{{sindex}}/{{bigImglist.length}}
{{memberInfo.real_name}}
{{commentname}}

PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人

{{newsData.publisher_name}} {{newsData.update_time}} 浏览:{{newsData.view_count}}
来源 | {{newsData.source}}   作者 | {{newsData.author}}

PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客

PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客


策展人:王尤

出品人:刘晓都

展览研究员:陈颋、陈柏麒


开展时间:2022.12.24

地点:坪山美术馆6层

地址:坪山美术馆


指导单位:坪山区文化广电旅游体育局

主办单位:坪山美术馆

执行团队:坪山美术馆团队、万尤引力实验室

展务执行:振世远景艺术展览


“缺失的剑”与“此刻的我”

关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人


/陈颋(展览研究员)


精神世界,是两个身体之间的关系,只不过其中一个缺失了

——安德烈·格林


弗罗伊德在上个世纪定义了潜意识,即在我们的意识中,总有一部分不受我们的主观所控制,比如梦;比如话到嘴边的遗忘;比如突如其来的情绪,莫名的感伤,泉涌的灵感;比如似曾相识,一见如故,魂不守舍;比如走神,晃神,出神,入神……我们的社会特征,风俗文化和人生经历构造了我们的主观,同时也塑造了我们无法全息洞察的潜意识。于是为了更好的了解我们的主观世界,尽可能的挣脱潜意识的桎梏,弗罗伊德把他的方法论实践总结成为了精神分析。


当然这里的精神分析是具有弗罗伊德实践的年代,地域,社会和文化的条件局限,之后的一百多年人们又根据这些实践继续因地制宜的思考,而精神分析也并不一定是唯一一条通向主观深处的道路。但这并不影响我们在今时今日,借鉴其中的一些经验,来创造一些思考与对话的契机。


弗罗伊德的临床方法论并不复杂:邀请受分析者选择一个舒服的姿势卧在躺椅上,分析师则坐在躺椅之后,一个可以观察受分析者但又不被其看见的地方,以语言的方式,让受分析者自由的讲出其思绪,任其自由的在旧时的回忆中遨游,在生活经验中连结。而之所以说“任其自由”,恰恰正是这种 “白日梦” 式的主观神游,受分析者根本没办法绝对 “自由”。过去的事件之间复杂的层叠,即便是努力的专注的重构当时的容貌,浮现的却往往并非是原来的模样。即便是我们在当时的舟上刻下了记号,也并不代表船可以顺利开到原来剑掉下水里的地方


PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客

《空笼》, 蒋志,录像 , 25'30",2001


然后我们的思绪从这件事跳到那件事,从这个人跳到那个人,从这张脸跳到那张脸,直到甚至开始怀疑,自己一直梦到的那张脸,那个人,到底是不是自己朝思暮想的那张脸,那个人?而自己不断被困扰,总是过不去的那件事,到底是不是真的因为那件事?


“过去”,不断浮现成为了“现在”,而“现在”,不断回溯引入到“过去”。这种白日梦般的神游,并不只是满足我们重新体验过去的冲动,事实上我们生活中无时不刻不在凝神走神中重复,所以分析者的在场,是试图把这个凝神走神,思绪连结的过程,变成了此时此刻的“工作”。目的是让受分析者更接近自己的主观意识和潜意识,让旧时不断重复的经验来的更温柔些,更能够被我们接受,陪分析者活过以前一些看似很难活过来的情绪。


之所以让受分析者看不见分析师,是因为当时的理论体系中,将“观察” 和 “遐想” 这两个行为做了区分。弗罗伊德认为如果分析师面对着受分析者,会把受分析者置于一个观察分析师的状态,分析师的肢体语言,倾听时的表情都会影响受分析者,提醒着他“现实”的存在,阻碍其进入自由的遐想。观察是感知现实的通道,而遐想则是想象的前提。直到温尼考特在《足够好的母亲》中谈及,母亲在婴孩现实中的简单缺省离开,比如接电话,做饭,的确让婴孩开始“想象”母亲,想象她的 “在场” ;然而足够好的母亲,应该帮助婴孩,在母亲现实在场的情况下,能够想象母亲的 “消失”,也就是让婴孩体验母亲在时的“独处”。这也就是认为,观察之中,无所不在的重叠着遐想,而想象触发来源于对现实的体验与观察,并不存在观察和想象之间的绝对区分。也因为理论上新的认知,在方法论上面对面坐着对谈式的分析也成为了实践。


