終身映畫

Lifelong Picture

學(xué)術(shù)主持｜呂澎

Academic Host｜Lü Peng

藝術(shù)家｜張釗瀛

Artisit｜Zhang Zhaoying

展覽總監(jiān)｜李國華

Exhibition Director｜Li Guohua

策展人｜甘挺

Curator｜Gan Ting

展覽統(tǒng)籌｜梁宇

Exhibition Coordinator｜Liang Yu

展期 Duration

2025.11.09 - 2026.01.15

地址Address

中國深圳市福田區(qū)福中路184號深圳市當(dāng)代藝術(shù)與城市規(guī)劃館L2層2-7號那特畫廊

L-Art Gallery, Room No. 2-7, 2/F, Shenzhen Museum of Contemporary Art and Urban Planning, 184 Fuzhong Rd, Futian District, Shenzhen, China

張釗瀛個(gè)展「終身映畫」在那特畫廊（深圳）開幕倒計(jì)時(shí)中。此次展覽延續(xù)了藝術(shù)家創(chuàng)作的“終身”系列，以“映畫”為線索，深入探討圖像、歷史與當(dāng)代視覺經(jīng)驗(yàn)之間的復(fù)雜關(guān)系。

展覽于11月09日下午15:30開幕，持續(xù)到

2026

1

15

日，歡迎蒞臨參觀！

終身映畫：欲望圖像、歷史拼貼與異托邦劇場

文/甘挺

導(dǎo)言：圖像弒神的啟幕

“那高大的歌利亞，如今何處？”身著粉紅華服的牧羊少年大衛(wèi)挺立在非利士人的包圍中大喝道。他起誓說自己曾殺過獅子，也殺過熊，那些嘲笑錫安之神的人，今天將如獅如熊般滅亡！他反手屈膝，投石器已對準(zhǔn)了射程之內(nèi)的銅甲巨人歌利亞。布帶繃直，千鈞一發(fā)。這是一處充滿誘惑力的時(shí)刻，是一個(gè)歷史勝利或否定性的原型時(shí)刻。于是，歌利亞的頭部被卡爾·馬克思的頭部取代，在這一幅文藝復(fù)興時(shí)期回顧圣經(jīng)故事的敘事長卷中，在千軍萬馬黃金的鉸鏈和發(fā)光的河流組成的古典磅礴中，資本主義消費(fèi)社會最初興起的典型圖像——60、70年代電影和廣告中的老爺車和身著泳裝的中產(chǎn)男女滑入了圖卷底部，參與并見證了現(xiàn)代資本主義的挑戰(zhàn)者馬克思的被擊殺，連同他所象征的宏大理論與批判精神被砍下了頭顱。

當(dāng)我們在《戰(zhàn)士-承諾》的畫面中領(lǐng)會了張釗瀛在圖像游戲中的邏輯暗示與啟迪，我們就會明白，他不厭其煩的考察、挪用、拼貼，以及戲劇置景般的圖像排布不僅是在嘗試一種繪畫中可以實(shí)現(xiàn)的荒誕劇的審美趣味和方法，更為重要的是，他在有意識的記錄與構(gòu)建一種當(dāng)代現(xiàn)實(shí)——圖像內(nèi)爆，意義在媒介中消融，歷史從一種縱深與復(fù)雜被扁平化為斷裂的圖像與符號，從充滿因果、痛苦、斗爭和意義的連續(xù)性過程被降維為一種可隨意并置的瞬間和平面。不止于此，他進(jìn)一步的以這種共謀般的策略在畫面中創(chuàng)造了巨大深邃的異質(zhì)空間，一個(gè)可進(jìn)入的異托邦劇場，以種種不相容的奇異將當(dāng)代迷狂的視覺結(jié)構(gòu)砸在我們臉上，并充滿天真與野心的以一種嬉戲去標(biāo)記歷史在現(xiàn)實(shí)中的延宕，以彌合他所能把握的歷史的傳遞。

戰(zhàn)士—承諾 Warrior—The Pledge，2025

布面油畫 Oil on canvas

210×150 cm ×6

戰(zhàn)士—承諾 Warrior—The Pledge（局部）

景觀社會：欲望圖像與歷史拼貼

暗示著某種連續(xù)性的“終身”系列來到了“映畫”的段落。它首先與張釗瀛新作中的電影元素相關(guān)；其次“映“（投影/映照）與”畫“（圖像/繪畫）同時(shí)作為名詞和動詞，概括了張的方法論：映照這個(gè)時(shí)代視覺的瘋狂，面對景觀社會，只能用一種圖像的過度才能揭示與之相關(guān)的奧秘；并以后現(xiàn)代的拼貼昭示所有歷史時(shí)刻已成為可隨時(shí)取用的平面碎片，卻依然在歷史的喪失和永恒的當(dāng)下之中竭力反照和指涉現(xiàn)實(shí)。

