• 
    

    
    

      99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

      吉拉德·奈斯特勒

      2014-04-29 00:00:00
      藝術(shù)時(shí)代 2014年6期

      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 epochmaking 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://syleckermann.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 epochmaking 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 Tradeoff 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 quasitotalitarian, 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.’

      “后人類學(xué)”的世界

      -

      李振華 X Gerald Nestler

      (李振華=LZH , Gerald Nestler=GN )

      LZH: 請向讀者介紹一下你自己,以及你以經(jīng)濟(jì)為話題的項(xiàng)目。

      GN:我是一名藝術(shù)家,早年在維也納藝術(shù)大學(xué)接受了繪畫訓(xùn)練。自90年代初期起,我投入在媒體藝術(shù)和網(wǎng)絡(luò)藝術(shù)的創(chuàng)作中。在當(dāng)時(shí),我們今日熟知的“萬維網(wǎng)”(world wide web)還不是廣泛存在的現(xiàn)實(shí),但當(dāng)時(shí)已存在強(qiáng)烈的、以網(wǎng)絡(luò)形態(tài)的原始雛形作為新興藝術(shù)實(shí)驗(yàn)、交流和審美發(fā)生場所的觀念。然而,我迅速地意識到,網(wǎng)絡(luò)的發(fā)展將會帶來更廣泛的、擁有多重參與者和興趣點(diǎn)的社會領(lǐng)域的誕生,在這個(gè)社會形態(tài)中,經(jīng)濟(jì)將會扮演主要的角色(而早期的烏托邦概念則更多地是關(guān)于一種有別于經(jīng)濟(jì)利益關(guān)系的社會形態(tài))。

      這樣的意識讓我開始研究經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域,尤其是金融市場。在網(wǎng)絡(luò)的早期時(shí)代,對金融市場的注意力激增。我并沒有用學(xué)術(shù)的方法來研究這個(gè)領(lǐng)域,而是選擇了直接參與進(jìn)去——作為一個(gè)藝術(shù)家,我不僅對理論感興趣,也想了解金融領(lǐng)域中的實(shí)踐、以及這些實(shí)踐對于我作為個(gè)體所產(chǎn)生何種生理和心理“效用”。因此,在94年到97年之間,我選擇了從事金融交易員和經(jīng)紀(jì)人的工作。這次藝術(shù)的領(lǐng)域研究無疑是在很多層面極其有指導(dǎo)性的,也為我作為一個(gè)藝術(shù)家和研究者/寫作者的工作發(fā)展奠定了很好的基礎(chǔ)。

      我理解金融衍生品為一種建立在概率和物質(zhì)的邊界上的、融合了數(shù)學(xué)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、量化、電腦運(yùn)算和邏輯學(xué)的藝術(shù)狀態(tài),并置身于一個(gè)量化推測的空間,鏈接物質(zhì)與概率、不確定與確定的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)抉擇。由于其作用方式的不同,衍生品上升為某種個(gè)體市場經(jīng)紀(jì)者的概念,并以此影響更大范圍的社會。因此,衍生品產(chǎn)生了一種獨(dú)立的關(guān)系,成為了對主觀生產(chǎn)的生物政治控制框架,在我的理解中,這也啟發(fā)了金融和市場之外的社會關(guān)系,因此我稱之為“人性衍生品”?!叭诵匝苌贰睋Q言之,既是關(guān)系性的粘劑,又是溶劑。(用斯蒂格勒的話來說,既是毒藥也是解藥。 )

      因此,在我看來社會關(guān)系在很多方面都成為了某種衍生品(也因此延伸了金融化的概念),在這里“衍生品”并不是簡單地挪用“派生出”、“衍生出”一詞的含義,而是類比作為一種最初在金融領(lǐng)域產(chǎn)生,用理性化預(yù)估風(fēng)險(xiǎn),并將未來反應(yīng)于當(dāng)下的金融工具的“衍生品”。和Elie Ayache一樣,我認(rèn)為衍生品是一種“未來科技”——用我的用語來描述,是一種結(jié)合了知識與科技的“技識”,衍生品也是算法化進(jìn)程的早期領(lǐng)域之一。這也奠定了我們用另一種超越了市場的途徑來解讀(或者說被強(qiáng)迫解讀)衍生品,一種更為隱秘的呈現(xiàn)方式。這種解讀偏重于其如何逐漸成為人與人、機(jī)構(gòu)與機(jī)構(gòu)之間的社會關(guān)系/社會評估的隱藏原則。

