上世紀(jì)90年代，在多元文化主義甚囂塵上之際，后殖民理論卻揭示了存在于“多元文化主義”之中的本質(zhì)主義傾向。例如霍米·巴巴(Homi K. Bhabha)提出：多元文化主義導(dǎo)源于自由主義意識(shí)形態(tài)，其特征是通過(guò)文化寬容的姿態(tài)，將他者固著在由西方主流文化所預(yù)設(shè)的位置之上，其實(shí)質(zhì)仍然是一種整體論。[1]最早將非西方藝術(shù)家?guī)雵?guó)際視野中的“大地魔術(shù)師”展（1989年）在這方面提供了一個(gè)鮮活的標(biāo)本，并因而廣受爭(zhēng)議。隨著這類批判的逐步深化與廣為傳播，1990年代下半葉之后，在1980年代曾經(jīng)十分流行的那種以文化符號(hào)為依托、帶有人類學(xué)印記的藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作方式，逐漸淡出人們的視野，無(wú)論是藝術(shù)家還是策展人，都更加注重文化之異源性和非決定性，注重不同文化之間的平等對(duì)話，注重立足于本社群的當(dāng)下現(xiàn)實(shí)，并試圖在這種新的基礎(chǔ)上實(shí)現(xiàn)與國(guó)際社會(huì)之間的對(duì)話與協(xié)商。
然而，這些努力是否真的改變了“多元文化主義”的舊有架構(gòu)？今天，奔走于各類國(guó)際展覽的非西方藝術(shù)家，究竟如何參與了國(guó)際當(dāng)代藝術(shù)？本文將以三位著名的當(dāng)代非西方藝術(shù)家瑪麗娜·阿布拉莫維奇(Marina Abramovi?)徐冰(Xu Bing)艾爾·安納祖(El Anatsui)為例，分析當(dāng)代“他者”是如何以更隱蔽、更為結(jié)構(gòu)性的方式，參與了以西方文化邏輯為基礎(chǔ)的當(dāng)代國(guó)際藝術(shù)烏托邦的建構(gòu)的。
一
前南斯拉夫行為藝術(shù)家阿布拉莫維奇有著雙重的身份：她來(lái)自一個(gè)前社會(huì)主義國(guó)家，但就其文化根基而言，卻是隸屬于基督教傳統(tǒng)的塞爾維亞人。這一點(diǎn)對(duì)于阿布拉莫維奇的創(chuàng)作及接受來(lái)說(shuō)無(wú)疑是重要的，不過(guò)，阿布拉莫維奇的作品中很少會(huì)出現(xiàn)直接的政治指涉，也極少用文化符號(hào)來(lái)亮明自己的身份。盡管她的作品中也存在著一些政治隱喻，但她的價(jià)值、她被接受的關(guān)鍵，卻并不在這里。
回顧阿布拉莫維奇漫長(zhǎng)的行為藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作歷程，我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)她的作品有幾個(gè)重要的特點(diǎn)：第一、簡(jiǎn)潔，幾乎總是用最直接的方式，直指身體和精神的極限；第二、大量地使用隱喻，具有儀式感；第三，對(duì)抗性，反復(fù)地訴諸二元對(duì)立。
簡(jiǎn)潔性從一開(kāi)始就伴隨著阿布拉莫維奇。1970年代初，她創(chuàng)作了一批賴以成名的作品：《節(jié)奏》系列、《釋放》系列、《空間中的關(guān)系》等，無(wú)一不具有極其顯著的簡(jiǎn)潔性，以一種不證自明、無(wú)法繞行、無(wú)需釋義的方式，直指人類身體與精神之極限。這種直指核心的簡(jiǎn)潔性，帶給了她的藝術(shù)某種原初力量，而這經(jīng)常被看做她的魅力所在。
實(shí)際上，我們應(yīng)該看到，這里所顯露出來(lái)的是某種流行于20世紀(jì)中葉的總體趨勢(shì)，即藝術(shù)本體之純化。這個(gè)趨勢(shì)在格林伯格(Clement Greenberg)的敘述中被闡釋得淋漓盡致，因而總是與繪畫(huà)之不斷驅(qū)逐外來(lái)影響、實(shí)現(xiàn)自我意識(shí)的過(guò)程聯(lián)系在一起。但這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)并未局限在某個(gè)藝術(shù)門(mén)類之內(nèi)，相反，在視覺(jué)藝術(shù)、音樂(lè)、舞蹈、戲劇等各大藝術(shù)門(mén)類中，都出現(xiàn)了回歸本門(mén)類藝術(shù)本體的純化運(yùn)動(dòng)。而回溯這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)之根源，我們至少可以追溯到1920年代的演員及劇作家、劇場(chǎng)理論家安托南·阿爾托(Antonin Artaud)身上去。
阿爾托在《殘酷戲?。簯騽〖捌渲赜啊分刑岢?，要對(duì)戲劇進(jìn)行純化，消解古典戲劇中存在的文字中心和心理分析傳統(tǒng)，最終消解西方文化中的邏各斯中心主義，讓?xiě)騽』貧w至戲劇之“前夜”，以劇場(chǎng)、以身體為核心。[2]但又絕不要依靠演員的瞬間感受和爆發(fā)，而是要讓整個(gè)戲劇有所控制地展開(kāi)。為此，他引入了象形文字和東方宗教劇作為類比，認(rèn)為戲劇表達(dá)應(yīng)具有象形文字的準(zhǔn)確性、直接性、與神圣之物的相關(guān)性，應(yīng)該以某種類似于弗洛伊德的“夢(mèng)”的方式來(lái)運(yùn)作，但這夢(mèng)又絕不能委身于分析師的躺椅。他將“殘酷”二字解釋為必要性，認(rèn)為它與命運(yùn)相關(guān)。
阿爾托幾乎從未實(shí)現(xiàn)過(guò)自己的戲劇理想，在他身后究竟有誰(shuí)曾經(jīng)實(shí)現(xiàn)了這個(gè)理想，這也是未決之事。倒是“殘酷”二字，經(jīng)常被作字面的理解，因而衍生了一整批以血腥為訴求點(diǎn)的作品。但無(wú)疑，阿爾托為戲劇之走向戲劇自我意識(shí)提供了強(qiáng)大的推動(dòng)力。阿爾托的影響，在1960-70年代先后在美國(guó)和歐洲全面復(fù)興，并帶來(lái)了劇本的邊緣化，戲劇試圖脫離文本而獨(dú)立。而根據(jù)蘇珊·桑塔格(Susan Sontag)的觀察，與同一時(shí)期的戲劇相比，倒是偶發(fā)藝術(shù)更為接近阿爾托的理念。[3]這類藝術(shù)充分地使用了身體，并且徹底排斥了文本。[4]
從這個(gè)角度來(lái)看，行為藝術(shù)大量地繁榮于1970年代，且大量地訴諸極限、乃至血腥，這并不是偶然的。而阿布拉莫維奇在這個(gè)時(shí)期的創(chuàng)作，即從屬于這條主線。實(shí)際上，與大多數(shù)同時(shí)期的行為藝術(shù)家相比，阿布拉莫維奇在“極限”方面并非十分突出，毋寧說(shuō)，她更為突出的是其簡(jiǎn)潔性和必要性，就此意義上，她比任何人都要接近阿爾托。
但是，對(duì)阿布拉莫維奇的閱讀還有另外一個(gè)維度，即隱喻與儀式感，這一點(diǎn)更為復(fù)雜。
在隱喻的層面上，解讀阿布拉莫維奇并不難。從早期的《節(jié)奏5》，到讓她聲名大噪的《托馬斯的嘴唇》，再到《巴爾干巴洛克》或者《海上夜航》，她所使用的隱喻大都有著清晰的語(yǔ)義。她經(jīng)常使用的那些符號(hào)，例如五角星、蜂蜜、鞭子、骨骼等，都有著直接的宗教和政治指向，我們甚至可以為她歸納出一套類似于博伊斯(Joseph Beuys)的隱喻體系，讓她的作品在某種圖像學(xué)的意義上被系統(tǒng)地解讀。此外，她也很善于使用原型，1985年制作的《長(zhǎng)城》影片即說(shuō)明了這一點(diǎn)。
但這僅僅是表象。阿布拉莫維奇的復(fù)雜之處，并不在于她所使用的隱喻，而在于她將這些隱喻組合、并訴諸某個(gè)文化體系的方式。大體上來(lái)說(shuō)，阿布拉莫維奇的隱喻歸屬于三個(gè)類別：政治、基督教、原始宗教。而她的全部復(fù)雜性，即來(lái)自于這三種類別在20世紀(jì)西方文化語(yǔ)境中的相互糾結(jié)。
后啟蒙時(shí)代的西方經(jīng)歷了去神化的過(guò)程，基督教在教會(huì)、信仰團(tuán)體和社區(qū)仍然發(fā)揮著相應(yīng)的作用，在文化中卻不再是主流。但我們很容易觀察到，在當(dāng)代西方藝術(shù)中，基督教依然是一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的存在，體現(xiàn)為相互矛盾的兩個(gè)方面：一方面，它經(jīng)常被當(dāng)作陳腔濫調(diào)、霸權(quán)之終極敘事者而受到戲擬和嘲弄；另一方面，它又充當(dāng)著思想和精神的最后依托，提供著價(jià)值、理念、文化概念。在行為藝術(shù)的領(lǐng)域里，赫爾曼·尼斯(Hermann Nitsch)的創(chuàng)作在這方面具有典型性，但并不細(xì)致，而阿布拉莫維奇則抓住了更為核心的東西。她所使用的，是基督教最關(guān)鍵的概念之一“受難”，這是救贖史的高潮，也是轉(zhuǎn)化的開(kāi)端，在后世教會(huì)和民間的宗教實(shí)踐中，受難始終是最具有凝聚力和號(hào)召力的中心意象，在整個(gè)基督教史上一再重現(xiàn)。它的極端表現(xiàn)是“五傷”圣人的涌現(xiàn)和13世紀(jì)中葉的鞭笞派大游行。通過(guò)自我鞭笞、吃蜂蜜、凈化枯骨、跪拜、上十字架、任公眾擺布等行為，阿布拉莫維奇實(shí)際上接管了基督教的基本內(nèi)容。而她的接管之所以成功，正是因?yàn)樗龔奈粗苯釉V諸宗教，而總是通過(guò)被轉(zhuǎn)化和內(nèi)化了、去神化的、擁有現(xiàn)代形態(tài)的儀式，來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)隱秘的移交。從而同時(shí)實(shí)現(xiàn)了后基督教的西方文化對(duì)自身之文化基因的排斥與懷鄉(xiāng)。
