邁克·亨茲

INTERVIEW

that’s where the name came from.

We started in 1978 as a performance group – a music performance group – but what we did was not mainstream： it was difficult for the audience to accept and to adapt. That’s why we received very little suport… we had no space in the public eye， or in the galleries， and we were so young， so new， that people didn’t really get what we did. So we did a lot private work， private performances， and we had to travel a lot to find places to work and perform in， because in our own city there was very little support. Then there were I think 5 or 6 festivals when we managed to get in but the audiences and the organisers often stopped our performances by cutting off the electricity –and we endured quite a heavy， conflicting situations， you know， including censorship from the organisers – and from our side as well.

We often had very provocative performances or positions， and at certain points we were refused and censored. We got the idea of doing our own festival. Certainly that was in parallel with the development of an independent music scene and the punk， the “new wave” movement towards the mainstream music scene. We were developing our own structures， our own shape， to have a new opportunity in the mainstream， so we started producing and distributing ourselves. And we said that， also， we wanna make our own festival， and as a joke we said we’d do it in Bangkok.

So， that was abstract， and we started to think what we could do… and Bernard Müller， the third guy from the group at that time， he had already done something in Bangkok in some strange museum which belonged to the princess， which was called the Bhirasri Institute of Modern Art. So we said we’d go there！ And after a long discussion we developed the idea of bringing our culture to Asia， not to be hippy tourists or on businessTHING， so we thought we had to do something different， and to bring something along with us.

So we came to the idea of a“stone” as a heavy rock’n’roll monument – rock and roll in both senses. It was basically to take with us some of the oldest traces of European culture– Celtic culture， manifest in Stonehenge. The original idea was to steal A stone from Stonehenge and bring it to Asia， but that was obviously impossible… we would have been immediately arrested for harming a cultural heritage site. So instead we took a stone from A quarry in the Prescelly mountains in west Wales， where the inner circle of Stonehenge was originally taken from. The history is that they transported those blue granite stones， which make up the inner circle of the Stonehenge， for 300km from the Prescelly mountains， on fleeces， rolling it up to the position of Stonehenge today.

So we took a stone from the Prescelly mountains… Basically we took a neutral stone that embodied the so-called “Celtic or Druid culture”. While nobody knows exactly what this culture was， certainly it would have been easier to take a “Roman” stone， but then we would have been connected to Roman culture. So it was kind of neutral to bring this contextually “virgin stone”.

The stone was the catalyst of the project. We had a very complicated system of finan-cing because nobody believed we could achieve it.

We tried in different ways to finance our project： we made shows， concerts and looked for sponsors， and then we started with a private share. We couldn’t put it on the stock market， but it was a share- the first “artist” share.

We created shares to co-finance the project- it was about$30 for one share， which meant 400 grams of the stone and 1km of the trip to Asia. We finally had about 2，000， or 2，500 co-owners， we made 20，000 shares， today Müller， one of the members of the group， is “keeping hold” of 10 or 15，000. He left the group in 1984 and converted to Islam， and became quite “extreme”- recently we had some very interesting dialogues with him， because he was really eager to work with us again but he wanted us to be using his religious language， Karl and me， and we didn’t want to convert to Islam…

And also， it was in a sense against the beginning of the project – we didn’t want to connect our work to some esoteric parts or to some political or religious context， but to a neutral one， a humanistic one， an energetic oneto research into this whole trip. The idea of “archiving”Europe （European forms and contents）， and Asia （Asian forms and contents） was a central aim， very strong-ly to find common forms and languages of cultural information.

To give an example， suppose we want to make an avant- garde salon today. If you take avant-garde salons in the 1920s， of the Dadaists in Zurich in the 1920s – how would we realise that today？

Well， for example， we came to a village in Turkey， and we had a washing machine with a generator but we needed the water. So we put up the washing machine with the generator near the water well and started washing， and that gave the women of the village a pretext to come and see us because washing is women’s business in Islamic culture. This was in public， because it was a central place， so we created a platform of discussion and a kind of salon（through the washing）， where we could talk with women， which is usually prohibited in rural， Islamic Turkish context . But if I were to say， okay， here today in Berlin， in the avantgarde theatre in Berlin， I’ll put a washing machine on stage- the same idea of exchange， of a salon， wouldn’t work. So the same content always has a culture-dependant form， and this was one main research and technical results. If we wanted to develop our practice and experience fur-ther， would we have continued the Minus Delta T， with the experience we had as a music group， as a mythological new wave punk group， with a mythological theme about provocative actions and performance art？

We were seriously trying to exchange out of the normal norms which in today is something normal （with globalism）， but at that time in the 80s it was rather difficult. We were seriously trying to exchange out of the normal norms， which today is something normal （with globalisation）， but at that time in the 80s it was rather difficult.

I mean， one of the ideas was also to basically do a radio station on a truck， something realistic today which was absolutely impossible in the 80s. You’d get thrown into jail immediately. I mean， we went through Turkey， which was ruled by a military government， Iran had a military government， India too， and fundamentally China as well. So， you know， it was impossible to get freedom of expression on a traditional level of new media like today. Sure， we made reports on the trip（which was co-financed）. Every two weeks we sent a radio show to the Austrian national radio， and every Friday there was a kind of travel report which became a cult show in the music box （Musikbox） program in ORF， broadcasted in the whole of Austria.

LZH： Which year was that？

MH： This was 1982-1983. Basically， every Friday we had a radio show and a lot of people could follow what we were doing， and that became quite a cult， you know… also there was this book by Merve editions I gave you， this Minus Delta T book. Merve was one of the most important philosophical publishers in Germany in the 70s and 80s， who first translated the French philosophers Félix Guattari， Baudrilliard， and other people like Deleuze， et cetera.

They published our book before we made the trip， and so we got a lot of credit through that later. We realised about 80% of what was written in this book. But the book was just concept， later it became real… the main fight we had with the editors is that we didn’t want to publish our old performances， but they’d said “we have to put some of your performances， otherwise people won’t believe anything”. Anyway they took the risk and published mainly our concepts， and they had the big credit of publishing our concept outside of the art market. Outside of the art mafia， you know， which was basically based on some galleries， based on state money， and based on the system of“I’m a serious artist， and you are not a serious artist.” So we were not serious artists， nobody from official cultural context was sponsoring us， in exception the Austrian ministries gave us a little money and some diplomatic help for the road with the embassies， but we started working with sponsors in a time when sponsorship in art didn’t even exist， you know.

We also had a cigarette company as a sponsor， and there were some English and German artists who insulted us because we were advertising a cigarette company. The same people are paid today – BY Philip Morris， no problem with sponsoring. Funnily enough， some of our sponsor companies trusted us more because we said we were going to do an expedition to the Himalayas， and this equipment sponsoring from those companies. You’d go and visit them and they analysed US guys， who had a truck and believed in the project. The company owners took us by their own romantic nostalgia： “I started with a little Volkswagen in my company and it was a big adventure up until today， and now these young guys are here and they have this truck for this adventure with a stone– are they going to grow just like us？” so the sponsoring was an identification of the company owners in our group taking a risk in an impossible project that they liked.

The company came for the sympathy or emotional resonance of our project， which reminded them of the beginnings of their business. So that’s why they financed us， which the art people didn’t do. People in the art scene thought：“Who are these punks， these hooligans who just want to rip off our money with their fake shares. They’re never going to travel.” You know a lot of people who bought the shares said “hahaha！ What a smart way to get money from them！ Now they are going to put them in frames…”

So there was a BIG back and forth with finding financing/ sponsoring， so I have to say we arrived in Turkey （after a European tour of about 6 months） with $2000. Then we dealt with our sponsored reserve tires， and sold them， or we exchanged American army jackets with Iranian revolutionaries for 800 litres of diesel， which was nothing for them but for us a lot. Years later we found a lot of money out of the ministries， when the project was running， for exhibitions about the project. So all the investment was essentially done by us and developed by us and not by the art scene.

The idea of the Stone Project was to travel with it through different countries， staying at different places， getting people to interact with it， and performing， and trying to document this salon-exchange idea with photos， films and videos. That was what we called “Archive Europe， Archive Asia”. We arrived in India， where we deposited the stone in the Ganges， for about 3 or 4 years.

That was the time when Bernard Müller， from the group， split to Pakistan， and converted to Islam quite extremely. He got his wife and kids to Pakistan and took our truck， and started a business trading Pakistani furniture to Europe. He prayed every day， and as an extreme convert his wife had to walk… behind him.

He is more moderate today， but we didn’t work with him any more. We still have contact with him， but we involved other people， more people， and tried to communicate our research and our experiences… The original idea was to go with the stone to Bangkok， but it wasn’t possible because Burma was closed – I don’t know how it’s called， Myanmar？ – It was closed and there weren’t any roads to Thailand： it was cut from India. So we went by aeroplane to Bangkok and organised – in a time of military curfew – we organised a festival of performance and art in the Birasri Institute of Modern Art， and for this we invited people from Europe with the minimal budget that we had. About 15-20 people came， and so we did our first performance festival in Asia in Bangkok， Thailand.

LZH： How long did it take to move a stone from Europe to Bangkok？

MH： Well， we all stayed in different countries for a while. We left in October ’82， and we arrived in India in April’83， and we did the festival in Bangkok in May ’83. But there were some places where we stayed longer： we traveled through Bulgaria， Romania， and Slovakia to Turkey， then we made a visit down to Lebanon， Syria， back to Turkey， and then to Iran， Pakistan， India. And the stone never reached Thailand！

For a long time we had the idea to bring it to China， for five years. We tried hard but it was just impossible by land with the truck. It would have worked to bring the stone with a ship， but we wanted to travel， to have this interaction， so this didn’t work… we tried a lot， but it didn’t work.

Now it can work， and now we’ll do it as well. The idea being to bring the stone to China， our original plan was to bring it to Tian’anmen square， which is perhaps politically impossible – but we were young and we thought that this（being political） was important. Our other idea， in the 80s， before Russia’s political system changed in 89， was to go from China into Russia via Moscow， and to transport the stone to Cuba， and then go from Cuba to Cape Canaveral and shoot the stone into space with a rocket. And we told people we’d do this， but finally we understood it’s more important that the stone travels. It was an ideal educational way to learn how to communicate， BY transporting this stone.

