|
| Xiang Jing vs. Huang Zhuan |
| By Xiangjing |
 |
This is the first of three installments of a Q&A -- or Question & Answer -- session between the distinguished art critic, Huang Zhuan, and the Shanghai based sculptor, Xiang Jing. The topics include sexuality, feminism, philosophy and the rise of Xiang Jing as a major sculptor from China and an important force in the auction market.
Knowledge, Information, Body, Sex, Sensory Organs, Structure, Art Theory and Others
 Age is the No. 1 Element
H: What’s your age?
X:I was born in 1968. Why ask about the age?
H:Age is No.1 element to an artist. It’s also the basis for a talk.
X:Really? Then I’ll break the conventions of age and sex.
H:Look at YBA, that generation of British artists. They’re born in early 1960s, held their public exhibitions in 1988, the “Perception” exhibition in 1997. Their “complete success” came roughly in the 1990s.
X:I always heard the term “complete success”. What does it mean?
H: This is a very mundane term, refers to publicity and prices of art works and their assessment in art history. I’m not speaking about their age, but why I say age is important? For our generation, there’s a sharp contrast between China and the west. What we did was basically different from what western artists did. For your generation, this difference is slim and you’re kind of synchronous.
X:Perhaps this change was prepared by previous generations …
H:There might be two reasons: one is information. In those days information came to us slowly indeed; the ways to get information also differ. Now there’s no time gap in getting information and your modes of thinking are similar. But generally I think your generation might be regarded as a transition between our generation and the next. It’s not degrading; With regard to man’s life, it’s actually an awkward age.
X:How’s it like that?
H:Look at your own works! In the last years you mainly dealt with youth; now obviously what you do has not much to do with youth, but it’s not entirely unrelated to youth. So, do you feel your age awkward or not?
X: No. On the contrary, I think my age is right on the point, it’s not old and every aspect about it is all right. I dread my turning into one who knows clearly what she’s doing; I fear I become a guardian of established interest. In the before I felt lost most of the time; now it seems I have a clearer mind and I begin to feel better.
H: When did you begin to “have a clearer mind”?
X: Perhaps from 2005 when I had my first solo exhibition, the one Feng Bo planned. Since that exhibition I’ve learned to do things with a very conscious mind; of course my mind turns even clearer after doing those things.
H: I still want to know what’s your age at that time?
X:It’s only one year ago.
H:According to you, which work in that exhibition is symbolic of your maturity, or is it the whole exhibition?
X:Perhaps we should call it “transcendence”; I believe the whole exhibition transcended my former state. For an artist, one or two pieces can’t represent him; for most probably he would perform exceptionally well on one or two pieces and they’re uniquely excellent, but surely only creation of a series or a group of them could make sense of the whole matter.
The Transcended Body
H:But I think your works in that exhibition belong to two entirely distinct types.
X:You’re right. But those two distinct types were actually two different ways of narration, or two formulations; essentially, they mean the same thing.
H: Ibelieve the groups of people you described – who dress formally and have social status, still have more affiliations with your previous ones. Personally, I think the work “Your Body” marks a turning point.
X:Definitely! One hundred percent sure!
H:She removed many elements, elements of youth; but removal doesn’t mean there’s no such a subject but mean the whole approach changed. You regard the whole exhibition as a turning point, but I believe this piece is more critical, even another piece of nude – “How about You” can’t compete with it. For in “How about You”, there’s still elements of narration.
X:I did “How about You” after I did “Your Body”. I wanted to transcend something in “Your Body”; I succeeded or not, different people might have different ideas. But for me, it meant a huge difference. It’s often the case – even in our daily life – the sort of expression you look for can’t be voice out, but if we gather strength and voice it out, it’s a progress. When you voice it out, the you’ve also jumped over the obstacle. “Your Body” came really out of my instinct and nature; I accumulated knowledge and experience to that extent and produced such a work with so much effort, but I have always wanted to transcend it.
