“宇宙心印”刘国松绘画一甲子展 - 展览信息

·展览城市：北京-北京
·策展人：李铸晋、张颂仁
·展览时间：2007-04-26～2007-05-26
·开幕酒会：2007-04-26 15:00
·展览地点：故宫博物院
·主办单位：北京故宫博物院
·备注：中华文化基金会筹办

展览前言:

北京故宫博物院将在武英殿为刘国松举办“宇宙心印”刘国松绘画一甲子。

　　刘国松在上世纪六十年代在台湾即大胆提出以放弃笔墨语言，来解决“中国画的现代化”的问题。他要“革中锋的命”、“革笔的命”。他说：“笔就是点和线，墨就是色和面，皴就是肌理”；“模仿新的，不能代替模仿旧的；抄袭西洋的，不能代替抄袭中国的。透过西方抽象艺术的启发，从而形成深具媒材实验意识的前卫创作，悖离传统的笔法与意境。在作品的表现上，寻求各种前所未有的可能形式，并在「现代」与「水墨」的双重议题上，寻求最大的结合与突破。他并在台湾成立五月画会，以群体之力推动传统书画的变革，产生了深远的影响。七十和八十年代在香港中文大学任教职，汇合了香港的新水墨界。八十年代初刘国松到大陆巡展，冲击了当时亟待思变的画坛，结识了吴冠中，鼓励了谷文达。现代水墨因此成为中西文化融合的画种。它是现代的，又是中国的；既是与西方对话的，又是民族的。

　　整个20世纪中国书画的发展，是一部应对与因应"现代性问题"的焦虑史。到底书画该如何追随时代，迎上西方，赶上当代，而又不失了民族艺术之本体？在这一思考中，刘国松无疑有着举足轻重的历史影响。

　　如今，代表书画正统与主流的故宫博物院为刘国松举办展览，意味了创新的现代水墨艺术已被接纳入正统体系之重大意义。

　　在展览开幕隔日之四月二十七日，将舉行「书画与现代化 : 书画在现代艺术中的流变与波澜」学术讨论会。地點故宮博物院科研处（研究室）。在藉此展览机会，将借刘国松现象对现代水墨的发展进行历史回眸，全面反思「书画与文艺现代化」的整体问题。探讨五十年来书画在现代艺术的各种冲击下，到底出现什么样的理论与反思？到底产生了什么样的波澜与变化？而我们应在目前的问题上继续推进哪些问题与思考？

　　展览画册由紫禁城出版社出版, Wilbur Ross 先生夫人赞助。

　　LIU Kuo-sung, whose career as a leading painter in Taiwan, was born in 1932 in Anhui, China. He moved to Taiwan in 1949 and graduated from the National Taiwan Normal University in 1956.

　　In the 1960s in Taiwan Mr Liu proposed to “modernise Chinese painting” by abandoning its attachment to traditional “aesthetics of brushwork and ink-play”. He proposed to “revolutionise the zhong-feng (centre-point) brushwork” and “revolutionise the brush”. Mr Liu said: “Brushwork simply means dot and line, ink-work means colour tone and surface, texture-stroke means textural structure.” “Imitating the new is not the same as imitating the old; copying the West is not the same as imitating Chinese masters.”

　　Inspired by western abstract painting, Mr Liu established an experimental approach to the artistic medium in order to depart from traditional brushwork and its aesthetic taste. He attempted varied approaches to artistic expression, seeking resolution and breakthrough under the two anchors of “modern” and “ink art”. Through the “Fifth Moon” art society, of which Mr Liu was founder, calligraphy-painting reform was expanded into an art movement in Taiwan. In the two decades of the 1970s and 1980s Mr Liu was professor of art at the Chinese University in Hong Kong, and became closely involved with new ink painting outside of Taiwan. In the early 1980s his touring exhibition in China made a strong impact on the emerging creative scene, establishing a lasting influence. With the concerted efforts of artists from China and abroad modern Ink art has now established itself as an independent art form born of Chinese and western influence. It is both modern and Chinese, culturally grounded and in dialogue with the West.

