残留的表象：关于杨勋的绘画—鲍栋

        杨勋的绘画与传统的关系相当暧昧，他总是把古典的园林作为他的视觉资源，也喜欢给作品起上一个个非常古典文学化的名字，于是，他的工作看起来像是在试图复活某种传统，特别是在美学上。
        但传统一旦成为美学，就意味着传统已经是过去时的了，它不再生长于此刻的文化中，不再是一种自然发生而必须是刻意回顾的事物。实际上，杨勋的绘画正是在刻意回顾我们的古典传统，就像人们会特意去看看苏州园林，专门去听听昆曲，但这正说明了传统在我们文化现场中的缺席，或者说传统成了一种奇观，一个需要被刻意标记的他者。
        因此，杨勋并不是在继承某种传统，当然也不是在反叛某种传统，在我看来，他的作品呈现了一种非传统的状态。继承与反叛都只是传统内部的不同声音，而非传统则意味着站到了传统之外，或者说传统的彻底终结。在非传统的状况下，虽然人们可以去研究、观赏传统，但这些都不会影响我们此时此刻的生活。杨勋曾经用“梦境”来对比喻自己游览苏州园林时的体验，在我看来，这个比喻的重点不是苏州园林在情感上是多么让人迷恋，在这个平常比喻的内部潜藏着另一个比喻：传统与当代的关系就像是梦境与现实的关系。因此，它强调了一种截然的划界，一种历史的断层状态。在这个意义上，“传统”只是“废墟”的一种委婉的说法，不管我们的传统原来多么地“姹紫嫣红开遍”，但早就“似这般都付与断井颓垣”。
        于是，杨勋在刻意让我们观看传统景观之时就已经暗示了传统的废墟本质，在他的作品中，古典园林场景似乎是演出之后的舞台布景，它存在，但却不在场，或者说不再有意义，只是一种失去了主体精神观照的纯然之物。
        或许这就是非传统状态的实质，正如“非传统”这个词，不得不提到传统，但又确实与传统没什么关系。在这个层面上，杨勋的作品中构成了一个悖论，以至于我必须把杨勋的绘画视为关于传统的悼词——一种装作挽留的彻底告别。
        一旦我们发现杨勋的绘画有着这样一种悼词的品性，他的工作就变得有趣了起来。圆形构图、毛笔特有的温润笔触、雅致的明暗调子、精心点缀在太湖石上的高光，以及工笔气质的唯美品性……这一切构成了一种明显的繁文缛节，这是一种对古典意境美学的抑制。或者说，杨勋极力营造的是一个表象，一方面是传统美学的表象，传统被纯粹描绘成一种表面化的视觉景观，另一方面是绘画的物质表面，绘画的视觉本体性被呈现出来。
        实际上，杨勋迷恋的不是传统，而是一种传统的残留物，或者说，传统的景观化切片。在这个意义上，他绘画中的园林（以及花卉）已不是那个古典传统文化中处于文人象征系统之中的园林，已不再是一个古典意象，而仅仅是一种被看之物。在杨勋这里，视觉意义替代了象征意义，绘画不再是一个让人去读，或者是让人去体验、冥想并品味其象外之境的意义源泉——就像是真正的古典传统的绘画那样——而纯粹只是一种视觉的东西。
        因此，杨勋画面上繁复的细节并不把人们引向意义，笔触、光斑，以及对太湖石表面形态转折不厌其烦的描绘，似乎都只是一种没有具体指涉的喃喃自语，并不是为了表达某种含义，而只是一种白日梦性质的轻微症状。在这种症状中弥散着视觉快感，但这种快感和情绪无关，也与欲望无关，更与意义无关，观众体会到的是纯粹视觉上的愉悦。
        在这种纯粹的视觉性中，“看”成为了一种绝对而封闭的行为，只是“看”，而不再是“看见”、“看出”或“看似”，总之，这种“看”不是为了攫取意义。在这种“看”的背后也不再具有情感及认知上的深度，它只满足于表象。
        尼采曾经用阿波罗精神去概括这种表象之眼，以针对柏拉图—笛卡尔—黑格尔的真理之眼。在《悲剧的诞生》中，尼采认为日神阿波罗的希腊语词源出于“发光”（Schein），同时也具有表象、假象的含义，因此在他那里，阿波罗代表了一种视觉表象，它为意志提供了一个停歇之处，而尼采提出阿波罗精神即是为了强调表象/假象的自足意义。
        杨勋是不是思考过以上的问题，暂不得知，但是他在作品中用光线强调看的在场。在每一幅作品中都会有一束没有来由的强光出现，在画面上形成一片耀眼的光斑。与人文主义传统中的绘画不同，杨勋不像委拉斯贵兹那样用漫射的光去呈现空间，也不像伦勃朗那样用强烈的光凸显精神，总之，杨勋的光线不是去“授予”（enlighten）现实。在他的绘画中，光线不是为了照亮场景，而恰恰相反，场景被有意处理得很暗，绘画整体上处于暗调中，杨勋使用这种视觉上的处理技巧的正是为了突出光线本身，而突出光线本身则正是为了把“看”充分地仪式化，使“看”具有一种神话的品质。也正是为了强化这一点，光线的强度达到了极致，光线所到之处，事物的造型逐渐模糊，乃至与画家的笔触同时消失，我们在“看”，但我们视域的中心却是空无。
        这里也显然有着摄影视觉经验的参与，画面四周的暗角，以及虚焦的效果，这些都来自摄影这种视觉技术。甚至，摄影决定性地影响着杨勋的绘画，因为我无法想象在摄影出现之前，人们能够以这样一种支离破碎的方式呈现园林，假山、植物与建筑经常被视线切割，杨勋画面的完整是以牺牲场景的完整为代价的，我们称之为镜头的完整。
        如果说我们这个时代是一个视觉的时代的话，那么这个时代最基本的品质从摄影术发明的那一刻就被决定了，即对于观看来说，一切事物都是平等的。因为摄影不再非得是一种有意义的观看，它可以是无意义的纯粹的“看”，或者说“看”本身就成为了意义的源泉——透过镜头，一切事物都有了被看的价值，而事物的价值就在于它是否能够被看。换句话说，在这个视觉占据了文化主导地位的时代，世界呈现出一种均质的状态。
        或许，我们应该站在本雅明的肩膀上做一些必要补充：摄影因为其可复制性带来艺术作品“光晕”的消逝，更重要的是，摄影所定义的无机化的视觉经验最终祛除了世界本身的“光晕”。具体的说，在摄影之后，平行性的观看取代了纵深性的认知，摄影术的出现为“看”这场声势浩大的文化仪式迈出了关键的一步，真正地在技术基础上确立了表象的合法地位。
        也就是说，杨勋通过摄影所获得的园林图像已然是一种表象了，它们是真实园林的一个个镜头切片，而在此之前，类似于古典园林这样的传统早已成为一种表象化的景观。因此，如果可以用一句话来概括的话，那就是：杨勋在把传统的表象描绘成表象本身给我们看。视觉在这个时代已然成为了一种症候，对此，杨勋的作品构成了一个恰当的证明或证据。

