高士明：给陈光兴教授的信

2010.01.31

编者按：此信为高士明2010年1月与陈光兴教授以及张颂仁先生在上海论及亚洲文化研究现状和中国知识界的现状后的收获和感慨。自2008年操刀第三届广州三年展以来，高士明一直将自己的研究，策展视野定睛在“后殖民”，“后革命”等相关问题上，从此信中我们可以再次窥见他对此问题的再思考与再推进

陈教授如晤：
上海长谈可谓触动灵魂。这两年我对国内学术圈的热情减淡不少，原因你我都清楚。理念有公私之分，理念也可以是一种“私”——这五四时代众所周知的事，当代学界众人早已忘怀。“思想和艺术要直接面对一个真实的社会”，“从身边开始建设独立思想空间”，“在中文里安身立命”……这些言论都让我掂量良久。所以说，从这次聊天中，我不但受到启发，更重要的是得到许多提醒。特此致谢。

读完《陈映真的第三世界》，百感交集。陈先生的书我几乎没有读过，这次算是间接接触，很愿意马上找来补课（这也是获得的“提醒”之一）。但是从你的文章中，可以领略到他的气质。用身体丈量的历史，用生命感触的“第三世界”，在现代的酷烈进程中个体存在的荒芜，“家国”之思的幻灭和郁结……这么多一言难尽的东西，怎能被“后冷战”、“后殖民”、“后革命”、“后历史”这些话语如此轻飘地定义？

必须把我们自己的现实和历史保持为尚未被定义的状态，因为那是我们的命运。要承担这一命运，须得有承认自己已被阉割的勇气，无论是语言还是历史观，我们都已经被阉割过了。这不是要夸大某种“受害臆想”，因为凶手并不在外部。要真正挺立起来，靠的不是经济、政治的壮阳药，不是话事权力，而是要推宫换血，拿出诚意去梳理被歪曲被掩盖的历史，整理被挤压的现实，重新建立起自我解释的系统和能力。

三十年改革开放打造了一个怎样的中国社会？

拆除革命史的意识形态框架，我们是否能够构造起二十世纪的文学史、思想史和艺术史的叙述？

摆脱国际通行的理论话语和关键词，我们如何说话？如何判断？
我想，这些都不能被简单地理解为后殖民、后革命问题。

齐泽克为柏林墙倒塌20周年写的文章抱怨1989被过于草率地定义为“后冷战”，此定义所代表的历史观掩盖了或者说阉割了东欧的那些鲜活的“小乌托邦”实验。“后冷战”换来了资本主义的胜利、资本的全球化、新自由主义的狂欢，今天，这一切都出了问题，“新欧洲”再也回不去了。“第三世界”这个等待战斗的共同体还没有到来就被不明不白地放弃了，一直变成了“非西方”所覆盖的“无害领域”，或者是在全球资本主义轨道上的“发展中”或“后发”国。这些都是近在眼前的“历史冤案”，现在是否已经到了拨乱反正的时候？我们现在看到的却仍然是后冷战的庆典时刻！甚至这一“庆典”早已深入到我们自己的意识之中了。那天我们谈到对中国知识分子的国际交往的看法——只谈中-西，一味盯住对手，而忘记了周围的旁观者，忘记了这些旁观者也一样是主体，甚至忘记了身边和身后的朋友。现在，我们要追问的是：这种状况、这种思考框架是怎么来的？
这两年跟陈界仁兄交流，他一直谈到“田野”和“学院’之分，直到今日我才算是了解。同时也了解了自己身上的局限。真正的知识需从现世磨砺中得来，历史感和家国之思也要在自己身上印证。

这次上海双年展联系着两个计划，一是“胡志明小道”，针对越南、老挝、柬埔寨的历史和经验；二是印度计划。这正好为我提供了“到现场中去”的机会。在现场中，现实就是历史，用身体去体验和发现，同时又有三五好友、同仁作为磨刀石，不断进行有质量的讨论、寻找、追忆、记录、预演、论辩，当然还有最重要的——忏悔。两个计划都安排了行走，时间大概都是3、4月份，真诚地希望您可以安排时间，跟我们一起行动。最后，想起你文中引用的陈映真先生的话：“第三世界的知识分子应该回到人民中去，成为他们的一员”。按照那天我们对multitude的讨论，我们应该回归的，是那尚未被定义的无限杂多的芸芸众生。这是知识分子的自我忏悔，也是自我救赎。再次多谢上次的讨论。

士明

陈光兴：美国Iowa大学博士，台湾国立清华大学亚太文化研究中心主任，台湾文化研究学会奠基人。编著有：《斯图尔特∙霍尔：关于文化研究的批评对话》（伦敦和纽约，Routledge出版，1996），《轨迹：亚际文化研究》（伦敦和纽约，Routledge出版，1997）

