2014年6月22日，巴黎南特黃永砯工作室。

文稿整理: 陳聆

與談人，編輯: 李雨潔

Read the english translation here.

讓工具控制自己的藝術家

李雨潔: 1981年年底你有一個畢業創作是《噴槍系列》， 你那時候的各種實驗還是專注在繪畫上面，沒有放棄繪畫，你當時還想要探索新的繪畫方法？

黃永砯: 那個時候可能很難說，當時目標都還沒有完全確定，正處在一個過渡。雖然我們是在美院的這種傳統系統裡面，但是同學都不太願意遵照傳統教學的方法作作品。

李雨潔: 那時候《噴槍系列》受到一些批評了嗎？

黃永砯: 這個繪畫談不上什麼大批評，但他們就是覺得比較離譜嘛。 因為油畫系畢業的，你不用油畫顏料？學了四年，竟然完全沒有體現基本功還有技巧。所以當時這麼做很冒險，但是他們也沒有完全地否定。老師只不過是說，「哎呀你這個有點簡單啊」。

李雨潔: 你在自己的筆記裡面提到要讓工具處在無意識的控制中，「工具由主動轉向被動」。這個要怎麼達成呢？你覺得自己成功了嗎？

黃永砯: 這個語言上表達不是非常精確。 工具本身是一個死的東西，它不存在主動跟被動的問題，這裡是指人—使用工具的人轉向被動。我用的工業噴槍是什麼樣的一個東西呢？ 是很小的噴槍， 帶了一個機器，就是空壓機， 這個東西不是來作畫而是來噴顏色的。譬如說你要把這個桌子塗成黑色的，這個嘩——就這樣噴，就完了，是吧？當時為什麼會提這個問題呢，主要也是因為工具對我們來說變得非常新鮮，我不能完全控制它。不像筆，筆我如果向左就向左，而且從我們的角度來說，以前對繪畫的認識，所謂的顏色都應該是微妙的，應該有變化的，這個工具不存在這個問題，一下子在幾秒鐘就是一大灘的顏色， 速度是很快的，沒辦法讓你去慢慢改變。所以在這個意義上來說，我就提了這個所謂無意識的問題還有被動的問題：就是人處在一個被動的狀態，而且這個被動的狀態不像我們一般意義上說被動就是不好的，它開了一個天地，就像潛意識的時候做作品。所以說我的主動性是很小一部份，被動性是很大的一個天地 。

李雨潔: 你由主動轉向被動的原因很大一部分是是這個工具太難控制了，而且你不熟悉這個工具？這個系列雖然是有這個「無意識」這個元素在裡面，話說，有一種新具象或者某種抽象這樣子的風格在裡面，風格是很強烈的。

黃永砯: 對，風格很強烈。我覺得如果是當時的一些作法呢，可能就接近所謂的冷抽象或者硬邊抽象。因為你靠剪紙噴出來的東西，噴出來的都是硬邊的，硬邊的形狀是比較冷的，所以歸為冷抽象。 其實當時在我們的班裡面，就是其他同學也有類似的作法， 他們是用手畫的。我這個是工具造成的一個更極端的效果。比方說當時非常出色的一個同學查立，他畫的東西我覺得跟後來耿建翌或者張培力他們當時早期的繪畫都有類似於這方面的東西。不是說一種表現的，也不是印象主義的，而是屬於一種比較冷的，比較硬，半抽象的 。

李雨潔: 浙江美院在85新潮開始之前，已經有很多人都有一種對於所謂「冷抽象」的探索， 或者是嘗試去掉個人風格的對於作品的影響，你覺得是為什麼？

黃永砯: 我現在很難說是為什麼，但是覺得這個隱含所謂繪畫從屬於一個政治的目的或者是功能裡面去慢慢解脫出來的一個辦法。就是所有的繪畫，所有的工具，都是一個工具性的，都是要表達一個什麼。但你一旦出現一個比較冷的或者說比較半抽象的一個東西，那他就會游離這個固有的概念。

廈門達達與杜象

李雨潔: 1983年的時候，你跟一群朋友組織了《廈門五人現代藝術展》，這個是內部觀摹的，當時要辦一個展覽有哪些先決條件呢？你們是在群眾美術館，像這樣子的展覽場地要怎麼樣申請，或者租？當時沒有所謂策展人這種角色，這具體是怎麼做的呢？

黃永砯: 也不存在租用，只不過是說， 我在廈門認識了一些人，譬如說有個中央美院畢業的老師，他是在群眾藝術館工作的，我們跟他很熟，他也很支持年輕人做一些東西，他自己也在改變他自己。所以我們就提出可以搞個展覽，就幾個年輕人，他也很支持，說，「就做嘛！」所以很簡單，也不存在什麼問題，只不過當時不是公開展覽，叫做內部觀摩，所謂內部觀摩就是說空間也不大，群眾藝術館大概有幾個大概一百坪米或者可能一百多坪米這種空間， 就是很一般的空間。然後不存在什麼策展人，就幾個經常交流的朋友就在裡面搞，所謂觀摩展就是他們發了一些油印的邀請函，發給有限的，廈門的一些文化圈子的人像老師啊，讓少數的人來看。

李雨潔: 有邀請函才能看？

黃永砯: 所謂邀請函也是非常好玩的，就是一個油印的，差不多那麼大張的一張紙蓋了一個紅章。這些東西我現在還留著。後來還開了一個研討會，所謂研討會就是大家發表了一些意見，還有會議記錄，就這樣。展覽和研討會總共大概三天的時間吧。

李雨潔: 展覽中有很多是抽象畫還有實物拼貼這樣子的作品。你好像覺得這個展覽是重要的，就是跨出了一步嘗試。參加者後來的「廈門達達」是同一群人？

黃永砯: 其中有一個後來不再參與的，其他四個人留下來。所以為什麼有意義？就是說為什麼這個展覽會歸類到廈門達達的活動裡面，是因為差不多是同一批人，移到廈門達達展以後，擴大了活動而已。

李雨潔: 你們1986年還組織了一個「現代美術研究社」，然後好像有小組討論， 印了一些油印的東西。是像讀書會的這樣子的嗎？

黃永砯: 沒有，不算讀書會，其實沒有一個規定的開會時間，是毫無組織的， 完全是自發的。這個研究會呢，其實也就是跟我前面提的一位先生有關係，他叫紀乃進，在群眾藝術館工作。群眾藝術館後來就搬了，搬到後來做廈門達達的那個空間，所以這些都跟他有關係。那時候我開始寫一些東西，比如後來「圖詞物」這個文章，當時有厚厚的這麼一小疊，我給他看過，然後他也感興趣，他也給別人傳閱，後來也油印，就可以散發更多。油印其實是選擇一些比較短的文章，這個基本上是跟廈門達達展覽差不多同時。

李雨潔: 譬如說你拿到了一本台灣人翻譯的《杜象訪談錄》，然後還把它影印發給大家嗎？那是1986年？

黃永砯: 應該更早。我不是直接從台灣印，很有可能是通過一個朋友許成斗，在83年的時候他也參加「廈門五人展」，他是越南的僑民，當時他在西貢，後來他回到廈門，帶了一些關於譬如說印象派的小的畫冊，油印的還是相當好的。 但是我現在不完全確定《杜象訪談錄》是不是他拿來的，有可能是通過廈門大學的一個什麼圖書館裡面找到，然後把它印個小冊子。

李雨潔: 你的筆記裡面提到， 1982年看到有關維根斯坦的書，然後1984年看到維根斯坦的傳記，那其實你是先看到維根斯坦才看到杜象？

黃永砯: 我當時沒有記錄說我什麼時候看到杜象，哪個早哪個遲，這個就很難說了。

李雨潔: 你也寫到1985年的時候《五燈會元》重新出版。但是你是具體什麼時候開始閱讀有關禪宗的東西？應該是更早吧？

黃永砯: 是差不多那時，因為在中國是這樣的，只有再版你才能夠在書店買到這個書。

李雨潔: 對，出版品在八十年代的時候是比較亂，有時候是很隨意的，沒有人知道邏輯是什麼。但是我在看各個藝術家寫的文章的時候，會覺得80年代大家談很多中國的傳統還有西方，但是很多時候可能對於所謂的中國傳統也不是那麼地了解，對於西方可能更多的是想像。我覺得好像當時的中國藝術家對於這兩者有相等的距離。你覺得是不是這樣子？

黃永砯: 是，這個話我好像也曾經說過。就是說當時其實是同時發現了—一個發現西方，一個發現傳統。

李雨潔: 有時候是藉由西方來發現自己的傳統？

黃永砯: 當然你通過西方你可以更好了解傳統，或者說從出版物來說，傳統書籍的再版，是那個時候在文革後才開始有的。當然舊版書還有，但是舊版流通性不大。因為比方說你到圖書館肯定可以找到關於禪宗，關於佛教，關於莊子或關於老子的書，肯定有，但是書店裡面不一定會有，因為書店賣的都是新出版的東西。

燒作品: 「燒作品是我提議的，但我沒有把所有的東西都拿去燒，我燒的主要是繪畫。」

李雨潔: 1986年的時候廈門達達做了一個焚燒活動，你說過是因為你們不滿意那個展覽的狀況。參加展覽的不是只有廈門達達的成員，至於這個小組的成立都還是一個問題，除了你們這群朋友之外，還有其他年輕藝術家參加。那你說過就是對於展覽狀況不滿意，具體是什麼樣的情況？

黃永砯: 其實當時展覽的題目不叫廈門達達，叫做《廈門現代藝術展》。廈門達達的提出其實是在我那個發表在中國美術報的文章裡面，文章題目是「廈門達達——一種後現代？」 是從這個開始的。我認為廈門達達這個團體的真正的組織，真正的誕生是在焚燒的時候才開始的，為什麼這麼說呢？《廈門現代藝術展》，這個從今天來說是一個非常平庸的一個展覽題目，它什麼議題也沒提出。現代藝術在當時的語境裡面，就是說跟這個社會主義現實主義有點不一樣，就是代表受西方影響的藝術，統稱為現代主義或現代藝術。參加這個展覽的人大部份都是一些美院或是師專畢業的年輕人，他們拿出來的東西很多是抽象雕塑。我當時為什麼會認為展覽不成功？包括為什麼要做這個焚燒活動——我是覺得這個展覽的傾向不夠清楚，當時也是沒有策展的，我當時屬於召集人，那有人拿了一些東西來，你不能不讓他展覽，因為沒有什麼理由，當時還沒有一個什麼策展方針，所以，好了，都放進來了，各種各樣，裡面也有一些水墨，抽象畫。展覽的時候我開始思考一個問題，就是說展覽應該要改變藝術的性質，包括問題的提法。現代藝術我認為是非常無力的一個議題，整個的傾向性是不明確的，我希望能夠找到一個非常清楚的一條生路，所以我才明確用了「廈門達達」在文章標題裡。廈門達達當時在這個展覽裡面有一些苗頭，為什麼呢？比方說當時我展覽的一些作品，比較有嘲弄性的，有一些跟歐洲達達主義有直接關係的作品。

李雨潔: 例如呢？

黃永砯: 譬如說達芬奇的鬍子被燃燒《鬍子最易燃》。還有比方說畢卡索的三張照片被燒了一個洞，慢慢地變灰。還有譬如說《會響的手槍》，這些就帶有一種達達式的隱喻在裡面。

李雨潔: 但是你在焚燒的時候，好像只有燒繪畫作品，對不對？

黃永砯: 對，燒作品是我提議的，但我沒有把所有的東西都拿去燒，我燒的主要是繪畫。

李雨潔: 是代表繪畫死亡了嗎？

黃永砯: 可能是。一個是畫比較大，比較起來，其他東西比方說一張照片，燒了有什麼意義呢？而且「燒」在當時的定位也很清楚，不是一個終極的手段。從當時到現在來看，「燒」只不過是一個步驟而已。因為如果終極了藝術的話，我為什麼在今天還要繼續工作呢？不是都燒完了嗎？當時也很多爭論，說「為什麼燒了以後你還要展示錄像呢？」大可告訴人家說你東西都燒了嘛，都完了嘛，那事情就做完了，可是生命還在延續阿？我還年輕啊，那接下去事情怎麼做？所以我一貫抱持這個態度，就是我們沒有一個終極的手段。我們規定藝術的一個消亡，這是我們的一個態度，一個步驟，一個方法，一個策略，絕對不是一個終極。

李雨潔: 所以你才把你要燒的作品都留了一塊下來？作為證據？

黃永砯: 不，這個是另外一件事情。我剛說我燒的都是繪畫，但是繪畫為什麼要留下一塊，它是不是個證據呢？談不上證據，後來我也很少拿出來給人家看。既然一張畫被割了一個12厘米乘12厘米以後，就看不出是一張畫了，完全失去了一個繪畫的涵義，根本只是一塊材料。當時的一些照片我沒有燒掉，還有一些複印件，那些我都留著。這個是一個一樣的道理。它太不引人注目了，它不是一個複製性的東西，所謂的複製性的東西基本上都燒了。當然《會響的手槍》沒有燒，為什麼呢， 它是被人偷走的，它很小嘛，一個釘子釘在那就掛在那裡，可能有人覺得好玩就拿走了。那其他東西，譬如說有幾張關於構想的方案稿子放在塑膠袋裡面，這種就沒拿去燒，但這後來也丟掉了。我覺得留下來的東西就更屬於一種觀念性的東西，物質性的東西都燒了。

李雨潔: 這個展覽有被審查嗎？

黃永砯: 沒有。因為什麼呢，當時確實也沒有審查，而且也沒有對外開放，反正看的人也很少。

李雨潔: 這個也是內部觀摩？

黃永砯: 也沒有寫內部觀摩，但是當時出了一份報紙[圖錄]，因為當時裡面的其中的一個成員蔡立雄，他在廈門日報工作，所以他有一些門路。他在裡面就用報紙的這個紙印了一下，大概印了那麼一兩千份吧。

李雨潔: 譬如說這個《解剖油畫顏料》，是不是你做的第一個行為？

黃永砯: 你怎麼來界定行為呢，其實這個作品有點像義大利藝術家Lucio Fontana，割一條的動作，這樣一個動作顏料就顯出來了。

李雨潔: 你有意識地把解剖的照片也展出了，油畫顏料的剩餘也展出了，好像是記錄一個行為事件的感覺 。但是其實它好像在探索很基本的繪畫問題，因為顏料就是繪畫的材料，就跟你用實物來做作品相似，其實實物也是一種材料。

黃永砯: 沒錯，但是應該清楚，就是那些顏料其實已經長時間不用了，因為當時我已經有好幾年不去動這個油畫顏料了。包括我早期的一些抽象畫，都不是用油畫顏料畫的，都是用油漆，其實這個是延續那種關於噴槍的那個系統來的。還有我做過一個作品，把油畫筆燒焦，當時也可能在展覽裡面把一支油畫筆燒了展出。這些作品更多的可能是在一個潛在的說明，在演繹繪畫，把繪畫的基本的，譬如說工具，顏料，進行一種處理，讓它變得不能正常使用。

「廈門達達——一種後現代？」

李雨潔: 你寫了「廈門達達—一種後現代？」 好像重新創造中式達達的門派，有點像譬如說中國南宗北宗山水畫的歷史，是比照中國禪宗的，南北宗的這種方式來寫的，這是後人杜撰的，不是真的有這件事情。我覺得你好像有在用這個方法⋯

黃永砯: 有意在用這個方法⋯

李雨潔: 那你寫到了這些人，像比方說曼佐尼 (Piero Manzoni)，克萊因 (Yves Klein)和凱基 (John Cage)，還有杜象 (Marcel Duchamp)，都是你比較欣賞的藝術家。但是勞申柏 (Robert Rauschenberg)，因為他來了中國，你把他作為一個現成品事件寫進了你的這個文章。因為其實比較之下我覺得像曼佐尼，克萊因，凱基，都比較好地表達了「藝術品是會消逝」的這個概念。但是勞申柏用了很多現成品，他是用了很裝飾性的方式來做，所以我覺得他是跟其他人有點不同。所以你是怎麼樣把他們包括進來的？

黃永砯: 勞申柏當然我還是比較注意的，這跟他在中國展覽會有關係，但我沒去看他的展覽。但是他對他對實物的應用也屬於在我的這個範疇裡面，譬如說勞申柏他是怎麼從一個平面繪畫變成使用實物？還有實物怎麼在一個平面裡面同時共存？我有一些作品的方式跟這個有點接近，所以我還是很注意勞申柏的東西。比方說他用一張床，還有一隻雞在作品裡，是吧。但是基本上，你可以說他是裝飾的，很多作品只不過是一個立體的畫，這個是一個過渡。當時我正在從繪畫想跳出繪畫，這個過程，他正好成為一個橋樑。 所以他對我來說有一定的重要性，放在這個名單裡面。

李雨潔: 你沒有去勞申柏在北京的展覽，但是你有看到那個圖錄？

黃永砯: 圖錄好像也是之後通過什麼其他途徑看到的

李雨潔: 所以你做了這個《給勞申柏的備忘錄》，是備忘什麼呀？

黃永砯: 這個題目是不是跟勞申柏有真的關係？也可以說是完全沒有關係。因為當時我用各種各樣的題目，我當時已經開始把題目當作一種畫外的東西。就是讓意義增加的東西。為什麼要用禪宗，這是關於用一些完全不一樣的東西並置在一起，禪宗之於達達它會產生一些新的意義，已經有意識地把一個東方的東西跟一個西方的東西放在一起，一個公認的思想史的名詞跟一個藝術史的一個名詞放在一起。為什麼不把兩個藝術史的名詞放在一起？這也是拉開兩個概念的距離，創造更大的思考空間。這個其實也預設了我以後的工作方式，從這一點到那一點，從這個史到那個史，這個都是有一定的相關的。

把路上的廢棄物搬進美術館展覽

李雨潔: 後來廈門達達作的那個作品改裝，就是《發生在福建省美術展覽館裡面的事件展》，做的看起來好像很隨意，但其實是你們是執行了一個事先想好的計劃，對不對？其中你們還貼了一個文字，闡釋人必須去選擇什麼是藝術，好像很強調觀者參與，然後其中有一行字被館方審查貼掉了。

