn)，通過(guò)樸素的描繪，在當(dāng)代的語(yǔ)境中對(duì)文革歷史進(jìn)行現(xiàn)象學(xué)還原，可以說(shuō)是21世紀(jì)中國(guó)藝術(shù)的重要作品。
　　《歷史中國(guó)眾生相：1966--1976》已繪制60多幅（還將一直不停地畫下去），每幅2．5米×2米，尺寸巨大的黑白油畫肖像群，結(jié)合肖像簡(jiǎn)歷及其他文本，呈現(xiàn)文革期間蕓蕓眾生的形象。所謂“蕓蕓眾生”，既有文革中紅極一時(shí)的政治人物，還有受盡凌辱的文化名人，也有一批普普通通的人物，勾勒出的不只是帝王將相史，也是普通人的文革史。這樣就更接近真實(shí)的文革，因?yàn)槲母锂吘故且粓?chǎng)史無(wú)前例的群眾運(yùn)動(dòng)，沒(méi)有群眾的參與也就沒(méi)有文革。眾生相系列從獨(dú)特的角度真實(shí)地記錄了那段特殊的歷史，并啟發(fā)人們思考。作品沒(méi)有太多的表現(xiàn)，與現(xiàn)在很多張揚(yáng)的藝術(shù)相比，它是沉默的，但你會(huì)在凝視的瞬間感到內(nèi)在的力量和永恒的價(jià)值。單獨(dú)看每一幅肖像，肖像僅僅是肖像，然而步入展廳，或者在藝術(shù)家的畫室里，看到這一系列作品時(shí)，一種久違了的嚴(yán)肅莊重的氣氛，打動(dòng)人心。在整個(gè)場(chǎng)景里，巨大的肖像群，黑白的處理，去類型化的描繪，使作品有一種當(dāng)代感，又不是某種當(dāng)代藝術(shù)臉譜化的處理，顯示出史詩(shī)般的莊嚴(yán)。
　　徐唯辛創(chuàng)作這批作品的依據(jù)是文革期間的照片。從20世紀(jì)下半葉的藝術(shù)史來(lái)看，利用照片進(jìn)行創(chuàng)作是一個(gè)重要的趨勢(shì)，德國(guó)藝術(shù)家格哈德?里希特(Gerhard Richter)的作品就是最典型的例子。里希特從1963年開始，就常根據(jù)照片繪制油畫，但關(guān)鍵的是他并非簡(jiǎn)單描摹照片，耐人尋味的是作品中體現(xiàn)的深刻的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)觀念。如果從中國(guó)的情況來(lái)看，必然要討論到張曉剛的作品。90年代初，張曉剛偶然在家中發(fā)現(xiàn)一些老照片，他吸收了中國(guó)民間炭粉畫的風(fēng)格，把照片里的人物畫出來(lái)。畫面中的人物呆板、平靜的表情和整個(gè)畫面平涂式無(wú)筆觸的手法，還有色斑和紅線，構(gòu)成了畫面的獨(dú)特性。他利用家庭照那種被模式化的“修飾感”，說(shuō)明各種“血緣”關(guān)系——親情的、社會(huì)的、文化的——在各種“遺傳”下，“集體主義”觀念已深化在我們的意識(shí)中，形成了某種難以擺脫的情結(jié)，傳達(dá)出中國(guó)現(xiàn)代社會(huì)的集體心理記憶，表現(xiàn)了特殊的歷史面貌。90年代中期，張曉剛的作品成為中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)最有代表性的作品之一。此后十幾年，中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)也出現(xiàn)了用照片等影像資源來(lái)創(chuàng)作的趨勢(shì)，但是多數(shù)作品不過(guò)是一種藝術(shù)趣味和惰性結(jié)合的產(chǎn)物，對(duì)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的發(fā)展沒(méi)什么推動(dòng)。徐唯辛經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間醞釀創(chuàng)作的油畫肖像群，和大多數(shù)畫照片的藝術(shù)家既是風(fēng)格上的區(qū)別，又是藝術(shù)觀念上的區(qū)別。作為一個(gè)當(dāng)代現(xiàn)實(shí)主義畫家，徐唯辛以自己的畫筆，為文革題材和人物肖像涂上了一層歷史的色彩，作者在新的價(jià)值體系中去發(fā)現(xiàn)歷史，作品背后的思考和價(jià)值觀反映出藝術(shù)家自己的方法論。他還在博客上發(fā)布關(guān)于創(chuàng)作文革眾生相的設(shè)想，通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)征集普通人的照片，希望得到社會(huì)各界的支持。另外，他在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上搜集歷史人物照片。大家都知道，信息革命的第一項(xiàng)成果就是全世界的視覺信息的平等化，人們可以在任一地點(diǎn)在任一事件獲得同樣的信息。