请选择 进入手机版 | 继续访问电脑版

墙报

 找回密码
 立即注册
资讯
墙报 首页 艺术时代 作品集 查看内容

“后人类学”的世界

2015-1-27 16:44| 发布者: 墙报| 查看: 1736| 评论: 0|来自: 艺术时代

本文发表在《艺术时代》杂志第39期

吉拉德·奈斯特勒

GERALD NESTLER

Li Zhenhua X Gerald Nestler

Li Zhenhua: Please tell us more about yourself and your project dealing with economy.

Gerald Nestler: As an artist (trained as a painter at the Academy of fine arts Vienna) I engaged with media and internet art in the beginning of the 1990s. the world wide web was then not a reality but there was a strong notion of the 'primordial' internet as a new field of artistic experiment, exchange and aesthetics. However, I realized rather quickly that its development would result in a social field of multifarious actors and interests, with the economy as a major player (while the initial utopia was more about an alternative field beyond economic profit relations). This led me to investigate economy and (as I thought of it as a pressing issue, the aspect that had become its core) financial markets. Rather than studying the field academically, I decide to engage directly - as an artist I was not only interested in the theory but also in the practices in the field as well as the possible 'effects' on me as a person - and started to work as a broker and trader (1994-7).

This artistic fieldwork was certainly extremely instructive on a lot of levels and has since posed the foundation from which I've developed my work both as an artist and a researcher/writer. I read financial derivatives as a state of the art convergence of mathematics, physics, speculation, economics, quantification, logistics, and computation in between probability regime and matter, which in my reading has informed social relations beyond finance and the market proper - hence what I call Human Derivative as the currently constitutive notion of biopolitical subjectivity, or, in other words, the glue and at the same time solvent of relationality (in the words of Stiegler, the both toxic and curing ‘pharmacon’). social relations, therefore, to me have in many ways become derivative (thus extending the notion of financilization), not in the simple use of the term ‘deriving from’ but by an apparatus that was initially developed in finance to rationalize and evaluate risk and thus render a future-at-present. in line with Elie Ayache, I see derivatives as a technology proper, or, what I term, a technowledge - and one of the initial fields of algorithmization. here lies the root that allows reading (i.e. forces us to read) them beyond their distinct and rather arcane manifestation in the markets, as the increasingly underlying principle of social relations/evaluations between people as well as their institutions.

In very short words (too short, I fear), while from the perspective of politics we speak of subjects, a society that bases its desire to produce a future out of the present on economization is derivative.

Li Zhenhua: so what the next deri-vatives, and what you think of the social-media engaged auction and sales? how much we involved in the future-at-presents with the technology which will change our behavior and society, importantly our mind of thinking and reaction to things, what do you see the participative culture today and the occupy spirit? Your work plastic tradeoff is a real time project focus on the changes of the economy world, what brings you this focus and why?

Gerald Nestler: plastic trade-off is a project we realized in 2006 and thus before the current crisis (the foundation of my concept of Human Derivatives was also developed long before this epoch-making event). it maps notions such as globalization, concurrency, competition, technolo-gy, algorithmic circuits, and econo-mics realized in the markets and at the same time illustrates in the most obvious ways in as much these notions are ideologies rather than realities - meaning that ideology is framing and making reality against other possible realities. If you like, it is the portrait, or emblem, of a bio-political system beyond politics by addressing the turn in notions such as performance, speculation, logistics, decision-making power, etc. I won’t go into further details of the work as such, as you can find those on my and Sylvia’s webpages (http://www.geraldnestler.net / plastictradeoff/index.htm / http://syl-eckermann.net /plastictradeoff/index.html)

Li Zhenhua: your work function on the world economy surveillance system, what have been changed in the last 8 years, do you gathering those info for further development in your work, and what that relate to the reality? does money transfer change the world or does that have a invisible relation to the change of the world today?

