If we dated back to 1997, the time when Jiang Zhi began his early artistic creation, since then he has been exploring varied words and expressions to define and counter- define his art territory. In 2006 he developed a series of motif-works with the use of light, such as his ” Once Things Happen ” series, in which it revealed not only he is extremely sensitive but also he positively feeds back towards the social issues in his time and era. In 2008, his work ” 0.7% of salt ” was closely associated with the issues of sociology and which raised doubts unto the relationship between objective events and subjective psychic reactions through the analysis on the specific social events. He expressed his poetic characteristics through the varied definitions of his art works.
Light in Prophet ‘s book metaphors “revelation”, I think Jiang Zhi ‘s art work beholds this kind of interesting track of “revelation”. We once had a short discussion on ” the light of revelation “, I asked : “You do like highlight and expose the hidden secrets of the world, don’t you ? ” He answered: “I tend to use an old saying from China ” hide one’s capacities and bide one’s time”, and for the revealing and manifesting of “light” that is the way of God, once if our human wants to ” demonstrate” something, it will become the light of prejudice, the way of demonstration will finally be non-exist. As I read from an old Chinese literature book: “Heaven and earth is not self-generated, so it can live long or forever.” ”
After “Once Things Happen” series, he created ” The Transient Light ” in early 2011, and in the following year he created ” God of Small Things “ ; they are all about descriptions of varied light.
Jiang Zhi created two series of art works in the year of 2013; one series is his creation according unto the computer screen system’s mal-function; another one is a video, it is called “Bad World.” He insists that “Bad World” echoes to “bad infinity” which was raised by Hegel. The images were taken in Maldives by a bad camera in June of 2013. It is a camera immersed in water on July 21, 2012 in Pekin, some people lost their lives at that day due to the heavy rain, and Pekin was really heavily flooded on that day. Jiang Zhi’s study room was also flooded, the camera was there then, therefore it still can shoot but it presents another kind of image. But Jiang Zhi believes this kind of image is equal to any other kind of image. He did not abandon this “bad” camera instead he continues to take pictures and shooting videos with it. When I make an analogy between this “bad” camera to the ” blind eye” , Jiang Zhi declared: “It is not blind , it is just showing us a different perception.” Then I think I can comprehend a bit of his art creative intention: Through this ” bad” camera we should not only see the appearance of “blindness”, instead it activates yet another perceptions from ourself towards the exterior world. He actively inspiring the viewer to be stimulated to use another visual angle, or a kind of multidimensional way of seeing, the viewer may perceive more, and the screen will not be void and insignificant then.
When Jiang Zhi insists to explore another viewing channel with viewers and his “blind eye”, then we may question: After things are corrupted, after the intervals and stagnations of time, what is the significance of being? “Bad World ” is no longer a remote event that had been published on an outdated newspaper, Jiang Zhi brought it out from the limitation of time, and from the retrospection of this event, then every one of us should reflect towards our own significance of life.
For the understanding of phenomenon Jiang Zhi admitted: “All things are built by perceptions and all things are perceptions.” After our discussion, he repeatedly stressed: “All the art works are the fruits of subjectivity; they are the representations of the author; also they are in front of the viewer ‘s subjective preferential observation, for the subjectivity which is unfixed and changeable, then there will exist neither a determined visual perception or art work, nor there will have the determined representation or event. ”
Jiang Zhi considers the appearance has the characteristics of inauthenticity and concealing. He supposes, in our daily life, we live in our own imaginations and illusive consciousnesses in the unpredictable and changeable social and cultural context. I consider, the experience of Modernity , such as Benjamin once had described in a century ago: “it is a mechanical reproduction era ” and ” the era of commodity fetishism”. I think that for facing such a destructive, painful experience, we often want to make ourself to be a spectator, or to be a clear minded “marginal observer”. But Jiang Zhi objected me: ” If we are awake, we will be able to clearly know that we will never be “a bystander “, because there will never exist an “event ” beyond your subjective observation, or there will never exist an “observation” in an objective system. So there will never exist an “event ” beyond the subjective perception, and the “event” is changing unceasingly. Only those who do not have a clear mind will hold the illusion that they can go beyond the subjective “event” .”
His new work, as he has said: “For the external world, we can never see it. …… All we can see are our own world. ……For the external world, we can never see it directly. If we can never truly experience the external world, does it really exist? What can we attain is only our own world. ” ( ” Faulty Display ” Jiang Zhi ) Finally, I conclude from his deduction: A watching towards art will become an observation towards ourself. We will meet our “another self” in the artist’s creation.
I always appreciate when Breton replied his appreciations for St. Boer’s poetry: “What the Poet wanted to say that had been said .” But Jiang Zhi believes: ” The poet might be more humble, he might say, it is the language which speaks , while himself, mostly, but a lucky recorder, or even he has not been that lucky, because he was not fortunate enough to have the ability to reveal the whole truth. In this situation, sometime, if the poet is lucky enough, he is but the one who has been written by the truth itself.
