从另一面书写：对张强表演性书法的批判性反思

从另一面书写：对张强表演性书法的批判性反思

英国艺术核心期刊《当代绘画》第六卷1-2期（2020:131——148页）

Writing from the Other Side: Critical Reflections on the Performative Calligraphy of Zhang Qiang

文_冯洁 苏尼尔·曼加尼

摘要

ABSTRACT

这篇视觉艺术研究文章介绍了当代中国书法先锋艺术家张强的具体案例。张强是当代前卫书法运动中的著名人物。在概括了他的实践的各个方面后，本文转向了他的“双向”书法的具体项目。有人认为这部作品开辟了一条更有价值的途径，作为对书写的探索，这与德里达对书写和痕迹的解构主义解释有关。然而，在泰特现代美术馆的一次展览活动中，张强提供了一种“现场书写”形式，它有助于我们对普通书写的解构主义理解，但它同样也揭示了对“中国书法”文化范畴的某种依赖，这种依赖让我们再次远离——为获得认可而进行的极富争议的广泛的艺术争斗之中。

关键词：中国书法、解构、表演艺术、张强

This visual essay presents the specific case of a contemporary practitioner of Chinese calligraphy, Zhang Qiang, who is a notable figure within the current avant-garde the movement. After outlining aspects of his practice, which has been controversial along gender grounds, the essay turns to his specific project of ‘bi-directional’ calligraphy. It is argued this work opens up a more rewarding way into his work as an enquiry into writing, which bears connections with Derrida’s deconstructionist account of writing and trace. However, in a brief exchange at Tate Modern, Zhang offers a form of ‘writing lesson’, which both helps takes us toward the decontructionist account of general writing, yet equally reveals a reliance upon the cultural category of ‘Chinese calligraphy’, which take us away again – arguably symptomatic of a wider struggle for Chinese contemporary art to gain recognition.

Keywords: Chinese Calligraphy, Deconstruction, Performance Art, Zhang Qiang

双面书法，2018-04 意大利威尼斯美术学院美术馆 张强+魏离雅

从另一面书写:对张强表演性书法的批判性反思

Writing from the Other Side: Critical Reflections on the Performative Calligraphy of Zhang Qiang

在欧洲书法可以说是一门行将没落的艺术。在当地一家艺术商店人们很容易购买到一套专门用钢笔和墨水书写的套装，并对其中的内容进行宽泛的研究。然而，这仅仅是业余爱好者的专利。书法在学校里没有人教，它也不是艺术和设计教育的一部分。当然它更不会被作为主要的艺术形式来考量。相比之下，在中国和日本，书法仍然受到尊敬，并与日常文化和高雅艺术（包括繁荣的艺术市场）相交融。可以说，导致书法产生如此不同命运的一个关键原因是语言和手稿的性质、地位是存在差异的，尤其是汉字的表意结构。此外，毛笔，虽然目前在中国很少使用，但是对于理解中国手稿来说，却是内在的。的确，笔迹对于欣赏汉字的结构和流动是至关重要的。汉字不是简单地在纸上划线，而是基于笔头（装满墨水）和手腕反转的充分维度。中国书法的三维性呈现出看似无穷的表现境界。

正如这篇视觉论文描述的，以下的陈述将围绕张强这个当代艺术实践者具体案例展开。

艺术家可以被置于最近的“前卫艺术”运动（起源于20世纪80年代）中，，与许多书法艺术家一起，采用新颖的方法，创作出引人注目的作品，以引起人们对一个主题的反思或挑战传统思维。（Barrass 2002：36；另见：256-263）。这个运动必须在中国本身和更广泛的国际艺术世界的背景下被理解。白若思（2002）是研究中国书法的英国著名学者，对中国最近的书法发展进行了卓有成效的调查。他的目标是不可避免地把这样一个话题介绍给“西方人”——这个话题也是白若思认为一直“难以理解”和难以达到的。然而，同样地，他认为，在过去的50年里，中国出现了一种“新的力量”，正在吸引更广泛的国际观众（其中大多数人无法阅读中文剧本）。

作为西方美学和中国美学双重改变的结果，现代时期的书法更接近西方人。尤其是西方抽象艺术的发展，以及西方艺术对中国书法家的影响日益扩大，缩小了两者在艺术品位的差距。(Barrass, 2002: 11)

白若思的乐观主义可以从全球化的文化以及中西之间更大的“交流”的角度来解读。随着中国在全球舞台上的经济实力不断增强，可以说文化力量也在不断壮大。然而，白若思的说法也有一些盲目。中国书法现在更“平易近人”，这一事实显然取决于西方观点在中国语境中是如何被促进的。事实上，可以说，对于西方来说亚洲书法仍然属于“异国情调”（虽然不被高度重视），并且，令艺术界感到诡异的是，书法家作为艺术家的地位实际上只是在亚洲范围内才能得到承认。这篇文章的目的不在于纠正一个特定的艺术历史和地缘政治问题的错误。而是，以张强尤其是他的“双向”书法表演为例，考虑如何将对中国书法的拷问解读为书写，这把我们带向了更具解构性的内容。泰特现代美术馆的一堂特别的“书写课”为我们提供了理解中国书法的一个关键点，然而，在开启一般性的书写的时候（如之前经验性的书写），中国书法却陷入了双重的束缚，但是它想要得到被认可、理解，又只能在书法的狭隘定义、书写的文化范畴和规律中为人们认知。

