文章管理后台

Y: Compared to your previous works, the pieces exhibited at Mocube Gallery show some noticeable shifts. Earlier, your creations seemed to focus more on the psychological effects triggered by painterly qualities and color intensity, and the objects in your works often featured flattened and symbolic characteristics. However, one of the most prominent changes in your recent works is the introduction of specific forms, with each piece constructing complex spatial relationships around these forms. Is this shift intentional or unconscious?

H: In this series, I deliberately abandoned the shallow treatment of my earlier works and introduced symbolic forms with mythological connotations. However, I did not intend to tell any specific fables. Instead, I aimed to embed these animal and plant forms into a structure that functions as a "visual machine." By constructing spatial relationships where forms interconnect and overlap, these specific images go beyond mere symbols in the composition. Now, I am more fascinated by how to make these forms stand "independently" within the space while simultaneously acting as part of a greater whole. This "visual machine" of painting allows viewers to vaguely sense an underlying order driving the visual experience when faced with seemingly independent yet interconnected forms. This order is not about causality but the attraction, repulsion, integration, and interweaving between forms. In short, this shift is intentional—I wanted to explore the visual power that arises when perceptual forms meet rational, almost mechanical spatial arrangements. For me, this is a transition from intuition to systematic expression. I hope this process can evoke an exhilarating effect. The forms are merely visual cues; the logic of their assembly, which operates with the precision of a finely tuned instrument, is what I truly hope resonates with viewers.

Y: You have mentioned considering theatricality in your work. Theatricality typically implies setting plots, arranging narratives, and stage choreography. Although the forms in your works exhibit strong dynamic relationships, the overall impression carries a constant classical undertone. Moreover, these paintings do not seem to be guided by narrative and even appear void of plot. In what sense do you understand this theatricality?

H: I do not rely on narrative to drive my creations. For me, "plot" is a spatial mechanism. Although there is a dynamic system within the composition, I attempt to eliminate specific narration, striving for this dynamic system to present an overall sense of eternal tranquility. This tranquility does not stem from nostalgia but from a question I have long been concerned with: the critical state between the coldness of technical images and the handmade nature of painting. I use theatrical stage choreography to simulate a cold, machine-like perspective, such as technical monitoring or scanning. However, this machine perspective also differs from the machine interfaces we are familiar with (it is worth mentioning that monitoring interfaces also presuppose a certain aesthetic framing, subject to a kind of theatricality). I believe that challenging habitual visual expectations can allow complex symbolic relationships to directly impact psychological mechanisms. The "classical undertone" you mentioned might be related to my composition design. In works like "Rome-Landscape," I indeed drew inspiration from the stable geometric structures of classical painting, but I also used various layers to dissolve and scatter this structure. The tension between stillness and movement may also be a component of theatricality. In my view, theatricality ultimately points to a "visual ritual," always leading to deep experiences beyond narrative.

Y: Many works seem to unfold within a deep, space-like setting. Is there a particular intention behind choosing this kind of "stage backdrop"?

H: This deep, space-like backdrop can be seen as an "exosphere"—it isolates real-world scenes while not being entirely an abstract void. I wanted to construct this weightless theater in my works because I aimed to strip away specific sociological contexts or cultural metaphors. Therefore, this space is not a sci-fi setting for me but a vacuum zone within a system.

Y: In this series, the intensity and stimulation of colors have significantly diminished, and large areas of black appear in many compositions. I recall that you once seemed resistant to using black.

H: Reducing intensity is about finding the threshold of perception. In the past, I focused on high-intensity color stimulation, but now I am more inclined to explore the critical point between visual comfort and numbness. Diminishing the stimulation of color relationships and introducing large areas of black are meant to lower the "visual noise" in the composition. When color intensity is reduced, the viewer's attention shifts from the initial sensory impact to the dynamic relationships and visual mechanisms within the work. The use of color is no longer to serve vision but to mobilize it.

Y: The amorphous black substances in your works remind me of what Freud referred to as the "death drive" (Todestrieb), which tends toward an inorganic state. Do these substances serve as some kind of dangerous or destructive negative element in your theater?