黃永砯: 這個完全是一個籌劃好的。《廈門現代藝術展》展覽以後，可以說當時中國的氣氛還是比較開放的，當時我見到了福建省的美術館他們的館長，他說他們對廈門達達很感興趣，說「你是不是可以把展覽放到這裡來啊？」我們就說好啊。但其實當時燒掉了，我也沒告訴他說我燒掉了，而且我們當時已經想要做一些新的東西，所以這是一個半騙來的一個展覽機會，就是說他們同意了我們把作品搬來，但其實沒作品。我們四個人都去了福州，看了他們的空間，然後規劃了一下。時間很短，當時給了我們大概一個星期的時間，因為這個展覽不是屬於他們正式的一個展覽，是屬於比較開放，可以容納一些實驗型性的東西。我們還特地看了周圍的一些環境，而且還對那些路上的廢棄物進行拍照，都是計劃好的，之後才回到廈門。後來我們回去佈展那天，動作很快，把該運進來的東西都運進來，都指定好了，哪些東西可以用，哪些東西不用，然後還有怎麼組織人馬來抬，東西其實很重。所以佈展是非常之快，像一個突然襲擊。為什麼呢？因為你要快，在他們還沒有做出反應的時候，你已經都弄完了。包括上面出現的一些字，還有什麼圖標啊，都是在廈門做好帶過來的，所以是一個完全有次序的。只不過是今天來看，沒有留下一個平面圖。沒有一個規劃圖，都是在腦子裡。當然有很多隨機的東西：搬進來有些東西都破掉了，有些東西是不能搬的，或者說不夠，再搬，目的就是要把空間整個填滿，就這個目的。而且要速度很快。還有邊上還貼了很多像達達的報紙，有一張紙條是說這個作品是不是藝術品是完全根據觀眾來評價的，所以館方把這個給貼掉了。因為他們美術館會要承擔一些責任，就把它貼掉了。

李雨潔: 所以一開始只是有人把一行字貼掉，然後一個小時半以後，另外一個人說不行，要叫停？

黃永砯: 對，他是館長，他說要關展覽，這個展覽就很快撤了。

李雨潔: 其實之前在群眾美術館，你們焚燒作品沒有被審查？後來在福州的這個事情被審查，好像有點隨機？完全根據當地的長官決定，是很亂的一種狀況。

黃永砯: 就是啊！在中國當然是這樣。而且在焚燒的時候因為是在星期天中午，其實很少觀眾。邊上就有一些人在打球什麼的，我們也沒有通知任何人，只是一些學生過來看，有的是當時是過來幫忙的。所以觀眾是很少的。而且燒的時間也很快，大概就持續半個小時或是四十分鐘就完了。所以燒是沒有引起抗議。本來燒是很容易引起干預的，就像你今天隨便在一個廣場上燒東西，消防隊都可以看到很多的煙，他們就過來關心，因為是在公共場合。那美術館還是不一樣，美術館是他們自己害怕出事，如果他們不害怕，其實有人來看，看不懂也就算了，要等到政府有反應了，也要等好幾天。所有的審查都是自我審查，就美術館的人他們覺得他們承擔不了責任。

占卜

李雨潔: 1983年的時候你寫的一篇文章，「現代繪畫在中國命運之占卜」，好像是你第一次提到占卜這個詞。你對占卜的興趣是從什麼時候開始的？你對占卜的理解是完全從易經來的嗎？

黃永砯: 這個可能真的是第一次使用占卜這個詞。但是很多事情是這樣子，當你第一次使用的時候，可能都是比較無意識的，或者說你並不知道使用這個詞的真正的意義在哪裡，那占卜這個詞到後來才變為重要。我有一個1992年的作品叫做「占卜者之屋」，後來在2005年，有一個個展就是用「占卜者之屋」這個作品題目變為展覽題目，其實這個只是說明我某種活動的一個名詞。占卜後來就變成非常地重要，一個來說就是說所謂的占卜就是超出自己的一個能力，借助於另外一個東西，可以來超越自己。而且占卜幾千年前就有了，這裡有一整套非常複雜的系統與傳統，占卜主要是警告你，或者說提出警戒，「你不要做什麼」，但他從來不會給你說「你應該做什麼」。當時我是處在一個我需要有人給我提示「我應該要做什麼」和我「不應該做什麼」。而且占卜有一個很重要的就是他不能所謂的「不二問」， 就是說你不能重複地問。重複問就不靈了，工具就不聽使喚了。就是說，讓你保持跟工具的一個距離。

李雨潔: 你真的學過占卜嗎？

黃永砯: 我沒有啊。我只不過是通過自己看一些書，自己了解一些方法。但這個方法是不是真正的方法？這個我很難說。但是我總是能夠找到一些方法。

李雨潔: 你在寫「現代繪畫在中國命運之占卜」(1983) 的時候，好像做了很多實物的實驗，並且在這個文章裡面，你提到很多門派，像超現實主義，達達主義，野獸派，包浩斯這些。有趣的是這種分門派的方式好像是美國對於歐洲現代主義的角度。這些知識，這些有關藝術史的知識，你是從哪些書裡面得來的？

黃永砯: 這個書肯定不是當時美院教的，關於藝術史，特別是現代的藝術史。但是可以說因為所有的這些信息都是從零零星星的，譬如說當時的各種翻譯，摘譯裡面得來的，所以這個知識都是零散的。

李雨潔: Herbert Read大家都讀得很多，還有Edward Lucie-Smith，你在自己的作品裡引用了這兩個人的書，是不是他們對你有特別的意義？

黃永砯: 沒有。所謂的特別的意義就是說我能得到我就有意義，因為我當時能得到的東西是有限的，所以只能在有限的字眼裡面把它變為有意義。如果當時有更多選擇，我可能會選擇其他東西。但是我覺得這兩本書已經基本上概括了某些重要的知識，是不是？

李雨潔: 後來你到法國才第一次看到杜象的作品，對不對？

黃永砯: 對。我在其他的文章裡面曾經有說過我的想法。我說，原作對我來說並不是特別的重要。所以我到法國以後看到杜象的東西，不會顛覆我對杜象的一個整體的看法。不會說我看了以後我覺得「欸，我以前看到的杜象的東西不是這個樣子的」，「我發現以前錯了」。因為我不是依據眼睛真正看到的東西或是一個真正的實物來形成一個概念，形成一個想像。特別是杜象的東西， 完全是可以通過一些語詞，他的說話，還有一些非常不清楚的模糊的印刷品，你就可以領會他的本質跟精神所在，這個點就是說，他可以游離一種所謂「原作」。當然可能從法國人的角度來看，不太同意這個，因為他們非常注重這個原作的東西跟印刷品跟特別是複製品，可能印刷的很差的，完全不一樣， 但我不看重這些微妙的感受。

轉盤系列

李雨潔: 這邊有一張照片，是1987年在你的工作室的照片，我覺得特別有意思，因為裡面有轉盤，還有一些抽象繪畫，實物。

黃永砯: 這張照片其實還有一個拍攝的人，他坐在這個裡面，當時他是用慢鏡頭拍的，他變成一個模糊的黑影，辯認不出來。這個工作室當時堆放了很多東西，譬如這一個轉盤，還有很多作品已經毀掉了，比方說這是幾個酒瓶及一個塑料管在一個石膏上，後邊是一張畫。這是自己躺在那邊印出來的一個石膏吧。然後這個腳是自己的腳翻模的。

李雨潔: 你那個時候的作品都有很具象的名字。

黃永砯: 是。但很多東西都沒有留下來。

李雨潔: 你八十年代有三個重要的轉盤，第一個是1985年做的，就是做非表達繪畫的那個轉盤。你是先把畫布分成八等分，然後用也劃分成八等分的轉盤來決定現在要在畫布上哪個等分上畫一筆，這畫一筆的顏料是由骰子去選擇25種顏料中的一種，這25種顏料是你選的，然後把它們編碼？那把畫面分成八等分也是你先規定了一個構圖？

黃永砯: 對，這些都是我事先要有一定的規定性。比方說為什麼要找25種顏料呢，這25種顏料到底是有什麼普遍性或者特殊性？其實25種顏料也是我當時容易找到的。首先這裡面沒有常規的顏料，比方說他沒有油畫，他沒有水粉，大部份是一些油漆，洗筆油，還有一些看上去有點像顏色的東西，其實根本不屬於正規的顏料。

李雨潔: 這個轉盤讓我想到杜象的那個腳踏車輪，放在一個凳子上可以轉。那個原作從來沒有在美術館展過，毀掉之後他的複製品才展過。他在工作室裡面的時候常常轉著這個東西玩，然後欣賞它，所以那個東西有一個功能就是好玩。你的這個轉盤的功能就是幫助你畫畫，但是只有你用過，你沒有想說要完全地去掉你自己主觀的判斷力，讓第二個人去用這個轉盤嗎？

黃永砯: 我覺得也不太現實，為什麼呢？首先，如果有人要去做這個事情，他首先要知道這個程序，或者是說他要再造這個程序，不然他不知道要怎麼用。因為這跟自行車輪的轉動不一樣，你要知道，自行車輪的轉動你只要撥一下他就會一直轉，轉到他停下來，所以這個動作是比較容易的。但是你這個轉盤，你可以轉，他會停下來，那他停下來是說些什麼東西呢？他告訴你什麼東西呢？他幫你什麼事情呢？這個都完全是一灘糊塗的東西。所以說，首先我必須意識到說我要有一個程序，比方說我們用骰子，比方說我們要選25種顏料，這些都是我規定的，我不能否認，但是我為什麼要選25號而不選23號？這個就不是由我來決定，這就是靠我用的這個骰子。骰子他告訴我是7，我就用7明白吧？我用這個轉，這個轉盤上面有一個標誌，就是說指他停下來了，然後停下來，停在哪一個上，有一定的規定。是這個意義上。

李雨潔: 所以這個意義上就造成一種你規定的但是又與你無關的一種結果？

黃永砯:沒錯。

李雨潔: 你只有用這個轉盤做過一個作品？

黃永砯: 用這個轉盤其實是做過五張畫。但是展出過的是四張畫，還有一張是沒有完成的，後來就停下來，就不做了。

李雨潔: 為什麼沒有完成呢？

黃永砯: 不知道！當時就這樣停下來了。就四張，然後就完了，後來這個轉盤也就不再使用了。後來是展覽這四張畫的時候，同時把這個轉盤也展出。

李雨潔: 但是從1985年的第一個《非表達繪畫》的轉盤，然後1987年的時候有帶四個輪子的《大轉盤》，《跟六走向小轉盤》。 大轉盤就比較複雜了，他有內圈跟外圈，譬如說內圈有64個條目，外圈有384個條目，內圈條目和外圈條目規定了作品的做法，他們要互相配合的。

黃永砯: 對。

李雨潔: 你大轉盤做出來的作品，標題通常都是該條目，可是你好像通常只有給一個條目？譬如說「潮濕的手段」。從「潮溼的手段」這個條目衍伸出很多個作品，但是潮溼的手段是外圈的條目？

黃永砯: 對。

李雨潔: 那的內圈條目不見了？

黃永砯: 內圈條目一般不出現在我作品的題目裡面。 當時其實是這樣子的，內圈條目是作為一個作品的創作背景條件，它是比較潛在的。那外圈是直接拿來做標題。

《西方繪畫簡史》 和《中國繪畫史》在洗衣機中洗了兩分鐘

李雨潔:你在1987年12月1號同時作了幾件作品，都叫做「潮溼的手段」因為你把赫伯特·里德 (Herbert Read)的《西方繪畫簡史》跟王伯敏《中國繪畫史》這兩本書在洗衣機中一起洗了兩分鐘，但是其實這個兩分鐘是轉盤上的條目沒有規定的。那你又用洗衣機洗了一張自己的油畫洗了五分鐘。還有一個是把沙包捆綁起來？所以你那天剛好轉到了潮溼的手段，然後就做了很多個作品？

黃永砯: 又轉到第二次。

李雨潔: 你在做大轉盤作品的時候也需要很多主觀的判斷才能完成？

黃永砯: 對，我覺得大轉盤沒有像非表達繪畫這個轉盤的規定那麼死：一個是限制沒有那麼嚴格，還有一個他範圍要寬。其實他的目的不在限制，這個大轉盤的目的在擴張各種各樣的想法，這些想法之間有沒有條理，這個是不在我關心的範圍。它不只制訂一個系統，是想要超越一些系統，應該這樣來理解。

李雨潔: 但是有沒有有些時候你轉到某一個條目，發現你今天沒靈感做不出來，你就放棄了？

黃永砯: 嗯，會有的。從一些可以找到的我的筆記裡面，關於轉盤的作品，其實不止我們看到那些，有一些是沒做的但是我有記錄。將來可能有機會的話，可能會把這些東西整理整理，跟這個轉盤一起展出，我覺得這樣可能會更有意義，但是這需要一些時間。

李雨潔: 《六走向小轉盤》有沒有做出相關的作品。

黃永砯: 《六走向小轉盤》是沒有的，這個是88年做的作品，為了大地魔術師(Margiciens de la terre)這個展覽。我當時已經被邀請，我正在考慮這個展覽的方案，所以它其實是為這個展覽作的，但是我從來沒有使用它來做作品過。而且放在一個旅行箱裡面，後來就拿去參加了一個1989年2月份在中國美術館的一個展覽。

李雨潔: 什麼時候開始停止用轉盤做作品？

黃永砯: 其實到了法國以後，92年《占卜者之屋》作品裡面還有一個大的轉盤。是一個像年曆一樣的東西，這個功能也是轉盤。樹了這個年柱，還有下面的幾個盤，譬如說夜，日，還有時間，它是屬於占卜的轉盤，可以使用八字生辰來占卜。這個作品後來發展到一個轉盤車，轉盤車另外有一個題目叫做《六十甲子車》。

李雨潔: 但是這兩樣東西的目的不是占卜藝術，而是占卜生活，是不是？

黃永砯: 基本上還是跟藝術有關係。當然還有一些更小的一些轉盤是一個1991年的《小賭盤》，用來談作品的價格。

李雨潔: 這個占卜價格的轉盤有真的使用過嗎？

黃永砯: 沒有使用過，沒有人會跟我玩這個遊戲，我覺得這個不成問題。這個轉盤是不是可以玩，我覺得問題不大。我這個作品只不過是提了一個問題，就是關於作品的價格怎麼樣才是合適的？

洗書

李雨潔: 你後來做了很多有關洗書的系列。藏書計劃裡面有些書對你來講應該是有特殊意義的，譬如說《純粹理性批判》，還有你當時在看的一些有關美學的書。你洗了很多書，那你洗書的選擇都是什麼？

黃永砯: 其實《藏書計劃》有一張照片是地上一攤書，那就是我書架上的書。我當時買了很多書，美學的書倒是沒拿去洗，美學的書很多我是用膠水黏起來的，雖然我買了很多美學的書，後來我基本上拒絕去看這些書。這些書是不是全部看完以後才被黏起來的？我不是很確定，但是有一些確實看過。一般來說，沒有用的東西洗了就沒有意義。特別是一些比較小件的，譬如說康德《純粹理性批判》，這些都是有象徵意義的，不是隨便洗的。當然後來有很多書就是作為作品的材料， 譬如說我後來也有用報紙洗，那需要很多的量，那是另外一件事情。

李雨潔: 到法國做的那個大地魔術師的作品，為什麼改洗報紙？

黃永砯: 這個道理是非常簡單的。因為它已經轉變為一種材料， 而且這個作品需要一個大量的好幾噸的紙，不是幾本書所能夠解決的問題。

李雨潔: 你好像是選擇了法國共產主義的報紙？

黃永砯: 也有一些解放報，當時沒有完全指定是專門的一家報紙，我沒有這樣指定，我是泛指當時的媒體文化。

李雨潔: 所以到這時候報紙已經變成一種雕塑的材料？

黃永砯: 裝置的材料。可這個其實已經預告了後來工作的一個方式，所有的東西都是通過草圖先探討，最後變為一個實體作品。

躲避美術館

李雨潔: 你在出國之前參加的《中國現代藝術展》，它原本是要在1987年實現的，叫做《各地青年藝術家學術交流展》。原本那個時候你們工作的程序是怎麼樣呢？你們是被組織者邀請，還是是徴件？

黃永砯: 《中國現代藝術展》 一開始沒有一個組織， 都是一些自發的，各個地方的活動。有一些人是搞理論的，他們有報紙還有雜誌。一開始他們在珠海搞了一個所謂幻燈展，後來搞了一個黃山會議，黃山會議是什麼呢？就是他們給各地藝術家，寫些信說你們能不能來參加，帶一些幻燈片來，在會場放一放。然後在這個黃山會議上，其實已經在討論說要組織一個全國性的展覽。但是這個展覽到底是怎麼做呢？這都在爭論，當然也不存在什麼徴件，因為這些人與大家都很熟，譬如說高名潞，栗憲庭，費大為，我都見過，他們都是屬於策展的小組成員，很長一段時間我們都通信。然後他們沒有規定藝術家要展什麼東西，我們廈門達達有提一些方案，但有一些方案是做不了的。他們也沒有經費，所以也不可能把作品從廈門運到北京，我們基本上捲了一些照片帶去，我把六走向小轉盤放在一個箱子裡面，這箱子原本的作用也是讓我坐火車的時候可以帶，這些東西都是輕便的。有一些計劃，譬如說在那邊要拖美術館，要撒什麼大米，都不能做的。最後能做的就是貼些照片，還有展出一些輕便的東西。

李雨潔: 你是不是有一個方案要油印空白紙，然後在廁所裡面展覽？有一個提到說要殺豬？

黃永砯: 當時是所謂的「廈門達達」小組一起討論出來的方案，但這個最後的文稿是我組織的。當時的會談的記錄也沒有，只不過是大家坐在那邊聊天，我也很難記住這個殺豬到底是什麼人提的，是誰提出這個那麼壞的主意？我覺得這些可能性都是有意義的，是不是要實施？這是另外一件事情。我覺得那個展覽所有的東西都在挑釁，是吧？但是當時的展覽，廈門達達挑釁是最少的。其實從動作上，它是最少的，倒是別人真的是挑釁的，廈門達達只是把這些有挑釁的想法放在一個文本裡面。

李雨潔: 你在一篇筆記裡面好像也有提到這種擔憂，你們為了解除展覽作為權勢之爭的遊戲，想了一些激烈的方案，但是這樣反而進入另外一種權勢之爭。

黃永砯: 所以我們的一個計劃叫做「躲避」，其實這是一個矛盾的詞，因為你受邀請參加這個美術館，卻是要躲避這個美術館，這是一個悖論。你怎麼能夠既參加又躲避？又進去，又逃出？就在談這個觀念。我覺得這個觀念在當時還是第一次有人這麼提。因為所有人都是說要挑釁，而且這個氣氛就是挑釁，所以後來才出現開槍。這個關於權勢的文章是展覽之後我寫的，另外一篇文章，有關躲避美術館，這個計劃是早一點的時候，1988年寫的。

李雨潔: 具體要怎麼躲避呢？

黃永砯: 提出了一些方案，例如在不是展覽的空間展覽，這就是一個躲避的方式。譬如說在廁所，在過道，在樓梯，不是在正廳，不是在一個引人注目的空間，譬如說你為什麼要撒米，這米是不容易被注意的，因為所有人注意的都是引人注目的東西。但是這些更多的是當時我個人當時的一些想法。

李雨潔: 後來選擇的是《拖美術館》的計劃？

黃永砯: 《拖美術館》計劃也沒有實現，這個拖美術館是單獨寄給展覽組織者，單獨寄給他們說需要這些材料，大概要有幾個柱子，需要什麼東西，要有一個描述，。但是這個沒有下文，也沒實現。