      長話短說(我恐怕過于短了),從政治話題視角出發(fā),我們所談?wù)摰闹饔^性或主觀關(guān)系都轉(zhuǎn)化成了社會的衍生品,這些衍生品的訴求是用以推測生產(chǎn)未來的金融分析。

      LZH: 下一種衍生品是什么呢?你怎么看待社交媒體深深介入的拍賣和銷售領(lǐng)域?我們在多大程度上介入到了將會改變我們的行為和社會結(jié)構(gòu)的科技中?尤其是這樣的科技還會改變我們的思維方式,以及對事物的反應(yīng)?你怎們看待今日的參與型文化生態(tài),以及占領(lǐng)精神?

      GN:舉個(gè)例子說,當(dāng)我們觀察今天關(guān)于人類世界和大數(shù)據(jù)的討論,我們可以探測到,“參與觀念”正在以一種比以往更為廣泛而基礎(chǔ)的規(guī)模存在。

      當(dāng)下存在很多基于科學(xué)論述、工業(yè)生產(chǎn)和技術(shù)研究的過程,在這些過程中“參與”其實(shí)是“強(qiáng)迫”的參與。參與是以“無意識”的狀態(tài)被計(jì)算進(jìn)“大數(shù)據(jù)”中去的?!叭祟愂馈?作為一個(gè)概念常常詮釋一種社會心理,亦即,讓我們意識到我們的行為都在不知不覺地參與進(jìn)社會關(guān)系。

      在大數(shù)據(jù)的語境下,我們的“參與”來自于被無數(shù)的感應(yīng)器構(gòu)成的網(wǎng)絡(luò)記錄和分析我們的每一個(gè)行動的痕跡,也因此(反直覺地)推理出我們的訴求。在傳統(tǒng)的自由政治經(jīng)濟(jì)中,欲望會(令人不喜地)導(dǎo)致行動,這也被歸為“市場參與”的領(lǐng)域,這種認(rèn)為個(gè)體是企業(yè)者、強(qiáng)調(diào)升值多過需求滿足的新自由主義范式觀念在大數(shù)據(jù)中則不同。在這個(gè)語境中,欲望是被用算法預(yù)先計(jì)算出來的,而非事后被控制。換言之,大數(shù)據(jù)對項(xiàng)目的控制來自于其對未來行動、欲求和想像的預(yù)測?!皡⑴c”則是這樣的一個(gè)語匯:它代表者一種“發(fā)生”的指向或者軌道,在框架中被預(yù)先量化,并因此得到建構(gòu)和評估。

      “參與”會和你對話,甚至展示給你你的欲求(或“應(yīng)有”的欲求)?!叭祟愂馈钡母拍钐峁┝诉@樣的一種洞察:人類的行為將會參與和進(jìn)入到地球的未來命運(yùn),這是一種政治的認(rèn)知論(對人類影響力的認(rèn)知,以及因此產(chǎn)生的、對改變的呼吁),而大數(shù)據(jù)則通過算法過程,在整理著我們的社會(從一個(gè)既政治,又懷特?!ぬ厣囊饬x上講)。

      就算我們從現(xiàn)在推算出的未來,在一種超越人類認(rèn)知能力的時(shí)間維度“發(fā)生”了,我們也在本質(zhì)上以介質(zhì)和來源的形式參與進(jìn)了這個(gè)過程:我們的參與既是主動的、也是被動的;既是生態(tài)的、也是經(jīng)濟(jì)的。而在深淵之中,我們會找到一個(gè)——用一個(gè)有點(diǎn)過時(shí)的詞語——“工廠”,這個(gè)工廠生產(chǎn)著世界的衍生品狀態(tài)。“參與”不僅僅是描述自愿介入的詞,它也是在社會經(jīng)濟(jì)競爭領(lǐng)域的一種以“欲望”為獵物的生物政治工具,并在今日也會引領(lǐng)政治。今日的“參與”,與其說是強(qiáng)化對特定領(lǐng)域的政治主題的“參與”,不如說是被誘騙至一種重新發(fā)明自我的狀態(tài),產(chǎn)生出一套套的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)選擇衍生品,以彌補(bǔ)潛藏的、關(guān)乎個(gè)體金融化未來收益的商業(yè)利益。(我們能想起,Ayache稱衍生品為“未來的科技”)

