Ou Ning's Blog

代谢派建筑的回归

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:19:09 +0800

[“代谢派未来都市展：战后和今日日本重建的梦想与愿景”，2011年9月17日－2012年1月15日，森美术馆，东京。背景为菊竹清训设计的生态都市。]

[库哈斯和奥布里斯特，《日本计划：代谢派访谈》，2011， Taschen出版社，慕尼黑。]

代谢派建筑的回归

欧宁

2011年9月17日，“代谢派未来都市展：战后和今日日本重建的梦想与愿景”(Metabolism, The City of The Future: Dreams and Vision of Reconstruction in Postwar and Present-Day Japan)在东京森美术馆开幕，这是首个关于日本代谢派建筑和城市设计的大型回顾展；10月28日，库哈斯(Rem Koolhaas)和奥布里斯特(Hans Ulrich Obrist)的《日本计划：代谢派访谈》(Project Japan: Metabolism Talks)一书由Taschen出版社出版，这一口述历史计划自2005年就着手进行了。为什么要在此时此刻重提日本代谢派？

2011年3月11日，日本关东地区发生了9.0级地震，这是日本有观测纪录以来最大规模的地震，它引起的海啸、火灾和核泄露导致很多城市遭受毁灭性的破坏。此情此景把日本拉回1945年广岛原子大弹爆炸的历史记忆。正是因为二战的破坏，日本才把灾难变成机遇，在战后致力于经济复苏和城市重建，这也是代谢派建筑师们崛起的历史背景。在311地震之后，日本举国上下沉浸在悲痛之中，不论是普罗大众还是知识分子，都在热议灾后重建的话题，致力于寻找危机转化的机会，籍此重振日本的经济和民生。而把目光投向战后重建的相似历史经验，也就非常容易理解了。

另一方面，代谢派建筑师们过去在日本各地建成的作品近年来相继被拆的命运，也促使森美术馆尽快组织这个展览。2007年春天，座落在东京银座的中银胶囊大楼传出要拆的消息(1)：那里的住户不堪忍受它的老化，而美国的对冲基金已经购买了它的产权，要在此兴建一幢更高的新建筑。这幢峻工于1972年的建筑是代谢派的核心人物黑川纪章的代表作品，它由预制的“胶囊”舱体组成，每个“胶囊”都是一个独立的住宅单元，可快速安装和拆卸，是全世界第一个建成的可移动的建筑，满足当时那些居无定所的白领的需要。黑川纪章为保护自己的作品心力交瘁，随后在十月辞世。此前一年，他在大阪的索尼大楼刚被拆掉。面临相同命运的还有代谢派另一重要建筑师菊竹清训的宫崎県都城市民会馆（1966年建成）、大阪世博会塔（1970年建成）和东京Sofitel酒店（1994年建成）。在六、七十年代名盛一时的代谢派建筑已陷入了现实利益的泥沼。

[黑川纪章, 中银胶囊大楼, 东京, 1972年。]

[菊竹清训，大阪世博会塔，大阪，1970年。]

而对于建筑师库哈斯来说，他惯于跳出欧洲和西方的局限来关注其它国家和地区的历史发展和最新动向，他一直相信未来在亚洲，而日本代谢派是第一个非西方的前卫建筑运动，他们的思想和实践吸引他，“他们有的虽然活着，但已经很老了，再不和他们做访谈就来不及了。”(2) 他和奥布里斯特在1994年做“移动中的城市”这个巡回展时就已经开始关注亚洲城市，1996年至1997年，他前往中国，带领哈佛大学设计研究院的学生在珠三角地区开展调研，出版了《大跃进》(Great Leap Forward)一书；2003年，在纽约世贸遗址重建和北京中央电视台新大楼设计之间，他选择了后者，他对日本代谢派的兴趣焦点与此同出一辙：代谢派在六十年代与日本政府强而有力的合作关系被他看成发达国家建筑史上的最后时刻，此后建筑师便只能听命于自由市场；而他选择中国，也是看重与公共部门合作的潜力。亚洲城市化方兴未艾，这个地区的思想和实践，即使在今天，对他来说，仍然是兴趣不减。当然，他做《日本计划：代谢派访谈》还有更私人的原因：他再不想老是谈论自己，《小，中，大，超大》(S,M,L,XL)一书已经是一个了断，他要做些别的。

森美术馆的展览以线性历史叙事的方式来搭建它的展览结构：第一部分，“代谢派的诞生”，讲述代谢派产生的历史背景和代谢派的理论准备；第二部分，“代谢派的时代”，展示代谢派各种设计提案和建设相继爆发的盛况；第三部分，“从空间到环境”，以1966年的“从空间到环境”展览和1970年的大阪世界博览会两个历史事件来检视代谢派的实践；第四个部分，“全球化的代谢派”，总结代谢派在世界各地的建设和影响；最后还有一个“代谢派大厅”，收集了今天受到代谢派启发的最新建筑和城市设计的项目。对于一个耙梳历史的展览来说，这样的叙事策略可谓别无选择，它的优点在于条理清晰，方便观众在数个小时内快速了解这个建筑运动的精髓。

在展览的入口，是一张由丹下健三设计、1955年峻工的原爆纪念陈列馆（现名广岛和平纪念资料馆本馆）的黑白照片。简洁有力的轮廓线在原爆的焦土上展开，它的尺度，要在另一张历史照片上才可看出来：在纪念馆与和平大道、广场和慰灵碑构成的恢宏大气的景观轴上，参加峻工仪式和纪念庆典的人群细如蚁蝼。在策展论述中，这是日本战后第一个标志性的建筑，也是代谢派运动的起点。丹下健三堪称代谢派的“教父”，在他的影响下，围绕在他身边工作的一批年轻建筑师们在1960年发起了这一运动。然而，在库哈斯和奥布里斯特对他们的采访中，他们多数都认为侵华战争比广岛原爆对他们的影响更为重要。正是因为日本在满洲建立了庞大的殖民地，它的建筑师们才第一次有机会尝试大尺度的规划。森美术馆也展出了内田祥三等在1933年所作的满洲开拓村规划。据统计，日本在侵华期间向满洲共派遣开拓团860多个、33万多人，满洲开拓村的规划正是为了在中国东北的辽阔土地上解决这一人群居住和生活的需要。

[丹下健三，原爆纪念陈列馆，广岛，1955年。]

[内田祥三等，满洲开拓村规划，1933年，未建成。]

大尺度和大想法是代谢派吸引库哈斯的重点。他和奥布里斯特专门采访了曾任日本国土厅副厅长的下河辺淳，他曾是丹下健三手下的建筑师，后来从政，给代谢派建筑师们委派了很多官方的项目，以惊人的组织和整合能力介入了代谢派运动。在自由市场占主导地位的西方国家，建筑师很难实现他们宏大的计划，而幸运的代谢派建筑师们因为有官方的支持而令库哈斯羡慕不已。在采访过程中，库哈斯曾假设这些建筑师们或多或少都有点左派的倾向，但意外的是，他们很多都是反民主和反美国的，认为封建集权是一种更负责任的制度。对库哈斯而言，代谢派的启示就是今天的建筑师应去寻找更多公共部门的支持，他们的运动经验乃是今天建筑师的教科书。

在森美术馆展览的第一部分，观众可以看到那本在1960年世界设计大会发表的《代谢派宣言》的原始文本。它的核心理念是，城市和建筑应像生物那样通过新陈代谢来进行有机演变，以适应社会和自然的变化。这与今天的可持续发展理论和绿色建筑理论可谓异曲同工。黑川纪章在反对拆除中银胶囊大楼时曾这样解释他的设计，“胶囊”可以根据住宅的需要不断叠加，就像植物的生长，每隔25年，当它们老化时，花3至4个月即可全部更换，这样不断更新的建筑至少可持续200年。(3) 中银胶囊大楼是代谢派理论的一个绝佳的实践案例，但它在今天的命运却颇为尴尬。建筑师的职业特点注定他们经常会陷入这样的处境，代谢派并非特例。在设计完成之后，他们的作品经常在施工时被业主更改，或因为复杂的产权关系、利益博弈和政治变化而在日后完全不受他们控制。所以矶崎新（他也曾是代谢派的一员）更看重他作品中“未建成”(unbuilt)的部分，他甚至认为“未建成”构成了建筑史的主体，通过历史传播获得永生。

森美术馆展览的第二部分和第三部分全面展示了代谢派的代表作品，包括丹下健三的《东京计划1960》(1961年发表)、《筑地再开发计划》(1967年发表)，黑川纪章的《东京计划1961：Helix计划》(1962年发表)，矶崎新的《空中都市：新宿计划》(1960年发表)、《空中都市：涉谷计划》(1962年发表)，菊竹清训的《东京湾计划1961》(1961年发表)、《海上都市1963》(1963年发表)、《集合住宅类型》(1966年发表)，荣久庵宪司的《住居都市》(1964年发表)和桢文彦的《Golgi构造体》(1967年发表)等等这些未建成的宏大而充满想像力的设计提案，它们无一不是根据日本土地储备不足的弱点而向海上和空中发展的高密度巨构。但由此而说代谢派的设计只是未建成的空想是非常鲁莽的，展览的这两部分也收集了大量他们早期的建成作品，其中不少都在建筑史占有一席之地。1966年在东京举办的“从空间到环境”展览反映了代谢派开放而又抱团（他们和其它领域的设计师例如平面设计师一起合作）的态度和策略，而1970年的大阪世界博览会则是他们大展拳脚的舞台。这是整个展览最核心和精彩的两个部分，特别是森美术馆专门委托制作的新模型和CG影像，迫真地再现了代谢派大师们动人心魄的大胆构想。

[菊竹清训，海上都市，1963年，未建成。]

[荣久庵宪司，住居都市，1964年，未建成。]

[矶崎新，空中都市(涉谷计划)，1962年，未建成。CG新图。]

[黑川纪章的《东京计划1961：Helix计划》在森美术馆的展示，包括重新制作的CG动画。]

展览的第四部分顺着时间线走到了代谢派的全球化时代。经历六十年代的积累，他们在国际上声名远播，开始获得在其它国家的建设项目，他们的作品遍布全球各大洲。库哈斯特别欣赏他们在非洲和中东地区的作为：在七十年代西方石油危机和日本经济开始衰退之后，他们到这些发展中国家去帮助它们发明一种全新的现代风格，有趣的是他们并不考量所谓的“文脉”(Context)，而完全像他们在六十年代那样，从零开始。对这些在六十年代纷纷独立的国家来说，西方建筑师并不吸引他们，因为他们急于摆脱西方殖民者的影响，而日本代谢派建筑师则变成了他们最可依靠的思想者和建设者。(4) 在展览的这一部分，观众可以看到菊竹清训仍然执着于他在六十年代的“海上都市”创想，为美国夏威夷提交了类似的设计提案（1971年发表），最后终于在冲绳岛的海面上实施（1975年）；桢文彦在2007年完成了新加坡共和理工学院的校园规划；黑川纪章和矶崎新为中国郑州郑东新区所作的规划已部分峻工。

[菊竹清训，海上都市，冲绳，1975年。]

作为展览的辅助部分，“代谢派大厅”有点为观众提供“延伸阅读”的意思。而为展览举办的两场讨论会“代谢派建筑师谈代谢派”和“代谢派作为政治策略”则把仍然在世的菊竹清训、荣久庵宪司和桢文彦请出来与观众见面，把库哈斯请到东京来讨论他最关注的建筑与政治的话题。厚达300多页的展览出版物对纷繁复杂的展品、文献进行梳理，并有大量日本学者的论述文稿，可惜未及译成英文收入。

在建筑史上，六十年代有两个重要的团体致力于未来城市和建筑的探索，一个是英国的建筑电讯(Archigram)，另一个便是日本的代谢派。他们几乎同时成立（前者1961年，后者1960年），并且同时着力于探索建筑和城市的大尺度、可移动性、可生长性以及挣脱地权的可能性。在人类生存空间日益捉襟见肘的今天，这两个团体的思想和实践不仅仅是过去对未来进行想像的文化遗产，更是应对今日迫人现实的可能方案之一。日本水户市当代美术馆曾在2005年接办过建筑电讯的巡回回顾展，现在森美术馆又举办了如此盛大的代谢派回顾展，这显示出他们对于建筑师们探索未来、寻求对现实有更多替代性解决方案的努力的珍视。在中银胶囊大楼面临被拆而引起的争议中，现实的声音一直在说，“想保留它？付钱就可以！”(5) 而美术馆作为一种保存文化的机构，它能做的就是组织展览，让更多人认识文化遗产的价值。日本代谢派的某些建筑作品可能年久失修，但它的思想却历久弥新。当它的预言得到应验，它将重新回归社会认知的怀抱。

2011年12月30日，北京。
发表于《睿士》(Elle Man)2012年第二期。
图片提供：森美术馆

注：
(1) Yuki Solomon, “Kurokawa’s Capsule Tower To Be Razed”, Architectural Record, April 30, 2007.
(2) Julie V. Iovine and Molly Heintz, “Q+A: Rem Koolhaas”, The Architect’s Newspaper, October 27, 2011.
(3) Jason Gray and Ashley Rawlings, “Nakagin Capsule Tower: Demolition & Preservation”, video produced by Tokyo Art Beat, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9roy5mbz5fk
(4) Julie V. Iovine and Molly Heintz, “Q+A: Rem Koolhaas”, The Architect’s Newspaper, October 27, 2011.
(5) Nicolai Ouroussoff, “Architecture: Future Vision Banished to the Past”, The New York Times, July 7, 2009.

《天南》文学双月刊第五期12月25日出版

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:39:37 +0800

本期以离散之味(The Diaspora)为主题。

在Entrance (入口)这里，我们特别推荐美国华裔诗人李立扬的诗作《总有一朵玫瑰》和《杜鹃花在证人席上》，它们第一次被译成中文发表。作为一个因政治原因而离散的家族的后代，他道尽了世界之苦和亲情之暖，正好作为这期Special Space (特别策划)的引子。

接着我们有哈金的《养老计划》和《耻辱》，李翊云的《逃避之道》，郭小橹的《想像库页岛》和黎紫书的《烟花季节》。前四篇小说都是用英文写成的，后一篇用中文写成。它们都被我们归纳在一个“大离散”的概念下，写出了海外华人在异乡的故事。

在非虚构文体方面，我们有李立扬获得美国图书奖的回忆录《带翼的种子》的节译，他在1990年首次回到中国和印尼寻访家世后写作了此书，里面有写到他外曾祖父袁世凯的家庭生活；还有谭恩美的《母语》，谈到她的写作受到了母亲洋泾滨英语的影响；还有虹影，她的《故土、他乡与女性意识》从阅读的角度，为我们耙梳了海外华人女性的文学史。

在“大离散”的概念下，我们也关注“流亡”的体验和论述。于是我们有爱德华·萨义德的《关于流亡的省思》以及卡瓦菲斯关于流亡的九首诗作，后者象征性地被放在Exit (出口)。

本期的图片故事是张碔的《在纽约》，他拍摄了纽约唐人街的人生百态。

在Regular Space (自由组稿) 的部分，我们有两位四川作家的小说：颜歌的最新长篇《戴月行的一家》的首章《爸爸没有死》和罗伟章的《战时之恋》；还有两篇书评：刘铮评克里斯托弗·希钦斯的《有待商榷》和菲戈评冈仓天心的《茶之书·“粹”的构造》。

本期有两本Parasites (刊中刊), 一本是新的Crossover，收入张永和和王澍为2011成都双年展国际设计展进行的“越界”创作：他们分别根据自己的想象，设计了弗兰·欧布莱恩和博尔赫斯小说中的建筑空间；另一本是持续出版的Peregrine，针对现在部分年轻读者已经能直接阅读英文，我们除了颜歌的小说英译，还附上了哈金、郭小橹和李立扬的英文原作。他们的英文到底如何？读者可自行判断！

封面图片：两位唐人街的社区领袖在纽约规模最大、历史最久的华人团体中华公所(CCBA)会议室内。张碔摄于2007年。

Peregrine, An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine, Issue 5.

Guide|导览

Entrance|入口

李立杨《总有一朵玫瑰》《杜鹃花在证人席上》（诗二首）

Special Space|特别策划
The Diaspora|离散之味

Strangers|异乡人

哈金《养老计划》
哈金《耻辱》
李翊云《逃避之道》
郭小橹《想象库页岛》
黎紫书《烟花季节》

Remembrance & Writings|记忆与书写

李立杨《带翼的种子》
谭恩美《母语》
虹影《故土、他乡与女性意识》

Imagery|影像

张碔《在纽约》

Thinking|论述

爱德华·萨义德《跨越边界:关于流亡的省思》

Regular Space|自由组稿

Fiction|虚构

颜歌《爸爸没有死》
罗伟章《战时之恋》

Reading |深读

刘铮《岂是俗儒可以梦见：希钦斯<有待商榷>》
菲戈《美的战争：冈仓天心<茶之书·“粹”的构造>》

Parasites |刊中刊

Crossover
2011成都双年展国际设计展“文学中的建筑”项目

张永和《第三警察局》
王澍《反转的巴别图书馆》

Peregrine
An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine, Issue 5.

Yan Ge, Dad’s Not Dead, Translated by Nicky Harman
Ha Jin, A Pension Plan
Guo Xiaolu, A Soul in Sakhalin
Li-Young Lee, The Winged Seed

Exit |出口

卡瓦菲斯《流亡者》(诗九首)

Bishan Witness - A Documentary by Andrew Long

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:19:50 +0800

01 到碧山去 Destination Bishan

02 開幕儀式 Opening Ceremony

03 出地方祭 Harvest Ceremony

04 詩歌補習 Poetry Lecture

05 城鄉話療 Cross Dialogue

Granta x Chutzpah: The Death and Life of Literary Journals

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:29:05 +0800

《格兰塔》对话《天南》：文学杂志的兴与衰

时间：2011年11月20日，周日下午3-5点
地点：北京市朝阳区朝阳公园路6号院蓝色港湾11号楼rs-16号单向街图书馆

嘉宾：
John Freeman：《格兰塔》杂志主编
Ellah Allfrey：《格兰塔》杂志副主编
欧宁：《天南》杂志主编

主办：
英国大使馆文化教育处

作为欧美文学杂志的代表之一，以主题书见长的英国文学杂志Granta首次来华，对话中国文学杂志，会面中国作家和文学编辑。在北京，Granta将对话《天南》，探讨文学杂志的兴与衰，以及在不同文化背景下的生存和发展状况。

《格兰塔》(Granta)杂志

Granta杂志1889年由剑桥大学的学生们创立，期刊关注学生政治、学生间的揶揄玩笑，以及学生文学组织，杂志名取自流经小镇的一条河流。Granta杂志拥有一段悠久、辉煌的历史，为众多名扬世界的作家出版过他们的早期作品，包括A. A. Milne，Michael Frayn, Stevie Smith, Ted Hughes及Sylvia Plath。上世纪70年代，Granta曾一度陷入危机——收入减少、业绩惨淡——剑桥大学的一小群研究生们拯救了Granta杂志，并出人意料地把它成功转型为一本关注新写作的杂志，杂志重办后，开始为世界范围的作家刊登作品，读者不再仅限于剑桥大学。

自1979年Granta杂志重获新生以来，已为许多世界上最好的作家出版了作品，作品内容涉及许多重要方面，从个人的亲密体验，到影响我们日常生活的公共政治大事件等。作家Martin Amis, Julian Barnes, Saul Bellow, Peter Carey, Raymond Carver, Angela Carter, Bruce Chatwin, James Fenton, Richard Ford, Martha Gellhorn, Nadine Gordimer, Milan Kundera, Doris Lessing, Ian McEwan, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Jayne Anne Phillips, Salman Rushdie, George Steiner, Graham Swift, Paul Theroux, Edmund White, Jeanette Winterson及Tobias Wolff都为杂志作出了贡献。自1979年至今，每期刊物都在再版。通过阅读Granta，读者不仅可以与诸如Bill Bryson, Romesh Gunesekera, Blake Morrison, Arundhati Roy及Zadie Smith等作家的叙述散文首次邂逅，也能了解到如西贡的衰落、泰坦尼克号的秘密、通奸、精神疗法及中国斗蟋蟀等多种多样的事件与话题。

Granta没有政治或文学主张，但它却有着一种信仰，那就是有力度地，并且实时地去叙述虚构与非虚构的故事，具有将故事描述、阐明，从而呈现出原貌的能力。《观察家报》这样形容Granta：“通过回忆录、摄影报道及对当代写实小说的倡导，Granta将其视线紧紧聚焦于窗外，致力于见证世界上发生的一切。”

Granta近期内容

第117期“恐怖惊悚”：反映创造力与现实生活的恐怖惊悚类作品，如Paul Auster与Will Self的非虚构类小说、Stephen King与Sarah Hall的虚构类小说、Peru与Sudan的报告文学，及Chapman兄弟的艺术作品。

第116期“十年之后”：有关自9.11恐怖分子撞击纽约双子塔事件后，人们复杂而悲痛的生活情感作品，反映世界范围内人们在此事件中遭受的影响。

第115期“女性主义”：探讨继续改革、宣扬女性主义的方式，在仍处于迎合男性的世界中寻找权力平衡点。来自英国、美国、加纳，及印度的小说——虚构类：Edwidge Danticat与Jeanette Winterson；非虚构类：AS Byatt与Janice Galloway；诗歌及图片散文。

第114期“异域小说”：描述来自其他地方、完全异于本国的另一种文化的小说。包括Avarind Adiga, Roberto Bolano, Paul Theroux, Anne Patchett的作品。

第113期“最佳西班牙语青年小说家”：在二十与二十一世纪，文坛中涌现出一批受读者爱戴的用西班牙语创作的作家，由于西班牙语文化已经延伸至西班牙及拉丁美洲以外，是时候期待谁将成为这一激动人心的传统的继承者。Granta及Granta西语版共介绍了22位有望成为文学界名人的作家。

第112期“巴基斯坦”：近两亿人口，60种不同语言，同一种宗教信仰，巴基斯坦深受分裂及不稳定势力的影响，与伊朗、阿富汗及克什米尔的持续冲突使得巴基斯坦成为当今世界最不稳定、持续动荡的地区之一。

《天南》(Chutzpah)杂志

《天南》杂志原是广东民间文艺家协会创刊于1982年的民间文学杂志，2005年被现代传播集团购入并改为一本书评杂志(英文杂志名为Modern Book Reviews)，从2011年起它的英文名称改称Chutzpah, 重新定义为一本新型文学双月刊开始运作。Chutzpah发音[ 'khutspə ]，源自意第绪语，原意是指“放肆”，“拽”，在传入英语世界后又发展出“肆无忌惮的勇气”，“挑战成规的精神”等意涵，后来传入英语世界后得到广泛使用，专门用来指称那些大胆创新和打破常规的行为。它与原来的“天南”共同构成了这本杂志的中英文刊名，也定义了这本杂志的外在形象和精神内核。 

在当前中国的杂志和出版市场上，充斥着各种各样的产品，它们不是追逐转逝即逝的时尚、满足于快餐式的阅读体验，就是沉溺于象牙塔的孤芳自赏、过于严肃寡趣。时尚杂志片面追求视觉效果，只是在图像的喧闹中填入肤浅的写作和失效的文体；文学或思想类杂志则仍停留在陈旧的编辑观念和视觉品相，难于挑起人们的阅读欲望。市场上缺乏一种可以提供深度阅读但又在视觉上赏心悦目的文学杂志—《天南》(Chutzpah)的创刊旨在填补这一空白，探索文学杂志的新观念和新形式，重塑这个时代的文学阅读体验。 

《天南》创刊号于2011年4月1日在中国各大城市面市后，两周内即脱销，加印后在两个月内再次售馨，掀起一股文学杂志的热潮，被各大媒体称之为“文学小革命”。杂志开本为不规则十六开，260页左右，以手感轻盈的芬兰轻质纸黑白印刷，部分插图彩印，每期聚焦一个主题，并辅以自由组稿，以空间概念来结构内容，首页提供简短有趣的导览，中间装订一本更小尺寸的刊中刊Peregrine，精选本期内容译成英文，向英文读者推介中国当代写作。《天南》不仅深受读者欢迎，更获万宝龙和宝马等品牌的固定支持，成为现代传播旗下面向知识分子的重点读物。

《天南》近期内容

第5期“离散之味”：关注在大中华地区（中港台）以外的各地的华人写作（不管他们是用中文还是英文），它着重于与文化母体的离散关系，而非“流亡文学”。发表哈金、李翊云等作家的小说，以及其他一些身在海外的中文诗人的诗歌等。

第4期“情色异象”：发表了中国诗人杨炼的一系列情色诗歌，以及法国、西班牙、美国和俄罗斯的情色小说的经典和新作，包括Georges Bataille, Bernard Noël, Francisco Umbral, Martha McPhee和Елена Колядина的作品。

第3期“诗歌地理学”：用地理学的结构方法，以各地诗人们专门撰写的叙事文本，来再现中国80年代的诗歌记忆，为亲历者和后来者们绘制出一幅80年代文化生活的地图，同时发表了大量80年代活跃的中国诗人的最新作品。

第2期“星际叙事”：集中发表了英语科幻文学中的Cyber Punk类型小说，包括William Gibson, Neal Stephenson, Jeff Noon和Paulo Bacigalupi等的代表作品，以及中国代表科幻作家刘慈欣，韩松，飞氘，陈楸帆和杨平等的经典和最新创作。

第1期“亚细亚故乡”：关注亚洲地区农村的历史和现实，以及各地知识分子离开城市，深入农村生活和工作，展开乡村建设事业的现象。发表了印度作家Arundhati Roy，中国作家李锐和梁鸿，台湾作家吴音宁等的非虚构写作，以及新锐作家阿乙等的小说。

The Experience of Family and Social Change

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:50:18 +0800

The Experience of Family and Social Change
Song Dong’s Home and Art

by Ou Ning

Published in Song Dong: Dad and Mom, Don't Worry About Us, We Are All Well
Yerba Buena Center for Arts, San Francisco, 2011, ISBN-10: 0982678924

On September 20, 2005, Song Dong introduced a new installation at the Beijing Tokyo Art Projects space, entitled Waste Not. The work consisted of a vast collection of household objects that his mother, Zhao Xiangyuan, had accumulated over the long course of her domestic life. This unusual exhibition garnered great acclaim, particularly a message written in neon lights, pointing to the sky that said, “Dad, don’t worry, mom and us are fine.” With this simple sentiment, the artist not only reassured his father’s spirit in heaven, but also revealed the starting point of his work. Following his father’s death, Song Dong’s mother had entered a period of deep grieving for her husband, immersing herself in the accumulated objects of her domestic life to the exclusion of all else. Song Dong based this exhibition on the concept of “waste not, want not” that was his mother’s philosophy of life and domestic management. He persuaded his mother to catalogue and exhibit the many objects that she couldn’t bring herself to throw away, but that no longer had any use. In this way he was able to help her emerge from her grief. Myriad commonplace and insignificant items were brought into the gallery space, categorized and displayed and turned into a work of art. This is art that not only can help heal an individual’s broken heart, but also stir the emotions of the ordinary viewer. Such emotional power, absent for so long in a contemporary art scene defined by symbolism and spectacle, is enough to move people to tears.

Following the initial exhibition’s excellent reception, Waste Not was shown at the Gwangju Biennale, the House of World Cultures in Berlin, The New Art Gallery Walsall in England, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and the Vancouver Art Gallery. The emotional power of Song Dong’s work arises primarily from his concept of home and family as art. Audiences respond strongly to the unvarnished human emotions forged within the crucible of the family. In a 2000 interview with the exhibition’s curator Wu Hung, Song Dong said, “I always wanted to make my family members the subject of my art. An artist who is concerned with life naturally wants to investigate reality deeply; and there is no reality that is closer to me than my family. A family is the smallest unit of society; yet every family differs and all relationships in it also differ.”(1) By transforming his family stories into works of art infused with personal emotion, and putting them on public display, Song Dong offers a deeply nuanced picture of social change. Song Dong has effectively used this artistic strategy since his first experiments in 1997. His first family themed work was Touching My Father, an exploration of his physical relationship with his father.

Song Dong’s father Song Shiping was an engineer. He was born in Liaoning Province. After graduating with a degree in civil engineering from Qinghua University, he worked at the Chinese Academy of Sciences until his retirement in 1996. In 1970, he was declared an “active counterrevolutionary” and sent down to the May Seventh Cadre School in Hubei Province for rehabilitation through labor. Prior to the eventual clearing of his father’s case in 1978, Song Dong only saw him on the rare occasions that his mother was able to take the family to visit. As a result, Song Dong’s father was essentially a stranger to him during his childhood. Later when they were reunited, Song Dong viewed his father as a distant and all-powerful authority figure.(2) In traditional Chinese families, the roles of father and mother in child rearing are sharply defined. The mother fulfills the function of nurturer, while the father is responsible for enforcing social mores. The mother does her best to satisfy the physical needs of the children, while the father must mold their character. This tradition gives rise to the dichotomy of “loving mother, strict father.” In general, children have the most physical contact with their mother, and very little with their father. In China’s traditional patriarchal society, the contact between father and child is highly regulated, preventing them from developing the close physical bond experienced by mother and child.(3) The first time Song Dong actually touched his father was after he had just passed away in 2002. Although he filmed the process, he hasn’t been able to bring himself to watch it and the images remain sealed away on videotape. His 1997 work Touching My Father remains a symbolic caress of the spirit.

Song Dong originally studied oil painting at Beijing Capitol Normal University. In 1994, he started to incorporate installations, performance, and video into his work. His father did not understand this new direction, and felt that his son was wasting his talent for painting. In order to overcome these differences, gain his father’s support, and resolve the longstanding alienation from his father that arose from his father’s overwhelming authority, Song Dong enlisted his father to collaborate with him on a project. He first filmed his hand and then projected the image onto his father’s body, recording the process of the projected hand caressing his father. He hoped in this way to rebuild the potential of physical intimacy with his father. His father started out wearing a jacket, but as the session progressed he slowly removed his jacket, and then his shirt, and then his undershirt, until in the end he was naked from the waist up. In 2002/2011, in the third iteration of Touching My Father, he once more incorporated films of his father into his work, projecting the images onto a basin of water and filming himself reaching out to touch his father in the water. The two works recording virtual contact, along with the never-seen recording of actual physical contact form the three-part work Touching My Father. This successful communication between father and son gave Song Dong the self-confidence to pursue further collaborations with his father. In 1998, he and his father produced two more works, Father and Son and Father and Son in the Ancestral Temple.

Touching My Father explores using a physical relationship as a means to destabilize the traditional authority of the patriarch. Father and Son and Father and Son in the Ancestral Temple focus on the persistence of blood ties, and the differing generational experience within the family. In Father and Son, Song Dong for the first time used the technique of layering video images to explore the physical similarities and differences between family members. (He also experimented with this technique with his mother, but never exhibited the results). This was also a way to listen to the experiences of his father’s generation. The superimposition of the faces of father and son resemble an anthropological experiment, with the father’s expression investing the blended image with individual history and social experience. These superimposed images were projected onto the three pillars of the Taimiao Imperial Ancestral Temple in Beijing’s Forbidden City, creating an even more intriguing dialogue between image and structure. Father and Son at the Ancestral Temple is an example of a successful site-specific work. It uses the relationship of an ordinary family’s father and son and the social experience of two generations (expressed through voice recordings and written records) to animate the physical space of this imperial ancestral structure. This richly imaginative work encourages the viewer to reflect deeply on the wellsprings of China’s patriarchal social structure, as well as the ties between centralized state power and the life of the common people.

In his 2001 work Father and Son Face to Face with a Mirror, Song Dong deepens his exploration of the theme of father and son. In this video installation, two mirrors face each other, the changing images reflected in their surfaces create a complex dialogue and transformational relationship. Song Dong faces his father, with a sheet of reflective plastic placed between them and cameras filming them from two angles. As the reflective plastic ignites, there is an interchange of images between father and son. This work gives the viewer a glimpse into both the clash of egos and the meeting of minds that take place between father and son, as well as the conflict between ideals and reality engendered by social change. Father and son are mirror images, each reflecting the other. Parents always see their children as part of themselves, the redeemers of their lives’ regrets. Their hope is that their children will complete the dreams of their own generation.(4) Although Song Dong’s father started out with some misconceptions about Song Dong’s work and was rather opposed to it, Song Dong actively sought common ground and shouldered his responsibility as a son. When Song Dong once asked his father whether he had any regrets, Song Shiping named two. The first was that he could not pursue his real academic interests because he obeyed the demands of the state to study civil engineering; the second was that he was never able to provide his own parents with better living conditions.(5) When Song Dong heard this he was moved to tears. He found practical means to serve his parents, while also incorporating this service into his own creative process. He truly fulfilled the Confucian dictate concerning the filial child’s treatment of the parents: “When they are alive, serve them with love and respect; when they are dead, serve them with grief and sorrow.”

Without a doubt, Song Dong is a filial son in the traditional sense. Both his 2001 work Listening to My Parents Talking About How I Was Born and his 2004 work Chinese Medicine Healing Story used family narratives to memorialize his parents. In the first work, Song Dong projected a video of his parents talking about the era of his birth and childhood onto two pillars. He then positioned himself within the projected images, creating superimposed images of himself and his parents. The second work employed sculpture and audio recordings to reenact a story from his childhood. When he was young, Song Dong was hit with a swing, resulting in abnormal bone growth on his face. His parents carried him on their bicycles to numerous hospitals seeking treatment. But in the end, it was some inexpensive Chinese medicine that miraculously cured his condition. This highly emotional childhood memory reveals how the social conditions of different eras influenced the ethical outlook of the Chinese people. This piece is not a monumental historical work of art; rather it is a microcosm of a period in history. Its sincerity touches the viewer’s heart.

In an essay he wrote for the exhibition Waste Not, Song Dong said, “Filial piety really just means keeping your mother happy.”(7) This indicates that Song Dong has always adhered to China’s most traditional concepts of family morality, as exemplified by Mengzi’s (Mencius’) teachings about “filial obedience” and “nurturing the mouth and the body.”(8) In contemporary China, characterized by rapidly emerging new concepts and explosive social transformation, it is exceedingly difficult to maintain these ideals. After Song Shiping’s death in 2002, Song Dong’s mother’s small courtyard house became overwhelmed by her vast collection of old household objects that barely left her room to turn around. Song Dong and his sister Song Hui had many arguments with their mother, trying to convince her to get rid of these old things.(9) Zhao Xiangyuan’s hoarding of old objects was a result of the great upheavals she had experienced in her life. She was originally born into an affluent household, but after political upheaval reduced her family to poverty,(10) she adopted the principle of “waste not, want not.” It was during those difficult years that she developed the habit of extreme frugality, never wasting anything and stockpiling for times of future need. After her husband’s death, she couldn’t bear to part with any of these objects that were so deeply imbued with memories of her domestic life. Hoping to resolve the issue in the face of his mother’s intractability, Song Dong proposed turning these objects into an exhibition. This project exemplified the exploration of family themes that informs his creative work. Exhibiting these objects would be a memorial to his father and put them to their ultimate use. Zhao Xiangyuan agreed.

In today’s consumer society, these remnants of bygone eras would be considered useless garbage. Song Dong and his sister certainly are well enough off not to need them, and they were fully capable of giving their mother a comfortable life. But if they wanted to make their mother happy, they couldn’t force their ideas and ways of life on her. Rather, they chose the filial practice of being dutiful children to find a solution that satisfied everyone. In 2006, the exhibition Waste Not received a major award at the Gwangju Biennale. When Zhao Xiangyuan accompanied her son to accept the award, she realized the depths of his love and concern for her, and finally was able to leave behind the pain of her loss. Through an exhibition of art, members of two generations were able to resolve their conflicting values. Mother and son both won, in a truly beautiful example of contemporary filial piety. Sadly, just as the exhibition was due to open at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 2010, Zhao Xiangyuan lost her life after suffering a fall while rescuing a wounded bird stuck in a tree. She never had the chance to follow her collection of objects as the exhibition continued its world tour.

