展览资讯
大连润鸣艺术公社展讯:逸出 —— 宋畅综合材料作品展



逸 出


—— 宋畅综合材料作品展



策 展 人 :徐小楼

艺术顾问:  艺术教育小组(张滨+叶洪图)

主办单位:  大连市美术家协会

                辽宁省青年美术家协会大连分会

                大连理工大学当代艺术研究所

                大连润鸣艺术公社


开幕时间:2019年3月30日(周六)14:00(免费参加)

展览日期:2019年3月30日-2019年4月30日(免费参观)


咨询电话:0411-83606677

展览地址:大连中山区虎滩路448号润鸣艺术公社(中南路派出所与瑞格中学之间,712路虎滩路站下车即是)

 

媒体支持:艺术国际、艺术看展app、大连日报、半岛晨报、大连晚报、艺厘米app、大连艺术咨讯(微信公共平台)、大连老外(微信公共平台)




注:观展时间为每天9:30到17:00,逢周一闭馆。




Escape


——Song Chang's Mix Media Exhibition



Curator: Xu Xiaolou

Art Consultant: 

Art Education Group (Zhang Bin + Ye Hongtu)

Organizers:  

Dalian Artist Association;

Dalian Chapter of Liaoning Youth Artist Association;

Institute of Comtemporary Art, Dalian University of Technology;

Dalian Junmei Art Commune


Opening Reception: Sat. 2019.3.30 14:00 (FREE)

Duration: 2019.3.30 - 2019.4.30 (FREE)


Tel: 0411-83606677

Add: No.448 Hutan Road Dalian (In the middle of Zhongnan Police Station and Reggae Middle School)


Media Support: Artintern.net;Yishukanzhan(app);

Daily Dalian;Peninsula Morning News;

Dalian Evening;ArtCM;Dalian Exhibition(WeChat);

Dalianlaowai(WeChat)



Opening Hours: 9:30 am - 5:00 pm (Closed on Monday)






场景及部分作品


场景一    Scene I


场景二    Scene II


文明 (局部)  综合材料    Civilization (details)  Mix media


莫比乌斯环  综合材料    Mobius  Mix media


树 (局部)  综合材料    Tree (details)  Mix media


冰山与苹果  影像装置    Icebergs and apples  Video&Installation


冰山与苹果  影像装置    Icebergs and apples  Video&Installation



部分手稿    part of sketches



部分手稿    part of sketches






创作者简介



宋 畅

1993年生于辽宁鞍山,2015年毕业于大连海事大学。现就职于大连润鸣艺术公社。曾受益于大连艺术教育小组张滨老师和叶洪图老师的指导。


Song Chang

Born in 1993 in Anshan, Liaoning. Graduated from Dalian Maritime University in 2015. Now working in Dalian Junmei Art Commune. Once tutored by Art Education Group initiated by Zhang Bin and Ye Hongtu.






超越边界的形上之象


—— 宋畅展览《逸出》序言


徐小楼




以我对宋畅的了解,让她时常沉浸其中不能自拔的,是观念、语言与实体世界之间错综而微妙的关系。在多数情况下,这种关系表现为相互冲撞、渗透,以及通过相互冲撞、渗透而达到的互为因果和互相建立。之后,会再发生新一轮的冲撞、渗透、互为因果和互相建立,循环往复、无始无终。当然,这只是一种框架性的说法,而乐趣只存在于细微处丝丝缕缕的感受和分析中。


在这个向度上,宋畅表现出的是对语言哲学和分析哲学的兴趣。而在另一个向度上,宋畅从不肯忽略的,是作为个体的人的感受性,尤其是对于人之为人的局限性的感受性。她一方面接受维特根斯坦那种丝毫不夹杂情绪色彩的语言分析方式、接受“语言编织在世界中”这一类彻底摒除个体干扰的判断,另一方面,又时常徘徊在海德格尔苍茫茫的“大地”场域中,感受“在世界之中存在”的“此在”所应该感受到的一切隐隐约约的现象学情绪:明知既不可能辨识真理、也不可能找到方向、更不可能真正把握自我,但依然要打起精神虚怀以待,以一种并没有方向感的虔诚心态等待那个就其本性而言无从认识的真理降临。


