壹美美術館榮幸地宣布，“無盡的重啟——陳抱陽作品展”將于2025年11月15日正式開展，開幕式于11月22日舉辦。作為壹美美術館“青年藝術家計劃”的項目，本次展覽由北京實創(chuàng)科技園開發(fā)建設股份有限公司主辦，壹美美術館承辦，程辰擔任策展人，通過呈現(xiàn)青年藝術家的生命體驗及媒介表達，洞見當代青年藝術生態(tài)。

展覽展期至2026年1月11日，在壹美美術館一層集中呈現(xiàn)藝術家陳抱陽的6件數(shù)字裝置作品和部分架上作品。他用作品構建起數(shù)字時代的藝術敘事，同時把目光投向存在、認知與技術本質(zhì)這些核心問題。“無盡的重啟”，是傳統(tǒng)藝術到數(shù)字時代藝術發(fā)展的一個隱喻。藝術的前進需要一次次細微而未知的重啟，在繼承中突破，在矛盾中前行，在探索中重構，嘗試錨定自我、藝術與世界的關系，這是藝術家追隨時代的自覺更新。

與此同時，壹美美術館二層，“暖——徐紫迪作品展”同期開展。“無盡的重啟”和“暖”并置在美術館中，將人工智能與古典媒介藝術共同展現(xiàn)在觀眾面前。它們沒有新舊之分，有的只是藝術家在世界的此刻決定關注的焦點。在歷史里尋找斑斕，抑或在未來中嘗試呼吸，都是關于藝術的一場又一場復興。

————

無盡的重啟——談陳抱陽的創(chuàng)作

程 辰

我們正在經(jīng)歷一個藝術語言與認知邊界被徹底重構的時代。人工智能加速進入藝術領域，實在地影響著藝術家的構思和工作方法。技術不再是藝術的附加工具，而是開始從內(nèi)部推動觀念更新和形式變化。時代為藝術家?guī)砀蟮谋磉_空間，也催生出關于傳統(tǒng)與現(xiàn)代、真實與虛擬、人類與機器關系的深層困惑。對此，青年藝術家陳抱陽選擇直面變化：他的創(chuàng)作從傳統(tǒng)山水的數(shù)字化重構，到人機關系的哲學探索，再到多智能體生態(tài)的構建，每一次創(chuàng)作都是對藝術表達的“重啟”。在日常語境中，我們習慣在電腦出故障時通過重啟來恢復系統(tǒng)，或在完成軟硬件更新后重啟以應用變更、優(yōu)化性能、清理緩存。誠然，我們渴望借助技術和新觀念推動藝術進步，但這種重啟也暗藏悖論。因為它可能帶來修復與提升，可能暴露新的未知與不確定，也可能出現(xiàn)隨之而來的無限循環(huán)。

陳抱陽的實踐，正面回應并嘗試化解這個悖論。他在重啟中構建起數(shù)字時代的藝術敘事，同時把目光投向存在、認知與技術本質(zhì)這些核心問題。他出身于藝術世家，但卻沒有進行傳統(tǒng)的美術學習與訓練。如他所說，“......從記事起，世界對我還算友善。我的父母沉醉于中國古典山水的精神世界，而我卻在與各種奇特、玄奧的電腦故障斗爭中成長，立志成為一名工程師，消滅這個世界上的所有錯誤。”可見，他對藝術的興趣來自家學中的傳統(tǒng)滋養(yǎng)，而創(chuàng)作方法卻由科技激活與塑型。對年輕的陳抱陽來說，這也是對“文化傳承與創(chuàng)新”的下意識回應。傳統(tǒng)給了他審美與氣質(zhì)，技術為他打開路徑，兩者共同推動他找到自己的表達。

