|
沈烈毅2017作品展 时间：2017 年12 月24 日至 2018年1 月18 日 开幕：2017 年12 月24 日下午19:00 场馆：南京艺术学院美术馆4展厅 艺术总监：李小山 策展人：林书传 分离策展人：冯黎敏 策展团队：徐轩露、高雅、李莉、刘婷、王镱诺、郑爽 主办：南京艺术学院美术馆 Duration:24th Dec. 2017- 18th Jan.2018 Opening time：7:00 p.m. 24th Dec.2017 Venue：No.4 hall of AMNUA Art Director：Li Xiaoshan Curator: Lin Shuchuan Co-Curator:Feng Limin Curatorial Team:Xu Xuanlu /Gao Ya /Li Li /Liu Ting/Wang Yinuo/Zheng Shuang Organizer:Art Museum of Nanjing University of Arts 当我们谈论雕塑时，我们在谈论什么？ 其实，我并不是卡佛小说的喜好者，但是他的一篇小说《当我们谈论恋情时，我们在谈论什么》，题目起得真是精妙。我想借用一下：当我们谈论雕塑时，我们在谈论什么？不外，我不像卡佛那样指东说西，仅仅呈现一种恍恍惚惚的氛围。我的对象是一个细致的雕塑家，有名有姓，中国美术学院的教员沈烈毅。在我们的理想土壤里，雕塑一向有点吃瘪，从事雕塑创作的人自然跟着不受待见。假如你是书画家，又是什么画院院长、一级画师，被封为“巨匠”，或者自封为“巨匠”，性价比就够高了，用不着才气和努力，随意糊弄几下，掌声、鲜花、金钱全来了。书画无疑是农耕时期的产品，经过一种叫做“文化自信”的外包装，堂而皇之成为当下行动的正宗，阐明我们看待艺术的观念完整没有随着时间的变更而变更，我们对艺术的观念曾经像石膏一样生硬。 时间之轮滚滚朝前，体往常雕塑上可说颇为贴切。因而，关于雕塑的言说远比书画宽广和复杂。单从二十世纪初到目前的创作理论来看，无论在哪个方面——观念、形态、资料、制造等等，变更之大，令人美不胜收，观赏者的兴味和眼光跟不上创作者，标记了雕塑的自由及开放，也标记了它的多种可能性。按理，自由是激起创作的前提，是艺术家苦苦追踪的爆发点。很多时分，艺术家为了艺术外部的缘由，心甘甘愿把自由交进来，一退再退，最终成为自由的敌人。
《静水流石》，木、石，220×32×22cm，2011 那么，我们谈论雕塑，该谈论些什么？或者，再减少一些，我们谈论沈烈毅的雕塑，有哪些不能忽视的东西？我总是以为，文字关于作品的解释多半是隔靴挠痒，历来没有一个人、一篇文章、以至一本书能够把一件作品所要表白的意义毫无遗漏地呈现出来。在某种水平上，人们经过文字了解作品，自身便已走偏。创作既然有赖直觉，如何观赏需求依托了解？但是，假定直觉也属于认知范围，它与了解就有交界和交集的中央。换句话说，没有地道的直觉，也没有完整的了解——当我们面对艺术作品时，了解的深浅限制着直觉的强弱，直觉的才干修正着了解的边疆。 从名义看，当下的雕塑家比任何前辈都具有听任自我的权益，而实质上，他们似乎愈加当心翼翼，愈加受制于各种外部要素——除非你的目的是真正的自娱自乐。自由变成幻觉，幻觉变成牢笼，艺术家在自我幻觉的牢笼里自鸣得意又惊惶不安。这是深化的悖论。这种悖论简直无法逃避，由于它是艺术家的自然的限制，正如我们每个人都有自然的限制一样。限制不是笼统的，特别是艺术创作，在每一个细致环节都能触及到它。古典时期，艺术家服从教条、规则和信心，对限制并无恶感，所谓“带着镣铐跳舞”并非无法，而是赞誉。现代主义蓬勃兴起，“创新”作为独一的主题，限制成了“创新”的对立面，属于必须废弃的范围，“不破不立”，突破限制俨然变为激情的源泉。现代主义之后，“破”的对象逐步消逝，一切都能够做，做一切都不再激情四射——艺术家何去何从，又成了新的问题。 新的问题会辟出新的处置途径。说到底，艺术家自身的问题才是首要问题。外部环境千变万化，但是有关“艺术”的“制度”基本稳定。换句话说，在眼下，五花八门、鱼龙混杂的各类“艺术”里，“艺术”能否成立？能否还值得讨论？“艺术”的必要条件和充沛条件能否依旧存在着上下文关系？是的，当我们说某样东西“像艺术”或“是艺术”时，肯定预设了关于什么才是“艺术”的前提，而这种前提，一方面是由各个时期的艺术家的创作所提供，另一方面又遭到艺术家和观赏者背地那个艺术机制的强力影响。梵高只需多活十年二十年，就能够享遭到自己的艺术带来的优厚回报——如毕加索、达利一样。由于，梵高所在的年代，背地的机制压制着“新”，而在他往后的年代，“新”就是方向，就是好。
《天空》，铁，248×120×2cm，2015 回到雕塑，我想至少有四个值得留意的要点：一，观念；二，外型；三，资料；四制造。 我与沈烈毅多次谈及与雕塑相关的观念问题，有两点印象，一，他同意雕塑创作的无限的开放性，以为雕塑作为一个名词，能够容纳形形色色的表白。二，细致的雕塑作品应该有特定的指向——譬如他自己的创作，在美学意味上、资料运用上、制造工艺上等等，都有据可依。毫无疑问，我们关于雕塑的观念不是凭空而来的。罗丹之后，雕塑传统逐步销蚀，观念更新的接力棒层层传送——请留意，更新的意义不是指后者比前者进步、高级和巨大，用毕加索的话说，艺术没有进步，只需变更。艺术家的源源不时的创作和艺术机制及时调整，两者共同推进了观念的变更。倒推一百年，沈烈毅的作品肯定置之不理，由于观念中包含着是与非的要素。在一百年前的人的观念里，从审美到物态，雕塑就是他们眼里那个容貌，“是”以外，便是“非”。我得再次重申，观念的开放、多元，不证明作品更优秀，而仅仅证明个人化、特殊化一步步占了上风。从米开朗琪罗到贾克梅蒂，雕塑的观念的曾经改头换面，你能够继续观赏米开朗琪罗，但不障碍你同时敬重贾科梅蒂。 假定说，观念关于艺术家的创作简直是决议性的，余下的事并不会因而变得简单，例如外型。《太空之鸟》、《云门》之所以遭到关注，并不在的作品的体量大小、能否笼统，或者雕塑言语抵达了极致。在布朗库西和卡普尔做出这些作品之前，没有能够参照的同类作品，也就是说，他们在雕塑里首创了一种共同的外型——而且，外型自身从众多关系中分别和凸显，成了直接的观赏对象。这里，马上便连带牵出另一个要点：资料。假如《太空之鸟》是石材，《云门》是木料，我置信，艺术家想要的一切效果全部作废。在我们时期，资料的运用是艺术家胜利与否的法宝之一，许多不可思议、令人震惊的作品，皆由于科技展开提供的方便，新资料和新工艺的大量运用，刷新了我们的视觉方式——这上面，只能阐明当代艺术家的一点小小的侥幸。 不同的资料需求不同的制造。远古穴居人在岩洞里用红土画一只牛，当代人用相当复杂的工艺制造出超大型作品，性质上差别大吗？制造的工艺水平既与艺术家有关，也与艺术家无关。想一想，米开朗琪罗雕琢《大卫》，与卡普尔制造《云门》是一回事吗？沈烈毅说：制造工艺服从艺术家对作品的初始想象，是对艺术家的基本考核。实践上，艺术家的初始想象总是游移的和不肯定的，最终的效果可能是相反的。譬如有一次，我参观杰夫·昆斯的展览，印象里全是眼花纷乱的精良制造，除此之外，似乎很难留下别的什么感受——我不以为，昆斯的独一兴味是精良制造。
