Re-imagining H2O in Art

　　---A Discussion between Wu Hung and Miao Xiaochun

　　Wu Hung (hereafter WH): We mentioned last time in our discussion that starting from your works Mirage and Celebration, etc., you had basically parted from the sculptural figure that appears in your previous photographs. Today, let’s begin our conversation from there and focus on your two most recent projects: The Last Judgment in Cyberspace and H2O- A Study of Art History. Perhaps we can center more on the latter work, because we’ve already done an exhibition together on The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, and I’ve written an essay about it. This time, let’s concentrate primarily on H2O.

　　Miao Xiaochun (hereafter MXC): All right. These two works really represent a turning point in my art. Before I started these two projects, when I was working with conventional photography, I was shooting three-dimensional scenes in reality. And I was thinking about how to find the most appropriate angle from which to photograph a real situation and transform it into a flat, two-dimensional thing. One day, while looking at two-dimensional paintings in art history, a thought suddenly occurred to me: What would it be like if we changed it anew into a three-dimensional scene? I thought that if I could restore it, it would lead to very interesting results. So, I selected Michelangelo’s The Last Judgment. I first transformed it into a three-dimensional scene in the computer and then attempted to “view” it from different angles while also “photographing” these views. The process is the complete opposite from conventional photography.

　　Additionally, three-dimensional scenes in reality are constantly changing and moving, but photography can only show a static moment. As Michelangelo’s Last Judgment was originally motionless, my goal was to make it three-dimensional and then imbue it with movement. Thus I also made a three-dimensional computer animation to company the digital photographs, thereby realizing the reversal from immobility to mobility.

　　After completing The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, a lot of people asked me, “How could you make something so completely different from your earlier work?” Although on the surface, this work appears unlike my previous work—two different mediums, two different ways of making things—I think that the two are actually still very much related. If in photography I had never taken a three-dimensional thing and made it two-dimensional, then maybe I would never have made something two-dimensional three-dimensional, and have the idea to photograph it.

　　WH: As I see it, these two stages—and I think I understand these works relatively well—have a very strong relationship. Although on the surface, they seem to have nothing to do with one another, in reality they are quite related, especially with regard to the question of “looking.” Your photographic works already emphasized shifting viewpoints, with implications of movement and temporal concepts visualized on one plane. I remember in our last discussion, we brought up the relationship between your photographs and Chinese scroll painting, and the question of movement, etc. In these new works “movement” persists, but its appearance is different.

　　There’s a question that we can talk about more in depth, which is the very interesting shift from two to three dimensions. But, the three-dimensionality that you have produced is not actually a concrete three-dimensional objecthood, right? You created a three-dimensional model on the computer, but the work that emerges from this computer model is still a two-dimensional image. That is to say, the photographs made with this method are still two-dimensional, although they are clearly distinct from conventional photography. Exactly what notion of three-dimensionality are you referring to in this shift from “two-dimensional to three-dimensional”? ---Certainly, it’s different from a sculptor’s concept of three-dimensionality.

　　MXC: To be sure, a sculpture’s three-dimensionality is a truly existing one, whereas one shown on a computer is virtual. When you turn the computer off it’s gone, you can neither see nor touch it. Even if we use a projector to project it into a space, it’s still not the same as a traditional sculpture.

　　Three-dimensionality as it exists in reality seems limitless, infinite in time and space. Three-dimensionality in a computer, however, is limited and reached only based on a computer’s operational capacities. Of course, following technological advancements, this space has become bigger and bigger, but it’s still differentiated from reality. It’s also temporally distinct, as it can’t be endless, and instead must have a specific duration. Thus, in the titles of all of these works, I have added the word “virtual” (the literal translation for The Last Judgment in Cyberspace is The Virtual Last Judgment).

