|
Pertinacity just an Attitude
——Dialogue between Wang Jing and Zhu Wei
Wang Jing (hereinafter W): Dispute on ink-and-wash paintings has never stopped. However, it seems that from such dispute people have not found the way in which to improve ink-and-wash paintings. So what is the function of theories for you, a practitioner and artist?
Zhu Wei (hereinafter Z): No achievement is done following the guide of theories which will only show their function after something has finished. For instance, no one dares to write his resume at his birth, and his funeral orations will only be read after his death: theories could only become useful at this time. What I am exploring now is whether ink-and-wash paintings can be contemporary. If I succeed, many people may follow suit; otherwise I will become a lonely loser. Just like if you want to hunt wolves in mountain, people will be bound to give you various advices. Someone may say that it is windy and the wolf may bite your neck from the left-rear, and some others say it will attack you from the right rear. Some may tell you the sun sets early, so the wolf will kowtow to you, lead you to visit its house and give you some grapes upon you leave; while others may say recently the wolf is in good mood and it will help you conform with international practices. Then, do you think a hunter would believe in these words? For thousands of years, ink-and-wash paintings have developed smoothly without serious suffering. However, it came across two big calamities during these dozens of years: one was the May Fourth Movement happened in late Qing Dynasty and early Republic China, and the other was the traditional Chinese painting revolution. During the May Fourth Movement, ink-and-wash paintings were rather controversial, or we can even say they were negated. Indeed, then what people wanted to negate were existing culture, including ink-and-wash paintings, arranged marriages, imperial examinations and Shaman Celebrations. As to the so-called ‘traditional Chinese painting revolution’, bluntly, it was nothing but westernizing ink-and-wash paintings by integrating them with sketches and perspective principles, having made them rather ridiculous and nondescript. Exactly speaking, the latter calamity, in which ink-and-wash paintings have unprecedentedly suffered the most, originated from the inside of artistic circles.
W: You are quite right. In the 20th century, ink-and-wash paintings have been the object of self-questioning rising in intellectual circles for several times. If the self-examination is always done with anxiety and self-blame, people will fall into the trap of habitual thinking and fail to establish the self-recognition, not to say conducting objective literary and art criticism.
Z: For thousands of years, ink-and-wash paintings have played a very important role in China without any disruption, and they remained one part of the mainstream culture in China till the end of Qing Dynasty. Nobody, official or civil, kind or heartless, happy or upset, would express themselves with ink and wash painting. According to Sullivan, a famous western art historian, Chinese art has caused two Sinicization Movements in Europe: one happened in 17th century and the other in 18th century, during which the influence exerted by China on ideology, art and material life in Europe has greatly exceeded that exerted by Europe on China.
For many Chinese people, it is rather unpractical and un-artistic to solve dimension problems with perspective principles of Geometry. In Chinese paintings, there is more than one viewpoint as well as unfixed vision-line perspective towards objects, for which in the same painting, the painter may adopt different viewpoints and perspectives when drawing figures and objects. Then most of artists, official or civil, common or outstanding, would follow the painting rule formulated by Guo Xi, a painter in Song Dynasty, ‘In landscape paintings, mountains should be as high as ten feet, trees should reach one foot, with horses one tenth of foot, and figures one hundredth of foot’, meaning that if the painter has decided to use parallels, then they should not change this way all through to the end.
Castiglione came to China in 1715 when he was 27 years old and died at 78 in China, during which he had served for several emperors: Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong. Over more than 50 years, he had specialized in ink-and-wash paintings, contributing his life to the combination of Chinese and Western paintings. Kangxi, the emperor then, did not like oil paintings, because they would blur and darken over time. Therefore he ordered European painters in China then, including Castiglione, to learn Chinese fine brush works, drawing on silk fabrics with gelatinous materials. However, later these westerners reported that ink-and-wash paintings were too difficult to learn: during the process of drawing neither revision nor touching-up were allowed; the whole painting would be ruined by even a little hesitation or incorrect use of strength.
