Facing a wood, when all the “knowledge” about wood are removed, how should we take actions?Artists should withdraw alwaysinterview by Sun TianyiTo Wangjianwei, materials is a kind of object. Hereby the definition of object is more similar to Martin Heidegger’s understanding of being, which is the one left after getting rid of the functionality and property and the appellation and discussion governed by rationality. This being can not refer to a specific representation and difference, so as to strip away our forgotten experience and knowledge. That is why the audience have complicated feelings when facing his works. The artist continuously withdraws and strips away the existed knowledge and system of experience, which forces us to have an across reading  to his works among the medias.Only when we sort out again the track of artist’s recent years exhibition, from “Yellow Signal”, “…the event matured, accomplished in sight of all non-existent human outcomes.” to “Time Temple” and “Dirty Substance”, can we understand the artist’s work style and the idea of rehearsal that he has been emphasizing constantly. Creation is a process of non stopped experiment. He strips away the recognition of relationship based on dualism, but to realize a drift of uncertain result by through the representation of using materials as objects, which consists materials as a community of inner self-sustain and average. When Wangjianwei talks about his understanding about materials, he often erases our common concept of materials or medias and get rid of the difference between them. No matter material itself, or the medias derived from materials, their meaning maybe the independence that they may hold. That inspires the artist to return to the question about the essence of art by means of avoiding disadvantages. ARTYOO Dialogue | Wang Jianwei   ARTYOO: We noticed your recent works, especially the installations , which commonly have a kind of pure material property. Does that mean you are consciously returning back to the object itself? And how do you comprehend them?Wangjianwei: Actually in the past most of the artists’ work are not relate to dealing with objects, but to deal with the medias around this object. Just like when we talks about a person, an object or nature, society, what we are facing are not objects themselves, but to deal with and face the knowledge about them. So first of all, the artist’s job is to withdraw from the level of knowledge and return to the object itself. For instance, you see the steel or wood in my studio, when all the knowledge about them are gone, where should the artist’s job be located? For example, the concept of “readymade”, if we return to the back of the media of this object, this concept does not exist any more. Because the concept of “readymade” exists in an already finished situation that agreed by all of us. Although it is described as “separated from commercial environment and put in the museums”, etc, all of this are also a meaning given to the object. So it is called “readymade”. However, is the concept of ready made article a given meaning? Whether our theory and knowledge determine a position for the object or not? We never thought about that before, so as to have been staying in the situation of dealing with the concept of ready mades always. So, when we withdraw to the back of object, the concept of ready mades doesn’t exist, because there will be no excuse nor evidence to tell us that this one is readymade.Just like in your special features you referred to Joseph kosuth and his “one and three chairs” : a real object, a picture and an object on the dictionary. For the first time he raised a concept of