台湾学者龙应台女士曾经在一篇文章中强调了“只有世界的，才是民族的”的观点。这与我们一向强调的“只有民族的，才是世界的”观点明显不同。两者的前提条件正好相反。我很赞同龙应台女士的观点。因为她的观点乃是在新形势下提出的，不仅对传统观点作了有益的补充，也对民族文化在当下全球化的格局中如何发展指出了非常正确的方向。
于是我想到了中国的水墨艺术。在过去，由于舆论片面地、几乎是一边倒地强调“只有民族的，才是世界的”观点，所以一些极端的民族主义者往往以不变应万变的文化姿态进行水墨创作。虽然他们自认为类似做法可以与西方当代艺术有效拉开距离，但因为他们的作画技法、入画标准、审美趣味以及意境构成方式基本来自传统，故而他们并不能创造出体现时代特色的新水墨艺术，更不能与西方的当代艺术进行正常的、平等的对话。应该说，这两者根本就是不同时态的艺术，后者是体现新文化价值的艺术，前者则是重复过去文化价值的艺术。实践充分证明：传统并不是守成出来的，而是创造出来的。再悠久、再伟大的传统，如果不与当下的文化产生积极、对应的关系，就没有任何意义。正是从这样的角度出发，我倾向于认为：为了更加有效地利用水墨这一重要的文化资源，或者说，为了更好突出民族身分与差异性，并积极参与国际对话，一些艺术家致力于水墨当代转型的探索是非常必要的。而在这样的过程中，全球化背景肯定是我们要注意的重要前提条件。事实上，在今天，谁也无法超越这一大的背景，更不能回到古人生活的时代。
必须指出，所谓全球化决不是要用西方化的标准去统一我们的艺术创作，而是希望艺术家们在进行艺术创作时，充分考虑全球文化交流中一些应予遵循的基本原则。当然，在一篇很短的文章中，要谈清所有原则是很困难的。不过我认为，有两点特别值得注意，那就是：第一，要密切关注当代性的问题，以努力使新水墨作品传达出新的文化或审美信息；第二，要虚怀若谷地、宽容地、大度地对待世界上的所有文化，以汲取有益的元素。在这里，任何强调西方中心，或者东方中心的想法都是极其错误的。
我清楚地知道，我在上面的说法，既会遭到极端传统主义者的反对，也会招致持有“全盘西化”观点人的反对。在后一类人看来，水墨画材料的柔软性、飘浮性使它在中国当代艺术的格局中很难有着生存的空间，它充其量也只能往抽象水墨的方向发展。毫无疑问，这显然是在简单移用西方的标准看问题。对此，我想指出的是，西方当代艺术的媒材特点，并不能完全取代中国当代艺术的媒材特点。且不论西方当代艺术的媒材是否具有“硬性”的特点——其实西方当代艺术中也有软性材料。就算是，水墨怎么会因此而变得一无是处呢？由于水墨在中国已有一千多年历史，进而成了民族身份的象征，那么，新水墨艺术在中国当代艺术的格局中，完全应该占有一席之地，否则就是中华文化史上的巨大悲剧。
另外，我还要指出的是，新水墨究竟如何发展，在很大程度上是一个与艺术创作实践密切相关的问题。如果一个学者只是坐在书斋里，对已然出现的新水墨现象视而不见、充耳不闻，肯定会出问题。对于这一点，人们只要认真研究本届展览参展艺术家们的创造的许多优秀作品就会明白。他们在充分尊重水墨媒材特点的前提下，很好地开拓了水墨艺术全新的可能性，并用自己的创作实践有力地反驳了虚狂的预测。因此，作为严肃的学者，首先是要努力掌握、了解、熟悉新出现的创作现状，然后则要做认真的研究或严肃的判断。也只有在这样的基础上，学术探讨或批评碰撞，才是有意义或有价值的。除此之外，任何关于新水墨的推论，都不过是无聊的文字游戏而已。
2007年7月12日于北京至深圳的飞机上
Only That Which is the World’s, Then Will Be the Nation’s
Lu Hong
Taiwanese scholar Long Yingtai emphasized in her essay, “Only that which is the world’s, then will be the nation’s.” This is overtly different from what we have always stressed – “only that which is the nation’s, then will it be the world’s,” thus the presuppositions of these two opinions are exactly opposite. I agree with Long, as her view was brought forth under new circumstances, and not only did it constructively supplement our traditional viewpoint, it also pointed out a very accurate direction in which our national culture is to develop under current globalizing trends.
