Painting of Reverberation, Illuminati Fine Art
A Conversation with Christopher Ku
Q: In your exhibition, “Painting of Reverberation”, I see that powder coating features in many of your paintings. It is a relatively rare material to be used in oil painting. How did you arrive at this experiment?
A: When we make art, we are no longer limited by the choice of medium or material, and it can be anything from photography, video, mixed media, gunpowder, excrement, hair, to insects and animals… In this sense, material is no longer the focus in contemporary art. The key question is whether the content of the work and the chosen materials come together to create a new visual context, with a focus on the echoes and contrast between the work and history or the culture it is situated in. In this exhibition, the powder I use is not a traditional medium from the East or West, but it opens up a dialogue between traditional xuan paper and the canvas. This shows that an artist does not necessarily have to look for breakthroughs from working with Western art installation or Eastern ink painting. I hope to use my powder paintings to explore the possibilities of application of cave painting in contemporary art, without limiting myself to any regional culture. This experiment with a new material is proof that artistic thinking can traverse ancient and modern cultures of the East and West, just as ink painting and oil painting have existed throughout history and are still relevant today.
Q: But it seems like you are interested in more than just the application of materials. In what ways has your work been inspired by Chinese folk arts such as Eastern stencil, paper cutting, and the Double Happiness pattern in terms of imagery and technique? Do you believe folk art has a place in high art?
A: The themes of ancient cave paintings revolved around the living environments of people at the time, while contemporary art reflects our perceptions of the world today. Art is no longer bound to the ideology of its time, while we see expressions of contemporary issues through the language of art. That is to say that creative inspiration can be drawn from a variety of subjects of the humanities, such as history, sociology, science, philosophy, and psychology. In the past, Chinese paper cutting influenced Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse; Japanese imagery inspired the works of the impressionists such as Vincent van Gogh and Claude Monet’s water lily series, and Eastern calligraphy influenced artists such as Cy Twombly and Franz Kline. Eastern culture was a source of inspiration for modernism. Do Chinese artists cherish these long-standing cultures? In China, paper cutting, stenciling, and other crafts are often narrowly defined as folk traditions, but I believe that culture represents the disposition of a region and its people. If we situate Chinese folk arts in high art, I believe these regional cultures can be refined through this artistic convergence. Although the ideas of “elegance” and “kitsch” may seem dialectically opposed to each other, the juxtaposition of these two conflicting elements adds to a painting’s intrigue. The development of aesthetics is often driven by grand ideas, yet the great works of art from different eras and cultures have tended to depart from conventional aesthetics.
Q: Conflicting and contradicting elements feature prominently in different guises in your paintings. Many viewers are intrigued and perplexed by the recurrent notations and symbols in your work. These symbols are commonly seen in our daily lives, yet they seem to take on a different meaning in your art.
A: Symbols are created by the reduction of meaning, and they are disseminated through human communication. The foundation of our communication is built on the rules and structures of systems of symbols and our collective understanding of them. Therefore, our lives are bound to the use of symbols, as they make more effective expressions of ideas than images in real life. This is especially true when we are dealing with physical systems such as bus stops, washrooms, and other public venues, as well as knowledge systems including mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Codes, signs, and symbols direct us to where we want to go. Otherwise, we will be lost in situations and knowledge that lie beyond our grasp.
However, symbols are not comprehensive representations of things. There are gaps between phenomenon and reality, partial and total, theory and experience in our society, economic operations, and value systems, which result in paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas. It is the hidden meanings and myths surrounding these codes and signs that fascinate me. In the embedding of codes into artistic contexts and their representations, the absolute correlation between symbols and their counterparts is disrupted. In reality, graphics whose meanings are not defined by general consensus are ineffectual for communication; yet, in art, these forms could evoke a sense of aesthetic beauty. In the past, I attempted to decipher the conventional uses and functions of symbols and transform them into aesthetic elements. In combing through the ambiguity of symbols in different circumstances, we reflect on the definition of things. While we rely on symbols to understand the world, we are also unconsciously imprisoned by the power that symbols have over us. It is as violent as pointing a gun at someone from behind their back. But is it necessary for us to construct our understanding of the world according to the rules of these systems? Perhaps artistic thought is the only alternative for us. For instance, the cross is associated with the crucifixion of Jesus in the New Testament of the Bible, but the cross in my paintings has no direct connection to religious themes, and its meaning deviates from the general understanding and consensus about the symbol. The misplaced symbols in my paintings point to the unknown. When people are unable to relate to these paradoxes contradictions intuitively, they fall into a state of uncertainty. The viewer must discard their preconceptions of aesthetics, which is key to opening a new door to wisdom.
