I have a studio in Berlin -- let me cue on here -- which is down there in this snow, just last weekend. In the studio we do a lot of experiments. I would consider the studio more like a laboratory. I have occasional meetings with scientists. And I have an academy, a part of the University of Fine Arts in Berlin. We have an annual gathering of people, and that is called Life in Space. Life in Space is really not necessarily about how we do things, but why we do things.
我在柏林有一個工作室, 讓我帶你們由這邊開始, 就在上個周末,這邊剛下了一場大雪。 在工作室中我們從事了很多的實驗。 與其說是工作室我更相信它是個實驗室。 我在那邊經常與科學家進行例行會議。 並且在柏林大學內,我有主持一個學會。 我們每年會把人聚集起來, 我們稱它為生命的空間(Life in Space)。 生命的空間並不是很著重我們該怎麼做, 我們該怎麼做,而是為甚麼我們要那麼做。
Do you mind looking, with me, at that little cross in the center there? So just keep looking. Don't mind me. So you will have a yellow circle, and we will do an after-image experiment. When the circle goes away you will have another color, the complementary color. I am saying something. And your eyes and your brain are saying something back. This whole idea of sharing, the idea of constituting reality by overlapping what I say and what you say -- think of a movie.
請和我一同看一看這個在屏幕上十字符號。看到了嗎? 持續看它。不要管我。 然後你會感覺到你看到一個黃色的圓。這就是我們得到的視覺暫留所產生的現象。 當圓消失之後你會得到另外的一個顏色,那就是互補色。 這就是我所說的。你的眼睛與頭腦告訴你它們回來了。 這些點子值得我們去分享,這些點子的正是構成是交織在 你與我所訴說的。 想一想這些影像。
Since two years now, with some stipends from the science ministry in Berlin, I've been working on these films where we produce the film together. I don't necessarily think the film is so interesting. Obviously this is not interesting at all in the sense of the narrative. But nevertheless, what the potential is -- and just keep looking there -- what the potential is, obviously, is to kind of move the border of who is the author, and who is the receiver. Who is the consumer, if you want, and who has responsibility for what one sees? I think there is a socializing dimension in, kind of, moving that border. Who decides what reality is?
從兩年前至今,由柏林大學內的科學部所提供的薪水, 我完成了這些 我們共同製作的影片。 我不需要這樣去想它是否非常的吸引人。 很明顯的在敘述的認知上它並不一定有趣。 然而,甚麼是它所代表的背後的的潛力呢, 讓我們繼續往下看。 甚麼是這所帶來的潛力,很明顯的, 導演他讓邊界的一種移動的表現, 與讓接收者所收到的。 誰是欣賞者,假如你需要的話, 誰可以為每個來欣賞的人下同樣的定義呢? 我認為這樣的表現承現在我們對於社會觀念的看法之上, 這是一個,移動的邊界。 誰可以決定事情真象為何?
This is the Tate Modern in London. The show was, in a sense, about that. It was about a space in which I put half a semi-circular yellow disk. I also put a mirror in the ceiling, and some fog, some haze. And my idea was to make the space tangible. With such a big space, the problem is obviously that there is a discrepancy between what your body can embrace, and what the space, in that sense, is. So here I had the hope that by inserting some natural elements, if you want -- some fog -- I could make the space tangible.
這是在倫敦的泰特現代美術館(Tae Modern)。 那雪在這裡,那個景象,就在那。 這就是我剛剛放出的黃色半圓盤狀的圓型在這個空間之中。 我放了一片鏡子在天花板的中間,有些霧,有些模糊。 這整個概念,非常明顯的讓空間形成一個實在的感受。 在這樣一個大的空間之中,問題是 怎麼明顯的表現 讓你的身體感受它的差異性, 在直覺之下用幾分熱情來擁抱這個空間。 如果你想要所以在這我希望能借由一些個大自然的元素, 一些微霧,我可以打造出你對空間的感受。
And what happens is that people, they start to see themselves in this space. So look at this. Look at the girl. Of course they have to look through a bloody camera in a museum. Right? That's how museums are working today. But look at her face there, as she's checking out, looking at herself in the mirror. "Oh! That was my foot there!" She wasn't really sure whether she was seeing herself or not. And in that whole idea, how do we configure the relationship between our body and the space? How do we reconfigure it? How do we know that being in a space makes a difference?
