Peering in all Directions - Talking About the Past and the Present
- the Creativity of Su Meng-hung
/ J. J Shih
Su Meng-hung, with his academic background, is a new generation artist. His work in recent years attempts to examine common culture from the perspective of elite culture and, with the critical and rebellious spirit of the intellectual, attack kitsch-oriented art and consumer culture. The solo exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei, can be said to be a kitsch art-themed special exhibition.
Kitsch Art Attitude/Cynical Protesting Mentality
The popularity of kitsch culture has always been connected to supply and demand. For this reason, recent commentary has indicated that we mentally separate two types of phenomena: “kitsch” and “popular refinement.” Arnold Hauser said: “Kitsch is a kind of false aesthetics, a base spiritual release.” Milan Kundera believed “Kitsch is a no-holds-barred way of thinking, a method directed at pleasing the masses.” The work of artists who suppress their own status and surrender to common taste (or their idea of common taste) can be described as kitsch. They are adept at developing and creating art that is ostentatious, exaggerated and custom-oriented.
Dwight Macdonald said specifically that kitsch topics are varied, from swans to men and women and children to cute animals, flowers and fruit. The focus is also varied, primitive or academic, innocent or affectedly unconventional, sarcastic or preaching. The common point is the sale-ability; the common external appearance is an exaggerated, false, provocative, superficial and greedy character. If kitsch culture is examined further, its constituent elements can be found to be either too base or too tricky. Superficial harmony often hides discordant things within.
Kitsch art relies on perfect packaging, a kind posture and a sweet smile, which ensures it is easily embraced by the middle classes and allowed into their lives. Its main function is to satisfy the vanity of the middle classes in identifying with popular refinement. Popular refinement refers here to a special mentality which ensures that appreciators and consumers of art pursue a kind of high tone without asking themselves whether they can actually absorb its meaning. In daily life it is not difficult to see that the love of art by followers of popular refinement often ignores what is significant and may be distinguished from insincerity in the blind pursuit of fashion.
People who attack or who do not take the followers of popular refinement seriously say that art should be approached with hard work and piety; kitsch art encourages the passivity and laziness of such people. In support of kitsch, MacDonald says that one of the privileges of rich people since ancient times has been the enjoyment of beautiful things, and it is therefore not surprising that kitsch art became a symbol of the middle class life style and social psychology. Abraham Moles maintains that the middle classes can be expected eventually to arrive at the truth by initially taking the road of popular refinement. This is the same as saying that both ancient and modern kitsch culture possess a taste for improvement and an incremental art teaching function.
Milan Kundera once mockingly said: “Understand what the masses want and then put them in a collectively agreed upon mode or way of thinking, and decorate the stupidity of the mode with pretty words and feelings, until in the end they cry sincere tears at their dependent thinking and feelings.” Ancient kitsch artists were like this, and in modern popular culture it is common to first conduct “market research,” then develop the product and carry out energetic promotional work. Isn’t this exactly what Kundera said?
A Cynics' Trilogy
Although, Su Meng-hung’s solo exhibition has kitsch as its core, some of the topics discussed above are to be found beneath the surface. The two works that are displayed, Material Paradise and Kai Dao Tu Mi are related in spirit but different in content. The subject of the former is Western culture and social aesthetics, while the latter is based on an expression of Eastern civilization and official aesthetics.
One directly uses still life painting that has been popular in the West since the seventeenth century, whilst the other indirectly alters the Eastern flower and bird paintings that have held an important position in imperial palaces since the Tang dynasty.
From this exhibition we can see that Su’s use or transformation of ancient paintings is not just a case of “old wine in a new bottle” or “new wine in an old bottle.” If this were the case, the bottle would still be a bottle, and there would be no real interaction and mutual relationship between new and old.
What the artist attempts to achieve is a kind of art that freely transcends time, allowing the past and present situation to illuminate each other – an art that “talks of the past” and “talks of the present.”
It could be said that Material Paradise is a series of works developed from a primitive concept. In terms of the exhibition mechanism and form, the two series can be seen together as a general concept spatial installation work. However, a series of well-known and not so well-known Western still-life paintings are reproduced and utilized by the artist. These are deliberately added to and changed, and then exhibited in a specifically defined space. An atmosphere of superficiality permeates these reproductions of old paintings and the decorative additions.
Looking carefully, the Western still life paintings used by Su are different in terms of content, but most have potted flowers as the central motif and a kitsch style that makes them eye-catching. One clear example is the still life painting by Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (1573-1621).
Kitsch Art Attitude/Cynical Protesting Mentality
The popularity of kitsch culture has always been connected to supply and demand. For this reason, recent commentary has indicated that we mentally separate two types of phenomena: “kitsch” and “popular refinement.” Arnold Hauser said: “Kitsch is a kind of false aesthetics, a base spiritual release.” Milan Kundera believed “Kitsch is a no-holds-barred way of thinking, a method directed at pleasing the masses.” The work of artists who suppress their own status and surrender to common taste (or their idea of common taste) can be described as kitsch. They are adept at developing and creating art that is ostentatious, exaggerated and custom-oriented.
Dwight Macdonald said specifically that kitsch topics are varied, from swans to men and women and children to cute animals, flowers and fruit. The focus is also varied, primitive or academic, innocent or affectedly unconventional, sarcastic or preaching. The common point is the sale-ability; the common external appearance is an exaggerated, false, provocative, superficial and greedy character. If kitsch culture is examined further, its constituent elements can be found to be either too base or too tricky. Superficial harmony often hides discordant things within.
Kitsch art relies on perfect packaging, a kind posture and a sweet smile, which ensures it is easily embraced by the middle classes and allowed into their lives. Its main function is to satisfy the vanity of the middle classes in identifying with popular refinement. Popular refinement refers here to a special mentality which ensures that appreciators and consumers of art pursue a kind of high tone without asking themselves whether they can actually absorb its meaning. In daily life it is not difficult to see that the love of art by followers of popular refinement often ignores what is significant and may be distinguished from insincerity in the blind pursuit of fashion.
People who attack or who do not take the followers of popular refinement seriously say that art should be approached with hard work and piety; kitsch art encourages the passivity and laziness of such people. In support of kitsch, MacDonald says that one of the privileges of rich people since ancient times has been the enjoyment of beautiful things, and it is therefore not surprising that kitsch art became a symbol of the middle class life style and social psychology. Abraham Moles maintains that the middle classes can be expected eventually to arrive at the truth by initially taking the road of popular refinement. This is the same as saying that both ancient and modern kitsch culture possess a taste for improvement and an incremental art teaching function.
Milan Kundera once mockingly said: “Understand what the masses want and then put them in a collectively agreed upon mode or way of thinking, and decorate the stupidity of the mode with pretty words and feelings, until in the end they cry sincere tears at their dependent thinking and feelings.” Ancient kitsch artists were like this, and in modern popular culture it is common to first conduct “market research,” then develop the product and carry out energetic promotional work. Isn’t this exactly what Kundera said?
A Cynics' Trilogy
Although, Su Meng-hung’s solo exhibition has kitsch as its core, some of the topics discussed above are to be found beneath the surface. The two works that are displayed, Material Paradise and Kai Dao Tu Mi are related in spirit but different in content. The subject of the former is Western culture and social aesthetics, while the latter is based on an expression of Eastern civilization and official aesthetics.
