訪問人：鄧大非(以下簡(jiǎn)稱鄧)
受訪人：徐小國(guó)(以下簡(jiǎn)稱徐)
地點(diǎn)：黑橋徐小國(guó)工作室
時(shí)間：2009年11月
鄧：在討論對(duì)你2009年11月28日個(gè)展名稱“圣跡”的英文翻譯時(shí)，我想，“圣”字如果直譯成saint時(shí)就太基督教化，我看到你的許多畫面符號(hào)并不指謂耶穌基督信仰。
徐：“圣”，我是指“神”、“圣”、“凡”。這是對(duì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的個(gè)人理解。個(gè)體在社會(huì)里成為一種經(jīng)典或價(jià)值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的典范，那最終走到極致之后就會(huì)被神化!凡人與圣者之間不停地轉(zhuǎn)換角色，從而有了人到神、神又到人的轉(zhuǎn)化過程。所以，“圣跡”的提法是比較準(zhǔn)確的，比“神跡”要好。神跡是比較淺表的層面理解，是神話學(xué)的、是宗教感的。我兩年前基本上形成了這個(gè)展覽的構(gòu)架。至于“圣跡”只是個(gè)展覽的名稱罷了。在作品的傳達(dá)上面，我并不一定根據(jù)神話故事或者宗教事件來展開藝術(shù)問題的界面，從而建構(gòu)展覽的框架。
鄧： 現(xiàn)在很多藝術(shù)家愿意在作品中有意識(shí)地強(qiáng)調(diào)一種曖昧的性質(zhì)，其實(shí)本質(zhì)上是想在觀者的層面造成一種更加開放的理解和闡釋。
徐：其實(shí)藝術(shù)家不需要曲解或誤讀。我就是正著正用的，或者說我沒有在作品中強(qiáng)調(diào)曖昧。假設(shè)這個(gè)過程出現(xiàn)在日常的言語訪談之中，就會(huì)特別有意思;但是在藝術(shù)的創(chuàng)作過程中，我恰恰沒有這樣的企圖，即把語義和符號(hào)導(dǎo)向另外的曖昧性，或是藝術(shù)不可說。有人致力于讓作品的形式和內(nèi)容對(duì)別人達(dá)到那種開放性，我恰恰不是這樣。我現(xiàn)在研究的方向是建立一種繪畫的自我結(jié)構(gòu)。在繪畫行為過程中傳達(dá)出來的感受我是完全知道的。現(xiàn)在很多藝術(shù)家用曖昧的語言，我并不排除各玩各的。有些藝術(shù)家是在向著藝術(shù)問題開火，有些藝術(shù)家則是在對(duì)觀眾玩一種貓膩的游戲，導(dǎo)致觀眾對(duì)他們產(chǎn)生一些甚至高層次的理解，或者誤解。
鄧：記得剛進(jìn)你的工作室，看到你那些帶有強(qiáng)烈喜劇性和張力的巨幅繪畫，給人的第一印象是作品中包含特別強(qiáng)烈的“中國(guó)”意向。從符號(hào)到題材，都是。我的本能反應(yīng)就是你的作品帶著一種古典知識(shí)分子那種“文以載道”的遺傳基因，與那些帶著試驗(yàn)室色彩、玩純粹語言游戲的藝術(shù)家走的是不同的路數(shù)。那就是，在作品的背后要強(qiáng)調(diào)特定的意義或價(jià)值。但與那些是非、善惡的人道主義價(jià)值傾向的不同在于，你是帶著神話、述說不清的歷史之謎與講不透的復(fù)雜故事，好像有很多的心結(jié)都糾纏在一起，讓人感覺很困惑。歷史的、文化的、心理的情結(jié)都攪在一起，好像人類自身的欲望和理想是分不開、捆綁在一起的。當(dāng)然在畫面中還是能夠看到你對(duì)符號(hào)和圖像的處理關(guān)系中體現(xiàn)的戲劇因素，能看到你想在哪種程度停下來的企圖，我想知道你在這些因素背后中的動(dòng)機(jī)是什么?
