Displacement and Penetration: the Artwork Exhibition of Xiang- Guohua
Foreword

Wang Xiaojian

Three years ago, Xiang Guohua attended an artwork exhibition We co-planned by Geng Jipeng and others, which was happed to be one of his most memorable exhibition experience during his collegiate years. Now, both Xiang and Geng become someone in their own field. Working in Mianyang, the hometown of Xiang Guohua, Geng Jipeng is the planner of Xiang’s artwork exhibition this time. The second cooperation of the two is a witness of their growing maturity.
There are three major types of works in Xiang Guohua’s artwork exhibition: one is landscape paintings made by synthetical materials with branded holes on a piece of rice paper (Chinese Xuan Zhi or Xuan paper, usually refers to paper made from parts of the rice plant, like rice straw or rice flour. However, the term is also loosely used for paper made from or containing other plants, like hemp, bamboo or mulberry) or fur paper, or the pierced one painted on an acrylic board, which is recognized as his early style; the other is displaced free-style paintings painted by oil paints on a canvas; still another is the combination of the above-mentioned two styles-a displaced conversion of the first one. It took the artist three years- almost the same length of his collegiate studies to practice theses attempts. It was also the time when certain creative works made by students of Sichuan Fine Arts Institute were in great demand in the market. Many of them signed contracts with companies as long as they entered university; whereas Xiang Guohua still insisted on his own artistic exploration under such circumstances. In this regard, his attempts are difficult of attainment, hence worthy of esteem.
A common characteristic among the three types of Xiang Guohua’s works can be generalized as “the Deconstruction of Formalism” or “the Formalism Deconstruction”-because no matter branded holes, pierced work or displaced conversion are no more than the destruction or the dissolution of the existing structure; while a common piece of deconstructionist’ work is usually done by the means of juxtaposition (displacement) of irrelevant symbols, a multi-symbol deconstruction of semantic meaning, or a divorce from the existing context to become an isolated symbol. In short, it is through the deconstruction or reconstruction of the context of the signifier to achieve those of the signified. However, Xiang Guohua’s destruction or deconstruction of the existing structure is to the form, not to the context and what it brings is a special visual effect, instead of an alteration of the context. The visual effect of the branded holes is to thrust a sense of uncertainty to the image; while that of displacement is to create a tension of replacement or an effect of visual illusion. These two special visual effects are the destruction to the forms of Chinese paintings, which result in the destruction or the distortion of the “imagery”. The evident nature of “the Deconstruction of Formalism” in Xiang Guohua’s works is by no means accidental, as being indicated in the titles of his works. For instance, a Blind Eye is an absolute reference to the visual characteristics of the works; whereas Where the Imagery Comes from refers to the destruction of the “imagery” resulted from the formal destruction rather than the alteration of the context.
As to the obvious “Chinese Characteristics” of the works, I think it is not necessary to make any special value judgment because it is only a matter of free choice of the artist.  As far as I am concerned, the significance of the “Chinese Characteristics” to China’s contemporary art is no more than “making the past serve the present”; while that of the “Western Characteristics” is to “make the foreign things serve China”. Both of them are aiming at “letting a hundred flowers blossom”, with a sticking point of “weeding through the old to bring forth the new”. Generally speaking, Xiang Guohua’s art is a re-creation of the old based on the “Chinese Characteristics” of the works; while the displacement in his works is obviously originated from the western formal constitution.
                    

