“我的作品没有明确的目标也没有高明的策略，我要做的是一些局部化、细节化、微观化的感性叙事。我只关心在一个假设的环境里如何让一些平庸的事情发生、演化、转变。
我试图表达人在我设定的自然景观、社会景观和心理景观里的状态，表现人与环境被生硬的粘接，表现时间与空间的错位，表现叙述过程中被切断的叙事逻辑，人们迷恋其中而实际无法介入。”
——李昌龙
Ⅰ
1975年，李昌龙出生在贵州一个较为偏远的地方。由于贵州的艺术教育相对比较滞后，因此李昌龙早年的求艺道路走得异常艰辛。对于他来说，要想考上一所正规的美术学院几乎是一个遥不可及的梦想。除了近似疯狂的学习外，李昌龙在素描、色彩上花去了大量的时间。1995年，梦想变成了现实，李昌龙以优异的成绩考上了西南师范大学的美术学院。在共同考学的同学眼里，这几乎是一个奇迹。
从进入西师美院的那天起，李昌龙就暗下决心，一定要成为一名艺术家。那个时候，在美术学院里，造型类的学生往往是主角，设计类的学生则相对边缘化。一般的看法是，搞创作才能真正配得上“艺术家”这个称谓，而学设计的今后只能成为高级的“技师”。尽管这是一种偏见，但对于当时的许多学生来说，上美院就是冲着当艺术家而来的，就这点而言，李昌龙也不例外。
1999年，李昌龙顺利的毕业了，但他却感到了些许的失落，因为此时的他并没有成为一名真正的艺术家。不过，四年扎实的基本功训练，使他谙熟整套学院化的创作法则。2000年创作的《侃茶》是李昌龙早期的一件正式创作，也是一件秉承了现实主义思路的作品。对日常现实生活的关注，突出“近距离”观察现实的创作视角，是这件作品和他之前作品的最大不同之处。对于李昌龙来说，将日常的现实生活融入创作是其在创作思路上的较大转变，但是，此时的问题是，因为这种现实毕竟与其生活还有一定的距离，他并没有将自身个体的文化体验置入其中。同时，从风格上看，作品在图式表现与观念置入方面都有着较强的学院化痕迹。
如何摆脱学院化的创作范式，转换既定的创作观念成为李昌龙那时最为头痛的事情。在2004年创作的《洗水图》系列中，李昌龙力图创造出一种属于个人的当代图式，强化作品的情绪表现，并试图在作品中置入某种观念性。应该说，《洗水图》较为成功地与学院化的创作模式拉开了距离，并能较为准确地与艺术家的内心情绪相契合。但是，总体而言，此次转变并不算成功。因为，这批作品不仅与现实主义的思路相去甚远，而且其情绪的表现也显得空泛而不着边际。
和《洗水图》比较起来，《无题系列》（2004年）较为符合艺术家的艺术气质。在这批作品中，李昌龙弱化了先前表现性的语言，强化了对个体内心情绪的展现。《无题系列》是对人内在情绪的一种捕捉，总体呈现为一种虚无的、复杂的、莫名的焦虑。尽管这种外化的情绪仍不能与现实生活发生直接的对应，但是，它却改变了李昌龙后来的创作方向，即以个体的生存和存在的状态作为最本质的艺术取向。
2006年以来，《这不是我们的风景》系列相继出现。在这里，“我们”一词首先承载着一种艺术家对自我文化身份上的确认。也就是说，李昌龙不仅在作品中强化了个人化的视角，而且，将其与青年人这个群体的生存现状、生命要求、存在状态有机的结合了起来。同样是对现实的关注，但是，这种关注视野与作品的表现方式已经发生了本质性的转变；同样是对个体情绪的捕捉与表现，但它们却有明确的现实文化针对性。
Ⅱ
如果要更好地了解李昌龙的作品，我们就需要将其置于中国当代艺术的文化情景中。因为，从创作观念的内在转变来说，李昌龙的作品无法绕开20世纪90年代以来，中国当代艺术自身发展所遵循的文化与艺术史逻辑。
这里涉及到90年代以来，中国当代艺术叙事方式与文化诉求两个方面的转变。首先是在现实主义的范畴中，叙事方式上从“宏大叙事”向“微观叙事”的转向。1985年前后，一批年轻的艺术家开始有选择地向西方现代派学习，借鉴可利用的语言来营建自己的风格，吸纳西方现代的哲学思想来充实自己的艺术理论，一时全国各地各种主义、宣言络绎不绝，各种展览粉墨登场，各种风格令人目不暇接，“新潮美术”由此兴起。表面看，虽然当时的艺术家对西方现代艺术的学习大多集中在形式、风格上，但由于西方现代哲学思想的输入，大部分作品强调批判传统，追求个性自由，并将之前乡土时期有限的社会批判发展成为广泛、多元的文化批判。