media around an object. But actually the interesting thing is that what the artist’s work just returned to the back of the three objects — what is the object that are not surrounded by those knowledge? Which means there should be the fourth chair. In fact Graham Harman wrote an article named “The Third Table” according to last documenta. The meaning he conveyed is that “whatever we capture, whatever table we sit at or destroy, is not the real table.” He directly pointed out and guide us how we use knowledge, education and chairs to pile up the way by which we look at the world and the nature. Similarly, Anselm Franke curated an exhibition named “Animism” several years ago, which also focused on the discussion of what would be left after we withdrew spekulation from the media of objects. Simply, we should acknowledge the mutual equality between objects. On the contrary, our current painting, art are using a kind of comprehending method surround by known knowledge to solve the known problems, which actually is a vicious circle. The second important point is anti-concept, anti-correlation. Between object and human beings, one object and another, and your thoughts and body, there should be no correlation at all. But people added it to objects, which makes us think of nature when seeing water. This is Correlation Dynamics on which Relational Aesthetics is built, which also forces us to use correlation to take the place of this world. If we didn’t solve this problem, we would never know what an object itself is. I wish my job is not to deal with objects according to the route and goal I set for myself, but to deal with the object itself. As the Chinese saying goes, “crossing the river by feeling the stones”. Anything you saw that can be called “works” is just the latest stone I felt. Where would be the next stone? Probably it will be the one coming half a year later. ARTYOO: How do you present your comprehension to objects through the different medias of your work? For example, painting is on a flat space, but installation multi-dimensional space. And in your exhibition “Time Temple” and “Dirty Substance”, both of the two media showed together. Do you want to convey the same question through the advantages and disadvantages of the two spaces?Wangjianwei: We misunderstand art always as below: 1. Art is tool. You wish art could be a presentation of your idea, which is the deepest effect caused by art instrumentalism; 2. The word “dirty” of my exhibition “dirty substance” is still misunderstood by people. The “dirty” doesn’t come from visual aspect, but means when we face an object, it is actually covered by a sort of knowledge, which I believe as a kind of “contamination” like pollutions, a kind of “dirty” in cognitive perspective. We should always offend our known knowledge, and query shouldn’t only stay in attitude. So first of all my job is to avoid this two points and not to limit art to a meaningful and purposeful tool.  Now my studio is more like a traditional workshop or physical and chemical lab. Workshop keeps me work simply and continuously and it covers the unrepeatable manual work. As to physical and chemical lab, you need to return to the property of objects, just like what you saw, steel, wood, plastics etc. If you meet them, get together with them everyday and then move, transfers, at this time many thing we face are not controlled by ourselves and our knowledge, which also challenge the we-centered limit constantly. Now it is not we give them a certain meaning, but they produce their own form through the function of their  own properties, such as density, way of motion. Therefore, we say the installations in “Time