從鋼鐵塵土到鋼鐵史詩
劉柏村雕塑藝術的思想與實踐
廖仁義 助理教授
法國巴黎第十大學美學博士
國立台北藝術大學博物館研究所助理教授兼圖書館館長
在臺灣現代雕塑朝向當代雕塑轉變的過程中，劉柏村是一個舉足輕重的藝術家。他的雕塑藝術的創作與理念，不但致力於為臺灣當代雕塑開拓更寬廣的視野，也積極推動臺灣當代雕塑與國際潮流之間的對話。
從日治時期至今，臺灣雕塑在不同世代藝術家的努力耕耘之下，已經從現代雕塑轉變到當代雕塑。臺灣雕塑從日治時期的1920年代開始受到初期現代藝術的影響，第一代現代雕塑家的作品延續著羅丹以來從古典轉向現代的具象寫實造型。第二次世界大戰結束以後，特別是在1950年代以後，隨著抽象藝術在臺灣的風起雲湧，臺灣的藝術家開始朝向更為前衛的現代藝術，也因此第二代現代雕塑家的作品呈現出非具象的抽象造型。1980年代以來，當代藝術思潮進入臺灣，也衝擊著雕塑創作的方向，也因此第三代現代雕塑家一方面引進現代雕塑的抽象精神，另一方面也因為受到當代藝術之中裝置藝術的影響，將作品放進更寬廣的場域，突顯作品與它所處空間的關係。
從2000年以來，站立在這個已經得到擴張的場域中，第四代的臺灣現代雕塑家又積極投入當代藝術的探險，將臺灣雕塑推向當代雕塑，既開拓出寬廣創新的視野，也展現出豐富多樣的風貌，使得雕塑這個已有漫長歷史的藝術在臺灣當代藝術的發展過程中仍然站立在領導性的位置。而在這一個世代的藝術家之中，劉柏村便是備受矚目的一位開創者。特別是當他面對當代藝術思潮的衝擊時，他並不是盲目跟隨潮流，而是站到一個更高的反省位置。他不但全面關注當代雕塑的造型表現，而且投入雕塑材料的重新檢視。他回到材料尚未成為作品之前的物質狀態，探索材料的內在物質原理，並以這個探索做為基礎，從一個具有反省性的後設位置，重新建立雕塑的創作思想，並發展自己的造型實踐。
如今，劉柏村的雕塑作品已經為臺灣的當代雕塑開創了全新的視野。也因此，在臺灣當代雕塑的演變過程中，劉柏村已經成為藝術思想與實踐的領航者。
1. 藝術生命的孵化與茁壯
做為一個在2000年以後日益成熟的臺灣當代雕塑家，劉柏村當然不是一開始就是處在目前這個位置，也不是一直停留在每一個時期作品完成的位置，而是持續不斷地走在探索與演進的創作歷程中。
1963年，劉柏村出生於臺灣臺北縣中和市(現在的新北市中和區)這個位於大都市邊陲地帶的衛星城鎮。在他的成長過程中，在這個地方，他曾經看見屬於植物與動物的土地，也曾經看見這樣的土地逐漸讓位給水泥建築與高壓電塔的過程；也就是說，他曾看見農業的沒落，也曾看見工業的來臨。從他的成長過程中，我們可以看出，他是一個生性好動卻又不喜歡受人左右的生命，或者也可以說，他身手敏捷而他的眼睛卻又可以對外在世界保持反省的距離。這樣的身體，就像是一團擅長雕塑的火種，讓他輕易就可以掌握原來只是物質的東西，將它們轉變為雕塑的材料，而最後成為造型。
就是因為具備這個天分，他早在高中時期就已訓練出紮實的翻模技術。他深知自己身體擁有這個能力，也就積極找尋可以讓身體與材料不斷進行對話的環境與機會。因此，他日後進入當時臺灣唯一的雕塑藝術的高等學府國立藝專雕塑科(現在國立臺灣藝術大學雕塑系的前身)。經過幾年的學院訓練，他養成了寫實雕塑所必須具備的完整的材料與技法的能力。1987年，劉柏村以出色的表現從這所學校畢業，並被期待成為一個藝術家，便是帶著這份期待，他又充滿自信地前往法國巴黎，進入位於巴黎拉丁區的國立高等美術學校。
正如同那個時代的每一個經過學院訓練的藝術家，都被訓練能夠做出我們肉眼熟悉的事物的形狀，並以此做為藝術家引以為傲的能力，因此，劉柏村也具備了這項能力，並以此做為傑出藝術家的方向。但是，當他來到巴黎，當他來到這個曾經是古典與現代雕塑重鎮的城市，劉柏村雖然看見他所熟悉的過去，卻也看見他必須重新認識的現在，並且必須去找尋尚未發生的未來。這時，他過去引以為傲的寫實雕塑只是一個雕塑家必須具備的基本能力，這個能力只讓他能夠追隨過去歷史中偉大雕塑家的腳步，至於要能夠走進現代藝術與當代藝術的世界，他必須檢視他已經熟悉的東西，並且發現他還不熟悉的東西。
這個時期，裝置藝術已經蔚為風潮，幾乎蔓延在西方藝術的每一個角落，巴黎當然也不會例外，而不服輸的劉柏村自然也就投身裝置藝術。1991年，在巴黎沙勒佩提耶大教堂(Chapelle Saint-Louis de la Salpêtrière)一個以「事件」為主題的聯展中，他發表的作品可以說就是裝置藝術創作觀念的初試啼聲。從這件作品，我們清楚看到，他已經取消臺座，將作品排列在地面上，而木材做成的造型雖然長得像是剖開的臺灣檳榔，卻已不是寫實雕刻，而是已經不具明確物象指涉的造型。以就是說，這時劉柏村已經發展出不再依附於現實事物形狀的造型思維，而這樣的轉變，對於不具寫實能力的創作者而言，或許並非難事，但是對於一個曾經自豪具象寫實能力的劉柏村而言，這卻必須一番掙扎，因為他必須捨得拋棄，而且在這個拋棄過程中，又經歷一番辛苦摸索。然而，經過這個拋棄與重新摸索的過程，劉柏村的造型思維變得更為寬闊，既充滿冒險，也展現創新。
1991年，劉柏村回到臺灣，繼續辛苦摸索，也曾遭遇現實的困難。直到1993年，他在母校得到教職，生活才逐漸穩定，創作也才步入軌道。但是，以全新的面貌呈現他經歷辛苦摸索以後的造型思維，則一直要到1997年才出現轉機。從此劉柏村的藝術創作從未間斷，直到今日也已經建立了一個屬於他自己的藝術世界。
在劉柏村的藝術創作過程中，他一直在進行多層次的反思。每一個層次的反思，他都能夠從正面進入背面，他都能夠從表象進入後設。這種後設的創作思維，讓他能夠從世界已經發生的狀態看見尚未發生的狀態，並且讓他得到一個新的起點，由他決定世界重新發生的方式、時間與地點。做為一個藝術家，這個後設思維讓他找回了自己對於造型、材料與空間的自主性。
劉柏村從1997年以來的作品，突顯了三個層次的反思，並對於當代雕塑做出了重要貢獻。
第一個層次就是造型的反思：他讓自己從已經熟悉的形狀之中解放出來，除了讓自己的造型思維獲得解放，也讓更多的造型元素得以解放，藉此讓造型能夠自由自在從新孵化與成長。
第二個層次就是材料的反思：他讓過去隱藏在形狀背後的材料及其物質狀態重從新被注視，而不是只是做為再現現實事物形狀的材料，也因此他讓材料及其物質狀態恢復它們原本的內在原理，並且不經矯飾地成為雕塑創作的造型原理。
