加载中…
个人资料
言言言
言言言
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:7,241
  • 关注人气:8
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

[转载]丹图答艾伦·桑德斯问(2)

(2010-07-02 14:59:42)
标签:

转载

O~~Brillo box

[转载]丹图答艾伦·桑德斯问(2)

 

丹图答艾伦·桑德斯问

王祖哲 译

 

Alan Saunders: In his book, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Arthur Danto illustrates these issues by way of Pierre Menard: Author of The Quixote, a short story by the Argentinian writer, Jorge Luis Borges.

桑德斯:亚瑟·丹图在他的书《寻常物的转化》中,以《皮埃尔·门纳德:吉诃德的作者》,例解了这些问题。《皮埃尔·门纳德:吉诃德的作者》是阿根廷作家若热·路易斯·博格斯的一个短篇故事。

 

Menard is an early 20th century French writer who decides to rewrite a 16th century Spanish masterpiece, the Don Quixote of Miguel Cervantes.

门纳德是二十世纪早期的一位法国作家,他打算重写一部十六世纪的西班牙名著,即塞万提斯的《堂吉诃德》。

 

Arthur C. Danto: What he actually did, nobody can quite figure out, but he produced a piece of prose that corresponded word for word to the prose that Cervantes wrote in the 16th century. But as the writer of the story says, 'His Spanish was quite affected, after all he was doing it in 16th century Spanish, whereas Cervantes handled effortlessly the common speech of his time'. And so he then begins to show how different these two indiscernible pieces of writing are, and by the time you're finished, you begin to realise what an extraordinary feat it was that Pierre Menard had done. And I began to look for those kinds of examples, not in the visual arts necessarily, but in literature.

丹图:他实际上做了什么,没有人琢磨得出来,但是他搞出了一部散体文,与塞万提斯在十六世纪写的那部散体文字字对应。但是,像这位作者说的那样,“他的西班牙语相当做作,他毕竟是用16世纪的西班牙语写的,而塞万提斯对自己时代的一般语言却是驾轻就熟的”。于是他开始显示这两个作品有多么不同,在你写完的时候,你开始意识到皮埃尔·门纳德做了一项多么了不起的业绩。我也开始搜寻那种例子,不必是视觉艺术的例子,却是文学中的例子。

 

A beautiful example I found in Nabokov's novel Pale Fire where he talks about a poem by the American poet, Robert Frost, which is called, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, and it ends with two lines:

我在纳博科夫的小说《苍白的火焰》中找到了一个很合适的例子,他在其中谈到一个美国诗人罗伯特·弗罗斯特的一首诗,题目是“雪夜为森林所阻歌”,以如下两行结尾:

 

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep, 

And miles to go before I sleep.

 

The last two lines are a repetition of one another. And then Nabokov says, The first one is a simple autobiographical statement, "Miles to go before I sleep". And the second one is a metaphysical utterance, "I have a lot to do before I die". It's a beautiful example of showing how two lines, although they read the same, just because of their position are making very different kinds of statements. So I think that phenomenon can be found in a lot of different places and there's nothing, so to speak, typographically to distinguish the two lines, but there's a deep difference between them - as I thought there was with Warhol. And I wasn't aware of this fact when I wrote The Transfiguration of the Commonplace; it was published in 1981. But the Brillo box, the actual Brillo box, that Brillo boxes are shipped in, was designed by an abstract expressionist painter, a second generation abstract expressionist painter by the name of James Harvey. He died very young but would have been in the next generation of great American gestural painters, but as I say, he died. But there's a photograph in which Warhol is shown giving Harvey one of the boxes that Harvey actually designed. It is one of those ironies that it's almost a sort of story that Borges could have written, that Harvey designed this box, but his conception of art would have been inconsistent with even thinking of it as a work of art. For him, to be a work of art meant, in 1964, '63, whenever he designed the box, a large splashy canvas and so forth.