Thus, I am reminded of China’s ink art. In the past, as a result of one-sided and almost unanimous emphasis on the viewpoint of “only that which is the nation’s, then will be the world’s,” some more nationalistic individuals have engaged in ink painting in the cultural form of “remaining unchanged in face of myriad changes.” Although these artists regard this as an effective means by which to distance themselves from Western contemporary art, nevertheless, as their painting techniques, criteria, aesthetic tastes as well as compositional choices basically originate from tradition, they cannot create a new ink art that expresses the unique characteristics of their times, nor can they have a normal and equal dialogue with Western contemporary art. That is to say, the two art forms are in essence from different eras, the latter is an art that expresses new cultural values, while the former repeats past cultural values. Past experience proves amply that tradition is not built upon preserving the established but on creation. No matter how ancient or great a tradition, if it cannot form an active and responsive relationship with contemporary culture, then it has no purpose. Coming from this viewpoint, I am inclined to believe that in order to better utilize the ink medium, this important cultural inheritance of ours, or rather, to better emphasize national identity and differences, and to actively participate in international dialogues, it is imperative for some artists to devote themselves to the task of adapting ink art to the contemporary era. In these endeavors, our globalizing environment is one important pre-existing factor that we must consider; in fact in our present day, no one is able to transcend this all-encompassing condition, nor can they return to ancient times.
It is necessary to note that to globalize here does not imply the use of Western standards to unify our artistic creations but it is the wish that artists during their creative processes will take full consideration of the fundamental abiding principles of globalizing cultural exchanges. Of course, it is difficult to elaborate clearly on all of the principles in such a short essay; however there are two that we should note particularly:
1. To pay very close attention to contemporary issues, in order to work hard to express new cultural or aesthetic ideas through new ink works.
2. To humbly, generously and expansively treat all cultures of the world in order to extract their beneficial elements.
Here, any emphasis on Western-centered or Eastern-centered ways of thinking would be extremely wrong.
I am clearly aware that my comments above will incur the opposition of extreme traditionalists and also that of the “all-westernizing” individuals. To the latter, the pliability and indistinct quality of the ink medium makes it very difficult for the art form to survive in the present environment of Chinese contemporary art; at best it can only develop towards abstraction. Undoubtedly, this is clearly a simple transference of Western standards to view this problem. With regards to this, I would like to point out that the characteristics of Western contemporary art’s media cannot completely replace those of Chinese contemporary art. Moreover, no matter if Western contemporary art truly possesses the “hard” quality in their media; in fact there are also “soft” media works in Western contemporary art, too. Be that as it may, why would ink art become so useless as a result of that? Ink art possesses more than a thousand year history in China and has further developed into a symbol for our national identity, hence, new ink art should have a place in contemporary Chinese art; otherwise it would be a great tragedy in Chinese cultural history.
In addition, I would like to note that the problem of how new ink art actually develops is one deeply connected to artistic creative practices. For example, if a scholar only sits within his study, oblivious to the emergence of new ink art, then surely there would be problems. Regarding this point, we only need to study closely the numerous excellent works of this exhibition and we would understand. The participating artists have worked with full esteem for the ink medium, expanded new possibilities of ink art while using their own creative practices to forcefully refute the unfounded and outrageous predictions. Thus as a serious scholar, one must first work hard to be in control, understand, and familiar with newly emerging creative circumstances, and then proceed to research or critique responsibly. It is only upon this foundation that scholarly discussions or differing critiques can be meaningful and valuable. Other than this, any speculations regarding new ink art are only tedious word games.
(Note: The content of this essay is a part of dialogue between Sun Zhenhua and I that is included in our forthcoming publication.)
Written on July 12, 2007, in-flight from Beijing to Shenzhen