“超越性”在中国当代艺术界的缺失

刘礼宾 文 岳中生 译/

编者按：本文重提的“超越性”，实际是作者对当代艺术再次梳理和反思的过程中所理出的当代艺术发展的可能性线索。现代艺术发展的背景、当代艺术的纷繁现象、艺术家的身份都结合现象得以论及。艺术史、艺术理论、艺术评论的各个层次，也由于作者在这些层面的广泛涉猎而有所展现。中国当代艺术怎么来，到哪里去，作者书写了一些方向。

Editor’s note: The issue of “transcendence” readdressed in this paper is, in fact, a possible clue that the author draws through a reexamining effort to developing contemporary Chinese art. Also under scrutiny are this period’s background,art phenomena, and artists’ identity. Besides, art history, theory and criticism at all levels are touched upon thanks to the author’s extensive reading. And the paper, too, offers an insight into the origins and developmental trends of China’s contemporary art.

“超越性”和“介入性”应该是中国当代艺术的两个指向，但在时下，相对于“介入性”各种变体的发展来讲，“超越性”的缺失是亟须提醒的问题。凸显这个问题，明确这一长期被忽视的维度，列举它被遮蔽的原因，所造成的对诸多艺术现象的或遮蔽，或拔高，从而可以引起从业者和旁观者的警觉。正本清源，可以给诸多艺术家寻找一个理论的栖息之地，创作的着力之点，为中国当代艺术开启一扇长久半闭半掩、时开时合的“门”。

一、“超越性”为何被遮蔽？

1.十九世纪中叶以来，国家危亡的遭遇，对“民族国家”确立的期待，列强侵略的痛楚，艺术服务对象的明确，对“现代”的憧憬与期待，乃至强国富民的迫切感等等，均使“美术”（以及各种艺术门类）转向“现实”，自动或者被迫的“工具化”，使“超越性”成为一个悬置的问题。

从“美术改良说”到“美术革命说”，再到徐悲鸿对于“写实主义”的强调以及与“现代主义”的争论，“国画”一词的出现以及“国画家”的艰难探索，新兴版画运动（亦包括随着印刷业发展而兴起的漫画创作）的如火如荼，倏然由为寺庙、陵墓服务的传统雕塑转为指向现实的中国现代雕塑的出现，20世纪上半叶，各个门类的视觉艺术家均有一大部分在寻找一个“路径”——艺术介入外在现实之路径。在如此国民惨痛遭遇之际，爱国志士乃思自身化为枪林弹雨射向侵略者，何况艺术创作哉？

1949年新中国成立后，服务对象的明确，服务意识的强调，在改革开放之前，艺术家的“超越性”追求多被归类为“小资情调”“风花雪月”“封建迷信”等等，艺术倾向被迫与阵营相连接，此时，再谈“超越性”已经不仅是一个艺术问题。

“Transcendence” and “engagement” may be deemed two directions in contemporary Chinese art. However, the absence of the former becomes an urgent concern in contrast to the latter’s varieties. It helps warn professionals and laymen of this long-neglected dimension to highlight this issue, study its background, and explore why many art phenomena are under- or over-estimated. Such an illuminating effort may lend artists a support for theoretical explanation and creation, and reveal a secret, untold “gate” leading to China’s contemporary art.

I. Why Has “Transcendence” Been Shrouded?

1. Since the mid-19th century, “transcendence” has been suspended because “fine arts” （and other art categories） became more “realistic”and “tool-like,” willingly or unwillingly, due to China’s suffering and humiliation from foreign invasions, a clearer body of art consumers, and an urgent demand of Chinese nationals for making their home country powerful in the international community.

In the first half of the 20th century, the majority of Chinese visual artists were seeking a “path” engaging art in external reality.China witnessed “Fine Art Reform,” “Fine Art Revolution,” the painter Xu Beihong’s emphasis on “realism” and his debate with those who advocated “modernism,” the appearance of the term “traditional Chinese painting” and the painstaking explorations of traditional Chinese painters, the vigorous New Woodcut Movement （including cartoonists who rose with the growing print industry）, and the sudden change from traditional sculpture （which used to serve monasteries and ancient tombs）to modern sculpture relating to reality. In those sorrowful days some patriots even wished to become revengeful bullets at foreign invaders, to say nothing of the community of artists.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, with service object made clear and awareness of service emphasized, artists’pursuit of “transcendence” was labeled as “a taste of petty bourgeoisie,”“a manner of romance,” “a feudal superstition,” and the like, until China launched its economic reform and opening up. Artistic notions would be ill-intentionally interpreted as signs of incorrect political stances. So,“transcendence” was no longer an art topic.

After the 1980s, behind social obsession with “modernity,” “post-modernity,” and current discussion over “contemporaneity” was a sense of urgency, a longing of “evolution” up to the highest level, which had long been hidden in the creation of Chinese artists. This partly comes from a desire for an equal “dialogue,” partly from a sense of apprenticelike inferiority, which has been more than one century old. A state of mind like catching up in GDP growth index is not rare in China’s art community.

上世纪80年代之后，起初对于“现代”的痴迷，此后对“后现代”的推崇，再到时下对“当代”的讨论，其实都潜藏着一种时间的紧迫感，对“进化”最高层级的向往，一直潜藏于艺术家的创作之中。这既源自对平等“对话”的渴望，也源自百余年来一直处于“学徒”地位的自卑心理。赶超GDP增长指数的心态在艺术界并不乏见。

分段论、进化论基础上的时间模式构建了一个“咬尾蛇”怪圈，个体陷入其中，在“过去”“当下”“未来”三段之间的穿越、突围、延续，都会陷入模式之中。个人如此，一个国家民族何尝不是如此？

2．知识分子所推崇的“反思”所蕴含的“平视”视角，使“敬畏”变得稀缺。再加上上世纪后半叶的“打倒”，90年代“后学”的洗礼，本来几近隔绝的“传统”体无完肤，而西学的引进多在“经世致用”层面，而其理论的超越性维度被忽视，这表现在各个学科，各个领域。

俯视使人愧怍，仰视使人失节，平视方不卑不亢。或许，“平视”是知识分子最可贵的品质之一。笛卡尔的“我思故我在”或许是中国流传最广的谚语之一，所有一切，必须放在“怀疑”的放大镜下来重新审视，没有经过“反思”的经验、历史、人物乃至生活是不值得肯定的。

问题在于：反思者本身的知识结构、道德水平、反思动机、特殊时代给他们留下的心理架构很少作为被考量的对象！

敢把皇帝拉下马，有的是勇气、胆量，缺少的是什么呢？借助知识量的占有，很多知识分子把历史人物与自己的水平扯平。“扯平”是“平视”吗？

孔子、老子、孟子等等皆被解构，或成“丧家犬”，或称营营苟且之徒。津津乐道朱熹之时，并非谈他的“理学”主张，而是流传的逸闻趣事。经考证老子可能并无其人，释迦牟尼也只是一个历史的虚构。在考古学、历史学、地理学等学科的新发现之下，儒道释三家的核心要义变得虚无缥缈，人们只是看到一把把好似剪断云彩的剪刀和斧头。

“西学”引进百余年，各学科奉为圭臬的先哲无数。在突出其在各学科的独特贡献之时，背后错综复杂的知识背景往往被过滤。尤其在当下的语境下，他们的宗教背景，或者我们称之为的“神秘学”背景或者被弱化，或者被剔除。比如美术史学家瓦尔堡和“占星术”之间的渊源、福音派教义对罗斯金的重要影响、牛顿乃至笛卡尔的宗教背景、荣格与《易经》的关系、包豪斯机构中的宗教人士的影响力、蒙德里安的宗教信仰、导演大卫·林奇的禅学背景等等均被忽视。“经世致用”可得一时之利，但削足适履的阉割所引入的学科知识往往是孱弱的。无源之水在本地尚且难以长流，何况在中国？我们严重低估了他们知识的诸多来源对他们的影响。或者我们只是习惯了俯视、“伪平视”，放弃了仰望星空。

3．“简单的二元对立思维”——“社会决定论”——“意义明确论”（推崇“有效性”）——“再现论”，形成了环环相扣的链条，弥漫于创作、教学、批评的各个领域。创作者、研究者对自身的思维模式缺少反思。

“二分法”本来是人类正常的思维方法之一，但是忽视复杂性、多面性、历史性的简单“二分”，从而形成的长期以来的“简单的二元对立思维”却是具体时空下的产物。简单抽象，分成阵营，制造“对立”，目的是一方压倒另一方，是这一过程的习惯步骤。

在此，“分类标准”是一个关键问题。标准在特定时期是多变的，“财产”曾经作为标准，“出身”曾经作为标准，“贫富”可能是当下的主要变体。

So, a temporal mode on the basis of stage theory and evolution theory helped form an “ouroboros-like” vicious circle. Individuals were trapped into it and struggled in vain to survive through the stages of “the past,” “the present,” and “the future.” Incidentally, it is also true with a nation.