绘画与观念

                             ——向国华作品探析

                               何桂彦
在当代艺术领域，绘画与观念一直是值得讨论的话题之一。赞同者认为，“观念”应该是判断一件当代绘画作品是否具有价值的最重要因素之一，并主张架上绘画应吸纳观念艺术的成果，注重审美趣味、文化意义上的智慧性表达。批评者认为，如果片面强调观念，势必造成观念对绘画本体的剥夺，最终的后果是，哲学取代绘画。不管赞同也好，批判也罢，对绘画观念的讨论都无法回避两个核心的问题：一是，如何来评价当代绘画的价值；另一个是，以什么样的标准来衡量绘画作品中观念表达的有效性和合法性？
实际上，在西方现代艺术的发展谱系中，20世纪初的立体主义和其后的达达派便将观念的表达纳入绘画领域，力图在形式表现、意义生存方面超越古典绘画的范式；尤其是20世纪60年代初以安迪·沃霍尔、利希藤斯坦为代表的波普艺术，直接以新的绘画观念超越古典绘画的陈规陋习。1964年，丹托在《哲学杂志》上发表了著名的《艺术世界》一文，不仅深入的剖析了现成物品转化为艺术作品的生成逻辑，还提出了艺术制度与艺术品之间的关系。换句话说，丹托对艺术观念的讨论直接催生了一个新的话题，即什么样的艺术才能超越20世纪初即以形成的现代主义传统，超越精英式的、自律的形式范畴，从而推动绘画向新的方向发展。不难发现，不管是波普艺术，还是同时期的极少主义，它们的贡献并不在于创造了一种新的形式，而是在于拓展了绘画观念的外延，这种观念既包括艺术家的创作观念，也包括什么是艺术品的观念。就像丹托所说，安迪·沃霍尔的作品“布里洛盒子”，如果不把它放在美术馆，它就和其它现实中所见的盒子没有任何区别，但进入美术馆后，“盒子”就成为了艺术品。同样，也正是受这种艺术观念的影响，我们才将安德列、贾德的极少主义雕塑看作是真正的艺术品。
但是，在中国当代艺术界，这种将观念和绘画结合的艺术家却处于边缘化的地位。一方面，中国现当代艺术并没既成可用的类似西方现代主义的艺术谱系，所以，单纯的形式反叛（如新潮时期的各种现代风格）和观念性的绘画表达（如谷文达20世纪80年代中期的水墨作品）都无法进入主流的创作领域。另一方面，当代艺术在20世纪90年代初的转向，即从80年代的“文化批判”向“社会批判”转向后，衡量一件作品能否称为当代艺术的标准则只是看其是否具有现实的文化针对性。前者的问题是，如果没有经历过现代主义的发展阶段，中国当代艺术不可能在文化意义、精神表达上具有真正的高度；后者的问题是，如果片面强调对表层现实的关注，则必然在庸俗社会学的阐释面前就范，而所谓的现实关注也无非是现实符号的不断复制而已。因此，当中国当代艺术陷入前所未见的“媚俗”、“图像复制”和“图像生产”的时代漩涡之时，我们更应该关注那些真诚地面对艺术自身，默默无闻地执着于艺术实验的艺术家。在我看来，向国华就是这样一位在绘画与观念之间探索诸种可能性，且不畏惧改变的艺术家。
一次偶然的发现促使向国华开始以香火在宣纸上烙洞的方式来进行创作。由于燃着的香很容易烧透宣纸，随着大小不同的空洞的相继出现，如果在空洞的背后加入一个深色的衬底，空白的地方便凸现出来，变成了一种“有意味”的形式。在接下来的一段时间里，他开始做进一步的实验，希望将这些烙制的空白转换为一种有效的语言。他最早开始是烙印字迹，因为如果将整张宣纸加以装裱，这不仅具有了传统书法的形式，而且那些空白的地方同样具有审美的价值。其后，他开始烙印“四王”、“八大山人”的山水，也烙印过一些扇面。如果我们以传统的衡量标准去审视这些作品，向国华无疑会遭到许多人的批评。但是在多元标准的今天，他的作品是充满智慧和观念性的。这是一种在方法论上的突破。香火烧成的空白取代了传统的笔墨语言，中国传统笔墨所负载的精神性和文化性被彻底的颠覆掉了。尽管作品在展示的方式上还保量了传统山水图轴的外部装裱特征，但作品在视觉呈现上却与传统的山水有了本质的不同。
显然，这是一种“解构”主义的观念，观念的有效性在于以新的眼光，以及一种置疑的文化态度对传统艺术进行考量和思索。当然，批评者会提出质疑，这样的作品还能算是当代绘画吗？其实，这种置疑的态度本质上与杜尚的“小便池”为什么被命名为《泉》，安迪·沃霍尔的“布里洛盒子”为什么是艺术品一样。如何才能解决和回答这个问题呢？关键在于，艺术家的创作“观念”取代了过去习以为常地用色彩、笔触、主题、风格、意义等来判断一件作品是否是艺术品的标准。换句话说，向国华作品中至少包含了两种观念，一种是针对现代主义谱系发展而来的形式主义传统，但是，向国华对形式的探索并不同于现代主义的原创性、精英性原则，恰恰相反，他对形式的创造是在一种近似于游戏的态度下展开的。而正是这种表面的“游戏”状态却沿着解构主义的思路，切入到另一种更深层的观念中，即消解传统国画那种由笔墨体系建立起来的形式边界。但是，在这里，向国华作品的“观念”必将和当代艺术中的另一标准，即艺术应针对当下的文化现实发生冲突。因为，“观念”毕竟不能直接反映社会问题。于是，话题又必然回到本文开头所提到的“如何评价当代绘画的价值”问题上。
在西方过去一百年的现代艺术的传统中，不难看到有三种艺术创作方式同时在发展：一种是传统的现实主义，包括资本主义社会中知识分子和中产阶级所主张的“激进的现实主义”和“中立的、自然的现实主义”，也包括社会主义国家的“批判现实主义”。第二种是现代主义，即通过建构自律的形式来捍卫艺术的精英性和批判性，例如各种构成主义、抽象艺术等；第三种是前卫艺术，即针对艺术体制和艺术观念，例如杜尚为代表的早期“达达”、约翰·凯奇时期的“黑山学院”和安迪·沃霍尔为旗帜的“新达达”。实际上，在这三种传统中，现实主义的影响力是最小的，主流却是现代主义和前卫艺术。但是，和我们将现代主义肤浅地理解为形式主义，将前卫艺术片面地看成“破坏性”的艺术不同，这两种艺术本质上仍然是对周遭现实的批判，其批判的力度、涉及题材的广度远远超越了现实主义。换句话说，西方现代艺术对现实的批判不以单一的现实主义为载体，还包括对既成观念、艺术史的发展边界、艺术体制的合法性和有效性等为批判对象的前卫艺术和实验艺术。
因此，我们不仅要肯定像向国华这类具有实验性的“观念性”绘画，而且还应该重视、鼓励年轻的艺术家立足于自身的经验进行积极、有效的尝试。然而，在“媚俗”的图像遮蔽了当代画坛的种种问题的今天，“观念性”绘画必然会遭遇一个低潮期。不难发现，诸多非艺术的因素使得今天中国当代艺术越来越向单一化方向发展，而所谓的对当代社会的文化批判则成为“符号复制”和“批量生产”的噱头；同样，艺术家所标榜的“人文关怀”也落入某些批评家给定的庸俗社会学的阐释陷阱之中。所以，批评界着手可热的“社会学的转向”、“图像转向”问题仍然是值得商榷的，因为中国当代艺术真正急需的是一种实验性和前卫性的艺术，而不是那种符号化的、图像化和产业化的架上绘画。尽管重申当代艺术应该重建“现代主义”和“前卫艺术”的传统已经过时，但在绘画领域注入新的观念，以及寻求绘画新的可能性仍不失为一种有效的办法。
当然，“观念”仍然是一个很抽象的词语，我们的问题是，什么样的观念才是有效的？诚如批评家王林所言，“所谓观念，不是指一个概念、一种思想、一些可以用语言来言说描述的东西，而是指人的思维水平与思维能力，即充满悟性、禅机的智慧。智慧是与众不同的体验、是豁然开朗的见地、是突如其来的启发、是力透表象的反省。”如果落实到艺术家的创作，那就指艺术家创作时的方法，而这种方法的有效性和合理性取决于，艺术家是否以艺术史和艺术理论为依托，以大胆的创新为手段，以寻求绘画艺术新的可能性和提出新的文化或艺术问题为目的。
2006年，向国华开始创作《意在何处》系列。和早期《有限与无限·超越古典》所不同的是，这批作品是以油画媒材完成的，在创作方法上也放弃了先前用香火在宣纸上烙洞的方式。但是，艺术家的观念却有着内在的延续性。不管是早期用香火来烙“四王”的山水，还是后来用油画来画“八大”的水墨静物，向国华首先都将作品的形式或者图式放在了作品表达的首位。当然，这种形式并没有停留在简单的形式复制、模仿中，而是去探讨这种形式背后所隐藏的、体现的审美习惯。就像贡布里希对艺术图式所做的分析一样，一个时代的公共图式或者艺术史留下的经典作品，其意义不仅在于给我们提供了欣赏的对象，更重要的是，这种图式、形式的背后浓缩了那个特定时代的艺术趣味、文化取向和美学追求。向国华之所以对这些图式进行各种媒介的转换，一方面，他希望透过形式去言说传统绘画形式的观念表达问题；另一方面，这种转换还包括了某种置疑和否定的“解构性”。例如，在《意在何处》等作品中，向国华对“八大”、齐白石作品所做的形式转换就采用了“错位”和“断裂”的处理，这种处理的直接后果是：放弃了中国水墨画“意在笔先”、“得意忘形”、“骨发用笔”等等表达范式和美学追求，从而使读者对这些经典作品观看时产生一种不适感。正是借助这种错位感、不适感，向国华巧妙地使读者自觉地去审视和反思长期形成的欣赏习惯。
当然，我们面对的又一个问题是，如何才能对向国华这种“观念性”表达进行准确评价的问题，换句话说，这种“观念性”是否具有当代价值，其“合法性”又是什么？如果按照当代艺术应该反映当下社会现实的观点来看，向国华的作品肯定没有价值，因为它的作品没有任何与现实有关的图像。但是，如果我们换一种角度，从现代主义的形式建构和观念表达来看，这种针对艺术史图像转换的实验性绘画却有着积极意义。至少它提供了一种对待传统图式的文化态度，哪怕是批判或拒绝的态度；至少它沿着现代主义的脉络，并以后现代的“解构”思路进行媒介的转换，扩展了当代绘画题材和形式表达的界域。同样，最重要的是向国华有自己的“方法论”，并坚定地以“个人化”的实验状态进行积极的实验，而这种实验性一开始就避免掉入“庸俗社会学”的陷阱。尽管向国华的作品仍有不足之处，比如他也面临着空洞的形式复制的危险，但我们有理由相信他坚持不懈的思考和尝试最终能超越表层的形式，而触及到形式背后的文化内核。
之所以强调绘画与观念的结合，就在于当代绘画只有真正脱离“符号生产”和“符号复制”的怪圈后，才能真正形成多元化的格局；只有将“观念”纳入到绘画领域中，才能恢复艺术的实验性，重塑艺术的价值形态。同样，只有尊重艺术家的个体表达，当代绘画才能不献媚于市场，保持自身的文化批判力。这也正是我批判“新媚俗主义”绘画和希望重建“前卫艺术”谱系的内在动因。正是从这个角度出发，向国华作品的意义便由此彰显。
                                                                                                                   2007年6月27日于中央美院