《重構山水》系列，《蘇堤春曉》 人工智能算法生成、絹本噴墨，101×104cm，2014

2014年的《重構山水》是這一探索的起點，他將中國傳統(tǒng)山水畫經(jīng)典導入自編AI模型，用機器學習提取筆法和構圖規(guī)律，再由算法生成全新圖像并打印在中國絹上。古人通過臨摹來傳承和學習，陳抱陽以算法替代人手，表面看，這是傳統(tǒng)的延續(xù)，但本質(zhì)上，這是一次徹底的重啟。傳統(tǒng)臨摹追求對原作的忠實再現(xiàn)，AI生成卻在規(guī)則框架內(nèi)孕育無限變化?！按_定性規(guī)則下的不確定性結(jié)果”正是對中國傳統(tǒng)書畫精神的領悟，也暗合了海德格爾《技術的追問》中關于“技術是存在之真理的顯現(xiàn)”的論斷，技術并非簡單的唯一的工具，而是開啟新認知維度的路徑。傳統(tǒng)山水的意境依賴畫家主觀情志，而《重構山水》中的“山水”被算法打散重組，像素層面的重構顛覆了傳統(tǒng)格調(diào)，讓熟悉的視覺元素脫離原有語境，這種“解構與重構”是傳統(tǒng)文化更新中“陌生化”的過程。這種陌生化，讓“傳統(tǒng)如何在現(xiàn)代性中存在”成為一個可被觀看的問題。陳抱陽最終還是選擇絹本作為輸出載體，絹本的經(jīng)緯線紋理與數(shù)字像素網(wǎng)格形成微妙呼應，以傳統(tǒng)材料的物質(zhì)性為數(shù)字圖像提供了落點，讓這次重啟免于淪為無本之木。由此可見，傳統(tǒng)與現(xiàn)代并非對立，而是在相互對話中形成新的融合與共生。到2025年，這套創(chuàng)作邏輯仍在繼續(xù)推進。算法已經(jīng)能夠在其總結(jié)的繪畫基礎上進行自我生成和演化，但這種科學技術的進步似乎在藝術作品中已經(jīng)不那么重要了。

《仿生人會夢見電子奶牛嗎》，公共裝置 TX 淮海， 虛擬現(xiàn)實裝置（虛擬現(xiàn)實、定制鋼化玻璃、投影），上海，2019

楊畫廊，北京《仿生人會夢見電子奶牛嗎》同名個展，2017

隨著創(chuàng)作推進，陳抱陽將“重啟”拓展到感知邊界與人機關系。他開始深入觸碰“認知真實性”與“存在本質(zhì)”的問題。2017年的《仿生人會夢見電子奶牛嗎？》把鋼化玻璃迷宮與虛擬現(xiàn)實放在同一現(xiàn)場。觀眾在VR中獲得虛擬自由，卻被現(xiàn)實中的玻璃墻阻擋行動，視覺與觸覺的錯位喚醒身體對“真實”的感知。這是對“感知真實性”的一次重啟。傳統(tǒng)藝術用再現(xiàn)來構建體驗，而陳抱陽以技術制造感知悖論，這一設置把“何為真實”放回到觀看者自己的經(jīng)驗里。從哲學層面看，這一作品直指笛卡爾“我思故我在”的認知起點。當視覺（理性認知）與觸覺（身體感知）產(chǎn)生沖突時，“真實”的定義開始動搖，而身體感知的不可欺騙性，成為存在的基石。正如陳抱陽在畫冊中所言“眼睛可能會欺騙我們，但身體永遠誠實”，這與現(xiàn)象學中“身體是認知主體”的觀點相合。感知并非單純的感官接收，而是身體與世界互動的整體體驗，VR與玻璃迷宮的沖突，恰恰讓這種“身體認知”被看見。