It was Castiglione who has made western oil painting accepted by the royal in China at first, and then gained a good opportunity of spreading. It was not until then did Chinese know that paintings could be created in a different way. After the May Fourth Movement, some western forms of art, such as stage play, opera and oil painting, appeared in China, and then China saw Republic China Oil Painting, Russian School Oil Painting, ’85 New Wave Art Movement Oil Painting and Post-1989 Oil Painting. Even now, unexpectedly, what have been taken as mainstream paintings and speculated as Chinese contemporary artistic works are mostly oil paintings. It is hard to say whether we should feel happy or sad: China’s confidence has been lost.
W: Castiglione is an example reflecting the influence of Chinese painting skill exerted on foreign painters. Although he was a visitor who served and had to obey the emperor in Qing Dynasty, somewhat like an employee, what he was doing was the most effective cultural communication. Indeed, the focus-out painting technique had already existed in Chinese painting tradition before it was used by Richter. It originally appeared as an angle of view with which ancient Chinese observed the world, but it was not valued until people saw it in Richter’s works. Indeed, there were a lot of creative ideas in Chinese ancient aesthetic system, which had been formed before modern practices. For instance, ‘even one drop of water contains countless worlds’ put out by Zen just reflects a super-micro perspective.
Z: Unlike Castiglione, Richter has not come to and described modern China with his painting technique of ‘focus-out’ and European perspective principles. However, today’s China is rather different from the one in Qing Dynasty. Now most people think that western oil paintings are brilliant and fashionable, and most of Chinese painters are proficient in drawing these paintings and imitating western painters, with some of them even doing better than the imitated. Then Castiglione was not so free in that what he should draw was determined by the emperor, and all figures must be painted in a flat two-dimensional way without any shadow: ‘paintings must be done by imitating samples’. The sketch of one of his representative works, One Hundred Horses, is still in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Compared with modern Chinese artists specialized in western paintings, Castiglione had also profited from emperors: Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong all admired him a lot, and he had always been the imperial painter for his life with a fairly high official position in the court. In his old age, he participated in several big projects such as the design and construction of Changchun Garden in the Old Summer Palace. Besides, he had ever been the leader of Fengchen Garden, the department governing buildings in the imperial palace.
W: By and large, traditional Chinese ink-and-wash painting emphasizes the painter’s self-education and self-improvement, based on the individual’s life experience and emotions. Over years, ink-and-wash paintings are inactive in handling the relationship between individuals and the society and will not face acute social contradictions and issues directly. However, your works created from the end of the 1980s to the 1990s just contained referents to concrete social affairs, while recently they returned to express your inner heart again. What is the reason for such transformation?
Z: What do not face acute social contradictions actively are not ink-and-wash paintings alone, but all forms of art. The so-called contemporary paintings are full of figures with exaggerated expressions, and they are at best literati oil paintings. This has something to do with the entire national culture. Many of my paintings created from the end of 1980s to early 1990s did contain referents to concrete social phenomenon, and I even explored some issues by series of paintings, which have not occurred in the history of Chinese ink-and-wash painting, more or less, this depends on the social change as well as the comparatively relaxed creating environment. Seen from the history of ink-and-wash paintings, figure paintings run contrary to landscape ones. The former are related with and proportional to the richness and enlightening degree of the society. For instance, in Tang Dynasty, figure painters accounted 2/3 of all painters then, while in Northern Song Dynasty 1/5, in Southern Song 1/2, in Yuan Dynasty 1/5, and in Ming Dynasty 1/7; in Qing Dynasty, the proportion was even smaller. In early Qing we could still find landscape painters, such as Shi Tao and Zhu Da, who expressed their emotions by depicting scenery, while till mid and late Qing no such painters remained at all.
W: In the past, political aesthetics was alienated to and rejected the society, and sometimes they were characterized by avoiding the society and political identity. Someone transform realistic social issues into visual forms, considering art as one of measures which can be used to change the society, while some others think that social affairs have nothing to do with art: whether ink-and-wash paintings contain referents to contemporary issues or not, they are still themselves. In my opinion, the core of the wide discussion on the contemporaneity of ink-and-wash painting is whether such paintings should be taken as a tool for presenting realistic problems as well as constructing social system.