同时，不同艺术主张的碰撞，各种理论的对峙时时不断，一场关于艺术的讨论由于涉及的问题远远超越了艺术本身，最终发展成为一次影响深远的文化启蒙运动。然而，1989年的“现代艺术展”标志着“新潮美术”运动的式微，换句话说，当早期的文化批判无法在现实中找到答案时，也就意味着此前那种宏大、崇高、充满启蒙意识的现代主义叙事方式走向没落。90年代初的艺术界相对平静，既没有新的美术运动，也没有激进的艺术宣言。但是，1992年前后，以“新生代”为代表的新的创作倾向引起了批评界的普遍注意，那就是艺术家开始关注社会现实，敏感自身当下的生存经验，注重个人化的情感表达，“回归现实”的价值取向逐渐形成了一种艺术思潮。作为一种新的文化取向，“回归现实”主要是对“新潮美术”的反拨，即远离宏大叙事，远离形而上的文化启蒙，让艺术回归生活，贴近现实。正是在这种语境下，“微观叙事”成为了当代艺术中一种新型的切入现实的方法。
当然，“微观叙事”并不仅仅只停留在创作方法论的层面。一方面，在社会学的语境下，它实质也是上世纪90年代初社会学转向的一种反映。1992年以来，市场经济为主导的改革开放对其后的社会发展产生了持续而深远的影响；对于中国当代艺术的发展而言，除了要面对商业社会、都市文化、流行文化的夹击之外，同时也无法回避文化全球化的语境。正是当时社会情境的变化，改变了艺术家观照、审视现实的方式。另一方面，从艺术创作内在观念的变化上看，还涉及到1989年到1995年间，美术界关于艺术创作的意义取向的争论。在这段时间里，有两次讨论值得提及：一个是“现代艺术展”之后，美术界对“后89”艺术走向的关注； 另一个是1994年，《江苏画刊》关于“明确意义”的争论。 虽然说这两次讨论并没有与“微观叙事”发生直接的联系，但均涉及到了艺术作品如何反映现实，即什么是艺术家身边的现实，如何才能表现、反思这种现实等诸多问题。实际上，不管李昌龙的作品在风格与观念表达上出现了怎样的转变，其作品的文化内核仍未脱离既定的现实主义传统，诚如李昌龙所言，他最大的创作兴趣仍在于“关注平庸的人、平庸的环境、平庸的事。”
除了叙事方式的转变外，另一个变化直接以其作品文化诉求的改变体现出来。在90年代“回归现实”的艺术思潮中，出现了两种具有代表性的文化诉求：一种是以“新生代”艺术家为代表的无聊感 ；一个是“玩世现实主义”作品普遍流露出的调侃与反讽的态度。 实际上，除了这两种价值取向外，在当时四川艺术家的创作中，还出现了一种“新伤痕和心理现实主义”的创作风格。 这种创作思路有着清晰的发展脉络，它发端于上世纪70年代末80年代初四川的“伤痕美术”，90年代初，在忻海洲、郭伟、俸正杰、沈小彤、赵能智、何森，以及更为年轻一代的艺术家，如谢南星、张小涛、杨冕、李继开等人的作品中均有所体现。应该说，这三种文化诉求不仅与上世纪80年代寻求启蒙，追求现代主义风格的艺术创作传统拉开了距离，而且对90年代的创作，尤其是青年艺术家的创作观念产生了较大的影响。
当然，从作品内在的文化诉求上看，李昌龙的作品并不属于上述三种类型，但又与这三种创作脉络有着某种内在的联系。譬如，在《无题》系列（2004年）和《洗水图》系列（2004年）中，作品就有着一种独特的“伤害”意识和虚无感；而在《这不是我们的风景》（2006年）、《过度表演》（2007年）等作品中，作品不仅隐藏着一种荒诞意识，而且艺术家也对个体存在所遭遇到的异化与规训进行了集中的反映。从某种程度上讲，90年代以来中国当代艺术在叙事方式与文化诉求方面发生的变化，正好为我们解读李昌龙的作品构成了一个艺术史发展的内在逻辑。
Ⅲ
从直观的视觉感受上讲，李昌龙的作品给人印象最新的就是他作品中出现的各种虚拟的“场景”。在他的作品中，这些“场景”具有双重的功能，既是一种视觉景观，同时也充满了隐喻，即作为一个特殊的生活场域而成为画面意义生效的重要组成部分。
将展览命名为“移步置景”就是为了强调这些“场景”与画面情节结合后，在叙事过程中产生的异质性与多义性。“移步置景”来源于对“移步换景”一词的挪用与篡改。在中国传统的审美观照方式中，“移步换景”强调观者与场景的互动，人走景移，景随身动。遵循这种东方化的观看方式，不仅“景”将随特定的时间、空间的转变而改变，而且，观看者与被看的“景”均能成为风景的一部分。在“移步置景”中，“移步”同样着眼于观众的观看，同样强调观看的流动性和审美体验的瞬间性。不过，“置景”一词更突出“景”是先于观众而存在的，是艺术家主观设定的结果，是艺术家创作观念的外化。
