轻的还是重的

内部的次方

——关于王俊的绘画

鲍栋

线与绘 

王俊绘画中最细微也最为基础的因素是线，那些线条一方面呈现着自身的轨迹，一方面又在编织着图像，王俊有意强化线条的这种双重属性：那些紧张到颤动的线条，是画家之手及身体运动的痕迹；而这些线条所绘出的图像及物象，则是眼睛或大脑之所见。在这个意义上，王俊的作品设定了一个眼与手，心与身之间的张力。观看者一般会先眯起眼睛观看画面，让那些线条搭建成图像，然后，让这些并无特殊含义的图像去引发一种认识论的观看。在这些线条绘画中，王俊经常选择的图像是仰视中的“枝叶”与“烟花”，它们在天空这种虚空的背景下，显得并无多少象征含义以及审美价值，更多地，它们只是眼睛之匆匆一瞥，的确，它们不少是来自作者自己平时拍摄的快照。而当我们看出那些隐约的物像，即通过观看获得一种短暂的视觉认知之后，那些线条又不时地，甚至有些急迫地催促我们凑上去细细端详。

在这种细细端详下，线条固执地要从物象中抽离出来回到它们自身，我们会发现，为了强调线本身，王俊几乎是在每一根线条上都花费了同样的心思和精力，每一根线都显得执拗、生硬——在这些细节上，我承认，王俊有些偏执，他有点念念不忘蚀刻画线条的风格——这使得那些线之间相互排斥，无法形成一个有机的整体，不管是视觉的还是美学的整体。于是，经常的情形是，似乎每一根线都是孤立的，都需要被单独观看，这使得观看者被暗示着去逼近画面。

但是，在这种近距离的观看下，他的绘画也随即变得平面，变得抽象，本来就若有若无且无关紧要的图像分解为线条、色调、笔触与肌理。通常，我们的目光会顺着某一根线条挪动……但是很快，如果我们稍不留神，那跟随线条的目光一旦松懈倦怠下来，我们就会从对线条及画面平面的知觉，退回到对图像及物象的认知。在这种情形下，线条又再次成为了图像信息的“噪音”而变得刺眼。如此，王俊的绘画始终在调度着我们的知觉方式，使观看者处在一种两难的焦虑中，他们不得不始终努力地去调整自己的目光，使其落在适当的维度上。

看与摹 

在这个过程中，我们的观看与画家的观看是关联的，有时我们和他的目光重合在线条、笔触、肌理这些物质因素上，有时我们又是躲在后面审慎地盯着他的目光，仿佛我们能够看见他是如何观看的，好像通过画中的造型与画面结构的处理，我们就可以回溯到画家自己的观看那里去。然而，绘画者也时常想象着自己站在观者的位置上，即他需要不时地反观自己的目光，反复重审自己的视觉建构，而不同的知觉方式之间恰好能够构成彼此反思的支点。

王俊的“临摹练习”系列即是这种视觉反思的产物，他在画面上描摹及再现出先前在画布上偶然留下来的痕迹，然后再临摹这次描摹，这样不断循环下去，使最初的偶然性逐渐变得刻意甚至强迫。自己临摹自己，这是一个消除风格、个性的过程，还是强化风格、个性的过程？更为有趣的是，这个过程最终让画家的身体及所谓“绘画的本体”变成了绘画再现的内容。尤其是在《临摹练习No.4》这样的作品中，“摹本”被特意以空间错觉的手法描绘成了一张张的纸上草稿，仿佛是贴在画面上的另一些绘画，然而在这些草稿上却描摹着底图上的那些即兴涂画。对这些即兴笔触的反复临摹可以叫做——用王俊自己的话说——“闪回”，正如电影中断它原来的线性叙事，使时间不再是某种均质且无需注意的背景，而成为了观众必须去主动知觉的内容。王俊在这些绘画中所做的事情之一，即是使观者对绘画的知觉变得自觉。

临摹可以说是一种使自己处于观者与画家之交汇点上的方法，临摹者所临摹的并不止于画面本身，而是那些画背后的绘画者，包括他的心、眼和身，即一整套方法。这就是临摹一张画与再现一张画之间的区别，后者只是把某一张画当作了一个静物去看。可在这里，王俊恰恰经常把“再现”与“临摹”搅和在了一起，除了前文所提到的“画上画”的例子，我们还可以发现，王俊的一些绘画，比如《临摹练习No.4》与《烟火》中的那些“白色笔触”实际上是视错觉手法再现出来的，是在黑色的背景中精心留白的效果。再一次，他将观者带到了那种表征的疑惑之中，观者的知性反思意识被唤起，而在这种知性反思下，绘画所建构的视觉的真实则不复存在。

本体与方法

另一个结果是，绘画本体这个概念也随之塌陷。什么是绘画的本体，绘画风格？语焉不详的“绘画语言”？一个形式统一体？或者是一个覆盖着颜料的平面？王俊的绘画一方面在提出这个问题，另一方面又在消解那些答案。他的绘画使得对何为绘画本体问题的任何一种本质主义的回答都显得不再可靠。

甚至，在王俊这里，形式与审美的整体感已不再是他考虑的，反而他尝试着去架空整体性。比如在很多作品中，他都是局部地一格一格地展开工作的，他先画完一张A4纸大小的面积，然后遮住，再继续画下一格。这样做是为了避免形成整体感，防止那种“和谐统一”的知觉惰性的出现。于是，就像他画中的线条与线条之间的紧张关系一样，那些一格一格的绘画之间也无法形成一个调和的整体，它们只是偶然地出现在同一块画布上，好像是顺手拼接起来的。如果没有画框边界的限制的话，这些绘画可以无限地延伸开来，实际上，对王俊来说，一张画的物质实体也只是一个偶然的东西，甚至“绘画”这个概念也只是一个他无心去破除所以只好去依循的惯例系统。

那么王俊作品的核心是时间吗？的确，他的绘画经常是一个耗费时间的过程，一些画甚至始终无法完成，而他从局部入手的方式也有着很强的时间刻度感，更不用提那些高密度的线条与笔触，人们常常视其为一种时间的痕迹。不过，时间感对王俊来说只是一个副产品，与极多主义的那种单维的，依靠数量积累的工作方法不同的是，王俊的绘画并不是单维的，它们总是陷入绝境，因而不得不跳出本来的维度。有时候，他甚至不惜在一张画上自我否定，打断那种顺畅感，因为“明确的语言容易激起观看之乐而阻碍观看之思……”（见王俊：笔记节选2008—2011），他绘画中的艰涩感常常是来自于此。

到此或许可以说，王俊真正在把握的绘画内容实际上是他的绘画方法，更具体的说，是其心、眼、手、身之间的相互关联，以及彼此的省思与调整。在这个意义上，方法也从来不是封闭的，因为方法的根本目的乃是让我们保持感觉与思维的自觉性。

Inward Method

— On Wang Jun and His Painting

Bao Dong

Drawing the Line

The most subtle and basic element of Wang Jun's work is the line, which on one hand manifests its own trajectory while on the other weaves together images. Wang deliberately emphasizes this dual nature of the line: the quivering lines are traces of the artist's body and the movements of his hand; yet the image constructed through them is what is visible to perception. In this sense, Wang Jun's work is conditioned by the tension between the eye and the hand, the mind and the body. In order for the lines to become images, the spectators have to squint; ostensibly non-referential, these images trigger an epistemological beholding in return. Wang Jun often depicts images of "branches and leaves" and "fireworks" as seen from beneath. Against the empty sky, they don't seem to embody any symbolic meaning or aesthetic value; instead, the images appear as if caught by a glance of the eye, in fact, many of them are based on the snapshots the artist took. Even when we come to recognize these indistinct and elusive images through a quick glimpse, the lines nevertheless urge us to come closer and have a better look.