                          Painting and Concepts
-An Analysis on Xiang Guohua’s Works

He Guiyan

Painting and concepts has long been a topic worthy of discussion in the contemporary art world. The proponents figure out that “concept” should be one of the most important factors in judging whether a contemporary art work has any value. They further suggest that easel paintings should absorb the essence of conceptual art, emphasizing aesthetic interest and their sapiential expressions in a cultural sense. While the opponents argue that the unilateral emphasis on concepts is bound to result in the deprivation of painting itself in an ontological sense, which will finally lead to a replacement of philosophy for painting. Two core issues cannot be avoided in the discussion of panting and concepts no matter either side one stands along: one is how to estimate the value of contemporary paintings; the other is how to appraise the validity and legitimacy of the conceptual expressions in a painting work by employing certain criteria.
Actually, in the developmental pedigree of modern western art, the emergence of Cubism and subsequent Dadaism in the early 20th century had already put conceptual expressions into the domain of painting, striving to transcend the paradigm of classical paintings in regard of formal expressions and meaning existence; especially in the early 1960s, Andy Warhol and Lichtenstein-the leading figures of Pop Art directly introduced new painting concepts to transcend the stereotypes of classical paintings. In The Artworld, a famous article published in the Journal of Philosophy in 1964, Danto not only made an in-depth analysis on the generated logic of the transformation of an existed object to an artwork, but also suggested the relationships between artistic institutions and artworks. In another words, Danto’s discussion of artistic concept has directly catalyzed a new topic, that is, what kind of art can transcend the tradition of modernism formed in the early 20th century and impel the new development of painting in an anti-elite and self-disciplinary manner. It is not difficult to find that the real contribution of Pop Art or Minimalism in the same period does not lie in the creation of a new form, but rather in its expansion of the extension of painting concepts, including both the creative concepts of an artist and the concepts of what is an artwork. As what Danto said, Andy Warhol's “Brillo Box” is mere a box if put among boxes; however, the box becomes an artwork because it is exhibited in an art gallery. Similarly, it is subject to the impact of this artistic concept that we categorize the minimalist sculptures of Andrew and Jude as artworks.
However, such artists who combine concepts and painting together are marginalized in China’s contemporary art world. On the one hand, there is not an accomplished artistic pedigree as what the western modernism has in China; therefore, the simplex rebellion to form (i.e. various styles of modernism in the New Wave period) and the conceptual expressions of painting (i.e. the wash and ink paintings of Gu Wenda in the mid 1980s) cannot enter into the mainstream domain of creative painting. On the other hand, the transformation-from “cultural criticism” in 1980s to “social criticism”-of contemporary art in the early 1990s has made realistic cultural pertinence a sole criterion to assess whether a work is a contemporary artwork or not. The problem of the former is that China’s contemporary art cannot achieve a real height in regard of cultural sense and spiritual expressions if it has not experienced the seedtime of modernism; while the latter’s is that the interpretation of Vulgar Sociologism will overrun if the attention to the superficial reality is overemphasized-and that the so-called attention to the reality is nothing but the continuous reduplication of the symbols of reality. Hence, when China’s contemporary art is trapped into an unprecedented vortex of times derogated by “vulgarization”, “image copy” and “image production”, more attentions should be paid to those artists who are faithful to art, insisting on artistic experiment yet unknown to the public. As far as I am concerned, Xiang Guohua is such an artist who never ceases to explore the possibilities between painting and concepts and is not in fear of changes.

