{{sindex}}/{{bigImglist.length}}

【SPURS 新展】马刺画廊二十周年特展“取景框：二十年的现场”

{{newsData.publisher_name}} {{newsData.update_time}} 浏览：{{newsData.view_count}}

来源 | {{newsData.source}} 作者 | {{newsData.author}}

2025年12月13日—2026年3月1日
Gallery I, II & III｜马刺画廊

北京市朝阳区酒仙桥北路二号院798艺术区D-06

艺术家

法利·阿吉拉尔、陈劭雄、陈思羽、程起天霖、方璐、郭海强、侯子超、黄锐、计洲、李怒、李珊、廖国核、林一林、马可鲁、马延红、阮纯诗、ONS、欧劲、佩恩恩、罗克萨娜·皮鲁曼德、邱岸雄、仇晓飞、安塞姆·雷尔、宋琨、孙一钿、谭天、唐平刚、铁鹰、乌雷、王加加、王卫、韦海、邢丹文、徐浩洋、颜磊、杨丹凤、叶凌瀚、易连、袁可如、曾宏、张培力、张伟、郑子燕、周岩

策展人

李佳、湘宁

开宗明义，时间首先要倒回2005年：在北京的草场地艺术区，这一年先后迎来的是一批自我定义为“另类”空间的艺术机构，年初是站台中国的开张，五月是北京公社首展，到十二月，两位策展人皮力和包文麟（Waling Boers）以题为“开放：一个全新的艺术空间”的展览，宣布Universal Studios-Beijing的诞生，将其构想为一个“疯狂、混杂和越界”的实验室，试图在既存系统的各环节边缘游走出一条新的路线[1]。到2008年前后，这些最初以非营利为愿景的空间，包括更早成立的维他命艺术空间和长征计划，已几乎全部转型为彻底的商业画廊。这一转向所折射的矛盾处境凸显了这样一个事实：深嵌于时代的变动、机遇和局限，中国当代艺术形成了自己的生存策略、创造性实践和适应性逻辑，而它在作为基本生态单元的画廊身上体现得尤为典型，后者本来就在经济与流通、象征与体制、话语与价值等多重层面之间充任中介，而这片土壤所造就的特殊的混杂性则让它始终贯有一种内在张力，不仅存在于其自我认知和描述之中，也显现在机变与延续，理念与策略的近身拉扯以及运作调试中，更贯穿在每一个具体的动作和转折中。越是靠近过往的现场，这一点就越发清晰可辨。

从2005到2025，从草场地到798，当年的Universal Studios-Beijing早已更名博而励画廊，再经贾伟和来梦馨重启成为如今的马刺画廊——在中国当代艺术的历史中这或许只是片段和个案，不过，局部温度的升降往往是整体气候变迁的缩影，借助眼前这一方窗口，我们得以审视一个尚未落幕的过去，打量一个仍在生成的全景，更重要的，是理解为何此刻的现实是这般形状。回望的目光总是需要一个取景框，或者说，回望的动作本身也是一种构框（framing）的动作[2] ，它牵引出来更多的提问：是谁在看，看向什么，是以何种视角、何种立场、何种权力，它们彼此之间又是如何交织、对峙或整合的？构框的过程中哪些片段被选择了，哪些细节被凸显了，又有哪些被过滤和省略了，哪些既定的叙事被拒绝了，又有哪些被修正和被延续？……如果这些诠释学意义上的追问施用于中国当代艺术刚刚过去的二十年，会发现无论在哪一个位置上构框取景——生产端或流通端，体制内或体制外，艺术实践者或价值中介等等——得到的与其说是一则内在连贯和意义自洽的叙事，莫如说是一张由多元主体、异质力量和错综利益所交织而成的复杂网络，其中的每一个节点都意味着一种，乃至多种“构框”的可能性。意义、价值和话语正是在多重构框及其彼此交叠、影响，竞争和协商的过程中被激发和进一步界定的。要理解这二十年来中国当代艺术实践和话语如何在这复杂网络中演进、调整和裂变的轨迹，需要重新观察和细描这些“框”与“景”的变动消长。