2. A “head-up” or equal perspective, implied in “reflection” that China’s intellectuals value most, makes “reverence” a rarity. Even worse,tradition, which was almost separated from us, has been reduced to misery due to China’s political movements marked by “Down With ...！”in the second half of the last century, and the baptism of postics in the 1990s. Moreover, Western sciences mostly remain pragmatic in China:their theoretical transcendence has been neglected, as shown in a variety of disciplines or fi elds.

In fact, a critical attitude developed from arrogant overlooking or from humble looking-up is a shame or disgrace. Only an equal perspective prevents haughtiness and humility, which may be mostly valued in intellectuals. That explains why René Descartes’ statement that “Cogito ergo sum ” （ I think, therefore, I am ） is among the most widespread in China. Everything must be placed under the magnifying glass of “doubt” for re-examination. No experience, history, fi gures or life is trustworthy unless they have been “ref l ected upon.”

However, the problem is this: little is considered about a ref l ector’s own knowledge structure, morality, motives, and psychological framework shaped in a special period！

For one who dares to unhorse the emperor, he does have enough courage. But what lacks in him, may we ask? With the aid of their abundant knowledge, a good many intellectuals try to reduce historical fi gures to the same level as theirs. But, is this an “equal” footing?

For example, they choose to deconstruct historical fi gures including Confucius, Laozi and Mencius as “poor homeless dogs” or low fellows.When they speak about the theorist Zhu Xi, they never care about his philosophical ideas but his anecdotes. They may claim there was no such a person as Laozi or Sakyamuni in history after so-called “investigation.”They, with new archaeological, historical, and geographical discoveries,may even declare core Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist ideas are illusory,which, in the eyes of the public, seem to be scissors or axes attempting to cut clouds.

Over the past more than 100 years of importing “Western learning”to China, outstanding academicians rose in their fi elds. However, their multiple backgrounds behind their achievements tend to have been fi ltered. Particularly, in the current context, religious or “mystical” （as we call it） impacts on them are lessened or removed in China. Examples are: astrology upon the art historian Aby Warburg; evangelicalism upon the critic John Ruskin; religious beliefs upon Sir Isaac Newton,Descartes and the painter Piet Mondrian; The Book of Changes upon the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung; religious people upon art institutions like Bauhaus; and Zen upon the director David Lynch. “Pragmatic”knowledge can be temporarily useful, but a “castrated” learning must always be vulnerable. This, like a sourceless river, will not last long even in a home country, let it alone in a foreign land like China. Actually, we have gravely underestimated the role of sources upon their knowledge.Or, we may have long been accustomed to “overlooking,” “pseudolooking head up,” and have given up the thought of “looking up to the sky overhead.”

3. “Simplistic binary opposition thinking” —“social determinism”—“meaning-clarifying theory” （where “validity” is valued） —“representational theory” —all of these form an interlocking chain,operating in art creation, teaching and criticism. However, artists and researchers seldom ref l ect on their own thinking patterns.

Basically, “dichotomy” is one of normal ways of human thinking.However, if complexity, all-sidedness and historicity are neglected, it will be reduced to “simplistic binary opposition thinking,” an outcome of specif i c time and space—simplif i ed and abstract, causing sharp division into hostile camps and forming “opposition” purposefully to overwhelm one’s rival, which are the habitual steps of this process.

Here lie a key issue—“classif i cation criteria,” which may change in a particular period: historically from “property,” “family background,”to “class stratif i cation due to gap of wealth,” which may be currently a primary variety.

去除复杂，掩盖问题，减弱问题意识，最后坚持的只能是立基于自己存在“伪立场”。站位易得，“立场”难求。

既然不能寄托于“超越性”，则走向“现实性”。而这个现实性，又桎梏在“社会决定论”强硬的框架之中。由于“简单抽象思维”的隔膜，此“现实”非彼“现实”，而是各种话语，尤其是主流话语所制造的浮光掠影。在这里，“话语”的真实性恰恰是不容置疑的，它不仅是认知问题，文化问题，也是政治问题，国家意识形态问题。

为了追求艺术的有效性，必然强调意义的明确性，如此便需要删繁就简，丧失的是艺术的微妙性、模糊性，而“微妙性”“模糊性”正是艺术的价值所在。比如，将绘画作品削减为一个口号容易做到，但可能得到的只是一张具有明确意义的宣传画。如果还是词不达意，可以在画上面写上标语。

“简单的二元对立思维”恰恰与20世纪所推崇的“再现论”暗渠相通。主客观世界分裂，无论如何再现、表现，都可以视为主客观世界沟通的一个桥梁，但此时丧失了主客体相容、相融、合一的可能性。何况，“再现论”有一层华丽的外衣，那就是科学。当科学求真精神变为“唯科学主义”的时候，它又变成一套更加强硬的桎梏，对其不能有丝毫怀疑，科学所推崇的实证反而退居二位，乃至烟消云散了。

如此之“再现”，其实只是模仿，或者照抄，对象可能是风景、山水、特定人群，抑或是图像构成的第二现实，但除了证明自己具有不明所以然的技法能力之外，实在看不到其他什么价值。

传统艺术形式，比如绘画、雕塑等如此，观念艺术、装置艺术、多媒体艺术等等无不落入窠臼。创作如此，教学亦然。作品艺术形式的花哨，并不能掩盖固化模式的影响，乃至限制。

4．现实世界的迫切性、长期的劣势地位所导致的民族自卑心理使“超越性”似乎遥不可及。

“平视”是平等对话的前提。但百余年来，国力的衰落，民族的屈辱，经济的劣势，科技的落后，这些集体性的记忆已经深深影响了个体心理状态。我们不但不能仰望星空，还仰视“西方”。

“西方”当然是一个包含着太多信息的术语。它有自己的历史渊源，也有自己的盛衰曲折。但当这个“西方”被抽象化为一个笼统的概念的时候，它的能指早就发生了无尽的漂移。而在中国百余年的历史中，对它的观照、憧憬、反叛、抗争都在强化它的存在。

隔在星空之间的这团云层可能百余年后会淡淡略去，但此时它的存在毋庸置疑。暴雨之下，怎能妄谈“超越之维”？至少大多数的民众是很难做到的。

在这样一种心理之下，即使有艺术家取得了全球意义上的某种成就，当其作品涉及某种“超越性”时，吊诡的是，反而被国内环境下成长起来的一些批评家所不容。批评的逻辑也极为简单与粗暴——这些艺术家借用了“中国传统符号”。

简单抽象的思维往往看不到艺术作品的价值所在以及其微妙性，而最容易捕捉到的就是“符号”。这类阅读模式的背后，其实还是追求明确意义的冲动，仍然是简单“再现论”的比照逻辑。

5．20世纪特定的知识构成使对中国古代画论核心词的理解蛇影杯弓，也影响到对中国画的阐释。

在“唯科学主义”“再现论”的背景下，对中国古代画论核心词的理解往往发生了扭曲。比如“外师造化，中得心源”。

在现有的惯常阐释中，对它的解释是：“造化”，即大自然，“心源”即作者内心的感悟。“外师造化，中得心源”也就是说艺术创作来源于对大自然的师法，同时源自自己内心的感受。在这样的一种解释中，可以注意到几个问题：

If complexity is removed, problems are concealed, and questioning consciousness is weakened, what is then left is a “pseudo stance” for one to hold on. For us a spot is easy to get, while a “stance” is hard to fi nd.

When we cannot depend on “transcendence,” we have to turn to “reality.” However, this reality is shackled within the iron-clad framework of “social determinism.” With the hindering of “simplistic abstract thinking”, this distorted “reality” is but a body of broken pieces created by a variety of discourses, especially by mainstream ones. Here,the authenticity of “discourse” is precisely beyond doubt, which is not only cognitive, cultural, but also political, and nationally ideological.

If we are to ensure the effectiveness of art, the clarity of meaning must be emphasized. Then simplif i cation is a sure choice, but at the cost of subtlety and ambiguity, which precisely ref l ect the value of art. For example, it is easy to reduce a piece of painting to a slogan, but what is left may be just a poster with a definite meaning. Then, if still the meaning is not well expressed, a slogan may be added to the painting.

In fact, “simplistic binary opposition thinking” coincides with“representational theory” in a secret way, which was greatly valued in the 20th century. When the subjective and objective worlds are divided, either representation or expression can be regarded as a bridge connecting the two, but at the cost of chances of combining or blending them. Further, “representation” has a gorgeous cloak with it—science.When the spirit of truth-seeking in science devolves into “scientism,” it turns into even tougher shackles bearing the least doubt. At this point,positivism, which was originally valued in science, has retired or even disappeared.

Accordingly, such “representation” is nothing but imitation. Though the painter’s object may be scenery, landscape, a given population, or a second reality consisting of images, little value can be seen from his work, except proving the artist’s skills whose wherefores he might not know himself.

It is also true with traditional art forms, e.g. painting, sculpture. So is it with conceptual art, installation art, multimedia art, and whatsoever.Such a situation exists in both art creation and teaching. Therefore, the diversity of art forms cannot hide the effects or restrictions of stereotyped modes.

4. “Transcendence” seems unattainable due to the urgency of the real world and the national inferiority complex caused by China’s longterm vulnerable status.

