Urgent and Indefinite: the method of paradox
Interview with Mi Zhuang
Mizhuang: I’ve noticed that in some of your installations from 2008 and 2009 you used a large amount of film photographs. Is there a certain intent behind this?
Lin: Yes. I really like the texture and material properties of film photographs, especially those that have a bit of age. The passage of time yellows them, warps the colors and damages them. Cracks, folds, fingerprints, stains and moisture change them beyond recognition; moments in time become ashes.
Mizhuang: That’s right. I noticed that you used this particular type of photograph in your installation work “Nobody know I was there , Nobody knows I was not there : Private Memory " . Whose photographs are these?
Lin: These are family photographs, including pictures of my great grandparents, my brothers, my grandparents and my parents’ family members. The photographs span from 1900 to 2000, a century of private photographs.
Mizhuang: I distinctly remember my impressions from seeing this work in the exhibition hall. The exhibition space was very large, and I spotted it from across the room. From afar, my first impression was that it was expansive and poetic, but as I approached it and took in the details, I suddenly tensed up and felt a tingling sensation. I saw all life within those empty outlines, encompassing myself, my family, my sadness and perplexity.
Lin: A photograph is very fragile, yet these fragile carrier bears the weight of infinite meaning.
It is fleeting, yet it serves as the most irrefutable evidence of a certain form of existence;
It is extant evidence, yet it is vanishing evidence;
It affirms a gathering but alludes to parting;
It stores memories and cherishes the past but it also brings injury;
It relieves loneliness and also increases it;
It reminds us of our connections to the past and to others, while also reminding us of the impossibility of connecting with the past and with others;
It chooses our viewing method, yet it does not see our viewing method;
It is touching and yet untouched;
It provides both comfort and discomfort; it is both urgent and indefinite;
It explains the self but is not of the self;
It inserts impossibility and unfamiliarity within the real and familiar; behind that which is not real lays the unobservable truth;
It has powerful virtual authority; it documents and witnesses the ruthlessness of time and the impermanence of life;
It reminds us of the unavoidability of loss, the incurability of suffering; with a sincere profound suffering, it gathers all the scattered people;
Mizhuang: In your work, the paradox formed by ‘presence’ and ‘absence’ gives viewers a powerful mental contrast.
In the work " Nobody knows i was there, Nobody knows I was not there : CCTV News " is from the same series, are the hundreds of photographs from the news?
Lin: Yes, they are all news photographs from CCTV.
I have done much thinking about the concept of ‘news’. One day when I was 30, I was watching the CCTV daily news broadcast, and I suddenly came to the realization that the world does not belong to me, or to anyone for that matter. The world does not and cannot belong to anyone.
In news, there doesn’t have to be any connection between one second and the next. It is in these absurd, seemingly unconnected moments that the world itself becomes connected. If a person’s life is understood through connecting with others, and if this only connection becomes exceedingly strange, then what kind of understanding will result?
Through years of education, Marxism has taught me that human development is inevitable, but every news event I see seems to be completely by chance.
Always at the moment we’re least prepared, the news uses very calm tones to speak of the most terrifying disasters.
This is just like the ruthlessness of life. Who is prepared for the moment when they lose a loved one?
In front of the news, we all become survivors, witnesses to violence, tragedy and disaster. Behind every disaster there is a greater disaster. Each instance of suffering eventually becomes a record of numbers. Every journalist who has reported on a disaster or tragedy moves on to waiting for and discovering the next disaster or tragedy. Who has time to linger on yesterday’s tragedy, even the shocking news from a second ago?
Have you noticed? News reports are so short in every corner of the world, as if the reporters have all undergone the same exact training. It makes us accept tragedy with familiarity, just as we accept celebrations. The news anticipates celebrations and tragedies in the same way, not even placing one before the other. They are watched together by countless viewers before rapidly disappearing, as if they never happened.
Compared to ‘what is happening now’, things like ‘what we have to say’ and ‘what we say’ seem much more important.
Disasters are like culture; they are something we share. This is geography in the truest sense.
Mizhuang: Perhaps our problem is that we don’t know ‘what we have to say’ or even ‘what we can say’.
Lin: Right. On the one hand, it is modern industrial civilization’s endless pursuit of the material, and on the other hand it is the ‘objectification’ of people caused by modern civilization. Materialism has expanded mankind’s interference with the environment beyond its limits, leading to ecological paralysis. The ‘objectification’ of people leads mankind deep into a crisis of meaning.
