巫鸿：上次我们谈过一次，从你开始学习艺术一直到完成《海市蜃楼》(Mirage)和《庆》(Celebration)等作品，通过这些作品，你基本上和以前照片中的那个雕像告别了。我们今天是不是就从那儿开始，重点是你最近作的两个大计划：一个是《虚拟最后审判》(The Last Judgment in Cyberspace)，另一个是《H2O》，好不好?但是后者可能是更重要的，因为我们已经一起为《虚拟最后审判》作过一次展览了，我也写了一篇文章。这次我们主要谈一谈《H2O》。
缪晓春：好。这两个作品确实代表了我的艺术中的一个转折点。我当时是这样想的：做常规意义上的摄影的时候，我们面对的是一个现实世界中的三维的立体的场景，我所想的是如何找到一个最恰当的角度去拍摄它，把它变成一个二维的平面的东西。而当我面对艺术史上二维的平面的绘画作品时，有一天又突发奇想：如果把它重新再变成三维的立体的场景会是什么样?我想如果我把它复原了以后可能会是很有意思的。于是我选择了米开朗基罗《最后的审判》这件作品，先把它做成一个三维的虚拟场景，然后再尝试从几个不同的角度去“观看” 它，“拍摄”它。这是和拍摄常规照片截然相反的过程。
另外，现实中的三维场景是处于不断的变化流动之中的，摄影只能选择一个瞬间，把运动的变成静止的。而米开朗基罗的《最后的审判》原来是静止的，我的目的是把它做成三维之后再把它变成运动的。因此我做了一个三维电脑动画，从而实现了从静止到运动的逆转。
所以在《虚拟最后审判》做完后，很多人跟我说，你怎么会做完全另外一种东西呢?我想，虽然它表面上看跟我以前做的东西不一样，是两种媒介，两种做法，但其实它们还是有关系的。假设没有在摄影中把三维变成二维的话，也可能就没有把二维的东西变回三维，然后去拍摄它的想法。
巫：在我看来，这两个阶段——我想我对你的这些东西还是比较了解的——是有很强的关系的，虽然表面上似乎无关，但实际上是彼此相关的，特别是有关“看”的问题。你原来的摄影作品就已经非常强调变化的视点，实际在平面形象中已经蕴含了运动和时间的概念了。记得你在上一次访谈中谈到你的摄影和中国卷轴画的关系，运动的问题等等。在这些新作品中“运动”还是在持续，但是面貌不一样了。
有个问题我们可以深入地谈一谈，就是你说的从二维到三维的这个问题，很有意思。可是你做的那个三维实际上并不是一个具体的三维，是不是?你做的是电脑里的三维，但实际呈现出来的作品还是二维图像。也就是说，你以这种方法做成的照片还是二维，但是确实又和原来的那种常规二维摄影不一样了。你所说的 “从二维到三维” 到底是怎样的一个三维概念?肯定和雕塑家的三维是不一样的，是吧?
缪：雕塑的三维是真真切切存在着的;而电脑里的三维都是虚拟的，关上电脑就既看不见又摸不着了。即使用三维投影仪把它呈现于某个空间，它与传统雕塑的三维也是不一样的。
另外，现实中的三维是无限的，它在空间上似乎是无边无际的，在时间上也是无限的;电脑里的三维是有限的三维，它是在电脑的运算能力可以达到的基础上的一个三维空间。当然随着技术的发展，这个空间会越来越大、越来越大，但是跟现实的三维还是有区别的，在时间上也有区别，它不可能无限长，而只能是在某一个时间段里。因此我在我的作品前面一直都是加上 “虚拟”两个字，比如叫做《虚拟最后审判》。
巫：对，若是这么一想，以前的二维作品也可以重新加以考虑。比如咱们都学过西方艺术史，西方艺术发展中一个非常强烈的目的，就是对二度空间的征服，就是在绘画里，或者在对空间的表现上进行三维整合，把一个平面的物质媒体——一块画布或一面墙壁——“消灭掉”，化为一个虚幻的三维的“图画空间” (pictorial space)。这种空间对当时的人来说是非常幻觉的一个空间。所以从这个角度来看，也可能米开朗基罗当时做的和你现在做的有点像。他的《最后的审判》可能对当时的人来说，就是一个非常虚拟的空间，但是我们在21世纪看，就把它当作一堵墙上的“壁画”了。你的作品好像又把这种对“虚拟空间”的追求推到现在的这个时候，引导到当代艺术的范围里。你做的事可能仍是有某种历史限度的，就像米开朗基罗的东西有着它的历史限度。我们把它看成是一张画，可当时的人所描写的是他们好像真的看到了最后审判，真的看到了耶稣基督等等，他们看到的也是一个虚幻的三维空间。
缪：对，这样推下去，500年之后的人再看我们现在做的，也就像我们现代的人看米开朗基罗的这幅壁画一样，可能也会觉得是一种很“平面化”的东西。
我想，每个时代的人都会努力去达到当时的技术条件下所能达到的最高水平。我们现在也受限于很多技术上的因素，就只能达到这样一个程度了。像摄影和录像其实是有很多缺陷的，虽然它们是比较真实的记录工具，但远不完善。比如它不可能全方位地记录，无限度地绝对真实地记录。可能将来技术达到了，可以将整个场景，甚至是场景中的温度和味道等所有的东西都记录下来，复原出来，他们看我们现在的技术也许会觉得很原始。
巫：将来——这是题外话了——最大的一个突破可能是突破“视觉”的范围。从古到今的美术都是在视觉圈里打转，我们还是这样。刚才你说的别的一些感觉，比如气味，如果能够纳入艺术的表现中的话，那就会是一个根本的概念的变化。因为我们在现实生活中，耳鼻眼等都在感觉，这些感觉都不是分裂的。古代艺术、传统艺术还是在视觉基础上，现在有些当代艺术家开始追求视觉以外的感觉。
回过来说。你刚刚解释了《虚拟最后审判》是从二度还原到三度。但是对这个“水”的作品来说，好像这个转变不是它的主要目的。是不是?因为对三维虚拟的实验好像已经在《虚拟最后审判》中完成了。这个“水”的系列是否有着新的目的和专注点?
