Artworks / Writings
“Exploitation of the Work of Nature” by Sung Ying-sing
Exploitation of the Work of Nature was written by Sung Ying-sing in the 10th Year of Ch'ung Chen, Ming Dynasty (AD 1637). For the first time, it offered a comprehensive and systematic discussion on traditional agricultural practices and craftsmanship in China.
Comprising of 18 chapters, Exploitation of the Work of Nature is divided in three parts. The first part focuses on clothing, food and other daily necessities. The second part is about the production of functional wares and the use of raw materials. The final part deals with munitions, stationery, brewery, jewelry and other consumption goods. This order is value-laden: "its material is classified intentionally, as to their merit and importance, so that the cereals are placed first and the metals and precious stones last." The volume emphasizes practicality more than cultural meanings. For example, the part on ceramics (chapter VII) discusses “the civilian uses" of ceramics, but the works’ aesthetic and spiritual values are scantily mentioned.
However, the volume conveys the author’s world-view as an intellect having profound humanitarian concern. It is metaphysical, with Sung makes it clear at the beginning: "Since the materials that are sheltered by the heavens and contained in the earth are counted in myriads, and the works by which each and every one of these are elaborated and equally numerous, can this task be done by human power alone?" Man’s limitation and nature’s variability are the fundamental issues.
In chapter VII, the author suggests, "In tile making, the clay, with as little as possible contamination with sand, is dug from more than two ch'ih below the surface." Mastery of the material, and ultimately, insight to the material world, are achieved through laborious work. For example, "deposits of clay of good color are usually discovered within a distance of 100 li (one li is about 1/3 of Western mile) from each other." What “good” means varies, but one can well take it as an apt use of resources.
Man and Materials are related, not only because Man uses materials, but also because Man is aware of transformations in the material world. The chapter on ceramics begins with "When water and fire are applied appropriately to clay, it will become hardened." Sung cites an oracle of Yi-Jing to account for the transformation of clay as water meets fire. In such processes, Man has to coordinate various opposing elements. Accuracy depends on hands-on experience.
When introducing the wheel technique, Sung discusses bodily coordination in great details:
There are no definite sizes, for making cups and dishes, etc. The potter holds a piece of clay on the “helmet”, with his two hands, while the wheel rotates, giving the clay the desired shape with his dexterous thumbs. The thumbs are pointed and pressed on to the bottom of the clay, and lifted up gradually, during rotation. Of course, the fingernails must be cut very short. Beginners are allowed to work only with clay that can be spoiled and re-used. The skilled potter can make thousands pieces of the same kind, as if they were out of the same mould …… Once green ware has been formed with the fingers, it should be turned over on the 'helmet', for a second moulding, and then dried slightly in the sun. While some moisture remains in its body, it should receive a finial moulding. When the ware is dry, it becomes very white. It is moistened by a rapid dipping in the water and set on the “helmet” for trimming, which is done by using a sharp knife. In the process of trimming the hand grip must be firm. A slight jerk will leave marks called “sparrow beak” on the ware.
(Exploitation of the Work of Nature" by Sung, Ying-sing (Ming Dynasty, 1637), translated by Li, Chiao-ping, China Academy, Taipei, 1980, pp 204-205)
The text, albeit detailed, still falls short to capture the miraculous, actual experience of the body. Learning a craft is a tactile experience. To be "skilled” is not only to ”make thousands pieces of the same kind, as if they were out of the same mould,” but also to realise the balance between Man and the material world. This balance is not only functional, but also metaphysical.
“The Phenomenology of Perception” by Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, an important European Phenomenologist, is regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. In The Phenomenology of Perception (1945), he delves into the relationship between the body and the material world. Bodily experiences, instead of intellectual cognition, are taken as the key to Man’s worldly existence.
To Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology is about description, not explanation. In the chapter “The Spatiality of One’s own Body and Motility,” he cites the example of the blind man’s stick and discusses how the sense of touch (in the absence of vision) facilitates people’s understanding of the world. He further argues that habitual use of tools enhances our understanding of the world:
The blind man’s stick has ceased to be an object for him, and is no longer perceived for itself; it’s point has become an area of sensitivity, extending the scope and active radius of touch. (p 165)
If I want to get used to a stick, I try it by touching a few things with it, and eventually I have it “well in hand,” I can see what things are “within reach” or “out of reach” of my stick. (p 166)
It is the body which ‘understands’ in the acquisition of habit……But the phenomenon of habit is just what prompts us to revise our notion of “understand” and our notion of the body. To understand is to experience the harmony between what we aim at and what is given, between the intention and the performance – and the body is our anchorage in a world. (p 167)
(The Phenomenology of Perception by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Paris 1945, translated by Colin Smith, Routledge, London and New York, 2002)
The process of mastering tools and subsequently understanding the world is regarded by Merleau-Ponty as “the synthesis of one’s own body.” (p 171-177) It is different from objective knowledge, and is not a random use of the body. It is intentional.
In The Phenomenology of Perception, the body (especially the cognitive function of the body) is the principal subject. “We are in the world through our body……we perceive the world with our body.” (p 239) To conceive with the body is to return to a most primitive, most direct relation with the world. Understanding the world is not an intellectual exercise. The world is epistemological, conceived through ”the synthesis of one’s own body.”
In the case of the blind man’s stick, the epistemological world is within the reach of the stick. When the use of the stick becomes habitual, the stick becomes an extension of the body. This extension also extends our existence in the world. Merleau-Ponty believes that as this synthesis of the body reconnects the body to the world, it leads to self-discovery.
The blind man’s stick case also reminds one of the story about blind men sensing an elephant (In Chinese, the character of “elephant” is the same as that of “image”). Our views of things are inevitably limited by our perspectives. By reconnecting the body to the world, we gain new options.
The mercurial world & artistic realisation
Sung and Merleau-Ponty were 300 years apart and were from totally different cultural contexts. However, their concern is the same. Sung’s approach to craftsmanship and Merleau-Ponty’s idea of the body are comparable. Both approach the mercurial world through bodily experiences. According to them, the world, both ontologically and epistemologically, is mercurial.
The representation of the mercurial world through bodily experiences is not just a technical and philosophical topic, but also an artistic project. Art-making is always tied in to dialectics and techniques. Evolving forms and styles reflect physical and cultural changes over time.
In the early 20th century, Dadaism subverted traditional art throughout Europe and America. The meaning of art was reduced to zero. By adopting a more open stance towards media and technique, the Dadaists found a new way out. Vis-à-vis traditional forms (such as painting and sculpture), the Dadaists’ ready-mades, collages and performances deduced art to the audience’s immediate c ognitive reaction. For the first time, the techniques involved in these media became a non-issue for art-making.
Cognitive reaction is omnipresent in everyday life. There is no need to set any boundary for art. After all, there is no clear distinction between art and non-art. Duchamp’s Fountain made this clear.
Dada is almost a century-old. The world’s transmutation has never stop for a moment. Man’s interaction with the world accelerated drastically with the hyper speed of advanced technology and econ-political affairs. To understand this mercurial world, cope with pragmatic contestations and look for one’s position in this world are all becoming increasingly difficult. The two world wars in the last century are undoubtedly painful testimonies of the world’s variability. To a large extent, Dada and other later subversive movements reflect this imbalance.
Stepping into the 21st century, an excess of information floods the networked world. Set between the virtual and reality, epistemology becomes innocuous. This is perhaps out of Merleau-Ponty’s expectation. To boost consumption, Capital has produced a plethora of sensational stimulations. People react quickly, and soon turn indifferent. Connecting the body to the world eventually becomes impossible. This impossibility is not at all caused by a lack of tools, nor an under-use of tools. Rather, it is caused by an overuse of tools. Appropriating Merleau-Ponty’s example of the blind man’s stick, the device is almost like an ever growing, magic stick. The body is used in a distorted way, getting all the more alienated from the world. “The synthesis of one’s own body” becomes impossible.
When things like hybridity have all become “possibilities”, subversive gestures like those of the Dadaists all fall into cliché. The art institution is ever expanding under the drive of consumerism. One can hardly stay away from the system. Individuals have little influence on the environment. Art, however, is an individual pursuit. Amidst the cacophony of contemporary art, such a pursuit requires extreme concentration and self-consciousness.