Q: Perhaps what is beyond our horizon is more crucial. Looking at your recent works, I see that tangible shapes that used to feature in your paintings, such as chemical symbols, insects, Double Happiness, and tree roots have gradually disappeared, creating a visual impact that feels more enigmatic, unrestrained, and Zen-like. What is this transformation we are looking at?
A: As with the development of a person, some things begin to change as a person grows. In the early days of my art making, I took realism as a starting point. Chemical symbols, insects and Double Happiness capture the process of disassociating from form and substance, and it is an approach or an attitude that one adopts in developing a deeper understanding of things. But what eludes most people is that just because there are things that we cannot see, it does not mean they do not exist. In fact, the things we do not see are more profound than what we can see, and they may have a greater impact on the development of human civilisation. A case in point: water can be broken down into chemical elements, but if you really think about it, the mystery of water lies far beyond the definitions of chemical elements.
These symbols have faded out from my recent works because when we try to understand life and the meaning of existence, we often rely on existing knowledge to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Our lives are happenstances like those of artificially bred cattle and sheep, which do not understand their existence from the source of their feed and the fence around them. We cannot comprehend the reason for existence by debating the validity of religion, just as we cannot find any answer about the unknown if we look for it from excess knowledge. It is only by refuting all existing knowledge and hypotheses, and through the process of acceptance and negation of things, that we can examine an unknown and objective consciousness from the vantage points of subjective systems.
Q: Your series, “Semantic Construction”, appears to gravitate more heavily towards the random and the abstract in “unearthing the unknown”. Is it also an attempt to replace the symbols in your art?
A: In the creative process, an overt emphasis on precision and control will have a negative impact on the work. We may as well let go and allow accidents to take place, and reexamine the existence of beauty. These are things that cannot be achieved with rigid and controlled brushwork. Unlike controlled brushstrokes, each layer of water-based acrylic and oil paint is applied with the technique of pouring, flowing, or scraping to create spontaneous traces. It is important to differentiate unexpected visual effects from mindless painting or scribbling. My creativity and judgement lies in where I decide if a painting is completed when I scrutinise the morphing shades of dryness and wetness—whether to make a splash using a different kind of paint, or to make another scrape, or to tilt the canvas to the side to let the paint flow. All these judgements are made based on aesthetic considerations. I use my own aesthetic judgement to play with these unmediated effects, but this kind of thinking and control does not happen during the “painting” process. Rather, it comes from a form of probability control. Probability arises from incompleteness of information. The more valid information there is, the higher the probability of an event occurring—up to the point where it becomes “inevitable”. In eliminating this inevitability, I enter a new creative space where I gradually develop rules and formulas that are intrinsic to this ambiguity. Randomness and certainty are not contradictory in this context, but they have different roles and functions in different settings.
The chaos in the paintings is not entirely random. It is the margins of the canvas that lead us to see these effects as accidental. There is a greater source of power behind this spontaneous manifestation of beauty. It is a force that runs through my artistic styles from different periods.
Q: There are more significant changes to your style from your academy years to your recent works than that of any artist in art history that we know of. Are you concerned that these stylistic shifts might make it difficult for viewers to grasp the essence of “Christopher Ku”?
A: Aesthetics is an inexplicable perception, and the depth of an artist’s understanding of aesthetics is demonstrated in their paintings. God does not play dice, while humans often find God when rolling a dice. I roll a dice on the canvas. In the greater scheme of the universe, whenever a creative style crystalises, it becomes a narrowly defined representation. The poet Adonis once said, “I am not yet Adonis, I am becoming Adonis.” A person dies as soon as they can define who they are. I am not contented with the success of any individual style, so whenever I have pushed an artistic style to its limit, I want to roll the dice again. I want to go beyond the realm I have created and look for answers in other territories, in a quest to break from existing definitions. Like Sisyphus in Greek mythology who pushes the boulder up the mountain over and over again, I subvert myself and embrace my free will in a new light through these changes to my style. It is akin to the scientific search for the order of things: each creative style is a transformation of different measurements, and each approach can only be used for probing into one aspect of nature. Different aspects may be references for one another, but there is no single perspective that points to an absolute answer. It also resembles a game in which a player may not win even if they have all the right skills. In the end, a painting is meaningless; it only speaks to the desires of collectors and viewers. Only the artist is aware of the abyss of the creative process from which wisdom stems. The changes in my art may lead me to further explore the contours of knowledge and arrive at a deeper understanding of life, which is an inevitable process of human evolution.