第三個層次就是空間的反思：他從過去藝術家總是讓既定的客觀的物理空間規範決定創作位置，改變為依據材料與造型而進行藝術創作在決定作品與空間的關係，因此他在作品與空間之間建立了相互穿透的關係。空間不再是規範，而是作品創造出來的關係。
2. 造型原理的解放與再生
從劉柏村每一時期的作品，我們可以看到他持續在進行造型探索。將他過去二十年間的重要個展依照年份逐一列出，我們可以整理出一個演變的過程。
他的重要個展如下：
1997年，「聚集．分離I」，國立臺灣藝術學院。
1999年，「聚集．分離II」，臺北縣立文化中心。
1999年，「形．離–現場」，臺北市立美術館。
2005年，「在渾厚與輕盈之間：穿透空間」，朱銘美術館。
2006年，「身體、符號與空間情境」，東吳大學遊藝廣場。
2006年，「鋼鐵架構I：空間、身體與中介質地」，新竹縣立文化局美術館。
2007年，「鋼鐵架構II：自然、空間與中介質地」，國立清華大學藝文中心。
2008年，「相對複製」，國父紀念館。
2009年，「擬象喚景」，朱銘美術館。
2010年，「鋼鐵之森」，國立臺灣藝術大學。
2010年，東和鋼鐵駐廠藝術家作品發表會。
2012年，「金剛變身」，韓國首爾皇家畫廊。
2013年，劉柏村與菲利普‧金(Phillip King)雙個展，東和鋼鐵苗栗廠區。
在這些不同時期的個展中，劉柏村的造型探索的演變過程呈現出四個時期：(一)形狀解構時期；(二)符號演繹時期；(三)工業史詩時期；(四)後設工業時期。
第一個時期「形狀解構時期」(1997-2004)：
這一時期的作品，主要都是現實事物形狀的肢解造型，可以說都是形狀解放之後的作品，甚至可以說都是屬於反造型的作品。無論是人體的形狀，或者是世界景物的形狀，不再是寫實的整體狀態，而是非寫實的分離狀態，呈現出一個個的肢解的造型，或者也可以說是造型的肢解。每一個肢解的部位散佈在原來不屬於它的位置，自成一個單位，它們之間已經失去原來的物理關係；這樣的作品以及每一個部位的空間位置，一方面意味著每一個現實事物並無統一的形狀，或者這種我們習以為常的統一狀態其實是約定的產物，有待我們重新檢視，另一方面也意味著空間並不是一個已經存在的物理真實，它不見得可以做為規範供我們定義事物的形狀。劉柏村返台初期的個展，例如，1997年的「聚集．分離I」、1999年的「聚集．分離II」與1999年的「形‧離‧現場」，無論標題或作品，都表現出這一時期形狀解構的造型思維。
第二個時期「符號演繹時期」(2005-2009)：
這一時期的作品主要都是形狀簡化的符號造型。面對著從自然到工業的過渡，劉柏村敏銳看見世界的改變；他不但看見身體活動及其經驗內容的改變，也看見空間定義及其範圍的改變，但是他並沒有透過寫實的造型去進行具象的再現，因為他知道它們都已經不再是我們的肉眼所能捕捉的形狀；做為一個經歷抽象藝術洗禮的藝術家，他透過抽象的符號造型，使作品產生更多層次的意涵，引導我們正視這個世界從自然朝向工業的快速轉變。2005年的「在渾厚與輕盈之間：穿透空間」、2006年的「身體、符號與空間情境」、2006年的「鋼鐵架構I：空間、身體與中介質地」與2007年，「鋼鐵架構II：自然、空間與中介質地」這幾次個展，都呈現出這個符號演繹的造型思維。身體符號，自然符號與空間符號，訴說著人與世界之間多重而矛盾的關係。從這些作品中，我們可以看見劉柏村對於大地與符號之間的關係仍然帶著焦慮與不安。也正是從這一個觀點，我們可以認為，2008年的「相對複製」與2009年的「擬象喚景」，也都是延續著這個符號演繹時期造型探索。
第三個時期「工業史詩時期」(2010-2012)：
這一個時期，劉柏村走出大地與符號之間的矛盾，他從世界一切事物的物質狀態的源頭，找到人類與大地擁抱共舞的詩篇。每一個時代都有史詩，畜牧社會有史詩，農業社會有史詩，工業社會當然也有史詩，只不過工業社會的史詩可以是對工業的抗拒與批判，也可以是對工業的擁護與歌頌，但也可以是透過工業的材料與技術，去表現人類的創造能力。在劉柏村這一時期的作品中，我們發現，工業也可以為藝術提供創造的元素。工業的濫用固然可以造成人類的價值危機，但工業的正確發展與發揮卻也能夠創造出超過人類肉體極限的能力。這一時期的劉柏村，由於得到東和鋼鐵公司的支持，也創造出超過一個藝術家肢體界線的藝術造型。從2010年的「鋼鐵之森」到2010年「東和鋼鐵駐廠藝術家作品發表會」，都可以說一部氣勢磅礡的工業史詩。這幾次展覽的作品，主要都是鋼鐵人的造型，它們固然都是鋼鐵焊接的身體形狀，卻都展現出古代神話中巨人家族的雄偉氣勢，彷彿從洪荒之中誕生，將要帶領子民開天闢地。或許，我們也可以把這一個工業史詩時期，視為是劉柏村走過造型解放之後的造型重生。
第四個時期「後設工業時期」(2012-2015)：
劉柏村既然經歷過造型解放的時期，如今雖然走向造型重生，他當然不會是另一種形狀思想的擁護者，也就是說他不會變成是工業社會的形狀擁護者，在不斷進行造型反思的態度下，他仍然是一個後設位置的造型探索者。因此，雖然工業是我們時代的一種生產方式，但是對於一個鋼鐵藝術家而言，工業也是他必須面對而且也必須運用的技術事實，而更重要的是，工業技術也讓他可以更直接、更清楚去面對藝術創作的材料，並且看見它們在尚未成為作品也尚未成為材料以前的物質狀態。能夠回到作品的材料狀態，也才能夠回到材料的物質狀態，進一步也才能夠回到物質的自然狀態；而回到物質的自然狀態，我們也就回到造型的故鄉，那裡是造型誕生的地方，物質的自然狀態蘊含著造型原理。劉柏村藉由工業回到工業以前，進入他鋼鐵藝術的後設工業時期。從2012年的「金剛變身」與2013年「劉柏村與菲利普金(Phillip King)雙個展」，劉柏村已經從材料的物質狀態與物質的自然狀態找到了原創性的造型元素與力量。這時，工業技術竟然成為藝術技法，讓造型看似有形卻也無形，彷彿老子所說的「大象無形」。
3. 材料狀態的發現與改造
在劉柏村的創作歷程中，固然是造型探索將他帶往材料的反思，但卻也是材料的反思讓他的造型探索找回自己誕生的地方。因此，材料的反思在他的創作歷程中佔有高度的重要性。
