# 年会八｜齐林斯基中英文整理稿 ## 从无条件的“我”到无条件的“我们”再到有条件的“你”？艺术中的联合行动变体与友情经济的呼吁 From Unconditional "I" to Unconditioned "We" to Conditional "You"? Variants of Joint Action in the Arts and a Plea for an Economy of Friendship 西格弗里德·齐林斯基 Siegfried Zielinski 郑叶颖、张铎瀚/编译 任柄霖/校对 【现场图 单人+ppt】 在全球贸易极速增长的绚烂景观下，根本性冲突与危机正在爆发，这需要我们对先进通讯技术进行批判性审视：通讯技术改善人类生存境遇的许诺是否具有现实依据？是什么统治着这巨大的、带来剥削与控制的数字帝国？人们应该如何艺术地介入黑箱重重的人工智能（artificial extelligence）世界？对我而言，黑箱是我们看待新人工智能时非常重要的问题。稍后我将会讨论为何我称之为 extelligence（外部智能）而非 intelligence（内部智能）。 In the glamour of the accelerated global trade of commodities: fundamental conflicts and crises have taken on an enormous explosive force and make us look even more closely and critically than before, especially when it comes to the advanced technologies of communication. Does the promise of an improvement of conditions through technical communication still have a real basis? What governs the gigantic digital empires of exploitation and control? How can one intervene artistically in the strategies of concealment of artificial world including extelligence ones? This concealment issue for me is the most important regarding the new artificial extelligence. We can discuss later why I call them extelligence and not intelligence. 为何现有通讯技术面临的急迫问题不是修复而是不断更新？是否创新已成为一种“邪教”，迫使我们不断创造新事物，亦或是我们目前还未到考虑修复现存之物的时候？顺便一提，这对于现在的建筑师而言是一个重要的问题。我对上海正在开发中的新城市地景十分好奇，建筑修复而非造新将成为未来几十年的重要范式。这一创新“邪教”同时引诱我们在没有真正理解之前，即便冒着风险也要创造新的事物。对于人们目前如何感知、对待人工智能，我有一个简短但富有哲理的解读：我们在制造它，我们在使用它，但我们对它一无所知（we are doing it, we are making it, without really understanding what it is.）。我们需要弥合这一诡异的裂缝。 Don't the existing technical communication relations urgently need repair instead of the compulsion to constantly create something new？Innovation as we heard yesterday has become a religion to be permanently need to do everything new. Or is it not time to think about repairing what is existing? This is by the way a big matter for architects at the moment. I'm very curious about it. Tomorrow I will have a personal tour through Shanghai with some architects. And they will show me new urban sites and I'm very curious to learn what is developing there. Repair in architecture is already the paradigm for the next decades and not innovation. Even with the risk of making something, before we really understand it. This is my very short but very philosophy interpretation of artificial intelligence, and the perception and the way we are dealing with it at the moment: **we are doing it, we are making it, without really understanding what it is.** And this is something which is very peculiar a kind of a gap which we have to work on. 最近几个月，我参与了几个相关项目。在这些项目中，我向参与者们提出了以上问题，并共同探讨。在这里我想与大家简单分享其中的三个案例： In recent months, I have been involved in a number of projects where all these questions which I have formulated were addressed and discussed by artists intervened. ### 项目一：非黑箱（UNblackboxing） 一个仍在进行中的项目——**非黑箱（UNblackboxing）**（图n-2：项目 UNblackboxing），由柏林[爱因斯坦数字未来中心（Einstein Center Digital Future，ECDF）](https://www.digital-future.berlin/en/)主办。我的前助理丹尼尔·伊尔冈（Daniel Irrgang）策划了项目艺术展览[“UNblackboxing：对数字领域剥削和控制的艺术调查”（UNblackboxing: Artistic Investigations Into Digital Realms of Exploitation and Control）](https://www.digital-future.berlin/en/events/events/news/ausstellungseroeffnung-unblackboxing-artistic-investigations-into-digital-realms-of-exploitation-and/?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=f2a63bc91c5708a4f69ce3bd6ab7c15b)。这个项目由来自世界各地的艺术家们共同参与，并一同面对这一艰难的任务：打开人工智能的黑箱，消除人工智能训练规则与语法的不透明性。 One project was **UNblackboxing** and it's still running. It was run by the Einstein Center for Digital Futures in Berlin. My former assistant Daniel Irrgang curated the art show UNblackboxing: artistic investigations into digital realms of exploitation and control. There were artists from all over the world who were working especially on this really big and important task to UNblackbox artificial intelligences - to UNblackbox the training rules and grammars and all that. That's very important and they did a very good job. ### 项目二：非理性计算（Irrational Computing） 第二个项目叫做[**非理性计算（Irrational Computing）**](https://rlfbckr.io/work/irrational-computing/)（图n-3：项目 Irrational Computing）。对于艺术家而言，非理性计算能够帮助他们打开硬件与软件的内部黑箱，尤其是硬件内部。比如量子物理学（quantum-physical）作为机器计算的基础，它不是线性的，也无法用电子状态描述，因此它超越了理性计算。艺术家拉尔夫·贝克尔（Ralf Baecker）从 2011 年开始创作这一项目。他以非黑箱（UNblackboxing）姿态使用动力装置创造迷人机器。他将机器黑箱彻底打开，揭示其中到底发生了什么，这与仅停留在电子层面的形式把戏完全不同。 The second one was a project called **Irrational Computing**. It plays a very important role for many artists at the moment to inside of the hardware and inside of the softwarere. But more inside of the hardware which is running the software they are looking for - let's say a quantum-physical basis of computing which not at all linear and not to be described in digital forms but goes beyond the rationality of the digital. Ralf Baecker, the project artist. He started the project in 2011 and it's still going on. It creates very fascinating machines with these impetus and this gesture of UNblackboxing. He really opens the machines down to the ground - what is happening down there, what is rumoring inside of it. This is something completely different with the digital level which we can see and which we operate. 另外，本届年会引言中引用了弗里德里希·基特勒（Friedrich Kittler）的说法。他的论点之一：计算机终结了一切媒介，数字图灵机吞噬一切曾经和之后的可能存在。我并不认同这种决定论导向的媒体理论（deterministic media theory）与终结叙事。事实上，宇宙要复杂得多，没有终结，也没有起始；如果一切有始有终，我会放弃工作、卖掉汽车，变得非常富有，住在岛屿……这十分无聊。物理学家需要简化叙事获得资金，花费数十亿美元不断讨论、研究宇宙大爆炸以及一切确定之物，但这并不是我们真正感兴趣的事。 By the way, just one critical remark to my dear friend Friedrich Kittler who was quoted in the intro description for the conference. I never agreed with his kind of - let's say deterministic media theory. And one of his thesis was that the computer is the last medium, that the digital, the Turing machine is the last thing which swallows everything before and everything possible afterwards. I don't believe in this kind of stories about last things. There are no first things and there are no last things. The universe is much more complex. Hopefully otherwise I would give up my job, sell car or something like that and get very rich and live on an island or somewhere, if everything would have a beginning and an end. It would be very very boring. I know that physicists need this kind of simplicity to get a lot of money for that billions of money to again and again talk about the big bang and all this deterministic stuff. But this is not what we are really interesting in. ### 项目三：人工智能无政府主义（AI Anarchies） 接下来我们谈些更有趣的项目。上个月我与柏林艺术学院（Academy of Arts, Berlin）合作共建了一所学校，并为其提供概念——**[人工智能无政府主义（AI Anarchies）](https://aianarchies.net/)**（图n-4：项目 AI Anarchies）。这个项目有关于探索人工智能（Artificial Extelligencies）中的无政府主义倾向，最终呈现包含展览和书籍资料。我将从三点假设开始，请大家尤其是年轻人们集中注意力于接下来的部分，它十分重要。 I come to the point which are interesting more. This is the third part of activity Which I did last month. I created a school in Berlin. Let's say I cocreated it, I gave it the brand mark, so to speak the ideas called **AI Anarchies**. I did this in cooperation with the Berlin Academy of Arts. It's about exploring anArchistic potentialities in **Artificial Extelligencies**. It's an exhibition and book project starting with three simple assumptions. And pleace, ladies and gentlemen especially the young ones, if you concentrate for next five minutes and then you get most of what I have to say. This is very important that I try to define for you what I mean when I talk about AI Anarchies。 