Gerald Nestler: plastic trade-off is a project we realized in 2006 and thus before the current crisis (the foundation of my concept of Human Derivatives was also developed long before this epoch-making event). it maps notions such as globalization, concurrency, competition, technolo-gy, algorithmic circuits, and econo-mics realized in the markets and at the same time illustrates in the most obvious ways in as much these notions are ideologies rather than realities - meaning that ideology is framing and making reality against other possible realities. If you like, it is the portrait, or emblem, of a bio-political system beyond politics by addressing the turn in notions such as performance, speculation, logistics, decision-making power, etc. I won’t go into further details of the work as such, as you can find those on my and Sylvia’s webpages (http://www.geraldnestler.net / plastictradeoff/index.htm / http://syl-eckermann.net /plastictradeoff/index.html)

Li Zhenhua: your work function on the world economy surveillance system, what have been changed in the last 8 years, do you gathering those info for further development in your work, and what that relate to the reality? does money transfer change the world or does that have a invisible relation to the change of the world today?

Gerald Nestler: Yes, I do. And regarding the ‘changes’ - not long after Plastic Trade-off was presented, the financial crisis hit at global dimensions. Interestingly, this did not lead to stricter regulation. Quite to the contrary, we are even more under the dictates of neoliberal economic ’necessities’ with financial markets as the paradigmatic institutions of global governance. Nation states have been financialized to a much larger degree than before. For a lot of people, reality has a darker shade of meaning with terribly restricted possibilities for their present as well as future. Technological development, quantitative evaluation and self-regulation have brought about a situation in which financial markets – even though they constitute a heavily contested field of diverging ideologies and interests within - has become quasi-totalitarian, i.e. governs the world but cannot be governed by the ‘world’. Crucially, self-regulation interferes with public interests, which have to submit to the wills of financialization. Financial markets from stock exchanges to complex derivative markets are based on money as the ‘material’ equivalent of price (with price discovery being the essence of financial markets) and therefore money is the agent of these changes. It’s not only money in its physical appearance but as a token against uncertainty, as the medium of pricing the future(at-present). If price negotiates change in the world (what is valued over something else), money supplements this process as agent (an extremely powerful agent, as it were, as the immense range of agency from austerity measures and debt traps to quantitative easing and offshore tax havens indicates). Today, money is rather a speculative trajectory redeeming future profits on quantified risk options at present (with the future and the present divided by microseconds only in high-frequency trading) rather than an investment tool for classical capitalist production cycles.

Li Zhenhua: When we talk about economy or intangible issues in art, what do you see your position for now?

Gerald Nestler: This question is not easy to answer because it depends on the entry point for the discussion.


it would on the one hand mean a discussion of (partly conflicting) terms such as value and price, credit and speculation - i.e. recognition and the notion of making the future as an interpretative (probabilistic) ‘oracle’ of the world in which we will dwell or will be expelled from (both in human and algo time horizons) and a forensics of the future in contrast to reality constructs of the past - it therefore deals with the politics of narratives in which the intangible is less a form of the spiritual (of whatever color) but options of matter not yet actualized but already calibrated (derivatives as evaluation machines). this is specifically interesting for (visual) art, as it entails a power regime that arguably for the first time in history is ‘iconoclast’ - it is not only devoid of representation but would rather destroy representation if there was one (how do you visualize the maths of algorithms or derivatives that are the cybernetic profit and evaluation machines in order to communicate their meaning, i.e. tell their story? to me, not by coincidence this is beyond the visual as we know it). so, how can we comprehend, narrate and counter a system quite devoid of visuality and representative artifacts (a fundamental precinct of human perception and understanding)? what are our material means to unearth what seems immaterial and is at the same time truly material in the way it constructs relations? Thus the new interest in philosophy in objects as a narrative vectors of relations rather than fixed things? how much affirmation is entailed to comprehend in order to craft artistic works that incorporate actual critique? there seems to be a necessity for a change towards research, performance and activism, a more political approach which once more focuses on the Aristotelian divide between polis and oeconomia but with an understanding of technologies, media and recognition apparatuses...

