The Cracks in Pragmatism Through his art, Wang Wei has always revealed his unique way of observing the Anthony Yung: First of all, I would like discuss your understanding of the concept of an “artwork”. You graduated from the Fresco Department of the Central Academy of Fine Arts in 1996. Although you’ve told me that being a student of the Fresco Department was not that special, as what you were learning there was not so different from other painting majors, it is interesting to see perhaps a coincidence that your works in recent years have been concerned a lot with concepts of publicness and functionality, which are all important aspects of fresco art. You pay attention to the most ignored decorations in real life, such as the basic mosaic patterns of outer walls of unimportant buildings, low-cost decoration designs in restaurants, and murals in the backgrounds of animal enclosures in zoos. When looking at the development of your practice, it’s not difficult to trace how you must have contemplated and handled the concept of an “artwork”. The first time you gained public attention was with your performative photography and installations, such as 1/30 sec. Underwater (pg. 90, 1999). Not long after this, you participated in the historically important exhibition series ‘Post-Sense Sensibility’, whose investigations were about the art of improvisation, process and site-specificity. And these investigations continued in your later works, the most well-known ones being Hypocritical Room (pg. 86, 2002) and Temporary Space (pg. 80, 2003). Most interestingly, although you use heavy architectural elements such as walls and bricks in these works, what you represented was, on the contrary, change and temporality and the actual ‘artwork’ of these pieces were processes and experiences instead of any physical objects. This is why I said that you have been continuing an exploration of ‘Post-Sense Sensibility’, only replacing the improvisation, absurdity and sensational excitements with a self-reflexivity that points to social realities. Since then, your ‘artworks’ have become more concise and more methodological, similar to social anthropology. Through your works, what you introduce is a method for observing reality. It is highly applicable in the sense that it allows us to use it to observe different aspects of everyday life. Can you talk about this? How do you handle the concept of an ‘artwork’? Wang Wei: In August 2012, I participated in a project called ‘Pulse Reaction’ organised by the Times Museum in Guangzhou. The project invited artists to form discussion panels and carry out forums in the museum’s exhibition hall. We were asked to raise three topics that were the most important to our practice, and by gathering and discussing these topics, the project attempted to thoroughly reveal the creative and intellectual conditions in Chinese art. I mention this because the three topics I raised at that time may respond to your questions. They were: 1) in-between abstract and figurative, in-between chance and certainty; 2) How to begin an artwork? How to become an artwork?; 3) the distance to reality. Indeed, the relationship between ‘artwork’ and ‘reality’ is a core question in my In some of my works, ‘ideas’ are almost diminished. Motifs and elements are presented in the exact same conditions as they are seen in reality. In doing so, I intend to put all my concentration into the choices I make – what familiar or unfamiliar subjects and objects