李振华：你从1997年和洪浩合作《邀请信》项目开始，就将卡塞尔文献展1置于创作的核心，当然1997年也正好是第十届卡塞尔文献展，你们巧妙的利用了这个五年才有一次的机会，并将其转化为连接这一国际艺术项目和本土当代艺术语境的作品。时间已经过去整整15年，你第二次参加卡塞尔文献展。不知道你对之前的《邀请信》和《这里通往卡塞尔》（1998年），以及《追光——阿斯蓬》系列（2006年）、《着陆》系列（2007年）这些作品怎么看？你如何看待这些作品之间的联系和线索？
颜磊：艺术家都把能参加文件展作为一件最光荣的事情，97年那个时候感觉文件展和自己是很遥远的事，所以想起艺术问题来，更多的感受是孤独和无能。我工作每向前一步都是无法预见的，但有一点是做艺术家所面临的困扰和问题始终没离开过我的脑子。
李振华：困扰你的是什么？你所面对的是什么？这可能是一个随着时间推移一直在变化着的问题，这一困扰在今天消退了吗？或者说它变得日益强大？
颜磊：困扰是因为人与人无法交流，所以只能直面孤独。我经常象一个人面对空白画布不知道该怎么下手一样。不知道明天该做什么。
李振华：困扰你的是金钱上的限制吗？
颜磊：我相信钱越多就越自由。但怎样做艺术才会有出路的问题不是钱能解决的了的。
李振华：你的回答让我想到了当代艺术逐渐出现的历程，从当代艺术出现以来，当代文化变迁最突出的表现是艺术家身份在不断的转变。我很感兴趣你是如何考虑作品是做给谁这个问题？还有艺术家的位置在今天是什么？
颜磊：作品当然是为了自己和对自己作品有兴趣的人做的。要想获得更多的自由就不要在乎自己是不是艺术家。
迁徙既发现
李振华：1997年你应该已经移居香港，在香港居住期间创作了《这里通往卡塞尔》（1998年）和《红灯区》（1998年）、《二手店》（1999年），显然在《这里通往卡塞尔》仿佛是对卡塞尔和生活环境之间的一个过渡，《二手店》让你的创作再次处于一种似是而非的当代艺术的边缘。从北京到香港的生活让你的创作发生了根本性的变化，也就是生活和文化语境的差异，开始被你所察觉，并很快开始捕捉到来自香港文化的脉络，以及与之接壤的国际化当代艺术的信息。你怎么看这一转变，从身份的变化到艺术倾向上的移动，由远及近——对应创作从卡塞尔话题到红灯区和二手店的变化。
颜磊：面对孤独的绝望感，艺术的道路该怎么走下去？那时候我想调整一下自己的状态，重新审视自己的身份，做了那些作品。《二手店》（又名：哈利路亚）就是用艺术的名义，把自己的包袱的卸掉，减轻束缚，作为调整心态的一种办法。香港的艺术界热衷于政治游戏，除此之外谁也超越不了那种规则，我在那里做艺术的感觉挺无能的。
李振华：你从中国文化政治的状态中出来，又掉入了香港文化政治的迷局，如果对比当时的文化政治状态，中国和香港的不同是什么？你作为艺术家需要在这一变化中保持怎样的状态、身份？
颜磊：大陆很大，香港很小，香港比北京干净。你只要知道在哪里生活自然，就是最好的状态。
李振华：对你来说创作和地缘的关系在哪里？如果仅仅从艺术创作的变化上，可以猜测你艺术形式上的变化，与不断的搬迁好像有着某些联系，如你谈到香港生活和对艺术圈的了解所导致的悲观，是来自你卸下包袱后的荒芜感，还是来自对艺术系统的失望？以及你后来常去法国是否和这些都有关联？在你的创作上的变化，是否和移居法国在时间上也有着联系？
颜磊：我基本是在中国大陆形成的时间和空间的概念。以前曾经想出国，但到了国外被语言所局限，根本找不到语言之外的感觉。现在主要看哪里的生活习惯更适合自己，如果在一个地方生活不习惯，就会不知怎样想艺术的问题，这就是我和地缘与创作的关系。
李振华：上述问题可以被看作是你在2000年之前创作上的倾向性和变化，也就是你的工作开始出现一个主体的存在，这与你更早的录像、摄影作品涉及的对自身的伤害有些不同，是什么让你开始关注某种文化中心（所对应）的话题，并开始产生兴趣？你到了香港之后这一被强调的话题是如何被阶段性的放弃？
颜磊：我认为艺术家做作品得动机主要是为了摆脱心理孤独感，所以手段和方式不是最主要的。艺术家自己要感觉到刺激才重要。刚从学校出来的时候，我特别希望自己艺术家的身份被认可，后来觉得这个问题没意思了。
李振华：对你来说如果媒介的变化不重要，刺激来自哪里？是什么导致这些刺激出现，你的创作有着特别的冷静、隔绝之感，你谈及的是理性的刺激，还是感性的刺激？最终你在媒介的使用上选择了绘画作为呈现的材质，应该也是有原因的吧。