H: "Negative elements" are necessary because they are also productive. I want the forms in my works to possess a kind of "non-biological beauty." This beauty essentially involves the removal of life's warmth. The amorphous black substances in the compositions can indeed be seen as a kind of danger, like an entropic process constantly threatening specific entities, aiming to achieve absolute tranquility. Although they hint at a destructive tendency, they also provide an extremely pure background. It is precisely because of this backdrop that the animal and plant forms can be examined like high-contrast samples in a laboratory. Of course, this "negation" is not a nihilistic abandonment. I aim to maintain and utilize this "crisis" to counteract the tendency of painting to slide toward lyricism.

Y: This reminds me of Groys' discussion of beauty, where he argues that beauty is precisely transhuman because both organic and inorganic entities—whether viruses or the universe—can share the predicate "beauty." Returning to the exhibition's theme, "Paragranum" (Miracle Medical Grain). You first learned about Paracelsus' work of the same name through reading Agamben. Why were you so drawn to this Renaissance medical treatise?

H: In "Paragranum," Paracelsus emphasized that medicine must be rooted in philosophy, astronomy, alchemy, and a holistic understanding of the body-world relationship. This medical perspective is not about technical manipulation but a method of harmonizing with the cosmos as a whole. This aligns with my motivation to integrate technical images, symbolic connotations, and perceptual experiences in painting: How can we reclaim images from mechanical visual stimuli and allow them to function again as experiences in the viewer's body? In this regard, Agamben's discussion has been enlightening. In interpreting Paracelsus, Agamben repeatedly emphasizes a core issue: the signature relationship between things and language. He argues that language is a reproduction of the world, an operation that solidifies the flow of life force. Art can return us to a pre-linguistic state of openness. There are indeed many animal and plant forms in my paintings, but they first involve a heterogeneous transformation of perception. When we encounter states beyond our cognition, we always try to capture them with language, but this process itself is a projection of subjectivity. Therefore, the grafted and mutated forms in my works are primarily a measure to dissolve presuppositions. Borrowing the concept of "Paragranum," I hope that images can directly act on the human perceptual system, tearing open gaps in existing cognitive structures and allowing a heterogeneous vitality to seep in.

Y: The root "granum" in "Paragranum" means grain, pill, or foundation, while the prefix "Para" literally means "beyond" or "outside of." Paracelsus' medical thought carries strong theological undertones; however, in your works, the transcendent "miracle" does not seem to come from God's preordained prescription but is rooted in the hidden instincts of nature. To me, the various animal forms in the compositions seem to suggest some kind of natural healing instinct. Could you elaborate on the animal imagery in these works?

H: In Paracelsus' view, "Para-" indeed points to a transcendence within a theological order: the foundation of medicine is not merely material drugs but the correspondence between God, the cosmos, and natural laws. However, in my work, this "transcendence" is redirected—it no longer points to a sacred external order but to an endogenous instinct rooted in life itself. I repeatedly use animal forms precisely because they possess the most primitive survival instincts and resilience, carrying a pre-cultural intensity of life. If, in the context of "Paragranum," "granum" represents the most basic, indivisible unit of medicinal potency, then animal forms in my work are the most active components of this foundation. They do not rely on language, ethics, or symbolic systems but survive through breathing, expansion, and movement. This unmediated way of existence is itself a "miracle"—it requires no prescription but explores unexpected connections in extreme environments, reflecting life's potential to transcend established frameworks. In my compositions, animal forms are often assembled into complex image machines, where their "biological warmth" and the "coldness of technical images" clash and interact. In a sense, these animals act like sensors—they pause, endure, escape, and thus modulate our posture and perception. When technical images continually weaken sensory thresholds and empty experience of its content, this instinct rooted in nature, even carrying connotations of escape and defense, becomes the most reliable anchor.