 H:It might be only a bystander’s view, why do I believe this piece is of some absolute significance to you and the present Chinese art. One is for yourself: in terms of the process, it removed many elements and turned pure, or for you it’s a breakthrough in approaches. It’s not a breakthrough in technical senses, but a breakthrough in your ways of looking at the world. In the before there were many traces of narration and representation, you wanted to use one media to represent something. But in this piece, clearly you didn’t have to rely particularly on that media for the change, some things were already there – there’s something self-sufficient in it. The purity I talked about means this work needs nothing of meaning background; you don’t have to attach meanings to it or represent meanings by it, but it has presented something there. This is something many artists are running after but fail to get. That’s why I feel that standing-figure piece contains some narration element – including her posture, facial expression and gender. On the contrary, in this piece you didn’t emphasize its gender, didn’t emphasize the elements of youth, time or the like.
X:“Your Body” actually started my first person narration approach. When I was creating that piece, my life was very isolated indeed, and that instinct just burst out suddenly. I strongly wish my first person narration approach could get more established. In this new exhibition I get ready to produce a group of purer works of female bodies. Moreover, I indeed want to transcend it; when I jump over that obstacle, I will feel quite relieved.
H:Anther important thing is scale. Actually you cared not much of scale before. Some people believe space and scale are key factors for distinguishing classical from contemporary sculptures.
X:In the before I had no courage; I was not confident.
H: For another thing, the contradiction in this work is particularly striking – sex and de-sex. I wouldn’t call it neuter-sex, but I believe you must have wanted to do something of de-sex. Further, there are extra-perceptibility and extra-rationality, which intertwine together contradictorily. It’s kind of monumental expression, but gives special prominence to sex organs. There’s no contradiction in your previous works. For example, your “Sheer Black”, a black piece of dressed figure, it also represents a kind of contradiction, but that’s external and visual, and the time and motion are all formally represented. But the contradiction in this work, whether you designed purposefully or it acquired intrinsically, the splitting nature in the work does not represent itself externally and visually, but exist there inherently. It needs no explanation. Good works may all embody such contradictions; it has contradictions in the structure itself.
 X:Yes, it’s quite right you use the term “structure”; I’m slowly coming to grasp it. A single piece can’t make sense of the issue, that’s why I want to create group sculptures. I’ve always wanted to deal with structure; structure means not the scene, arrangement or others of an exhibition only, it’s also the phase of growth. Perhaps because I watched more film and read more literature, I’m interest in that kind of structural relations, namely, the arrangements in narrations. It’s particularly interesting if you work it out step by step; it would be more wonderful than creation of a work like “Your Body”. Only I can’t yet make it out on sculpture, so I just try it at present.
H:I think the contradiction in the intrinsic structure is the basis of a good work. Take Damien Hirst, we have much misunderstanding about him; the translation of his “The Physical Impossibility Of Death In the Mind Of Someone Living” into “Sharks” is also problematic. The contradiction in that work lies in the fact that it twists together the very perceptive and biological subject with the minimalist structure. All his works have such features, including “Medicine”; they all combine the ultra-perception and the minimalism together, so make their structures metaphysical and analytical as well as biological and perceptive. Such contradictions rely upon no molding elements, but exist inherently. Speaking extrinsically of your works, I wonder how you understand these elements: the body, the sex, and the sensory organs. (These three aspects are easily confused, but in fact they’re totally different.) How do you regard these aspects when you are doing works?
X:Every thing you said I’d taken them into account. You’re right. Experience dominated my previous works; I was sensitive to images. “Your Body” is just like a long-schemed thing; there’s a larger portion of knowledge and conception in it. Also, I wished to represent them genuinely; I myself faced them directly, too.
H:In your previous works there were no such elements; no matter you did pieces of maiden or youth, you also wanted to express something extrinsic. Things like body, sex and sensory organs were by no means prominent in your previous works; but in this piece, they’re all there.
X:This piece met so much favor because its own perceptive nature was indeed too strong. Indeed, few people can produce works of like strength of perception,
H:Then, do you mean body and sex are only your visual bait?
X:Of course not. But it ends up a kind of visual bait is beyond my control. It’s great, too; it’s also a way or approach, perhaps.
H:Do you think it’s good or bad?
X: It should be good for the work; further, it’s sort of challenge, either to me or to viewers.
H: A question you can’t avoid, what do you think is the difference between your works and Rong Mueck’s?
