在我看来艺术家与知识分子是一样的，只不过身份属性或从事的行当略有不同。这涉及到对知识分子概念的理解和界定。我以为知识分子是与整个社会现实的趋向保持一定的疏离关系，从某种角度就是以独立的姿态站立在社会喧嚣的边缘，时时对社会变迁、文化生态以及个人的境遇发出一个边缘者思考、质疑与批判的声音。或者说这也是知识分子肩负的历史使命和社会责任。而作为艺术家就是以一种所谓艺术家的身份和视觉的方式来表达他的探索、判断与观点。而前卫艺术最主要的特征是实验性与批判性，实验性是指对现行艺术系统在审美观念、样式、话语方式的实验，而不仅仅是停留在技术层面上;批判性包含社会批判和自我批判，是对社会现实存在的种种问题的揭露、质疑与反拨。因此“前卫”的意义在于对未定性的追求，这种追求也赋予了前卫艺术一种不满足于现有的观念、秩序和模式的崇高气质。如果按这样的观点来考察艺术家何森近几年的创作，可以说何森具有一定的代表性。何森此前的艺术创作是以一系列青春靓女的日常形态为基本题材的，虽然这些形象带有相对客观的典型化处理，加上何森手头的造型功力，使他的作品在或单纯或亮丽的背景中精彩地展露出她们的形象、姿势，既表现出根植于她们内心欲望与宣泄这一矛盾的心理情结，又演绎了她们在生存过程中不断被异化的人生梦想和现实欲望，凸显出她们生动、无聊和荒诞的某种生存处境。这种效果具有较为直接的象征意义，即把我们现今社会日益膨胀的物质消费的情景，通过这些系列女孩儿的美艳而怪异，多少还有些风尘的形象符号化和现实化了，于是视觉的图像从非现实的画面进入到一个现实的层面，以此来表达他对当下现实社会变化的深刻关注。但前些天，当我为写这篇文章而走进何森的工作室时，我惊异地发现何森的创作发生了显著地变化。在我问及他的创作想法时，我们彼此的看法也获得了某些共识。

　　在谈到艺术与现实关系上，如果从中国现、当代艺术史的角度考察艺术与现实的关系，就会发现有两个值得注意的倾向：一是许多艺术家始终执著于艺术对“现实”直接的投射和反映，相信现代性能够洞察生活的真相和现实本身，于是艺术的作用自然成为对历史趋向的反映与表达;二是执著于宏大历史进程的表现，执著于探究紧迫的民族和阶级冲突下的社会状况和革命激情。这两者都与中国现代性历史面对的民族屈辱和社会危机紧密相连，是中国的历史必然和中国现代性的特点之一。改革开放之后，由于社会转型所造成的中国现实本身的复杂性和丰富性，为中国前卫艺术提供了可利用的充沛资源，而根植于中国现世的奇景异观也构成了中国前卫艺术具有独特魅力的原因之一。许多艺术家根据自身的成长经验和生存记忆与当下的文化情境，在创作上具有明确的现实文化针对性。这方面在上世纪90年代的中国当代艺术中是为最显著的表征，也是中国前卫艺术不断受到国际艺术界青睐的原因之一。然而，在这一趋向的过程中存在着令人担忧的问题。其问题的普遍性在于艺术家的创作虽然在材料媒介上有些变化的尝试，比如以装置、影像、行为等新的方式，但在观念或方法论上依旧延续的是一种现实主义的思路与态度，这是中国在社会转型中出现的种种矛盾、困惑与焦虑相互纠缠的异常丰富而构成了中国前卫艺术的活跃与丰富多彩。这种对现实一对一的汲取缺乏艺术上的转化和超越，而流于一种廉价的所谓当代性的体现，或陷入庸俗社会学意义上的表现，造成了许多艺术家的创作都是一种表现现实题材的视觉泛滥现象。其实，现实的精彩往往超过了艺术家作品的视觉张力，而艺术家似乎缺失了在现实的形而之上的超验性表现。我揣测或许正是出于对中国当代艺术本身的思考与判断，才导致了何森最新创作在观念和语言方式上的改变。