Under this meticulous scrutiny, the lines obstinately insist on severing themselves from the figure in order to return to themselves. We see that for the purpose of accentuation, Wang has spent an equal amount of vigor and contemplation on all of them, each line appears rigid, obdurate — I admit that Wang is a little obsessive in this regard, always bearing in mind the line of etchings — this has made the lines repel one another to the extent that an organic whole, be it aesthetic or visual, is no longer recognizable. In this sense, each line demands to be seen in isolation, which calls the spectator to step closer to the painting.

Yet, in this kind of close-up viewing, the painting becomes more flat and abstract, the already elusive and unimportant images are disassembled into lines, varied color tones, brush work and texture. Normally our gaze would move along a single line... but soon, once this engaged beholding is relaxed, our perception immediately relapses into the apprehension of the overall image. Under such conditions, the line becomes a noise in relation to the smooth flow of the information of the image. Therefore Wang Jun's painting is constantly readjusting the manner in which perception occurs, placing the spectators within an anxiety of ambivalence, they must relentlessly readjust their gaze in order for it to fall upon the proper dimension.

Seeing and Imitating

Our beholding is linked with that of the artist. Sometimes our gaze coincides with the artist’s eye through the material components such as the line, brushwork, texture etc, yet sometimes, we find ourselves hiding in the background, engaging his gaze with scrutiny, as if we were capable of retrieving his first beholding through elements of figuration and composition. Yet the artist can and often does assume the role of the spectator in relation to his own work through such a position that he constantly needs to reflect on his own mode of seeing and visual construction. The discrepancies between ways of seeing constitute the fulcrum on which reciprocal reflection is made possible.

Studies of Imitation comes from this process of visual reflection. He first imitates and represents the traces that were accidentally dripped on the canvas, then copies this process of imitation again in the initiation of a new cycle ad infinitum, thus making the initial contingency something effected, even coerced. Is self-imitation a process that erases style and individuality or is it something that strengthens them? More interestingly, the "in-itself" of the painting, as well as the artist’s body, has become the content of its representation. Especially in the work Studies of Imitation No.4, the copies were made to look like sketches through the construction of a spatial illusion as if they were simply other paintings adhering onto the painting’s surface, but in fact these sketches are about improvised markings on the original. This type of imitation of improvised or fortuitous brushwork can be termed — in Wang Jun's own words — a "flashback." Like how it is employed in films, the flashback disrupts the linear narrative, making time the content of an active apprehension rather than the unimportant homogeneous background. One of the things Wang Jun has achieved through his work lies precisely in turning the spectator's awareness of the painting into self-awareness

Imitation is a way of placing oneself at the point of convergence between the spectator and the artist. What the imitator studies is not only the image, but also the painter that stands behind it, including his/her mind, perception and body,; thus imitation can be characterized by a comprehensive method that distinguishes itself from representation. The latter only treats the painting as a still-life. Wang Jun, however, has often fused the two together in his work, besides the example of "meta-painting" we have just mentioned, we can also discern that the "white brushwork" from Studies of Imitation No.4 and Fireworks were in fact not white paint but blank spaces against a dark background. Through techniques of visual illusion, he has once again brought his spectators into a state of ambiguity, yet with the awakening of one's reflective consciousness from such ambiguity, the painting's visual reality is no longer in force.

Inward Method

Another outcome would be that the "noumenon of painting" as a concept has also collapsed. What is the style of painting? What is painting in itself? A gestured "language of painting"? Ａformal unity? Or a surface covered by paint? Wang Jun's work is on the one hand an asking of all these questions, but it also simultaneously dissolves the answers. In relation to the question of the noumenon of painting, Wang Jun's work has rendered all essentialist answers unreliable.

Wang Jun is no longer privileging formal and aesthetic integrity, rather, we see him trying to transcend, even nullify them. As we have seen in many of Wang Jun's works, he starts working grid-by-grid, each grid measuring the standard size of A4 paper. Having finished the grid he covers it before continuing on. This is done to avoid the feeling of wholeness in the painting and to prevent the perceptual inertia characterized by "harmonious unity." Therefore like the dynamic relationships between his lines, an integrated whole cannot form between the grids, they just happen to appear on the same canvas as though assembled fortuitously. Without the constraints of the frame the painting can extend to infinity. For Wang Jun the substance of the painting is also something fortuitous — even the concept of painting is only a conventional system with which he simply chooses to comply.

Then is time the core of Wang Jun’s work? His painting is certainly time consuming to such an extent that some of his works are ultimately left unfinished, his localized approach also leaves a strong impression in relation to the “measuredness” of time, not to mention the extremely dense lines and brushwork which have often been considered to be traces of a temporal dimension. Yet, for Wang Jun, the sense of time is only a byproduct. His work is distinguished from the one dimensional accumulative approach characteristic of Maximalism, instead, Wang's painting often ends in an impassive desperation from which the artists must escape. Sometimes he even negates himself on the canvas in order to break the sense of a smooth flow, because "clear linguistic formulations tend to arouse the pleasure of seeing which in turn obstructs the thinking demanded by beholding" (see “Selection of Notes from 2008-2011” by Wang Jun); this frequently causes the abstruseness of his paintings.

What Wang Jun intends to engage through painting is a method, or more precisely, the interrelation between one's mind, eyes, hands, body, and their reciprocal meditation and adjustment. In this sense, this method is never closed, since its main objective lies in the preservation of self-awareness in relation to perception and cognition.

观看的拓扑

王俊的“元绘画”实验

鲁明军

诚如王俊在笔记中反复提及的，对他而言，绘画背后的意义不是目的，他所探问的只是绘画本身，或者说，这是一种关于绘画的绘画[1]，即一种“元绘画”。于此，我们似乎可以追溯至格林伯格（Clement Greenberg）的论述。格氏说过，前卫艺术是关于绘画的绘画，与之相对的庸俗艺术则是关于某个具体所指或意义的绘画。前者关乎的是绘画过程本身，而后者则意在绘画的结果。[2]格氏的目的是将绘画还给绘画本身，王俊亦复如此。他们共同感兴趣的是绘画媒材，是画布、画架及颜料的特性，等等。我想，这样一种对绘画本身的体认自然地构成了讨论王俊绘画的一个基本前提。

自不待言，格林伯格力主回到绘画本身背后存有一个反思和批判的语境，但对于王俊来说，即便客观存有一个亟待反思和检讨的对象，也无关他的绘画本身。至少可以表明的是，他的绘画并非源自这一客观目标，而更多是自我实验和游戏本身。因此，我们无须为它后置一个整体性的时空场域。

尽管诸如抽象、具象这样的艺术史概念已经无法——亦无必要——概括和界定许多当代作品，但讨论王俊的绘画，我还是不得不援引这对语词。并不是说我要对王俊绘画进行这样的分类和定位，只是将其作为一种话语载体（或只是作为一种说法），以便进入其画面本身及其内在的层次结构。

