Despite Our Ruination 尽管我们毁灭 @Shanghai Curator Lab

by Jenny Chen / Giulia Colletti / Kate Davis / Thomas Laval / Viola Yip
Artists: Adelita Husni-Bey, Hanne Lippard, Lu Pingyuan, Viola Yip & Peter Ablinger
Despite our Ruination was included in the exhibition It was a dream of a trip which was curated by 21 curators and hosted by Shanghai Curator Lab. We took one month to work together in a tense situation. That was too crazy to be true. Thanks for all friends/cooperators/enemies, I’ve learnt a lot in this long lasting dream/nightmare. 

“A constellation is made up of some stars that are nearer, others further away. It is only from our perspective, that of the here (and now), that they appear to take on a significant configuration.”

Spencer, Lloyd. “On Certain Difficulties with the Translation of ‘On The Concept Of History’”, 2000


In an age of rising accountability over our most intimate gestures, where governance of borders, rights, and minds seems to be the norm, how can we evade regulation and take a journey into the unknown?


Taking cue from Walter Benjamin’s critique, Despite Our Ruination is
an exhibition that emanates from a constellation of objects. Displaying alphanumeric messages, a pager embodies impending automation, as well as the interdependency between humans and technology, which in our informational era is tinged with mysterious impulses. Within the constellation, these impulses are explored through the I Ching, an ancient Chinese divination text, using cleromancy to establish unexplored connections with the universe. Reimagining the rules that govern reality is a task also undertaken by science fiction novelist Octavia Butler, whose seminal book Wild Seed explores power struggles, eugenics, and cyborg identities. The blurred edges of actuality and fiction are at stake even in The Real As Imaginary, a piece by Peter Ablinger consisting of the recitation of a text over white noise that completely envelopes the speech. The white noise is, in fact, a theoretical idealization, assimilated to natural sounds such as the rain in a forest, which nurtures organic and inorganic species. In forests disturbed by humans, the matsutake grows. It is a mushroom utilised by Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing as a trope to picture a post-Enlightenment natural world, one that can answer to the promise of cohabitation in a time of unprecedented human destruction. These entities are assimilated into a natureculture vision, aimed at re- establishing a synthesis of nature and culture in a time when the dualism of science and the humanities prevails.


The constellation opens up to a series of artworks that challenge normative structures of thinking while stimulating critical paths. This interpretative exercise draws on artistic practices that deconstruct limitative visions on the environment,
noise, and the future of human and non-human species. The invited artists’ research spans from visual to sound art to suggest further vanishing points that jeopardise Western normative accounts of measurability, language, and rationality. Fostering an object-oriented approach that rejects the privileging of human existence
over the existence of nonhuman 10 identities, Despite Our Ruination is an invitation to explore routes not yet standardised.


Lastly, Despite Our Ruination proposes a Virtual Reality experience of the exhibition. Accessible via an internet link it introduces an extraterrestrial setting for the artworks presented. In this free space, the conventions of the white cube no longer assert a rational framework rooted in the history of exhibitions.


Supposedly technology never dies, it’s just no longer dominant; like the pager. Mostly seen in movies, their obsolescence is assumed. However, pagers are still used in hospitals, as for urgent messages, their simplicity makes them more efficient than the pervasive smartphone. Today, we work alongside ever-evolving and increasingly intelligent machines already capable of independent learning and development. Imagine that we are the pager and these machines the smartphone; what type of future awaits us?

This, of course, is not an accurate comparison. As biological beings we have to adapt to new conditions; otherwise, we die. That being said, some humans and machines already function as cognitive units, as for the past few decades humans have bent the laws of natural selection that previously governed Earth and life. Despite the vast quantities of data being gathered, and the multitude of scientists, technologists and futurologists attempting to answer this question, future forecasts vary greatly and there are no conclusive answers or solutions.


I Ching

I Ching, also known as the Book of Changes, is an ancient Chinese divination text and one of the oldest Chinese classics. Published in the Western Zhou period (late 9th century BCE), I Ching was first mentioned in Europe by Leibniz in 1703. This sparked philosophical questions, such as universality and the nature of communication. The foreword of the English edition of I Ching was written in 1949 by Carl Jung.

For Jung, I Ching was a way of exploring the unconscious, and an approach to the nonhuman field. As stated in his introduction: “The Chinese mind, seems to be exclusively preoccupied with the chance aspect of events. What we call coincidence seems to be the chief concern of this […] mind, and what we worship as causality passes almost unnoticed”. (1) The I Ching not only offers a path into the unknown but raises a counter perspective to scientific causality by investigating the asynchronicity of real events.

Wild Seed

Octavia E. Butler was an African- American science writer. Her novels and short stories tackle a scope of issues still omnipresent today, such as climate change, the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and pharmaceutical developments, as well as sexual identity. Her science-fictional storytelling warns of malignant possibles, and gives voice to destitute living forms, offering a path for an expanded understanding of the world.

Butler’s novel Wild Seed (1980) introduces Doro, a thousand-year-old cyborg living off the bodies of others. A gang from the New World destroy the African village Doro cultivated for centuries, and force him to leave. On his way, he meets a shapeshifting and equally powerful rival; Anyanwu, able to heal with a kiss. Their encounter triggers a century-long conflict jeopardising the essence of humanity.

Aside from her published writing, Butler’s notebooks serve as a space for her innermost thoughts. These pages enliven Butler’s practice and inform
her inspirations and horizons. Partial sketches of a novel, or an expression of a condensed state of mind, mirror the author’s profound wishes for humankind.

The Real as Imaginary

Peter Ablinger’s The Real as Imaginary is a composition for a solo speaker and noise. The performer can have any voice type; however, the text should be translated into a language that the audience can understand. The performance noise track should be generated by the sum of frequencies in the recording of the performer’s recitation of the text. The noise track, then, needs to be further filtered through oscillated frequency bands to create “windows”.

As a result, this noise track is played at a volume that is just loud enough to envelop the performer’s voice; but with the oscillated “windows”, the voice floats between the foreground, background and space in between.

The Real as Imaginary questions whether the “imaginary” and the “real” oppose each other in our perception. Ironically, perceiving reality relies on our imagination, as Ablinger expressed, “I had asked whether it would ever be possible to reach the real, whether it would ever be possible to break through the prison of my imaginations onto the real.” (2)

The monologue allows Ablinger to search for the idea of the “real”, and the relationship between the “real” and the “imaginary”. At the end of the text, he concludes that:

The imaginary as real, and equally the real as imaginary – this would then be, so to say, a formula for the interpenetration of the two, a formula for the living and for the being-here.” (3)



We are stuck with the problem of living despite economic and ecological ruination. Neither tales of progression nor of ruin tell us how to think about

collaborative survival. It is time to pay attention to mushroom picking. Not that this will save us – but it might open our imagination.”(4)

The matsutake is one of the most expensive mushrooms in the world, as it grows in destroyed forests across Asia and North America. Due to its capacity to nurture trees, matsutakes enable forests to flourish in human-damaged places. It
is also an edible delicacy in Japan, where it can fetch astronomical prices. In The Mushroom at the End of the World, Anna Tsing offers insights into areas far beyond just mushrooms, using the matsutake to ask a crucial question: how are we going to live in the ruins we have made?

The matsutake becomes a metaphor to narrate a tale of diversity within our daunting landscapes, exploring the unexpected edges of consumerism, and challenging the connections between capitalist destruction and collaborative survival within multispecies landscapes; demonstrating the potential for fungal ecologies to foster a better understanding of cohabitation in a time of significant human destruction.

(1) Wilhelm R. (trad.) and C.G. Jung (Foreword), The I Ching, or, Book of Changes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3rd edition, 1967.
(2) html
(3) html
(4) Tsing, A., The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.

星丛是由一些距离较近的星星组成 的,另一些则相对远。它只从我们的 角度出发,而在此时此地,它们显现 为一种重要的构型。

劳埃德·斯宾塞,《论翻译“历史概念” 的若干困难》,2000



假设技术永远不会消亡,它只是不再占据主导地位; 像寻呼机一样。 我们可以经常在电影中看到被过时化的它们。然而,寻呼机仍然在医院使用,至于紧急信息,它们的简单性使它们比普及的智能手机更有效。今天,我们与不断发展且日益智能的机器一起工作,这些机器已经能够独立学习和开发。 想象一下,我们是寻呼机,这些机器是智能手机; 什么样的未来等着我们?

