Signifiers without the Signified, embers of an enduring glory
SU Meng-hung’s Xiang Nai Er exhibition
／Wu Chieh-Hsiang
2019｜Nominee of Taishin Art Award
The Chinese title of SU Meng-hung’s exhibition immediately conjures the fashion brand “Chanel”, but the English title is a phonetic re-translation of the Chinese, Xiang Nai Er. This is reminiscent of the linguistical gymnastics and misplacement of signifier and signified in the 2016 solo exhibition, A Painter of the Empire, where the English title of the series of paintings “Grandeur．Void．Cloud．Lark", was a literal translation of each kanji character, 美, 空, 雲, 雀, that comprises the name of Japanese cultural icon and singer Misora Hibari. Not only does Xiang Nai Er reference Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel’s phonetic name in Chinese, it is also a pop song by Faye Wong. No specific reference is given as to why certain phrases or names are repeated. This is consistent with SU Meng-hung creative maxim, where symbols and images mutually reference, ad infinitum. Signifiers become the signified; and the signified become signifiers. Hence, they are not subject to historical or political interpretation, and are removed from the reproduction of visual art history, mimesis, replication, or aural entanglements, while also detached from preconceived notions of the power dynamics of Eastern and Western art history.
From referencing the work of Giuseppe Castiglione, to embedding one of Sanyu’s signature flowers-in-vase motifs within a Chanel coromandel screen, SU Meng-Hung is adept at extracting glimpses of the sublime from the history of East-West interaction, and then compiling these into key events. Giuseppe Castiglione’s experiences of transitioning from a Christian missionary into a painter in the Chinese imperial court, and of injecting his understanding of Western artistic techniques into the subject of Chinese paintings, left behind a history of (dis)harmonious cultural interaction between the East and the West. Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel developed a series of jewelry designs by appropriating motifs of flora, fauna, and imagery from her collection of pearl-inlaid Chinese coromandel lacquer screens and naming her famed Coromandel Jewellery series after the governorate of the Dutch East India Company on the Coromandel Coast. SU Meng-hung’s art poses a conspicuous question regarding these fortuitous or accidental cultural rendezvous between the East and West: Where do the “production conditions” and “originality” of art begin, and what survival mechanisms does it possess? Originality may be a misconception in Western art history, as SU Meng-hung points out in his doctoral dissertation (2012): “Using machine production as a method of art generation perhaps proposes that creativity has switched to another path. Aura has not vanished; the only question now is how machines produce aura.” (p. 52) If machines of reproduction are the cause of vanishing artistic aura, then aura is the source of its originality, which is to say that art carries remnants of the sacred/mythical and, in the operation of reproduction, art can be cloaked in the embers of empire, in remnants of departing glory, or in a soupçon of “borrowed” legendary color.
