|
www.artron.net August 28 2013
Contemporary Ink and Wash Painting Research No. Nine: Individualism, a Blow to Ink and Wash Jianghu?
Pei Gang
[Editor’s comment] After a stagnate period since the New Wave movement in 1985, starting from spring and autumn auctions in 2012, contemporary ink and wash painting has become a hot topic due to its soaring transaction price in both primary market and secondary market. In both academia and market, not only mature artists’ master works, young artists enjoyed the boom as well. Now let us introduce you with the status quo and interior structures of contemporary ink and wash paintings.
Ink and wash painting is an independent part of the whole contemporary art and they exert mutual influence on each other. We always hear “how open your heart is determines how large your Jianghu will be” in film and TV works. “Jianghu”, a word referring to civil society (relative to official society) in an agricultural society, now means “community” in a modern society. Clearly, “Jianghu” also refers to a kind of hidden society since ancient times. This word is out of use and has been replaced by ‘community”. Then what does the contemporary ink and wash community look like? What about its interior structure? Are there clashes of academic viewpoints? Since individualism trend is developing in contemporary art, did the individualism trend in contemporary ink and wash artists gradually dissolving ink and wash Jianghu formed in history?
Ink and Wash Jianghu Divided by Patrons of Arts
Behind Ink and Wash Jianghu, a full ecological circle of art, are diversified aesthetic interests, economic interests, interpersonal connections and power structures. Hang Chunhui, a contemporary ink and wash artist said, “Contemporary ink and wash is divided by patrons of art. Due to historical reasons, official patron system led by political systems was born in China. It fostered art ecological circles dominated by official aesthetic interests and interest division. For example, artists under painting academies and presidents of fine arts associations. On one hand, they are officials; on the other hand, they embody realist painting under official systems. That is why they resonate with most officers and civil capital. Meanwhile, artists supported by commercial capital formed a commercial ink and wash ecological circle independent from institutions due to their common personal interests. For example, Liu Dan reprocessed traditional cultures’ images, which both demonstrated innate links with traditional culture and current visual interests. These two kinds of ‘Jianghu’ converge with each other, which mean there are artists between these two states.”
For Zhu Wei, the most significant change resulted in the changing “ink and wash Jianghu” is the supporting forces behind artists: “if we look at from the distinction between within institutions and outside institutions, the biggest change brought about by the reform and opening up to Chinese art community is that artists can earn their living with their works. Excellent artists no longer are limited to painting academies, research institutes and colleges which are supported by taxpayers. This can be said as a major progress or return. The current contemporary art we are familiar with such as F4、F5 and F6, many of them were independent in the beginning and some quit their official jobs later. Over a hundred year’s damage and reform of ink-painting makes it hard for ink-painting painters to paint them for survival. In painter villages such as the old Summer Palace, Songzhuang in Tongxian County, Cuigezhuang and Caochangdi, few of them paint ink-painting. Solely dependent on public organizations could only let ink-painting preserve like intangible cultural heritage without extinction, because it lack popular support from the mass. When it becomes stifled, it is less likely to innovate. That’s what happened after the May Fourth Movement. So I believe the priority of ink-painting is whether it can survive with strong vitality.
Ink and Wash Jianghu Divided by Academic Views
Besides looking at ink and wash paintings from art market and patrons of art perspectives, different academic views also offer an important dimension. Lu Hong, a critique mentioned in New Explorations of Ink and Wash Paintings in the 1990s: “starting from 1993, some academic views of western ‘post-isms’ including ‘post-colonial’ were introduced to China. They enabled China’s fine arts community to reflect on issues of modernization, ethnic identity and ethnic culture’s development and embraced contemporary ink and wash paintings with a special opportunity, because people have realized in the new cultural context that simplified criticize of traditional culture trapped many in western ideology on modernization. To view it from another perspective, though traditional culture has its setbacks, it is always the foundation of people’s survival and development and even engagement in global dialogues. Ink and wash paintings, as a representation of traditional culture, no doubt represent Chinese. It would be a catastrophe without its participation during the development of contemporary Chinese art.” We can see why issues on the diverging traditional ink and wash Jianghu and contemporary ink and wash are so pressing.
Lu believes after 1993, due to major shifts in cultural background and art context, wide discussions were held in the regard of the practice and related issues of modern ink and wash. The main topic is whether modern ink and wash can enter China and the World’s contemporary art arena. People’s opinions differ owing to certain value judgment and cultural preferences. In short, they can be divided as essentialism, dying out theory, medium theory, expression theory, conceptual ink and wash theory, neo-conservatism theory and cultural intervention theory.
Views of “Brush and Ink Centrism”
Essentialism refers to the understanding of essentialism in ink and wash painting; the internal unity in ink and wash language, namely ink and brush as the special language and way of acceptance in Chinese ink and wash painting accumulated the spirit and psychological structure context of Chinese culture, showed Chinese wisdom and the way of percepting world. However, “ink and wash centrism” scholars are often gives such a title which is to a certain extent a misunderstanding, it is: first, on one hand, someone persists that reform of ink and wash must retain its traditional ontological features; on the other hand, they do not reject western techniques and their works. They believe it is beneficiary to add new techniques but a disaster to make them replacement; second, they stress modern ink and wash “must seek ties with modern society, especially modern culture, audaciously express modern people’s life and spirits and seek converging points between traditional spirits and modern spirits.” Li Xiaoxuan, a representative artist, made an effective reform of ink and wash, combining current culture into his work based on tradition.
Scholars holding opposite views believe this view is detrimental to the whole art community though with some sense, because it excludes so many possibilities.
“Dying Out Theory” vs. “Medium Theory”
“Dying Out Theory” believes that the dying out of a particular kind of painting means its failure in formal sense and cultural orientation. It is no longer sufficient as a carrier of visual aesthetics and spiritual values in contemporary cultural context, and also because it is hard to represent spirits and art value of contemporary Chinese culture due to its innate norms in language schema and spirits. “Medium Theory” argues almost the same. They just do not mention “dying out”.