当然,这不是一个准确的比较。作为生物,我们必须适应新的条件; 否则, 我们就会面临死亡。话虽如此,一些人类和机器已经被作为认知单元在发挥作用,因为在过去的几十年里,人类已经扭曲了曾经统治地球和生命的自然选择规律。尽管收集了大量数据,众多科学家、技术专家和未来学家都在试图回答这个问题,但未来的预测差异很大,也没有确定的答案或解决方案。



对于荣格而言,《易经》是一种探索无意识的方式,也是一种探索非人类领域的方法。 正如他的介绍中所述:“中国人的思想似乎完全专注于事件的偶然性方面。 我们所说的巧合似乎是这种思想的主要关注点,而我们所崇拜的因果关系几乎没有被注意到“。(1)《易经》不仅为我们提供了进入未知世界的道路,而且通过调查真实事件的异步性, 提出了与科学因果关系的相反视角



巴特勒的小说《野生种子》(1980) 讲述了一个有着千年历史的赛伯格“多罗”的故事,他依靠其他人的身体存活。一天,来自新大陆的一伙人摧毁了几个世纪以来由多罗耕耘的非洲村庄, 迫使他离开。路上他遇到了一个能变形并且和他同样强大的竞争对手:安言午,能够用吻来愈合创伤。他们的遭遇引发了长达一个世纪的冲突,并危及人性的本质。



彼得·阿林格的《真实如虚幻》由独诵和噪音演奏组成。表演者可以用任何音区演奏;但是,诵词需要被翻译成观众可以理解的语言。表演者需表演前把诵词录音,然后把音轧的所有音频重叠,形成噪声。然后,需要通过振荡频带进一步过滤噪声轨道以创建“ 窗口”。这个噪音音轨一方面能以音量包围表演者的声音;而另一方面,声音随着振动的“窗口”在前景、背景和噪音跟诵词的空间之间浮动。

《现实如虚幻》质疑“想像”和“现实” 在我們的感知中是否相互對立。 諷刺地,感知现实依賴於我們的想像力, 正如阿林格在词中表達:“我曾經問過是否可以達到现实,是否有可能突破想像力的監控来感知现实。”(2)

这独白允许阿林格寻问“现实”的概念,以及“现实”和“虚构”之间的关系。 在文本的最后,他得出结论:

“虚构作为真实,同样是现实的假想 – 这就是说,这是两者一个相互渗透的公式,和一个生活和此在的公式。” (3)


“尽管经济和生态破坏,我们仍然陷于生存问题。无论是进步还是毁灭的传说都没有告诉我们如何思考共同生存。现在是时候关注蘑菇采摘。并不是说这会拯救我们 – 但它可能会打开我们的想像力。“(4)




P2P 剩余空间 @ArtShard



使这一电子加密货币成为可能的 P2P 概念被策划小组 Passing Fancy(朱筱蕤 & 弗雷迪·克鲁兹·诺维尔)恰逢及时的作为剩余空间1013日开幕的展览题目。P2P 意味着去中心化 (无中心服务器,每台计算机或“peer”充当其他计算机的服务器)、平等的用户地位与关系(任何人皆可参与)、无版权限制的资源共享(允许访问各种分布式资源:如文件或外围设备)。这场展览,借由这些新世纪网络滋养与共生的乌托邦意识形态,幅及了最早由 Seth Price 2003年录制的文字式电脑游戏 Romance Cory Arcangel 今年创作的 istheapplebeesondelcoparkdrinthesuburbsofdaytonopenrightnow 这十五年不长不短的时间。

P2P 令人瞩目的特点,是其全新的资源分配、传播与集散的方式。而在2014年,集散Distribution)也被 Karen Archey 和岳鸿飞援引至展览后网络艺术(尤伦斯艺术中心),作为网络艺术实践的其中一个面向被讨论。当时涉及的文本也包括 Seth Price 的《分散》(Dispersion, 2002) 。集散,不仅意味着文本的形式/媒介流变(如作品 Dump Bin 2016-2018)中注定过时的 DVD 影带)以及媒介变换产生的意识或是主体重构;也指涉了此次展览所提出的自相矛盾的权力结构与用户端(与背后的主体)之间的社会关系。

策划人十分了然去中心权利结构的自相矛盾。你可以看到 Cory Archangel 直接了当的作品 The Source (2013) 将开源代码作为作品,以纸本的形式呈现在展览现场。作品展现着与版权限定、作者权威分庭对抗的概念,不免令人联想到莫瑞吉奥·卡特兰围绕复制概念在余德耀策划的展览“The Artist is Present”。通过这样的并置,所谓自相矛盾的结构开始逐渐显现为西方内部的利益矛盾。

P2P 的形成与传播与版权法的建制几乎开始于同一时期——二十世纪七八十年代。它们几乎可以被视为生长于同一土壤之上的对立面。剩余空间与余德耀美术馆的两个展览面对着十分相似的议题,开源与复制/挪用所预设的假想敌始于西方语义中的版权限制。这一限制导致中国在官方立场窘迫,自1989年起就面对着知识产权保护的压力,1991年,美国开始将中国设为“301条款的重点国家,持续近30年的中美知识产权论战围绕的也是这个时期建立的法案——1974年贸易法案》。也是从那个时期开始,知识被过渡成了产权,不可计算的被归入了资本的评估领域。 在这30年间,中国的音乐/视频共享平台、山寨文化与复制在意识形态上屡受责难,另一方面,却被艺术家们乐此不疲地援引为创作素材。P2P 的原罪在于,它产生于建立创作权威的时代环境,并只有依赖这样具备有效型的敌方,才得以生存。试问,假设在一个从来不将知识视为产权的国度,P2P 还能否保有它的道德光环与看起来激进左倾的姿态?

展览同样将人类主体放入问题当中,策划人将点对点网络中的 peer 还原成了身体,未被定锚的是这身体的存在状态以及各个身体之间的关系。正如比特币白皮书(Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System)所总结的,它提供了一种不需依赖信任的电子交易系统。这折射出的是 P2P 用户在信息时代中的社会生活所共同面对的脆弱与焦虑。郭奕豪的作品 The Floor (2014-18) 在此正是释放着这样的情感维度。他将即时信息的聊天过程转换为实体空间的行为,观众面对着一扇不断被递出纸片的门,煞白的门和墙体保持一致,个体似乎隐于这层白色背后,又似乎触手可及(只要打开那扇门)。然而(墙内外的)双方都为了保持某种安全感而选择不去打开那扇门。本来真实鲜活的肉身甘于成为那个只产生只言片语的用户端。这种精神焦虑与交流的被动性正造成了现代社会原子化的个体,个体的亲密关系也朝着 P2P 网络的连接图示趋近。

如策展人所言,这场展览既是关于被构想的互联网政治,也同时关于个体用户的主体性。P2P 呈现的去中心的雄心与因此被碎片化与孤立的交往方式是原生的因果关系,他们必然是虚拟空间和现实生活都固有的。展览作品通过不同的方式揭示了网络社会的意识形态坐标,无论是线上的身体,还是使互联网成为现实的血肉之躯,使其成为现实的终究是可触摸的人造基建与操作着用户端的个体,P2P 的症结也就是当代主体的症结,如何去思考或者能否去思考它,我们不能靠  Jenna Sutela 的那些智能粘液来告诉我们。

日光之下无新事 @ArtShard

yuz museum 余德耀美术馆

The Artist is Present_Poster

“艺术家此在”或许翻译的并不确切:“The Artist is Present” 在阿布拉莫维奇(Marina Abramović)的展览中指的是艺术家自身的到场,而在余德耀美术馆以复制为名的展览中,阿布拉莫维奇的缺席,成全了卡特兰(Maurizio Cattelan)的“艺术家在场”。在这语境中,艺术家因为复制而显现,无论是被复制者还是那位精明的剽窃者。我模仿故我在,正是卡特兰的艺术哲学,当然,这也将一直以来在艺术创作中暗涌的线索拎出了水面。