第一点，在机器习得人类特性之前，人类就已经机械化了。这是第一个假设基础。人类-机器（Man - a machine）！18 世纪中叶，医生及生理学家 Julien Offray de la Mettrie 欣喜若狂地喊道。他那疯狂的论断直指勒内·笛卡尔（René Descartes）及其追随者，后者将人视作唯一拥有灵魂与意识的生物。早在控制论（cybernetics）理论出现之前，la Mettrie 就已经将非物质最后的避难所物质化，从而终结了物质基础的智能循环，进入一种结果循环（circular conclusiveness）。这个词语令人玩味，也适合描述我们的目前处境——“我被造故我在”（I am an Artefact, therefore I am）。这听起来像一首摇滚歌曲，也确实是。这是欧洲启蒙运动纲领的基本维度，即人的工具理性获得强调。在艺术领域，这早已不是将不可能变成可能——我们在这方面非常成功。是时候以其自身不可能性对抗已成为可能的一切。我们需要从封闭的用户舒适圈（dem Verzweckten）中走向开放，这值得尝试。 First - **Long before machines took on human character, humans had become machinic.** This is a very basic starting point for my assumptions. **Man - a machine**! exclaimed doctor and physiologist **Julien Offray de la Mettrie** euphorically in the middle of the 18th century. His outrageous treatise was directed above all against the great René Descartes and his followers, who attributed a soul and thus consciousness to man as the only living being. La Mettrie materialized also the last refuge of immateriality and thus closed the cycle of intelligent disponibility of matter - **circular conclusiveness** long before the invention of **cybernetics**. Circular conclusiveness - I like this term a lot and I play with it a lot. It's wonderful for describing the situation in which we are at the moment. **"I am an Artefact, therefore I am"**, it sounds like a rock song and it is a rock song. This is how an essential dimension of the program of the European Enlightenment, namely that of instrumental reason, can be accentuated. In the arts it has long since ceased to be a matter of making the impossible possible. We have been extremely successful at that. **It is time now to confront what has become possible with its own impossibilities**. This is what one could call the move out of the closed user circuits of the expedient (in German: dem Verzweckten) into the open. It is worth every attempt. 第二点，音乐家、演员，也是性别流动者珍尼西斯·布雷耶·P-奥里奇（Genesis Breyer P-Orridge）认为，艺术家最崇高的任务是自我去编程化（de-program），这是解构传统社会关系，如政治、经济和文化的前提条件。我在这里引用 GP-O 在一部邪典电影《解码》（Decoder，1984）中所说的话：“每个人出生时就已被编程，这是一种症候，而艺术面向终极问题，是终极思想，即如何破解这一编程。”这部奥威尔式（Orwellian）电影成为垮掉的一代（Beat Generation）晚期和早期工业运动音乐所狂热的对象，携带威廉·S·巴勒斯（William S. Burroughs）的精神，GP-O 在影片中强调：“信息就像银行，有些人富有，有些人贫穷。我们都可以变得富有。我们的工作、你的工作，是抢劫信息银行。杀死守卫，摧毁权力。” Second - The genderfluid musician and performer, **Genesis Breyer P-Orridge**, considered it the noblest task of the artist to de-program oneself. This would be the prerequisite for deconstructing social relations like politics, economy, culture and so on. GP-O literally said - I quote him, in a cult movie which I admire a lot it's called 1984 DECODER. GP-O literally said: "I believe that everyone is programmed from birth, and that is unhealthy. For me, art is the ultimate questions, the ultimate thoughts, how to de-program yourself. " In an Orwellian 1984 film that became a cult movie for the late Beat generation and early Industrial movement in music, titled DECODER, GP-O, in the spirit of William S. Burroughs, emphatically states: "Information is like a bank. Some of us are rich, some of us are poor(with information). All of us can be rich. Our job, your job is to rob the bank, to kill the guards go out there and destroy power." 第三点，与第二点相关，引用自费尔南多·佩索阿（Fernando Pessoa）1922 年的小说《无政府主义银行家》（The Anarchist Banker）：“真正的邪恶，事实上，唯一的邪恶，是凌驾于自然现实之上的社会习俗和想象——从家庭到金钱、宗教和国家。”这篇写于 1922 年的精妙文本，背后的思想依旧颇具挑衅，尤其对艺术家而言。否认社会想象作为统治机制可能将其推向荒谬的极端。以这篇关于金钱的小说为例，这意味着成为一名银行家比抢劫银行更为正当。 Third, and this is connected with the second quote from GP-O: "The true evil, indeed, the only evil, are the social conventions and fictions which become superimposed on natural realities—everything from family to money, to religion, to the state." This was a quotation by Fernando Pessoa. The novel from 1922 with his monologue the title of the book is **The Anarchist Banker**. The basic idea of this ingenious text from 1922 is amazing and still provocative especially for artists. Against the social fictions as mechanisms Of domination could help to push them to the extreme and thus lead them absurd. Using the example of the most powerful fiction mainly that of money. This means it makes more sense to become a banker than robbing a bank. 在以上案例中有几点非常重要：干预性的思想与行动，向普通公众揭开先进技术的黑箱，展示媒介关系的物质基础。这些项目与活动都摆出基于媒介的反文化（counter-culture）姿态。今天我将谈论第四种可能，一种新的未来主体性（subjectivity），可以与我们所生活在其中的技术物相互连接。 In all cases, intervening thought and action, the uncovering of the functioning of advanced technologies, which is hidden for the mass of users, and the materialological grounding of media relations play an important role. These activities belong to the basic gestures of media based CounterCultures. Today I will talk about a fourth potentiality, namely the possibility of a new future subjectivity that we can connect with the technical existences we live in. 【现场图-单人照】 这一观点是冒险的，它还未被书写出版，因此也是完全开放的。由于演讲时间限制，我将会简化我的观点，希望大家能够理解。我的主题是“从无条件的‘我’到无条件的‘我们’再到有条件的‘你’？艺术中的联合行动变体与友情经济的呼吁”。这是我的核心观点，将在最后再次讨论。首先，我将简短地介绍我的思考框架。这一讨论源自 2022 年卡塞尔文献展（Kassel Documenta）。 This is a risky thing because this is not yet written down in a book of something like that. This is completely open and for the purpose of the speech today I have to very strongly cut and shorten my arguments. I hope you will get it somehow. The discussion by the way just to give you a framework. It has been developed very strongly around the documentum 2022, the big art exhibition in Kassel and beyond. I call my short expertise From Unconditional "I" to Unconditioned "We" to Conditional "You"? Variants of Joint Action in the Arts and a Plea for an Economy of Friendship. First, very briefly on the framework of my reflections. This is a little bit hard please concentrate. 当我们在艺术语境中谈论新集体身份时，本质上存在两个相互交织的问题：我们如何在现在以及将来的艺术进程中识别行动主体？以及，艺术为何让我们如此感兴趣，以至于热情投入其中——是艺术家的出身、性别认同、政治纲领或意识形态的不同，或者确切地说，是艺术家特有的审美伦理价值判断？作为媒体及艺术领域的考古学家（archaeologist）及变体学家（variantologist），我将以谱系性同时碎片化的方式盘旋于这些的问题之上，希望能够激发大家的思考。 When we talk about new collective identities in the art context, there are essentially two intertwined questions at stake: What do we recognise now and in future as the subject of action, also in art processes? And, what is it about art that interests us so much that we passionately engage with it or engage in it - that which distinguishes artists by their origins, gender affiliations, political programmes or ideologies, or rather the particular aesthetic-ethical values that only artists are capable of generating as a particular one? Both sets of questions have a lot to offer. I circle them here in my own way as an archaeologist and variantologist of media & the arts - genealogical, fragmentary and hopefully thought-provoking. 吉尔·德勒兹（Gilles Deleuze）很早就追溯了主体身份这一爆炸性难题。1968 年 5 月，他在巴黎提交了他的论文《差异与重复》（Différance et Répétition）。彼时集体行动是左翼日常生活方式的一部分——他在论文序言中强调：“无论如何构想，身份首先定义了表征（representation）的世界。然而，现代思想产生于表征的失败与身份的丧失，以及在身份表征之下运作的所有力量的发现【啥力量？翻译需确认】。现代世界是一座海市蜃楼（拟像）（mirages [simulacra]）。”德勒兹在 1969 年使用“拟像”一词，这个词后来对让·鲍德里亚（Jean Baudrillard）及其媒介理论非常重要【脚注：《拟仿物与拟像》（Simulacra and Simulation ）】。在这里补充一点，后现代世界是任何表征概念的主要失败所在【翻译需确认】。表征在此只是幻象，现实中只能通过暴力强制执行——这是目前世界上最大的政治问题之一。而新世纪将第一次以综合身份（synthetic identities）为特征开启。 **Gilles Deleuze** traced the explosive nature of the question of **subject identity** early on. In **Différance et Répétition**, which he submitted as his dissertation in Paris in May 1968 - when acting in collectives was part of the paradigm of everyday life on the left - he emphasises energetically in the preface: "The primacy of identity, however it may be conceived, defines the world of representation. Modern thought, however, emerges from the failure of representation as well as from the loss of identities and the discovery of all the forces that operate under the representation of the identical. The modern world is that of mirages [simulacra]." He uses the word in 1969, simulacra which then later became so important for Jean Baudrillard and his media theory. The post-modern world - I would add - is definitely that of the principal failure of any concept of represéntativeness. They can only be maintained as phantasms and in real can only be enforced by violence. This is one of our biggest political problem in the world at the moment. The new century is the first to be characterised by **synthetic identities**. 你们中大多数人或许已经拥有这种综合身份。我们有来自北京、上海，乃至世界各地的学生。有的出生在中国，有的在南非或在保加利亚，而后到美国留学、去英国伦敦深造。柏林也成为热门留学城市，来自世界各地的学生前往柏林学习德语。这就是综合身份，他们不再有祖国，也没有母语。这些人会说三四种语言，但不知道哪一种是属于自己的语言。在政治上他们也不再有祖国（father land），因为没有可以称之为领土的地方——这非常重要。祖国和母语正变得像领土根源或种族起源一样成为幻想出来的人造语词结构。这是我们的讨论背景。令人深思，这次分享的一些想法，基于几年前高世名在法国斯特拉斯堡组织的一次座谈会“世纪：一个提案”发展而来。 Most of you are developing these kind of synthetic identities already. I have many students from Beijing, Shanghai, from all over the world. Some of them were born in South Africa, some of them were born in China, and then are going to school in London or United States of America. And then Berlin is the hotpot of the world and they all come to Berlin learn German and so on so. These are synthetic identities. They have no mother land anymore and they have no mother tongue anymore. They speak three or four languages and they don't know anymore which one is their own language. And of course they have no - and this is very important - politically no father land anymore, no territorium which is which they can call this is the land of my father's, or this is the territorium I stack to. It is very important and I will come back to that later but this is the background of my discussion. Fatherlands and mother tongues are becoming just as artificial constructs with a phantasmatic character as territorial roots or ethnic origins. A food for thought (also in memory of a great symposium Gao Shiming has organized in Straßburg some years ago). “我思故我在”（Cogito ergo sum）——勒内·笛卡尔（René Descartes）。这是欧洲现代性的自我（ego）与众我（the multitude I）（我即诸众，我即众人……），从 19 世纪到 20 世纪之交出现的第一个前卫派（Avantgarde）。鲍勃·迪伦（Bob Dylan）的新唱片《我包罗诸众》（I Contain Multitudes），献给沃尔特·惠特曼（Walt Whitman）。他从惠特曼的诗歌《我自己的歌》（Song of Myself, 51）中摘取了一些诗句——“我辽阔博大，我包罗诸众”（I am large, I contain multitudes）。这一观念从 18 世纪末出现再到 20 世纪初走向兴盛，为当时的艺术家们所共享。例如，艺术家埃贡·席勒（Egon Schiele），他庆祝多元身份、流动性别以及与之相关的一切。而在安东尼·阿尔托（Antonin Artaud）、瓦莱斯卡·格特（Valeska Gert）等人之后，这一众我的观念也随之消失了。 **Cogito ergo sum**(I think, therefore I am - René Descartes) – the ego of European Modernity as well as **the multitude I** (I contain multitudes, I am the many...) from the first Avantgarde at the turn from the 19th to the 20th century (Walt Whitman, Egon Schiele, Antonin Artaud, Valeska Gert etc.) Do you know the new record(I Contain Multitudes) by **Bob Dylan**, the one with a very long song sixteen minutes. This is dedicated to Walt Whitman and he took some of the poems(Song of Myself, 51) from **Walt whitman** - **I am large, I contain multitudes**. This was a concept of the artist which comes from the late eighteenth century and was very strong at the beginning of the twentieth century. For example Egon Schiele is one of these artists you know. He is a painter who was celebrating this multity identity, the gender fluidity and everything which is connected with that. So the multitude I is also somehow faded out after Antonin Artaud, Valeska Gert and others were celebrating that. 自 20 世纪末以来，创造另类世界的历史模式似乎正在迅速消失。而到了 21 世纪初，它的一部分可怕残余在政客的行动权力中不受限制地涌现；另一些则成为意识形态碎片，在全球身份市场上昂贵兜售——艺术市场也是全球身份市场的一部分。毫无疑问，艺术圈的大多数“我”不再是“诸/众我”，而只是一种多媒体世代精神，或可以称其为基于服务技术的进步文化产业中偶然交叉的产物。 It seems to be fast fading historical models of creating alternative Worlds since the 20th fin de siècles. Some of its fatal remnants are articulated in the completely unbounded acting power politicians of the early 21st century. Others are obviously still excellently fitting as ideological fragments that can be hawked and expensively sold on the worldwide identity markets - the art market is part of the worldwide identity markets. Definitely the ME of most actors in the art scene is no longer the multitude I, but only a more or less accidental intersection of the multimedia Zeitgeist or let's say the advanced cultural industries based on service technologies. 西方身份概念所面临最严峻的挑战是关于投射主体性（projectiled subjectivity）的问题，我们也可以在当代中国文化中找到这种主体性，激活无需条件的“我们”，这是我熟悉的“深时”（Deep Time）世界观。 The most important challenge for Western identity concepts is what I call the **projectiled subjectivity**, which we can also find in contemporary Chinese culture-as a re-activation of the unconditioned We, which is familiar to me from Deep Time Weltanschauung in China. 比如，用孔子思想解释笛卡尔的短语“我思”的意思是，为某物或某人成为可弃置的自我。一旦一个人持有某种立场，自我就会凝结；提出一种想法，即投射光亮，同时意味着将他人推入阴影。如果你进行“我”的表达，你将无法避免对他人产生排斥。孔子就是这样解释他的主张，即将不负责任视作对世界的基本态度。这一思想与意大利瓦蒂莫（Vattimo）乃至犹太哲学家马丁·布伯（Martin Buber）提出的对话哲学（dialogue philosophy）十分相似：我是你对我说你的那人（I am the one to whom you say you）。再一次，一首摇滚歌曲标题——I is just what you say you to，来自电子音乐二人组火星鼠（Mouse on Mars），也是我的好朋友。 For example, thought through Confucius f.e. the cogito from Descartes famous phrase means to become disposable for something or somebody. As soon as one holds on to a position, an ego coagulates. To put forward an idea, that is, to set light, already means to force others into the shadow. If you say I, you inevitably discriminate against the other. This is how Confucius paraphrases his plea for disponibility as a basic attitude towards the world. A concept very close to the dialogue philosophy developed by Vattimo in Italy or even Jewish philosopher Martin Buber: I am the one to whom you say you. Again this is a title of a rock song - I is just what you say you to. This is Mouse on Mars, the electronic music duo, two of my best friends. 从“深时”视角看，斯图尔特·布兰德（Stuart Brand）领导的一个地球（One Earth Movement）嬉皮运动——他共同创建了硅谷，与毛所领导的文化大革命（Cultural Revolution），两者虽然在本质上完全不同，但都可以解释为生产并重新分配了一种新的主体性（图n-7）。这是一个有些冒险的理论，但并非消极的解读。毛使用《毛语录/红宝书》（the Little Red Book）作为人民的“圣经”或指导手册，发起文革。而如果大家阅读过这本书，就会知道里面充满了算法。几十年后重新阅读，你会基于计算机算法的语境对其进行解读。因此，你可以用不同的方式解读它，它是创世、创造新人的“圣经”，创造了新的、复杂的主体性。 In a deep time perspective Movements like the hippyesque One Earth Movement headed by Stuart Brand, which co-created Silicon Valley, as well as Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution - which of course has been ontologically completely different - can be interpreted as generators for producing and distributing new kinds of subjectivity. I know this is a little bit risky thesis, but please think about that and I don't mean it negative at all. The cultural revolution how Mao Zedong develop it with the Little Red Book as the Bible and manual, as I interpreted it the manual how to run this revolution. You know it's full of of algorithmical elements when you read the book. Just reread it again after a few decades, then you can interpret it on the background of your knowledge about computer as an algorithm. You can read it in a different way - it was the Bible to create the new man, the new subjectivity which was very complex of course. 