李雨潔: 你對肖魯開槍有什麼看法。

黃永砯: 槍響的時後我不在場，這個槍響之前已經有很多的混亂，我當時我對於在北京這個展覽，該做什麼事情我很清楚，我已經準備躲避了，遠離這個圈子。在黃山會議我已經知道這個圈子是權力慾，大家都來爭名利，有點像農民起義，爭奪座位。開槍是最極端的了，然而藝術家在關於藝術這個行當裡面，特別是這個先鋒藝術，前衛藝術，這些極端應該怎麼來界定？我覺得關於藝術的思考其實是關於更多的人的思考，關於你要做什麼，你該做什麼，你作為一個藝術家，你要達到什麼東西？ 當時我也知道我很快就要去法國，我當然不至於做極端的實情，讓自己在那個時候被抓起來，但我也不知道去法國會怎麼樣，我也可能馬上就回來廈門。但是當時特別是廈門達達這些極端的行為做完以後，我已經開始思考一些極端之後的工作，關於極端化以後的出路 。《中國現代藝術展》開槍之前，譬如說有藝術家在洗腳，在孵蛋，撒什麼避孕套，已經是烏烟瘴氣了。這個中國的前衛藝術已經進入到一種主要是以騷亂為主，但是騷亂，我已經說了，達達主義一開始的目標就是要引起混亂，這方面的工作廈門達達已經做過了，我已經不要再進行新的騷亂了，我應該考慮新的工作。 藝術除了這個之外，還有沒有其他的可能性？這個已經是我在重新思考的。

李雨潔: 你是1989年四月的時候去巴黎參加《大地魔術師》嗎？在那邊待到六月初的時候發生了天安門事件？那沈遠老師呢？

黃永砯: 她是遲了一點，90年來。當時也是我們通過一些《大地魔術師》展覽裡面認識的朋友，還有當時我在Provence美院的一些關係，朋友都幫忙寫邀請信什麼的，需要很多條件，相當困難。以我個人的生活準則來說，我就是隨遇而安，因為我是個被動性的人，這可能跟我以前所謂的一些藝術上的一些想法有關係。 譬如說90年代歐洲有很多的展覽邀請我，然後我就留下來，沒有考慮太多。當我還沒有明白怎麼回事的時候，已經過去了二十幾年，事情就是這樣，是不是？譬如說到法國，也不是我的一個選擇，不是說我已經設計好了我要移民這裡，或者說是換一個社會生活，這些都是機會，只不過我順從各種各樣的機會。

黃禍：住在中國與法國的藝術家

李雨潔: 搬到法國之後，1993年你開始做有關動物的作品，例如「橋」還有「世界劇場」， 你好像一直對爬蟲，蛇還有蟲很有興趣？這種興趣是來自於這些動物象徵的涵義？

黃永砯: 從今天的角度來說，其實我用了一個最大範圍的，不同種類的動物來作作品。最早的使用活的動物是1993年在牛津《黃禍》那個作品，後來就緊接著1994年在舊金山又用了活的烏龜。 在牛津的那個《黃禍》大概用了一千隻蝗蟲，放在美術館的入口的地方。但是這個展覽沒有因為動物保護的問題而關掉，是有問題，但是這裡的動物不構成一個真正的問題，為什麼呢，蝗蟲都是爬在牆上面，只不過幾隻掉下來，地上的蠍子可以抓到來吃，他們彼此很少能夠接觸。而且我想展覽沒有很長吧，大概是一個多月。

李雨潔: 但是它沒有完全審查？就是沒有說你不能用蟲？

黃永砯: 沒有。

李雨潔: 《世界劇場》的狀況就很不同。你在一個烏龜形狀的箱子裡面關了蠍子，還有各種蟲，有蠍子，蜘蛛，蟋蟀等等，讓他們自相殘殺，引起很多爭議。

黃永砯: 第一次展《世界劇場》在斯圖加特(Stuttgartt)，沒有審查，因為是在德國的斯圖加特的孤獨城堡 Schloss Solitude， 那個地方供藝術家駐村幾個月，有一個過道，藝術家有一點點小空間做一點展覽。所以是給少數人看的，不引起爭論 。 後來實現的一次在巴黎，一次在阿姆斯特丹，還有在Walker Art Center，一次在北京。有幾次叫停，出問題的其中一次在溫哥華，一次在巴黎龐畢度中心 。龐畢度那個是一個很大的集體展覽，當時龐畢度的工作人員已經知道有這麼一個計劃，他們寫了很多抗議書給龐畢度的館長，後來引起了法國的動物保護協會的反對，他們的主席是一個以前很有名的一個演員，他也寫了一封很正式的信給龐畢度中心抗議這件事情。後來巴黎市的警察局出面了，其中動物保護協會提出訴訟。這些我是不在場的，是他們的律師去弄的。關於這個事件，有一個法國的社會學家曾經寫過一本書，書裡面有一篇文章談論到這個作品，談關於藝術作品被審查的問題，很多這些也是我事後才知道。

李雨潔: 很多人說有些作品在中國可以做，在其他地方不能做。你可不可以比較一下這些審查制度跟當地的現當代藝術的接受度的關係？

黃永砯: 這個審查制度，分開來說，一個是屬於關於民主社會的，還有一個關於非民主社會的。譬如說以前八十年代我在中國的時候有一些審查，這些審查呢，當然有一些是涉及到關於觀念上的東西，還有譬如說意識形態上面的東西。因為意識形態規定什麼東西是可以表現的， 什麼是不能表現的。但我們今天，譬如說在民主社會，當然在意識形態上已經不存在這個東西，有另外一些安全的限制，比方說我碰到的動物的問題，他們對動物保護的看法有這麼一些界線是不能觸犯的。比方說展覽單位他們就非常小心，他們不希望觸犯這個東西。所以各種審查從總體上說對我的作品，我覺得是積極的。我們換個說法，我們必須要感激敵對者，我們經常會為了工作需要，需要製造一個對立面，這些東西都是正面的，我們不能把審查當做一個完全是負面的東西。因為就我個人的經歷，有一些審查使我產生了一些新的東西。但是我覺得應該劃分清楚，不是為了觸犯而觸犯，這個是又回到一開始我就說到關於80年代末期中國的當代藝術的一些關於要肆意挑起一些挑釁。比方說我在作品中用蟲，我並沒有想到說這個蟲真的會引起紛爭，那麼小的東西，而且也是正常途徑買來的，商店他們都在賣，只不過是方式不一樣。譬如說他們賣的是一個盒子一個盒子的，那也有人買去養啊，那我只不過把盒子變成了一個大盒子，是吧？蟲沒有跑出來， 我也沒有覺得這個蟲影響到別人的安全，也沒有說要特地造成他們的殘酷。因為在我看來，蝗蟲在商店裡面是養的，是為了給蠍子吃的，所有的小蟲是為了讓大蟲能夠活才專門在那邊賣的，只不過是讓他們吃的時候不是在公眾，不在展覽，而是在私下的方式。當時做這個作品的時候，我的用意完全不在於他們的殘酷性，而是用動物的世界來作一個比喻，他們代表很多不同種類的人，他們是不可以共同生活的，那他們共同生活情況怎麼樣？ 所以叫世界劇場，這也是一個社會的隱喻。我覺得作品的意義在提出一些問題，而不是在提出向他們說的這個什麼殘酷不殘酷。譬如說龐畢度那件作品，為什麼會比展出更多的關注，因為邊上還有很多他們展出的文件。譬如說抗議書，這些抗議書，還有當時的政府的文件， 還有他們龐畢度主席跟策展人對這些的回應，他們的態度給了作品新的視野，擴大了作品 。這不是不是藝術家刻意的，而是一些意外的東西。

李雨潔: 你對你今天作為一個生活在中國還有法國的藝術家定位是什麼

黃永砯: 我的工作經常被比較的有兩個方面，一個是在中國，一個是在國外。而且經常會被這麼認為: 我在中國國內好像有很多東西可做，比方說今天的這個訪談，可能有大部分是很具體談到我中國的工作，是吧？但我在西方已經進行了25年的工作了，在廈門，你說作品從1984年開始吧，到1989年，才6年。我覺得前段部分對我來說，只不過是一個學習的過程，我們說得簡單一點，可能人家會認為是個模仿的過程。當然我的疑問在這裡，為什麼我在法國25年做的事情比較少人關心？ 凡是在一個所謂的不開放的一個地方，它的意義完全是在它的背景的封閉性，才引起一個注目。是這樣嗎？還要回到我剛才說的，如果我沒有後來的工作，我難道在中國六年的東西就能夠存在嗎？ 比方說廈門達達不是只有我一個人在做啊，也有五六個人在做，後來我走了以後他們也停下來了，他們沒有再繼續。為什麼他們的工作就被認為沒有意義呢？ 我覺得我出國前的東西跟出國後的東西， 不能完全割離開來，有很多東西是建立在之前的工作基礎上。我為什麼今天仍然在工作呢？因為工作就是生命之所在，是生活之所在，意義之所在，因為活著，工作。

The post 洗書，占卜，捕蟲: 與黃永砯對話，第二部分 appeared first on post.

In this conversation, Huang also discusses his early experiments in Zhejiang and Xiamen in the 1980s, when he aimed to eliminate his aesthetical preferences when making art. He speaks in detail about how his Roulette series functioned as a tool for this purpose. The process of using a roulette to oracle and guide his process eventually bored him, and so he moved on to washing books and newspapers in a washing machine, a series he pursued through the 1990s. His unexpected move to Paris in 1989 was a watershed, marking his transition from ephemeral practices to room-size sculptural works, some of which involved live animals and taxidermies. At this moment, Huang’s focus shifted from that of challenging his identity as an artist to exploring cultural mixing within societies and the clashes and parallels among civilizations. The different censorships he has faced in China and Europe have informed his different approaches to testing and crossing the boundaries—whether through washing books, oracling, or bringing bugs into the museum.

Nantes, Huang Yong Ping’s Studio, June 22, 2014.

An Artist Controlled by a Tool

Li: In late 1981 you presented the Spray Gun series as your graduation project. It seems like you were still focused on painting then, like you hadn’t yet given it up. Were you still exploring new ways of painting?

Huang: I can’t really say. In fact, I don’t think I had my goals sorted out yet. I was in a transitional period. Although as students we were nurtured in the traditional canon of the academy of art, none of us were comfortable with the conventional approaches we’d been taught.

Li: Was the Spray Gun series criticized at the time?

Huang: No, not seriously at least; the faculty just thought it was a bit absurd: You major in oil painting and yet you’re not painting with oils? After four years of mastering the medium, you’re not displaying basic skills? It was a risky move at that time, but our teachers weren’t totally unaccepting of it. They merely said, “Well, this is a bit simple, isn’t it.”

Li: You wrote in your notes that, when creating a work, “the tools should shift from active to passive.”¹ How did you accomplish this? Do you think you succeeded?

Huang: This isn’t so easy to explain. Tools aren’t alive, and so it makes no sense to refer to them as either active or passive; what I was referring to was the people using them. As for the industrial spray gun I used—it was fairly small and came with an air compressor; it wasn’t designed for painting on canvas but instead for coating objects with color. For instance, if you wanted to paint this desk black, you would just spray it and—whoosh—it would be done! So why did I question myself about tools? It was mainly because using nontraditional tools to make paintings felt fresh to us; the spray gun was something we could not control with any precision. From where we stood, painting had always been an art of control and subtlety; all the colors were supposed be delicate, with subtle variations. For example, when you use a paintbrush, you can make it go left or right as you please. However, with a spray gun, you lack control. In a matter of seconds you might have a big splash of color that you aren’t able to manage or change in a subtle way. So it was from this perspective that I was thinking about the powers of unawareness and passivity—I felt like as artists we were standing in a passive position, but not necessarily in a bad way. In fact, being passive opened up a whole new world for us. It was almost like creating with your subconscious. That is why I suggested that activeness had very little to do with it, whereas passivity was something to explore.

Li: So you went from being active to being passive largely because this tool was hard to control, and you weren’t experienced with it? Although this series has an element of “unconsciousness,” it also seems like it falls into a style of New Objectivity or abstraction, and vividly at that.

Huang: Yes, it is a rich and vivid style. Based on the working process, I would say that it resembles so-called cold, or hard-edge abstraction.² When you spray color onto a stencil on a canvas, the results are hard-edge, which has an effect of rigidness, and therefore “cold.” Back then, I had classmates pursuing similar projects, except for that they painted by hand, and I was using a tool that caused an extreme effect. For instance, there was this very talented classmate of mine Zha Li, who painted works that resemble early works from Geng Jianyi or Zhang Peili. It’s not expressionism or impressionism; it is instead a much colder, harder-edged, and semiabstract style.

Li: Before the ’85 New Wave, a lot of artists at Zhejiang Academy of Art were already exploring this so-called cold abstraction, or at least trying to remove the idea of a personal style from their work. Why do you suppose this was?

Huang: It’s hard to say why this was exactly, but I do believe that it had something to do with freeing ourselves from political objectives or agendas. That is, every traditional artistic tool is instrumental in expressing or reinforcing some idea. But once you rid the work of such things by way of coldness or semiabstraction, it deviates from these underlying or presupposed concepts.

Xiamen Dada and Marcel Duchamp

Li: In 1983 you and a group of friends held A Modern Art Exhibition of Five Artists, which was only open for internal viewing.³ What were the prerequisites for hosting a show? For instance, you chose the Xiamen People’s Art Museum as your venue—how did you apply for or lease such a space? There weren’t curators back then, and so how did you execute everything?

Huang: Well, we didn’t really need to lease anything. We came to know a few people in Xiamen, among them a teacher [Ji Naijin] who had graduated from the Central Academy of Fine Arts in Beijing and was working at the Xiamen People’s Art Museum. We were very close to him, and he was supportive of young artists. One day we came up with the idea of organizing an exhibition, and he was encouraging. Because of this, it was all fairly smooth and simple—except for that the show wasn’t open to the public. We called it an “internal viewing” and we held it in a space that was just big enough but not too big; the museum had a standard-size space, which was roughly 100 square meters. We didn’t have a curator, just a few friends who hung out a lot, working on the project. We sent out invitations, made on a mimeograph machine, to a set number of people across the artistic community, such as teachers and professors.

Li: So it was by invitation only?

Huang: Yes. And speaking of invitations—these were really interesting. They were mimeographs printed on a paper roughly this big, with red stamps on them. I still have some of them. Later on we held a conference to discuss the exhibition; we even kept minutes. So that was it. The exhibition and the conference lasted about three days.

Li: There were quite a few abstract paintings as well as collages made from found objects. You seem to consider this exhibition significant, in the sense that you took a step forward in terms of experimentation. Were the five artists in the show the same people who made up the Xiamen Dada group that came afterward?

Huang: Yes. One of the five dropped out of the group, but the other four stayed, which is why the exhibition was considered a project by the Xiamen Dada group [which was, however, established afterwards]. After we established Xiamen Dada, we expanded our activities.

Li: In 1986 you founded the Modern Art Research Group, which I think held group discussions and did some mimeograph works. Did it function like a reading group?

Huang: No, not really. We didn’t have a strict meeting schedule like a reading group would; we were a bit less organized. Meetings were totally voluntary. The whole conference idea had to do with Ji Naijin, the man I mentioned earlier—he worked at the Xiamen People’s Museum. A while later, our meetings were relocated to the space where we started Xiamen Dada, which is where he came in. At the time I had started writing articles, such as “Image-Word-Objects.” I had written quite a stack of them, which I showed to him; he was interested and passed them along to other people. Then we mimeographed more copies. The articles I chose to print out were shorter texts. All this was happening around the time I started Xiamen Dada.

Li: Was this about the time you acquired a copy of Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp,⁴ translated by a Taiwanese into Chinese. You made copies of it and circulated among the group? That was in 1986, I think?

Huang: I think it was even earlier than that. I didn’t acquire the copy from Taiwan—I might have gotten it through a friend, Xu Chengdou. He was also part of A Modern Art Exhibition of Five Artists. He was a Chinese expatriate living in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. Later on he returned to Xiamen, bringing some finely printed little albums of Impressionist artworks with him. I’m not sure if the Duchamp book came from him; it also may have come from a library at Xiamen University.

Li: You mentioned in your journals that you read Wittgenstein’s books in 1982 and his biography in 1984. Does that mean you came across Wittgenstein before Duchamp?

Huang: I never chronicled when exactly I came across Duchamp—it’s hard to say who I discovered first.

Li: You also mentioned that An Anthology of the Five Transmissions of the Lamp⁵ was republished in 1985.⁶ When exactly did you start reading about Chan Buddhism?⁷ I suppose it was earlier than that?

Huang: Actually, it was around that time. In China, the only way to access that book is if it gets republished and becomes available in bookstores. An alternative would have been if my father had had such a book in his library, but he didn’t. Surely I knew of Chan Buddhism, but to come across a book as academically professional as An Anthology of the Five Transmissions of the Lamp was only possible when it was republished.

Li: That’s true. Publications in the eighties were a bit sporadic, sometimes even random—no one could tell how the selection of books was made. Judging from the articles I’ve read by artists of that time, it seems that though they talked a lot about Chinese traditions and the West, they sometimes weren’t that sure of their understanding of the so-called Chinese traditions—and in terms of the West, they seemed to have relied largely on what they imagined or speculated. So it feels like Chinese artists of the time were standing equally distant from both when it came to understanding. Do you think this is the case?

Huang: Yes, and I’ve made similar comments. I’d say that at that time, we felt like we were discovering both the Chinese traditions and the Western ones.

Li: Would you say that sometimes you discovered your own traditions through the West?

Huang: Surely you can better understand traditions through the West. Bear in mind that traditional works and canons were only republished after the Cultural Revolution. Of course, earlier publications existed, but they weren’t available for circulation. For example, you could definitely find books about Chan Buddhism, Buddhism, Lao Zi, or Zhuang Zi at a library, but it was hard to find them in a bookstore, because bookstores only sold newly printed books.

Burning Artworks: “I suggested burning the artworks, but I didn’t burn everything. I burned mostly paintings.”

Li: In 1986 Xiamen Dada held a burning event, and you said that it was because you weren’t satisfied with circumstances surrounding the exhibition. The exhibition consisted of more than just works by Xiamen Dada members—that is, besides your group of friends, there were other young artists involved. Would you care to elaborate on what happened exactly?