这两个方面的向度经常会同时出现在宋畅的作品中,基本可以提示出她创作的旨趣、态度和思路。如果说实存论是她作品的情绪底色,那么语言分析则是覆盖于底色之上随处可见的星星点点。对于宋畅而言,所谓现象学与分析哲学的分野似乎完全不会成为一种思路上的障碍,反而给她提供了更为充分的视野与方法。


实际上,从具体作品中我们可以看到,宋畅本来就有一种对任何概念边界都不信任的倾向。也许正是这种不信任激发了她的兴趣,让她沉入其中去仔细揣摩各种意义边界上的逸出迹象。在她的作品中,各种各样隐喻性的概念边界以不同的样貌出现,但都会呈现一个本质性的共同之处:边界两侧双方的互动与逸出。这种逸出飘忽不定,而宋畅似乎对此非常着迷。她怀着敏感的善意凝神追索着边界中各种概念或意义逸出的线索,并努力抓住转瞬即逝的感觉将其成像。与其说她想要探索边界,不如说她想探索的是意义边界的模糊性和不稳定性。或者说,她不仅想探索,而且想感受,所以她制作出这些作品,让她的感觉和判断以暧昧的实体或光影的形式呈现出来,使观者以及她自己都可以直观地去感受、或生发出新的感受。


值得一提的是,宋畅并不把自己的判断和感觉看作是结论。实存状态是如何逸出观念覆盖并重新凝结成新观念的?语言和世界之间是如何在交织状态中通过相互作用而达到和重建彼此的?个体细微而敏锐的感知觉又是如何对观念的边界再次发起冲撞的?偶然和必然有边界吗?如果有,这个边界是偶然的还是必然的?她似乎非常愿意沉浸和停留在这些漩涡里,享受思考和体会的乐趣,而不是去寻求、更不是野心勃勃想给出一些硬朗却可疑的答案。从她的作品中,我们甚至能隐约感受到一种边界扰乱的快意:对既定概念的扰乱、甚至有对自己判断的扰乱。无论是观念和语言之间、语言和物质实体之间、还是观念与世界之间,我们能看到四处漏风的边界、能看到悄无声息向对方探出的触角、还能看到时而互相撩拨、时而互相僭越的关系。显然,宋畅并没有想把这些关系引向任何一个既定的方向,而是在尝试呈现各种可能性。


有着无尽可能性的议题往往就是些无始无终的议题,对于这些无始无终的议题,我们谁都别指望着会有个终极结论。维特根斯坦曾凛冽地指导我们:能说的要说清楚,说不清楚的干脆就别说。可是对于永远没有办法切断感受和停止思考的人类而言,保持沉默可能才是最大的难题。那么也许,用非文字语言的形式来言说,就是另外一种选择。比如,以成像的形式。形而上学也许是人类本性中的一种,但语言本身的局限性以及意义的不断自由逸出会造成巨大的困难,导致一切以语言表达的形而上学最后会倾向于成为自身所必须突破的壁垒。当然,形而上学就其本性而言,无论用语言表达还是用形象表达,都会存在相当的困难。但我相信,如同语言在世界之中存在并或明或暗地成就世界那样,形象也在世界之中存在并或明或暗地成就世界。这作为一个专门的议题并没有出现在宋畅的展览中,但她的作品形式正是对这种思路的实践。实际上,在宋畅的展览中我们发现,即便是语言和形象的分野也已经被她弱化了。语言时常会作为一种形象出现,而形象的辅助性语言也俯拾皆是,语言和形象仿佛也逸出了自身,互溶进了彼此。也许对她而言,只要能帮助她充分感受和表达,一切分野和边界都不再是问题了。


用另外一个视角来看,作为被抛于世界之中的个体,我们既没有办法选择被抛的路径,也没有办法选择我们所能够拥有的感受世界的触角。喜欢或不喜欢,也许唯一能做的,就是混迹和胶着于世界中,凭借我们仅有的被给予的触角去感受,然后将我们的感受以我们所能呈现的方式表达出来。无论如何,人的感受性才是真正的桥梁,如果失去这个桥梁,世界将不再通向任何一方,而一切意义也将四散而去。假如我们真的能够将自身种种微妙的感觉带入到对世界及意义的理解中,并用这种理解去触及和扰动所有现存的观念边界,那么是否可以说,我们沉重的肉身也是在凭借着一点点空灵的力量、实现了某种意义上的逸出?