Temple” realized such process, during which objects produced its own form. For me, there is no difference between the media of installation and the one of painting. Because there is no difference, but the ways of processing the two media are different, it will bing me constant adjustment. For instance, my work of installation and work of painting often go alternately, just like rehearsal. They are not getting better and better after rehearsal, but when you feel that you can predict the meaning without rehearsal, you need to stop. Usually at this time, i will go to another work site where I have to think through the new difficulty brought by other materials. At that time, the distance between my prediction and expectation will guide my work. Simply speaking, this sort of work is to withdraw.ARTYOO: So your work is between philosophy and science, and you need to extract result from experiment as well as thinking objects continuously, don’t you?Wangjianwei: This might be an illusion, not science. There are always goal and methodology in science. I don’t know where my work will go to, neither I expect my practice will affect my current or future work. What’s more, there are not logic or causality in my work. Science can prove A can become B, but my work is to prove that A can not become B. This is the artists’ method that is even better than that of scientists’ and philosophers’. When Latour and I talked about this point, actually it seemed that Latour talked about modern, but essentially what he focused on was another point of Heidegger’s theory about objects. That is he always refuses to accept that there is a clear classification between objects and the creation of object we believed. From this sense, this is what Latour said, “We have never been modern”, so we need to start over.So when we talk about substance, we never really own them. For instance, when discussing about universe and society, we actually do not really deal with the universe or society, but only deal with some current knowledge, headline news. Then you will naturally think of the point that what we know about art might only be what we know about the knowledge of art. We are not meeting art itself. In fact, we haven’t been doing the part of job of thinking of art itself. From realism till now we have never been escaping the frame of realism. Art is just a tool of playing different role at different times.ARTYOO：We saw a lot of paintings from your recent exhibitions. You painting seems more concretized compared with your installations. We even can find relatively clear description of things and people we can normally see in your paintings, but at the same time the cognitive environment we used to have is stripped away, so as to make it difficult for us to tell what they really are. Meanwhile, you used many planar color lumps or bars that interrupt our former experience constantly. How do you comprehend these paintings?Wangjianwei: For me, any place in paintings could be a place of new beginning, and it may develop a new ecology. I always regard painting as a place of anti-correlation. For example, I draw a portrait for you, and I will draw your glasses first. The glasses itself forms a circle, which separates from your face and body, and set up a new time. Now it is the object that is guiding me, not I draw the object. Another point is that I do not consider painting in the logic of art history any more. So the words like concretization and abstraction doesn’t make any sense to me. They all are objects. I regard my painting as an environment in which everything shows up are equal, including yourself. An interesting point is that, when I began to paint again