<<闪闪红星>>Twinkle Twinkle Red Star

 

闪闪红星

Twinkle Twinkle Red Star

 

策展人Curator：

方蕾   Fang Lei

艺术家Artists：

陈家刚     Chen Jiagang

周润发     Chow Yunfat

洪  浩     Hong Hao

廖一百     Liao Yibai

刘治治     Liu Zhizhi

彭弘智     Peng Hung-Chih

隋建国     Sui Jianguo

王轶琼     Wang Yiqiong

徐  冰     Xu Bing

颜  磊     Yan Lei

 

展览地点：Contemporary by Angela Li（香港中环荷里活道90-92号）

展览时间：2009年4月4日——2009年5月20日

 

Venue  :  Contemporary by Angela Li (G/F,  90-92  Hollywood  Road,  Central,  Hong  Kong)

Exhibition  Duration :  4 April - 20  May  2009.

 

 G/F,  90-92  Hollywood  Road,  Central,  Hong  Kong.  香港中环荷里活道90-92号

+852  3571  8200    [email protected]     www.cbal.com.hk

 

 

 

叠影重重

                                   方蕾

 

 

和“画画”一样，“闪闪红星”是一个动名词，如果做一个文字游戏，“闪闪星星”可能和“画画”更加有关联，画画可以把第二个字放到第一个字前面你不会察觉，而这仅仅只是一个开始，是个诡计，问题是中国的艺术家的历程都是从画画开始的，那么闪闪红星呢？

闪闪，是光直接反应到视觉中心的感受，闪闪红星不仅是光的反应，它使得字意由音频传达到耳膜的第一时间，就在听者的脑海里迅速转化成一种革命的，意识形态的概念，还伴有鲜红的背景和一朵熠熠放光的五角形的星。这是一种印记，而这样的印记仅仅是来自一部拍自1974年的中国电影，老的电影。老电影叙述的内容已经不清晰了，故事不重要，故事里要长大的孩子也不重要，重要的是这个词，它确确实实地已经变成被人慕名的叠影重重的符号，一个可能的象征。

和此类的反应所不同的是，港台的受众所能仰望的或是直视的则是诸如邓丽君，或者张国荣，也可能是周杰伦等等，舞台背景闪烁璇飞的五彩霓虹，花舞激光盘叠，或者还可以飘来轻柔的靡靡呀呀之音，或者是小马哥激战乒乒乓乓噼里啪啦的枪声等等等等。闪闪红星，就象印在维多丽亚海港的星光大道上的手印，是红地毯上的衣艳鬓影，香车美人和目光飘逸，红的真是虚荣和让人羡慕，一切都有梦的成分，不被他人湮灭，又都是真的现实，符号是人，象征是自己。

如此看来，闪闪红星貌似可以代表两种不同的价值取向，而且仅仅是假设，一面是社会主义下的红色传承，另一面是后现代的大众消费文化的姿态。应该说，这都不是令艺术家欣慰和表面上作为立场赞同的。艺术家的成长无法也不可能完全尊崇他自身的背景，有时甚至会有一种想拼命逃离的感觉，在对新的文化渴望的同时，又无法丢弃对本土文化的倦恋，艺术家都或多或少地在这样一种不可名状的状态下潜行。本土和外来文化在艺术家内心复合之后产生新的作品样式，这样的的作品需要现实给予肯定或者否定，而往往被现实肯定的又恰恰是艺术家应该警惕的，感觉上象是不能构成对创作的影响，艺术家骨子里的拒绝趋同或故意做出另类的样子，无法和大众站在同一个层面，其实就是不想站在同一个层面，现实为什么会反弹那些创意中的智慧和图式中呈现的命题，隐喻会不吱声，但它没有停止。所以他们选择了相反的那一面，那么意义在哪儿呢？是出于学术，还是出于本能？还是出于对文化真正的创造欲？人从生命存在的意义去说，就是一种在怪圈中的运动，作，作女，作男，作秀，而艺术作品更是一样。表面上看艺术家一定把作品做到自然而然的样子，并且意味着应该这就是艺术的真谛，因为自然很重要，但伪装则更加明显，已经到了无法觉察的地步，谁骗了谁呢？一件作品从思考到最终诞生，始终在盘旋，直到最后落定羽化，死了，活了，终于成型了，还在盘旋，盘旋到似乎要脱离身体而去的时候。

