Three Parallel Art Worlds. The Case of China

022 023

三個平行的藝術世界：談中國藝術現況

一 . 標誌當代中國藝術地圖

中國藝術現況交織著幾種複雜而且多層次的藝術傳

統，對西方現時流行的藝術思想提出一些新的質

疑。這些傳統既無法簡單地套入目前歷史學或當代

藝術的主流論述框架之中，也無法借用西方藝術平

臺慣常論述西方藝術的方式，把創作現象化約為現

成的當代典範。

論述中國藝術現況時，各種屬於中國現代性的

模式，以及對應的藝術傳統、現代與當代之間的

複雜關係等問題都相繼浮現。選錄於「漢雅一百」

的「作品」（或者借用這本專輯的用語，「藝術物」）

例案引出了許多這類問題，因而也啟發了我們鋪陳

中國當代藝術地圖的嘗試。

首先要反省的是「地圖」這個意象：地圖是高度簡化

的定位工具，而世界比地圖上的平面再現遠為

複雜。地圖可以幫助我們規劃行程，但只能根據

已經知道的地理風貌加以規劃。儘管如此，地圖的

啟發和實用價值並不因此而少減；它仍是不可或缺

的定位工具。

本文試圖鋪陳的幾個不同的藝術世界，是主導著

中國藝術創作的幾個藝術世界。我們建議將中國

藝術版圖劃分成三部分：因為三道交織在一起，且

相互對話，而在分析的層次上仍可彼此互相區隔開

來的主要脈絡，適宜作為理解中國當代藝術的概

念框架。三種傳統背後，是三個不同的藝術世界：

傳統文人美學、社會主義傳統以及全球性的當代

藝術。

「藝術世界」這個詞最初由阿瑟．丹托（Arthur

C. Danto）於一九六四年在一篇著名的文章中提出，原

本用來梳理當時看來游離擴散而難以定義的當代藝

術。雖然一開始它的定義就相當模糊（而且從社會

學的角度來看，這個詞彙的定義也相當不穩定），

可是這個詞早已被一般大眾以較寬鬆的定義在使

用。「藝術世界」這個詞對我們還是有幫助的：在現

象學傳統裡「世界」這個概念意指「使我們所經歷

的事物產生意義的實踐統合」；因此，「世界」此一

概念可理解為使事物產生意義的參考框架。這樣的

理解在藝術的脈絡裡特別合理，因為在這領域中，

作品或物品都免不了被加諸過量的意義，然而同

時，這些作品或物品的意義又往往受各自所處的文

化脈絡或社會實踐左右。

「世界」的定義，在對「體制」這個概念的哲學討

論中也舉足輕重。在他著名的文章〈何謂體制？〉

裡，美國哲學家約翰．希爾勒（John R. Searle）對

這問題提出了最簡單的答案：「所謂體制，就是

在特定的社會脈絡中（C），使某些物品（X）被賦

予某些特定位階（Y）的機制。」這些社會脈絡引

導了集體意圖（指群體皆同意的、對社會物件意

義生成的參照），也因此賦予了某種社會意義，

構成了社會現實。希爾勒所論並未特別以藝術為

例（他的文章使用了各種社會實踐為例，而主要

參照來自經濟活動），可是最後的總結還是以一

篇討論回應了關於藝術本體論的漫長辯論傳統。

姑且不論藝術的許多我們不知道、或者無法預

Three Parallel Artworlds – The Case of China

Chang Tsong-Zung and Johan Frederik Hartle

張頌仁、約翰 ﹒ 弗得烈 ﹒ 哈托

fig. 圖 1

Anonymous 佚名

Huge Practice on Socialism

大幹社會主義 , late 1960s

Ink and Colour on Paper 彩墨紙本 , 135 x 68cm

Hanart 100 Collection 漢雅一百收藏

1. Mapping Contemporary Chinese Art

The situation of Chinese art poses many intellectual

challenges not only for Western minds. Its interwoven

traditions are complex and multi-layered and do

not willingly fit into the main narratives of the

historiography and contemporary scholarship of art.

They are also not quite so easily reducible to just one

main paradigm of the contemporary, as the Western

art platform tends to present its own presence.

Questions arise concerning the main paradigms

of traditional Chinese art, the various Chinese

modernities and the respective complications of the

traditional, the modern, and the contemporary. The

Hanart 100 selection of artworks, or ‘art things’, as it

is documented in this catalogue, poses many of these

questions. It therefore also instigates this attempt to

map the landscape of contemporary art.

The metaphor of the map should be taken seriously:

Maps are highly simplifying instruments of orientation

in complex worlds that are always infinitely more

diverse than their cartographic representation. They

can help to project itineraries but cannot account for

that which is not there yet. That does not, however,

change the heuristic and practical value of the map:

it is a necessary means of orientation.

The worlds that this text is aiming to map are the

different worlds of art that organise the artistic practice

in China. Our suggestion is to map the landscape

of Chinese art in a threefold manner. To our mind

there are three (intertwined, communicating and

corresponding, but still analytically distinguishable)

main lines of tradition and main frames of reference for

contemporary Chinese art; three meaningful traditions;

and, thus, three worlds: A traditional literati aesthetic,

a Socialist tradition and the global contemporary.

The term ‘artworld’, first introduced in a famous

essay by Arthur C. Danto in 1964, originally was used

as such a device for mapping the then contemporary

art, which appeared to be diffuse and hard to define.

Although already its original definition was rather

vague (and sociologically rather undetermined) and

although the term has found its way into general use in

a very loose way, its application here still has its benefits:

the concept of ‘world’ (as in the phenomenological

tradition) refers to the unity of practices that allow the

entities we encounter to be meaningful. A world is thus

nothing less than the frame of reference constitutive of

meaningful objects. This makes specific sense in the

context of art where meaning is excessively attributed

to all kinds of objects – yet contingent on the respective

cultural context and social practice.

In the philosophical discussion of the concept of

institution this dimension of the world has been central

as well. In his famous essay ‘What is an Institution?’,

John Searle presents this question with maximum

simplicity: Institutions are social contexts (C) in which

certain objects (X) turn into objects with a specific

status (Y). These social contexts direct collective forms

of intentionality (a collectively agreed-upon reference

to social objects) and thereby institute a layer of social

024 025

測的事，我們能夠確定的是，藝術是被附著在

某類物體（X）的一種社會位階（Y）。一

因此，有關「體制」的問題永遠都會牽涉到「物」如

何被轉變成另外一種，或者和一般日常物品不同的

東西這問題上。事實上，這種體制鍊金術（把物件

轉變成具有美學意義的「藝術物」）對於我們理解藝

術物在三種中國藝術傳統中的特定位階，尤其關鍵。

舉例說，中國五○與六○年代的「社會主義新國畫」，

顧名思義，也就座落在社會主義藝術的範疇裡；

其主要任務便是描繪出後革命美麗新世界的烏托邦

圖像。但從農業社會轉變到社會主義社會，必然要

處理舊世界對大自然的想像。傳統水墨畫典範被納

入社會主義繪畫傳統，如「大幹社會主義」（1960 年

代）（圖1）便針對傳統的自然觀，企圖把這種崇尚大

自然的觀點改變成新的、以「人」為中心的「人定

勝天」的世界觀。

另一個有意思的案例是書法。在中國的藝術傳統

裡，書法被公認為藝術的典範。王羲之的法書被唐

太宗推崇為書道正統，之後王羲之歷代被尊為「書

聖」；當代藝術家邱志傑的「重複書寫一千遍蘭亭

序」（1992）（圖 2）藉臨摹王羲之的經典名作〈蘭亭序〉

向書聖致敬；然而，他重複在同一張紙上臨寫一千

遍的方式又把臨摹的文字覆蓋掉，直到整張紙變成

一片漆黑。黝黑色塊令人想起早期西方前衛藝術的

經典抽象畫，同時也暗示當代人顛覆中國書法的美

學權威。

在前現代的中國世界，書法文字代表了書寫者的現

身，在公共領域中書寫的文字是代表文化和社會權

力的主要視覺語言。當代香港的曾灶財，自封為

「九龍皇帝」在香港各處公共場地以毛筆字塗鴉創

作。曾灶財的行文內容以他對香港九龍各地點的幻

想式主權宣示為題材（圖 3）。這些遙應官碑或摩崖

的文字帶出了中華文字文化的社會力量，同時也成

了創作者對於權力的個人想像與表達。可是，要是

沒有當代藝術作為表現平臺，「九龍皇帝」就只會被

當作一個與社會格格不入的瘋子；只有在塗鴉藝術

的時代，他才能夠被作為藝術偶像崇拜。

從現代人對「民主」關懷的角度切入，書法現象模

糊了「藝術」和「美學化的日常生活」之間的界線，

因為每個在前現代世界的識字的人都參與了書法的

「藝術」行為。「藝術」和「日常」的界線在書法的領

域裡有賴於更複雜的社會因素，一個好的書法家算

不算是個「藝術家」，完全由「藝術世界」所決定；

而大量的文人作品，像名篆刻家馮康侯先生的印章

（圖 4），同時既是藝術品，又是具有實用價值的物

件，其藝術位階就往往仰賴物件的不同用場與展示

場合來決定。

「藝術世界」這個概念有助於把討論聚焦於藝術創

作的各種理解框架，明確地說明所謂「藝術」的定

義的共通因素。這種方法的好處是可以同時照顧到

藝術實踐的文化背景，以及藝術創作出現的社會條

件。除了重視藝術與機制的關係，避免過度依賴宏

大的藝術觀念，並避開任何可能被用以籠統地談論

地域文化特徵的「文化本質論」。

希望能夠透過本文鋪陳的是，把焦點聚集在藝術世

界形成所必須具備的體制條件與文化實踐。但這並

不意味藝術應該被理解為某種以迎合既有的機構標

準為目標的體制實踐。

任何對於藝術的體制版圖 —— 也就是所謂「藝術世

界」 —— 更有企圖心的理解，都必須照顧對立的立

場和時代變遷。事實上，許多的理論皆曾指出一個

關於藝術機構最重要的弔詭：體制定義對「藝術」

一個明確的標準，便是要求它具有超越或逾越的內

在傾向。

「藝術世界」能夠成立的一個關鍵是這個「世界」的

外部。然而，「外界」並不是個實質的他者（或者某

種完全免於任何機制決定論的實質空間、自由空

間），而取決於其內在的組成。換句話說，每個藝

術世界都辯證地生產了與其相對應的「外界」。「藝

術世界」與「外界」的這種關係，在下面三種我們聚

焦討論的個案，都對其自己的「鍊金術」的成效舉

足輕重。藝術品的藝術位階是由整個體制定義的，

但這個定義永遠牽涉到物品與這套體制所不能完全

被體制左右的關係。

Any more ambitious understanding of the institutional

landscape of art – the artworld – needs to account for

change and contestation.2 In fact many theoretical

traditions have pointed out a central paradox of artistic

institutions: That one of the institutionally manifest

standards of art is their inherent tendency towards

transcendence or transgression.

The artworld’s relation to its outside is absolutely

crucial. The outside is, however, not a substantial other

(or a real space for freedom, free of any institutional

determination), but dependent on the constitution of

the inside. Every artworld, in other words, dialectically

produces its own specific outside.3 This relation to the

outside is also, in all the three cases that we will focus

on, decisive for its own alchemy. Artworks are objects

that are institutionally defined, but this definition

always involves the respective objects’ relation to that,

which is not just institutional.

The inherent promise of the artistic object is thus, in all

the three paradigmatic cases, a world that goes beyond

the world of art: In Chinese art, the traditional literati

object promises a spiritual world that is accessible

through immersion in tradition and ritual, and

through adopting the persona of past masters. Socialist

artworks refer to a utopian horizon that is not yet fully

realised. And the Western platform keeps integrating

the profane, the not-yet institutionalised, in the spirit

of perpetual innovation. Without such reference to

(or desire of) the outside, nothing would be worthy of

being inside. The allusion to the outside is an essential

part of the artworld’s alchemistic enigma.

一參見約翰•希爾勒 (John R. Searle)，〈何為體制？〉 (‘What is an Institution?’)，刊《制度經濟學雜誌》 (Journal of Institutional Economics)，2005 年，第 1 輯，第 1 期，第 7 頁。

二參見約翰．拉赫曼的文章〈思考當代藝術〉 (Cf. John Rajchman: ‘Thinking in Contemporary Art,’)，第 4 頁，文章網址 : http://www.forart.no/index2.php?option=com_iarticles&no_html=1&Itemid=28&task=file&id=134, 最近更新於 2014 年 3 月 4 日。然而。令人驚訝的是，拉赫曼卻認為波迪厄的藝術場域社會學指涉了某種靜態的機制。

三參見鮑里斯•格羅伊斯 (Boris Groys)的《藝術權利》 (Art Power)，劍橋：麻省理工大學出版社，2008 年，第 23 頁。

1 See John R. Searle, ‘What is an Institution?’, in Journal of Institutional Economics (2005), 1:1, pp. 1–22, p. 7.

2 Cf. See John Rajchman,‘Thinking in Contemporary Art,’ p.4, online under URL: http://www.forart.no/index2.php?option=com_iarticles&no_html=1&Itemid=28&task=file&id=134, last called 4 March 2014. Surprisingly, however, Rajchman identifies a static understanding of institution with Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of the artistic field.