我们在这里借用精神分析在历史上,生活中带给我们的一些思考,试图来诠释,刻画出几个值得我们去深化的过程。目的是给出一个可以讨论蒋志艺术创造的维度,来给出一些观察和想象蒋志作品的可能性。


第一个层面,是“观察”“看”这个行为,和“想象”“联想”之间的复杂关系。这背后的问题是主客观世界之间的辩证存在,以及对主客观真实的描述:我们能否不带主观的来与客观发生关系?再更深一层,如果我们无法绝对客观,那么我们是否能完全意识到我们主观的部分?如果潜意识存在,我们如何来做到相对客观化,并认识到我们之所见,不经意间充斥着我们的遐想?半杯水是空半杯还是满半杯,这点对于有集体文化和对“中庸”辩证的思考的我们并不难理解。事情前后看,两边看,分开看,整体看,话说出去,说回来等等都是在对我们的主客观关系进行反思。然而当代社会似乎更趋于带来“偏执”,“极端”,“身份”,“非此即彼的排他与对立”。同时个体主义带来的“自我”与“脆弱的自恋”反而使得我们的“内省式对话”变得困难。所以“观察”这个世界,越来越像是在观察“想观察”的世界,看到“想看到”的事物,批判“想批判”的敌人,从而来固化主观与自我。生怕稍不留意,就是“我”的迷失与异化。


第二个层面,是 “过去” 的现在化,“潜在” 的显现化。如果我们同意在我们的世界中既没有绝对客观的存在,也没有绝对主观的存在,即我们需要承认观察的过程中不可避免的存在想象,同时我们有意识或无意识的主观想象,都是基于过去,历史以及经验。而且有些事物的发展,并不以我们的主观意志而转移。


PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客《事情一旦发生就会变得简单》,蒋志,彩色打印

150 × 200cm,2006


在这“旧”与“新”的辩证中,最显而易见的是物理历史与精神历史,客观历史与主观历史的区别,前后不一定是同一个指代。比如我们从来都没看过的老照片,对于我们的意识来说是 “新的”,而同时我们又认知到老照片的客观历史性,它的“旧”。然后又有了“怀旧”,“复兴”,用“新”的方式来表达“旧”,把“旧”的片段“重新”调度,显现,重复。


意识到客观历史与主观历史,也就意味着事件的发生存在着一个客观时间和一个主观时间,两者的频率,速度都不相同。


比如眼前发生的事件,无时不刻不被映射着来自主观的侵蚀,来自过去的残影,来自经验的反光,它们重叠了事物的形状。这一层面似乎不难理解,如果我们的世界真的有严实的内在与外在,那么我们暂且可以把这类事件的产生界定在外在。彷佛在我们的视线之前,身体之外,精神感知世界彷佛姗姗来迟。我们看见一个熟悉的身影向我们走来,“才”意识到一个熟悉的人向我们走来的这个“事件”发生了。但是如果我们的经验中没有“旧”的表征,那么眼前这个“新”的事件又是否会“发生”?没有感知觉察意识到的“发生”又能否称之为“事件”?所以这个“事件”究竟是发生在“外在”,还是“内在”?


再反过来看“另一类事件”,我们暂时将其看成“内在的事件”,比如我幻想她向我走来,同样是在眼前,身体之外,但这次是幻想。然而我们的身体与情绪会有身临其境的反应,而且脑科学家会告诉我们幻想中的事件,与现实中的事件,是同样一片在大脑中的区域被点亮。当我们结束幻想,这个“事件”也就“发生过”了,但我们能否说这个“事件”发生在我们身上?就像每次做梦,不管其内容多么的荒谬,我们在梦中都“信以为真”。


我们又能否说,如果事件无法在“内在”发生,它也无法在“外在”发生?就像温尼考特说的,婴儿要认识到母亲在自己之外,认识到母亲不是自己的一部分,认识到“自己”,那么他必须在这个“外在”的母亲存在之前,在自身“内在”中让母亲存在,换句话说婴儿必须先“创造”出“母亲”,然后同时在“外在”“找到”母亲。


