“影骨”首届西安文献展 • 特别专题

　　（当代艺术网 记者发自西安）6月25日，“首届西安文献展”在位于西安东郊的纺织城艺术区开幕。

　　“首届西安文献展”是西安地区首次以较完整形态出现的前卫艺术文献类展览。展览将以“影骨”为主题，持续到本年9月22日。

　　6月25日下午2点，在位于西安东郊的纺织城艺术区A艺术车间内，由首批入驻艺术区的艺术家代表王凤华贺军主持了展览开幕讨论会。 列席的来宾有文献展策展人岳路平  A车间所有艺术家  文献展首展参展艺术家以及来自音乐媒体厂区学生等各界艺术爱好者数百人。

　　首届西安文献展将以“展览—论坛—文献”的形式，每两个星期变更艺术家和作品话题，9月22日以后离开纺织城艺术区进行巡展。本次文献展的首展将“中国当代艺术的真身？”为话题，邀请了著名学者彭德和陈展辉就此话题进行了讨论。

　　如今，源自卡塞尔文献展等国际当代艺术重要学术展事的展览在我国遍地开花，各种“双年展”“三年展” 要么均沦为学术圈争夺话语权的工具，要么充当国家进行“精神文明建设”的应景时尚。由基金会或政府买单的展览，大的投资达千万之巨，虽然各自花样百出，但始终和大众保持着雾里看花的状态。

　　“西安文献展”作为没有外来资金介入，也不营利的独立学术展览，无论自身能否独立于中国的“展览怪圈”，或者本身就在“怪圈”之外，在当下无疑是珍贵的。当代艺术网将从文化使命出发，对“西安文献展”进行追踪关注。

　　西安东郊纺织城：原西北第一印染厂，现空出部分厂区，企业为半生产状态。从2007年3月由西安美术学院的几位艺术家开始首批入驻。现分为（A B C D ）四个建设区域，A区艺术车间已基本投入使用。其他区域除艺术家之外，有少量设计公司画廊进驻，大部分区域尚在施工和待租状态。是西安地区第一个正逐渐成型的艺术区。

（西安文献展海报）

Xi’an Documenta
June 25, 2007 to September 22, 2007

首届西安文献展（第一稿）暨首展

2007年6月25日——9月22日

首展研讨会：6月25日下午2点
首展开幕酒会：6月25日下午4点（贺小强 阿里 胡艳乐队演出）
地点：西安市 纺织城 纺西路 238号 （原西北第一印染厂）

（“影骨”主题海报）

影骨

　　前几天跟一位著名策展人聊即将开幕的威尼斯双年展和卡塞尔文献展，得知日本的一些策展人要联合亚洲其他一些策展人一起组织一个“影子展览”，来对抗威尼斯和卡塞尔的“霸权”。
　　我心里想，为什么我们成了“影子”？中国艺术家在威尼斯双年展的“中国馆”呈现的作品、中国艺术家在卡塞尔文献展上呈现的作品真的是“中国当代艺术”的“真身”吗？这些艺术“代表”的合法性是如何建立的？

　　这几年，当代艺术霸权的话题一直被拿来进行讨论，少数国外收藏家和少数国际重要双年展的文化权力跟国家文化机关的权力，时而单独生效、时而相互配合，产生了一批中国当代艺术寡头。十位数的这些寡头们垄断了国际双年展、收藏家等重要的艺术资源。

　　寡头艺术真的能够“代表”中国当代艺术吗？与此同时，类似于“影子展览”的想法与其说是在“对抗”，还不如说是在敲边鼓。

　　那些真正保持跟自身环境的真诚关系的艺术家和艺术品，才是真正的中国当代艺术的代表。为什么我们不把威尼斯双年展和卡塞尔文献展上的“艺术家”和“作品”看成真正的“影子”呢？

　　这种“反认他乡是故乡”的颠倒逻辑主宰了我们的艺术生产和艺术批评很多年了。它的结果是，当代中国人根本看不懂“中国当代艺术”和“当代艺术批评文章”。关于消费影响生产、批评成为吹捧的论述实际上已经很多很多，不是一个多么高深的道理。但是为什么指鹿为马的时代仍然没有结束？

　　关于“影子展览”的讨论，让我联想到西安附近法门寺的“影骨”：在发现藏在法门寺地宫的佛指舍利之前，一共发现了3件仿制的“佛指”。这三件仿制品后来被称为“影骨”，赵朴初用“一月映三江”来描述仿制品和真正的佛指（灵骨）之间的关系。

