Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
14.10.2023 – 13.04.2024
Ashmolean Museum in Oxford is currently hosting a solo exhibition by renowned Chinese contemporary artist Fang Lijun, titled Fang Lijun: Faces and Ceramics. This exhibition is meticulously curated by Professor Shelagh Vainker, who serves as both the curator for Chinese Art at the Ashmolean Museum and an Associate Professor of Chinese Art in the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oxford.
The exhibition opened on October 14, 2023, and will run until April 13, 2024, comprehensively showcasing Fang Lijun’s diverse artistic practice from the late 1970s to the present day. Audiences will have the privilege of witnessing over a hundred of Fang Lijun’s representative and latest works, which span across a variety of artistic forms such as sketches, oil paintings, works on paper, woodblock prints, porcelain, porcelain paintings, and experimental documentary videos.
ART.ZIP had the honor of engaging in an in-depth conversation with Fang Lijun, delving into how the artist has built a rich and colourful artistic world through various media and materials.
Fang Lijun at the Ashmolean Museum.Image courtesy of the artist.
AZ: In the planning of this exhibition, what are your main areas of focus?
F: I discussed the presentation direction of the works with the curator. The curator for this exhibition is Professor Shelagh Vainker. She is particularly interested in presenting a comprehensive historical process of an artist, which serves as the first focal point. On the most prominent wall, my works from as early as 1977 to today are displayed, including both signature and most recent pieces. Due to spatial constraints, we essentially selected the most significant works that would fit within this exhibition space. These include my earliest sketches, followed by oil paintings, prints, and ink paintings. Works from all sorts of materials I’ve used are presented.
The second focal point is the reconstruction of a fairly comprehensive collection of my porcelain works, which includes conceptual sketches, some prototypes, and the finished pieces. The third focal point aims to showcase my latest achievements. On a large wall, there are small-scale portrait paintings, totaling nearly 150 to 160 pieces. The fourth section features thirty of the most recent porcelain portraits. Although the space is not very large, the exhibition is quite comprehensive.
AZ: This exhibition showcases quite a number of your porcelain works. Could you briefly introduce them to us?
F: My porcelain works mainly fall into two categories. The first one, which people are relatively more familiar with, is the “Fragile Series”. The idea behind this series is to explore the physical limits of ceramic material, looking for a threshold between existence and collapse. I’ve been exploring this series for about a decade now. I find the intriguing aspect of these works lies in the process of locating this threshold. It’s like taking a step further when you’re already on the edge of a cliff; it’s an endless journey. This threshold is hard to quantify. For example, about 50% of the attempts fail, and maybe 20-30% end up being successful. That’s roughly the ratio, and it’s probably the best outcome one can hope for. This exhibition displays some sketches, experimental drafts, and a few finished pieces, totaling about forty works.
AZ: So moving from two-dimensional painting to three-dimensional ceramic art, what do you think is the biggest technical challenge?
F: In traditional art forms like painting, whether it’s classical oil painting or detailed brushwork, whether you’re painting double eyelids or single eyelids, nighttime scenes or morning glows, it’s all human-imposed. You could say the artist is in complete control.
However, sometimes when dealing with the inherent qualities found in nature, such as the material and its physical properties, we might strip away or mask these natural states and characteristics. I’ve gradually started to feel that this is a significant shortcoming. So I hope to find a working method that allows the artist to step back and let the material and its physical properties also have a “voice.” In this way, the language of expression changes completely.
In this context, porcelain have become my primary medium. But it’s not the only choice; painting has its own state of being because it comes out of nothing—it’s subjectively imposed by the artist. But for materials like porcelain, their physical properties inherently exist. We are artificially altering or making use of some of their small properties while concealing most of them. When we liberate these materials and explore their possibilities, they enter another state. So, the key is to understand and utilize the natural attributes of the material more comprehensively.
Installation image of the exhibition. Image courtesy of the artist.
AZ: So how do you see the relationship between painting and sculpture?
F: The two have very different linguistic characteristics. The strength of painting lies in providing a greater space for imagination. Because it is two-dimensional, viewers must engage all their imagination to fill in the gaps of the third dimension.
Sculpture, being three-dimensional, aligns more closely with people’s intuitive understanding of the real world. However, this also means that sculpture is more constrained in form and struggles to convey a broader range of possibilities.