 最后两行是互相重复的。纳博科夫说,头一句是一个简单的自传性的陈述,“漫漫路要走,方可得安眠”。第二句是隐喻的语句,“在我死前我有很多事情要做”。这是一个美妙的例子,表明两行诗句,尽管读起来是一样的,仅仅由于其位置的不同,就造成了非常不同的陈述。因此,我认为这种现象在许多不同的地方都能找到,而且可以说在印刷上看不出这两行字有什么不同,但是它们之间有深刻的不同——我想在沃霍尔那里也是这样。在我写《寻常物的转化》的时候,我还不曾意识到这个事实;这书是在1981年出版的。但是,布里乐盒子,我是说真正的布里乐盒子,那种布里乐盒子给运了进来,是一位抽象表现主义画家设计的,这画家是第二代抽象表现主义画家,名字叫詹姆斯·哈维。哈维死得早,否则会成为第二代美国泼洒画中的伟大的一位,可我说他死了。但是,有一幅照片,在照片里沃霍尔给了哈维一个确实是哈维自己设计的盒子。吊诡的事情,这算是一桩,这几乎就是博格斯才写得出来的那种故事,哈维设计了这个盒子,但是他对艺术的想法,不会让他认为这个设计是一个艺术品。在他看来,一个东西成为艺术品,在1964、1963年,反正是在他设计那盒子的时候,意味着一大幅洒了颜色的画布之类。

 

But I found, actually found, a photograph in which Harvey is shown kneeling in front of one of one of his expressionist paintings, holding the Brillo box up. It's a very touching, very pathetic kind of story.

但我发现,确实是发现了一幅照片,在照片里,哈维跪在他的许多表现主义画作的一幅之前,举着布里乐盒子。那很感人,很悲情的一个故事。

 

Alan Saunders: Once Andy Warhol has done what he did with the Brillo box, does our relationship to actual Brillo boxes change?

桑德斯:一旦安迪·沃霍尔对布里乐的盒子做了这样的事,我们和真正的布里乐盒子的关系发生变化了吗?

 

Arthur C. Danto: It might. We've got to think about them in a very different kind of way. We're going to think about them as designed, and once we know they were designed by an artist we're going to say, 'Well of course it's such a marvellous piece of visual rhetoric that only an artist could have done it.' A friend of mine who did some research found an application for a grant that James Harvey made in answer to the question, 'How do you make your living?' Basically, he said, 'I'm a part-time package designer'. But it's a brilliant design: it's red, white and blue, which of course in America are the colours of patriotism. And then there's a kind of river of white that goes all the way around it, which gives you the sense of the world being cleaned and so forth. So you're connecting cleanliness with patriotism and almost making buying Brillo a patriotic duty and so forth. I mean it's an astonishing piece of work. But Warhol doesn't get any credit for that at all, it was done by Harvey. He just copied it, but in copying it he was maybe doing something philosophical paying tribute to this world of commonplace objects. After all, these products were designed to be consumed; you have to choose some kind of a soap pad or some kind of tomato juice, some kind of soup, and you might as well pick the one that's most appealingly designed, which is what design's all about, that's what commercial art is. And then all these sudden visual virtues, you look at them as if they were art, as if they were art. Maybe Andy's box inherits some of that beauty, I don't know, but most of the boxes he designed aren't particularly beautiful at all.

丹图:或许变了。我们必得以一种非常不同的方式来思考它们。我们将把它们当作设计出来的东西来思考,可一旦我们知道它是一个艺术家设计的的时候,我就会说,“当然,它是这么一个了不起的视觉的修辞法,只有一个艺术家才能办得到。”我的一位朋友,为了得到一笔赞助做了一些研究,说詹姆斯·哈维对“你靠什么过日子”这个问题的回答,基本上,他说,“我是一个临时的包装盒设计者。”但那是个很有才气的设计:它是红、白、蓝的,这在美国当然是爱国的颜色。然后是一条某种白色的河,围绕着这个设计图案,这给你一种世界是干净的之类的感觉。我的意思是这是一个很好的设计。但是沃霍尔一点也不曾参与设计,设计是哈维做的。他只是拷贝它,但是在拷贝的时候,他或许做了某种具有哲学意义的事情,对寻常物件的世界做出了贡献。毕竟,这些产品设计出来是为了消费的,你必定会挑选某种洗涤垫或者某种番茄汁、某种汤,你或许挑选设计得最吸引人的那种,这就是设计的用意所在,那就是商业艺术。然后,冷不丁的这些视觉上的德性,你看它们好像它们是艺术。安迪的盒子或许继承了那种美的一些,这我不知道,但是他设计的大多数盒子完全不特别地美。

 

Alan Saunders: One of the problems here, if we take say, the example of Pierre Menard. Supposing his Don Quixote had reached publication and I picked up a copy of it, without knowing that it was the Pierre Menard Don Quixote, rather than the Cervantes one, I wouldn't realise that. Similarly, I might make a similar mistake with the Andy Warhol. So in order to admire the works in both cases, the fictional one and the actual one, I do need knowledge, in addition to what I can see in front of me.

