文奚雷译龙星如图科隆艺术协会

亚历克斯·达·科特:超人

科隆艺术协会 / 科隆

2018/4/20–2018/6/17

亚历克斯·达·科特“超人”科隆艺术协会展览现场 /

Exhibition view of Alex Da Corte's solo show “SUP Ǝ RMAN” at Kölnischer Kunstverein Koln Germany, 2018

乔根·莱斯在拍摄前感到有些担忧。他想了一会,随即嘱咐助手去买了一些包装看起来较为中性的汉堡作为道具。在漫长的等待后,莱斯看到安迪·沃霍尔在保镖的簇拥下如约来到了拍摄现场。安迪扫视了一圈满桌的汉堡,问道:“麦当劳在哪里?”

“我还以为你不想要那种太有辨识度的汉堡——”乔根·莱斯惶恐地回答。

“不,麦当劳才是最美丽的。”

安迪·沃霍尔也许无法想象,如今麦当劳已经从美丽蜕变成了诡奇。就如海湾地区的麦当劳并不只是霍米·巴巴所说的矛盾状态中殖民者与被殖民者之间交融的产物,更标志着标准化生产的宿命论:全球在地化虽然并不直接摧毁生产模式,却提供了一种塑型训练的极限,借而引导其主动走向隐匿和消散。此刻,“麦当劳”已不再是生产模式中机械美学的完美象征,而成为了自身死亡美学的隐喻。

杰夫·昆斯通过将消费主义注入每一个维度,来瓦解艺术的最后一分伪个性化,来自新泽西的亚历克斯·达·科特则重新将注意力转向了庸常的日用品——这些商品拜物教中正日渐衰落的神祇。在《真实生活》中,将自己装扮成埃米纳姆的艺术家并没有像安迪·沃霍尔那样,选择了时代性的象征,而是百无聊赖地在镜头前咀嚼着名为“Life” 的早餐麦片。在展览现场的另外三件影像装置中,同样化身为埃米纳姆的主角基于一些平庸的商品进行了一系列的表演:他先是不停地整理一大摞缠着乱线的老款 PlayStation 游戏手柄,然后愁云密布地抽着用廉价塑料制品拼接制成的水烟壶,最后,在满桌的快餐前,他对安迪·沃霍那种津津有味的品尝方式似乎不感兴趣,而是失常地将黄色的芥末酱抹在了自己的头顶。

与现场影像装置相呼应的是,亚历克斯为展览大厅选取了一种有着浓烈配色的场景。这些并列在一起的红、黄、紫色虽然看起来与构成主义、波普艺术以及孟菲斯设计有着暧昧的联系,但如今却只暗示着一种漂浮与贫乏。而与其泛泛地说这种似曾相识的配色方式代表了迪士尼般的虚幻,还不着眼于艺术与流行文化之间纠葛:从包豪斯到乌尔姆学院,设计不断吸纳着极简主义、构成主义及具体主义等艺术理念对色谱的研究成果,同时也借此在上层为艺术与流行文化之间的联姻牵线搭桥。如果说在这种传统的联姻方式中,必须通过媒人(设计)介绍,才能实现某种艺术流派的符号资本向大众文化的流动,那么现在流行文化与当代艺术之间的交媾就像是即刻发生的露水情缘。这种略过媒人的便易,甚至比长沙 12 天建成大厦的速度更为惊人,因为后者的高度主要只是借力于资本、政策和技术的力量,而前者是经济、文化、社会、科技及符号等全维度高速的产物。因而当 Lady Gaga 穿上生肉时装时,似乎更能印证保罗·维希留在“速度学”中对光速的形容:“光速不仅改变了世界,而是变成了世界。[1]”

亚历克斯·达·科特“超人”科隆艺术协会展览现场 /

Exhibition view of Alex Da Corte's solo show “SUP Ǝ RMAN” at Kölnischer Kunstverein Koln Germany, 2018

如今大众文化不必再小心翼翼地将艺术从边缘吸入资本的中心,或如化学实验般精准地选择同质化的试剂。在速度默许的助力下,两者之间的交会已变成了一种心照不宣的经典力学,一种粗暴但又更为高效的撞击和吸纳。就如在成为了网络谜因《Hotline Bling》的 MV 中,加拿大歌星德瑞克随着流行嘻哈乐起舞时,身后那片挪用了光学艺术家詹姆斯·特瑞尔标识性配色的空间,看起来就如他身上所穿盟可睐羽绒服一般地易于让人消化。

但是,此般地随用随取,艺术的严肃性难道不会对消费造成阻碍吗?——这种提问本身就已显得多余,因为速度早已让一切问题都变得无关紧要。如今,波普艺术的任务似乎也已经终结:当艺术的权威在大众文化面前失效或被资本滥用时,艺术对娱乐挪用就早已无法像以往那般构成一种致命的嘲弄。当亚历克斯将此次科隆艺术协会的个展起名为《超人》时,我们也已无法看到原先的那种讽刺的力量。首先,对作为大众文化典型“超人”的挪用, 不但就如上文所说那样,已无法对艺术的权威造成挑战,反倒迎合了另一种由波普艺术制造出来的权威。其次, 与麦当劳所代表的死亡美学相比,超人所象征的、足以将政治(美国精神)消费化的大众文化,如今也正在通过另一种方式,在民权运动与反文化霸权的纷扰声中开始自我伪装,并在对话语高速且过度地、经典力学式地粗暴吸纳中走向消亡。

