获奖文章抢先看!第六届国际艺术评论奖获奖者专访
发起人:毛边本  回复数:0   浏览数:245   最后更新:2019/11/13 11:16:49 by 毛边本
[楼主] 毛边本 2019-11-13 11:16:49

来源:凤凰艺术


2019年11月12日,第六届国际艺术评论奖(IAAC6)颁奖典礼在上海民生现代美术馆举行。
本届国际评论奖共收到来自全球的中文稿件126篇、英文稿件125篇。
现居柏
林的纳迪姆·萨曼(Nadim Samman)凭借文章《Oh You Pretty Things》斩获一等奖。


国际艺术评论奖首次于2014年11月在上海举办,如今已变成一项年度盛事。
该奖项同时以上海及伦敦为立足点,以中、英文为投稿文章所用语言,成为全球备受瞩目的国际性项目。


2019年11月12日,第六届国际艺术评论奖(IAAC6)颁奖典礼在上海民生现代美术馆举行。本届国际评论奖共收到来自全球的中、英文稿件251篇。其中中文稿件126篇、较去年投稿量增长34%,稿件来源涵盖中国21个省市及地区,其中北京、上海和浙江占据前三甲。在所有中文投稿所评展览中,境外展览占到了31%,大陆地区中,上海的展览为32%,北京以24%紧随其后。英文有效稿件125篇,投稿量较去年增长95%,英国、美国、德国、加拿大和土耳其位居英文投稿量前列。


最终,居柏林的纳迪姆·萨曼(Nadim Samman)凭文章《Oh You Pretty Things》斩获大奖,获得80000元人民币(含税)及一次上海或伦敦的短期驻留。来自中国的艺术家、写作者蒲英玮和艺术写作者、译者李素超分获二等奖,奖金30000元人民币(含税)。从开放性和受资助金额角度来说,该奖项为当代艺术的评论及写作增添了不少动力。

▲ 颁奖现场


第六届国际艺术评论奖投稿稿件来自全球38个国家,覆盖了五大洲,国家数较去年增长了75%。六年来,国际艺术评论奖逐渐扩大其国际影响力,今年又有来自挪威、马耳他、喀麦隆、伊拉克、越南、新西兰等六国的作者新加入到国际艺术评论奖中。

对谈:艺术批评教育的角色定位 右起:Chantal Faust 、邵亦杨、凌敏


本届国际艺术评论奖由5位富有声望的评委组成国际评审团,包括策展人、文化活动策划人及作家朱丽安娜·恩伯格(澳洲);艺术家、写作者、英国皇家艺术学院研究导师尚塔尔·弗斯特(英国);中央美术学院人文学院副院长兼教授及博士生导师邵亦杨(中国);艺术评论者、编辑、策展人、英国诺维奇非营利艺术家空间 LOWER.GREEN联合主管乔纳森 P. 沃茨(英国);亚洲艺术文献库资深研究员翁子健(香港)。

▲ IAAC6 投稿及获奖文章点评 右起:邵亦杨、Chantal Faust、Henry Meyric Hughes、费大为、翁子健


经过为期两天紧张而充分的讨论中,评委们对来自全球的稿件进行了仔细的审阅和评议,最终一致决定了四位获奖者:


一等奖获奖者:纳迪姆·萨曼(Nadim Samman)

二等奖获奖者:汤姆·特雷弗( Tom Trevor)、蒲英玮、李素超

▲ 从左至右:二等奖获得者李素超、评委会主席 Henry Meyric Hughes、二等奖获得者蒲英玮


除了4位获奖者之外,另有16篇中、英文投稿入围本届国际艺术评论奖。所有20篇入围稿件将会以原文和译文双语形式集结成书,于2020年春出版。

现场嘉宾与获奖及入围者合影


下面,“凤凰艺术”为您带来四篇入选文章,以及对于获奖者蒲英玮的独家专访。


一等奖获得者:纳迪姆·萨曼(英文投稿)


纳迪姆·萨曼(Nadim Samman),获奖文章《Oh You Pretty Things》,所评展览为 Zeller van Almsick(维也纳)的“JONNY NIESCHE: Throb”(2018.12.12 - 2019.01.26)。


纳迪姆·萨曼现居柏林,是一位策展人兼艺术史学家。他曾于伦敦大学学院修读哲学,并在伦敦大学科托德艺术学院获得博士学位。他先后与人联合策划了2012年第四届马拉喀什双年展(与陈楷逊(Carson Chan)合作)、2015年威尼斯南极馆以及2017年首届南极双年展。


Oh You Pretty Things

JONNY NIESCHE: Throb

Zeller van Almsick, Vienna. 12 December 2018 – 26 January 2019


A glimmer. A colorful figure slides into view: striking, well proportioned, and without wrinkles—totally put together, so all the more exciting. A flash of eye. A pupil. It is pure flattery, and seduction. But there is something strange about this vision, like mascara on a statue, or a piece of sculpture made to be slipped inside a person—holding your gaze, and the room. It is pure androgeny; a double performance, and you are fascinated. It is theatre, and the question of your own role is not immediately answered. Nor do you know what this thing wants with you. You remember a playbill mentioning Jonny Niesche being dragged through shopping mall cosmetics departments by his mother, in the 1980s, secretly falling in love with powder colors and mirrors; that it mentioned him (or was it you?) rapt at the sight of D**id Bowie, preening on stage, somewhere. As you keep looking, you begin to fall into character…