“An equal perspective” is a prerequisite for equal dialogue. But over the past a hundred years, miserable collective memories—China’s poor strength, historical humiliation, disadvantageous economy, backward technology—all have deeply affected individuals’ psychological state.Chinese nationals would not look up to the sky—thinking about their nation’s future; they would even worship “the West.”

To speak of “the West,” this is truly a broad term. It has its own origin, rise and decline. But when it is so abstract as to become a general concept, its signif i er has long been drifting endlessly. In fact, any effort of contemplating on, longing, disobeying or fi ghting with the West has strengthened its existence over the past a hundred years of Chinese history.

Though such an impediment may fi nally disappear a century later,its presence is beyond doubt for the time being. In this context, how can we address the “dimension of transcendence?”

Under such a mentality, even if an artist makes certain achievement in a global sense, whose work involves “transcendence,” some Chinese critics who have grown up in a domestic environment will not accept him. This is surprising enough. Their logic of criticism is extremely rude and simple—use of “traditional Chinese symbols.”

With simplistic abstract thinking, one tends to neglect the value of artwork and its subtlety; “symbols” will be so near at hand. Behind this reading mode, in fact, is still an impulse to pursue a clear meaning, a comparative logic of simplistic “representational theory.”

5. The particular 20th century knowledge composition led to a distorted understanding of core concepts in ancient Chinese painting theory and artworks.

Such a misunderstanding occurs in the context of “scientism” and“representational theory.” Let us take the ancient painter Zhang Zao’s statement “Wai Shi Zao Hua, Zhong De Xin Yuan” （ the division comes in a psychological source ） as an example.

As a usual interpretation, Zao Hua is taken as nature, and Xin Yuan as the artist’s inner comprehension. So, that idea means that art creation derives from imitating nature, and from the painter’s own feelings at the same time. However, here four doubts arise as follows:

第一，“造化”被物质化、静态化、客观对象化为“大自然”，“万物相生，生生不息”的演变之理、动态特征在这样的解释中完全看不到。“物质化”“静态化”过程和20世纪流行的“唯科学主义”有关，当然，唯物论在此起了至关重要的作用。而“客观对象化”很大程度上是主客观二分法的流行所造成的必然。

第二，“师”，在“再现论”的背景下，多被理解为“模仿”“临摹”。在这个词组中，“师”是一个动词，除了有“观察”等视觉层面上的含义之外，应该包含了“人”（不仅是艺术家）面对“造化”所构建关系的所有题中之意，比如“体悟”“感知”，也包含“敬畏”“天人合一”等更深层的哲学含义。这个问题看起来只是个理论问题，其实直接影响到艺术家的“观看之道”，“创作之法”。

第三，“中”被时代化了。按照对仗要求来讲，“外师造化，中得心源”中的“中”应该为“内”，或者“里”，但是张璪写的是“中”。而恰恰“中”与儒道释三家都密切相关。比如“中庸”等，又和三家实践者静坐、打坐、修行的身心经历以及追求相关。问题是，“中”所普遍理解成的“内”，是个什么样的内？是翻江倒海、瞬息万变之念头，还是现代主义所推崇的精神癫狂，极致追求之渴求，抑或是澄明之境，还是洛克的“白板”，以及“中庸”“涅槃”“悟道”？几种状态，哪一种可谈“得”物象相生之法，气韵贯通之理，万物自在之道？如果联系到“致中和，天地位焉，万物育焉”，“中”在此处更多的是一种修为状态，而非惯常解释之“内心”。

第四，时下的理解，“中得心源”“得”到了情绪、感知、情感波动、灵感时刻，乃至激情。将“心之波动”理解为“心源”，这就类似把河流的波纹理解为河流的源头了。

对中国古代画论核心概念作“当下理解”的情况比比皆是。每个时代都会对以往的概念进行重新阐释，这不足为奇，奇怪之处在于，当宏大的、被删除了超越性的西方学科系统笼罩在本不以学科划分的“画论”之上时，基本切断了“画论”更深层的精神指向，尤其简单化了画论作者经史子集的治学背景，以及个人道德诉求，更甚之，曲解了他们的生命状态。这不仅是对于画论作者，也包含我们现在所称的“画家”。

二、忽视“超越性”遮蔽了什么？

1．“主体”问题的被忽视。反映在美术界，“当代艺术家”被单层面化，“艺术家”精神活动的复杂性、个体性、超越性被忽视。

从历史维度上来讲，“文人”向“知识分子”的转变，本来就是“主体”的严重撕裂。知识分子的反思和批判，当遭遇各种壁垒，而没有体制为其保驾护航的时候，其影响力和时效性就更值得怀疑，知识分子找寻自我定位的痛苦也就可想而知了。修身，未必齐家，更别说平天下了。

20世纪以来，以往的读书人一直在找寻自己新的定位，不舍传统，又能积极入世，“新儒家”基本是在这样的时空节点上产生的。如今看来，这一脉在现实中的实践并不得意。

自觉归类为“知识分子”一员的“艺术家”，只能放入这一更宏观的身份角色定位中去考量。目前，“艺术家”如何看待自己的艺术实践、现实定位、传承节点、与西学关系？尽管当下没有多少艺术家做此类思考，但不思考不见得问题消失。事实是，这些问题在更深层面不停地搅动着艺术家的神经，呈现出价值取向，乃至艺术创作的混乱。

雪上加霜的是，对艺术家的深度个案分析至今依然严重欠缺。符号化解读的结果，致使很多艺术家被单层面化了。优秀的艺术家不停地向前探索，而“标签”似乎却不消失。有些艺术家本身也在藏家期待、市场行为的作用中不得不屈服，成为符号、专利的复制者。

First, “Zao Hua,” when regarded as nature, gets materialized, static,and objectif i ed. Nonetheless, no dynamic characteristics and evolutionary truth of “endless mutual generation of all things” can be seen at all in this interpretation！ “Getting materialized” and “static” is related to“scientism,” which was popular in the 20th century. Of course, in this process materialism plays a crucial role. Moreover, “objectif i cation” is largely an inevitable outcome of dichotomy popularization involving the subjective and the objective.

Secondly, “Shi” is often misunderstood only as “copy”, a verb with a visual meaning of “observe,” under the background of “representational theory.” In fact it should include both connotations involving “humans”（not only artists） and their opposite “Zao Hua”, e.g. “experience,”“perceive,” and deeper philosophical meanings, e.g. “revere,” “unite heaven and man.” This seems a mere theoretical issue, which in fact directly affects the artist’s ways of “viewing” and “creating.”

Thirdly, “Zhong” is wrongly given a contemporary meaning. As required for traditional Chinese antithesis, it should have been replaced herein by “Nei” or “Li”, meaning the inner. However, Zhang purposefully chose such a different word, which precisely has close ties with three Chinese beliefs: Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism （as in “Zhong Yong,” the doctrine of mean） and their followers who sit in meditation for moral purif i cation. Then our doubt is: if we take “Zhong” as “Nei,” what does it mean then? Wild, capricious inner thoughts? A modernism-valued crazy state of mind, or an extreme longing for ultimate perfection? A calm, clear saintly scene, or tabula rasa as put in John Locke’s theory?Or “the doctrine of mean,” “Nirvana,” “approaching the ultimate truth of the universe?” Which of them can “lead to” the law of mutual generation of things and images; the fl ow of artistic resonance; and fi nal freedom of all things? However, if we remember the statement “Zhi Zhong He,Tian Di Wei Yan, Wan Wu Yu Yan,” meaning the heaven and the earth are put in good order and all things begin to prosper when moderateness is achieved, it is safe to say that “Zhong” is rather a show of self-discipline state or kind of religious cultivation state than inner feelings as generally understood to be.

Fourthly, it is wrong to take “the fl uctuations of the mind” as “the origin of the mind,” like taking ripples on the river as the source of it. A current misunderstanding is that, with “Zhong De Xin Yuan,” we “get”emotions, perceptions, emotional fluctuations, moments of inspiration,and even passion.

Such examples of “contemporary misunderstanding” are countless.It is natural that every generation reinterprets historical concepts.But it is surprising that “painting theories,” which should have never been categorized like disciplines, are overshadowed by broad Western disciplinary systems, from which transcendence has been unfortunately removed in China. So, deeper, spiritual dimensions that “painting theories” may concern are basically cut off. Particularly, painting theorists’ academic background involving Confucian classics, history,philosophy, belles-lettres, and their moral pursuit are oversimplified.Even worse, their life status may be misinterpreted. This is also true with painting theorists and “painters” that we call today.

II. What Has Been Shrouded When We Neglect“Transcendence?”

1. “The subject.” As shown in the community of Chinese fine arts, “contemporary artists” are unilaterally understood; the complexity,individuality and transcendence in their mental activity are neglected.

Historically, the transition from “literati” to “intellectuals” suggests deterioration of the status of “the subject.” The inf l uence and timeliness of intellectuals’ reflection and criticism are doubtful particularly when they face various barriers and no off i cial system stands by them. Then it is easy for us to understand their pain in seeking their own position. In fact cultivating one’s moral character does not necessarily bring good luck to his family or his country.

