另类运动会(Flash) 看谁快，最后的那关是不是真的射了？
发起人：30岁还包着头 回复数：1
浏览数：2156
最后更新：2006/06/25 11:25:52 by
乌里·希克给陆蓉之的信
[url]www.ionly.com.cn 2006-09-01 02:27:39 来源：东方视觉 乌里·希克 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
给蓉之的信
亲爱的蓉之:
我既然是一个名副其实的非专业联合策展人，便可使用平白简单的文句,所以容我献出这封信，给为文献展日夜不停努力的您。
仍记得我们首次见面，您讲述了您的想法并邀请我参加策展。但为何是我? 因为您读遍了那本厚厚的《麻将: 希克的收藏作品》，而您心情激动。在我看来您之所以激动是因为下面这些原因，当然您尽可提出反对意见。其一，是作品的选择: 您认为所选作品不是过度表现了政治艺术，就是倾向于只符合西方眼中的“前卫”，全然脱离了中国丰富的历史文化传统。您觉得在作品的选择中忽略了中国美学，而当下的作品应继承丰富的历史传统，而非一味质疑及破坏；其二，是我对”中国性”的重视，正如在书中，我个人及其他人用尽方法从中国当代艺术家身上提炼出这种气质。
而您锐意回应这些挑战。您用展览来证明当代中国艺术，证明它比西方所见的更多，证明它当中的中国美学，证明它丰富、与众不同而毫不逊色的一面。而您如此宽容地邀我加入这策展队伍——我就是那个想对了问题，却错过了正确答案的人。此举是您的智慧，亦是您的亲切。
于是我细读策展序言，愈读愈觉得有趣。文章是以差别为基本，道出了中国当代艺术与西方观点的不同，指出了一条通过彻底研究，或者说出色的艺术，来发现中国新美学的道路。中国完全可以成为世上最大的单一文化空间，但她也面临着被全球的主流文化冲淡其日常生活和文化。我本人也是这一过程的积极参与者。我创立的首间中西合资公司是以西方经营模式为基础的。若我们细看当代艺术，亦可见到相同的对抗: 在中国的近二十五年，我看到她由开始时的富有中国特色发展成现在的样子。同时，全球的主流艺术都围绕着艺术世界之外的机制和收藏家发展。今天我们看到很多中国艺术在主题、语言和造型上，都是朝这种方向发展。事实上，可以预见一切都在未来被同化。当代中国艺术是濒临灭绝的物种吗? 它是否会被吸纳吞噬，还是有力地与主流抗衡? 我们可以向马里或哥伦比亚的艺术问相同的问题，可它们或者是任何的非西方文化体系，都没有达到中国文化的博大浩瀚，也没有在将来发展成超级大国的潜力。
幸好，决定这场比赛的不只是艺术理论家、作家、生意人、观众或其他，最重要的还是取决于出色的艺术家和他们的作品，而他们的舞台是更为宽广的。一些艺术家有意选择有关中国的主题，一些则相反。二流或三流的艺术家会难以决定自己的位置，而一流的艺术家则可以更深入地探究他的主题且能层出不穷。很多艺术家都不太愿意接受一个过于特定的文化身份，如”中国当代艺术”，可如此的身份的确存在。或者，以全球最主流的艺术家之一理查德·普林斯(Richard Prince)为例，他能否在美国文化身份这一语境之外创作出他的艺术？他的幸运在于全球主流艺术正是与他同属一类或是他所熟识的——但他们必定不熟悉中国的文化语境。
假设我们可定义“中国新美学”，那是否只有中国文化才能创造? 中国新美学又能否反过来在全球主流艺术的洪流中占有一席之地？现在中国当代艺术在市场上的热潮，掩盖了全球主流艺术的把关者(肯定不是中国人)对“中国新美学”的忽略。那“中国新美学”对这些把关者来说，是否很有新鲜感和创意? 是否正是如此?
