負面關係；為人民服務的妥協藝術
The pressure of reified bourgeois culture incites flight into the phantasm of nature, which then proves to be the herald of absolute oppression. The aesthetic nerves quiver to return to the stone age.
– Theodore Adorno
物化資產階級文化的壓力促使人們進入自然的幻象，然後被證明是絕對壓迫的先驅。審美神經顫抖回到石器時代。
- 西奧多阿多諾
麥克·鮑爾斯/MIKE BOWERS
本文的一個催化劑是Claire Pentecost最近的演講，由INCUBATE（社區對藝術和日常之間的理解研究所）主辦，這是一個孤立的演講，在他們更大的推動下促進了當地社區對公共藝術項目狂熱增長的討論。在過去的一個世紀里，以物體為中心的藝術實踐一再出現，並逐漸消失，變成一種無形的集體迷霧。純粹的「材料」，或正式的藝術，如繪畫，是針對文化的同質化虛假行業的車輛。作為線性結果，藝術家們公然轉變為更具表達性，話語性，開放性和關係性的實踐。關係美學是對二十世紀六十年代不穩定的藝術實踐的重新思考和進一步發展，最近的社會藝術加速了這種不穩定。但是，重新分配美學和包括群眾在內的壓力始於早期現代主義，並不僅僅是它有時會自動成為的新的反歷史的無政府主義特徵。TJ Clark指出他認為這是Jacques Louis David的繪畫中這種非物質化的首例。對於克拉克而言，政治對人民的繪畫是以一種完全不自然的方式發生的; 大衛的繪畫沒有內在的視覺政治。相反，還有一種新的壓力，迫使更大的社會問題變成一些沒有明顯包含它們的東西，在這種情況下，法國大革命對繪畫作了一定的任意處理，以此作為實現工具化的手段。自1793年以來（藝術史學家可以爭論的日期），所有藝術都存在「偶然」因素，視覺不再是自我生存的，而是為了政治而行動，這是我們時代社會生活的束縛。從那以後，我們一直在努力從根本上扭曲非物質的意識形態和其不同的物質意識形態。
One catalyst for this essay is a recent lecture by Claire Pentecost, hosted by INCUBATE (Institute for Community Understanding Between Art and The Everyday ), an isolated lecture within their larger impetus to foster discourse in the local community about the feverish increase in public art projects.Over the past century, there has been a recurring drift from object-centric art practices which recedes into a collective fog of immaterial. Pure 『material』, or formal art, such as painting, was targeted as vehicular for the homogenizing, false industry of culture.As a linear result artists blatantly transitioned into more performative, discursive, open-ended, and relational praxis. Relational aesthetics was a reimagining and furthering of the destabilized art practices of the 1960』s, and recent social art accelerates this destabilization. But the stress to redistribute aesthetics and encompass the masses began in early modernism, and is not merely the new anti-historical, anarchic character it sometimes fashions itself to be. T.J. Clark pinpoints what he believes to be the first instance of such dematerialization in Jacques Louis David』s painting. For Clark, the projection of a politics for the people onto painting happened in a completely unnatural way; David』s painting had no inherently visual politics. Rather, there was a new pressure to force larger social issues into something which did not obviously contain them, in this case the French Revolution projected somewhat arbitrarily onto painting, as a means to instrumentalize it. Since 1793 (an arguable date amongst art historians) there has been a 『contingent』 element to all art, where the visual is no longer self-subsistent, but vehicular for politics, the tether of social life in our era. Since then we have been grappling with a fundamental wrenching apart of wildly immaterial ideology, and its dissenting material counterpart.
克拉克在印象派政治中的應變例子，以及在日常生活中最近的社會藝術之間可能會有更明顯的聯繫。TJ Clark在他的文章「我們現場 - 女性」中分析了Camille Pissaro的印象派繪畫，描繪了兩個女性在一個領域的勞動。克拉克提到，「農民生活是一個屏幕，然後，現代主義展示了它的技術和表達願望」，觀察對農民工的同情如何不完美地入侵繪畫。例如，克萊爾五旬節派的當代藝術作品，如克萊爾五旬節派，在底特律的日常工作中保留著一種浪漫的希望，這種田園生活的浪漫氣氛得以蓬勃發展。雖然我們用於"農民"的話現在非常不同，但態度依然如此。
A more obvious connection might be made between Clark』s contingency example in impressionism』s politics, and recent social art in the everyday. In his essay We Field-Women, T.J. Clark analyses Camille Pissaro』s impressionist painting depicting two women laborers in a field.Observing how a sympathy for peasant laborers imperfectly invades the painting, Clark proposes that the 「peasant life was a screen, then, on which modernism projected its technical and expressive wishes」. The romance of the pastoral life thrives in contemporary, locally motivated art like Claire Pentecost』s, who retains a romanticized hope in an everyday laborer of Detroit, for example. Though the words we use for 『peasant』 are now very different, the attitude remains the same: an idealization and abstraction of an everyday mass erased and retained as an artificial blank slate.
