访问人：邓大非(以下简称邓)
受访人：徐小国(以下简称徐)
地点：黑桥徐小国工作室
时间：2009年11月
邓：在讨论对你2009年11月28日个展名称“圣迹”的英文翻译时，我想，“圣”字如果直译成saint时就太基督教化，我看到你的许多画面符号并不指谓耶稣基督信仰。
徐：“圣”，我是指“神”、“圣”、“凡”。这是对标准的个人理解。个体在社会里成为一种经典或价值标准的典范，那最终走到极致之后就会被神化!凡人与圣者之间不停地转换角色，从而有了人到神、神又到人的转化过程。所以，“圣迹”的提法是比较准确的，比“神迹”要好。神迹是比较浅表的层面理解，是神话学的、是宗教感的。我两年前基本上形成了这个展览的构架。至于“圣迹”只是个展览的名称罢了。在作品的传达上面，我并不一定根据神话故事或者宗教事件来展开艺术问题的界面，从而建构展览的框架。
邓： 现在很多艺术家愿意在作品中有意识地强调一种暧昧的性质，其实本质上是想在观者的层面造成一种更加开放的理解和阐释。
徐：其实艺术家不需要曲解或误读。我就是正着正用的，或者说我没有在作品中强调暧昧。假设这个过程出现在日常的言语访谈之中，就会特别有意思;但是在艺术的创作过程中，我恰恰没有这样的企图，即把语义和符号导向另外的暧昧性，或是艺术不可说。有人致力于让作品的形式和内容对别人达到那种开放性，我恰恰不是这样。我现在研究的方向是建立一种绘画的自我结构。在绘画行为过程中传达出来的感受我是完全知道的。现在很多艺术家用暧昧的语言，我并不排除各玩各的。有些艺术家是在向着艺术问题开火，有些艺术家则是在对观众玩一种猫腻的游戏，导致观众对他们产生一些甚至高层次的理解，或者误解。
邓：记得刚进你的工作室，看到你那些带有强烈喜剧性和张力的巨幅绘画，给人的第一印象是作品中包含特别强烈的“中国”意向。从符号到题材，都是。我的本能反应就是你的作品带着一种古典知识分子那种“文以载道”的遗传基因，与那些带着试验室色彩、玩纯粹语言游戏的艺术家走的是不同的路数。那就是，在作品的背后要强调特定的意义或价值。但与那些是非、善恶的人道主义价值倾向的不同在于，你是带着神话、述说不清的历史之谜与讲不透的复杂故事，好像有很多的心结都纠缠在一起，让人感觉很困惑。历史的、文化的、心理的情结都搅在一起，好像人类自身的欲望和理想是分不开、捆绑在一起的。当然在画面中还是能够看到你对符号和图像的处理关系中体现的戏剧因素，能看到你想在哪种程度停下来的企图，我想知道你在这些因素背后中的动机是什么?