Since the 20th century, intellectuals have been looking for a new position, struggling to balance themselves between tradition and the secular world. It was in this spatio-temporal node that “Neo-Confucianism” was born. So far their practice has been unsuccessful in reality.

There are “artists” who consciously regard themselves as“intellectuals.” Only when they are placed in this broader identity role can we measure them. Currently, how do “artists” treat their own practice, positioning in reality, tradition-inheriting nodes, and relationship with Western learning? Although not many of them think about these,such concerns remain there, which, in fact, trouble their nerves from time to time in a profound way, showing confusion in value orientation and even in creation.

现实层面如此，在此语境中，再谈“超越性”，仿佛是一种奢侈。艺术家是一个时代最有可能接近“超越性”的群体，事实上，很多艺术家的确在做此类探索。

问题是，对中国艺术家传统转化创作的阐释常常遇到归类于“玄学”的困境，无论这位艺术家动用的何种传统哲学理念，都引不起观众或者批评者的兴趣。“神道儿了”，“玩玄的”！诸如此类的口语评价，可以折射出批评界对此类创作的兴趣索然。这一方面可能在于艺术家创作的无力，更可能是批评家自身对传统的无知。以基督教作为自己精神寄托的艺术家也面临类似的尴尬。

与此相类似的是，高名潞所提出的“意派论”所受到的冷遇。高名潞指出西方艺术史仍然受困于“二元对立”的理论架构，“再现论”依然是其最根本的理论核心。他在对中国哲学的梳理中，期望给当代艺术以传统衔接之可能，由此提出了“意派论”观点，并做了细致的当代艺术梳理。尴尬的是，由于过多触及到“传统”，至今在批评界并无有效的回应，也无有效的分析。一曲独奏，满座动容，而无觥筹交互。

2．“艺术语言”问题的被忽视，背后是对“艺术本体”的无视。“语言”相对于“题材”、“立场”而言，变得好像不太重要。

在三十多年的中国当代艺术的发展历程中，“题材批判”“前卫批判”发挥了作用，但“艺术语言的批判性”在文本梳理、展览展示中一直被忽视。在“事件”优先、“戾场”至上的当代艺术氛围中，前两种批判中的潜在的“艺术语言”线索也被遮蔽。深层原因是对“艺术本体”的严重忽略，更深的原因来自于“庸俗社会文化论”的扭曲变形，无孔不入。

如果细致梳理中国当代艺术史，从吴冠中对“形式美”重要性的提出，到“85美术新潮”艺术家在语言层面的探索（比如浙江美术学院张培力、耿建翌有意识地以“平涂”对抗“伤痕美术”艺术家的苏联、法国绘画技法传承），乃至90年代的“政治波普”艺术家的语言特质（比如张晓刚这段时期绘画语言特征的转变），以及新媒体艺术、装置艺术、摄影、行为艺术等等，都可以发现“语言”一直是困扰、促成艺术家创作的一个最敏感也最具挑战性的命题。更毋论中国抽象艺术家的持续探索，实验水墨艺术家融合中西，这些在现在看来并不十分成功的努力。

时下，当代艺术家的“艺术语言探索”已经弥漫出视觉语言层面，或者抽象艺术领域，已经成为“主体”自我呈现的一种方式。“物质性”“身体在场”被反复提及，两者紧密的咬合关系也已经建立，他们的“批判”已经冲出“题材优先”“立场优先”这一弥漫于20世纪中国艺术的迷雾，并与西方艺术界对此问题的探索表现出相当大的差异。如果此时不把这样一种探索进行充分展现，可能是我们的失职。

3．忽视的艺术现象：

（1）恪守“传统”一脉的水墨创作被忽视，近几年有转机，比如卢甫圣、丘挺、泰祥洲、侯拙吾、何建丹等。相对于求新图变的国画家来讲，这些艺术家避免陷入二元对立的“再现论”窠臼，从宋元明清，乃至先秦寻找探寻国画产生的源头，于笔墨方寸间，将自己对文化传承的体悟、时代格局的判断注入其中。在风格求异求新的今天，其作品不是让人兴奋，而是让人敬畏和沉静。

（2）“素人”画家被忽略。他们是没有经过专业训练，但基于特殊经历从事艺术创作的艺术家，这类艺术家在中国数量庞大，且很多作品艺术价值很高，比如最近几年出现的“美院食堂画家”汪化。前几年，长征空间推出“素人艺术家”郭凤仪，上一届威尼斯双年展，郭凤仪作品参加了主题展。网上的讨论集中在郭凤仪的“神婆”身份，以及她知识结构中的道教渊源。其实，中国当代艺术界对如此“身份”、如此“玄学背景”的艺术家是缺少容纳度的，本来“素人艺术家”在国内艺术圈一直不被关注，他们的出路主要在于获得国外诸多素人艺术家博物馆的“发现”。网上一面风传着澳大利亚一位老太太80岁才开始学画，作品价值上百万的“传奇”，一面对自己本国的“素人艺术家”嗤之以鼻。这里真是出现了一个奇妙的滑稽风景！更有问题的是，这背后到底出了什么问题？

Worse is the fact that there is still a serious lack of in-depth case study of individual artists. As a result symbolic interpretation leads to underrating many of them. Brilliant artists continue their exploring efforts, but the “label” on them remains untouched. Some yield to expectations from collectors or to market behavior, degrading themselves to the position of symbol and patent copiers.

In such a realistic context, any debate over “transcendence”seems to be a luxury. Arguably, artists are a community that is likely to be closest to “transcendence,” many of whom are on their way in this direction indeed.

The problem is: any effort to interpret Chinese artists’transformation from tradition often encounters the dilemma of“metaphysics.” Whatever traditional philosophical ideas an artist deals with will arouse no interest from critics or the audience. Their responses are “Greek to me！” “Too mysterious！’ and the like, which unmistakably reflect critics’ indifference about such creation. This is likely to have resulted from artists’ inability of creation, but more likely from critics’own ignorance of tradition. Artists who believe in Christianity face similar embarrassment.

Again similarly, the critic Gao Minglu’s “Yi Pai theory” has been coldly greeted. He notes that Western art history remains trapped in the theoretical structure of “binary opposition,” whose core is still“representational theory.” While examining Chinese philosophy, he hopes to connect contemporary art with tradition by his Yi Pai theory,and has done a careful study of it. However, it is embarrassing that his ideas have received no effective response or analysis because they touch on “tradition” too frequently. His innovation has aroused just concern, no interaction.

2. “Art language” as well as “art itself” are ignored. “Language”seems less important than “subject matter” and “stance.”

In the course of more than 30 years development of contemporary Chinese art, “subject matter criticism” and “avant-garde criticism”have showed their significance. However, the “criticality of artistic language” has always been neglected in text study and exhibitions.In an art atmosphere where “event” is given priority and “emotional aggressiveness” prevails, potential “art language” clues in the first two criticisms are no longer seen. For this, a deep reason is the serious neglect of “art itself,” and another further one is all-pervasive, distorted,“vulgar socio-culturalism”.

A close look at contemporary Chinese art history shows that“language” is a most sensitive and challenging issue which has troubled and contributed to artists’ creation, from the painter Wu Guanzhong addressing the value of “ beauty in form” to “’85 New Wave” activists exploring in the perspective of language （e.g. Zhang Peili and Geng Jianyi of Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts consciously rose against “Scar”artists who followed Soviet and French painting techniques with their technique of even application of color）, to the 1990s’ “political pop”artists showing language idiosyncrasy （e.g. Zhang Xiaogang, whose painting language characteristics changed in this period）, and to those engaging in new media art, installation art, photography and performance.A more telling example is China’s abstract artists continuing their similar efforts, and experimental ink painters absorbing Chinese and Western elements, though without much success so far.

Present-day “artistic language exploration” has gone beyond the level of visual language or the scope of abstract art, and has become a self-presenting way of “the subject”. “Materiality” and “presence of the body” have been so repeatedly mentioned that close engaging ties between the two have formed. Their “criticisms” have dispersed the mist of “subject matter priority” and “stance priority” which overshadowed China’s art over the 20th century, showing a signif i cant difference from efforts in the Western art world. So, if we fail to seize this opportunity to present such explorations, that would be our substantial neglect of duty.

3. Artistic phenomena neglected:

（1） The school of “traditional” ink painting. However, recent years have seen improvement, e.g. in the works of the artists Lu Fusheng,Qiu Ting, Tai Xiangzhou, Hou Zhuowu, and He Jiandan. In contrast to reformist traditional Chinese painters, they try to avoid the trap of“representational theory” of binary opposition. They trace the origin of traditional Chinese painting back to the dynasties of Qing, Ming,Yuan, Song, even back to the pre-Qin period, and translate their insights into tradition and modernity into works. In this novelty-seeking age,their works are not to bring the audience excitement but reverence and serenity.