当我面对亚历克斯对自己作品含糊不清的解释时,我所看到的是一种对艺术与娱乐之间关系理解的滞后。安迪·沃霍尔在波普中延续了杜尚的沉默,但在亚历克斯的创作中,这种灵性的沉默却转变成了一种含混,这不是黄永砯所形容的“或者是保持沉默,或者是乱说”的戏谑,而是一种艺术家试图保持沉默,但又迁就话语的尴尬状况。我们虽然不必总是试图为创作预设一个最急切的时代主题,但是问题在于,当我们关注那些日渐陈旧和庸常的现象时,该如何避免使创作成为一种贫乏的重复?并避免使相关的话语成为一种陈词滥调?艺术家在另一件装置《坏鞋》(BadShoe, 2017) 中,将一双阿迪达斯贝壳鞋放大到了等人大小,并将其按照自身结构拆卸成两个部分。他为此阐释道,“我的作品总是在处理阶级与口味之间的冲突,你的口味所代表的、想有却还没有得到的东西”,暂且抛开作品的表现手法,只看其创作目标中的漏洞,我们就能提出以下疑问:这种布迪厄阶级品味理论式的解答, 真的符合作品本身吗?在技术对社会和日常生活的进一步改造中,在使媒介环境学再次被重视的现实中,阶级品味理论是否还得以完全成立?艺术家虽然可以将对理论的误读转变为一种再创作的过程,但是否也会导致一种陈词滥调式的套用?在艺术家对作品的阐释中,这种既得顾及沉默的传统,又不得不言说的尴尬状况,难道不会让文本变成一种文字游戏吗?

“如果不是所有人都是美的,那就没有人是美的。”安迪·沃霍尔最终并没有坚持选择麦当劳,而是随手拿起了汉堡王,然后在乔根·莱斯的镜头下,完成了《安迪·沃霍尔吃汉堡》这幅时代的肖像。虽然我们在当下已经无法复制安迪·沃霍尔对自己作品的沉默,而对于以上这些问题,我们也许仍然能够从他的一句自述中,得到另一种反向但致命的揭示:“如果你想了解真正的安迪·沃霍尔,只需看我的绘画、电影和我的外表......没有什么东西隐藏在背后。”

Alex Da Corte:McDonald’s Death Aesthetics, Speed of Light and Silence

by Xi Lei, translatedby Long Xingru, Image Courtesy of Kolnisher Kunstverein Koln

Alex Da Corte: THE SUP Ǝ RMAN

Kölnischer Kunstverein / Cologne

20 April-17 June 2018

亚历克斯·达·科特 坏国 高清数码影像 /

Alex Da Corte, Bad Land, HD digital video, 2017

Jørgen Leth was a bit worried before the shooting. Leth had his assistant buy some burgers as props for the film and specifically requested some with neutral packaging. When Andy Warhol finally arrived at the studio with his bodyguards, he saw the anonymous burgers on the table and asked: “Where's the McDonalds?”

Leth, slightly panicked, explained: “I thought you would maybe not like to identify…”

Warhol replied: “No, that is the most beautiful.”

Leth, slightlypanicked, explained: “I thought you would maybe not like to identify...”

Warhol replied: “No,that is the most beautiful.”

Andy Warhol might nothave imagined how McDonalds has transformed from “beautiful” to “bizarre”.McDonalds in the Gulf states is not merely, as Homi K. Bhabha avers, the resultof a blend of ambivalence between colonists and colonised: it also marks thedeterminism of standarised production. The localising process of globalisationdoes not destroy existing production patterns in a violent way: instead, itasserts a new production model, which forces the local model to retreat ordissipate. Today, “McDonalds” is no longer the perfect symbol for a mechanicalaesthetic, but rather a metaphor for the death of the aesethics of productionmodels.

By injectingconsumerism into every dimension of his creative work, Jeff Koons succeeded indisintegrating the last elements of pseudo-individualization in art. Meanwhile,the New Jersey artist Alex Da Corte, pays attention to mundane-looking everydayobjects, the decadent deities of commodity fetishism. In TRUE LIFE (2012), theartist, dressed as Eminem, adopted the opposite strategy to Warhol. Rather thanfeature an iconic commodity, he chews a bag of cereal named “Life” in front ofthe camera, weighed down by boredom. In three other video installations onview, the “Eminem” protagonist also performs with everyday commodities: heendlessly fiddles with the wires of an old PlayStation joystick, smokes amelancholy Hookah made up of cheap plastic products, and, eventually, he isconfronted – just like Warhol – with a tableful of fast food. He shows nointerest in Warhol's delicate table manners, and madly plasters yellow mustardsauce over his head.