Z: Indeed, we should not take whether ink-and-wash paintings can be contemporary as an issue at all, just like foreigners and Chinese people eat different food, which has lasted thousands of years, but we just want to discuss whether such habit is good and reasonable and whether Chinese dish can meet our contemporary needs. Why do we insist on negating ourselves? Does that result from the lack of confidence or other shameful reasons? Have you heard that Europeans usually hold meetings discussing whether oil paintings can become contemporary? If they, just like Chinese do, hesitated to make their decision, would Chinese painters still imitate them so enthusiastically?
The purpose of discussing something is simply deciding whether it should be repaired and reused, or be thrown. We have discussed this issue for years, and what is our purpose?
I quite understand the bad habit rooted deep in Chinese culture: people are impatient, opportunistic and cowardly. These weaknesses can be applied to almost everywhere. By ‘impatient’, I mean we are always dreaming of the appearance of miracle. We are not willing to gain achievement by our own efforts, but holding the fantast that fruits may grow from nowhere one day. I say people are ‘opportunistic’, because what we admire are to win by small probability events and little endeavor. In China, all know Zhuge Liang’s legends such as ‘borrowing arrows with thatched boats’ and ‘showing great wisdom in an empty fort’. People all think that Zhuge Liang is extremely clever. However, we have not ever considered other factors: what if they did not have eastern wind? Then how to keep millions of soldiers from Wu State safe? What if Sima Yi attacked the fort directly without any hesitation? China is a great country, but why don’t we admire something practical? As to ‘cowardly’, I mean we have never dared to pursue what we consider to be correct. Artists are similar to scientists in that they should improve what are at hand and make innovations. In other words, they should make advancement on the solid basis of inheritance; moreover, we must understand thoroughly what we have inherited before we make further steps forward. However, few Chinese artists can accomplish that. In western philosophy, science and culture means accumulation and inheritance, obeying the rules and improving measures for testing and monitoring errors. Now Ink-and-wash paintings descended to such a condition, and nobody is to blame but ourselves. No western contemporary critiques have made any comments on our paintings, and it is we ourselves who are harming them.
W: Here I think it is necessary to talk about the intellectuals. Now artists are not blue-collar works any longer but someone have handled special techniques, which have already made them intellectual elites in the society. Now artists should be thinkers at first. When an artist transforms his judgment on the society into visual presentations and when his works are widely spread, his individual experience and knowledge structure is no longer something of his own. What is your opinion?
Z: One is accumulating knowledge for his lifetime. When living he can make use of knowledge he has acquired, but he cannot bring with him or leave any knowledge, after his death. Existing things will surely be discovered sooner or later. For example, relativity had existed before Einstein put out his Theory of Relativity, and it would not disappear after the scientist’s death. It was possible that others were still studying it but their discovery was made later than Einstein, so they could not announce it. No individual can affect the normal operation of the world, and people will still live well or even better without any figures. There is no Savior in the world, and if somebody says he is, then he must be a liar or ruffian.
W: It sounds a little pessimistic. Then at present how do you, an artist, view intellectuals’ social responsibility?
Z: In my spare time I have considered what I am. I am neither an official nor a merchant, neither a worker nor a farmer, neither a teacher nor a student, and neither a City Management Worker nor a stall-seller. I am no more than a painter. According to categories formulated by administration systems, painters are artists, and artists are literate; being literate means being knowledgeable and those who are knowledgeable can be taken to be intellectuals.
Strictly speaking, there is no real intellectual in China. What is an intellectual? At first, an intellectual is not one who has widely read or who has mastered much professional knowledge: the former is only a movable bookshelf while the latter is only a technician or experienced technician. An intellectual must have equipped with independent spirit, free will and originality. Secondly, intellectuals must be critiques of the society they are living in and opponents of the existing values; they must criticize the society and oppose the existing values. Indeed, we are not even knowledgeable people. There are a lot of things that we do not know and cannot know. We have not found the truth, and then how can we criticize? Not to say criticize as an intellectual.