on the other hand, with less and less artistic space for exchange, discussion and representation outside the market framework (which today not only includes collectors, galleries, auction houses, art fairs but increasingly museums, biennials and other formats) - which implies an increase in precariousness - the intangible is, bluntly, whatever is not touched by the market. one could, in very brief words, surmount this to the observation of the collector-gallery-art fair-triumvirat in which the underlying value (paradigmatic modern and avant-garde art) is sustained by engagement with contemporary work, which would here be defined as being based on (i.e. contextualising) the underlying; yet and crucially is devoid of its radical political impetus. a true derivative principle, which allows maintaining the price of the pure (castrated) value of modern/avantgarde art by scores of contemporary risk options which deliver the future artistic 'hall-of-famers’ (or, with a word used, the ‘blue chips’) and thus ongoing ideological supremacy, the sine qua non of a specific understanding of art on a level of economized rather
than political relations and engage-ment. this, to be clear, is a trap also political art tends to fall into more often than not, when it is part and parcel of attention economy strate-gies.

Li Zhenhua: Iconoclast is an interes-ting term, What is the tradition, do we construct it ourselves, or we just use it because is better to be there for the contrast of something unpredicted or unstable? I am also interested in what you said about the artistic exchange and space, I assume we have never the broad band like today to connect art is a full and total in our time, art have been transformed so much, in your work plastic tradeoff, the artistic engagement is so strong still, because the dynamic and comprehensive involvement of the work have construct or just shifted the beauty of the reality make it so fascinating, even without the knowledge of the economy of today, that people can still experience the light as enlightenment, that make me think lots of what we know and what we do not know, and our society developed so much in this direction toward the separated knowledge based modular or micro social society. People do not share the same knowledge or a common ground for understanding, do you see art have the possibility in sharing understanding, but not in the tool or usefulness driven aspect.

Gerald Nestler: My use of the term iconoclast is less about a furor to destroy images and narratives but more about a notion of a realm which ‘has never known’ images, representations, as a form of public communication. Algorithms, for example, are operations, not representations. However, to communicate and convey meaning and deal with the unstable and unpredictable, as you say, the visual, or to use a broader term, the sensual, is prerequisite. So, I don’t use iconoclast within its typical meaning. It rather denotes operational processes that are beyond perception (quasi-aniconic). One example how to dissolve such ‘iconoclasm’ at least to some degree is the story I tell in my work Countering Capitulation (https://vimeo.com/geraldnestler) and my accompanying text Mayhem in Mahwah (www.geraldnestler.net - last text in the white book).
Knowledge society proves to be less about learning to know than aboutbeing informed (in its double meaning), less about inquiring than participating. By taking part we are information resource; we are shifting and changing ‘states,’ still stable enough to attach specific ‘truths’ to a person (e.g. by data mining). This ‘truth' is part of the current construction of subjectivity; it is our cultural sphere. 

Beauty as a notion of disinterested enjoyment might (again) be a luxury for the few, the 1 per cent; but I’m not sure if this classical Western idea is still valid. What is disinterest if speculation is on interest of appreciation? However, beauty might be in the complexities that form societies, organisms, etc., which could lead to the insight that beauty is precondition for inquiry beyond conventional contemporary art and its interpretative openness – you can playand enjoy the symbolic level but an alternative approach might be triggered, which would lead to queries and a deep involvement with specific issues. We “know” (but might not always admit it) that everything we do has consequences. In a world of networked information, everything is connected and thus becomes a sensor and a trigger. Consequences abound. Concerning artistic practice, I think “aesthetics in the field of consequences” (to use a term by Anselm Franke and EyalWeizman) is an example for an interesting approach, as it goes beyond symbolic representation (and, of course, the old divide between the artist/genius and the observing art lover) to forms of artistic engagement both of archeological and/or forensic investigation and the visualization of presences from which evidence emerges. This approach seems to fulfill the idea of sharing an understanding even though it is not (or doesn’t have to be) participatory or interactive in the sense of e.g. media art. Rather, it opens to discourse, knowledge, and debate by inviting and assembling different spheres, or, as you say, “micro” societies of engagement. It might not facilitatefar-reaching common ground directly but is still the site of "common grounding" as a process of focusing and sharing radical thought and activism. Those who participate often engage in different forms of activism, and art would be a ‘place’ where different forms of activism meet, share and discuss. Other than that, artworks might sometimes be able to provoke emotions and thought, but I’m not sure if as an artist you can or should control this if you don’t want to engage in art as calculus. We all speculate, I guess, but in my case, I prefer to speculate on speculation rather than on instrumentalizing my ‘success options.'


