Artworks / Writings
Undergoing a long period of cultural cumulation and assimilation, the bodily gestures of human beings, already transcending the gestures of the other living creatures or animals in general, have developed into a considerably complicated system of signs and symbols. While as a way of expression, human gestures are yet distinguished from other signs created by human beings themselves, such as images and texts, as they involve the perceptual experience of oneself. Manipulating the gestural signs, no matter in a conscious or an unconscious sense, facilitates the consolidation of personal understanding and self-reflection.
Ascetic Buddhist monks take an austere attitude towards their own bodies and gestures, and this notion of austerity is not only exemplified in their ritual practices, but also in their daily lives, that is when they are walking, standing, sitting or lying. There is an old saying that goes, “(one) walks as a wind blows; (one) stands as a pine stands; (one) sits as a bell sits; and (one) lies in the shape of a bow”. As swift as a wind, as integral as a pine, as sturdy as a bell, and as restful as an unbent bow; these allegories obviously carry cultural connotations that ascetic monks can certainly ponder upon. Yet, while manifesting the gestures, the human bodies generate certain physical and biological reactions in response to the outer environment; and this somehow brings into existence a perceptual experience that is beyond the scope of language and logic and is beyond a general cultural understanding. This perceptual experience at the same time is able to find its way to be associated with individual psychological states. To me, this kind of physical, biological, and psychological integration achieved via human bodies comes very close to the nature of art.
From the intrinsic perceptual experience to the extrinsic bodily gestures; and from bodily gestures to symbolic signs, which are then conveyed and illuminated by different visual mediums, this on the whole corresponds with the development direction of my creating process throughout the past ten years.
The emphasis on perceptual experience in my previous works to a large degree stems from my introspection of the bodily activities carried out during my sculpting process. There was such a description in an essay introducing my work back in 1996:
“The concept of Walking on Two Balls sprang virtually from two wooden balls which were carved from a single tree stem. The output of energy (referring to both cognitive and physical powers) via the movement of one’s body alters the form of an object, it at the same time bestows certain earthly essences (such as the aesthetic sense of a form or the universal sense of order and the vitality that are often symbolized by orbs in different cultures) upon the object. This in a way fulfills the expectation that traditional art creation had towards ‘artistic skills’ and can also be perceived as a basic condition for bringing into life a ‘completed work’ of art.” [1]
In my Walking on Two Balls, I started from carving two balls out of wood, to walking on those two wooden balls, and even recording with video the whole process during which my body lost its balance on the balls. Ten years ago, I considered this as a “sensational trip” which allowed me to experience the intersection between time and space as well as the interchanging flow between matter and energy. Recently, I have resumed my awareness on the elements of handicraft in sculptural works (or it is only that perhaps I have never let go of my interest in handiwork). After a long period of perceptual investigation that I’ve launched towards my body, I assume that returning to handicraft is in a sense an ultimate act of tracing back to the fundamental as well as the origins.
In late 2005, I worked on a project on brick making with reference to Tiangong Kaiwu (Exploitation of the Works of Nature) – An Encyclopedia of Technology with illustrations by Song Yingxing of the Ming Dynasty. There is a passage in this work that describes how the traditional craftsmen excavated materials, and how they captured the nature of the materials, made use of the materials and eventually transformed them into practical utensils:
“(Water and clay) are the most fundamental elements in making (earthenware). Craftsmen were particularly concerned about the processing of clay. ‘Dig (in) the ground for over two feet and choose (the) sticky clay without (any) sand’ is a personal investigation of the external materialistic conditions, from the outside to the inside, from the coarse to the fine. Through continuous experimentation and verification, one reaches an ultimate understanding and mastery of the nature of (a particular) material. ‘Within a hundred miles, there must be clay suitable for making tiles… (which can then be utilized for building houses)’ (reflects) a firm belief (people had) in nature (which has been) accumulated from years of experience.”[2]
In the process of brick making, going through steps such as clay digging, sifting, water mixing and kneading, the hands are able to experience the transformation of the clay, and this can well be regarded as a sort of interaction between human beings and the material world. While physically laboring, the body of a craftsman, led by his innate humbleness and sincerity, would make certain adjustments to his body or postures in accordance with the physical need of the work as well as the working environment. This is an internalization of outer needs in the context of human behavior, and one would gradually be habituated to this particular pattern of internalization; this in a way resonates with the notion of austerity that ascetic Buddhist monks have towards their own bodily gestures. In tradition, Chinese craftsmen usually incise their names into their works; this echoes with the old saying that “as a craftsman puts his name on his work, the sincerity and the confidence the craftsman had towards his work is being conveyed”. I too imprinted the following wordings,「阿基造磚」”Brick made by Kee” on each of the brick I made, this, after all, can be viewed as a reflection of the diligence and the seriousness I have towards my works.