Because the stone is a projection surface for everybody who comes there， and a lot of interaction happened at the scene. The stone became loaded with the strong energy of all of these people who came and projected onto it. Some of the most common questions that we were asked， were things like “Why did you do this？”， “Which religion do you believe in？”， or “What are you selling？” – “No， no， no， we’re just transporting the stone.”

And they started fantasising， projecting. It wasn’t a “it’s a Roman stone”， “ah… you’re from the Greek/Roman culture”，or “you’re Christian？”– the stone was neutral， and it was important to have a neutral， un-carved stone without meanings. So it could be a projection platform， or our“framework” for the people.

LZH： But that’s always the case， because when people talk about something with the object， they always try to project things. I also want to ask you questions related to this performance or the contextualised work： are you also affected or related to Fluxus， or like Dada， which you mentioned？ And why？ Because this was at a different time， what were the shifts between peoples’ concepts： why they responded in their way， and why you did in your way？

MH： I could not really say that at the time I was informed by Dada or Fluxus. I knew a lot about those people， and they were basically also censoring us because they were established– they were the generation before us， the Fluxus people， for example. I couldn’t stand Beuys – excuse me， in China you’re all fans of him – I felt he was terrible in his charismatic guru replacement thing for Germany’s lost generation， I thought it was terrible… but okay， he became like an icon of German art， and it’s okay. We didn’t want to mix with these people， we wanted nothing to do with these people. But the live art was important for us， for us it was important to integrate art in life， and， I mean， Fluxus and Dada were iconic， symbolic performance acts. Some people tried – for example Kaprow， some other people around him – they tried to involve life a lot. But the show program and symbolic stuff， public theatre … we didn’t like it so much. So certainly our position was quite against Fluxus and Dada – by that I mean it wasn’t enough live art.

So， when you’re in dialogue with some systems， and you’re opposed to it， it strengthens your own system because your enemy makes you stronger. In that way we did have a lot of enemies because were young， because we were loud， because we wanted to do better， because we didn’t want to be part of their family， we didn’t have that heritage thing. We were a solitary group contrary to this， when I met with the Moscow conceptualists for the first time（where we also had contacts in the 80s， when I met them via Infermental video magazine– I was editor and producer of 2 editions of Infermental magazine in the 80s.

When we first met the Moscow conceptualists in 1989， they were 15 or 20 people. Having a cup of coffee with the medical hermeneutics and their friends， Anton Kabakov said ‘yes， I’m the third generation of the Moscow conceptualist artist group’， which surprised us…they had a total heritage way of thinking from father to son or from senior to junior， which we （Minus Delta T – MDT） didn’t have at all. We were left alone， we had to invent something. Now partially I have my clients where I take this role （of a heritage） which I rejected before… I rejected the role of being the “father”of a movement， or something like that， and maybe this was the strength we really had， and that’s why I found Karl too.

He didn’t want to have anything to do with that art system either – he wanted something different. We weren’t so experienced， we were learning the whole time. When I was in confrontation with all these “not good art” discussions， the quality definition of the art market repulsed us. In the art market they basically always try to break up the artist groups –their classic thing was to pay one member in an art group and not the others. A group would be finished （through this） if it was weak. We refused， you know， we refused to say there was a leader – we said we were a group.

When there is negotiation in the group for a concept for an exhibition， we send the youngest of our group. They always want to talk to Mike， to me， to Karl， but we send the youngest and say that ‘he’s responsible for this project， we’re not’. So we always change， there’s been no putting one name forward. Minus Delta T had 6 or 8 members always coming and going， besides Karl and Mike as basic group members.

Today the heritage is Karl and me， because the others were engaged in other things – at that time it was protecting the group， protecting the label. It was reinforcing the thinking that we were a hermetic group. Sure， it was our mistake sometimes， but that’s how we kept our density and identity. There were women who wanted to travel with us on the Stone Project， and we refused. There were about 6 or 7 women who wanted to make the trip with us： we said‘you make your own women’s group then you travel， we don’t want to be bodyguards for you in Arab countries， and be responsible for the disastrous behaviour of men towards women in the world – you make the experience alone’. There was one woman who wanted to travel as a man –her project failed， but it was to think of the people who really wanted to do it， this thinking of doing and find a practical way. I mean， there were groups like Die Toten Hosen – you probably know them， punk group from Dusseldorf – we started music at the same time as them， they wanted to come to Iran and play in Persepolis， but they couldn’t manage. The management at that time was much more difficult than today. There was no EasyJet or cheap airlines. It was very expensive， and communication was so expensive – in some art shows in galleries we wanted our telephone bills to be paid by the galleries. Initially they’d say， ‘okay， what are your fees？’We’d give them the telephone bills for a month， and they would all refuse because they were afraid of the fees， which were incredibly expensive at that time.

LZH： That’s very interesting as we’re talking about the early 80s， you know the issue of Visas， and also… as you said， you have to cross many countries， and certainly （there are） clear taboos with culture– refusing women to join you –and telephone issues… I mean， with all these things， how did we finally get these pictures back？ Nowadays， to imagine that is really hard！ It’s really， very hard to understand what the world was like 30 years ago.

MH： We had a situation a year ago in Prague， where we had a retrospective exhibition based on the Van Gogh TV （project）， of our following up group of Minus Delta T （Ponton Media Art Group Lab was the name）， and what we did there was a timeline on a wall： what， in the 70s， were the major political events， inventions， EastWest conflicts， who were the dictators of the world？ all these were documented to visualise the context ， who was doing what， what was invented – and it’s so hard for people today to imagine a situation without telephones. For example， in Moscow in the 80s there were public telephones which didn’t cost anything， but everybody knew they were being listened to. So the Moscow people had a system so that they’d never talk on the telephone when they visited somebody， to avoid surveillance. Rather these people would go from this apartment to the next one， to the next one， to the studio（in the art scene， I mean） and to have this kind of daily life where you didn’t make a date， you didn’t fix things – it was all open， it had to be.

You just need to compare with the beginning of the Van Gogh TV project – that was in ’92. We were calling from the Baltics， Latvia and Lithuania. An international telephone call back then meant 16 hours of waiting to get connected. I mean， imagine you’re trying to do a project today with whatever technology， telephone or text， and then you have to wait for 16 hours to reach connection！ Four months later we got sponsored by Nokia for the Baltic project， and we had the first “fat” handie （Nokie mobile phones）， these big heavy bricks of mobile phones， and the communication was five dollars a minute， which was totally incredible， but we were sponsored so we could do the whole project in the Baltics. We could phone from the Baltic to Moscow. Moscow was even more difficult to reach： it could take 30 hours to connect on an official telephone line for an international call to Moscow.

So we had these mobile phones sponsored by Nokia， and we could communicate from there to Germany， the centre in Kassel at the Documenta 1992， in real time. At that time， the first Ponton MEDIA project in public was in 1987.

LZH： 87？

MH： This “Piazza Virtuale”was in ’92. ’92 was the Van Gogh TV project. In 1987 we were with Minus Delta T in Documenta， with a media bus. We were invited to the performance program and we did an illegal radio show which we declared was a “sound sculpture”.

This was also in a time when there were no private radio stations – which you can’t imagine today. So what happened？ We had a wellprotected transmitter and we were transmitting every day from different places， and we always had four people watching out for the police， or the post people who might come searching for the transmitter. There were these post cars which were driving around – those search cars with antenne to find out where our transmitter was. So what we did was， we cut the tires of those cars： we broke in to the place where they kept these cars， and we put sugar in the tanks， so they were broken and they couldn’t follow us any more.

Also， we had walkie-talkies to communicate with each other： we would put the transmitter for example on the bordel（brothel） and you had the pimps there who didn’t like the police at all – “did you let the police in？” So by the time the police reached the roof we were gone， and the transmitter was turned off and hidden.

We were on the roof of the bordel （laughter）with the transmitters – we changed the transmitting position every day， until we were legalised. It was an incredible activism， you know， protecting our broadcast– a performance in itself. So many of the people taking part were participating because they were romantic about these illegal actions and this game of hide-and-seek. MDT didn’t share this enthusiasm of “being against” （the system）， we weren’t trying to be against， we tried to be for something： that is， creating our own thing. But we had a lot of fans who were in this “against” culture. Today we live in a society of “against culture”， Che Guevara T-shirts are mainstream， but the mainstream of “being against”is the isolation of little groups into clubs， into specialists –which are better consumers， you know.

LZH： So who was the curator at that time， in 92 and 87 as you mentioned？ Why did they select your project？ What did they feel about your activist situation？

MH： Well， in 87 we were very famous through the Stone Project and through several other projects – such as the Death Opera project. We were known. We were invited to Documenta by Elisabeth Jappe from Koln， a curator who specalised in performance. So she curated us for this program with Mr Schneckenburger， and he agreed to put our media bus next to the performance program at the Documenta. We used the opportunity to invite the Chaos Computer Club（hackers） to the Documenta， to our media bus， we had chats with the world through“The Well” in San Francisco， which was the first telephone modem chat connection where we could talk with people from around the world. So all these innovative things， all these things were elements and possibilities in our media bus our mobile lab and radio studio. We were the first ones to invite Chaos Computer Club into an art context， and we also had this radio TV RABOTNIK from Amsterdam involved in our Documenta action project， which was more or less a SQUAT TV radio station. We brought together the left-wing people with the art people in Germany， which is sometimes a problem because the leftwing were historically antiart – and today the left-wing monopolise the contextual arts scene in Europe.

You had a lot of contextual art which is not open to political thinking， I think， and we brought these people together， so there were a lot of conflicts back then， in our project in the Documenta in ’87. I think we involved like eighty or a hundred people during 3 months （not including the audience）， so the network idea， the mobile atelier was always there. The Stone Project was also a mobile atelier with a mobile transport. So in the live art process， what the atelier processes is important. In general art thinking we have the atelier， the process is excluded and private， and then you have the exhibition as a result. But the result， however， is dead， because it’s in the museum， and the process of developing art is finished.