Calligraphy in Europe might be said to be a dying art. It is easy enough to purchase a specialized pen and ink calligraphy set from a local art shop and to read widely on the subject. Yet, it is merely the preserve of the hobbyist. It is not taught at school, nor is it a part of art and design education. It is certainly not considered a major art form. By contrast, calligraphy in the context of China and Japan continues to be revered and to intersect with both everyday culture and high art (including a buoyant art market). One key reason for these different fates is arguably to do with the differing nature and status of language and scripts, notably the ideogrammatic structure of the Chinese language. Furthermore, the paintbrush, while used far less now in China, is nonetheless intrinsic to an understanding of the Chinese script. Indeed, brush marks are central to an appreciation of the structure and flow of Chinese characters. Rather than simply ‘scratching’ out lines on paper, the Chinese character is based upon the full dimensionality of the brush (loaded with ink) and the roll of the wrist. The three-dimensionality of Chinese calligraphy gives rises to a seemingly infinite realm of expression.

Presented as a visual essay, the following account works through the specific example of a contemporary practitioner, Zhang Qiang. The artist can be placed within the recent ‘Avant Garde’ movement (stemming from the 1980s), so grouped together with a number of calligraphy artists adopting novel approaches ‘to produce works that command attention in order to make people reflect upon a subject or to challenge conventional thinking’ (Barrass 2002: 36; see also: 256-263). This movement has to be understood within the contexts of both China itself and the wider international art world. Barrass’ (2002), a notable British scholar of Chinese calligraphy, offers an excellent survey of recent developments in China. His aim is inevitably to introduce the topic to ‘Westerners’ – a topic that Barass notes has been ‘difficult to understand’ and access (11). Yet, equally, he argues a ‘new vitality’ has emerged over the last fifty years in China, attracting a wider, international audience (most of whom are unable to read the Chinese script).

The calligraphy of the modern period is more approachable for Westerners as a result of changes in both Western and Chinese aesthetics. In particular, developments in Western abstract art and the increasing influence that Western art has had on many Chinese calligraphers have helped narrow the gap in artistic taste. (Barrass, 2002: 11)

Barrass’ optimism can be read in light of globalised culture and of greater ‘exchange’ between China and the West. As with the growing economic force of China on the global stage, there is arguably also a burgeoning cultural force. And yet there is also a blindness to Barrass’ account. The fact that Chinese calligraphy is now more ‘approachable’ is apparently dependent on how a Western perspective has been facilitated within the Chinese context. In fact, arguably, Asian calligraphy remains ‘exotic’ to the West (though not highly valued) and, with respect to the machinations of the art world, the status of the calligrapher as artist is really only recognized within the Asian context. The purpose of this essay is not so much to set right the wrong of a particular art historical and geopolitical problem. Rather, in taking the case of Zhang Qiang, and notably his ‘bi-directional’ calligraphic performances, it considers how we might read Chinese calligraphy as an enquiry into writing, which takes us towards a more deconstructive account. A specific ‘Writing Lesson’ at Tate Modern provides a key pivot point in relating to Chinese calligraphy, which, however, is caught up in a double-bind, opening up a general writing (as that which comes before empirical writing), but which in wanting to be acknowledged and understood, is again recognized only by the narrow confines of calligraphy; of a discipline and cultural category of writing.

双面书法，魏离雅与张强合作，重庆虎溪工作室，2010年2月

张强的“先锋实践”

The ‘Avant-Garde’ Practice of Zhang Qiang

张强（生于1962年）是中国著名的前卫书法家，他的表演实践是在全球、当代艺术、性别政治和跨文化交流的背景下形成的。他广泛地展示了作品（包括在大英博物馆、墨尔本联合广场和国家博物馆、香港的艺术公社、意大利威尼斯军械库、巴黎的大皇宫、韩国的市立美术馆、泰特现代美术馆、比利时皇家艺术与历史博物馆）；在中国，他被认为是前卫运动的先锋理论家，并著有四十卷的《张强艺术学体系》等著作，他获聘两江学者，是多次国际会议的组织者。他从小就开始西式绘画，但之后便开始了有关中国书法实践和研究。他在23岁时完成了自己的第一本关于中国画美学的书，并在20世纪90年代初在山东艺术学院担任大学讲师，这让他有更多的时间从事他的实践。值得一提的是，他还教授四年制学位课程《西方艺术史》——这是一门他的同事不愿意教授的课。（Barrass，2002：257）。

沿着前卫运动，白若思（2002：25-39）确定了在中国跨越50年的三个清晰趋势：古典主义书法、新古典主义书法和现代主义书法。正如所料，古典主义与传统的价值观和样式相关，而新古典主义者试图复活和更新古代传统。现代主义书法的方法试图寻求更为激进的方法来构建书法的结构和内容。这些作品有一个共同的特点，就是将焦点放在一个汉字或一系列汉字上面，以此推动象形文字的边界，绘制出广泛的视觉效果。前卫运动与现代主义者有些矛盾，前者在推动观念和政治边界的同时，还保持书法的一些传统观念。

（张强）放弃了现代主义者所拥护的观念，这种观念认为，书法可以通过将汉字再风格化以及将它们艺术化的安排来重新激活，而不是用传统的直柱或线条的方式。有时，外国人误把书法挂错了，这提醒了张强，据说康定斯基的一幅作品的灵感来自于他在西方美术馆看到一幅倒挂的画。他认为，这加强了他自己更激进的论点，即不再需要在书法中包含有意义的文本，将为它发展成为现代艺术形式提供更大的空间。同时，他认识到说服中国人接受这个建议可能证明是一个漫长的“心理冒险”。(Barrass, 2002: 257)

