巫鴻：上次我們談過一次，從你開始學習藝術(shù)一直到完成《海市蜃樓》(Mirage)和《慶》(Celebration)等作品，通過這些作品，你基本上和以前照片中的那個雕像告別了。我們今天是不是就從那兒開始，重點是你最近作的兩個大計劃：一個是《虛擬最后審判》(The Last Judgment in Cyberspace)，另一個是《H2O》，好不好?但是后者可能是更重要的，因為我們已經(jīng)一起為《虛擬最后審判》作過一次展覽了，我也寫了一篇文章。這次我們主要談一談《H2O》。
繆曉春：好。這兩個作品確實代表了我的藝術(shù)中的一個轉(zhuǎn)折點。我當時是這樣想的：做常規(guī)意義上的攝影的時候，我們面對的是一個現(xiàn)實世界中的三維的立體的場景，我所想的是如何找到一個最恰當?shù)慕嵌热ヅ臄z它，把它變成一個二維的平面的東西。而當我面對藝術(shù)史上二維的平面的繪畫作品時，有一天又突發(fā)奇想：如果把它重新再變成三維的立體的場景會是什么樣?我想如果我把它復原了以后可能會是很有意思的。于是我選擇了米開朗基羅《最后的審判》這件作品，先把它做成一個三維的虛擬場景，然后再嘗試從幾個不同的角度去“觀看” 它，“拍攝”它。這是和拍攝常規(guī)照片截然相反的過程。
另外，現(xiàn)實中的三維場景是處于不斷的變化流動之中的，攝影只能選擇一個瞬間，把運動的變成靜止的。而米開朗基羅的《最后的審判》原來是靜止的，我的目的是把它做成三維之后再把它變成運動的。因此我做了一個三維電腦動畫，從而實現(xiàn)了從靜止到運動的逆轉(zhuǎn)。
所以在《虛擬最后審判》做完后，很多人跟我說，你怎么會做完全另外一種東西呢?我想，雖然它表面上看跟我以前做的東西不一樣，是兩種媒介，兩種做法，但其實它們還是有關(guān)系的。假設(shè)沒有在攝影中把三維變成二維的話，也可能就沒有把二維的東西變回三維，然后去拍攝它的想法。
巫：在我看來，這兩個階段——我想我對你的這些東西還是比較了解的——是有很強的關(guān)系的，雖然表面上似乎無關(guān)，但實際上是彼此相關(guān)的，特別是有關(guān)“看”的問題。你原來的攝影作品就已經(jīng)非常強調(diào)變化的視點，實際在平面形象中已經(jīng)蘊含了運動和時間的概念了。記得你在上一次訪談中談到你的攝影和中國卷軸畫的關(guān)系，運動的問題等等。在這些新作品中“運動”還是在持續(xù)，但是面貌不一樣了。
有個問題我們可以深入地談一談，就是你說的從二維到三維的這個問題，很有意思?？墒悄阕龅哪莻€三維實際上并不是一個具體的三維，是不是?你做的是電腦里的三維，但實際呈現(xiàn)出來的作品還是二維圖像。也就是說，你以這種方法做成的照片還是二維，但是確實又和原來的那種常規(guī)二維攝影不一樣了。你所說的 “從二維到三維” 到底是怎樣的一個三維概念?肯定和雕塑家的三維是不一樣的，是吧?
繆：雕塑的三維是真真切切存在著的;而電腦里的三維都是虛擬的，關(guān)上電腦就既看不見又摸不著了。即使用三維投影儀把它呈現(xiàn)于某個空間，它與傳統(tǒng)雕塑的三維也是不一樣的。
另外，現(xiàn)實中的三維是無限的，它在空間上似乎是無邊無際的，在時間上也是無限的;電腦里的三維是有限的三維，它是在電腦的運算能力可以達到的基礎(chǔ)上的一個三維空間。當然隨著技術(shù)的發(fā)展，這個空間會越來越大、越來越大，但是跟現(xiàn)實的三維還是有區(qū)別的，在時間上也有區(qū)別，它不可能無限長，而只能是在某一個時間段里。因此我在我的作品前面一直都是加上 “虛擬”兩個字，比如叫做《虛擬最后審判》。
巫：對，若是這么一想，以前的二維作品也可以重新加以考慮。比如咱們都學過西方藝術(shù)史，西方藝術(shù)發(fā)展中一個非常強烈的目的，就是對二度空間的征服，就是在繪畫里，或者在對空間的表現(xiàn)上進行三維整合，把一個平面的物質(zhì)媒體——一塊畫布或一面墻壁——“消滅掉”，化為一個虛幻的三維的“圖畫空間” (pictorial space)。這種空間對當時的人來說是非?；糜X的一個空間。所以從這個角度來看，也可能米開朗基羅當時做的和你現(xiàn)在做的有點像。他的《最后的審判》可能對當時的人來說，就是一個非常虛擬的空間，但是我們在21世紀看，就把它當作一堵墻上的“壁畫”了。你的作品好像又把這種對“虛擬空間”的追求推到現(xiàn)在的這個時候，引導到當代藝術(shù)的范圍里。你做的事可能仍是有某種歷史限度的，就像米開朗基羅的東西有著它的歷史限度。我們把它看成是一張畫，可當時的人所描寫的是他們好像真的看到了最后審判，真的看到了耶穌基督等等，他們看到的也是一個虛幻的三維空間。
繆：對，這樣推下去，500年之后的人再看我們現(xiàn)在做的，也就像我們現(xiàn)代的人看米開朗基羅的這幅壁畫一樣，可能也會覺得是一種很“平面化”的東西。
我想，每個時代的人都會努力去達到當時的技術(shù)條件下所能達到的最高水平。我們現(xiàn)在也受限于很多技術(shù)上的因素，就只能達到這樣一個程度了。像攝影和錄像其實是有很多缺陷的，雖然它們是比較真實的記錄工具，但遠不完善。比如它不可能全方位地記錄，無限度地絕對真實地記錄?？赡軐砑夹g(shù)達到了，可以將整個場景，甚至是場景中的溫度和味道等所有的東西都記錄下來，復原出來，他們看我們現(xiàn)在的技術(shù)也許會覺得很原始。
巫：將來——這是題外話了——最大的一個突破可能是突破“視覺”的范圍。從古到今的美術(shù)都是在視覺圈里打轉(zhuǎn)，我們還是這樣。剛才你說的別的一些感覺，比如氣味，如果能夠納入藝術(shù)的表現(xiàn)中的話，那就會是一個根本的概念的變化。因為我們在現(xiàn)實生活中，耳鼻眼等都在感覺，這些感覺都不是分裂的。古代藝術(shù)、傳統(tǒng)藝術(shù)還是在視覺基礎(chǔ)上，現(xiàn)在有些當代藝術(shù)家開始追求視覺以外的感覺。
回過來說。你剛剛解釋了《虛擬最后審判》是從二度還原到三度。但是對這個“水”的作品來說，好像這個轉(zhuǎn)變不是它的主要目的。是不是?因為對三維虛擬的實驗好像已經(jīng)在《虛擬最后審判》中完成了。這個“水”的系列是否有著新的目的和專注點?