缪：在技术手法上它是前一个作品的自然延续，同样是先将美术史上的某张画从平面变成立体，再从相同于原画和不同于原画这样两个角度去观看它。第二个角度比较重要，因为这是不同于原画的全新的观看角度，这样观看作品的方式也是美术史上所没有的。
内容上则是试图对前一个作品中提出的问题有所回答。先前提出的问题是“我会去哪儿?”(Where will I go?) 这是有关生命从哪里来，到哪里去的问题，但实际上很难回答。最智慧的哲学家也难以给出最终的答案。我想以艺术的方式间接地回应这个问题，就做了《H2O》这个系列作品。
巫：手法上的延续是很清楚的。内容上，前一个作品提出的问题是“生命从哪里来?到哪里去?”你说你的答复和水发生了关系，为什么?
缪：对。我们虽然生活在现代，但现代科学还不能完全回答“生命从哪里来?到哪里去?” 这个问题;也很难通过宗教找到答案。因为某种理论或学说中只要有一点点不对的地方，就很难让我们现代人对它坚信不疑。所以，我们现在很难做一个基督徒，也很难做一个佛教徒，也没有一个能完全主导我们的理论或学说。最后我就只能通过一些最简单的，看上去没什么问题的事情来给自己一些答案。比如说“水”：我现在喝进去的水，已经在过去的几千年几万年几亿年中流经过无数的生命体内，上天入地，循环往复;从我这儿排泄出去后，它将会流经几千年几万年几亿年后的无数生命，入地上天，往复循环。但H2O这个元素并没有改变。它流经过原始细胞，恐龙，孔子，奶牛，路易十五，苹果，牛顿，土豆，贝多芬，它是把无数动物、植物和人物连接起来的一个元素。我觉得这本身就挺有意义的，我和很多的生命有了某种联系。“生命从哪里来，到哪里去”的问题回答不了，但它们之间的联系还是显而易见的。我想就用这个东西做些文章吧!
巫：把水作为一个无处不在、不断循环的元素，表现万物的关系和生命的连续性，这个系列作品在内容上具有了一个哲学的层次。但有意思的是你选择了从美术史的角度去表现水，而不是表现真实世界中的水。这样你又造成了另外一种连续性，也就是艺术作品的连续——你的作品中的“水”是和古代艺术中的“水”联系着的。所以这里有两个平行层次的连续——真实世界中的水的循环，和艺术史中的“水”的形象的循环。对吧?
缪：对，而且这是一目了然的连续。不同时代、不同地域的艺术作品间的延续是一个很有意思也很重要的问题。有的会比较直接，有的会非常间接，不留痕迹。真不知道第一笔画是如何画到岩洞的墙壁上去的，也不知道第二个人面对这第一幅图像时，是如何画出它的第二幅图像的。是模仿了它?还是想与它一争高下?还是另辟蹊径?在那么多的作品、图像和观念“流入”到我的脑海中去之后，我已经无可避免地和古代和现代、和东方和西方所有的艺术作品联系在了一起。我做出的绝对是延续着我之前的作品再往前迈出的一小步，这使我的可能性反而获得无限扩大了，俯拾皆是。只不过我们在选择与前代人、与他人连接的交接点时显示了我们每个人独特的眼光、趣味以及性格，以至于延续本身也可能是创造的开始。
巫：“水”在艺术表现中的作用是一个很有意思的问题，被你的阅读强调出来了。实际上艺术史家很可以从你的这套作品中学到不少东西，比如乔托的那张耶稣为门徒洗脚的壁画，一般大家注意到的是对情节和人物的表现，但是洗脚用的盆里的水肯定是很重要的。
缪： 一方面我看到了一些不为人注意的画面，另一方面也有意避开了大家都注意到的明显与水有关的画面，如施洗等。因为这个画面引发不出我个人的特殊感觉，于是我有意放弃了。我想完全用个人的眼光去看美术作品，选作品的原则是“让我特别有感触的”。而且“研究”的结果不必达到美术史意义上的结论，只是借此表达某些自己的感悟。
我选择的原画大致有三类：有的是跟水有特别关系的，如《大洪水》(The Deluge)，《返老还童》(Fountain of Youth)，一看就知道跟水有关系。第二类不是和水有着这种特别关系，而是间接有关系，像《殉道图》(The Martyrdom)，需要变化一下才会与水联系上。最后是第三类，看上去似乎与水毫无关系，但我还是选出来，做进这个系列了。这样一来，我肯定会问自己：为什么要把它选进来? 看的人也会问：为什么要把它选进来?我在回答这个问题时(有时甚至是有点牵强附会)，就一定会表明了我自己的观点。最后这一类就是像《基督背负十字架》(Carrying the Cross)，它从表面上看与水毫不相干。
巫：对，这是布鲁盖尔(Pieter Bruegel: Kreuztragung, 1564)的。
缪：这幅画描绘耶稣背负十字架去赴刑。耶稣赴刑让后世普通的人最感动的是，他不是作为一个神而是作为一个人去上十字架的，因为神是法力无边的，不可能被伤害的。看这样一个场景，会突然让人意识到，他原来也像我们一样，是一个有血有肉的、会死去的一个生命。他也很脆弱，极易受到伤害。他为所有的生命去牺牲(当然他又复活)，在这一点上打动和征服了很多人。
我把那些前景里在哭泣的人，包括圣母玛丽亚和圣徒们，都做成了透明状的水晶质，隐喻他们都“哭成了泪人”似的，其他人如行刑的士兵和无动于衷的旁观者都加了衣服，中间只有耶稣是个透明体。生命是如此透明与脆弱，极易受到攻击而消逝。人只是薄薄一层皮包裹着的一团肉体而已, 而肉体之内70%是水这样一种物质。人最脆弱的时候，体内会流出一些东西，如悲伤时的眼泪，受伤时流血，疲惫时流汗…这时大概都是人很脆弱的时候。
巫：你把有血有肉的生命体做成了透明的，像水的结晶一样，这让我想起《红楼梦》里贾宝玉说的：男人是土做的，女儿是水做的。你这个作品里的人好像也是一部分是泥土做的，一部分是水做的。这后一种人和画面中其他的芸芸众生不一样，他们位于前景，体形特别大，和后面人的比例不一样。我们可以把他们看成是一个叙事的“框架” (frame)，把整幅画看成是一个“Framed tale” (“框架叙事” )。
缪：是。中间被押送的士兵、被一些无动于衷的旁观者隔开，那些人都穿衣服。那张原画本身就很有意思，很宏大，画面中有些人似乎跟耶稣去赴刑没有什么关系，甚至在打闹嬉戏。布鲁盖尔的画很深刻，触动到人性的很多方面，我看原画的时候就有很多感触。
巫：H2O – 水的意义在不断变化。有时是物质性的Water, H2O的说法似乎强调水作为一个元素的意义，而不是一种有形的物质存在。耶稣，玛丽亚的悲痛，或者这种软弱性，或又变成另外一种意义上的东西，好像水的意义在你的这幅作品中不断地变化。虽然都是“水”，但是又不是一个简单的归类所能表述的。
缪：对，所以我就想把它叫做H2O。从元素的意义上说比较抽象，比较纯净。H2O带上杂质就变成了别的东西：带上碳酸就成了可口可乐;带点蛋白质就变成了血;带点盐分和杂质排泄出来就变成了汗。古代的水带着某些杂质，不同于我今天喝的水，但作为一种元素，都是一样的。
巫：你的《殉道图》(根据Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo 的The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, 1475)里水的意义似乎和《基督背负十字架》接近，是不是?