很显然，张强看到了两条道路，他意识到在国家范围内自己的位置，但是他也敏锐地关注着更广阔的国际舞台。如同其他前卫艺术家一样，他寻求拓展视野，向传统提出挑战。张强的作品在国内外都颇有争议，但带来了不同程度的成功。自上世纪90年代中期以来，张强一直致力于合作，只与女性（通常是年轻女性艺术家和诗人）合作。早期的一个特别的练习就是当他的女合作者移动报纸时，他一边把头扭开，一边用画笔进行他的创作。通过这种努力，他觉得自己终于摆脱了传统书写的束缚。他的第一个十年项目《张强踪迹学报告A/B模型》（1990——2000年），是他与100个不同女性一起完成的。1999年，他与一位北京的时装设计师合作时，还直接将水墨书写在身着宣纸服装的女性合作者身上。再一次，这牵涉到他书写时把目光移开书写，因此导致了一种盲目的书写动作的发生。这项工作不可避免地引起了争议。

一些女权主义者指责张强是男权沙文主义；毕竟，张强一直明确地扮演着领导者的角色，他的画笔被看成是阳具的象征，他的女伴总是被降到次要角色。尽管张强一再声称自己从未与合作者有艺术之外的关系，但是庸俗的受众总是不可避免地朝这个方向联想。(Barrass, 2002: 259)

张强已经习惯了对这样批评进行辩护。从中国的背景来看，他的作品至少引发了争论。中国仍旧更多地保留了父权制，女权主义话语不那么明显。即使不这样看，艺术家指出，他只是合作者之一，他的女性合作伙伴也可以起主导作用，因此，他声称自己提出了一些关于自己温顺的身体和剥夺权力的问题。此外，这些表演的情感品质可以说根本与性别无关。白若思写道，他的一个助手，一位韩国家庭主妇，对他们合作的结果非常满意，她高兴地跳舞。她声称这段经历唤起了她对无拘无束的童年（2002：260）的快乐回忆。尽管如此，对于西方观众来说，他们的反应更复杂，也许大多数人感觉很不舒服，甚至愤怒。对于一个前卫艺术家来说，这样的回应可能是件好事，好像突破或违背了某些惯例。但是这些表演有些倒退，尤其是那些书法纸上写着女性的表演，尤其是那些坚持只和女性一起工作的表演。在他的一些出版物中，张强提到了艺术家伊夫·克莱因，他于1960年以“人类测量学”系列而闻名，这同样引起不同意见。对于克莱因来说，这是一个严肃的场面，试图打破艺术世界的某些“神话”。张强认为自己面临着一个类似的，如果说是当代的问题。他对书法在国际上的地位既充满激情又持怀疑态度。他对西方艺术的研究也促使他以同样的方式寻找奇观，以此来获得对作品的批判性关注，但可以说，这分散了他对书法标记制作细微差别的“阅读”的注意力。例如，他倾向于集中精力（有点“英勇”）数百米的绢质卷轴大型装置上。然而，正是这些作品的制作才更有价值，更有意义；这一点在他的“双面”书法（考虑如下）中变得更加明显。

Zhang Qiang (b. 1962) is a notable avant-garde Chinese calligrapher, whose performance practice is framed within the context of global, contemporary art, gender politics and cross-cultural exchange. He has shown works widely (including at the British Museum; Union Square and National Museum of Melbourne; Art Commune in Hong Kong; Italy Venice Armory; The Grand Palace in Paris; Seoul Municipal Art Museum of Korea; and Tate Modern) and within China is considered a leading theorist of the Avant-Garde movement, being the author of his multi-volume documentary work, ‘Zhang Qiang Artistic System’; Honor Winner of the ‘Two River Scholar’ award, and organiser of several international conferences. From a young age he began painting in a Western style, but soon took to the serious practice and scholarship of Chinese calligraphy. He completed his first book on Chinese painting aesthetics by the age of 23 and took up a university lecturing post at Shandong Arts Institute in the early 1990s, which afforded him greater time to pursue his practice. It is worth noting, he was given the responsibility of delivering a four-year degree programme on Western art history – a subject that ‘his senior colleagues were keen to avoid’ (Barrass, 2002: 257).

Alongside the avant-garde movement, Barrass (2002: 25-39) identifies three other distinct trends in China over the last fifty years or so: classical calligraphy, neo-classical calligraphy and modernist. As might be expected, classical interest relate to the preservation of traditional values and styles, while the neo-classical have considered ways to revive and update the ancient traditions. The modernist approach has sought out radical approaches to structure and content. It is often common for such works to focus on single characters or small sets of characters, so pushing at the very boundaries of pictograms and drawing on a wide range of visual effects. The avant-garde movement is somewhat at odds with the modernists; the former retaining a conservative view of calligraphy, while still pushing at conceptual and political boundaries.