您真的把我们这几位联合策展人，都推到了一个对中国当代艺术极为重要的关口，这不仅值得占据MoCA 文献展的中央舞台，同时也值得之后的持续研究。
所以我们从您这里得到了一篇很好的策展序言，那假设让我着迷。我们的这个展览是否能实现这假设? 至少我们进行了有效的努力，而您在种种的时间和沟通限制下把我们的队伍团结得这么好！俗语云聚沙成塔，我们既已埋积了一个相当大的沙丘，也一定能建成一座巨塔。
以我们策展队伍之名祝愿。
乌里·希克
LETTER TO VICTORIA
Dear Victoria,
As a non-professional and un-professional co-curator, I have the privilege of resorting to plain language and simple form. Therefore, allow me to make my curatorial statement in a letter addressed to you, since you are the relentless engine behind this exhibition.
I remember our first meeting in which you introduced your idea and then asked for my participation. Why me? You had worked your way through the heavy book Mahjong, Works from the Sigg Collection and you felt provoked. Here is my perception of what this provocation was to you—but feel free to heartily disagree. One issue was the choice of works, which you felt leaned towards an overrepresentation of what you termed “political art” on the one hand, and on the other hand, towards an art produced after the Western paradigm of an avant-garde, an art opposing or breaking away from China’s rich past and tradition. In your view, underrepresented were those works that embody specific Chinese aesthetics and purposely build on this rich and vast heritage, rather than endeavour to question or destroy it. The second issue was my concern with “Chineseness” and the various efforts in the same book, by myself and others, to distill this absconding substance out of the art production of Chinese contemporary artists.
So you set out to respond to this challenge, to prove by means of exhibition, that there is more, that there is contemporary art beyond the Western paradigm, art with distinct Chinese aesthetics, art that is different, rich and not less exciting! And you had the grandeur to invite me to join the curatorial team—me, the man who had thought of the right question but had missed the right answer. Pretty clever and pretty kind...
So I set out to read the curatorial statement. The more I read it, the more interesting it became. It disassociates itself from the Western paradigm, and indicates a direction where thorough research—and, even better, good art—may reveal true Chinese Neo-aesthetics. China may well be the single biggest cultural space in the world. Yet it is faced with a global mainstream culture that is overpowering Chinese daily life and culture. I myself have been a protagonist in this process, establishing the first joint-venture company between China and the Western world and following by necessity a Western model. If we turn back to the microcosm of contemporary art, the same conflict appears: In China I observed for more than twenty-five years its maturation from a starting point with unique Chinese characteristics. At the same time, I watched global mainstream art impose itself on most of the institutional frameworks of the outside art world and its collectors. Today we see much of the art produced in China approaching and appropriating this global mainstream, in terms of subject matter, language and appearance. In fact, we may have to anticipate a merging point in the future. Is Chinese contemporary art an endangered species? Will it just be absorbed, swallowed up or maybe even become extinct, or could it conversely alter the course of the mainstream? Yes, similar questions could be asked about the art produced in, say, Mali or Columbia. Yet their cultural scenes, and those of all other non-Western cultural spaces, have not reached comparable mass, differentiation and sophistication, and they lack the newly gained weight of a future superpower.
Luckily, not only will this play be decided by art theoreticians, writers, market-makers, onlookers and the like, but also it will be much decided by good artists doing good artworks, gaining their place in this much-broadened hierarchy. Some artists will purposely choose topics where a Chinese context will resonate; others will do just the opposite. The second- and third-best artists will face major confusion and difficulties in maintaining a position of their own, while the best artists will be those who continue their in-depth research, while still gaining stimuli from this additional information impact. There is much reluctance on the part of many artists to accept the notion of their art’s belonging to a specific cultural identity such as “Chinese contemporary art.” Yet these identities continue to exist. Or, to pick out one of these global mainstream artists: Could the art of Richard Prince be created anywhere else but in the context of US cultural identity? His good fortune is that the gatekeepers to the global mainstream art are either of his own kind or familiar with it—while they definitely are not familiar with the Chinese cultural context.
