The Zhu Wei Phenomenon

Li Xiaoshan

There are some special artists that receive a cool reception from art critics and conversely there are artists that become the elite with the aid of art critics. This phenomenon is especially evident in the case of Zhu Wei. If the critics analyzed art more closely with respect to the different kinds of inspiration behind the artwork then Zhu Wei would stand out as one of the leading artists of his time. His work instantly caught the attention of the audience at The First Guangzhou Triennale. which was organized by Pang De and this writer last year (2002). This indicates that Zhu Wei is also an artist of high caliber just like his avant-garde contemporaries, and even insofar as his restrained yet suggestive quality is more moving.

Zhu Wei and I have not known each other for a long time. I was so impressed when I first took a glance at his work two or three years ago. The question that arose in my mind as I encountered his work was: why was I not already aware of this work of such high standard and unique style? Either it was because I was not paying attention or Zhu Wei chose to remain incognito. There are few celebrated artists in the clique of contemporary Chinese art who are modest about themselves. As they work their way into the ranks of renowned artists, they have mastered a set of strategies to navigate all sides skillfully. In fact, both in China and in other countries, when discussing high art, judgments are closely tied to strategy and a series of effective maneuvers. In this age of information, practically speaking, an artist depends upon the attention of critics and curators to interpret their art for the public audience, otherwise few will see or understand the work itself.

Zhu Wei primarily employs the traditional method of Chinese brush painting to create his work. In this he and I disagree, as I do not feel that an artist should be restricted to a specific medium, even if the medium is said to characterize the culture. I disapprove of the existing concepts that lay quietly within the tradition. It is obvious that there has been much dispute about the concept of "Chinese art" over the last century, disregarding the relevancy of the term "Chinese art" to represent Chinese culture. I firmly believe that being obsessed with a specific concept is certainly not the key factor to ignite one's passion towards artistic creation. It is evident in Zhu Wei that his work is much more compelling when compared to his discussion of the work. In other words, his work already surpasses the concepts or thoughts he is attempting to express.

Nevertheless, categories set by the concepts have influenced art interpretation. Modernists would say that it is essential to work within the confines of a concept in order to provide the basis to stand opposite the tradition. For Postmodernists, on the other hand, they theorize situations as fluid and unpredictable, that schemes which categorize things into levels should be demolished. Of course, the best way for things in their perfect condition is to be guided naturally according to circumstances, otherwise it would only result in ridiculing oneself by overreacting. In other words, not that it makes much difference to the artists whether it is definite to defend the concept of "Chinese art." From the late nineteenth century to the twentieth century, it is clear that the development of "Chinese art" was moving from monism to pluralism, where the diverse artistic directions assist in breaking down the existing boundaries set by tradition. In an effort to break with tradition and create a new direction for postmodern art in China, some artists and critics have borrowed ideas indiscriminately from external sources; the so-called “revival of the glory of Chinese painting” is rooted in this kind of utopian fantasy.

In encountered quite a number of theorists, critics and officials once at a symposium, they were talking about the responsibility of Chinese artists to develop Chinese art. I myself disagree with such an absurd request, since it is unimaginable that an artist could come up with anything good from this world of illusion and emptiness. During the Mao period, artists by order of Mao had to work for the government, the people, the peasants and the soldiers, losing their individualistic quality and creative license. How can art exist in such a setting? Are artists in China destined for such a burden? In fact, those pretentious people could not even accurately discuss modern Chinese art to such an embarrassing degree and sought to cover it up by delivering unsubstantial speeches about the root of the culture and the special elements of Chinese painting. From my point of view, it is not necessary to vigorously debate and discuss something that has a life of its own. By the time people are shouting themselves hoarse about “revival”, the problem has already solidified into an irreversible fact. Outstanding artists never find inspiration from the idea of “revival”. It is obvious that a superb artist is considered superb because of his natural endowment and passion for art. He would never produce high quality work merely due to the mission of developing art for his fellows.