do I choose to use in a work? And the emotional motivations behind these choices will also be slowly revealed. I want to create such a tension: what seems to be a cold and indifferent object, reflecting the traces and temperatures of human beings. This may be the ideal of an ‘artwork’ to me. AY:You were born and raised in Beijing. This city must have greatly affected your observations and views on life and the world. For instance, your strong interest in history, urban space and architecture must be the result of being a Beijinger. Curator Carol Lu has rightly pointed out that temporality of architecture is a recurring theme in your works, and it is related to the experience of having lived in Beijing and witnessed all its changes in the last 30 years[1]. You live in the inner second ring road area, the very core of Beijing city. Here, there is a complex mixture of heritage from different periods of China – from ancient times (as Beijing has been the capital since the late 13th century) to the country’s immediate past (one can imagine what changes have been made since it became the capital city of Communist China and went through such political turmoil as the Cultural Revolution). The city’s uniqueness also comes from the fact that much of its historical architecture has been altered for today’s practical purposes. You’ve told me that you are especially interested in siheyuan (tradition courtyards) and how they were remade to become dazayuan, which refers to old courtyards that are occupied by many households. Families living in dazayuan are usually from the working class. They each have very limited private space, and thus have to invent ways to make the best use of shared public space. Such a unique urban phenomenon must be an important memory for artists who grew up in Beijing in the 1970s and 1980s. For instance, Song Dong made a piece that was dedicated to all the wise inventions and the brilliant installation art from dazayuan (Wisdom of the Poor, 2005-11). Compared to Song Dong’s work, you seem to be concerned less with the novelty WW: Elements related to urban change appear in my works: I use them as a creative resource. In fact, most places in China are still going through the process of drastic urbanisation. It is such an obvious issue that it cannot be ignored. Indeed, some of my earlier works, such as Temporary Space and Trap (pg. 76, 2004-05), were closely related to the topic of urbanisation, but I saw them more as metaphors for discussing the finiteness of human desire. Gradually, my concerns and methods of observation have evolved. In the more recent series Natural History (2009-present), my methodology has been reproducing an environment and recontextualising it. In some of my recent works, elements from the Beijing Zoo have repeatedly appeared because it is a place I frequently visit and a place I like to research. I always find new discoveries there. Some other resources I have used have been, for example, things that I’ve seen by chance during my travels. But behind all of these, what I am really interested in is something fundamental and universal. Perhaps it can be described as the fundamental nature of being human. My interests in Beijing’s history and architecture were inspired by the writings of the scholar of historical geography Hou Renzhi, especially his essay ‘From Beijing to Washington — A Contemplation in the Concept of Municipal Planning’, which compares and analyses how the urban planning of Beijing