文/ 夏季風(fēng)
進(jìn)入21世紀(jì)以來(lái)，中國(guó)受到世人前所未有的關(guān)注已是不爭(zhēng)的事實(shí)，究其原因，似乎不外是中國(guó)綜合國(guó)力日益增強(qiáng)——其中最主要是經(jīng)濟(jì)持續(xù)性增長(zhǎng)起到了一個(gè)熱點(diǎn)效應(yīng)的作用。與許多西方學(xué)者一樣，美國(guó)哈佛大學(xué)歷史學(xué)教授尼爾?弗格森(Niall Ferguson)也在探究和反思中國(guó)為何崛起以及西方社會(huì)相對(duì)衰落的根源。他在最近為英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》撰寫的專欄文章《全球力量格局向東傾斜的十年》（THE DECADE THE WORLD TILTED EAST）中失落地承認(rèn)，“我們正在經(jīng)歷500年西方統(tǒng)治的最后階段”。一如之前別的文章，他也是從經(jīng)濟(jì)的角度入手來(lái)對(duì)比中西方的反差，不管是好的還是壞的例子，作為西方中心代表的美國(guó)始終是一個(gè)必定的參照對(duì)象。“在美國(guó)霸權(quán)的核心存在著三大致命不足：人力不足，注意力不足，以及最重要的一點(diǎn)，財(cái)力不足。” 有趣的是，當(dāng)這位現(xiàn)代歷史學(xué)家以帶有武斷嫌疑的口吻指出以美國(guó)為代表的西方社會(huì)相對(duì)衰退癥結(jié)的同時(shí)，卻謹(jǐn)慎地回避了原本同樣需要交代的中國(guó)崛起的具體答案。對(duì)于一個(gè)謎一樣神秘的東方國(guó)度，或許這個(gè)答案不那么容易找，或許找到了也很難在一篇概述性短文中給出一個(gè)即詳盡又令人信服的結(jié)果。
答案顯然不好找，即便是中國(guó)本身——當(dāng)眾多的聚光燈突然集中投向自身，剛剛步入全球性舞臺(tái)的中國(guó)似乎還有些不適應(yīng)，難飾內(nèi)心的緊張和小小的慌亂——至少到現(xiàn)在為止還沒(méi)有準(zhǔn)備好一套圓滑的、無(wú)懈可擊的應(yīng)對(duì)說(shuō)辭。但是，這并不妨礙可以從弗格森的論點(diǎn)反向推斷西方對(duì)我們的看法：中國(guó)的崛起原因是不是恰恰自我滿足了所謂美國(guó)“三力不足”的條件？
如果這就是弗格森潛在的答案，那么這是個(gè)多少令人尷尬的答案。換而言之，中國(guó)的崛起是暴發(fā)戶式的崛起：是靠富余而廉價(jià)的勞動(dòng)力資源（人力足）；大家一心一意搞建設(shè)求發(fā)展（注意力足）；不管是國(guó)家還是民眾，貨幣儲(chǔ)蓄量不愁（財(cái)力足）。這樣的崛起能否持續(xù)或者說(shuō)持續(xù)多長(zhǎng)時(shí)間是值得質(zhì)疑的。在我看來(lái)，弗格森反向指出的都是些一個(gè)國(guó)家崛起的必不可少的硬件，更像一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)役后清點(diǎn)需要那些武器才能制勝一樣，而沒(méi)有提及的，恰恰是促使三力成因的、也是最為重要的文化價(jià)值觀。我無(wú)法知曉他閉口不談文化價(jià)值觀是出于什么樣的考慮，事實(shí)上近十年中國(guó)在國(guó)際上獲取的名聲以及成為世人關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)，至少可以肯定地得出結(jié)論，排在首位的顯然不是有著悠久傳統(tǒng)的中國(guó)文化以及迥然有別于西方的文化價(jià)值觀本身。
自中國(guó)改革開(kāi)放以來(lái)，我們仔細(xì)梳理分析就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)在社會(huì)上通行的現(xiàn)代性文化標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和規(guī)則，基本上是由西方社會(huì)來(lái)制定的，尤其是中國(guó)的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)，其形式和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差不多全盤肇始于對(duì)西方現(xiàn)代性的模仿和借鑒。當(dāng)然，這有其歷史主觀和客觀的原因，但簡(jiǎn)而言之是由于東西方不同文化觀的沖突，西方文化中心論與地緣文化的碰撞，以及不同意識(shí)形態(tài)下所產(chǎn)生的文化理念與策略等等，導(dǎo)致許多問(wèn)題只能停留在被懸置的狀態(tài)，無(wú)法進(jìn)入有實(shí)質(zhì)意義的交流和討論。如果繼續(xù)保持這樣的現(xiàn)狀，毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)是不可思議的，也是和崛起中的中國(guó)不相匹配的。好在隨著中國(guó)與世界各國(guó)之間在社會(huì)、政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)和生活的一體化趨勢(shì)加快，對(duì)自身文化身份的認(rèn)知和定位以及對(duì)文化價(jià)值觀的傳播和推廣，越來(lái)越引起人們的重視。
如何構(gòu)建自我獨(dú)特的文化價(jià)值體系以及標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，展示自身獨(dú)立的文化身份和地位，是一個(gè)系統(tǒng)性的、龐大繁復(fù)的文化生態(tài)修正或者說(shuō)重建的社會(huì)工程，顯然需要國(guó)家形態(tài)和民間層面達(dá)成共識(shí)并且共同發(fā)力實(shí)施。具體到一些旁枝末節(jié)——單就文化藝術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)為例，我個(gè)人認(rèn)為首先要做的是建立自己完整收藏脈絡(luò)和展覽系統(tǒng)，其次減弱甚至脫離我們對(duì)于西方現(xiàn)代性的模仿和依賴，逐步打造一個(gè)和西方平等態(tài)勢(shì)對(duì)話、交流的平臺(tái)；而對(duì)于藝術(shù)家來(lái)說(shuō)，則意味著需要確立作為中國(guó)藝術(shù)家的思維方式、觀察方式和表述方式，而不是習(xí)慣性地停留在以西方商業(yè)價(jià)值作為評(píng)判的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之中。