（3）艺术界、学院创作中的“有机”“世界”倾向被忽视。如果对此现象不太明了，我们可以设想美国著名女性艺术家奥基弗，如果在中国，她会是怎样的遭遇？

与此相对应，是对“爱”的表述的乏力。2015年11月，配合在林冠画廊的个展，小野洋子的讲座在中央美术学院美术馆举行。在讲座之前，小野洋子用毛笔写下“世界人民团结幸福福福福”几个大字。后期对讲座的报道，多集中在她看似怪异的行为，其实“爱”是小野洋子在整个过程中最为关注的话题，这不禁让“恨意”弥漫的中国当代艺术界尴尬。

其实当代艺术圈、美院都不缺乏有着丰富的个人世界、从动植物世界汲取作品意象的艺术家和学生。她们的世界丰富、富饶，充满着神奇丰富的线条与色彩，那是一个绚丽多彩、爱意充盈的世界。在寻找“意义”的观众面前，她们的作品多是“无效”的。太爱找寻意义了，哪怕给你一个世界，他们也会毫不感动！

（4）抽象风格（或者“意象”风格）艺术的精神内涵长期被忽视，近几年有好转迹象，比如尚扬、谭平、马路青等人的创作逐渐被重视。出现这一现象，和“艺术语言”长期被忽视密切相关。更深层面讲，抽象绝非仅仅是语言问题，艺术形式问题，它所呈现的艺术家对完整主体性的追求，对传统渊源当代转化的探索，都蕴含着丰富的基因。

在他们的创作中，笔触如有温度的生命印记，颜料交织融合的肌理似张开的毛孔，呼吸着，证明不为再现服务的自我的在场。笔触作为身体与物质触碰的结果，成为身体与物质交互生成的异质存在。当这一存在的目的，不再仅仅服务于客观世界的图像再现时，笔触自身的特性便得以在画布上自由显现。笔触仿佛成为了物质与画家的精神肉体，时而转动，时而狂奔，时而跳跃，时而慢行。画家通过动作牵动着笔触，体验着生命运动的痕迹——上一刻的速度、这一刻的力度以及下一刻的方向；另一方面，笔触自我激活的强烈的在场性也对身体形成强大的吸引力：由身体所控制的每一次落笔都由前一笔所引导，笔笔相生。

艺术家身体内的气息游动与心念变化伴随双手的游走穿附艺术品。稍对画面用心的观者便能感知这种精神上的气息是如何穿透毛孔，随着呼吸进入心灵。因此，身体与作品的关系不再仅发生于艺术家身上，而向观众身上蔓延，形成一种即时的观看现场。此时，“剧场”存在与否已经不是关键因素。

艺术家的主体构建既需要时刻内省式的自我反观，也需要保持对于“物”的敏感与反思。这双重体验是参透心性与物性的起点，若将这两种省思深入下去，主体构建的过程便逐渐清晰地显现成“物我同化”的过程，并通过艺术创作最终于作品中展现其融合的成果。

由于每个人的心性不同，面对的物性不同，“物我同化”过程及落实在“体”上的语言转译也就丰富不同。物性与心性的交织让外在的“体”变成一种实在的错觉，并只有相信这是一种错觉，才能看到主体的心性与物性是以何种样貌交融于这个世界的，从而成为中国当代艺术家拒绝再现主义、坚持语言纯化的一种独特方式。艺术语言使“物”的实在结构与文化心理之间形成巨大的张力——隐秘的力量。

（2） “Outsider artists” as a group. They are an untrained body of artists whose creation depends on special past experience. They are great in number, and many of their works are high in artistic value. A recent example is Wang Hua, an “outsider” working with a dining hall at China Central Academy of Fine Arts. There is Guo Fengyi, a female“outsider artist”. She fi rst appeared in public in Long March Space years ago. She also attended the thematic exhibition in the previous Venice Biennale. However, debate online focused on her identity—“a witch”—and her connection with Taoism. In fact, the Chinese art community lacks due recognition of those with such “identity” and “metaphysical background.” Domestically, they gain little attention, who expect to “be discovered” by foreign museums open to “outsider artists” just like them.To our delight, there is a success story far out in Australia—a “legend”:an old lady began to learn drawing at the age of 80, and her artwork is worth over one million dollars now！ So, what a sharp difference！Ridiculous！ What is the matter behind the contrast?

（3） The “organic” and “internationalization” tendencies in the creation of art professionals and college teachers. If we know little about this, we can imagine: what would happen to Georgia O’Keeffe, a famous U.S. female artist, if she were in China?

Therefore, the expression of “love” is pale in China. I remember Yoko Ono, who delivered a lecture at China Central Academy of Fine Arts in November 2015, in support of a solo show at Faurschou Beijing. Before the lecture, she brushed out 11 Chinese words with big strokes: “Shi Jie Ren Min Tuan Jie Xing Fu Fu Fu Fu,” meaning that the united world people are all happy. Later, the coverage of her lecture mostly focused on her seemingly odd behavior. In fact, “love” was her primary concern in the whole process, and that embarrassed China’s contemporary art world, which is fi lled with “hatred”.

In fact, either China’s contemporary art circle or academies of fi ne arts do not lack artists and students with colorful, personal worlds, who absorb images from habitats of animals and plants. Their worlds are full of rich, magical lines and colors—a rosy, charitable space. However, in the eyes of the audience who pursue “meaning,” most of their works are“invalid.” If people only keep their eye on “meaning,” they would never be moved even for the whole world！

（4） The spiritual connotations in abstract-style （or “image” style）art. Neglect in this field has been long, though signs of improvement have shown in recent years （for example, the artworks of Shang Yang,Tan Ping, and Ma Luqing have gained wide attention）. This phenomenon is closely related to the long-neglected “art language.” From the deep sense, abstraction involves not just language or artistic form at all;actually, it suggests clues to an artist’s pursuit of complete subjectivity,and exploration of transforming age-old tradition to meet contemporary needs.

In the process of creation, their drawing strokes are like emotional imprints of life. Textures of intertwining pigments seem to be open pores, breathing and proving that the self is being present, no longer for the sake of representation. Strokes, as an interacting result of the body and the material, become a heterogeneous existence outside them. When this existence ceases to represent the images of the objective world,strokes’ own characteristics unfold freely on the canvas. They seem a spiritual body for both the material and the artist: moving around,running, jumping, or slowing down from time to time. The painter,while maneuvering his strokes through movements, is experiencing the traveling traces of life: the previous moment’s speed, this moment’s strength, and the next moment’s direction. On the other hand, the intense presence of strokes through self-activation creates a strong appeal to the body in turn: every ending stroke controlled by the body is ushered in by its predecessor; and this cycle repeats.

Then, the running energy within the artist’s body, his active mind and his moving hands begin to act upon the work. A careful viewer can perceive how this spiritual breath penetrates into his pores, and into his mind together with inhalation. Therefore, what exists between the body and the work no longer remains in the artist alone, but extends to the audience, forming a real-time scene. At this moment, whether the“theater” exists or not is no longer a key factor.

For an artist, subjectivity-constructing requires both introspection and lasting sensitivity to “object” and reflection. This dual experience is the starting point of comprehending temperament and objecthood.If the two channels of thinking go deeper, the process of subjectivityconstructing will, more clearly, evolve into that of “the continuity of object and self,” whose result will eventually come in the form of fi nalized artwork.

（5）对当代艺术家的近期创作转型阐释的无力，如面对隋建国《盲人摸象》、展望《应形》近几年无明确主题指向、符号或者材质无明确含义的创作，很多批评处于“失语”状态。作为中国最具代表性的两位艺术家、雕塑家，为何几乎同一时期出现了这一转向？这是偶然吗？显然不是，是他们在与“物”（雕塑泥，不锈钢）几十年浸润中，激活了身体与材质的互通性，而这与中国人注重触觉的感知方式息息相关！

“物”是什么？“物”在被披上“实在”这层外衣的同时，其实处于了真空状态。“极简主义”在进行极致的“物”展示时，企图以“实在”凸显物性，只是停留于物质的物理外表层面，并配合剧场化的情境从视觉上对观者进行“欺骗”。“形式”只是物质的形貌。即使“极简主义”艺术家参与了“形貌”的制作，这样的“介入”也并没有将“艺术家”糅入作品之中。艺术家还是“物质”的“观望者”，其背景仍然是主客体对立关系的世界观。

关注“物我相融”关系，不仅表现在中国传统文化的各种文本中，作为哲学，抑或玄学，也缺少与当下衔接的土壤。但这一关系，在日常生活层面，依然影响着人们对物我关系的理解，也影响着艺术家在创作过程中对材质的感受方式和介入方式。

“主体”感知方式的特殊性，会导致作品艺术语言的差异性。受弗雷德所质疑的“剧场”中的“物性”，因中国艺术家对“物质”的特殊理解与感知，再加上其身体所承载的历史记忆，在创作过程中将这一感受糅入作品材质之中，反而使作品具备了相对的“自足性”——没有剧场，这些作品依然可以成立。

其实，隋建国和展望的近期创作让我看到了可能性！

（6）因为不符合时下主流批评话语的理论架构，“隐士”艺术家的被大量忽视。山西大张的自杀，可能是中国当代艺术界绕不过去的一个话题。在过多以市场价格、知名度、出镜率为追逐对象的当代艺术界，诸多默默探索、体系庞杂、精神指向超越的艺术家并没有获得关注，任其自生自灭。