The exchange between imagination and form is quite fascinating. This is one of the most fundamental reasons why I choose to work with porcelain. Porcelain establish a balance between material and form. For example, the porcelain material itself, the temperature, the ratio of clay to water, the speed of your firing, and your ventilation conditions—all these physical aspects have their own unique “voice” in the creative process. It’s somewhat like a symphony, all coming together to break through a three-dimensional form.
AZ: So, your porcelain works are like a symphony?
F: Yes, each component has its own “voice,” so as an artist, you can adjust these “voices” according to your creative needs. Whether you want it to be particularly bold or particularly elegant, the choices are there. However, these voices arise naturally, rather than being artificially imposed.
AZ: In Chinese art and culture, porcelain hold a special place. How do you challenge this traditional medium and its inherent properties?
F: Porcelain have more than two thousand years of history in China. Traditionally, people have a fixed understanding of what “perfect” porcelain should be, but this is somewhat narrow-minded because porcelain themselves have so many dimensions. From materials, the process of making, interrelationships, to possibilities, the medium of porcelain is almost limitless. We’ve only used one-thousandth of its potential in pursuit of this so-called “perfection.” As society has evolved, the spiritual concept people have towards porcelain has changed dramatically; it’s no longer just a vase. Just like how painting broke the Renaissance emulation during the modernist period, porcelains are also continuously evolving. Because times have changed, our own perceptions about porcelain have also changed, so there are more possibilities.
If we continue to view porcelain based on traditional manufacturing concepts, it’s a bit of a pity. It’s like sending an army over a single-log bridge when the world is wide open to you. There’s no need to cross that single-log bridge, but everyone is habitually inclined to do so. So I believe that as soon as you give up this fixed concept, you can gain the whole world. I want to see what new possibilities could arise and what results I can get if I break these inherent views. I found that if I don’t follow these standards, I gain the entire world.
AZ: Your porcelain works seem to find a paradoxical unity between fragility and toughness. How did you come up with the inspiration to meld the material characteristics of porcelain with human spirituality?
F: From the moment I realized that art should be inextricably linked with personal experience, I started looking for a medium that could perfectly embody this sense of life or experience. For instance, in the early 1990s, I used human expressions and colors to convey this state. My subsequent works featuring people in water were actually about finding a person, a real life, and their relationship and experiences within society— the state of human interaction. Later on, I began using porcelain to imitate life forms, using different types of clay and glazes. When fired together in layers, the varying contraction rates among them naturally make it look like human skin. Many people see just the surface layer of the work and can feel that humans can be divided into layers, thinking the piece stimulates the viewer’s imagination. While this may seem like a successful creation, I find it to be superficial. It’s still an imitation on the surface, which psychologically appears weaker. So I shifted towards pursuing a threshold idea, pushing it to the point between “existence” and “non-existence,” capturing that instantaneous state, which concerns essence. Initially, I just wrote down some keywords: “light,” “thin,” “empty,” along with “withered,” “transparent,” “exposed,” “exquisite,” and “fragile.” Then, I began creating around these words, figuring out ways to manifest them, and quickly achieved some satisfying results.
AZ: You have consistently focused on portraiture, from sketches in your student days to more complex and nuanced presentations now. How do you view this subject matter, and what kinds of changes has it undergone in different stages of your creative process?
F: The essence of portraiture is fundamentally about dynamically exploring human nature, or people themselves. Regardless of the materials or details used, such as colour and expression, they must align with this core concept. Therefore, from this perspective, the theme has remained quite stable without significant changes. However, under different contexts, materials, and technical conditions, the works show various expressions or let’s say, they show various possibilities. It’s like an anchor fixed at a certain point; no matter which direction the wind blows or how the water level changes, the core remains unchanged.
AZ: In the 1990s, your works were often interpreted as symbols of fatigue in a society manipulated by politics. How do you see the differences in the political nature of your works then and now?
F: I think the term ‘politics’ is quite heavy for artists. Art has both its narrow and broad definitions; things that were not considered art before may now be accepted as such, right? The same goes for politics; it has a narrow and a broad meaning. From the perspective of broad politics, no one can completely escape its influence. So, I think this point is crucially important.
AZ: So, all things considered, do you feel there are any differences between your past and present creative works?
