精神氣候（即風俗習慣與時代精神）仿佛在各種才干中做出“選擇”，只允許某幾類才干得以發展。正如人與社會群體一樣，個人是“自由”，群體是“束縛”，這永遠是一對矛盾。然而，人的“自由性”恰恰是在掙脫世俗的枷鎖時顯現的。 一張畫是否具有里程碑式或劃時代的意義，衡量的最主要標準就在于作品所反映的思想是否走在大時代的前面。“先鋒”的意義莫過于針對歷史的摧枯拉朽與面向未來的義無返顧的革新精神與對理想執著的追求。 我相信加繆之“荒謬并非僅限于對種種非人性的不適，是清醒人的常態。既不在于人又不在于世界，而是在于二者的共同表現之中，是人與世界之間的唯一紐帶。”我們在褻瀆“繩”靈時，我們卻又受益于“繩”靈的橋梁通道。 藝術創造首先遇到的難題是藝術創造與社會審美水平的適應關系問題。真正自由的藝術，并不會消極地適應周邊的環境與氛圍，它總是一再地突破老的、已形成思維定式的適應關系，又自己來架構新的對話體系。 不滿正是對變革的希翼；不滿正是對那創造的發端。只有懷疑，才可突破“繩”的意志、“繩”的規則。所謂“不破不立，不塞不流，不止不行”，以期揚長避短、推陳出新。 赫倫總結道：“繪畫在文明中的作用是人類對視覺外觀本身無偏見的探索的實驗室”，“一種根據無論什么實際要求而到不受禁令約束的境地的探索”。畫家是而且總是在追求一個唯一的目標：一種新的抽象結構，一種新的但是純粹的形式意味，一種新的，產生于物理視覺本身的真正的結構的模式，一種新的色彩的組織的形體。通過繪畫語言的形式來感受“內在”。 特征在現實生活中固然把事物加工，但行動受到限制，不能深入事物之內留下一個深刻充分鮮明的印記。人感覺到這個缺陷，才發明藝術加以彌補。 捆綁是束縛，可是真正的自由是無法被捆綁的。也許只有當自己被捆綁時才會體會到人的自由是什么？也許學會放棄，才會疏離現實，獲得自由、擁有自由。 Spiritual environment, comprised of tradition, custom and the spirit of the time, tends to “give privilege” only to some types of people, who are granted the opportunity to realize their potential. The individual is always the opposite of the community, with the former standing for “freedom” and the latter “fetters”, and the individual’s inherent ardency for “freedom” is fully illustrated when he is striving to break the fetters of the tradition. To evaluate whether a picture can be referred to as with the significance of a milestone, or as ushering in a new era, the primary measurement is to see whether what it reflects is leading the currant trend. The meaning of “pioneering” lies nowhere but in the sharp slash on the history, the reckless innovative enthusiasm and the perseverant pursuit of one’s ideals. I believe what Camus said, “ Absurdity is not merely due to the incompatibility to various forms of inhumanity, it is actually the normal condition of a woken person. It could not be attributed totally to an individual, nor totally to the world, but to the combined behavior of the two, and it is the sole connection between the human being and the world.” When I was profaning the holy god of the “rope”, I at the same time benefited from the bridging role of the spirit of the “rope”. The primary hinder for an artist’s is the difficulty to reach the balance between his creation and the social aesthetic perspectives. The art creation with freedom in nature won’t adapt to the environment or atmosphere negatively, on the contrary, it tends to constantly break the stereotyped and stale frameworks and constitute a brand new system for new conversations. Dissatisfaction implies the eagerness for changes, and is the beginning for creation. Likely, suspicion is the driver for breaking the fetters of the “rope” and the rules of the “rope”. As Chinese people advocate, “Creation is impossible before breaking the old structure, good things can’t be spread before curbing the influence of the bad”. We have to make use of the advantages and make up for the drawbacks; to get rid of the stale and bring forth the fresh. Holum concluded that “the role of painting in the history of civilization is like the unprejudiced exploration made on various visible materials by the human being.” “it’s an exploration free of any restriction viewed from whatever perspectives.” The artists are persistently pursuing a sole objective: a new abstracted structure, a new but pure form, a new structural model generated from physical vision itself, and a new combination of colors. Art is to offer the “interior” through presenting the forms. The exterior characters of a thing are easy to change, its core, however, is hard to touch due to the limit on our power---- people could hardly explore deep into a thing and leave a prominent or profound mark. It was when people felt their weakness that they created art to extend their power. When get restricted, people lose freedom. But the true freedom can never be restricted indeed. Maybe only when one is fettered, could he realize what freedom means. Maybe only when we learn how to give up, can we leave the material world behind, truly gain the freedom and enjoy the freedom.