當(dāng)代性：取決于“表達(dá)”
　　——寫于第三屆上海多倫青年美術(shù)大展之前

　　杭春曉

　　當(dāng)代藝術(shù)，在今天的語(yǔ)境下，爭(zhēng)議頗多，它往往與前衛(wèi)藝術(shù)、觀念藝術(shù)、現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)發(fā)生混淆。產(chǎn)生這種認(rèn)知結(jié)果，一方面是二十世紀(jì)西方藝術(shù)譜系自身的復(fù)雜性導(dǎo)致，一方面則是中國(guó)三十年新藝術(shù)發(fā)展在“嫁接”、“引進(jìn)”過(guò)程中時(shí)間壓縮性的紊亂，從而導(dǎo)致原本就非線性發(fā)展的上述概念之間的邏輯關(guān)系更加復(fù)雜。其實(shí)，與其糾纏西方藝術(shù)譜系中的概念，為所謂“當(dāng)代藝術(shù)”正身，還不如回到中國(guó)藝術(shù)自我語(yǔ)境，從“藝術(shù)是什么”這樣一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單問(wèn)題入手，討論怎樣的當(dāng)下藝術(shù)才具有當(dāng)代性。

　　藝術(shù)是什么？看似很簡(jiǎn)單，卻是大多人忽視的本質(zhì)問(wèn)題，并相應(yīng)產(chǎn)生認(rèn)識(shí)上的誤區(qū)。比如，在普通人群與一些專業(yè)人群中，關(guān)于“架上”、“非架上”的判斷就截然相反：普通人士多認(rèn)為“非架上”不是藝術(shù)，“架上”才是藝術(shù)的代表；而一些專業(yè)人士則認(rèn)為“架上”已經(jīng)不能代表藝術(shù)，是沒(méi)落的形式，只有“非架上”才是藝術(shù)發(fā)展的方向。同樣的對(duì)象，判斷結(jié)果完全相反，難道我們能夠簡(jiǎn)單地以專業(yè)身份來(lái)評(píng)判答案的正確與否？顯然，我們不能這樣做！因?yàn)椴皇恰胺羌苌稀本鸵欢ù砹诵滤囆g(shù)，大量沒(méi)有任何表達(dá)意義、一味追求形式新穎的所謂“非架上”已經(jīng)成為“皇帝新衣”式的偽藝術(shù)。

　　簡(jiǎn)單從“架上”、“非架上”這樣的形式判斷藝術(shù)，本身就是“專業(yè)人士”犯下的最簡(jiǎn)單的專業(yè)錯(cuò)誤。而產(chǎn)生這樣的錯(cuò)誤，原因何在？其實(shí)，就在于沒(méi)有考慮“藝術(shù)到底是什么”這樣一個(gè)看似簡(jiǎn)單、但卻本質(zhì)的問(wèn)題。藝術(shù)到底是什么？就構(gòu)成而言，它是由語(yǔ)言形式與語(yǔ)義指向共同組成的表達(dá)結(jié)構(gòu)。因此，藝術(shù)是通過(guò)一定的語(yǔ)言形式，表達(dá)特定的關(guān)于“人的精神”的語(yǔ)義指向，其關(guān)鍵在于，無(wú)論用怎樣的語(yǔ)言形式，都是為了獲得一種藝術(shù)表達(dá)。基于此，“架上”、“非架上”都屬于語(yǔ)言形式的范疇，并不能作為判斷藝術(shù)與否的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。判斷的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)該在于你是否通過(guò)恰當(dāng)?shù)恼Z(yǔ)言形式進(jìn)行了恰當(dāng)?shù)谋磉_(dá)，無(wú)論你采用“架上”，抑或“非架上”，只要能夠準(zhǔn)確地“表達(dá)”，就是好的藝術(shù)。否則，即使采用了前衛(wèi)的形式，也僅是媚俗的偽藝術(shù)。

