·展览城市：北京-北京
·展览时间：2007-04-22～2007-06-17
·开幕酒会：2007-04-22 15:00
·展览地点：长征空间 

展览前言: 

　　NONO是重复的拒绝和反对, 还是对拒绝的反对? 到底是说不还是不说不? 真实地呈现了当代艺术的小题大做和大题小做的矛盾。虽然无策展人, 无主题, 但还是从各自的角度紧密地和对现实的态度有所联系。 在这样一个注重策展人话语权的时代，策展人的缺失毋宁说是某种残缺或另类的张扬。相对于一些有名无实的策展行为，拒绝策展人参与是一种赤裸的真实和试验。他们自耕自种、自我造局，展览本身是自发、自主、自然而然的，是切磋过招，也是集体游戏。艺术家们对这次共同亮相是有某种共识的，这种共识的前提是能够玩到一起的相互关联。可以夸大为源自形而上的艺术理想，亦或只是简单的形而下的生活经验。这里是一个事实呈现，被自主包裹的艺术聪慧，被自由困住的艺术真诚。中国当代艺术幻象中的沼泽和自救，艺术和艺术家的“瓶颈”是假设演习还是危机面临？当代艺术家的社会理想主义情怀能在多大程度上得到回应？是双向选择还是一厢情愿？所有的困惑、矛盾所指向的是当代艺术生态还是艺术家本身, 抑或是 “展览” 这个问题的现场？

　　Is NONO a double refusal and rejection, or is it the rejection of refusal? Is it saying no, or not saying no? Perhaps the phrase accurately presents the current contradiction in contemporary art, both large and small. The exhibition, curatorless and themeless, is nonetheless linked with each artist’s personal perspective and their attitude towards the contemporary. In a period accustomed to the enfeebled iscourse of the curator, is the lack of a curator an inadequacy or a new type of artistic flamboyance? In contrast to naming a curator for the sake of having a curator, the act of refusing a curator is a direct and raw reality and experiment. The artist’s have done it all DIY, the exhibition itself is spontaneous, autonomous and naturally occurring exchange of experiences as well as a collective game. There is a consensus among the artists, one that is premised upon the ability to amuse one another. One can conflate it to a metaphysical artistic ideal, or a mundane and profane experience. This is a presentation of this reality, a self-referential packaging of artistic intelligence, and an artistic sincerity restricted by its own freedom. Is there an illusion of swampy marshes from which contemporary Chinese artists must rescue themselves? Is a “bottle neck” among art and artists a hypothetical exercise, or a sign of imminent disaster? To what degree can an artist’s social idealism incite response? Can the work be engaging, or will it merely exist as the artist’s self-delusion? Do these conflicting realities point at a deficiency in the practice of contemporary art, or in the artists themselves; or perhaps it is the “exhibition” which is the site of the problem?

参展艺术家: 储云、何岸、蒋志、阚萱、刘韡、石青、秦思源、王卫、徐震、杨振中、朱昱

Artists: Chu Yun, He An, Jiang Zhi, Kan Xuan, Liu Wei, Shi Qing, Colin Chinnery, Wang Wei, Xu Zhen, Yang Zhenzhong, and Zhu Yu.

关于NONO 的非阐释话语——也算新闻稿

问答 卢杰 长征空间主任:

卢: NONO是重复的拒绝和反对, 还是对拒绝的反对? 到底是说不还是不说不? 真实地呈现了当代艺术的小题大做和大题小做的矛盾. 既然无策展人, 无主题, 也就没有道理可讲, 只能摆摆事实.
问: 为什么是11个艺术家?
答: 因为11是我的幸运数字.
问: 为什么是这些艺术家?
答: 他们自发的, 无门无派, 就是彼此熟悉和认同.
问: 那你怎么同意了?
答: 因为感觉这些人风头挺健的, 能做点事出来.
问: 为什么没有主题?
答: 他们没觉得有必要.
问: 那不是拼盘展了?
答: 唉, 不是拼盘的展览大多时候也挺烂的, 这么弄一次看凑合不凑合.
问: 听说还专门再盖个大屋?
答 : 是啊, 徐震疯了, 做了个60吨的10米长的大东西, 咋办呢, 只好在院里盖个大屋摆着. 问: 这展览大吗?
答: 大, 超大, 还有上海的杨振中和广东的储云, 北京的何岸、蒋志、阚萱、刘韡、石青、秦思源、王卫、朱昱, 没有一个是吃素的. 我们就把长征空间里里外外1500平米全用上了.
问: 听说全部是新作品, 那么如何体现NoNo的概念?
答: 又来了, NONO不是个概念, 这些人, 没有什么共同想法的, 或者, 自认为没有想法, 不过自从在100多个标题的讨论中非常难产地整出个NONO的标题来, 好像也有了些关于想法的态度. 所以我在和徐震商量海报用图时, 一下子就觉得用史上最牛的钉子户. 其实, 如果说艺术家和作品, 反映在这个展览里的, 只有一点是联系在一起的, 就是对现实的距离.
问: 那么这个距离是远是近?
答: 是NONO. 可能是从不同的尺度去感知和现实之间的距离, 或者说, 什么是现实?
问: 展览3个月, 挺长的?
答 : 不长, 不短, 做这个展览是个恶梦, 累死人, 不过看的时候包你痛快. 这算是北京今年最大的一个展览了.
问: 没有策展人, 那谁写新闻稿呢?
答: 我写呗.
问: Nono是怎么来的?
答: 有前面N多个被推翻的展览标题垫底, 其中包括: “ 只要是展厅里的就都有问题, 还不够差, 对付, 厉害, 麻烦, 这个展览题目有问题, 离开, 分泌, 乱震, 院体前卫, 工笔前卫, 严重, 后果很严重, 严肃艺术, 饱和, 或, 或者, 说不出口, 啊啊啊, 简单, 容易, 第一场雪, 2007, 八路公交, 别走, 回来, 不重要, 次要, 哈哈, 咋办, 虚, 透露, 因为, 所以, 但是, 确定, 一定, 肯定, 然而, 不是, 以及, 忽视, 过分, 熊猫摇头, nononono, noNo.” 这个NONO 是在大家不断地在否定别人提出的标题时, 用的频率最高的一个词, 到最后就成了定局.

肖雄 长征空间艺术总监 如是说:
“NONO”从表面上看是一个拒绝，或者否定。在这里的否定则表现为多指向性，这个否定如果来自内部是一种自省，来自外部则是一种反应。11位艺术家是一个集体，一个由个体组合的集体。这个集体无中心概念，被生存经验和捡来的灵魂所撮合。没有纲领和口号，依赖楚河汉界获得假想世界，众说纷纭……。这里是一个事实呈现，被自主包裹的艺术聪慧，被自由困住的艺术真诚。中国当代艺术幻象中的沼泽和自救，艺术和艺术家的“瓶颈”是假设演习还是危机面临？当代艺术家的社会理想主义情怀能在多大程度上得到回应？是双向选择还是一厢情愿？所有的困惑、矛盾所指向的是当代艺术生态还是艺术家本身？这11位一直努力在当代艺术现场的艺术家将以各种不同的自我表述方式，告诉和揭示人们一个现实中的事实。
展览将由装置/影像/图片等表现方式组成。

黄寺 长征空间策展助理 补充说:
“NONO”的参展艺术家有11位，但是并没有策展人，艺术家们暂时将之称为是一次自主策划的展览。在这样一个注重策展人话语权的时代，策展人的缺失毋宁说是某种残缺或另类的张扬。相对于一些有名无实的策展行为，拒绝策展人参与是一种赤裸的真实和试验。11个人是彼此熟识的哥们兄弟，他们自耕自种、自我造局，展览本身是自发、自主、自然而然的，是切磋过招，也是集体游戏。
展览的筹划是一系列众说纷纭的讨论过程，包括会议交谈，喝茶吃饭，甚至网上聊天。艺术家们对这次共同亮相是有某种共识的，这种共识的前提是能够玩到一起的相互关联。可以夸大为源自形而上的艺术理想，亦或只是简单的形而下的生活经验。但仍是模糊不清难以被清晰阐释的，充满了各种暧昧的可能性，反对阐释在这里不是有待发掘的姿态，而是心领神会的默契。展览标题曾一度难以确定下来，每个艺术家都有众多的企图和想法希望诉诸标题，策展人角色的缺失不在现场，客观上促成了群龙无首的混乱。“NONO”的最终被采纳实际上是一种妥协，有不得已多指向性包容的无奈，也有彼此否定的默认成分。它是混沌事实自组织的结果。
展览的内容呈现出某种碎片化的特征，各自为政明显大于协同共构。艺术家的主体性被客观的自我提升和突出。在这里，视觉艺术作为一种表现形式是被充分扩展的，是一个不断处于竞争、辩驳和转变之中的挑战性所在，所有身临其境者都可以通过视觉途径获得某种最佳的想象和理解，而对他者喊出“NONO”。参展的11位艺术家是目前中国当代艺术界极为活跃的人物，他们此次展出的作品以装置和新媒体为主，几乎涉及了架上之外所有的创作形式。以徐震的作品为例，和他之前的一些作品一样，此次展出的作品也非常之“大”，这种大不仅指作品形式上而言，也指其外延的诸多可能性。以著名英国艺术家Damien Hirst的作品为参照，艺术家公开模仿，刻意追随，是致敬还是调侃？或者这样直白粗浅的猜测正中了创作者本人的圈套，作品本身强烈的视觉刺激已说明了一切。而阚萱的作品则倾向于精致的私密性，影像作为一种展现和参与的方式超越了公共空间中构造意图的外向性限制，将外在之大置换为内在之小…
而在展览开幕之前，参展艺术家大部分低调寡言，对自己的作品和方案讳莫如深，难以见到和作品有关的图片、文字，甚至草图。这也许是一种创作上的共同经验和必然要求，然而对于公众和媒体，这种保留的态度恰好促成了某种神秘感，也是“NONO”众多的指向性之一。对于展览的主办方长征团队，这次展览和正在举办的“25000”最佳展览评选活动也可看作是某种呼应。“25000”试图从艺术家而非策展人的角度来评判梳理众多的艺术展览，而“NONO”则从当下现场实践了此种理念。长征语境的开放性和包容性为这次实验提供了保证，不过这种保证缺乏现实对应的依托，因为“NONO”从根本上来说是无法被控制的。