“后人类学”的世界

李振华 X Gerald Nestler
(李振华=LZH , Gerald Nestler=GN )
LZH: 请向读者介绍一下你自己,以及你以经济为话题的项目。

GN:我是一名艺术家,早年在维也纳艺术大学接受了绘画训练。自90年代初期起,我投入在媒体艺术和网络艺术的创作中。在当时,我们今日熟知的“万维网” (world wide web)还不是广泛存在的现实,但当时已存在强烈的、以网络形态的原始雏形作为新兴艺术实验、交流和审美发生场所的观念。然而,我迅速地意识到,网络的发展将会带来更广泛的、拥有多重参与者和兴趣点的社会领域的诞生,在这个社会形态中,经济将会扮演主要的角色(而早期的乌托邦概念则更多地是关于一种有别于经济利益关系的社会形态)。

这样的意识让我开始研究经济领域,尤其是金融市场。在网络的早期时代,对金融市场的注意力激增。我并没有用学术的方法来研究这个领域,而是选择了直接参与进去——作为一个艺术家,我不仅对理论感兴趣,也想了解金融领域中的实践、以及这些实践对于我作为个体所产生何种生理和心理“效用”。因此,在94年到97年之间,我选择了从事金融交易员和经纪人的工作。这次艺术的领域研究无疑是在很多层面极其有指导性的,也为我作为一个艺术家和研究者/写作者的工作发展奠定了很好的基础。

我理解金融衍生品为一种建立在概率和物质的边界上的、融合了数学、经济学、量化、电脑运算和逻辑学的艺术状态,并置身于一个量化推测的空间,链接物质与概率、不确定与确定的风险抉择。由于其作用方式的不同,衍生品上升为某种个体市场经纪者的概念,并以此影响更大范围的社会。因此,衍生品产生了一种独立的关系,成为了对主观生产的生物政治控制框架,在我的理解中,这也启发了金融和市场之外的社会关系,因此我称之为“人性衍生品”。“人性衍生品”换言之,既是关系性的粘剂,又是溶剂。(用斯蒂格勒的话来说,既是毒药也是解药。 )

因此,在我看来社会关系在很多方面都成为了某种衍生品(也因此延伸了金融化的概念),在这里“衍生品”并不是简单地挪用“派生出”、“衍生出”一词的含义,而是类比作为一种最初在金融领域产生,用理性化预估风险,并将未来反应于当下的金融工具的“衍生品”。和Elie Ayache一样,我认为衍生品是一种“未来科技”——用我的用语来描述,是一种结合了知识与科技的“技识”,衍生品也是算法化进程的早期领域之一。 这也奠定了我们用另一种超越了市场的途径来解读(或者说被强迫解读)衍生品,一种更为隐秘的呈现方式。这种解读偏重于其如何逐渐成为人与人、机构与机构之间的社会关系/社会评估的隐藏原则。

长话短说(我恐怕过于短了),从政治话题视角出发,我们所谈论的主观性或主观关系都转化成了社会的衍生品,这些衍生品的诉求是用以推测生产未来的金融分析。

LZH: 下一种衍生品是什么呢?你怎么看待社交媒体深深介入的拍卖和销售领域?我们在多大程度上介入到了将会改变我们的行为和社会结构的科技中?尤其是这样的科技还会改变我们的思维方

式,以及对事物的反应?你怎们看待今日的参与型文化生态,以及占领精神?

