Li Yishi 李毅士: I Have No Questions 我不“惑”

我不“惑”

An old man in his forties should not be perplexed. Having read both articles, I got to know the two Mister Xus.^[1] I had questions when I read their articles in the fifth issue of Mei Zhan, so I shall say something without perplexity. I think Mister Xu Beihong’s stance is what a real artist should have. In other words, it is a subjective attitude. However, the way that Mister Xu Zhimo takes this into account is like that of a critic, in which he puts aside subjectivity. Thus, there is a difference between their opinions.

四十多歲的老頭子，自然應該不惑。我讀了美展第五期上兩位徐先生的大文，見他們雙方都惑。自然，應當說兩句不惑的話，方是道理。我想悲鴻先生的態度，是真正藝術家的態度。換一句話說，是主觀的態度。志摩先生的言論，是評論家的口氣。把主觀拋開了講話，所以他們雙方的話，講不攏來。

Although I have studied Western painting (yang hua 洋畫)^[2] for more than two decades, I am unable to fully appreciate the paintings of Cézanne and Matisse.^[3] If my son wanted to follow their style of painting, I would beat him senseless without hesitation and forbid him to do so. It is my responsibility to give him instructions, so I have to make decisions about my behaviour with a subjective opinion. In this case, I must be subjective and say that, at this point, I strongly agree with Mister Xu Beihong.

塞尚奴 (Cézanne)、馬帝斯（Matisse）的作品，我研究了廿多年的洋畫，實在還有點不懂。假若說：我的兒子要學他們的畫風。我簡直要把他重重地打一頓禁止他學他們。因為我對我的兒子負有指示他的責任。我不得不憑我的主觀來決定我的行為。所以我憑我主觀說：我是極端贊同悲鴻先生的態度。

One of the responsibilities of an art critic is to look into where the artists have failed to perform. If you cannot blame the artist for that, then you must admit instead your incapability of appreciation. In the lawsuit between Ruskin and Whistler, Ruskin took a subjective posture by keeping himself from being a critic.^[4] Therefore, Mister Xu Zhimo was sensible not to slander Cézanne and Matisse.

至於藝術評論家的責任，是要傳揚藝術家所表現不到家的地方。所以如果遇到有所不懂的地方，只可以承認自己賞鑒力的不足，不好說作家的東西不好。羅斯金和魏斯德勒的官司，就是羅斯金失了他評論家的態度，把主觀拿出來了。所以志摩先生的不誹謗塞尚奴、馬帝斯，也是極正當的態度。

Accordingly, there is a difference between the two Mister Xus’ standpoints and attitudes. Thus, is there anything to be perplexed about? Yet, I have no intention of intervening in this debate and mollifying. In critiquing art, they should have broadened their horizons and shed light on major social issues.

照上面所說，兩位徐先生因為所處的地位不同，態度的不同。這有什麼可惑的地方？不過我並不在這裡解勸他們的爭論。我想請他們把眼光放開一些，把社會上所要解決的大問題，討論一下，然後再來判斷藝術。

For artists, art is simply personal expression. From the artists’ perspective, their art absolutely has value unless it is made to fool people regardless of the artists’ style. To make a work of art exhibited and appreciated by society, at the very least society should understand the piece of art, never mind expressing their appreciation. If a piece of art is not understood by anyone, then regardless of its value, it is the same as ‘a latrine in the countryside (xiangxiaren maoce 鄉下人毛廁)’.^[5]

藝術在作家方面，可以說不過是個性表現。任憑他作風如何，只要不是欺人，在他自己眼光中，自然是有價值的。不過藝術品要在社會上存在，要使社會鑒賞，除非要社會至少能夠瞭解，不要說表同情。倘如有一件藝術品，社會上沒有人瞭解。任憑他如何的有價值，在那一個時代中便是 “鄉下人毛廁” 一般的東西。

This resembles the five grains (wugu 五穀) grown in the fields.^[6] If human beings eat wheat only, other grains will not be supported and only wheat will be cultivated. Does Mister Zhimo consider it appropriate? If Zhimo worked as an agricultural expert who had studied the significance of the five grains, tasting them, he should have showed us how important they are and recommend others to have a try. If Mister Zhimo is not able to do this, leave it as it is. In my viewpoint, I dare say that Cézanne and Matisse’s art has not been fully understood by the general public. If Mister Zhimo knows the worthiness of the art, would he please explain it and allow us to learn more about it? Shouldn’t we inquire into the presentation of the times and the socio-psychological relationship in art?