作为一个初涉艺术的年轻人,宋畅选择的起点有点高。我想说,愿她始终能够保持超越边界的心态,随心走在喜欢的路上。







作 品 自 述


宋 畅



从日常思考谈起吧。某天浇花时,我发现一盆原本疯狂繁殖的植物因为在花盆内长得过于繁密而停止结籽了,我忽然意识到植物看似没有思考,但也有其完善的逻辑。当环境改变,生存策略即随之变化。


类似的节律处处都找得到。近现代人类在生命技术上成绩斐然,旨在抹杀疾病和实现永生;可同时,负面新闻却频频提示出新的担忧:“方兴未艾的不婚不育世代”,“西方男性精子浓度持续下降”,以及“逐年增长的抑郁症自杀人数”…… 表面上技术越来越能掌握生命,可生命涌现与消亡的博弈却通过另一些途径迂回着进行。面对种种新问题的人类,还如过去面对流行疾病一般,没有决定权。在这场博弈背后,那个 “栽种” 人类的隐秘的“花盆” 之边界仿佛若隐若现。


诚然,人类的认知力在提升,研究领域越来越细密丰富,与世界关联的方式也藉由数学、科学而实质性地改进。但世界仍是人类知觉以及知觉活动内的世界,丰富驳杂的信息中总能提取出难以把握的事物或事物网,其背后似乎氤氲着一股人类无法经验的“节律”,像海德格尔所指的“大地”一样,仿佛“神秘的、灵知的混沌之音”(伽达默尔《艺术作品的本源》导论,李安节译),又类似于赫拉克利特的逻各斯——变化之几微,“运行”在人类认知世界的背后。





应该说这一系列装置都是对那个节律亦即“混沌之音”的追索。有些是对逻辑和规则的挑逗,如《莫比乌斯环》和《三只烟的距离》,有些尝试呈现出人之“被遮蔽”的状态,如《文明》和《个体》。《日晷》和《树》则是关于不确定性和超验事物的主观臆想。


虽然海德格尔解释无蔽时称,去蔽与遮蔽总是相互对立又必然相互共属,以及就艺术作品谈及“世界与大地、涌现与隐匿的争执”(伽达默尔《艺术作品的本源》导论,李安节译),但这些仿佛又陷入了逻辑的漩涡和语言的泥沼。


思考总是藉由语言发生,因此作为“有所思考”的人终归脆弱和局限。反观植物和动物,因无所思而显示出某种“坚定”。它们虽不言说,但仍有各自存在的节律;虽不思考真理,但真理似乎在其作为整体的存在之趋势上不言自明。可以说,真理指导其存在,同时显示于存在,但存在不能“看见”真理。


通过人理解动植物的眼光,我们应该可以“向外”推想出一个场域,类似于海德格尔的大地,但当然,大地的形象只是隐喻。它处在人的思考之外,也是语言所涉及不到的地方。对于装置《日晷》、《文明》和《个体》而言,装置之内即是人所理解的世界,而装置之外,观者所站的位置就是这片场域,而人的世界正处在这个场域之中。日常的我们是这些装置之中的小小一点:在《日晷》中我们期待事件发生;在《文明》中我们探求各科学和文化领域的结构和方法,创造规则和信仰;在《个体》中我们也在其中寻求着大地,但在我们与大地之间有一个边界,这个边界是文明。


这里的文明包涵三个部分:人类的感知觉、语言以及建立在感知觉和语言之上的逻辑思维。


首先,语言是被人使用的,因此语言注定是“世界”之内的。无论天文数学中的语言还是哲学文献中的语言,都在“被使用”的局限中。在使用中语言总已经被假定了。如柏拉图的《智者篇》中说:“显然当你们使用『存在』这个字的时候,你们早已对你们本来所想的内容了如指掌。但是我们则以为,我们尽管已经对它有所领悟,可是现在我们却陷入了尴尬的困境。”


语言的产生和演化基于人类的感官,而人类使用语言的同时,思想又受到语言的模塑。在感知觉与语言的反复促进演化中,今天的文明才逐渐形成。


每个时代新生的人都没有机会重历语言的发展史,而是一出生就被教授既定的语言,再用语言学习知识。于是打从一开始,长了腿的平面就“是”桌子,两个空间的连通处的可活动的硬板就“叫”门。在人与大地——即那个真理性场域之间形成了一个由语言编织的生硬的文明的“边界”,即装置《个体》中的镜片所形成的边界。