繆：在技術(shù)手法上它是前一個作品的自然延續(xù)，同樣是先將美術(shù)史上的某張畫從平面變成立體，再從相同于原畫和不同于原畫這樣兩個角度去觀看它。第二個角度比較重要，因為這是不同于原畫的全新的觀看角度，這樣觀看作品的方式也是美術(shù)史上所沒有的。
內(nèi)容上則是試圖對前一個作品中提出的問題有所回答。先前提出的問題是“我會去哪兒?”(Where will I go?) 這是有關(guān)生命從哪里來，到哪里去的問題，但實際上很難回答。最智慧的哲學家也難以給出最終的答案。我想以藝術(shù)的方式間接地回應(yīng)這個問題，就做了《H2O》這個系列作品。
巫：手法上的延續(xù)是很清楚的。內(nèi)容上，前一個作品提出的問題是“生命從哪里來?到哪里去?”你說你的答復和水發(fā)生了關(guān)系，為什么?
繆：對。我們雖然生活在現(xiàn)代，但現(xiàn)代科學還不能完全回答“生命從哪里來?到哪里去?” 這個問題;也很難通過宗教找到答案。因為某種理論或?qū)W說中只要有一點點不對的地方，就很難讓我們現(xiàn)代人對它堅信不疑。所以，我們現(xiàn)在很難做一個基督徒，也很難做一個佛教徒，也沒有一個能完全主導我們的理論或?qū)W說。最后我就只能通過一些最簡單的，看上去沒什么問題的事情來給自己一些答案。比如說“水”：我現(xiàn)在喝進去的水，已經(jīng)在過去的幾千年幾萬年幾億年中流經(jīng)過無數(shù)的生命體內(nèi)，上天入地，循環(huán)往復;從我這兒排泄出去后，它將會流經(jīng)幾千年幾萬年幾億年后的無數(shù)生命，入地上天，往復循環(huán)。但H2O這個元素并沒有改變。它流經(jīng)過原始細胞，恐龍，孔子，奶牛，路易十五，蘋果，牛頓，土豆，貝多芬，它是把無數(shù)動物、植物和人物連接起來的一個元素。我覺得這本身就挺有意義的，我和很多的生命有了某種聯(lián)系。“生命從哪里來，到哪里去”的問題回答不了，但它們之間的聯(lián)系還是顯而易見的。我想就用這個東西做些文章吧!
巫：把水作為一個無處不在、不斷循環(huán)的元素，表現(xiàn)萬物的關(guān)系和生命的連續(xù)性，這個系列作品在內(nèi)容上具有了一個哲學的層次。但有意思的是你選擇了從美術(shù)史的角度去表現(xiàn)水，而不是表現(xiàn)真實世界中的水。這樣你又造成了另外一種連續(xù)性，也就是藝術(shù)作品的連續(xù)——你的作品中的“水”是和古代藝術(shù)中的“水”聯(lián)系著的。所以這里有兩個平行層次的連續(xù)——真實世界中的水的循環(huán)，和藝術(shù)史中的“水”的形象的循環(huán)。對吧?
繆：對，而且這是一目了然的連續(xù)。不同時代、不同地域的藝術(shù)作品間的延續(xù)是一個很有意思也很重要的問題。有的會比較直接，有的會非常間接，不留痕跡。真不知道第一筆畫是如何畫到巖洞的墻壁上去的，也不知道第二個人面對這第一幅圖像時，是如何畫出它的第二幅圖像的。是模仿了它?還是想與它一爭高下?還是另辟蹊徑?在那么多的作品、圖像和觀念“流入”到我的腦海中去之后，我已經(jīng)無可避免地和古代和現(xiàn)代、和東方和西方所有的藝術(shù)作品聯(lián)系在了一起。我做出的絕對是延續(xù)著我之前的作品再往前邁出的一小步，這使我的可能性反而獲得無限擴大了，俯拾皆是。只不過我們在選擇與前代人、與他人連接的交接點時顯示了我們每個人獨特的眼光、趣味以及性格，以至于延續(xù)本身也可能是創(chuàng)造的開始。
巫：“水”在藝術(shù)表現(xiàn)中的作用是一個很有意思的問題，被你的閱讀強調(diào)出來了。實際上藝術(shù)史家很可以從你的這套作品中學到不少東西，比如喬托的那張耶穌為門徒洗腳的壁畫，一般大家注意到的是對情節(jié)和人物的表現(xiàn)，但是洗腳用的盆里的水肯定是很重要的。
繆： 一方面我看到了一些不為人注意的畫面，另一方面也有意避開了大家都注意到的明顯與水有關(guān)的畫面，如施洗等。因為這個畫面引發(fā)不出我個人的特殊感覺，于是我有意放棄了。我想完全用個人的眼光去看美術(shù)作品，選作品的原則是“讓我特別有感觸的”。而且“研究”的結(jié)果不必達到美術(shù)史意義上的結(jié)論，只是借此表達某些自己的感悟。
我選擇的原畫大致有三類：有的是跟水有特別關(guān)系的，如《大洪水》(The Deluge)，《返老還童》(Fountain of Youth)，一看就知道跟水有關(guān)系。第二類不是和水有著這種特別關(guān)系，而是間接有關(guān)系，像《殉道圖》(The Martyrdom)，需要變化一下才會與水聯(lián)系上。最后是第三類，看上去似乎與水毫無關(guān)系，但我還是選出來，做進這個系列了。這樣一來，我肯定會問自己：為什么要把它選進來? 看的人也會問：為什么要把它選進來?我在回答這個問題時(有時甚至是有點牽強附會)，就一定會表明了我自己的觀點。最后這一類就是像《基督背負十字架》(Carrying the Cross)，它從表面上看與水毫不相干。
巫：對，這是布魯蓋爾(Pieter Bruegel: Kreuztragung, 1564)的。
繆：這幅畫描繪耶穌背負十字架去赴刑。耶穌赴刑讓后世普通的人最感動的是，他不是作為一個神而是作為一個人去上十字架的，因為神是法力無邊的，不可能被傷害的?？催@樣一個場景，會突然讓人意識到，他原來也像我們一樣，是一個有血有肉的、會死去的一個生命。他也很脆弱，極易受到傷害。他為所有的生命去犧牲(當然他又復活)，在這一點上打動和征服了很多人。