复制在挪用的意义上开始于立体主义的现成品拼贴,似乎从源头开始就已经预示着现代性的断裂,立体主义对西方传统透视的反叛在毕加索(Pablo Picasso)那里演化成了对架上绘画的反叛。毕加索首次挪用现成品作为艺术,走出那突破性的跬步,在此之后,杜尚(Marcel Duchamp)的现成品实践开始变本加厉。当1917年他的《泉》(Fountain)被纽约中央宫殿的展览拒绝之后,现成品挪用以其争议性的身份终于在艺术史站稳了脚跟。这样的回溯至少为我们链接了立体主义的源头,哈里斯(Karsten Harries)曾在其书《无限与视角》(Infinity and Perspective)中对传统透视法提出疑问:一种受透视法支配的艺术如何能够揭示实在?对于新艺术和新科学的怀疑萌生了立体主义,而这同时揭开了一个世纪的挪用史序幕。

超现实主义借由梦与潜意识将日常物的形象带入作品。本雅明(Walter Benjamin)于1936年写就《机械复制时代的艺术作品》(The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction),这本书主要针对的是艺术复制品的传播现象,与艺术家对现成品的挪用还有所不同。但或许就是因为这本书,启发了60年代将文化传播的复制力与现成品结合的波普艺术,直到布里奥(Nicolas Bourriaud)在 2002年出版《后制品》(Postproduction),这条线索就一直没有在艺术史的思考中断过;布里奥认为从20世纪90年代初以来,艺术家通过翻译、再现、重新展出和利用现成作品或文化产品来制作作品,这种现象或许正是回应了信息化时代的乱象,“原创”的观念在这种新文化风景中变得模糊起来。


莎士比亚(William Shakespeare)对“原创”似乎是嗤之以鼻的,林奇(Jack Lynch)在论文《完全可接受的文学盗窃实践:抄袭、版权和十八世纪》(The Perfectly Acceptable Practice of Literary Theft: Plagiarism, Copyright, and the Eighteenth Century, 2002)中提到:莎士比亚“更加倾向于避免不必要的发明(invention)”。而《错误的喜剧》(Comedy of Errors, 2011)的作者拉斯玛森和贝特( Eric Rasmussen & Jonathan Bate)也说到:当我们赞扬差异时,莎士比亚的第一批观众则喜欢相似性——一部作品好,不是因为它是“原创”,而是因为它类似于一部令人敬佩的经典典范。

就此,我们重返余德耀美术馆现场,重新思考这个不那么“原创”的展览时,或许就不会对卡特兰的声明感到如此讶异了,也更能体会他在澎湃的专访中说到:“有个哲学家曾经告诉我,制度应该随着人的变化而变化”意味着什么。但受过中国文化影响的观者,似乎要在其中感受到某种吊诡的地方——卡特兰曾在采访中提到:“我有幸拜访到一些中国艺术家的工作室,他们在应对此话题时的轻松自在让我着迷。”而事实上, 艺术上的复制与模仿曾深深植根于中国传统文化,历代画家均有仿前人的传世之作(沈周、査士标、刘珏、八大山人等等皆留有仿倪云林的画作,类似的例子不胜枚举 ),中国艺术家自古就对这话题表现的轻松自在。卡特兰对于“复制”的正名在中国这块土壤上的意义,似乎显得略为牵强。

那么“The Artist is Present”从何意义上承担着原创性与“新”呢?卡特兰自身否认了这种可能,如圣经传道书所言:“已有的事后必再有,已行的事后必再行,日光之下并无新事。”原创性到底是什么?卡特兰认为,它在人类世界中根本不存在。格罗伊斯(Boris Groys)在其专著《论新》(On the New, 1992)中对此早有预见。但他并不对原创性进行否定,而是重新定义了“新”,借由克尔凯郭尔(Soren Kierkegaard)《哲学片段》(Philosophical Fragments, 1844)中所指出的:“新”并不等同于具有差异(这是无意义的差异,如一辆新车和一辆旧车的差异),而是意味着无差异的差异,或曰超越差异的差异,一种我们无法识别的差异。产生“新”的唯一前提,就是相似性。这将格罗伊斯带到了关于“现成物”的讨论,而杜尚的作品则呈现了这种超越差异的差异。这种差异借由博物馆(艺术空间或整个艺术体制)显现。


环形狩猎 Hunting Cycle @MadeIn Park







Artists: Chen Leng, Li Hanwei, Lu Pingyuan

Curator: Chen Jiaying

Exhibition period: 2018.10.21-12.31

“Hunting Cycle” presents the works of three young artists: the huge image by Chen Leng stands in the wild as if an evil creature falling from the sky, the fictitious Heavy Weapons Company by Li Hanwei base on the artist’s own cultural memories and the story Lu Pingyuan inspired by the local environment. These different paths interpret the current humanistic contexts and create an outsider circumstance jumping out of the bustle of the city through MadeIn Park’s unique geographical environment.

Hunting refers to a state of “catch and hunt”. The hunter can be a consumer, a creator or any character waiting for the prey to appear. In this exhibition, the prey becomes industrial output, traditional culture, imagination, and even artists themselves. The process by which the hunter captures the prey is also controlled by the imaginary “prey”. Such a two-way relationship may stem from the reflexivity of technology/tools. The exhibition will present a complex and rich hunting relationship through images, texts, installations and such a surrounding environment.





按:本文发表于 artforum 艺术论坛,感谢张涵露专业的编辑,让文章顺畅不少。

外滩美术馆的四楼除了灯光操作台与地上的标识线外,净无一物。观众正对着的门被两位身穿白雪公主戏服的人打开,艾萨·霍克森(Eisa Jocson)和她的搭档就这样安静的出场了。开始是全无表情的一系列动作模仿,让人想到奥利弗·拉瑞克(Oliver Laric)讨论拟像、再现和流行文化的作品《版本》(Versions, 2009-12),在其中他对两个卡通人物进行动作分析,相似却又略微不同。霍克森通常习惯一个人表演,而这场演出她选择了和搭档合作,互为副本,在舞台上,在观众的眼中,呈现出简单的比照。正是这种唯二的戏仿,呈现了重复性与差异,加深了他们作为一个模仿者的身份。






对于霍克森而言,皮肤是重要的意象,前不久在明当代美术馆的演出,以《皮肤》(Skin)为名,演绎了不同社会状况下的身体,肤色作为皮肤最重要的显征,折射着大量的历史背景与文化意义。被西班牙殖民超过三百年的菲律宾,遗留下来的对雪白肌肤的狂热,被全部投射在了白雪公主的角色之上。“I’m white, snow white”——童话故事中出现的一句无伤大雅的话,在《公主研究》中承担了决定性的作用。这样的身份建构,浸染在童话故事中,包裹着成人世界隐而不言的等级划分和文化暴力。霍克森采取了比保罗·麦卡锡(Paul McCarthy)更委婉的策略 ,她不把这个经典文本所扎根的现实粗暴的裸露出来,而是通过重复动作与情境的蒙太奇向我们细细解剖这个可恶的现实。

然而《公主研究》的意图还不仅于此,在一连串与观众的互动对话之后,表演者又回到重复机械的动作模仿,而这次他们的身体以持续加速的速度进入一种难以分清情绪的癫狂状态,定格扮演定格扮演定格扮演,与之前定格动作的 指涉不同,这样的状态更像是被摄影师跟拍,也像是青春期女孩不切实的幻想,这些过程向我们展示的是被凝视的身体姿态,它们面对的不是现场的观众,而是臆想的镜头;透过镜头倒影,他们似乎能看到自身肤色白皙的身体,同时又瞧见自己身为菲律宾女孩与生俱来的深色肤色。他们戏仿的欢笑声由矫揉造作到哭笑不得,似乎被一种自身承受不住的喜悦充盈着,最终,他们将身体甩向了地面,公主的裙摆不堪的掀起,盖住了精致的妆容,裸露出透着肤色的下体,乔装在顷刻间碎裂。




The Golden Age of Hollowness |虛空盛世 @Sotheby’s

“Its most distinctive characteristic is ‘hollowness’ – in other words, pure spectacle. And the spectacle, to recall Guy Debord’s classic formulation, is ‘capital accumulated to the point where it becomes image’. The ambiguous status of the supermarket – stripped of all its defining qualities – seems to indicate that consumption – whether of food or images – is essential, but also destroys” (Sine Bepler, ShanghART Supermarket, 2007). This was the footnote that Xu Zhen supplied for ShanghART Supermarket, the prototype of XUZHEN SUPERMARKET, when it was first exhibited at Art Basel Miami Beach in 2007. In the work, the artist recreated, in full scale, an archetypal Chinese convenience store, including a cashier, staff, and racks filled with merchandise packaging. The artist had purchased the merchandise from real-life convenience stores and meticulously recreated their presentation in his replica SUPERMARKET. Xu Zhen’s team painstakingly emptied their contents and resealed the packaging of each item, such that they could be sold at their original retail prices to visitors. This labour, as well as the sale of empty packaging, was part of the artwork.

