脸，是不能被说的，只能看。
脸，是不能描述的，只能觉察。
脸，不是容貌，不是表情。不报道什么，只有相遇。
脸，是不及物动词。

列维纳斯说，“脸是人的显灵，所以脸的视觉呈现根本上不同于其它视觉经验。一张脸拒绝被收纳在观看者的看法中，既然我们的理解无法围困一张脸的意义，脸就不可能被把握。”于是，人凝视另一个人，只能看脸，而脸是透明的，应该通向无限，看一个人的脸，应该是像看天空那样，后面是上苍的影子。此外，别样的看，就是对身体的暴力。列维纳这样说的时候需要有一个前提：凝视者也把自己感受为一个上苍的生灵，或是一个结果：凝视者被这样的凝视带到这样的位置。

但更多的时候，脸呈现为容貌，或表情。它们是及物的，它们有种种所要诉说的事情或态度，或忧伤，或反叛，或正义，所诉说的都寄放在一种各种权力争夺的秩序中，被公开或秘密地损害着。在容貌、表情与观看者之间的关系是主客分离的， 中间相隔的是共识、共鸣，或异议、或欣赏、或争议。在此相遇的，是是非，是事情，还不是人的相遇。

在人还没有相遇的地方，持守的无论是什么观念和方法，在钱穆那样的儒者看来，都属于法，是约束性的，总是寄放在某种权力中心的。容貌和表情都是被修饰过的脸，当然，这也算是容貌和表情的社会义务。但停滞在这次修饰词上的看就会是片段的，是阻隔的，就像没有“仁”的礼，阻隔在某种新闻事件里，阻隔在某种知识理论里，阻隔在某种意识形态规矩里。

如果依照马丁布伯的说法，我们生活在两重世界里，一重是“我与他”的世界，一重是“我与你”的世界，他，是对象，而你，是关系。我们总是往返于这两重世界之间。只有诵出“你”时，其人才不仰仗他物他事，才见到人。由于各种外在的需求，人总是留存在“他”世界。这或许是真实处境。

但艺术制作不能只从属于社会学，除非预设艺术生产从属于艺术消费。尽管在艺术中充满了理论术语，仍然有一个共同世界永远潜伏着，艺术能启动一种共同世界吗？

在共同世界里，脸就不会被容貌替代，脸就是一个不可侵入的整体，它具有内在的无限性，指示着一个超越的存在，脸就是超越性的显灵。对于一个超越的存在，知识论会失去意义，只能以伦理学的方式对待它。

陈卉的人物画提醒了这一点，对她来说，可能更像是提醒自己。她一直在画以面目为中心的人物画，看她的人像画有一个琢磨不定的印象，有时她在画情绪，有时她在画表情，有时好像又忽然放弃了那种语调清晰的表达，直接与那个脸面对面，这时的脸有一种难以聚焦的全息感。

这或许是和她的化妆专业知识相关。在这个领域里，脸可能更多的是作为对象，她必定了解其中的深浅，而且更多地了解脸是如何被对象化的。于是在绘画中，她一直试图站在完全不同的立场，通过揣摩一种测试手段，让脸在“我-你”关系中呈现出深、浅、远、近的种种层次，一层层剥离由观看方式施加于脸上的言辞，逐渐映出属于无限性的光亮。

舒可文
2016 年9月9日

Face is unspeakable, but only viewable;
Face is not to be described, but only sensed;
Face is neither appearance nor expression; it reports nothing but meeting.
Face is an intransitive verb.

According to Levinas, face is the epiphany of humanity. Thus the visual presentation of face is different from all others. A face resists to be submitted to the perception of the viewer. If our understanding fails to seize the meaning of a face, then a face is not graspable. Thus, when one gaze at another, one sees but the face, which is transparent and lead to infinity. A face is to be looked at in the same way as sky, behind which is the Over Soul. Any other way of gazing is violence to the body. Levinas' remark is based on a prerequisite, that is, the gazer perceive him/herself as a creature or a result of the Over Soul - the gazer is brought to this position by his/her gazing.

But more often, faces take form in appearance or expression. They are transitive, with stories and attitudes to tell. Melancholy, betrayal, and justice - everything to be told is left to an order amid the battle of powers - injured openly or in secret. Appearance, expression and the viewer are separate. They are separated by consensus, resonance, objection, appreciation, or dispute. Here the encounter involves judgment, things, but not people.

When people haven't encounter each other, whatever mindsets or methodologies they are holding to, according to scholars like Qian Mu, are within the domain of rules. They are restrictive and are always subject to a central power. Both appearance and expression are a modified face. And of course to be modified is the social responsibility appearance and expression. But when confined to the modifier, what we see is fragmented and separated, without the etiquette of 'benevolence'. They are separated into some news reports, theoretical knowledge, and ideological rules.

According to Martin Buber, we live in two worlds - the world of I and It, and the world of I and you. We are constantly back and forth between the two worlds. As experience, the world belongs to the primary world I-It. The primary word I-Thou establishes the world of relation. Only when "Thou" is uttered, one is independent of other things and can see people. Due to external need, people always exist in the world of It. Maybe this is the real world.

But fine art should not just subject to sociology, if we do not agree that art creation should be subject to art consumption. Even though the art world is congested with terminology, there is always a potential universal request: is art able to initiate a One world?

In this One world, face is not replaced by appearance. Face is an intact entirety, with internal infinity indicating the being of transcendence. Face is the epiphany of the transcendence. Epistemology will lose all its ground in front of a transcendent being, and cannot but approach it with ethics.

The figure paintings of Chen Hui illustrate this point, and are more of a reminder for herself. Her figure paintings revolve around face, and leave an elusive impression. Sometimes she paints the emotions, sometimes expressions, and other times she gives up the clear and articulate strokes, but directly confronts the face. At these moments, the face takes the form of a hologram hard to spot a focus.

This may originate from her professional knowledge in makeup. Within this domain, the face is an object about which she must be familiar with the details, and understand how a face is objectified. Thus in her paintings, she keeps shifting standpoints, and by testing a methodology, presents face in the form of "I and Thou" in multiple layers, deep, shallow, far, and near. She peels off the layers of imposed speeches from watching, gradually revealing the light of infinity.

By SHU KE WEN 2016