我的征尘是星辰大海。。。
The dirt and dust from my pilgrimage forms oceans of stars...
-------当记忆的篇章变得零碎，当追忆的图片变得模糊，我们只能求助于数字存储的永恒的回忆
作者:黄教授
手机视频列表
长得丑不是它的错但是堂而皇之逼着大众看就是
视频
音频
原始脚本
长得丑不是他的错，摆出来让所有人看就是你的错。 当你在厦门街头看到这些所谓的艺术，就是一大堆扭曲的、丑到极致的雕塑。 心里说不出来的别扭。 这是一种怎样的越看越别扭，越想越生气的感觉？尤其是当这些雕塑被安放在公共空间，成为城市景观的一部分时。 这种丑带来的不适感会被成倍放大，这让我忍不住对于当代艺术和公共艺术里几个特别尖锐也特别现实的矛盾点吐槽几句。 一、先说说你提到的公共空间里的丑，这到底是谁的错？你那句长得丑不是他的错，摆出来让所有人看就是你的错。 其实精准点破了公共艺术和架上艺术的核心区别。 架上艺术，比如美术馆里的画、雕塑，是你主动走进我的场域。 你可以选择看或不看，它的受众是有心理预期，甚至有一定艺术素养的观众。 艺术家可以在里面自由表达，哪怕是表达丑怪、痛苦、荒诞。 观众也会带着这是艺术表达的预设去解读。 但公共艺术不是这样的，它被放在街头、海边、公园，是被动闯入普通人的生活的。 路过的老人、放学的孩子、谈恋爱的情侣，没人是为了看艺术才来的，他们只是想散个步、吹个风，结果被迫面对一个造型怪异，甚至说不上来是啥的东西。 更讽刺的是，很多这类雕塑打着接地气、贴近大众的旗号，结果恰恰是最脱离大众审美的。 就像你说的，人类的天性就是追逐和谐、秩序、舒展的美。 街头艺术的底线应该是不冒犯普通人的审美本能，而不是把艺术家的自我表达变成对公共空间的审美入侵。 二、丑的艺术到底是创新还是穷途末路？你说的做不出震撼人心的美，就只好做丑的给你看，其实戳中了当代艺术里一个很真实的困境。 传统艺术的核心是再现美、创造美。 不管是古希腊的雕塑，还是文艺复兴的绘画，都是在探索人怎么把世界里的美，用极致的技巧表现出来。 但到了现代艺术，尤其是工业革命之后，摄影技术出现了，画的像、雕的像这件事被机器轻松做到了。 艺术家突然发现写实的美已经不再是核心竞争力了，于是很多人开始往反传统、反美、反技巧的方向走。 从杜尚的泉一个小便池开始。 艺术的核心从我做了什么变成了我想表达什么。 但问题是，当观念盖过了审美本身，很多人就开始钻空子了。 真正的先锋艺术，哪怕是表现丑，背后也有一套完整的哲学、社会议题支撑。 比如表现战争的残酷、人性的异化，这种丑是有目的的，不是为了丑而丑。 但更多所谓的丑艺术，就是你说的摆烂加亵渎，既没有技巧，也没有观念。 纯粹靠标新立异博眼球，甚至把看不懂当成了艺术的遮羞布。 观众说丑，他们就反过来指责观众不懂艺术，把大众的审美当成了自己的垫脚石。 三，你说的商业炒作，把丑变成稀缺品，才是最扎心的真相。 你提到的收藏市场需要唯一性、稀缺性，甚至洗钱、利益输送。 其实才是很多丑艺术能大行其道的根本原因。 传统的美是有标准的，画得好、雕得美是可以被大众认可的，也很容易被模仿、被复制。 它不具备独一无二的稀缺性。 但丑不一样，尤其是没人敢这么丑的丑，它的门槛不是技巧，而是敢不要脸的勇气。 你很难模仿一个丑的独一无二的东西，它天然就具备了商业炒作最需要的稀缺性。 更讽刺的是，这种商业逻辑甚至反过来绑架了艺术家和审美。 当市场只愿意为看不懂的、独一无二的东西买单，艺术家自然就不会再去打磨那些大众都觉得美的作品了，因为那些东西卖不上价，也炒不起来。 久而久之，整个艺术圈就陷入了一种比谁更怪、比谁更丑的内卷里。 而真正能震撼人心的美，反而成了过时的、不入流的东西。 四、最后收回厦门这几个雕塑，它们到底问题在哪？就拿你拍的这几个来说，问题根本不是它们丑。 而是堂而皇之逼着大众去看。
修正脚本
长得丑不是他的错，摆出来让所有人看就是你的错。 当你在厦门街头看到这些所谓的艺术，就是一大堆扭曲的、丑到极致的雕塑。 心里说不出来的别扭。 这是一种怎样的越看越别扭，越想越生气的感觉？尤其是当这些雕塑被安放在公共空间，成为城市景观的一部分时。 这种丑带来的不适感会被成倍放大，这让我忍不住对于当代艺术和公共艺术里几个特别尖锐也特别现实的矛盾点吐槽几句。 一、先说说你提到的公共空间里的丑，这到底是谁的错？你那句长得丑不是他的错，摆出来让所有人看就是你的错。 其实精准点破了公共艺术和架上艺术的核心区别。 架上艺术，比如美术馆里的画、雕塑，是你主动走进我的场域。 你可以选择看或不看，它的受众是有心理预期，甚至有一定艺术素养的观众。 艺术家可以在里面自由表达，哪怕是表达丑怪、痛苦、荒诞。 观众也会带着这是艺术表达的预设去解读。 但公共艺术不是这样的，它被放在街头、海边、公园，是被动闯入普通人的生活的。 路过的老人、放学的孩子、谈恋爱的情侣，没人是为了看艺术才来的，他们只是想散个步、吹个风，结果被迫面对一个造型怪异，甚至说不上来是啥的东西。 更讽刺的是，很多这类雕塑打着接地气、贴近大众的旗号，结果恰恰是最脱离大众审美的。 就像你说的，人类的天性就是追逐和谐、秩序、舒展的美。 街头艺术的底线应该是不冒犯普通人的审美本能，而不是把艺术家的自我表达变成对公共空间的审美入侵。 二、丑的艺术到底是创新还是穷途末路？你说的做不出震撼人心的美，就只好做丑的给你看，其实戳中了当代艺术里一个很真实的困境。 传统艺术的核心是再现美、创造美。 不管是古希腊的雕塑，还是文艺复兴的绘画，都是在探索人怎么把世界里的美，用极致的技巧表现出来。 但到了现代艺术，尤其是工业革命之后，摄影技术出现了，画得像、雕得像这件事被机器轻松做到了。 艺术家突然发现写实的美已经不再是核心竞争力了，于是很多人开始往反传统、反美、反技巧的方向走。 从杜尚的泉一个小便池开始。 艺术的核心从我做了什么变成了我想表达什么。 但问题是，当观念盖过了审美本身，很多人就开始钻空子了。 真正的先锋艺术，哪怕是表现丑，背后也有一套完整的哲学、社会议题支撑。 比如表现战争的残酷、人性的异化，这种丑是有目的的，不是为了丑而丑。 但更多所谓的丑艺术，就是你说的摆烂加亵渎，既没有技巧，也没有观念。 纯粹靠标新立异博眼球，甚至把看不懂当成了艺术的遮羞布。 观众说丑，他们就反过来指责观众不懂艺术，把大众的审美当成了自己的垫脚石。 三、你说的商业炒作，把丑变成稀缺品，才是最扎心的真相。 你提到的收藏市场需要唯一性、稀缺性，甚至洗钱、利益输送。 其实才是很多丑艺术能大行其道的根本原因。 传统的美是有标准的，画得好、雕得美是可以被大众认可的，也很容易被模仿、被复制。 它不具备独一无二的稀缺性。 但丑不一样，尤其是没人敢这么丑的丑，它的门槛不是技巧，而是敢不要脸的勇气。 你很难模仿一个丑得独一无二的东西，它天然就具备了商业炒作最需要的稀缺性。 更讽刺的是，这种商业逻辑甚至反过来绑架了艺术家和审美。 当市场只愿意为看不懂的、独一无二的东西买单，艺术家自然就不会再去打磨那些大众都觉得美的作品了，因为那些东西卖不上价，也炒不起来。 久而久之，整个艺术圈就陷入了一种比谁更怪、比谁更丑的内卷里。 而真正能震撼人心的美，反而成了过时的、不入流的东西。 四、最后回到厦门这几个雕塑，它们到底问题在哪？就拿你拍的这几个来说，问题根本不是它们丑。 而是堂而皇之逼着大众去看。
