我一直在思考，是什么原因，让熟悉了笔墨、在花鸟画上自由出入的水墨画家李纲，突然不再摆弄笔墨，而是把笔甩掉，用另外一种形式，比如把宣纸折叠，其中一部分浸泡在墨汁中，然后拿起展开，形成一种似乎有规律，其实不无偶然性的墨迹。再比如，用日常器具，像茶杯、瓷碗盖之类，在展开的纸上不断地像盖印那样，以形成另一种重复性的，细看却颇有变化的系列斑痕。李纲还有一种形式，那就是把不同颜色的毛边纸片贴在已经按照上述方式印有墨迹的宣纸上，毛边纸上留有率性的笔迹，或涂抹，或画一些符号式的物像，从而构成一幅有偶然墨痕，有排列的色纸片，有书写笔迹的纸本作品。李纲不无自得地告诉我说，这就是他的画痕。

　　显然，李纲不是在作画，而是在拓印，在拼贴，在涂抹，在必然性寻找偶然性，同时又在偶然性中寻找必然性。

　　2009年1月的冬季，我们一行艺术家，其中就有李纲与笔者，结伴前往奥地利西北部的一座小城Feldkirch，参加一个中国艺术的展览。李纲拿去展出的，就是他这一批“画痕”。

　　对于我们这些完全不懂德语的人来说，Feldkirch的发音不容易，尤其是尾声，拖着一连串的颤抖，压抑着嗓子，噜噜哑哑的，尽管奥地利的艺术家朋友耐心地教，我仍然无法准确复述。不过，这个词的意思却清楚，Feld是“田野”，Kirch是教堂，合在一起就是田野上的教堂。小城只有三万居民不到，精致小巧。当我们在城里看到教堂时，的确感受到了“田野中的教堂”的意思。当地朋友不好意思地告诉我们，因为住地有点吃紧，所以安排我们，这当中就包括我与李纲，住到半山的一所学校。朋友说，还好，有公交车，下来方便。我们开始以为颇远，等从山上步行到市中心时，居然只用了大概二十分钟，由此可见小城之“小”，实在并不虚言。

　　招呼我们的本地艺术家中，有一位是个律师，艺术只是他的业余爱好。这是后来其他朋友人告诉我的。这位律师艺术家的作品风格是抽象的，粗看时，竟然和李纲的“画痕”有某种类似。大概是这个原因，尽管李纲不懂德语，也不懂英语，但却和这位艺术家情投意合，彼此用手势与表情，在传达彼此认识的喜悦。

　　两位艺术家，一位来自中国，一位来自奥地利，因为风格的某种相似而热烈交流，这不免让刺激了我，让我有机会重新思考抽象主义的意义。显然，奥地利的律师艺术家，其风格与西方抽象主义传统有关，是这一传统的现代派生物。但李纲的作品却不能这样看，不能简单地把李纲的作品和20世纪的西方抽象主义挂钩，以为是这一外来风格的中国版本。他们之间的相似是表面的，内里含义，也就是所谓的精神性，实质上有着重大差异。这有力地证明李纲之痕的中国性，他从墨性、水性与纸性出发，通过日常器具的印痕，通过折叠、浸泡与展开，通过拼贴与涂抹，从而达成了一种介乎偶然与必然之间的效果。这一效果，在我看来，与所有的直接观看无关，而是一种视觉的离间性。也就是说，视觉的离间性是李纲的一种潜在目的，他希望通过对这样一种离间效果的建构，为纸本艺术，为呈现在纸本上的拓印、折叠、墨痕与涂抹寻找艺术的意义，并通过对这一意义的探索，来重新思考中国艺术的原本价值。

