面对曾健勇的水墨人物画，习惯中国画经验的人一定会诧异，继而是难以理解。出现如此反应，并不奇怪，因为在所谓的水墨圈中，“习惯”已经成为左右我们判断绘画的唯一根据，并因为这种“习惯”的根深蒂固而使创作走向单调化、模式化。仿佛，只有笔墨的传统样式，甚至固定的题材，才能称之为中国画。如果一不小心跨越了这几种样式、几类题材，就是怪力乱神、不可理喻的东西。表面上，这种态度是守护传统的姿态，但实际上，却恰恰是僵化传统资源走向当代的法宝。很显然，曾健勇没有掉进这个陷阱，他似乎并不在意别人会用怎样的眼光来判断他的中国画感觉，更没有随大流地举起传统大旗为自己谋一点生活的本钱，甚至，他也不在乎别人是否将他视作中国画画家，而是执意于自我的视觉体验，在水墨的方式下表达自身对于当下文化的感受、判断。或许，正是这种“不在乎”的自信，曾健勇的水墨人物获得了一次与当代艺术交汇的机会。

　　而这，也正是曾健勇吸引我的地方。他的创作，从某种角度上看，支持了我这几年来关于中国画的某些思考。中国画，作为传统视觉语言，一直以形式自足的古典抒情方式存在，缺少现实观照能力。虽然，经过二十世纪现实主义浪潮的影响，中国画产生了很多描绘当代生活场景的作品，但大多仍停留于再现性的形式表达，是简单嫁接西方古典主义造型方式的结果。然而，伴随中国社会的工业化，处于全球化趋势下的中国文化，也无可阻挡地进入现代化的浪潮中。与之相伴的是，人的生活方式、精神际遇都发生了根本性转向，不再简单呈现为自然主义样式。那么，现代型的艺术也相应开始转向对于人的观念的视觉感官表达，并逐渐远离简单的场景再现，乃至于形式抒情。然而很明显，今天的中国画创作主流与这样的发展趋势严重背离，它更多的只是着眼于古典形式抒情的传承、发扬。于是，中国画越来越成为脱离我们现实精神际遇的画种，成为少数人圈子中的特殊体验。固然，少数人对这种形式的玩味有助于传统的继承，却很难实现这一画种的当代发展，更不用说构建出贴切当下精神的视觉形态。那么，处于如此境遇的中国画，面对日新月异的社会现实，是否注定了“失语”以至被边缘化的命运？它是否能够在自身体系内实现艺术观念、创作手法上的变革，哪怕仅是题材上的突破？它能否等同于其它材质的当代艺术，深层次地介入当代人的精神生活？应该说，这些问题，不仅是我们今天面对水墨时无法回避的话题，更是我们急需解决的现实问题。

　　当然，解决这些问题，并非一蹴而就，也没有一个简单的可以照搬的历史经验。相对而言，它需要我们创造性地摸索方向，以全新的视觉体验来改变我们记忆中的“中国画”。于是，这就对我们的中国画画家提出了更多的要求：他们不能仅仅注重经典化了的视觉形态，而对当下鲜活的艺术现象不闻不问，甚至简单排斥。因为这样的话，他们的视觉修养必然只能局限在传统的几种样式中，画出来的东西也就只能是在重复所谓的“中国画”经典，即使给人的感觉很“中国画”，又有着怎样的意义呢？很明显，曾健勇不是这样的画家。从他的作品中，我们可以清晰地感觉到他对当下鲜活的艺术形态的敏感。比如他较为早期的“大队长”、“少年时代”系列作品，很明显受到九十年代诸如张晓刚“大家庭”之类图像化艺术的影响，将具有象征意味的人物对象固化为一种精神符号，并以之感受、体验、表达有关中国当下的精神、情绪。仅此而言，曾健勇就跳开了中国画或简单样式化的形式主义、或简单嫁接造型的再现性发展脉络，将这种材质、语言带入一种可以直接面对当代人的观念指向的视觉表达。尤其值得指出的是，曾健勇对其它艺术样式的学习，并非简单的、不经消化地挪用，而是通过具有自身趣味的选择来实现新的表达。比如，张晓刚的“大家庭”系列作品，虽然在图像组成的内在结构上背离了宏大叙述的政治性，但其骨子里却仍然保留了文化集体主义的宏观视角，也即他的作品呈现的是一个时代所有人共有的、理性化的精神图谱，而较少带有他个人化的情绪体验。然而，在曾健勇的作品中，我们却会发现画家个人化的情绪营造，虽然，这些作品所设置的学习、生活场景是我们这代人所共同熟知的，但充满阳光的语境与黑色红领巾、课本以及迷离眼神的多重组合，却分明呈现出一种个体化理解的童年记忆。并且，这些记忆被命名为“高危人群”、“失眠”、“扎堆”等并非少年化的词语，使我们不得不面对一种别具曾健勇视角的童年感受：灿烂的阳光下，带着一点青涩感的迷茫。