They believe in current contemporary art environment, ink and wash is more about a material rather than a kind of art. Huang Zhuan, a critique, has been concerned about contemporary art and the development of ink and wash since the 1990s. He completely disagrees with the views of “Medium Hypothesis”. “In logics, their mentality not only is easily to fall into new ontology (based on western universalism), but also a paradox resulted in contrasting models of oriental and occidental dualism. They thought they could surpass it, but only confirmed it. It is probably a destiny of Chinese painting and even Chinese culture in the 20th century.”
Views of “Expressionism Theory”
They borrowed theories of western expressionism, such as “form is creation”, “form is expression” and “language is spirit” and tried to carry on traditional ink and wash spirits. Lu Hong offered different views on the creation of abstract ink and wash. In Surpass Modernism, Face Real Life, he pointed out: though some artists made efforts in creating new standards and changing status quo of ink and wash paintings, they should not pursue them as ultimate goals. The reasons are as follows: first, western abstract art has come to an end, so the so called composition problem within plane has become side problem; second, during social transition, the primary function of art is not about aesthetics but posed targeted cultural issues. If art runs away from its cultural mission and pays little attention to social problems, people will not be attracted; third, though some abstract ink and wash artists added gossip to their works,
“Conceptual Ink and Wash”
Scholars holding “conceptual ink and wash” stress “post-colonial” period. As a symbol of national identity, ink and wash paintings should strive to go global and make its voice heard on issues of contemporary culture and society. In this way, not only the power relation featuring western centralism is criticized, ink and wash’s cultural identity and knowledge structure are also criticized. It is wrong to see ink and wash as self-sufficient regional medium such as a language system and conceptual art.
Scholars opposing this view believe it is absurd to put conceptual ink and wash as a branch of conceptual art. Because first, conceptual art is anti-art and was started from destroying easel art; second, conceptual art cannot be divided by medium, so “the idea of conceptual ink and wash could only complicate ink and wash as well as conceptual art.” Perhaps being persuaded, scholars abandoned the concept of ink and wash.
“Neo-conservatism Theory” and “Culture Intervention Theory”
As a holder of new conservatism, Critique Yi Ying pointed out in On Neo-conservatism—Strategies of Ink and Wash Development, neo-conservatism has already appeared in China’s contemporary art. It is of strategic value regarding our nation’s cultural development. He believes “no matter what position ink and wash takes in China’s modern art, as a symbol of national identity and cultural rite, its medium constituted its characteristics, which is irreplaceable as a link of Chinese ‘cultural bio-chain, which is representative. Once the material gets lost, ‘cultural ecological catastrophe’ will be on its way.
To return to tradition we need to come back to reality: first, we need to dissolve Brush and Ink Centrism, turn to ultimate care from reality care, and weave personal power of discourse into contemporary society; second, we need to dissolve western modernism or post-modern’s values as the foundation of transforming ink and wash languages…”
Since some scholars try to promote ink and wash by voluntarily introducing contemporary Chinese culture, so we call their views “culture intervention hypothesis”. For them, the important issue for modern ink and wash artists is not to enter contemporary world art arena or highlight their cultural identity, but to face contemporary Chinese culture and further seek new art subjects, symbols and expression methods. They stress that during major social transitions, that is in a contemporary society going through conflicts between substance and spirits, sense and sensibility, money and conscience, if ink and wash artists fail to demonstrate a clear cultural attitude, and still try to make some formal reforms within traditional ink and western abstract art, the reform of ink and wash will be hollow. They also pointed out that today’s social transition has provided an unprecedented opportunity for the reform. As long as we can face what history and reality call for and cry for human’s value, dignity and right, the transition could be smooth and take its due place in contemporary culture.
Individualism Trend
At every point of art history stand brilliant artists with deep thoughts and in every school, there are masterworks demonstrating in art galleys and museums for people to admire and pay tribute. Zhu Wei believes individualism is the original intention of art and also its essence and ultimate result. Art creation is not group calisthenics. It does not value uniform, or why would we need museum when we already have photo studio? Western contemporary art is increasingly stressing personal characters. Looking back at the western modern and contemporary art, in the beginning, they appeared as a group, for example, the impressionism, post-impressionism, cubism, expressionism, abstractionism, Dada and surrealism. After decades of exploring and development, it’s pretty mature nowadays. We have Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, Gerhard Richter and Richard Prince who demonstrate strong personal characters in installation, photograph, sculpture and painting. Our modern and contemporary art followed their footsteps and learned by imitation, that’s why people are still used to distinguishing theory and artists’ behavior as in groups. F4 and F5 are cases in point. In fact, according to the standards of western contemporary art, one is enough to represent a kind. This standard also applies to contemporary ink-painting. It’s not disabled, so why it needs special care? Still, it’s unnecessary to stress ink-painting’s uniqueness. Who is not? That’s childish. There is also no need to talk about the hardships it had gone through, since all kinds of art tried hard to survive.
Contemporary ink and wash creation has shifted from imitation in the 1980s to explorations of individualism language. Lu Hong pointed out: “in the 1980s, leading course was ‘modernization theory’ in China’s art and science communities, but in the 1990s, that theory became out of date. With introduction of western ‘post-modern’ theories, issues of ‘post-colonial’, ethnic identity and returning back home are gaining more and more recognition. We can say, as a result of the major changes in cultural context, modern ink and wash paintings went through significant transformations rather quietly—from collective rebellion targeted at tradition and so called ‘art innovation’ that apparently imitating western modern art in the 1980s to multi-faceted cultural dialogue stressing personal exploration. This on one hand means the artists are more mature, but on the other hand, this also shows modern ink and wash artists have responded positively to new cultural challenges. ”
Hang Chunhui believes: “to some extent, individual value is ‘against institutions’. For example, before reform and opening up, all cultural events were ‘collectively’ chosen, that is why in a closed cultural structure, it is impossible to form ‘individualism trend’. Individual’s independence can only be ignited in an open environment and it takes time to form new cultural strength.”
Western contemporary art has its own language logics and history leads, while China’s contemporary art was born after New Wave culture in the 1980s. Due to a sudden open policy, the New Wave culture is highly imitable. That is why contemporary art born on its basis share similar characteristics.
