By: Luke S. Kalaydjian
I want to say that Wang Langgou is an unclassifiable artist, but this is a cop-out answer. Although, this weak conclusion seems to be appropriate when ‘what kind of artist’ doesn’t seem to fit. In preparation of answering what ‘kind of artist’ is he, I had considered what ‘kinds’ of artists I know of already that Wang Langgou could subscribe to. I found myself prioritizing materials or methods to ‘classify’ an artist – I did this thought process without looking up anything on the internet, because I don’t want to know what ‘official’ ‘kinds’ of artists are there and I don’t want to know what a, for example, ‘printmaking artists’ is in a definitive way. I’d rather like to see what I can articulate and classify from my current thoughts.
I realized that Wang Langgou did not fit any of the classifications of ‘kinds’ I had thought – except maybe countercultural artist, and I believe a conceptual artist, in my perspective of both of those. Despite him certainly being one, I’m turned off from calling him a countercultural artist because that doesn’t seem to be his focus; his works are not (always) trying to be countercultural, rather, they are suggestive and bridging alternate ways of thought or consideration. I believe it’s the tone of his works which makes me hesitate in calling it countercultural. It could be argued that “suggesting alternate ways of thinking” is countercultural alone, but I’m not sure if his work has the goal of being countercultural (more on that later). The intent seems to be, personally, more-so ‘introductory’ of another way of thought, or calling awareness to it. What is more important to me is that Wang Langgou is definitely, in my mind, a conceptual artist, i.e.: an artist who has great concept behind his work that is at the forefront and is crucial to the work. Punched Poetry Collections (2020) is a great showcase of this (I wish I could see more photos of this one).
Through his art, the concept is the necessary forefront and also a huge reason as to why I enjoy it so much. The thought process and consideration during and after absorption is very exciting to me. Wang Langgou is bridging thoughts, reevaluating perceptions of time, and connecting understandings and uses of multiple spaces. This is also the personal appeal of his work but is also defining what kind of artist he is. His work articulates oddities, breaking norms – “countercultural” – and shows to a careful digester of his work how small we humans really are in relation to each other, our physical landscape, and in the world. Part of his work in showing how ‘small’ we are is reflecting that we really are not all that different. My favorite of the pieces you shared is Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing (2019), a performance/video piece. What was compelling to me was that it doesn’t matter what he’s thinking about in these scenarios – just that he is thinking (and thus you can be) about the same thing in these vastly different places, with intensely similar purposes and reasons of being. They show an incredible sense and connection with the environment and with the other bridges and users of the bridges. It’s experiential and bridging (haha) in both connection and use.
I believe that the goals and intentions of Hard Cross-border (2018) are similar as well. What does it mean to cross a border? And what does it mean to bring/introduce aspects from another culture somewhere else? If I was tasked with bringing over something Canadian to American, I would maybe think of bringing an artifact, person, or art from home to another place – but bringing an auditory cityscape through this pesticide “selling sounds,” is an intensely different way of introducing a different world. I see this as bridging as well, as Wang Langgou is bringing a part of the Guangdong province which is more experiential, subtle, and similar to the streets of Chiang Mai, Thailand.
I do believe, despite my hesitancy in the earlier part of this paper, that Wang Langgou is a counterculturalist, and I would be surprised to hear anyone who doesn’t think so. This is mostly because he subscribes to alternate ways of doing. In his Wall Inscription (2022~), he breaks tradition and writes on a surface which is typically untouched and unmarked. He is equally breaking tradition by not translating his art onto a movable/transportable surface. That’s not to say all art needs to be transportable – quite the opposite – but it’s countercultural for two reasons: (1) the fact that his poetry inscription could be transportable, and it’s choosing to not be, and (2) how invasive this project is into people’s homes. What is equally worthy of discussion – and adjacent to countercultural – in regards to Wall Inscription on walls is that Wang Langgou gets to select a space in the property owners’ house. I see this as strange and countercultural – and it is strange for the same reason it is countercultural: we humans like to have control over our private domains and how that domain is presented to us. We choose, customize, bring new elements in, get rid of old things, and, importantly, present our ‘things’ how it pleases us. Even those who have no thought behind where and why they place their art or posters on the wall deliberately choose where and how to place, and those who accept a pre-’dressed’ setting are choosing to accept that setting. Wang Langgou is countering this ownership of your own domain by stepping into homes, someone’s private domain, and taking creative liberty – ownership – in where to place something (semi-)permanent onto their wall.
I wrote that paragraph above and thought some more. “What is countercultural?” And I struggled to word that. “Going against the grain,” but that translates into so many different contexts and specificity, so many different scales. I believe that Wang Langgou is a counterculturalist because of his promotion of thinking, rethinking, reinterpreting, reconnecting, and resituating us as humans in our physical environments and the systems it holds. I like Punched Poetry Collections (2020) mostly because it’s such an obvious and simple rebellion – and rebellion seems like the right word, especially because Wang Langgou destroyed his own work, out of spite, and sent it to America, out of spite. “Out of spite” seems to imply anger, but I don’t think so. Punched Poetry Collections was a calculated and responsive project. I call it ‘obvious and simple’ because it’s easy to imagine, brilliant to undertake, and so directly accessible to understand. I would have absolutely loved to see the American response/acceptance of it (I wonder where it is now. Was it thrown out, part of some landfill now? That would be so comedic...).
