作者：刘骁纯 　　冯斌的艺术个性是从1988年画《尘行》萌发的，他说：“开始的想法也很单纯，不愿循规蹈矩??????”当我一张张翻看他的作品时，感到冯斌所谓“不愿循规蹈矩”常表现为一种反向思维，画中似有一种潜台词：“为什么不能这样画而必须那样画？” 　　改革开放以来，当藏民生活题材从“农奴翻身得解放”的单一模式中走出来以后，西藏转化成了一片精神的圣土和净土，于是大量的文学艺术工作者入藏寻找新的创作灵感和精神寄托。就绘画而言，这类创作渐渐形成两大潮流：一种是以旅游观光的猎奇眼光、以写实或装蔚氖址?杌娴牟厮追缜榛?涣硪恢智∑鹨蛴诙哉庵智潮》缜榛?牟宦????猿林亍⒊绺摺⒋轴睢⒃甓?⒃?肌⒉曰氲幕?绫泶锵嘤Φ娜宋木?窈椭占?鼗场７氡蠹韧庥谇耙淮蟪币餐庥诤笠淮蟪薄Ｇ?鹩谇耙淮蟪保??挥蟹牌?占?鼗常磺?鹩诤笠淮蟪保??挥蟹牌?笆问址āＫ?褪撬?约骸? 　　按加缪的哲学，终极关怀是一种西西弗式的悲剧，这便是那些沉重、躁动画风形成的哲学背景。 　　难道终极关怀只能是这样吗？冯斌在东方的老庄和佛禅那里看到了另外一种终极——无，另外一种关怀方式——寂。 　　无生有，有生无，现实有而终极无，质有而灵无。于是，在他的画中，点睛之处实而衬景部分虚的千古模式出现了反相——高大的西藏庙宇建筑画得尽华尽实，而作为建筑中活动主体得喇嘛却尽虚尽幻。那些追寻终极轮回得喇嘛，成了现象界中飘渺无定得游魂，成了“色界即空界”、“终极即虚无”得象征。这种手法有点像东方宗教石窟得处理方式：主尊巨大而简约，以至让人无法捉摸，而周围得千佛、本生故事、供养行列、伎乐飞天则繁复严密得密不透风。只是冯斌画中的主体更加无法捉摸，虚无飘渺如浮云、流水、行气、飘风。 　　看破红尘超越红尘方入禅定，守静笃方可致虚极。于是，在他画中的庙宇也画得不与人同，他以装饰绘画得平涂手法与建筑得几何结构融为一体，形成了一种寂静、超尘、庄严、宏伟得理性风格。这种结构化的理性风格，暗含着冯斌对终极关怀的东方另解，故而不同于西西弗式的悲剧精神；暗含着冯斌对静与寂的现代另解，故而不同于传统文人的冷逸风范。 　　在当代，没有人用装饰绘画的方式和强烈浓重的色彩来表达终极关怀，冯斌用了，而且用得恰当，因为他理解的终极与思潮中人所理解的终极不同。 　　冯斌的画因吸收了工笔、重彩、界画的因素而带上了很强的装饰意味，但那既不是一般意义的装饰画，也不是传统意义上的工笔重彩画和界画。为了与终极关怀相适应，冯斌在吸收工笔、重彩、界画、装饰画因素的同时，又对其进行了改造。改造的重点，一是以理性化的几何构成大幅度地消减世俗化温情，二是机智而不张扬地加入了荒谬性。观众正是在这两点地诱导下，思绪由凡尘转向了超尘，由此岸转向了彼岸，由形而下转向了形而上。 　　在实景中虚化人物，是冯斌最主要的荒诞手法。但作品中的荒诞手法并不止于此。 　　从西方写实艺术的角度看，平涂是荒谬的；从中国工笔画的意象系统看，焦点透视是荒谬的。冯斌的“寂”和理性倾向需要平涂，而欲将逼迫在眼前的庙堂画得更高大更深远，他又需要焦点透视。为什么两者只能相克而不能相生呢？冯斌在反向思维得推动下将重彩平涂和焦点透视嵌接成了冯斌式的造型语言，而且并没有让人感到附会牵强。为了缓冲两极的对立，他在装饰风中加进了光影，同时又将光影装饰化；他在装饰色中加进了光源色，同时又将光源色平涂化。对焦点透视而言，他只取形体透视而抽去了与形体透视相互依存的色彩透视和空间透视，从而使焦点透视发生了变异；对工笔重彩画和界画而言，他只取规整工致和重彩平涂而抽去了它的筋骨——勾勒和渲染，不仅如此，他还抛开纸绢改用画布，在细纹肌理中融入粗底肌理，在国画颜料中加入丙烯颜料，从而使工笔重彩画和界画发生了变异。双重变异的结果，是冯斌独特语言的创化和生成。 　　冯斌的画还大有提高的余地，可贵的是他已经发现了自成系统的精神支点和语言支点。 　　2000/4/24 北京 　　本文发表于画册《匆若禅去 冯斌 1997-2000》（2001），出版：成都现代艺术馆 　　刘骁纯 　　美术批评家、策展人 　　中国艺术研究院美术研究所研究员 　　Why That Is the Only Way 　　Liu Xiaochuan 　　Feng Bin showed his artistic personality when he painted Walking Moment in 1988. He said, “ I didn’t think much but am just not willing to follow the rules…”. When I look through his paintings, I feel that his “not willing to follow the rules” means reversal thinking. It seems what is unspoken in his paintings is: “Why cannot I paint the other way?” 　　Since China opened its door, “the Happy Life of the Liberated Serfs” is no more the only topic when it comes to the life of the Tibetans. Tibet has turned itself into a piece of sacred and spiritual land. Artists flooded in to find their new inspirations and spiritual homes. Two major trends have emerged in the creation as far as painting is concerned. One is genre painting of Tibet from tourists’ points of view, searching for novelty and painting with realistic or decorative styles. The other is just the opposite. Unsatisfied with the shallow genre painting, this group of artists tries to show their humanistic spirit and ultimate solicitude with heavy, divine, wild and primitive styles. Feng Bin can neither be categorized into the former, or the latter. Different from the former trend, he never abandons ultimate solicitude, while different from the latter, he still uses decorative skills. Feng Bin is himself. 　　According to Albert Camus, ultimate solicitude is a kind of Sisyphus tragedy, which is the philosophical background of the coarse and disturbed painting style. 　　Is this the only way to show the ultimate solicitude? Feng Bin finds another possibility in the oriental philosophy of Lao and Zhuang as well as in Buddhism—nothingness and great calm. 　　