Accretions: The Art of Wang Jieyin

艺术家 / Artist：王劼音 Wang Jieyin

学术主持 / Academic Moderator：皮道坚 Pi Daojian

策展人 / Curator：方志凌 Fang Zhiling

展期 / Duration：2025.11.22 (Sat) – 2026.02.08 (Sun)

地点 / Venue: 亚洲艺术中心（北京）

Asia Art Center (Beijing)

北京市朝阳区酒仙桥路2号大山子798艺术区（周一休馆）

Dashanzi 798 Art District, No.2, Jiuxianqiao Rd., Chaoyang District, Beijing

王劼音，1941年生于上海，1956年考入中央美术学院华东分院附中，1966年毕业于上海美术专科学校，1977年任教于上海市美术学校，1986年赴维也纳应用艺术大学及维也纳美术学院访问。现为上海市美术家协会顾问、上海大学美术学院教授，工作生活于上海。

重要个展：“积楮：王劼音作品展”（亚洲艺术中心，北京，2025），“魔方——王劼音水墨作品展”（上海中国画院美术馆，上海，2024），“与古为新：王劼音、梁铨、黄渊青三人展”（周围艺术画廊，上海，2024），“汉柏·江声——赵大钧、王劼音双个展”（上海油画雕塑院美术馆，上海，2021），“当代海派名家双人展——杨正新/王劼音”（刘海粟美术馆，上海，2021），“虚象——王劼音水墨艺术展”（势象艺术中心，北京，2021），“天空之后 – 王劼音水墨新作展”（亚洲艺术中心，北京，2020），“大山水”（香港艺术中心包氏画廊，香港，2019），“云烟集翠 – 王劼音个展”（3812画廊，香港，2017），“风间云度 – 王劼音个展”（龙美术馆，上海，2016），“云起 – 王劼音作品展”（今日美术馆，北京，2014），“精神的风景”（张江当代艺术馆，上海，2007），“王劼音个展”（55画廊，曼谷，2004），“王劼音个展”（新加坡法国语言学院，新加坡，1997），“王劼音个展”（云南美术馆，昆明，1990），“王劼音个展”（AAI画廊，维也纳，奥地利，1986）

重要群展：“山水有清音：安徽文化艺术大观”（北京民生现代美术馆，北京，2025），“巍巍者华 – 中国油画学会三十年艺术展”（中华艺术宫（上海美术馆）， 上海，2025），“今日海上——上海艺术家的工作室”（上海海派艺术馆，上海，2024），“ ‘定义自然’现实浪漫主义艺术邀请展” （上海海派艺术馆，上海，2024），“ 重启 ”（ 上海碧云美术馆 ，上海，2024），“ 去往从来 ”（ 上海油画雕塑院美术馆 ， 上海，2024）， “ 书写和边界 – 第六届昆明美术双年展 ”（ 云南美术馆 ， 昆明，2023），“ 超越 2003-2023”（ 上海明当代美术馆 ， 上海 ，2023），“得义无形——对瞬间认知的‘抽象’叙事”（ 上海明园美术馆 ， 上海 ，2023），“ 在海上 ”（ 上海久事美术馆 ， 上海 ，2023），“静水流深 – 亚洲艺术中心四十周年特展 ”（ 亚洲艺术中心 ， 北京，2022），“ 尊重和信念 – 海派抽象艺术研究展 ”（ 上海久事美术馆 ， 上海，“ 迭影 ”（ 朱屺瞻艺术馆 ， 上海，2022）；“当代海派名家双人展「系列」 – 杨正新、王劼音” （ 刘海栗美术馆，上海，2021 ），“自然的双重性 – 第二届西安山水邀请展” （ 崔振宽美术馆，西安，2021 ），“锋向 – 中国当代水墨邀请展” （ 上海明圆美术馆，上海，2019 ），“山川悠远 – 山水艺术文献展” （ 上海油画雕塑院美术馆，上海，2019 ），“东方桃花源：对传统美学继承、回应以及发扬的中国当代艺术”（莱比锡棉纺厂艺术区12号展馆，莱比锡，德国，2018），“无形之形：中国当代抽象艺术展”（圣乌尔班当代艺术博物馆，瑞士，2014），“ ‘5:5对话’ 中德当代艺术展”（现代艺术博物馆，波恩，德国，2014），“ ‘破・立’ 新绘画之转序”（龙美术馆，上海，2014），“上海美术作品进京展”（中国美术馆，北京，2013），“上海与巴黎之间 – 中国现当代艺术展”（中华艺术宫（上海美术馆），上海，2013），“第九届佛罗伦萨当代艺术双年展”（佛罗伦萨展览中心，佛罗伦萨，意大利，2013），“锦绣中华 – 行进中的新世纪中国美术”（中华艺术宫（上海美术馆），上海，2012），“向祖国汇报 – 新中国美术60年”（中国美术馆，北京，2009），“中国蓝 – 瑞典文化节”（马尔默，瑞典，2008），“艺术中国”（瓦伦西亚现代艺术博物馆，瓦伦西亚，西班牙，2007），“上海当代” （VADEHRA画廊，新德里，印度, 2007），“第三届中国油画精选作品展”（中国美术馆，北京，2003），“首届中国油画学会展”（中国美术馆，北京，1996），“第八届全国美展优秀作品展”（中国美术馆，北京，1994），“第二届中国油画展”（中国美术馆，北京，1994），“第十二届全国版画作品展”（深圳美术馆，深圳，1994），“中国当代版面精品邀请展”（银川，1991）

