No Real Body

No Real Body pays particular concern to the direction of artistic practice as well as the plight of reality. Here a “real body” does not refer a person’s body or identity, but to a form of primitive spirit or energy. My hope is to use extreme methods to verify the existence of this primary source of creativity.

“No Real Body” is the crisis of our identity. Talking about politics, origins, and religion, we see that (without even realizing it) we belong to certain communities and, therefore, have common way of thinking, common interests etc. These homogenous thoughts and preferences produce the sense of security and identity, as they are understood within a particular society.

This way of thinking may also be applied to a physical body. A variety of social identities still exist (the hero, the individual, etc.). Every individual has to actualize several lines of professional practice, according to their fate1. If life lacks essence, it is very hard for us to find our place independently.

Before the Internet, people were anxious about the real things which stabilize social relationships—social status, professions—and everyone knew their precise place in society. But today, because of the development of the Internet, and the emergence of open information resources, the human role is gradually weakening: more and more jobs require computers, not people. Humankind is aware of this long-simmering problem; this is a challenge to human existence.

From the point of view of art, “No Real Body” reflects the disappearance of a specific art object. Starting with Duchamp’s Fountain, the readymade has replaced individually created works of art, a situation that is a critique against artistic creation and meaning, and ridicules avant-garde art. All this poses questions which are very hard to answer: what is art and what is a work of art?

The changing relations of production also change the relationships between a worker and an artist. Artists cease to create their works with their own hands, and hand-crafting has transformed from the labour of an individual to something undertaken by a collective. Under these circumstances, artistic creation is not limited to a specific person, and yet artists, as individuals, are still treated as if they have not benefited from the labour of the collective.

The concept of “No Real Body” also aims to discuss relationships between objects and art. Generally, the nature of art cannot be seen by the naked eye, it is intangible; however, sometimes materiality or the art object may be viewed as the highest form of art. In this context, a lot of questions emerge: does the nature of art really exist? Is it true that artworks can be shown only if they are materialized? If there is no materiality, what is art?

 

Es gibt keine Eigentlichkeit (lack of authenticity), Heidegger’s masking of the concept stems from his understanding of truth. Truth is no longer a positivist concept or a real thing; it is also not authenticity. Truth is a kind of disclosure within the world existence. The real meaning of the ancient Greek word “aletheia”—“to unmask”—was lost when it was translated into Latin. Using a Chinese way of thought, we can explain that the emergence of truth is a relationship between matter and its surroundings. This relationship may be visible – therefore, Unverborgenheit [unconcealed – translator’s note] is not masked. Truth is no longer an immutable traditional assertion – it is akin to a blossoming flower, it becomes an event. An emergence of truth is an emergence of event; it is an expression of relationships between all living things in the world and this event; therefore, Heidegger introduces the concept of “being-in-the-world”. He says that people commit actions while being connected to the world by a network of existing relationships. But we cannot always see these relationships by ourselves, and so we act like everybody else does; but trueness (Eigentlichkeit) is simultaneously a non-trueness, so that we could manifest ourselves, allow others to see ourselves, see an existing network of relationships and become enlightened (Lichtung).

Jiang Jun, March 24, 2015, 21:00

 

Social Status

 