However, if we look at ink and wash’s development in contemporary era from a broader perspective, we will see ink and wash is almost ‘absent’. That is to say, during that time, besides abstract experimental ink and wash, other participants hardly were involved in this exploration of contemporary culture. They still followed realistic routes since the establishment of People’s Republic of China and extended within institutions.
Recognition of Group Culture
Li Sa believes: “from my perspective, art is Jianghu. From the appearance, everyone created art from their own angles or cultural experiences. But from another perspective, several days ago, I read The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and His Followers, in which a view was told in the approach of social history of art—behind every art form, there is a current power and order. It may seem that artists did all personal things, but they all, to some extent, are fulfilling or representing their interests or their works to some extent represent culture and interest pursuit of their class. Various interests or cultural pursuits will to some extent form a Jianghu where clashes may happen. Individualism has been stressed since the post-modernism which prioritize humanity to dissolve modernism.” There are some reasons in history for this kind of dissolving in post-modernism; on the one hand, it is to dissolve modernism, and on the other hand, it is to a certain extent, the development of commercial culture since 1970s and the expansion of American cultural power.
Danto in The End of Art stressed art individualization. He believes Andy Warhol ’s Brillo Boxes created in 1968 set a milestone. Before that, countries had their own history, values, cultural backgrounds and disparities, but after that, art of the world entered one mode—in which you can use various cultural symbols from the whole world, such as India, Egypt, America and China. You can freely express yourself and make anything you want. Everyone can be an artist. Everything can be a piece of art. Nothing is impossible. In fact, it is doctrine of value equivalents. For an artist, for example, I take a potted flower as a piece of art, and you take a tea plate as a piece of art. If the two are displayed at an art gallery, you cannot say which is more valuable than the other. That is, art has no past and no future. Art is not labeled by price. People can create art freely. That is the end of art marked by Andy Warhol ’s art Danto was talking about.
But why Andy Warhol was admired by the whole world after displaying a packing box in an art galley? Andy Warhol had an assistant who printed some silk screen prints but no one bought until Andy Warhol signed his name on it. Why Andy Warhol’s works can be so valuable, collected by large art gallery and collectors and judged by critiques? In fact, if others make exactly the same thing, they just will not be recognized. Looking behind this, there actually is a practical art order and system, because in the west or even in the world, to recognize someone as an important artist requires clear standards. Behind a seemingly “art for art’s sake” appearance, there are strict orders—various points will be added according to where your works are exhibited, by whom collected, criticized by which critique or appeared in what magazine. In fact, America has a leading role in political and economic areas which resulted in its absolute dominance in cultural fields in the past several decades.
Why contemporary ink and wash became important in today? I think the main reason is the changing global structure. We say this is the first time the world economic center has been shifting from the west to east in 500 years. Emerging countries are paying more attention to their cultural identities. This is in fact a global power rebalancing process. In fact, some emerging countries, including China, are pursuing their rights because they are more aware of their cultural identities. We can also see this trend from national policies, including China’s culture development strategy.
Ink and wash reflects clear world political and economic structure changes. In the past several decades, people stressed personal cultural experience featuring casualty and diversity since that is what post-modernism stressed. If we do not stress or build cultural recognition of Chinese culture, recognize our cultural identity as a Chinese or become more and more indifferent to our culture and its value, but increasingly feel as a world citizen, the existence of Chinese culture will be a critical issue, and in fact China also faces issues confronting America. Today’s artists face questions of both “who are we?” and “who am I?” The two equally weighted questions co-exist, however, in the past several decades people stressed more about “who am I?” but ignored “who are we?”
Individualism trend to dissolve “Ink and Wash Jianghu”
From overseas to mainland, from auctions to art galleries, contemporary ink and wash paintings are popular. Market value will ultimately reflect various value evaluation systems. What ink and wash Jianghu tries to describe is actually an evaluation system. Like what Li Xiaoshan has said: “in the whole evaluation system, we need to understand power system, capital system, Chinese academic system, civic system and international system.”
This individualism trend reflects not only the process in which artists’ creating methods are more diverse but also from a single patron of art (nation) to wealthy people in a free market. Hang Chunhui believes: “different patrons of art will lead to different art languages, which are basic forces pushing operations of various Jianghu. Since the establishment of People’s Republic of China, there is only one patron of art—our nation. That is why ink and wash language during that time was mainly used for propaganda. Now, after 30 years of reform and opening up, new rich has brought about new interests in ink and wash. They share the interests under classical context, because they were almost all born in the 1950s and 1960s and became wealthy in the 1980s. Their experience made them both reformative and with strong collectivism spirits. So this generation of people does not see individual expression as their mainstream value. As a new generation of wealthy people—who either succeed in information technology or left with a huge family asset—comes on stage…these wealthy young people born between late 1970s and 1980s who emphasize individuality will surely bring about a new round of change in ink and wash language characterized by ‘personal expression’ as they grow more mature.”
Due to this individualism trend, different artists will come to different judgement based on their personal values, so it is impossible for us to make a macro-judgement. The only thing we can predict is that future ink and wash may not be exactly what we defined it in the past.
Whether due to cultural recognition or individualism trend, ink and wash Jianghu will change as time changes. The change takes place in people’s hearts.
www.artron.net August 28, 2013
An Interview with Zhu Wei: Western Contemporary Art and Contemporary-ink Painting share the same Standards
[Editor’s comment] After a stagnate period since the New Wave movement in 1985, starting from spring and autumn auctions in 2012, contemporary ink and wash painting has become a hot topic due to its soaring transaction price in both primary market and secondary market. In both academia and market, not only mature artists’ master works, young artists enjoyed the boom as well. Now let us introduce you with the status quo and interior structures of contemporary ink and wash paintings.
www.artron.net: If we say there is a “Jianghu” of art, is there a “Jianghu” in ink and wash paintings? What does it look like?
