吳 亮

　　焦振予的《原代碼》系列是否也應不假思索地歸于抽象藝術的行列，當然是！或許人們會習慣性地這么認為……這個問題真的非常重要嗎，如果事情并不緊迫就不必急于分類；只聽任眼睛的熱情觀看，即便焦振予在這里連篇累牘為我們提供的不過是冷冰冰的阿拉伯數碼，遺憾的是，我們的熱情亦早已被過剩的數碼鏡像與闡釋理論所耗盡。
　　現在就讓我們的簡短討論從這里開始：什么是抽象藝術？那些被共同命名的各種抽象藝術絕非同屬一個體系——何況“體系”這個詞的古希臘文原意不過是“我來安排”，它的源頭絕非客觀——雖以它為名，在它的內部卻各不相同，之間很難產生有效的對話；人們只是停留在淺表的外部進行觀察，出于今后識別之需給它們分別找出某些標志，并為其安排一個位置。這樣做的后果，易忽略與“我的安排”相對應的“我的感受”，同時也遺忘另一條古老的觀看之道——藝術，無論我們怎么稱呼其類型，無論具象還是抽象，它都應是敞開的、自明的。
　　觀看一幅抽象畫或一個抽象系列，并不是謀求一次對話，充滿誤解不僅必須，它簡直就是對被拒絕同時被吸引的雙重體驗。今天，所謂當代藝術受到了廣泛的注意、追捧和質疑，我們迫不得已，將當代藝術名義之下的一切物品、符號和表現形式一一放到了寬廣的時代視野中進行觀察，追溯藝術史，遙看近在咫尺的作品，似乎早忘記了一對一的近距離關系，就像精神分析醫生面對他的病人，那種親和力與拒斥力的疊加所產生的誘惑；所以我們必須回去，看一幅畫或連續看一組類似的畫，如同聆聽病人的傾訴。
　　接下來我們就要直接面對焦振予的作品了——它們敞開自身了嗎，它是自明的嗎，它又在向我們傾訴什么呢……毫無疑問，浮現在畫面上的那些被置換了的“原代碼”脫離了具體的時代界面，它們從最初的等式、公設、定理以及晚近的代號、密碼的所指中逃逸，獲得了單一的象征性——阿拉伯數碼無所指地漂移在畫面中，它們與背后的所指世界的關系已徹底斷裂；而它們本身，則能指性地替代了世界主體：它批判了原代碼對世界的覆蓋式僭越，同時又將同樣的原代碼以當代藝術的名義對鏡像與鏡像意欲表達的現實世界再次進行了僭越，從而十分反諷地重新回到了藝術家剛剛試圖予以懷疑的世界自身，因為當代藝術正是這個世界的有機部分，是其中之一。
　　早期，《原代碼》在誕生之初，焦振予為其安排了一幅混沌無序的圖景，甚至顯得焦躁不安，但是阿拉伯數碼已經出現并起源式地預示了未來；它們如原子或微生物孢子，渺小，眾多，偶然，隨機，分散，紛紛降落在流淌、溶解、噴發與酷似爆炸氣浪的前景，零碎紛亂，互不關聯；這一切都是空間性的、沒有重力的、漂浮的以及虛無的，它們在形成或瓦解的過程中，尚不清楚這些數碼原子將何時重新聚攏，又以什么樣的途徑與原理聚攏。
　　近幾年，焦振予的《原代碼》終于成型、凝固并靜默了，那是一種噴發之后的沉積物，一種無聲傾訴，它曾有的喧鬧已是歷史性的回述與想象——阿拉伯數碼儼然壯大膨脹，混沌消逝了，它們公然僭越了空間的主體位置，站到了世界前沿，成為了唯一者，逼近了我們的眼睛——在一塊塊被豎起來的沙礫表面，這些數碼構成了整齊的矩陣，井然有序，馴服，各司其位，即便出現了“正與反”，它們依然待在原來的位置。這是一個象征，自然的無序世界終于被帶入技術理性的秩序世界，無論我們將這里的數碼任意置換成別的什么：進化、文明、規訓、數字化生存、復制虛擬技術或熱力學第二定理——熵的飽和。
　　這樣的解讀是否過度？你不是說你要一對一地面對病人，即面對一個藝術家聆聽他傾訴的嗎，可是你卻談到了物理世界、文明進化甚至宇宙的起源與末日……好吧，讓我們試著回到弗洛伊德，沿著那位據說早已過時的精神分析大師所開拓的道路，逆向追溯……莫非在焦振予早年的無意識記憶底層，由阿拉伯數碼建構起來的算術學習乃是他的童年噩夢之一，他現在努力為人們呈現出來的理性思維恰恰是一個顛倒的形象，即極力掩飾他的個人畏懼、挫折和不為人知的內心經驗，企圖通過藝術表現重建自信，將數碼符號版圖指代世界，以矛盾的思想者面目出現只是他的策略；而那種既接納又質疑的模棱兩可，既不安又平靜的雙重姿態，直觀地賦予數碼時代以表面化圖景，正是為了治療他童年創傷的心理代償，以藝術之名？
　　當然，做這樣的臆測目前證據還不夠充分，也許對今天的當代藝術而言，藝術家的個人生平與無意識不再是我們應該揭示的重點。但是，人的問題始終是一切藝術的根源，也是一切世界體系構造的根源，當代藝術不可能僅僅熱衷于表現那個脫離了人的冷漠世界，即便這個世界真的已經被技術與數碼統治徹底異化。焦振予的《原代碼》所傳遞的信息從表面看，的確是世界的而不是個人的，這肯定會引起我們的共鳴，但同樣也會令我們產生一種類型感；因此，過分地注意《原代碼》的時代界面反而可能有損于我們對其作品形式的細微感受，焦振予雖然不是一個形式主義者，不過他的《原代碼》具有自覺、鮮明而無止境的形式及單純的個人風貌，正是這種無止境的形式與單純風貌吸引了我們：它從數碼鏡像中孵化出來，它是數碼時代的衍生物，它似乎不再是象征我們的時代，它進入了另一個自足的界面，在那里，它無比地寂靜——我們渴望接近它，不需要正確地理解它。因為，藝術向來是疑問而不是結論，是難題而不是答卷。