正如許多藝術家，劉柏村也曾被訓練成只是把材料當作是必須完全轉化成為作品才會具有意義的東西。材料的地位只是被用來建構形狀，形狀一旦完成了，就必須隱藏在作品的後面，或者被形狀覆蓋，或者被顏色定義，或者從視覺範圍完全消失。基於完整的專業訓練，劉柏村熟悉每一種雕塑材料。舉凡木材、石材、金屬與複合媒材，經由他的雙手，都能成為出色的雕塑作品。但是從1997年之後，他逐漸將重心放在金屬與複合媒材，特別是致力於鋼鐵焊接作品。
早在留學巴黎時期劉柏村就已開始從形狀的造型思維中解放出來，並已開始正視材料及其物質狀態，試圖從物質狀態中找尋造型原理。因此，當他面對鋼鐵這個雕塑材料，他不把鋼鐵只是當作一種用來創作作品的材料，並在作品完成之後就被掩蓋，相對的，在他的創作過程中，他更重視的是對鋼鐵進行後設性的探討。所謂後設性的探討，就是他不會讓作品掩蓋材料，讓材料掩蓋物質，而是重新進入被作品掩蓋的地方，從作品回到材料，從材料回到物質。也就是說，他回到作品尚未發生之前材料的物質狀態，找出材料轉變成為作品的物質依據。便是這種後設性的探討及其產生出來的觀點，他的作品試圖依據材料的物質狀態與造型原理釋放出藝術意涵。
固然金屬做為雕塑材料歷史久遠，特別翻銅技術自古有之，但是大量使用鐵、鋼與不銹鋼這些材料，則是工業時代以後的發展，而特別是被運用在現代抽象雕塑。這類來自工業技術的材料，雖然不適合寫實雕塑，卻非常適合抽象雕塑，直到當代裝置藝術的風起雲湧，更是異軍突起，它們也特別能夠突顯材料的物質狀態。而此一發展，正是劉柏村從學習到成熟的過程中極為熟悉的材料經驗。從他的論述中，我們清楚知道，他早已熟悉貢查雷茲(julio Gonzalez)的生鐵焊接、卡爾德(Alexander Calder)的H鋼構成、塞撒(César)的汽車壓縮，以及卡羅(Anthony Caro)的鋼板排列組合，並且能夠清楚解析他們各自的創作立場與材料主張。而特別近年在他結識英國鋼鐵藝術家菲利普金並且一起創作之後，劉柏村的材料思維也達到更為成熟的境地，可謂信手拈來便成作品。
正如他的造型探索經歷了演變的過程，劉柏村材料探索也在這四個時期之中發生演變。在這四個時期之中，有的時候是造型的探索影響著他的材料發展，但也有的時候是材料的觀點影響著他的造型發展。
在形狀解構時期，我們可以看見，這時他所關心的是形狀與造型的解放，而創作方式屬於裝置藝術，也因此大部分時候使用複合媒材，但這時他已經嘗試讓材料轉變為作品的物質變化呈現出來。例如，在1990年代後期發表「聚集．分離」系列以後，當他在進行形狀解構工作時，一方面是對形狀進行解剖與肢解，另一方面也讓形狀肢解背後金屬的鎔鑄狀態呈現出來，似乎刻意要裸露物質變成形狀的痕跡。
在符號演繹時期，作品之中的符號無論是身體、自然或空間，我們都清楚看見那是鋼鐵的材料經由工業機具切割出來的符號。例如，2005年的「在渾厚與輕盈之間：穿透空間」，材料幾乎突顯在造型的每一個面向，它決定著植物符號的形狀；同樣的，2006年的「鋼鐵架構」系列作品，也是工業生產技術中的鋼鐵條件決定著身體符號與空間符號，而這時他已經在探討工業社會的物質美學。
在工業史詩時期，劉柏村已經到達鋼鐵材料的最初物質狀態，並且在這裡看見造型的重新誕生。劉柏村材料探索最重要的轉捩點，就是他在2009年獲得東和鋼鐵駐廠藝術創作計畫。東和鋼鐵是臺灣最重要的鋼鐵公司，也是唯一認識到工業與藝術之間特殊關係的臺灣鋼鐵產業。從2009年開始，它針對鋼鐵雕塑藝術家設置了藝術家駐廠創作計畫，提供場地、設備、技術、人員與經費各方面的資源，讓藝術家進行藝術創作。在這一次的駐廠創作期間 ，劉柏村經歷了他的藝術生涯之中最豐碩與最親密的鋼鐵經驗，也可以說，他完全處身在鋼鐵還不是材料、更不是藝術媒材之前的廢鐵世界。就一個藝術世界的創造者而言，他進入世界還沒誕生以前的渾沌大地。他曾經以詩句般的文字寫下這種發現的驚喜：
「重重廢鐵山 高聳林立 讓藝術家無限聯想 渴望接近
卡車載運 出出入入 日日變化 不同景象 不同內容
每天都有新奇的東西 等待重新賦予意義
他是金屬雕塑創作的重要源頭」
（東和鋼鐵駐廠計畫劉柏村駐廠日誌2009年9月1日)
就是這種材料經驗，讓劉柏村的思想更為堅定，他確信自己已經找到金屬雕塑的源頭，已經親眼見到物質之中蘊含的藝術原創性。而這時因為看見物質的原創性的感動與激動，隨即轉變成為創作的爆發力。爆發力一旦釋放，廢鐵轉眼之間就成為一件一件的作品。就在他與鐵共舞的同時，廢鐵翩然起舞，成為一個個的鋼鐵人。所以，從2010年發表的「鋼鐵之森」，一直到2012年的「金剛變身」，我們都可以發現，劉柏村已經在鋼鐵這項堅硬的材料之中找到它們的內在邏輯，並且善用工業機具讓它們靈活地發展出來。
在後設工業時期，他使用強大的火力融化堅硬的鋼材，使其表面呈現熔岩般的肌理，結合地金的構成，強化鋼鐵物質的原生語言。也就是說，他已經讓材料的內在邏輯能夠自由表達。這個時期，工業不只是一種生產技術，工業也成為超越它自己的力量。例如，2013年的《異境—初始》這件作品，已經超越了工業的生產技術，它是藝術家與鋼鐵共舞的產物。
4. 空間觀點的突破與擴充
在當代藝術的思想潮流中，雕塑藝術的展示思維也已成為創作思維的一個內容，甚至是它的核心內容。因此，當代雕塑家往往也必須在適合的展示場域與展示方式中才能更完整而且更充分地表現他的作品，甚至往往也必須在這樣的展示場域與方式之中進行創作，才更加能夠讓作品表現出來。而在劉柏村將近二十年的創作過程中，我們也能看見，他的展示思維也呈現出一個從現代藝術朝向當代藝術的摸索過程，以及一個從裝置藝術朝向當代雕塑的轉變過程。
雖然現代雕塑已經走出臺座，進入屬於雕塑藝術的三度性空間中，但由於針對現代藝術的美術館空間觀念的興起，現代雕塑經常還是受限於白色立方體的結構，而依附於體制化的展示思維。但是在當代藝術興起之後，特別是裝置藝術興起之後，當代雕塑也跟著設法擺脫現代藝術的展示思維，而將作品的展示從美術館的體制化場域延伸到體制以外的場域。1979年，藝術理論家克勞絲(Rosalind Krauss)發表「擴充場域中的雕塑」這篇著名的文章，也正是對當代雕塑的這項特徵做出合理的解釋。劉柏村是一個思想敏銳的藝術創作者，在他摸索自己的雕塑方向時，早已看見當代雕塑這個轉變，而且雖然他曾經歷裝置藝術的影響，但是他卻也能夠看見當代雕塑有它自己的擴充場域的觀念，而不必然受限於裝置藝術的影響。
