认识许江的艺术首先要认识许江的学术道路特别是他艺术思想的特质。作为在改革开放时代成长起来的艺术家，他深切地感受着中国社会的巨大变化与迅速发展的现实，始终以与时代同行的激情投身到当代视觉文化的建构之中，也始终以强烈的文化使命感思考着中国艺术当代发展的途径。

　　许多年来，许江的工作贯穿了视觉文化的方方面面：他是艺术界重要的学术组织者，组织与策划过许多当代艺术的重要展览和学术活动，展开国际间当代艺术与文化的研讨对话；他是一位艺术教育家，担任中国美术学院院长以来，他秉承这所艺术学府的历史文脉和精神传统，以锐意进取而又宽容谦和的学术风范，明确提出当代文化境遇下“多元互动、和而不同”的学术思想，吸纳各种学术和新兴资源，不断改进艺术教育的知识结构，在艺术教育与教学领域积极推动并努力践行种种构想和改革；他也是博学深思的写作者和言说者，多年来坚持“双管齐下”，阐发自己针对艺术现实的文化思考，以他的《一米的守望》、《视觉那城》等一系列文集为例，他对当代艺术与文化征候做出缜密的分析研究，深刻辨析了当今艺术的焦点话题和重要现象。

　　然而，许江最“根本”的身份是一位艺术家，他不断努力探索与尝试，通过深刻的文化思考形成独特绘画取向，又通过自己的绘画实践解决文化认识问题，在绘画中抵达当代文化的通境。思想情感的大关怀落实在他的艺术上，使他的作品不仅形成鲜明的个性风格，尤其以饱满的精神性体现了思想意志在技术时代的一次次突围，也是对当代大众消费文化的深刻反思。他的艺术所呈现的气势恢宏的格局、大跨度的时空建构凝聚了强烈而厚重的历史知觉，蕴涵着丰富的文化内涵。从他身上，可以看到艺术家个人道路与时代、社会发展相交叠的印记。

　　I

　　20世纪初以来，中西两大艺术体系的相遇、碰撞，演绎出中国艺术在观念、语言上不断求新、持续试验的种种征候，构成了中国现代性的基本的话语机制。通过对中国艺术现代之路的文化研究，我们可以梳理出一种与西方现代艺术性质上不同的“另一种现代性”，这方面大致已比较清楚。但是，伴随着20世纪最后十年社会、经济、文化领域“全球化”趋势的迅速蔓延，中国艺术还未脱开“现代”的文化逻辑，就迎来了新的也即“当代”的文化境遇，艺术和文化的基本问题也由此发生了变化。对于这种变化，并不是每一个中国画家都及时敏感到并且主动应战，由于历史的惯性，大多数人仍然沉迷往昔，拒斥正在到来的当代现实。然而，时间上“当代”的艺术究竟在何种程度上堪称文化属性上“当代”的艺术？这是今日中国艺术家无法回避的课题。

　　我们目前所面对的这个随全球化而来的当代现实，可以称为一种“后主义”的文化境遇。对属于文化性质的这个“后”字，以往我们的理解主要在西方艺术的“后工业”、“后现代”、“后殖民”思潮上，这股思潮既是对西方现代主义的理论否定与样式修正，但又随着“全球化”过程表现为一种全球性症候，引发出各区域艺术的失序和混乱。特别是后殖民主义话语导致艺术的日益观念化与政治化，艺术本体日益迷失，由此产生了一种全球性的“新的震撼”，这种震撼不亚于西方20世纪初所遭受的现代主义冲击。但是，如果看到中国改革开放三十年以来社会思想和文化上萌发的一系列新的意识，我们就会发现，在一种普遍的“后现代”思潮涌现的同时，中国文化也进入了一个不同的“后西方”时期，那就是跳出西方的概念系统与历史叙事，依托中国当代社会发展的现实契机，既吸收西方经验，又对来自西方的影响进行清醒的文化审视并采取策略性的回应，进而积极主动地进行当代文化的自我解释、建构与想象。