缪：对。原来画中圣塞巴斯蒂安身上射满了箭，像个刺猬。在我的作品中，我设想箭已射穿身体飞走，让身体不断有东西流出来。旁边的很多细节也是为了强调这点：我放了一个翻倒的玻璃瓶，液体从中流出，寓意人体也像一个容器，体液流光了，生命也就消失了。在这个作品的“第二视角”(Second View)变体中，地上放了盔甲，寓意人做了盔甲这坚硬的东西想保护脆弱的身体，但还是保护不了它。
巫：那《创世纪》(根据Michelangelo, Genesis) 呢? 亚当好像在透明的水分子里，最像H2O元素的感觉。这里水的含义是不是类似于生命的细胞?
缪：我自己觉得这是这个系列里挺重要的一张。本来米开朗基罗的《创世纪》是描述上帝和亚当之间的关系。可是对现代人来说，我们还会像中世纪的人一样相信这个故事吗?所以我对原画做了很多改变。那个透明的泡泡像个细胞，又像个宇宙飞船，一个在茫茫太空中运载生命和保护生命的封闭的容器——本来真地想做个宇宙飞船，后来想想不必要——只做了一个透明的圆球，比较抽象一点，这样既可以解释它可能是一个细胞，又可能是一艘在太空里飞行的宇宙飞船。里面有一团水，用手捧着，很珍贵。在太空飞船里，水对于生命弥足珍贵，喝水，洗漱，都要循环使用它。在三维电脑动画里有一团人在这容器之外，处于保护之外，处于失水状态，他们用一根长长的吸管把这团水吸过去，他们获得了生命。透明圆球里的人把水传递给别人，他失去了水，也失去了生命，最后化作一具骷髅，粉身，碎骨，消逝于宇宙之中。
在这件作品里，水从一个生命传递到另一个生命，是通过一根吸管。吸管在现代生活里司空见惯，随处可见。通过它，我们将封存在各式各样的瓶子罐子里的水吸食到我们体内，我不妨顺便想想它的象征意义!
米开朗基罗的作品是表现生命的创造，而到我这儿，因为我想不清生命的创造到底是怎么一回事(如前面说过的那样)，我只看到水在生命之间的传递，于是就只表达了“传递”这件事情。这对原画的改变是很大的，从内涵到形式。
巫：好像创世纪的逻辑被反过来了，原来是上帝给亚当以生命;现在这个球变成了生命的发源地，亚当成了生命的力量源泉，通过吸管把上帝、天使联系起来。
缪：因为现代科学颠覆了之前人们的许多观念。很久以前，我们把最美好的幻想给了无边无际、不为我们所认识的天穹，天堂也在那儿附近。可是现代人有能力在天上飞来飞去时，才觉得那里并没有什么东西，没有生命，荒凉一片。最神奇、最美妙的地方，还是在这充满了水和生命的蓝色星球上。另外，所有中世纪绘画中的地狱都在地底深处，烈焰滚滚。但想想核战争爆发时，末日来临——当然这是一种人为的末日——地上一片火海，可能深藏于地下的防空洞就成为生命最后的庇护所，有多少人能有幸躲进少数几个坚不可摧的地洞呢?这时很多概念就完全不一样了。
巫：是的，我觉得这个倒置很有意思。就说这个庇护所，它把生命保留下来，犹如荒漠的太空里的容器。它成了水的源头，变成了新的生命的起源。这不是原来的创世纪了，但仍然可以说“创世纪”。这里面的意思蛮深刻的。
这个系列里还有两张是根据提香和普桑的作品做的。提香的那张是不是《酒神图》(Bacchanal)?
