←↑

By modern calligraphy, we usually refer to artwork under this conception and the artistic phenomena characterized by the interaction of these works, instead of the concept itself. To some extent, the phrase ''modern calligraphy'' may often remind people more of a chronological concept than a spatial one. In fact, under the new philological context, modern calligraphy has taken on special meaning. It does not only illustrate the ''calligraphy'' or ''modern'', but represents calligraphy as a possibility in modern space.
Nevertheless, the concept of ''modern calligraphy'' is still regarded as a term of temporary convenience that is generally accepted. However, it does not matter much if we use it forever since we have turned our point of view towards the philological context of ''contemporary culture.'' Calligraphy, as was defined as an art form, has experienced fundamental change in its connotation since a new concept of ''calligraphy" was created. That is to say, the concept of ''modern calligraphy" has turned into an issue of pure terminology, or, we have sped up the birth of a brand new, parasitic art concept on the basis of a ''past tense'' concept.

←↑

Under the name of ''modern calligraphy,'' a consider-able number of artists are still following the concept of ''creating calligraphy,'' which, as a matter of fact, stems from the historic notion that follows the logic of calligraphy history. However, there is still a considerable gap between this concept and the type of modern calligraphy we advocate. The calligraphy created according to this concept, in fact, is a product of eclecticism because the technical requirements of calligraphy will be unconsciously confined during the creation. Calligraphy has receded to a level of aesthetic taste when the difficulty of creating a concept is replaced by technical difficulty. As a result, modern calligraphy will be unconsciously placed in an extraordinarily embarrassing situation, with technical quality and aesthetic tastes becoming the judging standards and motives in creation.
It is also risky to regard modern calligraphy as ``abstract wash ink" or creation as emotional expression. Or, we can say, it is a biggest mistake to view calligraphy as a signal of modern space and contemporary characteristics. It is rather narcissism for creating a space when the non-figurative expressive brushwork sways helplessly. Modern calligraphy neither undertakes the modification of visual forms nor is responsible for inquiring the deconstruction of images. Under such circumstance, modern calligraphy without the psychological support of character framework is no more than a risky action. The danger of this action is that it would always likely mop off the explorative significance in the space without Chinese characters and leave behind simply helpless moan and mooch.

←↑

A spatial question facing abstract art is how to make the building up of such a space culturally significant. It is far from enough to base it on individual sensitivity and emotion. Only when the concept of ''self-expression'' is under the prerequisite of ''self-openess'' can it be meaningful. What's similar is the formation of cultural concept: culture is the result of collective ideal. Individual ideal is not culture. Only when an individual has entered a collective and obtained its symbolic signal can it be significant. On this basis, let us examine the possibility of calligraphy.
Actually, in 1991, I commented: When calligraphy was in the condition of Chinese characters during the past thousands years of history, thousands of calligraphers appeared. Then, when it is in the situation of destroying the recognizability of Chinese characters, many excellent calligraphers will appear, too. The accuracy of that prediction has been proved today. However, what needs to be checked is that the conclusion was made according to the logic of calligraphy history. It is even simply a prospect and demand under the concept of form and language, rather than under the related cultural background. In other words, as contemporary culture requires, modern calligraphy will be really successful when it becomes unavoidable in the writing of contemporary art history and cultural history. Only then can we say calligraphy has entered into contemporary times and

become a ''modern'' art in the sense of conceptual space.
Undoubtedly, contemporary calligraphy will establish real evaluation standards and creation principles on a relevant level.

But, on such level, calligraphy will return to being a method, or, become a source that the creator can choose to tap at will. Its significance lies in the fact that it has put calligraphy into a double melting pot of contemporary cultural spirit and wisdom. It is not important what the final product will look like. What's important is it should offer an ''experience.'' Only in this way can we establish the prerequisite for discussions on the contemporary cultural characteristics of modern calligraphy.
The so-called contemporary cultural logic significance is: the artist should establish his own thinking in the frontier of contemporary scholarship. Meanwhile, he should seek a cultural pivot in the space of destructed Chinese characters. We need to note that, either in the modern calligraphy space or in contemporary art, we will certainly encounter such a problem. It is still very limited to tap the source of calligraphy simply by contingent expressiveness or intentionally separating the format. Modern calligraphy should be about ''self-openness'' or ''calligraphic openness''. Only when modern calligraphy enters this arena can we say it has realized its contemporary characteristics. Only when it ''vetoes'' traditional calligraphy can it be eventually recognized by calligraphy history. This is also the logic of culture and the prerequisite of contemporary characteristics. The unfolding of calligraphy in contemporary times will definitely choose those who veto calligraphy with calligraphy as their logical target.

In the summer heatwave of Jinan, July 1, 1999

(Zhang Qiang, a modern artist and art theorist, is now an associate professor at the Shandong Institute of Art.)

←↑