徐：你说的那种中国符号、情调，我可以用我的生活来举个例子。比如你给我强加一个定义，徐小国是一个中国人。那我要是不认定的话，那这种符号障碍就不成立。那反过来，如果我认定我自己是中国人的话，那这种障碍就产生了。如果选择后者的话，我使用中国符号，那就是一个障碍，或者说我用中国符号，去做中国符号，去生产中国符号，产生中国符号在国际化的通用品牌效应。我本来就是普遍意义上的人类一员。如果我没有这个障碍的话，至于我是不是一个中国人，那已经不重要了。如果从另一个角度看，我本身是一个中国人，我自身改变不了这个现实，在作品中自然流露出中国文化的影子。我觉得这不是问题，也没有必要过分排斥它的存在。这样做是没有意义的。不必在这个问题上浪费时间和精力，应该把精力放在作品中。
中国的现状让我产生了对一些标准的质疑。我不是质疑标准的现实高度，而是质疑标准变化的过程。我觉得对标准变化过程的关注才能看到事情的真实状态。我觉得这特别有意思。就像化学试验一样，添加一点化学成分，它就完全变了;再添加一点别的成分，它又开始变化。这是一个综合性的、呈现出一个社会化和人类综合预谋后的结果。
我对不同地域文化的研究有兴趣，我看很多这类的书。同时，我也对宗教感兴趣。我喜欢把不同地域的宗教拿来对比，但我觉得书不能满足艺术家对现实世界的感知，我不是作为一个学者去研究，而是用我的感知体会其过程，发现里面特别有意思。近来，我对文化人类学的考据方法很感兴趣，尤其针对不同地域中出现的神话传说的考据。好玩的是，这些神话传说在世界不同地域的演绎方式中非常类似，只是角色的名字不同，就像中国的县志和地方考一样。比如杭州有一个神话：一个女孩落水了，这个女孩被人打捞上来成为鬼或是成为神了。这个故事在南京也有，在别的地方也有，只是有点不同，女孩变成了一只鸟掉到水里了，后来幻化成为神仙了。在欧洲也有这样类似的传说。各处演绎都有所不同，但里面的内质是相同的。这些神话都多多少少的改变了不同地域的意识形态。这些改变过程很耐人寻味。如果深入一步，这种所谓地域化意识形态的产生究竟是个人造成的还是群体造成的，就不得而知了。假设它由一个人产生，并发展成群体的价值标准，进一步扩大为庞大的体系标准，就成了真事。或者反过来，庞大的社会系统也会造成对个人价值标准的改变。我想，不管是谁改变了谁，在这个真与假、是与非的纠结点上，有许多文化问题值得去反思。 在“圣迹”这套作品之前，我选择了用舞台表达我的文化反思和对标准变化过程的质疑。我觉得，用舞台这个语言比较贴切。因为舞台存在五个空间关系：背景空间、背景空间之前的戏剧空间、观众的观看空间、剧场外的空间和现实社会与虚拟社会的空间。假设舞台背景空间是“假”的话，那么前台表演是真的，如果这两者合为一体，那观众的观看空间相对舞台剧来说是真的。前三者在剧场里的空间面对剧场外的空间时，它也是假的。最有意思的是，现实已经很真实了，为什么还要制造一个假的剧场现实呢?可能它有产生的必要性。我在进入舞台系列的时候选择类似导演的角色，在里面调整这种关系。我做了错位的安排，打乱原有既定的逻辑关系，在错位的安排中给观众反思的空间。如果我够强大到改变所有的话，就可以把现实转化为虚拟、把虚拟转化为现实，那就更有意思了。但在那个时候，我的综合能力达不到，所以在舞台系列中，我没有解决最终想要解决的问题。
邓：所以以前在舞台系列中没有解决的问题，是否会带入目前“圣迹”这个展览的作品中?
徐：我选择这个展览名字，主题叫“圣迹”。你看到的所有东西好像是我捏造的，以神话和中国符号来表述都不重要，重要的在于我把这个问题扩大化了。我回到现实与虚拟之间的关系上。这时候，我只能放弃舞台，因舞台不能承载对问题的深层研究。舞台系列只是进行正常逻辑关系的改变。它改变不了观众对你作品或对你思想深层的反思和研究。所以我把舞台打散了，没有舞台了，没有舞台的形象了。在“圣迹”系列中其实出现了一个大舞台的概念，不局限于舞台安排或者表演。这是一个现实世界的舞台，表达的场域大了。我在里面做事的可能性也就更大了，玩的东西更多了，可以驾驭的东西也更多了。
邓：在展览空间的安排上，你想把这几年的思路有一个比较全面的推出吗?
徐：这次不展出舞台系列中的作品。这次展览我不想把画简简单单找地方挂一挂，像普通的画展那样安排。我想通过展场空间的分割产生一条观看的路线。我好像是导游一样，设计并引导观众的观看过程，让观众被动地参与进来，从而了解我的线索和研究方向。
邓：纵观你几个系列的作品，给人的直觉是作者在讲故事，但好像是在讲一个永远讲不明白、讲不清楚的故事。你处在叙事和拒绝叙事之间的一种状态，这让我好奇，你对表达究竟持一种什么样的态度?
徐：我其实是在探究事物背后的一种真实状态。我觉得，我的作品不是用来解决问题的，而是提出问题的。我的态度不是简简单单找到答案就好。
邓：从画面本身来看，你的作品给人一种很能画的感觉，塑造非常强。你的画面很实，有种本土的生机和力量，有一种内在的激情和自发感。但从符号之间的构成 成来看，你的作品似乎又摆脱不了对“意义”的追究，抹不去对历史感的表达。在符号逻辑的错位搭配中，你营造给观众一种对历史的困惑之视觉体验。但这种效果，你好像不完全是靠搭配符号之间的距离来产生的?
徐：是的，不完全是靠搭配符号之间的距离来产生的。比如为了把画面画厚，就把颜料往上堆，这是不对的。这样做，永远不会呈现绘画的建构。在绘画的过程中，为了修正，一步一步推进，画面自身越来越厚，越来越丰富。这是正确之道，这样的厚才有意义。它带有绘画建构的过程。这只是一个例子，是绘画结构复杂性的其中一点。我现在所做的工作不是把一张画画完这么简单，我在作品里面做了大量的绘画结构的自我修正工作。现在我最重要的工作就是修正，是为了修正而修正。
邓：你提到的修正涉及几个层面。第一，符号选择。为什么不是个唐老鸭而是个海豹，等等。第二，就是符号选择所使用的程度问题。就像一些画面背景的问题，为什么你不画整体一点?那岂不是更好?但我感兴趣的问题是，你什么时候停下来才是必要的?在停下来的时候，那肯定包含了价值观、态度，诸如修养、品味......是否这个停下来的标准也在变化?
徐：不是度的变化，而是每步我都有一个研究的目的和课题，研究的基点肯定是定下来的。
这张画海豹的画是个开始，我把它的名字定为《2009》，我没有给这张画承载任何意义。只是我的2009年的一种结束，可能下一步会从另外一个方向开始。它是我走到下一个章节的宣言，或者说是一个深入建构自我绘画结构的开始。我在下一个阶段，可能会研究图像的语言深层意义，比如我画一个没有任何意义的盆栽。别人看来是不是我回归到日常题材了?或者非日常化了?这没关系。至于你问我画面什么时候停下来、完成作品?我的回答肯定只有一个，那就是我在一张画完成了我预设的研究问题的时候，我会停下来，让它结束。当然在里面，我不会考虑画面好不好看、符不符合大众审美之类的问题。
邓：我能理解，这就是为什么你做的画面看起来很自然。
徐：《2009》这张画我做了四遍修正。但最后为什么停到这儿?我觉得，如果一张画不能完全表达你的价值观，就可能要靠一系列的研究过程来阐述。在研究方向和基点共同作用下，艺术家的创作可以产生一个庞大的结构，一张画只是一个阶段试验。比如你看这片树，有的像动物，有的像几何形，里面有很多负形。这些都是我在修正中慢慢提炼出来的。这些暗藏的玄机没有任何的意义，是我在修正过程中自然带出来的、呈现画面建构的一部分。它是具有存在的必要性。
邓：这是否又走到马格利特、基里科等青年时期的超现实主义老路上去?
徐：不至于。因为这是在绘画过程中的实验结果，是我在过瘾、亢奋过程中做出亢奋过程中做出来的东西，是在反复修正过程中带给我的预感。我在画这幅画的过程中，没有任何负担。这张画是我今年感觉最好的一张。我从中看到，我下一步要做什么。作品中有没有幽默、趣味性，这都不重要。我把我几个研究的方向归结到一起，有几个关键点：一、艺术家的转化，二、自我绘画结构的建构，第三、解决绘画本身没有解决的问题。
邓：那你认为绘画作为一种古老的工具，它继续向前发展的空间是什么?
徐：现在很多人认为，艺术应该承载人文价值，或者艺术应该反映意识形态，或者附加的叙事性、附加的政治性等等。其实，绘画已经被利用了。绘画应该回归到绘画的元问题上来才会有它的出路。一张画好不好?它自己就会告诉你，不需要多余的解释。
邓：我理解了你说的绘画的语言问题，说白了就是画应该像一张“好画”!
邓大非：
北京荔空间助理策展人
Traces of the Sacred:
Interview with Xu Xiaoguo
_ Interviewer: Deng Fei (hereinafter referred to as Deng)
_Interviewee: Xu Xiaoguo (hereinafter referred to as Xu)
_Venue: Xu Xiaoguo Studio, Black Bridge
_Time: November 2009
Deng: When we were discussing the English title for your November 28 solo exhibition "Shengji" which literally means "the Holy Traces", we forsook the word “Saint” for its Christian implication. I see most of the signs in your paintings hardly refer to Christianity.
Xu: By this Chinese character “Sheng,” I mean “divine”, “sacred,” and "extraordinary," which is a personal interpretation of the standard understanding. When an individual develops into a model of perfection of value standard, he ultimately would be put to the end of the spectrum and be glorified. The common and the sacred exchange their roles to complete the transformation from a human being to a spiritual being and then back to a human being again. Thus, "The Sacred Traces " is more exact, better than "Traces of the Saint," which is superficially defined and implies mythology and religion.
Two years ago, I formed the framework of this exhibition. As for the title of the exhibition, it’s just a name to me. My works in this exhibition do not necessarily refer to mythical stories or religious events.
Deng: At present, many artists like to put a conscious emphasis on a dubious character in their works. While infact, they intend to make their works open to more interpretations.
Xu: In fact, artists do not need to resort to distortion or misleading. I, myself, do not emphasize this ambiguity in my works. If such is the case in everyday speech, it might be particularly interesting. But in the process of artistic creation, I just do not have such an attempt to orient the semantic and symbolic signs towards ambiguity, or to hold that art cannot be said. Some dedicate to avoid openness or straightforwardness of form and content in their works, but I am just the opposite. I am now working in the field of setting up a self-construction process of painting. I’m fully aware of the emotions conveyed in the process of painting. At present, many artists use ambiguous language; I do not reject that each one may use his or her respective way. Some artists are firing towards artistic issues. Some others are merely playing tricks on the viewer, by manipulating them and causing them to even misunderstand the artists.
Deng: I remember walking into your studio, seeing those huge paintings with a strong sense of comedy and tension hanging in front of me. My initial impression was that these works have a particularly strong "Chinese” disposition, both from the symbolic aspect and the subject matter. My impression is that you work as a classical Chinese intellectual, the kind of person who advocate literature carrying over Taoism. You definitely take a separate path from those experimental artists who play a pure language game. In other words, artistic works should have a hidden meaning or value, a value, though is, different from moral standards of right and wrong, good and evil, but rather one that carries with it the unspeakable mystery of mythology and history, the bewildering complexity of stories that cannot be stated. They display many emotions entangled together, leaving the viewers confused. Reflections on history, culture, and psychology are jumbled together as if human desires and ideals formed an inseparable being. One can obviously detect the dramatic factors in your handling of the relationship between symbols and images, and is able to see your attempt to stop at a certain level. I would like to ask you about the motives behind all these factors?
Xu: I can use a daily example to explain the kind of Chinese symbols and moods you mentioned. For instance, you are imposing a definition of me, Xuxiao Guo as a Chinese. If I do not acknowledge, if it does not set up barriers to such a symbol. If, on the other hand, I acknowledge, if this obstacle came into being. So in the latter case, using Chinese symbols is an obstacle. Put it in another way, I was using Chinese symbols to produce Chinese symbols, and to forge Chinese symbols into a common international influence. I am, by nature, one of the human race, so if this obstacle does not exist, whether I am Chinese or not does not matter. If perceived from another point of view, I am Chinese, this is a reality I am powerless to change, and then it’s natural that Chinese culture finds its expression in my works. I do not view it a problem, and there is no need to reject such expression for the attempt is meaningless. I suggest not wasting time on this issue and efforts should be focused on artistic works, themselves.
China's current situation makes me doubtful about certain standards. I do not doubt the properness of the standards, but rather, the evolution or the change of thestandards. The evolution of standards, in my opinion, reveals the true state of things. I found it particularly interesting, for the process is like a chemical test, adding certain chemical compositions. The result completely changed. Adding other ingredients, the process starts to change. Such a process is comprehensive, and is the outcome of a combined effort both from socialization and human endeavours.I’m interested in studying cultures of different regions I’ve read extensively. At the same time, I’m also interested in religion and like to compare regions of different regions. I think artists cannot feed on books to perceive of the real world. I do not study as a scholar. I experience to find what is particularly interesting. My recent exploration goes into the textual research method of cultural anthropology, particularly on the myths and legends of in different regions. What intrigues me most is that these myths and legends of different regions in the world are very similar in the ways they are told, minor difference occurring in just proper names. One may think about Chinese county or local annals. For example, in Hangzhou there is a myth of a girl who fell into the water, and turned into a ghost or a goddess. Similar story is also told in Nanjing. In other places, the same story is found with a slight difference that the girl turned into a bird before she fell into the water, and later metamorphosed into a goddess. Legends as such also appear in Europe,including the United Kingdom. The story might be told differently, but the inner core is the same. These myths and legends have been changed somewhat to the different geographical ideologies. The change makes people think. If we go one step further, we may ask whether the emergence of the so-called regional ideology is caused by individuals or groups. The answer is unknown for now. Suppose such ideology is generated by one person, and develops into group values, and further expands to a huge system standard, it becomes a true story. Conversely, the huge social system can also cause changes in personal values. I think no matter who changes whom, who is true and who is false, many cultural issues require our serious reflection.
Ahead of the works of "The Sacred Traces", I have chosen the stage to express my cultural reflection, and my question about the evolution and change of standards. Stage in my eyes is an appropriate media. There are five spatial relationships: the background space, theater space in front of the background space, the audience viewing space, space outside the theater space and the space between the real world and the virtual world. Suppose the background space is "false", then the performance in the theater space in front is true. If the two merged into one, then the viewing space of the audience is real in comparison to stage play. The first three, when considered as a whole and compared with the space outside the theater, they are also a fake. The most interesting is that the reality is already very real, why create a fake theater reality? I believe there is a need for its generation. I adopted the director’s role and adjust relationships as I began my stage series. I did a dislocation arrangement, disrupting the established logic of the existing relationship, and hence leaving space for audience to reflect. If I were powerful enough to change more, I would transform a real world into a virtual one and a virtual one into a real one, which is even more interesting. At that time, my overall ability failed me and I did not solve the problems I wanted to solve in the stage series ultimately.
Deng: So would you bring those unsolved problems into the exhibiting works of “The Sacred Traces”?
Xu: I chose the name of this exhibition with the theme "The Sacred Traces". Everything you see seems to be created by me. Using myths or Chinese symbols is of little concern, and the importance is that I magnify such an issue. I went back to the relationship between reality and virtual reality. At this time, I can only one give up the stage, because the stage could not enable a deep study of the issue. Stage series just change a normal logical relationship. They cannot spur audience’s reflection on artist’s works and deeper thoughts. So I broke up the stage, leaving no stage and no stage images. As a matter of fact, in " The Sacred Traces " series, there is a notion of a larger stage, one without limits of stage arrangements or performances. It is a real world stage, a wider arena of expression. There are more opportunities for me to work inside it, more things to play with in it, and more to be controlled inside it.
Deng: Do you want to show your ideas in these years via this exhibition?
Xu: The works of Stage Series will not be exhibited this time. I don't want to present paintings in an ordinary order, as other exhibitions. I hope that the space in the exhibition hall will be specifically divided, which will guide the visitors to follow the artist's ideas. Visitors will understand the artist’s clues and research direction.