不過(guò)，這僅僅是其中的一個(gè)層面而已，我們也許應(yīng)該回想一下：阿爾托在1960-70年代的復(fù)興，阿布拉莫維奇及一批行為藝術(shù)家在1970年代的繁盛，在時(shí)間上都與一個(gè)重要的政治和文化運(yùn)動(dòng)偶合——五月風(fēng)暴。當(dāng)然，五月風(fēng)暴是多維的，但它有一個(gè)清晰的形式層面：儀式感。人們已經(jīng)就五月風(fēng)暴前后數(shù)十年間歐洲青年文化中所出現(xiàn)的新特點(diǎn)做過(guò)大量的研究，斯圖爾特·霍爾(Stuart Hall)通過(guò)對(duì)一部著作的命名對(duì)此做了精辟的概括：《通過(guò)儀式抵抗》。[5]在那個(gè)時(shí)期的青年文化中，發(fā)型、衣著、犯罪、性泛濫、麻醉藥、神秘宗教等，都是抵抗現(xiàn)有的西方資本主義文化的某種方式，這就為我們理解阿布拉莫維奇作品中的某些儀式提供基礎(chǔ)：例如《節(jié)奏2》中吞服的精神類藥物、總是在路上的老吉普車、《海上夜航》中的飛去來(lái)和金礦等。[6]如果說(shuō)她的作品的確有政治意味，那么，這種意味大都是在這個(gè)層面上來(lái)進(jìn)行的，并因此比那些符號(hào)化、圖像化的東西，更能觸動(dòng)西方文化的深層。
最后一點(diǎn)是關(guān)于她藝術(shù)中持續(xù)存在的對(duì)抗性。我們應(yīng)該開(kāi)宗明義地提出：這是對(duì)二元論的復(fù)現(xiàn)，也是對(duì)恐懼政治的復(fù)現(xiàn)。在阿布拉莫維奇的作品中，非但與烏雷(Ulay)合作的那些總是以對(duì)抗的形式出現(xiàn)，即使在她獨(dú)立完成的作品中，與某種權(quán)力或力量的對(duì)抗也是重要的主題。當(dāng)然，我們可以將此理解為對(duì)某類“關(guān)系”的探討，但其中的二元論色彩、所潛存的價(jià)值判斷，卻是無(wú)法忽略的。這就使得阿布拉莫維奇的作品盡管擁有復(fù)雜的隱喻系統(tǒng)和文化語(yǔ)境，卻也避免不了明確的語(yǔ)義。
作為一場(chǎng)文化運(yùn)動(dòng)，五月風(fēng)暴最突出的成果是讓消解二元論的論調(diào)占了上風(fēng)，經(jīng)過(guò)各種身份政治斗爭(zhēng)和話語(yǔ)爭(zhēng)鳴，多元化、多樣性、差異性逐漸成為政治正確性的內(nèi)容。但這無(wú)法回避自由世界需要借助二元論來(lái)維系其整體性、其在價(jià)值譜系中的崇高地位，這是當(dāng)代西方文化的吊詭之處。包括齊澤克(Slavoj ?i?ek)在內(nèi)的一些知識(shí)分子早就觀察到：今日西方世界的正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，有賴于對(duì)某些外部力量的妖魔化，需要依靠恐懼政治來(lái)維系內(nèi)部之凝聚。這個(gè)對(duì)象在歷史上是可變的，今天主要化身為穆斯林，而它的原型則是不變的，都是一個(gè)被指認(rèn)、被想象的他者，被非人化的恐懼對(duì)象。到今天，在全世界面臨日益緊迫的經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治危機(jī)的時(shí)刻，這一點(diǎn)就看得更清楚了。
當(dāng)然，這個(gè)事實(shí)無(wú)法得到直接了當(dāng)?shù)氐恼J(rèn)可。在當(dāng)代藝術(shù)界，強(qiáng)調(diào)多元化、多樣性、差異性的論調(diào)仍是主流，這是政治正確性所需要的。而阿布拉莫維奇的直截了當(dāng)、但又語(yǔ)焉不詳?shù)淖髌?，卻提供一個(gè)被內(nèi)在地需求著、但又不能被言說(shuō)的對(duì)抗性結(jié)構(gòu)。在這個(gè)意義上，她的作品無(wú)異于提供了一個(gè)集體宣泄的空間。
在這個(gè)節(jié)點(diǎn)上，我們可以提出兩件極為重要的作品作為總結(jié)：《海上夜航》和《藝術(shù)家在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)》。這兩件作品擁有相似的結(jié)構(gòu)，對(duì)抗性、儀式感、語(yǔ)言的純化，凝縮為一個(gè)最為簡(jiǎn)單、直接的對(duì)視行為。但不同的是，前者是阿布拉莫維奇與烏雷之間的對(duì)視，并用了一些來(lái)自澳洲土著的原始宗教用品作為道具，其語(yǔ)義和語(yǔ)境都是相對(duì)明確的；而后者，盡管也是訴諸四目之間的對(duì)視，卻只有阿布拉莫維奇一個(gè)人，面對(duì)所有可能坐到她面前的人，道具也簡(jiǎn)化到只剩一張桌子和兩把椅子。通過(guò)這樣的變化，《藝術(shù)家在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)》引入了另外一個(gè)至關(guān)重要的維度。
在這里，我們又要回到阿爾托。阿爾托曾經(jīng)是一位超現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者，也是最早用弗洛伊德(Sigmund Freud)的語(yǔ)調(diào)發(fā)言的藝術(shù)家之一。盡管他敏銳地看出精神分析活動(dòng)中潛存著回到邏各斯的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，但他卻認(rèn)為精神分析的結(jié)構(gòu)是殘酷戲劇所必須的：夢(mèng)的結(jié)構(gòu)、象征的結(jié)構(gòu)。關(guān)于被拉康(Jacques Lacan)復(fù)興的精神分析學(xué)在五月風(fēng)暴之后的重要性，無(wú)需多言，有人甚至稱之為一個(gè)“精神分析化”的世界。影響所及，非但拉康滲透到諸多理論家的思想中，公眾也學(xué)會(huì)了以精神分析的方式去自我認(rèn)知?？梢哉f(shuō)，《藝術(shù)家在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)》用一個(gè)極其簡(jiǎn)潔的裝置“對(duì)視”，架構(gòu)起了一臺(tái)龐大的精神分析機(jī)器，它既帶有東方宗教的簡(jiǎn)潔與神秘（阿爾托所向往的），也帶有對(duì)抗性、儀式感，同時(shí)溯源了基督教的傳統(tǒng)（回想一下喬托(Giotto)壁畫(huà)中基督與猶大、圣母與以利沙伯的對(duì)視），而這一切，皆被融合到一件簡(jiǎn)潔的、十分當(dāng)代的作品中去了。不能不說(shuō)，這是阿布拉莫維奇的集大成之作。
二
以某種巧妙的方式，將被隱蔽、又被需求著的二元論結(jié)構(gòu)引入當(dāng)代藝術(shù)中來(lái)，這并不是阿布拉莫維奇的專利，在這個(gè)序列中，我們?nèi)匀豢梢园l(fā)現(xiàn)其他藝術(shù)家，比如中國(guó)藝術(shù)家徐冰。
徐冰是中國(guó)當(dāng)代最重要的藝術(shù)家之一，也是最有國(guó)際影響力的非西方藝術(shù)家之一。從早年的《天書(shū)》到《新英文字母》，再到《地書(shū)》和近期的《蜻蜓之眼》，徐冰最好的作品，幾乎都在處理語(yǔ)言碎片，人們常常論及他和德里達(dá)的關(guān)聯(lián)，這無(wú)疑是理解他的一個(gè)重要框架。徐冰的作品十分多變，但這并不是指他所使用的材質(zhì)或創(chuàng)作方法，而是指他的創(chuàng)作語(yǔ)境。總體而言，徐冰的作品可以大致分為三類：一是處理語(yǔ)言碎片的這部分；二是創(chuàng)作于1990年代，帶有明顯的文化符號(hào)特征、以處理東西方文化之關(guān)系為旨?xì)w的作品，它們從屬于那個(gè)時(shí)代世界范圍內(nèi)的“后殖民藝術(shù)”大潮。
第三類則很難歸類，載體、題材都不相同，但其間也存在著重要的關(guān)聯(lián)性，體現(xiàn)為：創(chuàng)作時(shí)間的相似性（幾乎都創(chuàng)作于1990年代末以后，彼時(shí)徐冰已經(jīng)是一位具有國(guó)際聲譽(yù)的重要藝術(shù)家）、創(chuàng)作背景的相似性（大都是定制作品）、都動(dòng)用了較大規(guī)模的資源、都是以國(guó)際社會(huì)為主要訴求對(duì)象。這似乎說(shuō)明了這類作品是與徐冰作為一個(gè)成功的“國(guó)際藝術(shù)家”的身份密切關(guān)聯(lián)在一起的，實(shí)際上，這類作品的內(nèi)在的共同之處就在于它們以結(jié)構(gòu)性的方式貼合于國(guó)際當(dāng)代藝術(shù)主流，并以十分高超的手法，同時(shí)滿足了尊重文化差異/維護(hù)現(xiàn)有的新殖民主義秩序這一對(duì)相互矛盾的基本需求。是否使用“文化符號(hào)”，這只是一個(gè)次要的技術(shù)性問(wèn)題，更為重要的是通過(guò)對(duì)呈現(xiàn)什么、呈現(xiàn)為何的一次次選擇，守護(hù)著自由世界的邊界，將我/他這對(duì)基本的兩分法，呈現(xiàn)于一種無(wú)差別的表象之中，但與此同時(shí)，這種呈現(xiàn)又應(yīng)該標(biāo)識(shí)出二者之間的根本差別。
以此為框架，我們便看到了徐冰“第三類”作品的整體性。和阿布拉莫維奇不同，徐冰從未建構(gòu)起一套牢固的、系統(tǒng)性的哲學(xué)，以此進(jìn)入當(dāng)代藝術(shù)和文化的精神肌理。相反，他的選擇看上去是松散的，常常讓人們覺(jué)得這些作品之間缺乏相似性，但實(shí)際上，對(duì)這些作品做一個(gè)回顧便不難發(fā)現(xiàn)，他正是通過(guò)對(duì)呈現(xiàn)什么、如何呈現(xiàn)的選擇，反復(fù)確認(rèn)了既有的游戲規(guī)則的合法性。
