Life Is Elsewhere
生活在別處
Oil on canvas
50 x 200cm, 2024
May 25, 2024
下滑见中译
I recently returned to Tolstoy’s What Is Art, a book I discarded years ago as “an old man shaking his fist at modernity.” In this work, Tolstoy argues that true art is not about beauty or pleasure, but the transmission of sincere human emotions. For him, art must be universal and accessible, capable of uniting people and serving humanity. Tolstoy spent 15 years shaping this argument, ultimately dismissing what we now consider the entire Romantic–Modernist canon. His rejections span Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony to Nietzsche, Wagner, Baudelaire, the Symbolists, the Impressionists, Pushkin, Ibsen, and Wilde. The list of revered names he deemed unintelligible and false stretches further still. If Tolstoy considered the fathers of Modernism “incomprehensible counterfeiters”, what, then, would he say about the Postmodernists? Noam Chomsky once remarked of them, “I can’t understand what they’re talking about, but they seem to understand each other.”
Both Tolstoy and Nietzsche gazed into the same abyss—–the spiritual void—–but they responded to it differently. Tolstoy withdrew; Nietzsche leapt in.
Speaking of those who embraced the abyss and danced while falling, Mark Rothko comes to mind. His canvases masterfully captured that existential void.
Rothko’s Suicide: The Danger of Too Much Abstraction
Though I admire Rothko—–his colour fields have genuinely moved me—–I suspect that his tragic suicide was partly a consequence of abstraction taken to its final limit. Once the boundaries of representation are dissolved, one risks stepping into nothingness, and for Rothko (at 66), perhaps there was no return.
Consider the enduring works of art—–Greek sculptures, Song dynasty paintings, Shakespearean plays. These paragons share the ability “to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature.” When art abandons its engagement with the natural world, it risks becoming hollow, its abstraction devoid of meaning.
If Modernism is defined by Individuality, what, then, is the hallmark of art today? Ephemerality?
I was born at the bottom of this abyss, yearning for resurrection.
2024年5月25日
重读托尔斯泰的《艺术是什么》,一本多年前丢弃的书。那时,我只觉得它是“老爷爷对新时代的抱怨”。书中,托尔斯泰认为真正的艺术无关美感与愉悦,而在于传达真挚的人类情感。艺术应是普世的、通俗的,能够团结人心,服务于人类。他用了十五年写成这本书,书中他否定了我们今天认可的整个浪漫主义和现代经典——从贝多芬的第九交响曲到尼采、瓦格纳、波德莱尔、象征派与印象派画家、普希金、易卜生、王尔德,等等。在他眼中,这些如今如雷贯耳的名字,皆是晦涩虚伪的艺术。若现代主义的奠基者们都被认为不可理喻且虚妄,那后现代主义呢?诺姆·乔姆斯基曾如此评价后现代主义者:“我搞不懂他们在说什么,但他们似乎彼此懂得。”
托尔斯泰和尼采都望进了面前的深渊—––精神信仰的真空;一个后撤了,另一个跳了下去。
说起深渊里那些在下落中起舞的人,我想起马克·罗斯科。他在画布上成功捕捉到了这个深渊。
罗斯科之死:抽象的终点
我其实非常喜欢罗斯科––––他的彩色方块真能打动我。但我认为,他的自杀是因为他的创作走到了抽象的尽头。再进,就是虚无,而对66岁的他来说,已无力回头。
希腊雕塑、唐诗宋画、莎士比亚戏剧、(抑或汉字)——这些艺术的典范——都具备“举镜映照自然”*的力量。当艺术失去了对自然与人类的表现和理解,抽象就会变得空洞且徒劳。
如果现代主义的标志是个性,那么,当代艺术的特征又是什么?暂时性吗?
*”举镜映照自然” 译自“to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature” 《哈姆雷特》。极简单的一句戏词,却也是莎翁的创作指南。