《舟》，山西黑花岗岩 ，500×90×85cm，2012 还是以沈烈毅的作品来做案例为好，由于作品才是评价艺术家得体的尺度。两年前，我第一次看到沈烈毅的作品，眼前顿时一亮，不由暗想，此人够聪明，相对简单的资料，恰到益处的制造，疾速抓住了观赏者的视野，而且让观赏者耐人寻味。我要指出一点，在我们这个国度，雕塑家在资料和制造上的天花板是显而易见的，新资料、新工艺的实践运用尚不显著，或者说，还比较悠远，留下的空间自然只是观念和外型。另外，中国雕塑家喜欢贴上自己的国度（民族）身份，试图因而额外加分——想想那些名噪一时的人物，哪个没有卖力地兜售过“国货”？这种战略容易变现，能够很快取得叫好声。沈烈毅避开了，用了四两拨千斤的措施，一下就翻过一道坎。树材、石块、雨滴、涟漪、水流，这一切都与我们的日常阅历相合。问题在于如何转化，日常阅历与艺术表白之间只隔着一层纸，多数艺术家无法捅破，本源是阅历不时在流变，正如沈烈毅的涟漪、水流之类，将变动不息的事物用特别方式固定起来，就像琥珀那样，变成时间的结晶——瞬间固为永世，这种提炼的才干并非人人具备。 人们观赏沈烈毅的作品时，一种叫做神韵的东西会充溢你的内心。在中国传统审美里，神韵被赋予的人文情怀十分特别。雕塑这样的空间艺术，如何使得神韵像绘画那样表白呢？沈烈毅所用的措施无非是在空间中应用平面——譬如水流、涟漪之类，没有平面，缺乏以描写，没有空间，则成了绘画的俘虏。这是他的一个创举。固然，中国传统雕塑有许多这方面的遗产，他却将其发扬光大，变为直接的审美对象。并且，他把内心最柔软的部分固定在坚硬的资料上，从而取得一种反差，神韵弥散开来，沁入人心。艺术的凶猛之处就在这里，艺术家的凶猛之处也在这里。顺便一说，在当下，沈烈毅简直能够说是最有本土味的雕塑家之一。他没有把“国货”拿来做旗帜，只是在感受角度以及美学兴味上狠下时间，观念上的个人印记反倒显得鲜明，外型上和制造上又表示了能工巧匠的高超。因而，他的作品能够逾越地界，逾越文化差别构成的疏离——许多喜好艺术的人都能进入，都能在里面收获愉悦，得到肉体层面的享用。 李小山 2017·9·10 What We Talk About When We Talk About Sculpture Actually, I am not a fan of Carver. But I find the title of his novel What We Talk About When We Talk About Love an ingenious phrase and therefore I would like to borrow it here: what are we talking about when we talk about sculpture? I do not mean to just create a drowsy atmosphere and imply something ambiguous like in Carver's novel. My object is a specific sculptor with the name Shen Lieyi, teacher at the China Academy of Art. In our reality, sculpture has always been a little looked down upon. Sculptors are not particularly welcome in the scene either. If you are a calligrapher and painter, and you own a title of chairman of a certain art academy or painter of class I, or you are sometimes addressed as "master", or labeling yourself "master", then you can already sell well in the market. Applause, flowers and money come to you without bothering to invest any talent or effort. Calligraphy and painting is undoubtedly the product of the agriculture era. It is nowadays wrapped up in a nice cover called "cultural self-confidence" and presumes authenticity and authority in present public opinions about art. This shows that our concept toward art has not changed at all as times gone by. Our notion on art is already like as hard as plaster. The wheel of time keeps rolling forward. Such analogy fits sculpture especially well. Therefore, the narrative about sculpture is much broader and more complex than about calligraphy and painting. From the beginning of the twentieth century to the present practice, the viewpoints, the forms, the materials and the productions, all aspects of the practice have taken great changes. The audience's tastes and judgment cannot keep up the pace with the artists. This trend marks the freedom and openness of sculpture as well as its many possibilities. Logically, freedom is the prerequisite to stimulate creativity. It is the point of outbreak artists seek for painstakingly. But in many cases, artists willingly give up their freedom for the sake of certain reasons outside of art. They retreat once and again and eventually become enemies of freedom. So, what are we talking about when we talk about sculpture? Or, to narrow it down a bit, what cannot be ignored we talk about Shen Lieyi's sculpture? I always think that most of the interpretation of art works in writing is but ineffective attempts to solve the problem. There