　　In presenting the exhibition “Sixty Years a Painter: Retrospective Exhibition of Liu Guosong”, the Palace Museum, as the symbols of the Chinese lineage, signifies the acceptance of the innovative new ink painting movement into its cultural fold. Therefore, it is significant to take the opportunity of this retrospective exhibition to review the historical development of modern ink painting, so as to critically assess broader issues relating to calligraphy-painting and cultural modernisation. It is important to review the theories and strategies that have arisen in the part half century out of response to the growing predominance of modern art.

　　Fully illustrated catalogue published by the Forbidden City Press, sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. Wilbur Ross.

「书画与现代化：书画在现代艺术中的流变与波澜」
学术讨论会会议议程

学术主持：李铸晋教授

二○○七年四月二十七日上午

9:00—10:20
第一场：
主持人：李文儒北京故宫博物院副院长

主讲人：王耀庭台北故宫博物院书画处处长
也说临摹、写生、创造--台湾画史里的变局

萧琼瑞台湾成功大学教授
水墨变相─现代水墨在台湾─

陈瑞林北京清华大学教授
中国美术的现代觉醒：刘国松与20世纪中国画变革

自由发言

中场休息十分钟

10:30—12:00

第二场：
主持人：薛永年中央美术学院教授

主讲人：杨新故宫博物院前副院长
從現代回歸傳統
范迪安中国美术馆馆长
余辉北京故宫博物院研究馆员
刘国松先生的现代水墨画观念

自由发言

下午 1：30—5：30

第三场：1:30—3:00
主持人：郎绍君中国艺术研究院教授
主讲人：邓海超香港艺术馆馆长
张子宁美国弗利尔美术馆东方部主任
Alexander Munroe 海姆博物馆亚洲艺术策展主任
自由发言

中场休息十分钟

第四场：3:10—4:30

主持人：李铸晋美国堪萨斯大学讲座教授
张颂仁国际策展人
主讲人：毛瑞（Robert Mowry）美国哈佛大学教授
姜苦乐（John Clark）澳大利亚悉尼大学教授
The tradition of Chinese painting reconceived: Liu Guosong and Modernity

自由发言

中场休息十分钟

第五场：综合讨论
4:40—5:30

每位發言二十分鐘

邀请信

兹定于二零零七年四月二十七日上午九时在故宫博物院科研处（研究室）举办国际学术研讨会：「宇宙心印：书画在现代艺术中的流变与波澜」，研讨会议程见附件。

恭请光临！

（步行请由神武门（北门）进，右转向西到头。开车由西华门（西门）进，见标牌左转到头）

故宫博物院

Invitation to Academic Conference

The Palace Museum
Cordially invites you to the international academic conference
“Universe In the Mind: Development and Change of Chinese Painting in the Context of Modern Art”
At the conference hall of Ke-yan Chu (Research Department)
To start at 9 am, Friday 27th April, 2007

(enter on foot from the north entrance Shenwu Gate, turn right due west at corner; or by car from the west entrance Xihua Gate, follow conference signs)

书画与现代化 : 书画在现代艺术中的流变与波澜
学术研讨会会议说明

　　他在上世纪六十年代在台湾即大胆提出以放弃笔墨语言，来解决“中国画的现代化”的问题。他要“革中锋的命”、“革笔的命”。他说：“笔就是点和线，墨就是色和面，皴就是肌理”；“模仿新的，不能代替模仿旧的；抄袭西洋的，不能代替抄袭中国的”。透过西方抽象艺术的启发，从而形成深具媒材实验意识的前卫创作，悖离传统的笔法与意境。在作品的表现上，寻求各种前所未有的可能形式，并在「现代」与「水墨」的双重议题上，寻求最大的结合与突破。他并在台湾成立五月画会，以群体之力推动传统书画的变革，产生了深远的影响。七十和八十年代在香港中文大学任教职，汇合了香港的新水墨界，八十年代初刘国松到大陆巡展，冲击了当时亟待思变的画坛，结识了吴冠中，启发了谷文达。现代水墨因此成为中西文化融合的画种。它是现代的，又是中国的；既是与西方对话的，又是民族的。

