1)
In China, Screens/Ping Feng are widely used in daily life. Whether in public or private spaces, a screen both divides and links a space. As an object, it combines an abstract concept with a tangible physical presence that is instrumental in utilising an interior space. The positioning or placing of a screen within a space results from both the reason for creating a divide between public and private - to block the view of a specific area of the space - and the need to conceal part of a room. It the same time, it serves as the link between the public arena and that portion of the space that has been sectioned off. It creates two separate spaces that exist simultaneously within the same time frame. Screens are never used casually, as a purely decorative device. There is a science and a system behind the decision that determines the specific location. In this way, the two notions of division and linkage are made dependent upon each other.In an abstract sense, a ‘screen’ alludes to a cultural attitude, to the desire to alter a space physically and temporally. The ‘screen’ is evidence that the physical world can be altered and defined by the desires of men. The nature of that desire is shaped by a specific cultural ideology, which in turn shapes the character of a culture. Thus, it exerts a natural influence upon daily life.

2)
The scroll painting The Night Banquet of Han Xizai is a widely known work of high classical Chinese art. In this work, Gu Hongzhong, an artist of the Southern Tang (943-975) period, meticulously describes three individual screens, which serve to divide the space of the traditional scroll format into five separate areas. These areas are divided from each other and via the same divisive screen, linked together. This famous painting was commissioned by the emperor Li Houzhu of the Southern Tang - imperial name Li Yan - for political reasons not readily visible in the actual painting. In being set the task of executing this work, Gu Hongzhong was to ‘spy’ upon the reclusive scholar-official Han Xizai and effectively provide a ‘report’ upon his night feasts, the indulgences as well as the specific guests. The act of the painting was but a guise. The result is a single painting with two very different interpretations. Was Gu Hongzhong an artist or a spy?The gap between these two roles raised the questions upon which this play is pivoted. In being asked to produce such a painting, Gu Hongzhong was required to enter into the event, as a passive guest but an active observer, who would ultimately record the facts of the matter for history. The ‘record’ that the painting provides is not just a chronicle of the lifestyle and appearance of the people of the times, but offers a cryptic account of a hidden ulterior motive that hinged around an actual historical plot. The painting is thus a record of the actions of a broader group of people at that time beyond the physical boundary of the painting.Thus the play ‘Screen’ took as its starting point a series of hypotheses: it supposes that the painting had disappeared; that the emperor commanded an investigation of its disappearance, demanding its return; that in order to validate the facts of the painting, proof was required of the actual existence of the painter Gu Hongzhong.

3)
These suppositions assume that the painting The Night Banquet of Han Xizai presents historical fact. Yet, the circumstances under which it was commissioned offer the possibility to reread history. Within such a ‘screen’, within the relations between men in an undefined time and place, the performers and the audience, there is no discernable or clear boundary between the ‘text’ of yesteryear and the performance in the present. They intertwine and manipulate each other, being at the same time interdependent and discriminating. They simultaneously define each other.The sense of uncertainty to which this gives rise, further serves to discredit the idea that there is but one ‘absolute’ reading of history. The ‘theatre’ that unfolds on stage is but a space where the different interpretations of language and experience clash. History is no longer tied to one image of a specific time. It is made to embrace both the ‘record’ and all the events surrounding the painted account. It allows for each individual interpretation.The unfolding of the ‘screen’ is an anthropological study of history and tradition, a study in ‘reading’ the self. Wittgenstein said that often the most important facts are obscured by the familiarity of simple things. There is nothing more familiar than reading an historical event that occurred a thousand years ago. But we should not let the ‘familiarity’ of accepted fact deter us from asking what has been obscured.

一　　

“屏风”，在中国被广泛使用于日常生活的空间，无论是公共空间，还是私人空间。它以“隔”与“连接”的双重概念，非常概念又非常物质化的构成了一种对于空间的使用方法，其使用功能建立在共时性的原则上，既“遮挡视线”，又展现一种被精心选择后的“布置”。　　
“ 屏风”，可以类比为一种文化态度，一种人为的企图改变空间与时间关系的愿望。既坚信世界可以按照某种愿望去改造的一种信念，这种信念支配着一种意识形态，同时也制造了一种文化的特征，并以一种“自然化”的方式影响着我们的日常生活。　　

二　　

《韩熙载夜宴图》是中国美术史上著名作品。中国南唐画家（约公元943-975年）顾闳中在这张画中，精心描绘了三个屏风，将中国传统长卷分成了五个空间，它们既相隔又将空间连成一气，但同时，这张著名的作品是当时南唐皇帝李“后主”—李煜，出于某种政治上的需要，委派画家顾闳中去暗中窥视韩熙载夜宴宾客的“小报告”。一张画，两种目光？间谍的、艺术的？这个有“漏洞”的史实，给了这个戏一个提问的理由。它的起点是干预而非颠覆，重塑而非真实的再现一个“历史的记忆”，这个“记忆”不再是一个具体的片段和一段传统习俗及人物的行为模式，而是一个关系的、动态的、整体的集合及某种集体性经验所构成的事件。这个事件由一系列假设开始：假设了画家顾闳中与他所绘的《韩熙载夜宴图》失踪了；假设李“后主”出于某种需要去追查这张画；假设顾闳中所描绘的人物反过来要证明顾闳中的存在——。　　

三　　

一个开放性的假设，使《韩熙载夜宴图》从一个孤立的历史文本置于它所处的整体环境之中，也为我们提供了再次“阅读”历史的可能性。　　
“屏风”中，人与人的关系，在一个无法辨认的空间及无法确定的时间里，表演者与观者、昨天的文本与今天的演绎之间已经没有明确的界限，它们相互交叉、相互操纵、又互相依赖、互相排斥、互相塑造了对方——。　　这种不确定性，进一步瓦解了只能以一种方法观看历史的“合法性”。舞台演化为不同话语与经验，相互发生关系与冲突的场所，历史不再是发生在过去某个时间的简单事件，它包括了记录和被记录排斥在外的事件之间的内在联系，同时也包括了我们的一种理解方式。　　
“屏风”的过程，既是一种对历史与传统的“考古”，也是对我们自身“阅读”历史方法的“考古”。像维特根斯坦所言：“事物对我们最重要的方面由于简单和熟悉而被隐藏起来。”再也没有比被“阅读”了近一千年的艺术更让我们熟悉的了，什么东西被隐藏了？
　
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

2000年4月25日