徐震 参展艺术家代表甲 代表大家说:
NONO, 还是看展览吧.

阚萱 参展艺术家代表乙 补充说:
NONO. 不要问我.

秦思源 参展艺术家代表丙 什么都没说:

NONO related non-explanation – also a press release

Q & A, Lu Jie, Director of Long March Space.

Lu: Is NONO a double refusal and rejection, or is it the rejection of refusal? Is it saying no, or not saying no? Perhaps the phrase accurately presents the current contradiction in contemporary art, where minor issues are over done, and major issues over looked. The exhibition is curatorless and themeless, there is no overarching point to prove, the work will speak for itself.

Q: Why are there eleven artists?
A: Because 11 is my lucky number.

Q: Why these particular artists?
A: Because they are spontaneous, unaffiliated, they are familiar with each other and identify with one another.

Q: Then why did you agree to this show?
A: Because I believe that the time is right, and that we can make some real things happen.

Q: Why isn’t there a theme?
A: They [the artists] didn’t think it was necessary.

Q: Isn’t that just another Chinese “Pupu Platter” exhibition?
A: Ah, but those supposedly “curated” exhibitions are often rather forgettable because of their lofty ideas assigned and loose curating. Let’s just see if we’re lucky this time.

Q: I heard that you will be converting the courtyard into an exhibition space.
A: Yes, Xu Zhen is crazy, he created a 60 ton 10 meter long huge thing…we can only make space for it in the converted courtyard.

Q: Is this exhibition big?
A: Big, super-big. Artist Yang Zhenzhong and Xu Zhen are coming in from Shanghai, artist Chu Yun and Jiang Zhi from Guangdong, and the Beijing crew of He An, Kan Xuan, Liu Wei, Shi qing, Colin Chinnery, Wang Wei, and Zhu Yu. These guys don’t mess around, so we had to find more space.

Q: I heard that the works are all new, how do they embody the NONO concept?
A: Here we go again, NONO is not a concept, there is not a common thinking between these artists, or, they all think they are thinking individually. In our discussions, we must have thought of a hundred titles which didn’t produce anything suitable. That “NONO” surfaced at all seems to pertain to an idea or attitude. When Xu Zhen and I considering the poster image, we immediately thought of using one of the most stubborn “nail house” we have ever encountered. It was of a house on reclaimed land which simply refused to be torn down. Actually, if there is anything linking the works of these artists, it is that separation from reality.

Q: How large is that separation?
A: It’s NONO. One might never use the same scale to measure the distance between realities; in other words, what is reality?

Q: Isn’t three months a long time for an exhibition?
A: It’s not long, it’s not short, doing this exhibition has been a nightmare, so tiring it makes you want to die, but when you see it it’ll make you excited. It can be considered Beijing’s major exhibition of the year.

Q: If there is no curator, who will write the press releases?
A: I guess I will.

