作者：王明贤

 

 

壹
　　观看《历史中国众生相：1966--1976》，我感受到心灵上真正的震撼。徐唯辛对人物的肖像有一种深刻的理解力，能从中解读人的性格、经历、命运，甚至解读一部中国的历史。他的众生相系列不仅仅是对历史的缅怀，更是对历史的追问，通过朴素的描绘，在当代的语境中对文革历史进行现象学还原，可以说是21世纪中国艺术的重要作品。
　　《历史中国众生相：1966--1976》已绘制60多幅（还将一直不停地画下去），每幅2．5米×2米，尺寸巨大的黑白油画肖像群，结合肖像简历及其他文本，呈现文革期间芸芸众生的形象。所谓“芸芸众生”，既有文革中红极一时的政治人物，还有受尽凌辱的文化名人，也有一批普普通通的人物，勾勒出的不只是帝王将相史，也是普通人的文革史。这样就更接近真实的文革，因为文革毕竟是一场史无前例的群众运动，没有群众的参与也就没有文革。众生相系列从独特的角度真实地记录了那段特殊的历史，并启发人们思考。作品没有太多的表现，与现在很多张扬的艺术相比，它是沉默的，但你会在凝视的瞬间感到内在的力量和永恒的价值。单独看每一幅肖像，肖像仅仅是肖像，然而步入展厅，或者在艺术家的画室里，看到这一系列作品时，一种久违了的严肃庄重的气氛，打动人心。在整个场景里，巨大的肖像群，黑白的处理，去类型化的描绘，使作品有一种当代感，又不是某种当代艺术脸谱化的处理，显示出史诗般的庄严。
　　徐唯辛创作这批作品的依据是文革期间的照片。从20世纪下半叶的艺术史来看，利用照片进行创作是一个重要的趋势，德国艺术家格哈德?里希特(Gerhard Richter)的作品就是最典型的例子。里希特从1963年开始，就常根据照片绘制油画，但关键的是他并非简单描摹照片，耐人寻味的是作品中体现的深刻的当代艺术观念。如果从中国的情况来看，必然要讨论到张晓刚的作品。90年代初，张晓刚偶然在家中发现一些老照片，他吸收了中国民间炭粉画的风格，把照片里的人物画出来。画面中的人物呆板、平静的表情和整个画面平涂式无笔触的手法，还有色斑和红线，构成了画面的独特性。他利用家庭照那种被模式化的“修饰感”，说明各种“血缘”关系——亲情的、社会的、文化的——在各种“遗传”下，“集体主义”观念已深化在我们的意识中，形成了某种难以摆脱的情结，传达出中国现代社会的集体心理记忆，表现了特殊的历史面貌。90年代中期，张晓刚的作品成为中国当代艺术最有代表性的作品之一。此后十几年，中国当代艺术也出现了用照片等影像资源来创作的趋势，但是多数作品不过是一种艺术趣味和惰性结合的产物，对当代艺术的发展没什么推动。徐唯辛经过长时间酝酿创作的油画肖像群，和大多数画照片的艺术家既是风格上的区别，又是艺术观念上的区别。作为一个当代现实主义画家，徐唯辛以自己的画笔，为文革题材和人物肖像涂上了一层历史的色彩，作者在新的价值体系中去发现历史，作品背后的思考和价值观反映出艺术家自己的方法论。他还在博客上发布关于创作文革众生相的设想，通过网络征集普通人的照片，希望得到社会各界的支持。另外，他在网络上搜集历史人物照片。大家都知道，信息革命的第一项成果就是全世界的视觉信息的平等化，人们可以在任一地点在任一事件获得同样的信息。徐唯辛正是通过这一点使历史过程的体验具有了当代性，传统油画的绘制效果和当下的新体验于是有了一种奇妙的结合，这也使他的作品和里斯特不同，也和利用照片创作的其他中国艺术家截然不同。网络照片的利用是当代艺术的一种新尝试，并使社会公众参与到作品中来，而不是把大众当作局外人，观众由此产生一种对历史感的崭新认识，并发现了当代艺术的价值。
　　贰
　　作为一个受“自由主义思想”影响的艺术家，徐唯辛关注中国的历史和未来， 这批作品描绘出文革中国的图像史与精神史，对现存禁忌是一个挑战，故可视为新批判现实主义。