明畫廊《迴盪 · 繪畫》二部展
谷敏昭訪談
Q：在《迴盪‧繪畫》展覽中，看到你不少畫作都運用到粉狀塗層，這種物料在一般油畫創作中比較罕見，為何會有這些嘗試？
A：在創作時，我們已不受物料限制，如相片、錄像、混合媒體，甚至火藥、排泄物、頭髮、昆蟲、動物……因此物料已不再是當代創作的前提，而是視乎表達內容是否能與物料運用建立一個新視覺語境，而最重要的是作品與歷史或當下文化的呼應和對照。這次展覽中，作品運用到的粉狀物料既非東方亦非西方的傳統媒材，但它正正為傳統宣紙和油畫布展開了對話。創作並非一定要從西方裝置藝術，或是東方現代水墨尋找突破，我嘗試以粉狀畫貫通洞穴畫到當代創作物料的可能，而不自限於個別地域文化，新物料的試驗証實藝術思維可以橫跨中西古今文化，正如水墨和油彩都是從歷史走到當代，仍然適用於現今社會一樣。
Q：但看來你感興趣的並不止於物料上的應用，在意象和技法方面，東方托印、剪紙、雙喜圖案這些中國民間藝術對你的創作有何影響？你認為民間藝術可以放置到高雅藝術當中嗎？
A：古時洞穴畫的創作題材環繞著當時人們的生活環境，當代藝術也不例外地反映了人對當代環境的認知。從藝術語言中表達出當代性的議題，藝術不再局限於時代的意識形態，各種議題包括歷史、社會學、科學、哲學、心理學，總而言之是凡是人文學科所關注的，都可成為創作靈感而被發掘。曾經，中國剪紙藝術影響了 Picasso和 Matisse ；日本意景啟發了印象派中Monet的荷花系列和Van Gogh；Cy Twombly, Franz Kline等則從東方書法中找到靈感……現代主義把東方文化拿下作為靈感泉源，而中國藝術家又有否珍視這些悠久流傳的本土文化呢？剪紙、托印這些工藝經常被大眾定格為中國通俗民間傳統而止於此也，但我認為文化象徵著一個地方和民族的修養，把中國民間藝術放到崇高藝術的格局下，這些地域次文化仍可經由藝術梳理而變得高雅。「雅」與「俗」看似對立而不相容，但把這兩種衝突的元素並置，反而會讓畫作變得更耐人尋味。美學經常被宏大的理念所推動，但古今中外出眾的藝術家的創作往往是偏離主流審美的。
Q：衝突、矛盾的元素在你的畫作中經常以不同面貌出現，很多觀眾對你畫作中常見的符碼和記號感到既新奇又不解。這些符號在我們日常生活中非常普遍，但出現在你的創作中似乎另有所指？
A：符號是世間事物經過約化後產生，在人類的溝通過程中被傳遞，我們溝通的基礎是建基於記號符碼系統背後的規則、結構和共同的理解，在一個有形的體制系統如車站、洗手間、各種公共場所，以及知識系統如數學、物理、化學，人們更離不開符號的運用，而符號在現實生活中更是一種比圖像更強而有力的表達方式。符碼、標誌、象徵指向我們想要到達的地方，否則人將迷失於不能掌握的景況及知識中。
可是，符號並不能周全地描述一切，在社會現象、經濟活動、價值系統中，到處是現象與真實、局部與全體、理論與經驗之間的落差，因此弔詭、矛盾、兩難是無處不在的。在創作中，令我著迷的，正正是這些符碼和記號的隱義和迷思。在把各種符碼嵌進藝術處境的再現過程中，符號和對應物間絕對的對應關係隨即被破壞，一個無共識的圖形，在現實中對溝通是無效的，但在藝術中，這些無以名狀的圖形卻能產生美感。過往我在畫作中嘗試破解符號約定俗成的用途和功能，並將之轉化為美學元素，透過調度符號在各種語境中所產生的歧義，以對事物的定義作出反思。我們依賴符號認識世界的同時，也不自覺被符號體系形成的權力牢困，這其實像一把槍指住人的脊樑般暴力，但人是否必須根據體制法則認識世界？也許只有藝術思維能為人提供別的選擇。例如十字架符號很自然會令人聯想到《聖經》新約中耶穌受難的事跡，但在我畫作中的十字顯然跟宗教故事沒有直接聯繫，這即與人普遍共識和常態存在落差。由於錯置的符號在畫作中指向未知，當人不能理所當然地以常識處理這些弔詭、矛盾的局面，繼而陷入迷思的狀態，觀者即需放棄以既有知識去理解美，這正是開啟智慧之門的契機。