Massive changes in social ideology and the rise of the internet have led us to separate ‘life’ from the living world. Another side of ‘objectification’ is that it has caused us to separate ‘love’ from the object of our love. Each individual in modern society is haplessly and totally controlled by commercial society, emerging as consumer products which are produced, packaged and sold on a massive scale.
What is the essence of the consumer product? It has been replaced and discarded. Therefore, ‘objectified’ people live in constant fear of ‘falling behind and being discarded’.
Interactions between people have turned into exchanges between objects.
As consumption grows more opulent and diverse, people in an ‘objectified’ society gain more in terms of such factors as self-value, spiritual sense of belonging and sex life, but our emotions grow increasingly empty. Modern civilization and society provide modern people with all kinds of illusory possibilities while misleading them about these possibilities. It provides a consumerist worldview but overturns consumer values. Cruelty can don a glamorous mask, while good intentions get pushed down the road of neglect.
Paradoxes are everywhere.
Mizhuang: That is true. Paradoxes are everywhere. In the installation work " Never Apart ", we see the illusion of coming together and the reality of isolation. Coming together is transient, while isolation is permanent. But the titles take us back to utopia.
Lin: I hope that my artwork can raise issues through paradox and dislocation methods, seeking out the real power of the self’s internal yearnings from the artificial interior of the artwork.
Mizhuang: Let’s return to " Nobody knows I was there, Nobody knows I was not there : CCTV News " . The closest, most central figure in the image is completely empty. It is the ‘self’ in the image, but in actuality, this ‘self’ can be any one of the indistinguishable people in the background. Just as in " Private Memory " , the ‘self’ is not necessarily the artist. Likewise, in the installation work " I want to be with you forever ", the ‘self’ can be the one who is embracing an empty lover, or the empty, embraced ‘self’. ‘You’ can be a person, a country, an object, anything.
Lin: Right. As I see it, art is not about expressing self-experience. This is a very common misconception that people have about art. Art is the thinking that artists reach through their individual experiences. It is a question the artist raises to the self and to the world.
We don’t have to understand our lives or even ourselves, but I think that people must seek out the way in which their lives come together.
By discussing experience, apparently valuable thinking and content that embodies that thought can finally exist independently of the individual.
Mizhuang: During the artistic creation process, and even after the process, what do you think is the connection between you and your artworks?
Lin: At the beginning of the creative process, I have a sense of possession of my expressive methods. It is my ‘object’. It is just like photography to the photographer – it is a hypothetical possession.
The unfolding and implementation of the creation is a process of constantly seeking the appropriate descriptive methods and balance points. Once the descriptive methods and the balance of methods are found, then the artwork is complete; the artwork and its expressive method have been restored to the state of ‘other things’ that are outside of me. I feel that it has become detached from me, and now bears very little connection to me. It needs to connect with the living experiences of other viewers. Though it is something that I created, the audience has no need for pondering how or why I made it. What matters now is how that work affects their individual lives and what thinking it elicits.
The work of art to the artist is like the child to the mother. The child is brought about by the mother, but it does not come for the mother.
Mizhuang: I’ve noticed that your main focus has always been the understanding of life.
Lin: The quest to understand life is more real than culture and it transcends culture, history and politics.
Mizhuang: This reminds me of another of your photographic works, My 365 Days. Though it is presented as a photographic work, I consider it to be a work of performance art. In these diary-style photographs from 365 days we see the hair that comes out of your comb each day, silent yet direct, essential and profound.
Lin: Just a few months ago I was flipping through a magazine and came across a photo essay about families who had lost their children in the Sichuan earthquake and were now pregnant again. They had all had children aged from 8 to 14, but they had died in the earthquake. Now, these mothers harbored new young lives in their swollen bellies. They were no longer young, and looked fragile, weary and tattered, with the calm of someone dealt a heavy blow. They rose up from their tears and prepared to conquer terror and hopelessness with new life.
I found this deeply moving. It is the essence of life.
One day we will lose our loved ones, whether from separation or death. Every life will face this suffering sooner or later, the loss of hope. In the face of life’s brutality, we are all weak and innocent. Our simple attitudes cannot relieve this suffering. But this is an important component of life. To understand brutality is to cherish the life that we still have.