三、忽视“超越性”抬高了什么？

1．“主体”的简单化，“戾场”优先、“立场”缺失的艺术创作的哗众取宠。

在当代艺术领域，艺术家也需要表态，通过艺术作品进行言说，表达自己的文化批判性和前卫性。“表态”是艺术家艺术立场、思考状态的呈现，也是艺术家获得“前卫”身份的必备条件。笔者质疑的是，当“表态”变成一种身份从而获得筹码的时候，这种表态已经变得无足轻重，只是名利场的赌注、噱头，和出身鉴定、血亲认祖没有任何区别。尤其值得注意的是，在商业利益充斥的当代艺术领域里，这种表态成了获得经济成功的途径，以及故作姿态而全然没有实质内涵的“前卫”艺术家的一部分，有点类似激愤的小丑，做着文化巨人的美梦。

强调文化多元、突出身份差异、做虚拟的政治批判、对时下全球格局进行后殖民主义分析……在所有的现实政治环境和意识形态控制的氛围中，这些姿态都具有背离现实、反思现实的正确性。但在艺术领域，判断这种正确性的基础是什么？是不是仅有一种姿态就够了？批评家是不是看到一种反叛的姿态，就要赞誉有加？在当代艺术领域，对现实社会的反叛姿态已经具有一种无法讨论的“正确性”，对这种姿态的质疑仿佛就是和主流的合谋，但是我要质疑的是，如果一种没有立场的“反叛”沦落为“时尚”和投机取巧的“捷径”以后，它的针对性是什么？批判性何在？如果说主流艺术是在给现实涂抹脂粉，那么在我看来，这些伪前卫艺术家是在用貌似鲜血的红颜料使自己在前卫艺术领域“红光亮”。

The process of “the continuity of object and self” and the rendering of language into the “carrier” vary considerably with an artist’s temperament and objecthood he faces, the interaction of which makes the external “carrier” into a real illusion. Only when this is convinced to be an illusion can we see how the temperament of the subject and object are blended in this world, thus forming a unique way for contemporary Chinese artists to reject representational theory and adhere to language purification. The artistic language creates a huge tension possible between the real structure of the “object” and cultural psychology—a hidden force.

（5） Interpretation of the transition in recent works of contemporary artists. For example, little criticism is available to the sculptor Sui Jianguo’s The Blind Men and the Elephant, and the sculptor Zhan Wang’s Morph, which show no clear theme, or whose symbols and material show no def i nite meaning. Why did they—China’s most representative sculptors—make this shift almost at the same time? Is this a coincidence?Obviously not. In fact, decades of their contact with “objects” （sculpture clay, stainless steel） have activated an intercommunication between the body and the material, which is closely linked to Chinese people’s way of sensing, which emphasizes a sense of touch！

What is “object” then? Since the moment it is given a “literalist”meaning, it starts to remain in a vacuum state. When “minimalism”displays an “object” in an extreme way, it is attempting to highlight“objecthood” with “literalness,” which remains only at an external,physical surface level, and visually “deceives” the viewer, with the support of the theatrical scene. “Form” is nothing but physical appearance. Even if “minimalists” participate in the making of the“appearance,” such an “intervention” never incorporates “the artist” into his work, who is still an observer of “substance”, and whose background still reflects a world view in which the subject and the object conflict with each other.

The “object and one self in harmony,” which is attributed to philosophy or metaphysics in traditional Chinese cultural texts, lacks a link to our age, because both philosophy and metaphysics are currently overlooked. Such a relationship plays its role in the public’s daily life,and also influences the artist’s ways of perceiving the material and intervening in it in creation.

The particular mode of the subject’s perception will lead to differentiation of artistic language concerning works. In opposition to the “objecthood” in “theatricality” questioned by Fried, Chinese artists have a special understanding and perception of “substance.” Further with historical memories their body has carried, they incorporate this feeling into the material of works in the process of creation, which enables the work itself to possess relative “self-suff i ciency”—without theatricality,these works can stand themselves.

In fact, the recent works of Sui Jianguo and Zhan Wang give the author hopes of such a possibility！

（6） “Hermit” artists. They are largely overlooked, whose artworks clash with the theoretical framework provided by current prevailing critic discourses. The suicide of the performance artist Zhang Shengquan may be a topic that the community of China’s contemporary art cannot elude.Countless honest, marginalized and noble-minded artists are left at the mercy of fate in an age when high market value, popularity and frequent public appearances are worshiped.

III. What Has Resulted from Neglect of“Transcendence?”

1. The simplif i cation of the “subject,” lack of stance, and “emotional aggressiveness” priority to please the audience.

In the fi eld of contemporary art, artists need to air their attitudes—their own cultural criticality and avant-garde via artwork. This is a presentation of their artistic mind and stance, and a prerequisite to acquire his identity as an “avant-garde artist.” However, the author suspects that, once such an identity is acquired and then used as a bargaining counter, this airing will be worthless—nothing but another form of bet or stunt in Vanity Fair, nothing different from blood ties identif i cation.Particularly, it is noteworthy that, in the circle of contemporary art where commercialism prevails, this act is a shortcut to profiteering success,reminding so-called affected, “avant-garde” artists who seem to be kind of angry clowns daydreaming to become cultural giants some day.

“仅作为表态的前卫性”之所以成为可能，在于许多艺术家仅将“前卫”视为一种表态，而这种表态和自己的立足点却了无关系，前卫成为一种可以标榜的身份，一种貌似叛逆的、言不由衷的站位。与“传统”的简单对立和盲目逃离，不见得就是“前卫”，缺少现实批判性的“前卫”，就像射出去的无靶之箭，看似极具穿刺性，实则轻歌曼舞，毫无用处。

尽管在现实情况下，各类“他者”的现实权利并没有实质性的增长，但以“他者”为立足点的各类艺术创作却在艺术领域有了独特的地位。一方面，进行此类创作的部分艺术家，或者放大自己的真实边缘状态，或者已经金银满屋、名车豪宅，依然标榜自己的边缘状态，并基于此进行创作。另一方面，以“他者”为处理对象的一部分艺术创作仅将选择“他者”视为一种策略，作为自己进军当代美术界的利器，于是，只有边缘人群成为被选择的对象，唯有血腥暴力成为吸引眼球的诱饵，第三世界反而成为国际展览的“主角”。在这样的正确性中，作品的艺术性无人问津，艺术评价标准成为“题材决定论”的时下变体，艺术作品则沦为理论的注脚，“他者”权利在艺术领域被虚拟地无限扩张。

自文艺复兴以来，“艺术家”这个称呼开始在欧洲获得独立身份，经历过现代主义的“艺术英雄”阶段，“艺术家”获得更加自由的空间，强调“艺术自律”的现代主义艺术史无疑慢慢将这些艺术家奉上了神坛。从尼采说“上帝死了！”之后，艺术家在某种程度上侵占了神坛的一角。尽管在中世纪以及以前，他们更多是为神坛服务的奴婢。

自古以来，中国的职业“画家”“雕塑家”（或者统称为“职业艺术家”）从来没有很高的社会地位。只是更多文人介入绘画，才使其地位得以抬升，但是他们身份的真正获得是在20世纪。西方的社会分层机制影响了中国，“艺术家”逐渐成为一个可以与“读书人”（20世纪分化的一支被称为“知识分子”）平起平坐的社会角色。

这是我们谈论“艺术家”的历史语境。当我们说“艺术家”，我们在说什么？说的是哪个类型的艺术家？

我想很多人反映出的是现代主义的“艺术英雄”们，梵高、塞尚、高更、毕加索、马蒂斯……中国与之对应的林风眠、庞薰琹、关良、常玉、潘玉良、赵无极、吴冠中……杜尚颠覆了现代主义的艺术自律模式之后，我们怎么看艺术家呢？随之而来的社会文化史的研究方法更是从各种角度指点出这些“艺术英雄”与社会的更深层的关联性。

杜尚之后又出现了博伊斯，随后的安迪·沃霍尔、杰夫·昆斯、村上隆，接连颠覆“艺术”和“非艺术”的界限，于是有艺术史学者惊呼：“艺术死亡了！”

这一得到发展的艺术史脉络以共时性的方式在中国纷纷登场，各有一批拥戴者。中国当代艺术以其“批判性”“介入性”“问题针对性”为其主要基点，其实和康有为、陈独秀、徐悲鸿及其学生、国统区、根据地新兴木刻运动，乃至“艺术为工农兵服务”政策有更多的潜在的关联性。

上述两个貌似对立的艺术史阐释模式无时不在影响着中国艺术家。

但有两个问题一直是中国当代艺术的软肋：艺术家主体性的自我建构；中国当代艺术语言的独立性。

It sounds correct to take a ref l ective attitude in any real political or ideologically-controlled environment, e.g. emphasizing cultural diversity,highlighting identity difference, making virtual political criticism,conduct post-colonialism analysis of current global patterns.... But what is the basis for correctness judgment in the art world? Is it enough to take a single attitude only? Is it right for a critic to praise whatever defying attitude he spots? In the fi eld of contemporary art, any rebellious gesture against the real world possesses “correctness” beyond discussion, any questioning of which is taken as a conspiracy with the mainstream. But my suspect is: if a stance-less, indiscriminate rebellion is reduced to a“fashion” and “shortcut” for prof i teering, what are its targets then? What is it critical of? Personally speaking, if the mainstream art is assumed to overpraise reality, those pseudo-avant-garde artists can be deemed to be making themselves striking in avant-garde art with seemingly blood-like red pigment.