　　纵观许江近二十年来的绘画历程，可以发现他是一位难得的通过文化思考形成绘画取向、又通过自己的绘画实验解决文化认识问题的“思想型画家”。“思”与“画”在他那里是一种生活的两种体现，都属于精神层面的活动。他的“思”，涉及到“西方”与“东方”之间交互建构的历史性关系，其目的是“树立一种新的自我的文化史观，并以这种文化史观来勾联历史和当下的关系，建构文化自我本身”。（许江《东方想象与‘远西’之远》）他的“画”是“思”的形象载体，可以作为中国当代文化情势的深刻的图像表征。严格地说，我们不能把他的“画”仅仅视为关于某种题材或事物的描绘，而是要看到，他的画作首先是因“思”而必然和必要的形象流露。在他的画里，充满了思想的含量和源自心灵的力量。

　　II

　　从1990年代中期开始，许江的艺术主题转向关于城市和大地风景。城市的存在是文化符号，大地的生命是自然意象，二者的意涵本分属两种类型，在许多画家那里情各有钟，但在许江的视野中，却都共属于一个存在的世界。他喜欢研究城市，把城市当作文化的肌体，尤其喜欢追寻城市的历史，把一本本城市的传记读成历史的篇章，把城市的表象视为历史的片段。因此，城市在他的笔下成为画不完的对象，大到与天际相接的城市轮廓与建筑躯影，小到城市的巷陌、房屋的细节乃至道路的斑记。从绘画风格看，他的城市主题的作品都是史诗般雄浑和悲剧般凝重的混合体，他似乎无法为城市的现状勾画清晰的图景，反之，却深陷在城市的梦境中感受正在消逝的存在。所以，他把自己笔下的城市风景称为“历史的风景”或“逝去与即将逝去的风景”。这种风景，与其说是“看”到的风景，不如说是“思”到的风景。而被“思”的也不仅仅是城市本身，而是作为文化与记忆集散地的历史。他选择了柏林、上海、北京等一批富有深厚历史文化积淀的城市，以这些城市标志性的建筑为原型，展开了一幕幕城市风云录。他描绘着不同城市的景象，表达的却是同一种感怀。在这个意义上，他的绘画是从观察“形”本身升华到关注形而“上”的精神活动过程，他笔下的城市风景也是一种文化上的抽象性景观。

　　在视觉上与城市的风景对应的是大地的风景。在这个系列中，许江似乎换了一种心态，他做的不再是沉思的文章，而是行吟的诗篇。或许从城市走向原野，他获得了远离历史重负的轻松，他因此可以随兴抒怀，去发现和捕捉许多生动的、转瞬即逝的大地表情。在那里有许多因生命蓬勃而引发的感兴，有许多因四时变迁而触动的怜爱。相比起“城市系列”，他的“大地系列”画得视角多变、手法轻松、意趣活泼。由此可以说，他许多年在绘画世界里的心灵和情感就维系着城市与大地这两种生命情状，在“思”与“诗”、“话”与“画”的生活中交错穿行。

　　近五年来，许江的目光驻落到了“葵园”上，在《葵园》系列作品中，一种整合的文化意识似乎更加清晰了。这个系列可以被视为城市主题与大地主题的叠合，茂密的葵花如生长的城市丛林，更是大地上蓬勃不息的生命。同样，这些画面也可以看成是画家行走与守望、思考与叙述的叠合。他调动起不同的视角，或以近察表现葵林纷繁交错的姿态，或以远观统摄葵原的延伸，葵花的群像交织出生命的混响，与天边的地平线遥遥相接，呈现为视域和远望的无限，在此，系列的画幅不是一个系列的终结，而是一种向未来延伸的开始。