Zhu Wei is undoubtedly born with talents yet, at times; his introverted character may have limited him. Theoretically, he should have been recognized earlier and by more people since the feeling or mood evoked from his work is so impressive. When compared with his other avant-garde contemporaries, Zhu Wei is more qualified to represent the concepts and trends in Chinese art, especially in this time of globalization. Zhu Wei and I once discussed that it is difficult to predict situations. An artist may not be recognized during his lifetime but may be highly regarded by later generations. In this time where utilitarianism overshadows everything, and anything goes; works of every shape, color and concept are represented together. In this multifarious world, it is difficult for the audience to discern who is exceptional. Therefore sometimes Zhu Wei's art may only flash past the audience, even though they are actually very outstanding works. This situation is also encountered by some of the other artists as well.

The key to Zhu Wei's excellence in art is his work breaks through this insistence on the concept of “Chinese art." In practice, Zhu Wei manipulates this traditional medium successfully to create modern art. When he makes utmost efforts to defend a particular concept, he breaks down the existing frames and goes beyond them, reacquiring a brand new style to express his ideas. Audiences would find from the Zhu Wei paintings, figures that are not living in reality but are symbolized instead. Either depicted with weird smile, or stony expression, these figures are a group of people losing their self-identities. No longer is the actual subject matter important, what is essential for contemporary artists to realize is importance of extracting the quintessence out of the actual scenes and transferring it into their own frames. Although nearly every artist does undergo this process, not every one of them succeeds in doing it well. This process of transferring the essence is a double-edged sword, if done poorly one can really get hurt, but it must be done. Just look at some of the famous artists who become trapped in the quagmire of schema and cannot escape and the essence of what they are trying to convey becomes lost in the work. However, it is also a total failure for an artist not to undergo a process of selecting a form of presentation and a concept when he creates, resulting in work that is easily forgotten among the works of many other artists.

Zhu Wei’s schemata possess a certain degree of openness, which relates to his distinctive approach in technique, mechanism, color, and form. More importantly, he closely adheres to his themes and expresses them with considerable flexibility. From his subject matter of cynical politics to the daily life of people, Zhu Wei is able to get hold of the sense of the basic ideas by using explicit ways of expression. If one just looks at the external appearance of his work, it may seem to have been linked to the popular styles that are widely accepted nowadays. However, as a matter of fact, it is praiseworthy that Zhu Wei has no intention of being included in the clique of Political Pop artists. He can stand firmly outside the trend but at the same time does not drop behind the avant-garde. That is why I dare say that Zhu Wei's art would be recognized as time goes by, even though at present he has not been widely recorded by the prominent art critics.

Many artists experience a stagnation phase following a creative peak; ups and downs are part of the natural order. After his continuous endeavors, it is time for Zhu Wei to consider what will be his next step. I admit that it is not a must for all artists to keep challenging themselves, and in fact many artists that I know are satisfied with their present conditions. But for a talented artist such as Zhu Wei, striving for excellence is an enduring process. Zhu Wei has already carried out the question that he is going to solve. “How can he push his art further when his artistic concepts and techniques are relatively static?”

I insist that with regards to artistic creation that it is the natural duty of an artist rather than an art critic. No one can give any direction as to the content or creation of an artist's work. As critics we are part of the appreciation and discussion of art, not the creators. In previous writings, I have categorized the duties of an art critic (1) to construct the background setting for the artists in practice by giving impetus to current artistic trends; (2) to be a connoisseur who can establish standards of art appreciation; (3) to write history of art with his own interpretation on art included. I do not condemn the formation of alliances between artists and art critics, to the extent that they could maintain the irreversible characteristics of their posts. There is the risk of compromising the quality of both positions if one works in collusion with the other party. The fact that art critics have neglected Zhu Wei, even after completing a series of successful works is a phenomenon, which art critics should take into serious consideration. If not, they could be said to be delinquent in their duty.

August 2003

Li Xiaoshan is a professor at Nanjing University of the Arts, Director of AMNUA, and Director of Graduate School of Contemporary Art of Nanjing University of the Arts.