桑德斯:这里有诸多问题中的一个,比方说,我们拿皮埃尔·门纳德做例子的话。假如他的《堂吉诃德》出版了,我弄到了一册,却不知道那是皮埃尔·门纳德的《堂吉诃德》,还当是塞万提斯的那本呢,那我就意识不到了。与此相似,我或许也在安迪·沃霍尔那里也张冠李戴了。因此,为了欣赏这两个情况中的作品,虚构的作品和真实的作品,我确实需要知道点什么,外加我还得能够在我目前看到那些东西。

 

Arthur C. Danto: Yes, I do think that's important, that when you pick it up and you start reading it you think you're reading about an adult Spanish nobleman in La Mancha etc., and all his hallucinations and fantasies and so forth, and somebody says, 'Oh no, this was written by a 19th century Frenchman, a poet, a symbolist poet, and it's really about language, it's not about Spain at all', you'd say, 'But I would never have known that', and I'd say, 'Well, no, but if you look on the copyright page, you'll see that it's copyrighted 1897' - and so forth, and you'd have to give it a very different interpretation. And suddenly you realise, Well if that's true, we never know whether we're in the presence of art or not. And that really is kind of amazing when you think about it.

丹图:是的,我不认为那是重要的,当你把那本书拿起来开始读的时候,你以为你在读关于一位成年的西班牙拉曼查那地方的绅士的故事等等,以及他的那些走火入魔和异想天开等等,有人就说,“啊不,这是19世纪的一个法国人写的,是个诗人,象征主义诗人,它其实是关于语言的,完全和西班牙不沾边”,你说,“但是,我本来不会知道这个的呀,”我将说,“嗯,你不知道,但是如果你看看版权页,你会看到那是1897年的版权”——如此等等,那你就得对它做一种非常不同的解释了。而且你突然意识到,如果事情果真如此,我们就永远不知道我们接触的艺术还是别的。当你思考此事的时候,着实好玩啊。

 

I began to have these experiences, I remember once I was out in California, I was invited to give a talk for some of our history students, and I walked past a classroom that was being redone, and I thought to myself, How do I know that that's not just an installation? How do I know that's not a work of art that happens to consist of ladders and paint buckets and so forth? I could do some digging; I'd have to check it out. I mean if I went into the office of somebody and said, 'Is that a work of art or are you just redecorating the room or something?' they'd think I was nuts, but that's the situation. And I love the idea that you might be in the presence of art at any moment, and not know it and then say, 'Suppose I were in the presence of art, how different would it be?' Well in terms of appearance, not different at all, but in terms of meaning it would be pretty different, and would be, as I say, momentously different. And you get all these funny situations that happen. Somebody makes a work of art which consists of a lot of cigarette butts and the janitor just throws it away. I mean that kind of thing has been happening in avant-garde art for a long time.

我开始有了这些体验,我记得有一次我出门到加利福尼亚,我应邀为我们的那些研究历史的朋友谈点什么,我走过了一个正在重新装修的教室,我心里想:我怎么能知道那不过是在扎脚手架?我怎么知道那不是一个艺术品,这个艺术品碰巧包括梯子、油漆桶之类?我可能深入思考一下,我得把这事儿搞明白。我的意思是,如果我进了谁的办公室,说“那是一个艺术品,还是你们不过在重新装饰房间或者别的?”他们会认为我是个疯子,但是那就是问题所在。我喜欢这么一个念头:在任何时候你或许正在接触艺术,却不自知,你说“假设我在接触艺术,那又有什么不同?”啊,就表面而言,完全没有什么不同的;但是,就意义而言,那会相当不同。你身处所有这些好玩的情况中。有人制造了一个艺术品,这艺术品包括看门人刚刚扔掉的许多香烟头。我的意思是这类事情已经发生在前卫艺术中好久了。

 

Alan Saunders: Who then determines whether a particular object is a work of art? I mean is there some, as it were, institution however informal, that's deciding on this, is the custodian of the knowledge, is providing the information that we need to understand that something is a work of art?