[Zhang Qiang] rejected the idea espoused by the Modernists … that calligraphy could be revitalized by re-styling the characters and arranging them artistically rather than in traditional straight columns or lines. The fact that foreigners were sometimes known to hang calligraphy the wrong way up by mistake reminded Zhang Qiang that one of Kandinsky’s works was said to have been inspired by his seeing a painting hanging upside down in a Western art gallery. This, he felt, reinforced his own more radical argument that dispensing with the need to include meaningful text in calligraphy would provide much greater scope for developing it as a modern art form. At the same time, he recognized that persuading the Chinese to accept this suggestion could prove a lengthy “psychological adventure”. (Barrass, 2002: 257)

It is clear Zhang looks both ways, conscious of his position within his national context, but with a keen eye on the wider international scene. As with any avant-garde artist he seeks to expand horizons and to present a challenge to conventions. Zhang’s work has certainly been controversial both at home and abroad, but with varying success. Since the mid-1990s, Zhang has pursued a collaborative process, working solely with women (typically young female artists and poets). One particular exercise early on was to work with his brush while keeping his head turned away as his female collaborator moved the paper. Through this endeavor he felt he had finally freed himself from conventional composition. His five year project, ‘Zhang Qiang’s Report on the Study of Traces’ (begun in 1996) led to working with 100 different women. And, following work with a Beijing fashion designer in 1999, he has also gone onto paint directly onto female models wrapped in fine silk scrolls. Again, this has involved his looking away while attempting to write, so leading to a form of coy dance or exchange. Inevitably this work has been controversial.

Some feminists accused Zhang Qiang of male chauvinism; after all, he did always explicitly take the lead, his brush could be seen as a phallic symbol, and his female partner was invariably relegated to the secondary role. Others voiced darker suspicions, despite Zhang Qiang’s repeated assertion that he never entered into sexual relations with his artistic partners. (Barrass, 2002: 259)

Zhang Qiang has become used to defending his work against such criticisms. Understood from the context of China, which remains strongly patriarchal and where feminist discourses are less pronounced, his work has at least prompted debate. Even if it is not viewed as such, the artist notes he is both collaborating and also being led by his female partner, as such, he claims to be putting forward something about his own docile body and disempowerment. Also, there is an affective quality to the performances that arguably is not about gender at all. ‘One of his assistants, a South Korean Housewife,’ writes Barrass, ‘was so pleased with the outcome of their collaboration … that she danced for joy. She claimed that the experience had evoked happy memories of her uninhibited childhood’ (2002: 260). Nonetheless, for a Western audience the response is more mixed, with perhaps most feeling quite uncomfortable and even angry. For an avant-garde artist such a response might be thought a good thing, as if cutting through or against certain conventions. But there is something retrograde about these performances, particularly those in which women are clothed in the calligraphic paper, and not least due the insistence on working solely with (young) women. In some of his publications, Zhang Qiang makes reference to the artist Yves Klein, famous for his ‘Anthropometrie’ series in 1960, which similarly divided opinion. For Klein it was a serious spectacle that sought to break certain ‘myths’ of the art world. Zhang considers himself to be facing a similar, if contemporary problem. He is both passionate, yet sceptical about the status of calligraphy in international spheres. His study of western art has led him to similarly seek out spectacle as a means of gaining critical attention for his work, but it can be said this distracts from more nuanced ‘readings’ of calligraphic mark making. He has a tendency, for example, to focus (somewhat ‘heroically’) on large-scale installation of hundreds of meters of painted silk scrolls. Yet, it is the making of these works that is far more rewarding and significant; something that becomes more apparent in his ‘bi-directional’ calligraphy (considered below).

双面书法，张强与魏离雅合作，重庆虎溪工作室，2010年2月

双面书法

Bi-Directional Calligraphy

张强性别观的问题之一是他对性别的明显二元解读，即“男性”和“女性”。他认为，他对与女性共事的兴趣是故意让自己与另一个人进行对话。多年来，他在众多场馆的艺术家演讲中都提到了这一点，实际上他赞同某种超越自我的道德禁令。当然，当代性别与荒诞话语更加复杂、微妙，导致了大量的误解与批评。然而，正如下面将进一步讨论的，张强正在探索一些更原始的东西，典型的是道教神话。他对“一”和“其他”的感受更多地反映在阴阳的交叉点上（活力与活力，正反两面），而不是具体表现在性别上。可以说，他的“双向”或“双向”书法在使我们摆脱性别问题方面更加成功。

双面书法是2009年张强与魏离雅合作完成的一个项目，在世界各地都有演出。作品的形式是这两个书法家同时画在一个绢质卷轴上，绢质卷轴垂直悬挂在两者之间。这种坚固但外观精致的半透明材料被捆绑在卷上，他们在工作时逐渐拉下。在演出过程中，他们完成了几百米的工作。最终的卷轴经常被装饰性地挂在场地周围，戏剧性地占据了空间（在某些情况下甚至在露天悬挂）。两位对话者的表现是富有诗意的，随着能量从平静的，被认为是标志性的转变为更加戏剧性的争斗，双方的“地形”式占据，决定何时展开新的卷轴是真正永远的不可言的，因此它而是变成了一种联合的行动。据张强（2009）所说，这种双向书写是对中国文学文化核心的中国书法“档案”或痕迹进行重构的尝试。通过书写的二重性来改变书写过程本身，同时仍然服从于书法的“实践”，导致不可预测的“符号”。按照张强的说法，工作过程包括战略性移动、清晰的目的性和图形的选择。接下来是通过流动性和自发性的获得的实践。反抗性的行为在这里都是无效的。（2010：26）。