这种新的主体性应该为一种社会性（sociality）的构建带来奇点，这种社会性本质上不再基于人与自然的关系，而由先进技术构成——一种基于社会的控制论（social based cybernetics）。因此，这种社会控制论在以自然为导向的传统知识文化主体，和基于先进技术和消费及其机构、人工制品和网络的新存在模式（吉尔伯特·西蒙东语）之间作为枢纽。这就是我所说的无需条件的“我们”（unconditioned WE）。 This new subjectivitiy should prepare the singularities for a kind of sociality which would be essentially not based on the human relation to nature anymore, but would be constituted basically by and through advanced technology - a kind of **social based cybernetics**. It thus was functioning as a hinge between the subjectivities of the traditional nature oriented knowledge cultures and the new modes of existence(Gilbert Simondon) based on advanced technologies and consumption, their agencies, their artifacts, and networks. This is what I call the unconditioned WE. 基于刚才的框架介绍，我将分享艺术中联合行动的五种变体。除了这五种外，大家可以在我最近出版的一本丹麦语小书 *[Varianter Af Fælles Handling I Kunsten](https://artsandculturalstudies.ku.dk/art-as-forum/news/three-new-chapbooks/)* 中查找其他艺术集体身份变体。我将在演讲中揭示一种微型现象学，以对当代艺术生产的政治经济学进行最低限度的概述。 With this introduction in mind I like to differentiate today between five variations of connecting of we in processing artistic realities. Of course, there are a few more variations, which I discussed recently in a monograph in Daenish Language published by the University of Copenhagen. My presentation implicates a miniature phenomenology for a minimal outline of a political economy of contemporary art production. 在正式进入五种艺术集体变体之前，我们需要注意，关于“我们”的集体性问题以及无需条件的“自我”和“其他”，对于绘画、雕塑、摄影或诗歌而言，表演、社会行动主义、音乐、电影或新媒体艺术截然不同。艺术有不同的形式，因此也有不同的主体性，以及内在的主体概念。这一点非常重要。在昨天的论坛（Panel 21：向达·芬奇提案——21世纪的文艺复兴人）上，我们往往用和谐、一致的观点对达芬奇及文艺复兴艺术家进行解释，但统一性并不存在。表演、音乐等新媒体艺术与集体思想和实践更为亲近，而古典美术仍然是个人主义的产物。 What we should note at the outset is that the question of collectivity of the WE, and the unconditioned ego and the rest of it, is quite different for painting, sculpture, photography or poetry than for performance, social actionism, music, film or advanced media arts. There are different form of art, we never should forget that. And of course they also have different kinds of subjectivity, subject concepts which are inside of them. That is at least very important for me, we tend to forget that. It was also yesterday a big problem in the discussion of somebody like Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance artist we operated yesterday with harmonic art concept which is not existing anymore. The latter tend to be close to collective ideas and praxis, while the classical Fine Arts still tend to be much more individualistic. ### 1. 集体/合作社/工作坊（collectives/cooperatives/workshops） 第一种形式叫做集体（collective）或合作社（cooperative）、工作坊（workshop）。在拉丁语中，集体（collectivum）代表形成某一阶级（class），人们因为在某些方面彼此相似而聚集在一起，共享同一个身份，并忽略其他差异以实现团结。 The first form of collective work and the first form of "we" in the arts is what we can call the collective. That's collective, the cooperative or the workshop. This works on the same level and our dear friend has already in his introduction given some of the examples. The Latin collectivum stands for a formation of classes, the grouping together of details that are similar to each other under a designation that neglects their differences in favour of togetherness or even conceptually abolishes them. 作为艺术家协会或派别（associations）的集体，拥有漫长的时间谱系。这一现象不仅在欧洲出现，也在世界范围发生。比如，18 世纪初，在拿撒勒（Nazarenes）破陋的保护伞下，极端保守派画家聚集在一起捍卫艺术的神圣性，使其免受启蒙运动（the Enlightenment）的日渐亵渎。类似的，19 世纪的英国，拉斐尔前派（Pre-Raphaelites）致力于提升日常美学经验，抵制媚俗。需要强调的是，并非每一个集体都是进步的，他们也可能受保守思想驱动。 As associations of artists, collectives have a deep-temporal genealogy and are not a European but a worldwide phenomenon. Let us think, for example, of the painters who came together in the early 18th century with thoroughly conservative intentions under the open and holey umbrella of the Nazarenes. They defended sacred art against its increasing profanation in the period of the Enlightenment. Or the Pre-Raphaelites, who in 19th-century England set out to aesthetically elevate everyday experience, not even stopping at merciless kitsch. This is an important remar, because not every collective, not every cooperative or workshop is progressive. They can also be very conservative and can be driven by retrospective ideas. 而当代艺术集体从两种相互紧密交织的母题（motif）中产生。美国纽约的雨舞互助（[Raindance Cooperation](https://www.radicalsoftware.org/e/history.html)）、纸老虎TV（[Paper Tiger TV](https://papertiger.org/)），柏林媒体合作社（the Media Cooperative）——跨媒体（transmediale）在此诞生，英国的 Sankofa 和黑人影音集体（the Black Audio Film Collective），法国巴黎的自由电台（Radio Liberté）以及米兰的爱丽丝电台（Radio Alice）……这些集体共享紧密相连的内在社会程序，形成具有一致性的身份认同：他们公然对抗资本主义，投身于创建没有性别与种族歧视、业余者胜利的公正社会乌托邦。另一些集体则具有明显的艺术偏向，比如蚂蚁农场（Ant Farm）、芝加哥的批判艺术团（the Critical Art Ensemble）以及德国的 Ponton TV，他们根植于激浪派（Fluxus）、偶发艺术（Happening）和行为艺术（action movements）的传统，对新媒介产生背后的结构配置及其迷人（且具有魅惑性）的领导者们进行针对批判和审美对抗。 Contemporary collectives have historically emerged from two motif complexes. Both are closely intertwined. The Raindance Cooperation or the feminist grouping around Paper Tiger TV in the USA, the Media Cooperative in Berlin, from which transmediale emerged, Sankofa or the Black Audio Film Collective in England, Radio Liberté in Paris or Radio Alice in Milan had strongly programmatically oriented ties, identified themselves blatantly with the rebellion against capitalism, raved about the utopia of a just society without racial discrimination and with equal rights for all gender identities and professional qualifications. Groups with a strong artistic orientation, such as Ant Farm, the Critical Art Ensemble (Chicago) or Ponton TV (Germany), were also anchored in the Fluxus, Happening and action movements, with their targeted critical and aesthetic confrontations with the new media dispositifs and their charismatic leading figures. 蚂蚁农场是 1969 年组成的控制论游牧者团体（cybernetic nomads）（图n-8）。当你想要成为一个革命者，你就不能占有任何东西（即反抗私有制），或仅拥有能够维持日常生活的基本物品。这是一种嬉皮乌托邦：你有一辆皮卡，以及适配皮卡的 DIY 工具——制作影像、通讯及日常生活；所有一块工作的人们都能够塞进这辆车。这是他们对生活具体落地的梦想实践。 This is from 1969 the cybernetic nomads. You know when you want to be a revolutionar, you should not possess anything or only very little what you need for everyday life. And this was a kind of hippie utopia you have a van everything you need also for creating television for making video and so on is fitting into this lorry. And all the people who are working together are alsofitting into this lorry. And this is the way they spent their life and dream in a very concrete way of the future. 在当前的集体实践中，个人天才的魅力已经消退，并让位于另一种崇拜；支撑欧洲现代主义的艺术家概念逐渐分解为各种实用的组成部分。一般的男性艺术家被行动者、工人、创意者、表演者、组织者等身份所取代……在集体中，这些身份与能力的不同碎片重新组合。只有颇具异国情调的名字，比如“Wakaliwood”或“IkkibawiKrrr”，才允许个体出现。名字听起来越陌生，就越容易用艺术手段在公民运动和抗争中争夺注意力。 