Zhu Wei: Jianghu only exists outside of institutions. Within institutions, we call it factions. For example, warlords fighting each other were fights in Jianghu, because each of the group has their different ideals, thoughts, taboos, and guild regulations, source of income and survival methods. They basically do not communicate with each other. However, within institutions, take Kuomintang’s armies for example, there were central armies and local armies which further divided into Northwest army, Northeast army, Shaanxi army, Taiyuan army, Yunnan army, Hunan army and Sichuan army. These armies were under the lead of and soldiers’ pay and provisions were allocated by the same government. What is more, they also need to cooperate with each other in wars. Though between them, there may be severe contradictions, they share basic interests, so the fights between them are fractional fights.
www.artron.net: From a viewpoint of supporting mechanisms, there are people within institutions and outside institutions. Are there different schools of art within institutions? What are different art groups outside institutions? What are their propositions? For example, Li Huayi and Zheng Zhongbin’s overseas ink and wash practice; Zhang Jiangzhou and Lu Yushun’s art practice within painting academies as well as various artists outside institutions demonstrating various schools.
Zhu Wei: the biggest change brought about by the reform and opening up to Chinese art community is that artists can earn their living with their works. Excellent artists no longer are limited to painting academies, research institutes and colleges which are supported by taxpayers. This can be said as a major progress or return. The current contemporary art we are familiar with such as F4、F5 and F6, many of them were independent in the beginning and some quit their official jobs later. Over a hundred year’s damage and reform of ink-painting makes it hard for ink-painting painters to paint them for survival. In painter villages such as the old Summer Palace, Songzhuang in Tongxian County, Cuigezhuang and Caochangdi, few of them paint ink-painting. Solely dependent on public organizations could only let ink-painting preserve like intangible cultural heritage without extinction, because it lack popular support from the mass. When it becomes stifled, it is less likely to innovate. That’s what happened after the May Fourth Movement. So I believe the priority of ink-painting is whether it can survive with strong vitality.
www.artron.net: How did the individualism trend come into shape? What is its academic foundation, comparing the development of oriental and occidental arts? How did it impact ink-painting?
Zhu Wei: Individualism is the original intention of art and also its essence and ultimate result. Art creation is not group calisthenics. It does not value uniform, or why would we need museum when we already have photo studio? Western contemporary art is increasingly stressing personal characters. Looking back at the western modern and contemporary art, in the beginning, they appeared as a group, for example, the impressionism, post-impressionism, cubism, expressionism, abstractionism, Dada and surrealism. After decades of exploring and development, it’s pretty mature nowadays. We have Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, Gerhard Richter and Richard Prince who demonstrate strong personal characters in installation, photograph, sculpture and painting. Our modern and contemporary art followed their footsteps and learned by imitation, that’s why people are still used to distinguishing theory and artists’ behavior as in groups. F4 and F5 are cases in point. In fact, according to the standards of western contemporary art, one is enough to represent a kind. This standard also applies to contemporary ink-painting. It’s not disabled, so why it needs special care? Still, it’s unnecessary to stress ink-painting’s uniqueness. Who is not? That’s childish. There is also no need to talk about the hardships it had gone through, since all kinds of art tried hard to survive.
雅昌艺术网二零一三年八月二十八日专稿
当代水墨调查之九：个人化，对水墨江湖的消解?
作者：裴刚
【编者按】当代水墨学术、市场自2012年春秋拍开始，一改自85新潮美术以来水墨区块的沉寂，一级市场和二级市场同时发力的展览和成交价格令当代水墨突出重围喧嚣尘上，成为大家关注的热点。从学术到市场不仅成熟艺术家的重要作品，也涵盖了年轻新锐艺术家的水墨作品。那么在这喧嚣之下的当代水墨江湖的形态和内部结构也自然成为大家希望了解的。
水墨江湖诚然是在当代艺术大江湖中的独立区域，与当代艺术大江湖的发展变化是一种互为的关系。影视作品常常出现的开场白“心有多大，江湖就有多大”，“江湖”这一农业社会下相对于官方社会对民间社会的泛指的词汇，在现代社会已经演变为“圈子”。显然“江湖”有指向隐性社会的虚指意义。自古代以来，江湖就是指的一种隐性社会。历史的演变让江湖也逐渐成为历史的遗物，到现代汉语中，江湖的定义又有衍变，逐渐被 “圈子”取代，那么当代水墨江湖是一个什么样的圈子呢?这个圈子的内部结构是怎么样的呢?又有哪些学术观点的交锋?当代艺术呈现一种个人化的趋势，当代水墨中艺术家创作的个人化趋势是否也在消解历史过往形成的水墨江湖?