　　“青涩的迷茫”，这种能够直接触摸当下感受的视觉体验，因为曾健勇开放性的艺术视野，得以出现在中国画的创作中，对今日水墨试图重归现实的努力，无疑是一种新鲜而别样的收获。然而，正是因为这种新鲜、别样，也导致了曾健勇的画面不会、也不可能简单重复所谓“中国画”的经典样式，以至在最终效果上与我们记忆中的“中国画”存在一定距离，有点不像“中国画”。而这，正是很多习惯固有审美方式的人不适应曾健勇式中国画的原因所在。然而，就历史而言，普通人对视觉体验的消费经常会滞后于绘画自身的发展，因为他们通常只会习惯于曾经的方式，而对新的感觉不适应，甚至排斥。他们很难意识到，这些新的东西，才最有可能为艺术史的书写注入新的内容。试想一下，如果所有创作都只是提供人们习惯的老东西，那么，艺术史不也就停滞不前了吗？所以，像不像“中国画”，其实真得没有什么关系。太像了，反而表明作品只是重复了过去，缺少价值;而不太像，恰恰说明作品能够突破束缚，在所谓的条框之外寻找新的可能，具有潜在的未来价值。如果，我们能够站在这样一种角度看问题，那么曾健勇的不太像“中国画”，比起很多太像“中国画”的作品，似乎就具备了更多的可能与更多的空间，也因此而为中国画重塑现实的观照能力，提供了更多的启发。当然，抛开这种预言式的展望，仅就现实而言，曾健勇式的“去中国画”，也会为当下沉闷的中国画创作提供一种全新的体验，最起码，他做到了第一步，能够与过去说再见。而这声“再见”，无论未来如何，都能给我们提供一个新的视角，去看待中国画的未来发展。

　　其实，换一个角度看，不像“中国画”，并不代表不是“中国画”。这要看我们怎样理解“中国画”。就历史而言，“中国画”从来不是一个僵化不变的概念，而是在动态发展中实现自身历史构建的过程。正如，与米芾同时代的人，很少有人意识到他的横涂乱抹，在宋画精微的视觉体验之后，能够引发全新的文人画时代，而“中国画”也正在这种转换中相应发生了概念变化，以至逐渐形成我们今天所习惯的“中国画”。也就是说，我们今天所习惯的“中国画”概念，并非中国画历来有之的金科玉律，而是伴随历史演进的过程出现并加以明确的。所以，如果今天我们仍然抱着旧有概念看待中国画，结果就只能固化我们的思维、限制我们的视野。尤其是在今天的中国，人的生存境遇与古典文人时代相比，已经发生了天翻地覆的变化，一味固守旧的概念，就意味着我们的作品必然脱离现实，成为形式上怀旧的符号，缺乏艺术史的演进价值。从这个角度上看，我们不仅应该鼓励打破传统中国画样式的努力，而且还应该主动寻求这种打破后的新样式的建立，应该不回避、不漠视一切新的可能性，并在主观上抛弃自己像不像“中国画”的担心。因为，只要我们熟悉这类材料的语言体验，真正理解它背后的东西，我们在画面中就会天然呈现自己与历史的链接，又何必固守所谓的形式来表明自己“中国画”的身份，以至成为简单的重复？

