戴耘的近作，以他所擅长的技术方式重新进入历史。如果说，戴耘曾经以一种摹仿的方式，用青红砖材料再现了日常生活中的物品，成为当代生活的符号性象征。那么，在近期(实则是近6年来)作品中，他将其目光从现实生活转向历史深处。在那里，他似乎找到了自我的存在感——一种通过艺术史获得的存在感，这种存在感不是个人肉身的存在，而通过艺术与不同民族精神的演进历史相遇，在一种集体性的人类自我意识中感受到个体的存在。

　　戴耘选取了国内外著名的博物馆中的经典雕塑艺术作品，使用他已驾轻就熟的青红砖材料进行“摹仿”。这种“摹仿”不是现实事物的再现，因为他所“摹仿”的作品是艺术史的代表性作品，是前代艺术家对自然事物的提炼与概括。

　　在某种意义上，我们可以将戴耘的近作视为一种艺术史的复制。“复制”在中国画史中称为“临摹”，它在艺术的发展中有四种基本功能：一是艺术学生为了学习前人的艺术风格与技术，进行复制临摹;二是著名的艺术家为了探索新的艺术风格，对其它优秀艺术家的作品进行创造性的复制临摹;三是艺术大师们为了传播他们的作品而从事复制;第四种则是从事艺术商业的人为了赢利而进行艺术作品的复制。

　　事实上，戴耘的雕塑“临摹”是一种特殊的“复制”——可以视为一种艺术的“重构”。1990年代我在讨论石冲的油画创作时曾经使用过“摹本改造”的概念。这种“摹本改造”，可以从美术史上找到切入点，在西方艺术史中，三度空间的描绘，对体积明暗的重视，可以追溯到古希腊的雕塑。学院派艺术的基础，正是建立在对石膏雕像的写生与临摹基础之上的，而这些雕像，正是古希腊、古罗马的雕塑原型的复制品，特别是古罗马雕塑肖像是直接从真人面部“翻制”下来的。戴耘的独特之处在于，他没有简单地复制艺术史作品，而是在有目的的重新构造中呈现出他对艺术史的理解。戴耘对艺术史中的中外经典雕塑加以个人化的改造，在保留经典原作的基本形体的相似性的同时，从材料、质感、色彩等方面展现出与艺术史经典的不尽相同。这使得戴耘对于艺术史上的“临摹”传统有了新的发展，从而使自己的创作，具有了美术史上的连续性，对于西方艺术史上的临摹写生传统，做出了富于创造性的改变，进入到现代装置艺术的思维层面。戴耘这一创作方法的特点在于观念上的介入伴随着表现方式的改变，即观念与设计的综合统一。这种统一建立在艺术家对艺术史经典作品的感受记忆基础之上，也表明了他的艺术教育经历所反映出的对传统艺术的临摹训练和价值认同。

　　创造性的“临摹”在艺术史上的意义，确立于艺术家对临摹对象独特的观察与理解。德裔美籍视觉心理学家鲁道夫•阿恩海姆(Rudolf Arnheim)认为，形式的精确不是偶然的细节的记录，既然达到“肖似”意味着表达出紧要的特征，那就要求画家对于那些特征必须有所理解。一切摹写都是视觉性的解释。而一切对于艺术史的摹写都必须在前人的基础上获得创造的价值。这里就涉及到艺术史中的“原创性”问题，我们解释和叙述历史，好像它曾经有一个开端，艺术家是从什么地方融进历史呢?与其说创造不如说是进入。1822年，安格尔建议年轻的画家要在前人的基础上创造——也就是说要始于已有的基点，手头上要有点功夫，安格尔讲了一个对他来说简单不过的真理——“你不能无中生有”。艺术家从已有的创造进入历史传统中，其形式语言是已经被使用过的。

　　原创性意味着某种意义上第一个来的或第一个这样做的，有一种造型形式的优先权，因此，对艺术作品的价值判断不能脱离对年代和历史序列的考虑。但是，为何还有那么多的艺术家(包括艺术大家)对传统艺术经典进行临摹呢?也许，原创形式是可以传播的，当艺术家将原创性作为首要原则时，他们是这一普遍真理的继承者和捍卫者。另一方面，当一个人改变了现有艺术的方向和力量时，原创性就彰显了，此时，艺术家是作为某种反传统的文化异端或社会异端而存在。所以，问题不在于使用传统艺术的材料或将传统艺术作品当作材料，重要的事情在于当代的艺术家对传统艺术的重新阐释。

