第74期 欲——病理与凝视（2011年）

学术主持：鲁明军

主题：曹晖 何工 黄奎 李一凡 杨述 余极

新作：林欣 王俊 陈波 杨永生

Issue No. 74(2011)

Theme: Desire: Pathology and Gaze

Academic Host: Lu Mingjun

A.T: Cao Hui, He Gong, Huang Kui, Li Yifan, Yang Shu, Yu Ji

A.N: Lin Xin, Wang Jun, Chen Bo, Yang Yongsheng

欲——病理与凝视

学术主持：鲁明军

以艺术的方式，探讨“欲”的生成、扩张及其内在性，无疑是回到“欲”本身最为恰切的方式和途径。

“欲”本身的复杂性和不确定性决定了我们无法对其赋予一个相对稳定的涵义。但这并不妨碍我们对“欲”的感知、体认、窥探，或可能的理解。

事实上，“欲”是关于人的实验。它不仅是物理意义上的身体感知和生理诉求，也无法回避历史、知识特别是现实社会、文化、政治处境的观照。因此，这里的“欲”不是狭义的身体或生理念想和所求，而是一个广义的心理与文化感知。

从身体的自然诉求到社会文化的心理体认，便构成了我们通常所谓的“精神”。虽然“欲”不能等同于“精神”，但并不意味着“欲”与“精神”没有任何关系。惯常的看法是，“欲”是消极的，而“精神”是积极的。但在实际生活中，我们很难清晰地界分“欲”与“精神”。更多的时候，“欲”与“精神”之间共享着同一个物理和思想基础。尽管二者不乏错位之处，但可以肯定的是，二者之间绝非正反之别，甚或说二者（在这里）都是“中性”的。惟其如此，我们才能真正地进入对它的实验和考掘。不然的话，可能还是戴着一副政治、文化及伦理的有色眼镜在打量，更遑论回到一个相对客观的层面上予以体察。

物理意义上的“欲”也好，“精神”也好，都与脑科学、神经学、精神分析（哲）学有关。这是现代西方科学的理解逻辑。不过在中国传统中，则更多付诸“心”或“人心”的考量。宋明理学所谓的“心统性情”即是此意。恰是在这个意义上，“欲”与“精神”的差异和错位反而变得愈加模糊了。因此，对于“欲”的生成、扩张的实验，不仅是生理实验和分析，也是对于“心”或“人心”内在悖谬及其可能张力的探掘。这是从精神考掘的角度，探讨“欲”的生成、型构与功能性扩张（改造、消解、升华等），进而反思心的“变异”（诱惑、仇恨、快感、焦虑、抑郁、恐惧、缺失等）及其背后的社会、文化与政治结构、历史根源。恰是在“心”或“人心”这个意义上，“可欲”与“不可欲”不再只是一个现代科学意义上的病理学概念，而更多是一个文化、历史及伦理话语。如下图所示：

作为“欲——病理与凝视”研究计划的基本思路，上图既包括对现实的揭示，也隐含着对现实的反思。

如果说“欲”是自生、自发的话，那么，精神考掘（或精神分析）对“欲”的清整和理解本身就是对“欲”的贱斥和抑制。这一行为本身就隐含着对“欲”的界说：自然抑或疾病呢？然而，不论结果如何，这一行为本身则已告诉我们，精神考掘本身则并非“中性”的（虽然“精神”本身不乏“中性”所指）。即便“欲”本身内含复杂的社会文化质素，“精神考掘”的立场也不可避免。或者说，虽然考掘是为了将“欲”从“欲”的束缚中解放出来，从而将“欲”还给“欲”本身，但由于考掘本身具有价值倾向性，实际上不过是将“欲”从一个“牢笼”移至另一个“牢笼”而已。也就是说，最终“欲”和“精神考掘”（包括医疗）反而为自己搭了一座“监狱”。这也是德勒兹（Gilles Deleuze，1925～1995）质询“精神分析”的因由所在。

毋须讳言，“欲”的解放关涉人的解放，或“人心”的解放。当然，解放不是为“欲”的自然功能赋予一个正当的基础，更非意在回到原子化的、虚无的生存之状。“欲”的解放真正关涉的是对于“人”及“人心”本身的认知。“欲”不可理解，也不可阐释。但“人心”是可以理解，也是可以阐释的。因此，“欲”的实验不仅是为了解放“欲”，更重要的是经此对于“人心”的体认。