显然，在王俊的绘画中，我们既看不到任何宏大叙事的痕迹，也看不到任何微观政治的影子，只有色彩、笔触，以及并无任何意义指涉的图像（或图式）——尽管任何图像都不可避免地有所指涉。我不知道在早期绘画中，王俊是怎么处理色彩关系的，但在近几年的作品中，他似乎一直痴迷于黑、白、灰的有机调配。这种色彩的纯化不仅形成了一种虚幻的视错觉，也赋予了画面一种与众不同、甚至有悖于自然的光影感，从而凸显了画面及其物象所本有的立面感。不过，这并不是指某个具体物象（或整体性物象）的特性，而是许多小笔触所构成的可移变的平面化拓扑。我们发现，王俊在处理这些小笔触的时候，并没有做太多的变化，多采用均质化的方式平面地展开铺排，或通过一种平均分割的方式将某一具体物象解构为碎片。或许，笔触或线条所具有的密度与厚度与他早年的版画创作经验有关（包括龚贤积墨的影响），但这种类似抽象的效果（但实际上不是抽象）显然又消弭了画面原本所具有的立面感。

于是，画面不仅在色彩上构成了一种视错觉，而且，在形式处理（抽象/具象）中，也生成了一种不乏张力的视错觉。双重的视错觉最终是为了实验和探索一种观看的可能。王俊认为，这就是绘画本身。如果说绘画有本质的话，那么王俊认定就是“观看的呈现”。不过，这一“观看的呈现”并非建立一个固有的通道或入口，相反，更多的时候，这恰恰成了一种观看的迷障。按王俊自己的说法，实际上这是一种“象”的幻觉，一种“感觉的幻觉”，或一种“视觉言说的谎言”。因此，“观看的呈现”本质上是一种视域的开启和拓展，而不是规约或限定。

尽管如此，我想对于大多绘画者而言，制造一种视错觉实际上并不是什么难事。王俊自然晓得此理。因此，他的“元绘画”实验在某种意义上恰恰是要超越作为绘画结果的视错觉，在过程中诉诸观看方式的尝试和探问。

明眼者并不难发现，王俊的小笔触（线和点）更像是“做”出来的，而不是“画”出来的。事实也的确如此，或许因为太过细微，笔触和颜料所具有的绘画性及其质感反而被弱化或消解。对此，王俊不是没有意识。他在四周或某边通过大笔触和肌理“破坏”了画面原本所具有的均质感或平面性，有时候，我们发现这样一种处理方式显得极不协调，貌似一幅未完成或被破坏了的画面。然而，在王俊看来，画面完整性的“破坏”恰恰标明了这就是绘画本身。太过完整的画面所提供的往往不是绘画本身，而是绘画背后或绘画以外的讯息，完整性的阙如反而使得绘画更接近绘画本身。特别是近作中显得更为大胆，在坚持琐碎的描摹和铺排的同时，他开始尝试一种放肆但又不乏节制的表现性书写。在此我们已很难看到某个具象的存在，画面的结果也不纯然是抽象的样式。譬如他通过在画面上（或画面旁边）拼置与之相应的手稿，从而打破了原本的平面性和抽象感，而更像是在建构一种空间关系，整个画面也因此变得更为丰富和不确定。说到底，他的实验和游戏是在尝试观看的维度上（准确地说是没有维度的维度）绘画到底有多少可能。

如果说绘画是一个编织谎言的过程的话，那么，王俊念兹在兹的正是这个编织过程本身，而不是作为结果的谎言。所以，他的绘画实验所针对的也正是整个过程。在近作中，他通过图像考古学的方式，对于绘画本身进行了逐层剥离和析解。但是，王俊并没有丢弃他所剥离开来的每一个层次（包括元图像、对元图像进行持续临摹所刻意产生的图像、临摹过程中随意留下的笔触），而是对这些层次进行了拼置、叠加和重组，进而形成了一个极具质感的“平面”。王俊将其界定为“一种不乏观看障碍的临界状态”。与之相应，所谓的“观看的拓扑”，意即无论怎么改变画面形式、大小、语言风格、图像内容、色彩关系，包括背后的意义，等等，但对于王俊而言，如何不断地开启绘画本身所可能具有的属性和特质才是他真正的诉求所在。反过来，这一开启只有在这样一种临界状才具有实现的可能。而“观看的拓扑”也是在这一临界状展开的。

或许这样一种方式即是他所谓的“物”的方式。在这里，“物”是“空”，是“无”，“它”不能为任何别的东西所代表，或者更确切地说，它只能为别的某个东西所代表”。所以，所谓“空”、“无”，不是什么也没有，而是什么也不是，正是因为其不是什么，所以它永远“是”一种可能性。[3]近来这种类似日课的方式恰恰体现了作为一种工作的绘画实践，实际上是为了将自我（或主体意识）从中抽离出去。在他看来，“只有将作者自身抛出去”，才能将物还给物，才能将绘画还给绘画。换言之，王俊是为了将绘画从意义或既有认知的支配和宰制中解放出来。他说：“消解意义是对意义的困惑，困惑是靠近真的前提”，“只有放弃明确，才能肯定不确定”。而“不确定（即延异的，闪烁的，潜隐的）无疑更接近真实”。

至此，我想有必要说明的一点是，王俊绘画中的密度感表面上具有强烈的时间体验，但对于他而言，时间的内在展开并不重要，他更在乎的是绘画过程的展开方式，而不是展开的尺度、力度及其可能所具有的（意义）深度。

拉康（Jacques Lacan）曾经说过，社会功能明显的（写实）绘画大多都是为特定观众看的，但对塞尚而言，重要的是画笔运动下的“一点点蓝色、一点点白色、一点点棕色”，即画布上那些“小小的肮脏沉淀物”（small dirty deposits）。这是画家自己遗留的痕迹，是一个看来不经意的替代物，同样也是被精力贯注而交换欲望的对象物。因此，绘画者总是以自身的一部分作为作品的材料，但是此部分在画布上或词语中却已经转化，而不再被辨识。[4]

在这里，拉康实际上赋予了绘画一种生命感。他明确地告诉我们，绘画是画家遗留的痕迹，是贯注精力而交换欲望的对象物。因此，尽管我们看不见，也不可辨识，但我们不能否认画面中还是有着属于绘画者自身的一部分。所以，画面虽已成为其它的物质形态，但我们不能忽视形成这一物质形态的能量本身。不同的是，在王俊这里，这种能量则被转化得更为彻底，以至于我们根本看不到丝毫欲望和身体的痕迹，所有的内在推力都变得更为隐深。我想，在这个意义上，王俊的拓扑实验无疑已然迥异于——甚至超越了——塞尚等早期现代主义绘画。

---

[1] 王俊笔记，未刊稿。后同。

[2] Clement Greenberg,“Modernist Painting”,Art and Literature,no.4(Spring 1965),pp.193-201.并参见格林伯格：《前卫与庸俗》，见氏著：《艺术与文化》，沈语冰译，桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2009，第3-20页。

[3] 吴琼：《雅克·拉康：阅读你的症状》（下），北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011，第453页。

[4] 参见刘纪蕙：《心之拓扑：1895事件后的伦理重构》，台北：行人出版，2011，第16-17页。

The Topos of Beholding

 Wang Jun’s "Meta-painting" Experiment

 Lu Mingjun

As Wang Jun has repeatedly emphasized in his notes, what interests him is not the meaning that underlies a painting, but painting itself. In other words, his work is "meta-painting," or painting about painting. [1] According to Clement Greenberg, the painting of the Avant-garde concerns painting in its signification while Kitsch operates within the realm of the signified. In this sense, the former is interested in the process while the latter result. [2] Both Greenberg and Wang Jun want to advocate a return of painting to itself through its medium, such as the canvas, the easel and the qualities of the paint etc. I believe Wang's own understanding of the subject matter should serve as a foundational premise of any discussion about his work.