徐：你說的那種中國(guó)符號(hào)、情調(diào)，我可以用我的生活來舉個(gè)例子。比如你給我強(qiáng)加一個(gè)定義，徐小國(guó)是一個(gè)中國(guó)人。那我要是不認(rèn)定的話，那這種符號(hào)障礙就不成立。那反過來，如果我認(rèn)定我自己是中國(guó)人的話，那這種障礙就產(chǎn)生了。如果選擇后者的話，我使用中國(guó)符號(hào)，那就是一個(gè)障礙，或者說我用中國(guó)符號(hào)，去做中國(guó)符號(hào)，去生產(chǎn)中國(guó)符號(hào)，產(chǎn)生中國(guó)符號(hào)在國(guó)際化的通用品牌效應(yīng)。我本來就是普遍意義上的人類一員。如果我沒有這個(gè)障礙的話，至于我是不是一個(gè)中國(guó)人，那已經(jīng)不重要了。如果從另一個(gè)角度看，我本身是一個(gè)中國(guó)人，我自身改變不了這個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)，在作品中自然流露出中國(guó)文化的影子。我覺得這不是問題，也沒有必要過分排斥它的存在。這樣做是沒有意義的。不必在這個(gè)問題上浪費(fèi)時(shí)間和精力，應(yīng)該把精力放在作品中。
中國(guó)的現(xiàn)狀讓我產(chǎn)生了對(duì)一些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的質(zhì)疑。我不是質(zhì)疑標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的現(xiàn)實(shí)高度，而是質(zhì)疑標(biāo)準(zhǔn)變化的過程。我覺得對(duì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)變化過程的關(guān)注才能看到事情的真實(shí)狀態(tài)。我覺得這特別有意思。就像化學(xué)試驗(yàn)一樣，添加一點(diǎn)化學(xué)成分，它就完全變了;再添加一點(diǎn)別的成分，它又開始變化。這是一個(gè)綜合性的、呈現(xiàn)出一個(gè)社會(huì)化和人類綜合預(yù)謀后的結(jié)果。
我對(duì)不同地域文化的研究有興趣，我看很多這類的書。同時(shí)，我也對(duì)宗教感興趣。我喜歡把不同地域的宗教拿來對(duì)比，但我覺得書不能滿足藝術(shù)家對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)世界的感知，我不是作為一個(gè)學(xué)者去研究，而是用我的感知體會(huì)其過程，發(fā)現(xiàn)里面特別有意思。近來，我對(duì)文化人類學(xué)的考據(jù)方法很感興趣，尤其針對(duì)不同地域中出現(xiàn)的神話傳說的考據(jù)。好玩的是，這些神話傳說在世界不同地域的演繹方式中非常類似，只是角色的名字不同，就像中國(guó)的縣志和地方考一樣。比如杭州有一個(gè)神話：一個(gè)女孩落水了，這個(gè)女孩被人打撈上來成為鬼或是成為神了。這個(gè)故事在南京也有，在別的地方也有，只是有點(diǎn)不同，女孩變成了一只鳥掉到水里了，后來幻化成為神仙了。在歐洲也有這樣類似的傳說。各處演繹都有所不同，但里面的內(nèi)質(zhì)是相同的。這些神話都多多少少的改變了不同地域的意識(shí)形態(tài)。這些改變過程很耐人尋味。如果深入一步，這種所謂地域化意識(shí)形態(tài)的產(chǎn)生究竟是個(gè)人造成的還是群體造成的，就不得而知了。假設(shè)它由一個(gè)人產(chǎn)生，并發(fā)展成群體的價(jià)值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，進(jìn)一步擴(kuò)大為龐大的體系標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，就成了真事?；蛘叻催^來，龐大的社會(huì)系統(tǒng)也會(huì)造成對(duì)個(gè)人價(jià)值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的改變。我想，不管是誰改變了誰，在這個(gè)真與假、是與非的糾結(jié)點(diǎn)上，有許多文化問題值得去反思。 