GN:举个例子说,当我们观察今天关于人类世界和大数据的讨论,我们可以探测到,“参与观念”正在以一种比以往更为广泛而基础的规模存在。

当下存在很多基于科学论述、工业生产和技术研究的过程,在这些过程中“参与”其实是“强迫”的参与。参与是以“无意识”的状态被计算进“大数据”中去的。“人类世” 作为一个概念常常诠释一种社会心理,亦即,让我们意识到我们的行为都在不知不觉地参与进社会关系。


在大数据的语境下,我们的“参与”来自于被无数的感应器构成的网络记录和分析我们的每一个行动的痕迹,也因此(反直觉地)推理出我们的诉求。在传统的自由政治经济中,欲望会(令人不喜地)导致行动,这也被归为“市场参与”的领域,这种认为个体是企业者、强调升值多过需求满足的新自由主义范式观念在大数据中则不同。在这个语境中,欲望是被用算法预先计算出来的,而非事后被控制。换言之,大数据对项目的控制来自于其对未来行动、欲求和想像的预测。“参与”则是这样的一个语汇:它代表者一种“发生”的指向或者轨道,在框架中被预先量化,并因此得到建构和评估。

“参与”会和你对话,甚至展示给你你的欲求(或“应有”的欲求)。“人类世”的概念提供了这样的一种洞察:人类的行为将会参与和进入到地球的未来命运,这是一种政治的认知论(对人类影响力的认知,以及因此产生的、对改变的呼吁),而大数据则通过算法过程,在整理着我们的社会(从一个既政治,又怀特海·特色的意义上讲)。

就算我们从现在推算出的未来,在一种超越人类认知能力的时间维度“发生”了,我们也在本质上以介质和来源的形式参与进了这个过程:我们的参与既是主动的、也是被动的;既是生态的、也是经济的。而在深渊之中,我们会找到一个——用一个有点过时的词语——“工厂”,这个工厂生产着世界的衍生品状态。“参与”不仅仅是描述自愿介入的词,它也是在社会经济竞争领域的一种以“欲望”为猎物的生物政治工具,并在今日也会引领政治。今日的“参与”,与其说是强化对特定领域的政治主题的“参与”,不如说是被诱骗至一种重新发明自我的状态,产生出一套套的风险选择衍生品,以弥补潜藏的、关乎个体金融化未来收益的商业利益。(我们能想起,Ayache称衍生品为“未来的科技”)

在我的观点里,“占领精神”不仅在私有化的公共空间里发生,也体现在了电子世界中,充满了控制论估算策划们的“算法空间”里。如果我们不想有天发现自己生活在“后人类学”的世界,算法决定了我们和我们所生活的地球的命运。

LZH: 你的作品,《交易》是一个实时项目,聚集于在经济世界发生的变化。是什么引发了你的想法,为什么?

GN: 《交易》是我们在2006年做的一个项目,是在环球金融危机之前(我的“人性衍生品”的概念也产生于这次震荡全球的大事件之前)。

这个作品测绘了各式各样实现在市场中的概念,包括全球化、并发、竞争、科技、算法电路、以及经济学,与此同时,作品也用明显的方式描绘了这样的观点:这些概念与其说是“现实”(realities),不如说是“意识形态”(ideologies)-所谓“意识形态’就是对现实进行框架化,用框起来的部分现实来挑战其他可能的现实(比如说,新自由主义的观念是有意反对社会主义理想的)。

这个作品可以说是一个对超越政治本身的“生物政治”系统的象征或者肖像,通过例如表演、沉思、逻辑和决定性力量等概念来论述。我不会在这里过多阐释作品的细节,你可以在Sylvia和我的网站上找到这个作品的更多信息。 (http://www.geraldnestler.net/plastictradeoff/index.htm / http://syl-eckermann.net/plastictradeoff/index.html)

LZH: 你的作品也关注于世界经济的监管系统,在过去的八年间,有什么发生了变化? 你收集那些数据,是为了进一步发展你的项目吗?这些和现实之间的关联是什么?货币交易是否改变着世界,或者与世界正在发生的变化有隐形的关联?


