正在看美国休斯顿大学哲学教授辛西娅•弗瑞兰(Cynthia Freeland)2001年的著作《But is it art?》，这本书台湾出版时的译名叫《别闹了，这是艺术吗?》。我想有些观众在看过何森这个展览后，也会这样发问。

　　其实，了解后现代艺术的人都知道“挪用”这个词，这是后现代艺术的精华所在。现代主义为我们带来了一个美丽而令人无限憧憬的概括词——“原创”，而后现代却用一个低俗而贫瘠的“挪用”，就颠覆了所有的美好。善哉?抑或罪过?

　　那么这次何森又给了我们什么?

　　2004年，何森开始在灰底色上画一些“局部写实”的消费女孩肖像，有很多的细节和很少的情节。选择大面积的灰为底色，何森的“不良之心”昭然若揭，而那些无聊无奈无进取心的三无女孩，反映了转型期中国社会的一个消极的侧影。

　　何森的灰色肖像迅速走红，然后名利双收。

　　于是何森想变了。熟悉何森绘画历史的人都不难看出，何森是一个自我裂变速度异常的艺术家，他各个时期的绘画差异巨大，几乎不可同日而语。何森时刻都感觉到“习惯性工作的危险”，他认为要出有意思的作品，只能是非常规“操作”。我想这一切都跟何森的性格有直接的关系，从骨子里看，他其实是一个非常忧郁非常沮丧甚至非常绝望的艺术家。

　　2004年底，何森开始以李鱓和徐渭的作品为“草图”进行创作。何森此时的创作，与其他很多艺术家挪用前人作品“再创作”的“第一眼”不同在于，何森并非借用前人的图式或内容，或偷换成自己的概念，或加入明显的现实图景，或变化叙事角度等等，何森基本上是依样画葫芦，将“前人图像”当作自己创作时赖以为据的照片，就像他画模特一样。表面看上去，“画还是那张画”。而且，何森所选择的“原作”，也不是那么的有名，这样也就摆脱了借原作之光的嫌疑。在后现代不算太长的历史中，名画不断被“翻新”，比如《最后的晚餐》，我见过的“新作”都有几十个版本，包括各个国家和多种媒材，而我没见过的一定更多。何森说“李鱓不是古代一流的大师，个人风格也不是很明显，但他的作品有一种水墨教科书的感觉，我宁愿选择以这样的艺术家为蓝本”。

　　深圳有一个著名的以艺术的名义出名的地方，叫“大芬村”，那是一个商品油画的集散地，在那里你可以找到很多著名艺术家的赝品。

　　那么何森和他们有什么区别吗?

　　这其实本来不应该成为一个问题，问题是就有人提类似的问题。还比如也有人问“照片随时都可以加印，为什么艺术家的照片卖这么贵?”或者这样的话：“这么简单的画，我也能画”。或者又说：“我们想的点子不是艺术，为什么艺术家的点子就是艺术?区别在哪里?”这些问题也许不存在于艺术界，但它们却是我们时代的问题，我们的批评有时会在社会政治问题上上纲上线，却对身边的“小问题”熟视无睹忽略不计甚至是极端鄙夷。这是我们该有的态度吗?

　　艺术家的态度和出发点决定了作品的性质，艺术家通过思考改变世界的方式就是创作，其实自古以来就没有一个真正的艺术家是靠准确复原现实而成为艺术家的。艺术家的生命就在于创造。

　　何森说他对古代的所谓笔墨情趣完全不懂，只是看着印刷品的效果，他感觉自己是在一个时间的流程里，他画的东西也许跟古人的本意毫无关系。这是何森!何森喜欢做一些貌似无意义，但其实很用功的事情，他的消极和放弃，都在他以往的画面中次第呈现着。他认为绘画本来就是一种逃避现实的方式，现实不可把握，绘画很个人，而很个人的行为，也许可以通过绘画介入或者接近现实。所以，何森愿意选择“现实之外”的素材进行创作。当对中国古代的绘画印刷品百看不厌的时候，何森开始在这些“并不确定”的原作上寻找某种可能性。有的时候消极就是积极，而放弃等同于坚持，消极和放弃都是一种能力，一种智慧。