and Washington represent two different political institutions. Most interestingly, the two cities were both built with a master plan — Beijing was built with a singular central axis, symbolising a strong imperial authority; Washington as the capital city of the United States was designed to show the political ideal of the separation of powers. This essay demonstrates how we can see and understand the relationship between urban planning and political ideology, between a city’s architectural arrangements and the nature of its ruling power. Hou Renzhi’s writings have opened my eyes. After reading his writings I found things that I was never aware of despite the fact that I have been living here for so many years. And looking back, the thinking introduced by Hou Renzhi has probably influenced my works, especially the Natural History series. Natural History incarnates the core ideas of your recent practice, where complexity is actually interestingly included in the series’ title: your Natural History is actually a history of artificiality. What it concerns is all the people’s decisions. Meanwhile, we can also see these unconscious, unimportant decisions as the ‘Nature’ of human society, as they are so generic, intuitive and non-ideological. Can you talk about your thoughts on the Natural History series? How did its concepts and methods evolve? How will it develop? Also, what makes Two Rooms at Edouard Malingue Gallery special? Why did you Two Rooms was an appropriation of two mural paintings at the baboon rooms of AY: My last question is about how your ways of thinking and your art negotiate with the era and society in which you live. Your art career began in the 1990s, when you studied at the Central Academy of Fine Arts and where you started to make and exhibit your works. At that time, the dominating mission of China’s society was to develop economies and to improve the material life of the general public. The social philosophy then instructed people to act according to efficiency and actual payback instead of political principles. Making money and seeking material benefit were thus legitimate, rational and even moral. This was when you formulated your earliest artistic concepts — how did you respond to such a social atmosphere? In a highly pragmatic society, art always struggles to justify its value. But your art is precisely about people’s imaginations and aesthetic preferences, unconsciously reflected in the most realistic daily situations, and only through these can we get to a more subtle understanding of our humanity and society. In this sense, your art is about looking for the cracks of pragmatism in human society. This is a broad question, but can you talk about the background from which you WW: My generation has indeed experienced the entire process of China’s shift from a planned economy to a market economy, although such a social transformation is still far from ending and has many uncertainties. I was the last year of students to receive a free education. And at the time, university education was elitist. There was a strong intellectual idealism. But the education of the art academy was very conservative. It was still strictly following the methods of socialist realism. Yet students were already very aware about how they had different beliefs in art to the academic authority. During my four years in the academy, my interests changed a lot. I was getting more and more interested in non-traditional ways of expression. Soon