Thomas博士，悉尼大学艺术理论教师，著有《中国行为艺术》
行为艺术做为治愈和日常的艺术
文︱Thomas J. Berghuis（汤伟峰）
在1999年，当我开始我的中国行为艺术研究，“行为艺术”已被认为是过时的话题，这时期却是中国当代艺术刚刚兴起，受到重视，研究中国的当代艺术是少数国内外开拓学者的领域。
现在研究中国当代艺术的人是难以想象以往的情况，在90年代末，研究中国的当代艺术仍然被认为是个创举，至少，象是一种靠不住的努力，中国的实验艺术，或者中国的前卫艺术，整个来讲是个由少数有兴趣的策展人，批评家和艺术史家所发起的展出，他们直接联系艺术家，动笔书写刚刚出现的当代艺术。在2001年，Terry Smith艺术史家泰端.史秘斯在西尼的电力研究所讲座“什么是当代艺术”，他描述当代艺术的领域实际上是“当今的艺术，是在艺术的实验室内部的空间形成的”。
行为艺术的实践是发现这种内部空间最好的地方。特别是在中国的行为艺术是与实验艺术联接的，并且参与和生活有关的重要的艺术形式的发展，不仅是考虑互动而且是与社会相关，1998年冯博一在他的“生存痕迹”的画册前言中说：“当艺术从真实生活中来，艺术与生活之间的界线便消失了。”
在欧州艺术与生活的互动在美学上占有很重要的地位-从弗里德里希·席勒在他的“一封美学的信”（1794）对Jaques ranciere贾克·洪席耶写的“美学的革命”（新左派考察2002）在中国艺术与生活向来被认定是美学的一部分。特别是如果你要遵从批评思想家李泽厚在1989年写的《华夏美学》，这是在1980中国文化热的年代所写的。从1980时期起是艺术家和艺术批评家开始思考文化的历史使命，以及艺术在发展一个新的中国文化所扮演的哲学性角色。
在1980到1990年代初，早期尝试做装置艺术，行为艺术，以及早期的录像艺术，被中国的批评家认为是反动的，具有破坏性的甚至是"拉圾"-一些中国批评家常用的这些词语。同时，从1990年代早期中国艺术在海外获得“中国前卫”的名声，并且引领“艺术和文化上反潮流”，反对中国的“官方艺术”，这是被学者认定并且是产生真正中国艺术的惯例。
总之，中国的行为艺术成为一种颠覆的标志，并且在1990年代受到大力地禁止；受到史前末有的打压，1994年7月，北京东村的两个行为艺术家马六明和朱冥被抓起来关了3至4个月的监禁。后来行为艺术在许多主要的研究中和一些艺术画册中被删除了，不止在中国还包括了在国外发表的著作-这段严重的资料短缺必须被重视。
这种被排斥可以被最洽当地形容为＂困境＂，这种困境继续在中国行为艺术界进行，大多依赖行为艺术家自我宣传其在发展实验艺术的重要性。这也许正是行为艺术的力量所在。也正是直接掌握作品的发表和与群众的互动，它可以控制并产生有批判意义的艺术。
1998年蔡青与冯博一合作策展＂生存痕迹＂，共同探讨艺术与生活的经历。蔡青在1989年他搬到德国科隆，之后去了思图加特美术学院深造。他在1998年回到北京之后不久成立了“现在工作室”。＂生存痕迹＂展览就是“现在工作室”的开幕展，这个工作室地点在三环之外的北京朝阳区。
他在北京与许多重要的当代艺术家建立联系，他们之中有许多是＂观念艺术家＂。他们作品大多是具有批判性的实验艺术，他们挑战当时中国的所谓观念艺术，他们作品的特征是有太多的＂意义＂。在许多方面来讲＂生存痕迹＂展是个重要的转折点，使得艺术家和策展人重新思考观念展是必须在文化和社会上反映中国时刻变化的环境，无论是在城市或者郊区还是农村。
在1994到1995年之间人们开始讨论艺术应该有某种内在的意义或是应该要有一个直接的结果。
所有参展艺术家运用各种不同的方式综合观念艺术、行为艺术、装置以及新媒体艺术，他们中有王公心，汪䢖伟，宋冬，邱志杰，尹秀珍和林天苗。
展览特邀了一位有名的建筑师张永和，他在大铁门上装置了另一个门，可以推拉和折叠。蔡青的行为艺术作品“耕种”是与一个当地的农民合作，赶着两支骡子在现在工作室的园內转圈耕耘田地，蔡靑穿一个长大衣，戴一个礼帽，细心地将硬币种在田里，期望种下去的钱会茁壮成长，借以隐喻当时中国人的发财梦，同时中国的红灯笼伴着耕作的庆典。
这个行为作品与汪䢖伟的作品1993-1994《循环-种植》有某种程度的关联，艺术家花了整年的时间与他过去插队过的一位住在杨泉村的农民合作，汪用他保留了几年的麦粒在＂生存痕迹＂展上，麦粒贴在大巴的玻璃上，这个大巴将观众从城里到展览现场间载来运去。在1980至1990年有一个装置计划叫＂触摸＂，有许多艺术家参与这个在农村的活动，开始由宋永平发起的＂乡村计划＂，许多山西艺术家加入，他们走向农村就如同20多年前文化大革命时一样被送到了农村。
行为艺术在30年的发展过程中，理解行为艺术的角色可以提供对分析中国的实验艺术施实和发展的重要视点。
蔡青的工作促进两个重要方向的发展，唤醒人们对中国行为艺术的重视，同时联接行为艺术的国际交流。
蔡青在追求行为艺术做为心理治愈的可能性，这个追求也许会令人惊奇，特别是对那些认为中国当代艺术是反潮流并且挑战中国官方艺术的运动。从这个角度行为艺术在中国很容易被认为是极端的并且是不寻常的艺术形式，被批评为＂假艺术之名＂的坏名声。
在2001至2002年，今人侧目的文章批评行为艺术连续在占有领导地位的专业美术杂志上发表，之后陈覆生出了一本书叫《以艺术的名义》
当陈覆生和一保守批评家包括美术杂志的主编王重，在那时并没有意识到行为艺术家对当时中国所面临的快速经济发展和社会政治变化给予显著的重视。
如果行为艺术以艺术的名义受到误解，那是因为它想使艺术和艺术家与日常生活重新联接，强烈地相信社会道德，引导人们通过直接互动，公开经由艺术交流。就定义上来讲，这是一种社会实践，并且提供共同体验的艺术和生活的生存痕迹。同时也说明了蔡青目前对于行为艺术做为心里治愈的抱负，并且让行为艺术经由联结人心和提高艺术与生活的融合可以有利于中国社会。
正如在1998的“生存痕迹”展，艺术与生活直接的联系并不一定只是考虑描述行为艺术如同生活现场，或者是借入欧洲和北美早已被实践过的行为艺术和偶发范例，中国的行为艺术却是被认为是跨越全世界，用以开展人们的了解，并且持续地通过事件发展行为艺术与文化，社会，政治和日常生活的一个平台。
蔡青第二本书《行为艺术现场》，是他在2006-2011年之间的行为艺术文献性的日记，希望中国与及世界各地的读者都能够更进一步地了解和感谢在这里的详细记录，其中包括重要的行为艺术家和行为艺术活动。了解行为艺术对世界文化与社会的影响；包括通过行为艺术节和行为艺术交流，来有效的联结艺术家与行为艺术群体；并且联结艺术和日常生活。这种行为艺术的交流是行为艺术基本的存在方式，通过这种资料的保存，可以使得行为艺术的生存痕迹被传颂到未来。也许行为艺术如同生活艺术，是以连结艺术和生活做为基础的。这个对中国尤其重要，正如中国人总是寻找生命的意义，冀望能够有更好的生活。
DRAFT COPY [edit and confirmation needed]
Preface toPerformance Art as An Art of HealingandDiary of Performance Art
Thomas J. Berghuis（汤伟峰）