　　理查德•斯夫(Richard Shiff)指出，我们不仅可以问一种独特的传统或事件的历史起源可能是什么?而且，我们也可以问某种对创造性的特殊理解，其起源或动机是什么?于是，原创性问题变成了这样一个问题，即在一个特定的时间里，人们相信什么，为什么人们相信它，人们怎么表达他们的信念。对于“模仿”来说，转化的原则是自由的，无章可循的。在模仿过程的每一个瞬间总会做出新的、潜在的、激进的、解释性的决定，去追寻古代经典作品中隐藏的或遗失的本源之物。

　　戴耘所“临摹”的雕塑作品，都是古代雕塑的经典，它们代表一种人类的古典文明和价值观，例如，人文主义的价值态度。但是到了十九世纪末，西方文化已经从古典主义占主流的情况过渡到了现代主义占主流。相对于传统的继承，现代的革新成为主要价值;相对于民族和国家的集体价值，个人的自由和创造成为主要价值。而戴耘的创造性临摹工作，其主要价值与其说是向传统的致敬，不如说，更强调艺术家对传统的当代反思。虽然强调个人的经验，但戴耘并没有将古典主义看成是一种过时的东西，因此，戴耘的作品确切地涉及到了那些组成现代性及其特殊的原创性的诸多力量——个人在世界范围内的自由流动、对不同国家和民族艺术的同情性理解，以及在网络信息时代个人对传统艺术的广阔视野。作为一种文化传承的标志，古典艺术在当代社会的现代性剧变过程中艰难地守望着人类精神和社会的和谐。

　　从后现代主义的观念来看，戴耘的艺术在古典艺术与当代的波普艺术之间建立了一个潜在的沟通，他让我们重新思考“挪用”这一重要观念。“挪用”(appropriation)，意为“视某物为自己所有”，但它不是被动的、客观的或漠然的，而是积极的、主观的、充满目的的。将“挪用”应用于艺术和艺术史是20世纪后半期的事情，且与对艺术作品先前存在的成分的采用有关。也许我们可以将戴耘的艺术“临摹”，看作对雕塑艺术史上形式成分的继承和当代审美的重构，由此建立了戴耘作为个体雕塑家与中外雕塑艺术的文化传承与精神联系。

　　芝加哥大学艺术史教授罗伯特 S. 尼尔森指出，“借用”、“影响”、“挪用”这些术语证实并维系了历史、传统和话语(discourse)的连续性与完整性。将巴特的符号结构的含义转向个人，以此来强调个人的中介力量(personal agency)，而不仅仅是意义的游戏。按照巴特的解释，挪用与神话一样，是一种曲解，而不是对原符号的否定，在挪用的每一阶段，之前作为符号的艺术作品的部分内容残留下来，说明了挪用过程中产生的符号学的失真(distortion)，而不是全盘否定。从抽象层面上看，“挪用”这一概念很容易延伸到阐释行为本身，是对观看和临摹对象的一种反映与记忆，是思维对过去的重构。

　　然而，艺术史中的挪用是一个相当复杂的现象。正如爱德华•萨义德长期以来认为的那样：在每一个文化的挪用中都有行为者和受影响者(those who are act and those who are acted upon)，对于这些人来说，他们的记忆和文化认同受美学的、学院的、经济的或政治的挪用的控制，结果可能是焦躁不安和痛苦的。

　　在西方艺术史上，无论是17世纪的普桑还是20世纪的毕加索、培根，都有过独具价值的对古典艺术的创造性“临摹”，在中国传统画史上，对经典大家作品的创造性“临摹”更是一个艺术传承的基本常态。但前人对经典的回顾，都只是向传统的致敬而非回归，曾经孕育了现代的古典是我们不可能完全了解，也永远不能回归的美好意象。后现代艺术中的“挪用”将问题转向了艺术对于当代社会的意义的积极揭示，同时也照亮了历史语境。同时，挪用的观念也表明艺术史经典作品过去的价值和当下的社会作用被公开重申，而不是自生自灭。这样，戴耘对传统经典雕塑的“挪用”和“临摹”，就具有了艺术史的远足与探险的价值，如同一个人进出于历史的旋转之门，经历了艺术经典的重构与再生，不仅提示了世界范围内的古典文化的保存与交流，而且鼓励我们去思考传统的价值和当代人的文化使命。