On how a curator/artist/dealer could facilitate an exhibition of his work: photographs could be a brilliant way to organize this, like the presentation you put together. Thinking about the projects I selected for this – Wall Inscription on walls (2022~); Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing (2019); Hard Cross-border (2018); Punched Poetry Collections (2020) – these are difficult because Wall Inscription is non-transportable, then we have two videos, and then we have Cracked Poetry, which I imagine (and hope) is not in the possession of Wang Langgou and is instead lost, having instead been handled by some American. I would love to see what photos of Wall Inscription exist; I like seeing the frameless and framed; the exclusively Wang Langgou-touched into the proprietor-touched. I think a great way to exhibit this project would be to show the work on the wall, perhaps a wider picture showing where on the wall in relation to whatever pre-existed – I see that as crucial part of this – and then how the people had changed the space with the poem: by framing it, moving furniture, ignoring it, painting around it, etc. Another layer of this would be to showcase the new proprietors of the poems – those who requested it and “love art more than your house” – and the homes which they are willing to ‘give up’ for art. Showing diversity in that – who are the art lovers, what are their homes, who are they, anonymous besides their faces and homes – would be very compelling and essential to me.
The two videos are hard to handle – I believe that having people walk into an exhibit and watch two videos, especially these two that showcase such non-engaging (in a general sense) material, is a big ask. Hard Cross-border must remain in video form, because it must remain in auditory form, being central to the work. I think what would be fun – curious – is to have the exhibition-visitor be able to hear the contents of the video without being able to see it momentarily, or intentionally for most of it by having a much larger (and maybe even labeled) “listening space,” and only a small section to engage with the video. This would surprise and be thought-provoking to some. I enjoy the idea of first hearing one landscape travel through another, and then seeing the methodology of deliverance.
Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing, on the other hand, could be presented as a series of photographs. I think that the auditory similarities in the different bridges are also enjoyable, so maybe there could be a place-specific speaker (similar to CWAC) so that those who look at the many photographs of Wang Langgou on the bridges can hear the rush and calm of water and wind, and hear him thinking. The photos could – should – be presented in a grid like pattern, a close-knit assemblage.
On Punched Poetry Collections – and I remember you showing me this project months ago – I wonder what photos exist out there. But showing an American landfill – noted where in America – is of interest to me, because that seems likely as to where it ended up. What photos circulate of different countries is curious to me – some have negative perceptions of specific countries, maybe not China, but recently I had a conversation about Nigeria, where a person had believed huge landfills and ‘dumps’ were everywhere in that country because that’s what was advertised to him about Nigeria. Whether or not that’s true – there are many, but it’s the cause of the Western world illegally shipping 10s of thousands of tons (likely more 100s of thousands of tons) of waste to Nigeria (and the like, not exclusively) – but the point is that this assumption is completely unaware of the processes in America, where there are huge landfills. You can look up a map online. Punched Poetry Collections is a great opportunity to showcase the hypocrisy of understandings and exports from countries through the showcasement of even many American landfills. I doubt that Wang Langgou has any idea on where Punched Poetry Collections actually is at this moment. These photos of the American landfills can be paired with photos of the destroyed poetry itself (whatever documentation Wang Langgou has), with a timestamp, and then contrasted with the flip side of that, photos of immaculate CDs/tapes, then the destroyed or refurbished artifacts below, with the option to listen to them (if possible). Some scaling could be possible here, similar to The Cube Sun and The Cube Earth.
This would all culminate into an eclectic and interesting exhibition. The ‘market’ for him is of interest to me – I would say that I am in the market for art like this, but besides bookmarking his Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing project and wanting him to paint a poem onto my walls (if I owned a home), I’m not entirely sure how to be ‘in the market for Wang Langgou’. What is a ‘market’ for an artist? I think economically on this – would people purchase his works? Are his works ‘purchasable’? I would imagine he doesn’t care for that; his poems inscribed onto walls, I imagine, were free, as they should be. Despite that, I’m not sure what recognition he is getting nowadays, but I think he is certainly a person of interest to many, because of his challenging (not as in difficult, but as in provocative) ways of reinterpretation and reconnection.
As is obvious in my lengthy, drawn-out discussion, I have so many questions for him. But, like most of my question preparation for interviews and the like, these would only be initial questions – I imagine I will have dozens of follow-up questions because I believe his answers will be as thought-provoking as his art. He’s very aware of the power of words – from being a poet, but also in the fact that he does not actually say anything in any of his video works and rarely includes text in his art – and I believe this awareness will translate well into conversation. Listed below:
On Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing
How did you select bridges to stand on? Did you purposely select bridges with no other people on them? Does it matter, to you and not to the audience, what you were thinking about? Did you film any bridges but chose not to include them? How does the same person thinking about the same thing in different but similar environments connect the places? How did the bridges differ to you? And how did your thought process change depending on the bridge?
On Wall Inscription
Do you vary material used to inscribe? If yes, how do you select that? Do you assign poems based on the people who requested the art? How much do you communicate with them? Do they need to be present – or, rather, should they be not present – for your inscription process? How do you select where on the wall you place your art? Do you determine or care how it relates to the rest of the room?
On Punched Poetry Collections
Where did you send your broken poems to? Do you know where they ended up? Do you care, and did you ever try looking for them? How did you document this process?
On Hard-Crossed Border
Where did you record the original audio? Why present this in video form? Why did you choose to cut it, and not have it one continuous take? What difference would that make in your art? What do you think the reaction will be from locals on the streets of Chiang Mai, Thailand? I’m aware of how idle and casual you seem in biking with no particular direction or focus – were you heading somewhere specific, or was it just generally exploring/sharing?