丽贝卡·丰特与张强，泰特现代美术馆演出，2018年5月

把双向表演看成从有意识到无意识（或自动）书写的转变过程是很诱人的。这与巴拉斯在本文开头的评论相吻合，即西方抽象艺术的发展既影响了中国书法，也开启了对中国书法的一种解读方式。然而，这将是一个错误。我们可以认为，这是一种“结构主义”解读，或者更具体地说是一种解构主义的解读，由此，张强的前卫书法开启了一种“实用”的写作，就像德里达《语法学》（1974）中所描述的那样。2018年5月在泰特现代美术馆的演出有助于揭示这一点。作为泰特现代美术馆交流活动的一部分（泰特现代美术馆交流是一个有意建立的、用于参与艺术和社会参与的开放论坛），张强同意与公众（年轻人、老年人和所有性别）合作。作为其中的一部分，为了帮助建立参与的性质，他与西班牙艺术家丽贝卡·丰特一起表演。在这次活动之前，他们进行了一些对话，讨论不同的标记制作风格将如何互动，但很多都留给了他们表演的“时刻”。后来，在一次艺术家的谈话中，两人都表达了他们对表演中的所作所为的看法。丽贝卡·丰特表达了关于“故事”或转瞬即逝的图像的看法，这些图像通常是在她绘画时半自动地完成的。在她的例子中，她基于身体运动和表现主义来表达看法的。在紧张的交流中，张强表达了某种看法，他觉得在这种情况下工作是多么的辛苦，尤其是与那些没有受过书法训练的人合作。他建议与丽贝卡·丰特断绝联系，因为她没有通过“语言系统”来工作。对于表演的观察者来说，也许很难理解这一点，但是这些艺术家（通过翻译）的口头交流揭示了书写方法上的一个引人注目的差异，其方向完全不同。无论是从字面意义上的写作，还是从另一个文化哲学的角度来看，张强有效地传达了“书写课”（与列维-施特劳斯的《特里斯特的隐喻》恰如德里达（1974：101-140）所分析的）。

工作室之外的表演，泰特现代，2018年5月

张强描述双向表演经历了经历三个阶段。首先是作者和观众之间的对话；其次是与自己内心深处“千百的孤独”的对话，这等同于与宇宙的对话；最后阶段是艺术不是艺术，或者至少是艺术毁灭的需要，允许漫无目的，达到“空虚”的空间，而什么也不表达。这种精神的最后阶段是难以达到的，但是应该从老子的《道德经》中理解：“道在其规律中什么也不做，所以没有什么可以做，……道从不用强力行事，但它却无所不能。”在彭宇（2015）《对中国留白绘画的检视》一文中，他特别提到“虚”的概念，虽然是一个复杂的术语翻译，但可以呈现为空。与中国的千物神话（道家万物相通的观念）相一致，彭宇将空描述为“关系的无向流动性”，进而提出“留白的虚无是关系的生产者和催化剂”(10)。这有助于进一步阐明张强的观点。

重要的是，在表演的三个阶段中，张强似乎需要一位志同道合或训练有素的伙伴，否则，卷轴另一端的参与会分散注意力，不能成为书写流程的一部分。这并不意味着两个表演者在“一起”工作，而是他们在同一个书写空间中工作。他所暗示的空虚，不是一个冥想的空间，而是一种批判性参与的形式。这是一个从结构上思考有关书写的“空间”。把画笔放在屏幕上，不是要释放自我意识，也不是要发展自己的高超品质。尽管如此，在另一方面，还是需要处理另一支画笔的事实。跨越可能性的“领域”，你必须在纸上分享，但同时要通过笔迹的“档案”。一支画笔为另一支画笔提供了生动的背景，反过来它又给另一支画笔的行为做出应答。这不单是身体上的接触。作为最高的结构、定向和编码的行为，书写是在一个表面上实现的，但它要经过修改，而这些修改虽然仍然是书法，但同时遵循一对原则。空虚是书写的目的。它是无：它也是无限的。因此，张强的策略是，除了消除汉字的结构外，还要将水墨画、装置艺术和概念艺术等各个领域结合起来。他不是简单地试图产生美丽的书法笔触，而是要赋予我们称之为书法或更一般地书写这一领域以新的意义。

太行山张强+魏离雅 开卷，2012年4月

在北齐书法大师僧安看来，山不仅仅是一种地理特征。张强与魏离雅的一百米书卷悬挂在太行山上，字面意思是让山在对话中，让峭壁和质地修改书法。当卷轴在风中飘动时，仿佛一幅巨大的文字掠过风景。

One of the problems of Zhang Qiang’s gendered approach is his obvious binary reading of gender, that there are ‘men’ and ‘women’. His interest in working with women, he argues, is deliberately to place himself in dialogue with the ‘other’. He has made this point in artist talks at numerous venues over the years, and in effect argues laudably for a certain ethical injunction to go beyond himself. Of course, contemporary gender and queer discourse is far more complex and nuanced, which leads to a good deal of misunderstanding and criticism. However, as will be discussed further below, Zhang Qiang is exploring something more primordial, typically drawing on daoist mythology. His sense of ‘One’ and the ‘Other’ maps more to the intersection of Yin and Yang (vitality and energy, obverse and reverse) than it does specifically to gender. His ‘bi-directional’, or ‘bi-facing’ calligraphy is arguably much more successful in getting us past the question of gender.