Q：也許超越視野以外的事物才更為關鍵。再觀賞你近期的創作，過往化學符號、昆蟲圖案、雙喜、樹根這些可被辨識的形體也漸漸消失了，畫面所呈現的視覺效果比過往變得更玄虛、恣肆，而且充滿禪意。這又是一個怎樣的演變過程？
A：如同一個人的成長過程，同樣的事物會因自己的成長而有所改變。早期是從寫實主義開始，而化學符號或是昆蟲、雙喜等符號是脫離形體及實物的過程，也是進一步去理解事物的方式或態度。但人鮮有想到的是，我們看不見的東西並不等於它們不存在，隱而不見的事物反而遠比我們能看見的宏大，也對人類文明的發展更具影響力，就像我們把水拆解為化學元素，但想深一層，水其實比這些化學元素的定義遠遠來得更奧秘。
在近期創作中，這些符號的消失，是因為當我們嘗試去理解生命以及存在的意義時，我們往往依賴現有的知識去理解宇宙的奧秘，而偶然而成的生命如同被人工孕育出來的牛羊，牠們不會因為飼料的來源以及圍栅而得知存在的原因。從宗教的對立面中，我們單從信與不信間無法理解生命存在的原由，以泛濫的知識作為工具並不能向一個未知的宇宙尋求答案，唯有否定一切現有的知識，否定假設性的推論，在一切被接納同時被否定的過程中，我們始能從主觀體系去檢視未知的客觀存在意識。
Q：所以你的《語意構造》(“Semantic Construction ”)系列似乎也因為「發掘未知」而變得更隨機、更抽象，這也是取代符號圖案的重要嘗試嗎？
A：在創作的過程中，過度精確、刻意的操控只會帶來反效果，倒不如選擇放手，適度讓意外介入創作，重新考証美的存在，這也是可控的筆觸做不到的盲點。有別於可控的畫筆，每一層水性丙烯和油彩顏料以倒、流、刮的技法形成不受控的流動痕跡，無法預算的視覺效果與漫不經心、無意識的盲繪完全不同，我施展創意和判斷的空間在於，如何在一層又一層顏料變動不居的乾濕效果間判定畫作是否完成，或是該再潑灑另一種顏料，或是再刮一刀，或是傾側畫布讓顏料流動，這些判斷都需經過藝術審美的計算，我用自己的美學判斷征服、把玩這些隨機效果，只是這種計算和控制並不發生在「畫」的過程中，而是出自一種概率的控制。概率來源於信息的缺失，有效信息越多，對某一事件發生的把握度（概率）就越大，直至「必然發生」，排除這種必然性引領我到達一個新的創作領域，我也在這些不可預判的模糊性中漸漸創造出一種內在機制和規律，在這裡，隨機和不隨機其實並不相悖，它們只是在不同場合中各自找到其恰當的位置發揮作用。
畫作中的混沌狀態不是純粹的隨機，只是畫布狹小的邊界讓我們誤認為這些只是偶然效果，看似任意發揮的美，背後其實存在一個更宏大的力量參與其中，這種力也穿梭在我各個時期的創作風格中。
Q：從你學院時期到近期作品的蛻變過程中，你的風格比起藝術史上我們認識的任何一個藝術家都更多變，你擔心這些風格的轉變會成為觀眾理解「谷敏昭」思想核心的屏障嗎？
A：美學是一種難以言喻的感知能力，往往在畫作中，方能見証畫家們對美學理解的深度。上帝從來不擲骰子，但人每每在擲骰子的過程中發現上帝，我也在畫布上擲骰子。在一個廣義的宇宙運行機制中，每當一種創作風格成為固有的結果，瞬間即成為狹義的表象。詩人阿多尼斯曾說：「我還不是阿多尼斯，我在成為阿多尼斯。」當人能清晰定義自己是誰，他將隨即步入死亡。我並不樂意從個別風格的成功中安頓下來，因此每次把一種風格推進到極限時，我都希望把骰子再擲一次，從自己創造的境界中游離出來，在別的領地中尋找答案，在固有的定義中突破極限。有如希臘神話的西西弗斯一次又一次把石頭推上山的過程，每次我總能從風格的變更中推翻自我，重新體現自由意志。這又近於科學對事物秩序的尋覓，每一種創作風格其實像各類測量方式的變換，每種方式只能偵測到自然本質的其中一個面向，種種面向固然能夠互為參照，但任何一種面向都不會是絕對的終極答案；這又像是一場遊戲，參加者精準地把握了致勝技巧而獲勝，並不代表能在世界中勝出一切。最終，畫作是無意義的，它只是滿足了藏家和觀者的慾望，在創作的過程中只有創作者才知道那無止盡的深潭，智慧亦從此衍生。在這些創作的變化中，或許能讓我進一步測量知識的輪廓，從而讓自己對生命有更深刻的理解，也是人類演化的必然過程。
CHRISTOPHER KU