Then, why is “avant-garde just as an attitude” possible? The reason is that many artists just hold “avant-garde” as an attitude,which, however, has nothing to do with their standing points, and has become a show-off of identity, an apparently rebellious yet insincere stance. Simplistic opposition to or blind escape from “tradition” is not necessarily “avant-garde.” If any “avant-garde” is not critical of reality, it would be like an aimless arrow, which looks so penetrative at fi rst sight,but will end up feathery and useless.

Although all kinds of actual rights for “the other” have not gained substantial growth in practice, the creation based on “the other” has won a unique position in art. On the one hand, part of such artists exaggerate their true marginal status, or claim they are still on such a status even if they live a luxurious life. On the other hand, others who deal with “the other” select it only as a strategy of rising to prominence in contemporary art. Then only marginalized groups are chosen, and only bloody violence is sensational. Accordingly, the third world countries have become the“arena” of international exhibitions. For so-called correctness, few care about artistry; and art evaluation criterion become a current version of“subject matter determinism.” Works are reduced to the footnotes of theory, and the rights of “the other” are extended unrestrainedly in a virtual manner.

Since the Renaissance, the term “artist” has gained an independent identity in Europe. After the stage of modernist “artistic heroes,” it has won larger space of freedom. Undoubtedly, modernist art history, which emphasizes “the autonomy of art,” has inched its way to enshrine artists.Since the moment the philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche declared,“God is dead！” artists, to some degree, have stealthily occupied a corner of the altar, though they were mostly only servants in service of the altar in the Middle Ages and before.

In ancient times, China’s professional “painters” and “sculptors”（or collectively referred to as “professional artists”） never achieved a high social status. Only after China’s literati joined painting, the former’s status began to rise. However, they had not actually reached their identity until the 20th century. Thanks to the inf l uence of Western social stratif i cation mechanism upon China, “artists” have gradually acquired a social role equal with that of “scholars” （part of whom have been called“intellectuals” after a division in the 20th century）.

The above is the historical context in which we speak about “artists.”So, when we discuss the word, what do we really mean? What type of them we mean?

Many, the author believes, would remember a list of “art heroes”involving modernism: Van Gogh, Paul Cézanne, Paul Gauguin, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, etc. And their Chinese counterparts would be:Lin Fengmian, Pang Xunqin, Guan Liang, Chang Yu, Pan Yuliang, Zao Wou-ki, Wu Guanzhong, etc. How should we treat artists after Marcel Duchamp overturned the art autonomy model in modernism? Then, the approaches to socio-cultural history revealed deeper associations between“art heroes” and society from a variety of perspectives.

Duchamp was followed by Joseph Beuys, Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, and Takashi Murakami, who successively subverted the bounds between “art” and “non-art.” It is no surprise that some art historians announced: “Art is dead！”

Synchronically, this developmental trend of art history is replayed in China, having won waves of supporters. But contemporary Chinese art is mainly based on “criticality,” “intervention,” and “problem-orientation,”which, in fact, have more potential connections with thinkers like Kang Youwei and Chen Duxiu, Xu Beihong and his followers, the KMT-controlled areas, New Woodcut Movement in base areas, and even CPC’s policy that “Art Should Serve the Workers, Peasants and Soldiers.”

在潮流的激荡中，在现今的政治、经济、文化语境的笼罩下，很少有青年人能成为时代的“冲浪者”。技术难以对付情景的时候，做一两声尖叫，或许能引来更多的关注，这也就是“戾场”的由来。纵观这十几年的中国当代艺术，多少青年艺术家采用这样的方式，并策略性地充当“事件艺术家”，当短暂的浪花平息之时，发现自己只是一个尴尬的裸奔哥？

不“立”何来“场”？中国当代艺术的转型期是否已经到来？包括我在内的所有人可能都只感觉到一个朦胧的意象。但基于对自我主体的塑造与深入挖掘、对社会问题更细致关注的心态已经出现，这不能不让人惊喜。

“从戾场到立场”与其说是一个判断，不如说是一份期盼。抛出这个问题本身可能会引来更多的警觉，这份警觉不仅对艺术创作有益，对批评行为、策展活动、当代艺术史的书写可能都有所价值？

2.“艺术语言”的大量简单模仿：比如“德表风”“里希特风”“霍克尼风”“李松松风”“王音风”，当下市场推动的“视觉抽象”风，前些年海外市场大行其道的“抽象水墨风”等等。

在摄影术发明之后，艺术家便在借用各种艺术手段“突围”。某种程度上说，一部西方现代主义艺术史可以视为一部艺术家突围史。更罔论伴随着印刷术的进步，各时期视觉资源、经典作品通过书籍的传播，现在随着网络、移动终端的兴起，世界已经形成一个图像的海洋。除去我们惯称的“自然”（Nature）之外（其实我们观看“自然”的方式，也受到了图像传播的极大影响），艺术家如何处理这一“海洋”，已经是一个无法回避的问题。

中国改革开放之后，艺术界更多遇到的是西方艺术作品图像的轰炸问题。当时能看到比较精美的印刷图片，或更幸运，能出国看到原作的艺术家，在某种程度上都改变了原有的对艺术作品的模糊认识，澄清了对这类艺术形式的误读。当然，他们也感知到一种重压。面对西方绘画语言的精彩纷呈，一部分艺术家选择了模仿，或者不自觉地撞车，由此也引发了当代艺术批评对上世纪80年代部分艺术家的否定。另一部分艺术家在语言自觉的自我提示下，开始了漫长的艺术语言探索之路。

在中国艺术界，“与图像的对话”催生了几个重要事件：

（1）80年代初乡土写实主义绘画的诞生；（2）与之相对应的杭州“池社”艺术家对四川画派部分艺术家的批判，对平涂技法的选择；（3）尽管出发点与“池社”不同，“北方艺术团体”部分艺术家也在风格上选择了忽略激情的冷静笔触；（4）上世纪90年代早期“新生代艺术家”以及“政治波普”艺术的出现；（5）世纪交接时“里希特式平涂技法”的流行，一直持续至2008年里希特个展在中国美术馆举办；（6）随之是“李松松式厚涂技法”各种样式的时下流行，伴随着后两者的，是在“解构主义”的名义下，各种“简单挪用方法”的泛滥，政治家、明星头像成为最多出现在画面中的符号；（7）2006年左右，第四代批评家开始在这个问题上发力，并侧面导致了“抽象艺术”的“繁荣”。可是10年不到，我们悲哀地发现，大多数抽象艺术便成为了“装饰画”，或者“观念的工具画”。尽管有奥利瓦的中国行为兴奋剂，但“抽象”正在被市场提前透支。

其实“与图像的对话”远远没有结束……在中国当代艺术已经受到更多关注的当下，在市场起主导作用、批评逐渐式微的处境中，在国外艺术大师频频来访，引起一个个潮起潮落（里希特风、基弗风、弗洛伊德风、霍克尼风，或者即将爆发的……）的今天，这一“无根之木，无源之水”的境遇如何改变？又如何谈论中国当代艺术的语言逻辑、自足特征？已经成为一个不得不回答的问题！

The above two interpretation modes of art history, seemingly opposite to each other, always exert an inf l uence upon China’s artists.

However, there have been two soft spots in contemporary Chinese art: self-construal in artists’ subjectivity; language independence in contemporary Chinese art.

In the context of current political, economic, and cultural storms,few young people can become “surfers” of their times. When they cannot tackle a diff i cult situation with their art skills, one or two outcries may capture attention, which explains why “emotional aggressiveness”occurs. A look at the past decade of contemporary Chinese art will show that many young artists choose this method, and strategically act as “event artists,” who eventually fi nd themselves just an art streaker when shortlived pomp dies out！

How can one develop his “standpoint” if he is not “independent?”Has the transitional period of contemporary Chinese art come? Everyone,including the author, may have just a vague idea about this. Nonetheless,it is amazingly encouraging that a new state of mind has emerged, which is based on self-construal and probing as the subject, and pays further detailed attention to social concerns.

“Going from emotional aggressiveness to stance” is more an expectation than a judgment. Such a concern itself may draw more awareness, which may be of value to creation, criticism, curatorial activities, and contemporary art history writing?

2. Mere, massive imitation of “artistic language.” Artistic fashions come and go, successively after “German expressionism,” “Gerhard Richter,” “David Hockney,” “Li Songsong,” “Wang Yin,” “abstract ink”popular in overseas markets a few years ago, currently market-driven“visual abstraction,” etc.