　　文化大革命是中国人一个永远的梦魇，但是对文革的反思，却几乎无影无踪。批评家王林在一篇文章中写道：“近读基弗作品，深为德国人反省二战灾难的忏悔精神所感动。对比中国当代艺术对于历史的集体失忆，不由得令人喟叹。”确实，中国当代艺术对于历史的集体失忆是个很大的问题。面对苏俄沉重的历史，索尔仁尼琴创作了《古拉格群岛》；而对于中国文革——20世纪最为疯狂的事件，我们的艺术，包括文学、美术、音乐、电影、电视、摄影等，究竟创作出什么样的作品？说起来可能令人汗颜，我们拿不出什么史诗性的作品。如果把被称为“在当代中国产生巨大影响”的巴金《随想录》和索尔仁尼琴的《古拉格群岛》比较，真让人惭愧得无地自容。问题不在于巴金写什么（不能苛求巴金老人），而在于大家把那样幼稚的东西当作“文学和思想的最后高峰”来顶礼膜拜，实在是太可悲了！我们根本没有具备从文化上反思文革的能力。岂止是艺术，就连历史书写也尽是谎言，往往是刚完稿的史书墨迹未干，又出问题要大删大改了。有人尖锐指出：一次又一次地涂抹历史（从“开天窗”到“换头术”，从吹捧“处理决定”到赞扬“平反决定”），官方史学已经不能满足现实对它的要求。它现在的功能与其说提供记忆，不如说提供遗忘。
　　在2006年度俄罗斯国家人文领域最高成就奖颁奖典礼上，索尔仁尼琴说：“在我的生命尽头，我希望我搜集到并在随后向读者推荐的、在我们国家经受的残酷的、昏暗年代里的历史材料、历史题材、生命图景和人物将留在我的同胞们的意识和记忆中。这是我们祖国痛苦的经验，它还将帮助我们，警告并防止我们遭受毁灭性的破裂。在俄罗斯历史上，我们多少次表现出了前所未有的精神上的坚韧和坚定，是它们搭救了我们。”在对待民族的苦难以及文革等问题上，中国的知识分子也应当有这样的思考。20世纪70年代末到80年代初，中国曾出现一些表现文革的伤痕文学、绘画作品，但艺术家很快就选择了逃避，几乎再没有反映文革的作品出现，更谈不上深刻地反思文革。徐唯辛今天的文革众生相系列创作，我认为是填补空白的工作，并对艺术家表示敬意。
　　叁
　　85时期中国新潮美术崛起时，徐唯辛正在中国现代艺术的重镇浙江美院读研究生。他一方面感受到前卫艺术的冲击，觉得有一种新的东西在吸引他；另一方面又感到惶恐，不敢把自己放在现代艺术的风口浪尖上。毕业后他躲到小天地去画他的馕房，画藏女，虽屡屡获奖，但在学院派的束缚中，他的绘画语言显得老套，作品除了表面的少数民族风情外，缺乏当代文化的力量。他深感痛苦，开始重新思考。他对西方现代哲学，从胡塞尔、海德格尔、维特根斯坦、德里达、罗兰?巴特、福柯这一学术脉络并不一定很了解；对从杜尚到博伊斯的艺术观念也不一定很熟悉。可是凭借长期的艰难摸索，以及对当下文化问题的思考，他逐渐领悟到新的艺术观念。通过对自己的剖析，也通过对中国20多年学院艺术和当代艺术的反思，终于找到自己的道路，创作出超越自己的新作。
　　提到’85新潮，不免也会想到中国现当代艺术近30年的历程。尽管这期间有不少重要的展览，但人们经常会提到两个展览：一是1979年的星星美展，它是中国现代艺术的萌芽；二是1989年的中国现代艺术展，它则是中国’85美术思潮的全面回顾，标志着中国现代艺术的发展。而说到作品，人们可能会提到80年代初的前现代名画——罗中立《父亲》和陈丹青《西藏组画》，艺术史学者则更关注’85运动以来的艺术家和作品，如谷文达《静则生灵》、耿建翌《第二状态》、黄永砯《中国绘画史与现代绘画简史在洗衣机里搅拌了两分钟》、 王广义《毛泽东》、徐冰《析世鉴-天书》、蔡国强《为外星人所做的计划》、张晓刚《大家庭》、方力均《系列》、张洹《 为鱼塘水位增高》等。在中国当代艺术最后两个惊世骇俗展览——1999年“后感性”、2000年“对伤害的迷恋”之后，也就是2001年以来，中国艺术在商业化的推动下虚假繁荣，但在文化上软弱乏力，没有新的创造。虽然这几年展览极多，作品多得不可胜数，但能给人们留下深刻印象的却很少。21世纪以来，究竟哪些作品是中国当代艺术史的坐标，令人困惑。疑惑和失望之余，看到徐唯辛的系列作品——耗费数年心血绘制的煌煌大作，我有一种难以名状的感动。希望有更多的艺术家，经过长期积累创作出有学术价值的作品。当然，在太功利的时代，谈当代艺术的学术价值是很奢侈的事。然而，真正的艺术家就是要不断质疑、探索并超越自己，他们的命运像西西弗一样。西西弗不停地把一块巨石推上山顶，而石头由于自身的重量又滚下山去，诸神认为再也没有比进行这种无效无望的劳动更为严厉的惩罚了。加缪却认为西西弗无声的全部快乐就在于此。他的命运是属于他的。他的岩石是他的事情。同样，当荒谬的人深思他的痛苦时，他就使一切偶像哑然失声。

