江衡的艺术，让我想起了当代艺术和美学领域中一个引起激烈争论的话题：“美的回归”(return of beauty)与“美的滥用”(abuse of beauty)。

　　在经过了长达一个世纪的沉寂之后，美再次成为当代美学和艺术的重要话题。1993年，著名批评家希基(Dave Hickey)宣布，在接下来的十年中，美将成为一个主导话题。[1]与希基的预言巧合的是，科马(Vitaly Komar)和梅拉米德(Alexander Melamid)在1994-1997年间实施的一个名为“人民的选择”(People’s Choice)的系列绘画项目。他们雇佣专业民调机构来调查人们对艺术的偏好，根据民意测验的数据绘出不同国家的人民“最喜欢的绘画”和“最不喜欢的绘画”，范围涉及亚洲、非洲、欧洲和美洲众多国家。科马和梅拉米德不仅绘出了不同国家的人民认为最美的艺术作品，而且还发现不同国家的人民在美的图像的评判上体现出了高度的一致性。一些美学家进一步认为，人类在美的评判上所体现出来的一致性，最终可以从人类的遗传基因或者集体无意识中找到根据，因为今天人们最喜欢的绘画是描绘东非那种散落树林的大草原的风景画，而这里正是早期人类进化发生的地方。

　　我不敢说中国艺术家江衡的创作受到了希基的预言的影响，就像我不敢说“人民的选择”项目是在希基的预言的指导下实施的那样，但是，我可以说，包括江衡、科马和梅拉米德在内的众多当代艺术家的创作，的确是希基的预言的实现。难道真的如波普尔(Karl Popper)所说的那样，预言导致了预言的实现吗?

　　希基为什么会做出如此惊人的预言?难道20世纪的艺术不是以丑著称吗?众所周知，纽曼(Bartnett Newman)曾经直截了当地说：现代艺术的冲动，“就是要摧毁美”。[2] 杜布菲(Jean Dubuffet)也曾坦率地说：“对我来说，美从来没有进入画面。”[3]现代艺术与美如此势不两立，希基凭什么说会出现“美的回归”?希基之所以做出“美的回归”的预言，不是因为他无视艺术不美的现实，而是刚好建立在艺术不美的现实的基础上。正因为长期以来艺术都不美了，现在该到了艺术呼唤美的回归的时候了。因为艺术界也有风水轮流转的规律，在美的长期统治之后会转向丑，在丑的长期统治之后会转向美。丑在艺术界的统治时间已经够长的了，因此该到了回归美的时候了。

　　希基的预言遭到了丹托(Arthur Danto)的激烈反对。丹托认为，今天的艺术界不仅无须“美的回归”，而且要警惕“美的滥用”。在丹托看来，“世界上绝大多数艺术是不美的，美的生产也不是艺术的目的。”[4]“将审美之美(aesthetic beauty)与一种更宽泛意义上的艺术的卓越性(artistic excellence)区别开来极其重要，艺术的卓越性与审美之美根本无关。”[5]“艺术在根本上被视为是美的，这不是且从来就不是艺术的定数。”[6]在丹托看来，20世纪艺术哲学的重要贡献，就是将美与艺术区别开来。

　　丹托的反驳是不可信的，因为至少在某些历史阶段，艺术是美的，或者被人认为是美的。只要我们将埃及、希腊和罗马艺术比较一下，就能清楚地发现，希腊艺术是美的。包括黑格尔(G.W.F. Hegel)在内的众多美学家，也认为艺术是美的。从总体上来看，美的艺术似乎更胜过丑的艺术。怎么能够因为艺术在20世纪的局部现象而无视美与艺术的密切关系呢?更何况20世纪的艺术已经够丑的了，根本就不担心会出现“美的滥用”现象。

　　20世纪的艺术为什么会出现抵制美的现象?从艺术史上来看，有可能就是因为此前的艺术太美了。从社会学上来看，人们需要通过丑的艺术来正视真实的人性，以便让人性发展得更为完善。舒斯特曼的这段话，很好地揭示了20世纪艺术之所以拒斥美的社会背景：

　　到了20世纪，尤其是在经历了两次可怕的世界大战之后，艺术家开始对美和审美经验的作用和价值产生怀疑，因为能够给人提供美和令人愉快的审美经验的艺术，对于终止战争的丑恶毫无作为。最有文化的和在审美上最发达的欧洲国家，在战争中也是最邪恶的和最具破坏性的。那些在战争中毫无怜悯和同情心的人，正是在审美经验中被感动得潸然泪下的人。美和审美经验与文明社会的恐怖之间的合谋，使得艺术家们开始拒斥审美经验中的愉快情感。……我将这种现象称之为“美学的麻木化”。[7]