has never been a person, an article, or even a book that can present the meaning of a piece of art work without any omission. To some extent, when people try to understand the art work through words, they are already led astray. Since art creation relies on intuition, why should art appreciation resort to understanding? However, assuming that intuition belongs to the cognitive sphere as well, it surely intersects with understanding. In other words, there is no pure intuition or complete understanding. The depth of understanding constrains the strength of intuition when we confront art. And the power of intuition adjusts the boundaries of understanding. Current sculptors seemingly have more power to release the self than any predecessors. But in essence they seem to be more cautious and subject to a variety of external factors - unless you are practicing art only to entertain yourself. Freedom turns into illusion. Illusion becomes a prison. Artists feel complacent and uneasy in the prison of their own illusions. This is a profound paradox. This paradox can hardly be evaded because it is the natural constraint of an artist, just like every one of us has natural constraints. This constraint is not abstract. It is especially tangible at every concrete step in artistic creation. During the classical period, artists followed dogma, rules and beliefs. They did not oppose the constraints. The so-called "dancing in shackles" is not a deion of helplessness, it is an ode. When Modernism boomed, "innovation" became the only theme and constraint seemed to become the opposite of "innovation" and belonged to things that must be destructed. No destruction, no construction. Breaking rules became the source of passion. After Modernism, the object of "destruction" gradually disappeared. Everything is possible. Everything cannot stir up passion. Where do artists go becomes a new problem. New problems create new solutions. After all, the artists' own problems are the primary issues. The external environment is ever-changing. But the "institution" of "art" is basically stable. In other words, is there any true "art" in the hotchpotch of all kinds of "art" nowadays? Is it worth the discussion? Do the necessary and sufficient conditions of "art" still have contextual connection? Yes, when we say something "is" or "is like" art, we certainly have a presupposition of what art is. This presupposition on the one hand is provided by creations of artists of all the eras. On the other hand it is strongly influenced by the mechanism behind artists and the audience. Had Van Gogh lived for ten or twenty more years, he could enjoy the generous returns of his own art. The same for Picasso or Dali. It is because in van Gogh's time, the mechanism behind repressed "novelty". And the times after him regard novelty as the direction and the good. Back to sculpture art, I think there are at least four notable points: concept, modeling, material and production. I talked many times with Shen Lieyi about the issue of concept in sculpture. I have two impressions. First, he approves the infinite openness of sculpture creation and regards sculpture as a noun can