在“圣跡”這套作品之前，我選擇了用舞臺(tái)表達(dá)我的文化反思和對(duì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)變化過程的質(zhì)疑。我覺得，用舞臺(tái)這個(gè)語言比較貼切。因?yàn)槲枧_(tái)存在五個(gè)空間關(guān)系：背景空間、背景空間之前的戲劇空間、觀眾的觀看空間、劇場(chǎng)外的空間和現(xiàn)實(shí)社會(huì)與虛擬社會(huì)的空間。假設(shè)舞臺(tái)背景空間是“假”的話，那么前臺(tái)表演是真的，如果這兩者合為一體，那觀眾的觀看空間相對(duì)舞臺(tái)劇來說是真的。前三者在劇場(chǎng)里的空間面對(duì)劇場(chǎng)外的空間時(shí)，它也是假的。最有意思的是，現(xiàn)實(shí)已經(jīng)很真實(shí)了，為什么還要制造一個(gè)假的劇場(chǎng)現(xiàn)實(shí)呢?可能它有產(chǎn)生的必要性。我在進(jìn)入舞臺(tái)系列的時(shí)候選擇類似導(dǎo)演的角色，在里面調(diào)整這種關(guān)系。我做了錯(cuò)位的安排，打亂原有既定的邏輯關(guān)系，在錯(cuò)位的安排中給觀眾反思的空間。如果我夠強(qiáng)大到改變所有的話，就可以把現(xiàn)實(shí)轉(zhuǎn)化為虛擬、把虛擬轉(zhuǎn)化為現(xiàn)實(shí)，那就更有意思了。但在那個(gè)時(shí)候，我的綜合能力達(dá)不到，所以在舞臺(tái)系列中，我沒有解決最終想要解決的問題。
鄧：所以以前在舞臺(tái)系列中沒有解決的問題，是否會(huì)帶入目前“圣跡”這個(gè)展覽的作品中?
徐：我選擇這個(gè)展覽名字，主題叫“圣跡”。你看到的所有東西好像是我捏造的，以神話和中國(guó)符號(hào)來表述都不重要，重要的在于我把這個(gè)問題擴(kuò)大化了。我回到現(xiàn)實(shí)與虛擬之間的關(guān)系上。這時(shí)候，我只能放棄舞臺(tái)，因舞臺(tái)不能承載對(duì)問題的深層研究。舞臺(tái)系列只是進(jìn)行正常邏輯關(guān)系的改變。它改變不了觀眾對(duì)你作品或?qū)δ闼枷肷顚拥姆此己脱芯?。所以我把舞臺(tái)打散了，沒有舞臺(tái)了，沒有舞臺(tái)的形象了。在“圣跡”系列中其實(shí)出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)大舞臺(tái)的概念，不局限于舞臺(tái)安排或者表演。這是一個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)世界的舞臺(tái)，表達(dá)的場(chǎng)域大了。我在里面做事的可能性也就更大了，玩的東西更多了，可以駕馭的東西也更多了。
鄧：在展覽空間的安排上，你想把這幾年的思路有一個(gè)比較全面的推出嗎?
徐：這次不展出舞臺(tái)系列中的作品。這次展覽我不想把畫簡(jiǎn)簡(jiǎn)單單找地方掛一掛，像普通的畫展那樣安排。我想通過展場(chǎng)空間的分割產(chǎn)生一條觀看的路線。我好像是導(dǎo)游一樣，設(shè)計(jì)并引導(dǎo)觀眾的觀看過程，讓觀眾被動(dòng)地參與進(jìn)來，從而了解我的線索和研究方向。
鄧：縱觀你幾個(gè)系列的作品，給人的直覺是作者在講故事，但好像是在講一個(gè)永遠(yuǎn)講不明白、講不清楚的故事。你處在敘事和拒絕敘事之間的一種狀態(tài)，這讓我好奇，你對(duì)表達(dá)究竟持一種什么樣的態(tài)度?
徐：我其實(shí)是在探究事物背后的一種真實(shí)狀態(tài)。我覺得，我的作品不是用來解決問題的，而是提出問題的。我的態(tài)度不是簡(jiǎn)簡(jiǎn)單單找到答案就好。
鄧：從畫面本身來看，你的作品給人一種很能畫的感覺，塑造非常強(qiáng)。你的畫面很實(shí)，有種本土的生機(jī)和力量，有一種內(nèi)在的激情和自發(fā)感。但從符號(hào)之間的構(gòu)成 成來看，你的作品似乎又?jǐn)[脫不了對(duì)“意義”的追究，抹不去對(duì)歷史感的表達(dá)。在符號(hào)邏輯的錯(cuò)位搭配中，你營(yíng)造給觀眾一種對(duì)歷史的困惑之視覺體驗(yàn)。但這種效果，你好像不完全是靠搭配符號(hào)之間的距離來產(chǎn)生的?