W: Now let’s come back to your work. Why did you begin to create ‘Red Flags’ series? Do they have ‘political’ ideals? What is the significance of this series to your current creation?
Z: In late 1980s and early 1990s I painted some acute ink-and-wash figure paintings, such as The Story of Beijing series, China Dairy series and Pictures of the Strikingly Bizarre series, which had launched a great influence at that time. My personal ink-and-wash painting exhibition caused a greater sensation than that ‘Post-1989’ collective oil-painting exhibition. Later I read in newspaper that on the opening ceremony there had occurred physical conflicts twice because audience all wanted to view the exhibition earlier and the staff had to settle the problem. Then I was a young man newly graduated with ambitions, and my friends all engaged in rock and roll, with the most inferior one being a Punk, so it was natural that I had infused something special in my paintings. At that time my paintings were finished accompanied with music from Beatles, Rolling Stone and Cui Jian, and I always felt that what I wanted to draw were too many. Now I consider that my works created at that time were full of passion but weak in linguistic expression: I wanted my paintings to contain everything. In one drawing of the Pictures of the Strikingly Bizarre series, I had even inscribed some roll-lyrics and my pager number: now I feel that was really mischievous. After the expiration of my contract with Plum Blossoms Gallery in 2006, I only painted less than ten paintings each year, and this year I plan to create two for Cheng Xindong’s contemporary art exhibition to be held in National Gallery of Cuba. From 2007 to the end of 2008, it took me one year and a half to finish 7 paintings of Red Flags series, during which I had wished to present my ideas in a pure and traditional way with the sense of ancient painters like Wu Daozi and Cao Buxing. However, all appeared in those paintings were politicized in a