　　从画面视觉构造来说，许江所描绘的其实是“葵原”。那在四季中轮回的一望无际的原野，带着燎原之势，向观者迎面袭来。那是一种根源于沉思的深重的忧郁，与他通过城市风景所捕捉到的历史兴废的契机相较，这种忧郁更显深刻。它来自画者对世界和大地的“天问”式的思索。葵，是大地对人间的馈赠，扎根于大地，却面向天空，追逐着万物所皈依的太阳，那一切光亮的本源。独自倾心向太阳，葵是向阳花，然而，许江笔下的葵却基本不是花朵，这与中国古典文学与艺术中反复颂咏的葵的形象全然不同，也与凡·高置于静瓶中的葵花意涵相异。许江的葵自成一格，不是花朵而是果实，不是单体而是大象。它是沉重的，在秋天的深处，葵的硕果已然沉醉。它又是强韧的，在四季轮回中，反复地从衰朽中重生。葵的苍劲刚毅，迸发出大地与天空之间生命涅槃的火焰。

　　许江的葵从来都是集体性的，或为列兵般精神抖擞的“葵阵”，或为叠加堆积却如火焰般升腾的“葵塔”。他的画面所呈现出的是一种集体性的视觉，其中蕴含着巨大的力量。而此力量却绝不仅仅属于葵本身，而是来自那孕育化生并且承载万物的大地。2009年，为在上海美术馆举办他的个展“被拯救的葵园”，他整体地思考了展览的氛境，自己设计了展览的流线和空间效果。为了突出展览的主题，他在作新的画作的同时，还制作了葵园的“现场”，用巨大的雕塑的葵和贯穿不同展厅的装置，构成观众体验与感受的空间，葵与大地的合体即是葵原，那漫无边际的葵的原野，反复更生于沉沦与拯救之间。在此，葵原即是家园，在荒原与家园迁变之际，蕴藏着一切存在者存在的秘密与根源。

　　III

　　把风景这种传统的绘画题材画成具有文化主题与精神意蕴的篇章，这就是许江艺术的文化超越。一方面，他取西方“后现代”思潮提供的“文化研究”视角，对既定的规范存疑，相信事物的不确定性背后有着可能世界的生命契机，相信绘画的目的不再是为事物作本质性的结论，而是使事物之本质在追问的过程中浮现成形，在对客观世界的探索中使自我这个主体得以验证。另一方面，他以“后西方”的文化策略克服了因追随西方艺术线性发展而产生的思想焦虑与文化隔膜，立足本土正在发生的、鲜活的现实，弘扬传统文化的丰涵大义，用一种“以中化西”的方式呈现文化上的认同与自信。他的艺术是“历史感”与“当代性”的共生同构。这“历史感”，是与历史“活”在一起的彼此相望；这“当代性”，是凭借当代智识系统对当代文化问题做出的图像阐释。

　　对许江的绘画作如上文化意涵的分析，或许能够使我们看到中国当代绘画走出传统模式或西方样式的可能性。但另一方面，作为“画者”的许江，在很多年里却承担着一位“思者”的使命。多年来，他始终坚持的是从思想和实践上克服当代图像世界带来的挑战，这是无论东方还是西方、本土还是全球，都需要面对的时代的挑战。他曾经十分晓畅地说出了我们身陷于图像世界的现状：“这的确是一个图像时代，电影、电视、新闻、广告、摄影、录像，无论你看还是不看，图像从四面八方向你袭来，那样快捷、那样便宜，又那样无所不在。如果你是个画家，你一定曾经陶醉在人与对象相契相生、共进共退的悠漫而又激动的过程之中，这个过程赋予你辨识和体认我们称之为‘艺术’的那些东西的精致眼光和特殊修养。现在不同，只要你一按快门、一触键，世界就留在你的手边。只要你想，世界就可以变成图像。……传统绘画的神圣技艺性以及那种经典的乐趣被读识的方便要求所消解，被实现的便捷和生产的飞跃所泛化，甚至还被这种便捷图像生产的随意性、速度感以及随之而来的浮躁所深深侵害。当我们置身于一片图像的无边海洋中的时候，禁不住感喟：图像时代的标志恰恰是图像的贬值，准确地说：图像精美性的贬值。”