On Wang Langgou:
How would you define yourself? Would you like to be defined? How do you think your experience in poetry has translated into your works? Do you work on many projects simultaneously? Do you have contributors to your work, and would you be open to that?
Honestly, I could go on and on with questions, but I figured to focus on questions about him and his process and those specific works I spoke about already. I was also very interested in his The Cube Sun and The Cube Earth. (Why cubes? Why bury it, and mark it with a tombstone?) and his Art Language Research (what did you learn? How did you document this experience? Did others notice your lack of understanding?).
作者: Luke S. Kalaydjian
我想说王狼狗是一个无法归类的艺术家，但这是一个逃避的回答。虽然，当“什么样的艺术家”似乎不适合时，这个薄弱的结论似乎是合适的。在回答他是一个什么样的“艺术家”之前，我考虑过我所知道的王狼狗可以认同的艺术家的“类型”。我发现自己会优先考虑材料或方法来“分类”一个艺术家——我没有在网上查找任何东西就进行了这个思考过程，因为我不想知道那里有什么“官方”的艺术家“种类”，我也不想以一种明确的方式知道什么是“版画艺术家”。我更想看看我能从我目前的想法中表达和分类什么。
我意识到王狼狗不符合我所认为的任何一种“类型”的分类——除了可能是反文化艺术家，我相信在我看来，这是一种观念艺术家。尽管他确实是一个反主流文化艺术家，但我不想称他为反主流文化艺术家，因为这似乎不是他关注的焦点;他的作品并不(总是)试图成为反文化的，相反，它们是暗示性的，并连接了不同的思想或考虑方式。我认为是他作品的基调让我犹豫是否要称之为反文化。可以说，“建议另一种思维方式”本身就是反文化的，但我不确定他的作品是否有反文化的目标(稍后会详细说明)。就我个人而言，其意图似乎更多地是“介绍”另一种思维方式，或者唤起对它的意识。更重要的是，在我看来，王狼狗绝对是一个观念艺术家，也就是说，他的作品背后有一个伟大的概念，这个概念是最前沿的，对作品至关重要。《打口诗集》(2020)就是一个很好的展示(我希望我能看到更多的照片)。
通过他的艺术，概念是必要的前沿，也是我如此喜欢它的一个巨大原因。吸收期间和吸收后的思考过程和考虑让我非常兴奋。王狼狗正在连接思想，重新评估对时间的看法，并将多个空间的理解和使用联系起来。这既是他作品的个人魅力，也是他是一个什么样的艺术家。他的作品清晰地表达了古怪的东西，打破了常规——“反文化”——并向他作品的细心的读者展示了我们人类在彼此之间、在我们的自然景观中、在世界上是多么的渺小。他的部分工作是展示我们有多“小”，反映出我们真的没有那么不同。你分享的作品中，我最喜欢的是《Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing》(2019)，这是一件行为/视频作品。吸引我的是，他在这些场景中思考什么并不重要——他在这些截然不同的地方思考着同样的事情(因此你也可能是)，有着非常相似的目的和存在的理由。它们表现出与环境、其他桥梁和桥梁使用者的不可思议的感觉和联系。它在连接和使用上都是经验和桥接(哈哈)。
我相信《硬跨国》(2018)的目标和意图也是相似的。越过边界是什么意思?从另一种文化中引入某些方面是什么意思?如果我的任务是把加拿大的东西带到美国，我可能会想到把一个艺术品、一个人或一件艺术品从家乡带到另一个地方——但通过这种杀虫药“销售声音”带来听觉城市景观，是一种截然不同的介绍不同世界的方式。我认为这也是一种桥梁，因为王狼狗带来了广东省的一部分，更体验，更微妙，更类似于泰国清迈的街道。
我确实相信，尽管我在这篇文章的前半部分有些犹豫，王狼狗是一个反文化主义者，如果有人不这么认为，我会感到惊讶。这主要是因为他认同不同的做事方式。在他的《题壁》(2022~)中，他打破了传统，在一个通常未被触及和未被标记的表面上书写。他同样打破了传统，没有将他的艺术转移到可移动/可移动的表面上。这并不是说所有的艺术都需要是可移动的——恰恰相反——但它是反文化的，有两个原因:(1)他的诗歌题词是可以移动的，而他选择不这样做;(2)这个项目对人们的家庭有多大的侵入性。关于《题壁》，同样值得讨论的——与反主流文化相邻的——是王狼狗在业主的房子里选择了一个空间。我认为这是奇怪的，反文化的——奇怪的原因和反文化的原因是一样的:我们人类喜欢控制我们的私人领域，以及这些领域如何呈现给我们。我们选择，定制，引入新元素，摆脱旧的东西，重要的是，以我们喜欢的方式呈现我们的“东西”。即使是那些根本不知道为什么要把艺术品或海报贴在墙上的人，也会故意选择贴在哪里和如何贴，而那些接受预先“打扮”的人也会选择接受这种设置。王狼狗正在通过走进别人的家，别人的私人领域，并采取创造性的自由-所有权-在哪里放置一些(半)永久性的东西在他们的墙上，来反对这种自己的领域的所有权。
