Kuang Laowu: A Sidelong Glance – The Yuanmingyuan Artists' Village Phenomenon邝老五： 斜目而视——圆明园画家村现象

 The Yuanmingyuan Artists' Village emerged in the late 1980s, naturally clustering in the rural area around Fuyuanmen in Yuanmingyuan. As the number of artists gathered, media coverage gradually turned it into a social news hotspot, forming the Yuanmingyuan Art Village phenomenon.

"Wandering," "Van Gogh-esque artists," "Barbizon," "East Village," and "Greenwich Village"—these are the labels the media attached to them. Exaggerated and slightly romanticized media portrayals, coupled with the self-aggrandizement of Yuanmingyuan artists still active in Beijing's art scene, and the creation of art myths, have made the Yuanmingyuan Art Village a significant page in the Chinese art landscape, even claiming it as an "incubator" of contemporary Chinese art.

Let's return to the reality of the Yuanmingyuan Art Village. Without extensive media coverage, it would have been impossible for the Yuanmingyuan Art Village to gather such a large number of artists and generate such a widespread social impact in such a short time. Media coverage played a crucial role in the formation of the Yuanmingyuan Art Village. Of course, from a broader social perspective, the emergence of the artists' village was an inevitable social phenomenon influenced by structural factors such as ideological changes, economic transformation, the loosening of the work unit system, and housing vacancies after the late 1980s. It didn't appear out of thin air; other village models existed at the time.

"Pursuing fame and fortune" is a common quality among artists. The media's portrayal of them as a group of true "rebels" is a stretch. Some artists in the Yuanmingyuan Art Village were simply seeking attention rather than creating art out of genuine artistic instinct; they were merely looking for a path to fame and profit.

What the Yuanmingyuan Art Village leaves us with are only anecdotes and "events" passed down orally within their community. Because in the period after the late 1980s, they lacked the motivation to directly confront society, and because they lacked artistic focus, they couldn't compete with the mainstream of the national art scene. The arrival of artists with "hooligan" and "bald-headed" styles in Yuanmingyuan influenced the style of a large number of artists who arrived there still struggling with their creative confusion. The success of "Cynical Realism" inspired many "clever" artists at the time, and a considerable number followed suit. It's not that they gathered in the Yuanmingyuan Art Village solely to choose this free lifestyle; rather, they had more tangible benefits and more opportunities for "fame and fortune" than wandering artists in other parts of China.

Of course, there were some who sought self-exile, but many more chose simply the warmth and comfort of being part of a community. The influx of diverse individuals naturally gave rise to numerous cliques and factions, leading to frequent fights and brawls. This cliquish,江湖-like (Jianghu-like) art scene began to emerge and proliferate. Even today, they retain a strong attachment to the Yuanmingyuan artists' village; that chaotic period has become their glorious era. When "history" is artificially written to a certain height, their fragmentation, struggles, and chaos, reflected in the mirror of time, gleam with a bluish light, revealing a unified collective consciousness: the golden signboard of Yuanmingyuan must not be tarnished. Under the protection of this symbol, any dissenting voices vanish under their collective clamor.

Those who experienced life in Yuanmingyuan clearly wore the words "I came from Yan'an" on their faces, displaying the typical air of revolutionary artistic youths. This dazzling halo is frequently flaunted by them. The successful add another halo to their already numerous accolades, while the defeated remain etched in their memories. The experience at Yuanmingyuan has become a refuge for their failures, a solace for their current wounded emotions, and a shining moment in their somewhat tumultuous revolutionary journey.

If we were to define the hallmarks of a mature art community, we would need to judge it by the overall appearance of its works and its adherence to contemporary art concepts. Although the definitions and standards of contemporary art are varied and numerous, examining the creative landscape of the Yuanmingyuan artists' village using criteria such as experimentalism, critique, spatiality, media, technique, and morality reveals a profound disappointment. Most of the artists in Yuanmingyuan used easel painting as their means of expression, largely in an expressionist style, undeniably outdated. At least in my view, whether easel painting should even be included in the category of avant-garde (contemporary) art is debatable. Leaving aside easel paintings, I'd like to ask the artists of the Yuanmingyuan Art Museum: how many of their works possess sharp insight, depth, and originality? Where are the works that raise new questions? Have any works exhibiting critical and experimental painting language emerged? Of course, contemporary art standards are diverse. If media experimentation and conceptual critique are the primary criteria, then most of the Yuanmingyuan works are indeed traditional, and many are imitations of Western modern art methods. To insist on establishing tradition as the definitive standard in the contemporary art world is nothing short of laughable.

Okay, even according to your own definition—the so-called history of successful artistic style evolution—you frequently mention and enthusiastically discuss cynical realism and kitsch art. But in essence, cynical realism and the later so-called kitsch art merely scratch the surface of artistic creation. Your self-proclaimed conceptual interpretations are far-fetched; the images are smooth and almost cartoonish. Frankly speaking, if the "red, bright, and shining" works of the post-founding era were considered pseudo-noble, then it wouldn't be unfair to label your "pink, bright, and shining" works, which are "not serious at all," as pseudo-noble and lowly.

Of course, these paintings may offer a slight surprise at first glance, but after a second look, they become tedious. Their underlying spirit primarily stems from the latent influence of Wang Shuo's "hooligan literature"—"I'm a rogue, who cares?"—a cynical, so-called spoiled "compound kid" attitude. This has been readily adopted and regurgitated by grassroots artists, who presumptuously use this "hooligan spirit" as the core of cultural rebellion to resist mainstream culture, failing to realize that mainstream culture is the progenitor of this "hooligan spirit."

Bald heads, boobs, and gaudy images were cleverly manipulated by art theorists, forcibly embedded into the absurd landscape of the "late 1980s and post-1990s" era. They gradually transformed from "yawning men" into symbols of "cries for the salvation of China" on Time magazine covers, before returning to the mainland and being elevated to symbol of the passive and inactive spirit of intellectuals in the late 1980s and post-1990s. Decades of adherence to this style were hailed as mature and praised by the art world, providing a smooth excuse for the spiritual decline of this generation of cultural figures. It was therefore predictable that they were later recruited as researchers in the National Contemporary Art Research Institute.

