BORING SATURDAY AFTERNOON Badi wood/Toothpick/Propylene 30*30*32cm 2018

I've seen all of Quentin's movies. Pulp Fiction is the best by far, but Kill Bill is my favorite. The process  of watching these two movies is like having a long dream. I've been enjoying the director's creativity and talent throughout the film. Quentin isn't making a movie, but playing with it. I noticed someone on Douban asking "How is it possible for the heroine to bring her samurai sword on the plane?” I sympathize with this audience. A rational person like him is not suitable to watch this movie. In other words, it is not appropriate to watch these two movies with such a rational mentality, but with the emotional mentality of appreciating works of art. Many things in life need to be rational, even most things need to be rational, but when talking about movies or art, I want to be a little more emotional.

I recently finished a still life series called boring Saturday afternoon. Before I talk about this work, I'd like to talk about the process of making a still life.The first step is what I want to do, I want to do organic, and I want to sketch. When organic matter is done, there can be an illusion that space-time is stationary. Transparent or semitransparent things are not in this range, which is the result immortals can not achieve. For example, if I make a pear, I'll pick an object that I think looks like a real pear.That means all the features on its surface satisfy our brain's perception of the pear. However, there are some pears that don't look like what we think a pear looks like. We agree that a pear is a pear because we see it as a real pear. Because our brain's perception of pears doesn't necessarily come entirely from the image of a pear in real life. It could also be the image of a pear in a classical oil painting, or the shape of a pear in an animated film. These images, which have been analyzed by humans, are again influencing the image of things themselves. Our brains balance this information and we get a relatively balanced perception that something of a certain shape or color is a pear. It is very important to choose the sketching objects, otherwise we can't achieve the best effect in the end. Then I will look for a piece of wood of the right size to compare and carve the object, and finally color it. I will omit a lot of unnecessary details in the whole process, for example, I never have to carve out the concave and convex feeling of the pores on the surface of the pear, and it's enough that the final details are reduced to the bottom line of the brain's perception of the pear.

But it is not enough to carve a piece of fruit to look like a work of art, even if there is a lot of thinking in this process, it is still not art, but like craft. Because the whole process of making it is a very rational process, like doing the math of certifying the results.I know this result, but I should know how to get this result, from shape to color, the only thing to think about is how to fool people's brains. I think the whole process needs to be very smart, and the smart part is your technique, you need to know what to delete, and what details are absolutely to be highly reductive. It's a very precise result, even a standard answer, and it's definitely a clever process. But in fact, art can not be clever, even can be stupid, can be silly. Art is not a mathematical problem, art is a perceptual Chinese problem. Even though some works seem rational at the beginning, behind the works are actually emotional creation and thinking. I once saw a wood carver on the Internet who made amazingly realistic animals, I think his solution to this math problem is incomparable. I quite admire his skill. But even so, I believe there are countless differences between his work and the real thing, His process is still a mathematical problem of authentication.

It should be rational to take the initiative to do craft or design. However, there is no way in art, and the sensibility of a work of art is also reflected in its uniqueness. The uniqueness means that an artist cannot create a work with the same feeling except at the moment when the work is created, because some emotions can only exist at that moment and will not exist after that moment. Some collectors wanted me to make copies, but in many cases I wasn't interested. The reason might be that I became more rational when I was working on the second one. Because there was already a precedent to follow, and I couldn't get away from the experience of making it this way. So when I do a second piece of the same work, I suddenly become rational. It was like doing math, and I felt like I was losing the challenge. The first time I did still life was a little over a year ago, when I was able to carve and make things. Because as far as carving itself is concerned, as long as you master the technique, it doesn't matter whether you make an orange peel or a frog. However, I have only recently started to analyze and think about what works make me feel that I should stop. I mean, I always knew when to stop, but I never analyzed what made me think it was time to stop. My habit is to have a lot of inspiration going on at the same time, not necessarily working on the same piece.

What I think is that the balance between sensibility and rationality in the works is the key point that urges me to stop. Sometimes I feel unable to stop, or there are too many sensibility parts, sometimes it is too rational. Every time I feel that the works that I can take out should always have a just right balance between rationality and sensibility, but there must be more sensibility than rationality. How is the work completed? Painting must be framed, sculpture must have the base. Sometimes it is obvious that the subject  is so sensibility, but when it is fitted with a proper base, it is pulled back to the balance at once. However, to say what the balance is, I think no one except the creator understands it, and sometimes I cannot even analyze it myself. Back to the design, in the design, I am most interested in furniture design. I first started wood carving, partly because I am crazy about some furniture designers. The earliest furniture designer I knew was Hans Wagner. I have been interested in his furniture up to now. Some people say that his furniture is an artwork in furniture, but it is still furniture. Compared with Pierre Jeanneret's furniture, it is like furniture in artwork. For various historical reasons, P.J's furniture looks so sensibility. That kind of painting style, when taken into painting, is a drawing flavor. Sensibility is for people. Robots definitely don't have it. There are some things that the audience actually can't tell what's good about them. They just have feelings. I think they just touch the small corner in his heart. 







我想到的是,作品里面感性与理性之间的平衡是促使我停下来的重点,有时候觉得无法收手,或者是感性部分太多,有时候又是实在太过理性,每每让我觉得可以拿出手的作品,总是要理性与感性平衡的刚刚好,但一定是感性多于理性的。如何是作品的完成?绘画一定要装完框,雕塑是装完底座。有时候明明主体那么感性,但装上一个端端正正的基座,一下子拉回到那个平衡中来,不过要说那个平衡究竟是怎么样,我想除了创作者以外没人懂,甚至有时候自己也分析不出来。说回设计,在设计中,我最感兴趣的是家具设计,我最早入门木雕,有一部分原因也是因为我痴迷一些家具设计师。我最早知道的家具设计大师是汉斯瓦格纳,我到现在都很爱他的家具,有人说他的家具,是家具中的艺术品,但还是家具。相比Pierre Jeanneret的家具,就像是艺术品中的家具,种种历史原因,P.J的家具看起来是那么的感性。那种画风,拿到绘画里来说,就是有画味。感性是对人来说的,机器人肯定没有,有些东西,观众其实说不出到底好在哪里,就是有感觉,我想就是刚好触碰到他心里的那个小角落。