那麼這些人發生了甚麼事呢,他們開始在這空間中看到自己身在其中。 所以看看這些。看這個女孩。 當然她們在博物館內透過這些血腥的鏡頭看到這些。 是嗎? 這些就是我們今日博物館的功能。 但是看看她的臉, 就像她檢查的一樣,透過鏡子觀看她自己。 Oh!這是我的那一雙腳。 她不確定她所看到的那雙腳是否為她的。 所以我猜想, 這整個點子是如何聯繫著我們的身體與空間的關係呢? 我們如何重新配置它們呢? 我們如何認知在空間中所造成的這些個差異呢?
Do you see when I said in the beginning, it's about why, rather than how? The why meant really, "What consequences does it have when I take a step?" "What does it matter?" "Does it matter if I am in the world or not?" "And does it matter whether the kind of actions I take filter into a sense of responsibility?" Is art about that? I would say yes. It is obviously about not just about decorating the world, and making it look even better, or even worse, if you ask me.
你看到我在一開始所用的言語的, 我用為甚麼那麼做,來取代如何做嗎? 為甚麼那麼做表示了實際的問題, ”當我決定下一步時會帶來甚麼樣的結果呢?” ”事情會怎麼樣呢?” ”假如我在這世界之中的與否是否會帶來事情不同的變化呢?” ”當我帶著負責任的想法去 過濾每一件我所採取的行動時,這些事情會變的如何呢?” 藝術是包括這些事嗎? 我會跟你說是的。這是非常明確地 關於我們如何裝飾這世界,乃至於讓它看起來更加的美好。 或者讓這世界變的更差,假如您問我的話。
It's obviously also about taking responsibility, like I did here when throwing some green dye in the river in L.A., Stockholm, Norway and Tokyo, among other places. The green dye is not environmentally dangerous, but it obviously looks really rather frightening. And it's on the other side also, I think, quite beautiful, as it somehow shows the turbulence in these kind of downtown areas, in these different places of the world.
它是那麼樣的顯而易見的,就像我需要負起我所做的事情的責任一般, 我曾在河流之中投下綠色的染料 像是洛杉磯、斯德哥爾摩、挪威與東京 等諸多地方。 這些綠色的染料並不會對我們的環境帶來任何的負擔, 但那件事的確引起相當大的驚恐。 在某一方面是這樣的,但在另一方面來看,我認為它是件美麗的事情。 這些綠色的染料總是會在世界上不同的城市之中 製造出豐富的喧囂。
The "Green river," as a kind of activist idea, not a part of an exhibition, it was really about showing people, in this city, as they walk by, that space has dimensions. A space has time. And the water flows through the city with time. The water has an ability to make the city negotiable, tangible. Negotiable meaning that it makes a difference whether you do something or not. It makes a difference whether you say, "I'm a part of this city. And if I vote it makes a difference. If I take a stand, it makes a difference."
綠色的河流,像是活動的份子,不只是展覽的某一部份而已, 這個點子真正圍繞著是人們、 城市,在城市之中的人們走過, 經過這些空間而建構出來的氛圍。空間之中呈現出時間的概念。 而城市中的水流跟著時間一同流動著。 水具有能力來 讓城市變的可觸摸並且可探討的。 所謂可探討的意思是不管您做了些甚麼 是與否都會造成這城市的不同。 它就會造成不同不管你是否這樣說 : “我是這城市之中的一份子。 假如我投下那一份足以改變的行為 假如我表明態度,它一定會變的不一樣的。”
This whole idea of a city not being a picture is, I think, something that art, in a sense, always was working with. The idea that art can actually evaluate the relationship between what it means to be in a picture, and what it means to be in a space. What is the difference? The difference between thinking and doing. So these are different experiments with that. I won't go into them. Iceland, lower right corner, my favorite place.