 

 

作者：王明贤(Curator)　

 

 

　

Part I
I received a virtual, spiritual shock when looking at the paintings of the “Chinese Historical Figures: 1966-1976”. Xu Weixin’s portraitures give an insight that allows an experience of a precise vision of the idiosyncrasy, destiny of the subjects and the interpretation of China’s history. Xu’s composition is not only a reminiscence of, but also an enquiry into, history. In the contemporary artistic, semantic context, it restores the phenomenology of the Cultural Revolution via a simple artistic expression and therefore can be deemed an important artwork for the 21st-century Chinese art history.
Xu has painted over sixty portraits for his “Chinese Historical Figures” series (and Xu will ceaselessly continue to paint). His artworks are presented in colossal monochrome oil portraits in the size of 2.5 x 2 meters. Supplemented by the subject’s profile and other texts of addendum, the paintings portray all manner of mortal beings during the Cultural Revolution. The so-called “all mortal beings” consist of the then powerful political personages during the Cultural Revolution, the heavily persecuted literators and the ordinary persons. He depicts the Cultural Revolution history of the rulers as well as of the grassroots man. In this sense, Xu’s depiction is closer to the reality as the Cultural Revolution is an unprecedented social movement which cannot take place without the participation of the grassroot masses. From a distinctive angle, the figurative paintings solidly record this special period in history and are thought-provoking. The artwork is plain and silent rather than aggrandizing like many hysterical artistic expressions are today. However, one feels the intensity and the eternity value the moment one gazes at these paintings. Portraits are mere portraitures when viewed separately. And yet, we are deeply touched by a long-lost sense of solemnness when we view the portraits as a phenomenalistic group in the exhibition room or in the artist’s studio. At the scene, the immense portraits, the monochrome tonality and the non-genre depiction create a modern mode. And the non-use of the contemporary portraiture style has here translated solemnness into a heroic poem.
The source of material for Xu’s portraitures derives from the Cultural Revolution. From the second half of the 20th century, there has been an important artistic tendency to photo-based painting. The German artist, Gerhard Richter, is an exponent. From 1963, Richter has produced many photo-based portraits. Intriguingly, he never simply imitates photographs. Instead, he embodies profound contemporary artistic elements in his works. In China, Zhang Xiaogang should be mentioned when talking about photographs. In the 90s, Zhang finding old family photographs was inspired to deploy the Chinese folk charcoal drawing to his portraitures. The monotonous and composed expressions of Zhang’s subjects, smoothly finished brushwork, fine red lines, and watery stains are his hallmarks. He mimics the standardized “perfection” features of family portrait photographs and elaborates the various “bloodline” relationships, be it a kin relationship, a social or a cultural relationship. “Heritage” and “collectivism” have inherently and deeply ingrained themselves into our consciousness and formed an inextricable complex. Zhang recapitulates the collective psychological memory of China’s modern society and outlines unique historical features. In the mid-90s, Zhang’s artwork became the most representative of the Chinese contemporary art scene. For some ten years, the tendency to photo-based painting bad continued. However, most of the artworks were nothing but a conflation of amusement and inertia, stagnating the development of contemporary art. After a long fermentation, Xu’s group portraitures are distinct from other photo-based paintings in terms of artistic style and concept. Being a contemporary realistic artist, Xu paints in his own way the portraits and the subject matter of the Cultural Revolution with a layer of historical color. He rediscovers history from