我們很容易在張釗瀛的作品面前感到，這是一塊代表了當(dāng)今世界視覺經(jīng)驗(yàn)頂峰的畫布，沒有留白，沒有氣孔，密集而飽和的符號翻涌——古典繪畫杰作、歷史人物肖像、電影畫面片段、消費(fèi)主義圖騰……林林種種，儲備就緒，而真實(shí)生活已被這龐大的表征所取代。當(dāng)張以畫面來呼應(yīng)居伊·波德的“景觀社會”，他領(lǐng)會并呈現(xiàn)的是其核心機(jī)制，過度的圖像符號對人類欲望的捕獲、引導(dǎo)和激發(fā)。在《“潘”先生的盛宴》中，小揚(yáng)·勃魯蓋爾的《味覺》作為挪用的背景，它所描繪的豐盛食物和宴飲場景是前現(xiàn)代社會的欲望圖景，指向了一種生理性的、直接與生命生存和歡愉相關(guān)的需求；更多的現(xiàn)代食物——漢堡、意面和雞尾酒也被疊加和拼貼在畫面中，并且再一次的出現(xiàn)了汽車、泳裝美女、中產(chǎn)男女的玩樂——現(xiàn)代消費(fèi)主義的一套符號系統(tǒng)，至此將生命欲求直接賦值為過度的欲望。更有意味的是，象征著本能和性欲的潘神企圖誘惑的女神維納斯，其頭部被60、70年代電影海報(bào)中的西方男子頭像所替代。現(xiàn)代社會的愛欲是否也已在對性與美的圖像消費(fèi)中錯(cuò)位和迷失？

終身美麗—“潘”先生的盛宴 ｜Lifelong Beauty-Pan’s Feast，2023-2024

布面油畫｜Oil on canvas

260×170 cm

詹明信在關(guān)于后現(xiàn)代文化的理論中提到的“歷史感的消失”——在資本主義消費(fèi)社會的圖像洪流中，歷史不再以深度的敘事或經(jīng)驗(yàn)的形式被記憶，而被轉(zhuǎn)換為圖像、符號和感官的表層，在一系列的碎片化提取、挪用、拼貼、復(fù)制和傳播中，形式被模擬，而本質(zhì)和意義已被撤銷。張釗瀛在他堆疊又?jǐn)偲降囊曈X劇場中，正是打造了歷史意識已崩塌，歷史的縱深已無法追溯的劇目。然而張自身并不是一個(gè)全然的后現(xiàn)代主義者，他的挪用和戲仿并不是一種零度傾向；但同時(shí)也無法說他有任何現(xiàn)代主義批判的激情，他只是有著個(gè)體在一種現(xiàn)實(shí)同時(shí)也是歷史進(jìn)程中的強(qiáng)烈自覺，并渴望回應(yīng)和指涉現(xiàn)實(shí)與歷史，如他親口所說：歷史和今天的問題仍然在顯現(xiàn)，我需要傳遞信息。

東方故事—孔雀綠 ｜Oriental Tales—Peacock Green，2024-2025

布面油畫｜Oil on canvas

237×150 cm

君士坦丁大帝在此次展覽作品《東方故事》系列中被啟用，就是一條關(guān)于當(dāng)今資本主義現(xiàn)實(shí)的確切信息。該系列其中一幅被挪用的原作描繪了一段偽史事件：君士坦丁大帝跪于教皇西爾維斯特一世面前，宣布將羅馬城及整個(gè)西羅馬帝國的統(tǒng)治權(quán)獻(xiàn)于教皇及其繼任者。這系列關(guān)于權(quán)力、宗教和戰(zhàn)爭的畫面上有秩序的排布著寶石陣列，閃閃發(fā)光，法度嚴(yán)明，不僅冷酷豪奢的冰封了一段虛假的歷史敘事，還有那讓人懷想的古典莊嚴(yán)結(jié)構(gòu)與宏大場景。人類生活的主題并未變化，但無論是權(quán)力更迭、澎湃戰(zhàn)爭，還是宗教熱忱，已然淹沒在現(xiàn)代冰冷的交換價(jià)值中。德勒茲和加塔利說，資本是一幅“由以往一切構(gòu)成的斑駁之畫”。張釗瀛以繪畫之形式到內(nèi)容靈敏的響應(yīng)了這些關(guān)于當(dāng)代現(xiàn)實(shí)的睿智看法，“當(dāng)資本主義真的到來，隨之而來的，是文化大規(guī)模的去神圣化?！?/p>