3 Cf. Boris Groys, Art Power (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), p. 23.

fig. 圖 2

Qiu Zhijie 邱志傑 (b.1969)

Copying the ‘Orchid Pavilion Preface’ One Thousand Times

重複書寫一千遍蘭亭序 , 1992

Ink on Paper 水墨紙本 , 69 x 160 cm


meaning, a social reality. Without actually referring to

the fine arts (his texts use examples of all kinds of social

practices and mainly refer to economics) he sums up

a long tradition of debates on the ontological status of

art. For regardless of the many things we don’t know or

could never predict about art, art is (and this we know

for sure) a social status (Y) ascribed to objects (X) of

various kinds.1

The question of institutions therefore always involves

the question of how objects are transformed into

objects of a different kind or differentiated from

regular objects of the everyday. This institutional

alchemy (turning objects into objects of aesthetic

relevance) is in fact crucial for understanding the

specific status of the art object in the three respective

traditions.

China’s ‘New Socialist Ink Painting’ (1950s and

1960s), for example, by definition sits squarely in the

realm of Socialist art; its mission is to visualise the

contours of the brave new world of post-revolution

utopia. But the transition from an agrarian society to

a Socialist one by necessity means dealing with the

imagination of nature in the old world. The paradigm

of traditional landscape art is adopted in Socialist

paintings such as Huge Practice on Socialism (1960s)

(fig. 1) to address an earlier view of nature, in order to

transform this into a radical anthropocentric view of

the world.

Calligraphy is another special case. In Chinese art

discourse, calligraphy is traditionally considered the

epitome of fine arts, and the fourth-century literatus

Wang Xizhi has been revered for centuries as the ‘Sage

of Calligraphy’. On the one hand, contemporary artist

Qiu Zhijie’s Copying the ‘Orchid Pavilion Preface’ One

Thousand Time (1992) (fig. 2) bows to the legacy of

Wang Xizhi by following the time-honoured practice of

copying Wang’s masterpiece; yet he effaces the text by

writing repeatedly on the same surface until it becomes

a black mass. The solid blackness evokes early Western

avant-garde abstraction, while subverting the aesthetic

authority of the historical master.

The calligraphic word also traditionally stands for the

presence of the person, and constitutes the principle

visual language of power in the public sphere. In

the contemporary world, there is the calligraphy of

Tsang Tsou Choi, the self-titled ‘King of Kowloon’,

once found in public spaces all around Hong Kong.

Tsang’s writings are mainly comprised of phantasmatic

territorial claims (fig. 3) : resembling official stelae or

tomb plaques, they were created by Tsang as personal

expressions of imagined power. Without the platform

of contemporary art the King of Kowloon would have

been written off as a deranged misfit; but in the age of

graffiti art he is considered an icon.

In its ‘democratic’ dimension – as it is available to

every single literate person – calligraphy blurs the fine

line between fine art and an aestheticized everyday.

In the case of calligraphy, particularly, it is entirely

up to the ‘artworld’ to determine whether a good

calligrapher is an ‘artist’ or not. A great number of

other literati objects, such as for instance the famous

seal by Feng Kang-Hou (fig. 4), can be both art and

practical thing, depending on the respective usage and

display.

The concept of artworld allows focusing on the

frameworks of artistic practices, specifying common

denominators of what one might actually mean when

referring to something like ‘art’. Such an approach

seems to be particularly useful as it focuses both on the

cultural specificity of artistic practices as on their social

embedment, avoiding overarching meta-concepts of art

(other than its institutional character) and, thus, any

essentialism, which can be used to generalise culturally

particular positions.

As we will emphasise – and hopefully also document –

throughout the text, this focus on the institutional

conditions and cultural practices which are formative

of the artworld, however, does not mean that art

should be misunderstood as some kind of bureaucratic

practice aiming to conform to already existing

institutional standards.

026 027

2. Global Art: A Patronising Gesture?

This threefold understanding of contemporary Chinese

art and its methodological framework indirectly reacts

to certain recent developments in global art discourse.

So-called ‘global art’ poses challenges to the theories

and methodology of art scholarship and has also allowed

for an increased interest in Chinese art in the West,

with the aim of including non-Western perspectives

just as much as practices of cultural production (tribal,

rural, folk) that had not, normally, been considered

‘art’.4

‘Global art’, on the one hand, appears as a huge hubris,

transgressing the possible expertise of any academic

context. Its key theoreticians have been very careful

not to define global art all too rigidly. To avoid any

definition that would eventually favour any region’s

specific art practice, Hans Belting, German protagonist

in the debates on ‘global art’, has paradigmatically

limited himself to the following two defining elements:

without any specific shared aesthetic properties,

different global art practices are identifiable by having

been produced as ‘art’, and by being contemporary.5

The intentions of the ‘global art’ discourse are

honourable and the interest in a smooth form of rational

dialogue and of artistic exchange is understandable.

This kind of discourse has, however, produced its own

pitfalls and contradictions, which are, in many cases,

quite the opposite of its original claims. Five main

problems can be identified:

First, the conceptual widening of the field of art has

de-differentiated the understanding of ‘art’, whereas

it remains highly implausible to which extent such a

de-specified conception of art can still be sufficiently

distinctive to be of any descriptive value.

Second, ‘Global art’s’ descriptive approach to the

various locally specific artistic practices, leaves aside

the question of the specific normative framework of art

(as opposed to other cultural practices), which had been

emphasised by the specific analyses of the institutional

history of Western art – as in the field theory of

Pierre Bourdieu or the art theoretical contexts of avant-

因此，藝術品內在的許諾，是個超出藝術世界的世

界：在中國藝術範疇裡，傳統文人藝術品承諾了一

個可以透過和傳統與儀式，以及透過模仿古代大師

的人格，以期達到的心靈世界；社會主義藝術品指

向某種尚未實現的烏托邦想像；西方藝術平臺則不

斷地吸納藝術圈外的、尚未被體制認可的元素，希

望能夠永不停歇地創新和超越。倘若沒有這種與外

界的聯繫，或者以外界互為參考的欲求，藝術世界

內部便沒有任何存在的價值。藝術世界內部對外界

的指涉，原本就是藝術鍊金術之謎最重要的部分。

二 . 全球藝術：一種居高臨下的姿態？

分析中國當代藝術及其方法論架構的這個三分法，

間接地也回應了近年某些全球藝術論述的趨勢。所

謂「全球藝術」這概念，不僅刺激了藝術研究的理

論和方法論，同時也提高了西方對中國藝術的興

趣，它的目的除了納入非西方觀點，也在於納入一

貫並未被視為「藝術」的各項文化生產與文化實踐，

比如部落、鄉村與庶民藝術等等。四

一方面，「全球藝術」看似傲慢的高高在上，因為

它踰越了任何學院脈絡之能力以內的專業判斷；

因此主要的「全球」理論家皆小心翼翼地避免對

「全球藝術」這概念採取刻板的定義。為了避免偏

袒任何地區的特定藝術創作，主導這一連串有關

「全球藝術」的辯論的核心學者，德國藝術理論家

漢斯．貝爾廷（Hans Belting）明確地將「全球藝術」

的定義限定在兩項關鍵要素：在不要求共通的

特定美學特質的條件下，不同的全球藝術可以透

過兩個標準來認定：

一、原本就是以藝術創作為目的的文化生產；

二、具有當代性。五

「全球藝術」的相關論述在動機上是可敬的；其嘗

試引起順暢的理性對話與藝術交流的企圖，也是

可以理解的。然而這樣的論述取徑卻造成了許多

內在的陷阱和矛盾，使它在許多個案上甚至產生了

與其初衷完全相反的效果。此中出現五大問題：

第一，在概念層次上擴大藝術這個場域，使我們對

「藝術」的了解造成了「去差異」的效果，而在這種

「去特殊」的概念下，令人很難相信這套論述仍然

能有效地描述藝術的獨特性。

第二，對於各種具有在地特色的藝術創作而言，

「全球藝術」的描述取徑跳過了一個長期以來主流的

西方藝術史機制分析 —— 例如法國哲學家布爾迪厄

（Pierre Bourdieu）的文化場域理論，或者前衛主義理

論家柏格（Peter Bürger）等人對藝術機制所提出的批

判 — 所強調的重點：也就是藝術的特定「規範框

架」（相對於其他文化實踐）的問題。藝術的規範框

架是在特定歷史脈絡之下長成，並且透過體制的運

作得以彰顯的。

第三，這種對多元的全球視覺藝術生產的取向，缺

乏具體社會焦點，正好應了日本哲學家柄谷行人評

論的「美學中心主義」 —— 也就是指一種將藝術創

作的社會與經濟先決要件排除在外的方式。因此正

如柄谷行人所強調一樣，它以某種美學形式帶動某

種對他者的東方主義式欲望。鑽研全球藝術的學界

也往往抱持著美學中心的態度，關注非西方社會的

視覺創作成果，而不真正考量各自的特定文化或政

治脈絡。六

第四，由於關注被聚焦在狀似「全球性」的條件上，

「全球藝術」論述可能面臨這樣的危險：它只不過

是證實了全球藝術市場的擴張，卻忽略了架構著

這些藝術市場的霸權式的先決條件。這樣的論述

因此更證實了西方形式的藝術市場中，競爭先決

條件的極度不平等已然漸漸成為全球現象。某些

全球藝術論述高高在上的施恩姿態，因此也間接地

認同了原本宣稱批判的對象，那就是西方藝術世界

的宰制地位。

gardism and institutional critique (Peter Bürger, the

October group). The normative frameworks of art are

historically grown and institutionally manifest.

Third, The sociologically unspecific focus on the various

forms of global visual production strongly resembles

what Karatani Kojin has coined aestheticentrism, a

form of bracketing of the social and economic pre-

conditions of artistic practices. It thereby iterates, as

Karatani emphasises, an orientalist desire of the other in

an aestheticist form. Global art scholarship, too, more

often than not remains aestheticentrist by focusing on

the visual outcomes of various non-Western societies

without truly taking the culturally and politically

specific context into account.6

Fourth, By focusing on the apparently ‘global’

conditions of artistic practices, ‘global art discourse’

runs the risk of merely confirming the expansion of

the global art market without taking into consideration

the specific hegemonic pre-conditions that structure

these respective markets. It thereby confirms a situation

of highly unequal pre-conditions of competition in a

Western-style art market that is becoming global. The

patronising attitude of (some strands) of global art

discourse thereby indirectly confirms what it claims to

criticise: the predominance of a Western artworld.

Fifth, and last, the often repeated pre-assumption of

‘global art’ scholars that the Cold War, denoting a

world of competing economic and ideological blocs,

ended around the years 1989/1991, can and should

be disputed. Not only are the scandalising logics of

discourse that characterised the rhetoric of the Cold

War still intact throughout the world; but the alleged

end of the Cold War is particularly implausible as

regards the situation of the two Koreas, and of other

East Asian lines of conflict, as for example the yet

unresolved differences between China and Taiwan.

Regardless of the question of whether or not the model

of globalisation and the supposed end of the Cold

War can adequately describe the present geo-political

situation (or rather the somewhat dated but shiny

promise of the Clinton administration), one might

also wonder if a globalised world of multinational

四值得參考的是漢斯•貝爾廷 (Hans Belting) 的〈全球時代中的當代藝術美術館〉 (‘Contemporary Art and the Museum in the Global Age’)，收錄於安德莉亞•白蒂斯格 (Andrea Buddensieg) 和彼得•韋伯爾 (Peter Weibel) 編的《當代藝術和美術館：一個全球視角》 (Contemporary Art and the Museum. A Global Perspective)，奧斯特菲爾德爾恩：Hatje Cantz 出版社，2007 年，第 18 頁。

五漢斯•貝爾廷，〈作為全球藝術的當代藝術：一個批判性的評估〉 (‘Contemporary Art as Global Art. A Critical Estimate’)，收錄於漢斯•貝爾廷 / 安德莉亞•白蒂斯格編輯的《全球藝術世界：觀眾、市場和美術館》(The Global Art World. Audiences, Markets, and Museums)，奧斯特菲爾德爾恩：Hatje Cantz 出版社，2009 年，第 44 頁。

六參見柄谷行人〈美學的效用：「東方主義」之後〉 (‘Uses of Aesthetics: After Orientalism’)，收錄於《邊界2》 (boundary 2)，第25輯，第2期，愛德華•薩義德（Edward W. Said），1998年夏，第146頁。

4 See particularly: Hans Belting, ‘Contemporary Art and the Museum in the Global Age’, in Andrea Buddensieg, Peter Weibel (eds), Contemporary Art and the Museum. A Global Perspective, (Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2007), pp.16-38, p. 18.