　　许江的这段话的确十分明确地道出了画家们在图像时代面临的挑战和需要解决的问题。这种问题是具有双重性的，一是如何在“图像贬值”的境况中解决绘画图像的创造问题，二是如何在图像丛林中拯救图像应有的“精神性”。就他的文化立场而论，许江不是一个拒斥图像时代到来的人，他对以新媒体为代表的图像艺术有着文化上的宽容甚至浓厚的兴趣，或者可以说，他看到了新媒体艺术在构筑新的视觉文化上所具有的时代价值。“新媒体艺术语言实质上代表了一种全球性语言，……这种新的文化现象一经登场，就改变了传统文化之争的基本格局，增强了全球性的境域思考，……并代表着这个时代对跨文化界域的当代艺术创作提供了全新的注脚”（《架上话之三——后现·非线》）。这也是他何以去担任总策展人，策划以“影像生存”为题的2004年上海双年展，并且在中国美术学院率先建立新媒体艺术、传媒动画等学科的原因。很显然，他是当代学院画家中最积极接触新媒体实验、倡导乃至研究新媒体艺术文化现象的一位。但是，回到他称为“架上画”的绘画领域，并执意当一个“坚持架上绘画者”，以绘画作品为主，把其他综合手法调动起来支持绘画，去做一个新的“图像时代绘画何为”的文章。这是他在“新媒体图像技术迅疾发展，传统的绘画形态渐成危机”这种两极分立态势下的清醒选择，而他的绘画探索又借助这样一种两极对应的态势所造成的文化心理张力，找到了两种视觉经验的相关性，从而从绘画自主性出发，缓解甚至超越图像时代所引发的绘画“危机”。

　　“守望”绘画，是今日许多画家的信念，但是，“守望”不是一种封闭的自我观照，而是守望者向外部“世界”敞亮自身并与“世界”共同“澄明”的过程。这需要集中解决绘画中“看”的方式的问题。许江说到：“图像发达，绘画贬值，那真正失落的是绘画所被要求的特殊的‘看’；是那在人类艺术历史中始终包含着的激情和欢悦，又始终处于隐而不显、不可测知的状态中的‘看’；是那由不同的文化史所孕养着的‘看’。”（《架上话之一：视像·具象》）他深知绘画上的“看”，不仅是视觉物理与生理的活动，也是一种社会意识的表征，所以他的“看”，是一种综合的“看”，是一种通过视觉来思考的过程。从视觉的“看”的方式入手，他的绘画形成“视像”、“心象”和“文象”三种品性的统一。作为西子湖畔“具象表现绘画”群体的倡导者和核心人物，他在以现象学哲学为方法论的视觉转换上投注了相当的气力，那就是在面对自然事物之时，将陈规和经验“悬置”起来，使目光透过围裹在事物表面的杂芜，直逼世界的“本质”，直面事物自身。在无碍的“视”刹然触及事物之“象”的时刻，事物的生命得以“澄清”。因此，他的画总是在抹去重来的过程中倏忽驻笔，在混沌中显示出富有内在结构的“视像”。他的作品在色彩上去繁取纯，笔法随性率意，用丰富斑驳的肌理营造出一片浑茫气息，使整个画面透溢出鲜明的精神性，呈现出一种饱经中国思想传统陶养的“文象”。所有这些集合在一起，许江的绘画就不仅是他个性风格的体现，而是成为一种思想的整体感觉和一种超越性的文化视像。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　策展人、艺术评论家 范迪安

　　What is “the contemporary” of contemporary art in the cultural discourse? Every Chinese artist is confronted with the question. From the beginning of the twentieth century onwards, Chinese artists explore new concepts and expressions in their encounter with the Western art currents. It has been accepted that compared to its counter part in the West, modern art in China follows a distinctive trajectory of modernization. In the last decade of the twentieth century, the accelerating pace of globalization brought many challenges to Chinese artists; Chinese art, which was still dealing with issues of modernity, has been enmeshed into the fabric of the globalized contemporary art. Understandably, not every artist is ready to respond to new issues and problems in the fast-changing art world.