One directly uses still life painting that has been popular in the West since the seventeenth century, whilst the other indirectly alters the Eastern flower and bird paintings that have held an important position in imperial palaces since the Tang dynasty.
From this exhibition we can see that Su’s use or transformation of ancient paintings is not just a case of “old wine in a new bottle” or “new wine in an old bottle.” If this were the case, the bottle would still be a bottle, and there would be no real interaction and mutual relationship between new and old.
What the artist attempts to achieve is a kind of art that freely transcends time, allowing the past and present situation to illuminate each other – an art that “talks of the past” and “talks of the present.”
It could be said that Material Paradise is a series of works developed from a primitive concept. In terms of the exhibition mechanism and form, the two series can be seen together as a general concept spatial installation work. However, a series of well-known and not so well-known Western still-life paintings are reproduced and utilized by the artist. These are deliberately added to and changed, and then exhibited in a specifically defined space. An atmosphere of superficiality permeates these reproductions of old paintings and the decorative additions.
Looking carefully, the Western still life paintings used by Su are different in terms of content, but most have potted flowers as the central motif and a kitsch style that makes them eye-catching. One clear example is the still life painting by Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (1573-1621).
Bosschaert, Ambrosius the Elder
Still-Life of Flowers
Oil on wood
Alte Pinakothek, Munich
Still-Life of Flowers
Oil on wood
Alte Pinakothek, Munich
In the almost totally symmetrical structure of this painting, the artist paints various flowers in full bloom. Even the light is uniform and does not illuminate one flower more than others. For some reason he chose not to follow the new light experiments of Baroque artists of the time, an attitude that is very clear. What is interesting, and occurs not just to botanists but also to art historians, is that the flowers belong to different seasons and places. Also, the flowers, butterflies and bees in this painting appeared in other works by the artist (even in works by his students). Clearly this kind of painting was produced not by looking directly at the actual objects, but by looking at individual study paintings of flowers.
The repeated use of the same drawing was perhaps just a technical convenience. Showing flowers from different seasons together is not an expression of ignorance, but a strong appeal to popular love for ostentatious beauty and the desire for betterment in social class, status and wealth.
Let us now look at another painting used by Su Meng-hung, Flower Still Life with Curtain, a work completed in 1658 by Adrian van der Spelt (c.1630-1673).
The repeated use of the same drawing was perhaps just a technical convenience. Showing flowers from different seasons together is not an expression of ignorance, but a strong appeal to popular love for ostentatious beauty and the desire for betterment in social class, status and wealth.
Let us now look at another painting used by Su Meng-hung, Flower Still Life with Curtain, a work completed in 1658 by Adrian van der Spelt (c.1630-1673).
Adrian van der SPELT
Flower Still Life With Curtain
1658
Oil on wood, 46,5 x 63,9 cm
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago
Flower Still Life With Curtain
1658
Oil on wood, 46,5 x 63,9 cm
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago
This painting is similarly rich in content and shows off the artist’s skill whilst attempting to sell themed humor and an interesting story. It uses a “picture in a picture” visual effect to guide the viewer’s interest. The realistic curtains are pulled to one side, but we are left asking if these are real flowers or from another still life painting?
The design of the picture refers to the story of two artists in ancient Greece who publicly competed. One artist lifted the curtain in front of the public and the lifelike fruit in the painting tricked a hungry bird, which tried to eat it. The other artist was even better. He refused the request of the first artist to lift the curtain on his work while at the same time, claiming victory. The curtain he revealed was not real; it was what he had painted.
In addition to providing a visual recognition game for viewers, this Adrian van der Spelt painting also connects with the historic story. It seems to be an example of the artist showing that he has the skills of both artists in the story. This “little trickster” still-life painting that was very popular with the middle classes at the time is further proof that art looks for tricks by which to achieve the objective of kitsch.
In seventeenth century Europe, the influence of the middle class was increasing. Outside the existing palace and aristocratic system a new group of art consumers emerged. While art had new patrons, kitsch had its new market.
In twenty-first century Taipei, Su Meng-hung uses popular still life paintings of seventeenth century artists like Bosschaert, Heda and Spelt, but applies a new interpretation to this traditional genre. His first intention is to show the historical story of “art subversion” by reproducing or copying its original and changing its primary meaning. The second is to defend what is called “serious” art. For example, putting the still-life paintings here alongside with those of Rembrandt help illustrate the idea that there is no necessary connection between the screening principle of art history and the law of supply and demand in the art market.
To place Rembrandt’s The Flayed Ox (剝開的牛) amongst the still life paintings of unusually beautiful and fragrant flowers can be read in at least two different ways: artists such as Rembrandt are unwilling to use kitsch can sacrifice the possible benefits for the sake of their art. Meanwhile, through the detailed realistic description of the “market scene” in The Flayed Ox, Su criticizes the ostentatious and pompous taste for still life paintings by the art market.
Su Meng-hung’s third intention is also the most significant aspect of his Material Paradise series. By processing materials provided by foreign clients and transforming the meaning of symbols, the artist can “enter” the aforementioned historical context, creating a kind of playing with predecessors and as a way to overturn convention.
For example, by fitting a transparent cover over the flower paintings by Bosschaert and others, and introducing bigger and richer man-made flowers, the individual flowers are made to compete with each other. It is not hard to imagine what the artist tries to articulate through his intentional display of mixing the mass-produced man-made flowers with the delicately hand-painted art. The man-made flowers are popular in their orientation while the old traditional paintings have a middle-class sensibility and their own underlying class-consciousness. Su Meng-hung is not looking for a grotesque effect in this juxtaposition, but seeking to demonstrate how similar things come together in such a combination. While showing the relationship between the flower painting and the reproduced flower objects, he also jokes about the pot calling the kettle black.
Old paintings and the contemporary man-made flower objects are both real and false. One indicates the source of kitsch art, one the present state of kitsch art. What the former stresses is that it is a genuine work of art. The latter advocates a good product at a low price. Both are connected to the pursuit of beauty and the expression of taste, but what is different is that the middle class pursue a dependent taste which is above that of the general public; the consuming masses are passively hypnotized without any self-consciousness, and in the end, they simply accept it.
The sight of flowers from the four seasons blooming together in an old kitsch painting seemingly transcends natural rules and restrictions of time. The plastic / silk ribbon flowers developed by modern businessmen will never wilt in terms of form, quality or quantity. The artist forces these two kinds of kitsch objects together, in a red, romantic exhibition space with a gold-leaf-edged beautiful frame, allowing them to be in perfect sympathy and to “fight in the nest.”
Su says of the method of expression: “ I'm trying to relieve material fetishism through material fetishism!” From the perspective of a critical strategy this is clearly Cynicism.