在这个文明边界中人类通常的做法是:首先通过感官感知世界,然后使用符号指示世界,其中尤其发展了语言符号用以解释世界,最后人想藉由语言反身解释自己。这也可以解释为什么在文明史上自我与个体概念的兴起经过了长时间的酝酿。借用德国哲学人类学家盖伦的话说,“人类以一种迂回的方式,在自身外化中重新发现自己。”  而这些迂回也好,对自己的重新发现也好,都发生在这个文明的边界中。大多数时候,人类活动既触不及“内在本质”(球体的空心),也达不到“外部真理”(装置外部的空间包括观者)。


这个边界是最复杂的地方,直到今天人类还在其中不断地“创造”和“编织”,使其更加复杂。人类运用“思想的”手段越多,与真理性场域的隔离就越难以“挽回”。伴随着文明的日益深固,人的思想就从“大地”中脱落了。因此文明就是人何以遗忘自己的存在,甚至遗忘自己对存在的遗忘。


人类的“创造”与“编织”总是藉由感知觉和语言完成的,文明的大厦无论多么宏伟,追根溯源还是从感知觉和语言中拔地而起。感知觉与语言的局限性无论被现今丰富热闹的世界掩藏得多深,文明的大厦始终轻轻摇晃着。摇晃的原因大概是盖伦所说的“人的内在性”,“这种内在性已强大到足以感觉到社会生活世界的事物化和组织化是一种苛求和「非真理性」。最后,忍受着内在性的分裂之苦的人还是顺从了不可避免性,人想通过文明来卸去自己人生此在的负担--尽管他同时感觉到了自身的失落。”


所以我在装置《文明》的脚边放了一张手写的《规则》,其中荒诞的因果逻辑满可以和现今世界中的其他规矩一样理所应当,也就是说站在大地之中、世界之外的去蔽的人应该看出,这篇《规则》和世界文明中的那些规则是一样的,例如出入境的手续、身份的证明、银行存款的办理流程、象棋的玩法以及任何比赛的评选方式......反过来说,人类文明同这篇《规则》一样是个小游戏,说它荒诞即荒诞,称赞其合理它便合理。


“人想通过文明来卸去人生此在的负担”——不是个人觉察到有种“赤裸裸”的本真存在时产生“畏惧”,为了遮蔽而将文明加诸己身,而是整个人类的文明演进显示出这个景象。所以我想借助这些装置对存在被遮蔽的景象有所揭示。


我将《个体》和《文明》看作存在的标本。《个体》更像一个即时状态,《文明》则是文明演化的形而上状态的具象化场景,即文明如何从一片真理性场域中“生长”出来。





前面说到感知觉和语言都是遮蔽存在的因素,那么这些装置能在什么程度上弱化感知觉和语言呢?在这一点上我是悲观的,甚至不会有这种野心。《日晷》和《树》都只是对感知觉的扰乱罢了。如果有那种野心,只会使一个落得无聊,一个显得荒诞。


在《日晷》中我用烛火象征事件,事件的发生和再发生都被投入到不确定中去,然后期望着观者在一种期待的、召唤的情绪中,同时也体味失落,用情绪照见日常感知之外的可能性,即“事件未发生”,那一片庞然的虚无。这种期待的、召唤的情绪,如果有,应是来自对逻辑的需要,以及判断的冲动。然而大概率上,这个装置呈现的只是地上的光环随着烛火缓慢移动,时间只是流逝,没有发生任何实质的改变。烛火可以指代任何发生的事件,因此球体之外仍然可以视作人类无法经验的真理性场域,观者仍然站在“大地”之中。


《树》虽然想要探讨物的力量,但十分主观。我将物的时空力量直白地标记出来,并且将树枝与萎缩的气球发生冲突时,所显示的强弱之分归结为物的情绪。只能说这种展现方式并没有欺骗性质,而是我在日常观察事物时的真实感受,希望物在存在中显示出的强硬态度、生的欲望、悲伤的情绪或软懦的性格能获得注意。


如果《树》是人的主体性的滥用,是文明对物的过度阐释,那么它也不难引申出文明造成的另一后果,即人对自身物性的遗忘。文化对人的过度包裹使人在精神上悬隔。这种悬隔不是指本真存在被遮蔽,而是人几乎忘记了自己与自然世界的关系——即人始终作为物质参与在世界物质的大循环之中。如果有真理,人和物至少同在真理之中。如果不回想起人与物的关系,对真理的探求就更难。