Certainly， one of our ideas was to make the process through the product， and this is why we continued with these mobile public labs， the media bus we had in the Documenta in ’87， and a radio station which was at first illegal and then got legalised as a sound-sculpture， a temporary sound-structure. That was a bit strange because all the political （the left-wing anarchistic） radios who were in the process， or had been caught by the police or sued（for illegal broadcasting）， came to us and wanted our papers. They wanted the government paper which legalised us as a sound sculpture， to present in the juristic process， and we refused because we said we were doing the radio in a different， artistic context， and they （these radio stations） weren’t interested in art.

For us， it was an honour to do a subjective radio show in that period. I mean， this was also something people didn’t understand. Official media was objective， monolithic， it was controlled by political opinion， and it was pyramidal， vertically controlled （hierarchically）. We were horizontal， we were at a democratic level where we had subjectivity， which is what art is – art is totally subjective， you know. And this was what people understood， and this is why we called our first TV station Van Gogh TV， because everybody – the most uneducated guy knows that Van Gogh was an artist and that he cut off his ear. So with this in mind， it was clear for most people that the station was connected to art， and wasn’t

“Blue Sky” TV or anything.

LZH： This is very different in terms of understanding media art at that time. I would say， to describe what you mentioned：“contextualised art”. For example， Nicola Bourriad’s Relational Aesthetics， which he wrote in the 90s， do you see a connection there？ Do you see yourself as related to“relational aesthetics”， or do you see yourself related to the so-called “media art” label？ Because you’ve been treated as a media art group （which is very interesting）， and I’ve never heard somebody mentioning you or your group as major representatives of relational aesthetics. But you were even earlier than them （relational artists）.

MH： The thing is quite simple– representation didn’t matter so much （to us）， we care more about the production. And now， concerning media art， we always had a problem with the concept of “solo signature”， that kind of “I am an artist”signature. We were a group， so that was also a problem on the level of copyright. We didn’t know what would belong to “me” if we were doing something together， and there was a conflict. Sure， the video artists had this problem of about how to get money， when could they， since they do work in so many different systems of video art.

For example， in the 80s， in the Netherlands， to say video art was serious， there were rules regulating financial support for video art. Thus there was no music allowed in video art work because music came under the heading of“music clips”， and that was commercial. So you had a lot of totally humourless clips， or boring Dutch video art with no music at all. Otherwise （if they had music） they wouldn’t get money from the state （because they were treated as “sponsored by commercial parties”）， so this was a kind of strange substitution， on a monetary level， about how art was orientated， and designed itself around how artists got money.

When we started doing art TV， the art people said “you are doing bad video art”， and even the most important video art critics said that， because they couldn’t think in a live art sense and in the context of interactivity. Now they speak about us very differently， in the context of history， but we were doing live TV and interactive stuff which they initially said was “bad video art”. I mean， they didn’t understand what we were doing， but the audience did understand， and people reacted to it.

So this independent thinking， creating independent fields of working， was always important， and I would say that 20% of our work was in the art field： meaning that we created other working platforms beside the classical art scene （i.e. galleries）. Okay， we were at Ars Electronica and a lot of these new media festivals –those were also relatively new scenes at the time. We did big projects there too， but it was maybe 30% of our total work –the rest was in different fields， integrated into society or into different states. The Frigo group， which was the French group I talked about before， was also an independent production place outside of the art scene.

Now the art museums want to expose us in an artistic context but at the time they said “oh， you don’t fit in here， you’re not close to an artistic or similar statement”， etc. Censorship till today is not to “forbid” something but not to “finance” it.

On the other hand， we weren’t controllable， and that was the point， too. I mean， you’re a group， you have an infrastructure， you’re independent： you’re not the helpless， genius baby artist which they’d like to have， while the critics say “oh you poor little artist， you don’t even know what to do， I have to write some text about you saying that you are an artist…and i get paid for my text”.

Now this is what you have about contextual artists today， people say that they put a piece of paper on the wall， and when they write three pages about it， then it becomes art – that’s not independence， that’s making the artist little babies. And， say， okay， you’re a genius （LZH： Or a handicapped baby ） Yeah（laughs）， and he is so inspired by his creativity and his genius that he has to take drugs， and he’s a handicapped， oh fuck you， you know…

LZH： But my question is， as you mentioned this… today we talk a lot about contextualised art and so-called “relational aesthetics”. I think that the difference is， a lot of artists from the ‘90s were doing it in certain kinds of contexts， which was more about between human beings. And I think your work in the 80s was even more about that， more than that， because in a way you’re involved with so called“mediation” issues. So you see – if we are to talk about contextualised art – how can we understand contextualised art？ Because certainly it is in a context： if we don’t read about it， how can we understand or access this kind of art？ And why are we doing this kind of art？

MH： I would put it into three different levels. We have three processes of art. The first one is the individual level， the second is the dialogue level， the third is the living aspect level.

Or… so， you say you can have the journalistic， or the portrait artists， or the documentarists， who can reproduce a beautiful landscape， or a beautiful portrait， or see very well in a journalistic context. I think a lot of art today is a journalistic， commenting on what’s happening in society： it’s not inventing culture， it’s commenting （on） culture.

The second （dialogue） level of art， to me， is a symbolic way of connecting different philosophies. Often we see a combination of icons put together in an installation. Maybe you are developing philosophies of thinking at different levels， but the pro- blem is， it is still something symbolic， and not a live act. A lot of artists are doing symbolic works， for instance： a lot of the contextual people do symbolic works which have nothing to do with their solidarity， for example， for the poor Africans. When I was in art school in Hamburg in the ‘90s， people said “we have to do something against racism”， and I said“okay， the best thing you can do against racism is to sign up on a visa form or to take up some responsibility for the person， and then a black person can get a bed at your parents’ house， or you just give them money， then it’s okay.”But all the rest is crap， you know， this solidarity – this ‘we hold hands around a lake and light candles’ – some symbolic shit. Certainly it’s important to develop the language with the new writing， and to find new forms – for example， old installations of Ilya Kabakov are also journalistic， and there were descriptions of Stalinism， but in a visual way. So sure， the visual language is very important for us， and we did the research on it through these different countries in the Stone Project， to find the same content with different forms and cultures.

The third and most important（level） is prototypes of life， and prototypes of culture， not to be commentary of what’s produced on TV but to produce culture ourselves - which is even more difficult today， because we have this total politically-correct censorship. And what you think is maybe not politically correct. If you start being creative， maybe this isn’t politically correct. This is my main interest- not being politically correct adapted， but developing a culture of ourselves， which may become folklore or mainstream. Not just being there and saying“I’ll be the cynical or sarcastic commentariat， making a commentary on what I see on TV， on politics， and how people walk around”. I mean- nobody is inventing their own clothes. I mean， some do， but not really- it’s basically imposed on us， say， restricted to what Nike stuff we should wear.

But， there is also the human aspect in these levels of art – a） you have the individual which grows up and finds his own identity and his consciousness， and b） you have the gang， which is the young people who listen to the same music， and wear the same hair. It’s a kind of homosexual self-mirroring， the love of the other comes from the love of yourself. Homosexual is maybe not the right word， but it’s this kind of achieving your own identity through others， to be more precise. And c） on the third level， you have “the other”， which in the historical sense is the man-woman relationship. And that’s the only fruitful business， because something will come out of it. In a manwoman combination， or in “the other” or in “the network”， some products will naturally come out of the network itself. I say that you have three levels of artworks： you have individual work， you have the gang or group， and you have the networking work， which is the art and which is fruitful， and it’s basically the most important thing to continue， because it makes babies， in parentheses and resources. I remember that time when we were doing this networking or interactive stuff， and naturally the traditional curators said that “oh， this isn’t art， this is social therapy”.

In this context， I think you have to analyse and put it together： we’ve done contextual art but in a practical way， not in the sense of philosophical abstract reflection. I think contextual art is a good school of thinking， a good school of reflection， but we always started from the practice level. We do what we wanted to do， how can we do this， how can we realise this –always with mistakes， sure， but in a practical way， and not in a pre-designed way.

For example， Peter Weibel … in the end of 80s， he was jealous of us when we started the Van Gogh TV. He was totally jealous because he established interactive art as a type of art genre to be financed by three festivals in Europe， which were Ars Electronica LINZ ， Karlsruhe （zkm）， and maybe 2 or 3 other places in Europe. Each installation， each interactive installation， cost 70，000 to 80，000 euros， even 100，000 euros， because you have to pay the artist， the materials etc.

He was in control of the so called interactive art media scene. There were about 10 people controlling the distribution of this money， and I would say that he was one of them. And then we came and did a social thing， while we had an interactive system which cost nothing， or very little. Peter Weibel hated opensource interactive stuff， which we were the first to establish， you know. I mean， there were other people working on it， but he had no relationship to the hackers and all these （opensource developers） … we had a relation to the hackers， we did the benefit festivals for the first hackers when they got into prison for hacking into company computers （to prove the lack of security-something normal today）. When they hacked into the security systems to show that the people weren’t safe， there were a lot of them in prison. There were no fucking artists there， in ’91 or in ‘90.

LZH： I think you’re talking about the particular kind of…you know， people usually think about this kind of validation or legitimacy with their own kind of art. So it’s no longer about this so-called democratic thinking. I think your work is very important， because from the very basis they’re democratic actions， taking action and sharing with people. So I think your work also makes your art a bit weak， and away， isolated from the market – because that kind of art is certainly not interested in the market. The market is more interested in this so-called “old style”， the “classical way”， the socalled original thinking in art.

MH： Well， on that level it’s important that you also have your own style. I have to say I make more money today with flatware – flatware means pictures， things you can hang in galleries （LZH： Twodimensional stuff. ） Yes – than I did with teaching and other projects. So as long as you do experimental art or media art， on the budget level you plus， minus， and the curators get more money than the artists. This is， we have to say， the truth… maybe not you， but I know a lot of people are very aware that every fucking secretary gets paid（the payment of the artist is last on the list） – they have a budget of 200，000 euros for a show， and there are 15 artists， and they say “sorry， we have no money”. It is clear that to keep the integrity of the art that I want to do， I have to say no to certain conditions， which means I need to reserve money. So I don’t have private money， and I have other jobs. I have a teaching job and I have a music job， I was in some commercial consulting stuff， I was in media consulting， in media art too. It’s always there， one of these jobs to finance the others that don’t bring in any money. For example， the cheese club yesterday didn’t bring in any money in the first three years （now it does）， because nobody was really into it and they thought it was too expensive . People think it’s too expensive to spend money for that in the art field， and the same goes for the video art： when we did the first video art festival in the beginning of the 80s， there was no fucking point to make money with it.