GN:是的,说到“改变”,《交易》展出后不久,经济危机到来了,并迅速蔓延至全球。非常有趣的是,这并没有让经济领域的管制变得更为严格。相反地,我们更加受制于新自由主义经济“必要性”的独裁,金融系统依然是世界统治地位的机构范式。民族国家已经如此地“金融化”了,以至于“现实”这个词也多了一层含义的阴影,暗示着一个对很多人来说,可能性更加受制的时代。

科技发展、量化评估和自我调节机制已经产生了这样的一个情境:金融——即使它本身已经是如此充满了分离的意识形态和利益分歧的、有争议的领域——已经成为了一种准极权的存在。也就是说,它现在正统治着世界,却没有被世界所统治。非常关键地,自我调节机制已经干涉了公共利益,并且必须服从于金融化。

金融市场,从股票交易到复杂的衍生品市场,都基于作为等同于“价格”的“物质”:货币。(价格发现 是金融市场的精华)。因此,货币是所述交换的介质——并不仅仅是以实体货币形态存在的介质,而是抵制不确定性的象征物、是为未来(当下所见之未来)定价的媒介。

如果世界上的议价发生了改变(比如说,某种物品的价格超过其他),货币则在这个过程中起到补充性的介质作用(事实上是一种至关重要的介质,它涵盖范围之大,从财政紧缩措施到债务陷阱、从量化宽松政策到避税天堂等)。今日,货币是一个用未来利益来挽救当下风险的投机选择(“未来”和“现在”之间
的差距,在高频贸易中,以微秒计算),而不是一种在传统资本主义生产循环中的投资工具。

LZH:当我们谈论到经济等艺术中的无形因素,你怎么看待你在当下的位置?

GN:这个问题很难回答,因为这取决于这场讨论的切入点。

一方面,这意味着一场关于包括价值、价格、信用和投机等(有些冲突的)概念,亦即,一种把未来变为对于我们将来生存于、或被流放之世界的“哲言”式认知观念(不论使用人类还是算法的向度),这一观念也对未来取证,不同于现实建构的过去。因此,它对待叙事政治的态度里,“不可触摸”者更多地是还未被确定,但已被计算(或者说,被估算机器“派生”出)的、物质的种种可能性,而非(不论什么论调的)精神形式。

这对于视觉艺术来说尤其有趣,鉴于它意味着一个强大的、历史上头一回“反传统”的权力——它不仅缺乏代表性,而且宁可摧毁现存的代表性(你如何对作为控制论利益和评估机器的算法、数学和衍生品进行视觉化,以传达它们的含义,抑或讲述它们的故事?对我来说,这并非巧合地、也是超出了我们理解的“视觉”的范畴)。因此,我们怎么能够理解、叙述或者响应这样一个缺乏视觉性和代表性人工品的系统(既然人工品是人们认知和理解的基本区域)?我们的“物质”概念深挖出看似非物质的、却又同时在建构关系的方式上确实有物质性之物,这意味着什么?因此,新的哲学研究兴趣在于物件作为关于“关系”而非固定事物的叙事向度?对于制作容纳了实际批判性的艺术创作的理解,收获了多少肯定?这些都似乎是指向一场在研究、表演和行动主义范畴之改变的必要性,指向一个更为政治性的方法,更加聚焦于亚里士多德式的政治(polis)和经济(economia)区别,但加入了一种对于徜徉于二者之间的科技、媒体和评估设备的理解。

另一方面,在市场框架之外艺术交流、讨论和呈现的空间越来越少(在今天,不仅包括藏家、画廊、拍卖行、艺术展会,也包括越来越多的博物馆、美术馆、双年展和其他的形式)——这意味着不稳定性的增加,说白了,所谓“无形因素”,就是尚未被市场触及和估价的存在。简言之,人们可以将此归结成一种对于藏家-画廊-艺术展会三者并立局面的观察,在此局面之中,底层的价值(当代和先锋艺术范式)是通过与当代作品的持续接触维持的,在此也可被定义为基于底层价值的(或者、以之为语境的)。

同时,又缺乏作为真正衍生原则的,关键性、激进的政治推力,真正的眼神原则使得现代艺术/先锋艺术的纯粹价值(或曰被阉割的价值),未来艺术性的“名人堂” (抑或“蓝筹股”),因此也从风险抉择的评估被传递到了衍生价值机器(艺术机构)。这产生了持续的意识形态至上状态,对艺术的某种特定理解的必要条件发生在一个经济化的层面,而非政治关系和参与的层面。这是一种政治艺术都容易掉入的陷阱,当它是注意力经济的战略组成部分时。