　　正如曾健勇，虽然在图像呈现上与当代艺术有着表达上的共通性，但在语言层面上却完全不一同，并因为语言的独特而导致画面在情绪营造上的差异。也就是说，曾健勇式的水墨创新，不仅需要改变旧的程式化创作方式下的感观经验，吸呐这个时代更为常态的图像经验，从而与这个时代的生活方式发生联系;同时，也需要保留水墨这种特殊材质所蕴涵的东方审美气质。或许，气质这样的词汇有点玄。就直观而言，它应该是水墨材料能够显现出的一种清凉、静谧的东方化的审美感受。也即，是不是中国画，并非由习惯中的语言形式——笔墨所决定。从某种角度上看，笔墨只是中国画语言表达的形式之一，而非本质，笔墨之所以能够成为我们今天判断中国画的习惯性标准，其深层原因还是在于这种语言背后所蕴含的东方审美方式。理解了这一点，我们就自然会放弃所谓的笔墨标准来看待曾健勇之类的中国画，并从中发现其与中国画传统之间的关联。正如曾健勇在带有筋丝的皮纸上，以积染为主要手段的造型语言，也是中国画于书写性线条之外的另一种语言传统——渲染的表现形式。如此方式下的画绘画语言，透明之中带有厚度、毛涩之中仍然透气，与油画的笔触或平涂完全不同，具有一种内敛、含蓄的东方审美性。并且，这种语言上的视觉体验，在表达效果上所具有的深邃、迷离等质地特征，与曾健勇画面试图营造的带有青涩感的童年记忆颇为吻合，成为增强画面隐喻、象征效果的有效手段。而这种语言与表达的结合，在曾健勇近期“伙伴”系列的作品中，表现得尤为突出。由于这批作品在叙述结构上相对以前作品进行了调整，画面减弱了孤立符号性的表意，而开始强调符号在组合之中所形成的结构性意义。这种方式，较之独立性符号，更加强调语言在整体上的协调性，也即语言不仅要与符号对象融合，而且还需进一步融合于符号之间的结构中，并能有效统一画面内容，使之呈现为带有共性的意趣指向。于是，一种别具趣味的童年经验呈现在我们面前：青涩而忧郁的人物与动物，共同营造了一份孤独而自我、沉郁而天真的生活体验，在透明、绵厚的语言氛围中，显得恰当而细腻。面对如此画面，观者感受到的不仅是某种童年回忆的情绪，更带有一种成人世界孤独、寂寞的自我凭吊。从某种意义上说，曾健勇所营造的童年记忆，正是中国当代艺术由集体主义文化反思转向个人化生存体验倾述的必然结果。将它放置于中国近三十年来当代艺术的发展中，不仅符合其内在逻辑，而且在视觉感受上也能相互统一，从而使得水墨材质的作品获得了与当代艺术相似的当下文化标识。当然，这里有一个问题值得我们重视，即曾健勇之类的水墨作品，虽然在介入当代文化的机制上与当代艺术相似，但它们却并非简单化的嫁接与转移。它们与以油画为主要手段的当代艺术存在着非常明显的感官上的差异。如果，我们将这批作品转换为其它绘画语言，即便是完全一样的图像，也不再具有原来画面中特定的氛围与气质，在隐喻、象征的结果上会大打折扣。甚至，会因为语言表意的“直接性”而丧失这种隐喻、象征的表达效果。也就是说，这批作品的中国画语言，已经成为语义表达的有机组成部分，并因此具备了不同于其他画种的绘画性。而这，也是我们在光怪陆离的当代艺术中，能够发现这批水墨作品具有一种别样气质的原因所在。

　　按照这种方式理解，将曾健勇之类的画家比较于当代艺术，无论是方力均那样强调图式的，还是尹朝阳这样强调语言的画家，我们都会发现一种独具价值的精神表达效果。他们没有上述画家那种直接的图像力度，却具有另外一种沉静的思想表达。而这，正得益于东方绘画语言宁静、疏缓的表达特征。我们在他们的画面中，看不到其它当代艺术中常见的不安与动荡，虽然他们也在表达着当代人灵魂深处的某种矛盾、冲突，但在表达效果上却将之消解于某种理性主义的安详与宁静中，带有哲学化的修辞特点。从这个意义上说，在当代中国画坛上，他们不属于我们习惯理解中特定的“当代艺术”的范畴，而是一种新的能够表达“当代”的艺术。并且，相对“西化”潮流下特定概念的“当代艺术”，他们是更能代表中国的“当代艺术”。 如果，我们的作品具有了如此特质，那么，即便不像我们习以为常的、陈旧的“中国画”，又有什么关系呢？

2009年10月8日于望京寓所

　　Not Standard Chinese Painting, So What?------Zeng Jianyong’s ink and wash paintings