Huang: The title of the exhibition was, in fact, not “Xiamen Dada” but rather Xiamen Modern Art Exhibition. I coined the term “Xiamen Dada” in an article I wrote for the art newspaper Fine Arts in China. The title is “Xiamen Dada—A Kind of Postmodernism?”(1986) and it gave birth to the term. As for our Xiamen Dada organization, it was formed when we worked on the burning project. How so? From where we stand today, A Modern Art Exhibition of Five Artists is much too mundane a theme for an exhibition, because it doesn’t really deal with any issue. “Modern art” is, in the context of language, different from terms such as “socialism” or “realism”; it represents art influenced by the West, which we call modernist or modern art. Most of the artists who took part in the exhibition were young graduates from art academies or liberal arts colleges, who brought with them their mostly abstract sculptures. And yet, why didn’t I consider the exhibition a success, and why did I hold the burning event? Because I felt that the goals and intentions of the exhibition weren’t clear. I served as the organizer because we didn’t have a curator, and when someone came to me with an artwork, it was hard not to let him or her in, because we didn’t have a clear guiding principle and therefore criteria for rejection. In the end, we had piles of artwork—some of it ink painting, other of it abstract painting. So by the time we set up the show, I had begun to think about the essence of the exhibition. I believe that exhibitions should be able to change the perceived nature and quality of artworks and to raise meaningful questions. “Modern art” as a theme seemed to me to be too vague and powerless, because it lacked a clear goal or foundation. I hoped to find a way out, which is why I proposed “Xiamen Dada” in the title of my article. And the idea of Xiamen Dada resonated quite a bit during the exhibition. For instance, I had a few pieces that were satiric and closely related to European Dadaism, and that was interesting.

Li: What are some examples?

Huang: For example, I made The Beard Was the Easiest to Burn on Da Vinci’s beard; I made a piece in which I burned holes in three photos of Picasso; and I also made Ringing Pistol, which suggests a Dadaist metaphor.

Li: But you only burned paintings, is that correct?

Huang: That’s right. I was the one who suggested that we burn artwork, but we didn’t burn everything; mostly we burned paintings.

Li: Were you suggesting that painting is dead?

Huang: Possibly. Another reason is that most of the paintings were larger in size—whereas other pieces, such as the photos, were comparatively smaller—and so it made more of an impact when we burned a painting. On another note, we made clear that “burning” was not the ultimate objective—it was only a move or a phase. Because if burning was indeed the ultimate objective, then we really would be terminating art, and it would be ridiculous to continue working as artists after art is terminated. In fact, the burning generated a lot of discussion at the time. People would ask: “Why do you have to display the video footage after you burn them [the artworks]?” Wouldn’t simple words suffice and wouldn’t it be easier just to tell people that you burned the works and be finished with it? But the truth is . . . life goes on and I was still young, and so I was always wondering what would be next. That was my philosophy—that we didn’t even have a method of terminating artworks; we decided to annihilate artworks to make a point; burning them was merely the strategic means of getting there. It definitely didn’t mark the “end” of art.

Li: Is this why you kept pieces of some of the works you burned at the event? To serve as evidence?

Huang: No, that’s a different story. What I just said refers to the paintings. As for why I kept these pieces and whether I intended them as evidence—I can tell you that that’s not the case. In fact, I rarely ever showed these works to anyone after the burning. When you carve out a 12-by-12-centimeter piece from an artwork, the original artwork is no longer whole and so it loses its essence as a painting; it becomes a useless piece of material. There were photographs and xerox copies that I didn’t burn simply because they were too unnoticeable; these weren’t things that you would want to reproduce. In fact, anything that you would reproduce [such as drawing and painting] got burned. Then again, we didn’t burn Ringing Pistol because it was stolen. It was small and nailed to the wall; perhaps someone found it interesting and so took it away. As for other things, such as a few manuscripts placed in a plastic bag—we didn’t burn those, but later on we threw them away. I think we only kept conceptual items; basically, anything material was burned.

Li: Was this exhibition censored?

Huang: No, there wasn’t any censoring of it. After all, the show wasn’t even open to the public, and so not that many people saw it.

Li: So this was an internal viewing as well?

Huang: We never specified, and we actually printed out leaflets [as a catalogue]. One of the members, Cai Lixiong, worked at Xiamen Daily—he had some connections and so was able to print out about a thousand or two leaflets there.

Li: Was Dissecting Oil Paints your first performance artwork?

Huang: Well, how do you define performance art? This piece sort of resembled the Italian artist Lucio Fontana’s cut paintings. When I cut the oil paint tubes, colors seeped through.

Li: You intentionally displayed photos of the performance of the dissection of the paint tubes along with the remains of the oil paint, in a way that recorded a performance piece. However, it seems like you were also exploring fundamental painting issues, especially since oil paint is a painting material—sort of like how you worked with found objects, in which the found objects are a kind of material.

Huang: That’s right. You should bear in mind that I hadn’t used oil paint in a long time; in fact, it had been years since I had laid hands on any oil colors. Some of my earlier works, including abstract paintings, were created with house paint, and so this was, in a sense, a continued exploration of my Spray Gun series. Speaking of which, I had previously done a piece in which I burned oil painting brushes—and, in fact, I think we may have burned oil painting brushes at the exhibition. All these pieces are more about latent illustrations of painting—we took the basics of painting, such as the tools, and processed them to the point they could no longer be properly used.

“Xiamen Dada—A Kind of Postmodernism?”

Li: When you wrote “Xiamen Dada—A Kind of Postmodernism?,” you seemed to have created a whole new school of Chinese Dadaism—a bit like how the history of southern/northern schools of landscape painting in China was written following the example of southern/northern schools⁸ of Chan Buddhism; this history was fabricated by later generations and didn’t exist. I feel like you did the same thing.

Huang: Yes, that was my intention.

Li: You named a few artists whom you admire, including Piero Manzoni, Yves Klein, John Cage, and Marcel Duchamp. Interestingly, Robert Rauschenberg came to China, and you treated him like a readymade object when you wrote about him in your article. In comparison, I think Manzoni, Klein, and Cage all better expressed the concept of ephemerality. However, Rauschenberg used a lot of readymade objects and worked in a decorative manner. Therefore, I think he stands out in the crowd. How did you manage to include them?

Huang: Well, naturally I had more interest in Rauschenberg. This was because of his exhibitions in China. I never went, but the way he applied found objects fell in line with my creative work. For example, how did Rauschenberg turn from painting to found objects? And how did he make found objects coexist with a flat platform? I have works that explore similar issues, and so I take great interest in Rauschenberg’s work. For example, in one piece he used a bed and a chicken—that felt familiar. But overall, I would say that his works are decorative; many of them are just three-dimensional paintings. All this marks a transitional phase. At that time, I was trying to transcend traditional painting, and he served as a bridge in my process. This is why he was quite significant to me and was included in the list of Dadaists.

Li: You didn’t go to Rauschenberg’s exhibition in Beijing, but you saw the catalogue?

Huang: I think I saw the catalogue somewhere else.

Li: So you made A Note to Robert Rauschenberg. What was its message?

Huang: Well, was the title really referring to Rauschenberg? You could say that he was irrelevant. I was using all kinds of titles as a way of adding meaning; I treated titles as if they were individual elements of the painting. I applied Chan Buddhism because I believed that the juxtaposition of Chan Buddhism and Dadaism would create new meanings, especially since I placed an Eastern element with a Western one—a term from intellectual history with one from art history. Why didn’t I use two terms from art history instead? In order to create more distance between them, and to create more contrast. This set a foundation for my future artwork, especially in the way I moved from this history to that history; these ideas are all relevant.

Taking Waste from the Streets and Exhibiting It in a Museum

Li: The installation that Xiamen Dada made in late 1986, the one titled Exhibition of the Happening in Fujian Art Museum, looks as if it was done spontaneously, whereas it was actually an execution of a formulated plan, is that correct? You also added a wall text that forced viewers to interpret what art in general is—in a sense that emphasized the participation of the audience. I think one of the sentences was censored and eliminated by museum officials.

Huang: Yes, it was all planned out. After A Modern Art Exhibition of Five Artists, China was a relatively more open atmosphere. I met the curator of an art museum in Fujian Province, and he said that they were fairly interested in Xiamen Dada and asked if we could move the exhibition there, and so we said yes. In reality, we had burned all the artwork, but I didn’t tell him that. I was already onto something new, and so this was an exhibition opportunity earned through half-deceit; we agreed to move our exhibition, but we had no artwork to show. All four of us went to Fuzhou,⁹ inspected their space, and planned out everything. We were given only a week because the show wasn’t part of their official program—they were more open-minded, more tolerant of experimental stuff. We not only inspected the area, we also took photos of the waste on the street—it was indeed all planned out—and then we returned to Xiamen. The day we went back to install the pieces, we moved fast; we brought in everything we needed, put everything in its designated space, specified which objects were to be displayed, and organized the logistics and everything. The installation went fast and efficient like a sudden attack. Now, why did we need to be fast? Because we needed to get everything done before anyone could react. We planned it down to every detail, including the words and graphics to go on the artworks; everything had been completed in Xiamen beforehand. It was all very organized. It’s a shame we didn’t keep a floor plan of the project; we kept everything in our heads. Of course, some things were random; some of the stuff was damaged in transportation, and more stuff was added in order to fill the space. We pasted a lot of Dada newspapers and notes onto the pieces—such as a note stating that the audience had the authority to decide whether the piece was an artwork or not. However, the museum didn’t want to be liable, and so they covered it up.

Li: So at first it was just one person covering up a line of a sentence on the sign, and then a half an hour later, someone else came and put a stop to everything?

Huang: Yes, that was the museum director. He said that he was shutting down the exhibition, and the exhibition was taken down pretty soon after.

Li: Yet, previously, in Xiamen People’s Art Museum, you hadn’t been censored for burning artworks, correct? So getting censored for what happened in Fuzhou [at the Fujian Art Museum] seems a bit random. It seems like the decision was based solely on the opinions of local authorities—a very chaotic situation.

Huang: Yes, it was! But, of course, that is the way things were in China. The truth is that we held the burning at the Xiamen People’s Art Museum on a Sunday at noon, and so the audience was small. There were just a few people playing sports nearby; we didn’t notify anyone—some students came by to watch and a few people came over to help. There wasn’t, indeed, much of an audience. Plus, the burning was pretty fast; it was all done within thirty or forty minutes, and so the burning itself didn’t generate any complaints. The fire department saw smoke and came by out of concern, because we were in a public space. The problem we had was with the museum; they feared mishaps and accidents. Visitors would either understand the work or, if they didn’t, they would up and leave; it would have been days before the government showed up, that is, if they cared. So all in all, the censoring was really self-censoring; if anything, it was museums fearing for themselves.

Oracles

Li: In 1983 you wrote an article titled “An Oracle on the Fate of Modern Painting in China.” This seems to be the first time you mentioned the term “oracle.” When did you start taking an interest in oracles? Did your understanding of them come from the I Ching?¹⁰

Huang: It’s quite possible that I first used the term “oracle” in this article. Often, the first time you use a term, you aren’t fully aware of its meaning. In fact, you might have unconsciously chosen to use it. It was only a while later that the term “oracle” became significant. I have a piece from 1992 titled House of Oracles; in 2005 I used the same title for one of my exhibitions. Over time, “oracles” became very important to me. For one thing, they evoke the notion of a person reaching out to a higher power for help or guidance. Oracling has been practiced for thousands of years. It has a whole, intrinsic, and complicated system and tradition; mainly the oracle’s function is to warn you against something and advise you—that is, to tell you what not to do, but never to instruct you in terms of what you should do. I was in a place where I needed someone to advise me on what I should and shouldn’t do. Importantly, you cannot ask a question twice; if you do, the oracle stops being accurate—the instruments stop working. This protocol keeps a distance between you and your instrument.

Li: Have you ever really learned how to use an oracle?

Huang: Well, no. I simply read some books on the practice and have come to understand some of its methods. But was my practice an authentic one? I cannot say exactly. Nevertheless, I always find something useful in it.

Li: When you were writing the article “An Oracle on the Fate of Modern Painting in China” (1983), you did a lot of experiments with found objects. You mentioned various movements, including Surrealism, Dadaism, Fauvism, and the Bauhaus. An interesting thing is that your criteria for these styles seems to come from an American take on European modernism. Where did you get this knowledge of art history? From books, and if so, which ones?

Huang: I can tell you for sure that it didn’t come from the academy of art, especially the part concerning modern art history. I gained my knowledge from fragments of information, such as translations of pieces or excerpts, and so it was overall a bit scattered.

Li: A lot of people were reading Herbert Read and Edward Lucie-Smith, and you quoted from their books in your artwork as well. Was this because they were significant to you?

Huang: No, not particularly. Anything that I came across would become significant because there was only so much I had access to. If I had been given more choices at the time, I might have opted to quote something else. But all in all, I think these two books pretty much encompass the most important ideas, don’t you agree?

Li: You first saw Duchamp’s works when you went to France, is that correct?

Huang: Yes, that’s right. I have elaborated my thoughts in other articles, in which I mentioned that I wasn’t partial to originals. Thus, seeing Duchamp’s originals in France didn’t change my opinion of him or his work. It’s not like I would say, “Hey, this isn’t the Duchamp that I know” or “I realize I have been wrong.” This is because I don’t formulate ideas based solely on what I see, on concrete objects, or on empirical experience. Especially with Duchamp—you can grasp his spirit and his work’s essence through reading his words or his speeches, or even through print reproductions or copies. This is to say that he is able to surpass the so-called original. Then again, the French might disagree, because they greatly value originals, and they consider them to be completely different from copies; I, however, see no such significance in the subtle differences.

The Roulette Series

Li: Here’s a photo of your studio in 1987. I find it particularly interesting because it includes the roulettes and some abstract paintings as well as some found objects.

Huang: The person who took this photo is actually in the picture. He sat there and used slow motion to capture the scene, in which he appears as a vague silhouette, almost unrecognizable. A lot of stuff was piled up in the studio, such as the first roulette; many artworks were damaged, such as these wine bottles and this plastic tube on gypsum. I lay there and made the gypsum piece myself. And this foot piece was molded with my own feet.

Li: All of your work from this time had concrete titles.

Huang: Yes, but many of those pieces are gone; I don’t have them anymore.

Li: You made three important “roulette”¹¹ artworks in the eighties; you made the first one in 1985, which is the one you used to create Four Paintings Created According to Random Instructions. You divided a canvas into eight equal parts, and then used a roulette—also divided into eight parts—to determine which parts of the canvas to paint. Once that was decided, you threw dice to determine which of twenty-five colors you would use. Did you personally choose and number those twenty-five colors? Did you make a sketch before you divided the canvas into eight parts?

Huang: Yes, all of this was previously established. For example, why those twenty-five colors? What was so special about them, and do they share anything in common? First of all, I chose these twenty-five colors because they were easy to come by. None of them were conventional paints. For example, the selection didn’t include any oil color or gouache; most of the colors were wall paints or brush cleaner. They just came from stuff that had some pigment in it—they weren’t even regular colors.

Li: This roulette reminds me of Duchamp’s Bicycle Wheel (1913), the one that spins on a stool. The original piece was never exhibited in a museum; it was only after its demolition that a replica was exhibited. Duchamp used to spin and fumble with it when he was in his studio, admiring it, and so you can see that one of its functions is to be fun. As to this roulette, it bears the function of teaching you how to paint; however, you’re the only one who has ever used it. Has it ever occurred to you to rid it of your own subjective judgment and to let another person take charge of the roulette?

Huang: Well, I fear that wouldn’t be feasible. First of all, if anyone was to use it, he would have to know the procedures—in other words, that person would need to re-create the whole process, because otherwise he wouldn’t know what to do. This isn’t the same as spinning a bicycle wheel. With a bicycle wheel, you push it once and it keeps spinning until it stops; that’s easy. But with a roulette, you can spin it and it will stop, but then what? What does it mean or what is it trying to say? All of this is confusing. That is why I had to establish a procedure. For example, I used dice to determine the twenty-five colors; I enacted this rule, but then who decided it was to be twenty-five colors and not twenty-three? It was the dice, not me. If the dice had instructed seven, then I would have chosen seven colors, you see? I spin the roulette, and then the point at which it stops contains a rule. This is how it worked.

Li: So, in a sense, the result was something that was a consequence of rules you created and yet it was independent of you at the same time?

Huang: That’s right.

Li: You have only created one piece with this roulette?

Huang: I have actually created five paintings with this roulette. I’ve only exhibited four of them, however; the fifth one remains unfinished—I never completed it.

Li: Why didn’t you complete it?

Huang: Honestly, I don’t know! I just stopped working on it. I made four paintings, and I was finished—I never used the roulette again. Later on, when I exhibited the four paintings, I showed the roulette as well.

Li: Since the first roulette (1985) that was used for Non-Expressive Painting, you have made Large Turntable with Four Wheels (1987), and Roulette Wheel with Six Criteria (1988). Large Turntable is much more complicated, because it had an inner and an outer rim; the inner rim had sixty-four entries while the outer one had 384. These art statements¹² regulated how to create the artwork, all working together.

Huang: That’s right.

Li: The works you created with the large turntable were usually titled according to the art statement from which the work is generated; however, you seem to have named them with only one of the entries. Take “A Wet Method,” for example—many artworks derived from it, but the title “A Wet Method” was an art statement that appears on the outer rim?

Huang: Yes.

Li: How come the other art statement in the inner rim is gone?

Huang: Normally, inner rim entries don’t appear in my titles. The inner rim entries served to set the background conditions of an artwork; they are underlying. The outer rim, on the other hand, was used to create titles.

Herbert Read’s The History of Western Art and Wang Bomin’s The History of Chinese Painting washed in the washing machine for two minutes

Li: On December 1, 1987, you completed several works that you titled “A Wet Method.” You took Herbert Read’s The History of Western Art and Wang Bomin’s The History of Chinese Painting and washed them together in the washing machine for two minutes, although the instructions on the Large Turntable didn’t specify “two minutes.” At another time, you washed one of your own oil paintings for five minutes. I think there was another piece in which you tied up sandbags? On that day, you happened to spin to the instruction “A Wet Method,” and so you created multiple artworks, or was it a coincidence that you got the same instruction?

Huang: I actually got a second spin with the same entries.

Li: Does it require a lot of subjective judgment when using Large Turntable?

Huang: Yes, Large Turntable wasn’t as stiffly regulated as Four Paintings Created According to Random Instructions—on the one hand, it didn’t have as many restrictions; on the other, it casts a wider net. Large Turntable isn’t about setting restrictions; rather, it’s about expanding all kinds of ideas—and whether there is any logic to or coherence among these ideas is not my concern. I think of it as not only establishing a system, but also moving beyond it.

Li: Do you ever spin to a certain art statement but then feel like you have no inspiration and so give up working on it?

Huang: Well, that does happen. If you look through my notes, you will find that there are more turntable works on paper than there are in reality. That is because some are just ideas that I never carried out but recorded nonetheless. Perhaps in the future I can put them in order and display them with the turntable. It might even be more meaningful that way. Nevertheless, finished works take time to do.

Li: Have you completed any works using Roulette Wheel with Six Criteria?

Huang: No, I haven’t. Roulette Wheel with Six Criteria was finished in 1988 for the exhibition Magiciens de la terre. I had been invited to participate and was considering ideas for the exhibition, and so it was basically tailored for that venue. However, I never actually used it to create any artwork. In addition, I put it in a suitcase and brought it to exhibit at the National Art Museum of China in February of 1989.

Li: When did you stop using those roulettes and turntables to create artworks?