回顧劉柏村的創作歷程，他1987年出國留學以前的展示思維顯然是遵守臺座雕塑的觀念，也因此受到美術館的空間觀念的影響，而既然創作的過程遵守的是這種觀點，當然展示與觀看也都是依據這種觀點。但是，1991年他在巴黎所做的展覽明顯已經是裝置藝術的展示思維，作品非但沒有臺座，也已經離開傳統的美術館式的空間。只不過，這時只是嘗試，一直要到1997年以後，他每一個時期的探索才逐漸表現出展示思維的突破，而作品創作出來的空間與觀點也就更為具有多重性與反思性。
1997年進入形狀解構時期以來，劉柏村的創作思維是以造型探索為主導，所以展示思維也是依照造型演變在發展。這一時期，既然造型是形狀的肢解，分佈在不同的空間位置，展示的空間狀態自然也就呈現出相同的肢解狀態，而面對作品的視覺位置也就是失去中心位置的散焦觀點。這樣的展示思維及其所發展出來的空間與觀點，應該也是劉柏村走向當代雕塑過程中所想要經歷的一種重新檢視，甚至是他對自我中心主義(ego-centralism)的視覺思維的檢視。
2005年進入符號演繹時期以來，劉柏村的創作思維日益呈現出對於場域的關注，而展示呈現的場域思維也就明顯成為作品發展的原則。在這一時期的場域思維中，作品透過符號化的造型創造出一種劇場性與敘事性，使得空間被建構成劇場性與敘事性的文本。固然這一時期作品與空間布置仍然延續著散焦觀點，但分佈在場域中的身體符號、服裝符號、植物符號與動物符號，也流露出藝術家這時關注的思想課題。顯然，這時劉柏村在思想層面關注著自然與工業的關係，甚至是政治與商業的介入，也因此這些符號既傳達出表面意涵，也傳達出隱藏意涵，而這兩個層次的意涵顯示當時他敏銳地感受到現代性與後現代性之間的緊張關係。
2009年進入工業史詩時期，劉柏村的創作思維的材料探索漸入佳境，也從材料的內在邏輯發展出造型，而作品與空間的關係進入一個相互詮釋的狀態。雖然也具有劇場性，但敘事性變得簡潔有力。一方面，這是因為這時劉柏村的藝術思想已經成熟飽滿，二方面是因為工業機具與技術幫他克服了許多鋼鐵的堅硬性質所會造成的困難。一塊塊堅硬的鋼板，一團團渾沌的廢鐵，都因為巨型裁切與鎔鑄的機器的介入，而變得靈活，使得作品轉換出詩句一般的意象與象徵。因此，這一時期的作品，以它們全方位的表達力量，創造了一種三百六十度的空間與方位，讓觀點完全不會因為作品材料而產生任何距離與界線。更重要的是，這時他的作品的空間狀態已經完全獨立於裝置藝術的框架，充分表達了當代雕塑自己的空間思維。
2012年進入後設工業時期，在劉柏村已經充分掌握材料的邏輯與情緒特質之後，他的創作思維又翻越到另一個後設的層次，完全突顯材料的物質狀態，並且讓工業技術超越了它自己。我們或許可以做一個哲學式的比喻，這時劉柏村不但讓鋼鐵雕塑從物理學翻越到後設物理學，甚至也讓後設物理學翻越到宇宙論的層次，換句話說，他透過作品讓我們看見宇宙的初始狀態，在那時，在那裡，人類與物質共生。這是劉柏村的雕塑藝術目前到達的地方。對於一個像劉柏村這樣的開創性藝術家而言，這裡不是一切最後的最後，而是一切起點的起點。他目前鋼鐵的變形作品，幾乎也就是藝術家自己身體與空間相互交織而成的共舞狀態，讓我們忘記那是鋼鐵，卻只看見翩然起舞。
結語：回到神話誕生以前的宇宙
綜觀劉柏村的創作歷程，我們看見一個當代雕塑思想的摸索與成熟的過程。他的成就與貢獻不僅在於創作源源不絕，而在於他不會滿足於已經存在的雕塑思想以及他所發展出來的審美規範；在於他總是不斷翻牆，設法翻越現狀與表象，設法發現躲藏在雕塑作品發生以前的世界，那裡還沒有造型，只有無盡的塵土。
但是，在這段翻越的道路，他一方面必須捨棄，另一方面必須摸索。從1997年直到2015年，劉柏村的藝術創作經歷每一個不同時期的困頓與突破，才能走出如今的成熟與豐饒。如果說古典時期的雕塑是讚美諸神的藝術，那麼劉柏村做為神話已經被工業取代的時代的一個雕塑家，他的鋼鐵雕塑似乎是引領著我們回到神話誕生以前的宇宙，那裡還沒有山川萬物，還沒有日夜晨昏，只有無盡的塵土。
立足在無盡的塵土中，劉柏村為鋼鐵雕塑找到母親的懷抱，他在那裡與鐵共舞，譜寫著神話誕生以前的鋼鐵史詩。
From Dust of Iron & Steel to Epics of Iron & Steel
— Concepts and Practice of Po-Chun Liu’s Steel Sculpture
Jen-I Liao
Ph.D. of Aesthetics, Université de Paris-X Nanterre
Director, Taipei National University of the Arts Library
During the swerve of contemporary Taiwanese sculpture, Po-Chun Liu has played a significant role. His ideas have greatly broadened the perspective of Taiwanese sculpture and urged dialogues between Taiwanese art and international trends.
Since the Japanese Occupational Period, Taiwanese sculpture has advanced from modern sculpture to contemporary sculpture, thanks the efforts of artists of all generations. Taiwanese sculpture had been influenced by initial modern art since the 1920s, the rst Taiwanese modern art sculptors carried forward the representational realism that deviated from classicalism since Auguste Rodin. A er the Second World War, in the 1950s, abstract art became a rushing tide in Taiwan, artists advanced toward