邹跃进为“图变”展览所写的前言

“图变”
——冯斌与他研究生的中国画当代性研究

邹跃进

“图变——冯斌与他的研究生的中国画当代性研究”展览主题中的“图”，共有三层含义：第一层含义是“图像”。在当代艺术中，图像主要指20世纪以来，以机械复制的纪实写真的影像，如摄影、电视和电影，以及用电脑制作设计的卡通或动漫，在架上艺术中的利用和借鉴。对图像的利用，使艺术方法和审美趣味，在不同于传统绘画的新方向上向当代艺术转换；“图”的第二层含义是“图画”，这是艺术本体意义上的“图”。我们知道，在中国传统绘画中，其命名作品的方式是在名称后都会有一个“图”，比如说《庐山高图》，《清明上河图》。在这里，“图”要说明的是这是一幅画，是一件艺术作品，是一个自律的艺术世界，它和现实世界的关系是一种图和原型的关系。中国传统绘画的命名方式，意味着在中国传统的艺术思想和观念中，视觉艺术是作为一个自律独立的艺术对象来对待的，也许正是由于这一点，中国传统绘画特别重视笔墨、技法在艺术本体上的价值；“图”的第三层含义是指一种努力，与“变”合用则是指一种使对象向更好与更新的方向发展和变化的努力、企图和愿望，它体现在实施者的实践和观念两个方面。

我把冯斌与他的研究生在今日美术馆举办的这个展览命名为“图变”，与上述谈到的“图”的三层含义都有关系，因为在冯斌及其研究生的艺术作品中，我们能发现他们对中国画的研究和探索，正是通过把图像引进中国画领域的方法（含义一），希望在20世纪以来的中国画内部发展的逻辑基础上（含义二），对中国画的当代性进行探索和研究，以推进中国画的发展和变化（含义三）。由于从总体上说，“图变——冯斌与他的研究生的中国画当代性研究”，强调的是冯斌及其研究生改变和推进中国画的希望，也即“图变”的意义，所以，这次展览的主要目的，是要通过冯斌及其研究生的中国画当代性的研究，来考察中国画当前遇到的一些艺术问题。

这几年来，冯斌在他的艺术创作和教学中，一直在进行中国画当代性的探索和研究。当然，冯斌自上世纪八十年代中期以来对现代水墨艺术的创作和研究，以及他在荷兰所进行的艺术与自然的关系的艺术试验，都是他今天进行当代性中国画探索的学术基础。在此之前他对遥远的西藏的想象和描绘，其实也已经在美术界产生了一定的影响。但近几年来，他转向了对当下都市人们生活方式的关注。当然，也许是更为重要的是，他把这种关注与对中国画的发展，特别是中国画从现代性到当代性的转换结合起来。为此目的，冯斌把图像引入作品之中。在他的《舞》系列作品中，我们能发现，冯斌在摄影的视觉效果与中国画的艺术手法之间保持着一种张力关系，其表现方式是在传统材料的基础上，用笔墨手法来表现色彩，形成亦真亦幻而又影像化视觉效果。

冯斌对中国画当代性的艺术探索，也贯彻到了他的教学活动之中。在他的指导下，他的研究生对图像与中国画当代性的研究，主要在两个方面展开：一是把影像、卡通的视觉效果引入作品，以减弱中国画中已有的绘画性特征，来突显它们与当代生活的感受，包括在视觉经验中没有被经典化、博物馆化的视觉感受之间的联系。我以为，正是冯斌及其研究生在作品中通过引入图像，以消解经典化和博物馆化的审美趣味，才使他们的作品获得了很强烈的当代性的。

在我看来，冯斌及其研究生对中国画当代性的研究，其重要的意义，同时也是最富挑战性的地方在于，他们想在中国画自身发展的逻辑关系中，来探讨中国画的当代性，并推进其发展，扩展其边界，挑战其底线。这也就是说，如果冯斌及其研究生的艺术，仅仅只是对绘画艺术，或视觉艺术的当代性进行探索和研究的话，那么，它的挑战性，当然也包括危险性也就大大的降低了，因为问题的重要性、危险性和挑战性，正是来自于他们要在中国画的内部，推进中国画的发展，探索中国画的当代性的问题。

冯斌及其研究生的“图变”所提出的问题，所面临的挑战和危险主要表现在：引进图像的视觉感受的目的，就是为了要偏离20世纪以来已经建构起来的中国画的形态和方式，以及因此而形成的中国画的观念，所以，他们的艺术就会受到人们的质疑：它还属于中国画吗？也许我们可以说，在冯斌及其研究生的作品中，仍然保留了一些文人画、中国画传统的技法、工具和材料，但是，他们又通过图像化的艺术手法，减弱了它们与传统的联系，从而使其在总体性上与20世纪以来中国画的艺术形态和审美趣味拉开了距离。事实上，如前所述，这种距离正是冯斌及其研究生的艺术具有当代性的原因之所在。但是，他们的“图变”如果已超出中国画的界限，不属于中国画的范围，那么，冯斌及其研究生在这一“图变”中所提出的问题，就会面临在预设的学术目标内——在中国画内部探索其当代性的表达方式——变成一个假问题、伪问题的危险。

然而，尽管冯斌及其研究生的艺术探索和研究会遇到上述的困境和挑战，但笔者认为他们的艺术是否属于中国画自身的延续、发展和变异，是否仍是中国画的问题，最好还是由历史来检验，也就是让他们艺术的效果历史来证明他们今天探索的有效性。事实上，从二十世纪中国画发展的历史看，许多在不同历史时期被指责为不是中国画的艺术作品，到今天已被视为经典的中国画。我这样说的目的并不是想为冯斌及其研究生的“图变”予以辩护，而是想说他们探索和研究中国画的当代性问题，仍然是有价值和意义的，即他们为我们提供了一个重新思考中国画的底线和范围，以及它的当代性的立场和视角。因为在我看来，冯斌及其研究生的“图变”在当下的艺术意义，不在于他们的艺术创作是否已经取得成功，而在于他们研究和探索的是中国画中最具挑战性和前沿性的学术问题。