　　如今，故宫博物院为刘国松举办「绘画一甲子：刘国松回顾展」，此一展览在于代表书画正统与主流的故宫博物院，展出意味了创新的的现代水墨艺术已被接纳入正统体系之重大意义。

　　值此时刻，我们认为有必要借刘国松现象对现代水墨的发展进行历史回眸，全面反思「书画与文艺现代化」的整体问题。探讨五十年来书画在现代艺术的各种冲击下，到底出现什么样的理论与反思？到底产生了什么样的波澜与变化？而我们应在目前的问题上继续推进哪些问题与思考？
议题一：反叛性与现代性？

　　现代书画变革的第一动力无疑是反传统，以一种有别于「以前」的时间意识来创作。方法论是选择西方现代主义的观念来冲击传统，借助现代派的技巧来创作，把西方抽象主义的观念、图式、技法搬到画上，并佐以转印、拼贴、蒙太奇、泼、洒、滴、流等自动性技法操作。它延续了某些传统的媒材和成分，但是与传统的性质已经全然不同了。虽然如此，但那些混沌的宇宙感以及方圆的阴阳哲学，却仍然是传统思维的表述型态。现代水墨对冲击与解构一元化的书画格局，推动艺术语言的现代转型应有不可替代的历史作用。

问题：
反叛传统如何能达致现代性?
今天的书画创作对传统采取反叛的态度是否仍可行？然则如何反叛；反则如何合创新和继承？
如何悖逆传统，却又能让传统保持活力？
该如何理解现代书画中的"现代性"？又该如何表达「现代性」?
如何将现代水墨与传统的书画语言结合起来，以致成为传统的延续和新探索的契机？
何种水墨绘画造型可以称之为现代造型？
现代水墨画是不是就是传统书画最重要的出路？

议题二：抽象性与思维性？
寻求现代性的方法，以破坏传统绘画形式与绘画观念开始，‘抽象’策略于是成为选择。上世纪五十年代受到抽象表现主义的时代启发，加上中国书法本有抽象根源，创作者选择以抽象的墨迹与符号进行创作，并试图以抽象图式来表达理念。抽象画期待与‘观念’和‘意义’发生关系，并超越画面所传递的信息。

问题：
现代性与抽象性有无必然关系？抽象性与思维性又有无必然关系？
中国画与抽象画有哪些结合点?
如何借外来的抽象形式来突破原有的传统模式,从而走向现代形态?
画面形象思维的深刻性，是不是非以思想、理论、意识来表达？
水墨这种特殊媒体（材质与特殊的形式语言）是否对表达抽象与思维有特殊作用？

议题三：民族性与本土性？
水墨不仅是材料的名称，也应是文化的载体。现代书画虽以反传统起家，但近年成为传统的捍卫者，开始强调民族文化价值。除了提出水墨兼具民族性与现代性外，更有人说现代水墨本来自传统，是传统水墨逻辑发展与延续的新阶段。也认为现代水墨未来将承担民族主义的大任，成为中国艺术进入国际秩序的唯一身份符号。如此的文化复兴论，反映了现代水墨重归道统的愿望。
问题：
现代水墨如何既反传统，又能是传统书画的延续？
现代水墨语言如何能表达民族的文化价值？延续民族的文化传统？
使用中国的文化符号是否就是本土文化的表征？
水墨若成为文化认同的符号，对于艺术之发展是否会产生弊端？创作自由是否将受限于「文化认同」的框架？