第三个层面,是从事件在“内在”中的产生,到自身主观对事件的接受。最浅显但也是最深刻的,是对自己注入强烈情感的人物或事的“消逝”的接受。这也是每个人都时刻经历着的考验,因为我们一旦 “创造” 了, “拥有” 了,允许在内在中让其 “存在” 了,也将意味着其时刻都面临着消逝,死亡和毁灭的威胁。为了抵抗这些威胁,我们似乎不断将我们心爱的事物内在化,幻想着他们,记忆着他们,估算着未来的各种可能性,如果这些事物消逝了,他们依然可以在我们内在中继续“活着”。然而我们越是将之内在化,他们越是成为“我”的一部分,而失去了他们,同时也意味着永远的失去了“部分”的“我”。


PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客

《悲歌》,蒋志,摄影,120 × 80 cm,2011 


这种失去越是痛苦,越会使得我们希望能将这痛苦以及痛苦的源泉从内在中,思绪中排除,将之外在化。但是这痛苦的源泉若已是“我”的一部分,即便是能被外在化,被替代,他们也终将用各种形式,像回力镖一样朝着内在奔回来。然后我们或者会想:不对,他们并不是痛苦的源泉,痛苦的源泉不是被注入情感的事物,而是注入情感这个行为本身。不去注入情感,不去创造,回到创造之前,来试图摆脱痛苦,可能是最极端的方式之一,虽然它没有终结生命,但它却停止了某种意义上的生活。


这种被安德烈·格林称之为 “消逝型自恋” 的(为了“自保”而无法再对事物注入情感)无疑也幸好是少数,毕竟我们成长的路上一直在对生命中的各种事物保持强烈的情感与连结,也同时在不断面对着事物的消逝,变化,沉淀,面对着事与愿违,失败和挫折,然后学着自己处理与面对,学着向他人寻找帮助。这里消逝的人事物,同时还包括价值与价值观,包括理想,希望与向往,我们对抽象的意识形态也一样有强烈的感情与连结。同时,我们未必能够一直能清楚的意识到具体某人事物的消逝,可以是转瞬即逝也可以是潜移默化,甚至我们有时候并不知道逝去的是什么,只觉得“我”有东西在消失。所以这里的消逝在感觉上并不一定是指“越来越小”,也可能是“越来越大”,“越来越强烈”。


最后值得强调的是,既然我们提到“接受”,“痛苦威胁”与“自保”,那么 “受害者” 也同样是一个值得细细思考的形态。并不是所有的消逝与痛苦,都造就了 “受害者” 与 “受害者姿态”。虽然受害者强调更多的是责任与公平,但即便是我们或许不知道到底失去的是什么,也不知道应该让谁来负责任,有时候这种强烈的不公平感同样会使我们进入受害者姿态。更甚的是,在找不到“负责任的人”的情况下,我们往往会残酷的让“我”来负责任, 进入“自责”。所以“我”既成为了 “受害人” 也成为了 “追究责任者”。而这些姿态,往往未必能帮助我们来“接受”,来“与事件共存”。


与个体社会不同,在我们的集体社会中,往往会给出另一个姿态,不是“受害者”,而是“受考验者”,“英雄”,“成大事者”,是“天将降大任 ” ,它把重心倾出了个体主观体验,而更多的放在社会集体参照中。“咬咬牙,没事的,你看看其他人是怎么过来的”;“伤春悲秋,哭哭啼啼,能解决什么事情” ; “刮骨疗毒,拔矢啖睛”,这些无疑给出了一个考验与痛苦的参照系,把“伤疤”转换为“功勋”,把“痛苦”转换为“凭证”,来成为集体的一员。然而万一就是过不去“考验”呢?会不会同时也意味着要失去集体?


蒋志写的文字中,提及到了 “刻舟的人”,因而这个展览也由此展开。“剑”无疑是重要的,是“我”的一部分。“剑”的消逝是“事件”,而人的反应是“刻舟”。仿佛他唯一能做的,就是在他认为发生的地方,留下能留下的记号,一个他认为唯一能找到逝去的事物,甚至“逝去的自我”的线索,一条以后回溯的路径,即便是一个别人眼中看来错误,无用,可笑荒谬的参照。难道我们不都是在用能用的手段来找回丢失的 “剑”,把记号做在自己身上,然后才能渐行渐远?有些过不去的事情,它注定要重复。我们的精神世界,彷佛也一直在铸剑,失剑,刻舟求剑中展开。


探讨在观察中想象,在想象中观察,探讨新与旧,过去与现在,重复与差异的辩证,探讨事件在内在与外在的发生,探讨主观对事件的感知与接受,也可以在这些维度上去与蒋志的作品对话。