5 Hans Belting, Contemporary Art as Global Art. A Critical Estimate, in Hans Belting and Andrea Buddensieg (eds), The Global Art World. Audiences, Markets, and Museums (Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2009), pp. 38-73, p. 44.

6 See Karatani Kojin: ‘Uses of Aesthetics: After Orientalism’, in: boundary 2, Vol. 25, No. 2, Edward W. Said (Summer, 1998), pp. 145-160, p. 146.

fig. 圖 3

Tsang Tsou-Choi 曾灶財 (1921 – 2007)

Calligraphy of Imaginary Family Genealogy

花縣曾蓮塘邨長 , 1999

Calligraphy on Electric Box 書寫電力變壓箱 , 154 x 76 x 41 cm


fig. 圖 5

Liu Guosong 劉國松 (b.1932)

Rising Toward Mysterious Whiteness

升向白茫茫的未知 , 1963

Ink and Colour on Paper 水墨設色紙本 , 94 x 58 cm


fig. 圖 4

Feng Kanghou 馮康侯 (1901 – 1983)

Acceptable Unacceptable Dwelling 可叵居

Seal and Text of Poem Inscription on Side

印章和側面的詩

028 029

第五，最後一點，「全球藝術」的學者們經常重複

強調「冷戰時期」（也就是世界劃分成幾個對弈的

經濟與意識形態陣營這段期間），大致在一九八九－

一九九一年間已經結束。這個預設本身就是有

爭議的：不僅令人髮指的冷戰論述邏輯至今仍然在

世界各地流通，而且實際政治明顯看到南北韓仍然

對峙，其他東亞國家，像中國與臺灣仍未解決

對立。宣稱冷戰已經結束，這樣的預設尤其令人

不可置信。

暫且不論「全球化」以及所謂「冷戰結束」的論述

模型，是否足以描述當前的地緣政治情勢（或者

克林頓政府所做的那些如今過時，但仍然誘人如昔

的承諾），要質疑的是全球化世界中的跨國企業、

市場自由與其相對應的，由大量商品所產生的

視覺多樣性七，是否真的那麼值得我們追求。換句

話說，即使全球化時代已然來臨，如果並未考慮

清楚抗拒全球資本邏輯的各種地方霸權勢力，那麼

就應該稍微減輕全球化意識形態隱含的目的論和決

定論修辭。

在描繪當代中國藝術的版圖之際，此文並倡議一

種對於當今中國狀況的詮釋，既避免特定的「全球

藝術」論述的問題，並且聚焦於體制上明顯不同的

三種當代中國藝術生產形式的版圖。

companies, market freedom and the respective visual

variety of ‘an immense collection of commodities’ 7

is in any way desirable. If, in other words, the advent

of globalisation is proclaimed without taking into

account the local hegemonies that might resist the

logics of global capital, then there are good reasons

to tone down the deterministic rhetoric and implicit

teleology of ‘globalisation’ ideology.

With our attempt of mapping the landscape of

contemporary Chinese art we thus suggest an

interpretation of the Chinese situation that tries to

avoid these problems of a specific type of ‘global art’

discourse and focuses on the institutionally specific

landscape of three different forms of contemporary

Chinese art production. Such a differentiating view

of the institutional landscape of Chinese art allows us

to take the specific political situation of China – in

a no-man’s-land between nationalism, communism

and hyper-Capitalism – into account, as well as to

differentiate between various understandings of art

and their specific normative apparatuses. Moreover,

such an embedding of the specific art practices in

the ideologico-political situation of their countries

avoids any aestheticising (aestheticentrist) fetishism.

Wherever we find it, art is an element of, and

rooted in, social force relations and their respective

institutionalisations. Chinese art, too, with all three

of its main realities, has its independent life and

existence.

3. Mapping the Threefold Institutional Landscape

of Chinese Art

The institutionalisation of an artistic practice defines

its contemporary impact and validity, just as much as

its inherent historicity and potentials for innovation

and transgression. Gao Minglu has emphasised the

complexity of the Chinese institutional landscape –

with its importance for the development of a

multidimensional logic of the contemporary and of

artistic innovation – as follows:

... the Chinese institutional landscape has been

constructed in a totally different way. In it, both

Socialist and capitalist forces are influential. This

makes the living space of the avant-garde much

more complex and multi-dimensional.8

Gao Minglu’s suggestion to differentiate the discussion

of the meaning of ‘avant-garde’ – by taking the various

institutional contexts into account within which

‘multi-dimensional’ artistic innovation might take

place – is highly instructive. To our minds, however,

the institutional landscape of contemporary Chinese

art is, in at least one respect, even more complex than

Gao Minglu suggests: next to the influence of Socialist

and capitalist forces, a third paradigm, the tradition

of literati art, has to be taken seriously as an artistic

practice in its own right.

If Gao Minglu suggests that the intertwining artworlds

produce their own logics of transgression and

innovation, then we would like to argue that the three

different worlds of art produce their own three forms

of ‘outside’. In a great number of art theories that have

inspired this essay, historicity and innovation have been

defined by precisely this reference to the outside, to

that which allows transcendence of the already given

state of affairs of the respective artworld, its constant

self-renewal through avant-gardist transgression and

這種區分中國藝術體制版圖的觀點，使我們得以

將中國的文化政治現況 —— 也就是一種介於民族

主義、共產主義和超資本主義之間的三不管地帶 —

納入考量，並且區分各種對於藝術的理解和分析

各自特定的規範機制。將特定脈絡的藝術創作鑲嵌

到國家的意識形態與政治情勢內，可以避免「美學

拜物」現象，也就是美學中心的藝術觀。不論在哪

裡，藝術都是各種社會力與社會關係的一部分，也

根植於這些社會力、社會關係與其各自相應的機制

運作。中國藝術也不例外；其三個主要的版塊都各

自有其獨立的存在與生命。

三 . 中國藝術版圖的三個面向

藝術創作的體制化左右了藝術的當代影響與合法

性，這股力量不亞於藝術內在的歷史性以及其創新

和逾越的潛力。高名潞曾為文強調中國藝術體制版

圖的複雜程度，並點出體制對於發展出某種當代性

和藝術革新性的多面向邏輯的重要性：

「……中國的體制版圖是以一種完全不同的方式所

建構起來的。這個體制同時受到社會主義和資本主

義影響，使得前為藝術的生存空間變得更加複雜，

面向也更多元。」八

高名潞建議將有關「前衛藝術的意義」的討論做出

區隔；他提議將各個不同的體制脈絡納入考慮；而

這些體制脈絡正是產生多面向的藝術創新的所在。

這個建議很正確。

然而，對我們來說，當代中國藝術的體制版圖至少

有一個面向比高名潞所提議的策略要複雜：除了社

會主義和資本主義的影響之外，還有第三個典範，

也就是傳統中國文人藝術，必須被作為獨立的當代

藝術傳統來嚴肅以待。

reflection, its anticipation of utopian worlds to come,

and its renewal and improvement of spiritual mastery.

As an attempt of mapping, and very basically, the

institutional approach to the specific status function

called art, allows for a simplified and schematic

reading of various traditions of art theory, in which

the socially and historically contingent (= institutional)

determination of art is accounted for. Different

theories have conceptually outlined different aspects

of the institution.

For the sake of clarity and simplicity, we will focus

on four main aspects of the institution of art, which

have been emphasised by different socio-theoretical

traditions. Walter Benjamin’s essay ‘The Work of Art in

the Age of its Technological Reproducibility’, contains

a theory of aesthetic institutions (if understood in a

broad sense) in a nutshell. With his focus on the unity

of distributing medium, conditions of display/exhibition,

and status of authorship, which altogether define a

dispositif of aesthetic reception, Benjamin also, in some

way, outlines a methodological approach to the specific

social conditions under which status functions (such as

‘cult value’, and the ‘auratic’ ) are ascribed to objects.

The intertwinement of distributing medium (degree of

reproducibility) and conditions of display (exhibition

value) indeed define the first two elements of analysis for

our context as well.

Next to Benjamin ( and a great number of other social

and aesthetic thinkers, including Arthur Danto, George

Dickie, and Howard S. Becker) Pierre Bourdieu’s field

theory of art has suggested differentiations in the

analysis of the institutional landscape of art. Bourdieu

particularly emphasised the inherent merit structure

of artistic practice, the specific form of symbolic

capital, which, by differentiating from other sorts of

social practice, also identifies the specificity of art.

In our interpretation of the Chinese situation, the

七參見卡爾•馬克思 (Karl Marx)，《資本論•政治經濟學批判》 (Capital. A Critique of Political Economy)，第 1 卷，米德爾塞克斯 / 紐約 / 紐約州：企鵝出版社，1976 年，第 125 頁。

八高名潞，〈特定的時間，具體的空間，和我的這個真理：中國當代藝術現代性的整一性〉 (‘Particular Time, Specific Space, My Truth. Total Modernity in Chinese Contemporary Art’)，收錄於南希•康迪 (Nancy Condee)、奧奎•恩維佐 (Okwui Enwezor)、特里•史密斯 (Terry Smith) 合編的《藝術與文化的二律背反：現代性、後現代性、當代性》 (Antinomies of Art and Culture: Modernity, Postmodernity, Contemporaneity)，德罕 / 北卡羅萊納：杜克大學出版社，2009 年，第 141 頁。

7 See Karl Marx, Capital. A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 (Middlesex, New York: Penguin, 1976), p. 125.

8 Gao Minglu, ‘Particular Time, Specific Space, My Truth. Total Modernity in Chinese Contemporary Art’ , in Nancy Condee, Okwui Enwezor, Terry Smith (eds), Antinomies of Art and Culture: Modernity, Postmodernity, Contemporaneity (Durham: Duke University Press, 2009), pp. 133-164, p. 141.

fig. 圖 6

Huang Binhong 黃賓虹 (1865 – 1955)

Landscape of Taihu Lake 具區攬勝圖 , 1946

Ink and Colour on Paper 水墨設色紙本

4.8 x 115.8 cm


030 031

Global Socialist Traditional

1. Paradigmatic Media and Genres, Status of the Object

Experimenting with Imagination:

- Painting, Installation, Video, Performance; No Specific Restrictions in Media and Genres.

Shaping Social Form and Social Mobilisation:

- State and Society as a Work of Art

- Operative and Intervening Works: Painting, Sculpture, Woodcut Prints, Mobilised Everyday Life Objects.

Self-Cultivation Through Elevating Existing Daily Practices:

- Paradigm of the Written Word: Calligraphy, Ink-Brush Painting, Seal Carving

2. Spaces of Legitimisation Exhibiting, Collecting

Institutional Autonomy

- Private Appropriation.

- Private Collectors and Museums, Galleries, Markets,

- Contemporary Art Spaces, International Biennials.

Collective Space:

- Mass-Distributed Artistic Forms in all Sections of Social Life, Public Spaces.

- Billboards, Journals, Offices, National Museums, Annual National Exhibitions. ( No National Art Exhibition between 1966 and 1972 )

Social Space in Cultural Landscape:

- Private Appropriation,

- Exclusive Access,

- Public Representation of Popularised Practices ( e.g. Calligraphy on Architecture), Literati Gardens, Library, Studios, Markets ( Architectural Ornamentations, Seasonal Uses of Writing, etc. )

3. Logic of Valorisation Authorship, Benefits

Performative Personality:

- Individual Will to Expression, Monetary Benefits, Copyright, International Reputation.

Visualization of a Political Standpoint:

- Lifetime Access to the Ruling Casts, National Reputation, Political Privileges, No Individual Signatures, Collective Authorship.

Rules of Conduct:

- Individual Will to Perfection but Not to Original Expression. The Sign of Authorship is Important; Lifetime Access to the Ruling Castes.

4. Lineage, Education, Academic Representation

Improvised Attempts to Individual Originality:

- Academies, Special Departments (Experimental Art, Inter-media Art, etc.)

Adapting to Political Directives and Momentums:

- Partly Imported Tradition Informed by Folk Practices, Oil Painting, Ink-Brush Painting, Printmaking and Sculpture Departments at Chinese Art Academies

Apprenticeship, Taught as Part of a Daily Practice:

- Oral History, Re-enactment, Embodied Learning; Ink-Brush and Calligraphy Departments at Chinese Art Academies.

