手稿的价值在于研究

The Value of Manuscripts Comes from Research


手稿的价值在于研究

 

孙振华

 

近几年来,当代艺术界出现了手稿热的现象,面对这个情况,我想强调,手稿的价值在于研究。这里我们首先要区分,作为艺术家创作研究资料的手稿,和作为展品手稿它们之间的区别。当然,任何东西都可以拿出来展示,但是,手稿原初产生的动机本身不是为了展览,而只是创作的准备。手稿只是创作过程中还没有完善、成熟的东西。现在美术展览多的是,为什么我们有兴趣做手稿展,就是为了更好的研究艺术家,研究他的创作,展览本身不是手稿的目的。

 

那么,对手稿而言,研究什么呢?我认为主要有三个方面:私密性、真实性、过程性。

 

     1、私密性

 

我在合美术馆方立钧手稿展研讨会有一个发言,我认为手稿相当于艺术家的内裤,它原本是不打算给别人看的;那么后来为什么手稿也成为展品了呢,这种现象相当于“内衣外穿”。好比日记,它是私密的,但有的人把自己的日记当正式文章发出来,甚至有日记体小说,其实,在这个时候,日记的私密性就已经失去了,只不过是借用了日记的形式,真正的日记应该是私密的。手稿的魅力之一,在于它的私密性,它暴露了许多艺术家密而不宣的东西,它属于创作背后的东西,细读手稿,可以更深地挖掘艺术家的内心世界,这里是大有文章可做的。

 

现在手稿展很热,有些艺术家会不会想,我去画一些手稿来展,如果这样,就失去了手稿的意义。这和编一些日记来发表没有什么两样。

 

2、真实性

 

    我们现在为什么要重视手稿展?在很大程度上,它的动机来自对于真实性的需求,我们很想知道这个艺术家究竟是一个什么样的人,当他正式发表的作品以这种方式发表的时候,经历了怎样的修饰和遮掩的过程,我觉得唯有手稿有助于我们更好、更真实地揭示一个艺术家的心理状态。

 

艺术家、文学家有一个特点,当他们自述的时候,常常说谎,编造一些东西。

 

前不久看到了莫言的一篇文章,他说到了三岛由纪夫,说他很多言论是自己编出来的,是骗人的,就像大多数作家的自述是骗人的一样。莫言说,问题的悲剧在于评论家和传记作家总是过分的相信了作家的话,其实作家掺了很多的假话,掺假最多的当然是作家的自传性文字。现在很多所谓口述史的历史研究,在严肃的历史研究看来,这种所谓口述、回忆都是有意识地选择,掺杂了大量水分,不足作为信史。作家、艺术家的真面貌除了在作品中寻找外,还有一条重要途径——原始手稿,在手稿里才可以呈现出他最原始、最初的动机。原始记录和事后编造出的种种说辞完全不一样。

 

3、过程性

 

   手稿一个很重要的价值,是体现了过程。对艺术创作而言,有过程和没有过程可以区分严肃的创作和瞎碰是完全两样的。如果只从结果看,特别对观念性强的作品来说,往往看不出太多区别,但是如果揭示过程,二者区别就很明显了。过程体现了艺术创作的上下文,思维的逐渐完善或改变没有过程就不足以证明你是一名成熟的艺术家。正是在这种过程中,我们所谓的学术性或者说研究性就呈现出来了。

 

当然,研究过程,要区别传统艺术和当代艺术一些强调偶发性、即兴式的当代艺术,也许在当时看不到推敲、演进的过程,但是在这种仿佛是灵光乍现的创作中,仍然有过程,只是它不是手稿意义上的过程,而是长期思考的结果,并没有用手稿的形式体现出来。

 

这三点,就是我所说的,手稿所要研究的主要方面。

The Value of Manuscripts Comes from Research

By Sun Zhenhua

In recent years, manuscripts have become a hot topic in the contemporary art world. But first and foremost, the manuscript used for research has to be distinguished from the exhibited one, and I would like to emphasize that the value of manuscripts lies in its usefulness for research. Any object can be exhibited, but the manuscript was not primarily intended for exhibitions but merely preparations for the creation, they are unfinished and immature. Today, there are so many art exhibitions, the reason why we are interested in arranging manuscript exhibition is making more research about the artists and their works, while the exhibition is not the purpose of manuscripts.

As for manuscript, what should we research on? I believe that there are three major aspects should be addressed: privacy, authenticity, and its processual nature.

Privacy

In the speech I made at the seminar for “Research Exhibition of Fang Lijun’s Manuscripts” at United Art Museum, I compared manuscripts to the artist’s underwear, which is not intended to be seen by others. If so, why has the manuscript also become exhibits? This is equivalent to wearing your underwear on the outside. It’s also like publishing one’s private diary as essays or novels. There are even diary-styled novels. At this time, the privacy of the diary is lost and only the form remains. The real diary should be private. Coming from a time preceding the finalized work, the manuscript holds its charm in its privacy. It lays the secrets of artists barely. A careful study of the manuscript may lead us deeper into the artist’s inner world. Therere many works can be done.

Some artists may wonder whether they could make some manuscripts on purpose for exhibiting. If so, there is no difference from making up diaries to publish and runs counter to the true meaning of manuscripts.

Authenticity

Why attention should be paid to a manuscript exhibition? To a large extent, it comes from the need for authenticity, and our desire to know what kind of a person the artist is and what modifications have been made for his published work. In my point of view, only the manuscript can serve to reveal the true psychological state of an artist.

Artists and writers have a common feature: they make up stories when talking about themselves. Not long ago, I read an article by Mo Yan, who mentioned that Yukihio Mishima, like many other writers, made up a lot of stuff about himself, and many of his remarks were deceptive.  The tragedy of the problem, said Mo Yan, lies in the fact that critics and biographers always believes in the words of writers, who lies too much, especially in their self-narrative writings. In fact, the so-called oral history has also been consciously chosen and adulterated, and it’s not adequate to be regarded as credible history. Therefore, in addition to their works, another important source of originality is the original manuscript, which can expose their primary motive.

Processual -nature

Another important value of the manuscript is that it reflects the process. For artistic creation, the existence of process provides the watershed between serious and coincidental creation. If we only judge by the results, especially those of conceptual works, not much distinction can be found. But when the process is revealed, the difference is evident, because the process reflects the context of artistic creation and the improved or changed thoughts, without which, an artist cannot stand on his/her own feet. And it is in the study of the manuscript that the academic value presents itself.

However, contemporary art should be approached differently from the traditional in the research, because the evolving process may not be discernable in the creation of the improvised contemporary art. This does not mean that no such process exists. There is still a process of long-term thinking, though it does not take the form of a manuscript.

Therefore, privacy, authenticity and processual-nature should be the three main aspects in our research of manuscripts.