　　何森的新作是从中国传统文人画经典大师作品的拷贝、移植、挪用及篡改来展开的。被他临摹、复制的作品在视觉图像资源的利用上大致有两个类型，一是根据中国古典大师某一幅水墨画作品直接地用油画临摹到他的画面中，这一机械复制的过程基本上是消泯了油画语言的特征，而尽量地仿真，包括题款、印章等。如李鳝的《兰花》《平安富贵图》《风竹》、徐渭的《杂花卷》《墨花卷》《牡丹》《水墨花卉卷》等。比较有趣儿的是他对原作的本色稍作篡改，主观地凭添了他想象的色彩，有点儿时尚的意味。远远看去，除了尺幅的放大外，更像是广告喷绘的效果。这是他有意识地让画面虚幻化，他不仅是描绘者，是作品中的“我”，还是一种他理解经典和社会现实的一种象征与隐喻。这当然不是进行普通意义上的临摹，确切地说他是通过个人与绘画、与传统经典之间关系来展示他对传统与现代与未来的不确定性和多重意义的思考与认知，并以此找回和保留视觉图像的深刻性和吸引力。二是将经典的摹本分为两部分临摹，一部分是仿真，另一部分显露些油画的斑驳笔触，如李鳝的《杂画》、马远的《十二水图之云生沧海》《十二水图之云舒浪卷》《十二水图之黄河逆流》等，画面呈现出水墨与油画语言并置的质感差异，更像是他摹本的手迹。我们可以看到一种中国文人画经典图像的挪用和虚构、历史的诗意和现实的困境混杂在一起——一种超摹本拼贴的戏仿效果。这种在经典内部处理经典的方式，具有用残留在经典中的能量破坏它们的控制力，改变了以往经典作品力量的作用方向。通过揭示已被接受的视觉模式的局限性，而对单一叙述的权威性提出了挑战，使这些耳熟能详的作品所提供的标准变得短暂而不可靠，从而在忍俊不禁的幽默中更耐人寻味。换句话来说，他在对感兴趣的经典图像资源的利用上，没有作过多的似乎已成定论的所谓美术史上的价值判断，而是采用一种相对客观的意象态度，在视觉上将感受到的经典绘画的意味、历史的朴素、时间的痕迹转换到自己的画面上，使观者获得的是介于美术史图像的真实与非具体之间界限的关系，并在这种间隔当中相对充分地寻求到他对经典的某种新的判断和诠释。把中国经典绘画作品的真实和虚构并置在一起，既是何森对绘画本身的实验，也是他对传统经典随着时间流逝的一种感谓，在摹本过程中体验着时光沉淀的痕迹。使观者在开始审视这些作品时就意识到，他们将要阅读的文本已不是传统意义的美术史中的经典之作，而是经过何森临摹放大之后的“新”历史的视觉图像，视觉文本已经深深地刻下了他个人创作的烙印。也许在他看来，我们为错综复杂的人类经验创造的模式能力是极其微弱的，所以人类需要不断地变换视角，探索新隐喻，创作新样式，以便不断地抵制静止或者混乱，使众多长期被传统叙述压抑的其它叙述和记忆得到了某种释放。因此，与其说何森是在对经典的临摹与复制，不如说是在清理他过往的视觉记忆与经验。从图象到处理图像，一幅幅通过主观意识对经典的模仿而形成的艺术作品，不仅仅是对不同时期经典作品的审美趣味、样式的破碎，也是拼贴与建构性的尝试，而支撑他实验的观念除了不愿将自己已固定化了的风格样式一直延续下去之外，其实是与他的对绘画本身的思考与迷恋是一脉相承的。或者说他的创作是使用了后现代主义的方法论，试图消除原本与摹本、表层与深层、真实与非真实之间的对立关系的阐释模式，作品的深度在他的平面临摹中，在自我放逐和虚无中获得自慰。其目的一方面提供了一种多元的概念来重新认识绘画的历史，也显现了他对曾占主导地位的古典主义艺术的留恋，以及其文化逻辑逐渐瓦解的怅惘;另一方面也意味着对这些影响过他的“精神底片”的守望——对20世纪以来处于解构大潮下的经典文化传统精髓的坚守，以及在这份坚守中对新的意义生长点的期冀与张望。