徐唯辛正是通過(guò)這一點(diǎn)使歷史過(guò)程的體驗(yàn)具有了當(dāng)代性，傳統(tǒng)油畫的繪制效果和當(dāng)下的新體驗(yàn)于是有了一種奇妙的結(jié)合，這也使他的作品和里斯特不同，也和利用照片創(chuàng)作的其他中國(guó)藝術(shù)家截然不同。網(wǎng)絡(luò)照片的利用是當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的一種新嘗試，并使社會(huì)公眾參與到作品中來(lái)，而不是把大眾當(dāng)作局外人，觀眾由此產(chǎn)生一種對(duì)歷史感的嶄新認(rèn)識(shí)，并發(fā)現(xiàn)了當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的價(jià)值。
　　貳
　　作為一個(gè)受“自由主義思想”影響的藝術(shù)家，徐唯辛關(guān)注中國(guó)的歷史和未來(lái)， 這批作品描繪出文革中國(guó)的圖像史與精神史，對(duì)現(xiàn)存禁忌是一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)，故可視為新批判現(xiàn)實(shí)主義。
　　文化大革命是中國(guó)人一個(gè)永遠(yuǎn)的夢(mèng)魘，但是對(duì)文革的反思，卻幾乎無(wú)影無(wú)蹤。批評(píng)家王林在一篇文章中寫道：“近讀基弗作品，深為德國(guó)人反省二戰(zhàn)災(zāi)難的懺悔精神所感動(dòng)。對(duì)比中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)對(duì)于歷史的集體失憶，不由得令人喟嘆。”確實(shí)，中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)對(duì)于歷史的集體失憶是個(gè)很大的問(wèn)題。面對(duì)蘇俄沉重的歷史，索爾仁尼琴創(chuàng)作了《古拉格群島》；而對(duì)于中國(guó)文革——20世紀(jì)最為瘋狂的事件，我們的藝術(shù)，包括文學(xué)、美術(shù)、音樂(lè)、電影、電視、攝影等，究竟創(chuàng)作出什么樣的作品？說(shuō)起來(lái)可能令人汗顏，我們拿不出什么史詩(shī)性的作品。如果把被稱為“在當(dāng)代中國(guó)產(chǎn)生巨大影響”的巴金《隨想錄》和索爾仁尼琴的《古拉格群島》比較，真讓人慚愧得無(wú)地自容。問(wèn)題不在于巴金寫什么（不能苛求巴金老人），而在于大家把那樣幼稚的東西當(dāng)作“文學(xué)和思想的最后高峰”來(lái)頂禮膜拜，實(shí)在是太可悲了！我們根本沒(méi)有具備從文化上反思文革的能力。豈止是藝術(shù)，就連歷史書寫也盡是謊言，往往是剛完稿的史書墨跡未干，又出問(wèn)題要大刪大改了。有人尖銳指出：一次又一次地涂抹歷史（從“開天窗”到“換頭術(shù)”，從吹捧“處理決定”到贊揚(yáng)“平反決定”），官方史學(xué)已經(jīng)不能滿足現(xiàn)實(shí)對(duì)它的要求。它現(xiàn)在的功能與其說(shuō)提供記憶，不如說(shuō)提供遺忘。
　　在2006年度俄羅斯國(guó)家人文領(lǐng)域最高成就獎(jiǎng)?lì)C獎(jiǎng)典禮上，索爾仁尼琴說(shuō)：“在我的生命盡頭，我希望我搜集到并在隨后向讀者推薦的、在我們國(guó)家經(jīng)受的殘酷的、昏暗年代里的歷史材料、歷史題材、生命圖景和人物將留在我的同胞們的意識(shí)和記憶中。這是我們祖國(guó)痛苦的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，它還將幫助我們，警告并防止我們?cè)馐軞�滅性的破裂。在俄羅斯歷史上，我們多少次表現(xiàn)出了前所未有的精神上的堅(jiān)韌和堅(jiān)定，是它們搭救了我們。”在對(duì)待民族的苦難以及文革等問(wèn)題上，中國(guó)的知識(shí)分子也應(yīng)當(dāng)有這樣的思考。20世紀(jì)70年代末到80年代初，中國(guó)曾出現(xiàn)一些表現(xiàn)文革的傷痕文學(xué)、繪畫作品，但藝術(shù)家很快就選擇了逃避，幾乎再?zèng)]有反映文革的作品出現(xiàn)，更談不上深刻地反思文革。徐唯辛今天的文革眾生相系列創(chuàng)作，我認(rèn)為是填補(bǔ)空白的工作，并對(duì)藝術(shù)家表示敬意。
　　叁