An incidental discovery provided a chance for Xiang Guohua to create creative painting by branding holes with burning incense through a piece of rice paper (Chinese Xuan Zhi or Xuan paper, usually refers to paper made from parts of the rice plant, like rice straw or rice flour. However, the term is also loosely used for paper made from or containing other plants, like hemp, bamboo or mulberry). The lighted incense could easily burn through the rice paper and holes made up of different sizes emerged in succession. If a fuscous underlay was added to the backside of the holes, the blank space was to protrude from the paper, which would generate unlimited interest in the picture. After that, he began to do further experiment in the hope that he could covert those branded blank into an effective language. He started with branding handwritings. Because if he mounted the whole piece of rice paper into a picture, it would be provided with the form of traditional calligraphy and simultaneously fill those blank space with aesthetic value. Then, he began to brand the landscape paintings of The Four Wangs (The Four Wangs were four Chinese landscape painters in the 17th century, all called Wang. They were Wang Shimin (王时敏) (1592-1680), Wang Jian (王鉴) (1598-1677), Wang Hui (王翚) (1632-1717) and Wang Yuanqi (王原祁) (1642-1715). They were members of the group known as the Six Masters of the early Qing period.) and Bada Shanren (Chinese: 八大山人; Wade-Giles: Pata Shanjen; literally "Mountain Man of the Eight Greats", ca. 1626-1705) , born as Zhu Da (朱耷), was a Chinese painter of shuimohua and a calligrapher. He was of noble lineage, being a descendant of the Ming dynasty prince Zhu Quan)-and also some fans. There is no doubt that Xiang Guohua is to encounter lots of criticisms if we judge his works from a traditional perspective. However, his works are full of wisdom and are concept-bearing under a cultural background of multi- criteria. His attempt is a breakthrough in methodology. The blank burnt by the burning incense has replaced the traditional Chinese painting techniques and has thoroughly subverted their spirituality and cultural identity. Although the display of the works still preserves the external mounting features of the traditional Chinese landscape paintings, they are essentially different from the former in their visual presence.
Obviously, this concept is orientated from the notion of “deconstruction”, with a new vision and a cultural attitude bound up with suspicion to contemplate the traditional art as its validity. Of course, the opponents will question whether such works can be regarded as contemporary paintings or not. In fact, such a suspicious attitude is in essence the same as the questions why Duchamp's "Urinal" is called Fountain and why Andy Warhol's “Brillo Box” becomes an artwork. Well then, how can we resolve and answer this question? The key is that artists’ creative “concepts” have become the criteria to judge whether a work is an artwork or not, instead of the old ones, such as color, style of drawing, theme, manner and significance. In another words, Xiang Guohua’s works contain at least two concepts: one is the formalists’ tradition derived from the pedigree of modernism. However, his exploration of form is not the same as the originality and the elitism of modernism; quite on the contrary, his creation of form is carried out in a playful manner. Nevertheless, it is precisely the apparently “playful” mood that follows the track of deconstruction and then shifts to a deeper concept which is to deconstruct the confine of form built up by the traditional Chinese painting system made up of brush pen and ink. However, in this context, the “concepts” enwrapped in Xiang Guohua’s works must conflict with another criterion in contemporary art, that is, art should aim at the current cultural reality. This is because that, after all, “concepts” cannot directly reflect social problems. Therefore, the topic is bound to return to “how to estimate the value of contemporary paintings”, which is mentioned in the very beginning of this article.
It is not difficult to find that three ways of artistic creation coexisted in the tradition of western modern art during the past one hundred years: the first was the traditional realism, including the “radical realism” proposed by intellectuals and middle class in capitalist societies, the “neutral natural realism” and the “critical realism” in socialist countries. The second was modernism, which was to secure the elitism and the critical nature of art through the construction of self-discipline, for instance, various styles of constructivism, nonobjectivism and so on; and the third was pop art, aiming at artistic institutions and artistic conceptions, for example, the early “Dadaism” represented by Duchamp, “Black Mountain College” in the era of John Cage and the “New Dadaism” advocated by Andy Warhol. Actually, among the three, realism held a minimal impact; while the mainstreams were modernism and pop art. However, apart from the superficial understanding of modernism as formalism and the subjective interpretation of pop art as “destructive”, these two forms of art are in essence the critical reception of reality, with a stronger force and broader subjects than those of realism. In another words, realism is not the only carrier of criticism of modern western art towards reality. The objects also include the criticism towards accomplished concepts, the developmental border of art history, the legitimacy and validity of artistic institutions, which are all targets of pop art and experimental art.
Therefore, we should not only appreciate such “conceptual” paintings, as Xiang Guohua’s, which are experimental in nature; but also courage and attach a great importance to the active and valid attempts based on the experience of those young artists themselves. However, in a problematic contemporary art world obscured by “vulgar” images, “conceptual” paintings are predestined to be confronted with a period of all-time low. It is not hard to find that a great deal of non-artistic factors have made the developmental direction of China’s contemporary art become onefolded; and the alleged cultural criticism towards contemporary society is nothing but the stunt of “symbol copy” and “batch production”. Similarly, the “humanitarian care” paraded by artists has also been trapped into the springe of some critics’ interpretation of Vulgar Sociologism. Hence, the overheated issues of the “transformation of sociology” and the “transformation of images” in the critics’ circle are still waiting to be discussed-for what really needed in China’s contemporary art world is an avant-garde art which is experimental in nature, instead of those symbolized, picturized and industrialized easel paintings. Although the reaffirmation of the reconstruction of the tradition of “modernism” and “pop art” has already outmoded, the attempts to immit new concepts into the domain of painting and the quest for new possibilities can still be regarded as an effective approach.
Of course, “concept” is still a rather abstract word and the question is what kind of concept is valid. As critic Wang Lin said, “The so-called concept is not necessarily a notion, an idea or something can be described by parole; rather, it refers to men’s thinking level and thinking ability-the wisdom which is featured by contemplation and Buddhist allegory. Wisdom is a unique experience, an unexpectedly illumined insight; an apocalypse appears out of nowhere and a meditation penetrating the superficial reality.” If implemented in an artist’s creation, it refers to his or her creative method; while the validity and the rationality of the method are based on whether it is relied on art history and artistic theories by employing bold innovation as its instrument and seeking the new possibilities of painting art and proposing new cultural or artistic issues as its objective.
In 2006, Xiang Guohua created a new series of creative paintings named Where the Imagery Comes from. Different from his early work Finity and Infinity·Beyond Classics, this group of works were made through the agents of oil paint and were not molded by the method of branding holes in rice paper by using burning incense. However, there exists an inherent continuity within the artist’s concepts. No matter his early branding works of The Four Wangs’ landscape paintings or his later oil painting copies of Bada’s ink and wash paintings (Ink and wash painting is an East Asian type of brush painting also known as wash painting or by its Japanese name sumi-e (墨绘). Ink and wash painting is also known by its Chinese name shui-mo hua (水墨画, Japanese suibokuga, Korean sumukhwa). Only black ink- the same as used in East Asian calligraphy-is used, in various concentrations) of still-life, Xiang Guohua always put the form of the work or the style of painting in the first place concerning the expressions of the work. Certainly, he is not satisfied with the mere copy and imitation of the form itself; rather, Xiang Guohua tries to touch the aesthetic habits behind the form. As Gombrich’s analysis on the schema of art that the significance of the public schemas or the classics in the art history of an era not only lies in their provision of the objects of entertainment to the public; but more importantly, they concentrate certain artistic interest, cultural tendency and aesthetic pursuit of a specific era. The reason why Xiang Guohua has tried various means to complete intermediary transformation of these schemas is because, on the one hand, he hopes to explain the conceptual expressions of the traditional painting forms through his very form; on the other hand, the transformation itself contains certain suspicion and negative “deconstruction”. For example, in his works like Where the Imagery Comes from, Xiang Guohua employs the concepts of “displacement” and “rupture” in the formal transformation of Bada’s and Qi Baishi’s works, which directly result in the abandonment of the expressional principles and aesthetic pursuits of traditional Chinese ink and wash paintings, such as “having an idea before starting painting”, “going into ecstasies as long as finding the right mood of painting” and “the Chinese brush should be in a controlled manner” and the discomforts of the readers’ first view to these classic works. It is in virtue of such senses of displacement and discomforts that Xiang Guohua subtly makes his readers consciously reexamine and introspect on their secular habits of appreciation.
Of course, another problem we are confronted with is how to assess the “conceptual” expressions in Xiang Guohua’s works accurately; in other words, it concerns whether this “conceptuality” has any contemporary value and what is its “legitimacy”. If appraised by the criterion that contemporary art should reflect the current social reality, Xiang Guohua’s works surely contains no value because they have nothing to do with the reality. However, if we change our perspective via the reference to modernists’ formal construction and conceptual expressions, we will find out the positive sides of such experimental paintings aiming at the image transformation of art history. At least, it provides us with a cultural attitude towards the traditional schema, even if it is either critical or negative; leastways, it extends the subjects of contemporary painting and its domain of formal expressions through the train of modernism and by employing the postmodernists’ thread of deconstruction to realize the intermediary transformation. Accordingly, the most important thing is that Xiang Guohua has his own “methodology” and he goes on with his experiment in an “individual” yet active way, which helps him to avoid the springe of “Vulgar Sociologism”. Despite the demerits-such as the potential dangers of empty formal copy-existed in Xiang Guohua’s works, we still have faith in his persistent thinking and attempts to transcend the superficial form and believe he will finally touch the cultural cores behind it.
The reason why such emphasis is put on the combination of painting and concepts is because the pluralistic pattern can be built up only when contemporary paintings are able to escape from the strange phenomenon of “symbol production” and “symbol copy”; while the return of the experimental nature of art and the reconstruction of the value modality of art can be realized only when the notion of “concept” is adopted to the domain of painting. Likewise, only through the respect for artists’ individual expressions can contemporary painting avoids to ingratiate itself with the market-and thus keep its ability to cultural criticism. It is also exactly the intrinsic motivation for me to criticize the paintings of “new-vulgarization” style in order to reconstruct the pedigree of “pop art”. In this regard, the significance of Xiang Guohua’s woks becomes evident.