2015年6月14日

Into the History——on Dai Yun's New Art Works

T / Yin  Shuangxi

　　Dai yun's recent art explorations, Dai Yun re-entered history in technology way. In his previous art works, Dai yun represented daily objects with grey and red bricks in an imitating manner, and these objects become symbolic items of modern life. Nowadays    ( in the last 6 years), he turned his eyes from the everyday life into the history's deep area. In there, he seemed to find his feeling of existence-the feeling is conveyed through art history, and the existence feeling is not about individual's life immortal，but an art encounter of different art histories' spirit, feel the individual existence in the collective self-awareness.

　　Dai Yun selected classical sculptures in domestic and international prominent museums as models, and “imitated” them in green and red bricks which he has been already much too familiar with. Such “imitation” is not the represent of real things of original objects, because those sculptures he has “imitated” are representative works in art history, which are refinement and generalization of natural objects by artists of previous generations.

　　Dai Yun's recent sculptures could be counted as, in a sense, a kind of copy of art history. The “copy” is called “Linmo” (临摹) in Chinese painting history and has 4 fundamental functions in the development of art. The first one is to help art students learn artistic styles and techniques of early masters; the second is to help prominent artists explore new artistic styles through their creative copying of other excellent artists' works; the third is to help art masters to preserve art works; the fourth is to help art dealers make profits.

　　As a matter of fact, Dai Yun's “Linmo” is a special “copy”, which could be seen as a “reconstruction” of art. In 1990s, I once used a concept called “transformation of copy” in the discussion of Shi Chong's oil painting creation. “Transformation of copy” can also be found in art history. In western art history, the description of three-dimensional space can be traced back to sculptures of ancient Greece. Academic art rooted in the painting of sculptures, however these gesso sculptures are duplicated from Greek and Roman sculptures. Especially some Roma sculptures were directly duplicated from real people's faces. Dai Yun is unique, because he does not simply copy works in art history, but demonstrates his understanding of art history in a purposeful reconstruction. Personalized transformation has been put on these classical sculptures with different materials, textures, and colors besides the shape similarity of original items. This has shown that Dai Yun has started a new development of traditional “Linmo” in art history, he also made creative changement in western art history 's copy tradition and entered installation level. Dai Yun's such artistic creation features ideal intervention accompanying change in expression, namely, comprehensive unification of idea and design. Such unification is established on artists' perception and memory of classical works in art history, and meanwhile indicates his agreement on the value of copy traditional masterpieces which existed in his art education experience.

　　Significance of creative “Linmo” in art history is established on unique observation and understanding of the copy target. Rudolf Arnheim, a German-American perceptual psychologist, believed that the accuracy of form is not just the casual record of details, and since reaching the level of “likeness” means to express important features, it is required that painters must have certain understanding of those features. All kinds of copies are visual explanations. And all kinds of copies of art history must acquire values on the basis of previous generations. Here comes the issue of “originality” in art history. We explain and describe the history as if it had a beginning, and then, from where did the artists become part of the history? It is better to say entering into the history than to say creating the history. Back to 1822, at that time, Ingres advised young painters to make creations on the basis of previous generations-that is to say, find some certain examples to learn from and have genuine skills. He told them an simple truth “You cannot make anything from nothing”. Artists go into historical tradition from these creation already existed, and with these form languages used before.

　　The “originality”, in a sense, indicates the first one to create a particular form, and has a priority in the design and form. Therefore, judgment of the artworks' values cannot be separated from the consideration of their historical sequences. However, why are there so many artists, including art masters, still making copies of traditional classical artworks? Maybe, the original forms can be inherited , and when originality is taken as the first principle by artists, they are playing the role of inheritors and defenders of this universal truth. On the other hand, originality is demonstrated when someone makes changes to the direction and strength of the existing art, and at this moment, artists exist as anti-traditional cultural heresies or social heresies. Therefore, the problem does not lie in using materials of traditional art or using traditional art as materials, and what is important is the new interpretation of traditional art by contemporary artists.