颜磊：我说的刺激是通过自主操作自己的工作，并能能够准确的实现目标，是权利带来的刺激。每一个作品在心理上都像是一出戏，我会把它想像成一个舞台，所有问题集中起来，就是艺术家形象时时刻刻所传达出的宣言。
李振华：你在这里强调身体传达出的声明，但是在工作中你自己尽量少的参与其中，怎么解释在这里出现的矛盾？艺术家的在场与不在场，是怎么被决定的？你所强调的身体是艺术所特指的Body of Work，还是你自己的身体的在场？
颜磊：我的意思是艺术家的外表就是心理学表现。我对作品的态度是尽量减少我对作品制做的参与。
李振华：根据你所谈及的艺术史和对作品概念及其理解的问题，我深有同感。现在的解释系统和文化批评、研究很难满足于前行的当代艺术需要，而史学研究的历史观，往往也只能让我们向后看今天艺术的来源问题。即使如此在当代艺术行进中，我们还在面对越来越多的困境，这一困境来自知识（跨领域）上的障碍，地缘文化上下文关系的障碍，身体体验的障碍，观看作为美学领域和其他领域之间挪移碰撞的障碍，当然还有如你所说心理学范畴。那么在这里你所强调的艺术家的形象和作品有着什么样的关系。
颜磊：我相信艺术存在于作品语言（物object和表现presentation）之外，所以我（艺术家Artist）做（介入）得越少艺术就越纯粹，艺术家的存在只是给那些呈现作品的“物”赋予一些精神的幻觉。
艺术、第五系统、UAP、北京的礼物 Art, Fifth System, UAP and Gift from Beijing
李振华：98年以后你的作品好像更趋向于绘画，几个特别的项目中，除了观念以外，都有绘画的存在。如《国际酵母》（2004年）《蓬皮杜艺术中心计划》（2002-2003年）《尼斯计划》（2004年）《第五系统》（2004年），你觉得绘画和你的观念之间是什么样的关系？为什么不能被其他媒介取代，或是干脆什么也不留下？我发现你在2004年的计划更多的受到来自博物馆系统的邀约和驻留，你怎么看这一融入艺术体制的作用，你的创作遵循着什么特别的标准和线索？《第五系统》可以被看作是对地权兴起的一种关注，这一脱离了博物馆系统的作品是否存在着某些观念上方法的差异性？
颜磊：我一直在考虑绘画，为此付出很多，也得到很多经验。绘画的问题有时候是表达艺术态度的机会。我把一些和自己经验相关的图片画出来，不是传统绘画的内容和理由（逻辑），在当代有什么不能成为艺术？！
李振华：什么在今天还不是艺术？我想回到一个当代的起点，也就是我们怎么看待当代存在主义语境下艺术范畴的问题。当然这个问题可以涉及到什么在今天不是政治和经济的问题上来。那么对你来说，政治、经济、艺术，如果这些词互相替换，将出现一个什么样的结果？而艺术会是什么？是环保问题？是维权？还是其他？
颜磊：为什么不可以把“艺术”替换成“我喜欢做的”。
李振华：《第五系统》在工作的过程中卷入艺术之外的地产和经济，以及政治在经济上的体现等问题。对你来说当这个项目被实施之后转化为绘画（或观念和绘画并行）的关系是什么？通常针对一个项目的纪录是通过图片或录像，而绘画是最古老的对事件纪录的方式，对你来说绘画是否仅仅是纪录的手段？以及项目、摄影和绘画在这个作品中的先后顺序，及其关系是什么？
颜磊：我经常把资料档案当作绘画的资源，任何资料作为图片都可以被使用，很多图片成了我的绘画内容。同时因为我的方法，减少我对绘画制作的参与。
李振华：当代任何事、物都可能是艺术，那么对你来说艺术工作的核心是什么？这里我们根本不必谈现在的艺术的主流或是核心意义是什么，因为这让艺术依旧依存于政治和经济的阴谋轴心，我想了解的不是你对这个世界的看法，而是你怎么看待你自己的前行方向。
颜磊：所有的人都可以说自己是做“当代艺术”的，当代艺术是如此商业化，艺术已经没有标准，我也一样。我做艺术的动机就是喜欢，我并不觉得需要更多的理由了，但这种感觉会不会变，我保证不了……
李振华：最近经常会谈到你在2007年罗马“晚报摊空间”的创作，还有你在光州双年展的创作《开胃品》（Appetizer）。能不能更多的谈谈这两个作品？光州作品的出现应该是在你绘画项目UAP这个时间。罗马项目的出现与卡塞尔文献展和《北京的礼物》是什么关系？
颜磊：2002年我参加了圣保罗双年展，上海双年展，还有光州双年展，感觉一年都在为双年忙碌，有像吸毒上瘾一样，所以在光州做了叫“开胃品”的作品。
我喜欢罗马“晚报摊空间”，因为空间特小，小得让人觉得做什么都多余，在那里我就是要尽量保持什么也不做。
2001年我在CAAW做完个展，开始有钱，所以我想可以正式建设自己生产线UAP（无限艺术项目）。