at Central Academy of Fine Arts

June 27, 2007

错位的大师——关于向国华作品的解读
向国华的作品让我第一时间想到一个词——“大师”。谁是大师？当然不是向国华，这个时期的他不足以承受这个称号，在这个论资排辈的环境下更是不可能的事情。作品，作品的图式或称形式原形来源于“大师”们的经典作品。这是“大师”跳进我思维的契机。
大师这个概念似乎多为佛教用，梵文为Sastr，即大师范、大导师之意。释迦牟尼被尊称为“三界之大师”。大师亦是佛的十尊号之一，即天人师。《瑜伽师地论》卷八二有“谓能善教诫声闻弟子一切应作不应作事，故名大师。”后遂为僧人的尊称。把高德之出家人称为大师，即源于此。不知何时“大师”多用于追赠死去的高僧的谥号了。现在在世被称谓大师的和尚实在不多，星云大师或是一例。《晋书·艺术传·鸠摩罗什》：“（姚兴）尝谓罗什曰：‘大师聪明超悟，天下莫二。’”宋代庄绰（字季裕）《鸡肋编》卷上有“而京师僧讳和尚，称曰大师。”文学作品中多有遗存记载，如元代王实甫《西厢记》第一本第二折有“大师一一问行藏，小生仔细诉衷肠。”今天的武侠小说中就更是常见了，我们关于“大师”的记忆就不得不感谢金庸等人了。
其实汉字“大师”最早是官名。《周礼》谓春官所属有大师、下大夫二人，小师、上士四人，为乐工之长。《周礼·春官·大师》：“大师掌六律六同，以合阴阳之声。”《荀子·王制》：“禁淫声，以时顺脩，使夷俗邪音不敢乱雅，大师之事也。”杨倞注：“大师，乐官之长。大读太。”《汉书·食货志上》：“孟春之日，羣居者将散，行人振木铎徇于路，以采诗，献之大师，比其音律，以闻于天子。”“大”即“太”。小师，《大射仪》、《论语·微子》、《史记·周本纪》均作“少师”，大师所属乐工有瞽蒙（盲人）、视了（明目人）各三百人，又有掌教奏各种乐器的钟师、笙师等，掌教舞乐的旄人，鞮鞻氏等。又一解是古代三公之一。《诗·小雅·节南山》：“尹氏大师，维周之氐。”《左传·僖公二十六年》：“昔周公、大公，股肱周室，夹辅成王，成王劳之而赐之盟，曰‘世世子孙无相害也’。载在盟府，大师职之。”
《史记·儒林列传》：“学者由是颇能言《尚书》，诸山东大师无不涉《尚书》以教矣。”《百喻经·治秃喻》：“时彼秃人往至其所，语其医言：‘唯愿大师为我治之。’” 清代陈康祺《郎潜纪闻》卷八：“二百馀年来，讲堂茂草、弦诵阒如。词章俭陋之夫，挟科举速化之术，俨然坐皋比、称大师矣。” 胡适 《＜国学季刊＞发刊宣言》：“近年来，古学的大师渐渐死完了，新起的学者还不曾有什么大成绩表现出来。”大师成为在某一领域有突出成就、大家公认并且德高望重的人或学者、专家的尊称。
本文无意在这里追述“大师”一词的源头来写作训诂学的文章。Master这个词以及相关的其他语种的大师，曾经一段时间被用来指称文艺复兴时期的伟大艺术家们。或许是我们的西化艺术教育，使得我们习惯了在西方艺术史上寻求艺术的伟人。达芬奇、米开朗琪罗、拉斐尔、提香等等，这些伟大的艺术家之所以成为艺术界熟知的大师，并不是因为中国的西方美术史教育做的好，而是考前教育出版的诸多冠以“大师教你画素描”之类的培训书，把西方“大师”的概念深深的印在艺考生的脑海里。
当徐悲鸿、刘海粟、林风眠都成为“大师”的时候，中国美术史上的诸多伟人却仍然未被追赠封号，这或许与中国画的不景气有关吧。市场虽然不能决定艺术，影响却是不可忽视的。无论是北宋的李成、范宽、郭熙，南宋的刘、李、马夏，还是元代的黄、吴、倪、王，上推可及顾恺之，下延可至吴昌硕。或联称画派，或直呼其名，中国的“大师”都是“素王”，绝无徽号。博物馆的作品放在那里，能够引起我们几分赞叹呢？或许博物馆免费的契机可以让我们更多的亲近他们吧。          
政治的没落连累文化的唾弃，一朝背运，数千年的文明被牵连。中国的历史被关注应该是多方面的正视。向国华的作品不是国画，在材料上运用两种形式，一种是典型的西方艺术形式，即油画，另一种则是综合材料，或在皮纸上用香烫出点的轨迹，或在亚克力板上完成这一工作。这两种形式在向国华作品中不分先后，香和纸的创作起步较早。尽管起步较早，比起王天德来，向国华还是后辈。向国华在选择纸和香来创作的时候并不知道王天德。大学时代的他，在把作品展现出来之后得到质疑才有意识的去看王天德的作品。创作材料的相似性曾让向国华一段时间试图放弃原有的创作方式，尽管开始了后来的其他创作方式，但是在朋友的建议下同时延续了先前的创作。这里不想讨论艺术创作的材料，当艺术语言失去创新的魅力的时候，材料以其多样性吸引了艺术家的注意力。但是，材料尽管有其独立的存在价值，但是完全没有内容的形式是不存在的，哪怕这种内容只是审美心理的满足。一种新的材料在艺术上的出现必然伴随着相应的创作方法，焚烧成为一种异于书写的方式。材料的创新性不是象科技一样寻求专利，如果那样的话，油画或国画的市场就被材料商垄断了。
一个艺术家异于另外艺术家的是作品的整体信息。向国华的《有限与无限——感知的构成,》系列以香和皮纸完成了图象的转换，“构成性”的表述消解了笔墨的同时，把线条的连贯解析为点的轨迹，这点却又是在不落痕迹的空处着眼，打破了有限，寻求跨时空的无限。完全抛弃笔墨，这是其自觉的行为，图象的转换借助经典性消解在基本语言的重构上。王天德的《数码风景》等系列烫痕图象背后的墨迹使其水墨亲缘甚为明显，向国华则是解脱后的暗合。扬弃和继承有着内在的同化关系。意境在没有形成明显体系的中国美学中，有着梦幻般的解释。转注来的词语，总是不真切的表达了一个大家都可以感受到的状态。词语有时在艺术面前不得不扮演蹩脚的角色。有限的是在一定的尺寸上，用琐碎的烙空组成一个看似某幅名作的作品。却是打破了时空的障碍，把打断了的历史延续展示出真实的命脉。王天德作品烫痕的连续性和向国华作品空点轨迹组合有着明显的差异，有和无之间的关系是生化关系，但是墨色的无更接近于本质。
      