I found painting may become the best place for me to turn objects into experiment, because this is worst place where we establish all sorts of logic, meaning and tools. So firstly, I have to face an environment where all the relevant knowledge about painting are stripped away; secondly, I treat this environment by the means of theater; thirdly, it is not a simple appeal of establishing new formal language system. To me, painting means the three “why”, which is more challengeable to me than I do video and theater.ARTYOO: Particularly, one of your paintings describes a garbage truck(“Incredibly Close” 2014), on which you added three white geometric angles. What do you think of the relations between this object and the plane?Wangjianwei: It is just like what we mentioned when discussing former questions, “why should we object science more directly”, which is just antilogical. When you face this painting, you may think this is a garbage truck, but at the same time you can deny it, and it is just graphic arts. And plane just need one action, that is to say, a sort of termination of logic. So our imagination about the garbage truck is what we called objects, and my work is to withdraw from the object while the object remains in its former place. But its logic has been terminated. That is what I mention about “potential” in “Time Temple”. i.e., When facing the same substance at the same time, it may present various status. Therefore, when you face an object, and the only judgement is terminated, it my produce a plurality, but it is one not two — it is still one painting but not two paintings — the objects in the painting cross two time at the same time. One is the time of objects and the other one is time of art. Now art not only terminates the former simple logical relations but also establishes a new logic that is different than the logic of art history. The painting is solving this problem. During this, there are many things appeared abruptly, one is interruption and the other one is withdraw.This is what I mentioned about the double identity of both artist and scientist. We need to have a comprehensive consideration of the materials and elements. It is not due to simple logic relations, nor the feeling of artist. Nowadays feeling has become very vague. When an artist says that he feels something, there must have been a very complicated thing.ARTYOO: No matter your installations or your painting, the space in your works seems to reflect the important exist of time. Do you believe the problem of space causes the problem of time? For instance, the four-panel painting for “Time Temple” that seems could be combined but actually not. Malposition happens when the space is cut off.Wangjianwei: In the past, we love to put time and space together, because we can hardly understand pure time besides the physical time. But I think the physical time is just a kind of reference we put in for time. Time should also be related to many other issues. “Time Temple” mainly focus on “potential time”, which may truly affect our judgement to the objects and the world. Actually we can traced back to “Yellow Signal” that is comprehended by many people as a concept of space, an intermediate state. Because there is no action happens when yellow signal lights, there is the acquiescence of the non existence of this time. Actually motionless is also a kind of state of objects. This question has been raised to discuss since the time of Aristotle: any object in any time has at least two kinds of mode of motion, which forces us to judge object through the integrity of contradiction. From this sense, any motion should consist of dual imagination and action, which is rehearsal.  