2008年1月14日
完稿于深圳

邹跃进
中央美术学院人文学院美术史系主任、副教授
美术学博士

Morphosis

--- Feng Bin and his Postgraduates’ Studies on the Contemporaneity of Chinese Painting

by Zou Yuejin

The Chinese title for this exhibition of Morphosis is tu bian, in which tu contains three meanings here. Firstly, it means image. In contemporary art, image in visual art refers to the use and borrowing of realistic representations reproduced mechanically, as photographs, televisions and movies, as well as computerized cartoons and comics. The use of images gives artistic methods and aesthetic tastes a contemporary conversion from those in traditional painting. The second meaning of tu is painting, the meaning in its ontological sense. In Traditional Chinese Painting, as we know, the title of a painting was more than often suffixed with tu, meaning “picture”. Here, tu indicates that it is a painting, a piece of art, a self-disciplined art world, and its relation with the actual world is that of picture and its archetype. The way of naming Traditional Chinese Painting specifies that visual art has been taken as an independent, self-disciplined object in traditional Chinese artistic concepts. And just for this reason, the value of bimo and techniques is particularly stressed in Traditional Chinese Painting. The third meaning of tu is effort. Together with bian, meaning to transform or to renovate, it refers to the attempt, effort and wish to change something for the new and better direction of development. It happens in the practice and conceptions of its practitioners.

I entitle this exhibition in Today Art Museum Morphosis because Feng Bin and his postgraduates’ works are related to the three meanings of tu mentioned above. In their research and exploration on Chinese Painting, we can trace their attempts to introduce images into Chinese Painting (meaning 1), and their efforts to push forward the development of Chinese Painting (meaning 3) on the basis of the inner logic of the development of Chinese Painting since the 20th century (meaning 2). In this exhibition, the emphasis is given to the significance of transformation---Feng Bin and his postgraduates’ efforts to transform Chinese Painting. Therefore, the purpose of the exhibition is to investigate some artistic problems Chinese Painting come up with through the research of the contemporaneity of Chinese Painting by Feng Bin and his postgraduates.

For years, Feng Bin has been exploring the contemporaneity of Chinese Painting both in his artistic practice and in teaching. Feng Bin’s creation and researches on contemporary ink since mid 1980s and his art experiments on the relationship between art and nature performed in Holland functioned as the academic foundation of his studies today. Though he has established his position in the art world with his Tibet imaginations and descriptions, he turns his eyes to the way of life of people in cities today. More importantly, he combines this concern with the development of Chinese Painting, especially the transformation of Chinese Painting from modernity to contemporaneity. For this purpose he introduces images in his works. In his Dancing Series, we find the tension between the visual effects of photography and techniques of Chinese Painting. On the basis of traditional materials, he expresses color in bimo techniques, arriving at a visual effect between reality and illusion.

Feng Bin carries on his artistic exploration of the contemporaneity of Chinese Painting in his teaching activities as well. Under his advice, his postgraduates evolve their own researches by bringing in visual effects of images and cartoons into their works so as to reduce the stereotyped impression of Traditional Chinese Painting and to increase their links with contemporary life, and to add in the visual experiences that do not exist in classics and museums. In my opinion, it is just because of the introducing of images and the weakening of the aesthetic tastes of classic and museum art in Feng Bin and his postgraduates’ works that they achieve strong contemporaneity.

To me, the significance, and the most challenging part, of Feng Bin and his postgraduates’ researches rests with their attempts to discuss the contemporaneity of Chinese Painting within the law of development of Chinese Painting, and to expand its boundaries and to challenge its bottom lines. That is to say, if their explorations and researches were confined to the contemporaneity of painting art or visual art, the questions they provoke would not have been so significant and challenging, and at the same time dangerous.

The question Feng Bin and his postgraduates raise in Morphosis is how to push forward the development of Chinese Painting and open up the new possibilities of it in contemporary times. As a result, they face up to the challenge or risk that their art be questioned if it is still Chinese Painting as they introduce to their works the visual experience of images for the purpose of deviating from the established forms, methods and concepts of Chinese Painting since the 20th century. Certainly we can find elements of traditional literati painting and traditional techniques, tools and materials of Chinese Painting in their works. However, by applying images in their works, the connections to tradition are reduced and artistic forms and aesthetic tastes of Chinese Painting are toned down. In fact, as stated above, this is the reason why their art is contemporary art. Yet, if their transformation is beyond the boundaries of Chinese Painting, then the question they raise may risk the danger of becoming a pseudo question in the context of the pre-designed academic target.

Dilemma and challenges Feng Bin and his postgraduates may have in their artistic researches and explorations, I hold that we leave it to history to see if their art is the continuation, development and transformation of Chinese Painting or not. That is to say, the history of the effect of their art will prove the validity of their studies now. As a matter of fact, many artworks that once were charged non-Chinese Painting in different historical periods of the 20th century nowadays are classic Chinese Painting. By saying so, I am not trying to justify the transformation of Feng Bin and his postgraduates, but to say that their efforts are valuable and significant: they provide us new stands and perspectives regarding the bottom lines and boundaries of Chinese Painting and its possibilities of contemporaneity. To me, the artistic significance of the morphosis of Feng Bin and his postgraduates lies in the truth that they are exploring the most challenging academic frontier of Chinese Painting.
`

Jan. 14, 2008
in Shenzhen