2012可乐乐园个展

 

“2012可乐乐园个展”

 

艺术家:程大鹏

策展人:谢素贞

时间:2012年7月

地点:今日美术馆

 

 

 

“可乐城市”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“可乐乐园” 

 

 

 

 

 

"可乐山水" 

 

欲望栖居的城国奇观

── 对于程大鹏作品的一些观察
王嘉骥

德国哲学家海德格尔(Martin Heidegger, 1889-1976)曾在1951年一场「人与空间」的研讨会中,发表他对「营造」/「建筑」(building)作为手段,「栖居」/「安顿」(dwelling)作为目的的精辟思惟。他指出,是「安顿」使「建筑」获得真正的意义;前者是后者的依归,更是后者的本质所在。海德格尔反复强调,建筑是为了让人安顿;同时,惟有当我们得以安顿,才能论及建筑及其实践。

 

尽管在当时,海德格尔见证的是二次世界大战之后,百废待举,迫切需要建设的德国,他仍不忘提醒,「安顿的真正困境并不仅仅在于住房匮乏。」在海德格尔看来,栖居/安顿是为了保护与存续。人生在世及启蒙,在穹苍之下,在大地之上,在神灵之前;天、地、神、人这四者的涵构关系,形成合而为一的四重整体性。栖居/安顿的真谛,就是让天、地、神、人得以在自由与平和之中,受到蓄养及维护。因此,海德格尔写道:「比起世界大战及其带来的毁灭,安顿的真正困境其实是更古老的问题,也比全球人口增加及工厂劳工的处境问题,来得更加久远。」不但如此,他更以修辞性的反诘语气点明:「今日人类无家可归(homelessness)的状态,就在于根本还不把安顿的『真正』困境视为『困境』来思考。」

 

针对「建筑」及其实践,海德格尔提醒我们,不应该把「生产」窄化为一种仅止于产品制造的「活动」;若然,最后即使完成了建物结构,却未触及「建筑」的「本质」。进入当代,随着晚期资本主义所带动的消费主义文化,建筑原本作为文艺创造的一环,没有例外地已经伴随全球化的金融炒作,快速沦为德国批评理论家阿多诺(Theodor Adorno, 1903–1969)和霍克海默(Max Horkheimer, 1895–1973)早在1944年就已批判的「文化工业」(culture industry)概念下的「商品」。ii  诚如阿多诺和霍克海默所言,「文化工业」挟其商品化的手段,创造了一种「惑人」(illusory)的「奇观」(spectacle)。臣服于商品暨其消费逻辑,晚期资本主义操作下的当代建筑,也早已衍化为工业化/标准化的量产商品。具有文化意义或艺术美学的建筑已属少数,量贩批发式的建物成了投机性的金融目标,而且,粗制滥造的产品比比皆是。

 

以当代中国的大都会城市为讨论对象,曾有来自北京的建筑评论者于2002年2月初在上海美术馆的一场座谈会中直言,上海的建筑正朝「自我妖魔化」的道路前进。iii言谈之中,该位评论者对于上海今日演变为一座建筑奇观的城市,不但深表不以为然,亦不无批判全球资本主义的用意。言犹在耳,北京作为国家的京畿首都,尽管较受节制,却也在短短数年内步入了相同的建设逻辑与经济循环。「建筑」思考的并非天、地、神、人如何荟萃于此的本质问题,而是变身屈膝于全球资本主义的经济商贸活动,沦为刺激或促销商品交易的资本空间与平台。至此,建筑与人身、心、灵的安顿关系已然脱钩,更物化为商品──亦即以交易为目的的建筑对象。建筑商品化的趋势,同步鼓励了建物工业化与量产化的制程。这类产品不是从「安顿」的设想出发,而是作为商业市场的交易目标,没有例外地以诱惑人的物欲作为营销手段。就文化意义的创造及贡献而论,这样的建筑逻辑已无启蒙人心的价值,更造成人性与人文价值的「异化」(alienation)。

 