SU Meng-hung’s allusions to coromandel screens, to wallpaper, and his use of wall stamps and repetitive printing techniques within the Xiang Nai Er exhibition space is reminiscent of handmade calico-print production methods; calling to mind Victorian Era Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the rise in industrialization and commercialization enabled the middle class to produce and imitate, through mass produced home décor, the extravagant styles that were once exquisitely created by the noblesse. The textile industry of this era began machine-manufacturing large sheets of fabric with a plethora of complex, repeated patterns from which customers could choose. It was at this time that British Arts and Crafts advocate William Morris established the semi-manual, semi-industrial lifestyle economy through his woodblock prints. With world trade interactions and business and industrial exchanges, patterns that mimicked imagery from Eastern landscapes, gardens, flora and fauna began to emerge in home décor designs of this era. Chinoiserie furniture made of bamboo became fashionable in Europe during that time. It has been estimated that in the latter half of the 19th century, Britain was home to some 150 bamboo furniture factories. (Bamboo Style, by Gale Beth Goldberg)
From referencing the work of Giuseppe Castiglione, to embedding one of Sanyu’s signature flowers-in-vase motifs within a Chanel coromandel screen, SU Meng-Hung is adept at extracting glimpses of the sublime from the history of East-West interaction, and then compiling these into key events. Giuseppe Castiglione’s experiences of transitioning from a Christian missionary into a painter in the Chinese imperial court, and of injecting his understanding of Western artistic techniques into the subject of Chinese paintings, left behind a history of (dis)harmonious cultural interaction between the East and the West. Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel developed a series of jewelry designs by appropriating motifs of flora, fauna, and imagery from her collection of pearl-inlaid Chinese coromandel lacquer screens and naming her famed Coromandel Jewellery series after the governorate of the Dutch East India Company on the Coromandel Coast. SU Meng-hung’s art poses a conspicuous question regarding these fortuitous or accidental cultural rendezvous between the East and West: Where do the “production conditions” and “originality” of art begin, and what survival mechanisms does it possess? Originality may be a misconception in Western art history, as SU Meng-hung points out in his doctoral dissertation (2012): “Using machine production as a method of art generation perhaps proposes that creativity has switched to another path. Aura has not vanished; the only question now is how machines produce aura.” (p. 52) If machines of reproduction are the cause of vanishing artistic aura, then aura is the source of its originality, which is to say that art carries remnants of the sacred/mythical and, in the operation of reproduction, art can be cloaked in the embers of empire, in remnants of departing glory, or in a soupçon of “borrowed” legendary color.
SU Meng-hung’s allusions to coromandel screens, to wallpaper, and his use of wall stamps and repetitive printing techniques within the Xiang Nai Er exhibition space is reminiscent of handmade calico-print production methods; calling to mind Victorian Era Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the rise in industrialization and commercialization enabled the middle class to produce and imitate, through mass produced home décor, the extravagant styles that were once exquisitely created by the noblesse. The textile industry of this era began machine-manufacturing large sheets of fabric with a plethora of complex, repeated patterns from which customers could choose. It was at this time that British Arts and Crafts advocate William Morris established the semi-manual, semi-industrial lifestyle economy through his woodblock prints. With world trade interactions and business and industrial exchanges, patterns that mimicked imagery from Eastern landscapes, gardens, flora and fauna began to emerge in home décor designs of this era. Chinoiserie furniture made of bamboo became fashionable in Europe during that time. It has been estimated that in the latter half of the 19th century, Britain was home to some 150 bamboo furniture factories. (Bamboo Style, by Gale Beth Goldberg)
Whether manual or mechanical, “reproduction” and “repetition” occurred long before Walter Benjamin’s thesis of the vanishing aura. Generally speaking, the emphasis on originality in art history has been relegated to the Romantic period with the advent of individualism and Geniekult. This was also an era when art made a further departure from the jurisdictions of theology. According to Rosalind Krauss’s observations of Auguste Rodin’s method of producing sculptures using plaster moulds, and of photographs developed from negatives being considered as original or authentic, discussions in art circles of the opposition between reproduction technology and original concept is mutually contradictory. Krauss also mentions that originality can be questioned when the avant-garde, in its ultimate rejection of tradition and representational art, triggers a demand for originality and presentity but is followed by the stylistic repetition of elements in the De Stijl movement, in Minimalism, or in Abstract Expressionism with their emphasis on individual character; or by experimental art that deviates from the canvas or frame. (The Originality of the Avante-Garde and Other Modernist Myths, MIT Press, 1986.) Though Krauss poses the question, she does not take the leap out of the art history framework to inspect the logic between originality and mechanical reproduction, and therefore, does not see that the contradiction she points out is not only in the internal logic of art history, but also in the correspondence in the relationship between the market and production.
Where theory falls short, artists have the perfect interpretations. SU Meng-hung links together internal elements of art history using techniques such as emulation, sketchbooks, printmaking, reproduction, appropriation, and textual mimesis, to produce artistic works that are consistent with the image of the commercial gallery, while simultaneously reflecting the capital flow, material costs, and technological conditions that are external to art.