议题四：当代性与实验性？

现代书画逐渐以实验水墨的形式出现。实验艺术最根本的特质是自我边缘化与反中心化。实验性与当代性是同一的，即在不断遭遇当下的问题时，能用艺术形式来表现。笔墨固然当随时代，最初扬弃笔墨，是为了创造具有时代感的现代书画。但能否持续反映当下精神，是否能成为当代艺术的重要方面之一，甚至引领当代艺术新的精神方向，则又是另外的问题。近年来很多水墨实验，看到了水墨以一种方法或一种思想，变成了当代艺术实验。但是也有人因为许多作品看不出时代特征、看不出问题、看不出针对性，而坚持实验水墨不属于“当代艺术”。

问题：
现代水墨如何能延续实验精神？
如何从表面上的创新，比如说样式、材料、制作技巧等，进入到观念的变革？
如何成为当代文化的载体？如何以书画来处理当代艺术所关注的动态的文化问题，并进行对社会、文化的开放性思考？
如何贴近现实，将艺术语言与当代人的生命经验结合起来？或者从笔墨游戏的形式探索当代性之可能。

Feb 2007

Calligraphy-Painting in the Modern World:
Development and Change in the Context of Modern Art

Outline of Academic Conference
27th April 2007, Palace Museum, Beijing

　　The development of Chinese calligraphy-painting (shu hua) * in the 20th century may be described as a history of anxiety, as it was guided by reactions and adaptations to issues of modernity at all stages. In this pursuit, the dual considerations of preserving cultural identity and “catching up” with the modern world, the West, have been critical for most practitioners. Within this history the career of Liu Guosong has been exemplary both in terms of influence and artistic production.

　　In this proposal the term “calligraphy-painting” (shu hua) has been used in placed of the usual term “Chinese painting”. The latter term was invented in the era of nationalism in late 19th century to identify China’s unique tradition. The nationalistic connotation is both dated and misleading, therefore the traditional word phrase of shu hua, literally meaning calligraphy-painting, is here reinstated.

　　In the 1950s in Taiwan Mr Liu proposed to “modernise Chinese painting” by abandoning its attachment to traditional “aesthetics of brushwork and ink-play”. He proposed to “revolutionise the zhong-feng (centre-point) brushwork” and “revolutionise the brush”. Mr Liu said: “Brushwork simply means dot and line, ink-work means colour tone and surface, texture-stroke means textural structure.” “Imitating the new is not the same as imitating the old; copying the West is not the same as imitating Chinese masters.” Inspired by western abstract painting, Mr Liu established an experimental approach to the artistic medium in order to depart from traditional brushwork and its aesthetic taste. He attempted varied approaches to artistic expression, seeking resolution and breakthrough under the two anchors of “modern” and “ink art”. Through the “Fifth Moon” art society, of which Mr Liu was founder, calligraphy-painting reform was expanded into an art movement in Taiwan. In the two decades of the 1970s and 1980s Mr Liu was professor of art at the Chinese University in Hong Kong, and became closely involved with new ink painting outside of Taiwan. In the early 1980s his touring exhibition in China made a strong impact on the emerging creative scene, establishing a lasting influence. With the concerted efforts of artists from China and abroad modern Ink art has now established itself as an independent art form born of Chinese and western influence. It is both modern and Chinese, culturally grounded and in dialogue with the West.

Issue One: Rebelliousness and the Modern

　　The original impetus for modern calligraphy-painting was based on rebellion against tradition, and it was a creativity that consciously took the temporal break with “the past” as its artistic identity. Its strategy was to selectively use western modern concepts to attack traditional art, and to inform its own working methods at the same time. A well known example is modern ink artists’ adaptation of concepts, pictorial language and techniques of western abstract art, which include methods of transfer-printing, collage and montage, dripping, pouring and automatic painting. Although this approach incorporates traditional materials and stylistic elements, by nature it is very different from traditional art. On the other hand, the narrative of modern ink art often adopts a Chinese identity, such as the dualism of ying and yang and the cosmological dichotomy of circle and square. Through the effort of modern ink painters, the monopoly of traditional calligraphy-painting on the Chinese art scene was broken, and this is historically invaluable for the modernisation of Chinese artistic language.