realistic context. I do not know whether it was my fault, or the audience have formed the habit of associating everything they see to feel crisis in themselves. Now Chinese symbols and icons are repeatedly used, which makes people so fed up, and the root is contemporary artists’ impatient and opportunist attitude. Their works are superficial without profound meanings, and what they wish is to gain great achievements with only a little effort. Now I just want to do something contrary to their deeds.
W: Your working manner has lasted ten more years. Then are there any unexpected factors in your creation? If so, how can you keep balance between your habitual work and the unexpected factors?
Z: There is nothing unexpected at all. If you ponder the same thing every day you will never find anything unexpected. For instance, you have eaten some stuffed buns in a stormy and snowy day, and then burp on the bed at home: at this moment will your find anything unexpected?
——
Published in the ‘Dialogue’ column of Oriental Art◎Maters, First semimonthly issue of October, 2009
执拗就是一种态度
——王静对话朱伟
王静：关于水墨问题的讨论从来没有停止过，争论似乎并没有给水墨未来的发展指明方向，对于你来说，作为一个实践者、艺术家，理论对你的作用是什么？
朱伟：世界上没有一件事是在理论的指引下取得成功的，理论只能起善后的作用。比如，没人敢在刚一出生就把一生的简历写好，只有在死了以后才会有一两篇悼词，理论在这个时候才显示出来。我现在的工作是水墨画能否当代的问题，可以说弄好了肯定有人跟着，弄不好就混了个前无古人后无来者。比如你想上山打狼，肯定会有人告诉你，今天风大，狼可能会从左后方咬你的脖子，又有人会告诉你，狼会从右后方袭击你，还有人会说，今儿天黑得早，狼见了你会先给你磕个头，然后带你去它家玩，走的时候还会给你带两筐葡萄。没准还会有人告诉你，这两天狼心情好，很有可能会直接带你去和国际接轨。你说这些话猎人敢信吗？水墨画几千年运作下来一直比较顺畅，没受过什么?，只是到了最近这几十年才遭受到了两次大规模的劫难：一是清末民初五四运动，水墨画饱受争议，说争议还算是好听的，其实就是要否定已有的文化，当中包括水墨画、包办婚姻、科举制度、跳大神等等这些倒霉蛋儿；另外一次就是解放后的国画革命，说白了其实就是水墨画西化，把素描带进水墨画，把透视原理带进水墨画，终于使水墨画变得非驴非马人不人鬼不鬼。严格的说，这后一次的折腾是从美术界内部发起的，对水墨画的摧残最重，也是划时代的。
王静：是这样，水墨在20世纪的多个时间点一度成为文化界自我质疑的对象，如果总是带着焦虑和自责的心态自我审视，就会陷入惯性思维的怪圈，自我认可建立不起来客观的文艺批评就更谈不上了。
朱伟：几千年来水墨画一直没受什么打扰，一直相当牛逼，直到清朝结束之前仍然是这个民族主流文化的一部分，从官方到民间有情的没情的有愁的没愁的都借水墨画说事儿。按照西方著名艺术史学家苏利文所说，在欧洲，中国艺术至少导致了两次中国化运动，前者出现在十七世纪，后者在十八世纪，这两个时期中国对欧洲的思想艺术和物质生活的影响远超过欧洲对中国的影响。