以艺术赞助人为疆域的水墨江湖
水墨“江湖”作为完整的艺术生态圈，这个生态圈的背后是美学趣味、经济利益、人脉关系、权利结构等因素的综合。因此，它具有一种多样性，因为不同的因素组合就会形成不同的生态圈，也就是“江湖”。当代水墨艺术家杭春晖认为：“当代水墨江湖的背后其实就是艺术赞助人的区分，由于历史的原因，在中国产生了一种由政治体制引导的官方赞助制度，并在水墨圈里引发了一系列由官方美学趣味、利益分配所支配的艺术生态圈。比如我们熟悉的画院体制下的艺术家、美协主席等，一方面他们拥有官员的背景，而另一方面，他又具有官方体系下的现实主义绘画面貌，这套体系强调对五四新文化运动的价值观的继承与发展，强调现实主义的再现。因此，能够与大部分官员以及民间资本拥有者产生共鸣，从而形成“画而优则仕，仕而高则贵”的江湖市场!而与此同时，一批由商业资本所支撑的部分艺术家，因为个人化趣味的一致性，从而形成另一个独立于体制之外的商业水墨生态圈。例如我们较熟知刘丹，因为对传统文化的图像再处理，一方面体现出与传统文化的内在联系，而另一方面也体现了当下的视觉趣味。从而能够满足对文化发展有新设想的一部分资金，从而形成较纯粹商业化的江湖。当然，这两种“江湖”也存在一部分的交集，也就是有一部分艺术家是处于两种体系之间的状态。”
在艺术家朱伟看来“水墨江湖”的变化最重要的是支持艺术家创作的供养背景的变化：“从供养关系来界定，也就是说以体制内和体制外来区分，改革开放给中国艺术生态带来的最大变化是艺术家可以靠作品生存，优秀的艺术家不再是只能从体制内的画院，研究院，学院，等等国家纳税人供养的机构出现。这可以说是一次重大的进步或者回归，眼下我们熟悉的当代艺术F4、F5等等名家很多一开始就不在体制内或者是后来辞去公职出来混的。一百多年来对水墨画的改良和摧残，造成很多艺术家不能靠画我们自己的水墨画生存，或者说屈指可数。指望公立的机构只能是让水墨画像杂技一样作为类似于非物质文化遗产保存下来，不至于灭绝，因为没有强大的群众基础，变得没有生命力，发展创新成为不太可能，近几十年来水墨画的遭遇就是个例证。所以说水墨画能否真正生存下来比其它问题都重要。
大家所知道的圆明园、通县宋庄、崔各庄、草场地等等画家村，里面有几个画水墨的?水墨画单指望公立的机构只能是让水墨画像杂技一样作为类似于非物质文化遗产保存下来，不至于灭绝，因为没有强大的群众基础，变得没有生命力，发展创新也就不太可能，五四运动以来水墨画的遭遇就是个例证。所以说水墨画能否真正生存下来而且还要活得有滋有味比其它问题都重要。”
以学术争锋为疆域的水墨江湖
在艺术市场和艺术赞助人的维度去看水墨江湖之外，不同的学术观点也是了解水墨江湖的重要维度。批评家鲁虹在《90年代的水墨新探索》一文中提到：“从1993年起，西方“后学”及“后殖民”的一些学术观点，被陆续介绍到了国内，这既使美术界开始认真思考现代化的问题、民族身份的问题、重返家园的问题与民族文化发展的问题，也使得现代水墨画获得了特殊的机遇。原因是新的文化语境使人们更加强烈地意识到，八五以来的新艺术对传统文化所作的简单化批判，使不少人陷入了西方关于现代化意识形态的陷阱。再从另外的方面看，传统文化虽然有许多不尽人意之处，但它永远是人们生存与发展，甚至是参与国际对话的基础，而水墨画作为传统文化的象征，则无疑是体现民族身份的标志，如果在中国当代艺术的发展进程中，竟然没有现代水墨画的参与，肯定是文化上的大灾难。”从这一段阐述我们不难看到传统水墨江湖的裂变和当代水墨问题为何变得如此紧迫。
批评家鲁虹认为：1993年以后，由于文化背景及艺术语境都发生了重大的转换，所以批评界围绕现代水墨的实践与相关问题进行了广泛的讨论，主要论题是：现代水墨究竟能否进入中国以及世界当代艺术的格局。大家的看法分歧虽然不小，但无不隐含着特定的价值判断和文化选择。归纳起来，大致有本质论、消亡论、媒体论、表现论、观念水墨论、新保守主义论及文化介入论。
对“笔墨中心论”的学者交锋：
本质论是指对水墨画作本质主义的理解，水墨语言的内在一致性，即笔墨作为中国水墨画的特殊语言方式和接受方式，积淀着中国文化的精神与心理结构背景，表现了中国人的智慧与感知世界的方式。但“笔墨中心论”的学者常常被人扣上“笔墨中心论”的帽子，这在一定程度上是误解：第一，尽管他一方面极力强调水墨画的改革不能离开笔墨的本体性特征，不能割断与传统的天然联系;另一方面，他也并不简单排斥借鉴西法与试验新法的作品。不过，他始终认为所有新法作为笔墨的补充是有益的，但将其作为笔墨的替代物则难免变为灾难;第二，他还极力强调现代水墨画“必须探索与现代社会尤其现代文化的关系，大胆表现现代人的生活与精神，寻找传统精神与现代精神的结合点。代表性艺术家，李孝萱不但有效介入了当下文化，还实实在在地立足传统，对笔墨进行了有效的改造。
持反对意见的学者提出了尖锐的批评，认为笔墨至高无上有其合理处，但作为以笔墨中心对待整个艺术界就会有相当的害处，因其排除了很多潜在的可能性。
对“消亡论”与“媒介论”的学者交锋
消亡论认为，作为一个特殊画种的消亡，就是它在形态意义上和文化指向上的彻底失效。它在当代文化语境中已无力再作为视觉审美和精神价值呈现的重要负载物，更因为它在语言图式和精神指向上难以破灭的固有规范性而不能再成为当代中国文化精神和艺术价值的象征物。而消亡论与媒介论如出一辙，只是后者不提“消亡”。