李昌龙的作品大致可分为两类：一类是他搭建的类似于舞台布景的大型装置，其中有效地结合了影像艺术的表现形式；另一类是他的架上绘画。这两类作品虽然形态各异，但它们都有类似的“场景”。前者强调“置景”，突出场景的现场性，寻求场景与观众的互动；后者强化视觉空间的呈现，因为此时的场景仅仅是作为作品的叙事背景而出现的。然而，这两类场景都有着相似的品质，即介于现实与虚幻之间，既源于现实，也与现实相疏离。
在李昌龙的架上类作品中，这些作为背景的场景并不是孤立的，它们与画面中出现的各类情节共同组成了一种多义、含混的叙事系统。一方面是因为这些叙事情节本身就纷繁复杂：有战争留下的废墟、异化的风景、孤立的假山石、扭打的人群、惊悚的个体，以及片段化的都市生活……。当艺术家将这些来自于不同现实空间中的情景组合在一个画面中时，一种多义、模糊、混杂的意义系统便由此建立。这是一种没有上下文关系的叙事。由于脱离了原初的语境，这些情节所承载的不同的意义便发生了碰撞与互渗。
这个过程既是对各类情节原本意义的消解与颠覆，也能产生和重构出某种新的意义。另一方面，由于这些情节都共同发生在一个类似于摄影棚的场景中，于是，当一种真实的视觉空间被营建出来的同时，也能让观众在视觉心理上产生一种莫名的荒诞感。
虽然李昌龙的创作诉求体现为“叙事的多义性”与“置景的荒诞感”上，但是，它们只是作品的表象，因为艺术家的创作内驱力仍发端于对现实的关注与拷问——既疏离现实，也保持着对现实的警醒；既将现实陌生化，也保持着对它的批判。对于艺术家而言，周遭的现实是片段化的，破碎而残缺，犹如作品中出现的那些源于不同时空中的各种情节，如果单纯从表面的情节上看，它们彼此是隔离的，没有相互的逻辑关系，比如“表演！表演！”、“小X在非洲的公司”、“撞车”、“群殴”、“发展中国家”等等。但是，若将这一系列作品放入中国当下的社会现实这个大的语境中，它自身便构成了一种内在且直观的上下文关系。
不难发现，李昌龙的创作仍然秉承着一种现实主义的思路。但是和上世纪80年代以来“伤痕”的批判现实主义，以及主流的社会现实主义在叙事方式上有着较大区别：李昌龙放弃了“宏大叙事”的传统，其作品是从破碎而片段的现实情景切入的。具体而言，主流的现实主义强调题材本身的宏大叙事，重视其内在的意识形态性。由于题材本身负载着太多现实的功利性，因此，主流的现实主义作品往往给人一种索然无味的感觉。当然，索然无味感觉的真正来源，还在于艺术家切入现实角度的单一所致。相反，在《新文化大革命》（2006年）、《大拍卖》（2007年）、《发展中国家》（2006）等作品中，李昌龙对现实生活的反省与拷问是从多个角度展开的。当然，传统的现实主义思路在当下发生变化也有其必然性。一方面，随着社会进程的持续发展和社会分工的进一步细化，普遍意义上的个体的生存将限定在一个相对较为狭窄的领域。同时，社会内部结构的细化与社会阶层的分化将必然导致现实世界的分裂。另一方面，在当代社会，由于各个系统围绕工具理性而建立，其不断发展的后果之一，就在于系统对个体“生活世界的殖民”。也就是说，工业化时代之前那种完整的社会生活将逐渐被社会分工、工具理性所建立的各种系统等因素肢解，从而导致现实生活的零散化、片段化。从某种程度而言，李昌龙以“微观叙事”的角度切入现实与当下社会本身的分化是完美契合的。不仅如此，在这个过程中，微观化的现实本身也被艺术家观念化了。因为，由于这些不同的画面情节并不具有传统现实主义题材在叙事过程中具有的故事性、文学性，因此，它们的存在本身是没有上下文关系的。但是，这些破碎与零散的现实恰恰就是对当代个人生存状态的准确反映。在这个过程中，叙事方法反而成为了作品的目的。
实际上，“新生代”出现后，既定的现实主义传统就发生了变异。从文化取向上看，艺术家对“近距离”现实的关切，对自身那种倍感无聊、失落、虚无情绪的表现成为了“新生代”艺术直接生效的意义。但是，从创作观念而言，艺术家对片段化的都市生活的关注本身仍具有深远的意义。也就是，其价值并不由艺术创作的目的所承载，而是体现在创作手段和艺术观念的变化上。毕竟，“新生代”的艺术改变了人们关注现实、再现现实、反思现实的既定观念。如果从这个角度去理解，李昌龙那种“无上下文叙事”的创作观念也会为我们提供一种解读现实、拷问现实的新的思考角度。
