模糊而清晰的记忆--读那顺巴图的画 模糊而清晰的记忆 ——读那顺巴图的画 彭锋教授 Prof. Pengfeng 在北京一家画廊见到那顺的画，立刻为画面的神秘气息所吸引。那顺的画有真实的场景，但往往让人感觉如在梦境一般。 从画廊工作人员那里得知，那顺是蒙族，出生于内蒙，现在生活在法兰克福。从这些简单的信息中，自然无法找到那顺作品的神秘气息的根源。那顺作品的神秘气息，总是在脑海萦绕。我期待有一天能够与那顺当面交谈，为解开他的作品的神秘性找到一些线索。 三年前我访问卡塞尔艺术学院，途径法兰克福。原本这是与那顺见面的好机会。但是，由于他不常看微信，等他知道我在德国时，我已经准备回国了。我们只好约定在法兰克福机场见面，预计可以聊一个小时左右。 然而，以精准著称的德国人的火车居然晚点好几个小时。我没能赶上航班，只好在法兰克福滞留一天。那顺来法兰克福火车站接我，在旅馆办完入住后，就去他的画室。意料之外的原因，促成了意想之中的访问。 那顺正在赶画，准备新的个展。他的新画与我在北京看见的作品已经有了很大的不同，但是神秘气息依然笼罩着画面。与我在北京看见的作品相比，现在的作品变得更具象了。国内的画家仍然将由具象向抽象的发展视为进步，那顺为什么要逆流而上，由抽象退回到具象呢？ 那顺给我讲了他的学画经历。他89年毕业于内蒙古师范大学艺术学院，主要学习写实绘画。后来进入德国布伦瑞克艺术大学，师从诺伯特·塔丢斯教授与约翰·阿姆雷德教授，2005年获硕士学位，随后又从约翰·阿姆雷德教授处获得大师生学位，并且于2006年获得布伦瑞克文化遗产基金会大师生奖学金。在德国学习期间，那顺也研究并创作过抽象画。但是，当他最终选择以画家作为职业的时候，画面又逐渐回到了具象。当然，经过抽象和涂鸦洗礼之后，他的具象绘画与此前在国内学习的写实绘画已经非常不同。那顺现在所从事的新具象绘画，完全不受现实对象的束缚。在某种意义上，它们已经相当抽象了。那顺作画的程序，也与他在国内学习的写实绘画完全不同。他从不起稿，信马由缰，让形象从画面上浮现出来，而不是事先设计好画面。之所以选择这种作画方式，而不去要求自己画出标准的抽象绘画，这完全是由他的绘画对象决定的。 在那顺的新具象绘画中他将那些从他生活过的蒙古草原，北京和欧洲的记忆里剥离出来的图像以及记忆碎片作为载体，重新整合，忠实地呈现出艺术家对当下的感知。那顺绘画的神秘性，或许就来源于画面里那些挣脱原有逻辑束缚的图像和记忆碎片。 但是，我的直觉告诉我，那顺画面神秘气息的来源似乎还不止这些。同样采用拼贴的绘画，多半没有这种神秘气息。而且，尽管画面是由无厘头的形象组合而成，但是笼罩它们的气氛是一致的。那顺绘画的神秘感，与其说来自无厘头的画面，不如说来自他的生命经验，一种对于现代社会来说显得神秘的经验。那顺生活在蒙古大草原，那里的人们有信仰萨满教的传统，在他们眼里动植物都是有灵性的。这倒不是说，那顺绘画中的事物是有灵性的；那顺是对画面整体气氛的控制来表达灵气的，在这种意义上，我们可以说那顺创造了一个灵的空间。 那顺的绘画由抽象走向具象，不是风格的选择问题。随着年龄的增长，早年的记忆不是模糊，而是清晰；尽管是以碎片的形式呈现，但是每个碎片都是清晰的。对于那顺作品的解读，一种心理学的角度有可能比社会学或者美学的角度更加合适。 2017年9月14日于北京大学艺术学院
Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Mediu
Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Mediu [[Translated from the German by Christopher Jenkin-Jones]] Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Medium On Nashun Nashunbatu’s Practice of Painting Felix Ruhöfer Nashun Nashunbatu’s painting contains figurative as well as abstract elements and seems at first sight to be based on a certain static inner quality. Compositionally, his pictures are clearly defined; chromatic details relate to a unified referential field; and perspectival scaling of motifs in the picture orients itself on a highly stringent concept of design. However, closer attention to his art and its rigorous structural foundations brings to light a host of formal and thematic fields of tension that enable us to grasp his artistic practice as a lucid, formal reflection on different approaches to painting as well as a quietly if beguilingly articulated introspective view of certain human experiences. It seems reasonable, therefore, in order to trace the complex fields of reference of his art, to examine its formal and thematic foundations in two stages. Reflections on the Potential of Contemporary Painting Concern that painting—in the wake of the modernist constructs of the 1960s and ’70s—is in danger of no longer self-critically examining its own potential and conditions in the context of current visual-pictorial issues can be confidently laid aside in the case of Nashunbatu’s work. Moreover, in recent years his works fundamentally question the consistency of the view that reflexive painting is a product of trends in painting that reject figuration precisely, as it were, in order to be reflexive. Painting’s pictorial qualities, material painterly presence, abstraction, figuration, spatial depth, gesture, color, painting as limit between rational and intentional act, its regime of visibility, cultural and historical determinants of pictorial invention—all these issues are basic parameters of his painting, without any one of them assuming a position of dominance. His works interweave these devices in an innovative visual offering free of dogmatism that thereby becomes, given the historically critical complexity of the subject, highly intelligent painting. His work thematizes a whole group of fundamental issues concerning the status of painting in the contemporary visual field of reference. Exploring what painting is in a position to achieve in critically and post-ideologically challenging the pictorial in the fields of figuration and of painting’s evocative potential becomes discussable in terms of Nashunbatu’s art. The painterly production of these mostly large-format works proceeds with rigorous formality. Each work can be read as elaborating and illustrating a further subtle issue within painting itself. Over and over, with varying emphasis, horizontality, two-dimensionality, and painting’s evocative aspects, as well as the integration of objective moments, are articulated.
Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Mediu
In a major group of works up to around 2013, what is particularly noticeable is the massive horizontal stratification of the picture space, the superficial clarity of which is lost in the complexities of its various areas’ functions and its formally and thematically distinct painting strategies. The predominantly horizontal handling of line stresses the two-dimensionality of the image; however, this yields to minutely detailed elaborations of the inner spaces of the horizontal sections to suggest depth of field, which, in turn, contrary to one’s first impression of a two-dimensional picture space, can now be read partly as a scrupulously articulated deep space. While realistically depicted areas, for instance sheets of water or ice that run through the picture, serve to emphatically draw the viewer into the horizontality of the images, points of visual tension are set up by tiny human figures that break out of this ruling horizontality and planarity as foreign bodies. The narrative elements that seem to inhere in these enigmatically introduced figures—mostly men in anticipatory attitudes or performing mysterious activities—are found nowhere else in the pictures and evolve no durable narration. In the upper parts of pictures, contrary to the circumjacent horizontality, overwhelmingly dominant colors evoke apocalyptic moods. Alternatively, these regions can also be read—and here the paintings’ many-sidedness and evocative potential emerges—as steppes, deserts, or cloudbanks reaching to the horizon. If, in the lower regions, the painting is repeatedly realistic, this impression is obscured by unclearly structured areas of color in the upper regions of images. Variously saturated and mixed paint smears, pigments, and solvent concentrations generate indefinite areas of color that can be viewed as landscapes or simply as pure color fields. Moreover, these areas are deliberately used in the picture to open up a speculative ambivalence in the visual process between factual areas of paint and landscape depiction. These areas and blurred regions of images that are initially perceived as gestural color painting, only for them to become legible as landscapes whose atmosphere and colors recall Caspar David Friedrich or Altdorfer, are seen to consciously reference a spectrum of painterly traditions. Nashunbatu spontaneously splashes or lets paint flow in such areas so that bare canvas shows through, and juxtaposes a wide range of techniques citing traditions of painting that go back over the centuries. This encounter with different trends and ideologies in painting would seem to be formally constitutive of his artistic practice in recent years.
Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Mediu
His works have no unified identity as landscapes; yet landscape is one of their dominant thematic elements. They cannot be understood as color painting revolving around a painter-subject’s non-intentional gesture. Nor can they be read as narratives that found a story. All these elements are indeed visual contents of the pictures, yet they are not the reflexive core of his painting. We ought not to view his pictures as a deconstructive process of reflection on painting’s potential in regard to the historical traditions of modernism and postmodernism, but rather as reflecting on painting’s potential in relation to its cultural roots in our visual culture and on the aesthetic experience elicited by the viewing of pictures. This is where the reflexivity of his approach lies. If we bring together the abstract color fields and the figurative-realistic parts of the pictures, then the works’ central reflexive moment is plain: the intentional veiling of the limit between figurative-illusionistic painting and abstract color-field painting that addresses the facticity of the flat picture space and the paint layer while at the same time opening itself to a seemingly essentialist experience of art. The debate around painting grasped as reflexive or modern-essential, which Johannes Meinhardt considers to be constitutive of self-analytical, critical postmodern painting, ought perhaps to be broadened by an additional aspect: the integration of figuration in reflexively based painting that does not suppress its self-analytical potential. The opposition of modern and “postmodern” takes up positions around the poles of aesthetic ideality (translated as illusion) and reality, visual transcendence and objectuality. Yet the “painting after the end of painting” since the end of the 1960s shows that a history-less, uncritical, enlightenment-free “postmodernism” that retracts aesthetic difference is not the necessary fate of modernism, that this is simply a countermovement, a demarcation strategy. Nashunbatu’s painting lucidly illustrates precisely this. His use of the figurative and of the evocative effects of the paint layer is not intended to construct or mark out an essentialist experience of world that cannot avoid overlaps with a supposedly transcendental function of aesthetic experience; rather, he employs these two parameters as a juxtaposition and confrontation, revealing the two aspects as fundamental, traditional constants of painting. However, we should not look on this confrontation as the subject matter of his painting, rather it points beyond to contemporary painting’s potential as bearer of what distinguishes aesthetic perception from other modes of experience. As Martin Seel has remarked, Kant had already directed an innovative regard at the experiential process that art can activate in the beholder in his Critique of Judgment at the end of the eighteenth century.
Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Mediu
The exemplary quarrel with aesthetic appearance that Meinhardt, and formalist critics since the late 1950s, highlights here, whereby aesthetic appearance was to be suppressed in favor of aesthetic existence—a hard-headed orientation to phenomenologically graspable contents—is questioned by Seel’s reflections on an “aesthetic of appearing,” without thereby undermining the existing results of twentieth-century art history and its deductive processes. The aesthetic addresses, rather, a sphere that is “shut to [the] theoretical and practical appropriation of world,” but which does not point beyond such contexts or postulate any superiority. Perhaps we can refer to this potential of art to be experienceable between, through, and beyond theoretical and practical discourse as the discourse-open potential of an art that is self-reflexively aware of its traditions, ideologies, and paradoxicality. In this field of relations, Nashunbatu’s painting can be grasped as intelligent playing with traditional parameters and expectations of painting as a medium. When viewing his works, the question that ultimately keeps cropping up is how to deal with our inability to assign them to a single genre. His use of widely divergent strategies of painting, without negating the painterly and its seductive potential, is a prominent feature of his art. Without denying the reflexive foundations of painting, his art gives itself to the potential of painting, only to simultaneously retract its own self-loss in the imaginary illusion that it appears to posit. His works are packed with too many other aspects of painting for them to pass without reservation or further thought as “pure painting,” painting beyond the reflexive turn of the mid-twentieth century. The paradoxical, unclear definition of what this painting ultimately defines, its deliberate avoidance and deconstruction of traditions of painting, its spontaneous use of the gestural, the evocative power of color, of figuration and the enigmatic make up the innovative quality of his work. Nashunbatu’s art repeatedly discloses what Seel summarizes as the potential of aesthetic experience: The aesthetic object is an object experienced in its aesthetic indeterminability; the aesthetic situation is a situation open to the indeterminability of its own and every world. Just as the awareness of fact can, in many contexts, be crippling for a far-reaching cognitive and practical indeterminacy and indeterminability of the world—so too it can be liberating. It is effectively liberating when it occurs as an awareness of unplumbed, indefinite, open possibilities that nevertheless exist here and now.
Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Mediu
Alongside the aesthetic experience itself as a subject of his works, Nashunbatu’s painting in recent years is open to another painterly tradition: the thematization of the sublime. Thanks to their earthy green-brown-gray palette, the massive color fields are associatively read as landscapes that play themselves off, as overwhelming forces, against the tiny, isolated, forsaken-seeming figures in the pictures. The very subject of landscape, an obvious constant of Nashunbatu’s pictures in recent years, quickly establishes an affinity with the sublime, both in Kant’s sense (das Erhabene) and in that of the American tradition that is closer to many contemporary art-historical concerns than the German idealistic definition of the concept. Kant shows how the sublime is transitional from object contemplation to beholder self-reflection, because the beholder and his experience of the sublime, which for Kant takes place primarily in the contemplation of nature, becomes the focus of experience. In addition to other forms of experience, of the beautiful, for instance, which Kant set apart from the sublime, the experience of the sublime contains no sensory interest directed at an exterior, but touches only ideas of reason; it introduces, in other words, an internalized process of reflection that must be understood as active. This internalization, and the debate on the properties of aesthetic experience again topical today, can be seen operating in Nashunbatu’s painting. Precisely this recursion to the potential of reflexivity in the necessary break with transcendent models of picture-function in the course of late modernism and postmodernism can be traced in Nashunbatu’s painting, without adopting the unilateral dismissal of the figurative content of pictures or bracketing out traditional painting’s hitherto evocative-associative features. Here again, this aspect, to which I already referred in connection with aesthetic experience, is transitional, a threshold from contemplation to reflection or self-reflection. The definition of das Erhabene as the sublime in the tradition of Emerson, which has been closer to artistic concerns ever since the nineteenth-century, opposes das Erhabene, which for Kant can very well be an instrument of idealist, rational enlightenment, with—in nineteenth-century Anglo-American theory—an increasingly irrational, transcendental concept that held its sway in art history pretty much uncontested through the twentieth century, and particularly in the period of modernism. Emerson’s definition of the sublime as ultimately transcendental can be seen as a stable ideological factor in art’s experiential function through to color-field painting and American expressionism of the 1940s and ’50s. Not least in consequence of this, this approach to the sublime became the critical template of North American art and art theory as of the late 1950s. This is the hermeneutic perspective we must see behind Meinhardt’s hypothesis of the reflexive turn of painting that strives to distinguish itself radically from mediated transcendence. Yve-Alain Bois’s influential hypotheses on reflexive trends at the threshold from modernism to postmodernism—dissociating themselves from the mediation of transcendental experience and illusionistic depictions of the world precisely in the medium of painting—can also be viewed against this backdrop.
Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Mediu
For both Meinhardt and Bois, the inception of painting’s reflexive, theoretically enriched self-involvement lies at the threshold of modernism to postmodernism. Considering Nashunbatu’s works, however, his integrative approach to Asian traditions of painting—which for centuries have assigned a central role to aesthetic experience and seen painting as the active, associative elaboration of pictorial contents—clearly, and critically, sidesteps the Western binary of transcendental-illusionism and deconstructive-reflexive-painterly tendencies. A certain affinity, therefore, to Kant’s analytical concept of the sublime is discernible in his art, because in his works, too, his strategies of viewer-image-involvement by means of color fields not easily grasped or spatially defined, the relation of figure to nature (surround), and evocative elements, lead to analytical engagement with the medium of painting. Aesthetic difference appears to fan out across an alternative reading here that does not confine itself to factually interrogating painting’s material content. Aesthetic difference extends to the process of aesthetic experience, which openly displays its remove from other forms of discursive experience and world-appropriative procedures. Nashun Nashunbatu’s art expertly and openly integrates the lacunas and frictions of this theoretical debate into his painting’s spectrum of action, absorbing multiple directions without finally being a painting whose goal is mastery and oneness, transcendence and illusion. Conversely, thanks to their figurative content, his works cannot be seen as categorically stating the impossibility of the figurative within self-reflexive painting (Meinhardt). His images are rationally composed tableaux of what painting has engaged with in various cultures over at least the past two centuries. Figuration and abstraction in his works must be understood as references to the potential of painting. His works implicitly challenge viewers to resist familiar habits of seeing and classification and, in doing so, to lucidly bring into play the potential that art has to offer vis-à-vis the perpetual, ubiquitous image-worlds of our age. Contrary to what images—painting and art in general—are today in a wide range of contexts, Nashunbatu’s work, in a highly independent idiom, formulates the discourse-open potential lying concealed, beyond all misplaced appeals to transcendence and formalist theories, in the process of aesthetic experience. In works from around 2013, a thematic accentuation of the enigmatic pictorial contents of Nashunbatu’s painting becomes evident. Now, alongside his horizontally stacked landscape backdrops, structured spaces, expansive areas of untreated canvas, format-filling figures, and isolated figures executed in the two-dimensional picture space assume a more important role. The deep, perspectivally stacked landscape spaces, in more recent works, are radically foreshortened and reduced in favor of isolated figures and the interactive fields of the visual subject matter. Backgrounds forgo their expressive power in order to not overwhelm figural groups and their foreground interactions. In some of his most recent works, areas of tension arise through the juxtaposition of active and passive, dynamic and static image elements.
Interrogating the Subject and Reflecting the Mediu
Enigmatic Visual Worlds In order the better to grasp the surreal, dreamlike visual contents of Nashun Nashunbatu’s painting it is worth looking at his figure-surround combinations and the (mostly restrained) interactions of his figural groups. The works increasingly reference the dichotomies of nature and culture/nurture. Technoid-seeming composites of human figures and (mostly) animals form compositional unities, a feature of which is a sensed distance between their positions either as subjects or objects. As hybrid beings, these groups of figures seem to destabilize initial distinctions between the categories of subject and object. Hence, the interrogation of subject and object formations emerges as a further major topic in Nashunbatu’s art, bringing him into the vicinity of Bruno Latour’s theories and analyses—based on Michel Serres’s concept of quasi-objects—of the fusion of nature and culture, subject and object so widespread and powerful today. The treatment accorded the groups of figures in his painting and their alienation are mediated by extremely reduced interactions among the protagonists. The human figure appears as an apocalyptically disturbed object in the image, its subject status scarcely discernible alongside the animals and objects in the picture space. The alliances in Nashunbatu’s painting between classificatory models traditionally divided into subject and object worlds emerge as relations in Latour’s sense—mutually influencing, mutually conditioning nodal points that resist clear-cut subject-classification in the modern sense. While avoiding the error of reading his art as an illustration of social science theories, this view of the unstable subject-object status gives access to an artistic praxis oriented on contemporary issues without negating the aesthetic experience of its cryptic pictorial worlds. Hence, this renegotiation of the relational systems of world and subject, which the philosophy of anti-humanism sees as the central challenge of the new century, has its counterpart at an associative level without merely functioning as a didactic illustration. Considered here as a relation, the actor-environment relationship emerges as one of the key themes of these mysterious pictorial contents that defy any unequivocal reading. The enigmatic contents of the pictures open an aesthetic resonance chamber that kindles feelings of estrangement and isolation. His works clearly develop no narrative, but rather stage, or enact, estrangement between the subject and its circumjacent world. The sense of strangeness that the works convey is an established stylistic device in art, for instance in Romanticism, which is frequently mentioned in connection with Nashunbatu’s art. However, while the strangeness of Romanticism involves longing—for something essential that has been forgotten or lost—and has positive connotations, the strangeness that Nashunbatu’s paintings postulate conveys no idealistic questing for oneness, for a return to man’s wholeness. Amid overwhelming landscape-and-structural spaces and the interactional minutiae of animals and lifeless objects, man remains silent. It is a strangeness directed at no locus of longing but which becomes visible as an antagonistic subject-object relation that appears to illustrate the subject’s position within a world of quasi-objects. Formal analytic and thematic consideration of Nashunbatu’s work shows that the works articulate their quality at the two levels that are relevant to the medium of painting. A reflexive approach to the possibilities of painting after the end of painting, as described by Johannes Meinhardt, and an experience of strangeness associatively legible at the thematic level, which can be read as a critical commentary on the current state of our relation to subject/self and world, come together. The twin poles of the horizon of meaning in Nashun Nashunbatu’s art illustrates the potential of a contemporary approach to painting that interrelates a wide spectrum of relational fields and gives pictorial expression to virulent experiences of our contemporary condition as individuals.
