勞申伯格所參與的藝術&科學實驗《九個夜晚：劇場與工程設計》

zhuanlan.zhihu.com

想回答這些問題嗎？當然了。

一個博士生不去研究一點自己真正想研究的東西，不去研究一點自己真正特別想知道答案的議題，天天埋伏在學校的小圈子裡，搶著「研究」一些早已經死掉了的議題（無法提供新知），幾個人分工合作切這塊資源的蛋糕——意義何在？

在哪兒不能混飯吃？

回答以上問題的過程令我歡欣雀躍，我預感自己尋覓到了一個大課題。當然，首先是尋找一些有趣的案例。至於實踐的部分，今後一定會詳談。

因為我始終在實踐。

來聊一聊這個案例：九個夜晚：劇場與工程設計( 9 evenings: Theatre and Engineering )。

你能信嗎？你在中文世界的學術期刊里竟然找不到一個有關這件作品的具體分析。

這絕不是一場轟動性的藝術實驗大展，也絕不可能像在單純的審美領域裡那樣，成為一個簡單的範式更替過程——雖然看似波瀾壯闊，卻是一種規律性的演繹。但就像我們觀念中早已認定的一個事實一樣：藝術與科學結合的展覽實踐，且還是以劇場的形式——應該很怪異吧？如果一定要用一個詞去概括它們的話，可能是——無效。至少這是當時的評價。

當時的一份展評是這樣寫的（看起來真的算是直截了當，不像今天的評論，永遠不會使用這麼斬釘截鐵的辭彙）：An Esthetics of Disappointment ON THE OCCASION OF THE ART AND TECHNOLOGY SHOW AT THE ARMORY。

ARMORY即69th regiment armory(紐約69兵團軍械庫）

具體看一看Robert Smithson是怎麼說的：

Many are disappointed at the nullity of art. Many try to pump life or space into the confusion that surrounds art. An incurable optimism like a mad dog rushes into the vacuum that the art suggests. A dread of voids and blanks brings on a horrible anticipation. Everybody wonders what art is, because there never seems to be any around. Many feel coldly repulsed by concrete unrealities, and demand some kind of proof or at least a few facts. Facts seem to ease the disappointment. But quickly those facts are exhausted and fall to the bottom of the mind. This mental relapse is incessant and tends to make our esthetic view stale. Nothing is more faded than esthetics. As a result, painting, sculpture, and architecture are finished, but the art habit continues. The more transparent and vain the esthetic, the less chance there is for reverting back to purity. Purity is a desperate nostalgia, that exfoliates like a hideous need. Purity also suggests a need for the absolute with all its perpetual traps. Yet, we are overburdened with countless absolutes, and driven to inefficient habits. These futile and stupefying habits are thought to have meaning. Futility, one of the more durable things of this world is nearer to the artistic experience than excitement. Yet, the life-forcer is always around trying to incite a fake madness. The mind is important, but only when it is empty. The greater the emptiness the grander the art.

Esthetics have devolved into rare types of stupidity. Each kind of stupidity may be broken down into categories such as bovine formalism, tired painting, eccentric concentrics or numb structures. All these categories and many others all petrify into a vast banality called the art world which is no world. A nice negativism seems to be spawning. A sweet nihilism is everywhere. Immobility and inertia are what many of the most gifted artists prefer. Vacant at the center, dull at the edge, a few artists are on the true path of stultification. Muddleheaded logic is taking the place of clearheaded illogic, much to nobody』s surprise.

Art』s latest derangement at the 25th Armory seemed like The Funeral of Technology. Everything electrical and mechanical was buried under various esthetic mutations. The energy of technology was smothered and dimmed. Noise and static opened up the negative dimensions. The audience steeped in agitated stagnation, conditioned by simulated action, and generally turned on, were turned off. This at least was a victory for art.

對於十分喜歡咒罵展評的我來說，我是真誠地喜歡這份評價（僅僅是喜歡這種有話就說的犀利以及背後的邏輯，但聯繫作品本身，評估他的評論是否恰切就很難了，因為畢竟我不在現場）。在他看來，雖然「九個夜晚」和工程師「深度」合作，也創造了大量的作品，但是，讓人「眼花繚亂」，並感到「空洞」。作者寫道：

Everybody wonders what art is, because there never seems to be any around. 每個人都想知道藝術是什麼，因為周圍似乎什麼都沒有。這句話也一樣十分適用於今天的藝術界。