当代艺术给予“欲”的实验一种可能，也为重新体认“人”与“人心”搭设了一个开放的通道。在这里，凝视或观看显然承担了类似“精神考掘（或精神分析）”的功能。不同在于，精神分析的出发点是病理学，而进行凝视或观看的当代艺术则意在将“精神考掘”从病理学（或医疗）的维度及其束缚中解放出来。这一解放重构了凝视及凝视的政治。因此，解放背后的主体性让渡不是为了将主体弥散开来，而是为了重建主体及其内心，亦即从物理之“欲”回到主体之“心”。

当然，艺术或观看、凝视本身就是“欲”之生成的一部分。凝视或观看重新介入“欲”之核心，不是为了瓦解或贱斥“欲”，而是为了重新认肯“欲”本身的正当性，并赋予“欲”以开放空间或自然之道。而且，凝视之“欲”的实验是一种观看机制的生产，也是一种新的话语政治的生成。而凝视与精神分析的对应、错位与紧张则告诉我们“欲”本身内在的复杂性及其不确定性。凝视之“欲”与精神分析之“欲”的区别也在这里。

不同于精神分析的是，凝视或观看都不是医疗，但并不意味着它不具有医疗的功能。而这也体现了当代艺术本身所具有的介入性、延异性及建构性。反过来，这一实验也是为了探讨到当代艺术如何在其边界之内溢出边界。可见，这看似对艺术家的创作会形成障碍，但实际上，恰恰相反，其赋予艺术家以极为开放的实验空间。

我想，上述基本构成了笔者策划“欲——病理与凝视”研究计划的动因和推力。

最后，需要赘述的是，此计划并非意在简单地展示艺术家在创作中对于欲的生理自觉和身体感知，恰恰相反，而是力图将欲本身从这种表面的、粗浅的、狭隘的理解和体认中解放出来，回到欲本身。在这里，欲是开放的，它不仅是身体的，也是心理的，社会的，政治的，伦理的，历史的，文化的……这意味着，日常生活中的“谈欲色变”，其实不是欲本身的问题，而是我们对欲的认知出了问题。所以，本研究计划强调的不是对于欲的生理自觉和简单放大，而是对于欲本身及其社会心理、文化政治意义的深入思考与反省。因此，这里所谓的“病理”，并非是对欲本身的道德审判和精神治疗，而是指我们对欲的误读和错解，以及如何通过实验和认知，付诸新的自觉和反思。

研究计划所呈现的不同话语、视角和观点，已然构成了形式各异的观看方式和凝视逻辑。这与其说是对“欲——病理”的思考和反省，不如说是对艺术语言本身的实验和探讨。而在这里，“欲——病理”不仅是研究计划所针对的问题，也是话语实验的一个角度。

 

 

 

 

 

Desire: Pathology and Gaze

 

Academic Host: Lu Mingjun

 

The most appropriate way to discuss the birth, growth and internality of ‘desire’ is undoubtedly through art.

The complexity and uncertainty of desire itself determines that we can never endow it with a relatively stable definition, which, however, does not prevent us from perceiving, realizing, prying or probably understanding ‘desire’.

Actually, ‘desire’ is about the experiment of man. It does not merely refer to the physical perception or physiological drive, nor can it avoid history or knowledge, particularly the reflection of the real social, cultural and political situations. Therefore, the ‘desire’ here does not mean the physical or physiological lust and needs in a narrow sense, but psychological and cultural perception in a broad sense.

The understanding of desire from the natural physical urge to the socio-cultural psychological realization forms ‘spirit’ as what we usually call it. Though not equal to ‘spirit’, ‘desire’ has something to do with it. Generally speaking, ‘desire’ is pessimistic, and ‘spirit’, optimistic. But in real life, we can hardly distinguish between the two. Most of the time, they share the same basis in both physics and ideas. In spite of occasional displacement, these two definitely do not contrast with each other; they could even be regarded as ‘neutral’ here. Only from this perspective can we really carry out the experiments and exploration of it. Otherwise, we might survey it with a pair of political, cultural and ethical colored glasses; let alone examine it in a relatively objective aspect.

‘Desire’ or ‘spirit’ in the physical sense, has something to do with brain science, neurology and psychoanalysis (philosophy), which belongs to the logic of modern western science. But in Chinese traditions, it puts more emphasis on the consideration of ‘heart’ or ‘man’s heart’. “Mind dominates character and sentiment” of the Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties means exactly the same. It is right in this sense that the differences and displacement between ‘desire’ and ‘spirit’ become more obscure. Thus, the experiment of the birth and growth of ‘desire’ is not only a physiological experiment and analysis, but also the exploration of the innate absurdity and possible tension of the ‘heart’ or ‘man’s heart’, which serves as a spiritual approach from the discussion of the birth, configuration and functional expansion (such as reform, dissolving and sublimation) of ‘desire’, to the reflection of the ‘mutation’ (such as temptation, hatred, delightful sensation, anxiety, depression, fear and loss, etc. ) as well as its social, cultural, political structure and historical roots. It is in the sense of ‘heart’ and ‘man’s heart’ that ‘desirability’ and ‘non-desirability’ bear more than a kind of pathological concepts in the aspect of modern science, but cultural, historical and ethnical discourse just as the following picture shows:

 

The diagram above includes the revelation and implication of the reality as the basic train of thought of the research plan on ‘Desire—Pathology and Gaze’.