modern art. Abstract forms were common in the works of the second generation of Taiwanese modern art sculptors. And in the 1980s, streams of thought of contemporary art flew into Taiwan, bringing great impacts to local sculptors and the direction of their art. us sculptors of the third generation introduced the abstractness of modern sculpture; meanwhile absorbing the installation art from contemporary art and brought their works into a wider field to outline the relationship between their projects and the spaces.
And since 2000, the fourth generation of Taiwanese sculptors, who stand on the widened field, began their expedition of contemporary art by pushing Taiwanese sculpture onto the stage of contemporary sculpture. They have opened up a more expansive perspective and multiple facets of their art, successfully directing sculpture, a profession has a long history in Taiwan, to a leading role in contemporary Taiwanese art. Among artists of this generation, Po-Chun Liu is one of the most notable, a pioneer. When confronting the overwhelming ideas of contemporary art, he chose not to follow the tide blindly, instead, he stands at a higher position in order to ponder over them. Liu reexamines the formal expression as well as materials of contemporary sculpture. He goes back to the materials before they are made into artworks and investigates their physical traits before picking up a reflective standing for the thinking and practice of his sculpture. Then he commences his figuration.
Today Liu has opened up a completely new perspective for Taiwanese contemporary sculpture and he is deemed the navigator of artistic theories and practice during the transition of Taiwanese sculpture.
- The Incubation and Growth of an Art Career
A sculptor gradually matures since 2000, Liu did not stand where he stands now in the beginning. In fact, he never stays in a certain phase of his creation, but explores and evolves his art unstoppably.
Po-Chun Liu was born in 1963, in Chung-Ho District of Taipei County (now New Taipei City), a satellite town at the edge of the metropolis. He grew up witnessing the lands once belonging to plants and animals to be yielded to concrete structures and electricity towers. He saw the decline of agriculture, and the rise of industries. We can assume that Liu must be an out-going child who resented to be dominated by others. He must be an agile young man with sharp eyes to keep himself from a distance with the world so he would be able to reflect upon it. His body must be like an igniter of sculpture which makes him an expert of materials; he transforms and shapes them into sculpture.