我写了上面这段话，又想了一些。“什么是反主流文化?”我挣扎着说出来。“反其道而行之”，但这可以转化为许多不同的背景和特点，以及许多不同的尺度。我认为王狼狗是一个反文化主义者，因为他提倡思考、重新思考、重新解释、重新连接和重新定位我们作为人类在我们的物理环境和它所拥有的系统中的地位。我喜欢《打口诗集》(2020)，主要是因为它是一种明显而简单的反叛——反叛似乎是一个恰当的词，尤其是因为王狼狗毁了自己的作品，出于怨恨，把它寄到了美国。“出于怨恨”似乎暗示着愤怒，但我不这么认为。《打口诗集》是一个经过深思熟虑、反应迅速的项目。我称它为“显而易见和简单”，因为它很容易想象，很容易进行，而且很容易理解。我非常希望看到美国对它的反应/接受(我想知道它现在在哪里。)是不是被扔了，扔进了垃圾填埋场?那就太搞笑了…)。
关于策展人/艺术家/经销商如何促进他的作品展览:照片可能是一个很好的组织方式，就像你的展示一样。思考我选择的项目——《题壁》(2022~);《Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing》(2019);《硬跨国》(2018);《打口诗集》(2020)——这些都很困难，因为《题壁》是不可移动的，然后我们有两个视频，然后我们有《打口诗集》，我想(也希望)它不是在王狼狗手里，而是被某个美国人拿走了。我很想看看《题壁》的照片存在;我喜欢看无框的和有框的;把王狼狗专属感动变成了业主感动。我认为展示这个项目的一个好方法是在墙上展示作品，也许是一幅更宽的图片，展示墙上与任何预先存在的东西的关系——我认为这是这个项目的关键部分——然后是人们如何用诗改变空间:通过装裱、移动家具、忽略它、围绕它绘画等等。另一个层面是展示这些诗歌的新主人——那些要求“爱艺术胜过爱房子”的人——以及他们愿意为艺术“放弃”的家园。展示多样性——谁是艺术爱好者，他们的家是什么，他们是谁，除了他们的脸和家之外，他们是谁——对我来说非常有吸引力和必要。
这两个视频很难处理-我相信让人们走进一个展览并观看两个视频，特别是这两个展示如此无吸引力(一般意义上)的材料，是一个很大的要求。《硬跨国》必须保持视频形式，因为它必须保持听觉形式，这是作品的核心。我认为有趣的是，让展览的参观者能够听到视频的内容，而不是暂时看到它，或者有意地为大部分内容提供一个更大的(甚至可能是标记的)“聆听空间”，只有一小部分与视频互动。这可能会让一些人感到惊讶，并发人深省。我喜欢先听一种景观穿越另一种景观，然后看到解脱的方法。
另一方面，《Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing》可以以一系列照片的形式呈现。我觉得在不同的桥上，听觉上的相似也是一种享受，所以也许可以有一个特定地点的扬声器(类似于CWAC)，让那些在桥上看到王狼狗的许多照片的人，可以听到水和风的湍急和平静，听到他的思考。这些照片可以——也应该——以网格状的模式呈现，一个紧密结合的组合。
在《打口诗集》上——我记得你几个月前给我看过这个项目——我想知道那里有什么照片。但是展示一个美国的垃圾填埋场——标明在美国的哪个地方——是我感兴趣的，因为那里看起来很可能就是垃圾的最终归宿。不同国家流传的照片让我很好奇，有些人对特定的国家有负面的看法，也许不是中国，但最近我有一个关于尼日利亚的谈话，一个人认为这个国家到处都是巨大的垃圾填埋场和“垃圾场”，因为这是他对尼日利亚的宣传。不管这是不是真的——有很多，但这是西方世界非法向尼日利亚(以及类似的，不是唯一的)运送数万吨(可能更多的数十万吨)垃圾的原因——但关键是，这种假设完全没有考虑到美国的过程，那里有巨大的垃圾填埋场。你可以在网上查地图。《打口诗集》是一个很好的机会，通过对美国许多垃圾填埋场的展示，来展示各国理解和出口的虚伪。我怀疑王狼狗是否知道《打口诗集》现在到底在哪里。这些美国垃圾填埋场的照片可以与被毁的诗歌本身的照片(无论王狼狗有什么文献记录)搭配在一起，加上时间戳，然后与另一边的照片进行对比，无暇的cd /磁带的照片，然后是下面被毁或翻新的文物，可以选择听它们(如果可能的话)。这里可以进行一些缩放，类似于《立方体太阳与立方体地球》。
这一切最终将成为一个兼收并蓄、有趣的展览。我对他的“市场”很感兴趣——我会说我对这样的艺术市场感兴趣，但除了收藏他的《Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing》项目，并希望他在我的墙上题一首诗(如果我有房子的话)，我不完全确定什么是“王狼狗的市场”。艺术家的“市场”是什么?我认为从经济角度来看，人们会购买他的作品吗?他的作品是“可购买的”吗?我想他不会在意的;他的诗题在墙上，我想，应该是自由的。尽管如此，我不确定他现在得到了什么认可，但我认为他肯定是许多人感兴趣的人，因为他以具有挑战性的(不是强硬的，而是挑衅的)方式重新诠释和重新联系。
很明显，在我漫长的讨论中，我有很多问题要问他。但是，就像我为面试准备的大多数问题一样，这些只是最初的问题——我想我会有几十个后续问题，因为我相信他的回答会像他的艺术一样发人深省。他非常清楚文字的力量——从他身为诗人的身份来看，但事实上他在任何影像作品中都没有说什么，也很少在他的艺术作品中加入文字——我相信这种意识会很好地转化为对话。下面列出:
——关于《Stand on Different Bridges, Thinking About the Same Thing》
你是如何选择站在桥上的?你是故意选择没有其他人的桥吗?你在想什么，对你而不是对观众有影响吗?你有没有在拍摄桥梁的时候选择不拍?同一个人在不同但相似的环境中思考同样的事情是如何将这些地方联系起来的?你觉得这些桥有什么不同?你的思维过程是如何随着桥的不同而变化的?
