SENSIBILITY & RATIONALITY
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.
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.
2018.3
感性与理性
昆汀的电影我都看过，其中公认拍的最好是《低俗小说》，不过我最爱看的是《杀死比尔》系列。看这两部电影的过程就好像让我做了一场长长的梦，整个电影中我一直在享受导演的创造力和天赋，昆汀不是在拍电影，而是在玩电影。我注意到豆瓣上有人问“女主角的武士刀怎么可能带的上飞机？”我心疼这个观众，这么理性的人是不适合看这个电影的，或者说，看这两部电影，是不适合带着如此理性的心态去看，而是要带着欣赏艺术品那种感性的心态去感受。生活中很多的事情是需要理性的，甚至说大部分的事情都是需要理性的，但在谈论电影或是谈论艺术的时候，我想多一点点感性。
最近完成了一件静物系列的作品——《无聊的星期六下午》。在谈这件作品前我想先说说制作木雕静物的过程，第一步先想要做什么，我会想做有机物，而且要写生，有机物做完后可以有一种让时空静止的错觉。透明或者半透明的东西就算了，神仙也做不像。比如说做一只梨，我会先挑一只我认为像梨的梨，就是说它表面的所有特征，满足我们大脑对于梨的认知，而不是有一些梨，其实它的形状并不像我们印象中的梨，我们是因为看到它是真实的梨而同意它是梨，因为我们大脑对于梨的认识并不一定完全来自现实中的梨的形象，也可能是古典油画中的，也可能是某一个动画片段中梨的形状，这些本身已经被人为分析过的形象也再次影响着事物本身的形象，我们大脑均衡了这些信息以后得到一个相对平衡的认知，某种形状，某个颜色的东西是梨。挑选写生对象这个很关键，不然做到最后都达不到最好效果。然后就按着这只梨找一块大小合适的木头对比着实物雕刻，最后上色。我在整个过程中，都会省略掉很多不必要的细节，比如说绝对不用把梨表面毛孔的凹凸感给雕刻出来，最后所留下的一些细节只要精简到人们大脑对于梨的认知的底线，这就够了。
不过单纯把一件水果雕刻得很像是不够的，哪怕这个过程中有很多思考过程，它还是不艺术，而是像工艺。因为就做像而言这整个过程都是一个非常理性的一个过程，就像是在做数学题，做认证结果的数学题。我已知了这个结果，但要去知道如何得到这个结果，从形状到颜色，要考虑的只有一条，就是怎么样去骗过人们的大脑。整个过程我觉得是要很聪明的，聪明在你的技法，聪明在你要知道删掉哪些东西，而哪些细节是绝对要高度还原的，对这个结果来说，是要很精确，甚至是有标准答案的，这绝对是一个聪明的过程。但艺术其实是可以不聪明的，甚至可以拙，可以憨。艺术不是一道数学题，艺术是感性的语文题，有些作品哪怕乍一看很理性，但背后其实是很感性的创作和思考。我曾在网上见到一位木雕家做的动物作品，像到让人惊讶，我想他对这道数学题的解答可以说是无与伦比，相当佩服他的技法。但即便如此，我相信他的作品和实物之间还是有无数区别，他的制作过程，仍旧是在做一题求认证的数学题。
做工艺或者是设计，才应该是理性占据主动的。但艺术里不行，艺术品的感性也体现在独一无二上，独一无二的意思是，艺术家在创作出那件作品的时刻以外，都无法创造出同样感受的作品出来，因为一些情绪也只可能在那个时刻才有，过了那个时刻就不会存在。我有一些作品一些藏家都希望我可以复制制作，但很多时候我对此并不感兴趣。原因可能是在创作第二件时候可能是变得更加理性了，因为已经有一件先例可以参考，你根本无法完全摆脱这样制作的经验，所以再做第二件同样作品时变得一下子理性起来了，又像是做数学题，让我觉得失去了挑战。我最早做静物系列在一年多以前，那时候我就能够雕刻出些东西来，因为对于雕刻本身来说，只要掌握了技法，不管是做橘子皮还是青蛙，都没什么不同。不过我最近才开始分析思考，究竟怎么样的作品，才会让我有应该停下来了这样的感受。我的意思是，我一直都知道什么时候该停下来，但我从没去分析是什么原因让我觉得应该停下了，我的制作习惯是，很多的灵感同时进行，不一定是埋头在同一件作品上。
