李世默：威權藝術（AUTHORITARIAN ART）

上週揭幕的香港國際藝術展充分展現了中國當代藝術的活力。遙想二、三十年前，業餘收藏家還在北京和上海的各個破陋的藝術創作室蒐羅，以幾百美元一件作品的低價收購那些窮困潦倒的藝術家的作品。如今，全世界的頂尖收藏家雲集香港，把香港打造成全球藝術市場的交易高地。香港能有如今的全球藝術中心地位，很大程度上歸功於當代中國藝術的成就和中國市場的購買力。單從經濟的角度看，中國當代藝術作品的價格節節高升。許多持自由主義政治立場的評論者都不願意直面這一現實，因為按照他們的理論解釋不通。他們一貫的思路是：創作自由是孕育偉大作品的前提條件；中國的威權主義政治極大地限制了創作自由；缺乏自由的中國不可能創造真正偉大的文化成就（也即所謂的“軟實力”）。

市場的看法完全與之相左。隨着巴塞爾和邁阿密的熱度逐漸下降，世界各國的畫廊、藝術品交易商、收藏家和藝術家們彙集中國，這20多年來當代中國藝術的飛躍看來會不斷延續。

自由主義對藝術的解釋並沒有事實依據，而是受了意識形態的歪曲。回顧漫長的人類藝術史，所謂的藝術創作自由可以説是個很晚才出現的異常現象。米開朗基羅為教皇畫畫。中國的文人畫家都是朝廷供職的官員。莫扎特在盛氣凌人的神聖羅馬帝國皇帝帳下創作樂曲。1984年出品的傳記電影《莫扎特》生動地展現了兩人的關係，皇帝對他吼道：“你寫的音符太多了，莫扎特！”

事實上，只要隨便瀏覽一下紐約大都會藝術博物館和盧浮宮等世界頂尖的文化機構便會發現，絕大部分受人推崇的藝術作品都是在沒有藝術自由的條件下創作出來的。無論哪個文明，哪種文化，其多數偉大的藝術品都是在政治、宗教的權威體制或命令下完成的。甚至最嚴酷的獨裁統治也創造出了流芳千古的偉大藝術。金字塔為法老而建，肖斯塔科維奇在斯大林統治下創作出美麗的交響樂。

中國當代藝術界的狀況頗為複雜。國家同時為藝術的贊助者和審查者。政府投入大量資金髮展藝術活動，比如最近上海美術館與紐約亞洲協會美術館合作，在紐約舉辦吳冠中畫展。近些年來政府加大了對藝術院校的投入，許多創作出價值不菲的藝術作品的藝術家都是中國藝術院校的畢業生。

就藝術家個人而言，中國的藝術家，無論是已經成名的還是新生代，都在進行着大膽的藝術實驗。國內外的知名畫廊與交易商依靠當代中國藝術家的作品搭建起一個龐大的藝術品商業王國。世界各地的策展人來到中國活動，將中國視為藝術創新的熱土。不過，他們進行藝術活動的同時，必需遵循着強大的中國政府制定的規則。當然也有艾未未之類的例外，但他們的遭遇表明，規則絕不是兒戲。

只有歷史才能檢驗這個時代是否在創造真正偉大的藝術作品。但沒人能否認，這個世界上最大的威權主義國家正培育着健全的藝術環境，以及極為活躍的創造力。

香港國際藝術展人潮湧動、熙熙攘攘，那些還在佈道“藝術自由”的人覺得似乎有些不對勁。中國繁榮的藝術市場在他們信奉的意識形態裏講不通。但中國其實並非特例。無論何種政治體制，人類文明都可以誕生令人讚歎的藝術作品。有些人受了意識形態的干擾，以為只有一種政治體制能夠發展文化。反諷的是，恰恰是持這一看法的人把藝術政治化了。

難道他們想説達明安•赫斯特（Damien Hirst）比米開朗基羅的藝術水準更高超，Lady Gaga的音樂比莫扎特更優秀，地鐵站的塗鴉比埃及金字塔更輝煌？中國的當代藝術正在擊破他們的謬論。