　　By Hang Chunxiao

　　Those who are accustomed to traditional Chinese paintings will definitely be surprised when they first see Zeng Jianyong’s paintings of ink and wash figures, and will then find them hard to understand. It is not completely unexpected that people may feel this way. In the world of Chinese painting, people’s ‘conventional concept’ has become the only standard when they decide whether a piece of ink and wash is a good one or not. This deep-rooted ‘concept’ is leading the artistic creation to monotony and stereotype. To most people, Chinese painting is only about certain techniques and several particular images, and if someone accidentally violates these so-called rules, their paintings would be considered bizarre and incomprehensible. Those people are acting like the guardians of the tradition, but the truth is they are preventing the tradition from moving forward in the contemporary era. Obviously, Zeng Jianyong did not fall into this trap. He seems not to care much about how other people would look at what he himself calls ‘Chinese paintings’, and he surely didn’t follow the mainstream or hold up the ‘banner of tradition’ just in order to make a living. He even doesn’t care whether people regard him as a Chinese painter or not. He just keeps holding on to his own visual experience and expressing his feelings of the current culture by using water and ink. Perhaps, it is Zeng’s self-confidence and his ‘I don’t care’ attitude that have obtained space for his ink and wash figures in the contemporary art field.

　　This is precisely the reason why Zeng Jianyong has attracted my attention. His paintings have, in some way, verified the thoughts that I have been holding on Chinese painting over the past few years. As a traditional visual language, Chinese painting has remained classical, lyrical and self-contained all these years, which keeps it isolated from the real world. Under the influence of the Tide of Realism in the twentieth century, there appeared many Chinese paintings that depicted contemporary life, but most of them still remained to be simple reproduction of scenes, which was the result of applying mechanically the modeling method of Western Classicism. However, along with the industrialization of Chinese society, Chinese culture was exposed under the impact of globalization and it was irresistibly drawn into the swirl of modernization. In the meantime, people's way of life and their mental state had both gone through a fundamental shift and were no longer in their original form of naturalism. In addition, modern art also began to shift correspondingly to the visual expression of people’s concept and was moving gradually farther away from simple reproduction of scenes. However, it is clear that the mainstream of today's Chinese painting has severely deviated from this trend. It focuses more on the inheritance and promotion of its classical form of expression. As a result, Chinese painting is increasingly separated from our true state of mind and turns into the special experience of only a small number of people. No doubt these people’s enthusiasm for Chinese painting is helpful to the inheritance of tradition, but it is difficult for them to realize the development of Chinese painting in the contemporary era, let alone build a visual form that is appropriate for the present spirit. Chinese painting is now in such a difficult situation and is faced with constant change of social reality. Does that mean Chinese painting is doomed to be ‘silenced’ or marginalized? Is it possible for Chinese painting to carry out reforms in both artistic concept and creation techniques within its own system, even just a breakthrough on the subject? Would it be able to get deeply involved in the spiritual life of contemporary people just like other kinds of art? These are all unavoidable questions when we talk about Chinese painting today, and they are also realistic problems that are urgently needed to be solved.

　　It is impossible to solve these problems overnight and there is no exact historical experience that we can copy from. We will have to think creatively and feel our way in the dark to explore a new visual experience and change the original impression we have had of ‘Chinese painting’ in the past. This means higher demands for Chinese painters: they cannot only focus on classic visual forms while ignoring or completely excluding the dynamic artistic phenomena in our life. If they keep isolating themselves from the contemporary trend, their visual accomplishment will always be confined in limited traditional styles and their paintings will only be exact duplicates of those in ancient times. Even if their works show high proficiency and conform the standard of Chinese painting, then what? Obviously, Zeng Jianyong is not one of them. From his paintings, we can clearly see his sensitivity to current artistic forms, such us The Header and Childhood Days series. They are all completed in Zeng’s early years and have, apparently, absorbed something from the ‘Image Art’ in the nineties, for example Zhang Xiaogang’s Big Family series. They turned emblematic figures into spiritual symbols and use them to feel, experience and express the current mood and spirit of China. This alone shows that Zeng has shaken off the shackles of simple formalism and the development context of shape reproduction. He brings this kind of material and technique into a visual expression that can face directly the concept of modern people. It's worth pointing out that Zeng’s study from other art forms is not simple imitation. He has invented a new kind of expression by choosing the subject that he has an interest in. To take Zhang Xiaogang’s Big Family as an example, its internal structure of image composition is on departure from the grand political narration, but the macro-perspective of cultural collectivism is still deep-rooted in its bones. In other words, Zhang’s paintings present a rational spiritual atlas which is shared by a whole generation but express little about his own personal emotional experience. However, from Zeng's works, we can sense the mood of the artist himself. People in our generation couldn’t be more familiar with the campus life depicted in these paintings, but the multiple combination of positive context, black-colored ‘red scarves’, textbooks and eyes blurred with confusion is apparently revealing a personalized understanding of childhood memories. In addition, those memories have been named as ‘high risk’, ‘insomnia’ and ‘muster’ which are not exactly words for young people, so we are watching a childhood memory from Zeng’s personal and unique perspective: the bright sunlight and the confusion with a touch of immaturity.

