It’s can be more

The question "What is art" has become the incompetence of contemporary art discourse, and the lack of consensual judgment criteria has shaped countless battlegrounds for discourse systems. Through education and information dissemination, we cultivate our own content producers and audiences, and the prevalence of acquired aestheticism and its standards has thrived. Beyond spontaneous aesthetics, we have mostly been taught how to observe and understand. In the postmodern context, the only possible form of artistic dialogue leads to "there should be more here."

Contemporary art was born in such a soil, and since its inception, it has been engulfed in the torrent of discourse power struggles, placed in a utilitarian position, treated more as material than as an object, with artists also being caught up in it. Within it, all processes themselves, and those possibilities serving as goals, are continually marginalized in the macro context. For example, within the mainstream, one can even trace back further, from the dome painting of the Sistine Chapel to the aestheticism conforming to the late political needs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, from Manet, who supported the opposition, to Kandinsky and Bauhaus echoing industrial production, from the frescoes in Roman churches to the Rococo of Versailles, the transfer of ecclesiastical and royal power, changes in modes of production, and the foresight of futurism. The gods of the past and the emerging ones nurtured their advocates in the artistic wilderness, and each collision and tremor shaped the landscape of contemporary culture.

Throughout this process, the continual contention for discourse power persists, as does the multidimensional confrontation between central discourse systems and other discourse systems, while creative acts passively serve as material or are subsumed into various narratives.

Question: What is art to you? Welcome everyone to participate in the Wu Da Art Dialogue Project. The word "art" itself carries an elitist and authoritative temperament to such an extent that discussing the definition of art itself has become somewhat "immature" in the context of contemporary art. Is the concept of art not mentioned because it is already solid as a rock or because it is too fragile? Here, let us step out of the art circle and welcome a broader range of members of society to participate in this discussion, bringing some shock and fresh air to the self-contained art circle.

We will do our best to reply to each message, and information about these messages will also appear in the "After, After" exhibition held at the Zhijiang Cultural Center in Hangzhou. If possible, please indicate any information you are willing to disclose (occupation, interests, location, age, gender, etc.) to draw a broader picture.

可以有更多

“艺术是什么”这一问题如同成为当代艺术话语的无能，共识性评判标准的缺位塑造了无数话语体系争夺的战场，通过教育与信息传播培养自己的内容产出者与受众，习得性审美及其标准大行其道，在自发审美之外，我们更多是教会了如何去观看如何去理解。在后现代语境之下，唯一可能的艺术对话形式以至于对话形式导向“这里应有更多”。

当代艺术诞生于正是那样一片土壤，其自诞生起便被裹挟入了话语权争夺的洪流之中，放置于工具化的位置之上，其更多的作为材料而非对象对待，艺术家也被裹挟其中。在其中，所有的过程本身，且作为目的的那些可能，在宏观语境下被不断边缘化。例如，在主流之中，甚至可以追溯至更早之前，从西斯廷大教堂的穹顶画到顺应奥匈帝国晚期政治需要的唯美主义，从为反对派支持的马奈到呼应工业生产的康定斯基与包豪斯，从罗马教堂中的湿壁画到凡尔赛宫的洛可可，教权与王权的转移，生产方式的变革，远视主义的未来之光。过去与新兴的诸神于艺术生发的原野之中扶植其自身的代言人，每一次撞击与震颤塑造了当下文化的地貌。

在这一过程之中一以贯之的是话语权的争夺，是中心话语体系和其他话语体系之间多维度的对抗，而创作行为被动的作为材料或投身或被裹挟入各种叙述之中。

问题：对你来说，艺术是什么呢？

欢迎大家参加雾大的艺术对话项目，“艺术”这个词本身带有的精英化与话语权气质已然太过浓郁，以至于谈论艺术的定义本身在当代艺术语境之下反而成为了某种“不成熟”的事情。艺术的概念的不被提及是因其已然坚若磐石或是其太过脆弱？在这里让我们走出艺术圈子，欢迎社会中更广泛的成员参与到这一讨论之中，给圈地自萌的艺术圈带来一些震撼和新鲜空气。

我们会尽力回复大家的每一封信息，且关于这些信息也将出现在于杭州之江文化中心举办的【后，后】展览之中，如果可以的话，请大家备注自己愿意公开的（职业，兴趣方向，所在地，年龄，性别等）信息进而绘制出一片更广阔的图景。