当然，李昌龙对现实社会问题的关注同样无法绕开他对自我存在的敏感与自省。这种对个体存在的追问集中体现在精神层面上，而且隐含在作为群体的青年现象中。不难发现，在李昌龙的大部分作品中，青年人是各类事件的主角，他们要么置身于摄影棚场景之中，要么处于“手电筒”的照射之下。不管是摄影棚里的聚光灯，还是“手电筒”的光束，在李昌龙的作品中它们均具有双重的意义：首先，它们构成了观众与作品之间的“观看”与“凝视”关系。“光”引导着观众的视线，让观众进入画面，进而让观众“凝视”其中发生的各种事件。但是，舞台化的布景又试图告诉观众，你所看见的也有可能是不真实的。于是，观众不得不仔细地观看和阅读画面，并且在“凝视”的过程中与艺术家在作品中设置的种种矛盾相遇，而与此同时，某种荒诞感也应运而生了。除此之外，这些“光”也可以外化为某种权力，充满了意识形态性。当这些强烈的光照射在画面人物身上的时候，无疑是对画中人物的一种“冒犯”，它们强行摄入，将人物一览无遗地暴露在他者的观看之下。此时，“光”的存在衍生为一个宿命的寓言，即在当代的社会生存境遇中，人的个体存在总是处于一种被规训和被监视的状态之中。尽管这种规训有时是潜在的，但却始终让人无从回避，无法脱离。
显然，“置景”营建了一个另类的生存空间，它既真实，也虚幻；既是对现实的映射，也是对现实的逃离，更重要的是，它似乎有意地回避了自身存在的上下文关系。然而，从一个更宽泛的社会学视野去看，这种“没有上下文的叙事”正是当代青年人生存处境的某种类像化的写照：即在对一种片段化、破碎的、充满规训和异化生活的警惕与自省的同时，却将“无意义”转化为一种独特的生存意义。与其说李昌龙的创作是对“置景”的视觉描绘，不如说是对个体存在意义的追问——这正是其作品内在的文化诉求。
Ⅳ
对于自己的创作，李昌龙曾说道：无论我的画面怎么发展，至少我不会去故意让自己符号化，图像化，拿中国的所谓国粹、元素来打文化牌。我关注的更多的是：我们自己是什么？我们这一代人是什么？我们今天发生的是什么？我们的未来是什么？我有一种文化怀疑和文化自信，怀疑是对过去的怀疑，自信是对未来的自信——回到真正的自我，而不是被他者所规定。” 如果说李昌龙的画面有意地放弃了具体事件所产生的上下文关系的话，那么，“我们自己是什么？我们这一代人是什么？我们今天发生的是什么？我们的未来是什么？”则成为了其作品生效和产生意义的一个更大的上下文语境。
何桂彦
2009年7月23日于望京花家地
Narrative without Context
---Words before Every Step•Vaired View: The Case for Li Changlong"
By He Guiyan
“There is no definite goal nor smart strategy in my works; what I do is to narrate about parts, details and subtleties of things. All I care is how to make mundane things happen and evolve and change in an assumptive environment。”
I try to express the situation of people in natural landscape, social landscape and mental landscape which are set by me, and the blunt bonding between people and environments, and the deviation between time and space, and the disrupted narrative logic in the process of the narration, which people are obsessed with, but cannot practically step in."