《冰山与苹果》的影像装置所要指涉的就是物的共融状态。我试着思考人日常对物的界定,对物的界定同时指示出物的相关联。但事实上,物的相关恐怕是极其复杂的,许多因素因为过于微小而被人有意忽略了。这种忽略某种程度上局限了人的时空观。就像蝴蝶扇动翅膀引发海啸,事物之间都存在着关联,只是大多没有明显的或“有意义”的现象,于是这些关联不会被纳入人类逻辑。但如果全部考虑进去呢?事物或许就有了另一种定义和划分,人类的时空观也可能随之改变。因此,《冰山与苹果》正是对事物无限交织、彼此融合的想象。手头熟悉的苹果,人迹罕至的冰川,不惮猜想,它们也通过无数个人类难以言明和计量的环节关联着。这种关联几乎可以超越时间和空间的束缚,届时人对世界的认识应当是:冰山的坍塌是苹果之生命的花纹,冰山是苹果存在的边界;反之,21世纪的一颗苹果也是公元前某次冰山坍塌事件的遥远的回音。





能弱化感知觉和代替语言的艺术作品——这种想法是虚妄的,毕竟物性的东西是被给予感官的,至于语言,我们又如何能停止思考?


在作品之外又做如上赘述,是想稍微澄清这些物的各自所指,并说明我是以什么 “身份”、“位置” 或 “情绪” 制作它们。当然,这些物的所指未必是单一的,连我自己对它们的解读也会在新的阅读和思考中发生游移,使整个装置呈现出另一层意思。所以这样看来,它们是凭借着含糊、简单的形象成为了我的思考模具。







BOUNDLESS CONCEPT OVER OBJECT



Surface for Song Chang’s exhibition < Escape >




Xu Xiaolou






As far as I know about her, Song has been so much obsessed in the relations between concept, language and the entity world, which are subtle and intricate. Mostly, the relations are shown as an endless circulation, in which they collide, permeate into each other and interact in a reciprocal causation to promote each other, and such a process just happens over and over again. The sentence seems so framed though, the subtle feeling and carefully analyzing of each specific detail can be really lots of fun.


When thinking about these questions, Song has gradually become interested in the linguistic philosophy and analytic philosophy, but at the same time she has never given up her individual and perceptual feelings, especially which of human’s limit. On one hand, she does pursue a Wittgenstein-style analysis on language, quite approves of his saying of “language is intertwined with world”, and can put aside all her personal sentiment meantime. On the other hand, she also has her mind wandering around the boundless field named “Earth” by Heidegger, with all the vague and subtle phenomenology mood a “Dasein” could have when “being-in-the-world”. Even knowing that truth can never be identified, knowing that there’s no clear direction towards truth, as well as knowing that one can never truly grasp oneself, she is still attempting to get close to the unknowable truth, modestly, devotedly and energetically.


The two dimensions above frequently appear together in Song’s works, which could give us a hint about her purports and attitudes. We could see that upon a sentimental background of existentialism, linguistic analysis is also being used everywhere. A common divergence between phenomenology and analytic philosophy seems have never impeded her thinking, and instead of which, she has gained a even broader horizon and more sufficient methods with using them both.


Actually, through her works we could find that Song has always been in a tendency of distrust about any conceptual boundary, and maybe it’s the distrust what has inspired her so much to carefully figure out the escaping moments happened at those meaningful boundaries. In her works there are many kinds of metaphorical boundary of concepts which appear in different shapes but with a common essence: both sides of the boundary are somehow interacting and escaping into each other. The escaping seems sort of erratic, but Song is so fascinated right with this. She keeps following the clues of any conceptual or meaningful escape, absorbedly and sensitively, and trying to grasp her instant feelings to make these images. Compared with the boundaries, I would rather say she’s more interested in the fuzziness and instability of the boundaries. Furthermore, she uses  these ambiguous objects along with the drifting shadows, to present her subtle feelings and judgements accordingly. She is, in this way, letting herself as well as the audience to feel it directly, and during which there might be more feelings to be noticed.