Revisiting “Craftsmanship" and "Bodily Synthesis"
Ultimately, meaning rests in the most primitive and direct expression. “Returning to oneself” depends on the quintessentially material process. This brings new insight to the reading of Sung and Merleau-Ponty.
Sung’s accounts of “craftsmanship” are all based on tactile, bodily experiences. Merleau-Ponty advocates “bodily synthesis” through cognitive experiences, hoping to reconnect to the world in a more primitive way. The quotation marks around “craftsmanship” and “bodily synthesis” emphasize their importance in art-making. Once again, we consider Merleau-Ponty’s metaphor of the blind man’s stick:
The blind man’s stick has ceased to be an object for him, and is no longer perceived for itself; its point has become an area of sensitivity, extending the scope and active radius of touch.
If we replace “the blind man’s stick” with “craftsmanship”, and recontextualises the statement with contemporary art, we come up with the following:
Craftsmanship has ceased to be a means for artistic production, and is no longer perceived for itself; its practice has become an area of sensitivity, extending the scope and active radius of perception.
Applying this to art, craftsmanship is the artist’s tool to define his sphere of perception. When such a use forms a habit, craftsmanship becomes an extension of the artist’s body. This reconnects the artist to the mercurial world.
宋應星《天工開物》
明崇禎十年(公元一六三七年)宋應星著《天工開物》，首次將中國傳統農業及手工業的生產技術，作了相當全面及系統化的論述。
《天工開物》全書十八卷，分上、中、下三部。上部集中於各種與衣食民生直接相關的項目；中部包括各式生活用器的製作與各類原材料的加工；下部涉及兵工機械乃至文房釀酒、金銀珠玉等消費品，從卷次序列上貫徹了作者「貴五穀而賤金玉」的觀點。這種觀點亦導致書中對各項手工作業的論述，大都偏向技術與應用層面而省略其人文意義。即以陶瓷製作為例(卷七陶埏)，宋應星所强調的，仍是「民用亦繁」的實用性，而並不著意其工藝美感與器用功能以外的精神價值。
然而，細閱這部以知識份子胸襟視野寫成的科技專著，字裏行間不難發現作者對天地萬物的生成流轉；及由之而衍生的人事變化，仍具深切關懷。宋應星在書中序言開卷明義，「天覆地載，物數號萬，而事亦因之曲成而不遺，豈人力也哉」。似乎，以人力之有限，究物性之無常，才是在更深層面串連書中章節的旨要所在。