　　85時(shí)期中國(guó)新潮美術(shù)崛起時(shí)，徐唯辛正在中國(guó)現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)的重鎮(zhèn)浙江美院讀研究生。他一方面感受到前衛(wèi)藝術(shù)的沖擊，覺得有一種新的東西在吸引他；另一方面又感到惶恐，不敢把自己放在現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)的風(fēng)口浪尖上。畢業(yè)后他躲到小天地去畫他的馕房，畫藏女，雖屢屢獲獎(jiǎng)，但在學(xué)院派的束縛中，他的繪畫語(yǔ)言顯得老套，作品除了表面的少數(shù)民族風(fēng)情外，缺乏當(dāng)代文化的力量。他深感痛苦，開始重新思考。他對(duì)西方現(xiàn)代哲學(xué)，從胡塞爾、海德格爾、維特根斯坦、德里達(dá)、羅蘭?巴特、福柯這一學(xué)術(shù)脈絡(luò)并不一定很了解；對(duì)從杜尚到博伊斯的藝術(shù)觀念也不一定很熟悉。可是憑借長(zhǎng)期的艱難摸索，以及對(duì)當(dāng)下文化問(wèn)題的思考，他逐漸領(lǐng)悟到新的藝術(shù)觀念。通過(guò)對(duì)自己的剖析，也通過(guò)對(duì)中國(guó)20多年學(xué)院藝術(shù)和當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的反思，終于找到自己的道路，創(chuàng)作出超越自己的新作。
　　提到’85新潮，不免也會(huì)想到中國(guó)現(xiàn)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)近30年的歷程。盡管這期間有不少重要的展覽，但人們經(jīng)常會(huì)提到兩個(gè)展覽：一是1979年的星星美展，它是中國(guó)現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)的萌芽；二是1989年的中國(guó)現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)展，它則是中國(guó)’85美術(shù)思潮的全面回顧，標(biāo)志著中國(guó)現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)的發(fā)展。而說(shuō)到作品，人們可能會(huì)提到80年代初的前現(xiàn)代名畫——羅中立《父親》和陳丹青《西藏組畫》，藝術(shù)史學(xué)者則更關(guān)注’85運(yùn)動(dòng)以來(lái)的藝術(shù)家和作品，如谷文達(dá)《靜則生靈》、耿建翌《第二狀態(tài)》、黃永砯《中國(guó)繪畫史與現(xiàn)代繪畫簡(jiǎn)史在洗衣機(jī)里攪拌了兩分鐘》、 王廣義《毛澤東》、徐冰《析世鑒-天書》、蔡國(guó)強(qiáng)《為外星人所做的計(jì)劃》、張曉剛《大家庭》、方力均《系列》、張洹《 為魚塘水位增高》等。在中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)最后兩個(gè)驚世駭俗展覽——1999年“后感性”、2000年“對(duì)傷害的迷戀”之后，也就是2001年以來(lái)，中國(guó)藝術(shù)在商業(yè)化的推動(dòng)下虛假繁榮，但在文化上軟弱乏力，沒(méi)有新的創(chuàng)造。雖然這幾年展覽極多，作品多得不可勝數(shù)，但能給人們留下深刻印象的卻很少。21世紀(jì)以來(lái)，究竟哪些作品是中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)史的坐標(biāo)，令人困惑。疑惑和失望之余，看到徐唯辛的系列作品——耗費(fèi)數(shù)年心血繪制的煌煌大作，我有一種難以名狀的感動(dòng)。希望有更多的藝術(shù)家，經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)期積累創(chuàng)作出有學(xué)術(shù)價(jià)值的作品。當(dāng)然，在太功利的時(shí)代，談當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的學(xué)術(shù)價(jià)值是很奢侈的事。然而，真正的藝術(shù)家就是要不斷質(zhì)疑、探索并超越自己，他們的命運(yùn)像西西弗一樣。西西弗不停地把一塊巨石推上山頂，而石頭由于自身的重量又滾下山去，諸神認(rèn)為再也沒(méi)有比進(jìn)行這種無(wú)效無(wú)望的勞動(dòng)更為嚴(yán)厲的懲罰了。加繆卻認(rèn)為西西弗無(wú)聲的全部快樂(lè)就在于此。他的命運(yùn)是屬于他的。他的巖石是他的事情。同樣，當(dāng)荒謬的人深思他的痛苦時(shí)，他就使一切偶像啞然失聲。

 

 

作者：王明賢(Curator)　

 

 

　

Part I