In the current collectives, the glamour of the individual genius has faded and is increasingly giving way to another cult. The concept of the artist that underpins European modernism is being broken down into individual useful components. The generic masculine artist is replaced by artist, activist, worker, creative, performer, organiser.... In the collectives, these fragments of different qualifications and talents are reassembled. Only exotic names of many collectives like "Wakaliwood" or "IkkibawiKrrr" allow the individual to appear. The stranger they sound, the better for the image on the now hard-fought attention market for civic activism and civil disobedience with artistic means, among other things. 在人工智能领域，关键性问题往往需要依赖分工协作攻克。战术技术学院（[Tactical Tech](https://tacticaltech.org/)）、计算诗学学院（[The School of Computational Poetics](https://sfpc.study/)）、不必要研究所（[The Institute of Unnecessary Research](https://unnecessaryresearch.org/)），由新西兰艺术家朱利安·奥利弗（Julian Oliver）等人成立的关键工程小组（[the Critical Engineering group](https://criticalengineering.org/)），以及更多正在利用艺术方法探索、发明世界的集体，彼此动态合作。在当前暴力性的历史语境下，自然、技术与人类主体交织形成复杂挑战，这一集体分工协作趋势将更为凸显。 In the specific fields of artificial intelligence, the decisive questions are once again being tackled in a division of labour and in a joint effort by several people. [Tactical Tech](https://tacticaltech.org/), [The School of Computational Poetics](https://sfpc.study/), [The Institute of Unnecessary Research](https://unnecessaryresearch.org/), [the Critical Engineering group](https://criticalengineering.org/) formed around the New Zealand artist Julian Oliver, and many others are discovering and inventing the world with artistic means in dynamic cooperation and tension with each other. Due to the violence of the current historical context and the complexity of the challenges in the interplay of natural, technical and human subjects, this tendency will continue to intensify. 在早期女性主义运动中，我们可以看见这两个母题链相互共生结合。第二次世界大战后，女性开始反抗父权制，打破既定性别规则禁忌，谴责艺术市场及文化机构中的男性合法统治。同时，从 20 世纪 60 年代后半叶开始，这些运动都和新技术在艺术生产与传播中的使用相链接。一个显著的区别是，女性偏好独立自主地工作，因为在群体中，她们担心雄性生物占据主导地位——通常是这样。 In the early feminist initiatives, the two chains of motifs outlined above combined symbiotically on the one hand. Women's rebellion against patriarchal conditions after the Second World War, the deliberate breaking of taboos against established gender rules, the denunciation of the legitimisation of male domination on the art market and in cultural institutions from the second half of the 1960s onwards were all linked to the appropriation of new technologies for artistic production and distribution. A striking difference, however, is that women generally wanted to work alone and autonomously. In the group, they feared the imposition of the usual domi-nance of male alpha animals. 在过去二十年里，集体在主导策划双年展或其他重要艺术文化事件中，形成了新的力量。这催生了 2022 年卡塞尔文献展（Kassel Documenta），由雅加达艺术集体 ruangrupa 策展。在这里，集体面临的考验是：集体或合作行动模式是否能够借助更为开放的艺术机构，真正打开艺术发展空间，以及如何通过美学手段实现这一点。在关于起源、种族、政治意识形态和性别取向的激烈辩论下，对古典的作者性的否定，以及对艺术作品及创作过程所有权的主张，再次对当前集体形成发挥重要作用。 New collective forces have been constituted in the last two decades with groups curating exhibitions, biennials or major art and cultural events. This has also given rise to ruangrupa from Jakarta, who staged the documenta in Kassel in 2022. What has been put to the test here is nothing less than the question of whether collective/cooperative modes of action are actually more capable of opening up spaces for the future by means of the open agency of the arts, and how they can realise this through aesthetic means. Under the strong influence of sometimes bitterly fought debates about origins, ethnic affiliations, political- ideological programs or gender orientations, the negation of classical authorship and claims to ownership of artistic works and processes is once again playing a major role in current group formations. ### 2. 乐队、合奏团（The Band, the Ensemble） 在这一变体中，我并不是在谈论德勒兹和瓜塔里在《千高原》中提到的乐队（band）——作为志同道合的社会边缘人的地下联系（尽管我的乐队主题也包含了这些方面）。相反，它是关于 20 世纪大众文化史上的一次成型，它一方面从室内乐（chamber music）的低谷时期发展而来，另一方面又从爵士乐和舞曲发展而来，并与摇滚乐形成了强烈的认同关系。在此，我将摇滚乐作为一个总称，指音乐层面的反叛和激进的艺术表达的最多样化变体，包括朋克、工业音乐、重金属等现象，以及从反主流文化到商业流行音乐的其他变体。 音乐界拥有最丰富的艺术创作互动经验，这也同样适用于音乐材料的生产和分销。柏林的厂牌“自由音乐制作”（FMP，全称Free Music Production）就是其中的佼佼者，该公司由萨克斯演奏家彼得·布罗兹曼（Peter Brötzmann）周围的一群爵士音乐家创建。 在长达 42 年的时间里（1968-2010 年），该厂牌不仅举办音乐演出和音乐节，还制作了大量唱片（以查尔斯·明格斯[Charles Mingus] 1952 年的首张专辑为例）。FMP 代表着一种由音乐人为音乐人及音乐爱好者组织的自我决定的基础设施，以及一种超越资本主义音乐产业的生活空间。 在我们的主题背景下，我最感兴趣的是两个方面： * 乐队（就像音乐团体[musical ensembles]）是一种社会建构。要想获得美学上的满足和艺术上的要求，制作音乐的前提是认真倾听，探索他人、他人的声音、他人的乐器是如何发出声音的，以及我们如何在共同的力量中发展我们的音乐能力。我从中国物理学家和古声学家Xu Fei的一次关于调谐（tuning）的讨论中了解到这一思想的千年深层时空维度。Xu Fei坚定地认为，只有当一个人开始与他人共同创作音乐时，与他人之间的音乐调谐才变得有必要。这方面的潜在政治内容在德语中通过几个术语表达出来，这些术语在议会民主的语义领域非常有效。从词源学上讲，（相互）交谈的活动决定了议会制度（意大利语词汇parlare即说话，交谈）和政治情绪，甚至更明显的是，投票被当作民主社会中最重要的行为之一。 * 从音乐家朋友那里和我自己作为主唱的微薄经历中，我知道乐队在其形成阶段、在其成长过程中是最令人兴奋的。在这时，相互倾听、对彼此好奇、对彼此特质和能力的尊重是最强烈、最真诚的。在我目前与音乐家兼声音研究者 FM Einheit 就 Einstürzende Neubauten 项目的起源等问题进行的工作传记谈话中，这一点显得非常清晰。1980或1981 年的前几个月，主要是在柏林“天才业余玩家（Geniale Dilletanten）”场景中各种即兴创作。1981 年，朋克乐队 Abwärts 的 FM Einheit 加入了他们，Einstürzende Neubauten 的基本三人组合也随之形成，他是乐队的节奏核心，鼓手 Unruh 与乐队相得益彰，而满头黑发的诗人 Blixa Bargeld 则尖叫着、呜咽着、憔悴着。将他们团结在一起的，与其说是一种音乐理念，不如说是一种强烈的情感，即他们对世界的共同本质，以及如何让世界的废墟发出声音和舞动起来。 从 FM Unity 的角度来看，这是项目中最振奋人心、最激动人心的阶段。1981 年，乐队的第一张长时演奏的唱片《Collapse》的封面上，就以照片的形式将这一阶段以一种极具讽刺意味的方式表现了出来。在对平克·弗洛伊德（Pink Floyd）等超级组合的巨大工业化努力的反讽中，乐队将简单的机械和电气工具铺在面前的地板上。起初，他们就使用工业社会抛弃掉的任何能发出声音的材料。 在全球巡演、官方文化机构的高度认可以及越来越专业的录音过程中，起初的开放与随意渐渐凝固成了一支引发狂热的乐队（cult band），随后又成为了反叛文化和“工业音乐”（industrial music）的代表人物。仅用了四五年的时间，这支乐队就成为了地下文化工业集群中的一个标志。 ### 3. 协作（collaborations） 下一个模式是协作（collaborations），比如 Knowbotic Research 小组。20 世纪 90 年代初，我用协作这个词来描述新兴网络文化中新出现的、松散的艺术合作形式时，承受着德国法西斯主义沉重的历史负担。这些人不仅共享当时昂贵的计算机硬件，并且更重要的是：共同开发软件。与合作社或集体相区别，我为这些协作形式总结了几个特征：专门为某些项目组建，因此寿命有限；共同的工作基础是资历、出身、世界与艺术观的异质性；科学和艺术跨学科工作；基于共同开发代码合作，反对商业软件，支持开源访问；具有颠覆性、反资本主义潜力，能够在短期内而非永久释放反抗能量。 At the beginning of the 1990s, I used this term, historically heavily burdened and difficult due to German fascism, to describe new loose forms of artistic collaboration in the emerging net culture. They were characterised by the fact that they not only shared the expensive hardware of computer technology of the time, but above all also developed software together. In contrast to the cooperative or the collective, I wanted to give a name to forms of cooperation that were characterised by several features: - They were formed specifically for certain projects and were thus limited in time from the outset. - Their common working basis consisted in the strong heterogeneity of qualifications, origins, world and art views - they moved diagonally to the sciences and the arts. - The most important medium of their collaboration was code developed together, in public access, so to speak, and against industrial software, set up specifically for a project. - The projects had a distinctly subversive, anti-capitalist potential that was capable of releasing counter-energies in the short term and was not intended to be permanent. Knowbotic Research 是 20 世纪 90 年代此类理论与实践的典型案例（图n-17）。该团体将跨界思想及行动作为核心，对表演、概念/动作艺术、音乐、计算机科学、设计和科学充满好奇。他们自世界各地，包括南极洲研究人员、量子物理学家、机械工程师、高性能程序员、建筑师和城市规划师等，并在多样化项目中协作。例如，他们创作了 *Dialogue with the Knowbotic South*（1994）、*Anonymous Muttering*（1996），并以此干预鹿特丹的公共空间。以及 *IO_dcies/lavoro immateriale*，占领了 1999 年威尼斯双年展奥地利馆。这一作品由意大利马克思主义者和哲学家迈克尔·哈特 (Michael Hardt) 和毛里齐奥·拉扎拉托 (Maurizio Lazzarato) 等人合作创作。我受科隆媒体艺术学院（Academy of Media Arts Cologne）委托与 ZKM Karlsruhe 共同制作。 