Open in new window
person to person
HOOYKAAS / STANSFIELD

date: 1998
materials used: CD-ROM
location: Produced at the Artlab Montevideo/TBA, Amsterdam
publications: Heiner Holtappels (english)  Arjen Mulder (english)
link: www.montevideo.nl
http://www.stansfield-hooykaas.net/work/persontoperson.html

INTRODUCTION
by Heiner Holtappels
Translation: Michelle Ding (www.bjartlab.com)
作品简介
作者:Heiner Holtappels
翻译:丁燕萍(www.bjartlab.com

To write about art implies translating the meaning of images into words. This is not a simple matter, for images are not unequivocal; they can be ‘read’ symbolically, as a visual grammar or conceptually. A single work of art is never sufficient to permit valid interpretation at all three levels. Since Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations we have known that words and sentences can only be interpreted correctly if we know the linguistic ‘rules of the game’.
为艺术写点什么意味着你得用文字表达影像的内涵。这不是一件简单的事,影像是含混不清的;你可以用视觉语言从概念上对影像进行象征性“解读”。但任何单独的艺术作品都不足以支撑这三个层次的全方位解读。根据维特根斯坦(Ludwig Wittgenstein)的哲学研究,我们都知道,只有懂得语言学的“游戏规则”,才能正确地解读文字和句子。

The maker of a work of art plays with images and invites the spectator to join in the game. The quality of the ‘art game’ can be gauged by the simplicity and clarity of the rules, by the complexity of meaning (the number of conceivable variants) and the spectator’s enjoyment of the game. To ascertain whether the artist has invented an exciting ‘visual game’, one has to see a series of work in order to learn the rules, to experience the complexity they generate and to explore the varied possibilities they offer. A retrospective exhibition provides the ideal climate for the artist and the spectator to find out whether the work meets these conditions. I would have liked to present a full retrospective of Elsa Stansfield and Madelon Hooykaas, but this was impossible considering the limitation of the available space in relation to the volume of their work. Instead, we jointly chose to show two installations and to produce a new work.
艺术作品的创作者与影像互动,并邀请观众参与一个游戏。“艺术游戏”的质量可以根据其规则的简洁明晰程度来衡量,也可以用作品含义的复杂性(可读解的变种数量)和观众的享受程度来衡量。要弄清楚艺术家是否创造了一个令人兴奋的“视觉游戏”,我们必须观察一系列的作品来寻找这个规则,体验作品所产生的复杂性,并探究作品所蕴藏的各种可能性。回顾展则为艺术家和观众来验证作品是否达到了以上标准,提供了理想的机会。我很想对Elsa Stansfield和Madelon Hooykaas的作品进行一次全面回顾,但考虑到他们作品的数量与展出空间的大小限制,我们无法实现这个想法。取而代之的是,我们共同选择了两个艺术装置展出,并创作了一个新作品。

A retrospective exhibition is meaningless unless there is an oeuvre involved. By this I mean a series of works of art produced over a lengthy period on the basis of the maker’s consistent, developing artistic (or other) concept. To me, the concepts of the artist differ little from those of scientists or philosophers. Their concepts all have a point of origin, a thesis capable of implying an order other than what is already known. This relates to my conviction that art is a distinct system of knowledge that exists alongside those of science and philosophy. It is a system that helps us gain a deeper insight into what we generally call ‘the real world’, although without holding out the hope of our ever finding a meaningful, clear answer.
无法囊括所有作品的回顾展是毫无意义的。我说的所有作品是指,在艺术家持续创作的前提下,经过一段足够长的时间而产生的一系列艺术作品,从而使得艺术概念(或其它观念)有所发展。我对艺术家这个概念的看法,与一些科学家或哲学家的看法有所不同。他们所理解的概念都包含了一个起点,总是为了说明一种顺序而不是去探讨艺术本身。我相信,艺术是与科学和哲学系统并存的一种独特的知识体系。它使我们更深刻地洞察所谓的“真实世界”,即使对我们来说,找到丰富又清晰的答案的希望是微乎其微的。

If post-modernism or the information age still has a message, it is that the end of the all-inclusive conception of truth. What we can and should do is to test statements for falsehood. That can only succeed if we bring thinking, feeling and action into mutual connection.
如果说后现代主义或信息时代有什么启示,那就是真理不再是无所不包的观点了。我们可以做也应该做的是验证观点是否虚假。只有当我们把想法、感觉和行动相互联系起来,才能成功办到这点。

