现代的中国人有一个特点——单独的个体常常成为民族的象征。尤其是当个人远离家国，在遥远的海外生活，而又没有一种独闯天下打开局面为价值的传统文化为支撑，单独的个体便会觉得缺乏支撑，产生不安全和孤独感。在其他民族那里，情况似乎不是这样，例如很少听到有某一个普通的俄罗斯人认为他个人可以代表俄罗斯民族……当然这和他们的优秀人物被“整个”民族推荐为“代表”是另一回事。而我们常常听到的民族身份想象，给人一种“投靠”的感觉。 　　联想到从海外回来和从大陆去海外的当代艺术家们，尤其从事抽象艺术的艺术家，比较常见的借用书法为母题探索抽象艺术并且认为这样才是具有中国特色的抽象艺术。这种状况不一概而论，可以作分析。 　　是将身份认同作为首要任务，将书法作为一种民族文化的标志，突出它的地域文化特征呢，还是从对抽象艺术的理解和需要出发，在中国的自然环境和传统符号中，在书法本身具有的线条、节奏和象形中发现抽象的因素和意义，将这些提炼、转化成抽象艺术的语言？不同的目的，就会有不同的结果。虽然我们可以认为，当中国艺术家采用书法作为当代艺术创作载体时，这种选择本身就含有文化特殊性。但如果将书法直接挪用，浅尝辄止，缺少经过提炼和转化，认为这才是中国老祖宗的法宝，象征中国精粹，那么不仅会让欣赏当代艺术的观众觉得不过瘾，还在于这种做法远离了艺术最根本的精神——永远在已有的、熟悉的事物中发现不熟悉的、陌生的意义。不管是人的自身还是外部环境，是人的创造物或者是习惯，都应该不断发现并且超越它。如果我们从对人的生命的这种发展过程去理解现实生活，进而理解抽象艺术，从传统和民族的艺术中发展出的抽象性过程，大概可以避免那种简单挪用和贴标签的方法。也可以避免动不动就将抽象艺术和写实性艺术比较高下优劣，动不动就讨论富有线条节奏的抽象艺术是否符合传统书法规范等等争论。这类争论就像小说和哲学的比较，而不是小说与小说比，哲学与哲学比，抽象艺术与抽象艺术比。因此，对于刘永刚的艺术，因该是在抽象艺术范畴内，和其他的抽象艺术比，例如利普西茨的青铜作品和考尔德的不锈钢固定雕塑比较……抽象艺术不是没有标准的，它与自然的关系，包含的感情深度以及作品的感染力，抽象形式因素的提炼等，都是可以比较和谈论的主题。所以我不将刘永刚的作品与现有的书法比较——无论是汉字还是巴斯巴斯字。而是在抽象艺术的范畴里，与相类似的艺术作品比较。 　　传统的汉字，在先民创造和使用中，已经在“物”和“象”的关系中有了固定的符号意义。其中有象形成分，也有指事和表意成分。但刘永刚的作品“爱拥”已经将文字的“象”、“意”功能进行了转换和整合，使得“象”不仅是一种属于知觉的事物的“象”，上升一层与人的更复杂的精神活动关联。这个“象”是精神活动的创造性事物，是在对外在事物的不断扬弃和不断变化的过程中确立自己的主体性。而关于“意”，在“爱拥”里体现的不是孤立和若隐若现的，在黑暗里游荡、沉没的“幽灵”，而是已经和“象”结合一起的，能让人认识到的现实意义。“象”和“意”的结合和重叠，以及这过程所体现的无比丰富的精神可能性，也就是“爱拥”应该具有的完整的“形”的抽象观念。所以，抽象艺术往往更多地体现为观念和人的精神活动。 　　这里的“形”，作为抽象的意义，就是能体现完整性，并且具有能被看见和能引起交流的形式，精神通过形状体现整体性。从人与世界的关系来说，“形”就是一个完整的人和世界的关系，包括和他人的关系。所以，刘永刚的作品“爱拥”，绝不是也不应该是简单的文字的放大。否则就写出“爱拥”两个字即可，所有识字的人都会明白。作为完整意义上的“形”，是人的情感和精神在作品中的完整体现。它还是一个开放的体系，是在不断包容和整合它与外界的关系中完善和丰富自己。因此，它不会是一个将一成不变的、已趋凝固的符号，规范限制自身，以及自己和周围的关系。这也就是区别刘永刚的“爱拥”作品和关于“爱”、“拥”这两个字的本质。这种动态的关系不是受动或被动的，而是主动和能动的，包括自身的不断变动以和外在于它的事物的接纳和对话，自身又在这种双向流动中进一步完善丰富，并趋以完整。所以，这个“形”是一个关于这一主题的既简洁单纯，又有更多发展潜力的形式。它不是自闭、对立和冷漠的孤立形态。 　　从这个意义上说，刘永刚的“爱拥”的“形状”，是一个可以辨识，并能联想过去以及展示未来的动态体系；是从原本的文字意义给出的一个想象空间，并与不断发展的生命和精神状态发生关系。在宇宙中有很多类似的现象——不同的事物互相纠缠融合，但又能在其中辨识出它们的共性，而且这一切也还在不断地变化中。在刘永刚的作品中，作为形态的动词“拥”的状态主要体现“爱”的普遍性，“拥”只是作为“爱”的共相来显示，来达到“爱”应该具有的精神形式。但是“爱”同时又具有无限的可能性，所以也有无限可能的外在“形状”。“爱”的特性不仅仅显示在动物世界、人的世界里，也显示于植物世界、微生物世界以及宇宙天体中。只要我们以“爱”这一概念去命名和理解世界万物，人就会对“爱”的形式作不知疲倦的探索。当然，从刘永刚的“爱拥”看他关于“爱”的理解，大部分在和人有关的观念中体现。他的作品像两个分开站立的腿脚，从下往上逐渐收缩，再扩大，就如两个往上的片状相拥。上半部分的线条状态具有迎合俯就的趋势，呈现动感的是由于线条的时间性和不是作为“形状”的其它特性，比如：“拥状”有各种显示特性，“敏感”、“承重”、“混杂”、“欲说还休”、“剪不断理还乱”等等。从作品的现状看，刘永刚是较多从文字书写的规定和习惯中提取形式要素，比如书法的平面性，书写的时间性，都是从上往下和从左到右或从右到左的直线流通展现方式，以及将“爱”比拟为人与人之间的关系等，都有直接的联系。 　　虽然文字有自己的“形”，但它并不是绝对的精神体现。这是因为人的精神世界是不断变化和丰富，并不断追求完善的过程。作为追求的无限多样性来讲，已有的显示和符号，只能是一个阶段性的和过程性的展示，不是绝对的“形”。作为从文字的“形状”发展的抽象艺术的“形”，必然是要以艺术的精神性追求为动力，超越文字的形状，自为地朝自由的目标发展。这也表明本文开头所述的关于挪用文字做标签，和抽象艺术所追求的精神形式之间的根本性区别。 The Form and Meaning of Abstractness: Liu Yonggang’s Embrace of Love Ms. Xu Hong, vice director of the academic division of NAMOC, famous critic of fine arts 　　A special thing about modern Chinese is that an individual often regards himself or herself as a symbol of the whole nation. That is especially true when he or she lives far away from the native land. The lack of a traditional culture that values the individual’s efforts to blaze a new trail makes the individual feel insecure and lonely. This does not seem to be the case with other nations. For instance, you rarely hear that an ordinary Russian considers himself the symbol of the whole Russian nation. Excellent persons may be regarded as symbolic of a nation, of course, but that is a different matter. The imagination of ‘ethnic identity’ that we are familiar with suggests the attempt to ‘join the group’. 　　I think of contemporary Chinese artists who have gone abroad and those who have returned, especially those who engage in abstract art. Most of them use calligraphy as the subject matter in their exploration of abstract art, and they think that is the only way to create China-specific abstract art. Instead of drawing a general conclusion, we need to analysis that. 　　An artist may give priority to his cultural identity and use calligraphy as a cultural symbol, stressing its regional and cultural features; or, based on his understanding of abstract art and what he needs, he may discover abstract factors and meanings in the natural environment and traditional signs of China, and in the lines, rhythm and symbolic meanings of calligraphy itself, extract the essence of these and turn it into the language of abstract art. Different objectives will lead to different results. Though we may believe that the choice to use calligraphy as the subject matter is in itself culture-specific, yet the direct, superficial use of it in the belief that it symbolizes the essence of Chinese culture will be a failure, not only because it will disappoint viewers, but also because it deviates far from the fundamental principle of art—to always discover unfamiliar meanings in familiar objects and events. Everything—men or environment, things created or habits—should be constantly discovered and transcended. 　　If we see reality in terms of development of human life, and then understand abstract art and the abstract processes developing from traditional and ethnic art, we may avoid simplistic borrowing and labeling, as well as arguments about the superiority or inferiority of abstract art and realistic art, and about whether the abstract art rich in the rhythm of lines comply with the norms of traditional calligraphy. Such arguments are comparable to the practice of comparing novels with philosophy instead of comparing novels with novels, philosophy with philosophy, and abstract art with abstract art. Therefore, Liu’s art should be compared with other types of abstract art, such as Lipsitz’s bronze works and Calder’s fixed sculptures made of stainless steel. It is not true that there is no criterion for abstract art. Its relationship with nature, the emotional depth, the appeal, and the distillation of abstract formal elements—all these are subjects for comparison and discussion. So I do not intend to compare Liu’s works with calligraphy, be it the calligraphy of Chinese characters or Basiba words. Instead, I will compare them to similar works of abstract art. 　　Traditional Chinese characters, in their creation and use by our ancestors, have acquired fixed meanings—hieroglyphic, self-explanatory and ideographic—in the relationship between the signified and the signifier. But in Liu’s Embrace of Love, the symbolic and ideographic functions of characters are transformed and integrated, so that ‘symbols’, instead of being only about perceived things, are elevated to more complicated spiritual connections with humans. Created by spiritual activities, they establish their subjectivity by constantly discarding or changing of their outside. As for ‘meanings’, they are not isolated, half visible ‘specters’ wandering and sinking in the dark, but perceivable practical meanings fused together with ‘symbols’. The blending and overlapping of ‘symbols’ and ‘meanings’, as well as the extremely rich spiritual possibilities embodied by the process, are the abstract idea of the complete ‘form’ that Embrace of Love is suppose to have. Therefore, abstract art tends to be expressed as ideas and spiritual activities. 　　The ‘form’, as abstract meaning, is the form that embodies completeness, is perceivable and could lead to communication; the completeness of the spirit is expressed through the form. In terms of the relationship between a person and the world, the ‘form’ is complete relationship between the two, including the relationship between his and others. So Liu’s Embrace of Love is definitely not simply the magnification of characters; otherwise it would suffice to write the title down—that would be intelligible to anyone who can read. The ‘form’ in its complete sense is the full embodiment of human feelings and spirit in the work. It is also an open system, which enriches and perfects itself by constantly modifying its relationship with the outside world. So it will not be an unchanging sign that tends to fossilize and to limit itself and its relations with the surroundings. That is the essence of the difference between Embrace of Love and the two characters—‘love’ and ‘embrace’. In his work the two words are not passive but active; they are always changing in order to communicate with the outside world, and are being enriched and perfected in the double exchange. So instead of being isolated and cold, that ‘form’ is simple and capable of development. 　　In that sense, the ‘shape’ of Liu’s Embrace of Love is an intelligible dynamic system that is associated with the past and the future; it is an imaginary space derived from the original meanings of characters, and interacts with constantly developing life and spiritual states. There are many similar phenomena in the universe—different things blend, with their commonness remaining visible, and all is always changing. In Liu’s works, the state of ‘embracing’ as an action mainly embodies the universality of ‘love’; it is only presented as some spiritual form of ‘love’. But meanwhile ‘love’ has infinite possibilities, and therefore infinite varieties of outside ‘forms’. The traits of ‘love’ are not shown in the world of animals and human beings, but also in the world of plants, the world of microbes, and heavenly bodies. As long as we use it as a concept to name and understand everything in the world, we will make indefatigable explorations of its forms. Of course, as indicated by Embrace of Love, Liu’s understanding of love is mostly reflected in human-related ideas. His sculpture is like two legs standing apart, contracting and then expanding from bottom to top. The upper lines tend to bend down, and the effect of movement is produced by the temporal quality of the lines instead of other traits of it as ‘shape’. For instance, the ‘embrace’ could be sensitive, weighty, mixed, or confused. Judging from the present state of the work, Liu tend to extract formal elements from the rules and habits of writing, such as the two dimensional quality of calligraphy and the temporal quality of writing. The writing of lines from top to bottom, from left to right or from right to left is directly linked with the likening of ‘love’ to personal relations. 　　Though characters have their own ‘shapes’, they are not absolute spiritual embodiments, because the human spiritual world is always changing, being enriched, and in pursuit of perfection. In terms of the infinite variety of that pursuit, the existent signs are only temporary displays rather than absolute ‘form’. The ‘form’ of abstract art, developed from the ‘shapes’ of characters, is bound to be driven by the spiritual pursuit of art and to transcend the shapes of characters in order to attain the objective of freedom of its own accord. That also bears out the fundamental difference between the borrowing of characters as labels and the pursuit of spiritual form in abstract art．