​王泓

即便非具像的作品，其样貌，色彩，以及材料也是具体的。其仍旧有可能引导或者暗示某种“故事性”。

比如童振刚的这批绘画作品，利用了纸浆，麻绳，布偶等多种材料；其陶瓷作品是“破碎的”；装置的原材料是装米的木箱 ... 虽然每一个细节也许都有其存在的原因，但是细节相加不等于整体。把所有细节按照某种想象的逻辑串联起来也并不表达作品的观念。因为之所以仍旧需要作品，就是因为文字并不能表达其全部含义，就是因为所谓精神意义是凭借感觉唤醒的。

从艺术史的视角来看，一般而言，一类当代艺术将整个社会的既定文化规范或意识形态作为矛头所指的对像，而另一类则更多地表现为艺术史内部的艺术语言及其样式的更新、实践和发展。应该说，在童振刚的创作中，鲜有“政治波普”式的冲动，也少追求所谓的“社会参与”。在他的作品中也很难看到宣示某种主张或者提供某种判断。他虚拟了一个又一个无解的迷宫。但却不是与观看者的游戏，而是在不可避免的悖论之中用言说表达无法言说。

这种既是也不是，既解构也互文的叙事方式导致的结果就是一系列的不确定性。虽然作品中似乎可以发现一些线索，来源和指示，但又始终不提供一个完整的指向，观念，或者象征。因为艺术毕竟是一种视觉的存在。用文字阐释“作品的意义”或者建构艺术家的合法性，是一种言说，但又等于什麽都没说。因为所有的言说都是对确定性的言说，而对一切的不确定性，则无可言说。

所以 , 其实无论以何种方式分析或者解释童振刚的作品都是无效的。因为当艺术家把自己当作不可认知的世界的解释者，以及不完美的真实的完成者时，创作的合理性就只能基于艺术家的主观感受，以及所采取的毫无保留的表达方式。维系既有规则的技术与养成，已经失去了作为艺术衡量标准的重要性。

加谬说，艺术家都曾自视与众不同。但其实所谓与众不同，往往就扎根在与所有人的相似之中。罗兰巴特也说：没有绝对的创造，因为我们都在使用已有的文本。所谓创造，其实就是艺术家对所言之物持续不断地锚定和改变，无尽无休。而一种艺术之所以被需要，是因为其可以很好地表达人们某种心情或某种境况之下所易于相信的东西。

Wang Hong

Even if the work is non-figurative, its appearance, color, and materials are still concrete，thus it is still possible to provide some kind of indication or suggestion.

Tong Zhengang for example, his paintings are full of pulp, twine, puppets and other materials; His ceramic works are broken; His Installation works are made from wooden boxes originally filled with rice... Although each detail may be there for a reason, the details do not add up to a whole; to connect all the details according to some imaginary logic nor able to express the idea of the works. The reason why works are still needed, is because words do not express their full meaning. The so-called spirit is awakened by feelings anyway.

Generally, in art history, one type of contemporary art is to take the established cultural norms or ideologies of the whole society as the objects to be targeted, while the other type is more manifested as the renewal, practice and development of artistic language and its styles within its timespace.

In Tong Zhengang's creation, there is little impulse of Political Pop style, and less pursuit of so-called Social Participation. It is also difficult to find in his work a claim or a judgment. He had simply created one unsolved maze after another. Whereas it is not a game with the viewer, but an expression of the unspeakable amid unavoidable paradoxes.

The result of this kind of narration, which is both certain and uncertain, both mutually deconstructive and intertextual, leads to a series of uncertainty. Although clues, sources, and indications seem to be found in the work, a complete orientation, idea, or symbol is never provided. Because art is, after all, a visual being, using words to explain the work or to construct the identity of an artist can be a useless narration, as narration is the words for certainty, but for uncertainty, it is much beyond words.

Therefore, in fact, it is invalid to analyze or summarize Tong Zhengang's works in any forms. Because when the artist regards himself as the interpreter of the unrecognized world, or as the completer of the imperfect reality, the rationality of the creation can only be based on the subjective feelings of the artist and the unreserved means of expression adopted. Since when technology and cultivation are maintained within the existing rules, they have lost their importance as measures of art for a long time.

Albert Camus said that artists used to think of themselves as different. But in fact, the so-called difference is often rooted in the similarity with all people. Roland Barthes also said that there is no absolute creation, because we are all using existing texts. Creation is actually the artist's constant anchoring and changing of what he says, endlessly. Therefore when an art is needed，it must because the art have well expressed what people are inclined to believe in a certain mood or under certain situation.