The Xiang Nai Er series contrasts the context cultivated by Eastern painting against the actuality of artistic originality. Using standard brush techniques modeled in Manual of the Mustard Seed Garden, SU Meng-hung reveals the distance between this system of artistic cultivation established on emulation and modeling, and the concept of originality. The faux lacquerware color application of layering and sanding juxtaposes vibrant luxury with weathering, and is a precise representation of SU Meng-hung’s unique brush style.
Where theory falls short, artists have the perfect interpretations. SU Meng-hung links together internal elements of art history using techniques such as emulation, sketchbooks, printmaking, reproduction, appropriation, and textual mimesis, to produce artistic works that are consistent with the image of the commercial gallery, while simultaneously reflecting the capital flow, material costs, and technological conditions that are external to art.
The Xiang Nai Er series contrasts the context cultivated by Eastern painting against the actuality of artistic originality. Using standard brush techniques modeled in Manual of the Mustard Seed Garden, SU Meng-hung reveals the distance between this system of artistic cultivation established on emulation and modeling, and the concept of originality. The faux lacquerware color application of layering and sanding juxtaposes vibrant luxury with weathering, and is a precise representation of SU Meng-hung’s unique brush style.
SU Meng-hung manually accomplishes “mechanical reproduction”. From his early edition of an introduction chart for main characters from Dream of the Red Chamber; to his illustrations for The Golden Lotus; to producing woodblock prints that resemble murals or fabric designs that can be repeatedly printed and distributed evenly across a canvas and at times extending to walls when fabric runs out. Lacquerware, gold foil, and pearlescent “imitation materials” are techniques the artist researched and developed to showcase ways in which any class of product can be replaced. By bringing the Eye of Providence from the U.S. dollar bill into his model set, SU Meng-hung’s God’s Eye stamp represents God’s concern over American values, but in the torrent of capitalism, it sees instead how desire has moved from the private realm to the public, and surfaced from the bottom of the heart as it makes its way toward vanity. Though it symbolizes the omniscient, God’s Eye is but a graphic printed from a mould. On behalf of painting, the artist bids farewell to the system of symbols and the system of reproduction, to thoroughly execute the flattening and representation of the canvas.
SU Meng-hung repeatedly evokes middle-class desires of the East and West over the past few centuries, encompassing imitations of Western still lifes and skull paintings, an output of a series of fine-line brush paintings, the East-West mutual imitation of kitsch, badly applied gold foil, and weathered pearlescent pigments. On different levels, these touch upon issues of the artist’s role in the stylistic consumption and desire economy. Is the artist a supplier in the taste market or an instigator of desire within capitalism? Or a sage who substitutes revelation with coverup?
By manipulating “reproduce-ability”, SU Meng-hung highlights aura, originality, and controversy. He has also mentioned the “market supply quality” of pop art with printing and media characteristics. By referring to himself as a “plastic injection form machine” (SU Meng-hung’s doctoral dissertation, 2012), he insists on regarding artistic creation as artistic production. Besides further departing from the concept of The Creator that haunts art throughout history to this day, he also takes a more comprehensive view in testing the distance and involvement between capitalist forms and artistic output. By refering to the Chanel brand, Xiang Nai Er also puts forth the “governing state” of capitalism as a successor to imperialism. On the one hand, it provides ample imitation, emulation, and reproduction to distribute taste, so that culture seems to be boundless and disloyal; while on the other hand, it uses originality and authenticity to create a new status-differential in the aftermath of the dissolution of empire and liberation of the colonized. Fashion is possibly the industry with the least-stable signifiers in the creative economy. Hundreds of designers work under the banner of each renowned fashion brand. Their inspiration may come from their own talent and culture, but when the final product is presented on the catwalk -- whether Chinese-style, kimono-style, palatial style, Egyptian-style, bohemian style, Indian style, Native American style (periodically drawing ire and critiqued for cultural appropriation) -- all becomes a surface aesthetic of being like a thing but not the thing. In the world of fashion, the degree of cultural attachment is extremely low while brand loyalty remains extremely high.