異托邦劇場

現(xiàn)在，我們需要回到在開頭部份提到的，張釗瀛在繪畫中所意圖實(shí)現(xiàn)的一種荒誕劇的審美以及方法。對戲劇的調(diào)用是一種將繪畫當(dāng)代藝術(shù)化的寶貴嘗試：視覺-身體-情境多重維度被開啟，打破了繪畫發(fā)展到極簡主義后被人詬病的觀念僵局。張?jiān)诶L畫中的劇場性實(shí)踐，不僅體現(xiàn)在其構(gòu)圖和場景的組織方式上——他并非單純的、連貫性的“畫”圖象，而是像導(dǎo)演一樣“布置”場景，添加人物與形象，安排它們的位置；在自然與做作的平衡之間，讓畫面看上去是一種“擬真”，一種人工化構(gòu)造的場面，由此提醒觀眾切換 “觀看對象”至“體驗(yàn)場域”。

而且，最重要的，他的劇場以一種“荒誕劇“的邏輯構(gòu)造了一個(gè)異托邦空間——一個(gè)以繪畫的巨大的物質(zhì)性在場，在畫面中呈現(xiàn)與現(xiàn)實(shí)既同構(gòu)又相悖的另類空間。繁雜圖像的挪用和拼貼，各種符號被剝離了原來的語境，造成敘事邏輯斷裂、意義懸置，張以此在畫面中打造一種深刻的荒誕感。如作品《藝術(shù)島》，委拉斯開茲的侏儒弄臣、霍爾拜因的亨利八世、庫爾貝的畫家本人等一眾藝術(shù)史人物降臨于安杰利科所繪的宗教史長卷，與圣父們在底比斯沙漠共度一種修道生活。這些人物的存在不依賴于因果律，只是共同被困于一個(gè)時(shí)間斷裂的畫面空間中。張釗瀛一貫堅(jiān)持的“可以進(jìn)入”的大尺幅（4米寬）令我們一頭扎進(jìn)這個(gè)沙漠之島，此時(shí)，巨大的畫布，精心的置景成為了一個(gè)象征性舞臺，我們參與其中，又在其外。這種幻真但與真實(shí)空間并不相容的空間——就是?？滤峁┑年P(guān)于當(dāng)代社會空間、文化與權(quán)力運(yùn)作的感知工具——異托邦。異托邦是系統(tǒng)之外的例外空間，它以自身的異質(zhì)性映照和指涉主流空間。

東方故事—藝術(shù)島 Oriental Tales—Art Island（局部）

在《藝術(shù)島》的異托邦劇場中，張釗瀛拉開漫長的畫布，排布了一幕人物眾多的荒誕劇，在這巨大的離奇空間里安置了一個(gè)在歷史的起點(diǎn)窺伺未來的提示，關(guān)于當(dāng)代現(xiàn)實(shí)的提示——經(jīng)典價(jià)值已然失落：如同從前統(tǒng)領(lǐng)于神之信仰，藝術(shù)史敘事也已失效，藝術(shù)的碎片散置、跌落，同人類的命運(yùn)一樣，已成為無主之物。

最后，此次展覽新作中，香港電影元素的挪用更強(qiáng)化了張對戲劇的調(diào)用，以及異托邦劇場的意味。香港電影所喚起的地域性集體記憶、深受好萊塢敘事結(jié)構(gòu)和資本邏輯的影響，直接與全球化語境之下文化身份在不同空間中的流轉(zhuǎn)相關(guān)。與藝術(shù)家慣習(xí)挪用的西方古典畫中的宗教場面拼貼，這一切異質(zhì)的總和，粘合成明暗相間的“文化異托邦”燈火盛典：懸殊的身份與欲望、迥異的地理與流俗；功夫與神父、粵語笑話與基督教真理……并置不兼容，但確然是當(dāng)代社會文化混生的真實(shí)樣貌。

因此，異托邦劇場并非烏托邦是虛無之地，它是一塊映射現(xiàn)實(shí)的顫動飛地——在這里，感覺和觀念、幻想與思考、擁抱與批判同時(shí)大獲全勝。

1.「英」馬克.費(fèi)舍，《想象世界末日比想象資本主義末日更容易》，《資本主義現(xiàn)實(shí)主義》，南京大學(xué)出版社，2024，第11頁