Text Meg Maggio
Text Meg Maggio Nashunbatu’s paintings [...] In alluding to - without aiming to depict - reality, Nashunbatu’s paintings invite the viewer to embark on a ‘process of aesthetic experience’, that transcends formal image production of figures, landscapes, and color wash on canvas. Instead, he opens image production to new possibilities that record the ‘uneasy relation’ between Western and Asian trends and visual art discourse. And most importantly, he asserts the continued status of painting – and figuration - as critical elements of the theoretical discourse, deserving of continued critical analysis, as he reaches for answers beyond facile rejections of traditional image production. The potential of painting is what we see in the latest works of Nashunbatu. Meg Maggio 2012.09 Beijing 那顺巴图的油画 […] 暗示，而非意在描述现实，那顺巴图的绘画在观众心中引发了“美学体验过程”，这超越了画布上的人物，风景以及颜料的正式具象创作。与之相反的，他开创了具象创作的新可能，记录了西方和亚洲趋势和视觉艺术探索的“紧张关系”。更重要的是，他强调了绘画以及图像作为理论探索的批判性因素的持续地位，理应进行持续的批判性分析，同时他在简单的排斥传统具象创作之外寻找答案。画作的潜质也是我们在那顺巴图最近的作品中看到的内容。 马芝安 2012.09 北京
Text 艺评 Wang Min An 汪民安
Text 艺评 Wang Min An Distortion and Small -about NaShunbatu’s Paintings By Wang Min an NaShunbatu draws a unique natural appearance. Why is it unique? This is because the natural structure of the whole picture (we can say it landscape structure) is not natural, i.e., the nature is not the interception of the reality natural landscape, on the contrary, the nature likes in a extrusion process, which is like a few fragments of nature in mutual strike, friction, and jostle against one another. Indeed, we cannot put these works in realistic painting; the images will not view as a natural scenery and perfect overall. Or we can even say that it pulls geographies and environments of different spaces together. Namely, it cut the rivers from A, the caves from B, the clouds from C, as well as the forests, grassland, and houses from other places of their own surroundings; or peel them off the whole places originally, then make a force assemble in a frame at this very moment. The assembling constitutes the superposition. Sometimes these superposition of the natural fragments are meticulous and abnormal strictly abide by their respective areas, and there is a distinct demarcation line between them; there has no correlation between them, which is totally alien to the two scenes and each of them is closed up. Sometimes they are also reciprocal chiasm and overlapping with each other, and infiltrating and extending into the area of each other; it seems there is a corridor as a moderate region, and it seems existing something faintly discernible link between them. Sometimes they are frolicking, hovering, mutual communication with each other, as if in a conversation, response, or in confrontation, comparison, or competitive in the background. At this point, this picture is not like the landscape what people usually see, that they do not constitute a overall vision, rather than taking a full-lens of a natural realism, instead, they are mandatory collage fragments: the collage of incline and positive, undulating and flat, rough and calm, oscillating and still, serried and hollow. Sometimes, the overlap between these two adjacent areas are very steep, therefore, there exists a fracture of the gap which is abrupt, vertical, recklessly, and unreasonable. Sometimes, the overlap is moderate and gentle, but because of the good-neighborly relations of different version, it retains a mild distortion-regardless which kind of form the overlap to be taken, the fragments of the painting are not coordinated: there always be a boundary quite distinct from each other, that it cuts the frame into several fields with bending or straight cutting. It is these different fields, we would like to say, it is these different natural fragments keep each other in a state of unnatural, awkward and surreal condition, which is also a distortion, the deformation and fracture the status of correction. To some extent, this is like seismic moment, a sleek natural suddenly get incredible burst and extrusion. It seems that the strength of the earth's interior roaring in a sudden.
Text 艺评 Wang Min An 汪民安
These single segments are the state of nature themselves. They are presented to the sky, grassland, rivers, mountains, deserts, trees, etc., they and other fragments are mandatory overlapping, but in the stack, they are autonomy and internal unity. On the frame, the internal fragments also constitute separate color pieces: the side hill constitutes a piece, the lake surface constitutes a piece, the forest constitutes a piece, and the sky also constitutes a piece. It is a collage of natural and scenic pieces, and is also a collage of colors. In other words, the collages of color and nature are mutually in the reinforcement. Sometimes, NaShunbatu even weaken the scenery and the composition themselves in order to highlight the color pieces, thus there appears some composition and “nature” which are not so clear, accordingly, only the color piece itself is perspicuity and integrity. The performance of the screen even registers as the entanglement of piles of color pieces, but confusing the reproduction of landscape and scenery. In this connection, these paintings are either the collage of the nature itself, or the collage of color pieces, or the collage of the formalism; at the same time, they are either the competition of natural fragments, or the competition of color. In the former case, it is the competition of dynamic and static, frenzied and rational, rudeness and sedate; in the latter case, it is the competition of bright and dark, black and white, bulk and block, broad-brush and fine lines. What do people see from the picture besides the nature and the color pieces incidental it? There is no doubt that people will see the tiny figures in it. But why those strange tiny figures exist in the picture? In fact, there exists a long tradition of the landscape. In the classical landscape with characters, people are the main body of the picture while landscape as a foil, so that people will stand out in the landscape. In the classical landscape, people, scenery and nature all as themselves are keeping a harmonious relationship respectively. As the main body of the picture, people is the center of the perceptivity, so that the scenery carrying out in a multi-level gradually surrounding the people. But NaShunbatu’s paintings are just the reverse of it. In his paintings, people is no longer register as a subject, nor to be the center of the picture standing out from the natural scenery’s background, nor to be surrounded, drove up or foiled by natural scenery, it is no longer full of glow. Now, people are so tiny, trivial, insignificant that it quits into a hidden corner of the nature and appears with a complete stranger image in the picture-accurately, it is a complete strange symbol. Why people back into a remote corner? Why will they almost be swallowed up by natural scenery? And why is there no coordinated relationship between the people and natural scenery absolutely? Obviously, NaShunbatu has the people extricated from the main status of classical landscape paintings. What does the people’s appearance mean if they are not surrounded by natural scenery? Of course, the public can see that people’s appearance will must reveal its tiny and lonely in front of vastness, it will must express desolation and despair of some existential type, and it will must be a survival absurdity and helpless.