　　20世纪艺术中的“美学的麻木化”现象，不仅体现在丑上，而且体现在非人性(inhuman)上。早在1913年，阿波利奈尔(G. Apolinaire)就曾经说过：“首要的是，艺术家是一群想要成为非人性的人。他们在孜孜不倦地追求非人性的踪迹。”1925年，格塞特(O. Gasset)做出这样的诊断：现代艺术的典型特征就是“艺术的非人性化”。梅洛·庞蒂(M. Merleau-Ponty)在1948年评论塞尚的绘画时指出，它揭示了“人类栖居其上的非人性的自然基础”。阿多诺(T. Adorno)在他死后出版的《美学理论》中用其惯用的辩证风格断言，“艺术只有诉诸非人性的追求才是忠于人性的。”[8]

　　20世纪的艺术之所以拒斥美，原因在于要揭示非人性，之所以揭示非人性，原因在于要让人变得更人性。如同荀子的性恶论那样，目的不是弘扬人性中的恶，而是要正视进而彻底改变人性中的恶。也许丹托担心，如果让艺术去追求美，就有可能不能实现它的批判或者教化功能，因为人们为被作品中的美和由美引起的愉快情感所吸引，从而会削弱作品的批判力量。

　　然而，江衡的艺术却告诉我们，对于非人性的揭示，不一定非得求助于丑;通过美，同样也可以揭示非人性。江衡的作品多以美女为题材，然而所有美女都被转变成了非人性的卡通。人性的复杂、深度、恒久等特征，在江衡的卡通美女中已荡然无存，剩下的是浅表、瞬时、易碎等非人性特征。江衡作品中的美女不是现实生活中的美女，而是美的精灵或幽灵。

　　如果说美也可以揭示非人性，进而让人变得更人性，那么丹托的顾虑就大可不必。因为问题的关键不完全在于作品的图象是美的还是丑的，还在于艺术家的态度是正的还是反的。如果我们将科马和梅拉米德的态度理解为正的或者严肃的，那么我们就可以将“人民的选择”当作艺术追求的真实目标，从而全面肯定他们所绘制的“最喜欢的绘画”所表现的美。如果我们将他们的态度理解为负的或者调侃的，那么我们就会获得完全相反的解读，认为他们完全是在嘲弄“人民的选择”，进而在揶揄那些作品所表现的美。

　　要充分理解江衡的作品，我们也需要弄清楚他的态度。在我看来，如果我们将作者的意图理解为负的或者调侃的，我们就可以获得更加丰富和深刻的内容。当然，这里可以不是艺术家的实际意图，而是读者所假设的意图。这种假设的意图是读者通过作品所推断出来的，而不是通过询问作者而获得的。[9]如果我们采取这种解读方式的话，那么我们可以说江衡的艺术在表面上支持的是“美的回归”，实际上可能支持的是“美的滥用”。

　　摘之《艺术家图像志·江衡》

　　2008年10月26日于北京大学蔚秀园

　　The Restoration of Beauty or its Abuse? – Thoughts provoked by Jiang Heng’s works

　　Peng Feng

　　Jiang Heng’s art reminds me the provocative topic in contemporary art and aesthetics: “the return of beauty and the abuse of beauty”.

　　After a silent century, beauty once again became an important topic in contemporary art and aesthetics. In 1993, the acclaimed critic Dave Hickey proclaimed that, in the next decade, aesthetics will become the guiding topic. [10] As a coincidence to Hickey’s prophecy, Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid executed a painting series names People’s Choice between 1994-1997. They have hired professionals to survey the public on their preference in art, and to map out people’s “most enjoyable art” and “least enjoyable art” with the statistics collected from different countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. From which, Komar and Melamid not only discovered what people thought as the most beautiful artwork in different countries, but also the outstanding similarity in their interpretation of the beautiful imagery. Some aestheticians further theorized that the similarity in human’s interpretation of beauty could essentially find evidence in their DNA and their collective subconscious, because the image people enjoyed the most is the portrayal of the sparse wooded areas on the grassland of eastern Africa, a place where early homo sapiens evolved.