Bi-directional calligraphy is a collaborative project between Zhang Qiang and Lia Wei, which began in 2009, and has led to many performances around the world. The form of the work is that the two calligraphers paint simultaneously on a single silk scroll, which is suspended vertically between them. The strong, but delicate looking, semi-translucent material is bound up on a roll, which they gradually pull down as they work. Through the course of a performance they produce hundreds of meters of work. The final scrolls are frequently then hung decoratively around the venue, dramatically taking over the space (and even hung out in the open air in some cases). The performance of the two interlocutors is poetic to watch, with energies shifting from calm, considered mark-marking to much more dramatic tussles over the ‘terrain’ of both sides of the paper. The decision when to unfurl a new expanse of the scroll is never really spoken, but becomes a joint act. According to Zhang (2009), this bi-directional writing is an attempt at restructuring the Chinese calligraphic ‘archive’ or traces, which lie at the core of Chinese literary culture. By altering the writing process itself through the duality of writing, while still being subordinate to a ‘practice’ of calligraphy, results in unpredictable ‘signs’. The working process, according to Zhang ‘is made of strategic moves, definite purpose, and graphic choices. Followed by practice gained in fluidity and spontaneity. Negative dialectics act as an ever-fertile cauldron’ (2010: 26).

It is tempting to read the bi-directional performance as a shifting process from conscious to unconscious (or automatic) writing. This would fit with the remark from Barrass at the start of this essay, i.e. that developments in Western abstract art have both influenced and opened up a reading of Chinese calligraphy. Yet, this would be a mistake. We can argue there is a more ‘structuralist’ reading, or more specifically a deconstructionist reading, whereby Zhang’s avant-garde calligraphy opens up a ‘practical’ engagement with writing in general, as accounted in Derrida’s Of Grammatology (1974). A performance at Tate Modern in May 2018 helps reveal this point. As part of an event for Tate Exchange (a site established deliberately as an open forum for participatory art and social engagement), Zhang agreed to collaborate with members of the public (young and old and of all genders). As part of this, in helping to establish the nature of participation, he performed with a Spanish-based artist Rebeca Font. Prior to the event there was some dialogue about how their different mark-making styles would interact, but much was left to the ‘moment’ in which they performed. Later, during an artist talk, both articulated their views about what they were doing while performing. Rebeca Font expressed ideas about ‘stories’ or fleeting images that she is constantly working through – semi-automatically – as she draws. In her case she is making marks based upon bodily movement and expressionism. In a somewhat tense exchange, Zhang Qiang suggested how hard he found it working in this context, specifically with those untrained in calligraphy. He suggested there was a disconnect with Rebeca Font, because she was not working through a ‘system’ of language. To observers of the performance it might be hard to pick up on this, but the verbal exchange of these artists (through translation) revealed a compelling difference of approach to writing, running in quite different directions. Both literally writing from the other side and representing another cultural philosophical perspective, Zhang effectively delivered a ‘Writing Lesson’ (apropos that of Levi-Strauss’ Tristes tropiques as analyzed by Derrida (1974: 101-140)).

Zhang describes the bi-directional performance as leading him through three stages. First is a conversation between author and viewer; second is a talk to oneself of the ‘thousands of loneness’ deep down, which equates to a dialogue with the universe; the last stage is that art is not art, or at least the need of a destruction of art, to allow an aimlessness, to reach a space of ‘emptiness’, and express nothing. This final stage of spirit is hard to reach, but should be understood from Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching: ‘Dao in its regular course does nothing, and so there is nothing, which it does not do …The Tao never acts with force, yet there is nothing that it cannot do’. In Peng Yu’s (2015) examination of Chinese Luibai painting, he makes particular reference to the concept of Xu, which, while a complex term to translate, can be rendered as emptiness. In keeping with the Chinese mythology of 1000 Things (of the daoist notion of all and everything being connected), Peng Yu characterizes emptiness as ‘an undirectional fluidity of relations’ and furthermore suggests that the ‘nothingness of liubai is both the producer and catalyst of relations’ (10). This helps further elucidate Zhang’s perspective.

Crucially, in working through the three stages of the performance Zhang seemingly needs a partner who is of equal mind or training, otherwise the engagement from the other side of the scroll is a distraction, it is not part of a flow of writing. This is not to suggest that the two performers are working ‘together’, but they are working within the same writerly space. The emptiness he suggests of, is not a meditative space as such, but a form of critical engagement. It is a ‘space’ for thinking structurally about writing. In placing the brush to screen, it is not to release from self-consciousness or to devolve one’s own masterly qualities. Nonetheless, there is the need to deal with the fact of another brush, on the other side. Crossing ‘fields’ of possibilities, one has to share in the paper, but all the while through an ‘archive’ of writerly marks. The one brush brings a living background to the other, which in turn gives rise to an answer to the other’s action. This is not simply a physical engagement. Writing as the highest structuring, orientating and codifying action is realized on a surface, but submitted to modifications, which while still calligraphic, simultaneously follow a pair of principles. Emptiness is the intention of writing. It is nothing: it is infinite. Zhang’s strategy, then, apart from undoing the structure of characters, is to bring together various domains such as ink painting, installation and conceptual art. He is not simply trying to produce beautiful calligraphic strokes, but rather to renew the domain we call calligraphy, or writing more generally.

In Monk An’s view, the mountain is not a mere geographical feature. Zhang’s one hundred meter calligraphic scroll hung from Tai-hang Mountain, literally involves the mountain in a dialogue, letting its crags and texture modify the calligraphy. And as the scroll blows in the wind, it is as if an enormous writing flits through the landscape.

