物!物!物!
MONO! MONO! MONO!

Curator. Zhu Sha
Artist. Teppei Kaneuji
Wind H Art Center
2021







在当代艺术的线索里,拼贴早就失去了上个世纪的先锋意味,已经变成了一种,我们甚至可以被称之为传统的创作方法。所以观看金氏的作品,并不在于他确立了某种新的范式,某种革新,而是一种艺术家更个人和更直觉的表达。如他自己所说,要模糊物品的边界, 那么当一切都含混之后,就有了一种更宽广的创作线索,把这些物品视为修辞和素材放在一起,最后就像诗一样。

“我惯于游走在二元对立之间,如城市与郊区、必然性与偶有性、光与影、平面与立体、幻象与现实等等,有时我也会制造机会,揉合这些对立的现象。在这过程中原本有意义的东西失去了意义,没有意义的东西又获得了意义,如此周而复始,直至某一刻这些对立的微小现象出现转变,让我捕捉到了一个集体。”

这段话昭示了金氏巨大的野心:消除一切边界的意图。同时又和他作品里所呈现出来的,某种抒情的特质吻合。在极端主义横行的地方,一切都是建立在反智基础之上的。人们鼓吹一种简单的是非观念和道德立场,所以不能模糊暧昧,只能黑白分明。而这样的标准在遭遇复杂的生活之后就破产了,乌托邦真真假假又二元对立。所以在市侩的世界里呢,判断价值变成了一个麻烦的问题。由此意义变得格外重要,观众追寻清晰的意义,深怕受到丝毫愚弄,他们睁大双眼,处在爆发的边缘,交头接耳地询问。又或者滑向另一个极端,默不作声的四处穿行,拍照留念各行其是。至于感受,就是这些无法诉诸于语言和构成意义的东西,于他们无足轻重。人们只需要意义,需要高声宣讲,通过明确他们来得到保障,只要背离被人们称之为模糊中立的就够了。

金氏的拼贴,和上世纪先锋艺术的本质性区别,在于观看和看过这两个不同的时态。金氏于拼贴是即时的,是在这种创作形式已经被确立很多年之后的选择,所以他没有那么鲜明的口号和宣言,没有自行车轮那么惊世骇俗。金氏的拼贴更像是绘画,像诗歌,一种从既定形式里迸发出来的工作,不妨称之为感觉,就是一种直接传达的东西。他回避了讲故事的迂回和乏味,从一个秩序过度到另一个秩序,从一个层面过度到另一个层面。至于那些伟大意义,那些可以被转述的,都属于被看过的,过去的,其意义在于完成之后,就会接近电影于绘画的比较,电影需要被看过,绘画永远在观看。

一个十七世纪的法国人,西班牙人还是波兰人,可以在互相不知道的情况下,同时写一首关于罗马废墟的历史诗。他们共同的源头可以是默默无闻的拉丁语作者,又或者是更古典的奥维德和贺拉斯。所以今天人们需要如何面对这样的古典主义,就可以同样理直气壮的面对流行文化,因为交流变得更迅捷,通畅,人们似乎越来越分享同一个源头,无论是星球大战还是新世纪福音战士。问题是,我们还要一如既往的引用奥德赛和变形记吗?如果不想对古典乞灵,那么调和古典和流行就是所有现代人的典型矛盾,卡通形象和街头涂鸦也就很轻易的变成另一种陈词滥调和轶事奇闻。伟大的先锋运动和艺术家们让观众建立了一种盲信,一种通向未来的乐观主义,好像艺术从此就是这样,甚至只是这样。

民众不被认为是艺术的参与者,而是消费和局部占有者,被支配者,如果再露骨一点的话。在亦步亦趋的商业环境里,我们遭遇的是贫乏和狭隘。充斥潮流符号的商品把人困在有限的领土,留给你明确又窄小的通道。你来,你看见,你交钱,你带走一块象征仪式完成的棉织物,这些都是你知道的,商品只给你知道的,作品才给你意外。小资产阶级的平庸典范,中产阶级和坏品味,从爱国者、工作狂到家庭幸福的保守派,沾沾自喜堂而皇之的市侩者们,操心无关紧要的事情又丝毫不关心身边发生的一切。所以由不得你不怀揣敌意的去对待他们,去驳斥那种被普及的一般性生活,就是在大卖场里,福楼拜说的,潮闷如潮虫。

福楼拜还有一个比喻,说亚马逊的女战士会为了方便使用弓箭而割掉自己的乳房。他大概是在歌颂某种专注和不惜代价的精神,因为总是要有代价的不是吗?当然这个比喻越来越不合时宜,在愚人的乐园里生活总是要多绕几个圈子。那么回到变形记,回到人类最初的比喻里,回到达芙妮可以变成树,伊俄可以变成牛,还可以再变回人的时候。又是什么终结了这个古老的比喻呢?在现代人的简单判断里,一切的罪人如果不是男性权利,就得是环境污染。我们似乎认为塑料的隐喻就是让伊俄可以变成牛,但无法再变回来。