缪：是。在提香的原作中，我注意到所有人都在举杯豪饮，烂醉如泥，只有一个小孩在撒尿。这个撒尿的小孩给了我很大触动：我们饮下的无论是何种琼浆玉液，最后排泄出来的仅是一泡黄尿而已。古语中“酒囊饭袋”似乎是指我们的肉体是一个暂时性的容器，酒肉穿肠而过，进进出出。我还注意到原画里有条小狗在画的远景里，我现在把它放到画的前景里作撒尿状，水在动物那里也一样穿肠而过，进进出出。
巫：普桑那张画中的水占了很大位置，是实际环境中的水。水在这个系列中的其它作品里则有着不同的形态和意义，有的画是表现人和水的关系——比如沐浴者，还有的是表现盛水的容器——饮水的碗等等。普桑这张画中的水是一个形象主体。
缪：这张画叫《有第欧根尼的风景》(Nicolas POUSSIN：Landscape with Diogenes, 1647)。据说古代有个哲学家叫第欧根尼Diogenes，他经过一个溪边，看到可能是一个牧人吧，在用手捧水喝，就想我为什么还要带着一个碗用来喝水?于是就扔掉了碗。他想跟牧人一样，和自然更亲近一些。 我做到这个作品的第二视图时，又加进两只喝水的天鹅。动物没有文明，没有发明和制造过工具，也就没有选择和抛弃，不存在扔掉碗的问题，一直是直接用嘴饮水的，一直是与自然紧密联系在一起的。
同样的，我在《浴足图》(The Washing of the Feet)的第二视图里加进一只猫。人洗脚是用水来洁净自己，而动物只能舔净自身，它同样也是洗脚，但方式不同，意义也截然不同。而耶稣给门徒洗脚还带着洁净身体之外更深层的某种仪式性的东西。
巫：还有一张有喷泉的《返老还童图》(Fountain of Youth)。
缪：这幅作品表现了水的魔力，水能让我们暂时变得年轻。现代人忙碌一天，回家冲个澡便又精神抖擞了。
巫：去游泳，精神就回来了。
缪：暂时性地年轻了一下。不知是什么原因，我们一到水里就会变得轻松快乐。是因为我们身体的70%都是水吗? 还是因为我们每个个体在生命孕育之初，就是为水所包裹?或者是其它别的原因?当然在原画里表现得比较极端一点：老态龙钟的人经过青春不老泉之后便焕然一新了!
当然，水也有其暴戾的一面，在《洪水图》(The Deluge)里。创造了生命的水又毁灭了生命。
巫：其实在所有这些方面，水都是跨文化的，在中国文学里我们可以找到很多例子。比如大洪水和大禹治水的传说。中国文化里还有些比较有意思的是水与人的性格之间的联系，如“智者乐水，仁者乐山”。
缪：“上善若水”也是说好的品格应该像水一样。
巫：或者说，“君子之交淡如水”。但坏的品性也用水来比喻，比如“水性”。最好最差的品性都用水来比喻了。
缪：对，这也挺有意思的。
巫：我们再谈谈整个这组东西，除了水的作用，还有别的视觉上的表现。比如色彩上的表现，有的和原画有关系，如提香那张画，色彩鲜艳，非常明亮。有的不一定有关系，像乔托那张洗脚的，转换后的色彩与原画的关系不是很大，淡淡的蓝灰色虽然有点中世纪的味道，但和乔托不是那么有关系。你对色彩的选择是怎么考虑的?
缪：这组作品除了《赴刑图》(Carrying the Cross)外，其它作品中的人物模型都是没有服饰的。我考虑把形体设定为跟原画中的服饰接近的颜色，通过色彩来与原画取得联系。像在提香的《酒神图》(Bacchanal)中，人物的肤色分别是红橙黄绿等颜色。如果有人想考证为什么这人是红色?我就会说：原画中人穿的衣服颜色就是如此。这样比较抽象一点，可以避免马上进入到特定的语境中去，因为衣服具有很强的指向性：它能表明这是某个时代，某个国家或某个民族的服饰。
在《返老还童》里则是另一种情形：用同一个模型很难表现从年老变年轻的过程，我就用不同颜色来表达这样一个变化的过程：年老的人用较深较黯淡的色彩来表现，年轻的人用较亮较有光泽的色彩表现。从左到右渐渐变亮，寓意由年老变年轻的过程。我想这可能是更“美术化”的语言，但是我觉得比通过衣服、皮肤和毛发的变化来表达会更有意思一些。
巫：因此你的作品应该说是对原作的“再创作”，是吧?人物的性别、年龄、体质、身份的差别消失了，都用同一个模型。
缪：对，这样更好一点。
巫：你最近的这两组作品，《虚拟最后审判》和《H2O》，都使用了把你自己抽象化的同一个数码模型。而你以前的摄影作品中有一个以你自己为原型的雕塑模型。从这一点上来说，这两个阶段是否有某种联系?
缪：有关系。前一段作品里是雕塑的“我”，是存在于现实中的，看得见摸得着的;现在是数码的“我”, 只能存在于电脑中，看得见但摸不着。但都可称之为“雕塑”，都和“我”有关系。
巫：所以你觉得第一个作品作为摄影来说，做的是记录现实;第二个作品则很不一样，使用的是digital Model, 是在电脑里做出来的，然后制成平面图像。由于这种不同，我们应该怎么称呼这第二组作品呢?是叫它电脑艺术(computer art)还是摄影?
缪：可能这要看从什么角度去看。如果认同软件里虚拟的照相机，认可这种在电脑里的拍摄方式，就不妨说它是photography里的一种;但这是很边缘的一种photography, 实际上与传统的photography不一样了。如果定义为photography不甚恰当，或许可称之为computer art或digital image, 这取决于从哪个点来看它。
巫：可能需要根据具体的成像方式，可以想象你也可以把这种数码形象发展为全息影像，完全变成一种幻视。
缪：也许很多东西还没有办法去明确定义，或者它的发展速度远远快于定义它的速度。在几个世纪以前，某个定义可以沿用几百年。但现在，几年以前的某个定义，在今天看来已不太确切。十年前用电子媒介做的作品，今天看来宛如中世纪的作品一样质朴。于是我告诉自己：赶紧做，埋头做，不管到底会做出什么。因为有一点是肯定的，用这些新的媒介总是可以做一些新的尝试的，肯定是值得去做的。
2007年9月6日 录制于北京人济山庄
原画作者及标题：
(1) Giotto: The Washing of the Feet，Cappella degli Scrovegni, Padua
(2) Michelangelo: The Deluge, Cappella Sistina
(3) Michelangelo: Genesis, Cappella Sistina
(4) Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo: The Martyrdom of St Sebastian, 1475
(5) Titian: Bacchanal, 1520-1521
(6) Pieter Bruegel: Kreuztragung, 1564
(7) Lucas Cranach d. A: Der Jungbrunnen, 1546
(8) Nicolas Poussin：Landscape with Diogenes, 1647
Re-imagining H2O in Art
---A Discussion between Wu Hung and Miao Xiaochun
Wu Hung (hereafter WH): We mentioned last time in our discussion that starting from your works Mirage and Celebration, etc., you had basically parted from the sculptural figure that appears in your previous photographs. Today, let’s begin our conversation from there and focus on your two most recent projects: The Last Judgment in Cyberspace and H2O- A Study of Art History. Perhaps we can center more on the latter work, because we’ve already done an exhibition together on The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, and I’ve written an essay about it. This time, let’s concentrate primarily on H2O.