Text 艺评 Wang Min An 汪民安
These are all true, but in my opinion, it is better to say that I see a “scenery” in scenery, see a “nature” in nature, and see another “nature” which is quite different from nature, than we see a modernism predicament in platitudes of an old scholar. In these "landscapes", I even see how people appeared as fine scenery. These people become a “landscape” in the natural scenery, such as a tree is the landscape in hungriness, a woman is the landscape in a large group of men, a flock of sheep is the landscape in grassland, a flower is the landscape in a desert. A person’s symbol is the symbol of the landscape. People’s enthusiasm, inherence and depth are hidden deeply (because his tiny). He only left the posture, the shape of body, the image and the symbol. This symbol is perverse and strange: sometimes it jumping, squatting, laying, hand standing, bent, climbing, or sometimes it standing still. They are showing in the formalism attitude, on one hand it uncovers the psychology depth, on the other hand it strip off sociality coat. It is a tiny but naked symbol. It does not mean that it immerse in the natural embrace (exactly, they are not close to the nature), nor mean the violent development to the nature. They neither take a completely playing with the nature. Do they exist here just for response to the proposition of the existence? Don’t they exist as a heterogeneous of the picture, as a symbol heterogeneity? They are so tiny, but they immediately attract the public’s vision, don’t they? Why an insignificant symbol can attract our vision? Isn’t because it is a heterogeneous screen in the picture? When the painting are surrounded by the mountain, water, sky, and wasteland, all public’s attention are occupied by them. At this time, a different symbol which is a humanoid symbol will stimulate our interest unexpectedly. People are symbolic, I even want to say that people are materialized-not the materialization in the significant of materialize, but in the significant of image. The attracting mechanism of his picture is completely different from the characters in the classical landscape. To the latter, the screen character is the bold center, at the same time, it becomes the object of attention due to the depth in themselves, such as eyes, faces, expression, and obvious social identity. That is to say, people have become the focus all come from the fact of people itself. However, in NaShunbatu’s works, as a strange "landscape", people are highly abstracted as a "symbol" which is an unnatural "nature" and special scenery. In fact, there is just no focus in NaShunbatu’s pictures, just because they are in folding, collage, and assembling, so that no fragment becomes the dominant center of another fragment, no scenery, nature or color piece becomes other scenery, collage or color piece. There is no caste system in the frame. In this non-hierarchy screen, it shows a most insignificant person in an obscure corner suddenly. The tiny character suddenly becomes the center of our attention only because it is not nature or scenery, or rather, because it is another symbol-the symbol of people, rather than its identity or depth. We paid attention to the tiny character time and again, didn’t we? It doesn’t mean that the character is the focus of picture, but if the public don’t have means from the violent or vast natural scenery, then please pay attention to the tiny and insignificant character. It is the characters’ tiny and heterogeneity make the pictures’ violent and vast perfect.
Text 艺评 Günter Uecker