LZH: “反传统”是一个很有意思的词,什么是传统?我们是否建构了我们自己的传统,或者我们只是使用传统来当作一个针对未预料到、或不稳定事物的对比?我对你说到的空间和艺术交流的点也很感兴趣,我猜想我们从未拥有过像这个时代这样丰满而全面的、宽广而互相联系的艺术。艺术已经发生了如此之多的转型。在你的作品《交易》中,艺术参与是如此的强烈,而作品的动态性和综合性建构出了、或者说转移了真实之美,这使得作品是如此地吸引人,即使观者没有经济知识,也能从作品中体验到一种启蒙式的光辉。这让我联想到我们知道什么,又不知道什么,我们的社会在向着知识分离的方向大步前进,成为了更为微结构社会。人们不再分享相同的知识、或者对事物的共同理解,在这样的背景下,你是否认为艺术可以作为共享理解的一种方式?当然,不是出于工具或实用主义驱动的目的。

GN:我对“反传统”一词的使用,更多地是关于这样一种境界,以从未出现过的图像和呈现作为传播的方式,而不是说摧毁一切图像和叙事的、带着政治狂热性质的“反传统”。比如说,算法就是一种操作方法,而非呈现方法。对于传播和表达意义、以及处理不稳定、不可预测的事情上,“视觉”,或者更广义地说,“感觉”,是先决条件。因此,我对“反传统”一词的使用并非它的典型含义。它表示一种超出感知(近乎无偶像)的操作流程。一个关于如何至少从某种程度上化解“反传统”问题的例子是我用作品《反投降》(https://vimeo.com/geraldnestler) 、及相关文本( Mayhem in Mahwah:www.geraldnestler.net - 收录于白色出版物最后一篇) 所讲述的故事。

对我来说,所谓的知识社会更多地是关于信息(或“被传达”),而非“知晓”,更多地是关于参与,而非“诉求”。在知识社会中,我们是信息资源,我们是不断转移和改变的物体,但又足够稳定到可以将特定的“真相”归结到一个人身上(比如说通过数据挖掘)。这个“真相”是当下主观性构成的一部分,它是我们的文化空间。美作为一种无利害关系的享受,可能(再次)成为少数人(1%的人)的享乐。我不确定这种典型的西方观点是否在当下依然有效。如果我们可以投机利益和升值,什么又是“无利害关系”的呢?

然而,美可以被看做是复杂性——正如复杂性也产生了社会和机体一样。复杂性会带来这样的观点:美是诉求的先决条件——你可以停留在象征层面去享受,但更深层次的利益可能被触发,这将导致问题被提出,我想我们都“知道”(虽然我们不总是承认)每一件事情都有其后果。在一个互相联系的信息社会,每一件事物都是相互关联的,也相互触发。这样的触发结果发生在任何时地。当我们在艺术语境下讨论时,我认为在这种由“结果”组成的场域里(用 Anselm Franke和Eyal Weizman 的话来说,审美是一种有趣的切入方式,因为它远离了纯粹的、象征性的呈现(以及传统的艺术家/天才-观察者范式),以形成和艺术性地参与一种考古式的调查,和当下的视觉化呈现。

这样的切入方式似乎可以满足关于“共享理解”的观点,即使它并不是(或者不一定要是)从媒体艺术角度来说,参与性的、交互性的。它通过邀请和组织不同的知识领域,或者像你说的,“微结构社会”,开启了一种论述或者论辩。它或许不能提供范围更大的“共有基础”,它甚至拒绝所谓底层的、抑或先决存在的“共有基础”。尽管如此,它依然会是一种产生激进和行动主义思潮的、有共有基础特性的场所。参与其中的人或许已或多或少地介入在不同形式的激进主义中,而艺术世界则形成了这些参与角度相会的地点。除此之外,有时候艺术品可以激发感情和思考,但我不确定作为一个艺术家你可以、或者应该去控制和“制造”这些激发感,尤其是如果你不愿意以此积分方式参与艺术的话。我猜想,我们都会投机或推测未来,但是在我个人来说,我更喜欢预测这样的方式:将我的“成功选择”们“推测化”,而非“工具化”。