accommodate all kinds of expressions. Second, specific sculptural works should have specific points - for example, his own works all have certain references in aesthetic connotation, use of materials, production process and so on. There is no doubt that our idea of sculpture is not out of thin air. The tradition of sculpture was gradually eroded after Rodin. The renewal of concepts is repeated by generations and generations. Please note that renewal means that the newer is not necessarily more advanced, nobler or greater than its predecessor. In Picasso's words, art does not go forward, it only changes. The continuous creation of artists and the timely adjustment of the art mechanism contributed to the change of concepts. A hundred years back, Shen Lieyi's art would arouse no interest because the concept contains elements about right and wrong. In the human concept of a hundred years ago, sculpture should look like what they thought from aesthetic tastes to forms. It was either right or wrong. I must reiterate once again that the openness and diversity in concept does not necessarily prove the work to be more excellent. It only proved that individualism and specialization has taken the upper hand gradually. From Michelangelo to Giacometti, the concept of sculpture has gone beyond recognition. You may continue to like Michelangelo. It does not stop you from appreciating Giacometti. If we say that concept is almost decisive for art creation, the rest will not become simpler, for example modeling. Works such as "Bird in Space" and "Cloud Gate" attract attention not because of their volume or being abstract, or the sculptural language has reached the extreme. Before Brancusi and Kapoor made these works, there was no comparable reference. This is to say, they pioneered and created a unique form in sculpture - and the form itself was detached and highlighted from many relationships to become objects of direct appreciation. This leads immediately to my next point: the material. If "Bird in Space" were out of stone and Cloud Gate were out of lumber, I believe, all the effects the artists wanted would be gone. In our time, the use of materials is one of the magic keys to the artist's success. Many incredible and shocking works have refreshed our visual habit, relying on the convenience provided by technological development and the extensive use of new materials and new processes. This is a little luck for contemporary artists. Different materials need different production. Ancient caveman painted a bull on the cave wall with red clay. Contemporaries produce mega-large works with very complex techniques. Are they very different in nature? The level of craftsmanship is both relevant and irrelevant to artists. Think about it, is it not the same when Michelangelo carved "David" and Kapoor produced "Cloud Gate"? Shen Lieyi said that to let the production process be obedient to the artist's initial ideas is the basic qualification for an artist. In fact, the artist's initial ideas are always shifting and indefinite. And their end effects may be the opposite. For example, once I visited a Jeff Koons exhibition. My impression was all about the