藝術家工作桌裝置

《我在雨中見過你哭泣》，人工智能生成視頻（換臉），2019

2019年，AI換臉技術還不成熟，陳抱陽開始了艱難的技術探索。他的作品《我在雨中見過你哭泣》將哈里森?福特的蒼老面孔與《銀翼殺手》中羅伊?巴蒂的獨白場景合成，打破演員與角色、過去與現(xiàn)在的界限。這是一次對“身份與記憶”的重啟。技術提供了新表達手段，也讓真實與虛構的邊界變得模糊。進步與困惑并行，重啟的核心悖論由此出現(xiàn)。從哲學視角看，作品指向“身份的不確定性”與“記憶的建構性”。劇中復制人羅伊?巴蒂的臨終獨白“所有這些時刻都將消失在時間的長河里”，本就觸及存在的短暫。陳抱陽用深度偽造讓“年老的福特”演繹“年輕的復制人”，進一步消解了“真實自我”的固定形象。正如德里達“延異”理論所揭示的，身份并非穩(wěn)定的本質(zhì)，而是在差異與延宕中建構的意義。這種不確定性的呈現(xiàn)，對應著數(shù)字時代的“自我認知”壓力。重啟的意義，便在于在這種不確定性中，一次又一次追問，“我”究竟是什么？

《追逐迷霧》，人工智能小車裝置 （自動駕駛模型車x2、投影、交互臺），2019

《第一森林定律》，多智能體 AI 裝置 （機械臂、煙霧、燈光、屏幕、投影），2021

2020年以來，陳抱陽的創(chuàng)作進入多智能體共生階段，實現(xiàn)了對藝術生態(tài)的重啟。他從單一技術實驗轉(zhuǎn)向復雜系統(tǒng)的搭建，這一轉(zhuǎn)變背后是對“生態(tài)共生”與“技術倫理”的哲學思考?！蹲分鹈造F》中，兩輛AI驅(qū)動的汽車在“戰(zhàn)爭迷霧”里相互追逐，觀眾通過交互臺放置虛擬障礙物影響智能體行為。作品不再是藝術家單向輸出，而是多主體互動演化的動態(tài)系統(tǒng)。這種互動創(chuàng)作模式，打破了傳統(tǒng)創(chuàng)作中的單向傳遞，在互動中生成了意義網(wǎng)絡，重啟在此成為“打破藝術創(chuàng)作的主體壟斷”的手段，讓藝術從“藝術家的個人表達”走向“多主體的共生敘事”?！兜谝簧侄伞返闹赶蚋鼮榧怃J。AI系統(tǒng)控制機械臂為植物提供“完美生長環(huán)境”，卻因故意設置的“錯誤參數(shù)”，導致機械臂頻繁升降樹木，最終至其死亡。這是對“技術救世論”的重啟。作品打破“技術能解決一切矛盾”的想法，因為當技術脫離對自然本質(zhì)的理解，即便初衷向好也可能引發(fā)災難。這是陳抱陽對AI時代的懷疑和警醒。機械臂“好心辦壞事”的現(xiàn)場，將問題具象化：若缺乏倫理和約束，缺乏對“存在本質(zhì)”（如植物生長的自然規(guī)律）的尊重與敬畏，技術就可能成為破壞的力量。而重啟的意義，正在于通過這種批判性反思，讓技術服務于存在，而不是成為支配存在的工具。

《假蜃樓：神動迷蹤》，多智能體模擬 （大語言模型、虛幻引擎、神話文本）、屏幕，2025

《假蜃樓：狀態(tài)切片》，裝置 大語言模型驅(qū)動的智能體（導航算法），光學裝置、屏幕，2024

2023年開始，陳抱陽開啟了“假蜃樓”系列創(chuàng)作：《假蜃樓與多智能體系統(tǒng)》《假蜃樓：意識欺騙》《假蜃樓：狀態(tài)切片》。主題繼續(xù)指向技術倫理，并將視野轉(zhuǎn)向機器意識與未來生態(tài)，觸及“機器是否具有意識”和“人類文明演化”的終極哲學問題。他讓大語言模型驅(qū)動的智能體進入虛擬試煉場，在互動中測試欺騙與策略能力，挑戰(zhàn)“機器只能被動執(zhí)行指令”的固有認知。這一作品本質(zhì)上是對圖靈測試的藝術重構。圖靈測試以“能否模仿人類對話”判斷機器智能，陳抱陽則進一步追問“機器能否具備類似人類的策略性與欺騙性？”。問題延伸到了“意識本質(zhì)”，如果機器能自主制定策略、實施欺騙，是否意味著其擁有了初步的“意識”？在此基礎上，他提出新的疑問“機器會想象嗎？”盡管許煜已經(jīng)論證過想象力從根本上來說是人工的，機器也能主動地參與想象力的認知過程，但在陳抱陽的創(chuàng)作現(xiàn)場，重啟是拓展意識認知邊界的途徑和方法，也讓藝術成為探索機器意識的試驗場。

