Wang Wei: Borrowing from Reality
By Pauline J. Yao, June, 2012

 

About a month ago I found myself on car trip outside Beijing with artist Wang Wei and a few other friends. Winding through the roads north of Huairou headed to a small mountain village, we cruised past the usual assorted scenery: recreational spots, farmland, one-story dwellings and streetside vendors hawking everything from fruit to carved wood sculptures. Down a woodsy lane, Wang Wei suddenly pointed out the window at a roadside vendor’s display of blue-and-white ceramics and said, “Look, it’s Ai Weiwei’s artwork!” I glanced to my right and saw an assortment of blue-and-white porcelains spread out by the side of the road and immediately recognized the resemblance—each vessel had been placed in neat, equidistant rows with generous space in between. If the backdrop were not a small patch of dirt and some shrubs the twenty-odd vases could easily pass as a knock-off of Ai’s Ghost Gu Coming Down The Mountain, 2005. A short while later we passed a building with a door opening that had been sealed up with bricks to prevent access and I commented that it resembled Wang Peng’s artwork (Wall, 1993). By this point all of us were looking out the window with fresh eyes, noticing objects or forms in this countryside village that we had previously seen in a gallery or museum, and what's more, even some ordinary items that looked like they could end up in a gallery someday. I began wondering what this mindset was about—what exactly was the difference between these “found artworks” and those self-consciously constructed ones that we regularly encountered in the context of the art world? What was it that allowed us to see or not see certain items as works of art?


These questions and others are aptly addressed in the work of Beijing-based artist Wang Wei. From zoos to historical residences, Wang’s recent installations are mindful appropriations of existing spaces, visual elements and three-dimensional settings he finds in his own surroundings. These already existing forms were never intended to be art but for Wang they bear particular visual, social or aesthetic value that he deems worth borrowing and reproducing, and in enlarging and adapting these existing forms to a gallery setting, he creates new forms of meaning and possibility. His process annexes these objects’ aesthetic properties in ways that conjure a sense of dislocation and, occasionally, discomfort in the viewer. Appropriation is nothing if not an active, engaged and motivated cause that demands attention to the situational and historical, but as Wang’s work demonstrates, borrowing or taking something as one’s own use simultaneously strips away context and invests new layers of meaning and areas for self-reflection. However, one should be careful here to avoid seeing Wang’s practice under the simple rubric of exploring relationships between art and life. Such views often align art with fiction and life with reality while Wang’s investigations are realignments that situate the artifice and veracity of life as art. Although he is interested in the decontextualized space of the art gallery or “white cube” art space, his transferal of everyday items into this exclusive space is not a Duchampian gesture aimed at discussing the de-skilling of the artist, or the power of selection which positions the unassisted readymade as a commercially manufactured object of everyday life that is transformed completely via placement in a gallery or exhibition context. Instead Wang’s tend towards architectural elements rather than images or individual objects, and are particularly concerned with forms and settings that exhibit the presence of human design, however conscious or unconscious it may be. Like the perfectly stacked arrangement of wood logs, or a bunch of colorful baskets cascading out of the back of a truck onto a patch of dirt—what unites these “found artworks” is their aesthetic value that signals involvement of the human hand. The notion of “found artworks” in itself may be seen as a misnomer, that is, if one subscribes to the idea that objects derive their status as artworks from being framed in the context of the art world as authored, unique, commodifiable objects intended for display and commercial exchange. It is therefore Wang’s interest to point out that natural forms of artifice surround us every day—it is merely a question of when we might happen upon them, and if we do, whether or not we are trained to see them.
Wang Wei’s artistic practice emerges from this set of chance occurrences and accidental moments of inspiration. Attuned to human relationships with the built environment, his installations encourage audience participation, often in the form of direct physical contact. Recent forays into appropriating readymade forms from zoos, historical sites, restaurants and vernacular architecture in southern China all came about more or less by chance through travels or random encounters. In this sense his working method belongs to the intuitive sphere rather than one overly concerned with political ideologies or lofty intellectual frameworks. He prefers instead to attack what is immediately in front of him—a site, location, cultural or historical element—and finds ways to engage and solicit certain reactions within the viewing public. Lifting certain elements from so-called reality and transplanting them into the timeless, locationless setting of the art gallery with only minor modifications to scale, material and appearance, Wang brings attention to a compounded fiction: naturally occurring forms of artifice transplanted within an already artificial space of the art gallery.