——关于《题壁》
你们用不同的材料来刻字吗?如果是，如何选择?你会根据要求艺术的人来分配诗歌吗?你和他们交流多少?在你的题壁过程中，他们需要在场吗?或者说，他们不应该在场吗?你如何选择在墙上题写你的作品的位置?你决定或关心它与房间其他部分的关系吗?
——关于《打口诗集》
你把这些打口的诗集寄到哪里去了?你知道他们最后在哪里吗?你在乎吗，你试过找它们吗?你是如何记录这个过程的?
——关于《硬跨国》
你在哪里录的原始音频?为什么要以视频的形式呈现呢?你为什么选择把它剪掉，而不是连续拍一遍?这会对你的艺术产生什么影响?你认为泰国清迈街头的当地人会有什么反应?我知道你骑自行车的时候看起来是多么的懒散和随意，没有特定的方向或焦点——你是要去某个特定的地方，还是只是一般的探索/分享?
——关于王狼狗
你如何定义自己?你想被定义吗?你认为你的诗歌经历是如何转化为你的作品的?你是否同时从事多个项目?你的作品有赞助人吗?你愿意接受吗?
老实说，我可以继续问下去，但我想把重点放在他和他的过程以及我已经谈到的那些具体作品的问题上。我对他的《立方体太阳与立方体地球》也很感兴趣。(为什么立方体?为什么要埋葬它，并在墓碑上标记它?)还有他的《艺术语言研究》(你学到了什么?你是如何记录这段经历的?别人注意到你缺乏理解吗?)
By: natalie jenkins
Wang Langgou is an artist that seems to evade categorization, though his art certainly has roots in conceptualism, minimalism, performance art, and video art. The Cube Sun and The Cube Earth (2020), The Relationship Between the Sun and the Earth (2020), Absolute Earth Art (2020), and The Sun was Buried under this Stone (2020) are a series of his works that walk the lines between art genres and movements, emphasizing relationships to space and time over the materiality and forms of the works themselves. Simultaneously, this series also emphasizes the act or performance of the artist in its negotiation of form and creation of relationships — the hand of Wang Langgou is critical to activating the works in space and expanding their relationality.
The Cube Sun and the Cube Earth as a standalone work is extremely minimalist, employing pure color, material, and shape to communicate its concept. There is some value association with the gold underneath the blue paint of the miniature “earth,” though this is completely illegible to the viewer. This value difference between earth and sun may create an interesting conceptual tension, but this is muted in the sculpture’s color-focused form. What remains clear is the reference to the sculpture’s subject material, reduced to a geometric essentialization that doesn’t need to verify its accuracy to convey its concept. When the sculpture is transformed into The Relationship Between the Sun and the Earth, the work keeps its minimalist language but becomes installation or earth art, adopting the surrounding landscape into the work itself. The work is exploring the distance between its “earth” and “sun” by placing them a distance apart that is proportional to the true distance between the two celestial bodies. It seems a natural extension of creating a sculpture that is proportional in size to place them in proportional distance. However, by doing this outdoors it is also creating a relationship that involves everything between and around the sculpture. The “earth” and “sun” are two satellites sending signals across a lake and radiating outward, implicating the viewer and ecosystem in their relationship. The alienness of the sculpture’s rigid geometry and clean color in the landscape brings an awareness of the artist’s hand in its creation. Their creation and their placement become a performance, documented through the artist’s eye via photography. Absolute Earth Art transforms the sculpture yet again through another performance and documentation, again implicating the landscape in the work. The burial of the sculpture claims that the form and materiality of it are not its emphasis — rather, the action around and questions raised by burial are the conceptual relationships that are the subject matter of the piece. The photo and video documentation of the work are more about the burial than the sculpture. Finally, The Sun was Buried under this Stone marks all the previous iterations of the sculpture, commemorating their previous lives and recalling the distance and time crossed to bring the stone into place. The sculpture doesn’t have to be under the stone for the concept to carry. Viewers who can see the previous three works can enjoy the relationships the stone has with its predecessors and can note the historicizing effect of burying something and marking its grave. Those who are unaware of these events but come across The Sun was Buried under this Stone can still take it for conceptual art, and imagine the sun buried underneath it — again with the idea that it doesn’t really matter whether or not something is below. What is important is the relationality: the act of creating the sun, the performance of burying it, and the moment of leaving someone else to find it.