　　WH: If we consider it like this, then we can go back and rethink the so-called two-dimensional works. For example, we all learned in Western art history that there was the development of a very strong sense of purpose towards subjugating two-dimensional space by integrating the third dimension into the depiction of space in a painting. Thus, taking a flat material medium—a canvas or a wall—and “conquering” it by transforming it into a fictitious three-dimensional “pictorial space.” To contemporary viewers, the result was a fantastical space. So, from this historical viewpoint, perhaps what Michelangelo was doing at the time is a little bit like what you are doing. To his contemporaries, perhaps the Last Judgment was a virtual space. But, in the twenty-first century, we regard it as a “fresco.” Your work pushes this pursuit of “virtual space” into today, guiding it into contemporary art. Just like Michelangelo, however, your work also has its historical limitations. We see Michelangelo’s work as a painting, but at that time, people described it as if seeing the real last judgment, the real Jesus Christ, etc…what they saw was also a virtual three-dimensionality.

　　MXC: Along these lines, five hundred years from now, when people see our present work it will be just like how present people see Michelangelo’s painting. Perhaps they will also think of this as a kind of “flattening.”

　　I think, in every period, people endeavor to attain the very highest plane that their technological conditions allow. We are currently constrained to many technological elements, and can only reach a certain degree. For example, photography and video actually have a lot of shortcomings. Although they are more authentic instruments for documentation, they are still far from perfect. There are still limits to recording the real in a comprehensive way. Perhaps in the future, the technology will be available for documenting an entire scene, even the temperature and smells, etc. so that we can record and restore all of it. At that point, we will look back and consider today’s technology to be very primitive.

　　WH: In the future, the greatest breakthrough might be the breakthrough of the scope of the “visual.” From ancient times to the present, art has revolved around the visual. It is still this way. You just mentioned some other sensations like touch and smell. If they can enter into artistic expression, then that would truly transform a fundamental concept. In real life, hearing, smelling, seeing, etc…they are all sensed and aren’t separated. But in traditional art, the visual along serves as the foundational basis. Now, some artists are beginning to pursue senses outside of the visual.

　　You just explained how The Last Judgment in Cyberspace was a restoration of two-dimensionality into three-dimensions. But, with regard to the H20 works, it seems that this shift is not the primary objective of these pieces. Is this right? Because the experience of a virtual three-dimensionality seems to have been achieved in The Last Judgment in Cyberspace, is the H20 series now absorbed in a new purpose?

　　MXC: Technologically, it is a natural continuation of the earlier works, as it also takes flat art historical paintings and makes them three-dimensional. It then views them from two angles: their similarities and differences with the original. This second angle is important because it is an entirely new perspective of looking; the consideration of differences from the original is a view absent from art history.

　　The content then attempts to offer a reply to the question posed by the previous work. The question raised by the last work was “Where will I go?” This is related to the question of where life comes from, and where it is going. But in reality, this is very difficult to answer. Even the wisest philosophers have difficulty in providing an ultimate answer. I wanted to use art to indirectly address and respond to this question, so I made the H2O series.

　　WH: The continuation of technique is very clear. In terms of content, the previous work raised the question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” You said that your answer is related to water, why is this?

　　MXC: Although we live in modern times, our current scientific knowledge still cannot answer the question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” It is also hard to locate an answer in religion. Because some theories and doctrines have been shown to be incorrect in some areas, it is difficult for modern people to place a firm belief in them. Because of this, it is now very difficult to be a Christian or a Buddhist, and there is no theory or doctrine that can guide us completely. In the end, I could only use the simplest things, things that appear to have no problems, to find answers for myself. For example, “water”: the water that I drink today has flowed through millions of years, through countless living beings, cycling through everything, and after it leaves me, it will continue to stream through millions of years, into countless living forms, sinking into the earth, going into the sky, and moving back and forth. But, H2O, this element itself doesn’t change. It has flowed through primitive cells, dinosaurs, Confucius, cows, Louis XV, apples, Newton, potatoes, Beethoven, etc…innumerable animals, plants, and people are connected through this element. I think that this by itself is significant; I am somehow connected to many lives. I can’t answer this question “Where does life come from? Where is it going?” but its relationship with water is evident. I wanted to use this kind of thing to create some works!