Overview — Three Artworlds

Categories

Worlds

假設高名潞的立場認為這幾個相互糾纏的藝術世界

各自生產屬於自己的藝術「逾越」與「創新」邏輯，

那麼我們的主張是：這三個不同的藝術世界同時各

自生產出不同的「外界」。許多對本文有所啟發的

藝術理論都指出過，藝術的歷史性和創新性正是來

自對「外界」的參照。由於對應「外界」，以既定狀

態得以超越，並透過前衛式的逾越和反省，不斷地

進行自我再生，使期望的烏托邦世界得以實現，催

使不斷更生並追求性靈提升。

梳理當代中國藝術版圖的嘗試，如果從「機制運作」

的取徑來談「藝術」的功能定位，可以發展出較為

簡化、概要式的理解；而這樣的理解方式，也能夠

顧及到社會上以及歷史上所決定的藝術位階，（換

言之，亦是機制作用）。其實，不同的理論都不免

在概念上要考慮到機制的運作。

為了扼要地介紹觀點，我們將聚焦在藝術機制的

四個主要面向之上。德國哲學家本雅明（Walter

Benjamin）在他著名的文章〈機械複製時代的藝術

作品〉中，以精簡的方式陳述了一套廣義的、關於

美學機制的理論。除了論述美學感知的機制的

總和，包括傳播媒介、展示條件和作者的位階

之外，本雅明同時提供了方法論，以概論特定社會

條件下，物品如何被給定某種位階功能（像是「膜拜

價值」或「靈光」等概念）。這些相互交錯的媒介

傳播（即某程度的複製能力）和展示條件（展覽

價值）也的確定義了本文的頭兩個分析要素。

除了本雅明（及許多其他社會科學和美學思想家，

包括美國哲學家丹托〔Arthur Danto〕、美國哲學家

與美學家迪基〔George Dickie〕以及美國社會學家

貝克〔Howard S. Becker〕等）以外，布爾迪厄（Pierre

Bourdieu）則在其藝術場域理論中建議，在分析

藝術的機制版圖時，須要先將研究對象做出區分。

布爾迪厄特別強調藝術實踐的內在價值結構，也就

是某種特定形式的象徵資本，藉著與其他種類的

社會實踐做出區隔，使我們得以辨識出藝術的特殊

dimension of authorship is also differentiated by the

respective merit structures that apply to the three

traditions. These are the defining elements of the

logics of authorship, our third subject of analysis.

As regards the specific institutionalization of the

Chinese artworlds there is yet a fourth category of

importance. To some extent it echoes the importance

of institutionalised forms of art theoretical ‘discourse’

(in art schools) and also the main didactic institutions

for conditioning aesthetic perception for the respective

forms of art and the skills required for their production.

This is to take seriously the emphasis that theoreticians

like Danto (ever since his paradigmatic essay on the

Artworld 9 ) have placed on theory (or discourse) as

the defining moment of what an artwork is, and, more

importantly, the emphasis that sociologists like Pierre

Bourdieu have put on the institutionalisation of certain

semi-autonomous standards of discourse that define the

modern field of art.10

The conditions of collecting and presenting art, of

staging authorship (as by the use of specific media

and genres) and of passing on the logics of this

practice (and its discursive justification) are the grid

for our discussion to outline the specificities and

overlaps between the three dominant regimes of

art in contemporary China. Let us review the three

paradigms within the context of the four criteria.

1) It seems important to understand the specific

traditions of genre and media in light of the

respective social functions that they have to serve,

which also defines the status of the object itself.

The logics of the international platform, based

on the idea of experimenting with imagination,

性。在我們對中國藝術現況的詮釋裡，分析「作者

論述」時也會以三個藝術傳統各自相對應的內在價

值結構做出區分；而這些都是界定「作者論述」的

元素，也就是我們的第三個分析要素。

有關於中國藝術世界的特定機制，還有第四個重要

的類別。某種程度上來說，這個第四類確認了

建制化的藝術學院的重要性。機制化的藝術理論的

論述，以及藝術教育機構，都為各自肯定的藝術

形式營造了美學感受，以及提供了該藝術形式所必

須具備的技能。區分出第四類別的做法，可謂嚴肅

地回應了丹托（〈藝術世界〉這篇具有典範意義的

文章九）等理論家對於藝術理論（或論述）的重視，

甚至強調理論的產出才是定義「何物為藝術」的

時刻。更重要的是，這裡也回應了社會學家，

如布爾迪厄等，所強調的那些定義現代藝術場域的

「半自主標準」。十

蒐集和展示藝術作品的條件、透過特定媒材和類型

的使用來定位作者的條件，以及傳遞這套實踐邏

輯，並透過論述來合理化這套邏輯的條件，正是我

們概論中國當代藝術的三大範疇各自的特性和彼此

交疊時所依賴的座標。我們首先以這四項標準為脈

絡來回顧這三大範疇。

1. 從各自所扮演的社會功能來了解類型和媒材的

特定傳統很重要；而這些社會功能也正是定義

藝術品位階的重要元素。這套建立在「想像的

實踐」上的國際平臺的邏輯，其運作顯然並不

局限於任何單一媒材，而且在錄影藝術和表演

藝術之間建立連結。

社會主義傳統著重於「社會造形」，以及對媒材

的政治化理解；它首先側重具象傳統，並跨越

了特定的藝術世界，滲入日常生活範疇（比如

那些印上政治文宣的茶杯、煙灰缸等日用品，

或大量複製的木刻版畫）。

有意思的是，這種側重日常生活領域的特徵早

已被傳統藝術平臺淋漓發揮。中國傳統教化通

過推行特定的行為規範，以達到教化自我與社

會的目的。儒家「禮學」是一種橫跨儀式、美

學、律法與意識形態等場域的實踐；其主要關

九見阿瑟•丹托的〈藝術世界〉 (‘Artworld’)，收錄於《哲學雜誌》 (The Journal of Philosophy)，第 61 輯，第 19 期（1964 年），第 571-584 頁。

十見皮埃爾•布爾迪厄的《藝術的原則：創世紀和文學領域中的結構》 (The Rules of Art. Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field )，霍博肯/新澤西：Wiley-Blackwell 出版社，1996年。

9 See Arthur C. Danto, ‘Artworld’, in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 61, No. 19 (1964), pp. 571-584.

10 See Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art. Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field (Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996).

032 033

全球化藝術世界社會主義藝術世界「傳統」藝術世界

一. 典型媒體與藝術類型用想像做實驗

﹣繪畫、裝置、影像、表演等任何媒體

構建社會形式與社會動員

﹣國家與社會作為藝術作品

﹣ 造型藝術：繪畫、雕塑、版畫、宣傳品，被動員起來的日常物

遣興自娛，怡心養神。

﹣文字書寫的藝術：書法、水墨畫、篆刻

二 . 展示、典藏與加持的空間藝術自律空間

﹣私人佔有，

﹣ 公家收藏：博物館、畫廊、藝術市場

﹣另類藝術空間，國際雙年展

集體空間

﹣社會收藏，

﹣ 社會生活與公共空間公共告示板、雜誌、辦公室、博物館、全國美展

（1966 和 1972 之間取消）

江湖與文人圈

﹣私家擁有，

﹣ 雅集傳覽，

﹣ 公共場所與建築（例如牌匾書法）、園林、藏書樓、畫室、市場

三 . 加持的邏輯：作者權益表演型個性

﹣ 追求表達的個人意志，金錢利益，版權，國際聲譽

政治立場的視覺呈現

﹣ 文化權力，國家榮耀，政治特權，無個人署名，集體創作

修身

﹣ 尚古求精，不求原創；文化權力，傳世之名。

四 . 統緒，教育，學術代表嘗試個人原創

﹣ 美術學院，專科部門（實驗藝術，跨媒體藝術，錄像藝術等）

順應上級政策和政治運動形勢

﹣ 局部引進外國傳統，向民間藝術學習，美院系統的油畫、水墨畫、木刻版畫和雕塑等諸學系

從游；教育作為日常修持

﹣ 言傳身教，臨摹傳習；美院系統裏的書法與國畫系

三個藝術世界綜觀

注的重點在於維繫某種「秩序」，但它又不單純

是強制性的規範儀式。「禮」（英文經常被翻譯為

「禮儀」的簡化意義）是因應社會和政治生活中

的具體狀況而形成的實踐體系，可以說是一套

技術，其背後隱含著天人合一的傳統世界觀。

因此，「禮」可以理解為一種宇宙觀和應用的實

踐手冊。既然「禮」所倡議的是一套建立在感

知和情理上的制度，因而「禮」可以被定義為

一種中國式的「精緻藝術」範式；既然屬於藝

術範疇，因此也成為一種有待被逾越的政治社

會秩序。因應這套邏輯而被定為「藝術物」的

物品，就應該包括儀禮行為和儀式用的器物，

尤其是帶個人特色的工藝器物。十一

2. 顯然，這些不同的媒材功能都需要各自的發揮空

間，而它們也意味了三種不同的蒐藏與展示邏

輯。西方藝術平臺大致建構在「私有」的邏輯上

are clearly not restricted to any medium, but find

strong allies in video art and performance.

The Socialist paradigm’s emphasis on the

formation of social life and a politicised

understanding of media is linked to the idea

of the figurative, which then transgresses the

specific object of the artworld and migrates into

the everyday (thinking of propaganda ashtrays

and endlessly reproduced woodcut prints).

Interestingly this predominance of the everyday,

albeit in a different fashion, had already

characterised the traditional platform, where it was

meant to cultivate the self along the lines of certain

rules of conduct, such as in the Confucian tradition

of li. Li is a practice that spans the terrains of rites /

aesthetics / law / ideology: it is primarily interested

in ‘order’ , but not so much a prescriptive order

as its ritual practices might intimate. Li (usually

translated as rites) is better described as a system of

practices, or techniques, aimed at coping with the

exigencies of social and political life, with a view to

harmonise with the natural world. Therefore li is a

cosmology-cum-instruction manual. As a practice

that proposes a regime on human sensibilities li is

both ‘fine art’ in the Chinese world, and the order to

be transgressed. Following this logic, ritual objects

become ‘fine Art’ when they are imbued with

signatures of individual mastery and expression.11

2) These different functions of the respective media

practices clearly demand their own respective

spaces. Here, too, three competing logics of both

collecting and exhibiting can be identified. Whereas

the Western platform is generally organised by the

logics of private appropriation – through commercial

galleries and individual collectors – combined with

the internationally oriented museums and biennials,

it is quite interesting that Socialist – we could also

say, Socialist Realist – painting, and woodcut prints

were, particularly during the first years of the

Cultural Revolution, displayed in contexts that were

either made to serve or immediately identifiable with

(more often than not) state-organised public space.

Next to the annual government-organised national

exhibitions, billboards and journals were the most

distinctive distributive organs, with their respective

explicitly political agendas.

Traditional literati art classically finds itself being

enjoyed in Chinese garden landscapes. It is, thus,

also appropriated privately, but in somehow semi-

private surroundings, in which the outside and the

interior correspond. The garden is an interesting

case in which a secular site for pleasure can with

different usage turn into an ‘art’ site that takes

on the character of a rarefied space that is able to

endorse the ‘art thing’ and ‘art practice’ within.

This ‘yellow box’ space is a daily space that only

turns into a sanctified site when ‘art’ practices gain

entry. 12

3) The most important difference between the

three respective artworlds, however, might be the

implicit structure of benefits that each promises

to its protagonists. The global platform promises

global reputation and monetary benefits –

guaranteed by international copyright laws, by

which it sanctifies an extended will to originality.

Within the Socialist paradigm these promises

cannot easily be given, while, however, national

reputation coupled with political privilege can be

striven for.

There are overlaps between the traditional

platforms and both the global and the Socialist

platforms in terms of its radically individual

focus, which is, however, not so much a striving

for individual originality but rather for individual

perfection along the lines of learned paradigms

of craft and skill. Interestingly, there is symbolic

capital implied in passing off a copy of an old

master as the real article, since a copy that

captures/re-makes the spirit of a master means

the artist is able to ‘consort with the ancients’.

Here, too, access to ruling castes was guaranteed

(without direct financial benefits) in a system of

symbolic valorisation.