徐：是的，不完全是靠搭配符號(hào)之間的距離來產(chǎn)生的。比如為了把畫面畫厚，就把顏料往上堆，這是不對(duì)的。這樣做，永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)呈現(xiàn)繪畫的建構(gòu)。在繪畫的過程中，為了修正，一步一步推進(jìn)，畫面自身越來越厚，越來越豐富。這是正確之道，這樣的厚才有意義。它帶有繪畫建構(gòu)的過程。這只是一個(gè)例子，是繪畫結(jié)構(gòu)復(fù)雜性的其中一點(diǎn)。我現(xiàn)在所做的工作不是把一張畫畫完這么簡(jiǎn)單，我在作品里面做了大量的繪畫結(jié)構(gòu)的自我修正工作。現(xiàn)在我最重要的工作就是修正，是為了修正而修正。
鄧：你提到的修正涉及幾個(gè)層面。第一，符號(hào)選擇。為什么不是個(gè)唐老鴨而是個(gè)海豹，等等。第二，就是符號(hào)選擇所使用的程度問題。就像一些畫面背景的問題，為什么你不畫整體一點(diǎn)?那豈不是更好?但我感興趣的問題是，你什么時(shí)候停下來才是必要的?在停下來的時(shí)候，那肯定包含了價(jià)值觀、態(tài)度，諸如修養(yǎng)、品味......是否這個(gè)停下來的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也在變化?
徐：不是度的變化，而是每步我都有一個(gè)研究的目的和課題，研究的基點(diǎn)肯定是定下來的。
這張畫海豹的畫是個(gè)開始，我把它的名字定為《2009》，我沒有給這張畫承載任何意義。只是我的2009年的一種結(jié)束，可能下一步會(huì)從另外一個(gè)方向開始。它是我走到下一個(gè)章節(jié)的宣言，或者說是一個(gè)深入建構(gòu)自我繪畫結(jié)構(gòu)的開始。我在下一個(gè)階段，可能會(huì)研究圖像的語言深層意義，比如我畫一個(gè)沒有任何意義的盆栽。別人看來是不是我回歸到日常題材了?或者非日?；?這沒關(guān)系。至于你問我畫面什么時(shí)候停下來、完成作品?我的回答肯定只有一個(gè)，那就是我在一張畫完成了我預(yù)設(shè)的研究問題的時(shí)候，我會(huì)停下來，讓它結(jié)束。當(dāng)然在里面，我不會(huì)考慮畫面好不好看、符不符合大眾審美之類的問題。
鄧：我能理解，這就是為什么你做的畫面看起來很自然。
徐：《2009》這張畫我做了四遍修正。但最后為什么停到這兒?我覺得，如果一張畫不能完全表達(dá)你的價(jià)值觀，就可能要靠一系列的研究過程來闡述。在研究方向和基點(diǎn)共同作用下，藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)作可以產(chǎn)生一個(gè)龐大的結(jié)構(gòu)，一張畫只是一個(gè)階段試驗(yàn)。比如你看這片樹，有的像動(dòng)物，有的像幾何形，里面有很多負(fù)形。這些都是我在修正中慢慢提煉出來的。這些暗藏的玄機(jī)沒有任何的意義，是我在修正過程中自然帶出來的、呈現(xiàn)畫面建構(gòu)的一部分。它是具有存在的必要性。
鄧：這是否又走到馬格利特、基里科等青年時(shí)期的超現(xiàn)實(shí)主義老路上去?
徐：不至于。因?yàn)檫@是在繪畫過程中的實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果，是我在過癮、亢奮過程中做出亢奮過程中做出來的東西，是在反復(fù)修正過程中帶給我的預(yù)感。我在畫這幅畫的過程中，沒有任何負(fù)擔(dān)。這張畫是我今年感覺最好的一張。我從中看到，我下一步要做什么。作品中有沒有幽默、趣味性，這都不重要。我把我?guī)讉€(gè)研究的方向歸結(jié)到一起，有幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)：一、藝術(shù)家的轉(zhuǎn)化，二、自我繪畫結(jié)構(gòu)的建構(gòu)，第三、解決繪畫本身沒有解決的問題。
鄧：那你認(rèn)為繪畫作為一種古老的工具，它繼續(xù)向前發(fā)展的空間是什么?