At the end of the XIXth century, Alphonse Bertillon, a clerk in a Parisian police office, invented a new method to identify criminals by measuring suspects. He called it a system of verbal portrait – a “portrait parle”. At the same time, an Englishman named Francis Galton presented a system of differences between fingerprints. An emergence of these two systems of identification forced people to come to a conclusion: personality is not only social identity; it also consists of biotic data. Today these methods of identification have long been expanded beyond their state (governmental) use – they are widely used in our everyday lives. For example, office workers have to mark the time of their arrival to and departure from work by punching a card, by scanning their faces, by pressing their fingers to a sensor… Furthermore, as our mobile devices evolve, our biotic data will be used for payments. In this way, biotic data predestines our social identity; this is no longer based on changes in our thinking. When an individual’s social status is fully determined by their DNA and biotic data, masking ourselves over the Internet provides new possibilities of life. This means that we’ve got a short-term, vain sense of security provided by these mechanisms. Automatic evaluations of other people no longer influence our life. Inhabitants of megalopolises are becoming more and more estranged; they no longer dare to look each other in the eyes, instead becoming more intimate with their high-tech devices. If a device recognizes or sees me, it means that I am here; if I don’t know whether I slept today, a vigilant machine will tell me; it will also suggest whether I am alive. If my data is recorded now, there is no need to worry that I will be forgotten. In reality, all these high tech inventions are made by people; they are imaginary (virtual) things. To use machines so that we prove our existence – this is exactly what you termed “No Real Body”. How can a person living in this society—a person of biotic data—find an image of a new humanity, a new identity (a real body after the lack of essence).

 

Sun Qidong, May 16,2015

 

The main problem is still the crisis of personal identity and of social status – these concepts are invented by culture, and they have more and more impact on human life, race, nation, profession and so on, becoming substitutes for the biological identification of being human. The political and cultural establishment of the country have completed this shift without any resistance. The national pavilion at the Venice Biennale may be seen as an identity crisis in the specific geopolitical and cultural sphere, and which is an issue left over from the history of the biennale. It is controversial; however, for on the one hand it demands the development of international characteristics and the erasure of the borders between states, and on the other hand it sets up a monument to nationalism. Following new developments in technology and culture, social identity has again become the most important problem. This problem already manifested itself during the Cold war, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and this was accompanied by the emergence of Chinese contemporary art. Social identity became again an effective strategy and tactic in the sphere of culture. Besides, the unraveling of forms of social identity—for example, “defector,” “hero,” “whistleblower,” “conqueror,” “hacker,” and so on—became a new spiritual reality of life; maybe in the future they will also be able to be organized into a more interesting existence. Like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, no matter where they come from or who they represent, who went and did something important despite their origin and nationality, they will always remain temporary and transformative agents, as in the masking effect described in Derrida’s Specters of Marx.

 

Not at the Scene

“Not at the Scene” usually refers to physical reality, but today this understanding is falling apart, because of mass communication by the media such that people can receive information from anywhere even though they are not at the scene. We shared the 7 July London bombings, the 9/11 terror attacks, and more recently we watched the videos of ISIS decapitations. All this allows us to say that information has no territorial borders; mass media became a platform for discussion, reposting, and anonymous comments. By communicating in a virtual world, people create an internet space where different data-streams come together – texts, pictures, and videos. Besides, internet bots fill the gaps, and new information is produced continuously. Today internet is in the mode of a landslide. Pornography, violence, terror and so on – all this concerns human nature and became wide spread in the Internet age. As governments tried to control TV in the past, now they try to control the internet: by using an IP address we, often unwittingly, leave a multitude of traces on the internet, which can be analysed and recorded to produce an analysis of human behaviour and the societal condition. On the one hand, it is a political necessity, on the other: a business requirement. News is used to direct the public by serving up necessary information; today they seem to emerge from the surrounding reality and, by touching on vital issues, they expand the people’s systems of sense and perception. An aesthetically pleasing picture on TV is replaced by a shaky, noisy, bleary personal video. “Not at the Scene” is transformed from the spatial experience to the time experience; bodily limitations are erased; and temporary relationships complete the series of events. Fragmentation of our everyday life is a result of consequential events, and the so called experience of organised everyday life may be seen as an experience of industrial revolution, since authenticity in art is replaced by synchronicity (of data transfer).