這種情形猶如田裡長了五穀，假使人類只知道吃麥，則他類的谷自然要被淘汰，把田地專來種麥了。志摩先生以為這個辦法是適當的嗎？假使志摩是一位農學專家，五穀的好處都研究過的，味道也都嘗過的，那便不妨把他的好處傳揚出來，使別人也嘗嘗。假若志摩先生不能做到這一層，那末暫且不必去管他們。塞尚奴和馬帝斯的作品，在我的眼光中，敢說在一般社會上人的眼光中，未見得能夠十二分地瞭解。如果他們的好處志摩先生已經知道，則不妨把他們來解釋一下，再容我們大家請教請教。且不管和時代的風尚如何？與社會的心理是什麼關係？

I have not yet articulated anything in a subjective manner since the start of this paper. Now, it is time to do so. Since the artistic style is associated with the times, we should firstly investigate the artists’ social responsibilities. Mister Xu Zhimo argued, ‘artistic critique shall be independent from moral concepts’. In my view, when considered in the long run from a perspective of social evolvement there is a relationship between art and morality. ‘Morality’ here refers to the moral concepts which the artists are aware of other than the morality defined conventionally. I suppose it is true that an artist could never paint a good image of Madonna without being a devoted Christian. And I also suppose it is true that a vulgar painter, despite their masterful techniques, will never produce a masterpiece worthy to be remembered in hundreds of years. To put it another way, human beings are innately benevolent. Only would those who are possessed by self-interest and desire behave improperly. Without being biased by the interests, the artists are bound to portray what is true, what is natural, and thus what is benevolent. Considering everything mentioned above, I would not fain criticise any of the artists’ works, unless their behaviour could be proven to be somewhat deceiving others for profit and benefits. How can we appraise Cézanne and Matisse? I may not be correct, and so I could not assert it. Mister Xu Beihong said, ‘those artists came to fame attributing to the art dealers’ manipulations and promotions’. I would absolutely agree if there were conclusive evidence of the facts. Mister Xu Beihong also declared, ‘their paintings are worthless’. Viewed from today’s perspective, even if Mister Beihong’s words are not so truthful and Cézanne and Matisse’s descriptions showcase their giftedness to the fullest, I would oppose the artists’ popularisation in China to avoid the adverse seeds to emerge. Given that the intellectual world in China has been in chaos over the past twenty years, we are currently attempting to change their mindset and soothe their spirits using the power of art.  If the artworks by artists such as Cézanne and Matisse are predominantly widespread, this might disturb China. Alas, what an adverse impact it might have! All of this is my personal opinion. Yet, it also includes my doubts and questions as well, which I shall discuss with you.

我從本文的起首，到現在還沒有說主觀的話。現在便要開始說幾句了。我覺得藝術的作風，既和時代發生關係，藝術家的責任，就應該把他在社會上的責任先研究一下。志摩先生說：“藝術的批評是獨立的，不容納道德性的觀念的。”在我的意想中，我們倘若用遠大的眼光來看，社會進化的眼光來看，藝術和道德確有深切的關係。不過我的所謂道德，是藝術家自身所感受到道德，不是傳統上的道德。一個藝術家不是至誠的耶穌教徒，他決不能有好的聖母畫出來。這是我相信的。一個鄙陋的畫家，任憑他技巧如何的精妙，決不會有流芳百世的藝術品產生。這也是我深信的。回轉來說：一個人的天性終是善的。除非受了利慾的支配的人，才有不正當的行為。藝術家假使沒有利害的關係，那他所表現的必定是真實的，也必定是他天性的，所以也就是善的。因為以上緣故，我不敢批評任何人的作品。除非我可以證明其人行為，是有欺騙社會以謀利的地方。塞尚奴和馬帝斯的為人如何？我不十分清楚，所以不敢斷言。悲鴻先生說: “他們是藉賣畫商人的操縱宣佈而成名的。” 如果他的話有確實的證據，那我絕對地贊同。悲鴻先生說：他們的畫沒有價值。不過我現在拿社會的眼光來看，即使悲鴻先生的話是不確，塞尚奴和馬帝斯的表現，都是十二分誠實的天性流露；但是我還覺得要反對他們在中國流行。萬一種不利於社會的種子。因為我以為在中國現在的狀況之下，人心思亂了二十多年，我們正應用藝術的力量，調劑他們的思想，安慰他們的精神。像塞尚奴、馬帝斯一類的作品，若然盛行在中國，衝動了中國的社會，我知道這禍患不淺哩？！這是我的主觀。但是這也是我不惑的地方，所以拿出來講一講。

