第83期 当反应变为态度，当态度变为方法（2013年）
学术主持：崔灿灿
主题：徐坦 刘铮 孙原&彭禹 谢南星 宋冬 王音 王庆松 史金淞 李永斌 何云昌
新作：沈敬东 刘子建 李继开 金心明 陈孟昕
Issue No. 83(2013)
Theme: When Reaction Becomes Attitude,When Attitude Becomes Method
Academic Host: Cui Cancan
A.T: Xu Tan, Liu Zheng, SunYuan&Peng Yu, Xie Nan Xing, Song Dong, Wang Yin, Wang Qingsong, Shi Jinsong, Li Yongbin, He Yunchang
A.N: Shen Jingdong, Liu Zijian, Li Jikai, Jin Xinming, Chen Mengxin
当反应变为态度，当态度变为方法
When Reaction Becomes Attitude, When Attitude Becomes Method
学术主持：崔灿灿 ACADEMIC HOST: CUI CANCAN
此次专题，缘起于对策展人哈罗德·泽曼的敬意。1969年泽曼在瑞士伯尔尼美术馆策划了“活在你头脑中，当态度变为形式”展，这个展览开启了长达几十年的策展人通过展览进行创作的时代，同时也使得“展览（抛出主题、讨论方案、空间设计）”成为艺术信息交换的经典形式。
正如“活在你头脑中”的敬意一样，当态度（思想）必然需要借助于形式呈现的时候，泽曼在“反形式”的同时，又在头脑中暗暗地对新形式充满敬意，虽然他更看中“新形式”产生过程中的材料、情感、主义所带来的偶然与不确定性，以及对形式的选择成了态度的延异。但遗憾的是，泽曼在本质上仍是一个形式主义者。
荣耀都将过去，泽曼所创造的那个伟大时刻已然成为我们必须对抗和摆脱的历史经典话语。 “当态度变为形式”最终使得泽曼与格林伯格的形式前卫殊途同归。当然，这并不意味着形式的终结，任何可观可感的作品都是一种形式，但形式的荣耀在今天必须被下放为艺术存在过的证据。
当形式的创新不再作为目的的时候，改变交流方法与传播方式就变为艺术推进的可能性之一。形式不再是一种绝对的权力美学，虽然它需要在交流中携带美学；形式不再是态度的结果，而是态度本身就是一种形式。
在今天，重要的不是表达与如何表达的问题，重要的是传播和有效传播过程中的反应与再次反应，输出与被输入。当雕塑转向装置的时候，改变的不仅是形式，它同时改变了交流方式与感知方式， 从单一的“看”走向多触觉的“体验”。当摄影转向电影的时候，它从定格化的形式转向流动的形式，从经典瞬间的单一含义转向不断被推移、分解、转化、重构的多元含义。在这个意义上，形式仅仅是个工具，工具本身并无魅力，它的魅力在于它连接了一种艺术原发的交流方式和在交流中不断被重塑的文化势力。
“反应”是产生态度的根源，但反应本身并非是一致的，首先一种纯粹的身体反应是本能的，比如重物落下的躲闪，然而这种反应并不能直接变为态度，它仅仅是反应本身；但当重物落下时，人们都去选择躲闪的时候，不去躲闪的反应就变为一种态度。其次，这种思考后的反应，或是被态度主导的反应，是不是完全依附于纯粹的理性思考或是客观判断？不去躲闪本身绝非是一般意义上的理性的、客观的反应，它是个体对群体经验的抛弃与抵抗。在这个意义上，当反应变为态度的时候，它必然是由极端个体的自由，以及对经典的、大多数的重复行为的厌倦所引发的。
“当反应变为态度”是在关系之中寻找自我存在的方式，也是一种与主流方式不兼容的意志，这种对于自我方式的坚持所形成的意志首先改变了自身的反应，然后通过敢于反应呈现自身对于世界的态度，以及对它物的认知。
当一种风格或是方式成为普遍的时候，对普遍性的疏离反应会生成一种态度，这种态度是对历史话语或主流话语的对抗。在面对现实问题和自身问题时，艺术家的态度如何在艺术系统中转化就成为一个问题，一种是通过已有艺术的系统将其高度艺术语言化的方式，通过这种方式将态度隐含甚至去除；另一种是将态度直接呈现的方式，艺术仅作为一种身份或是工具。当然，这两者之间的关系并非是绝对分裂的，因为选择原有艺术语言系统也意味着选择了一种态度，而将态度简单地摆出，也往往是借用了艺术系统。
如果按第一种逻辑推演，当反应或是态度被高度艺术语言化的时候，对原有语言系统的对抗态度即意味着缺失。新的方式也不可能产生，因为已有的语言系统是公共的，它在本质上是同质化的，单细胞繁殖难以带来任何新的方法，它恰恰使得艺术家的自我存在被消亡。在这一点上 ，将态度的表述依托于原有的艺术语言系统只能是一种保守形态，即便它也强调语言的实验和拓展，但那些不过是中产阶级和精英群体的波西米亚情结，在语言系统上的推动最终也只能因关注问题的不同而不同，对语言系统的深化与拓展并不存在。或者说，它只能是形式的游戏，从A形式走向B形式的游离行为。但在今天，艺术形式语言的高度饱和化和多样化，使得A与B早就不再像20世纪60年代那样界限分明。
然而，第二种形态也面临同样的问题，如果说态度的直接呈现仅依附于艺术家的立场，那么态度也不过是一种完全自我式的社会行为或日常行为，它完全可以不依附艺术的方式来进行传播与交流。这个时候，无论何种形态都面临一个问题，当反应变为态度的时候，态度如何激发新的方法或是新的交流方式？首先，必须摆脱艺术的单细胞繁殖和直线发展的逻辑，个体的独立反应本身既可以作为一种方法或方式，这个时候“当反应变为态度”的时候，方法就可能出现，或者说它本身即是一种方法。
其次，个人对绝对理性、中立、客观和原有艺术系统的抛弃，使得交流方式变得鲜活、生动。生命政治和肉身经验恰恰逃避了艺术的惯有逻辑与系统的控制，它是被选择后的反应，但绝对不是经过了一个严格的标准或是好坏遴选后的反应。当反应发出的时候，它是失控的，对于已有的安全系统是有害的，也是危险的，艺术家所关注的艺术语言作为对象，会对现实问题和个体经验作出种种艺术的反应，在这种反应与再反应，输出与被输入的过程中，交流出现了，新的方式才有可能被发现。
同时，个体的态度与艺术之间的关系，并非是简单的因果或是载体与工具的关系，它是平行的，也是息息相关的。艺术虽然有自身的已有的、经典的形态，但那些形态在过去的时光里都是鲜活的，它流淌于产生它的时代，它和那个时代的人的需求、权力、制度等是同质或对抗关系。每个时期的艺术的交流方式与传播方法是建立在那个时期特定的社会交流与传播方式的基础上的，简言之，20世纪二战后的艺术，并非是艺术在20年代的基础上在艺术体系内自我推导的，而是在战后的社会行为方式与个体存在方式的一种反应与再反应、时代对个体的输入与个体对时代的输出关系之中产生的。