Questions:
How does the rebellion against tradition bring about modernisation?
In today’s practice of calligraphy-painting, is a rebellious approach still feasible? If so, in what ways? If not, how does tradition foster modern creativity?
How should an artist rebel against the past to help tradition maintain creative vitality?
In what ways may “modern” elements within traditional art be interpreted and articulated?
Are there ways to bring together the artistic languages of modern ink painting and traditional painting so as to explore new modes of expression, and to form a new development of the tradition?
Which are the visual forms in ink painting that qualify as modern?
Is the modern ink movement still the most significant creative force for the art of calligraphy-painting?

Issue Two: Abstraction and Conceptualism

　　The search for methods of modernising began with attacks on traditional forms of painting and entrenched concepts of art. In the 1940s and 1950s, “abstraction” presented itself as the ready solution. Artists were inspired by Abstract Expressionism to explore the calligraphic root of Chinese painting, prompting attempts to express ideas with non-representational marks and signifying signs. In this approach abstraction becomes involved with “concept” and “meaning”, pointing to messages beyond the pictorial surface.

Questions:
Are there intrinsic connections between the modern and abstraction? And between abstraction and conceptualism?
Where are the meeting points of calligraphy-painting and abstract art?
In what specific ways have foreign abstract techniques been used to break through traditional modes to achieve modernism?
Are there other ways to achieve conceptual depth in pictorial form than theoretical ideas and ideological stances?
Do the particular formal language and the material of “ink” art have bearing on conceptual and/or non-representational expressions of art?

Issue Three: Cultural Identity and Regional Specificity

　　Ink art (including modern ink painting and other experimental approaches) is not just the name given to a medium of art, it is also seen as the vessel of culture. Although modern ink painting started with rebellion against tradition, it has become in recent years the defender of tradition and started to emphasise national culture values. Apart from the fact that modern ink art embodies both a national historical medium and a modern identity, it is claimed to represent the latest stage in the logical development of traditional painting. There are also arguments saying it bears the responsibility of nationalism, in that it is the only identity marker for Chinese art to enter the international arena of art. This talk of cultural revivalism reflects the intention of modern ink artists to return to the fold of traditional orthodoxy.

Questions:
How can the position of rebellion be turned into the continuation of the lineage of calligraphy-painting?
How does the language of modern ink art reflect national culture values? In what ways do it carry on the cultural lineage?
To what extent can the use of Chinese culture symbolism serve as a marker of Chinese identity?
If ink art becomes the symbol of cultural identity, would this hinder the development of art in general? Would freedom of artistic expression be restricted by the framework of “cultural identity”?

Issue Four: The Contemporary and the Experimental

　　In recent years, experimental ink art has gradually taken over the rebellious role of modern ink painting. The strategy of experimental ink art is marginalisation by choice, and it is opposed to centralism of any form. But similar to modern ink painting, experimental ink art also adopts artistic solution to issues of contemporary culture. When modern ink art first proposed to abandon “brushwork and ink-play” it did so for the purpose of creating calligraphy-painting artworks that could capture the spirit of the times. On the other hand, the ability to stay abreast of the contemporary is an important issue for contemporary art; whether this leads art to new spiritual achievement is another question. In recent years, many experimental ink artists have been attracted to modern methodologies and new concepts, and their work increasingly resemble that of contemporary experimental art. However, there are also others who claim that experimental ink art is not “contemporary art” because many such works do not reflect the contemporary spirit, and they do not raise urgent issues or engage in current debates.

Questions:
　　How may modern ink painting maintain its experimental spirit?
How may innovations of the exterior form, material and creative method, revolutionise conceptual development?
How may ink art become the vessel of contemporary culture? Are there ways open for calligraphy-painting to deal with the fluid cultural issues engaged by contemporary art? Are there ways for calligraphy-painting to enter into open dialogue with society and contemporary culture, and contribute to constructive reflections?
　　How may calligraphy-painting approach today’s reality, and help to bring together artistic language and the present living experience? In other words, how may the tradition of “brushwork and ink-play” be use