高士明：中国美术学院艺术人文学院副院长

（此信经原作者同意，准许在Artforum中文网发表，未经许可请勿转载）

— 文/ 高士明

可耻的历史将继续书写：许崇宝评Rikrit Tiravanija个展

2010.01.28

巴尔扎克说，“历史有两种，一种是给王太子们看的历史，还有一种可耻的历史”。按历史发展过程来理解，可耻的历史书写是建立在物质贫民的生活和资本对生产剩余价值的剥削的基础之上的，Rirkrit Tiravanija的个展“别干了”通过四个片段式的场景衔接再现了一个可耻的历史的书写瞬间。
展厅入口是两堵砖墙，每块砖上印有“别干了”三个字与数字编码。仔细抚摸这些刚出炉不久的砖块，似乎仍有砖炉的余温。在砖墙的视觉阻隔下，我闻到了久违的泥土芳香。一台机器虽小功能俱全的烧砖机将码放在地上印字、编号后的砖坯用800度高温烧制成砖并冷却，然后堆放成砖墙在展厅以每块30元的价格出售。砖场旁边是按照北京国贸三期和上海环球金融中心这两座地标建筑的模型，用竹签扎制的摩天鸟笼，里面圈养了价格从几十元到上千元不等的鸣禽。在另一个展厅，是一个中国平民生活中惯常见到但在一线都市中心区几近绝迹的豆腐脑摊子和一辆等比例复制的、表面覆盖奶粉的梅赛德斯轿车，观众可以喝一碗带有豆香的热乎豆腐脑，闻着梅赛德斯轿车散发出的奶粉香味。
Rirkrit Tiravanija以食物的准备和烹饪知名于国际艺术界，首次在中国的个展却选择了生产与消费问题，也许是中国的生产与消费景观给了他强烈刺激。艺术家在展览现场烧制的砖块已经不是现在城市建筑的主要建造材料，钢筋混凝土和玻璃幕墙以及各种高科技的材质与技术是现代都市风景的构成元素，艺术家烧造的14086块砖仅仅够中国贫民盖一间普通住房。考察一下中国的人居环境发展历程，大体有三个节点，第一是由泥土，石头，竹木，茅草等直接来源于自然的材质建造的居住空间，第二是当消费需求扩大，由工业烧窑制造的砖块、混凝土这些机械产品建造的空间，第三就是作为万国建筑试验场的当代都市空间，这是一个完全人工化了的自然。Rirkrit Tiravanija烧制的砖块所能建造的房屋处在一个退亦不能，进亦无路的尴尬境地。在砖场旁边的摩天鸟笼是一个秩序等级分明的世界，价格昂贵的鹩哥、八哥们不但声音响亮，而且“说”着人类（貌似是这个世界的主宰）能够听懂的话语，这是一种交流的特权吗？其他的鸣禽的叫声则听起来凌乱一片，不知所云。豆腐脑摊子和风光无限的高级轿车虽然都给人以豆香奶香的温暖感，但两者并置在一起却有一种冰冷的隔绝横亘在我面前。

Rirkrit Tiravanija从视觉，触觉（砖块的抚摸、砖墙的体量），听觉（烧砖机的机械声、鸣禽的叫声），嗅觉（泥土的芳香、豆腐脑与奶粉的香气）各种官能感受途径刺激观众，传达他对中国当代社会消费主义至上与消费快感的批判。但他的作品也摆出了一副耗费的姿态，烧砖机每天要消耗至少60公斤天热气，为了维持奶粉的香味要不断的向汽车上铺洒奶粉。展览题目“别干了”曾是1968年世界青年革命的口号之一，但在今天变得如此苍白无力，原因可能在于，在当代世界，无论意识形态的区别，无论是发达国家还是发展中国家，物质贫穷都变成了不可饶恕的罪恶。就如按照北京国贸三期扎制的摩天鸟笼一样，这是一座永远无法封顶的建筑，人们必须不断的制造与消费，持续的书写可耻的历史，才能推动历史车轮的前进。与其进行无力的“消费的批判”，我们不如转向“批判的消费”寻求解决方案。中国从万国品牌制造基地向自我创造与创新的转变必然要经历一个中国当代文化的认同历程，这个文化认同历程中国人才能形成“批判的消费”观念。在一个没有自我文化认同的国度里，只能有狂热的物质消费与消费的快感。

寒冷冬日的傍晚，画廊即将下班，展厅里观众稀少，我看完展览准备走了，画廊的工人对我说：“喝碗豆腐脑吧，这么多，不喝浪费了。”

别干了，想想再干

— 文/ 许崇宝

Rani Singh Talks about a New Book on Harry Smith

2010.01.16

Harry Smith: The Avant-Garde in the American Vernacular celebrates Smith’s wide-ranging oeuvre and is available this month from Getty Publications. Here, Rani Singh, director of the Harry Smith Archives, discusses the book’s inception and Smith’s significance to the field. On January 28, the Hammer Museum will host a launch party with Patti Smith.