Exactly fifty years ago, as rock and roll approached its zenith, the critic Michael Fried wrote (contra minimalism) that the ‘success, even the survival, of the arts has come increasingly to depend on their ability to defeat theatre’, and that art ‘degenerates as it approaches the condition of theatre’.1 Considering the circumstance of Niesche’s artistic education, and his subsequent oeuvre, the disjunction between defeat and triumph is moot. His professor at Vienna’s Angewandte, Heimo Zobernig, exemplary investigator of formal concerns (tropes of the monochrome, and passages between painting and sculpture, for instance) was trained as a theatre set designer. Taking up Zoebernig’s interest in what one critic has termed ‘setting the stage for art’, Niesche, too, has deployed the folding-screen format as way for colour-field painting to score architectural space—and, moreover, to occupy it as a quasi-protagonist. Speaking of his new works, Niesche speaks of wanting to imbue the surface of his pieces with a ‘performative’ quality, in terms of changing optical effects; for them ‘to be responsive to the viewer, [for] the viewer to be responsive to them, and responsive to the environment in which they’re exhibited’.

The artist’s claim, and the testimony that his own oeuvre supplies, satisfies Fried’s charge that such an ende**our ‘depends on the beholder, [and] is incomplete without him. It has been waiting for him’. The august critic continues—‘Once he is in the room, the work refuses, obstinately, to let him alone’. Fried’s complaint is that there is something undignified about the ‘literalist’ art-object’s overtures; something needy and entrapping—a would-be topping from the bottom. In rejoinder, one might claim that, through this theatrical scenario, the beholder’s subjectivity has been delivered to analysis and, therefore, made ***isible issue.Yet, the two critical positions are not incompatible. In Niesche’s work the scene is set for the beholder to bottom from the top and, crucially, reflect upon this situation.

Indeed, the confluence of subject and object in his aesthetic is such that the beholding subject is figured within the piece, in optical terms. This doubling scenario stems from the materials employed. ‘By the reflective surfaces’, the artist says, ‘the viewer becomes present in the work’. However, the object also conditions the psychological constitution of the viewer as a libidinal subject in a theatre of relations: ‘It is this desire-like situation when you are looking through a shop window at something you want, and at some point you are apprehended by the reflection of yourself within that situation’, says Niesche, reporting his inspiration. His painting-objects at van Almsick are not just completed by the viewer. In addition, and more generally, they encapsulate a (contemporary/consumer) regard.

We h**e thus arrived at the figure of Narcissus, whose reflected gaze delivers ‘the revelation of his identity and his duality’, according to Gaston Bachelard. ‘Above all’, says the philosopher, this amounts to the disclosure ‘of his reality and ideality’.2 It is the latter ‘idealizing narcissism’ that appears to register in Niesche’s stylistics, wherein real life takes a ‘surge upward’ towards a ‘holiday in unreality’. In terms of the tactile, both the mirrored surfaces of Niesche’s objects, and the flat manner in which they h**e been painted, proffer anidealizing sublimation of the hand—which may be understood throu****achelard’s comments on the drama of a possible caress: The (self)image, contemplated in still water, whose beauty solicits touching, would be disturbed by even the slightest physical imposition. To illustrate this tension he quotes Mallarme—‘The least sigh / Which breathed out / Would come back to me and r**ish / What I adored / On the blue and and blond water /And skies and forest / And the Rose of the w**e’. In light of this we recognize the pleasure of sublimation, in Niesche’s art, as being manifest in the delicate aspect of his creative task; the smooth applications of pigment, and the perfect polishing of mirrored surfaces, both of which are analogous to ***irtual, formalized, caress’. Moving beyond analogy, Niesche sets the stage for the beholder’s vivid regard of their own double—neither smudged, through the laying on of fingers, nor hazy,from too much he**y breathing.

In Throb’s free-standing painting-objects, reflective surfaces and paint operate according to an aesthetic of near stillness. While their mirrored elements (literally) crystalizethis principle, the ultra-flatness of Niesch’s (non)painterly approach, with its slow color gradients, appears to index the furthest thing from a disturbed liquid. Its antithesis, of course, is the vortex of paint (that kriegspiel of brushstrokes) which expresses an active narcissism. This said, in line with our previous claims, the pleasurable idealized narcissism developed2 Gaston Bachelard, Water and Dreams, 1999, p.23through Niesche’s work is no less generative. In fact, the stillness of their surfaces necessarily reflect the self-creating possibility of artifice—a theatricality unconsidered by Fried. Bachelard speaks its sovereignty: less a case of “I love myself as I am” than ‘“I am the way I love myself.”I live exuberantly because I love myself fervently. I want to show up well; thus I must increase my adornment’.3 Witness, the vivid panopoly of hues with which Niesche adorns his objects and canvases—inspired by cosmetic products. Moreover, the way his anti-expressive technique, and laborious achievement of colour-gradients, demonstrate and solicit a deliberatemode of showing up ‘well’.