That questions of space, viewer interaction, sensory perception and a heightened awareness of three-dimensional space are a consistent feature of Wang Wei’s work is of little surprise, given his experiences as a member of the Post Sense Sensibility group of artists active in the late 1990s early 2000s. Following his graduation from the Fresco Painting Department (壁画系) of the Central Academy of Fine Arts in 1996, Wang Wei soon fell in with the ragtag group of artists (and curators) and took part in many of the group’s early shows while working concurrently as a freelance photographer for the Beijing Youth Daily Newspaper. The Post-Sense Sensibility shows were a series of self-organised underground exhibitions characterised by radical, DIY-style tactics and unrehearsed, sometimes shocking, forms of experimentation. With their short time frame – anywhere from two days to two weeks – and ad hoc spirit, these exhibitions more closely resembled activities or performative events rather than affairs of static display. Artists who took part were not concerned with challenging ideologies or producing veiled political statements; rather they aimed to carve out an autonomous space in which they could explore the immediacy of their own actions and solicit charged reactions to on-site conditions and limitations.


Perhaps as a result of this varied background, photography has always played a crucial role in Wang Wei’s artistic process, intricately tied to how he deals with space and on-site conditions. His contribution to the “Post Sense-Sensibility: Alien Bodies and Delusion” exhibition in 1999 was a photographic installation entitled《水下1/30秒》1/30 Sec. Underwater. The set of color transparencies inserted into floormounted lightboxes were arranged in a darkened passageway at the entrance of the exhibition. In order to enter the exhibition, viewers had to walk through the corridor and across the lightboxes, their feet pressing upon a series of close-up images of young men and women trapped underwater. The careful positioning of the work inside the compressed, darkened corridor and depiction of large-scale faces appearing to be gasping for air creates an illusion whereby the viewers’ feet pressing against the glass adds a sense of heightened drama and claustrophobia. In contrast,《虚伪的空间》Hypocritical Room, 2002 offers the reverse, moving from an illusion of confinement to an illusion of expansive, empty space. The work again uses visual trickery with photography, but this time involves enlarged 360 degree photographs of the empty exhibition space enlarged and mounted onto a four-sided steel box frame attached to the floor with wheels. During the exhibition period, the giant room-sized square lightbox was pushed around the exhibition hall by four anonymous individuals, creating an illusion of extra space or mirrored space. These experiments represent Wang’s sustained investigation into space—constructed space, obstructed space, replicated space, constrained space—and the intangible dimensions of human sensory perception.


Photography continued to play a key role in Wang’s work and artistic process, most notably in the combined performance and documentary work Temporary Space, 2003which took place in the former Long March 25000 Cultural Transmission Center in 798. Taking place over the course of seventeen days the work was part public attraction and part willful obstruction of the exhibition space. The artist enlisted the help of ten migrant workers known as “brickmongers” in Beijing whose livelihood is comprised of collecting bricks from demolished sites and reselling them to new construction projects. Using 20,000 recycled bricks, the workers erected a square room inside the gallery space measuring a hundred square meters (100sqm) with walls measuring four meters tall. Slightly smaller than the existing gallery space, Wang’s structure left a narrow passageway around the perimeter just wide enough for one person to pass safely. A few days after being completed, the structure was torn down and the bricks were taken away and re-sold, completing the cycle. The entire process was documented with a set of twelve photographs which were mounted sequentially as each phase of the work was completed. In a subversive gesture that points to the time-based nature of the work and its opposing poles of construction and destruction, presence and absence, the entire set of photographs were only visible when the building itself was gone.


If Temporary Space represents Wang’s productive intertwining of photographic documentation and performative event, then his later installations work consciously to further undermine a sense of permanence by choosing certain materials that themselves are temporary. Continuing with the rhythms of constructing and dismantling as a form of ephemerality, in a set of later works Wang chose the material of metal scaffolding to create open-air pavilions in the style of traditional Chinese gardens. These《脚手架园林》Scaffolding Gardens are predicated on temporariness but also borrowed materials and borrowed space—at the conclusion of the exhibition the work can be disassembled and returned to the scaffolding rental company. For each exhibition project he encounters, Wang adapts new techniques, methodologies and materials to suit his conceptual plan. Photography plays a consistent role—inspiration often comes to Wang after studying his own photographs of various sites and settings—but his working method that actively disavows reliance upon a certain set of materials, preferring instead to be adaptable to a given space. His work fits the classic definition of an installation artist, which is to say, in Boris Groy’s words: there is no traditional material support like canvas, stone or film; instead the installation medium is space itself.