朱伟是个现象

李小山

有一种奇怪的现象，一些优秀的画家常常被所谓的批评家冷落，倒是那帮靠折腾起家的画家被他们捧为明星，这一点，在朱伟身上体现得非常明显。如果批评家更深入更仔细地考察中国当代艺术中的种种有效元素，那么，朱伟的优势是颇为突出的。去年我和彭德主持“首届中国艺术三年展”，特别邀请朱伟加盟，而他的作品在展览上一露面，立即受到大家的关注，这说明，他具有与那些被许多批评家娇宠的艺术家一样的实力，甚至，在一定程度上，他的深藏不露的含蓄更能打动某一类人。

我与朱伟相识时间不太长，第一次见到他的作品是两三年前，当时便有眼前一亮的感受，也产生出疑问：为什么这样的观念，这样的水平，这样的画法没能及早进入我的视野？是我的感觉迟钝，还是朱伟自身过于隐退？在我的印象中，中国当代艺术圈子内的明星几乎很少自谦的，他们在跻身名家行列的过程中已掌握了一套左右逢源的策略，这便是：通过一系列行之有效的操作使自己迅速上升，无论在国际还是在国内，关系到对艺术的判断，都与策略和操作密不可分。毫无疑问，在我们这个信息泛滥的传媒时代，没有一整套与它相应的措施，而仅靠作品本身，已很难为崇拜时尚的人群所接受，除非有人根本不打算把自己兜售给这个被功利和浮躁所遮蔽的时代。

朱伟坚持用他的“中国画”观念进行创作，我承认，在认知方式上我与他的区别一目了然，因为我不希望画家被任何“画种”束缚，尽管这个“画种”可能代表一个民族的文化特征。我反对一切对于文化传统的静态观念，“中国画”名称是否表示它的文化属性姑且不论，但它在概念上引起的争执已经持续了一个多世纪，所造成的口舌浪费显而易见。我相信，引导创作的热切愿望不会是出于对概念的迷恋，正如朱伟本人，作品比他的言说来的切实，更进一步说，他的作品已构成了对他观念的挑战，超越了他的思想界限。

但是概念的范畴仍在现实中产生影响，在现代主义看来，范畴是必要的条件，它奠定了与传统对垒的基础，但在后现代主义看来，范畴是应该被粉碎的框架，它人为地划分了各种层次的区域，无形中将精英主义的一套东西强加给了受众。自然，事物的最好状态是因势利导，任何矫情的夸大都会带来自嘲的后果，换句话说，无论“中国画”的概念是否值得以固执的姿态去捍卫，对于画家而言，似乎没有多大的影响。考查从十九世纪末到整个二十世纪的“中国画”历程，最为显著的特征便是从单一走向多元，而多元的存在对于任何范畴都起着瓦解作用。在当代中国画坛，凡是抱有雄心试图继续推进“中国画”的画家，无一例外都是从外部寻求动力转而将这一画种置于当代语境，完成所谓的当代性转换。一些批评家津津乐道的“再创中国画辉煌”的论调，均出于这样的乌托邦构想。

记得在一次理论讨论会上，许多理论家、批评家和文化官员都在大谈特谈中画家应该担负起振兴民族绘画的职责。我却唱了反调，我认为这是荒唐的要求，很难设想，一个画家依仗这样的假、大、空能捣鼓出什么好东西来。正如当年文艺家必须响应毛泽东的号召，为政治服务，为工农兵服务，是用一种凌空蹈虚的做法消灭创作家的个性追求，而丧失个性，哪有艺术的存在？中国画家难道命中注定要承受这种沉重吗？实际上，那些唱高调的人只是一种习惯而已，他们无法直言“中国画”窘境的真实根源，因此采用空洞的笼统的方式进行迂回。所谓民族文化根基，所谓民族绘画特色等等，以我的看法，一切有生命力的事物都无须“振兴”，等到声嘶力竭叫嚷“振兴”的时候，问题已固定为一个不可改变的事实。对于画家而言，这恰恰又是肤浅的指标，优秀的画家从来不会为了“振兴”什么而获得灵感，优秀的画家之所以优秀，取决于两点：一是绘画上才华，二是对绘画的深切热爱。