建筑物化以后,奇观城市的惑人壮景随之浮现,既真且幻,也如海市蜃楼,更予人超现实之感。面对当代中国城市的建筑奇观,自幼生长于北京,本身即是建筑专业背景,而且拥有建筑事务所的青年建筑师程大鹏(1968-),却极耐人寻味地从2007年起,几度采取视觉艺术的形式,运用填充氦气的巨型软雕塑造型,以悬宕或飘浮的方式,将其定置在空中或半空中,藉此表达他对当代中国城市及现实的看法,而且,不无反思和评论的意图。

 

2007年元月,程大鹏首次发表的《失重》,以北京西城区的「墨臣建筑事务所」为基地,在离地8米高的空中,施放一具长达60米的鲸鱼骨骸造型。同年五月的《失控》,则是以北京「KU艺术中心」作为基地,在户外的田地上装置了一件从地面腾空升起,看起来像是仿生物形体的黑色连环锁链结构。明显可见的是,锁链构造中的部份环节已经断裂而松弛,营造了彷佛即将脱逸且飘飞而去的视觉效果。2008年五月,在北京农展馆户外基地发表的《坠落》,则是以同样长达数十米的羽毛造型,定置在广场中央,使其呈现出即将飘落,却仍悬宕,暗寓生命之轻的状态。事实上,从「失重」、「失控」、「坠落」的命名,已经可以清楚地读出一种关于结构脱轨、伦理失序,甚至价值失落的感怀、忧郁,甚至死亡意味。就作品与其发表空间的涵构关系来看,程大鹏这几件装置都以城市空间为基地,而且,刻意与周遭或接邻的建筑形成对话或互为文本的关系。当2008年《失重》再次于中国其他城市──深圳和成都──展出时,程大鹏明确地表达了自己的创作动机:「北京的城市格局每天都在发生变化,我就想表达城市建设带给人们心理的一种巨大冲击。」iv透过他定置在城市空间中的软雕塑装置,程大鹏以自己的艺术奇观,正面响应了中国当代城市的奇观,同时影射了一种「失乐园」的情境。


近日在与策展人谢素贞的一席对谈当中,程大鹏自觉地提出,「城市化」其实是一种「揠苗助长」的过程,中国今日「大面积搞城市化」,「改变的只是硬件,是在格式化人的生活。」因此,「急速而且巨大」的「大规模开发过程」,总就造成了一种「丑陋」的「现状风景」,亦即中国当代的城市奇观。面对这样的现实,程大鹏有意以艺术的手段,揭露居住在这些建筑内部的人们。他指出,「建筑的无机物的外壳去掉以后,每一栋楼都是里边一组组人的行为,我想把这里边人的行为形象化。」他进一步强调:「表达一个城市,是表达建筑内部的人。」v

 

以视觉艺术的形式进行表现,程大鹏在这个名为「可乐乐园」的个展当中,明显是以超现实主义的语法为主,结合图腾造型,谱织出虚构与虚拟合体的风景舆图。畸形、突变、扭曲、残缺的人体,连同水生物种,譬如鱼、蛙、蟹的形体,制造了混生、交媾,甚至变体之后的新物种,不只诡奇怪异,更盘据大地,塑造成令人目不暇给的华丽山水幻景。耐人寻味的是,经过程大鹏的凝视与转化之后,人的异化并不是以机械性的疏离、冷酷及无感的意象进行再现,反而是回到原始与浑沌,甚至刻意反理性。他的画面或所制造的空间场景,举目尽是人在与低等动物合体变种之后的肉身解放,使人感觉彷佛置身理性内爆之后,底层欲望赤裸横溢的超现实情境。更为可怪的是,明明揭露的是人在「失乐园」之后的虚无、沈沦与颓废,艺术家再现的世界却像回到了图腾神话的洪荒年代──因此,反倒凸显了一种重返伊甸园的虚幻假象。

 

程大鹏的「可乐乐园」拟造了看似「创世纪」的伪形,实际却更接近「世纪末」或「末世」的异象。在艺术史上,以「救赎」和「堕落」作为辨别天堂与地狱的意象象征,最经典的莫过于出身荷兰的北方文艺复兴画家博斯(Hieronymus Bosch, c. 1450-1516)于16世纪初期所完成的《人间乐园》(Garden of Earthly Delights)巨作。无论从创世到末世,从伊甸园到失乐园,这整套人类因原罪与堕落,而必须等待终极救赎的大叙事,没有例外地都是出于天主教神学的图像系谱。程大鹏的「可乐乐园」倒是看不出这样的信仰要求或议题演绎。事实上,他所编造的各种图腾式的人形变体,更多地是他在面对中国当代城市的现实时,极为个人而直观的感受。