“取景框：二十年的现场”回看马刺画廊及其前身在这二十年间完成的一百五十余个展览，整理出六条有意义的线索，它们构成了展览的六个章节，或者说，六种“构框“的方式。“交叉口：成为个体的可能性”回顾了画廊从博而励阶段延续至今，对于“85”前非官方艺术的发掘和呈现，这些展览曾一度聚焦于对抽象绘画的讨论，虽然这一话题如今热度已退，但它将80年代的抽象实践与70后、80后“年轻一代”艺术家的作品对照互参的方式，提示出这一在此地“无根”的现代主义传统或许并不存在以语言演进构成的稳定本体，而更多源自创作者基于自身与时代关系的评估和回应。更重要的是，回看“历史前夜“的创作与事件，如集体写生、旅行、自我教育和组织地下展览等，会发现“如何成为个体”与“何为艺术”的追问始终交缠为一体，彼此牵引推动，而对个体性的追求往往通过团体的自觉行动而发生[3]。后者为今天被新自由主义的市场、制度与工作伦理塑造的艺术主体性，提供的是一种久违的参照，以及重新思考、想象个体与共同体、艺术与生活关系的空间。

“在过去与未来之间”讨论历史意识的生成与显现，在后社会主义的语境中它往往体现为一种强烈而含混的乡愁，一种兼有徘徊和告别的姿态。在仇晓飞、刘韡和邱岸雄于2007年前后的个展中我们看到的正是如此巨大模糊之物投下的影子，因其难以言述，艺术家们转而通过激发观众的体感、情绪反应和心理效果，来反向勾勒其形状。令人回味的是，2008年邱岸雄“前尘”中那整列老式火车引发的媒体狂热，几乎都围绕着“中国艺术驶向巴塞尔”而沸沸扬扬，却少有人注意到艺术家借助这庞然大物所触及的，恰恰正是记忆之缺失和历史感的虚无。在阮纯诗的散文影像和法利·阿吉拉尔基于历史事件的绘画中，则折射出另一种冲动：追索那些伦理上的未偿之债，以及那些仍需被重新理解与回应的灾难性事件。

“‘全球艺术’及其不满：想象世界的另一种方法”，从当下的危机和裂变时刻出发，重新打量那个并不遥远，却已有隔世之感的全球化及全球艺术世界的高峰时期，辨认它留给我们的究竟是怎样的遗产。千禧之初的艺术现场充溢着对多元文化和跨国流动的乐观想象与拥抱，和对地缘政治隔岸观火的眺望和机智调侃，以及对作为全球化副产品的都市生活、消费文化及其日常景观的的编排与重构。而暗流的涌动往往在骤然间掉转历史方向，如今，随着全球化危机四起，“全球艺术”的概念，以及它背后的系统框架和价值体系亦遭遇到自己的存在危机[4]。跨界贸易和资本流动所带来的繁荣红利，以及全球艺术的话语托举、系统吸纳甚至共构，这些一度为中国当代艺术推波助澜的有利条件，在以脱钩为标志的后全球化年代迅速地反转为负累，这让我们在绕过一圈后不得不重新面对那些关于位置和身份的未尽之问：二十年余前，林一林在纽约一堵被凿开的砖墙后面做出徒劳游泳的姿势，如今看来他留下的身影竟像是个延迟兑现的预言。