　　时间是一个关键。古月今人，月亮变了没有?或者像罗大佑唱的：“是我们改变了世界，还是世界改变了我和你?”时间是一桌流水席，流水不腐，但其他的呢?我们手中的画册，画册中的图片，到底还有几分“真实性”?作者先不管，仅仅从作品的质量印刷的质量，或者仅仅从颜色上看，怎样?历史真的是无情的。所以，何森赖以为据的原作，最多是属于一个“手抄本”级别的，所以那些原作，最多只能被理解成现在艺术家所广泛运用的绘画参考照片。当然这个照片还是带着一些气息的，一些古时候的气息，一些中国古代文人的气息。时间川流不息，文化源远流长。

　　何森认为他和中国古代文人在逃避现实的态度上是相通的。而他又认为古代文人并非真的都看破红尘，其实他们心中也充满了矛盾和焦虑，就像他。我想何森是针对隐士或者隐士的思想而言的。其实所谓隐士，在我的理解就像现在的“地下”和“地上”一样，出了名的算“地上”，还没出名的就是“地下”，“地下”的人都在暗中寻找机会，等待出头露脸的机会。时间在说明一切，时间渐渐变成历史。所以“地下”是因为无奈是被“逼”的，隐士也一样，只有最后彻底灰了心的人才成为了真正的隐士。所以，其实隐士是一个面子问题，面子之下的确充满了矛盾和焦虑。所以中国绘画中的一山一水一草一木，其实都充满了现实的气息，甚至是残酷的呐喊，就像鲁迅先生所看到的“吃人”二字。所以何森认为中国的绘画从古至今一直是比较“现实主义”的，有比较明显的社会针对性，绘画本身的东西很容易就被忽略了，他甚至还非常极端地认为，中国的艺术一直就缺少“艺术”这条线。这个理论让人不得不去对比一下西方的艺术，而在西方的艺术中能够卓然大家的，的确都是些在美学或者艺术学中有独到创造的，都是不同程度的形式主义者。中国的艺术，的确在形式创造上存在着明显的不足。

　　何森的逃避其实也是以退为进的，他非常希望在形式而非内容上下功夫并有所突破。在他学院的学习中，学习的是西方的绘画体系，绘画应该是客观和立体的;而他所看到和体悟的中国传统绘画，却是主观和平面的;他试图找到一条它们之间或者之外的一条通衢大道。于是何森极力放大古代的画面，以期达到无限放大情感因素的效果。中国对艺术品的态度是“把玩”式的，所以在画面上呈现的永远是“浓缩人生精华”的效果，即使是表现汹涌澎湃的场景，用的也是微缩景观的画法，比如《清明上河图》;而放大后的体量，却显示出一种极端的体验，生命的活跃和力量呼啸而来。所以，绘画的尺幅在何森目前的创作中，也很重要，尺幅也是时间。于是何森选择了画水，马远的水。何森说马远并非开画水先河，但马远之水天上来，有一种情怀在里面。何森的马远之水是三段式的，潮起潮落，有张有弛，一波三折，那些表现性的笔触极富表演天才，它们欢呼并且舞蹈。时间倒转，正如大海逆流。

　　今年春天我在马德里，天寒地不冻，阳光晴好，空气中有兴奋剂的味道。百忙之中，我特地早起去了一趟普拉多美术馆，去看我想往已久的戈雅的“黑画”。站在充满“黑画”的房间里，我激动不已。其实戈雅即使不画“黑画”，他也一样是大师，但“黑画”是他生命中最后也最真切的体验，也是他形式主义的高峰，他创造了崭新的绘画，无限延长了他的艺术生命。

　　不知道何森怎么想。

　　美国装置艺术家贾德曾经说，这个世界每天都在制造新的绘画垃圾，所以他不再画画。何森落在古画之上的创作，好像似乎既创造了一种形式，也为“绘画内容”节省了“债台高筑”的空间。

　　不知道何森会否这么想。

　　一种绘画形式的创造需要时间，而何森的创作正是对时间的一种实验。这说明了什么?

　　在给这个展览起名字的时候，有风吹过，我突然想起很久以前看过的一部电影《此时彼刻》。此时彼刻，何森这批作品正有古代和现在相互印证之意。还有时间，何森的时间，何时?

　　2006年12月16日 凌晨5点54分 北京望京

　　This time that moment: When? – He Sen’s New Paintings

　　Right now I’m reading a book titled, But is it Art?, published in 2001 by Cynthia Freeland, professor of philosophy at Houston University. When this book was translated and published in Taiwan its titled was changed to Quit Fooling Around, Is This Art? I think that some, after viewing this exhibition by He Sen, would also pose this question.