英文翻译
It is not his fault for being ugly, but it is your fault for displaying him for everyone to see. When you encounter these so-called works of art on the streets of Xiamen, they are nothing but a pile of twisted, hideously ugly sculptures. An indescribable discomfort lingers in your heart. What kind of feeling is this, one that grows more unsettling the longer you look, and more frustrating the more you think about it? Especially when these sculptures are placed in public spaces, becoming part of the urban landscape. This ugliness-induced unease is magnified exponentially, prompting me to vent a few remarks on some particularly sharp and realistic contradictions in contemporary and public art. First, let's talk about the ugliness you mentioned in public spaces. Whose fault is it? Your remark that "it is not his fault for being ugly, but it is your fault for displaying him for everyone to see" precisely pinpoints the core difference between public art and studio art. Studio art, such as paintings and sculptures in galleries, requires you to actively enter my domain. You can choose to look or not; its audience has certain expectations and even some level of artistic literacy. Artists can express themselves freely within it, even if it involves ugliness, pain, or absurdity. Audiences also interpret it with the assumption that it is an artistic expression. But public art is different. It is placed on streets, beaches, and parks, passively intruding into the lives of ordinary people. Elderly people taking a walk, children returning from school, couples in love—none of them came to see art; they just wanted to stroll and enjoy the breeze, only to be forced to confront a strangely shaped object, or something they can't even name. What's more ironic is that many of these sculptures claim to be down-to-earth and close to the public, yet they end up being the most detached from public aesthetics. As you said, human nature is to pursue beauty that is harmonious, orderly, and relaxed. The bottom line of street art should be not to offend ordinary people's aesthetic instincts, rather than turning the artist's self-expression into an aesthetic invasion of public space. Second, is ugly art innovation or a dead end? Your statement that "since they can't create breathtaking beauty, they just make ugliness for you to see" actually hits a real dilemma in contemporary art. The core of traditional art is to reproduce and