In 1999, when I first started my research on performance art in China, ‘performance art’ was considered an outmoded term. Attention for contemporary Chinese art was on the rise, but research on Chinese contemporary art was largely the domain of a few pioneers, in China and abroad.
For those studying contemporary Chinese art today, it would be hard to imagine how, in the late 1990s, the study of Chinese contemporary art was still considered a novelty, if not, somewhat of a precarious endeavor. Chinese experimental art, or the Chinese avant-garde art, was largely the domain of exhibitions, led by a few interested curators, art critics, and art historian who connected themselves directly to artists and started to write about the domains were contemporary art is actually made. In 2001, in his lecture on “What is Contemporary Art?” presented with the Power Institute in Sydney, art historian Terry Smith would describe these domains of contemporary art practices as ‘the laboratories of art, to the inner spaces where art is made these days’.
Where better to find these ‘inner spaces’ of art, than in the continuous practices of performance art. Particularly as practices of performance art are linked, especially in China, to the domains of experimental art and in the development of a critical art that connects art to life. Not only does performance art consider interaction, but its practices also establish a particular social relevance for art. In 1998, Feng Boyi, in his essay for the catalogue of the prominent 1998 exhibitionTrace of Existence, considers how: ‘when art becomes a copy of real life, the distance between art and real life begins to disappear.’
In Europe, the interaction between art and life obtains an important context for aesthetics — from Friedrich Schiller in his ‘Letters on Aesthetics’ (1794) to Jacques Rancière writing on ‘the aesthetic revolution’ (New Left Review, 2002). In China, the link between art and life has long been a part of aesthetic thinking. Particularly if one is to follow such critical thinkers as Li Zezhou, writing onThe Chinese Aesthetic Tradition(Huaxia meixue) in 1989, written at the height of the ‘cultural fever’ of the 1980s. The 1980s becomes a time when artists and art critics in China began to reconsider the historical determinism of culture, next to the philosophical implications for the role of art in developing a new culture for China.
It was during the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s that early experiments with installation art, performance art, and early video art practices were considered by some Chinese critics as too rebellious, destructive and even considered as ‘garbage’ (laji) – a term used by some Chinese art critics. Meanwhile, from the early 1990s the reception of Chinese art outside China becomes largely founded on the notion of a ‘Chinese avant-garde’ and bringing new ‘counter-currents in art and culture’ that are positioned against ‘official art’ in China, which becomes marked by academicism and strict conventions on producing proper art in China.