There are many facets to present discourses on art including the departure from sacred imagery, the loss of aura, the segregation from craft, market, and mass production, as well as the rejection of repetition… these repeatedly swirl in self-entanglement throughout in art history. Better yet to regard SU Meng-hung’s straight-shooting results of self-experimentation from a capitalist, industrial, and technological production logic. In the exhibition hall, a metal scaffolding has been gilded in gold-foil to represent bamboo-scaffolding, positioned to face a bamboo chair atop a mound of landscape rocks on the opposite wall. This inexplicably causes me to associate the development of perspective during the Renaissance period, and Michelangelo (as though I knew him well), who was perpetually lying on top of scaffolding. The gilded scaffolding enables the artist to be responsible for the momentary clarity of surface significance. SU Meng-hung once mentioned that he hoped his art could be “appreciated on an intellectual and popular level”. At first glance, Xiang Nai Er appears to be culled for the collector’s market in both theme and media, while a more detailed observation reveals the artist’s response to art history, cultural interaction history, and technological history. However, the amusement in SU Meng-hung’s “appreciation on an intellectual and popular level” is that, what is regarded as elegant is actually quite common, and what is regarded as common actually has a profound critical character. What attracts the pure art connoisseur’s eye is what the artist has always possessed: a decadent aesthetic of the lingering embers of a dissipating but never vanishing glory.
SU Meng-hung repeatedly evokes middle-class desires of the East and West over the past few centuries, encompassing imitations of Western still lifes and skull paintings, an output of a series of fine-line brush paintings, the East-West mutual imitation of kitsch, badly applied gold foil, and weathered pearlescent pigments. On different levels, these touch upon issues of the artist’s role in the stylistic consumption and desire economy. Is the artist a supplier in the taste market or an instigator of desire within capitalism? Or a sage who substitutes revelation with coverup?
By manipulating “reproduce-ability”, SU Meng-hung highlights aura, originality, and controversy. He has also mentioned the “market supply quality” of pop art with printing and media characteristics. By referring to himself as a “plastic injection form machine” (SU Meng-hung’s doctoral dissertation, 2012), he insists on regarding artistic creation as artistic production. Besides further departing from the concept of The Creator that haunts art throughout history to this day, he also takes a more comprehensive view in testing the distance and involvement between capitalist forms and artistic output. By refering to the Chanel brand, Xiang Nai Er also puts forth the “governing state” of capitalism as a successor to imperialism. On the one hand, it provides ample imitation, emulation, and reproduction to distribute taste, so that culture seems to be boundless and disloyal; while on the other hand, it uses originality and authenticity to create a new status-differential in the aftermath of the dissolution of empire and liberation of the colonized. Fashion is possibly the industry with the least-stable signifiers in the creative economy. Hundreds of designers work under the banner of each renowned fashion brand. Their inspiration may come from their own talent and culture, but when the final product is presented on the catwalk -- whether Chinese-style, kimono-style, palatial style, Egyptian-style, bohemian style, Indian style, Native American style (periodically drawing ire and critiqued for cultural appropriation) -- all becomes a surface aesthetic of being like a thing but not the thing. In the world of fashion, the degree of cultural attachment is extremely low while brand loyalty remains extremely high.