這些非物質化實踐的新的潛在的潛台詞是藝術家不應該屈服於自己的商品化的觀念，而是引發關於他們背後的社會形式的對話，希望將由市場驅動的孤立藝術類型變形為更加內在和真實的形式交換。最近的社會藝術實踐不僅受到1960年代非物質化和話語政治的政治藝術項目的影響，而且僅僅是其自身的延伸 - 這種不穩定的後果和表現性的殘渣，以及其所有可疑的形式。社會藝術應該被理解為20世紀60年代提出的觀點的活的證明，而不是完全孤立的運動。
New contingent subtext to these dematerialized practices are notions that artists should not submit to their own commodification, but rather engender dialogue about the social forms residing behind them, hopefully transfiguring the type of insular art driven by the market to a more immanent and true form of exchange. Recent social art practices are not merely influenced by the 1960』s political art-project of dematerialization and discursive politics, but is rather an extension of that itself – the aftermath and the expressive dregs of that destabilization, in all its questionable forms. Social art should be understood as the living proof of proposed ideas from the 1960』s, and not entirely isolated as a movement. It is not surprising then that recent projects re-animate similar themes of ecology and abstracted theoretical dialogue within localized communities (a sharp distinction from early modernists』 program of global revolution) — idealized domains which further obscure the confused, destabilized presence of an acceptably unoriginal avant-garde, content with nostalgic aesthetic politics.
這種公開的微觀政治激進主義值得質疑而不是慶祝，因為它僅僅暗示更大的資本主義系統問題。社會藝術家往往冒險進入其他勞動分工，在完全清算到其他勞動分工和藝術自治之間走好界限。（如五旬節，直接與農民合作，但是被認定為藝術家）。人們認為，這些藝術家越來越滿足於消除藝術家的角色，以至於他們的藝術項目的「利他主義」看起來像純粹的癥狀對其歷史定義的立場感到不滿。雖然這部分服務於整體，但它並不包含其中的所有其他部分。那些微觀政治的藝術家把分裂的部分解釋為相同的，單獨完成的是謬誤。每一種分工與其他人都不相同，認為他們之間有相互的可譯性，這是社會藝術家最為細膩的一種天真，他們勉強地轉變了這種馬克思主義的遺產。某些東西如此幼稚以致於違背這種非人化機制 - 即使它的方法是對系統學的根本性誤解 - 也會破壞並揭示它的功能，而不是它的運行平穩。但它僅僅是混亂，不應該被混淆為更多。 整個生產系統是複雜的，需要專門化的部分進行專門化，從任何對其功能提出質疑的交流中切斷。儘管我們都包含相同的機制，但我們遠不會說同一種語言。
This overtly micropolitical activism deserves to be questioned instead of celebrated, as it merely alludes to larger systemic issues of capitalism.Social artists often venture into other divisions of labor, walking the fine line between complete liquidation into other labor divisions, and artistic autonomy. (such as Pentecost, who works directly with farmers but identifies as an artist) One gets the impression that these artists are increasingly content quashing the role of the artist, to such an extent that the 『altruism』 of their art projects seem like pure symptoms of discontent with their historical defined position. Though the part serves the whole, it does not contain every other part of the whole in it. That micropolitical artists construe the divided parts as identical and individually complete is a fallacy. Each division of labor is not identical with the others, and thinking that there is mutual translatability between them is a naivete most refined in social artists, who begrudgingly transmute this Marxist legacy. Something so childish as to go against this dehumanizing mechanism – even if its method is a fundamental misunderstanding of systemics – disrupts and reveals its function moreso than when it runs smoothly. But it is mere disruption, and should not be confused as anything more. The whole sytem of production is complicated and requires specialized parts which are refined to the point of exclusivity, severed from any communication which questions its function. Though we all comprise the same mechanism, we are far from speaking the same language.
Copyright?2018 ART404.All Right Reserved.
TAG:ART404 |