《视而不见》系列选取的亚克力板抛弃了纸的烫痕，透明的特性使得视觉的错位依赖于环境的选择。影子在某些时候起到了必要的帮衬作用，形式感的独立要求材质的回归。从纸到亚克力板看似是材料的精细化，其实是真正的把意境传承与消解材料束缚的历史完成。亚克力板作为完全的现代材料和中国传统没有任何关系，但是其透明的特点和空洞中将明却暗的感觉，使精神的追求在这些材料上得以回归。大师们作品重新展现的是在黑暗的背景下衬托透明的空洞，就如这些作品今日的切实境地。淡雅与耀眼比起来永远是远去的，向国华的作品在寻求精神上的回归与承继就必然要选择契合精神上的空白，这是不可避免的宿命。
  
油画的写实历史源源流长，当色彩超越形体，造型让位于摄影后，绘画性的追求就显的至关重要。《意在何处》系列的命名，选取了一个暧昧的 “诗意词组 ”，这或许更能够体味观者的猎奇与幻想。黄公望、倪瓒、八大山人或齐白石等人的或巨作，或局部，或写意小品，或扇面镜心，被或横或竖的分成几组长条状的部分，这些长条按着一定的方向隔一错位，重新组合的形象成为《意在何处》的画面。折尺状的线面造型，似打破的水月镜花。大师们已经远去，作品是他们和我们心灵对话的载体。我们在忙碌中，越来越不善于倾听，交流更成为奢望。错位的经典展示给我们是别样的视觉欣赏，这错位的图象以“构成性”颠覆了我们的视觉元素，更提供一个文化审视的契机。透过作品审视作者，我们习惯了匆忙，文化的影子就在时间的瞬息游走了。
形式的转移，在美学上寻求另一种面貌。错位的图式回归于纸本，空点的轨迹打破了固有的记忆。新的形式更契合了与中国绘画相关的佛道思想，尽管这种思想在今天变的远不可及，其实是我们始终未曾驻足。《出阁·回门》系列把点的轨迹与错位结合在一起，形式表现了批判性的文化观。“出阁”是出嫁，“回门”则是回娘家。西方文化之于中国，中国文化之于西方，新时期到来是嫁接的必然。但是，影响的发生却是独立名义下的异化。绘画作品中的挪用现象或称置换行为是有其历史根源的，向国华并非是无目的的选择其作品创作的方式，在当下文化多元而又“群龙无首”的情况下反观传统是必然出现的创作方式。向国华的创作代表了`80后出生的艺术家并非只是关注游戏化的虚实相间生活，同样也向往深刻的灵魂思考和文化归属的追寻。
无论是油画，还是综合材料，“大师”与向国华结缘的原因是内容的选择。把中国古代的绘画精品转换一种材料来表现，消解了中国绘画的笔墨，基本的线条造型也被颠覆。直接以油画等其它材料转换国画作品的图象，这个工作在向国华之前就有，以后同样会出现，重要的是基本元素的变换。如果是直接的转换，意义就是两种材料的比对，向国华的作品比对的不是材料，而是展示了一种新的视觉形式。视觉的呈现上与传统的山水有本质的不同。用他自己的话讲：“任何一种语言形态的创造，即是艺术家的需要，又是观赏者的需要，也是时代的需要，实验性的创作是对传统绘画的创新。实验性颠覆了天经地义的以形写神的书法性和笔墨性。”王天德选择的形象是自足的，想象的主体化体现的是内在的追求。向国华的作品体现的是一种自觉，参照的客体化则是关注外在的关系。诚如何桂彦在《绘画与观念——向国华作品探析》中所说，“从现代主义的形式建构和观念表达来看，这种针对艺术史图像转换的实验性绘画却有着积极意义。”但是却并不止于此。就从当代艺术应该反映当下社会现实的观点来看，向国华的作品也并非没有价值，而是触及了中国绘画的基本问题。即绘画评价标准是否应该单一性。绘画本身在当下遭遇的问题同样是当代艺术应该关注的现实问题。社会性的问题实际强化的是关系的评价体系是否正确，由于这是一个相对前提下的评价，修正过程愈显重要。向国华选择经典性的大师作品作为自己创作的参照，转化形式，实际是消解内在经典意义的基础之上构建了一个新的认知标准。
 