Modern art critics point out the dual personality of Cynics. On the one hand they disdain worldly affairs and are misanthropic, on the other they compromise for interest’s sake and accept reality. The biggest skill of Cynical artists is that they borrow the Hsu Pen view of Cynicism – transforming their dissatisfaction through tradition and reality to an attitude of “to understand but not to compromise, to accept but not to identify with.” It is fairly clear that Su mimics and merges early middle class art with modern popular culture to extend the rationality of elite thinking and the criticism of modern art. This creative strategy to some extent reflects a particular new phenomenon amongst young Taiwanese artists that “the more academically trained, the more cynical.”
When Roseleaf Raspberries are in Full Bloom
Compared to Material Paradise, which has been shown in numerous exhibitions and fully displays the artist’s creative ideas, Kai Dao Tu Mi is one of Su’s newest works.
The roseleaf raspberry is seen as one of the main spring flowers and “the roseleaf raspberry in full bloom” is a famous line from A Dream of Red Mansions. Su’s Kai Dao Tu Mi takes Chinese traditional bird and flower paintings as its inspiration, extending the Cynical spirit of Material Paradise and attempting to change the angle of cultural observation, playing games with the people in the past. As to what these games are, more observation is required for further explanation, but the very initial interpretation could be roughly made through the elements of the artistic content and the artist’s creative concept.
From the Tang to the Sung dynasties, China’s flower and bird paintings developed from painting nature to an art apogee where man was an integral part of nature, having both form and meaning. Then, after the Ching dynasty, the paintings became a tradition of learning through imitating the old masters; thus the flower and bird paintings come to be an art genre of an artist’s repeated reproductions. In traditional Chinese art, flower and bird paintings can be said to possess the greatest potential for socialization and space for creative development and application, but in modern Taiwan they have simply become wall decorations in restaurants. This cruel reality often causes people to ponder: does the visual culture of a people, after it develops to its peak, wither like the roseleaf raspberry. Is it the case that “three springs have passed and there will be no more flowers?”
Perhaps feeling this “art crisis,” in Kai Dao Tu Mi series Su attempts to change traditional Chinese bird and flowers paintings into a gaudy and ostentatious visual image, using a three-dimensional installation to change them into cultural symbols with more sensory appeal. It seems a kitsch strategy to remake aristocratic paintings oriented to scholars’ taste into objects for the modern masses. However, underneath it also seems to indicate the decline of Chinese art, which is more caused by the excessive control and intervention of Chinese scholars than by the trend towards kitsch. This intervention of scholars eliminates any mechanism for art to develop freely in its own way through general public appreciation. It is well known that in traditional thinking, ancient Chinese “serious” artists would not stoop to kitsch; however, we find a pursuit for kitsch style in folk art and culture. Perhaps beneath Su’s playful artistic behavior of making fun of the old masters is the intention to bring the two contradictory tastes together, to integrate the kitsch style into classical elegance. It might be the artist’s personal subversive thinking to save Chinese art from its feudal tradition by introducing kitsch into the traditional delicate works.
It is generally believed that avant-garde art and kitsch art are poles apart but Matei Calinescu has said that modernism, avant-garde, decadence, kitsch and post-modernism are the five different faces of modernity. In Su's exhibition, avant-garde and kitsch are only separated by a thin line, and his “cynical” cultural attitude and ready-made objects (拿來主義) can also be said to be a kind of a post-modern theory in practice.
If we look deeply into Su’s art and his elaboration on cultural issues, the artist’s critical strategy in his Material Paradise and Kai Dao Tu Mi series is to refer to a kind of art-style typology, an art consumer class, a special art industry, and the phenomena of art’s decline. Apparently, the artist seems to abandon the originality of art creation and reinforce the idea of the appropriation of ready-made objects and symbols, as Lu Hsun advocated in the 1930s: “Without ready-made-ism, people can't become new people on their own; without ready-made concepts, art and culture can't become new art and culture on their own.” Su Meng-hung diverts ready-made objects and adopts traditional symbols clearly to increase or change their original symbolic significance.
This kind of “taking from all directions” as art expression clearly indicates that abandoning handicrafts skills is intended to open up a new vision and highlight conceptual thinking; to say goodbye to the ivory tower or behind-closed-doors creativity; to rethink the dialogue between art and society. In Su’s work we see superficial images and objects that are sweetly kitsch, that are immediately apparent on viewing, and easily digested as soon we consume them. However, there is bitterness within the sweet taste; there are challenges and contestation. Su Meng-hung’s works are like the high-level still-life paintings that were called “Vanitas” in the early days in Holland. They force the viewer to think repeatedly about essential questions: Why are beauty and death so close to each other? Why is the feeling of perfection and emptiness so similar? If life is so transient, why do we need art so much?
The design of the picture refers to the story of two artists in ancient Greece who publicly competed. One artist lifted the curtain in front of the public and the lifelike fruit in the painting tricked a hungry bird, which tried to eat it. The other artist was even better. He refused the request of the first artist to lift the curtain on his work while at the same time, claiming victory. The curtain he revealed was not real; it was what he had painted.
In addition to providing a visual recognition game for viewers, this Adrian van der Spelt painting also connects with the historic story. It seems to be an example of the artist showing that he has the skills of both artists in the story. This “little trickster” still-life painting that was very popular with the middle classes at the time is further proof that art looks for tricks by which to achieve the objective of kitsch.
In seventeenth century Europe, the influence of the middle class was increasing. Outside the existing palace and aristocratic system a new group of art consumers emerged. While art had new patrons, kitsch had its new market.
In twenty-first century Taipei, Su Meng-hung uses popular still life paintings of seventeenth century artists like Bosschaert, Heda and Spelt, but applies a new interpretation to this traditional genre. His first intention is to show the historical story of “art subversion” by reproducing or copying its original and changing its primary meaning. The second is to defend what is called “serious” art. For example, putting the still-life paintings here alongside with those of Rembrandt help illustrate the idea that there is no necessary connection between the screening principle of art history and the law of supply and demand in the art market.
To place Rembrandt’s The Flayed Ox (剝開的牛) amongst the still life paintings of unusually beautiful and fragrant flowers can be read in at least two different ways: artists such as Rembrandt are unwilling to use kitsch can sacrifice the possible benefits for the sake of their art. Meanwhile, through the detailed realistic description of the “market scene” in The Flayed Ox, Su criticizes the ostentatious and pompous taste for still life paintings by the art market.
Su Meng-hung’s third intention is also the most significant aspect of his Material Paradise series. By processing materials provided by foreign clients and transforming the meaning of symbols, the artist can “enter” the aforementioned historical context, creating a kind of playing with predecessors and as a way to overturn convention.
For example, by fitting a transparent cover over the flower paintings by Bosschaert and others, and introducing bigger and richer man-made flowers, the individual flowers are made to compete with each other. It is not hard to imagine what the artist tries to articulate through his intentional display of mixing the mass-produced man-made flowers with the delicately hand-painted art. The man-made flowers are popular in their orientation while the old traditional paintings have a middle-class sensibility and their own underlying class-consciousness. Su Meng-hung is not looking for a grotesque effect in this juxtaposition, but seeking to demonstrate how similar things come together in such a combination. While showing the relationship between the flower painting and the reproduced flower objects, he also jokes about the pot calling the kettle black.