The work of Stansfield / Hooykaas satisfies these conditions. It unites the rationalism of technology with the subjective experience within an aesthetic programme, thereby forming a model that is open-ended without being merely casual: the model of a philosophy of life that strives for Ganzheid (wholeness). Such an ambition is frequently founded in a world-view that is either sectarian or insane. But this possibility is excluded by the modesty with which Stansfield / Hooykaas present their standpoint to public view. What they offer to the spectator is an opportunity to make acquaintance with their findings. Their work is current without truing to be part of the current. Their work is rooted in tradition without being traditional. Their work is forward-looking without being Utopian. The work of Stansfield / Hooykaas is about time, although their time is one that must be interpreted as a cyclic rather than a linear or discontinuous process. My goal here is to pinpoint the rules that unite the body of their individual works. Or, to put it another way, does it embody a concept that is based on meaningful order?
Stansfield / Hooykaas的作品符合以上标准。他们在一个美学项目中结合了主观经验和技术的理性主义,从而形成了一种毫不敷衍的开放模式:这种生活哲学的模式旨在追求一种完全(Ganzheid)。你经常能在宗教份子和丧心病狂的世界观中发现这种野心。但你不会在Stansfield / Hooykaas的作品当中看到这种表现,他们以谦逊的态度向公众呈现自己的观点。他们让观众有机会了解他们的探索和发现。他们的作品是现代的,但没有刻意成为潮流的一部分;他们的作品又是植根于传统的,却并非传统本身。他们的作品具有前瞻性,但不是乌托邦。Stansfield / Hooykaas的作品与时间相关,虽然他们的时间必须被解读为一个循环的过程,而不是线性的过程或间断的过程。我的目标是确定一个能将他们各自的作品作为整体结合起来的标准。或者,换句话说,它是否包含了一种以有意义的秩序为基础的概念?

ON PERCEPTION AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF PERCEPTION
论观念和观念的工具

Hooykaas and Stansfield travel extensively. Their observations in foreign surroundings often give rise to new works. The transformation of perceptions into a work of art does not however take place during the journey but later. Often they will pay a second or third visit to a place before starting making the actual work. The initial sensations, the impression and the impulse must be tested on the rack of time to discover whether they are really memorable and necessary (and hence lasting). After the passage of time, Hooykaas and Stansfield return to check the retained image against the reality of the place in a different time. We speak of an idea ‘crystallising out’ - a process that takes place in time. This bears little relation to the cult of genius (now secularized into a cult of stardom) of the artists of the last two hundred years of Modernism.
Hooykaas和Stansfield到处旅行。他们在国外旅行的所见所闻往往催生出新作品。然而,在艺术作品中实现观念的转化总是在旅程结束之后,而非当下。他们往往在实际创作之前,会再次或第三次访问这个地方。最初的那种感觉、印象和冲动必须经过时间的考验,来验证它们是否真的令人难忘并不可或缺(因而长久不衰)。经过一段时间后,Hooykaas和Stansfield会回去,观察不同时刻的同一个地域,审视被保留的影像。所谓的“具体化”就是一个经过时间的过程。这与现代主义最后200年对艺术家的天才式崇拜(现在世俗化而成为对明星的崇拜)毫无关系。