Huang: I used a turntable in another work, House of Oracles, which I made in 1992 after arriving in France. It resembled a calendar, but functioned like a roulette. I set up the year wheel, beneath which were wheels that stand for “day,” “night,” and “time.” It was a turntable for oracles, and you could use it to produce oracles based on the eight characters of your horoscope.¹³ This artwork eventually evolved into a chariot; it also goes by the title of Sixty-Year Cycle Chariot.

Li: So these two works were used for oracles on life and not on art, is that correct?

Huang: They were still basically related to art. There was yet another turntable I made in 1991 titled Little Gambling Turntable, which was used to determine prices of artworks.

Li: Have you ever actually used this gambling turntable for setting prices?

Huang: No, I’ve never used it for that. No one would play the game with me, but I don’t see that as a problem. Whether or not the game is viable wasn’t a big issue. My main concern was to raise a question—what is an appropriate price for an artwork?

Washing Books

Li: You created a series of works that involved washing books. There are books in your Book Collection Project that are significant or particularly meaningful to you, such as Critique of Pure Reason and some books on art that you were reading at the time. You washed a lot of books. How did you choose them?

Huang: In Book Collection Project, there is a photo of books piled on the floor—those are actually books from my bookshelf. I bought a lot of books. I never washed books on art; in fact, I sealed a lot of them with glue. Although I bought a lot of books on art, I ended up refusing to read them. Did I finish reading them before I glued them shut? I’m not sure now, but I think I must have read some of them. Generally speaking, I think it is meaningless to wash things that are already useless. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a significant book, and so washing it was not a random act. Later on, I used a lot of books as artwork material, along with newspaper, which I also washed—but that was partly because I needed a lot of paper; anyway, this is a completely different topic . . .

Li: When you created the work Reptile for Magiciens de la terre, why did you wash newspaper instead of books?

Huang: That’s simple. It was because newspaper is used as a material; moreover, that particular project required tons of paper, which wasn’t possible with just a few books.

Li: I think you opted for a French Communist newspaper?

Huang: I also used Libération newspaper. I didn’t choose to use a specific newspaper; I was referring to the general media culture.

Li: So by this time newspaper had become a material for sculpture?

Huang: It had become a material for installation. All of this was an early example of how I would choose to work later on—when we would discuss, explore, and plan everything out in sketches and then turn the ideas into a concrete artwork.

Avoiding Art Museums

Li: Before you left the country for France, you took part in the China Avant-Garde exhibition. It was supposed to take place in 1987 under the title Young Artists’ Academic Communication. What was the process for getting in? Were you invited to participate, or did you have to apply?

Huang: China Avant-Garde was pretty disorganized to start. Everything was voluntary. Some people focused on art theory; others ran newspapers and magazines. At first they did a conference with a slide show in Zhuhai, and then they held a Huangshan Symposium. For the Huangshan Symposium, they wrote to artists from all over China, inviting them to bring slides and take part in the exhibition. At the conference, there were talks about holding a national exhibition. But how exactly would they to do that? It was up in the air. Naturally they didn’t need to call for work because they already knew a lot of artists, including Gao Minglu, Li Xianting, and Fei Dawei, all of whom I’ve met. They were all members of the curating team; we corresponded for a long while. They didn’t stipulate what the artists should exhibit; Xiamen Dada proposed some ideas, some of which were unfeasible. They were short on funding, and so couldn’t cover the cost of transporting the artworks to Beijing. Basically what we did was to bring photos—and I put Roulette Wheel with Six Criteria in a suitcase I used for train trips, and I made everything light and portable. There were some art proposals, such as Dragging the Art Museum or the project about sprinkling rice, but none of these ideas were feasible. In the end, what we could do was to hang photos and exhibit lightweight and portable items.

Li: Didn’t you propose making mimeographs on blank sheets and exhibiting them in the restroom? Another proposal mentioned killing pigs?

Huang: Well, the idea was brought up in our discussion within Xiamen Dada, but I was the one who organized the final plan. We didn’t keep minutes of our meetings; a group of people was just sitting around talking, and so it’s hard for me to remember who brought up which idea. Who came up with the awful idea of killing pigs? I cannot remember. However, I think the potential of those plans was meaningful enough, whether we actually carried them out or not. I think everyone was trying to provoke something, don’t you agree? Xiamen Dada was actually among the least provocative—at least if you’re judging by actual actions. There were many others who were actively provocative. Xiamen Dada merely translated provocative ideas into text form.

Li: In one of your notes, you mentioned that you were concerned about power structures and struggles in art: You brought up radical proposals in order to relieve the exhibition from a competition of power and influence, however it would inevitably lead to another kind of competition over power.

Huang: That is why one of our plans was titled Avoiding Art Museums. Supposedly this is contradictory; how can you avoid an art museum when you have been invited to take part in an exhibition within it? How do you stay in and out at the same time? These were themes we explored. I believe we were the first to propose this concept. Everyone was about provocation; the atmosphere smelled of provocation, and this is why an artist eventually fired a gun at the exhibition. I wrote the article on power and influence after the exhibition; as for the other article—the one about avoiding art museums—it was written a bit earlier, in 1988.

Li: Can you specify how to avoid an art museum?

Huang: We had some ideas. For one, we thought about exhibiting in a space not meant for exhibition—that would be avoidance. For example, we thought about exhibiting in the restroom, in the hallway, in the stairwell, in any unobtrusive space. On a similar note—why did we propose sprinkling rice? Because rice isn’t noticeable, and anything noticeable is also obtrusive. These were mostly my own thoughts.

Li: So you eventually settled on the plan for Dragging an Art Museum?

Huang: We never realized Dragging an Art Museum. We sent the idea directly to the exhibition organizers, listing the materials we would need—such as a certain number of pillars and other items. However, the plan was never developed, and so never realized.

Li: What are your thoughts on artist Xia Lu’s firing a gun?¹⁴

Huang: I wasn’t there when the shots were fired. There was already great chaos beforehand. I was clear on what I was going to do for the exhibition in Beijing, and I was ready to stay away, to avoid this art circle of power competition. During the Huangshan Symposium, I witnessed how people in this circle were driven by a thirst for power; everyone was there for fame and gain, fighting tooth and nail for it. Firing a gun was the most extreme measure. And yet, how do you define “extreme” when you are an artist, especially in the field of avant-garde art? To me, reflection on art is actually reflection on human beings; it is a reflection on what you should do as an artist. I knew I was going to France soon, and so I wasn’t inclined to do anything extreme, anything that would put me at risk of getting caught. Of course, I wasn’t sure what would happen with France; I could be back in Xiamen soon. After Xiamen Dada finished the extreme performances [the burning event], I started thinking about what to do next and where to head. Even before the firing of the gunshot [by Xiao Lu] at China Avant-Garde, there was already a foul atmosphere; there were artists washing their feet, hatching eggs, even distributing condoms. Avant-garde art in China had entered a period of chaos and disturbance. Then again, Dadaism sets out to cause chaos, but Xiamen Dada had already accomplished that, and we didn’t need any new disturbances. We needed to start thinking about new projects. Were there other possibilities? These questions were my main concern.

Li: Did you go to France in April, 1989? Were you still there in June when the Tiananmen Square massacre happened? What about Shen Yuan?¹⁵

Huang: She arrived a while later, in 1990. It wasn’t easy, though; we had to rely on help from friends we had met at the Magiciens de la terre exhibition and my connections at Provence Academy of Art. Friends helped issue invitation letters and such; we had to satisfy a lot of requirements and it wasn’t easy. Personally speaking, I tend to go with the flow because I’m passive; this probably conforms to my philosophy in art. For example, I was invited to participate in a lot of European exhibitions in the nineties, and so I stayed, without giving it too much thought. Before I could realize what was really happening, twenty years had gone by. I also didn’t plan for the trip to France. It wasn’t a thought-out plan for immigration or a change of scenery or anything like that; it was just an opportunity that knocked on my door, and I generally tend to go with the flow and accept the opportunities that come in my way.

Yellow Peril: An Artist Living in China and France

Li: After you moved to France, in 1993, you started creating works about and with animals. You did Bridge and Theater of the World. You seem to have a special interest in reptiles, such as snakes, and in bugs. Is this interest rooted in what the animals symbolize?

Huang: From today’s perspective, I used a wide range of animals to create artworks. The first time I even used live animals in my work was in 1993 for Yellow Peril in Oxford. Soon after, in 1994, I used a live turtle in a work in San Francisco. I probably used about a thousand locusts in Yellow Peril, placing them at the entrance of the museum. This exhibition never suffered a shutdown due to animal rights issues. The most disturbance it caused was that a few locusts fell off the wall to which they were clinging, and the scorpions on the ground picked them up and ate them; other than that, there was little interaction between them. I think that show lasted for a month or so.

Li: So the exhibit was never censored? You weren’t forbidden from using bugs?

Huang: No.

Li: Theater of the World was a completely different case. You put scorpions and all kinds of bugs, including spiders and crickets, into a tortoise-shaped box and let them fight each other to the death. This caused a lot of dispute.

Huang: The first time Theater of the World was shown was in Stuttgart, and it wasn’t censored. It was in Schloss Solitude, a castle in which artists are invited to stay and work for a few months at a time; there is a small corridor where artists can exhibit their works, and that’s where it was shown. It was meant for a small audience, to avoid disputes. A while later I did the same piece in Paris, in Amsterdam, at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, and in Beijing. Once in Vancouver and another time at the Centre Georges Pompidou, things went wrong. In Pompidou, the piece was part of a large group exhibition. The staff there had heard about the project and wrote to the curator, fiercely protesting it. Eventually they captured the attention of an animal protection NGO in France, and its chairman, a renowned actress, wrote a formal letter to the museum protesting the whole thing. In the end, the police were involved, and we were sued. I wasn’t there when all this happened, however, and so lawyers handled the situation. A French socialist mentioned my artwork in the context of censorship in a chapter of his book. Anyway, I only learned about all of this after the fact.

Li: Some people claim that there are certain artworks that can only be executed in China. Would you care to elaborate on how you think these censoring systems relate to the local people’s acceptance of avant-garde art?

Huang: The censoring system must be discussed within two contexts; one concerns a democratic society, and the other a nondemocratic society. Back in the 1980s my work underwent a lot of censoring in China. Censorships are based on “concepts” and “ideologies,” with the ideologies determining what could be expressed and what could not be. This was censorship in a nondemocratic society. But today, in a democratic society, censorship based on ideology no longer exists. Instead, other concerns arise, such as general safety or animal welfare. Today, there are certain lines that you cannot cross when it comes to animals. For example, when I was working with living animals, the exhibition organizers were careful about censoring my artworks for fear of crossing any line. Nevertheless, I see those challenges as positive. As artists, we often have the need to create an opposition or a confronting position; however, all this is positive because it aids our creative process. In a similar sense, I don’t think we should necessarily treat censorship as a negative thing. From my personal experience, I have been pushed or inspired to greater things due to its challenges. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that we should never transgress a line just for the sake of doing so. When I mentioned how, in the late eighties in China, some artists were recklessly trying to cause provocation, I meant that as an example of provoking for provoking’s sake. When I used bugs in my works, I wasn’t intending to generate a dispute; provocation was not my goal. After all, bugs are such small, inconsequential creatures; moreover, I acquired them legally from a pet store, and I wasn’t mistreating them—or treating them in a way a pet store wouldn’t. I simply modified their environments a bit. For example, pet stores sell bugs in small cartons; I simply placed them all in one big container. The bugs weren’t crawling out of their box, they weren’t causing any threat to people, and I wasn’t trying to be cruel to them. From my perspective, locusts are being raised in pet stores to feed scorpions—all smaller insects are sold to feed larger insects—and so when I let the scorpions eat the locusts in my piece, I wasn’t trying to be cruel. All I did was to publicly exhibit the eating; the only difference is that pet-store bugs eat each other in private and mine did it in public. I was trying to present a metaphor through these creatures, not to emphasize their cruelty. I was presenting a case in which the bugs represented different kinds of people who supposedly cannot exist together, and raising the question—what would it be like if they coexisted? Hence the metaphoric title Theater of the World. I believe that this artwork is about raising such meaningful questions, not illustrating so-called cruelty. Back to the issue of confronting censorship, I still believe that it can inspire some critical discussions. For example, my work at Pompidou received more attention because it was displayed along with some related documents, such as letters of protest, documents submitted to the government, and correspondence between the chairman of Pompidou and the curator. All of these gave the original art piece a new perspective, which expanded the spirit of the artwork. All this was unplanned; it was gained by chance.

Li: How would you define your position as an artist living in China and France?

Huang: People often compare my artworks from China with those from abroad. I am often told that it seems I have more to do in China. For example, today’s conversation covered more of my works from China, however, I have been working in the West for twenty-five years. My time in Xiamen was short; it was only six years between 1984 and 1989. I feel like this earlier part of my life was a time of learning; some might even say that it was learning through the process of imitation. So, naturally, I wonder why there is less interest in the works I’ve done in France, over a span of twenty-five years. Is it because China is not open and so all works are considered within the context of this inaccessibility, thus gaining significance—and following that, attention and interest? And yet, as I previously mentioned, if I hadn’t created the works I did in the years that followed, would those six years in China count? And I also wonder—I wasn’t the only one working in Xiamen Dada. There were five or six other members who stopped after I left, but why were their works considered meaningless? I don’t think that you can separate the works I did before I left China and those I did after. Many times an artwork is based on a foundation established years ago and over a period of time. Now, why am I still working today? Because this is where my life lies, where my whole being lies; it is where all meaning and essence lies; because I am alive, I work.

Transcription and translation by Lina Dann. Edited by Yu-Chieh Li.

Read the Chinese version here.

The post Book Washer, Shaman, and Bug Keeper: A Conversation with Huang Yong Ping, Part II appeared first on post.

These were bold claims at a time when there was almost no commercial market for Chinese contemporary art. And they were backed up by a bold experiment—an exhibition of work by more than 350 artists, most of whom were under the age of forty. All of the artwork in the exhibition was available for sale, and, in addition, the artists who made the top twenty-seven artworks, as judged by a youthful group of jurors, were eligible to receive large cash rewards.² These awards ranged from 10,000 RMB for third place to 50,000 RMB for first place, an extraordinary amount of money at a time when few Chinese citizens made more than 3,000 RMB a year.³

Called the Guangzhou Biennial Art Fair (“Art Fair” is missing from the Chinese title), this exhibition took place in a hotel in the southern Chinese capital of Guangdong Province from October 8 to October 28, 1992.⁴ It was launched with start-up funds provided by a Chengdu-based entrepreneur whose company made car parts, and its goal was to make a profit.

The Guangzhou Biennial Art Fair was prescient. It foresaw the development of an active art market for contemporary Chinese oil painting. It anticipated the art fairs and their not-so-distant cousins, the domestic biennials that sprang up all over China and other parts of Asia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But it also launched a virulent debate that continues to this day.

Did the art market offer contemporary artists a credible alternative to the state system of control in the wake of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen tragedy, when experimental art was barred from most government-sponsored venues and media platforms? Did this alternative system open a new space for legitimization of and support for artists looking for independence and a measure of personal freedom? Or was commerce a contaminant that lured artists with the promise of short-term financial rewards, sapping art of its criticality and edge, as many critics have contended, then and now? Did it strengthen the hands of foreign buyers with their greater purchasing power, thus unduly influencing artistic taste and trends?

By most accounts, the experiment failed to achieve its goals. From the perspective of today, the Guangzhou Biennial Art Fair could be construed as an overly literal response to Deng Xiaoping’s call to accelerate economic reform after his famous 1992 tour of southern China, which has been encapsulated in the catchphrase “To get rich is glorious.”⁵ Even one of the main organizers, Chengdu-based art writer and cultural entrepreneur Lü Peng, has admitted that his goals were unrealistic, even naive. The timing was premature, the structure of the project was flawed, and the company that provided its main support went bankrupt.⁶ Its prematurity and flawed execution aside, the exhibition’s basic premise was resisted by many in the art world. Contemporary artists created performances to express their displeasure. Two participants sprayed Lysol throughout the exhibition to disinfect the “contaminated” space.⁷ Another distributed bogus shares in a commercial art company named after himself.⁸ And preeminent art critic Li Xianting reportedly became so disturbed after attending the opening event that he wept.⁹ Other criticisms were aimed at the Biennial’s provincialism. Many of the participants, including the organizers, judges, and artists came from the southern and southwestern provinces of China, a bias that some critics saw as unbalanced and limiting.¹⁰

However, there were certain central issues that most young critics agreed upon. First, it was time to establish an alternative system of legitimization of and support for contemporary art, one based on critical and academic analysis rather than on bureaucratic and political credentials required by the state. And second, as Lü Peng asserted in a 1992 article in the magazine Art and Market, this alternative system and the standards underlying its voracity should be determined by the Chinese people themselves.¹¹ China’s state-sponsored cultural apparatus was stifling and the hyper-conservatism of the prevailing standards of politically correct art were a constant irritant. Nevertheless, in the minds of these idealists, the emergence of buyers from outside China was also irritating, as they were considered equally misguided, patronizing artists many young critics deemed unworthy.¹²

Criticizing foreign patronage of the arts was not new. As early as 1979, then–Chairman of the Chinese Artists Association Jiang Feng inveighed against the degrading influence of foreign buyers on the production of artists who, he wrote, were churning out inferior works in pursuit of material gain.¹³ Although not the first to identify these pernicious tendencies, the organizers of the Guangzhou Biennial were among the first to attempt to construct a serious domestic system of support for experimental art, one based on domestic financial support and patrons, a domestic legal structure and contracts, and standards determined by local professionals, in particular young academicians and critics.

These aspirations, which were at once professional and nationalistic, again anticipated the development later in the decade. For example, Zhang Qing in the preface of the catalogue of the 2000 Shanghai Biennale railed against “patrons from embassy districts and galleries hosted by foreigners” who “exerted a strong aesthetic influence on local artists who were kept busy producing lucrative ‘new paintings for export’ with amazing speed and quantity.”¹⁴ In this preface Zhang also expressed heightened concerns about the international biennale circuit that had developed apace during the 1990s and worried that if the Chinese did not take action, “the yardstick . . . for admission would be held exclusively in foreign curators’ hands.”¹⁵ In Zhang’s mind the 2000 Shanghai Biennale was a serious attempt, like the Guangzhou Biennale had been eight years before, to “reshape the existing exhibition system,” and to develop critera determined by Chinese (and Asian) scholars.¹⁶

In hindsight, that the Guangzhou Biennale failed to achieve its unrealistic aspirations is understandable. The disparity in purchasing power between China and other industrialized countries was, in the 1990s, too great to overcome, such that, along with the exorable wave of global capital, Chinese products including art were swept offshore to Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the wealthier West. And it is only now, in the 2010s, that this tide might be turning, at least in the art world.¹⁷ But despite its multiple failures, the Guangzhou Biennial Art Fair did anticipate the importance of the role of the burgeoning art market in the development of contemporary Chinese art and succeeded in offering some experimental artists (mostly painters working in oil) an alternative to the state system of support that had previously controlled art’s production, circulation, and value. In this regard, it is interesting to note that works by ten of the top twenty-seven prizewinners of the Guangzhou Biennial Art Fair—Zeng Fanzhi, Zhang Xiaogang, Zhou Chunya, Wang Guangyi, Ye Yongqing, Leng Jun, Mo Yan, Mao Xuhui, Shu Qun, and Guan Ce—regularly go for top prices in today’s international auction market.¹⁸ And further, although it did not forestall the threat of moving Chinese contemporary art offshore and into the hands of foreign buyers, the Guangzhou Biennial Art Fair did give tangible shape to the desire among many artists and art practitioners to establish an independent and domestic art infrastructure based on local scholarship, local critical discourse, and local patronage, a project that continues today to be a complicated but important work in process.

