2011 Painting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

有故障的显示

 

1

这些绘画作品来自显示系统故障，当我拖动对话框时留在屏幕上的图像，它经过的轨迹不会消除，除非再次经过而覆盖它。（其实说故障和错误是不准确的，它只是电脑当时的一个状态，虽然电脑会跳出一个警告说，这里出现一个错误，但这不是电脑想说的，是人为的判断。）

 

这些轨迹形成了图像，进而形成了一个“世界的景观”。它看起来，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。更脆弱，更偶然，更无常，更短暂，

 

为什么说“更”呢？它比较的对象，是我们所谓的“外部世界”吗？是的。

外部世界是如此坚固，接下来，是一个问号。

 

对于外部世界，我们永远无法直接看到。

因为既然我们无法接触到真正的“外部世界”，它是否存在就被永远存疑了。

我们得到的，都是自己的世界。

每个人只是在看着自己的显示屏，而且那个“显示屏”的显示，都是自示的（见就是自现）。

这个“显示屏”所显示的，这一切，我们称之为“世界”。

 

2

而“自己”，说到底，它随时随地都可以／可能成为“另一个自己”。我们在不断地形成另一个自己中度过自己的一生。

 

3

它们不是抽象画，理由是，第一，我是对电脑出现的画面写实。第二，产生这些形象的主体，电脑（这个无心的机器），它才不去分辨和判断什么是抽象或写实呢。

 

那它们是写实吗？所谓的实，在哪？

 

4

它是不是绘画对我来说并不重要，之所以要用油画颜料在布上塑造这些表面，是我需要更为“物质化”的媒介，当然，物质是无足轻重的，但我，我们，通过物化，来质疑物化的源头，这是一条便利之道。

 

这是早两年“表态”展系列的延续，在“表态”展中，针对的是感觉。笑，哭，娇羞，愤怒，颤抖，鸡皮疙瘩………正因为我们产生了这样的生理感觉和反应，我们觉得它们来自“真实的自我”，进而确认“真实的自我”潜伏于“我”，这样搭起一个“真实”的桥梁，视那些使我们产生如此生理感觉和反应的对象／事件的判断为真，进而我们相信那些对象／事件／世界为真。但对人来说，没有客观。

 

对感觉的观察，使我走到对感觉的对象的源头的观察之路。

 

所以，我要否定我开始所说的。

这些绘画并不是来自电脑。

 

蒋志2011/10/10

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Faulty Display

 

1.

 

This group of work derives from images of “system errors” from my computer screen. When I drag the conversation bubble on my computer screen, it leaves a trace but does not cover up previous images unless it is overlapped by another image. To call it an “error” or “mistake” is incorrect, as the “system error” warning only appears as an operation status of the computer which is due to our own action and judgment.

 

These traces become images and are shaped to form “a Vision of the world”. They seem to come from an internal and abstract world, which is created instantaneously and can be changed and renewed any time, but it is also more vulnerable, accidental, fugacious and transitory.

 

Why “more”? Is it because we compare this world to the “external world”? Yes; however, is the external world truly permanent? Yet another question.

 

For the external world, we can never see it directly. If we can never truly experience the external world, does it really exist? What we can attain is only our own world. We each stare at our own computer screen and what we see, perhaps, is only a reflection of an illusion of our own representation. What our computer screen shows is what we so-called “our world”.

 

2.

 

But in fact, what I call “myself” can, in actuality, be turned into “another self” any time and any where. We are constantly transforming into another self through our entire life.

 

3.

 

These are not abstract paintings. First, these paintings are based on actual images of what the computer screen shows.  Second, an unconscious computer cannot distinguish and judge what is real or abstract.

 

Yet, are they realistic paintings? If so, what is real and where is reality?

 

4.

 

Whether it is a painting is not important to me. The reason why I painted is because I needed a medium that can materialize. The material itself is insignificant; for me, we can question the origin of materialization by use of such material, which is a convenient way for me to pose my question.

 

This group of paintings is a continuation of my exhibition “Attitude” from two years ago, which focused on emotions such as, laughing, crying, shyness, anger, fear and trembling. As our bodies produce such natural emotions and reactions, we believe that such feelings are from the “true self” and thereby confirm such “true self” which in fact hides the real “I” from beneath. We then build up a bridge of reality from such so-called “true self” and view those objects or events which generate emotions and reactions as real and so believe that such objects, events and even the world as real, but none of this is an objective truth.

 

Observing emotions has led me to the observation of the origin of our emotions as well as its object.

 

Therefore, I want to deny what I said previously. The paintings do not derive from the computer.

 

JIANG ZHI

2011/10/10