Deng: Looking at a few series of works of yours, I think you are telling stories, stories that can never be explained clearly. You are somewhere between telling stories and declining to tell stories. I wonder what your real attitude is.
Xu: Actually, I am exploring truth behind the surface of things. I believe my works are not used to solve problems, but to provoke questions. My attitude is not simply to find the answers.
Deng: From your paintings, one gets the impression that you are very good at painting and at shaping things. Your paintings are real, filled with strength and indigenous vitality, and there is inherent passion and spontaneity inside. Nonetheless, when examining the composition between the symbols, you seem to be unable to escape the pursuit of "meaning", and to wipe away the expression of a sense of history. In the dislocation of the symbolic logic, you create a visual confusion of history for the viewer. The effect, however, seems not entirely generated by the distance between the symbols?
Xu: Yes, it is not entirely created by the distance between the symbols. For example, in order to make the painting thick, one heaps up the paint on the canvas, which is wrong. In so doing, one may never show the construction of a painting. In the painting process, the artist amends step by step, the painting itself becomes increasingly thicker and thicker, and the interpretation became more abundant. This is the right way; such thickness makes sense, for it shows the construction process. This is just one example, one point of the structural complexity of painting. What I am doing now is more than simply finishing a painting. I put a lot of consideration self-reflection into my works. Now my major job is to amend, amending for sake of amending itself.
Deng: You mentioned the amendment involves several levels. First, the choice of symbols. Why not a Donald Duck, but a seal, and so on. Secondly, to what extent a symbol is used? For example, in background construction, why do not use the whole symbol? Is it not better? However, I am interested in the question: when is the critical time to stop? Where you stop surely shows values, attitudes, such as cultivation, taste, etc. Is the standard of where to end also changing?
Xu: It’s not a change of degree. In each step I have had a research purpose and subject, and the starting point has to be decided. This painting of seals is a starting point. I name it "2009", I do not want it carries too much meaning. It just means the end of 2009. Maybe the next step starts in a different direction. It is a declaration of my moving on to the next chapter, or a start of an in-depth construction of painting. In the next phase, I may examine the deeper semantic meaning of image. For example, I drew a flower pot, and others suspect that I’m returning to the theme of the daily life? Or not? It does not matter. As for when I stop and complete the work? My answer is simply that only when the work finishes my prior research questions, I will stop and let it end. In this process, I would not consider whether the painting is nicely looking or not, whether it meets public aesthetic standard or not.
Deng: I can understand that, which is why your works look very natural.
Xu: The painting "2009" has been amended four times. You may ask why stop here. I feel that if a painting can not fully express your values, it is possible to rely on a series of studies to illustrate. Under the influence of research direction and starting point, an artist's creation can generate a large structure, and a painting is just one phase of testing. For example, you see the trees in this painting, some look like animals, some like geometric shapes, and there are many negative shapes. These all came out of my amendments. The tricky part is that they have no hidden meanings. They are the natural results of my amendment process, representing part of the construction, which necessitate them to exist.
Deng: Does this mean you have gone back to the ultra-realism path taking by Magritte, Chirico, etc. in their youth?
Xu: It’s not the case. Because it is the experimental results in the painting process, the products out of my great excitement, the hunch from repetitive amendments. There is no burden in the process of painting. This painting is the best one in my eyes. I can see in it what I am to do next. There is no humour, no fun in the painting. Fine with me. I put my research directions together, and form several key points: First, the artist's conversion. Second, the construction of self-painting process. Third, the need to address the unsolved painting issues.
Deng: So you think painting is an ancient tool. What is its prospect?
Xu: Now many people think that art should carry human values, or art should reflect ideology, narrative, politics, or something else. In fact, painting became the subject to be exploited. Painting should return to the meta-problem to find its way out. Is a painting is good or not? It will tell you by itself, there is no need for extra explanation.
Deng: I understood the semantic problems of painting as, bluntly put, painting should be like a "good drawing"!
Deng Dafei
Assistant Curator of Li - Space, Beijing, China
【编辑：小红】
