Ding Yi’s Cross Series and his theory are good examples. Counting the first Cross works created in 1988. Ding has been producing this kind of painting for 14 years. Although different Ideas may have occurred to him during this period, the basic method and its clear-cut cross form have remained.

Ding Yi’s formalist pattern is. however. based on anti-formalist concept. He is “skeptical about treating the pure art language as the ultimate goal,” believing that “the purpose of making paintings is not to justify the real world mirrored on the “canvas” In other words, he thinks painting is neither a display of pure visual form, nor a presentation of reality or nature. It is what it is, a work undertaken “within the deep logic of language structure and its denoting concept.” Namely, it is the product of the methodology of the artist.

Dings idea was anti-mainstream in the Chinese avant-garde art at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, for he belonged neither to the “pure language” (chunhua yuyan) Neo-Academic school, nor to the “deep soul” (da linghun) Expressionism of the late 80s, nor to the Political Pop and Cynical Realism or the early 90s. Instead, he regarded art as a “precise” manipulation, which was expressed by his “cross” shapes. because the “cross” in printing is a simple sign for measurement that everyone can recognize. As this pure, clear expressive method is close to science, it is far removed from humanistic connotation, suggesting no cultural themes. Most importantly, its simple form provides Ding with the possibility of continuous and monotonous manipulation. He could calmly and merely draw “crosses” on the canvas, making them as precise as possible without harboring any attempt to “reconstruct” or “destroy” culture. What he had was only the feeling of making contact with something substantial such as brush, chalk or canvas. This “sense of substantiation” forced the artist to abandon and escape from any desire to spin illusions.

This concept was also the basis of his automatic color selection principle, which was “a distrust
of Cezanne and Matisse’s coloring theory.” There is no composition principle at all, for he can start drawing crosses from one side and end up on the other, or vise versa. Technique is viewed by him as a mediocre handicraft skill. His is one that is without any preconceived concepts, a mere manipulation similar to a woman farmer weaving denim.

Nevertheless, the meaning of manipulation does not aim at itself. but at the norm achieved by the manipulation. The artist has no right to go beyond this norm to “express” himself, and he is not able to do this at all if the norm is not available.

It is only under this process that artists can get some spiritual release and inspirational experience of continuous work; an endless, deeply engaged and open working condition makes the creativity of an artist separate from the limitation set by his ideology.” This reminds me of the work done by the “New Analysts Group” composed of Wang Luyan, Chen Shaoping and Gu Dexin at the beginning of the 1990s. By laying down strict collective rules, they worked in turns, making their paintings like geometric diagrams. Personal irrationality and desire for expression were eliminated by strict ground rues. It would be impossible to detect any trace of emotion or meaning except a sense of freedom rendered to them by abiding to the rules and obtained by escaping the constraints of “meaning.”

Relate Posts

Chinese Maximalism

CHINESE MAXIMALISM