许多年来，有关“融合中西”或“二元对立”的争议持续不断。很多艺术家主动或被动卷入其中，沉沉浮浮，不能自拔。无疑，我们面临无法回避的现实：做艺术家和做中国艺术家。撇开民族国家、历史文化这样的宏大叙事不谈，单就艺术家个体而言，陷在双重压力的夹缝中，耗费了太多的时间和精力，而问题却仍然原封不动。当艺术家进入创作之前便被某种观念牢牢包裹，直觉的力量和伸缩的空间必定大大受限，最终变成观念的俘虏，变成共性中的局部。所以，我一直对此抱有警惕，也建议艺术家不妨转换角度，更多地思考创作与个体之间的关系——说到底，艺术家永远只能代表他自己。
不久前，我看到四川艺术家谭恩的作品，触发了一些想法：这样的案例虽没有可比性，但从其作品中渗透出的各种气息是似曾相识的。谭恩勤勉、善于思考、吸收能力强。他在不同时期所作的不同系列作品里，始终贯穿了一条清晰可见的主线，来体现出他的雄心及执着，同时也体现出他颇为广阔的现实视域与幽深的内心世界。艺术家的经历和学识在多大程度上能够推动创作实践，其实是个难解之谜。有的艺术家靠直觉、靠天赋，轻而易举找到了自己的路子；有的艺术家进两步退一步，在纠结、痛苦中造就自我；还有的艺术家费尽毕生精力却眼睁睁在原地打转，始终不得要领……这表明一点：艺术创作没有可以遵循的格式和模板。艺术家永远只能做成他能做的事业，而不能做成他想做的事业。能做和想做之间有着天壤之别。
问题来了：有没有孤立的纯粹的所谓自我？如前所说，艺术家的标记是他的“自我”。然而，我们都知道，自我也是一种观念，甚至是一种幻觉。人是社会动物，艺术创作不过是无数社会活动中的一种而已。我们说“艺术家最宝贵的品质是他的自我时”，是我们对于艺术家的独特性和唯一性的期盼，没有这样的独特性和唯一性，作为个体的艺术家是无法在艺术家群体里脱颖而出的。这里我想说，创作与理论根本就是两股道上跑的车，艺术家的想法和理念再系统、再完整，也必须拿作品说话，作品才是他的立身之本。
回到谭恩的作品。谭恩较早便萌发了自觉意识：试图立足本土、放眼外域，在创作上闯出一条中间道路。实际上，所谓中间道路，是百多年来文化界和艺术界的热门话题。谭恩的用意是非常明了的，用自己的创作实践在这上面添砖加瓦。从他较早时期的一系列作品到现在的创作，他的角度和立意都是一以贯之的。譬如：2010年的“万物有灵”系列，2011年的“人来人往”系列，2012年的“彷徨”系列，2013年的“寻”系列，2014年的“云端之上”系列，2015年的“西游记”系列、“山中精灵”系列，2016年的“净土”系列、“石头计”系列，2017年的“位面”系列、“东篱”系列，2020年的“心境”系列，2022年的“山河归途”系列。一般来说，系列作品可以对某个主题进行不断深入的挖掘，不断扩展主题的外延，使内涵更为完整，能独立成篇。这是行之有效的策略，是艺术家从里向外输出观念和思想的出口。不少艺术家用此方式创作出了经典作品，留下长久的美誉。艺术家的创作是一生的事，分段、分期划定明确的目标，有助于创作计划的逐步落实。
此外，谭恩在绘画的技法表达上劳心费神、不断完善，意在更丰满更精确地传达出他要表达的东西。绘画属于古老的技艺延续，千百年来许多天才和巧匠付出大量心血，贡献了他们的传世杰作，既给后生铺垫了坚实的路基，又立起了各种障碍：所有你能想到的方式和图像，前人都想到了，都做到了——而且想到了极致，做到了极致。每当我遇到在我面前大谈特谈要把绘画推向新方向或新高度的艺术家，我总是暗笑：真是坐井观天之徒。但是认清现实，不等于让自己灰心和躺平。因为艺术家不是擂台上的拳手，没有输赢。艺术家的责任是创造属于自己的那一份空间——哪怕这份空间很小很窄。谭恩主要运用油画材料作画，他既有意无意地避开传统技法，又试想着与当下流行的风气保持距离。大家知道，所有技法都有传承，无人能够凭空捣鼓出一种完全个体的技法。谭恩如何将幽深的心思以适合的形式传达出来，借助何种技法，里面是大有说法的。在古人那里，道和技的问题，早已解决。当代艺术重观念轻技法；或者，干脆就是观念先行——观念本身就是表达的总和。所以，在一个如此多元、多样的创作生态中，技法越来越个体化。个体即是特殊。那么，艺术家要的仅仅是特殊吗？特殊和普遍是一对天然的矛盾。谭恩绕不开，正如别的艺术家绕不开一样。
谭恩将举办他的个展，这对他可能是一个标记，预示着艺术家的自我认识与社会评判开始了正面衔接。事物的一正一反性质会带来不同的可能。有一点是无疑的，艺术创作必须抵御集思广益，切忌群策群力。我欣赏徐悲鸿自勉的那句话：独执偏见，一意孤行。谭恩多年来的独来独往已为自己清除了许多羁绊，那就继续吧。奖赏自己的最好办法，不是从旁人的赞许和美誉里获得，而是能够顺从内心的呼唤，勇敢地走下去。艺术创作很是复杂，也很是简单，就看艺术家敢不敢走向极端，走向无人区。
2022年7月2日
（李小山：南京艺术学院美术馆馆长、著名艺术评论家）
Debates about an “East-West synthesis” and “cultural binaries” have raged on unabated for many years now. Many artists find themselves, by choice or otherwise, embroiled in this framework, unable to extricate themselves from it. Doubtless we find ourselves in a predicament as inevitable as fate: to be an artist or to be a Chinese artist? Putting to one side metanarrative questions of the nation state and historical culture, and limiting our discussion to individual artists, being trapped between two competing forces has resulted in too great an