With such a talent, Liu acquired solid skills of plaster mold casting as early as a senior high school student. Knowing his unusual faculty, Liu actively sought for opportunities and environment to have his body communicate with materials. Later he entered Department of Sculpture, National Taiwan Junior College of Arts(now National Taiwan University of Arts), the only sculpture department at that time. The academic training has prepared him with comprehensive skills of manipulating materials and figuring. Liu graduated in 1987 with outstanding performance. Expected to be an artist, Liu went to Paris and studied in the École Supérieure Libre d’art in the Latin community.
Academically trained Taiwanese artists at that time were expected to represent things our eyes are used to and were proud of such an ability. Liu naturally was good at it and believed it was the precondition of an outstanding artist. But when he arrived Paris and saw the center of classical and modern art with his own eyes, he recognized the past he was familiar, the present he was eager to know, and the future he couldn’t wait to discover. He also realized that realistic sculpture was only the basic skill for a sculptor, preparing him to follow the steps of great sculptors in the past. To be in the world of modern art and contemporary art, Liu had to excavate what was unknown to him through examining what was familiar to him.
Installation art began to become an overwhelming trend in western art when Liu was in Paris, and was expanding toward every direction, including Paris. Unwilling to be left behind, Liu also started creating installation artworks. His debut was a project he exhibited in an art event titled “Incidents” at Chapelle Saint-Louis de la Salpêtrière in 1991. The works was laid on the ground instead of erected on a podium. It was a wooden object reminiscent to a cut-open betel nut commonly seen in Taiwan. is work was no longer realistic sculpture, it abstractly referred something undetermined. In short, at that time Liu already got away from figurative thinking and developed an abstract style. It might not be a challenge for sculptors who are not very good in figurating, but for Liu who had been so proud of his figurative skills, it was a struggle. He had to give up what he was best and start all over again. Nevertheless, the new exploration brought Liu to a broader field with innovations and adventures.
Liu returned to Taiwan in 1991 and continued his laborious exploration. He was faced with many dffculties. In 1993 when Liu earned a teaching position of his alma mater, his life settled and his creation stabilized. Nevertheless, a complete new approach for his forms a er a long and tough journey did not bring him a turning point until 1997. Since that time, Liu’s creation never stops; he has established an art world of his own.
Liu’s creation is his reflection upon art of many levels, and at each level he goes to the back from the front, and to the meta-thinking from the appearance. His meta-thinking made him able to see how the world was becoming through how the world has become, so he could find a new starting point; from there he decided how, when and where the world should be reshaped. The artist recaptured his autonomy regarding figuration, materials and space.
Liu’s art a er 1997 has accentuated three levels of re ection, and his thoughts are signi cant to the development of contemporary Taiwanese sculpture.
The first level is about figuration. Liu set himself free from familiar forms so his ideals of forms as well as figurative elements are set free. us his sculptural forms could be incubated and raised with greater freedom.
The second level is about materials. Liu let the matters and their traits covered by forms to be looked into again. They are no longer the materials simply representing some objects, their immanent qualities and physical conditions are restored to be the unadorned sources of his sculpture.
The third level is about space. Opposite to other artists who decide the locations of their works according to the environmental conditions, Liu decides a project’s relationship with the space according to its materials and forms. us Liu’s sculpture and space goes through one another; the space is not the frame of his art, but a relationship created by his art.
- The Liberation and Rebirth of Figuration
In each phase of Liu’s art career, we see his continual efforts in the exploration of figuration. Listing his major exhibitions of the past two decades we will see Liu’s changes during these times.His major exhibitions include:
1997, “Convergence and Divergence I”, National Taiwan College of arts 1999, “Convergence and Divergence II”, Taipei County Cultural Center 1999, “Forms．Separating．On Site”, Taipei Fine Arts Museum 2005, “Between Concreteness and Buoyancy: Penetrating Space”, Ju-Ming Museum 2006, “Steel Construction Ι: Body, Signs, and Spatial Expression”, Arts Center, Soochow University 2006, “Space, Body and Intermediary Texture”, Hsinchu County Art Museum
2007, “Steel Construction II: Nature, Space, and Intermediary Texture”, Arts Center, National Tsing Hua University 2008, “Contrast & Reproduce”, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Gallery 2009, “Imitate& Summon”, Ju-Ming Museum 2010, “Steel Forest”, National Taiwan University of Arts
2010, Artworks presentation of the Artist Residency at Tung Ho Steel Enterprise Corp. 2012, “Iron Man Transformation”, Seoul Royal Gallery, Korea 2013, Artworks presentation of the Artist Residency with Phillip King at Tung Ho Steel Enterprise Corp.
From these art shows and the artist’s studies of figuration, we can induce four phases of his art: (1)Phase of Dissolving Forms, (2) Phase of Developing Signs, (3)Phase of Industrial Epics, and (4)Phase of Meta-Industry.
The first phase of Dissolving Forms (1997~2004):
Liu’s artworks of this time were mainly the representation of dismantled objects. The shapes were freed, or, it was the artist’s anti-figurative attempt. Human bodies or sceneries were no longer integral, instead, they were dismembered, unrealistically presenting
broken shapes. Or, they presented the dissolution of forms. Each part seemed to be cast out, away from where it was supposed to, becoming an isolated object. The physical connections between them disappeared. These projects with scattered parts in space suggests that, in reality, things don’t have uniformed shapes, and their statuses we used to perceive come from a convention need to be reexamined. And the space is not a real physical existence, it might not be able to decide our definition of the shapes of things. Liu’s solo exhibitions after he returned to Taiwan have expressed his thinking upon figuration. They were “Convergence and Divergence” I& II in 1997 and 1999, “Forms.Separating.On Site” in 1999.
The second phase of Developing Signs (2005~2009):
Liu’s works of this phase were featured as simplified signs. The transition from nature to industries made the artist realize the changes of the world. He not only sees the changes of bodily activities and experience, but also the definition and boundary of a space. Liu stopped representing substantial objects with realistic figuration because he knew that there were things beyond our naked eyes could capture. Baptized by abstract art, Liu gave his artworks multiple levels of meanings with abstract forms of signs in order to lead his audience to directly face the fast changing industrialized world. His exhibitions during this time expressed his thoughts on the evolution of signs in figuration. There were “Between Concreteness and Buoyancy: Penetrating Space” in 2005, “Space, Body and Intermediary Texture” in 2006, “Steel Construction I: Body, Signs, and Spatial Expression” and “Steel Construction II: Nature, Space, and Intermediary Texture” in 2006 and 2007 respectively. Signs of bodies, signs of nature and signs of space are signaling the multiple paradoxes between individuals and the world. Also, from Liu’s works during this phase, we see the artist’s anxiety over the tension between the earth and signs, and from his view of this time, we see the “Contrast & Reproduce” in 2008 and “Imitate & Summon” in 2009 have continued Liu’s exploration of signs and their evolution.
