第71期 非雕塑（2011年）

学术主持：刘礼宾

主题：卓凡 琴嘎 卢征远 杨穹 梁硕 胡庆雁 刁伟 康靖

新作：李磊 谢墨凛 南方 王长明 贺祖斌

Issue No. 71(2011)

Theme: Non-Sculpture

Academic Host: Liu Libin

A.T: Zhuo Fan, Qin Ga, Lu Zhengyuan, Yang Qiong, Liang Shuo, Hu Qingyan, Diao Wei, Kang Jin

A.N: Li Lei, Xie Moling, Nan Fang, Wang Changming, He Zubin

不立不破——找到进入自己的“通道”

学术主持：刘礼宾

在艺术的继承和创新问题上，多数人似乎相信“不破不立”，但我更相信“不立不破”。前者基于“进化论”奠定的叙事模式，多相信艺术风格的推陈出新；而后者更相信传统基础上的渐变，或积累到一定程度上的、围绕某一关键要素所发生的“突变”。没有继承，或者没有对传统的长期浸润，“变”几乎是不可能的。

所以在实验艺术的问题上，我相信从“非实验”到“实验”的转变是一个自然而然的过程，但并非是玩弄“智力游戏”的杂耍，或进行着“材料替代”的游戏，或把实验艺术变成“观念”的试验场。“实验”和“试验”只有一字之差，但前者沽名钓誉的前卫诉求，后者循序渐进的探索立场，对比昭然若揭。

其实，初学艺术基本上都是从美术技法开始的，中国人临帖、摹仿古画；西方人勤于速写、素描训练。美术技法最初给你一个学习绘画的“拐杖”，谁最后成功地把其变成了进入自己的途径，就变得很有价值。也就是经过磨砺，在自己和心之间建立一个“通道”。美术技法的沉浸不失为一个“通道”。徐冰说：素描《大卫》的练习使他从一个粗糙的人变成了一个精致的人。在画《大卫》的过程中，徐冰试图展现出自己的所有绘画能力，直到没有什么可以施展时为止，也就是把自己逼到画不下去的境地。他正是在这个“死地”发现了自己的擅长，也发现了自己的不擅长。并在这一过程中，学会了处理问题、控制问题的方法。

在中央美术学院，版画系和雕塑系是两个创作活跃的系。版画创作过程中对“单数性与复数性”、“转印的偶然性和必然性”的关注，版画和其它艺术形式之间转换的顺畅性。更重要的是，学生对版画艺术操作流程的浸润，使他们更容易进入所谓的当代艺术创作。与版画系异曲同工的是，雕塑系近年来也表现出相似的活跃性。在保证传统雕塑技法能力培养的基础上，在相对开放的启发式，以问题研究为核心的教育过程中，雕塑系出现了很多具有独立思考能力、创作上呈现出上升态势的年轻艺术家。

此次专题中的8位艺术家选自2010年《雕塑——隋建国与他的几个学生》展览的参展艺术家。由于《美术文献》杂志已对隋建国、杨心广、王思顺做过专题报道，此次没有选入。而入选的8位艺术家，除了遴选了他们以往的作品外，又纳入了他们新近创作的作品，从而构成了该选题。

当“装置”作品逐渐增多之后，一方面人们感受到“雕塑”在中国当代艺术界处境的尴尬；另一方面，也给了人们反思“雕塑”时下价值以及重新发掘其可能性的机会。《雕塑》展览中的作品貌似“非雕塑”，但是和学院雕塑有着千丝万缕的关系。在一般人注重其新颖的艺术形式不同，我更看重这些作品与学院雕塑的承继关系。由隋建国及其学生组成的这次展览，一方面体现了中央美术学院学院雕塑生发出的一个创作层面，另一方面也是给中国雕塑界提供一个案例，以供大家深思。

除此之外，将“雕塑”作为展览题目，意在强调名词“雕塑”的动词倾向——“雕”（carve），“塑”（model）。在这一转化过程中，意在突出艺术家创作过程的纯粹性，凸显其对学院“雕塑”体系的超越以及所做的推进。“雕”（carve），“塑”（model）可以视为“加”、“减”这样的数学术语，也可以视为艺术技法的最基本操作。当一种艺术形式被压缩到最原始层面时，是否有重新激发它的可能性？当一种艺术形式最基本的手工手段被重新彰显时，是否能摧枯拉朽式地剥离其演变过程中所受到的遮蔽？是否能激发艺术家所用材质的“物性”？这一“物性”具有冲破既有学院雕塑限制的沉默和强悍，也具有直视艺术界喧嚣和浮躁的镇定和冷静。

