调侃的背后

        陈力军
        戴增钧近二年创作的油画作品中越来越明显的充满了调侃意味，画中精心构思的戏剧情节由悖反逻辑引导观众打开一扇审视自我的大门，却并不对自己提出的质疑进行追问，让观众在画面由生活细节混搭而衍生出对精神荒原的思考持续在迷惑之中，在调侃自己的同时调侃观众，在调侃观众的同时调侃生活，调侃已经成为戴增钧油画作品重要的艺术特征。
        调侃的词义是用语言戏弄和嘲笑，当调侃涉及人与社会的关系时，便有了“黑色幽默”的成份。黑色幽默在上世纪60年代兴起于美国，是以存在主义哲学为思想基础的文学流派，与法国的荒诞派喜剧相呼应，反应人与社会的矛盾。“黑色幽默”作为一种美学形式，属于喜剧范畴，却带有悲剧色彩。在技术上常把叙述现实生活与幻想和回忆结合起来，把严肃的哲理和插科打混成一团，以一种无可奈何又无所谓的态度嘲讽环境和个人的不协调，并把这种不协调放大变形，使它显得更加滑稽可笑，借它来表达作者对社会问题的观点。戴增钧油画作品中有“黑色幽默”的成份，但同时又保留了中国人的思维方式和生活习惯，在不露声色之中温文尔雅地进行叙事，属于典型的“中国制造”。其实，在当代艺术界大谈艺术民族性、当代性如何与世界艺术接轨的时代，单纯就艺术本身论艺术根本不可能彻底解决问题，“中国油画”的未来势必面临文化独特性与普遍性的融合，以及艺术家文化价值观和思维方式转变两大前提。作为年轻艺术家，戴增钧选择的方向和研究方法及路径，就目前看来无疑是正确的，这也是为什么他的作品被威尼斯双年展策展人温琴佐•桑福先生所关注的原因所在。
        戴增钧油画作品中呈现出来的调侃在玩世不恭之中包含了沉重和苦闷，忧郁和残酷，概括起来有以下几个特点：1.将严肃暗隐于荒诞之中。戴增钧对于画面调侃意味的狂热追求，体现在从头到脚的精密构思，从标题名称到内容组织，从人物形象的真实到人物行为方式的错位，从画面景物中北宋花鸟山水写意性的提取到画面构成场景的虚幻，无一不是经过长时间精细编织而最终求得的瞬间轻松。用调侃的人生态度拉开与现实的距离，以维护尚存的独立艺术家的尊严，使看似荒诞不经的调侃具有了社会性。2，画面具有隐喻和象征的艺术特征。在“同一条船上的”这幅画中，艺术家画了一个貌似艺术家本人的撑槁男人，船上的乘客则是鸡、鸭、猪、狗等牲畜，这些牲畜虽然和人类同在一条船上，但心里想的肯定不一样，同舟共济也只是在危难之中才可以看到的情景，一旦到岸了，目的地绝对不相同；在“谁怕谁？”这幅画中，一个人和老虎对峙，你说谁怕谁？在这些画面中，其实象征性地隐喻了人与人之间的复杂性，涉及到人性、道德、地位、尊严等哲学命题，关于这些问题的思考，使调侃变的沉重和残酷。3，颠覆传统的叙事结构。传统画面组织原则是给混乱以秩序，而戴增钧画面内容组织则给秩序以混乱，强调幽默与高尚严肃的东西，喜剧和悲剧的因素结合在一起，认真地运用了滑稽、夸张、双关等艺术手法，在自我嘲讽之中传达对社会问题的看法。4，“反英雄”式人物。当代艺术由后现代主义催生而来，自然而然地与生活更紧密地联系到了一起，艺术家更关注社会小人物的诉求和自身精神世界的保养与维护，画面中看似疯癫的人与物在现实的反映下，反倒显得格外真实、可爱。其令人可信的程度并没有因为荒诞古怪的戏剧情节而减弱。
        事实上，我们每一个人都幻想能拥有整个世界，但不幸的是，到头来在每个人身上，这个世界只是自己的惟一。戴增钧用他自己独特的调侃方式试图对人的存在方式加以说明，当我们审视“一条船上的”人与小动物同舟共济，“不和我玩”中的人和驴，还有“狗咬狗”、“鱼我所欲也”、“闭上眼站不稳”、“谁怕谁”？等等新作品时，虽然其中有些许迎合特定阶层口味的无奈之举，但难能可贵的是在这些荒诞不经的戏剧场景中，竟能将调侃背后的真相和深意巧妙地和哲学命题连接在一起，这就是画面中反复出现的同一个裸体男人，用戏谑性地画面形象在迷惑之中暗示观众“我是谁”?