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。
最近完成了一件静物系列的作品——《无聊的星期六下午》。在谈这件作品前我想先说说制作木雕静物的过程，第一步先想要做什么，我会想做有机物，而且要写生，有机物做完后可以有一种让时空静止的错觉。透明或者半透明的东西就算了，神仙也做不像。比如说做一只梨，我会先挑一只我认为像梨的梨，就是说它表面的所有特征，满足我们大脑对于梨的认知，而不是有一些梨，其实它的形状并不像我们印象中的梨，我们是因为看到它是真实的梨而同意它是梨，因为我们大脑对于梨的认识并不一定完全来自现实中的梨的形象，也可能是古典油画中的，也可能是某一个动画片段中梨的形状，这些本身已经被人为分析过的形象也再次影响着事物本身的形象，我们大脑均衡了这些信息以后得到一个相对平衡的认知，某种形状，某个颜色的东西是梨。挑选写生对象这个很关键，不然做到最后都达不到最好效果。然后就按着这只梨找一块大小合适的木头对比着实物雕刻，最后上色。我在整个过程中，都会省略掉很多不必要的细节，比如说绝对不用把梨表面毛孔的凹凸感给雕刻出来，最后所留下的一些细节只要精简到人们大脑对于梨的认知的底线，这就够了。
不过单纯把一件水果雕刻得很像是不够的，哪怕这个过程中有很多思考过程，它还是不艺术，而是像工艺。因为就做像而言这整个过程都是一个非常理性的一个过程，就像是在做数学题，做认证结果的数学题。我已知了这个结果，但要去知道如何得到这个结果，从形状到颜色，要考虑的只有一条，就是怎么样去骗过人们的大脑。整个过程我觉得是要很聪明的，聪明在你的技法，聪明在你要知道删掉哪些东西，而哪些细节是绝对要高度还原的，对这个结果来说，是要很精确，甚至是有标准答案的，这绝对是一个聪明的过程。但艺术其实是可以不聪明的，甚至可以拙，可以憨。艺术不是一道数学题，艺术是感性的语文题，有些作品哪怕乍一看很理性，但背后其实是很感性的创作和思考。我曾在网上见到一位木雕家做的动物作品，像到让人惊讶，我想他对这道数学题的解答可以说是无与伦比，相当佩服他的技法。但即便如此，我相信他的作品和实物之间还是有无数区别，他的制作过程，仍旧是在做一题求认证的数学题。
做工艺或者是设计，才应该是理性占据主动的。但艺术里不行，艺术品的感性也体现在独一无二上，独一无二的意思是，艺术家在创作出那件作品的时刻以外，都无法创造出同样感受的作品出来，因为一些情绪也只可能在那个时刻才有，过了那个时刻就不会存在。我有一些作品一些藏家都希望我可以复制制作，但很多时候我对此并不感兴趣。原因可能是在创作第二件时候可能是变得更加理性了，因为已经有一件先例可以参考，你根本无法完全摆脱这样制作的经验，所以再做第二件同样作品时变得一下子理性起来了，又像是做数学题，让我觉得失去了挑战。我最早做静物系列在一年多以前，那时候我就能够雕刻出些东西来，因为对于雕刻本身来说，只要掌握了技法，不管是做橘子皮还是青蛙，都没什么不同。不过我最近才开始分析思考，究竟怎么样的作品，才会让我有应该停下来了这样的感受。我的意思是，我一直都知道什么时候该停下来，但我从没去分析是什么原因让我觉得应该停下了，我的制作习惯是，很多的灵感同时进行，不一定是埋头在同一件作品上。
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。
2018.3