Old paintings and the contemporary man-made flower objects are both real and false. One indicates the source of kitsch art, one the present state of kitsch art. What the former stresses is that it is a genuine work of art. The latter advocates a good product at a low price. Both are connected to the pursuit of beauty and the expression of taste, but what is different is that the middle class pursue a dependent taste which is above that of the general public; the consuming masses are passively hypnotized without any self-consciousness, and in the end, they simply accept it.
The sight of flowers from the four seasons blooming together in an old kitsch painting seemingly transcends natural rules and restrictions of time. The plastic / silk ribbon flowers developed by modern businessmen will never wilt in terms of form, quality or quantity. The artist forces these two kinds of kitsch objects together, in a red, romantic exhibition space with a gold-leaf-edged beautiful frame, allowing them to be in perfect sympathy and to “fight in the nest.”
Su says of the method of expression: “ I'm trying to relieve material fetishism through material fetishism!” From the perspective of a critical strategy this is clearly Cynicism.
Modern art critics point out the dual personality of Cynics. On the one hand they disdain worldly affairs and are misanthropic, on the other they compromise for interest’s sake and accept reality. The biggest skill of Cynical artists is that they borrow the Hsu Pen view of Cynicism – transforming their dissatisfaction through tradition and reality to an attitude of “to understand but not to compromise, to accept but not to identify with.” It is fairly clear that Su mimics and merges early middle class art with modern popular culture to extend the rationality of elite thinking and the criticism of modern art. This creative strategy to some extent reflects a particular new phenomenon amongst young Taiwanese artists that “the more academically trained, the more cynical.”
When Roseleaf Raspberries are in Full Bloom
Compared to Material Paradise, which has been shown in numerous exhibitions and fully displays the artist’s creative ideas, Kai Dao Tu Mi is one of Su’s newest works.
The roseleaf raspberry is seen as one of the main spring flowers and “the roseleaf raspberry in full bloom” is a famous line from A Dream of Red Mansions. Su’s Kai Dao Tu Mi takes Chinese traditional bird and flower paintings as its inspiration, extending the Cynical spirit of Material Paradise and attempting to change the angle of cultural observation, playing games with the people in the past. As to what these games are, more observation is required for further explanation, but the very initial interpretation could be roughly made through the elements of the artistic content and the artist’s creative concept.
From the Tang to the Sung dynasties, China’s flower and bird paintings developed from painting nature to an art apogee where man was an integral part of nature, having both form and meaning. Then, after the Ching dynasty, the paintings became a tradition of learning through imitating the old masters; thus the flower and bird paintings come to be an art genre of an artist’s repeated reproductions. In traditional Chinese art, flower and bird paintings can be said to possess the greatest potential for socialization and space for creative development and application, but in modern Taiwan they have simply become wall decorations in restaurants. This cruel reality often causes people to ponder: does the visual culture of a people, after it develops to its peak, wither like the roseleaf raspberry. Is it the case that “three springs have passed and there will be no more flowers?”
Perhaps feeling this “art crisis,” in Kai Dao Tu Mi series Su attempts to change traditional Chinese bird and flowers paintings into a gaudy and ostentatious visual image, using a three-dimensional installation to change them into cultural symbols with more sensory appeal. It seems a kitsch strategy to remake aristocratic paintings oriented to scholars’ taste into objects for the modern masses. However, underneath it also seems to indicate the decline of Chinese art, which is more caused by the excessive control and intervention of Chinese scholars than by the trend towards kitsch. This intervention of scholars eliminates any mechanism for art to develop freely in its own way through general public appreciation. It is well known that in traditional thinking, ancient Chinese “serious” artists would not stoop to kitsch; however, we find a pursuit for kitsch style in folk art and culture. Perhaps beneath Su’s playful artistic behavior of making fun of the old masters is the intention to bring the two contradictory tastes together, to integrate the kitsch style into classical elegance. It might be the artist’s personal subversive thinking to save Chinese art from its feudal tradition by introducing kitsch into the traditional delicate works.
It is generally believed that avant-garde art and kitsch art are poles apart but Matei Calinescu has said that modernism, avant-garde, decadence, kitsch and post-modernism are the five different faces of modernity. In Su's exhibition, avant-garde and kitsch are only separated by a thin line, and his “cynical” cultural attitude and ready-made objects (拿來主義) can also be said to be a kind of a post-modern theory in practice.
If we look deeply into Su’s art and his elaboration on cultural issues, the artist’s critical strategy in his Material Paradise and Kai Dao Tu Mi series is to refer to a kind of art-style typology, an art consumer class, a special art industry, and the phenomena of art’s decline. Apparently, the artist seems to abandon the originality of art creation and reinforce the idea of the appropriation of ready-made objects and symbols, as Lu Hsun advocated in the 1930s: “Without ready-made-ism, people can't become new people on their own; without ready-made concepts, art and culture can't become new art and culture on their own.” Su Meng-hung diverts ready-made objects and adopts traditional symbols clearly to increase or change their original symbolic significance.
This kind of “taking from all directions” as art expression clearly indicates that abandoning handicrafts skills is intended to open up a new vision and highlight conceptual thinking; to say goodbye to the ivory tower or behind-closed-doors creativity; to rethink the dialogue between art and society. In Su’s work we see superficial images and objects that are sweetly kitsch, that are immediately apparent on viewing, and easily digested as soon we consume them. However, there is bitterness within the sweet taste; there are challenges and contestation. Su Meng-hung’s works are like the high-level still-life paintings that were called “Vanitas” in the early days in Holland. They force the viewer to think repeatedly about essential questions: Why are beauty and death so close to each other? Why is the feeling of perfection and emptiness so similar? If life is so transient, why do we need art so much?
