白色的椭圆形舞台，白色的墙壁，三把白色的椅子，两扇白色的门，惨淡但并不恐怖的白色灯光……三个人开始叙述他们经历的一次聚会，都号称要毫无保留地讲出真相，但真相始终没有露面。这就是我在先锋剧场观看的话剧《哥本哈根》。
　　1988年，英国剧作家迈克·弗雷恩根据1941年德国物理学家海森堡到被德军占领的哥本哈根发表讲演，期间与其老师玻尔的一场迷一般的会面。在大约10分钟的散步中，他们究竟说了些什么呢？当年的当事人如今的死魂灵海森堡、玻尔、玻尔的妻子玛格丽特一遍又一遍地回忆，但就是无法达成一致。他们究竟说了些什么？这是二十世纪科学界引起广泛争议的一个话题，一个至今无人能解的谜！
　　我最感兴趣的不是如何去揭开谜底，而是舞台上发生的奇妙的转换：他们是海森堡、玻尔、玛格丽特吗？他们怎么跟我们一样都长着黑眼睛、黑头发、黄皮肤呀？居然说的还是汉语！他们不是国家话剧院的演员梁国庆、何瑜、杨青吗？然而，他们不明明就是海森堡、玻尔、玛格丽特吗？他们不是在讲60多年前发生在哥本哈根的故事吗？在那个时候，国话的这帮演员还没有出生呢！他们是谁？这是一个让我感兴趣的谜！一个让20世纪的许多美学家感兴趣的谜！
　　根据美学中盛行的模仿理论，我们会认为是演员在模仿角色，即演员通过自己的表演将并不存在的角色变成了现实的存在。我们通过梁国庆、何瑜、杨青这三个演员的模仿，看到了今天并不存在的海森堡、玻尔、玛格丽特。但是，萨特（Jean-Paul Sartre）却给出了完全相反的解释：“并不是演员将角色变成了现实的存在，而是演员在角色中变成了非现实的存在。” 按照萨特的解释，不是国话的梁国庆、何瑜、杨青将非现实的海森堡、玻尔、玛格丽特变成了现实的存在，而是非现实的海森堡、玻尔、玛格丽特将现实的梁国庆、何瑜、杨青变成的非现实的存在。是的，随着剧情的展开，一个奇妙的转换发生了：我们在舞台上看见的彷佛不再是黑眼睛黑头发黄皮肤的中国人，我们彷佛觉得他们是地地道道的欧洲人，我们甚至忘掉了他们还在说汉语。舞台上的人物既不是现实的演员，也不是现实的角色，而是非现实的、精神性的人物，是在我的想像中出场的艺术人物。正如普莱（G. Poulet）在对阅读活动进行现象学描述时所发现的那样：“这就是通过阅读活动在我身上所发生的奇妙转化：它不仅导致了周围客体的消失，包括我正在阅读的书，而且这些客体还被一群和我的意识密切相关的精神客体所取代。” 只有艺术才会导致这种奇妙的转换。这就是艺术的力量！
　　艺术是让事物本身出场，而不是随便发表意见、做出判断、表明立场。正是由于意见、判断、立场、观点、功利、目的等等的遮蔽，事物才无法显现自身。哲学试图在不断拷问中接近事物本身，在不断的辩证否定中接近事物本身，但由于哲学明显的反思特征，由于哲学多采用命题语言，哲学最多只能接近在意识中再造的事物，只能触及言说中的事物，而无法实现回到沉默的事物本身的目标。当然，艺术也用语言，也在言说，但艺术的言说不是在做判断，而是在呈现，在制造奇妙的转换，让事物在经过奇妙的转换之后自行出场。
　　当然，如同萨特指出的那样，艺术中的事物本身并不是以现实的形式出场，而是以非现实的形式出场；是在我们的感知、想像、意识中呈现，而不是存在于真实的时空之中；是一种精神性的存在而非物质性的存在。人们或许会问：非现实的怎么能够比现实的还要真实呢？非现实的艺术之所以比现实的生活还要真实，原因在于现实的生活中的事物总是被各种观点、判断、意见、立场、功利、目的遮蔽而无法显现自身，只有当非现实的艺术将这些附加在事物本身之上的层层遮障去掉之后，我们才有可能看见事物本身。事物要想回到自身，就必须离开自身。正是在这种意义上，阿多诺（T. W. Adorno）说：“当一种非存在物被看成显得就是真实的时候，艺术的真理问题就出现了。” 我们透过一种精神性的存在，才能更好地认识物质性的存在；透过舞台上演员的表演，才能更好地认识现实中的角色和现实中的演员。舞台上表演的演员，既不是现实中的角色海森堡，也不是现实中的演员梁国庆，而是一种与我们的意识密切相关的精神性的对象，只有透过这种精神性的对象，我们才能更好地认识真实的海森堡和梁国庆，而不是相反。
　　在有了上述背景交待之后，我们可以来讨论马堡中近来的创作了。马堡中近来的作品都是以公开发表的新闻图像资料为素材。与新闻图片相比，马堡中的绘画似乎不可能更真实。这不是因为新闻图片更清晰，而马堡中的绘画更模糊；相反，在许多方面，马堡中的绘画比他所采用的新闻图片更清晰。我们说新闻图片比绘画更真实，原因在于前者与所再现的对象之间有一种因果关系，后者则没有。正是在这种意义上，无论多么逼真的绘画都不能像照片那样充当证据。然而，我们在明显具有马堡中风格的艺术描绘中却看到了一种比真实还要真实的形象。当我们说马堡中的绘画比新闻图片还要真实的时候，这也不是因为绘画比新闻图片更逼真，事实上马堡中的绘画中省略了一些细节，又增加了某些特征，远不如新闻图片那么逼真，而是因为绘画中渗透了画家的意识，画家的意识将真实的图片变成了一种非现实的存在，一种可供观赏的存在，一种精神性的对象。当画面中的人物在我们的观赏中出场的时候，他们就不仅仅是真实的历史人物，不是处于历史樊篱中的人物，而是自由表演的角色。当这些人物由真实的存在变成表演的角色的时候，他们虽然是非现实的，却比现实的更真实，更生动，更洒脱，我们对他们也更熟悉。我想这就是我们在有了那些新闻图片，仍然喜欢观赏马堡中的绘画的原因。