        Yang Xun’s painting has very ambiguous connections with tradition. He always utilizes classic gardens to be his visual asset, and likes to give his works a very classic literal name. Therefore, it seems like he is giving life back to certain traditions, especially in aesthetics.
        But once tradition has become aesthetics, it means that tradition has become something of the past, it will no longer grow in a culture of the moment, and neither could it be a naturally occurred matter with deliberate recapturing of memories. Actually, Yang Xun’s painting is deliberately recapping our classic tradition, just like people especially visit Suzhou Garden, listen to Kunqu opera, this just explains the absence of tradition in our cultural site, or tradition has become a wonder, or an alien matter that deserves deliberate marking.
        Yang Xun is not inheriting certain traditions, not some rebellious tradition for sure. To me, his works has exhibited a state of non-tradition. Inheritance and rebellion are only different voices from inside of the tradition, while non-tradition means standing outside of the tradition, or termination of tradition. Under non-tradition status, although people can go to study and appreciate tradition, these will not affect our lives at the moment. Yang Xun has used “dream scene” to express his experience for visiting Suzhou Garden. I think that the focus of metaphor is not to show how passionately perplexing Suzhou Garden can be, this common metaphor has a deeper connotation: the relation between tradition and modern is just like the correlation between dream and reality. Therefore, it emphasizes a distinct demarcation, a historically broken course status. At this sense, “tradition” is another euphemistic expression of “ruin”. No matter how much glory our tradition has been, it has already become waste buried in ruin.
        Yang Xu was deliberately indicating us the essence of tradition while watching the traditional sceneries. In his works, classic garden views seem like stage scene settings after performance. It is an existing matter but absent, or no longer has its significance, only as a pure thing missing spiritual view point of the main body.
Maybe this is the essential matter in a non-traditional state, just like the word “non-tradition”, we have to mention tradition. However, this does not actually have anything to do with tradition. At this level, Yang Xun’s works configures an antinomy so that we must view Yang Xun’s paintings as traditional memorial speech about tradition—one absolute farewell to a pretentious detainment.