As for Jiang Zhi, he does not agree that an artist needs to speak clearly everything in his artistic creation, he insists that who claims in the work he has to say some” valuable words “which is undoubtedly arrogant and deceitful, it will be an oppression and an intention of controlling over the viewer. He clarifies: A good author is whom does not speak much in his work.
When we were discussing ” manifesting ” , he insisted “going back and abide concealing”.
September 14th, 2013 In Venice
]]>
自从1997年的系统创作之后,蒋志一直在探索不同的语词表达来界定或者是反界定自己的艺术疆域。2006年他开始的一系列运用光的作品,如“事情一旦发生”为母题的系列作品,揭示了蒋志作为一个艺术家对于所处时代所具有的特殊的敏感力和积极反馈。2008年,他与社会学密切相关的作品《0.7%的盐》,通过解析社会事件对所谓客观事件与个体-主观的关系的提出一种质疑。对于自己作品的命名,显示了他对于语词的思考,呈现了他的诗人般的敏感特质。
光在先知的书里譬喻“启示”,蒋志的作品里常常有这些有趣的“启示”的踪迹。关于我所认为带有启示的光,我们有一段有趣的讨论。我:“你喜欢彰显和揭露隐蔽之处是吗?”他:我比较倾向“韬光养晦”,因为使“光”显露或彰显是神所为,光一经我们去“彰显”,即为偏见之光,道将不存。“天地不自生,故能长生。””在“事情一旦发生”之后,他于2011年初创作了《片刻之光》,并在次年创作了《微物之神》;这一切都与光有关。
这一次展览的两个系列的作品,一个是蒋志在计算机显示系统故障的条件下作画。 另一个影像作品,叫做《坏世界》。 我们讨论作品名称的时候,蒋志认为他的《坏世界》是对于黑格尔的“坏无限”的呼应。作品图像是蒋志今年六月在马儿代夫用一个坏相机拍摄的影像。那一部相机因为2012年7月21日北京的一次大雨,他的书房被淹,相机被水浸泡,此后可以拍摄但却是另外一种显像。而蒋志认为这种显像对他来说和任何图像一样都是平等的。同一天的北京城被水淹没,一些人在那一天失去生命。蒋志没有舍弃这部“坏”相机,继续用来拍照和录像。当我用“盲者之眼”来比喻他的旧相机时,蒋志声称:“它没有盲,只是另一种显示而已。”而在表象,通过“坏”相机我们应该不止是看到黑暗。艺术家通过这个方式激发了观者打开另外的观看,一种多维的观看,观者也许会感知更多,不再执着于画面的时候画面将不再是空无。
而蒋志坚持运用盲者之眼让观者和他去打开另一扇观看的门。我们于是质疑:事物败坏之后,时间在某个段落停滞的间歇,个体存在的真正意义和价值?“坏世界”不再只是一张发黄的旧报纸上登载的过期事件,蒋志把它带出来,让每一个我们都从这一社会事件引发出对于自身的存在的反思。
对于现象的认识他深信:“一切唯心所想,唯识所造。”每一次讨论作品之后,他一再强调:“所有的作品都是来自主观的产物; 都是作者主观的呈现;也都是观者主观之眼观看的结果,但因为主观的变动不居,那么就不可能有确定的产物和结果,也没有确定的呈现或事件。”
蒋志认为表象具有掩蔽性和不真实性。而在日常、社会、文化生活的变幻莫测的缩影里我们活在自己的想像和意识里。现代性的经验,如本雅明所叙述的“是机器复制的时代”,是“商品拜物教的时代”。面对这种杀伤性的、伤痛的、现代性经验,我们常常希望使得自己变为一个旁观者,成为一个清醒的“边缘人”。而蒋志认为:“如果我们足够清醒,那就能清醒地知道,我们永远都不可能是“旁观者”,因为没有你观察之外的“事件”,也没有出离你的感觉系统的“观察”,所以说,“事件”于心无外。“事件”永不成形。只有不清醒的人,才会有站在“事件”外的错觉。”
而他的新作品,如他自己所说:“对于外部世界我们永远无法看到。……我们看到的都是自己的世界。……”(《有故障的显示》蒋志)这是一次观看自己的行为。我们将要在艺术家的艺术作品里与另一个自我相遇。
我一直欣赏布勒东对于圣· 波尔鲁的诗歌的看法和回答:“诗人想说的都已经说了。”蒋志则认为:“诗人会更谦虚,他也许会说,是语言自己在说,而他,最多是一个幸运的记录者。甚至他还没有这个幸运,因为他不够幸运到有能力使真理呈现。在这个过程中,诗人才是一个被书写者。”
至于蒋志,他并不觉得艺术家在作品中去把话说完是一件好事,声称在作品中有所谓艺术家要说的“有价值的话”无疑是狂妄和欺骗,对观众来说也是一种控制和压迫。他个人认为:不置言在作品中的作者是好作者。
在我们讨论“彰显”的时候,他坚持要“回到隐蔽”。
2013-9-14 威尼斯
]]>
1您最近获得了瑞信今日艺术奖的作品《不适之时》,您是否因为关注了某种社会现象?