Li Changlong
Ⅰ
In 1975, Li Changlong was born in a remote area of Guizhou. Because arts education in Guizhou was relatively backward, Li Changlong had travelled unusually arduously on his road to arts in his early years. As for him, being admitted to a regular academy of fine arts seemed to be an impossible dream. Except studying almost like a mad boy, he spent a lot of time on sketch and color. In 1995, the dream came true—he was admitted to Southwest China Normal University, Fine Arts College with excellent exam results. In the eyes of students who took exams at the same time, that was almost a miracle.
Since the day Li Changlong had begun his life in Southwest China Normal University, Fine Arts College, he had secretly been determined to be an artist. At that time, in the university, students who were majored in modeling played the main roles, and students who were majored in design were relatively marginalized. The general view was that only those who took part in artistic creation were worthy of the title "artist", and those who studied design could only become high-class "technicians" in the future. Although this was a prejudice, as for many students of that time, the purpose of getting into Southwest China Normal University, was to become artists—in this regard, Li Changlong was no exception.
In 1999, Li Changlong graduated successfully, but he felt a little lost because he had not become a real artist by then. However, after four years' solid basic skills training, he had been familiar with the whole set of academic rules for creation. His picture Tea Talk in 2000 was the first formal creation of his early years, which was also a realistic work. Concern of daily life and the creative perspective which focused on observing reality "up-close" were the biggest difference between this work and his former works. As for Li Changlong, to integrate daily real life into creation was a big change in his creative thinking, but at this point the problem was that because there was a gap between the reality and his life, he did not pour his personal cultural experience into it. At the same time, looking from the style, there was a strong academic trace in both pictorial expression and conceptual implantation.
How to get rid of the academic creative paradigm and make a change of the established creative concept became the most annoying thing for Li Changlong at that time. In the series of Washing Water created in 2004, Li Changlong tried to create a personal contemporary style which emphasized the emotional expression of the work and tried to implant some kind of concept into the work. It could be said that Washing Water had been successfully away from the academic creative model and exactly in harmony with the inner emotion of the artist. However, generally speaking, this change was not successful not only because these works were far away from the realistic idea but also, the emotional expression of them appeared to be vague and general and irrelevant.
Comparing with Washing Water, Untitled Series (2004) were relatively in line with the artist's temperament. In these works, Li Changlong had weakened the former expressive language and strengthened the exhibition of individual inner emotion. Series of Untitled were a capture of people's inner emotion, which generally showed to be the nihilistic, complicated and inexplicable anxiety. Although this externalised emotion still could not directly correspond with the real life, it had changed Li Changlong's latter creative direction, that is, regarding individual existence and the state of existence as the most essential artistic orientation.
Since the year of 2006, the series of This Is Not Our Landscape had emerged one after another. The word "our" had conveyed the artist's confirmation on self cultural identity in the first place. That is to say, in these works Li Changlong not only strengthened the personal perspective but organically combined it with the living situation, life demands and existence status of the youth. Focusing on reality as well, this kind of expression which is focused on the field of view and the works had changed essentially, though; being a capture and exhibition of individual emotion as well, these works had definitely aimed at realistic culture, though.
Ⅱ
In order to understand Li Changlong's works better, we need to place them in the cultural context of contemporary Chinese art because in terms of the inner change of creative concept, Li Changlong's works cannot steer clear of the cultural logic and the logic of art history which contemporary Chinese art has followed since the 1990s.
