Preface | 自序

As great calf muscles bulge in use,
the spiritual body swells inside;
With a return to energy of the primal
void comes potency and masculine strength.

Beyond all appearances,
you will find it at the circles’ center.
Hold it without effort
and it will come to you without end.

-Derives from The Twenty-four Styles of Poetry
“The Masculine and Viral Style”*
by Tang Dynasty poet Sikong Tu (837-908)

Since the beginning of Chinese calligraphy there are the Stele School and the Rubbing School. To me, both schools have their strengths and each compensate the shortcomings of the other, so I study the definitive skills of both to refine my learning and attempt to propose a “Brush school”. After all, the fundamental difference of the Stele and Rubbing Schools lies in the brush movement, which also serves at the pivotal to link up the two. What is crucial to “brush movement” is the movement (brush is merely an instrument). The delicate part is to master the flow of energy and power, which then brings us back to the handling of brush. There is Yin and Yang in the flow of energy, and power has both soft and strong sides. When the flow of energy and power is smooth then one’s brushstroke style will emerge organically. When one manages to couple strength and gentleness together, then Stele and Rubbing will connect.

Su Shi (1037-1101) once commented Song Zifang’s landscape painting as being ”neither modern nor traditional”, praising him for making new advances in the genre. Modern scholar Chen Yinkle (1890-1969) commented on his lifelong learning as “neither modern nor traditional”. Contemporary Chinese art and literature master Professor Jao Tsung-I enjoys making paintings that are  “neither modern nor traditional”. I admire them amd mock myself as creatingart that are “neither modern nor traditional, neither calligraphy nor painting”. I enjoy letting creativity takes flow, it makes me realize that calligraphy and painting were originated from the  same root, as of the notion “Ten Thousand Ways Returning to Oneness:. Truly, the Dao of calligraphy and painting are neither single nor different. One is all, all is one.

I paint with a liberated mind and create paintings with conscious brushstrokes that appeal to my inner subconsciousness. These unconstrained brush movements arising from my subconsciousness are result of ”Existential Emptiness”. These paintings become an “insight” into my soul. To me, the creative process is a detachment from my personal surroundings. I use a type of “action art” which is seemingly opposite but in fact united in bringing together a creative process that is cohesive and wholesome. The result is a bridge between the “conscious” and “subconscious” in brush and ink, a new art methodology that uniquely belongs to me.

My creations are a reflection of my calm and introspective character. They are instinctual needs from my subconsciousness - as natural as a bird flying in the sky, a fish swimming in the sea. The painting surface might be full of tension and resistance, but my mind and my brush know no boundaries. I deeply believe that a great creation is a cosmo that is boundless and immeasurable; there is no beginning and no end.

 

“大用外腓, 真體內充;
 返虛入渾, 積健為雄;
 超以像外, 得其環中;
 持之非強, 來之無窮.”

                                 節錄唐司空圖
                                 <<二十四詩品>> 之 <雄渾>

 

自古以來,書法有碑帖二宗之說,我以為碑帖二學各有所長,互補其短;遂汲取二學之獨到處以冶煉自家之學,而嘗提出“筆學”(“筆宗”)。究其根柢,碑學與帖學之別關鍵在於“運筆”,而貫通二學之關鍵亦在於“運筆”。 “運筆”之關鍵,在於“運”字(蓋“筆”不過道器耳),“運”之精妙在於“氣”與“勢”之掌握。而“氣”,“勢”之掌握又回歸到運筆層面上。 “氣”有陰陽,“勢”有剛柔,氣勢通達,則筆學自成;剛柔並濟,則碑帖貫通。

蘇東坡曾以“不古不今” 之論稱許宋子房山水, 謂其能稍出新意;近代鴻儒陳寅恪自言平生為“不古不今之學”;當代學藝雙攜的饒宗頤教授喜為“不古不今之畫”; 眼前, 我自嘲樂為“不古不今, 非書非畫之藝”。天馬行空, 樂此不疲;始悟書畫同源之妙諦,萬法歸一之大宗。誠然,書畫之道,不一亦不異;一即一切,一切即一。

我在清醒的無意識自由狀態中,表現出有意識的筆法,與此同時完成無意識的畫境。這當下的無意識狀態所揮灑出的有意識筆法,可以說是自『真空妙有』中所覓得;而與此同時所完成的畫境,可喻爲自性所『照見』的『心地風光』。創作對我而言就是入定。我以一種看似相對實則一以貫之的『 行爲藝術』,實現了創作的過程和結果的連貫性以及整體性,在『有意』與『無意』間,搭建起了一種新的筆墨訴求,一種屬於自身獨有的,新的藝術方法論。

我的創作是鑒於我自性的靜觀與照見,是一種本能的需要,卻又是那麽無意識的自然使然——就像鳥過長空,魚躍水面;盡管眼前的畫面充盈著十足的張力和筆勢,然而對我自心而言,卻是筆下無跡,畫面無痕。我深信, 好的創作是無量無邊, 不生不滅的宇宙。