公共收藏：法国博物馆（法国），法国国家图书馆（法国），波特兰艺术博物馆（美国），亚太艺术博物馆（美国），中华艺术宫（上海美术馆）（上海），江苏省美术馆（南京），刘海粟美术馆（上海），上海中国画院（上海），澳门总督府（澳门），亚洲艺术中心（北京 | 台北）。

皮道坚，1981年毕业于湖北艺术学院研究生班美术史论专业，毕业后留校任教。

20世纪80年代曾参与创办及编辑《美术思潮》，任编委、副主编。1988年被聘为中国美术家协会理论委员会委员。1992年调华南师范大学美术系，曾先后任美术系副主任、主任。曾任中国美术家协会策展委员会副主任，策划和主持过多种展览及学术研讨会，现为广东美术馆学术委员会顾问。

出版有论文集《当代美术与文化选择》，《中国现代美术理论批评文丛·皮道坚卷》、《皮道坚理论批评文选》（中、英文双语版）；专著《楚艺术史》、《楚美术图集》；主编有《中国实验水墨》、《黑白史》、《中国水墨实验20年》、《中、日、韩当代漆艺研究》、《原道·中国当代艺术新概念》、《中国美术史及作品鉴赏》等著作。

方志凌，1970年出生于湖北，先后毕业于湖北美术学院、武汉理工大学，获硕士学位，中央美术学院访问学者，现任湖北省美术院美术馆馆长。 

2007年以后介入当代艺术批评以来，在《美术》、《世界美术》、《当代艺术》、《国家美术》等各类专业杂志、书籍上发表艺术批评文章50余篇；并于威尼斯、曼谷、香港、北京、杭州、厦门等地主办过一系列展览。

重要策展项目：“群贤·白露文慧 – 中国当代艺术邀请展”（华中农业大学艺术馆，武汉，2018）、“群贤·狮山夏至 – 中国当代艺术邀请展”（华中农业大学艺术馆，武汉，2018）、“另一个阿莱夫 – 中德当代艺术对话展暨德美术馆开幕展”（德·美术馆，厦门，2018）、“诗性的共同体 – 厦门自贸区成立一周年国际当代艺术展”（厦门国际邮轮城博乐德艺术空间，厦门，2016）、“不一不异 – 中国青年艺术家试验展”（中国美术学院美术馆，杭州，2013）、“风物纪 – 中意青年艺术家对话展”（威内托科技艺术馆，威尼斯，2011）、“70后艺术的十个个案”（香港展览中心，香港，2010）等。重要编辑出版画册：《纸象 – 尹朝阳的纸上绘画》（四川美术出版社，2015）、《王劼音》（安徽美术出版社，2014）、《木兰溪》（中国美术学院出版社，2012）、《70后艺术的十个个案》（中国经济出版社，2010）等当代艺术画册。