I received a virtual, spiritual shock when looking at the paintings of the “Chinese Historical Figures: 1966-1976”. Xu Weixin’s portraitures give an insight that allows an experience of a precise vision of the idiosyncrasy, destiny of the subjects and the interpretation of China’s history. Xu’s composition is not only a reminiscence of, but also an enquiry into, history. In the contemporary artistic, semantic context, it restores the phenomenology of the Cultural Revolution via a simple artistic expression and therefore can be deemed an important artwork for the 21st-century Chinese art history.
Xu has painted over sixty portraits for his “Chinese Historical Figures” series (and Xu will ceaselessly continue to paint). His artworks are presented in colossal monochrome oil portraits in the size of 2.5 x 2 meters. Supplemented by the subject’s profile and other texts of addendum, the paintings portray all manner of mortal beings during the Cultural Revolution. The so-called “all mortal beings” consist of the then powerful political personages during the Cultural Revolution, the heavily persecuted literators and the ordinary persons. He depicts the Cultural Revolution history of the rulers as well as of the grassroots man. In this sense, Xu’s depiction is closer to the reality as the Cultural Revolution is an unprecedented social movement which cannot take place without the participation of the grassroot masses. From a distinctive angle, the figurative paintings solidly record this special period in history and are thought-provoking. The artwork is plain and silent rather than aggrandizing like many hysterical artistic expressions are today. However, one feels the intensity and the eternity value the moment one gazes at these paintings. Portraits are mere portraitures when viewed separately. And yet, we are deeply touched by a long-lost sense of solemnness when we view the portraits as a phenomenalistic group in the exhibition room or in the artist’s studio. At the scene, the immense portraits, the monochrome tonality and the non-genre depiction create a modern mode. And the non-use of the contemporary portraiture style has here translated solemnness into a heroic poem.