If ‘desire’ were autogenetic and spontaneous, then, the cleaning and understanding of ‘desire’ itself in psycho exploration (or psychoanalysis) serve as the denunciation and suppression of it. This behavior implies the explanation of ‘desire’: nature or disease? Nevertheless, whatever the result might be, it reveals itself that psycho exploration itself is not ‘neutral’ (though ‘spirit’ embodies ‘neutral’ to a certain extent). Even if ‘desire’ contains complicated social cultural elements, ‘psycho exploration’ stands unavoidable. But on the other hand, the value orientation of exploration moves ‘desire’ from one ‘cage’ to another, which is to say that finally ‘desire’ and ‘psycho exploration (medical treatment included)’ build a ‘prison’ for themselves. That is why Gilles Deleuze questions ‘psychoanalysis’.

We must not flinch from the assertion that the liberation of ‘desire’ concerns the liberation of man, or ‘man’s heart’. Of course, its liberation cares about the cognition of ‘man’ and ‘man’s heart’ instead of endowing the natural function of ‘desire’ with a justifiable basis, or paying attention to the original and empty survival state. But ‘man’s heart’ can be understood and explained. Therefore, the experiment of ‘desire’ aims not only to liberate it, but more importantly it aims to realize ‘man’s heart’.

Modern art unfolds a new possibility for the experiment of ‘desire’, and also sets up an open channel for the realization of ‘man’ and ‘man’s heart’. Here, gaze or watch obviously seem to possess the function of ‘psycho exploration (psychoanalysis)’. To be different, psychoanalysis starts from pathology while modern art in its gaze and watching emphasizes the liberation of ‘psycho exploration’ from the perspective of pathology (or medical treatment) and its control, which re-constructs gaze and the politics of gaze. Thus, the transfer of subject underneath liberation lies in the re-construction of the subject and its nature or heart rather than the dispersal of it, which follows how to bring the physical ‘desire’ back to the ‘heart’ of the subject.

Of course, art or its watching and gaze is a part of the birth of ‘desire’. That gaze or watch intervenes into the core of ‘desire’ manages to re-acknowledge the justification of ‘desire’ itself and endow it with open space or natural ways, not aims to disintegrate or denounce it. Moreover, the experiment of ‘desire’ of gaze functions as the production of a watch mechanism as well as the birth of a new politics of discourse. Beside, gaze and the parallelism, displacement and tension of the psychoanalysis tells us the complexity and uncertainty of ‘desire’ itself, which is also the difference between the ‘desire’ of gaze and the ‘desire’ of the psychoanalysis.

Different from the psychoanalysis, gaze or watch does not belong to the medical treatment, which doesn’t mean that it has no medical functions; it then reflects that modern art possesses the nature of intervention, continuity, variation and construction. This experiment in turn discusses how modern art goes beyond the boundary. It is thus clear that this would hinder the creation of the artists, but actually on the contrary, artists are free to bring their works into play in opener experimental space.

I believe, the illustration above forms my reason and drive to plot the research plan of ‘Desire—Pathology and Gaze’.

Finally, to say more than is needed, this plan never aims to expose the physiological awareness and physical perception of the artists in the course of creation. On the contrary, it attempts to liberate ‘desire’ from this superficial, shallow and narrow understanding as well as realization, to ‘desire’ itself, which, as an open concept, refers not only to the physical aspect, but also psychological, social, political, ethnical, historical and cultural aspects, etc. This signifies that ‘speaking of desire is regarded as indecent’ in our daily life’ is not due to the problem of ‘desire’, but to our problem in the cognition of it. Therefore, this research plan emphasizes the deep thinking and introspection of desire and its psychosocial, cultural and political meanings rather than the physiological awareness or simple enlargement. So, the so-called ‘pathology’ here doesn’t serve as the moral judgment and psychotherapy, but the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of it, and the approach to new awareness and introspection through experiment and cognition.

Those different discourse, perspectives and views exposed by the research plan have already composed various kinds of watching ways and gaze logic. This could be regarded as the experiment and discussion of the language of art, rather than the thinking and introspection of ‘Desire—Pathology’, which is not only the focus of this research plan, but also an angle of the experiment of discourse.