In 2007 Wang began a series of works inspired by the Beijing Zoo. Wang visited the Zoo in Beijing for other reasons but later was intrigued by the wall designs in the animal enclosures, particularly those in the crocodile and monkey houses. It was unclear if these decorations were intended for humans or for the animals themselves, perhaps, Wang thought, they were used to fool animals into thinking they were in the wild and not in captivity. His fascination for the simulated environments and decorative elements of the zoo led to his own form of imitation: the installation A Zoo, No Animals, 2007《没有动物的动物园》which recreated “natural” animal habitats within the space of the art gallery. Based upon actual animal cages, the installation uses tree branches, rocks, and various foliage to mimic these already highly constructed yet “natural” environments, including the same exact text descriptions from the original sign in lightboxes but with  all reference to the animals removed. Viewers were left with an ambiguous space that is neither zoo (no animals) nor actual habitat (vegetation appeared similar but was not exactly the same). In the case of the Long March Space installation, Wang chose to reproduce the habitats of nocturnal animals in a winding corridor that forced viewers to pass through at the entrance of the exhibition, creating a feeling of impending danger about what unseen animals might be lurking in the darkness.


The immersive environments Wang creates form a special type of appropriation that is reliant upon architectural space than pictorial image, contextual and historical fact than illusion. The settings he has chosen, when enlarged to fill the gallery space, become spatial worlds that visitors can enter and experience fully. His《故居》Historic Residence, 2009 is perhaps the most fitting example of Benjamin’s take on appropriation, which he frames as a transition from “cult value to exhibition value”. Here Wang faithfully reproduces—in exaggerated proportions—the private bathing quarters of Chairman Mao and his wife Jiang Qing. Lifted from the couple’s seldom-used retreat in Shaoshan Dishuidong Hunan Province, the oversized rooms bifurcated the gallery space of Space Station into two side-by-side tile covered chambers. The original 1950s-60s architectural details are reproduced in every detail—porcelain bathtubs, sinks, cabinets, mosaic floor tiles and even glass light fixtures, and save for the dramatically scaled up dimensions of the rooms, they are near exact replicas of the twin bathrooms occupying the residence (now converted to a public museum). Traces of political inclination, the passage of time, and personal attributes are all embedded in the retro-styled color scheme: regal yellow for the Stately leader and apple green for the leading lady whose stage name contained the word “apple”. Accompanying the installation is a soundtrack with two voices repeating lines from the tour guide explaining the significance of the two colors. The sound element of the work may be easily overlooked but it is here that Wang’s clear interest in the symbolic significance of the colors, not to mention the absurd grandeur allocated to these private spaces, becomes apparent.


The modernist invention of the white cube exhibition space has received its fair share of criticism. As many critics have pointed out, the white walls and pristine floors is far from a neutral space, in fact it exudes many qualities: exclusivity, but isolation, commercialism and a sense of singular superiority. But most importantly the white cube signals a process of decontextualization, whereby the timeless, history-less environment severs art from its relationship to reality and transforms items into rarefied objects of elite status. Oddly enough, it is exactly this decontextualizing process that Wang Wei thrives upon. His installations make emphatic use of the white walls and hermetic power of the white cube to alter his chosen forms into “works of art” regardless of their origin. In doing so, the artifice, absurd logic or symbolic value contained within these preexisting forms are given new artistic license by virtue of their removal and re-positioning in a gallery space. Whether its engaging the services of bricklayers, erecting scaffolding or reproducing architectural spaces borrowed from distant locales, Wang aims not only to draw attention to our physical awareness of space, but to highlight the double fictions and absurd realities that reside within our daily surroundings. His selections, once modified and transplanted into the gallery, can act as powerful vectors for self-examination and reflection of hidden truths, or, as in the case of the mirror-covered Propaganda Pavilion, 2011《宣传栏》, as exemplary moments where our own reality is reflected back to us in mute form. It is through these oblique views on reality and borrowed forms that we can see the true nature of art—as a category that lends itself equally to the painstakingly crafted and the serendipitously ordinary.