　　就此，我展开联想：中国艺术家、艺术品在世界三大展（卡塞尔文献展、威尼斯双年展和圣保罗双年展）上的表现实际上是“中国当代艺术”的三枚影骨；进而，中国艺术家、艺术品在亚洲的光州三年展、横滨三年展和台北双年展上的表现是“中国当代艺术”的第二个层次的“影骨”；进而，上海双年展、北京双年展和广州三年展在具备民意基础之前，仍然是中国当代艺术的第三个层次的“影骨”。

　　那么，“灵骨”在哪里？影骨已经提示了灵骨的形状、材质、大小等等信息，但是毕竟还不是真身。

　　“灵骨”在哪里？正是首届西安文献展的讨论目标。

（现场活动气氛热烈）

Shadow relics

Several days ago when I talked about the forthcoming La Biennale di Venezia and Kassel Documenta with a curator, he told me that some Japanese curators would organize a “shadow exhibition” with other Asian colleagues to resist the “hegemony” of Venice Binary Exhibition and Kassel Document Exhibition. Why we became “shadows”? I said to myself. Could those Chinese artworks exhibited at Venice and Kassel truly represent “China’s contemporary art”? Are there any acceptable reasons for those artworks to acquire the high status?

The topic of “hegemony in contemporary arts” is a hot one in recent years. Sometimes do it singly and sometimes cooperate with each other, both a small group of foreign collectors together with the cultural authorities in a few important international Binary exhibitions and the State’s cultural departments, urged the emerging of a few “oligarchs” of China’s contemporary art. It is them who monopolized the important art’s resources such as international binary exhibitions and collectors.

How could these “oligarchs in art” truly represent China’s contemporary art? At the same time, the ideas such as “shadow exhibitions” look like hollow propaganda more than the real resistance to the “hegemony” of Venice and Kassel exhibition.

Only those artists and artworks that keep a sincere close relationship to their soil could be said as the real representatives of China’s contemporary art. It is better to take the “artists” and “artworks” exhibited at Venice Binary Exhibition and Kassel Document exhibition to be “shallows”.

Many people worship and have blind faith in foreign things; such a kind of reverse way of thinking has been dominating our art production and criticism for many years. The result of it is that many Chinese could hardly understand the “China’s contemporary art” and “contemporary arts’ critic articles”. We have seen the analysis about consummation’s effects on production and how critics become praise for so many times, and it is not so difficult to understand this point. But why is this era of taking rubbish to be cream still far from its end?

The discussion about “shadow exhibition” makes me think about the “Shadow relics” (that are the mimics of Sacred Buddhist Remains). Three shadow relics were found in the underground palace of Fa Men Temple (close to Xi’an City), and later they were called “Ying Gu (shadow relics)”. Zhao Puchu, a master of Buddhism used a metaphor “one moon shining over three rivers” to describe the relationship between real finger relics and its shadow relics. So I make my mental association that the performances of Chinese artists and artworks at the three major art exhibitions (Venice Binary Exhibition, Saint Polo Binary Exhibition and Kassel Document Exhibition) are actually three “Shadow relics” of China’s contemporary art. The same reason, their performances at Gwangju Triennial, Yokohama Triennial and Taipei Binary Exhibition are “shadow relics” of the second level; and Shanghai Binary, Beijing Binary and Guangzhou Binary Exhibition are “Shadow relics” of the third level before they get the people’s hearts.

Where is the “real finger relics”? “Shadow relics” have already hinted the information as the form, material and size, but after all they could not replace the real one.

Where is the “real finger relics”? This is the main goal for holding the First Xi’an Document Exhibition.

（展览现场）

纺织-防止-仿制

　　纺织城艺术车间的成立，是我们讨论“影骨”和“灵骨”的一个契机。建国初期建设的纺织城；2007年艺术车间对纺织城进行的“再生”处理；西安文献展跟卡塞尔文献展以及威尼斯双年展同时进行……给我们讨论中国当代艺术“真身”提供了一些有意思的话题。

　　纺织：专业的枷锁

　　建国初期，中国的社会主义建设基本上参考了苏联模式。无论是工业化还是教育，常常是根据专业来进行规划和设计。大学教育不再采用“通才”模式，而是采用“专才”模式。西安的东郊被规划为纺织城。

　　今天，过于专业化的教育和工业布局的弊端已经不断暴露，大学的合并、重组、对“通才”的重提，正在对之前的“偏执”进行纠偏。大量的老工业基地的废弃、改革、工人下岗、再就业等等状况提示着我们后遗症仍然存在。