媒介论认为在当代艺术的情境之下，水墨更多地是一种材料，而不是画种式艺术类型。黄专自90年代来一直很关心当代艺术及水墨画的发展，但他完全不同意媒介论的观点。在《中国画的‘他者’身份及其问题》一文中，他指出：”从逻辑上看，媒介论者的思维方式不仅有可能陷入新的本体论(以西方普遍主义为本体)陷阱，而且，这种思维方式事实上也是东西方二元论对立模式导致的同一种理论悖论，它们以为它们可以超越这种对立的悖论，但却只是从另一种态度上印证了这种悖论，这恐怕是中国画乃至中国文化在20世纪的一种宿命。批评家黄专自90年代来一直很关心当代艺术及水墨画的发展，但他完全不同意媒体论的观点。在《中国画的‘他者’身份及其问题》一文中，他指出：”从逻辑上看，媒介论者的思维方式不仅有可能陷入新的本体论(以西方普遍主义为本体)陷阱，而且，这种思维方式事实上也是东西方二元论对立模式导致的同一种理论悖论，它们以为它们可以超越这种对立的悖论，但却只是从另一种态度上印证了这种悖论，这恐怕是中国画乃至中国文化在20世纪的一种宿命。”
对“表现论”的学者交锋
作为“表现论”的学者借鉴了西方表现主义的理论，如“形式即创造”、“形式即表现”、“语言即精神”等，并力图将其与传统水墨精神相嫁接。鲁虹对抽象水墨的创作现实提出了不同的看法。他在《超越现代主义，直面现实生活》一文中指出，虽然一些抽象水墨艺术家在创造新规范和改变水墨画的生存状态方面具有一定的意义，但不能作为终极目标去追求，这是因为：一、抽象水墨所参照的西方抽象主义艺术已走到了尽头，因此所谓平面空间内的构成问题便成了弱性问题;二、在社会转型时期，艺术的重要功能不是审美，而是提出有针对性的文化问题。如果艺术逃避它的文化使命，对诸多社会问题不闻不问，就难免为社会所冷淡;三、尽管一些抽象水墨画家为他们的作品附加了诸如八卦之类。
对“观念水墨论”的学者交锋
“观念水墨论”的学者强调身份与差异的“后殖民”时期，作为民族身份的象征，水墨画应该努力进入当代艺术的国际语境，并寻求对当代文化及社会问题发言。这样不仅可以对西方中心主义的权力关系构成批判，还可以对自身文化身份及知识结构构成批判。而将水墨画视为一种封闭自足的意义、语言系统和观念艺术的地域性媒介都是错误的。
批驳这一观点的学者认为，把观念水墨当作观念艺术的分支，但这是不能成立的。因为：第一，观念艺术是反艺术的，并且是从捣毁架上艺术起步的;第二，观念艺术不可能按媒材分类，故“观念水墨的概念只能把水墨画和观念艺术都搅得不伦不类。”也许是接受了批评者的意见，持这种观点的学者放弃观念水墨的提法。
“新保守主义论”与“文化介入论”
批评家易英是新保守主义论的倡导者，在《论新保守主义—兼论水墨发展战略》一文中，他认为新保守主义在中国当代艺术中出现，是有关民族文化发展与生存空间的战略问题。他认为”不论水墨画在中国现代艺术中的位置如何，水墨画作为民族身份的符号和文化礼仪，其媒材本身构成了水墨画的特性，是不可互换和替代的，它是中国‘文化生物链’中的一环，这是具有象征性的。一旦水墨媒材失落，也就意味着中国‘文化生态灾难’的降临。
回归传统的要害是回归现实。这其中包括两个层面，其一是消解笔墨中心主义，从现实关怀走向终极关怀，把个人话语置于当代社会的有机联系之中;其二是消解西方现代主义或后现代的价值标准作为变革水墨语言的基础，……”
由于有学者主张通过主动介入当代中国文化的方式来发展水墨艺术，所以姑且称他们的观点为文化介入论。在他们看来，对于现代水墨画家来说，重要的问题，并不是进入世界当代艺术的格局或突出自己的文化身份，而是主动地面对当下中国文化，进而从中寻找新的艺术话题、新的艺术符号和新的表达方式。他们强调，在社会发生重大转型的时候，也就是说，在物质与精神、感性与理性、金钱与良知、灵与肉日趋冲突激烈的当代社会，水墨画家如果不旗帜鲜明地表示一种文化态度，仍然陷在精英情结里，仍然在传统水墨和西方抽象艺术的框架内搞一点小小的形式改革，就会使所谓水墨画改革失去实质性的内容。他们还指出，当代社会的转型为水墨画的发展提供了前所未有的机会，只要我们的水墨画正视历史与现实的要求， 为恢复人的价值、尊严、权利而呐喊，那么水墨画就有可能顺利转型，并在当代文化中占据应有的位置。
个人化的趋势
艺术史的每个节点上都站立着一位位才华横溢，思想深邃的艺术家个体，每个流派也总是有一位领袖人物的典型性作品挂在美术馆、博物馆的空间里供人们去仰慕和追忆艺术家那时的伟人风范。艺术家朱伟认为：“个人化是艺术创作的初衷，是本质，也是最终结果。艺术创作不是团体操，不讲究千人一面步调一致整齐划一，不然要博物馆干嘛，有照相馆就行了。西方当代艺术发展到现在越来越强调个人特色和艺术家个人化。回顾西方现当代艺术道路，一开始更多的是像打狼似的以集体面貌出现，比如印象派、后期印象派、立体派、表现主义、抽象派、达达、超现实，等等，经过几十年的摸索与发展，时至今日已日趋成熟，出现了像安迪·沃霍、达明·赫斯特、杰夫·昆斯、格哈德·里希特、理查德·普林斯等这些装置、摄影、雕塑、绘画个人特色极强的单个艺术家同时并存的现状。我们的现当代艺术起步晚靠模仿起家，所以理论和艺术家行为方式上还习惯于以集体样貌集体特征来加以辨认，比如F4、F5什么的，其实按西方当代艺术标准，一样的东西有一个出来能代表一下就足够了。当代水墨画和西方当代艺术的标准是完全一样的，水墨画又不是残疾人，没什么需要特殊照顾的，水墨画自己也不要像个孩子似的老强调自己的特色，谁没特色?更不要像弱者一样上来先强调自己不容易，谁容易?”