The post The 1992 Guangzhou Biennial Art Fair appeared first on post.

與談人，編輯: 李雨潔

文稿整理: 陳聆

Read the English version here.

1993年的海外展覽—把給藝術的材料費放到銀行裡

李雨潔: 1988年的時候你就曾經有作品在漢堡展覽，這個是怎麼發生的？

吳山專: 我是1986年從浙江美院畢業的，畢業我就回到我的小島——舟山群島普陀山那裡。我們學校1984年以後一直有一個對外的交流項目，主要的還是跟美國明尼蘇達的，那偶然地也跟歐洲合作。1987年的時候，他們請到了一個德國的資本主義現實主義的人物K.P. Brehmer，他來學校給我們學生講西方藝術史。當時范小梅老師做接待，他打電話來舟山，說，這裡有個漢堡美術學院的，他對你東西感興趣，然後我就帶了一疊幻燈片，從舟山到杭州，見到K.P. Brehmer，他說他可以做一個展覽，這個後來實踐了。

李雨潔: 所以你本人沒去佈展？

吳山專: 沒有。展覽在漢堡紅燈區的Galerie Vorsetzen，這個時候K.P. Brehmer已經是這個畫廊的持股人，所以他才有一定的決定權，做一些中國當時的藝術。另外那時候中德也常有一些交流，在一個政治的平台上， 畫廊也會做一些關於中國的展覽，那麼我就變成了《 3 x China…》的其中一個參展藝術家。

李雨潔: 你參展的作品是什麼呢？

吳山專: 我不知道作品是怎樣呈現的，他看了一疊幻燈片，然後抽出五六張帶回德國去了。如果做一個展覽的話，我想，我的作品應該是以印出來的方式呈現。

李雨潔: 你93年參加了好多展覽，那包括了那些最大的在香港的《後89中國新藝術》，柏林的《中國前衛》，還有在俄亥俄大學Wexner Center的展覽，這些是比較大的群展。

吳山專: 對，這個時候中國當代藝術好像很熱門，每個人都做一點，丹麥做了一點嘛那麼英國也要做一點，德國也要做一點，整個歐洲的一些國家都要做一點，然後Wexner Center也要做一點嘛。但是都不是主流的博物館做的，蠻有意思的。

李雨潔: 你參加了這麼多在那一年的展覽， 都在不同的地方，作為一個當時所謂中國前衛藝術家的代表，你覺得每個機構說故事的方法有什麼不一樣？

吳山專: 他們最主要的一個態度：A Package。那麼其實藝術家也知道我們只是一整組其中的一個，是一個集合。他們說故事的方式其實完全一樣。造成參展人數不同的原因有很多，一個可能是資金問題，一個可能當時簽證也很難拿到。

李雨潔: 你本人去了哪裡佈展？

吳山專: 去了威尼斯，丹麥，荷蘭，美國。

李雨潔: 你第一次去威尼斯雙年展的感覺是什麼？

吳山專: 在第一屆的威尼斯可能作為組合中的一份子的感覺還少一點，我參加的是開放展 Aperto。93年威尼斯雙年展有兩個項目展出了中國藝術家的作品，一個Oliva (Achille Bonito Oliva) 組織的《東方之路》( Passaggio ad Oriente)，另一個是《開放展》 (Aperto) 。開放展的那個策展團隊當中有孔長安，已經開始由他者來呈現，其實很了不起了，開放展大概有十個小的策展人， Oliva跟大家一起選。孔長安可以推薦三個，之後Oliva定，華人選了我，王友身，還有台灣來的李銘盛。

李雨潔: 你們三個是孔長安提進去的?

吳山專: 對，所以說跟東方之路是兩回事。Oliva還是有一點NGO的這種態度，這種包容力蠻不錯的。我的作品是《把給藝術的材料費放到銀行裡面》。當時運輸單位來拿作品，他說，我們到漢堡來取一件作品，名字叫做《把藝術的材料費放到銀行》，他以為是一個實體作品。其實那個作品是把威尼斯雙年展給我的錢放到銀行裡。

李雨潔: 他們真的去取了？

吳山專: 運輸公司是跟主委會是沒關係的嘛，運輸公司只是收到通知，漢堡有一件作品是《把給藝術的錢放到銀行》，但其實它是呈現藝術家跟社會的關係。就是說我在一個地方收到邀請，說是給我作藝術，給我材料費，結果我把材料費放到銀行裡，然後砸爛這個銀行的收據。那當然在93年來說的話，這個作品是非常傑出的，作者本人完全脫離了責任，同時這個行為又非常徹底。好比杜象也一直在逃離一種責任。我後來聽說，大概前前一屆的Documenta吧，有一個人做了一模一樣的作品：《把給藝術的錢放在銀行》，好幾個人告訴我這件事。我當年做的其實是三個方案中最後實行的一件，第一個是把展覽的空間租掉，第二件是把給藝術的材料費放到銀行裡， 第三件是就地打工以生存。所以說，從這三個方案，你就看到一個藝術家的生存問題多重要，這個藉口多麼地強大，以至於可以成為藝術品。 今天看來我還是很高興的，在93年的時候做成了這個三個方案。

李雨潔: 你怎麼呈現它們？

吳山專: 《把給藝術的材料費放到銀行》就是object at large，就是我們不知道這筆錢在哪裡。另一件是那個把展覽空間租掉做其他用途，也就是說作者對這個空間沒有責任了，同時也呈現藝術家的生存問題。後來1993年在荷蘭鹿特丹的時候，這件事做成了，在威尼斯我沒有做成。

李雨潔: 在威尼斯只有做成銀行的那一件？

吳山專: 對，那件也只有一百美元。那麼當時還做預算，考慮到多少錢算是一件裝置的錢，提的是六千美金，就是合理的一件裝置藝術的材料費，給Wexner Center提方案的時候，我也是這個數。 對Wexner Center也是提把錢放到銀行做的方案，《Missing Bamboo》是第二個替代方案，但Wexner Center覺得，哇，這個人是不是窮瘋掉了，他們沒有考慮到這也是個安靜的方式，所以呢，我做了一個《Missing Bamboo》。 就是說，從完全的脫離責任到變成個體的一個，玩具的進口商和推銷商和零售員。我從中國進口，然後我要去跟美術館談，然後我自己做買賣。

八十年代: 舟山和浙江: 我考七次美院

李雨潔: 你中學畢業沒有上美院，好像去做發電學徒？

吳山專: 77年的時候，第一次沒有考進美院，肯定要一個社會性的工作嘛。去做這個工作的時候呢，仍然可以考試。77年的時候情況不一樣，當時可以考好幾次。我不知道現在可不可以，說起來我考了七次美院。

李雨潔: 你跟王廣義的經歷有點像。

吳山專: 他要智慧得多了，我考七次。而且廣義的出身很好啊，廣義是油畫系的。我是中國美院（浙美）師範系，師範系是個什麼情況呢，當時浙江省的教育部決定要召一批師資。浙江師範學院沒有那個師資，浙美就代辦，他們有師資，所以臨時組織一個浙江省教育部委託的，人數多，所以我變成了其中一個，我這屬於擴大招生的，這麼說。

李雨潔: 你那時候跟王廣義跟張培力已經在一起玩了嗎？

吳山專: 沒有。廣義他應該是我們同校，應該是有兩年還是一年吧。我1983年進，他1984年畢業的。其實不熟，這個還有一個學院的等級制度的嘛。

李雨潔: 因為他們是油畫系的？

吳山專: 欸，美校跟軍校是有點像的。

開始觀念的作品，關於世界三及現成品

李雨潔: 你1985，1986年就有一些文章討論類似觀念藝術的東西，開始得就比較早。但是你那時是有意識地想要放棄繪畫嗎？有這個想法嗎？

吳山專: 不，這個時候我們這一代的藝術家，其實每一個人都得自己做那個理論工作，要創作，也要自己去推銷，很累的，但是很有樂趣。所以說，你才看到85，86的這代人看上去比較全，他們可以做很多。首先我們描述一個東西，然後我們再描述說我為什麼描述，然後還要去做出來，推銷，賣，這個時候是必須的。廣義，培力，宋永紅，黃永砯，大家都做同樣的工作。

李雨潔: 你在文章裡形容的東西已經不是繪畫了。譬如說當時有很多關於現代繪畫或者當代中國畫的討論，可是你已經是在討論「東西」了。

吳山專: 可能我比較早了解到東西是不以人的意旨為轉的。我比較早認知到東西的力量。

李雨潔: 那時候有接觸到杜象還有波依斯嗎？

吳山專: 1986年應該說已經有了，但不是很明確。波依斯可能比較明確，因為做對社會的一些行動，我們還是比較有經驗的嘛，對杜象的話已經有認識。至於一件東西的強大，可能跟卡爾波普的《開放的社會及其敵人》有關，我偶然得到這本小冊，或者是有關它的引用，我們當時常常接觸到不完整的文本，或者被人引用的一小段。我記得他有一本書叫做《開放的社會及其敵人》。並且我在後來的一些文字工作當中，或者是在一些物證的工作當中，經常出現他的那個語勢的闡述模式。

李雨潔: 你分類三種東西，好像跟你說的世界一世界二世界三，有一種類似的架構。

吳山專: 對，我隱約地記得卡爾波普說，人跟自然結合所導致的物證，統稱為世界三。他最偉大的一點是指出，世界三的本質性就是世界一，這個讓我很震驚。從此就有了我的那篇短文章，叫做《世界三的理論—對繪畫》。

李雨潔: 你有一篇《拷貝就是力量》，然後裡面有講到世界三。是這篇嗎？

吳山專: 對，大概差不多，是1983年，很早很早的。1983年還是1986年，反正在這段時間。因為這篇應該是我在學校裡面寫的。

李雨潔: 後來才又整理？

吳山專: 對，所以你才看到裡面談到繪畫。《世界三理論對繪畫領域的開拓》大概是一個小的標題。至於《拷貝就是力量》可能是在90年代的時候我在做索引的時候，或者是文章列表的時候，可能偶然地用它當了標題。

李雨潔: 你的這三個東西，或者是說這個世界三的概念，好像也可以類比成是某一種現成品的詮釋方式？

吳山專: 對，完全一樣。

人人都有權利拒絕成為藝術家

李雨潔: 你1987年寫了《關於文革中的藝術》，我覺得非常有趣。你探討了文革中產生的藝術語言最後可能會有自己的個性，也許跟文革無關。你寫這個文章的時候，已經做完一連串的文字的實驗: 拿了這個文字的形式，但是內容是空的。王廣義有類似的方法，不過他的材料是圖像。

吳山專: 我跟廣義在我們這一代人的當中有一個超越，我們認知到文字和圖像的內容是空的。

李雨潔: 1985這一代藝術家常常談到抽空這件事情，我其實很好奇你對這件事的看法，你覺得這個是不是一個特殊的中國現象？ 文革後的現象？

吳山專: 這好像是一個浙美現象。可能我的身上比較多，因為我是從赤字開始。 為了使他有更大的容納性，我們對於容器要做的第一步顯然是抽空，就把原有的先抽走，這個時候我們還可以來測量它。我們也認知到一種強勢，你從世界三來看，一張畢加索亞維農少女，本質意義就是一個蘋果。這就給我們一個很大的震撼！那麼意義是什麼呢？填入。

李雨潔: 填入什麼呢？

吳山專: 隨便什麼。藝術就是這樣的，藝術的意義是一個given。就是你要給他一個召喚，那麼你用一個given，那麼顯然有接收者的問題存在，誰來接收？沒有人，這是一個悲劇。

李雨潔: 很多藝術家在藝術史上被認為是預言者。也就是說，你在你的作品裡面放了一個訊息，但是在當下大家都不會收到，或者是你剛剛講的，沒有接收者，但是也許一百年，或者兩百年之後，有人接收了。

吳山專: 所以說我們要製造另外一個神話機制。你必須要建立一個機制，因為否則沒有意義的。

李雨潔: 你的作品是那個訊息而非物本身？

吳山專: 需要很多物證嘛。我跟Inga (Svala Thorsdottir) 常常討論為什麼我們會需要這些物證？思想難道可以通過任何物體表達？ 但後來我們把物體放到了物證這樣一個層次，這個也讓我們比較方便地了解杜象。物證的作用是什麼呢？這個物證告訴我們，所有跟它一樣的物體都不是此事件的物證，他是特別的。譬如說今天我拿這個杯子，證明我們今天交談，所有跟它一樣的杯子都不是這個事件的物證，只有這個是，它的唯一性是這樣被呈現的。

李雨潔: 你是用這種方式來理解杜象的？

吳山專: 呃不是說來理解，可能是說我們可以給杜象更多層的意義。

李雨潔: 這個是你的現成品嗎？

吳山專: 是的。那麼這只能證明杜象的高明。因為有無限層的意義。我們作為藝術家的話，可能大家應該都記住杜象，因為我們總是可以給他鋪陳的。

李雨潔: 你的觀念並不是像波依斯說的，「人人都是藝術家」？

吳山專: 我會這樣說：人人都有權利，拒絕成為藝術家的。

李雨潔: 拒絕成為藝術家？

吳山專: 對波依斯來說它是一個策略，這個策略是一種欺騙。我會用另一種方式來表述，就是說人人都有權利拒絕成為藝術家，這句話是我93年還是94年的時候說的。用被動的方式來表達這個權利是很重要的，我們這種用被動方式來給人民權利是同時讓你有權利拒絕。我們說這樣吧，法庭上有無罪推論和有罪推論，我們採取的是無罪推論。那麼，波依斯的「人人都是藝術家」其實是一個有罪推論。

勞申柏以及早期裝置行為作品

李雨潔: 你85年的時候去看過北京中國美術館的勞申柏展覽，對不對？

吳山專: 對，大家都去看了。

李雨潔: 有的人會有點抵制去談論這件事情。

吳山專: 這個展覽太棒了，其實勞申柏對中國的影響是不得了的。 他也給所有的藝術家一個比較大的想像空間——你可以做到那裡。就是在社會層面上，是有巨大的影響。

李雨潔: 但你有跟他本人交流嗎？

吳山專: 沒有，我們去的時候他人早就不在了。

李雨潔: 在那之前，你跟一群朋友在舟山已經做了一些像是裝置的東西。你們為什麼會跑到舟山去租了一個廟？

吳山專: 這個廟當時作為舟山文物館使用，當時沒有宗教自由，所以說這個空間其實是個社會空間。我們也不是租來的，有朋友是老師，他在那裡上班，他說欸！我們那裡空的，你們在這裡做吧。所以說其實是空間上的一個方便，沒有任何含義的。

李雨潔: 你們做這些文字作品是小組一起討論出來的，對不對？因為你之前講到你們一群人覺得應該做一些事情。

吳山專: 對，要做一點事情，勞申柏也是很重要的。

李雨潔: 可是你們是勞申柏來之前就開始了，他是十一月。

吳山專: 為什麼他是很重要的呢，就是說，他給你一個對照，就是說可以這樣做的。你也看到那些材料的挪用，那是很了不起的。

李雨潔: 你們當時知道其他在用文字作藝術的，像Joseph Kosuth，還有河原溫 (On Kawara)？

吳山專: 對觀念藝術知道的就比較少了。當你不太了解的時候也是一種優勢: 其實在視覺意義上，我們從印刷品上了解的西方作品要比較多，但是文字的作品介紹的還是很少。所以說，我們呢還以為這個是我們的發明。如果當時我們都已經有足夠的知識，我們就沒有這個勇氣去做，選擇用文字是討論了很久選擇的策略。

李雨潔: 這個具體的是什麼材料呢？

吳山專: 工業油漆加合成板。

李雨潔: 是現成的詞彙？

吳山專: 這個就是對新聞的描述。

李雨潔: 「最後的晚餐」？

吳山專: 聖經的一個語言。

李雨潔: 「垃圾涅槃」 也出現在你的小說《今天下午停水》裡面⋯

吳山專: 對，這是我的詩歌。所以這個時候是自己拍照片，自己寫作，自己寫詩歌。

李雨潔: 這個是很詩的，它不像其他的現成的詞，然後它又很有趣，它是垃圾跟涅槃，完全搭不上的兩個東西。

吳山專: 我家鄉是普陀山的，垃圾跟涅槃其實在經書中就是一體的。涅槃和垃圾，看上去是好像是相悖的，其實就是一個通道的兩個出口。這不是混搭的，是計劃的

李雨潔: 那時候在讀佛學或者是道家的書嗎？

吳山專: 會有一點，就中國思想史啊，也是二手三手引用過的資訊。像馮友蘭這一類的大的作家。

李雨潔: 1985，1986年好多人做了一些裝置的或者是畫。他們喜歡把這個太極圖放在裡面，你們也放了。

吳山專: 有點難為情。不過在這個背景下，做一次是沒關係的。

李雨潔: 只是很隨意的，並不是說認真的？

吳山專: 並不很難為情，我覺得。

李雨潔: 有些人喜歡從這裡面找出很多意義。期待你們可以說出一些跟道家有關的東西來。

吳山專: 這時候有些作品可能是在某些意義上的混搭，包容和妥協，為什麼呢？可能別的成員問，我們要有一個太極。那他有時候是一個妥協，因為他是一個集體創作。

李雨潔: 你是這群人的領袖嗎？

吳山專: 絕對是的。

大字報

李雨潔: 《紅色幽默》這個作品，你本人也提到過，有的時候作品名稱叫《大字報》， 有的時候叫《今天下午停水了》，有的時候叫《紅色幽默》⋯

吳山專: 這個作品標題有好多個：包括《今天下午停水了第二自然段第三小節》⋯為什麼會有這樣的一個描述呢？當時可能跟音樂上的四重奏也是有關係的。 這個題目是印在湖南的《美術思潮》。《大字報》是他的最正式的標題。《今天下午停水》呢⋯⋯也被用過。就是說，大家說是今天下午停水的大字報。是這樣的，它也是《紅色幽默》的系列，但這個不是作品標題，這個只是我在這個時間段裡面做的那些事的一個總稱。