Q: How did NoNo come about?
A: Here we go again, but I’ll review for you. We thought of a hundred titles, including “as long as it’s in the exhibition space, then it’s ok,” “not bad enough,” “deal with,” “Powerful,” “Troublesome,” “There’s a problem with this exhibition title,” “leaving,” “secretions,” “tremors,” “pseudo-avant-garde,” “easy,” “first snow,” “of 2007,” “No. 8 Bus,” “Don't go,” “come back,” “not important,” “second,” “Haha,” “What now?,” “Dubious,” “Transparent,” “Because,” “Therefore,” “but,” “Certainly,” “Must,” “Absolutely,” “However,” “Not,” “as well as,” “overlook,” “overdone,” “panda shaking head,” “nononono,” NONO. This “NONO” was what kept surfacing as everyone was shooting down the title proposed by someone else. It soon became the title.

Xiao Xiong, Long March Space Artistic Director, has stated:
At first glance, “NONO” may convey simple rejection or negation, but it is in fact multi-directional in nature – it can reflect a type of self-criticism, or suggest a reaction to an external force. The 11 individuals in this show are not linked by one artistic concept, but by their life experiences and emanating spirits. There are no guidelines or slogans; instead, there exists a multiplicity of voices which rely on the divisions of this world to access one of imagination. The work displayed is actually trapped by its own wit and enthusiasm, it’s artistic sincerity restricted by freedom. Is there an illusion of swampy marshes from which contemporary Chinese artists must rescue themselves? Is a “bottle neck” among art and artists a hypothetical exercise, or a sign of imminent disaster? To what degree can an artist’s social idealism incite response? Can the work be interactive, or will it merely exist as the artist’s self-delusion? Do these conflicting realities point at a deficiency in the practice of contemporary art, or in the artists themselves? These 11 artists have struggled, but persevered, in expressing themselves honestly amidst the contradicting realities of contemporary art.

Huang Si, Long March Space Assistant Curator, adds:

The exhibition, curatorless and themeless, is nonetheless linked with each artist’s personal perspective and their attitude towards the contemporary. In a period accustomed to the discursive power of the curator, is the lack of a curator an inadequacy or an another type of curatorial flamboyance? The artist’s have done it all DIY, the exhibition itself is spontaneous, autonomous and naturally occurring exchange of experiences, as well as a collective game. There is a consensus among the artists, one that is premised upon the ability to amuse one another.

One can exaggerate individualisms artistic ideal, or simply undermine one’s life experiences. But it is still vague and hard to distinguish or interpret, permeated with all kinds of ambiguous possibilities. The opposition of interpretation is not a stance of pending excavation, instead it is a intuitive, unwritten contract. The exhibition’s title was for a time hard to define, every artist made numerous attempts to express the ideas they wished to title. The disadvantage of a curator is that they are outside all of this, their objectivity facilitating the chaos of this flock of headless dragons. The acceptance of “NONO” is ultimately a kind of compromise, with no alternative but to be multidirectional in nature, as well as mutually contrasting. It is the outcome of the reality of self-organization and its primal chaos.

The contents of the exhibition appear to have some kind of fragmented characteristics, with each artist trying to prove themselves rather than attempting to build something collaboratively. The artist’s subjectivity is objectively brought to the forefront and promoted. Here, visual art as a form of individual expression is given free reign, it is site for continuous challenge and change – and all who tread within this realm can use visual art to grasp their most vivid and ideal imaginations and to shout, “NONO,” at it. The eleven artists in this exhibition are the leading young artists in the contemporary Chinese art world. For example, Xu Zhen’s latest effort follows a line of his recent large-scale installations, large not only in size, but also in its concept and possibilities of interpretation. Using artist Damien Hirst as a reference, Xu Zhen openly imitates and follows, is it a tribute or a critique? Or is engaging in this kind of naïve conjecture falling into the trap which the artists have set? The intense visual provocation of the work says everything already. The work of Kan Xuan are prone to the delicacy of a private nature, images emerging and surpassing the boundaries of the extroverted nature and composition of public space, which through the use of largeness may express an intrinsic smallness.

Up until now, the participating artists have kept a low profile leading up to this exhibition, with few photos or written words related to the works. Perhaps, this kind of experience is a necessary requirement for creativity, yet with regards to the public and the media, this kind of reserved attitude has secured an air of mystery. In the context of Long March’s open attitude, the exhibition is aimed at providing a guaranteed space for experimentation. However this kind of guarantee lacks a correspondence or dependence on reality because “NONO” is fundamentally unable to be controlled.

As artist Xu Zhen says:
“NONO”. Just see the damn show

Artist Kan Xuan says:
“NONO”, Don’t ask me.

Artist Colin Chinnery says…nothing at all.