手稿,让人更积极地思考

Manuscripts Provoke More Active Thinking



手稿,让人更积极地思考

赵力


一直以来,我都在从事美术文献的研究工作。譬如花了20年时间两次出版的《中国油画文献》,还有现在正在着手做的《20世纪中国画文献》。根据我的实际工作经验,一般意义上的作品和手稿之间存在着很大的差异性。再如《中国油画文献》,在研究中可以发现,从真实性、丰富性、整体性等角度而言,手稿是艺术创作过程中很重要的一部分,但是如果我们只看到了那些作品而忽略了手稿的存在,那么手稿的真实性、过程性所体现出的最真实的美术历史,尤其是包含了很多完成作品中所遮蔽的内容,就从人们的视野中“消失”了。所以,我以前的工作就是尽量把手稿的内容放到了美术文献里去呈现,当然不是跳开了作品原有的体系,而是将其扩张为一个整体性的概念。


这次展览我觉得特别好的地方,在于艺·凯旋的展览除了关注平面绘画的手稿,也开始关注除绘画手稿之外的手稿,如装置、行为艺术、新媒体艺术的手稿。当然这是一个关于手稿的展览,所以我们也开始考虑如何去呈现这些手稿,去寻找一种恰当的展览方式。因为原来的展览形式,尤其是在画廊举办的展览,基本上都会忽略在展览系统里对手稿的呈现。而作为展览内容的手稿也会引发出一些新的展览方法论。譬如已经去世的陈箴,近年来他的装置展览依旧活跃,甚至艺术家去世后还不断有新的展览。原因在于陈箴在世时候的很多创作都有手稿,而目前的很多展览内容就是借助于他的手稿来加以实现的作品。如此而言,艺术家的手稿对未来策划展览、呈现展览是非常有意义的。


从收藏角度来看,我曾经跟国外的画廊进行交流,谈到了如何收藏装置的问题。后来在不断访问国际艺术基金会和艺术机构的时候,发现其中的一种收藏方式就是收藏装置的手稿或者叫“方案”。这些收藏,一方面真实地反映了艺术家的思想和创作过程,同时把手稿或者方案作为收藏也为未来的展示呈现提供了可能性。


手稿,对于展览观念、展览展示、艺术收藏,都有着很大的价值意义,此外对手稿的关注也会推动我们对美术史本身的研究。


现在,我们必须去建构一个相对比较整体的体系去支撑我们对于艺术史的研究。今天是中央美院美术史系成立60周年,我们正在开一个论坛“美术史在中国”,围绕美术史的书写和中国的文化态度做了全面性的回顾,同时又有未来展望的内容部分。回顾去年,我们在北京参与举办了“世界艺术史大会”。这次中央美院的论坛,我觉得对去年的大会是有所回应的。去年的会议强调的是概念,主题是美术史的概念,不同历史和不同文化中的艺术和艺术史。在全球背景下,各个国家、各个地区,在不断的文化碰撞下,新的文化的产生和旧的文化之间的一种关系,是以这种关系性的结构去重新定义美术史和美术史的概念。


我们现在都在强调多学科、跨领域的研究,这种研究的趋势实际上还有一个反趋势,我们如果太跨界,没有边界以后,到底何为艺术史?在讨论的过程里,也有很多的艺术史家、研究者都提出了回到作品,如何进入艺术史的内部。在讨论跨界、多样化的时候,这也变成了某种的共识,即我们如何回到艺术史内部去看作品、研究作品的态度。


去年的艺术史大会上,《神经元艺术史》的作者约翰·奥尼恩斯(John Onians)作了主题发言,他大量使用了手稿,从神经“可塑性”角度来强调“个人经历”对其“主观性”的影响,进而用神经学的方法来研究个体的艺术创作和鉴赏,并解释个体和地区艺术风格的差异。


他用手稿的方式去研究达芬奇,揭示了达芬奇是如何通过解剖学来分析人的神经到肌肉的事实,同时他又把达芬奇的这种方式与之前希腊罗马时代的创作手法进行对比,虽然都是为了追求写实的表达,但是也出现了实现这一表达的时代差异性。其中,我们可以看到手稿对于艺术史创作真实性的研究的确具有很好的资源和观察角度,而对于作品本身新的视野与新的理解,也可能出现新的艺术史领域与方法。


最后我还是要回到艺凯旋展览本身。我们怎么去呈现手稿?怎么把手稿的展览变成一种新的带有研究性的展览?刚刚孙振华提到的,关注手稿的目的在于研究艺术家的创作,从这个角度来说手稿的展览就是“研究的研究”、“展览的展览”,这些方式会得出很多特别有意思的结论。不过,目前我们大多数呈现的还是手稿本身,作为作品展的手稿展而已,如果我们把阐释性的、研究性的内容与手稿一起来做整体性的展示,那么展览形式的扩展性、还原性也会更好,这样也可以让大家有一个“进入的方式”,这种“进入的方式”实际上就是让观众进入我们研究的一个非常重要的途径。