Overall, performance art in China (xingwei yishu) becomes labeled as a subversive practice, and largely barred from the public domain for most of the 1990s; with the most pressing case to-date, the arrest and three to four months incarceration of two performance artists from the Beijing East Village, Ma Liuming and Zhu Ming, in July 1994. The subsequent exclusion of performance art in much of the major studies and catalogues on Chinese experimental art—including those produced outside China—must be considered a serious gap.
Such an exclusion can best be described in terms of the ongoing ‘predicament’ of performance art, where the dissemination of a discourse on performance art in China remains largely dependent on performance artists publicizing knowledge about its prominent role in the development of experimental art in China. Then again, this maybe part of the overall power of performance art—Namely, to take direct control of art practice and its direct public interaction, and essentially to take control of the means of producing acritical art.
In 1998, Cai Qing was one of the key organizers, together with Feng Boyi, for the exhibitionTrace of Existencethat examined collective experiences ‘art and life’. The exhibition was the inaugural exhibition for the newly establishedArt Now Studio, located East of the Third Ring Road in Chaoyang District, Beijing. Cai Qing had established the studio shortly after his return from Germany, having first moved to Koln in 1989, and later studying at the Stuttgart State Academy of Art and Design. Back in Beijing, Cai Qing reestablished contact with an important group of artists, many of whom were known to produce ‘conceptual art’, but there work frequently considered a critical role for experimental art in challengingthe conventional understanding of conceptual art in China, as it became characterized by too much ‘meaning’.
Between 1994 and 1995 discussions started to rise on the question of whether art should have some kind of intrinsic ‘meaning’ (yiyi), or whether it should aim for direct ‘effect’ (jieguo). In many waysTrace of Existenceis an important turning point for artists and curators to reconsider a conceptual art exhibition that is both culturally and socially relevant by reflecting on the changing conditions of everyday life in China; situated on the border of the urban, suburban, and rural environment.
All of the participating artists were considering complex ways of combining conceptual art with practices of performance art, installation art, and new media art. They included Wang Gongxin, Wang Jianwei, Song Dong, Qiu Zhijie, Yin Xiuzhen and Lin Tianmiao. The exhibition also featured an interactive installation by the renowned architect Zhang Yonghe, (Yung-Ho Chang)—a steel gate with a double door that could be ‘pushed, pulled, and folded.’ Cai Qing performedTill(or rather ‘Cultivation’,Gengzhong), a collaborative performance with a local farmer with two Mules drawn plow, plowing a circle in the courtyard of the Art Now Studio complex, and Cai Qing dressed in a long overcoat and with shaven head, carefully seeding coins into the plowed land, Expect that kind of money would grow through metaphor when Chinese people's dreams,Chinese lanterns accompanied the plowing ceremony.
The performance showed strong links to Wang Jianwei’s seminal 1993-1994 performanceCycle: Sowing and Harvesting, in which the artist spend a year with a local farmer in Yongquan Village, Where he once be sent to work there during the cultural revolution. Wang used the grains harvested from the yearlong performancefor his work atTrace of Existence; covering the windows of a bus bringing audiences to-and-from the exhibition, in an installation titledTouch(Mo). The 1980s and 1990s showed number of performance artists linking their practices to the countryside. Starting with the 1987Country Project, a project led by Song Yonghong, and involving a group of artists from Shanxi Province who moved their work to the countryside, like artists who were send to the countryside during the Cultural Revolution, two decades before.
Understanding the role of performance art provides an important perspective on the manifold practices of experimental art in China, which developed over the course of the past 30 years. Cai Qing has worked on developing two important projects for bringing greater awareness to performance art in China and for connecting performance artists and performance art practices and performance events across the globe.
Cai Qing has focused approach on discussing ‘Performance art’ as an ‘Art of Healing’ (Xingwei yishu liaoyu). This approach may come as somewhat of a surprise; particularly to those who have become accustomed to discourses on the rise of the Chinese avant-garde as countercurrent movement in art and culture that challenges official art production in China. From such a perspective performance art can easily become treated as the most radical and unconventional art form in China, and become criticized for ‘taking the name of art’ in total disrepute.
Such blatant criticism on performance art was also presented in a series of high-profile discussion papers published in the leading Chinese art journalMeishubetween 2001 and 2002, and further published in a book, titledYi ‘yishu’ de mingyi(‘Taking the title of “art”’) by Chen Lüsheng, in 2002. What Chen Lüsheng and other conformist critics, including the chief editor ofMeishu, Wang Zhong, failed to realize at the time, was that performance artists in China had provided considerable attention to the many challenges facing Chinese society under rapid economic and social-political change.
If performance art has ‘taken the title of “art”’ in disregard, it clearly has done so to stress the need for art and artists to reconnect art to everyday life and to a strong belief in a moral society that considers how humans interact with each other in a direct and open exchange of conduct (xingwei) asserted through art (yishu), that is by definition a social practice and providing traces of existence and of collective experiences of art and life. Herewith in also lies the aspiration of Cai Qing’s current proposition ofPerformance Art as An Art of Healingthat seeks to promote a benefit for Chinese society in considering performance art as a means of ‘connecting people and promoting the fusion of art and life’.