由物到心，这可以作为艺术家隋建国及其学生创作历程的一个概述。此次专题中的艺术家基于所学的雕塑技能，对所使用材质物性进行追问，其实是对自我心性的挖掘。

琴嘎与“长征”的进程相呼应，在自己的身体上进行着“雕塑”。他的《领地》则用兽骨堆积出的“领地”表明一个民族曾经的彪悍和野性（狼啸）。琴嘎是以“雕塑”的眼光去看这个世界的。卓凡由雕塑技法的沉迷转化到对科技技术手段的细节把握，在对兽体、人体的揶揄和追问中，表现出他对现实世界的独有关注方式。卢征远随意刮涂颜料，再用大幅绘画去描绘这一刮涂后的颜料状态，“用颜料画颜料”，前面的“不经意”与后面的“太刻意”，一轻一重，把滑稽与庄严集合在了一起。梁硕的《什么东西》则把雕塑被拉长的负空间用青铜浇筑了出来，基于对虚空的实体化，梁硕把偶然变成了永恒。他的装置作品《临时结构》将“合适”（Fit）幽默化了，两件物品之所以组合在一起的唯一理由是能合适地“插”在一起，梁硕揶揄的是什么呢？可能是男女关系、也可能是混乱的中国现实……康靖把树的皮以及自己的头发刮掉了，然后用树干雕刻成“树皮”，用真头发做成一顶假发，真假区分的理由是什么？标准又是什么？不同物性转化的可能性又是什么？《一只脚的塑造》与其看作雕塑过程，不如将其视为艺术家借用雕塑技法，在塑造的“脚”和真实的“脚”制造一种暧昧、紧张的关系，从而将“再现”的问题凸显出来。胡庆雁则不知疲倦地从一个大理石中向外“掏”东西，用大理石来模拟日常用品。在物性的转化中，赋予庄严的创作以日常痕迹。最近胡庆雁在《一堆泥巴的故事》中，把上述创作过程更加彻底化了。在《模仿的故事》中，胡庆雁通过把一次次的模仿过程首尾相接，形成了模仿的“连续剧”。在《一堆泥巴的故事》中，每次模仿过程都是对上次模仿结果的彻底“否定”，类似一个个模仿的“独幕剧”。

由物到心，是这些艺术家自我探寻的无尽之路。以心观心，则可以视为他们创作过程中的平常事。其艺术创作倾向的明了，可以视为时下中国雕塑呈现的一种颇具价值的新现象。这样一种新现象的出现，给“雕塑”提供了一种新的可能性，也呈现了“雕塑”作为（作为“人”的）雕塑家思维依托的可能性。

通过专业锤炼，找到进入自己、触摸内心、发现问题的途径，这正是“不立不破”的题中之义。

 

 

 

Without construction there can be no destruction

——finding the “access” into oneself

Academic Hosts: Liu Libin

In terms of the inheritance and the innovation of art, it seems that the majority believes that “without destruction there can be no construction”, whereas I have more faith in “without construction there can be no destruction”. The former is based upon the narrative mode established by the “Evolutionism”, largely relying on bringing forth the new through the old; while the latter puts more faith in the gradual change upon the traditional foundation, or the “sudden change” brought about around some key factor when the accumulation has reached some certain degree. The “change” is almost impossible without the inheritance or the long-term saturation in tradition.

Therefore, when it comes to the experimental art, I believe the transformation from “the non-experimental” to “the experimental” should come as a natural process, instead of some juggling toying with “quiz shows” or some game of “material replacement” or an experiment filed to turn the experimental art into a “concept”. “Experiment” and “trial” may seem related, but the avant-garde pursuit for fame of the former reveals a striking gap from the progressive stand of exploration of the latter.

As a matter of fact, most beginners of art start from the techniques of fine arts – Chinese practice their calligraphy and painting after the classical models while the westerners are diligent in the sketch training. Those techniques offer you a “crutch” to learn painting, whoever succeeds in transforming that into an “access” into oneself will turn out to be valuable, in other words, to establish a “passageway” between oneself and one’s heart through hardship. The saturation of techniques of fine arts can be regarded as a “passageway”. XU Bing once said the practice of sketching David helped transform him from a crude person into a refined one. During the process of painting David, XU Bing tried to exhibit all his painting capabilities until there’s nothing more to show, i.e. he pushed himself into a circumstance where the activity of painting could no longer be carried out. It was just in this “dead land” that he discovered his strengths as well as his weaknesses while learning the methods of handling and controlling problems during the process.

The departments of Print and Sculpture are considered to be creatively active in the Central Academy of Fine Arts. The focus on “the singularity and the plurality” and “the contingency and necessity of transfer print” in the process of producing print works has offered them an easier access into the so-called contemporary artistic creation. Through different approaches, the Sculpture Department also manifested a similar activeness as the Print Department. While ensuring the foundation of cultivating the traditional sculpture techniques, the Sculpture Department has presented a great many rising young artists with independent thinking in the relatively open education of elicitation-mode, which put its core on the study of problems.