Mizhuang: I was moved in the same way by " Rose Rose ", especially the video segment.
The rose is our life; it undergoes the constantly intertwining splendor and brutality of life.
From your earliest poetry compositions to today’s art, you’ve made quite a leap. I’m curious; can we talk about your childhood? I’d like to understand the experiences that led you to choose poetry. Are there any stories from your childhood that influenced you, that continue to influence you today, influencing your thoughts and your creations?
Lin: Among the various forms of literary expression, poetry is the most versatile and indistinct. It can be fully without logic yet full of rhythm; it can be abstract, even stagnant, but it is free and beyond limitation, full of vast, inexhaustible power.
I really like these qualities. I think that poetry is closest to the soul. It has shown me the true, touching aspect of ‘bounding conception’.
I had a very lonely childhood with almost no friends. I don’t know why. This was especially the case when I was 5, 6 years old, because all of the children near my home were a few years older than me. For children at this age, this is a wide gulf, one that is difficult to cross. Back then I was jealous of all the rowdy boys running about, with their big, boisterous groups, calling out as they charged into one exciting game after another.
Mizhuang: Did you think about joining them?
Lin: Of course I did. I really wanted to, and I tried, but I discovered that the world of boys is a brutal one. For boys, the meaning of violence far surpasses that of anything else. Violence was a part of everyday existence in the 1970s; participation in and the production of violence created glory and satisfaction, and an un-discussed consensus formed around the tacit acceptance of it. This acceptance naturally split people off into rapidly aligning cliques.
In fact, I think that in the 1970s, under a blind and factious mental state, violence was emphasized and fanned to the point of the mundane; violence established a kind of consensus, no matter how illusory. In those times, consensus was most important.
For instance, someone that we all respected passed away, but we established a consensus method for cherishing that person, and this instantly became a lofty, dignified affair. In this atmosphere of consensus, we shed sweet tears, and our shared love for this person became perpetual.
The young me didn’t feel sorrow at all, just an indescribable sense of the sublime.
Consensus is a powerful rationale for violence to become reasonable and legitimate. In consensus, ‘brutality’ and ‘insanity’ become exciting.
Consensus-backed violence is approved, eulogized, worshipped and understood. Consensus-backed violence is legitimate and virtuous, in keeping with emotions and political standpoints.
Violence turns people into ‘objects’; it is the slaughter of ‘objects’ by ‘objects’. Though those ‘objects’ may appear as martyrs or heroes, this cannot change the essential nature of violence.
Mizhuang: These thoughts were also manifested in your 2009 painting series Another Way to Fly. The images featured fighter jets that were built for violence and war, which you covered in beautiful, transparent lace. Is violence bathed in the soft glow of sentimentality still violence? If it is no longer violence, then what is it? What have we made it into?
Lin: The violence here is a metaphor. The discussion of real violence is one aspect. This was more of an exploration of the concepts surrounding violence, the attitudes people have towards violence, even the relationships between modern people. These have all been gradually reduced to a relationship of mutual violence between ‘objectified’ people. This is violence using rather abstract means to continue to embody the consensus of the 1970s in today’s seemingly peaceful world.
None of us want those who were sacrificed in the various forms of violence to call out, like the soldier in J’Accuse, “our sacrifice has been for naught”.
The violence of those boys I knew as a child often played out in my imagination. For a time in my childhood my imaginations and fears of violence became excessive. It was clear that I yearned to join them, but they were very rough with me, especially the youngest boy.
Mizhuang: How old was the youngest boy?
Lin: He was a few months older than me, about my age, but he was the youngest in the group. The oldest boy in the group was two or three years older than him, so this young boy was often also excluded. The older boys would make fun of him, saying that he couldn’t keep up or wasn’t brave enough, so he was under a lot of pressure. He really wanted them to recognize him and see him as part of their group.
I would often secretly follow them. I was very curious about them. I wanted to know everything they were doing, where they were going. When they would discover me, they would stop what they were doing, split up or run off together, taking side streets, jumping over walls or climbing trees to lose me.
Each time they succeeded in losing me was a victory to celebrate. My tears were always accompanied by their cheers from the distance. It made me sad.
Mizhuang: Did it hurt? (Laughs) Was your young soul already wounded?