蒋志:我觉得这个奖并不只是因为这次展出的一件作品,而是会考察多年的创作。对我来说,艺术作品是一个感觉的聚合体,更多的是针对人的感觉的机制来工作。个体和社会,主观和现实一直都是我所关注的主题。感觉,或者说发生感觉的主观,它决定了我们的喜怒哀乐,也决定我们如何思考、判断、和行动。如果说到政治,它也是政治的基础。我个人觉得,我们可能会十分关注各种社会现象,但如果说某件艺术作品关注了某种社会现象,这种说法是令人迷惑的,好像艺术作品就是一件新闻报道和新闻评论。我更愿意认同的是,艺术需要做的,是提供新的感观,新的眼光,新的角度……当观众遭遇到一件作品,在这个过程中,使得自己的感觉和主观有所变化,那么,这种由此而获得的新眼光,他们会用来关注和观察自身、社会和现实。
在《不适之时》中,里面有一张布面油画,一层看起来”没有意义“ 的灰色油彩覆盖了里面一层画,“覆盖”是不是对上次痕迹的“取消”?宣布“作废”?比方说,街头一张宣传画,后来被涂刷掉了,我们看到很多文革时候的标语,现在被水泥或别的涂料涂刷覆盖了,我们或多或少能看到一点点以前的痕迹。意图涂抹、覆盖、作废,并不能抹消“过去的时间”,反而凸显和重塑了“过去的时间”。我们会因生活在多重时间中而不适。
其中还有一个2分钟的录像,但一个小时才播放一次。那58分钟的黑屏时间将是什么呢?观众来到美术馆,东张西望,急切地想要看到“艺术品”,在一个要追赶时间,时间就是财富就是权力的时代,58分钟的黑屏时间可能会被视为“垃圾”时间,我们已经不耐于等待,资本主义不相信等待,它打造了这么一个世界,等待就等于是落后,就等于是毁灭。它把我们抛入紧张之中快速之中,并内化了我们的主观,把时间分为“有用”和“无用”。资本主义对时间的当代化就是,现在微博上转发有一个美国的辣评节目,主持人笑话中国的富士康的时间观是一天35个小时。我们已经比资本主义更资本主义。这种时间观也结构了美术馆展览的模式,让观众快速地“获得作品”和“体验艺术”。一种莫名其妙的“高效率”原则。我们也没有时间去照顾孩子和老人,因为我们有更“重要”的事情,所以让孩子们死于垃圾箱……真是一个悲剧,这是我们的不适之时。
在墙上还有一根一个小时走一圈的分针,当它走到一圈的同一个位置,它也是录像的一个循环时间,这就是定时“爆炸”的时间。艺术和生活一样,和暴力并存着。会有各种意外打破平静,暴力的威胁时时存在。
我还展出了2个装满东西的垃圾袋,但打了结,观众看不到里面是什么。
2. 那么,在您以前的作品,比如《0.7%的盐》、《香丽平》、杨佳的摄影等作品里,您是否有针对性的去选择您要创作的主体?您在创作这些作品的时候,是否会考虑这些作品的社会功能,无论是舆论上、道德上,还是公共民主上?
蒋志:《0.7%的盐》只是一个空白背景前的简单的流泪的过程而已,不是吗?我不会说“偶然”,因为创作一定是经过思考的,但也并非刻意。《0.7%的盐》有意的无背景,这样可以让观众不同的主观背景在此角度上凸显出来。让主观重新回到我们的视野,而不是把自己交付到“客观”上去,如果说我隐含某种社会功能的欲望,这就是我差不多可以认可的。我们不要急于判断一个人的哭是什么,不要轻易的相信媒体或自己的判断,而是要审视自己为何会得出这样的判断,出于什么立场、什么态度、怎样的心理背景甚至知识背景?