我们可以把蒋志的艺术创造看成是用来思考“外在性”与“内在性”的媒介,当它们太贴近,艺术家用时间空间将之拉远,拉慢;当它们太清晰,他将之拉模糊,拉隐晦;他让“公共性”与“私人性”相互遮掩,糅合,包含;他让“社会”与“心理”来回拉扯,让“集体”与“个体”翩翩起舞,让“过去”与“现在”若即若离,让“真情”和“假意”如胶似漆,让“痛苦”和“欢愉”相濡以沫;用“光”来让事物消逝,用“记录”来让记忆模糊,用“重复”来忘却,用“孤独”来庆祝,然后在最不稳定的船上刻下了痕迹。


 关于展览研究员 


PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客

陈颋

1984年出生,广东省汕头人


临床社会心理学家,巴黎大学社会学博士,巴黎第七大学社会心理学硕士,巴黎天主教大学社会调停和教育硕士。巴黎天主教大学讲师,Georges Devereux中心临床调停员,讲师。临床研究内容涉及:个体和集体中的主体;中国移民的个体与家庭;跨族群的私生活,以及社会心理学的普遍问题如:意义的产生,变化与消逝;社会与心理主客观间的互相干涉等。同时参与过蒋志多个展览的探讨。


PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客


"The Lost Sword" and "Me at the Moment"

On the Exhibition of Jiang Zhi: The Man Who Carves the Boat


By Chen Ting, Exhibition Researcher



The spiritual world is the connection between two bodies, but with one of them missing.

 ——By André Green


Sigmund Freud defined the concept unconscious in the last century. According to him, it suggests a part of our consciousness that is always not actively under our control, such as dreams, the moment when you forget what to say merely before you say it, the unexpected emotions, unexplainable sentiment, or surging inspiration. Also, the déjà vu, the feeling that someone is like your old friend at the very first sight, and the feeling that you are falling into a trance, absent-minded, distracted, tuned out, or entranced. Our social characteristics, customs and culture, and life experiences have shaped our subjectivity, as well as our unconsciousness which we could never see through clearly. Therefore, to better understand our subjectivity, and break away from the shackles of unconsciousness, Freud introduced psychoanalytic theory based on his methodology and practices. 


Of course, the psychoanalysis we talk about here is based on Freud’s practice, which have geographical, social, and cultural limitations of his time. And in the next ten decades, based on his practices, people continued to adapt the theory with local conditions. And now we know that psychoanalysis is not necessarily the only path leading us to the inside realm of subjectivity. However, today we could still learn from these experiences, and create opportunities to think and make dialogue. 


The clinical methodology of Freud is not complicated at all: the analysand will be invited to lie on a lounge chair with a comfortable position, and the analyst will sit behind him at a place where he can observe but not be seen by the analysand. He will guide the analysand to speak out his thoughts freely and roam in his old memories, making connection with his daily life experience. While the analysand is "allowed" to speak freely, such daydream-like spiritual wandering of mind is purely subjective, which means it is impossible for the analysand to be absolutely "free". The past events could be jumbled in your memories in a very complicated way, even if the analysand tries his best to restore the past scenes, what emerges in their mind could not be their original appearance. Even if we carved notches on the boat when the sword fell into the water, it does not mean that with this notch the boat can sail back to where the sword fell successively. 


Then our thoughts jump from one thing to another, from one person to the other, and from this face to another face…until that we begin to wonder, is this face and this guy haunted us really the one we think about all day long? And the thing that constantly bothers us, that we cannot get over with –– is it really the true reason? 


The "past" emerges constantly and becomes the "present". While the "present" traces back to the "past" again and again. This daydream-like wandering is not just to meet our impulse to revisit the past but a commonplace as we always repeat the status of getting focused or distracted all the time in our life. Therefore, the presence of the analyst in the diagnose is to turn this process of focusing and distracting, and of connecting thoughts into a timely "task". This is to bring the analysand closer to his subjective consciousness and unconsciousness. And in this way, the constantly repeated experience in the past could seem gentler, more acceptable to him, which would accompany the analysand to live through some of the emotions which could almost kill him in the past. 