徐：現(xiàn)在很多人認(rèn)為，藝術(shù)應(yīng)該承載人文價(jià)值，或者藝術(shù)應(yīng)該反映意識(shí)形態(tài)，或者附加的敘事性、附加的政治性等等。其實(shí)，繪畫已經(jīng)被利用了。繪畫應(yīng)該回歸到繪畫的元問題上來才會(huì)有它的出路。一張畫好不好?它自己就會(huì)告訴你，不需要多余的解釋。
鄧：我理解了你說的繪畫的語言問題，說白了就是畫應(yīng)該像一張“好畫”!
鄧大非：
北京荔空間助理策展人
Traces of the Sacred:
Interview with Xu Xiaoguo
_ Interviewer: Deng Fei (hereinafter referred to as Deng)
_Interviewee: Xu Xiaoguo (hereinafter referred to as Xu)
_Venue: Xu Xiaoguo Studio, Black Bridge
_Time: November 2009
Deng: When we were discussing the English title for your November 28 solo exhibition "Shengji" which literally means "the Holy Traces", we forsook the word “Saint” for its Christian implication. I see most of the signs in your paintings hardly refer to Christianity.
Xu: By this Chinese character “Sheng,” I mean “divine”, “sacred,” and "extraordinary," which is a personal interpretation of the standard understanding. When an individual develops into a model of perfection of value standard, he ultimately would be put to the end of the spectrum and be glorified. The common and the sacred exchange their roles to complete the transformation from a human being to a spiritual being and then back to a human being again. Thus, "The Sacred Traces " is more exact, better than "Traces of the Saint," which is superficially defined and implies mythology and religion.
Two years ago, I formed the framework of this exhibition. As for the title of the exhibition, it’s just a name to me. My works in this exhibition do not necessarily refer to mythical stories or religious events.
Deng: At present, many artists like to put a conscious emphasis on a dubious character in their works. While infact, they intend to make their works open to more interpretations.
Xu: In fact, artists do not need to resort to distortion or misleading. I, myself, do not emphasize this ambiguity in my works. If such is the case in everyday speech, it might be particularly interesting. But in the process of artistic creation, I just do not have such an attempt to orient the semantic and symbolic signs towards ambiguity, or to hold that art cannot be said. Some dedicate to avoid openness or straightforwardness of form and content in their works, but I am just the opposite. I am now working in the field of setting up a self-construction process of painting. I’m fully aware of the emotions conveyed in the process of painting. At present, many artists use ambiguous language; I do not reject that each one may use his or her respective way. Some artists are firing towards artistic issues. Some others are merely playing tricks on the viewer, by manipulating them and causing them to even misunderstand the artists.
Deng: I remember walking into your studio, seeing those huge paintings with a strong sense of comedy and tension hanging in front of me. My initial impression was that these works have a particularly strong "Chinese” disposition, both from the symbolic aspect and the subject matter. My impression is that you work as a classical Chinese intellectual, the kind of person who advocate literature carrying over Taoism. You definitely take a separate path from those experimental artists who play a pure language game. In other words, artistic works should have a hidden meaning or value, a value, though is, different from moral standards of right and wrong, good and evil, but rather one that carries with it the unspeakable mystery of mythology and history, the bewildering complexity of stories that cannot be stated. They display many emotions entangled together, leaving the viewers confused. Reflections on history, culture, and psychology are jumbled together as if human desires and ideals formed an inseparable being. One can obviously detect the dramatic factors in your handling of the relationship between symbols and images, and is able to see your attempt to stop at a certain level. I would like to ask you about the motives behind all these factors?