如果从历史的角度看待内地和香港在文化上的关系，相互影响，一直是一条重要的线索。二十世纪八十年代，由香港输入内地的风尚让当时的年轻人趋之若鹜，一首歌，一部电影，一件潮流服装，甚至一个时髦的发型，无处不在影响着内地的审美和趣味。大众文化象发酵的泡沫，迅速地涌进来，也在改变着内地民众的观念。而近年来，叠合则使得这种影响显得更为密切。拿考古探查作比方，挖掘时遇到无数个文化层，层层叠叠，界限有时十分明确，有时又十分迷茫，突然彼此是剥离的，忽然又融合的无理取闹，每层都隐藏着明显的文化痕迹，说不清道不明的高兴和拥抱，快活和痛苦一样，哭一场就颜笑大开，没什么大不了的。叠合是沉浸，一种显性的融合，你中有我，我中有你，想抱在一起生生死死，可能这不全是理想吧！

叠影？如果真的说清楚来源，是影像中一次失误的曝光形式，刚开始是错误，后来却成为精巧的技术被摄影界广泛使用，就像我们今天谈的话题和这个展览，每一次和艺术家的讨论就象曝光，都有几次以上的叠影，谈。聊。笑。过。方案会化为现实，所以会闪闪，闪闪，一闪一闪的，是和艺术家共同完成的显影和成像的过程。

这样的方式很当代，当代意味着此时此刻，此刻一切都是未知的新，不能确定，活的社会有其特殊的肌理，表层的和被深入浸透的会露出强有力的弹性，如肌肉对经络的扶撑和支持。新，一定是历史演变的过程，同时也是日常生活渐进的过程，每个人都有追求新的愿望，每个人都在通往新的路上，所以普通人和艺术家之间没有必然的隔膜，它就是一个过程。我想说的是阅读在今天是否真的有效，日常的话语和景象已经充斥到我们根本无法躲避的地步，真实和虚假共同迈步在我们冠冕堂皇的视野，不是我们的话语失语，是新世界的系统真的紊乱的不行了。

 

马修·阿诺德在《文化和无政府状态》一书中这样描述：“伟大的文化人是这样一些人，他们具有一种激情，要将他们时代最好的知识、最好的思想从社会的一端传播和搬运到社会的另一端，使之流行不衰；他们殚精竭虑，要为知识去除一切粗糙的、粗野的、难解的、抽象的、专业的和孤傲的成分，要把它人性化，使它在绅士和学者的圈子之外，也见成效，与此同时，又保留了时代最好的知识和思想，因而成为甜美和光明的真正源泉。”

我们不可能无限制地放大一个展览的标题，或许“闪闪红星”作为追忆和想象更贴切，展览是一个观念，它过去是一个现成品，以后也将是个现成品，一个展览就象一个家，短期之内分不开，这个很好，很幸福。

再一次提到地名，中国的地名总是有着某种暗示和关联，如果在地名前面使用形容词的话，它会是什么样一种状态呢？这可能就有暗喻，比方说有的是黑，有的新，有的重，那么香呢，这已经不用说了……香……港。

 

红色，星星。

我说，是一个革命童话。你说，是富贵的梦想。说的时候，我们都看到了红色，都看到了星星。而那时，我们在大陆，你们在香港。就象歌手艾敬在歌中唱的“你可以来沈阳，我不能去香港”。

现在每个人差不多可以每年自由来这儿两次，是官的。

 

 

                               2009年3月于望京

 

 

Double Exposure

                                   Fang Lei

 

 

Like “painting”, “sparkling red star” is a verbal noun. The two terms have many connections, but the problem is, the path of the Chinese artist begins with painting, but what about sparkling red star?

Sparkle is a perception of the visual cortex. Sparkling red star involves more than a visual reaction; as soon as the sound hits the ears, the listener’s mind automatically shifts to revolutionary and ideological concepts, that bright red background and a shining five-pointed star. This is a mental impression that was left by a Chinese movie from 1974, an old movie. What that old movie narrated is unclear now, the story is unimportant, and the children that wanted to grow up in that story are also unimportant. What is important now is that word; it has become a constantly repeated icon, a symbol of possibility.

But Hong Kong viewers can look forward to different reactions, making direct associations to stars such as Teresa Teng, Leslie Cheung or even Jay Chou, and the dazzling neon lights and stage settings behind them, or their soothing songs, or the gunshots from their action movies. The sparkling red star is like a handprint on Star Boulevard next to the Victoria Harbour, a shadow on the red carpet. Red symbolises fame and stardom, the fundamental elements that dreams are made of. It is an icon of man, a symbol of the self.