李世默（Eric X. Li）是上海的風險投資家

朱新偉 / 譯

本文同時刊發於香港《南華早報》、美國《赫芬頓郵報》，英文版請見下頁。轉載須註明觀察者網。

 

AUTHORITARIAN ART 

By: Eric X. Li

HONG KONG – The vibrancy of contemporary China’s art world is on full display at this week’s Hong Kong International Art Fair. Barely a generation ago, amateur collectors braving the shabby studios of starving artists in Beijing and Shanghai were buying art for a few hundred dollars apiece.

Today, the world converges in a Hong Kong well on its way to becoming a leading hub of the global art market, driven in large part by the art being created in China and the buying power of the country’s rising wealth.

Prices of contemporary Chinese art continue to reach commanding heights. It is a phenomenon many liberal political commentators rather ignore. It does not fit their narrative. The story they prefer to tell goes as follows: Artistic freedom is the prerequisite of creating great art; China’s authoritarian politics places severe limits on artistic freedom; such lack of freedom makes it impossible for China to attain real cultural achievements - the much craved “soft power”.

Well, the market says otherwise. As things slow down in Basel and Miami, leading galleries, dealers, collectors, and artists who congregate here are setting the art world of the People’s Republic abuzz. It seems to be only an interim culmination of a 20-year trend that shows no sign of slowing.

It turns out that the liberal narrative is based not on facts but on ideology. In the long history of man’s endeavor to create art, the so-called artistic freedom is a very recent anomaly. Michelangelo worked for the Pope. The Chinese literati painters were Mandarins serving the imperial court. Mozart composed at the pleasure of a rather overbearing Holy Roman Emperor, as brilliantly depicted in the 1984 film Amadeus – “Too many notes, Mozart!”

In fact, if one takes a stroll in the corridors of the world’s premier cultural institutions such as the New York Metropolitan Museum and the Louvre, the vast majority of art works being admired were created with no artistic freedom at all. In every culture and every civilization, most great art was produced under, or at the service of, political and/or religious authorities. Enduring artistic achievements were realized even under the harshest forms of dictatorial rule. The pyramids were built for the Pharaohs and Shostakovich composed, with real discomfort, beautiful music under Stalin.

The contemporary art scene in China is a mixed one. The state is both a patron and a censor of art. Large investments have been made by the government to promote artistic activities. The recent partnership between the government-run Shanghai Art Museum and New York’s Asia Society for the exhibit of the late Wu Guanzhong’s work is a case in point. Many of the artists whose million-dollar works are on exhibit at the art fair are graduates from art institutes that have been receiving dramatically increased government funding in recent years.

In the private sector, Chinese artists, successful and aspiring ones alike, are conducting wide-ranging and far-reaching artistic experiments. Galleries and dealers, both local and leading international names, are building a vast commercial empire on their works. Curators around the world work in China and find it to be a most fertile soil for ground breaking artistic interpretations. Yet, they all work within the restrictions set by a strong political authority. Exceptions exist, like Ai Weiwei, but they prove the rule.

Only history will tell whether truly great art of enduring value is being created here and now. But no one can deny that creativity of a most vibrant kind is driving a robust art ecosystem within the world’s most significant authoritarian state.

Amid the hustle and bustle of the Hong Kong International Art Fair, those who have been preaching “artistic freedom” seem rather out of place. For them, it is not supposed to be like this. For any objective observer, it is not unique at all. Human civilization has been blessed with marvelous artistic creation under all different kinds of political systems. Those who claim that only one form of political governance is conducive to the development of culture are under the spell of ideological self-delusion. It is an irony that they are the ones who seem to be politicizing art just as much as, if not more than, the authoritarian state they detest.

Are they really prepared to pronounce Damian Hurst inherently superior to Michelangelo, Lady Gaga more enduring than Mozart, and subway graffiti greater cultural monuments than the pyramids? The thundering footsteps of Chinese art are leaving them far behind.

Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist in Shanghai.