Xu: I can use a daily example to explain the kind of Chinese symbols and moods you mentioned. For instance, you are imposing a definition of me, Xuxiao Guo as a Chinese. If I do not acknowledge, if it does not set up barriers to such a symbol. If, on the other hand, I acknowledge, if this obstacle came into being. So in the latter case, using Chinese symbols is an obstacle. Put it in another way, I was using Chinese symbols to produce Chinese symbols, and to forge Chinese symbols into a common international influence. I am, by nature, one of the human race, so if this obstacle does not exist, whether I am Chinese or not does not matter. If perceived from another point of view, I am Chinese, this is a reality I am powerless to change, and then it’s natural that Chinese culture finds its expression in my works. I do not view it a problem, and there is no need to reject such expression for the attempt is meaningless. I suggest not wasting time on this issue and efforts should be focused on artistic works, themselves.
China's current situation makes me doubtful about certain standards. I do not doubt the properness of the standards, but rather, the evolution or the change of thestandards. The evolution of standards, in my opinion, reveals the true state of things. I found it particularly interesting, for the process is like a chemical test, adding certain chemical compositions. The result completely changed. Adding other ingredients, the process starts to change. Such a process is comprehensive, and is the outcome of a combined effort both from socialization and human endeavours.I’m interested in studying cultures of different regions I’ve read extensively. At the same time, I’m also interested in religion and like to compare regions of different regions. I think artists cannot feed on books to perceive of the real world. I do not study as a scholar. I experience to find what is particularly interesting. My recent exploration goes into the textual research method of cultural anthropology, particularly on the myths and legends of in different regions. What intrigues me most is that these myths and legends of different regions in the world are very similar in the ways they are told, minor difference occurring in just proper names. One may think about Chinese county or local annals. For example, in Hangzhou there is a myth of a girl who fell into the water, and turned into a ghost or a goddess. Similar story is also told in Nanjing. In other places, the same story is found with a slight difference that the girl turned into a bird before she fell into the water, and later metamorphosed into a goddess. Legends as such also appear in Europe,including the United Kingdom. The story might be told differently, but the inner core is the same. These myths and legends have been changed somewhat to the different geographical ideologies. The change makes people think. If we go one step further, we may ask whether the emergence of the so-called regional ideology is caused by individuals or groups. The answer is unknown for now. Suppose such ideology is generated by one person, and develops into group values, and further expands to a huge system standard, it becomes a true story. Conversely, the huge social system can also cause changes in personal values. I think no matter who changes whom, who is true and who is false, many cultural issues require our serious reflection.
Ahead of the works of "The Sacred Traces", I have chosen the stage to express my cultural reflection, and my question about the evolution and change of standards. Stage in my eyes is an appropriate media. There are five spatial relationships: the background space, theater space in front of the background space, the audience viewing space, space outside the theater space and the space between the real world and the virtual world. Suppose the background space is "false", then the performance in the theater space in front is true. If the two merged into one, then the viewing space of the audience is real in comparison to stage play. The first three, when considered as a whole and compared with the space outside the theater, they are also a fake. The most interesting is that the reality is already very real, why create a fake theater reality? I believe there is a need for its generation. I adopted the director’s role and adjust relationships as I began my stage series. I did a dislocation arrangement, disrupting the established logic of the existing relationship, and hence leaving space for audience to reflect. If I were powerful enough to change more, I would transform a real world into a virtual one and a virtual one into a real one, which is even more interesting. At that time, my overall ability failed me and I did not solve the problems I wanted to solve in the stage series ultimately.
Deng: So would you bring those unsolved problems into the exhibiting works of “The Sacred Traces”?
Xu: I chose the name of this exhibition with the theme "The Sacred Traces". Everything you see seems to be created by me. Using myths or Chinese symbols is of little concern, and the importance is that I magnify such an issue. I went back to the relationship between reality and virtual reality. At this time, I can only one give up the stage, because the stage could not enable a deep study of the issue. Stage series just change a normal logical relationship. They cannot spur audience’s reflection on artist’s works and deeper thoughts. So I broke up the stage, leaving no stage and no stage images. As a matter of fact, in " The Sacred Traces " series, there is a notion of a larger stage, one without limits of stage arrangements or performances. It is a real world stage, a wider arena of expression. There are more opportunities for me to work inside it, more things to play with in it, and more to be controlled inside it.
Deng: Do you want to show your ideas in these years via this exhibition?