Text 艺评 Günter Uecker Huldigung an Nashun Nashinbatu Vor den Bildern empfinde ich die gewaltige Nähe einer Landschaft unendlicher Weite, Räume dramatischer Einsamkeit und Vertrautheit. In ablesbaren Ausprägungen einer sich wandelnden Entwicklung unseres Planeten erlebe ich die Mongolei als fantastische Erdgeschichte in Wundern, die nur von der erlebten Größe und Weite dieses Landes übertroffen wird. In den Bildern erscheint Herkunft im Dialog mit Heimat in traumhafter Vertrautheit. schweigend im verhallenden Sein. Das Verwundern eines Kindes im Anblick im gefassten Augenblick auf eine wirkliche Welt, in Traumbildern gebannt. Das scheinbar Unendliche ist so nah, im Staub verweht, im Regen verwaschen, als Schweigen empfunden. Innehalten im geschehen einer Wahrnehmung, niemals Wiederkehr eines erlebten Augenblicks so nimmt mich die Weite fort, folge ich meinen Vorstellungen wie ein Sandkorn im Flug, wie ein Grashalm sich reibend im Wind, wie ein rollender Stein gelöst vom Hang in das Fliessen von Wasser gezogen, überrinnt wie in Tränen die Erde, überwaschen auf die Leinwand gebracht. Eingegraben die Zeichen der Erdgeschichte, der im Wehen und Vergehen sich wandelnden Erscheinungen, staunend hineingeworfen der Träumende, im Dialog zwischen Nähe und Weite. Es entsteht ein Klang, begleitet vom Klagen und Sehnen und Singen der Pferdegeige. Homage to Nashun Nashunbatu In front of the paintings, I feel the powerful nearness of a landscape of infinite vastness, spaces of dramatic solitude and intimacy. In legible forms of a changing development of our planet, I experience Mongolia as a fantastic and marvelous history of the Earth which is only excelled by the experienced largeness and vastness of that country. In these pictures, provenance and a feeling at home are in a wonderful intimate dialogue with each other, quietly fading away in existence. The amazement of a child looking in a moment of calm at a real world, spellbound in visions. The ostensible Infinity is very near, blown away in the dust, washed away in the rain, conceived as silence. Pausing in the midst of a perception, no return of the moment just experienced, this is how the vastness takes me along, I follow my visions like a grain of sand in mid-air, like a blade of grass rubbing against the wind, like a rolling stone breaking loose from a slope drawn into the flow of water, like running tears across the soil, washed over onto the canvas. The signs of earth's history are buried by wind and decay beneath the ever-changing appearances, the dreamer is thrown into this world, wondering, in dialogue with nearness and distance. There is an emerging sound accompanied by lamentations and longings and a chant of the horse-head-violin.
昆特 约克 昆特 约克 Guenter Ｕecker 在他的画前，我感受到无边无际的大地景色与我比邻，我感受到刻骨的孤独和熟悉的空间。在我们这个星球不断变化的发展中，在这一发展不可磨灭的特点中，我所经历的蒙古是充满神奇色彩的大地故事，是沉浸在奇迹中的大地故事，只有这一地域让人无法释怀的幅员辽阔才能超越这一故事。在这些画面中，画的动机看起来是在同故乡极其默契的长谈中，悄然无声地存在于生命慢慢逝去的长歌中。以孩童般的眼睛捕捉到真实世界的那一瞬间，悄然形成梦幻的画 面。看上去如此无边无际的东西又是如此贴近，在尘土中飘失，在细雨中洗净，作为无语走进我们的心灵。停留在一种感觉的过程中，被体验到的一瞬间永不复返，就这样辽阔的土地带着我翱翔，我跟随我的想象，犹如飞行中的沙粒，犹如风中的小草摇曳不停，犹如一块游离山坡的滚石被流水席卷，犹如大地被眼泪所淹没，冲涮后被带到画布上。在画布上刻上大地故事的符号，刻上在飞逝中不断变化的现象符号，做梦的人惊奇地被带人画面中，带入进和远的对话之中。同时传来神秘歌声，伴随着马头琴的泣诉、渴望和歌唱。
主体质疑和媒介反思 主体质疑和媒介反思 ---关于那顺巴图的绘画实践 Felix Ruhöfer 那顺巴图的绘画同时包含了具象和抽象性的元素。其画面一开始就展示出一种内部的平衡。画面构图清楚明了，颜色部分统一于一个相关整体之下，透视上呈阶梯状排列的绘画动机指向的是一个格外严谨的造型观念。 然而在继续研究其艺术的过程中却发现在其结构严谨的基础上存在着多个形式与内容上的张力区域。这清楚地揭示了他的艺术实践本质——对不同绘画意向的反思以及对人类体验中令人着迷的、隐藏性的内省过程的表达。 因此从这两个角度出发观察其绘画形式和内容的基础，对于阐明其绘画整个相关体系是合理的。 对当前绘画潜能的反思 在上个世纪六、七十年代绘画被现代主义彻底质疑之后，人们担忧在当下与图像相关的语境里它缺乏对其可能性和前提进行自我批判式的质疑。那顺巴图的绘画可以让人免除此种忧虑。此外他的近作似乎从根本上质疑某种合理的主张，即自反性的绘画实质上只能出自“要自我反思，则要杨弃具象”的绘画意图。 绘画的图像性，物性的绘画性的在场，抽象，具象，空间深度，平面性，姿态，色彩效果，介于理性和意图行为之间的绘画过程，绘画的视觉性规定以及决定画面产生的文化和历史性因素，这些都属于那顺巴图绘画的基本范畴，但其中并没有一个占据主导位置。它们在其绘画中相互缠结，从视觉角度来讲他的作品极为创新，完全没有被教条主义所束缚。在当今，考虑到历史上对主题批判的错综复杂，他的绘画可称之为是巧妙的。他将这一系列基本问题作为其研究主题，为绘画在当下视觉相关范畴里挣得合法地位。 在那顺巴图的绘画里，除了关注其对具象和绘画所具有的触发（联想）潜能的研究之外，他的另一项研究，即绘画根据意识的、批判性的质疑其图像性，也必须同等被讨论。这些绝大多数为巨幅的绘画作品拥有一种形式上的严谨，从每幅作品里都可以看出画家试图对绘画本身更加深入的隐秘追问并将其图解化。