British art critic Alastair Sooke has suggested that Xu Zhen’s SUPERMARKET is an even more direct parody of the model of the supermarket than Andy Warhol’s work. This led him to include Xu Zhen in the BBC Documentary Soupcans and Superstars: How Pop Art Changed the World as a foremost representative of Chinese Neo-Pop Art. The dialectic relationship between art and commercial merchandise is a major theme in Xu’s oeuvre, and his iconic SUPERMARKET encapsulates the epitome of the artist’s deconstruction of this longstanding relationship. The key here is the haunting “hollowness” that is offered to customers. Soon after the project’s inception, the Chinese art market peaked in around 2008 and subsequently withdrew into a quiet recession. Under this context, the “hollowness” in Xu Zhen’s Supermarket gains new significance, invoking a further metaphor for the short-lived dramas of globalisation. Retaining its original inquiries into the nature of representation, the manifestation of ownership, and the processes of production, circulation, and viewer reception, Xu Zhen’s Supermarket raises new and equally pressing questions: the price of prosperity, the life cycle of an economic bubble, the nature of value, the symbolism of consumerism, and the system of desire that undergirds them all.

In 1999, at the young age of 22, Xu Zhen was already sensitive to the idiosyncratic relationship between art and commerce. He was one of the main artists behind the ground-breaking Art for Sale exhibition at the People’s Square in Shanghai – a pioneering event that merits mention in art history. For the exhibition, the artists traded artwork in a space that combined the space of a supermarket and the space of an installation area, thereby putting into practice the philosophy of “applying the way of commerce onto the way of life” (Xu Zhen, Yang Zhenzhong, Flying Apple, “The ‘Supermarket’ Exhibition: Messages from Sponsors (selections)”, in Wu Hung, An Exhibition about Exhibitions: Displaying Contemporary Art in the 1990s, 2016, p. 206). Xu Zhen continued to develop precisely such a philosophy within his wide-ranging practice; for this reason, Xu was tagged as a leading proponent of Neo-Pop after his 2015 solo exhibition at the Long Museum in Shanghai.

In the exhibition, Xu Zhen presented a critical commentary on the issue of ambiguity over editioned artworks, showing all five editions of his works side by side. The gesture acted as testament to the radically interrogatory and boundary-breaking nature of Xu Zhen’s oeuvre – one which is far more complex and intricate than the original Pop movement. Xu Zhen’s unique brand of Pop encompasses not only rebellion and irony, as in the Pop art of the West; but also the ambiguity, the satirical dialectics and Zen-like wit of the East.

This was noted very early on by Hans- Ulrich Obrist, Artistic Director of the Serpentine Galleries in London, who wrote in the January 2007 issue of Artforum: “Clearly, Xu’s sociopolitical appraisals distance him from the herd of contemporary Chinese artists. And the breadth of his practice, in all its seeming spontaneity and surprising inflections and turns, only complicates the attempt to pin him down to any single position within his country’s art scene – or, indeed, within cultural production at large” (Hans-Ulrich Obrist, “First Take”, Artforum, January 2007). Such a complex global positioning, together with Xu’s consummate mastery of Eastern and Western thought, has resulted in a fluid oeuvre that knows no boundaries, whether regional or cultural. Xu’s adeptness in adapting and adopting cultural elements from around the world has led to a series of powerful acclaimed works, including Movement Field, Evolution, and Eternity.

Xu Zhen is not only one of China’s most controversial and representative artists, but also a curator and the founder of the MadeIn Company. In 1998, he co-founded the Biyi Art Center, the first independent non-profit art organisation in Shanghai. He won the Best Artist Award at the 2004 China Contemporary Art Awards (CCAA) and was the youngest Chinese artist at the time to participate in the 49th Venice Biennale in 2001. Precocious and self-possessed, Xu Zhen was recognised early for his talent and has always lived up to his name. In 2006, he and other Shanghai artists founded the online art community Art-Ba-Ba (, which continues to host the most active discussions on contemporary art in China. In 2009, when Chinese artists were criticised for delegating artistic production to studio assistants, Xu Zhen founded MadeIn Company as a response. Taking a step further than Warhol’s Factory in parodying the age of capitalism, MadeIn has attracted comparisons with Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, and Takashi Murakami. Defying criticism, Xu Zhen appointed himself CEO, and in 2013 developed his personal brand Xu Zhen®. In 2014, the company opened MadeIn Gallery, and in November 2016, the first Xu Zhen Store opened in Shanghai.

Such pathbreaking endeavours have earned Xu Zhen recognition as a Chinese artist with “chutzpah”, in the words of Barbara Pollack of the New York Times. With a rare blend of confidence and ambition, and always a finger on the zeitgeist, Xu Zhen marshals a host of complex emotions and complicated issues like self-consciousness, cultural identity, and local politics. Whether faced with controversy or praise, the wily trickster never allows himself to be pinned down by identities or definitions. Instead, in the moving and intelligent ambiguities of his art, he projects the brand of “Xu Zhen” and all the meanings it contains into the vast stratosphere of postmodernity. Yet, as we consider Xu Zhen in this way, we seem inevitably to fall into his trap. As he has said, “truth is sometimes a trap”. In XUZHEN SUPERMARKET , you are invited to consume and to purchase at market prices the hollow residue of merchandise. Manifesting the appearance of a lie, XUZHEN SUPERMARKET paradoxically reveals the true nature of contemporary society: we live in a Golden Age stuffed with hollowness, and we are all paying for it.

「最重要的還是「空無」:即一個最具純潔表象的景觀。 被抽 去實質內在的超市,曖昧不明,似乎暗示著這樣一個悖論,無 論是食品或圖像,消費至關重要,但亦是毀滅性的。」(Sine Bepler,《香格納超市》,2007)這是徐震在2007年首次在邁 阿密巴塞爾藝術博覽會上推出“超市”時提供的注腳。作品以1 :1的比例重現了一間典型的中國便利商店,收銀機、店員、商 品貨架以及擺放的滿滿當當的商品包裝。藝術家從日常超市中 購得這些商品,並通過精細的設計與模擬安排在貨架上,制作 團隊往往需要日以繼夜的工作,對貨品進行加工,留下包裝完 好的空殼,讓它們得以以正價的方式出售。而這所有的工作和 出售行為都構成了這件經典作品的一部分。

英國藝評家Alastair Sooke認為徐震的“超市”甚至比安迪·沃 霍爾對超市模型的戲仿更加直接。這致使他將徐震作為「中國新 波普」的代表人物納入BBC 紀錄片《波普藝術是如何改變世界 的?》(Soupcans and Superstars: How Pop Art Changed the World) 的劇本中。藝術與商品的辯証關系是徐震創作中的 一個重要主題,而在作品「超市」中,這個關系正是以藝術商 品的形式被打破了。其關鍵之處在於被出售的如幽靈般的「空 無」。「超市」創作於中國二〇〇八之盛年的前夕,而在十年 之后,世界局面正在悄然逆轉的當下,這一「空無」又將成為 某種寓言式的象征,攜帶著全球化短暫卻風起雲涌的歷史,在會 場上激發新的意義。它不僅裹挾著原本的問題:再現的性質、 所有權的形象,以及生產、流通與觀眾接受的過程;更提出了一 系列的質問:盛世的代價、泡沫的產生與破滅、價值的本位、 消費的象征意義與這背后的欲望機制。

