南溪：

　　今天从医院逃回来看到了你的邮件。谈一点我个人的看法，供参考。

　　“原色点”的尝试很有意思，但目前还难以在理论上大做文章，冀少峰所谓的“从静态走向动态，从二维走向三维”，立论比较勉强。其实，“原色点”的全部意义是将修拉的点彩引入你的晕点，换一种说法，是将修拉的点彩本源化和极端化，推到最后的三原色，利用三原色含一切色的原理，让观众用自己的眼睛进行视觉溶彩，随着视点在远近正侧之间变换，产生出极为丰富甚至意外的似真似幻的视感觉。

　　这一推进对你个人有重要意义。

　　在你的作品中一直有一种两极回闪——当观者的视点在远近之间游移时，头脑中会出现两种不相关的意象：晕点与人物，抽象与具象，写实与非写实，模仿与非模仿，古典与当代。因为不相关，总是会形成矛盾意象之间的回闪。但这种回闪一直不够明朗，不够强烈，因为有一种更为强大的意念使矛盾的双方统一了起来，这个强大的意念就是：晕点是塑造人物的手段。因此，晕点是虚幻的，人物才是真实的;晕点是扑朔迷离的，人物才是确切可信的;晕点是引导你绕一个有意味的圈子，人物才是最后的目的地。

　　新尝试增加了一种新的两极回闪——原色与调和色。这一对矛盾与原有的矛盾不大一样，为什么这样说呢?因为这里有一个问题：原色与调和色何者为真?你可以说调和色为真，因为调和色才是人物的真实颜色。但任何人头脑中马上又会出现相反的反应：原色是真!调和色是错觉!

　　这是悖论，而悖论是不可调和的。

　　当新矛盾融入旧矛盾时，旧矛盾的对立性被相应强化而统一性则被相应弱化，晕点的独立性增强了，两极张力扩大了，矛盾双方的主从关系大大模糊了——既可以说晕点是塑造人物的手段，也可以说人物是晕点生发的借体。在这种情况下，“回闪”的概念也清晰了——忽而是原色，忽而是调和色;忽而是晕点，忽而是人物;忽而是抽象，忽而是具象;忽而是古典，忽而是当代……

　　对于你的作品，晕点和人物的关系一直困扰着我，我在想，军人的神圣和那一圈又一圈的晕点到底有什么关系?有了“回闪”的概念，这个问题可以解决了——双方没有内在的关系，双方不必遵循不矛盾律。

　　这在艺术史上有意义吗?有。不过不是“超越修拉”，修拉并不值得超越。王广义的并置和你的“回闪”都是在提出同一个问题：艺术中的双核问题。它质疑的是人们谈烂了的金科玉律：艺术作品必须所有局部统一为一个整体。

　　当然，如何使作品更有说服力，来日方长。

　　刘骁纯

　　(著名当代艺术批评家、中国艺术研究院研究员)

　　2010年2月25日

　　Discussion on "From 2D to 3D" between Professor Liu Xiaochun and Nan Qi: Letter I

　　Dear Nan Qi,

　　I have now read your email, having been discharged from hospital today, and I would like to offer the following opinions on your new works.

　　Your experimentation with the use of "tricolour ink and wash" paintings, using primary colours, is interesting; however, I find that the theory behind this idea may prove to be more successful than its implementation. Ji Shaofeng's argument that one could create dynamic images, and even 3D images, with this technique seems somewhat far-fetched. Using "tricolour dots" to create an image could be an interesting extension of Seurat's work with pointillisme, reducing the palette to primary colours only and allowing the eye to merge coloured dots into the hues and shades of the image created. Thus, the image appears different when viewed from varied distances and angles, creating a fascinating and rich sense of the illusory nature of sight and perception.

　　Merging this idea with your already successful use of traditional Chinese ink painting to create minimalist "dots" could be highly significant to your artistic career.

　　The human brain must accomodate several contradictions in order to view images created in this manner. That is to say, the mind must determine whether it will see the image composed of dots, and the subtleties of colour that result from the juxtaposition of primary colours, or simply a massive collection of dots in three colours. In order to fully appreciate the work, the mind must accept both elements, and see both the individual dots and the image they create. Sight and perception are pushed to the limit, creating art works which contain both illusory images and 'real' elements that both need to be addressed in order to fully appreciate the work. Since your earlier work already has a strong emphasis on the use of "dots", and their significance in creating images, your strength in this area lies in questioning whether it is the "dot" that is the illusion, and the image created that is the tangible element of the work, or vice versa. Using "dots" allows you to convey a greater depth in your work; it is not simply decorative, but forces the viewer to question the nature of perception.

　　This is compounded not only in the composition of shape and image in your work, but in terms of colour perception also. Although the dots used are primary colours, when viewed the paintings appear to contain more subtle nuances of colour, with harmonising hues and shades that are not in fact painted in. This is another illusion - multiple colours composed of three basic colours - that questions whether only the primary colours are in fact 'real'. Do secondary and tertiary colours exist at all, or is this yet another illusion created by microscopic dots of primary colour in everything we see? This notion brings us to the conclusion that all sight and perception is in fact paradoxical.

　　In your new works in particular, this paradox is made all the more apparent by the prominence of the "dots" themselves, for they are not merely points of ink on a page; each and every one is unique and particular, which can be clearly seen on closer inspection of the works. Because of this, the nature of the balance that allows the paradox to exist in our minds changes, depending on the distance from which each painting is viewed. From a greater distance, the dots themselves have less significance, being simply parts of a whole image. However, as one moves closer to the work, one sees that the whole is in fact made up of individuals, each different and complex in its own right, and thus diminishing the importance of the 'whole' image created. This interplay between the precedence of the individual and the collective exists in life, and is reflected in these paintings.

　　The relationship between the importance of the figures depicted and the dots that create the image can be compared to the relationship between the importance of the individual soldiers depicted in many of your paintings and the collective consciousness shown in your paintings of soldiers on parade.

　　Do I feel that this development is significant in art history? Yes. Nevertheless, the significance of this experiment is not in attempting to "surpass Seurat", or any other artist, as this work stems from an entirely different art form. These works draw attention to Wang Guangyi's theories about the paradoxial nature of art, and challenges the golden rule of Chinese ink painting: that all parts of an art work must be unified.

　　There is still much to discuss in terms of developing these ideas further to create truly compelling works.

　　Best wishes,

　　Liu Xiaochun

　　25th February 2010

作者：刘骁纯