《天工開物》陶埏卷中提到，「凡埏泥造瓦，掘地二尺餘，擇取無沙黏土而為之」，人對材質物性的掌握，由表至裏 (「掘地二尺餘」)；由粗至細(「擇取無沙黏土」)，皆透過不斷勞動體驗而得以印證，而對物性的充份掌握，最終又達至一種對物質世界的理解和信念。就埏泥造瓦而言，即「百里之內必產合用土色，供人居室之用」。當然，這「合用」仍是因時因地而異，並無劃一標準。「合用」，更宜理解為就地取材，因材成器。
人與物質的關係，不單在於物質之供人取用，更在於人能體察及順應物質的轉化。陶埏卷首第一句「水火既濟而土合」，宋應星就引用《易 · 既濟》水在火上之卦象，說明經水火的交互作用使黏土凝固成器的轉化過程。人在這個過程中，往往扮演著調協各種對立元素的角色，箇中準繩，仍在於最直接的身體經驗。
宋應星在介紹以陶車拉坯成器的技術操作時，對身體、工具與物料之間的調協，作了相當細緻的描述：
「凡造杯、盤，無有定形模式，以兩手捧泥盔帽之上，旋盤使轉。拇指剪去甲，按定泥底，就大指薄旋而上，即成一杯碗之形。初學者任從作廢，破坯取泥再造。功多業熟，即千萬如出一范……凡手指旋成坯後，覆轉用盔帽一印，微晒留滋潤，又一印，晒成極白干。入水一汶，漉上盔帽，過利刀二次。過刀時手脈微振，燒出即成雀口」。(p 222)
《天工開物》明 宋應星 著， 中國社會出版社北京 2004年
文字的描述儘管細緻，但與更為微妙的切身體驗相比，自然遠有不逮。事實上，手藝作為一種身體、工具與物料的交互作用，其傳授與學習，仍得透過身體力行的實踐。「功多業熟」，除了滿足「千萬如出一范」的量產需求外，亦體現人與物質世界的平衡，這種平衡，不單是技藝上的要求，更是一種以身體觀照世界的方式。
梅洛．龐蒂《知覺現象學》
梅洛．龐蒂(Maurice Merleau-Ponty)被譽為二十世紀法國最具影響力的哲學家之一，是歐洲現象學運動的重要人物，在一九四五年出版的《知覺現象學》一書中，他以身體的知覺經驗為切入點，試圖描述身體與其身處世界的關係；也可以說，是繞過思維與已有知識系統，透過直接描述身體經驗以重構人與世界的關係。
梅洛．龐蒂特別強調現象學關注的重點在描述而不在解釋。於《身體本身的空間性和運動機能》一章裏，他以盲人運用手杖為例，描述了(在視覺缺席的情况下)身體觸覺在理解世界的過程中所起的作用；並進而指出，當身體運用工具而成為習慣時，這種身體習慣亦同時擴大了我們對世界的理解。
「盲人的手杖對盲人來說不再是一件物體，手杖不再作為手杖本身而被感知，手杖的尖端已轉變成有感覺能力的區域，增加了觸覺活動的廣度和範圍」(p 190)
「如果我想習慣於一根手杖，我就嘗試用它來接觸物體，在一段時間以後，我“掌握”了這根手杖，我知道那些物體處在我的手杖“範圍內”，那些物體處在它的“範圍外”」(p 190)
「在習慣的獲得中，是身體在“理解”……習慣的現象要求我們修改我們的理解概念和我們的身體概念。理解，就是體驗到我們指向的東西和呈現出來的東西(即意向和實現)之間的一致；身體，則是我們在世界中的定位」(p191)
《知覺現象學》 梅洛．龐蒂 著，姜志輝 譯，商務印書館北京 2001年
由掌握工具到成為習慣再到理解世界，梅洛．龐蒂視之為一種「身體本身的綜合」(p 196-203)，它既不等同於客觀具普遍性的知識，亦不是身體無意識的慣性，這個過程，只有在身體的知覺作用下才能出現。
在《知覺現象學》中，身體(特別是身體的知覺作用)固然是主要探討的範圍，但梅洛．龐蒂同時指出，「我們通過我們的身體在世界上存在……我們用我們的身體感知世界」(p 265)。對身體知覺經驗的探討，最終是為了重返一種人與世界最本原、最直接的關係。從這個觀點來看，所謂理解世界，並不是去理解一個可以客觀地經由知識表述的世界；世界，只能是一個透過「身體本身的綜合」而「被感知的世界」。
在盲人運用手杖的例子中，「被感知的世界」就是手杖所能觸及的範圍，而當手杖的運用成為習慣時，手杖就成了身體的一個附件，是身體綜合的一種延伸，這種延伸，亦同時擴大了我們在世界上的存在。梅洛．龐蒂相信，我們以這種身體綜合的方式重新令身體和世界建立聯繫時，我們將重新發現自己。