It is understood that Greenberg's call to return to painting itself has originated from a reflective and critical context, yet for Wang Jun, his work is unhindered by the existence of an unexamined object; what can be elucidated is that his work is more engaged in self-experiment and play rather than the pursuit of objectivity. Therefore, we do not need to place it within a totalizing time-space field.

Though concepts like "abstract" and "figurative" can no longer define or delimit many works of contemporary art, I nevertheless need to resort to them when discussing Wang Jun's work. Not that I intend to classify and position his work through the employment of these terms, but simply using them as vessels of discourse (or ways of talking about it) in approaching the paintings themselves and their internal stratifications.

There is no vestige of the grand narrative or micro-politics in Wang's work, only color, brushwork, and the image (schema)—though all images are caught in the process of referral by default. To a certain extent, I'm not entirely familiar with how Wang treated color relations during his early phase, but in his recent works he seemed to be preoccupied with the organic organization of black, white and grey. This distillation not only created a visual illusion, but also bestowed a unique, almost unnatural lighting to his work, thus setting in relief the sense of the façade intrinsic to the image. Yet, this facade is not a quality of a specific image (or of images as a whole), but the mobile planar topology constituted by the meticulous brushwork. We can see that Wang has kept variations to a minimum in his execution, thus manifesting an expansion of a flat surface in a homogeneous manner or a deconstruction of a specific image into fragments through an equalizing division. Perhaps the density and thickness of the brush work or lines are related to his earlier encounter with etching [including the influence from Gong Xian and his 积墨 (Ji Mo) technique], but these effects that resemble abstraction (which in fact are not abstractions) have also erased the façade of the painting.

In this sense, the illusion is not only achieved through color, but also in terms of formal construction (abstract/figurative). Through this dual-illusion, a unique investigation of the possibility of beholding is set in motion. Wang believes this twofold construction along with its specific orientation ultimately constitute what painting is in itself. If painting has an essence, then Wang would posit that it is the "making-appear of beholding." Yet, this making-appear does not point to a pre-established channel or entrance, on the contrary, it constitutes the very obstruction of beholding. In Wang's own words, this manifesting is an illusion of the "Xiang" (象），a "perceptual dissimulation," or a "visual utterance of a lie." Therefore, the "making-appear of beholding" is in essence an enopening exploration of the horizon rather than its regulation or limitation.

Even so, Wang Jun certainly recognizes the fact that it is not difficult for most painters to construct a visual illusion. Therefore his "meta-painting＂gears toward precisely the transcendence of illusion inherent in the way painting appears and the experimentation and questioning within different modes of beholding.

To the perceptive observer, Wang Jun's meticulous brush- work (lines and dots) appear "produced" rather than "painted." This is true, the brush work has been rendered in such punctilious manner to the extent of enervating even dissolving the painterliness (malerisch) of the brush work itself. Wang Jun is certainly aware of this fact since we see him deliberately "disrupting" the homogeneity or planarity of the image by the juxtaposition of forceful brushwork and texturing. This effected discordance makes the painting resemble an unfinished or damaged image. Yet to Wang Jun, the "disruption" of a painting's completeness precisely marks what painting is in itself. What finished works furnish us with is usually not painting itself but information or meaning that lies beyond it, the lack of completion makes the painting closer to itself. Recently we began to see even more daring attempts in Wang Jun's work, while maintaining the fragmented layering approach, he began to experiment with a way of expression that is both lavish yet controlled. We no longer perceive the existence of a specific figure or the pure abstraction that characterized some of his earlier attempts. For instance, the original abstract and planar qualities are subverted by the juxtaposition of the "finished" work with its preparatory sketch, thus with a growing sense of diversity and uncertainty a spatial construction comes to view. Ultimately, his experimentation and play can be considered as an investigation into the condition under which painting is made possible within the dimension of beholding (a dimension-less dimension to be exact).

If painting can be compared to the construction of a lie, then what fascinates Wang Jun the most is precisely this process of articulation rather than the lie as a finished result. In the series "Studies of Imitation," he employed methods of archeology in the gradual extrication and explication of painting without discarding any strata that is revealed during the process; rather, through assemblage, overlapping, and reconfiguration, a "plane" rich in textual details was constructed. Wang called it "a critical state in which beholding is obstructed." The "topos of beholding" is an investigation into the way in which painting is unlocked in its essence despite variations of form, size, linguistic style, image content, color relation, meaning etc. Similarly, the possibility of opening can only be realized in the critical state from which such topological undertaking unfolds.

Maybe this is what he means by the way of the "thing." Here the thing is the "void," the "nothing," "it" cannot be represented by other things, or more precisely, it can only represented by otherness itself. Therefore, what terms like "void" and "nothing" designate are not non-existence, but the "not" of the what is. Precisely due to this "not," "it" is only what it is as a possibility. [3] This almost liturgical methodology communicates a practice that intends to extract the self (or subjective consciousness) from the painting. To Wang Jun, one must "cast out the artist" in order to return the thing to itself, or to restitute painting. In other words, Wang wants to liberate painting from meaning or preconceptions that dominate its creation and interpretation. He says: "to dissolve meaning indicates a confusion within it, yet confusion is presupposed on the way to truth," "discarding lucidity affirms the uncertain." Yet the "uncertain (concealed, elusive and différance) are closer to truth."

At this point I want to clarify that though an intense temporal experience is conveyed through the dense surface of Wang's work, the internal unfolding of time does not in fact occupy a preeminent position in his approach. What interests him is the manner in which the process of painting unfolds rather than the consequent denomintation of the extent, strength and possible depth (of meaning) of the work.

Lacan once said that paintings with an overt social function (realism) are often designed for a specific audience, yet for Cézanne , "bits of blue, white and brown" and the "small dirty deposits" created by the movements of the brush are what is more important. It is the trace left by the artist, a seemingly causal substitute, and an invested object in the displacing of desire. Therefore, part of the artist is always consumed as the material of the work, yet it has been transformed and rendered unrecognizable during its transposition onto the canvas or discourse. [4]

Here Lacan has given painting a life. He lets us know with clarity that painting is the trace left by the artist, it is an object that we invest with vigor in the displacing of desire. Therefore, even though we are incapable of seeing or distinguishing, we still have to admit the existence of something that solely comes from the artist. Thus we cannot overlook the force that constitutes the material manifestation of the painting. Yet for Wang Jun, the transformation of this force is even more absolute to the extent that we no longer perceive any trace of desire or bodiliness, all internal forces are concealed ever more deeply. In this sense, I think Wang Jun's topological experiment has distinguished itself from---even surpassed---early modernist paintings such as the works by Cézanne.

---

[1] Unpublished notes of Wang Jun.

[2] Clement Greenberg, “Modernist Painting”, Art and Literature, no.4(Spring 1965),pp.193-201.