The third phase of Industrial Epics (2010~2012):
Liu walked away from the paradoxes he had seen earlier in this phase and from the original statuses of things, he found the poetry of earth. Every age had its own epics, from nomadic to agricultural, and industrialized age is not an exception. The epics of the industrialized age could be embracing industrialization or resisting industrialization. ey also might provide suitable materials and techniques for the creativity of man. On one hand the overpowering industries have endangered our world and our values, on the other we’re benefited by industrialization that li ed many of our limitations. Supported by Tung Ho Steel, Liu was able to create works beyond his physical limitations. His presentation as Tung Ho’s artist-in-residence in 2010 and his “Steel Forest” in the same year have composed a powerful epic of industrialization. The motif of these exhibitions was the ironman of a body welded by iron and steel. Like the giant in ancient myths, born in the chaos before time, he led his people to create the sky and earth. is phase, we might say, was the rebirth of figuration a er the artist has released forms earlier.
The fourth phase of Meta-industry (2012~2015):
After setting forms free, the rebirth of figuration to Liu doesn’t mean embracing another forms. Liu is not interested in advocating industrial forms; his continual thinking upon figuration makes him a meta-thinker of figuration. We live in a society of all kinds of industries and as an artist employing iron and steel, Liu must deal with the facts that, from the materials to the techniques, all he needs are from industrialization. Above all, industrial technologies made it possible for Liu to directly investigate the materials of his art— their conditions before being made for production or for his art. Liu’s understanding of the properties of the materials enables him to imagine how they were like before being extracted from nature. The origins of materials take us back to the birthplaces of forms— the natural, primitive stages of materials carry the knowledge of formation. rough industries, the artist goes back to the pre-industrial age, and finally to his meta-industrial phase. Since the “Iron Man Transformation” in 2012 and his exhibition with Phillips King in 2013, Liu has discovered the power of original elements of figuration, thanks to his understanding of the natural properties and conditions of materials. Now, industrial techniques are same to the artist’s techniques of creation, and his forms are formless, responding to Lao Tzi’s “great images have no shapes.”
- The Discovery and Transformation of Materials
His exploration of forms brought him to his investigation of materials, and his investigation led him to the very beginning of forms. His thinking of materials plays a significant role in his art.
Like many artists, Liu had been trained to create art by thoroughly transforming materials so they will carry meanings. Materials are nothing but the matters used for forming. Once the forms are established, materials are no longer visible. They are either covered by shapes or defined by colors. They are gone from vision. But Liu’s profession made him familiar with every sculptural material; wood, stones, metal and multimedia. Every material could be made into excellent sculpture by his hands. However Liu began focusing on metal and multimedia since 1997, especially those welded by iron and steel.
As early as the days in Paris, Liu already tried to free himself from all thoughts regarding figuration and explore the properties of sculptural materials. He attempts to find the principles of figuration from the nature of materials. us when facing iron and steel, Liu doesn’t simply take them as matters for his art that would be unseen after artworks are completed. Instead, he takes great care of the properties of the iron and steel. The so-called meta-investigation means that, Liu doesn’t allow his artworks to overpower the materials, neither the materials to overpower the matters. He goes back to the origins of the materials and investigates the mechanism of transforming them into artworks. By doing so Liu’s meta-thinking and the viewpoints on figuration he generates would have been carried in his art.
Metals have been the materials for sculpture since a long time ago, especially bronze casting that has a long history. Iron, steel and stainless steel became sculptural materials after industrialization, and are often employed for abstract sculpture. Industrial materials suit better for abstract art than realistic art, and became especially popular when installations stand out in contemporary art because the properties of materials can be outlined in installation art. is development parallels Liu’s exploration of materials during the different phases of his sculpture, and from his studies we clearly see that he is very familiar with Julio Gonzalez’s crude iron welding, Alexander Calder’s H-shape steel structures, César’s pressed cars and Anthony Caro’s assembly of steel panels. Liu has analysed their thoughts about materials and their positions as creators. In recent years, Liu worked with British artist Phillip King and further sharpened his own ideas about materials. Now he is able to manipulate materials in his work easily.
Liu’s research of figuration led the changes in his art, so did his investigation of materials. During the four phases, Liu’s manipulation of materials might be the results of his thoughts about figuration, and vice versa.
From the phase of his dissolving forms we see Liu’s efforts of freeing shapes and figuration. He created installations mostly with multimedia in order to present the changes in materials during the formation of works. One example was his “Convergence and Divergence” series in late 1990s that he actually dissected the shapes and presented the status of metal during the melting and forging. The artist seemed to deliberately maintain the traces of the changes.
During the phase of developing signs, signs of bodies, nature or spaces contained in Liu’s works were cut from iron and steel with industrial tools. With “Between Concreteness and Buoyancy: Penetrating Space” in 2005, the artist accentuated the materials in almost every respect; they decided the shapes of the leaves. “Steel Construction” series in 2006 also was the artist’s demonstration of having bodily signs and spatial signs decided by iron and steel. During this phase, Liu was exploring the material aesthetics in an industrial world.