朱伟比较内敛和含蓄，这一点或多或少压制了他在更大空间中的发挥，但无疑他具有特殊的才能，按理，他在多年前就该被更多的人认识和认同，因为他的作品反映出的情绪和趣味是非常醒目的，与其他红得发紫的画家相比，他甚至更有资格代表某种观念的倾向，特别是在“国际化”和“全球化”的潮流中，他的中国画家的身份似乎更加显著。我和朱伟谈到，一个画家一个阶段的绘画史上未被记录，有可能在后一个时间段内被补上，然而事物往往以最不可能的形式存在。在当今多元化多样性的艺术格局，各种声音太混杂，各种色彩太眩目，功利主义遮蔽了一切，人们很难在混杂中仔细鉴别谁比谁优秀。所以尽管朱伟画出过相当出色的作品，而仅在人们眼前一晃而过，这方面，我的另一些艺术家朋友也有相同的遭遇。

朱伟作品的优秀质量首先来自于他坚持“中国画”观念，却打碎了它束缚的有效实践。像有些艺术家一样，朱伟的实践超越他的观念，在他竭力想捍卫某种东西时，破坏的正是它本身，但他的破坏不是毁灭，而是重新获得，他是在以新的表达来推动他心中的观念。在朱伟的画面，人们常常看到带有符号性的人物形象，他们在怪笑，或者木呆，或者毫无表情，他们是一群失去自我的个体。即使从广泛的题材考察，朱伟笔下的人物仍被某种内在逻辑所裹挟，他们是符号而不是活生生的存在。这是当代画家在创作上的必然，真实的场景和人物已不重要，重要的是如何浓缩，将感受按捺在图式的框架内，画家普遍地行走在这样的途径上，有的成功有的失败。图式化是一把双刃剑，弄不好首先伤了自己，只要看看那些功成名就的画家是如何被自己的图式吞噬的下场便清楚了，当画家陷于图式的泥潭不能自拔时，不仅是个人的“异化”，本质上是人与绘画在关系上的倒置。但是，倘若画家缺乏图式，则说明他在艺术上的完全失败，因为他的作品肯定会湮没在众多别的画家的作品之中。

朱伟的图式具有一定程度的开放性质，这与他在制作上、机理上、色彩和造型上的特色有联系，但更多的是他能紧扣主题，在表达上做得颇为灵活，从反讽的政治题材到日常的个体形像，都贯穿于表达的准确性要求。从他作品的外观看，似乎在某些方面与流行的画风有关联，其实是相距甚远的，无论是“政治波谱”或“泼皮”，均与朱伟擦身而过。他没有意识到搭上这班车或那班车会给自己带来什么，这一点，显示了他的可贵之处：独立于潮流之外又不落伍于这个时代的艺术方向。因此我说，朱伟虽没有被那些注重外表的批评家很多的记载，但时间会站在他的一边替他辩护。

许多画家在一段创作高峰过后都会出现呆滞阶段，都会出现起伏，这是事物的法则，朱伟在他持续的冲刺之后，接下来的状态如何是他面临的难题。很显然，在他的观念和画法相对稳定的状态下，还有什么可选择的通途呢？在我接触的画家中，大部分人是安于现状的，他们被一种自我的宿命所笼罩，并且找出种种理由加以搪塞。是的，我并不认为一个画家必须去承担挑战自我的痛苦，但对于优秀的画家，自我挑战几乎是不断上升的同义词。朱伟要解决的问题已被他自己预先提出来了：在一切就绪的情景下，如何再次起步？

我始终认定一个观点，即批评家永远别指望“指导”艺术家，因为艺术创造是靠天才和毅力酿造，说到底是艺术家的天职，批评家则是另外一回事，他们并不参与创造，而只是分享和研究，我曾把批评家的工作分做以下三项：1.推动和制造时代的艺术潮流，使之成为艺术实践的背景；2.鉴别和判断谁好谁不好，树立相对稳定的尺度和标准；3.书写历史，将自己对艺术和艺术家的见解融入历史之中。我不反对批评家和艺术家结盟，但有个限度，两者之间的不可替代性和独特性不能转化为相互利用，蜕变为某种勾结，以至同时降低两者的位置。朱伟的现状却是相反的例子，在他完成了一系列创造性工作后而被搁置，这是一个现象，现在轮到批评家及时补上一课，否则，应该说是批评家的失职。

二零零三年八月