李振华：2002年你参加了很多个双年展，对你来说这是否构成更国际化的视野，也是你开始反思这一文化系统的开始呢？这是否是触发你开始UAP这个项目。
颜磊：UAP存在于市场中，它自由、无限的欲望与市场的有限的矛盾并存。
李振华：在接受了2007年卡塞尔文献展邀请的同时，你还创作了《北京的礼物》（2007年），卡塞尔项目是对艺术系统和权利的示好还是挑战？《北京的礼物》对你来说和卡塞尔项目基于艺术系统特征的创作之间有什么联系？
颜磊：2007文件展展出了我以前的作品，展览期间我并没有参与太多，同时因为伊斯坦布尔双年展的邀请，我就把北京的“脑浊”乐队（Brain Failure band）带过去，做了一场演出（party），作为我的参展作品。被那个城市实实在在地消化了，那是艺术（作品）最理想的一种状态。
李振华：能否说说2007年展出的作品，以及当时展览的实际情况，策展人选择展出这些过去作品的理由是什么？上一届卡塞尔文献展的争议性比较大，主要聚焦在来自资本和画廊业对文献展的裹胁和操纵，你所看到和经历的事实是什么？这一经历是否决定了你在伊斯坦布尔的做法？或是因为展出过去的作品，所以你有更多的时间可以考虑在伊斯坦布尔双年展的作品问题？伊斯坦布尔双年展的策展人侯瀚如怎么看待你的这个作品，最终接纳的理由是什么？
颜磊：我不清楚每个策展人是怎么想的，但我知道侯瀚如是很尊重艺术家想法的，同时他对艺术“纯粹性”的要求很高。我的方案他回答（同意）很快，我们都觉得《北京的礼物》超出了现有博物馆画廊市场体系对艺术的理解。
李振华：在这里你们是有一个博物馆或是画廊的系统作为参照的，在理解这个问题上尤其是既存的当代艺术系统，当《北京的礼物》被接纳的时候，是否也证明了这一系统的开放性，和其接纳的宽容度。当然这与呈现是两个不同的问题，呈现的限度和对艺术的期待所导致的“作品化”确实被《北京的礼物》消解（或是重构）。
颜磊：我看到的不是开放性，而是当代艺术价值观的问题。
李振华：你所说的最理想的状态是什么？你所称为作品的东西存在于哪里？是你的行动，还是脑浊乐队的演出？你的艺术是通过什么来达成的？因为在你的这个作品中，没有具体的艺术作为“物”呈现的形态上的视觉，也没有基于艺术空间（博物馆）研究的依托，从项目开始到结束，可以说完全空无。
颜磊：我认为最高品格的艺术，是物件（Object）代表不了的，它存在于语言之外。所以我把艺术家对作品的整体处理方式看成艺术，看成是艺术家对艺术的解释。
李振华：你对整体处理方式的概念很棒，这应该已经是你的艺术，还是对既存的当代艺术的观念的一次回应？
颜磊：当代艺术就像一块石头，所以只能按自己的理解来处理。
Li Zhenhua (LZH): Since your project Invitation Letter from 1997, on which you worked together with Hong Hao, Documenta has been at the core of your creations. Of course, 1997 coincided with the tenth edition of Documenta and you cleverly seized this opportunity that only comes around once every five years, and turned it into a work that connected this international art event with the local contemporary art sphere. Exactly 15 years have passed since then, and you are now participating for a second time in Documenta. How do you look at your earlier works like Invitation Letter, From Here to Kassel (1998), and the Sparkling: Aspen series (2006) as well as the Landing series (2007)? What do you think about the connections and clues between these works?