HARRY SMITH EMPHASIZED seeing the mundane in a creative light and would regularly ask people, “Have you been creative today?” Essentially, his search for synthesizing world cultures was what his artmaking and lifetime achievements were all about.

Although Smith was primarily known as a filmmaker and the producer of the Anthology of American Folk Music, his myriad collections of string figures, Seminole patchwork quilts, and tarot cards, as well as his involvement in peyote rituals and his art and painting practices, had not been looked at together. It is quite possible that people in the film world had no idea of his other endeavors and vice versa. So the Getty Research Institute thought that it would be a good idea to bring all these disciplines together for a symposium, which we did in 2001 and 2002.

The book brings together these disparate arenas of Smith’s life. It comprises reworked essays from the symposia, and we also commissioned additional texts and, most important, had a wealth of primary sources: interviews with Smith, full documentation of his presentations, and a lot of never-before-seen archival materials. We also had the ability to make scans of his 16-mm and 35-mm films, which is pretty astonishing because it gives us the opportunity to see each frame individually, and those frames are works of art unto themselves.

To celebrate the book, we’re holding events in New York, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle. Patti Smith was an old and dear friend of Smith’s. She knew him when she was living with Robert Mapplethorpe at the Chelsea Hotel, and they spent a lot of time together. The new book speaks at length about that era. (Funnily enough, there’s an exhibition at the DOX Center for Contemporary Art in Prague on the Chelsea Hotel that reconstitutes Smith, Mapplethorpe, and Warhol’s rooms there.) I hope that the book reflects Smith’s search for melding multiple disciplines and approaches, a worldview that synthesizes different cultures and ways of doing things.

I was Harry’s assistant from 1988 until his death in November 1991, and when he passed away I started the Harry Smith Archives as a nonprofit and attempted to locate, collect, preserve, and present his materials, which, due to his irascible nature and peripatetic lifestyle, were essentially all around the globe. Smith lived a very bohemian life, to put it mildly. When I’d visit him, his stuff would be all chockablock––it was really an incredible experience. Whether he was staying at the Chelsea Hotel, at the Breslin Hotel, at Naropa Institute, or in a room in Allen Ginsberg’s apartment in the Lower East Side, it was always an experience. He would have a Seminole patchwork hanging up or a frozen bird in the freezer or a film project in the works and stacks and stacks of books. The room usually had a unique odor, a mix of marijuana and Salem 100 cigarettes and whatever kind of beer or cheap vodka was on sale that week. It was all very heady.

— 文/ As told to Catherine Taft

Nicholas Fox Weber Discusses the Interaction of Color

2010.01.04

Nicholas Fox Weber is the executive director of the Josef and Anni Albers Foundation and the author of more than ten books, including The Bauhaus Group (2009) and Le Corbusier: A Life (2008). On December 21, Yale University Press will publish the new complete edition of Josef Albers’s Interaction of Color in a two-volume set with a foreword by Weber.

JOSEF ALBERS ALWAYS EMPHASIZED what was universal and timeless in artistic values. The happenstance of a given time period, the rise or fall of a trend, did not matter to him; in fact, he considered art to be the antidote to the hazards of time. We honor that perspective at the Albers Foundation. Yale has long wanted to do this project, and in 2009, it finally came together.

The Interaction of Color was originally published in 1963 and has long been out of print. Of course there were the usual number of humdrum newspaper articles based on the press release from the publisher at the time. But beyond that, there was tremendous excitement on the part of artists. The book was excerpted in Art News in March of 1963, and it quickly excited artists and art lovers everywhere. Dore Ashton wrote about it in Studio, while certain color scientists and theoreticians responded in technical journals with some of their quibbles.

There are not many differences between the original limited edition and the new complete edition. But naturally, nearly fifty years after the original publication, I try to put the book in a historical perspective in my foreword. At the same time, having been lucky enough to know Josef quite well, I try in my way to make him come alive.

Other than my foreword, the only changes in the new edition are that the text and commentary are bound into a single volume and the 150 color plates that were printed with screenprint technique in the original are now done in offset, taking advantage of advances in that technique. These have been bound in a separate volume. Some of the studies that were in the original––the work based on art by the old masters, and certain leaf studies––are not included in the new volume, but three leaf studies from the archive that were not in the original are in the revised edition. The reason for this is that we wanted to use richly colored originals in order to achieve lively reproductions; we did not want to start out with faded images.

The Albers Foundation was able to provide production and editing supervision for the new edition, and we also located and made available those original leaf studies. Brenda Danilowitz, an expert on Albers’s teaching and on many aspects of his art, has been with the foundation over a period of years; she has gained deep understanding of his color theories, and she was involved in numerous details for this book.

Working with Yale was fantastic. Part of my relationship with Josef was the respect he had for me being a printer’s son, and I was happy to be involved with details like paper selection and slipcase design. We worked with Yale on the cover and the packaging, too. They understood the central importance to Josef of every aspect of design, of texture, spacing, and typeface and respected us as the source of his

— 文/ As told to Lauren O’Neill-Butler