　　Digital Mirror Image as Time Interface and Personal Fear
　　The Reading of Jiao Zhenyu’s Source Code

　　Wu Liang

　　Whether Jiao Zhenyu’s Source Code Series is certain to be categorized into the genre of abstract art without too much consideration? The Answer is yes. Perhaps people are accustomed to think so. And whether this question is important is still questionable. If things are not urgent then there is no immediate need to categorize them. The only thing needed is to have your eyes in passionate viewings, even though it is only cold Arabic numerals that Jiao had provided us. Sadly, our passion has long drowned out by excessive digital mirror images and concept interpretations.
　　Now let us begin our short discussion here: what is abstract art? Those which were called under the same name were absolutely not from the same system, let alone the word system has its original Greek meaning of “let I decide”. Its origin was never objective. Although named so, the compositing part were different and can never converse with one another easily. People stayed on the surface to observe and arrange a place for it for the purpose of identification. The resulting phenomenon is the ease to ignore the “let I feel” corresponding to “let I decide”, and on the same time, forgetting another ancient way of viewing. Art, no matter how we call it, no matter what its system is, abstract or not, it should always be open and self-clarifying.
　　To view an abstract painting or a series of abstract paintings is not trying to make a conversation, during which you may be full of misjudgments, which is not only necessary, but almost a paradoxical feeling of rejection and attraction. Today, the so called contemporary art got widened attention, pursuits and questions, which made us have no other choices but to put every item, symbol and expression under the name of contemporary art into the extensive time horizon to observe, to trace back the art history, and viewing art work right in front of your eyes, as if the one to one correspondence is long forgotten. Just like a doctor facing his Schizophrenia patient, and face the lure combined by the affinity and rejection. Therefore we must go back to view the single painting or to continuously viewing a series of such work, just like listening to the patient.
　　And then we will face Jiao’s work directly. Are they themselves open? Are they self-clarifying? What are they trying to tell us? Of course, those replaced “Source Code” floating above the canvas has broken free from the time interface. They escaped from the primitive formula, equation, theory and late codes and passwords, to acquire a singular symbolism. Arabic Numerals floating in the painting without actual meanings indicates the break up between them and the world they specify. And they have replaced the objects of worlds, to criticize about the overwriting transgression into the real work and hence made the same source code transgressed the real world expressed by mirror image and mirror image intention in the name of contemporary art. It returned to the world where artists barely started to question, because contemporary is a part of this world, and one of it.
　　In an earlier time, when the Source Code Series was just created, Jiao Zhenyu arranged it in a chaotic picture, somewhat anxious; however the Arabic Numerals has already appeared and predicted the future. They are like atoms or micro spores, small, numerous, incidental, random and sparse, diffused in the moving-erupting-and-explosion like foreground, shattered and independent, each of them is distinct, weightless, floating and void. During the process of them forming and disintegrating, it is unknown when will these digital atoms will re-gather, and doing so under what way or law.
　　In recent years, Jiao Zhenyu’s Source Code is finally set, and stayed silent. It's the sediment after the eruption, a silent whisper. Its noise is solitarily historical rehearsal and imagination. The Arabic Numerals expanded and its chaotic feature disappeared. They transgressed the major location in space and stood in the frontline of the world, orderly, tame and on each one’s post. Even the positive and negative position appeared, they stayed where they were. It is a symbol of the chaotic nature world taken into technologically organized order world, no matter what we change the digits into: evolution, civilization, dogma, digital survival, copied virtual reality or the second thermo of thermodynamics, the saturated entropy.
　　Is such interpretation over the edge? Did I just say that one should face the patient one on one, that is, to face the artist and listen to his mind? But I on the other hand, talked about the world of physics, the evolution of civilizations and even the origin and ending of universe. Ok let’s try to go back to Floyd, and walk the path of the long staled Psychoanalysis to track back. Perhaps in the lower level of Jiao Zhenyu’s sub-consciousness, the mathematical study constructed by Arabic Numerals is one of his childhood nightmares? The logical thinking reflected in his paintings is just a reverse image, trying to hide his personal fear, setbacks and psychological experience known to none? And he is trying to re-build his confidence through art creation? To use the digital symbol to stand for the world, to use the mask of a paradoxical thinker is just his strategy. The question and acceptance, the tranquil yet anxious posture is there to give the digital era the surface image, just to cure his childhood injuries, in the name of Art?
　　To contemporary art today, the personal life and unconsciousness of artists are no longer in the focus of what is ought to be revealed. However, the problems of people themselves are always the origin of every form of art as well as every structure in the world system. Contemporary art is not only interested in showing the indifferent world without the appearance of humanity, even if the said world had been completely changed and controlled by technology and digital culture. Reaching from the surface, Jiao’s Source Code series does appear to express the information from a worldly basis instead of individuality, thus creating harmony among us and on the other hand, making us having the sense of type. Therefore, concentrating on the time interface of the Source Code series may contradict the micro sensations emerged towards the genre of his work, even though the Source Code series does embody the self-awareness , infinite forms and simple features. Such feature attract us, just like the derivative of the digital age born from the egg of digital image, as if it no longer stands for our time and entered a interface of self satisfactory, where is sits in silence and waiting for us to approach and not necessary to understand it properly. Because art is always the question not the conclusion, always the problem not the answer.