Is Chinese Neo-aesthetics—now assuming your definition of the term—a contribution that Chinese culture, and only Chinese culture, can make? Will Chinese Neo-aesthe
[url]www.ionly.com.cn 2006-09-01 02:27:39 来源：东方视觉 乌里·希克 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
给蓉之的信
亲爱的蓉之:
我既然是一个名副其实的非专业联合策展人，便可使用平白简单的文句,所以容我献出这封信，给为文献展日夜不停努力的您。
仍记得我们首次见面，您讲述了您的想法并邀请我参加策展。但为何是我? 因为您读遍了那本厚厚的《麻将: 希克的收藏作品》，而您心情激动。在我看来您之所以激动是因为下面这些原因，当然您尽可提出反对意见。其一，是作品的选择: 您认为所选作品不是过度表现了政治艺术，就是倾向于只符合西方眼中的“前卫”，全然脱离了中国丰富的历史文化传统。您觉得在作品的选择中忽略了中国美学，而当下的作品应继承丰富的历史传统，而非一味质疑及破坏；其二，是我对”中国性”的重视，正如在书中，我个人及其他人用尽方法从中国当代艺术家身上提炼出这种气质。
而您锐意回应这些挑战。您用展览来证明当代中国艺术，证明它比西方所见的更多，证明它当中的中国美学，证明它丰富、与众不同而毫不逊色的一面。而您如此宽容地邀我加入这策展队伍——我就是那个想对了问题，却错过了正确答案的人。此举是您的智慧，亦是您的亲切。
于是我细读策展序言，愈读愈觉得有趣。文章是以差别为基本，道出了中国当代艺术与西方观点的不同，指出了一条通过彻底研究，或者说出色的艺术，来发现中国新美学的道路。中国完全可以成为世上最大的单一文化空间，但她也面临着被全球的主流文化冲淡其日常生活和文化。我本人也是这一过程的积极参与者。我创立的首间中西合资公司是以西方经营模式为基础的。若我们细看当代艺术，亦可见到相同的对抗: 在中国的近二十五年，我看到她由开始时的富有中国特色发展成现在的样子。同时，全球的主流艺术都围绕着艺术世界之外的机制和收藏家发展。今天我们看到很多中国艺术在主题、语言和造型上，都是朝这种方向发展。事实上，可以预见一切都在未来被同化。当代中国艺术是濒临灭绝的物种吗? 它是否会被吸纳吞噬，还是有力地与主流抗衡? 我们可以向马里或哥伦比亚的艺术问相同的问题，可它们或者是任何的非西方文化体系，都没有达到中国文化的博大浩瀚，也没有在将来发展成超级大国的潜力。
幸好，决定这场比赛的不只是艺术理论家、作家、生意人、观众或其他，最重要的还是取决于出色的艺术家和他们的作品，而他们的舞台是更为宽广的。一些艺术家有意选择有关中国的主题，一些则相反。二流或三流的艺术家会难以决定自己的位置，而一流的艺术家则可以更深入地探究他的主题且能层出不穷。很多艺术家都不太愿意接受一个过于特定的文化身份，如”中国当代艺术”，可如此的身份的确存在。或者，以全球最主流的艺术家之一理查德·普林斯(Richard Prince)为例，他能否在美国文化身份这一语境之外创作出他的艺术？他的幸运在于全球主流艺术正是与他同属一类或是他所熟识的——但他们必定不熟悉中国的文化语境。
假设我们可定义“中国新美学”，那是否只有中国文化才能创造? 中国新美学又能否反过来在全球主流艺术的洪流中占有一席之地？现在中国当代艺术在市场上的热潮，掩盖了全球主流艺术的把关者(肯定不是中国人)对“中国新美学”的忽略。那“中国新美学”对这些把关者来说，是否很有新鲜感和创意? 是否正是如此?
您真的把我们这几位联合策展人，都推到了一个对中国当代艺术极为重要的关口，这不仅值得占据MoCA 文献展的中央舞台，同时也值得之后的持续研究。
所以我们从您这里得到了一篇很好的策展序言，那假设让我着迷。我们的这个展览是否能实现这假设? 至少我们进行了有效的努力，而您在种种的时间和沟通限制下把我们的队伍团结得这么好！俗语云聚沙成塔，我们既已埋积了一个相当大的沙丘，也一定能建成一座巨塔。
以我们策展队伍之名祝愿。
乌里·希克
LETTER TO VICTORIA
Dear Victoria,
As a non-professional and un-professional co-curator, I have the privilege of resorting to plain language and simple form. Therefore, allow me to make my curatorial statement in a letter addressed to you, since you are the relentless engine behind this exhibition.