“真相部”借用了两次系列展览的标题，它关注那些在日常生活中翻动现实结构和权力关系，追踪其隐秘或彰显运作的艺术实践：王卫以镜面重构和复制北京动物园的宣传长廊，颜磊化妆为快感商贩，在艺术系统与社会生产系统之间制造并操弄短路，佩恩恩用关于“匹配”的寓言提示出当代生命政治中金融、身体与图像的同构关系。脱胎于具体的历史与社会条件，“真相部”的概念关联着两重在时空上先后出现，却能彼此呼应的意象，奥威尔式的真理操控机制与后真相时代的普遍焦虑在此重合，形成互文。一个代表性的个案是张培力跨度数十年的创作：2008年的《阵风》讨论“一个被制造出来的事实是如何影响‘真实事实’的这样一个悖论”[5]，十年后的《门禁系统》则通过升级了的自动化监控装置，将凝视、区隔和强制的体验无差别地随机分配给每一名进入其间的观众；一个将两重问题合并讨论的例子是《480分钟》（2008—2012），车间劳动在“实时记录”的名义下，被观看、计量、解释，进一步被重新组织为不同含义的社会事实。

“内视镜”展开另一条反向的路线，它绕行于宏观的现实宰制，将目光投向微观的、个人的和具身的经验，后者在那些关乎性别身份与意识、边缘性主体和情感政治的创作中获得了最充沛和有力的表达。在包括邢丹文、乌雷、易连、袁可如等一批艺术家那里，看到自我关怀和自我技术的种种形态，以及辨认、表述与抵抗的内在一体性。

展览的最后一重构框“景观、界面与制图”，聚焦于技术媒介时代的视觉表征与图像实践。在互联网技术、社交媒体、注意力经济、平台化治理等机制的共同作用下，图像平面与屏幕界面之间的边界似乎正迅速坍塌，在某种意义上图像问题部分地替换了绘画问题，从侯子超作品中电子图像观看习惯与绘画实践的对峙，到叶凌瀚的“屏幕写生”，绘画行动越来越成为一种跨媒介的实践。

虽如此，以上的种种“框构”所能提供的也仅是一个临时性的方案，而非一劳永逸的结论。无论是作为隐喻，还是作为研究方法，诠释技术或观察策略，抑或仅仅是一次展览叙事的尝试，构框首先总是一个动作，它指向的是过程，意味着持续的实践：不仅为了取景，更为辨认意义、理解事实、重估价值，和改写（哪怕是最微小的）未来的图式。在这个意义上，所有的“框”都是临时的，也是异质的。有多少种“框”，就有多少种设定问题、剪裁视角、打捞事实、取舍对象和诠释意义的方式。它证明艺术的历史与现场，始终是在无数关系、矛盾与愿望的挤压与拉扯中生成其形状，而这其中最要的讯息也许是：无论是谁，处于怎样的位置，总有着以自己的眼光、信念和叙述，在庞然世界的巨压中，拉动一丝偏移的可能。

[1] 参见经济观察报刊发的访谈 https://www.eeo.com.cn/2006/0829/34784.shtml

[2] 参见Mieke Bal关于framing作为视觉艺术和话语文本分析工具的论述。

[3] 王爱和曾写道：“同一历史条件不仅使艺术成为我们生命的必需，也使团体的出现成为必然。艺术是社会行为，没有艺术可以在孤立隔绝中产生。当正常的公共空间不存在时，我们更需要小团体内部的亚公共空间。”见王爱和主编，《无名画集》，香港大学出版社。

[4] 见由宓，《多极艺术世界里中国观感的多重结构》https://www.mplus.org.hk/tc/magazine/structures-of-feeling-on-china-in-the-multipolar-art-world/

[5] 见黄专，《论张培力：一个观念主义的反题》

December 13, 2025–March 1, 2026
Gallery I, II & III, SPURS Gallery
D-06, 798 Art Zone, No. 2 Jiuxianqiao Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing

ARTISTS

Farley Aguilar, Chen Shaoxiong, Chen Siyu, Chi Tien Lin Cheng, Fang Lu, Guo Haiqiang, Hou Zichao, Huang Rui, Ji Zhou, Li Nu, Li Shan, Liao Guohe, Lin Yilin, Ma Kelu, Ma Yanhong, Nguyen Trinh Thi, ONS, Ou Jin, Payne Zhu, Roksana Pirouzmand, Qiu Anxiong, Qiu Xiaofei, Anselm Reyle, Song Kun, Sun Yitian, Tan Tian, Tang Pinggang, Tie Ying, Ulay, Wang Jiajia, Wang Wei, Wei Hai, Xing Danwen, Xu Haoyang, Yan Lei, Danful Yang, Ye Linghan, Yi Lian, Yuan Keru, Zeng Hong, Zhang Peili, Zhang Wei, Zheng Ziyan, Zhou Yan