The reason why the analyst should be kept out of the sight of the analysand is that "observation" and "reverie" were thought independent from each other in the theoretical system of that time. According to Freud, if the analyst faces the analysand directly, then the analysand will look at him as an observer. When the analyst listens, his body language and facial expression would affect the analysand, remind him of the existence of "reality" and hinder him from a free reverie. Observation is a path to perceive reality, and reverie is the precondition for an imaginative capability. This is true until Donald Winnicott put forward his "good enough mother" theory, saying that the short and quick absence of mother in a baby's reality, such as leaving to answer the phone or cook, will leave the baby in an illusion that the mother is still with him. However, a good enough mother should enable the baby to feel her "disappearance" at her presence, which means a feeling of "being alone" even though the mother is there. It can be inferred that the observation is intertwined with reverie, and what triggers the imagination comes from the experience and observation of reality. There is no such absolute distinction between observation and imagination. And with this theoretical progress, the analysis of face-to-face dialogue becomes a form of practice as well. 


As psychoanalysis has brought some many enlightenments to our history and our daily life, I would like to propose some processes that worth our further development under this framework. Hopefully this will offer a dimension for us to talk about Jian Zhi's art, and provide more possibilities of observation and imagination. 


At the first level, it is the complex relationship between "observation", or "seeing", and "imagination" or "association". The point here is the dialectical existence between the subjective and objective world, as well as the description of the subjective and objective reality: Can we be associated with the objective world, without realizing our subjectivity?  To go even further, if we cannot be absolutely objective, can we be fully aware of our subjective part? If the unconscious exists, how can we stay relatively objective, and be aware that what we see will fill our reverie later? The question that is half a glass of water half empty or half full is not a difficult question for us who are used to collective culture and dialectical thinking in the doctrine of "the Mean". The way we observe a matter, looking at it from different perspectives and dimensions, either as a collective whole or as separate individuals, or the way we discuss a matter, in a radical manner or in a conservative manner, are all the reflection on the relationship of subjectivity and objectivity. However, the contemporary society is more inclined to catalyze "paranoia", "extreme", "identity" and "black-and-white exclusivity and opposition". Meanwhile, the "self" and "vulnerable narcissism" brought by individualism make the "introspective dialogue" more difficult to realize. Therefore, when "observing" this world, we are more like observing a world that we "want to observe", seeing things we "want to see", and criticizing opponents that we "want to criticize", to bolster our subjectivity and self, for fear of the loss and alienation of "self" when not paying attention. 


At the second level, it is looking at the past from a present perspective, and manifesting what lurks behind into the reality. If we agree that there is neither absolute objectivity nor absolute subjectivity in our world, then we need to admit that imagination is inevitable during observation, and our conscious or unconscious subjective imagination is subject to the past, the history and the experience. The development of many things will not change in line with our subjective willingness.


In the dialectics on what is "old" and "new", the most crystal-clear divide is between physical history and spiritual history, and objective history and subjective history, whose reference yet is not necessarily the same. For instance, in our consciousness, the old photos we have not seen before are "new", and yet we know that they are "old" as we recognized their objective historicity. Then, we have "nostalgia" and "revival", which means expressing the "old" in a "new" way, re-arranging the "old" fragments to reproduce and repeat them.

When you realize that there is objective history and subjective history, then you will notice that when things happen, there is an objective time and a subjective time, which have different frequency and speed.


For instance, when something happens, it is always carrying the influence of subjectivity, the shadow of the past, and the traces of the experience. The shape of the thing is therefore overlapped. It seems not difficult to understand. If we really have a strict divide of internal and external world, then we can classify such matter into the external world for now. It seems that the world of spiritual perception always comes afterwards, in front of our eyes and outside of our body. It is not until we see a familiar figure walking towards us that we realize the "event" of a familiar person approaching is happening. But if we do not have such "old" knowledge to refer to in our experience, will this "new" event really "happen"? Can we call something an "event" if we fail to perceive that it is "happening"? Therefore, how can we distinguish that is this "event" happening in the internal world, or actually in the external world?  


Now let's look at "the other type of event"——the "internal event" as we can put it for now. For example, let's imagine a girl is walking towards us——also in front of our eyes and outside our body, but we know that this time, it is a fantasy. Even so, our body and emotion will respond all the same as if we experience the real thing. The neuroscientists tell us that, whether it is a fantasy or a reality, the same areas of the brain will be activated. When the fantasy ends, the "event" has "happened".  But can we say that it has happened to us? Just like when we have a dream, no matter how absurd it is, we may feel just everything is too real. 