The focus of contemporary artworks veers towards the conceptual underpinning and the cultural connotation, heavily relying on the cognitive context, while overlooking the physical and the sensational understanding that comes up during the process of art making. Besides, the stunning and the astonishing outcome of a work, as well as the advocacy of works with big themes and of massive scale have been repetitively reinforced in the tremendous reigning system of the contemporary art scene. On the contrary, traditional craftworks, which pay more attention to subtleness and bodily sensation, are always regarded as products of subordinate skills or of minor significance, and thus can never cross the threshold of the contemporary art domain. It is however worthwhile to note that concepts in fact originate from the categorization and the processing of different sensational experiences. Human brains cannot work in an independence sense separating itself from the functions performed by the four limbs and the five sensational organs. Perception and conception can literally be comparable to the two sides of the same coin, and together, they hold the ultimate key to human understanding of the world; it will certainly lose the balance if emphasis is merely placed on either one side. Looking back to the tradition of handicraft, I realize that in the creating process, a craftsman, with genuine sincerity, is able to embrace all physical, biological, and psychological conditions which set the tone for bringing the internalized understanding into light; and again, to me, this particular type of transformation is close to the nature of art.
A friend of mine recently told me that he had never perceived my works as avant-garde in nature; this indeed gives me immense relief and comfort. Being able to forego the prestige of being an “artist” and to concentrate on the various kinds of experiences and the understandings gained throughout the creating process, an artist can always express himself via bodily gestures, and “walking”, “standing”, “sitting”, and “lying”, so to speak, are no longer mere gestures, they too are expressions.