2.同上

Lifelong Picture: Images of Desire, Historical Collage, and Theater of Heterotopia

By Gan Ting

Introduction: The Prelude to the Deicide of Images

“Where is the giant Goliath now?” cried the young shepherd David, clad in resplendent pink, standing tall amidst the surrounding Philistines. He vowed that he had slain lions and bears, and those who mocked the God of Zion would perish like lions and bears that day! With a bent knee and a reverse grip, his sling was aimed at the bronze-armored giant Goliath within range. The cloth strap tensed, the moment was critical. It was a moment full of temptation, a prototypical moment of historical victory or negation. Thus, Goliath’s head was replaced by that of Karl Marx. In this narrative long scroll from the Renaissance period, which revisits the biblical story, amidst the classical grandeur of golden hinges and glowing rivers, typical images from the early rise of capitalist consumer society—vintage cars from 1960s and 70s films and advertisements, and middle-class men and women in swimwear—slid into the bottom of the scroll. They participated in and witnessed the slaying of Marx, the challenger of modern capitalism, along with the decapitation of the grand theory and critical spirit he symbolized.

When we grasp the logical implications and inspirations of Zhang Zhaoying’s image games in his work Warrior—The Pledge, we understand that his meticulous investigation, appropriation, collage, and theatrically arranged images are not merely attempts at an aesthetic and method of absurd theater achievable in painting. More importantly, he is consciously recording and constructing a contemporary reality—the implosion of images, the dissolution of meaning in media, and the flattening of history from depth and complexity into fragmented images and symbols. History, once a continuous process full of cause and effect, suffering, struggle, and meaning, is reduced to a dimension of juxtaposed moments and surfaces. Beyond this, he further employs this complicit strategy to create vast, profound heterogeneous spaces within the picture—an accessible theater of heterotopia. With various incompatible bizarrerie, he thrusts the contemporary frenzied visual structure into our faces, marking with innocence and ambition the lingering of history in reality through play, in an effort to bridge the transmission of history as he perceives it.

The Society of the Spectacle: Images of Desire and Historical Collage

The "Lifelong" series, suggesting a certain continuity, has now reached the "Picture" segment. It relates, first, to the cinematic elements in Zhang Zhaoying’s new works; secondly, "project/reflection" (映) and "image/paint" (畫) function as both nouns and verbs, summarizing Zhang’s methodology: reflecting the visual madness of this era, confronting the society of the spectacle, where only an excess of images can reveal its related mysteries; and using postmodern collage to signify that all historical moments have become flat fragments, yet still striving to reflect and refer to reality amidst the loss of history and the eternal present.

It is easy to feel before Zhang Zhaoying’s works that this is a canvas representing the pinnacle of today’s world’s visual experience—no blank spaces, no breathing pores, only dense and saturated symbols surging—masterpieces of classical painting, historical portraits, film stills, consumerist totems… a myriad of elements, stocked and ready, while real life has been replaced by this vast representation. When Zhang echoes Guy Debord’s "society of the spectacle" with his imagery, he comprehends and presents its core mechanism: the capture, guidance, and stimulation of human desire by excessive image symbols. In Pan's Feast, Jan Brueghel the Younger’s The Sense of Taste serves as the appropriated background, depicting abundant food and banquet scenes—a pre-modern tableau of desire, which leads to physiological needs directly related to survival and pleasure. More modern foods—hamburgers, pasta, cocktails—are superimposed and collaged into the picture, and once again, cars, beauties in swimsuits, and middle-class men and women at play appear—the entire symbolic system of modern consumerism, here directly turning life’s demands into excessive desire. More significantly, the head of the goddess Venus, whom the instinct- and lust-symbolizing Pan attempts to seduce, is replaced by the head of a Western man from a 1960s or 70s movie poster. Has love and desire in modern society also become displaced and lost in the consumption of images of sex and beauty?

Fredric Jameson, in his theory on postmodern culture, mentioned the "disappearance of a sense of history"—in the flood of images of capitalist consumer society, history is no longer remembered as deep narrative or experience but is transformed into images, symbols, and sensory surfaces. In a series of fragmented extraction, appropriation, collage, replication, and dissemination, form is simulated, while essence and meaning are revoked. In his stacked yet flattened visual theater, Zhang Zhaoying precisely creates a spectacle where historical consciousness has collapsed, and the depth of history can no longer be traced. However, Zhang himself is not a complete postmodernist; his appropriation and parody are not of a zero-degree tendency. Yet, it cannot be said that he possesses the passion of modernist critique either. He simply has a strong individual awareness within a reality that is also a historical process, eager to respond and refer to reality and history. As he himself said: The problems of history and today are still manifesting, I need to pass on the message.