So my exhibition, “…the event matured, accomplished in sight of all non-existent human outcomes.”, whose name comes from Mallarmé’s poem. Mallarmé called it as “A Throw of the Dice”. Alain Badiou is very interested with the idea of “A Throw of the Dice” and he believes it produces all thoughts: during the time when dice is thrown out it permanently covers the dual imagination of necessity and contingency. It is just like the yellow signal always covers the two imagination of red signal and green signal. And this is rehearsal — good and bad, not good and not bad are all included. ARTYOO: When you were interviewed at the exhibition of “Time Temple” in Guggenheim, New York, you said, “I do want to pay more attention to the ‘objects’ constituted by these materials, but not to separate it. Actually we should not only focus on one ‘element’ of the community of object, but on the community of object itself.”. How do understand the “community” of objects?Wangjianwei: “Community” is anticorrelation— firstly of all, you acknowledge their relation, but this kind of relation can not be interpreted by us in advance. Because connectivism establishes a world full of mutual opposition, such as human being and nature, human being and society, black and white, cold and warm. These correlations make us execute commandments before we get to know the world clearly, but we suddenly find that the road is blocked. Usually we may believe that something is wrong with the road. Actually we make mistakes from the very beginning, so we return back and try to understand the world. Then the so called “community” is produced — which may be the re-assessment to the former object. We assess the environment we are facing, and opposition may be gone. Actually you may find such state in my paintings. I will not be bothered by those surrounded relations when I paint. Because I think we shouldn’t think of “stand the test of time”. This expression is not correct in fact. Artists’ work can not stand the test of time, why? “Stand the test of time” means you have requirements to time, but you actually can not control time at all. There might be no relations at all between the piece of color painted yesterday and the one painted today, so we can get rid of this correlation. When the correlation is gone, you will find that the former meaning seems still there but different — this is the thing I want to find from painting, antilogical and antiscience.ARTYOO: However, in many installations from the exhibition “Dirty Substance”, we do find many connecting pieces that exist in the range of our experience of understanding. They connect different curved parts of objects together. It seems they reach a reasonable relations according to their inherent independent functions. But when we view them separately there is also the contradiction of different elements. They all are in one community. Referring to your answer to last question, why do you think we should not focus on one “element” of the community of objects?Wangjianwei: The question is that what is “viewing separately” and “viewing completely”. The first question we have to face here is that when many audience try to comprehend “Dirty Substance”, they strip away the precondition that artists solve art problems through perception at the very beginning, and they use one kind of knowledge to guide another one. However, the artist’s work is to face the object not the two kinds of knowledge. “Dirty Substance” is talking about the cognitive problem. The word “dirty” in “dirty substance” does not refer to the kind of dirty in morality, but means a kind of coverage and shelter. One of the most important points