2. Ho Siu Kee, “On Making Bricks - and Some Thoughts on ‘Exploring Materials’, ‘Making Utensils’, and ‘Applications’,” White Text, 3 (September 2006), 53, 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
經歷了長時間的文化積澱,人類的身體姿態,已超乎一般動物的肢體活動而自成一套相當複雜的符號系統。只是,身體姿態作為一種表達方式,又有別於其他人類創造的符號——諸如圖象和文字,它牽涉到擺弄這些姿態時自身的知覺經驗,故此,在自覺或不自覺地運用這種符號的當下,同時形成個人切身的體會和觀照。
佛教的修行者對身體姿態有嚴格的規範,這不單顯示在宗教儀式之中,更及於日常的起居生活,即如步行、站立、坐或卧的姿態等等。有所謂:「行如風;立如松;坐如鐘;卧如弓」。如風之爽颯、如松之挺直、如鐘之穩重、如弓(未拉緊時)之舒曲,這些意象固然有其文化內涵可供修行者細味,但在實踐這些身體姿態時,身體對應外在環境所呈現的物理與生理狀態,亦構成一種超乎語言邏輯與文化情境的知覺經驗,而這知覺經驗又往往連繫到個人的心理狀態。此種透過身體產生的物理、生理與心理狀態的交融,對我來說,更近於藝術的本質。
由有感於內的知覺經驗;到形之於外的身體姿態;再而成為具象徵意義的符號;並籍各種影象媒介轉載與再現,這大概反映了我過去十年的創作取向。
過去作品對知覺經驗的重視,很大程度源於製作雕塑的過程中對身體活動的反思。一九九六年我在一篇介紹自己作品的文章中有這樣的敍述:
「《雙球上步行》始於由一截樹幹雕鑿出兩個木球。經由身體運作,能量的付出(包括思維與體力)改變了物質的形態,並賦予這存在物某些人間意義(諸如造型的美感或不同文化中球體所象徵的宇宙秩序和生命力)。這符合了傳統藝術創作對『技藝』的要求,亦是作為一件藝術『成品』的基本條件」。[1]
《雙球上步行》由雕鑿木球開始,至踏在球上步步為艱地前進,再以錄像記錄身體失衡的姿態,十年前我將這過程體會為一次經歷「不同時間、空間的穿插;物質、能量的流轉」的「感官之旅」。近期,我對雕塑創作的手藝部份有重新的關注﹝又或者是念念不忘﹞,在經過頗長一段時間對身體知覺經驗的探索後,回歸手藝似乎是另一次的溯本尋源。
二○○五年底,我參照《天工開物》所載進行了一個造磚計劃,磚成之後,曾為文記載所經歷的過程,兼談傳統手藝人如何開發物料,並順應物性的變化以達到成器致用的目的。文中有這樣的敍述:
「凡製陶為器,水與泥是最基本的構成元素,當中,匠人對泥土之採練,尤其講究。『掘地二尺餘,擇取無沙黏土而為之』,是對外在物質條件一種由表至裏、由粗至細的體察;再而透過不斷實踐驗證,最終達至對材質物性的透徹掌握。『百里之內,必產合用土色,供人居室之用』,正是長期經驗累積之下,形成對自然世界的一種堅定信念」。[2]
在造磗的過程中,挖土、篩粉、和水、揉泥,雙手經驗泥土的不同形態變化,是一種人與物質世界的交融互動。再者,以匠人的謙卑與真誠,體會勞動時身體不斷順應外在環境與工作需要所作出的調節,則是一種由外而內的行為規範,這些規範最終又會成為習慣,就如同佛教修行者對身體姿態的嚴格要求。中國工匠有在所作器物上刻上自己名字的傳统,所謂「物勒工名,以考其誠」,我亦在所製的陶磚上蓋上封泥印「阿基造磚」四字,這不過是對自己工作認真盡責的表現。
當代藝術強調概念、重視作品的文化意涵,對知性的偏重,往往乏略了作品形成過程中以感官經驗為依歸的切身體會。此外,龐大的當代藝術建制不斷強化藝術作品的震撼感,鼓勵大議題、大製作,相對而言,講求細緻觸覺的手藝傳統,就往往被視為雕蟲末技而難以進入當代藝術的殿堂。只是,概念本來就源於對種種感官經驗的歸類與整理,大腦的思維,亦不可能完全脫離四肢五官的功能而獨立操作,感知與概念,本來就是人類認識世界的一體兩面,偏重任何一方,都難免有所缺失。回頭再看手藝的傳統,手藝人在誠心造物的過程中,似乎已具備充份的物理、生理與心理條件,以實現某種由外而內的體會和觀照,這種轉化,對我來說,亦近於藝術的本質。
最近,有朋友對我說,他認為我的作品從來就算不上「前衛」,聽罷竟是無比的坦然與釋懷。我想,能放下「藝術家」的身段,專注於造物過程中的諸般經驗與體會,則「行」、「立」、「坐」、「卧」,都是姿態,都是表達。
[1] 何兆基《一個關於創造的神話》,何兆基:第二十三屆聖保羅國際藝術雙年展,香港漢雅軒,1996年
[2] 何兆基《造磚記—兼談「開物」、「成器」與「致用」》,白文本 第三期,香港藝術學院白管子畫廊,2005年