Miao Xiaochun (hereafter MXC): All right. These two works really represent a turning point in my art. Before I started these two projects, when I was working with conventional photography, I was shooting three-dimensional scenes in reality. And I was thinking about how to find the most appropriate angle from which to photograph a real situation and transform it into a flat, two-dimensional thing. One day, while looking at two-dimensional paintings in art history, a thought suddenly occurred to me: What would it be like if we changed it anew into a three-dimensional scene? I thought that if I could restore it, it would lead to very interesting results. So, I selected Michelangelo’s The Last Judgment. I first transformed it into a three-dimensional scene in the computer and then attempted to “view” it from different angles while also “photographing” these views. The process is the complete opposite from conventional photography.
Additionally, three-dimensional scenes in reality are constantly changing and moving, but photography can only show a static moment. As Michelangelo’s Last Judgment was originally motionless, my goal was to make it three-dimensional and then imbue it with movement. Thus I also made a three-dimensional computer animation to company the digital photographs, thereby realizing the reversal from immobility to mobility.
After completing The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, a lot of people asked me, “How could you make something so completely different from your earlier work?” Although on the surface, this work appears unlike my previous work—two different mediums, two different ways of making things—I think that the two are actually still very much related. If in photography I had never taken a three-dimensional thing and made it two-dimensional, then maybe I would never have made something two-dimensional three-dimensional, and have the idea to photograph it.
WH: As I see it, these two stages—and I think I understand these works relatively well—have a very strong relationship. Although on the surface, they seem to have nothing to do with one another, in reality they are quite related, especially with regard to the question of “looking.” Your photographic works already emphasized shifting viewpoints, with implications of movement and temporal concepts visualized on one plane. I remember in our last discussion, we brought up the relationship between your photographs and Chinese scroll painting, and the question of movement, etc. In these new works “movement” persists, but its appearance is different.
There’s a question that we can talk about more in depth, which is the very interesting shift from two to three dimensions. But, the three-dimensionality that you have produced is not actually a concrete three-dimensional objecthood, right? You created a three-dimensional model on the computer, but the work that emerges from this computer model is still a two-dimensional image. That is to say, the photographs made with this method are still two-dimensional, although they are clearly distinct from conventional photography. Exactly what notion of three-dimensionality are you referring to in this shift from “two-dimensional to three-dimensional”? ---Certainly, it’s different from a sculptor’s concept of three-dimensionality.
MXC: To be sure, a sculpture’s three-dimensionality is a truly existing one, whereas one shown on a computer is virtual. When you turn the computer off it’s gone, you can neither see nor touch it. Even if we use a projector to project it into a space, it’s still not the same as a traditional sculpture.
Three-dimensionality as it exists in reality seems limitless, infinite in time and space. Three-dimensionality in a computer, however, is limited and reached only based on a computer’s operational capacities. Of course, following technological advancements, this space has become bigger and bigger, but it’s still differentiated from reality. It’s also temporally distinct, as it can’t be endless, and instead must have a specific duration. Thus, in the titles of all of these works, I have added the word “virtual” (the literal translation for The Last Judgment in Cyberspace is The Virtual Last Judgment).
WH: If we consider it like this, then we can go back and rethink the so-called two-dimensional works. For example, we all learned in Western art history that there was the development of a very strong sense of purpose towards subjugating two-dimensional space by integrating the third dimension into the depiction of space in a painting. Thus, taking a flat material medium—a canvas or a wall—and “conquering” it by transforming it into a fictitious three-dimensional “pictorial space.” To contemporary viewers, the result was a fantastical space. So, from this historical viewpoint, perhaps what Michelangelo was doing at the time is a little bit like what you are doing. To his contemporaries, perhaps the Last Judgment was a virtual space. But, in the twenty-first century, we regard it as a “fresco.” Your work pushes this pursuit of “virtual space” into today, guiding it into contemporary art. Just like Michelangelo, however, your work also has its historical limitations. We see Michelangelo’s work as a painting, but at that time, people described it as if seeing the real last judgment, the real Jesus Christ, etc…what they saw was also a virtual three-dimensionality.
MXC: Along these lines, five hundred years from now, when people see our present work it will be just like how present people see Michelangelo’s painting. Perhaps they will also think of this as a kind of “flattening.”
I think, in every period, people endeavor to attain the very highest plane that their technological conditions allow. We are currently constrained to many technological elements, and can only reach a certain degree. For example, photography and video actually have a lot of shortcomings. Although they are more authentic instruments for documentation, they are still far from perfect. There are still limits to recording the real in a comprehensive way. Perhaps in the future, the technology will be available for documenting an entire scene, even the temperature and smells, etc. so that we can record and restore all of it. At that point, we will look back and consider today’s technology to be very primitive.
WH: In the future, the greatest breakthrough might be the breakthrough of the scope of the “visual.” From ancient times to the present, art has revolved around the visual. It is still this way. You just mentioned some other sensations like touch and smell. If they can enter into artistic expression, then that would truly transform a fundamental concept. In real life, hearing, smelling, seeing, etc…they are all sensed and aren’t separated. But in traditional art, the visual along serves as the foundational basis. Now, some artists are beginning to pursue senses outside of the visual.