In comparison to the way nineteenth-century artists set down their observations, by sketching or painting on location, the approach taken by Hooykaas and Stansfield bears more resemblance to that of the eighteenth century or even earlier. The privacy of the studio and the distance from the object were seen in the latter period not as a limitation but as a precondition for achieving a meaningful image. These artists were not interested in spontaneously transferring their visual impressions to the canvas, but sought distance, reflection and observation. Hooykaas and Stansfield suggest that they share this approach by the titles of their works (Personal Observatory, Receiver, Transitions). This attitude of the filtered perception is reinforced in the case of Hooykaas and Stansfield by their use of electronic and other technical devices to objectivize what we see: lenses, video, photography and acoustic or electromagnetic receiver dishes. Many contemporary artists use such devices in a documentary fashion (to bring art and life closer together) but this is not what Hooykaas and Stansfield do. They make the very instruments of perception into the subject of their installation or sculpture. An analogy with scientific method is revealing here: in reporting a scientific investigation, it is not sufficient to state only the results, but the procedure followed must also be described in detail.
相比之下,十九世纪时期的艺术家通过实地素描和绘画来表达他们的想法,而Hooykaas和 Stansfield却更像十八世纪时期或者更早的艺术家。在后期作品中,工作室的隐秘和对象的远离并没有给他们造成限制,而是创作富有意义的影像作品的一个先决条件。这些艺术家对于直接将视觉印象转移到画布上并不感兴趣,反而更喜欢追求距离、思考和观察。Hooykaas和 Stansfield说他们用作品的标题(个人天文台、接收者、转换)来实现这种想法。这种过滤观点的态度在Hooykaas和Stansfield的作品中被加强了,他们使用电子及其他技术手段将我们所看到的东西(镜头、视频、照片、声波或电磁波接收机)具体化。许多当代艺术家使用这种手段是为了迎合纪录片的潮流(把艺术和生活结合起来),但Hooykaas和 Stansfield不是这样。他们将观点的工具置入装置作品和雕塑作品的主题中。在这里,他们采取与科学类似的方法:做科学调查的时候,只报告结果是不够的,还必须详细说明实验过程。

ON MEMORY
论记忆
I first recall seeing work of Hooykaas and Stansfield in the Haags Gemeentemuseum during the World Wide Video Festival of 1985, although in retrospect I must have seen their work ‘Compass’ in the 1984 ‘Luminous Image’ exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam. Standing in a large room, there was a glass cabinet containing a loudspeaker emitting low pitched-tones that made the glass resonate. The wall bore photographs related to Hiroshima. One of them showed a human shadow, burnt into the masonry by the searing heat of the atomic explosion. There were more things there, but I can no longer bring them to mind. What I do remember is a sensation - the shock of discovering that a distant, matter-of-fact, technical-looking representation of the destruction of Hiroshima was capable of touching me deeply. The installation formed part of the series ‘Museum of Memory’, which was eventually to consist of seven installations. At first sight the title is tautologous: museums are by definition places where objects are preserved as reminders of the past. Museums represent the collective memory, while the memory as such is bound to an individual. There are considerable differences between the individual and the collective memory, but my memory has the same structure as those in the brains of other people and shares a collective language of perception and its grammar. The individual memory and the collective memory only become meaningful when they are more than a mere collection of the past. The Latin word ‘museum’ originally meant ‘place of scholarly activity’, a place where we are active, where we do something. Only when the past becomes a ‘place of scholarly activity’, when it leads to activity, does it establish a link with the present.
记得我第一次是在1985年看到Hooykaas和Stansfield的作品,荷兰海牙市市立博物馆(Haags Gemeentemuseum)的世界影像艺术节,尽管回想起来我应该是在1984年看到他们的作品“指南针”,荷兰阿姆斯特丹市立博物馆的“光明的影像”艺术展。在一个大房间里,有一个玻璃柜内放置着扬声器,这个扬声器在播放低音的旋律,使玻璃都与之共鸣。墙上挂着关于广岛的一些照片。其中一张照片是一个人的阴影,被原子弹爆炸所产生的灼热,燃烧成了砖瓦之中的灰烬。还有更多的东西,但我只记得这么多。我记住的只是一种感觉-广岛的毁灭所带来的那种惊恐,以遥远的、真实的、科技印象的表现手法,深深地震撼了我。“记忆博物馆”系列展览由七个装置作品构成。乍一看标题好像是重复的:博物馆的定义,就是将物品保存起来以留住过去的地方。博物馆代表了集体记忆,而记忆注定是个人的。个人记忆与集体记忆有着相当大的差异,但我的记忆有着与别人的大脑相同的结构,一样的认知语言和语法。只有当记忆不仅仅是回忆过去时,个人记忆和集体记忆才显得有意义。拉丁语的'museum'本来是“学术活动场所”的意思,应该是一个活跃的,有所作为的地方。只有当过去成为一个“学术活动场所”,活动起来,它才和现实彼此联系。