　　I do not want to make the claim that Chinese artist Jiang Heng’s creativity is influenced by Hickey’s prediction, just as I would not make the claim that the project People’s Choice was implemented under the same prediction. However, I would agree, including Jiang Heng, Komar, Melamid and many other contemporary artist’s creativity are indeed implementations of Hickey’s prophecy. Isn’t it like what Karl Popper has claimed, prediction cause it to come true?

　　Why did Hickey make such daring prediction? Hasn’t the art of the 20th century known for its ugliness? As many know, Bartnett Newman has bluntly claimed, “The impulse in contemporary art is to “destroy beauty”.” [11] So did Jean Dubuffet, “For me, beauty has never enter the images.” [12] If contemporary art contradicts with beauty, then why would Hickey predict the “restoration of beauty”? The reason for Hickey’s prediction is not grounded on his negligence on the lack of beauty in art, in the contrary, his realization of it. Precisely because, art has not been beautiful for a long time, it is time to call on its return. The art world, like any other, follows a cyclical pattern. It turns to gruesomeness after the long sovereignty of beauty, and would steer to beauty after long dominance of ugliness. And since it has been ruling the art world for a long time, it is time for the return of beauty.

　　Hickey’s prediction was fiercely attacked by Arthur Danto. Danto believed, not only the art world today does not need the “restoration of beauty”, but must be vigilant with the “abuse of beauty”. In Danto’s view, “Most of the art in the world is not beautiful, and the fabrication of beauty is also not the goal for art.” [13] “It is important to distinguish aesthetic beauty from the general artistic excellence – they are two concepts without any fundamental relevance.” [14] “Art is essentially considered beautiful, it isn’t and has never been the destiny of art.” [15] In Danto’s view, the most significant contribution of art theory from the 20th century is the distinction of beauty and art.

　　Danto’s refute is not credible, because, there were certain historical period in which art was beautiful, or thought as beautiful. If we compare Egyptian art, Greek art and Roman art, we realize, Greek art is beautiful. Including many aestheticians like Hegel, who believed art is beautiful. And overall, beautiful art overrides the ugly art. How could one ignore the intimate relationship of beauty and art because of its otherwise impartial phenomenon? Moreover, the art from the 20th century is already ugly enough, and it is unnecessary to worry about the “abuse of beauty”.

　　Why art of the 20th century boycotted beauty? From the art historical perspective, perhaps become the art proceeding it was too beautiful. From a sociological perspective, people needed the gruesome art to recognize the truth in human nature in order to ameliorate human nature. The following paragraph by Richard Shusterman reveals the social context in which art of the 20th century rejects aesthetics:

　　In the 20th century, especially having experience two horrid world wars, artists began to become skeptical of the function and values of beauty and aesthetic experience, because the art that provided beauty and pleasant aesthetic experience was ineffective for stopping the war. The most cultured and aesthetically developed European nations are also the most evil and destructive. Those without any compassion and sympathy in the war, are those moved to tears from aesthetic experiences. The conspiracy of beauty and aesthetic experience with civilized society, making the artists start to reject the enjoyable feelings found in aesthetic experiences… I am calling such phenomenon as, “aesthetic insensitisation”. [16]

　　The phenomenon of “aesthetic insensitization” of art in the 20th century was not only reflected through ugliness, but also on inhumanness. As early as 1913, G. Apolinare has once said, “Primarily, artists are a group of people who want to become inhumane. They are persistently pursuing traces of inhumanity.” In 1925, O. Gasset has made such diagnosis: the typical characteristic of contemporary art is to “make art inhumane”. M. Merleau-Ponty had pointed out in 1948 in a criticism on Cezanne’s painting that it has revealed, “the inhumane natural foundation where humans dwell.” Theodore Adorno use his dialectical style in Aesthetic Theory, published before his death, “Only when art resorts to the pursuit of inhumanity would it obey human nature.” [17]

　　The reason why art of the 20th century rejected beauty resides in its revelation of inhumanity, and the reason accounts for that is in hoping to make men more humane. Just as Xunzi’s theory of the sinful nature in human, its goal was not to exemplify the perniciousness in human nature, but to ameliorate it. Perhaps Danto’s worry of allowing art to pursue beauty, it might not be effective in its critical or didactic functions, because people would be attracted by the beauty and the pleasant emotions evoked, by which its critical strength would be diminished.