Therefore, can we say that if this event is not happening "internally", then it is impossible for it to happen "externally"? Just as how Donald Winnicott pointed out, to let a baby realize that he is outside of his mother, that his mother is not part of him, and to recognize the existence of his "self", he should construct an internal mother in his mind before the advent of the real mother in the external world. In other words, a baby needs to "create" a mother first, and then to find his physical mother in the "external" world. 


At the third level, it evolves from the internal and external occurrence of the event to your subjective acceptance of the event. The most plain yet profound task is how to face the "vanishing" of people and things that we have great attachment to. This is a test that everyone is experiencing all the time, because that as long as we "created" and "owned" something, we allow it to "exist" inside of us. Correspondently, as long as it exists, it will be in danger of disappearance, death and destruction. And to combat these threats, we seem to constantly internalize the things we love, fantasize and memorize them by imagining all kinds of possibilities in the future when we lose them yet they still "live" in our internal world. And the more we internalize them, the more they become "part" of us. Yet when we lose them, we are losing part of our "self ". 


The more painful we feel for the loss, the more we want to externalize it and get rid of it from ourselves and our mind. However, if the pain is already part of the "self ", it will go back to our internal world like a boomerang in various forms all the way, even though it has been externalized or replaced. And then we may think that, no, it is not where the pain comes from. What causes all these troubles is not the thing you put emotion in, but the emotion itself. So, stopping putting in emotion, stopping the creation and returning to the moment when the creation happens could be the most extreme way to shake the suffer. Although it does not end a person's life, it has terminated part of his life moments.   


The "vanishing-type narcissists" like this, as how André Green described, which refer to the person who can no longer put emotion in things, out of self-protection, is undoubtedly, and luckily, just a minority. Afterall, we are all strongly connected to and bounded with all kinds of living experiences as grow up, and face losses, changes and sublimation of things, and countless difficulties, setbacks, and frustrations at the same time. We are taught to deal with them and seek help from others. These vanishing people and things also include values, and opinion about value, such as ideals, hopes and pursuits. We are strongly attached to and connected with these abstract ideologies too. We may not able to always realize clearly the exact thing or person that is vanishing, as it could be transient or too common to be noticed. Sometimes, we may not even notice what we are losing, but only feel that part of "me" is dying away. Therefore, "vanishing" does not necessarily equal to an experience of getting "smaller" but could also be "bigger" or "stronger".  


At last, since we have mentioned "accepting the suffer and pain" and "self-protection", it is worth emphasizing that "victim" is also a status worth of our consideration. Not every vanishing and pain will create a victim and victim mentality. It is true that accountability and fairness are what victim cares about, but sometimes we could also fall into the position of victim even though we do not know what we have lost and who shall be held accountable, as driven by a strong sense of unfairness. What is more, when we are not sure whom to be blamed, we tend to cruelly hold ourselves accountable, and thus blame ourselves. At this moment, the "self " is both the "victim" and the "responsible person". But generally speaking, these postures will do no good in helping us to "accept" or "make peace with" the event. 


Unlike the individualist society, people living in a collective society are likely to act as, instead of a victim, but a person to stand the test, a hero, a doer, and someone who is endowed with mighty endeavor. The focus here is no longer the individual and subjective experience, but more on the collective reference. "Hang in there. It is OK. Look at how others got on with it." "You are being too sentimental. It can solve nothing." "Scraping the poison off the bone. Swallowing your eyeball if it is shot by arrow." All these discourses offer a reference frame of test and suffer for a person who wants to ger accepted by the collective which takes the scar as a medal and pain as a credential. However, what if the person cannot pass the "test"? Does that mean he will be expelled from the collective instead? 


As Jiang Zhi wrote about "the man who carves the boat" in his article, the exhibition therefore begins with this topic. Undoubtedly, the "sword" is the key, as it is part of the "self ". In this story, the loss of the sword in the river is the "event", and our protagonist responses by carving a mark on the moving boat. It seems that the only thing he can do is to leave a notch as best as he could at where the sword was lost, which is the only vanishing subject he thought he could find. And for him, it could even be the clue to find his "vanishing self ", a retrospective path, even if it is a mistaken, useless and ridiculous reference in the eyes of others. Aren't we all sparing no efforts to search our lost "sword" and making notches on ourselves, so as to get ourselves to move on? For those things we cannot get over with, they are bound to happen again. And somehow we are also stuck in this cycle of casting a sword, dropping it in the river, and carving on where we lose it, thinking that we could search it with later in our spiritual world. 