F: I think that the broad influence of politics depends on many factors. First is your personal knowledge structure. We are educated from a young age, and what you know varies at different stages. As children, we didn’t have much discernment about these matters. Today, it is definitely different. Then there’s the factor of age; adolescents have some rebelliousness regardless of the era in which they live, and this is determined by hormones. For instance, a person with a temper will generally become much gentler as they age. So, the relationship between individuals and society is influenced by a multitude of factors.
AZ: On the surface, your current works seem more gentle, but are you still striving for some kind of extreme in essence?
F: Yes, because the artistic challenges we face are truly numerous. As an artist, the deeper you go into artistic creation, the more you realize that the challenge of art itself is immense. You have to harmonize your life’s perceptions, and these perceptions will form a certain relationship with artistic language. Just like a fisherman constantly balances his relationship with the boat and water, people must continuously adjust various relationships.
AZ: Have there been significant shifts in China’s collective consciousness since the ’90s?
F: Superficially, societal attitudes seem to be as changeable as the weather and wind direction. Yet, when you examine it from a systemic perspective, there has been little alteration.
AZ: Apart from porcelain, do you plan to explore other artistic mediums?
F: An artist’s work is not just about creating visible pieces, just as the operation of a city requires an invisible underground system. There’s also a lot of unseen work behind artistic creation. Therefore, I’m also dabbling in oil painting, ink painting, and printmaking, among other mediums. Creating in multiple mediums is an especially enjoyable experience, and it’s also something that can enhance your efficiency, keep your mind sharp, and make you consider the strengths of each medium. I am neither averse to nor constrained by any specific material or tool.