早在一九九九年,時年二十二歲的徐震,就已經嗅到了藝術與買 賣的關系。他作為發起人之一,策動了上海廣場《超市展覽》展 的發生。在這個值得被寫入歷史的展覽中,藝術家們利用超市 空間與裝置空間結合、買賣藝術作品的方式展示了「以商業之 道還治其身」的哲學 (徐震、杨振中、飞苹果:“超市”展: 赞助商信息(节选),巫鸿,《关于展览的展览:90年代的实 验艺术展示》,2016,p.206)。而徐震的創作,在很長一段時 期裡延展了這樣的哲學。這也是為何,在二〇一五年上海龍美 術館的個展之后,徐震被推舉為新波普代表人物的原因。在這 個展覽中,他將藝術市場從來隱而不談的作品版本推至前台, 讓作品的五個版本以重復並列的方式展陳於美術館的現場。這樣 的激進做法揭示了一個事實,那就是徐震的藝術已經遠比波普 源起時的語境復雜且深遠的多。他的波普不僅包含著西方的挑 舋、嘲諷與反叛,更融合了東方的混沌、辯証與禪悟。

倫敦蛇形畫廊的策展人漢斯-烏利齊 布裡斯特(Hans-Ulrich Obrist)在很早就意識到這一點,在其二〇〇七年一月為Artforum雜志撰寫的文章中就曾說到:「很明顯的,徐震對社 會及政治的評價將他和中國當代藝術圈裡的藝術家們拉開了距 離。還有他作品裡的寬度,整體看上去完全是自發並充滿意外轉 變的,這隻會在將他歸類於中國藝術界或更大的文化范圍上某個 位置時增加了復雜性。」(Hans-Ulrich Obrist, “First Take”, Artforum, 2007年1月)這種外在定位的復雜性,與其自身對東 西方思想的圓融貫通,使徐震不受地域與文化身份的限制,將全 球范圍內的文化素材取為己用,這造就了他一系列具有震撼效果 的作品,包括「運動場」、「進化」與「永生」。

作為中國最具爭議與代表性的藝術家之一,徐震的身份不止於 此,他同時還是策展人與沒頂公司的創始人。一九九八年,徐震 作為聯合發起人創辦了上海第一家獨立的非營利機構比翼中心。 二〇〇四年獲得中國當代藝術獎(CCAA)「最佳藝術家」獎 項,並作為當時最年輕的中國藝術家參加了第49屆威尼斯雙年 展(2001)主題展。他無疑是一位早熟的藝術家,在很早就表 露其藝術的天賦,並在之后的實踐中始終沒有辜負這些盛名。 二〇〇六年,他與上海藝術家一起創辦了網絡藝術社區Art-Ba- Ba(,至今還是中國最活躍的探討、 評論當代藝術的平台。在二〇〇九年,當人們都在批評一些主 要的中國藝術家已經不親力親為,隻依靠工作室的助手完成作品 時,徐震創立了沒頂公司(MadeIn Company)作為回應。這 個公司相比沃霍爾工廠向資本時代又邁進了一步,也有人因此將 徐震與杰夫·昆斯、達明·赫斯特和村上隆比較。他徹底超越了 那些批評,任命自己為首席執行官。並在二〇一三年,推出自己 的品牌「徐震®」。二〇一四年,公司成立沒頂畫廊 。二〇一 六年十一月,首家「徐震專賣店」於上海開業 。

這一拓張之路應証了紐約時報賦予徐震的稱號「有膽識 (chutzpah)的中國藝術家」 (Barbara Pollack《徐震,有 胆识的中国艺术家》2014),其胸有成竹的野心不僅跳動著時 代的脈搏,也集結著如毛細血管般錯綜復雜的情緒、自我意識、 文化身份與地緣政治等命題。而在所有的爭議和美譽之中,這位 精明又擅長戲謔的藝術家似乎始終沒有被任何言辭限定,他深諳 舉重若輕的技巧,在所有的身份和定義中游刃有余,將「徐震」 這兩個字所能輻射的所有意涵網羅為后現代的星叢;這在其難以 被厘清的作品面貌中表現的淋漓盡致。 而當我們正這樣思考他時,似乎又不可避免的陷入了徐震的圈 套,正如他所言「真實有時會是一個陷阱」,在徐震超市中,你 將會被邀請消費,以市場價購買這些喪失了實際商品或使用價值 的空殼,這個看似空的超市,帶著偽裝性的面目,卻揭示了當下 社會的「真實」面貌,這是一個盛世,一個裝滿著虛空的盛世, 而人們正在為此買單。

重返记忆 |白立方二十五周年 @ArtShard

上世纪70年代,几乎所有兴起的艺术流派都开始对画廊空间群起攻之。布莱恩·奥多尔蒂(Brian O’Doherty)在19763月的《艺术论坛》上发表了文章《白立方之内》,首次从画廊空间出发,讨论20世纪艺术语境中发生的转变——一个现代主义画廊如何在虚假的中立状态下悄然影响着艺术作品与观看主体。随后的17年,艺术一直面临着不同的出路问题并亦步亦趋地消化着图像之转向。而白立方空间与生具备的无影、雪白、洁净、人造气质,也成为几乎所有画廊空间的特征,如影随形。即便是遭遇网络化,这些气质仍如同魅影般依附在类似 Contemporary Art DailyArt Viewer 这样的网站上。

1993年,当杰伊·乔普林(Jay Jopling)于伦敦创立白立方画廊时,毫不避讳的借用了这样一个词,这一神来之笔让白立方与那些以创始人姓名命名的画廊显得十分不同。而就在同年,阿瑟·C·丹托(Arthur C.Danto) 宣告了艺术史叙述的终结,后历史艺术的开始接续着的是乔普林意欲的蓬勃艺术市场。这家画廊裹挟着白立方空间与画廊的的双重原罪开始了它的扩张之路。

乔普林是一个将自身彻底卷入艺术与名流文化的画廊主,这样的作风与白立方画廊代理的艺术家有着异曲同工之处。他从80年代开始密切接触 YBA,与 Maia Norman 在家里举办众所周知的晚宴,并邀请达明·赫斯特 (Damien Hirst) 和马克·奎恩(Marc Quinn) YBA艺术家参加。这两位艺术家在后来也为白立方献上了赫赫有名的两次成交(赫斯特的大鲨鱼与奎恩的冷冻头)。艺术事件被屡次推向了新闻版面。

谁曾想到二十五年前,白立方首展的报导惨淡(仅 Time Out 一家),开幕当晚还收到派对举办场地的警告信(喝酒闹事)。画廊绵延四分之一个世纪的篇章,也是从这里开始逐渐走向黎明之际。在画廊展出赫斯特和奎恩并引人注目之后,开头也确实显得不足挂齿。2000年,白立方迁到伦敦东区的霍斯顿广场 (Hoxton Square)20069月梅森苑 (Mason’s Yard) 改造建成了1110平方米的独立画廊空间。201110月,就在伦敦 Frize 艺博会开幕期间,白立方对外开放了当时欧洲最大的画廊空间,位于伦敦南边的柏孟塞(Bermondsey),展示面积为5440平方米。次年 3月,白立方(香港)亮相,展厅设立于香港中环干诺道50号,面积 550 平方米。



然而,这并未改变白立方空间试图掌控未来的机制属性。二十五周年纪念展所不在话下的,是画廊长期屹立不倒并持续开拓的历史,在金融危机与欧洲中心主义以资本的形式被稀释之后,许多小型画廊被迫关闭,白立方在市场如此起伏不定的大环境之下,似乎显得毫发无伤。正如白立方亚洲区总监周晓雯(Laura Zhou)女士所言,这个展览以及别有用心的年轻艺术家(陈轴)个展,意喻着一个暂告段落的历史,一个新的起点。这在新成立六年的香港空间内释放着不同寻常的意义,其中夹杂着英国画廊与香港市场的历史性渊源、中国当代艺术与西方话语权的纠葛、全球主义与艺术世界的亲疏关系等等。在所有局势都如此松动混乱的当下,作为陈词的温故而知新确乎能触发一种思想状态,让我们重返白立方或者当代艺术这一段不长不短的历史。

Lost Child |道具给你,故事献给灵魂 @ArtBook

Lu Pingyuan creates stories. He has always been drawn to stories about artists, to cultural phenomena that have stories at their foundations,  and, especially, to stories that involve the overlap of art with occurrences of the weirdest and most wonderful kind. Lu Pingyuan sees creativity as a kind of magic power from the world of fantasy stories. And to him, the animated film Toy Story is the epitome of this fantasy world. When the little boy in Toy Story turns his back, all of his toys come to life and live out stories of their own. Now, on the twentieth anniversary of Toy Story, it is only natural that Lu Pingyuan would fix his gaze on this three-dimensional classic animated film in the making of his own solo exhibition, “Growing Pains” (which was the Chinese title, the English title being “HOME ALONe”): a mixed-media show that brings together a foundation of story and individual experience.