---. “The Avant-garde and Kitsch.” trans. Sheng Yubing. Art and Culture. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press,2009, pp.3-20

[3] 吴琼：《雅克·拉康：阅读你的症状》（下），北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011，第453页。

[4] 参见刘纪蕙：《心之拓扑：1895事件后的伦理重构》，台北：行人出版，2011，第16-17页。

English Translations: Ouyang Xiao, Jing Yuan

笔记节选（2008--2011）

2008.11.11

……最终的画面是靠近途中抛下的假面，是一个面具，是一个虚假的象，是各种漫长论证的痕迹。围猎，论证即围猎。意义已经完全不重要，被悬置，被论证掏空，画面只是一个壳，除了壳，什么都不是。山穷水尽得到的一个壳，一个幻觉，以一种实去见证虚空。

 2008．12．5

……彻底的视画面（图像）不具有内容即为我的绘画的真正内容或出发点。画面只是一个幌子，一个面具，一个虚晃一枪的影子。画面只是一具物质，只是一个物的呈现，是物本身的呈现，而物自身上的图案或痕迹对物的表达本身无关。物除了是物，物除了是艺术家本人自己特有语言表述的物外无他。

我目前的工作即是繁复地（太滥的词汇）、深思熟虑地、花言巧语地精心编织一个扑朔迷离的谎言，呈现一个虚幻的视觉游戏。

王顾左右而言他。

“他”是什么？

“他”即是一种对幻觉的直视和呈现。而幻觉，即为生活之本来面目。

 2008．12．11

回到物的存在，描绘物的存在，就如当年凡高描绘一双皮鞋，塞尚描绘一只苹果。在凡高笔下的鞋子未必就是海德格尔和夏皮罗那样对“物品”（鞋子）从属主体的追问或意义的联想。鞋子就是鞋子，一个物品而已。而，德里达从松散开来的鞋带开始怀疑海德格尔和夏皮罗对这件物品的推测也是徒劳的。因为，后者自身也陷入相同的对主体的臆想之中。就如其当年批判福柯在《癫狂史》中对笛卡尔原话的错误解读从而导致对理性的批判根基不牢一样，犯了相似的错误，即：对论点的论证方法正是论点本身所需要批判的。

或者可以说，理性只有在理性的内部才可以得到解决。用非理性去批判理性，除非找到一种真正剔除了“理性”的崭新的语言。而这，无异于自己提着自己的头发想要跳得更高一样，只是徒劳。

2008．12．13

 ……发现自己不愿与“表象的现实”、“情绪”、“感觉”这些词汇所意指的事实跳贴面舞，是一个缓慢的过程。是一次次不断擦抹的求证，一次次小心翼翼的围猎。

 不管是那双曾被反复讨论的凡高笔下的鞋子还是我们平常观看的一个苹果，所看见的是各种知识幻觉的集合还是被故意隐匿主体的视觉诱饵？或者，仅仅是作为一个可以被各种词汇做前缀所表述的“物”的存在？观看，一种视真实为最低限度的观看，长久以来依然显得那么疑虑重重。如果说基于一种直觉的观看也难以绕开那些众说纷纭的迷雾和丛林，那么，我们所观看的物已很难是“物品”本身，它可以以各种方式登场。物可以成为非物之“物”（mono），成为某种意念或精神的感知；物可以成为自身命运流转的载体，留下各种价值判断标准下被不断“塑形”的痕迹；物可以越过自身的极限，成全自我论证的闪烁的悖论词汇，成为一种隐显于在场与缺席的谎言，而所谓的“意义”，则隐蔽在这种谎言的面具之后，躲闪、腾跃、往返。被观看的一张卡片、一块砖头、一盘蚊香、一桶垃圾、一具盘子、一堆排泄物、一摞报纸、一台旧电视、一叠被涂写的杂志、一面被反复折腾的亚麻布……仅仅只是一个物？一个被悬置了具体的功用，被抽空了具体属性的物品？一个纯粹的物质的存在？诚然，卡片就是一张卡片，或者说就是一张纸，一张硬质的印制有图案或文字的具有传播功能和阅读属性的纸。艺术家的工作只是以自己的语言作对这种存在的表述。语言永远是可疑的。被表述的物已被语言所异化，所放逐，不可能重返物本身，它只是呈现艺术家个体罗生门般林林总总各执一词的表述证据。

 2009．1．3

一幅别致的画面，未必就不可能是一句精心编织的谎言。

我的绘画的核心问题是：观看。

纯然对一个物的观看。

我的绘画里的图像不代表某个具体的“意义”，我也并不谋求通过画面中的图像去“载道”或体现某种当代性。如果说作品应该体现某种时代感，那么，我对绘画的态度，我对待绘画的出发点就是我的时代感。

我的绘画是关于绘画本身的绘画。

什么是关于绘画的本质？我的答案是关于一种观看的呈现。

绘画从有史以来，就是一种工具，一种体现记录、传播、讲述的工具。画回归到自身的本体，严格说是从塞尚开始的，从塞尚开始，绘画真正的回归到对物品进行最深入观看的时期。

物象，物的象的观看与捕捉或呈现，从一开始就是因人而异的痴心妄想。对真实的找寻是推动绘画不断衍变的根本动力。一条不归路，真实永远不可企及。因为，象是不可还原的。此时观看的象已不是彼时所见之物，象是流动的，是在时间中变异的。象，本质上说一旦呈现就只能是一种幻觉。一种感觉的幻觉。

呈现，只能是呈现一种关于“象”的幻觉。

那么，物的实在呢？物的真实状态呢？

物依然在那里，但我们的感觉却无时不在变化，真实的物的状态在我们感觉中闪烁隐显，是我们对真实物象努力还原的证据，是一种渴望还原真实心理变动的痕迹。

我们不能真实的在画面上还原物象，那么，画面上涂抹绘制留下的应该是什么？是一种物象幻觉瞬间记忆的留存？一种对物象感觉记忆符号的叠加？还是罗列的自问自答的关于物象真实被捕捉的证词？然而，这是不可能真正被自圆其说的，假如我们愿意承认心理的真实胜于视觉的真实，何不妨就此承认画面的呈现仅仅就是一个幻觉，一个幻象。假如我们愿意承认变动不居的语词无法去真正准确的陈述或描述一个物的存在，那么，何不妨就此认同画面中的图像只是一个关于物的谎言。虽然，谎言未必就是虚假的。其实，承认画面是一个谎言或许会更加真实的在心理层面上去还原物象。

 2009．4．19

我所关心的并非是图象的内容，图象于我并非创造，而只取现成。“图象”只是静物的表面，是一层皮囊。那么，我的绘画则被预设为三重意义：A,对物本身的摹写；B,图象本身呈现的“意义”与只是以静物表面出场的间离；C,具象与抽象界限的模糊，即，这是一幅疑虑重重的图象。

……图片边缘隔断，随意笔触应该是对只是描绘一张图片“如其所示”的暗示，凌乱、随意的笔触既是对“表述”过程自然留下的证据，如一场口齿不清的述说，也是对一本正经地欲通过“图象”本身说事的调侃和消解。