One specific point is, Song has not announced any of her views or feelings as a final conclusion. How does an entity escape out of the cover of concept and rebuild a new concept? How could language and world interact with each other, reach to and reconstitute each other? How does the subtle sense and perception of individual collide with the conceptual boundary once again? Is there a boundary between contingency and inevitability? If there is, the boundary itself is contingent or inevitable? Song seems so glad to be immersed in these uncertainties, enjoying the process of thinking and feeling, rather than ambitiously seeking some answer firm but doubtful. Through her works, we could even feel her crazily enjoyment of perturbing the fixed concepts and even her own cognition. Between concept and language, language and tangible entity, as well as concept and world, we could see the leaked boundaries, the tentacles lightly stretched out into each other, the relations of mutually stirring and invading into each other… All these details in her works are obviously indicating that Song just wants to present the possibilities but has no attempt to sum them up for any conclusion. 


A subject with endless possibilities will be talked about permanently and nobody is able to find the ultimate truth. Wittgenstein has precisely pointed it out that “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. But keeping silent, that’s probably the most difficult for human, who could never turn off their sense and thinking. In this situation, a non-verbal utterance might be another choice, for example of image. If metaphysic is a human nature anyhow, the utterance by language yet has always eventually become a barrier against itself, due to the limit of language and the unstoppable escape of meanings. Undoubtedly, metaphysic is hard to explain whether by language or by image, but I believe that image can have the same influence on the world as language does, which means they are both in-the-world and both constructing and defining the world. Song hasn’t got any particular work talking about this, i.e. the power of image, but the form of her works can be taken as a practice relating to this discussion. In fact, even the divergence between language and image has been weakened around her works. Language frequently appears as an image while image also appears as a helping language. Language and image are escaping from themselves into each other. Probably there’s no divergence or boundaries which can frustrate her from feeling and expressing.


From another perspective, however, as an individual thrown into the world, we could neither decide how to be thrown, nor choose the sense or perception ability for ourselves. Whether like it or not, we may only live with the given ability, express through the restricted possibilities, and just drift abandonedly amidst the world. The given perceptibility with sensibility is our only way to the world, without which world can just disappear from us and meanings will cease. If really could we insert these subtle and personal feelings into the comprehension of world and meaning, then reach to and perturb the already-set conceptual boundaries using this comprehension, have we, to some degree, made an escape out of this burdensome body through a little spiritual and preternatural power already? 


As a newcomer into art, Song has started up from a high origin. I wish her a constant attitude of surpassing the boundaries, and following her heart to anywhere she likes.






Preface by Song Chang




To start from a daily thinking. One day when I was watering flowers, I found a pot plant who used to be aggressively spreading its seeds had stopped seeding, probably due to the over-crowded living space in the flowerpot. That has given me a hint that even a plant could have its complete logic. While the environment is changing, plants might not think but adjust themselves.


The similar rhythm can be found here and there. Modern humans have been aiming at disease control and immortalization, but new worries keep coming out when we’ve truly got some achievements, such as: Declining marriage rate, Increasing suicide number and Male Infertility Crisis describing the rapid decrease in sperm quality… Seemingly have human got a control over life while a higher rule is circuitously controlling human somehow. Human can yet do nothing about these modern troubles just the same as decades of years ago when we couldn’t do anything about those epidemics. We could say the flower pot in which human beings are being planted is gleaming.


Surely, human’s cognition is being promoted and scientific research is being refined more and more. The way that human connect to the world has been substantially changed thanks to science and mathematics. However, "world" is always a world in human’s perception and cognition. There is always something or some series of events out of human’s grasp, behind which there seems to be a transcendental rhythm. It’s like Martin Heidegger’s Earth, a mysterious and esoteric rhythm of chaos, or similar as Logos by Heraclitus, the account which governs everything outside human’s intelligence.



/



I consider these installations or videos as a step towards the rhythm or the "law" behind. Some are tricks with logic and regulation, for example of <Mobius band> and <Three cigarettes away>. Some are trying to show human’s state of concealment, such as <Civilization> and <Individual entity>. As for <Sundial> and <Tree>, they are rather like a subjective surmise over uncertainty and transcendence.


Although Heidegger had given an explanation that concealment and unconcealment always opposite each other in dependency, and had led us to the struggle set up by art between "World" and "Earth", "Aufgang" and "Bergung", these efforts anyway seems to have been caught in a logic and language predicament.


Since we are the beings who think only through language, we will meet this predicament or limitation some time or other. But on the contrary, plants and animals could show more implicity for no "thinking". They don’t think or talk, merely live their rhythm and reflect it by living. From our perspective, they are governed by a so-called truth and reflecting it out at the same time, but they just cannot "see" the truth.