我把那些前景里在哭泣的人，包括圣母瑪麗亞和圣徒們，都做成了透明狀的水晶質(zhì)，隱喻他們都“哭成了淚人”似的，其他人如行刑的士兵和無動于衷的旁觀者都加了衣服，中間只有耶穌是個透明體。生命是如此透明與脆弱，極易受到攻擊而消逝。人只是薄薄一層皮包裹著的一團肉體而已, 而肉體之內(nèi)70%是水這樣一種物質(zhì)。人最脆弱的時候，體內(nèi)會流出一些東西，如悲傷時的眼淚，受傷時流血，疲憊時流汗…這時大概都是人很脆弱的時候。
巫：你把有血有肉的生命體做成了透明的，像水的結(jié)晶一樣，這讓我想起《紅樓夢》里賈寶玉說的：男人是土做的，女兒是水做的。你這個作品里的人好像也是一部分是泥土做的，一部分是水做的。這后一種人和畫面中其他的蕓蕓眾生不一樣，他們位于前景，體形特別大，和后面人的比例不一樣。我們可以把他們看成是一個敘事的“框架” (frame)，把整幅畫看成是一個“Framed tale” (“框架敘事” )。
繆：是。中間被押送的士兵、被一些無動于衷的旁觀者隔開，那些人都穿衣服。那張原畫本身就很有意思，很宏大，畫面中有些人似乎跟耶穌去赴刑沒有什么關(guān)系，甚至在打鬧嬉戲。布魯蓋爾的畫很深刻，觸動到人性的很多方面，我看原畫的時候就有很多感觸。
巫：H2O – 水的意義在不斷變化。有時是物質(zhì)性的Water, H2O的說法似乎強調(diào)水作為一個元素的意義，而不是一種有形的物質(zhì)存在。耶穌，瑪麗亞的悲痛，或者這種軟弱性，或又變成另外一種意義上的東西，好像水的意義在你的這幅作品中不斷地變化。雖然都是“水”，但是又不是一個簡單的歸類所能表述的。
繆：對，所以我就想把它叫做H2O。從元素的意義上說比較抽象，比較純凈。H2O帶上雜質(zhì)就變成了別的東西：帶上碳酸就成了可口可樂;帶點蛋白質(zhì)就變成了血;帶點鹽分和雜質(zhì)排泄出來就變成了汗。古代的水帶著某些雜質(zhì)，不同于我今天喝的水，但作為一種元素，都是一樣的。
巫：你的《殉道圖》(根據(jù)Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo 的The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, 1475)里水的意義似乎和《基督背負十字架》接近，是不是?
繆：對。原來畫中圣塞巴斯蒂安身上射滿了箭，像個刺猬。在我的作品中，我設(shè)想箭已射穿身體飛走，讓身體不斷有東西流出來。旁邊的很多細節(jié)也是為了強調(diào)這點：我放了一個翻倒的玻璃瓶，液體從中流出，寓意人體也像一個容器，體液流光了，生命也就消失了。在這個作品的“第二視角”(Second View)變體中，地上放了盔甲，寓意人做了盔甲這堅硬的東西想保護脆弱的身體，但還是保護不了它。
巫：那《創(chuàng)世紀》(根據(jù)Michelangelo, Genesis) 呢? 亞當好像在透明的水分子里，最像H2O元素的感覺。這里水的含義是不是類似于生命的細胞?
繆：我自己覺得這是這個系列里挺重要的一張。本來米開朗基羅的《創(chuàng)世紀》是描述上帝和亞當之間的關(guān)系?？墒菍ΜF(xiàn)代人來說，我們還會像中世紀的人一樣相信這個故事嗎?所以我對原畫做了很多改變。那個透明的泡泡像個細胞，又像個宇宙飛船，一個在茫茫太空中運載生命和保護生命的封閉的容器——本來真地想做個宇宙飛船，后來想想不必要——只做了一個透明的圓球，比較抽象一點，這樣既可以解釋它可能是一個細胞，又可能是一艘在太空里飛行的宇宙飛船。里面有一團水，用手捧著，很珍貴。在太空飛船里，水對于生命彌足珍貴，喝水，洗漱，都要循環(huán)使用它。在三維電腦動畫里有一團人在這容器之外，處于保護之外，處于失水狀態(tài)，他們用一根長長的吸管把這團水吸過去，他們獲得了生命。透明圓球里的人把水傳遞給別人，他失去了水，也失去了生命，最后化作一具骷髏，粉身，碎骨，消逝于宇宙之中。
在這件作品里，水從一個生命傳遞到另一個生命，是通過一根吸管。吸管在現(xiàn)代生活里司空見慣，隨處可見。通過它，我們將封存在各式各樣的瓶子罐子里的水吸食到我們體內(nèi)，我不妨順便想想它的象征意義!
米開朗基羅的作品是表現(xiàn)生命的創(chuàng)造，而到我這兒，因為我想不清生命的創(chuàng)造到底是怎么一回事(如前面說過的那樣)，我只看到水在生命之間的傳遞，于是就只表達了“傳遞”這件事情。這對原畫的改變是很大的，從內(nèi)涵到形式。
巫：好像創(chuàng)世紀的邏輯被反過來了，原來是上帝給亞當以生命;現(xiàn)在這個球變成了生命的發(fā)源地，亞當成了生命的力量源泉，通過吸管把上帝、天使聯(lián)系起來。
繆：因為現(xiàn)代科學顛覆了之前人們的許多觀念。很久以前，我們把最美好的幻想給了無邊無際、不為我們所認識的天穹，天堂也在那兒附近?？墒乾F(xiàn)代人有能力在天上飛來飛去時，才覺得那里并沒有什么東西，沒有生命，荒涼一片。最神奇、最美妙的地方，還是在這充滿了水和生命的藍色星球上。另外，所有中世紀繪畫中的地獄都在地底深處，烈焰滾滾。但想想核戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)時，末日來臨——當然這是一種人為的末日——地上一片火海，可能深藏于地下的防空洞就成為生命最后的庇護所，有多少人能有幸躲進少數(shù)幾個堅不可摧的地洞呢?這時很多概念就完全不一樣了。
巫：是的，我覺得這個倒置很有意思。就說這個庇護所，它把生命保留下來，猶如荒漠的太空里的容器。它成了水的源頭，變成了新的生命的起源。這不是原來的創(chuàng)世紀了，但仍然可以說“創(chuàng)世紀”。這里面的意思蠻深刻的。
這個系列里還有兩張是根據(jù)提香和普桑的作品做的。提香的那張是不是《酒神圖》(Bacchanal)?