　　观看马堡中的绘画，如同观看历史的风景，而不是历史自身。风景本来是一个地理学概念，意味着人首先从土地的束缚中解放出来进而回过头去打量土地。谢泼德（P. Shepard）的说法最为形象：风景意味着“人从图画中撤出转而去打量图画。” 如此说来，风景观念的出现，必须建立在人从自然中分离出来的基础上。人只有从自然中分离出来了，才有欣赏风景所必需的心理距离，才能将自然作为景色来观看和欣赏。如果要将历史视为风景，我们也必须从历史中抽身而回，必须从历史洪流中超越出来，历史由此才能成为我们凝视的对象，进而才能显现它自身。尽管马堡中的作品对记录历史人物和事件的新闻图片非常忠实，但它们并不是对历史的记录，而是对历史的观察，它们带上了马堡中特有的视角和风格。与记录历史相比，观察历史多了一段距离。正是由于有了这段距离，艺术家才能表现得更为自由、轻松、甚至幽默。正因为有了这份自由、轻松和幽默，马堡中的绘画才成为值得欣赏的艺术作品，他的作品中描绘的历史人物和事件才成为值得欣赏的风景，而他参考的新闻图片乃至真正的历史人物和事件则不具备太大的欣赏价值。
　　当然，不是所有以记录历史人物和事件的新闻图片为题材的绘画作品都具有欣赏价值。马堡中的艺术之所以独具魅力，一方面源于他对历史有独特的理解，另一方面源于他独特的艺术语言。
　　马堡中是一位对历史人物和事件尤其敏感的艺术家。在他看来，历史既不是人民群众的历史，也不是理论家的历史，而是权力人物的历史。权力人物主宰着人类历史的发展方向。马堡中对权力人物之间的关系以及权力人物的内心世界非常着迷，他发现所有的权力人物都具有一种超强的意志，十分类似尼采（F. Nietzsche）所说的“权力意志”（will to power）。人类历史实际上就是受这种“权力意志”的推动。与尼采用语言描述和论证这种意志不同，马堡中以其独特的手法将这种意志图像化了，让权力意志成为一种可以欣赏和消费的图像。
　　与大多数当代艺术家仅仅满足于发现图像不同，马堡中不仅注重图像的发现而且注重图像的创作。尽管马堡中是一位对社会问题十分敏感的当代艺术家，但没有由于对观念、图像、批判性的追求而越出艺术的边界。马堡中十分看重绘画性，十分看重艺术性的表达方式，十分重视绘画语言的锤炼，正是在这种意义上，我们可以说非常当代的马堡中身上又具有传统艺术大师的因素。正因为马堡中身上集合了许多矛盾的因素，因此我们很难对他进行归类。在中国当代艺术界中，马堡中是一个另类，一个无法归类的个案，他的艺术风格仅此一家。
　　让我对马堡中的独特的艺术风格再做点分析。正如丹托（A. Danto）指出的那样，艺术界中充满着各种各样的风格，而且艺术风格总是以成对的形式出现。 只有通过与中国当代艺术界中的其他风格的对照，我们才能把握马堡中风格的独特性。
　　与大多数当代艺术家不同，马堡中采用了写实的手法。但他的写实既不是古典写实（如杨飞云），也不是照相写实（如冷军），还不是融合中国传统和民间艺术成分的风情写实（如王沂东）。与这些现代风格的写实不同，马堡中的写实具有一种明显的后现代风格，在精确刻画的同时表达桀骜不驯，在忠实再现的同时表达玩世不恭。这种复杂矛盾的态度让马堡中与所有具有现代风格的写实拉开了距离；同时也与主旋律艺术和政治波普拉开了距离。对于政治人物，主旋律艺术以有力向上的风格去歌颂，波普艺术以疲软向下的风格去亵渎，马堡中则既不颂扬也不亵渎，或者既颂扬也亵渎，从而既不属于主旋律艺术，也不属于波普艺术。
　　这些相互矛盾的因素集结在一起就形成了一种幽默，一种马堡中式的黑色幽默。这里的幽默绝不能理解为滑稽调侃，也不能理解为讽刺挖苦。幽默比滑稽要重，比讽刺要轻，是欣赏所必需的一种心理距离，一种出入自如、轻重有度的心理状态。幽默是如此的微妙，以至于许多艺术家都难以驾驭，不是太过就是不及。马堡中是驾驭幽默的高手，正是由于这种独特的幽默，他将不堪承受的历史变成了自由观赏的风景。
　　“你站在桥上看风景，看风景的人在楼上看你。”这是卞之琳《断章》中的诗句。如果说那些记录历史人物和事件的新闻工作者是在桥上看风景的话，那么马堡中就是那个在楼上看风景的人。人们从历史中看到怎样的风景，关键不在于历史本身，而在于他们采取怎样的观看角度。
　　2008年6月7日北京大学蔚秀园