在今天，艺术的可能性是源自于不同个体对整体的认知差异与分裂之中。当“反应变为态度，当态度变为方法”的时候，个体认知是一种个人的、极端的政治化行为与方式，也是一种个体式的对自由的追逐，对自我存在的确认，以及确认后，所得出自由的有限。自由在个人那里，随时可能失控，随时面临危险，甚至不可被语言或逻辑理性地归纳与分析，于是，当它试图进行传播或交流的时候，新的艺术方式和语言方式才得以出现，它不是从形式或文本上推导出来的，而是在社会与个人的组织关系中的，运动关系中被反复确认的。
然而，在艺术中任何新的交流与传播方式都会最终呈现一种形式，它仍带有美学活动的痕迹，它仍在初期充满试图表达的冲动。但这些并不重要，重要的是它背后所包含的社会权力、制度权力、经典权力被一次次地质疑与改变，传统的形式创新诉求与美学的趣味转变将不断地在交流中被移动，艺术自身没有了经典时刻，它只是组织了一种方法，宣扬了一个自由人的态度。最终作品不再是结果，形式只是证据，运动本身大于艺术的任何经典时刻，艺术的权力被彻底下放，艺术的存在价值在于艺术家本人如何成为一个传奇。
The feature is a tribute to the curator Harold Zelman. In the year of 1969, Zelman organized the exhibition called “Live in Your Mind, When Attitude Becomes Form” in Kunstmuseum Museum, Switzerland, which opened the decades-long era of creation by the curator through exhibition, and at the same time also makes “exhibition (theme proposal, program discussion, and space design)” become the classic form of exchange of artistic information.
Since attitude (thinking) must need form for presentation, the respect for new form as shown in “Live in Your Mind” is secretly growing in the mind of Zelman in the course of his “anti-form”. Although he values more the fortuity and uncertainty brought about by materials, emotions and idea in the generation process of “new form”, unfortunately, Zelman is still a formalist in nature.
All glory shall become history and the great moments created by Zelman have become the historical classic discourse that we have to fight against and get rid of. “When Attitude Becomes Form” ultimately makes Zelman in consensus with Greenberg’s avant-garde form. Of course, this does not mean the end of form. Any work that can be seen or felt is a form, but the glory of form must be decentralized as evidence for the existence of art.
When innovation of form is no longer the aim, change in communication method and in mode of transmission becomes one of the possibilities to promote art. Form is no longer a kind of absolute power aesthetics, although it needs to carry aesthetics in the exchange; form is no longer the result of attitude, instead, attitude itself is a form.
Nowadays, what weighs is not to express or how to express, but reaction and re-reaction as well as output and input in the process of dissemination and effective dissemination. When sculpture turns to installation, what is changed is not only the form, but also the means of communication and perception; the single “see” has changed to the multi-touch “experience”. When photography turned to movie, it shifted from fixed form to flow form and from the single meaning of a classic instant to a multiple meaning which is continuously developed, decomposed, transformed and reconstructed. In this sense, form is just a tool with no charm by itself. Its charm lies in its connection to the primary means of communication of art and to cultural forces constantly remodeled in the course of exchange.