create beauty. Whether it's ancient Greek sculptures or Renaissance paintings, they all explore how humans can express the beauty in the world with极致 techniques. But in modern art, especially after the Industrial Revolution, with the advent of photography, the ability to paint or sculpt realistically was easily achieved by machines. Artists suddenly realized that realistic beauty was no longer a core competitive advantage, so many began to move toward anti-tradition, anti-beauty, and anti-technique directions. Starting from Duchamp's *Fountain* (a urinal), the core of art shifted from "what I have made" to "what I want to express." But the problem is that when concept overrides aesthetics itself, many people start to exploit loopholes. True avant-garde art, even when expressing ugliness, is backed by a complete philosophical or social issue. For example, depicting the brutality of war or the alienation of humanity—this ugliness has a purpose, not ugliness for ugliness's sake. But more so-called ugly art is just what you described: "slacking off plus blasphemy," lacking both skill and concept. It purely relies on being unconventional to grab attention, even using incomprehensibility as a shield for art. When audiences call it ugly, artists counter-accuse them of not understanding art, using public aesthetics as a stepping stone. Third, your mention of commercial hype turning ugliness into a rarity is the most heart-wrenching truth. You pointed out that the art market needs uniqueness, rarity, and even money laundering or interest transfer. This is actually the fundamental reason why much ugly art thrives. Traditional beauty has standards; well-painted or well-sculpted works can be recognized by the public and are easily imitated or replicated. They lack the rarity of being one-of-a-kind. But ugliness is different, especially ugliness so extreme that no one dares to be that ugly. Its threshold is not skill, but the audacity to be shameless. It's hard to imitate something uniquely ugly, which naturally provides the rarity most needed for commercial hype. What's more ironic is that this commercial logic even turns around to hijack artists and aesthetics. When the market is willing to pay only for incomprehensible, unique works, artists naturally stop refining works that the public finds beautiful, because those things can't fetch high prices or be hyped. Over time, the entire art world falls into a rat race of who can be weirder and uglier. And the truly breathtaking beauty becomes outdated and out of fashion. Fourth, back to these sculptures in Xiamen. What exactly is the problem? Take the ones you photographed—the problem isn't that they are ugly. It's that they blatantly force the public to look at them.
back to top