　　The Landscape of History—Inspired by a Reading of Mao Baozhong's Recent Works
　　On an oval-shaped stage, settled in three chairs surrounded by walls with two doors, all in white, with light shone from above that is pathetically pale yet inspiring anything but fear, the characters began to recount a past meeting between them; while each pledged to tell the whole truth, what had actually happened remained elusive from start to finish. That's my impression of the production of Copenhagen I saw at the Oriental Pioneer Theater in Beijing.
　　The play was written in 1988 by English dramatist Michael Frayn, based on an enigmatic meeting between German physicist Werner Karl Heisenberg and his mentor Niels Bohr in 1941, when the former gave a public speech in Copenhagen, then occupied by Nazi Germany. Their ten minutes' stroll has left the world wondering for decades what on earth they had been talking about. As the ghosts of Heisenberg, Bohr, and Bohr's wife kept searching their memories, no convincing agreement could be reached between them. What on earth had they talked about? This question has provided the 20th century science world an endless topic for discussion, a mystery so far remaining beyond human comprehension.
　　Instead of the solution of the mystery, my interest lies in the miraculous transformation occurring on stage; I can't help wondering whether those under the limelight are really Heisenberg, Bohr, and Margaret. How could they look like me, with black eyes and hair typical of Asians? How could they speak fluent Chinese? Aren't they still actors of Liang Guoqing, He Yu, and Yang Qing from the China National Drama Theater? Nonetheless, who can deny that they are Heisenberg, Bohr, and Margaret themselves? Isn't the story they are telling an account of what had actually happened in Copenhagen over 60 years ago, when these actors were not born yet? What piques me is the identity of those on stage, which has been a mystery for many aestheticians throughout the 20th century.
