陶鼎是谁？
作者：李景阳（中国社科院文化学者）

当我思考陶鼎油画的内涵与风格的时候，我不禁向自己发问：陶鼎是谁？他是康定斯基和蒙德里安吗？是的，他们的精神是相通的。然而，康定斯基和蒙德里安搞的是“形抽象”，陶鼎搞的是“色抽象”。当我们面对陶鼎的 “有心灵秩序的色盘”（他的“色抽象”绘画）时，我们真的找不到任何的“形”的痕迹了! 还应当说，原来,抽象主义就是抽象主义，白从有了陶鼎的“色彩抽象主义”的发明之后，我们才把以往的抽象主义归之于 “形抽象”。他是点彩派鼻祖毕沙罗和修拉吗？乍看，他的画的确有点“点彩派”的外观，然而，他与前辈有两个明显甚至本质的不同。印象主义的点彩终究“臣服”于客观的物象， 不过是用 “分色主义”加强视觉印象而已，而陶鼎与他们的不同是：一，把客体当成自己“役使”的对象； 二，在色彩编织上已非简单的“分色”，而是使其具有了交响乐织体般的复來的不可捉摸的性质。他是梵高吗？他的确汲取了梵高的色彩的营养，他的色彩不再是“点”的排列，而是变得汪洋恣肆，但观整个的画风，陶鼎的恬静与梵高的狂野实在又是性格的两极。他是莫奈吗？他的确对莫奈顶礼膜拜，并在孜孜不倦的瑞摩中吃透了莫奈，还创作了《莫奈主题变奏曲（莲花）》，但他属于现代主义的表现派，在创作理念上实在比莫奈走得更远！他是表现主义的代表人物蒙克吗？毫无顾忌地伸张自我——就这点说，他们的确很像，但陶鼎自我表现的“工具”是大自然，蒙克的“工具”则是人（人物形象）。那么，陶鼎应当像音乐界的几位大师喽！先说德彪西。看陶鼎的 “梦幻自然”绘画，的确让我们耳边响超德彪西的音乐，然而，德彪西的音乐是受了印象派绘画的启示（请听他的《交响素描》系列），印象主义与表现主义终究不同。但音乐的印象主义与绘画的表现主义为何很像呢？因为，音乐毕竟是艺术语言中最抽象的一种，即使是描慕自然，也给我们 “莫衷一是”的感觉，倘若无标题的提示，听者会做无边的联想，最 “写实”的音乐也摆脱不开多义性，这正好与陶鼎的朦胧、多义的画风殊途同归。陶鼎是李斯特和拉威尔吗？有乐评家说，能弹奏李斯特的《超级练习曲》的钢琴家在全世界不超过十个，可见其难度。又有乐评家把拉威尔比作“微型作曲家”和“瑞士钟表匠”，拉威尔自己也称某些作品是“由许多微小动机组成的镶嵌图案”，他的音乐的确太“精密”了！陶鼎的神秘笔触是不是 “微小动机”，他的色块拼接是否也有 “镶嵌因案” 之微妙呢 ？当然，陶鼎的色块运用并非只是拼接, 多层次的覆盖也是他的一绝。毫不夸张地说，陶鼎对于色彩的实验性研究的确达到了李斯特的难度和拉威尔的 “精度”他的色彩的精巧编织正如李斯特与拉威尔音乐中的“细针密线”。陶鼎是莫扎特吗？我说，追根究底，陶鼎的确像莫扎特，他们共同拥有两样东西——唯美与天真。若说陶鼎的画“貌似” 德彪西的话，他的画之魂则与莫扎特息息相通。陶鼎的 “梦幻” 有着天国的单纯与宁静，莫扎特的音乐被称作“天籁之音”，它们都令我们冥想与“超度”。此外，陶鼎的天真里时而含着淡淡的忧郁，莫扎特的后期音乐不是也有些微的感伤吗？但终究，绘画是绘画，音乐是音乐。陶鼎终究是他自己。他的画秉承并发展了印象派的技巧，更费彻了自己的表现主义和抽象主义理念，从而熔铸了不可复制的个人风格，他真正是黑格尔所说的“这一个”。“这一个”，就不是 “那一个”，也不是任何的其他，他，只是他自己。

While I contemplate the essence and style of Pascal Tao's art, I cannot help but wonder who is this man? Is he a Kandinsky or a Mondrian? Yes, they share a similar spirit. However, Kandinsky and Mondrian dabbled in the abstraction of form; Pascal Tao is a practitioner of the abstraction of color. When we are fi-nally confronted by Pascal's playful yet masterful palette, we can no longer detect any trace of form! For clarification, abstractionism has always been abstractionism, but since Pascal's color abstractionism we have had to distinguish between color and form abstractionism.Is he a Pissarro or a Seurat? At a quick glance, his pieces do indeed contain points such as in pointillism, but there is a distinct uniqueness to Pascal's style. Impressionism's pointillist move-ment, though ground-breaking, is still mired by the objective form. It uses a smattering of basic colors to coalesce into an experience that reinforces the senses, but Pascal is not the same for two reasons. The first, he bends the objective to his will. Second, Pascal's palette is not just a simple prismatic separ-ation; his mastery over color is like that of a symphony, so complex it is beyond complete comprehension.Is he a Van Gough? Pascal has indeed been influenced by Van Gough; Pascal's colors are substantial and bold. However, when considering Pascal as a whole his tranquillity is the diametric of Van Gough’s wildness.Is he a Monet? Pascal indeed has a deep-seated respect and admiration for Monet. He has long pondered and absorbed the teachings of Monet, knowing him inside and out. However, his commitment to better modern expressionism has wildly exceeded the pioneering work of Monet. Is he a Munch? Both attempts to examine one's inner psyche. But Pascal uses nature to explore the depths of his soul. Munch relies on the human condition.Now why not size him up with the greats of the music world? Let us first talk about Debussy. When we look at Pascal's ethereal art, the lilting melodies of Debussy come to mind. His music has indeed been influenced by impressionism, not expressionism. Then why is it that music's impressionism is so similar toart's expressionism? It could be because music is the most abstract of the art forms. Even though it may try to paint a picture of nature for us? We are left with an ephemeral experience. Music cannot avoid being interpreted in many ways. And it is exactly in this vein that Pascal Tao's art exists. His art defies fetters and shackles.Is he a Liszt or a Ravel? There are music critics that say Pianists who can master Liszt's ultra-difficult composition do not exceed ten. There are other music critics who say that Ravel's attention to micro detail is like that of Swiss watchmakers. The intricate composition is without parallel. Then is it not fair to say that Pascal's brush strokes are intricate and tight? Of course, Pascal's art is not just a tightly constructed puzzle its intricate layered construction is paramount. Pascal's mastery over color is exactly like the brilliance of Liszt and Ravel, masters of their craft.Is he a Mozart? I say, getting to the heart of the matter, they are similar because they both possess great aestheticism and true innocence. If we are to say Pascal's art is like Debussy, then its soul is like that of Mozart. Pascal's art is reminiscent of paradise and tranquillity, not unlike the heavenly music of Mozart that spurs our pensiveness. Furthermore, Pascal's art hides a deep melancholy, not unlike Mozart's later compositions.But of course, fine art is fine art and music is music.Pascal is ultimately himself. His constant study and mastery of his craft has pushed impressionism and expressionism into new directions. He has crafted a unique style,so deep, and layered, it is indeed Pascal Tao. He is what Heel calls "This one. ""This one." Is not "That one." Nor is he anything else, he is himself.