李雨潔: 有的時候，這個作品的年代被標作是1986，有的時候是1985，它是不是在你快要離開學校的時候開始做的？

吳山專: 應該是在86，為什麼呢，因為1985我們做的是黑體，所以這個是在我畢業以後做的，應該是1986。

李雨潔: 是你已經回到舟山島了？

吳山專: 對，準確的時間是1986。

李雨潔: 這些照片是不是你作品做到一半的時候？

吳山專: 這是在我工作室的擺拍，費大為當時在法國呢，他要收集資料，這組照片是為他拍的。

李雨潔: 都是不同時段拍的，對不對？因為每次部分字體的排列不一樣？

吳山專: 有點像劇場。這些都是朋友做的，這些不是我做的。

李雨潔: 他們是自發的，還是你一開始就計劃好要收集他們寫的字？

吳山專: 他們每個人必須寫，所以我都給他們安排好的。所以大家就進來跑跑寫一寫走掉了。我會做一點塗料的，紅色的塗料塗一塗，字他們寫的。有些本身就是藝術家，就是一些學生啊，或者是一些朋友啊，所以就基本上你給大家一個平台，就是他們來寫自己的想寫的。

李雨潔: 不管寫什麼都可以嗎？

吳山專: 對。

李雨潔: 有一些詞看起來像是路上的廣告。

吳山專: 廣告啊⋯有些是我自己拍的，因為我也有一疊照片，我就指定，啊，你寫這個！ 臨摹這個啊！

李雨潔: 所以你規定了文本的。

吳山專: 那麼他們會說嘛，那我寫什麼啊？否則很累的嘛。所以你就可以說，啊你就弄這個好了。但整個是在一種朋友的友好的這樣的一種氣氛中完成的。

李雨潔: 這個大字報跟你在文革的經驗有關嗎？

吳山專: 其實當時是在想還有哪些東西是沒有被借過的？就是，把文革拿來作為一個形式，所以說才有87年的《關於文革的藝術》。還有一個土壤與蘋果樹的比喻，就是說，土壤就是社會環境， 蘋果作為藝術品。看起來大家覺得，喔！必須是這個土壤才有這個蘋果樹才有這個蘋果，居然是有一個邏輯。但我們不能因為這個邏輯就推導出，就說土壤的性質，就是我們蘋果的性質，這是錯的。

與Inga Svala Thorsdottir合作: 《小肥姘》

李雨潔: 你跟Inga Svala Thorsdottir合作之後還有做過你個人的作品嗎？

吳山專: 當然也有。不過和Inga一起工作是基於分享的概念，這個概念在我們的作品中很重要。像最後的《小肥姘》，那個《小肥姘》就比較重視圖示，其實就是一個分享的可能性。你分享多少，你就可以擴張多少。

李雨潔: 《小肥姘》是不是可以不斷地被擴大延伸？

吳山專: 對，像拼圖一樣，它可能是在工程學上是一個比較成功的一個案例。就是他的穩固性吧，或者他的一個容納性，

李雨潔: 你這個括號是很早就出現了，在1991年的一行筆記裡面就出現了。

吳山專: 其實這個小肥姘就是兩個括號來的，從自然來的，它也是基督教裡面的魚的象徵，耶穌啊，所以才會有無限的複製，所以我跟Inga有三個階段: 想法，訊息，然後實現。

李雨潔: 這個東西可以讓人輕易複製的嗎？它是一個代表世界的符號？

吳山專: 也可以說是代表世界觀的圖示。

李雨潔: 是跟宗教很像的一種東西嗎？

吳山專: 或許在別人的手裡有這種可能。

李雨潔: 有原始的性涵義在裡面的嗎？

吳山專: 性質是你給他的一個圖層，還有一個很麻煩的是，任何填入都跟性是有關係的。但某種意義上，這些圖示因為有性的圖層，所以令人著迷。

The post 「人人都有權利拒絕成為藝術家」—與吳山專對話 appeared first on post.

Najopsežnija zbirka radova umjetnika Gorgone nalazi se u Muzeju Suvremene Umjetnosti u Zagrebu, no pomnim istraživanjem kustosi MoMA-e uspjeli su pronaći i otkupiti velik broj radova za MoMinu zbirku, uključujući i kompletno izdanje časopisa Gorgona, te veliki broj radova Dimitrija Basicevica Mangelosa i Josipa Vanište. Nakon putovanja C-MAP-a u Zagreb i Beograd, pozvali smo povjesničara umjetnosti Ješu Denegrija, vrhunskog poznavalaca rada grupe i osobnog prijatelja večine njenih umjetnika, da sudjeluje na intenzivnom MoMa seminaru. Zajedno smo pregledali Gorgonine radove u Muzeju te započeli konverzacije o trajnom značaju ove grupe.

Ovdje mozete pronaći transkripciju prezentacije za C-MAP Fluxus Grupu u MoMAi koju je Denegri održao u prosincu 2012. U prezentaciji Denegri govori kako je teško definirati karakter Gorgoninih aktivnosti, razmatra povezanost grupe s jugoslavenskom i medjunarodnom umjetničkom scenom, ističe kako je njeno djelovanje tijekom godinama različito prihvačano te kako je teško zacrtati precizan slijed njene povijesti.

Magdalena Moskalewicz
translated by Olja Stipanović

You can read the English version of this workshop here

Šta je to (bila) Gorgona?
Zadatak se ovog obraćanja stručnjacima i publici njujorškog Muzeja moderne umetnosti sastoji u pokušaju sažetog predstavljanja fenomena koji se u istoriji umetničkih zbivanja u nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji podrazumeva pod nazivom Gorgona. Pod tim nazivom, naime, misli se na umetničku grupu koja je — kako je utvrđeno u literaturi o ovoj pojavi — postojala u Zagrebu, u Hrvatskoj, između 1959-1966. godine, a čiji su članovi bili slikari Josip Vaništa (1924), Julije Knifer (1924-2000), Marijan Jevšovar (1922-1998), Đuro Seder (1927), skulptor Ivan Kožarić (1921), arhitekta koji se bavio slikarstvom i fotografijom Miljenko Horvat (1935-2012), te likovni kritičari i istoričari umetnosti Radoslav Putar (1929-1994), Matko Meštrović (1933), i Dimitrije Bašičević (1921-1987), kasnije i u samoj Gorgoni poznatiji kao umetnik pod pseudonimom Mangelos, uz još nekolicinu neformalnih pripadnika i prijatelja ove družine.

Sâm naziv grupa Gorgona duguje jednom stihu iz pesme Dimitrija Bašičevića objavljene kao predgovor grafičke mape Elualija, a odnosi se kao što je poznato iz antičke mitologije — na istoimeno čudovište čiji je jedan jedini pogled svakoga ko se sa tim čudovištem suočio i nije mogao da izbegne taj kobni susret „oči u oči“ u trenutku ostao zauvek skamenjen. Pokazaće se naknadno da ovaj naziv, makoliko bio odabran gotovo nasumično, ipak vrlo dobro priliči nekom temeljnom mentalitetu ove malobrojne zajednice umetnika i intelektualaca zatečene i međusobno udružene u konkretnim istorijskim i društvenim prilikama u vremenu njihovog okupljanja i nedugog trajanja.

Nastanak i prva pojavljivanja Gorgone u javnosti
Umetnički pokreti u istorijskim avangardama i umetničke grupe u posleratnim neoavangardama najčešće su nastajali na osnovama nekih zajedničkih proklamovanih ili podrazumevanih načela, no ničeg takvog ili tome sličnog nije bilo u Gorgoni, skupini za koju se tačno ne zna kada je zapravo u jednom času osnovana, koja je — kao što je s pravom ukazala prva istoričarka ove grupe Nena Dimitrijević — pre „postojala“ nego što je „delovala“. Naime, prethodno pomenuti umetnici i umetnički kritičari povremeno i retko kada istovremeno svi na okupu, sastajali su se, družili, odlazili u šetnje središtem ili u okolinu grada u kojemu su živeli, bez nekog unapred predviđenog plana i mimo ikakvih zaključaka spontano su razgovarali o naoko beznačajnim povodima sopstvene svakodnevice, razmenjivali utiske o knjigama koje su čitali, po pravilu nikada ne raspravljajući o svojim užim umetničkim preokupacijama i stručnim oblastima, što je sve ostajalo suverenim pravom odlučivanja svakoga pojedinca. Izmenjivali su i pismene poruke, nazvane „misli za mesece“, odaslane poštom, iako su još brže i lakše mogle da se saopšte neposrednim susretom „lice u lice“. Začetnik ovih okupljanja nekolicine prijatelja bio je Vaništa koji ih prima u svom stanu ili u kabinetu na Arhitektonskom fakultetu u Zagrebu gde je bio zaposlen kao asistent na predmetu crtanje.

Da uopšte postoji nešto pod nazivom Gorgona, sasvim uzana javnost sredine u kojoj se pojavila mogla je da sazna negde u rano proleće 1961. kada se bez ikakve najave, deljena bez naplate iz ruke u ruku, kao da je odjednom iskrsla prva Vaniština, a nedugo potom i druga Kniferova sveska istoimene publikacije, kasnije s pravom nazvane „antičasopisom“ kako bi se naglasila razlika u odnosu spram standardnog pojma literarnog ili umetničkog časopisa, a zapravo bila je reč o disciplini koja će kasnije adekvatno biti nazvana „knjigom umetnika“ ili „knjigom kao umetničkim delom“. U svojim sećanjima na početke ove čak i njemu samom nesagledive avanture, Vaništa će slikovito posvedočiti kako je konkretno došlo do ovog u prvi čas činilo se apsurdnog, no s vremenom će se pokazati poduhvata od dalekosežnog istorijsko-umetničkog značenja:

„Zimi 1960, prolazeći pored trgovine rabljenom robom u Vlaškoj ulici, nasuprot kinu Studio, ugledao sam u izlogu meni nepoznat predmet: jedna okomita daska povezivala je četiri vodoravne. Prostorna konstrukcija bez svrhe, koja se nudila na prodaju. Padala je okomita zimska rasvjeta po izlogu i predmet je bacao sjenu na svijetlu stijenu pozadine. Zastao sam fasciniran, vjerojatno bliskošću prizora preda mnom i mrtvih priroda pedesetih na kojima sam unutrašnjost od eksteriera dijelio okomitim raspolovnicama. Zamolio sam prijatelja Pavla Cajzeka za uslugu i drugog jutra snimili smo izlog. Odlučio sam fotografiju devet puta ponoviti, učinio maketu, dao odštampati, i prvi broj Gorgone pojavio se o Velikom tjednu 1961. godine (kao i broj dva, meandar Julija Knifera). Bio je to početak Gorgone . . . Prva dva broja kao da su jače povezala skupinu. Ideje su navirale, ali malo je njih materijalizirano, ostvareno. Okolina je bila konsternirana, ali su se počeli javljati i pojedinci sa simpatijama, iz zemlje i oni izvana“.

Uslediti će uskoro još nekoliko brojeva antičasopisa Gorgona: 1961. Jevšovarov, Victora Vasarely-a, Kožarićev i ponovo Vaništin, potom sledi pauza do 1965. kada izlaze Horvatov i Harolda Pintera, te 1966. Ditera Rota i konačno dva poslednja opet Vaniština, ukupno jedanaest sveski, pri čemu je nekoliko sledećih zamisli ostalo nerealizovano u stadijumima dopisivanja i projekata sa potencijalnim autorima antičasopisa Gorgona, a to su bili Lucio Fontana, Robert Rauschenberg, Piero Manzoni, i Enzo Mari. U Vaništinoj arhivi Gorgone, kao posebno dragoceni, čuvaju se dva Manzonijeva predloga pod nazivom Tavole di accertamento, koji danas poseduju status svojevrsnog ručno izvedenog unikatnog, a trebalo je da budu u obliku štampane sveske multiplikovanog umetničkog objekta.

U organizaciji Gorgone priređen je tokom 1961-1963. niz grupnih i samostalnih izložbi, odreda samih članova grupe i njihovih gostiju, među kojima su od inostranih umetnika François Morellet i Piero Dorazio, obojica učesnici prve izložbe međunarodnog pokreta Nove tendencije u Zagrebu 1961. Samostalne izložbe obojice pomenutih umetnika, umesto u nekom redovnom galerijskom prostoru, priređene su u privatnoj režiji u maloj zanatskoj radionici za izradu slikarskih ramova u strogom centru grada, u tu svrhu zakupljenoj uz neznatnu naplatu, a koja je u vreme održavanja ovih priredbi nosila naziv Studio G. Cilj organizatora bio je da svoj izlagački program izvedu izvan uticaja i nadzora tada uobičajenih načina funkcionisanja državnih/društvenih kulturnih istitucija. Izložbe u Studiju G već na prvi pogled razlikovale su se od ostalih u gradu: prikazan je svega jedan (kao čuveni Kniferov Meandar u kut, 1962) ili svega nekoliko eksponata, suprotno uobičajenim prenatrpanim postavkama većine ostalih tadašnjih samostalnih ili grupnih izložbi. Sve što se u javnosti dešavalo u Gorgoni i oko Gorgone (istoimeni antičasopis, izložbe u organizaciji grupe) bilo je, dakle, u odnosu na okolinu nešto sasvim drugo, drugačije, različito, jednom rečju izdvojeno od preovlađujuće duhovne klime sredine. A kada se sve to sabere onda se nameće zaključak kako je celokupno „gorgonsko ponašanje“ bilo, zapravo, jedna sasvim svesna i dalekosežna strategija tihe kontestacije, spolja čini se pasivnog ali u suštini upornog i prkosnog otpora sprovedenog u ime neprikosnovene i neotuđive ne samo umetničke nego i ukupne individualne slobode.

Osobine slikarstva i skulpture pripadnika Gorgone
Jedan od paradoksa Gorgone jeste u tome što se među njenim pripadnicima nalaze odreda istaknuti predstavnici tadašnje mlađe/srednje generacije hrvatskih umetnika i trojice vrlo uticajnih likovnih kritičara, dok je istovremeno grupa kao celina gotovo posve nepoznata na kulturnoj sceni njihovog delovanja, a takvo stanje traje sve do prve istorijske revalorizacije Gorgone na retrospektivi u Galeriji suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu 1977. Stoga se postavlja pitanje šta, zapravo, čini ostavštinu Gorgone: da li je to jedino istoimeni anti-časopis, izložbe u njenoj organizaciji i ostale manifestacije „gorgonskog ponašanja“ njenih pripadnika ili je to takođe i pojedinačna likovna (slikarska, u jednom slučaju skulptorska) produkcija članova grupe? Drugim rečima: da li su slikarstvo i skulptura pripadnika Gorgone integralni deo ukupnog gorgonskog nasleđa ili je pak to neotuđiva i nedeljiva svojina svakoga od njenih članova ponaosob? Skloni smo prvoj od pomenutih solucija: sve, dakle, što je od njih nastalo u periodu Gorgone uključujući i njihove pojedinačne slikarske/skulptorske opuse jeste legitimna gorgonska baština. Odreda svi slikari članovi Gorgone neguju slikarstvo izrazitih neikoničkih svojstava: Jevšovar, Seder, i Horvat rade slikarstvo u duhu radikalnog enformela; Knifer sa crnog-belim Meandrima u jedva primetnim varijantama i Vaništa sa horizontalnim linijama posred dvodimenzionalnog belog fona rade u duhu svojevrsnog minimalizma; Kožarić u skulpturi i Mongelos u objektima izvan su svake klasične definicije ovih likovnih disciplina uspostavljajući parametre koji važe jedino za njihove zasebne primere. A svi oni zajedno sasvim su izvan pretežne istovremene estetske produkcije slikarstva i skulpture tada vladajućeg domaćeg umerenog modernizma kojemu su suprotni ne toliko po spoljašnjim osobinama formalnog jezika koliko po dubinskom mentalnom sklopu, a u krajnjoj konsekvenciji to znači i po različitim ideološkim pozicijama.

Gorgonski modaliteti dematerijalizovane umetnosti
Ukoliko može da bude povod diskusije sa različitim stavovima za ili protiv da li slikarska/skulptorska produkcija pojedinih članova Gorgone punopravno pripada ukupnom gorgonskom nasleđu, nije sporno da gorgonsku praksu u užem ali i u suštinskom smislu reči čine različite intervencije s onu stranu čvrstog i trajnog materijalnog umetničkog objekta. Posredi su kolektivna okupljanja (kao što su „kolektivni pregledi“ početka proleća ili jeseni, svojersni performansi (poput Adoracije na otvaranju izložbe Julija Knifera 1966), komunikacija posredstvom pošte među članovima grupe (kao što su „misli“ za pojedine mesece u godini), intelektualne igre bez pravila i konačnog ishoda, fotografski snimci raznovrsnih situacija, novinski oglasi sa realnim ili fiktivnim obavestima, odašiljanja poruka poštom kojima se ne razabire smisao i svrha (poput pozivnice sa tekstom Izvolite prisustvovati, pri čemu se na njoj ne navode konkretno mesto i vreme navodnog događaja), zapisi o „kolektivnim radovima“ pripadnika Gorgone koji ne mogu niti trebaju da se obave u stvarnosti, „nemogući projekti“ koje je najčešće predlagao skulptor Kožarić, zapisnici sa gorgonskih sastanaka koje je odreda vodio i pisao Putar namerno nekim davnim jezikom izvan savremene upotrebe i sa ironičnim potekstom) itd. Sve to u vreme postojanja Gorgone nije se shvatalo niti smatralo umetnošću kako bi se tek znatno kasnije, zahvaljujući spoznajama o „dematerijalizaciji umetnosti“ i „umetnosti u proširenom polju“, ta gorgonska ponašanja stigla da se uvrste u pojam umetnosti naprosto zato jer je sâm taj pojam postao toliko uslovan i fleksibilan da se danas definitivno potire i gubi svaka striktna granica između onoga što umetnost izvesno jeste ili bi tek potencijalno mogla da bude.

Gorgona u domaćem i međunarodnom kontekstu
Domaći kontekst Gorgone čine društvene, političke i kulturne prilike u Jugoslaviji krajem prve i početkom druge polovine 20. veka unutar kojih se i u području likovnih umetnosti, u zategnutim prilikama Hladnog rata, odvija složeni proces najpre usvajanja represivne ideologije socijalističkog realizma po uzoru na prvobitni sovjetski model. Potom — usled političkog raskida Jugoslavije sa Sovjetskim Savezom izazvanog Rezolucijom Informbiroa 1948. — sledi postepeni prelazak na tolerantniju kulturno-umetničku klimu sa posledicom odmerenog otvaranja ka Zapadu, što će bitno da pogoduje pojavi i afirmaciji različitih jezičkih modela posleratnog modernizma. Ovaj dalekosežni preobražaj umetničke situacije podstaknut je strategijom balansiranja jugoslovenske spoljne politike na granici „između Istoka i Zapada“, sa sve vidljivijim priklanjanjem poslednjem, a jedan od rezultata ovog preobražaja jeste i uspostavljanje institucionalnog „sistema umetnosti“ u kojemu će negde sredinom pedesetih godina 20. veka mesto novog mainstreama pripasti formaciji imenovanoj u recentnoj istorijsko-umetničkoj literaturi terminom „socijalistički modernizam“.