 

王卫:借现实  Wang Wei: Borrowing from Reality

文:姚嘉善  Pauline J .Yao
译:杜可柯

大概一个月前,我跟艺术家王卫和其他几个朋友一块儿驱车出北京。汽车沿着怀柔北边通往山村的公路上盘旋,两边的风景照例杂乱无章:度假村、农田、平房、卖水果或木雕等各式物品的路边摊。开过一段两边都是树林的小路时,王卫突然指着车窗外一个兜售青花瓷器的小摊说:“看,艾未未的作品!”我转头往右一看,发现路边摆了一地青花瓷器。我立刻辨认出两者间的相似处——等距摆放的瓷器方阵,彼此间隔很大。如果背景不是土地和灌木丛,这二十几个花瓶还真容易被人当成艾未未《鬼谷下山》(2005)的山寨版。又过了一会儿,我们路过一座废弃的 房子,看到敞开的大门被砖头封得严严实实,我说这好像王蓬的作品(《墙》,1993)。这时候,我们所有人都开始用一种全新的眼光观察起窗外的景色,在这个山村里发现了各种以前在画廊或美术馆见过的物品和形式,甚至包括另一些看上去将来某天可能进入画廊展厅的日常用品。我忍不住想,这到底是一种什么样的思维模式——这些“现成艺术品”和那些我们在艺术界语境下经常看到的、被人有意建构起来的艺术品之间到底存在什么样的差异?是什么让我们认为某些东西是艺术品,而另一些不是?

现居北京的艺术家王卫在他的作品里很好地处理了上述问题。从动物园到历史建筑,王卫近期装置作品是对自己周围既存空间、视觉元素和立体环境的一系列小心挪用。这些既存形式最初绝不是为了艺术诞生,但在王卫看来,它们带有某种值得借鉴和复制的视觉、社会或美学价值。通过放大这些形式并将其改装移植到展厅内,艺术家创造出了新的意义和可能性形式。王卫对物体美学特质的挪用方式常常在观众心里唤起一种错位感,甚至不适感。挪用首先是一种积极、投入、有目的的行为,要人们去关注情境和历史,但王卫的作品让我们看到,把一件东西借为己用也会同时消除物体原来的语境,为其赋予新的意义层次,打开新的反思领域。然而,需要注意的一点是,我们不应把王卫的创作实践简单总结为对艺术与生活之间关系的探讨。这种看法常常将艺术视为虚构,而认为生活代表现实,但王卫的探索是对上述看法的重新调整,他把生活里的真实和虚构变成了艺术。尽管王卫对去除语境的展厅空间或“白立方”空间感兴趣,但他对日常物品的移置却不是一种杜尚式的姿态,他的目标不在于讨论艺术家的去技术化或说明选择的力量——日常生活里的普通商品被放进展览空间或语境后就改头换面变成“现成品”艺术。比起图像或单个物品,他更关注建筑元素,尤其是那些有意或无意间透露出人为设计痕迹的形式和环境。就像放得整整齐齐的一堆木头,或从路边卡车上倾倒一地的彩色篮子——贯穿这些“现成艺术品”的是体现了手工劳动参与痕迹的美学价值。“现成艺术品”这种提法本身可能会造成误解,如果你认为一个东西之所以成为艺术品是因为它被放入艺术界的语境下,变成某种以展示和商业交换为目的、由某位作者创造的独特产品的话。正因为如此,王卫感兴趣的在于让我们看到,人造的自然形式在日常生活里随处可见,问题只是我们什么时候碰上它们,或有没有能力发现它们。

王卫的艺术实践就来自上述偶然的遭遇和不期而至的灵感。他的装置作品对人与建筑环境的关系保持了高度警觉,经常鼓励观众通过直接的身体接触参与其中。王卫最近对动物园、历史遗迹、餐厅或南中国小城镇建筑中现成形式的挪用都或多或少源于他在旅行途中的偶然发现。从这个意义上讲,王卫的工作方法隶属于直觉领域,并没有过度涉及政治意识形态或高高在上的知识框架。他宁可去攻击那些就在自己眼前的东西——一个场所、一个地点、一种文化或历史元素——然后想办法调动观众,使观众产生反应。通过从所谓的现实里截取某些部分,仅在对其规格、材料和外形做小小修改后便将其移入不带任何时间和地点特征的展览空间,王卫提醒我们留意到一种复合的虚构:自然发生的虚构形式被移植到本就是人造空间的展厅。