 

Producer of Relations of Production

Enter Ghost, exit Ghost, re-enter Ghost (Hamlet)

In today’s world, mass production is often carried out without workers, which may be beyond anything Karl Marx ever expected. The idea of surplus value is not only something that is to be exploited, but has become the centre of our everyday real lives. Observing the citizens and their urban lives, one may discover that producers no longer provide concrete products. Rather a large number of professions are becoming merely a lubricant for society, while small workshops and individual producers are being replaced by large corporations. Consumers consume “services,” workers work on “platforms,” and a huge amount of workers are entering into new and virtual relationships where value has become a measurement for social stability. Self-awareness in a free economy, the consumption of immaterial “products,” and the mobilization of consumers have caused a loss of social identity. Just like the industrialization in food production led to the decrease of the number of producers, mechanization of manufacturing plants has led to a decrease in the number of workers. Only the work and services of large manufacturers’ dealing with people and communication thrive. Producers still exist, because consumers are also workers. Based on this, e-flux founded the so-called “timebank”3. Social relations come close to the level of a professionalised temporary game; product value is correlated with the concept of time, it becomes the never-ending interrelation between time segments and the times: people are changing, news is spreading – and, therefore, even larger economic interests emerge. But the emerging economic interests, the relations between producers and products, and economic relations are now collapsing. This suggested to me an idea: what if, in this age of transition, capitalism will not be what perishes, but rather there will be a change in an experience of relations of production and methods? Producers do not provide concrete objects, but they provide connections to past experiences; they play a multitude of roles4 on the Internet and in the new media. This also explains why art needs to provide a public resonance, in addition to an aesthetic experience. An artist has to understand what is really art—which, therefore, is governed by individual creative objects—and what belongs to the material of society and existence, being situated in the particular point in time. By using various means to strengthen harmony in interpersonal relationships, or replace the Internet with a real experience. Artistic creation and the transient bodily experiences stretch as far as the scene of an accident; successful relations of production lack the producer – this is the final resistance.

 

Dossier (Archive)

The traces of present and past civilizations are preserved through an archive which strengthens the legitimacy of an individual existence. Ever since artists renounced the title of performers, anonyms began to transfer empirical experience. Liquidation of concrete objects, an attitude to a certain concrete act in the situation when things are surrounded by artistic quality, allowed everyday things to transform into the beginnings of an artwork. This also makes us think about the fast coming of an era. An artist’s work consists of registration, registration and liquidation of records which designate the state of things. In this way, an archive becomes an action of recording of primal events; it uses the recordings of spectacles, of the movements of performers, spectators and space made by media. If Google’s panoramic scanner used recordings from the scene of an accident, it perhaps would be able to come even closer to the so called personal reality. By this discussion of an archive, I want to point to the present and to the future, since archive depends on a particular registrar, a protocol taker, and even on the nameless public as a whole; and at the same time, reality turns into a theatre. Attempts to imitate reality still exist in the form of theatre and cinema; artists, mixing together (erasing?) the boundaries, complete their creative work, becoming even closer to their reality, while the unique nature of an artwork fades even further (is reduced). A real cinema (documentary film or immediate cinema) or a real theatre (reality show, adaptation of actual events of everyday life) may be gradually replaced by the mechanisms of the future archive. Future archive is a recorded reality as it is, and also the uncompleted tools of contemporary art. Gradually, an artist turns to the real reflective work: between the theatre of the future and the present lies a certain zone ‒ for example, Mark Lee’s creation of “#I” (a keyword corresponding to a visual goal ‒ a tag), which helps to reach certain time and space within virtual space [where the photo is made, the pic-me.com service – translator’s note], releasing at the same time the intra-psychic freedom and fear. All this spreads through the documents, through the Instagram and various illegal programs of Internet service providers, and gives rise to an emergence of mass selfies from different countries.

 

Short Conclusion

This is a reflection on the theme of mobility proposed by Mrs. Alisa Prudnikova, as it helped me to remember many historical events and images. For instance, I will never forget the day I spent in Ekaterinburg. Since 2005, my concern about the heritage of the communist era has transformed from pictorial memories from my youth into a very concrete reality. I visited North Korea, Inner Mongolia, Russia and Norway. All these countries are linked to a modified socialist reality. Most of all, I am concerned with people in this transformed society – what forms their lives and professional careers take in the transition from socialism to capitalism; the changes in the so called structure of social policy are generally semi-automatic, and are usually not radical changes. So what did change after all?