      在我的觀點(diǎn)里,“占領(lǐng)精神”不僅在私有化的公共空間里發(fā)生,也體現(xiàn)在了電子世界中,充滿了控制論估算策劃們的“算法空間”里。如果我們不想有天發(fā)現(xiàn)自己生活在“后人類學(xué)”的世界,算法決定了我們和我們所生活的地球的命運(yùn)。

      LZH: 你的作品,《交易》是一個(gè)實(shí)時(shí)項(xiàng)目,聚集于在經(jīng)濟(jì)世界發(fā)生的變化。是什么引發(fā)了你的想法,為什么?

      GN: 《交易》是我們在2006年做的一個(gè)項(xiàng)目,是在環(huán)球金融危機(jī)之前(我的“人性衍生品”的概念也產(chǎn)生于這次震蕩全球的大事件之前)。

      這個(gè)作品測繪了各式各樣實(shí)現(xiàn)在市場中的概念,包括全球化、并發(fā)、競爭、科技、算法電路、以及經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué),與此同時(shí),作品也用明顯的方式描繪了這樣的觀點(diǎn):這些概念與其說是“現(xiàn)實(shí)”(realities),不如說是“意識形態(tài)”(ideologies)-所謂“意識形態(tài)’就是對現(xiàn)實(shí)進(jìn)行框架化,用框起來的部分現(xiàn)實(shí)來挑戰(zhàn)其他可能的現(xiàn)實(shí)(比如說,新自由主義的觀念是有意反對社會主義理想的)。

      這個(gè)作品可以說是一個(gè)對超越政治本身的“生物政治”系統(tǒng)的象征或者肖像,通過例如表演、沉思、邏輯和決定性力量等概念來論述。我不會在這里過多闡釋作品的細(xì)節(jié),你可以在Sylvia和我的網(wǎng)站上找到這個(gè)作品的更多信息。 (http:// www.geraldnestler.net/plastictradeoff/ index.htm / http://syl-eckermann.net/ plastictradeoff/index.html)

      LZH: 你的作品也關(guān)注于世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的監(jiān)管系統(tǒng),在過去的八年間,有什么發(fā)生了變化? 你收集那些數(shù)據(jù),是為了進(jìn)一步發(fā)展你的項(xiàng)目嗎?這些和現(xiàn)實(shí)之間的關(guān)聯(lián)是什么?貨幣交易是否改變著世界,或者與世界正在發(fā)生的變化有隱形的關(guān)聯(lián)?

      GN:是的,說到“改變”,《交易》展出后不久,經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)到來了,并迅速蔓延至全球。非常有趣的是,這并沒有讓經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域的管制變得更為嚴(yán)格。相反地,我們更加受制于新自由主義經(jīng)濟(jì)“必要性”的獨(dú)裁,金融系統(tǒng)依然是世界統(tǒng)治地位的機(jī)構(gòu)范式。民族國家已經(jīng)如此地“金融化”了,以至于“現(xiàn)實(shí)”這個(gè)詞也多了一層含義的陰影,暗示著一個(gè)對很多人來說,可能性更加受制的時(shí)代。

      科技發(fā)展、量化評估和自我調(diào)節(jié)機(jī)制已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了這樣的一個(gè)情境:金融——即使它本身已經(jīng)是如此充滿了分離的意識形態(tài)和利益分歧的、有爭議的領(lǐng)域——已經(jīng)成為了一種準(zhǔn)極權(quán)的存在。也就是說,它現(xiàn)在正統(tǒng)治著世界,卻沒有被世界所統(tǒng)治。非常關(guān)鍵地,自我調(diào)節(jié)機(jī)制已經(jīng)干涉了公共利益,并且必須服從于金融化。