X:I think they’re totally different. Few people asked me such a question; I myself happened to think of it before.
H:At least several extrinsic elements are the same: the sufficient scale, the traditional techniques, …
X: It’s a pity I didn’t see his original works; I bought two copies of his painting album, and didn’t see any similarity.
H:He also used very traditional techniques: work out a keel, go without a model – though he didn’t receive formal trainings in an art institute. Both in external forms and creation techniques you’re very similar.
X: First of all he created a very lifelike figure, but I didn’t, at least mine isn’t an objective figure.
H:Not exactly. The twisted figure he created, and “Adam” was also not made in imitation of a model; he might have looked for a model, but gave up at last.
 X:You mean the piece of that enormous boy? I think that’s the best piece he ever created. Another one is “My Deceased Father”. Those two pieces I like most. Still he was pursuing a sort of lifelikeness; when he turned those absolutely lifelike facts into art and presented them in an art museum, everyone would be shocked. My works are the world I see through my eyes; they’re very subjective. It doesn’t matter I use a model or not; it’s an issue of attitude, or an issue of vision. All of my works are just like the world I see with my eyes. Further, perhaps because I am a Chinese, the whole macro-background of China is too miserable, too complex. His creation technique is too shocking, it hides the empty aspects of his works; it doesn’t mean much to change conceptualization by means of size and scale, but it makes his craftsmanship even more unthinkable. If you peel off his technique and look into his whole album, you’re likely to spot his flaw. I believe this might a problem with him. The kernel I’m looking for is totally different from his.
H: Did you see his works before you created your piece?
X: No.
H:Your similarity … this might be a question frequently asked?
X:Few people asked. I’ve never thought I should have any similarity to him.
H:At least with regard to the sufficient scale and the creation techniques.
X:But I think we’re just different in methods: he’s distinctively making while I was fashioning.
H:Didn’t you also make?
X:He was making, as he made the skin and hair very tangible and lifelike.
H:But you use color applications …
X:Did you feel the color I applied was like the color of human skin? He applied color to make it true to life; I applied color to have the skin felt even more like the true human skin. It’s the kind you feel, not the kind you see.
H:I think this kind of rational element …
X:I think it might be perceptual element.
 H:So you expect people to see it’s not like the skin, but the thing it contains?
X:I’d like my works bring people something more of a mental reflection. It’s something you realized after reflection, not something you directly perceived. His mode is a very typical western style of understanding the world; while I would like a kind of conversion, a very subjective reflection.
H:Do your works have anything to do with your academic training?
X:Sure. If I had no such academic experiences, I wouldn’t have had so instinctive an interest in doing realism and the realistic things; moreover, there might be no such a technique at all. But at last I could make such works it’s not decided by the training I got in college. The feature of a college education is standardization and a narrower aesthetic norm; in terms of aesthetics, I strongly object to the academics.
This is the second of three installments of a Q&A interview between the distinguished art critic, Huang Zhuan, and the Shanghai-based sculptor, Xiang Jing.
Knowledge and Information, plus some Feminism
X: I dread very much to talk with theorists, because we’re weak in language and haven’t a theoretic frame.
H:I see you get along well. Still we’d return to the issue of age. Why I say age has an absolute meaning; I mean not the definitions of the crude social Darwinism in 1970s and 1980s, but the people at a certain age, what they got in education could well be reflected in their present works. So I say the age of your generation is awkward: your following generation is wholly open and free to receive information, but with your generation, knowledge and education are still exerting influence. This is the biggest difference. But information also has great effect on you. In fact, like people born in 1980s, it’s enough to rely upon information only; we don’t need traditional education, we don’t have to know how some things came about. In contrast, people of our generation regard education highly; we reject information and value the tradition too much. A case in point is rock music; my generation must know who’s the first to do rock, while it’s enough for guys born in 1980s to know only who’s the hottest now.
X:So, you mean I’m more like one of the last generation?
H:Do you think which is important to you, information or knowledge? Take “Perception” exhibition, would you like to find out its origin, development and technique or just like to make out its visual effects?
X: I’d like to know its origin and development. When I viewed Dada Exhibition in America, I was eager to know what had brought about so revolutionary a movement, why it later divided into several branches and evolved into different modern art types.