I remember our first meeting in which you introduced your idea and then asked for my participation. Why me? You had worked your way through the heavy book Mahjong, Works from the Sigg Collection and you felt provoked. Here is my perception of what this provocation was to you—but feel free to heartily disagree. One issue was the choice of works, which you felt leaned towards an overrepresentation of what you termed “political art” on the one hand, and on the other hand, towards an art produced after the Western paradigm of an avant-garde, an art opposing or breaking away from China’s rich past and tradition. In your view, underrepresented were those works that embody specific Chinese aesthetics and purposely build on this rich and vast heritage, rather than endeavour to question or destroy it. The second issue was my concern with “Chineseness” and the various efforts in the same book, by myself and others, to distill this absconding substance out of the art production of Chinese contemporary artists.
So you set out to respond to this challenge, to prove by means of exhibition, that there is more, that there is contemporary art beyond the Western paradigm, art with distinct Chinese aesthetics, art that is different, rich and not less exciting! And you had the grandeur to invite me to join the curatorial team—me, the man who had thought of the right question but had missed the right answer. Pretty clever and pretty kind...
So I set out to read the curatorial statement. The more I read it, the more interesting it became. It disassociates itself from the Western paradigm, and indicates a direction where thorough research—and, even better, good art—may reveal true Chinese Neo-aesthetics. China may well be the single biggest cultural space in the world. Yet it is faced with a global mainstream culture that is overpowering Chinese daily life and culture. I myself have been a protagonist in this process, establishing the first joint-venture company between China and the Western world and following by necessity a Western model. If we turn back to the microcosm of contemporary art, the same conflict appears: In China I observed for more than twenty-five years its maturation from a starting point with unique Chinese characteristics. At the same time, I watched global mainstream art impose itself on most of the institutional frameworks of the outside art world and its collectors. Today we see much of the art produced in China approaching and appropriating this global mainstream, in terms of subject matter, language and appearance. In fact, we may have to anticipate a merging point in the future. Is Chinese contemporary art an endangered species? Will it just be absorbed, swallowed up or maybe even become extinct, or could it conversely alter the course of the mainstream? Yes, similar questions could be asked about the art produced in, say, Mali or Columbia. Yet their cultural scenes, and those of all other non-Western cultural spaces, have not reached comparable mass, differentiation and sophistication, and they lack the newly gained weight of a future superpower.
Luckily, not only will this play be decided by art theoreticians, writers, market-makers, onlookers and the like, but also it will be much decided by good artists doing good artworks, gaining their place in this much-broadened hierarchy. Some artists will purposely choose topics where a Chinese context will resonate; others will do just the opposite. The second- and third-best artists will face major confusion and difficulties in maintaining a position of their own, while the best artists will be those who continue their in-depth research, while still gaining stimuli from this additional information impact. There is much reluctance on the part of many artists to accept the notion of their art’s belonging to a specific cultural identity such as “Chinese contemporary art.” Yet these identities continue to exist. Or, to pick out one of these global mainstream artists: Could the art of Richard Prince be created anywhere else but in the context of US cultural identity? His good fortune is that the gatekeepers to the global mainstream art are either of his own kind or familiar with it—while they definitely are not familiar with the Chinese cultural context.
Is Chinese Neo-aesthetics—now assuming your definition of the term—a contribution that Chinese culture, and only Chinese culture, can make? Will Chinese Neo-aesthe
这个瑞士山里人的口味误倒了好多人
[quote]引用第3楼guest于2006-09-01 22:46发表的“”:
中国新美学,这个东西不是应该先有策展来把关,而是让更多的人自觉的参与近来,才是首先要做的.
至少从中国艺术注重身份转到新审美的自我意识,是一个很好事情.
[s:57][/quote]
说得好，
中国新美学,这个东西不是应该先有策展来把关,而是让更多的人自觉的参与近来,才是首先要做的.
至少从中国艺术注重身份转到新审美的自我意识,是一个很好事情.
[s:57][/quote]
说得好，
中国新美学,这个东西不是应该先有策展来把关,而是让更多的人自觉的参与近来,才是首先要做的.
至少从中国艺术注重身份转到新审美的自我意识,是一个很好事情.
[s:57]
至少从中国艺术注重身份转到新审美的自我意识,是一个很好事情.
[s:57]
吸嗑是在夸她还是在毁她呀
《麻将》为何用气字聋这张其实在中国当代艺术中什么都不是的垃圾画作封面？不是稀客同志买了他大量的垃圾吧？ [s:52]