 2009．5．4

……以一种极大的勇气把自己抛出去，在黑暗的空中挣扎、腾挪、翻转，和惯性苦苦周旋，最后在某个或迟疑、或断然、或穷途之累中嘎然而止。

我们所看见的，只是一种欲言又止、口齿不清、吞吞吐吐的表述证据。

绘画是什么？

绘画只是一种关于图象的证据，一种视觉言说的谎话。

谎言，如果按福柯对《宫蛾》的解读，那么，委拉斯凯兹在作品中到底是表达“凝视”的真实，还是流露出对“凝视”所能达到的“真实度”的怀疑。如果是怀疑，或者是基于怀疑之上的一种创作，那么，在《宫蛾》一画中观看的多重往复，观看的游离和不确定性所构成的画面，是不是就是一种关于视觉的谎言呢？倘若，是这样，那么，这种对“谎言”的描绘应该是更接近真实的。因为，这种真实不单单是眼睛所看见的客观的物象，还有心理层面上对此物象的思虑、重组。因而，就自然的附带上了形而上的思考，具有了哲学思辨的因素，所以，这种对“谎言”的承认是更接近真实的。

2009．6．21

通过对意义的消解（的过程）去靠近或抵达一种更本质的意义。

对图象本身的制造过程是在一种悖反的情景中完成的。

涂书那批作品，开始是有一种明确的针对性和意图的，但在漫长的涂书过程中，最初的意图逐渐被时间，被日常重复的动作稀释了，这是一个很有趣的过程。因为，最初清晰的意图逐渐模糊以后（或逐渐忘却以后），做这件作品的真正意义却在呈现出来，有些象岩石里浸出的水滴，缓慢，透亮。这让涂书的行为有了一种自然而空无的力量。过程是漫不经心的轻，而被放逐的意义反而重了起来。这件作品对我现今的绘画有着直接的影响。

消解意义是对意义的困惑，而困惑，是靠近真的前提。放弃明确是对不确定的肯定。而“不确定”在我看来更接近于真实。延异的、闪烁的、潜隐的。艺术不是真理，艺术是靠近真理之途发生的事件和行为。

问题是，何为真理？真理从来都是变动不居的，对“真理”问题的不断讨论恰好证明了真理本身的意义是不确定的，愈靠近愈闪躲，忽明忽灭。

 2009．8．26

我不能也无意成为一个风格主义的画家。

画面是一个现象   

是证据不断涂抹的现场

不是痕迹   是证据

上房抽梯

徒留证据

 2009．9．6

一切都是事件的衍生物

一个现场

在局部之间相互征战

一场混战后

留下的

是平静、淡然、貌不惊人的痕迹

残酷

只存留于点滴珠丝马迹之中

绘画如果还有一条生路

那

只有将作者自身抛出去

抛向无尽的黑暗深渊去自救

关键是勇气

 2010.8.25

 ……绘画在我看来是一种捕捉“象”的行动，是观看一个“象”的迷踪所留下的证据。在整个现当代艺术史上，“什么是绘画？”是一个持续至今被不断讨论的问题，从马格里特对图像的处理开始就不断有人加入讨论的行列，也持续地给出不同的方案，问题的根还是在那儿，重要的是从什么角度和用什么方式讨论问题，几十年来一直都有新的讨论方式出来体现作者思考的价值，反过来也促成问题自身的更新。我的绘画创作是从这个角度切入的。历史最本质的问题其实并没有大的改变，改变的是阐释方式和解题方式。我相信，绘画的历史其实也可看作一部视觉经验的流变史，题材和内容会随着世事而变幻、消逝，最终能留下来的还是被提炼创造出的新绘画语言，这种新语言才是浓缩作者对生活与历史思考的结晶。关于我目前的绘画语言，有两个方面是可以确定的，一方面源自我对铜版画的学习，对铜版画的喜爱至今不减，四月份我在苏格兰国家美术馆看到了一个铜版画历史上所有大师的群展，在丢勒和伦勃朗的作品前流连忘返，完全不想离去，丢勒的铜版画有种神性的高贵和严谨，只可膜拜而难以学习，而伦勃朗的作品激情澎湃但又控制在一种静穆平和的氛围中，用线纵横而精准，情感很充沛，但又很内敛，喜欢。另一方面是我对龚贤为代表的传统水墨尤其是积墨的喜爱，龚贤的绘画沉静、厚实而空灵滋润，家国的变迁和生活的苦难、政治生活和文人内心的牵绊几乎在他的作品中鲜有在形象和题材上直接的表现，而是最终凝结为他独有的用浅墨层层积绘的表达语言。龚贤异于八大和石涛，他是一个超越性的大家……

2011.4.14          

……在这个整体分们一起收进屋裂的现场里，对自身个体内部的持续反思是最重要和紧迫的。我们都容易沉迷在话语中却被话语所绑架，成为各种话语的投影。何为自己？自己在哪里？哪一处影子才是自己真的投射？光芒，只有在无尽的未知和黑暗中找寻，终其一生，成败何局虑。常常，读过书的人都喜欢高谈阔论，那些忧心忧肺慷慨的话题，但是自身的身体和话语早已南辕北辙。我们每一天都在扮演各种分们一起收进屋裂的角色，或者，置身一幕幕四分五裂的剧情，疲惫，以致麻木。虽然，在今天，“知行合一”只是一个终极的道德理想。对当年的阳明先生而言也如是。但是，不对自身分们一起收进屋裂的身心进行叩问，其他谈论都是空中楼阁，都只是在享受言说的快感。如此而已。其实，永远无法找寻到或固定着那个所谓真实的自己。成长注定是失败。

成为一个失败者，是一种幸运。

 2011.5.28         

……《卡片》至今画了十张左右，这些画实际上是将自己和现实（所观看的对象）及从自己的情绪抽离出来，成为自己的一个旁观者。我对置于一种中间状态的事物感兴趣，选择的描绘对象大多是自己生活中常见之平凡物，很多时候是形象本身的“似是而非”吸引了我，主动疏离极端单纯呈现的语言范式，相信含混可能更接近于真实。绘画有些像一个迷局或迷宫游戏，设局或观看的猜解都会有踩钢丝行走般危险和刺激的乐趣。一件绘画作品的语言实际上是一种皮相，是蒙在绘画问题上的一层膜。当语言结晶为膜的时候，一般都具有了明晰的外表，也就到了危险的时候。明确的语言容易激起观看之乐而阻碍观看之思，即是说明确的语言很可能遮住通往作者思虑的曲折缝隙，真正的缝隙。

有一些画面采用了打格分割，画完一格就遮挡住一格，尽量在过程中避免对画面整体性的预设。分格是便于局部观看并描绘。画的过程只注重每一格的局部描绘，每一格之间的差异和不适构成一个图像之间彼此观看的过程。将对象静物化，通过图像的自我质询去制造一种处于临界点的画面。我乐意制造一种图像内部的运动，同时在意观众和作品彼此观看间的会意或者误会----看与被看同构的视觉弹性。我是这样通过绘画的角度去思考什么是真实的，或者说生活的现实。我不相信眼睛看到的就是真实的，真实只是一种求证过程中的幻象。

《临摹练习》将这种图像的自我质询进一步推进。在同一个画幅里图像的自我彼此临摹，从一个笔触或局部开始。最终形成一些像电影闪回或文字倒叙一样的片段，我相信任何描绘都只是局部性的观看，整一性的叙述是失效的。临摹过程中完成一部分即用胶带纸蒙住，如此反复，始终在一种局部的描绘之中，只有到程序完成全部拆开胶带纸时才可窥全貌。最终画面实际上是三重图像的混合：元图像、对元图像进行持续临摹所刻意产生的图像、临摹过程中随意留下的笔触。这三种图像的混合制造出一种临界状态的观看障碍。

这些都不是抽象绘画。

编辑：鲍栋（2011.10.12）

Selection of Notes from 2008-2011

Wang Jun

2008．11．11

...the painting, in its final form, is a dissimilation discarded on the way of de-distancing, it is a mask, a counterfeit image, and the trace of an extended exposition, to expound is to besiege. The meaning is no longer relevant, it stands hollowed and suspended, the image is only an empty husk and nothing besides. A husk attained at the end of the journey, an illusion, a way of fathoming the void with something that "is".