「東張西羅，談古說今」的藝術——談蘇孟鴻的創作
∕石瑞仁
蘇孟鴻是學院出身的新世代藝術家，他的近年創作，試圖透過精英文化的角度來觀照通俗文化，並基於知識分子的批判與造反精神，來抨擊媚俗導向的藝術消費文化。這回即將在台北當代藝術館舉行的個展，可說即是從「媚俗」(Kitsch)藝術出發的一個議題性的特展。
媚俗的藝術姿態∕犬儒的抗議心態
由來，媚俗藝術的風行，牽涉到供∕需兩面的對應。也因此，最近的一種說法指出，我們可以從中更明確地區分出「媚俗」和「媚雅」這兩種行為面向。有關「媚俗」，阿諾豪瑟(Arnold Hauser)從精神面釋義：「媚俗是一種虛假的美學意識，一種拙劣的精神發洩。」米蘭‧昆德拉從行動面闡釋：「媚俗是不擇手段討好大眾的一種心態和做法。」準此，「媚俗」一族可用來指稱自抑身段，屈從世俗品味(或根據他們對「世俗品味」的一種想像) 的創作者，他們擅長的就是開發∕製作出一些浮華∕誇飾∕隨俗∕迎俗的藝術。
麥克唐納(Dwight Macdonald)具體指出，媚俗藝術的題材甚廣，從天鵝、好男、好女、好小孩、可愛的動物，到豐盛的花果，都有人為之；趣味也很多樣，原始或學院、天真或矯情、諷刺或說教，都有人供應。看來看去，它們內在的共鳴是：一種銷售的願望；外在的共相是：浮誇、虛假、煽情、膚淺與貪婪的性格。進一步分析媚俗的藝術則會發現，其中的元素安排不是太拙劣就是太取巧，表面的一團和諧，往往是因為裡面根本就沒有不和諧的東西存在！
「媚俗」的藝術，靠著完美的包奘、體貼的姿態和甜蜜的笑容，輕易地投入中產階級的懷抱和生活圈，它們的主要功能，就是滿足中產階級「媚雅」的一種虛榮心理。於此，「媚雅」指的是，藝術的欣賞∕消費者，汲汲追求某種高格調，而不問自己是否消受得了的一種特殊心態。從日常接觸中，我們並不難見證，「媚雅」一族對藝術文化的喜愛，往往是捨本逐末，盲從時尚，和虛情假意的。
反對媚俗藝術、看輕媚雅一族的人指出，藝術應該用努力和虔誠來接近；媚俗的藝術，助長了媚雅一族的被動精神與偷懶心理，嚴重地說，犯了「教唆怠惰」之罪。對此，麥克唐納緩頰的說法是：自古以來，有錢人的特權之一，就是享用華麗艷俗的事物。媚俗的藝術，成為中產階級生活風格及社會心理的一種象徵，本來就是不足為奇的。而莫理斯(Abraham Moles)更開明地認為，讓中產階級的社會，經由媚雅之路通向正典與真經之境，其實是可期待的一件事。這等於正式承認了，不論古代的媚俗藝術或當代的媚俗文化，都隱有一種漸進提昇品味、進階教導藝術的功能。
昆拉德曾調侃地說，媚俗者「為了討好，於是處心積慮了解大眾喜歡什麼，然後再把自己放到一個公約的模式或思潮中，把這種公約模式的愚昧，用美麗的語言和感情喬裝打扮，最後，連自己都會為這種平庸的思想和感情而掉下真心的眼淚。」想想，古代的媚俗畫家如此，當代的大眾流行文化，時興先做「市場調查」，再做產品開發，接著大力宣傳促銷，不正是循著這個說法來發展進行的嗎？
犬儒者的遊藝三部曲
蘇孟鴻的個展，雖說是以「媚俗」藝術為核心，隱約即含涉到了上述的一些議題。此回預定展出的作品，包括【Material Paradise】與【開到荼靡】這兩個精神相關而內容迴異的創作系列。前者以西方文化和社會美學為指涉對象，後者以東方文明和官方美學為演繹基礎。一個直接引用了十七世紀以來流行不衰於西方世界的靜物畫，另一個則間接變造了唐代以降，在宮廷畫院中一直佔有重要席位的東方花鳥畫。從這個展覽中，我們初步可以發現，蘇孟鴻引用或變造古畫，既不是用「新瓶裝舊酒」， 也不是用「舊瓶裝新酒」，因在這兩種情況下，瓶還是瓶，酒還是酒，新舊之間並沒有真正的交涉和互相作用。他試圖創作達成的，是一種能夠自由跨越時空，能夠讓古事和今情相互參照，一種既「談古」也「說今」的藝術。
【Material Paradise】可稱是一個原始概念下延伸發展出來的創作系列，若就展覽機制和形式言，則不妨合視為一件「總體概念」型的空間裝置作品。但見，一些知名和不知名的西洋靜物畫，被藝術家重新複製和引用，被有意的加裝和改造，最後被陳列在一種刻意設定的空間氛圍中展出。而貫串於這些複製品古畫、加裝的事物∕飾物、和展場的空間陳設之間的一種氣質或氣氛，殆就是「浮華」這兩個字了。
仔細端詳，蘇孟鴻引用的西洋靜物畫，內容雖然不一，但是以盛開的花卉為題材，以「媚俗」風格為訴求的居多且最醒目。其中，堪稱西方媚俗繪畫始祖的波仕卡特（Ambrosius the Elder BOSSCHAERT, 1573-1621）的靜物畫即是一個明顯的例子。
媚俗的藝術姿態∕犬儒的抗議心態
由來，媚俗藝術的風行，牽涉到供∕需兩面的對應。也因此，最近的一種說法指出，我們可以從中更明確地區分出「媚俗」和「媚雅」這兩種行為面向。有關「媚俗」，阿諾豪瑟(Arnold Hauser)從精神面釋義：「媚俗是一種虛假的美學意識，一種拙劣的精神發洩。」米蘭‧昆德拉從行動面闡釋：「媚俗是不擇手段討好大眾的一種心態和做法。」準此，「媚俗」一族可用來指稱自抑身段，屈從世俗品味(或根據他們對「世俗品味」的一種想像) 的創作者，他們擅長的就是開發∕製作出一些浮華∕誇飾∕隨俗∕迎俗的藝術。
麥克唐納(Dwight Macdonald)具體指出，媚俗藝術的題材甚廣，從天鵝、好男、好女、好小孩、可愛的動物，到豐盛的花果，都有人為之；趣味也很多樣，原始或學院、天真或矯情、諷刺或說教，都有人供應。看來看去，它們內在的共鳴是：一種銷售的願望；外在的共相是：浮誇、虛假、煽情、膚淺與貪婪的性格。進一步分析媚俗的藝術則會發現，其中的元素安排不是太拙劣就是太取巧，表面的一團和諧，往往是因為裡面根本就沒有不和諧的東西存在！
「媚俗」的藝術，靠著完美的包奘、體貼的姿態和甜蜜的笑容，輕易地投入中產階級的懷抱和生活圈，它們的主要功能，就是滿足中產階級「媚雅」的一種虛榮心理。於此，「媚雅」指的是，藝術的欣賞∕消費者，汲汲追求某種高格調，而不問自己是否消受得了的一種特殊心態。從日常接觸中，我們並不難見證，「媚雅」一族對藝術文化的喜愛，往往是捨本逐末，盲從時尚，和虛情假意的。
反對媚俗藝術、看輕媚雅一族的人指出，藝術應該用努力和虔誠來接近；媚俗的藝術，助長了媚雅一族的被動精神與偷懶心理，嚴重地說，犯了「教唆怠惰」之罪。對此，麥克唐納緩頰的說法是：自古以來，有錢人的特權之一，就是享用華麗艷俗的事物。媚俗的藝術，成為中產階級生活風格及社會心理的一種象徵，本來就是不足為奇的。而莫理斯(Abraham Moles)更開明地認為，讓中產階級的社會，經由媚雅之路通向正典與真經之境，其實是可期待的一件事。這等於正式承認了，不論古代的媚俗藝術或當代的媚俗文化，都隱有一種漸進提昇品味、進階教導藝術的功能。