Nothing is more faded than esthetics. As a result, painting, sculpture, and architecture are finished, but the art habit continues.沒有什麼比美學褪色得更快了的。結果，繪畫、雕塑和建築都結束了，但藝術的習慣還在持續。當然是這樣，美學的衰落無疑是杜尚之後真正具有典型意義的藝術現象，雖然美學至今都成為一種慣例，並深深地嵌入藝術體制中。同意這個觀點本身的邏輯。藝術的習慣——也可以理解成：藝術界內業已形成為慣例的一些具體模式，比如審美經驗、創作路徑、欣賞路徑等等。我今天看這些作品都絲毫不覺得陌生，可見，諸如此類的藝術實驗何其之多，對於我而言都早已成為一種慣例。

The greater the emptiness the grander the art.直接點出了藝術的空洞、宏大和抽象。這種抽象在今天還包括理論的空洞、宏大和抽象。

Art』s latest derangement at the 25th Armory seemed like The Funeral of Technology. Everything electrical and mechanical was buried under various esthetic mutations. 非常同意這句判斷。所有的聲光電化本應該是令人矚目的焦點，它也確乎是焦點，但因為它的空洞，所以顯得更像是一場喜慶的葬禮。因為這些技術和審美本身做不到互洽。

Robert Smithson的觀點雖然深得我心，但是也有自身的缺點，仍舊流於大詞，沒有具體的作品分析。按照我自己的理解，我認為藝術批評家面對作品，要做到這樣兩件事：

1，評估視覺表達的有效性。即，如果脫離了說明性文字，藝術家的想法是否可以僅僅經由視覺語言有效傳達給觀眾。表達效果是否充分，表達過程是否簡潔、邏輯。

2，評估觀念本身。系統評價藝術家所傳達的觀念本身，這裡會出現批評家趣味的問題，也就是品味的問題。

檢驗藝術批評家水平怎麼樣，很簡單，讓他面對具體作品，從這兩個維度考察。第二個維度可以看出批評家本身的知識結構和學養水準。

因此，在我看來Robert Smithson說的其實是這樣的意思：

1，簡言之，如果脫離了說明文字，就幾乎看不明白了。這些聲光電化亂作一團，場面熱鬧、豐富，結構複雜，表述混亂，很難精準傳遞藝術家的觀念。

2，因為前面的表述混亂，因此很難系統評價觀念本身的高度。根本沒有辦法進入討論觀念的階段。如果說「看不懂」就是好，就是觀念高級、有效——顯然Robert Smithson沒有辦法這樣說服自己。

但這畢竟是一次初級的實驗。人們在藝術&科學實驗的道路上這只是階段性的作品，我們不斷去探索認知。正如我現在的認知也只是暫時的，我剛才提到的評價體系也是暫時的。關鍵在於，要不斷實驗下去，但，並不是拷貝這種模式，一個一個複製下去，任何複製版的「9個夜晚」意義都是不大的——雖然這已經是今天當代藝術的現實。這也就是為什麼我會在前面那一篇文章里說：

我認為藝術批評體制、學院體制、博物館、美術館收藏、展覽體制、媒體與一級、二級市場，在目前的運作機制下，是無法將各種各樣的實驗過程進行積累和轉化的。也就是說，藝術界本身並不具備有效促進認知和實現認知「現實化」的能力。藝術界目前還停留在「維持、鞏固」現有審美趣味（及其背後的利益鏈條和利益圈層），以及按照藝術史的邏輯，推進和拓展審美趣味候選者的線性道路上。

而，從審美趣味的路徑關照藝術——是一種過於狹隘的認知。雖然他們發明了一個詞，叫「關係美學」，但關係美學仍然是審美概念的內涵擴大版。

很高興的是，前面那篇文章就在質疑美學。但不夠具體，也不夠深入。因為不具體，因此就沒法深入。

但，還是那句話，這些作品十分具有劇場性，不在現場的人，很難真正從我說的那兩個角度去評價。所以，在這個意義上，劇場性也確實是值得思考的一個問題（而我所秉持的，不是過去美學家的那種批判立場，我和極簡主義的支持者們顯然不同）。如果不能身臨其境就會減損作品信息傳達的有效性，那麼，這個問題如何解決？今天的技術可以做到百分之百還原嗎？在線視頻、直播手段大行其道，作品的呈現在真實的三維空間和互聯網的虛擬空間中都得到最大程度的信息釋放，某些問題不再存在，但新的問題又開始出現。