Countless quilts and articles of clothing; shoes and socks; scraps of cloth and pieces of string; pots, pans, bowls, and utensils; oil, salt, soy sauce, and vinegar; bottle tops and lunch boxes; roof beams and door frames; bedding and sofas; chairs and cabinets; electrical appliances and wristwatches; laundry soap and scrub boards; children’s toys … this vast array fills the gallery space so the viewer feels like a visitor at an archeological site devoted to domestic life. Every one of these objects was a treasure to Zhao Xiangyuan, but in our throwaway consumer society they are considered to be garbage. I am reminded of Italo Calvino’s novel Invisible Cities, in which he describes the city of Leonia:

“On the sidewalks, encased in spotless plastic bags, the remains of yesterday's Leonia await the garbage truck. Not only squeezed tubes of toothpaste, blown-out light bulbs, newspapers, containers, wrappings, but also boilers, encyclopedias, pianos, porcelain dinner services. It is not so much by the things that each day are manufactured, sold, bought that you can measure Leonia's opulence, but rather by the things that each day are thrown out to make room for the new. So you begin to wonder if Leonia's true passion is really, as they say, the enjoyment of new and different things, and not, instead, the joy of expelling, discarding, cleansing itself of a recurrent impurity.” (11)

This is a city immersed in crazed consumerism, continually bursting with new products. It has seduced its people into loving the new and loathing the old, leading them to constantly cast off their old possessions. As a result, it is a city built on garbage. If Calvino’s work is an allegory for our times, then Zhao Xiangyuan has single-handedly defied an entire era with her stubborn behavior.

While deeply emotional, Waste Not also has a certain critical power. It reveals in all their nakedness the things that garbage companies cause to disappear behind our backs. Sorting through these historical vestiges offers a profound experience of the ebb and flow of time: How many things have disappeared without a trace? How much change is concentrated in a single day? Objects are rapidly replaced, and people are as well. Modern consumer society is constantly producing not only garbage, but also “human waste”—people who are deemed useless because they’ve grown old, or are unable to develop new skills, or exist on the margins of society.(12) Song Dong has said about such rapid and intense social change, “These are times of such monumental change, a person can have many different lives in one lifetime.”(13) The generation gap between him and his mother was unavoidable. His parents’ generation is so used to living with adversity that no matter how hard you try to make them eat better food, live a more comfortable life, buy some nice clothes, or go on a trip, they will never agree.(14) They do not participate in our consumer society, so they are considered “human waste.” What’s fortunate is that elders like Zhao Xiangyuan have not been abandoned by their children.

Song Dong has been forged in the fires of a new era, but he also has a deep respect for the value of his parents’ generation. In 1998, he created the work Cut One Fen into Two Parts, based on his mother’s lifelong study of frugality. By cutting an actual one fen coin into two pieces and turning it into a work of art to be exhibited and circulated, he gave it new value. This piece is a memorial to the frugality of an era of material scarcity, while also hinting at the omnipresent consumerism of the present era. Like Waste Not, it portrays the clash of two eras. It is significant that Song Dong’s artistic starting point was his mother’s domestic philosophy. In his later work he became interested in the creative ways residents of Beijing’s old hutongs make use of their limited living space, using humorous methods to get around legal regulations in order to expand their living spaces. This project developed into a series of installations called The Wisdom of the Poor. But consumerism has infiltrated our society so deeply that it holds the machinery of government hostage, with the full backing of capital interests. It seems that any type of resistance is futile. For instance, the installation Waste Not is making the rounds of the art circuit, and has been shown all over the world. Will it be assessed by private interests and assigned a market value? If a private collector or gallery wanted to purchase Zhao Xiangyuan’s old objects, would she be willing to sell them? Even though she has said she would not,(15) the very possibility that her life could be turned into a consumer product highlights the dangers inherent in our times.

Regardless of whether family bonds can be monetized and marketed, Song Dong continues to explore the theme of family. At the same time that he enlisted his parents to participate in his work, he also brought some other families into the creative process. In his 1998 interactive work Family Member Photo Studio, he filmed photo sessions with his parents and older sister Song Hui, as well as his wife Yin Xiuzhen, at twelve different venues in Beijing. During the exhibition, he projected the recordings in the gallery space and invited members of the audience to choose a Song family member and occupy their space. He then took new group photos of the audience members overlaid with the projected images, and later mailed them the pictures. Song Dong’s family gained a new member when his daughter Song Errui was born in 2003. Song Dong created his first piece for his daughter in 2010, My Daughter Is My Four Seasons, when he filmed himself and his daughter creating four bonsai miniature landscapes—“Spring,” “Summer,” “Winter,” and “Fall.” The videos were exhibited as a four-channel installation.

Song Errui never had the chance to meet her paternal grandfather. On February 25, 2011, Song Dong introduced a new work at his exhibition Dad and Mom, Don’t Worry About Us, We Are All Well at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco. Father and Son with My Daughter consists of superimposed images of his daughter, himself, and his father. This exhibition, which also included new pieces made with neon light, consists of all of Song Dong’s works about family. By bringing together all three generations—the departed, the living, and the newly born, this exhibition offers a sense that the circle of life is complete.

China is a country steeped in the Confucian tradition. As such, the highest value is placed on familial relations. Numerous contemporary Chinese artists have addressed the themes of home and family,(16) but none can approach the extent of Song Dong’s involvement, the acuity of his use of emotion, and his depth of reflection. His adherence to traditional values, along with the profound sensitivity of his work, has garnered him the acknowledgement and acclaim of a wide audience. But none of this is enough to create a superior work of art. By collecting and cataloging the detritus of history, exposing and critiquing dramatic social change, he has created a body of work that goes far beyond emotion. His work represents a living inquiry into the social, domestic, political, economic, and cultural conditions of China in the twentieth century and the new millennium. His wide-ranging experimentation with different art forms and media applications has pushed the perceptual and aesthetic boundaries of contemporary Chinese art. Also of note is the interactive work he created with his wife Yin Xiuzhen, The Way of Chopsticks. Although this work is not concerned with the theme of family and thus does not fall within the scope of this essay, this type of artistic collaboration between husband and wife is rich with domestic significance. It is yet another indication that art is integral to every aspect of Song Dong’s family life.

January 31, 2011, Beijing

Translated from the Chinese by Maya Kóvskaya.

Notes:

(1) Wu Hung, Waste Not - Zhao Xiangyuan and Song Dong, Tokyo: Tokyo Gallery + BTAP, 2009, 45.

(2) From an interview with Song Dong at his studio in Changping, Beijing, December 28, 2010.

(3) “In places with highly developed patriarchal systems, the physical distance between father and child is very apparent.” Fei Xiaotong, Shengyu zhidu (The Institutions for Reproduction). See Fei Xiaotong wenji: Xiangtu Zhongguo (Collected Works of Fei Xiaotong: Rural China), Shiji Chubanshe Jituan, Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe, Shanghai: Century Publishing Group, Shanghai People’s Press, 2007, 508.

(4) "Parents often regard their children as part of themselves, a part that belongs to the future, a new starting point. In this way egos that have been beaten down by reality can find new opportunities. All parents, to whatever extent, hope to redeem their past shortcomings in the person of their children. They are intent upon preventing the misfortunes of their past from affecting the lives of the next generation." Fei Xiaotong, Shengyu zhidu (The Institutions for Reproduction). See Fei Xiaotong wenji: Xiangtu Zhongguo (Collected Works of Fei Xiaotong: Rural China), Shiji Chubanshe Jituan, Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe, Century Publishing Group, Shanghai People’s Press, 2007, 516-517.

(5) Wu Hung, Waste Not - Zhao Xiangyuan and Song Dong, Tokyo: Tokyo Gallery + Beijing Tokyo Art Projects, 2009, 49.

(6) Xiaojing: Sangqin (The Book on Filial Piety: Mourning for Parents).

(7) Waste Not, catalogue for Song Dong solo exhibition at Shanghai Zhengdai Museum of Modern Art, 2008, 155.

(8) Mengzi: Li Lou (Shang): “The philosopher Zeng, in taking care of Zeng Xi, was always sure to have wine and meat provided. And when they were being removed, he would ask respectfully to whom he should give what was left. If his father asked whether there was anything left, he was sure to say, ‘There is.’ After the death of Zeng Xi, when Zeng Yuan came to care for Zengzi, he was always sure to have wine and meat provided. But when the things were being removed, he did not ask to whom he should give what was left, and if his father asked whether there was anything left, he would answer ‘No;’—intending to bring them in again. This was what is called ‘nourishing the mouth and body.’ We may call Zengzi's practice ‘filial duty.’ To serve one's parents as Zengzi served his, may be accepted as filial piety.” (Translation by James Legge.) When children serve their parents, the most important thing is to provide for their spiritual happiness. Therefore, whether the material situation (“mouth and body”) is good or bad is of secondary importance. The way in which Zengzi served his parents, by “being obedient,” exemplifies the principles of filial love and piety. See Zhongguo gudian mingyan ji (Famous Classical Chinese Works), edited by Morohashi Tetsuji (Japan), translated by Feng Zuomin (Taiwan), Yuelu Publishing House, 1989, 90.

(9) See(2).

(10) "My mother Zhao Xiangyuan was born in 1938 to a well-to-do family. My maternal grandfather was an officer in the Nationalist army. He served with distinction during the War of Resistance Against Japan, once saving the life of a member of the Communist underground in Chongqing. When my mother was twelve years old, she moved with her mother and father to Beijing. In 1953, my grandfather was unjustly accused of being a Nationalist spy. The underground Communist Party member he had saved refused to come forth to testify on his behalf, in order to protect his own name, and my grandfather was sentenced to seven years in prison. After he got out, he worked in a button factory in Beijing until he retired. My grandmother supported the family on her own during the years my grandfather was away. In 1961, not long after my grandfather was released, she died from cancer. This was a profound shock to my mother. When the three years of natural disasters came, my mother’s family descended into poverty.” See(7).

(11) Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities, Collected Works of Italo Calvino Volume 4. Translated into Chinese by Zhang Miyi, Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2001, 228.

(12) “The production of ‘human waste’, or more correctly wasted humans (the ‘excessive’ and ‘redundant’, that is the population of those who either could not or were not wished to be recognized or allowed to stay), is an inevitable outcome of modernization, and an inseparable accompaniment of modernity. It is an inescapable side-effect of order-building (each order casts some parts of the extant population as ‘out of place,’ ‘unfit,’ or ‘undesirable’) and of economic progress (that cannot proceed without degrading and devaluing the previously effective modes of ‘making a living’ and therefore cannot but deprive their practitioners of their livelihood).”Zygmunt Bauman, Wasted Lives: Modernity and its Outcasts, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2004, 5.

(13) See(7).

(14) I have also had this type of experience with my own mother. See “A Letter to My Mom” by Ou Ning in Life Magazine, 2011, issue 2.

(15) See(2).

(16) Wu Hung, Waste Not—Zhao Xiangyuan and Song Dong, Tokyo: Tokyo Gallery + Beijing Tokyo Art Projects, 2009, 57.

《天南》文学双月刊第四期10月18日出版

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:02:54 +0800

到了！到了！它滚烫热烈，忐忑不安，想掠走你的惊呼。

迄今为止最优秀的当代中文情色诗歌，由杨炼张贴在Entrance (入口) 和Exit (出口) ;

而Special Space (特别策划) 则摆满了来自法国、西班牙、美国和俄罗斯的情色小说的经典和新作，它们分别是乔治·巴塔耶的《我的母亲》，贝尔纳·诺埃尔的《圣餐城堡》，弗朗西斯科·翁布拉尔的《粉红野兽》，玛莎·麦克菲的《性爱人类学》和叶莲娜·考利亚季娜的《鲜花十字架》，同时我们还准备了皮埃尔·克罗索斯基描摹致命欲望的绘画，所有这些都大胆、出位、重口味，可能不适合在地铁和咖啡馆里阅读；

如果你觉得留在这个情色房间里感官过于刺激，我们建议你去读乔纳森·多利莫尔和郝誉翔的两篇学术文章，这样可以用一点点态度和智力来中和你的耻感；

或者，离开它去Regular Space (自由组稿) 读王勤伯和比目鱼的两篇书评，虽然他们谈及的两本书仍然与情色有关，但“间接阅读”会缓和你的紧张；

要么干脆把这期的情色异象(Vision of Eros)标签抛之脑后，去读三篇与此无关的小说：巫昂的《比尔盖茨的礼物》、乌青的《我就是丁西拌》和甘耀明的《丧礼上的故事》；

至于Parasite (刊中刊) ，它是对这三篇小说的英译，可留给英文读者去看。

封面绘画：皮埃尔·克罗索斯基(Pierre Klossowski),《走下地窖》(Descente au sous-sol) ，铅笔水粉，1978年。巴黎篷皮杜艺术中心收藏。由法国博物馆联盟(RMN)中国合作机构东方IC提供电子文件，法国艺术家版权协会(ADAGP)的亚洲合作机构韩国艺术家版权协会(SACK)授权发表。

Peregrine, An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine, Issue 4.

Guide｜导览

Entrance｜入口

杨炼《蚕马》（组诗）

Special Space｜特别策划
Vision of Eros｜情色异象

Attitude｜态度
乔纳森·多利莫尔《性、文学和审查制度》

Fantasy｜想象
法国：乔治·巴塔耶《我的母亲》
法国：贝尔纳·诺埃尔《圣餐城堡》
西班牙：弗朗西斯科·翁布拉尔《粉红野兽》
美国：玛莎·麦克菲《性爱人类学》
俄罗斯：叶莲娜·考利亚季娜《鲜花十字架》

Sight｜画面
皮埃尔·克罗索斯基《致命欲望》

Sound｜声音
郝誉翔《欢愉之必要，革命之必要：华语情色文学的困境》

Regular Space｜自由组稿

Fiction｜虚构
巫昂《比尔盖茨的礼物》
乌青《我就是丁西拌》
甘耀明《丧礼上的故事》

Reading ｜深读
王勤伯《奥匈帝国的情色挽歌：汝洛·克鲁迪<辛巴达>》
比目鱼《完美的低俗之书：尼科尔森·贝克<洞之屋>》

Parasite｜刊中刊

Peregrine
An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine, Issue 4

Exit ｜出口

杨炼《水手之家》（组诗）

古根海姆美术馆2011亚洲艺术委员会会议，纽约，9月22-25日

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:48:20 +0800

9月22日晚在宝马古根海姆实验室(BMW Guggenheim Lab)的演讲以Comforting Ourselves: The Urban Solution为题，我主要分享一些城乡研究与艺术实验的案例，以回应实验室关于Confronting Comfort的主题。这是古根海姆美术馆2011亚洲艺术委员会会议的第一个也是唯一对公众开放的Presentation。

古根海姆美术馆建筑策展人David van der Leer在我的演讲之前先介绍BMW Guggenheim Lab项目。这是由宝马赞助的古根海姆美术馆的一个大型的异地(Off-site)项目，将组建三个可拆卸的临时建筑，在未来六年内在世界各地九个城市巡回安装并在当地组织一系列的文化艺术项目。第一个8月3日在纽约建成，由日本建筑组合Atelier Bow-Wow设计。

分享2009深圳香港城市建筑双城双年展的案例。

介绍碧山共同体的乌托邦理念以及分享碧山丰年庆的案例。

介绍The Solutions: 2011成都双年展国际设计展。

9月23日上午，2011亚洲艺术委员会全体成员参观韩国物派(Mono-ha)艺术家李禹煥(Lee Ufan)在古根海姆美术馆的回顾展。

古根海姆美术馆策展人Alexandra Munroe为2011亚洲艺术委员会全体成员导览。

9月23日下午，2011亚洲艺术委员会议在古根海姆美术馆会议室封闭进行。古根海姆基金会主席Jennifer Blei Stockman致辞。

会议由美术馆亚洲艺术主策展人Alexandra Munroe (左二)主持, 左一为美术馆亚洲艺术助理策展人Sandhini Poddar,左三为美术馆执行馆长和主策展人Nancy Spector，左四（前排）为越南艺术家Dinh Q. Lê。

前排左起：著名学者、纽约大学文化传播教授Arjun Appadurai, 旧金山艺术学院展览与公共项目总监侯瀚如，澳大利亚昆士兰美术馆策展与收藏部执行总监Suhanya Raffel, 独立策展人David Elliott，阿布扎比古根海姆美术馆助理策展人Reem Fadda, 古根海姆基金会主席Jennifer Blei Stockman。

右一为新加坡国立美术馆馆长郭建超，右二为慕尼黑Haus Der Kunst馆长Okwui Enwezor。

阿布扎比古根海姆美术馆的策展团队在会上做了一个关于美术馆在中东地区运作的详细案例的分享。

纽约的雨。

在古根海姆开会的缝隙中，冒雨到附近与n+1杂志的四位编辑Keith Gessen, Chad Harbach, Carla Blumenkranz和 Nikil Saval吃了个匆忙的午餐。这本杂志以及它凝聚的作家们代表了布鲁克林都市文化圈的崛起。这是我后来在一家书店买到的Chad Harbach的最新长篇小说The Art of Fielding，他耗时十年写成，刚上市即好评如潮，登上《纽约时报》畅销书榜。

在St Mark's书店买的各种文学和政治出版物。

The Solutions: 2011成都双年展国际设计展图片全记录

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:01:39 +0800

1.主体展览

2011成都双年展艺术展和设计展场地均设在成都东区音乐公园内由旧厂房改造的二层空间里，一层主入口在开幕当天观众蚁聚。

从一楼的中庭向上看可以看到设计展被吊挂起来的杭州设计师张雷设计的一系列纸椅。

观众从扶梯上楼，首先到达设计展的接待大堂。

设计展The Solutions展览标志的霓虹灯和“谋断有道”主视觉。

为媒体讲解导览。

向媒体推介广州的城市研究和历史保育小组“蓝田计划”在展场里开设的“绝核士多”。

在开幕当天的多场讲解导览中，我们也为参与布展的工人们组织了一场讲解导览。

工人们在他们搭建的纽约建筑组合Levenbetts的参展作品“颠倒树”上合影留念。

开幕当天设计展展场各处的观众。

观众在围观瑞士设计师Stauffacher Benz的系列作品“改变你的观点”，她用各种小文具和生活用具进行简单的改装，令它们出现全新的面貌，其幽默风格深受观众喜爱。

观众在泰国建筑师Kasama Yamtree的作品“公众之窗”参与互动，他们可以使用这里提供的各种材料，按照一定的规则，进行DIY的设计。

观众观看北京/伦敦时装设计师Dooling Jiang的参展作品“通路”，用棉花和涤纶制作的衣服经过蓝墨水的浸泡后形成最后的效果，用来表达农业与都市关系的思考。

观众经过杭州设计师陈飞波用旧材料设计的系列家具“触感空间”。

瑞士时装设计师Lela Scherrer的作品。

整个展场最受欢迎的作品“人民发电站”，由英国艺术家Matt Hope设计，观众在健身器械上运动的体能被收集并转化为电能，可让电灯发亮，让风扇转动，让喇叭出声。因观众太多，互动太踊跃，导致作品数次维修。

瑞士平面设计组合Norm张贴在展场上的大尺度作品“我，我们”。

香港设计师黄炳培的作品“无常”，既是沙发、茶几，也是棺材，生时使用，死时带走，透露出一种豁达的生死观和环保理念。

深圳设计团队山河水用真实的人民币拼贴出一张超大的美元，用各种真实的国际货币拼贴出一张超大的人民币，手工制作量巨大，因使用真实货币，在展览过程中颇引争议。

上海时装设计师张达的参展作品“穿衣之道”，从观念的角度引导人们提高服装的使用效率，减少过度消费。

伦敦设计组合Troika曾参与设计上海世博会英国馆的设计，这次参加成都双年展设计展的作品是“植物小说”，他们虚构了未来的几种植物，例如某种攀援植物能感知空气中的病毒，某些植物可从垃圾场中回收金属等。

纽约建筑组合SO-IL的“种子炸播计划”动员观众在展场温室中取走“种子炸弹”到成都各处的土壤进行“炸播”,然后把照片和感想上传到地理定位网站“开开网”分享。

这是开开网实时显示2011成都双年展国际设计展的观众在成都市区各处炸播种子的情况：http://t.cn/aD3TEV 观众们的留言很有爱！

户外作品：多伦多建筑师Adrian Blackwell设计的三轮车市场,在展场一楼的侧入口,动员成都的小商贩在他设计的遮棚下做买卖。

展场内特别设置的文殊院茶馆，供观众在参观疲倦时休息和交流，所得收入全部捐赠给农村地区的失学儿童。

在开幕期间，我们在展场内共组织了八场的参展艺术家和设计师与观众的见面交流会，由参展人亲自向观众讲解自己的作品和其它创作。这是纽约建筑组合Levenbetts在他们自己设计的大型装置“颠倒树”上所进行的Artist Talk活动。

2. 特别项目：文学中的建筑

本项目共邀请五位建筑师分别挑选他们阅读过的一部文学作品，把作品中出现的建筑或空间根据自己的理解设计制作成模型来展示。其中刘家琨因选定刘慈欣的《三体》系列难度太高，最后没法完成参展。

北京建筑师张永和根据爱尔兰小说家Brian O'Nolan的小说《第三个警察》设计的“第三个警察局”。

北京建筑师马岩松根据柳宗元的游记《小石潭记》设计的景观空间。

杭州建筑师王澍根据博尔赫斯的小说《巴别图书馆》设计的“巴别图书馆”。

南京建筑师张雷根据吴承恩的《西游记》设计的“盘丝洞“。

3. 特别项目：碧山计划

碧山计划在成都双年展设计展的展示，由过去一年多来数十位艺术家、建筑师、设计师、作家、音乐人、电影人和学者在安徽黟县碧山村进行调研和乡村建设的工作成果精选而成，呈现了知识分子返乡工作和共同生活实验的初步尝试。

由安徽大学新闻传播学院学生执行的“黟县百工”调研项目的展示。

欧宁关于碧山计划的创想最初记录在一本Moleskine笔记本上，这是它所有页面的数码复制品的展示。

广州艺术家刘庆元创作的木刻乡村建设挂历“碧山刻纪“。

广州服装设计师马可从各地农村和少数民族聚落收集的旧衣和拍摄的照片以“吾土吾民”为题展出。

杭州设计师张雷根据徽州建筑的造型设计的条凳。

艺术家梁绍基根据黟县河流和自然条件创作的作品“水之祭”。

展场内同时也安排了一系列的中国当代农村纪录片的放映。

4. Who's Who

纽约建筑师组合Levenbetts的Stella Betts和David Leven。

多伦多建筑师Adrian Blackwell与策展人欧宁。

深圳参展团队山河水创作总监黑一烊。

瑞士设计师Stauffacher Benz，泰国建筑师Kasama Yamtree和瑞士设计师Lela Scherrers。

多媒体艺术组合八股歌成员富钰和贾海清在开幕晚宴上。

瑞士设计师Lela Scherrers和泰国建筑师Kasama Yamtree在开幕晚宴上。

欧宁在开幕晚宴上。

欧宁在展场内Adrian Blackwell的三轮车市场作品样本前。

5. 学术活动

欧宁在四川大学作关于“设计与社会工程”的演讲。

荷兰Droog Deisgn主席Renny Ramakers在成都图书馆的演讲开始前。

Renny Ramakers系统介绍了Droog Deisgn在过去二十多年来的设计实验和工作历程。

Renny Ramakers演讲时的观众。

观众向Renny Ramakers提问。

在成都图书馆的“设计与社会工程”学术研讨会开始前，欧宁与台湾大学城乡研究所教授夏铸九在交流。

欧宁在介绍参加“设计与社会工程”学术研讨会的讲者们。

第一个讨论单元“设计何为”的讲者张永和，“非常建筑”主持建筑师，麻省理工学院建筑系教授。

第一个讨论单元“设计何为”的讲者Emily Campbell, 伦敦英国皇家艺术协会设计总监。

第一个讨论单元“设计何为”的讲者Renny Ramakers，荷兰Droog Deisgn主席。

第一个讨论单元“设计何为”的讲者Pratarn Teeratada，曼谷设计节总监。

圆桌讨论。

观众。

观众参与讨论。

第二个讨论单元“设计介入社会”的讲者Adrian Blackwell，多伦多大学建筑学教授。

第二个讨论单元“设计介入社会”的讲者夏铸九，台湾大学城乡研究所教授。

第二个讨论单元“设计介入社会”的讲者谢英俊，著名建筑师。

第二个讨论单元“设计介入社会”的讲者Kasama Yamtree，泰国建筑师。

圆桌讨论。

观众。

观众提问。

6. 布展与幕后

设计展展场在不同时间的进度。

“颠倒树”制作进度。

展场培土植草进度。

展场纸瓦砌墙进度。

设计展接待大堂主视觉布置进度。

Matt Hope“人民发电站”进场调试。

应永会字体设计作品“字由心证，与基斯洛夫斯基对话”安装。

蓝田计划“绝核士多”安装。

碧山计划挂画。

马可作品“吾土吾民”贴字。

培训志愿者。

展览空间设计师、助理策展人周贞徵与策展人欧宁巡视展场进展。

展览空间设计师刘小普，展览空间设计师、助理策展人周贞徵，作品制作监理邱可曼。

展览空间设计师、助理策展人周贞徵，展览施工总管龙少，承展人姜剑，展览空间设计师刘小普，作品制作监理邱可曼。

所有图片由朱正摄影。

2011成都双年展国际设计展英文新闻稿在纽约Art Agenda发布

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:40:46 +0800

Click the original news here: http://www.art-agenda.com/shows/the-solutions-international-design-exhibition/

The Solutions: International Design Exhibition
2011 Chengdu Biennale

29 September–30 October 2011

Press Preview: 28 September 2011
Official Opening: 29 September 2011
Group Discussion: 9:30–17:00, 30 September 2011

East Chengdu Music Park
No.4 Jianshe Rd. South Branch, former Chengdu Red Ray Electric Tube Factory
Chengdu, PRC

www.thesolutions.cn

After the Industrial Revolution, design was regarded as a specialization serving clients. Its reliance on the capitalist system of development and the limitations of the employer-client relationship obscured its identity and independence. In other social systems, such as socialism, design was regarded as serving the even more powerful state and so it was downgraded, to serve as a medium for propaganda. What, when all is said and done, is design? Can it be independent in its client relationships? How can design achieve creative freedom?

While attempting to win identity and independence, design sought to make a break with its material limits and enter the lofty realm of social engineering. Its ultimate function drew on its multifaceted engagement with social movements through social operations, psychological structuring and system innovations. “Social Engineering”, what Joseph Beuys described as “social sculpture”, did not end with the hard material world, but was part of the “software” of societies like politics, economy and culture.

Many designers have broken with the habitual thinking that characterized the business tradition of their profession, confronting social issues and coming up with original solutions. In the complex contemporary context, design must provide solutions and answers for pressing social problems, and its excavation of lofty spiritual principles can ultimately succeed in finding designs with true identity and independence.

The Solutions: International Design Exhibition is one of the key components of the 2011 Chengdu Biennale. This exhibition seeks to serve as a major international design show reflecting and responding to rapidly changing social realities. A total of fifty designers working in five major fields (product design, architecture, fashion, visual design and new media) as well as in areas that cannot be readily categorized have used their creative approaches in response to “Design and Social Engineering”. A number of discussion groups, bringing together well-known designers, artists, critics and the heads of design organizations will address the issue of how design can actively engage in serving society.

Curator: Ou Ning

Founder and chief curator of Get it Louder (2005, 2007, 2010), Chief curator of 2009 Shenzhen & HongKong Bi-City Biennale of UrbanismArchitecture

List of Participants:

8gg, Adrian Blackwell, StauffacherBenz, Bob Chen, eonway, Hei Yiyang / SenseTeam, Matt Hope, Dooling Jiang, Jürg Lehni & Alex Rich, Lantian Project, LEVENBETTS, Li Ziran, Luo Xin, Norm, Lela Scherrer, SO-IL, Troika, Stanley WONG, Kasama Yamtree, Zhang Da, Zhang Lei; Dong Wensheng, Han Yu, Hsieh Ying-Chun, Hu Xiaogeng, Hu Zhongquan, Liang Hong, Liang Shaoji, Liu Binjian, Liu Qingyuan, Ma Ke, Qiu Anxiong, Dah-yue Shi, Tang Guo, Wang Yin, John Wong, Xiaoma+Chengzi, Yang Xiaoman, Zhang Jianping, Zhang Zhengyan, Zheng Xiaoguang, Zhu Zheqin Dadawa, Zhu Xiaojie.

Special Project: Bishan Commune Project

The Project has mobilized an array of artists, designers, musicians, poets and writers to Bishan village in Yi Xian, Anhui province, China, where they can work creatively with local farmers, artisans and undertake experimental projects while living and working together. Taking cues from Y. C. James Yen’s ideas on basic literacy training and Peter Kroptokin’s anarchist ideals, the project is an attempt to restore the social model of the self-governing village, as well as to activate village political, economic, and cultural life.

Special Project: Architecture in Literature

Five architects (Yung Ho Chang, Liu Jiakun, Ma Yansong, Wang Shu and Zhang Lei) were invited to select five literary works from their own reading and to provide their explanations with imaginary space designs as the embodiment of model forms. It is not designed to be a practical exercise, but rather to serve as an independent experiment in personal ways of thinking.

Confirmed Lecturers & Group Discussion Guests:

Renny Ramakers, Co-founder of Droog Design, Amsterdam
Emily Campbell, Director of Design, RSA, London
Chu-Joe Hsia, Professor of National Taiwan University, Taipei
Pratarn Teeratada, Managing Editor, art4d, Bangkok

Visiting the Exhibition:
Chengdu is the capital city of Sichuan Province, Western China. Regular flights from all major cities around China daily. About 20 min taxi ride from Chengdu Shuangliu Airport to downtown.

Press Contact:
For further information or images, please contact Caroline Peng thesolutions2011@126.com

Design and Social Engineering

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:34:38 +0800

Design and Social Engineering

Curatorial Statement
The Solutions: International Design Exhibition
2011 Chengdu Biennale

Ou Ning

After the Industrial Revolution, design was regarded as a specialization serving clients. Its reliance on the capitalist system of development and the limitations of the employer-client relationship obscured its identity and independence. Design, unlike art, relies on the support of the social system, whereas the creative work of artists is spontaneous and its sale is something that takes place after the artists independently create it. Paul Rand’s design work for IBM was an influential milestone in design history, but he cannot be regarded as a freely creative artist, because he was limited by those who provided him with commercial commissions. The designer would seem to be a professional who always dances in shackles.

In other social systems, such as socialism, design was regarded as serving the even more powerful state and so it was downgraded, to serve as a medium for propaganda, and so its identity and independence were eclipsed to an even greater extent. In the Maoist period, the talents of designers in the Chinese publishing industry were frequently pressed into the service of the state. In the days before the invention of such design tools as Photoshop, graphic artists working for China Pictorial were invariably compelled to use the artistic talents in which they were proficient to beautify portraits of the nation’s leaders or to use the most primitive techniques of collage to conform to the demands of the Party’s narrative of political history and add or subtract elements from images of history. Visual political propaganda, produced for countless posters mobilizing people politically in Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union, was a sorry page in the history of design.

The status of the designer has invariably been manipulated and held in check under various social conditions, as can be seen from the life of Jin Meisheng, the man who pioneered the advertising calendar in old Shanghai. In the 1930s and 1940s, he was a commercial designer highly sought after for the advertising calendars he designed for a number of large cigarette companies and other businesses, and the many alluring pinup girls he painted became the image of urban beauty. The seductive professional women and thoughtful young female students he depicted were representative images of fashionable taste in the commercial environment of Shanghai at that time. After 1949, he was called on to depict images of female peasants working in the fields, and their beaming expressions and rosy cheeks reflected the robust beauty of those toiling in the cause of socialism. Under different ideologies, designers had no way of changing the natural techniques with which they were familiar, and in the transformation of aesthetics from the old period to the new, design seemed strained and incapable of responding.

In the realms of architectural or industrial design there is the inevitable commissioning "client" and, more crucially, design can never escape from functional demands. But Bauhaus saw the sudden emergence from the storm of the modernist movement of design think tanks and teaching bodies; function, technology, and efficiency became the hallmarks of good design, and in its heyday, Bauhaus’ teachers and students undertook many experimental design projects to meet the challenge of large-scale modern industrial production and daily needs, in the course of which were formulated some of the most far-reaching principles for modern design. But the times constantly change, and the waves of production and consumption continued to advance. At the same time the negative effects of large-scale industry continued to accrue, resulting in destruction of the environment and damaging the health of the labor force in the developing areas within the global pattern. What, when all is said and done, is design? Is there any way that design can escape its destiny as the handmaiden of function? Can it be independent and be its own master in its client relationships? How can design achieve creative freedom?

With the upsurge of new social movements in the 1960s, design sought to play a more radical social role. In the age of Rock and Roll, people not only responded to a different beat but sought oblivion in psychedelic drugs, giving rise to a new visual aesthetic from the design world of San Francisco which combined the effects of drugs and music. The swirling words and images created by designers were an attempt to replicate the flowing effects and the sense of flight brought about by drugs. The designers active in that scene mixed with musicians, and like artists they freely created visuals for music and spontaneously realized their own position as active shakers and movers in that age of rebellion. They did not take direction from others, but were active participants in the rebellion of the day.

The London group Archigram set up an independent magazine and actively pursued their own utopias in various experimental architectural projects, opening up new paths outside the traditional client role in which architecture had been cast. They attempted to re- invent a post-Bauhaus language for architecture and urban design, one that would be as influential as Bauhaus had been in architectural history. In exploring the possibilities of portability, improvisation and scale, their research and designs showed the way for much of today’s architecture. While they flew high like artists, their work was a response, providing solutions to the social issues they uncovered through their research. The unfortunate thing is that their division of powers and democratic supervision ensured that most of their major structures went “unbuilt”.

Yet many fashion designers were out on the streets, drawing sustenance from subcultures and designing an array of bold thought- provoking clothing. After Punk music and the accompanying clothing styles were transformed into fashion brands, London’s new wave youth began to dress in their own highly original styles and create life styles that belonged to them and their age. Captured by astute photographers in night clubs and dance venues and published in magazines, specialist designers were influenced by what they saw. Two English magazines of the 1980s, i-D and The Face, brought together this new street fashion, and responding to this wave, Terry Jones and Neville Brody created a new style of graphic design, their visual experiments at that time eventually becoming classics in magazine and design history.

Independent design transformed the traditional client role of the profession, tapping new creative energy. Designers like Hussein Chalayan strove to break the boundaries separating different areas of design and their creative work could no longer be classified using traditional categories. His Afterwords designs were wearable and portable architecture. In recent years he has worked more with new materials and new media in creating design for the future. Simon Heijdens combines the use of sensors and projection to electronically create the illusion of the wind and falling leaves in his street designs, while the London-based design group Troika developed projectors in mobile phones that receive information and project it on streets and the walls of buildings, effectively transforming the mobile phone into a publicity platform for concerts and rallies. New technology is turning the dreams of designers into reality.

From this we can see that, while attempting to win identity and independence, design sought to make a break with its material limits and enter the lofty realm of social engineering. Its ultimate function drew on its multifaceted engagement with social movements through social operations, psychological structuring, systems innovations, and the like, and it was not only responding to daily life’s trivial demands. Social engineering, what the renowned artist Beuys described as “social sculpture”, did not end with the hard material world, but was part of the “software” of societies, just like politics, economy, and culture. In 1972, Joseph Beuys presented his project 7000 Oaks at the Kassel Documenta, and this work impacted on municipal governments and social activists. Ai Weiwei’s later work Fairytale was to a certain extent a conceptual homage to Beuys’ “social sculpture”.