Stories are a time-honored means of evoking the realm of the spirit. Lu Pingyuan is unique among artists who use fiction in their creative practices because for him the story is not a method but rather the central element of his work. For Lu Pingyuan story is like a ritual prop; it exists purely for the sake of being the ceremonial object (the story itself). And the animation is one of the most important means of creating stories. In his discussion of “animism”—the soul nature of all things animate and inanimate—Anselm Franke begins with the example of cartoons; animation, now a form of cultural production to which we are accustomed in contemporary life, is, in fact, the benefactor of spiritual traditions. It confronts the question of how we when faced with a motionless expression, can give it life through a combination of human imagination and skill. Toy Story is unique not only in the way in which it ensouls two-dimensional images but also in the fact that it endows everyday, inanimate toys with life. These are the very preconditions on which the entire Toy Story series rests.

Look! I’m Picasso! comes from a line spoken by Toy Story’s Mr. Potato Head, who at one point moves his nose and eyes to one side of his face and exclaims to another toy, “Look! I’m Picasso!” Though this moment in the film was likely just an off-hand joke,  it sparked a permanent association in Lu Pingyuan’s mind between Mr. Potato Head and Picasso. When Lu Pingyuan first saw a Picasso painting as a little kid, he was certain it had to have been made by a child. Now an adult artist himself, Lu Pingyuan sees Mr. Potato Head, a simple toy, as a work of cubist sculpture. It is in the space between these two inverted definitions of art that Lu Pingyuan has produced this series of works. As if playing a children’s game, he connects the dots between subtle differences of understanding with regard to art, story, and toys alike.

home alone

“Growing Pains” was an American television sitcom that hit a wave of popularity in mainland China between 1990 and 1994. Lu Pingyuan spent every summer vacation with this sitcom between the ages of six and ten. The model the show presence of a middle-class American family created a far-away imaginary for Lu Pingyuan and other children born in the eighties, who always lived somewhere in the comparison between “Growing Pains” life and the realities of life in China. Taking this comparative discrepancy as his starting point, Lu Pingyuan transforms it into art, borrowing images he first saw as a child on TV in his own video transmissions. There is an obvious relationship between this work and pop art, but unlike pop in its original context, Lu Pingyuan is not simply imitating the visual styles of pop culture, nor is he making any value judgments with regard to them. This shift arises out of the confusion the current landscape causes with regard to notions of subject and object. Nowadays, people are no longer able to distinguish—as people could at the end of the twentieth century—the difference between an advertisement and personal mythology. One might argue that we are now penetrated to the marrow of our bones by this cultural landscape, whether passively or actively. And it is precisely the process of mutual alienation between culture and personal reality that results in the autobiographical nature of Lu Pingyuan’s work. As he utilizes the landscape, the truth of him begins to appear: the television screen shining his own image back at him like a black mirror.

The landscape-fiction of culture is hard to avoid, perhaps, but we must remain aware of the forces that push it forward. In this series of creations, Lu Pingyuan buries the hidden clues in every corner, leaving them for the audience to unearth. The “Growing Pains” (“HOME ALONe”) room, reminiscent of Van Gogh’s Bedroom in Arles, is mostly dedicated to the little boy from Toy Story but is also where the “Monsters Inc” company recharges its electric energy. Mr. Potato Head claims to be Picasso, Thomas the Tank Engine seems to have a constantly fixed expression on his face, and Sid, the villain in Toy Story, has a rug in his room that looks like it came out of The Shining

In the face of all of these seemingly incidental interconnections, Lu Pingyuan not only plays the role of observer, collecting different cultural materials; he also and even more so plays the role of gamer. All of these movie quotes, classic expressions of cartoon characters, and pieces of global-warming-induced melting chocolate represent “the essential, inherent, indispensable” cultural components of the game. Lu Pingyuan is like one of Guy Debord’s “Lost Children.”[1] Debord wrote that “The ever-changing playing field of this new world and the freely chosen variations in the rules of the game will regenerate a diversity of local scenes that are independent without being insular.”[2]

And Lu Pingyuan’s particular game is using stories to interpret art.


[1] “Like lost children, we live our unfinished adventures.” (full quote, Guy Debord)

[2]  Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord. Thesis 178, 1967


Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 5.23.52 PM



故事是陆平原作品的核心,无论是单纯文本展示的故事系列,或其数量庞大的河原温,今天系列,还是其他的绘画、录像与装置,都无一不围绕着这样的修辞展开。陆平原也曾在访谈中提到,希望所有的装置、绘画、舞台等等物品,都是故事的一个底座,只作为辅助欣赏故事而存在。这种创作方式在 Damien Hirst 的展览《难以置信的深海宝藏》(Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable, 2017)或是  Simon Fujiwara 的许多作品中可以找到参照。前者借历史素材虚构了一艘海底沉船,并将从中打捞而来的物件奉为古物作为作品展示;后者则是将个体经验与历史事件杂糅,通过场景还原与文献式的展陈陈述一个从自我角度出发的事件。

如此借故事虚构作品背景的艺术形式并不是巧合,而是后真相 (post-truth) 时代的产物。其始作俑者,无疑是媒介。二十世纪末的电视节目与二十一世纪初的网络传播,是面向全世界的。而这些媒介最为擅长的文化输出是带着碎片化、不加区分的超链接形态。Neil Postman 在其预言式的著作《娱乐至死》 (1985) 里就曾提到电视新闻节目中主持人如何用现在” (Now…This) 的句式将一个个新闻切断连贯性,以让观众习惯灾难性事件与娱乐新闻或是天气播报之间的无缝拼接。网络显然使一切变本加厉。当人们无法再严肃认真地接受任何一个事件时,对于真实性的需求也就微乎其微。2016年的美国总统选举与英国去留欧盟公投事件致使《牛津英语词典》宣布将后真相作为年度词汇,这个词表现了公众对雄辩胜于事实的接受,对谎言的轻信,与对偏见的固执信任。这也揭示了媒介的胜利,人们被花哨、令人莫名兴奋的宣传媒介剥夺了思考。后真相时代无疑是 Aldous Huxley 预言 (《美丽新世界》Brave New World, 1932) 的应验。

在艺术创作里,艺术家则是带着一种狂欢式的姿态迎接这样的时代,就如同 Hito Steyerl 为坏图像辩护一般。他们靠揭发与利用媒介带来的转变,作为表达的修辞与解放权利的工具;将原本就松动的外部世界搅乱,捏造出符合自身叙事的事件。在这个展览中,这样的姿态在融化的巧克力与全球变暖、土豆先生与毕加索的荒诞链接中可以被窥见。同时,如此编造故事的方式也在潜意识深处显露出艺术家对真实的存疑与挑逗。作品的目的不再是探究真相是什么(如传统艺术所追求的),而是个体所理解的事实是如何。