expenditure of time and energy dealing with a problem that remains impervious to swift resolution. When an artist is already confined by a certain idea before they have started to create their work, their intuitive powers and creative scope are bound to be confined to the extent that they become slave to the idea and as such derivative. Therefore, I have always been somewhat suspicious of these discussions and hope that artists are able to change their perspective, turning their attention instead to the relationship between art and the individual. In the end, artists can only ever represent themselves.
I recently encountered the work of Sichuanese artist Tan En, which caused me to reflect on some questions. Although his work is in some ways incomparable, there is something about the character of his pieces that seems familiar. Tan En is a diligent, thoughtful and adaptable artist. In the various periods of his eclectic oeuvre, one can perceive a unifying thread that speaks to his ambition and tenacity as an artist, as well as the breadth of his worldview and the depth of his inner life. To what extent an artist’s experience informs their artistic practice is a difficult question to answer. Some artists can simply rely on intuition and natural talent to find their own path. For others, each step forward is followed by two steps back, their development as an artist forever accompanied by indecision and anxiety. There are also those who despite all their efforts find themselves forever going over the same ground, never truly able to find their own place. There exist no guidelines or standard for artistic practice. Artists can only ever do what they are able to do, which is not necessarily what they want to do. A huge gulf exists between ability and intention.
A question arises: does the so-called independent, pure self even exist? If, as I have argued, the marker of an artist is their “self, ” then how do we square this with the fact that the self is itself an idea, an illusion even? Humans are social animals and art is merely one of their innumerable social activities. When we say that the most valuable quality of an artist is their self, we are articulating a hope for uniqueness, for originality. Without such uniqueness or originality, an individual artist can never distinguish themselves from artists as a group. My point is that artistic practice and theory are two separate things. No matter how systematic and complete an artist’s conceptual understanding, at the end of the day it is their work that must speak for them and establish them as an artist.
Tan En was early to develop his artistic consciousness, first gaining a foothold in his native land, then expanding his horizons, and finally attempting through his work to forge a middle path – the infamous middle path that has been a hot topic among cultural and artistic circles in China for over a century. There is a clarity of purpose to Tan En’s oeuvre, which he has built on over the years of his artistic practice. A common perspective and motivation unites his work, from his earliest artistic series to his latest creations: 2010’s The Spirit of All Things, 2011’s People Come and Go, 2012’s Vacillation, 2013’s Search, 2014’s Above the Clouds, 2015’s Journey to the West, Spirits in the Mountains, 2016’s Paradise of the West, Story of the Stone, 2017’s Planes, Eastern Fence, 2020’s State of Mind and 2021’s The Way Home. In general, a series of artworks allows the artist to delve continuously into a topic, to expand and elaborate upon it. This is an effective strategy, which provides art with a means to emerge from abstract thought and the idea. It is how many artists have been able to create works with a lasting impact that have become classics. The work of an artist spans their lifetime. By isolating the specific aims that develop over this time, they are able to gradually formulate a grander artistic project.
Tan En has continuously and diligently worked to develop his painting technique with a view to visualising what he hopes to express with more richness and precision. Painting encapsulates a range of techniques that have been passed onto us from antiquity. Over the course of thousands of years, a huge number of geniuses and craftsmen have expended a great deal of effort to provide us with their ageless creations, which in turn provide a basis for contemporary artists, as well as all kinds of obstacles. Every method or image you can imagine has been thought of and realised by those who came before us – and to an exceptionally high standard. Every time I hear artists waxing lyrical about taking art in a new and higher direction, I can’t help but think to myself, “Here is someone making pronouncements about the stars from the bottom of a well.” This is not to say that a recognition of this state of affairs means losing heart and giving up. Artists are not boxers in a ring. There are no losers. The role of artists is to create a space of their own, no matter how small. Tan En’s works are mostly oil paintings, which means that, whether consciously or not, he does not have to concern himself with Chinese traditional painting techniques. However, he also attempts to distance himself from the trendy styles in contemporary art. It is well known that artistic technique is learned, that no one is able to acquire such skills in isolation. Tan En’s ability to express his profoundest thoughts in such a variety of forms relies upon a wide range of techniques, which is something not to be taken lightly. Classical painters had a solid grasp of both knowledge and technique. Contemporary art on the other hand emphasises concept and tends to neglect technique. For many, it is a matter of immediately putting the concept into practice – the concept itself as a form of totalising expression. So, in such a varied and eclectic artistic environment, technique has become increasingly individualised. The individual is the particular. But is an artist merely what is particular? The objective contradiction between the universal and the particular is something Tan En cannot avoid. It is something no artist can avoid.
Tan En’s coming solo exhibition is for him perhaps a landmark that augurs the beginning of a reconciliation between the artist’s personal vision and the critical views of society. The dichotomous nature of things can bring different possibilities, but one thing is for sure: artists must draw from a range of sources while resisting being carried along by the tide of popular opinion. I approve of Xu Beihong’s words of self-encouragement: hold on to your biases and stride forth toward your goal alone. Tan En’s independence as an artist has removed many obstacles on his journey, so my only advice is for him to continue to do what he is doing. It is not the pursuit of the praise and approval of others that brings the greatest rewards but responding to the call that comes from within and courageously walking the path it lays out. Art is a complex thing, and yet it is also so simple – it is a question of whether an artist dares to go to the limit, whether they dare to go where no one has been before.
July 2nd, 2022
（Li Xiaoshan：Director of Art Musuem at Nanjing University of the Arts、Acclaimed art critic）