      金融市場,從股票交易到復(fù)雜的衍生品市場,都基于作為等同于“價(jià)格”的“物質(zhì)”:貨幣。(價(jià)格發(fā)現(xiàn) 是金融市場的精華)。因此,貨幣是所述交換的介質(zhì)——并不僅僅是以實(shí)體貨幣形態(tài)存在的介質(zhì),而是抵制不確定性的象征物、是為未來(當(dāng)下所見之未來)定價(jià)的媒介。

      如果世界上的議價(jià)發(fā)生了改變(比如說,某種物品的價(jià)格超過其他),貨幣則在這個(gè)過程中起到補(bǔ)充性的介質(zhì)作用(事實(shí)上是一種至關(guān)重要的介質(zhì),它涵蓋范圍之大,從財(cái)政緊縮措施到債務(wù)陷阱、從量化寬松政策到避稅天堂等)。今日,貨幣是一個(gè)用未來利益來挽救當(dāng)下風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的投機(jī)選擇(“未來”和“現(xiàn)在”之間的差距,在高頻貿(mào)易中,以微秒計(jì)算),而不是一種在傳統(tǒng)資本主義生產(chǎn)循環(huán)中的投資工具。

      LZH:當(dāng)我們談?wù)摰浇?jīng)濟(jì)等藝術(shù)中的無形因素,你怎么看待你在當(dāng)下的位置?

      GN:這個(gè)問題很難回答,因?yàn)檫@取決于這場討論的切入點(diǎn)。

      一方面,這意味著一場關(guān)于包括價(jià)值、價(jià)格、信用和投機(jī)等(有些沖突的)概念,亦即,一種把未來變?yōu)閷τ谖覀儗砩嬗?、或被流放之世界的“哲言”式認(rèn)知觀念(不論使用人類還是算法的向度),這一觀念也對未來取證,不同于現(xiàn)實(shí)建構(gòu)的過去。因此,它對待敘事政治的態(tài)度里,“不可觸摸”者更多地是還未被確定,但已被計(jì)算(或者說,被估算機(jī)器“派生”出)的、物質(zhì)的種種可能性,而非(不論什么論調(diào)的)精神形式。

      這對于視覺藝術(shù)來說尤其有趣,鑒于它意味著一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的、歷史上頭一回“反傳統(tǒng)”的權(quán)力——它不僅缺乏代表性,而且寧可摧毀現(xiàn)存的代表性(你如何對作為控制論利益和評估機(jī)器的算法、數(shù)學(xué)和衍生品進(jìn)行視覺化,以傳達(dá)它們的含義,抑或講述它們的故事?對我來說,這并非巧合地、也是超出了我們理解的“視覺”的范疇)。因此,我們怎么能夠理解、敘述或者響應(yīng)這樣一個(gè)缺乏視覺性和代表性人工品的系統(tǒng)(既然人工品是人們認(rèn)知和理解的基本區(qū)域)?我們的“物質(zhì)”概念深挖出看似非物質(zhì)的、卻又同時(shí)在建構(gòu)關(guān)系的方式上確實(shí)有物質(zhì)性之物,這意味著什么?因此,新的哲學(xué)研究興趣在于物件作為關(guān)于“關(guān)系”而非固定事物的敘事向度?對于制作容納了實(shí)際批判性的藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的理解,收獲了多少肯定?這些都似乎是指向一場在研究、表演和行動主義范疇之改變的必要性,指向一個(gè)更為政治性的方法,更加聚焦于亞里士多德式的政治(polis)和經(jīng)濟(jì)(economia)區(qū)別,但加入了一種對于徜徉于二者之間的科技、媒體和評估設(shè)備的理解。