如果說(shuō)阿布拉莫維奇的動(dòng)人之處在于她以富有沖擊力的手法再現(xiàn)了二元論，并因而充當(dāng)了某種療愈機(jī)制的話，那么，徐冰的能力恰恰在于處理這類二元論的曖昧性。在這方面，2004年的《何處惹塵?！肥且粋€(gè)很好的案例。徐冰用一種東方禪機(jī)式的發(fā)問(wèn)，介入了“9·11”這個(gè)世紀(jì)初最受關(guān)注的政治事件。這件作品之所以有趣，首先在于：事件本身的堅(jiān)硬的意義內(nèi)核與徐冰懸置這個(gè)意義的意圖之間形成了強(qiáng)烈對(duì)比。關(guān)于“9·11”與恐懼政治之間的關(guān)系，及其對(duì)此后世界秩序的影響，人們已經(jīng)談得很多。齊澤克特別智慧地指出了它和好萊塢災(zāi)難片之間的內(nèi)在關(guān)聯(lián)，[7]這也就表明了，在對(duì)這個(gè)事件的反復(fù)表述中存在著一種原型化的企圖，但它不能被直接陳述出來(lái)，否則原型化本身就會(huì)失敗，拋棄了自由、寬容、平等的“我們”將和“他們”沒(méi)有差別。
通過(guò)懸置一個(gè)不可能被懸置的意義內(nèi)核，徐冰實(shí)際上擺出了一個(gè)空洞的姿態(tài)。這是絕妙的。因?yàn)楸Ｕ?ldquo;9·11”在權(quán)力譜系中之優(yōu)越性的關(guān)鍵，僅僅在于維護(hù)它的可見(jiàn)性，而所謂被奪權(quán)者，被奪去的也正是這種可見(jiàn)性。[8]徐冰顯然看到了這個(gè)最為根本的層面，他的空洞姿態(tài)既維護(hù)了這個(gè)事件的純粹可見(jiàn)性，又沒(méi)有采取任何立場(chǎng)，從而避開(kāi)了一切可能的困境，而由于可見(jiàn)性本身就是立場(chǎng)，所以他實(shí)際上已經(jīng)清晰地表明了立場(chǎng)。正由于意義內(nèi)核是堅(jiān)硬的，人們才可以去懸置它，這種懸置并不是真的懸置，但它畢竟是懸置。
《何處惹塵埃》還有另一個(gè)有趣之處：它建構(gòu)了一個(gè)神話：徐冰將具有高度政治敏感性的塵埃做成女兒的玩偶，瞞天過(guò)海穿越海關(guān)。之所以說(shuō)它是神話，是因?yàn)樗扇×嗽突臄⑹率址ǎ禾煺娴呐?、愚蠢的?guó)家機(jī)器、勇敢而智慧的英雄（藝術(shù)家）、具有重大歷史意義的遺骸、最后還有大團(tuán)圓的結(jié)局。套用齊澤克的說(shuō)法：這個(gè)故事同樣具有好萊塢大片的底色。
羅蘭·巴特(Roland Barthes)說(shuō)：神話是一種交流體系，它是一種信息。在神話中，重要的并不是被表述之物，而是表述的方式，這方式必定是歷史性的。[9]也就是說(shuō)：神話講了什么故事，這并不重要，重要的是它所傳遞的信息、它所構(gòu)建的關(guān)系、它與語(yǔ)境的相關(guān)性。實(shí)際上，徐冰的許多作品都是伴隨著一則神話而進(jìn)入公眾視野的，而這些神話又大都使用了原型化的敘事手法。
在這方面的典范是《木林森計(jì)劃》。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目最初是受國(guó)際資源保護(hù)機(jī)構(gòu)等多家組織之托，在肯尼亞實(shí)施的。徐冰試圖讓肯尼亞孩子按照他所教授的方法畫(huà)樹(shù)，再通過(guò)一個(gè)由藝術(shù)品電子商務(wù)支撐的“自循環(huán)系統(tǒng)”將這些畫(huà)賣出去，讓資金回流到肯尼亞繼續(xù)種樹(shù)。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的宗旨是保護(hù)肯尼亞的自然生態(tài)，讓它不再依賴不可持續(xù)的外來(lái)捐助，而實(shí)現(xiàn)自我造血。很顯然，這件作品的運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)方式在市場(chǎng)上很難具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，難以在電子商務(wù)世界中獨(dú)立、長(zhǎng)久地運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，它的成敗主要仰仗徐冰的個(gè)人影響力、以及圍繞著這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的媒體攻勢(shì)。
那么，這樣一件作品，該如何吸引公眾的目光？首先，它訴諸了一個(gè)絕對(duì)具有政治正確性的當(dāng)代母題“環(huán)保”；其次，它訴諸了一個(gè)動(dòng)人的神話。在這個(gè)神話中，徐冰標(biāo)記出了兩個(gè)基本意象：美麗而面臨危機(jī)的肯尼亞、天真的肯尼亞孩子。他說(shuō)，這些孩子幾乎沒(méi)有接觸過(guò)藝術(shù)，對(duì)畫(huà)具充滿了敬畏感，面對(duì)外來(lái)的藝術(shù)家時(shí)，他們是羞澀而又滿懷信任的，但是，他們所表現(xiàn)出來(lái)的巨大、淳樸的創(chuàng)造力，卻震驚了藝術(shù)家。他還拿這些孩子跟中國(guó)孩子進(jìn)行了對(duì)比，感慨說(shuō)中國(guó)孩子是過(guò)度文明化的。這些表述中的原型化色彩是顯而易見(jiàn)的，它讓我們立即想起了高更(Paul Gauguin)筆下的塔西提。對(duì)于塔西提神話的殖民色彩，我們都很熟悉，通過(guò)浪漫、乃至悲情的筆觸，它維護(hù)了野蠻/文明的兩分法，反復(fù)確認(rèn)了既定的世界秩序。
所以，徐冰的“自循環(huán)系統(tǒng)”所販賣的，并不是肯尼亞孩子的畫(huà)，而是西方世界對(duì)肯尼亞的殖民想象；西方公眾為之付款的，也不是孩子的畫(huà)，而是一種既定的世界秩序。從某種意義上來(lái)說(shuō)，這種秩序早已包含在“環(huán)保”這個(gè)母題本身之中，與之相類似的還有“慈善”的母題，在那里，我們看到了思路和手法都十分類似的《赫爾辛基喜馬拉雅的交換》。徐冰以如此巨大的熱情投入的，并不是某一個(gè)項(xiàng)目，而是一個(gè)他必須予以確認(rèn)和守衛(wèi)的世界結(jié)構(gòu)。
這讓我們想起了《鳳凰》，一件同樣攜帶著神話的裝置。談?wù)撨@件作品的中國(guó)符號(hào)、高能耗、缺乏形式感，都不得要領(lǐng)，如果與徐冰本人的闡釋（探討當(dāng)下中國(guó)的勞資關(guān)系問(wèn)題）相比，這些說(shuō)法無(wú)論在理論功底、還是在對(duì)當(dāng)下社會(huì)與藝術(shù)背景的觀察方面，都相形見(jiàn)絀。這件作品的真正有趣之處，在于它的雙面性。為了說(shuō)明這個(gè)問(wèn)題，我們將要提到另外一件中國(guó)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)作品：艾未未在新泰特美術(shù)館渦輪大廳的作品《1億顆陶瓷瓜子》。《瓜子》遠(yuǎn)沒(méi)有《鳳凰》這樣聰明，在它面世之時(shí)，人們馬上辨識(shí)出了它對(duì)中國(guó)作為血汗工廠、低端制造業(yè)之國(guó)的形象的指認(rèn)。但實(shí)際上，兩件作品的結(jié)構(gòu)是極其相似的：巨量勞動(dòng)、巨大的資源消耗、清晰無(wú)疑的中國(guó)符號(hào)、以西方公眾為主要訴求對(duì)象。只不過(guò)與《瓜子》的單向度不同，《鳳凰》同時(shí)滿足了國(guó)際社會(huì)對(duì)中國(guó)的（結(jié)構(gòu)性）指認(rèn)，和國(guó)內(nèi)知識(shí)分子對(duì)于批判不合理社會(huì)現(xiàn)狀的需求。
《鳳凰》還有另外一個(gè)特點(diǎn)，是《瓜子》難以望其項(xiàng)背的，這便是圍繞著它的一整套話語(yǔ)闡釋體系。實(shí)際上，這也是徐冰許多作品的共同特征。一個(gè)由藝術(shù)家、批評(píng)家和理論家、詩(shī)人和文學(xué)家、文學(xué)評(píng)論家等構(gòu)成的文本提供者群體，合力在作品周圍建構(gòu)起了一套包括大量訪談、研討會(huì)記錄、評(píng)論文章、相關(guān)書(shū)籍等出版物構(gòu)成的闡釋性文本體系。
闡釋與作品的并行是當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的特征之一，這個(gè)過(guò)程是由杜尚(Marcel Duchamp)推動(dòng)的，又由他的闡釋者們協(xié)助完成。杜尚之后，藝術(shù)失去自明性，需要文本的支撐，不論這種文本被指認(rèn)為哲學(xué)、體制、還是契約，總之文本的存在成了藝術(shù)的內(nèi)在需求，從而進(jìn)入了藝術(shù)的“內(nèi)部”。在很多情況下，文本的體量比藝術(shù)品本身更為龐大。但這并不像徐冰說(shuō)的，是因?yàn)樵S多作品“看不懂”，而是因?yàn)殛U釋空間的大小已經(jīng)成為判斷作品之價(jià)值的重要標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這也就解釋了：為什么那些意義十分明確的作品，對(duì)闡釋也有著同樣的依賴性。事實(shí)上，圍繞著作品的許多闡釋，并沒(méi)有把事情說(shuō)得更清楚，而是讓其更加模糊了。模糊并非沒(méi)有意義，它起到了疏離的效果，擴(kuò)張了作品的闡釋空間，并因此提升了它。這樣，我們就不難理解，為什么徐冰總是否認(rèn)那些不言自明的東西，比如《煙草計(jì)劃》中的他父親的病歷。