The changes of the narrative mode and the cultural appeal of contemporary Chinese art since the 1990s are involved here. First, it is the change of the narrative mode, which is from “grand narrative” to “micro-narrative”, in realistic category. About the year of 1985, a group of young artists began to selectively learn from the western modernism and used available languages for reference to create their own styles and assimilated the western modern philosophies to enrich their own artistic theories. Suddenly, all over the country, all kinds of doctrines and declarations flourished, and all kinds of exhibitions prospered, and all kinds of styles dazzled people—here emerged “New Trend Art”. Apparently, although artists' learning from western modern art mainly concentrated on forms and styles at that time, because of the import of western modern philosophies, most works emphasized the critique of tradition and the pursuit of freedom and developed the former limited social critique of Rural times into the extensive and pluralistic cultural critique. At the same time, because of the collision between different artistic opinions and the confrontation between various theories, a discussion about art finally developed into a profound movement of cultural enlightenment because the involved questions had far gone beyond art itself. However, China/Avant-garde Exhibition in 1989 marked the decline of “New Trend Art”. In other words, when the early cultural critique could not find the answer in reality, it meant that the former grand and sublime modernistic narrative mode which was full of awareness of enlightenment was on decline. The art circle of the early nineties was relatively peaceful, with no new fine arts movements nor radical art declarations. However, about the year 1992, the attention of critics was drawn by a new creative tendency which was represented by “New Generation”, that is, artists began to pay attention to social reality and be sensitive to their own living experiences and emphasize their personal emotional expressions—the value orientation of "return to reality" gradually became an art trend. As a new cultural orientation, "return to reality" was mainly a challenge to “New Trend Art”, that is, to stay away from grand narrative and metaphysical cultural enlightenment and let art return to life and be close to reality. Right in this context, "macro-narrative" became a new method to enter reality in contemporary art.
Of course, "macro-narrative" did not just stay in the level of creation methodology. On one hand, in the sociological context, it in nature was also a reflection of the sociological change in the early nineties. Since the year 1992, the reform and opening-up which was guided by market economy had had a sustained and far-reaching effect on the subsequent social development; as for the development of contemporary Chinese art, it not only should face the converging attacks of commercial society, urban culture and popular culture, but at the same time could not avoid the context of culture globalization. It was the change of social context at that time that changed the way in which artists viewed and examined reality. On the other hand, from the view of the inner change of artistic creation, it also involved the fine arts circle's discussion about the significance orientation of artistic creation, which was from 1989 to 1995. There were two discussions in this period that were worth mentioning: One was the fine arts circle's concern on "Post 89" artistic trend after China/Avant-garde Exhibition; the other was Jiangsu Periodical's discussion about "definite significance". Though these two discussions did not relate to "micro-narrative" directly, they both talked about how artistic works should reflect reality, that is, what was the reality around artists and how to express and reflect on the many problems of this reality. In fact, no matter how Li Changlong's works had changed in the aspects of style and concept, the cultural core of his works still did not break away from the realistic tradition, just like Li Changlong had said, his biggest creative interest lay in "showing concern for mundane people, mundane environments and mundane things".
Besides the change of narrative mode, there was another change which was embodied directly by the change of cultural appeal of the works. In the artistic trend of "return to reality" in the nineties, two kinds of representative cultural appeal appeared: One was boredom, which was represented by artists of “New Generation”; the other was the attitude of ridicule and irony which was generally shown by "cynical realistic" works. In fact, besides these two value orientations, there also appeared another " New Scar and Psychological Realism" creative style in the creation of Sichuan's artists at that time. This creative thinking had a clear development thread—it originated from Sichuan Fine Arts Institution’s Scar Painting from the late 1970s to the early 1980s and was embodied both in the works of Xin Haizhou, Guo Wei, Feng Zhengjie, Shen Xiaotong, Zhao Nengzhi and He Sen in the early 1990s, and in the works of Xie Nanxing, Zhang Xiaotao, Yang Mian and Li Jikai the artists of a younger generation. It can be said that these three kinds of cultural appeal not only opened a distance between the artistic creative tradition of searching for enlightenment and pursuing modernistic style in 1980s and itself, but had had a big effect on the creation of 1990s, especially on the creative concept of young artists.