　　Yet, Jiang Heng’s art tells us, one does not necessarily have to resort to ugliness in revealing inhumanity; through beauty, it is also possible. Jiang Heng’s art portrays mostly femme fatale, yet all of them are transformed into inhumane comic figures. The characteristics such as complexity, depth, and eternity of human nature can no longer be found in Jiang Heng’s comic figures of femme fatale, what is left are the inhumane characteristics of superficiality, ephemeralty and fragility. The femme fatales in Jiang Heng’s art is not those of everyday life, but the spirits or ghosts of beauty.

　　If beauty could also reveal inhumanity in order to make people more humane, then Danto’s worries were unnecessary. The key to the issue is not to question whether the image was beautiful or not, but whether the artist’s attitude is positive or not. If we consider Komar and Melamid’s attitude as positive and serious, then we should consider People’s Project being the true goal of artistic pursuit, by which to recognize the beauty portrayed in the “most enjoyed paintings”. If we consider their attitude as negative or satirical, then our interpretation would be entirely different, and consider they are ridiculing People’s Choice, that further derides the beauty portrayed in those works.

　　In order to fully understand Jiang Heng’s work, we also need to figure out his attitude. In my view, if we consider his intent as negative or deriding, we would gain richer and deeper content. Of course, it might not be the artist’s actual intent, but the audience’s imagined intent. This imagined intent is deducted through the audience interpretation, rather than obtained through questioning the artist. [18] If we adopt such method of interpretation, then we can claim that Jiang Heng’s art supports the “restoration of beauty” on the surface, but is in fact exemplary of the “abuse of beauty”.

　　摘之《艺术家图像志·江衡》

　　2008年10月26日于北京大学蔚秀园

　　[1] Dave Hichey, “Enter the Dragon: On the Vernacular of Beauty”, in Dave Hichey, The Invisible Dragon: Four Essays on Beauty (Los Angeles: Art Issues Press, 1993), p. 11.

　　[2] Bartnett Newman, “The Sublime is Now”[1948], in Bartnett Newman, Bartnett Newman: Selected Writings and Interviews (New York: Knopf, 1990), p. 172

　　[3] Jean Dubuffet, “Anticultural Positions”, in Richard Roth and Susan King Roth (eds.), Beauty is Nowhere: Ethical Issues in Art and Design (Amsterdam: G+B Arts International, 1998), p.12.

　　[4] Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art (Peru, Ill.: Open Court, 2003), p. 88.

　　[5] Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, p. 107.

　　[6] Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, p. 36.

　　[7] 彭锋：《实用主义美学的新视野——访舒斯特曼教授》，《哲学动态》2008年第1期。

　　[8] 关于20世纪艺术追求非人性的引文，转引自Wolfgang Welsch, “How can We Get beyond Anthropocentrism?” Gao Jianping and Wang Keping eds., Aesthetics and Culture: East and West (Hefei: Anhui Jiaoyu Press, 2006), p. 472。

　　[9] 关于实际的意图与假设的意图之间的区别，见J. Levinson, “Intention and Interpretation: A Last Look”, in James O. Young ed., Aesthetics: Critical Concepts in Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2005), Vol.2。

　　[10] Dave Hichey, “Enter the Dragon: On the Vernacular of Beauty”, in Dave Hichey, The Invisible Dragon: Four Essays on Beauty (Los Angeles: Art Issues Press, 1993), p. 11.

　　[11] Bartnett Newman, “The Sublime is Now”[1948], in Bartnett Newman, Bartnett Newman: Selected Writings and Interviews (New York: Knopf, 1990), p. 172

　　[12] Jean Dubuffet, “Anticultural Positions”, in Richard Roth and Susan King Roth (eds.), Beauty is Nowhere: Ethical Issues in Art and Design (Amsterdam: G+B Arts International, 1998), p.12.

　　[13] Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art (Peru, Ill.: Open Court, 2003), p. 88.

　　[14] Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, p. 107.

　　[15] Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, p. 107.

　　[16] 彭锋：《实用主义美学的新视野——访舒斯特曼教授》，《哲学动态》2008年第1期。

　　[17] 关于20世纪艺术追求非人性的引文，转引自Wolfgang Welsch, “How can We Get beyond Anthropocentrism?” Gao Jianping and Wang Keping eds., Aesthetics and Culture: East and West (Hefei: Anhui Jiaoyu Press, 2006), p. 472。

　　[18] 关于实际的意图与假设的意图之间的区别，见J. Levinson, “Intention and Interpretation: A Last Look”, in James O. Young ed., Aesthetics: Critical Concepts in Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2005), Vol.2。