《智能體共生》，裝置，大語言模型驅(qū)動的多智能體（四足機器人，機械臂，特制屏幕，鏡面），實時演算，尺寸可變，2024

《智能體共生》以星際移民為背景，結(jié)合機械臂、四足機器人與光學裝置，探討人類與AI的未來共生，將重啟從當下延伸至對文明演化的想象。從哲學層面看，作品回應海德格爾的觀點“技術是命運”。技術與人類并非對立關系，而是共同演化的命運共同體。作品中的“機器人在破碎鏡面上行走”是一種隱喻，鏡面的破碎象征自然與技術的脆弱平衡，而機器人的行走則代表著人類與AI在這種平衡中尋找共生路徑的努力。按照劉易斯·芒福德《技術與文明》中的理論，調(diào)整技術體系的下一步就在于，把它和我們已經(jīng)開始發(fā)展的新文化以及地域新模式、社會新模式、個人新模式協(xié)調(diào)統(tǒng)一起來。如果認為所有由技術造成的問題都應當在技術領域的范圍之內(nèi)尋找答案，那么這種想法就大錯特錯了。陳抱陽在此選擇用藝術的方法尋找解決方案，把重啟轉(zhuǎn)化為“對文明未來的主動建構”。不是被動接受技術帶來的變化，而是在藝術實踐中探尋人與技術的共生可能，為文明演化提供新的想象空間。

陳抱陽認為當今的AI已經(jīng)在藝術創(chuàng)作中展現(xiàn)出獨特的作者身份。對他來說，AI不再只是一種工具或媒介，更是可信賴的創(chuàng)作伙伴。由于編程本身的不確定性，AI有時會在錯誤或混亂中引入意想不到的新視角和表現(xiàn)形式，激發(fā)出一種近似無意識的創(chuàng)造力。這種“黑盒”效應不再是簡單的二元對應，而是在算法不斷變化中生成更多可能。他把這一過程稱為“不可能的盡興”。這種不盡興，正是重啟的理由和必要，因為只有不斷重啟，這種即使盡興了也未可知的成果才能閃現(xiàn)。這種“重啟”不是簡單的重復或否定，而是持續(xù)的自我探索和思考。新媒體技術只是一個抓手和切口而已。

《星塵愚公》，裝置，大語言模型驅(qū)動的智能體 （人形機器人、機械臂）、投影，尺寸可變，2025

行文至此，我們可以用“重啟”來總結(jié)陳抱陽十年來的創(chuàng)作。首先，重啟是對“存在維度的拓展”。藝術不只再現(xiàn)現(xiàn)實，還通過技術與理念的迭代，打開對存在本質(zhì)、認知邊界與文明未來的新探索。陳抱陽的作品從傳統(tǒng)山水走向機器意識，每一次重啟都讓藝術觸及更廣闊的存在維度。其次，重啟是對“矛盾的辯證超越”。創(chuàng)作中的悖論（如技術進步與倫理風險、創(chuàng)新與傳統(tǒng)的平衡）并非阻礙，而是藝術表達的核心，重啟的過程就是在矛盾中實現(xiàn)辯證統(tǒng)一的過程。陳抱陽在作品中不回避技術的雙重性，將其轉(zhuǎn)化為思辨張力，讓藝術成為連接技術與人文的橋梁，這恰是黑格爾“正反合”辯證法在藝術創(chuàng)作中的體現(xiàn)。最后，重啟是對“藝術本質(zhì)的回歸”。藝術的本質(zhì)是對世界的追問與表達，而數(shù)字時代的技術變革，讓這種追問與表達面臨新的挑戰(zhàn)。重啟意味著藝術家主動適應時代變化，以新的媒介與語言繼續(xù)發(fā)問，使藝術保持對存在的敏感與深思。