我之所以把杨佳拍的花和风景收集出来展出,最早让我注意到“非常地妖”的风景照片,是媒体采访和整理的各专家分析博主的心理的一篇报道,其中一位心理专家分析了“非常地妖”的风景照片。那些分析或直接或委婉地形成一个导向,让读者相信这个人成为“冷酷的杀人犯”有某些必然性。同样是心理分析,在“凶手”和“英雄”的判断的预设之下,我们会看到冷酷和冷静,嗜血和热情,自卑和谦慎,压抑和律己,阴谋和阳谋……吊诡的不同结论。而我们往往只取一种结论。看似客观,最后很容易被转化成“客观地看”,并相信那是“客观”的结论。“一个人”就被轻易地看成了“某个人”。“一个人”的复杂和丰富,就这样被无视了,一个事件的多样面貌、多种原因和更深刻的原因,就这样被遮蔽了。同样的照片,如果收入私人相册就是供生活照纪念照,如果拿到法庭里它就可能被当成是犯罪证据,如果在心理分析专家那可能就成为心理分析的样片……如果把这些照片置于艺术展览中……我想说的,是其实很简单:不仅仅是。我并不想讨论他是“凶手”和“英雄”,于是,我提供出另一个主观:我们可以看到杨佳也是艺术家的可能。也许如果我们能看到“多”,就是慈悲。有时我想,如果我们不把一个人只是看成是“外地人”,不只是“刁民”,不只是一个“偷车嫌疑犯”,不只是看成“爱找麻烦的人”,不只是看成“阶级敌人”……因为他可能还是一个爱好旅行者、一个妈妈的乖孩子、一个买不起车的人、一个爱花之美丽的人,一个人……如果我们能这样看待自己和他人,我们可以减少一些仇恨,避免一些悲剧的发生。
3.或者说,您是不是想用这些作品来唤起对社会现有问题的一些探讨?
蒋志:艺术不仅仅是为了唤起公众对社会现有问题的一些探讨,它的野心远没这么小,它的功能远不止这么少,它的工作也远比这重要,它唤起的是独立思考,唤起的是创造力,唤起的是丰富至多的感觉,是为了塑造让所谓“自我”不断阔大到“无我”的主体。
4.我经常看到一种对您艺术创作的评价是:您关注当下社会与文化问题,但又巧妙地融合了自己的个人内心体验。您在日常创作中,有没有有意识地去探讨某些社会的热点问题?还是说,您更加关注自我的所思所想、个人的体验?
蒋志:我们都离不开自我的所思所想、个人的体验,所以我想,那就更应该试着想象从非自我的角度、从他人的角度。
当然我一直对社会的热点问题比较关注,但艺术就是去创造,我们不需要用艺术来探讨社会问题。
5.在您这几年的作品,您有没有什么作品单纯是因为自己心情不好、心情特好,而创作的?
蒋志:强烈的情绪可能会激发出比较强烈的表达欲望,但是表达不一定都能成为作品、都有所创造。创作无疑不止这么单纯的因素。世界上没有一件事情是只有一个单纯的原因,但我们都急于想获得一个答案来解释一个事件和指认一个事物,我想这是需要时刻警惕的。它出自一种有害的自恋,因为“自我”贪念的就是“就这样”,它害怕“还是这样、还是那样、也不是这样、也不是那样”的无常,因为这样最终会造成它最担心的“自我”的消解。“自我”越坚固,艺术就越小,这几年我倒是越来越警惕“自我”的执着,尽力去审视情绪如何升起为何升起。借助情绪之力也许能帮助我们找到新的感受。但是,创作可能更需要思想的工作,而不是情绪的运行。
6.有的人说,中国的现当代艺术,就像是一本社会发展的插图。艺术家们特别喜欢探究社会公共问题或者是社会历史,喜欢针对社会关注的人群,公务员、农民工,甚至是社会关注的历史时期,比如封建社会的压迫、文革、农民公社时期。以后写这个时期的历史教科书,都可以直接用艺术家的作品来做插图,来说明历史问题了。您如何看待这种艺术创作?这是不是当下艺术家创作的一种取巧的方式呢?
蒋志:创作和生活一样,个人和社会,本身就是一体的,都是“现在时”,都是“新闻”,都是“个体”也是“社会”,都是“创作”也是“生活”,都是“在成为”和“相互成为”。但“新闻”和“新闻性”是两码事,我不做“新闻性”或“社会性”的作品,也不做“政治性”的作品。
在创作之后,也许它可能会被“新闻性”、“社会性”、“历史性”或“政治性”的看待和使用。历史上,一张画,一首诗,被拿去做政治解读,或因此升官发财或招致杀身之祸的比比皆是。
7.您觉得当下的当代艺术的创作,是否存在着某些捷径,比如某种创作风格、关注某种社会观念,更容易成名?
蒋志:成名的捷径很多,但“成为艺术”是要避开捷径的。
8.有一种认识,认为艺术应当是只关乎艺术家个人的体验,而不关乎外部世界的纷纷扰扰。即使艺术家所作出的对于社会现象的某种思考,应当是偶发的,而不是刻意去迎合社会问题,刻意地追求命题的大,去与社会问题产生紧密联系。您对此有什么想说的么?
