汪民安
羅發輝的人體和植物十分地飽滿,十分地圓潤,無論是肌肉還是花瓣,都在掙脫出自身的束縛,在往體外頑強地伸展而出。單純從這一點看,他們似乎充滿了營養、生機、彈性和力量,但是,有點奇怪的是,這些身體器官和花瓣,在盡量地施展自身潛能之機,卻被一種冷峻的暗啞的灰白色所覆蓋,這種灰白色彌漫著僵化的氣息。它似乎要將健康和圓潤的身體機能、創造力和欲望封閉起來。這樣,一方面,生機之力活靈活現,另一方面,一種撲滅這種生機之力的反動力也毫不示弱,它似乎要壓制住這種生機。這是身體(人體和植物體)內在的矛盾?我們看到:身體不是被腫脹的刺激性的顏色所挑逗,而是被靜寂主義的充滿著死亡氣息的顏色所包裹。我們可以問,一個呆滯的身體為什么如此之飽滿?反過來我們也可以問,一個如此之飽滿的身體為什么具有一種冷血般的顏色?顯然,身體自身就被這兩種對立的力所撕裂,這是身體內在的沖突,是身體的飽滿體量和冷峻色彩的內在沖突,是身體在純粹形式上的沖突。我們在這里看到了埋藏在身體(人體和植物體)之中的基本悖論。
但是,接下來,我們看到,在這個充滿悖論的身體上又出現了第二個悖論。這些花,這些人體,這些完整的身體上又出現了一個紅色的意象,這個意象既是對血的表達,也是對傷害(傷疤、傷痕和傷殘)的表達。在此,這個意象的紅色,同整體性的灰白色相對照,它讓自己收縮在一個狹小的區域中,但正是在這個狹小的局部中(有時候僅僅在一個點上),紅色自身的激情可以被充分而集中地聚集和燃燒,從而可以在瞬間對畫面那個整體的壓倒性的灰白色恐怖進行爆破,它在色彩上撕開了冷峻畫面的一個裂口,讓一種異質性強行插入到這個灰白色的背景中。紅,在此解除了灰白色的絕對壟斷,從而使畫面再一次出現了內在的激進對峙。同時,在另外一個意義上,這個意象所表達的傷疤則是針對著這個飽滿身體的健康的,這個飽滿的身體如此之飽滿,如此之健康,似乎它在渴望著傷疤,渴望著破碎的豁口,渴望著健康的損毀:似乎只有傷害和殘缺才是它命運的必然歸宿。這樣,這個紅的意象就讓飽滿而健康的身體出現了另外一層異質性,有一種針對著飽滿、圓潤和健康身體的刺點(一種羅蘭·巴特意義上的刺點)。正是這個刺點,將身體的整體性,將飽滿性再次去自然化了。身體在健康和傷害之間玩弄起了相互詆毀的游戲。就此,這個畫面上添加的意象,這個紅的意象,一下子將兩個對抗游戲引入其中:紅色和灰白色的對抗,健康和傷害的對抗。如果我們考慮到血的豐富隱喻――血既是生命力的表征,也是傷害和屠戮的表征――那么,這里的對抗性就更為豐富了:血一方面是對機能進行壓制的灰白色身體的一個強化性補充,它是生機的象征物;同時,它又是這個身體機能的一個耗費性溢出,它是生機的損毀。血既豐富和強化了身體的機能,又表達了身體機能的潰敗。身體――從能量的整體性上――又一次陷入了混亂的狀態。
這些紅的意象(無論它們置身在身體和畫面的哪一個部位,也無論它們有多大的面積),構成了整個畫面的刺點,它刺破了畫面流暢的總體性。我們看到,有些畫面上的刺點是多層次的:在花的系列中,洞本身得以夸張強化,深不見底的黑洞對整個畫面是一個刺點(黑在刺傷著白),而環繞著黑洞的紅,又是黑洞的刺點(紅在刺傷著黑),也就是說,這個紅,是一個刺點的刺點;它在遞進地雙重地刺傷著整個畫面。同樣,在母子系列中,孩子是母親的刺點(他們之間只有一種不對稱的位置和面積關系,而完全清除了任何的母子關聯神話),孩子同母親如此地不協調,以至于它看不出來是母親的所有物,相反,從圖像上來看,它是母親的刺點,同樣,紅則是孩子的刺點。紅通過刺傷孩子再來刺傷母親。這樣,我們依然看到了畫面的一系列分裂:大小分裂,紅白的分裂,空的洞穴和飽滿的圓潤的分裂,傷疤和健康的分裂,衰敗和生機的分裂,這是身體的外在分裂(它對應于內在的精神分裂),在某種意義上,這也是身體的單純視覺分裂――在此,人體從來沒有出現過精神的跡象,人通常是沉睡的,緊閉雙眼的,是湮沒的,是以單純的身體(沒有衣服,沒有任何的外在裝飾)出現的。與其將這些分裂看做是精神的分裂(人體和植物,往往容易將人引入到對精神的探討中),不如將它們看成是純粹的圖像學分裂,一個將人體和植物作為載體的圖像學分裂。
在這個意義上,紅色是對傷痕的表達,但它絕非表達單純的肉體傷痕,而更主要的是表達視覺傷痕。傷痕,沒有表達精神的痛苦,而是表達了圖像本身的痛苦,確實,這些人體和植物,并沒有被紅色所痛苦地傷害,準確地說,這些人體和植物體是被紅色所劃破,紅色劃破了他(它)的平衡,劃破了他(它)的平靜,劃破了他(它)的“自然”,也劃破了有關人體和植物體的繪畫神話。整個人體,他緊閉雙眼,或者說,他像是雕塑,是死的雕塑,他收斂起了自己的感覺機器。我們從他的表情看,他毫無痛苦,毫無情感,毫無知覺。紅的意象,是潰亂嗎?是的,這是潰亂,但這不單純是臉部和口腔的潰亂,這完全不是精神的潰亂,這是整個畫面的潰亂,是圖像本身的潰亂――只有圖像(而非精神和肉體)的潰亂,才決不會排斥植物所特有的芬芳。
The Injury of Pictures
Wang Min’an
Luo Fahui’s bodies and plants are extremely supple and voluptuous.Be they muscles or petals,they are all casting off their innate fetters and tenaciously reaching out.When looking purely from this angle, they seem full of nutrition, vitality, flexibility and power, but there’s something amiss in that as these body parts and flower petals are striving to show off their potential, they are muffled by a rigid, cold grayness. It seems to want to close off zhe supple, healthy body’s abilities, creativity and desire. On one hand, the life force is vividly present, but on zhe other hand, the extinguishing power that counters it is not giving up, and seems to want to keep the vitality down. Is this zhe internal conflict of zhe bodies (both human and plant)? We see that the bodies are not provoked by swelling stimulating colors, but are wrapped in tranquil colors with hints of death. We could ask, how could such idle bodies appear so vigorous? On the other hand, we could also ask, why do such vigorous bodies have such cold-blooded colors? It would seem that the bodies themselves have been split by these conflicting forces. This is the internal conflict of the body, the conflict between the body’s vigorous power and the cold colors. It is a pure conflict of form. Here we see the basic paradox that lies within the body (human or plant).