In the American artist Gordon Matta-Clark, we can also see a development of Beuys’ concepts, and his famous work Splitting comprised a building cut in two with a power saw underscoring the wastage resulting from the shortage of funds for urban renewal in the USA in the late 1960s. This work provided a strong critique of the class divisions and social oppositions in American cities. He used a “destroyed” form to erect a memorial, at the same time as he evoked the spirit of social justice. Another example is provided by the English artist Rachel Whiteread whose casts of the inside of a Victorian terrace house in London have transformed what was once a living space into a silent sculpture commemorating the lives of ordinary people which have been destroyed.

These two artists have creatively opening up discarded architecture, while the Moscow architecture group Iced Over Architects (Obledinenie Architectorov) created Outdoor Suspended Bed for Around-the-Clock Habitation on the outer wall of an apartment building as a domicile for the homeless, who could knock on the window at any time and get water to drink or wash. This work overturned the relationships that govern the provision of services in the modern city. In learning from artists, designers have broken with the habitual thinking that characterized the business tradition of their profession, confronting social issues and coming up with original solutions. In the complex contemporary context, design must provide solutions and answers for pressing social problems, and its excavation of lofty spiritual principles can ultimately succeed in finding designs with true identity and independence.

The Solutions: International Design Exhibition is one of the key components of the 2011 Chengdu Biennale theme of Changing Vistas: Creative Duration. This exhibition above all seeks to serve as a major international design show reflecting and responding to rapidly changing social realities. More than fifty designers working in five major fields (product design, architecture, fashion, visual design and new media) as well as in areas that cannot be readily categorized have used their creative designs and approaches in experiments phrased in response to this exhibition’s theme of “Design and Social Engineering”. At the same time a number of discussion groups, bringing together well-known designers, critics and the heads of design organizations, as well as artists, architects and design teachers, and seminars presented by a series of artists and designers will address the issue of how design can actively engage in serving society.

In this exhibition, London artist Matt Hope will present his project utilizing a battery of standard Chinese public exercise equipment coupled with electro-mechanical devices designed to capture the kinetic energy of the users’ bodies to create efficient street lighting that will satisfy the needs of urban exercise and helping with public safety by providing energy saving lighting. The Toronto artist and designer Adrian Blackwell makes use of the ubiquitous three-wheel bicycle to create public spaces for siestas and teahouses, while providing shelter from the elements. Thai architect Kasama Yamtree’s work provides communities with the materials and tools that can bring out the DIY design talents of the community working within guidelines. Hong Kong designer Stanley Wong’s design brings together the sofa, tea implements and the coffin in an ensemble that can serve the living and the dead, giving new meaning to concepts of environmental protection. Shenzhen designer Hei Yiyang’s creates a new currency combining fragments of coinage from various countries, providing wry satirical comment on the circulation of currency in modern society. Chinese and foreign designers are presenting stylistically striking works based on their varying understanding of social themes.

Here I would like to recommend two projects in particular. One is the Bishan Commune Project which has mobilized an array of artists, designers, musicians, film makers, poets and writers, as well as those actively engaged in researching and constructing rural villages, to bring the results of their own research and studies to Bishan village in Yixian county, Anhui province, where they can work creatively with local farmers and artisans, at the same time as they undertake experimental projects while living and working together in the community. The project addresses urgent realities brought about by China’s excessive urbanization which has led to agricultural poverty, village impoverishment, farmers’ loss of rights, and imbalances in urban-rural relations. Taking cues from Y. C. James Yen’s ideas on basic literacy training and Peter Kroptokin’s anarchist ideals, the project is an attempt to restore the social model of the self-governing village, as well as to activate village political, economic, and cultural life, in the attempt to forge a new road that will bring about the renaissance of the village. The project is not only a break-out for the urban intellectual seeking a return to village life, but an attempt to draw on the realities of rural village realities for urban denizens.

The other project I wish to recommend is Architecture in Literature. In 2009 at the Hong Kong and Shenzhen Bi-city Biennale of Urbanism\Architecture one of the items on the program was Odyssey: Architecture and Literature which extended the themes of the biennale and brought together nine writers who had visited nine contemporary architectural projects and the architects who created those works in different regions and cities of China, and who had subsequently written fictional accounts set in these architectural spaces. Five architects (Liu Jiakun, Ma Yansong, Wang Shu, Zhang Lei and Yung Ho Chang) were also invited to select five literary works from their own reading and to provide their explanations of the engagement of these works with imaginary space designs as the embodiment of model forms. The project is designed to allow those with different specializations to interact and for architects to visualize their literary experiences. The project is not designed to be a practical exercise, but rather to serve as an independent experiment in personal ways of thinking.

This space and layout of this exhibition is guided by concepts of man-made nature and landscape layout and through the use of special materials and an arrangement of alternative paths through the exhibits using improvised blackboard signage different and changing narratives of the exhibition can be constructed which will constantly surprise visitors. The interspersing of rest points and exhibits will augment the visitor’s experience enabling visitors when moving through the site at their own pace while partaking of an experience that is at one and the same time relaxed and stimulating. Apart from being able to experience the spaces themselves and take their time experiencing the various works, other inactive media (Internet, Weibo, Douban, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter) will provide information and commentary enhancing the experience and creating an interactive exhibition space. With that, let’s head off and enjoy the show.

Translated from Chinese by Bruce Dore.

设计与社会工程：2011成都双年展国际设计展前言

Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:31:50 +0800

设计与社会工程
2011成都双年展国际设计展前言

欧宁

自工业革命以来，设计一直被认为是服务于委托人的一种专业，在它赖于发展的资本主义体系里，这种雇佣关系的限定一直使它的主体性和独立性无法彰显。它不同于艺术，就算是有赞助人制度的支持，艺术家的创作也是自发的，针对它的购买行为也是发生于艺术家的独立创作之后。保罗·兰德(Paul Rand)为IBM公司设计了在设计史上影响深远的标志，但他不能算是一个自由创作的艺术家，毕竟，他受到商业委托人的限制。设计师，似乎一直是一种带着镣铐跳舞的职业。

在另一种社会模型例如社会主义的制度中，设计师也是受雇于更加庞大的国家机器，是它的生产和宣传系统的构件之一，主体性和独立性也无从谈起。在毛泽东时代，中国出版业里的设计师们常常被要求为国家奉献他们的才华。在没有发明Photoshop这个图形工具前，《人民画报》的美工常常使用他们擅长的碳笔画技法美化领袖的肖像，或使用最原始的拼图方法，按照党派政治历史叙事的需要，泡制或者可以说“虚构”出历史上并不存在的图像。更不用说那些为了满足各种政治动员而设计并被大量印刷的宣传海报了——在纳粹德国和前苏联，这种政治宣传视觉设计已经变成了设计史上的一个不得不说的课题。

设计师的身份总是被各种社会条件挤压和蹂躏，这在上海的月份牌设计师金梅生身上可以得到验证。在上世纪三、四十年代，他是炙手可热的商业设计师，为大量烟草公司和其它企业设计月份牌，绘制了大量勾人魂魄的都市美人的形象，她们或是娇艳的职业女性，或是知性的女学生，这些形象是上海这个世俗的商业都会流行趣味的代表。而在1949年之后，他被要求刻画在田畴劳作的女农民的形象，她们容光焕发，粉红的面庞上闪烁着社会主义劳动者的健康之美。在不同意识形态下，设计师无法改变他习惯成自然的技法，在新旧时代不同的美学趣味变革中，他显得牵强又尴尬。

建筑或工业设计领域一样存在着设计师们无法避开的“甲方”，更致命的是，设计永远逃脱不了应用功能的要求。包豪斯作为一个在现代主义运动中狂飙突进的设计智库和教学机构，曾把功能、技术和效率奉为圭臬，在它的高峰时期，它的教师和学生们作了大量针对现代大工业生产和生活需要的设计实验，为现代设计下制订了影响深远的准则。但时代不断演变，生产和消费的浪潮持续推进，大工业的模式带来的负面影响日甚一日，它对环境的破坏，它的全球代工模式对欠发达地区劳动力的剥夺都遭人诟病。设计到底是什么？功能应用是它无法摆脱的宿命吗？在它的雇佣关系中，它的主体性和独立性何在？它的创作自由如何体现？

自上世纪六十年代以降，新型的社会运动风起云涌，设计也一直在找寻它更激进的社会角色。在摇滚乐的火红年代，人们不但要靠澎湃的吉他声浪来引领自我，更需要迷幻药来忘掉可恶的世界，于是从旧金山兴起的迷幻视觉设计便在药物和音乐的混合效果中找寻到一种新的视觉美学，设计师们创造的漩涡状的字体和图形，当你嗑了药之后再去看时，会自行流动和飞起来。那时的设计师们都是乐手们的好友，他们像艺术家一样为音乐会自由创作视觉形象，他们的自发性体现在对时代叛逆气质的主动塑造之中。他们不用听命于他人，而是主动地参与了对他们的时代的反抗。

伦敦的“建筑电讯” (Archigram)小组, 通过创办独立杂志，在众多纸上实验建筑项目中构建他们激进的乌托邦，在传统建筑业的雇佣模式之外另辟新径，试图在包豪斯学派之后重新发明建筑和城市的语法，同样在建筑史上留下深远的影响。在探索建筑的可移动性、即时性以及大尺度的可能性方面，他们的研究和设计方案给今天的建筑师以很多启示。他们虽然也像艺术家那样天马行空，但所有作品都是迎向他们在研究中发现的社会问题的解决方案。可惜的是，在分权制度和监督民主中，他们的“巨构”多数都未建成(unbuilt)。

而时装设计师们多数走上街头，从亚文化中吸纳养份，设计了大量无用但充满了尖锐思想的服装。在朋克音乐发明了它自己的服装风格并演变成时装品牌之后，伦敦新浪潮时代的青少年们也开始用各种奇异的服装打扮自己，创造属于自己世代的生活风格。他们活跃在夜店和舞厅，被敏锐的摄影师发现，继而登上杂志，再影响专业的设计师。上世纪八十年代在英国创刊的两本杂志i-D和The Face，是这种街头风尚的集大成者。为了与这一潮流相匹配，两位创办人Terry Jones和Neville Brody也创造了平面设计的新风格，他们在那个时代的视觉探索已成杂志史和设计史的经典。

自发设计在改变这个行业的雇佣性质，激发出创想的井喷。像Hussein Chalayan这样的设计师，致力于打破不同设计分类的界限，其创作已无法用传统的类别定义。他的设计作品Afterwords穿在人身上是服装，脱下来则变成了家具。近年来他更与新材料专家和新媒体科学家合作，致力于面向未来的设计。Simon Heijdens利用感应器与投影结合，在街头设计出受户外风力影响而摆动的影像树和电子落叶；Troika发明了内置手机的手提投影仪，可以接受人们发送的电子信息再投影在任何街道和建筑的墙面上，变成音乐会或抗议运动的一种游击式的信息发布站。新的技术把设计师的奇思妙想变成了现实。

由此可见，在试图建立主体性和独立性的同时，设计一直渴望能进一步超越它受限的物质层面，从而进入社会工程(Social Engineering)的高度——它的终极功能，是从个人表达、社会营运、精神构建、制度创新等多个维度参与社会，带领社会进步，而不再是仅仅是应对日常生活的细琐需求。社会工程，在著名艺术家波依斯(Joseph Beuys)那里被表述为“社会雕塑”，它不再只停留于坚硬的物质世界，而是介入政治、经济、文化等社会的“软体”。他1972年在卡塞尔文献展上的《7000棵橡树》项目是一个植树计划，以此来涉入市政管治和社会动员的系统。艾未未后来的《童话》项目在某种程度上，乃是向波依斯的“社会雕塑”观念致敬。

在美国艺术家Gordon Matta-Clark身上，我们也可以看到波依斯的观念的传承，他最著名作品《分裂》(Splitting)是把一幢在美国六十年代后期城市更新运动中因资金短缺而留下的废弃房子用人工的方法切成两半，制造了一条显著的裂缝。这条裂缝深刻而有力地批判了美国城市的阶层分化和社会对立。他以“破坏”的形式建立了一个纪念碑，同时也构建了一种公正的社会精神。另一个例子是英国艺术家Rachel Whiteread，她曾向伦敦一幢待拆的维多利亚联排住宅注满水泥后再拆除外墙，让原本的生活空间变成一个沉默的实体雕塑，以纪念被毁掉的平民生活。

这两位艺术家都是在废弃的建筑上展开创作的，而莫斯科的建筑小组Iced-Over Architects则在现代公寓的外墙上为无家可归者设计“24小时露宿浮床”，让流浪汉们可以敲开窗户向住在公寓里的人借水喝和上洗手间，它颠覆了现代都市的补给和供应关系。设计师们在向艺术家学习，抛开商业系统的惯性思维，针对社会问题，主动提出解决方案。在当代的复杂语境中，设计应是对日趋紧迫的社会问题的谋断和解决，它在一种崇高的精神原则的开掘中最终会寻得设计的真正自主和独立。

“谋断有道：国际设计展”是2011成都双年展“物色·绵延”这一大主题框架下的组成部分，是一个主要探讨设计如何回应急遽变化的社会现实的大型国际设计展览，邀请50多位来自产品、建筑、时装、视觉和新媒体五大设计领域以及其它无法被归类的参展人，利用设计或其它方式的创作对展览主题“设计与社会工程”作出实验和回应。它同时也举办一个有众多知名设计思想家、评论家和设计机构主持人以及艺术家、建筑师和设计师参与的主题学术讨论会以及一系列的艺术家和设计师见面会，和公众一起讨论设计如何主动为社会服务。

在这个展览中，来自伦敦的艺术家Matt Hope根据他对中国城市社区公共运动器械缺少照明的现状，设计了一种新款的运动和照明功能混合的器械和路灯系统，能收集市民们运动的体能，变成电能后供路灯照明，这样的节能环保设计既可满足市民运动休闲的需要，又能通过照明解决公共安全的问题。多伦多艺术家和建筑师Adrian Blackwell使用中国最常见的平民交通工具三轮车围合成一个可供休息和茶聚，并可遮风挡雨的公共空间。泰国建筑师Kasama Yamtree为观众提供基本的材料和工具，制定一定的规则，让观众充分发挥他们的DIY设计能量。香港设计师黄炳培把沙发茶几和棺材合二为一，生前死后都可以使用，表达出一种豁达的生死观和环保观念。深圳设计师黑一烊使用各国货币的碎片拼合出两张更大的货币，对货币在现代社会中的流通作出讽喻。中外设计师和艺术家们根据自己对不同社会议题的理解，展出风格各异的作品。

有两个特别项目需在此向大家推荐。一个是“碧山计划”，这是动员各地的艺术家、设计师、建筑师、音乐人、电影人、诗人、作家、乡村建设研究者和实践者前往安徽黟县碧山村展开调查、研讨、与当地农民和手工艺者合作创作，同时展开共同生活的实验项目。它主要是针对中国过度城市化，导致农业破产，农村凋敝，农民失权，城乡关系倒悬的迫人现实，以晏阳初的平民教育观念和克鲁泡特金的安那其主义思想为指导，试图恢复农村自治的社会模式，激活农村的政治、经济和文化生活，寻找一条农村复兴的新路。它不只是城市知识分子的返乡情结的爆发，更是迎向农村现实的行动。

另一个是“文学中的建筑”项目。作为2009年深圳香港城市建筑双城双年展“漫游：建筑体验与文学想像”项目（邀请九个作家访问中国不同地区和城市的九座已建成的当代建筑和它们的建筑师，再虚构九篇发生在这些建筑空间中的人的故事，写成九篇小说）的延续，这次是邀请五位建筑师（刘家琨、马岩松、王澍、张雷和张永和），根据他们的文学阅读经验，挑选五篇文学作品，再以他们的理解，把文学作品中涉及的虚构空间设计出来，以模型的形式展示。这是一个让不同专业发生化学反应的项目，建筑师们把自己的文学经验视觉化，它并不是一个实用设计，而是跟随自己想法的独立实验。

这个展览在空间设计上将人工自然和园林布局的观念引入，通过一些特别材料的使用，布置曲径通幽的观展路线，利用黑板粉笔效果的视觉导引，构建不同章节的展览叙事，让观众不断发现惊喜，并把休息和交流的功能添列其中，让观众随行随停，为观众打造轻松和富有趣味性的观展体验。它除了在展场的实体空间带来可入驻人们的记忆、延长心理时间停留的作品外，更通过强大的互联网工具（网站、微博、豆瓣、视频、Facebook、Twitter等），形成线上纪录、评论、转发和分享空间，创造一种灵活的、具亲和力的互动展览模式。好了，现在我们准备就绪，请大家享受展览吧！

2011年8月23日，碧山

碧山丰年庆图片全纪录

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:59:27 +0800

安徽黟县碧山村。

在碧山粮站一号粮库前参加开幕式的嘉宾和乡亲们。

碧山祠堂前。

发起人欧宁致辞。

碧山村村民的“出地方”表演。

碧山祠堂里围观“出地方”表演的人群。

小孩儿和祖母。

欧宁介绍诗人肖开愚，梁小斌和冰释之。

诗评家徐敬亚在讲授诗歌课。

诗人肖开愚在讲授诗歌课。

诗人陈东东在讲授诗歌课。

诗歌课的主体听众是石亭小学约三十名五年级学生，他们多数是留守儿童。

欧宁的Moleskine笔记本扫描件，“碧山共同体”的计划蓝本。

刘庆元和杨小满的作品《碧山刻记》。

陈飞波以废料设计制造的家具系列。

梁鸿的摄影《中国在梁庄》。

梁绍基的作品《水之祭》。

谢英俊的乡村建筑项目展示。

邱黯雄的录像和竹编作品。

小马+橙子根据渔亭糕传统模具设计的“碧山丰年庆”模具。

朱小杰设计的藏式长案。

村民们围观碧山村的老照片。

碧山粮站一号粮库展览一角。

打斗笠。

酿米酒。

养蚕。

稚山凤舞。

做火桶。

黟县百工调研项目展示效果。

“源流考”徽州历史文化展览展出的许村许氏世系图。

市集在村路上搭了起来。

卖桃子和梨。

早上八点就开始有人来逛了。

树在稻田上的市集视觉形象。

婺源傩戏。

祁门目连戏。

黟县小调《十送郎》。

碧山村的村民表演者。

黟山电影院六百个座位几乎满座。

专注的观众。

五条人乐队用海丰话开唱。

仁科拉手风琴，阿茂弹吉他。

观众席满。

仁科和阿茂专门为碧山创作的歌曲《再造风景》的CD包装。

乡土中国学术研讨会第一单元以“农业，农村，农民”为题，参加讨论的有（右起）吕新雨，梁鸿，吴音宁，钟永丰。欧宁主持。

欧宁与钟永丰。

乡土中国学术研讨会第二单元聚焦“当代乡村建设 ”，参加讨论的有（右起）梁晓燕，徐金娜，王墨林，徐兰香，谢英俊，芮必峰，何慧丽（不在照片中）。欧宁主持。

乡土中国学术研讨会第三单元针对本土，题目为“ 区域文化与历史保护”，参加讨论的有（右起）张建平，胡项城，张震燕，寒玉，金忠民。左靖主持。

秀里影视基地电影院共容纳近70位听众。

观众以碧山丰年庆各地嘉宾和媒体记者为主。

当代中国农村纪录片放映。

吴文光在介绍村民影像项目。

在碧山粮站院内露天放映16毫米纪录片《户县农民绘新天》，35毫米故事片《小花》（以碧山村为主要外景地）和农村喜剧片《喜盈门》。

以上各节目视觉形象设计：小马+橙子，摄影：胡晓耕，朱正，欧宁，梁绍基。

到农村去！碧山丰年祭，2011年8月26日至28日

Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:50:04 +0800

[碧山丰年祭(Bishan Harvestival)将于2011年8月26日至28日在安徽黟县碧山村举办。]

前言_Introduction

[另贴发表。请点击这里。]

碧山村_Bishan Village

碧山村位于古徽州（今黄山市）黟县境内，北枕黄山余脉碧山，南临黟县盆地，枧溪河自北而南穿村而过，是一个以汪氏聚族而居的徽州著名古村落。村内有宋代私家园林“培筠园”遗址，明代私塾“耕读园”，清代古塔“云门塔”，保存完好的明清时期古民居和祠堂尚有100多座。据史料记载，碧山村历史可追溯至公元592年，即隋开皇十二年，黄山以南区域（时黄山称黟山）置歙州，州治设于黟县碧山而闻名。

碧山汪氏为唐越国公汪华之后。汪华于隋末据黟、歙之地，号“吴王”，设“黟州”于黟县，唐武德四年（621年）汪华归顺大唐，被封为越国公，其七子汪爽之后五十七世祖宗明公迁黟县碧山定居，为碧山村汪氏始祖。从此，碧山村因汪氏家族在此生息繁衍而逐步成为徽州的名村望族。

[碧山村春耕旧影。黟县文化馆提供。］

碧山村历代不乏人才辈出，至清代共出进士11人。唐代诗仙李白曾慕名而来，写下“问余何事栖碧山，笑而不答心自闲。桃花流水窅然去，别有天地非人间。”的诗篇。碧山人曾建一座太白楼以纪念这位诗人，如今楼址仍依稀可见。南宋签书枢密院事兼权参知政事汪勃与奸臣秦桧同朝为官，因不满秦桧结党营私，愤而辞官，退居故里，营建培筠园，过起了隐居生活，其好友当朝状元张九成远道来访，写下七绝《碧山访友》以赠。诗云：“万仞巍然叠嶂中，泻来峻落几千重，森森松柏松花老，又见黄山六六峰。”诗碑至今仍保存在培筠园中，虽经860余年风雨侵蚀，字迹仍依稀可辨。碧山汪氏历来都有进则兼济、退则独善的传统个性，始终保持着达观向上的精神风貌，在村后枧溪河谷的石壁上有一处宋代摩崖石刻“章山题壁”就记载着南宋开禧三年（1207年）村人汪廷珪等12位老人在谷雨日游览“遵孝寺”（建于唐代、毁于明代）时所题词记事。其中的“皆康强过人，登览不倦，谈论娓娓，欢醉而归”则表现了碧山人这种独特的心态。

[今日碧山村。］

碧山村至今仍保存着徽州古村落的典型历史风貌，白墙黑瓦的古民居、错落有致的马头墙、曲折幽深的街巷、鹤立村头的宝塔，这些都深深地烙上了时光的记忆。如今，碧山汪氏的后人仍然过着日出而作、日落而息的悠然自得的生活，种田、养蚕、采茶、种麻、手工艺仍然是他们传统的生产方式，祭祀、赶集、唱民谣、演社戏依然是他们传统的生活习俗。碧山村是中华汉文化农耕文明的最后保留地之一，是现代城市文明进程中我们即将远去的家园。（金忠民）

计划蓝本_Blueprint

欧宁和左靖于2007年第一次造访徽州农村，被这里的自然风光、聚落文化和历史遗存所吸引，特别是他们共同的朋友，诗人郑小光和寒玉在黟县西递和碧山两地所践行的乡居生活更是深深打动了他们。2010年，欧宁在一本Moleskine笔记本上展开了他对个人创立微型国家和一些知识分子乌托邦实验的历史调研，同时记录了他在黟县碧山村创建一个共同生活的乌托邦的初步构思。

[2010年12月30日左靖、寒玉、欧宁在黟县打鼓岭。三位少年时代的诗友今天一起开始在碧山构建共同的乌托邦。]

自Erwin S. Strauss的How to Start Your Own Country一书在1985年出版后，世界上已有150多个个人和团体创建的微型国家，这当中还不包括当代中国一些农民在面对他们的现实困境时所产生的一些个人立国行为。不管是知识分子还是普罗大众，他们的乌托邦实践都拓展了人类在常规主权国家之外的政治经验。

欧宁计划和左靖在碧山村创建的碧山共同体，希望接续晏阳初的乡村建设事业和克鲁泡特金(Peter Klopotkin)的安那其主义思想，重新激活农村地区的政治、经济和文化生活，它主要是针对目前亚洲地区迫人的城市化现实和全球农业资本主义引发的危机，试图摸索出一条农村复兴之路。

[2010年，欧宁开始在一本Moleskine笔记本上构思碧山共同体的计划。]

在这个笔记本中，他阐述了自己在这方面的思考，同时也邀请一些设计师对碧山共同体的视觉系统、生活系统和建筑系统进行了一些草图的勾勒，并打算在日后付之实施，变成一个长期发展的项目。这个记载乌托邦梦想的笔记本曾参加在上海的Detour: The Moleskine Notebook Experience展览，现在已经变成了正在进行中的实践蓝本。（彭嫣菡）

节目_Programme

出地方：丰年祭仪式
Chu Di Fang: Harvest Ceremony

时间：2011年8月26日11:30
地点：安徽省黟县碧山村祠堂

徽州传统的祭祀礼制与徽州宗法制度密切相关，为了加强聚族而居的内部管理体系和抵御外部冲击的防备机制，以及强化宗族的认同感和凝聚力，祭祀活动在徽州非常盛行。“出地方”在古黟流传甚久，相传在清嘉庆年间由知县陈之揆从省中引入城隍庙，进而又演绎为十月初一“出地方”民间习俗。据史料记载，“出地方”是黟县一种特有的扬善惩恶、祈保平安的民间信仰活动。

“出地方”之地方，亦指“无常”，“无常”原为佛家之语。后世附会，谓有无常鬼，对做坏事之人、恶人就会勾起生魂拘入地府。使“无常”成为人世间正义的使者，为百姓所仰视膜拜。

“出地方”活动内容丰富、形式多样，声势浩大，兼具娱乐性和竞技性。而“丰年祭”本是中国传统农耕社会的一种祭祀仪式，除了向祖先神灵祷告，祈求保佑农作物顺利收获，并预祝来年五谷丰收、人畜两旺外，祭礼之后还会举行聚餐、歌舞、游戏及篝火晚会等。我们把“出地方”这一黟县特有的民间信仰活动作为丰年祭的一种象征性的仪式，正是为了接续当地的祭祀传统，期望恢复和重建这种由来已久的乡村公共生活，并赋予它新的内涵。（左靖）

[碧山旧影。漳河边的浣衣人，远处的碧山敬老院和清代古塔今犹在。黟县文化馆提供。］

互助·传承：主体展览
Mutual Aid & Inheritance: Main Exhibition

时间：2011年8月26日－28日9:00-18:00
地点：安徽省黟县碧山村粮站1、2号粮库

克鲁泡特金在他著名的《互助论》曾说，“互助是我们的道德观念的真正基础”，可是随着国家和政府这种组织管治形式的普世化，还有税制和公共服务在世界上的日渐盛行，人与人之间的直接互助已经越来越罕见。在一个付税社会中，人们遇到问题会首先依赖公共服务，而不是直接伸出援手。也许只有在一些尚未被现代化波及、但又有自治力的乡村地区，互助这一传统才可幸存。

互助是人类的天性，在钻木取火的高古时代，人们靠此战胜恶劣的自然条件。但随着民族社群和利益集团的细分，人们开始展开对生存空间的争夺。为了进行谈判和裁定争端，代理人制度随之产生——这就是国家和政府，而这些代理机构的运作是靠税收来维持的。当代理人和公共服务出现问题，人们仍然回到古老的直接行动的方式。在乡村地区，人们靠道德自觉来进行自治，用交工（互换劳动力）来进行经济活动，用互助来维护自己的社区。可惜的是，这种美好的社会在今日农村也日渐式微了。

碧山共同体的计划，正是致力还原这种简单的社会模式。它的共同生活的理念最主要的基石就是互助。它要求道德自律，并要求建立起一个小范围的共同体意识。它选择驻居乡间，参与者多数与文化和艺术相关，他们对农村和地方生活的融入，在另一层面上又涉及了乡村建设的议题和实践。在中国的现实语境下，知识分子和艺术家对乡村建设的参与，既要接续民国以来的乡村建设传统，又要在新的历史条件下发明自己的方法。这便是碧山共同体计划为自己订立的目标。

[2011年3月30日，台湾建筑师谢英俊与欧宁访问西递。］

[2011年4月26日艺术家王音、哲学家汪民安和策展人郭晓彦访问关麓。］

[2011年4月28日，设计师小马＋橙子等访问渔亭糕制作工坊。］

[2011年4月29日，服装设计师马可访问利源村制麻。］

[2011年7月5日，音乐人朱哲琴、艺术家刘庆元、设计师陈飞波和张雷等访问碧山。］

艺术家们下乡，在过去被表述为“采风”，即到农村去采集他们的创作灵感。在某种意义上，它是一种对农村的索取，即便时有回赠，也只停留在对某些文化遗产的整理和传播，而较少在政治、经济层面对农村社会作出贡献。碧山共同体动员各地的艺术家们前来碧山，他们一方面展开共同生活的实验，尝试互助和自治的社会实践，同时也着力于对这一地区渊远流长的历史遗迹、乡土建筑、聚落文化、民间戏曲和手工艺进行普查和采访，在此基础上邀请当地人一起合作，进行激活和再生的设计，除了传承传统，更希望把工作成果转化为当地的生产力，为农村带来新的复兴机会。“互助·传承”这个展览正是呈现这些初步的工作成果。

在中国乡村建设先驱晏阳初所总结的关于农村工作的“九大信条”中，我们对这三条体认最深：“从农民已知的地方着手”，“不迁就社会而是改造社会”，“不应单独的救济，而应启发人民的力量”。知识分子参与乡村建设，最重要的是协助建立农村的主体性，它不是强行塞入一种陌生的文化，也不是一味迁就农村的一切，更不是资本主义式的慈善事业，它不是对田园的浪漫想象，而是迎向现实的深入行动。（欧宁）

展览参加者：陈飞波，董文胜，胡晓耕，胡中权，梁鸿，梁绍基，刘冰鉴，刘庆元，欧宁，邱黯雄，石大宇，汤国，王音，小马＋橙子，谢英俊，张建平，张雷，张震燕+胡中权，郑小光+寒玉，朱小杰，朱哲琴+黄志伟

[艺术家刘庆元用木刻的方法与设计师杨小满合作的乡村建设月份牌《碧山刻记》。］

[设计师小马＋橙子根据黟县渔亭糕的传统生产方式设计制模和重新包装的“碧山丰年庆”五字糕点，这是一种传统糕点再设计的尝试。］

源流考：徽州历史文化展览
Hui Zhou: A Historical Exhibition

时间：2011年8月26－28日9:00-18:00
地点：安徽省黟县碧山村祠堂

徽州文化是一个极具地方特色的区域文化，其内容广博、深邃，有整体系列性等特点，深切透露了东方社会与文化之谜，包容了明清至民国期间民间经济、社会、生活与文化的基本内容，被誉为是明清至民国社会的典型标本。徽州文化的内涵十分丰富，几乎包含了中国传统文化的方方面面，择其要者，有新安理学、徽州朴学、新安画派、徽州篆刻、徽州版画、徽州刻书、徽剧、新安医学、徽菜等等。

选择这一厚实的历史文化积淀区，从文化和艺术的角度介入乡村建设，正是由于我们深感徽州文化在今天的衰微，已经到了几乎要彻底断绝的最危险境地，种种的凋敝与消亡让人触目惊心。由于条件的限制，即便是这么一个小小的非专业展示，也能告诉人们，徽州曾经的历史文化有多么深厚与博大。它在当代所承受的城市化的挤压、特别是过度旅游开发的摧毁，已经使乡土徽州或成为一个毫无生气的样本，或只存在于知识份子的浪漫想象中。

经验告诉我们，中国的乡村生活不能建立在无源之水、无本之木之上，民间和政府的文化救治力量必须被吁请和激活，乡土中国的重建与再生需要各界的协力，让我们共同参与到历史保护的具体行动中去。（左靖）

[2011年7月18日，安徽大学新闻传播学院的同学到南屏去采访打斗笠的汪永平师傅。］

黟县百工：调研项目展示
Handicraft in Yi Xian: A Research Project

时间：2011年8月26－28日9:00-18:00
地点：安徽省黟县碧山村粮站2号粮库

寻百工，不仅是寻找那些散布于民间的日常工艺，同时也是在寻找我们记忆中的过去。“黟县百工”调研项目于2011年7月15日在黟县拉开帷幕。志愿者们寻访到各种民间传统手艺、工艺和创作，见识了许多具有徽州本土特色的技艺，也认识了很多民间匠人、艺人和民间艺术家。在他们身上，承载着不同于工业社会的别样生产与生活方式的信息。

时代总是带走一些东西，而同时又留下深深的痕迹。叶村的百年老榨油厂，渔亭镇的老打铁铺，利源村的制麻工艺，已经开始被人们逐渐淡忘；关麓的米塑技艺基本已经失传；木坑傅善长老人自创的“丝缕画”也后继无人；“雉山凤舞”是卢村过去的一项传统曲艺表演，如今在当地年轻人中间已经鲜为人知……遍寻着这些或被淡忘、或者正在消逝的痕迹，我们希望重新找回时代的印迹，还原不同于城市喧闹生活的“乡土回忆”。

向地问天。我们希望知识分子通过调研，参与到发掘民间瑰宝的工作中去，让更多的人关心农村，关心农村的生活。非常感谢在调研过程中给予我们各种帮助的黟县人民，以及我们的调研对象，没有他们对于我们工作的热心支持，不会有今天展现在大家面前的“黟县百工”展。（吴志远）

“黟县百工”调研共包括打斗笠，独轮车，做火桶，床屏，箍盆，打糖果，夹心豆干，酿大米酒，糯米饼，渔亭糕，打铁，钟表修理，做鞋，竹编，根雕，木雕，石雕，丝缕画，黟县风土人情系列绘画，砖雕，壁画，人物扎制，做竹简，米塑，童帽，香囊，童鞋，摇篮椅，黟县小调，舞龙舞狮，雉山凤舞，养蚕，榨油，制麻等34个项目。

“黟县百工”调研小组成员：吴志远, 刘超然, 朱正, 姜彩杰, 张苗, 王旭（安徽大学新闻传播学院）

[碧山供销社旧影。它今天仍然采取这种货架柜台的销售方式。黟县文化馆提供。］

庙会之旅：手工艺市集
Exchange the Creativities: Yi Xian Bazaar

时间：2011年8月26日9:00-18:00
地点：安徽省黟县碧山村粮站

因为城乡关系的倒悬，农村人口大量外流，它原本具备的活跃的公共生活也开始凋敝。不管是宗族活动、祭神活动，还是文娱活动、经济活动，都日渐少见，而这些活动所赖以举办的公共空间也开始空置甚至颓败。社会生活的变迁，直接影响了乡村的空间景观的叠替。

庙会曾是农村的一种重要的公共生活，它把拜祭神灵的仪式、庆典、娱乐、各种生活用品和土特产的市集结合在一起，也是农村社会交往的一种主要的形式。黟县曾有定期举办庙会的习俗，但因为现代消费方式的冲击，这种社交生活日渐式微。“碧山丰年祭”的手工艺市集是对黟县各乡镇群众的一次动员，各家各户和各行各业均可报名参加，把自己制作的手工艺产品和传统小食摆出来，并可进行买卖。它的举办，正是对农村生活各方面的呈现。

如果说“黟县百工”是学生们的田野调查和学术梳理，那么“庙会之旅”则是活生生的农村生活用品的盛会。（欧宁）

[黟县旧影，农村露天电影。黟县文化馆提供。］

银幕乡愁: 早期农村电影放映
Nostalgia on Screen: Early Films on the Chinese Countryside

时间：2011年8月28日19:30-23:00
地点：安徽省黟县碧山村粮站

新中国成立后，电影作为一种重要宣传工具，被要求为政治服务，它除了拍摄革命历史题材，更要表现社会主义新制度的崭新风貌，彰显新政权的工农本色。所以在五十年代至八十年代，涌现了许多农村题材的影片，对农村生活和现实的再现，成为很多人的集体回忆。