        就观看习惯而言，我们一开始就陷入到由“机智”的“混乱”编织而成的阐述圈套之中，曾经的审美习惯被打破，观众的思维逻辑被打乱，我们被一种经过精心构思的戏剧冲突所吸引，并试图借由自己的主观经验和意识去解读真相，随着各种疑惑似是而非地被逐渐放大，我们无法看清作者迷雾后的企图是什么？至此，观众被强行带到由自我审视编织成的第二个圈套，究竟调侃的意义在哪里？由调侃引发的冲突再度让观众陷入思考。当我们将虚幻和现实生活对接，又不能直观地看到生活究竟是什么样的，只好在艺术家设置的圈套里自我暗示，自圆其说，相信虚幻和真实之间的确存在联系，在种种假设得以成立的前提下，也相信了画面中的调侃就是生活本身，并朝着不同的方向去解读，戏剧性的调侃得以终结。最后，画面中的调侃强迫观众对自我身份提出质疑，调侃背后的真相竟是生活本身，只不过面对调侃，每个人对于生活的态度将变得和画中人一样，脱去伪装的服饰，剩下游离于社会意识之外的内心真实。
在这个物欲横流，人们逐渐迷失自我，逐渐成为机器和媒介的奴隶的年代，能够调侃生活的人，是生活的强者，能够调侃自我的人，是强者中的智者。在某些时候，意识到自我之后的自我，真相背后的真相，调侃可能是最恰当的表达方式。

        于石门空心斋
        2011年12月6号

        Chen Lijun
        Ridicule is increasingly apparent in the last two years’s oil paintings by Dai Zengjun. The well composed dramatic plot is presented with an absurd logic that opens up the viewers’ eyes to take a look at themselves instead of raising questions.
        Laughing at himself and his audience simultaniously, making fun of his audience while making fun of life itself; mockery has become the distinguishing mark of Dai Zengjun’s oil paintings.
        The definition of ridicule is using language to tease and mock. When it is about the relationship between man and society it contains elements of black humour which originates in the 1960s’ USA. It is a branch of literature based on the philosophy of existentionalism, echoing French absurd humour. It reveals the contradictions between the individual and society.
        Black humour belongs to the category of comedy but it’s presented with tragic hues. Its techniques often combine elements of real life, fantasy and memories. It muddles up serious philosophical theories with jokes. Drawing upon a kind of helpless and indifferent attitude to mock the disharmony between the individual and the environment, it amplifies and distorts this disharmony and makes it appear funny. The author can rely on it to express his or her views on social problems. Dai Zengjun’s works of art show elements of black humour while retaining the Chinese people’s way of thinking and habits. Wearing a mask of graceful narration they can be classified as typically “Made in China”. Actually, at times when the contemporary art world is talking about how to integrate the national and contemporary characteristics into the world art, art itself merely talking about art is not going to solve any problems? The future of Chinese oil paintings is bound to face the integration of the unique Chinese and the universal cultural characteristics; with the artist’s cultural values and the changing way of people’s thinking as the two underlying concepts. As a young artist, research methods and directional choices made by Dai Zengjun seem to be undoubtedly correct at present, and this is why Venice Biennale curator Mr. Incense Sanfo is paying close attention to his work.