There are many facets to present discourses on art including the departure from sacred imagery, the loss of aura, the segregation from craft, market, and mass production, as well as the rejection of repetition… these repeatedly swirl in self-entanglement throughout in art history. Better yet to regard SU Meng-hung’s straight-shooting results of self-experimentation from a capitalist, industrial, and technological production logic. In the exhibition hall, a metal scaffolding has been gilded in gold-foil to represent bamboo-scaffolding, positioned to face a bamboo chair atop a mound of landscape rocks on the opposite wall. This inexplicably causes me to associate the development of perspective during the Renaissance period, and Michelangelo (as though I knew him well), who was perpetually lying on top of scaffolding. The gilded scaffolding enables the artist to be responsible for the momentary clarity of surface significance. SU Meng-hung once mentioned that he hoped his art could be “appreciated on an intellectual and popular level”. At first glance, Xiang Nai Er appears to be culled for the collector’s market in both theme and media, while a more detailed observation reveals the artist’s response to art history, cultural interaction history, and technological history. However, the amusement in SU Meng-hung’s “appreciation on an intellectual and popular level” is that, what is regarded as elegant is actually quite common, and what is regarded as common actually has a profound critical character. What attracts the pure art connoisseur’s eye is what the artist has always possessed: a decadent aesthetic of the lingering embers of a dissipating but never vanishing glory.
符徵不帶符旨，繁華總有餘暉
－蘇孟鴻《香·奈·兒》展