within the new value system. The thinking and value behind these artworks lead to the artist’s special practices. He reveals his project idea in the figurative paintings of the Cultural Revolution on his blog, through which he summons photographs of the ordinary and secures the support of the public. In addition, he collects online photographs of the historical figures. Admittedly, the greatest achievement in the information revolution is the global access equalization of visual information. People are able to access the same information on a particular event, anywhere. By doing so, Xu gives the historical mission a contemporary touch. The conventional oil painting has now experienced a wonderful conjunction with the new technology. This has also remarkably contrasted Xu from Richter and other photo-based artists. The use of the online photographs is a new trial in the contemporary art circle. It allows the participation of the general public, who has in the past been considered as outsiders of the creation process. The viewers are now allowed to experience a fresh perception about history and explore the value of the contemporary art at the same time.
Part II
As an artist influenced by “liberalism”, Xu is concerned about China’s history and its future. This series of works depicts the pictorial as well as spiritual history of China in the Cultural Revolution, putting forward a challenge to the existing taboo, and is, therefore, being considered as neo-critical realism.
The Cultural Revolution has been a haunting nightmare for the Chinese. And yet the reflection of it is barely visible. Wang Lin, a critic, wrote in his critique, “Recently I’ve read Anselm Kiefer. I was moved by the German’s repentant spirit over the disaster caused in WWII. Looking back at China, the collective amnesia of the contemporary art circle over history has been exclamatory.” Indeed, it is a big issue to the Chinese contemporary art scene. Facing Russia’s laden history, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote “The Gulag Archipelago”. As for the Cultural Revolution, the craziest incident of the 20th century, what have we offered from the disciplines of literature, art, music, film, television, photography and so on? It is a shame that we have not had any heroical works. We should feel extremely embarrassed comparing Ba Jin’s “Random Thoughts” with Solzehnitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago”. It is more about the fact that we have been deifying the shallowness as “the pinnacle in literature and in thinking” than what Ba Jin has written (we cannot overly rely on what the aged Ba Jin has written). This is absolutely pathetic! We don’t possess the humanistic capacity for self-reflection over the Cultural Revolution. The historical literature is full of lies, not to mention artistic expressions. Frequent revamping of the historical literature is common, even before the ink of the manuscript is dry. Some have sharply pointed out that the repetitive revision of the official historical documents has made it difficult to meet the real needs of truth seekers amongst the public. The role the official historical literature plays is rather the provision of oblivion than that of memory.
To paraphrase what Solzhenitsyn has said at the award ceremony for the 2006 Russian national prize for outstanding achievements in the cultural and education spheres: Solzhenitsyn hopes, at the end of his life, to imprint on the consciousness and memory of Russian citizen, the historical materials, historical subject matter, pictures of life and figures in the cruel and gloomy time that they have all lived through. The bitter experience will be a lesson that keeps Russia from new disastrous breakdowns. In Russia’s history, it is the unprecedented tenacity and determination emanating from his fellow citizens that have saved them. Looking back at China, intellectuals should also follow this line of thinking when facing national misery and the Cultural Revolution. In the late 70s to the early 80s, there was once “scar literature” and “scar painting” reflecting the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. However, artists soon chose to shun this movement and works reflecting the Cultural Revolution have not maintained a presence, not to mention a profound reflection over the mishap. Xu’s “Chinese Historical Figures’ series exactly fills the gap. To this end I admire and respect Xu enormously.