The works of Stansfield / Hooykaas are actually ‘places of scholarly activity’; or, in more contemporary terms, ‘contexts where research into various facets of the memory takes place’. Probably without meaning to do so, Hooykaas and Stansfield embroil themselves in the struggles of historical scholarship and of art history; in the question of whether there is such a thing as historical continuity, or whether the past functions primarily as a projection of contemporary ideas. They transform these contradictions into a dialectic that defines remembering as a process. Just as they place the perception of ‘then’ in contrast to the perception of ‘now’, we must continually return to the past to scrutinize our conceptions of the here and now for meaning and for changing meaning.
Stansfield / Hooykaas的作品实际上是“学术活动场所”; 或者,用现代语言来形容,是“旨在探究记忆各个层面的背景”。 Hooykaas和Stansfield 并没有故意把自己卷入历史学和艺术史的辩论;他们探讨这些问题:是否存在历史延续性,抑或历史的职能主要在成为当代思想的一个投影。他们把这些问题的矛盾,转化为将记忆定义成一种过程的辩证法。他们把“那时”的想法与“现在”的想法进行对比,正如我们总是不断地回忆过去,来检查我们此时此刻的观念和变化中的观念。

Advanced technology - whether psychology, a brain scan, the telescope or genetic manipulation - probes the hidden inside by changing it into the illuminated outside. The mystery of life is not diminished or cancelled as a result, but we are enabled to free ourselves from falsehoods and superstitions. Art and science have a common task here.
高科技-无论是心理学、大脑扫描、望远镜或是基因控制-旨在探索内在的隐秘并把它转化为外在的光明。其结果并不是使生命的奥秘减少或消失殆尽,而是使我们能摆脱谎言和迷信。在这方面,艺术与科学有着共同的任务。

ON ART, SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY
论艺术,科学和哲学
Science and art are systems of knowledge that create models of order. Science does so primarily with words, and art with images and sound.
科学与艺术都是创造秩序模式的知识系统。科学主要运用语言,而艺术主要运用影像和声音。

‘We find order in every area of nature and culture. Both a DNA molecule and Rembrandt’s ‘Night Watch’ express a certain order. The evolution of plants and animals is an ordering process (about which there are over two hundred theories). Running, painting, composing music or poetry, and loving are all based on an ordering system with countless variants.’ (Henry van Praag, Orde en ordening, Rijswijk, 1985)
“我们在各个领域的自然和文化中都能发现秩序。DNA分子和伦勃朗的《夜巡》都呈现出了一种特别的顺序。植物和动物的进化是一个有序的过程(大约有超过200个理论与此相关)。运动、绘画、音乐或诗歌创作,甚至连爱情都是以一个有序系统的无穷变化为基础。”(Henry van Praag, Orde en ordening, Rijswijk, 1985年)

A striking thing about this statement is that van Praag draws no distinction between order in nature and order in culture; nor does he distinguish theoretical ordering systems from pragmatic ones. His order and ordering systems appear to be connecting phenomena with an underlying structure that is inherent to every facet of reality.
这段论述的惊人之处在于,van Praag并没有区分自然的秩序和文化的秩序;他也没有区分理论的秩序系统和实际的秩序系统。他的秩序和秩序系统,是一个从内到外与现实的各个层面紧密相连的现象。

The work of Stansfield / Hooykaas is marked by a balance between nature and culture, between natural and artificial objects: stone-embedded fossils alongside polished diabase rock, brass, lead, grass, a video camera, photographs and projections of landscapes, wind and much more. They all display energy in various embodiments, but the essence of an immanent order and a structure of things remains unimpaired. Here, too, in my view, lies the key to the oeuvre of Hooykaas and Stansfield. They show us structures that present the elements of an ostensibly fragmented reality as a unified whole. If we can find a model that reunites emotion, thought and action, we will be on our way to reconstructing a lost holism.
Stansfield / Hooykaas的作品以自然与文化,天然物品与人造物品的平衡为特征:内嵌石头的化石,与抛光的辉绿岩石、铜、铅、草、一台摄像机、照片、自然风景的投影和风等陈列在一起。它们以各种形式展现能量,并保持着无所不在的秩序和事物结构的本质。在我看来,这就是Hooykaas和Stansfield全部作品的精髓。他们将表面上支离破碎的现实部分当作统一的整体来呈现。如果能找到一种结合情感、思想和行动的模式,我们就能重建一个已然消失的整体主义。