　　Richard Shiff pointed out that we can ask what the historical origin of a kind of unique tradition or event is, as well as what the origin or motive of some special understanding of creativity is. In this way, the issue of originality can be put as such a question, i.e. in a certain time, what people believe, why they believe it, and how people express their beliefs. As far as “imitation” is concerned, principles for transformation are free and come from nowhere. In the process of imitation, new, potential, radical and explanatory decisions will be made in every instant, aiming to pursue the origins concealed or lost in the ancient classics.

　　Sculptures copied by Dai Yun are all classic ancient sculptures, which represent a type of human classical civilization and values, for example, values and attitudes of humanism. However, by the end of 19th century, western culture 's predominate trend had changed from classicism to modernism. Compared with the inheritance of tradition, reformation became prime values in modern times; compared with collective values of ethic groups and nations, individual freedom and creation has became prime values. As for Dai Yun's creative copying, its main value is not so much to salute to traditions as to emphasize artists' contemporary profound rethinking of traditions. In spite of emphasizing personal experiences, Dai Yun does not treat classicism as an old-fashioned value, because of which Dai Yun's works are exactly related to those forces constituting modernism and its unique originality-including free flow of individuals across the world, understanding of arts in different countries and of various ethnic groups, and individual's broad view of traditional art in the era of Internet. As a symbol of cultural heritage, classical art difficultly watches the harmony of human spirits and society during the process of modernistic dramatic changes of contemporary society.

　　From the perspective of post-modernism, Dai Yun's art builds a potential communication between classical art and contemporary pop art, and thanks to him we re-consider the important concept “appropriation”. “Appropriation” means “consider something belong to one's own”, but it is not passive, objective, or indifferent, on the contrary it is positive, active, and highly purposeful. It is in the latter half of 20th century that “appropriation” has been applied in art and art history, in relation to the adoption of elements previously existing in artworks. Maybe we could see Dai Yun's artistic “Linmo” as the inheritance of forms and elements in sculptural art history and contemporary aesthetic reconstruction, and thus Dai Yun, as an individual sculptor, has built cultural heritage and spiritual connections with Chinese and foreign sculptural art.

　　Robert S. Nelson, professor of art history in the University of Chicago, pointed out that terms like “borrow”, “impact”, and “appropriation” has confirmed and maintained continuity and completeness of history, tradition and discourse. Implication of Barthes's symbolic structure is turned to individual to emphasize personal agency, not merely a game of meaning. According to Barthes, like mythology, appropriation is a kind of misinterpretation, not a denial of the original symbols, and in every stage of appropriation, part of the artworks acting as symbols previously is left behind, which indicates it is the distortion of semiology caused in the process of appropriation, not total negation. At the abstract level, the concept “appropriation” extends easily to interpretive act itself, and it is reflection and memory of observing and copying target, a reconstruction of past time by thinking.

　　However, appropriation in art history is a fairly complicated phenomenon. Just as Edward Said long considered, in every cultural appropriation there are those who act and those who are acted upon, and for these people, their memories and cultural identity are manipulated by aesthetic, academic, economic, or political appropriation, and the result, probably, is that they feel restless and miserable.

　　In western art history, no matter Poussin of 17th century, or Picasso and Bacon of 20th century had all creatively “copied” classical art and such copies are of unique values. In traditional Chinese painting history, creative “copying” of classical masterpieces is especially a basic normal method for cultural heritage. However, predecessors review the classics is to salute to the tradition, instead of returning to tradition, and the classics once nurturing modernism is the beautiful imagery we cannot completely understand and can never return to. The “appropriation” in post-modern art shifts the focus to positive revelation of the meaning of contemporary society by art while lightening the historical context. Additionally, the concept of appropriation also makes clear the public restatement of values in the past times and social effects of contemporary times, instead of emerging and perishing of themselves. Under such circumstances, Dai Yun's “appropriation” and “Linmo” of traditionally classical sculptures is deemed to be valued for the sake of hiking and exploring in art history, like a man walking in and out of the revolving door of history and experiencing the reconstruction and rebirth of classical artworks. Dai Yun's probe not only reminds us of preservation and communication of classical cultures in the world wide, but also encourages us to ponder traditional values and contemporary cultural mission.

June 14th, 2015

作者：殷双喜