I mean， there was a gallery in the 70s – gallery Oppenheim– her collection is now in the Landes Museum in Bonn. She was with the de Appel in Amsterdam， the first people who bought video art in Europe. In the USA there are another 3 or 4 places， like Long Beach Museum， so from 5，000 artists you know how many of them have been bought from. And in this sense， it’s always that you have to invest at least 2， 3， up to 5 years into certain projects， before they kind of carry themselves along. And it’s always carried through a sponsor or something， which you do by yourself， and there are certain moments when they become adult， and they walk alone.

But if you rely on the system， the system’s gonna censor you. People know that if they work with my plans they can’t tell me what to do， so they’re afraid to work with me because I refuse if I don’t have my conditions. I’m not talking about money， because I’m bad at money management， but as for the content， they can’t tell me. But I know a lot of artists， when the sellers tell themdon’t do this style， don’t do that style， change it- they do it！

This is about pride， we MDT never change， we never wanted to change in that way. But we’re writing history in what we did， and I think for a lot of people we symbolise something like a dream come true： if you want it， you should， or can do it. （OR OBAMALIKE HAHA WE CAN DO IT ）

We wanted to transport a stone， and we didn’t think a lot beforehand， we said we wanted to bring it to Asia and we achieved it. This whole process of learning we made on the way， that was fantastic， and I think for everybody this was a fantastic experience. It’s a deeply philosophical and also educational experience to be permanently confronted in real situations with other cultures， and I wish this for other kids– that’s why I want to meet at least another 20 or 30 stones， and send them around the world with other people.

LZH： So where is the stone now？ Eventually？

MH： The stone is in New Delhi， it’s by the Austrian embassy. It was about two years in the temple in New Deli before it was on the river Ganges and it’s always been waiting to go to China. They kind of rebuilt the temple， so we had to take it away and put it back in the Austrian embassy（because Karl is Austrian）. And now we want to go China next year， and to continue this trip with the stone， and I think we will bring it to Beijing.

LZH： 我們或許應該把話題從中國的藝術(shù)市場轉(zhuǎn)移到你的作品上。我們知道你在80年代末期、90年代早期介入了中國的藝術(shù)環(huán)境。在德國的好幾個城市。而我對你在其它國家的個人實踐感興趣，比如德國的幾個城市。所以，讓我們聚焦于你和Karl Dudesek一起合作的“大石頭項目”（Bangkok Project），可以和我們分享一下這個項目的背景嗎？你如何為它命名，你們起初如何付諸實施，以及你們?nèi)绾卧谫Y金上實現(xiàn)了這個項目？

MH： 我們的藝術(shù)家小組叫做Minus Delta T，這個名字的來源是一個用來計算將來可能發(fā)生的事件的數(shù)學形式，或者說，它的隱喻是 “未來的回聲”。這個名字的來源有些數(shù)學游戲或者哲學游戲的意味在里面（我們和一些哲學家與數(shù)學家進行了討論）。

我們1978年成立了藝術(shù)家小組，當時我們是一個表演藝術(shù)小組，或者說表演音樂藝術(shù)小組...當然，在那個時代，我們不是主流，至少對于觀眾來說，不是特別容易接受。這也是為何沒有能在常見的藝術(shù)場所進行表演的機會，我們進不去畫廊，我們太年輕，也還沒有進入公眾視野。所以我們做了一系列非公開的演出。那個時候我們必須經(jīng)常旅行以找到演出場合，參加不同的音樂節(jié)，在我們自己的城市幾乎沒有得到演出方面的支持。我想大概是5-6個音樂節(jié)后，出現(xiàn)了不少插曲，當時的人們出于審查制度，在我們表演的時候切斷了電源。因此我們其實處在一個充滿的沖突的大環(huán)境里，這種沖突來自于審查制度，也來自于我們充滿了挑釁感的表演本身。

后來，我們產(chǎn)生了這樣一個念頭：我們要做自己的音樂節(jié)——當然，這個念頭也一定地符合了當時的獨立音樂潮流、獨立朋克和“新浪潮”音樂的潮流。我們開始逐漸發(fā)展自己的制度、形態(tài)，也逐漸在主流音樂節(jié)有了一點位置，我們也開始生產(chǎn)和傳播自己錄制的碟。同時，我們也決定做自己的音樂節(jié)，在一次玩笑話中，我們提到：“不如把這個音樂節(jié)做到曼谷去吧?！?/p>

所以，簡單說來，就是這樣的抽象，而我們也確實開始想，我們要怎么做才能把這個音樂節(jié)做到曼谷去。我們當時的藝術(shù)家小組成員之一，Bernhard Müller， 已經(jīng)在曼谷做過一些活動，其中包括一個奇怪的、屬于泰國公主博物館：比拉斯基當代藝術(shù)館（Bhirasri Insti-tute of Modern Art，譯者注）。所以，通過這層聯(lián)系，我們決定在亞洲做我們的音樂節(jié)。在漫長的討論之后，我們決定將我們自己的文化帶去那里，我們不希望這次旅程成為一個嬉皮之旅，也不希望它成為一個商業(yè)行為，我們希望這個旅程可以實現(xiàn)一些其他的東西，所以我們也必須帶來一些東西。

所以我們開始探討“滾石”這個有著雙關(guān)意義的概念，當然滾石是一個搖滾豐碑的名字，但它也可以被直接地理解為“滾動石頭”——我們希望尋找歐洲文明最先祖的痕跡，并“滾動”至遙遠的東方。這個痕跡，我們能找到的最古老者是凱爾特文明的巨石陣……好吧，坦白說，我們最開始的計劃是去巨石陣偷一塊石頭然后帶上亞洲之旅，顯然這是不可能實現(xiàn)的，以那里的安保措施，他們會以迅雷不及掩耳之速以毀壞文物的罪名將我們逮捕。因此，我們選擇了去西威爾士郡的普利賽里（Prescelly） 山區(qū)——這里也是巨石陣內(nèi)圈石頭的最初產(chǎn)地——來尋找我們的石頭。早期的巨石陣石頭是一塊一塊從薩里郡的山上采集的藍色花崗石，一塊一塊地滾過威爾士大地，直到三百公里外的、最終的史前巨石陣所在地。

所以我們?nèi)ネ柺康牟杉艘粔K天然石頭，這個石頭是來自于傳說中的“凱爾特”或者“德魯伊”文明...當然，沒有人真正知道凱爾特或者德魯伊文明到底是什么，似乎尋找一塊“羅曼文明”的石頭會更為容易（讓人理解）。但是凱爾特文明的石頭也反倒因為不為人知，變成了一塊中立的石頭，而人們對它的投影則會成為這塊石頭的催化劑。

關(guān)于我們的資金來源，有一個非常復雜的資金系統(tǒng)，因為那個時候沒人相信我們真的會去做這個項目。我們建立了一個“私人股份制度”，當然我們顯然不能把這個項目放上股票市場，但是我們確實針對這個項目建立了第一個“藝術(shù)股份”制度。我們建立了一個共同出資支持這個項目的“股份制度”，當時大約是30美元一股，也就意味著我們需要400股來支持石頭一公里的旅程。因此，總共我們有了2000到2500個共同持股者，總共有20，000股，當時我們團隊的成員Müller “據(jù)有” （拿走了）其中的大約10，000到15，000股，但是后來他轉(zhuǎn)到了伊斯蘭教，并且變得有點“極端”，所以我們得跟他溝通，事實上溝通的過程非常有趣，他還是想和我們合作，但是希望我們的項目能轉(zhuǎn)換成伊斯蘭語言，當然Karl和我不太能接受這個提議。出于各方面的原因，我們拒絕了他的提議，原因是我們不希望“大石頭項目”和某些深奧的語境、政治的語境甚至宗教的語境有所聯(lián)系，反之，我們希望它是一個中性的項目、一個人性的項目，我們希望通過這個項目來研究整個旅程，在過程中實踐“存檔”歐洲（歐洲的文化形式和內(nèi)容）或者“存檔”亞洲（亞洲的文化形式和內(nèi)容）的概念，而為了實現(xiàn)這個概念，我們必須尋找一種對不同的文化和民族來說都有共同習慣的語言和呈現(xiàn)形式。

舉個例子，如果你知道20世紀20年代發(fā)生在蘇黎世的達達主義沙龍，那么，這樣的概念在今年的實現(xiàn)形式會是什么呢？

我們當時在土耳其去了一個村莊，我們有一個有電池的洗衣機，但是我們需要水。所以我們在洗衣機上接上了發(fā)電機，然后開始洗衣服。在阿拉伯文明里，洗衣服通常是女人的工作，因此提供洗衣服務則成了當?shù)嘏栽诠_空間見到我們，并且與我們討論的“擋箭牌”——我們創(chuàng)立了這樣一個討論的場所，或者說當代的“沙龍”，通過這個平臺我們可以打破“禁止與男人溝通的”的宗教禁規(guī)，與女性們進行交流（通過洗衣服這件事情和這個空間）。然而，如果在柏林，我們把這個洗衣機放在一個柏林的先鋒劇場，我不認為會有這樣的效應，原因是，同樣的形式因為文化背景的差異，必須相應的改變。

這也是我們的主要研究方向之一——如果我們依然是做Minus Delta T項目的話。加入我們作為音樂團隊的經(jīng)驗，作為神秘主義的新浪潮朋克團隊，擁有著神秘的、挑釁的主題和表演藝術(shù)，我們非常嚴肅地嘗試著從傳統(tǒng)的形式中解離出來，這在今天的全球化環(huán)境下已經(jīng)不是難事，但是在當時（80年代）卻非常不容易。