“Reaction” is the root to generate attitude, but reaction is not consistent. First, a pure physical reaction is instinctive, like a dodge from a heavy falling object. This reaction, however, cannot turn directly into attitude, it is merely a reaction itself; when heavy objects fall and people choose not to dodge, this reaction becomes an attitude. Secondly, the reaction after thinking or lead by attitude, is it completely dependent on pure rational thinking or objective judgment? The reaction of no dodging is no rational and objective reaction in a general sense; it is abandonment of and resistance against group experience by the individual. In this sense, when reaction becomes attitude, it must be caused by extreme freedom of the individual as well as the boredom of classic and repetitive behavior.
“When Reaction Becomes Attitude” is a way of looking for self-existence in the relationship and also a will to be incompatible with the mainstream way. The will formed by adherence to its own way first changes the reaction by itself, and then presents its attitude towards the world and its awareness of other objects in the way of venture to reaction.
When a style or way becomes common, alienation reaction towards universality will generate an attitude and the attitude is against the historical discourse or mainstream discourse. In the face of reality and their own problems, how the attitude of the artist is transformed in the art system becomes a problem: one way is to highly verbalize the attitude through the existing art system in order to hide or even remove the attitude; the other is to present the attitude directly with art only as a status or tool. Undoubtedly, the relationship between the two ways is not completely disassociated because the choice of the original artistic language system also means to choose an attitude, and more often than not, the art system is used for a simple presentation of attitude.
In case of the first way, when reaction or attitude is highly verbalized by art, the confrontational attitude towards the original language system would be missing. It is also impossible to produce new ways, because the public existing language system is essentially homogenized. It is difficult for unicellular reproduction to bring any new method; it just makes the artist’s self-existence demised. In this sense, the expression of attitude through the original artistic language system can only be a conservative form. Even if it also stresses experiment and expansion of language, it is only Bohemian plot of the middle class and elite group, and the promotion of language system will ultimately differ with the concern without deepening or expansion of the language system. Or, it can only be game of form, drifting from form A to form B. Yet nowadays, the high saturation and diversification of the artistic form language makes A and B no longer as distinct as in the 1960s.
However, the second way has the same problem. If the presentation of attitude only depends on the stand of the artist, attitude is only a completely self-social behavior or daily behavior and it is entirely possible to disseminate and exchange without art. In this sense, either way is faced with a problem: when reaction becomes attitudes, how can attitude stimulate new methods or new modes of communication? First, the idea of unicellular reproduction and linear development of art must be got rid of and self-independent reaction itself can function either as a method or manner. “When Reaction Becomes Attitude”, methods may occur, or it is a method by itself.
Moreover, the abandonment of absolute ration, neutrality, objective and the original art system by individuals renders communication means fresh and vivid. Bio-politics and physical experience precisely escapes the customary logic of art and control by system. The reaction occurs after the selection, but definitely not after precise measurement or careful selection. When reaction happens, it is out of control, harmful for the existing security system, and also dangerous. As an object, artistic language that artists concern about makes a variety of artistic reaction to practical issues and individual experience. In this process of reaction and re-reaction, as well as output and input, there appears exchange and a new way is likely to be found.
At the same time, the relationship between the individual’s attitude and art is not a simple cause-and-effect relationship or like carrier and tool; it is paralleled and closely related. Although art has its own existing classic form, the form is fresh in the past time, flowing in the era that produces it, which is homogeneous with or antagonistic against the needs, power, system and other factors of people in that era. Artistic communication mode and dissemination method in each period is based on the specific social exchanges and dissemination method in that period. In short, art after World War II in the 20th century is not self-derived in art system on the basis of that in the 1920s, but generated from the reaction and re-reaction of the post-war social behavior and individual existence as well as from input to the individual by the era and output to the ear by the individual.
At present, the possibility of art originates from cognitive differences and disassociation from the collection by different individuals. “When Reaction Becomes attitude, When Attitude Becomes Method”, self-awareness is a personal and extreme political behavior and manner, as well as an individual’s pursuit of freedom, confirmation of self-existence, and limited freedom after the confirmation. Freedom of individuals may be out of control at any time, in danger at any time, and defies linguistic or logical generalization and analysis. As a result, when freedom tries to disseminate or exchange, new artistic and linguistic patters are able to appear; it is not derived from form or text, but from repeated confirmation of social and personal organizational relationship as well as movement relationship.
However, in art, any new way of exchange and dissemination will finally present a form; it still bears the traces of aesthetic activities, excited to express in the early stage. However, these do not matter, and what matters is that the social power, institutional power, and classic power is doubted and changed time and time again; the exploration of the traditional form of innovation for aesthetic taste change will be continuously moved in exchange; art itself is not a classic moment, it just organizes a way to promote the attitude of a free person. Finally work is no longer the result and form is only evidence; movement values more than any classic moment of art, the power of art is completely decentralized and the value of art lies in how the artist becomes a legend.