As the 1998Trace of Existenceexhibition further shows, the direct contact between art and life must not only be considered in a narrow definition of performance art as ‘live art’ or adapting to discursive paradigms have largely been developed in the context of European and North American examples of performance art and action ar. As a result, it is useful to consider performance art in China in a comparative analysis across Asia and the rest of the world, and open up awareness people, platforms and events that continue to draw at the value of performance art in relation to culture, society, politics and everyday life.
With Cai Qing’s second publication,The Dairy [Document] of Performance Art, 2006-2011(Xingwei yishu xianchang), readers in China and elsewhere across the world will hopefully be able to further understand and appreciate the extensive and important connections that performance artists and performance art events have made, and continues to make across cultures and societies in the world; including through performance festivals and performance exchanges that always consider important ways of connecting artists and communities; and relating art to everyday life. These exchanges of performance art will always form the foundation of performance art to exist, where its documentation allows the traces of existence of performance art, to be noted into its future. Performance art as ‘life art’ perhaps, and based on the need to connect art and life, which is especially important for China, as people will always continue to look for the meaning of life; amidst their desire to generate a better livelihood.
巫鸿教授任教于芝加哥大学
蔡青《行为艺术与心灵治愈》与《行为艺术现场》序
文︱巫鸿
我和蔡青并不熟。见到他或听到他的时候都是通过艺术的机缘——主要是通过他自己的行为艺术。因此现在想来，我们之间能够有这种断断续续、不期而遇的关系也可以算是他的艺术活动的一个成果---因为他在这两本书里反复强调的一点就是行为艺术的互动性，主要是人的互动。没有互动就没有行为艺术，或是有行为而无艺术。这篇短序可以说是由他开启的，我们之间互动的延续。
我和他第一次的知识接触是通过《生存痕迹—中国当代艺术内部观摩展》。时间是1998年，地点是北京朝阳区三环以外4.5公里处姚家园村内刚刚建立的一个名叫“现代艺术工作室”的大院，原来是村里一家工厂的车间和仓库。这个展览是90年代下半叶蓬蓬勃勃的中国当代艺术另类展览中相当突出的一个，其独特之处在于利用北京城乡交接的地理位置探测时代与艺术家个人脉搏的共振。两年后我在一本名为《在中国展览实验艺术》(Exhibiting Experimental Art in China)的英文书里对它做了介绍和讨论。展览中有不少出色作品。蔡青的是开幕式上做的一个名叫《耕种》的行为表演：在大院中间划出一片农田来开荒种地，将大把大把的硬币撒在犁出的沟里，大约是给当时全民共作的发家梦提供一个形象比喻。但他在这个展览中的身份又不仅仅是艺术家，同时也是展览策划人和图录编辑者之一（另一策划人和编辑者是冯博一）。此外他还是展览所在地“现代艺术工作室”的创立者---那时他从德国十年游历回来，希望在中国建立一个专业艺术基地以推动高水平的当代艺术实践。但是他也没有真的回来：“现代艺术工作室”联系方式中的两个地点是德国科隆和法国巴黎，在地联系人都是蔡青自己。
我在这里特别提到这个展览，是因为我后来逐渐知道，这种多重地点、复合身份、全球游动、在性质不同但又相互关联的若干平台上同时工作的方法，可以说是他的一贯特色。他本来是学版画的，1984年毕业于浙江美术学院（现中国美术学院），在校期间正是浙美思想最为活跃、孕育着85新潮一代弄潮儿的时刻。1989年他移居德国,先就读于斯图加特美术学院，进而在欧洲当代艺术的熏陶下从1994年起投身于行为艺术。初期作品包括《1+1》，以贴着中国人面孔的超市包装盒为构成材料，使其叠积、散布和漂流在欧洲的城市、田野和水域里。在1996年的《尘积与抹擦》中，他装扮成一个始皇陵出土的兵马俑，千年沉睡后逐渐苏醒。这个作品施行于德国一家歌剧院的中场休息时段，在古典歌剧和当代行为这两种“表演”之间造成微妙的张力。1998年《生存痕迹》展后，我在吴美纯、邱志杰策划的《家：当代艺术提案》展里看到了他的装置行为作品《寻找我二叔》。蔡青的二叔一身兼具英雄与疯人两种身份，二者到达水乳交融，不辨彼此的程度：以军医身份参加抗美援朝战争，此后一直给毛主席写信提出种种建设祖国的宏伟计划。89年入狱。出狱后在乡里仍孜孜撰写有关人类现状与未来的宏伟著作。把这个狂热、扭曲、病态的灵魂推到现实中的前台，蔡青所反思的是过去几十年来理想对人性的异化。
这些早期作品已经显示，在“复合身份、多重地点、全球游动、游移平台”这几个特点之上，蔡青的作品还具有另一个倾向，即题材和所指的多向性：他的种种计划并非是单一主题的持续和延长，而是在历史、现实、文化、城市、自然之间不断游动，随时寻找着参与和互动的契机。2001移居纽约之后，他的活动范围愈益扩大，互动的触点也越来越多样。他的行为作品的实施地点包括了北京、成都、西安、长沙、桂林、重庆、澳门、台南、纽约、伦敦、卢森堡、巴黎、特里尔（德国）、维多利亚（西班牙）、卡塞尔、曼谷、马尼拉、新加坡、缅甸、越南、湄公河等。其内容和合作者也是形形色色，艺术计划常常突出与地点、现场和时事的关系。几年之后，他的身份和事业中发生了又一个重要变化：他从独立艺术家暨策展人进入到“学院”和“研究”的领域。从2007年起他开始在新加坡南洋理工大学艺术学院任教，对学术的兴趣进一步引导他回到母校中国美术学院攻读博士。2011年获博士学位，论文随即成为这部《行为艺术与心灵治愈》的底本。而其姐妹篇《行为艺术现场》则是他在2007年搬到新加坡任教后，对所参与的东南亚和中国的各种行为艺术节以及自己实施和策划的行为艺术计划所作的一份完备记录。