The exhibition talks about imagination in observation, and observation in imagination. The dialectic between the new and the old, the past and the present, the repetition and the difference. The internal and external occurrence of event. The subjective perception and acceptance of event. These are all the dimensions we can refer to when dialoguing with Jiang Zhi's works. 


We can take the artistic creation of Jiang Zhi as medium for reflecting on externality and internality. When they are too close, the artist will pull them away and slow them down, by playing a trick of time and space. When they are too obvious, he will make them blur and vague. With his intervention, the public and private nature in his work are overlapped, integrated and intertwined. By leveraging the dynamics between society and psychology, he fully examined the relationship between "individual" and "collective", blurred the divide between "the past" and "the present", bound "true" and "false" feelings together, and harmonized "painfulness" and "happiness". The "light" wiped away the existence of things. The "record" blurred the memories. The "repetition" was performed to forget. The "loneliness" was here to celebrate. And, at last, he carved a mark on the least stable boat.


  Exhibition Researchers 


Chen Ting


(1984-), born in Shantou Guangdong. Clinical psychosociologist, doctor of sociology (PhD in University of Paris). Master of psychosociology (University Paris 7 Diderot), master of educational actions and mediations (University Catholic of Paris). Lecturer of University Catholic of Paris, lecturer and mediator of Georges Devereux Center of Paris. Clinical research fields involve : the Subject in-between the individual and the collective; individual and family of Chinese immigrants; sex and sex work; inter-culture private life. Also the common problems of psychosociology : the generation, transformation and disappearance of meaning; the mutual interference between social and psychological, objective and subjective. Participated in the discussion of Jiang Zhi's many exhibitions.




展览信息


艺术家:蒋志

策展人:王尤

出品人:刘晓都

展览研究员:陈颋、陈柏麒

开展时间:2022.12.24

地点:坪山美术馆6层

地址:深圳市坪山区坪山街道汇德路

主办:坪山美术馆

指导单位:坪山区文化广电旅游体育局

执行团队:坪山美术馆团队、万尤引力实验室

展务执行:振世远景艺术展览

文本整理:汪娇、米选萦

翻译:郑宇婷、耿芳

平面设计:徐翔宇、毛嗡嗡

封面设计:苗妙

展册设计:黄思聪

微缩模型设计:姜苏峪



正在展出


PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客


温馨提示


根据市疫情防控指挥部最新指示,即日起观众在坪山美术馆微信公众号预约后,经体温检测正常后进入场馆。各区域“同时在馆人数”达到上限后实施“出一进一”动态管理。在馆期间,请您全程规范佩戴口罩。坪山美术馆将根据疫情情况动态调整防控措施,敬请大家合理安排参观时间,错峰参观、分时预约、间隔游览。感谢您的理解与支持!


● 坪山美术馆采取限流开放,实行预约进馆制(可线上或现场扫码预约);

● 线上预约路径:关注坪山美术馆公众号-点击底部菜单栏“预约观展”并填写参观信息;

● 现场预约进馆:在美术馆入口处扫码登记,经测温正常后入馆参观;

● 预约限额、开放时段等信息以预约系统为准;

● 系统提前三天开放预约。



内容整理|米选萦

编辑|骆昱彤

审校|刘晓都 李耀

PAM荐文|陈颋 :“缺失的剑” 与 “此刻的我” —— 关于蒋志的展览:刻舟的人 崇真艺客

{{flexible[0].text}}
{{newsData.good_count}}
{{newsData.transfer_count}}
Find Your Art
{{pingfen1}}.{{pingfen2}}
吧唧吧唧
  • 加载更多

    已展示全部

    {{layerTitle}}
    使用微信扫一扫进入手机版留言分享朋友圈或朋友
    长按识别二维码分享朋友圈或朋友
    {{item}}
    编辑
    {{btntext}}
    艺客分享
    {{mydata.real_name}} 成功分享了 文章
    您还可以分享到
    加载下一篇
    继续上滑切换下一篇文章
    提示
    是否置顶评论
    取消
    确定
    提示
    是否取消置顶
    取消
    确定
    提示
    是否删除评论
    取消
    确定
    登录提示
    还未登录崇真艺客
    更多功能等你开启...
    立即登录
    跳过
    注册
    微信客服
    使用微信扫一扫联系客服
    点击右上角分享
    按下开始,松开结束(录音不超过60秒)