This collection includes images of numerous artists influenced by the boobs-like, cynical, and gaudy styles of artists from the Yuanmingyuan and Songzhuang areas.

The proliferation of frivolous and smiling imagery is rampant; a decadent spirit is lauded; and the shrewd exploitation of both East and West is handled with ease. Of course, the parasitic, vulgar art that slipped out of this cynical style is almost negligible, its artistic value bordering on zero. Yet, most Yuanmingyuan artists pursued this style with unwavering enthusiasm, determined to drag the aesthetic standards and ugliness of the Chinese people down to the very lowest possible level.

The bald-headed painter's shrewdness lies in his ability to completely overwhelm his fellow Yuanmingyuan artists with his "one man's art history," bombarded by commercial capital and self-promotion. One man's success is built on the bones of countless others. Not a trace of the early Yuanmingyuan artists' free and independent spirit—unattached to the system, unyielding to the boss, and unworshiping authority—has emerged. On the contrary, unconsciously, the Yuanmingyuan artists' village gradually transformed into a kind of江湖 (jianghu, a term referring to a world of martial arts and outlaws) system, with strong feudalistic connections, forming a distorted power dynamic. If I remember correctly, the academic host of this 30th anniversary gathering at Yuanmingyuan once wrote a book about artists, which blatantly reveals a feudal, seniority-based style of art criticism. Does this underlying mindset, reminiscent of the bandit gatherings of Liangshan Marsh, where hierarchy is paramount, contradict the contemporary spirit of pursuing individual freedom and independence in art? Of course, the camaraderie and spirit of camaraderie that developed during the formation of the Yuanmingyuan and Songzhuang artist villages—the mutual support when artists were ill or died—seems to be one of the few bright spots of the Yuanmingyuan artist village. At the same time, I also believe that it provided a relatively free experimental space under the circumstances at the time, marking the beginning of Chinese artist villages and serving as a model for places like Songzhuang.

Humans have a utilitarian fastidiousness. As the once glorious Yuanmingyuan became a thing of the past, countless artists often spoke of this period, writing about it in their spiritual journeys, and habitually expelling those they opposed or hated from the history of Yuanmingyuan. In this exhibition, some artists who truly pursue freedom of artistic expression were once again excluded. I hope that the artists participating in this exhibition will feel a sense of guilt; we owe true artists an opportunity to pay tribute. This exhibition isn't about how amazing your work is; it only proves that your work is safe.

Of course, the lifestyle of the Yuanmingyuan artists' village was still inappropriate at the time. Its brief glory reflected the intolerance of the overall Chinese environment. Its closure was its fate, but internal struggles and conflicts within the circle, as well as certain events, also contributed to it. If Yuanmingyuan became a benchmark because of its events or stories, that's somewhat reasonable. If it has produced outstanding artists, it should be quite proud.

The significance of this communal living style in Yuanmingyuan lies in the awakening of the meaning of individual free life and the challenge to the monolithic system. Today, those holding prominent positions in the Yuanmingyuan art village are half-concealed and half-submitted to the official system, much like the Liangshan heroes of the Water Margin, who "accepted amnesty as soon as the army arrived" and quickly found their place within the official system. I haven't seen any announcement from them regarding their withdrawal from the research fellowship at the Institute of Contemporary Art.

The "Manifesto of Free Artists of Yuanmingyuan Art Village" is excellent, but how many of these "cowardly eggs" have actually put it into practice? These "manifestos" have become a "smiling commentary" on the success of artists who carry this banner. From the initial "troublemakers" to the "half-hidden face" of commercial hype, to the current blatant "self-mythologizing," they are eager to force their way into contemporary art history.

The true spirit of an artist dislikes the clamor of the masses and disdains collective hype. The warmth created by a large group is merely a sign of weakness and incompetence. Only by upholding individual independence and freedom, creating unique works amidst hardship, can one be considered an excellent artist and have the potential to enter art history. I will continue to pay attention to the Yuanmingyuan artists who truly possess artistic individuality and will not hesitate to write critical articles on this topic. Please stay tuned. For you and me, looking askance means ignoring what artists claim, what the art market hypes, and what curatorial texts say. It means focusing on whether an artist honestly confronts the cultural context of the past and present, creating innovative works.

In closing, a message for the artists of the Yuanmingyuan and for truly independent artists: "Sparrows chirp and chatter, but eagles fly alone!"

圆明园画家村的出现，是在八零年代末过后，自然聚合在圆明园福缘门农村一带，因艺术家聚集到一定数量后，经由媒体报道逐渐成为社会新闻热点，形成了圆明园艺术村现象。

 

“流浪”、“漂泊”、“凡高式的艺术家”、“巴比松”、“东村”和“格林尼治村”，这是新闻媒体给他们贴的标签。媒体夸张、略带浪漫情节的渲染，加上至今依然混迹在北京艺术江湖的圆明园大小艺术家“自我拔高”，到处去制造艺术神话，圆明园艺术村竟成了中国艺术版图上重要的一页，还自称是中国当代艺术的“孵化器”。

 

让我们回到真实的圆明园艺术村吧，如果没有媒体大面积的报道，圆明园艺术村是不可能在那么短的时间里，聚合到一定数量而形成影响广泛的社会效应，媒体报道对圆明园艺术村的形成起了关键作用。当然，从更广阔的社会背景来看，八十年代末后思想变化、经济转型、单位制松动、住房空置等结构性因素影响下的社会必然现象，画家村并非横空出世，当时也有了其他村的模式。

“追名逐利”是艺术家身上惯有品质，媒体把他们描述成一群真正“反叛者”过于牵强，圆明园艺术村里住着部分只为吸引路人注目，而非自觉的艺术本能创作的艺术家，只是为了寻找成名得利的途径。

 

圆明园艺术村留给我们只是在他们这个群体里，口耳相传的一些奇闻轶事和一些“事件”，因为在八十年代末过后的那段时间中，他们身上不可能具有和社会直接对抗的诱因，因他们缺乏艺术针对性，而无法与整个国家的艺术主流抗衡。而创作出“泼皮”“光头”风格的艺术家入住圆明园，影响了一大批到了圆明园还处在创作迷茫中的艺术家的风格。“玩世现实主义”的成功，给了当时有“聪明头脑”的艺术家不少启示，跟风者不在少数。别说他们只为选择这种自由的生活方式而聚合在圆明园艺术村，实在是因为他们比中国其他地方的流浪艺术家，能拥有更多实惠，有更多“成名成家”的机会。

 

当然，里面不乏有一些具有自我精神放逐者，但更多人选择的只是居于群体的一种温暖一种安慰。因过多的各色的人涌入，自然引起了他们之间的大小圈子、帮派，打架斗殴事件屡有发生，圈子化、江湖性的艺术开始萌芽泛滥，时至今日，他们身上还有圆明园艺术家村情结，那段混乱时光竟成了他们的光辉岁月，当“历史”被人为书写到一定高度时，他们之间的破碎、争斗、混乱在时光之镜中，泛着蓝幽幽的光，映忖着集体意识趋于一致，那就是不能砸圆明园这块金子招牌，在这块符号的荫蔽下，任何质疑的声音，都会在他们的集体齐轰下，消失于无。

 

那些拥有过圆明园生活经历的人，脸上分明写着“我是从延安过来的”，一副革命文艺青年典型的派头。这道耀眼的光环不时的被他们拿出来炫耀一番，成功者当然是给自己无数光环上更添一道光环，失败者也念念不忘，圆明园的经历竟成了他们失败的精神避难所，成了现在受伤情绪的安慰剂，成了他们些许沧桑的革命历程的闪亮时刻。

 

如果定义一个艺术群落成熟的标志，还是需要从其创作出的作品整体面貌，以及践行现当代艺术理念来评判。尽管当代艺术的定义或标准五花八门，众说纷纭，我们姑且用实验性、批判性、空间性、媒介性、技术性、道德性等尺度去检视一番圆明园画家村创作面貌后，是非常令人失望的。因为圆明园大多数艺术家皆以架上绘画作为自己创作表达的手段，且多是表现主义的风格，落后确定无疑。至少在我看来，架上绘画是否纳入先锋（当代）艺术范畴的，都值得商榷。抛去架上绘画这一大块后，我想问问圆明园艺术家，有锐气深度、原创品性的作品有几件？提出新的问题意识的作品在哪里？具有批判性和实验性的绘画语言特征的作品现世了吗？当然，当代艺术的标准多元，若以媒介实验和观念批判为首要尺度，则圆明园多数作品确实偏传统，并且多是拾西方现代艺术创作方法的山寨模版。硬要把传统的东西立起来，盖棺定论，在当代艺术场域里，不是啼笑皆非的事吗？

 

好吧，即使按照你们自己定位，即所谓成功的艺术风格路径演变史来看，泼皮玩世现实主义和艳俗艺术常被挂在嘴边，津津乐道不已。但究其本质，玩世主义和后来所谓的艳俗艺术，其绘画语言特征，皆在艺术创作精神的表皮行走，你们自己称道所谓观念注解，更是牵强附会，画面是平滑效果，与漫画格调差不多。不客气地说，若建国后，“红光亮”作品是伪崇高，你们“粉光亮”的“一点也不正经”的作品贴上伪崇低也不算冤枉了。

 

当然，这些画作，初次瞅瞅有些微惊喜，多看一眼后如同嚼蜡。其精神底蕴主要来自于王朔“痞子文学”的潜在影响，“我是流氓我怕谁”，一副玩世不恭的所谓纨绔“大院子弟”处世习气，并被艺术圈草根创作者们顺手牵羊的“拿来”反刍，想当然的把“流氓精神”当做文化反叛精神的主旨，以抵抗主流文化，却没明晓主流文化才是“流氓精神”的鼻祖。

光头、波皮、艳俗的图像很机巧的被艺术理论推手，硬生生的嵌入到“八十年代末后”的荒诞图景中，并渐次从“打哈欠的人”华丽转变为《时代》封面“解救中国而呐喊”的象征符号后再转回大陆，又与时俱进被抬举到，八十年代末后知识分子的消极无为的精神状态象征，几十年如一日的坚持这样的风格被誉为成熟，而被艺术圏吹捧，为这一代文化人的精神墮落寻找出圆滑托词，以致后来被招安成国家当代艺术研究员，也是意料之中的事。

搜集了圆明园、宋庄艺术家模仿泼皮玩世、艳俗创作风格影响的众多艺术家的图集

 

嬉皮笑脸的图像符号泛滥成灾，堕沉精神奉为佳肴，精明东西方收割下游刃有余。当然，从玩世风格里滑出的寄生儿艳俗艺术几乎可以忽略不计，其艺术价值指向几乎接近于零，而大多数圆明园艺术家，对此艺术风格追求是乐此不疲的，把国人的审美层次，审丑眼光不拉至最低处，你们是誓不罢休的。

 

光头画家的精明，在于以“一个人的艺术史”在商业资本和自我炒作连番轰炸下，全面碾压圆明园的众兄弟姐妹们，一将功成万骨枯啊，未见你们冒出丁点早期圆明园那种，不依附体制，不为老大马首是瞻，不崇拜权威的自由独立精神。相反，在不自觉中，圆明园画家村渐变成一种江湖体制，并且有着极强的封建性连接纽带，形成了变样的权力关系。这次圆明园相聚30年的学术主持，如果我没有记错的话，曾写过一本艺术家演义的书，书中露骨地透出封建、论资排辈的艺术评论风格，这种具有水泊梁山聚义，谁坐几把交椅的认知思想底色，是否和追求个体自由、独立的当代艺术精神是背道而驰的？当然，圆明园、宋庄画家村群落的形成过程的情义精神，在艺术家生病或死亡时，大家会伸出援助之手，这似乎是圆明园画家村不多的闪光点。同时，我也认为，在当时环境下提供了相对自由的实验空间，是中国艺术家村的开端，对宋庄等有示范作用。

 

人类是有功利主义的洁癖，当曾经辉煌的圆明园成为过去时，无数艺术家常把圆明园的这段经历挂在嘴边，书写在自己的精神历程中，并且总是习惯于将其反对或憎恶的人逐出其圆明园的历史中。这次展览，一些真正追求艺术表达自由的艺术家又被排除开外了。我希望，参加展览的艺术家，在良心上要有点愧疚精神，我们是欠真正的艺术家的致敬机会的。这次展览，并非是你的作品有多牛，只能证明你的作品是安全的。

 

当然，圆明园画家村，这种生活方式在当时依然是不合时宜的，它的短暂风光折射出中国整体环境的不宽容，被取缔是它的命运，但存在圈子内部的争斗与矛盾和发生的一些事件也是其原因。如果是因事件性或故事性成为圆明园定位标杆的话，也有一定道理，若说这地儿，已产生了杰出的艺术家了，脸上应该红霞会飞的。

 

圆明园的这种群居方式的意义就在于，个体自由生命意义的觉醒，对单一体制的挑战。而今圆明园艺术村中坐头几把交椅的人，半遮半掩的归附于官方体制，就如同水泊梁山一样，“大军一到，即受招安”，并各自很快在官方体制内找到了自己的位置。我也未见他们宣布，退出当代艺术研究院研究员的声明。

 

“圆明园艺术村自由艺术家宣言”是很好的，更多“胆怯的卵们”又有几个人在实践了呢？这些“宣言”竟成了扛着这面大旗的艺术成功者“微笑的注解”，当初的“惹事痞孩”到商业炒作的“犹抱琵芭半遮面”，匍匐到当下大张旗鼓的“自我神话”，还迫不及待想要硬挤进当代艺术史。

 

真正的艺术家精神是不喜众声喧哗，不屑于集体造势，人多势众造温暖只是懦弱无能的表现。只有秉持着个体独立、自由精神的践行，在筚路褴褛中，创作出独特作品，才算得上一个优秀的艺术家，亦有可能进入艺术史，我也将持续的关注，真正具有探索艺术个性的圆明园艺术家，我是不吝啬撰写与此相关批判性思维的文章，请拭目以待。对你我而言，斜目而视意味着，不看艺术家们在宣称什么，不管艺术市场在吹捧什么，不看策展文本在说什么，而是一个艺术家是否诚实的面对，过去与当下的文化处境，创作出标新立异的作品。

 

文末，寄语圆明园艺术家及真正有独立精神的艺术家一句话：“麻雀们喜欢叽叽喳喳，雄鹰却独自飞行！”

 

 

 

 

 

邝老五：对等的凝视——黄梅博士“西藏與内蒙古少數民族藝術家的場域特定藝術”研究论文获“希克中國藝術研究學人獎”的回应

 Kuang Laowu: An Equal Gaze – A Response to Dr. Huang Mei's Research Paper "Field-Specific Art of Ethnic Minority Artists in Tibet and Inner Mongolia" Winning the Hick Scholar Award for Chinese Art Studies

黃梅博士 駐居巴塞隆納的作家、研究者和獨立策展人

本研究正是立足於西藏與內蒙古等未竟之地展開。當它們不再只是被納入既有敘事的地理標記，而是當代藝術實踐、協作與思考的出發點時，「地」便不再只是背景或場景，而成為一種條件──土地、身體、制度與歷史在其中彼此牽引、相互形塑。——黄梅博士

 This research is based on unexplored areas such as Tibet and Inner Mongolia. When these places are no longer merely geographical markers incorporated into existing narratives, but rather starting points for contemporary art practices, collaborations, and reflections, "place" ceases to be just a background or scene, but becomes a condition—land, body, institutions, and history interact and shape each other within it. —Dr. Huang Mei

1

三年半前的冬天，驻居巴塞罗那的作家、研究者和独立策展人的黄梅博士，联系上了我。说想对“西藏与内蒙古少数民族艺术家的场域特定艺术”的相关艺术家做初步了解。我的惊讶与感动在心中涌现，惊讶的是，终于有学者对少数民族当代艺术家的创作投来关注，感动的是，在众多的少数民族艺术家中，我成了黄梅博士的研究方向想要了解的其中一员。这次殊胜缘起，使我认真的把简历、部分艺术作品发给了她，等待着黄梅博士的回应。

 Three and a half years ago, in the winter, Dr. Huang Mei, a writer, researcher, and independent curator residing in Barcelona, ​​contacted me. She said she wanted to gain a preliminary understanding of artists related to "site-specific art of ethnic minority artists in Tibet and Inner Mongolia." My surprise and gratitude welled up within me. I was surprised that a scholar had finally shown interest in the work of contemporary ethnic minority artists, and moved that, among the many ethnic minority artists, I had become one of those Dr. Huang Mei's research interests. This auspicious beginning prompted me to carefully send her my resume and some of my artwork, awaiting her response.

之后不久，黄梅博士在看了我的作品后，得到了肯定。我们约定时间，进行了一次视频聊天对话，随着对话的深入，我越发感到黄梅博士对西藏、内蒙古文化、艺术、历史等的深度了解，特别是对少数民族艺术家从事当代艺术创作者的深切尊重立场，深深感染了我，我是一个相信直觉的人，视频上凝视聊天后，我毫无保留的把所有作品发给了黄梅博士，以供她研究。

 Shortly afterward, Dr. Huang Mei reviewed my work and gave it her approval. We scheduled a time for a video chat, and as the conversation deepened, I became increasingly impressed by Dr. Huang Mei's profound understanding of Tibetan and Inner Mongolian culture, art, and history, especially her deep respect for ethnic minority artists engaged in contemporary art creation. I am someone who trusts my intuition, and after our video chat, I sent all my works to Dr. Huang Mei without reservation for her to study.

时间过去了俩年半后，我已忘记了这件事的时候，突然传来了喜讯。在竞争激烈的环境下，黄梅博士的提案《西藏與內蒙古場域特定藝術的發展》[1]獲選為 「希克中國藝術研究資助計劃2024/25」研究學人  Dr. Mei Huang Awarded the Sigg Fellowship for Chinese Art Research 2024/25。获颁20万元研究资助金，在未来数月进行独立研究，并发表研究论文和举行公开演讲。

请看评委会做出如下评论：“評審委員會對黃梅博士關注少數民族藝術家及其場域特定實踐的研究印象深刻，並評價指出：「該研究計劃聚焦於當代中國少數民族藝術這一尚未被充分探討的領域，能為藝術史論述提供多元且新穎的見解。通過探究與M+藏品的關聯，該研究將揭示少數民族藝術家在構建中國當代藝術多元敘事中的獨特地位和意義。」

 

我对黄梅博士拔得头筹感到高兴，之后，黄梅博士在长时间的独立研究期间，我们有过不少语音访谈、文字交流。透过整理一手资料和私人档案，她进一步夯实，举证完善研究议题，并身体力行深入到西藏、内蒙少数民族当代艺术家工作室做访谈和田野调查，倾注了大量时间和心血，这样的治学精神也鼓舞着我，并感佩黄梅博士的治学严谨，使我对原创作品更多了一份敬畏。

直到今年元月16日，黄梅博士在香港MPIus博物馆M+会堂，[2]分享了2024/25年度“希克中国艺术研究资助计划”关于西藏及内蒙古场域特定艺术的研究成果。香港艺术界济济一堂，黄梅博士的讲座获得成功和好评，功不唐捐这成语用在她身上，是恰如其分的。

Two and a half years later, when I had almost forgotten about the matter, I suddenly received good news. In a highly competitive environment, Dr. Mei Huang's proposal, "The Development of Specific Art in Tibetan and Inner Mongolian Fields" [1], was selected as a research fellow under the Sigg Fellowship for Chinese Art Research 2024/25. She received a research grant of 200,000 yuan to conduct independent research, publish research papers, and give public lectures in the coming months. Please see the following comments from the jury: "The jury was deeply impressed by Dr. Huang Mei's research focusing on ethnic minority artists and their specific field practices, noting that: 'This research project focuses on the largely unexplored area of ​​contemporary Chinese ethnic minority art, offering diverse and novel insights for art historical discourse. By exploring its connection to the M+ collection, this research will reveal the unique position and significance of ethnic minority artists in constructing a diverse narrative of contemporary Chinese art.'"

I am delighted that Dr. Huang Mei won first prize. Subsequently, during her long period of independent research, we had numerous audio interviews and written exchanges. Through organizing primary sources and personal archives, she further solidified and refined her research topics, and personally conducted in-depth interviews and fieldwork in the studios of contemporary ethnic minority artists in Tibet and Inner Mongolia, devoting a great deal of time and effort. This scholarly spirit has inspired me, and I admire Dr. Huang Mei's rigorous scholarship, which has instilled in me a greater reverence for original works. Until January 16th of this year, Dr. Huang Mei shared her research findings on site-specific art in Tibet and Inner Mongolia from the 2024/25 “Hick China Art Research Grant” at the M+ Hall of the MPIus Museum in Hong Kong. [2] The Hong Kong art community gathered together, and Dr. Huang Mei’s lecture was a success and well received. The idiom “no effort is wasted” is quite fitting for her.

黄梅博士在香港M+会堂讲座现场

在上个月，黄梅博士的研究论文：“未竟之地：追溯1990至2000年代西藏與内蒙古少數民族藝術家的場域特定藝術”刊载在M+杂志和网站上，[3]我才阅读到这篇原创、逻辑俱佳，文本质量上乘的论文。我将根据这篇论文，截图摘取其中部分，启发我的文字段落，提出主观、感性的见解，与黄梅博士充满绵密、理性的论文互为生成，相得益彰。当然，我也会把这篇文章的链接置于文末，供喜欢、研究这个领域的读者阅读和探讨。

 

 

 

2

为了便于阅读理解，以下的文章，黄梅博士的文字将以截图方式出现，我的回应将以打字书写方式出现，并在文字前端置黄、邝二字所标示。

 

黄：

邝：中国现当代艺术历程已经40多年了，总算引起学者黄梅博士，把视野和研究邻域的方向投向了西藏、内蒙古的少数民族当代艺术家作品身上，这是一份迟来的研究论文。题眼“未竟”和“追溯”俩词道出这种文化伦理、存在状态的意味深长。因为在当代中国艺术的主流叙事框架里，这两地的少数民族当代艺术家的作品鲜少被提及，常被忽略，更别说在研究领域了。不免令人唏嘘不已。

黄：

邝：黄梅博士的上述文字段落，一针见血、振聋发聩的指出，有关当代中国艺术的书写存在着值得质疑和反思的空间，不要认为已构成了清晰而稳定的轮廓和图景。就我个人观察，当代中国艺术的书写早被文化江湖体制牢牢把控，结成利益同盟，排斥他者是他们的不二选择。在头面人物、商业资本进入、策展人情、炒作手段的连番轰炸下，使边缘艺术家，少数民族当代艺术家，相关藏家和社会人士都被动的认为，这已经是当代中国艺术书写既有稳定面貌，都不敢发出轻微的质疑声音。说句更令人沮丧的话，一直被文化江湖体制诟病的官方美术体制，人家每年的资源、展览机制多而不少的也会给少数民族艺术家一点空间的。相反，围绕在文化江湖体制内的大佬门下的艺术家，几十年来如一日都榜上有名，不断参加展览、拍卖，研究文集汗牛充栋，活脱脱演绎了代表当代中国艺术书写唯有这几十人的荒唐样板。

正如黄梅博士指出：“那些未被纳入既有视野的艺术实践，并非沉默或次要，而是停留在尚未书写完成的状态。”这样的情景是一直存在的现象，这并非单指西藏、内蒙古的少数民族当代艺术家，也指众多的汉族当代艺术家。“被看见”几无可能，因为文化江湖体制已是僵尸，不可能肥水流外人田。

接着黄梅博士笔锋一转：“本研究正是立足於西藏與內蒙古等未竟之地展開。當它們不再只是被納入既有敘事的地理標記，而是當代藝術實踐、協作與思考的出發點時，「地」便不再只是背景或場景，而成為一種條件──土地、身體、制度與歷史在其中彼此牽引、相互形塑。”

我非常赞同这段精炼的语言，既指出了主流叙事存在的问题和偏见，也提出了该从何种角度切入对西藏、内蒙古少数民族当代艺术家的实践的理解与阐释。这样的对等凝视视角，使黄梅博士敏锐而深刻洞见到了，土地、身体、制度与历史是西藏、内蒙古少数民族当代艺术家创作上不可或缺的元素。

Kuang: Dr. Huang Mei's passage above incisively and powerfully points out that there is room for questioning and reflection regarding the writings on contemporary Chinese art. We shouldn't assume that a clear and stable outline and picture have been formed. In my personal observation, the writings on contemporary Chinese art have long been firmly controlled by the cultural establishment, forming alliances of interest where excluding others is their only option. Under the relentless bombardment of prominent figures, commercial capital, curatorial favors, and hype, marginalized artists, ethnic minority contemporary artists, related collectors, and members of the public have passively come to believe that this is the established and stable form of contemporary Chinese art writing, and no one dares to utter even the slightest questioning. To put it even more dishearteningly, the official art system, which is constantly criticized by the cultural establishment, still provides a fair amount of resources and exhibition opportunities for ethnic minority artists each year. Conversely, artists under the patronage of the bigwigs within the cultural establishment have consistently been on the list for decades, constantly participating in exhibitions and auctions, with countless research collections, vividly demonstrating the absurd model that only a few dozen people represent the writings on contemporary Chinese art.

As Dr. Huang Mei points out, "Those artistic practices not included in the existing vision are not silent or secondary, but rather remain in a state of unfinished writing." This situation has always existed, and it refers not only to contemporary artists from ethnic minorities in Tibet and Inner Mongolia, but also to many contemporary Han Chinese artists. Being "seen" is virtually impossible because the cultural system is stagnant, unwilling to let its resources flow to outsiders.

Dr. Huang Mei then shifts her focus: "This research is based on unfinished areas such as Tibet and Inner Mongolia. When these places are no longer merely geographical markers incorporated into existing narratives, but rather starting points for contemporary art practice, collaboration, and reflection, 'place' is no longer just a background or scene, but becomes a condition—land, body, institutions, and history mutually influencing and shaping each other." "I wholeheartedly agree with this concise language. It points out the problems and biases in the mainstream narrative, and also suggests from what angles we should approach the understanding and interpretation of the practices of contemporary artists from ethnic minorities in Tibet and Inner Mongolia. This perspective of equal scrutiny allows Dr. Huang Mei to keenly and profoundly see that land, body, system, and history are indispensable elements in the creations of contemporary artists from ethnic minorities in Tibet and Inner Mongolia."

 

黄：

邝：正是黄梅博士对文本的梳理和挖掘，我也是第一次知道，藏族艺术家诺次与汉族艺术家刘卓泉合作的最早案列。黄梅博士在文中已对两人跨时间的合作做出了精准评论，我就不再赘述。按照时间线梳理，黄梅博士的研究论文案列，涉及到了诺次、嘎德、邝老五、边巴藏人艺术家，蒙古族艺术家谢建德、博▪阿斯巴根、乌日根、伊德尔、琴嘎等作品案列的精彩分析评论。

在全球化、中国化的浪潮中，这两地的艺术家作为个体探索，在略有差异化的文化境遇中通过创作，如何表达应对的。这点深刻启发了我，藏族、蒙古族当代艺术家理应回到自觉构建中，把自己的作品按时间线踏实梳理，形成基础文本。若有可能，藏地、内蒙古在地的知识分子、文化机构、企业家、官员等，应共同推动两地的当代艺术的使命意识，并有具体的实践，才能使藏地、内蒙古地的文化精神具有生生不息的活力。

为什么藏族，蒙古族的当代艺术家，艰苦卓绝的探索作品，较少被外界所知和收藏，我们的声音很难传递出去？一是我们艺术家自身的惰性所为，二是不自信，三是大部分少数民族的当代艺术家，生存环境困顿，完全靠对艺术的信仰和热爱在坚持创作，很少有机构和有钱人的赞助支持，难道少数民族当代艺术家的境遇，像根敦群培、端智嘉、苏由勒泰、杨丹叔等一样的悲苦命运结局，才能得到藏人、内蒙古人你们廉价同情的目光？。

并非是我们没有创作出过硬的作品，据我了解，少数民族当代艺术家早已创作出，可以和中原，世界比肩对话的杰作，哪怕以善心拿出对寺院供奉的万分之一，少数民族当代艺术家的境遇会如当下如此不堪？我们不能只是躺在过去传统文化的艺术瑰宝上沾沾自喜，一个族群的文化若没有迭代创新的话，那是没有未来的。

我们需超越单向叙事，在艺术和生活中重建对等的相遇。用来应对他者消费化、浪漫化、想象化、妖魔化等的阐释，譬如“阿姐鼓”，“…空荡荡地”，“泪水洒满丰收田”，“丁真现象”，“香格里拉宋慧乔”等诸现象。只有在对等的凝视中，作为彼此的镜像，才有助于交流和提升。

所以黄梅博士在文中列出了，在拉萨《水的保卫者》创作的边界问题，以及《捆绑的风景》暗藏的作者身份与作品归属权问题等。

正如黄梅博士在文中所论：在闡釋了結構性張力之後，一個問題隨之而來：本研究為何會選擇西藏與內蒙古，作為理解1990與2000年代場域實踐的重要切入點。這一選擇並非出於對邊緣地帶的強調或浪漫想像，而是因為兩地在地理位置、歷史經驗與制度條件上，長期處於相似而複雜的結構之中。地處中國西北邊陲，它們承載着帝國治理、民族關係與國家建構的歷史遺緒，地域性本身也與權力配置、人口流動與知識分配密切相關。“”

Kuang: It was Dr. Huang Mei's analysis and exploration of the text that first revealed to me the earliest case of collaboration between Tibetan artist Norzin and Han artist Liu Zhuoquan. Dr. Huang Mei has already provided precise commentary on their cross-temporal collaboration in her article, so I won't repeat it here. Following a chronological order, Dr. Huang Mei's research paper provides insightful analyses and commentaries on the works of Norzin, Gade, Kuang Laowu, Bianba Tibetan artists, and Mongolian artists Xie Jiande, Bo Asbagen, Urigen, Ider, and Qinga.

In the wave of globalization and Sinicization, how did these artists, as individuals, express themselves and cope with their slightly different cultural circumstances through their creations? This profoundly inspired me. Contemporary Tibetan and Mongolian artists should return to conscious construction, diligently organizing their works chronologically to form a foundational text. If possible, intellectuals, cultural institutions, entrepreneurs, and officials in Tibet and Inner Mongolia should jointly promote a sense of mission in contemporary art in both regions and put it into practice. Only then can the cultural spirit of Tibet and Inner Mongolia possess enduring vitality.

Why are the arduous and pioneering works of contemporary Tibetan and Mongolian artists rarely known or collected by the outside world, and why is it so difficult for our voices to be heard? Firstly, it's due to the artists' own inertia; secondly, a lack of self-confidence; and thirdly, most contemporary artists from ethnic minorities live in difficult circumstances, relying entirely on their faith and love for art to persist in their creations. They rarely receive sponsorship or support from institutions or wealthy individuals. Must the plight of contemporary artists from ethnic minorities, like Gendun Choephel, Duanzhijia, Suyuletai, and Yang Danshu, be the only way to earn the cheap sympathy of Tibetans and Inner Mongolians?

It's not that we haven't created outstanding works. From what I understand, contemporary artists from ethnic minorities have already created masterpieces that can rival those of the Central Plains and the world. Even if they donated just one ten-thousandth of what they could have donated to temples, would their situation be as dire as it is now? We cannot simply rest on the laurels of our past traditional cultural heritage. A culture without iteration and innovation has no future.

We need to transcend one-way narratives and rebuild equal encounters in art and life. This is crucial to addressing the consumerist, romanticized, imagined, and demonized interpretations of others, such as those surrounding "Sister Drum," "...empty," "tears sprinkled on the harvest field," the "Dingzhen phenomenon," and "Song Hye-kyo of Shangri-La." Only through equal contemplation, as mirror images of each other, can we facilitate communication and growth.

Therefore, Dr. Huang Mei, in her article, outlined the boundary issues in the creation of "The Protector of Water" in Lhasa, and the implicit issues of authorship and ownership in "Bound Landscape."

As Dr. Huang Mei argues in her article: After explaining structural tensions, a question arises: why did this study choose Tibet and Inner Mongolia as important entry points for understanding the field practices of the 1990s and 2000s? This choice is not based on an emphasis on marginal areas or romantic imagination, but rather because both regions have long been situated within similar and complex structures in terms of geographical location, historical experience, and institutional conditions. Located in the northwest border region of China, they bear the historical legacy of imperial governance, ethnic relations, and state-building; their regionality itself is closely related to the allocation of power, population mobility, and knowledge distribution.

黄：

邝：如果把在1985年，美国波普艺术大师罗伯特·劳森伯格在拉萨，西藏展览馆个展视为奇迹的话。那么，藏地、内蒙古的少数民族当代艺术家与中原艺术家一样，在改革开放的潮流中，差不多在时间上稍微有延迟，但都能接收到来自西方的哲学文化、艺术潮流观念的影响植入。我记得，即使偏远如嘉绒藏地，在我小学五六年级的时候，我都接触过像“世界美术”杂志的信息浸染。正如黄梅博士所论，这两地的当代艺术实践不是在封闭的地域条件下展开的，是受到了世界文艺理念、北京文化中心展览事件的辐射影响下慢慢发展的。特别是中国的艺术教育体制，在那时的统一性，这两地的艺术家接受的艺术教育和内地是大同小异，所吸收的展览、历史书写的信息是一致的。

 

黄：

邝：黄梅博士精选了数件，蒙藏少数民族当代艺术家的作品，进行了逐一精准分析。像蒙古族当代艺术家伊德尔等这样一直保持独立创作的艺术家，今天看来，就难能可贵了。虽然我与伊德尔曾同处宋庄这文化江湖中，但日常生活中，很少交集。

黄：

邝：黄梅博士在行文中，分析了由藏族当代艺术家嘎德等，倡导创立于八廓街的“根敦群培独立艺术空间”的运转机制，并剖析道：“根敦群培並不能被簡單理解為一個成功的國際化案例。它所揭示的，恰恰是2000年代藏族當代藝術的複雜處境：自我組織既依賴旅遊經濟與市場流通，又不可避免地受到國際藝術機構與話語結構的影響；藝術家的自主性及創作語言正是在這兩者的夾縫之間不斷協商、調整與重塑。根敦群培因此不僅是一個藝術空間，更是一個顯示身分如何作為實踐被持續演練的具體場域。”

我每次去往拉萨创作的时候，总会和嘎德、西嘎瓦▪阿隆、边巴、念扎等艺术家聚会在根敦群培艺术空间，喝甜茶聊天，会对世界、中国、藏地的当代艺术的各种潮流现象，争论得不可开交。嘎德也是一直稳步探索、推进创作的优秀艺术家，也是一位善良、重情、乐于助人的好人，他帮助支持过不少藏人、汉人艺术家。

我认同黄梅博士对两地艺术场域的判断：“相較於西藏當代藝術在2000年代逐漸形成以拉薩為核心、相對集中的發展路徑，內蒙古當代藝術則呈現出更為開放、去中心且高度流動的藝術生態。這種差異並非源於藝術家對場域或身分問題的關注程度，而是與藝術實踐的制度條件與行動空間密切相關。缺乏穩定的自我組織平台與長期運作的在地空間，使內蒙古藝術家的實踐難以在單一場域中累積，而大多透過短期聚集、跨地域的工作關係，以及對不同城市與制度場景的短暫介入，在移動的狀態中逐步展開。在此情況下，場域形成一種由多個臨時節點所構成的行動網絡。”

Kuang: In her article, Dr. Huang Mei analyzed the operational mechanism of the "Gendun Choephel Independent Art Space," founded in Barkhor Street by Tibetan contemporary artist Gade and others, and dissected it as follows: "Gendun Choephel cannot be simply understood as a successful international case. What it reveals is precisely the complex situation of Tibetan contemporary art in the 2000s: self-organization relied on the tourism economy and market circulation, while inevitably being influenced by international art institutions and discourse structures; the autonomy of artists and their creative language were constantly negotiated, adjusted, and reshaped in the gap between these two. Therefore, Gendun Choephel is not only an art space, but also a concrete field showing how identity is continuously practiced." Every time I go to Lhasa to create, I always meet with artists such as Gade, Xigawa Arong, Bianba, and Nianza at the Gendun Choephel Art Space, drinking sweet tea and chatting, debating the various trends and phenomena of contemporary art in the world, China, and Tibet. Gade is also an outstanding artist who has consistently explored and advanced his creative work. He is also a kind, compassionate, and helpful person who has supported many Tibetan and Han artists.

I agree with Dr. Huang Mei's assessment of the art scenes in the two regions: "Compared to the relatively concentrated development path of Tibetan contemporary art in the 2000s, centered on Lhasa, Inner Mongolian contemporary art presents a more open, decentralized, and highly fluid art ecosystem. This difference does not stem from artists' level of attention to site or identity issues, but is closely related to the institutional conditions and action space of art practice. The lack of a stable self-organizing platform and a long-term operating local space makes it difficult for Inner Mongolian artists' practice to accumulate in a single field. Instead, it mostly unfolds gradually in a mobile state through short-term gatherings, cross-regional working relationships, and brief interventions in different cities and institutional scenarios. Under these circumstances, the field forms an action network composed of multiple temporary nodes."

黄：

Kuang Laowu belongs to a generation of Tibetan artists who completed their formal education in a Chinese-speaking social environment but did not receive comprehensive Tibetan language instruction. Born in 1975 in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province, his individual experience reflects a common generational predicament: Tibetan, as a language that can be naturally learned, has failed to be stably passed down in daily life. *Writing the Six-Syllable Mantra* (2002–2003) is Kuang Laowu's reflection on this situation: the artist stands naked on Tibetan soil, with the Tibetan six-syllable mantra written on his back. The language in this work is not reacquired through formal learning, but rather evoked through a bodily act constituted by self-exposure and mediated writing. Therefore, the space transforms from a symbolic cultural home into a concrete point of contact, allowing language, body, and belonging to be temporarily reconnected. Rather than saying that writing is a return to tradition or a confirmation of identity for him, it is more accurate to say that it is an artistic language that rebuilds continuity after a rupture.

邝：我惊叹于黄梅博士对我作品的精准解读，深刻理解了我创作表达的主旨。我出生的环境和教育经历，是没有藏语文教育的。我们这一代，连房屋屋顶放置的和房后两百米处的石刻经文塔上的藏文，竟然都不识得一字，某种断裂，毫无疑问的发生了。我只是渴望，在我的脊背上，在灵魂深处，有人能轻轻写下藏文“六字真言”，用来解惑我们族群挥之不去的梦魇。虽然我们从小接受的是汉语教育，但依凭族群自觉意识，当然可以呼喊，温情的母语藏文字象征性的回到自己身上，也是精神深处的返场。

说实话，我曾放眼中国当代艺术场域，像我这种游牧式、高强度创作出来的作品，觉得似乎没有那个研究、策展、评论的人能青睐、评论、研究我的作品。感谢，黄梅博士，您翩翩而降了。

 Kuang: I am amazed by Dr. Huang Mei's precise interpretation of my work and her profound understanding of the main theme of my creative expression. My birth environment and educational experience lacked Tibetan language education. Our generation doesn't even recognize a single Tibetan character, not even the ones on the rooftops of our houses or the stone stupa 200 meters behind our homes. A certain rupture has undoubtedly occurred. I simply yearn for someone to gently write the Tibetan "six-syllable mantra" on my back, deep within my soul, to dispel the lingering nightmares of our people. Although we received a Chinese education from childhood, based on our ethnic consciousness, we can certainly cry out for the warm, symbolic return of our mother tongue, Tibetan, to ourselves—a spiritual reunion.

To be honest, I've looked across the Chinese contemporary art scene, and it seems that no one—no researcher, curator, or critic—would appreciate, comment on, or study my nomadic, high-intensity creative work. Thank you, Dr. Huang Mei, for your grace.

3

把黄梅博士的原创、文本扎实、论证独到、逻辑自洽的研究论文，被我打碎成七零八落，以碎片化的方式推出，我心里忐忑不安的。好在读者，可以跳过我写的这些感言。黄梅博士这份沉甸甸的研究论文，我会把相关链接放在文末，以飨读者。

在对等的凝视中，黄梅博士不以主流/边缘框架评判，而是让双方作为平等实践者相互回应，映照多元中国的丰富性。未竟性本身成为互惠生成的开放场域，而非需被“完成”的缺陷。

毫无疑问，黄梅博士的“未竟之地：追溯1990至2000年代西藏與内蒙古少數民族藝術家的場域特定藝術”这研究文集，就世界范围来说，是一篇开山之作，奠定了西藏、内蒙古少数民族当代艺术领域研究的空白，将会成为未来研究者的一块基石，一个坐标，一份索引。

I felt uneasy about presenting Dr. Huang Mei's original, well-textualized, insightful, and logically consistent research paper in fragmented form. Fortunately, readers can skip these initial remarks. I will provide links to Dr. Huang Mei's substantial research paper at the end of this article for your perusal.

In this balanced gaze, Dr. Huang Mei avoids judging within a mainstream/marginal framework, instead allowing both sides to respond to each other as equal practitioners, reflecting the richness of a diverse China. Incompleteness itself becomes an open field of mutually beneficial generation, rather than a defect that needs to be "completed."

Undoubtedly, Dr. Huang Mei's collection of essays, "Unfinished Lands: Tracing the Site-Specific Art of Ethnic Minority Artists in Tibet and Inner Mongolia from the 1990s to the 2000s," is a pioneering work globally, filling a gap in the study of contemporary art of ethnic minorities in Tibet and Inner Mongolia. It will become a cornerstone, a coordinate, and an index for future researchers.