Yan Lei (YL): Artists all consider participation in Documenta to be the most glorious event. Back in 1997 Documenta felt like something very distant from myself, therefore, when I thought about the issue of art, I felt rather lonely and powerless. None of the steps forward I made in my work were predictable, yet there was one difficulty and question that I was confronted with as an artist, that never left my head.
LZH: What was it that troubled you? What were you confronted with? This might be a question that changes over the course of time. This difficulty, did it fade away? Or did it rather grow bigger?
YL: What troubled me was that there was no way to communicate between people, so I could only face loneliness. I find myself often alone in front of a white canvas and I don’t know how to start. I don’t know what I should do tomorrow.
LZH: Are financial constraints troubling you?
YL: I believe that the more money one has, the more freedom one gets. But the question of how to find an outlet through art cannot be solved with money.
LZH: Your answer reminds me of contemporary art’s present course. Since its emergence, the most outstanding phenomena in contemporary culture’s transformation, is the artist’s never-ending metamorphosis. I am very interested in who you think an artwork is created; and also, where the artist stands today?
YL: A work is of course made for oneself and for the people interested in one’s work. To obtain more freedom, you have to disregard whether you are an artist or not.
Migration is the way to discover
LZH: In 1997 you must have already moved to Hong Kong. During your time there, you created mula dito papuntiang Kassel (This way to Kassel 这里通往卡塞尔) (1998), Red Light District (1998) and Second Hand Shop (1999). Apparently, mula dito papuntiang Kassel (This way to Kassel 这里通往卡塞尔) is like a transition between Kassel and your life’s environment; and Second Hand Shop leads your work again to the misleading margins of contemporary art. Your relocation from Beijing to Hong Kong caused a fundamental change in your creations, which is to say, you started to become aware of the differences between the living and cultural contexts, and began very soon to catch up with Hong Kong’s cultural vein, and information from the bordering globalized contemporary art world. How do you see this transformation, from the changes in your identity to the shifting of your art’s inclination, from distant to close – corresponding to the changes in the issues with Documenta, to Red Light District and Second Hand Shop?
YL: Confronted with the despair caused by loneliness, how can the path of art be continued? At that time, I wanted to adjust the state I was in, and examine my identity, so I made those works. Second Hand Shop (also named Hallelujah) was using art’s name to relieve my own burdens and to loosen my restraints, a way to manage my state of mind. Hong Kong’s art sphere is very enthusiastic about political games. Nobody can go beyond these kind of rules. I felt rather incompetent doing art there.
LZH: You left China’s cultural and political situation and fell into Hong Kong’s cultural and political labyrinth. If you compare the cultural and political states back then, what are the differences between China and Hong Kong? What kind of state and identity did you need to keep going, as an artist in that kind of transition?
YL: Mainland China is very big and Hong Kong is very small. Hong Kong is cleaner than Beijing. You only need to know where you can live naturally, that is the best state.
LZH: Where do you see the connection between creation and environment? If we can predict the formal changes in your art by looking at the previous transitions in your creations, there seems to be a certain relation to your continued relocations, like the pessimism you have mentioned caused by learning about the life and art circle in Hong Kong. Did that come from the desolation that you felt after removing your burdens, or rather through the disappointment with the art system? Also, were your frequent journeys to France related to all that? The changes in your creations, were they connected to your periods of emigration to France?
YL: My concepts of time and space were basically completely formed in mainland China. I used to want to go abroad, but when that finally happened, I couldn’t find any sense beyond the language, due to its barrier. What is important to me now, is to find a place with living habits that suit me the best. If you cannot get accustomed to a place’s conventions, then you will not be able to consider questions of art. This is the connection between me, my creations, and the environment.