Nothingness conceives form, and the reverse is true. The reality is full while the ultimate nothing, as the substance full and spirit nothing. Therefore, in his paintings, the traditional mode of clear subject and vague background comes to its reverse. The tall buildings of Tibetan temples are realistically and fully described, while the lamas, who are the living subjects among the buildings are vaguely painted. The lamas, who are seeking the return of life, become drifting souls in reality, and are illustrations of Buddhist admonition “Emptiness is form, and form emptiness”. It seems that he borrows the mode of eastern religious stone carvings: huge but simple statues of Buddha, making him mysterious and unfathomable, yet the background stories and figures are as realistic and sophisticated as possible. However, Feng Bin makes the subjects in his paintings even more unfathomable, as illusory as floating clouds, running water and blowing wind. 　　To realize the awakening to truth, one has to see through the vanity of the world of mortals and go beyond it. Great calmness leads to the ultimate truth. Feng Bin’s temples are peculiar. In order to achieve the rationalized calmness and solemnity, he expresses the geometrical structure of the buildings by decorative skills of plane paint. Such structural rationalization implies Feng Bin’s explanation of ultimate solicitude with eastern philosophy, so it is different from Sisyphus’ tragic spirit; it implies Feng Bin’s understanding of calmness with contemporary connotations, so it is different from the detached attitude of traditional Chinese intellectuals. 　　Today, few people express their ultimate solicitude with decorative approaches and strong colors. However, Feng Bin does, and he does properly, for he has his own understanding of the ultimate truth. 　　Feng Bin’s paintings are strongly decorative because of the elements in meticulous painting, thick-colored painting and boundary painting. Yet they are neither decorative paintings in common sense or traditional meticulous paintings or boundary paintings. To fit in with the ultimate solicitude, Feng Bin makes some renovations. First, he reduces secular tenderness by the use of rationalized geometrical compositions. Then he cleverly adds un-noticable absurdity to his paintings. It is just these two points that the audience are led from the worldly thoughts to the spiritual, from this Shore to the Other, and from the material to the metaphysical. 　　To vague the figures on concrete backgrounds is the major absurdity in Feng Bin’s paintings, but this is not all. 　　Judging from the principles in western realistic skills, plane paint is abnormal; judging from traditional Chinese criteria for meticulous painting, perspective is abnormal. Feng Bin needs plane paint to meet his “calmness” and rational inclination and needs perspective to emphasize the pressing temples. Why these two skills have to be contradictory? This reversed thinking gives birth to Feng Bin’s own painting language, that is to put thick-colored plane paint and perspective together. And it is not far-fetched. To lessen the contradiction, Feng Bin adds shadows to the decorative tendency, and at the same time, makes the shadows decorative. He adds the colors of light source to his decorative colors, but plane paints the colors of light source. He distorts his perspectives by keeping the perspective of the building but abandoning the relevant color and aerial perspectives. He also distorts traditional thick colored meticulous painting and boundary painting by keeping the neatness and thick colored plane paint but abandoning its structural elements—outlining and color applying layer by layer. What is more, instead of traditional rice paper or silk, he uses cotton and canvas to mix fine textures with rough ones. Except Chinese pigments, he uses acrylics as well. Such distortions create Feng Bin’s personalized painting language. 　　There is much room for Feng Bin to improve. However, what is important is that he has found his own system of spiritual fulcrum and the language to support it. 　　Beijing 　　April 24, 2000 　　Liu Xiaochun 　　art critic 　　researcher of China Art Research Institute 　　（文章来源：艺术家提供）