H: This is what I call the knowledge system. So you still attach importance to knowledge.
X:You could say so.
H:Then I’d like to know how knowledge played its part in this piece of work.
X:This work is of a more personal style. Perhaps my knowledge grows to a certain extent and contributes to my innate stuff; then, “pang”, this stuff explodes, like a new star comes into being. When you’ve got idea of the basic clue of western art history, you know western cultures enjoy a much clearer developing logic; so you can track down several unique artists in so vast an ocean. Presumably it’s also the case with contemporary art, only the number is greater; so I studied individual cases, selected some of my favorite artists to study. There’s a time I cared more about domestic exhibitions, and tried to view it on the spot if I felt interested. I even visited some artists’ studios. I looked modest and humble, but actually I was spotting their problems. My motivation to do that was I had too many puzzling questions about contemporary art, I wanted to find a clue – what I should do? That’s why I say this is a long-conceived work. For finally I believed I should return to the most elementary, to create a pure human body, throw away many elements of tactics, even elements of conceptualism. Though I had practiced for so many years, I had never seriously made a body piece that I felt the female body should be like it. This conception, at that time, I thought it turned out uniquely conceptual. Sometimes you have to hold on, hold on and you grow. Every time you have a solo exhibition, you grow, and the problems all come out.
H:Another question, woman artists don’t like to answer it: which woman artists do you like?
X:There’s nothing I don’t like to answer. I like Cindy Sherman and Nan Goldin. Because I listen to rock music, Patti Smith and Janis Joplin have the same influence on me. Perhaps because the former two and I all do similar visual arts, they have some direct influence on me; the latter two come to me spiritually, I love their elements of idealism.
H:Of the 1960s?
X:Right. They’re of the 1960s. Janis Joplin belongs wholly to the 1960s; Patti Smith still lives, sings all the way, like an old revolutionist, but her songs still echo the spirit of the 1960s and 70s.
H: Do you think your sort of taste belongs to yourself or it’s commonly acquired by your generation?
X:I hardly think of such generation things. For everyone should work hard; it’s most important to concentrate one’s effort and work hard. In China there’re too many bad things; all don’t work hard enough.
H: Is it nice to be an artist in China?
X: So nice! In China, to be an artist is so happy. Though the country and its people are still poor and miserable. But you can’t find any other places in the world that offer so many sources and resources to art. So complex an environment, and its strength, nowhere there’s such a place that gives artists so many advantages. Artists benefit from all aspects.
H: He needs enemy, there comes enemy; he needs benefits, there comes benefits. Because art needs enemy, in China all kinds of enemy are available.
X: You got it. And in all aspects: urban problems, rural problems, education, society and family ethics, you can find enemy to fight with.
Pure Meaning and Structure
H:I have a feeling, your later works haven’t surpassed “Your Body”. I’m quite disappointed with MOCA’s “Rainbow”.
 X:Why are you disappointed?
H:I think it has backslid to the past.
X: I believe it has progressed a lot; you’ve only seen one piece of them, anyway.
H:Why do you sit on a balloon?
X:Why would you know she’s on a balloon or not, the balloon means nothing.
H:You sit on a chair I wouldn’t feel curious, for this element is widely available in your works, such as the bathtub …
X: Do you think lying in the bathtub is the same as sitting on the balloon?
H:They’re the same in terms of meaning structure; you want to develop an extrinsic element to reinforce your representation. In this sense, I think it backslid – it’s returned to the former state. Your previous works contain some elements yet, such as the “maiden” series, they embody some issues. But the “Rainbow” piece is a bit entertaining – of course I don’t expect our talk to influence your future judgment, but why I put so much stress on “Your Body” piece? A viewer and an author surely have different judgments about a work, but from my angle, I want to locate a work’s position in the series. In my view, the element in this work is the thing you’ve actually got rid of in “Your Body”.
X: On the contrary, the pure meaning in “Your Body” I’d planned to set aside temporarily in my following works. The extrinsic elements and settings happened to be my long-time interest, including what you called narration and plot, but entertainment is what I am averse to.
H:But that balloon’s just entertaining.
X:How to say... It would turn entertaining if you regard it this way.