But, further on, we see that in these paradoxical bodies lies a second paradox. These flowers and these bodies have a hint of red, and this red is an expression towards blood as it is an expression towards injury (scars and disabilities). Here, this red is just like a contrast with the overall gray; it letsitself be contained in a tinyregion, but it is in just these kinds of small spaces (sometimes as small as a single point) that the energy of the red can really shine and burn in a concentrated way and break the oppressiveness of the overall gray. It has opened a rift in the cold color layout of the image, forcing a contrasting object into this gray background. Here, red has broken gray’s absolute monopoly, and brought a situation of radical internal opposition to the picture. At the same time , the wounds expressed by these apparitions are aimed at the health of these voluptuous bodies. These bodies are so voluptuous and so healthy that they beg for a wound, a cut, a destruction of their health-it is as if only wounds and disabilities can help them find their proper place. In this way, the red has made the supple, healthy bodies different in another way. There’s a sort of punctum directed at voluptuous, supple and healthy bodies (in the sense of Roland Barthes punctums).It is just this kind of punctum that further naturalizes the body’s unity and voluptuousness. A game of mutual defamation has begun between health and injury. It is this added apparition, the red apparition, that brings the two oppositional games onto the board:the opposition of red and gray, and the opposition ofhealth and injury. If we think about the rich implications of blood-blood as a symbol for vitality and as a symbol for injury-then the opposition becomes even richer: on one hand, the blood is forcing a supplementation of the functions that are being suppressed by zhe gray, so it is a symbol for vitality; at the same time, it is an overflowing consumption of vitality, so it is also the ruin of vitality. Blood richens and strengthens the functions of the body, but it also expresses the destruction of the body’s functions. The body, from the overall picture of ability, has once again fallen into a state of chaos.
These red apparitions (no matter where they are situated in the picture or how big they are)make up punctums of the entire picture; they have broken the wholeness of the image flow. We can see that some of these punctums are multi-laered:in the flower series, the hole is gaining emphasis and strength, and the black, bottomless hole itself is a punctum (black penetrates white); the red that surrounds the black is a punctum of the black(red penetrates black). In other words, the red is a punctumof a punctum; it is progressively, doubly penetrating the entire picture. Similarly in the mother and child series, the child is the punctum of the mother(all they have is a relationship of non-symmetrical positioning and size, the entire mother-child relationship has been removed).The child is so out of sync with its mother that it can’t see it’s all that the mother has. On the other hand, from the image, the child is the punctum of the mother while red is the punctum of the child. The red punctures the mother by puncturing the child. From this we can see a series of splits in the image:a split between large and small, between red and white, between empty wholes and voluptuous fullness, between injury and health, and between decay and life. These are the external splits of the body(as opposed to internal, psychological splits).In some way, this is also the body’s purely visual split-here, the body has never shown signs of consciousness. The people here are usually asleep, with their eyes tightly closed. They appear as buried, pure bodies(without any clothing or other decoration). For this reason, it is better to see this split as purely in image, rather than as a psychological split (people and plants can easily draw people into psychological explorations). It is a visual split that uses people and plans as carriers.
In this sense, red is an expression of injury, but it never purely expressed injury of the flesh, rather it has more importantly expressed a visual injury. This injury has not expressed the hardship of psychological and plants have not been hurt by hardship. To put it correctly, these bodies and plants have been cut by the red. The red has cut their peace, their tranquility, their “naturalness”and the painting legends of bodies and plants. The whole body is closing its eyes tightly, or you could say that it is like a sculpture, a dead sculpture.It has withdrawn all of its sensory machinery. From its expression we see that it is without the slightest hardship, the slightest emotion or the slightest knowledge. Is the red a dispersal? It is, but not a simple dispersal of the face and the mouth. It is not a psychological dispersal at all, but a dispersal of the entire painting, of the image itself. Only with a dispersal of the image (rather than psychological or corporeal), can the fragrance of the flower be allowed.



皖公網安備 34010402700602號