关于手稿研究的讨论,一定会继续进行下去。手稿展是今天下午开幕,我建议将本次讨论的内容也在展览期间有所呈现,这将是一个活态的形式。




Manuscripts Provoke More Active Thinking


I have been engaged in the study of art literature for a long time, compiling and publishing Writings of Chinese Oil Paintings, which took us two decades to finish and Chinese Painting Literature of the 20th Century, which is underway. According to my practical working experience, the difference between the finished works and manuscripts is immense. In Chinese Oil Painting Literature, speaking of authenticity, richness, integrity, the manuscript is an important part of the art creation, but if we only see finished works and ignore the existence of manuscripts, the most authentic art history embodied in manuscripts, especially the hidden story in completed works, would be lost. Therefore, what I did was to incorporate the manuscript into the art literature and expand the original system to a holistic concept.

One notable aspect about this exhibition is that in addition to paying attention to the painting manuscripts, it also starts to take manuscripts of installations, performance art, and new media art into account. This exhibition on manuscripts also prompted us to think about how to present these manuscripts, as exhibitions held in the gallery would ignore the presentation of the manuscript. The manuscript, as the new subject of the exhibition will lead to new exhibition methodologies. For example, though Chen Zhen has passed away, his installations are still exhibited in recent years. Even after the artist's death, there are still new exhibitions of his works. Because Chen Zhen made a lot of manuscripts, many of the current exhibitions rely on his manuscripts. In this sense, the manuscript is very meaningful for planning future exhibitions.

From the collecting point of view, in talking with foreign galleries, we touched upon the collection of installations. By visiting international art foundations and art institutes, I discovered that one of the ways to collect such works was to collect the blueprints or manuscripts of installations. These collections truly reflect the artist's thinking and creative process, and keeping the manuscripts or blueprints as a collection also presents the possibility for future exhibitions.

Manuscripts are of great value to the concept of exhibition, ways of display and art collections. In addition, the focus on manuscripts will also promote our study of art history itself.

At present, we must construct a holistic system to support our research on the history of art. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Department of Art History at Central Academy of Fine Arts. In honor of this special occasion, a forum called "Art History in China" is arranged at the moment, which conducts a comprehensive review of the writing of art history and cultural attitudes, and an outlook for the future. Last year, we participated in the "World Conference of Art History" in Beijing. This forum at Central Academy of Fine Arts is an echo of the conference in last year. The theme of last year's conference is the concept of art history in different cultures and historical times. Against the global background, the relation between the birth of the new cultures and the old ones under the culture clashes of different countries and regions was applied to redefine the art history.

Even though we are now emphasizing multidisciplinary research, it has its antithesis. Too much cross-disciplinary research would blur the boundary of art history. What is art history after having no boundary? In the process of discussion about diversification, many art historians and researchers have proposed returning to the works and to the inside of art history, which has become a consensus. I.e. how do we view and study the art works from the perspective of art history.

At last year's Art History Conference, John Onians, author of Neuroarthistory: From Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki gave a keynote speech. He made extensive use of manuscripts to emphasize the influence of personal experience on subjectivity from the perspective of neural plasticity. He also studied individual artistic creation and appreciation, and explain the difference in the individual and regional artistic style with neurological methods.

He used the manuscripts to study Leonardo da Vinci, revealing how Leonardo da Vinci analyzed human nerves and muscles through anatomy, and comparing this approach of Leonardo da Vinci with that in the Greek and Roman era. Although they all pursued realistic expression, they differed from each other as a result of coming from different times. In this process, we can see that manuscripts are very good resources and provide provocative perspectives for the study of authenticity of art history, As for the new vision and understanding of the art work per se, it may provoke new fields and methods in art history.

Now I return to the exhibition at Triumph Gallery. How should we present the manuscript? How can a manuscript exhibition be converted to a new kind of research exhibition? As Sun Zhenhua just mentioned, the purpose of the manuscript is to study the creation of artists, and from this perspective, a manuscript exhibition “research on research”, an “exhibition on exhibition”, and will lead to many interesting ideas. But most of the works on display are still confined to manuscripts per se. It would be better for the expansion and originality of exhibitions if relevant interpretations and research results are also included in the exhibition. In that way, the audience would be offered a gateway, which is a significant access to our research.

Discussions on manuscript research will certainly continue. The manuscript exhibition is due to open this afternoon, and I suggest that the content of our discussions would also be presented during the exhibition as a living form.