而过去时代的放映和观影体验也非常令人难忘。在农村地区，因为娱乐稀缺，同一部电影经常被多次重放，如果是在晒谷场进行露天放映，更等同节日。小孩子们早早地用椅子、凳子、席子提前占位，放映的时候则是全村出席。有时人太多，还只好从银幕反面观看。电影台词经常出口成诵，而经典镜头更是永驻人心。电影所展示的内容和这种特别的观影方式，在经历岁月的濡化之后，凝固成很多人的童蒙印象。

“碧山丰年祭”专门从全国各地的电影放映机和拷贝收藏家那里找到曾以碧山为拍摄外景地的经典电影《小花》，还有农村故事片《喜盈门》，以及纪录片《户县农民画》，在碧山粮站的户外空地上由志愿放映员进行露天放映，让大家重温小时的体验，找回银幕上的故乡。（欧宁）

[吕新雨纪录片《江村故事》剧照。］

现实之谜: 当代农村纪录片放映
Paradox of Reality: Contemporary Documentaries on the Chinese Countryside

时间：2011年8月28日10:00-18:00
地点：安徽省黟县秀里影视基地电影院

启始于上世纪九十年代初的中国独立纪录片运动一直在以个人和微观的角度，深入中国的广阔现实，纪录时代，塑造历史。其中有不少作者倾注很大的心力，关注农村地区的社会矛盾、政治运作、宗教信仰、生活风俗、历史保育以及农民在不同时期的生存状况和精神面貌。他们的身影穿梭于田畴农舍，以自己的镜头，雕刻数千年绵续下来的农业社会在不同的现实冲击下所产生的变化。这些纪录片成为农村社会最为珍贵的历史档案之一。

“碧山丰年祭”的纪录片节目选取了李一凡纪录四川民间宗教组织和村治制度在日常生活中的运作和冲突的一部作品，毛晨雨探讨农业社会生育、死亡和神秘主义的三部作品，郭熙志关于小城镇的改制和搬迁的两部作品，吕新雨以个案研究的方法对一个徽州地区的农村聚落展开日常纪事的一部作品，以及在吴文光的指导下，两位村民独立拍摄和剪辑的两部作品。前面四位作者都是以外来的目光凝视村镇的现实，后面则是农村生活的主体——村民们的自主影像。

在关注农村现实的独立纪录片制作中，作者们努力减弱精英意识，下沉基层，构建出一个平视的角度，让事实说话，以图锻造出纪录片的客观性；而在村民的自拍影片里，专业纪录片工作者仅提供参考意见，在制作过程中“退场”，让村民的主体性突显，这一尝试在低价、平民化的数码技术时代呼唤出一种广泛的影像民主，这在精英泛滥的文化景观中是一个很大的进步，与民国以来乡村建设的精神传统可谓不谋而合。（欧宁）

[黟县旧影。村民选举。黟县文化馆提供。］

乡土中国: 学术研讨会
Rural China: Panel Discussion

时间：2011年8月27日10:00-18:00
地点：安徽省黟县秀里影视基地电影院

过度城市化已成目前的主要社会问题。它打破了城乡之间曾有的互相哺育的关系，令大量农地休耕，生态恶化，粮产锐减，人口失衡，造成阶层分化和群体冲突。今日众多城市问题例如征地拆迁、城中村、贫民窟、农民工、治安等等其实均源自倒悬的城乡关系和城乡资源的不合理分配。研究城市常常要追溯至乡村的根源，城市与乡村，是常常纠结在一起的同一问题的一体两面。

因为过度开发和建设，城市土地储备日益耗尽，城市资本进一步侵蚀农村的土地。城市中的土地饥渴者经常打着建设新农村的旗号，用城市化的思路和惯性进入乡村进行开发。作为人类多元化生存模式的一种，乡居生活日渐被城市同化，传统农村社会结构分崩离析，农业生态遭受破坏，乡村建筑和空间布局难以传承，人居方式最后归于单一，人们将失去绵延数千年的精神家园。

最近十年来，美国一些生物公司和农业投资公司开始抢注生命专利（DNA Property），他们通过一些转基因实验来改变物种构成（例如大豆或某些花卉），并抢先注册专利，来垄断农业生产和市场。这意味着以后中国农民将不能自由交换种子，专利权的买卖将为国际资本创造巨大利润。全球化资本可谓无孔不入。农业资本主义其实是今天一种全新形式的殖民行为。它不仅影响农村地区，亦将波及城市生活。

自上世纪三十年代始，晏阳初、梁漱溟、陶行知和毛泽东等知识分子都先后投身于中国的乡村建设(Rural Reconstruction)和平民教育运动，他们都一致认定解决中国问题的关键在于农村、农业和农民；今天温铁军等人继承了他们的事业，致力于农村的实践和研究，乡建运动一直薪火相传。建筑师谢英俊更深入中国的穷乡僻壤，发起互助建屋运动，通过直接交换劳动力来规避货币以及资本主义的交易模式，融入今日反全球化的政治现实，其努力已回归至经典安那其和早期共产主义的理想。

越来越多知识分子开始热切关注不同地区的城乡关系和资本全球化的迫人现实，他们呼吁重视耕地的流失，农业的危机，农民的失权，传统的沉沦等具体问题，通过分享各自在农村地区的乡村建设运动，文化和生活实践以及一系列关于乡村的学术研究，致力于恢复农村的生机，重建城乡互哺的关系，为过度城市化提供深刻反思。他们的努力已汇聚成一种新的乡土主义(Ruralism)的社会运动潮流。

在碧山村所举办的这个“乡土中国”的学术研讨会，是2009年深圳香港城市建筑双城双年展上同样议题的延续和深化。由于会议现场位处徽州农村，这一地区丰富的历史遗存和文化积淀使乡土历史保护和再生问题的重要性更加彰显。因此，在讨论“三农”问题和乡村建设的问题之外，我们还特地增设“区域文化与历史保护”的讨论环节，使本次会议更加在地化(Localized)和更加具有针对性。（欧宁）

议程：

1. 农业，农村，农民 (10:00-12:00)
梁鸿，《中国在梁庄》作者
钟永丰，台湾音乐人和社运工作者
吴音宁，台湾作家和社运工作者
吕新雨，复旦大学教授，农村问题研究者
吴文光，纪录片导演
主持人：欧宁

2. 当代乡村建设 (14:00-16:00)
邱建生，晏阳初乡村建设学院总干事，乡建工作者
何慧丽，中国农业大学教授，开封市市长助理，乡建工作者和研究者
梁晓燕，西部阳光农村发展基金会秘书长
谢英俊，台湾建筑师
王墨林，台湾剧场工作者
徐兰香，台湾打碗花农场创办人，台湾反农药运动总召集人
主持人：欧宁

3. 区域文化与历史保护(16:00-18:00)
卞利，安徽大学教授，徽学研究中心主任
芮必峰，安徽大学教授
张建平，摄影家，“徽州之友”负责人
郑小光＋寒玉，猪栏酒吧创办人
张震燕，秀里影视基地创办人
胡项城，上海金泽工艺馆艺术总监，上海戏剧学院教授
主持人：左靖

[碧山旧影。古塔下练兵。黟县文化馆提供。］

诗歌课: 文学活动
Poetry Class: Literary Event

时间：2011年8月26日14:00－16:00
地点：安徽省黟县碧山村祠堂

在现代主义风行的时代，文学曾被定义为一种私密的写作，它以探讨个体生命的意义为己任，强调写作与社会的剥离。在此之前，被奉为主流的现实主义与政治所发生的过于亲密的关系，也许是导致这种反弹的主因。文学与社会的关系离离合合，到了今日，又到了一个新的拐点。

时代变了，政治的定义也变了，社会进化到一个新的型态。原来人们参与公共事务，是出于国家机器的动员，个人在政治中是一个工具；而现在，人们对社会的参与更多来自于一种自我增权(Empowerment)的需要。公民变成了我们这个时代的关键词。这时候，文学被公民要求成为自己的喉舌，而不是党派政治的道具。

文学如何可以介入今日社会？诗人们如何走出自己的写作间？在面对乡村生活的凋零和农村的空心化时，除了哀叹和忧伤，诗人何为？“诗歌课”只是一个简单的教育活动，在乡村建设的语境下，是文学融入乡村的一种小小的尝试。诗人们在祠堂中向留守在农村的孩子们讲授和朗诵诗歌，不过是在恢复曾经有过的一种生活。文学进入一个曾经用作培植宗族凝聚力的乡村公共空间，进入乡村的血脉并试图养护它，触碰它未来的公民并努力亲近他们，也是文学对乡村所奉献的一点点薄力。（欧宁）

参加诗人：冰释之（上海），陈东东（上海），梁小斌（北京/合肥），肖开愚（北京/开封），徐敬亚（深圳），祝凤鸣（合肥）

[五条人回到海丰民谣音乐会现场。］

返乡青年: 新民谣音乐会
Those Young Men Going Home: New Folk Music Concert

时间：2011年8月27日19:30-21:30
地点：安徽省黟县县城黟山电影院

一直以来，农民都在负担这个国家变革的成本。在建国之前，农民因为要分得土地而参加革命；在工业化时代，他们上交自己的粮食，经出口来换取技术和资本；在城市化时代，农业破产了，土地被征收了，他们离乡进城，为城市奉献劳动力。今日的中国农村，只剩下留守的老人和儿童。新一代在被抽空的村落里寂寞成长，稍稍长成，便要进城谋生。

农村曾经拥有的活力消失了，它的子弟们走在流浪打工的路上。他们什么时候可以再返故乡，安居乐业？如果城市化继续扩大，如果农业无法振兴，农村继续被边缘化，农民在奉献土地和劳动力之后仍然无法分享城市化的果实，这个梦想将永难实现。

五条人在他们的唱片《县城记》里刻画了大量游荡在寂寞的县城街道和农村土地上的青年人。他们用海丰话歌唱，用新民谣的形式展开他们的“地方叙事”，他们所呈现的广东潮州地区的现实，正是这个城市化时代的缩影。这一较早改革开放的地区，预言了中国县制之下广阔农村地区今天的命运。

他们应我们的邀请前来徽州地区的农村进行调研，在穿村过巷的过程中，他们体验与他们的故乡同样的现实。他们聆听黟县小调，与民间音乐家们交流，决定用音乐的形式为这里做一些事情。他们为这个地方创作了一些新歌，表达他们的观感。他们在“碧山丰年祭”中的表演，将是潮州地区和徽州地区的故事的交叉。他们将用歌声，呼唤更多青年返乡。（欧宁）

为增加与碧山村村民的互动，我们特邀他们与五条人同台演出，进行黄梅戏、黟县小调、京剧的大联唱。曲目如下：《开门调》（汪建英、朱根枝演唱），《春风送暖》（王蕾演唱），《小放牛》（汪荫荪、李忠洪演唱），《牛郎织女对板》（汪建英、江永忠演唱），《对灯》（江东月、吴兴伯演唱），《借驴》（朱根枝、汪典基演唱），京剧《甘露芽》片段（王小九演唱），《黟县曲》（储福珠演唱）

[黟县旧影。样板戏下乡。黟县文化馆提供。］

好戏连台: 徽州戏曲汇演
Play It: Drama and Music from Hui Zhou

时间：2011年8月26日19:30-21:30
地点：安徽省黟县县城黟山电影院

明清以来，徽州戏曲活动不仅在舞台上吸引着广大群众，并且还影响和改变了老百姓的生活习惯和社会风俗。徽州历来有举办庙会的习俗，凡庙会必演戏。传统上，宗族也把演戏作为教化族众的一种重要手段。对违反族规家法的族众，宗族还采取罚戏的惩戒手段。一些乡规民约的制订和执行过程中，也贯穿了戏曲活动。逢庙会必演戏和罚戏的族规和乡规民约中，我们可以发现，徽州的戏曲活动曾是当地最重要的公共生活之一。

除了声名显赫的徽剧之外，此次参加汇演的婺源傩戏和祁门目连戏是徽州最具地方特色的戏曲形式，并在中国戏曲史上占有重要的位置。傩戏与目连戏都带有酬神祭祖、祈福求安、驱鬼逐疫意义，对于有“好巫之俗”的徽州民间百姓具有一定的吸引力。如今，虽然戏曲活动在徽州已经式微，但其顽强的生命力仍然在延续。

从文化和艺术的角度介入乡村建设，宗旨之一就是为了恢复和重建乡村的精神生活，而徽州戏曲正是这种精神生活的重要标志。所幸的是，碧山村有着自己的农民剧团，村民对戏曲的热情依然不减，戏曲活动仍渗透到老百姓的日常生活中。而徽邑六县之间的戏曲串联，往往能增强本地民间文化的凝聚力，从而达到一种区域文化的认同。此次汇演只是一个开始，它将和以后我们的种种努力一道，为再造徽州乡村的公共生活贡献绵薄之力。

为了丰富本次汇演节目，我们还特地增加了源自安庆地区的黄梅戏节目。（左靖）

剧目：婺源傩戏《开天辟地》《刘海戏金蟾》（婺源徽剧团演出），祁门目连戏《孤幽捉刘氏》（祁门历口镇历溪村目连戏剧组演出），黄梅戏《山野的风》，《闹花灯》，《孔雀东南飞》，《瞎子算命》，《当官难》，《女附马》选段，《打猪草》选段，《海滩别》，《树上的鸟儿成双对》（安庆黄梅戏剧团演出）。

[碧山旧影。碧山女篮。黟县文化馆提供。］

活动日程_Schedule

8月26日
11:00“出地方”，“互助·传承”，“源流考”，“黟县百工”，“庙会之旅”开幕，碧山祠堂＋碧山粮站
13:00 冷餐会, 碧山祠堂
14:00－16:00“诗歌课”，碧山祠堂
17:00 参观猪栏三吧
18:00 晚餐，猪栏二吧
19:30－21:30 “好戏连台”，黟县县城黟山电影院

8月27日
10:00 “乡土中国”学术研讨会之“农村，农民，农业”，秀里影视村
12:00 冷餐会，秀里影视村
13:00参观秀里影视村，观看梁绍基作品“水之祭”
14:00 “乡土中国”学术研讨会之“当代乡村建设”，秀里影视村
16:00 “乡土中国”学术研讨会之“区域文化与历史保护”，秀里影视村
18:00 晚餐，黟香园
19:30－21:30 “返乡青年”新民谣音乐会，黟县县城黟山电影院

8月28日
10:00 “现实之谜”中国当代乡村纪录片放映，秀里影视村
12:00 冷餐会
14:00－18:00 “现实之谜”当代乡村纪录片放映，秀里影视村
18:00 晚餐，黟县宾馆
19:30－23:00 “银幕乡愁”早期乡村电影放映，碧山粮站

[碧山丰年祭的宣传广告牌树立在渔亭镇。］

支持机构_Supporters

黟县人民政府，黟县碧阳镇人民政府，黟县文广新局，黟县粮食局，黟县文物局，黟县文化馆，黟县档案馆，黟县图书馆，黟县民间艺术家协会，黟县农村合作银行，黟县猪栏酒吧乡村客栈，黟县秀里影视基地，广东时代美术馆，2011成都双年展国际设计展，2011－2012南京三年展，联合国开发计划署“世界看见”项目，文采投资（集团）股份有限公司，安徽大学新闻传播学院，意大利笔记本品牌Moleskine

鸣谢_Acknowledgement

蔡影茜，岑钊雄，葛亚平，寒玉，胡晓耕，胡中权，金忠民，Lucy Johnston，刘继敏，Consuelo Romeo，芮必峰，王锦鹤，吴敬东，吴文达，张震燕，赵趄，郑小光，朱哲琴

联络_Contacts

网站：http://www.bishancommune.org
联络：bishanproject@gmail.com

相关链接_Further Reading

碧山共同体：如何创建自己的乌托邦
http://www.alternativearchive.com/ouning/article.asp?id=804

0086杂志关于Moleskine项目“碧山共同体”的采访
http://www.alternativearchive.com/ouning/article.asp?id=811

Moleskine项目《碧山共同体：如何创建自己的乌托邦》视频
http://www.alternativearchive.com/ouning/article.asp?id=812

《城市画报》关于碧山共同体计划的报道和采访
http://www.alternativearchive.com/ouning/article.asp?id=817

碧山计划在广州时代美术馆
http://www.alternativearchive.com/ouning/article.asp?id=834

碧山丰年祭前言
http://www.alternativearchive.com/ouning/article.asp?id=839

《南方都市报》：田园将芜，胡不归？——“亚细亚故乡”计划中的中国当代乡村建设者群像
http://www.chutzpahmagazine.com.cn/CnNewDetails.aspx?id=76

《时代周报》：白领“逆城市”倾向：回归乡村
http://www.chutzpahmagazine.com.cn/CnNewDetails.aspx?id=77

如何抵达及住宿推荐_How to Go and Stay There

碧山村目前有猪栏乡村客舍和泰来农庄两家旅馆，猪栏乡村客舍在活动期间将全部安排参加活动的艺术家们入住，泰来农庄除供艺术家入住外，尚有少量房间对外。自费前来参观的朋友可住黟县县城，它离碧山村只有五分钟车程（亦可以自行车代步）。以下是我们的住宿推荐：

金陵黟县宾馆
黄山市黟县县城
电话：0559－5558888
电邮：hs.yixian@jinlinghotels.com
网页：http://www.jinlinghotels.com/CN/memberhotels/yixian/portal.asp

黟县中城山庄
黄山市黟县县城
电话：0559- 5553333　5541158
电邮：hongcun@hongcun.com.cn
网页：http://www.hongcun.com.cn/News_View.asp?NewsID=242

黟县世外桃源大酒店
黄山市黟县县城沿河西路
电话：0559- 5552608
网页：http://www.swtyhotel.cn

黟县稻花香宾馆
黄山市黟县县城马道路
电话：0559－5552867

泰来农庄
黄山市黟县碧阳镇碧山村
电话：0559-5175777

碧山丰年祭前言

Sun, 14 Aug 2011 03:21:18 +0800

安徽省黟县碧山村是众多著名的徽州古村落之一，从黄山国际机场驱车一小时可达。这里“山高田广，阡陌如绣，白墙黑瓦，鳞次栉比”，共有面积58.5平方公里。村内有宋代私家园林“培筠园”，明代私塾“耕读园”，清代古塔“云门塔”，现保存完好的明清时期古民居和祠堂百余座。在历史上，它曾经有过显赫的位置——据《新安志》记载，隋开皇十二年(592年)，改新安郡为歙州，设州治于此。

徽州具有丰富的自然资源、乡村建筑资源和历史人文资源，是人类多样化生活的一个不可多得的样本。在尘嚣日上的大都市中已分崩离析的乡土血脉与宗族体统在这里青山绿水的保育下得以幸存。但是，现有的单一旅游开发模式既不关心农村自然生态的保护和发展，也不致力于传统农耕文化的传承与复兴，只是让更多游客蜻蜓点水到此一游，观看毫无生气的样本，无法激起对乡村重建的更多参与。这同时也打破了前来寻访乡土中国的人们对乡村的淳朴想象，让它的亲和力大打折扣。比起村庄的自然凋敝，这更加令人痛心。

在未来五至十年内，回归乡居生活、逆城市化将成为中国城市居民的潮流。人们厌倦了城市的喧闹生活，希望开始实践新的农业生活方式——或者说在恢复这种生活方式。为此，我们计划在碧山村创建的“碧山共同体”，起自对农业传统的忧虑和对过度城化的批判立场，它是一个关于知识分子离城返乡，回归历史，承接本世纪初以来的乡村建设事业，在农村地区展开共同生活，践行互助(Mutual Aid)精神，减低在城市中盛行的对公共服务的依赖，以各种方式为农村政治、经济和文化奉献才智，重新赋予农村活力，再造农业故乡的构思。鉴于今日农村社会的迫人现实，我们决定把这一构思付之实践。

作为碧山共同体计划的一个组成部分，我们于2011年8月26日至28日在碧山村举办“碧山丰年祭”。“丰年祭”本是中国传统农耕社会的一种祭祀仪式，除了向祖先神灵祷告，祈求保佑农作物顺利收获，并预祝来年五谷丰收、人畜两旺外，祭礼之后还会举行聚餐、歌舞、游戏及篝火晚会等。我们借用“丰年祭”这一古老的仪式名称，期望恢复和重建这种由来已久的乡村公共生活之一，并赋予它新的内涵。同时，我们也将“碧山丰年祭”作为一种全球化和在地化的交集实验。

“碧山丰年祭”活动邀约艺术家、建筑师、乡建专家、作家、导演、设计师、音乐人，以及致力于乡土文化研究的当地学者前来参加。此外，我们还在黟县乃至徽州招募民间手工艺人和民间戏曲艺人，共同合作在碧山村的祠堂和乡间粮仓等公共空间举办与乡土生活相关的建筑、家具和生活用品设计、影像艺术作品以及其他手工艺品的展示；举办乡建学者和乡土建筑研究者的学术研讨；以及举办当地戏曲和舞蹈的演出活动等等。

碧山共同体计划的首个异地(Off-site)展览活动已于6月5日至19日在广东时代美术馆实施，它以前期的阶段性调研创作的形式，在美术馆系统中介绍“碧山共同体：如何建立自己的乌托邦”的概念，为观众提供一种以文艺形式参与乡村建设的初步思路。在“碧山丰年祭”之后，碧山共同体计划还将作为一个特别项目参加今年9月的成都双年展国际设计展和其他国内外的一些展事。而在2011和2012跨年度举办的南京艺术三年展则将以碧山共同体计划为骨干内容，把它变为完全聚焦世界各地乡村建设运动的大型展览。

根据我们的设想，“碧山丰年祭”将作为一年一度的嘉年盛会永久落户黟县碧山村。随着进入“地方社会”的时间和深度的延长和加大，在今后每年的盛会中，我们将进一步融入当地生活和参与当地建设，将“碧山丰年祭”办成与乡土生活紧密相关的真正属于当地乡民的嘉年盛会。我们希望藉此探索徽州乡村重建的新的可能，并在北京798和上海莫干山这类城市改造和再生模式之外，拓展出一种全新的徽州历史保护与文化再生的模式。

欧宁，左靖
碧山共同体计划联合发起人
2011年8月11日

节目表：

出地方：丰年祭仪式
Chu Di Fang: Harvest Ceremony

互助·传承：主体展览
Mutual Aid & Inheritance: Main Exhibition

源流考：徽州历史文化展览
Hui Zhou: A Historical Exhibition

庙会之旅：手工艺市集
Exchange the Creativities: Yi Xian Bazaar

黟县百工：调研项目展示
Handicraft in Yi Xian: A Research Project

银幕乡愁: 早期农村电影放映
Nostalgia on Screen: Early Films on the Chinese Countryside

现实之谜: 当代农村纪录片放映
Paradox of Reality: Contemporary Documentaries on the Chinese Countryside

乡土中国: 学术研讨会
Rural China: Panel Discussion

诗歌课: 文学活动
Poetry Class: Literary Event

返乡青年: 新民谣音乐会
Those Young Men Going Home: New Folk Music Concert

好戏连台: 徽州戏曲汇演
Play It: Drama and Music from Hui Zhou

地址：安徽省黟县碧山村
空间：碧山村祠堂＋乡间粮仓＋碧山礼堂＋秀里影视村
时间：2011年8月26日－28日

支持：

黟县人民政府
黟县碧阳镇人民政府
黟县文广新局
黟县粮食局
黟县文物局
黟县文化馆
黟县档案馆
黟县图书馆
黟县民间艺术家协会
黟县农业合作银行
黟县猪栏酒吧乡村客栈
黟县秀里影视基地
广东时代美术馆
2011成都双年展国际设计展
2011－2012南京三年展
联合国开发计划署“世界看见”项目
文采投资（集团）股份有限公司
安徽大学新闻传播学院
意大利笔记本品牌Moleskine

Agrarian Utopia: An Artistic Experiment in Chiang Mai

Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:09:06 +0800

Lin Yilin, Whose Land? Whose Art? , Photograph by Ou Ning, 2010

Agrarian Utopia
An Artistic Experiment in Chiang Mai

Ou Ning

Kamin Lertchaiprasert was his full name in Thai. That family name was far too long for me to remember, so I just called him by his first name. With a long ponytail and goatee, black shirt, shorts, and skin that had been exposed to the semi-tropical sunshine, he looked at 46 much like some fellow villagers I remembered from when I was little—men who were in their prime. He was confident and passionate, handled things with dexterity, and had the air of a leader. He spoke English fluently, though with a Thai accent. His residence near Chiang Mai University was in a large courtyard filled with a luxuriant growth of vegetation, where a pick-up truck was parked. The house, which he'd designed himself, often housed artist friends from everywhere in the world. Rirkrit Tiravanija, a famous artist, owned the house next to his, but at the time he was in New York. In 1998, Kamin and Rirkrit founded The Land Project.

The first time I heard about The Land Project was in Yokohama, Japan, in the fall of 2008, when I had already become highly interested in agrarian experiments everywhere. During a dinner conversation, the Vietnamese artist Dinh Q Le mentioned the project to me. Later, in Lijiang Studio in Lashi Hai, Yunnan, Jay Brown showed me a book of an exhibition by Kamin and Rirkrit, Nothing: A Retrospective. Once I started to learn more about it, I began looking for a chance to visit it. That happened to be the tenth anniversary of the founding of The Land Project. Those who visited the project said that the small houses, built by artists from all over the world, were now desolate and decaying, but others said that, since Kamin and Rirkrit established The Land Foundation in 2004, certain projects were continuing. My interest in exploring the place deepened.

In December, 2010, Josef Ng, a curator active in Southeast Asia, partnered with the Tang Gallery, which has branches in both Beijing and Bangkok, in curating the exhibition Whose Land? Whose Art? for the Chinese artist Yilin Lin, on behalf of The Land Project. I was invited to see the exhibition, which provided me with the opportunity to visit Chiang Mai for the first time. At that time Beijing was in the grip of a frigid winter, whereas in northern Thailand people were in light summer clothes. I chose to sit in the back of Kamin’s pick-up, exposed to the moist wind, while we left Chiang Mai for The Land Project in Baan Mae village, Sanpatong County. The drive took more than 30 minutes. There were some unattractive small towns and villages along the way, and field after enormous rice field extended all the way to the foot of the distant mountains. Golden rice plants waved in the wind, reminding me of what the deceased Japanese documentary director Ogawa Shinsuke once said: “The Asian people are people that eat rice.” It seemed much more vivid to define Asia by the food its people eat than the study of geography. Right now and right here, I was moving on the field in Asia.

The truck stopped at a rice field surrounded by hedge bamboos, plantains, palms and thin-leaf banyans—we had arrived. Kamin jumped out of the driver’s seat like a straightforward and forthright farmer, welcoming us to his ‘land’. Through the swaying bamboo leaves, I saw neat rice fields shining under the sunlight, and the various small houses were just a blur. It felt like the moment when an outsider steps into Shangri-La, not knowing what to expect of the new world opening up before him. There was no electricity down here—Kamin had prepared an electric generator. Upbeat Thai folk music from a nearby hi-fi floated through the air. Yilin Lin, with help from Chiang Mai University students, had set up his work by the pond. He had built a high wall and opened a small hole on it, from which protruded a steelyard arm, with a large bamboo basket hanging at the end of it. Several young people had climbed up to the top of the wall by way of the wood ladder, and they seemed to be holding fishing poles in their hands.

Yilin Lin’s wall was located in front of the pond, facing a large open field. Everyone was standing in line to participate in his performance art: taking turns to go up and sit in the basket, then writing down their weight with a white chalk on the wall after the artist weighed them. As people were from different countries, the names on the wall were in English, Thai and Chinese, each with its own figure indicating weight. In a nearby stream a small waterwheel spun, while rape flowers on the banks contended to display their charm. Watching the scene from a distance, one would think that farmers were celebrating their harvest—people were weighing the crops to store them in the barns. Yilin Lin’s work had always been installed in a wall, but it typically occupied part of a city street, or other outdoor spaces, or resigned itself to museums and galleries. This time he built the wall in a field, where it formed a farmwork-like performance, strengthening the relationship between humans, land and art. It showed that he not only could easily maintain the character of his work, but was also able to develop the site-specific projects.

Though this was the latest element of The Land Project, I was even more interested in exploring its past. What I had read showed that, when Kamin and Rirkrit decided to buy the land, they were thinking of experimenting the idea of ‘zero-property rights’—instead of being privately owned, the land should be open and shared by everyone; that was also why they established The Land Foundation later on. It became a non-profit organization, belonging to no one and shared by everyone, which mean that it could continue even if something happened to the founders, and made certain that it would keep on developing as it welcomed donations and new blood. It was a commune for the artists; different people from different places made short stops here, creating art, joining group activities, purifying their souls or learning organic farming. Some people even stayed for much longer, rising early in the morning and resting in the evening when the sun set, like local farmers. Sometimes it was beekeeping, and sometimes it was motionless quiet. Artistic events and farmwork took place by turn, reflecting the rhythm of nature.

When they were designing the layout of the land, Kamin and Rirkrit were influenced by the “Buddhist Agriculture” thinking of Chalaoy Keawkong, a farmer who came from the Paisalee area of Nakornsawan province in northern Thailand. Fed up with modern agriculture’s heavy reliance on pesticides and fertilizers, and with the Thai government for pursuing export so single-mindedly that small farmers were brought to the brink of bankruptcy, he singlehandedly developed a unique agriculture practice deeply influenced by Buddhist thinking. He argued that, after realizing Dharma, one realized life, and that, after realizing life, one realized agriculture. Human lives came from nature, and therefore, like nature, should incorporate the four major elements—earth, water, wind, and fire, which, as he said, were “The Mother of Nature.” The key to coexisting with nature was for humans to balance these four elements, which was precisely the essence of agriculture. Acting in accordance with the human physiology, he dug seven ponds in his own field representing the left and right chests, two arms, the heart, the stomach and reproductive organs. He grew rice at the stomach, the most important part of all, and bred fish, shrimps, crabs and conches in the other ponds. He then built his residence next to a pond, planting coconut trees, mango trees, banana trees and bamboos around it, which aired the space and dispelled the heat, allowing water and earth to nourish each other. Many different kinds of animals and plants lived in harmony with the human residents, and the four elements of earth, water, wind, and fire formed an auspicious eco-circulatory system, becoming the model of The Land Project. (1)

Beginning in 1967, Thai government launched a so-called “Green Revolution”, implementing a new agriculture policy. It used new seeds cultivated in labs, and applied fertilizers, pesticides and heavy machines to create large-scale, high-speed farming, ensuring that mass-produced crops were exported in the interest of economic growth. As traditional agriculture was transformed into so-called modern agriculture, farmers began mono-crop farming, either at the behest of the government or the enticement of the market. As the costs of fertilizers, pesticides and labors were too high (large-scale farming requires extra labor), farmers had to borrow money from government banks or agriculture companies. The money they earned from selling their crops in the market was often nowhere near enough to pay back their loans, and many were pushed to the brink of bankruptcy, forcing the indebted farmers to leave their land and find jobs in the cities. The unequal allocation of social power, the deprivation of farmers’ freedom to farm, the destruction of the original ecosystem through mono-culture agriculture, and the pollution of the land by the toxic by products of fertilizers and pesticides came in for constant criticism by agronomy, NGOs and consumers. In Thailand, the first person to propose the theory of “Buddhist Agriculture” was a scholar called Pravej Vasi. As early as 1988, he had criticized “The Green Revolution”, and suggested that “Buddhist Agriculture” was a potential solution to this series of problems.(2) Chalaoy Keawkong, by contrast, was a spontaneous and grass-roots experimenter. Though they did not know each other, they nevertheless shared the same ideas. By learning from the latter, The Land Project has displayed reverence toward Thailand’s agriculture and Buddhist traditions.

Like Chalaoy, Kamin and Rirkrit believed that digging ponds had to be the first priority. They transformed three-fourths of the land into ponds. After digging the ponds, they planted different kinds of vegetation around them, and invited artist friends from around the world to visit and conduct a series of experiments on micro buildings. They had a rule, which was that each building could be no more than 2x4 meters, and it had to be near a pond. In fact, this encircling architectural layout, which left the center space open for public activities, was similar to the layout of traditional Thai Buddhist temples. The first ‘house’ was started in 2000 by the Thai artist Mit Jai-In. He planted twenty teak trees in a circle, forming a residence and emphasizing the zero distance between humans and nature. His inspiration mainly came from Buddha, as Sakyamuni was born under a tree, meditated under a tree, and reached enlightenment under a tree; even his nirvana was achieved under a tree. The second house was designed by Kamin for the care-taker of the land. The third one, “The Kitchen”, was designed jointly, in 2001, by Rirkrit, Kamin, German artist Tobias Rehberger and the Danish art group Superflex. Later, many new structures were added to the land.

Led by Kamin, I felt I was engaging in an archaeological study, looking for and recognizing the small houses that I had once seen in books, media and web sites. The first house I saw was “The Kitchen”. It originated from an exhibition in Lisbon, More Works about Buildings and Food. As early as 1991, Rirkrit had tried to make the process of cooking coconut juice into a gallery exhibition, and later he became even more famous for cooking and sharing Thai food in museums or galleries with the audience. In the Lisbon exhibition he was invited to cook, while Superflex designed the gas system and Tobias designed the platform of the gas system. After the exhibition, the three of them decided to have a real kitchen in The Land Project, and eventually the house was designed and built by Kamin: built on stilts, it stood above an open space where people could cook; the second level, with a slanting roof, was also open and had railings and seats, and that was where people ate; above the slanting roof was a pavilion, which was also an observation tower, which was where people rested after meals. Superlfex designed a biogas system, which used buffalo manure and other recycled organic materials to produce gas and transport it to the kitchen for cooking and lighting. Tobias designed the circulatory equipment for the gas, as well as the kitchen operating platform.

Superflex often went to underdeveloped areas such as Africa, Brazil and Cambodia, where they mobilized local farmers, international engineers and anthropologists to work together, engaging in artistic activities with an element of social intervention. Their biogas system had received technical support from biogas experts in the Netherlands and Tanzania, and it worked quite well. However, after the system was adopted by The Land Project, it was said that its cost was higher than the system typically used by local people. From a practical standpoint the system was probably not worth mentioning, but art can never be judged by such standards. Considering the fact that Superflex’s works always displayed anti-capitalist tendencies (for example, In Brazil, they developed a non-alcoholic beverage along with local farmers that used Gualala as the major ingredient and sold it themselves; in Tokyo, they opened a “Free Store”, where people could shop without paying money; in Taipei, they made public a beer formula for people to make it themselves, and so on), it might be best to put it this way: their biogas system, through individual artistic practice and a direct act of original invention, had challenged the mass production and consumption patterns of capitalism.

That same year, Tobias and Rirkrit were invited by Moderna Museet in Stockholm to the exhibition, What if: Art on the Verge of Architecture and Design. They built two small residences of Scandinavian wood to be displayed in the museum, and after the exhibition, they decided to move the two residences to The Land Project. The ‘transfer’ of the two residences reversed not only the traditional production and exhibition process of museums (while museums typically bring objects from the outside world into their exhibition spaces, they turned the museum exhibitions into objects of everyday life), but also the direction of the trade of international wood (Thailand ordinarily exports its wood, but they were importing European wood to Thailand). After the residences were relocated to Thailand, they considered the local natural conditions and added stilts, turning the original two-story buildings into three-story ones. According to the Thai architect Sumet Jumsai, floods are very common in the Thai countryside, and residences on ‘stilts’ are very popular there; houses became amphibious in a sense, and well-adapted to the natural surroundings. The house would not be disturbed by floods, and when waters were low the underside of the house could be used as storage space, a kitchen, or common activity space.(3) Most houses later built on The Land Project adopted this model.

