Tan Tian: Jump to Second Solo Show
Sang Tian - ArtFourm
When you enter the exhibition space for Tan Tian’s “Jump to Second Solo Show,” your “professional” eyes will discover the use of materials fitting of a biennale, fashionable groupings, and eye-catching combinations of colors. The pieces all look like that of an international “first-class” artist - and they effectively are, though they really are just the fragments of the works of successful artists. This is because, according to Tan Tian himself, he “is merely extracting the styles of internationally recognized artists and combining them.” This self-declaration in the middle of the exhibition space is “a whole lot” of fragments of form and content, becoming a false “entrance.”
The thesis, form is merely content itself, can be taken as a premise for linguistic analysis. The premise of analysis for all images and styles is that this is real - but art can be further separated into two camps. Beyond the tension between form and content is the question of the author’s authority, and the problem of the authority is closely followed by the question of subjectivity. Thirty years ago, the beginnings of reform came out of the “discussion of truth.” At that time, it was Li Zehou who came to our aid, accompanied by Kant. Afterwards, it was Sartre who emphasized how to distinguish between external pressure and internal needs, hoping to differentiate between what was authentic and what was bad faith. He turned expressionist art onto the pursuit for individual freedom and the search for the weapon of intuition. However, in advancing this theme of “existence” one discovers that we are heading towards the “abyss” as Heidegger suggested, like what Heidegger and others would have called the “apathy” of truth. The meaningless of deep thought and despair has given mainstream ideology the opportunity for total control, giving way to our present-day world based on “boss - employee” economic relations.
Conditions for plagiaristic “stylistic fragments” are increasingly widespread in the contemporary art scene. Many young artists could not be happier to have achieved success with this technique. Truly, as absence usually goes, appropriation has become plagiarism and genuine emotional stimulus - just like in the absence of a real person, internet pornography has become a physiological stimulus. This phenomenon is even more common in the entertainment industry with, for example, singer Pang Mailing fabricating his own life story. As anthropologist Denis Dutton once famously said (in reference to Aboriginal art): “Culture? That’s what we do for the tourists.”
What I am still concerned with is whether this two year-long performance piece will really exhibit truthful aspects of Tan Tian’s existence. Could two years of artificial behavior actually change Tan Tian himself? Although one’s subjectivity becomes muddied and unclear, one’s basic experiences remain. It is always difficult to make a variation or extension of the original. Genuine emotion does not have to rely on arousing sympathy in order to resonate; only trust can extend into faith, allowing people to maximize their activity and simultaneously allowing the “unauthentic” to maximize its creativity. At a more macro level, within postcolonial research or amidst civil society movements advancing the rights and interests of minorities, women, and people of color for example, only by resolving questions of subjectivity can we distinguish hypocritical strategies. Meanwhile, rural construction and rural elite - in their opposition of popular culture and subculture - have become the unwilling problem-solving centers for the questions of subjectivity of farmers and the public. In this respect, Habermas is right: “Modernity is an incomplete project.”
With institutional criticism manipulating the museum and the simultaneous end of soliciting votes, Tan Tian’s “bankrupting” of the museum and his proposed simulated way of life are undoubtedly very good sources of inspiration. Unfortunately, he himself does not have a very strong ideological bent towards institutional criticism, is still overly fond of form, and is only opposed to the discussions of “genius” among artistic circles. Here I cite Badiou’s “Fifteen Theses on Contemporary Art” and send the first and third propositions Tan Tian’s way: “First, I don’t want to be addicted to novelty, because continuous revision is not necessarily a position of true criticism… third, present art is concerned with a person’s liberation and not with beautifying adornments.”
谭天：第二个个展
文/桑田 艺术论坛
进入谭天“第二个个展”现场时，你“职业”的眼睛会发觉：双年展式的材料使用，时髦的组合方式，漂亮的色彩搭配，看上去是国际“一线艺术家”的作品——实际上也是，只不过是一线艺术家的碎片而已。因为按照艺术家的说法，他“只是从国际一线艺术家的风格库中提取并加以组合。”这个自我陈述将展厅中“一大堆”形式与内容主动割裂，变成虚假的“入口”。
“形式就是内容本身”的论断是艺术可以作为语言分析的前提，所有图像以及风格分析的前提都是“这是真的”——但它们又是可以分裂的：形式与内容之争的背后是作者，而作者问题进一步追问其实涉及的是主体性。三十年前改革的起点之一便是“真理大讨论”，李泽厚正是在那个时候带着康德来到我们身边。之后，萨特强调如何区分外在压力与内在需求，希望区分什么是真的（authenticity）与什么是假的（bad faith），带给表现主义艺术追求个体自由、寻找直觉的武器。但进一步走在“存在”之路上，却发现了走向“主体的深渊”的海德格尔，海氏带领大家走入了“了无生趣”的本真。深入思索的无意义——绝望之余就给了主流意识形态掌控全局的机会，走向了今日经济为纲的“上司—职员”世界。
剽窃“风格碎片”这种情况其实广泛出现在当代艺术圈；大量年轻艺术家因捡来的碎片而取得的成功自喜不已。的确，当经典缺席时，挪用就变成了抄袭，变成了真实情感的刺激物——如同真人的不在场，web-pornography也成了生理反应的刺激物。而这种情况在娱乐产业中更加常见，庞麦郎对自己背景的编造，正如文化人类学Denis Dutton在土著艺术案例中讲的那句经典对白：“文化？那是我们编给游客的。”
我关注的依然在这个为期两年的表演中有几分真的“谭天”的存在：两年的“造作”真的可以塑造谭天？虽然主体性变得混沌不清了，但基本经验还在。不是原创的，总是难做出变体，总是难以再创和延展；真实的情感不必依赖煽情就可以引起共鸣，只有信任才会延伸出信念，才能让人的能动最大化，让“非本真”的创造力最大化。在更宏观的层面，比如后殖民研究中，在少数人群权益、女权、黑人解放运动中，只有主体性问题的解决才能真正区分那些伪善的策略。而在乡村建设和精英——大众文化-亚文化的对立中，农民与大众的主体性问题更是当仁不让的成为了解题的中心。在这个意义上，哈贝马斯是对的，“现代性尚未完成”。
在体制批判走入操纵美术馆、搞选票的死胡同时，谭天这种“做空”美术馆，模拟生活的方式无疑是一个很好的启发。可惜他自己并没有太多对于体制的批判意识，自身依然带着强烈的对形式的喜好，针对的也只是中国艺术圈“天才论”之类的现象。这里抄录巴迪欧的《当代艺术15个论题：怎样不做一个浪漫主义者》中第一和第三个命题送给谭天：“第一、不要沉迷于形式的新奇性。因为对形式的持续修订并不是真实的批判立场……第三，今天的艺术创造是人的解放的一部分，而不是美化装饰品而已。”