踪迹学

Traceology

……当我们面对浩瀚的地球、恒星和外层空间时，一切都可以视为踪迹……当然，这是广义上的踪迹。也就是说，所谓踪迹，就是在我们视觉领域中看到的一切 。[……]运动中的物质之间的磨损或冲击似乎有着很大的不同。我们可以把这种物质看作一种踪迹。（张，踪迹学，2017，015）

在中国，正如白若思（2002：258）所阐释的，“最早的象形文字的灵感据说是来自于动物和鸟类的足迹或踪迹。”这是启示张强的“起点”， 可以将整个中国文化看作是一系列的踪迹：一些强烈，一些微弱，另一些则不可看到。张强（1996）用“踪迹学”这个词来概括他对艺术创作的见解，这种见解来自于踪迹的“宇宙”，这关键地引导他揭示出一种我们都可以分享的“共同的”文化。然而，尽管有足迹或踪迹的起源神话，张强采纳的观点与德里达使用的痕迹并无不同。

“踪迹的起源”，张强写道，“不是把痕迹看作生命形式……它在建立之初就有生命。”如果有，那么对于张强的“踪迹”就是起源；当一切都从起源命名时，踪迹将在此之前起源。这段话可以与德里达的论述进行比较：

痕迹是符号的不同形式。这是标志不存在的部分。换言之，我们现在可以把痕迹定义为缺席的事物离开其先前存在的场景后留下的符号。为了知道自己是在场，每个在场都带有缺席的痕迹，缺席就是它的定义。因此，一个原始的现在必须带有一个原始的痕迹，一个从未发生过的过去的现在痕迹，一个绝对的过去。(德里达，2005：XX)

那么，在张强的叙述中有一个关于德里达的本原书写的回应，不过，它并没有将将焦点放在“绝对的过去”上，是新生而不是缺席，这种隐喻是富有成效的。显然，作为一名艺术家，张强相信他可以通过物理的方式得到踪迹。当我们开始以这种方式理解张强的“进入”语言时，我们可以看到，白若思对中国书法主流的描述可能是缺乏的——的确，他接受了他的准确术语（古典、新古典、现代主义和前卫）“在中国没有得到广泛的应用”，而它们只是“试图理解问题以及来自不同方面的声音的有用工具”（2002：15）。问题是，我们仍然专注于传记和艺术历史框架，而不是将其作为哲学来深入探讨艺术实践。因此，用“前卫派”这个范畴来描述张强的作品是很方便的。反对任何这样的分类。批评家认为，张强的书法既不是表演艺术、观念艺术、抽象水墨画，甚至也不是当代书法。“想象一下”，他写道，‘踪迹学中的踪迹不是张强的艺术作品，也许是它是道士的标志和气味。”这个特殊的标志和气味，在感官上传达（观众）的幻想和自由想象'（九根针，2015：28）。

然而，在国内/国际框架下，这里仍然存在双重约束。张强对最早的象形文字的踪迹的兴趣与其说是关于造标记的“宇宙”有关，到不如说与中国书法走向国际有关。我们可以重新追溯/阅读张强的“起点”，白若思对此解释如下：

张强的出发点是，整个中国文化可以看作一系列的踪迹：一些强烈，一些微弱，另一些则不可看到。如果艺术界承认所有的艺术都是这些艺术产生的文化的痕迹，那么它或许可以建立一些共同点，从而摆脱关于前卫书法是应该被归类为书法还是绘画的无休止的争论。这一思路为张强探索笔墨在纸上留下的痕迹如何被看作“精神的痕迹”开辟了道路。（Barrass，2002：258）。

张强在泰特现代美术馆的“书写课”开始被拆解。一方面，他实践“书写”（来自中国书法的纪律与无纪律）保留了某种结构感，而且也让我们把各种线条看成是书写。这与德里达的观察是一致的，如列维-施特劳斯所描述的“画线”，南比克瓦拉的“几个点”和“锯齿形”的线条实际上是一种书写形式；一种超越了音标经验系统的书写。但是，书写的可能性正在困扰着我们。在这里，在活动中还是存在一种语言暴力，这是张强试图寻找语言的“空虚”避免的。他的书法表演让我们一瞥“一般性”的书写（在经验主义和暴力主义之前）。但是，在寻求将这种书写水平认定为“艺术”并使之合法化的过程中（尤其是作为全球化语境中的某种文化艺术形式），因为自身的文化范畴并附加上了起源神话，它们而变得负担重重，张强并不打算把这看作是静态的“起点”。

… when we are facing the vast earth, stars and outer space, all can be taken as trace ... This is generalized trace, of course. That is, so-called trace is to see everything in our field of vision […] Abrasion or impact between substances in movement appears to be in a tremendous difference. We can treat [this as a] superficial conclusion about such substances as a trace. (Zhang, Traceology, 2017, 015)

In China, as Barrass (2002: 258) explains, ‘the earliest pictograms are said to have been inspired by the footprints or traces of animals and birds’. This is the ‘starting point’ that inspires Zhang Qiang, ‘that the whole of Chinese culture could be seen as a series of traces: some strong, some faint, others invisible’. Zhang (2017) uses the term ‘traceology’ to encapsulate his vision of art-making, as derived from a ‘universe’ of traces, which crucially leads him to suggest of a ‘common’ culture, we can all share. However despite the origin myth of footprints or traces, Zhang adopts a view that is not dissimilar to Derrida’s use of trace.