　　WH: In the treatment of water as a ceaselessly circulating element that manifests the continuity of life and connectivity in all living things, the content in this series of works possesses a philosophical layer. But, what is interesting is your choice to approach water from the angle of art history, rather than representing it as it appears in the real world. In this way, you again create another kind of continuity, which is the continuity of art—the “water” in your series only exists in art. So, there are two parallel levels of continuity: the circulation of water in the actual, physical world, and the circulation of images of water in art history. Is that right?

　　MXC: This is correct. Both kinds of continuity do exist. The continuity of artwork from different eras and in different regions is an interesting and important question. Sometimes, it is direct, while at other times it isn’t; it can be indirect to the point of not leaving behind any traces. We really don’t know how that first brush stroke ended up on a grotto wall, and we don’t know how when the second person faced this first painted image, how he produced the second image. Was it by copying? Or, was it a competition to make something better? Or, was it via another path? After so many works of art, images, and concepts have “flowed into” my brain, I cannot help but link together ancient and modern, Eastern and Western pieces. What I produce is absolutely a continuation of earlier art; while it takes a small step forward to expand new possibilities. When we choose exchanges with past generations, we reveal our individual way of looking at things. We reveal our own taste and disposition to the degree that continuity itself can create a new beginning.

　　WH: The function of representations of “water” in art is a very interesting question, and one that is emphasized in your readings of the ancient masterpieces. In fact, I think that art historians can learn quite a lot from your series. For example, in Giotto’s fresco of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet, most art historians have focused on the narrative and characters, but you bring people’s attention to the basin used for washing the feet. This is certainly very important.

　　MXC: On the one hand, I see some things that people wouldn’t normally notice. On the other hand, I also intentionally avoided works that most people would see as being obviously related to water, for example images of baptism. If a tableau doesn’t trigger my personal feelings, then I abandon it. I wanted to use a completely personal way of viewing these works. The principle guiding my selection of artwork was based on those that “gave me a particular thought and feeling.” Moreover, this “researching” did not have to result in the attainment of some verdict of art historical meaning. It was just a means to expressing some of my own realizations.

　　The original paintings that I selected can be roughly divided into three categories. In the first category, the works have a very particular relationship with water, for example The Deluge and Fountain of Youth; as soon as you see it, you know it’s related to water. The second category of works doesn’t share such a relationship. Instead, the works have an indirect link to water, for example The Martyrdom. These need to be transformed in some way to make that connection clear. The last category of works seems to have no connection at all with water, but I selected them anyhow and forged a relationship with water. As such, I had to ask myself: Why did I select these works to enter into the series? Viewers will also ask: Why have these been selected? When I answer this question (sometimes, even giving a strained interpretation), I am making my own viewpoint known. An example of a work in the last category is Carrying the Cross, which appears to be completely unrelated to water.

　　WH: This is Peter Bruegel’s Kreuztragung from 1564.

　　MXC: This painting depicts Jesus bearing a cross on his back, going to his execution. This motif was very moving to common people in later generations, for here Jesus is not regarded as a deity, but as a normal person going to be crucified. A deity would have possessed boundless supernatural powers, and wouldn’t sustain any injuries. Viewing this scene would suddenly make people conscious of the fact that Jesus was originally like us, a person of flesh and blood, a person capable of dying. He too is frail, and endures extreme harm. He sacrifices himself for all (of course, he is also resurrected), and it is this point that emotionally moves and captures so many people.

　　I took all the weeping people in the foreground, including the Virgin Mary and the apostles, and made them all like crystallized water, as a metaphor for their “crying until they become weeping figures.” The other people there, like the soldiers who are to execute the sentence and the indifferent spectators, all wear clothes. In the center, only Jesus has a completely transparent body. Life is transparent and frail like this. It’s easy to be attacked and die. People only have a very thin layer of skin binding their flesh together, and their body is 70% water. When people are at their weakest, fluids flow out of these bodies: tears when we are sad, blood when we are injured, sweat when we are exhausted.

编辑：admin