2008．12．5

...The true subject matter and point of departure for my work can be described as an absolute visual (image) without content .The look is a facade, a masquerade, and the shadow of a gesture. The picture is mere material, the presencing of a thing itself, the patterns and traces that inhere in the thing have nothing to do with its expression. The thing is only itself, it is nothing but the expressible expressed in the particular language of the artist.

My present undertaking can be summarized as an elaborate (though quite clichéd), meditative and duplicitous construction of an elusive lie, or the manifestation of a dissimulating visual game.

"The lord looked to his officials and began to discuss a seemingly unrelated subject."

What is the "seemingly unrelated subject"—otherness?

The "otherness" is a confrontation and revealing of an illusion. Yet, illusion shows what life is in truth.

2008．12．11

Returning to the existence of the thing, the possibility of its portrayal, is like Van Gogh’s depiction of a pair of peasant shoes or Cézanne 's apple. Van Gogh's depiction does not necessarily correspond to Heidegger and Schapiro's thinking in which the "thing" (shoes) stands subordinate to the subject. Shoes are simply shoes, mere articles of daily use. Yet Derrida's deductions from the untied shoelaces led to an equally unfruitful suspicion of Heidegger and Schapiro's interpretation. He too was moored in the idle speculations concerning the subject. Similarly, Foucault committed the same mistake in Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason; due to a misreading of Descartes, the very foundation of his critique of reason collapsed. The point thus: One's methodology must become the object of critique intrinsic to the construction of one's thesis.

In other words, reason can only find its resolution from within. To critique reason from the irrational presupposes a language free of "reason". Yet, such efforts end in vain, like trying to jump higher by pulling on one's hair.

2008．12．13

....discovering the fact that I don't enjoy flirting with ideas of "reality of appearance," "emotion,"  and "feeling" is a gradual proceeding, it is a repeated process of verification coupled by perpetual erasure, or a vigilant besiegement that renews itself over time.

Be it the shoes by Van Gogh or the real apple we encounter in everyday life, do we in actuality perceive the synthetic unity of different perceptual delusions, the visual temptation that has intentionally concealed its subject, or the "thingly" existence attachable to any word as a prefix? Beholding—a kind of seeing that considers reality to be its bare minimum—remains distressed throughout history. If a kind of intuitive beholding finds itself incapable of bypassing the confusion engendered by everyday idle talk, then what we see can hardly be the "thing" itself, rather, it may come to presence in myriad ways. The thing can transcend its object-ness (mono), or the awareness of certain will or spiritual occurrence; the thing can also become the vessel of how fate expresses itself, leaving behind a trace that is incessantly "constructed" by standards of varying value judgments; the thing may exceed its own limitations, giving itself over to paradoxical terminologies that fulfill a reflexive exposition, becoming a deception that conceals itself in presence and absence, the so called "meaning" then conceals itself behind the dissimulating facade, it evades, leaps, goes back and forth in a circle. A card, a brick, a disc of mosquito incense, a can of trash, a pile of excrement, a stack of newspapers or scribbled magazines, an old TV set, a piece of ruffled linen...is it just a thing? An object whose function lies suspended and qualities extracted? A pure material existence? Indeed, a card is a card, or a piece of printed paper that has the function of communication and the attribute of readability. The artist's contribution is valued by its own artistic rendition of these existential qualities through an unique language.  Yet language is always susceptible to doubt. The expressed thing has already been alienated and banished by language, it can never return to the thing itself, it is only an evidence of predication that attests to the variegated opinions and pretexts circulating among the "interested" artists.

2009．1．3

An ingenious painting may also be a well constructed lie. 

The crux of my work: beholding.

The pure beholding of a thing.

The images from my paintings do not intend to convey a specific "meaning," I also don't want the images to become the "vessel of edification" or to embody a certain sense of modernity. If a work is by nature a product of its time, then my attitude toward painting, my orientation within painting itself would then constitute the conditions under which such timely production is made possible.

My work is about painting itself.

What is painting, in essence?  It is the manifestation of a mode of beholding.

Historically, painting has always been considered a tool, for recording, communicating, and narrating. Strictly speaking, the attempt to return to painting itself began with Cézanne, and through him, such a return and its parallel regard of the object were made possible.

Attempts at beholding and capturing the phenomenon in its manifest-ness have been wishful-thinking from the start. The pursuit of the real constitutes the driving force of painting, yet being a road of no return, the real is always unreachable. The image can never be restored. What we behold now is no longer the thing we have perceived, it exists in a state of temporal flux. Therefore it can only be a perceptual illusion. 

Making-appear can only manifest an appearance of what shows itself（xiang, 象).

Then what about the being of the thing? What is the thing in truth?

The thing there remains still, yet our perception of it changes constantly, the truth of the thing flashes and conceals itself in our perception, it attests to our effort in restoring the thing itself, thus it is also the trace of our desire to recapitulate an authentic psychological activity.

We can not restore the thing through painting, in this sense, what is left on the canvas after the brush has done its work? A residue of momentary impression? An overlaying of perceptual signs? A testimony of having finally captured the reality of the thing? Yet none of these possibilities seems viable, if we admit that the reality of the psyche is somehow more beingful than the reality of what we see, then why can't we consider what the painting manifests as an illusion or a phantom? If the shifting signifiers can not state or characterize the being of the thing, then an image would too be a lie about the thing. Even though lies are not necessarily fraudulent. In fact, to admit that a painting is deceptive may aid us in our restoration of the thing on the psychic level.

2009．4．19

What concerns me is not the content of the image, I do not create them but only take them as ready-mades. The "image" only constitutes the surface of what rests within itself.  It is only a husk , thus my work is preconditioned in its threefold significance: 1). the imitation of the thing itself; 2).the distancing between the "meaning" of the image and the presencing of the still-life surface; 3).the blurring of the boundaries between figurative and abstract art, in other words, an image full of misgivings.

...the picture is isolated, the casual brush work is an allusion to the "illustrative aspect" of the picture, this scattered and spontaneous gesture is, on the one hand, the evidence of a having-taken-place of "expression," like a mumbled utterance, while on the other hand, it teases and dissolves our trust in the image.

2009．5．4

...to cast out oneself with utter courage, struggling, somersaulting, turning in a vicious circle within the dark void , then suddenly stop in a moment of apprehension, decisiveness, or desperation.

All that we see is the apprehensive and stammering testimony of an expression.

What is painting?

Painting is the corroboration of the image, a kind of lie uttered by visual language.