　　当下，从上世纪九十年代以来的中国全球化和市场化的进程和中国的高速经济成长带来了一系列和五四以来的现代性完全不同的历史背景和社会形态。倘若依旧运用五四以来的“阐释中国”的框架难于面对今天中国现实的变化，“为人生”的想象其实已经难以面对今天的中国的全球化和市场化之下的人生。艺术似乎开始对“纯度”的倾斜，“为艺术而艺术”的探索。这正是一个“新世纪文化”的表征。“为人生而艺术”所承载的沉重使命已经被悄然消解，纯艺术似乎有了发展自己独立性的客观基础，艺术也越来越真正回归“自身”。这当然不是说艺术有一种孤立于世界之外的“自身”，而是说我们对于艺术的想象和要求有了改变，而这改变恰恰是艺术随时代而改变的新形态，艺术逐渐变成了一种远离社会喧嚣、江湖恩怨的边缘人性的话语。因为，对当代文化境遇的敏锐与思考，将导致对旧有艺术观念和在方法论上的改造。也许我们可以从何森新作的实验与探索中，初见其对绘画语言和意义本身的迷恋与追问的端倪。他所要求的艺术是一种不受外在社会现实制约而获得某种前所未有的独立性想象，精制、温宁、久远，没有黑暗与杂色，从中能够看到时代、现实另一侧面的艺术家的操守。较之于那些喷血之作，显得冲淡与祥和，与“伤害的迷恋”等类型的艺术更是隔膜。他的新作品好像没有当下话语的痕迹，血脉都是从五四以来“为艺术”的传统和艺术本身的思考而来的。这种话语虽然是一种另类，但看起来却有一种心灵的洗刷和理性的震颤。在他的作品面前似乎时尚的流行色变得淡然无味了。这或者可以说是一种回归，但不是简单地寻求世外桃源，那是一种为逃避现实的过于喧嚣而成为一种廉价的当代性体现，而是在精神的静观里提供思想的资源，不断提供思考、判断的各种可能性。因为过于“入世”可能会沉湎于现实而迷失自我，倒是以个人经验为出发的“出世”，忠实于自我感觉的人，可以找到本我的存在。

　　^_^

　　Authenticity and Imitation

　　- On He Sen’s Original Facsimile

　　In my opinion, artists and scholars are alike, only some attributes of their status and the work they do have some difference. This relates to my understanding of the concept and definition of a scholar. In my opinion, a scholar should keep a certain distance from social trends; in a certain sense, to be a scholar is to stand independently on the margins of this noisy society and engage from the margins in constant re-evaluation, questioning and criticism of social change, the cultural environment and personal experience. This is the historical destiny and social responsibility a scholar carries with him. However, to live as an artist is to express discoveries, judgments and views through an artist’s identity and vision. The main characteristic of avant-garde art is its experimentation and criticism. This experimentation refers to an experimentation in aesthetic concepts, media and discursive models of the current artistic system, it is not to become stagnant at the level of technique; its criticism includes social and self criticism – uncovering, questioning and refuting various issues that are present in society. Therefore, the meaning of “avant-garde” is the pursuit of what has yet to be defined. Such a pursuit bestows on avant-garde art a kind of majestic temperament that is dissatisfied with current concept, order and pattern. If we look at He Sen’s works of the past few years from this perspective, it is evident that they are relatively representative of this.

　　Prior to this, the subject matter of He Sen’s creative work was based on the everyday appearances of a series of beautiful young girls. Even though these figures were executed with a relative degree of objectivity and typicality, when supplemented by He Sen’s compositional strength, the works revealed spectacularly the girls’ shapes and poses against a somewhat simple though beautiful background. They not only revealed the psychological intricacy of desire and the contradictions that emerged with its release, but also portrayed their constantly alienated aspirations and desires and highlighted the liveliness, boredom and absurdity of their world. Such an effect had relatively direct symbolic meanings: that is, taking the current reality of inflated consumption and introducing it into the beauty and oddity of these girls, then adding traces of dust to create a sense of symbolism and realism; thus the visual images made the transition from a fabricated surface to reality. In this way, He expressed his deep concern for the changes taking place in contemporary society. However, a few days ago, when I went to He Sen’s studio to interview him for this essay, I realized He Sen’s creativity has shown significant changes. As I asked him about the thinking behind his current creative works, we came to a certain understanding.

　　Speaking of the relationship between art and reality, from the perspective of Chinese modern and contemporary art there are two tendencies worth notice: one is that many artists are still adhering to a notion of art as the direct projection and reflection of “reality”, believing modernity is able to perceive the truth in life and the essence of reality, thus the role of the artist becomes to reveal and express this historical tendency; secondly, there is a close adherence to presenting the progress of a majestic historical process, adhering to the study of social phenomenon and revolutionary fervor under pressing national and class struggle. Both of these are closely knit into the fabric of China’s modern history, especially the sense of national disgrace and social urgency.