　　‘Immature confusion’, a visual experience that directly touches the pulse of time, has managed to appear in the world of Chinese painting because of the openness of Zeng's artistic vision. It is, without a doubt, a completely fresh and unique push to Chinese painting’s attempt to return to the reality. This kind of freshness and uniqueness also keeps Zeng from simply duplicating the so-called classic patterns of ‘Chinese painting’, which causes his works to deviate from the kind of ‘Chinese Painting’ we remember and to be criticized as not standard ‘Chinese Painting’. This is precisely the reason why people with conventional aesthetic concept find Zeng’s unique style of Chinese painting unacceptable and disturbing. However, from a historical perspective, the development of people’s visual experience consumption is often slower than the development of painting itself. This is because people are used to what they already have and tend to keep a distance from or even turn a blind eye to what is new. It is difficult for them to realize that it is new things which are most likely to inject fresh blood into the art history. Just imagine if all artworks were about old things that we were familiar with, then the art history would be at a standstill. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether Zeng’s works are standard ‘Chinese Paintings’ or not. If they look exactly like ‘Chinese paintings’, then they are just meaningless duplicates of those in the past. Only when they look something different from the original ones, it means they have shaken off the shackles and are trying to find new possibilities outside the so-called ‘frame’ and they are of potential future value. If people are all able to look at things from this perspective, when they compare Zeng’s paintings to those decent ‘Chinese’ paintings, they will find that the not quite standard ‘Chinese Paintings’ of Zeng Jianyong are faced with more possibilities and more space to develop and they have, thus, provided more inspiration for ‘Chinese painting’ to reshape its ability to reflect the reality. Of course, if we put aside the future value of Zeng’s paintings and just focus on the present, his unique style will also bring a brand new experience to the currently depressing situation of the Chinese painting circle. At least, he has waved farewell to the old style of Chinese painting, which is the exactly the first step we should make. No matter how the future will turn out to be, this ‘farewell’ can always provide us with a new perspective to look at the development of Chinese painting.

　　In fact, ‘unlike Chinese painting’ is not the same as ‘not Chinese Painting’. It depends on how we understand it. ‘Chinese Painting’ has never been a fixed concept. It keeps building its own history in a process of dynamic development. For example, people in the same time with Mi Fu had all considered his paintings as random scribbling and scrawling and few had the foresight to realize that his art would lead to a new era of ‘literati painting’ after the visual experience of ‘delicacy’ in Song Dynasty. The concept of ‘Chinese Painting’ changed correspondingly in this process of conversion and gradually developed into the kind of ‘Chinese Painting’ we are familiar with today. That is to say, what we know as standard ‘Chinese painting’ did not look the way it is from the very beginning. It was in an evolutionary process along with the history. So if we still hold an old view on Chinese painting, we would have our thoughts and horizons restricted. Compared to the ancient scholar times, people's living condition has undergone tremendous changes, especially in today's China. Therefore, clinging blindly to the old concept would definitely keep our artworks far from the reality and turn them into formal symbols of nostalgia which lack of evolution values of art history. From this point of view, we should not only encourage the effort people have made to break the traditional Chinese painting style, but also seek a way to set up a new one. We shouldn’t avoid or ignore all the new possibilities and we should try to abandon our subjective concerns about the resemblance between the ancient ‘Chinese paintings’ and the present ones. As long as we are familiar with the subject and truly understand what is behind it, we will naturally present our links with the history in the paintings. Why still stick to the ‘appearance’ just to show people that you are a Chinese Painter at the expense of losing your unique style?