　　那么，怎樣的表達(dá)，在今天能夠呈現(xiàn)當(dāng)代性價(jià)值呢？回答這一問(wèn)題，首先還要回到藝術(shù)的語(yǔ)言、語(yǔ)義雙重結(jié)構(gòu)上。因?yàn)檫@種結(jié)構(gòu)的存在，藝術(shù)史往往會(huì)呈現(xiàn)兩種偏向性的演進(jìn)邏輯：以語(yǔ)言形式為主的風(fēng)格化演進(jìn)和以語(yǔ)義指向?yàn)橹鞯纳鐣?huì)化演進(jìn)。前者多帶有趣味化傾向，后者則多帶有問(wèn)題意識(shí)，兩者在有所側(cè)重之下互有影響。就中國(guó)自身的藝術(shù)語(yǔ)境而言，傳統(tǒng)的藝術(shù)演進(jìn)多以語(yǔ)言形式為中心，偏風(fēng)格化演進(jìn)。而上世紀(jì)八十年代以來(lái)，中國(guó)藝術(shù)，尤其是以架上油畫為代表的藝術(shù)，卻從借鑒古典主義、美國(guó)鄉(xiāng)土藝術(shù)之類風(fēng)格化演進(jìn)轉(zhuǎn)而過(guò)渡為玩世現(xiàn)實(shí)主義、政治波普之類的社會(huì)化演進(jìn)。其后，當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的發(fā)展多呈現(xiàn)為問(wèn)題意識(shí)的發(fā)展，無(wú)論早期社會(huì)化的政治反思，還有稍后個(gè)人化的生存體驗(yàn)，藝術(shù)的演進(jìn)、轉(zhuǎn)化無(wú)疑多以語(yǔ)義指向?yàn)橹行摹Ｄ敲矗谶@種邏輯下，作品表達(dá)中對(duì)人的反思性的問(wèn)題意識(shí)，往往成了衡量作品當(dāng)代性強(qiáng)弱的重要標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。雖然，這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之外，語(yǔ)言形式有時(shí)也會(huì)影響到問(wèn)題表達(dá)的真誠(chéng)、強(qiáng)弱，但卻時(shí)常退居二線，成為輔助性尺度，而非決定性因素。也就是說(shuō)，在當(dāng)代中國(guó)的藝術(shù)環(huán)境中，判斷一件作品的當(dāng)代性很大程度上以表達(dá)出的當(dāng)下問(wèn)題意識(shí)為首要標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，其次才會(huì)考慮藝術(shù)呈現(xiàn)的語(yǔ)言形態(tài)等等。

　　然而，當(dāng)“提問(wèn)”成為當(dāng)下藝術(shù)的主要評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之后，很多投機(jī)性的藝術(shù)行為亦相應(yīng)出現(xiàn)——將問(wèn)題意識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)化為技術(shù)手段，不是為了反思而設(shè)問(wèn)，而是為了問(wèn)題而設(shè)問(wèn)。一時(shí)間，重復(fù)復(fù)制性的問(wèn)題、簡(jiǎn)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(xiàn)在我們的視野中，制造出當(dāng)代藝術(shù)極度繁榮的假相。但，假相的背后，卻是藝術(shù)表達(dá)上的“集體貧弱”，缺少真正具有反思價(jià)值的問(wèn)題。比如因?yàn)樵缙凇皥D式化”的成功表達(dá)，便大量復(fù)制類似的符號(hào)化圖式，仿佛前人的成功便能夠保證類似問(wèn)題的當(dāng)下成功，而全然不考慮真正的問(wèn)題是從自我出發(fā)，發(fā)人所未發(fā)的問(wèn)題或視角，重復(fù)別人已經(jīng)提出的問(wèn)題，只能落下“鸚鵡學(xué)舌”的笑柄，是缺乏創(chuàng)造性的極端表現(xiàn)；當(dāng)然，還有一類貌似新穎，實(shí)際并未提問(wèn)的藝術(shù)在一味追求表達(dá)形式的驚人、怪異中，同樣流于膚淺之弊。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(fā)的真正思考，并怎樣將這種思考背后深度的精神性開發(fā)出來(lái)，而只是一味追求“噱頭”，表面上好像存在很深的問(wèn)題，實(shí)際上卻極度簡(jiǎn)單、平庸。

　　也就是說(shuō)，我們?cè)诤饬克囆g(shù)品的當(dāng)代性時(shí)，不是看似有“表達(dá)”就可以了，還要進(jìn)一步追問(wèn)作品“表達(dá)”的有效性——其問(wèn)題是否新穎、視角是否獨(dú)特、思考是否深刻。如果提出的問(wèn)題沒(méi)有真正涉及人的深度反思，而只是他人問(wèn)題的翻版或形式的噱頭，那么也就只能淪為“當(dāng)代偽藝術(shù)”的代表。類似偽藝術(shù)在今天商業(yè)化潮流中比比皆是，如果置身798藝術(shù)區(qū)，你會(huì)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(jìn)798”、“栗憲庭先生在回避什么”之類充滿炒作意味的噱頭。面對(duì)這些行為或作品，我們絲毫未能感受當(dāng)代藝術(shù)對(duì)于當(dāng)代社會(huì)、人的精神的反思或批判，我們只能感到利益化的商業(yè)機(jī)制對(duì)于藝術(shù)的腐蝕以及藝術(shù)自甘墮落的“偽態(tài)化”。

那么，面對(duì)如此眾多的偽問(wèn)題下的偽藝術(shù)“表達(dá)”，藝術(shù)真正的“當(dāng)代性”出路何在？我想，這首先取決于我們對(duì)自身藝術(shù)“表達(dá)”的重新反省！而這，也正是此次多倫青年美術(shù)大展的主題確定為“表達(dá)與姿態(tài)”的出發(fā)點(diǎn)——希望通過(guò)類似展覽對(duì)學(xué)院畢業(yè)生的成果、問(wèn)題進(jìn)行集中性展示，并借此引發(fā)大家關(guān)于藝術(shù)“表達(dá)”的思考，從而在今后的創(chuàng)作中呈現(xiàn)真正的問(wèn)題意識(shí)，實(shí)現(xiàn)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的自我認(rèn)知與推進(jìn)。

　　2008年7月26日于中國(guó)藝術(shù)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