Stars are not born; they are made up. As much holds true for fame as astrophysics, and, wonderfully, etymology—wherein a line runs from cosmetics to the celestial vault itself. The latter, kosmos, is ‘order, ornament’, giving kosmein (‘to arrange, adorn’), and, finally, kosmetikos (‘skilled in adornment or arrangement’). For what it’s worth, D**id Bowie held that the arrival of a ‘star-man’ required bi-directional traffic running along such a thread: ‘If we can sparkle he may land tonight’.4 Niesche all but states that his objects are, in some way, the glam star’s ‘pretty things’—glitter on the surface of certain works serving as the direct appropriation of Ziggy’s stardust.5 Within the flowering of such a narcissus, in Niesche’s work,wherein ‘life takes on beauty; clothes itself in images, blooms, takes on light’, showing up wellsidesteps neurosis precisely because it has a cosmic outlook. While the gradient character of most of his painted surfaces rules out any horizon line (which might serve as ***anishing point or pictorial coordination), the subjective vision that they establish is, nevertheless, not without orientation. Mathematically, a gradient is the rate of change of a function. It is ***ector (a direction). In this light, even within the pure ‘ornament’ of the artist’s abstract colour fieldsthere is ‘order’, and that order is a trajectory—a Target (2014)—that fixes upon the stellar figure to enact orientation.

This said, following the optical logic of reflection, the orientation in question is mirrored this way and that; the arrow flies from the beholder towards the target and also from the target to the beholder. It is unclear who, or what, is doing the seducing; whether one wants to possess the phallus or be it. Ambiguity obtains in a looking glass, where a doubling desire makes narcissus both want to be Bowie, and want to do Bowie. In this universe of desire a human entreaty may be perfectly echoed by a non-human purr—the situation uncanny, in so far as it is unclear who or what spoke first. A deeper contemporary narcissism is thuswhispered, for an instant, in Niesche’s painted and reflective objects: the commodity fetish ascontemporary sexual orientation. Here, the starry-eyed lover lives the illumination of a mis en abyme; where (as it was once thought) light is a product of the eye. Glinting in a person or an animal’s regard, at night, in a club, or a shop, a little fire is seen to burn. By the analogical magic of the mirror it becomes clear as day: the sun, the stars, are all eyes. The cosmos, thus adorned, can lift up the eyes of the beholder—they, too, can be heroes.

Jonny Niesche is just two letters away from sharing a surname with a philosopher who wrote that ‘when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you’. Perhaps if the latter wore eye-shadow then the glare of the looking glass would not h**e assaulted his vision so. It was, in fact, Friedrich Nietzsche who also said that ‘as long as you still experience the stars as something “above you”, you lack the eye of knowledge’.6 More than a century later, the stars ‘look very different today’, and Jonny Niesche can know, as per the title of a previousexhibition, that ‘nothing goes as deep as decoration’.


二等奖获得者:蒲英玮(中文投稿)


蒲英玮,获奖文章《帝国遗产 —— 论<踱步:七十年的走过>及其缄默》,所评展览为龙美术馆(西岸馆)的“踱步:七十年的走过”(2019.06.21 - 09.08 )。


蒲英玮现工作、生活于北京和里昂。2013年毕业于四川美术学院,获学士学位;2018年毕业于里昂国立高等美术学院,获硕士学位并获得评委会最高嘉奖。他的工作以对现实境况的私人体察为路径所展开,他认为个体的经验与记忆是世界存在的诚恳证词。


等奖蒲英玮作品:

《帝国遗产 —— 论〈踱步:七十年的走过〉与其缄默》


“天空 你要把我赶到哪里去? 我为了你 才这样 力尽精疲。”

                                           ——姜世伟(芒克)《天空》为星星美展所作的配诗


或许,“踱步”⼀一词本身所折射出的蹒跚姿态就⾜以代表着新中国美术在其发展历程中所遭遇的坎坷与艰⾟。回顾这姑且被命名的“70年新中国艺术发展历程”,在为我们今天的审美和语⾔梳理理了⽆数条线索之后,我们发现这种种脉络还是不可避免地交汇于1942,不断地重访《在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话》。换言之,新中国美术的叙事之舟⼀直是被放置于政治与历史的洪流之中;时而乘风破浪,时⽽逆流而上,或奋进或欲坠飘摇。⾄此,艺术从未幸免。纵观这70年的⾛过,疑是⼀一部搅拌了了家国、⺠族、记忆与阵营的共构史;⽽这种卷⼊式的「生命-历史」形态则是生活在这片疆域中每⼀个个体深陷其中的真实境况;就像在陈逸飞所描绘的《踱步》中那些半透明的灰⾊色形象也许卑微,也许曾经伟大,但今⽇我们都成为了无名者,所有悲伤的人都将失去名字。