　　In accordance with the imitation theory, a prevailing system in aesthetics, we can consider the process on stage as actors imitating their roles, that is, non-existent roles being converted into objective presences by means of acting. It was through the acting of the three stage artists that we had observed Heisenberg, Bohr, and Margaret, all of whom had long departed from this world. However, the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once gave a quite contrary theory, which states that, instead of actors transforming their roles into realistic presence, actors themselves are being transformed into a non-realistic presence through interpreting their roles. In Sartre's perspective, what's happening on stage is not the actors bringing their roles into reality, but the roles converting the actors into subjective existences. Indeed, we beheld a miraculous transformation occurring as the plot unfolded on stage, as we seemed to take the Chinese actors for thoroughbred Caucasians from Europe and clean forget the fact that the lines spoken by them were actually uttered in Chinese. Those people walking on stage were neither real actors nor real roles; instead, they were non-real, spiritual characters that only existed in the audience's imagination. Such a process corresponds with G. Poulet's observation in his attempts at describing the phenomenon of reading, which states that the miraculous transformation that activities such as reading bringing to people not only throws the surrounding circumstances, including the books being read, into oblivion, but also replaces the circumstances with an array of spiritual objects underlying in the audience's consciousness. Nothing but art can lead to such a miraculous transformation. And that is the exact power of art.
　　The purpose of art is to expose the thing-in-itself. The exposition of opinion, judgment, viewpoint, interest, among others, which is often mistaken as a process of art, will only cloak the thing-in-itself from view. Through its relentless examinations and dialectic negations, philosophy strives to get as close to the thing-in-itself as possible; however, the contemplative nature and nominative semantics of philosophy has prevented it from realizing the aim of returning to the quietness of thing-in-itself. At best, philosophy can only reach the proximity of a thing-in-itself reinvented in human consciousness and touch the subjects as existed in the discourse. Admittedly, semantics and discourse are also essential for art, for which, however, the discourse is not meant for judging, but for presenting, and thereby realizing the miraculous transformations that will reveal the thing-in-itself.
　　As observed by Sartre, in the world of art, the thing-in-itself presents itself not as a reality, but in the form of a non-reality; instead of an existence in the readily definable world of time and space, it tends to seek a self-manifestation in people's sensations, imaginations, and consciousnesses, as a purely spiritual presence that defy any material definition. The question might be posed as to how the non-reality can prove more real than the reality. The reason is that the art of non-reality is forever in a perfect position to extricate those opinions, judgments, viewpoints, stances, interests, and purposes that the so-called reality has imposed on the thing-in-itself and thereby provide the audience with a plain view of it. Paradoxically, the thing-in-itself can only be revealed by dislodging the thing from itself. It was exactly in this sense that T. W. Adorno generalized that when a non-existence is regarded as the seeming truth, the question emerges as to the truthfulness of art. Only through a spiritual presence can we gain a convincing understanding of materialized form of the corresponding entity, in the same way, their acting on stage has help put a sharp focus on both the actors themselves and their roles in the production. The artist treading the boards is neither the real role of Heisenberg nor the Chinese actor Liang Guoqing; he has turned into a spiritual object that closely related to our consciousness. And only thus can we make genuine sense of both Heisenberg and Liang Guoqing, definitely not vice versa.
　　It is in such a theoretical context that this article is setting about discussing the recent works by Ma Baozhong. Ma Baozhong's recent works all drew their source materials from the lately published news imagery. For most, it seems impossible that those images created by Ma Baozhong could prove more real than those press graphics. It would be mistaken to take it for granted that Ma Baozhong's works lack clarity when compared with news photography; actually Ma's paintings in many ways features a greater visual sharpness than his source materials. Often photojournalism exceeds painting in its sense of reality for the reason that there is a kind of causality between the former and its subjects, which the latter apparently lacks. In this sense, paintings, however lifelike, will never be used as evidence like photographs. Nonetheless, Ma Baozhong'sartistic depictions impress us with images that prove more truthful than truth itself, which doesn't come from an exact representation of the occurrence (actually Ma Baozhong's paintings feature all the additions and deletions of details just like all other artistic creations, which distinguishes fine arts from photography), but from the painter's consciousness. And it is exactly this consciousness that has turned the actual photographic images into a non-reality, an appreciable presence, and a spiritual object. As the characters on the canvas descend into our consciousness in the process of artistic appreciation, they are no longer persons from the recent history; instead, liberated from the limitations imposed by historical circumstances, they are free to interpret themselves as they like. Leaping out of the sphere of reality into the world of acted roles, they come to gain greater truthfulness, vividness, and freedom, in spite of their exile from the so-called reality; as a result, we as audience find them more familiar and relevant. That, I believe, explains the appeal of Ma Baozhong's works to its audience for whom news graphics of the same subject are easily available.