Without expressing my own opinion, under the circumstances of China’s art scene, how many of us are willing to do the academic research? How many are not willing to take a shortcut for their fame? If the works of Cézanne and Matisse have value in China, then I know that the archaic art from Greece and Rome will no longer be introduced to China’s realm of art. The hundreds of years of European civilisation shall no longer have a place in China. Under these circumstances, even if Mister Zhimo approves of the works by Cézanne and Matisse to be exhibited, it has to be taken into careful consideration. Mister Zhimo also said, ‘people are prone to changing their mind and craving for the new’. This resulted in Cézanne’s vulgarity and Van Gogh’s madness. This is true. Certainly, it is permissible for artists to be inclined to speak of unity and change. In terms of an artwork, it is most definitely permissible; this also could apply to the trends in art. However, the environment of Western art is different from that of Chinese art. We find it interesting to put a touch of red onto a grey surface. However, it is inappropriate to add a hint of red onto the paper which is yet to be painted. I expect Mister Zhimo to inquire into the present status of Chinese art. If we think the European style valuable shall we have the grey background painted? In other words, over hundreds of years, the solid foundations of art in Europe have slowly begun to erode, and the eye-catching new styles, including those of Cézanne and Matisse, were advised to be introduced in China. This is why I have decided to write something in response to the two Mister Xus. I do not expect anyone to defend me. But I think the general readers of the articles about the ‘questions’ may take on my opinions to figure it out.

現在不從我的主觀說話，單就現在中國的藝術狀況而言，有幾個人肯耐心地研究學術？有幾個人不願由一條捷徑來換得名利？如果塞尚奴和馬帝斯一類的作品，是在中國有了代價，那末我知道希臘羅馬的古風是再也不會攢進中國的藝術界來。歐洲幾百年來的文明，在中國再也沒有什麼地位了。這種情形就是志摩先生贊成塞尚奴和馬帝斯似乎也當考慮考慮。志摩先生還說： “人心好變動喜新異”。結果乃有塞尚奴的 “士氣” 、梵古的 “癲狂” ，這話誠然。藝術家常講統一和變化，在一件藝術品中而言，自然是不錯的；就藝術的趨勢而知道，這種原理也是同樣地適用。不過西洋藝術的環境，和中國藝術的環境是不一樣的。一片灰色的顏色中加上一點紅，我們覺得十分地有趣。倘若滿紙灰色的背景，還沒有塗好的時候，這一點紅似乎加也不適當了。我請志摩先生想想我們現在中國的藝術。如果說：歐風是有可取的價值，我們是否應該先把這灰色的背景塗好。換一句話說：歐洲數百年來，藝術的根基多少融化了，再把那觸目的作風，如塞尚奴、馬帝斯一類的作品，輸入中國來。我根據這個觀念，所以要在兩位徐先生大文之後，加這幾句話。我不希望誰給我來辯駁。我不過想一般讀者，讀了兩位的 “惑” ，或者可以採取我的意見因之不惑。

At the time of this article’s writing, Mister Zhimo’s I Also Have Questions has not yet been finished. I do not know the other half of his remarks. I would not hesitate to consult him if I find it necessary to make any corrections or extend my comments after reading the next half in the future.

我作本文的時候，志摩先生的《我也 “惑” 》還未完篇。一半的高論，尚未領教。如以後讀了他下半篇文字，覺得有更正或補充我的言論之必要時。再行請教。

Yishi’s notes

Evening, 26 April

毅士附註 四，二十六，燈下