同时,《踱步:七⼗年的走过》其平行于建国史的叙事方式无疑让新中国艺术史被牢牢地镶嵌在了民族国家的宏⼤叙事结构之中,成为一种强有力的“文化机器”继而能够伴随着国家权力向外输出,但这种与权力的共舞也不可避免地造成了其⾃省维度的丢失;因为权力不容置疑,但艺术的内在动⼒恰恰来⾃于其富有批判性的不合时宜的沉思。但纵使展览将观者面前的一切作品与形象都视为“新中国发展的图像史证”,我们也依旧能够在这种积极的叙事流种找到缝隙。例如,在陈烟桥绘制于1933的木刻版画《都市背后》中,我们似乎并没有看到如古元在其《鞍钢的修复》中所展现出来的对工业化与现代化的热忱;《都市背后》悉心描绘了⽣活在“新城”外围的⼈民;描绘了他们的⽣存与劳作以及简陋房⻔门之外所堆砌的杂物;陈烟桥似乎预言般地看到了中国在不断地向现代城市化进发的历程中(三个五年计划、 或是改革开放以及现在的智能城市),⼈民,所为其付出的代机。⽽时⾄今日,⽆论是⾯对愈发严峻的房产经济或是苛刻的户籍政策,那些在寒冬中被驱逐出城的⼀个个背影在提示着我们,提示着历史:这并⾮全然盛世。⽽这幅1933年的《都市背后》在今天也依旧应景。


诚然,历史总是被现实所无限地召回并⼜生成新的模样。曾经的红色叙述,与我们所正在历经的整个世界范围内的民族国家意志的增强不谋⽽而合,而这种⺠族意识裹挟着国家资本的全球性扩张⽣生成为⼀种极为强势帝国化世界主义思潮;如果说在60年代我们向世界输出了颠覆一切的抵抗因⼦,那么在今天我们的“⼀不输出⾰命,⼆不输出贫困和饥饿。”则变成了我们通行于世界的漂亮姿态。在展览中,由恽圻苍与杨尧于1973年共同绘制的《国际歌》 里,“亚⾮拉”⼈民共处于一间富有象征意味的列车厢中,身着各式的服装,满载着各⾃的⾏李,奔向⼀个共同的⽬的地。而在⼀一位拉美裔的友⼈身旁,则放置着一份他刚刚读完的 “北京周报”,似乎那是一份来自未来的指示。这份关切的、具有指引性目光对于今天的我们也并不陌生,在肯尼亚、中⾮共和国、巴布亚新几内亚等那些广袤无垠的土地上,中国的援助性建设⽅兴未艾且如火如荼。从新中国早期的建交到此刻的援建,中国与亚非拉阵营所组成了似乎坚实的政治经济共同体,⽽其共同体内部的残酷与复杂性也被我们笼统地表述为 一种:大国姿态与世界主义精神。


那么,新中国美术真就的从此而始,⼜从此而终么?展览《踱步:七⼗年的走过》的最后⼀个章节“时代与步伐”终止于90年代初的⾰命现实主义绘画,那么之后至今的30年历史⼜去了哪里?断裂,这种断裂⾸先出现于1942年《在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话》中对中国传统⽂人画的斩钉截铁地拒绝,而第二次断裂则出现于新中国美术与中国当代艺术的歧途。从无名画会到星星美展,再到之后的“89现代艺术⼤大展”以及今天的一切,“中国当代艺术”依旧是一个悬而未决、尚未获得其合法性的一段历史。但⽆论官方的话语承认与否,中国当代艺术都无疑继承了这近⼏十年的社会主义现实主义传统;顽世现实主义、政治波普且不消说, 之后的“后感性”展览、社会介入式艺术的兴起以及近期的“档案转向”都与中国自身革命现实主义传统一脉相承,身体、政治、土地、行动、⼈民,似乎就连时下的科幻热潮也可以被理理解为一种由于话语空间的压缩⽽而产生的“替代性方案”。⽽而令⼈理解⽽又略带惋惜的是,种种这些实践都在70年这个节点,变成了展览中未曾呈现的声音,成为历史的幽灵穿梭、回响在整个由革命现实主义图像所构建起的单一语调之中。也许,这不是永远,只是尚未到来。


今天,我们也迎来了我们的国度,它坚信这将是属于它的时刻。这些诉说着它历史的图像为我们有意或无意地留下了诸多线索,而那场发生于80年代的关于“现实主义”的讨论中所牵涉出的关于“真实”的论述与其背后的整个现实主义绘画历史则是有待我们重新去挖掘并构建的宝贵历史遗产。它可能能够成为去矫正这台吞噬一切的庞⼤机器的⼀个渺小参照;或⾄少,他让我们在这场浪潮中保持着卑微的清醒,孑孑⽽立,形影相吊,但或许,我们并不会孤单,并不会孤单。

▲插图一:《踱步:七⼗年的⾛过》中展出的1933年陈烟桥的版画《城市背后》,与出版于1978年 《文艺报》中关于城市化所呈现的两种辩证视角。

▲插图二:《踱步:七⼗年的⾛过》中展出的恽圻苍与杨尧在1973年年共同绘制的《国际歌》中关于 《北京周报》细节,与1965年出版的《世界知识》封⾯所刊登的⽑泽东会见刚果妇⼥的照片。

▲插图三:《踱步:七⼗年的⾛过》展览⼿册影印与展览所呈现的六个章节


独家采访蒲英玮


Q:为什么选择这个展览?

蒲英玮:如果说今年我们整个中国社会的主流叙事是70年的建国国庆,并且我们的生活也身在其中,那么没有理由不去关注与之相符的审美变革与艺术演变。


Q:作为艺术家,写作也是你创作的方式之一,你觉得和其他的创作有什么差别?难点?写作中印象最深的是?