不加夸张的说，在行为艺术这个领域里，这两部书是我所知道国内出版的最成熟和深入的一套著作。尤其是《行为艺术与心灵治愈》，更将学术性与实践性二者做了系统、独特的结合，同时提出了有关行为艺术功效的一项独特理论。“引言”部分对行为艺术的定义和历史做了相当冷静的概述。其后的“上篇”继续了这种学术论述的风格，引证中外实例探讨行为艺术的核心，即它的各种互动方式。“下篇”则推出著者有关行为艺术运用于心理治疗上的理论。其基础观念是艺术可与人类心灵相通，而以人体和行动为媒介的行为艺术则能够最直接有效地触及自我和对象的心灵，产生舒缓和安慰的作用。这一理论明显与精神分析学及其在艺术的运用有密切关系，可以说是这种运用在当代艺术中的发展。对我来说，这本书的价值不仅仅在于它的理论阐述，还在于它对大量行为艺术作品的介绍和分析。由于作者本人是实践行为艺术家，对这门艺术有着切身而深入的理解，也由于他的分析是在一个统一的理论框架中、结合各种概念和不同观察角度做的，因此读起来与以往一些书刊中对行为艺术的泛泛介绍相当不同，触及到许多作品的深层的社会和人文意义。从这个角度说，这本书，以及《行为艺术现场》，对研究和书写中国和世界的当代美术提供了经过消化的材料。
以另一个角度读《行为艺术与心灵治愈》，从“引言”到“上篇”、“下篇”和“附录”，作者的身份从客观分析者向主观参与者逐渐转化，观察的角度和叙述的声音越来越具有主体性和判断性，书的性质也不断增加互动的涵义。最后，蔡青以个人名义给世界上的一些优秀行为艺术家发了一封电子邮件，直接征求他们对于本书提出的两个核心问题的反馈。这两个问题一是这些艺术家如何考量他们自己作品中的互动成分，二是他们是否同意行为艺术有沟通心灵和治愈的作用。本书40余页长的“附录”包括了他所收到的回答。在我看来这实在是一项带有相当实验性质的写作计划：书尚未发表之时，已经含有了著者与读者的互动。
2012年3月于芝加哥
Preface for Cai Qing’sThe Potential of Performance Art in PsychotherapyandThe Diary of Performance Art
Wu Hong
I don’t know Cai Qing that well. It is art, mostly his performance art, brings his name as well as he himself to me. Thus it comes to me that the intermittent connection between us is an achievement of his art activities – what has been emphasized in these two books is the interactivity of performance art, particularly among people. No interaction, no performance art; or to be rephrased as no interaction, only performance but art. As a development of the interaction between him and me, this preface will not be without Cai Qing.
Existence – China’s Contemporary Art Internal Study Exhibitionstarted our interaction. It was 1998. The exhibition was held in a newly-built compound called “Modern Art Studio”, which originally used as workshops and storehouses of a factory. It was located in Yaojiayuancun, 4.5 kilometres outside the third ring of Beijing Chaoyang District. It was a prominent one among those alternative art exhibitions during the flourishing period for Chinese contemporary art in the late-1990s. The feature of this exhibition is to explore the resonance between the era and the individual artist in a location which is a cross area for the urban and the rural. Two years later I introduced this exhibition that showed lots of brilliant works in my bookExhibiting Experimental Art in China. Cai Qing did his performance art work titledCultivationin the opening: he took a portion of land in the middle of the compound and tilled on it; then he scattered the furrows with a large number of coins – probably presenting an analogy to people who were commonly dreaming of being rich at that time. He was not only an artist but also the curator and contents compiler of the exhibition. Moreover, he was the establisher of the “Modern Art Studio”. Back at then he just returned from his 10-year German trip and hoped to build a professional art base to enhance the high-level contemporary art practice. As a matter of fact, he has not returned yet – two contact places of “Modern Art Studio” are Cologne and Paris and in which both the contact is Cai Qing himself.