　　In fact, those who are familiar with post-modern art all know the term “appropriation” – this is where the essence of post-modernist art resides. Modernism brought forth the beautiful and imaginative concept of “originality”, but post-modernism, on the contrary, uses the lowly and barren term “appropriation”, a subversion of all that is beautiful. Is this good? Or is it evil? So, what is He Sen showing us this time?

　　In 2004, He Sen began to paint “detailed realist” portraitures of young female consumers against a gray background; there were many details, but they lacked a plot. Choosing large expanses of gray as a background, He Sen’s “bad intentions” are perfectly clear, and these “three not” girls – not interested, not caring, and not motivated, reflected the negative side of Chinese society in a transitional period.

　　He Sen’s gray portraitures quickly became well known, and he’s now gained fame and fortune.

　　Then He Sen wanted to change. Those who are familiar with He Sen’s artistic development will be able to easily understand—He Sen is an artist who moves away from himself with great speed, the differences between his works of various periods are huge, they can hardly even be talked about in the same language. He Sen is constantly sensitive to the “danger of habitual work”. He believes that in order to produce interesting works, one must “proceed” irregularly. I think that this is directly related to He Sen’s essential character, he is in fact rather melancholic, dispirited and sometimes even desperate.

　　At the end of 2004, He Sen began to paint using works of Li Chan and Xu Wei as “sketches”. The difference “at first sight” in He Sen’s appropriation of earlier artworks is that He Sen isn’t borrowing the composition or content of his predecessors, nor is he changing them into his own concepts, adding other conspicuous motifs, or changing their narrative perspective. He Sen is basically drawing in accord with their original forms, taking the “images of those before him” as photographs on which to base his own creative work, just as he would paint with models. On the surface, “the painting is still that painting”. However, the “original pieces” that He Sen has chosen aren’t necessarily famous works – for example, I have seen numerous “new versions” of The Last Supper from all countries and in all mediums, and I am sure there are more that I haven’t seen. He Sen explains, “Li Chan wasn’t a great master, and his personal style wasn’t really unique, but his works are like a textbook on ink paintings, and I’d rather use this type of artist as my blueprint.”

　　There’s a place in Shenzhen called “Dafen Village” that is famous for its art. It’s a gathering place for commercial oil paintings, you can find many imitations of works by famous artists.

　　So, how is He Sen different?

　　In fact, this should not be an issue. The issue only arises because there are people posing this type of question. For instance, there will be people asking questions like: “photographs can be reprinted, why would the artist’s photographs sell for such a high price?” Or questions like, “such simple paintings, I can paint too.” Or, “why aren’t our ideas art, but the ideas of the artists are art? What is the difference?” Such questions might not exist in the art field, but they are question of our time. Our critiques often magnify socio-political issues into matters of major principle, but “minor issues” are disregarded, treated dismissively, or even entirely neglected. Is this an attitude we should have?

　　The artist’s attitude and starting point are decisive in determining the nature of the artwork; the artist’s way of changing the world is through thinking and projecting these thoughts into his creation. In fact, since ancient times, there has never been an artist who became an artist by precisely restoring reality. The life of the artist is in his creativity.

　　He Sen claims to have absolutely no comprehension of the so-called muse in traditional Chinese painting; he can only see the effects of what has been printed. He feels that he is in a time tunnel, and what he is painting may be totally irrelevant to the original intentions of the ancient painters. This is He Sen! He Sen likes to do things that seem to be meaningless on the surface but in reality require great effort; his senses of passivity and abandonment have been gradually unveiled in his previous paintings. And he thinks that painting has always been a ways of escaping from reality, because reality can’t be manipulated; but the act of painting is very personal, and personal behavior can enter into or approximate reality through art. Therefore, He Sen is willing to choose material “outside of reality”. There are some traditional paintings that, even in print, never seem to grow old; He Sen has begun to search for some kind of possibility in these “undefined” original works. Sometimes, being passive is being active, and to give up is to persevere, passivity and abandon are types of ability, types of intelligence.