Xu: The works of Stage Series will not be exhibited this time. I don't want to present paintings in an ordinary order, as other exhibitions. I hope that the space in the exhibition hall will be specifically divided, which will guide the visitors to follow the artist's ideas. Visitors will understand the artist’s clues and research direction.
Deng: Looking at a few series of works of yours, I think you are telling stories, stories that can never be explained clearly. You are somewhere between telling stories and declining to tell stories. I wonder what your real attitude is.
Xu: Actually, I am exploring truth behind the surface of things. I believe my works are not used to solve problems, but to provoke questions. My attitude is not simply to find the answers.
Deng: From your paintings, one gets the impression that you are very good at painting and at shaping things. Your paintings are real, filled with strength and indigenous vitality, and there is inherent passion and spontaneity inside. Nonetheless, when examining the composition between the symbols, you seem to be unable to escape the pursuit of "meaning", and to wipe away the expression of a sense of history. In the dislocation of the symbolic logic, you create a visual confusion of history for the viewer. The effect, however, seems not entirely generated by the distance between the symbols?
Xu: Yes, it is not entirely created by the distance between the symbols. For example, in order to make the painting thick, one heaps up the paint on the canvas, which is wrong. In so doing, one may never show the construction of a painting. In the painting process, the artist amends step by step, the painting itself becomes increasingly thicker and thicker, and the interpretation became more abundant. This is the right way; such thickness makes sense, for it shows the construction process. This is just one example, one point of the structural complexity of painting. What I am doing now is more than simply finishing a painting. I put a lot of consideration self-reflection into my works. Now my major job is to amend, amending for sake of amending itself.
Deng: You mentioned the amendment involves several levels. First, the choice of symbols. Why not a Donald Duck, but a seal, and so on. Secondly, to what extent a symbol is used? For example, in background construction, why do not use the whole symbol? Is it not better? However, I am interested in the question: when is the critical time to stop? Where you stop surely shows values, attitudes, such as cultivation, taste, etc. Is the standard of where to end also changing?
Xu: It’s not a change of degree. In each step I have had a research purpose and subject, and the starting point has to be decided. This painting of seals is a starting point. I name it "2009", I do not want it carries too much meaning. It just means the end of 2009. Maybe the next step starts in a different direction. It is a declaration of my moving on to the next chapter, or a start of an in-depth construction of painting. In the next phase, I may examine the deeper semantic meaning of image. For example, I drew a flower pot, and others suspect that I’m returning to the theme of the daily life? Or not? It does not matter. As for when I stop and complete the work? My answer is simply that only when the work finishes my prior research questions, I will stop and let it end. In this process, I would not consider whether the painting is nicely looking or not, whether it meets public aesthetic standard or not.
Deng: I can understand that, which is why your works look very natural.
Xu: The painting "2009" has been amended four times. You may ask why stop here. I feel that if a painting can not fully express your values, it is possible to rely on a series of studies to illustrate. Under the influence of research direction and starting point, an artist's creation can generate a large structure, and a painting is just one phase of testing. For example, you see the trees in this painting, some look like animals, some like geometric shapes, and there are many negative shapes. These all came out of my amendments. The tricky part is that they have no hidden meanings. They are the natural results of my amendment process, representing part of the construction, which necessitate them to exist.
Deng: Does this mean you have gone back to the ultra-realism path taking by Magritte, Chirico, etc. in their youth?
Xu: It’s not the case. Because it is the experimental results in the painting process, the products out of my great excitement, the hunch from repetitive amendments. There is no burden in the process of painting. This painting is the best one in my eyes. I can see in it what I am to do next. There is no humour, no fun in the painting. Fine with me. I put my research directions together, and form several key points: First, the artist's conversion. Second, the construction of self-painting process. Third, the need to address the unsolved painting issues.
Deng: So you think painting is an ancient tool. What is its prospect?
Xu: Now many people think that art should carry human values, or art should reflect ideology, narrative, politics, or something else. In fact, painting became the subject to be exploited. Painting should return to the meta-problem to find its way out. Is a painting is good or not? It will tell you by itself, there is no need for extra explanation.
Deng: I understood the semantic problems of painting as, bluntly put, painting should be like a "good drawing"!
Deng Dafei
Assistant Curator of Li - Space, Beijing, China
【編輯：小紅】