The Knowbotic Research group is an excellent example of such theory & practice for the 1990s. Itself a nucleus of transversal thought and action, composed of performance, conceptual/action art, music, computer science, design and scientific curiosity, the group combined with Antarctic researchers, quantum physicists, mechanical engineers, high performance programmers, architects and urban planners from different parts of the world in their very diverse projects. For example, they created "Dialogue with the Knowbotic South" (1994), "Anonymous Muttering" (1996), with which the group intervened in public spaces in Rotterdam, or "IO_dencies/lavoro immateriale", which occupied the Austrian pavilion at the Biennale in 1999. It was created in collaboration with the Italian Marxists and philosophers Michael Hardt and Maurizio Lazzarato, among others. In cooperation with the ZKM Karlsruhe, I was commissioned by the Academy of Media Arts Cologne to produce it. 这类协作创作、共同解决、合力发明（与技术合作）模式，在 21 世纪初整个世界范围内变得非常普遍。香港与深圳或南美部分地区拥有一样兴盛的创客文化（Makers Culture）。正如我们在关于艺术和设计学院未来的国际会议“潜在空间”（Potential Spaces，2017）中所强调的，合作实践的模式在撒哈拉以南的非洲也非常普遍。最成功的项目之一就是 Foondi 研讨会，定期在肯尼亚和乌干达举行，并催生了许多有趣且野心十足的低技术发明。 Models of collaborative making, of working together on certain solutions, inventions - an extended participation in technology in the direct sense of the word - are very widespread worldwide at the beginning of the 21st century. Hong Kong has as much of a developed Makers Culture as Shenzhen or parts of South America. As we highlighted at our international conference on the future of art and design colleges, Potential Spaces (2017), the model of collaborative practice is also quite widespread in sub-Saharan Africa. One of the most successful projects is the so-called Foondi Workshops, which are regularly held in Kenya and Uganda and have already led to interesting low-tech inventions with high aspirations. ### 4. 兄弟姐妹&伴侣（siblings & couples） 在通往友谊经济的道路上，互相羁绊的艺术生产中最迷人的变体是，兄弟姐妹和伴侣组合。在科学与工程领域，这将追溯到九世纪的巴格达智慧之家（Baghdad House of Wisdom），这是现代大学及实验室的原型。在这里，不仅科学家与艺术家跨学科共同工作，一神论者们（伊斯兰教、犹太教和基督教）也能够互相协作。比如在智慧之家，巴努穆萨（Banu Musa）三兄弟建造了在我的媒体考古研究中追溯到最早的可录制音乐自动机。他们的跨学科工作组成，已经呈现出现代团队的核心特征。尽管兄弟姐妹和伴侣组合在当代艺术中十分普遍，却鲜有分析与反思。也许这种合作形式涉及科学不敢触犯的几个禁忌：爱、奉献、激情、情感。这种共同工作且没有剥削的乌托邦，和与其相反的经历一样重要：争吵、分离、仇恨，对认同和所有权的激烈竞争，版权法律纠纷。有很多涉及这两极经验的例子，我将基于一手经验分享其中三个。 Among the most fascinating variants of connected and binding art production on the way to an economy of friendship are sibling associations and pair formations. In science and engineering, I can trace them back to the Baghdad House of Wisdom in the ninth century, an archetype of modern universities and experimental laboratories. Not only did the most diverse scientific and artistic disciplines work together there, but also protagonists from all three mono- theistic book religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity. In the House of Wisdom, for example, the three Banu Musa brothers built the earliest recordable music automaton in my media archaeological research. In their transdisciplinary composition, the three represented something like the nucleus of a modern team. Although the formation of siblings and pairs is a fairly common phenomenon in contemporary art, it is still little reflected. Probably because this variant of cooperation touches on several taboos that one does not dare to violate from the scientific side. Love, uncompromising devotion to the other, passions, affects, the utopia of joint work without exploitation play just as important a role as experiences of the opposite: quarrels, separation, hatred, fierce competition for recognition and ownership, legal disputes over copyrights, copy rights. There are numerous examples of both poles of experience. I will quickly concentrate on three that I know from first-hand experience. 瓦莉·艾丝波特（Valie Export）和彼得·韦贝尔（Peter Weibel）是 1960 及 1970 年代初期维也纳行动主义（Viennese Actionism）中最为多产的艺术家夫妇之一。此前几年里，韦贝尔在实验诗歌、批评、表演、观念及行为艺术创作了极具个人特色的作品。他与合作伙伴艾丝波特（他声称这个艺术名称是他的发明）致力于发展扩延电影（Expanded Cinema），并留下独特的印记：挑衅、壮观、散漫的分析，以及布莱希特（Brechtian）意义上的激进干预。 Valie Export and Peter Weibel are among the most productive artist couples of Viennese Actionism in the 1960s and early 1970s. In the years before, Weibel had developed his own unique oeuvre of experimental poetry, criticism, performance, conceptual and action art. Together with his partner EXPORT (he claims the art name as his invention), the two imprinted their very own signature on the concept of Expanded Cinema: provocative, spectacular, discursive- analytical, radically intervening in the Brechtian sense. 20 世纪 90 年代初期，生物发展及其预测未来的可能成为人们激烈讨论的主题。这一问题不仅大量出现在生物科学家及实验室的议程中，也为计算机科学家、设计师和艺术家所讨论。在 1920 年代之前，合作还未成为备受追捧的创作模式，Christa Som-merer 和 Laurent Mignonneau 双人组便基于他们的资历、才能和热情，持续使用横向思维，并以极富创造力的最小单位组合行动，与现有学科活动方式背道而驰。他们的经典创作之一，1992 年的《互动植物生长》（Interactive Plant Growing），一个庆祝阿波罗界面（Apollonian interface）的生物技术与材料装置。与屏幕前真实的植物进行交流，既不代表正在工作，也不意味着费力解决冲突。相反，它产生了一种独特的生活乐趣，包括自然和人造物之间的冒险与偶遇。在这一合作创作中，艺术家让艺术与科学相互作用，创造信息逻辑和生物系统相互作用下产生的人造物，探索未来共生结构，这是他们的热情与兴趣所在。30 多年来，他们一直相得益彰。 The living and the question of how it developed and how it could be projected into the future had already become strong themes in the early 1990s. They occupied not only the agendas of biology labs and life scientists, but also those of computer scientists, designers and artists. As if in a nucleus, the duo Christa Som-merer & Laurent Mignonneau unite these dimensions in their qualifications, talents and passions. Long before the cooperative became the celebrated mode of producing art in the 1920s, they consistently and uncompromisingly realised transversal thinking and acting in the smallest unit of the extremely creative pair as activities that process decidedly diagonally to the existing disciplines. One of their iconic projects is Interactive Plant Growing from 1992, an installation of technological and biological material that celebrates the Apollonian interface. Entering into an exchange with the real plants in front of the screen means neither work nor strenuous conflict resolution. On the contrary, the installation generates a special joie de viv-re, in which the adventurous encounter of natural and artificial things is included. The joint production expresses the successful finding of a pair of artists who meet in their passionate interests in the interactions of art and science, in the artificial exploration of the interplay of information-logical and biological systems and the playful exploration of hybrid, possible future structures, and who have been complementing each other congenially for more than 30 years. 我一直对兄弟姐妹之间的共生关系特别着迷，尤其是同卵双胞胎。费城的奎伊兄弟（Quay Brothers）在伦敦的几十年间，将其共在完全奉献给了艺术，包括电影、戏剧、诗歌、音乐和视觉艺术。他们彼此契合，在过去的 50 年间创作了一系列作品。用作家罗伯特·瓦尔泽 (Robert Walser) 的话来说，他们的创作是一座迷人的“睡眠博物馆”（museum of sleep）。他们刻意且成功绕过市场需求，其诗意绵密是任何其他视觉艺术无法比拟：斯蒂芬（Stephen）和蒂莫西·奎伊（Timothy Quay）不仅共享一切——工作室、工具和技术媒体。作为艺术生产和想象的最小集体单位，他们本身就不可分割。 I have always been particularly fascinated by the symbiotic relationships of sibling pairs, especially in the intensity of identical twins. The Quay Brothers from Philadelphia, who have lived in London for many decades, radically dedicate their joint existence to the arts - cinema, theatre, poetry, music, visual arts in a comprehensive sense. Through the special congeniality of their talents and abilities, an oeuvre has emerged over the past 50 years that can best be described, in the phrase of the writer Robert Walser, as a fascinating "museum of sleep". Purposefully and successfully bypassing the demands of the market, in a poetic idiosyncrasy and density that has no equivalent in any other visual arts: Stephen and Timothy Quay not only share everything, the studio, their working tools, their technical media. As the smallest collective unit of artistic production and imagination, they themselves are actually indivisible. ### 5. 