        Once we find such quality of memorial speech in Yang Xun’s painting, his works becomes interesting. Round shape painting design, the unique mild brush strokes, and the elegant light and dark color are elaborately decorated on the highlight of Taihu Stone, along with aesthetic nature of design and quality. This has configured an obvious unnecessary and over-elaborate formalities, this is a restriction over a classic sense of aesthetics. Or we can say that Yang Xun is working hard to cultivate an impression, one is the image of traditional aesthetics, and tradition has been essentially described into surface-based visual scenery; the other aspect is the painting of physical superficies, the visual nature of painting’s main body is presented.
        Actually, Yang Xun’s infatuation is not tradition, but as a remnant of tradition; or scenery slices of tradition. Upon this sense, in his paintings, garden (and flowers) is no longer the garden amid scholar symbolic system of classic traditional culture, no longer a classic impression, but only as a matter of the beholders. For Yang Xun’s paintings, visual significance has replaced the symbolic meaning, painting is no longer a meaning source for people to read, or to experience, meditate and taste its source of significance beyond its image—just like the authentic, classic and traditional painting, only as a pure visual matter.
        Therefore, the complicated details on Yang Xun’s painting do not lead people to meaning, strokes, light spot as well as the patient description of transitional forms on surface of the lake, all seem like a monologue without specific reference, not for the purpose of description for certain connotations, but only as a slight symptom with daydream nature. In such symptom, there is a permeated sense of visual pleasure, but this nice feeling has nothing to do with mood, neither does it correlate with desire, not mention of the meaning. What audience can experience is a shear visual pleasure.
In such authentic visual nature, “looking” has become an absolutely enclosed behavior. Only “looking”, no longer “seeing”, “seen” or “seem like”, after all, this “seeing” is not for exploring significance. Behind such “seeing”, there is no longer the in-depth of emotion and recognition, it only satisfies to image.
        Nietzsche has used Apollo spirit to summarize the eye of such image, so as to aim at the eye of truth of Plato-Descartes-Hegel. In the Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche thinks the Greek word of Sun God Apollo originates from the word “Schein”, at the same time it also has a meaning of image and illusion. Therefore, to Nietzsche, Apollo represents a visual image, also providing a resting place for willpower. Nietzsche has brought up the spirit of Apollo, so as to emphasize on the independent significance of image and illusion.
        It is not known whether Yang Xun has ever thought about the above matters. But in his works, he uses light to emphasize the presence of looking. In each piece of works, there is a beam of strong light which comes from nowhere, forming a dazzling light spot on the picture. Different from painting within tradition of humanism, Yang Xun does not present space with light of scattered deflection, like Velasquez; neither does he use strong light to illustrate spirit, like Brown. In conclusion, Yang Xun’s light is not used to “enlighten” reality. In his paintings, light rays are not solely for enlightening the scene, on the opposite, the stage scene is purposefully processed to be very dark, making the whole painting wear a dark tune. Yang Xun uses such visual processing skills to highlight light ray itself, while highlighting is just ritualizing “looking”, enabling “looking” with a mythical quality. For emphasis on such point, the degree of lighting has reached the paramount. Where the light touches, the model of things gradually grow into blurry forms, it can even vanish together with strokes from the painter. As we are “looking”, the center of visual scope is bareness.
        This clearly has involvement of photographic visual experience. The dark corner of paintings of the surrounding elements, along with effects of virtual focus, all these come from such visual technology of photography, which even has decisive influence over Yang Xun’s paintings. Because we can not imagine that people can use such a scattered form to present garden prior to emergence of photography. Artificial mountains, plantation and buildings are often divided by visual scope; the integrity of Yang Xun’s scope has sacrificed the integrity of scene, which we call the integrity of scene.
If we call this era as an era of visualization, the most fundamental quality of the era has been determined since the moment of photographic inventions. For beholders, all things are equal. Because photography is no longer a significant viewing, it can be a shear “looking” without much sense, or “looking” itself has become a significant source. Through lenses, all matters have achieved value of appreciation, while the value of things lies in whether it can be appreciated or not. In other words, this is an era with visualization at the dominant position; the world has exhibited a status of even quality.
        Maybe we should stand on the shoulder of Ben Yaming and make some necessary supplements: due to the duplication nature of photography, the “halo disturbance” of art works vanishes. More importantly, non-organic visual experience defined by photography has eventually eliminated the “halo effect” of the world itself. Specifically, after photography, a parallel-based viewing has replaced vertical recognition. The emergence of photography has taken a key step for the enormous cultural ritual of “viewing”, which truly confirms the legitimate position of image on a technical basis.
        We can also say that the garden image acquired by Yang Xun via photography has become an image; they are pieces of scene clips from real gardens. While prior to this, similar to classic gardens, such tradition has become image-based scenery. Therefore, if we can use one sentence to make a summary, i.e. Yang Xun describes traditional image into image itself to share with us. Visualization of this era has become a symptom, for this, Yang Xun’s works has configured an appropriate evidence or proof.