Here I especially mentioned this exhibition because I have gradually learned Cai Qing’s distinguishing way of working – multiple locations and identities, traveling around the world and conducting things on platforms which are different from each other in characteristics but are interrelated. He graduated from Zhejiang Academy of Art (now China Academy of Art) in 1984, majored in graphic art. It was not only the high time for ZAA’s art theories, but also the time of the birth of the 85’s new generation. In 1989 he migrated to Germany and studied in Stuttgart State Academy of Art and Design. He joined the performance art field in 1994 under the influence of European contemporary art. One of his early works including1+1: stacking and scattering materials made of supermarket package boxes with Chinese people’s faces printed on in European cities, fields and water areas. In his 1996 workDust and Sweeping, he dressed as a figure of terra cotta warrior, woke up gradually after the thousand year sleep. This work was performed during the intermission of an opera in a German opera house and created a subtle effect on the two “performances” – classical opera and modern performance art. After the 1998Existenceexhibition, I came across his installation art workIn Search of My Second Unclein theHome: Contemporary Artists Proposalexhibition planned by Wu Meichun and Qiu Zhijie. His second uncle was a mix identity of hero and maniac and could not live out of one of each personality. The second uncle fought in the war to resist US aggression and aid Korea as an army doctor and then constantly wrote to Chairman Mao to express his various great plans for building up the motherland. He was put into prison in 1989 and still wrote books about the present and the future of human life in countryside after release. By pushing this fanatic and twisted soul to the stage of reality, Cai Qing tried to reflect the distortion of human nature caused by ideal for the past decades.
All these early works have shown that besides those characteristics mentioned above, Cai Qing’s works have another inclination, which is the subject and its multidirectional point of views. His plans are just a continuation as well as an extension; instead, they travel though history, reality, culture, cities and nature in order to find opportunities for interaction. His working area expanded and the interaction points varied after his moving to New York in 2001. His performance art works have been performed in Beijing, Chengdu, Xi’an, Changsha, Guilin, Chongqing, Macau, Tainan, New York, London, Luxembourg, Paris, Trier of Germany, Vitoria-Gasteiz of Spain, Kassel, Bangkok, Manila, Singapore, Burma, Vietnam and Mekong River, etc. They had diverse contents and collaborators and focused on the interrelations among locations, spot and current affairs. Few years later, he encountered the change for his identity and career: now he has walked in the fields of academic instead of being just an individual artist and curator. He has been teaching in Nanyang Technological University’s School of Art, Design & Media since 2007. In there he gained the interest in academia and went back to his Alma Mater China Academy of Art for a doctoral degree which he actually received in 2011.The Potential of Performance Art in Psychotherapyis based on His dissertation; the companion volumeThe Diary of Performance Artis a documentary record of his experience in various performance art festivals in Southeast Asia and China he took part in as well as his executed and schemed plans for performance art since his teaching career has begun.
There is no exaggeration that these two books are the most mature and profound in performance art literary field that ever published in China. Particularly theThe Potential of Performance Art in Psychotherapy, it not only manages to combine the academic and the practical systematically in one book, but also brings up a unique theory for the effect of performance art. The introduction part gives objective background information for the definition and the history of performance art. The first chapter cites the core of performance art – ways of interaction by quoting true examples in the academic exposition way. The second chapter is the author’s theory on the utility of performance art on psychotherapy. The fundamental perspective is that the art can communicate with the soul of human beings; therefore the performance art that uses human body and actions as media is the direct cure for souls, which could calm and ease people’s heart. This theory has a close connection with the application of psychoanalysis on art and it can be considered as the application’s development in contemporary art. From my perspective, the value of the book is not just in the theory explanation, but also in the introduction and analysis of the many performance art works mentioned in the contents. Since the author himself is a practical performance artist, he has deep and personal understanding for this kind of art, also he made his analysis which involved in different concepts and views on a unite framework; thus the book will provide the readers with plenty of deep thoughts on the society and humanity, which made it different from those publications that just gave simple introduction to performance art. From this point of view, this book as well asThe Diary of Performance Artwould supply applicable materials and literatures for the study on the contemporary art in China and the rest of the world.
As anther point of view, from introduction part to the first chapter, and then from the second chapter to appendix, the author ofThe Potential of Performance Art in Psychotherapychanges his identity from an objective analyst to a subjective participant; his voice and point of views are also getting integral and critical as the pages go on, which gradually adds the interaction quality in the nature of the book. In the final part of the book, Cai Qing sent emails to some outstanding performance artists around the world in his own name to seek replies for two key questions put forward in the book. The two questions are: 1. How do these artists carry out the level of interaction in their works? 2. Do they agree the theory that performance art can communicate with souls and cure the wounded ones? The 40-page appendix includes all the replies. To me, he made a very experimental working plan – I have interacted with my readers before the final publication.