U funkcionisanju umetničkog sistema „socijalističkog modernizma“ jednu od važnih poluga čini niz spektakularnih izložbi inostrane umetnosti u glavnom gradu i ostalim republičkim centrima tadašnje Jugoslavije, kao što su Savremena francuska umetnost 1952, samostalna izložba Henry Moorea 1955, Savremena umetnost Sjedinjenih Američkih Država iz zbirki Muzeja moderne umetnosti u Njujorku 1956, i brojne druge. Istovremeno dolazi i do redovnog predstavljanja Jugoslavije na prestižnim priredbama savremene umetnosti kao što su Bijenala u Veneciji, Sao Paolu, Tokiju, da pomenemo samo najbitnije. Povodom izložbe savremene jugoslovenske umetnosti u Parizu 1961. francuski kritičar Michel Ragon, kao pohvalu toj umetnosti i njenoj razlici u odnosu na umetnost u zemljama s onu stranu „gvozdene zavese“ zapisaće sledeće: „U Jugoslaviji živa umetnost je ujedno zvanična umetnost“. U najkraćem: u težnji da osnaži ne samo političke i ekonomske nego i kulturne odnose sa Zapadom, vladajuća politika socijalističke Jugoslavije uvela je u svoje strategijske planove i ciljeve načelo slobodnijeg razvoja i materijalne podrške savremenoj modernističkoj umetnosti, pri čemu ipak ostaje upitno i čak sporno koji su to umetnički jezici i njihovi nosioci privilegije te promene i podrške u najvećoj meri koristili i uživali. Pripadnici Gorgone kao pojedinci, a pogotovo grupa kao celina neće se naći u takvom položaju, niti su oni uostalom ka tome težili. Na njihovu umetnost ne mogu da se primene svojstva tzv. „socijalističkog estetizma“ kao obeležja za vladajuću „meku“ ili „srednju“ liniju savremene umetnosti u Jugoslaviji u prvim posleratnim decenijama, a koja je prevashodno pogodovala tadašnjem političkom kursu i društvenom mentalitetu. O osobinama Gorgone i o njenom sasvim izdvojenom mestu unutar onovremenog jugoslovenskog umetničkog prostora ubedljivu je dijagnozu iznela prva istoričarka grupe Nena Dimitrijević u sledećem pasusu:

„Gorgona je bila proces traženja duhovne i intelektualne slobode, ostvarivanje koje je samo sebi svrhom. Izvan profesionalnih obaveza stvaranja likovne produkcije i promovisanja sebe i svojih kolega u hijerarhiji lokalne umjetničke scene, grupa ljudi okupljala se i komunicirala motivirana jedino pretpostavkama duhovnog zajedništva i srodstva. Bez obzira na razlike pojedinačnih stvaralačkih koncepcija, članove grupe ujedinjavala je zajednička pripadnost duhu modernizma, što ga definira prepoznavanje apsurda, praznine, monotonije kao estetskih kategorija, sklonost nihilizmu, metafizička ironija. Sa suvremenog stajališta može se činiti da te duhovne koordinate nedovoljno preciziraju prostor djelovanja jedne umjetničke grupe, ali u doba nastajanja Gorgone dominirali su u jugoslavenskoj umjetnosti posve oprečni vrijednosni kriteriji, te je vitalna energija grupe tinjala u opoziciji spram ondašnjeg likovnog esteblišmenta“.

Međunarodni pak kontekst Gorgone čini globalna umetnička situacija ranih šezdesetih godina 20. veka, sa pojavama poput američke neodade, minimalizma, fluxusa, pariskog novog realizma predvođenog Yvesom Kleinom, nemačke grupe Zero, časopisa/galerije Azimuth/Azimut Piera Manzonija i Enrica Castellanija u Milanu, sa kojima umetničke prakse pojedinih pripadnika Gorgone teku otprilike istovremeno pokazujući izvesne bliže ili dalje srodnosti jezika, postupaka, ponašanja. Primetna je vremenska paralela Gorgone sa trajanjem Situacionističke internacionale čijih dvanaest brojeva časopisa izlaze između 1958-1969, a obe ove pojave na krajnje različite načine teže emancipaciji pojedinca u neprihvatljivom mu okruženju. To je i vreme reaktualizacije Marcela Duchampa i njegovih poduhvata poput ready-madea, prioriteta ličnosti umetnikovog subjekta nad umetničkim objektom, spoznaje da je priroda umetnosti prevashodno mentalna umesto optička i retinalna. O svim tim zbivanjima i idejama pojedini pripadnici Gorgone pravovremeno su obavešteni, saznaju za njih iz aktuelne literature ili usmenom predajom neposrednih svedoka, čeznu i teže ka tome da sa svojim duhovnim srodnicima iz drugih sredina stupe u vezu. Vaništa se u cilju objavljivanja njihovih autorskih brojeva antičasopisa Gorgona dopisuje sa Fontanom, Manzonijem, i Rauschenbergom, odašilje u svet na mnoge adrese netom izišle sveske Gorgone. Posebni udeo u intelektualnom formiranju i duhovnoj izgradnji većine „gorgonaša“ ima tada uveliko prevođena ili ređe u originalu čitana savremena književnost, od predvodnika egzistencijalizma Sartrea i Camusa do francuskog novog romana, a naročito uvažavanje gaji se prema drevnoj dalekoistočnoj filozofiji. Prati se pozorište apsurda Becketta i Ionesca, zna se za muziku Johna Cagea, u kinoteci se prate projekcije filmske avangarde i posećuju se festivali kratkometražnog eksperimentalnog filma. U zaključku: celokupna napredna kultura savremene epohe za „gorgonaše“ je njihova nezasitna „duhovna hrana“, shodno tome umetnik u okrilju Gorgone sebe shvata i smatra se punopravnim i sa svojim duhovnim srodnicima u drugim sredinama ravnopravnim „građaninom sveta“.

Odnos Gorgona – Nove tendencije
Trojica pripadnika Gorgone — Putar i Meštrović kao organizatori, Knifer kao izlagač — naći će se okupljeni na prvoj izložbi međunarodnog pokreta Nove tendencije održanoj u Galeriji suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu 1961. i upravo taj podatak neizbežno nameće sledeće pitanje: kakav je mogao da bude razlog učešća i konkretni udeo navedenih članova Gorgone u problemskoj fizionomiji pomenute izložbe? Kada se ima na umu da su istaknuto mesto među učesnicima ove izložbe zauzimali trojica iz nemačke grupe Zero Heinz Mack, Otto Piene, i Günther Uecker, kao i dvojica iz milanskog Azimutha Manzoni i Castellani, da ostale ne pominjemo, proizlazi kako je prva zagrebačka izložba Nove tendencije 1961. po osobinama na njoj preovlađujućih izražajnih jezika bliža spiritualnom mentalitetu Gorgone umesto neokonstruktivističkom usmerenju tehnološkog entuzijazma kakav će dominirati na narednim zagrebačkim izložbama ovoga pokreta, od druge 1963. do četvrte 1968-69. na kojoj je uvedena tematika upotrebe kompjutera u području umetničkih istraživanja. Karakteristično je da će u jednom pismu upućenom Meštroviću 10. juna 1961. Manzoni u vezi sa prvom izložbom Nove tendencije izraziti bojazan kako bi na toj izložbi idejni beleg mogli da utisnu duhovni srodnici i sledbenici Maxa Billa i Bruna Munarija, dakle nosioci koncepata stroge geometrije tzv. konkretne umetnosti i spone između umetnosti i industrijskog dizajna, na što on nipošto ne bi želeo da pristane. Solucija na koju je ukazao Manzoni u ovom pismu na prvoj izložbi Nove tendencije nije se desila, stoga se u složenoj i kontroveznoj istoriji idejnih previranja unutar ovog pokreta upravo njegova prva izložba mogla bi da se obeleži kao „gorgonska“ između ostaloga zahvaljujući i udelu njenih domaćih sudeonika, da bi tek potom u sledećim izložbama Novih tendencija preovladala problematika relacije umetnost-nauka-nove tehnologije u znaku zahteva za „scijentifikacijom umetnosti“ kakvog je ovaj pokret, a što je mentalitetu Gorgone bilo posve neprihvatljivo, u svojoj glavnini napokon poprimio.

Istorijska revalorizacija i međunarodna afirmacija Gorgone
Kako je došlo do toga da jedna umetnička pojava za koju se u vreme njenog postojanja u sopstvenoj sredini jedva šta znalo postigne ne samo istorijsku revalorizaciju u užoj domaćoj nego i znatnu afirmaciju na široj međunarodnoj umetničkoj sceni? Počelo je retrospektivom u Galeriji suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu 1977. i nezaobilaznim tekstom Nene Dimitrijević za svako kasnije razumevanje Gorgone u katalogu pomenute izložbe, nastavilo se nastupima grupe u Muzeju moderne umetnosti u Menhengladbahu iste godine, na Bijenalu u Sao Paolu 1981, retrospektivom u Dižonu 1989, pod nazivom Gorgona Gorgonesco Gorgonico u sklopu 47. Bijenala u Veneciji 1997, uključenjem Gorgone u Arteast Collection Moderne galerije u Ljubljani 2001, monografijom u obradi Marije Gattin u izdanju Muzeja suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu 2002, zasad zaključno sa najznačajnijim referencama međunarodne afirmacije Gorgone kao što su njena učešća na izložbama Aspects/Positions. 50 years of Art in Central Europe 1949-1999. u Muzeju moderne umetnosti Ludwig u Beču 2000, Eye on Europe. Prints, books & multiples 1960 to now u Muzeju moderne umetnosti u Njujorku 2006, pomenom Gorgone u tekstu Viteka Havraneka Yves Klein et l’Europe de L’Est, un oeuvre a l’etat d’idee 1959-1971. u katalogu retrospektive Yvesa Kleina u Centru Georges Pompidou u Parizu 2007.

i najzad na izložbi Promises of the Past. A discontinuous history of Art in former Eastern Europe, takođe u istom Centru 2010. A k tome valja dodati i pojedinačne nastupe, za života i posthumno, u zemlji i inostranstvu, pojedinih pripadnika Gorgone. Potrebno je posebno naglasiti kako je do prvih adekvatnih prepoznavanja i tumačenja Gorgone došlo u vreme aktuelnosti konceptualne umetnosti i to od strane umetnika i kritičara upoznatih sa osobinama upravo takve umetnosti. Ceo „slučaj“ istorijske revalorizacije i međunarodne afirmacije Gorgone poučna je priča o tome kako u skladu sa promenama tekućih umetničkih paradigmi neka dotle gotovo sasvim skrivena pojava iz nedavne prošlosti pravilnim razumevanjem i preciznim smeštanjem u odgovarajući vremenski i problemski kontekst — u sopstvenoj sredini i šire, ukoliko to zavređuje sve do globalnih razmera — poprima mogućnost i najzad stiže do pravičnog istorijskog vrednovanja.

Zapisi Josipa Vanište o Gorgoni
Među zapisima Josipa Vanište o Gorgoni iz 1961. nalaze se sledeći koje vredi doslovno navesti:

„Misao Gorgone je ozbiljna i oskudna. Gorgona ne traži djelo ni rezultat u umjetnosti Ona se definira kao zbir mogućih tumačenja“. „Gorgona je 1961. bježala od tada snažnog komunizma u iracionalno, nerazumljivo. Nedjelovanje Gorgone bilo je primjetno. Nekoliko mladih ljudi kojih je međusobna naklonost bila odlučujući faktor povezivanja povremeno se sastajalo. Gorgona nije imala poruka! Bio je to određeni tip djelovanja, samoironičan, pružao je osjećaj neobičnosti. Možda je donjela nešto novo, možda je samo rješavala svoje životne probleme, tjeskobna osjećanja. Možda osim prijateljstva i duhovnih srodnosti, nije ništa drugo ostavila“.

„Težnje Gorgone bile su usmjerene izvanestetskoj stvarnosti. Misaona uzdržljivost, pasivnost pa i indiferentnost bile su iznad golog, ironičnog poricanja svijeta u kojem smo živjeli. Djelu se nije pridavao značaj, aktivnosti bile krajnje jednostavne: npr. zajedničke šetnje u okolici grada, „komisijski pregled početka proljeća“, kako je u šali govorio Putar, obični razgovor u prirodi. Gorgona ponekad nije radila ništa, samo je živjela. I ja sam se kao i drugi u to vrijeme zanimao za prazninu Zena, težio u ideologijom ispunjenom svijetu, normalnom ponašanju, normalnom životu“.

„Gorgona je bila samo sudioništvo u egzistenciji u koje je unijela malo tamnih sastojaka: apsurd, prazninu. Gorgona nije bila slikarska grupa. Manifestirala se kroz razgovor, ideje, poneku realizaciju, s pomoću pisane riječi kad se nije moglo učiniti ništa drugo“.

Gorgona nije imala teoriju, poetiku, ponajmanje ideologiju; citirani Vaništini zapisi tek su nagoveštaji ili predviđanja njenog idejnog i organizacionog predvodnika o sopstvenom poimanju Gorgone ili tek o tome šta bi ona mogla da bude. A ostali članovi Gorgone nisu o njoj ostavili niti toliko. Ali kada se sve niti o Gorgoni i u vezi sa Gorgonom pokušaju da saberu i sakupe, neka moguća predstava o ovom krajnje neuobičajenom umetničkom i pre svega životnom i egzistencijalnom zbivanju negde ipak počinje da se ukazuje.

Šta je, dakle, posle svega (bila) Gorgona?
Predstava o fenomenu nazvanom Gorgona nije nastala odjednom nego je tokom vremena postepeno nastajala, dopunjavana svedočenjima i procenama svih koji su o njoj — od samog njenog inicijatora, retko ostalih njenih članova i nekolicine istoričara umetnosti koji su se njom bavili — ostavili svoja viđenja, sećanja, tumačenja. No neka neuhvatljiva i do kraja nesaglediva aura kao da i dalje lebdi nad ovom enigmom. Svakako, Gorgona nije bila umetnička grupa u nekom deklarativnom smislu reči, pre je duhovna i intelektualna zajednica u jednom razdoblju njihovih života jednim temeljnim svetonazorom međusobno povezanih bliskih ljudi, vokacijom i profesijom umetnika i istoričara umetnosti. Neodvojiva je od društvenih i duhovnih prilika u vremenu i sredini sopstvenog postojanja. U osećanju skučenosti njihovih tadašnjih životnih uslova, nekolicina mladih ljudi prepoznali su se, približili, okupljali, družili se, tokom vremena osipali se i napokon silom zakona egzistencije konačno razišli, ali o svemu tome ostali su materijalni tragovi i misaoni fluidi koje nakon svega valja kodirati i kvalifikovati instrumentima nauke istorije umetnosti. Kada istorija umetnosti treba da prepozna fenomene posleratnih neoavangardi na hrvatskoj umetničkoj sceni prepoznaće takve pojave u dva uzastopna talasa: u pojavi grupe EXAT-51 početkom i u pojavi Gorgone krajem pedesetih i početkom šezdesetih godina prošloga veka. EXAT-51 je tipična neoavangardna formacija: istupa Manifestom grupe, programski se zalaže za legitimnost apstrakcije u prema toj umetnosti odbojnom društveno-političkom kontekstu donedavne vladavine ideologije socijalističkog realizma, stoga izaziva polemičke reakcije prihvatanja i osporavanja, predlaže sintezu umetnosti, arhitekture i industrijskog dizajna na tragu tekovina Bauhausa i ruskog konstruktivizma, po svemu tome karakteristična je pojava poletne i optimističke duhovne klime „obnove i izgradnje“ društvene zajednice nedugo posle strahovitih razaranja Drugog svetskog rata. Pojavivši se pri kraju iste decenije u znatno izmenjenoj duhovnoj situaciji, Gorgona je po mnogočemu suprotnost EXAT-u: ona se niti za kakve kolektivističke ideale i ciljeve ne zalaže, štaviše simptom je nepoverenja u mobilizatorske utilitarističke projekte, umesto integracije umetnika i umetnosti u zatečeno društvo jedino što umetniku preostaje jeste njegova vera u apsolutnu autonomiju umetnosti.

Gorgona ne prihvata ali se i ne protivi standardima društvenog poretka u kojemu nastaje, nego se spram njih fatalistički odnosi: želi da stoji mimo i izvan svih vladajući proklamovanih ideoloških postulata, nalazeći jedino u umetnosti kakvu njeni pripadnici neguju i u koju veruju jedino utočište u nametnutom im društvenom okruženju. „Možda je Marijan Jevšovar — beleži Vaništa u svojim zapisima o Gorgoni — bio najbliži istini kada je rekao da su se gorgonaši ponašali kao da nisu živjeli u komunizmu“. Gorgonaši u zatečenom društvenom poretku nisu buntovnici, ponajmanje su politički disidenti, oni su gordi usamljenici okupljeni u maloj intelektualnoj zajednici pod okriljem mentaliteta koji bi uslovno mogao da se nazove „aktivnim eskapizmom“. Sredstva ispoljavanja takvog mentaliteta između ostalog jesu ironija, humor, ali uvek s merom, bez uvrede drugog, sa distancom, ležerno, uvek s međusobnim uvažavanjem, sa uzajamnim davanjem i primanjem, s prefinjenom kulturom ophođenja u odnosima unutar grupe i izvan nje. Ukoliko bi se sve toliko različite pojedinačne osobine svele na jednu, moglo bi se reći kako je idealni umetnik Gorgone po svom karakteru skeptik, neko ko se ne zanosi nikakvim spoljašnjim aktivizmom, ali je ipak vrlo postojan i dosledan u svojim temeljnim ubeđenjima. Umetnik Gorgone zapravo je samotnjak, ali samotnjak koji svoju usamljenost ipak želi da podeli sa nekim po tome sebi srodnim i bliskim. Pre i iznad svega ideal mu je bila sloboda umetnosti, sloboda u umetnosti, u koju su svi u Gorgoni neopozivo verovali, kojoj su se svi odreda i svako na svoj način bez ostatka posvetili. Umetnik Gorgone osim samog svog slobodnog postojanja u umetnosti ništa drugo ne očekuje i ne traži: u umetnosti u kojoj se ne ispoveda, koja ne propoveda, nego jednostavno postoji i opstaje kao umetniku nerazdvojni deo njegove ljudske egzistencije. I upravo u umetnosti koju su njeni pripadnici ostvarili, kakvu su nagovestili i zahvaljujući kojoj su prepoznati, kako u domaćem okruženju tako i u međunarodnim razmerama, najzad nakon što su mnogi nekad rasuti podaci prikupljeni u neku moguću celinu. Gorgona danas jeste jedinstvena istorijski potvrđena umetnička činjenica.

Diskusija

Diskusiju koja je slijedila prezentaciju Ješe Denegrija možete pročitati ispod teksta na engleskom.

The post Gorgona – Nekad i Danas appeared first on post.