Now referring to our perspective over plants and animals, we may also imagine a field over us which is similar as Heidegger’s Earth, something like “the background against which every meaningful 'worlding’ emerges”, but ‘It is outside (unintelligible to) the ready-to-hand.’ As for <Sundial>, <Civilization> or <Individual entity>, the installation itself can be considered as "World" which is intelligible by human beings, while the space outside, where the audience are standing, is Earth. Usually, human just active amid theses installations. In <Sundial> is human expecting the to-happen to happen. In <Civilization> can we see the frameworks and methods created for culture or science study and the regulations and beliefs built for whatever reasons. In <Individual entity> , humans are also involved inside and dreaming for Earth. Yet there is a boundary between Earth and World, which has kept the Earth away from human, and the boundary, as far as I concerned, is Civilization.


Here I use civilization indicating the three of bellowing: Human’s Sensory Perception, Language, and Logical Thinking basis on the two above.


First, language is used to describe the world so that it’s anyway Inside "World", whether language of mathematical astronomy or that of philosophy works. Language has always been taken as understood before suspected, as Plato says in <Sophist>: Every time saying the word "being", you’ve obviously understood what it means. As far as we concerned, however, even with some comprehension already, we’ve been trapped into an awkward situation.


It’s known that language derives from human’s sense organ. At the same time, it also keeps molding back how human think. So that sensory perception and language promote each other and has finally made up the civilization of today.


The fact is nobody can go over how language has formed step by step, before given the sound which has been already decided. Then by language, he learns knowledge, in which a flat with legs is "named" as Table and a pushable hard board between two separated spaces to be "called" Door. In this way has a boundary of civilization stiffly weaved by language formed between human’s daily world and Earth, i.e. the field of truth.


What does human commonly do within this boundary? Firstly, they sense and perceive the world by sense organs; then they use signs to indicate the world, among which the lansign specially developed to explain the world; finally human returns to themselves trying to explain their being with language. This could also be a hint why the popularity of Self and Individual culture had been waiting for so long.

 As the German philosopher and anthropologist Arnold Gehlen said that it was circuitous that human realized themselves through the exteriorization of themselves. But in my view, whether the circuitous way Gehlen indicated or human’s activity of learning about selves, is happening within the boundary of civilization, which I mean that almost never could human’s researching activity really get to his essence (the inner of the sphere) or the truth over the world (space outside the sphere).


I would say the boundary is the most complicated place, inside which humans still keep "creating" and "weaving" (what I say, a net of concepts) to worsen the complication. The more human "think" and "study", the farer that truth keeps human away. Along with the prosperity of civilization, human has thoroughly exiled their mind away from Earth. So that civilization is what causes the oblivion of self existence, as well as an oblivion of the oblivion.


Since human’s "creating" and "weaving" always go through sense, perception and language, we could say that civilization, no matter how magnificent it is, derives from sense organ and language primarily. Even though the limitation of sense, perception and language is concealed by busy life, things can time to time vibrate over our habitual cognition. That’s probably because of the "internality", about which Gehlen said, it is strong enough to make human aware of the Versachlichung and systematization in society being excessive and being a non-truth (Unwahrheit). But even in awareness, human still have to follow the social life and try to forget about his essential existence through civilization, though he can also realize himself of being lost time to time. In this process they can be suffering from an inner disintegration. 


So, that’s what I want to indicate by leaving a handwriting "Rule" at the corner of <Civilization>. The absurd logic in it can be totally as reasonable as those we are familiar with nowadays. That means this piece of rule is merely the same as those already in the civilization, such as the customs formality, identification paper, procedures of bank deposits, laws of chess or any other regulations of a contest or rewards, and we can also say the civilization is merely a game as this handwriting rule. It’s we who define it as reasonable or unreasonable, and I wish the audience who stand outside <Civilization> and right in Earth, can understand more easily.


Gehlen’s saying as "Human trying to forget about his essential existence through civilization", in my opinion, might not be that an individual decides to "put on" the civilization to cover a suspensive existence of himself. That saying is more likely to be a view over the whole evolution of civilization. These installation works are just attempting to show this overall view.


I’d like to describe <Individual entity> and <Civilization> as specimen of Being. <Individual> is more like a momentary status while <Civilization> is like a concrete image of a metaphysical process of evolution.