CURATORS

Li Jia, Xiangning

To start from the beginning, let us rewind to 2005. In that year, Beijing’s Caochangdi Art District welcomed a wave of art institutions that defined themselves as “alternative” spaces. Platform China opened at the start of the year, Beijing Commune held its first exhibition in May, and in December, curators Pi Li and Waling Boers announced the birth of Universal Studios-Beijing with an exhibition titled Open: A New Art Space.

Conceived as a “crazy, hybrid, and transgressive” laboratory, it sought to carve a new path along the edges of the existing system’s various components. By 2008, due to the hype of the Beijing Olympics, these art spaces, initially envisioned as non-profit, including the earlier-established Vitamin Creative Space and Long March Project, had almost entirely transformed into commercial galleries. The contradictory situation reflected by this shift underscores a fact: deeply embedded in the era’s changes, opportunities, and limitations, Chinese contemporary art formed its own survival strategies, creative practices, and adaptive logic. The particular hybridity cultivated by this fast growth in China has always imbued it with an internal tension, existing not only in its self-perception and description but also manifest in the operational adjustments between adaptability and continuity, vision and strategy, permeating every concrete action and turn. The closer one gets to the scenes of the past, the clearer this becomes.

From 2005 to 2025, from Caochangdi to 798, what was once Universal Studios-Beijing was renamed to Boers-Li Gallery and now operated by Jia Wei and Sherry Lai as SPURS Gallery. In the history of Chinese contemporary art, this may be merely a fragment or a singular case. Yet, fluctuations in local temperature often reflect shifts in the overall climate. Through this particular case, we are able to examine a past that has not yet concluded and survey a panorama still in the making. More importantly, it allows us to understand why reality has taken its present shape.

The act of looking always requires a “frame”—or rather, the act of looking is itself an act of framing. It raises further questions: Who is looking? At what? From what perspective, what position, what power? How do these intertwine, confront, or integrate? In the process of framing, which fragments are selected, which details are highlighted, and which are filtered or omitted? Which established narratives are rejected, and which are revised or continued? If we pose such questions to the past two decades of Chinese contemporary art, we find that no matter where one positions the frame—be it from the perspective of production or circulation, inside or outside institutional frameworks, as art practitioners or value intermediaries—what emerges is less a coherent, self-contained narrative and more a complex network woven together by multiple agents and intricate interests. Each step within this network signifies one or even multiple possibilities of “framing.” To comprehend how Chinese contemporary art practices and discourses have evolved and adjusted within this complex network over the past two decades, we must re-evaluate and examine the shifting dynamics between these “frames” and “scenes.”

“Crossroads: The Possibility of Becoming an Individual” revisits the gallery’s ongoing presentation from its Boers-Li phase to the present, of pre-85 unofficial art. While these exhibitions once focused intently on discussions of abstract painting—a topic whose hype has declined—their methodology of juxtaposing the abstract practices of the 1980s with works by ‘post-70s’ and ‘post-80s’ “young generation” artists suggests something significant. It implies that this modernist tradition may not possess a stable ontology formed through linguistic evolution. Instead, it appears to stem more from artists’ assessments of and responses to their relationship with their own era.

More importantly, looking at the creations and events of that “historical eve”—such as art collectives trekking together on sketching trips, and the organization of underground exhibitions—reveals that the questions of “how to become an individual” and “what is art” persistently propelled these artists. The pursuit of individuality often emerged precisely through the conscious actions of groups. This latter phenomenon offers a long-absent frame of reference for today’s artistic subjectivity, which is shaped by neoliberal markets, institutions, and work ethics.