　　There is a commonality of image display between Zeng’s paintings and other contemporary art, but they are worlds apart on the language level. The uniqueness of Zeng’s painting language leads to certain differences in the mood of the whole screen. That is to say, in order to connect with today’s lifestyle, Zeng has to change people’s sensuous experience molded by the old stylized creation ways and to absorb modern images while trying to retain the oriental aesthetic charisma by using traditional materials of water and ink. Perhaps the word ‘charisma’ sounds a bit too abstruse. It is simply a kind of refreshing and tranquil oriental aesthetic sense contained in water and ink. Therefore, just because we are used to the language of brush and ink doesn’t mean we should decide whether a painting is ‘Chinese painting’ or not based on this. From a certain respect, brush-and-ink is just one of the many forms of Chinese painting languages rather than the only one. The underlying reason why brush-and-ink has become the criterion of Chinese painting is the oriental aesthetic charisma contained in it. If we understand this, we will naturally stop comparing Zeng’s paintings to the so-called ‘brush-and-ink’ Chinese paintings, and we will find the inner connection between the two. The main modeling language Zeng uses is to polish his paintings repeatedly with water and color on ribbed leatherette paper. This is another traditional language of Chinese painting---applying color with water. In this way, the painting would be transparent but still with certain thickness, rough but not smothering, completely different from the brush strokes of oil paintings. It is with a restrained and subtle oriental aesthetic charisma. Moreover, this kind of technique is able to create a far-reaching and vague visual effect which is in accordance with the immature childhood memories that Zeng is trying to represent, and it has therefore become an effective means to enhance the sense of metaphor and symbolism of the painting. This combination of language and expression is particularly apparent in Zeng’s recent works, the Friends series. Zeng has modified the narrative structure of this series by making the isolation of ideographic symbols less obvious and emphasizing the structural significance formed by symbols in the combination. Compared to independent symbols, this approach put more stress on the overall coordination of language, which means that painting language has to be integrated not only with symbolic objects but also with the structure between the symbols. And then it must effectively unify all the contents in the screen so that they share the same interest and charm. Here, in front of our eyes is a childhood experience with special savor: immature and melancholic figures and animals together create a lonely, personal, gloomy and innocent life experience which appears to be appropriate and delicate in the transparent and mellow atmosphere of the painting. When faced with such a beautiful image, the viewers can feel not only the emotions of their childhood memories but also the self-sympathy in the lonely world of adults. From a certain perspective, the childhood memory that Zeng has built displays the inevitable result of the process that the stress of Chinese contemporary art is turning from collective cultural reflection to personal life experience. Zeng’s paintings are in accordance with the development of Chinese art in the last three decades, both logically and visually, and they have also brought contemporary cultural identity to ink and wash paintings. There is another problem worth our attention: Zeng’s paintings are similar to contemporary art in the way that they are involved in contemporary culture, but they are not simple duplicates of others and they have significant visual differences from the contemporary art which is dominated by oil paintings. If Zeng had used other techniques, even if the images had been exactly the same, the paintings would have lost their original atmosphere and the effect of metaphor and symbolism would have been greatly reduced or even completely taken away. That is to say, Chinese painting techniques have already become an integral part of the semantic expression which makes Zeng’s paintings different from others. This is why we have found Zeng’s ink and wash paintings distinct and unique in the motley and gaudy world of contemporary art.

　　If we try to look at it from this angle, then when we compare Zeng Jianyong to other contemporary artists, no matter it is Fang Lijun who puts a lot of stress on image patterns or Yin Zhaoyang who focuses on painting techniques, we would always find in the paintings of Zeng and many other similar artists a spiritual expression with unique value. Their paintings don’t have the kind of image intensity as those of Fang Lijun or Yin Zhaoyang, but they have their own silent expression of ideas, thanks to the tranquility and relaxation of the oriental painting languages. In these paintings, there is no anxiety or unrest which is very commonly seen in other contemporary art. They, too, express the contradictions deep in the soul of people in our time, but this kind of inner conflicts have been softened by the calmness and tranquility of rationalism which is of certain philosophical rhetoric characteristics. From this point of view, they don’t fall into the ‘contemporary art’ category that we have set; they belong to a new kind of ‘art’ which reflects the ‘contemporary’ time. Also, compared to the particular ‘contemporary art’ under the influence of ‘Westernization’, they are more representative of Chinese ‘contemporary art’. If all of our artworks possess this kind of quality, then it doesn’t really matter whether they conform to the so-called standard of ancient ‘Chinese Painting’ or not.

　　In my apartment in Wangjing

　　Oct. 8th, 2009

作者：杭春晓