　　Since the economic reforms, the complexity and richness created by social transformation has provided contemporary Chinese art with a profusion of useful resources, and the scenes of the bizarre rooted in the Chinese reality have also contributed to the unique attractiveness of avant-garde contemporary Chinese art. When their personal experiences of growing up and memories of the past are placed alongside contemporary culture, artists have created a clear cultural focus. This was the most obvious characteristic of contemporary Chinese art in the 1990s, it is also one of the reasons that contemporary Chinese art is favored by the international art community. However, the inclinations also have led to some worrisome problems.

　　The pervasiveness of these problems derives from the fact that even though some artists are experimenting with different medium of material—for instance, installation, photography, performance and other new fields—in terms of concepts and methodology, they continue in the same tradition of realist thought and attitudes. This is a contradiction that has appeared during China’s social transition, the unusual abundance of entangled confusion and anxiety has caused Chinese avant-garde art to be lively and rich in variation. Such one on one abstraction lacks artistic variation and transcendence; it flows into an inferior ‘incarnation of modernity’, or sinks into a vulgar sociological representation. This leads to many artists representing actual subjects inundated with visuality. In fact, the spectacle of reality often surpasses the visual tension of the artworks. And the artists seem to have lost the ability to present the experience of anything that transcends reality. My understanding perhaps originates in thinking about and evaluating contemporary Chinese art itself; this has also led to the changes in He Sen’s new concepts and language.

　　He Sen’s new works have grown out of copying, transplanting, appropriating and altering traditional scholarly paintings. The works he has copied or reproduced can be generally put into two major categories in terms of their adoption of visual resources: one is the direct copying of a particular traditional painting with oil painting, such a mechanical reproduction diminishes the characteristics of oil painting, and tries hard to imitate the original, even including the colophons and seals. Examples of this type include Li Shan’s Orchids, Safety and Prosperity, Bamboo in the Wind, Xu Wei’s Various Flowers Scroll, Ink Flowers Scroll, Peony, Flowers in Ink. Interestingly, he has slightly altered the color of the originals, subjectively adding on his imaginative colors – this makes for a somewhat fashionable appearance. Looking at them from a distance, apart from the enlarged dimensions, they have a close resemblance to an ink-jet printed advertisement. This is his intentional attempt to create an effect of illusion; he is not only the one who describes, but is also the “I” in the artwork. This is also an allusion to his understanding of both the classics and social reality. Of course, he is not undertaking what we usually think of as copying, he clearly shows that he has relied on the relationships between himself, the paintings, and the classical tradition to express the uncertainty and multiple meanings of tradition, modernity and the future. Furthermore, in this way he has preserved the depth and attractiveness of visual images. The second is to divide his copies into two parts: one part is the imitation of the original, and the other is a revelation of the traces of the brush in oil painting. Examples of this include Li Shan’s Miscellaneous, Ma Yuan’s Twelve Images of Water – Clouds Above the Sea, Twelve Images of Water – Shrouded Clouds, Surging Waves, Twelve Images of the Water – Yellow River Surging Back. The images reveal the linguistic differences that emerge out of a juxtaposition of traditional painting and oil painting, these resemble closely the sketches in his copy book. We can see that appropriation and fabrication, the poetics of history and the morass of reality that are meshed together in Chinese scholar paintings – an effect of the collage of hyper-imitation. Manipulating the classic within the classic allows for a destruction of the power that still remains in the classic, this changes the former direction of the function of classical artworks.