4) One of the main arguments that allows us to

speak about three parallel artworlds instead of

merely one artworld in the Chinese context is, as

—— 透過商業藝廊與個人收藏，搭配國際美術

館和雙年展等機制來達成。然而有意思的對比

是，社會主義 —— 尤其社會主義現實主義 ——

繪畫和木刻版畫，特別在文化大革命時期，往

往被展示在明確的、由國家主導的公共空間，

被安置在為國家服務的脈絡中。除了國家舉辦

的年度全國大展以外，大型公共告示牌和雜誌

是最常用來傳播這類政治目的圖像的媒介。

傳統文人藝術的特徵是以庭園環境為觀賞

場域。因此這也可被視為一種私有性質的

藝術展示，而玩賞地點在內外相通的私人

園林或半私有的環境中。中國式庭園是個

值得琢磨的案例，它既是個俗世的休閒遊樂

空間，卻因重疊的使用功能而成了一個可以

提升身分的、能夠把展示於其中的物品或

文藝實踐點石成金的藝術場域。這個「黃盒子」

空間本是一般的日常空間；它只在藝術創作

進入這個空間時，才變成一個「神聖化」的

超越空間。十二

3. 然而，這三個不同的藝術世界之間最重要的

差異，則可能是各個藝術世界對其主角所承諾

的利益的隱性結構：比方說，全球藝術平臺

透過國際承認的智慧財產權相關法律來神化

作者的原創意志，並藉此承諾、保證作者全球

知名度和經濟利益。

社會主義典範雖然無法承諾同樣的金錢利益；

然而，作者卻能夠通過全國性的知名度獲得

政治與經濟特權。

相對於社會主義藝術和全球藝術，傳統藝術

追求的不完全是創作者的個人原創，而是對

藝術世界

分類

fig. 圖 7

Wang Guangyi 王廣義 (b.1957)

Self-Criticism : Fruits 自我批判：水果 , 1992

Oil on Canvas 油彩畫布 , 100 x 100 cm


fig. 圖 8 Fu Lin 傅琳 (1941 – 2000)

Mao Zedong's Thought is Our Life Blood

毛澤東思想是我們的命根子 , late 1960s

Woodblock Print 木刻版畫 , 72.6 x 71.4 cm


十一特別是在這裡，我們也看出書寫文字的主導地位。關於這點的深入討論，詳見 1999 年藝術展覽「文字的力量」的討論，本書第 416-429 頁。

十二針對「黄盒子」概念的進一步討論，以及當代藝術家如何對這概念進行實驗，詳見本書談論「八個漢雅項目」的部分，參見 430-443 頁。

11 Here, particularly, we also find the predominance of the written word. For an elaboration of this point, see the discussion of the ’ Power of the Word’ exhibition in the 8 Projects section of this book, pp. 416-429.

12 For further discussion of the concept of the ‘yellow box’, and contemporary experimentations with this concept, please see pp. 430-443 in the 8 Projects section of this book.

034 035

傳統標準的技藝和境界精益求精。臨摹出彷

彿古人真跡的技藝，本身就隱含了某種象徵

資本，只要能夠捕捉古人原作的精神，意味

著這位臨摹者本身的修養。在前現代的世界，

回報在於進入文人世界的體系中；文人是傳統

政體的構成階層，但是，雖然保證了進入統治

階級的管道，並不一定保證直接的金錢利益。

4. 我們之所以能夠討論中國脈絡下的三個相互平

行的藝術世界，而不局限於單一個藝術世界，

是因為這三套有關中國藝術現況的運作邏輯，

都平等並持續不斷地在國家級的藝術機制，也

就是公立學術機構被傳授。儘管這三種藝術典

範的教學風格迥異，三者一般會在同一所藝術

學院被傳授。

在中國至少十個主要藝術學院裡，課程的教授

明顯地連結到全球藝術論述，並且，在許多

藝術學院裡，全球藝術實際上自成一個專門學

系，例如杭州中國美術學院裡的當代藝術與社

會思想研究所。

至於社會主義傳統，許多國立藝術學院的課程

中，至今仍舊傳授社會主義現實主義的繪畫、

版畫和雕塑。社會寫實藝術傳統至今還有生效

的場合，絕佳的例子包括慶祝二○一一年中國

共產黨九十週年黨慶所舉辦的無數官方展覽；

在這些展覽中，各處藝術學院的教師紛紛被

要求展出作品。這些作品皆由國家委託創作，

主題與「重要歷史題材」相關，這裡的藝術生

產模式很明顯還是依照著社會主義傳統。

文人藝術的情況稍有不同：除了同樣像社會主

義和全球藝術透過學院教授，並且授予學位，

傳統文人藝術還有一套建制化的「自我教化」

系統。在前現代中國，文人藝術是每個讀書人

在文化養成所追求的志向所在；這一套實踐體

系透過文人生活的態度和修養，傳播日常生

活領域的修練方法，其社會功能有如西方宗教

傳播道德教育。而相對地，文人藝術也為日常

實踐打開了藝術世界的門戶。歷史上不少傳統

工藝都是透過文人的肯定而進入文人藝術世界

（儘管在中國「萬般皆下品，唯有讀書高」的價

值之下，文字修養還是「藝術」的基本指標，

僅有極少數不識字的工匠能夠真正贏得相等於

「藝術家」的地位）。十三以製作宜興紫砂壺的工

藝為例，因明代文人的介入，許多宜興工匠的

地位，一躍而身價百倍。明熹宗（1605-1627）

更是個特例。皇帝對木器的熱愛與重視程度，

甚至遠超出他對朝廷大政的興趣。帝王的賞賜

與資助無疑為木器藝術留下了重要文化資產；

然而，皇帝耽迷於木器研究，對大明的國家福

祉的影響還是可想而知。

indicated before, that all these three respective

logics of Chinese art are equally and continuously

taught on the level of state-supported, i.e. publicly

legitimated academic institutions. In spite of the

quite radically different styles of teaching/learning

(indicated by the italics) they are even, in many

cases, taught at one and the same school.

In at least ten major art academies in China, the

teaching relates explicitly to the global art discourse,

and in fact it is itself a subject of teaching in

specialised departments, as, for instance, the School

of Intermedia Art and the Institute of Contemporary

Art and Social Thought at the China Academy of

Art in Hangzhou. Video art classes and departments

fulfil the same task. Yet the curriculum of a great

number of national academies also still encompasses

the tradition of Socialist Realist painting, printing,

and sculpting. A fascinating example of the living

practice of the Socialist Realist tradition can be

found in the numerous exhibitions held in celebration

of the 90th anniversary of the Communist Party of

China in 2011, where many teachers of the local art

academies presented their works, commissioned by the

state and relating to ‘Important Historical Themes’ –

a distinctly Socialist assignment.

The situation of literati art is slightly different.

Operating in parallel to the two modern art forms

(Socialist and global capitalist) that are based on

academic modes of teaching – both discourse and

techniques, and accrediting students with comparable

academic degrees – literati art may also be described

as an institutionalised system of self-cultivation. As

a practice that sets a cultural aspiration for every

literate person, this system valorises the everyday

through extension of the literati attitude, much in

the same way as religions spread moral education to

the general public. Conversely, literati art also opens

up the possibility for daily practices to engage in the

artworld. Historically, many traditional craft arts have

gained entry into the literati artworld through the

endorsement of the literati (even though few unlettered

craftsmen truly achieve a full transformation into

the ‘artist’ status, which points to the overwhelming

Chinese prejudice in favour of literacy).13 For example,

one may point to the craft of teapot-making at the

pottery centre of Yixing; because of the intervention of

the literati in the late Ming dynasty, numerous Yixing

craftsmen have since achieved elevated status amidst

the deluge of mass production that now characterises

Yixing wares. Another interesting case is Ming-

dynasty Emperor Xizhong’s (1605-1627) passion

for carpentry, which he took more seriously than

statecraft. Without a doubt, imperial patronage left a

legacy in the world of carpentry, but equally certain is

that the Emperor’s obsession was to the detriment of

the empire’s welfare.

Generally, however, what goes for Socialist art in the

modern-day Chinese art academy also goes for the

traditional platform, with ink painting, landscape

painting, and calligraphy departments occupying

equally important status (and spaces) in the academies.

Seen in light of these four criteria, the Chinese

situation is therefore characterised not by one

artworld, but by three parallel and partly interwoven

practices of art (the international art platform, the

Socialist Realist paradigm, and nationally specific

traditional practices). This seems to be special to the

Chinese situation in various ways.

Most countries of the Global South have, of course,

vivid scenes of craft and of traditional cultural and

artistic production that are not necessarily linked

to or even aiming at any international audience, but

only a few are successful in establishing ‘artworlds’ to

legitimise these practices. (This situation incidentally

highlights the importance of the Arts and Crafts

Movement in the West, even though the movement

has long been viewed as a ‘subaltern’ artworld rather

than an equal). In Western European countries one

finds parallel practices (one might particularly think

of Tuscany or Provence with their landscape painting

classes and pastel-painting galleries) that are not

clearly defined by their relation to the professional and

institutionalised artworld (even though they might

recall role-models of late nineteenth-century artists).

Such practices co-exist with the advanced artforms

of contemporary museums and the related galleries,

without interacting directly with the more refined art

platforms.

It is only in a few countries (if any other than China

at all) that a third platform can still be identified:

the alternative modernity of Socialist Realism. Not

only is it the mere existence of these three platforms

that makes the Chinese situation extraordinary; even

more unusual is that all three of these artistic regimes

in China are equally institutionalised (even in the

same academic institutions) and can equally refer to

somewhat manifest systems of social valorisation.

In all three cases there are specific social practices

(habits and organisations) of producing, distributing,

exhibiting and teaching art.

4. Competing and Converging Imaginaries

In many ways these different aesthetic practices coexist

as parallel artworlds, producing their own logics of

discourse – of valorisation and reception. At the same

time that they are in conflict with each other, they also

merge and overlap. From an art-historical perspective,

the three paradigms therefore also allow for many

heuristically fruitful comparisons, which help to bring

both parallels and contrasts across genres more sharply

into view.

fig. 圖 9

Liu Dahong 劉大鴻 (b.1962)

Sacrificial Altar (detail) 祭壇（局部）, 2001

Oil on Canvas 油彩畫布 Installation 裝置 , 250 x 400 cmHanart 100 Collection 漢雅一百收藏

fig. 圖 10

Tang Xiaohe 唐小禾 (b.1941)

Strive Forward in Wind and Tides

在大風大浪中前 , 1971

Oil on Canvas 油彩畫布 , 172.5 x 294.5 cm


十三關於傳統文人藝術平臺在現代世界的發展，其中一個成功的例子是日本的文化政策。以禪宗精神為名，透過機制背書，將日常實踐（如插花、品茗、練武等活動），認定為「道」的展現而賦予「藝術」位階。因而「茶道」、「劍道」等修練取得了相等於文人「書道」的藝術地位。

13 A successful example of the development of the literati platform in the modern world is Japan’s strategy of institutionally endorsing everyday practices as ‘art’ by identifying them as manifestations of ‘dao’ (the Way), in effect valorising the everyday in the name of the spirit of Zen. Hence the ‘dao’ of tea, ‘dao’ of swordsmanship and etc., gain kinship with the established ‘dao’ of literati calligraphy.