桑德斯:那么谁决定某个特别的物件是一个艺术品?我是说,有没有(其实有)某种机构,无论多么不正式,来决定这个事儿?有没有管理这种知识的人?有没有人提供我们需要的信息好理解某物是一个艺术品?

 

Arthur C. Danto: Well, after my paper was published, there got to be a kind of institutional theory of art where there actually was proposed that the art world is an institution, which makes determinations of that sort. Obviously it's not like an election that's held, but there's a certain grain of truth in it. That is to say, that Warhol's box was art in 1964 only for a handful of people who had been participating in a discussion which would have included I suppose, discussing the meaning of Duchamps, and for them, the Brillo box was a work of art whose time had come, and would know what were the reasons, what was the history in virtue of which something like that became possible as art and so forth. And nobody who was not privy to that discussion would have been in any position to talk.

丹图:那个,我的论文出版之后,那就有一种艺术的惯例论,这理论确实主张艺术世界就是一个机构,是做那种决定的机构。显然,这机构不像我举行的选举,但是肯定有些真实的东西在。那就是说,沃霍尔的盒子在1964年是艺术,仅仅是因为少数几个人参与了一个讨论,这讨论我认为包括对杜尚的意义的讨论,对这些人而言,布里乐盒子是一个艺术品的时候到了,也知道为什么它是艺术品的原因,知道在像那样的东西有可能成为艺术等等事情的历史。对那场讨论没有私人利害关系的任何人,都不会在任何立场上发言。

 

Alan Saunders: You take the view, don't you, that now art is over, the history of art has ended.

桑德斯:现在艺术终结了,艺术史已经终结了,你采取这么一种看法,是吗?

 

Arthur C. Danto: Well no; in a way I do, I did write a fairly well-known paper called The End of Art; what I meant really was it was a dramatic way of saying that there's no longer the possibility even of a direction. I think up until the sixties, it was possible to think of the history of art as an unfolding narrative and what we have to do is to wait and see what's produced, and the next season, and the season after that, and everybody would be interested in what's the next big thing and things like that. Then suddenly, once you begin to get a situation where anything can be a work of art, but you can't tell in advance whether you're in the presence of a work of art or not, then at that point, there's no longer the possibility of an unfolding narrative at all. And when anything is possible, that seemed to me to be the end of things. I didn't mean that people weren't going to go on making art and the paper, The End of Art, was published I think in 1984. There's plenty of art that's been made since then, in fact probably more art's been made since 1984 than had been made from the beginning of time until 1984. So there's a lot of it around. But there's no longer, I think, as I wrote someplace, there'll be surprises, but there won't be any philosophical surprises.

丹图:哦,不;从某种意义上说,我采取这个看法,我确实写了一个出了名的论文《艺术的终结》,我的意思其实是:那是一种以戏剧性的方式说,再也不存在甚至某种方向的可能性了。直到六十年代我才想清楚了,把艺术史设想成一种正在展开的叙述是可能的,我们必得做的事情是等着看产生出来的东西是什么,再等下一波,下下一波,任何人都对像那样的一个或许多大事有兴趣。然后,突然之间,你到了这么一种境地,任何东西都可能是一个艺术品,但是你却不能提前说得出来你是不是在接触艺术品,那么在这一点上,就不再有一种正在展开的叙述的可能性了。当任何事情都可能的时候,那在我看来就是事情的终结了。我的意思不是大家将不再去制造艺术和写论文了,《艺术的终结》我想是在1984年出版的。从那年到现在,造出了大量艺术,其实1984年以来造出的艺术比亘古一来到1984年造的艺术还更多。因此,围绕着这本书的话可多了。但是,我认为,再也不会有,正如我在某个地方写过的,令人惊讶的事情是会有的,但是任何在哲学上令人惊讶的事情不再会有了。

 

Alan Saunders: Arthur Danto, I've enjoyed our conversation.

桑德斯:亚瑟·丹图,我们的交谈,使我觉得愉快。

 

Arthur C. Danto: So did I, thanks a lot.

丹图:彼此彼此,非常感谢。

 

Alan Saunders: Thank you very much for joining us.

桑德斯:谢谢参加我们的节目。

 

Arthur C. Danto: You're altogether welcome.

丹图:不客气。

 

Guests

Arthur C Danto,

Emeritus Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy,

Columbia University

0

前一篇:只是有点艰难
后一篇:等待中
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

    < 前一篇只是有点艰难
    后一篇 >等待中
      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有