繆：是。在提香的原作中，我注意到所有人都在舉杯豪飲，爛醉如泥，只有一個小孩在撒尿。這個撒尿的小孩給了我很大觸動：我們飲下的無論是何種瓊漿玉液，最后排泄出來的僅是一泡黃尿而已。古語中“酒囊飯袋”似乎是指我們的肉體是一個暫時性的容器，酒肉穿腸而過，進進出出。我還注意到原畫里有條小狗在畫的遠景里，我現(xiàn)在把它放到畫的前景里作撒尿狀，水在動物那里也一樣穿腸而過，進進出出。
巫：普桑那張畫中的水占了很大位置，是實際環(huán)境中的水。水在這個系列中的其它作品里則有著不同的形態(tài)和意義，有的畫是表現(xiàn)人和水的關(guān)系——比如沐浴者，還有的是表現(xiàn)盛水的容器——飲水的碗等等。普桑這張畫中的水是一個形象主體。
繆：這張畫叫《有第歐根尼的風景》(Nicolas POUSSIN：Landscape with Diogenes, 1647)。據(jù)說古代有個哲學家叫第歐根尼Diogenes，他經(jīng)過一個溪邊，看到可能是一個牧人吧，在用手捧水喝，就想我為什么還要帶著一個碗用來喝水?于是就扔掉了碗。他想跟牧人一樣，和自然更親近一些。 我做到這個作品的第二視圖時，又加進兩只喝水的天鵝。動物沒有文明，沒有發(fā)明和制造過工具，也就沒有選擇和拋棄，不存在扔掉碗的問題，一直是直接用嘴飲水的，一直是與自然緊密聯(lián)系在一起的。
同樣的，我在《浴足圖》(The Washing of the Feet)的第二視圖里加進一只貓。人洗腳是用水來潔凈自己，而動物只能舔凈自身，它同樣也是洗腳，但方式不同，意義也截然不同。而耶穌給門徒洗腳還帶著潔凈身體之外更深層的某種儀式性的東西。
巫：還有一張有噴泉的《返老還童圖》(Fountain of Youth)。
繆：這幅作品表現(xiàn)了水的魔力，水能讓我們暫時變得年輕?，F(xiàn)代人忙碌一天，回家沖個澡便又精神抖擻了。
巫：去游泳，精神就回來了。
繆：暫時性地年輕了一下。不知是什么原因，我們一到水里就會變得輕松快樂。是因為我們身體的70%都是水嗎? 還是因為我們每個個體在生命孕育之初，就是為水所包裹?或者是其它別的原因?當然在原畫里表現(xiàn)得比較極端一點：老態(tài)龍鐘的人經(jīng)過青春不老泉之后便煥然一新了!
當然，水也有其暴戾的一面，在《洪水圖》(The Deluge)里。創(chuàng)造了生命的水又毀滅了生命。
巫：其實在所有這些方面，水都是跨文化的，在中國文學里我們可以找到很多例子。比如大洪水和大禹治水的傳說。中國文化里還有些比較有意思的是水與人的性格之間的聯(lián)系，如“智者樂水，仁者樂山”。
繆：“上善若水”也是說好的品格應(yīng)該像水一樣。
巫：或者說，“君子之交淡如水”。但壞的品性也用水來比喻，比如“水性”。最好最差的品性都用水來比喻了。
繆：對，這也挺有意思的。
巫：我們再談?wù)務(wù)麄€這組東西，除了水的作用，還有別的視覺上的表現(xiàn)。比如色彩上的表現(xiàn)，有的和原畫有關(guān)系，如提香那張畫，色彩鮮艷，非常明亮。有的不一定有關(guān)系，像喬托那張洗腳的，轉(zhuǎn)換后的色彩與原畫的關(guān)系不是很大，淡淡的藍灰色雖然有點中世紀的味道，但和喬托不是那么有關(guān)系。你對色彩的選擇是怎么考慮的?
繆：這組作品除了《赴刑圖》(Carrying the Cross)外，其它作品中的人物模型都是沒有服飾的。我考慮把形體設(shè)定為跟原畫中的服飾接近的顏色，通過色彩來與原畫取得聯(lián)系。像在提香的《酒神圖》(Bacchanal)中，人物的膚色分別是紅橙黃綠等顏色。如果有人想考證為什么這人是紅色?我就會說：原畫中人穿的衣服顏色就是如此。這樣比較抽象一點，可以避免馬上進入到特定的語境中去，因為衣服具有很強的指向性：它能表明這是某個時代，某個國家或某個民族的服飾。
在《返老還童》里則是另一種情形：用同一個模型很難表現(xiàn)從年老變年輕的過程，我就用不同顏色來表達這樣一個變化的過程：年老的人用較深較黯淡的色彩來表現(xiàn)，年輕的人用較亮較有光澤的色彩表現(xiàn)。從左到右漸漸變亮，寓意由年老變年輕的過程。我想這可能是更“美術(shù)化”的語言，但是我覺得比通過衣服、皮膚和毛發(fā)的變化來表達會更有意思一些。
巫：因此你的作品應(yīng)該說是對原作的“再創(chuàng)作”，是吧?人物的性別、年齡、體質(zhì)、身份的差別消失了，都用同一個模型。
繆：對，這樣更好一點。
巫：你最近的這兩組作品，《虛擬最后審判》和《H2O》，都使用了把你自己抽象化的同一個數(shù)碼模型。而你以前的攝影作品中有一個以你自己為原型的雕塑模型。從這一點上來說，這兩個階段是否有某種聯(lián)系?