‘Man understands only what he makes’, the Italian philosopher Vico (1668-1744) wrote. We build computers to learn how our brains function, we investigate DNA to discover the building blocks of life and evolution, we paint surrealistic and abstract paintings to explore the visual language of the unconscious and the structure of beauty and harmony. All these activities can be encapsulated as the organization of human consciousness, as culture. Once culture was joined with nature in the wholeness of the ideal, as a unity of the good, the beautiful and the true. The Renaissance taught us that time and space did not form a closed continuum but were an open, infinite system without a centre. Nature and culture fell apart. They became contradictory standpoints from which we might view the world. On the one hand, this rift gave rise to an unprecedented level of cultural activity in an attempt to domesticate nature; on the other, there developed a growing longing for the security of the holistic universe, for a synthesis of culture and nature.
“知识源于人类的创造”,意大利哲学家Vico(1668-1744年)写道。我们发明计算机,是为了研究我们的大脑如何运作,我们研究DNA,是为了探究生命与进化的基石,我们创作超现实主义和抽象派绘画,是为了探索潜意识的视觉语言和美丽与和谐的结构。所有这些活动都可以概括为人类意识的构成,也就是文化。于是文化与自然在理想的整体中结合,成为了真善美的统一。文艺复兴使我们明白,时间和空间并没有形成一个封闭的统一体,而是形成了一个开放的,无限的,没有中心的系统。自然和文化从此分崩离析,并成为我们看待这个世界的矛盾立场。一方面,这种分裂激发了前所未有的,旨在驯化自然的文化活动;另一方面,人们越来越渴望整个宇宙的安全,以及文化与自然的融合。

The philosophical standpoint of this longing could be summed up as culture being the nature of mankind. Little support for this outlook will be found in Western philosophy. The ‘progress’ of Western culture is after all based on the distinction between mind and matter, on the superiority of the human mind to the ‘unconsciousness’ of nature. It is only slowly getting through to us that man is a species that is part of nature; a species that can disappear as easily as it appeared.
Stansfield / Hooykaas present a different, non-Western, model, without repudiating the Western tradition. It is a model that assumes cyclic conception of time and space, but does not exclude a linear conception of time and space. The visual model of cyclic time is a circle. Linear time, as a motion within a continuum of space and time, forms a straight line. If we try to unite these two conceptions, the image that results can be a rising spiral, a funnel or a parabola.
从哲学的角度来看这个渴望可以概括为文化就是人类的自然。你很难在西方哲学里找到这一点。毕竟西方文化的“进步”以思想与物质的区别为基础,认为人类的思想超越了自然的“无意识”。我们慢慢才能懂得,人类只是一个物种,它也是大自然的一部分,物种的消失就和它的出现一样容易。

Stansfield / Hooykaas present a different, non-Western, model, without repudiating the Western tradition. It is a model that assumes cyclic conception of time and space, but does not exclude a linear conception of time and space. The visual model of cyclic time is a circle. Linear time, as a motion within a continuum of space and time, forms a straight line. If we try to unite these two conceptions, the image that results can be a rising spiral, a funnel or a parabola.
Stansfield / Hooykaas呈现了一种与众不同的,非西方的,但并未否定西方传统的模型。这个模型假定时间和空间的循环概念,但并未否定时间和空间的线性概念。循环时间的模型是一个圆圈。线性时间,作为空间和时间连续的整体,是一条直线。如果我们试图结合这两个概念,产生的图像可能是一个上升的螺旋形、圆锥形或抛物线。

One of the works of Stansfield / Hooykaas, located in the coastal sand dunes, takes the form of a shelter for passing walkers. From inside, you can see the shoreline and, further off, the horizon. A parabolic shield, a dish, protects your back and focuses the sound of the breaking waves. As you sit amid the dunes, some way from the shore, the sound of the sea is very close to you. Behind you there is a steelworks that converts ore - congealed, earthly time - into metal. The surf pounds against the beach. The machinery rumbles continuously. Is it the sound of the water or of the machinery that we hear?
Stansfield / Hooykaas的作品之一,是位于沿海沙丘的旅客休息室。由里向外,你可以看到海岸线甚至整个地平线。一个抛物线形的盾牌和一个碟子,不但保护着你的背部,也集中了波浪的声音。正如你坐在沙丘中间,远离海岸,海洋的声音是那么接近你。你身后是一个不断将矿石-凝结的世俗时间-转化成金属的钢厂。海浪拍打着海滩。机器总是不停地发出隆隆的声响。我们听到的到底是海水的声音,还是机器的声响?
Comments(0) | Trackbacks(0) | Reads(3790)