Chicago, March 2012
曹意强，牛津大学艺术史博士，中国美术学院人文学院院长
沙上写字
——蔡青作品及观念简说
文︱曹意强
我常常尝试踏上通往可怕的“现实”的道路，
那是官吏、法律、时髦和金钱行市主宰的地方，
但我始终孤独地逃跑，既死亡又感到获得了解放，
返回那幻梦与令人幸福的痴愚如清泉喷涌的地方。
——黑塞《美好世界》
我们不断经历视觉环境的进展和变化，这很容易使我们将时间的流转含混为时代的前进。对今天的批评家来说，不接受其所在时代的艺术是艰难的，任何“当代的”风格或实验都足以使批评家感到有责任去理解和提倡。基于这种语境，批评家若是想要不变成艺术事件编年实录的作者，势必经历一番挣扎和遴选。而在这一番努力之中，难免回到19世纪艺术家失去安全感的时代，从那时起，艺术家开始关注自己来到人间的使命。这也成为我们关注当代艺术的一个绝佳视角。从这里出发，观看蔡青本人以及由他组织、作为学术主持的群体行为艺术和其中包含的明确的观念理路，便是我选摘黑塞《美好世界》作为篇首引文的理由。同时可以肯定地说，蔡青不但是一位活跃的、充满灵感的行为艺术家，或者说是行为艺术的参与者，而且更接近使徒的角色。自1998年的《耕种》到2000年《寻找我二叔》，以及其后的艺术轨迹，我们看到他似乎受到艺术的差遣，在组织、摸索、苦思力行中传播福音，看他身上如神赐般绵绵不绝的泉涌之力和努力接近真理的祈望，不能不说他是这一艺术模式前行发展中最积极有力、披荆斩棘的探索者。
一
弄瞎我的眼睛：我还能看见你，
塞住我的耳朵：我还能听到你，
没有双足，我还能走到你那里，
没有嘴，我也还能对你宣誓。
打断我的臂膀，我还能用我的心，
像用我的手一样，把你抓劳，
揿住我的心，额上的脉管还会跳，
你如果放火烧毁我的额头，
我就用我的血液将年承受。
——黑塞《弄瞎我的眼睛……》
从目不识丁的人凝视救世主的画像，汲取力量和安慰始，我们眼睛看到的故事就不断给我们慰藉和教诲。文艺复兴时期的礼拜者第一次在祭坛面前看到使徒是和他们一样的人，而复活的耶稣正在给他们帮助和安慰，必定深受感动。如今家喻户晓的凡·高，他所希望的结果，就是创造一种纯真的艺术，不仅要吸引富有的鉴赏家，还要能给予所有的人快乐和安慰。在这样一段以个人生命尺度来衡量则可视为漫长的时间里，符号化的救世主正在微笑的幻象，耶稣的神奇发生在自己身上的祈望，乃至孤独深处与凡·高交谈的虚影……，所有这一切是否可以像蔡青设想的那样通过行为艺术家的努力，由艺术家与观众的互存互动来实现呢？
20世纪以来的艺术大多受到某些关于艺术、艺术家的心理学假设的影响，它们体现在艺术发展的进程中。可以回溯到浪漫主义时期自我表现的观念，以及弗洛伊德的一些深刻影响。一方面人们已经渐渐开始理解，如果艺术家的感情爆发并没有趋向美，那是因为我们的世界也不美，甚至于我们可以由此判断出当前的困境和问题的症结。另一方面，也只有艺术可以让我们在这个难称完美的世界中一瞥完美的景色。我们可以进一步追问，蔡青的观念和行为艺术是否已经提供了这样一种能够撇清“逃避主义”之嫌的艺术表达方式？通过自己的艺术行为，使大众在参与的过程中获得启发和安慰，而艺术家本人已经隐匿在这一行为当中，从而真正实现了艺术与生命的合一。
在这些追问中，蔡青的一系列活动渐渐为我勾画出希腊神话中那个挑战诸神，并因此受到惩罚的西西弗斯的形象。他坚定不移地将已知必定从山上再次滚落的巨石一次又一次地从山脚推向顶峰，不知疲倦，不肯停息，直至自己的生命比那巨石还坚强，还有力。可想而知，这样一个神话人物的存在之所以珍贵，是因为它对每一个生灵的意义难以度量，他完全属于人的心灵世界。可以说，在西西弗斯看似绝望的重复努力中，播种的是希望、力量和坚强。如果说曾经从西西弗斯身上汲取力量的受众都难免心存感恩，那么其中一定饱含着那种积存心底难以言说的幸福感。蔡青的行为艺术，以及他那宏大无私同时缜密清晰的思考，他给众人带来的宽慰、安抚、激励……直至疑惑中的若有所思，都属于西西弗斯努力的范畴，我们的挑战不是为了取代，而是要获得自己的尊严。
蔡青清楚地表明，行为艺术的特点之一，那就是对人生有帮助。其实这是一个贯穿艺术史的历久弥新的宏愿。无论是巫术仪式中的祈福祛病，还是在埃及雕刻家名称所透露出来的，使人永存的意愿，亦或是缪斯女神对九个女儿的关照……在人类文明的脚步中，这些宏愿与艺术史如影随形。而与以往不同的是，在蔡青构架的艺术概念里，行为的互动是一种心灵救治方式，但慰藉非来自部族首领，也和王权无关，甚至越过缪斯管辖的范畴，这是由平凡的人彼此激发的照射到人间的光芒。如果说伟大的艺术来自于伟大的传统，那么对人心的慰藉与对人世的关注，则是伟大艺术传统的真正灵魂。他2009年的作品《放天灯》以及同时做的“北川问卷”调查都是他艺术理念的实现。
二
我们爱和我们相同的事物，
我们认识风写在沙上的字迹。