盲人運用手杖的例子，又使人聯想到「瞎子摸象」的故事(中文的「象」字尤其語帶雙關，既可指「象」這種動物，又可理解為現象的「象」)，我們無可避免地因各自的感知限制而得出對事物各不相同的理解，「重新令身體和世界建立聯繫」，亦意味著以開放的態度去感悟一個更廣闊和更具動態的世界。
世界多變與藝術實踐
宋應星與梅洛．龐蒂在世時間相距近三百年，不單身處的地域與文化傳統截然不同；所關心的問題亦大異其趣，然而，宋應星對手藝的看法與梅洛．龐蒂對身體綜合的觀點，卻頗有契合之處。當中，離不開以切切實實的身體經驗去呈示這個多變的世界——這個無論從物質層面還是感知層面來說都是多變的世界。
以身體經驗呈示世界之多變，除了作為技術操作與哲學思辯的課題外，很多時亦能透過藝術實踐而得以彰顯。事實上，藝術實踐從來都是一個思辯與技術不斷互動調協的過程，這過程最終體現為名種各樣的藝術形式與風格；並反映一時一地物質條件與人文境况的轉變。
在二十世紀之初，達達主義Dadaism在歐美地區以戲謔的方式對傳統藝術形式進行顛覆，藝術的意義被推到一個「零點」，並在那裏尋獲再出發的可能性。當中，媒介與技術的解放是主要特徵。達達主義藝術家透過現成物的挪用拼湊與各種行為演示，將傳統藝術媒介(如繪畫、雕塑)還原為藝術家與觀眾之間最直接的知覺反應——知覺反應就是作品本身而無需托付於傳統繪畫、雕塑等表現媒介，這些媒介所涉及的技術操作亦前所未有地被拚棄於藝術實踐以外。
再者，知覺反應既存在於現實生活的每個環節，藝術實踐就無必要在現世之中劃定範圍；藝術與非藝術之間，也再無明確的界限。在達達主義這類作品之中，杜象的男厠尿盤大概是最為人熟知的例子。
達達主義出現至今已近一個世紀，現實世界的嬗變固然未有一刻停頓，人與世界的互動，又在科技高度發展與政治經濟活動日益頻繁的情况下；以更驚人的速度、在更猛力的碰觸中持續進行。人要理解這個多變的世界，要調協現世的種種衝突，再而尋索自身的定位，就顯得困難重重。上一個世紀發生的兩次世界大戰，無疑是「世界多變」最沉痛的呈示，達達主義及由之引發各式各樣具顛覆性的藝術風格，很大程度反映了這種失衡狀態。
踏入二十一世紀，不斷膨脹的資訊在網絡世界以極速流播，「被感知的世界」遊離於虛擬與真實之間而變得難以捉摸，這大概亦在梅洛．龐蒂想像以外。再者，資本主義社會大量製造官能刺激以鼓吹消費，人的官能反應來得快去得更快，要切切實實地以知覺經驗建立人與世界的聯繫，亦漸漸變得遙不可及。不可及，非由於工具匱乏，亦非由於工具的運用未能成為習慣；不可及，很可能在於工具的過度擴展。借用梅洛．龐蒂盲人運用手杖的比喻，盲人手持的大概是一枝不斷延伸的魔幻手杖，它使身體被動地以一種扭曲的方式運用工具；它使身體與其接觸的世界距離越來越遠；最終，它使「身體本身的綜合」難以形成。
回頭再看當代藝術的發展，於此形式駁雜、意義紛陳、一切皆成為「可能」之際，達達式的顛覆戲謔早已變得軟弱無力甚至成為陳腔濫調；同時，消費社會的商品效應，使藝術建制越趨龐大，各方利益錯綜糾結，要置身事外又談何容易。外在環境非個人能力所能左右，但藝術實踐的最終意義就只能返求諸己，在當代藝術眾聲喧嘩之中，這需要極大的專注和自覺。
重返「手藝」與「身體綜合」
最終的意義，往往以最原始直接的方式呈現，「返求諸己」，可能就在於如何掌握藝術實踐中最基本的物質過程，以這樣的觀點在當代藝術的語境中重讀宋應星與梅洛．龐蒂，也許另有啟發。
宋應星對各類手工作業的描述，著重從業者身體力行的實踐經驗，以達至對「手藝」的掌握；梅洛．龐蒂強調人以知覺經驗成全「身體綜合」，是為了重返與世界最本原的關係。將「手藝」與「身體綜合」加上引號，旨在將這兩個重點引用到當代藝術的實踐中，引用的方式，可再由梅洛．龐蒂的手杖比喻開始。
「盲人的手杖對盲人來說不再是一件物體，手杖不再作為手杖本身而被感知，手杖的尖端已轉變成有感覺能力的區域，增加了觸覺活動的廣度和範圍」
在這段描述中，若以「手藝」代「手杖」，並將之置於當代藝術的情境中去理解，描述或可改寫如下：
「藝術家的手藝對藝術家來說不再是一種生產作品的手段，手藝不再作為手藝本身而被感知，手藝的實踐已轉變成有感知能力的身體經驗，增加了知覺活動的廣度和範圍」
從這個角度去審視手藝，則手藝就是藝術家界定其知覺範圍的工具，而當這工具的運用成為習慣時，手藝也就成為藝術家身體綜合的一種延伸，這將重新令藝術家和多變的世界建立聯繫。