成长的烦恼用到最多的素材——动画片,也是 Anselm Franke 论述万物有灵时借以展开讨论的引子。这一当代文化生产中习以为常的形式,得益于人类古老的赋灵传统。面对静止的表情,如何在人工与想象力的作用下,为其赋予生命。而展览中被指涉最多的动画片《玩具总动员》 (Toy Story, 1995至今),在这一方面显示了其独特性。它首先实现了对图像的基本赋灵,让人们相信这些二维的人物具备性格、精神或是气质等等真实人物的属性;而更进一步的是,它也完成了对日常玩具的赋灵,故事片的主角就是那些被摆在货架上供人购买的玩具,这些曾经被看作死物的玩具在动画片中成为一个个活神活现的角色。这个设定为展览中的各个作品提供了前提,样板房间背后的录像拍摄了那些真实生活中玩具具有生命的时刻,刻意重复的镜头是为了夯实事件的真实性,就像是上帝在人群中需要显现神迹一样,艺术家借此设法使观众成为有灵玩具的信徒。

而展览的另一个重要脚本 HOME ALONe (1990-2012),被中文翻译为小鬼当家,其中的小鬼既指小孩,也可以理解为独自留守在家的鬼魂;这是陆平原了然于心的双关,或者说,他有意使用了翻译产生的歧义,为展览丰富隐喻。对鬼魂的认知,来自人对空间的赋灵,这意味着展厅空间也被调用为其故事的道具。通过两个故事脚本的并置,展览所影射的不仅是艺术家对象征某种理想主义的美国文化的怀旧,更包含了自身对故事及其赋灵的整套实施结构;借此,陆平原完成了对整个展览的赋灵,并将展示转化成为了一次次献给故事的仪式。


成长的烦恼的另一个主要素材来源于同名美剧《成长的烦恼》(Growing Pains)。这部美剧于1990年至1994年间在大陆播出,与艺术家共同度过了六岁到十岁的小学暑假,这也基本上是八十年代孩子的共同童年回忆。有趣的是,Growing Pains 在医学领域表示的是成长过程中身体确实出现的痛楚。这部风靡一时的美剧,将成长过程中遇到的类似毒品、自杀、同龄压力与酒精等等棘手问题进行了幽默的演绎。

从发展心理学的角度而言,儿童在此时(7-10岁)正处于确立自身与思考未来的阶段 。在《成长的烦恼》中,美式中产阶级家庭的模式,和家庭成员之间的角色分配与互动,都为艺术家与其代表的一代人塑造了遥远的样本,而他们始终生活在这类美式家庭范本与中国现实环境的显著落差中。陆平原将成长的烦恼作为展览的题目,正是将此视作其成长的写照。

他将这样的纠葛——荧幕世界与真实生活所造成的不相容,进行了艺术家式的消化。这一点,和 Bunny Rogers (b.1990) 利用展览转化创伤的方式极为相似,Rogers 在惠特尼美术馆举办的个展,正是为其 8 岁时发生的哥伦拜恩校园事件 Columbine High School massacre)祭奠,其之前的两个展览哥伦拜恩图书馆2014)与哥伦拜恩咖啡馆2016)也直接借用枪击事件的两个集中点作为展览的集中呈现。他们的创作都来源于成长过程中相似阶段的经历。

二者也都不同程度地借用屏幕背后的形象进行视像上的传达。对这些文化的再创作精神源自波普艺术,不同于波普最早出发的语境,这些艺术家实际表现出的是一种对流行文化的重新认识,一种打通所有文化类型、历史阶段、地域区隔和民族精神的普遍文化传播。这在 Jordan WolfsonOliver LaricRachel Maclean 等等艺术家身上都有所体现,而我们也可以在难以置信的深海宝藏展览中获悉 Damien Hirst 对大文化现状的理解,在那些被其视作古物的深海宝藏中,你可以看到米老鼠和高飞等迪士尼角色与看起来十分可信的古董两相混淆。

他们采用流行文化元素的方式也不再像波普艺术那样:简单模仿传媒的视觉风格,或是对这一风格所代表的文化类型做出明显的价值判断。这种方式的转变来源于景观造成的主客体混淆,我们已经不再能够像二十世纪末的人那样区分广告与自我神话之间的差别了。当 Amalia Ulman 在作品《卓越与完美》(Excellence & Perfections, 2014)中将自身通过 Instagram 塑造成一个拥有大量粉丝关注的虚构人物时,她所指涉的正是景观与自我神话混淆的现状。可以说,我们都在主动或被动地将景观深入骨髓,而艺术家在自我产出的景观中也在寻找凝视 (gaze) 的潜在对象。


大文化的景观化或许是难以避免的,但我们或许仍需知晓其中裹挟的文化动力;在这个展览中,这成为某种留待被观众解码的线索,埋伏在空间中。样板式的房间既是《玩具总动员》中人类男孩的房间、也是怪兽电力公司” (Monsters, Inc) 用于惊吓小孩发电的房间,甚至和梵高在阿尔的卧室有几分相似。土豆先生将五官胡乱一整便自称作毕加索、 Thomas 脸上贴纸的形象像是被封印了的表情、而房间地毯的纹样则来自电影《闪灵》(同时也出现在《玩具总动员》中反派角色 Sid 的房间中)。

面对这些看似巧合的联系,陆平原不仅承担了观察者的角色,对不同地域、阶级、信仰的文化素材进行收集,并采纳进作品中;他更多的扮演了一个游戏者的身份,他曾戏称这次展览可能是有史以来最多的展览;无论是否如此,这至少暗示了他在其创作中的角色与视角,那些电影台词、动画角色的经典表情与因为全球变暖而融化的巧克力,本身就揭示了文化本质的、固有的、不可或缺的游戏成分;而除此之外,陆平原更像是 Guy Debord 曾在《景观社会》 (The society of Spectacle) 中形容的迷失的儿童一般,按照自己游戏时的情形将完全不同的材料置入到一种往往使人愕然的全新组合里。而陆平原的游戏,就是他用故事演绎的艺术。

徐震®:异形 | XU ZHEN®: ALIEN @Shanghart Gallery







“Art is alien.” (XU ZHEN®)

ShanghART Gallery is pleased to present XU ZHEN®’s solo exhibition: “Alien” in May 2018. This exhibition will present the large-scale installations XU ZHEN® made especially for the ShanghART Gallery space, along with his recent paintings and sculptures. This exhibition extends XU ZHEN®’s persistent interest in subjects such as transforming, iterating and evolving the civilisation within the context of post-globalisation. As “Alien” is constructing an impression of the thrilling and the unknown, this exhibition will inspire the viewers’ imagination about future and primitivity.

As the founder of XU ZHEN®, Xu Zhen has made a career in art for twenty years since 1998. Initially expressing the intimacy and emotion of individuals, then shifting to social issues, Xu Zhen is recently focusing on the difference and creativity among human beings. While his artistic strategies have undergone several changes, it is always moving towards the dynamics of culture. XU ZHEN®’s art has reached issues such as how art deals with the passage of time, and how to create new possibilities while discovering new experience. The three main themes in globalisation, “trade and capital”, “conflict and war”, “evolution and variation” are gradually becoming sharp focused in Xu Zhen’s works. Accordingly, the collision among three topics results in the figures of “extreme alienation” and “super variant” in his works. For Xu Zhen, “Alien” is not only a representation of the real world, but also an allegory of the future community.

This exhibition will truly reflect the core of Xu Zhen’s art through exhibiting how he deals with cultural subjects and their contexts, as well as the new associations and plans he came up with under these circumstances. As the most representative art brand of the period, XU ZHEN® is running the one and only MadeIn Company. Established after the economic crisis in 2008, MadeIn Company is representing a kind of possibility by internalising current circumstances into ideas, and speeding up the art making process in the form of a company, in response to the “symptom of globalisaiton”.