繆：有關(guān)系。前一段作品里是雕塑的“我”，是存在于現(xiàn)實中的，看得見摸得著的;現(xiàn)在是數(shù)碼的“我”, 只能存在于電腦中，看得見但摸不著。但都可稱之為“雕塑”，都和“我”有關(guān)系。
巫：所以你覺得第一個作品作為攝影來說，做的是記錄現(xiàn)實;第二個作品則很不一樣，使用的是digital Model, 是在電腦里做出來的，然后制成平面圖像。由于這種不同，我們應(yīng)該怎么稱呼這第二組作品呢?是叫它電腦藝術(shù)(computer art)還是攝影?
繆：可能這要看從什么角度去看。如果認同軟件里虛擬的照相機，認可這種在電腦里的拍攝方式，就不妨說它是photography里的一種;但這是很邊緣的一種photography, 實際上與傳統(tǒng)的photography不一樣了。如果定義為photography不甚恰當，或許可稱之為computer art或digital image, 這取決于從哪個點來看它。
巫：可能需要根據(jù)具體的成像方式，可以想象你也可以把這種數(shù)碼形象發(fā)展為全息影像，完全變成一種幻視。
繆：也許很多東西還沒有辦法去明確定義，或者它的發(fā)展速度遠遠快于定義它的速度。在幾個世紀以前，某個定義可以沿用幾百年。但現(xiàn)在，幾年以前的某個定義，在今天看來已不太確切。十年前用電子媒介做的作品，今天看來宛如中世紀的作品一樣質(zhì)樸。于是我告訴自己：趕緊做，埋頭做，不管到底會做出什么。因為有一點是肯定的，用這些新的媒介總是可以做一些新的嘗試的，肯定是值得去做的。
2007年9月6日 錄制于北京人濟山莊
原畫作者及標題：
(1) Giotto: The Washing of the Feet，Cappella degli Scrovegni, Padua
(2) Michelangelo: The Deluge, Cappella Sistina
(3) Michelangelo: Genesis, Cappella Sistina
(4) Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo: The Martyrdom of St Sebastian, 1475
(5) Titian: Bacchanal, 1520-1521
(6) Pieter Bruegel: Kreuztragung, 1564
(7) Lucas Cranach d. A: Der Jungbrunnen, 1546
(8) Nicolas Poussin：Landscape with Diogenes, 1647
Re-imagining H2O in Art
---A Discussion between Wu Hung and Miao Xiaochun
Wu Hung (hereafter WH): We mentioned last time in our discussion that starting from your works Mirage and Celebration, etc., you had basically parted from the sculptural figure that appears in your previous photographs. Today, let’s begin our conversation from there and focus on your two most recent projects: The Last Judgment in Cyberspace and H2O- A Study of Art History. Perhaps we can center more on the latter work, because we’ve already done an exhibition together on The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, and I’ve written an essay about it. This time, let’s concentrate primarily on H2O.
Miao Xiaochun (hereafter MXC): All right. These two works really represent a turning point in my art. Before I started these two projects, when I was working with conventional photography, I was shooting three-dimensional scenes in reality. And I was thinking about how to find the most appropriate angle from which to photograph a real situation and transform it into a flat, two-dimensional thing. One day, while looking at two-dimensional paintings in art history, a thought suddenly occurred to me: What would it be like if we changed it anew into a three-dimensional scene? I thought that if I could restore it, it would lead to very interesting results. So, I selected Michelangelo’s The Last Judgment. I first transformed it into a three-dimensional scene in the computer and then attempted to “view” it from different angles while also “photographing” these views. The process is the complete opposite from conventional photography.
Additionally, three-dimensional scenes in reality are constantly changing and moving, but photography can only show a static moment. As Michelangelo’s Last Judgment was originally motionless, my goal was to make it three-dimensional and then imbue it with movement. Thus I also made a three-dimensional computer animation to company the digital photographs, thereby realizing the reversal from immobility to mobility.
After completing The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, a lot of people asked me, “How could you make something so completely different from your earlier work?” Although on the surface, this work appears unlike my previous work—two different mediums, two different ways of making things—I think that the two are actually still very much related. If in photography I had never taken a three-dimensional thing and made it two-dimensional, then maybe I would never have made something two-dimensional three-dimensional, and have the idea to photograph it.
WH: As I see it, these two stages—and I think I understand these works relatively well—have a very strong relationship. Although on the surface, they seem to have nothing to do with one another, in reality they are quite related, especially with regard to the question of “looking.” Your photographic works already emphasized shifting viewpoints, with implications of movement and temporal concepts visualized on one plane. I remember in our last discussion, we brought up the relationship between your photographs and Chinese scroll painting, and the question of movement, etc. In these new works “movement” persists, but its appearance is different.
There’s a question that we can talk about more in depth, which is the very interesting shift from two to three dimensions. But, the three-dimensionality that you have produced is not actually a concrete three-dimensional objecthood, right? You created a three-dimensional model on the computer, but the work that emerges from this computer model is still a two-dimensional image. That is to say, the photographs made with this method are still two-dimensional, although they are clearly distinct from conventional photography. Exactly what notion of three-dimensionality are you referring to in this shift from “two-dimensional to three-dimensional”? ---Certainly, it’s different from a sculptor’s concept of three-dimensionality.
MXC: To be sure, a sculpture’s three-dimensionality is a truly existing one, whereas one shown on a computer is virtual. When you turn the computer off it’s gone, you can neither see nor touch it. Even if we use a projector to project it into a space, it’s still not the same as a traditional sculpture.
Three-dimensionality as it exists in reality seems limitless, infinite in time and space. Three-dimensionality in a computer, however, is limited and reached only based on a computer’s operational capacities. Of course, following technological advancements, this space has become bigger and bigger, but it’s still differentiated from reality. It’s also temporally distinct, as it can’t be endless, and instead must have a specific duration. Thus, in the titles of all of these works, I have added the word “virtual” (the literal translation for The Last Judgment in Cyberspace is The Virtual Last Judgment).
WH: If we consider it like this, then we can go back and rethink the so-called two-dimensional works. For example, we all learned in Western art history that there was the development of a very strong sense of purpose towards subjugating two-dimensional space by integrating the third dimension into the depiction of space in a painting. Thus, taking a flat material medium—a canvas or a wall—and “conquering” it by transforming it into a fictitious three-dimensional “pictorial space.” To contemporary viewers, the result was a fantastical space. So, from this historical viewpoint, perhaps what Michelangelo was doing at the time is a little bit like what you are doing. To his contemporaries, perhaps the Last Judgment was a virtual space. But, in the twenty-first century, we regard it as a “fresco.” Your work pushes this pursuit of “virtual space” into today, guiding it into contemporary art. Just like Michelangelo, however, your work also has its historical limitations. We see Michelangelo’s work as a painting, but at that time, people described it as if seeing the real last judgment, the real Jesus Christ, etc…what they saw was also a virtual three-dimensionality.