Tobias’s house was nowhere to be seen (it had been demolished after being severely damaged), and only an empty shell was left of Rirkrit’s. The latter was designed entirely according to his own needs: the top level provided him with a space where he could rest in solitude, where it was only possible to lie or sit down; the second level could be used for gatherings, where people could read or meditate; in the bottom level one could light a fire and cook. This micro-building emphasized the functional needs of modernism, and also paid close attention to its evolving relationship with the eco-environment. For example, it took advantage of the plantains on both sides to provide shade, and opened windows on the top level, allowing natural sunshine substitute for alarm clocks to wake residents. (Rirkrit had always declared that his art was practicing a “Relational Aesthetics”.) His wife, Annette Aurell, had given us a tour of their house in Chiang Mai, a modernist villa, which they designed themselves. The unpolished dry concrete was surrounded by flourishing semi-tropical vegetation; and while the living room and kitchen were open, the bedrooms and studio were private. A few years ago, I had read an article in the New York Times describing the house. Rirkrit was a nomadic artist (his father was a diplomat and he was born in Argentina and had lived in different countries since he was little; after becoming a successful artist, he had houses in New York, Berlin and Chiang Mai, and had traveled around the world to attend exhibitions) , he spent little time in his villa in Chiang Mai, not to mention the small wood house in the countryside.

“The Care-taker’s House”, designed by Kamin, was the only house that had been truly occupied for a long period of time. A Thai professor, Vai, had lived and farmed here along with his wife, at the same time keeping an eye on the place. Kamin insisted on adopting local materials and employing local people to build the house. He liked to incorporate the typical tastes of local villagers to the house and rejected entirely foreign culture; yet he did not object to other artists doing it. Kamin was born and grew up in Lopburi, a central province of Thailand. Though like Rirkrit he had stayed in New York and attended exhibitions around the world, in his heart of hearts he leaned more toward localized oriental thinking. He loved vegetation, practiced Yoga, was obsessed with meditation, and, in 1990, had shaved his head and become a monk. He took care of routine matters in The Land Project, and, as he taught at Chiang Mai University, often worked with young people and included them in the activities of The Land Project. He had never forgotten the experience of working hard at the bottom of society, and he always hoped that his work might transcend so-called art and directly face reality, therefore entering a wider social range and deeper personal level. In his house in Chiang Mai, I had seen a poster of him and Rirkrit, declaring that “Art is over”. Like “The Kitchen”, Kamin’s “The Keeper’s House” had a slanting roof, a typical structure suitable for Thailand's rainy weather. After Professor Vai and his wife left, the rooms on the two floors, once stuffed with household goods, were abandoned. It seemed an echo of Kamin’s thinking, revealing the embarrassing limits of art.

Other Thai artists, like Kamin, had tried to follow local cultural tradition when they designed the small buildings here. “Meditation House”, built in 2002 by Angkrit Ajchariyasophon, was less than three square feet, and influenced by Thai monks’ simple and austere lives; “Stage”, built in 2004 by Soyot Hananuntasuk and Thaivijit Poengkasemsomboon, reproduced the small-scale public entertainment spaces of Thailand’s countryside, where participants of The Land Project could give speeches and perform; “Asian Provisions”, designed by American artist Robert Peters and Thai artist Thasnail Sethaseree, which combined the spatial features of American trailers and Thai three-wheeled “Tuk-Tuk”, was also an experiment in “transfer” architecture. All of the three buildings adopted “stilts” as their support. The first two were now unoccupied, and though the third one’s framework had been constructed in 2005, it remained unfinished.

In 2003, French architect Francois Roche and artist Philippe Parreno built a strangely-shaped building, “Hybrid Muscle”: many steel bars were planted in a wavy concrete platform, and the pillars on the steel bars supported a reversed U-shaped red plastic canopy. People could live in the space between the steel bars, and activities could also be held there. An unusual power generator was installed at the end of the building: as a buffalo (at first the suggestion was elephants) pulled a heavy metal plank and lowered it down slowly, its muscle impetus was transferred into electricity, which was enough to illuminate ten light bulbs and recharge the batteries of laptop computers and cell phones. Bruce Sterling, the science fiction writer, had written a review for Domus and said that it was “an architectural freak”, and Mark Wigley, the dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, simply called it “a branch of science fiction”. Indeed, the building was originally constructed for Philippe Parreno’s architectural sci-fi film The Boy from Mars; he made the film with the building as the lead actor: the mysterious night sky, the slowly moving starlight, the footprints left in the rice field by the buffalo, its silhouette pulling hard and submerging into the pond, the buffalo’s bright and piercing eyes, the slowly illuminating light bulbs, the sun above the field during the daytime, the poetic tableau of the plastic canopy and the surrounding trees blown by the wind, and the chanting of an aged man at the end of the film, all contributed to a hallucinatory atmosphere that was hard to forget after viewing. Even though the plastic canopy had been replaced by fibro tile, this creature from outer space was still on the land in Bann Mae village, keeping company with lines of large Thai leaf mustards nearby.

Most foreign artists, while engaging in their works, did not pay much attention to local culture, history or natural condition, and The Land Project did not seem to demand it of them either, which made the place more like a free and unrestrained “Utopia”. Carl Michael von Hausswolff, the Swedish sound artist who from 2004 to 2005 built “Star House”, also currently unoccupied, adopted four-pointed stars for the shape of the two floors above the “stilts”, and installed eight doors that could be pushed and pulled so that residents were able to create different spaces by opening or closing the doors. It collected electricity with the help of solar reflection boards, which could recharge a laptop and receive a designated radio frequency (his way of paying homage to occult scientist Friedrich Jurgenson, who claimed to communicate with the dead via radio). Furthermore, in 2006, the Elvis Presley house reproduced here by the French artist Alexandre Perigot had nothing to do with its surroundings. It was a framework of the original-size building temporarily built with bamboo for use in concerts, then demolished after the concerts concluded. At the same year, German artist and designer Markus Heinsdorff also constructed a tower-like pavilion “Living Bamboo Dome”, which was very beautiful and of typical European style. Josef Ng, the curator, and I tried to climb the bamboo ladder to the second floor, but we had to stop after only a few steps as we heard the bamboo cracking.

The condition of the buildings showed that they had not been cared for or managed, and that they had been long unoccupied. Perhaps people would visit from the cities by cars or trains only when a new project was being put on, like Yilin Lin’s this time. No one lived here, which came as a considerable surprise to me. I saw no local farmers in the audience either. I asked Kamin why that was, and he said that the next village was far away from here. Later I again went through all the information and photos he'd given me, and again caught no glimpse of any farmers in their past activities. The information indicated that they had once organized two activities that had each lasted for one year, attracting volunteers from around the world to participate in farming, group meditation, Yoga practice, artistic creations and discussions. They grew two crops of rice on 9,200 square meters of paddy; from August to November they grew jasmine rice, and from January to April they grew sticky rice. Each crop had a harvest of about 600 kilograms. They also planted all kinds of fruits, trees, herbs and vegetables, and they raised fish and shrimp. They not only were influenced by Chalaoy Keawkong, but also emulated the organic farming of Masanobu Fukuoko, the founder of Natural Agriculture in Japan, eschewing pesticides, fertilizers and removing weeds. Even within these farming activities, however, I could rarely see a farmer. Was it because the concept of organic agriculture was in conflict with the farming methods in common use by local farmers? During my contact with the Chinese Rural Construction Movement, I had noticed that such conflicts were quite common.

The impression I got from The Land Project was that it felt very much like a closed and isolated “Utopia”—its main body of action limited to artists and art students, with only a weak connection to the communities around it. Karen Demavivas, the New York critic, had compared the micro architecture in The Land Project with “Plug-in City”, the 1960s experiment by the English architectural group Archigram, and quoted the philosophical slogans from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia as praise for this kind of “plug-in”.(4) Archigram had proposed a radical project on paper, where they delineated their concept for the architecture of a future city. Perhaps due to the limits of their time, those delineations were strongly characterized by machines: their architectural designs either featured mechanical limbs, which could crawl around like animals or be taken apart, reassembled and “plugged” into any community or city when needed. Their diagram had an even stronger atmosphere like science fiction than the “Hybrid Muscle” of Francois and Philippe. Judging from the ability to “transfer” and “plug in” in a alien context, all the buildings of The Land Project were indeed similar to Archigram’s proposals. They were physical “plug-ins” in the Thai landscape, created by artists and elite intellectuals who lived in the cities or “transferred” a lot around the world. The localized designs by Thai artists, including that of Kamin, could not avoid the same nature. The point was not the style of the buildings or whether they were consistent with the rural scenery and local culture, the point was the artists never showed up unless there was some specific activity. Ordinarily the buildings remained unoccupied, which made them the same as Archigram’s designs: a kind of “fiction”.

Perhaps similar to the cooking Rirkrit did in museums or galleries, where the basic intention was “Anti-institutional”—breaking the outdated conventions and habits in institutions like museums and galleries, and rebelling against their regulatory control over artists—The Land Project was based on the same intentions. They fled museums and galleries and moved the site of artistic activity to the open field. Agricultural farming and spiritual meditation were means to cultivate self-knowledge and self-control. They were more interested in introspection than they were in the complexity of social reality. They paid little attention to social mobilization and held themselves separate from social movements. The Land Foundation declared that, they support democracy regime with the King as Head of State in a non-partisan way and not give any financial support or any assets to any politicians or parties. They were a group of artists, thinking and acting in the way of art. They self-organized, trying to transcend the art which was institutionalized and systematized, but eventually were forced back upon the dilemma of art itself. The empty and decayed buildings on the field were the best proof of that.

When I'd finally finished my inspection of every one of the buildings, the sky was growing dark. Yilin Lin’s performance had long since concluded, and people were gathering at the edge of the field for a picnic. The electric generator was making a faint sound in the distance, and the light it generated brightened the picnic area. Many small bamboo poles were stuck in the ridges between rice fields, and kerosene burned at their tips, the small flames flickering and looking particularly beautiful in the darkness. The Thai festival Loy Krathong, held in November, had just passed, but its aftertaste still endured. The young people from Chiang Mai University were exhausted after working all day at the exhibition, and now, stuffed with food and drink, they started to send out Kongming lanterns over the field. After a busy farming season, and after the conclusion of the rainy season, people celebrate the Loy Krathong Festival at the next full moon. They make lanterns out of banana leaves and fresh flowers and put them in rivers or paddy fields to pray for blessings. In addition to floating lanterns in the water, they send out Kongming lanterns into the sky. The Loy Krathong Festival is a little like the Chinese Mid-Autumn Festival, and the Kongming lanterns were from China. Asian countries often share similar cultural elements, and this realization joined with the Asian consciousness that had been aroused by the rice fields on the road that morning. Kongming lanterns were flying higher and higher in the dark sky. I thought of the village in Guangdong where I grew up. I thought of my mother who worked as a farmer all her life. I thought of all the times that would never again return, and all the old things that had disappeared. This so-called nostalgia gradually spread out into a broader emotion, surpassing our geographical boundaries. Could the artistic experiment I'd seen that day help cure this nostalgia ? I was not sure. I just made a mental note that that was December 11, 2010, the first night I spent on the Asian field.

March 13, 2011

Notes:

(1) Vitoon Liamjumroon: ‘The Buddhist Agriculture of Chalaoy Keawkong’, Nothing: A Retrospective, pp 140-157, Ching Mai University Arts Museum, 2004.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Karen Demavivas: ‘The Land’, Nothing: A Retrospective, pp 54-82.

(4) Ibid.

Translated from Chinese by Shumei Roan. Published in Chutzpah Magazine, Issue 1, April 2011.

《天南》文学双月刊第三期8月6号出版

Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:04:38 +0800

这一期的主角是诗歌。

上世纪80年代是中国新思想、新文化和新艺术集中爆发的黄金时代。在所有这些生机勃勃的领域中，诗歌是始作俑者。诗人们守持着物质上的贫困，却分享着精神的富有。他们写作，结社，出地下刊物，在全国漫游，把酒诵诗，以不知疲倦的能量点燃了80年代的漫漫长夜。本期专题试图以地理学的结构方法，以各地诗人们专门撰写的叙事文本，来再现80年代的诗歌记忆，为亲历者和后来者们绘制出一幅80年代文化生活的地图。

所以这一期的Entrance (入口) 和Exit (出口) 就变成了两段诗歌长廊。你将看到柏桦、陈东东、韩东、黄灿然、京不特、芒克、孟浪、欧阳江河、王家新、王寅、西川、肖开愚、杨炼、于坚、郑单衣和钟鸣这些80年代最活跃的诗人们最近几年的新作。它们为本期杂志提供了一个温暖和诗意的围合空间。

而Special Space (特别策划) 则有五篇忆旧文稿，其中大仙、陈东东、韩东和万夏分别以个人经历入手，忆述北京、上海、南京、成都＋重庆这四个80年代最蓬勃的诗歌重地的故事；徐敬亚的《燃烧的中国诗歌地图》则在上面四位诗人的细述之外提供一个编年史式的全景图，视野遍及全国各地。在这些文章之间，附有《80年代》旧影集，是摄影师肖全和诗人们提供的80年代旧照片的精选。

本期Regular Space (自由组稿) 照例刊发了残雪、陈家桥和胡淑雯的小说新作，以及刘铮的《奥登全集》(散文卷之四) 书评、诗人凌越的齐奥朗《解体概要》书评。

Parasite（刊中刊）顺理成章地，也变成了一次英译中国当代诗歌的汇编。

对80年代诗歌记忆的钩沉，是为了找到下一个诗歌旅程的接续点与出发点。如果你相信《天南》的直觉，请与我们一起躬身迎接下一波诗歌浪潮的汹涌到来。

封面图片：翟永明、欧阳江河、张枣，成都，1980年代。翟永明供图。

《八十年代》旧影集。北岛，成都，1986年。参加“星星诗歌节”期间，在成都望江公园留影。肖全供图。

Peregrine, An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine, Issue 3.

Guide｜导览

Entrance｜入口

柏桦《谢幕》《结局》《逝去，逝去》
陈东东《桃花诗》
韩东《起雾了》《走走看看》《爆竹声声》
黄灿然《来自黑暗》《亲密的时刻》
京不特《生活在一个故事里》之46
芒克《一年只有六十天》（节选）
孟浪《风筝挂在了树梢》《致从二十世纪走来的中国行者》

Special Space｜特别策划
Mapping Poetry｜诗歌地理学

Overview｜鸟瞰
徐敬亚《燃烧的中国诗歌地图》

Beijing｜北京
大仙《幸存者》

Shanghai｜上海
陈东东《“游侠传奇”》

Nanjing｜南京
韩东《<他们>或“他们”》

Chengdu and Chongqing｜成都与重庆
万夏《苍蝇馆》

Regular Space｜自由组稿

Fiction｜虚构
残雪《荒原颂》
陈家桥《脚》
胡淑雯《太阳的血是黑的》

Reading ｜深读
刘铮《诗人书评家：<奥登文集>散文卷之四》
凌越《活在火焰之中：齐奥朗<解体概要>》

Parasite｜刊中刊

Peregrine
An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine, Issue 3

Exit ｜出口

欧阳江河《母亲，厨房》
王家新《唐玄奘在龟兹，公元628年》《传说》
王寅《昨夜下着今天的大雨》《晚年来得太晚了》《你为什么围着我旋转》
西川《下午》《走过湘西洪江古商城，2010年7月》
肖开愚《刀匠》《金泽夜出》
杨炼《女婴》《血与煤》《修炼》
于坚《这黑暗是绝对的实体》《夏天》《下雨那天我们坐在这里》
郑单衣《2005年，开罗附近》《那不可能更蓝的》
钟鸣《缓慢》《这一夜》

Peregrine

An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine

Contents:

01 Bai Hua
Curtain Call
Jialing River
The End
Fading, Fading…
Translated by Fiona Sze-Lorrain

02 Chen Dongdong
Peach Blossom Poem
Translated by Fiona Sze-Lorrain

03 Han Dong
It’s Foggy
Walking and Looking
A Crackle of Bangers
Translated by Nicky Harman

04 Huang Canran
From Darkness
Translated by Fiona Sze-Lorrain
Intimate Moment
Translated by Alice Xin Liu

05 Jimbut Jun Feng
To live in a narrative, No. 46
Translated by Gritt Uldall-Jessen

06 Mang Ke
A Year Has Only Sixty Days (Selections)
Translated by Denis Mair

07 Meng Lang
Kite in the Treetop
To Travelers from the 20th Century
Translated by Diana Shi & George O'Connell

08 Ouyang Jianghe
Mother, Kitchen
For "H": On Spending My 53rd Birthday in Vermont
Translated by Austin Woerner

09 Wang Jiaxin
Tang Xuan Zang in Qiu Ci, 628 A.D.
The Legend
Translated by Diana Shi & George O'Connell

10 Wang Yin
Yesterday’s Downpour is Falling Today
The Waning Years Came Too Late
Why Do You Revolve Around Me?
Translated by Denis Mair

11 Xi Chuan
One Afternoon
Passing through Hongjiang Historical Town, Xiangxi, July 2010
Translated by Diana Shi & George O'Connell

12 Xiao Kaiyu
Bladesmith
Nocturnal Jinze, Shanghai
Translated by Fiona Sze-Lorrain

13 Yang Lian
Baby Girl
Blood And Coal
Meditation
Translated by Brian Holton

14 Yu Jian
The Dark An Absolute Substance
Summer
That Rainy Day, We Sat Here
Translated by Diana Shi & George O'Connell

15 Zheng Danyi
Near Cairo, 2005
It Can’t Be Bluer
Translated by Fiona Sze-Lorrain

16 Zhong Ming
Slowly
This Night
Translated by Nicky Harman

Editors: Ou Ning, Austin Woerner
Published by Chutzpah Magazine
In association with Paper Republic

构筑未来: “建筑电讯”的空间想像

Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:36:43 +0800

Kunsthaus Graz, designed by Peter Cook and Colin Fournier, 2003

构筑未来
“建筑电讯”的空间想像

欧宁

2003年，奥地利城市葛拉兹(Graz)被选为该年的欧洲文化首都，催生了一个引人注目的奇异建筑--葛拉兹艺术之家(Kunsthaus Graz)。它就像一个会呼吸的外星生物（形状似海参），背脊上长着许多嘴形的凸起，降落在一片十八世纪建成的街区之中，被当地人称为“友善的外星人”。这个曲面建筑的玻璃外墙遍布着由电脑控制的无数环形日光灯，可根据音乐的节奏起伏变换出不同的大像素图像。由于造型奇特，又结合最新的媒体技术，它很快成为葛拉兹的地标。建造这个建筑也许只需几年，而它的主要设计师彼得·库克(Peter Cook)，要把年轻时代的各种激进思想变成现实，却需数十年。

如今他已垂垂老矣。1961年，他才25岁。在伦敦，他和大卫·葛林(David Greene)、麦克·威柏(Mike Webb) 创办了一本独立杂志《建筑电讯》(Archigram，这个词由ARCHItecture和teleGRAM合并而成)，第二期开始邀请朗·赫伦(Ron Herron) 、华伦·袭克(Warren Chalk)和丹尼斯·克蓝普顿(Dennis Crompton) 加入。那时他的家在艾柏戴尔街(Alberdare Garderns)64号至59号，那便是他们的编辑部。他们有好几个都在建筑联盟学院(AA School)任教，经常在一间叫瑞士别墅(Swiss Cottage)的咖啡馆聚会，讨论各种反叛的想法。他们相信包豪斯的时代已经过去，他们要发明新的设计语法，创造新的建筑和城市。他们在杂志上发表的一系列天马行空的设计方案，虽然一直都是未建成(unbuilt)项目，却让他们以实验建筑小组“建筑电讯”之名，在建筑史上稳占一席之地。

1961年是人类探索太空取得标志性进展的一年。4月12日，苏联宇航员尤里·加加林(Yuri Gagarin)身着90公斤重的太空服，乘坐重达4.75吨的“东方”号宇宙飞船首次进入太空，发出“地球是蓝的”的惊叹。随后在5月25日，美国总统肯尼迪宣布了“阿波罗”载人登月计划。人类从仰望星空到身临其境，这一大步跨越激发了更具野心的未来想像。英语科幻文学在这一时代爆发了“新浪潮”，出现了慕卡克(Michael Moorcock)、赫伯特(Frank Herbert)等代表作家；与之平行，在建筑领域，在英国本土--“美苏两大冷战阵营之间的无人地带” ，(1) “建筑电讯”这几个二、三十岁左右的成员，开始以一种类似科幻小说的方式设计建筑和城市。

Peter Cook, Plug-in City, 1962-1964

“插接城市”(Plug-in City)是库克在1962年至1964年间所进行的一系列研究和设计。它是指以可移动的金属舱住宅作为基本的构件，可以按照人口规模拆卸、重组成大小不同的移动社区，再按照不同的需要插接到超大尺度的结构(megastructure)而形成的城市。不同的社区组团之间的联接可以像电插头插入电插座那样简单完成，再以此组织交通、生产和社会生活。库克为表现这一构思制作了大量的建筑绘图，它们犹如电路图般错综复杂，在四通八达的网状支架上停泊着以电梯相连的太空舱式住宅和办公室，整座城市按照建筑使用的持久性程度进行空间组织，重型的基础交通设施多数位于底座，越往上的建筑越不持久，而充气式飞船则飘浮在最顶巅。这个激进的设计方案打破了建筑必须永固，城市必须在地(localized)的观念，要把建筑和城市从地理的禁锢中释放出来。

这个构想体现了库克对于移动性的重视，这也是整个“建筑电讯”小组最重要的设计哲学。挣脱领土和地权这种传统政治框架的约束，让城市获得一种游牧的可能性，放弃把建筑视为永恒纪念碑的欲念，正视它作为一种消耗/消费品的特性，让它动起来，让它根据不同的环境和需要进行自我组织，这是“建筑电讯”建筑理念的核心。那个时代勃兴的太空探索，波普艺术和乐队文化给把他们磨砺成了未来主义者，消费主义者和反英雄主义者。他们为美国佛罗里达州卡纳维拉尔角(Cape Canaveral)肯迪尼航天中心的建筑巨构欢呼，因为那是飞离地球的起点；他们借用波普漫画的形式在自己的杂志上讲述科幻故事，并发表社论为消费主义擂鼓呐喊；他们听摇滚乐，热爱各种流行事物，以赤子之心，反对各种权威，被称为建筑学领域的“披头士”，因为《建筑电讯》杂志让他们如同“披头士”一样走出英国，迅速窜红。

Ron Herron, Walking City, 1964

1964年，正是“披头士”乐队“入侵”美国的年份。“建筑电讯”另一位成员朗·赫伦在这一年公布了他的“步行城市”(Walking City)设计方案。这也是一个野心勃勃的建筑巨构，某种程度上更是一个激动人心的机械艺术作品。每个“步行城市”都是一个巨大的多功能空间聚合体，它的外形如同机械怪兽，长着椭圆形的躯干，靠数个机械臂支撑和移动，头部有机械眼判断方向，当需要与其它“步行城市”发生连接时，它会伸出机械吸管吸附在彼此身上。这种灵活性既适合于一种集权式的管理，又方便独立生存，它们会根据不同的环境和资源自我更新制造能力。赫伦以他超凡的想像力和表现力绘制了“步行城市”停泊在纽约曼哈顿市区的情境图，还有它们在沙漠和海洋等不同自然环境下成群爬行的壮观景像，成为“建筑电讯”最具标志性和影响力的作品。可以想像，就算设计过高达四十层的巨大移动建筑的肯迪尼航天中心工程师们看见这个方案，他们也会被吓得口惊目呆。

赫伦热爱科幻叙事，他常在《建筑电讯》发表科幻漫画。与他的“步行城市”相似的构想，后来出现在某些作家的科幻小说中，例如美国作家金·斯丹利·罗宾逊(Kim Stanley Robinson)写于1985年的《关于白的记忆》(The Memory of Whiteness)和写于1996年的《蓝火星》(Blue Mar，“火星三部曲”第三部，获1997年雨果奖最佳小说)，这两部小说都写到一个沿赤道轨道围绕水星移动的巨型城市。而英国作家菲利普·雷夫（Philip Reeve）在2001至2006年间出版的“灵魂机四部曲”（Mortal Engines Quartet，在美国称为Hungry City Chronicles）中，写到了一种在世界各地旅行的“牵引城市”(Traction Cites)，它们互相吞噬以获得燃料和其它资源。很难考证他们是否受到赫伦的影响，但有一点是可以确认的，那就是“步行城市”和科幻文学存在着难分彼此的联系。

Peter Cook, Instant City, 1969

尽管赫伦在肆无忌惮地展开他的空间想像，把传统的建筑伦理抛之脑后，但“步行城市”并非没有可能性。在现实世界中，美国铁路史上的移动城镇（被称为“车轮上的地狱”），今天的航空母舰和超级邮轮都可见“步行城市”概念的影子。在“建筑电讯”众多狂野激进的设计方案中，如果要挑一个最具实施可能的，也许要算1969年的“即时城市”(Instant City) 。它由库克和赫伦共同设计，主要针对不平衡的地区发展，通过远程运输，把一个可组装、拆卸的城市送达欠发达地区，让那里可分享大都市的文化，就像吉普赛人的大蓬车，在游牧的过程中为不同地区送上娱乐。“即时城市”的寿命是短暂的，一场狂欢或庆典过后，它便被拆卸运往他处。它可抵达旷野、海滩和沙漠，在无人之境让一座城市瞬间拔地而起。它是“插接城市”和“步行城市”概念的延续，但更具现实操作性。

Liu Jiakun, With the Wind 2009, Shenzhen and Hong Kong Bi-city Biennale of Urbanism and Architecture, 2009

在“即时城市”中，库克设计的氦气球和充气飞艇乃是它的标志性景观。众多的氦气球牵引着一块超级大幕，升空后便变成了一个漂浮的屋顶。而巨型充气飞艇也起到同样的作用，但同时它还能垂挂一些演出和娱乐必须的设备，以及广告牌和挂旗。2002年，中国建筑师刘家琨在成都何多苓艺术工作室举办的一次题为“专业余”的展览中，首次以数个升空的灯笼牵扯起一大块防晒布，在户外空地制造了一个遮荫的临时空间，供展览开幕活动所用，可以说是“即时城市”在中国实施的DIY版本。2009年，在深圳香港城市＼建筑双城双年展中，刘家琨对它进行升级，用十多个氦气球在深圳市中心一片未建设的空地上升起更大尺度的防晒布，并把大批成都茶馆常用的竹椅子搬来，供市民和观众在此休息，变成一个有效的公共空间，名为“随风2009”，与“建筑电讯”的临时建筑观念可谓一脉相承。

Peter Cook, Blow-out Village, 1966

“建筑电讯”的方案多数都是巨构，他们甚少只作单体建筑的设计，因此他们的项目多数以“城市”命名，强调它们是大型建筑的集合体。1966年，库克还设计过一个“爆裂村落”(Blow-out Village)，它仍然是一个可移动的居住聚落，安装在一个巨型气垫车上，不使用时体积较小，使用时通过油压液让主桅杆和臂杆撑开，村落即开始“爆裂”为更大的体积，可容纳数十个住宅单元，并设有半球形的遮棚。它可用作赈灾临时住宅，亦可用作海滨渡假村。如果把它的尺度进一步缩小，它完全可以成为伦敦海德公园内的蛇形画廊(Serpentine Gallery)每年夏季兴建的临时展馆(Summer Pavilion)的一个实施方案。后者自2000年开始，每年邀请一位从未在伦敦有过建成品的知名建筑师，在其画廊前的一小块空地上设计一个临时建筑，使用一个夏天即拆卸。它其实是在延续和传承“建筑电讯”在上世纪六十年代所倡导的建筑观念。

主张“临时”意味着反对“永久”。这与“建筑电讯”的消费观大有关系。在《建筑电讯》第三期的社论中，库克写道：“几乎在从未了解的情况之下，我们已将第一代的消费品并入了我们的生活之中……购物袋、卫生纸、聚乙烯包装套、原子笔、唱片等，这么多我们无须考虑的东西。我们丢弃它们的速度几乎和我们得到它们的速度一样快。……现在第二代正影响着我们--纸家具已经出现在美国，纸被单已经出现在英国医院的病床，伦敦议会正提出有限寿命房屋的建议。”(2)在这样一个快速消费的时代，人们仍执迷于对“永久”的建筑的梦想，他们可接受汽车用完四年即弃，但无法接受厨房十年后的失效。“建筑电讯”想借用自己的杂志向人们说明，“非永久性建筑的概念具有经济上的含义，简朴而精省”(3)，并对此展开大胆的设计实验。

以今天的环保观念看来，热衷于“临时”、“可丢弃”的建筑是非常“政治不正确”的。可是库克痴心不改。2004年，他与矶崎新在伦敦设计博物馆一起追忆往事，后者谈及六十年代对毛主义的狂热，他则声称自己是一个深度的犬儒主义者，喜欢玩世不恭，守持着一种无政治的政治观。他和“建筑电讯”的同仁们交往四十多年，几乎从不谈论政治。他对六十年代的左翼建筑师们在七十年代后最早转向为大公司服务的行径嗤之以鼻。“老实说，我一直对塑胶花儿情有独钟”，他说。(4) 在他众多早期的设计中，塑胶这种材料一直扮演着重要的角色，因为它造价低廉，可以用完即弃。话虽这么说，他对《建筑电讯》杂志能否传之久远还是挺在乎的。“建筑电讯”的回顾展自1994年开始在世界十多个城市巡回展出，现在他们在伦敦西敏斯特大学有一个专门的档案资料库，几乎藏有所有早期的设计方案，当然还有全套杂志，共九期。第一期当时印1000份，只卖出128份，刚面世时无人问津，如今要花数百英镑才可拥有一本。

Amazing Archigram, Isuue 4, 1964

“建筑电讯”的成员们均可以称为纸上建筑师，他们靠概念出众，以建筑绘图闻名。在激进的六十年代，这是一种最有效的方式，去表达他们的思想。几乎与他们同期，在日本出现了一批“代谢派”(Metabolism)建筑师，以丹下健三、黑川纪章、菊竹清训等为旗手，矶崎新也短暂参与其中。他们致力于在纸上探讨建筑巨构与禅学之间的关系，试图建立一种东方式的建筑哲学，在形式上也甚有未来主义色彩。日本“代谢派”的历史一直吸引着类似雷姆·库哈斯(Rem Koolhaas)这样的欧洲建筑师的注意，他与汉斯·尤里斯·奥布里斯特(Hans Ulrich Obrist)耗时数年编篡的《日本代谢派建筑口述史》(Project Japan: An Oral History of Metabolism)即将在今年出版。库哈斯本人在七十年代的建筑界初崭露头角，也与他的前妻玛德珑·维里森多普(Madelon Vriesendorp)那强有力的建筑绘图对他的设计和研究理念的表达分不开。在分权和监督极为严格的民主制度下，天马行空的建筑巨构的实施几无可能，建筑师们纷纷转而在纸上表达他们的激进构想。

Peter Cook, Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, 2008

“绘图，乃建筑的动力”，库克2008年出版的一本书以此为题。他研究了建筑史上的众多绘图，力证它在建筑学上的重要性。在书中他写道：“很多最难忘或最权威的建筑大多来自这样一个时刻：一系列的构思汹涌突袭而来，它们是对另一些构思的反驳。这种内心的驱动和反复修辞的压力需要找到一个出口，需要大声呼喊，需要坚持，需要唤醒，需要揭示。……如果内心欲望足够强大，冲击就会产生。”(5) 这几乎是夫子自道。他在很晚才有机会在大阪、名古屋、柏林、法兰克福、葛拉兹和马德里实现自己的建筑。

葛拉兹艺术之家第一次把库克带到一个更广泛的公众层面。他和比他年轻八岁的建筑师科林·福奈尔(Colin Fournier)合作，并邀请柏林的年轻新媒体设计组合“联合现实”(Realities United)设计外墙的“大像素” 项目(Bix Façade) ，以耆老之身，再度跻身于当代实验建筑的荣耀之中。葛拉兹艺术之家不是原汁原味的“建筑电讯”理念的落地，但仍延续了其未来主义的气质。藉由最健谈、最“公众”的成员库克的带领，这个在建筑史上显赫一时的团体，在新千年之后驰向一个新的历史节点。2007年，库克获英女皇封爵，备极尊荣。

2011年5月28日

注：

(1) Taro Tgarashi (五十岚太郎), “The Message of Archigram”,Archigram: Experimental Architecture 1961-1974, exhibition publication, Contemporary Art Gallery, Art Tower Mito, Japan. Page 004.

(2) 《建筑电讯》，田园城市文化事业有限公司出版，台北，2003年。第16页。

(3) 同 (2)。

(4) An Interview with Peter Cook by Arata Isozaki (矶崎新) , Archigram: Experimental Architecture 1961-1974, exhibition publication, Contemporary Art Gallery, Art Tower Mito, Japan. Page 100.

(5) Peter Cook, Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, 2008. Page 10-11.