蒋志:是我们持有所谓内心世界和外部世界的二元观念,才造成这种一直都扯不清的问题,才在是要“艺术自律”还是要“社会责任”的问题上讨论不休,才杜撰出什么“社会批判性艺术”“现实批判性艺术”等莫名其妙的概念。把个人和社会分开,把主观和现实分开,就会产生所谓个人性写作和社会性写作的狭隘意识。“刻意去迎合社会问题”,或号称“与社会问题产生紧密联系”就离“公共”越远,离自私更近,对权力和利益的谋求更甚。我并没有观察到不是出于个人体验的外部世界,也没有观察到和个人无关的社会问题,不好的政治制度从来都不是因为它找到我们,而是我们找到它。它不离去,是因为我们的意识和感官还没有完全抛弃它。
艺术作用于我们的感觉系统,感觉系统作用于我们的个人体验和我们生活的方方面面,当然也作用于政治。所以,“美学是政治的基础”,“艺术的政治潜能在艺术本身”,“越是艺术的就越是政治的”。
让我们看到事物的“多”而使事物无限可能的整体向我们敞开,让我们获得新的感受能力而使我们新生,这就是我所理解的“艺术的发生”。它一旦发生就改变了我们自己的主观,也同时改变了我们的现实和政治。
2012年11月24日《羊城晚报》
]]>
装置 Installation 2012
Spot Photo :瑞信·2012今日艺术奖入围展 (今日美术馆,北京)现场
2个面对面的画架,间距约4米,一个放的是一张被覆盖的画 (脚下有2个黑色垃圾袋已经用过的废弃的物品(工作室垃圾)),一个《天鹅挽歌》2分钟的录像,(脚下有2个黑色的音箱)。一个小时播放一次,因为有这个录像,整个空间会每隔一个小时有爆炸声。其余时间是黑屏。
一面墙上,一根针在走动。当它走到一圈的同一个位置,经过一个小时,它也是录像的一个循环时间,这就是定时“爆炸”的时间。
Two easels are placed face to face with a 4-meter distance in between. On one of them there is a painting which is covered by paints. (Beneath it there are two black trash bags stuffed with all kinds of wastes from the studio). The other displays Swan Song, a two-minute video. (Beneath it there are two black sound boxes.) The video will be played on an hourly basis. Due to that, a sound of explosion can be heard within the space every one hour. During the rest of time, there’ll be nothing but a blank screen.
On one of the walls, a minute hand is kicking constantly.
Beneath the seemingly peaceful and serene surface there lies a violent and devastating sense of instability and insecurity.
自述:
一张布面油画,一层看起来”没有意义“ 的灰色油彩覆盖了里面一层画,“覆盖”是不是对上次痕迹的“取消”?宣布“作废”?比方说,街头一张宣传画,后来被涂刷掉了,我们看到很多文革时候的标语,现在被水泥或别的涂料涂刷覆盖了,我们或多或少能看到一点点以前的痕迹。
意图涂抹、覆盖、作废,并不能抹消“过去的时间”,反而凸显和重塑了“过去的时间”。
多重时间。
“作废”。作——“成为”——废。而这种“废”在新的语境中有再次成为“用”的可能。它有成为艺术的可能。
就如它脚下的装满了工作室的垃圾的垃圾袋一样,在美术馆中。它有被看做“雕塑”的可能。这并不是无例可循。在这里,“有例可循”作为惯例,本身也是可以使用的现成品。
2分钟的录像,一个小时才播放一次。那58分钟的黑屏时间将是什么呢?观众来到美术馆,东张西望,急切地想要看到“艺术品”,在一个要追赶时间,时间就是财富就是权力的时代,58分钟的黑屏时间可能会被视为“垃圾”时间,我们已经不耐于等待,资本主义不相信等待,它打造了这么一个世界,等待就等于是落后,就等于是毁灭。它把我们抛入紧张之中快速之中,并内化了我们的主观,把时间分为“有用”和“无用”。资本主义对时间的当代化就是,现在微博上转发有一个美国的辣评节目,主持人笑话中国的富士康的时间观是一天35个小时。我们已经比资本主义更资本主义。这种时间观也结构了展览的模式,让观众快速地“获得作品”和“体验艺术”。一种莫名其妙的“高效率”原则。
我也并非仅仅为了反抗这个体制而故意使录像放映间隔这么长时间。2分钟一次的爆炸影像的循环播放所造成的只会是越来越麻木的感受,这并不是我想要的。
另外,这里产生的58分钟黑屏的所谓“垃圾时间”,也是一个黑色的雕塑。
那一根针是分针,当它走到一圈的同一个位置,它也是录像的一个循环时间,这就是定时“爆炸”的时间。
它既是工作室的日常的一小部分,也是画、录像、垃圾,装置、雕塑,也是私人生活、也是公共政治,也是……
艺术不是“就是”,而是无限的“也是”。
艺术和生活一样,和暴力并存着。会有各种意外打破平静,暴力的威胁时时存在。
2012/10/23 蒋志
It is an oil painting on canvas. The painting is covered by a layer of seemingly “meaningless” grey oil paints. Can such “coverage” be deemed as some kind of “cancellation” of previous traces? Is it a declaration of annulment? Take the propaganda posters on street for example. Many of those and slogans during the Cultural Revolution were erased later by cement or other kinds of paints. Now we can only perceive some vague traces of them.
Intentional erasure, coverage and annulment cannot wipe out the “past time”. On the contrary, such actions highlight and reshape the “past time”.