塑料就是地球的终极敌人,大反派总是无处不在的,在我们情理之中意料之外一次次重现。一方面我们要相信环境污染的大灾难,从你的读到的某条新闻起,你的塑料袋,包装盒通通变成了你的原罪。另一方面,个人又苦于找不到反驳的依据。曾经的有信者不会认为上帝创造你就是为了制造塑料,现在的科学家倒是有可能认为人类是人工智能的过渡产品。这里面的是非到今天也很难弄清楚,所以我总是在抒情诗和怀疑主义之间摇摆。我希望那些企鹅宝宝的代言人们能看见眼前的这些,至少我相信他们和眼前的这些塑料并不会在大海里相遇。

纪德在谈到马拉美的时候说,马拉美所写的诗都是他自己梦想里要写的,所以爱马拉美的同时又好像从来没爱过,崇拜又好像没有崇拜过,于是只能“把自我融化在他身上”。《白色释放》是这样的作品吗?是对物的肯定和赞歌吗?我们不难猜出他受到日本物派的影响,我们还可以猜测东方思想里的物物而不物于物,我们甚至可以对白色做出情色的联想,但是这个狡猾的艺术家还是很模糊,他似乎同时玩着两套游戏,形式的和智力的,而我们无法像希腊人那样只知答案不知问题。

再让我们回想一下,自现代主义之后,拼贴就是一门有效语言,一种观众习惯解读和心领神会的形式。而拼贴和现成品又并不相同,现成品原生的批判意味多少有点苦大仇深。金氏的创作原型是日常,是在商品社会之外,保有游戏感的童心,好像搭积木那样造物的快感。在美好想象里,我们寄希望于艺术家保留某种儿童的东西,某种持久的,儿童的感知力。而在一个堕落的物质世界里,一切都是错误的,颠倒的,和永恒断绝了关系,所以才会把撒娇的卡通图案,还有地方性的异国情调混作一谈,而金氏远比这些生动;他对于这些标准,表现出了一种诗意的,流动的呼应。因而我们在这样的环境里,也只能寄希望于神圣的创造力和想象。《物!物!物!》也不是艺术家的檄文和号角,如同TORA那部电影片名一样,仅仅是一个外国人的想象,对想象的想象。

策展人 朱砂






In the thread of contemporary art, collage has long lost the avant-garde meaning of the last century, and has become a type of, what we can even call a traditional method of creation. Therefore, viewing Kaneuji's works should not look for a certain new paradigm to be established, a certain innovation, but a more personal and intuitive expression of the artist. As he says, to blur the boundaries of objects, then when everything is blurred, there is a broader sense of creative clue. These objects together are treated as rhetoric and material, and eventually they become like poetry.


"I am accustomed to wandering between binary oppositions, such as cities and suburbs, inevitability and contingency, light and shadow, plane and three-dimension, illusion and reality, etc. Sometimes I also create opportunities to blend these opposing phenomena. In this process, the originally meaningful things lose their meaning, and the meaningless things gain meaning again, and so on, until a certain moment when these tiny phenomena of opposition change, I capture a collective."

This passage exemplifies Kaneuji's ambition: the intention to eliminate all borders. Simultaneously, it is consistent with a certain lyrical quality presented in his works. Where extremism is rampant, everything is predicated on anti-intellectualism. Many advocate a simple concept of right and wrong and a violent moral stance, so they cannot be ambiguous, only black and white. Ironically, such a standard immediately failed after encountering a complicated life, and the utopia is ambiguous and dualistic. Hence, in the secular world, judging value has become a difficult issue. As a result, the meaning becomes extraordinarily important. The audience is looking for a clear meaning, afraid of being fooled. They open their eyes wide, on the verge of an explosion, whispering inquiries. Otherwise, they slide to the other extreme, walking around silently, taking pictures, and act on their wills. As for feelings, these things that cannot be appealed language or constitute clear meaning are of little importance to them. Most humans only need meaning. They need to speak loudly, and feel assured by clarifying their spoken content, as long as they deviate from what people call vague and neutral.

The essential difference between Kaneuji's collage and the avant-garde art form of the last century lies in “viewing” and “viewed” these two different tenses. Kaneuji's collage is instant, and this creative form became his choice after it has been established for decades, so he does not have a distinct slogan and manifesto, and is not as shocking as a bicycle wheel. Kaneuji's collages resemble paintings, poetry, and a type of work that bursts out of a given form. It may be a feeling, which is a type of direct communication. He avoided the circuitous and banal storytelling narrative, from one order to another, and from one dimension to another. As for those great meanings, those that can be transcribed belong to the ones that have been viewed, the past. The their meaning occurs after completion, bordering on the comparison between a film and a painting. The film needs to be viewed and the painting is always being viewed.