Part III
During the ’85 New Wave, Xu was a graduate student in the Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts, an important fortress in the Chinese modern art movement. On the one hand, he felt the impetus from the avant-garde movement and was appalled by the new tide; on the other hand, he was anxious for putting himself amongst the new wave. After graduation, he worked seclusively on his new works such as “The Nang Bread Kitchen” and “Tibetan Girl”. Bound by the academic artistic doctrine, Xu’s painting style seemed outmoded, although his artworks had continuously earned him awards. His works largely depicted the customs of the local ethnic minorities and were devoid of contemporary intensity. He felt disturbed and started to contemplate problems from scratch. Xu may not be knowledgeable in the western philosophic discourse of Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Roland Barthes or Foucault. Neither may he be versed in the artistic concepts of Duchamp or Beuys. However, through continuous self-examination and contemplation of the nature of the contemporary art process and through the twenty-year training he received under the academic artistic discipline, he finally found his own way and created artworks, surpassing himself.
When mentioning the ’85 New Wave, one will inevitably review the nearly thirty year development of Chinese contemporary art. Among the many important exhibitions, two are the most often mentioned – the “Star Exhibit” in 1979, which signifies the germination of Chinese modern art and the “Exhibition of Chinese Contemporary Art” in 1989, a comprehensive retrospective to the ’85 New Wave movement and a landmark in the Chinese contemporary art movement. In terms of artworks in this period, one may recall the pre-modern painting in the early 80s including Luo Zhongli’s “Father” and Chen Danqing’s “Tibet Series”. Artistic historians may also draw attention to artists and their works after the ’85 New Wave movement, such as Gu Wenda’s “Wisdom Comes from Tranquility”, Geng Jianyi’s “The Second State”, Huang Yongping’s “The History of Chinese Painting and the History of Modern Art Washed in the Washing Machine for Two Minutes”, Wang Guangyi’s “Mao Zedong”, Xu Bing’s “A Book from the Sky”, Cai Guoqiang’s “Project for Extraterrestrials”, Zhang Xiaogang’s “Big Family”, Fang Lijun’s “Series” and Zhang Huan’s “To Raise the Water Level in a Fishpond” and so on. The last two appalling exhibitions in the Chinese contemporary art scene have seen the “Post-sexiness” in 1999 and the “Obsession with Harm” in 2000. Since 2001, Chinese art has been culturally flaccid and been lacking in creativity under the drive of commercialization. Although there have been tremendous compositions and exhibitions in recent years, few of them are impressive. Since entering the 21st century, it has been a perplexing question as to what artworks are eligible to be considered as the coordinate of the Chinese contemporary art movement. I felt bewildered and disappointed, but as I came to know Xu’s masterworks, which have consumed him in years of arduous effort, I felt indescribably touched by it. It is a luxury discussing the academic value of contemporary art in the utilitarian age. However, true artists should need to incessantly question, explore and exceed themselves. Their fate is like that of Sisyphus. Sisyphus ceaselessly rolled a rock up to the top of a mountain, where the stone would fall back with its own weight. The gods had thought that there was no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor such as this. Albert Camus, nevertheless, outlines that all Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is his thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols.