Lin Zhu:
First of all, thank you very much. Welcome, everyone, to this symposium. I’d also like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the distinguished artists of contemporary art from across China who have traveled afar to join us for this exchange.
First, allow me to introduce today’s speakers. As the opening guest and academic host of this symposium, we have Professor Pi Daojian. Professor Pi is a key promoter of contemporary Chinese ink art and a renowned critic in China. To his left is Professor Yin Shuangxi, editor-in-chief of Art Research magazine and a doctoral supervisor at the Central Academy of Fine Arts. The third speaker is Professor Liu Zijian, one of the earliest pioneers and leading figures in China’s experimental ink art movement. Today also marks the launch of Professor Liu’s new book, A Brief History of Experimental Ink Art, which traces the entire journey of experimental ink art. Additionally, we are honored to have the esteemed curator and critic Professor Yang Weimin, as well as artist and critic Professor Hang Chunhui, and artist and critic Professor Lin Jichang. Thank you all.
The Qingdao International Art Annual Exhibition has always emphasized academic rigor. However, when delving deeply into a specific academic field to thoroughly analyze artistic paths and directions, today’s session stands out as the most significant. In this domain, I believe only Professor Pi can guide us with precision. Therefore, I now entrust the floor to Professor Pi Daojian to lead the discussion. Thank you.
Professor Pi's Remarks:
Today, taking advantage of the opening of the 5th Qingdao International Art Annual Exhibition, we are hosting what I believe to be a highly meaningful academic seminar on the direction of Chinese contemporary art.
This year’s Qingdao International Art Annual Exhibition features a special exhibition titled "Mò Yì" , specifically " Mò Yì" : The Transformation and Transcendence of Ink. This exhibition essentially traces and presents the nearly 30-year development of Chinese contemporary ink art, from "Experimental Ink" to "Ink Contemporary," making its theme closely related to "Experimental Ink." Today’s event also includes another significant element: Professor Liu Zijian, to my left, has authored a book titled A Brief History of Experimental Ink Art. This book was recently published and has already garnered considerable attention in academic and art circles. This is a fascinating phenomenon. What makes today’s gathering particularly interesting is its connection to an exhibition, a book, and an article. The article, published two months ago in the journal Fine Arts, is titled "A Textual Examination of the Terms ‘Ink Experiment’ and ‘Experimental Ink.’" The author, Professor Hang Chunhui, proposed a distinction between "Experimental Ink" and "Ink Experiment," conducted in-depth research, and offered a forward-looking perspective, suggesting that the next phase of Chinese contemporary art is closely tied to the concept of "Ink Contemporary." He argues that the experimental spirit of "Ink Experiment" should continue to drive ink art toward the contemporary era, which could also be seen as the future of Chinese contemporary art.
Although today’s discussion may not be lengthy, the carefully selected participants, I believe, will generate sparks of theoretical exchange.
For instance, Professor Yin Shuangxi has been involved since the very beginning of the "Experimental Ink" movement and has remained deeply engaged as a critic. He has consistently focused on China’s "Ink Experiment," "Experimental Ink," "Ink Contemporary," and contemporary art at large. As the former editor-in-chief of Art Research, the journal of the Central Academy of Fine Arts, and also a curator and theorist, his active involvement has given him profound insight into the historical progression of Chinese contemporary ink art.
In addition, there are others like Professor Yang Weimin and Professor Lin Jichang, who are active participants in Chinese contemporary ink art. Professor Lin Jichang is also a key contributor to this exhibition, with his works featured in two of its segments. Thus, today’s participants include practitioners, critics, theorists, and curators. Among us are also several exhibiting artists from this exhibition, all of whom are active participants and significant figures in the Experimental Ink movement. I believe today’s discussion will be highly engaging. Due to time constraints, I will keep my opening remarks brief and leave more time for the following speakers. Let me briefly address the concepts of "Experimental Ink" and "Ink Experiment."
In 2001, Wang Huangsheng, then director of the Guangdong Museum of Art, invited me to collaborate on an exhibition titled "20 Years of Chinese Ink Experiment." These 20 years began around 1981, a time when many artists had already started reflecting on traditional Chinese ink language, seeking new ink art expressions that could convey contemporary artists’ sensibilities. This led to various experiments. At the time, Wu Guanzhong raised the issue of "formal beauty," while Taiwanese artist Liu Guosong advocated "revolutionizing the centered brushstroke," using non-traditional mediums to create ink paintings. From that point onward, many artists boldly engaged in exploration and experimentation, giving rise to what we call "Ink Experiment."
So, what is "Experimental Ink"? Later, in 1996, a seminar on "Experimental Ink" was held at South China Normal University in Guangzhou. This gathering brought together many of China’s foremost critics, including Professor Yin Shuangxi. The seminar focused on Chinese ink painting and its trajectory into the 21st century. In addition to critics, some abstract ink artists also held an exhibition, marking the emergence of the "Experimental Ink" banner.
It is clear that "Ink Experiment" and "Experimental Ink" are two distinct concepts. Since 1996, "Experimental Ink" has emerged as a movement. Though it lasted only about a decade, it became a highlight of Chinese contemporary art. Following the rise of "Experimental Ink," there was a renewed reflection on how to engage with tradition. Moving away from the nihilism and wholesale rejection of tradition during the ’85 New Wave, the 1990s prompted a reconsideration: Should we continue our traditional cultural lineage and create our own contemporary art rooted in our cultural soil? Thus, while we discuss "Experimental Ink," what we are truly concerned with is the direction and future of Chinese contemporary art.
I will keep my opening remarks brief. Next, I would like to invite Professor Yin Shuangxi to speak. He is among the earliest critics to engage with the "Experimental Ink" movement from a theoretical and critical perspective and has conducted in-depth research on "Ink Experiment." Let’s welcome Shuangxi!
Professor Yin Shuangxi's Address:
Thank you, Professor Pi, and thank you all for your enthusiastic participation in today's discussion. As a scholar focusing on the history of 20th-century Chinese art, I would like to briefly outline the broader context.
Chinese painting stands as a distinctive art form in the world, with its influence historically extending to Korea and Japan—known in Japan as Nanga, for example. Throughout much of Chinese history, painting primarily took the form of murals—tomb and temple frescoes executed with rich pigments or mineral colors. It was only after the Ming Dynasty, with the invention of Xuan paper, that ink wash painting on paper emerged. Since literati officials held the authority to shape cultural discourse, they elevated ink wash painting as the highest form, extolling the richness of "ink divided into five colors." Though ink is monochromatic, its gradations—from burnt and heavy to light and delicate—are capable of expressing subtle and intricate worlds. Consequently, ink wash painting gained prominence, while narrative-driven, meticulous mural painting, often associated with folk artisans, gradually receded in status. Over time, Chinese painting became dominated by ink wash works on Xuan paper—a development spanning just a few centuries, which later formed the mainstream of Chinese painting, particularly in academic education. In recent decades, organizations such as the Chinese Meticulous Painting Society have actively promoted the revival of meticulous painting, making it a dominant category in national exhibitions. This has led many to wonder: Where has the spirit of freehand ink wash painting gone? This forms the general backdrop.
In the 20th century, Chinese painting faced three significant periods of crisis. The first occurred during the May Fourth Movement, when Western cultural influences were introduced. Key figures such as Chen Duxiu advocated a revolution in Chinese painting, targeting the so-called "Wang School"—referring to the four Wang masters of the Qing Dynasty, who were court painters. Chen criticized these artists as conservative and uncreative, calling for realism to revitalize Chinese painting. Both Chen and Kang Youwei dismissed traditional Chinese painting as outdated, a stance that paradoxically stimulated new developments rather than extinguishing the tradition.
A student of these reformers, Xu Beihong, took a moderate approach. He advocated for the integration of sketching into Chinese painting education, treating it as foundational training. This approach significantly enhanced the representational and narrative capacities of Chinese painting, and today, sketching remains a core component of Chinese painting education in art academies.
The second crisis emerged in the early 1950s with the introduction of Soviet art education. When a prominent figure dismissed Chinese painting as inadequate for large-scale works and realistic representation, artists like Pan Tianshou responded by creating monumental ink paintings, proving the medium’s potential. Pan later reformed the curriculum at the Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts (now the China Academy of Art), dividing Chinese painting into specialized disciplines and incorporating calligraphy. This laid the groundwork for the academy’s distinctive approach to Chinese painting education.
The third crisis arose in the mid-1980s amid China’s reform and opening-up, when Western modern art was reintroduced. Some critics declared Chinese painting to be at a "dead end," echoing Western discourses about the "end of art." Yet, rather than signaling the demise of Chinese painting, such challenges spurred innovation and transformation. It was during this period that movements like "experimental ink" began to take shape.
Innovations in ink painting gained momentum around 1981, with pioneers such as Liu Guosong, Zhou Shaohua, and Wu Guanzhong playing pivotal roles. Liu advocated moving beyond traditional brush techniques, Wu emphasized formal beauty, and Zhou promoted ink art reform in Hubei. The earliest wave included the "New Literati Painting" movement, which appeared to return to tradition but was, in fact, a strategic step forward. A core group of around 20-30 artists, including Liu Zijian, formed the heart of the experimental ink movement. Their work moved away from narrative and figurative representation, favoring abstract forms that explored cosmic and microscopic themes. They also experimented with materials while maintaining the intrinsic qualities of ink.
The 1996 seminar at South China Normal University became a turning point, centering on whether ink artists should transcend traditional materials. While such experimentation was historically viewed as unconventional, contemporary artists boldly embraced new tools and techniques. Over time, experimental ink—primarily abstract in form—gained recognition and became a staple in modern art exhibitions.
In my view, the peak of the experimental ink movement has passed, but its legacy endures. It continues to evolve in new forms and directions, with younger artists and scholars like Hang Chunhui exploring themes such as the relationship between ink and space. Works that integrate ink with video, installation, or other media reflect the ongoing vitality of ink’s experimental spirit.
The term "Ink Contemporary," proposed by Hang Chunhui, invites further discussion but signals ink art’s openness to contemporary discourse. The question remains: What possibilities does ink hold as a medium in contemporary art? This is a topic for ongoing exploration, particularly by the younger generation. My remarks here are intended as a preliminary overview.
Professor Pi Daojian:
Thank you, Professor Yin Shuangxi, for that brilliant presentation. He has provided a detailed and insightful overview of the historical trajectory of traditional Chinese ink painting's transformation into modern and contemporary art. I believe this overview serves as an excellent foundation for the discussions to follow.
Shuangxi also raised a profoundly meaningful concept: the "spirit of ink." He emphasized that what truly matters is the spiritual essence behind a work of art, which I believe touches upon the core focus of our discussion. I encourage everyone to delve deeper into this aspect in the following exchanges.
Next, we have Liu Zijian, a key figure in the experimental ink movement, who will share his insights on experimental ink and his newly published work, A Brief History of Experimental Ink Art. Let's welcome Zijian.
Professor Liu Zijian's Address:
Professor Yin Shuangxi's overview of the evolution of ink painting from tradition to the contemporary provides important context for discussing my book, A Brief History of Experimental Ink Art. As a firsthand participant in the "Experimental Ink" movement, I aimed to document its decade-long development. The book serves as a foundational record of this history—akin to a detailed chronicle—featuring 680,000 words, 860 images, and over 400 pages. All materials, including events, timelines, artists, works, and statements, are drawn from publicly available texts published during that decade, striving to restore the historical reality.
First and foremost, A Brief History of Experimental Ink Art clarifies the relationship between "Experimental Ink" and the "abstract ink" of the "85 New Wave" art movement. Without this distinction, the narrative of "Experimental Ink" cannot proceed. Based on the nature of the events, the timeline, the attitudes and works of the artists, and the theoretical debates among critics over the decade, I argue that the "abstract ink" represented by artists like Gu Wenda within the "85 New Wave" does not constitute "Experimental Ink." The cultural context of the 1980s "New Wave" could not have given rise to the "Experimental Ink" movement or even the term itself. After reviewing art history texts from earlier periods, such as those by Lü Peng, I found no descriptions of "Experimental Ink" from that time. Thus, I conclude that the "abstract ink" of the 1980s belongs to the "85 New Wave," while "Experimental Ink" emerged as an artistic phenomenon in the mid-1990s.
The adoption of the "abstract ink" banner in the 1990s was a strategic move. The term "Experimental Ink" first appeared in 1993, coined by Huang Zhuan, a professor at the Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts. In 1993, Huang Zhuan and Wang Huangsheng edited a "Special Issue on Experimental Ink Painting" for Guangdong Artists, for which I selected the participating artists. At the time, we were uncertain about what "Experimental Ink" truly entailed, assuming it encompassed any form of innovation. Consequently, the issue featured both purely abstract and figurative works. Shortly after its publication, Huang Zhuan acknowledged that the concept was not yet rigorously defined and expressed hope for future refinement.
1996 marks the starting point of "Experimental Ink," signaled by two key events. First, Huang Zhuan curated the "Returning Home: Joint Exhibition of Chinese Experimental Ink Painting" in the United States, selecting artists who worked exclusively in abstraction. Through this exhibition, Huang Zhuan clearly positioned "Experimental Ink" within the realm of "abstract ink." The second event was the "21st-Century Modern Ink Art Symposium" organized by Professor Pi Daojian at South China Normal University. The symposium brought together dozens of young critics and ten abstract ink painters, sparking debates on modern ink painting. Nearly 30 articles emerged from the symposium and were published in Chinese academic journals over the following two years, fundamentally shifting the discourse on innovation in Chinese painting.
The Brief History of Experimental Ink Art emphasizes that the decade-long sustainability of the "Experimental Ink" movement relied heavily on the involvement of critics. It also clarifies that the "Experimental Ink" group was loosely organized, with a core of about ten artists and approximately forty participants overall. The group's existence was maintained through collective activities. It is worth noting that other abstract ink painters in China at the time were also creating abstract ink works but did not participate in the group's activities, thus they are not considered "Experimental Ink" artists.
After raising its banner in 1996, "Experimental Ink" gained recognition in 1997 by participating in the "Grand Art Exhibition" organized by the Chinese government to celebrate the return of Hong Kong. This marked the first time abstract ink was accepted in a major government-sponsored exhibition. Subsequently, its inclusion in the 1998 "Shanghai Biennale" drew academic attention and sparked debates over the legitimacy of the term "Experimental Ink." The movement further solidified its status by participating in the 2000 Chengdu exhibition "Gate of the Century: Invitational Exhibition of Chinese Art," which served as its answer sheet for the new century. By then, "Experimental Ink" had become widely accepted as synonymous with "abstract ink" in the art world.
The confusion between "Experimental Ink" and "Ink Experiment" largely arose after the 2002 exhibition "China: 20 Years of Ink Experiment," co-curated by Professor Pi Daojian and Wang Huangsheng at the Guangdong Museum of Art. In his writings, Professor Pi explicitly distinguished between the two, stating that "Ink Experiment" is broader in concept and should not be equated with "Experimental Ink," which specifically refers to the abstract ink movement of the late 1990s. Despite these clarifications, misunderstandings and controversies persisted.
Due to time constraints, I will conclude my introduction to A Brief History of Experimental Ink Art here. Finally, I should note that the images in the book are sourced from historical texts, making it a highly valuable visual resource—almost like an art album in its own right.
Professor Pi Daojian:
Thank you, Zijian, for your insightful presentation. As a firsthand participant, you have meticulously revisited the history of the Experimental Ink movement. The theoretical issues addressed in your book, such as the distinction between "Ink Experiment" and "Experimental Ink," are of great significance. Understanding these theoretical questions is key to grasping much of contemporary Chinese art history. Next, I invite Professor Yang Weimin to speak. As an art theorist, critic, and curator, he has long focused on traditional ink, modern ink, and experimental ink, and has played a crucial role in promoting Liu Zijian's new book.
杨维民发言：（已校对）
杨维民：
《艺术之旅》主编、湖北美术学院艺术人文学院教授
南通大学艺术学院后海派艺术中心主任
这次来青岛参加“2025青岛国际艺术展”及“实验水墨与水墨当代”研讨会，关于实验水墨至水墨当代的探讨，是本次年展的核心。皮道坚老师提出围绕“水墨精神”，并结合刘子建老师的新书《实验水墨简史》展开讨论。借此机会，我想就皮老师布置的题目，谈谈我的认知与感悟，与大家分享。
刘子建教授已退休多年，作为中国当代水墨领域一位成就卓著的艺术家，我从2000年开始关注并与他合作，至今已有二十余年。2002年，我在北京王府井的国际艺苑为他策划了首次个人展览；十年后，又在深圳关山月美术馆和上海朱屺瞻艺术馆策划了他的第二次个展。前几年，在北京今日美术馆编辑出版中心，我还担任了《当代中国艺术家文献全集——刘子建卷》的主编。近期，我也参与了湖北中佳文化支持刘子建老师《实验水墨简史》在河北美术出版社出版的相关工作。这本书前后历时近三年，终于在今年6月18日开幕的第三十一届北京国际图书博览会上正式亮相。
刘子建老师不仅是实验水墨的早期实践者与探索者，更是这一历程的亲历者与记录者。刘子建老师作为实验水墨形成艺术现象及学术概念的关键人物，他所著的《实验水墨简史》具有重要的史料价值，因此出版后反响热烈。实验水墨的十年，是改革开放以来当代水墨发展的重要路径，系统的学术梳理之有助于年轻一代水墨艺术家理解与推进。有人问，为什么刘子建既是一位杰出的艺术家，又如此勤于著述？我认为这源于他特有的思辨精神。有些艺术家作画只为愉悦自我，而刘子建则始终在思考、实验与突破。
最近，我先后参加了在武汉中佳美术馆和2025艺术厦门举办的两次《实验水墨简史》新书分享会。刘子建老师在分享中多次强调，实验水墨在起步和发展阶段，如果没有皮道坚老师、殷双喜老师等理论家、批评家的支持，就不会产生如此广泛的影响。这其实也提醒我们，艺术家如果缺乏理论支撑与学术关注，往往难以走远；而理论研究与批评实践，如果缺乏对艺术家长时间的深度关注，同样难以做到专业、深入和持久。
皮道坚老师当年在广东美术馆策划的“水墨实验二十年”展览，给我留下了深刻印象。我认为“实验”这个词用得非常好，它本质上代表的是“探索”，比起当时流行的“穷途末路”或“等于零”等论调，更具有建设性。那场展览汇集了众多优秀的当代中国画艺术家，既有京津的田黎明、何家英，也有岭南的黄一瀚、周涌等。他们的创作题材、形式乃至观念都发生了显著变化，这种“实验”正是艺术衍生变化的内在动力。
进入新世纪之初，也就是皮老师策划“水墨实验二十年”的时期，很多人仍在质疑中国水墨艺术是否具备当代性。当时普遍缺乏自信，受传统文人谦逊谨慎心态的影响，不少人怀疑中国水墨能否与国际接轨、能否真正步入世界艺坛。实际上，这些质疑背后，是对水墨当代性的根本性质疑。在我看来，中国艺术家固然讲究谦和中庸，但艺术创作不能只求新而不求变，“守正创新”更需“求新立异”。当时质疑中国水墨能否具当代性说法很多，但通过艺术家们的实践，如田黎明的淡墨光影、何家英的工笔创新，逐步证明中国水墨的当代潜质。实验水墨到水墨实验的衍化，体现中国水墨的开放与自信。实验水墨的成功面世，在于批评家与艺术家的互动。艺术家需理论支撑，理论家需艺术家实践佐证，二者相辅相成。后来出现的“新水墨”概念，本质上指向的是当代水墨，但“新水墨”这一提法过于模糊，缺乏学术严谨性，“新工笔”也存在类似问题。回顾中国改革开放以来的美术发展，真正获得广泛认可、具有学术内涵的概念，当属“新文人画”与“实验水墨”，这一点是毋庸置疑的。
今天和蔡广斌老师看展交流时也谈到，我长期关注许多正处于成长阶段的青年艺术家，从他们艺术之路的起点开始同行，见证他们一步步成长、一步步走远。我始终关注那些“在路上”的艺术家，也非常感激能与他们相互陪伴、共同成长。
近期，我正在策划一个三人联展，参展艺术家均为湖北美术学院培养的代表人物：包括刘子建老师、湖北美术学院原院长徐勇民教授——其早期作品《月牙儿》曾入选全国美展并获奖，以及84岁的老教授刘一原老师。刘一原老师与皮道坚老师是湖北美院首届研究生班的同窗，他坦言自己当下的艺术追求，深受这位发小兼同窗的影响。刘老师早年擅长中国古画临摹，功底极为深厚。他能从一位传统功力炉火纯青的画家，成功转型为现当代水墨艺术家，与皮道坚老师的持续关注与双向交流密不可分。
回到我开始提到的观点：艺术家若有评论家经常与之交流、点拨、鼓励并同行，将极大改善其创作氛围与气场，这种无形的推动力是无可替代的。我长期关注刘一原老师的艺术发展，他在中国美术馆、上海美术馆的个展，以及十年间在北京今日美术馆举办的两次大型个展，均由我担任策展人。之所以如此关注他，正是因为他是从传统向现当代水墨转型极为成功的个案。
此外，这三位艺术家的创作都特别彰显“水墨精神”。他们的作品不仅将水墨视为材质或媒介，更在创作中贯穿着皮老师所强调的“水墨精神”。
回望我与刘子建老师的合作：2001年我去深圳时，专门去他的工作室拜访。那时他已颇具名气，却尚未举办过个展。于是在2002年，我在北京国际艺苑为他策划了首次个展，这也是实验水墨艺术家群体中的第一次个展。布展前我曾问他，“实验”二字是否有时间性？他非常睿智地回答：“实验，是一种态度。”我回应说，实验永远是一种态度，实验就是探索，是一个阶段，是有时效性的，而水墨精神是永恒的。后来刘子建老师专门撰写了一篇文章，题为“水墨永远是一种态度”。
我认为，作为中国画或水墨艺术家，只要自认仍在这一传统脉络中，就必须具备水墨精神与笔墨意趣。专业人士一看便知，这是中国人画的画——因其内含中国的水墨精神、即写意性与笔墨韵味。无论形式如何创新，只要自认是水墨艺术家，作品就应葆有那种水墨的意蕴，不一定是淋漓酣畅，但必须有水墨精神的潜质与笔墨的意趣。否则，作为水墨艺术家的价值与人文内涵，便会大打折扣。
以上即是我围绕皮老师所提“水墨精神”这一命题，结合实验水墨与水墨当代和个人实践与感悟所作的分享。谢谢大家！
皮道坚老师发言：
杨维民老师的发言，有很多很好的观点，他说关键是我们要有一种认知，要有自己的认知，而且对这个认知你还要有坚持，我非常赞成你的这个态度。另外关于“实验水墨”，他借子建的话说，实验是一种态度，实验应该说既是一种精神，更重要的它也是一种态度。此外他也提醒我们双喜老师说的水墨精神，应该是我们讨论的一个核心议题。我历来认为，我们谈水墨有三个概念，水墨性、水墨精神和水墨方式。我们要是这样来思考，水墨的边界可以无限的拓展，我们便不会固步自封。我们从这三点展开去讨论，应该能不断有新的发现。接下来有请春晖，春晖是今天在座的这次展览的参展艺术家里面，相对最年轻的。当然，我们这个展览里面还有更年轻的没来。我觉得春晖可以代表年轻一代，谈谈他对我们今天这个会议的主题的一些看法和思考。刚好呢，他花了两年的时间写了一篇文章，在美术杂志刚刚发表，就是在思考“实验水墨”以后怎么办？我觉得这个问题非常有意思，那么下面有请春晖！
杭春晖发言：
杭春晖老师发言（已确认的校对稿）
首先要谢谢皮老师的邀请，很荣幸参加此次论坛。我本人是参展艺术家，皮老师邀请我上台发言，是因为我最近写了一篇文章：《水墨实验和实验水墨的名称考辨》。在这篇文章的撰写过程中，得到了皮老师的很大帮助。大概两年前，我向皮老师请教一些“水墨实验”的观点时，皮老师非常热情的给我寄了一本他的理论专著，读过后受益良多。在此，再次表示感谢！
其实关于“实验水墨”这个概念，我并不陌生，甚至在很早就有接触。大概在90年代，那时我还是一个学生，我就经常听我叔叔杭法基谈论这个概念。他在80年代就开始“抽象水墨”的创作实验，后来也在90年代参加了很多“实验水墨”的展览活动。今天发布的刘子建老师的《实验水墨简史》里就有我叔叔的作品，看到这本书，我也感觉十分亲切，让我回忆起读书时代，听我叔叔激情澎湃的描述“实验水墨”的时光。我先谈谈第一次接触“实验水墨”概念时的感受吧，那时我还在求学阶段，对于艺术创作而言，算是一个素人吧。当我听到“抽象水墨”就是“实验水墨”的观点时，第一时间就会产生一个困惑：为什么“实验”一词在语义上等同“抽象”？从语言及词汇的概念指向看，“实验”是为了验证某种理论或假设而实施的探索活动，而“抽象”则更多用来描述某种视觉形式或结构。这个“困惑”是从词汇的理解角度产生的，可以说是一种语言直觉。在后来学习和创作的过程中，我慢慢理解，这两个词汇的指向趋同，成为一个艺术概念，更多的是通过具体的艺术史叙事来完成的。今天发布的《实验水墨简史》也较为详细的描绘了这一过程，书中记录了10多年的诸多展览活动、学术论坛及出版活动。或许正是这些实际的艺术活动，赋予“抽象水墨”与“实验水墨”等同的艺术史语境。用一句今天流行的话来比喻，这就是“事实婚姻”，通过现实叙事形成的稳定关系。这种情况在艺术史中也屡见不鲜，比如“达达”、“印象”等词汇，都是在具体的艺术叙事中，形成一种新的理论阐述角度。从这个角度看，将“抽象水墨”等同于“实验水墨”是具有合理性的。
但是，要形成一个艺术史概念的现实叙事，需要一定的强度与较长时间的积累，显然，“实验水墨”从1996年广州研讨会开始，到2006年左右逐渐退却，仅有短短十年左右的时间，而同时，这个概念的相关展览和出版也往往伴随着一些其他概念的水墨作品形式，比如皮老师2001年策划的“水墨实验20年”，除了“实验水墨”主体艺术家之外，还有部分其他方式的水墨作品，皮老师选择“水墨实验”作为展览名称，一方面表现出皮老师更为宽阔的理论视角。但也在一定程度上体现出“实验水墨”作为独立概念的强度不够，对此，或许需要更密集的、更持久的学术展览及活动，才能在艺术史中稳固相关概念，尤其是在“实验水墨”活动高潮过去了二十多年的现在，大家可能对这个概念也已经很陌生了，在这种语境下，就会容易陷入我前面提到的素人的困惑。所以，刘子建老师今年出版这本《实验水墨简史》就是一个很好的延续，当然，回到词汇的基本指向上来说，“实验”一词因为探索一些理论和假设，故而其概念本身具有“不确定”，由于2014年之后，我个人的创作开始脱离“新工笔”、“新水墨”的范畴，开始通过空间与材料参与，实验水墨的新可能，这时，我就会自然产生一个想法：为什么没有“水墨实验”这个概念，因为从语言逻辑的直觉看，将一个具有开放性的、不确定性的“实验”，用来形容一个具有较强的身份指向和媒介指向的“水墨”，从某种角度看，会限制“实验”的开放性，在理论阐述上具有一定的局限性。而“水墨实验”，则会产生一种“水墨”主体通过实验活动打开诸多可能性的语言指向。所以我在想到这些时，还是很高兴，认为自己找到了一个非常好的理论视角。但在后续的资料阅读中，我发现“水墨实验”几乎与“实验水墨”同时产生，在2000年左右，皮道坚和殷双喜两位老师就做过相关的理论构建。皮老师从作品范围梳理了“水墨实验”的广度，而殷老师则从“跨媒介”、“泛水墨”的角度描述了“水墨实验”的特征。
当然，这些问题并不影响我们理解“实验水墨”的学术价值，毫无疑问，“走出笔墨中心论”是90年代“实验水墨”最大的问题意识，也是它最为重要的学术意义。而这与80年代思想史有着密切的关联性。这里我想想举一个例子，80年代有一套影响非常大的丛书，就是四川人民出版社的《走向未来》丛书，同时期还有一套《文化：中国与世界》丛书，都是通过对西方科学与思想著作的翻译出版传播西方学术观点。这里面有一个很有意思的现象，其中有一本《新教伦理和资本主义精神》同时被两套丛书翻译出版。但《走向未来》的译本是174页，而《文化：中国与世界》的译本则有252页！为什么同一本西方学术著作在两套丛书中有这么大的差异？原因是《走向未来》的黄晓京在翻译时，将原作里的所有注释都删减了，而《文化：中国与世界》的于晓则做的是全文翻译。但从80年代的影响力上看，《走向未来》丛书的发行量要大于《文化：中国与世界》的。这就涉及到一个很有意思的现象，在《走向未来》丛书的翻译工作中，更突出问题意识的提出，即使删除掉重要注释可能会影响到读者对原文的深入理解，但在不影响到问题意识的情况下，《走向未来》丛书的编译工作还是选择了更为精简的翻译方向。也就是说，学术的严谨与规范并不是《走向未来》丛书所追求的，这也体现出80年代思想传播的特点：重思想，轻学术。从这个角度看，我们就能体会1985年李小山“中国画已经到了穷途没日”的观点，能够在当时引起巨大争论的原因。因为那个时代更需要提出问题的能力，并不重视问题背后的学术逻辑。如果从这个语境中看90年代“实验水墨”，我们就能感受到80年代思想史的显像，虽然在形式语言上过于依赖西方抽象绘画的表现方式，但其核心问题意识却是非常明确的，就是“走出笔墨中心主义”，这也是其最大的学术价值。在这里，我也和大家分享一下《实验水墨简史》中的一个趣闻，就是1995年，在中国美术馆“张力与表现水墨展”上，刘子建与刘骁纯关于“笔墨中心”的激辩。刘骁纯因为没有看过刘子建的原作，只是通过画册上的笔墨效果，就将其作品理解为通过笔墨方式表达的效果，但在看到展览原作时，发现刘子建的作品都是通过撕、拼、贴等方式呈现时，就对这种脱离笔墨表现的创作方向提出质疑，而当刘子建问这个展览挑选艺术家的角度是笔墨的书写性表现，为什么会选择他参展时，刘骁纯直接说这是他看走眼了。其实从某种角度看，90年代的学术严谨性并不是最重要的，因为在挑选艺术家的时候，理论家并没有仔细研究作品的创作方式，更注重视觉呈现是否与自己的问题意识一致。但这次争辩恰恰体现出“实验水墨”最为重要的问题意识：非笔墨中心主义。虽然从格林伯格形式主义在1960年代已经瓦解的学术线索上看，抽象水墨会陷入理论的陷阱。但“走出笔墨”的态度赋予了“实验水墨”特有的中国问题意识，也是它的美术史价值。
进入21世纪之后，尤其是2006年之后，“实验水墨”的影响力逐渐消弱，这个情况与《走向未来》丛书的情况相似。而更强调学术完整性的《文化：中国与世界》则依然还有再版，并保持着持续的影响力。这种情况其实表明，进入新世纪之后，在思想传播中开始重视学术的严谨与规范，问题意识的重要性开始消弱。这种趋势也是“实验水墨”概念逐渐消退的原因之一。从西方美术史历程看，格林伯格晚期现代主义的“形式简化”与“平面原则”，因为从左倾走向右倾、从激进走向保守，在50年代中期开始逐渐瓦解，走入“形式主义”的悖论。那么，以抽象绘画为坐标的“实验水墨”，虽然是两个时期，两种文化的艺术现象，但也不可避免的走向相同的结果，当然，这并不是否定“实验水墨”的价值，而是从一个更宽阔的时间角度思考：“实验水墨”之后，如何继续推进“水墨当代”的演变？进入新世纪之后，随着“实验水墨”的讨论消退，后续出现了“新工笔”、“新水墨”的展览现象，我本人也参与了这一时期的很多活动，如果从某种角度看，这个阶段的水墨现象体现了更多的语言探索，并没有“实验水墨”那样强烈的问题意识。当然，背后透露的是21世纪之后，艺术与资本之间更为复杂的关系，在此，我就不深入展开。但是，有一点还是需要强调的，就是这个阶段的水墨现象在理论研究上，更多的是零散的展览主题研究，缺少更为宏观的理论视角。这个特点与“实验水墨”时期，理论与创作的双向构建有很大的区别。这或许是今天皮老师这个研讨会的当下意义，我们如何用一种更为包容的理论视角看待过去近50年的水墨探索？从我个人的理解角度，“水墨实验”无疑是一个很好的话题，就像刚刚我说的，这是一个伴随着“实验水墨”而产生的理论词汇，同时从语言结构上看，它也具有更为广泛的意义指向。我们可以从很多角度阐释“实验”的可能性。当然，今天我们也需要思考，如何界定这种实验的边界，否则就会走向一个巨型理论框架的陷阱。我想，首先这种实验是建立在对“水墨”这个对象之上的，其次，我想引用殷双喜老师区别“实验水墨”与“传统水墨”的观点，就是“非叙事”、“非抒情”。再次，我想“实验水墨”最为重要的问题意识：“走出笔墨中心主义”也是一个重要属性。当然，这是我个人目前的思考，这种讨论并不是出于价值论来思考“实验水墨”与“水墨实验”的问题，更希望通过这样的讨论，激活“水墨实验”在当下艺术活动中的阐述能力，并激发水墨创作更多的可能性。我想我就先说这么多。谢谢！
皮道坚老师发言：
谢谢春晖精彩的发言。虽然他是一个创作者，但是他的理论思考比我们一些从事理论批评工作的人，逻辑更严密，思考更深刻，确实是后生可畏。他刚才提到了格林伯格，格林伯格是现代主义的一个理论家，刚刚双喜开始发言的时候，也谈到了。格林伯格以后，丹托提出了“艺术终结论“，这是一场非常有意义的争论，这个争论一直延续到现在。据我所知，现在美国的理论批评界有人提出“僵尸形式主义”的概念，形式主义绘画已经成为了一个僵尸了。那么这里谈到的是什么呢？就是现代和当代的区别，什么是现代艺术，什么是当代艺术。格林伯格在西方的艺术史上，无疑起了很重要的推动作用，他的形式主义理论直接推动了抽象表现主义绘画、大色域绘画的兴起。但是到后来，格林伯格被超越了，丹托提出了“艺术终结论”，艺术终结不等于真正的终结，而是说艺术要向一个更高的层次迈进。因此要思考什么是当代？我们很多人对现代和当代是分不清的。春晖作为一个艺术实践者，和理论的思考者，他能够敏感意识到这一点。也就是说我们今天要讨论的问题应该是：实验水墨以后，我们中国的艺术怎么样由现代走向当代？谢谢春晖的发言。下面要发言的是林继昌。我介绍一下，我是92年由湖北调到广东，到广州不久，就认识了林继昌，我可以这么说，他是我在广州最早接触到的具有实验精神的水墨艺术家，后来我们一直都有联系，前两年我还写过一篇评论他的文章，好像也是为你在青岛的一个展览吧，就是说他是一个具有实验精神的当代艺术家。今天周湧跟我讲，发现潮汕人有一个特点，好像与中国传统的笔墨有着非常深厚的血缘联系，他说潮汕人只要一拿起笔来，不管他怎么画，都有传统笔墨的韵味和精神，确实是这样。但是继昌他既有这个血缘上的亲和关系，又有一种非常执着的实验和探索的精神。在今天的展览上大家可以去看看他的作品，我不就不多说了。我想你是最后一个发言，你的发言可以把我们前面所有人的发言都做一个总结，你总结了以后我就不总结了，谢谢！
林继昌发言：
在皮道坚老师主持的“从实验水墨到水墨当代论坛上的发言（文字整理）：
皮老师好！各位嘉宾、同仁，大家下午好！
非常荣幸能在本次论坛与大家进行交流。今天对谈的主题是——“从实验水墨到水墨当代”。我们旨在通过对这段艺术历程进行系统梳理，一起来探讨水墨在全球化与数字化语境下的转化路径，以及它未来的种种可能性。
关于“实验水墨”这一重要艺术现象，我在1990年代中期就开始关注。那时我正参与现代书法的书写实践，抽象水墨自然成了一个重要参照。子建老师刚刚出版的《实验水墨简史》，系统性地梳理并呈现了这个现象级的艺术生态，为我们进一步研究提供了很大便利。刚才我也认真聆听了各位老师的高见，深受启发。在我看来，从概念上讲，“实验水墨”可以拆解为“实验”与“水墨”两个维度：“实验”赋予其鲜明的方法论意识，强调以理性精神和前瞻态度进行语言探索与观念突破；而“水墨”则扎根于中国文人与士大夫的悠久传统，承载着“道技合一”、“气韵生动”等东方哲学与美学追求。实验水墨的出现，不仅拓展了水墨的表达疆域，更重塑了我们对其认知的方式。
就其历史意义而言，我认为可以概括为以下三方面：
第一，实验水墨从根本上改变了观众欣赏水墨的传统惯性。千多年来，我们习惯于聚焦题材内容——如山水、花鸟、人物，强调“画什么”；而实验水墨则将问题转向“怎么看”，引导观者从媒介自觉、形式语言与观念结构等层面重新进入水墨。这种转变，不仅解放了视觉，也打开了水墨被长期遮蔽的现代性维度。
第二，实验水墨形成了一个特征清晰、自有边界的发展阶段，主要集中在1990年代中期至2006年前后。它展现出两个非常明确的立场：一是在媒介层面，坚持以水墨为“元材料”，拒绝完全西化，保持了材料与精神的本体性；二是在语言上，以西方抽象表现主义为参照系，在中国社会激烈转型的背景下，以实验姿态回应个体与时代的张力。尤其是在全球资本浪潮初袭、文化认同产生焦虑的语境中，实验水墨成为一批知识精英复杂情感与哲学思辨的艺术化输出。我们可以将其理解为文人画精神在当代的一次严肃转化，是士人关怀的另类延续。
第三，实验水墨的创作群体大多具备高等教育背景与理论自觉。他们的创作无论体量大小，普遍强调向内挖掘、重视精神修持，与同时期更多指向社会批判、政治叙事的当代艺术形成了一种有益互补。
也正因如此，实验水墨在十年左右的时间中"成于边界，亦止于边界"——它因媒介和范式的自律而获得身份确证，但也因难以逾越这些边界而逐渐进入平台期。然而，"实验"作为一种方法论和精神态度，并未随之终结，而是潜移默化地汇入了更广阔的当代艺术探索中。
如果说实验水墨的成就得益于改革开放全球化红利，那么今天我们也许正站在"后实验水墨"的起点上。因为实验水墨诞生于全球化与中国民粹思想之间的裂隙，而今天的背景已演化为全球化与全球民粹思潮的撕裂。与此同时，数字化时代的真正到来，为水墨艺术提供了第二重语境，这或许为超越二元对立的旧有观念提供新的可能。
那么，在此背景下，我们应如何理解"水墨"的当代意义？又该如何推动其进一步转化？这才是我们今天必须面对的问题。
我认为关键在于发掘水墨本质的流动性与再语境化能力。水墨从来不是静止的传统，而始终处于跨文化、跨媒介的流动之中，不断寻找与当代对话的新可能。一个非常典型的例子是宋代牧溪的《六柿图》：其墨韵简淡、意境空灵，东传日本后被融入"侘寂"美学，成为禅画典范；西传之后，又在极简主义与抽象表现主义的话语中被重新解读；到了数字时代，它更成为NFT艺术和生成式创作的视觉资源与观念载体。它的每一次传播都不是意义的衰减或异化，而是递归性地生成新的意义链，实现创造性的转化与迭代。
承接实验水墨所开启的视野，我们今天更应该从观念与方法的层面——而不仅仅是风格或图式层面——重新理解并激活传统。我不主张将文人画传统仅仅视为一种怀旧的视觉趣味，而是希望挖掘其深层的哲学观与创作论，使其在当代艺术语境中发挥实际作用。具体而言，可从以下三方面展开：
第一，文人画中强烈的"反异化"特质——即反对技术主义、功利主义对心性的侵蚀，以及其"通才"意识——强调诗书画印一体、人文修养与艺术实践的结合，可助力当代艺术家重建内省型的、跨学科的创作主体性，在专业分工日益精细的今天，提供一种反向的、整全的人文思路；
第二，可将"笔墨"视为一种"具身化的元媒介"，它不仅是工具或痕迹，更是身体经验、审美判断与生命态度的延伸；而"程式"——如各种皴法、树法、石法——则可被理解为一套高度符号化、可再编码的"文化语法"。这为水墨在跨媒介实践（如影像、装置、互动艺术）中提供了基础语言范式；
第三，文人画中"天人合一"、"物我两忘"的自然观与宇宙观，也可为当代生态艺术、可持续设计，乃至人工智能艺术提供重要的思想资源——尤其是在人类世语境下，如何重新理解技术、自然与人的关系，我想，水墨传统中蕴藏着尚未被充分动员的智慧。
总而言之，实验水墨作为一个阶段性的艺术运动已告一段落，但实验的精神远未终止。水墨的当代性，正体现于其持续的流动性、调适性与再生能力。它源于历史，却面向未来；根植本土，却属于世界。它提示我们：真正有生命力的传统，永远不会封闭自己，而是在一次次的自我怀疑、自我超越中，走向更开阔的文明对话。
谢谢大家！
皮道坚老师发言：
继昌的发言确实兜底，非常好。他的发言有很多观点，将来整理下来，我们大家可以细细的阅读。他刚才提出了一个“后实验水墨”概念，另外他谈到了要走向当代，走向当代他提到了一个关键就是观念，我们怎么样考虑我们的当代艺术在观念上的推进和突破。最重要的是他提到了牧溪的《六柿图》，要我们重新去审视我们的传统，他提到了中国人的“天人合一”观念，中国人的自然观，中国人的生命观，这些就让我想到了我们的老庄和禅宗。刚才殷双喜老师也讲到了，西方的那几位“艺术终结论”者，都是受我们东方禅宗思想的影响。所以我觉得他谈的这些，与我们刚才提到的，也包括春晖提出来的，关于我们的“实验水墨”，我们的水墨实验如何走向当代密切相关。非常好，今天几位的发言，似乎是一种巧合，从双喜老师开始，到子建、维民、春晖，最后到继昌，这样一步一步地深入，最后直指问题的核心，所以就用不着我总结了。我把时间留给我们在座的各位，我先要感谢你们，感谢你们在这里，认真的听了我们全部的发言，这个态度让我感动。那么我要留一点时间给大家，你们有什么问题和我们几位发言的嘉宾进行交流？现在请大家提问！
观众提问：
欢迎各位老师来青岛，这是青岛水墨界的盛事。我是学油画的，曾在北京民生现代艺术馆看过“中国水墨40年”展，对水墨现状有冲击认知。现在的水墨作品冲击性不如早期实验时期，多回归传统图式或材料探索，比如岩彩画。是不是因时代变迁、物质化、数字化、效率经济导致人文精神传统忽视？当代艺术需思想性、观念性、个性与社会关照，水墨精神即文人精神，需思想家与社会开放性环境支撑。材质可被影像等替代，但思想性是关键。请问如何将水墨精神与当代艺术结合？老师们对年轻艺术家有何建议？如何融合普世指导与叛逆观念？徐冰等国际化艺术家重书写性、文化继承，却少涉水墨趣味与精神。那么年轻艺术家该如何判断，又如何发展？
皮道坚老师：
你讲得很好。那么他希望我们在座的给年轻的艺术家提供一些建议，就他刚才谈的问题。那我想有请双喜老师。
殷双喜教授回答：
刚才这位听众，已经把她的思考说的很清晰，也是跟我们交流。我的一个判断，就是实验水墨阶段还是中国的现代化进程中间，中国的艺术家做出的一个反应。也就是说，在中国的工业化现代化进程中间，社会环境、人们的思考都发生了极大的变化。所以，我们的传统生活是古典型的神话，它的背景是农业社会，是人和自然这样一个关系。而现代神话面临的是一个工业社会的关系。也就是说，传统的古典艺术中间的那种和谐、人与自然的和谐，现在遇到了工业革命的挑战，它带来的城市化、人的那种被规范、被制度控制等等。而这些实验型的画家试图在他们创造的空间里重新发现人的自我、人的自由、人性的这样一种尊严，就是人不能成为机器的零件。所以他和西方的现代艺术实际上在精神启蒙这个角度上，是相呼应的。我们看实验水墨的作品，有不少的类型，你比方说像周湧、黄一翰的作品，你看那个周湧的作品，中间一个人抱着一棵树、一个假山石，但是下面是密集的房子、城市街道汽车等等，那就是人作为一个个体，在自然的理想、怀抱的理想和现实的这种物质的挤压之间，他如何找到自己的安身之所，找到自己的位置。这一类的艺术家，他是一种图像表达，在图像中寻找一种意义，它这个叙事是一种象征性的叙事，它不是讲一个故事，它是表述一种生存状态和心情。所以刚才春晖老师谈到格林伯格，他是西方现代艺术代言人，他说现代艺术的根本特征是一种平面化，对古典艺术的三度空间幻觉的消除。我认为现代艺术的根本是关注现代人的生存状态。刚才林继昌先生提到这个当代实验水墨之后的状况，我觉得，当艺术家从这种现代工业社会的感受出发，你看刘子建的作品，展现出一种宇宙的空间和意向，非常宏大，就是人的那种漂浮无根感，就把你抛入，就是孩子的时候，我们被抛。我们每个人，都好像被一种看不见的气流、时代的巨浪抛入到无根的状态，随波逐流。那实验艺术家，实验什么呢？他们就想在这个过程里，在这种碎片化的时代，去找到一个心灵的家园。所以我对实验水墨的定位，基本上还是一个现代主义的状态。但是在今天它是一个走向后工业社会，我们叫数字时代也好，信息时代也好，今天的工业能力已经升级换代，已经越过了物理和物质的阶段。所以我们现在发明的机器人，实验脑机接口，人与自身创造的机器，将来会产生新的关系，它不再是被我们操纵的，它可能会给我们的生活带来一些不可预知的后果。我了解的机器人专业，现在大学的专家在讨论人工智能的伦理问题，伦理问题包括我们基因改造，我们培养新的这个人也有伦理问题。就说你改变人的那个基因，如果没有医学伦理的认证，你不能随便这样做，你会把千百年自然发生的基因渐变变成一种基因突变，产生一种我们不可预知的人类。这些后工业社会的东西，给新的艺术家带来新的思考。这个时候，实验室就不再是一个形式问题，甚至也不是一个媒介的问题啊，他面临着人跟自然的关系和态度的问题。所以刚才刘先生讲，我们中国传统的人跟自然的相处，这种关系，这种观念啊，比方说天地这种和谐，我们中国人有一句说，我们对死亡的态度是视死如归，就我们来源于自然，又回到自然，我们对生死看淡的这种态度，就是一个东方人的生命观。所以今天的艺术可能会重新回到人跟自然的这种关系。原来的艺术是对社会的判断，无论歌颂批判，是人对社会的直接态度，现在转化为人跟自然的关系。就是我们说的超诣，这个题目是皮老师起的吧？这个诣啊（皮老师：超诣），言字旁的，他是用言语去表达一种重要的价值观念。也就是说，水墨它以它的发展和变化，带来一些我们对当代的感受和思考。所以在这个意义上，我感觉，实验水墨代表着一种持续的探索精神，它大大拓展了中国水墨画的空间和发展。但在今天有可能水墨不再是一个媒介，是一种观念和精神。例如我们学校的老校长潘公凯先生，他就通过数字化的形式，将传统水墨画的层次进行了剥离和分离，一种重新的转换。我们林继昌先生的那个影像装置，也是对那种物体的流变，形象的自由流淌变化，表达了一种新的视觉感受。因为我们的环境在变化，所以在这一点上，我们跟古人的生存环境发生了极大的变化，但是我们的根本没有变，就是我们与自然的关系。在这种意义上，它会改变我们对自然，同时也改变自我对生活的态度。我想这是我的一个期待。