You just explained how The Last Judgment in Cyberspace was a restoration of two-dimensionality into three-dimensions. But, with regard to the H20 works, it seems that this shift is not the primary objective of these pieces. Is this right? Because the experience of a virtual three-dimensionality seems to have been achieved in The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, is the H20 series now absorbed in a new purpose?
MXC: Technologically, it is a natural continuation of the earlier works, as it also takes flat art historical paintings and makes them three-dimensional. It then views them from two angles: their similarities and differences with the original. This second angle is important because it is an entirely new perspective of looking; the consideration of differences from the original is a view absent from art history.
The content then attempts to offer a reply to the question posed by the previous work. The question raised by the last work was “Where will I go?” This is related to the question of where life comes from, and where it is going. But in reality, this is very difficult to answer. Even the wisest philosophers have difficulty in providing an ultimate answer. I wanted to use art to indirectly address and respond to this question, so I made the H2O series.
WH: The continuation of technique is very clear. In terms of content, the previous work raised the question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” You said that your answer is related to water, why is this?
MXC: Although we live in modern times, our current scientific knowledge still cannot answer the question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” It is also hard to locate an answer in religion. Because some theories and doctrines have been shown to be incorrect in some areas, it is difficult for modern people to place a firm belief in them. Because of this, it is now very difficult to be a Christian or a Buddhist, and there is no theory or doctrine that can guide us completely. In the end, I could only use the simplest things, things that appear to have no problems, to find answers for myself. For example, “water”: the water that I drink today has flowed through millions of years, through countless living beings, cycling through everything, and after it leaves me, it will continue to stream through millions of years, into countless living forms, sinking into the earth, going into the sky, and moving back and forth. But, H2O, this element itself doesn’t change. It has flowed through primitive cells, dinosaurs, Confucius, cows, Louis XV, apples, Newton, potatoes, Beethoven, etc…innumerable animals, plants, and people are connected through this element. I think that this by itself is significant; I am somehow connected to many lives. I can’t answer this question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” but its relationship with water is evident. I wanted to use this kind of thing to create some works!
WH: In the treatment of water as a ceaselessly circulating element that manifests the continuity of life and connectivity in all living things, the content in this series of works possesses a philosophical layer. But, what is interesting is your choice to approach water from the angle of art history, rather than representing it as it appears in the real world. In this way, you again create another kind of continuity, which is the continuity of art—the “water” in your series only exists in art. So, there are two parallel levels of continuity: the circulation of water in the actual, physical world, and the circulation of images of water in art history. Is that right?
MXC: This is correct. Both kinds of continuity do exist. The continuity of artwork from different eras and in different regions is an interesting and important question. Sometimes, it is direct, while at other times it isn’t; it can be indirect to the point of not leaving behind any traces. We really don’t know how that first brush stroke ended up on a grotto wall, and we don’t know how when the second person faced this first painted image, how he produced the second image. Was it by copying? Or, was it a competition to make something better? Or, was it via another path? After so many works of art, images, and concepts have “flowed into” my brain, I cannot help but link together ancient and modern, Eastern and Western pieces. What I produce is absolutely a continuation of earlier art; while it takes a small step forward to expand new possibilities. When we choose exchanges with past generations, we reveal our individual way of looking at things. We reveal our own taste and disposition to the degree that continuity itself can create a new beginning.
WH: The function of representations of “water” in art is a very interesting question, and one that is emphasized in your readings of the ancient masterpieces. In fact, I think that art historians can learn quite a lot from your series. For example, in Giotto’s fresco of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet, most art historians have focused on the narrative and characters, but you bring people’s attention to the basin used for washing the feet. This is certainly very important.
MXC: On the one hand, I see some things that people wouldn’t normally notice. On the other hand, I also intentionally avoided works that most people would see as being obviously related to water, for example images of baptism. If a tableau doesn’t trigger my personal feelings, then I abandon it. I wanted to use a completely personal way of viewing these works. The principle guiding my selection of artwork was based on those that “gave me a particular thought and feeling.” Moreover, this “researching” did not have to result in the attainment of some verdict of art historical meaning. It was just a means to expressing some of my own realizations.
The original paintings that I selected can be roughly divided into three categories. In the first category, the works have a very particular relationship with water, for example The Deluge and Fountain of Youth; as soon as you see it, you know it’s related to water. The second category of works doesn’t share such a relationship. Instead, the works have an indirect link to water, for example The Martyrdom. These need to be transformed in some way to make that connection clear. The last category of works seems to have no connection at all with water, but I selected them anyhow and forged a relationship with water. As such, I had to ask myself: Why did I select these works to enter into the series? Viewers will also ask: Why have these been selected? When I answer this question (sometimes, even giving a strained interpretation), I am making my own viewpoint known. An example of a work in the last category is Carrying the Cross, which appears to be completely unrelated to water.
WH: This is Peter Bruegel’s Kreuztragung from 1564.
MXC: This painting depicts Jesus bearing a cross on his back, going to his execution. This motif was very moving to common people in later generations, for here Jesus is not regarded as a deity, but as a normal person going to be crucified. A deity would have possessed boundless supernatural powers, and wouldn’t sustain any injuries. Viewing this scene would suddenly make people conscious of the fact that Jesus was originally like us, a person of flesh and blood, a person capable of dying. He too is frail, and endures extreme harm. He sacrifices himself for all (of course, he is also resurrected), and it is this point that emotionally moves and captures so many people.
I took all the weeping people in the foreground, including the Virgin Mary and the apostles, and made them all like crystallized water, as a metaphor for their “crying until they become weeping figures.” The other people there, like the soldiers who are to execute the sentence and the indifferent spectators, all wear clothes. In the center, only Jesus has a completely transparent body. Life is transparent and frail like this. It’s easy to be attacked and die. People only have a very thin layer of skin binding their flesh together, and their body is 70% water. When people are at their weakest, fluids flow out of these bodies: tears when we are sad, blood when we are injured, sweat when we are exhausted.