本文发表于《天南》文学双月刊第二期，2011年6月。

一支箭

Mon, 04 Jul 2011 03:03:19 +0800

[ 倪海峰，维瓦拉迪法兰西(Vive la Difference), 2008 ]

一支箭

欧宁

从古木掩映的国子监街的中段往北，我拐入一条笔直的胡同，去寻找北京城市肌体上的一处“创伤”。这里说的“创伤”只是个医学名词，并无褒贬的含义。我找到了它，箭厂胡同38号，和Google地图上显示的图钉位置可能有些偏差，因为这个地方太小了，已经超出了卫星地理定位技术的能力。它大约有15平方米，原是个临街的小店铺，紧挨着一个大饼店，这是它可辨认的参照物之一。从2008年起，这里变成了一个当代艺术空间。它就像是一支箭，从远处射入这条有着好几百年历史的老胡同，箭羽上凝聚着外来的助力，箭镞上涂抹着特殊的药剂，插在这一片社区的肌体上，让其皮肤、血液和细胞都起了突变。

这一带属于北京旧城二十五片历史文化保护区之一。它邻近国子监，元、明、清三个朝代所设立的高等学府；孔庙，也是三个朝代皇家祭奠孔子的地方；还有雍和宫，清代建立的北京规模最大的喇嘛教黄教寺院。因为文物建筑密集，这里一直是北京比较热门的旅游点，同时也实行对新建筑限高的政策。根据统计，箭厂胡同所属的国子监片区的住宅用地为19.65公顷，占用地总面积的54.50%，是一个以居住为主要功能的社区，人口密度为每公顷660人，偏高。(1) 箭厂顾名思义是古代生产弓箭的地方，二战期间驻京日军曾用作军火库，战后这里又变成民用仓库和宿舍。现在的箭厂胡同是一条典型的后巷，它避开了热闹的旅游区，相对保持了单一的居住功能。在这里，人们一大早起来要到公共厕所排队，胡同里的小商店提供简单的饮食和日常生活用品，到了黄昏下班的人和车来来往往，晚饭后胡同很快归于寂静。

位于38号的箭厂空间，明显流露出一种对当代艺术远离市中心的市民生活，偏安于郊区的阔大工作室，或聚集于旧工厂改造而成的商业画廊区的现状的失望。它的几个创办人，手中除了世界各地的电邮地址和联络电话外，其它资源非常有限，现金更是少得可怜。他们用很少的钱把这个地方租下来，几乎不进行任何修缮和装饰，一系列的实验便随之展开。它也许算得上北京最小的艺术空间。发生于这里的展览和作品几乎全都是Site-specific的，所有艺术家都被要求针对这个特定的空间，或这条胡同，或这个片区去发展他们的创作项目。可以看出，让当代艺术回到社区的日常生活，是他们的野心。

[ 王功新，与邻居无关(It’s Not About the Neighbors), 2009 ]

有不少项目给我留下了深刻的印象。2008年11月，艺术家倪海峰邀请胡同附近的一个家庭服装作坊和北京一家法国和澳大利亚背景的高级时装订制工作室，同时使用各种不同织物的边角料，根据爱马仕(Hermès)的一个款式，分别制作两套时装，在空间中以橱窗的形式展示。这个项目命名为“维瓦拉蒂法兰西”(Vive la Difference)，颇具讽刺意味：两件衣服看似相同，但生产过程却迥然有异；两组劳动者均属于北京的外来人口，但分属两个不同的社会阶层。它们的对照加深了我对箭厂胡同这样一个平民生活区的认识，并提供了更为广阔的对社会流动和阶层区隔的想象。同样性质的劳动，在胡同的小商业和外面世界的高级订制交易模式中一定会被兑现成不同的价值，它们的巨大差异让人吃惊。人们可以自由地在物理空间中流动，可以轻易从一个地方移居到另一个地方，但要从较低的社会阶层跨越到另一个较高的社会阶层，却绝非易事。艺术家藉此触及了一个极为敏感的社会议题。

[ 张培力，箭厂胡同38号(38 Jianchang Hutong), 2010 ]

2009年1月，艺术家王功新在箭厂空间复制了隔壁大饼店的店面结构和形状。白天，胡同里的居民看见两个相似的大饼店，但一间在正常营业，另一间却是空的；夜晚，大饼店的纪录影像被投射在艺术空间的假店面上，两者相似性更高，但一个是现实，另一个则是现实的影像复制。这个幽默的影像装置作品在向路人或观众发问：箭厂空间与它旁边的大饼店是何关系？艺术是否应与现实比邻而居？艺术是对现实的复制吗？艺术与现实是否互为镜像？……王功新只是呈现问题，他没有给出答案。给出答案的是另一个艺术家张培力，他2010年8月在箭厂空间安装了一个靠机械驱动的假墙，随着它由内向外的移动，墙上的一个光斑由大变小——这个作品切断了与现实的任何联系，拒绝任何意义的解读，它就是一个机械装置，一个简单的物理学现象。如果他把这个视为艺术，那么艺术与社会环境和生活现实就是毫无关系的。两位艺术家的作品体现了箭厂空间所赋予他们的自由：它只是提供空间，开放讨论，并不强求一致。然而这种开放性并不影响箭厂空间的立场：它本身就在胡同中，只要这些作品被路过的居民看见，引起他们的好奇，其实就已经与现实发生了关系。

[ 聂幕，我台(Channel Me), 2010 ]

以箭厂空间介入城市现实的野心而言，单是把艺术活动的地点内置于市民的生活场景，只求引起关注和围观显然是不够的。要抵达现实的深处，必须进行社会动员，必须展开社区对话。2010年2月，艺术家聂幕受到互联网的“自媒体”(Me Media)观念的启发，尝试在胡同里建立一个临时的社区电视台，他动员胡同里的居民和北京其它地区的人员来到箭厂空间进行表演和对谈，录制成模拟的电视节目在空间里播出。整个活动持续了四个星期，人们的积极参与使节目不断丰富，从相声、曲艺、魔术和乐队的表演，到厨艺、体育比赛，到社区采访、清谈节目和新闻联播，各种形式，无所不包。这种充满着狂欢气息的草根电视节目，以一种玩笑的形式，消解了通常由国家和资本操控的媒体权力，释放出一种生机勃勃的民间能量。它可以说是近年来互联网的普及而形成的民间意见表达和娱乐潮流的一个线下的版本。在官方或商业媒体之外，另辟表达通道，从政治的层面来说，也是老百姓的一个自我增权(Empowerment)的过程。

[ 李景湖，雪人(Snowman), 2010 ]

在调动胡同居民的参与性方面，艺术家李景湖在2010年3月实施的“雪人”项目收效也甚为显著。他用大量的卷筒卫生纸在箭厂空间堆成了一个“雪人”，同时也把大量食盐和洗衣粉等日常生活消费品放入空间中与卫生纸一起对胡同居民出售，把这里变成一个有时限性的小商店。随着居民们在这里的消费活动的进行，货品越来越少，直到最后变空。空间由满变空的过程，不仅计量出这一片社区生活用品的消耗时间，更令整个消费行为变得可视化，令“消费”在一个特定空间内变成可展示、可观察和可分析的样本。物质消耗一直是城市研究的一个有趣的切入点，在本雅明的写作中出现的“城市漫游者”(City Flâneur)，也可被理解为拾荒者和收藏家：他无所事事，在城市的各个角落游走，收集人们丢弃的垃圾，从这些消耗物的残余来探讨城市生活的秘密。李景湖没有展开“漫游”，反而采取“定点”的方式来聚焦城市物质的消耗。有意思的是，这是由艺术家与胡同居民共同完成的项目，它呈现出双向的参与性：艺术家通过促销的手法进行社区动员，他的销售行为参与了社区的商业活动；而胡同居民则通过购买参与了艺术家的创作项目。

[ 王卫，不会给你们添麻烦的(I Won’t Make Any Trouble for You), “就在拐角”群展，2009 ]

箭厂空间的出现，放在十年前的北京是不可想象的。那个时代的城市管理者，每天都在为管治和约束圆明园和东村这样的自由艺术家聚居区而头痛。今天在胡同里从事公开的艺术活动之所以被允许，也许跟中国当代艺术在国际上的影响力有关，像798这样的艺术区在商业上的成功也改变了政府对艺术家们的观感。在箭厂空间的组织者和艺术家们在胡同里摸索着前行时，他们仍会与城市管治部门正面相遇，只不过，由此引发的故事已经不是圆明园或东村的版本。2009年11月，空间的创建者之一、艺术家王卫被房主告知辖区警员有可能要与他通电话商谈有关空间的事宜，这使他马上忐忑起来。以过往的经验，在居民区搞艺术活动一定会被警察干涉，王卫在心理上提前进入了被审问的状态。虽然是虚惊一场，但在空间接下来举办的一个群展“就在拐角”中，王卫还是用LED的形式，展示了他在那个事件之前假想的与警察的对话，以此来为自己的后遗症解嘲。显然，政府对艺术活动的管治比以前宽松多了，然而，接下来发生的故事证明还有不少东西是不变的：2010年5月，箭厂空间听从辖区派出所一位民警的建议，用大半个月的时间来播放了一部名为《骗术揭密》的治安宣传片，并把它列为艺术项目之一。他们之所以同意这个展出，是因为它表明在今天的北京，密布于城市各处的权力末梢——街道办事处和派出所仍然在尽职地监管着一切，而那些在基层任职的警员，仍然把艺术或艺术空间等同于宣传工具的一种。

[ 箭厂胡同辖区派出所民警，治安宣传之骗术揭密(Public Service Announcement – The Art of the Scam), 2010 ]

“就在拐角”是箭厂空间的第一个群展，参展艺术家共有14组，来自世界各地。它使用的场地超出了15平方米的室内空间，延伸到屋顶，其它店铺，胡同里的树、垃极桶、电线柱等等。它的策展理念表明，箭厂空间不仅是一个物理意义上的展示空间，更是一个致力于构建更大精神维度、可自由变通、行动灵便、具伸缩功能的艺术机构。得益于当代艺术越来越普遍的全球流动性，这个蜗居在北京胡同深处的另类微型空间一直在不断地打破地理上的界限，展开全球范围内的合作。在2010年5月伦敦泰特现代美术馆所举办的全球独立艺术空间展示活动No Soul for Sale中，它就把自己的展位交付给当地的一位策展人和两位艺术家，让他们代表自己去策划和制作展览内容。而它今年的最新项目则是与爱丁堡和伊斯坦布尔的两个相似的艺术机构（拥有超小的临街空间、低成本、非牟利等等）结成联盟，通过互借空间策划展览，交换艺术家计划，合作流动艺术集市，来“一手翻转世界”(Turn the World by Hand)。这种强调流动性和合作性的策略和操作方式，把2000年以来在全世界各地不断出现的“替代空间”(Alternative Space)的实践提升至一个全新的层面。

这支迅疾飞驰的箭向人展示了它令人惊讶的射程。现在让我们把目光收回，看看它到底为北京国子监这片熙熙攘攘的历史街区注射了什么特异的药剂。在箭厂胡同北端，一条叫五道营的胡同已经慢慢开始热闹起来，那些低矮的民舍开始变成咖啡馆、酒吧、餐厅和时装店，一个新的时尚商圈已在此形成。它复制了南锣鼓巷的成功模式，靠民间小资金自发在这儿投入，慢慢凝聚起人气，完成了它的转型。从城市更新的角度看，它避免了北京司空见惯的大拆大建，在保持原有的街道肌理和风貌的同时，生长出一种新的经济生命力，这是一种不错的模式。可是，它已经从一个原住民在此生老病死、细水长流地过日子的地方变成了一个游客蚁聚、人流不息的商业街区，用Marc Augé的话说，就是从一个凝聚社会关系、历史和身份认同的“地方”(Place)变成了一个没有社会关系、历史和身份认同的 “非地方”(Non-place) 。(2) “非地方”在世界各地都是相似的，而“地方”则保存差异。所幸的是，箭厂胡同目前还没有变成这样的“非地方”。

箭厂空间在这里的植入，并没有把这条胡同变成像798艺术区或纽约Chelsea画廊区那种相似的“非地方”，它没有这个能力，也没有这种企图。它对租来的空间没作任何改建，保持它的原貌，但为它带来密集的艺术活动，这些活动既努力融入当地居民的日常生活，又为他们带来新鲜的体验。它是一个具亲和力和开放的公共空间，不仅有艺术家的投入，也有当地居民的参与，他们之间的互动和合作开启了一种良好的对话。它没有一般美术馆或画廊那种高蹈的姿态，要对普通人施以“教育”，或待价而沽，而是低调地开在路边，等待着大家的发现，然后像搭讪一般，慢慢地发展一种友善的关系。它不是把艺术硬塞给他们，而是激发他们的潜力。它了解这儿的人情世故，尊重这儿的历史，用艺术作品丰满这儿的记忆，通过社会动员来增进社区的凝聚力，加强人们对这里的认同。它埋下艺术的种子，开出现实的花朵——它让这条胡同继续成为一个“地方”。

2011年3月5日，北京。

注：

(1)《北京旧城二十五片历史文化保护区保护规划》，北京市规划委员会编，北京燕山出版社，2002年。第172－173页。

(2) “If a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with identity, then a space which can not be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with identity will be a non-place. ” Marc Augé, Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, translated by John Howe, Verso, 1995, London and New York. 第77-78页。

碧山计划在广州时代美术馆

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:18:19 +0800

2011年6月5日至19日在广州时代美术馆展出的“碧山计划”，是即将在2011年8月26－28日于安徽黟县碧山村举办的“碧山丰年祭”前期工作的一次初步展示。它的核心是在美术馆系统中介绍“碧山共同体：如何建立自己的乌托邦”的概念，为观众提供一种新型的乡村建设思路。海报设计：小马＋橙子。

时代美术馆馆长赵趄在开幕式上致辞。

“碧山共同体”发起人，本次展览策展人欧宁致辞。

参展人合影。左起：黟县文化馆馆长胡晓耕，黟县余香石笛传承人方如金，黟县利源村制麻传承人余荫堂，电影制片人、黟县秀里影视基地创办人张震燕，本次展览联合策展人左靖，时代美术馆馆长赵趄，本次展览策展人欧宁，台湾建筑师谢英俊，音乐人朱哲琴，诗人、黟县猪栏乡村客栈创办人寒玉（李国玉），艺术家梁绍基，艺术家董文胜，纪录片导演李沛峰，中国人民大学晏阳初乡村建设中心总干事邱建生。

左靖为开幕当天的观众导览。

观众在拍摄欧宁在Moleskine笔记本上的“碧山共同体：如何建立自己的乌托邦”方案草稿。

朱哲琴与欧宁。

左靖在向观众介绍朱哲琴与联合国开发计划署联合发起的“世界看见”少数民族文化与保护发展亲善行动参与者石大宇的设计作品。

“世界看见”少数民族文化与保护发展亲善行动另一位参与者朱小杰根据藏式家具传统重新设计的供桌与供龛。

朱小杰设计的供龛木纹肌理。

左靖继续作其它展品的导览。

诗人寒玉（李国玉）与郑小光最初在黟县西递村和碧山村修缮徽派旧民居尝试乡居生活的实验启发了欧宁和左靖的“碧山计划”。

时代美术馆由著名建筑师Rem Koolhaas设计，是2005年侯瀚如与Hans Ulrich Obrist联合策划第二届广州三年展的产物。美术馆内嵌于一幢住宅楼的19层，展厅以多个圆形开窗进行自然采光。“碧山计划”是时代美术馆建成开馆后的第四个展览。这是展场一角。

小朋友在聆听黟县民谣的田野录音。

谢英俊，张震燕和李沛峰在围观陈飞波利用废旧木料设计的家具。

西递村村民余方如金在现场表演他以黟县石雕成的笛子。

观众在观看艺术家王音设计的碧山社戏戏服。

开幕当天举办的“徽州文化与乡村建设”讨论会。

欧宁在主持讨论。

讨论会观众。

参展服装设计师马可和艺术家梁绍基。

晚上在美术馆举办中央新闻纪录片厂在早期摄制的关于中国古代农业以及养蚕、棉花种植的35毫米纪录片。

2011年6月10日在深圳中心书城的演讲PPT

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:13:58 +0800

Universal narratives

View more presentations from Ou Ning.

展览档案：《卫报》评论2009深圳香港城市建筑双城双年展

Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:04:29 +0800

Fiery fabrics ... Ball Nogues's Chinese dragon, made of 12,000 American Apparel vests and underpants, on display in the Shenzhen Civic Centre

China's Urban Art Shows off Skyscraping Ambition
Exhibiting a rotting tofu hut alongside a dragon made of underpants, Shenzhen's third biennale of architecture glories in the dizzying excess of China's urban growth

James Westcott
guardian.co.uk,Tuesday 15 December 2009 13.37 GMT

At the top of Shenzhen's Lotus Hill, a statue of Deng Xiaoping is frozen in purposeful mid-stride. From here he gazes down on this southern Chinese boom city, teeming with 14 million inhabitants, separated from Hong Kong only by a river and a border. Follow the path down the hill, through manicured gardens and past young families (the average age in Shenzhen is 30, the age of the city itself), and you reach the megastructure of the Shenzhen Civic Centre. Its overwhelmingly massive, blue undulating canopy evokes classical Chinese architecture, but is rendered in bold, postmodern, friendly style. It shelters Shenzhen's governmental buildings, and a vast complex of indoor and outdoor public spaces. This un-forbidden city is currently playing host to the extremely ambitious, yet awkwardly titled, Shenzhen and Hong Kong Bi-city Biennale of Urbanism/Architecture, which attempts to document the pace of change in this unwieldy new metropolis.

When Deng declared Shenzhen China's first liberalised Special Economic Zone in 1980, the city – at that point a mere fishing village of 20,000 – became a sort of economic laboratory for the nation as a whole. Where Shenzhen went, the nation followed: into a fervent embrace of capitalism and urbanisation. One of the city's many entrepreneurs is Barack Obama's half-brother, Mark Okoth Obama Ndesandjo, who moved here in 2002 and opened a chain of restaurants called Cabin BBQ (strange, considering he's a vegetarian). Ndesandjo just self-published a semi-autobiographical novel, From Nairobi to Shenzhen, and last week was named the city's official "image ambassador". Shenzhen's patriarch, however, will always be Deng, whose image dominates billboards, and whose waxwork figure enjoys tea with Margaret Thatcher in a bizarre diorama at the top of the city's tallest skyscraper.

The biennale, now in its third edition, is a government-sponsored attempt to establish one thing Shenzhen lacks: a cultural scene. The theme is city mobilisation, which chief curator Ou Ning – who lived here throughout the 1990s, when growth was so fast that the phrase "Shenzhen speed" was born – says is an experiment to unite citizens "in a time that lacks centralised force, spiritual solidarity and practical organisation". While most architecture biennales are unappealing cocktails of dodgy architectural art and dense technical presentations, this one has a more popular touch. More than 60 installations by artists and architects occupy an underground hall at the civic centre, the massive public plaza above it, and various spots around the city.

Most of them are interactive and easy to understand. You're greeted in the main exhibition space by a Chinese dragon composed of 12,000 American Apparel vest tops and underpants, made in California and specially imported, hanging from the ceiling in undulating, colour-coordinated patterns. The piece, by LA-based art duo Ball Nogues, attempts a temporary reversal of the world's normal movement of goods, which usually flows from Guangdong province – known as the workshop of the world – into the US.

Other pieces in the biennale similarly reflect on China and Shenzhen's rampant growth, but without delivering polemics or concrete proposals. This isn't only because of the threat of censorship, but because the role of architecture in a modern city is relatively tiny. Some exhibits merely enrich your thinking about Shenzhen: a video by Danish artist Bjarke Ingels of parkour free runners leaping miraculously around the city's treacherous building sites; a small hut made out of tofu by artist group Polit-Sheer-Form, which is gradually collapsing, rotting, and stinking out the hall; and seemingly ancient images of a sleepy, smalltown Shenzhen, from the 1960s to the early 80s, by local photographer He Huangyou. One photo shows an almost empty Shennan Avenue in 1980. It's reminiscent of the photographs of Sheikh Zayed road in Dubai circa 1990 – another city that's just 30 years old – except here, instead of desert, the road is bordered by rice paddies and the last vestiges of jungle.

The biennale has a provisional feel to it: installations are constantly being rearranged and repaired, and video projections function only sporadically. But the main virtue of the exhibition is that it propels you out into the city with fresh eyes. Liu Xiaoliang's obsessively detailed metal sculptures, Demolition Relocation (2009), model the gradually disappearing "urban villages" of Shenzhen. These haphazard neighbourhoods of densely packed "shakehand" buildings (so close together that residents can reach out of their windows and greet their neighbours) have been constructed in the absence of planning regulations, many of them by former farmers now unable to work. A timeline by the Hong Kong-based architects IDU tells the story of Shenzhen's urban village of Caiwuwei, which had a population of 27,000 before it was demolished to make way for a new business district in 2005. IDU emphasise that this isn't an eviction sob story; the farmers set up the Caiwuwei Village Company to ensure they profited from the development of their land.

Even though Caiwuwei is now mostly gone, Shenzhen still has around 20 other urban villages, which accommodate unregistered migrant workers from all over China (Shenzhen has more than 6 million of them). But what do these villages actually look like? Curious to find out, I asked a biennale volunteer to write down the name of one in Chinese and hopped in a taxi, which eventually dropped me off outside a huge, luxurious mall called Holiday Plaza. I assumed that the taxi driver had misinterpreted the directions, or that this urban village had also recently bitten the dust. But, just a block away, opposite a surreal amusement park called Window of the World – complete with a replica Eiffel Tower bedecked in neon Chinese characters – I discovered the dark, intricate warren of the Baishizhou urban village. It's an outdoor shopping mall, with tiny storefronts and ramshackle stalls selling an unimaginable array of stuff, from knock-off DVDs to vegetables and vitamins. There's no division between indoors and outdoors: family life spills on to the streets and all business activity, such as shoe mending, sewing, wood-cutting, hair-cutting, internet surfing, pool-playing, and most of all, cooking, is done out in the alleyways and in the main square – which also has a hospital in it.

Urban villages might be Shenzhen's equivalent of the hundreds-of-years-old hutongs in Beijing. It would be a travesty if they too were demolished to make way for gated apartment complexes and sterile shopping centres. Might Shenzhen's urban planners learn from these unplanned but apparently highly functional neighbourhoods? In November, a 47-year-old woman named Tang Fuzhen in Sichuan province set fire to herself and died rather than be evicted from her home, which stood in the way of developers. Last week, the government resolved to defend residents' property rights against such illegal eviction and demolition. So perhaps there is hope for Shenzhen's exceptionally energetic, if dirty and often derided, urban villages. Alternatively, as IDU pointed out at the biennale, the farmers themselves may choose to cash in on their increasingly valuable property.

Back at the biennale, late at night, the sound of screeching and creaking cranes echoes wistfully across the plaza. It's merely a sound installation by the architects DnA. But I heard exactly the same noises from building sites everywhere in Shenzhen. And up on the civic centre plinth, overlooking the plaza and the city beyond, Bureau des Mésarchitectures have constructed a pair of swings, called Double Happiness (2009), raised on a 10-foot-tall platform. It's the biennale's most popular piece, and it sends you lurching out towards the luminous horizon of skyscrapers, as if propelling you into the future. You're made to feel both nauseous and exhilarated.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/dec/15/shenzhen-architecture-biennale-china-art

《天南》文学双月刊第二期6月5日出版

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:44:55 +0800

两个月后。
创刊号变成了互联网上的遗址，一束寄存在服务器上的电子记忆。
因为第二个阅读空间已经搭建就绪：
Entrance(入口)和 Exit(出口)仍然安放诗歌。
两位女诗人，翟永明和王小妮，一个追念逝者，一个咏叹旅途。
Special Space(特别策划)挂出的标牌是星际叙事。
四个英语作家(威廉·吉布森，尼尔·斯蒂芬森，保罗·巴茨加洛皮和杰夫·努恩)
和四个中文作家（韩松，飞氘，陈楸帆和杨平) 的八篇小说。
他们都在用一种崭新奇异的时空观在讲故事，
用“科幻”这样的字眼去定义他们已经力有不逮。
好吧，姑且发明一个不一定准确的词，这就是Universal Narratives了。
如果你在上面的名单中发现少了刘慈欣，千万不要失望：
他说基本上已经不写短篇了。让他把力气留给鸿篇巨制吧。
须知星际叙事这样的大词，基本上为他准备的。
不过，你仍可以在困困的报道中窥见他在娘子关发电站仰望星空的孤独身影。
当中文作家和他们的出版人以及读者们正为“想象文学”殚思竭虑的时候，
李家沂为大家耙梳了过去一百年来英语世界同样的事情，写成了一篇线性简史。
而作为一种平行现象，某些建筑师的天马行空也不可忽略：
欧宁回顾了英国实验建筑小组建筑电讯在六十年代的空间想象，
并从尘封的档案中找来朗·赫伦“步行城市”的珍贵手稿，
这个海陆空三栖的移动城市方案，今天看来仍然具备夺目的光芒。
星际叙事把Parasite(刊中刊)的空间也占满了，
刘慈欣，韩松和飞氘三篇代表旧作加上困困报道的英译，
专奉于对此陌生的英语读者；
Regular_Space(自由组稿)只留下最精华的部分：
邓小桦从星座的角度研读了胡兰成，
董启章贡献了他最新长篇的第一章，
北村写了一个嘲讽艺术、商业与政治的寓言，
张楚（注意，不是音乐人张楚）潜入生活的最底层，掘出了它残酷的本质。
难度最大的留在本次旅程的尾声：
刘铮读侯世达的旧书《集异壁之大成》，俞冰夏读波拉尼奥的巨著《2666》，
所耗心力，只能靠诸位在他们的评点中去体会了。

封面图片：英国著名实验建筑团体“建筑电讯” (Archigram)成员朗·赫伦(Ron Herron)设计的“海中步行城市”(Walking City on the Ocean), 1964年。Courtesy of the Ron Herron Archive.

《点石斋画报》：占验天文。

Peregrine, An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine, Issue 2.

Guide｜导览

Entrance｜入口
翟永明诗二首《哀书生》《上书房，下书房》

Special Space｜特别策划
Universal Narratives｜星际叙事

Report｜报道
困困《仍有人仰望星空》

Chinese Works｜中文作品
韩松《最后一响》
飞氘《沧浪之水》
陈楸帆《开窍》
杨平《山民纪事》

English Works｜英文作品
威廉·吉布森《斯金纳的房间》(黄秀铭译)
尼尔·斯蒂芬森《吉珮和偏执狂芯片》(毕建国译)
保罗·巴茨加洛皮《六号泵》(姚向辉译)
杰夫·努恩《马赛克脸》(朱绩崧译)

Chronicle｜简史
李家沂《午夜，在儒勒凡尔纳大街上》

Archive｜档案
欧宁《构筑未来：“建筑电讯”的空间想像》
朗·赫伦《步行城市》

Regular Space｜自由组稿

Astrology｜星文学
邓小桦《幽深无际，花气袭人：双鱼座的胡兰成》

Fiction｜虚构
董启章《涤净我灵魂》
北村《嗜睡者》
张楚《骆驼》

Reading ｜深读
刘铮《在更高的维度上：侯世达<集异璧之大成>》及附录
俞冰夏《死亡空洞里的绵长人生：波拉尼奥<2666>》

Parasite｜刊中刊

Peregrine
An English Companion to Chutzpah Magazine

Kun Kun: But Some of Us are Looking at the Stars, translated by Lucy Johnston
Liu Cixin: The Thinkers, translated Joel Martinsen
Han Song: All the Water in the World, translated by Anna Holmwood
Fei Dao: The Butterfly Effect, translated by Nicky Harman

Exit ｜出口
王小妮组诗《致六月的威尔士》

展览档案：白雪采访2010大声展

Mon, 30 May 2011 02:06:07 +0800

The Pavilion of 2011 Get It Louder, a freestanding structure designed by New York-based design practice SO-IL, served as a focal point, event hall and gathering space for GIL 2010. Photograph by Iwan Bann

Ou Ning on Get it Louder
New Voice in China’s Visual Arts Scene

Chinese Contemporary Art Exhibitions Art Professionals Interview
By Sylvia Bai, Posted on Art Radar Asia, London-based Website, December 22, 2010.

The third edition of “Get It Louder” (GIL), perhaps one of the most ambitious Chinese exhibition events representing emerging young talent across multiple fields, ran from 19 September to 7 November this year in Beijing and Shanghai. Curious about GIL’s mission and its growth, Art Radar Asia had an in-depth discussion with Ou Ning, the founder and chief curator of the event. Ou Ning himself is a wearer of many artistic hats and our interview also explores some of his experiences.

Themed “Sharism“, a new concept for creative practice and content sharing born on the World Wide Web, this year’s GIL featured participants and artist groups from mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Europe and the United States.

Central to the exhibition was the GIL Pavilion, a freestanding structure designed by New York-based design practice SO-IL. In the Pavilion, works spanning the fields of fine art, new media, product design and photography were shown for the duration of the exhibition. In parallel, GIL hosted a wide array of events in the form of artist talks and lectures, film screenings, literature and special spotlight projects… there was even a forum on Sharism.

Simply in terms of frequency and diversity of events, GIL now has a conceivably loud voice during the busy autumn art calendar in China. Let us do a round-up of GIL 2010 happenings: 66 pieces of works were shown, 35 lectures, talks and forums were held, 4 workshops were completed, 3 live performances were undertaken, 50 films were screened, 23 film directors gave talks and 74 artists and artist groups, 36 guest speakers and 15 independent film directors participated.

Ou Ning on Get It Louder

GIL was started in 2005. How did this happen? Did GIL enter an empty field in China’s art scene?

“I was approached by a few graduate students in Australia in 2005 [who were] conducting research on independent magazines in China, as I used to run an independent magazine. During our conversation, I realised that a lot of the young Chinese creative talents from around the globe were quite thoughtful and had a lot to offer, but there was not a platform [on which] to showcase their works. The launching of GIL was focused on design talents mostly.

I spoke to Thomas Shao at Modern Media, for whom I was a consultant, and we promptly identified ways to work together. Modern Media came on board to sponsor the exhibition in three travelling cities: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou.”

Has the idea behind the exhibition changed over the past three editions. Fundamentally, what is the motivation of GIL?

“We root for young Chinese talent, which has not changed over the past five years. We want to make this underground voice heard. Of course, the definition of ‘young’ cannot be too rigid. For example, in Ai Weiwei we see the freshness and edginess of young artists, so his work was included this year.

In terms of executing the exhibition, the newer edition has always been informed by the previous one. In 2005, our Shanghai venue was at a shopping mall, which drew an unexpected audience [that doesn't] usually come across art and design, and the feedback was great. So in 2007, we moved all the shows to shopping malls. Also, it was the boom market; lots of sponsors stepped in. In 2010, we are experimenting with a brand new format, as the first resident of a Sunlitun Mall, a much anticipated shopping space owned by the most famed property developer, Soho China Group. We are creating the buzz for them before their grand opening, and we got the space for free.”

We have noticed the flexibility of GIL and its acute ability to adopt the format that best suits it at a given time. We can revisit this topic later. Now, about the exhibition itself. Were the artists’ works commissioned for GIL or did you put out a general call-for-entry? How did you decide on the proportion of categories of works to show?

“Some works were specially commissioned for GIL. In 2005, we did have lots of visual design works, because that was the driver of the exhibition at that time. But we are not keen to place a tight grip on proportion in general – this year, there are more [mediums].”

We are amazed by the frequency of events.

“Yes, GIL should be more rightly called a ‘festival’ rather than an ‘exhibition.’ I am really drawn to the former, which signifies a celebration of young creative talent.”

Can you tell us a bit more about Sharism, the theme of GIL 2010?

“Sure. [Sharism] originates from issues of collaboration on Internet space, and explores the increasingly convoluted relationship between public and private realms. In the context of web 2.0 and social media, cloud intelligence and Twitter, it is especially relevant in 2010.”

Does that also explain why many events might not be directly related to the exhibited works?

“Precisely. [With] Sharism being an Internet concept, GIL’s goal is to build an off-line platform for people to ‘share.’ The Pavilion made it possible for off-line sharing across a wide spectrum of events to happen. For me, I am especially interested in the audience’s feedback and reactions; an exhibition without audience input is a failure to me. Technology has enabled us to receive instant feedback – via many Chinese social media tools, Sina Weibo being one of them – and to provide instant updates and gain quick attention. I am just a bit tired of the gallery shows in the white cube, which live in a confined circle of art professionals. I want to see art and design that viewers can relate to, provoking them to think about their lives.”

Who are the typical viewers at GIL?

“Lots of young people and many media-savvy and fashionable people are interested and curious about new things. Maybe it has to do with Modern Media’s image. I was also very glad to notice many retirees at the film screenings.”

Finally, we want to gain a deeper understanding of the operating model of GIL. We know it is run as a not-for-profit (NFP). Do you think its NFP nature is a prerequisite for a high-quality show that is flexible enough to cross many artistic fields?

“GIL is indeed in a very privileged position thanks to Modern Media. The way we secure business sponsors is through exchange of advertising space in Modern Media’s publications, which include some of the most widely-read weeklies in China. This approach frees GIL from inserting soft-advertisement for sponsors in the exhibition itself, a big relief for me. Of course, we do collaborate on special projects if the sponsor prefers, for example, the City Travelogue SMART project this year.

Of course, depending on one big backer with such a vision is far from sustainable. Eventually, I really hope to institutionalise GIL.”

Can you please expand on the institutionalising of GIL?

“There needs to be an entity run year-round for the exhibition. Its role [would] include expanding private patrons [and] establishing business sponsorships under the supervision of a fully committed Board of Directors. The Shao Foundation does currently function similar to this, but the current Chinese policy on NGO/charity status is a bottleneck.”

Ou Ning’s Own Contemporary Art Career

How many hats do you actually wear? Publisher of an independent music magazine, designer, curator, writer, artist (movie-making)… Which came first and how did it evolve from there?

(laughs) “Well, they each occurred at different stages. I was a poet first in the 1980s, but after 1989, I became disillusioned by the poem. I got involved in creating magazines on music and film. To save time I had to teach myself graphic design, too. 1999-2003 were my designer years. One of my films was selected for the 50th Venice Biennale, so I received more commissions as an artist. In 2005, I officially started working for Modern Media, as director of the Shao Foundation and curated three GIL exhibitions. In 2009, I was appointed the chief curator of the Shenzhen & Hong Kong Bi-city Biennale of Urbanism & Architecture. Most recent project is a new literary magazine Chutzpah (Tian Nan or 天南 in Chinese), so my journey so far comes back in a full circle to literature again.”

So I guess it is hard to pin down an overarching theme among all the things you have done?

“I have always been curious in many things and fields. On a cultural level though, I do observe a commonality; writing was, is and forever will be, my basic ability and instinct, which can be converted into many fields. Also, my formative years as an idealist poet in the 80s probably set a utopian tone for what I do and informed me in my responsibility as an intellectual.”

Working at Shao Foundation is a full-time job. Do you have more freedom under this job or more restrictions, especially in terms of time?

“I keep on doing it because it still interests me and I do love what I do under the Foundation platform, so it is fine.”

What do you think of the ‘Post-80s‘ (people born in China in the 1980s and who are currently rising to become a social voice and force in China, also the first generation to be born into China’s one-child policy) in the context of art and the culture scene?

“I am very interested in their energy and I work with many of them, too. Under one pole, some of them are very satisfied with their well-off lives and produce ‘comfortable’ works. Under another pole, some are creating meaningful impact already. For example, Post-80s Anti-Express Railway Group in Hong Kong has become very influential and a headache for the government, too. Chinese Post-80s youth could be inspired by this, as demonstrated in recent wave of ‘Support Cantonese!’ voiced by Post-80s in Guangzhou. Of course, between the two poles, there is a lot more diversity amongst Post-80s. I see both conservatism and hopes.”

Based on your experience, does working on meaningful art and culture projects in China necessarily suggest an unavoidable ‘small circle’, that is anti-mainstream? We see this perception as troublesome sometimes.

“When one starts something nascent, it is of course small by definition. But one shouldn’t intentionally position oneself against the mainstream. That would be a kind of laziness. You must use your own brain to think through what your position and goal is. The mainstream exists for its reason. But the alternative is there for people to choose from, too. I am deep believer in the co-existence of the two.”