　　Looking at Ma Baozhong's paintings is like an examination of the landscape of history. Originally a geographic concept, landscape first came into general use when humanity first liberated itself from the earth in order to take a look at the terra firma. This was summed up most vividly by P. Shepard in his observation that landscape entails people retreating from the picture in order to appreciate it. Thus, the emergence of landscape as a concept has come from the dislocation of humanity from nature, which is essential for achieving the psychological distance for appreciating the landscape and for regarding nature as scenery. For the same reason, we must dislodge ourselves from historical reality so that we can view history as a landscape; only by keeping its audience at arm's length can history manifests itself without restraints. Although the depictions of historical events and figures are distinguished by their faithfulness, they are an observation, instead of a chronicle, of history, with distinctive viewpoints and style of their author. Compared with chronicling history, the act of observing entails a distance, which has allowed artists some scope for freedom, lightheartedness, and a sense of human in the representation of their subjects. That is what has given Ma Baozhong's paintings the identity of artworks fit for intelligent appreciation, and that is why Ma Baozhong's depictions of historical events and figures gained the status of a landscape, while most of the news graphics he used as source materials offer little space for aesthetic appreciation.
　　Obviously, not all paintings have the value for artistic appreciation that are based on press graphics chronicling historical figures and events. The distinctiveness of Ma Baozhong's art comes from his inimitable understanding of history as well as from his original vocabulary as an artist.
　　Ma Baozhong is known for his exceptional sensitivity to historical figures and events. For him, those dominating and interpreting history are the figures of powers, instead of theorists or the masses. It is those figures of powers that have steered the course of human progress. Fascinated by the interplays between figures of powers as well as what makes them tick, Ma Baozhong sees a remarkable will power in all figures of powers, something close to the idea of will to power proposed by F. Nietzsche. It is this remarkable will power that has propelled the progress of human history. While the German philosopher offered a description of the concept through language, Ma Baozhong has chosen to depict his idea of will power through his unique approach by presenting it as imagery fit for appreciation and consumption.
　　In contrast with most contemporary artists who tend to stop at the exploration of their imagery, Ma Baozhong stresses both the exploration and creative interpretation of his visual materials. In spite of his sensitivity to current social issues, he never steps out of the boundaries of artistic creation in his pursuit of concepts, imagery, and criticality. In his overwhelming emphasis on the pictorialism, expressiveness, and originality of vocabulary in his works, we often spot a quality comparable to that of Old Masters in Ma Baozhong, a seemingly ultramodern personality. Such a combination of contradictory features in the person of Ma Baozhong makes it impossible to define him. In China's contemporary art world, Ma Baozhong is a maverick, with a style that defies all attempts at classification.
　　That prepares us for a more in-depth analysis of the unique style of Ma Baozhong's art. As A. Danto said, the world of art is composed of a wide variety of styles, which always manifest themselves in pairs. Thus, only through a contrast with other styles in contemporary Chinese art can we grasp the distinctiveness of Ma Baozhong's artistic style.
　　Unlike most other contemporary artists, Ma Baozhong has adopted a realistic approach, which however is neither a classical realism (that of Yang Feiyun), nor a photographic realism (that of Leng Jun), nor a nostalgic realism that fuses Chinese cultural traditions and folk arts (that of Wang Yidong). Ma Baozhong's brand of realism is distinguished by an outstanding post-modernism, which instills a raging rebelliousness in its high-precision depiction and sports a sophisticated cynicism in its faithful presentation. Such a complex, sometimes contradictory, attitude has set Ma Baozhong apart both from those modernist realistic styles and from the mainstream art and pop art. Between the mainstream's hagiographical approach and the pop art's unrestrained blasphemy, Ma Baozhong has adhered to the middle path and always keeps a distance between himself and the political figures he uses as subjects.
　　The fusion of all these contradictory elements turns out to be a sense of humor, a kind of dark humor unique to Ma Baozhong, which is neither slapstick comedy nor ruthless satire. More serious than comedy but more light-hearted than satire, that sense of humor is a psychological distance that artistic appreciation entails; it is a mental state of discretionary freedom. While most artists can never aspire to grasp its subtlety, Ma Baozhong has long since tamed this sense of humor, the alchemy by which he transforms the unbearable weight of history into an unrestrained landscape of artistic appreciation.
　　" From the bridge you view the landscape, of which you're a part for someone from the tower." That is a line from a poem titled " Broken Canto" by Bian Zhilin. If those journalists chronicling historical figures and events are viewing the landscape on the bridge, Ma Baozhong will be the one beholding it from the tower. What kind of a landscape one sees in history depends not upon history itself, but upon the viewpoint of the beholders.
　　June 7, 2008
　　Weixiu Garden, Peking University

来源：《接触-马堡中新作展》