The two pieces of sculptures, Alien 1 and Alien 2, can be traced back to the “Eternity” series of 2013, which combines classical figures of Eastern and Western cultures in a conflicting and integrating way. The aesthetic symbols of eternity and spirituality from the East and West has developed through rich metaphors of colonial history, international configurations, and the future of globalisation in the process of collision. Alien 2 in the same vein of Eternity-(Buddha in Nirvana) juxtaposes two sculpture figures: an “hermaphrodite” from Greek mythology and a servant figure from the Han Dynasty. Moreover, Alien 1 is decoding and recombining the cultural elements to its extreme by recolouring those sculptures, thus the ‘aliens’ and the terrifying power therein are released intensely. By these means XU ZHEN® created a spiritually interactive installation, directing the viewers to a sensitive historic moment; the pressure brought on by those ideological symbols will situate the viewers in conditions that force them to make a choice and a statement. The other section of the exhibition includes several paintings used by XU ZHEN® as installing elements. The “Evolution” series which started in 2007 combines the cultural elements from Dunhuang Mogao Cave paintings and African masks. By painting the ancient civilisation and primitivity still remaining in modern society on the canvas at the same time, this series of paintings create the beauty of harmonious blending across time. The “Fortune” series started from the same period of the “Evolution” series; these painting series, which reconstructs the Neolithic ceremonial jades, opens a path for XU ZHEN® towards abstract expressionism.

As “Civilisation Iteration” (solo exhibition in 2017) declares, XU ZHEN® is fulfilling his visions in a progress of repeated feedback. The corporate-typed art production will finally result in a leak in the reality – the unknown condition of getting away from logic and language. The aliens hidden in the exhibition will present infinite possibilities.

问答 | Q&A


  1. 你认为政治正确是一个问题吗?


  1. 此次展览的题目为“异形”的用意何在?因为很自然让人联想到电影《异形》,是否和这部电影有关?若是有,请说说对你而言这部电影有什么特殊的意义与价值?


  1. 上一个个展是2017年在巴黎贝浩登的“文明迭代”,请问这两个展览之间是否有前后关系?Your last exhibition is the “Civilization Iteration” at Perrotin Paris in 2017. Is there any connection between the two exhibitions?

肯定有关系,总的来说都是徐震®关于全球化下对文明改造、变异和进化相关的主题。Yes, of course. Generally, both of them are Xu Zhen®’s themes about transforming, iterating and evolving the civilisation within the context of globalisation.

  1. 这一次的作品都是最新创作,是否可以解释一下这些新作触及的时代语境?可以分别介绍一下吗?或者重点介绍一下与展览同名的两件作品:《异形1》和《异形2》。




  1. 你的作品几乎很少指涉过十分明确的现实对象,但这次一反常态的将一整个空间置换为具体的场景,这个素材对你而言有什么特殊性?是因为现实事件触发了你对这个对象的兴趣?



  1. “权力”,是我们日常生活中经常遇到的一个概念,我们对它既有所忌惮又渴望垂涎。你怎么理解权力?”Authority” is a common concept in our daily life. We have both fear and desire for it. How do you think of the “authority”?

权力是生态。哪里有权力哪里就有斗争,哪里有斗争哪里就产生可能性。Authority is ecology. Where there is the power there is the struggle. Where there is the struggle there is the possibility.

  1. 此展览中的“进化”系列结合了非洲面具与敦煌壁画的元素,你将此定位为“绘画装置”,可以解释一下这一界定吗?绘画史上通常将这种对非洲文化的援引指向“原始主义”,而迈克尔·莱杰在对纽约画派的诠释中,曾指出“原始主义”也是一种意识形态,人们对于“原始社会”的理解受到殖民主义、国家主义、帝国主义、种族主义和“第三世界”等现代社会机制的影响,你认同这样的说法吗?这种流动的“原始性”是否同样在你的作品中起作用?



  1. “运气(绿环)”呈现出你久未涉足的抽象画面,但来源却是华人再熟悉不过的日常物件“玉环”,在这里抽象与具象的转换关系是你想表达的吗?玉环的符号性和与之附带的意识形态在作品中是如何被再译与重构的?


  1. 你的关注点从艺术&商业—后波普—后全球化—文明进程,再到这次的“异形”,你觉得你的创作线索在逐渐触及一个什么样的问题,这些创作方向的转变是怎样一步步带你进入这个问题的?Your focus is from Art & Commerce to post Pop, to post globalisation, to civilization, and then to “Alien”. What kind of questions do you think your creative clues are referring to, how do these changes in direction of creation take you into it step by step?

从早期的反映现实到近期的创造现实,很明显我们的创作不断在表达一个理念,即“可能性”。在不同时代、困境和问题下的可能性。艺术充满未知。From initially we reflect the reality, to recently we create the reality, obviously, we are constantly expressing one idea – the possibility when facing different era, dilemma and problems. Art is full of the unknown.

  1. 你的作品创作一直在深入和推进,但与此同时徐震品牌和没顶公司的运作也一直并行不悖,在你看来,他们之间有互相关系和影响吗?


  1. 同那些关注点较为前后一致的艺术家相比,你的关切似乎一直在加速更新,这样的状态是这个时代和文化环境导致的吗?Comparing to those artists who keep focusing on the similar subjects, your concerns seem to update acceleratedly. Does time and the cultural environment lead to your current situation?

我们应该是这个时代最具代表性的艺术现象之一。公司化运营,想法丰富、高产、高效、形式多元、跨界创作等等这些都在我们这里得到了充分的体现。我认为当代艺术需要不断进化出新的方式方法来应对多元、复杂和无法定义的现实。今天精英主义和政治正确越来越盛行且越来越容易被利用,当代艺术会不断有新的任务和激情的。We should be one of the most representational art phenomenons in this era: corporate operation, rich thoughts, high output and efficiency, multiple forms, crossover creation etc.; these are all included in what we do. In my opinion, contemporary art should keep working out the new ways to deal with the diverse, complex and indefinable reality. Today the elitism and political correctness is prevailing and much easier to be made use of, so contemporary art would have more missions and passion.

  1. 你认为当下这个世界正在发生什么?你怎么理解这样的动向?What do you think is happening in this world? How do you think of this trend?

一切走向不确定性,什么似乎都可以被改变,世界在走向一个新的面貌。我们当然是要尽力去加速这种现状。Everything is moving towards uncertainty. It seems like everything can be changed, then the world is becoming a brand new one. Certainly what we should do is to accelerate that.












展览“Play”将不仅呈现三位艺术家不同的游戏机制,也暗示了一种后真相时代,个体面对景观与真实性不断流变的时代所作出的应对与创造。展览空间成为了艺术家实施戏法的场所,诚如伽达默尔(Hans-Georg Gadamer)所言:游戏,即是艺术作品本身的存在方式。而在这个展览中,游戏的概念不仅渗透在艺术家的创作形式之中,也将深入观者观看作品的氛围与过程中。

exhibition view 2

Man plays only, where he in the full meaning of the word is man,

and he is only there fully man, where he plays.

——Friedrich Schiller

MadeIn Gallery is pleased to present “Play” an exhibition showcasing new paintings and sculptures by Lu Pingyuan, Shang Liang and Zhao Yao. In this exhibition, three artists’ works commonly share a spirit of lightness and playfulness, bringing aesthetics, concepts and art into the field of game. As a method for the observation of art, game arises in the gallery space.

Game in Lu’s series of works “Look! I’m Picasso!” takes the form of Russian nesting doll: a story – Mr. Potato Head – visuals from Pixar Animation Studios – Picasso – Cubism – Children’s coloring books, or the other way round. Each layer of symbols reveals unique characteristics on the presentation of the work. In Zhao’s paintings game appears as an attempt to vacuum the meaning. The artist selects puzzles from mind games and presents them through a time-consuming process, just as he lifted a 10,000 square meter installation to a snowy summit of an altitude of 5000 meters and placed it in the sun. All the performance rules and artwork meaning are formulated and adjusted by the artist. Zhao’s trick is a game that repeatedly permutes truth and falsehood (or the presence and absence of meaning). At last, Shang’s game consists of developing as a creation subject her imagination on supernatural force. Muscular bodies, references to Ernest Hemingway, and sculptures with strength characteristics all constitute her empathy towards the object of the game, process of which reflects the artist’s self.

“Play” not only shows these three artists’ different game methods, it also suggests a post-truth era, in which individuals face the constant adaptation and creation of a time where landscape and authenticity ever-change. The exhibition space becomes the venue where artists perform their tricks, as Hans-Georg Gadamer put it: game is “the mode of being of the work of art”. In this exhibition, the notion of game intervenes into the artist’s creative form and further the process and context in which viewers observe the works.