　　It is appropriate to label the new cultural condition “post-ism”. Our notion of “post” derives primarily from postmodernism. With the advent of globalization, postmodernism, originally perceived as the critique of modernism, has caused much chaos and confusion in the art community. What is art if the artist abandons the form in favor of the concept? Postmodernism, like modernism in the early twentieth century, has a profound impact on the art world. On the one hand, many Chinese artists respond to the postmodern conditions with anxiety and resistance. On the other hand, the dynamic cultural and intellectual scene since the implementation of the Open Door policy convinces us that the “post-West” era of Chinese art and culture has arrived. We are in a new position to deal with East/West relation. The fast-growing society offers Chinese artists and intellectuals new resources and opportunities. In the process of learning from the West, we are able to critique and respond to the West in a strategic way.

　　The interaction of the postmodern and post-West conditions has added a great deal of energy to Contemporary Chinese culture. I see Xu Jiang as a resourceful artist who actively responds to this new cultural landscape. For many years, Xu Jiang plays multiple roles. As a scholar/critic, he is deeply concerned with the cultural and intellectual orientation of contemporary art. As a curator, he has organized numerous impressive exhibitions. He is also a good speaker and communicator who shares his insights into important issues in art. He is a tireless educator who brings innovative ideas and practices into art education. Xu Jiang, however, is a painter by nature and destiny. His artistic exploration in the past two decades is distinguished by the cross-fertilization of the artistic and the intellectual. As an intellectual artist, he is concerned with the East-West relation in a historical context with the goal of “building a new and independent cultural history, which serves to build a new identity by connecting history and the contemporary conditions.” His painting, as the vehicle of his thoughts, embodies and manifests the contemporary cultural conditions. In this sense, his painting imbued with intellectual power can no longer be taken as the mere representation of an actual object or event.

　　Xu Jiang is primarily recognized as a landscape painter. Unlike other artists who specialize in either cityscape or natural scenery, Xu Jiang painted both with equal eloquence. The two worlds in his painting, however, convey different thoughts and feelings. Xu Jiang’s penchant for the cultural and historical richness of the city finds vivid expressions in his painting. His cityscapes with compelling images of skylines, streets, and buildings, recalls a tragedy or epic. The cityscape is not viewed as a record of the actual scene; its blurry, dream-like quality alludes to the transient nature of its existence. Xu Jiang, therefore, names his cityscapes, “Landscape of History” or “Faded or Fading Landscape”. His paintings of Berlin, Shanghai, and Beijing reveal his notion of the city as the locale of history and culture. The cityscapes have moved beyond the representational. Though the subject matter may vary, the artist poses similar intellectual questions. What he paints becomes a meta-landscape, revealing his spiritual, intellectual, and cultural concerns.

　　Compared to cityscape, Xu Jiang’s painting of natural scenes conveys a sense of liveliness and spontaneity. Xu Jiang switches his role from a philosopher to a poet, who finds joy and inspiration in nature. Xu Jiang’s landscape painting is at the intersection of nature and culture, the intellectual and the poetic, the verbal and the visual.

　　Xu Jiang’s exploration of the cultural relevance of the landscape painting marks his major artistic breakthrough. On the one hand, Xu Jiang borrows approaches from cultural study in the postmodern context to question the established notion of art. For him, painting is more about the questioning process than the final product. On the other hand, his post-West position helps him to use the native elements, both traditional and contemporary, to absorb and transform the Western elements. His art is at once historical and contemporary. The historical refers to his notion of history as a lived experience. The contemporary points to the intellectual and cultural dimension of his art.