水平性，平面性和对绘画能触发（联想）方面的运用——这包括在对画面中具象因素的整合，这些在其作品里都被反复阐释，但侧重点各有不同。 到2013年为止他的大部分作品一开始让人印象深刻的是画面空间上大面积的水平布局，对其各自区域功能的复杂化以及形式和内容上绘画意图的多样化使得画面空间失去了表面的清晰。掌控整体画面的水平线条似乎强调了画面的二维性，但艺术家对各个水平带内部空间极度深入的细节完善则打破了画面的二维性，暗示了空间深度，（观者）对画面空间二维性的第一印象被削弱，取而代之的是局部各自独立的，由精湛技艺处理的深度空间。 画面里的写实部分——如横穿画面的水面或者冰覆盖层——将观者不断吸引进水平性的画面里来，而渺小的人物形象却犹如异物打破了画面的水平性和平面感，视觉上的张力点得以产生。人物在画中诡异的存在成为画面的叙事因素，大部分是男人以一种等待的姿态或者做着某种令人费解的动作。但由于在画面其他部分再找不到立足点，叙述没有得以展开。 人物在水平的环境里活动。与之相对的是画面的上部，完全由颜色为主导，艺术家营造出了如世界末日般的恐怖气氛。在这里对绘画及它引发（联想）潜能的不同认识开始产生效果——这块区域或者被当作绵延天际的大草原，或沙漠，或者是厚重的云层来解读。如果说写实绘画反复出现在画面下部，那么画面上部被模糊处理的颜色部分则让人淡化了这种印象。有着不同饱和度和混合的颜色涡流，色块以及对溶剂不均匀的使用，由此在画面上产生了被模糊定义的色域，它可以是风景，或者纯粹的色域。此外（此色域）被如此安插进构图，让观者在观看过程中产生一种摆动在‘一块真实的颜色’和‘风景画’之间的推测上的矛盾心理。这些模糊的区域一开始让人认定是行动绘画，但在感受过程中又被当做风景来解读。它的情调和色调又让人联想到卡斯帕·大卫·弗里德利希和阿尔特多费尔，很明显它又被试图与诸多绘画传统关联起来。 在这些色域之间，那顺巴图喷洒，或者让颜色在画布上自由流动，即兴留白。他迫使自己面对被不同绘画传统使用过的媒介，试图拓宽其使用的可能。在这一形式的层面上这种与不同绘画流派和意识形态的对峙成为了他近年绘画实践的前提。 他的绘画不能等同于风景画，虽然风景是其作品内容的主要因素。同样地，它也不能被理解为纯色域绘画——后者围绕的是艺术家主体无意味的姿态，或者是隐含故事的叙事性绘画。所有这些都包含在他的画中，但不构成其绘画自反性的核心。他的作品不是对反思绘画在其现代和后现代传统上延伸的可能性的解构过程。他对绘画可能性的反思更多的涉及到他本人的文化在我们视觉文化里的再生长，以及通过观看所触发的审美体验过程。这才是他自我反思的起点。 当人们把画面中抽象的色域和具象的写实部分联系起来，作品中核心的自反就显现了：对具象的，由此引起人错觉的部分和抽象的色彩部分之间界限的模糊化处理，使得（观者）转向对真实的画面二维空间以及色彩运用的题目化（的思考），一个非假定性本质的审美体验因此而敞开。在关于自反性的或者被理解为现代主义本质的绘画辩论中——梅哈德（Johannes Meinhardt）将它看作是自我分析、批判式的后现代绘画的本质——开启了一个新的讨论，今天应加入一个更加深入的主题：将具象因素融入以自反为基础的绘画并没有否定（绘画本身）自我分析的潜质。
“现代绘画和后现代绘画的分歧集中于两极：隶属美学范畴的观念性（即错觉）与真实性，视觉的超验性和客体性。自从（上个世纪）六十年代以来，‘绘画终结之后的绘画’展示出一种与历史无关的，非批判，不依赖于阐释的‘后现代’。它吸收了（现代主义）美学差异，但并非脱胎于现代主义；（对于现代主义来说）它仅仅是一种简单的对抗，是一种与之划清界限的策略手段。” 那顺巴图的绘画为此提供了清晰的例证。对具象和颜色覆盖引发联想功能的运用目的不在于建构或强调本质性的世界体验——其无法绕开一个假定的超验的艺术体验。对这两种（艺术的）可变性因素的使用在于让二者在画面中形成对峙，将二者作为艺术中传统的不变性质来揭示。 然而这种对峙并不能作为他绘画的内容来理解，它更多的是指向当下绘画的某种潜能。此潜能承载着揭示审美体验与其他体验模式相比的特殊之处。 马丁·瑟尔（Martin Seel ）指出：对于体验过程十八世纪末康德在《判断力批判》里已经革新地指明,艺术有能力触发观者（情感）。 和五十年代以来的形式主义批评者一样梅哈德也示范性的反对审美外观。他认为为了审美存在它应该被杨弃，应该理智地转向现象学可明确把握的内容。瑟尔在《显现美学》里对此提出质疑，以此反对将二十世纪以来的艺术史研究成果完全抛弃。（他认为）审美更应该停留在与‘归根结底只通过理论与实践认知世界’相联系的范畴里。它不能脱离此语境或者仅仅是一个假定性的观点。艺术的潜能是在理论和实践的讨论中——或其中，或超越——被经验到。它可以被定义为一种艺术的可能性，其拥有被讨论的开放性，并且有意识的反思自身传统，意识形态以及悖论。在这一相关体系中那顺巴图的绘画可理解为他与传统的可变因素和（自身）对绘画媒介的期待姿态之间的睿智互动。观看他的作品最终要面临一个问题：如何将他的作品归入一个流派。运用高度不同化的绘画策略，而并没有因此否定绘画及它的触发性潜能本身，这似乎是他的艺术的显著特征。不否定绘画的自反性前提，同时关注它的可能性，目的在于让自己投入到对审美外观的（研究中），哪怕它看来被认定为是假定的。很多以下提及的绘画观点被艺术家运用到作品中，目的在于无保留地发展自己的‘纯绘画’，以此超越上世纪中期的自反性的转折点。悖论和对绘画根本性的模糊界定，有意识的回避和解构绘画传统，自发性的，姿态式的手法，画中完成具象和谜样情调的色彩所具有的引发效果，这些都显示出作品的革新性。他的绘画反复揭示了瑟尔对审美体验潜质的归纳： “审美客体是正在被体验的客体。它具有美学上的不确定性。审美情景是一个不确定的，并向其自身和整个世界敞开的情景。尽管在很多语境里人们不再意识到这一事实，即对世界存在广泛的认知和实践上的不确定性及不可确定性，（意识）仍然可以重获自由。当（感知主体）在此时此地意识到那种未经研究，未被确定，完全呈开放状态的可能性时，它就是自由的。” 除了作为主题的审美体验，那顺巴图的绘画近年来似乎对另一绘画传统保持开放：崇高主题。有着泥土的绿、棕和灰色调的大面积色域很容易让人联想为风景。与画面中那些渺小的，孤独又迷惘的人物相比它掌控着整个画面。那顺巴图近年来的作品明显转向风景题材，转向永恒，这使得其作品迅速获得康德美学和美国传统意义上的崇高感，与德国形而上意义上的崇高相比后者与艺术史的联系更为密切。运用康德的理论，我们可以明了崇高从观看客体到观者自反再到被运用的过渡，此时观者将他的崇高体验——康德认为其尤其发生在直观自然时——转移到体验的核心。 与其他体验形式不同的是，比如美——康德将其与崇高分离，崇高体验不包含针对事物外观的感官趣味。它只涉及到‘理性的观念’，也就是开启了一个转向反思的内化过程。它被视为是积极的。这种内化在今天再次成为美学框架内关于体验过程讨论的话题。在那顺巴图的绘画里它同样被感受到。 “从这里人们也可以看出，真正的崇高只能在评判者的心情里寻找，不是在自然的对象里。对于自然对象的评判引起了对于它的情调。” 在现代主义后期到后现代的进程中，（绘画）不可避免地从图像功能的超验模式重新转向对自反潜能的研究。他的绘画阐明了这种重新定位，但并没有因此放弃画面里的具象内容以及对绘画引发性的和联想性功能的整合。
这个上面提及的与审美体验相联系的观点在这里视作一道门槛，一条从直观到反思和自我反思的通道。拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生（Ralph Waldo Emerson）将十九世纪以来与艺术更加贴近的‘崇高’定义为‘崇高’（Sublime），以此反对被康德彻底作为形而上的，理性的阐释手段意义上的‘崇高’（Erhabene）。这个十九世纪英裔美国人把崇高理解为一种非理性的，超验的观念。这种观念在艺术史里——尤其在它的概念史和它在现代主义中功能的历史里，直到二十世纪都保持着无可争议的地位。爱默生将崇高体验最终确定为是超验的，直到二十世纪四、五十年代，色域绘画和美国抽象表现主义还一直将它作为审美体验功能里固定不变的意识形态要素。尤其特别的是这种关于崇高的观点成了十九世纪五十年代以来的北美艺术和艺术评论的背景。约翰内斯·梅哈德对绘画生成自反的命题必须从这个诠释角度去理解，尽管他试图从超越性体验的中介思维（中间环节）里脱离出去。在此背景下，伊夫·亚伦·柏尔（Yve-Alain Bois）关于现代和后现代过渡环节上的各种自反倾向的命题也清楚了：（它们的目的在于）疏离超越性体验的中介思维和引起错觉的表现手法——恰恰发生在绘画媒介领域之内。 在梅哈德和柏尔看来，绘画开始自反并积聚自身理论（这里指艺术家理论）正是发生在从现代到后现代的过渡点上。反之，观者在那顺巴图的作品里却可以看出他对亚洲绘画传统的整合。在亚洲绘画传统中审美体验几百年来一直处于核心位置，而绘画一直作为对绘画内容联想性的、主动的掌握来理解。