Now art also faces changes to the way it is seen, experienced and perceived. Answering the question of when art will appear or at which moment it will not appear, depends on different standards of judgment and perception, and requires the courage to constantly break from those standards. When it comes to all of the above issues, No Real Body is to do with comprehensive thought, as well as the portents stemming from the currently on-going discussions. My thanks go to my friends Jiang Jun, Sun Qidong and Wang Yiquan, who found the opportunity, together with myself, to thoroughly study and research the direction of changes, and also the various traces of those changes, and to find out whether those changes concern us. Also many thanks to the curatorial team of Ural Industrial Biennial, and also to all the participating artists.

Li Zhenhua,

Beijing, May 29, 2015

1 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/宿命论

3 http://e-flux.com/timebank/

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specters_of_Marx

5 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/稜鏡計畫

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing

  • English version have been proofreading by Wang Yiquan, the final version have been proofed by Edward Sanderson.

没有真身

这是一个工作的方向和有着具体思考的现实困境,真身不等于身体和身份,真身类似于元神和某种原始能量,我只希望通过一种极端的方式来验证是否存在这一工作的原点,或者说创作的原初之存在。没有真身是身份危机的综合,如我们在讨论身份、种族、政治和宗教的时候,个体被自然的隶属于某一群体,这个群体有着共同的倾向或意志(或反某种意志),这些都构成了一种社会中存在的安全感和认同感,同样所谓个体的东西也依旧是这一逻辑的结果,所有个人主义的东西,或英雄主义的东西,存在着某种共性,在这里个体所需要实现的无外乎几种方向(职业生涯)上的宿命 。没有真身同样是社会关系上,职业化转型的缺失,因为互联网和知识公开,人开始处于另外的困扰中,如之前的现实中,身份和职业是社会关系中不变(稳定)的量,也就容易解释这些社会关系中身份和职业中的人性。没有真身,就是社会身份缺失的困扰,从职业化的消失,到知识的丰富,个体成为一种处于社会机器(体制)边缘,可能被随时抛弃的角色,人的存在感开始被挑战。

没有真身,之于艺术,表现在具体作品的消失,这些作品的消失从杜桑的“小便池”开始,现成品替代了所谓个体创造物,是对自身工作和价值的反讽,同样嘲讽了艺术的前卫特征,并成为最让人困扰的问题——什么是艺术和艺术品?伴随着生产关系的变化,工作者和艺术家处于一种非常微妙的关系中,艺术家不再为自己的作品提供具体的手工,或手工已经从个体演化为群体的时候,并不局限于某一个具体的人,艺术家作为一个个体,被赋予了群体劳动的名誉和利益结果。没有真身,还试图讨论物品和艺术之间的艺术性之依存,艺术性通常可以是不可见的,非物质的,而物质化本身也可以被看作是艺术性最好的表达,这也需要在今天被追问,艺术性真的存在吗?艺术性必须通过物质来表达吗?艺术性没有物质又是什么?

Es gibt keine Eigentlichkeit,海德格尔的遮蔽性一概念,来自于他对真理的理解。真理不再是实证主义的,概念和现实性的对应,也不是正确性,而是一种在世界中存在的显现。真理的古希腊文aletea的意思就是祛遮蔽,在翻译成拉丁文后意义就偏离了。
用中国可以理解的说法,他强调了关系,真理的发生就是物和其周围关系的显现,而这样的关系的可见化,就成为了祛遮蔽Unverborgenheit,真理不再是传统意义上的永恒的静态的,而是如同花朵的绽放,它成为了一个事件。真理的发生,就是事件的发生,就是事件和世界万物流变关系的显现。所以他有个概念是“在世界中存在”,也就说,人作为此在是在一个和世界相连的关系网中存在。这个关系网往往会遮蔽你,让你无法呈现自我,庸庸碌碌,随大流,而本真性(Eigentlichkeit)相对于非本真的,就是让自己在事件中涌现,被看到,同时也让自己带起的关系被看到,进入澄明(Lichtung)。
——姜俊 2015年3月24日21点