WH: You have taken bodies of flesh and blood and made them transparent, like crystallized water. This makes me think of in Dream of the Red Chamber, when Jia Baoyu says: “Men are made from the earth, women are made from water.” In your reworking of Bruegel’s painting, some of the people seem to be made from the earth, while others are made from water. This latter type is different from other living things in the painting. The Virgin and her companions are situated in the foreground, and their forms are particularly large, proportionally distinct from those in the midground. We can regard them as a kind of narrative “frame,” and take the entire painting as a “framed tale.”
MXC: Yes. In my work, the soldiers in the middle who have been sent as escorts and the indifferent bystanders at the side are all wearing clothes. The original painting is itself extremely interesting, it’s vast and some of the figures seem to have nothing to do with Jesus’s execution, some even appear to be laughing and joking. Bruegel’s painting is very profound; it touches on many different aspects of human nature. When I saw the original work, it generated many thoughts and feelings.
WH: The meaning of water continually changes in this series. Sometimes it points to the materiality of water, but your use of “H2O” in the series’ title seems to place an emphasis on its meaning as an essential element, not as a tangible substance. Jesus, Mary’s sorrow, frailty…it seems that the meaning of water in this work changes again. Although they are all related to water, there is not a straightforward classification that can be completely expressed.
MXC: Right, so I call the series H2O. Its meaning as an element is more abstract and more pure. Once H2O is contaminated with foreign matters, it turns into something else: when carbonic acid is added, it becomes Coca Cola; when a little bit of protein is added it becomes blood; when salt is added and flows out of us, it is perspiration. In ancient times, water carried a lot of impurities, not like the kind we drink today. But as an element, H2O remains the same.
WH: The meaning of water in your The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian (based on the work of Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo, 1475) seems close to that in Carrying the Cross. Is that right?
MXC: Right. In the original work, St. Sebastian’s body is shot full of arrows, like a hedgehog. In my work, I imagined that the arrows that once pierced his body have flied away, and the wounds are now spilling out bodily fluids. The details at the side emphasize this point: I placed a glass vase toppled over with liquid leaking out of it to imply that the body is also like a vessel, and when the bodily fluids have all poured out, then life disappears. In my variant of this photograph, a “second view,” a suit of armor lies on the ground, implying that although man has made solid things to protect his fragile body, it can’t save life.
WH: Then what about Michelangelo’s Genesis? Adam seems to be in a transparent water molecule, lending the greatest sense of H2O as an element. Is the meaning of water here similar to living cells?
MXC: I personally consider this to be a very important piece in the series. Originally, Michelangelo’s Genesis depicted the relationship between God and Adam. But, as modern people, do we still believe in this story? So, I made a lot of changes from the original work. That transparent bubble is like a cell, and it’s also like an abstract spacecraft, a closed container carrying and protecting life through the vast sky. I originally really did think about making a spacecraft, but later decided it wasn’t necessary—just making a clear sphere was more abstract and could then be interpreted as a cell, and also as a spacecraft in the cosmos. Inside, there is a precious ball of water, cupped inside both hands. In a spacecraft, water is extremely valuable---water used for drinking, washing one’s face, rinsing one’s mouth, etc. is all needed and recycled. In the three-dimensional computer animation I have made based on the same painting, there is a group of people who are outside of this container. They are outside of its protection and suffer in a state of dehydration. They use a long straw to draw it over in order to attain life. The person in the clear sphere (i. e. Adam) transfers the water to the others, and in doing so he loses the water, loses life, and in the end becomes a skeleton, which further transforms into fragments and powder, and vanishes into the universe.
In this work, water is transmitted from one life to another, through a straw. Straws are a common occurrence in modern life; they are everywhere. Through them, we suck water out of sealed bottles and jars into our bodies; I can’t help but think about their symbolic significance!
Michelangelo’s work expresses the creation of life. But, to me, I couldn’t clearly see this matter of how life really was created (as discussed earlier). I could only see water transmitted among lives, and as a result I expressed this “transferring.” This is a major change from the original painting, from connotation to content.
WH: It’s like the logic of creating the world has been reversed. Originally God gave Adam life; now, this suspended sphere has become the source of life, Adam has become life’s power source, connected to God and angels through a straw.
MXC: Modern science has overturned a lot of the ideas and concepts of our predecessors. A long time ago, we gave our most glorious illusions to a limitless vault of heaven. But, when modern people began to have the ability to fly back and forth through the sky, they started to think that there isn’t really anything up there; it is bleak, desolate, and without life. The most miraculous and most beautiful place turns out to be our own blue planet, which is full of water and life! Moreover, all of the depictions of hell in paintings from the Middle Ages show a place deep underground raging with flames. But, consider what would happen if a nuclear war erupted and we succumbed to the approach of a manmade Judgment Day. With a sea of fire on the ground, perhaps hidden underground air-raid shelters would be the last sanctuary for life. How many people would be fortunate enough to take refuge in these holes in the ground? At that moment, a lot of our concepts would be completely altered.
WH: I think that this inversion is very interesting. This sanctuary in your work, protecting and sustaining life, is just like a container in the middle of a desolate and boundless cosmos. It has become the fountainhead, the origin of new life. Although this is not the original genesis, it can still be called a “genesis.” The meanings found here are quite profound.
In this series there are also two pieces that are based on Titian and Poussin. Titian’s work is Bacchanal, right?
MXC: Yes. In Titian’s work, I noticed that all the people were proposing a toast. They were all drunk, and only one child was urinating. This child moved me: no matter what refined liquor we drink, in the end what leaks out of us is only yellow urine. The old saying meaning “a good-for-nothing” (literally “wine bag and rice pocket”) seems to point out that our bodies are only a provisional container, with meat and alcohol passing through our intestines, entering and exiting our bodies. I also noticed that in the painting there was a little dog in the distance; water also passes through animals’ intestines, entering and exiting their bodies as well.