is that with every step of the production of this work there is artist’s perception accompanied, which can not be explained by any logic. If even such part of the artist’s work has to be cut off, then basically the artist’s work turns out to be pure scientific actions — all the procedures can be recorded in notes. However, I think it is meaningless to exhibit such procedures.It is just like inviting people to have dinner. There only are a lot of food materials, but no food. Then the cook says you can imagine what you ate today. This is the biggest mistake of the relation dynamics. It can attract all the imagination about food, but there is no food at all from the beginning to the end. But the artist’s work is not to let a hungry person to imagine his food.Artist “I work for possibility”——Wang JianweiWangjianwei was born in 1958 in Sichuan province. He started his art practice since 1970s, and he is regarded as a pioneer in the field of Chinese contemporary art. While he studied painting in the Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts (now the China Academy of Fine Arts) , Wangjianwei read lots of books about existential philosophy and Chinese history. Affected by these experience, his early painting based art practice featured with a strong experimental and complex ideas. Since the 1990s, he has been researching the influence of multiple sciences and cross-sectors' knowledge on contemporary art. He borrows and engages the methodologies of different disciplines in order to develop a new language for art. This opens new possibilities to recognize subjectivity among many relationships. With this cross-fertilized knowledge, he launches philosophical inquiries to practice a cross-sector method to view the reality and attach these practice forms. Therefore, his art work are diversified, including film, video, theatrical performance, digital technology, installation, painting and archives etc.

“寒武纪”是一个沉睡的地质时间。当一块褐色的矿石、黑色的稀土成为高速列车的轨道或连绵百里的输电铁塔，它不仅仅占据了关于金属与能源的真实性，而同样拥有了地理上的整体性。地质的时间并不是关于地质的科学，而是关于垂直与水平之间各自的剩余知识：这个由垂直形成的堆叠与技术（算法）的直接相遇，重新定义了个体性以及它的形式。作为一种新的复合体，用户通过界面服务于一个垂直的系统，新的法在使用中诞生。此时，物理性质的矿源和它所处的地质层与垂直方向的疆域不再成为唯一的统治，最终它呈现了一种吊诡的当下与未来。Q：这次新展览名为“寒武纪”，是一个关于时间和地质学方面的名词。为什么会用这个词来概括您的新作品呢？汪建伟：“寒武纪”的用意其实恰恰相反。因为从传统意义上说，我们会认为在艺术作品完成时应该赋予它一个名字，但我却对这种方式抱有质疑的态度，这其实是对之前的作品“时间寺”中思考的一种延续。我以一部手机为例：一部现代化的智能手机，它本质的含义是一种技术的堆叠，其中让手机得以正常运转的核心是其内部的芯片，芯片主要的成分是硅，硅又来自于稀土。而稀土实际上是来自于4亿年前的。手机的外壳所用到的合金钛、合金铝等材料来自于镍，而镍也来自于4亿年前，这个时期就叫“寒武纪”。以“寒武纪”来说，我觉得这个来自历史深处的、漫长的地质时间，与之前用我们个体的生命周期去计量的时间直接相遇了，这让我对物和时间有了新的思考。一切不稳定的表象，都是由一个或多个稳定的“本质之物”所导致的，这种本质是无需过多的观念去证明它和实现它的。比如说我遇到钢这种材料，我并不简单地想用它做成一个抽象或具象的雕塑，而是更想探究材料自身发展出的范围、它独特的材料属性，那些经千百年长时间沉淀的元素，在今天的材料中产生了什么样的变化等等，我不再按照用一种物质材料去加工一个作品的理念来思考艺术，而是反过来的。材料的历史和材料本身即处于一种技术上的不稳定状态，你用不同的技术就会产生多种不可知的结果，这不正是艺术家的工作吗？可以说在创作中我所选择的任何材料，从一开始就是不稳定的，这也让我回到一个特别有意思的出发点上，即“物导向的艺术”。 我最近几年比较关注的是“物导向的艺术”，或者说由“对象”引导的艺术是什么，而且不是由“观念”所引导的。因为我觉得是“对象”导致艺术。第二，我们所说的任何关于“物”的知识或制造技术，最初并非是在艺术家工作室产生的，也不是由艺术家发明的工具创造出来的。比如在各种大型机械上，会用到大量金属“元素”制造的原件和模块，这些模块会根据不同的功能需求，而变成一种重复地加固，这就属于元素在不断地处于发展的过程。而我们之前所熟知的美术史或与艺术相关的知识，并不足以覆盖和包围这种发展的过程：金属是工业社会产能过剩的象征吗？它的坚硬形态从何而来？而这些知识都是我们在原先的知识范畴内很少碰到的东西，这也是艺术在今天要解决的一个重要的问题。实际上在重新认识“物”的过程中，你会发现这个世界所形成的新的关系和新的社会性，这才是艺术家要重新去认识并表达的东西，就是我说的“物导向的艺术”。它近似英文中的“object”，并不是简单地指事物的意思。比如我画的风景，很多画实际上全部是经过芯片处理的，每一个山头都是电脑做出来的，我觉得在其中硅和镍等材料，不断地从它们的属性中发展出来的，并跳出了我们原先的理解范畴和知识关系，然后它自己在画面上生成了我所说的“物”。就是我们说这是艺术还是操作，总是要超出我们原先所理解的那个东西。之前我去四川美院讲课曾讲到，我觉得一个艺术家不是说有一个很好的观念，选择了很好的材料，最后实现了它就算完成了任务。我认为应该是一个尚未到来之物，当你的穷尽了现在所拥有的知识的时候，你的思考实际上并不是在指向单纯的“物”，而是在指向是一种关系，这其实已经不是艺术家，起码不是我理解的艺术家的工作：艺术家应该不知道某“物”的未来，他不应该对未来提出一个现在的艺术，在这个意义上讲我从不做草图。我在文章中曾提到，来自于寒武纪的芯片导致增强版的现实，它让自然更加真实，让我们的世界更加清晰。我们时常谈到要区分真的和假的，但这是一种很传统的观念。