After the invention of photography, artists borrowed a variety of media for “breakthroughs.” To a certain extent, a modernist Western art history can be seen as a history of breakthroughs. With the progress of printing, visual resources and classic works of individual periods spread extensively via books. Currently, with the rise of internet and mobile terminals, our world has already been a sea of images. Except to “Nature”as we habitually call it （in fact, even our ways of seeing “Nature” have greatly been affected by image communication）, how to deal with this“sea” is already a challenging issue artists have to confront.

After China’s reform and opening up, art world encountered a more pressing problem: image bombing from Western artworks. Chinese artists who were able to see exquisite print pictures, or who had the luck to go abroad and see original Western works changed their vague understanding of such works to some extent, and corrected their previous misinterpretation. Of course, they felt pressure on them. In the face of striking Western painting language, some Chinese artists chose to imitate, or unconsciously resemble their Western counterparts, which led to contemporary critics’ negation of part of the 1980s artists. Others, with the hint of language self-consciousness, began a long way to explore artistic language.

In China’s art circles, “the dialogue with images” triggered several signif i cant events:

（1） Local realism appeared in the early 1980s. （2） At the same time, Hangzhou-based “Pond Society” artists criticized part of Sichuan Painters, and chose the technique of even application of color. （3）Though from different starting points, some “Northern Art Club” artists chose calming strokes in style, neglecting passionate ones. （4） “New Generation Artists” and “Political Pop” artists rose in the early 1990s.（5） “Richter-style even application of color” became widespread at the turn of 21st century until a Richter solo show was held at National Art Museum of China in 2008. （6） “Li Songsong-style impasto” gained popularity in various forms. Along with the latter two, all kinds of“simple appropriation” flooded in the name of “deconstruction,” and head portraits of politicians and fi lm stars were most common symbols in paintings. （7） China’s fourth generation critics began to attack this situation around 2006, and indirectly contributed to the “prosperity” of“abstract art.” Unfortunately, even within 10 years, we are sad to see that most of abstract art has turned into “decorative painting,” or “tool painting of concepts.” Though stimulated by Archile Bonito Oliva’s visit to China, such an art is being overdrafted by the market in advance.

In fact, that “dialogue with images” is far from ending up. How will such an artistically rootless trend improve, when contemporary Chinese art has caused more concern; when the market is playing a leading role,and criticism is declining; and when foreign art masters continually visits China, causing rounds of imitation （after Richter, Anselm Kiefer,Lucian Freud, Hockney, or forthcoming…）? Further, how can we address the language logic and self-sufficient characteristics of contemporary Chinese art? Indeed, a tough question we have to answer！

从上世纪80年代，王广义基于对贡布里希“图式修正”概念的个人理解开始了《后古典》系列作品的创作，到90年代《大批判》使他成为“政治波普”的重要代表人物，中国画家和“图像”的对话持续展开，到现在已经30年了。

在所谓的“图像时代”，“与图像的对话”可以和以前画家的“对景写生”相提并论，不过现在更像是“对镜写生”，这个“镜子”就是图像所构建的“第二现实”。时下绘画界问题出在更多画家难以审视图像，只是将它作为现实的替代品，既往速写工具的替代品，绘画的“拐杖”。对图像的简单处理常见两种方法：一是采取“小李飞刀式”的短平快方法，对图像进行简单截取、挪用、嫁接、对比；二是“金钟罩式”的滤镜化的处理方法，在图像之上覆盖上一层个人化“笔法”。前者偏重题材，后者偏重技法。体弱者对“拐杖”更多是依赖，或者产生近乎“恋物癖”的眷恋，而非审视，这无疑和任何图像理论都形成了南辕北辙的关系。

在电子媒体时代，绘画存在的空间愈加狭小，这可能是一种悲哀，但如果运用好这个狭小的空间所给出的“局限性”，或许能带给画家更多的创作可能性。面对“图像”的压力，如何面对现实？如何面对虚拟？好像都不再是单极的问题。具体的创作缝隙要由画家来寻找、扩大，并实现为具体的作品。“破图”不失为一种选择，“集合”其成果便可以呈现一代画家的努力轨迹。

3．以“点子”为核心，动用各种材质，视觉化为“标准当代艺术作品”的情况泛滥。

各种类型的“标准当代艺术”喧嚣于当下，比如：

（1）标准化了的“坏画”。微信公众号“绘画艺术坏蛋店”里的“坏”画艺术家其实很多只是为了“坏”而怪。一个不会颠球的足球运动员，直接抱着球冲向球门，把足球当橄榄球打，谁又能说什么呢？即使看似“怪”，也基本陷入在套路里面。一点涂鸦，几件现成品钉在画布上，再写几句英文脏话；里希特＋霍克尼＋视错觉＋青春记忆等等。写实＋偶然肌理（俗称“鼻涕画”）。一种样式一旦出现，立即泛滥成灾。

（2）材料转化试验品。与绘画类似，用一截木头局部雕出一个西瓜，涂一些鲜艳的色；用硅胶翻制一个正在融化的石碑，或者坦克；把石头雕成的锁链和铁质锁链组合在一起；用透明塑料复制一下过安检的衣物等等。基本是静态“蒙太奇”，简单的二元转化。

在现在的当代艺术展览中，还有诸多类型化的当代艺术创作，在表面炫酷的背后，其实是简单的思维习惯在作祟。

结语

重提“超越性”的目的在于期待出现真正的平视视角，平视是完整的人之间的问题交流的基础，而不受没经思考的思维模式、知识结构以及民族心理的限制。正本清源，涤荡以往对中国当代艺术的猎奇眼光以及意识形态滤镜。真正的平视，并不需要自绝于“超越性”，而是对其传统渊源、现实处境、个人经历的充分尊重。

当然，也是自重！

2016年9月2日于中央美术学院

刘礼宾：中央美术学院美术学研究所副研究员 博士

岳中生：中国民航大学副教授

The painter Wang Guangyi, based on his personal understanding of E.H. Gombrich’s “schema and correction,” began his “The Postclassical” series in the 1980s. About ten years later, his “Mass Criticism”series made him an important representative of “Political Pop.” And the dialogue between Chinese painters and “images” has been continuing for three decades now.

In a so-called “image age,” the “dialogue with images” can be mentioned in the same breath with “painting from nature,” as in the past.But the present case is more like “painting from the mirror,” a “second reality” built with images. A serious problem is that a great number of painters are unable to examine images, which they just take as a substitute for reality, for past sketch tools, and as “a pair of crutches”for painting. There are two simple, common ways of image processing:1） quick interception, transferring, and contrast; 2） fi lter-type treatment,i.e. covering individualized “strokes” onto images. The former focuses on subject matter while the latter on techniques. Undoubtedly, this has nothing to do with any image theory, as an invalid depends on rather than examines his crutches, for which he might develop a liking close to“fetishism.”

Admittedly, to our sadness, the survival space for painting is gradually narrower in an era of electronic media. However, good use of the “limitations” provided by this small space may bring artists additional creative possibilities. Under the pressure of “images,” how should artists face reality? And the virtual? Seemingly no longer unilateral problems.Specifically, the creation space has to be discovered and enlarged by painters before artworks are materialized. “Image breaking” may, after all, be an option, and the trajectory of a generation of painters’ efforts can be displayed by “combining” its results.

3. “Idea-centered” overuse of materials before visualizing the idea into a “standard contemporary art work”.

All sorts of “standard contemporary art” are reigning as follows:

（1） Standardized “bad paintings.” An example is seen in a WeChat public account “Painting Art Bad Guys Shop,” in which many artists seem bizarre just to make their works “bad.” What can we say if we fi nd a football player, who even does not know how to juggle a ball, directly rushing to the goal with the ball held with two hands as in a rugby match?Even so, there are some tricks behind them: a little graff i ti, a few pieces of ready-made articles nailed on the canvas, and then a few English dirty words; Richter + Hockey + visual illusion + youth memory; realism +accidental texture （colloquially known as “snot painting”）. Once a new pattern emerges, it will be imitated immediately, widely and excessively.

（2） Experimental articles of material conversion. For example,as in painting, a chunk of wood is locally carved into a watermelon,then painted with bright colors; silica gel is made into a melting stone tablet or tank; a chain carved out of stone is combined with an iron one; transparent plastic is used to copy clothing under security check.Basically, those are created by static “montage,” a simple dualistic transformation.

In present-day contemporary art exhibitions, there are also many other stereotyped contemporary artworks. What actually support those cool show-offs are simplistic thinking habits always working there.

Conclusion

The purpose of readdressing “transcendence” is to expect the arrival of a true, “equal” perspective, which is the basis for communication between integrated people, without being limited by thoughtless thinking modes, knowledge structure and national psychology. Such a perspective will lead to a fundamental interpretation, helping clean up a novelty-seeking mentality and ideological filters on contemporary Chinese art. A true, “equal” perspective does not need to break away with“transcendence;” instead it pays full respect to its origins and tradition,realistic situation, and personal experience.

Of course, that means self-respect, too.

China Central Academy of Fine Arts, September 2, 2016

Liu Libin: doctor, associate research fellow at Fine Arts Research Institute,China Central Academy of Fine Arts

Yue Zhongsheng: associate professor at Civil Aviation University of China