A 17th-century Frenchman, Spanish or Polish, can write a history-inspired poem about Roman ruins without knowing each other. Their common source can be the unknown Latin authors, or the canons like Ovid and Horace. Hence, many can face pop culture with the same confidence as they face such classicism, because communication has become faster and convenient, and many seem to share the same source of information more and more, whether it is Star Wars or Evangelion. The question is, do we still quote Odyssey and Metamorphosis as always? If we don't want to beg classics for spirits, then reconciling classics and pop will be a typical contradiction for all modern humans. Cartoon images and street graffiti can easily become another type of clichés and anecdotes. The great avant-garde movement and artists have established in the audience a form of fanaticism, a kind of optimism that leads to the future, as if art had always been like this, or even would stay like this.

The public are not regarded as participants in art, but as consumers and occupants of some negligible parts of art. They are the dominated, to be more explicit. In a business environment that promotes conformity, we are faced with cultural poverty and narrow-mindedness. Commodities full of trendy symbols confine people in a limited territory, leaving them clear and narrow passages. You come, you see, you pay the money, and you take away a piece of cotton fabric that symbolizes the completion of the ritual. These information are what you know and what the products make known to you. By contrast, only the works of art will surprise you. The mediocre model of the petty bourgeoisie, the middle class and the kitsch, from patriots, workaholics to family-happy conservatives, self-satisfied seculars, care about trivial things without caring about everything that happens around them. So you can't help but treat them without hostility, to refute the popularized general life, that is, in the hypermarket, what Flaubert said, as dull as a worm.

Flaubert also has a metaphor, saying that Amazon female warriors would cut off their breasts to facilitate the use of bows and arrows. He is probably praising a spirit of concentration and of achieving at any cost, because there is always a price, isn’t it? This analogy is becoming anachronistic, and life in the paradise of fools always requires more circles. Back to Metamorphosis, back to the original human metaphor, and back to when Daphne can become a tree, Io can become a cow, and back human again. What ended this ancient metaphor? In the simplistic judgment of modern humans, if the sinner of all is not male supremacy, then it must be environmental pollution. We seem to suppose that the metaphor of plastic is to allow Io to become a cow without being able to change back.

Plastic is the ultimate enemy of the earth, and the greatest villain is always everywhere, recurring again and again unexpectedly within our expecting sense. On the one hand, we must believe in the catastrophe of environmental pollution. Starting from a certain piece of news you read, your plastic bags and packaging boxes have all become your original sin. On the other hand, the individual suffers from the difficulty finding the basis for rebuttal. The religious would not think that God created you to make plastics, but now scientists may argue that humans are a transitional product of artificial intelligence. It's difficult to figure out the absolute answer, so I always sway between lyric poetry and skepticism. I hope that the spokespersons of baby penguins can see this plastic disaster in front of them, at least I believe that they and these plastics will not meet in the ocean they swim in.

When talking about Mallarmé, Gide said that all the poems that Mallarmé wrote were what he had wanted to write in his dreams. Therefore, while loving Mallarmé, he seemed to have never loved him, and worshiped as if he had never worshiped, so he could only "melt self on him." Is "White Discharge" such a work? Is it an affirmation and eulogy to objects? It is not difficult to guess that he was influenced by the Japanese school of Mono ha. We can also suppose a connection to "objectify objects without being objectified” in Eastern philosophy. We can even make erotic associations with the whiteness, but this cunning artist is still very vague. It seems that we are playing two sets of games simultaneously, formal and intellectual, and we cannot only know the answers without knowing the questions like the Greeks.

Let us recall that since modernism, collage has been an effective language, a form that audiences are accustomed to interpreting and understanding. Collage and ready-made products are not the same. The criticism of ready-made products tends to be a bit bitter and harsh. The prototype of most of Kaneuji's creation is everyday life. His works demonstrate a childlike innocence with a sense of play outside the commodity society, and a pleasure of creating things like building blocks. In the idealistic imagination, we hope that an artist retains some type of children’s characteristics, some lasting, children's perception. While in a degenerate material world, everything is off, upside-down, and removed from eternity. As a consequence, the coquettish cartoon patterns and the provincial exoticism are conflated, and Kaneuji is far more vibrant, dynamic and profound than these. He shows a poetic and fluid response to the former standards. Therefore, in such an environment, we can only hope for great creativity and imagination to assist our visual journey. "MONO! MONO! MONO! "Is not an artist’s slogan or manifesto. Like the film title of TORA, it is just a foreigner’s imagination, an imagination of imagination.

Curator Zhu Sha