H: Worse still, you make it so bright.
X: Oh, this … should be a bit funny. Perhaps in solo exhibitions, a group of works put together, the meaning I want to express could be made clearer. If we view this piece in isolation, it turns too much a fun.
 H:Yes, “too much a fun” is problematic.
X: In this exhibition, I do need something very funny. I’d say we could only wait until I bring out all the works.
H:Of course its meaning differs from your previous works of bathtub, washroom, or the like. But what I would stress is still the meaning element. You hope to add to the elements of human body, but human body should not be your subject, basically it’s only a media. Mueck also wanted to use human body to represent something, as when he created “Father”; apparently, human body was a meaning element with him. But with you, human body is a medium, a subsidiary thing – also inexact – then let’s call it meaning itself. After you’ve made the break-through, it’s indeed very difficult to do it again.
X: I regard the continuity highly. It’s difficult for one to transcend oneself; it’s also difficult for one to grow and progress continuously. For either people who are interested in this or I myself, we have to wait together, wait for me to uncover these things layer by layer. I believe I’ve transcended the state of the solo exhibition in 2005; now it seems as if I had a chessboard in my mind, every move I make I want to make sense of it; if that doesn’t make sense, there must be incessant questions and doubts like those of yours; even I myself entertain some vigorous doubts, I might not know what I want to say. In the solo exhibition of this year, I want to dig into a part and build a structure. Like watching a movie: we enter a scene, look slowly for a clue, then everyone would make out the entire structure according to his own route. This is only one route of my art practice; in the future there would come other parts. I wish I could gradually have these routes linked together and make it into a whole macro-structure.
This is the last of three installments of a Q&A interview between the distinguished art critic, Huang Zhuan, and the Shanghai-based sculptor, Xiang Jing.
Sex
 H:Another topic is sex; as I know, you’re not sensitive to the subject of sex. Women artists doing works about sex or be artists of sex, such as Judy Chicago, she adopted a socialization style, or an ideological approach; while Cindy Sherman was very ambiguous about sex. Another one is Tracey Emin, she made sex a sheer personal matter, or even a tactic; that was a very selfish tactic, she wouldn’t consider the entirety. I think you’re one not much sensitive to sex.
X:On the issue of sex, men have acquired too much power; everyone has some biased opinion about sex, but most people are subject to a certain social norm. Anyway, you could look backwards. As for me, I can only speak out first – I’ve no self-conscious works yet – but I would never use sex as a weapon. In the before I indeed objected to it somehow, the reason is I found it difficult to accept the established idea about sex. But now I find if I want to transcend it I have to face it.
H:I think, in your works there’re sex organs but they’re not representational.
X:Because I’m female, it’s a view of female. In my works, the critical meaning of sex is: sex organs are not there for men to view, they’re just an existence. Men don’t feel a sexual sense after viewing it, because it has lost the due sense of temptation that conforms to their expectations, but it’s only kind of my attitude. I believe some women artists only use sex or organs as a tactic, what they present is still a state of being viewed.
H:Of the three types: Chicago, Cindy Sherman and Tracey Emin, how do you regard them? Tracey Emin also played some symbolic games, while Cindy Sherman was very selfish to sex.
X:I feel Nan Goldin’s attitude I love most, including her attitude to the relationship between two sexes. If she faces it only, you can sense the difficulties of existence. She’s a photographer; she shot surrounding people and bad things, she shot her own life. Like Araki Nobuyoshi, she’s innately profound. She just shot, shot without a stop. I know not how to describe Nan Goldin’s art; she has sharp eyes but she has transcended the phase of an individual’s instinctive reactions to things. She doesn’t regard art as something peculiar; when she has to face the life, she must take up her camera. I think this quality is especially precious; it contains many elements; it’s absolutely a personal standpoint, but has transcended the simple value judgment.
H: Her value judgment? Or criticism? Or appreciation?
 X:Why do I feel so wonderful when I see her works? I think there’re two reasons; I believe, about sex, most people can’t face it directly most of the time.
H: So you say it from the angle of art and literature or from sensory organs?
X:I say from all respects, or perhaps from art and literature. With sensory organs I know not how can I judge other people’s opinions?