Time is a concept in multiple senses.
In a sense, annulment means to make something become “waste”. Nevertheless, in a new context, such “waste” is imbued with possibilities to become “useful” again. It has the potential to become art.
If put in an art museum, the trash bag filled with waste from the studio can be reckoned as “sculpture”. It happened before. The fact that it happened before per se can also be referred as ready-made.
A two-minute video will be played every one hour. What will happen to the 58 minutes that nothing is shown on the screen? Visitors come to the art museum, eager to look for “artwork”. In an era that believes in time is money, the 58 minutes of blank screen will probably be seen as “trash time”. People are too busy and impatient to wait. Capitalism doesn’t believe in waiting. The world it carves out is convinced that waiting means falling behind and devastation. It throws all of us into a kind of hectic tension, internalizes our subjectivity, and divides time into “usefulness” and “uselessness”. On Weibo, a Chinese version of twitter, an American talk show programme is widely shared, in which the host made joke about Foxconn’s outlook of time. In Foxconn, it was 35 hours a day. In a sense, we become even more capitalist than capitalist societies. Such an outlook of time deconstructs the pattern of exhibition making, enabling visitors to “access work” and to “experience art” in a prompt manner. Such an focus on “high efficiency” is hard to be explained.
By setting the intervals so long I didn’t merely mean to fight against the system. As a matter of fact, to constantly play a video every two minutes will only lead to insensitivity. That’s not what I want.
Moreover, the 58-minute blank screen time, also known as “trash time”, is also a black sculpture.
The minute hand indicates a circular time of the video. When it reaches the same position it was an hour ago, it indicates the timing of regular “explosion”.
It epitomizes a portion of the daily picture in the studio. It can be painting, video, trash, installation or sculpture. It can be private life. It can also be public politics.
Art is not something specific. Its beauty lies in its unlimited potential of “can be”.
Violence is an indispensable part of life. Likewise, it is also an indispensable part of art. As the serenity on the surface may be disturbed by all kinds of accidents, the threat of violence is always pertinent.
2012/10/23, Jiang Zhi
]]>
1、在你的艺术作品中,呈现出一种对于身体、表情或者日常事物本身的尤为关注,在这些本体背后,是否具有一种社会指向?如果有,这种社会指向又是怎样的?
对任何事物和事件的意义的获得,都是来自我们每个人的解读,我个人觉得艺术恰好不是去框定它,不是把它指向、框定为社会的、或公共的、或政治的、或私人的、或商业的、或历史的……而是在某种意义形成之前阻击它,使我们逃离偏见、逃离标准化、逃离权力……
2、从作品中,可以看出你对于事物和生活细节的细致观察和自觉感悟,是性格还是过去的某种生活经验,促成了你的这种倾向?
这很难说到底是性格还是生活经验,就如同我们分不清是性格造就了不同的生活经验,还是生活经验影响了性格,但有一点我比较认同的是,有怎样的主观,就会有怎样的生活经验,对我们的主观的改变,也会改变性格。因为我们能观察到:就算是同样的生活遭遇,每个人获得的生活经验是完全不一样的,这就是说,生活经验不是客观的,而是主观的。
对事物和生活细节的细致观察,是我们了解世界的途径,更准确的说,是我们了解自己的途径。所以,我们更要细致观察自己的主观和它的形成,并进行长期和深入的思考,这可能是非常艰难和非常值得做的事情。
3、你近来创作的装置作品,比如《歌喉》、《安静的身体》、《微物之神》等都相当有趣,利用事物本身的自然属性借以传达观念,是什么促成了这些作品的创作?
这看起来是一个很简单的问题,但是却非常难回答,是什么促成了一件作品的创作?是生活经历吗?我们如果细想下去,其实也不是,每个人都有快乐或痛苦的生活经历,但并非都会产生创作的欲望,那么是创作欲望吗?那么创作欲望又是被什么欲望推动?所以我暂时没有答案。
但我认为事物没有本身的、自然的属性,属性都是人给予的。它不说话,不传达,也无法传达。铁对某些人来说是坚硬的,对另一些人来说是柔软的;在某个时间它是难以摧毁,在另一个时间它却能瞬间腐朽;在某种空间中它能坠落,在另一种空间它却能漂浮……
所以,我们其实要借以很多条件,和谁?在什么时间?在什么空间?在什么条件下?……它会成为什么?
比方说《歌喉》中的生日音乐贺卡,借用了数量、排列方式、空间、和时间(节日)等等很多……观众在不同空间和时间看到它,对此产生不同感受和观念。
4、你如何看待当下中国的影像艺术发展?相比之下,与西方存在着哪些差距?