　　中国艺术以纸本为主，兼以绢本，两者虽分属不同材料，但在气质上却有异曲同工之妙。细分之下，绢本以细腻为本，复以工笔，以描绘物像胜，并在描绘当中贯注一种优雅的品性。纸本，尤其入元以来，以承载墨痕笔意为主体，发展了独特的大写意风格，是中国艺术具有鲜明的民族特性的主要原因，也是达成独特的审美趣味的不二法门。近千年的水墨发展，尤其元明清三代，已经形成成熟的笔墨传统。进入现代社会以来，这一成熟的笔墨传统，首先因为外来艺术的冲击，其次由于社会风气的突变，一直遭遇到前所末有之困境，以至于有人危言耸听地宣称，中国画已经到了危机的时候，如不实行变革，恐怕就要面临灭顶之灾。

　　毫无疑问，我以为李纲之舍弃笔墨转而采取其它手法，其用心与意图，甚至其艺术野心，是与上述之危机密切相关的。甚至，我以为，纵观李纲之新近作品，可以猜测他试图用更为另类的手法，来为中国艺术的当代性寻找个人答案。从这一角度看，李纲作品的“抽象性”，与他在奥地利认识的律师艺术家的作品的“抽象性”，的确不能同日而语，各自的语境不一样，各自的艺术问题自然也就大不相同。与西方抽象主义传统相比，李纲的意图显然不在抽象本身，而是“意义”，一种持续千年的艺术中的“中国性”，如何获得与当下情境相匹配的风格。这显然是一个宏大的目标，远不是李纲一人，或他个人的艺术实践所能够彻底达成。但至少李纲以一人之力，为这一历史性的艺术进程寻找可能性，从这一意义看，他的艺术，就已经超出个人的范围，而具有全局的意义。这对李纲本人的艺术实践，无疑具有重大的价值，也是他未来努力之方向。成就如何我不去评说，但其中所透露的心志，已经足以让人慰藉。艺术不再是简单的个人事业，而是通过个人实践，而日渐成为一个民族复兴的象征。这，又远远不是西方的抽象主义所能够概括的了。

　　我相信李纲之未来，只能有更大的作为，来回应来自民族与历史的呼吁。

　　2009年11月4日广州番禺“三号线艺术空间”

　　英文对译：

　　I have always been curious about the reason why ink-and-ash artist Li Gang, who had been so skillful in using brush and ink, and so good at painting traditional flower-bird works, suddenly threw away his tools and turned into a new methodology, which he immerses folded rice paper fragments into ink,leaving on them stains that demonstrate both regularity and haphazardry. Li Gang also uses daily objects - a cup, or a bowl cap - to imprint on paper, shaping series of repetitive but sophisticatedly diverse traces. Another method is to paste different colour bamboo paper onto processed rice paper. Accordingly, reckless handwriting, smear and symbolic images constitute paper works constructed with occasional strains, arranged colour paper segments and handwriting. ‘This is my Painting Trace.’ Li Gang told me with complacent.

　　Obviously, Li Gang does not create artworks by painting, but by imprinting, pasting and smearing. He seeks uncertainty in inevitability, while at the meantime searches for inevitability in uncertainty.

　　In January 2009, a group of artists, including Li Gang and me, went to a small town called Feldkirch in western Austria to participate in a Chinese Art exhibition, in which Li Gang introduced his Painting Trace.

　　It was not easy for us who didn’t speak any German to pronounce the word ‘Feldkirch’, especially for the quivering end tone which needed some techniques in suppressing the voice. Under the patient guidance by the Austrian artists, I still couldn’t pronounce it exactly. However, the meaning of the word was crystal-clear – ‘Feld’ referred to field, and ‘Kirch’ referred to church. The combination meant ‘the church on the field’. It was a small and comfortable town with a population of only 30,000 people. Looking at the town church, we could actually sense the scene of ‘the church on the field’. The local friends arranged some of us - including Li Gang and me - to live in a school on the hillside as there was not enough accommodation. When being told about the convenience of commuting to town by bus, we thought that the distance between the hillside and the town centre must be quite far. However, it only took us 20 minutes on the way. From this we could get a clue about how small the city was.