Sylvia Eckermann是一位艺术家,自1989年以来一直持续电子艺术方面的创作,并首屈一指地在以游戏艺术为主题的艺术装置中使用了游戏引擎。她的作品创造了复杂的多媒体世界,观者可以在真实或虚拟的空间里进行体验。Sylvia的艺术作品产生于空间观念,并传达了沉浸式的体验,容纳各式各样的情境。在她创设的音画环境中,观者可以成为表演者或游戏的参与者。在2012年,Sylvia荣获奥地利影像和媒体艺术国家基金。

Sylvia Eckermann的交互装置和媒体艺术作品曾经在如下地点展出:维也纳博物馆(维也纳,1991)、维也纳艺术馆(维也纳,1993)、博尔扎诺现代当代美术博物馆(博尔扎诺,1993)、阿熏浓美术馆(赫尔辛基,1994)、诺里奇塞恩思伯里视觉艺术中心(挪威,1995)、O.K.当代艺术中心(林茨,1998)、奇亚斯玛当代艺术博物馆(赫尔辛基,2003)、ZOOM(维也纳博物馆区,2005)、施泰尔博物馆,(永久装置,2006)、奥地利林茨电子艺术节(2007)、斯坦因博物馆(克雷姆斯,2008-2009)、施泰尔秋季艺术节(2009)、MKL(格拉茨艺术馆,2009)、维也纳Kunstraum Bernsteiner艺术中心(2010,2013,2014)。她也曾受到如下机构的委任创作:美国ISEA艺术节(1994年,及2004年)、EAST、伦敦千年穹顶、以及格拉茨欧洲艺术之城项目(2003)。

更多信息可以参阅她的个人网站:http://syl-eckermann.net。

Gerald Nestler是一位艺术家、写作者和研究者。他的创作将理论与影像、装置、表演和演说相结合,以对金融相关的意识形态、方法论、叙事及这些元素在当代生物政治中位置进行思考和提问。他于1992年毕业于维也纳美术学院,并于1994-1997年之间以金融经纪人和交易员的身份进行了艺术性质的调查。2003年,他获得了奥地利国家视觉艺术奖学金。自90年代起,他的作品在世界范围内展出。同时,他也任教于维也纳韦伯斯特大学,目前在伦敦大学歌德史密斯学院的建筑研究中心攻读博士学位。

Gerald Nestler近年的艺术和策展项目包括《趋势是你的朋友(The Trend Is Your Friend) 》 (steirischer herbst 09, Kunsthaus Graz, with Sylvia Eckermann)、《衰退的民主:重思乌托邦与参与之间的民主观 (Declining Democracy: Rethinking democracy between utopia and participation)》 (弗罗伦萨, 2011)、《故意:新的衍生品秩序 (On Purpose: The New Derivative Order)》(维也纳, 2012)、《脉冲干扰(Glitch)》(因斯布鲁克, 2013)、《船货崇拜(Carry Cargo Cult) 》(维也纳, 2013)、《法律(Forensis)》(柏林, 2014)、《社会脉冲干扰:极端审美和极端事件的后果(Social Glitch: Radical Aesthetics and the consequences of extreme events)》 (筹备中,计划展出于维也纳, 2015). 。

近年的出版项目包括《Yx: 动态的分类—启蒙的升华—置空的维度—人性衍生品—超真实经济社会的振动》 (维也纳独立出版Schlebrügge Editors (2007)、《国际艺术论坛》(第200、201期, 2010))、《并立的公众》 (伊斯坦布尔艺术与科技节)、《下一步是什么?后危机时代的艺术》(柏林,2013).《法律 公共真相的结构》(斯滕伯格出版社, 柏林, 2014)。

www.geraldnestler.net

最新评论

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|墙报 ( 京ICP备10019105号-8 )

GMT+8, 2019-8-22 12:03 , Processed in 0.021605 second(s), 16 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

返回顶部