“Between Past and Future” explores the formation and manifestation of historical consciousness, which in a post-socialist context often takes the form of an intense yet ambiguous nostalgia. In the solo exhibitions of Qiu Xiaofei, Liu Wei, and Qiu Anxiong in 2007–2008, we witness precisely the shadows cast by such vast, elusive entities. Because these are difficult subjects to articulate directly, artists turn to evoke viewers’ bodily sensations, emotional responses, and psychological effects to indirectly outline what they truly want to depict.

It is particularly evident when Qiu Anxiong gave the train carriage an artistic makeover after it had ended its career as a means of public transportation, transforming it into the work Staring into Amnesia (2007) and landing its way in Art Basel Basel the following year. The media exploded and celebrated around the narrative of “Chinese art steaming toward Basel,” while few noticed the artist’s real depiction through this colossal motif: namely, the absence of memory and the void of historical sensibility. In the essay films of Nguyen Trinh Thi and the history-based paintings of Farley Aguilar, another impulse is reflected: the pursuit of those unsettled ethical debts, and of catastrophic events that still demand to be re-understood and responded to anew.

“Global Art and Its Discontents: Alternative Ways of Imagining the World” begins from the present moment of crisis and fracture, looking at the not-so-distant era of globalization and the global art world to discern what legacy it has truly left us. The art scene at the turn of the millennium was saturated with optimistic imagination and an embrace of multiculturalism and transnational mobility. It was marked by a distanced gazing and witty critique of geopolitics, and by the orchestration and reinterpretation of urban life, consumer culture, and their everyday landscapes as byproducts of globalization.

Yet, the invisible currents can often abruptly redirect the course of history. Today, as crises of globalization proliferate, the very concept of “global art,” along with its underlying systemic frameworks and value structures, faces its own existential crisis. The prosperity once fueled by cross-border trade and capital flows—conditions that once significantly propelled Chinese contemporary art—have swiftly decoupled into burdens in this post-globalization era. We are now compelled to confront those unresolved questions of position and identity. Over two decades ago, Lin Yilin performed My Imagination of a Great Nation (2001)—the gesture of swimming futilely behind a breached brick wall in New York. Yet, the silhouette he left behind reads almost like a prophecy long delayed in its fulfillment.

“Ministry of Truth” is the title of two series of exhibitions done in the past two decades. It focuses on artistic practices that unsettle the structures of reality and power relations in everyday life, tracking the covert or overt workings of ideology. Wang Wei reconstructs and replicates the propaganda corridor of the Beijing Zoo using mirrors; Yan Lei creates and manipulates between the art system and the social production system; Payne Zhu uses parables of “matching” to reveal the isomorphic relationship between finance, the body, and images in contemporary bio-politics.

Emerging from specific historical and social conditions, the concept of “Ministry of Truth” connects two images that, though appearing at different times and spaces, resonate with each other. As George Orwell’s mechanism of truth manipulation converges here with the anxieties of the post-truth era, it forms an intriguing dialogue. Zhang Peili’s work Gust of Wind (2008) explores the paradox of how “made-up facts” influence the “real facts,” while Access Control System (2018) employs an upgraded automated surveillance to randomly and indiscriminately assign the experiences of gaze, segregation, and coercion to every viewer who enters. Another example is his 480 Minutes (2008–2012), filmed via surveillance cameras in a garment factory. Under the guise of “real-time recording,” workshop labor is observed, measured, interpreted, and ultimately reorganized into social facts bearing different meanings.

“Mirror of Interiority” charts an opposite path. It goes around the macroscopic reality and focuses on the microscopic, the personal, and the embodied experience. This focus finds its most ample and powerful expression in works concerned with gender identity, consciousness, and marginal subjectivities. In the works of artists such as Xing Danwen, Ulay, Yi Lian, and Yuan Keru, one witnesses diverse forms of self-care, alongside the intrinsic unity of recognition, articulation, and resistance.