      另一方面,在市場框架之外藝術(shù)交流、討論和呈現(xiàn)的空間越來越少(在今天,不僅包括藏家、畫廊、拍賣行、藝術(shù)展會,也包括越來越多的博物館、美術(shù)館、雙年展和其他的形式)——這意味著不穩(wěn)定性的增加,說白了,所謂“無形因素”,就是尚未被市場觸及和估價(jià)的存在。簡言之,人們可以將此歸結(jié)成一種對于藏家-畫廊-藝術(shù)展會三者并立局面的觀察,在此局面之中,底層的價(jià)值(當(dāng)代和先鋒藝術(shù)范式)是通過與當(dāng)代作品的持續(xù)接觸維持的,在此也可被定義為基于底層價(jià)值的(或者、以之為語境的)。

      同時(shí),又缺乏作為真正衍生原則的,關(guān)鍵性、激進(jìn)的政治推力,真正的眼神原則使得現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)/先鋒藝術(shù)的純粹價(jià)值(或曰被閹割的價(jià)值),未來藝術(shù)性的“名人堂” (抑或“藍(lán)籌股”),因此也從風(fēng)險(xiǎn)抉擇的評估被傳遞到了衍生價(jià)值機(jī)器(藝術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu))。這產(chǎn)生了持續(xù)的意識形態(tài)至上狀態(tài),對藝術(shù)的某種特定理解的必要條件發(fā)生在一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)化的層面,而非政治關(guān)系和參與的層面。這是一種政治藝術(shù)都容易掉入的陷阱,當(dāng)它是注意力經(jīng)濟(jì)的戰(zhàn)略組成部分時(shí)。

      LZH: “反傳統(tǒng)”是一個(gè)很有意思的詞,什么是傳統(tǒng)?我們是否建構(gòu)了我們自己的傳統(tǒng),或者我們只是使用傳統(tǒng)來當(dāng)作一個(gè)針對未預(yù)料到、或不穩(wěn)定事物的對比?我對你說到的空間和藝術(shù)交流的點(diǎn)也很感興趣,我猜想我們從未擁有過像這個(gè)時(shí)代這樣豐滿而全面的、寬廣而互相聯(lián)系的藝術(shù)。藝術(shù)已經(jīng)發(fā)生了如此之多的轉(zhuǎn)型。在你的作品《交易》中,藝術(shù)參與是如此的強(qiáng)烈,而作品的動態(tài)性和綜合性建構(gòu)出了、或者說轉(zhuǎn)移了真實(shí)之美,這使得作品是如此地吸引人,即使觀者沒有經(jīng)濟(jì)知識,也能從作品中體驗(yàn)到一種啟蒙式的光輝。這讓我聯(lián)想到我們知道什么,又不知道什么,我們的社會在向著知識分離的方向大步前進(jìn),成為了更為微結(jié)構(gòu)社會。人們不再分享相同的知識、或者對事物的共同理解,在這樣的背景下,你是否認(rèn)為藝術(shù)可以作為共享理解的一種方式?當(dāng)然,不是出于工具或?qū)嵱弥髁x驅(qū)動的目的。

      GN:我對“反傳統(tǒng)”一詞的使用,更多地是關(guān)于這樣一種境界,以從未出現(xiàn)過的圖像和呈現(xiàn)作為傳播的方式,而不是說摧毀一切圖像和敘事的、帶著政治狂熱性質(zhì)的“反傳統(tǒng)”。比如說,算法就是一種操作方法,而非呈現(xiàn)方法。對于傳播和表達(dá)意義、以及處理不穩(wěn)定、不可預(yù)測的事情上,“視覺”,或者更廣義地說,“感覺”,是先決條件。因此,我對“反傳統(tǒng)”一詞的使用并非它的典型含義。它表示一種超出感知(近乎無偶像)的操作流程。一個(gè)關(guān)于如何至少從某種程度上化解“反傳統(tǒng)”問題的例子是我用作品《反投降》(https://vimeo.com/geraldnestler) 、及相關(guān)文本( Mayhem in Mahwah:www. geraldnestler.net - 收錄于白色出版物最后一篇) 所講述的故事。

      對我來說,所謂的知識社會更多地是關(guān)于信息(或“被傳達(dá)”),而非“知曉”,更多地是關(guān)于參與,而非“訴求”。在知識社會中,我們是信息資源,我們是不斷轉(zhuǎn)移和改變的物體,但又足夠穩(wěn)定到可以將特定的“真相”歸結(jié)到一個(gè)人身上(比如說通過數(shù)據(jù)挖掘)。這個(gè)“真相”是當(dāng)下主觀性構(gòu)成的一部分,它是我們的文化空間。美作為一種無利害關(guān)系的享受,可能(再次)成為少數(shù)人(1%的人)的享樂。我不確定這種典型的西方觀點(diǎn)是否在當(dāng)下依然有效。如果我們可以投機(jī)利益和升值,什么又是“無利害關(guān)系”的呢?