身份

十九世纪末,巴黎警察局的Alphonse Bertillon研究出了一套以人体测量和疑犯相片为基础的犯罪身份鉴定体系。他本人将该体系命名为portrait parle(肖像描述法)。同一时期,英国的Francis Galton推出了指纹鉴别体系。这两种“统治技术”的诞生,使得一个人的身份不只是一种社会认同,而是一种生物数据。现如今,这一套采集验本并完成统计的计量装置,已经超出国家机器的范畴,向人的日常生活渗透,公司的白领需要打卡、扫脸、按指纹……更甚之,随着移动终端的发展,我们的生物数据可以完成财务支付等功能。
我们的身份是由“生物事实”决定的:它不服从于个人意志。当个体被一种纯粹生物性的、自我DNA所束缚的时候,他同时也得到一种承诺,那就是戴上面具在英特网上过其他可能性的生活。于是乎,我们得到了“一种短暂而粗野的被机器所认同的快感,而再也无需承担被人所认同时的情感暗示。大都市的公民越是失去彼此间的亲密,他们便越是无法直视对方的眼睛,而与装置的虚拟的亲密便越是令人安慰(一台装置反而学会了如此深刻地直视他们的视网膜)……如果机器认同了我,或至少看见了我,那么,我就在这儿;如果对睡眠和失眠一无所知,却时刻警惕着的机器确保我还活着,那么,我就活着;如果机器记下了我的数字或数码信息,那么,我就未被遗忘。”然而这一切毫无疑问是人工的、虚拟的。表现出来的正是你所谓的“没有真身”。
社会的人——生物数据的人——如何探寻人类的新的形象,新的身份(没有真身之后的“身”)
——孙啟栋 2015年5月16日

最大的问题是自身身份之危机,身份这一逐渐被人类文明塑造的虚拟物,开始越来越困扰当代人的生活,种族、国家、职业等,正在成为替代人具体存在的身份。国家政治和文化,也正在毫无抵抗的完成这一转型。如今天的威尼斯双年展之国家馆,可以被看作是身份危机在具体地缘和文化上最特别的历史遗留,即需要拓展其全球化的特征,来消除具体国家之存在;也需要建立国家主义、民族主义之纪念碑。身份伴随着新技术和文化的兴起再次成为被关注的焦点,如这一焦点曾经出现在冷战、柏林墙倒塌之后的一个阶段,同时出现在中国当代艺术兴起的同一时刻。身份成为文化上有效的策略和战术。而被这一身份现实所裹挟的,新兴的身份如“背叛者”、“英雄”、“揭秘者”、“占领者”、“黑客”等等正在构成一个隶属于另外一种精神存在的现实,并同时存在,或将过去对身份的某种定义扭转成一种更多义性的存在。如阿桑奇、斯诺登,无论他们来自哪里,他们所代表的,一直都会处于临时和转换的中介,如同德里达《马克思的幽灵》中所述的面甲效应。