　　艺术，也正在经历着对艺术教育制度、艺术创作的理论和材料基础、展示空间等的重新定义。
　　实际上，面对纺织城所折射的“专业化”以及“苏联模式社会主义”的后遗症，跟我们面对美术学院的“专业化”困境是同在一条历史反思纬线上面的。诸如“国画的现代化”、“油画的本土化”都不过是这个专业化困境中的子话题：如果我们无法走出这个专业化的困境，如果我们无法勇敢地面对“纺织城”的后遗症，我们也就没有讨论“中国当代艺术”真身的基础。

防止：隔离和迷惑

　　纺织城艺术车间的艺术家们为了艺术区的安全操了不少心，从艺术区的封闭式设计、门卫制度到艺术区与艺术区之间、艺术区区与纺织厂之间、艺术区于区政府之间等等的关系，都做了很多“隔离”设计的工作。在艺术家的内心里面，也做出了、或者清晰了、强化了一些隔离工作。就像9层宝函守护着舍利，艺术家在内心里也在守护着他们的艺术理想、原则和立场、品位和尊严。一方面要跟一些东西告别，另一方面要跟未来的诸多诱惑保持距离。

　　“防止”话题也会组织参与西安文献展的艺术家、设计师、策展人、学者等通过讨论同时进行的威尼斯双年展和卡塞尔文献展的方式来讨论中国当代艺术的在“进取”和“保护”之间应有的态度。

　　影骨是对灵骨的保护，或者是通过迷惑来进行保护？这种联想方式有助于我们用一种相对简洁和具有象征意义的方式来厘清中国当代艺术跟西方文化、学术、艺术的关系；增加中国当代艺术的能见度；我们也会讨论文化遗产跟当代艺术的关系；甚至会在佛教影响中国和中国现代化进程之间进行对比。

仿制：弘扬或污染

　　这个话题希望把我们对与当代艺术的关怀延伸到对西安城市视觉生态的关怀上来。西安正在通过巨大的行政、财政以及文化资源让整个城市“再现盛唐雄风”。我们在一个巨大的唐景观公园大唐芙蓉园的高处可以看到，真古董（大雁塔）被规模宏大的假古董（唐风小区和唐风旅游建筑群等）包围着，显得孤立、无辜。

　　政府斥巨资在建设一个唐人街化和迪斯尼化的长安，当纪念碑逻辑和主题公园逻辑同时成立的时候，李白和白居易同时也充当了米老鼠和唐老鸭的角色。

　　假古董是在对真古董进行弘扬，还是进行污染？

　　仿制的话题并不局限在对城市视觉的关注。纺织城艺术车间跟西方流行的工业区改造成的艺术区之间的关系、跟798的关系，也是我们需要反思的。历史上的纺织城对苏联模式的仿制的得失也是我们需要回顾的。

（纺织厂领导代表厂区发言）

Textile—Prevention—Imitation
The establishment of the Textile City art workshop offers us a chance to discuss “Shadow relics” and “real finger relics”. The Textile City was built in the early years of New China, the “regeneration” of it was given by the art workshop in 2007; the co-conduction of Xi’an Document Exhibition, the Kassel Document Exhibition and the Venice Binary Exhibition have offered us some interesting topics to discuss about the “real meaning” of Chinese contemporary art.

Textile: Fetters of Specialty
In the early years of new China, the Chinese socialist construction has been conducted mainly according to the patterns adopted by Soviet Union. Both industrialization and education have been programmed and designed on the basis of specialty. College education has adopted the “professional talent” pattern to replace the former “generalist” one. The east suburb of Xi’an has been planned as the Textile City.

Nowadays, the disadvantages of the over-specialized education and the industry layout have been gradually exposed; the combination, reconstruction of college and the reaffirmation of “generalist” are rectifying the former deviations. All these things such as the discarding of abundant former industrial bases, the reformation, the laying off of workers and the unemployment remind us the existence of aftereffect.

The concept of art is also being redefined in terms of its educational system, the theoretical and material basis of its creation and its exhibiting space. In fact, the “specialization” reflected by the Textile City and the aftereffect of “Soviet Union socialist pattern” is similar to the “specialization” predicament of the Fine Arts College. “The modernization of traditional Chinese painting” and “the localization of oil painting” are no more than the sub-topics of the specialization’s predicament. We will be incapable of talking about the real meaning of “Chinese contemporary art” if we cannot get rid of the predicament of specialization and face the aftereffect of “the textil

[1] [2] 下一页