“闡釋”還是一種霸權(quán)生產(chǎn)機(jī)制，它揭示了當(dāng)代藝術(shù)中民主表象與霸權(quán)之間的矛盾并存。馬庫(kù)斯·米森(Markus Miessen)以一種激進(jìn)的態(tài)度指出了十多年來(lái)盛行于政治與藝術(shù)項(xiàng)目中的“參與”式民主的霸權(quán)性質(zhì)，認(rèn)為參與的純潔形象，恰恰掩蓋了其游戲規(guī)則制定者的霸權(quán)屬性。[10]實(shí)際上，在當(dāng)代藝術(shù)中推動(dòng)霸權(quán)的，不僅是被預(yù)設(shè)的游戲規(guī)則，還有日漸精巧化和專家化的闡釋體系，它逐漸地排斥了門(mén)外漢的參與，將自己變成了一個(gè)封閉的領(lǐng)域，這既是由理論話語(yǔ)的日益復(fù)雜和快速更新所決定的，也是刻意引導(dǎo)的結(jié)果。闡釋的空間打開(kāi)了，闡釋的可能性卻封閉了。無(wú)限可能的幻景背后，卻露出了霸權(quán)的單調(diào)背影。這不免讓我們想起了盧梭，他曾說(shuō)：自由是絕對(duì)的，但絕對(duì)的自由將使人做絕對(duì)正確的事，結(jié)果就是絕對(duì)的服從。[11]民主和霸權(quán)，可以是同一個(gè)事物的鏡之雙面。再前進(jìn)一小步，我們便會(huì)看到，它是這個(gè)自由、民主、寬容的新殖民世界秩序的縮影。
三
《鳳凰》、《瓜子》、《木林森計(jì)劃》所勾畫(huà)出的，是非西方地區(qū)在這個(gè)世界秩序中的基本位置，而這是需要通過(guò)政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化、國(guó)際交流等各類話語(yǔ)的表述來(lái)反復(fù)加以確認(rèn)的。順著這個(gè)視野，我們又發(fā)現(xiàn)了另一位具有典型性的藝術(shù)家：來(lái)自西非的艾爾·安納祖。
很顯然，1990年代中期以后的安納祖在藝術(shù)手法上的轉(zhuǎn)變，是和一種越來(lái)越清晰的國(guó)際視野緊密關(guān)聯(lián)在一起的。這種轉(zhuǎn)變主要體現(xiàn)在三個(gè)方面：第一，越來(lái)越宏大的作品體量；第二，以瓶蓋等金屬制品為主的廢棄物代替了原有的陶器與木材；第三，越來(lái)越多的匿名性參與，以及與之相關(guān)聯(lián)的低技術(shù)、高能耗勞作模式。
安納祖曾經(jīng)反復(fù)提到過(guò)作品體量的問(wèn)題，他認(rèn)為作品的體量是與意義相關(guān)的，這無(wú)疑是正確的。事實(shí)上，對(duì)于許多當(dāng)代藝術(shù)作品來(lái)說(shuō)，體量本身就是意義的發(fā)生器。美國(guó)批評(píng)家唐納德·庫(kù)斯皮特(Donald Kuspit)在討論1980年代的藝術(shù)時(shí)提出：1980年代藝術(shù)的特點(diǎn)在于一種歌劇性，其價(jià)值是由其宏大性和其姿態(tài)所界定的。[12]這種屬性并不是1980年代的藝術(shù)所獨(dú)有的，直到現(xiàn)在，仍然有不少批評(píng)家在談?wù)摦?dāng)代藝術(shù)的“宏大性”問(wèn)題，并且對(duì)這種越來(lái)越追求景觀化的藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作方式表示憂慮。庫(kù)斯皮特的過(guò)人之處在于他一針見(jiàn)血地將這種對(duì)宏大性的訴求追溯到了瓦格納(Wagner)，并且指出：早在20世紀(jì)初，尼采(Friedrich Nietzsche)就已經(jīng)對(duì)此提出了批判。
在《瓦格納事件：1888年5月都靈通信》中，尼采尖銳地評(píng)論道：瓦格納是一種疾病，他在音樂(lè)中猜度到刺激疲憊神經(jīng)的手段，而這是最為“現(xiàn)代”的，他導(dǎo)向了一種對(duì)偉大、崇高、巨大、使大眾激動(dòng)的東西的訴求，而“成為巨大比成為美更容易”。[13]但瓦格納并不僅僅在形式的層面上尋求宏大，他最終的訴求是一種思想上的宏大性：他尋求神圣性，震懾人心的音響效果、充滿象征意味的姿態(tài)之網(wǎng)、充斥著陳詞濫調(diào)的寓言，是他建構(gòu)神圣性所使用的建筑材料。這種神圣性是大眾所需要的，以其價(jià)值取向之不容質(zhì)疑驅(qū)逐了思想，因而導(dǎo)向了霸權(quán)。所以尼采說(shuō)：“瓦格納這個(gè)演員乃是一個(gè)暴君，他的激情能推翻任何一種趣味，消除任何一種抵抗。”而他與“（第三）帝國(guó)”同時(shí)發(fā)跡，顯然不是偶然的。[14]
今天我們把存在于當(dāng)代藝術(shù)家中的“總體藝術(shù)”傾向追溯到瓦格納，而只有在尼采所論述過(guò)的這個(gè)層面上，我們才有可能理解“總體藝術(shù)”的真正含義。它所指向的，顯然不是一種形式或載體上的組合模式，而是一種由體量、形式、符號(hào)網(wǎng)絡(luò)、思想框架所建構(gòu)而成的霸權(quán)系統(tǒng)，在這個(gè)系統(tǒng)中，如今還要加上傳播方式和闡釋話語(yǔ)。當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的景觀化特征，因而應(yīng)該被當(dāng)作對(duì)霸權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)的模擬和確認(rèn)。鮑里斯·格洛伊斯(Boris Groys)在一個(gè)略微不同的語(yǔ)境中指認(rèn)出了這種霸權(quán)性。在討論裝置藝術(shù)及其空間性特征的時(shí)候，他提出：一旦觀眾進(jìn)入藝術(shù)裝置的空間，他也就進(jìn)入了一種獨(dú)裁的控制之中，必須服從藝術(shù)家所制定的法律。[15]
正是在這個(gè)意義上，我們才能理解安納祖“將尺寸當(dāng)做一種表達(dá)工具”[16]的意義。安納祖本人的那些必須由體量來(lái)支撐的作品，也應(yīng)該在這個(gè)語(yǔ)境中得到恰當(dāng)?shù)慕庾x。1990年代，當(dāng)安納祖首度進(jìn)入“國(guó)際藝術(shù)界”的時(shí)候，他深感自己的作品太小了，而當(dāng)代藝術(shù)正在越來(lái)越大。在此后的20年間，他的主要工作之一便是不斷地?cái)U(kuò)張自己的作品體量。瓶蓋這個(gè)新的媒介提供了這種可能性，這是他轉(zhuǎn)換媒介的原因之一。他自覺(jué)地投身于當(dāng)代藝術(shù)系統(tǒng)，參與這種宏大景觀的建設(shè)，[17]2007年威尼斯雙年展上的《鮮活的&褪色的記憶》和《Dusasa》標(biāo)志著他在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)所取得的階段性成果，如今，他不但是一個(gè)“局內(nèi)人”，且已成為這個(gè)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的代表。
瓶蓋這個(gè)媒介的使用同時(shí)帶來(lái)了大量密集的低技術(shù)勞作，關(guān)于這一點(diǎn)，我們已經(jīng)在《鳳凰》那里提到過(guò)了.安納祖反復(fù)地將它與非洲人的傳統(tǒng)生產(chǎn)模式關(guān)聯(lián)起來(lái)，這很難不讓人做后殖民主義式的聯(lián)想。但此媒介的使用有著比這個(gè)層面更為重要的意義。
瓶蓋是一個(gè)廢棄物。它還是一個(gè)現(xiàn)成品。作為城市生活的排泄物，它總能讓人想起“消費(fèi)社會(huì)”這樣的母題，這就賦予了它天然的合法性。事實(shí)上，正是在轉(zhuǎn)向瓶蓋之后，安納祖才收獲了如今的聲望，他自己很明白這一點(diǎn)，并且反復(fù)說(shuō)：瓶蓋是一個(gè)可以不斷延伸的材料。但瓶蓋的合法性不僅體現(xiàn)為它在擁有主流的價(jià)值取向，也體現(xiàn)為它在現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)史上擁有確定的位置。盡管安納祖的評(píng)論者們還在不厭其煩地談?wù)撝?ldquo;安納祖的作品是雕塑和繪畫(huà)的跨界”，但誰(shuí)都能看得出來(lái)，安納祖的作品必須在現(xiàn)成品的框架中來(lái)理解。這也是杜尚的遺產(chǎn)。
有意思的是，安納祖本人對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的闡釋采用了阿瑟·丹托(Arthur C. Danto)式的語(yǔ)匯和視角?？赡苁菫榱撕屯ǔ５慕忉尷_(kāi)一定的差距，安納祖在一次訪談中特別提出：“我認(rèn)為我所做的不是循環(huán)：我是將瓶蓋“transform（轉(zhuǎn)化）”成了別的東西。”[18]他所強(qiáng)調(diào)的轉(zhuǎn)化，是在不改變瓶蓋之性狀的前提之下，實(shí)現(xiàn)某種隱喻性的變形，將一件廢棄物轉(zhuǎn)變成一件藝術(shù)作品，“uplift（提升）”這材料，將其舉揚(yáng)到藝術(shù)的位置上去。他還認(rèn)為，這種變形是在羅布(lgbo)[19]宗教的意義上進(jìn)行的，一件尋常的破陶器，經(jīng)過(guò)這個(gè)過(guò)程，就進(jìn)入了“精神維度”。[20]在這里，我們顯然讀出了丹托的身影。盡管安納祖使用的詞匯“transform”恰恰被丹托嚴(yán)格地區(qū)別于他自己所使用的更為明確的宗教語(yǔ)匯“transfiguration（變?nèi)荩?rdquo;，[21]但兩人同樣求助于宗教的解釋，說(shuō)明了安納祖所說(shuō)的“transform”的含義并不僅僅是丹托所界定的“形態(tài)變化”，而恰恰包含了“transfiguration”的全部宗教和隱喻意義：在不改變性狀的前提下，對(duì)象發(fā)生了屬性的轉(zhuǎn)變。