不在场

被掩盖在面甲之后,或根本就是一个不可见的群体意识。不在场通常指涉物理性的不在现场的现实,而这一现实正在被媒体的传播打破,同时在异地可以收到的视频信息,让人越来越确信真实就是如此,我们共享了伦敦地铁爆炸,共享了911事件,最近一次共享了ISIS的砍头视频。不在场比在场还要广泛,在场成为一个无法填补的空洞,媒体已经成为公众跨地缘、寓言、文化的共享平台,没有人再会担心广场上的公众会如何反应,这些自然会被归咎于大数据的测算,民意这一概念伴随着广场的消失和媒体的兴起在现实里开始崩塌。从来没有如此多的匿名者和公共知识分子并存,一方面揭示着社会的阴暗面,通过转载、评论,而事实本身的真实性和多义性却是被忽略的。
匿名浏览者和交流中不留痕迹的互动者,还有网络上的机器人,在不间断的弥合网络上的缝隙,并不断生产着新的信息,网络的意识就是将这些信息,无论是文本还是视频图象,最终连成一个整体,人群的效应同样也作用于网络的虚拟空间。之前受控于政府的电视系统,以及公众的分级制度,正在今天的深度网络情况下崩塌。
色情、暴力、恐怖等更触及人性的信息开始在互联网时代大行其道,不在场甚至抹去硬盘都无法做到,我们以数字IP的形式在互联网的数据空间,留下了很多痕迹,而不自知。互联网公司、大型企业、国家政府,正在收集所有人的生物信息以及日常习惯之全部,并通过收集来的大数据分析着社会情况,并通过数据理解人行为中的共性。一方面指向了政治需要,一方面指向了商业的需要。新闻如果在过去,通过人无法到达现场的方式传递着信息,来引导公众。在今天,新闻如同发生在身边的真实事件,并有着切肤之痛,新闻借助互联网和新媒介,延伸了人和人之间的感知系统,并加深了联系。不在场同样也可以感知到事件,以及他人的感受,因为今天的新闻开始从过去的新闻位置上,滑动到了一个属于个体的共享经验中。客观、主观、唯美的电视画面,被晃动、嘈杂、模糊的个人小视频所取代。
不在场从空间经验正在转化为时间经验,身体的限制,传递的限制,正在被时间关系中被打破,时间关系同样作用于这一经验,并完成其具体的事件的连续。我们的日常生活之碎片化也就是这些连续的事件所直接构成的结果。而所谓过去的对日常生活造就的经验,可以被看作是工业革命以来的经验,其因为技术所导致的延迟,正在被共时性、真实性、实时性所替代。

生产关系中的生产者

“幽灵出场,幽灵退场,幽灵再出场”——《哈姆雷特》

今日世界大量的工作并不存在生产者,这可能是马克思 始料未及的,剩余价值不仅仅是被剥削的部分,而成为真实生活本身。看现在城市人生活的情况,生产者并不提供具体的产品,大量的职业正在成为这个社会的润滑剂,而生产的产品却消失了,之前的小作坊或个人的生产,被更大型的企业产品所替代。消费者消费“服务”,生产者工作的是“平台”,大量的生产者正在走向一种新的、虚拟的生产关系,价值成为一个社会稳定的标尺,自由经济中的某种自觉,而没有具体的被消费对象,或因为被消费对象的身份模糊,及其移动性,所导致的新的社会身份的缺失。如食品工业化带来的生产者(农民)的减少,工厂机械化、智能化带来的生产者(工人)的减少,只有服务于大型企业的,与人打交道的职业,还在繁荣的增幅状态中——如互联网行业的从业者。生产者在这里既是消费者也是具体的生产人。在这一关系下,如e-flux创始者们所做的《时间银行》 就是对这一情况深刻的洞察,社会关系开始走向一种范职业化的时间游戏,价值从之前相对物质的概念中出走,价值成为今天生产关系中不断互动的时间和时态,每个人都在通过时间的累计、新闻传播的知名度,来换取更大的经济利益,而创造这一经济利益的根本也早就脱离了之前的创造。如生产者和物品的关系,以及链接这些关系的工厂、田地,还有其经济关系,都在崩塌。这让我开始思索,是否这个时代的转型,并非资本主义必将使自己消亡,而是生产关系和方式的改变,同时也终结了从日常生活模式到哲学概念的种种经验。生产者在不提供具体物件的情况下,在今天还在提供着连接着过去经验的某种身份,填补着公共空间的视觉元素,他们带着各种面甲 ,在这一社会生活范围之外,他们也都是自己的国王,在互联网和新媒介上扮演着各种角色。

这也就解释了今天的艺术必须在美学经验,以及美学经验之外,提供与社会现实的共鸣,艺术家也必须成为思考这一现实中,哪些是艺术,也就是隶属于个人创造部分的东西(不一定是物品),而哪些属于链接社会的物质和像之存在——处于某一时刻的阶段。通过各种可能的手段加强人和人之间的联系,有些甚至回避或替代互联网经验,将艺术性和身体传递的经验,延伸到现场中,作为对生产关系中生产者之缺失——做最后的抵抗。