MXC: Along these lines, five hundred years from now, when people see our present work it will be just like how present people see Michelangelo’s painting. Perhaps they will also think of this as a kind of “flattening.”
I think, in every period, people endeavor to attain the very highest plane that their technological conditions allow. We are currently constrained to many technological elements, and can only reach a certain degree. For example, photography and video actually have a lot of shortcomings. Although they are more authentic instruments for documentation, they are still far from perfect. There are still limits to recording the real in a comprehensive way. Perhaps in the future, the technology will be available for documenting an entire scene, even the temperature and smells, etc. so that we can record and restore all of it. At that point, we will look back and consider today’s technology to be very primitive.
WH: In the future, the greatest breakthrough might be the breakthrough of the scope of the “visual.” From ancient times to the present, art has revolved around the visual. It is still this way. You just mentioned some other sensations like touch and smell. If they can enter into artistic expression, then that would truly transform a fundamental concept. In real life, hearing, smelling, seeing, etc…they are all sensed and aren’t separated. But in traditional art, the visual along serves as the foundational basis. Now, some artists are beginning to pursue senses outside of the visual.
You just explained how The Last Judgment in Cyberspace was a restoration of two-dimensionality into three-dimensions. But, with regard to the H20 works, it seems that this shift is not the primary objective of these pieces. Is this right? Because the experience of a virtual three-dimensionality seems to have been achieved in The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, is the H20 series now absorbed in a new purpose?
MXC: Technologically, it is a natural continuation of the earlier works, as it also takes flat art historical paintings and makes them three-dimensional. It then views them from two angles: their similarities and differences with the original. This second angle is important because it is an entirely new perspective of looking; the consideration of differences from the original is a view absent from art history.
The content then attempts to offer a reply to the question posed by the previous work. The question raised by the last work was “Where will I go?” This is related to the question of where life comes from, and where it is going. But in reality, this is very difficult to answer. Even the wisest philosophers have difficulty in providing an ultimate answer. I wanted to use art to indirectly address and respond to this question, so I made the H2O series.
WH: The continuation of technique is very clear. In terms of content, the previous work raised the question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” You said that your answer is related to water, why is this?
MXC: Although we live in modern times, our current scientific knowledge still cannot answer the question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” It is also hard to locate an answer in religion. Because some theories and doctrines have been shown to be incorrect in some areas, it is difficult for modern people to place a firm belief in them. Because of this, it is now very difficult to be a Christian or a Buddhist, and there is no theory or doctrine that can guide us completely. In the end, I could only use the simplest things, things that appear to have no problems, to find answers for myself. For example, “water”: the water that I drink today has flowed through millions of years, through countless living beings, cycling through everything, and after it leaves me, it will continue to stream through millions of years, into countless living forms, sinking into the earth, going into the sky, and moving back and forth. But, H2O, this element itself doesn’t change. It has flowed through primitive cells, dinosaurs, Confucius, cows, Louis XV, apples, Newton, potatoes, Beethoven, etc…innumerable animals, plants, and people are connected through this element. I think that this by itself is significant; I am somehow connected to many lives. I can’t answer this question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” but its relationship with water is evident. I wanted to use this kind of thing to create some works!
WH: In the treatment of water as a ceaselessly circulating element that manifests the continuity of life and connectivity in all living things, the content in this series of works possesses a philosophical layer. But, what is interesting is your choice to approach water from the angle of art history, rather than representing it as it appears in the real world. In this way, you again create another kind of continuity, which is the continuity of art—the “water” in your series only exists in art. So, there are two parallel levels of continuity: the circulation of water in the actual, physical world, and the circulation of images of water in art history. Is that right?
MXC: This is correct. Both kinds of continuity do exist. The continuity of artwork from different eras and in different regions is an interesting and important question. Sometimes, it is direct, while at other times it isn’t; it can be indirect to the point of not leaving behind any traces. We really don’t know how that first brush stroke ended up on a grotto wall, and we don’t know how when the second person faced this first painted image, how he produced the second image. Was it by copying? Or, was it a competition to make something better? Or, was it via another path? After so many works of art, images, and concepts have “flowed into” my brain, I cannot help but link together ancient and modern, Eastern and Western pieces. What I produce is absolutely a continuation of earlier art; while it takes a small step forward to expand new possibilities. When we choose exchanges with past generations, we reveal our individual way of looking at things. We reveal our own taste and disposition to the degree that continuity itself can create a new beginning.
WH: The function of representations of “water” in art is a very interesting question, and one that is emphasized in your readings of the ancient masterpieces. In fact, I think that art historians can learn quite a lot from your series. For example, in Giotto’s fresco of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet, most art historians have focused on the narrative and characters, but you bring people’s attention to the basin used for washing the feet. This is certainly very important.
MXC: On the one hand, I see some things that people wouldn’t normally notice. On the other hand, I also intentionally avoided works that most people would see as being obviously related to water, for example images of baptism. If a tableau doesn’t trigger my personal feelings, then I abandon it. I wanted to use a completely personal way of viewing these works. The principle guiding my selection of artwork was based on those that “gave me a particular thought and feeling.” Moreover, this “researching” did not have to result in the attainment of some verdict of art historical meaning. It was just a means to expressing some of my own realizations.
The original paintings that I selected can be roughly divided into three categories. In the first category, the works have a very particular relationship with water, for example The Deluge and Fountain of Youth; as soon as you see it, you know it’s related to water. The second category of works doesn’t share such a relationship. Instead, the works have an indirect link to water, for example The Martyrdom. These need to be transformed in some way to make that connection clear. The last category of works seems to have no connection at all with water, but I selected them anyhow and forged a relationship with water. As such, I had to ask myself: Why did I select these works to enter into the series? Viewers will also ask: Why have these been selected? When I answer this question (sometimes, even giving a strained interpretation), I am making my own viewpoint known. An example of a work in the last category is Carrying the Cross, which appears to be completely unrelated to water.
WH: This is Peter Bruegel’s Kreuztragung from 1564.