after graduation, I met artists like Liu Wei and Qiu Zhijie. We all participated in ‘Post-Sense Sensibility’ and the experience of working together as a collective then was very influential on me. We had a radical attitude and experimented with different possibilities to expand the boundaries of art. There was no art market. We all had to have a job to survive. Liu Wei and I were working at Beijing Youth Daily. But that was a time when art activities were radical and pure, and from today’s perspective it was still a very interesting time. In my works, I constantly try to create a kind of real perplexity. And such perplexity is a symptom of our times. To face such a reality, we need a more human, artistic and wise way to find a solution. Therefore, what I attempt to do now is to represent and contemplate reality by an aesthetic of uncertainty and ambiguity. I think this can lead us to get closer to the core of ‘reality’. [1] “In this work (Temporary Space), the hurried urban construction process happening beyond the 實用主義的縫隙 王衛的藝術始終致力於呈現他獨特的世界觀；他的作品深思熟慮，與現實息息相關，不受流行風格的影響。他的作品往往將現成的視覺元素和空間結構移植到展示現場，將它們塞進藝術的文脈中，從而喚醒我們對日常空間和景觀的警覺性 －每一個由人建成的空間都涉及建造者許多有意識或無意識的選擇，而這些選擇則在不經意間影響我們對生活和世界的感知。
翁子健: 首先，我想討論你對「作品」這個概念的理解。你於1996年畢業於中央美術學院壁畫系。儘管你曾告訴我壁畫系的教學並無什麼特別，跟在其他繪畫專業學習的事情大同小異，但出於巧合，你近年創作中的公共性和實用性又與壁畫的性質十分吻合：你關注及轉化現實生活中一些毫不起眼的裝飾元素，如建築外牆上的馬賽克、餐廳中的廉價裝飾設計、動物園內的壁畫等等。 請你談談你對「作品」概念的想法。 王衛: 2012年8月，廣州時代美術館組織過一個名為「脈衝反應」（Pulse Reaction）的項目，當時邀請了一些藝術家在美術館的展廳內做分組討論，每個人要先提交三個議題，希望以這樣一種方式對國內藝術家的創作與思想現狀做一個相對深入的了解。我當時提的三個議題，可能可以部分回應你的這個問題。我的三個議題是：一，抽像與具像之間，偶然與必然之間；二，如何開始一件作品？如何成為一件作品？三，與現實的距離。確實，「現實」與「作品」之間的關係可算是我創作中一個核心的語言。我喜歡在現實中去搜尋那些人為的、有意無意中带有「作品」痕迹的事物，而在展覽現場我又試圖去製造一種「現實」。面對這樣一個現場，「現實」與「作品」之間的界限變得異常模糊，現實也開始變得十分可疑。 在我的一些作品中，「想法」已經被降到了最低點，甚至某種程度上呈現方法和現實当中幾乎没有任何差别，那這時候你的選擇變得十分關鍵，然後你對選擇對象的一種熟悉或陌生，就是一種帶有一定感情色彩的東西在不经意间慢慢凸顯了出來。 王衛: 在我的作品裡出現一些城市變遷的元素，更多是作為一個素材來使用的。中國的大多數地方也都還在一個城市化的過程當中，所以這是一個自然而然需要關注的問題。確實，我的幾件早期作品像《臨時空間》和《捕捉器》（pg. 76,2004－05年）都涉及到這方面內容，但更多還是在以一種隱喻的方式去討論「欲望的有限性」這個問題。但逐漸隨著作品關注角度的變化，在近期的《自然史》系列（2009年至今）更多是采用環境複製與情境轉移的方法，而一些作品中出現北京動物園的元素也剛好因為我生活在這個城市，去做實地研究就比較便利，而且也確實每次去動物園都會有一些新的發現。還很一些創作素材實際上就是來自旅行期間的偶然發現。我更關注的是在這些表像背後一些普遍意義上的、也就是更加本質的一些東西，或許可以說我關注的是人性的本質。 我對於北京的歷史和建築的了解，最早是通過著名歷史地理學家侯仁之的著作。 翁子健: 針對你這次在馬凌畫廊做的項目，我想應該將它放在你的《自然史》系列中討論。這次的作品命名為《兩間房間》，複製的是北京動物園中的狒狒居住的房間，它們的圖像是同一片草原，只是一個是白天，另一個是黃昏。我認為這個項目延續了《自然史》的主旨，即將來自現實中的某些景像，不添加元素地搬進了展覽的空間，經過重新安置文脈，它的悖論性在於：它雖然是兩幅畫，卻不提供讓人觀看的焦點，我們不需要去欣賞和考究畫的表現方法及內容奧妙，反而要去思考其本來所屬的環境，並從而想到這個空間本來的屬性。它的目的是動搖我們感知日常視覺和空間及首先體驗藝術的習以為常的方法。 《自然史》系列體現了你近年創作的核心思想，而解讀《自然史》這個題目本身就已經很有意思：一方面，這部「自然史」其實是「人工史」，它關注的全是人造的決定；另一方面，它又屬於人類社會的「自然」部份：普遍的、不經過計劃的、非意識形態的。請你談談「自然史」系列，過程中你的想法產生了怎樣的演變？這個系列接下來會如何發展？ 也請你談談這次在馬凌畫廊實現的「兩個房間」的特殊性。為什麼選擇這個素材？ 實施上涉及了怎樣的考慮？ 這次《兩個房間》挪用了北京動物園狒狒館的兩幅壁畫，這兩個畫面實際上在不經意間展現了動物園壁畫畫師對「未知遠方」的「臆想」與「杜撰」。而關於這個地點的兩幅壁畫在畫廊中又構成了一系列多重的、荒诞的空間想像，暖氣片和地上的香蕉也是作品中的關鍵元素，我嘗試在現場營造一種介於似有似無、虛實之間、模棱兩可的空間狀態。而在香港創作這件作品也多多少少是在回應我對於香港與內地之間衝突與矛盾所產生的困惑感。 《自然史》系列討論的是觀看的方式，以一種審美的方式聚焦於現實中一些人們因習以為常而視而不見的東西。這個系列作品到目前一直在持續演變當中，目前也開始出現一些建築結構上的元素，像在觀察社的《自然史VI》和去年在廣州時代美術館樓頂上的做的《全景1》（pg. 42, 2014年），就開始出現「全景牆」這樣一個舞美設計中常用的置景概念，這還是一個關於觀看方式的討論，也 就是與「視點的消失」有關。總之，目前我希望在另一些層面上嘗試讓作品的內在關聯變得更加曲折一些，但又始終會用一種很直接的方式 － 我更喜歡用一種很直接的方式去表達，現場的氛圍還是至關重要的。 這是一個比較籠統的問題。我嘗試請你談的，其實是你的世界觀和思考方法所形成的背景，你在回應什麼樣的社會氣氛，還有你選擇通過藝術表現這些問題的原因。 我在作品中持續嘗試營造一種真實的「困惑感」，而這種「困惑感」是我們所處的這個充滿悖論的時代的特徵。如何直面這種現實，可能是需要一種更加人性的、藝術的、充滿智慧的方式去化解。所以當前我可能更加致力於以一種若即若離的審美方式去表述及思考我們的現實，我認為這也可能更加接近於「現實」的本質。
[1] 他以藝術事件的方式，通過現場，攝影和錄影的紀實手法濃縮了超速度都市化的建設流程，再現了“建即是為了拆”所產生的時間和空間的臨時性與我們對於建築物所擁有的普遍期待背道而馳，臨時與永遠在此滋生出一種荒誕關係。
|