036 037

四 . 相互競逐而又匯流的幾種藝術道路

這三種相異的美學實踐以各不相同的方式並存，

成為平行的藝術世界，生產各自的評價邏輯與觀賞

的論述邏輯。而在彼此互相衝突之際，它們卻也

互相整合、交疊。從藝術史的角度觀之，這三種

藝術典範的互動因而促成了許多深具啟發的比較，

讓我們更清楚地看出這三種藝術典範之間的平行與

差異。

我們比較兩幅六○年代的繪畫為例。這兩幅作品

分別是劉國松的「升向白茫茫的未知」（1963）

（圖 5），和不署名的「大幹社會主義」（1960 中期）

（見圖1）。前者是五○年代始創於臺灣與香港的

「新水墨畫運動」的一幅經典代表作；後者則是中國

「社會主義新國畫運動」的標準作品。這兩幅畫各自

來自冷戰時期的兩大陣營。在分屬兩套相對立的

政治意識形態之下，這兩幅畫引出這個提問：「兩個

中國」（一是國民黨治下的臺灣，另一是共產黨治

下的中國大陸）如何透過各自的新繪畫運動，來宣

示自我的「現代性」？關鍵是，儘管雙方各自宣稱

自己的「國際主義」立場，兩方對於「現代」的詮釋

各異，甚至相反：一方主張自由市場貿易式的國際

主義，另一方則主張社會主義的共產國際。而兩者

對藝術傳統的挪用也深受各自的意識形態與機構脈

絡所影響，以致發展出不同的國際主義，以及不同

的現代性。

二戰結束後的「資本主義現代性」的藝術論述主要

展現在超越國族與文化疆界的「抽象」國際共同

語言上。比方說，在劉國松的畫作中，族群和文

化內容被刻意地壓縮，被強調的是抽象畫語言的

「國際性」。抽象藝術的國際性提供了藝術品在

西方國際上的實質流通。另一邊的共產主義陣營，

在藝術語言層次上並不取經於西方國際的形式

主義；共產國際重視的象徵語言則是社會主義國家

共同追求的「社會造形」。不同的共產國家之間

的藝術交流並不會滋生任何商業利益，這與西方

資本主義陣營的運作模式正好形成對比。在共產主

義國家中，既然共同的「社會造形」已經預先被決

定，那麼能夠被強調為「藝術表現風格」的，便只

有每個國家在各自社會造形框架內的族群或文化

特徵了。也許這正是共產國家的現代藝術，不期然

地走向保存民族藝術語言的原因。這樣的藝術實踐

也和社會主義的新「國家」繪畫道理一致，也就是

容許某些「國家級」文人傳統繼續存在，藉以凸顯

革命所成就的歷史進程。

一般而言，在現代中國的美術學院裡的體制，適用

於社會主義藝術的，也同樣適用於全球藝術平臺。

傳統畫和書法等科系往往也具有相同的地位。

總結這四項標準來看，中國藝術現況不能被視為單

一藝術世界，而必須視為三個相互平行，而相互混

雜的三組藝術實踐：也就是國際藝術平臺、社會主

義現實主義典範，以及歷史遺產的傳統藝術實踐。

在於國際藝術現況而言，中國似乎在幾個層面上還

是有其特殊之處。

當然，大部分「南方陣營」國家（第一世界之外

的國家）都富有活力充沛的工藝與傳統文化生產，

雖然不一定和國際觀眾有任何連結，而且也不見得

是為了國際觀眾而生產，可是很少能夠建構起堪

稱「藝術世界」的機制，來賦予這些藝術實踐特定的

位階（這情形恰巧凸顯了西方「工藝運動」的重

要性，儘管長久以來工藝運動在西方還是被歧視

為「次等」的藝術世界實踐）。在西歐國家，我們也

可以找到（和現代藝術）相對「平行」的藝術實踐

（我們可能特別會聯想到義大利托斯卡尼或法國

普羅旺斯的風景畫課程，或者粉彩畫藝廊等等），

但它們的定位還是不能夠明確地透過建制化

的藝術世界的關係來界定（儘管它們令人想起十九

世紀晚期藝術家的模範）。這類藝術實踐在一些

比較進步的當代藝術館和相關藝廊機構並存著，卻在

運作上並不能與運作專業的藝術平臺進行直接互動。

只有在某些國家（如果除了中國還有其他例案的

話），我們才可能辨識出第三種藝術平臺：也就是

社會主義現實主義的另類當代性。造成中國藝術現

況的特殊性不光是這三個藝術平臺本身；特殊的是，

在中國，這三套藝術機制都同樣地被體制化（甚至

並存於相同的藝術機構），而且都同時指涉了某種

明顯的穩定社會機制。這三個藝術平臺在藝術的

生產、傳播、展示和教學上，都各有其特定的社會

實踐（某種習慣或組織）來支撐。

whose dream is to find refuge beyond the social

world. Here, the continuity of the traditional

platform is most directly present, without specific

ideological projections from either side of

the cold war.

Apart from giving a cultural-political perspective

to ink painting, the three different paradigms also

generate a compelling platform for a variety of

thematic discussions. China’s dramatic switch in

ideology in the 1980s, from socialism to a market

economy, is reflected in artworks grounded on

ideological identity. Wang Guangyi’s Self-Criticism:

Fruits (1992) (fig. 7) shares iconographic elements of

happy workers with Fu Lin’s woodcut print from the

late 1960s (fig. 8), just as Liu Dahong’s Sacrificial Altar

(2001) (fig. 9) and Tang Xiaohe’s Strive Forward in

Wind and Tides (1972) (fig. 10) both deify Chairman

Mao. Yet in both Wang Guangyi’s and Liu Dahong’s

case, the satirical gaze of Political Pop exposes both

the quasi-religious underpinnings of the ideology and

its materialist fetishism.

It is also interesting to consider how, from either side

of the Cold War, and thus in the first two of the three

artworlds that we have sketched, the modern project

imposes a specific regimen on the body. In Tang

Xiaohe’s work, the freshly exercised Mao takes centre

stage with a retinue of equally ruddy-faced youths,

showing off the health and erotic charm of the

revolution. Under an equally brilliant midday sun,

Fang Lijun’s Series II, No. 1 (1992) (fig. 11), a key

work marking the emergence of the Cynical Realist

A comparison of two paintings from the early 1960s

is instructive: Liu Guosong’s Rising Toward Mysterious

Whiteness (1963) (fig. 5), a seminal work of the New

Ink Painting Movement that spread from Taiwan to

Hong Kong from the late 1950s, and the Mao-era

Huge Practice on Socialism mentioned above (see fig. 1),

demonstrating the influence of the Chinese Socialist

‘New National Painting’ (guohua) movement.

These paintings represent positions from either side

of the Cold War. For the opposing ideologies, the

point of departure was the question of how each

side of the ‘two Chinas’ (i.e. Republican Taiwan and

Communist China) could claim to being ‘modern’

through their respective new painting movements. It

is important to note that both their interpretations of

‘the modern’ were different and even opposing even

as they both made claims on ‘internationalism’: free

trade internationalism on one side and Communist

Internationalism on the other. Appropriations of the

artistic tradition were shaped by their new ideological

and institutional contexts: different universalisms,

different modernities.

In the major discourse of modern art, the ‘capitalist

modern’ in the post-World War II period was

manifested in the ‘international’ currency of abstract

language that transcended national / cultural

boundaries. In this case ethno-cultural particularities

have been consciously suppressed in paintings such

as Liu Guosong’s in order to facilitate ‘international’

discourse in the formal language of abstraction. On

the other side, instead of ‘international’ formalism in

artistic language, Communist ‘Internationalism’ is

symbolised by the common ‘social forms’ shared by the

states. There is no interest in the flow of art between

communist states, a situation in contradistinction to

that of the capitalist West. Since their ‘social forms’ are

predetermined, what is emphasised as the expressive

identity of art in communist states are their respective

ethno-cultural features within each state’s set social

forms. That is perhaps the reason for the curious

retrograde for preserving national ethnic artistic

languages in communist ‘modern’ art. The practice

was also in accord with the terms of Socialist New

‘National’ Painting, which allowed certain readings

of the ‘national’ literati tradition to remain, so as to

highlight the historical progress made by the revolution.

Compared to art from these two modern projects,

the traditional landscape art of Huang Binhong, as

exemplified in his painting Landscape of Taihu Lake

(1946) (fig. 6), engages with a culturally specific

history rather than with the ‘international’, and

Huang’s conversation is with like-minded spirits

trend in the early 1990s, displays a group of seemingly

happy youths shaved bald to demonstrate a refusal

of individuality, and each wearing a silly grin. Yet

their disguise of ‘mass traits’ cannot mask their

individual characters or hide their disaffected malaise.

Ushering us into a totally different psychological

drama, Fang’s contemporary Zhang Xiaogang shuts

his ‘Big Families ’ inside a photography studio , and

paints them in a stylised aesthetic recalling another

era (fig. 12). Yet even as they put on their best smiles

for the sake of posterity, they cannot suppress the

demons arising from the same familial nightmare that

haunts each of them. The return of Socialist formal

patterns undermines their very origin and keeps

producing a hybrid formal scenario.

In addition to the three worlds, we have emphasised

the idea of the anti-world / outer-world from which art

draws inspiration. The transgressive and potentially

innovative nature of art, which is so highly valued,

is based upon this openness to fresh resources. As a

reverse example, one might also need to consider how

old resources die out and pass back into the everyday

world. In the literati world, for instance, the rich

tradition of polychromatic painting, which reached its

height in the Tang period (618-907 CE), has over the

centuries been pushed to the margins by the rise of

monochromatic ink, originally occurring in the literati

painting of the Song period (960-1279). The aesthetics

of the ink ‘palette’ are exemplified in the idea that

‘ink embodies the five colours’ and, if colour is used at

all in a literati ink painting, it is generally the gentle

tones of vegetal colours that are preferred. The once

fig. 圖 11 Fang Lijun 方力鈞 (b.1963)

Series II, No.1 第二組之一 , 1991-92



fig. 圖 12

Zhang Xiaogang 張曉剛 (b.1958)

Bloodline: Family Portrait

血緣系列：全家福 , 1994



038 039

除了這三個藝術界，我們也想特別強調「反藝術

世界」（或「藝術世界外」）作為個藝術擷取靈感的

來源。藝術的越界和創新潛力是社會高度珍視的

特質；而這種潛力則奠基於藝術對新資源保持開放

姿態。從反向來思考，我們也許必須考慮藝術世界

內的舊資源如何耗盡，而終於散落於日常生活內。

舉例來說，在唐代（618-907 CE）達到高峰的彩繪

傳統，在宋朝文人畫風行後漸漸因為單色水墨畫的

興起被推擠到邊緣。「水墨美學」以「墨分五色」這個

概念為代表；即使文人畫中敷彩亦偏好淡雅的植物

顏色。由於這種時代風氣的變遷，以致一直到唐代

持續廣受喜愛的這套絢麗美豔、對比鮮明的彩繪

傳統，漸漸地退居到「裝飾藝術」的範疇，到了近

世主流的繪畫完全被文人畫取代。臺灣畫家袁旃的

色彩豔麗的岩彩畫「風雲際會」（1998）（圖13）讓我

們看到當代藝術如何更新已被捐棄的傳統藝術資

源，從遺忘的歷史尋出新的脈絡，重新與藝術世界

結合。

從這些觀察可以得到一項重要的結論：雖然這三個

不同的藝術世界各自的運作邏輯持續不斷地進行整

合，三者之間仍然充滿矛盾。反過來想，我們也很

難想像一個足以整合所有版本的運作邏輯的全球藝

術世界，而能夠迴避任何遺漏、又不牽涉屈辱或粗

暴的時刻。

五 . 中國藝術何去何從？

「第三種」的說法引出一些聯想，如前所述，它反映

了地緣政治的思考模式，所謂第一世界、第二世界

與第三世界，分別是自由市場的西方民主典範、國

家社會主義典範，以及所謂的第三世界開發中國家

典範。這個三重形態的情形，正好就是當代中國的

象徵和徵狀：一面朝向資本主義式的現代化劇變，

一面又在共產主義的語彙中，撿拾到傳統文化的

遺緒。這也可以用以檢驗當代中國發展現況的一種

討論模式。而問題仍在於，哪些未來的願景能夠

以相對平和的方式共存？

中國藝術史上出現過幾次不同典範之間的融合，

或許可以輕率地詮釋為政治決定美學立場。不過，

本文討論的三種藝術典範，有可能形成三種不同的

結盟關係。首先，最主要的，共產中國藝術世界

一直非常積極地挪用文人畫和前現代藝術傳統中的

相較於這兩個現代性計劃之下的藝術實踐，黃賓虹

的傳統山水畫，「具區攬勝圖」（1946）（圖6）為例，

則與傳統文化的歷史，而非所謂「國際」進行對話。

而創作者的對話對象則是遁跡江湖的古人。從這裡

可看出，傳統藝術平臺的歷史延續意識，而且在冷

戰結構下，有意迴避那一方陣營的意識形態投射。

除了烘托出水墨畫的另類文化觀點，這三種不同的

藝術典範也各自為其他主題的討論打開了強而有力

的平臺。中國在八○年代經歷了劇烈的意識形態

轉變，從社會主義進入市場經濟，這項劇變也反映

在以政治意識形態為主題的藝術作品。王廣義的

「自我批判：水果」（1992）（圖 7）和傅琳的木刻版畫

（圖 8）同時使用毛澤東時代的圖像元素；劉大鴻的

「祭壇」（2001）（圖 9）和唐小禾的「在大風大浪中前進」

（1972）（圖10）也同樣熱衷於毛主席的神話。然而，

王廣義和劉大鴻兩人的作品以「政治波普藝術」的

反諷，著眼於政治意識形態的現代神教，及其唯物

主義的拜物意識形態。

除此之外，值得注意的是，現代性計劃都強加於

身體的特定支配關係。在唐小禾的作品中，暢遊

長江後，容光煥發的毛主席站在舞臺正中，簇擁著

一群和他同樣紅光滿面的青年隨扈，向人群炫耀

著革命的健壯身軀與性感肉體。而在日正當午的

光輝照耀下，方力鈞的「1992 Series II, No. 1」（1992，

圖11），1990 年代初，代表「潑皮寫實主義」風潮的

指標作品），一群傻笑著，看起來很開心的年輕人

以剃光頭的方式來表達對個人風格的拒斥。然而，

他們的「集體特徵」既無法掩蓋每人的性格特質，

也無法掩飾他們心底的困惑。比方力鈞略為年長

的張曉剛的同期作品則帶領我們進入另一齣截然

不同的心理戲。「大家庭」（1994）（圖12）把人物關

在攝影棚裡，以形式化的美學風格，追憶一個過去

的年代。然而，即使畫中人物希望給後人在畫面

留下最好的一面，還是抑制不住陰魂不散的家族

夢靨。社會主義的藝術形式滲透了他們的視覺

源泉，於此持續生產出雜糅的藝術景觀。

dominant tradition of robust, high-contrast colouring

popular until the late Tang dynasty receded to the

realm of the ‘decorative’ arts, and was later totally

debunked by the literati (though strong polychromatic

painting still had an equally elevated status in the

tenth-century imperial art academies of the Song).