MXC: This painting depicts Jesus bearing a cross on his back, going to his execution. This motif was very moving to common people in later generations, for here Jesus is not regarded as a deity, but as a normal person going to be crucified. A deity would have possessed boundless supernatural powers, and wouldn’t sustain any injuries. Viewing this scene would suddenly make people conscious of the fact that Jesus was originally like us, a person of flesh and blood, a person capable of dying. He too is frail, and endures extreme harm. He sacrifices himself for all (of course, he is also resurrected), and it is this point that emotionally moves and captures so many people.
I took all the weeping people in the foreground, including the Virgin Mary and the apostles, and made them all like crystallized water, as a metaphor for their “crying until they become weeping figures.” The other people there, like the soldiers who are to execute the sentence and the indifferent spectators, all wear clothes. In the center, only Jesus has a completely transparent body. Life is transparent and frail like this. It’s easy to be attacked and die. People only have a very thin layer of skin binding their flesh together, and their body is 70% water. When people are at their weakest, fluids flow out of these bodies: tears when we are sad, blood when we are injured, sweat when we are exhausted.
WH: You have taken bodies of flesh and blood and made them transparent, like crystallized water. This makes me think of in Dream of the Red Chamber, when Jia Baoyu says: “Men are made from the earth, women are made from water.” In your reworking of Bruegel’s painting, some of the people seem to be made from the earth, while others are made from water. This latter type is different from other living things in the painting. The Virgin and her companions are situated in the foreground, and their forms are particularly large, proportionally distinct from those in the midground. We can regard them as a kind of narrative “frame,” and take the entire painting as a “framed tale.”
MXC: Yes. In my work, the soldiers in the middle who have been sent as escorts and the indifferent bystanders at the side are all wearing clothes. The original painting is itself extremely interesting, it’s vast and some of the figures seem to have nothing to do with Jesus’s execution, some even appear to be laughing and joking. Bruegel’s painting is very profound; it touches on many different aspects of human nature. When I saw the original work, it generated many thoughts and feelings.
WH: The meaning of water continually changes in this series. Sometimes it points to the materiality of water, but your use of “H2O” in the series’ title seems to place an emphasis on its meaning as an essential element, not as a tangible substance. Jesus, Mary’s sorrow, frailty…it seems that the meaning of water in this work changes again. Although they are all related to water, there is not a straightforward classification that can be completely expressed.
MXC: Right, so I call the series H2O. Its meaning as an element is more abstract and more pure. Once H2O is contaminated with foreign matters, it turns into something else: when carbonic acid is added, it becomes Coca Cola; when a little bit of protein is added it becomes blood; when salt is added and flows out of us, it is perspiration. In ancient times, water carried a lot of impurities, not like the kind we drink today. But as an element, H2O remains the same.
WH: The meaning of water in your The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian (based on the work of Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo, 1475) seems close to that in Carrying the Cross. Is that right?
MXC: Right. In the original work, St. Sebastian’s body is shot full of arrows, like a hedgehog. In my work, I imagined that the arrows that once pierced his body have flied away, and the wounds are now spilling out bodily fluids. The details at the side emphasize this point: I placed a glass vase toppled over with liquid leaking out of it to imply that the body is also like a vessel, and when the bodily fluids have all poured out, then life disappears. In my variant of this photograph, a “second view,” a suit of armor lies on the ground, implying that although man has made solid things to protect his fragile body, it can’t save life.
WH: Then what about Michelangelo’s Genesis? Adam seems to be in a transparent water molecule, lending the greatest sense of H2O as an element. Is the meaning of water here similar to living cells?
MXC: I personally consider this to be a very important piece in the series. Originally, Michelangelo’s Genesis depicted the relationship between God and Adam. But, as modern people, do we still believe in this story? So, I made a lot of changes from the original work. That transparent bubble is like a cell, and it’s also like an abstract spacecraft, a closed container carrying and protecting life through the vast sky. I originally really did think about making a spacecraft, but later decided it wasn’t necessary—just making a clear sphere was more abstract and could then be interpreted as a cell, and also as a spacecraft in the cosmos. Inside, there is a precious ball of water, cupped inside both hands. In a spacecraft, water is extremely valuable---water used for drinking, washing one’s face, rinsing one’s mouth, etc. is all needed and recycled. In the three-dimensional computer animation I have made based on the same painting, there is a group of people who are outside of this container. They are outside of its protection and suffer in a state of dehydration. They use a long straw to draw it over in order to attain life. The person in the clear sphere (i. e. Adam) transfers the water to the others, and in doing so he loses the water, loses life, and in the end becomes a skeleton, which further transforms into fragments and powder, and vanishes into the universe.
In this work, water is transmitted from one life to another, through a straw. Straws are a common occurrence in modern life; they are everywhere. Through them, we suck water out of sealed bottles and jars into our bodies; I can’t help but think about their symbolic significance!
Michelangelo’s work expresses the creation of life. But, to me, I couldn’t clearly see this matter of how life really was created (as discussed earlier). I could only see water transmitted among lives, and as a result I expressed this “transferring.” This is a major change from the original painting, from connotation to content.
WH: It’s like the logic of creating the world has been reversed. Originally God gave Adam life; now, this suspended sphere has become the source of life, Adam has become life’s power source, connected to God and angels through a straw.
MXC: Modern science has overturned a lot of the ideas and concepts of our predecessors. A long time ago, we gave our most glorious illusions to a limitless vault of heaven. But, when modern people began to have the ability to fly back and forth through the sky, they started to think that there isn’t really anything up there; it is bleak, desolate, and without life. The most miraculous and most beautiful place turns out to be our own blue planet, which is full of water and life! Moreover, all of the depictions of hell in paintings from the Middle Ages show a place deep underground raging with flames. But, consider what would happen if a nuclear war erupted and we succumbed to the approach of a manmade Judgment Day. With a sea of fire on the ground, perhaps hidden underground air-raid shelters would be the last sanctuary for life. How many people would be fortunate enough to take refuge in these holes in the ground? At that moment, a lot of our concepts would be completely altered.
WH: I think that this inversion is very interesting. This sanctuary in your work, protecting and sustaining life, is just like a container in the middle of a desolate and boundless cosmos. It has become the fountainhead, the origin of new life. Although this is not the original genesis, it can still be called a “genesis.” The meanings found here are quite profound.
In this series there are also two pieces that are based on Titian and Poussin. Titian’s work is Bacchanal, right?
