學術(shù)主持：沈乾石 ACADEMIC HOST: SHEN QIANSHI

有人有風景

WITH PEOPLE AND SCENERy

學術(shù)主持：沈乾石 ACADEMIC HOST: SHEN QIANSHI

沈乾石近照

我們使用肉眼取景的結(jié)果，偶爾會被稱為“風景”。藝術(shù)家借助其訓練有素的雙手，在有限尺寸的繪畫作品中將之重現(xiàn)。留存下來的繪畫儲存了彼時的信息、藝術(shù)家鮮活的風格志趣，這些也影響到后世人的觀看。

習慣輕輕松松就被打破了。跟隨攝影出現(xiàn)的新取景模式，也逐漸改變了“風景”的表征：此時的“風景”是可以放大縮小、隨意查看細節(jié)的；是可以通過軟件調(diào)整色調(diào)，甚至添加、虛構(gòu)內(nèi)容的；更是那些遠超視界的畫幅、照片中懸浮在水洼上的紳士，等等。這些新表征同樣也影響到了繪畫：藝術(shù)家對于形變的獵奇心；新的、更混亂的畫幅比例的產(chǎn)生；因焦點的變化，產(chǎn)生的各種邊緣線處理方式（沒人在乎“果子的亮面”能否“轉(zhuǎn)到背后”一樣），等等。通過以上這些潛移默化的改變，與之形成的既定事實，很容易得到結(jié)論：我們很難認為“風景”是源自于“自然界給予人的提示”，它更像是經(jīng)人為篩選與重組而后剩下的素材的集合。圣維托克山以及周邊的樹林，主動地暗示塞尚這是一處值得關(guān)注的景致，此后他的欲求與舍棄最終決定了這張“風景”，以及它的價值。

人類也喜歡塑造更為真實立體的地景?！稏|夷列傳》中有這樣一則記錄：“貞觀二年，破突厥頡利可汗，建武遣使奉賀，并上封域圖。五年，帝詔廣州司馬長孫師臨瘞隋士戰(zhàn)胔，毀高麗所立京觀。”這種炫耀戰(zhàn)功用尸骸堆砌形成的土丘，不知道能不能夠算作“建筑”，似乎更應(yīng)該歸納為“風景”。這個血淋淋的土丘并非對自然的模擬，也沒有祭祀和實用上的價值。它越過了文人的山石草木，簡單粗暴地牽涉了歷史線索中錯綜復(fù)雜的地緣政治，也暗示人類尚未褪去的動物本能，以及諸多無法簡略在文內(nèi)討論的宏大命題。與“美好”“自然”相對，“顫栗”與“人為”也同樣在文明的發(fā)展中，不斷通過各種方式昭示“風景”一詞在不同語境下的強烈差異?！帮L景”一詞仍舊由諸多碎片化的現(xiàn)實構(gòu)成，這些由表及里的差異，也導(dǎo)致詞語本身的解讀困難，引發(fā)討論的必要。

藝術(shù)家對于“風景”一詞的探討更加直接。外部既已存在的地景、內(nèi)部心源共通，揭示自然景觀以及人文風貌的傳移，誠如古人借助“風景”物我兩忘的同時，也試圖使用繪畫超越語言，更準確地描述世界。東西方文化差異也不斷地在這些嘗試中留下蛛絲馬跡。

繪畫與攝影，作為我們最便于考察這些蛛絲馬跡的物證，也逐漸變得“不可考”。點、線、面元素構(gòu)成的發(fā)展，也將“風景”逐漸引導(dǎo)至趨近于抽象。這種并未帶有直白信息的抽象作品，也早已成為不算新鮮的“新趨向”，在當下與網(wǎng)絡(luò)帶來的美學傾向交纏，形成新的審美觀。而人工圖像越來越難傳達它使我們領(lǐng)悟到的意義，哪怕僅僅是一小部分。藝術(shù)家們需要通過自身與作為藝術(shù)品的“風景”發(fā)生關(guān)聯(lián)，虛構(gòu)出一處更具血肉的飽滿風景。正圓形的湖面、半圓形的山巒，這些毫無想象力的歸納，粗暴地驅(qū)趕普通人離藝術(shù)越來越遠。但這種粗暴我們是否需要，還是這種行為才是真正“風景”存在的證據(jù)？

