这一段本来就是评论者站在 “观看者” 的位置写的，改成第一人称后，就等于把 “阐释权” 交回创作者自己。下面这一版保留了原文的哲学脉络（海德格尔、胡塞尔、拟仿、不和谐音、迷惑与厌弃），只换叙述视角，把判断句改成 “我所相信、我所想要的”：

—

艺术总是借人的面孔向我们诉说，而这张面孔从来不是单一的。在显露的表情背后，总藏着另一张面孔；就在这两者之间，我们目睹了真理与虚伪、美与丑恶之间摇摆的边界。

我的作品正站在这条边界上。我所塑造的形象陌生而令人不安：扭曲的身体、夸张的比例，泥坯与釉彩留下的粗糙痕迹，以及在单调光泽中愈发突显的表面质感。这些对我来说并不只是造型的效果，它们是我亲手做出来的另一重 “假面”—— 借由它，我召唤并凝视潜藏于人心深处的焦虑与失落，凝视人性的缺陷与社会的病理。

海德格尔把真理理解为 “非遮蔽”（Aletheia）。我渐渐相信，这些扭曲的形象正是在遮蔽之中反而得以显现。若依胡塞尔的现象学视角去看，它们便不只是自在的物质对象，而是作为现象在意识中鲜活地运动。所以我无意让作品停留在对外部世界的单纯模仿，我更想直接呈现那种深藏于内心的不安 —— 让它成为一种新的 “拟仿”。

这些令人不适的造型构成一种不和谐音。但正是这种不和谐音，成了映照被遮蔽真理的窗口。在我这里，丑恶不再只是被拒绝的对象，它成为一种美学的震撼，把人引向对自身存在的反思。也只有在迷惑与厌弃交汇的那条边界上，我们才有机会直面艺术的另一种可能性。

我在创作中自由地跨越绘画与雕塑、平面与立体，乃至材料的界限。我尊重造型自身的特性，却不愿被材料所束缚。于是我的世界不止于视觉的再现，而成为震动感官与意识的语言 —— 最终，它只抛出一个问题：

“在这些扭曲的面孔中，我们依然能够发现人的真理吗？”

我不给出答案。我只是发出邀请：在丑恶之中寻找新的真理，在遮蔽之中发现另一种显现，在失落之中继续思考人的可能性。而在这邀请发生的瞬间，艺术又一次确认了它自己 —— 它依然是 “思想的场所”。Here is the English version, keeping the first-person voice and the philosophical register of the original:

—

Art has always spoken to us through the human face. Yet that face is never singular. Behind the expression that is shown, another face is always hidden, and between the two we witness the boundary that wavers between truth and falsehood, between beauty and ugliness.

My work stands precisely on this boundary. The forms I shape are unfamiliar and unsettling: distorted bodies and exaggerated proportions, the rough traces left by clay and glaze, and a surface texture that stands out all the more against a monotonous sheen. To me these are not merely the effects of form — they are another “mask,” one that I have made with my own hands. Through it I summon and confront the anxiety and loss concealed deep within the human heart, the flaws of human nature and the pathologies of society.

Heidegger understood truth as “unconcealment” (Aletheia). I have come to believe that it is precisely within concealment that these distorted figures come to appear. Seen through Husserl’s phenomenological lens, they are no longer merely material objects (Ding an sich) but phenomena that move vividly within consciousness. So I have no wish for my work to remain a simple imitation of the external world; I want instead to present directly that unease buried deep within — to make it a new kind of “mimesis.”

These discomforting forms produce a dissonance. Yet it is precisely this dissonance that becomes the window reflecting the concealed truth. In my work, ugliness is no longer merely an object of rejection; it becomes an aesthetic shock that turns us toward a reflection on our own existence. Only on the boundary where fascination and abjection meet do we have the chance to confront another possibility of art.

In my making I move freely across painting and sculpture, plane and volume, and even the limits of material. I respect the properties of form, yet I refuse to be bound by material. And so my world goes beyond mere visual representation to become a language that shakes the senses and the consciousness — and in the end it poses only one question:

“Among these distorted faces, can we still find the truth of the human being?”

I offer no answer. I only extend an invitation: to seek a new truth within ugliness, to discover another kind of appearing within concealment, and to keep thinking about human possibility within loss. And in the instant that this invitation is made, art once again confirms itself — it remains “the place of thinking” (Ort des Denkens).

—

A few notes on the choices: “unconcealment” is the standard English rendering of Heidegger’s *Aletheia*; “abjection” is kept rather than softened to “repulsion” because it carries the Kristevan charge the Chinese “厌弃” implies; “the place of thinking” mirrors *Ort des Denkens* literally. If this is going into a catalogue, I can also give you a tighter version for wall text (around 150 words), or a slightly more conversational one if it will be read aloud at an opening.