WH: In Poussin’s painting, water occupies a major position, appearing as it does in the real environment. It has a different form and meaning from other works in this series. Some works display the relationship between man and water—for example, immersed in a bath, containers full of water, bowls for drinking, etc. In Poussin’s work, water is a principle subject in the pictorial representation.
MXC: This painting is called Landscape with Diogenes. It is said that in antiquity there was a philosopher named Diogenes who passed by a stream and saw a shepherd drinking water out of his cupped hands. Diogenes thought to himself: Why have I brought a bowl for drinking water? Thus he threw it away. He wanted to be the same as the shepherd and be closer to nature. When I made a “second view” of this work, I added two swans drinking water. Animals aren’t civilized: they didn’t invent nor have they manufactured utensils, and have never had to select and abandon. This question of discarding a bowl is nonexistent to them as they have always just used their mouths to drink directly. They have always been inseparably connected with nature.
Similarly, in the second view of The Washing of the Feet, I added a cat. When people wash, they use water to clean themselves. Animals, meanwhile, lick themselves clean. They also wash their feet, but using a different method, the meaning is also completely different. Moreover, Jesus washing his disciples’ feet also carries an even deeper layer of ritual significance outside of cleaning the body.
WH: There is also the work Fountain of Youth.
MXC: This painting shows the magic of water as something that can allow people to temporarily become youthful again. Modern people rush about all day long. When they return home and take a shower, they become invigorated again.
WH: After swimming, one also feels that one’s energy returns.
MXC: A moment of temporary youth. We don’t know the reason why, but as soon as we get into the water we become relaxed and cheerful. Is it because our body is also 70% water? Or is it because each and every one of us at inception was enveloped in water? Or are there some other reasons? Of course, in the original painting the point is even more extreme: When elderly people pass through the Fountain of Youth, they assume entirely new appearance!
Of course, water also has a ruthless and tyrannical aspect, as in The Deluge. Water that creates life also destroys it.
WH: Actually, in all of these aspects, water is cross-cultural. In Chinese literature, we can find many examples---for instance, the legend about Yu the Great controlling the water. But what’s more interesting in Chinese culture is the link between water and a person’s disposition, for example in the saying, “The wise find pleasure in water; the virtuous find pleasure in hills.”
MXC: “Supreme virtue is like water” also equates water with good character.
WH: Or, “The association between wise men is pure like water.” But, descriptions of bad moral character also adopt water metaphors, for example, the phrase for “fickle and lascivious” literally means “aqueous.” Descriptions of good and bad characters all use water metaphors.
MXC: Yes, this is very interesting.
WH: Let’s return to this entire group of works. Besides water, there are other aspects of visual representation. For example, the use of color: in some cases, your coloration is related to the original work. An example is your version of Titian’s painting, where the color is kept especially bright. But, many of your versions do not maintain a clear relevance to the source painting; for example in your transformation of Giotto’s The Washing of the Feet, although the pale ash blue seems to have a feel of the Middle Ages, it is not really connected with Giotto’s original work. How did you come to your selection of colors?
MXC: In this group of works, with the exception of Carrying the Cross, none of the figures in the paintings are wearing any clothes. I thought about having the colors of the physical bodies fixed to the colors of the clothing in the original work, thus maintaining a direct relationship between the two. For example, in my version of Titian’s Bacchanal, figures’ skin colors are red, orange, yellow, green, etc. If someone asked why is this person red? I would say: in the original work, figures were wearing clothes with these colors. But, I think the way I ultimately decided upon is more abstract; you avoid entering into an immediate and designated context. Clothes possess a very strong sense of directionality: they can indicate the time period, or a particular ethnicity or country.
Fountain of Youth offers a different case. Since all the figures use the same model, it is hard to show the process of an old person turning into a youth, so I used different colors to indicate this transformation. Elder people are shown in relatively deeper, dimmer colors, while young people are shown brighter and glossier. From left to right, color becomes gradually brighter, implying this change from old to young. I think that this perhaps employs a more “artistic” language, but it is more interesting than using clothes, skin, or hair.
WH: So, can we say that your works are “re-creations” of the originals? Distinctions in gender, age, character and physique are all dissolved as they all use one model.
MXC: Right, I think this is better.
WH: Your two most recent groups of works, The Last Judgment in Cyberspace and H2O, both use an abstracted image of yourself as a digital mold. In your earlier photographs, you used a sculptural figure also based on yourself. From this perspective, are the two different phases somehow connected?
MXC: Yes, they are related. In the first phase of my art, I had a sculptural “me” that existed in reality such that you could see and touch it. Now, this digital “me” only exists in the computer, it can be seen but not touched. But, they can all be called “sculptures,” and all are connected to “me.”
WH: So, you think of the first set of works as photographs and a record of reality; while the second set of works are different because they use a digital model, made on a computer, and then completed like a blueprint. Given these differences, how should we call this second group of works? Are they computer art or photographs?
MXC: Perhaps this depends on which angle you view them from. If you acknowledge the software’s virtual camera and approve this kind of means of computer photography, then you can call it a type of photography. But, it is still one that sits on the fringes of photography, as it is really quite different from traditional methods. It’s not entirely suitable to define it as photography. Perhaps it could be called computer art or digital imagery, but this depends on your point of view.
WH: Perhaps this needs to be determined according to the specific means of realization. I can imagine the development of this kind of digital imagery into a holographic portrait, thereby becoming a complete visual illusion.
MXC: There are a lot of things that still cannot be explicitly defined, or perhaps the rate of its development defines it. A few centuries ago, some definitions persisted for hundreds of years. But, nowadays, a definition from just a few years back might appear imprecise today. Now, when we look at how computers were used as a medium for producing works ten years ago, it seems as simple and unaffected as art from the Middle Ages. I told myself: lose no time, immerse yourself, it doesn’t matter what is produced in the end. Using these kinds of new media, what is definite is that one can always attempt new things, and it is always worth it.
September 6, 2007, Beijing
(Translated by Peggy Wang)
For the record, the original works quoted by Miao Xiaochun in his H2O series are listed below:
【编辑：小红】