必然是我們引發(fā)了關(guān)于“風景”的一切。

The results of our eye-view are occasionally referred to as “scenery”. Artists use their trained hands to reproduce them in limited-size paintings. The information of that time and the artist’s fresh style and aspiration stored in retained paintings also affect later generation’s view.

Habits are broken easily. The new view-finding mode following photography also has gradually changed the characterization of “scenery”: now, the size of “scenery” is variable, and we can see the details at will; the color tone can be adjusted with software, and even the content can be added or fictional; the“scenery” are pictures far beyond the horizon, gentleman suspended over puddle in the photos, etc. These new characterizations also affect painting: the artist’s curiosity for deformation; the emergence of new and more chaotic frame ratio; a variety of edge line treatment methods (just as no one cares about whether the “shiny side of the fruit” can be “turned back”) resulted from changing focuses, etc. It is easy to draw conclusions from these above subtle changes and the established fact of them: it is difficult to think that the “scenery”is “nature’s hints to people”; it is more like an assembly of remaining materials after human screening and reorganization. San Vitoque Hill and its surrounding woods actively suggested Cézanne that this was scenery worth attention, and since then, his desire and abandon finally decided this piece of“scenery” and its value.

Humans also prefer to create a more realistic three-dimensional landscape. There is a record in “Collected Biographies of Barbaroi”: “in Zhenguan second year, beat the Jieli Emperor of Tujue; Jianwu send an ambassador to congratulate Tang Dynasty and deliver the territory map. In Zhenguan fifth year, the emperor instructed the manager of Guangzhou to bury the decomposed bodies of warriors of Sui Dynasty, and damaged the architecture built by Gaoli.” I don’t know whether we can call such hill formed by piles of skeleton to show off battle achievement as “architecture”, it seems more like “scenery”. This bloody mound is not a simulation of nature, and there is no practical value for sacrifice. It goes beyond the literati’s hill, stone, grass and woods, and involves the complex geopolitics in the historical clues in a simple and crude way, and also implies human’s yet-to-fade animal instinct, as well as many grand propositions that cannot be simply discussed in the text. In contrast to “beauty” and “nature”, “shudder” and “man-made”also exist in the development of civilization, constantly declaring the strong differences of the word of “scenery” in different contexts in various means. The word of “scenery” is still formed by many fragmented reality. And these differences from the outside to the inside also lead to the difficulty to interpret the word and trigger the need for discussion.

The artist’s discussion of the word “scenery” is more direct. The outer existing landscape is connected with inner world, revealing the transmission of natural landscape and style of humanities. Just as the ancients forget the things and their selves with “scenery”, in the meanwhile, they also tried to go beyond language with painting and to describe the world more accurately. The cultural differences between the East and the West also keep leaving clues in these attempts.

Painting and photography, as physical evidences most convinent for us to investigate these clues, also gradually become “not investigable”. The development composed of point, line and plane also gradually guide the “scenery” to almost abstract. Such abstract without straightforward information has long been a common “new trend”, which form new aesthetics in the intertwing with aesthetics brought by network. It is more and more difficult for artificial images to convey the meanings we realized, not even a small part. Artists need to create a more fleshful landscape by associating themselves with the “scenery” as artwork. These none-imaginative inductions such as round lake and semi-circular mountains brutally drive ordinary people farther and farther away from art. But do we need this brutality, or is this action the evidence of the existence of real “scenery”?

It must be us triggering everything about “scenery”.

Shen Qianshi