The exhibition’s last chapter, “Spectacle, Interface, and Cartography,” concentrates on visual representation and image practice in the age of technological advancement. Under the combined influence of internet technology, social media, and platform governance, the boundary between the image and the screen interface collapses. From the confrontation between the electronic image viewing habits and the artist’s painting behaviour in Hou Zichao’s work to Ye Linghan’s practice of “working from screen,” painting has increasingly become a cross-media practice.

Nevertheless, in each of the six chapters, each “frame” offers only provisional arrangements rather than definitive conclusions. Whether using it as a metaphor, a research method, a hermeneutic technique, an observational strategy, or merely an attempt at an exhibition narrative, framing is fundamentally an action. It points toward process and signifies ongoing practice: not merely for selecting a view, but for identifying meaning, understanding facts, reassessing values, and rewriting—even if only in the slightest way—the schema of the future.

All “frames” are temporary and also heterogeneous. As many frames as there may be, there are so many ways of formulating questions, tailoring perspectives, selecting subjects, and interpreting meaning. This demonstrates that the history and present of art are continually shaped under the pressure and pull of countless relationships, contradictions, and desires. Perhaps the most profound takeaway we hope to offer is this: regardless of who you are or where you stand, there always remains the possibility—through your own vision, conviction, and voice—to gently, yet persistently, tug at the fabric of the world, shifting its weight ever so slightly toward light.

李佳是一位常驻北京的独立策展人和研究者。她的策展实践关注参与式艺术、空间和社会实践，以及中国当代艺术历史的再叙述。她的研究聚焦于亚洲语境中集体主义、协作与自我组织的策略与形式，亚洲语境中社会参与式艺术和艺术行动主义的历史与现场，及其在社会变迁与社会运动中的位置和作用。她亦致力于在更广泛的文化、经济与政治语境中重新书写中国当代艺术的历史。

她曾任泰康空间高级策展人，佩斯北京画廊副总监。近期策划的部分展览包括“跬步与徘徊: 隋建国1974—2024”（西海美术馆，青岛，2024）、“步行指南”（长征独立空间，北京，2023）、 “张晓刚：蜉蝣”（龙美术馆，上海，2023）、“转角见！——当下青年艺术奖2022”（当下艺术空间，北京，2022）,“饥饿地理”（泰康空间，北京，2019）、“制性造别”（泰康空间，北京2018）、“漂流”（现代汽车文化中心，北京，2018）、“日光亭项目2016/2017”等。她于2017年获第一届Hyundai Blue Prize创意能量奖，于2021年获亚洲文化协会奖助，于2022-23期间任德英基金会首届策展学者。

Li Jia is an independent curator and researcher based in Beijing whose work explores the diverse and hybrid practices of collectivism, collaboration, and self-organization as artistic strategies across Asia. She has a strong interest in socially engaged art and artistic activism, particularly their roles in recent social movements. Li is also committed to re-narrating the history of contemporary Chinese art within its broader cultural, economic, and political contexts.

Li previously served as Senior Curator at Taikang Space (2015–2020) and as Associate Director at Pace Gallery, Beijing (2012–2015). Her recent curatorial project includes Dimensions Indefinitely Variable: Sui Jianguo (TAG Art Museum, Qingdao, 2024), Walking Guidance (Long March Independent Space, Beijing, 2023), Zhang Xiaogang: Mayflies (Long Museum, Shanghai, 2023), Meet You at the Corner! Dangxia Young Artist Award 2022 (Dangxia Art Space, Beijing, 2022), A Geography of Resistance (Taikang Space, Beijing, 2019), Genders Engender (Taikang Space, Beijing, 2018), Precariousness (Hyundai Motorstudio Beijing, 2018), Day Light Pavilion Series (2016–2018), among others. She was awarded the first Hyundai Blue Prize (Creativity) for achievement in curatorial practice in 2017. Li is the recipient of the Asian Cultural Council (ACC) Individual Grant in 2021. She is the inaugural curatorial fellow supported by De Ying Foundation from 2022 to 2023.