心識地圖 - 薛保瑕 個展
Mind Maps: 1989–2014 Abstract Art of Ava Hsueh
心識地圖：1989-2014薛保瑕抽象藝術展 -薛保瑕創作自述
凝視一頁地圖，如同串聯認知與現實的遇合之處
創作時我喜歡由未知開始，但在發展過程中，如何串聯已知與未知的間距，則有如置身於自旋的感知關係場域之中。這樣的情境與現狀，如同凝視一頁地圖，不時地串連當下的認知與現實的遇合之處，促使我進入流動性的思維狀態，產生一種創作時不可缺少的動能趨力。
抽象藝術有其歷史發展的立論，也隨著不同年代的演變，創造出特殊的創作語彙。我認為，歷史建構出的認知體系仍須與現實的情境與價值觀相互對照，由此再產生出新意的延展。於此，抽象藝術並不與當代的語言系統脫離；相對的，它得以更深刻的探討建構本質的基礎，也能夠將其自身涵構在問題意識之中，引領着主觀與客觀的雙重展現。因此，我的創作關注當代抽象藝術如何跨越過往不具「再現」美學的訴求，因為它無可避免的在認知體系中「再現」其自身的歷史，並以多元訊息的交錯複合，成為連續意義的載體。
回視自1989-2014年創作發展的過程，在台南加力畫廊展出約35件的作品，含括了美國紐約與台灣兩地的衝撞時期、解放時期與重構時期。這個展覽是一段對抽象藝術辯證的美學進程，每一個時期有其探索的主題，也與我個人研讀的論述有關。這些作品代表我長期關切當代抽象藝術的思維轉折與美學落點，也是心中一塊淨土。而在創作過程中，交錯的思維發生於凝視的當下，當其轉換為身體的姿態時，一頁頁的心識地圖遂已成形。
整體而言，這些作品展現了不可磨滅的痕跡與心識的臨界點。是發自內心的需求，也是一個創作者思維上的流轉與突破的探索過程。作為一位抽象藝術創作者，我始終認為，藝術創作是我最重要的選擇與出口。
抽象藝術有其歷史發展的立論，也隨著不同年代的演變，創造出特殊的創作語彙。我認為，歷史建構出的認知體系仍須與現實的情境與價值觀相互對照，由此再產生出新意的延展。於此，抽象藝術並不與當代的語言系統脫離；相對的，它得以更深刻的探討建構本質的基礎，也能夠將其自身涵構在問題意識之中，引領着主觀與客觀的雙重展現。因此，我的創作關注當代抽象藝術如何跨越過往不具「再現」美學的訴求，因為它無可避免的在認知體系中「再現」其自身的歷史，並以多元訊息的交錯複合，成為連續意義的載體。
回視自1989-2014年創作發展的過程，在台南加力畫廊展出約35件的作品，含括了美國紐約與台灣兩地的衝撞時期、解放時期與重構時期。這個展覽是一段對抽象藝術辯證的美學進程，每一個時期有其探索的主題，也與我個人研讀的論述有關。這些作品代表我長期關切當代抽象藝術的思維轉折與美學落點，也是心中一塊淨土。而在創作過程中，交錯的思維發生於凝視的當下，當其轉換為身體的姿態時，一頁頁的心識地圖遂已成形。
整體而言，這些作品展現了不可磨滅的痕跡與心識的臨界點。是發自內心的需求，也是一個創作者思維上的流轉與突破的探索過程。作為一位抽象藝術創作者，我始終認為，藝術創作是我最重要的選擇與出口。
Mind Maps: 1989–2014 Abstract Art of Ava Hsueh- Ava Hsueh Comments on Her Own Work
Gazing upon a map is like reconciling cognition and reality.
I prefer to start from the unknown during the process of artistic creation. But bridging the distance between the known and unknown in the creative process is akin to finding oneself in a mental space spun out of the complex relationships of thought and feeling. It is rather like gazing upon a map and constantly reconciling cognition and reality. However, this process gives me a fluidity of thought, which in turn gives rise to the momentum that is essential to making art.
Abstract art has a theoretical basis in its historical development, as well as a unique creative vocabulary accumulated via the shifts that occur due to changes between generations. I believe that historically constructed systems of cognition must be compared and contrasted with the situations and values of reality. Only then can these systems be expanded, to lead to the synthesis of original ideas. Hence, abstract art is not detached from contemporary linguistic systems; on the contrary, it permits a deeper exploration into the foundations of entities, as well as immerses itself in the search for answers to the questions it poses, guiding a dual manifestation of the subjective and objective. That is why my work is concerned with how abstract art could move beyond its past claims of “non-representational” art, because the art inevitably “represents” its own history within the cognitive system. Through the complex interlocking of diverse information, art becomes a carrier for continuous meaning.
Approximately 35 of my works will be shown in Inart Space in Taiwan, as a retrospective of my career from 1989 to 2014. The retrospective covers my periods of collision, emancipation, and restructuring, which span New York and Taiwan. This exhibition is a showcase for the dialectic aesthetic process of abstract art. Each period has a different theme, with each theme highlighting a theory for exploration. These works represent the shifts and positions I have taken in my thinking and aesthetics regarding contemporary abstract art over the years. They also represent a pure, unsullied utopia in my soul. Over the course of the creative process, interlace thoughts come into existence at the moment the gaze is fixed. As they give rise to bodily form, a series of mind maps emerge.
As a whole, these works showcase marks that cannot be erased, and the critical points of the mind. They represent a need that rises from within, as well as the shifts in thinking and the breakthroughs in creative exploration. As a creator of abstract art, artistic creation is the single most important choice for me, as well as a window into my mind.
Abstract art has a theoretical basis in its historical development, as well as a unique creative vocabulary accumulated via the shifts that occur due to changes between generations. I believe that historically constructed systems of cognition must be compared and contrasted with the situations and values of reality. Only then can these systems be expanded, to lead to the synthesis of original ideas. Hence, abstract art is not detached from contemporary linguistic systems; on the contrary, it permits a deeper exploration into the foundations of entities, as well as immerses itself in the search for answers to the questions it poses, guiding a dual manifestation of the subjective and objective. That is why my work is concerned with how abstract art could move beyond its past claims of “non-representational” art, because the art inevitably “represents” its own history within the cognitive system. Through the complex interlocking of diverse information, art becomes a carrier for continuous meaning.
Approximately 35 of my works will be shown in Inart Space in Taiwan, as a retrospective of my career from 1989 to 2014. The retrospective covers my periods of collision, emancipation, and restructuring, which span New York and Taiwan. This exhibition is a showcase for the dialectic aesthetic process of abstract art. Each period has a different theme, with each theme highlighting a theory for exploration. These works represent the shifts and positions I have taken in my thinking and aesthetics regarding contemporary abstract art over the years. They also represent a pure, unsullied utopia in my soul. Over the course of the creative process, interlace thoughts come into existence at the moment the gaze is fixed. As they give rise to bodily form, a series of mind maps emerge.
As a whole, these works showcase marks that cannot be erased, and the critical points of the mind. They represent a need that rises from within, as well as the shifts in thinking and the breakthroughs in creative exploration. As a creator of abstract art, artistic creation is the single most important choice for me, as well as a window into my mind.
心識地圖──薛保瑕的心海奇航 文｜蕭瓊瑞
抽象繪畫的成立,是人類 20 世紀重大的藝術成就,脫離自然形態的模擬寫真,超越文學、宗教的情境敘述, 回到純粹形、色的結構,映現內心的真實,抽象繪畫為藝術家開拓出較之以往更為寬闊、深邃的創作空間。
薛保瑕前往紐約普拉特藝術學院留學那年(1983),距離抽象藝術的成立(約 1910)已近百年。她的指導教授 Richer Bove 經常問她:「保瑕!抽象藝術發展已近百年,抽象藝術創作,尤其繪畫,還可以怎樣下去?」這個課 題也成為此後薛保瑕藝術創作探索的終極關懷。
初期的抽象繪畫,以形式的風格,大抵被粗分為冷抽和熱抽兩種;前者以較冷靜、理性的幾何形式,後者以 奔放、揮洒的書寫形式成為抽象繪畫創作的兩大主流。但要者均在切斷對自然的模仿,和對事件的描述,企圖藉 由一些「無可名之形」(Unrecognizable forms,康丁斯基語)進行純粹形、色、空間的探究與建構,追求一種純粹繪 畫元素的「造形世界」(Plastic world)。
作為一個來自東方的年輕藝術家,薛保瑕在她的文化背景中,熟悉許多既具純粹造形意識,又兼具「能指」 意涵的藝術形式,一如:書法、寫意水墨,乃至青銅禮器的紋飾等。因此,抽象繪畫是否一定要切斷和現實事件 的聯繫?也就成了她紐約大學博士論文的題目,更是她此後長期創作的課題。80 年代後期的「回溯」系列,正是 在乍看抽象的表面形式下,企圖加入許多具有象徵或敘事意味的物象符號或文書寫;這些「似有所指」、乃至 「似有所本」的畫面元素,在在呈顯薛保瑕意圖跨越「抽象」與「具象」、「純粹」與「敘事」、「意識」與「潛意 識」、乃至「可掌握的」與「不可掌握的」......之間的多重糾葛、對立,達到一種可能的動能平衡。 ......
薛保瑕前往紐約普拉特藝術學院留學那年(1983),距離抽象藝術的成立(約 1910)已近百年。她的指導教授 Richer Bove 經常問她:「保瑕!抽象藝術發展已近百年,抽象藝術創作,尤其繪畫,還可以怎樣下去?」這個課 題也成為此後薛保瑕藝術創作探索的終極關懷。
初期的抽象繪畫,以形式的風格,大抵被粗分為冷抽和熱抽兩種;前者以較冷靜、理性的幾何形式,後者以 奔放、揮洒的書寫形式成為抽象繪畫創作的兩大主流。但要者均在切斷對自然的模仿,和對事件的描述,企圖藉 由一些「無可名之形」(Unrecognizable forms,康丁斯基語)進行純粹形、色、空間的探究與建構,追求一種純粹繪 畫元素的「造形世界」(Plastic world)。
作為一個來自東方的年輕藝術家,薛保瑕在她的文化背景中,熟悉許多既具純粹造形意識,又兼具「能指」 意涵的藝術形式,一如:書法、寫意水墨,乃至青銅禮器的紋飾等。因此,抽象繪畫是否一定要切斷和現實事件 的聯繫?也就成了她紐約大學博士論文的題目,更是她此後長期創作的課題。80 年代後期的「回溯」系列,正是 在乍看抽象的表面形式下,企圖加入許多具有象徵或敘事意味的物象符號或文書寫;這些「似有所指」、乃至 「似有所本」的畫面元素,在在呈顯薛保瑕意圖跨越「抽象」與「具象」、「純粹」與「敘事」、「意識」與「潛意 識」、乃至「可掌握的」與「不可掌握的」......之間的多重糾葛、對立,達到一種可能的動能平衡。 ......
DATE｜2014.09.27 (SAT.)～ 2015.11.15 (SAT.)
OPENING PARTY｜2014.09.27 (SAT.) 15：00
OPENING PARTY｜2014.09.27 (SAT.) 15：00