Jane Farver是這樣評價這次實驗的（參見《蔡國強：農民達芬奇》）：

當時人們覺得這是一個令人尷尬的重大挫敗（也許部分原因在於對於越南戰爭時代對科技的普遍反應），現在卻似乎成了先見之明，並且重新得到了考察。

重點正如Sylvie Lacerte 所說的那樣：

……這些工具以前從未用於劇場或實況演出環境。或者用於商業表演場所的類似場合。p49

所以，再看Robert Smithson的評論，也許這是他初次遇見此類作品時的直觀感受，但是，有時候，初次感受恰恰是最直接、最有效的感受，因為當時，此種藝術的審美趣味還沒有被培養起來。根據我的經驗，審美是一個有著無止盡胃口的大怪獸，只要美學家可以自圓其說，任何審美趣味都能得到自己的吸納者。只看，主流趣味被把控在哪個知識體系里罷了。審美是操縱的產物。所以，Robert Smithson是帶著舊有的知識體系在迎接新經驗事實的衝撞，以上評論是他的第一時間反芻後的反應。我雖然贊同他觀點中所蘊含的邏輯，但我也承認，這種邏輯是暫時的認知，如果，一件作品真的可以做到讓誠實的批評家和公眾顛覆認知，形成新的認知，那麼，實驗的目的就達到了。

這類作品現在顛覆了認知嗎？

我認為還沒有。

對於這座建築的最直接的描述則是：

The Armory was the site of the controversial 1913 Armory Show, in which modern art was first publicly presented in the United States, per the efforts of Irish American collector John Quinn. It has a 5,000 seat arena that is used for sporting and entertainment events such as the Victorias Secret Fashion Show.

我也覺得分享這個很好笑，但真有學藝術的人，以為這只是個放武器彈藥的倉庫。

先來看看當時的某些「演出」場景：

很好，看到了「共同協作」的儀式感。

當時參與其中的藝術家：John Cage, Lucinda Childs, ?yvind Fahlstr?m, Alex Hay, Deborah Hay, Steve Paxton, Yvonne Rainer, Robert Rauschenberg, David Tudor, and Robert Whitman.

當時參與其中的工程師：Per Biom, Cecil Coker, Larry Heilos, Peter Hisch, Harold Hodges, Robert V. Kieronski, Jim McGee, Robby Robinson, Herb Schneider, Fred Waldhauer, Dick Wolff.

藝術家?yvind Fahlstr?m的作品（這種說法其實挺糟糕的，因為它仍然是站在一個藝術史所習慣的角度來談論一件作品的歸屬權）：Kisses Sweeter than Wine（聽上去十分直白的題目），合作工程師Harold Hodges。以下這份名單足可見這件作品絕不是藝術家「單打獨鬥」的結果，這又印證了《藝術界》這本書中，貝克爾的那句話——藝術是一種集體活動的產物：

Directors: Soren Brunes; ?yvind Fahlstr?m

Production assistants:Letty Lou Eisenhauer; Barbro Fahlstr?m; Ulla Lyttkens

Props: Alfons Schilling

Performers:

Robert Breer; Letty Lou Eisenhauer; John Giorno; Bruce Glushakow; Tom Gormley; Jim Hardy; Cassandra Hughs; Ed Iverson; Kosugi; Larry Leitch; Les Levine; Robert Rauschenberg; Marjorie Strider; Bob Schuler; Ulla Wiggen

Audio broadcasts:

Sveriges Radios (Stockholm, Sweden), WBAI-NYC (New-York, USA)

Films:

Wesley Barry, "Creation of the Humanoids" (1962), Ditta Agippa, "Acqua Sangemini", an educational film from AT&T (New York)

《吻比酒甜》（就這樣直譯吧），是由九個小單元組成的，沒有任何敘事連貫性。Fahlstr?M利用視頻、音頻磁帶、電影和幻燈機創作了這件作品。科技既是目的，也是手段。

藝術家Alex Hay的作品：Grass Field (performance)（姑且沿用這樣的說法）：

同樣是一個多人協作組合：

Technological design:

Herb Schneider; Pete Cumminski; Robert Kieronski; Fred Waldhauer; Martin Wazowicz; Cecil Coker

Performers:

Alex Hay; Robert Rauschenberg; Steve Paxton

Technical assistance:

David Davis; Cecil Coker; Fred Waldhauer; Mont Sinai Hospital; Mount Sinai Laboratory for Technical Informatio

Sound Spatialization: David Tudor

Lighting design: Jennifer Tipton, Beverly Emmons (assistant)

沒到現場，很難自己作出評估。只能先靠這個視頻觀摩一下了。以下類推。

作品說明：

Alex Hay structured Grass Field (form and content) in accordance with three parameters: 1) sounds would be coaxed from inaudible biological phenomena and amplified; 2) all stage elements (clothing and other props) would be in the same colour; 3) the performers would be given a single task. In the opening moments of the performance, Hay established a clear causal link between his physical activity and the system of amplification. Later on, he would remain immobile to underscore the fact that movement also continues at a microscopic level. At that point the system filtered data issuing from more constant phenomena, such as the brain』s alpha waves and the blinking of the eyes.