档案

证明真实存在或存在过的文明之痕迹,档案是针对个体存在合法性的加强。从艺术家所做的取消具体行为人的身份,让匿名者匿名的传递经验。取消具体物件化的,或隶属于某种特定情况下被艺术性围绕的物件之特征,让日常用品成为艺术品开始,暗示的也正是这一时代的到来。艺术家的工作,在被纪录、纪录和消除纪录的状态中。档案也就成为这一行动所触发事件的纪录,并通过媒介转化为:对场景的纪录、对表演者行动的纪录、对观者和空间的纪录。如果将google的全景扫描设备用作对事件现场的纪录,可能会更接近所谓的真实(fact)本身。

我希望讨论的档案关系,是指向现在和未来的,因为这一档案关系很具体的被记录者、记录人,以及所有的匿名观众,并将现实转化为剧场。

对现实的模拟,一直以来是剧场和电影所尝试的,艺术家通过混淆这一界限来完成其艺术工作,越接近真实本身,作品的特性也就越弱化。真实电影(纪录片或直接电影),或真实戏剧(真人秀节目、将真实的日常事件直接搬上舞台)都会逐渐被未来档案的工作方式取代,未来档案所纪录的就是真实本身,也是现在的艺术手段无法完成的。而艺术家对这一现实的思索逐渐转化为——介于未来剧场和现在之间的某个地带,如Marc Lee作品《#me》中按照标签(tag)在虚拟世界飞行到具体的地点时,内心的自由和恐惧也在同一时间释放。而所有这些都是被纪录的,被instagram和其他网络服务商的后门电脑程序,衍生出大量的来自不同国家的selfie。

如果档案在过去,其形式为一个文件袋中的那些照片和手写的纸质材料,在今天档案意味着每个人生活的全部。因为这些都在通过电脑和网络被完全的分类纪录,直到有一天需要(见棱镜计划 )。所有人可以在网络上暂时的隐身,或借助洋葱系统 将沟通信息密闭起来,但是任何人无法取消其通过物理手段完成的痕迹,这些痕迹也终将被时间和技术攻破,而人们希望做到的并非阻挡时间和技术的到来,通过延迟时间,也就赢得了时间和主动。人的生存境况前所未有的与时间联系起来,无论是身体上的,如对身体的手术、注射和细胞激活等,还有思想上的,对延迟时间的迫切,不仅仅是延迟生命,而是在每一刻都付诸实施的通过移动性替代物理性和地缘的距离,通过干扰信息完成自身的主动。

小结

这些思考是针对Alisa女士提出的移动性,因为这让我想起了很多关于历史时刻的信息和图像,在叶卡特琳堡的一天让我终生难忘。自2005年以来我对社会主义时期遗留的关切,正在从少年时的图像记忆转化为很具体的现实,我去过北朝鲜、外蒙古、俄罗斯和挪威,这些都链接着一个属于社会主义转型的现实。我更关心这一转型中的人,他们从社会主义到资本主义,生活和职业生涯发生着怎样的改变,而变革并不来自这些笼统套用的所谓社会政治结构。那么到底什么变化了?

艺术同样面临着从观看方式、体验方式、认知方式上的变化,在什么时刻艺术才出现?什么时刻艺术不在?这取决于如何判断和认知的标准,并不断的被打破。没有真身是对这些问题思考的综合,是一个在不断讨论中累计起来的征兆,这些变化不但伴随着社会的转型,同时也是人思维方式的改变。感谢我的朋友姜俊、孙啟栋、王懿泉,能和我一起去探讨和探索到底这些改变都指向了什么,以及涉及到变革的种种迹象,是否也都与我们自己相关。

感谢乌拉尔工业双年展团队,感谢所有参与思考的艺术家。

李振华
2015年5月29日 北京

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s