嗯，我們當時的想法之一是在一輛卡車上裝上一個廣播電臺，當然你必須意識到很多今日司空見慣的東西在80年代是幾乎不能實現(xiàn)的，在當時的社會審查制度下，很可能你會直接進監(jiān)獄。我們當時穿越了土耳其——一個軍事區(qū)域，伊朗——一個軍事區(qū)域，印度——還是軍事區(qū)域，中國——也沒什么差別。所以說，一個傳統(tǒng)概念上的“新媒體”，以及相關(guān)的自由表達，在很多地方是不存在，也不可能獲得的。我們一路上都在做共同贊助的新聞報道，每兩周，我們會將一期節(jié)目送去奧地利國家電臺，每個周五，我們放送的“旅途報道”（名字是“音樂盒子”：Musikbox）在奧地利維也納的ORF廣播電臺更是風靡了起來。

LZH： 那是哪一年？

MH： 大約是在82年或者83年的樣子，我們每周五都生產(chǎn)一出廣播節(jié)目，然后一些聽眾就可以跟隨我們，事實上我們當時掀起了不小的一股風潮…當然，這本我給你的由Merve出版的Minus Delta T 的書——Merve 是德國最有名的哲學編輯之一，翻譯了包括菲利斯·嘎達菲（Félix Guattari），鮑德里亞（Baudrilliard）和德勒茲（Giles Deleuze）在內(nèi)的著名法國哲學家的著作。

所以他們在我們啟程之前就把我們的概念收集出版成書，我們也因此獲得了很多名聲。我們實現(xiàn)了書中大約80%的內(nèi)容，這本書也經(jīng)歷了從純概念到現(xiàn)實的過程。我們和Merve的編輯們進行的斗爭之一是我們不太想出版我們舊的演出，可是他們說：“我們必須放一些你們曾經(jīng)的作品在里面，不然，人們不會相信書里的任何東西的”，他們冒了這個險，出版了這樣一本書，也正是因此，他們通過在藝術(shù)市場之外出版我們的概念，得到了很多肯定。藝術(shù)市場在當時主要是基于畫廊，或者國家資金的注入來維持運轉(zhuǎn)，而這樣的一個藝術(shù)市場往往有這樣的一個觀念系統(tǒng)：“我是一個真正的藝術(shù)家，而你不是一個真正的藝術(shù)家?！?——在當時的時代背景下，我們確實不被看做是“嚴肅的”或者“真正的”藝術(shù)家，也沒有人贊助我們，上奧地利州的政府機構(gòu)給了我們一定的支持，然而，我們事實上在“藝術(shù)贊助”這個概念還沒有出現(xiàn)時，就開始了藝術(shù)贊助行為。

我們找到了一個香煙公司的贊助，有一些英國和德國藝術(shù)家開始攻擊我們，因為我們?yōu)橐粋€香煙公司進行廣告宣傳。其實這樣的現(xiàn)象在今天已經(jīng)司空見慣，像Philip Morris這樣的藝術(shù)家甚至靠這種方式吃飯，而我們開始的時候也是如此。有趣的是，商業(yè)公司信任我們，而藝術(shù)家們卻并不。我們告訴商業(yè)贊助的公司，我們要去喜馬拉雅考察！所以你可以支持一個去喜馬拉雅或者撒哈拉沙漠的考察計劃。這樣這些公司也給我們提供了裝備的贊助，你知道，當我們?nèi)⒂^這些公司的時候，他們也在悄悄地考察我們。有些公司的老板甚至被我們激發(fā)起了一絲浪漫懷舊情懷：“我剛成立公司的時候，開著一輛小破大眾車，經(jīng)歷萬難走到了今天的地位。而現(xiàn)在，這些年輕人開著卡車，要把一塊石頭送上遠征，他們不正像年輕的我們一般嗎？他們會成長成什么樣呢？”

他們出于“同情”，或者某些關(guān)于創(chuàng)業(yè)初期心態(tài)的情感共鳴贊助了我們。然而，我們卻沒有得到藝術(shù)界的支持：“這些朋克青年是誰??？這些野蠻人，他們肯定只想拿我們的錢，他們才不會去遠征考察呢！”你知道，很多購買我們股份的人也并不相信我們實現(xiàn)的能力，他們說：“哈哈哈，這是多么聰明的圈錢的方式啊！他們拿到了錢，現(xiàn)在他們會把錢放在相框里裱起來 ……”

所以，我剛才分享的是我們籌集贊助的迂回故事，所以，在歐洲部分六個月的旅程結(jié)束后，我們終于帶著2000美金踏上了土耳其的土地，這個時候我們也不得不進行很多交易活動，比如說我們用美國的軍服和伊朗的革命主義者交換到了800升的柴油…對他們來說根本不算什么，對我們來說卻意味著很多。所以我們在旅途中必須一直進行這樣的交換活動（比如說把美國軍服跟伊朗革命軍交換），而很久之后，我們的州政府給了我們財政支持，但是這筆資金到來的時候，項目已經(jīng)進行了好一會了。所以這個項目的資金可以理解為基本由我們——而不是藝術(shù)世界——籌集和發(fā)展的。

這個項目的初衷是讓大石頭穿越不同的國家，在不同的地方停留，和當?shù)厝私换?，并且進行表演，在這個過程中通過圖片和影像踐行和記錄“沙龍”想法。這也是為什么我們的口號是：“存檔歐洲、存檔亞洲”。我們到了印度，將石頭在恒河里沉淀了一段時間（3-4年），那個時間段正是我們的團隊成員Bernhard Müller走向了巴基斯坦群體，并且信仰轉(zhuǎn)向了伊斯蘭教。他和妻兒一起移居巴基斯坦，拿了我們的車并開始做起了巴基斯坦家具生意，每天都在祈禱，帶著他的妻子一起…他的妻子只能走在他的身后。

和那時相比，今天的他相對溫和了許多，不過從那時開始，我們就不在項目上和他進行合作了，雖然我們時至今日仍然有聯(lián)系。后來，我們也引入了更多的人，最開始的想法是直接把石頭陸運到曼谷，后來我們意識到不可能，因為當時的緬甸還沒有開放，很多地方都沒有路，它和印度隔開，所以我們只好搭乘飛機，越過緬甸而到了泰國曼谷。在軍事宵禁期間，我們在那個公主的博物館舉行了一場表演和藝術(shù)的慶典，為了這個藝術(shù)節(jié)，我們用手頭僅有的小額預算邀請了歐洲藝術(shù)家，而且他們都來了。大約來了15、20人，我們也于泰國曼谷成功舉行了我們在亞洲的第一場演出。

LZH： 把大石頭從歐洲運到曼谷花了多長時間？

MH： 事實上，我們在每個路過的國家都停留了一段時間。所以，我們是82年的十月出發(fā)的，83年的四月我們到達了印度，同年的五月我們在曼谷舉行了藝術(shù)節(jié)。但是，其實我們在一些其他地方停留的時間更長，我們的旅途穿過了保加利亞、羅馬尼亞、斯洛文尼亞、土耳其，然后從土耳其我們向南到了黎巴嫩、敘利亞，再回到土耳其、再到達伊朗、巴基斯坦和印度。

有長達五年的時間，我們試圖把石頭運到中國，我們做了非常大的努力，但是用我們的卡車從陸地過去確實幾乎不可能。當然，如果我們用海運的話很容易可以實現(xiàn)，但是我們更希望有這種與本土的互動，所以海運不是我們的選擇，而陸運方面我們嘗試了很多方法，都沒有實現(xiàn)。當然，在今天的條件下是可能了。最開始的時候，我們非常希望把石頭放去天安門廣場（政治上不可能）——可能只是因為我們當時很年輕，我們認為有政治感是非常重要的一件事。

我們在80年代的另一個的想法是——因為那時剛好是在東歐蘇聯(lián)解體之前——我們希望從中國去到莫斯科，然后到佛羅里達州的卡納維拉爾角（一個火箭發(fā)射基地），最后把石頭送上一顆火箭飛上太空。當時我們也告訴大家我們會這么做，后來，我們理解到了這個想法的極端性。也逐漸認識到這個石頭的旅行過程中，有一定的關(guān)于人際溝通的教育目的。因為石頭是一個投影空間，對每一個來的人開放，每一個人都可以在石頭上投射一定的東西（觀念、內(nèi)容、思考）。因此，石頭上也沉積了來訪者的強烈的能量，也有很多有趣的對話發(fā)生，比如人們會問：“你們?yōu)槭裁催\送石頭？” “你們是哪個宗教的信徒？” “你們是在兜售什么嗎？”——我們回答：“不不不，我們只是石頭的運輸者而已?！?/p>

然后他們開始對這個項目進行幻想——當然不是“這是一個羅曼文明的石頭”“啊，我懂了，所以你是希臘羅馬那一帶來的人”“所以你是基督徒？”之類的幻想……石頭本身擁有中性的色彩，這個未經(jīng)雕刻的、中性的、沒有任何預定含義的石頭使得它可以成為人們的投射空間，或者說，我們給人們提供的空白畫框。

LZH： 嗯，不過當人們談到物件對象時，往往會有這樣的反應，他們會在對象上投射自身……我也非常想問你關(guān)于你的這些表演或者語境化（情境化）的作品的關(guān)系：你是否也多少被激浪派運動或者達達主義影響？為什么？激浪派和達達主義在不同的年代，在這些觀念的交替之間，發(fā)生了什么樣的轉(zhuǎn)折？為什么他們用那種方式表達，而你用你的方式表達，這之間的區(qū)別在哪里？

MH： 我并不認為我受到了達達主義或者激浪派的影響，我認識他們中的很多人，他們事實上也在監(jiān)視和審查著我們，因為他們是已經(jīng)有所建樹的“上一代人”——比如說激浪派的那些藝術(shù)家。我非常不能忍受博伊斯，原諒我，我知道他在中國很熱門，但是我認為他很糟糕。他的那種極富魅力的、如同教主一般的去替代德國“失落一代”的現(xiàn)象，我認為很糟糕，當然，沒問題，他成為了德國藝術(shù)的符號，我可以接受。但是我們作為一個藝術(shù)家團體，我們可不想跟這些人有任何聯(lián)系。話說回來，現(xiàn)場藝術(shù)作為一個流派，對我們確實有一些影響。對我們來說，把藝術(shù)融入生活環(huán)境中是非常重要的，當然，激浪派和達達們也有非常象征性的表演行為，更多地在這個方面進行嘗試的是開普羅（ Allan Kaprow，偶發(fā)藝術(shù)代表）之類的偶發(fā)藝術(shù)家們，他們一直嘗試將藝術(shù)融入生活。雖然有時候他們有一些極端?？傊?，那些展覽項目、那些符號化象征的東西、那些所謂的“公共劇場”（或指達達主義的在公共場合搜集人類原始思想、行為的方式），我們并不那么喜歡。所以，我們的靈感來源事實上是：反對他們。