鉴于王卫曾是活跃于上世纪九十年代末、本世纪初的艺术团体“后感性”的成员之一,空间、观众互动、感官知觉、对三维空间的强烈意识等问题成为贯穿他大部分作品的特征便不足为奇。1996年,王卫从中央美术学院壁画系毕业后没多久,就跟这帮“不守规则”的艺术家(和策展人)混到一起,随后参与了所有后感性早期的展览活动,与此同时也作为摄影记者在《北京青年报》工作。当时,后感性团体组织了一系列地下展览,以其大胆、即兴、DIY、有时令人震惊的实验形式而著称。这些展览大多持续时间很短——从两天到两周不等,加上宣扬临场发挥的精神,使它们大多看上去更像行为表演,而非静态展示。参展艺术家关心的不是挑战意识形态或发表隐蔽的政治声明;而更多希望创造一个独立空间,以便更好地探索自身行动的即时性,并在现场环境与观众之间制造高能量的反应场。

也许因为上述背景,摄影一直在王卫的艺术创作中扮演着关键角色,与他对空间和现场环境的处理保持了一种紧密而复杂的关系。在1999年的展览“后感性:异形与妄想”中,王卫的参展作品是名为《水下1/30秒》的摄影装置。一套彩色灯箱照片嵌进过道地板,而这段光线昏暗的过道就在展览入口处。观众要进场看展,必须踩着灯箱地板穿过过道,脚下是一系列困在水底的年轻男女的放大肖像。作品在昏暗、狭窄的过道里经过精心布局,加上仿佛在缺氧状态中努力挣扎的面部表情,使得观众在玻璃地板上每走一步,现场的戏剧感和幽闭感便增强一级。《虚伪的空间》(2002)正好与之相反,提供给观众的不是幽闭幻觉,而是一个空旷、开阔的虚假空间。这件作品也借助摄影制造视错觉,但这次用到的是空展厅的360度全景照片,照片被放大并装裱到一个金属立方体框架上,框架底部装有轮子。展览期间,这个足有一个房间大小的灯箱被四个人推着在全场到处移动,制造出某种多余空间或镜像空间的假象。上述实验代表了王卫长期以来的考察对象,包括空间——建构的空间、被遮断的空间、复制的空间、受限制的空间——以及人类感知的非实体部分。

此后,摄影继续在王卫的作品和艺术实践中发挥重要作用,尤其值得一提的是2003年他在798长征空间(原二万五千里文化传播中心)展出的行为及其记录作品《临时空间》。这个历时十七天的项目在吸引公众眼球的同时,也是对展览空间有意的阻塞。在该作品中,艺术家请来十个北京周边地区以收拣旧砖为生的“砖贩子”帮忙,用两万多块回收旧砖在画廊空间内搭建起一间面积100平方米、墙高4米的正方形砖屋。整个结构比画廊空间稍小一点,周围留有仅容一人通过的狭窄通道。建好几天后,砖屋即被拆除,旧砖被工人们回收,重新进入市场,完成一个循环。十二张照片记录了从建到拆的全过程,随工程进度分阶段在展厅展示。艺术家用这种颠覆姿态提示了作品本身的时间性,以及其中建设与拆毁、在场与缺席的对立关系。只有等砖屋完全被拆除以后,观众才能看到完整的一套记录照片。

如果说王卫在《临时空间》中有效地将摄影记录与现场行为结合在了一起,那么他在后来的装置作品中则通过选择那些本身就带有临时性质的材料,有意识地进一步破坏了永久性的概念。在继续把建设与拆迁之间的节奏关系作为临时性的表现形式同时,王卫开始用金属脚手架为材料,搭建中国传统园林中的“廊亭”。这些《脚手架园林》以借来的材料和空间为基础,展览结束后,作品便会被拆开并还给脚手架租赁公司。对不同的展览项目,王卫会采用最适合自己概念计划的技术、方法和原料。摄影仍然起到了重要作用——王卫的很多想法都产生于看过自己在不同地点和环境拍摄的照片以后——但他在工作中主动避免对某一些固定材料产生依赖,而更愿意根据不同空间采取不同策略。他的作品非常符合我们对一名装置艺术家的经典定义,用鲍里斯•格罗伊斯的话说就是:不存在像画布、石头或胶片这样的传统物质支持;相反,装置的媒介就是空间本身。