        Cynicism, displayed frivolously in Dai Zengjun’s oil paintings targets solemnity and depression, melancholy and cruelty. Its elements can be summarised in the following points.
        Integration of solemnity into the absurd. The fanatical pursuit of ridicule in Dai Zengjun’s pictures manifests itself in refined portrayal from head to toe from the title to the composition, from the realistic character portrayal to the displacement of the action, from the extraction of Northern Song Dynasty’s flower-and-bird freehand brushwork scenery to the illusory composition of the scene. Applying mockery, being at a safe distance from reality, independent artists can maintain their dignity, making seemingly absurd elements social.
        Symbolism and metaphors. In his painting “The same boat”, the figure of the punter can be seen as a self-portrait of the painter and those riding the punt are all animals. Chickens, ducks, pigs, dogs. Although these animals and the man happen to be in the same boat, their goals and roles are not similar in any way. Pulling together only lasts as long as an emergency is apparent. Once on solid ground, they have their individual goals and destinations again.
In the painting titled “Who’s scared” a man is facing a tiger and you can guess who is actually afraid of the other. In the metaphors of these paintings the complexity of human relationships is displayed in light of higher philosophical conceptions such as human nature, moral, social status and dignity. These reflections on sublime issues bring gravity and cruelty to his mockery.
        Sabotaging the traditional narrative structure. The guiding principle in traditional paintings is “from chaos to order”, however, the exact opposite, “from order to chaos” predominates Dai Zengjun’s canvases. Expressing his views on social issues, his paintings rely on exaggeration, humour, making fun of himself, and blending tragical and comical elements.
        The character of the antihero. Contemporary art is a snappy offspring of postmodernism; therefore it maintains a closer relationship with life. Artists tend to focus on the average people and the demands and protection of their own spiritual world. Seemingly insane people or objects appear to be sensible and lovely under the reflection of reality. Their credibility is not compromised by the absurd and eccentric drama plot.
        Everyone can imagine possessing the whole world, but the fact is, no one actually owns it. Dai Zengjun tries to explain the existence of humans in his unique style. In his recent works “People and the donkey”, “Don’t play with me”, “Dog bites dog”, “My desire for fish”, “Closing the eyes”, and “Who’s scared” we can discover a certain amount of helplessness catering to the taste of a specific class. In these absurd scenes, hidden in ridicule, Dai Zengjun ingeniously combines reality with profound philosophical ideas. The same naked man appears in his paintings again and again. With playful, confusing images it makes the audience think about “Who am I?”
        Due to our perception customs we immediately fall in an elaborate trap, woven by wit and chaos. Traditional aesthetic patterns are broken, the audience is disturbed. We are attracted by a well-conceived drama conflict and try to decipher the truth, relying on our own subjective experience and consciousness. Filled with gradually and paradoxically growing suspicions we can not see through the mist of deception, created by the artist. Then the audience is lured into another trap, woven by self-reflection. After all, what is the meaning of ridicule? The conflicts triggered by mockery make the audience lost in thought again. When we are in the artist’s trap, we may confuse fantasy with reality and can not see clearly what real life is. We are left with the choice of self-reflection and it is the individual observer that has to find an explanation to the relationship between fantasy and reality. While we are establishing various hypotheses we accept that the mockery in the picture is real life itself and will interpret in a different way. Dramatic ridicule comes to an end. Finally, the ridicule in the picture compels audiences towards raising questions about their self-identity. Behind the truth of ridicule there should be life itself. By confronting the mockery everyone’s attitude towards life will be similar to the man’s on the picture; taking off the disguise and keeping the inner truth free from social awareness.
        In our current materialistic world people are gradually losing themselves, turning into slaves of machines and the media. Those who can make fun of life are the strongest, and those who can make fun of themselves are the wisest of the wise. Sometimes ridicule is the most appropriate way to keep our self-awareness, and find the ultimate truth.

        Shimen
        6th December 2011