他的这种整合性手段使得其画作批判式的规避了西方式的对超验性或者假象性和解构性、自反性绘画意图的二元分离。因此可明确他的艺术贴近由康德定义的崇高里自我分析的观念，更因为其作品里的这些策略——将观者牵引到画中，极难理解的和缺少确定性空间的色域，人物与自然（周围空间）的关系——使（其绘画）越过触发性因素，进入对绘画自身的分析式研究。在这里这种审美差异看来使另外一种解读方式展开，而不是将其只固定在对绘画物质部分的质疑里。审美差异在审美体验过程中被扩展，这一点清楚地揭示了审美体验与其他体验以及获取世界方式的不同。 那顺巴图的艺术可理解为：将理论讨论的空白和争执点整合进他的绘画手法，并且吸纳多个流派观点，但没有因此在绘画上追求绝对控制与协调，超验和错觉。另一方面，他通过其作品的具象组成部分向人们表明，在自我反思的绘画（梅哈德）框架内具象并非不可能存在。 作品中具象和抽象的使用始终指向绘画的可能性。这些作品挑起观者对峙既定视觉习惯和（对艺术）分门别类，并因此明确提出对艺术潜能的思考：鉴于当今绘画看似蓬勃，却缺乏变化的情况，艺术到底还能给予我们什么。不同于今天诸多领域的图像，包括绘画和广义的艺术，那顺巴图的绘画向我们展示了他的极具个人化的艺术方法：超越对后现代艺术生产的误解式的超验性判断和形式主义理论被他作为可开放讨论的潜能隐藏在了对其作品的审美体验过程中。 大概从2013年起，那顺巴图的作品里有着谜样内容的主题更加强烈化。与呈现水平阶梯状的风景背景相比，那些建筑空间，大面积的画布留白，占据整个画面的巨大形象和被孤立在二维空间画面里的精致人物都被赋予深远的意义。有着阶梯状透视深度的风景空间在新作品里被彻底压缩简化，简化的目的在于突出画中单独形象和与之相互影响的绘画主题。背景不再具有表现性的效果，也是为了突出前景里的形象和他们之间的相互作用。在他现在的作品里张力点产生在主动与被动，运动与静止的画面元素对峙中。 谜样的绘画世界 要贴近有着超现实梦境觉感的绘画内容，就有必要关注那顺巴图绘画里的造型与空间的组合，洞察造型群体之间的相互关系。作品里自然与文化之间和人物与大部分动物之间的对立性明显增强。这些同样被精湛技艺处理过的人物与动物在布局上形成一体，然而他们（在画面整体结构中）的定位给人以明显的距离感。通过这种疏离感使得他们作为主体或客体呈现在画面中。这些造型群体有着“杂交”的本质。它首先显露在对主体和客体范畴不稳定的分辨。对主客体关系的质疑看来成为那顺巴图艺术进一步的中心主题。此种质疑很贴近布鲁诺·拉图尔（Bruno Latour）的命题——在由米歇尔·赛尔（Michel Serres）发展的“准物件”（Quasi-Objekte）
这一概念之下，他探讨了当今存在的对自然与文化、主体与客体过强的限定。通过辨别设置和异化，画面里的造型群体呈现一种被放任的姿态，画面主角的影响力被最大限度地削弱。人物在画中似乎被不详气氛笼罩，显得惊慌失措。对比画面空间里的动物和其他物体，人物的主体地位几乎让人感觉不到。 将主客体世界完全分离的传统分类模式在那顺巴图的绘画里被终结。与拉图尔的观点相关，（主客体的）关系是其画中相互影响、互为前提的节点，以此否定现代主义意义上明确的主体归类。既没有将他的艺术误解为社会学理论的图解，也没有因此否定对谜样画面的审美体验，关注其画中不稳定的主客体地位让人明晰的了解，他的艺术作品完全指向当代主题。这种相关体系下的世界与主体的新型关系被视为反人本主义哲学在新世纪里的核心挑战。在一个联想性的层面上讲它所要达到的是一种（相互）适合，而不是一种彻底的辩证主义的图解。画中角色与环境显示出相关性。这似乎是他谜样绘画内容的主题之一。然而对它的解读显然也是多种的。 画中难解的内容对审美体验敞开了一个疏远和孤立的“共振空间”。在他的作品里叙事显然没有展开。它所表达的是主体与周围环境的疏离。 作品所传达的这种疏离感在艺术中曾经被运用和论证过，比如浪漫主义。在对那顺巴图绘画的解读里它经常被提及。然而在浪漫主义里“疏离”指向的是一种正面的、隐含渴望的感觉，一种本质性的遗忘和迷失。而他绘画里的疏离感并没有传达出对“合一”的理想主义式的探求和对人的整体性的回思。在一个由风景和建筑统摄的空间里，面对被设置的与动物和其他无生命物的相互关系，人类仍然保持沉默。疏离在这里与渴望无关。它呈现的是反主客体关系，阐明的是在一个“准物件”世界的结构里主体的位置。 通过观察其作品的形式分析和内容可以明确，其作品的品质正是表现在这两个与绘画媒介相关的层面上。正如梅哈德所描述的那样，对绘画终结之后的绘画可能性的反思起点紧贴着一个内容层面上的对“异在”的联想性体验。对于我们当下对主体与世界关系的基本界定它的评论是批判式的。那顺巴图艺术里的两极性的意义视域展示了当代绘画的潜能：它使得多种相关域紧密相连，并且将对此种界定的强烈体验作为当下的个性形象化的显现出来。 那顺巴图的艺术可理解为：将理论讨论的空白和争执点整合进他的绘画手法，并且吸纳多个流派观点，但没有因此在绘画上追求绝对控制与协调，超验和错觉。另一方面，他通过其作品的具象组成部分向人们表明，在自我反思的绘画（梅哈德）框架内具象并非不可能存在。 作品中具象和抽象的使用始终指向绘画的可能性。这些作品挑起观者对峙既定视觉习惯和（对艺术）分门别类，并因此明确提出对艺术潜能的思考：鉴于当今绘画看似蓬勃，却缺乏变化的情况，艺术到底还能给予我们什么。不同于今天诸多领域的图像，包括绘画和广义的艺术，那顺巴图的绘画向我们展示了他的极具个人化的艺术方法：超越对后现代艺术生产的误解式的超验性判断和形式主义理论被他作为可开放讨论的潜能隐藏在了对其作品的审美体验过程中。 大概从2013年起，那顺巴图的作品里有着谜样内容的主题更加强烈化。与呈现水平阶梯状的风景背景相比，那些建筑空间，大面积的画布留白，占据整个画面的巨大形象和被孤立在二维空间画面里的精致人物都被赋予深远的意义。有着阶梯状透视深度的风景空间在新作品里被彻底压缩简化，简化的目的在于突出画中单独形象和与之相互影响的绘画主题。背景不再具有表现性的效果，也是为了突出前景里的形象和他们之间的相互作用。在他现在的作品里张力点产生在主动与被动，运动与静止的画面元素对峙中。 谜样的绘画世界 要贴近有着超现实梦境觉感的绘画内容，就有必要关注那顺巴图绘画里的造型与空间的组合，洞察造型群体之间的相互关系。作品里自然与文化之间和人物与大部分动物之间的对立性明显增强。这些同样被精湛技艺处理过的人物与动物在布局上形成一体，然而他们（在画面整体结构中）的定位给人以明显的距离感。通过这种疏离感使得他们作为主体或客体呈现在画面中。这些造型群体有着“杂交”的本质。它首先显露在对主体和客体范畴不稳定的分辨。对主客体关系的质疑看来成为那顺巴图艺术进一步的中心主题。此种质疑很贴近布鲁诺·拉图尔（Bruno Latour）
的命题——在由米歇尔·赛尔（Michel Serres）发展的“准物件”（Quasi-Objekte）这一概念之下，他探讨了当今存在的对自然与文化、主体与客体过强的限定。通过辨别设置和异化，画面里的造型群体呈现一种被放任的姿态，画面主角的影响力被最大限度地削弱。人物在画中似乎被不详气氛笼罩，显得惊慌失措。对比画面空间里的动物和其他物体，人物的主体地位几乎让人感觉不到。 将主客体世界完全分离的传统分类模式在那顺巴图的绘画里被终结。与拉图尔的观点相关，（主客体的）关系是其画中相互影响、互为前提的节点，以此否定现代主义意义上明确的主体归类。既没有将他的艺术误解为社会学理论的图解，也没有因此否定对谜样画面的审美体验，关注其画中不稳定的主客体地位让人明晰的了解，他的艺术作品完全指向当代主题。这种相关体系下的世界与主体的新型关系被视为反人本主义哲学在新世纪里的核心挑战。在一个联想性的层面上讲它所要达到的是一种（相互）适合，而不是一种彻底的辩证主义的图解。画中角色与环境显示出相关性。这似乎是他谜样绘画内容的主题之一。然而对它的解读显然也是多种的。 画中难解的内容对审美体验敞开了一个疏远和孤立的“共振空间”。在他的作品里叙事显然没有展开。它所表达的是主体与周围环境的疏离。 作品所传达的这种疏离感在艺术中曾经被运用和论证过，比如浪漫主义。在对那顺巴图绘画的解读里它经常被提及。然而在浪漫主义里“疏离”指向的是一种正面的、隐含渴望的感觉，一种本质性的遗忘和迷失。而他绘画里的疏离感并没有传达出对“合一”的理想主义式的探求和对人的整体性的回思。在一个由风景和建筑统摄的空间里，面对被设置的与动物和其他无生命物的相互关系，人类仍然保持沉默。疏离在这里与渴望无关。它呈现的是反主客体关系，阐明的是在一个“准物件”世界的结构里主体的位置。 通过观察其作品的形式分析和内容可以明确，其作品的品质正是表现在这两个与绘画媒介相关的层面上。正如梅哈德所描述的那样，对绘画终结之后的绘画可能性的反思起点紧贴着一个内容层面上的对“异在”的联想性体验。对于我们当下对主体与世界关系的基本界定它的评论是批判式的。那顺巴图艺术里的两极性的意义视域展示了当代绘画的潜能：它使得多种相关域紧密相连，并且将对此种界定的强烈体验作为当下的个性形象化的显现出来。