　　Small doubt that Xu Jiang’s unique approach to art and culture opens up new avenues for painting, which faces the dilemma of following either the tradition or the West. Xu Jiang’s attitude towards the image plethora is also inspiring. He remarks, “This is indeed an era dominated by images. Movies, television, news, advertisement, photography, and video have invaded every aspects of our life. Their accessibility makes them ubiquitous. If you were a painter, you must have enjoyed the process in which you can take time to interact with the object. It is in this process we are able to acquire a good eye and fine taste for what we call art. Things have changed. Today you only need to press the button or click the key to bring the world in front of you. If you want, you can turn the world into a picture…When images can be easily produced and consumed, we tend to forget the artistic and refined quality of painting. In a world saturated by images, we realize that the image age is characterized by the devaluation of the image, more specifically, the devaluation of the artistic and refined quality of the image.”

　　Xu Jiang’s observation raises two major questions. First, how to rediscover the creative potentiality of the image? Second, how to restore the artistry and refinement in painting? It is noteworthy that Xu Jiang does not turn his back on issues in the image age. Instead, he recognizes the role of new media art in building a new visual culture, as he states, “new media art actually is a new language in the context of globalization… As a new cultural phenomenon, it has changed the old cultural landscape and heightened our awareness of the conditions in the process of globalization… it offers new possibilities for contemporary art production in a cross-cultural setting.” Xu Jiang is the leading figure in Chinese art academies to promote and study new media art. It is no coincidence that Xu Jiang was the chief curator of the 2004 Shanghai Biennale, “Techniques of the Visible”, and the driving force behind the new media study program at the China Academy of Art. As a practicing artist, Xu Jiang is mainly interested in the ontology of painting. In the early 1990s when he studied in Germany, he experimented with the spatial and temporal elements in a series of installations with chess-playing theme. Later, he decided to focus on what he calls jiashang hua (literally meaning easel painting). His response to the crisis of painting and the rise of media art, is to create a fruitful dialogue between the traditional and new media.

　　Xu Jiang and many other painters have chose to be faithful to the conventional media. Xu Jiang uses the word shou wang, (literally meaning to guard and watch) to describe his position. Shou wang does not mean seclusion. The painter should be open to the outside world and at the same time illuminate the world from within. The critical element in this process is the way of seeing. Xu Jiang notes, “What is actually lost in the decline of painting in the image era is a special way of seeing. Though we experience the excitement and joy in seeing, we are not always aware that our way of seeing is shaped by history and culture.” In Xu Jiang’s view, seeing is an act involving the biological, the social, and the cultural. His painting, therefore, can be perceived as the combination of the actual image, the image of the mind, and the image of the intellect. It is notable that Xu Jiang, as the central figure of the Figurative Expressionist School, is an avid scholar of phenomenology. In the act of painting, the phenomenological perspective allows him to experience the world directly and to see into the nature of things. The grand and seemingly blurry images in his works often reveal something deeper. Xu Jiang’s bigger composition often consists of a group of small-scale sequential paintings in order to involve the temporal and the spatial elements. It is a way to reflect the artist’s perception of the world or the image of the mind. The use of simple palette, bold and spontaneous brushwork, and rich texture reveal the spiritual and intellectual dimension of his oeuvre. In my view, Xu Jiang’s works are remarkable for his personal expression, but also for its cultural relevance to the discourse of “post-ism”.

　　Xu Jiang is at the intersection of many opposing categories. This position is evident in his most recent work, entitled Twelve Views of Sunflower Field. The sunflower becomes a symbol of both the cityscape and the natural scenery. In the paintings, one finds the endless interplay of culture and nature, motion and stillness, contemplation and narration. The artist orchestrates images of the sunflowers into an ode to life, where the beginning and the end, the past and the future meet.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Translation by Wang Yiyou