LZH: The question discussed above can be seen as the direction and transformation of your creations before 2000, which is also when the main subjects started to appear in your work. This was somehow different than your earlier video and photography works that dealt with injuries to one’s own body. What drew your attention and interest to a kind of center of culture? How did you let go of this issue that was emphasized for a certain period after your arrival in Hong Kong?
YL: I think, an artist’s motivation to create is mainly to free him from his inner loneliness. Thus, the means and methods are not the most important. What matters is that the artist himself has to feel a stimulus. Fresh out of school, I really hoped that my identity as an artist would be recognized. Later, I felt indifferent about that.
LZH: If the media’s transformation doesn’t matter to you, where do the stimuli come from? What causes their emergence? Your creations convey a special kind of calmness and sense of isolation, are the stimuli you are talking about rational or emotional ones? And in terms of media, you finally chose painting as the medium in which to express yourself, there must be also a reason for that…
YL: The stimulus I was talking about is derived from having autonomous control over one’s work, and being able to precisely accomplish one’s goals, it is a stimulus that comes with power. Every work is like a theatre play in my head. I imagine it as a stage, and when all the questions are gathered, it will be one of those statements, transmitted by artistic figures at all times.
LZH: Here you emphasize the statements conveyed by the body, but in your works, you try to participate as little as possible, how do you explain this contradiction? An artist’s presence or absence, how is that decided? The body that you focused on, is it the specific “body of work” referred to in art, or do you mean your own body’s presence?
YL: What I am trying to say is, that an artist’s exterior is indeed a psychological manifestation. My attitude towards work is to minimize my participation in the work’s production.
LZH: What you said about art history, work concepts and their understanding, I can deeply relate to. The current interpretative systems and cultural criticisms, as well as cultural studies, can hardly meet the requirements of advanced contemporary art; the conceptions of historical studies often only allow us to look backwards and consider merely the question of the origin of today’s art. Even so, we are still confronted with a growing amount of strain in the course of contemporary art, which is caused by considering (interdisciplinary) knowledge, geo-cultural contextual relations and bodily experiences as obstacles that are moving and colliding in between the realms of aesthetics and others. Of course there is still the area of psychology that you mentioned. Hence, how is the artist’s image (that you point out), related to his work here?
YL: I believe that art exists beyond a work’s language (of object or presentation). Therefore, the less I (the artist) make or intervene, the purer the art; the artist’s existence is only to provide some spiritual illusions for those “objects” that are presenting the work.
Art, The Fifth Element, UAP (Unlimited Art Project), and A Present from Beijing
LZH: After 1998, your work seemed to become even more inclined towards painting. Within the outstanding projects at that time painting was, besides a concept, always present – International Yeast (2004), the Centre Pompidou project (2002–2003), the Nice project (2004), and The Fifth Element (2004). How do you think painting is related to your concepts? Why can’t it be replaced by another medium, or be completely erased? I have noticed that your projects from 2004 were increasingly based on invitations by and residencies within the museum system. How do you perceive the effect of this integration into the art system, and are your creations following a particular standard or type? The Fifth Element can be viewed as a form of attention towards the rise of land ownership. Does this work, which is detached from the museum system, contain some differences in its conceptual approach?
YL: Painting has always been on my mind. I devoted myself a lot to it and gained a lot of experience in return. Painting is sometimes an opportunity to express one’s attitude towards art. If I paint some images related to my own experience, even without the content and reasoning (logic) of traditional painting, how can that not become art today?!
LZH: Indeed, what has not turned into art today? I want to return to the starting point of the contemporary, which is also how we consider the field of art in the context of contemporary existentialism. Of course, this question can also be applied to what is not the political or the economy today. So, what do you think would be the result, if politics, economy and art interchanged? What would art be? Would it be an environmental issue? Or rights protection? Or rather something else?
YL: Why can’t we exchange “art” for “what I like to do”?
LZH: Real estate and the economy, these factors from art’s exterior, were also drawn into the creation process of The Fifth Element, as well as the question of how politics manifests itself within the economy. This project was transformed into a painting (or a parallel between concept and painting). How do you see their relation? Usually a project is documented through photos or videos, painting is the oldest method to record events. Do you see painting as a mere tool of documentation? And the order in this work, of project, photography and painting: how are they related?
YL: I often use archive material as a resource for my paintings. Any material in the form of a photo can be used, many photos have become my paintings’ content. At the same time, due to this method, my participation in the paintings’ production has been reduced.