当代水墨创作自80年代到今天由模仿转向个人化语言探索的趋势，批评家鲁虹指出：“在80年代，支配中国人文社会科学界的主导话语是“现代化理论”，但在90年代，其不但逐渐丧失了主导性地位，还变成了学者与艺术家的反思对象，而且，随着西方“后现代”理论的输入，“后殖民”问题、民族身份问题、重返家园等问题日益为中国人文社会科学界所重视。可以说，正是由于这种文化语境的巨大转换，中国现代水墨画从80年代到90年代经历了一场看似没有申张，实则具有深刻意义的转变。即由80年代针对传统普遍存在的集体式反叛，以及带有明显模仿西方现代艺术性质的所谓“艺术创新”转换到了强调个人化探索与注意多向度的文化对话之上。这一方面表明从80年代走过来的现代水墨画家日趋成熟，另一方面也表明现代水墨画家们对新的文化挑战做出了积极和具有意义的回应。”
从个人化对旧有的“江湖标准”的消解意义上，艺术家杭春晖认为：“从某种角度上看，个体价值恰恰具有“反体制”的特点。例如改革开放前的社会生活，所有的文化呈现都是经过“集体化”选择的，不具有开放性。因此，在一个封闭的文化结构中，是无法形成“个人化趋势”的。只有在一个开放的文化环境下，个体的独立性才会被激发，才可能形成新的文化力量，但这需要时间。
西方当代艺术有其自身的语言逻辑和历史线索，而中国当代艺术是发生在80年代新潮文化的基础之上的。由于社会的突然开放，80年代的新潮文化具有高度的模仿性与速成性，因此，在此基础上产生的当代艺术就自然具有与其基础相似的特点。
而从更为宽泛的视角来看待同时代的水墨发展时，我们发现水墨几乎是一种“离场”的状态，也就是说，在这段时间里，除了抽象实验水墨，水墨圈似乎并没有介入到这场文化的当代性探索之中。它依然沿着建国以来的现实主义路线，在体制内的江湖中自我延展。”
对群体文化的认同
从水墨江湖的既定规则与艺术家创作个人化趋势比较而言艺术家李飒认为：“从我自己角度来说水墨江湖，艺术就是江湖，因为从艺术表面上看大家都是从各自角度、从各自文化体验来介入的，但是另外一方面看，前两天看到一本书克拉克写的《现代生活的画像：马奈及其周围生活的艺术家》，主标题就是《现代生活的画像》其中一个观点从艺术社会史的方法讲，在任何一种艺术形态的背后都体现了当时的一种权力和秩序，换一个角度来看艺术家看起来做的都是个人的事情，但是艺术家某种程度上都是在实现自己的利益，或者代表他的阶层的利益，或者他的艺术作品某种程度上代表着他所属的一个阶层的文化、利益诉求。我觉得不同的艺术家从各自的角度、背景不一样，各自角度不一样，其实他们代表的利益诉求是不一样的，或者文化诉求是不一样的，这个里边这种不同的利益诉求、文化诉求某种程度上肯定会形成江湖化，就是不同的风化，板块结构，相互碰撞。艺术家在这个环境中作出更主动的探索。从后现代主义以来一直在强调个人化，后现代主义为了消解现代主义而强调个人性。后现代主义这种消解从历史上看也有它的一些原因，一方面是为了消解现代主义，另外一方面也是某种程度上尤其是七十年代以来商业文化的发展某种程度上也是美国文化权力的伸张。
丹托的《艺术终结论》就是强调艺术个人化的观点。他认为艺术到安迪·沃霍尔是一个标志，1968年安迪·沃霍尔《布里洛河》的作品为标志，在之前不同国家的艺术都有各自的历史、不同的价值倾向、文化背景、有差异性，到了安迪·沃霍尔之后全世界艺术都进入到一种模式当中，你作为一个中国艺术家可以用各种全世界不同的文化符号，可以用印度的、埃及的、美国的、中国的，可以随便的文化符拼贴在一起，可以随意表达，可以做任何东西，任何人都可以成为艺术家，任何东西都可以成为艺术品，一切都有可能，做什么都是可以的，实际上里边的意思是一个价值均等论，作为一个个体的艺术家来说，比如说我拿了一盆花做一个艺术，你拿一个茶盆做了一个艺术，这两者中间同时放在美术馆展览，这两者之间没有价值差别，不能说哪个比哪个代表的艺术价值好，他的意思就是艺术没有过去，没有未来，它不再有价值之分，人们可以随心所欲创造艺术，是这么一个艺术终结论，以安迪·沃霍尔的艺术为标志。
但凭什么安迪·沃霍尔拿了一个包装盒子放在美术馆里就成为全世界膜拜的对象?安迪·沃霍尔曾经有一个助手，他自己也印一些丝网版画，拿到市场上一个人都没人买，没有安迪·沃霍尔的签名一个都没有卖出去，凭什么他做的东西能够成为价值连城的东西，被大美术馆收藏，被炒得最高的价格，被重要的收藏家收藏，批评家评论，实际上一般人做的这个东西，他的助手做的一模一样的东西完全不被认可或者一般老百姓做完全不被认可，仔细看在这个背后，在艺术家的背后或者艺术的背后有一个很现实的艺术秩序和艺术体系的，因为在西方或者在世界上，一个艺术家被认为是一个重要的艺术家是有很明确的标准的，他也是有一个很严谨、严格的秩序，你在什么样的美术馆展览，你在美国的美术馆展览被加多少分，有一个严格的评分标准，你被美国的收藏家收藏加多少分，你被美国的批评家批评加多少分，你被美国的杂志刊登被加多少分，有一个非常严格的秩序结构。在看似艺术主义的背后，其实是有着一套严密的秩序和逻辑结构的，秩序和结构的，实际上是美国在全球占据着绝对的政治经济领域的主导地位，决定了他在文化上的绝对主导权，这些东西在过去几十年也是无法改变的东西。
为什么当代水墨在今天会变得很重要?实际上我觉得更主要的原因还是世界结构变化的原因，我们所说的五百年来第一次世界经济中心从西向东移，新兴国家的崛起同时使新兴国家在文化上开始更注重自我身份的表达，同时实际上是一个全球权力再平衡的过程，实际上中国等新兴国家在文化上伸张、追求自己的权力，就是文化意识开始变得越来越重要、越清醒。从国家政策上也能看到这些，包括文化大发展战略。