我觉得无法用差距去省量艺术。每一次艺术的发生都是平等的。
2012年10月 《易拍全球商报》
]]>
Jiang Zhi’s new painting series, A Thought Arises, began in
2010. These images are neither the artist’s own expression
based on a personal aesthetic relationship to the real
world, nor are they his digital productions or manipulations;
instead, they are generated by the computer screen itself,
by a system error or delay resulting in the display of an
interrupted interface. As the artist notes, these visual
results “form another spectacle that derives from an inner
and abstract world of the computer. It is a stimulated
momentary world that can be easily changed and reshaped,
and seems to be even more vulnerable, accidental,
unreliable and transient.”
Through a pre-set mechanism within the computer
display, lines and colours propagate and extend in endless
succession following a system error, appearing as abnormal
fragments of digital visualisation. The original screenshots
should not be seen as ‘images’ as per our common
understanding. They are ‘corrupted images’ or ‘faulty
images’, but not ‘false images’; not misrepresentations,
but rather imperfect extensions of something very real
occuring behind the screen. Though the resulting paintings
look abstract and expressive, they are produced through a
realistic method, imitating what was actually displayed.
This series is a new and somewhat democratic
collaboration between computer and owner. The former
is no longer merely a digital ‘assistant’, but acts as an
independent ‘creator’, whilst the latter ‘sees’ its ‘creations’
and transforms them into ‘images’. During this collaboration
‘images’ are produced spontaneously from digital data
and then found and captured by the artist, who ultimately
endorses them through his oil painting reinterpretations.
Now true or false, abstract or realistic, digital or substantial,
copied or invented, artificial or natural have all lost their
boundaries.
from The 4th Guangzhou Triennial-Catalogue- p188
蒋志自2010 年的最新作品系列《一念》是以绘画的形式呈
现的。这些图像既不是艺术家基于现实世界及其审美经验的
绘画性表达,也不是假借数码技术的生成或处理,而源自于
显示系统出现故障和滞后时继续操作电脑在屏幕上留下的痕
迹,一种随“机”生成的、偶得的图像。如艺术家自己所说的,
“它们进而形成了一个景观,像是来自一个内在的、有抽象意
味的世界。这是一个被瞬间激发而现的世界,也是一个随时
都可被更改和另建的世界—它更脆弱,更偶然,更无常,更
短暂。”
那些线条和色彩被不停拖动的鼠标延续和繁殖,按着电脑自
身预先设置的显示机制而形成一个个失常的数码视觉片断。
这些截屏本来都不会被称为是正常的“图像”,从人们的习惯
阅读角度来看,它们是一种“坏败之像”,或者可以说是一种“错
像”,但非“假象”,真实地存在于屏幕的背后。而这些绘画,
尽管在形式上是抽象的表现的,其实践方式却是一种严谨的
写实—即对电脑屏幕所显画面的写实。
在这个系列中,艺术家和电脑达成了一种全新的、似乎更加
平等的合作模式。电脑在这里不再是通常意义上的数码工具,
而是有“独立思考”的“创作者”;与此同时,艺术家真正地“看
见”了这些“创作”,并要称之为“图像”。在这个合作中,“图
像”被反复转译,从最初的数字到电脑屏幕的视觉显示,从艺
术家的阅读、发现和捕捉,最后再到以传统油画媒介为背景
的绘画写实,一定要从方法上“弄假成真”。此时,错误的还
是正确的,抽象的还是写实的,数码的和实在的,仿制的还是
创造的,人工的还是天成的,全都失去边界。
]]>
]]>
]]>
By:Véronic-Ting CHEN
Frangibility, instability, consumption and finally, disappearance. In a silent space, this process is poetically and aesthetically described: a fully launched fireworks show, a well-performed birthday concert with no audience, an ordinary but transient flush of light. They might be so easily ignored by one who paid little attention. But never mind, it does not matter; the fireworks cannot be seen, just as the concert cannot be heard, just as the light is still the light, which is only “one” light, “some” light.
However, are we strong enough to confront these pain of disappearance straight on?
Both Francis Bacon and Edward Munch’s Scream have no audience although pain coming out as a scream. One should ask why? Perhaps Hemingway has the answer all along: we are all vulnerable in the face of other’s suffering; we cannot even endure their heartbreaking screams of pain. Or maybe Susan Sontag can give the answer: observing others’ suffering will differentiate ourselves from the sufferers, which will assure us that we are not in acute pain as them, we affirm our own being and receive certain visual pleasure.
Artist is the bystanders of suffering.
Artist is the experimenter of suffering.
We intend to discuss and find out what kind of relationship between others’ disappearance, their suffering and ourselves. How can we demonstrate our agony in front of the public, and how can we make it into “artworks”? Self-affliction, our own hidden pains; how, when, where, and with what can they become others’ grief?
In February 9, 2009, the night of Chinese lantern festival, a fireman end up dead in an extinguishing mission. The cause of fire was because a government official who worked in a public media, insisted of launching contraband level A fireworks at a new and uninspected site of a enterprise, even when the police discouraged this clearly unsafe and unlawful action. This accident resulted a billion dollar loss, in addition to seven firemen injured and one deceased. The deceased fireman should have had his thirtieth birthday in two weeks.