因此，通過(guò)瓶蓋，安納祖全然地投身于西方現(xiàn)代美術(shù)史，而當(dāng)代藝術(shù)界也積極地給予了他相應(yīng)的回饋。當(dāng)他說(shuō)“1990年，我作為非洲藝術(shù)家參與了威尼斯雙年展，而16年后，我僅作為藝術(shù)家而參與”，[22]他的判斷大致是正確的。但他顯然沒(méi)有打算忽略自己的非洲背景，這一點(diǎn)也是正確的。細(xì)心的讀者不難發(fā)現(xiàn)，在安納祖對(duì)自己作品的闡釋中充滿了矛盾：一方面，他不斷地聯(lián)系到非洲本地的風(fēng)俗、宗教、歷史、現(xiàn)狀，非洲殖民史，藝術(shù)家個(gè)人史等因素，將與非洲的關(guān)聯(lián)性作為作品的闡釋要素；另一方面，他又不斷地否認(rèn)自己的作品與非洲屬性的任何直接關(guān)聯(lián)。很顯然，他不希望非洲符號(hào)、異域風(fēng)情成為他作品的接受語(yǔ)境，但他同時(shí)也很清楚，這一部分也包含在國(guó)際主流藝術(shù)界對(duì)他的期待之中。[23]這一點(diǎn)特別清楚地體現(xiàn)在他對(duì)作品的命名中：他的幾乎所有作品的標(biāo)題，都是后加的，帶有極強(qiáng)的闡釋性，但與此同時(shí)，他又反復(fù)提醒他的觀眾，這些標(biāo)題是可以忽略的。這并不矛盾，特別是我們?cè)缫蚜?xí)慣于矛盾之兩面的同一性。因此，非洲的安納祖正是國(guó)際的安納祖，而國(guó)際的安納祖并不具有非洲性，這個(gè)論斷應(yīng)該不會(huì)讓人感到驚奇。
阿布拉莫維奇，徐冰，安納祖，三個(gè)“他者”，以三種方式投身于國(guó)際當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的建構(gòu)，自覺(jué)地置身于西方現(xiàn)代美術(shù)史的脈絡(luò)之中。在他們身上，呈現(xiàn)出當(dāng)代非西方藝術(shù)家的一些典型特征，這些特征說(shuō)明：奔走于國(guó)際展覽的“他者”們并不具有他者性，他們屬于“中心”，非其如此，他們便不太可能受到如此廣泛的認(rèn)可。[24]不過(guò)，他們的核心地位，卻需要在一個(gè)邊緣的位置上、通過(guò)對(duì)邊緣性的某種含混的自我指認(rèn)來(lái)確定，這種指認(rèn)不可以清晰、但也不可以不清晰。不論我們向后殖民說(shuō)過(guò)多少次再見(jiàn)，卻欲罷還休地糾纏在它的結(jié)構(gòu)之內(nèi)。從某種角度來(lái)看，今日世界上的民族主義回潮也許并不是一個(gè)壞現(xiàn)象，至少，它可能會(huì)揭起文化差異的面紗，打破關(guān)于移民的神話，從而讓我們看到，非但普世性是一個(gè)破產(chǎn)的烏托邦，混雜性也同樣如此。
本文為第34屆世界美術(shù)史大會(huì)演講稿
發(fā)表于《世界美術(shù)》2016年第4期
English Version
The Other without Otherness:
On Three Contemporary Artists
By: Zhai Jing
In 1990s, some postcolonial theorists revealed the essentialism nature of the theories and practices of multiculturalism, which was widespread and influential then. Homi k. Bhabha proposed that multiculturalism is a liberal notion, which tends to recognize Other cultures in a pre-given frame that is inevitably Euro-centered, in the name of cultural diversity. Then, in the second half of 1990s, as cultural symbols that dominated the imagination of contemporary art in 1980s fading, people paid more attention to the everyday reality of their own society, and sought to communicate with the international society on this new basis.
Has this necessarily changed the old frame of multiculturalism? Which kind of role do the non-western artists play today? In this essay, I will focus on three contemporary artists – Marina Abramovi?, Xu Bing, and El Anatsui – and take them as example to discuss how do the Others take part in the construction of the Utopia of International Contemporary Art in a more subtle and more structural way.
1. Marina Abramovi?: Space of Collective Catharsis
Abramovi? has dual identities: she comes from a former socialist country Yugoslavia, while ethnically and culturally belongs to the Christian Serbs. This means a lot for her art creation and the reception of her works, but there is seldom direct political implication in her art works. Although she did have used some political metaphors, this was by no means her main attraction.
Generally speaking, Abramovi?’s works are characterized by three things: directness, use of metaphors, and confrontation.
The quality of directness was clearly visible in Abramovi?’s works from the very beginning of her career. Some early series of hers, such as Rhythm series and Freeing series, which were performed in early 1970s, touched the extreme of human body and spirit in a direct way. This kind of quality is characteristically Abramovi?’s, but is not exclusively used by her. In fact, it was derived from a trend of thought that was popular in the mid-20th century, which persuaded people to focus on the inherent qualities and potentials of a certain artistic medium. Clement Greenberg contributed a lot to this “medium specificity” idea, but this did not mean that the idea is valid only in painting. By contrast, the influence of it could be seen in many fields such as visual art, music, dance, drama, etc. As early as 1920s, Antonin Artaud proposed in his Theater of Cruelty that such elements as sound and gesture were more specific for drama than text and dialogue, which had been a tyrant over meaning for centuries. The development of drama, thus, according to Artuad, should focus on the body of actors and the space of theaters. In his interpretation, cruelty was a kind of necessity which was related to life itself. Artuad’s influence revived in America and then in Europe around 1960s and 1970s. Susan Sontag noticed that, compared with drama of that time, happening art had a closer affinity to Artaud’s idea. This kind of art resorted largely to the expressive potential of human body and deliberately rejected text. From this point of view, it was not a coincidence that performance art flourished in 1970s and sought to touch the extreme of body. In fact, what distinguished Abramovi? from other performance artists of her time was not “extreme” but the “directness” and “necessity” quality of her works. Therefore, it could be said that she was closer to Artuad’s idea than anyone else.