H:From art and literature, that’s from the social perspective, judge if it’s right or not; such as sex …
X: I believe sex is only a part of existence; it’s only a taboo of conversation topics. Particularly, before such a topic women are clearly forced into a passive position. I think, either Chicago or Tracey Emin, they all adopted a direct approach to it; first I wouldn’t comment on the depth of their works, or care about if it’s a tactic or a struggle; in terms of artistic language, they’re all quite plain to me. At least I wouldn’t adopt such an approach to the subject of sex.
H:Just now I said you’re not sensitive to sex, actually I mean you took a neutral stand on issue of sex in your works, for example in “Your Body”. Man’s feelings about sex are simply classified into two types: one is sensual excitement about the opposite sex; the other is your value judgment about her or him. In Chicago’s works, her sensual representations acquired an explicit ideological color; while in your works, representations of sex are ambiguous – it’s only a visual element.
X:I believe it only shows men are not yet used to this approach to sex. I’m not ambiguous. I remember in 1980s or early 1990s, I read Lin Bai’s novels for the first time; I had never read in domestic novels so plain descriptions of sex, so plain it brought us some sense of beauty. I feel such an attitude is cool.
H:Your piece is actually very naturalistic. Just like painting a model in an art academy, make her pose exposed she’d feel averse to it at first, but after a time, she would feel this posture is challenging. The posture itself is kind of challenging.
 X:First of all, surely I’d think it over before I make this kind of posture; like the challenge to a model, it’s to me also a challenge. The challenge comes from viewers’ reactions after they see it.
H:For a model, it’s a kind of reflection: put what you want to see before you, and know you’re thinking; that’s a very high-level intelligence. I wonder if there’s such kind of intellectual consciousness in your works.
X: Exposure of sex organs is only an element the work presents for viewers to study females; in fact, a variety of elements are in my work. At that time I wanted to be very frank, to uncover a female body before you; I just meant that. If I do it again I may make it more complicated. For me that’s a transcending stage. In fact I wouldn’t like to face too many things; but if I face it I would manage to overcome it.
H:Purely do art; did you mean it?
X:In the before, art is something outside my body, I find ways to reach it. In fact, art is something coming wholly from your interior, so I must melt with art into a whole. Before melting into a whole, you have to face and accept too many insurmountable things of the before, including an attitude toward sex we talked about just now. These things all need rethinking. Moreover, I’m very glad to see the following unexpected reactions after the works are made. Say, mainly the reactions of males, and I felt abhorred
H: A very strange feeling; I think it’s very strange.
X: Yes, they would feel uncomfortable; it made me very comfortable, haha…
H: But you also used many repressive elements, such as the shaved head, the neuter-sex trunk and the scars!
X:Not exactly, I think men see women they would always use the channel of sex, but for me all about a women are stories, not only of sex, sex in my eyes is not even the most important thing about a woman; I just want to change this way of thinking, because I feel, every woman, all about her body are moving me so much.
H: Then how did the story take place?
 X:Because somebody once asked me “Why did you do so concrete a face? Why did you do so concrete an expression on this face?” “You’re well in a position to do it more abstract, do a monumental female body”. Then I told them: I’m interested in the content, what I want is the very concreteness; it’s the whole hidden thing behind her that is speaking.
H: It means even a scar has its own story?
X: I believe any scar has its story. Because it’s directly perceivable, the minute people see it they would think something must have happened. For, once it’s made concrete, most people would speculate about it. Many people once asked me what sort of scar it is, is it from appendicitis or from caesarean section … Some people also said this face shows an expression of fright, of helplessness, or something else. Anyway, there would arise many descriptions and I just love this kind of experience. Everyone would go into it and look for a story readable according to their experiences.
In and Out of a Theory
H:I think, what attracts me most in this work is it’s full of contradictions. For example, the body trunk is very naturalistic while the eyes are very abstract!
X:Yes, because all about it are my inventions, there’s a larger portion of abstract elements in it.