昆拉德曾調侃地說，媚俗者「為了討好，於是處心積慮了解大眾喜歡什麼，然後再把自己放到一個公約的模式或思潮中，把這種公約模式的愚昧，用美麗的語言和感情喬裝打扮，最後，連自己都會為這種平庸的思想和感情而掉下真心的眼淚。」想想，古代的媚俗畫家如此，當代的大眾流行文化，時興先做「市場調查」，再做產品開發，接著大力宣傳促銷，不正是循著這個說法來發展進行的嗎？
犬儒者的遊藝三部曲
蘇孟鴻的個展，雖說是以「媚俗」藝術為核心，隱約即含涉到了上述的一些議題。此回預定展出的作品，包括【Material Paradise】與【開到荼靡】這兩個精神相關而內容迴異的創作系列。前者以西方文化和社會美學為指涉對象，後者以東方文明和官方美學為演繹基礎。一個直接引用了十七世紀以來流行不衰於西方世界的靜物畫，另一個則間接變造了唐代以降，在宮廷畫院中一直佔有重要席位的東方花鳥畫。從這個展覽中，我們初步可以發現，蘇孟鴻引用或變造古畫，既不是用「新瓶裝舊酒」， 也不是用「舊瓶裝新酒」，因在這兩種情況下，瓶還是瓶，酒還是酒，新舊之間並沒有真正的交涉和互相作用。他試圖創作達成的，是一種能夠自由跨越時空，能夠讓古事和今情相互參照，一種既「談古」也「說今」的藝術。
【Material Paradise】可稱是一個原始概念下延伸發展出來的創作系列，若就展覽機制和形式言，則不妨合視為一件「總體概念」型的空間裝置作品。但見，一些知名和不知名的西洋靜物畫，被藝術家重新複製和引用，被有意的加裝和改造，最後被陳列在一種刻意設定的空間氛圍中展出。而貫串於這些複製品古畫、加裝的事物∕飾物、和展場的空間陳設之間的一種氣質或氣氛，殆就是「浮華」這兩個字了。
仔細端詳，蘇孟鴻引用的西洋靜物畫，內容雖然不一，但是以盛開的花卉為題材，以「媚俗」風格為訴求的居多且最醒目。其中，堪稱西方媚俗繪畫始祖的波仕卡特（Ambrosius the Elder BOSSCHAERT, 1573-1621）的靜物畫即是一個明顯的例子。
波士卡特 靜物花卉 約西元1620年作
木板上的油畫
現藏慕尼黑古美術館
BOSSCHAERT, Ambrosius the Elder
Still-Life of Flowers
Oil on wood
Alte Pinakothek, Munich
木板上的油畫
現藏慕尼黑古美術館
BOSSCHAERT, Ambrosius the Elder
Still-Life of Flowers
Oil on wood
Alte Pinakothek, Munich
我們不妨先瞧瞧這張畫――近乎完全對稱的畫面構圖中，畫家以等量齊觀、公平對待的手法，仔細地畫出各種盛開狀態的花朵，甚至連光線的運用，也是「光明普照」而不分輕重的。基於某個理由，畫家不想理會當時巴洛克畫家對於光影法的新實驗，態度是很明顯的。有趣的是，不僅植物專家可以指出，畫中的花其實分屬於不同的季節和產地，藝術史學者也可以告訴我們，這幅畫中的花卉、蝴蝶與蜜蜂的圖形，曾經重複出現在此畫家(甚至其門徒)的其他作品當中。意思很明白――這類的畫，並不是面對實物直接觀察描繪完成，而是以各種花卉的獨立習作稿為參考而在畫面上組構完成的。
同一圖形的反覆利用，也許是技術上的投機取巧；讓不同季節的花齊聚一堂並同時綻放，反映的倒不是一種無知，而是作為一種有利的訴求――用來滿足世人對於浮華之美的喜愛，和它們所象徵的社會階級∕身分地位∕財富價值的一種想望。
再看蘇孟鴻引用的另一張畫――施沛爾特(Adrian van der SPELT, c.1630-1673)於1658年完成的【有簾幕的靜物畫】。
同一圖形的反覆利用，也許是技術上的投機取巧；讓不同季節的花齊聚一堂並同時綻放，反映的倒不是一種無知，而是作為一種有利的訴求――用來滿足世人對於浮華之美的喜愛，和它們所象徵的社會階級∕身分地位∕財富價值的一種想望。
再看蘇孟鴻引用的另一張畫――施沛爾特(Adrian van der SPELT, c.1630-1673)於1658年完成的【有簾幕的靜物畫】。
施沛爾特 有簾幕的靜物花卉 西元1658年作
木板上的油畫
現藏於芝加哥藝術學院
Adrian van der SPELT
Flower Still-Life with Curtain
1658
Oil on wood, 46,5 x 63,9 cm
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago
木板上的油畫
現藏於芝加哥藝術學院
Adrian van der SPELT
Flower Still-Life with Curtain
1658
Oil on wood, 46,5 x 63,9 cm
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago
此畫除同樣提供了奢華的內容，賣弄了畫家的技術，也試圖販售一些有趣的典故和話題式的幽默。它利用一種「畫中畫」的視覺錯幻效果來引導興味和話題：質感逼真的簾幕拉向一旁，展露在它後面的，究竟是一群真實的花朵，或是被畫在另一張畫裡面的靜物？畫面的設計安排，遙遙指向希臘時代兩位畫家公開較勁的故事：甲畫家當眾揭開布幕，畫中逼真的水果圖像騙過了飢餓的小鳥而引發鳥兒撲食的反應；乙畫家更厲害，他拒絕甲畫家的要求，不肯拉開蒙在畫板上的廉布卻同時宣告勝利，因為這布幕並非真材實料，而是他畫出來的！施沛爾特這張畫，除了可提供現場的視覺辨證遊戲，除了可關聯到這個歷史典故，感覺中似乎也藉機自我吹噓，把故事中兩個主角的繪畫功力全包攬到個人身上了。這種當時頗受中產階級歡迎而稱為「小惡作劇」(little trickster)的靜物畫，是藝術尋弄花招以達成媚俗目的的另一個見證。