你會和一些既成的系統(tǒng)進行溝通和交涉，你必須為你自己的系統(tǒng)來爭取。所以，你的敵人會讓你變得更為強大，在這個語境中，我們可以說是有很多的敵人——因為我們想變得更好，我們也拒絕被定義，拒絕被放在一個流派里，拒絕那種“傳承”觀。 當我們最初同莫斯科的概念主義藝術(shù)家們產(chǎn)生聯(lián)系時，是通過我當時（80年代） 擔任編輯的INFERMENTA期刊（一個年度出版的視頻藝術(shù)雜志），我們?nèi)ズ退麄円娒妫麄兇蠹s來了15到20人，在喝咖啡的時候，卡巴科夫（Anton Kabakov ）說：“嗯，我是莫斯科概念主義學派的第三代人……”這話讓我們無比驚訝，你看，他們有這種強烈的藝術(shù)傳承感，“從父親到兒子，從上一代到下一代”。而我們完全沒有，我們是被單獨留下的存在，因此，我們必須發(fā)明一些東西。現(xiàn)在我有我自己的客戶，而我有時候也愿意承認自己帶上了傳承者的色彩，但是以前我是絕對拒絕的…… 我拒絕這個“某個運動之父”的角色，或者其他類似的稱呼。也許這種不被束縛的感覺也是我們作為藝術(shù)團體的長處，這也是我和Karl的共同之處。

Karl也不想和那個既定的系統(tǒng)有什么關(guān)系，他想要做一些不同的事情，他想要我們?nèi)ソ?jīng)歷未曾經(jīng)歷的東西，因此我們在整個成長過程中都在學習。當我面對那些“這不是好藝術(shù)”的質(zhì)疑時，以及藝術(shù)市場的質(zhì)疑時——你要知道，藝術(shù)市場是會嘗試將藝術(shù)家群體打散的。傳統(tǒng)的運作方式是，如果有一個藝術(shù)家團體，他們中只有一個人會“代表”團體得到報酬，而這往往也會讓一些脆弱的團體因為財政分配問題而解散。我們則拒絕被打散，我們的對策就是我們沒有領(lǐng)袖，我們是一個團隊。

舉例來說，如果我們的藝術(shù)家團隊要就一個展覽概念與人溝通，我們會派出我們中最年輕的一個。很多時候?qū)Ψ綍牒蚆ike，和我或者和Karl溝通，但是我們派出最年輕的藝術(shù)家并告訴他們：“他是對這個項目的負責人，我們不是?！彼晕覀儾煌５馗鼡Q對接人和代表者，從來不會把所有功名歸于一個人名下。在 Minus Delta T的歷史中，除了Karl， Mike和我這三個“基本成員”以外，一共有過6到8名藝術(shù)家。

今天我們這個團體的傳承只剩下了Karl和我， 原因是其他人都離開了走向了其他的方向...可能也是對這個團體的一種保護，保護我們的標志，保護我們的思維方式，我們是一個密閉的組織，有時候也會犯錯誤，但那也是我們維持使命感的方式。舉例來說，當我們進行“大石頭項目”時，有女性希望可以和我們一起旅行，而我們拒絕了。其實當時大約有6到7位女性希望和我們一起出行，但是我們說，你們可以成立自己的團體并進行項目，我們并不想在阿拉伯國家被迫當你們的保鏢，并且為你們可能面臨的，某些國家男人對女人的態(tài)度而負責。簡單來說，我們不太能做也不愿意做你們的保鏢。

你們可以自己創(chuàng)造自己的體驗，所以我記得當時有一個女性她試圖以男人的方式旅行…她的項目失敗了，但是非常值得強調(diào)的是，當時的人們非常希望能實現(xiàn)他們的項目——這種對項目執(zhí)行的思考……當時有一些團體，比如說Die Toten Hosen（德國死褲子樂隊，著名的五人搖滾樂隊組合），你或許聽說過他們，他們當時就非常想和我們一起表演，他們希望跟我們?nèi)ヒ晾实腜ersepolis（波斯波利斯，伊朗古都）進行表演，但是他們實現(xiàn)不了。你知道，對項目的管理在當時比今天要艱難，當時沒有easyJet（歐洲廉價航空公司），也沒有其他的廉價航空公司。旅行是一件昂貴的事情，尤其是電話通話當時極其昂貴...那時，我們也在跟一些畫廊溝通，希望他們支持我們的項目。他們說，好呀你的經(jīng)費是多少？當時一個月的電話費用就驚人，他們拒絕了我們，原因就是當時當時驚天的電話費。

LZH： 如果我們聊聊80年代早期，那將是非常有趣的，比如有關(guān)于簽證的問題，還有就像你說的，當跨越不同的國家的時候，也會有一些文化上的禁忌……比如你就拒絕了和女性同行，還有高昂的電話費……我的意思是，有如此多的阻礙，最后是怎么把畫面帶回來的？在今天去想象30年以前，真的非常能理解當時的世界是什么樣子的。

MH： 一年以前在布拉格，我們遇到了這樣的一個局面，我們基于Van Gogh TV（梵高電視臺）項目做了一個紀念展，這個Van Gogh TV 項目是我們MDT的一個后續(xù)藝術(shù)團體（官方名字是Ponton Media Art Group Lab）。我們當時想做的是一個墻上的時間線，包括誰在70年代是世界的獨裁者，誰都在做什么，什么東西被發(fā)明了出來……來呈現(xiàn)當時的世界。對今天的人們來說，想象沒有電話的生活是很難的。但是，70年代正是這些媒介和科技得到發(fā)明和應用的階段，也因此有了很多有趣的現(xiàn)象。比如說，在當時的莫斯科，有免費的公共電話，但是每個人都知道這些電話是被監(jiān)聽的。所以，莫斯科人發(fā)明了一個系統(tǒng)，一個不被監(jiān)視的系統(tǒng)，永遠不在電話里說他們?nèi)ツ睦?，去見誰。但是這個系統(tǒng)也是在人與人之間建立起來的，他們的溝通不是通過電話，而是從一個公寓到下一個公寓，再到工作室（在藝術(shù)界是這樣的）。這也是一種日常生活的系統(tǒng)，在這個系統(tǒng)里，你不固定日期，不透露細節(jié)...就像是絕對開放的形式一樣。

當我們最開始做梵高電視臺項目時——跟最開始的狀況相比是很有趣的——那時候從波羅的海地區(qū)打國際電話需要花16個小時才能連接到對方。想象一下，在今天的環(huán)境里，你要做一個項目，不論是通過短信還是什么當代的形式，你需要等到16個小時才能建立連接，想象一下那是什么感覺……四個月以后，我們得到了諾基亞的贊助，擁有了第一個“胖胖的”，那種像磚塊一樣的早期諾基亞手機，我們用那個手機進行通話的費用是5美元一分鐘，簡直不可思議，當然還好我們得到了贊助，所以能完成這個項目。我們可以從波羅的海地區(qū)打電話到莫斯科，連接到莫斯科更難，需要等到30個小時，所以我們可以在這個項目的支持下，在諾基亞的贊助下與德國卡塞爾文獻展的中心進行通話，那是在1987年。

LZH： 87？

MH： 我們后期進一步發(fā)展的Piazza Virtuale/ Van Gogh TV 項目是在1992年。1987年，我們當時以Minus Delta T的身份在參加文獻展，在一個媒體車上。在這個表演項目中我們做了一個非法的電臺，后來我們稱之為聲音雕塑。在那個時候，私立電臺是不合法的。所以我們當時做的事情是……我們裝了一個保護的好好的發(fā)射器，并不斷地移動，每天都從不同的地方發(fā)出信號。我們有四個人監(jiān)視這臺發(fā)射器，提防警察和四處開著找我們的郵車，那種帶有天線的探測車希望能抓住我們，找到發(fā)射器在哪里，所以我們把他們的車胎拿下來，我們闖進這些車的停放地點，往他們的油箱里灌上糖，因此他們就不能追蹤我們了，我們用對講機彼此聯(lián)系，我們甚至把發(fā)信器放在了妓院的屋頂上，你知道妓女們是最憎恨警察的。所以，當警察爬上屋頂?shù)臅r候，由于妓女們的成功阻截，我們的發(fā)信器已經(jīng)關(guān)好并藏到了別處。

我們每天都在換位置，直到后來我們的行為被“合法化”了，這是一場令人驚嘆的行動主義經(jīng)歷，也是一場表演。當時很多參與者，他們參與的原因是他們對這種非法的行動主義有一種浪漫情懷。其實我們并不是在故作反對，我們一直嘗試的是“為了”某種東西而努力。但我們卻有了很多來自“反對派”的粉絲，他們給了我們很多支持因為我們是“反主流的”，今日我們生活在的充滿了切·格瓦拉T恤的“反主流”文化中。這種“反主流”事實上卻隔離開了很多個小團體，而這些小團體往往是更好的消費者。