H:Your previous works of kids are strongly narrative, but this work is more directly perceivable, such as organ elements, postures … all are very challenging. Your works represent female organs; some are very passive while this one is very active, very challenging, and very direct; perhaps it’s right what you called the story. In addition, I believe the merit of this piece is: she was made in a very pure way; she avoided much disturbance from social and meaning elements. Why I say the balloon might be disturbing a little, because it’s something very symbolic. In “Your Body”, the only element of this sort is the stool; the stool is symbolic of nothing. These two elements are entirely different. Then, is that stool a ready-made?
X:That stool I made it myself, because there’s no suitable one.
H:Do you always avoid ready-made things?
X: Not exactly. In fact there’s a time I used so many ready-made things; however, later I thought I must get rid of them first. I want to learn well the pure sculptural language first, leave those ready-made things to later days.
H: So, at present you reject ready-made things?
X: Now I do it with respect to art language. Because genuine material of ready-made things in a hand-made sculpture would make people feel strange. I believe, in Ron Mueck’s works it’s not a problem.
H: He never made models of real people either; he also made sculptures himself.
X:But his works acquired a strong sense of making, they’re so exquisite that they’re indistinguishable from ready-made things. What he mastered was a very intelligent way of making, in order to make it lifelike. But I think his language thing is weak; I pay much attention to language elements, such as the way of narration, or even a tone.
H: You mean professional sculptural language, is it?
X:Not only one sculptural language: for example, your use of a ready-made thing is also a kind of language, only if you use it or not. I think more of these issues, including ways to apply colors, techniques and the like; all are doing service to the language. I believe, only several pieces of Ron Mueck’s art can be said of the height of language; most of them, in my view, are excellent ways of making. However, I wouldn’t make a final conclusion before I see his original works.
H: Do you feel mad about sculptural techniques?
X:Not exactly. At first I Indeed felt a bit mad about it, it’s very direct after you made it with your own hands, just like you describe someone to another one. It’s one thing you show him a picture; but it’s another thing you use words to describe someone this and that. At first I felt delighted in such a technique, and I believe it’s irreplaceable. I love the feel of being irreplaceable; other people find no way to replace this feeling with another technique – the way you create it bit by bit with your own hands, do it like a long-winded man.
H: It’s a very traditional way.
X: Yes, it’s from the tradition.
H: Then it’s related to another issue: conceptualism has transcended the making; it needs no making.
X:How you can even transcend inversely!
H: What’s inverse transcendence? Conceptualism transcends many things, including fundamental art ethics in classical arts: art should be artists’ own making.
X:Depersonalization?
H: Not only depersonalization, but leave the making to others, no matter it’s mechanical or artificial; I believe it’s mine it should be mine. For example, Andy Warhol’s art is depersonalized, while Damien Hirst entirely borrows others’ hands.
X: If art advances on a single track only, it had come to a dead-end early as when Duchamp moved a urinal basin into the art museum. Human’s wisdom must bring art to a farther place. Reason is very precious, but it’s horrible if there’re only reason and logic. All this series, including period of modernism and many, in my eyes, experimental periods in art history, they move forward, and when they come to a dead-end, they would find other paths and continue to move. Anyway, I believe it’s ok for us to approach art by any means. It’s never the case if you do conceptualism you cannot do hand-made things; at least I have such a view. Modernity means we discover the present social problems and represent the spiritual state of contemporary people; this orientation is the most important; which means you would use I don’t think it matters. I’ve always felt video, from the angle of art, is a very advanced thing, its language is so mixed; I learnt much from it, including the manner of thinking of a problem, the way of description and narration. I’d think that sort of return to original is exceptionally complex; it may have many levels and layers; the author may construct a labyrinth, a structure; it doesn’t give you an answer directly, like conceptualism – it’s enough you know an answer, or it’s enough you heard this work – its presentation of things is a very complicated process; you can search in it according to your own route. I think this way of conversion is uniquely interesting. The part I’m now doing is so small, so narrow, because there’re too many obstacles in sculptural techniques.
H:Then, would you like to try some other technique in the future?
X:Yes. I’ve been trying always, only because sculpture is to me the major line; when I made no progress in sculpture I would use some other things to make it up. But I haven’t more ability to do everything well, so I just make sculpture my major business. Only I say I have some other interest there, such as writing, I love the structure in writing very much.
January, 2007 – Guangzhou
Translated by Hu Zhu 
|
|
|