The other story tells like this. In December 26, 2010, a man found a reflective light on a piece of cellophane. On the next day, the light appeared again, and this time, he recorded the incident. At that night, he received the news that his wife has passed away during her trip back to hometown. We can boldly make some assumptions, that as a sign, his record of the coincidental reflective lights adopt a personal emotion to it, and becomes a piece of art due to his wife’s death? However, despite its terribly devastation, this emotion of pain would still be personal. Isn’t it? We can see the lights in the artwork, though we cannot hear the screams behind.
This man was alerted twice at the same time and with the same “signal”, twice! But, he was too late to annotate, discover and even understand what the “signal” meant. This phrase, “too late,” demonstrates that he could probably still “do” something, but instead he missed the moment of a person’s death without any awareness. This aggrieved regret of which turned into wailing, can be much more painful than the pain of lost, and yet this suffering of the retard to seize sense of events, became something “more than personal”.
In September 30, 2012, this birthday concert will last for the entire night without audience, scream loudly to welcome a new reborn. While in October 1, those welcomed audiences will see the usual silence just as expected.
This might be just one of thousands of other firework that we have ever missed; such as one of thousands of newborn’s lives; and also one of thousands of signals. Every day, with every missed fireworks shows, every missed birthday songs, and every transient light, we may come to aware that what disappear in our time is never the objects themselves but our abilities to perceive the sense of these events. Simultaneously, we suffered not because of the disappearance, but our incapability of perceiving the “loss” that will last.
And meanwhile, the audience is becoming the bystanders of suffering.
The audience is becoming the experimenter of suffering.
]]>
在我们的时代里
策展人语:维洛尼卡
脆弱,不稳定,消耗,最终到消散,这个过程在诗意的审美中安静的被刻画着:一场盛放过后的烟花表演,一曲精疲力竭却没有听众的生日颂,一道平淡无奇转瞬即逝的光,在一个寂静的空间里,稍不注意,就一一错过。倒也无妨,反正同样看不见烟花,听不见演唱,而那道光,也只是“一”道光,“某”道光。
我们的每一天,都将错过无数次事物的消逝。我们一直都在“之后”姗姗来迟,后知后觉。
然而,我们又是否能足够坚强地直接去见证这种消逝的痛苦?
弗朗西斯·培根的“呐喊”与爱德华·蒙克的“呐喊”中,都没有听众,为什么?或者海明威能给出答案:因为我们在他人的痛苦面前是如此的软弱与无能为力,我们甚至无法去承受其撕心裂肺的呐喊。或者苏珊·桑塔格能给出答案:旁观他人的痛苦,能使得我们与痛苦者区分,从而确认我们没有“那么”痛苦,在此获得某种视觉上的欢娱。
艺术家是痛苦的旁观者。
艺术家是痛苦的体验者。
我们试图去探讨,他者的消逝,他者之痛,与己何干?而我们的痛,又如何能成为“作品”,展示于众人面前?私人的痛,隐隐作痛,如何,何时,何地,何德何能,成为了众人的伤?
2009年2月9日元宵节晚,一位消防员在一次灭火任务中牺牲。起火原因是国家公共传媒机构某领导擅自违法在不顾治安民警劝阻下执意在消防系统未被验收的企业新址上燃放被禁止的A级烟花。火灾造成数亿元经济损失,7位消防人员受伤,1人死亡。这位消防员本将在两个星期后迎来他30岁的生日。
2010年12月26日,一个男人在自己家中发现一道玻璃纸的反光,第二天,这道光再出现时,他记录了下来。而在当天晚上,他收到自己回家乡过节妻子离世的哀讯。我们鲁莽的想:殇妻之痛,使得这道光有了自己的情绪,而区别于其他的光,成为了作品?然而这种情绪,即使再满目疮痍,依然私人得可怕不是吗?我们看到了光,还未听见背后的呐喊。
这个男人被提示了两次。同一个时间,同一个“信号”,两次!他来不及去注解,来不及去发觉,来不及去意识…“来不及”,似乎原本还能“做”些什么,还没来的及去醒悟发生了什么事情,一个人的一生就瞬间过去。是这种痛心疾首的后悔,化为阵阵哀鸣。
我们身处在一个什么样的时代?我们又该如何去赋予某件事件某些意义?
2012年9月30日晚这场没有听众却持续整夜生日颂,嘶声力竭的呐喊着新生的到来。而10月1日如期而至的观众们,看到的只有这一如既往的沉默。
这也许只是我们过错的烟花中的其中一场;过错的新生的其中一天;过错的信号的其中一段…每天的每天,一场又一场的烟花划过,一曲又一曲的生日颂唱过,一道又一道不起眼的光闪现又消失。或者我们的时代里,消逝的不是事物,而是感知事物意义的能力;而我们痛苦的也并非是消逝,而是对我们的“所失”的无法觉察。
观众成为痛苦的旁观者。
观众成为痛苦的体验者。
]]>