Source: http://artradarjournal.com/2010/12/22/ou-ning-on-get-it-louder-new-voice-in-chinas-visual-arts-scene/

乡村乌托邦：清迈的艺术实验

Sat, 28 May 2011 02:31:08 +0800

Lin Yilin, Whose Land? Whose Art? Photograph by Ou Ning, 2010

乡村乌托邦
清迈的艺术实验

欧宁

卡明的泰文全名叫Kamin Lertchaiprasert，他的姓发音太长，我根本记不住，只能叫他的名。长头发，扎马尾，蓄着山羊胡子，穿黑衬衫、短裤，皮肤带着亚热带日照的痕迹。他46岁，很像我小时印象中正值壮年的乡亲，自信，热情，办事干练麻利，很有领头人的风范。英文很流利，但带着泰语口音。他在清迈大学附近的住所是一个很大的院子，草木葱茏，停着一辆皮卡车，房子是他设计的，经常接待世界各地的艺术家朋友在此居住。隔壁是著名艺术家Rirkrit Tiravanija的房子（但他此时人在纽约）。卡明和Rirkrit在1998年一起创办了“土地计划”(The Land Project)。

第一次听说“土地计划”是在日本横滨。那是2008年秋天，我对各地乡村实验的兴趣已经非常浓厚，在一次晚饭的交谈中，越南艺术家Dinh Q Le向我提到了这个计划。随后在云南拉什海的丽江工作室(也是一个乡村实验基地)，它的创办人正杰(Jay Brown)送我一本卡明和Rirkrit的回顾展览出版物《无》(Nothing: A Retrospective)，我才逐渐对此熟悉起来，并一直想找机会去作实地访问。这时距“土地计划”的创办刚好是十年。去访问过这个计划的人说，那些由世界各地的艺术家们在那里设计建造的小房子很多都丢荒破败了。但又有人说，卡明和Rirkrit于2004年成立了“土地基金会”(The Land Foundation)，仍有一些新项目在继续。这更激起了我要去一探究竟的兴趣。

2010年12月，活跃在东南亚的策展人吴其彦(Josef Ng)，联合了在北京和曼谷都有分支机构的唐人画廊，为“土地计划”策划了中国艺术家林一林的展览“谁的土地？谁的艺术？”(Whose Land? Whose Art?)。我被邀请前往观展，才得以有机会第一次来清迈。这个时候，北京已进入了它最寒冷的冬天，而泰国北部却是暖阳高照，人们都穿着夏天的短衣。我选择坐在卡明的皮卡后斗，迎着这儿湿润的风，从清迈出发前往“土地计划”的所在地——圣东巴县半湄乡。大约半小时的车程，沿途都是一些不甚起眼的小镇和村庄，还有大片大片漫延至远方山脚下的稻田。金黄的稻穗在风中摇摆，让我想起已故日本纪录片导演小川绅介的话，“亚洲民族都是吃米的民族”，这种通过人与粮食、人与土地的关系来界定亚洲的观念比地理学更生动。而此时此刻，我正行进在亚洲的田野上。

Kamin Lertchaiprasert. Photograph by Ou Ning, 2010

皮卡在一片被凤尾竹、芭蕉、棕榈和细叶榕围合起来的水田边停了下来——到了。卡明像一个豪爽的农人般从驾驶座跳了下来，欢迎我们来到他的“土地”。透过摇曳的竹叶，我窥见平整的水田闪烁着太阳的反光，各种小房子影影绰绰。这一瞥，真有点儿像个外来者探寻桃花源的感觉，不知迎面展开的将是何种天地。这里没有电，卡明已经专门准备了发电机，快乐的泰北民间音乐从不远处的音响传来。林一林已经和清迈大学的学生们准备好了他的作品：在池塘边，他砌了一堵高墙，墙上开了个眼，一杆江西大杆称从墙眼里伸出来，称头挂着一个大箩筐。已经有不少年轻人通过木梯子爬上了墙头，他们好像手里抓着钓杆。

林一林的墙背靠池塘，面朝远处一片开阔的田野。大家都在排队参与他的艺术表演：轮流走上去，坐在大箩筐里，由艺术家称量出每个人的体重，然后把结果用白粉笔纪录在墙上。由于参与者来自不同国家，墙上写下的名字有英文、泰文、中文以及不同的体重数字。一条小溪从旁经过，溪中还有一架小水车，正汩汩地搅动着流水，边上的油菜花正争芳斗艳。远观这个场景，还以为是农村里的丰年——人们正在称量粮食，准备入仓。林一林一直在用墙做作品，以前它不是“强占”城市的街道或其它户外空间，就是被委托于美术馆或画廊的室内，这次建在一个田园风光的背景中，并且有意进行一场类似农事活动的表演，聚焦人、土地与艺术的关系，显示出他既能自由地保持其一贯的作品标志，又能针对特定环境进行在地化创作的能力。

Lin Yilin, Whose Land? Whose Art? Photograph by Ou Ning, 2010

这是“土地计划”最新的项目。而我更大的兴趣是寻访它的过去。根据我之前读到的各种介绍资料，当初卡明和Rirkrit合伙买下这块地的时候，他们就想尝试一种“无产权”的实验，即不坚持这块地的私有，而是开放和分享给所有人。这也是他们后来成立基金会的原因，这样它就变成了一个非牟利组织，不属于任何人，却能被任何人分享，它不会因为创办人的生老病死而半途而废，反而可以通过接受捐赠和更多新力量的加入而持续发展。它是一个艺术家公社，很多人从不同地方到此作短期停留，在此创作作品，或参加集体灵修活动，或学习有机耕种。甚至有人在此长期居住，过着与当地农人一样日出而作、日入而息的生活。它有时热闹非凡，有时则平静如初。艺术活动与农耕生活交替进行，如同大自然的节奏。

在规划这块地的空间布局时，卡明和Rirkrit受到一个泰北农民的“佛教农业”思想的影响。这个农民叫Chalaoy Keawkong，来自Nakornsawan省的Paisalee地区，因不堪忍受现代农业过分依赖农药化肥的耕种方式，以及不满泰国政府片面追求出口产量、导致小农经济破产的现状，而独自开展一种深受佛教思想影响的另类农业实践。他认为，领会“佛法”(Dharma)即领会生命，而领会了生命，也就领会了农业。人的生命受之于自然，因此与自然一样拥有土、水、风、火四个要素（他称为四位“自然之母”），人与自然相处之道在于调和这四要素，而农业的精要也在于此。他按照人体的构造在自己的田里挖掘了七片池塘，分别代表左右胸、双臂、心脏、肚腹和生殖器，在最重要的肚腹部分种植水稻，在其它池塘放养鱼、虾、蟹和螺，然后在池塘边筑屋而居，周边种植椰子树、芒果、香蕉和竹子，通风透热，水土互养，多样化的动植物与人和谐相生，土、水、风、火四要素形成一个良好的生态循环系统。(1) 这成为“土地计划”学习的模型。

泰国政府自1967年起开始推行所谓的“绿色革命”，实施新的农业政策。它采用实验室里培植出来的新种子，以化肥农药和重型机械进行大面积快速耕种，以保证粮食的大量出口，实现国家经济增长。在传统农业向所谓的现代农业转型的过程中，农民被国家要求或被市场收购所诱惑，进行单一作物的耕种，因化肥农药和人力劳动成本过高（规模耕作需要雇工），他们不得不向国家银行或农业公司借贷，而收获的农产品在市场上换来的报酬根本入不敷出，甚至使他们处于破产边缘，负债的农民不得不离开土地进入城市谋生。这种剥夺农民耕种自由的不平等的社会权力分配方式，以及单一耕种对原有生态系统的破坏，化肥农药所导致的土地污染和有毒产品，一直以来都被农学界、各种NGO组织和消费者所诟病。在泰国，第一次提出“佛教农业”理论的是一位叫Pravej Vasi的学者，他1988年即对“绿色革命”提出批评，认为“佛教农业”是解决这一系列问题的方案之一。(2) 而Chalaoy Keawkong则是一位民间自发的实验者，他们互不相识，但见解不约而同。“土地计划”对后者的学习，体现了他们对泰国农业传统和佛教传统的尊敬。

卡明和Rirkrit像Chalaoy一样，认为挖掘池塘乃第一要事。他们把这块地的四分之三面积都用作池塘，挖完池塘后也在周边遍植不同的植物，然后邀请世界各地的艺术家朋友来到这里，开始一系列的微型建筑实验。他们有个规定，每个建筑只能占用2×4米的面积，而且要环绕池塘而建。其实这种围合式的建筑布局，空出中间地带作为公共活动场所，也与传统泰国佛教寺院的布局相似。第一个“房子”是由泰国艺术家Mit Jai-In于2000年开始修建的，他种植了20棵柚木来围合成居所，强调人与自然的零距离接触。他的想法主要来自佛祖的启示：释迦牟尼不仅在树下出生，在树下修行，在树下达至澄明之境，连最后涅槃也发生在树下。第二个房子是同一年卡明为这块地的看守者设计的，第三个是Rirkrit、卡明、德国艺术家Tobias Rehberger和丹麦的艺术小组Superflex在2001年共同设计的“厨房”。后来一直不断增加新的。在卡明的带领下，我仿佛开始一场考古工作，一件件去寻找和对证这些过去在书上、媒体上和网站上看见过的小房子。

The Kitchen by Kamin Lertchaiprasert, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Superflex ans Tobias Rehberger. Photograph by Ou Ning, 2010.

我看到的第一个房子是“厨房”。它最初起源自一个在里斯本举办的展览“更多关于建筑和食物的作品”(More Works about Buildings and Food)。Rirkrit早在1991年就尝试把炖椰子汁的过程当作作品在画廊里展出，后来更以在美术馆烹饪泰国美食并邀请观众分享而著名。里斯本的展览邀请他进行烹饪，由Superflex设计燃气系统，Tobias设计燃气系统的平台。展览后他们三位决定在“土地计划”实施一个真正的厨房，最后房屋由卡明设计和建造了出来：下层是“高跷”式的支柱，没有围合，是做饭的地方；二层带斜顶，四面也不围合，但有栏杆连着座椅，是吃饭的地方；斜顶再往上长出一个凉亭，同时也是瞭望台，是饭后休息的地方。Superflex设计了一个沼气系统，用水牛的粪便和其它可回收的有机物制造沼气，然后输送到厨房供做饭和照明所用。Tobias设计了沼气系统的围合装置和厨房操作平台。

Superflex经常到一些欠发达地区（例如非洲、巴西和柬埔寨），动员当地农民、国际工程师和人类学家一起合作，从事介入社会的艺术活动。他们的沼气系统得到荷兰和坦桑尼亚的沼气专家的技术支持，自1996年起就在不同的艺术项目中使用，效果还算不错。不过，这个系统在“土地计划”使用后，据说成本高于当地人普遍使用的系统。如果从一种功能主义的角度来看，它的意义可能微不足道，但艺术的评判不能以此为标准。考虑到Superflex作品一向的反资本主义倾向（例如在巴西和当地农民共同开发以瓜拉那为主要成分的无酒精饮料并自行售卖；在东京开设“免费商店”，让人们进去购物但发现不用付钱；在台北公开一种啤酒配方让人们自行生产等等），也许可以这样说，他们的沼气系统以个人化的艺术实践，以一个直接行动的原始发明过程，挑战了资本主义的大规模量化生产和消费模式。

同一年，Tobias和Rirkrit应邀参加斯德哥尔摩现代美术馆的一个展览“处于建筑和设计边缘的艺术”(What if: Art on the Verge of Architecture and Design)，他们使用斯堪的纳维亚木材分别预制了两个小型住宅，在美术馆中展出。展览结束后，他们又决定把这两个小住宅植入“土地计划”。这两个建筑的“移动”，一方面反转了美术馆系统的生产和展示流程（美术馆把实际生活中的制作导入其展示空间，而他们则把美术馆中的展品转化为实际生活所用），另一方面也反转了国际木材贸易的流向（一般来说都是泰国木材向外出口，而他们则把欧洲木材运入泰国）。在泰国落地后，他们根据当地的自然条件，也在它们的底部加上“高跷”，原本二层的建筑变为三层。据泰国建筑师Sumet Jumsai说，因为泰国乡村地区多洪水，“高跷”式的民居极为普遍，它是一种水陆两用的房子，对自然条件有极高的适应性。洪水来袭时它可免受冲击，平时底层则可储物，用作厨房或公共活动空间。(3) “土地计划”后来兴建的房子多数都采取了这种形式。

Tiravanija’s House by Rirkrit Tiravanija. Photograph by Ou Ning, 2010.

Tobias的房子已经渺无影踪（因损坏太严重而拆除），而Rirkrit的则只剩下一个空壳。后者完全根据自己的需要而设计，顶层供他独处和休息，只能躺卧或坐着，不能站起来；二层可以可举办亲密聚会，一起阅读或冥想；底层则可生火做饭。这个微型建筑强调了现代主义的功能需要，但同时也注意发展与生态环境的关系，例如利用两旁的芭蕉遮荫，在顶层开窗、让阳光取代闹钟进行自然唤醒等等（Rirkrit一直宣称他的艺术在实践一种“关系美学”）。我们曾在他妻子Annette Aurell带领下参观过他们在清迈的家，那也是一幢现代主义风格的别墅，是他们自己设计的，粗粝的清水混凝土被丛生的亚热带植物围绕，客厅和厨房是开放的空间，多个卧室和工作室则是私密的空间。几年前我曾在《纽约时报》看见过这个房子的介绍。对于Rirkrit这样的游牧式艺术家来说（由于父亲是泰国的外交官，他出生于阿根廷，从小就变换不同国家生活，而作为一个成功的艺术家，他在纽约、柏林和清迈都有家，并一直游走于世界各地参加展览），连清迈的别墅都很少长时间逗留，更不用说乡下的这个小木屋了。

卡明设计的“看守者之屋”是唯一一座真正被人长期住过的房子。一个名叫Vai的泰国教授曾带着他的妻子在此居住和耕种，顺便看管这个地方。卡明本人坚持使用本地材料和本地劳动力来建造，喜欢融入当地村民的世俗趣味，不想植入一个完全陌生的文化，但他并不反对别的艺术家这么做。卡明成长于泰国中部的Lopburi省，虽然和Rirkrit一样，他也曾在纽约游学，在世界各地参加展览，但骨子里更倾向于本土化的东方思想。他热爱植物，喜欢瑜伽，沉迷冥想，1990年曾削发为僧。他是“土地计划”日常工作的主持者，因为在清迈大学任教，他经常和年轻学生一起合作，并把他们带入“土地计划”的活动中。他身上有一种在社会底层打拼过的痕迹，一直希望自己的工作能超越所谓艺术而直面现实，从而进入一个更宽广的社会层面和更深入的个人思考的层面。在他清迈的家里，我看见过一张他与Rirkrit在一起的海报，他们宣称“艺术已经玩完了”(Art is Over)。卡明的“看守者之屋”和“厨房”一样，带斜顶，是那种适应泰国多雨气候的典型结构。在Vai教授夫妇离开之后，曾经塞满了各种日常生活用具的两层房间也丢空了。它似乎回应了卡明的思想，表现出艺术令人尴尬的局限性。

和卡明一样，其他泰国艺术家在此设计的小建筑都试图遵循本土的文化传统。它包括Angkrit Ajchariyasophon的不足三平方米的冥想屋(2002年建成)，受到了泰国僧人简朴的个人生活和精神苦修的影响；以及Somyot Hananuntasuk和Thaivijit Poengkasemsomboon合作的“戏台”(2004年建成)，它复制了一个小尺度的泰国乡间公共娱乐的空间，提供给“土地计划”的参与者作讲座、表演之用。美国艺术家Robert Peters和泰国艺术家Thasnai Sethaseree合作设计的“亚洲供给”(Asian Provisions)则融合了美国拖车和泰国嘟嘟车（三轮摩的）的车厢空间特点，也是一种对“移动”建筑的尝试。三个建筑都采用了“高跷”支柱，前两个目前都空置着，后一个从2005年起搭了骨干结构，至今仍未完成。

Hybrid Muscle by Francois Roche and Philippe Parreno. Photograph by Ou Ning, 2010.

2003年，法国建筑师Francois Roche和艺术家Philippe Parreno在此建造了一个造型奇异的建筑，名为“复合肌肉”(Hybrid Muscle)：波浪形的水泥底座上安插着众多的钢条，钢条上的枝丫支撑起一个倒U形的红色塑料棚，钢条间的空间可以住人或举办活动，整个建筑的尾部还安装了一个特别的发电装置，通过水牛（最初他们提议用大象）拉动一块沉重的金属板再缓慢降下，把它的肌肉动力转化为电能，可以供应十个灯泡的照明，同时还能为笔记本电脑和手提电话充电。它被科幻小说家Bruce Sterling在一篇发表于《Domus》杂志的评论文章里称为“建筑怪物”，而哥伦比亚大学建筑系主任Mark Wigley则直接称之为“科幻小说的建筑”。的确，这个建筑是为Philippe Parreno的一部科幻短片《火星来的男孩》准备的，他以此为主角拍摄了这部影片：神秘的夜空，缓慢移动的星光，水牛在水田里踩下的脚印，它用力拉动和没入池塘水面的身影，炯炯有神的牛眼睛，慢慢变亮的灯泡，白天田野上空的太阳，塑料棚与周围的树木被风吹动的诗意画面，以及片尾黑幕时一个苍老男人的吟哦，渲染出一种令人过目不忘的迷幻氛围。这个天外来物如今仍保存在半湄乡的土地上，只不过发电装置已生锈，棚顶的塑料布换成了石棉瓦，与旁边成行成列的泰国大芥菜为伴。

多数外国艺术家并不主动针对当地的文化、历史或自然条件去开展他们的工作，“土地计划”似乎对此并无要求，这使它更像一个充满自由气息的“乌托邦”。瑞典艺术家Carl Michaël von Hausswolff于2004至2005年间在此建造了一间“星屋”（目前也是空置），采用了一个四角星作为“高跷” 上面二层地板的形状，并在地板上面安装八扇推拉窗门，居住者可通过窗门的开关来区隔不同的空间。它通过太阳反光板采电，可供应一台手提电脑和收听指定频道的电台（他借此向一位据称可以通过电台与鬼魂交流的欧洲科学家Friedrich Jurgenson致敬）。法国艺术家Alexandre Perigot于2006年在此复制的一座猫王Elvis Presley的豪宅更是与这个地方毫无联系，它只是一个用竹子搭建的原大尺寸的临时骨架，供音乐会之用，用完就拆除了。同一年，德国艺术家和设计师Markus Heinsdorff也用竹子搭建了一个塔型带穹顶的凉亭，造型非常漂亮，具有典型的欧洲风格。策展人吴其彦和我一起想通过它的竹梯爬上二层，才登几步，就听到了竹子碎裂的声音，只好作罢。

Living Bamboo Dome by Markus Heinsdorff. Photograph by Ou Ning, 2010.

所有这些建筑的现状都说明它们缺少照料和管理，也已经有很长一段时间无人光顾了。也许只有像这次林一林的新项目举办时，人们才驾车或坐火车从城市里赶来。无人住在这里，这跟我的想象大有出入。在现场的观众中，我也看不到当地的农民。我问卡明这是为什么，他说周围的村子离这儿很远。后来我查看他为我提供的一大堆资料和照片，在他们过去的活动中，也看不到当地农民的影子。这些资料显示，他们组织过两次为期一年的活动，吸引世界各地的志愿者在此参加农耕、集体冥想和修炼瑜伽、艺术创作和讨论等活动。他们一年在总面积为9200平方米的水田上种两造水稻，8月至11月种茉莉香米，1月至4月种糯米，每造收成约600公斤。他们还种植各种水果、树、药草和蔬菜，养鱼和虾，他们不仅受Chalaoy的影响，也学习日本自然农法的创始人福冈正信的 “无农药、无化肥、不除草”的有机耕作。但就算是在这些农事活动的纪录照片中，我也很少看到当地农民的身影。难道是因为这种有机农业的观念与当地农民目前普遍采用的耕作方式有冲突？在我所接触的中国乡村建设运动的过程中，这样的矛盾其实是经常遇到的。

“土地计划”给我的印象好像是一个封闭和隔绝的“乌托邦”，它的行动主体是艺术家和艺术学生，与周围的社区处于“弱联络”的状态。纽约评论家Karen Demavivas曾把“土地计划”的微型建筑与英国建筑小组Archigram在上世纪60年代的“插入式城市”(Plug-in City)实验相提并论，并引用德勒兹和加塔利《千高原》里的哲学口号对这种“插入”大加赞赏。(4) Archigram曾以激进的纸上方案描摹了对未来城市建筑的想象，也许受时代所限，他们的想象带有浓重的机械色彩：他们设计的建筑或带有机械肢臂，可像动物那样爬行移动；或像个巨大的机械构件，可拆解、重组、按需要“插入”任何社区或城市。他们的效果图比Francois和Philippe的“复合肌肉”更具科幻气质。从“移动”的能力和对一个陌生语境的“插入”来说，“土地计划”的所有建筑与Archigram的方案确实非常相似。它们都是这些生活在城市里，或经常在全球各地“移动”的艺术家和精英知识分子对一片田野的物理“插入”，包括卡明和其他泰国艺术家的本土化设计，都不能避免这个事实。关键并不在于这些建筑采取何种风格，是否与田园风光或本地文脉协调，而是他们只在有活动的时候才出现，平时并没人住在这些建筑中，这使得它们和Archigram的设计一样，变成了一种“虚构”。

也许就像Rirkrit在画廊或美术馆进行烹饪一样，他的出发点是“反机构”(Anti-institution)，他要打破画廊或美术馆这些机构的陈规陋矩，反抗它们的制度系统对艺术家的权力操控，“土地计划”似乎也具有相同的出发点。他们逃离了画廊和美术馆，把艺术活动的地点搬到了一片田野上。农业耕种和灵修活动的目的只在于锤炼自我学习和自我控制的能力，他们对个人内省的哲学的兴趣大于对复杂的社会现实的关注。他们并不重视社会动员，他们和社会运动划清界线。“土地基金会”的宗旨上声明，以无党派的身份支持以泰王为国家元首的民主制度，不给任何政党提供资助和支持。他们是一群艺术家，以艺术的方式思考和行动。他们进行自我组织，靠不同的艺术家自筹资金来发展艺术项目，企图超越被机构化和制度化的艺术，但是最后还是被迫返到艺术本身的困境。这些在田野上丢空破败的建筑，就是明证。

Students of Chiang Mai University. Photograph by Ou Ning, 2011.

等我一个个看完这些建筑，天已经渐渐黑了。林一林的表演早就结束，人们开始聚在田头野餐。发电机在远处微微地响着，它带来的灯光照亮了野餐的地方。田埂上插着许多小竹杆，上面点着火油，小火苗摇曳着，在漆黑中特别好看。这段时间，泰历12月的水灯节(Loy Krathong)刚刚过去不久，可是它的余温仍然不散，清迈大学的年轻人帮助布展已经劳累了一天，他们饭饱酒足后，开始在田野里放起了孔明灯。泰国的水灯节是每年的雨季结束后，人们结束了一季的农忙，选择月圆之夜，用香蕉叶和鲜花制成水灯，放入河流或水田祈愿的节日。除了在水里放水灯，他们还向天空放孔明灯。水灯节相当于中国的中秋节，而孔明灯是中国传过来的，亚洲不同国家之间经常共享着同一种文化，这让我今天上午被路边的稻田激起的亚洲体验加强了。孔明灯在夜空中越飞越高，我想起了我成长的广东农村，想起我一世务农的母亲，想起所有一去不返的时间，所有消失不见的古老事物。所谓的乡愁，慢慢扩散成一种宽泛的情感，超出了地理的边界。今天我看到的艺术实验，它有助于医治这种乡愁吗？我不太确定，只是在心里默记，今天是2010年12月11日，这是我在亚洲田野上渡过的第一夜。

注：

(1) Vitoon Liamjumroon, “The Buddha Agriculture of Chalaoy Keawkong”, Nothing: A Retrospective, Chiang Mai University Art Museum, 2004, pp.140-157.
(2) Ibid.(1)
(3) Karen Demavivas, “The Land”, Nothing: A Retrospective, Chiang Mai University Art Museum, 2004, pp.54-82.
(4) Ibid.(3)

本文发表于《天南》文学双月刊创刊号，2011年4月。
相关视频链接：http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjUzMTAwMDc2.html

展览档案：王辛评2010大声展

Sun, 22 May 2011 21:00:14 +0800

AT GET IT LOUDER, NEVER A DULL MOMENT
Beijing Sanlitun Soho, 19th September - 10th October 2010

XIN WANG

Modern Art Asia
Issue Six: March, 2011

The fact that the infrastructure of China’s art world is still “under construction” is indeed a blessing. Despite the omnipresent censorship, it simply allows experiments unthinkable in a well-developed and perfectly stratified system. One prominent example is the 2010 Get It Louder (GIL), a blockbuster exhibition celebrating emerging talents from diverse creative realms—contemporary art, design, film, literature, fashion, and even sound.1 The biennial festival has since 2005 been an avid promoter of young voices in China and beyond by operating as a refreshing alternative to the academia—market—officialdom dynamic, though each of these aspects are interestingly reflected in the show and its subsequent events.

Some artists are virtually emerging straight out of (college) campus. Chen Zhou, born in 1987 and a recent graduate of Central Academy of Fine Art, presented an ostensibly mature installation Character C where elongated funnels ooze out from mundane structures such as a chair, a bed, and a closet within which sits a hired performer whose stamina of marathon stillness rivals that of Marina Abramovic. The spatially-contorted live installation and the nightmarish vision it creates seem to channel the artist’s own insecurities and ambivalence towards the vicissitudes of modern life. A direct contrast to Chen’s formal sophistication and foreboding mysticism is the blatant appropriation of raunchy internet culture seen in the works by the art collective Double Fly, whose members are roughly of Chen’s age. With a jocose and occasionally witty oeuvre—robbing a bank of its construction materials, crashing fancy opening cocktail parties cross-dressed as old ladies, or remaking popular music videos with lyrics mocking the art world at large—the young boys of Double Fly explicate that they are confronting the Raunch Culture by impersonating its many-faceted banality. It nevertheless remains questionable how effectively this objective is delivered when the mockery seems to become derivative, to become pure mimicry.

Fixtures on the art circuit also appear, often through unprecedented collaborations; less market-ready possibilities are explored. The ubiquitous Ai Weiwei (b.1957) paired up with the equally unfathomable rock personality Zuo Xiao Zu Zhou (b. 1970), who shared Ai’s activist mien, on a multi-media work juxtaposing - perhaps too literally and superficially - Zuo Xiao’s music video to Ai’s photo collages. Artist Qiu Anxiong (b. 1972), widely recognized for his Chinese mythology and William Kentridge inspired animation works (one of which has been acquired by MoMA), exhibited at GIL as a founding member of the entity “Museum of Unknown,” a group of like-minded artists who recognize that behind the relentless hype surroundingChina’s art scene today many issues remain to be tackled. In their regular gatherings and exhibitions, fundamental questions are raised and contemplated: What are we talking about when we talk about art? Or, how many artists are there? For the Museum of Unknown, art has become the means to contextualize broader intellectual inquiries, not an end in itself. What distinguishes them from their over-philosophizing ‘85 New Wave counterparts seems to be their diminishing reliance on imported theories.

While GIL labels its different sections, the categorization is often blurry, due to the interdisciplinary nature of many works that border on design, sound, or architecture—even literature can evolve into performance art. When invited to participate in the Black Box special literature project, for which writers compose original works within a confined space and time (inside an actual black box) while the audience witness their writing simultaneously through monitors outside, Peru-based novelist Roy Kesey cleverly fabricated a fictional dialogue between the writer and a translator. Here and there he would leave it to the translator working outside the box to decide whether to impersonate the fictional translator or not, thus forcing him to partake in the writing.

The exhibition also provides a snapshot of the various issues enthralling or baffling these young creative minds. There is, as usual, the eternal struggle with the institutional system as well as the market: The GSL collection, a less than subtle parody of the ambitious and all- encompassing DSL collection that primarily amasses the bigwigs of contemporary Chinese art and international trophies, displays forgeries of works by Zhang Xiaogang, Yue Minjun, Damien Hirst, and Mondrian evenly spaced out in a sheer white-walled room mimicking the cliché of commercial galleries. Many visitors unaware of the mockery voiced concerns when unable to find security measures or plexi-glass over these supposedly million-dollar properties.

Social concerns are articulated in works such as Jiang Pengyi’s (b.1977) Unregistered Cities series where the artist photoshopped miniature urban building complexes into demolished sites and abandoned corners of China’s major metropolises. The images are powerful in their poignant, post-apocalyptic realism. Equally compelling is Li Jinghu’s Life is So Beautiful, a few canvases painted by migrant workers with tools they usually use in their normal wall painting or cake-baking routines, though this time in vibrant oil colors instead of the materials they ordinarily work with. While GIL’s contemporary art curator Fu Xiaodong sees an effort to identify with the grass-roots through art, the work quite specifically brings to mind the countless anonymous workers who are the de facto executors of monstrously gigantic contemporary artworks in China today.

A curious nostalgia for youth prevails, evident in such works as Lei Ray’s (b. 1985) animated video featuring drawings of old family photos by the artist’s father—himself an established book designer— overlain with clusters of tiny, colored geometric patterns; or hinted at by the school uniforms and homework notepads in stop-motion animations by members of Lv Xiao (the Green School), a loosely-organized art collective that grants membership to any artist— professional or not—who wishes to be a part of the family.

Amidst the multi-media hustle and bustle, many works seek to connect and inspire, rather than overwhelm. Artist He An (b.1971) constructs with purple fluorescent tubes a sentence of great melancholy: “Being Able to Suffer And to Grieve Even Able to Die”, mounted along a dark, narrow tunnel. The characters, large yet fragmented, bear on the threshold of recognition as if to evoke something equally ethereal. Taiwanese artist Yao Chunghan’s (b.1981) light- hearted sound installation Scattered Coordinates responds to the very presence of visitors: circular LED lights would flicker when triggered by anyone passing by. Zhao Yao’s (b. 1981) simple yet profoundly whimsical work They Are All Smiling is the perfect manifestation of visual spectacle existing on an insignificant scale: on two long scrolls of joined banknotes from different counties and thus of varying sizes, their surfaces uniformly smeared with blackcharcoal except for selected profiles of politicians and figureheads, all smiling disturbingly. This startling new discovery of an underlying pattern in our material world generates anxiety - something characteristically associated with money - in complete contrast to this smile.

Overall, the pieces seem in opposition to the monumentally scaled and heavily conceptualized works at the 8th Shanghai Biennial. There is another kind of vigor and maturation in progress. Long gone is the utopian grandeur that once defined contemporary Chinese art at its birth; at GIL there is simply a greater diversity truthfully reflecting the confluence of creative pulses.

The exhibition itself has an imposing presence that nicely echoes what it sets out to achieve. Its Beijing installment allocates each participant the luxury of an independent gallery space at Sanlitun Soho, a soon-to-be mega shopping mall, in the very heartland of the city’s youth culture. In the outdoor space stands the critically-acclaimed GIL pavilion resembling a giant bob-cut with thin, reflective purple plates scaling down the metal frame beneath. The multi- functional venue, designed by up-and-coming architect duo SO-IL, hosts numerous artist/ designer talks, conferences, and of course parties. When the show traveled to Shanghai’s 800 Show, a newly renovated and reconfigured old factory complex, artists and designers shared the spatial extravaganza of four enormous exhibition halls with distinctly gabled high roofs. The sheer scale of both venues is simply beyond what a well-to-do gallery or even local museums could offer, not to mention its curatorial verve.

Certainly the unconventional choice of venues alone is not responsible for the serious- minded crowd the show steadily attracts. Common knowledge has it that the art world still operates on the allure of exclusivity, embodied by anything from invitation-only openings to artist talks that are in essence lectures dictated by those in the know, all of which GIL quietly subverts. While this year’s theme “Sharism” has limitless applications and interpretations, it could simply suggest an non-exclusiveness in the sense that the exhibition, including the openings and events (115 of them!2) are free and completely open to the public, and that artists, designers, or independent film directors engage and converse with the audience, often semi-casually, right where their works are shown. Eindhoven-based designers BCXSY even offered professional guidance for local aspiring designers in a four-day design workshop.

In 2005, when a group of young artists came up to Ou Ning—GIL’s chief curator renowned for his remarkably wide range of artistic and curatorial practices—to pitch ideas for presenting their works at an unconventional venue that could better engage the general public, he recognized the potential of China’s bourgeoning youth culture and decided to help create an outlet which was the inaugural GIL exhibition. Presenting a cohesive statement was never a goal; the mode of production here resembles what curator Robert Storr once aptly defined: “the history of art is a fabric of epiphanies woven by many hands at different speeds; the present tense of art is the outer edge of that work in progress”.3 We witness this progress in invigorating abundance at 2010 Get It Louder.

Notes
1 74 artists/art collectives, 36 lecturers, and 15independent film directors participated in Get It Louder 2010.
2 GIL 2010 presented 35 artist talks, 4 workshops, 3 performances, 50 independent movie screenings and 23 director talks.
3 Robert Storr. “Thoughts on the 52nd International Art Exhibition.” http://www.korean-pavilion.or.kr/07pavilion/vbEN.html#, 2007.