The 8 artists of this special were selected from the participants of “Carving + Modeling – SUI Jianguo and His Students” Exhibition in 2010. The exclusion of SUI Jianguo, YANG Xinguang and WANG Sishun was due to the fact that Fine Arts Literature had already done specials for them. As for the 8 artists who made the list, we included some of their more recent works in addition to the old ones, completing the selected topic of this special.

With the rise in numbers of “installation” works, people came to feel the embarrassing situation of “sculpture” in Chinese contemporary art, on the other hand, people were also given an opportunity to reflect upon the current value of “sculpture” and rediscover its possibilities. The works displayed in the “Carving + Modeling” Exhibition seemed “non-sculpture”, yet they were interrelated with academic sculpture in innumerable ways. Instead of the more-often-focused original artistic form, I attach more significance to the inheritance relationship between those works and academic sculpture. This exhibition of SUI Jianguo and his students on one hand embodied the creative layer bred by the academic sculpture of Central Academy of Fine Arts, on the other hand, it offered a case for the Chinese sculpture for reflection.

Besides, the title of the exhibition – Carving + Modeling, drove at the emphasis on the action of those words. It aimed to highlight the purity of artists’ creative procedure in this transformation process, underlining its transcendence over and boost towards the academic “sculpture” system. “Carve” and “model” can be regarded as mathematical terminologies like “add” and “minus”, as well as the most basic operation of artistic techniques. Is it possible to reactivate an art form when it’s compressed to the most original layer? When the most basic manual approach of an art form is re-manifested, will the cover and shield received during its evolution process be powerfully and completely stripped off? Whether it will evoke the “material nature” of the material used by artists? This “material nature” possesses the silence and strength to break the existing confines of the academic sculpture as well as the composure and calmness to look in the eye of the uproar and fickleness of the art world.

From the material to the heart, that can be regarded as a summary of the creative journey of SUI Jianguo and his students as artists. The pursuit of the artists in this special to question the “material nature” of the material based on the sculpture techniques learned by them, is in fact an excavation of their own temperament.

In correspondence with the course of the “long march”, QIN Ga performs “sculpture” on his own body. His Territory, which was built through the pile of animal bones, demonstrates the valiancy and wild nature once possessed by a nation. QIN looks at this world through the eye of “sculpture”. ZHUO Fan shifted from the obsession with sculpture techniques into the grasp of details of technological methods and means, exhibiting his unique way of concern for the real world through the ridicule and continual questioning of animal bodies and human bodies. LU Zhengyuan randomly scrapes and spreads the paint, after which he uses large-sized painting to describe the status of paint, “to paint the paint with paint”, the light “randomness” of the former and the heavy “deliberateness” of the latter, mix the ridicule and grandeur together. What is that? By LIANG Shuo produces the negative space lengthened by sculpture through the pouring of bronze, turning coincidence into eternity based on the materialization of the void. His installation work Temporary Structure humorizes “fit” – the only reason for two items to come together is because one can fittingly thrust into the other. So what’s LIANG teasing about? It could be the relationship between two sexes, or the chaotic reality of China… KANG Jing scrapes off the bark and his own hair, then carving the tree trunk to be “bark” and making a toupee with real hair. So what’s the reason for distinguishing the real from the fake? What’s the standard? What’s the possibility of the transformation of different material natures? Rather than viewed as a sculpting process, The Modeling of One Foot could be regarded as an obscure and intense relationship between the modeled “foot” and the real “foot” to highlight the issue of “representation” through the sculpture techniques borrowed by the artist. HU Qingyan inexhaustibly “scoops out” something from the marble, which was used to simulate daily necessities, endowing the majestic creation with everyday traces in the transformation of material natures. Recently, HU radicalized the aforementioned creative process in The Story of a Pile of Mud. By linking end to end a series of imitations, HU created a “Serial” of imitation in The Story of Imitation. Whereas in The Story of a Pile of Mud, every process of imitation is a complete “denial” of the result of last imitation, just like a bunch of “one-act plays” of imitation.

From the material to the heart, is an endless road of self-exploration of these artists, whereas to view the heart through heart, can be regarded as something commonplace in their creative process. The clear tendency of their artistic creation can be viewed as a rather valuable new phenomenon manifested by the Chinese sculpture, the emergence of which has provided a new probability for the “sculpture”, showing the possibility of “sculpture” as the support for sculptors’ (as human beings) thinking.

Finding the access to enter oneself, touch one’s heart and find problems through professional hammering and tempering, is exactly the keynote of the title “without construction there can be no destruction”.