As her important works such as Rhythm 5, Lips of Thomas, Balkan Baroque and Nightsea Crossing suggested, Abramovi? tends to use metaphors in a straightforward way. This means that it would not be difficult for anybody to understand her works, but this does not mean that her works are generally simple. In fact, what makes her works sophisticated is the way she organizes these metaphors and makes them affect the contemporary western culture. Generally speaking, the metaphors she used could be captured in three categories: Christian metaphors, political metaphors, and metaphors related to primitive religions.
Christianity is still of importance for contemporary western world. On one side, it is the symbol of paternity, and thus the object of cultural critique; on the other side, it still feeds the western culture with notions and concepts. Among performance artists, Hermann Nitsch is famous for his use of Christian metaphors. But it is Abramovi? who has entered the heart of Christianity. To be precise, her metaphors were organized around “Suffering” which is a key concept of Christian faith. Her performance involved self-flagellation, purifying skeleton, worshiping, crucifixion, and subjecting herself to the masses. In this way, she literally took over the basic contents of Christian faith. And her success came from the fact that she had never resorted to the religion directly. Rather, she made it transformed and internalized, and adapted it in a modern way. Subtly, Abramovi? satisfied both the westerners’ rejection and their nostalgia of their own cultural gene.
As far as political metaphors are concerned, we should pay more attention to the context of Abramovi?’s art than her identity as a former Yugoslavian. The context is: the flourish of performance art in 1970s coincided with the May 1968. Being a political event, the May 1968 was noticeably featured by its ceremonial quality. The weapon that young people used to resist the capitalist society included not only self-made explosives and bricks, but also their unusual hairstyles and dresses, delinquency, abuse of sex and drug, mysterious religions, and so on. This is exactly the context in which we should understand the ceremonies in Abramovi?’s works, such as the psychotropics in Rhythm 2, the old jeep that was always on road, and the boomerang and gold mine in the Nightsea Crossing, etc. Actually, the political sense of her works is effective mainly on this level, so that they are much more touching than those works resorting to cultural symbols.
The sense of confrontation also features her works -- not only for those conducted with Ulay, but also for her solo works, -- revealing the dualistic nature of her art. This is especially interesting, because the deconstruction of dualism was one of the main achievements of the May 1968, and notions such as multiculturalism and cultural difference was dispersed as a result of this event. However, these historical phenomena work to conceal a simple fact that: the dualism is always needed, now as before, by the liberal western world. The liberal world needs a functional Other, in order to recognize its Self. But this should never be admitted. Abramovi?’s art works, direct as well as ambivalent, has offered the very needed yet unspeakable dualistic structure, and thus opened a space of collective catharsis.
2. Xu Bing: Guard the Liberal World
Abramovi? is by no means the only one who tries to bring the needed yet unspeakable dualism back into contemporary art. Xu Bing is equally success in doing so. In general, Xu Bing’s art works could be divided into three categories: the first series of his works deals mainly with language and words. The second series discusses the relationship between Eastern and Western culture. However, the works that are classified into the last series lack commonality in theme, style, and art media. Actually, they are different from each other, except for the fact that they share the similar time (produced after late 1990s), similar background (ordered and funded by certain institutes), and similar potential audience (international art world). This reminds us that they are related closely to Xu Bing’s identity as an “international contemporary artist”.