Seen in this light, it appears that the sparkling red star can represent two different values orientations, both hypothetical. One is the red inheritance of socialism, and the other is postmodern consumer culture. This is not something that leaves artists grateful, or that they would support on the surface. An artist’s growth cannot fully conform to his background; sometimes he even tries to escape it. While the artist thirsts for new culture, he cannot fully discard his own. Artists are all, to a certain extent, trapped in this conundrum. When the local and external cultures are reconciled in the artist, a new form of artwork is produced, and these artworks must be confirmed or denied by reality. But reality’s acceptance is something the artist should be wary of. It feels like something that cannot influence one’s creativity, and the artist’s instinctual rejection of acceptance leads him to create an alternative form. The artist cannot stand on the same level as the public; actually the artist is unwilling to stand on that level. Reality negatively responds to the wisdom of creativity and the themes raised by the image form. Metaphorically it seems to remain silent, but it never stops. That is why they choose the opposite, but what is the significance of that? Is it academic or instinctual? Does it come from a true creative desire towards culture? In terms of the meaning of existence, life is about moving through a vicious cycle, doing, being a woman, being a man, putting on a show, and artwork is even more so. On the surface, the artist must make a work naturally, and this implies that it is the truth of art, because it is important to be natural, but the false is more visible, to the point where the two cannot be distinguished. At that point, who has tricked who? From its conception to its creation, the artwork is constantly revolving, all the way until it becomes eternal or dies out, it constantly revolves, on until it seems that it has left the body altogether.

The history of mutual cultural influence between Hong Kong and Mainland China is an important line of inquiry. The fashions of Hong Kong that flowed into the mainland during the 1980’s through songs, films, fashion, even hairstyles, had an effect on every aspect of aesthetics and tastes for the young people of the time. Mass culture swelled and affected the ideas of the people. Stacked up in recent years, this influence appears ever more intimate. Compare it to archaeology. During an excavation, countless cultural layers are revealed, stacked atop one another. Sometimes the boundary between layers is completely clear, and sometimes it is indistinguishable. Sometimes they are completely different, and sometimes they are inexplicably identical. Each layer has strong traces of culture, embracing in a process that is sometimes happy, sometimes sad. This stacking is a kind of permeation, a visible combination where there is a bit of me in you, a bit of you in me, everything wrapped together. Maybe that is just idealistic.

What about stacked exposure? If we want to talk about origins, it began as a mistake in photographic exposure that eventually became a widely used technique. It is just like today’s topic and exhibition; every time I have a discussion with an artist it is an exposure, and when there are more discussions, it becomes a double or multiple exposure, talking, chatting, laughing, moving on. The plan becomes a reality, and then it sparkles. This is the process of creating and developing images that is completed together with the artist.

Such a method is very contemporary, which means here and now. Now, everything is a new unknown, unconfirmed. A living society has its own peculiar texture; the surface and that which has permeated it reveal a high level of flexibility, like the skin’s encapsulation and support of the circulatory system. Newness is a process of history unfolding, and also the gradual progression of the mundane. Everyone has pursuits and desires, everyone is moving on a path towards the new, so there is no necessity for a separation between normal people and artists, it is just a process. What I want to talk about is whether reading is actually effective anymore these days. Discourse and imagery have flooded our everyday lives to the point that we cannot avoid them, the true and false have together strode into our field of vision. It is not that we are at a loss for words, it is that the system of the new world is already jumbled beyond repair.

In his Culture and Anarchy, Matthew Arnold writes, “The great men of culture are those who have had a passion for diffusing, for making prevail, for carrying from one end of society to the other, the best knowledge, the best ideas of their time; who have laboured to divest knowledge of all that was harsh, uncouth, difficult, abstract, professional, exclusive; to humanise it, to make it efficient outside the clique of the cultivated and learned, yet still remaining the best knowledge and thought of the time, and a true source, therefore, of sweetness and light.”

We cannot infinitely magnify the header of an exhibition. Perhaps it is more accurate to call “twinkle twinkle red star” a recollection and an imagining. The exhibition is a concept. It was once a finished product, and it will be a finished product in the future. An exhibition is a family, one that will not separate in the near future. This is great, very fortunate.

Let’s go back to place names. Chinese place names always carry hints and connotations. If a place name begins with an adjective, what does it mean? Perhaps it’s an allusion. Some places start with Hei, meaning Black, some with Xin, meaning new, some with Chong, meaning again. And Hong, meaning fragrant? Well, that goes without saying, Hong…Kong, fragrant port.

Red, star.

I say it is a revolutionary fairytale. You say it is a dream of wealth. When we say it, we all see the colour red, and we all see stars. At that moment, we are on the mainland, and you are in Hong Kong. It is just like singer Ai Jing says in that song, “You can come to Shenyang, but I can’t go to Hong Kong.”

Now almost everyone can go to Hong Kong twice a year. It is official.

 

 

March 2009, in Wangjing