LZH: Today, any event or object can be art. Hence, what is the core of art creation for you? Here, we don’t have to talk about what the current art mainstream or the core meaning is, because this would indicate that art is still dependent on the axis of politics and the economy. What I want to know is not how you perceive the world, but how you see your own approach going forward.
YL: Everybody can say that they make “contemporary art.” As contemporary art has already been commercialized, art has no standards anymore, and neither do I. My motive to make art is just because I like to, I don’t think more reasons are necessary, but whether this kind of sentiment will change, I cannot guarantee…
LZH: Recently, your installation for the Edicola Notte Gallery in Rome in 2007 was talked about a lot, and also your work for the Gwangju Biennale (Appetizer). Can you tell us more about these two works? The Gwangju piece must have appeared during the time of your UAP painting project. How is the Rome project related to Documenta and A Present from Beijing?
YL: In 2002 I participated in the Sao Paolo, Shanghai and also the Gwangju Biennales. Working a whole year for Biennales, it felt like a drug addiction! For that reason I created the work called Appetizer for Gwangju. I like Rome’s Edicola Notte Gallery, because the space is extremely small, so small that whatever you do, feels like too much, there, I tried to keep doing nothing at all.
In 2001, after an exhibition at the CAAW (China Art Archives & Warehouse), I began to have some money on that account. I thought I could officially establish my own production line in the form of UAP.
LZH: In 2002 you participated in many Biennales, did that create a more international perspective for you and you started to reflect about the origins of this cultural relation? Did that trigger the initiation of UAP?
YL: The UAP exists within the market. Its desire for freedom and infinity coexists with the paradox of the market’s limitedness.
LZH: In addition to accepting Documenta’s invitation in 2007, you also created A Present from Beijing (2007). Was the Kassel project a rapprochement or challenge to the art system and power? Where do you see the connection between A Present from Beijing and the Documenta project in terms of the creation of the art system’s characteristics?
YL: At Documenta in 2007, my older works were shown. During the exhibition period, my participation was rather insignificant. At the same time, on the invitation of the Istanbul Biennale, I brought Beijing’s punk rock band Brain Failure with me for a concert (party) as my contribution to the exhibition. It was completely absorbed by that city – that is the ideal state of art (creation).
LZH: Can you talk about the exhibits from 2007, and the real circumstances of the exhibition? What was the reason that the curator chose to display your older works? The last Documenta was rather controversial, mostly because of the money and pressure on and manipulation of Documenta by the gallery industry. What was the reality that you experienced and saw there? Did this experience determine your approach for Istanbul? Or was it rather because your older works were exhibited, so you had more time to prepare the project for Istanbul? What did Hou Hanru (who curated the Istanbul Biennale) think about this work, and what was the reason that it was finally accepted?
YL: I am not sure about what every curator thinks, but I know that Hou Hanru really respects artists’ ideas. At the same time, his demands towards art’s “purity” are very high. He responded (and agreed) to my concept very quickly. We all felt that A Present from Beijing surpassed the existing museum and gallery market system’s understanding of art.
LZH: Here you had a museum or gallery system as a reference, by understanding this issue, especially in the moment when A Present from Beijing was accepted by the existing contemporary art system. Does that prove this system’s openness and tolerance? Of course, this is a different issue from the one of presentation. The “artwork-zation” caused by the limits of presentation and expectations towards art, was completely dissolved (or reconstructed) by A Present from Beijing.
YL: In my eyes, this is not openness, but the question of contemporary art’s values.
LZH: How does the ideal situation that you mentioned look like? Where do the things exist that you see as your work? Is it in your actions or in Brain Failure’s performance? How is your art achieved? As in this work, no specific art was used as an “object” that was presented visually, and there was also no reliance on studies of art space (museum), one can say it was completely empty from the beginning to the end.
YL: In my opinion, the highest form of art is that which cannot be represented by an object that exists beyond words. Thus I consider an artist’s overall approach towards his work as art. I see it as the artist’s interpretation of art.
LZH: Your concept of the overall approach is wonderful, this must be already your art, or is it a response to contemporary art’s existing concepts?
YL: Contemporary art is just like a stone. So it can be only dealt with according to one’s own understanding.
(Interviews conducted on March 27th, April 1st and April 23rd, 2012)
Translation by Weina Zhao