　　Through an unveiling of the limitations of recognized visual models, and the posing of a challenge toward the authority of the single narrative, the standards provided by these familiar works are revealed as temporary and undependable; thereby, from which among the humor that is unbearable to keep a straight face. In other words, through his application of classical visual resources, he has not provided value judgments for an already established art history, rather he has adopted a rather objective visual attitude, to transform what he has felt visually of the classics in terms of the meaning in art, humility of history, traces of time, into his own images, allowing the viewer to attain the relationship between the truth and the non-particular in these art historical images, and search for a new type of evaluation and explanation within this space. A juxtaposition of the real and the fabricated in classical Chinese art is He Sen’s experiment on art; it is also an expression of his sentiment toward traditional classic within passing time, showing how the process of imitation is saturated by time. Allowing viewers to realize as they began to look at these works that the version in front of them is no longer the classical work as understood by traditional art history, rather, they are He Sen’s “new” historical visual images that have been created through a process of enlarging and imitation, these visual versions are deeply engraved with his personal creativity. Perhaps in his view, the model we have created for densely complex human experience extremely feeble; thus people need to constantly change their perspectives, explore new metaphors and create new models in order to continuously prevent stagnation and chaos, and to allow other narratives and memories that had been long oppressed by the historical narrative to be released. Therefore, instead of claiming that He Sen is transcribing and reproducing classic works, it is better to claim that he is organizing his past visual memories and experience. From the image to manipulating the image, artwork formed by a subjective imitation of the classics is not only a dismantling of the aesthetic taste and form of the classics in different periods, but also an experiment in collage and construction. The concept supporting his experimentation, in addition to his unwillingness to continue with an already-formed style, is in fact directly inherited from his reflection on and love for art. Or, we could say that his creation is a methodological application of postmodernism, an attempt to get rid of the binary relationships between authenticity and imitation, surface and depth, real and fabrication. The depth of his works of two-dimensional imitation, have brought about comfort from dissipation and emptiness. Part of his goal is to provide multiple concepts through which to re-consider art history; this demonstrates his nostalgia for the once prominent classical art, as well as anxiety over the gradual dismantling of its cultural logic; the other part implies a safe-keeping of the “spiritual negative” that has influenced him – a safe-keeping of the traditional essence of classical culture that has been hit with a wave of destruction in the twentieth century. There is also his expectation that there will be an inception of new meaning out of this act of safe-keeping.

　　Since the 1990s, China’s progress toward globalization and a market economy, as well as its rapid economic growth have demonstrated a modern background and social formation that are totally different from that of the May Fourth period. If we still apply the framework used in the May Fourth movement to “explain China”, I am afraid it will fail to correspond with the actual changes in China, the notion of “for human life” isn’t an adequate response to human life in the midst of globalization and marketization. Art seems to begin leaning toward “purity”, becoming an exploration of “art for the sake of art”. This is precisely a phenomenon of the “culture of the new millennium”. The heavy mission expected of “art for human life” has been naturally dissolved, and pure art seems to have gained the objective foundation for expanding its independence; art has begun to gradually make a return to “it”. This is, of course not to say art has a “self” that is independent of the world, but rather that our imagination and expectation of art has changed, and this change is precisely the new form of art that has emerged as the era progresses, art is gradually becoming a human clamoring from the margins, a marginal humanist discourse of worldly gratitude and resentment. Because, one’s sharp precision and thoughtfulness toward contemporary culture will ultimately lead to a reconstruction of pre-existing artistic concepts and methodologies. Perhaps we can begin to see from He Sen’s new experiments and explorations his enjoyment of artistic language and meaning itself. The art he pursues is one that gains an unprecedented independent imagination without the limits of an external social reality. Delicate, moderate, permanent without darkness and miscellaneous colors, the artist’s own integrity can be seen through another aspect of this era and its reality. Compared to those works of intensity, these appear to be moderate and harmonious, and even more segregated from the “nostalgia of pain” type of art. His new works don’t seem to have any traces of the current discourse; their origins are all in the “art for art’s sake” tradition and the art itself of the May Fourth period. Even though this discourse is an odd type, it appears to cleanse one’s heart and shake one’s rationalism. Fashionable trends all seem to become tasteless when faced with his works. Perhaps this can be seen as a return, but it isn’t a simple search for the utopian peach blossom world, it is a lowly display of modernity due to an escape from reality’s utter chaos, rather to provide a thinking source in a calm observation of the spirit, constantly providing various possible thoughts and judgments. Because being “overly involved with this world” could immerge into this reality and lose the self, whereas to begin with one’s personal experience and “leave the world”, who is loyal to one’s own feelings, could discover the existence of the true self.

　　Compare to his work, trendy colors seems to be tame and tasteless. Perhaps this is a return, but it isn’t a blind pursuit of the utterly world of peach blossom, rather, that is an incarnation of an inferior modernity for the sake of escaping the overly noisy reality. Instead, he provides a resource of thoughts in a quiet observation in spirit - constantly offering various possibilities in thoughts and judgments. If one is overly “involved with the world”, perhaps one becomes saturated in reality thus losing the self, whereas to “distance oneself from the world”, which begins with personal experience - who is honest with one’s own feelings, could consequently find the existence of the true self.

作者：冯博一