十七世紀的歐洲，中產階級的影響力日增，他們在原有的宮廷和貴族體系之外，形成了一個新興的藝術消費族群。好處是，藝術有了新的贊助者；壞處是，藝術開始出現了「媚俗」的物種。二十一世紀的台北，蘇孟鴻重新引用BOSSCHAERT, HEDA, SPELT等十七世紀媚俗派畫家的靜物畫，觀其目的，一是以借屍還魂的方式，透過複製品或印刷物，再現「藝術變節」的一些歷史情節；二是為「正經」的藝術站台――例如，借用林布蘭特同時期留下的靜物畫作為參照，點出藝術史的篩檢原則與藝術市場的供需法則並不相干的概念。有趣的是，林布蘭特畫的【剝開的牛】，夾在眾多美麗非「常」、花香「似」溢的靜物畫中，至少可以讀出兩種意圖：一則暗示不願媚俗的畫家，殆只能為藝術犧牲；二來透過林布蘭特所畫「民生市場」中真實而有張力的靜物畫，來砰擊當時「藝術市場」中浮華不實的另一種靜物畫。
蘇孟鴻的第三個目的，也是【Material Paradise】系列最自發自主的部分，就是透過「來料加工」和「符號轉義」的手法，讓自己「卯進去」上述的歷史文本中，發展出一種「戲耍前人」的顛覆遊戲。例如，在波仕卡特等人的花卉畫上面加裝一個透明的罩杯，裝入一種尺寸更巨大，型態更豐滿的立體人造花，使之和畫中花展開「超級比一比」的作秀和作戰。不難想像，讓機器量產、大眾導向、廉價易得的人造假花，混跡在手工精繪、中產品味、階級意識的古畫中，蘇孟鴻要的不是「不倫不類」，而是凸顯「物以類聚」，是同時開「五十步與一百步」的玩笑。古畫與今物，兩者皆是擬真，同時也都造假。一個點出媚俗藝術的源頭，一個代表媚俗文化的現況。前者強調的是原汁原味，如假包換；後者主張的是物美價廉，高貴不貴。兩者都與美感的追求或品味的表現有關，較不同的是，中產階級乃有意的附庸風雅，是一種自命不俗的文化追求；而消費大眾殆只是無主見地被灌輸、催眠和終於接受。
古代媚俗畫家虛構四季好花同開的景觀，好像超越了自然原則，打破了時間限制。現代商人研發生產的塑膠∕緞帶花，不論造型、質感或量感、好像更直接展現了永不凋謝的實力。在一個紅艷浪漫的展示空間中，在一種金箔鑲邊的美美畫框中，蘇孟鴻把這兩種媚俗物強迫「送做堆」，大有讓它們「肝膽相照」和「窩裡鬥」的雙層意味。
蘇孟鴻自言：「我嘗試以拜物狂的方式來解放拜物狂！」這是就表現手法而言，若就當中的批判策略來看，則分明是走現代「犬儒主義」的一條路線。當代文化批評者指出，犬儒主義者的雙重性格是：一方面玩世不恭、憤世疾俗；另一方面卻又委屈求全和接受現實。而犬儒主義的藝術家最大的本事就是――借用徐賁對大眾犬儒主義的看法――把他們對於傳統與現實的不滿轉化為「不拒絕的理解，不反抗的清醒和不認同的接受。」事情相當明顯，蘇孟鴻諧仿∕媒合早期的中產階級藝術和當代的流行文化，其實是為了伸張精英思維的合理性和當代藝術的批判性！而這樣的創作路線多少也反映了，台灣的當代青年藝術家「越學院越犬儒」的一種新現象。
開到荼靡花事了
相較於已透過多次展覽而完整呈現創作意念的「物化樂園」系列，【開到荼靡】應算是蘇孟鴻最新的一批作品，而此次當代館的展出，許是這個系列較完整齊全的一次呈現，或正式宣告系列完成的一種儀式。
荼靡被視為是春天花季的壓軸好花，「開到荼靡花事了」，則是典出自紅樓夢的一句名言。蘇孟鴻的【開到荼靡】，以中國傳統的花鳥畫為意念揮灑的對象，一方面延伸了【Material Paradise】的犬儒精神，一方面試圖轉換文化觀察的角度和戲弄前人的遊戲方式。其中戲法究竟如何，仍然有待見證，於此，且就其內容元素和創作意念做一初步闡釋。
由唐至宋，中國的花鳥畫從面對自然的寫生，發展到天人合一、形意兼備的藝術高峰；明清之後，藝術變成了師古與摹古的天下，而花鳥畫也質變成一種無機重複的圖式生產。在中國的傳統藝術當中，花鳥畫照說是社會化潛力最強，最具有創作發展和應用空間的一個畫種，但睽之於當代的台灣社會，它幾已淪為純中菜餐廳裡的一種壁面裝飾材料了。這種殘酷的事實，往往讓人納悶：一個民族的藝術文化，發展到經典高峰之後，是不是就像荼靡開花一樣，可以宣告「三春已盡，此後更無花」了？
也許是基於對這種「藝術危機」的體認，在【開到荼靡】這個創作系列中，蘇孟鴻試圖將中國傳統的花鳥畫改造成一種艷俗浮誇的視覺圖像；或用立體裝置的方式，將它們變成一種更感官訴求的文化符號。表面上，這是把代表貴族與文人品味的古代名畫，重新推銷給當代社會大眾的一種媚俗策略；意底下又似乎用來點出，中國藝術的衰落，情況剛好與西方相反，不是導因於媚俗的潮流作祟，而是因為文人的介入和過度主導，缺少了讓藝術自由發展和流向社會的一種機制；我們知道，中國古代的「正派」藝術家雖不屑於「媚俗」之舉，民間藝術卻一直有一種「媚雅」的風氣，但兩者之間的關係，始終是相當疏離的。或許，蘇孟鴻調戲古人的藝術行為底下，有縮短這兩方距離的一種意涵；或許，在他的主觀想法中，藝術家偶而「媚俗」一下，對挽救傳統封建的中國藝術道統，反而是有所幫助的。
一般認為，前衛藝術和媚俗藝術，是兩極對立，不相為謀的。但卡林內舒(Matei Calinescu)已經點出了，現代主義、前衛藝術、頹廢主義、媚俗主義，和後現代主義，其實只是現代性(Modernity)的五種變貌罷了。從蘇孟鴻的展覽也可以看出，前衛和媚俗其實只有一線之隔，而他那「犬儒主義」式的文化態度，和「拿來主義」式的觀念手法，亦可說是後現代理論的一種藝術實踐。就議題的延伸度看來，他的批判策略是意在「博」擊的，蓋不論【Material Paradise】或【開到荼靡】系列，都同時指涉到一種藝術的風格類型，一個藝術的消費階層，一種特殊的藝術產業，和一種藝術衰微的處境。表面看來，他好像徹底放棄了「原創藝術的開發與製作」 而加強了「現成符號的利用和處理」，事實上，正如魯迅在一九三○年代提出的主張：「没有拿來的，人不能自成為新人；没有拿來的，文藝不能自成為新文藝。」他挪用現成物與收編傳統符號，顯是為了要增生∕變造它們原有的符號義。而這種「四處張羅」的藝術表現，也明白地向我們宣示――拋開手藝，是為了放大眼界和凸顯思想；告別象牙塔或閉門造車式的創作，是為了重新思考藝術與社會的對話關係。明乎此，就可以看出他的展覽中，表面甜雅媚俗、入眼即白、入口即化的各種圖像和物件，其實是甜中帶澀，充滿挑釁意味和提問性格的。它們正如荷蘭早期稱為Vanitas Still-life的高階靜物畫一般，強迫觀者反覆地去思考一些本質的問題，諸如：美麗與死亡的距離為什麼那麼近？完滿與空虛的感覺，為什麼那麼像？人生既然那麼無常，我們又為何那麼需要藝術？