As for deception, according to Foucault's interpretation of the "Las Meninas", we must ask what did Velázquez intend to express: the reality of the "gaze" or suspicion toward the degree of reality achievable by it? If it is about suspicion, or a kind of creation based upon it, then are not the repeated contemplation with “Las Meninas”, its wandering observation and the uncertainty of beholding itself all ultimately a visual deception? If this were so, then the depiction of this deception should be closer to the real, since this kind of reality is not only based on the objective phenomenon visible to the physical eye, but also deliberation and reconstruction of the said phenomenon on a psychological level. Thus, a metaphysical approach is embedded, gaining a certain philosophical reflection bearing the admission of "deception" to bring us closer to reality.

2009．6．21

To near or to arrive at a more essential meaning through the process of dissolving it.

The process of image production is accomplished in a paradoxical scenario.

The project "Smeared Books" began with a specific focus and intention, yet in the toiling process of production, the initial intent was gradually diluted by time and the repetitive procedure, which was a fascinating unfolding in and of itself. As the initial intention became more blurred (and eventually forgotten), the true meaning of this work began to manifest itself, like dew exuding from stones, slowly and translucently perspiring. This process has given the act of smearing a natural and uplifting strength. The process is characterized by a fortuitous levity, yet the significance of exile, in turn, assumes weight. This project has directly influenced my way of painting today.

The dissolving of meaning is itself a confusion within it, yet it is presupposed by truth. The giving up of lucidity is an affirmation of the uncertain. Yet "uncertainty" is for me much closer to the real, it is characterized by concealment, elusiveness and différance. Art is not truth, it is the event and the act that occur on the way to truth.

What is truth? Truth never shows itself in its resting within itself, the incessant discussion of "truth" precisely attests to the fact that its being is uncertain, the more one intends to enclose it the more it evades and quivers.

2009．8．26

I cannot, nor do I intend to become a mannerist painter.

Painting is a phenomenon

An arena where marks, the evidence of revising intention, reside

No traces, but evidence

Destroy the means once the end is achieved

Leave evidence, in vain

2009．9．6

Everything is a derivative phenomenon of the event.

An arena

Where the parts strive for supremacy

After the battle

What remains

are the tranquil, serene and humble traces.

Cruelty

Exists only in detail

If there is a way for painting to survive

then

The painter must throw himself

Toward the bottomless abyss, for salvation

Courage is the key

2010.8.25

...In my view, painting is a way of capturing "象" (xiang，phenomenon, image, presence). It is a beholding or examining of a certain palimpsest left by the phenomenon. In the history of contemporary art, the question "What is painting?" has persistently remained controversial. Ever since Magritte's treatment of the image, many people have joined the conversation and provided different answers, yet the question nevertheless remains, and the point is to discover the perspective and manner in which the problem may be engaged. We have seen numerous innovative ways of approaching the issue in the past decades, yet while these approaches have, on the one hand, validated the value of thinking proffered by the author, they are also simultaneous renewals of the dilemma. My work is thus the direct response to this discourse. The most essential questions have remained unaltered throughout history; what has changed, however, is the manner in which these questions are explicated and resolved. I believe the history of painting can be considered as a history of visual experience, and while its theme and content will change or even perish over time, new ways of painting and expression manifest by the author's reflection on life and history shall ultimately remain. Two things are certain about my current language of painting: one comes from my training in copperplate etching, of which my passion has never ceased. Last April I went to the National Museum of Scotland and saw an exhibition that featured almost all of the important figures from the history of etching, and I was completely mesmerized by the works of Dürer and Rembrandt. The sense of nobility and rigor inherent in Dürer 's works can only be consecrated rather than imitated. Rembrandt was able to contain his bellowing emotions within a tranquil and solemn atmosphere, with precise lines—expressive yet reticent, amicable. Another source of influence comes from traditional ink wash painting, especially Gong Xian and his "积墨" (Ji Mo, literally, “layering ink wash”) technique. Gong's painting is calm, earthy, yet spiritually lively: the momentous changes of his country, the precarity of life, political upheavals of the times and the internal conflicts of being an intellectual—all are sublimated in his unique way of self-expression through the ji mo technique. Distinguished from Ba Da and Shi Tao, Gou is a truly exceptional artist.

2011.4.14          

... At the site where the whole splits, internal reflection becomes its most pertinent and urgent. We are prone to become enmeshed in discourse such that we live only as its shadow, abducted by it. What is the "I"? Where am I? Which shadow is my true reflection? Searching for illumination from the abyss until the end. Men of letters like to engage in intellectual chatter and converse about such lofty and heart-wrenching topics, but their discourse has drifted away from the body long ago. Everyday we play a disembodied role or stumble upon disembodying scenarios, feeling enervated, even numb toward our surroundings. Though "the unity of knowing and acting" advocated by Wang Yangming is only an ethical ideal, as long as we leave our own disembodiment unexamined, all verbal formulations amount to nothing but the mere pleasure of incessant discourse. In reality, one can never find or stabilize the so-called "true self".  To grow means to fail.

Yet there is blessing in being a failure.

2011.5.28    

....I have already produced ten paintings for my series "Cards," these works embody an extraction of myself, along with my emotions, from reality, the goal is to assume the role of the spectator in relation to myself. I am interested in the state of the between, the objects depicted are common items we encounter in everyday life, most of the time it is the ambiguity of the figures that attracts me, intentionally trying to separate myself from certain linguistic paradigms that intend to exhaust the possibility of expression, I believe that the ambiguous is much closer to the real. Painting resembles a conundrum or a labyrinth, the act of encoding or decoding can only be compared with the danger and excitement of rope-walking. The language of any painting is fundamentally an appearance that conceals, it is a diaphanous membrane that covers over the questions intrinsic to painting. When language crystallizes into a membrane, the acquisition of a lucid and distinct appearance also invites in danger. Clear linguistic formulations tend to arouse the pleasure of seeing which in turn obstructs the thinking demanded by beholding, in other words, the transparency of language tends to veil the meandering creases of an artist's thinking.

Grids were applied to some of the works, once a grid was painted I would immediately cover it as a way to preclude any preemptive conditioning of the whole. Since the process was concentrated on the depiction of a definite part, the difference and discomfort between images would then constitute a process of mutual beholding among the images. By making the objects into still-lifes, I created a threshold in the self-interrogation of the image. I wanted to create a movement internal to the image while observing the comprehension or miscomprehension of the viewers as they experience the work—the visual elasticity of seeing and being seen. This is how I think about reality or the reality of daily life through the perspective of painting. I don't believe what my eye sees is real, the real is only a phantom in the process of verification.

The work entitled "Studies of Imitation" can be considered as a step further in the direction of the aforementioned self-questioning. The reciprocal imitation between images of the same frame begins with a single marking of a definite locale, as the process is continued, these semi-porous fragments gradually assume the structure of a flashback that recalls what temporally antecedes it. I believe that all depiction is ultimately a partial beholding, narration of the whole is ultimately ineffectual. In the process of imitation I chose to cover up the finished sections with tape, thus the act of painting acquired a repetitive motion that relentlessly returned to the fragmentary nature of depiction. The whole is only revealed upon removing the tape, the final product is in fact a synthesis of three layers of image: the original, the image generated by the imitation of the original, and the markings accidentally left on the canvass in the process of imitation. The synthesis of these three types of image produces a critical state in which beholding is obstructed.

Yet none of these is abstract painting.

Translation:Jing Yuan Huang

9