A brilliant mineral-colour painting by Taiwan-based

artist Yuan Jai, titled Earthly Powers (1998) (fig. 13), is

an interesting example of how contemporary art might

revive discarded resources of traditional art, how a

forgotten past can return into different contexts and

how, thus, indirect ways of merging artworlds can be

thought of.

One important conclusion from these observations

is, however, that these respective logics of the three

different artworlds are, although continuously

merging, still conflicting, and that it is hard to

imagine one global artworld that would integrate

all of these divergent logics without any moment of

forgetfulness, submission or violence.

5. Chinese Art: Where to?

The number ‘three’ also has various other

correspondences: for example, as previously indicated,

this figure reflects the geopolitical mode of speaking

about three worlds (a first, a second and a third) which

are: the paradigm of free-market-oriented Western

democracies, state socialism and the so-called Third

World of developing countries. This threefold situation

is emblematic – and symptomatic – of the general

situation of contemporary China, with its radical

movement towards capitalist modernisation confronting

remnants of traditional culture in the terminology of

Chinese communism. It could also be discussed as a

model case for assessing the general development of

contemporary China. The question therefore remains

which future prospects present themselves for a

relatively peaceful co-existence.

The history of Chinese art has already seen a number

of fusions between the different artistic paradigms.

One could easily interpret these as politically over-

determined aesthetic conjunctures. Three alliances of

the three paradigms are possible. First and foremost,

communist China has been very active in appropriating

styles and genres of the literati and pre-modern

tradition: significant examples are the overwhelming

popularity of Mao Zedong’s calligraphy in the modern

history of calligraphy and the adaptation of the

traditional woodcut format into the politically targeted

modern woodcut prints used from the early Republican

period through to the Cultural Revolution. As Liu

Kang emphasises, ‘Mao effectively erected a Chinese

Marxism integrated with nationalism in his project for

an alternative modernity.’14

A second, essentially avant-gardist perspective is

indicated by the tradition of the ‘85 New Wave

movement. The artist Gu Wenda, trained as an ink

painter at one of China’s most prestigious art academies,

was among the most emblematic iconoclasts of the ‘85

New Wave movement that marked the wide emergence

of a contemporary avant-garde in China. Combining

China’s two main forms of modernity, Socialist and

fig. 圖 13 Yuan Jai 袁旃 (b.1941)

Earthly Powers 風雲際會 , 1998

Ink and Colour on Silk 水墨設色絹本 , 99.4 x 184.3 cm


fig. 圖 14 Gu Wenda 谷文達 (b.1955)

Mythos of lost dynasties: fake words, missing words, miswritten words … of poetry by Du Mu (detail)

遺失的王朝：以偽字、漏字、倒字、反字、印刷體、正楷、

草體混合書寫的杜牧詩（局部）, 1986

Ink on Paper 水墨紙本 , 274.5 x 180 cm


fig. 圖 15 Wu Shanzhuan 吳山專 (b.1960)

Wu Shuo Ba Dao 無說八道 , 1985

Ink and Colour on Paper 水墨設色紙本 , 135 x 134 cm


14 Liu Kang, ‘Is There an Alternative to (Capitalist) Globalization? The Debate about Modernity in China’, in Fredric Jameson (ed.), Cultures of Globalization (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998), p. 169 f.

040 041

中國的文化脈絡裡。很明顯可以預見的是，當年的

反對體制行動，未來終有一天會成為研究中國新

市場政策和意識形態新典範的案例，因為這套新的

藝術典範為共產意識形態和西方典範開創了一種

新的連結。我們可以從這些線索遙想到將來會出現

某種公共取向的前衛主義，或一種幾近關係美學

（或類似概念）的美學主張，來對應這種連接。十五

也許這種發展意味著毛澤東共產革命的提示會在

美學領域被重新消化，而被吸納入文化社會場域，

並且使之正當化。

這三大典範的另一種結盟關係呈現於文化層面，

特別可以見於過去十多年來共產中國對儒學的

新態度。為了慶祝中華人民共和國四十五週年

國慶暨孔子二五四五歲誕辰，一九九四年十月在

北京舉辦的國際儒學研討會最早開啓了官方認同

的儒學討論，研究儒學納入共產主義教義的角度。

社會理論家李澤厚於八○年代就曾提倡儒家的普

世主義作為另類現代性的源頭。二○一二年，香港

的獨立研究機構嘉禮堂倡議與清華大學和香港大學

合辦第一屆「禮學國際學術研討會」，在北京清華

大學舉行。這場一九四九年中華人民共和國建國

以來首度舉辦的禮學研討會，重新開啟儒家學術的

核心宗旨。關鍵是「禮」是儒學世界觀的核心，也是

一九一九年的「五四運動」抨擊最力的傳統文明據

點。一直到共產黨執政，「禮」也慣常被視為中國文化

落後與封建主義的元凶。禮學會議標示中國官方對

儒家實踐的開放新思考。

儒家倫理的復興在「新亞洲價值」，以及「新加坡式

家長威權」市場經濟的脈絡中，導向於重拾「國家

價值」、中庸的「生命政治」，以及溫良恭儉讓的內省

修養；而某些情景標示了第三種結盟關係可能發展

的方向。十六在海外華人的反革命敘事中，儒家和

傳統文化長期以來都代表了「國族主義」論述的

象徵資本，尤其用以批評毛澤東路線的社會主義

現代性。十七

各種風格和形式；比較明顯的例子包括毛澤東書法

作品的風行，以及從民國到文革期間，帶政治目

的的「新興木刻運動」將傳統木刻版畫的圖式改革

為現代木刻版畫。如劉康說的，「毛澤東有效地在

他的另類現代性計劃中，將中國式的馬克思主義

和民族主義作結合。」十四

第二種結盟，以前衛的潮流引領，從「85 新浪潮運

動」發軔。原本在藝術學院受水墨畫教育的谷文達

成為「85 新潮運動」中最具代表的顛覆藝術家。「85

新潮運動」在中國標示了大規模當代前衛藝術的興

起。谷文達的作品結合了中國的兩種現代性形式：

社會主義和資本主義；其作品的視覺效果既直接又

強烈，但對中國觀眾，尤其是海外的華人，最讓人

震驚的是他的作品所力圖顛覆的對象，中國書寫體

系，而這套顛覆策略來自共產革命。「正體字」意

指在傳統社會的正統「繁體」中文，從五○年代起

被「簡體」字替代，（雖然漢字簡化在民國時期就有

多次運動，但終究沒有貫徹實現），多次運的那是

一項顛覆性的「語言改革」計劃的結果。推動

簡體字是第一步，原本的目標在於全面廢除中文

書寫，改以拉丁拼音字母取代。谷文達的「錯別字」

書畫不但以強烈的視覺效果衝擊觀眾，更在意識形

態革命的層面顛覆了觀眾的文化立足點（圖14）。

吳山專的「國際紅色幽默」（圖15）在全球化年代重審

毛澤東的革命遺產，發現西方社會遠比中國的社會

主義更被意識形態的戀物情結滲透；吳山專發現

資本主義超級市場中可以找到革命的真正「百分

之百紅色」。以上例子可見，在這波「85 新浪潮

運動」中，西方前衛藝術的新發展已經被移植到

capitalist, the visual impact of his works is immediate;

but what was most shocking for the Chinese audience,

especially those living outside Mainland China, was

that his iconoclasm was levelled against the traditional

Chinese writing system, a strategy taken from the spirit

of the Communist revolution. The ‘correct’ word form

– meaning the traditional written version of a character

form, was revered with a sanctified status in traditional

society. The current ‘simplified’ character form used

in China since the 1950s (and based on a new re-

structuring of the written word) was the result of a

major ‘language reform’ programme that was originally

aimed at the total abolition of Chinese writing, with

the intention of replacing it with the Latin alphabet.

(Proposals for 'simplifying' Chinese characters had

been seriously considered before the present regime,

but was never officially adopted). In projecting into

monumental presences his ‘mutant words’ (which reflect

manipulation of the standard written word forms) Gu

Wenda assaults the audience with the modern forms of

both visual art and ideological revolution (fig. 14).

Wu Shanzhuan’s Red Humour International (fig. 15)

rehearses the forms created by Mao’s revolution for

the global era, and discovers that the world fetishised

by Socialist ideology is in fact more radically fetishised

in the West, which the artist identifies as ‘100% red’

within the capitalist supermarket. Thus we find that

in the ’ 85 New Wave movement, major elements of

Western avant-gardist developments were integrated

in a Chinese context. Clearly, certain of the anti-

institutional revolts of that time will some day have

to be discussed in relation to the new market policy

and new pragmatism that has introduced a different

kind of link between Communist ideology and the

Western paradigm. One could think of a certain kind

of publicly-oriented avant-gardism, a representative

form of relational aesthetics (or something similar) as

the aesthetic correspondence of this linking.15 Perhaps

it means having the implications of Mao’s revolution

being worked out in the aesthetic field, absorbing and

legitimising it into the cultural / social world.

Another alliance of the three paradigms is evident

on a cultural level in the new attitude towards

Confucianism that has been developing in communist

China in the last two decades. Ever since the major

international conference on Confucianism held in

Beijing in October 1994 (organised both in celebration

of the 45th anniversary of the People’s Republic, and

the 2,545 anniversary of Confucius’ birth), intellectual

discussions of the integration of Confucianism into the

dominant doctrine have been made politically correct.

Social theorist Li Zehou’s writings of the 1980s both

revived and anticipated much of this conjunction of

communism and Confucianism with his insistence on

universalism as a source of an alternative modernity.

An interesting new development was marked when

the Hong Kong-based independent research institute,

Jia Li Hall, was allowed to present in 2012, in

conjunction with Tsinghua University and Hong

Kong University, the First International Conference

on Confucian li (usually translated as ‘rites’ ), held

at Tsinghua Univeristy in Beijing; a first since 1949.

This is particularly significant as the concept of li lies

at the heart of the Confucian worldview, and was the

most radically attacked aspect of traditional culture

during the 1919 May Fourth New Culture Movement.

Furthermore, from the beginning of Communist

rule, li was typically cast as the culprit behind

Chinese ‘feudalism’ and cultural ‘backwardness’.

The conference marked official endorsement of this

formerly taboo core of Confucian practice.

It makes sense to assume that the restoration of

Confucian ethics in the context of new Asian values

and Singapore-style authoritarian market economies

will also lead to a restored interest in national values,

and the bio-politics of individual balance and well-

tempered contemplative subjectivities, which marks

the third possible alliance.16 In the anti-revolutionary

narratives of exiled Chinese, ‘Confucianism’, and

‘traditional culture’ have long served as ‘new symbolic

capital in the discourse of nationalism’, also and

particularly to counter the specific Maoist version of

Chinese modernity.17

To some extent perhaps it is this use of traditional

techniques of self-perfection to which Qiu Zhijie

ironically refers in his Copying the ‘Preface to Orchid

Pavilion’ One Thousand Times (see fig. 2), in which

the actual text, or content, of what he is writing,

eventually disappears. The merging of the literati

tradition (with the repetitive calligraphic performance)

with the modernist tradition of abstract painting

(the black squares in the work of Malevich, Albers,

and Ad Reinhardt), however, ultimately makes

the calligraphic work invisible. Perfection for the

traditional calligrapher is to become one with the

classical paradigm that ‘was’ and merge with its spirit,

without the necessity of making any radical stylistic

invention. Qiu absorbs this practice and turns it into a

personal statement.

This clearly alludes to the power of capital, of the

Western modernist tradition, to reduce everything to

an artwork of its own kind. Taking into account the

immense power of capital to create, as Marx and Engels

say, ‘a world after its own image’18 and to regard capital

as an all-integrating machinery – a ‘leveller’ as Marx

repeatedly calls it in Capital 19 – most of the overlaps

and interrelations between the three platforms appear

as effects of the commodity machine’s capacity for

inclusion. The global platform has indeed integrated

very many aesthetic forms of both the Socialist and the

traditional platforms with major success on the global

art market. This could seem to be an argument for

everything turning into the same thing. But one must

not forget that commodity production is characterised

by an immense ‘accumulation of spectacles’, which

is not to be misunderstood as a uniformity in the

appearance of things but rather in their inner logic.

The expansion of the logic of the international

platform would therefore rather be an expansion

of the logics of autonomous artworks, based on the

principles of ‘performative originality and imaginative

experimentation’ rather than of a specific aesthetic or

type of imagery. On the level on visual language alone

(regardless of the logics of display, reception, benefit

structure and lineage) the international platform

integrates all kinds of artistic practices. The social

fig. 圖 16

Feng Mengbo 馮夢波 (b.1966)

Long March: Restart (Arcade Version)

長征：重啟（街頭版）, 2012

Interactive Sculpture 互動雕塑 , 153 x 80 x 53 cm

Private Collection 私人收藏

十四劉康，〈是否有（資本主義）全球化的替代方案？關於中國現代性的論爭〉 (‘Is There an Alternative to (Capitalist) Globalization? The Debate about Modernity in China’)，收錄於詹明信 (Fredric Jameson) 編《全球化文化》 (Cultures of Globalization)，德罕 / 北卡羅萊納：杜克大學出版社，1998 年，第 169 頁。

十五 Cf. also Tang Xiaobing: The Origins of the Chinese Avant-Garde. The Modern Woodcut Movement, (Berkeley / CA: University of California Press, 2007).