Lin: I wouldn’t say wounded; at the time I felt that these conflicts were normal. I was the one who chose to spy on them indirectly, shamelessly tailing them. Of course I had to accept the consequences.
I clearly remember this one time where I was following their sounds when the youngest boy jumped out behind me from a tree. He was holding one of those cheap green folding knives that you use to sharpen pencils. He brandished it at me, and with an evil look in his eyes, said some very foul things.
Mizhuang: How did you react?
Lin: I was very angry. I felt that my dignity had been violated. I glared at him, and dared him to repeat it. He immediately repeated it. I got even angrier and dared him to say it again, which he did immediately.
Then I asked if he dared to say it a hundred times.
He was dazed. His mouth moved, but he didn’t make a sound. He put his knife away and ran off without looking back.
Mizhuang: That’s very interesting. What were you thinking?
Lin: I don’t believe it was something I could have really thought out, more of an instinctive reaction. In some impossible way it saved my self-respect and honor, but it also gave me a powerful message – that when you let something become absurd, it will turn into something else, and its qualities and direction are all subject to change. The thing that had dazed that boy actually never really existed. It was a kind of existence that comes from the infinite propagation of reality. Though this infiniteness is not real, it is enough to be absurd. It is a different kind of truth within untruth, the truth of invisible truth, the untruth that overturns truth, the persistence of absurdity. In fearlessness and certainty, it creates power. That boy’s retreat was the retreat of the imagination.
Many years later, I realized that this can be my contemporary art method.
既迫在眉睫，又遥遥无期:悖论的方式
( 林菁菁艺术访谈)