——黑塞《写在沙上》
人们大都渴望安定，但同时又难以割舍对变化的期冀。因此在普遍价值认定相对恒定的同时，个体的人仍需在生命的变化运动中寻求自我价值的实现。即便是当我们通过顽强的意志将自己的生命与某项伟大的事业连接在一起，或是坚定不移地追求某种价值的同时，也不禁会为两千多年前古希腊哲学家德谟克利特的思考所触动：“不但一切颜色，连甜与苦，冷与暖，所有这些东西都存在于我们的观念而没有实际的存在；实际存在的是永恒不变的微粒、原子和它们在空间的运动。”蔡青是行为艺术家中的思想者，而如何理解行为艺术本身也的确令他煞费苦心：行为艺术如在沙上写字，同很多美妙感觉的转瞬即逝一样，行为艺术的时间性是给定的，但这似乎又是行为艺术和行为艺术家的宿命——没有欢欣与眼泪，独立自持，无需安慰，因为我们可以认出风在沙上写的字，我们可以讲述风在沙上写的字。好像我们读懂了蔡青2008年的《祭长江水》，并记住了它、想念它一样。
一幅圣母像对我们来说，绝非物质的颜料或亚麻布，她属于我们的感知世界，无论称之为意大利圣母，还是一位在天庭悲悯垂怜的妇女。进一步讲，我们以为存在的一切，追根究底是属于感知世界的——只有未被感知，而没有不存在。就像爱因斯坦默默地改变我们的世界一样，正是他指出就连时间和空间也是直觉的形式。又如德谟克利特提出的我们对色彩、形状、大小、味道、温度的概念一样，一切都不能够离开意识而存在。但造化的弄人之处恰恰在于，我们的感知能力实在有限——特别是当我们只依赖眼睛的时候。这大概也是艺术的神秘难题之所在。让我们在蓦然回首之际倍感欣喜的是，像《金钱村》（2008）、《观望塔》（2007）、《礼拜纽约》（2007）这样一些作品，和往昔那些杰出的作品一样，需要的恐怕不只是眼睛。
在此，我们发现错觉主义艺术传统已经为我们提供了丰富多彩但非全部的知觉世界的回答。倘若我们能够在行为过程中调动全部的身心参与，即便是不能够更多地感知，也一定能更大限度地被感召，这恐怕就是艺术与生命合一的力量所在，尽管我们可以谦逊地称之为在沙上写字。更重要的是，并非所有人类的美德都可以通过努力来获得，并非所有人类的美好愿望度可以通过祈祷来实现，在更多情况下，人们需要的是感召的力量，感受各得其所的命运。如同像诊治鼻塞、失声一样，如果诊治心灵的麻木，“善感性”的匮乏，那我们可能要留给蔡青先生更多的期待。
三
最后，我想以黑塞的《白云》作结，一方面是因为热爱当代艺术的人们在懵懂和直觉的感召下，普遍相信社会心理的影响远远比政治事件的作用更为深远，与宗教情怀近似的艺术胸襟同样需要以“信”为开始，这个“信”是为我们心中赋形各异的“美好世界”而存在，而且我还相信，就人的生命而言，本质而永久的终究是偶然发生的事情、活动和事件，就像风在沙上写的字：
瞧，她们又在
蔚蓝的天空里飘荡，
仿佛是被遗忘了的
美妙的歌调一样！
只有在风尘之中
跋涉过长途的旅程，
懂得漂泊者的甘苦的人
才能了解她们。
我爱那白色的浮云，
我爱太阳、风和海，
因为她们是无家可归者的姊妹和使者。
（*本文摘录的黑塞诗句均为钱春漪先生译文。）
栗宪庭，中国著名艺术批评家
行为艺术很“近人情”
——代序蔡青的《行为艺术与心灵治愈》
文︱栗宪庭
自上世纪二十年代，欧洲达达运动开创了行为、偶发、事件等新的艺术模式，尤其是六十年代，行为艺术曾成为欧美艺术界一时的热潮之后，如今的行为艺术，已经几乎成为所有现代化国家最常见的一种艺术样式。
行为艺术作为一种新的艺术模式，除了在其历史的演进中，形成一些“语言规则”外，它本来就与人人都可以感知的“人情世故”中的身体语言相关联。所以，虽说欧洲原创了行为艺术的样式，但行为作为一种身体语言，别说人类，就是其他动物都会使用它来表达自己和进行交流活动，这是不是所有动物的本能，我没有研究，它肯定比说的和写的语言产生早，应该是没错的。所以，看明白行为艺术其实很容易，就是从脚下的现实生活多想想就是了，比如杨志超流浪到北京数年后，做过一个行为艺术，是在完全没有麻醉的情况下，用自己外地身份证的号码制作成烙铁，效仿古代官府给犯人烫烙耻辱印记那样，让人在自己的背上烙出永远无法消除的印记，这种疼痛的感觉和难于消失的印记感觉，我想每一个在异地工作生活过的人，想想孙志刚事件，想想自己有过的异地被盘查的经历，一定会感同身受杨志超这件作品意义的。
行为艺术在中国的发生和发展也有二十多年了，只是由于意识形态的原因，中国的行为艺术一直处于“非法”和“地下”的状态，行为艺术家为此所付出的，以及所遭受到的压力，是世界上大多数国家的艺术家所难以想象的。而且，在艺术家的行为艺术与大众之间，也一直没有一个良好的沟通渠道。至今，行为艺术在中国，不但遭到体制的压制，同时也不被大多数公众所理解。对于大多数观众，甚至包括一些艺术教授，有关“什么是艺术”的经验，常常成为阻碍对鲜活现实感受的重要原因。所以他们一看到行为艺术，