《方力钧：面孔与陶瓷》展览现场 Image courtesy of the artist.
位於牛津的阿什莫林博物館正在展出中國著名當代藝術家方力鈞的個展——《方力鈞：面孔與陶瓷》。 此次展覽由牛津大學亞洲與中東研究系的副教授兼阿什莫林博物館的中國藝術策展人馬熙樂教授精心策劃。 展覽自2023年10月14日開幕，將持續至2024年4月13日，全面展示了方力鈞自20世紀70年代末至今日的多元藝術實踐。 觀眾將有幸一窺方力鈞逾百件的代表作品及最新創作，這些作品涵蓋了素描、油畫、水墨、木刻版畫、陶瓷雕塑、瓷板畫，乃至實驗性紀錄影像等多種藝術形態。 ART.ZIP有幸與方力鈞進行了一次深入的對話，詳細探討了藝術家如何通過不同的媒介和材質構建了一個豐富多彩的藝術世界。
AZ: 這次展覽的策劃中，您的主要的工作方向有哪些？
F: 我和策展人一起探討了作品的呈現方向。這次的策展人是馬熙樂老師（Prof. Shelagh Vainker），她特別希望呈現一位藝術家比較完整的一個歷史過程，這是第一條線索。在那個最主要的牆面上，呈現了我從1977年最早期的時候一直到今天的作品，包括代表作和最新的作品。因為空間的限制，我們基本上是選擇了適合這一展覽空間的最重要的一些作品，包括了最早的素描，然後油畫、版畫，然後還有水墨，基本上我各種材料的作品都有呈現。
然後第二條線索是重建一個較為全面的陶瓷作品集，包括構想草圖，一些試驗品，最後是成品。還有第三條線索就是希望能夠呈現最新的工作成果。在那一面大牆上全是小人像畫，差不多有一百五六十件作品。第四個板塊有最新的三十件瓷版肖像。雖然空間不是很大，但是展覽非常全面。
AZ: 這次展覽中展現了不少你的陶瓷作品，能不能跟我們大概介紹一下呢？
F: 我的陶瓷作品主要分為兩類，一類就是大家相對看的比較多的，就是特別脆弱的系列。這個系列的立意就是探索陶瓷材料的物理極限，尋找一個存在與崩潰的臨界點。這系列作品的探索差不多已經做了十來年了。我認為作品有意思的地方在於每一次找這個臨界點，就像走到懸崖邊再推一步，是一個無止境的過程。這個臨界點很難能夠量化，比如說有五成是失敗的，然後有兩三成是最終成功的。大概是這樣的一個比例，可能就已經是最好的結果了。這次展覽展示了一些草圖，實驗的小稿加上不多的幾件成品大概有四十件。
AZ: 那麼從平面繪畫轉向三維的陶瓷創作，您覺得技術上最大的挑戰是什麼？
F: 傳統的藝術創作，如繪畫，無論是古典油畫又或者是工筆畫，畫雙眼皮還是畫單眼皮，畫夜景還是畫朝霞，都是是人賦予的，可以說通常是藝術家完全掌控的。
但有的時候們對於自然裡面原有的，比如說材料啊，物理性啊這些東西呢，我們可能會剝奪或者說掩蓋了這些材料的自然狀態和物理性質。所以我慢慢開始覺得這是一個特別大的缺憾。因此我希望能有一種工作方式讓可以藝術家也可以退後一點，讓材料和物理性質也能「發聲」，這樣語言表達的方式就完全變了。
在這種情況下，陶瓷成了我的主要媒介。但這並不是唯一的選擇，繪畫也有其狀態性，因為繪畫就是無中生有，就是藝術家主觀賦予它的。但是像陶瓷這種材料和物理性是它本身就存在的，我們就是人為地把它的屬性改變，或者說利用它某一些的小屬性，掩蓋它大部分的屬性。如果我們解放的這些材料和物質的這種可能性的時候，它就會是另外一種狀態。所以說，關鍵還是是如何更全面地理解和運用材料的自然屬性。
AZ: 那麼您是如何看待繪畫和雕塑之間的關係呢？
F: 這兩者有著非常不同的語言特性。繪畫的長處是給人以更大的想象空間，因為它是二維的，因此在觀看的時候人就要調動所有的想象力去補充那個三維空間的缺陷。
而雕塑，因為是三維的，更容易符合人們對現實世界的直觀理解。然而，這也意味著雕塑在形態上受到更多的限制，很難傳達出更多的可能性。
所以想象力與外形的置換很奇妙。這就是我為什麼會選擇做陶瓷作品的一個最基本的理由。陶瓷作品在物質和形態之間建立了一種平衡。比如說，陶瓷材料本身，溫度本身，用什麼樣比例的泥和水，你燒制的速度是什麼樣的，你的排氣的情況是什麼樣的，就是它所有的物理性在創作中都有自己獨特的「聲音」，就有點像交響樂一樣，一起衝破一個立體的外形。
AZ: 所以，您的陶瓷作品就像一場交響樂？
F: 是的，每個組成部分都有自己的”聲音”，所以作為藝術家，你可以根據自己的創作需求來調整這些”聲音”，讓他演奏出來特別奔放的，還是特別優雅的，各種選擇就存在了。但這些聲音是自然而然地產生的，而不是被人為地賦予。
AZ：在中國藝術和文化中，陶瓷佔有特殊的地位。您是如何挑戰這一傳統媒介以及它固有的屬性的呢？