 

放回中国文化史的脉络来看,程大鹏所创的这些人与动物混生合体的形象,不难让人想起古籍《山海经》中所描述的各种从神话时代到传说时代的神怪异兽。然而,「可乐乐园」对应的却还是当代奇观城市中,居住在建筑内部空间的人生百态。而且,这百态的再现,刻意地是以欲望的姿形表态。所以,也可以看成是理性昏睡之后,欲望夜行的百态。再者,这些欲望的形体,绝大多数是人与较低等生物的杂交变种,隐喻着更原始更低下的欲望,甚至近似中国传统文学所称的「妖怪」。成书于六朝的志怪小说经典《搜神记》,就有这样的说法:「妖怪者,盖精气之依物者也。气乱于中,物变于外……。」用于检视程大鹏在「可乐乐园」中各种物化与异化之后的变体人种,说他们已成「气乱于中,物变于外」的「妖怪」,似乎也颇为贴切。

 

或许可以更直接地说,程大鹏藉「可乐乐园」揭露的正是欲望的原神及其分身。在此界域之中,欲望凝聚为一种新肉身,塑造了新拜物教的氛围,而且,已然具有城国之形,更蔚为当代物质主义世界的奇观。

 

City Spectacles Lost in Material Desire
— Some Observations on Cheng Dapeng’s Works

Chia Chi Jason WANG

In a colloquium in 1951, German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) gave out his incisive thought that building is the means and dwelling is the goal. He pointed out that dwelling shows the real purposes of building; the latter, building, has the former, dwelling, as its goal and its essence. Heidegger repeatedly emphasized that “[t]he nature of building is letting dwell,” and “[o]nly if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build.”

 

Although it was after the World War II and Germany was in ruins, with a lot of reconstructions to be done, Heidegger still reminded that “the real plight of dwelling does not lie merely in a lack of houses.” In Heidegger’s view, the nature of dwelling is to protect and to preserve. Mangrows and gets initiated under the sky, on the earth, and before the divinities. The relationship between the sky, earth, divinities, and man forms the oneness of the four, which we call the fourfold. The basic character of dwelling is to spare and preserve the sky, the earth, the divinities, and man in freedom and peace. So Heidegger wrote that “the real plight of dwelling is indeed older than the world wars with their destruction, older also than the increase of the earth’s population and the condition of the industrial workers.” Nevertheless, he also pointed out rhetorically that “man’s homelessness consisted in that man still does not even think of the real plight of dwelling as the plight.”

 

Regarding building and the process of its making, Heidegger reminded us not to simply consider “producing” only as the “activity” to make productions; if so, even though we finish the structure, we miss grasping its nature. When it came to modern times, along with the culture of consumerism which was spurred by the late capitalism, and with global financial speculation, building, originally part of artistic creation, soon and without exception became “the commodities” of “the culture industry,” which was critiqued by the German critical theorists Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) in 1944. As Adorno and Horkheimer commented, along with its commercializationprocess, “the culture industry” created an illusory spectacle. Being subordinate to commodities and the logic of consumption, modern architecture, in the charge of late capitalism, has turned into industrialized and standardized commodities throughmass production. There are few architectural projects that remain culturally meaningful or artistically aesthetic. Architecturefalls prey to financial speculation to construct large numbers of buildings, and low-quality buildings are seen everywhere.

 

During a panel discussion on the metropolises in China held in Shanghai Art Museum in February 2002, an architecture critic from Beijing frankly brought up that the architecture in Shanghai was marching on the way of “self-demonization.” Besides refusing to buy the fact that Shanghai had turned into a city full of architecture spectacles, the critic also insinuated the dark side of global capitalism. With his words still being heard, despite the fact that there have been plenty of restrictions as being the capital city of China, Beijing still has set foot in the same architecture logic and economic circulation. Architecture is not solving the essential problem of how to make the sky, the earth, the divinities, and man belong together as one. Instead, it has succumbed to commercial activities of global capitalism, and becomethe platform to stimulate or promote commodity transactions. Until now, building has been separated from the dwelling relationship with the human body, the heart, and the spirit; it is more likely to be commodities, which are built to be traded. The commercialization of building also boosts its industrialization and mass production. These productions are not designed out of the aim of dwelling, but as the trading objects of the commercial market, and all use tantalizing material desire as marketing strategies without an exception. In terms of cultural significance and contribution, rather than enlightening the public mind, this kind of building logic causes the alienation between humanity and humanistic values.