即便如此，僅靠藝術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)或藝術(shù)家本身的力量，是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠的。不管是從西方相對(duì)完善的經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)看，還是從中國(guó)有據(jù)可依的歷史來(lái)看，文化藝術(shù)最具活力最為繁榮之時(shí)，基本上都和經(jīng)濟(jì)資本的介入有著密不可分的關(guān)系——似乎這是藝術(shù)發(fā)展到一定階段后無(wú)法回避的必由之路。雖然這個(gè)過(guò)程可能是漫長(zhǎng)的，需要時(shí)間去證明，但其意義的重要性不言而喻：既能讓中國(guó)豐厚的民間資本介入到當(dāng)代文化中，幫助文化完成現(xiàn)代性的自我書寫，彰顯了企業(yè)對(duì)精神文化傳承之社會(huì)責(zé)任的擔(dān)當(dāng)；又能讓文化藝術(shù)介入到企業(yè)序列，共同構(gòu)建企業(yè)文化，提升企業(yè)自身的品位和價(jià)值，甚至重新梳理當(dāng)代社會(huì)的財(cái)富支配倫理。這大約也是中國(guó)文化和經(jīng)濟(jì)在共時(shí)的架構(gòu)中，有著統(tǒng)一的自我表述和自我闡釋的精神訴求。
由伊比利亞當(dāng)代藝術(shù)中心和北京錫恩企業(yè)管理顧問(wèn)有限公司共同推出的“亞洲路標(biāo)：豐田藝術(shù)計(jì)劃”，就是這一系列具有戰(zhàn)略性意味計(jì)劃實(shí)施的開(kāi)始。正如展覽主題，我們?cè)噲D通過(guò)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)來(lái)概括和闡述眼下在世界格局中越來(lái)越重要的中國(guó)，探究自身的文化地理、方向，以及文化與社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)等等的關(guān)系。尤其是身處亞洲，中國(guó)社會(huì)特別是當(dāng)代藝術(shù)能否起到“路標(biāo)”的功能和效用，一直以來(lái)是我們感興趣和不斷推進(jìn)的學(xué)術(shù)課題。
當(dāng)這種探究行為的計(jì)劃與結(jié)果由中國(guó)的藝術(shù)界和實(shí)業(yè)界共同給出和實(shí)施，在我看來(lái)顯得尤為意味深長(zhǎng)。
2010年1月2日
?
China: Potential Asian Landmark
Xia Jifeng
It is an undeniable fact that China has captured unprecedented worldwide attention since the beginning of the 21st century. The reason seems to lie in nowhere other than the growing overall national strength, the ongoing increase in economy, in particular. Like a lot of Western scholars, Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard University, is trying to explain why China is emerging in contrast to the relatively declining Western countries. In one of his recent column in Financial Times under the title The Decade the World Tilted East, he admitted disappointedly, “…we are living through the end of 500 years of ascendancy.” As is in his other articles, the contrast between the East and the West was made from an economic perspective, and America, as representative of the West, was invariably referred to as a case in point, both favorable and unfavorably. “There were three fatal deficits at the heart of American power: a manpower deficit, an attention deficit and above all a financial deficit.” Interestingly, when pointing out the reasons for the relative decline in the Western world, in a tone not completely free from assertion, this modern historian cautiously avoided offering a much expected full answer. It might be that, for such a mystic Eastern country as China, such an answer is difficult to give, or that it is difficult to give an exhaustive and convincing explanation in a short introductory article if he does have one.