The appeal of this series is clear to me. If I could own the works myself, I would — maybe I am the market. It’s humorous but with a strong conceptual weight that raises interesting questions and provides a moment of surprise. The cleanliness of the original The Cube Sun and The Cube Earth make them very attractive objects. Imagining the artist traveling to place the work in The Relationship Between the Sun and The Earth and bury it in Absolute Earth Art is extremely compelling. There is something precious in creating proportional models of our living space and life source and then staging them across space and time. Burial makes the “sun” and “earth” even more precious. They are bodies returned to earth. Though this specific series is perhaps less counter-cultural than the other work of Wang Langgou, it is still denying a market value to the sculptures and challenging the material gold as a commodity. If mounting an exhibition of this series or trying to create a market for it, the artist could recreate the “sun” and “earth” for the gallery to show or for individuals to purchase and stage (or bury). Displaying the photography and videos seems the most obvious option to me. Often for land art, performance art, or conceptual art, an artifact of the art’s existence is what can be utilized in the traditional art ecosystem rather than the art itself. Photography and video are much more salable and ready for display in exhibition spaces. If I had the opportunity to speak to the artist, I would want to ask if the singularity of the work is important, or if he would keep recreating the pieces. I would also want to ask if he will ever unearth The Cube Sun and The Cube Earth, or if he wishes to let it remain in the ground forever. I would want to ask what it felt like to see the sun from the earth or the earth from the sun in The Relationship Between the Sun and the Earth, and I would want to know how it felt to bury them in Absolute Earth Art. I would want to ask how Wang Langgou feels about the photograph and video documentation, and whether he thinks those are the works. I would want to know what the photography and video documentation does that the work doesn’t. I would want to ask what the locations of The Cube Sun and The Cube Earth, The Relationship Between the Sun and the Earth, Absolute Earth Art, and The Sun was Buried under this Stone mean to the artist. I would want to ask if the The Sun was Buried under this Stone means that the artist intends for someone to find The Cube Sun and The Cube Earth. Lastly, I would want to ask whether Wang Langgou would come host this work or a different one in the United States, or even in Chicago.
*This article title was added by Wang Langgou
作者: natalie jenkins
王狼狗是一个似乎回避分类的艺术家，尽管他的艺术确实有概念主义、极简主义、行为艺术和录像艺术的根源。《立方体太阳与立方体地球》(2020)、《地日关系》(2020)、《绝对大地艺术》(2020)、《太阳葬于此石之下》(2020)是他的一系列作品，在艺术流派和运动之间游走，强调与空间和时间的关系，而不是作品本身的物质性和形式。同时，这个系列也强调艺术家在形式的协商和关系的创造中的行为或表现——王狼狗的手对于激活作品的空间和扩展它们的关系至关重要。
《立方体太阳与立方体地球》作为一个独立的作品是极简主义的，使用纯粹的颜色，材料和形状来传达其概念。这幅微型“地球”的蓝色颜料下面的金色有一些价值关联，尽管这对观众来说是完全难以辨认的。地球和太阳之间的这种价值差异可能会产生一种有趣的概念张力，但这在雕塑以颜色为中心的形式中是沉默的。仍然清楚的是对雕塑主题材料的参考，减少到几何本质化，不需要验证其准确性来传达其概念。当雕塑被转化为《地日关系》时，作品保留了极简主义的语言，但成为装置或地球艺术，将周围的景观融入作品本身。这项工作是通过将“地球”和“太阳”之间的距离与两个天体之间的真实距离成正比，来探索它们之间的距离。这似乎是创造一个雕塑的自然延伸，大小成比例，将它们放置在成比例的距离上。然而，通过在户外做这件事，它也创造了一种关系，涉及雕塑之间和周围的一切。“地球”和“太阳”这两颗星球，它们在湖面上发送信号并向外辐射，暗示着观众和生态系统之间的关系。雕塑的刚性几何形状和景观中干净的色彩带来了艺术家在创作中的意识。他们的创作和放置成为一种表演，通过艺术家的眼睛通过摄影记录下来。《绝对大地艺术》再次通过另一种表演和记录来改变雕塑，再次在作品中暗示景观。雕塑的埋葬声称它的形式和物质性并不是它的重点——相反，围绕埋葬的行动和提出的问题是概念关系，这是这件作品的主题。该作品的照片和视频记录更多的是关于埋葬而不是雕塑。最后，《太阳葬于此石之下》标志着雕塑之前的所有迭代，纪念它们以前的生活，并回忆起将石头放置到位的距离和时间。雕塑并不一定要在石头下面才能传达概念。看到前三件作品的观众可以享受到石头与它的前辈之间的关系，可以注意到埋葬某物并标记它的坟墓的历史化效果。那些不知道这些事件的人，但看到《太阳葬于此石之下》，仍然可以把它当作观念艺术，想象太阳被埋在石头下面——同样，这与下面是否有东西无关。重要的是关系:创造太阳的行为，埋葬它的表现，以及离开别人去寻找它的时刻。
我很清楚这个系列的吸引力。如果我能自己拥有这些作品，我会的——也许我就是市场。它很幽默，但有很强的概念分量，提出了有趣的问题，并提供了一个惊喜的时刻。原始《立方体太阳与立方体地球》的清洁度使它们成为非常有吸引力的物体。想象艺术家前往将作品放入《地日关系》中，并将其埋入《绝对大地艺术》中是非常引人注目的。创造我们的生活空间和生命来源的比例模型，然后在空间和时间上展示它们，这是一种珍贵的东西。埋葬使“太阳”和“大地”更加珍贵。它们是回到地球的身体。虽然这个特定的系列可能没有王狼狗的其他作品那么反文化，但它仍然否认了雕塑的市场价值，并挑战了黄金作为商品的材料。如果举办这个系列的展览或试图为它创造一个市场，艺术家可以重新创造“太阳”和“地球”，供画廊展示或供个人购买和舞台(或埋葬)。对我来说，展示照片和视频似乎是最明显的选择。通常对于大地艺术、行为艺术或观念艺术来说，艺术存在的人工制品是传统艺术生态系统中可以利用的东西，而不是艺术本身。摄影和录像更有销路，也更适合在展览空间中展示。如果我有机会和这位艺术家交谈，我会问他这件作品的独特性是否重要，或者他是否会继续创作这些作品。我还想问他是否会把《立方体太阳与立方体地球》挖出来，或者他是否希望让它们永远留在地下。我想问在《地日关系》中从地球上看太阳或从太阳上看地球是什么感觉，我想知道在《绝对大地艺术》中埋葬它们是什么感觉。我想问一下王狼狗对这些照片和视频文档的看法，以及他是否认为这些就是作品。我想知道摄影和视频文档做了什么，而作品没有。我想问的是，《立方体太阳与立方体地球》、《地日关系》、《绝对大地艺术》和《太阳葬于此石之下》的展出地点对艺术家来说意味着什么?我想问的是，《太阳葬于此石之下》是否意味着艺术家想让别人找到《立方体太阳与立方体地球》。最后，我想问一下，王狼狗是否会来美国主持这个作品或者其它作品，甚至是来芝加哥。
*注：本文章标题为王狼狗自行添加
By: Drew Parkinson
As a child, growing up, I was very quiet. What my rationale was in those earlier days is somewhat unclear to me now, but I do remember being afraid of the judgment and even confrontation that could occur when speaking out in a group of people. The dreaded question, of course, for anyone with a proclivity to shyness would be, “why are you so quiet?” as to answer truthfully would be to divulge the insecurities embedded with such fears.
