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.

四十多岁的老头子，自然应该不惑。我读了美展第五期上两位徐先生的大文，见他们双方都惑。自然，应当说两句不惑的话，方是道理。我想悲鸿先生的态度，是真正艺术家的态度。换一句话说，是主观的态度。志摩先生的言论，是评论家的口气。把主观抛开了讲话，所以他们双方的话，讲不拢来。

Although I have studied Western painting (yang hua 洋画)^[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)、马帝斯（Matisse）的作品，我研究了廿多年的洋画，实在还有点不懂。假若说：我的儿子要学他们的画风。我简直要把他重重地打一顿禁止他学他们。因为我对我的儿子负有指示他的责任。我不得不凭我的主观来决定我的行为。所以我凭我主观说：我是极端赞同悲鸿先生的态度。

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.

至于艺术评论家的责任，是要传扬艺术家所表现不到家的地方。所以如果遇到有所不懂的地方，只可以承认自己赏鉴力的不足，不好说作家的东西不好。罗斯金和魏斯德勒的官司，就是罗斯金失了他评论家的态度，把主观拿出来了。所以志摩先生的不诽谤塞尚奴、马帝斯，也是极正当的态度。

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.

照上面所说，两位徐先生因为所处的地位不同，态度的不同。这有什么可惑的地方？不过我并不在这里解劝他们的争论。我想请他们把眼光放开一些，把社会上所要解决的大问题，讨论一下，然后再来判断艺术。

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 乡下人毛厕)’.^[5]

艺术在作家方面，可以说不过是个性表现。任凭他作风如何，只要不是欺人，在他自己眼光中，自然是有价值的。不过艺术品要在社会上存在，要使社会鉴赏，除非要社会至少能够了解，不要说表同情。倘如有一件艺术品，社会上没有人了解。任凭他如何的有价值，在那一个时代中便是 “乡下人毛厕” 一般的东西。

This resembles the five grains (wugu 五谷) 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?

这种情形犹如田里长了五谷，假使人类只知道吃麦，则他类的谷自然要被淘汰，把田地专来种麦了。志摩先生以为这个办法是适当的吗？假使志摩是一位农学专家，五谷的好处都研究过的，味道也都尝过的，那便不妨把他的好处传扬出来，使别人也尝尝。假若志摩先生不能做到这一层，那末暂且不必去管他们。塞尚奴和马帝斯的作品，在我的眼光中，敢说在一般社会上人的眼光中，未见得能够十二分地了解。如果他们的好处志摩先生已经知道，则不妨把他们来解释一下，再容我们大家请教请教。且不管和时代的风尚如何？与社会的心理是什么关系？

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.

我从本文的起首，到现在还没有说主观的话。现在便要开始说几句了。我觉得艺术的作风，既和时代发生关系，艺术家的责任，就应该把他在社会上的责任先研究一下。志摩先生说：“艺术的批评是独立的，不容纳道德性的观念的。”在我的意想中，我们倘若用远大的眼光来看，社会进化的眼光来看，艺术和道德确有深切的关系。不过我的所谓道德，是艺术家自身所感受到道德，不是传统上的道德。一个艺术家不是至诚的耶稣教徒，他决不能有好的圣母画出来。这是我相信的。一个鄙陋的画家，任凭他技巧如何的精妙，决不会有流芳百世的艺术品产生。这也是我深信的。回转来说：一个人的天性终是善的。除非受了利欲的支配的人，才有不正当的行为。艺术家假使没有利害的关系，那他所表现的必定是真实的，也必定是他天性的，所以也就是善的。因为以上缘故，我不敢批评任何人的作品。除非我可以证明其人行为，是有欺骗社会以谋利的地方。塞尚奴和马帝斯的为人如何？我不十分清楚，所以不敢断言。悲鸿先生说: “他们是藉卖画商人的操纵宣布而成名的。” 如果他的话有确实的证据，那我绝对地赞同。悲鸿先生说：他们的画没有价值。不过我现在拿社会的眼光来看，即使悲鸿先生的话是不确，塞尚奴和马帝斯的表现，都是十二分诚实的天性流露；但是我还觉得要反对他们在中国流行。万一种不利于社会的种子。因为我以为在中国现在的状况之下，人心思乱了二十多年，我们正应用艺术的力量，调剂他们的思想，安慰他们的精神。像塞尚奴、马帝斯一类的作品，若然盛行在中国，冲动了中国的社会，我知道这祸患不浅哩？！这是我的主观。但是这也是我不惑的地方，所以拿出来讲一讲。

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.

现在不从我的主观说话，单就现在中国的艺术状况而言，有几个人肯耐心地研究学术？有几个人不愿由一条捷径来换得名利？如果塞尚奴和马帝斯一类的作品，是在中国有了代价，那末我知道希腊罗马的古风是再也不会攒进中国的艺术界来。欧洲几百年来的文明，在中国再也没有什么地位了。这种情形就是志摩先生赞成塞尚奴和马帝斯似乎也当考虑考虑。志摩先生还说： “人心好变动喜新异”。结果乃有塞尚奴的 “士气” 、梵古的 “癫狂” ，这话诚然。艺术家常讲统一和变化，在一件艺术品中而言，自然是不错的；就艺术的趋势而知道，这种原理也是同样地适用。不过西洋艺术的环境，和中国艺术的环境是不一样的。一片灰色的颜色中加上一点红，我们觉得十分地有趣。倘若满纸灰色的背景，还没有涂好的时候，这一点红似乎加也不适当了。我请志摩先生想想我们现在中国的艺术。如果说：欧风是有可取的价值，我们是否应该先把这灰色的背景涂好。换一句话说：欧洲数百年来，艺术的根基多少融化了，再把那触目的作风，如塞尚奴、马帝斯一类的作品，输入中国来。我根据这个观念，所以要在两位徐先生大文之后，加这几句话。我不希望谁给我来辩驳。我不过想一般读者，读了两位的 “惑” ，或者可以采取我的意见因之不惑。

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.

我作本文的时候，志摩先生的《我也 “惑” 》还未完篇。一半的高论，尚未领教。如以后读了他下半篇文字，觉得有更正或补充我的言论之必要时。再行请教。

Yishi’s notes

Evening, 26 April

毅士附注 四，二十六，灯下