Actually, as we would see, what to be represented and how to represent is deliberately decided in these works, and they would help to guard the cultural boundary-line of the liberal western world. In this way, they satisfied the conflicting demands of respecting cultural difference while maintaining the neo-colonial world order at the same time.
Dualism could be found in many of Xu Bing’s works. But he is so skillful that this subtext could hardly be observed by the audience. Where Does the Dust Itself Collect? (2004) discussed the 9·11 from a Zen perspective. Frankly speaking, there was nothing new in this work. However, what makes us interested is the fact that: the symbolic meaning of this incident was clear, but Xu Bing endeavored to make that meaning suspended. Some scholars has proposed that the massive interpretation and propaganda around 9·11 should be acknowledged in the context of the politics of fear. Slavoj ?i?ek believed that the narrative strategy of 9·11 propaganda was parallel to that of Hollywood disaster films, which suggested that there existed an attempt of interpreting the incident in a stereotyped way. Again, this is unspeakable, or the stereotype will become invalid. However, there will be no difference between “we” and “they” if we lose our public image of freedom, tolerance and equality.
Suspending a meaning that could not be suspended, Xu Bing showed us a void gesture. This is excellent. The privilege of 9·11 in the value system relies on its visibility. On the contrary, what the dispossessed be deprived is this very visibility. Obviously, Xu Bing has observed this basic truth. His void gesture works to defend the sheer visibility of 9·11 without taking a stance. However, as the visibility itself equals a stance, Xu Bing did have showed his stance clearly. Let us put it this way: Xu Bing could try to suspend the meaning only when the meaning would never be suspended. This suspense might be a void gesture, but it is still suspense.
Historically speaking, stereotype worked as a basic narrative strategy in many colonial texts. And it works in a same way in many of Xu Bing’s works, among which the Forest Project (2008-undergoing) is a good example. In this project, Xu Bing makes Kenya children paint trees in the way he taught them and then sells their paintings via e-commerce. Once the paintings are sold, the earned money will be used to plant more trees in Kenya. Apparently, the project is ill-designed and can never run effectively in the long turn independently. Whether it will be successful or not relies completely on Xu Bing’s personal influence.
How can Xu Bing make such a work be appealing to the public? Firstly, he resorted to a popular modern motif “Environment Protection” that is politically correct. Then he created a romance which was starred by the gorgeous yet vulnerable Kenya and innocent Kenya children. He said: these children were so simple and imaginative that Chinese children seemed to be over-civilized compared with them. We could hardly ignore the sense of stereotype inherent in this narrative, which recalled Gauguin’s Tahiti immediately. There would be no need to recite the colonial nature of the Tahiti romance. We all know that it worked to maintain the pre-given world order by repeating and romanticizing the dualism of barbarism / civilization.
As we can see, what Xu Bing’s project sells are not Kenya children’s paintings but western public’s colonial imagination. Similarly, what the public pay for are not children’s paintings but the pre-given world order, which underlies such popular modern motives as “Environment Protection” and “Charity”. By the way, Xu Bing’s Helsinki Himalayan Exchange (1999) took “Charity” as its theme, and was similar to the Forest Project in many aspects. Therefore, what Xu Bing devoted himself to with great enthusiasm was not a ill-designed project, but a world order that he has no choice but to guard.
It is interesting that Xu Bing used to make his works, most of which are straightforward, complicated by enwrapping them with complex interpretation. Take Phoenix (2007-10) as an example. The whole process of funding, producing, and exhibiting this work was documented by a group of text providers, among whom are artists, art critics, poets, writers, etc. They endeavored to produce an interpretation system, which was composed by large amount of interviews, seminar documents, criticism articles, and books.
To some extent, contemporary art is featured by the intimate relationship between art works and interpretation, which is a legacy of Duchamp. In this post-Duchamp era, interpretation becomes part of the art work, and even tends to overwhelm the art work. Xu Bing once said that it was because contemporary art are confusing for the public. He is wrong after all. The reason lies in the fact that the possibility of interpretation becomes an important factor in deciding the value of art works. As a result, even those straightforward art works would resort to interpretation to make themselves seem to be more valuable. Interpretation does not necessarily help to reveal the significance of art works. Rather, it is equally possible that it would make people even more confused. However, this ambivalence of meaning is by no means meaningless. It works to create a sense of alienation and multiply the possibility of interpretation. From this perspective, we would understand Xu Bing, who used to deny those self-evident elements in his works such as his father’s medical records in the Tobacco Project (2000, Duke University, Durham).
Interpretation also works as a mechanism of hegemony. Markus Miessen tried to show us the hegemonic nature of “Public Participation” projects, which often promise us to be democratic, over the recent 10+ years. He believed that it was the innocent public image of “Participation” that helped to conceal the hegemonic nature of the rule of the game. And there is the interpretation, which tends to be more and more refined and professionalized. As the theories becoming increasingly complex and rapidly updated, the interpretation becomes an exclusive field for experts, and becomes hostile for outsiders. The possibility of interpretation is multiplied as well as minimized. What appears in the illusion of democracy is the shadow of hegemony.
3. El Anatsui: An Africa that Has Nothing to do with Africa
In mid 1990s, as El Anatsui got increasingly familiar with the international contemporary art, he decided to reform his artistic methods. His works became bigger and bigger since then. He replaced pottery and wood with metal materials such as bottle-tops. And the procedure of producing his works became labor-intensive, low-tech, and energy-consuming.
When Anatsui said that size is an expressive tool, he is completely right. It is the size that decides the significance of many contemporary art works. Kuspit proposed that “operatic” featured the 1980s art in America, and its value lied in its look of greatness. He pointed out with amazing insight that this tendency should be traced back to Wagner, and was criticized by Nietzsche.
In his Der Fall Wagner, Nietzsche commented that: Wagner was a sickness. He used the corruption of music as a means to excite weary nerves. He did not believe in beauty. Rather, he preferred the large-scale, the sublime, the gigantic, that which moves masses. Holiness, which was needed by the masses and which would shut the door of thoughts, was exactly what he wanted. Thus, Nietzsche said: “Wagner the actor is a tyrant, his pathos flings all taste, all resistance, to the winds.”, and “It is full of profound significance that the arrival of Wagner coincides in time with the arrival of the ‘Reich’.”
The contemporary interest for total-work-of-art should be traced back to Wagner. And it is from Nietzche’s perspective that we could acknowledge the significance of the total-work-of-art. It is not only a kind of artistic complex that is composed by series of different art media, styles, and forms, but also a hegemony mechanism that is sustained by grand size, gestures, and symbols. Therefore, the expanding size of contemporary art works should be regarded as the mimicry and confirmation of the hegemony.
In 1990s, when Anatsui entered the “International Art Circle”, he found that his works were too small, while the contemporary art works were becoming bigger and bigger. During the following 20 years, one of his main tasks was to expand the size of his own works. The use of bottle-tops made it possible. He devoted himself totally to the production of the grand spectacle of contemporary art. In 2007, he exhibited two works Fresh & Fading Memories and Dusasa at Venice Biennale, which were large and were representative for his new style.
And the use of bottle-tops also led to massive low-tech labor. Anatsui compared this kind of procedure with traditional African mode of production, which evokes in us post-colonial imagination.
Furthermore, bottle-tops are wastes, and they are ready-mades as well. As wastes, they remind us of such motif as “Consumer Society”. As ready-mades, they play a significant role in modern art history. This is, again, a legacy of Duchamp. Dramatically, Anatsui interpreted his own works in a way similar to Arthur Danto. He said: “I transform the caps into something else.” He believed that he has “uplift” base materials and elevated them to the status of art. And he compared this transformation to lgbo religious practice, in which an ordinary broken pot is transformed into a spiritual dimension. As a serious scholar, Danto has distinguished the meaning of “transformation”, which was Anatsui’s phrase, from that of “transfiguration”, which was borrowed by Danto from the Christian vocabulary. However, it could not be ignored that both Danto and Anatsui explained their own phrase in a religious way. Apparently, Anatsui used “transformation” to express the same religious and metaphorical significance as Danto’s “transfiguration”: to change the object’s nature without changing its physical status.