這整個城市的概念不只是個圖像, 我認為它關乎於藝術、觀感, 這事總是這樣進行的。 這整個概念是藝術能真正評估圖像它的關聯性 與所代表的意義究竟是甚麼, 它在空間中又象徵著甚麼?這些有甚麼不同? 它的差別是關於所認知的與所作為的不同。 所以這些不同的試驗代表了這意義。在這我不多說。 在右下角是我最喜愛的地方冰島。
These kinds of experiments, they filter into architectural models. These are ongoing experiments. One is an experiment I did for BMW, an attempt to make a car. It's made out of ice. A crystalline stackable principle in the center on the top, which I am trying to turn into a concert hall in Iceland. A sort of a run track, or a walk track, on the top of a museum in Denmark, which is made of colored glass, going all around. So the movement with your legs will change the color of your horizon. And two summers ago at the Hyde Park in London, with the Serpentine Gallery: a kind of a temporal pavilion where moving was the only way you could see the pavilion. This summer, in New York: there is one thing about falling water which is very much about the time it takes for water to fall. It's quite simple and fundamental.
透過這些類型的試驗,他們篩選出建築的模型。 這是正在進行中的實驗。 另一個試驗是我正在為BMW所從事的, 試著套用於汽車的設計之上。 它由冰製成。 透過水晶結晶在頂部所堆疊成的原則, 我正試著替冰島的音樂中心變的不同。 在丹麥的博物館頂層, 散佈著一些運行或步行的通道。 那些是由透明與彩色的玻璃依著四周而呈現的。 所以當您在這裡走動時會感受到 腳上的顏色會隨之改變。 在去年夏天,在倫敦的海德公園(Hyde Park) 內的蛇型(Serpentine)畫廊內。 透過時間的移動 是唯一一種方式使您可以看到短暫出現的亭子。 在紐約今年夏天。 有一個概念設計是關於 透過水向下流動而讓人感受時間的流逝。 它是那樣的簡單設計與基礎。
I've walked a lot in the mountains in Iceland. And as you come to a new valley, as you come to a new landscape, you have a certain view. If you stand still, the landscape doesn't necessarily tell you how big it is. It doesn't really tell you what you're looking at. The moment you start to move, the mountain starts to move. The big mountains far away, they move less. The small mountains in the foreground, they move more. And if you stop again, you wonder, "Is that a one-hour valley? Or is that a three-hour hike, or is that a whole day I'm looking at?"
我曾經走訪過很多位於冰島上的山脈。 當您到了一個新的村莊, 您會像是看到了一個新的風景般的,看到了嶄新的景色。 當您持續身在這片美好的風景之中 就會像是不需述說而感到廣大的美好。 就像是不經語言述說但您身在其中。 當您開始移動而山也開始相對移動。 較大的山它們相對移動較慢, 眼前那小座的山相對後面的大山移動的更快。 假如您停了下來並開始思考 ”這是一個小時的山谷行, 或者是個三個小時的健行,還是將要花上一個整天來經過我所見的地方?“
If you have a waterfall in there, right out there at the horizon; you look at the waterfall and you go, "Oh, the water is falling really slowly." And you go, "My god it's really far away and it's a giant waterfall." If a waterfall is falling faster, it's a smaller waterfall which is closer by -- because the speed of falling water is pretty constant everywhere. And your body somehow knows that. So this means a waterfall is a way of measuring space.
假如您看到有瀑布, 而它正在地平線的那方,你看到了 並且往前走,”看阿那水流下是如此的緩慢” 您繼續往前走,”我的老天阿它是如此的遙遠,它真的是個大瀑布”。 假如這瀑布是小的 那麼當您看到這瀑布落下的水流將是快速的。 因為所有地方的水落下的速度都是一樣的。 而您的身體總是會以直覺的告訴您。 所以這意味著水落下的方試將可讓您量測時空。
Of course being an iconic city like New York, that has had an interest in somehow playing around with the sense of space, you could say that New York wants to seem as big as possible. Adding a measurement to that is interesting: the falling water suddenly gives you a sense of, "Oh, Brooklyn is exactly this much -- the distance between Brooklyn and Manhattan, in this case the lower East River is this big."