 

When building is lost in material desires, the cities with architecture spectacles show a kind of enchanting sight, which is both real andvisionary; and it transcends the reality like a mirage. Facing the architecture spectacles in contemporary Chinese cities, Cheng Dapeng, having been brought up in Beijing, trained in architecture, and currently running an architecture firm, expressed his views on contemporary Chinese cities and their reality once and again since 2007. Exploring from the perspective of visual arts, he employed immensely large,soft sculpturalshapes made of helium balloon and had them suspended or floated in the air or in midair. By doing so, he meant to think back and comment on the reality.

 

In January 2007, Cheng Dapeng released his work titled “Weightlessness” in Mochen Architects& Engineers in Xicheng District, Beijing for the first time, showcasing a 60-meter-long balloon in the shape of a whaleskeleton, set 8 meters high above in the sky. In May that year, another work titled “Out-of-Control” was released, in the shape of a black, biomorphic chain structure, tied to the ground and suspending into midair at the outdoor field ofthe Ku Art Center in Beijing. It was obvious that certainlinkages of the chain structure were nearly broken or loosened, creating a visual effect that the links wereseemingly going to fly away. In May 2008, his new work “Landing,” a structure in the shape of a feather with dozens of meters long, was released on the outdoor base of the National Agricultural Exhibition Centre in Beijing. The feather-shaped balloon was placed in the center of the square, as if it was going to land on the floor, but was still drifting in the air--metaphorically hinting the lightness of life. In fact, judging from the titles of the works, “Weightlessness,” “Out-of-Control,” and “Landing,” one already senses the thought or gloom resulted from the digressions of structures, disorders in ethics, or even the loss of values and sentiment of death. Seen from the contextual relationship between Cheng’s works and the locations where they were released, those installations were all based in city spaces, and intentionally formed a kind of dialogue or inter-textual relationship with nearby buildings. When “Weightlessness” was exhibited again in 2008 in other cities in China — Shenzhen and Chengdu — Cheng Dapeng stated his creative motivation clearly: “With Beijing’s city facade changing every day, I just want to express the great shock that the city construction brings to people’s mentalities.” Through the soft sculpture installations he set in the city spaces, Cheng Dapeng confronted the spectacles ofcontemporary Chinese cities with his own artistic spectacles, which at the same time reveal a “paradise lost” condition.

 

Recently, in his conversation with the curator Xie Suzhen, Cheng consciously pointed out that “urbanization” in fact is “an excessive way of development.” “Urbanization is prevailing” now in China, and “urbanization can only change hardware; it’s formatting people’s life.” Thus, according to Cheng, rapid and immense large-scale development process yields an “ugly” everyday view, which is the spectacle of cities in contemporary China. Given such circumstances, Cheng Dapeng adopts artistic means to unveil people who live inside the buildings. He pointed out that “every building is in fact sets of behaviors of people living in it, after removing the shell of inorganic substance from each individual building; I want to visualize the human behavior.” He emphasized further that “the way to show a city is to show the people living in the buildings of the city.”

 

As a visual artist, Cheng mainly takes advantage of the language of surrealism and combines with totemic forms. In this solo exhibition, titled “Wonderful Wonderland,” he has interwoven the imaginary as well as virtual sceneries into a topographical landscape. Mixing with aquatic species such as fish, frog and crab, the deformed, mutated, distorted, malformed human bodies are interbred into new species created from variant of the gene. It is more than fantastic and extraordinary. The new creatures even procreate and expand into a magnificently amazing dreamscape occupying the earth, filling the viewer’s eyes with unprecedented visual glamour. Somewhat intriguing is that through the gaze and transformation of the artist, the alienation is not shown by images of human mechanization, hostility and indifference; instead, it returns back to primitiveness and chaos, even in a purposefulanti-reason manner. What fill the space and scenery are all releases of flesh of varieties from the hybrid of human and lower species. It makes one feel like being placed in the midst of surreal scene full of primitive and bare desires. Even more peculiar is thatthe artist appears to depict human beings as having fallen into emptiness, corruption, and decadence, namely, a  “post-paradise lost” state; however, what he has represented makes one feel as though he or she is back in the time of great antiquity, in which mythology and totems still rule. Thus, it hideously features a false impression of return to the Garden of Eden.