The source of material for Xu’s portraitures derives from the Cultural Revolution. From the second half of the 20th century, there has been an important artistic tendency to photo-based painting. The German artist, Gerhard Richter, is an exponent. From 1963, Richter has produced many photo-based portraits. Intriguingly, he never simply imitates photographs. Instead, he embodies profound contemporary artistic elements in his works. In China, Zhang Xiaogang should be mentioned when talking about photographs. In the 90s, Zhang finding old family photographs was inspired to deploy the Chinese folk charcoal drawing to his portraitures. The monotonous and composed expressions of Zhang’s subjects, smoothly finished brushwork, fine red lines, and watery stains are his hallmarks. He mimics the standardized “perfection” features of family portrait photographs and elaborates the various “bloodline” relationships, be it a kin relationship, a social or a cultural relationship. “Heritage” and “collectivism” have inherently and deeply ingrained themselves into our consciousness and formed an inextricable complex. Zhang recapitulates the collective psychological memory of China’s modern society and outlines unique historical features. In the mid-90s, Zhang’s artwork became the most representative of the Chinese contemporary art scene. For some ten years, the tendency to photo-based painting bad continued. However, most of the artworks were nothing but a conflation of amusement and inertia, stagnating the development of contemporary art. After a long fermentation, Xu’s group portraitures are distinct from other photo-based paintings in terms of artistic style and concept. Being a contemporary realistic artist, Xu paints in his own way the portraits and the subject matter of the Cultural Revolution with a layer of historical color. He rediscovers history from within the new value system. The thinking and value behind these artworks lead to the artist’s special practices. He reveals his project idea in the figurative paintings of the Cultural Revolution on his blog, through which he summons photographs of the ordinary and secures the support of the public. In addition, he collects online photographs of the historical figures. Admittedly, the greatest achievement in the information revolution is the global access equalization of visual information. People are able to access the same information on a particular event, anywhere. By doing so, Xu gives the historical mission a contemporary touch. The conventional oil painting has now experienced a wonderful conjunction with the new technology. This has also remarkably contrasted Xu from Richter and other photo-based artists. The use of the online photographs is a new trial in the contemporary art circle. It allows the participation of the general public, who has in the past been considered as outsiders of the creation process. The viewers are now allowed to experience a fresh perception about history and explore the value of the contemporary art at the same time.
Part II
As an artist influenced by “l(fā)iberalism”, Xu is concerned about China’s history and its future. This series of works depicts the pictorial as well as spiritual history of China in the Cultural Revolution, putting forward a challenge to the existing taboo, and is, therefore, being considered as neo-critical realism.
The Cultural Revolution has been a haunting nightmare for the Chinese. And yet the reflection of it is barely visible. Wang Lin, a critic, wrote in his critique, “Recently I’ve read Anselm Kiefer. I was moved by the German’s repentant spirit over the disaster caused in WWII. Looking back at China, the collective amnesia of the contemporary art circle over history has been exclamatory.” Indeed, it is a big issue to the Chinese contemporary art scene. Facing Russia’s laden history, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote “The Gulag Archipelago”. As for the Cultural Revolution, the craziest incident of the 20th century, what have we offered from the disciplines of literature, art, music, film, television, photography and so on? It is a shame that we have not had any heroical works. We should feel extremely embarrassed comparing Ba Jin’s “Random Thoughts” with Solzehnitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago”. It is more about the fact that we have been deifying the shallowness as “the pinnacle in literature and in thinking” than what Ba Jin has written (we cannot overly rely on what the aged Ba Jin has written). This is absolutely pathetic! We don’t possess the humanistic capacity for self-reflection over the Cultural Revolution. The historical literature is full of lies, not to mention artistic expressions. Frequent revamping of the historical literature is common, even before the ink of the manuscript is dry. Some have sharply pointed out that the repetitive revision of the official historical documents has made it difficult to meet the real needs of truth seekers amongst the public. The role the official historical literature plays is rather the provision of oblivion than that of memory.