The presentation of Constantine the Great in the exhibition’s Oriental Tales series is a precise message about the reality of contemporary capitalism. One of the appropriated original works in this series depicts a pseudo-historical event: Constantine the Great kneeling before Pope Sylvester I, declaring the donation of the city of Rome and the rule of the entire Western Roman Empire to the Pope and his successors. On these images concerning power, religion, and war, arrays of gems are orderly arranged, glittering, strict in composition, not only freezing a false historical narrative with extravagance but also that nostalgic classical solemn structure and grand scene. The themes of human life have not changed, but whether it is the transfer of power, surging wars, or religious fervor, they are already submerged in the cold exchange value of modernity. Deleuze and Guattari said that capital is a "motley painting of all that ever was." Zhang Zhaoying, in both form and content of his painting, sensitively responds to these insightful views on contemporary reality. "When capitalism truly arrives, what follows is the large-scale desacralization of culture."

The Theater of Heterotopia

Now, we need to return to the aesthetic and method of absurd theater that Zhang Zhaoying intends to achieve in his painting, as mentioned at the beginning. The invocation of theater is a valuable attempt to contemporize painting art: multiple dimensions of visual-body-situation are opened, breaking the conceptual impasse that painting faced after minimalism. Zhang’s theatrical practice in painting is manifested not only in his composition and scene organization—he does not simply and coherently "paint" images but "arranges" scenes like a director, adding characters and figures, arranging their positions; balancing between the natural and the contrived, making the picture appear as a "simulation," an artificially constructed scene, thereby reminding the viewer to switch from "viewing an object" to "experiencing a field."

And most importantly, his theater constructs a heterotopian space with the logic of an "absurd play"—an alternative space presented within the picture through the massive physical presence of painting, both isomorphic and contradictory to reality.

The appropriation and collage of images, the stripping of various symbols from their original contexts, result in broken narrative logic and suspended meaning. Zhang thereby creates a profound sense of absurdity within the picture. Like in the work Art Island, figures from art history—Velázquez’s dwarf jester, Holbein’s Henry VIII, Courbet’s self-portrait of the artist, etc.—descend upon the religious historical scroll painted by Fra Angelico, sharing a monastic life with the Holy Fathers in the Theban desert. The existence of these characters does not depend on causality; they are merely trapped together in a picture space where time is fractured. Zhang Zhaoying’s consistent use of large, "enterable" formats (4 meters wide) plunges us headlong into this desert island. At this moment, the huge canvas and theatrical scene become a symbolic stage; we participate in it yet remain outside. This illusory space, yet incompatible with real space— the perceptual tool provided by Foucault for understanding the operation of contemporary social space, culture, and power—is the heterotopia. Heterotopia is an exceptional space outside the system, reflecting and referring to the mainstream space through its own heterogeneity. In the heterotopian theater of Art Island, Zhang Zhaoying unfurls a long canvas, arranging an absurd play with numerous characters. Within this vast and bizarre space, he places a hint peeping into the future from the starting point of history, a hint about contemporary reality—classical values are already lost: just as they were once governed by divine faith, the narrative of art history has also lost. The fragments of art are scattered and fallen, like human destiny, they have become godless.

Finally, in the new works of this exhibition, the appropriation of elements from Hong Kong cinema further strengthens Zhang’s invocation of theater and the sense of the heterotopian play. The regional collective memory evoked by Hong Kong cinema, deeply influenced by Hollywood narrative structures and capital logic, is directly related to the flow of cultural identity in different spaces under the context of globalization. Collaged with the religious scenes from Western classical paintings that the artist habitually appropriates, this sum of heterogeneous elements coalesces into a flickering "cultural heterotopia" festival of lights: disparate identities and desires, vastly different geographies and customs; kung fu and priests, Cantonese jokes and Christian truths… juxtaposed and incompatible, yet indeed the true appearance of contemporary socio-cultural hybridity. Therefore, the heterotopian theater is not a utopia, a non-place; it is a trembling enclave reflecting reality—here, sensation and concept, fantasy and thought, embrace and critique all triumph simultaneously.