“無盡的重啟”，是傳統(tǒng)藝術到數(shù)字時代藝術發(fā)展的一個隱喻。它源自文化與藝術發(fā)展中的突破與進步，綿延到現(xiàn)在的AI與生成。藝術的前進需要一次次細微而未知的重啟，這是藝術家追隨時代的自覺更新——在繼承中突破，在矛盾中前行，在探索中重構，嘗試錨定自我、藝術與世界的關系。這種重啟沒有起點，沒有終點，甚至根本就沒有方向和目標。它只有過程，只有對世界的探索、理解和表達，這就是個全力以赴走向無盡邊際的過程，而這正是藝術的生命力所在，更是人的永恒價值。

Endless Reset

——A Brief Discussion On Chen Baoyang’s Artistic Practice

Cheng Chen

We are experiencing an era in which artistic language and the very boundaries of cognition are being thoroughly reconfigured. As artificial intelligence accelerates its entry into the realm of art, it tangibly influences artists’ thinking and practice. Technology is no longer merely an add-on tool for art, but a force that drives the renewal of concepts and the transformation of forms from within. This era offers artists expanded expressive possibilities, while also giving rise to profound confusion about tradition and modernity, reality and virtuality, human and machine. Confronted with these shifts, young artist Chen Baoyang has chosen to meet the change headon. His creative journey, from the digital reconstruction ofical landscapes, through philosophical explorations of humanmachine relations, to the construction of multiagent ecosystems, constitutes a series of “resets” of artistic expression. In everyday usage, we routinely reset computers to restore systems after a malfunction, or to apply updates, optimize performance, and clear caches following software or hardware upgrades. Indeed, we aspire to advance art through technology and new thinking, yet, this very act of resetting also conceals a paradox. For it may bring repair and enhancement, it may reveal new unknowns and uncertainties, and it may also give rise to an ensuing cycle without end.

Chen Baoyang’s practice confronts and resolves this paradox. Through resetting, he builds artistic narratives for the digital age, while turning his gaze toward fundamental questions of existence, cognition, and the nature of technology. Born into a family of artists, he did not, however, receive a conventional art education. As he recalls, “From childhood, the world treated me kindly. My parents were immersed in the spiritual world ofical Chinese landscapes, while I grew up wrestling with strange, elusive computer malfunctions, determined to become an engineer and rid the world of all errors.” Thus, his interest in art was nurtured by family tradition, while his creative method was activated and shaped by technology. For the young Chen Baoyang, this was also an instinctive response to the dynamic of “cultural inheritance and innovation.” Tradition endowed him with aesthetic sensibility and temperament, whereas technology opened a path forward. Together, they enabled him to find his own voice.