MXC: Yes. In Titian’s work, I noticed that all the people were proposing a toast. They were all drunk, and only one child was urinating. This child moved me: no matter what refined liquor we drink, in the end what leaks out of us is only yellow urine. The old saying meaning “a good-for-nothing” (literally “wine bag and rice pocket”) seems to point out that our bodies are only a provisional container, with meat and alcohol passing through our intestines, entering and exiting our bodies. I also noticed that in the painting there was a little dog in the distance; water also passes through animals’ intestines, entering and exiting their bodies as well.
WH: In Poussin’s painting, water occupies a major position, appearing as it does in the real environment. It has a different form and meaning from other works in this series. Some works display the relationship between man and water—for example, immersed in a bath, containers full of water, bowls for drinking, etc. In Poussin’s work, water is a principle subject in the pictorial representation.
MXC: This painting is called Landscape with Diogenes. It is said that in antiquity there was a philosopher named Diogenes who passed by a stream and saw a shepherd drinking water out of his cupped hands. Diogenes thought to himself: Why have I brought a bowl for drinking water? Thus he threw it away. He wanted to be the same as the shepherd and be closer to nature. When I made a “second view” of this work, I added two swans drinking water. Animals aren’t civilized: they didn’t invent nor have they manufactured utensils, and have never had to select and abandon. This question of discarding a bowl is nonexistent to them as they have always just used their mouths to drink directly. They have always been inseparably connected with nature.
Similarly, in the second view of The Washing of the Feet, I added a cat. When people wash, they use water to clean themselves. Animals, meanwhile, lick themselves clean. They also wash their feet, but using a different method, the meaning is also completely different. Moreover, Jesus washing his disciples’ feet also carries an even deeper layer of ritual significance outside of cleaning the body.
WH: There is also the work Fountain of Youth.
MXC: This painting shows the magic of water as something that can allow people to temporarily become youthful again. Modern people rush about all day long. When they return home and take a shower, they become invigorated again.
WH: After swimming, one also feels that one’s energy returns.
MXC: A moment of temporary youth. We don’t know the reason why, but as soon as we get into the water we become relaxed and cheerful. Is it because our body is also 70% water? Or is it because each and every one of us at inception was enveloped in water? Or are there some other reasons? Of course, in the original painting the point is even more extreme: When elderly people pass through the Fountain of Youth, they assume entirely new appearance!
Of course, water also has a ruthless and tyrannical aspect, as in The Deluge. Water that creates life also destroys it.
WH: Actually, in all of these aspects, water is cross-cultural. In Chinese literature, we can find many examples---for instance, the legend about Yu the Great controlling the water. But what’s more interesting in Chinese culture is the link between water and a person’s disposition, for example in the saying, “The wise find pleasure in water; the virtuous find pleasure in hills.”
MXC: “Supreme virtue is like water” also equates water with good character.
WH: Or, “The association between wise men is pure like water.” But, descriptions of bad moral character also adopt water metaphors, for example, the phrase for “fickle and lascivious” literally means “aqueous.” Descriptions of good and bad characters all use water metaphors.
MXC: Yes, this is very interesting.
WH: Let’s return to this entire group of works. Besides water, there are other aspects of visual representation. For example, the use of color: in some cases, your coloration is related to the original work. An example is your version of Titian’s painting, where the color is kept especially bright. But, many of your versions do not maintain a clear relevance to the source painting; for example in your transformation of Giotto’s The Washing of the Feet, although the pale ash blue seems to have a feel of the Middle Ages, it is not really connected with Giotto’s original work. How did you come to your selection of colors?
MXC: In this group of works, with the exception of Carrying the Cross, none of the figures in the paintings are wearing any clothes. I thought about having the colors of the physical bodies fixed to the colors of the clothing in the original work, thus maintaining a direct relationship between the two. For example, in my version of Titian’s Bacchanal, figures’ skin colors are red, orange, yellow, green, etc. If someone asked why is this person red? I would say: in the original work, figures were wearing clothes with these colors. But, I think the way I ultimately decided upon is more abstract; you avoid entering into an immediate and designated context. Clothes possess a very strong sense of directionality: they can indicate the time period, or a particular ethnicity or country.
Fountain of Youth offers a different case. Since all the figures use the same model, it is hard to show the process of an old person turning into a youth, so I used different colors to indicate this transformation. Elder people are shown in relatively deeper, dimmer colors, while young people are shown brighter and glossier. From left to right, color becomes gradually brighter, implying this change from old to young. I think that this perhaps employs a more “artistic” language, but it is more interesting than using clothes, skin, or hair.
WH: So, can we say that your works are “re-creations” of the originals? Distinctions in gender, age, character and physique are all dissolved as they all use one model.
MXC: Right, I think this is better.
WH: Your two most recent groups of works, The Last Judgment in Cyberspace and H2O, both use an abstracted image of yourself as a digital mold. In your earlier photographs, you used a sculptural figure also based on yourself. From this perspective, are the two different phases somehow connected?
MXC: Yes, they are related. In the first phase of my art, I had a sculptural “me” that existed in reality such that you could see and touch it. Now, this digital “me” only exists in the computer, it can be seen but not touched. But, they can all be called “sculptures,” and all are connected to “me.”
WH: So, you think of the first set of works as photographs and a record of reality; while the second set of works are different because they use a digital model, made on a computer, and then completed like a blueprint. Given these differences, how should we call this second group of works? Are they computer art or photographs?
MXC: Perhaps this depends on which angle you view them from. If you acknowledge the software’s virtual camera and approve this kind of means of computer photography, then you can call it a type of photography. But, it is still one that sits on the fringes of photography, as it is really quite different from traditional methods. It’s not entirely suitable to define it as photography. Perhaps it could be called computer art or digital imagery, but this depends on your point of view.
WH: Perhaps this needs to be determined according to the specific means of realization. I can imagine the development of this kind of digital imagery into a holographic portrait, thereby becoming a complete visual illusion.
MXC: There are a lot of things that still cannot be explicitly defined, or perhaps the rate of its development defines it. A few centuries ago, some definitions persisted for hundreds of years. But, nowadays, a definition from just a few years back might appear imprecise today. Now, when we look at how computers were used as a medium for producing works ten years ago, it seems as simple and unaffected as art from the Middle Ages. I told myself: lose no time, immerse yourself, it doesn’t matter what is produced in the end. Using these kinds of new media, what is definite is that one can always attempt new things, and it is always worth it.
September 6, 2007, Beijing
(Translated by Peggy Wang)
For the record, the original works quoted by Miao Xiaochun in his H2O series are listed below:
【編輯：小紅】