十七世紀的歐洲，中產階級的影響力日增，他們在原有的宮廷和貴族體系之外，形成了一個新興的藝術消費族群。好處是，藝術有了新的贊助者；壞處是，藝術開始出現了「媚俗」的物種。二十一世紀的台北，蘇孟鴻重新引用BOSSCHAERT, HEDA, SPELT等十七世紀媚俗派畫家的靜物畫，觀其目的，一是以借屍還魂的方式，透過複製品或印刷物，再現「藝術變節」的一些歷史情節；二是為「正經」的藝術站台――例如，借用林布蘭特同時期留下的靜物畫作為參照，點出藝術史的篩檢原則與藝術市場的供需法則並不相干的概念。有趣的是，林布蘭特畫的【剝開的牛】，夾在眾多美麗非「常」、花香「似」溢的靜物畫中，至少可以讀出兩種意圖：一則暗示不願媚俗的畫家，殆只能為藝術犧牲；二來透過林布蘭特所畫「民生市場」中真實而有張力的靜物畫，來砰擊當時「藝術市場」中浮華不實的另一種靜物畫。
蘇孟鴻的第三個目的，也是【Material Paradise】系列最自發自主的部分，就是透過「來料加工」和「符號轉義」的手法，讓自己「卯進去」上述的歷史文本中，發展出一種「戲耍前人」的顛覆遊戲。例如，在波仕卡特等人的花卉畫上面加裝一個透明的罩杯，裝入一種尺寸更巨大，型態更豐滿的立體人造花，使之和畫中花展開「超級比一比」的作秀和作戰。不難想像，讓機器量產、大眾導向、廉價易得的人造假花，混跡在手工精繪、中產品味、階級意識的古畫中，蘇孟鴻要的不是「不倫不類」，而是凸顯「物以類聚」，是同時開「五十步與一百步」的玩笑。古畫與今物，兩者皆是擬真，同時也都造假。一個點出媚俗藝術的源頭，一個代表媚俗文化的現況。前者強調的是原汁原味，如假包換；後者主張的是物美價廉，高貴不貴。兩者都與美感的追求或品味的表現有關，較不同的是，中產階級乃有意的附庸風雅，是一種自命不俗的文化追求；而消費大眾殆只是無主見地被灌輸、催眠和終於接受。
古代媚俗畫家虛構四季好花同開的景觀，好像超越了自然原則，打破了時間限制。現代商人研發生產的塑膠∕緞帶花，不論造型、質感或量感、好像更直接展現了永不凋謝的實力。在一個紅艷浪漫的展示空間中，在一種金箔鑲邊的美美畫框中，蘇孟鴻把這兩種媚俗物強迫「送做堆」，大有讓它們「肝膽相照」和「窩裡鬥」的雙層意味。
蘇孟鴻自言：「我嘗試以拜物狂的方式來解放拜物狂！」這是就表現手法而言，若就當中的批判策略來看，則分明是走現代「犬儒主義」的一條路線。當代文化批評者指出，犬儒主義者的雙重性格是：一方面玩世不恭、憤世疾俗；另一方面卻又委屈求全和接受現實。而犬儒主義的藝術家最大的本事就是――借用徐賁對大眾犬儒主義的看法――把他們對於傳統與現實的不滿轉化為「不拒絕的理解，不反抗的清醒和不認同的接受。」事情相當明顯，蘇孟鴻諧仿∕媒合早期的中產階級藝術和當代的流行文化，其實是為了伸張精英思維的合理性和當代藝術的批判性！而這樣的創作路線多少也反映了，台灣的當代青年藝術家「越學院越犬儒」的一種新現象。
開到荼靡花事了
相較於已透過多次展覽而完整呈現創作意念的「物化樂園」系列，【開到荼靡】應算是蘇孟鴻最新的一批作品，而此次當代館的展出，許是這個系列較完整齊全的一次呈現，或正式宣告系列完成的一種儀式。
荼靡被視為是春天花季的壓軸好花，「開到荼靡花事了」，則是典出自紅樓夢的一句名言。蘇孟鴻的【開到荼靡】，以中國傳統的花鳥畫為意念揮灑的對象，一方面延伸了【Material Paradise】的犬儒精神，一方面試圖轉換文化觀察的角度和戲弄前人的遊戲方式。其中戲法究竟如何，仍然有待見證，於此，且就其內容元素和創作意念做一初步闡釋。
由唐至宋，中國的花鳥畫從面對自然的寫生，發展到天人合一、形意兼備的藝術高峰；明清之後，藝術變成了師古與摹古的天下，而花鳥畫也質變成一種無機重複的圖式生產。在中國的傳統藝術當中，花鳥畫照說是社會化潛力最強，最具有創作發展和應用空間的一個畫種，但睽之於當代的台灣社會，它幾已淪為純中菜餐廳裡的一種壁面裝飾材料了。這種殘酷的事實，往往讓人納悶：一個民族的藝術文化，發展到經典高峰之後，是不是就像荼靡開花一樣，可以宣告「三春已盡，此後更無花」了？
也許是基於對這種「藝術危機」的體認，在【開到荼靡】這個創作系列中，蘇孟鴻試圖將中國傳統的花鳥畫改造成一種艷俗浮誇的視覺圖像；或用立體裝置的方式，將它們變成一種更感官訴求的文化符號。表面上，這是把代表貴族與文人品味的古代名畫，重新推銷給當代社會大眾的一種媚俗策略；意底下又似乎用來點出，中國藝術的衰落，情況剛好與西方相反，不是導因於媚俗的潮流作祟，而是因為文人的介入和過度主導，缺少了讓藝術自由發展和流向社會的一種機制；我們知道，中國古代的「正派」藝術家雖不屑於「媚俗」之舉，民間藝術卻一直有一種「媚雅」的風氣，但兩者之間的關係，始終是相當疏離的。或許，蘇孟鴻調戲古人的藝術行為底下，有縮短這兩方距離的一種意涵；或許，在他的主觀想法中，藝術家偶而「媚俗」一下，對挽救傳統封建的中國藝術道統，反而是有所幫助的。
一般認為，前衛藝術和媚俗藝術，是兩極對立，不相為謀的。但卡林內舒(Matei Calinescu)已經點出了，現代主義、前衛藝術、頹廢主義、媚俗主義，和後現代主義，其實只是現代性(Modernity)的五種變貌罷了。從蘇孟鴻的展覽也可以看出，前衛和媚俗其實只有一線之隔，而他那「犬儒主義」式的文化態度，和「拿來主義」式的觀念手法，亦可說是後現代理論的一種藝術實踐。就議題的延伸度看來，他的批判策略是意在「博」擊的，蓋不論【Material Paradise】或【開到荼靡】系列，都同時指涉到一種藝術的風格類型，一個藝術的消費階層，一種特殊的藝術產業，和一種藝術衰微的處境。表面看來，他好像徹底放棄了「原創藝術的開發與製作」 而加強了「現成符號的利用和處理」，事實上，正如魯迅在一九三○年代提出的主張：「没有拿來的，人不能自成為新人；没有拿來的，文藝不能自成為新文藝。」他挪用現成物與收編傳統符號，顯是為了要增生∕變造它們原有的符號義。而這種「四處張羅」的藝術表現，也明白地向我們宣示――拋開手藝，是為了放大眼界和凸顯思想；告別象牙塔或閉門造車式的創作，是為了重新思考藝術與社會的對話關係。明乎此，就可以看出他的展覽中，表面甜雅媚俗、入眼即白、入口即化的各種圖像和物件，其實是甜中帶澀，充滿挑釁意味和提問性格的。它們正如荷蘭早期稱為Vanitas Still-life的高階靜物畫一般，強迫觀者反覆地去思考一些本質的問題，諸如：美麗與死亡的距離為什麼那麼近？完滿與空虛的感覺，為什麼那麼像？人生既然那麼無常，我們又為何那麼需要藝術？
Exhibition 相關展覽
|
2003Kai Dao Tu Mi
Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei, Taiwan 開到荼靡 台北當代藝術館，台北，台灣 |