To paraphrase what Solzhenitsyn has said at the award ceremony for the 2006 Russian national prize for outstanding achievements in the cultural and education spheres: Solzhenitsyn hopes, at the end of his life, to imprint on the consciousness and memory of Russian citizen, the historical materials, historical subject matter, pictures of life and figures in the cruel and gloomy time that they have all lived through. The bitter experience will be a lesson that keeps Russia from new disastrous breakdowns. In Russia’s history, it is the unprecedented tenacity and determination emanating from his fellow citizens that have saved them. Looking back at China, intellectuals should also follow this line of thinking when facing national misery and the Cultural Revolution. In the late 70s to the early 80s, there was once “scar literature” and “scar painting” reflecting the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. However, artists soon chose to shun this movement and works reflecting the Cultural Revolution have not maintained a presence, not to mention a profound reflection over the mishap. Xu’s “Chinese Historical Figures’ series exactly fills the gap. To this end I admire and respect Xu enormously.
Part III
During the ’85 New Wave, Xu was a graduate student in the Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts, an important fortress in the Chinese modern art movement. On the one hand, he felt the impetus from the avant-garde movement and was appalled by the new tide; on the other hand, he was anxious for putting himself amongst the new wave. After graduation, he worked seclusively on his new works such as “The Nang Bread Kitchen” and “Tibetan Girl”. Bound by the academic artistic doctrine, Xu’s painting style seemed outmoded, although his artworks had continuously earned him awards. His works largely depicted the customs of the local ethnic minorities and were devoid of contemporary intensity. He felt disturbed and started to contemplate problems from scratch. Xu may not be knowledgeable in the western philosophic discourse of Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Roland Barthes or Foucault. Neither may he be versed in the artistic concepts of Duchamp or Beuys. However, through continuous self-examination and contemplation of the nature of the contemporary art process and through the twenty-year training he received under the academic artistic discipline, he finally found his own way and created artworks, surpassing himself.
When mentioning the ’85 New Wave, one will inevitably review the nearly thirty year development of Chinese contemporary art. Among the many important exhibitions, two are the most often mentioned – the “Star Exhibit” in 1979, which signifies the germination of Chinese modern art and the “Exhibition of Chinese Contemporary Art” in 1989, a comprehensive retrospective to the ’85 New Wave movement and a landmark in the Chinese contemporary art movement. In terms of artworks in this period, one may recall the pre-modern painting in the early 80s including Luo Zhongli’s “Father” and Chen Danqing’s “Tibet Series”. Artistic historians may also draw attention to artists and their works after the ’85 New Wave movement, such as Gu Wenda’s “Wisdom Comes from Tranquility”, Geng Jianyi’s “The Second State”, Huang Yongping’s “The History of Chinese Painting and the History of Modern Art Washed in the Washing Machine for Two Minutes”, Wang Guangyi’s “Mao Zedong”, Xu Bing’s “A Book from the Sky”, Cai Guoqiang’s “Project for Extraterrestrials”, Zhang Xiaogang’s “Big Family”, Fang Lijun’s “Series” and Zhang Huan’s “To Raise the Water Level in a Fishpond” and so on. The last two appalling exhibitions in the Chinese contemporary art scene have seen the “Post-sexiness” in 1999 and the “Obsession with Harm” in 2000. Since 2001, Chinese art has been culturally flaccid and been lacking in creativity under the drive of commercialization. Although there have been tremendous compositions and exhibitions in recent years, few of them are impressive. Since entering the 21st century, it has been a perplexing question as to what artworks are eligible to be considered as the coordinate of the Chinese contemporary art movement. I felt bewildered and disappointed, but as I came to know Xu’s masterworks, which have consumed him in years of arduous effort, I felt indescribably touched by it. It is a luxury discussing the academic value of contemporary art in the utilitarian age. However, true artists should need to incessantly question, explore and exceed themselves. Their fate is like that of Sisyphus. Sisyphus ceaselessly rolled a rock up to the top of a mountain, where the stone would fall back with its own weight. The gods had thought that there was no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor such as this. Albert Camus, nevertheless, outlines that all Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is his thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols.