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！”