而“寒武纪”也不单纯是地质或地理学的概念，因为我觉得我们现在面对的所有的问题，都是在垂直和水平的维度间同时发生的，这其中有三个维度：第一，在有了地球的概念我们才有了对于地质的认知，而之前我们只有地理的概念。地球实际上是一个天文学概念，我们必须要跳出对于脚下大地的传统认知，才可能会获得新的认知。地质概念首先可以延展出一种宇宙化的宏观视角。第二，地质也是一个漫长的时间积累，而人的生命周期是一个短暂的时间经验。像刚才我说，两种时间相遇在我眼前的一只手机上，尽管我知道其中的芯片很小也很确凿，但一想起它跟4亿年的时间有关，我对很多东西的认知又处于一种非常不确定的状态之中，我对原先自以为已经理解的东西产生了怀疑。最后，由于以上两点，艺术家很多关于世界和物质的看法，就不再只是以个人的知识尺度来作为判断的标准了。之前我跟我的助手也说过：画画是画的什么？人物、钢铁到底是怎样的存在？很多艺术家有了这个观念，最后用媒介实现了表达。而我恰恰相反，如果对“物”认知的过程是由对象导致的话，我最聚焦是物质中隐含的基础元素，我从更陌生的层面理解技术性的含义，这次在长征个展展出的所有的画全部都是经过芯片反复处理的。Q：这次展出的绘画，是手绘的、还是电脑打印的？汪建伟：这些画采用了一系列技术。最后观众看到的是画，但是“物”来源却是复杂的。例如说我画在风景中的两棵树，它们是在电脑中生成的、两棵一模一样的松树，你不会在自然见到完全一致的树。它们的来源也许是一棵自然的树，但经过电脑、芯片不断地处理，它与自然之间的关系也改变了，跟绘画的关系也变了。这种变化到底来自于何方？它们来自于另一个知识领域的算法。最后我按照它所生成的“物”来画，但是我在画的过程中也在变化，这种变化看起来是我的手在变化，实际上是芯片已经提供了一个“物”所具备的行动轨迹。我把它喷出来，或者是用电脑打印，那是技术本身的示意图。就像词句是用来组织说话的，不是你直接展示表达符号就叫语言。Q：感觉这很像一个科学知识考察报告，或一个严谨的知识生产过程。汪建伟：其实它与知识生产基本上是反向的。不能说是科普，因为科普是传播一种既定的知识。但在今天认识“物”有很多可能的方式，我们看问题的方式，我们解决问题的方式，我认为用以前的知识来应对可能是有问题的。我也很强调其中的技术含义，在认识“物”的过程中，技术起到一个很重要的作用，因为在技术推进的过程中，你可以感觉到它也是一种新的艺术方式。比如说我理解一个“封闭的系统”，它不再是一些由花边新闻、社会新闻和历史故事所堆积起来的空虚架构，而由“物导向的艺术”所生发出的“艺术品”或者是叫“技术物”，它本身是一个输出、输入的信息过程，很有可能形成一个封闭的系统。在这个系统中，个人与机器间形成一种类比的关系：我、助手、各种工具、刀、材料，甚至温度、湿度等等，很多不可控和未知，每天都在这样的一个时间段里同时发生。而且当每一个刀和木头发生关系的时候，它和我们同时在工作，但同时我们不知道这个物到底是要把我们带到哪儿去。“艺术品”或者“技术物”的每一节、每一块，都不包含明天的信息，明天不知道是一个什么样的存在，然后我觉得我的工作就开始变成一个类似于信息输出、输入、反馈的过程。比如说在今天做的时候木头就会裂口、膨胀，突然发现跟昨天不一样，这也可以理解成材料本身输出了一个这样的信号，如果我们认为它是一个正确的信号，就任由其发展；也许它是一个错误的信号，因为材料裂口子会导致崩溃，我们就要解决这个错误，开始用各种保鲜膜包裹，用我们能想到的技术去处理和解决这个问题。这个过程实际上特别像一个输出、输入的信息系统，每天都是这样的。这样的话我觉得我们每天面对的对象和技术是不稳定的，而它本身就要固执地发展出自己的美学，而不是我们给予它的那些概念。另外，我觉得“艺术作为文化”或者“作为文化的艺术”可能已经死了，“作为物的艺术”才会产生。为什么这么说？我们被文化作为唯一的观念统治太久，这50年我们经历了关系美学、情境主义等等，导致每一个本来处于个体的艺术家，比如说北京的艺术家、上海的艺术家，结果最后呈现出来的作品都好像是社会学家、人类学家或者政治学家的意识阐释。这就是属于一种关系学意义上的互联结构，它让当代艺术陷入了无休止的社会阐释当中。之后就是被阐释的关系越来越多，越来越复杂，但在其中我却看不见他们所要表达的艺术，这是一个很大的问题。第二个问题我认为是情境主义。我们不会相信任何一个历史段落或情境是确定的，但是我们认为艺术是确定的。那是因为我们认为，艺术必须要在一个情境里被解释才会有效，这就会导致一个接一个的运动，一个接一个的事件，然后围绕着这个链条去讨论艺术，结果最后艺术就成了各种知识的仆人。但是我觉得并不是要做主人，也不是要做哲学的主人，同时也不是哲学仆人；他也不是要做社会的主人，同时也不是社会的仆人；所以我认为艺术应该是一种实在的“物”，不应该是一种抽象的理解；它也不应该是一种被关系围绕的、晦涩的文本解释。Q：我理解了您关于垂直和水平之间关系的思考，这可能涉及到当代艺术的一个问题。因为当代艺术本身是从西方传入的，这种对社会学背景和情境主义的阐释，是更能够成为一种可以通行的语言让西方的艺术世界去理解的，这又涉及到后殖民主义，我们是不是因为一直受这个影响所以走到了过度阐释的圈子里？汪建伟： 现在该结束了，我认为后殖民主义、情境主义和关系美学的统治，最终导致了一个反弹。这种反弹就是“物导致艺术”或“对象导致艺术”，它避免了艺术转向理论，最后被陷入到无限空洞的社会理论关系当中的尴尬。Q：您之前谈到的芯片概念，它所涵盖的面是非常广泛的，为什么只选择从风景的画面上去表现？汪建伟： 这显然是误解，因为我从来没有画过“人物”，现在也没有画“风景”（这是一种传统美术史对艺术家和艺术的分类）从某种意义上讲，我在画“现实”—一种被数字与技术控制的“现实”，它既不是传统意义上风景画的方法和技巧，也不是数字技术的输出打印，而是无法被某一种技术垄断的“风景”。在传统意义上理解，这个人是画人物的，这个人是画山水的，但我用行动告诉今天的艺术不再是这个逻辑了。这个逻辑意义下的艺术，在福柯当年的新的目光下已经宣布死亡。他在《词与物》里边用一页写《宫娥》的时候已经宣布有一种新的目光进入了对美学的理解，美术史对绘画的统治已经结束了。我们现在一方面受到后殖民社会学的解释，另一方面还受到一种很古典主义的解释。他们认为艺术中分为人物和山水等，而我认为这个界限完全不存在。是有一种技术或者是有某一点导致了我去做艺术，包括雕塑、绘画等等，因为我觉得万物皆平等。我们一直用制造困难的方式来解决困难，现在也一样。其实我觉得风景，还有之前提到的芯片，都是被制造出来的东西，明天我可能会制造出另外一个东西。现阶段的状态是：镍导致了装置，硅导致了绘画。问：您从芯片追溯到本源的一些东西，在当时这是一个机缘巧合，还是您一直对现代性怀疑，而产生的新视角？汪建伟： 实际上是在所有的机遇和革命都发生了断裂时，没有延续性。此时我觉得我只能通过我自己的工作来展示一些真实的东西，我不相信艺术的稳定性，这就是断裂的，当你把一个当下出现的问题看清楚，同时也产生了知识的剩余，就一定会发生断裂。断裂会产生新的认识，认识就会催生出新的技术，然后必然会产生一种新的感知性经验。Q：这和您之前“时间寺”的展览也有相通的地方。汪建伟： 当然，时间寺还有一个爆点埋在那里，它就像今天这块块芯片一样，需要经过时间的沉淀。我认为所有的对象在同样的一段时间里并不是感知到的全部，有一部分是在我们除了感知以外，它存在但是我们感知不到的。任何一个对象都不是物质性的集合。我在做“时间寺”时，中国背景、中国身份、政治的冲突抗争等等，很多人要到现场来一一画钩、对照，但是对不起，一个钩都没画到，他们感到一片茫然。然后又说是不是商业，对不起没有，安不上，怎么办？我回来以后看见中国很多唧唧歪歪的小资也跟着这样起哄，他们在这里面找刚才我跟你说的那些东西：关系主义、情境主义、身份背景，一个中国艺术家怎么能不这么做呢？我也不想说我要对身份进行抗争，但这不是艺术家唯一要做的事情。这个事情不是我考虑的，我考虑的是：第一，一种感知性知识是怎么产生的，对我来讲很重要。其实它已经奠定了今天“寒武纪”的对象所导致的艺术是什么，这些东西在做以前我也不知道它是什么。我也不知道它要指向什么，但是它在我的理解之外，这就是我觉得艺术家该做的事情。第二，对象就是你能看到的这个东西，它是一种实在，不是你看到的这些性质的集合。比如说木头、钢板、颜料、布，形象最后结合起来到底是一个什么东西，这种还原论，我觉得在中国这一部分知识和这一部分对感知性的经验和知识生产的可能被大大低估了，因为不时髦，很传统，甚至很古老。还有另外一个问题是关系主义、情境主义，在这两个问题当中，艺术都不是作为实在的物而存在的，前者的艺术是表达某一种情怀的工具。后者的艺术是表达政治态度和社会态度的工具，其间都没有作为实在之物的艺术存在。（(凤凰艺术 专访报道 采访/丁晓洁 责编/Mimi）