當然作為一個象徵性的城市紐約, 它重要的扮演了 與周圍空間相對角色,您可能這樣說,紐約它 似乎想要盡可能凸出。 計算著所量測到 水落下的概念 可能使您忽然有所心得 “ Oh,布魯克林(Brooklyn)是多麼的大, 從布魯克林到曼哈頓的距離是個明顯的例子, 這東邊流域下游是如此之大。”
So it was not just necessarily about putting nature into the cities. It was also about giving the city a sense of dimension. And why would we want to do that? Because I think it makes a difference whether you have a body that feels a part of a space, rather than having a body which is just in front of a picture. And "Ha-ha, there is a picture and here is I. And what does it matter?" Is there a sense of consequences?
所以它並不只是給予城市自然應有的概念。 也給城市帶來維度的概念。 那麼為甚麼我們要那麼做? 因為我認為這所造成的差異不只是 您自身 在這座城市的圖像之中, 而是讓您感受到您是切身的於這城市的空間之中。 就像”呵呵,這裡有一張圖片而我在裡面。這代表甚麼意義? 是否有甚麼重大的意味嗎?
So if I have a sense of the space, if I feel that the space is tangible, if I feel there is time, if there is a dimension I could call time, I also feel that I can change the space. And suddenly it makes a difference in terms of making space accessible. One could say this is about community, collectivity. It's about being together.
假如我有空間的概念, 假使我可以感受到空間是可明確的, 假如我感受到這裡的時間, 假使這有我可以稱做時間的維度概念, 我就可以覺知到我可以改變這裡空間。 並且它會忽然做出不同的決定 使得空間的概念便的可以理解。 也許其中之一可以說是關於 我們的社會、團體。 這是關於共同的概念。
How do we create public space? What does the word "public" mean today anyway? So, asked in that way, I think it raises great things about parliamentary ideas, democracy, public space, being together, being individual. How do we create an idea which is both tolerant to individuality, and also to collectivity, without polarizing the two into two different opposites? Of course the political agendas in the world has been very obsessed, polarizing the two against each other into different, very normative ideas.
為甚麼我們創造公共空間(public space)? 甚麼是”公共(public)”這字在現今的意義? 我在這邊提問, 我認為這與人們提起的 議會式(parlementric)概念、民主式、公共空間, 是獨立而又共同的。 我們應該如何創造 這想法是具有寬容性的獨立個體, 而又具集體性的, ,而不會分化成極端的 兩個對立面? 當然在政治用語上議程 這字給人困擾並將兩件事情盡可能的 區分,用一種非常標準化的方式來說明。
I would claim that art and culture, and this is why art and culture are so incredibly interesting in the times we're living in now, have proven that one can create a kind of a space which is both sensitive to individuality and to collectivity. It's very much about this causality, consequences. It's very much about the way we link thinking and doing. So what is between thinking and doing? And right in-between thinking and doing, I would say, there is experience. And experience is not just a kind of entertainment in a non-casual way. Experience is about responsibility. Having an experience is taking part in the world. Taking part in the world is really about sharing responsibility. So art, in that sense, I think holds an incredible relevance in the world in which we're moving into, particularly right now. That's all I have. Thank you very much. (Applause)
我要特別提出在藝術或文化上來說, 為甚麼藝術與文化對於我們 所居住時空之下它是那麼令人感興趣的, 因為它證明其中之一可以 可以在生存的空間之中 製造一種具有兩個面相 – 具獨立性 與具集體性的空間。 它是富有相當影響性的並且互為因果。 它也是呈現我們如何連結 思考與行動的。 所以甚麼是藉於我們思考與行動之間的橋樑呢? 對於我們的思考與行動, 我可以這樣說,是取決於我們的經驗。 經驗告訴我們的並不只是 一種不互為因果方式的娛樂。 經驗是關乎責任的表現。 經驗是取決於我們參與這世界的一部份。 參與這世界的我們是有關我們如何分享彼此的責任。 所以藝術,在這概念之下, 我認為是決定在我們想要 讓這世界變得如何的一種令人難以置信關鍵。 特別是當下。 這是我所有可分享的一切。非常感謝您們。 (鼓掌)