在许多中国人看来，用几何学透视原理来处理空间的问题是虚伪的，非艺术化的，中国画对物的视点不止一个，而是几个，视线角度是不固定的，所以画家在同一幅画中写人和写物表现出不同的视点和角度。当时宫廷画院民间在野大家都依照宋人郭熙定的作画原则：“山水画中画山盈丈，树木盈尺，马盈寸，人物盈十分之一寸。”意思就是说，你要是画平行线，就一直不折不扣地平行下去，才中。
郎世宁一七一五年二十七岁来中国，直到七十八岁去世，历康熙、雍正、乾隆，在中国从事水墨绘画50多年，把一生献给中西结合上。当年康熙皇帝不喜欢油画，因为年代久了就会变得黑乎乎模糊不清，于是令郎世宁等欧籍画家学习中国工笔画，使用胶质原料在绢上作画。后来郎世宁等几个外国哥们儿向康熙反映，水墨画太难，一笔下去就不能再画第二笔，也不容修改润饰，笔触偶有踌躇或下笔太重，那幅画就毁了。
他使得西方油画在中国首先得到宫廷的认可，有了很好的传播，使得中国老百姓知道世界上还有这么画画的。五四运动之后，话剧歌剧油画等等西洋玩意儿在中国广泛登陆，随后才有了民国油画、苏俄派油画、八五新潮油画、后八九油画，甚至到了今天，政府的主流绘画题材、民间的中国当代艺术炒作竟然都是以油画为主，真不知是喜是忧，中国的自信就这么给丢了。
王静：郎世宁是中国绘画技法影响外国画家的一个例证，只不过他是访问者，服务于清朝皇帝，就是被雇佣的感觉，得按照皇帝的旨意行事，不过这是最有效的文化交流。其实像里希特的焦点不实的视觉方法在中国绘画传统中早已存在，它早就是中国古人观看世界的一种视角，却直到看到了李希特的作品才仿佛如获至宝，中国古代的美学体系中，其实早于今人就有了很多创造性的艺术贡献，比如禅宗的“一滴水中有三千世界”，是极微观的视角。
朱伟：和郎世宁比起来，虽然里希特没有直接来中国用焦点不实的绘画技法和欧洲的透视原理描绘今日的中国，但是现在中国和当年比起来可大不同了，现在人们都觉得西方的油画好，时髦，中国的画家们个个训练有素，技法娴熟，学谁像谁，指哪打哪，大有青出于蓝而胜于蓝的意思。这事当年老郎头都没赶上，他当时作画的题材每张都必须由皇帝钦定，人像也必须平平板板不能有阴影，“照样准画”，其中代表作之一的《百骏图》粉本（草图的意思）目前还保留在纽约大都会博物馆。和现在学西方的中国当代艺术家相比，郎世宁也不亏，他和康熙雍正乾隆关系都不错，一直是宫廷御用画家，官封三品。晚年还接了几个基建项目，参与了圆明园内长春园的设计和施工，一度担任奉宸苑苑钦的职务。
王静：中国传统水墨多从个体生命体验、个人的情感态度出发，强调画家自我的修为和完善，在处理个人与社会的关系问题上，相当长的时间内，水墨并不具有主动性，基本不直接面对社会的尖锐矛盾和问题。在你的作品中，80年代末到90年代的时期内，恰恰指涉了具体的社会问题，近来好像又走向了一种内在，这种变化产生的原因是什么？
朱伟：不是水墨画不去主动面对社会尖锐矛盾，其它艺术形式谁去碰过？就我们现在看到的所谓当代艺术，无非也是龇牙咧嘴或者目瞪口呆，基本也就算个油画文人画，这和我们的整个民族文化有关系。我在上世纪八十年代末九十年代初的作品有很多确实指涉了具体的社会现象，甚至用系列方式展开对问题的挖掘，这在中国水墨画历史上基本没有过，这也多少有赖于社会的变革以及相对宽敞一点儿的创作环境。翻看水墨画的历史，人物画与山水画正相反，人物画和当时社会的发展富裕开明程度直接联系在一起，是成正比的，唐代人物画画家占整个画家队伍的三分之二，北宋占五分之一，南宋占二分之一，元则为五分之一，明为七分之一，到清代更少之。清代前期还有像石涛八大这样的借景抒情的山水画家，到中后期连这都没了。
王静：政治美学从前是间离和拒斥社会的，有时也表现为回避社会、回避政治身份。有的人将现实社会问题转换为视觉方式，将艺术视为诸多改变社会的方式的一种，有些人则认为这本身与艺术无关，水墨指不指涉当代问题都是水墨画，现在广泛讨论的水墨当代化的问题，我觉得讨论的核心还是是否将水墨的语言方式作为关注现实问题，以及参与社会系统建设的工具。
朱伟：水墨画能不能当代化压根不能作为一个问题。就像外国人吃西餐我们吃中餐，几千年都这么吃下来的，可我们偏偏要讨论，该不该这样吃，还能不能这样吃，中餐符不符合当下中国人的需要。我们为什么老惦记着要否定自己呢，是不是太不自信了呢？还是有什么其它不可告人的原因？你什么时候听说欧洲人动不动开会广泛讨论油画能否当代化？如果他们一天到晚拿不定主意，犹犹豫豫，一副前途未卜的德性，我们中国的画家能像现在这样一窝蜂地去学人家吗？
一东西拿出来讨论无非是想得出来两个结果：一个是想修理一下看还能不能接着用；一个是想扔了。这么多年我们讨论的目的更倾向于哪一个呢？