Today, I would answer that question as such: The less you say, the more you are heard. And I do honestly believe this to be true in the inner circles and communities I participate in.
While I am grateful to have outgrown such shyness, speaking loudly and without thought is something I try to avoid.
However, outside of my communities, in the larger public spaces of the internet, social media and pop culture, I find my response to such a question couldn’t be further from the truth. It is those who speak the loudest, transgress the furthest, and fill the most space with their content that are brought into the public eye.
When looking at Wang Langgou, I sense a similar sensitivity. One can’t help but notice when searching for them on the internet, only a facebook profile is evident - with 2 photos of themself, one “like” of performance art, and 6 friends. This seems very curated, as any facebook profile could achieve hundreds of friends in days I would imagine, and presumably is what one should do as an artist yearning to be discovered. Clearly this does not seem to be their concern.
Even their YouTube channel only had 1 subscriber, and thinking it was some sort of hard-coded trick I subscribed to the channel myself, skeptical the number would actually rise. Sure enough it went from 1 subscriber to 2. I wonder if this will upset them.
So, in a world so involved with digital personas, does this disregard make Wang Langgou a countercultural figure? I’m not so convinced. Anything that is deemed counterculture, in my eyes, is usually on its way to mainstream culture. It is anti-establishment content secretly stamped with the approval of the establishment, and then wrapped with a counterculture label, meant to sooth public angst and stop us from burning the whole place down. All this to say that counterculture is still very participatory in culture.
Wang Langgou doesn’t seem totally invested in such sentiments, and if anything seems to have an interest in lacking participation entirely. Their work Trip to Harbin and Back Before the Wine Gets Cold seems to display this sensibility quite nicely - they trek an absurd distance without interest in the destination, as they promptly turn around to go home. While traveling they are silent, never conversing with another (even buying their ticket from a self-service kiosk), and only reads and smokes. The lack of participation with the world surrounding them seems very pertinent to the work, along with the glass of wine poured only for themselves, waiting patiently.
One could try to draw intention from the locations they chose: the ceramic wine glass perhaps a reference to Foshan’s long history of ceramics, and Harbin as a destination to draw attention to Russian presence in Harbin. But (and I will admit I am no expert on the history of these two places), this doesn’t seem to be the focus of the work.
Wang Langgou’s works Forced Cross-Border and 802.60 km Away from home are probably closest to critiquing political systems of power. Forced Cross-Border, presumably a reference to the increase of Chinese investment in land across Thailand since their coup in 2014, and 802.60 km Away from home with the evident censorship of imagery from Tibet. But both of these pieces seem to focus more on how land is subjugated across borders, the tension between systems of power, and where the individual’s position is (Art Language Research seems to touch on this as well). But these questions are served very quietly - Forced Cross-Borderperformed within a pleasant bike ride, and the west panorama shot of Tibet excluded simply due to circumstance. The lack of radical transgression while engaging in such topics again discourages me from considering Wang Langgou as a counterculture figure.
It seems obvious to me that Wang Langgou is interested in being a non-artist, as their lack of concern in public image and public work seem to take strong efforts to avoid convention. So it would be fitting, perhaps, to call Wang Langgou a “non-cultural” figure, if such a thing can exist.
Personally, I find Wang Langgou’s interest in the ephemeral the most exciting, and contributes to their non-art qualities. Terma, in which the artist buried 3 ice cubes with the hope of one day a chosen one will excavate them, is an aspiration that ends nearly as soon as it begins. The ice will surely melt before anyone could find them. And yet, it is revitalized everytime the story is told, and brings questions around preservation with its cultural context embedded in the Bonismo tradition.
Three Possible Rotations appears the most direct with its question of time, asking, “Do we still consider time if we cannot measure it?”. This question, while seemingly simple, leads to another question about the value of longevity: “Does time contribute to the value of something?”, as here the artist presents an artwork which is a clock without any time. And yet, it is implied that the batteries must be replaced should the central dials that once conveyed the passage of time stop moving.