LZH： 所以當時92年和87年的策展人分別是誰？為什么他們選擇了你們的項目？他們對你們當時的激進主義狀態(tài)如何理解？

（1987年的策展人為：Manfred Schneckenburger， 1992年為：Jan Hoet）

MH： 在87年，因為大石頭項目我們變得很有名，還有一些其他的項目比如說“Death Opera”，都為我們在業(yè)界的認知做了很多積累。我們收到 Elisabeth Jappe 的邀請參加文獻展，她和Schneckenburger先生（譯者注：1987年卡塞爾文獻展策展人）為我們策劃了這個項目，并同意我們的媒體巴士能在那兒。因此我們利用這次機會，第一次將黑客邀請到了文獻展—— Chaos 電腦俱樂部被邀請來到我們的媒體巴士。我們通過舊金山的一個叫做”well”機器與世界對話，那是第一個你能夠與人聊天的網(wǎng)絡電話路由器。所有這些媒體藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作都是基于這些革命性的東西，而我們是第一個把黑客和電腦概念引入藝術(shù)語境的。我們將來自于阿姆斯特丹的收音機電視機器人（SQUAT 占據(jù)運動），納入到我們的文獻展中。我們把左翼份子以及藝術(shù)家聚集在了一起。在歷史上左翼份子是非常反對藝術(shù)的，今天的許多地方，左翼份子占據(jù)了語境藝術(shù)的世界。

有很多對政治思潮持不開放態(tài)度的語境藝術(shù)家，而我們把這些人聚集在了一起，當然，這也引起了不少沖突。在87年的文獻展中，我們在3個月的時間里聚集了差不多上百的人。這個社交網(wǎng)絡的概念和移動工作室的概念，其實一直存在——大石頭項目其實也是一個移動工作室。在藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場，工作室的過程很重要的。通常情況下，工作室的過程是私人的、排他的。在一個展覽中展示你的結(jié)果，結(jié)果卻是終結(jié)，因為它發(fā)生在博物館里。

所以，我們的想法之一就是通過產(chǎn)品來展現(xiàn)過程，這也是我們的移動公眾實驗室、我們在87年文獻展上展出的媒體車項目的初衷，媒體車項目最開始是一個非法的電臺，后來它以“聲音雕塑”的名義被合法化了，一個“臨時的聲音雕塑”。這個非常有趣，當時很多的政治電臺（在過程中或者因為非法播報被“逮住”的左翼電臺）過來找我們，希望看我們的文件——當然，文件上說我們在做一個聲音雕塑——所以他們希望能利用這個政府合法化的文件為他們的司法程序進行辯護。當然我們拒絕了這個提議，告訴他們 “我們的項目是在藝術(shù)語境中的，而你們其實對藝術(shù)不感興趣。”

對我們來說，在那個年代做一個帶有主觀的電臺是一種榮耀，因為在那個時候，“主觀媒體”這個概念是很多人不理解的，在那個年代，媒體被認為是主觀的、是鐵板一塊、是政治觀點的喉舌、是三角形結(jié)構(gòu)的、垂直控制的存在，而我們卻是橫向控制的，我們在一個更為民主的層面，我們有“主觀性”——事實上，藝術(shù)就是主觀的。這也是人們對藝術(shù)的理解，因此我們給我們的第一個電視項目命名為梵高電視臺，因為每個人都知道……最愚蠢都人都知道梵高是一個藝術(shù)家，他切掉了自己的耳朵。所以我們叫它梵高電視臺，因為這樣來說，對每個人都很清楚，這是一個跟藝術(shù)相關(guān)的項目。因此我們不會將其命名為，比如說，“藍天”項目之類的模糊名字。

LZH： 所以，對于理解媒體藝術(shù)來說，這是一種很不一樣的視角。我想，在那個時候，去理解媒體藝術(shù)或者理解你說的“語境藝術(shù)/情境藝術(shù)”，或者跟尼古拉斯·伯瑞奧德（Nicola Bourriad）90年代寫就的《關(guān)系美學》一樣，是不一樣的視角。不過，你是否可以看到這幾者之間的聯(lián)系呢？你是否認為你是和關(guān)系美學相關(guān)？或者跟“媒體藝術(shù)”相關(guān)，因為你一直被認為是媒體藝術(shù)小組的成員，我認為這很有趣，我從來沒有聽到別人描述你為“關(guān)系美學”實踐者的代表，但是你在這方面的嘗試比很多的關(guān)系美學藝術(shù)家都要早，事實上。

MH： 其實這很簡單，對我們來說，呈現(xiàn)或者表達的用語并不是那么重要。對我們來說，生產(chǎn)過程更為關(guān)鍵，而對于媒體藝術(shù)來說，也是如此。比如說，我們一直都對那種“獨立署名”式的藝術(shù)方式很反對，比如說“我是一個獨立藝術(shù)家”這種方式，跟我們作為藝術(shù)小組的性質(zhì)是有不同的。同樣的，在版權(quán)層面，我們也經(jīng)歷過一些問題，我們是早期的小組藝術(shù)家之一，我們起初并不知道，如果我們共同進行創(chuàng)作，哪些部分是屬于“我”的，這些都造成過一些問題。

錄像藝術(shù)家們經(jīng)歷過很多關(guān)于資金的問題，而錄像藝術(shù)的執(zhí)行過程也有非常多不同的系統(tǒng)。

比如說80年代在荷蘭，錄像藝術(shù)是一項嚴肅的事業(yè)，在錄像藝術(shù)中基本沒有音樂，原因是在當?shù)厝丝磥?，音樂片段是商業(yè)化的。所以荷蘭出現(xiàn)了很多絲毫沒有幽默感的，干燥的錄像藝術(shù)作品，因為如果不用那些無趣、枯燥的聲音片段配音而使用“商業(yè)”的音樂的話，政府就不會給他們資金支持了。所以從資金層面講，錄像藝術(shù)事實上處于非常奇怪的狀態(tài)。當我們開始做我們的藝術(shù)視頻時，人們開始批判我們說，甚至當時一些有名的錄像藝術(shù)評論家也指責我們做的是“壞的錄像藝術(shù)”，當然了，現(xiàn)在他們對我們的評價大有改觀。事實上，當時我們嘗試的是帶有互動性質(zhì)的錄像藝術(shù)，但是他們說那是壞的錄像藝術(shù)，我覺得，他們并沒有理解我們在做什么，但是當時的觀眾卻理解了，當時的觀眾會同我們的作品進行互動和反饋。

所以創(chuàng)立獨立工作領(lǐng)域的獨立思考往往是重要的，我們的作品大約只有20%左右是在純粹的藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域，比如說在Ars Electronica之類的地方出現(xiàn)。也許我們在那里做的大項目能達到我們項目總數(shù)的30%左右，但事實上我們其他的項目都在不同的領(lǐng)域中，是跟社會和其他的內(nèi)容相整合的。法國的Frigo Group（譯者注：法國新媒體團隊）也是一個獨立的藝術(shù)生產(chǎn)小組，我當時也同他們溝通過，我們都在藝術(shù)環(huán)境之外發(fā)聲。

現(xiàn)在，藝術(shù)館、博物館們希望能展出我們的作品，可是在過去，他們都說：“不不，你們的作品不符合我們的需求?！?你直到，“審查制度”在今天的實現(xiàn)方式不是通過“禁止”，而是通過“不贊助”。

當然，他們也不能控制我們，所以我想這種不可控性也是一個非常重要的原因。我的意思是，你們是一個藝術(shù)家團體，你們有自己的基礎(chǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)，你們是獨立的，你們不是藝術(shù)館們熱愛的那個，無助的天才寶貝。就像批評家有時是這樣：“噢，你這個小小藝術(shù)家好可憐噢，你甚至都不知道自己該怎么做，我必須幫你寫一些評論，這樣我也能賺錢?！?/p>

所以，現(xiàn)在很多人對藝術(shù)的理解都是這樣被塑形的，你把一張紙掛墻上，然后我對著這張紙寫出三頁長篇大論，它就成了藝術(shù)——這不是獨立的藝術(shù)，這是把藝術(shù)家變成小嬰兒，然后還告訴他們：“你是天才” （LZH：或者說，他們是被殘廢的嬰兒）， 對……被殘廢的嬰兒！哈哈。而且這個嬰兒還如此地被自己的創(chuàng)造力和天才所打動，他去嗑藥，他被這個系統(tǒng)所殘廢，他媽的！……你懂的，你懂的……

LZH： 而我的問題是，就像你剛才提到的，我們總是討論“語境藝術(shù)/情境藝術(shù)”或者說“關(guān)系美學”，我想?yún)^(qū)別是，在90年代，人們創(chuàng)作藝術(shù)的方式是在關(guān)于人與人之間的情境的基礎(chǔ)上進行的。而我認為你的作品在80年代就已經(jīng)體現(xiàn)出了這種特點，你參與了關(guān)于“媒介化”的討論——那么，如果我們要來討論一下“語境藝術(shù)/情境藝術(shù)”，我們?nèi)绾卫斫馑?？“語境藝術(shù)/情境藝術(shù)”自然脫離不了它的“情境”，可是如果我們不去閱讀這種藝術(shù)的背景，我們怎么去介入和理解這種藝術(shù)形式？進一步來說，為什么我們要做這樣的藝術(shù)？

MH： 我想我會從不同的層面來看待這個問題。我們有三種藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的形式，第一個是個體形式，第二個是“對話”形式，第三個是生活或者是生命形式。我們有很多“記者型”或者“肖像型”的藝術(shù)家存在于當世，肖像型的藝術(shù)家會畫出美麗的風景和肖像，而他們也從新聞和社會的語境里看待世界。我認為當下很多的藝術(shù)都屬于這種“記者型”，就是說，藝術(shù)家在發(fā)表對于社會上發(fā)聲的事情的評論，而不是在創(chuàng)造新的內(nèi)容。藝術(shù)家在“評述”文化，而不是在“創(chuàng)制”文化。

當代藝術(shù)的第二個層面（對話）是“象征化”的主題，在一個裝置中，鏈接不同的哲學和符號，把他們都放在一起，把不同的哲學思考容納在一個作品中。但是問題在于這依然是一個象征化的東西，而不是一個有生命的行為?，F(xiàn)在還是有很多藝術(shù)家喜歡做象征化的作品。很多“情境”藝術(shù)家也在做象征化的作品，比如說很多關(guān)于非洲的作品在探討的、和“團結(jié)起來面對非洲的貧窮現(xiàn)狀”無甚關(guān)系的象征語言……我記得在90年代時候，藝術(shù)學校里很多人說我們必須做一些事情來反對種族主義，然后我說：“可以，你能做的最好的反對種族主義的事情是你簽署一個協(xié)議，然后黑人可以和你的家庭一起生活，你們甚至去資助他們……” 我認為這個方法是可以的，其他的很多象征性的團結(jié)方案都是瞎扯。比如說那種“我們手牽著手圍著一個湖，點起蠟燭”，那種象征符號的垃圾，我認為是根本沒用的，當然，在新的書寫中或許可以引入這種語言。舉例來說，伊亞·卡巴科夫（Ilya Kabakov ）的裝置作品也是記者型的、充滿了視覺上對斯大林主義的描寫?！曈X語言對我們來說不是不重要，比如說我們在大石頭項目的旅途中做了很多研究，找到相同內(nèi)容的不同視覺形式。