2007年,王卫受北京动物园启发,开始了一系列新的创作。王卫最初去动物园当然不是为了创作,但看过动物园里的马赛克壁画(尤其是鳄鱼池和长臂猿馆的壁画)之后,他发现自己对这些墙面设计产生了强烈的兴趣。壁画上的装饰到底是为了给游客看还是给动物看,我们无从得知。王卫觉得,也许动物园的建筑设计师们希望用这些图案欺骗动物的眼睛,让它们觉得自己仍然生活在野外,而不是笼子里。在对动物园里模拟自然的装饰元素的兴趣驱使下,王卫最终创作了他自己的模拟形式:《没有动物的动物园》在画廊空间重现了动物的“天然”栖息地。这件以夜行动物馆为原型的装置作品用树枝、岩石以及各种不同植被模仿了那些已经具备高度人工感的“天然”栖息环境,就连灯箱上的文字描述也全部照搬动物园的说明标签,只不过去掉了其中所有提到动物的部分。最后观众看到的是一个极度暧昧的空间:既不是动物园(没有动物),也不是真实的栖息地(植被看上去相似,但并不完全相同)。在长征空间的展览上,王卫选择在展厅入口处弯曲的过道里复制这几间动物房舍,观众不得不进入并穿过这些房间,昏暗的灯光让人感觉仿佛随时都可能有什么看不见的动物从角落窜出来。

王卫制造的这种浸泡式环境构成了一类特殊的挪用方式。该方式依靠的不是图像,而是建筑空间;强调的不是错觉,而是历史语境事实。他选中的场景经过放大移到展厅里后就变成观众可以进入并全面体验的空间世界。《故居》(2009)也许为本雅明对挪用的阐释提供了最恰当的例证,本雅明将其界定为“从膜拜价值到展示价值”的转变。在这件作品中,王卫忠实地(除了夸张的空间尺度以外)复制了毛泽东及其妻子江青的私人浴室。以主席夫妇在湖南韶山滴水洞的别墅为原型,北京空间站的展厅被分隔成了两个贴满瓷砖的房间,五六十年代老建筑的所有细节均被保留——白瓷浴缸、洗手池、梳妆台、马赛克地板砖,甚至包括玻璃吊灯,除了被扩大到比例失调的房间面积,观众看到的几乎就是滴水洞别墅(现被改为一座名人故居博物馆)中两间浴室的复制版。特定时代的审美痕迹、时光的流逝和个人气质全都融入在这复古的配色当中:象牙黄配尊贵的国家领袖;苹果绿配艺名“蓝苹”的第一夫人。此外,展览现场播放的音频里,两个声音按照当地导游的解说词也在反复强调着这两种颜色的缘由。作品中的声音元素也许很容易被人忽视,但正是在这里,我们可以清楚地看到王卫对颜色象征意义的兴趣,当然还有上述私人性空间被奉为“神殿”的荒唐。

白立方展览空间这一现代主义发明已经受到过不少批评。很多批评者指出,雪白的展墙和一尘不染的地板远远称不上是中性空间,实际上它透露了许多特质:排他性、孤立性、商业主义以及由独特性引发的优越感。但最重要的一点还是,白立方标志着一种去语境化的过程,无时间性、无历史感的环境把艺术从它跟现实的关系里拉出来,将其变成高高在上的精英代表。奇怪的是,王卫的艺术正是从这个去语境化过程中汲取了营养。他的装置强调白墙的使用,以及白立方在把他所选择的形式(无论来源)变成“艺术品”过程中的神秘力量。如此一来,这些既存形式内荒诞的人造逻辑或象征价值通过离开原来的语境,进入展览空间而获得了新的艺术通行证。无论是找砌砖工人帮忙,还是搭建脚手架或复制从遥远地点借来的建筑空间,王卫的目标都不仅是提醒我们注意自己对周围环境的身体感知,同时强调的还有我们日常生活中隐含的双重虚构和荒诞现实。他的选择一旦经过修改移植进入展览空间,就能成为有力的媒介,促使我们自我审视以及反思现实背后隐藏的真相,或者就像贴满镜子的《宣传栏》(2011),让周围现实无声地反射回我们的自身。通过这些现实的侧面和借用的形式,我们看到了艺术的真实属性——它既面向经过精雕细琢的匠心,也面向奇缘偶遇的日常。