米庄：我注意到你在2008年和2009年创作的几件装置作品里都大量地用相纸照片，这是有意为之的吗？
林： 对，我非常喜欢相纸照片的质感和材料性，尤其是有了点年头的相纸，岁月的流逝令之发黄，变色，破损，出现裂纹，折痕，留下指纹，污渍，受潮的地方面目全非，片刻之间可化为灰烬。
米庄：对，我注意到你的装置作品《没有人知道我在那，没有人知道我不在那：私人记忆 》中正好使用了这个类型的照片，这些照片都是谁的照片呢？
林：是我本人的家族照片，其中有我的祖父母的父母，兄弟，祖父母，父母的家人和亲戚，时间上我选择的是从1900年一直到2000年，一百年来的私人照片。
米庄：我还很清楚地记得我在展厅看到这件作品的感受，展厅高又开阔，我远远地在展厅的另一头就看见它，第一眼是舒展的，诗意的，到了近处，看见了细节，我有心忽然收紧的感觉，一阵刺痛，我在空洞的轮廓中看到了所有的生命，这其中就有我自己，我的家人，我的悲伤和迷惘。
林：相纸照片非常脆弱，而正是这么一种脆弱的载体，却肩负着无比强大的涵义。
它是存在的证据，也是消失的证据；
它自身朝不保夕，却同时是某种存在最不可辩驳的证据；
它证实相聚，也提示分离；
它储存了记忆，缅怀过去，又带来创伤；
它缓解孤独，也加剧孤独；
它提示我们和过去和他者的联系，也提示我们和过去和他者的不可联系；
它选择我们的观看方式，又无视我们的观看方式；
它既是饱含感染力的，又是无动于衷的；
它同时提供安慰和不安，即迫在眉睫，又遥遥无期；
它说明了我，即非我；
它在真实和熟悉中夹杂着不真实和陌生，它的任何不真实的背后，恰恰是最不被察觉的另一个真实；
它拥有着虚拟的强大的权利，它纪录和见证着时间的残酷，生命的无常；
它提示着消失的不可避免，悲痛的不可治愈，它以一种诚挚而深刻的痛苦聚合了所有分散着的人们。
米庄：你的作品中“在”和“不在”形成的悖论，带给观众巨大的心理落差。
同系列的作品《没有人知道我在那，没有人知道我不再那：中央新闻》中数百张照片都是新闻照片吗？
林：对，全部来自中央电视台的新闻照片。
我仔细思考关于“新闻”的概念，是在我30岁的某一天，我看着CCTV的新闻联播，我忽然意识得世界并不是我的，世界甚至不是我们中任何人的，世界是我们任何人都不拥有，也不可能拥有的。
新闻的前一秒钟和后一秒钟完全可以毫无关联，世界本身就在这种荒诞的看起来不可关联的时间中联系起来，如果一个人的生命是通过和其他人的联系而得到理解，如果这唯一的联系正在变得匪夷所思，那么，我们得到的理解会是什么？
多年受教育，马克思主义告知我，人类的发展是一种必然，而我看到的所有的新闻事件却似乎完全是偶然的。
新闻总在我们没有任何防备的那个时刻，用非常平静的语调，说出最可怕的灾难。
这一点和生命一样残酷，当我们失去我们所爱的人的那一刻，我们中的谁，是有防备的？
在新闻面前，我们都成了幸存者，成了暴力，不幸和灾难的旁观者，每一个灾难后面都有一个更大的灾难，每一次痛苦都逐渐变成对数字的记录，那些报道过灾难和痛苦的记者，已经忙碌地投入到对下一个灾难和痛苦的等待和发现，谁有时间停在昨天的悲伤，哪怕是上一秒种的新闻震撼？
你注意到了吗？在全世界的任何一个角落，新闻的播报都那么简短扼要，仿佛全部的播报员都受过统一的训练，它让我们熟悉地习惯地，象接受庆典一样接受灾难，而新闻本来就把庆典和灾难同等对待，甚至挂上不分排名先后的标志，他们被无数的旁观者共同观看，然后迅速同时地消逝，仿佛从来没有发生过。
比起“什么是正在发生的”，“我们有什么话要说”和“我们说什么”，显然是更重要的。
灾难和文化一样，都是我们共有的，这才是真正意义的地理学。
米庄：我们的问题也许正是不知道 “我们有什么话要说”，也不知道“我们可以说什么”。
林：对，一方面，是现代工业文明的对物质的无休止追求，另一方面，是现代文明对人的“物化”，
物质主义使人类对生态系统的干预力度超出极限，最终导致生态系统的瘫痪，对人的“物化”则使人类深陷意义危机。
由于社会意识形态的巨变，互联网让我们把“生活”和生活的世界分开，“物化“情感中的另一方，让我们把“爱”和爱的对象分开，现代文明中的每个人，都在不由自主地接受商品社会的整体操作，以消费品的面貌出现，被制作，包装，从而最大限度地被出售。
消费品的本质是什么? 是被取代和抛弃，因此，被“物化”的人们不由自主地生活在“接不了轨，跟不上趟，或将被淘汰和抛弃”的恐惧中。
人和人的交往成了“物”和“物”的交换。