De Shanshui (2014) marks the starting point of this exploration. He fed canonical works ofical Chinese landscape painting into a self-designed AI model, using machine learning to extract brushwork and compositional principles, then employed algorithms to generate new images, which were printed on traditional Chinese silk. While ancient artists learned and perpetuated tradition through copying, Chen Baoyang replaced the human hand with code. Superficially, this appears as a continuation of tradition, yet in essence, it is a thoroughgoing reset. Traditional copying aims at faithful reproduction,  AI generation, by contrast, gives rise to limitless variation within a rule-based framework. “Uncertain outcomes derived from deterministic rules” reflect an understanding of the spirit of Chinese painting and calligraphy, resonating with Heidegger’s proposition in The Question Concerning Technology that “technology is a way of revealing.” Technology is not merely an instrumental tool, but a pathway to new dimensions of cognition. The artistic conception ofical landscapes relied on the painter’s subjective sensibility, while the “l(fā)andscape” in Reconstructed Landscape is disassembled and reconfigured at the pixel level, subverting traditional composition and estranging familiar visual elements from their original context. This “deconstruction and reconstruction” is a process of defamiliarization in the renewal of traditional culture, one that renders visible the question of how tradition can persist within modernity. Chen Baoyang’s choice of silk as the output medium is deliberate: the texture of its warp and weft subtly echoes the digital pixel grid, grounding the digital image in materiality and ensuring that this reset does not become rootless. Here we see that tradition and modernity are not opposed, but enter into dialogue, giving rise to new forms of integration and symbiosis. By 2025, this logic had evolved further: algorithms became capable of self-generation and evolution based on learned painting principles, yet, such technical progress no longer seemed central to the artistic statement.

As his practice developed, Chen Baoyang expanded the notion of “reset” to the boundaries of perception and human–machine relations. He began probing core questions of “cognitive authenticity” and the “nature of being.” Do Androids Dream of Electric Cows? (2017) brought together a tempered-glass maze and a virtual reality environment in the same space. Viewers experienced virtual freedom in VR, yet found their movement blocked by physical glass walls. This disjunction between vision and touch awakened a bodily awareness of the “real.” It was a reset of “perceptual authenticity.” Where traditional art builds experience through representation, Chen Baoyang used technology to create a perceptual paradox, placing the question of “what is real” back into the viewer’s own experience. Philosophically, the work points to the Cartesian starting point of “I think, therefore I am.” When vision (rational cognition) conflicts with touch (bodily sensation), the definition of reality becomes unstable, and the undeniable presence of bodily feeling becomes the anchor of existence. As Chen Baoyang notes in the catalogue, “Our eyes may deceive us, but the body remains honest”, which aligning with the phenomenological view that the body is the locus of cognition. Perception is not mere sensory reception, but an integrated experience of the body interacting with the world. The clash between VR and the glass maze makes this “bodily knowing” visible.

In 2019, as face-swapping technology was still nascent, Chen Baoyang embarked on a challenging technical exploration. His workI’ve Seen You Cry in the Rain composited the aged face of Harrison Ford with the monologue scene of Roy Batty from Blade Runner, blurring the boundaries between actor and character, past and present. It was a reset of “identity and memory.” Technology provided new means of expression, but also blurred the line between truth and fiction. Progress and perplexity advanced together, revealing the central paradox of resetting. Philosophically, the work addresses the “instability ofentity” and the “constructed nature of memory.” Roy Batty’s final soliloquy—“All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain”—already touches on the transience of being. By using deepfake to show “an elderly Ford” portraying “a young replicant,” Chen further dissolves the fixed notion of an “authentic self.” As Derrida’s concept of différance suggests,entity is not a stable essence, but a meaning constructed through continuous difference and deferral. This presentation of uncertainty mirrors the pressure of “self-cognition” in the digital age. The significance of resetting lies in repeatedly asking, amid such uncertainty: What, after all, am I?

Since 2020, Chen Baoyang’s work has entered a phase of multi-agent symbiosis, realizing a reset of the artistic ecosystem itself. Shifting from singular technical experiments to the construction of complex systems, this shift reflects philosophical reflection on “ecological symbiosis” and “technology ethics.” In Chasing the Mist, two AI-driven cars pursue each other through a “war fog,” while viewers place virtual obstacles via an interactive console, influencing the agents’ behavior. The work is no longer a one-way transmission from the artist, but a dynamic system of multi-agent interaction and evolution. This interactive creative mode breaks with the unilateral authority of traditional creation, generating a network of meaning through participation. Here, resetting becomes a means of “breaking the monopoly of the artistic subject,” allowing art to shift from “personal expression” towards “polyphonic narrative symbiosis”. Forest Theorem One strikes a sharper critical note. An AI system controls a robotic arm that provides plants with a “perfect growth environment”, yet due to deliberately set “faulty parameters,” the robot arm repeatedly lifts and drops a tree, eventually killing it. This is a reset of “techno-utopianism”. The work dismantles the belief that “technology can resolve all contradictions,” revealing how technology, when divorced from an understanding of natural essence, can lead to disaster despite good intentions. Chen Baoyang’s skepticism and warning for the AI age are made concrete in the scene of the robot arm “failing in spite of good intentions”: without ethics, restraint, and reverence for the “nature of being” (such as the natural laws of plant growth), technology can become a destructive force. The value of resetting lies precisely in such critical reflection, redirecting technology to serve existence, instead of dominating it.