/



As mentioned above, sense, perception and language are what conceal the being, then how much can these installations weaken an audience’s inherent sense, perception and his impulsion of using language to explain? My answer will be negative and in this exhibition there is even no such attempt. <Sundial> and <Tree> are merely disordering the usual human sense and perception. They would become really boring and absurd if I have overestimated them of having such power.


In <Sundial> every burning candle symbolizes a happening and the next happening is totally thrown into uncertainties. The audience is supposed to watch in an expectative and summoning mood which is more likely to be ended in disappointment. Along with this disappointment, the possibilities normally to have been neglected by human’s daily sense and perception, i.e. the phenomenon out of facticity, now ought to be encountered. That’s a humongous space of nothingness, in which nothing has happened for human. This so-called mood of expectative and summoning, if there really is, should be considered as audience’s demand for logic and the impulsion of judgement. Yet as I said, in most of the possibilities nothing would have materially happened, while a light ring from the only burning candle poorly moving around as time goes by. From my perspective, the burning candle can represents any happening within human’s cognition, so that the space outside the acrylic ball, where audience are standing is Earth, the unintelligible field of truth.


<Tree> is a very subjective attempt on showing the power of Things, in which I simply marked out the space-time power of things by transparent balloons. What’s more, the balloons will shrink when time passing away and gradually become an external force against those branches. At those moments, the branches will have shown out their power, whether strong or weak, which I consider as the mood of things. This is not a spurious trick but a sincere and sentimental expression of my daily feeling. I wish those lively beings whoever is revealing a tough attitude or a wish to survive, emotion of sorrow or a tender nature, would be seriously noticed.


If <Tree> is human’s abuse of subjectivity and an over interpretation of things via civilization, another fact would also be revealed, which is human’s forgetting about their own Thingness. Human are too much enclosed by civilization that their mind has been suspended. This doesn’t mean the authentic existence being concealed, but an overlook of their physical relationship with the natural material world. The fact is: human are always being involved in the general circulation of this material world, as a thing. So that if there’s truth, human and things must be together involved in it. We can hardly get to truth before we recall the relationship between human and things.


Accordingly, I have the video installation <Icebergs and apples> to disclose the correlation between things. I’m suspicious of the usual demarcation and definition of things. Actually when we are trying to demarcate them, their correlation has become obvious at the same time, which can be much too complicated for human to have all the minor factors taken in. However, the ignorance of those minor factors, to some degree, has modified human’s idea on time-space. We all know the "Butterfly Effect" saying that a very small difference can make a significant difference elsewhere or at some later time. It’s in this way, as I concerned, things are correlated. But most of the correlations which has not produced a visible or influential effect on human, as what tsunami has done, are kicked out of human’s logical thinking. So, what if we have all the factors taken in? Will that bring us a totally different demarcation and definition of things and a new idea of time-space accordingly? Then I had the idea of <Icebergs and apples> as an suppositional present of the fusion of things and their interweaving into each other. Apple, a typical thing of daily life, and iceberg which is far from daily life may also be correlated with each other through many immeasurable or unintelligible links. This kind of correlation can overcome the restriction by common idea of time-space and lead us to such a visual angle: the disintegration of icebergs is the apples’ natural pattern, which means the case of disintegration is involved in apples’ being so that the icebergs are apples’ real boundary (I’m not talking about metaphysic but about physic); while on the other hand, an apple here in the 21st century can also be defined as a remote echo of a prehistorical icebergs’ disintegration.



/



Will there be any artworks possible to weaken human’s sense, perception or replace language? I’m afraid that’s fallacious because a thing is always and only perceived by physical organs, and thinking always or maybe only happens through language.


Though so much explanations are given above, the works themselves are definitely more than this. I’m just trying to make it clear that who I was supposing myself to be, which perspective I was thinking from, and what mood I was in when making these installations. Yet of course, the explanations of those things are not unique or fixed. Even for myself, the meaning of each part can be time to time changing along with the latest thinking and study, which can give the whole installation a totally different meaning. So I would rather consider these vague and simple images as my thinking molds.






大连润鸣艺术公社

开馆时间:9:30-17:30    周一闭馆
ADD.大连市中山区虎滩路448号(中南路派出所与瑞格中学之间)
TEL.0411-83606677 13841150656
EMAIL:junmeiart@sina.com 辽ICP备12880588号