蒲英玮:写作也许更具有渗透性或者传播的有效性,尤其在国内,我们的社交阅读更加集中,所以既是缺点也是有点。难点就在于既要持续地写作,又不能让自己的写作成为一种景观。所以需要持续的、有组织地去更新自己的写作以及其背后的知识经验构建。印象最深的是,写作很自由,它可以在任何时间 任何地点,建立一个与时间、历史、现实或未来对话的情境。


Q:你也是第二届的入围者、你在获奖感言里提到了坚持写作、除此之外、你对其他的人艺术家或艺术评论写作者有什么建议或者经验分享?

蒲英玮:我自己的体验是,写作更像一个思考方式,它需要一个开始,需要去写才能知道可以写到什么地方


二等奖获得者:李素超(中文投稿)


李素超,获奖文章《召唤光州之魂 —— 作为艺术场域的光州前军事医院》,所评展览为光州前军事医院的“想象的边界 —— 光州双年展委任作品项目”(2018.09.07 - 11.11)。


李素超,毕业于格拉斯哥大学伦敦佳士得学院,获艺术史硕士学位。现工作生活于上海,是一名艺术写作者、编辑、译者,她的写作涵括广泛的与当代艺术相关的议题,尤其感兴趣于对艺术与社会政治、与集体和个体经验的关系的探索。


召唤光州之魂——作为艺术场域的光州前军事医院


作为 2018 年光州双年展“想象的边界”(Imagined Borders)新增加的一项双年展委任项目(GB Commission),光州一座废弃的前军事医院(Former Armed Forces’Gwangju Hospital)成为主场馆外另一处双年展基地。1980 年的光州“五一八民主运动”期间,这块地方曾被用作军事医院,那些在民主运动中遭受军事镇压的市民抗议者们被送往这里接受“治疗”,被认定为有“精神疾病”的抗议者也被强制押送至这所医院。自医院迁址并于 2007 年关闭此建筑以来,它已被遗弃了10 年有余。

如今,医院的两层白色建筑保留了下来,但内部早已荒废,周围杂草丛生。凭借室内阴暗的光线可以看到斑驳的墙体和天花板沿着幽深的走廊向内部一直延伸,直至消失在黑暗中。走道两侧一连串房间排列开,它们曾是病房、洗漱间、卫生间,或是审问病人的关押室。玻璃窗碎了一地,老旧的窗棂、暴露的自来水管、电线、残破的洗手池、小便池、半开门的厕所隔间、窗外荒败的小树林,这景象足以让人想起前几年颇受欢迎的韩国恐怖电影《昆池岩》中的场景。当你身处其中,仿佛可以觉察到曾经居住在这里的病人们似乎仍逗留于医院的各处,如消散不去的魅影。这个在光州事件中扮演了重要角色的地方而今已成为整个韩国民主化运动的一抹残片,它像一块光州事件遗留下的伤痕,烙印在这座城市里。

正因为其纪念碑式的意义,光州双年展在去年第 12 届追本溯源地把目光再次聚焦光州历史,将这处伤痕借以艺术之名揭露于世人面前。英国艺术家迈克·纳尔逊(Mike Nelson)、法国艺术家卡德尔·阿蒂亚(Kader Attia)以及泰国艺术家、实验电影导演阿彼察邦·韦拉斯哈古(Apichatpong Weerasethakul)接受双年展委任,各自在这所医院创作了场域特定装置(site-specific installation)。

位于树林中一条小径尽头的医院教堂在彼时纷乱的政治氛围下为医院的病人及医护人员提供了一处精神的庇护所,在废弃多年后,纳尔逊的作品《镜面反射》(Mirror Reverb)将其改造成一个有着多重映像的三维空间。大大小小的镜子从天花板悬挂下来,它们从各个角度反射着室内的景况、室外的光线以及每一位参观者。基于对这所医院的调研,这位善于发掘材料自身属性的艺术家搜集了来自于医院及这间教堂的废旧物,包括镜子和支撑镜子的胶合板,再将它们重组为这组装置作品。这些原本被遗弃的材料扮演着历史见证者的角色,它们在如今空置的教堂建筑内谱写出一段新的乐章,其中那可见的过去的景象再次嵌入历史和当 下的时间链接之中。

历史与社会的种种不公带来的影响架构了阿尔及利亚裔法国艺术家阿蒂亚作品的基本概念,作品《永恒的当下》(Eternal Now)是他对韩国在现代民主化进程中所历经的创伤的祭奠。“集体创伤是一切现代性的幽灵”,阿蒂亚试图“修复”时间给生命及所有事物带来的伤痕,它们可以是有裂纹的茶杯、开裂的地板、断裂的木梁...... 艺术家认为,“要修复个体或集体创伤,就得接受它们很可能无法愈合的事实”。在这件作品中,阿蒂亚将金属订书钉钉在一根根破损的木梁上,这些细小的、不可移除的金属物就这样被钉在“伤口”上,这修复的过程也成为伤口本身,赋予受伤物另一重生命。对创伤的揭露和正视即是对其历史的正视,即使经过修复也无法完全还原最初的形态,断裂的木梁和金属订书钉就像受伤体 的两个部分,前者指向创伤时期,后者则指向后创伤时期,它们在当下永恒地循 环、交错,毕竟,伤口提醒着我们,过去即是现在,并且尤其真实。