      然而,美可以被看做是復(fù)雜性——正如復(fù)雜性也產(chǎn)生了社會和機(jī)體一樣。復(fù)雜性會帶來這樣的觀點(diǎn):美是訴求的先決條件——你可以停留在象征層面去享受,但更深層次的利益可能被觸發(fā),這將導(dǎo)致問題被提出,我想我們都“知道”(雖然我們不總是承認(rèn))每一件事情都有其后果。在一個(gè)互相聯(lián)系的信息社會,每一件事物都是相互關(guān)聯(lián)的,也相互觸發(fā)。這樣的觸發(fā)結(jié)果發(fā)生在任何時(shí)地。當(dāng)我們在藝術(shù)語境下討論時(shí),我認(rèn)為在這種由“結(jié)果”組成的場域里(用 Anselm Franke和Eyal Weizman 的話來說,審美是一種有趣的切入方式,因?yàn)樗h(yuǎn)離了純粹的、象征性的呈現(xiàn)(以及傳統(tǒng)的藝術(shù)家/天才-觀察者范式),以形成和藝術(shù)性地參與一種考古式的調(diào)查,和當(dāng)下的視覺化呈現(xiàn)。

      這樣的切入方式似乎可以滿足關(guān)于“共享理解”的觀點(diǎn),即使它并不是(或者不一定要是)從媒體藝術(shù)角度來說,參與性的、交互性的。它通過邀請和組織不同的知識領(lǐng)域,或者像你說的,“微結(jié)構(gòu)社會”,開啟了一種論述或者論辯。它或許不能提供范圍更大的“共有基礎(chǔ)”,它甚至拒絕所謂底層的、抑或先決存在的“共有基礎(chǔ)”。盡管如此,它依然會是一種產(chǎn)生激進(jìn)和行動主義思潮的、有共有基礎(chǔ)特性的場所。參與其中的人或許已或多或少地介入在不同形式的激進(jìn)主義中,而藝術(shù)世界則形成了這些參與角度相會的地點(diǎn)。除此之外,有時(shí)候藝術(shù)品可以激發(fā)感情和思考,但我不確定作為一個(gè)藝術(shù)家你可以、或者應(yīng)該去控制和“制造”這些激發(fā)感,尤其是如果你不愿意以此積分方式參與藝術(shù)的話。我猜想,我們都會投機(jī)或推測未來,但是在我個(gè)人來說,我更喜歡預(yù)測這樣的方式:將我的“成功選擇”們“推測化”,而非“工具化”。

      Sylvia Eckermann是一位藝術(shù)家,自1989年以來一直持續(xù)電子藝術(shù)方面的創(chuàng)作,并首屈一指地在以游戲藝術(shù)為主題的藝術(shù)裝置中使用了游戲引擎。她的作品創(chuàng)造了復(fù)雜的多媒體世界,觀者可以在真實(shí)或虛擬的空間里進(jìn)行體驗(yàn)。Sylvia的藝術(shù)作品產(chǎn)生于空間觀念,并傳達(dá)了沉浸式的體驗(yàn),容納各式各樣的情境。在她創(chuàng)設(shè)的音畫環(huán)境中,觀者可以成為表演者或游戲的參與者。在2012年,Sylvia榮獲奧地利影像和媒體藝術(shù)國家基金。