With the help of bottle-tops, Anatsui entered the modern art history. When he said: “In 1990 in Venice Biennale I showed as an African artist, … But 16 years after that, I went as just an artist.”, he was absolutely correct. But he did not mean to ignore his African background. In fact, he used to interpret his own works in an ambivalent way. On the one hand, he put his works in the context of African customs, religions, and colonial histories; on the other hand, he denied the similarity between his works and African productions. Obviously, he is not willing to be acknowledged in an Africa-related context, while he knows very well that this is exactly what the western audience expects of him. Is it self-contradictory? No. After all, we have been so familiar with paradoxes that we would never be confused by such a comment: “The African Anatsui is the International Anatsui, while the International Anatsui has nothing to do with Africa.”
The three Others take part in the construction of International Contemporary Art in three kind of ways, defining themselves in the context of modern art history. This is typical for contemporary non-western artists. Clearly, they are the Other without otherness, the Other belonging to the center. However, to acquire a position in the center, they have to put themselves on the border and identify their marginality firstly. This identification should neither be too clear, nor be too vague. Perhaps, the recent revival of Nationalism is positive to some extent. At least, it will show us that not only the Universalism is a failed Utopia, so is the Hybridity.
Zhai Jing
Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
2016.9
[1]Homi K. Bhabha: ”Cultural diversity is an epistemological object – culture as an object of empirical knowledge ……Cultural diversity is the recognition of pre-given cultural contents and customs; held in a time-frame of relativism it gives rise to liberal notions of multiculturalism, cultural exchange or the culture of humanity. …… Cultural diversity may even emerge as a system of the articulation and exchange of cultural signs……” In Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, Routledge (London/ New York), 1994, p.34.
[2] 安托南·阿爾托，《殘酷戲劇》，桂裕芳譯，商務(wù)印書(shū)館2015年，第69-74頁(yè)。
[3]在《馬拉/薩德/阿爾托》一文中，桑塔格觀察到：“阿爾托‘殘酷戲劇’……最與之接近的東西，是過(guò)去五年間在紐約及其他地方出現(xiàn)的、其參與者大多為畫(huà)家……的那些沒(méi)有文本或沒(méi)有至少可以理解的言語(yǔ)表達(dá)的戲劇事件，即所謂‘事件劇’。”蘇珊·桑塔格，《反對(duì)闡釋》，程巍譯，上海譯文出版社2003年，第200頁(yè)。
[4] 但德里達(dá)反對(duì)這種說(shuō)法，他認(rèn)為偶發(fā)藝術(shù)對(duì)于殘酷戲劇來(lái)說(shuō)，猶如尼斯的嘉年華之于古希臘的俄勒西斯秘儀。它用政治激情代替了阿爾托的完整革命。德里達(dá)，《書(shū)寫(xiě)與差異》，張寧譯，三聯(lián)書(shū)店2001年，第440頁(yè)。
[5] 斯圖爾特·霍爾、托尼·杰斐遜編，《通過(guò)儀式抵抗：戰(zhàn)后英國(guó)的青年亞文化》，孟登迎、胡疆鋒、王蕙譯，中國(guó)青年出版社2015年。
[6]阿布拉莫維奇的許多作品中都使用了礦物，她認(rèn)為這些神秘的自然物質(zhì)有助于實(shí)現(xiàn)她與觀眾之間的“能量交換”，這表明了她的創(chuàng)作與神秘宗教之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。例如她做了一系列“無(wú)常的客體”，以礦物對(duì)應(yīng)身體的部位：石英是眼睛，紫水晶是智齒，紫水晶晶洞是子宮 ，鐵是血，銅是神經(jīng)……她相信它們能產(chǎn)生使人的意識(shí)恢復(fù)活力的能量。詹姆斯·韋斯科特，閆木子譯，《瑪麗娜·阿布拉莫維奇?zhèn)鳌罚鸪浅霭嫔?013年，第178頁(yè)。
[7] 斯拉沃熱·齊澤克，《歡迎來(lái)到實(shí)在界這個(gè)大荒漠》，季廣茂譯，譯林出版社2012年，第14頁(yè)。
[8] 正如齊澤克所言，那些更為悲慘的事件，例如基辛格對(duì)柬埔寨的地毯式轟炸殺死了數(shù)以萬(wàn)計(jì)的人，卻是不可見(jiàn)的。斯拉沃熱·齊澤克，《暴力：六個(gè)側(cè)面的反思》，唐健、張嘉榮譯，中國(guó)法制出版社2012年，第40頁(yè)。
[9] 羅蘭·巴特，《神話修辭學(xué)》，溫晉儀譯，上海人民出版社2009年，第169-170頁(yè)。
[10] 馬庫(kù)斯·米森，《參與的惡夢(mèng)》，翁子健譯，金城出版社2012年，第37-39頁(yè)。
[11] 以賽亞·伯林，《自由及其背叛》，趙國(guó)新譯，譯林出版社2011年，第29-46頁(yè)。
[12] Donald Kuspit: ”Eighties art is full of much pretence of greatness, of the look of greatness.……The full import of art in the age of the sign is available only through an understanding of operatic, for the operatic makes clear that the essence of the sign, the source of its power, is that it is a pose.”. In Donald Kuspit, Idiosyncrátic Identities: Artists at the End of the Avant-Garde, published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1996, pp.12-13.
[13] 尼采，《瓦格納事件/尼采反瓦格納》，孫周興譯，商務(wù)印書(shū)館2011年，第24頁(yè)。
[14] 前引書(shū)，第34、46頁(yè)。
[15] 鮑里斯·格洛伊斯，《走向公眾》，蘇偉、李同良等譯，金城出版社2012年，第66頁(yè)。
[16] Susan Mullin Vogel: “……and he (Anatsui) began to talk about the use of size as an expressive tool.” In Susan Mullin Vogel, El Anatsui: Art and Life, published by Prestel Verlag, Munich·London·New York, 2012, p.122.
[17] 他最喜愛(ài)的四位藝術(shù)家是安尼施·卡普羅(Anish Kapoor)、安東尼·葛姆雷(Antony Gormley)、詹姆斯·特里爾(James Turrell)、奧拉夫·埃利亞松(Olafur Eliasson)，這或許很好地旁證了他對(duì)景觀化的自覺(jué)尋求。Anatsui: “Artists who have really gotten to me are not figurative – [Anish] Kapoor is one …… Antony Gormley …… And James Turrell, who did Roden Crater. …… Olafur Eliasson……” Quoted in Susan Mullin Vogel, El Anatsui: Art and Life, p.142.
[18] El Anatsui: “I don’t see what I do as recycling: I transform the caps into something else.”, quoted in Sophie Perryer, In the Making: Materials and Process (Cape Town: Michael Stevenson Gallery, 2005), n.p.
[19] 尼日利亞南部的一個(gè)種族群體。
[20] Susan Mullin Vogel: “Anatsui speaks of ‘uplifting’ base materials and elevating them to the status of art. ……He compares his transformations to lgbo religious practice, in which an ordinary broken pot is no longer ‘a physical pot, but a pot which has been transformed into a spiritual dimension ……’” In Susan Mullin Vogel, El Anatsui: Art and Life, p.126.
[21] 阿瑟·丹托，《尋常物的嬗變》，陳岸瑛譯，江蘇人民出版社2012年，第210頁(yè)。
[22] Anatsui: “In 1990 in the Venice Biennale I showed as an African artists, a geographically defined artist. But 16 years after that, I went as just an artist.” FCC interview with the author, Nsukka, January, 2009. Quoted in Vogel, El Anatsui: Art and Life, p.89.
[23] 這一點(diǎn)在他對(duì)非洲織物的態(tài)度中體現(xiàn)得特別清楚，一方面，他不斷地提及自己對(duì)非洲織物adinkra及其象征形式的借用，另一方面，他又特別反感別人將他的作品解讀為某種對(duì)非洲織物的模擬。而在他自己的命名中，織物的意象卻一再出現(xiàn)，如2001年的《女人的衣服》和《男人的衣服》，2003年的《Adinkra Sasa》，2005年的《上流社會(huì)女人的衣服》等。
[24] 阿布拉莫維奇特別明白這一點(diǎn)。事實(shí)上，她早已經(jīng)將自己置入了西方主流藝術(shù)史，開(kāi)始了自我經(jīng)典化的過(guò)程。《七個(gè)作品片段》中，她將自己與行為藝術(shù)的“大師”們并列在一起；她推出了類似《阿布拉莫維奇的生與死》（羅伯特·威爾遜(Robert Wilson)導(dǎo)演）這類景觀化的作品；她成立了自己的學(xué)院……這些無(wú)不在確認(rèn)著她的經(jīng)典地位。