 

Cheng Dapentg’s “Wonderful Wonderland” gives out a simulated vision which seems like “Genesis”, but, in fact, resembles more “the end of the world.” In the history of art, the most classic and greatest work dealing with the themes of “redemption” and “depravation,” in an attempt to distinguish paradise from hell, is the “Garden of Earthly Delights,” which was completed in the early 16 century by the Northern Renaissance painterin Holland, Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450-1516). No matter from the creation of the world to the end of the world, or from Garden of Eden to Paradise Lost, the whole narrative of Man waiting for ultimate redemption resulted inthe original sin and depravation is part ofthe iconographical tradition of Catholic theology. However, inthe “Wonderful Wonderland,” one cannot find such religious belief or agenda. As a matter of fact, the various deformed human images delineated by Cheng Dapeng emanate more from his personal,intuitive feelings when facing the reality of contemporary cities in China.

 

Looking back at the history of Chinese culture, it’s not hard to associate the images of mixed fauna and combination of human and animals to various genies and monsters from the mythological age to the era of legendarysagas,as narrated in the ancient classic, such as Shanhai Jing(The Classic of Mountains and Rivers). Nevertheless, the “Wonderful Wonderland” is set in the contemporary city of spectacle to show various walks of human life in theinner space of buildings. And the multitudinous walks of life are purposely represented in the form of desires. Therefore, it can also be seen as a situation where desires go wild at night whilehuman reason falls asleep. Moreover, those materialized forms of desires are in the majority hybrids of human and lower creatures. Images as such also metaphorically connotes the more primitive and lower desires, which are reminiscent of the similar beings called yaoguai(monsters) as seen in traditional Chinese literature. There is the saying in the classic compilation of legends, short stories and hearsay concerning ghost fiction and all sorts of supernatural phenomenon, titled“Soushen Ji” (“In Search of the Supernatural”),written in the Six Dynasties (4th century AD): “A monster is the materialization of the negative and positive spirits; when the spirit in it is in disorder, the shape of it changes.” It is equally appropriate to describe the variant mutated human species as monsters in Cheng Dapeng’s “Wonderful Wonderland,” for they indeed demonstrate monstrous beings that have changed shapes due to theirdisorder in spirit.

 

Or one could say even more directly that Cheng Dapeng’s “Wonderful Wonderland” has embodied the spirit of desire and its incarnation. In this peculiar realm, desire acquires a new flesh, which becomes a new cult of fetishism, and consequently transforms intothe shape of a city-state. In the end, the “Wonderful Wonderland” has presenteditself as a spectacle of contemporary materialist world.

 

 

艺术家自述:
构成城市的建筑是多方面利益共谋的结果,展现的往往是虚假的城市文化、虚假的城市历史、虚假的城市生活,作为个体的人是无从逃避和选择的,环绕身边的是狰狞的风景带来的视觉快乐。我把展厅的整个顶部做成一个互动的装置,将一个常规空间改变后创造出非常规体验,试图探寻建筑与雕塑或装置之间的另一种存在关系。装置本身的不确定性和变化的复杂性可以改变建筑空间几乎一切固定的元素。

 

Artist Statement:
The buildingsforming the city come from a multi-party compromise. They are representative of fake urban culture, fake city history & fake city life. As an individual, the human being has nowhere to go & nothing to choose from. They have to be entertained by the visual pleasure conveyed by the ferocious scenes around them. The ceiling of the hall is transformed into an interactive installation to create unusual experience from a changed normal space. In turn, another relationship between the building & sculpture or installation is experimentally explored. The uncertainty & complexity of changes belonging to the installation itself can change almost every fixed element in the constructing space.

 

“可乐乐园”个展数字全景展览

 

“可乐乐园”个展画册