／吳介祥
2019｜台新藝術獎提名
蘇孟鴻的《香·奈·兒》展，展名讓人直接聯想到時尚品牌，但展覽的英文標題卻是漢語拼音《Xiang Nai Er》，有如2016年的「帝國畫師」個展中的幾件作品串連的《美·空·雲·雀》，一場中外譯文、符徵和符旨的錯置擺盪就此展開。《香·奈·兒》不只有引用Coco Chanel的中文譯名，它同時是王菲的一首歌，沒有特地指涉是甚麼的反覆詠頌的字組或名稱。這是蘇孟鴻向來的創作法則，符號和圖像不斷互相指射，符徵變符旨、符旨又變符徵，它們因此不用被套上歷史或政治詮釋，跳開視覺藝術史再現、仿擬（mimesis）、複製和靈光的糾纏，同時，也可以不涉及東西方藝術史的強弱勢關係的先入為主觀念。
從引用郎世寧的作品開始，這次引用的香奈兒的屏風，並藏了一枝反覆出現的常玉作品的瓶花，蘇孟鴻總能在東西交流史中擷取吉光片羽，把它們編纂成關鍵事件。郎世寧所經歷的從傳教士身分變成宮廷畫家，將對西洋藝術技法的認知放進中國繪畫的取材，留下一段中西融（不）合的交流史；香奈兒帶著她蒐藏的中國漆器螺鈿屏風，從上面的花鳥和造景圖像發展出她的珠寶系列，而讓荷屬東印度公司所駐的印度沿海（Coromandel/Karimanal／礦灘）的名字變成香奈兒著名的烏木屏風首飾系列（Coromandel Jewellery）。這樣隨著命運或意外而發生東西文化的交會歷史，被以蘇孟鴻的創作，提出了最顯眼的命題：藝術「生產條件」和「原創性」從何而來，憑恃著甚麼機制而生存？原創性很可能是一個西方藝術史的誤解，一如蘇孟鴻在他的博士論文（2012）中已經點出的：「以機器生產做為藝術發生的方法，或許提示著創作切換至另一個路徑－根本沒有靈光消逝的問題，只有靈光如何被機器生產出來的問題」。（頁52）如果藝術的靈光消失起因於複製機器，那麼它的靈光便是其原創性的來源，也就是藝術帶著的神聖性／神話性殘餘，而在可複製性的操作下，藝術可以披戴著一些帝國餘暉、一點繁華將盡的貴氣，或一點「借來的」傳奇色彩。
從引用郎世寧的作品開始，這次引用的香奈兒的屏風，並藏了一枝反覆出現的常玉作品的瓶花，蘇孟鴻總能在東西交流史中擷取吉光片羽，把它們編纂成關鍵事件。郎世寧所經歷的從傳教士身分變成宮廷畫家，將對西洋藝術技法的認知放進中國繪畫的取材，留下一段中西融（不）合的交流史；香奈兒帶著她蒐藏的中國漆器螺鈿屏風，從上面的花鳥和造景圖像發展出她的珠寶系列，而讓荷屬東印度公司所駐的印度沿海（Coromandel/Karimanal／礦灘）的名字變成香奈兒著名的烏木屏風首飾系列（Coromandel Jewellery）。這樣隨著命運或意外而發生東西文化的交會歷史，被以蘇孟鴻的創作，提出了最顯眼的命題：藝術「生產條件」和「原創性」從何而來，憑恃著甚麼機制而生存？原創性很可能是一個西方藝術史的誤解，一如蘇孟鴻在他的博士論文（2012）中已經點出的：「以機器生產做為藝術發生的方法，或許提示著創作切換至另一個路徑－根本沒有靈光消逝的問題，只有靈光如何被機器生產出來的問題」。（頁52）如果藝術的靈光消失起因於複製機器，那麼它的靈光便是其原創性的來源，也就是藝術帶著的神聖性／神話性殘餘，而在可複製性的操作下，藝術可以披戴著一些帝國餘暉、一點繁華將盡的貴氣，或一點「借來的」傳奇色彩。
蘇孟鴻對屏風、壁紙的引用，以及在《香·奈·兒》展場上的牆壁印圖，和重複的模印作法，讓人聯想到印花布的手工製作方式，和英國在十八、十九世紀的維多利亞時期（Victorian Era），隨著工業化和商業的興起，中產階級也藉由量化的家具家飾生產機制，發展出模仿從前貴族精細打造的奢華品味。這個時期紡織業開始能以機器製造出大片的織品，圖案繁複反覆的印花任由顧客揀選，民藝倡導者William Morris的雕版印刷，便在當時建立了半手工、半工業的炫富的居家品味經濟。這個時期的家飾設計，也隨著世界貿易和工商交流，出現了仿東方山水、庭園、花鳥造景的圖案，也有以竹子製作的仿東方家具在歐洲流行，據估計，英國在十九世紀後半期就有一百五十個竹製家具工廠。（Bamboo Style, by Gale Beth Goldberg）