错位的形象，展示了我们印象中错位的大师，然而，错位的也许是我们审视的角度。

A Displaced Master
 — An Interpretation of Xiang Guohua’s Works
   Xiang Guohua’s works instantly remind me of a word — “Master”. Who is the master? Of course, it’s not him, as the present Xiang Guohua doesn’t qualify for the title, further impossible in today’s strict seniority system. The prototype of his work’s model, or rather, of the work’s form, is rooted in “masters’” classical works. That’s why the word “master” entered my mind. 
The concept of “master” appears mostly in Buddhism, which is called “Sastr” in Sanskrit, namely great model or mentor. Sakyamuni is honored as “the master of tridhatu”. (tridhatu, a concept in Buddhism, including Sexual Desire, Substance Desire and Insubstantial State.) “Master” is also one of the ten grand titles to Buddha—“Teacher of Gods and Humans”. In the eighty-second chapter of the Discourse on the Stages of Concentration Practice, it says that “The man good at instructing his disciples to tell right from wrong can be called master.” And then it became a courtesy title for a Buddhist monk. That’s why monks with great virtue are honored as masters. However, it’s not sure when the title “master” was mostly used to address a respectful Buddist monk posthumously. Nowadays, few alive monks qualify the title master, but maybe, the great master Xing Yun (1927-, a great disseminator of Buddhism in China ) counts for one. In Book of Jin. On Art. About Kumarajiva (a great translator of Buddhism in China), it says, “Yao Xing once told the master Kumarajiva ‘You are intelligent and comprehensive, superior by no one.” And also in Ji Lei Bian by Zhuang Zhuo (named Ji Yu, a great medical official in Song Dynasty in China. Ji Lei Bian is a collection of his notes about the history and customs of Song dynasty.), there is “To avoid offense, the government addresses the Buddhist monks as masters.” Records can also be found in literary works, such as in Wang Shipu’s the West Chamber (Wang Shipu, a great tragedy dramatist in Yuan Dynasty), in the second act of Book One, “The master asked details of his experiences, and then Zhang Sheng answered accordingly”. The title “master” appears more frequently in the present Kungfu novels, therefore, the recollection of the title “master” owes much to those novelists, like Jin Yong ( a contemporary Chinese popular novelist writing about stories of Chinese Kungfu).
As a matter of fact, the Chinese characters “Da Shi (master)” were originally an official title. In Records of Rites in Zhou Dynasty (a Confucian classic, written in Warring States time), it says that the Calendrical Calculations Bureau was in charge of two officials titled “Da Shi” and “Xia Dafu” and other four officials titled “Xiao Shi” and “Shang Shi”, ( the “Da Shi” 大师, “Xia Dafu” 下大夫, “Xiao Shi” 小师and “Shang Shi” 上士 are all official titles in ancient China), who were responsible for training the musicians. And in Rituals of Zhou. Calendrical Calculations Bureau. Da Shi, it notes, “ Da Shi is in charge of the musical temperaments Liu Lv Liu Tong( in Chinese: 六律六同. The Chinese ancient music is based on 12 temperaments, that is, 12 long-and-short bamboo pitch-pipes used to test the pitch. The odd-number bamboos are named ‘Liu Lv’(六律) while the even as ‘Liu Lv’(六吕), together as Liu Lv Liu Tong.) , in order to create sounds of nature. In Xunzi. on Governing(Xunzi, 475 BC - 221 BC, a great ideologist and litterateur in Warring States time), it’s like this, “To prohibit ungraceful music and to cater for the time in order to preserve the purity of musical exquisite from profanity, that is the Da Shi’s responsibility.” Yang Liang has a note to it, “Da Shi, the chief official musicians. “Da” here should be pronounced as “Tai”(太).” It’s recorded in Han Book. Shihuo Records, “In early spring, visitors about to go back, somebody was shaking the large wood-bell along the pathway, inviting them to compose graceful poetry to present to Da Shi, thus to make themselves known by the emperor if their poems are as sweet as Da Shi’s music.” “Da” is the same with “Tai”. According to Rituals of Shooting, the Analects of Confucius, and Records of the Grand Historian, “Xiao Shi” was also called “Shao Shi”(少师). The musicians under the charge of Da Shi included Gu Meng(blind people) and Shi Liao(people with eyesight), 300 respectively; masters of bell and Sheng (a kind of musical instrument in China) who taught performance of kinds of musical instruments, and Mao Ren and Di Loushi ( both are official titles for musicians in Zhou dynasty) who were responsible for teaching dance, etc. “Master” was also interpreted as one of San Gong (three most respectful officials with highest status in ancient China. Gong, a respectful address to people with high status in ancient China). In the Book of Poetry. Xiao Ya. Jie Nanshan, it writes, “The governing of state Zhou owes much to the assistance of the master named Yin.” It’s also said in Zuozhuan Biography (Commentary to the annals by Zuo Qiuming in the Spring and Autumn period) that Zhou Gong and Da Gong had ever contributed a lot to the Zhou state, especially in assistance to the emperor Cheng Wang. Thus the emperor Cheng Wang, out of appreciation, vouchsafed them the characters “Harmony of Generations” which was hung in their mutual mansion, under the supervision of Da Shi.”
 In Records of the Grand Historian. Biographies of Scholars, it says, “Scholars are then quite familiar with the Shangshu (or Book, a classic of Chinese historical literature), and thus it is referred in teaching activity by all the great scholars.” The same is said in A Hundred Metaphors. On Cure of Baldness (the book got its name as it comprises one hundred metaphors, through which it narrates the elite of Buddhism.), “One day a bold-headed person comes to the doctor’s house and says, ‘Only if you great could cure my boldness.’” It’s also said in the eighth chapter of Chen Qikang’s Records of Lang Qian Ji ( a record of the systems, politics, economy and literature of Qing dynasty), “In the over two hundred years, the schoolrooms desolated and reciting no longer heard, those superficial rough fellows, taking advantage of the time, are unashamed of taking the seats of great masters.” Hu Shi had it in the Manifesto to the Issue of Chinese Traditional Culture Quarterly, “In recent years, the masters of traditional culture have gradually passed away, however, the new generation hasn’t got prominent achievement yet.” From above, we come to a conclusion that master is a courtesy address to a person, a scholar or an expert, who, with great virtue, are outstanding in some field and highly respected by public.      
　 The author is not inclined to write a critical scholium of ancient literature by tracing the origin of the word “Da Shi” (master). The word “master”, and its correlative words in other languages, was at one time used to refer to great renaissant artists. Perhaps because of the westernized artistic education, we are accustomed to seek for artistic giants in the history of western arts. Those great artists, such as da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raffaello, Tiziano, and so on, are so familiar in the art circles not due to the well-done work in education of the history of western art, but the result of those training books published before the exam, such as Master Lead You to Sketch, through which the concept of western “master” is firmly branded on the artistic examinees’ heart.   
While Xu Beihong, Liu Haisu and Lin Fengmian are honored as “masters”, many great artists in Chinese art history haven’t been given any title yet, which may be attributed to the stagnation of Chinese painting. Though the market can not decide the development of art, its effect should not be neglected. Whether artists Li Cheng, Fan Kuan, Guo Xi in Northern Song Dynasty, or Liu Nian, Li Tang, Ma Yuan and Xia Gui in the Southern Song Dynasty, or even Huang Gongwang, Wu Zhen, Ni Zan and Wang Meng in Yuan Dynasty, no matter up to Gu Kaizhi or down to Wu Changshuo, addressed collectively or individually, they are all “masters” without any title. So to what extent can the works in the museum attract us? Probably the cost-free open of museums provide us a chance of walking into them