F：陶瓷在中國有著兩千多年的歷史。傳統上，人們對於「完美」陶瓷有一種固定的認識，但這有點狹隘，因為陶瓷本身有太多的維度了。從材料、製作過程、相互關係，還有可能性，陶瓷這種媒介幾乎是無限的。我們只用了它的萬分之一去追求這種所謂的「完美」。那麼社會發展到今天，陶瓷與人們的精神觀念已經發生了翻天覆地的變化，它不僅僅是一個花瓶。就像繪畫在現代主義階段打破了文藝復興的模仿一樣，陶瓷也在不斷演變。因為時代變了，我們看待陶瓷本身的觀念也變了，所以它就有更多的可能性。
如果我們還用按照陶瓷製作傳統的觀念來看是有點可惜的。有點像千軍萬馬過獨木橋，這個世界是敞開式地歡迎你，其實不必要去過這個獨木橋，但大家已經慣性地非要走那個獨木橋。所以我覺得只要放棄這個固有的概念，你就能夠得到全世界。所以我想看看，如果打破這些固有觀念，會有什麼新的可能性，我能得到什麼結果呢？我發現如果我不按這個標準的話，我就得到了全世界。
AZ: 關於您的陶瓷作品，它們在脆弱與堅硬之間找到了一種矛盾的統一性。您是如何靈感湧現，將陶瓷的物質特性與人的精神結合在一起的？
F: 從我認為藝術應與個人體驗相結合的那一刻起，我就在尋找能完美代表這種生命感悟或者體驗的媒介。比如說，最早1990年前後的時候，我用人的表情和顏色來表達這種狀態。之後的人在水里的那些作品，其實也是在找一個人，一個真實的生命，在社會當中的那種關係和和體驗——人類在交流的這種狀態。再到後來，我開始利用陶瓷模仿生命體，利用不同類型的瓷泥和釉色，利用它們之間的不同的伸縮，分層後一起燒制，它自然就變得就像人的皮膚一樣。很多人看作品就看到表面一層，也能感覺人能被分為幾層，他們覺得作品調動了觀眾這種想象力。這雖然看起來創作成功了，但我覺得這不夠，這太表面了。然而它在表面上還是模仿，因此從心理上面就是顯得弱一些，所以我就轉到追求一個臨界線的想法，就是一定把它推進到那個「存在」和「不存在」之間，就是那一瞬間的狀態，關於本質的那種。最初，我只是寫下了一些關鍵詞，「輕」，「薄」，「空」，還有 「枯」、「透」、「露」、「精美」、「脆弱」，就這樣的一些字詞。然後我就圍繞這幾個字詞開始創作，就開始想辦法，很快就取得了一些令人滿意的成果。
AZ: 您一直以人像為主題，從學生時代的素描到現在比較複雜和細膩的呈現都有這樣的一類圖像，您是如何看待這一主題的？人像在您不同的創作階段中發生了什麼樣的變化？
F: 人物呈現的核心其實就是動態地來看人性，或者是看人。不論使用哪種材料或細節，如顏色和表情，都必須與這一核心觀念相符。因此，從這個角度看，主題一直很穩定，沒有什麼太大的變化。然而在不同的上下文、材料和技術條件下，作品的表現形式就有所不同，或者說展示了各種可能性。就像錨固定在某一點，無論風往哪個方向吹，或水面高度如何，核心始終不變。
AZ: 在1990年代，您的作品經常被解讀為對受政治操控社會普遍倦怠的象徵。您如何看待您當時和現在作品在政治性方面的差異？
F: 我覺得政治這個詞對於藝術家來講很沈重。藝術有其狹義和廣義的定義，我們以前很多不被認為是藝術的這些現在可能都被認可為藝術了，對吧？那麼政治也是一樣的，就是說有狹義的政治，有廣義的政治。從廣義的政治這個角度來講，任何人都無法完全擺脫政治的影響。所以我覺得從這一點上來講，這個是至關重要的。
AZ: 那綜合來看，您覺得過去和現在的創作有什麼不同嗎？
F: 我覺得廣義的政治影響有很多因素。首先是你個人的知識結構。我們從小受教育，在不同階段，你知道的事情不一樣。那個對於小孩來講，是沒有什麼分辨能力的。而到了今天肯定是不一樣的。然後呢，還有年齡的因素，青春期的孩子都有一些反叛性啊，無論生活在什麼年代，這是由荷爾蒙決定的。比如，一個脾氣暴躁的人到了年老的時候，他相對來講都會溫和很多。所以個人和社會之間的這種關係呢，影響的因素是非常多的。
AZ: 現在的作品表面上看似更溫和，但實質上您還是在追求某種極致？
F: 是的，因為我們面臨的藝術挑戰實在是太多了。作為一個藝術家，在藝術創作越深入的時候，就越會發現藝術創作本身的這種挑戰是巨大的。你要協調你人生的感悟，而這種體會和藝術語言會產生某種關係。就像漁夫搖擺著平衡自己與船和水的關係，人得不斷調整各種關係。
AZ: 自九十年代以來，您覺得中國的社會精神有沒有明顯的變化？
F: 表面上看，社會精神像季節和風向一樣總在變化。但如果從規律性去理解，其實並沒有太多改變。
AZ: 除了陶瓷，您還計劃探索其他藝術媒介嗎？
F: 藝術家的工作並不僅僅是創作可見的作品，就如同城市運轉需要不可見的地下系統一樣。藝術創作背後也有大量看不見的工作。因此，我同時也在涉獵油畫、水墨、版畫等多種媒介。這樣多種媒介同時創作本身是一項特別有樂趣的事情，這又是能夠促進你的效率的事情，能夠使你大腦保持清醒，思考每種媒介的特長是什麼。我不排斥也不會不拘泥於某種材料或工具。
《方力钧：面孔与陶瓷》 Image courtesy the artist.
Edited by 编辑 x Michelle Yu 余小悅
Interviewed by 採訪 x Dr. Joshua Gong 龔之允