Beginning in 2023, Chen Baoyang launched the Alt-Mirage series: Alt-Mirage and Multi-Agent System, Alt-Mirage: Consciousness Deception, and Alt-Mirage: State Slice. The works continue to engage with technology ethics while shifting focus to machine consciousness and future ecologies, touching on ultimate philosophical questions such as “Can machines possess consciousness?” and “How will human civilization evolve?” He placed large-language-model-driven agents into virtual testing grounds, examining their capacity for deception and strategy through interaction, thereby challenging the ingrained belief that “machines can only passively execute commands”. Essentially, this body of work represents an artistic reconfiguration of the Turing test. While the Turing test judges machine intelligence by its ability to mimic human conversation, Chen Baoyang pushes further with a question “Can machines develop human-like strategic and deceptive behaviors?”. The inquiry extends to the “nature of consciousness”, if a machine can autonomously devise strategies and practice deception, does that suggest a preliminary form of “consciousness”? Building on this, he raises a new question: “Can machines imagine”? Although Yuk Hui has demonstrated that imagination is fundamentally artificial and that machines can actively participate in the cognitive process of imagination, within Chen Baoyang’s creative practice, resetting serves as a pathway and a method to expand the boundaries of conscious cognition, turning art into a testing ground for exploring machine awareness.

Symbiosis of Agents, set against the backdrop of interstellar migration, combines robotic arms, quadruped robots, and optical installations to explore future coexistence between humans and AI, extending the notion of reset from the present towards imaginaries of civilizational evolution. Philosophically, the work responds to Heidegger’s view that “technology is our destiny”. Technology and humanity are not opposed but form a co-evolutionary community of fate. The image of a “robot walking on broken mirrors” serves as a subtle metaphor: the shattered surface symbolizes the fragile balance between nature and technology, while the robot’s movement represents the effort to find a path of symbiosis between humans and AI within that balance. In line with Lewis Mumford’s theory in Technics and Civilization, the next step in reorienting the technological system lies in harmonizing it with the new culture we have begun to develop, new patterns of region, society, and personhood. It would be a grave mistake to assume that all problems created by technology must be solved within the domain of technology alone. Here, Chen Baoyang chooses an artistic approach to seek solutions, transforming reset into an “active construction of civilizational futures”. Rather than passively accepting technological change, he explores possibilities for human–technology symbiosis through artistic practice, opening new imaginative horizons for cultural evolution.

Chen Baoyang believes that today’s AI already demonstrates a distinctive authorial presence in artistic creation. For him, AI is no longer just a tool or medium, but a credible creative partner. Due to the inherent unpredictability of programming, AI can sometimes introduce unexpected perspectives and forms through errors or chaos, sparking a creativity akin to the unconscious. This “black box” effect is no longer a simple binary correspondence, but a generative process where evolving algorithms produce ever more possibilities. He calls this process “the impossibility of total fulfillment.” This very incompleteness is the reason and necessity for resetting, because only through continuous resetting can those outcomes, whose fulfillment remains uncertain, occasionally flash into being. This “reset” is not simple repetition or negation, but a persistent self-exploration and reflection. New media technologies are merely a point of entry.