藝術家Deborah Hay的作品：Solo performance：

就不再寫參與者的姓名了。

說明：

In Solo, Deborah Hay attributed equal time and visual prominence to all the elements of the performance, from the dancers and props to the lighting and soundtrack. To accomplish this, she created a score by combining simple choreographic sequences that featured walking as a basic motif. Each performer assumed passive and active poses in turn, strolling around or rolling on carts steered by means of remote-control devices. The carts could also be presented as independent objects endowed with freedom of movement—in this respect somewhat like the performers』 bodies. A series of instructions given to the dancers and cart drivers made it possible to determine the circumstances in which specific choreographic sequences would occur, as well as the shape they would take.

Hay opted for a proportional distribution of the entire troupe of dancers and cart drivers (16 of the former and 8 of the latter, for a total of 24). With additional lights brought in to supplement the Amory standard, the lighting was extremely bright. Six Mylar sheets provided a transparent wall between the stage and the space reserved for the audience.

藝術家Robert Rauschenberg（最被中國藝術界所熟知的藝術家）的作品：Open Score (performance)：

Technological design: Jim McGee

Racquet design and construction: Bill Kaminski

Performers:

Mimi Kanarek, Frank Stella (tennis players), Simone Forti, Christopher Rauschenberg, Robert Rauschenberg, Christine Williams, a group of 500 people gathered together for the two performances

Direction of the performers:

Elaine Sturtevant, Susan Hartnett, Clark Poling

Technical assistance for the closed-circuit video broadcast: Bill Hartig

Sound mixing: Steve Paxton

Camera operators:

Robert Breer, Les Levine

Projectionist: John Giorno

Lighting design: Jennifer Tipton, Beverly Emmons (assistant)

Doorkeepers: Alex Hay, Deborah Hay

說明：

In Open Score, Robert Rauschenberg derived the content of his performance from the characteristics of the performance venue. The tennis racquet suggested both the idea of the ready-made (at other times tennis was played at the Armory) and that of a dance improvised in accordance with specific rules. The lighting, however, which dimmed each time a racquet hit a ball, conferred on the player』s actions a function bound up with a complex technological system. During the second part of the performance, which took place in total darkness, a crowd on stage, which was filmed with infrared cameras, appeared to mirror the viewers assembled on the bleachers that served as seats. As close as the onstage crowd was, it could be seen, paradoxically, only on the screens .

這裡要插入一段： Rauschenberg在open score中隱藏在網球拍手柄內的聲音捕捉器，這一裝置最後導致了無線麥克風的發明。還有TEEM(Theatrical Electronic Environmental Module,劇場電子環境模塊），一種比例遙控系統，這是另一套專為《九個夜晚》製造的機器。

藝術家Robert Whitman的作品：Two Holes of Water - 3 (performance)

In Two Holes of Water-3, Robert Whitman juxtaposed the time frames specific to film and video through a theatrical setting. He wanted to show that the first of these media records traces of events, while the second makes its content appear and disappear in real time (no recordings of TV broadcasts were used during the performance). To make his point, Whitman employed TV cameras on stage, and then projected the resulting image tracks side by side with excerpts of 16-mm films from various sources, some of which were made by himself. The stage environment evoked drive-in movie theatres (cars were used as projection booths) .

藝術家David Tudor的作品：Bandoneon! (a combine) (performance)：

In Bandoneon! (a combine), David Tudor put a traditional instrument (the bandoneon) on a circuit with an array of technological components (frequency modulators, amplifiers, oscilloscopes). Imperceptible at first, the tones of the bandoneon were converted into electronic signals and translated into sounds or (video) images. However, the link between the input and output information was not broken, since the performer』s playing made it through the filter overlays. At certain times, on the other hand, Tudor decided to make use of the interferences and delays, instead of relying on causality. At the same time, sculptural components guided by remote-control devices held by other performers moved certain sound sources around in the space, making their path through this space both audible and visible .

最後，介紹這個有趣的網站：