医院主体建筑旁的一栋爬满枝藤的小白楼曾是医院的一处休闲场所,其中包括了桌球室、理发厅和一间开阔的放映厅,而今里面的设施早已老旧不堪,下午的阳光透过树丛和破败的窗棂照在这些残留的遗迹上,这里是阿彼察邦的影像及装置作品《Constellations》的所在地。

因其父母都是医生的缘故,阿彼察邦从小就有了对医院的记忆,他善于将这些记忆收集起来,放进他的作品之中。这座光州前军事医院在他看来不再是一处居所,而是寄生者,它以城市居民的记忆为食,以建筑物上的**伤痕、以战火、以一切逝去的为食。过去几年里,阿彼察邦的影像常聚焦于火、影子与黑暗的洞穴,这些元素导向了移动影像最初的源头。他将这处医院建筑比作从前不可见的洞穴,一处他影像作品的想象之地,“好比火找到了自己的位置,它们共同筑造一间只存在于梦境中的影院”。

结合了动态影像和机械装置的《Constellations》通过对光影和物件的操控,制造出各种梦寐般的场景:突然自行滚动的桌球、放映厅里自动升降的屏幕、窗外移动的模糊光斑、远处屏幕上浮现的人影……它们与周遭环境如此完美地契合,将观者牢牢裹挟其中,其创造的感受(affect)在当下无疑是先验性的。阿彼察邦在此试图通过捕捉那个时代光州的残象(afterimages)完成语境的再造。对于光州事件,我们从未经历,却又好似经历了一番。艺术家把自己对记忆与幻象的精 妙处理移植至这所医院,将之演化成一处浸入式的艺术场域;这儿终于摆脱了白盒子里或许多艺术展上常有的疏离或刻奇(kitsch),让我看到了艺术可以以怎样的方式重新连接起历史与当下、怎样创造感受、怎样唤起过去的力量,再借由这力量去提问、质疑或引导现在的转变。


二等奖获得者:汤姆·特雷弗(英文投稿)


汤姆·特雷弗(Tom Trevor),获奖文章《Cook's New Clothes, Cook's New Clothes》,所评展览为英国普利茅斯的“Royal William Yard”(2018.09.28-10.21)。


汤姆·特雷弗现居英国,策展人兼作家。他是“大西洋计划”的艺术总监,该项目是在英格兰西南部举办的一场全新的国际当代艺术盛事。他还撰写和出版了超过40部著作及刊物。


Royal William Yard

Plymouth, UK

28.09.2018 – 21.10. 2018

On a windy afternoon in late September 2018 a strange parade; part funerary procession, part protest rally; slowly snaked its way around the Devil’s Pointpeninsula in the Stonehouse district of Plymouth, in the South West ofEngland. The Second Procession for Tupaia took the form of a c**alcade ofcustomized ‘gilet jaunes’ hoisted high overhead on fluorescent poles asceremonial banners. Loudly proclaiming its presence through a hypnoticJ**anese dirge, played on an array of Indonesian wind instruments madefrom recycled rubbish, the main body of marchers pounded out a relentlessrhythm on a makeshift gamelan of plastic bottles and gongs. Occasionallythis noisy ‘hi viz’ throng would come to a grinding halt to bear witness, insolemn silence, to a series of symbolic rituals, performed against thebackdrop of Plymouth Sound, looking out to the Atlantic Ocean beyond.Along with local participants and passers-by, the gathering included artists,writers and musicians from across the Pacific, as well as Europe. The occasionbeing marked was the death of Tupaia, the Ra’iatean priest and star n**igatorwho accompanied Captain Cook on his first voyage from Tahiti in 1769, insearch of the fabled ‘Great Southern Continent’, but who died a year later on11 November 1770 in Bat**ia (now Jakarta), in the Dutch East Indies(Indonesia).

The first version of this processional performance had taken place a weekearlier in Greenwich, in South East London, setting out from the NationalMaritime Museum and wending its way through the English rain to the banksof the River Thames, where Pacific waka canoes waited to transport thedancing ghost of Cook away to the sea. Adapted in response to theprohibitions of the Royal Museums Greenwich, the central object ofinstitutional anxiety in this closely monitored parade was a dog-skin n**aluniform, which had been tailored for the occasion in Australia as a symbolicgift for Tupaia. In order to **oid ‘contamination’ of museum property by thedingo fur, however, the Greenwich authorities had insisted that the cloakshould be vacuum-sealed in plastic, bestowing a whole new set of symbolicassociations on this gift from the South Pacific. At the same time, themuseum’s health and safety guidelines required the performers to wear highvisibility vests if they were to process beyond the grounds of the institution;a prescriptive stipulation which, in response, was adopted as the centralvisual motif of the parade.

Gathered under the overall title of Cook’s New Clothes, this multi-facetedproject also incorporated an installation in the vast, dilapidated MelvilleBuilding in the Royal N**y’s former victualling depot in Plymouth’s RoyalWilliam Yard, as part of The Atlantic Project, along with related performancelectures, Stubb’s Dingo and Museopiracy, in implicated sites across the city.Conceived and directed by Austro-Australian artist, Khadij***on ZinnenburgCarroll, in collaboration with Maori we**er Keren Ruki, Cook’s New Clothesbrought together a cast of participants from across the globe, includingchoreographer Kirill Burlov, performance artist Nikolaus Gansterer,composer Mo'ong Santoso Pribadi and Indigenous Australian scholars,Tamara Murdoch and Jessyca Hutchens, amongst others.