水墨的背后其实是有着很清晰的世界的政治、经济结构变化的局势的影响。在过去几十年来，大家都是从个人经验出发，后现代主义过去几年都强调个人经验、个人文化经验，这种个人文化经验强调随意性，强调差异性，强调多元化。如果不强调或者不去建构自身的文化认同，如果在文化上不认同市中国人的文化身份，或者对自身文化历史认同感越来越淡薄或者对自身价值越来越淡漠的话，越来越觉得自己是一个世界人，中国自身的文化存在同样将来是一个非常重要的问题，其实同样美国面对的问题中国也在面对，今天的艺术家其实同时兼顾着“who are we?”，文化个体的独立价值也是很重要的，同样每个艺术家也面对着“who am I?”的问题，这两个问题同时存在、同等重要的问题，只是过去几十年来人们更多强调“我是谁”的问题，而忽视了“我们是谁”的问题。”
个体化趋势对“水墨江湖”的消解
当代水墨大热的风从海外刮进了大陆，又从拍卖场刮进了画廊。市场的价值判断，最终会依托与各种价值评估体系。水墨江湖要描述的其实是一个评价系统，如李小山所说：“在整个的评价系统里边，我们一方面要了知权力系统、资本系统，还有中国学术系统、民间系统，还有国际系统。”
水墨的个人化趋势，不仅仅是作为艺术家个体的创作方式越来越多元的评价系统消解原有的水墨程式，也从单一的国家作为艺术赞助人向自由市场的财富人群作为艺术赞助人的转变，杭春晖认为：“不同的艺术赞助力量将簇生不同的艺术语言面貌。这也是不同江湖运行的基本推力。建国之后的很长一段时间，中国的艺术创作只有一个赞助者，那就是国家，因此，这段时间下的水墨语言具有典型的现实宣传性。而随着近30年的改革开放，新生的富裕阶层也带来了水墨在美学趣味上的表现，但是，这种趣味有着古典语境下的同一性。因为这一代艺术赞助人基本由50、60年代出生，在80年代逐渐成功的富裕阶层充当，由于这一代人的成长环境的特殊性，一方面他们具有改革性，但同时也具有典型的集体主义精神，因此，强调个体表达并不是这一群体的主流价值观。而随着更为年轻一代的财富阶层的形成，他们或是在信息科技变革中获得成功，或是继承上一代的家族财富…，这些出生在70年代末、80年之间的年轻富裕阶层，强调个人的主体性，因此，随着这样的艺术赞助者的成熟，必将带来新一轮的水墨语言变革。而这一次变革的特点就是“个人化表达”。
正是由于这种个体化的趋势，是需要不同艺术家遵循不同个体的判断而形成，所以，你无法来宏观的做一个判断。唯一能预测的就是，未来的水墨可能越来越不象我们曾经所理解的水墨标准了。”
无论是文化认同还是个人化的趋势，旧有的水墨江湖会随时代的变迁而变化。水墨江湖之变变在人们的心里。
雅昌艺术网二零一三年八月二十八日专稿
朱伟专访：当代水墨和西方当代艺术的标准一样
【编者按】当代水墨学术、市场自2012年春秋拍开始，一改自85新潮美术以来水墨区块的沉寂，一级市场和二级市场的展览和成交价格另当代水墨突出重围喧嚣尘上，成为大家关注的热点。从学术到市场不仅成熟艺术家的重要作品，也涵盖了年轻新锐艺术家的水墨作品。那么在这喧嚣之下的当代水墨江湖的形态和内部结构也自然成为大家希望了解的。
雅昌艺术网：如果说艺术存在一个“江湖”，水墨这个画种是否也存在一个“江湖”?这个江湖的形态是怎样的?
朱伟：江湖只存在于体制之外，体制内的那叫派系。举个例子，军阀混战武林争霸其实就是江湖斗争。因为每一拨人都有不同的理念坐标，指导思想以及各种禁忌;有不同的家规行规做派以及行事规则;有各自的经济来源生存方法;互相不怎么往来。体制内则不同，当年国民党军队山头林立，有中央军有地方军，地方军又分西北军、东北军、陕军、晋军、滇军、湘军、川军等，但都是在国民政府的统一领导下，经费军饷国民政府统一拨发，战斗中还是要互相支援配合。尽管有矛盾有的甚至积怨很深到了擦枪走火的地步，但基本利益一致，彼此半斤八两大同小异，有的仅仅是为了争宠，只能算是派系斗争。
雅昌艺术网：从供养的角度有体制内和体制外，体制内是否可以细分出不同的流派、区域的不同样态?体制外又有哪些艺术家形成的不同艺术群体?他们各自不同的观念和主张是怎样的?例如：李华弌、郑重宾等在海外的水墨实践，张江舟、卢禹舜等画院体制内艺术家的艺术实践，包括体制外的艺术家个体户，南北各个流派的不同样态。
朱伟：改革开放给中国艺术生态带来的最大变化是艺术家可以靠作品生存，优秀的艺术家不再是只能从体制内的画院、研究院、学院，等等国家纳税人供养的机构出现。这可以说是一次重大的进步或者回归，眼下我们熟悉的当代艺术F4、F5、F6等等很多一开始就不在体制内或者是后来辞去公职出来混的。一百多年来对水墨画的摧残和改良，造成水墨艺术家不能靠画我们自己的水墨画生存，或者说屈指可数。大家所知道的圆明园、通县宋庄、崔各庄、草场地等等画家村，里面有几个画水墨的?水墨画单指望公立的机构只能是让水墨画像杂技一样作为类似于非物质文化遗产保存下来，不至于灭绝，因为没有强大的群众基础，变得没有生命力，发展创新成为不太可能，五四运动以来水墨画的遭遇就是个例证。所以说水墨画能否真正生存下来而且还要活得有滋有味比其它问题都重要。
雅昌艺术网：个人化的趋势是如何形成的?对比中西方当代艺术的发展变化，他的学术基础是怎样的?是如何作用于水墨的?
朱伟：个人化是艺术创作的初衷，本质，也是最终结果。艺术创作不是团体操，不讲究千人一面步调一致整齐划一，不然要博物馆干嘛，有照相馆就行了。西方当代艺术发展到现在越来越强调个人特色和艺术家个人化。回顾西方现当代艺术道路，一开始更多的是像打狼似的以集体面貌出现，比如印象派、后期印象派、立体派、表现主义、抽象派、达达、超现实，等等，经过几十年的摸索与发展，时至今日已日趋成熟，出现了像安迪·沃霍、达明·赫斯特、杰夫·昆斯、格哈德·里希特、理查德·普林斯等这些装置、摄影、雕塑、绘画个人特色极强的单个艺术家同时并存的现状。我们的现当代艺术起步晚靠模仿起家，所以理论和艺术家行为方式上还习惯于以集体样貌集体特征来加以辨认，比如F4、F5什么的，其实按西方当代艺术标准，一样的东西有一个出来能代表一下就足够了。当代水墨画和西方当代艺术的标准是完全一样的，水墨画又不是残疾人，没什么需要特殊照顾的，水墨画自己也不要像个孩子似的老强调自己的特色，谁没特色?更不要像弱者一样上来先强调自己不容易，谁容易? |