最重要的！友谊经济——不可能的反文化（Economy of Friendship - my most important category regarding impossible CounterCultures） 这是最近由 Jean-Jacques Lebel 等人策划的展览[“友谊、创造力集体”（Amitiés, créativité collective）](https://www.mucem.org/programme/exposition-et-temps-forts/amities-creativite-collective)（图n-27），在法国马赛现代艺术馆（Musée d'Art Contemporain）。我受邀为展览书写一篇关于友谊经济的文章，现在大家听到的是其中的一部分内容。 This is an exhibition which recently was done by Jean-Jacques Lebel and some other people from France he was the main curator of Amitiés, créativité collective. And it's a beautiful catalog and beautiful exhibition and I was invited to write about an economy of friendship there. So what you hear now is some fractions of of that. 从莫里斯·布朗肖（Maurice Blanchot）、乔治·巴塔耶（Georges Bataille）到罗杰·凯洛瓦（Roger Caillois）、皮埃尔·克洛索夫斯基（Pierre Klossowski）和雅克·德里达（Jacques Derrida）等哲学家达成一致：带有目的性的关系是一剂毒药，它将自内而外侵蚀友谊的根基。友谊如同宴会、款待或礼物：这一可怖的现象本质上只存在于它们将自己暴露在无需条件的情况下。德里达在他的众多著作中不断强调，给予意味着做不可能的事，例如，疏远一个人无法拥有的东西。 Philosophical writers from Maurice Blanchot and Georges Bataille to Roger Caillois, Pierre Klossowski and Jacques Derrida are unanimous in this point: the purposefulness of a relationship is the poison that eats away at every radical friendship from within. Friendship is rather like the event, hospitality or the gift: these sensational phenomena exist essentially only on the condition that they expose themselves to the unconditional. To give would mean to do the impossible, Derrida insisted again and again in his numerous writings, for example, to alienate what one cannot possess. 与现实的距离以及与不可能的接近性将友谊与艺术紧密联系。不仅如此，如果没有友谊所释放的协同能量，当代艺术史将是不可想象的。这一展览及其书籍讲述了这背后的故事。上世纪 20 年代的小组 KI-NOKI，30 年代在剑桥掀起哲学思潮的四位女性哲学家——Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, Iris Murdoch，以及 90 年代俄罗斯彼得堡的第一批网络女权主义者，巴黎的字母主义者（Lettrists）和情境主义者（Situationists），维也纳行动主义者等团体……他们作为友好的共谋者出现，但在组织协作的过程中，形成等级制度或逐渐屈从于制度化的国家或资本，而逐渐暗淡消亡。 The distance to what is realistic and the proximity to what is impossible connects friendship most closely with the arts. Not only in the way that the history of contemporary arts would be inconceivable without the concerted energies that friendships are capable of releasing. The book here and the exhibition is telling the story behind that. The Museum of Modern Art in Marseille recently made a wonderful exhibition about this under the title AMITIÉS. Groups like the KI-NOKI of the 1920s, the 4 women philosophers who stirred up philosophy in Cambridge in the 1930s, or the first cyberfeminists in the Russian Petersburg of the 1990s, the Lettrists and the Situationists in Paris, the Viennese Actionists ... - they all emerged as friendly complicity and lost their radiance in processes of establishment, the formation of hierarchies or the gradual making of their activities subservient to institutionalised idols such as the state or capital. 在伦理层面上构成艺术的本质，将艺术亲和力（artistic affinity）完美结合，相互补充并支持。也就是说，我们通过美学手段，费尽心力对与我们相异或无法理解的他者保持敏锐——这对于我来说是艺术实践的核心。 In what essentially constitutes art in ethical terms, friendship and artistic affinity join hands in an outstanding way, complement and support each other. Namely, in the extraordinary and devoted effort to make or keep sensitive to the Other, to that which is not identical with us - this is for me the hard core of art practice - to keep sensitive to keep us sensitive to that which is not identical with us that which we do not or not yet understand; by aesthetic means, of course. 借助个人经验进行阐释在学术上并不恰当，但只有这样才可能讨论艺术创作的主观性特质，这一特质对我而言非常有价值。布朗肖将友谊视作成为这个世界的陌生人，毫不妥协地与外于这段关系的他者分享。直到我经验这一感受，才开始理解并且尝试表述。回望青春期，当我们第一次与他人建立深厚友谊，我们对这些微小事件复杂集结的存在尺度无以言表，也无需用语言表达。日日夜夜，我们在这些事件中存活，不断发生的事件构成了我们体验为深厚友谊的生动缩影。 It may not be seemly in academic terms, but I dare here to draw on personal experience, because only in this way is it possible for me to discuss an idea of the special quality of this variant of subjective art-making that is so valuable to me. Blanchot calls friendship the feeling of being a stranger in this world, shared uncompromisingly with another. It was only long after I was able to experience this sensational feeling that I came to understand and formulate it. In middle adolescence, when the first deep friendship with another person developed, we had no language for the existential dimension generated by many small events that was difficult to describe. Nor was it necessary to put it into words. We lived it and filled the days, but above all the nights, with the activities that over time formed the living microcosm that we experienced as a deep friendship. 在友谊关系外的观察者或许会觉得我们的共同活动可疑。但这并不会阻止我们如此，相反，周围任何来自成年人世界的敌对反应都会让我们的行为更为激进。让·杜布菲（Jean Dubuffet）的 *Expériences musicales* 对我们来说仍然陌生，但我们怀着同样的热情，一起大声且笨拙地亲密演奏乐器，古老的风琴、长笛，还有小提琴和中提琴。我们还收集各种材料，拼贴、绘画为黑色而非彩色结构的奇异图像——这也是一种无需交谈也无需条件的对话形式。我们彻夜长谈，在一起长大的城市街道漫步，或在朋友父亲的书房一同清理旧家具、大写字桌和厚重的地毯。他曾是一所大学的校长，也是一名科学家和，但英年早逝。友谊需要这样的邻接（abutments），米歇尔·福柯（Michel Foucault）称之为异托邦（heterotopias）。 If people outside our relationship had observed us, they would probably have found our joint activities suspicious. That would not have prevented us from carrying them out. On the contrary, any hostile reaction from the adult culture that surrounded us led to a radicalisation of our practices. Jean Dubuffet's "Expériences musicales" were still unknown to us. But with the same fervour as he, we played together loudly and intimately musical instruments that we did not master, such as an old harmonium, various flutes, violin and viola. An equally speechless and unconditional form of dialogue was formed by drawings and dark, yet colourful constructs, which we developed as bizarre pictorial objects from all the materials we could get our hands on. And we talked for many hours, wandering at night through the city where we grew up, or in the study of my friend's father. He had been a scientist and president of a university. He died young, and in a joint effort we exorcised the old furniture, the oversized writing table, the heavy carpets. Friendship needs such abutments, which Michel Foucault calls heterotopias. 我们间歇、断续地谈论我们相信的，我们认为的存在本质，我们如何看待上帝，我们对一切世俗权威的不信任，我们的艺术与诗学态度——坚决反抗意识形态剥削。我们谈论越南战争，无可救药的纳粹，萨特（Sartre）和存在主义（existentialism），俄罗斯和中国革命。我们磕磕巴巴地翻阅这些书籍，即便无法完全读懂。我们共读如同见面，这非常重要，即便大部分内容我们并不理解，但只要囫囵吞下它们，或许多年后便会理解早已播种在我们内心的东西。若语言无能，我们便拿起吉他，与对方进行好几个小时的即兴对话。在这段友谊中，诗意自由似乎没有边界。而这四五年来幸福而忧郁的时光戛然而止——一天晚上，我去拜访朋友时发现，曾经在夜里等待时为他制作的大幅绘画已经消失不见。因为缺钱，他将要卖掉这幅画作。这让我失望、愤怒至极。售卖画作触犯了友谊的禁忌，是不可原谅的行为。它摘除了友谊的心脏。我们与世界的共同疏离中衍生出无政府主义、无目的的审美姿态，已被可计算性所取代，而后者可以用一定数量的金钱表示。诗性行动共谋已经消失，对他人无条件的尊重让位于有条件的剥夺。 