250 years earlier, on 26 August 1768, Captain Cook’s Ende**our set sail fromPlymouth, ostensibly to record the transit of Venus from the vantage point ofTahiti, in the South Pacific, but tasked with a greater secret objective; to seekout and claim the Terra Australis Incognita for King George III. Whilst the250th anniversary of Cook’s first voyage has received much scholarlyattention in recent times, with significant investment in the re-narration of thisformative encounter between Pacific and European civilisations, therecognition of Tupaia’s role in this and the commemoration of his death arestill largely overlooked. For a quarter of a millennium, the two-way dialoguefacilitated through Tupaia’s translation and cultural mediation hasconsistently been recast as a monologue of Western ‘discovery’. As with thecritique of anthropology, it is the mutual ‘coeval’ nature of communicativeexchange that has been systematically denied in the ensuing discourse.When Cook encountered Oceanic peoples in the course of his three voyagesto the Pacific between 1768 and 1780, he was astonished not only by theirdiversity and the extent of their dispersal across the Pacific Ocean - coveringone third of the Earth’s surface - but even more so by their evident links andcommonalities. The similarity of languages, ceremonial spaces, maritimetechnologies, religious practices and trading networks pointed to acivilisation with a complex history of voyaging and exchange that had existedin parallel with, but virtually unknown to the West, for thousands of years.

On joining the Ende**our in July 1769, as an ‘ariori priest (a devotee of ‘Oro, thegod of fertility and war, with a long tradition of maritime exploration), Tupaiawas able to list hundreds of named islands, stretching over ***ast area of thecentral Pacific. Working closely with the Europeans, Tupaia went on totranscribe them onto a map. While Cook, as a leading hydrographer, usedinstrumental measurements to fix the islands in Cartesian space, gridded bylatitude and longitude, Tupaia located them in a relational universe ofPolynesian space-time, with star, wind and human ancestors linked toparticular people and places in expansive, dynamic kin networks.One of the most distinctive commonalities of Oceanic culture is the gifteconomy. It is no coincidence that the seminal early twentieth-centuryanthropological study, The Gift by Marcel Mauss (1925), was inspired byinstances from the Pacific. Often ancestral treasures of great mana (spiritualpower), such as a ceremonial cloak, were deliberately gifted to foreignerswith whom the Islanders wished to inaugurate relationships. The significanceof the dog-skin uniform in Cook's New Clothes, along with a cloak made fromshredded plastic detritus reclaimed from the Pacific Ocean, is that Cook didnot appear to h**e any such offering within his own collection, as one mighth**e supposed he would. When the Ende**our made landfall at Turanga-nuia-Kiwi (Gisborne) – the first European ship to arrive in Aotearoa (NewZealand) – it was Tupaia who led the dialogue, telling the local people thatthey had sailed from Ra’iatea, in the Society Islands, an ancestral homelandof the Maori. Thus, it was Tupaia, as the leader of an ‘ariol expedition, not theEuropean, Cook, who was ceremonially welcomed as a tohunga (expert), withthe gift of ***aluable dog-skin cloak.

It seems that Tupaia’s cloak was subsequently inherited, after his death in Bat**ia, by Joseph Banks, the wealthy young leader of the Royal Society party of botanists and artists on board the Ende**our, who was later famouslypainted wearing the very same Maori accoutrement by Benjamin West. Thispowerful artefact now resides in the Pitt Rivers Museum, as part of theUniversity of Oxford’s ethnological collection. It was Banks who had insistedthat Tupaia should be welcomed aboard the Ende**our in Tahiti, eventhough Cook had been reluctant, refusing to support the Ra’iatean or granthim a uniform. In his journal (1769), Banks wrote of Tupaia, “I do not knowwhy I may not keep him as a curiosity, as well as some of my nei***ours dolions and tigers at a larger expense.”

“How to commemorate Tupaia?” asks the narrator in the voice-over to Khadij**on Zinnenburg Carroll’s film, Processions for Tupaia (2018), documenting theevents in Greenwich and Plymouth. How to restore subjectivity to thismarginalised figure? “How to return ghosts to the future?” In JohannesFabian’s book Time and the Other (1983), the ethnographer analyses acentral device in the making of the object of anthropology as “temporaldistancing”. Situating the Other in a geographically remote and a distant time,such as an “archaic past”, is central to how modern Western institutions h**ecreated the image of the superiority of the history that they represent. But weknow that the Oceanic civilisation Cook encountered was not ‘pre-modern’or primitive. Indeed, it was highly sophisticated, with a complex history ofmaritime trade and cultural exchange across more than one third of theEarth’s surface. One way of honouring Tupaia’s legacy, therefore, would be tostart by calling out the Western fantasy of ‘discovery’ which still persists today,emphasizing instead the reciprocity of the dialogue that took place betweenEuropean and Pacific cultures, facilitated by this remarkable intermediary.If one were to take the logic of translation further, however, and to understandTupaia’s map as a re-interpretation of the Atlantic world view from an Oceanicperspective, the question arises: how might this challenge to the (Mercator)projection of Western universalism begin to conjure ***ision of whatdecolonisation might look like today? How can Tupaia’s map help to divestEurocentric modernity of its normative positionality?