We may now use “reset” to understand Chen Baoyang’s practice over the past decade. At first, resetting is an “expansion of existential dimensions.” Art does not merely represent reality, through technological and conceptual iteration, it opens new explorations into the nature of being, the boundaries of cognition, and the future of civilization. Chen’s works, moving fromical landscapes to machine consciousness, extend art’s reach into broader dimensions of existence with each reset. Secondly, resetting is a “dialectical transcendence of contradiction.” The paradoxes in his work, such as technological progress and ethical risk, or the balance between innovation and tradition, are not obstacles, but central to artistic expression. The process of resetting is a process of achieving dialectical unity amid contradiction. Chen does not evade the dual nature of technology, but transforms it into speculative tension, making art a bridge between technology and the humanities, embodying the Hegel dialectic of “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” in artistic practice. Finally, resetting is a “return to the essence of art”. The essence of art lies in questioning and expressing the world, and technological transformation in the digital age presents new challenges to this endeavor. Resetting signifies the artist’s active adaptation to contemporary change, continuing to pose questions through new media and languages, keeping art acutely perceptive and deeply reflective toward existence.

“Endless reset” is a subtle metaphor for the evolution of art from traditional forms to the digital age. It originates in the breakthroughs and progress of cultural and artistic development, extending now into AI and generative art. Art’s advance requires countless subtle, uncertain resets, a conscious renewal by the artist in step with the times: breaking through within inheritance, moving forward amid contradiction, reconstructing through exploration, attempting to anchor the relationship between self, art, and the world. This reset has no starting point, no end point, not even a definite direction or goal. There is only the process: the exploration, understanding, and expression of the world. It is a wholehearted journey towards boundless horizons. And this is the vitality of art, indeed, the enduring value of being human.

展覽信息 ABOUT EXHIBITION

策展人：程 辰

Curator: Cheng Chen

展覽時間：2025年11月15日-2026年1月11日

Exhibition Date: 2025.11.15-2026.1.11

陳抱陽

藝術家、策展人、青年學者，擁有哥倫比亞大學和紐約視覺藝術學院雙碩士學位。任教于中央美術學院實驗藝術與科技藝術學院。

作為科技藝術領域的先鋒實踐者，他的創(chuàng)作廣泛運用人工智能技術、機器人技術和生物技術等前沿媒介，話題涉及機器意識、人機共生、科技倫理等社會議題。

現(xiàn)專注于多智能體的涌現(xiàn)行為與互動研究，相關學術論文發(fā)表于CSSCI、CCF 等國內(nèi)外重要期刊，并主筆《中國人工智能——AI+ART》白皮書。

其作品曾在中國及國際多個重要美術館和藝術機構展出，曾榮獲保時捷青年藝術家獎，現(xiàn)代汽車BLUEPRIZE策展獎，以及奧普來數(shù)字藝術獎等。并連續(xù)六年擔任亞洲數(shù)字藝術展策展人。

————

主辦單位：北京實創(chuàng)科技園開發(fā)建設股份有限公司

承辦單位：北京市海淀區(qū)壹美美術館 

支持單位：中共北京市海淀區(qū)委宣傳部、北京市海淀區(qū)文化和旅游局、北京市海淀區(qū)民政局

協(xié)辦單位：北京中關村永豐產(chǎn)業(yè)基地發(fā)展股份有限公司、北京實創(chuàng)億達科技服務有限公司、北京仲量聯(lián)行物業(yè)管理服務有限公司

設備支持：索諾克（北京）科技有限公司、北京唐影眾線文化傳播有限責任公司

執(zhí)行團隊

總策劃：路貝

展覽統(tǒng)籌：楊茹

展覽執(zhí)行：張翰濤

展覽設計：林佳璇

活動策劃：胡彤彤

媒體宣傳：林妍

視頻制作：羅玉萌

免費觀展

 開館時間：10:00 - 17:00（每周一閉館）

END

-One Art Museum-

壹美美術館官方微信出品

編輯：林妍

校對：胡彤彤 張翰濤

海報：林佳璇

視頻：羅玉萌

審核：楊茹