During the phase of Industrial Epics, Liu’s research had led him to the primary conditions of iron and steel, where he found the rebirth of figuration. It was the most important turning point of the artist, and in 2009 he was invited to be the artist-in-residence in Tung Ho Steel. Tung Ho Steel has played a significant role in Taiwan’s steel industry, and the only one recognizes the unusual connection between the development of industries and art. In 2009 Tung Ho Steel launched a project of artist-in-residence which provides venues, tools, technical support, staff and expenses for artists to create. is residency gave Liu the richest and most intimate experience with iron and steel. He was immersed in a world where iron and steel haven’t been transformed into industrial materials or art. To an artist, it was like entering the chaos before the world was born. Liu once wrote down his surprising experience:
“Mounds of waste iron become high mountains, artists aspire to approach them. Trucks of iron and steel come and go, everyday is different and surprising. Different scenes, different content, waiting to be given new meanings. It is the origin of metal sculpture” (Diary of Tung Ho Steel Residency, Sep 1, 2009)
Such experience of materials made Liu more convinced that he has found the very beginning of metal sculpture, and has witnessed the artistic originality contained in these materials. Inspired and encouraged, the artist was given explosive energy in his creation. When the energy was released, one a er another artwork was completed, made by pieces of scrap. In Liu’s “Steel Forest” in 2010 and “Iron Man Transformation” in 2012 we see the artist has found the inherent logic of the hard metals and cleverly represented them with industrial tools.
Liu began using big flame to melt steel in his meta-industrial phase. On the surfaces of his works he presents a burned texture not unlike lava, and with pieces of slag, the immanent language of iron and steel is accentuated. In other words, in this phase, Liu is able to allow the inherent logic of materials to be freely expressed. Industrialization is not merely about technologies of production, it has accumulated a power beyond itself. Liu’s Altered Territory — Onset in 2013 has gone beyond industrial production, it is a metal choreography of the artist.
- Breaking through and Expanding Spatiality
According to some contemporary art theories, how sculpture is present has become a part of the creation, even the core content. us contemporary sculptors need to exhibit their works at the right venues with right styles of display to fully express their art. Some even need to create their works on certain site. During Liu’s nearly twenty years of art career, we observe that his path from modern art to contemporary art did not miss how art should be presented, and how installation art turns toward contemporary sculpture.
Although modern sculptures have got away from podiums, they are still o en confined in the white cubicles of museums as the rising trend of new spatiality in modern art museums. They attach to the institutionalized exhibitions easily. Contemporary art, especially installation art, that attempts to break away from the conventional ideas of presentation from modern art, extends art from museums to fields outside of museums. The essay “Sculpture in the Expanded Field” by Rosalind Krauss, published in 1979, gave explanation of such a trend in contemporary sculpture. A sensitive and sharp thinker, Liu has seen this when he was seeking for a path for his art. Although influenced by installation art, Liu foresaw the expanding field of contemporary sculpture that is not limited by the influence of installation art.
Looking back Liu’s art career, before 1987 he went overseas, he followed the rules that sculpture were standing on podiums in the rooms of museums. These rules also decided how artworks were presented and appreciated. In 1991 when Liu exhibited his art in Paris, he already showed his ideas of installation art. His works were neither standing on podiums, nor found in museum or art gallery.
In 1997 Liu entered the phase of dissolving forms and his creation carried out his exploration of figuration as well as the consequential changing ideas of presentation. During this phase, forms came from the artist’s dissolution of shapes, his artworks were displayed at different locations, like the space of exhibition had been dissected, too. The audience was faced with artworks without any focal point, or decentralized focal points. New spatiality and viewpoints induced from such thinking about exhibition marked Liu’s path toward contemporary sculpture, even his examination of ego-centralism.
Since the phase of developing signs in 2005, Liu’s creation demonstrated his increasing concern about fields for exhibitions, which obviously became the principle of his art during this time. rough figuration of signs, Liu’s thoughts about fields have generated a sense of theatricality— narrative. Space is constructed as the text of such theatricality and narrative. Artworks of this phase still were displayed at different locations in the space, and the signs of bodies, costumes, plants and animals scattered around the venue revealed the artist’s major concern at this time. Liu kept thinking about issues of nature and industrialization, and the intervention of politics and economy. The signs he integrated in his artworks expressed apparent ideas as well as hidden connotations, implying the artist’s awareness of the tension between modernity and postmodernity.
The phase of industrial epics kicked off in 2009, and Liu’s adventure of materials was getting closer to what he had desired. Now he was able to develop forms based on the inherent logic of materials. Furthermore, his artworks interpreted the spaces displaying them, and the spaces interpreted the artworks displayed in them. The theatrical ambiance did not compromise the conciseness of its narrative. Liu’s art thinking matured during this phase, and industrial tools helped him overcome the difficulties of dealing with the hardness of iron and steel. Thanks to the giant cutting and forging machines, the unfoldable steel panels and unbreakable iron scraps were transformed into epical symbols and images. The rigorous expression of Liu’s artworks in this phase has created a 360 panorama space so no viewpoint would be distanced because of its position. Above all, the spatiality of Liu’s art now has become completely independent from the framework of installation art and more inclined to express the spatial concepts of contemporary sculpture.
2012 marked Liu’s meta-industrial phase, which indicated that after fully understanding the properties and logic of materials, the artist has gone to another level—meta-thinking, that the nature of materials are emphasized in his final products. He industrial techniques have passed themselves in art. Here we might use a philosophical comparison: Liu’s sculpture of iron and steel has brought physics to metaphysics, even to the cosmology. In other words, the artist shows us the primary status of the universe where all beings lived with matters. at’s how far Liu’s sculpture has gone up to today, and to him, it can’t be his final destination, but a starting pointing of everything. Liu’s current mutating sculpture of iron and steel are the results of the interactions between his body and the space— his dance. We no longer see the hardness of materials, but the buoyant performance.
Conclusion: Return to the Universe before Myths
Liu’s art career brings us to see a path of contemporary art clear up through his exploration. His achievement and contribution come not only from his unstopping creation but also his new ideas out of the existing sculptural thoughts that never satisfied him. He never ceases to jump over to the other side of the wall in order to break away from the status quo. He wishes to find the world before sculpture when there was nothing but dust, nothing had forms.
In this path outside of the wall, Liu has to give up something while groping forward. From 1997 to 2015, Liu has been through different dilemmas in every phase so he could harvest today. In classical period, sculpture was to praise gods, and when myths have been replaced by industrialization, a sculptor like Liu is going to take us back to the world before myths— no mountains or rivers, no day and night, but dust and ashes.
Standing over dust, Liu found the embrace of a mother for the sculpture of iron and steel. He begins to dance and compose the epics belonging to the period before myths.