Of course, from the view of the inner cultural appeal of works, Li Changlong's works did not belong to the above three kinds but had some kind of inner relation with the three creative threads. For example, in Untitled Series (2004) and the series of Washing Water (2004), there was an especial "scar" consciousness and a feeling of emptiness; in This Is Not Our Landscape (2006) and Over-performance (2007), there were not only an absurd consciousness hidden in them but also the concentrative reflection of the alienation and discipline which individual beings had encountered. In some extent, the change of narrative mode and cultural appeal of contemporary Chinese art since 1990s has constructed an inner logic of art history development for us to interpret Li Changlong's works.
Ⅲ
In terms of intuitive visual perception, what gives people the newest impression are all kinds of virtual "scenes" in his works. In his works, these "scenes" have double functions—they are not only visual landscapes but also full of metaphors, that is, as a special life field, serving as an important component to put the pictorial significance into effect.
To name the exhibition "Every Step• Varied View" is to emphasize the challenge and polysemy which appears in the process of narration after these "scenes" have been combined with the pictorial plot. "Every Step•Varied View" comes from using and changing the phrase "a different view with every step". In Chinese traditional aesthetic viewing method, the phrase "a different view with every step" emphasizes the interaction between the viewer and the view—the view changes as the viewer walks, and the view moves with the body of the viewer. Following this oriental viewing method, not only the "view" will change as the specialized time and space changes, but both the viewer and the "view" will become part of the landscape. In the name "Every Step•Varied View", "Every Step" also focuses on the viewer's viewing and also emphasizes the mobility of viewing and the momentariness of aesthetic experience, but "Varied View" accentuates that the "view" has preexisted the spectators, and it is installed subjectively by the artist, and it is the externalization of the artist's creative concept.
Li Changlong's works can be divided into two kinds: One is the large device he has set up, which is like the stage setting and has effectively combined with the expressive form of image art; the other is his easel painting. Though these two kinds of works have different patterns, they have similar "scenes". The former emphasizes "installing a varied view" and accentuates the property of being live and search for the interaction between the view and the spectators; the latter strengthens the display of visual space because at this time the views appear only as the narrative backgrounds of the works. However, these two kinds of views have the similar quality, that is, being between reality and unreality—not only coming from reality but also being alienated from reality.
In Li Changlong's shelf-type works, views which are used as backgrounds are not isolated, but they and the various plots which appear on the pictures have formulated a polysemous and ambiguous narrative system. On one hand, it is because these narrative plots themselves are complicated: They are ruins left by wars, alienated landscapes, isolated rockeries, scuffling crowds, scared individuals, pieces of urban lives, as so on. When the artist combines the scenes which come from different real spaces into one picture, a polysemous and ambiguous and miscellaneous narrative system has been established. This is a kind of narration without any context. Because of separating from the original context, the different significances of these plots have collided with each other and infiltrated each other. This process not only has dispelled and overturned the original significances of all plots but also is able to generate and reconstruct a kind of new significance. On the other hand, because these plots all happen in a view which is like a film studio, spectators can have an inexplicable absurd sense in their visual mind when a real visual space has been built.
Though Li Changlong's creative appeal is embodied in "polysemy of narration" and "absurdness of installed landscapes", it is only the appearance of works because the artist's creative drive comes from the focus and interrogation on reality—not only being alienated from reality but also being aware of reality; not only defamiliarizing reality but also keeping criticizing it. As for the artist, the reality around is fragmentary, broken and incomplete, just like the various plots of his works which come from different time and spaces—viewed only from surface plots, they are isolated from each other, without any mutual logical relationship, such as Performance! Performance!, Little X's Company in Africa, Car Crash, Mass Brawl, Developing Country, and so on. However, if this series of works are placed in the Chinese current social reality the big context, the works themselves will have formulated an inner and intuitive context.