dazzling and sophisticated production. There was hardly any other feeling besides this. But I don't think outstanding production is Koons's only interest. It is better to study further with the cases of Shen Lieyi because the works are the proper measure of assessment of an artist. Two years ago, I was pleasantly surprised on the first sight of Shen's works. I could not help but think that this is a clever artist and he uses relatively simple materials and proper amount of production effort. It quickly captures the viewers' eyes and allows viewers to savor in mind what they see. I would like to point out that in our country, there is an obvious ceiling for sculptors in materials and production. The actual application of new materials and new techniques is not significant. In other words, it is still far away. Therefore it leaves enough room for concepts and modeling. In addition, Chinese sculptors tend to put a label of national (ethnic) identity on themselves, in an attempt to earn extra points. Think about those who made a name in this business, who had not peddled "national products" vehemently? This strategy is easy to cash in and earns applause quickly. Shen Lieyi avoids this. He uses a deft solution and overcomes the hurdle easily. Trees, rocks, raindrops, ripples, currents are all part of our everyday experience. The problem lies in how to transform them. There is a thin layer of paper between daily experience and artistic expression. Most artists cannot break through it. The reason is that experience has been changing. For example the ripples and currents and the like are fixed in special ways by Shen Lieyi, just like ambers turned into a crystallization of time – a moment becomes eternality. Such capability of abstraction is not common. When we watch Shen Lieyi's works, something called charm will fill your heart. In the traditional Chinese aesthetics, charm is given a very special humanitarian connotation. How to create the charm in sculpture as in painting? The method used by Shen Lieyi is nothing more than the use of plane in space - such as water currents and ripples. Without planes it is not enough to depict. Without space it would become a prisoner of painting. This is his pioneering creation. Although traditional Chinese sculpture has plenty of legacy in this area, he promoted it and made it direct objects of aesthetic inspection. Moreover, he fixed the softest part of his heart to the hard materials, so as to obtain a contrast, with a sense of charm that spreads to the heart. This is exactly the power of art, and the power of artists. By the way, Shen Lieyi is currently almost one of the most "native" sculptors. He did not use "national goods" as advertisement, but made great efforts in perspectives of perception and aesthetic tastes. His personal conceptual imprint is very clear-cut. Modeling and production manifest his superb skills. Therefore, his works can cross the territories and bridge the gap of cultural differences. Many art lovers can enter his world and experience the pleasure and spiritual enjoyment. Li Xiaoshan 10 September 2017 图文来源：AMNUA视野 _____________________________________________ |