几千年传下来的中国文化劣根性我太清楚不过了：浮躁、投机取巧、怕事。你拿这三条去套，无不如此。为什么说浮躁呢，我们总是梦想着奇迹的出现，因为我们不愿意付出太多努力，总想不劳而获，总想着天上会掉下点什么。何谓投机呢，因为我们老想着走捷径，老想着四两拨千斤，以这种小概率事件取胜，在中国大人小孩都知道诸葛亮的“草船借箭”“空城计”的故事，都认为诸葛亮聪明极了，可是有没有人想过，万一当年东风没借着怎么办，东吴几万将士的生命将置于何处？万一那天司马懿不起疑心，带兵杀进城怎么办？我们这么一个泱泱大国的文化为什么不崇尚做有把握的事儿呢？何谓怕事，因为我们从来没有勇气追求自己认为是正确的事情。艺术家在进行创作的时候应该像一个科学家一样，完善现有，探索新的，其实就是先继承，后发展。而且要继承好了再发展，理解透了再往下走，我们的艺术家有几个是这么做的？在西方的理念中所谓的科学文化就是积累和传递；在西方的理念中所谓的科学文化就是遵守规律；在西方的理念中所谓的科学文化就是加强对错误的测试和验证。我们的水墨画混成现在这个样子，完全是我们自己造成的。西方当代批评家从来没人说过我们水墨画什么，全是我们自己撮的。
王静：谈到这里，我倒觉得应该谈谈知识分子这个话题。艺术家早已是一个社会的知识精英阶层，这与艺术家的工作有关，不再是技术上的蓝领，今天的艺术家必须首先是思想家，艺术家将自己对社会的判断转换为视觉呈现的一刻，作品被广泛传播，艺术家的个体经验和知识结构就不再是个人的了，你怎么看？
朱伟：人生到死就是一个积累知识的过程，活着的时候积累知识利用知识，人一死这过程嘎嘣儿就结束了，知识带不走也留不下。事物本身就存在，人们发现它只是早晚的事，比如爱因斯坦的相对论，这事不是因为他发现才有，他一死就结束，只不过他发现得早点儿，没准别人这个时候也在研究，只不过比他晚，不方便嚷嚷。这个世界上离了谁都行，离了谁大家都过得好好的，没准过得更好，根本没有什么救世主。如果有，那也是几个大忽悠或者大恶棍。
王静：听起来有点悲观，作为一个艺术家，在今天你如何看待知识分子的社会责任？
朱伟：我没事的时候坐炕上也想，我算个什么东西呢？不是官人也不是商人，不是工人也不是农人，不是老师也不是学生，不是城管也不是摆摊的，我只是个画画儿的。按行政治安管理的分法，画画的算是搞艺术的，搞艺术的归文化口，算是有文化的，有文化的肯定有知识，有知识的那么就算是知识分子。
严格意义上说，中国现在没有一个真正的知识分子。什么是知识分子？一，知识分子不是读书多的人，读书多，那只是一个流动的书架子，也不是所谓掌握专业知识的人，那只能算是个专业技术人员或者资深专业技术人员。一个知识分子必须有独立精神、自由意志和原创能力。二，知识分子必须是他们所在社会的批评者，也是现有价值观的反对者，批判所在的社会，反对现有的价值。我们现在其实连个知道分子都算不上，很多事情我们不知道，也无法知道，连事情的真相都弄不清楚，怎么去批判？怎么能像一个知识分子一样去批判？！
王静：咱们转回来谈谈你的工作，你为什么开始“红旗”这个系列的创作？是否带有“政治性”的意味？它对你现阶段的创作而言意义是什么？
朱伟：我在上世纪八十年代末九十年代初的时候画了一批非常尖锐的水墨人物画，比如《北京故事》系列，《中国日记》系列，《新二刻拍案惊奇》系列，当时影响很大。我的水墨人物画个展比和我同龄的后八九那批画油画的集体展览还轰动。我在后来的报纸上看到，展览开幕式的时候至少有两次观众为了争相观看甚至发生肢体冲突，不得不由工作人员出面做工作。当时由于刚从学校出来，刚开始要画些什么，再加上年轻气盛，和我玩儿的朋友都是做摇滚乐的，最次的也是个朋克。我当时画画的时候听的都是Beatles、滚石、崔健什么的，感觉千言万语想要画的太多，现在想想当时作品激情有余，但语言弱了点，什么都想往画面里放。有一张《新二刻拍案惊奇》落款的时候除了题了不少摇滚乐歌词还把呼机号给写上去了，现在觉得当时有点胡闹。打?六年和万玉堂合约期满后画得很少，每年连大带小最多不超过十张。今年的计划就画两张，是给程昕东的古巴国家美术馆的当代艺术展画的。?七年开始画了几张红旗系列，一共七张，用了一年半的时间，?八年年底完活。画这一系列画儿本想找找“曹衣出水”“吴带当风”的感觉，可是一落实到具体的现实生活中，出现的布景道具马上就有政治化的意味。是画家不该这么画呢，还是观众已经被调教出看什么都自危的心理状态了呢？中国符号、图示已经被利用得差不多了，快到人见人烦的地步了，为什么会混到这个份儿上了呢？就是因为我们浮躁、投机，一直把创作停留在表面上，深入不下去，也不想深入下去，四两拨千斤多好，这就是我们的思维方式。我现在就是要干相反的事。
王静：你的工作方式已经持续了十几年，在你的创作中还有让你意外的因素吗？如果有，你怎么在习惯性的工作和意外的元素之间找到平衡点？
朱伟：没什么意外。如果每天都琢磨同一件事，就不会有意外。就像你顶着风冒着雪吃了半斤包子，回家进屋坐炕上打了几个嗝，你会感到意外吗？
——刊载于《东方艺术◎大家》2009年10月上半月刊“对话”栏目 |