「複製」和「重複」無論是手工還是機器，在班雅明的靈光消失論述前就已經發生。藝術史開始強調原創性，一般來說會推到浪漫時期，當個人主義和天才崇拜（Geniekult）出現時，而這也同時是藝術更脫離神學管轄的時代。根據Rosalind Krauss對於羅丹（Auguste Rodin）以模組化方式製作雕塑品，以及從負片沖出來的攝影作品被認定為原作（original）、真品（authentic）的觀察，認為現在藝術圈所談論的複製技術和原創性概念的對立，是自相矛盾的。Krauss也提到，在極端毀棄傳統、否定再現的前衛藝術引發出標誌了現在性的原創性要求，卻是接著元素反覆的風格藝術（de Stijl）、極簡主義（Minimalism）或強調個人特質的抽象表現主義（Abstract Expressionism），或是脫離畫布畫框的藝術實驗，其原創性是可以質疑的。（The Originality of the Avante-Garde and Other Modernist Myths, MIT Press, 1986）Krauss雖然點出問題，然而錯失了跳出藝術史框架檢視原創性和機械複製之間的邏輯，因而未曾看出她所指出的矛盾，不僅在於藝術史內部邏輯，也在於市場和生產關係的對應。
理論有所不逮之處，藝術家卻有絕佳詮釋。蘇孟鴻串構藝術史內部元素，以臨摹、畫譜、版畫、複製、挪用、質感仿擬等手法，生產出既符合商業畫廊形象的藝術展品，又能反映藝術外部的資本流動、材料成本和技術條件的「實驗成果」。《香·奈·兒》系列以東方繪畫養成的脈絡，對照藝術原創性的究竟－蘇孟鴻從《芥子園畫譜》套用的標準化筆法模型，呈現這套建立臨摹、模式化的畫家養成系統，和原創性的觀念有多疏遠。而多層又磨掉的仿漆器上色，光鮮華麗和凋零感的並置，則是蘇孟鴻特有的筆跡風格。
理論有所不逮之處，藝術家卻有絕佳詮釋。蘇孟鴻串構藝術史內部元素，以臨摹、畫譜、版畫、複製、挪用、質感仿擬等手法，生產出既符合商業畫廊形象的藝術展品，又能反映藝術外部的資本流動、材料成本和技術條件的「實驗成果」。《香·奈·兒》系列以東方繪畫養成的脈絡，對照藝術原創性的究竟－蘇孟鴻從《芥子園畫譜》套用的標準化筆法模型，呈現這套建立臨摹、模式化的畫家養成系統，和原創性的觀念有多疏遠。而多層又磨掉的仿漆器上色，光鮮華麗和凋零感的並置，則是蘇孟鴻特有的筆跡風格。
蘇孟鴻以人工從事「機械複製」，從早期版本的《紅樓夢》人物介紹圖和《金瓶梅》的插圖，製作出和壁畫或布料圖案相似的雕版印刷，讓圖形可重複印出，並平均分配在畫布上，畫布有限時還可延伸到牆上。漆器、金箔、螺鈿色澤的「仿材質」是藝術家研發的技法，呈現任何品味產品都是可替代的。蘇孟鴻將美元鈔票的「全知的眼」(Eye of Providence）帶進他的模組裡，印在鈔票上的神的眼本意是神對美國價值的眷顧，但在資本主義的洪流下，它卻照見了慾望從私密轉為公開、從心底浮上表面，並趨向浮華的過程。而儘管象徵全知，但它也同時不過是一個模具印出來的圖形罷了，藝術家替繪畫藝術告別象徵體系、再現體系，徹底執行畫布的平面化、表象化。
蘇孟鴻一再回顧上幾個世紀東、西方中產階級的慾望－覆蓋的仿西洋靜物畫、骷顱頭、像輸出的工筆系列、東西方互仿的俗媚（kitsch）路線、貼的不優的金箔、磨損的擬珠貝色料－也在不同層次觸及了藝術家在品味消費、慾望經濟裡的角色之議題。藝術家是品味市集的供應者，還是資本主義裡的慾望帶動者？或是以覆蓋代替揭露的洞見者？
藉由操作「可複製性」，蘇孟鴻欲突顯靈光、原創性的可議性，他也曾談到就印刷和媒體特質而問世的普普藝術（Pop Art）的「市場供需體質」。而自比為「塑膠射出成形機器」（蘇孟鴻博士論文，2012），則是更堅決地將藝術創作（create）視為藝術生產（produce），除了更脫離藝術史至今陰魂不散的神意（The Creator），也更全觀的測試資本形式和藝術產出之間何從疏離又為何牽連的關係。《香·奈·兒》（Chanel）品牌的引用，也帶出資本主義做為銜接著帝國主義的「治理形態」，它一方面供給充分的模仿、競逐（emulation）、複製品來分配品味，讓文化變得沒有疆界也沒有忠誠度；另一方面也在用原創／真品製造帝國瓦解、殖民解放後的消費的新階級差異。時尚大概是創意經濟中，符號最浮動的產業吧，一個著名時尚品牌的旗下總有上百個設計師，他們的靈感可能來自自己的才華和原生文化，但當產品登上伸展台時，中國式、和服風、宮廷風、埃及風、波西米亞風、印度風、美洲原住民風…（時而引起對文化挪用的批評），卻是像甚麼卻不甚麼的表面美學，時尚世界裡的文化附結程度非常低，品牌的忠誠度卻是極高的。