The ‘origin of trace’, Zhang writes, ‘is not to review trace as life form… it has a life at the moment of establishment’. If anything, trace for Zhang is the origin of origin; when everything is named from an origin, trace will be originated before that. This can be compared with Derrida:

A trace is what a sign differs form. It is the absent part of the sign’s presence. In other words, we may now define trace as the sign left by the absent thing, after it has passed on the scene of its former presence. Every present, in order to know itself as present, bears the trace of an absent which defines it. It follows then that an originary present must bear an originary trace, the present trace of a past that never took place, an absolute past. (Derrida, 2005: XX)

There is an echo, then, of Derrida’s arche-writing in Zhang’s account, but rather than focus on an ‘absolute past’, the metaphors are productive, about nascence rather than absence. This is fitting in that, as an artist, Zhang believes he can physically access the trace. As we start to understand Zhang’s ‘entry’ into language in this way, we can see how Barrass’s account of the main trends in Chinese calligraphy are perhaps lacking – indeed he accepts his precise terms (classic, neo-classic, modernist and avant-garde) ‘are not widely used in China’, and are merely ‘useful tools in trying to understand the issues and appreciate the different voices involved’ (2002: 15). The problem is that we remain focused on biographies and an art historical frame, rather than delve further into an art practice as philosophy. Thus, the category of ‘avant-garde’ in describing Zhang’s work is a convenience. Jiu is against any such categorization. Zhang’s calligraphic approach, he argues, is not performance art, conceptual art, abstract ink painting, or even contemporary calligraphy. ‘Imaginably, he writes, ‘the trace of the Traceolodgy is not Zhang’s artwork; maybe it’s the Taoist priest’s sign and smell. This particular sign and smell, sensuously conveys [an audience’s] fantasyland and free imagination’ (Jiu, 2017: 28).

However, there remains something of a double-bind, that works upon the national/international frame. Zhang’s interest in traces of the earliest pictograms is perhaps less about a ‘universe’ of mark-making, and more about a projection towards an international Chinese calligraphy. We can re-trace/read Zhang’s ‘starting point’ again, which Barrass explains as follows:

Zhang Qiang’s starting point was that the whole of Chinese culture could be seen as a series of traces: some strong, some faint, others invisible. If the art world accepted that all arts were traces of the culture that produced them, it could perhaps establish some common ground and escape from the endless debate over whether Avant-Garde calligraphy should be pigeonholed as either calligraphy or painting. This line of thought opened the way for Zhang Qiang to explore how marks left on paper by brush and ink could be seen as the ‘traces of the spirit’. (Barrass, 2002: 258).

Zhang’s ‘writing lesson’ at the Tate Modern starts to unravel. On the one hand, his vision of ‘writing’ (that comes from a discipline and indiscipline of Chinese calligraphy) retains a sense of structure but allows us to view all kinds of lines as writing. This is in keeping with Derrida’s observation that the ‘few dots’ and ‘zigzag’ lines of the Nambikwara, as described by Lévi-Strauss as ‘drawing lines’, are indeed a form of writing; a writing that goes beyond empirical systems of phonetic notation. But the very condition of the possibility of writing catches up on us. There is ever the ‘violence’ of language at play, which Zhang is precisely trying to avoid when seeking the ‘emptiness’ of language. His calligraphy performances give us a glimpse into a ‘general’ writing (that comes before the empirical, the violent). But in seeking to assert and legitimate this level of writing as ‘art’ (and not least as a certain cultural artform within a globalised context), the work becomes overburdened with its own cultural category and affixes to an origin myth, which Zhang by no means meant to take as a static ‘starting point’.

作者：冯洁 中国海南大学教授，英国温彻斯特艺术学院博士。

苏尼尔·曼加尼Sunil Man.i/英国南安普顿大学教授，温彻斯特艺术校区校长。

译者：吴士新/中国艺术研究院研究员

工具书类

白若思，戈登，S。（2002）中国现代书法艺术。大英博物馆出版社。

作者的死与归：巴特、福柯和德里达的批评与主体性。伯克利：加州大学出版社。

Burke，S.，1998。

德里达，J。（1974）语法学，译。由Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak撰写。巴尔的摩：约翰·霍普金斯大学出版社。

德里达，J.，2005。书的结尾和写作的开始（207-225页）。牛津：布莱克韦尔。

Le Guin，英国，1998。老子：《道德经》。香巴拉出版物。

Marrati，P.，2005。起源与轨迹：德里达读胡塞尔和海德格尔。斯坦福大学出版社。

余P（2015）不确定地带：道家思想中的艺术、身体与政治。理论、文化与社会。

张强，2017，踪迹学，文化艺术出版社

References

Barrass, Gordon, S. (2002) The Art of Calligraphy in Modern China. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burke, S., 1998. The death and return of the author: Criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida.

Derrida, J. (1974) Of Grammatology, trans. by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

D errida, J., 2005. The End of the Book and the Beginning of Writing (pp. 207-225). Oxford: Blackwell.

Le Guin, U.K., 1998. Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching . Shambhala Publications.

Marrati, P., 2005. Genesis and trace: Derrida reading Husserl and Heidegger . Stanford University Press.

Yu P (2015) Zones of Indeterminacy: Art, Body and Politics in Daoist Thought. Theory, Culture & Society.

Zhang Qiang, 2017, Traceology, Cultural and art publisher

2020年度艺术人物

ARTISTS OF THE YEAR 2020

正式发售

搜索小程序：库艺术+

或点击文末“阅读原文”