　　Our host was a lawyer and artist. Art was only his hobby besides working as a lawyer. This is what other people told me later. This lawyer artist’s style was abstract - when I saw his work at the first time, I was amazed that they somehow shared certain correspondence with Li Gang’s Painting Trace. Because of this, albeit Li Gang didn’t speak any German or English, the two got on very well with each other by using gesture to express their delight of meeting each other.

　　Two artists, one Chinese and one Austrian, communicated heartily because of a slight bit of relevance within their styles. The scene inspired me to review the mean of abstract art. Apparently, the style of the Austrian artist is an inheritance of the tradition of western abstract art, in other words, is the modern interpretation of abstract painting. But this theory can not be applied to Li Gang’s artworks. We can’t simply link Li Gang’s works to western abstract art, or consider them a Chinese version of the imported. What they share in common only exist on the surface, while the connotations of each of the expressions are much different. This is a powerful demonstration of the Chineseness of Li Gang’s Trace. Standing at the natures of traditional tools such as ink, water and paper, Li Gang uses a series of imprinting techniques with daily objects, shapes strains by pasting pieces and smearing, and tries to grape the subtle balance of uncertainty and inevitability. To me, the outcome of his expressive style is rather a visual alienation than direct observation. That is to say, the hidden purpose of Li Gang’s experiment is to demonstrate a sort of visual alienation, in order to construct the artistic and aesthetic meaning for simple paperwork techniques such as printing, folding, imprinting and smearing. By such meaning construction, he is able to reconsider the initial value of Chinese art.

　　Most Traditional Chinese Arts are painted on rice paper, while some others are painted on silk. However different the qualities of these materials are, they share similarity in terms of aura and spirit. Looking into details, silk is suitable for refined still-life paintings and is conventionally endued with the nature of gracefulness and tenderness, while in comparison, rice paper, especially those that have been produced since Yuan dynasty, are usually used in paintings which emphasize on ink strains and aura. This specific emphasis has developed into a painting style defined as Freehand Brushwork, which is a main contributor to the distinctive identity of Chinese art as well as being the only hint on achieving the unique aesthetic value. After hundreds of years of evolution, Chinese ink-and-wash painting has formed its mature technical tradition. However, under exterior impact and domestic social shifts, such developed tradition has been exposed to unprecedented crisis since the modern time. The crisis was so severe that it brought about claims that Traditional Chinese Painting had come to the urgent point of revolution, otherwise the traditional art would end up in extinction.

　　Without doubt, I consider the intentions, goals or even say ambitions of Li Gang’s experiment with his new methodology are closely related to the issue above. Reviewing his current pieces, I would suggest that he aims on exploring an individual expression to propose his personal answer to the contemporariness of Chinese art. On this perspective, the ‘abstractness’ of Li Gang’s works is definitely different from the Austrian artist. According to their diverse contexts, the questions these two styles raise are various. Comparing to traditional western abstract art, Li Gang’s intention is clearly not drawn on the abstract nature of art, but on the ‘meaning’ behind the scene, and on seeking the solution of how the ‘Chineseness’ carried on for hundreds of years could fit into contemporary circumstances. This is seemingly a tremendous blueprint which can not be simply achieved by one single artist. Albeit at the least Li Gang’s own contribution has broaden the possibilities of this historical transformation. Based on this, the significance of his art has transcended individual meaning, and points at a global scale. This is the value of his art, and at the meantime the goal of future experiments. I am not trying to make an assumption of how successful he might be in the future, but the resolution he reveals is enough inspiring. In this context, art is no longer personal business but gradually becomes the symbol of the restoration of a nation. And this is far beyond what western abstract art could carry.

　　I sincerely believe that Li Gang can achieve a bigger future in response to the calling of the nation and the history.

　　Three Line Art Space in Guangzhou Panyu

　　2009.11.4