藝術的現代性論述有多個切面，包括去離開神聖性餘映、失去靈光，與工藝、市場、量化生產區隔，以及對重複性的排除…在藝術史裡千迴百轉，自我纏繞，還不如看看蘇孟鴻單槍直入的從資本、工業和科技的生產邏輯，自體實驗的成果。展場中的一座金屬鷹架，以包金箔將鐵架比喻為竹架，對望到牆上的庭園造景石堆頂上的竹椅，讓我莫名地聯想到文藝復興的透視發展和永遠躺在鷹架上的米開朗基羅（彷彿我跟他很熟），包裹金箔的鐵架讓藝術家只對表面負責的寓意頓時明朗。蘇孟鴻曾經提到希望自己的藝術能「雅俗共賞」，初看，《香奈兒》在議題和媒材方面可稱是收藏市場的上選；細觀則有藝術家對藝術史、文化交流史和技術史的回應，然而蘇孟鴻「雅俗共賞」的妙趣卻是在觀者以為雅的其實很俗，以為俗的卻藏有深構的批評性格。而最吸引純藝術鑑賞者視線的，則是藝術家一貫有的，繁華褪盡殘輝餘韻卻永不消失的頹廢美學。
蘇孟鴻一再回顧上幾個世紀東、西方中產階級的慾望－覆蓋的仿西洋靜物畫、骷顱頭、像輸出的工筆系列、東西方互仿的俗媚（kitsch）路線、貼的不優的金箔、磨損的擬珠貝色料－也在不同層次觸及了藝術家在品味消費、慾望經濟裡的角色之議題。藝術家是品味市集的供應者，還是資本主義裡的慾望帶動者？或是以覆蓋代替揭露的洞見者？
藉由操作「可複製性」，蘇孟鴻欲突顯靈光、原創性的可議性，他也曾談到就印刷和媒體特質而問世的普普藝術（Pop Art）的「市場供需體質」。而自比為「塑膠射出成形機器」（蘇孟鴻博士論文，2012），則是更堅決地將藝術創作（create）視為藝術生產（produce），除了更脫離藝術史至今陰魂不散的神意（The Creator），也更全觀的測試資本形式和藝術產出之間何從疏離又為何牽連的關係。《香·奈·兒》（Chanel）品牌的引用，也帶出資本主義做為銜接著帝國主義的「治理形態」，它一方面供給充分的模仿、競逐（emulation）、複製品來分配品味，讓文化變得沒有疆界也沒有忠誠度；另一方面也在用原創／真品製造帝國瓦解、殖民解放後的消費的新階級差異。時尚大概是創意經濟中，符號最浮動的產業吧，一個著名時尚品牌的旗下總有上百個設計師，他們的靈感可能來自自己的才華和原生文化，但當產品登上伸展台時，中國式、和服風、宮廷風、埃及風、波西米亞風、印度風、美洲原住民風…（時而引起對文化挪用的批評），卻是像甚麼卻不甚麼的表面美學，時尚世界裡的文化附結程度非常低，品牌的忠誠度卻是極高的。
藝術的現代性論述有多個切面，包括去離開神聖性餘映、失去靈光，與工藝、市場、量化生產區隔，以及對重複性的排除…在藝術史裡千迴百轉，自我纏繞，還不如看看蘇孟鴻單槍直入的從資本、工業和科技的生產邏輯，自體實驗的成果。展場中的一座金屬鷹架，以包金箔將鐵架比喻為竹架，對望到牆上的庭園造景石堆頂上的竹椅，讓我莫名地聯想到文藝復興的透視發展和永遠躺在鷹架上的米開朗基羅（彷彿我跟他很熟），包裹金箔的鐵架讓藝術家只對表面負責的寓意頓時明朗。蘇孟鴻曾經提到希望自己的藝術能「雅俗共賞」，初看，《香奈兒》在議題和媒材方面可稱是收藏市場的上選；細觀則有藝術家對藝術史、文化交流史和技術史的回應，然而蘇孟鴻「雅俗共賞」的妙趣卻是在觀者以為雅的其實很俗，以為俗的卻藏有深構的批評性格。而最吸引純藝術鑑賞者視線的，則是藝術家一貫有的，繁華褪盡殘輝餘韻卻永不消失的頹廢美學。
Exhibition 相關展覽
|
2019Xiang Nai Er
Tina Keng Gallery, Taipei, Taiwan 香·奈·兒 耿畫廊，台北，台灣 |