At the final station of the Second Procession for Tupaia on Devil’s Point, thegathering watched in silence as Cook walked out into the waters of thePlymouth Sound. The last sighting was of a figure disappearing into the sea,accompanied by the sound of the wind, seagulls and the rhythmic swell ofthe Atlantic Ocean beyond.


IAAC6入围名单(按照拼音首字母排序)


黄格勉

获奖文章:《“拨动偶像” —— W.J.T 米切尔的图像爱欲》

所评展览:《媒介理论领域的图像及元图像》


林诚翔

入围文章:《前卫的困境及其展示 —— “挑战的灵魂:伊夫·克莱因、李禹焕、丁乙”观展札记》

所评展览:挑战的灵魂:伊夫·克莱因、李禹焕、丁乙


李卓薇

入围文章:《后人类纪:技术是否操纵了人类的行为方式和思维逻辑?》

所评展览:《道格·阿肯提》


蒋苇

入围文章:《观念的感性 —— 弗朗西斯·埃利斯的诗意政治》

所评展览:弗朗西斯·埃利斯的个展“消耗”


施越

入围文章:《“最不中国”的中国馆》

所评展览:《威尼斯双年展中国馆“Re - 睿”》


陶文婷

入围文章:《从郑国谷作品看中国艺术策展的刻板印象》

所评展览:《郑国谷:幻化;郑国谷:相片作品1993-2006.“连按快门都是多余的”》


于念平

入围文章:《从亚陶出发到“女性作为主角”,南西·斯佩罗的“纸镜”》

所评展览:《Nancy Spero, Paper Mirror》



杨旖旎

入围文章:《某种结构》

所评展览:《谢素梅:安栖》



Andrew O'Neil Hibbard

入围文章:Untitled, 1989/2019

所评展览:Untitled, 1989/2019


Evelyn Char

入围文章:Heterochronicity as écriture feé minie: Problematising the Historical Traumas of Taiwan and Indonesia

所评展览:Letter - Callus - Post-War


Godfre Leung

入围文章:A Matter of Perspective: Jinny Yu at Galerie Art Mûr

所评展览:Jinny Yu: Why does its lock fit my key?


JJ Charlesworth

入围文章:Hiding In Plain Sight

所评展览:Francis Bacon: Coupling


Lizzie Homersham

入围文章:Before Projection: Video Sculpture 1974-1995

所评展览:Before Projection: Video Sculpture 1974-1995


Louis Shankar

入围文章:Trans/position

所评展览:Kiss My Gernders


Patrick Reed

入围文章:N**igating the Ruby Con: Force Majeure and Sterling Ruby's Damnation

所评展览:Damnation



Rahel Aima

入围文章:Firing Blanks: Hito Steyerl and the Voiding of Research Art

所评展览:HIto Steyerl: Drill


IAAC6新任评委介绍


邵亦杨 | Shao Yiyang

中央美术学院(CAFA)人文学院副院长、教授。其本科就读于中央美术学院美术史系,后于澳大利亚悉尼大学艺术史论系获得硕士、博士学位。2004年起于中央美术学院研究和教授西方美术史和世界现当代艺术,曾是国家社会科学基金艺术学重点项目——“西方现代视觉文化与艺术研究”——负责人,并荣获教育部新世纪优秀人才。主要著作有:《20世纪现当代艺术史》、《全球视野下的当代艺术》、《后现代之后》、《穿越后现代》。

尚塔尔·弗斯特 | Chantal Faust


尚塔尔·弗斯特是一名艺术家与写作者,并自2010年起就任教于英国皇家艺术学院,现为英国皇家艺术学院艺术人文学院学术课程指导和资深研究生导师。2003年至2009年,弗斯特于墨尔本大学维多利亚艺术学院担任讲师。

翁子健 | Antony Yung


翁子健在亚洲艺术文献库担任资深研究员(AAA),具备十一年研究工作的经验。
他毕业于香港大学,随后投入当代艺术领域,主要活跃于中国大陆、香港和台湾。
其研究关注于一次和二次材料,以及对材料的数字化、注解和活化。
返回页首

[快速回复] (HTML代码不可用)[高级回复]
请输入验证码: +jdlfjdlfljl12l12jl+*ljld- + +zdfn,n,/,/,;k1234-353;kdf;kdf;+*ljld- 9 (请输入计算结果)
表情
发言前,请仔细阅读并同意以下注意事项,未注册用户请返回社区首页注册。
1.请自觉遵守:Art-Ba-Ba论坛免责声明
2.请尊重网上道德;
3.自觉遵守:爱国、守法、自律、真实、文明的原则;
4.遵守互联网电子公告服务管理规定 及中华人民共和国其他各项有关法律法规;
5.严禁发表危害国家安全、破坏民族团结、破坏国家宗教政策、破坏社会稳定、侮辱、诽谤、教唆、淫秽等内容的作品;
6.承担一切因您的行为而直接或间接导致的民事或刑事法律责任。
7.Art-Ba-Ba所有帖子仅代表作者本人意见,不代表本社区立场。
8.转载文章请注明出自“Art-ba-ba中国当代艺术社区(www.art-ba-ba.com)”。如是商业用途还请联系原作者。