It is not difficult to find that Li Changlong's creation still follows the realistic idea. However, there is a big difference between his creation and the "scar" critical realism since 1980s and the mainstream social realism in narrative mode: Li Changlong has abandoned the tradition of "grand narrative", and his works start from the broken and fragmentary realistic scenes. Specially speaking, mainstream realism emphasizes the grand narrative of material itself and focuses on its inner ideology. Because the material itself bears too much realistic utility, mainstream realistic works are usually vapid to people. Of course, the main reason of being vapid is that the angles from which artists enter reality are similar. On the contrary, in works such as New Cultural Revolution (2006), Big Auction (2007) and Developing Country (2006), the angles from which Li Changlong reflects on reality and interrogats reality are various. Of course, it is necessary that the traditional realistic idea should change currently. On one hand, with the continuous development of social process and the further detailed social division of labour, the individual survival in a general sense will be limited into a relatively narrow realm. At the same time, the detailed division of social inner structure and the differentiation of social classes will surely lead to the split of the real world. On the other hand, in contemporary society, all sorts of systems are established around instrumental rationality, and one of the results of its continuous development is the systems' "colony of life world" of individuals. That is to say, the intact social life before the industrial age will gradually dismembered by all sorts of systems which are established by social division of labour and instrumental rationality, and this will consequently lead to fragmentation of real life. To some extent, the angle of "micro-narrative" from which Li Changlong's enters life has been perfectly in harmony with the division of current society itself. Moreover, the reality itself which has been atomized is also conceptualized by the artist. Because these different pictorial plots do not have the storiness and literariness of traditional realistic materials in the narrative process, their existence itself does not have the context. However, this broken and fragmentary reality is exactly the accurate reflection of contemporary individual survival state. In this process, the narrative method becomes the purpose of works instead.
In fact, since the appearance of “New Generation”, the variation of the established realistic tradition has occurred. In terms of cultural orientation, artists' concern on the "up-close" reality and their expression of their own feelings of boredom, loss and emptiness become the directly effective significance of the “New Generation” art. However, in terms of creative concept, artists' concern on fragmentary urban life still has a profound meaning. That is to say, its value is not carried by artists' creative purposes but embodied in the change of creative methods and artistic concepts. After all, the art of “New Generation” has changed people's established concepts of focusing on reality, representing reality and reflecting on reality. If interpreted from this perspective, Li Changlong's creative concept of "narration without context" will also provide us with a new thinking point of view from which we interpret and interrogate reality.
Of course, Li Changlong's concern on realistic social issues cannot steer clear of his sensitivity to self-existence or his introspection on it. The inquiry of individual existence is embodied in the spiritual level and hidden in the phenomenon of the youth as a group. It is not hard to find that in most of Li Changlong's works, young people are the protagonists of all kinds of incidents, and they are either in the view of the film studio or being illuminated by the "flashlight". No matter the spotlight in the film studio or the beam of the "flashlight", in Li Changlong's works they both have double significances: First, they have built a relationship of "viewing" and "gazing" between spectators and works. "Light" guides the visions of spectators and lets spectators enter the pictures and makes spectators "gaze" on all the incidents happening in them. However, the stage settings try to tell spectators that what they have seen may be unreal. Therefore, spectators have to carefully view and read the pictures, and in the process of "gazing", they encounter all kinds of contradictions in the works which are set by the artist, and at the same time, a kind of absurd sense emerges. In addition, the "light" also can be externalized into a kind of power, which is full of ideology. When this strong light beams on the characters of the pictures, it is undoubtedly a kind of "offense" for the characters because it forces into and exposes the characters entirely to the viewing of others. At this time, the existence of "light" changes into a fatalistic fable, that is, in the contemporary social survival circumstances, the individual existence of people is always in a state of being disciplined and monitored. Although this discipline sometimes is potential, it is something that people cannot avoid or separate from.
Obviously, "installing a varied view" has made an alternative living space, which is both real and unreal—both the reflection of reality and the separation from reality; what is more important is that it seems to intentionally avoid the context of self-existence. However, from the view of a broader sociology, the "narration without context" is exactly the a kind of portrayal, that is, when being alert to the fragmentary and broken life which is full of disciplines and introspecting, changing the "meaninglessness" into an especial meaning of existence. We can say that Li Changlong's creation is an inquiry of the meaning of individual existence rather than say that it is a visual description of "installing a varied view"—this is exactly the inner cultural appeal of his works.
Ⅳ
About his own creation, Li Changlong said, "No matter how my pictures develop, at least I will not intentionally make myself symbolized or pictorialized, or use the so-called quintessence or element of China to play the cultural brand. What I care about more is: What are we? What is the generation of us? What is happening in our time? What is our future? I have both doubt and confidence about culture—the doubt is for the past, and the confidence is for the future—returning to the real self but not being defined by others." If we say that in Li Changlong's pictures, he has intentionally abandoned the context which is caused by specific incidents, then "What are we? What is the generation of us? What is happening in our time? What is our future?" has become a bigger context which makes his works effective and have significances.
Written at Huajiadi, Wangjing, in Beijing
July 23, 2009