We talked erratically, in discontinuities, about what we believed in, about what we assumed to be the essence of being, our ideas about God, our distrust of any worldly authorities, about arts and poetic attitudes that stubbornly managed to resist exploitation by the consciousness industries, about the Vietnam War, the incorrigible Nazis around us, about Sartre and existentialism, the Russian and Chinese revolutions. We stammered over books we devoured before we understood them. That was very important. We read like met, and most of the stuff we read, we did not understand but I know that I swallowed this kind of material and perhaps two or three or four decades later, I start to understand it because they come from inside. When language failed us, we picked up the guitars we had some command of and tried our hand at hours of improvised vocal dialogue with each other. The poetic freedom seemed to know no bounds in this friendship. The extremely happy-melancholic time of four or five years came to an abrupt end when I visited my friend one evening and saw that one of the large-format picture objects I had made for him during a night of waiting was no longer there. He would have sold it because he urgently needed money. My disappointment was immeasurable. For me, the sale of the picture object was an outrageous, unforgivable breach of taboo. It took the substance out of our friendship at a crucial point. Something that had emerged in the shared alienation from the world as an anarchic and above all purposeless aesthetic gesture had been given over to calculation, which could be expressed in a certain number of banknotes. Complicity in poetic action had been dissolved. Unconditional respect for the other had given way to its conditional exploitation. 2020 年 2 月，我与音乐家、声音研究者 FM Einheit 开始进行创意对话（图n-26），他作为激进音乐及表演项目“Einstürzende Neubauten”的联合创始人而为人们所知。这场疫情迫使我们在信息网络上有效建立弹性联络。指挥家 Teodor Currentzis 为 FM Einheit 提供了他在圣彼得堡的 MusicAeterna 平台，这个平台便成为我们在互联网上的想象异托邦。艺术实验中的诗意激进在这里并不会令人不安，相反被视作最高戒律。 In February 2020, I began a creative dialogue with the musician and sound researcher FM Einheit, whom we had already met as co-founders of the radical music and performance project "Einstürzende Neubauten", which makes us happy to this day. The pandemic forced us to create a resilient connection out of the divisions on the basis of which telecommunications operates so effectively. The conductor Teodor Currentzis provided FM Einheit with his MusicAeterna in St. Petersburg, a platform that has become an imaginary heterotopic place for us on the Internet. Poetic radicality in artistic experimentation is not perceived as disturbing here, but as the highest commandment. 一开始，我和 FM Einheit 凭直觉公开邀请来自哲学、媒体理论、自然科学、诗歌、视觉艺术和音乐领域的合作者。我们做的事与自身职业无关，也从未正规学习过。FM Einheit 负责演唱，我则为摇滚短歌和朗诵作词——我们作为音乐家和知识分子也贡献了自己的专业技能。当我们向其他参与者提议一同面对不可能之事时，大家表示非常乐意，这让我们感到惊奇。一年之内，我们一同创作了 25 段名为“调频广播，自由调制广播”（Radio FM, Radio for Free Modulations）的狂野蒙太奇，由人声、乐器和电子设备拼贴而成，包含批评性话语、散文、诗歌、抗议、机器诗以及各种和谐或刺耳的声音。除了与在世表演者合作之外，我们还与已逝者建立隐秘的同谋关系：安东尼·阿尔托（Antonin Artaud）、沃尔特·本雅明（Walter Benjamin）、威廉·S·巴勒斯（William S. Burroughs）、杰尼西斯·P-奥里奇（Genesis P-Orridge）以及海纳·穆勒（Heiner Müller）等。 An open invitation to many other co-actors from philosophy, media theory, the natural sciences, poetry, the visual arts and music acted as a decision that FM Einheit and I initially made intuitively. We practised activities that we had not learned and that were not at all associated with our professional identities. FM Einheit sang and I wrote lyrics for short rock songs and recitatives. Of course, we also contributed our professional skills as musicians and intellectuals. But the offer to the others to expose themselves to the impossible created a willingness to participate in this project that overwhelmed us. Within a year, 25 episodes of wild montages of voices, instruments and electronics, of critical discourse, essay, poem, outcry, machine poetry and various harmonic and cacaphonic sounds were created under the title Radio FM, Radio for Free Modulations. In addition to the living co-actors, we had permanent guests who are long dead and with whom we cultivated secret complicit relationships: Antonin Artaud, Walter Benjamin, William S. Burroughs, Genesis P-Orridge, Heiner Müller, among others. 接下来我会放一首我在2020年疫情大爆发时，凭借着对疫情的初始印象写的歌（图n-30）——或许我对疫情后的预期过于现实。2020 年 4 月，我们用一个晚上做好了这支音乐。这是后疫情的歌：疫情过后，我们需要更强大的汽车，能够带着我们更快逃离上海或柏林，穿过所有街道；我们需要更安全的汽车，能够保护我们免受侵害；我们需要带轮子的移动堡垒，能够快速移动的坦克将是理想选择；我们需要更多，更多，更多。 I play one song which I wrote immediately when the pandemic started in 2020 under the impression of the beginning of the pandemic. Perhaps I was too realistic in my anticipation of what might come after the pandemic. I finished that in April 2020 and within one night we made the music together. This is the song after the pandemic. After the pandemic we need stronger cars to be able to escape faster and walk through the streets of Shanghai or Berlin or whatever you will see them. We need safer cars to protect us from the other we need mobile fortresses strongholds on wheels fast tanks would be ideal. We need more more more and more. ### 结论 Conclusion 我们需要替代性的概念表达对世界交流互动的关注，避免陷入全球化预设的陷阱。曾居住在巴黎和纽约的马提尼克岛（Martinique）诗人、哲学家爱德华·格里桑（Édouard Glissant，1928-2011），相比渴望无条件（资本）积累、持有大陆（中心）思维的政治/意识形态战略家，为我们提供可参考的概念用语。格里桑在法语中使用 mondialité（Mondiality）一词作为 mondialization 的差异性代替，后者将全球化描述为绝对统一。德里达（Derrida）和塞雷斯（Serres）也非常认可 mondialité 一词。 mondialité/Mondiality 指向全球关系的质量（quality），它无法通过统一的目的合理性确定，而是关系的具体诗学（concrete poetics）。 Globalisation is a concept intimately linked to economic, cultural and political power. The word comes from a vocabulary that has nothing to do with the particular, the singular and nothing to do with the arts (just we the art market). In order to be able to assert the concern for mondial exchange through our work without falling into the trap of such (presuppositions), we need other concepts and other orientations. Poets and philosophers like Édouard Glissant (1928-2011) from Martinique, who also lived in Paris and New York, are better able to provide them than political or ideological strategists of continental thinking and unconditional accumulation. Glissant works in French with the term mondialité in contrast to mondialisation, which describes globalisation as unification. Derrida and Serres also held the word in high esteem. Mondiality wants to designate a quality of worldwide relations that cannot be determined by unifying rationality of purpose, but as a concrete poetics of relations. 在 20 世纪 90 年代初，我得以与格里桑相识。他是一位极其坚强且自主的诗人哲学家。同时，他深切关心他人，并在交谈中展现其真正的诗意力量。真正强大的集体不仅需要有意愿、有才华，同时也需要有责任心。艺术生态圈是实现艰苦而疲惫的跨个体化（trans-individuation）的培养皿，这需要人们在掌握主权的“我”和忠诚的“我们”之间不断保持平衡，这是一个有效的替代方案。乌托邦不仅仅是昨天的新闻。 I got to know Édouard Glissant at the beginning of the 1990s as an extremely strong and autonomous poet-philosopher. But also as a personality who cares deeply for the other and who unfolds his real poetic power in dialogue. Truly strong collectives need willing and dazzling personalities who are also prepared to bear responsibility. An effective alternative to the circulating art biotopes as vessels for strenuous and exhausting trans-individuation processes would be a constant balancing act between the sovereign I and the committed WE. Utopias are not just yesterday's news. ## 讲者简介 西格弗里德·齐林斯基 西格弗里德·齐林斯基是柏林艺术大学的媒体理论名誉教授，欧洲研究生学院（EGS）米歇尔·福柯媒体考古学与技术文化教授，以及上海同济大学客座教授。他曾是科隆媒体艺术学院创校校长（1994–2000），维兰·傅拉瑟档案馆主任（1998–2016），以及卡尔斯鲁厄艺术与设计大学校长（2016–2018）。齐林斯基在艺术和媒体的考古学和变体学领域发表了大量著作。他还与卡尔斯鲁厄艺术媒体中心主席彼得·韦伯尔合作，策划有关维兰·傅拉瑟的展览、“阿拉的自动机”，以及“思想机器：拉蒙·卢利与组合艺术”等展览。最近，他与音乐家和作曲家F.M. Einheit 合作，为Teodor Currentzi的musicAeterna平台以及多家德国广播电台制作了带有批判性诗意的音频作品。齐林斯基是柏林艺术学院和北莱茵-威斯特法伦科学与艺术学院的会员。