Obviously, the answer will not be an easy one, even for China itself. When suddenly thrust into the limelight, China, as a novice on the global stage, does not seem to be at ease, failing to cover its nervousness and even reacting with a flap—nevertheless it has not found a flexible and unassailable reply. It does not, however, prevent us from making from Niall Ferguson’s argument a retroactive inference about the Western view of China: is it that China, with his own effort, has eliminated the “three fatal deficits” America is suffering from?
It might be embarrassing to some extent if it is the underlying answer in Ferguson’s article. Put differently, Chinese emergence is not quite different from that of upstarts: surplus and cheap labor (manpower surplus), common devotion to development and progress (attention surplus) and adequate savings in the bank, both on national and private levels (financial surplus). It is questionable whether such kind of rise can stay or how long it can persist. What Ferguson has listed in a reverse manner, to my mind, constitutes the necessary conditions for the rise of a country. After a battle, we have to check off what weapons are essential for victory. Now we find one point is missing and it is the basis of the three forces, also the most important factor—cultural values. I have no way of knowing the reason why he avoided mentioning cultural values, but judging from the acclaims China has received in the international community in the past ten years and the attention it has attracted worldwide, one can safely draw a conclusion that the overriding factor is by no means the Chinese culture handed down from ancient times or its cultural values that are different from its Western counterparts in every way.
A careful analysis will lead to another conclusion that, since the opening-up policy was adopted, the prevailing standard and rules for modern culture have always been established by the West, and this is particularly true of Chinese contemporary art, which copied almost every detail of form and standard in Western modernity. Historically speaking, there are, of course, various reasons, both subjective and objective, but basically, it resulted from the conflict between Western cultural values e Eastern ones, between Western cultural centralism and geoculture, and between different cultural concepts and strategies due to ideological differences. Therefore, the discussions about a lot of issues are suspended and there are great obstacles to constructive exchange of ideas. If things do not improve, the result will surely be undesirable and out of tune with the rising China, where, luckily, the accelerating trend toward integration into the world on the social, political, economic level, and in the field of life as well, demands more and more stress on understanding and establishing their own cultural identity and promoting their own cultural values.
To build their unique system of cultural values and standard and show their independent cultural identity and status requires a large systematic and elaborate social project for the revision or reconstruction of cultural ecology, which is undoubtedly, based on the agreement between the government, the public and their common effort. In regard to minor factors，cultural and art institutions, for example, I personally believe that the first and foremost task is to create their own comprehensive system of collection and exhibition. Next, it is necessary to reduce or to stop copying and depending on Western modernity for the establishment of a platform for dialogues and communication with the West on the basis of equality. As far as the artists are concerned, they need to develop their own style of thinking, observation and expression, rather than sticking to the standard based on Western commercial value.
?
It is far from enough if we rely on art institutions and artists alone to reach our goal. Both the relatively rich Western experience and recorded Chinese history can prove that the flowering of cultural and art is closely connected with the intervention in the form of capital, which seems to be something unavoidable when art enters a certain stage. Admittedly, it takes time to reach that stage, but its significance is indisputably self-evident as it allows the enormous nongovernmental capital to join in contemporary art and, further, to facilitate the self-definition of cultural modernity, showing hence their role in passing on cultural heritage as enterprises on one hand, and encouraging culture and art , on the other, to approach enterprises and contribute their share in creating enterprise culture, improving enterprise image and value, or even reanalyzing the ethics of wealth distribution in contemporary context. In a synchronic structure of culture and economy in China, there might be a common denominator of pursuit for self-presentation and self-interpretation.
Asian Landmark: Toyota Art Project, jointly organized by Iberia Center for Contemporary Art and Beijing CN Management Consulting Co., Ltd., will mark the beginning of a series of strategic projects. As the theme indicates, we aim to introduce and interpret a rising China in a global context in terms of modern art and focus on its cultural geography and orientation in addition to the relationship between society and economy. Whether China, its contemporary art, in particular, can work as an efficient “l(fā)andmark” in Asia has always been a fascinating academic topic for us to explore.
I believe it will be all the more significant when this exploratory behavior can be jointly planned and performed by the art community and enterprises.
January 2，2010