十六見大衛•哈維 (David Harvey) 的《新自由主義簡史》 (A Brief History of Neoliberalism)，牛津：牛津大學出版社，2005 年，第 120 頁。該書中文版，王欽譯，上海譯文出版社，2010 年。

十七劉康，〈是否有（資本主義）全球化的替代方案？關於中國現代性的論爭〉，見《全球化文化》第 171 頁和 174 頁。

15 Cf. Tang Xiaobing, The Origins of the Chinese Avant-Garde. The Modern Woodcut Movement, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007).

16 Cf. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 120.

17 Liu Kang, op. cit. p. 171, see also p. 174 f.

18 See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, in The Marx-Engels-Reader, Robert C. Tucker (ed.), (London and New York: Norton and Company, 1978), pp. 469-500, p. 479.

19 See Karl Marx, Capital, p. 179, 229, 520.

042 043

的時刻。德國哲學家布洛赫（Ernst Bloch）的「非共

時性」概念也可以為這三個平行的藝術世界之間的關

係提供最後一個詮釋。在他的文章，「非共時性及對

其辯證法的責任」中，布洛赫認為有必要在當代想像

中保存已經「過去」的形式。布洛赫如此定義：

「所謂客觀的非共時性，也就是一種和『當下』完全

不同，而且完全陌生的概念。它包含了逐漸消逝的

殘存遺跡，以及尚未完成、尚未被資本主義所吸納

的『過去』。」二十

因此，所謂「客觀的非共時性」，也就是「過去」的

一部分，但是由於「當下」無法解決它自己曾經

提出的內在挑戰，因而不斷地以各種扭曲形式

把「過去」帶進「當下」。也就是說，假使中國透過

消滅它的兩個過去（傳統文化與社會主義），而全

面地成功整合了全球市場的文化邏輯，或者，假使

西方平臺變成了唯一的主導機制，那麼很可能反而

由於當代人長期壓抑的、對完整文化遺產的欲求，

或者對社會主義現代性的欲求，會促使這兩種過去

的形式重新出現在全球藝術平臺上。廿一

從西方觀點看來，藝術世界正是最能夠解放這些

欲求之處，儘管正因為將這兩種「過去」以「有

價值的文化商品」形式帶返藝術世界的內在市場

邏輯，使得這些欲求持續地失望。假使被社會場

域棄絕的傳統或實踐得以重返藝術場域，那個既

荒誕又戲劇的九龍皇帝（圖17），就應該被請出來

提醒我們未曾實現的舊夢：皇帝是注定要失望的；

同時，他也象徵了藝術實踐追逐的舊憶，和被認可

的渴望。

（中譯：劉燕玉；定稿：張頌仁）

社會主義現實主義或傳統山水畫將轉變成某種對

它們原本的脈絡完全陌生的新東西。中國的「政治

波普」藝術或傳統書法在進入國際藝術市場以後，

就不再是社會主義藝術或者傳統書法了；這不是

因為作品的外觀改變，而更在於作品進入了新脈絡

以後所導致的論述與觀賞文化的改變。馮夢波的

作品可以說是過度積極地回應這種整合力量，因此

對舊時代更呈現了隱晦的懷舊。「長征」電動遊戲

最後回到北京天安門，以可口可樂征服了皇城，

於是諷刺式的社會主義現實主義變成了媚俗形式的

科幻動畫（圖16）。

就全球平臺包羅萬象的能力而言，可以說「全球

主義場域」本身就是個完整的藝術計劃，因為它使

每種東西都有可能進入美術館而被視為藝術品，

這也就是全球藝術和前衛藝術或社會主義藝術，

這兩種現代藝術計劃最明顯的分歧。全球藝術並

沒有專屬自己的藝術計劃，它並沒有一個特定的

發展方向。全球藝術更像證劵交易所，它的生命

能量是資本；資本為這全球藝術平臺充電，用來

照亮它的美術館。

也許文人藝術留給自我修為的空間，也將以相似

的模式被全球藝術所吸納，就像前些時流行的

「新紀元」文化已經被「自助工業」掌控了一樣。

但我們也發現，自我修為的空間也可能以反向的

過程散布。當修心的日常實踐不再需要提升為

「道」的說法而仍能維持，而保證其存續的

體制結構也化約為一套標準的社會規範，這時

藝術平臺便只有在特殊的實踐出現時才能生效。

舉例來說，當身體政治變成有意識地對他人體貼，或

當「茶道」成為一套被行業標準保障的日常玩賞，這

時「藝術物」也將會再度被尊崇為文化的「日常實踐」。

換句話說，甚至在西方藝術典範內部，以及攝納

萬象的資本機制裡，我們仍然可能找出其內部差異

也許邱志傑的「重複書寫一千遍蘭亭序」（見圖 2）

可以看作修心藝術的回歸。不過，在藝術家反覆

臨摹傳統技術的操作中，他自己的文本逐漸地消失

了。文人傳統（如邱志傑的重複臨摹）和現代主義

傳統（如馬列維奇、阿爾柏斯和萊因哈托等抽象畫

裡的黑色方塊）的匯合，終究使作品中的書法藝術

完全消失不見。傳統書法家的完美技藝可能有一天

將連同古典典範一起成為過去式，傳統文人追求與

古人同遊，所追求的是與其精神結合，而不是要創

造明顯的新風格。邱志傑的作品承接了這套藝術實

踐，可是將之轉變為一種個人主張。

換個角度看，這個現象顯然也間接說明了西方現代

主義的資本主義力量，掌握了將一切事物都化約為

現代藝術的能耐。如馬克思與恩格斯所言的「照著

它自己的形貌來打造世界」的強大力量十八，使資本

主義成為一套大小通吃的機制。馬克思在《資本論》

中一再提到的「整平器」十九，在中國這三種典範的

重疊和交互關係裡，資本的力量和商品化機器的

效應功不可沒。

全球藝術平臺在全球藝術市場既大有斬獲，也吸納

了許多社會主義藝術和傳統藝術兩大典範的美學

形式。這樣說法似乎意味著所有東西最終都會變成

一樣；但我們必須認識到，商品生產的特徵是個

規模龐大的「景觀累積」；這意味著每種東西都按

照同一套內在邏輯運作，而不能被誤解為每種東西

的外觀都相同。國際平臺運作邏輯的擴展，也因此

應該被理解為自主藝術作品邏輯的擴展，而這套

邏輯是建立在「表演式的原創性和想像的實驗」，

而非「對特定美學或視覺影像的偏好」這個原則

之上。僅在視覺語言的層次上（暫且不論展示、

觀眾接受、利益結構和師承系譜的邏輯），國際

藝術平臺整合了所有各不同類型的藝術實踐。

然而，被整合入國際平臺的這些藝術作品，它們

原本的社會功能與內在邏輯跟以前已經不再一樣了。

function and ‘inner logic’ of the works, however, do

not remain.

This also means that styles of Socialist Realism or

classical landscape painting are turned into something

essentially alien to the context to which they originally

belonged. Chinese Political Pop Art or calligraphy

on the international art market is already something

other than Socialist art or calligraphy – and that not

so much because of its outer appearance but because of

its contextualisation and the discourse and cultures of

reception that it comes with. Much of Feng Mengbo’s

work can be seen as ironically, over-affirmatively and

thereby implicitly nostalgically reflecting this dynamic

of inclusion, as in his video game Long March: Restart,

which shows Tiananmen Square being conquered by

Coca-Cola, where Socialist Realism is turned into a

kitsch form of animated science fiction (fig. 16).

In terms of its capacity to accommodate anything and

everything in the human world, one could argue that

the ‘the realm of globalism’ is itself a complete art

project; as such it allows any ‘everyday thing’ to enter

its museums as an art object. This is where the Global

is markedly different from both avant-garde and

Socialist art, which are modern projects; the Global

does not have a project of its own, and is therefore

non-directional. The Global is a version of a clearing-

house, and Capital, its life energy, charges this

platform like electricity and lights up its museums.

Perhaps the space for self-cultivation that is reserved

by art in the literati paradigm will also be similarly

absorbed, just like the self-help industry has come

to dominate New Age culture; but a reverse process

that disperses the space for self-cultivation may also

occur. When major daily practices go beyond the need

to be valorised as ‘dao’ in order to take advantage of

the power of art, and the institutional structures that

guarantee their preservation are reduced to standard

social regulations, the art platform will be reserved only

for special practices. For example, when body politics

turns into conscious consideration for others, and the

dao of tea becomes a culture of connoisseurship guarded

by regulations ensuring its industry standards, then the

‘art thing’ may again be honoured as part of a culturally

esteemed ‘daily practice’.

Even within the Western paradigm and the all-

integrating machinery of Capital, there remains,

in other words, a moment of difference. A last

interpretation of the relation between the three

parallel worlds, which follows this line, is suggested

by Ernst Bloch’s idea of nonsynchronism. In his

reflections on ‘Nonsynchronism and the Obligation

to Its Dialectics’, Bloch has suggested a certain

necessary presence of the forms of the past in the

contemporary imaginary. As Bloch defines it,

… the objectively nonsynchronous is that which is

far from and alien to the present; it includes both

declining remnants and, above all, uncompleted

past, which has not yet been ‘sublated’ by

Capitalism.20

The so-called ‘objectively nonsynchronous’ is thus

a part of the past that the present keeps bringing

back up in whatever distorted forms, because it

cannot resolve the inherent challenge that it had once

presented. In other words: precisely if China fully

succeeds to integrate itself into the cultural logics of

the world market, by eliminating both of its pasts;

and if, thus, the Western platform will turn out to

be the only dominant one, then it might well be

possible that the repressed desire of a well-preserved

cultural heritage and of a communist appropriation of

modernity keep re-appearing for that very reason.21

Seen from a Western perspective, the artworld is

the right place for such emancipatory desires – even

though it is precisely these desires that are constantly

disappointed in the real world by the very inner

market logics that return them to the artworld as

valuable cultural goods. If traditions and practices

denied in the social realm return in the artistic realm,

we can interpret the unfortunate and quixotic King of

Kowloon (fig. 17) as a reminder and remainder of these

unfulfilled pasts – the King as frustrated individual –

but also as an allegoric striving for remembrance and

recognition.

fig. 圖 17 ‘King of Kowloon’ Tsang Tsou-Choi (1921 - 2007) inscribing calligraphy on a utility box near Victoria Park, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, 27 September 1996

九龍皇帝曾灶財 (1921 – 2007) 在香港銅鑼灣維多利亞公園附近一電箱上提字，攝於1996 年 9 月 27 日。

Photography: David Clarke攝影：祈大衛

十八見卡爾•馬克思和弗里德里希•恩格斯 (Frederick Engels) 的〈共產黨宣言〉 (‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’)，收錄於《馬恩讀本》(The Marx-Engels-Reader)，羅伯特•塔克 (Robert C. Tucker)編，倫敦 / 紐約 / 紐約州：Norton and Company 出版社，1978 年，第 479 頁。

十九見卡爾•馬克思《資本論》，第 179、229 和 520 頁。

二十見布洛赫的討論，恩斯特•布洛赫 (Ernst Bloch)的〈非共時性及對其辯證法的責任〉(‘Nonsynchronism and the Obligation to Its Dialectics’)，收錄於《新德國批評》 (New German Critique )，第 11 期（1977 年春），第 31 頁。

廿一劉康有點樂觀地堅持某種無法被西方現代科技取代的「中國暫時性」。然而，這主要在於一個不同的社會秩序能夠藉由其內在的暫時性，抗拒全球資本的什麼程度的問題。詳見劉康的〈是否有（資本主義）全球化的替代方案？關於中國現代性的論爭〉，《全球化文化》，第 166 頁。

20 See Bloch’s discussion in Ernst Bloch, ‘Nonsynchronism and the Obligation to Its Dialectics’ , in New German Critique, No. 11 (Spring, 1977), pp. 22-38, p. 31.

21 Liu Kang somewhat optimistically insists on the specific Chinese temporality that cannot be reduced to the teleology of Western modernisation. The question, however, is to which extent a different social order will be able to resist the logics of the global capital with its inherent temporality. Cf. Liu Kang, op. cit., 166 f.

Three Parallel Art Worlds. The Case of China

Documents

Transcript of Three Parallel Art Worlds. The Case of China