With all the considerations Wang Langgou has taken to avoid public displays of their work, to avoid speaking in any of their video works, and even avoid any public displays of themselves, I cannot help but laugh at the fact I am writing a paper about them. How could I find out about someone and their work who isn’t findable, and find value in something that isn’t tangible?
I return once again to the phrase, “The less you say, the more you are heard,” and wonder what it means for Wang Langgou, who seemingly has said nothing at all.
* The title of the article was added by Wang Langgou
作者：Drew Parkinson
作为一个孩子，在成长过程中，我很安静。我现在还不太清楚自己早年的想法是什么，但我确实记得，在一群人面前发言时，我很害怕别人的评判，甚至是对抗。当然，对于任何一个有害羞倾向的人来说，最可怕的问题是：“你为什么这么安静?”，因为如实回答就会暴露出这种恐惧所带来的不安全感。
今天，我想这样回答这个问题：你说得越少，别人听到的就越多。我真诚地相信，在我参与的核心圈子和社区中，这是真的。
虽然我很感激自己已经摆脱了这种羞怯，但大声说话和不加思考是我尽量避免的事情。
然而，在我的社区之外，在互联网、社交媒体和流行文化等更大的公共空间里，我发现我对这个问题的回答与事实相去甚远。正是那些说话最大声、越界最远、用内容占据最多空间的人，被带入了公众的视野。
当我看着王狼狗的时候，我也感觉到一种类似的敏感。当你在网上搜索他们时，你会发现只有一个facebook的个人资料——两张自己的照片，一个行为艺术的“赞”，和6个朋友。这似乎是精心策划的，因为任何facebook个人资料都可以在几天内获得数百个朋友，我可以想象，这大概是一个渴望被发现的艺术家应该做的。显然，这似乎不是他所关心的。
甚至他的YouTube频道也只有1个订阅者，我以为这是某种硬编码的把戏，我自己订阅了这个频道，怀疑这个数字真的会上升。果然从1个订阅者变成了2个。我不知道这会不会让他不高兴。
那么，在一个充斥着数字人物角色的世界里，这种漠视是否会让王狼狗成为一个反文化人物呢?我可不这么认为。在我看来，任何被认为是反主流文化的东西，通常都在走向主流文化。它是反建制的内容，秘密地打上建制的认可，然后贴上反主流文化的标签，意在安抚公众的焦虑，阻止我们把整个地方烧了。所有这一切都说明，反主流文化在文化中仍然具有很强的参与性。
王狼狗似乎并没有完全投入到这种情绪中，如果有什么的话，他似乎对完全没有参与感兴趣。他们的作品《温酒去东北》似乎很好地展示了这种情感——他跋涉了一段荒谬的距离，对目的地毫无兴趣，然后迅速掉头回家。在旅行中，他沉默寡言，从不与他人交谈(甚至在自助售票亭买票)，只看书和抽烟。缺乏与周围世界的参与似乎与工作非常相关，还有一杯只为自己倒的酒，耐心地等待。
人们可以试着从他选择的地点中得出意图：陶瓷酒杯可能是指佛山悠久的陶瓷历史，哈尔滨作为一个目的地是为了引起人们对俄罗斯在哈尔滨存在的关注。但是(我承认我不是这两个地方的历史专家)，这似乎并不是我工作的重点。
王狼狗的作品《硬跨国》和《离家802.60公里》可能最接近于批判政治权力制度。《硬跨国》，大概是指自2014年泰国政变以来，中国在泰国各地的土地投资增加，以及《离家802.60公里》，来自西藏的图像明显受到审查。但这两件作品似乎都更关注土地是如何跨越国界被征服的，权力体系之间的紧张关系，以及个人的地位在哪里(《艺术语言研究》似乎也触及了这一点)。但这些问题都是非常安静的——在一次愉快的自行车骑行中进行了《硬跨国》表演，而西藏的西部全景拍摄仅仅因为环境而被排除在外。在讨论这些话题时，缺乏激进的越轨行为再次让我不愿将王狼狗视为一个反主流文化的人物。
在我看来，王狼狗很有兴趣做一个非艺术家的人，因为他对公众形象和公共工作的不关心似乎是在努力避免常规。因此，称王狼狗为“非文化”人物或许是恰当的，如果这种事情真的存在的话。
就我个人而言，我发现王狼狗对短暂的兴趣是最令人兴奋的，并有助于他的非艺术品质。在《伏藏》中，艺术家埋了3块冰块，希望有一天被选中的人会把它们挖出来，这是一种开始就结束的愿望。冰肯定会在人们发现它们之前融化。然而，每当这个故事被讲述时，它就会重新焕发活力，并带来有关保存苯教及藏传佛教传统中嵌入的文化背景的问题。
《三个可能的转动》在时间问题上表现得最为直接，它问道:“如果我们无法测量时间，我们还会考虑时间吗?”这个问题看似简单，却引出了另一个关于长期价值的问题：“时间对某物的价值有贡献吗?”，因为在这里，艺术家呈现的艺术品是一个没有时间的时钟。然而，它暗示，如果曾经传达时间流逝的中央表盘停止移动，就必须更换电池。
王狼狗为了避免公开展示他的作品，为了避免在他的任何视频作品中说话，甚至为了避免公开展示他自己，我不得不嘲笑我正在写一篇关于他的论文。我怎样才能找到那些找不到的人和他们的工作，并在一些无形的东西中找到价值?
我再一次回到“你说的越少，被听到的越多”这句话上，想知道这对王狼狗来说意味着什么，他似乎什么也没说。