To resonate with thethree installations, Alex picks a strong colour scheme for the exhibitiongallery, juxtaposing bright red, yellow and purple. While it seems faintlyreminiscent of constructivism, pop art and Memphis design, today it only seemstenuous and flighty. Instead of roundly concluding that this familiar colourscheme is a Disney- like metaphor, perhaps it's better to focus on theentaglement of art and popular culture: from Bauhaus to the Ulm School ofDesign, the field of design has long taken inspiration from minimalism,constructivism, and concretism's research on chromatography. Furthermore, onthe basis of this research, it bridges art and popular culture. If the moreconventional marriage of the two requres a matchmaker whose introduction wasmade necessary for the flow of symbolic capital from the realm of art intopopluar culture, then intercourse between the two is fraught with uncertaintynowadays. The absence of the matchmaker gives birth to an acceleratedestablishment, with a speed more impressive than the Changsha skyscraper thatwas built within twelve days. The skyscraper can be built merely with the powerof capital, policy and technology, but the towering Art-Popular culturelandscapes of today are the outcome of acceleration in literally everydimension: the economy, culture, society, technology and semiotics. Therefore,when Lady Gaga dons her meat costume, we're witnessing a live manifestation ofPaul Virilio’s “Dromologie”: “The speed of light does not merely transform the world.It becomes the world. [1]”

亚历克斯·达·科特 真实生活 高清数码影像 /

Alex Da Corte, True Life, HD digital video, 2017

Today, popularculture needn't scrupulously draw in elements of art from the peripheries ofcapital, or choose the most accurate means of Homogenization. Boosted by thespeed of the modern world, the rendezvous between art and mass culture hastransformed into a tacit understanding, a kind of classical mechanics, aviolent but efficient collision and absorption. In the internet meme/musicvideo “Hotline Bling”, the space where the Canadian singer Drake dances tohip-hop music, fully appropriates the signature colour blending of JamesTurrell. Here, Art is as digestible as Drake's Moncler jacket.

However, despite suchaccessibility, does the seriousness of art remain an obstacle to consumption?“Speed” may have made all such questions irrelevant. The mission of pop artseems to have reached its goal: when the authority of art is either invalidatedby mass culture or abused by capital, art's appropriation of entertainmentculture can no longer, as it once did, construe a striking irony. When Alexnames his solo exhibition at the Ko?lnischer Kunstverein“SUP Ǝ RMAN”, it conveysonly a limited satirical message. First of all, the appropriation of classicpop culture icons today (such as Superman) cannot challenge the authority of art– on the contrary, it caters to another type of authority, created by pop art.And contrary to the aesthetics of death which McDonalds represents, what theSuper Man symbolises – a type of mass culture strong enough to engulf politics(or the American spirit) with consumerism – is beginning to camouflage itselfin the turmoil of civil rights movements and hegemonic counter-culture. It isstarting to wither away in the accelerated process of brutally absorbing thediscourse of mass culture.

When studying Alex'svague interpretation of his work, I sensed his deep preception of therelationship between art and entertainment. In the form of Pop Art, Warholcontinued in Duchamp's silence. Yet in Alex's oeuvre, this aura of silence istransformed into a state of ambiguity: not in the sense of Huang Yongping'ssatirical quip that “One either stays silent or speaks carelessly” (in responseof Wittgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent”), butrather, it exists in an awkward situation where the artist attempts to staysilent, but cannot help yielding to the domain of mass culture. While we arenot obliged to presuppose that all artworks represent the most urgent theme ofour times, the real issue lies therein: when more attention is given toobsolescence and mediocre subjects, how do we prevent artistic practices frombecoming desolate and mundane repetitions; how do we prevent artisticdiscourses from turning into cliche's?

In a furtherinstallation piece, Bad Shoe (2017), the artist models a man-sized pair ofAdidas Shell shoes which is dissected into two parts, according to its originalstructure. “My work has always dealt with the collision of class and taste,insofar as where taste represents something you want but something you don’thave”, explains the artist.

If, for a moment, wedrift away from the representational methods of the piece and examine theloopholes within the object of such practices, we arrive at doubt: doesBourdieu's theory of a social class-styled interpretation of a work genuinelyconform to the work itself? Against the backdrop of technologies thatconstantly sculpt society and daily life, iin a reality where mediaenvironmentology is regaining its power, would Bourdieu's answer still bevalid? Although the artist retains the right to convert the misreading of atheory into a creative reproduction of it, would this also imply a tolerance ofcliche's? In elaborating on this piece, would not the tension between aconsideration of silence (in not explaining too much) and the impluse tointerpret, result in another kind of textual game?

“If everyone isn'tbeautiful, then no one is.” Eventually, Andy Warhol didn't choose McDonald's.Instead, he casually picked up Burger King and, in front of J?rgen Leth’scamera, performed the iconic scene Warhol Eating a Hamburger, a portrait of histime. Although we cannot mimic Warhol's silence towards his own work, we canstill touch on an opposite but fatal revelation: “If you want to know all aboutAndy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings and films and me, and...There’s nothing behind it.”

[1] John Armitage,Virilio Live: Selected Interviews [M]. London·Thousand·Oaks·New Delhi: SAGEPublications, 2001: 185.