      Sylvia Eckermann的交互裝置和媒體藝術(shù)作品曾經(jīng)在如下地點(diǎn)展出:維也納博物館(維也納,1991)、維也納藝術(shù)館(維也納,1993)、博爾扎諾現(xiàn)代當(dāng)代美術(shù)博物館(博爾扎諾,1993)、阿熏濃美術(shù)館(赫爾辛基,1994)、諾里奇塞恩思伯里視覺藝術(shù)中心(挪威,1995)、O.K.當(dāng)代藝術(shù)中心(林茨,1998)、奇亞斯瑪當(dāng)代藝術(shù)博物館(赫爾辛基,2003)、ZOOM(維也納博物館區(qū),2005)、施泰爾博物館,(永久裝置,2006)、奧地利林茨電子藝術(shù)節(jié)(2007)、斯坦因博物館(克雷姆斯,2008-2009)、施泰爾秋季藝術(shù)節(jié)(2009)、MKL(格拉茨藝術(shù)館,2009)、維也納Kunstraum Bernsteiner藝術(shù)中心(2010,2013,2014)。她也曾受到如下機(jī)構(gòu)的委任創(chuàng)作:美國ISEA藝術(shù)節(jié)(1994年,及2004年)、EAST、倫敦千年穹頂、以及格拉茨歐洲藝術(shù)之城項(xiàng)目(2003)。

      更多信息可以參閱她的個(gè)人網(wǎng)站:http://

      syl-eckermann.net。

      Gerald Nestler是一位藝術(shù)家、寫作者和研究者。他的創(chuàng)作將理論與影像、裝置、表演和演說相結(jié)合,以對金融相關(guān)的意識形態(tài)、方法論、敘事及這些元素在當(dāng)代生物政治中位置進(jìn)行思考和提問。他于1992年畢業(yè)于維也納美術(shù)學(xué)院,并于1994-1997年之間以金融經(jīng)紀(jì)人和交易員的身份進(jìn)行了藝術(shù)性質(zhì)的調(diào)查。2003年,他獲得了奧地利國家視覺藝術(shù)獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金。自90年代起,他的作品在世界范圍內(nèi)展出。同時(shí),他也任教于維也納韋伯斯特大學(xué),目前在倫敦大學(xué)歌德史密斯學(xué)院的建筑研究中心攻讀博士學(xué)位。

      Gerald Nestler近年的藝術(shù)和策展項(xiàng)目包括《趨勢是你的朋友(The Trend Is Your Friend) 》 (steirischer herbst 09, Kunsthaus Graz, with Sylvia Eckermann)、《衰退的民主:重思烏托邦與參與之間的民主觀 (Declining Democracy: Rethinking democracy between utopia and participation)》 (弗羅倫薩, 2011)、《故意:新的衍生品秩序 (On Purpose: The New Derivative Order)》(維也納, 2012)、《脈沖干擾(Glitch)》(因斯布魯克, 2013)、《船貨崇拜(Carry Cargo Cult) 》(維也納, 2013)、《法律(Forensis)》(柏林, 2014)、《社會脈沖干擾:極端審美和極端事件的后果(Social Glitch: Radical Aesthetics and the consequences of extreme events)》(籌備中,計(jì)劃展出于維也納, 2015). 。

      近年的出版項(xiàng)目包括《Yx: 動態(tài)的分類—啟蒙的升華—置空的維度—人性衍生品—超真實(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)社會的振動》 (維也納獨(dú)立出版Schlebrügge Editors (2007)、《國際藝術(shù)論壇》(第200、201期, 2010))、《并立的公眾》 (伊斯坦布爾藝術(shù)與科技節(jié))、《下一步是什么?后危機(jī)時(shí)代的藝術(shù)》(柏林,2013).《法律 公共真相的結(jié)構(gòu)》(斯滕伯格出版社, 柏林, 2014)。

      www.geraldnestler.net

      富阳市| 阿城市| 普兰店市| 阜阳市| 邻水| 大化| 合阳县| 邢台县| 吉林省| 微博| 陈巴尔虎旗| 蕲春县| 江永县| 新邵县| 南川市| 石阡县| 蓬安县| 阳山县| 茂名市| 浏阳市| 栖霞市| 正阳县| 景泰县| 西盟| 昭通市| 广宁县| 金秀| 绥棱县| 涞源县| 彭阳县| 科技| 涪陵区| 南陵县| 榆社县| 湄潭县| 吉水县| 德州市| 延川县| 尉犁县| 庄河市| 织金县|