一方面生活消耗越来越多样昂贵，人们在互为“物化“的社会中获取自我价值，精神归属，性生活等生命要素， 另一方面，我们的感情越来越空乏，现代文明社会给现代人提供幻想的种种可能性，也误导这种可能性，提供消费世界观，又推翻消费的价值观，冷酷可能带着华丽的面具，善意也可能走向失道寡助的不归路。
处处都是悖论。
米庄：处处是悖论，的确如此，你的装置作品《永不分离》中聚合的幻像和实际的分离，聚的稍纵即逝，离却不可回避，但是作品的标题却把我们带回乌托邦。
林：我希望我的艺术能够以悖论错离的的方式提出问题，从作品中某种人为的不真实的内部，寻找来自生命的“我”的内在渴望的真实的力量。
米庄：我们回到作品《没有人知道我在那，没有人知道我不在那：中央新闻》，作品中离我们最近，处于图片最中心位置的主体人物全是空缺的，是作品中的“我”，但是实际上，“我”也可以是背景中那些成群的辨别不清面容的其中任何一位，和《私人记忆》一样，“我”并不是艺术家这个“我”。同样，装置作品：《我要永远和你在一起》中，“我”可以是拥抱空缺情人的“我”，也可以是被拥抱着的空缺着的“我”，“你”可以是“人”，可以是“国家”，可以是“物”可以是任何一种可能。
林：对，在我看来，艺术并不是为了表达和呈现自我经验，这通常是人们对艺术家的巨大误读，
艺术是艺术家从个体的生存体验中获得的思考，是艺术家向自我，向世界的提问。
我们可以不理解我们的生活，甚至不理解我们自己，但我认为一个人需要去寻找和发现他自己的生命构成方式。
谈论经历，谈论体验，其实是通过经验，让一些看起来有价值的思考和体现思考的内容，能够最终脱离个人而存在。
米庄：那么在艺术创作的过程中甚至之后，你觉得你和作品之间的关系是怎样的？
林：创作初始，我对我的表达方式有一种占有感，它是我的“物”，就像拍摄对于摄影师而言一样，是一种被假设的占有。
创作的展开，实施，是不断寻找恰如其分的陈述方式和最贴切的平衡点的过程，陈述方式和方式平衡点确定，艺术作品完成，作品本身和表达方式都还原为外在于我的“其他物”，我认为它就脱离了我，和我的关联也微乎其微了。它需要更多地和观者的生命体验联系在一起，它虽然是我创造的，但是观者无须揣摩我的“怎么作”和“为何而作”，而关心作品对他的个体生命的影响，以及之引发他个人怎样的思考。
作品之于艺术家，正如孩子之于母亲，孩子可以经由母亲而到来，却不是为了母亲而来。
米庄：对，我发现你的关注点始终是对生命的理解。
林：探讨对生命的理解，比文化更真实，而且超越文化，历史，政治。
米庄：这让我想起你的另外一件摄影作品《我的365天》，虽然呈现的是摄影作品，我认为其实是一件行为作品，日记般拍摄了365天，每天梳头的时候掉落的头发，无声，但是直接、本质，深刻。
林：就在几个月以前，我无意间在一本杂志上，见过一组拍摄汶川大地震丧子家庭再生育孕妇的照片，她们全都有过一个8到14岁的孩子，不幸在地震中遇难，她们隆起的腹部都孕育着另一个幼小的生命，她们都青春不再，都显得那么柔弱，沧桑，疲惫，憔悴，带着重创之后的平静，默默地含着眼泪坚强起来，准备和新生命一起来战胜恐惧和绝望。
这使我非常感动，这就是生命的本质。
我们有一天，会失去我们爱的人，或是分离，或是死亡，所有的生命，都或迟或早终究面对这样的疼痛，将没有柳暗花明；在生命的残酷面前，我们都是脆弱的，无辜的，无奈的，我们简化的态度并不能缓解这样的悲痛，但是，这正好是生命重要的一个组成部分，认识残酷，意味着加倍珍惜我们仍然拥有的生命。
米庄：我在你的《玫瑰 玫瑰》中获得同样的感动，尤其是那段录像。
玫瑰就是我们的生命，它经受的正是生命中不断混杂在一起的炫丽和残酷。
从最早的诗歌写作，一直到你今天的艺术，其中的跨度是相当大的， 我有点好奇，能聊一聊你的童年吗？我想了解，是怎样的经历，让你选择了诗歌写作？或者说，有没有任何童年的故事，曾经影响过你，甚至直到今天，还在影响着你，影响着你的思考，影响着你的创作？
林：诗歌是所有文字表达里最跳跃，最模糊的一种，它可以没有逻辑，但是充满节奏，它可以抽象，甚至静止，但是自由，超越极限，带着永不枯竭，汹涌不已的力量。
非常喜欢它这种特质，我觉得它最靠近心灵，让我看到“跳跃着的观念”的真实而感人的部分。
我有一个特别寂寞的童年，朋友很少，几乎没有，不知道是什么原因， 尤其是5，6岁的时候，住在我家周围的孩子要么比我大2，3 岁，要么比我小2，3 岁，这对一个孩子来说，是很大的鸿沟，很难逾越，那时我非常羡慕那些打打闹闹，奔过来跑过去的男生，他们总是一群一群的，大喊大叫，呼啸着投入一个又一个激动人心的游戏。