　　Time is a key. An ancient moon and modern people, has the moon changed? Or like Luo Dayou sings, “Have we changed the world, or has the world changed us?” Time is like running water, it will not rot, but the rest? The catalogue in our hands, the images in the catalogue, how much “truth” is there? Is it proper to not pay too much attention to the artist, but only to the quality of his work, or the quality of the printing, or even just look at its color? History is really without mercy. Therefore, the original works He Sen uses are mostly just “hand copies” – the original works should be understood as referential photographs widely used by contemporary artists. Of course these photographs have some kind of characteristic, some character of the past, some character of ancient Chinese scholars. Time flows incessantly, the source of culture is distant and its flow is long.

　　He Sen believes that his escapist attitude is the same as that of ancient Chinese scholars. And he also believes that ancient scholars were not necessarily seeing life as only vanity, but that they were also troubled with anxiety and contradiction, just like him. I think He Sen is referring to the recluse, and their way of thinking. In fact, the so-called recluse, in my understanding, is like what we think of as “above ground” and “underground”, those who are established are above ground, and those who are not yet known are underground. And those in the underground are searching for opportunities to emerge. Time explains everything, and it gradually becomes history. Thus, they are “underground” because they are helpless and “forced”, and the same applies for the recluse – only those who had completely given up could become true recluses. Therefore, being a recluse was a matter of face, and below this face there is indeed contradiction and anxiety. Therefore the mountains, waters, and vegetation in Chinese paintings are all reflective of reality, and are even cruel screams, just as Lu Xun saw in all the classic texts the word “cannibalism”. He Sen considers Chinese painting to have been rather “realistic” from the ancient to the present, and to have always had a conspicuous social target; that which is essential to the painting can be easily ignored, and even takes the rather extreme position that Chinese art lacks any artistic trend. Such a theory makes comparisons with Western art inevitable; works that are considered outstanding in Western art are indeed those with unique creativity either in aesthetic or artistic regards – there is always a degree of formalism. Chinese art is indeed lacking in creative forms.

　　He Sen’s escape is in fact a step back in order to step forward, he genuinely hopes to explore and achieve a breakthrough in terms of form rather than content. In his academic studies, he learned from the Western artistic system that art should be objective and dimensional; but what he has seen and felt in traditional Chinese paintings is subjectivity and two-dimensionality. He is trying to find a path that connects or moves beyond them. Therefore, He Sen overtly magnifies images of the ancient in order to attain an effect of exponential magnification of their sentimental elements. The Chinese attitude toward artworks is that of “intimate enjoyment”, thus what is shown on an image is always an effect of the “condensed essence of life”. Even though it is a representation of a turbulent scene, the painting method is one of condensation: for instance, On the Qingming River; the mass once magnified reveals a sort of extreme expression, the energy and power of life surges out. Therefore, size in He Sen’s creativity is also quite important, dimension is also time. He Sen chose to paint water, Ma Yuan’s water. He pointed out that Ma Yuan did not begin with the river, but Ma Yuan’s water and heaven share a sort of sentiment. He Sen’s Ma Yuan has three sections, one of surging and falling waves, one tense and raging, one a wave of three ripples. The expressive brushworks are rich in performative talent, they clap and dance. Time is turning backwards, as the ocean waves surge inward.

　　I was at Madrid this spring, the weather was cold but not freezing, sunny, and the air smelled of stimulants. Even with a busy schedule, I managed to get up early one morning to visit the Prado Museum and see what I had always wanted to see – the “dark paintings” by Goya. Standing in a room filled with these “dark paintings”, I was very excited. Even if Goya had not painted these “dark paintings” he would still be a master, but the “dark paintings” were the last and most truthful experience of his life, as well as the climax of his formalism, he created a new art, and exponentially extended his artistic life.

　　I don’t know what He Sen would think.

　　The American installation artist Jude once said, “this world is producing new artistic rubbish everyday”; thereafter, he stopped painting. He Sen seems to have descended onto the creativity of past art, and seems to have invented a new form, saving a debt-ridden space for content.

　　I don’t know if He Sen would agree with this.

　　Creating a new artistic form requires time, and He Sen’s creativity is precisely an experiment on time. What does this mean? When I was naming this exhibition, I felt a breeze and suddenly recalled a film I had seen, This Time, That Moment. This time, that moment, this series by He Sen is precisely a mutual correspondence of past and present. There’s also time, He Sen’s time, what time?

　　2006-12-16

　　5:54 a.m.

　　Beijing Wangjing

作者：黄燎原