第三個也是最為重要的藝術(shù)（層面）是生活的模型，和文化的模型，這是藝術(shù)的方向，藝術(shù)不是專門關(guān)于評論電視上已經(jīng)評論過的事物，而是關(guān)于生產(chǎn)關(guān)于我們自己的文化。這在今天變得更為困難，因為我們有了這種關(guān)于“政治正確”的審查制度，所以你想的未必是“政治正確的”，很多時候，當你開始有創(chuàng)意的時候，你也可能不是政治正確的。這是我的主要興趣之一，亦即：不要只考慮政治正確，而是考慮如何我們自己生產(chǎn)出一種文化。這個文化可能是民俗的也可能是主流的，但是絕對不是那種坐在那里，惡意或者諷刺地扮演者評論家的角色，大談特談在電視上看到了什么或者人們在做什么。我認為，現(xiàn)在沒有人在發(fā)明他們自己衣服，有些人在發(fā)明，但是又不完全是。有些感覺似乎是被強加給我們的，比如我們必須穿耐克的某種衣服，之類。我們需要“發(fā)明”出自己的衣服，而不是被告知。

當然，我談的一切中也有一種人性的成分在里面。a）一種類似于人的比喻，比如說一個個體逐漸成長，擁有了自我意識，b）然后有了“幫派”，往往是這種聽著相同音樂，扎著相同發(fā)型的年輕人組成的。這里有一種帶著同性性質(zhì)的自我鏡像——你愛別人，因為你愛自己，因為別人看起來就是你自己?？赡堋巴曰辈皇亲詈玫挠迷~，這里更準確語義是說的從像自己的群體處找到自己的身份和定位。c）在個體和“幫派”之后，你有了第三個層面——“他者”。在歷史的語境下，“他者”其實表示了男性和女性的關(guān)系，這也是三種關(guān)系中唯一一種會有產(chǎn)出的關(guān)系。因為男性和女性可以帶來小孩。而不論是個體還是之前的同性幫派，都不會擁有這樣的產(chǎn)出?！澳行?女性”關(guān)系事實上是“他者”關(guān)系或者說“網(wǎng)絡”關(guān)系的一種必須，所以，我認為藝術(shù)有這樣的幾種形式：個體作品、“幫派”作品和“他者”/“網(wǎng)絡”作品，而第三種是會有持續(xù)的產(chǎn)出的，也將會最值得繼續(xù)的藝術(shù)形式，因為它會誕生父母關(guān)系和未來的孩子。我記得最開始我們試圖進行“關(guān)系”創(chuàng)作或者“互動”創(chuàng)作時，傳統(tǒng)的策展人認為我們在做的是社會心理治療。

所以，在這個語境下，我認為很多概念可能需要被放在一起來分析。我們做了一些“語境藝術(shù)/情境藝術(shù)”的作品，但是卻是在一種可實踐的指導下，而非哲學的、抽象反思的邏輯下進行的。我認為“語境藝術(shù)/情境藝術(shù)”是一個非常好的思考學派，一個非常好的反思學派，但是我們對它的反饋方式就是從執(zhí)行的角度來看待它——我們?nèi)绻雽崿F(xiàn)一個東西，怎么做，然后就做出來。當然也會犯錯，但是也是在實踐中犯錯，而非從概念上或者“預置”我們的錯誤。

舉個例子，Peter Weibel…當我們開始梵高電視項目時，他非常嫉妒，因為他事實上建立了交互藝術(shù)這個方向，而他是被三個藝術(shù)節(jié)贊助的， Ars Electronica， Karlsruhe und wurde（ZKM）和另外兩三個藝術(shù)節(jié)。而他的每一個交互裝置都可能會花掉70，000～80，000甚至100，000歐元的費用，因為還得支付藝術(shù)家和材料費等等。

所以事實上Peter Weibel是受到控制的，當時有大約10個人在控制他的預算，當然他也是資金管理中的一員。而當我們開始做一些社會交互創(chuàng)作的時候，我們做了一個成本極其低的交互系統(tǒng)。所以說，Peter Weibel憎恨開源的交互藝術(shù)，而我們正是后者的建立者。你知道，有很多其他人也在研究這個概念，但是他并沒有可以實踐的極客的聯(lián)系，而我們有，我們最早合作的黑客曾經(jīng)因為黑進了公司安保系統(tǒng)而入獄（他們這么做是為了證明安保的不完善），我記得是91年或者90年的時候，當時參與的只有黑客，沒有半個藝術(shù)家。

LZH： 我想你在討論的是一種非常具體的形式。你知道，人們對“被認可”或者說“合理性”是非常在乎的，尤其是當他們在創(chuàng)造自己的藝術(shù)形式的時候。所以“認可”或者“合理”發(fā)生，藝術(shù)或者說思考的民主性就會畫上一個問號（誰來認可，誰來使之合理？）所以，我認為你的工作是很重要的，因為從基礎(chǔ)層面上，你的作品就已經(jīng)是遠離藝術(shù)市場，獨立于市場之外的。顯然，市場也不會對你的作品有太多的興趣，他們對老式的、傳統(tǒng)的作品，所謂的“原創(chuàng)”藝術(shù)作品更感興趣。

MH： 從這個角度講，擁有你自己的風格是非常重要的，我必須承認，我通過對“平面”的創(chuàng)作賺到的錢比其他新媒體藝術(shù)作品要多，比如說圖畫，或者能被“掛”進畫廊的東西（李振華：二維作品），嗯，二維的作品，我也教書，基本上，如果你從事媒體藝術(shù)或者實驗藝術(shù)，你的預算基本是岌岌可危的，而策展人又經(jīng)常賺得比藝術(shù)家多很多。這個……我必須說，是一個事實?；蛟S它對你來說不適用，但是很多人關(guān)于這些策展系統(tǒng)中的行政人員賺了多少錢是有概念的，藝術(shù)家不幸地處于支付系統(tǒng)的底層。

有時候策展團隊有超過200，000歐元的預算，而他們選 15個藝術(shù)家，有時候還是會告訴藝術(shù)家，對不起我們沒有錢。同時，很顯然我為了保持我想做的藝術(shù)的完整性，我必須對特定事情和特定的條件說不。說不的代價就是我必須自己存錢，我沒有私人的錢所以我必須用其他的工作來供養(yǎng)自己。我必須教書，和做音樂，還做一些商業(yè)咨詢、媒體咨詢甚至媒體藝術(shù)咨詢的工作。只有這樣，才能形成一種造血關(guān)系，我的工作中有一些可以來對其他的不賺錢的項目提供資金和運行的支持。舉個例子，The Cheese Club在三年以來一直沒賺到錢，原因是人們認為這樣的藝術(shù)形式不值得投資，視頻藝術(shù)也是這樣，我們五年前做了第一個視頻藝術(shù)節(jié)，當然，沒有他媽的賺到任何錢。

我記得，在70年代有一個畫廊，Gallery Oppenheim，現(xiàn)在是波恩的一個收藏，他們當時是跟荷蘭阿姆斯特丹的一個De Appel藝術(shù)中心一起的，這些是第一批在歐洲收藏錄像藝術(shù)的人 ，在美國，有3到4個類似的“據(jù)點”，比如說長島美術(shù)館。但是事實上，5000多個錄像藝術(shù)家里，你知道能被收藏的屈指可數(shù)，所以，錄像藝術(shù)的發(fā)展方式是你在一些項目上投入兩年，三年甚至五年的時間，用自己的資金支持，或者通過贊助商，五年之后，這些項目或許可以“成年”，然后自己供給自己。

然而，如果你依賴某個資金系統(tǒng)，系統(tǒng)也會審查你。大家都知道，如果跟我一起工作，別想告訴我要做什么。因此，很多人也害怕跟我合作，因為我的條件如不得到滿足，我會拒絕工作。當然我不是在討論資金條件，我是一個極其糟糕的資金管理者，我是在說內(nèi)容上的條件，在內(nèi)容上我不支配。我知道很多藝術(shù)家，當藝術(shù)品經(jīng)紀人對他們大喊：“不要這么做，不要用這個風格，換一種方式！”他們很可能就換了！ 我認為對內(nèi)容的忠誠是關(guān)于藝術(shù)家的自豪！我們Minus Delta T不能改，至少不能以這種方式被要求輕易改變。從某種程度上，我們是在書寫歷史，我想這也是很多人心中我們的象征：MDT象征著可以實現(xiàn)的夢想，就像是“如果你想要，就去做吧?！?/p>

我們想把大石頭從歐洲運到亞洲，在開始做之前我們甚至都沒有縝密思考，但是我們卻實現(xiàn)了這個項目。在整個旅程中，我們都在不斷的學習，而這些學習實在是太美妙了，真的太美妙了。我想對每一個關(guān)注我們項目的人，這也是一場美妙的體驗，一場深度哲性的、甚至是有教育性的體驗。這種當你面臨其他的文明時的狀態(tài)，這都是絕佳的素材。而我希望這些能被傳遞出去，因此我希望能再做20-30個這樣的項目，把石頭運向世界其他地方。

LZH： 那這些石頭現(xiàn)在在哪？最終？

MH： 現(xiàn)在它在新德里，在奧地利使館旁。大概有兩年的時間它在新德里的一座廟宇里，再之前它沐浴在恒河中，當然，它一直都等待著去中國……最近這個廟宇需要修繕，因此我們不得不把石頭運出來，因為Karl是奧地利人，所以我們就把它送到了奧地利使館旁邊。當然，我們現(xiàn)在在計劃將它送去中國，希望這個石頭的旅程會繼續(xù)，我想我們會讓它去到北京。