米庄： 那你想过加入他们吗？
林： 当然想过，渴望极了，也试过，我发现，男孩的世界其实是很残酷的，暴力对于男孩的意义远胜于任何其他，暴力是70年代的日常存在，参与暴力和制造暴力能造就光荣和满足，它在无需谈论的共识中达到默契，而这种默契，使人和人自然分群，并迅速地亲密地团结到一起。
实际上，我认为在中国的70年代，在一个盲目而分裂的精神状态中，暴力被日常性地强调和煽动，暴力建立起一种共识，尽管可能是幻觉也无关紧要，因为在那个年代，共识才是最重要的。
比如一位我们共同敬爱的人，死去，但是我们建立了共识的方式缅怀死者，这立刻变成一件多么有尊严而高贵的事情，我们在达到共识的气氛里甜蜜地哭泣，我们共同爱着的这个人成为永恒。
幼年的我并没有感到悲伤，我只感到的是不能描述的崇高。
共识也是暴力成为合理合法的强有力的理由，“凶残”和“疯狂”都在共识中变得令人兴奋。
达成共识的暴力是被允许的，被歌颂的，被推崇的，被理解的，达成共识的暴力是合法而且道德的，是符合情感和政治立场的。
暴力也促使人变成“物”，是“物”对“物”的毁灭和屠杀，尽管“物”可能以烈士或者英雄的名义呈现，那也不能改变暴力本身的性质。
米庄：这些思考，我在你2009年的绘画系列作品《 飞翔的另一种方式》中也体现了，画面上是一架架为了暴力和战争而建造的战斗机，你却在画面上蒙上一层透明而且美丽的蕾丝，暴力在闪着温情的淡淡的光芒中，暴力还是暴力吗？如果不再是暴力，那到底是什么，我们究竟让他们成为了什么？
林：对，这里的暴力是一个比喻，谈论真实的暴力是一方面，我其实更多的是在探讨关于暴力的观念，人们面对暴力的态度，甚至是现代人和现代人之间的关系，逐渐简化成相互“物”化之后的暴力关系，这是暴力以相对抽象的方式，在看似和平的今天，继续地体现着70年代的共识。
我们都不愿意，在各种各样的暴力中牺牲的人，就象在法国电影《我控诉》中那位军人喊的那样：“你们全都白白牺牲。”
我童年时认识的那些男孩，他们的暴力，在我这里常常是想象的演示， 我的一部分童年就在对暴力的想象和恐惧中渡过，我希望加入他们“那一伙“的渴望是显而易见的，但是他们对我很粗暴，尤其是他们中最小的男生。
米庄：最小的男生多大？
林： 比我大几个月，基本上和我同龄，但是他是他们那一群里最小的，那群孩子里，大的也大他2，3岁，所以他有时也受排挤，大孩子有时会取笑他，嫌弃他跟不上，不够勇敢等等，所以他也有压力，他特别渴望得到大孩子们的认可，他特别渴望大孩子们认为他和他们是一伙的。
我经常偷偷地跟着他们，我对他们非常好奇，我想知道他们作的任何事情，我也想知道他们都去了哪里，我对他们的追随都在某一个或者一群男生的喝斥中索然而止，或者是他们一起，故意跑得特别快，抄各种小路，翻墙攀树，把我甩掉。
每一次成功地甩掉我，就意味着一个可以共同庆祝的胜利，我的沮丧总是伴随着他们在不远的远处发出的欢呼，总让我心有不甘。
米庄：那你不是很伤心？（笑）是不是幼小的心灵已经受到了伤害？
林：谈不上伤害，那时候觉得这些冲突是正常的，是我自己主动而且不间断地老是偷窥，还无休止地跟踪尾随，自然需要承受任何后果了。
我记得很清楚，有一次，我正寻着声音跑，那个最小的男孩从一棵树的后面跳出来，手里握着一把削铅笔用的小刀，那种薄薄的绿绿的，廉价的简易的折叠小刀，朝我打开着，他非常凶恶地盯着我，说了一句非常恶毒的脏话。
米庄：当时你的反应是什么？
林：我非常愤怒，我觉得我的尊严受到了侵犯，我紧紧地盯着他：你敢再说一遍？
他立刻再说了一遍。我更愤怒了：你敢再说一遍？ 他立刻又说了一遍。
然后我说：你敢再说一百遍？
他一下子楞了，楞过那一瞬那，他动了动嘴唇，什么也没说，收起小刀，头也不回地跑了。
米庄：这很有趣，你当时是怎么想的？
林： 我相信那不是当时可以认真想出来的，是一个直觉的反应，它以不可能的方式，拯救了我的自尊和荣誉，但它给了我一个很强的信息，那就是：当你让某件事情变得荒唐了之后，它会变成另外一个东西，它的性质和方向就都可以改变。实际上，令那个男孩恍惑的东西并不存在，它是现实以无限的方式衍生之后的存在，这样的无限虽然虚拟，但是足以荒诞，它是不真实中的另外一种真实，是无视真实的真实，是颠覆真实的不真实，是对荒诞的坚持，无惧和不容置疑，它就这样产生了力量，那个男孩的退却是想象力的退却。
很多年以后，我仔细地想，这其实就可以是当代艺术的方式。