宋冬的家庭与艺术

Sun, 01 May 2011 18:23:02 +0800

[ 宋冬+赵湘源，物尽其用，旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心，2011 ]

宋冬的家庭与艺术

欧宁

* 本文应旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心之邀而写，英文版发表于该中心出版的宋冬个展“爸妈，别担心，我们都挺好的”出版物。本文所有图片由宋冬摄于旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心展览现场。

2005年9月20日，当宋冬第一次把他母亲赵湘源经年累月收纳的上万件不同年代的家庭生活用品在北京东京艺术工程的空间展出时，人们交口称赞这个不同寻常的展览，特别是那句向着天空倾诉的霓虹灯：“爸，别担心，我们和妈都挺好的。”这句质朴的对话除了用来告慰宋冬亡父的在天之灵，更点出了这个展览的由来。赵女士因过于哀伤，在丈夫去世后一直沉溺于她多年来所收纳的旧物中不能自拔。而这个展览正是宋冬顺应母亲“物尽其用”的生活哲学和治家理念，说服她把所有旧物整理展出，藉此帮助她走出悲痛。大量普通而又琐碎的日常用品进入画廊空间，通过分类展出转化为艺术。而这种艺术，不仅对当事人的创伤心灵产生治疗作用，更对普通观众产生情感冲击。这种情感力量在大面积符号化和奇观化的当代艺术生态中阙如已久，所以更能打动人心，甚至催人泪下。

因为大受欢迎，“物尽其用”展览随后又在光州双年展、柏林世界文化宫、英国沃尔索新美术馆、纽约现代美术馆、温哥华美术馆巡回展出。宋冬艺术中的情感力量，大部分来自于他以家庭作为艺术的主题。在家庭伦常中积聚而成的个人情感，真挚而质朴，最易激起观众的共鸣。他在2000年接受此展览的策展人巫鸿的采访时曾说：“我一直想让我的家庭成员成为艺术的主题。一个关注生活的艺术家自然想对现实作深入的调研，没有哪种现实比我的家庭更贴近我。家庭是社会最小的单元，每个家庭都千差万别，家庭内部的关系也各有不同。” (1) 把私密的家庭故事作为一个艺术样本，让它承载个人情感，通过艺术系统的转化，在公共空间中展出，从而细致入微地揭示出社会的变迁，这一直是宋冬行之有效的艺术策略。早在1997年，他就开始了这方面的实验。他的第一个以家庭为题材的作品是《抚摸父亲》，探讨父子之间的身体关系。

[ 宋冬，抚摸父亲之一，旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心，2011 ]

宋冬父亲宋世平是个工程师，他出生于辽宁省，自清华大学土木工程系毕业后，任职于中国科学院直到1996年退休。1970年，他被列为“现行反革命”，下放到湖北的“五七干校”参加劳动。在1978年父亲被平反之前，宋冬很少可以见到他，在童年时代，父亲对他而言是非常陌生的。及至后来的相处，宋冬一直觉得父亲是一个无所不能、至高无上的权威。(2) 在中国的家庭中，父母对子女的抚育分工是不同的：母亲担当生理养育，父亲则代表社会执行教化，母亲总是尽量满足子女的生理需要，而父亲则要用社会规则对子女的天性进行约束，于是便形成“慈母与严父”的区别。通常母子之间会发生较多的身体接触，而父子之间则少有发生。特别是在传统中国的父权社会，父子之间有严格的礼仪规约，他们无法达至母子之间那种身体的亲昵关系。(3) 宋冬直至父亲2002年去世后才第一次触摸父亲的身体，他拍摄了这一过程，但至今不敢观看，所以影像一直封存在一盘录像带中。而他1997年的作品《抚摸父亲》只是一种精神上的抚摸。

宋冬最早在北京首都师范大学学的是油画，1994年才开始用装置、行为和录像创作作品。他的父亲不理解这种转向，认为这是在浪费他的绘画才华。为了消除这种观念上的差异，寻找父亲的支持，同时也为了弥合一直以来父亲的权威与自己之间的心理隔阂，宋冬动员父亲与他一起合作这件作品。他先用录像机拍了自己的手，再把手的影像投射在父亲身上，然后再把手的影像抚摸父亲身体的过程拍下来。他希望藉此探索与父亲重建一种身体上的亲昵关系的可能性。开始时宋世平穿着夹克，慢慢他褪下夹克剩下衬衫，再褪下衬衫剩下背心，最后褪下背心光着上身。这是一次父子间的成功沟通，它给了宋冬更大的信心来进一步与父亲合作。1998年他又与父亲一起完成《父子》和《父子太庙》两件作品。2002/2011年他再次把父亲的影像投映于一盆水中，再把自己探手触摸水中的父亲的过程拍下来。第一次的影像触摸与第二次的触摸影像再加上那盘永不放映的真实身体触摸的录像带，便构成了《抚摸父亲》的三部曲。

[ 宋冬，抚摸父亲之三，旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心，2011 ]

如果说《抚摸父亲》仅是以身体关系的探索来为父亲“去权威化”，那么《父子》和《父子太庙》则着眼于家庭中的血缘绵续和不同代际家庭成员之间的社会经验比较。《父子》是宋冬首次用影像叠加的方法来搜索亲子之间的生理异同（他亦曾与母亲作过同样的试验但没有公开），同时加入对父辈身世和人生经验的聆听。父子两人脸部形象的叠加产生出一种类似人类学实验风格的影像，而父亲的叙述则为这一影像添加了个人史和社会学的内容。更有意思的是，当这种叠加的影像投射于北京故宫太庙的三根柱子上时，它与这个建筑空间发生了奇妙的对话。《父子太庙》是一个成功的Site-specific作品，它以一个平民家庭的父子关系和两代人的社会经验叙述（口述录像和书面简历）来激活了这个皇家祖庙建筑的物理空间，给人提供了极为丰富的想象，让人进一步反思中国渊远流长的宗法社会结构，以及中央集权政治与庶民生活之间的纽带关系。

在2001年创作的另一个作品《父子照镜子》中，宋冬的父子主题进一步深化。这个录像装置通过两面相对的镜子造型以及投射在它们上面的镜像变化构建了极为复杂的对应和转换的关系。宋冬在他和父亲正面相对之间的位置放了镜面反光纸，以两个机位拍摄分别拍摄，当反光纸燃烧后，父子的形象便产生互换。它让人窥见亲子之间那种彼此争夺又相互交叉的自我，以及因社会变迁而造成的理想与现实的冲突。他们互为镜像，照见彼此。父母总是把孩子视为自我的一部分，他们今生的憾事，总希望孩子在他们的世代来完成。(4) 尽管宋父开始对宋冬的艺术取向有些许牾逆，但后者仍主动寻和，以尽人子之责。宋冬曾问他父亲此生可有遗憾？宋世平说有二，一是他不能追求自己的学术兴趣而是听从国家的需要去从事民用工程的研究；二是不能为自己的父母提供更好的生活条件。(5) 宋冬闻言流泪，他既在现实中侍奉父母，同时还把这种侍奉延伸至自己的艺术创作，真正做到了“生事爱敬，死事哀戚”。(6)

[ 宋冬，父子太庙，旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心，2011 ]

宋冬无疑是一个传统意义上的孝子。他在2001年创作的《听爸妈讲我是如何出生的》和2004年创作的《中药》(2004)均是通过展开家庭叙事来追念亲恩之作。前者先是亲录父母讲述自己出生前和出生后的童蒙时代的影像，投影在两个柱子上后，艺术家本人再走入这些影像中，制造自己的形像与父母形象的重叠；后者则以雕塑、口述录像和故事重演的方式讲述自己小时因被秋千撞伤导致脸部骨质增生，父母以自行车带着自己辗转在各大医院求医，最后靠一剂便宜的中药神奇治愈的经历。在这些凝聚着深深情感的家庭记忆中，人们可以看见不同时代的社会条件如何作用于中国人的伦常生活。比起那种直面历史现场的宏大作品，这样的构思胜在以小见大，并以拳拳之心驻入人们的灵魂。

在为“物尽其用”这个展览所写的一篇自述中，宋冬写道：“孝顺，实为顺者为孝，只要母亲高兴，顺她而去。”(7) 它表明宋冬一直在遵守中国最传统的家庭伦理观念，亦即孟子所说的事亲应养志，而非养口体。(8) 在新生事物高度浓缩，社会像爆炸般激烈变迁的当代中国，这样的坚守殊为不易。在2002年宋世平去世后，宋冬的母亲所收纳的旧物已到汗牛充栋的地步，她居住的胡同旧屋已无立足之地，宋冬和姐姐宋慧为说服母亲放弃这些旧物而引致数度争吵。(9) 赵湘源女士之所以保存这些旧物，是因为她一生经历过命运的巨大转折，她原本富裕的家庭因备受政治冲击而走向贫寒，(10) 自此她一直恪守“物尽其用”的原则，这是她在过去的艰苦岁月中所养成的节约、不浪费、储存物资以备不时之需的习惯。而在丈夫去世后，这些旧物所凝聚的家庭生活的记忆也让她不忍舍弃。在不能拂逆母意又要解决问题的情况下，宋冬根据他一直以来以家庭主题创作作品的思路，想出了把这些旧物做成一个展览的方案——通过展出它们，表达对父亲的追思，正是这些旧物的终极用途。赵女士同意了。

[ 宋冬，父子照镜子，旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心，2011 ]

以现代消费的目光观之，这些不同年代的物品可以说是无用之物，是垃圾；而以宋冬姐弟的生活条件和能力，他们完全不需要这些物品，而可以给他们的母亲一个符合当下标准的生活条件。但是，要“承欢先意”，就不能以这样的观点和做法去冲撞母亲，他们取的是“养志”的孝道，实施了两全之策。当“物尽其用”展览在2006年光州双年展获得大奖，赵湘源偕宋冬前往领奖时，她也完全明白儿子的良苦用心，并终于走出丧夫之痛。藉由一个艺术展览，两代人的价值冲突获得和解，母子双赢，这实在是当代孝道的一个美谈。可惜的是，在2010年这个展览要继续在纽约现代美术馆继续巡回展出时，赵女士因为要救一只在树上受伤的鸟而失足跌倒，之后就去世了，她再也无法目睹她收纳的物品继续在这个世界流转下去。

当数不尽的被子衣服，鞋子袜子，布头线尾，锅碗瓢盆，油盐酱醋，瓶盖饭盒，屋梁门框，卧具沙发，椅子柜子，电器手表，肥皂搓衣板，儿童玩具……占满画廊空间，人们仿佛置身于一个家庭生活的考古现场。这些都是赵女士的宝物，但它们却是快速消费时代人们的丢弃品。我马上想起卡尔维诺在《看不见的城市》中写到的城市莱奥尼亚：“在马路边的人行道上,昨天的莱奥尼亚的废弃物包在塑料袋子里,等待着垃圾车。除了挤过的牙膏皮、烧坏了的灯泡、报纸、容器、包装纸,还有热水器、百科全书、钢琴、瓷器餐具。莱奥尼亚的富足,与其以每日生产销售购买量来衡量,不如观察她每天为给新东西让位而丢弃的物资数量。你甚至会琢磨,莱奥尼亚人所真正热衷的究竟是享受不同的新鲜事物,还是排泄、丢弃和清除那些不断出现的污物。” (11) 这是一座疯狂消费之城，新产品层出不穷；它引诱人们喜新厌旧，不断抛弃自己的所有物，因而也是一座垃圾之城。如果说卡尔维诺写出了有关今日时代的寓言，那么，赵女士则凭一己之力，以一种偏执的个人行动，在与整个时代对抗。

[ 宋冬，中药，旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心，2011 ]

这正是“物尽其用”这个亲情浩荡的展览同时兼备的一种批判力量。它让那些人们平常看不到的、被垃圾分类处理公司隐秘地消于无形的东西裸呈出来。翻检这些琐碎的物品，附着在它们身上的年代痕迹让人深感时间巨大无比的吞吐量：有多少事物转瞬即逝？有多少变化被压缩于一朝一夕？物品的快速换代如此，人也如此。现代消费社会不仅不断制造垃圾，也不断制造“人类废品”(human waste)——那些因骤然老去，或知识能力无法更新，或处于社会边缘，被认为无用的人。(12) 社会变迁如此迅疾剧烈，正如宋冬所说，“……这个巨变的时代，一个人可以有好几辈子的不同生活”，(13) 他与他母亲的代沟在所难免。过惯苦日子的父母辈，你拼死让他们吃一顿好的，住一次好的，买一件新衣裳，或去旅行，他们就是不肯。(14) 他们不参与消费，他们就会被视为“人类废品”。所幸的是，赵女士这样的老人并未被儿女遗弃。

宋冬深受新时代的洗礼，但他能敬重父母辈的价值观。早在1998年，他就根据母亲一贯秉持的“穷人经济学”创作了《一分钱掰成两半儿花》这个作品。他通过切割一个真实的一分硬币，把它变成艺术品，放入艺术系统中展出和流通，来创造它新的价值。这个作品一方面是对物质短缺年代勤俭生活的追怀，一方面又暗示了新时代无所不在的消费主义。它其实和“物尽其用”展览一样富于对抗的意味。有意思的是，宋冬从他母亲的治家哲学出发，后来又开始关注北京胡同里那些普通老百姓对于有限生活空间的灵活使用，以及以一种幽默的方式周旋于法律的空隙来拓展家庭空间、对抗掠夺式的都市规划的策略，进而发展出一系列名为《穷人的智慧》的装置作品。但消费社会的渗透是如此之深，它不仅挟持国家机器，更有资本作后盾，一切对抗似乎都是无力的。就像“物尽其用”这个展览，它进入了艺术的系统，在这么多国家不同的艺术机构展出，它会否被人私底下评估，贴上市场价值的标签？如果有私人收藏家或画廊要购买赵女士所有展出的旧物，她卖还是不卖？尽管她的回答是“不卖”，(15) 但被消费的可能已经彰显出这个时代的危险性。

[ 宋冬，一分钱掰成两半儿花，旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心，2011 ]

不管亲情是否会被定价出售，宋冬的家庭主题仍一如既往。在动员父母亲参与了自己的艺术的同时，他也曾让其他家庭成员涉入自己的创作。1998年的互动作品《家庭成员照相馆》就邀请了父母，姐姐宋慧一家三口以及妻子尹秀珍在北京十二个不同的地点拍摄合照的录像，将此录像投影于展览空间，再邀请观众根据各人爱好，选择不同的宋家成员的位置取而代之，宋冬据此给观众拍成新的合成图像，并寄赠给他们。2003年，女儿宋儿睿出生，这个家庭增添了新的成员。2010年，宋冬为女儿制作了第一个作品《我的女儿是我的四季》，拍摄她与自己一起制作食物盆景《春》《夏》《秋》《冬》的录像，以四频LCD的形式展出。宋儿睿从未见过她的祖父，宋冬还准备在2011年2月25日在旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心开幕的新展览中制作一个新作品《女儿与我和父亲》，让父亲、自己和女儿三代人的影像重叠。这个展览以“爸妈，别担心，我们都挺好的”为题（它同时也是一个新的霓虹灯作品），将囊括宋冬所有以家庭为主题的艺术作品。宋家三代人，包括逝去的，活着的，新生的，将在这个展览中有个大团圆。

在中国这个以儒家文化作为依托的国度里，家庭人伦是一种最重要的价值观。尽管不少中国当代艺术家都曾以家庭或家族作为创作题材，(16) 但涉入之广，用情之切，反思之深，则以宋冬为最。他对传统价值的坚守，以及作品中的情感浓度，使他获得更多观众的认同与共鸣，但仅此并不足以成为优秀的艺术。对芜杂的历史信息的收纳和整理，对激烈社会变迁的揭示和批判，更使他的作品获得了一种超越情感的巨大能量。他的这些作品已经成为研究中国二十世纪和新千年的社会、家庭、政治、经济和文化的生动样本。而他在艺术形式和媒体应用上的广泛实验，更是拓展了中国当代艺术的视觉经验和美学边界。值得一提的还有他和妻子尹秀珍的互动合作项目“筷道”（The Way of Chopsticks），虽然这一项目因内容上与家庭无涉而不在本文的论述范围之内，但这种“夫妻档”的艺术生产和工作方式却极富家庭色彩，它似乎能从另一个角度说明，宋冬的家庭，乃是一个全方位的艺术家庭。

2011年1月31日，北京。

注：

(1) Wu Hung: Waste Not - Zhao Xiangyuan and Song Dong, Tokyo Gallery + Beijing Tokyo Art Projects, 2009.第45页。
(2) 根据2010年12月28日在北京昌平宋冬工作室对他的采访。
(3) “在一个父权发达的地方，父子间的隔离时常是很显著的……”费孝通：《生育制度》，见费孝通文集《乡土中国》，世纪出版集团，上海人民出版社，2007年。第508页。
(4) “子女既常被父母视作是自我的一部分，而这一部分在时间上却是后来的。它有着另外的一个起始。于是一个被现实所蹂躏过的自我，在这里却找到了一个再来一次的具体机会。每个父母多少都会想在子女身上矫正他过去所有的缺点。他常小心提防使自己不幸的遭遇不致在他的第二生命中重现。” 费孝通：《生育制度》，见费孝通文集《乡土中国》，世纪出版集团，上海人民出版社，2007年。第516-517页。
(5) 同(1)。第49页。
(6) 《孝经•丧亲》。
(7) 《物尽其用》，见宋冬在上海证大现代艺术馆的个展画册，第155页。
(8) 《孟子•离娄上》：“曾子养曾皙，必有酒肉；将彻，必请所与；问有余，必曰有。曾皙死，曾元养曾子，必有酒肉；将彻，不请所与；问有余，曰亡矣，将以复进也，此所谓养口体者也。若曾子，则可谓养志也。事亲若曾子者，可也。”子女侍奉父母，最重要的是使父母精神愉快，至于物质（口体）上的好坏还在其次。只有曾子的待奉父母，才符合这种孝心和孝顺的原则，因为所谓“养志”就是孝心和孝顺。见《中国古典名言集》，诸桥辙次（日本）编，冯作民（台湾）译述，岳麓书社，1989年。第90页。
(9) 同(2)。
(10) “母亲赵湘源1938年出生在富裕的家庭，我外祖父是国民党的军官，在抗战中立过功，曾救过共产党重庆地下党成员。母亲12岁时随他和我外祖母来到北京，1953年外祖父被冤枉成国民党军统特务，而被他救过的地下党，为了明哲保身，一直拒绝出庭作证。他被判刑7年。出狱后在北京纽扣厂当工人，直至退休。外祖母独立支撑着这个家，在外祖父出狱后不久，外祖母因癌症在1961年去世，这给了我的母亲巨大的打击。时值著名的三年自然灾害，母亲的家庭走向贫寒。” 同(7)。
(11) 卡尔维诺：《看不见的城市》，《卡尔维诺文集》第四卷，张宓译，译林出版社，2001年。第228页。
(12) “人类废品的产生，既是现代化不可避免的产物，同时也是现代性不可分离的伴侣。它是秩序构建(每一种秩序都会使现存人口的某些部分成为不合适的、不合格的或者不被人们需要的)和经济进步（这种进步必须要贬低一些曾经有效的生存方式，因此也一定会剥夺倚靠这些方式生存的人的谋生手段）必然的副作用。” 齐格蒙特• 鲍曼：《废弃的生命》，谷蕾、胡欣译，江苏人民出版社，2006年。第6页。
(13) 同(7)。
(14) 同样的事例也发生在我和我母亲之间。参见我的《致母亲书》，《生活》月刊，2011年第2期。
(15) 同(2)。
(16) 巫鸿曾列出一份这类艺术家的名单和他们的相关作品。同(1)，第57页。

宋冬个展：“爸妈，别担心，我们都挺好的”
2011年2月26日至6月12日，旧金山Yerba Buena艺术中心
更多信息：http://t.cn/h5xNJU

《天南》文学双月刊创刊活动图片全记录

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 01:59:29 +0800

辗转大中华地区深圳，广州，上海，北京，成都，香港，台北等七大城市，总共15场演讲、讨论会和分享会，《天南》文学双月刊创刊马拉松活动图片全记录。

转自天南文学网站：
http://www.chutzpahmagazine.com.cn/CnNewDetails.aspx?id=72
http://www.chutzpahmagazine.com.cn/CnNewDetails.aspx?id=81

[ 01 - 深圳 - 2011年4月10日深圳大学 - 欧宁“亚细亚故乡：文学在行动”演讲 ]

深圳大学是欧宁的母校，师弟师妹们在他演讲后向他献花。

欧宁给深圳大学的年轻作家林培源（中）签名。

[ 02 - 深圳 - 2011年4月10日物质生活书吧 - 欧宁“亚细亚故乡：文学在行动”演讲 ]

欧宁介绍日本纪录片大师小川绅介如何在农村开展拍摄工作。

现场使用新浪微博大屏幕与听众进行互动。

欧宁与现代传播深圳公司的工作团队，《天南》的读者以及他的朋友们合影。

[ 03 - 广州 - 2011年4月11日学而优书店 - 欧宁“亚细亚故乡：文学在行动”演讲 ]

每站演讲都有新浪微博大屏幕互动。

学而优书店是欧宁在广州时创办的电影团体缘影会定期放映电影的地方，今天所用的投影设备仍然是他当年让赞助商赞助的。

[ 04 - 上海 - 2011年4月12日复旦大学 - 欧宁“亚细亚故乡：文学在行动”演讲 ]

组织演讲的复旦学生用粉笔书写的演讲题目别有风格。

欧宁演讲完后，《天南》创刊号的作者之一熊琦，资深编辑沙湄，执行主编阿乙一起上来与听众进行互动。

[ 05 - 上海 - 2011年4月13日华东师范大学 - 欧宁“亚细亚故乡：文学在行动”演讲 ]

华东师范大学是诗人辈出的地方，在此分享文学与社会最合适不过。

欧宁介绍《天南》创刊号的封面摄影作品和设计。

[ 06 - 上海 - 2011年4月13日季风书店 - “文学期刊与写作”讨论会 ]

阵容庞大的讨论会，出席者包括主持人《东方早报》文化版记者石剑锋），《收获》编辑走走，上海作家路内，《独唱团》编辑团队成员马一木和蔡蕾，《天南》创刊号作者小浪、曹寇和顾前，《天南》编辑团队欧宁《天南》、阿乙和沙湄。

沙湄和路内。

讨论会后的作者和编辑签名活动。

[ 07 - 北京 - 2011年4月14日北京大学 - 欧宁“亚细亚故乡：文学在行动”演讲 ]

欧宁这次已经是第三次走上北大的讲坛，之前他曾在校内不同的学院讲过城市研究和纪录片制作。

和同学们分享亚洲各地知识分子离开城市回到乡村生活和工作，参与乡村建设的经验并讨论文学如何介入社会。

北大的听众有非常多有深度的提问。

《天南》推广专员蔡荔馨和主编助理徐荔莉，他们为路演活动忙前忙后，是幕后的功臣。

[ 08 - 北京 - 2011年4月15日时尚廊 - “小说的艺术”讨论会 ]

七零后小说作家和文学出版人济济一堂，讨论“小说的艺术”。

观众的提问。

大合影，左起：欧宁，唐棣，《天南》读者，阿乙，郑小驴，斯继东，张楚，柴春芽。

[ 09 - 北京 - 2011年4月16日库布里克 - “文学期刊与写作”讨论会 ]

《三联生活周刊》副主编苗炜，欧宁，《人民文学》主编李敬泽。

阿乙，《今天》杂志编辑部主任肖海生，苗炜，欧宁。

北京作家，《无主题变奏》作者徐星，讨论会主持人困困。

《人民文学》主编李敬泽。

库布里克的听众。

[ 10 - 北京 - 2011年4月17日单向街 - “亚洲乡村建设”讨论会 ]

讨论会主持人李翔（右一）作开场白。右起：建筑师唐克扬，著名香港记者张翠容，乡村建设工作者张兰英，《中国在梁庄》作者梁鸿，欧宁。

欧宁在介绍《天南》创刊号的专题重头文章，Arundhati Roy的《印度的死亡在乡村》与印度反水坝运动的关系。

梁鸿在分享她为《天南》创刊号采写《行动在大地》一文的感受，以及她对中国当代乡村建设运动的见解。

中国当代乡村建设运动的代表人物邱健生在作主题发言。

邱健生的PPT显示的图片是河北定县翟城村的晏阳初乡村建设学院的孩子们。

张兰英在分享她在菲律宾国际乡村建设学院（由晏阳初创办）七年的工作经验。

张翠容在剖析拉美农业与政治的关系。

单向街的听从耐力极好，长达两个半小时的讨论过程中纹丝不动。

[ 11 - 北京 - 2011年4月18日清华大学 - 欧宁“亚细亚故乡：文学在行动”演讲 ]

欧宁在聆听清华诗社的同学的欢迎辞。

演讲后与学生交流并签名。也许因为秦晖在清华任教的关系，清华学生在农村和农业问题的讨论上见解非常深刻。

[ 12 - 广州 - 2011年4月20日中山大学 - 欧宁“亚细亚故乡：文学在行动”演讲 ]

中山大学的演讲场地可容纳300人，标准影院的放映设备，是所有演讲活动中最高标准的。

学生们踊跃提问，甚至出现抢话筒的现象。

签名环节。

[ 13 - 成都 - 2011年4月23日白夜酒吧 - “文学期刊与写作”讨论会 ]

在翟永明的白夜酒吧，讨论会由作家洁尘主持。出席讨论的有诗人何小竹，诗人和散文作家、《天南》创刊号作者蒋蓝，翟永明，八零后小说作家颜歌，小说作家华秋，诗人柏桦，欧宁和阿乙。

阿乙在发言。

《天南》创刊号作者，诗人柏桦在发言。

翟永明的发言，她提议《天南》可以用一种新颖的编辑方法策划一期诗歌专题。

颜歌提及《天南》给人发表作品的荣誉感。

华秋（右一）表示专题策划可以刺激作家写作，成熟的作家应可应付任何题材的写作。

嘉宾和听众。

[ 14 - 香港 - 2011年5月13日三联创BOOKCAFE - 《天南》X《字花》文学杂志讨论会 ]

右起：主持人高俊杰（《字花》主编），嘉宾欧宁（《天南》主编），董启章（小说家），韩丽珠（小说家，曾任《字花》编辑），谢晓虹（小说家，曾任《字花》编辑）。

台下读者讨论十分热烈。

聆听几位嘉宾的分享。

董启章回答读者提问。

嘉宾和听众。

[ 15 - 台北 - 2011年5月14日101大楼现代传播集团台北公司 - 天南》文学双月刊台北分享会 ]

分享会现场。

秀威资讯科技的总编辑杨宗翰。秀威资讯科技是柏桦长诗《史记》台湾版的出版公司。

台湾老牌文学杂志《文讯》的企划主编邱怡楦。

《中国时报》副总编辑及《人间》副刊中心主任，诗人杨泽。

中为杨佳娴，诗人，已出版诗集《屏息的文明》（木马文化，2003），《你的声音充满时间》（印刻出版，2006），《少女维特》（联合文学，2010），散文集《海风野火花》（印刻出版，2004），《云和》（木马文化，2006）。

远流出版社出版四部总监曾文娟，财团法人台湾文创发展基金会专案召集人王品和大辣出版公司总经理兼总编辑黄健和。

《联合文学》总编辑王聪威和独立作家张铁志。

左起：欧宁，现代传播集团台北总经理徐海玲，台北布拉格书店经营人“银色快手”。布拉格书店是台北最早入货卖《天南》的书店，大约在四月中旬便订了书。

《中国时报》文化组主任，小说作家，《我是许凉凉》作者李维菁和财团法人华人心理治疗研究发展基金会执行长王浩威。

行人出版和目宿媒体的执行长廖美立在介绍他们最近在台湾创造文学影像票房纪录的《他们在岛屿写作》文学大师系列电影项目。中为现代传播集团台北总经理徐海玲。

欧宁与徐海玲女士及青康藏书房的主人何新兴。何先生专门做旧书，讲究版本收藏，是台北非常有名的旧书店。

明报周刊《明派时尚》副总编辑南美瑜（中），李维菁（右）。

＃感谢现代传播各地分公司的同事的紧密配合和支持，感谢所有参与活动的嘉宾和读者。

《天南》文学双月刊网站视频

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:39:30 +0800

天南文学双月刊网站视频之一［乡村乌托邦：清迈的艺术实验］主编欧宁走访泰国清迈的农村艺术实验。相关细节请阅读欧宁为本刊创刊号“亚细亚故乡”特辑撰写的专文《乡村乌托邦：清迈的艺术实验》。

天南文学双月刊网站视频之二［行动在大地: 中国乡村建设运动］主编欧宁和《中国在梁庄》作者梁鸿走访在福建和河南农村第一线的中国乡村建设工作者。相关细节请阅读梁鸿为本刊创刊号“亚细亚故乡”特辑撰写的专文《行动在大地》。

《天南》文学双月刊发刊系列研讨活动

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 05:13:51 +0800

01 文学期刊与写作

文学在上世纪80年代兴盛，由作协和文联主办的文学期刊成为主要舞台，涌现出像余华、苏童、莫言等一批作家。至今中国仍保留数量庞大的文学期刊，但除《人民文学》、《收获》等外，基本上多数杂志已经退出主流舞台。但在另一个层面，越来越多的出版机构、当红作者正在介入期刊运营，众多新的文学期刊应运而生，由现代传播集团主办的《天南》文学双月刊也于2011年4月创刊。此次讨论会将探讨：文学的时尚化、阅读体验的快餐化是文学的修正，还是文学的倒退？传统文学杂志的整体运作的优势与颓势在哪里？新形势下，写作者如何自我选择？或者说如何自我定位？中国文学的内在读者在哪里？他们会购买什么杂志？编辑部应该对他们采取什么立场？中国文学期刊的国际化运作的可行性在哪里？一本文学期刊的基本使命是什么？……

第一场上海

2011年4月13日19:00-21:00
上海市卢湾区地铁1号线陕西南路站季风书店
电话：021-64152843

主持人：
石剑锋（《东方早报》文化版资深记者）
嘉宾：
走走（《收获》资深编辑）
马一木（《独唱团》执行主编）
蔡蕾（《独唱团》编辑）
小浪（上海作家）
曹寇（南京作家）
顾前（南京作家）
欧宁（《天南》文学双月刊主编）
阿乙（《天南》文学双月刊执行主编）
沙湄（《天南》文学双月刊资深编辑）
俞冰夏（天南文学网站编辑）

第二场北京

2011年4月16日16:00-18:00
北京市东直门外香河园街1号院北区当代MOMA2号楼库布里克
电话：010-84388381

主持人：
困困（现代传播集团特稿部撰稿人）
嘉宾：
李敬泽（《人民文学》主编）
邱华栋（《人民文学》主编助理）
肖海生（《今天》编辑部主任）
徐星（北京作家）
苗炜（北京作家）
欧宁（《天南》文学双月刊主编）
阿乙（《天南》文学双月刊执行主编）
沙湄（《天南》文学双月刊资深编辑）

第三场成都

2011年4月23日15:00-17:00
成都市窄巷子32号白夜酒吧
电话:028－86695671

主持人：
洁尘（成都作家）
嘉宾：
翟永明（成都诗人）
柏桦（成都诗人）
钟鸣（成都诗人）
何小竹（成都诗人）
颜歌（成都作家）
华秋（成都作家）
赖武（成都摄影师）
蒋蓝（成都作家，《青年作家》主编）
欧宁（《天南》文学双月刊主编）
阿乙（《天南》文学双月刊执行主编）

02 小说的艺术

《天南》文学双月刊的小说作者多数在70年代出生（包括郑小驴这样早熟的80后作者）。他们既不像60年代人集体性进入纯文学名人堂，也不像80年代人通过市场制造出版神话，形态就像被包夹的点心。但实际上最能代表现在中国文学质量与情态的便是他们。《天南》在未来还会集中邀请70后作者出版一期专辑。此次讨论会将邀请一批年轻的小说家和大家分享：自己写作的主要任务是什么？在为谁写作？主要师承来自西方，还是中国？小说是故事性为主，还是强调一种细节？会不会诞生真正的中国城市小说？六零后小说，七零后和八零后小说的贡献在哪里？中文小说未来的方向在哪里？他们对自己未来写作路线的规划和准备是怎样的？……

2011年4月15日19:30-21:00
北京市朝阳区光华路9号时尚大厦2楼L214时尚廊
电话：010-65871998

主持人：
欧宁（《天南》文学双月刊主编）
嘉宾：
徐则臣（北京作家）
唐棣（唐山作家）
郑小驴（长沙作家）
柴春芽（北京作家）
张楚（北京作家）
阿乙（《天南》文学双月刊执行主编）

03 亚洲乡村建设运动

过度城市化已成亚洲地区的主要社会问题。它打破了传统亚洲社会城乡之间互相哺育的关系，令大量农地休耕，生态恶化，粮产锐减，人口失衡，造成阶层分化和群体冲突。自上世纪三十年代始，晏阳初、梁漱溟、陶行知等知识分子都先后投身于中国的乡村建设和平民教育运动，他们都一致认定解决中国问题的关键在于农村、农业和农民；而亚洲其它地区的众多知识分子亦热切关注本地区的城乡关系和资本全球化的迫人现实，他们呼吁重视耕地的流失，农业的危机，农民的失权，传统的沉沦等具体问题，致力于恢复农村的生机，重建城乡互哺的关系，为过度城市化提供深刻反思。他们的努力已汇聚成一种新的乡土主义(Ruralism)的社会运动潮流。本讨论会将对亚洲各地的乡村建设运动，文化和生活实践以及一系列关于乡村的学术研究展开分享和评点。

2011年4月17日16:00-18:00
北京市朝阳区朝阳公园路6号院蓝色港湾11号楼rs-16号单向街
电话：010－59056973

主持人：
李翔（《彭博商业周刊》中文版副主编）
嘉宾：
何慧丽（中国农业大学副教授，乡村建设工作者）
张兰英（聚贤社基金会联合创始人，曾在菲律宾国际乡村建设学院工作七年）
汪明杰（美国科罗拉多大学博士，乡村建设工作者）
张翠容（香港著名记者，最新著作为《拉丁美洲革命现场》）
覃里雯（现代传播集团新闻中心主任）
唐克扬（2010威尼斯建筑双年展中国馆策展人）
梁鸿（《中国在梁庄》作者，《天南》文学双月刊创刊号作者）
欧宁（《天南》文学双月刊主编）

注：所有活动免费参加。

［亚细亚故乡：文学在行动］巡回演讲排期

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:46:36 +0800

[泰国清迈圣巴东县半湄乡，一帮艺术家发起的“土地计划”在秋收。The Land Foundation供图。]

《天南》文学双月刊主编欧宁演讲

亚细亚故乡：文学在行动

[深圳]

2011年4月10日星期日10:00-12:00
深圳市南山区南海大道3688号深圳大学科技楼3号报告厅

2011年4月10日星期日14:00-16:00
深圳市百花二路百花公寓一栋一楼8号A物质生活书吧

[广州]

2011年4月11日星期一19:30-21:30
广州市新港西路93号学而优书店中山大学老校区店

2011年4月20日星期三19:30-22:00
广州市番禺区大学城外环东路132号
中山大学大学城校区传播与设计学院小礼堂

[上海]

2011年4月12日18:30-20:30
上海市邯郸路220号复旦大学3106教室

2011年4月13日13:00-15:00
上海市华东师范大学闵行校区第三教学楼113室

[北京]

2011年4月14日19:00-21:00
北京市海淀区颐和园路5号北京大学二教307室

2011年4月18日19:00-21:00
北京市海淀区清华大学第第四教学楼

其它相关讨论活动“亚洲乡村建设运动”，“文学期刊与写作”，“小说的艺术”等日程稍后公布。

［演讲简介］

过度城市化已成亚洲地区的主要社会问题。它打破了传统亚洲社会城乡之间互相哺育的关系，令大量农地休耕，生态恶化，粮产锐减，人口失衡，造成阶层分化和群体冲突。特别是在中国，今日众多城市问题例如征地拆迁、城中村、贫民窟、农民工、治安等等其实均源自倒悬的城乡关系和城乡资源的不合理分配。研究城市常常要追溯至乡村的根源，城市与乡村，是常常纠结在一起的同一问题的一体两面。

因为过度开发和建设，城市土地储备日益耗尽，城市资本进一步侵蚀农村的土地。城市中的土地饥渴者经常打着建设新农村的旗号，用城市化的思路和惯性进入乡村进行开发。作为人类多元化生存模式的一种，乡居生活日渐被城市同化，传统农村社会结构分崩离析，农业生态遭受破坏，乡村建筑和空间布局难以传承，人居方式最后归于单一，人们将失去绵延数千年的精神家园。

最近十年来，美国一些生物公司和农业投资公司开始抢注生命专利（DNA Property），他们通过一些转基因实验来改变物种构成（例如大豆或某些花卉），并抢先注册专利，来垄断农业生产和市场。这意味着以后中国农民将不能自由交换种子，专利权的买卖将为国际资本创造巨大利润。全球化资本可谓无孔不入。农业资本主义其实是今天一种全新形式的殖民行为。它不仅影响农村地区，亦将波及城市生活。

自上世纪三十年代始，晏阳初、梁漱溟、陶行知和毛泽东等知识分子都先后投身于中国的乡村建设(Rural Reconstruction)和平民教育运动，他们都一致认定解决中国问题的关键在于农村、农业和农民；今天温铁军等人继承了他们的事业，致力于农村的实践和研究，乡建运动一直薪火相传。建筑师谢英俊更深入中国的穷乡僻壤，发起互助建屋运动，通过直接交换劳动力来规避货币以及资本主义的交易模式，融入今日反全球化的政治现实，其努力已回归至经典安那其和早期共产主义的理想。

而亚洲其它地区的众多知识分子亦热切关注本地区的城乡关系和资本全球化的迫人现实，他们呼吁重视耕地的流失，农业的危机，农民的失权，传统的沉沦等具体问题，通过分享各自在农村地区的乡村建设运动，文化和生活实践以及一系列关于乡村的学术研究，致力于恢复农村的生机，重建城乡互哺的关系，为过度城市化提供深刻反思。他们的努力已汇聚成一种新的乡土主义(Ruralism)的社会运动潮流。

《天南》文学双月刊主编欧宁将和大家陈述他过去五年来对这一议题的关注和观点，逐一介绍他对印度，日本，泰国，中国云南、河北、河南、江苏、安徽、福建、四川等地和台湾地区的农村历史和现实以及知识分子乡建运动的观察，分享他走访这些地区的切身经验，并以《天南》文学双月刊创刊号专题“亚细细故乡”(Agrarian Asia)的策划和编辑为例，和大家讨论文学如何开始行动，如何介入农村地区这种逼人的现实。

［欧宁简介］

作为出版人，欧宁主编设计的《北京新声》（1999)不仅帮助定义了首都北京新出现的摇滚音乐文化现象，还尝试了各种令人眩目的视觉实验;而《周末画报》别册(2000-2006)则刷新了中国媒体出版的观念。

他是大声展（2005，2007，2010）这个两年一度在深圳、广州、上海和北京巡回的大型设计艺术展览的创办者和组织者。作为策展人，他2006年还应Serpentine Gallery的邀请在伦敦巴特西电站策划了一个中国声音艺术的展览项目《唤醒巴特西》并在奥斯陆和卢森堡等地巡回展出。

作为艺术家，他的作品在世界各地展出并被收藏，他在2002-2003年主持了城市研究和纪录片项目《三元里》，曾在第50届威尼斯艺术双年展、纽约现代美术馆、东京森美术馆等多次展出; 在2005-2006年，他又主持了名为《大栅栏》的项目并拍摄了纪录片《煤市街》，集中研究北京天安门广场附近的大栅栏地区，这个项目由德国联邦文化基金会支持赞助，曾在鹿特丹荷兰建筑学院、卡尔斯鲁尔艺术与媒体中心、第10届伊斯坦布尔艺术双年展、地拉那双年展等多次展出。

作为作家，他为世界各地的杂志和展览出版物撰写了大量文稿，其英文文集将于今年由柏林和纽约的Sternberg Press出版。2005年欧宁经由城市研究转向乡村问题的思索，并于今年开始在安徽黟县碧山村开始一个名为“碧山共同体”的共同生活的实验计划，试图通过艺术家、建筑师、设计师、作家、电影导演和音乐人介入农村的调研和实践活动，重新引发农村的活力。

欧宁还是独立音乐团体新群众以及独立电影团体缘影会的创建人。1989-2000年他求学、生活、工作于深圳。2000年迁至广州，2004年创办了别馆(Alternative Archive) ，致力于另类历史的创建与保存。2006年离开广州迁至北京，2008年起担任邵忠基金会总监。2009年，他出任深圳香港城市\建筑双城双年展总策展人, 第53届威尼斯双年展Benesse大奖评委以及日本横滨国际影像节终审评委。

今年他将出任成都双年展国际设计展的策展人。与此同时，他创办和主编的新文学双月刊《天南》(Chutzpah Magazine)，由现代传播集团出版，目前已在全国上市。

［欧宁博客］

http://www.alternativearchive.com/ouning