    Culture was involved into trouble by the political downfall. Once the nation humiliated, its ancient civilization of thousands of years was exposed to greed eyes. Chinese history should be regarded from several aspects. Xiang Guohua’s works are not Chinese traditional paintings according to his two kinds of material, one is the typical western art form, that is, oil painting, and the other is a kind of synthetical, either to brand a series of holes with burning incense through a piece of leatherette, or to make it on acrylic Plexiglas. The latter two materials appeared in his works successively. Though the idea of creating with incense and paper are rather ingenious, but contrasted with Wang Tiande, Xiang Guohua is still a junior. However, when he chose paper and incense as creating material, he knew nothing about Wang Tiande. It was not until in his college time when his works were oppugned did he consciously pay attention to Wang’s works. The similarity in their choice of material once led to his inclining to give up the original creating mode. He had ever turned to new ways, but with friends’ suggestion he kept his previous one. I do not want to talk too much about the material, though, when the artistic language loses its charm of originality, the materials, by its diversity, have attracted the artists’ eyeballs. However, material, with some absolute value in existence, can not stand without content even if it’s merely a catering to aesthetic psychology. The appearance of new material in art is certainly accompanied by a corresponding creating mode, so burning holes with lighting incense, separate from traditional writing and painting, becomes a new fashion. The originality of material, however, is not to seek for patent, in which case the material market of oil painting and traditional Chinese painting would be monopolized by businessmen.
    An artist is outstood by the unitary information of his works. Xiang Guohua’s Finity and Infinity·Beyond Classics (a series) has completed the transformation of images through incense and paper. The unique expression of “structure” has subverted pen and ink, meanwhile, by interpreting the smoothly running lines as the track of dots which are not hollow holes without trace, it breaks through finity and seeks for infinity transcending time and space. It’s a self-conscious action to cast away pen and ink, for the transformation of images can only be achieved by subversion of classics based on the reorganization of basic language. The ink marks at the back of the burned images in Wang Tiande’s Digital Scenery (a series) expose its close relation to water-ink, while Xiang Guohua’s is a natural combination free from shackles. Assimilation takes place between development and discarding and inheritance. In Chinese aesthetics where a distinct system hasn’t formed yet, artistic concept is endued with an illusionary interpretation. So a loanword usually expresses a feeling ambiguously that everybody can catch. So words sometimes have to play a role of a kind at the presence of art. It’s finite as it, on a certain scale, by trivial burned brandings, composes a work similar to some famous works, but in fact, broking through the shackle of space and time, it has revealed the essence of the fragmented history. The continuity of burning marks in Wang’s works differs greatly from Xiang’s trace of hollow dots. It’s a biochemical relation between presence and absence, but here the absence of marks is closer to essence.  
The series of Turning a Blind Eye, putting away the burned marks on paper, choose acrylic Plexiglas as material, whose transparent character bases the visual displacement on the circumstance. Sometimes shadow serves as a necessary foil, because the independence of form calls for returning of material. It seems to be only an improvement in material from paper to acrylic Plexiglas, but actually, it’s a historical accomplishment of the inheritance of images and subversion of materials. Acrylic Plexiglas, as a very modern material, has nothing to do with Chinese tradition, but it is through its transparent character and illusionary visual images of the dots that a returning of spirit is achieved on these materials. What these masters’ works have revealed is a transparent hollowness in a dim background, the same with their present condition. Compared with gaudiness, simplicity seems not so attractive. However, Xiang Guohua’s works, to seek a spiritual returning and inheritance, have to select a spiritual absence, which is his unavoidable destiny.
    Oil painting has quite a long narrative history. When tinct surpassing structure, sculpt overtaken by photography, the pursuit in painting becomes of the utmost importance. The series of Where the Imagery Comes from are named with an ambiguous poetic phrase, for which, perhaps, are more capable of catering for appreciators’ curiosity and illusion. The whole work or a part, enjoyable sketches or frame-fan-paintings and framed pictures of great artists, such as Huang Gongwang, Ni Zan, Bada Shanren (Chinese: 八大山人; Wade-Giles: Pata Shanjen; literally "Mountain Man of the Eight Greats", ca. 1626-1705), Qi Baishi, and so on, are cut horizontally or erectly into strips, which are then staggered one after another in the same direction. That’s the picture image of Where the Imagery Comes from, in which the folding-ruler-shaped linear and plane mode looks quite illusionary. Masters have passed away, leaving their works as the stage for our communication. Nevertheless, we are always on the jump to give an attentive ear to them, communication being impossible. Special visual enjoy is brought out by such display of classic displacement, for the displaced images have subverted our visual elements by its “structure”, besides, they provide a chance for cultural review. To comprehend the artist by his works, we are then accustomed to be in a hurry, thus the culture wanders away in a twinkle.
What Xiang Guohua seeks is a transformation of form, a new image in aesthetics, like the returning of displaced images onto paper, and subversion of the previous memories via the trace of dots. The new form corresponds better to the Buddhism ideas about Chinese painting which, though appearing out of reach these days, are, in fact, our permanent pursuit. In the series of Marriage. Bride’s Home Visit, the trace and displacement of dots are combined to present a critical cultural view. Marriage here is to marry off a daughter, and Bride’s Home Visit means the bridegroom should escort the bride home on the third day after their wedding. A new era is coming as an outcome of cultural graft, no matter the western culture to Chinese or vice versa. However, the other side of effect is alienation. The phenomena of appropriation or replacement have their own historical root. Xiang Guohua’s creating mode is, not a blind choice, but a necessary result of reviewing tradition in such a multicultural and leader-absent circumstance. His works explain that the artists of Eightiers not only concern about the illusionary life, but are also pursuing an in-depth thinking and seeking for a cultural sense of belonging. 
No matter in the oil painting or the synthetical material, it is the choice of content that links Xiang Guohua to the “masters”. The Chinese ancient classic paintings are presented by another kind of material, by which both the pen and ink in Chinese painting and basic linear mode are subverted. The work of directly transforming images of traditional Chinese paintings with canvas and other materials emerged before Xiang Guohua, and will continue after him, but the key is the transformation of basic elements. If it’s a direct transformation, the significance would be in the ratio of two kinds of materials, but it’s not the truth in Xiang’s works for he chooses to present a new visual form which differs essentially from traditional landscape, just like he says, “Any creation in linguistic form is a response to the need of artists, of appreciators and of the time. An experimental work is a creation to traditional painting. The experimental has subverted the unalterable principle of presenting cont, ent through form by calligraphy and pen and ink.” The images Wang Tiande chooses are self-sufficient. In his works, what the imagination of subject presents is an intrinsic pursuit, while that of Xiang Guohua’s is self-conscious, for his reference of object shows the concern about external links. It’s the same as He Guiyan said in his Painting and Concepts-An Analysis on Xiang Guohua’s Works, “If we change our perspective via the reference to modernists’ formal construction and conceptual expressions, we will find out the positive sides of such experimental paintings aiming at the image transformation of art history.” But it’s not the limit. Just from the perspective that contemporary art should reflect on the present social reality, we can find that Xiang Guohua’s works are by no means senseless, but quite on the contrary, they have touched the basic problems of Chinese painting whether the criteria of evaluating paintings should be unitary. In turn, what painting itself confronted at the moment are realistic problems the contemporary art should focus on. In fact, what the social problems emphasize is whether the evaluating system of relation is fair. Since it’s an evaluation in a relative precondition, the process of amending seems to be more important. Xiang Guohua chooses masters’ classics as his reference in creation, so that his transformation of form is actually an establishment of new perceptive standards based on the subversion of classics. 
Displaced images present a displaced master in our impression, or maybe, what displaced is our own review perspective.