论文部分内容阅读
Aaajiao （XU Wenkai） was born in 1984 in Xi’an， and later moved to Shanghai， where he continues to live and work. Aaajiao is one of China’s foremost media artists， bloggers and free culture developers. In 2003 he established the sound art website： cornersound.com， and in 2006 he founded the Chinese take on the blog We Make Money Not Art： We Need Money Not Art. He is devoted to Processing， an open source visual programming software， Dorkbot， a non-profit initiative for creative minds， and eventstructure， an interdisciplinary center for art， media technology and academic research based in Shanghai. In his works in general， Aaajiao focuses on the use of data and its various forms of display， and how meaning is understood through the process of transforming the movement from reality， to data， and back again. His most significant aesthetic contribution to new media in China is a social one， acting as a vector for the interpretation and communication of international and local trends in the usages of software in artistic practice.
aaajiao（徐文恺），1984年生于中国西安，后移居上海并工作、生活至今。徐文恺是国内前沿的媒体艺术家、博客写手，同时也是一位文化交流的积极推动者。2003年创建声音艺术网站cornersound.com。2006年，创办基于We Make Money Not Art的中文新媒体信息平台We Need Money Not Art。致力于推广processing，一款开源的视觉程序软件。Dorkbot，一个非盈利的倡导创造的活动，以及eventstructure，一家基于上海的跨艺术、设计、学术以及新媒体技术领域的独立研究开发机构。他的作品通常专注于对数据的挖掘和使用，并试图以多种多样的形式将其表现，以此在数据与现实的“调制解调”之中完成对作品内涵的完整表达。他对中国新媒体艺术最重要的审美贡献在于他以自身的活跃姿态，在电脑软件的艺术应用方面，尽力扮演了国内外最新趋势的交流者与先行者角色。
LZH： GFW is a very interesting piece of work. It is like the mystic， symbolic black monolith in A Space Odyssey. This “monolith” presents data from the GFW， a transformative process cannot easily be accomplished by eyes for the general audiences. Do you think this kind of embedded， metaphorical transformation is integrated， and expresses your view towards GFW precisely？ Where does this piece’s artistic aspects lie in？
XWK： Data presented by the monolith has been encoded， whereas audiences cannot read directly. This is in fact what the GFW is doing-setting blocks for communication and disturbing comprehension. For me， this encoding method is extending the abstractness of GFW’s vision. GFWlist is one piece among the data measurement series （it was exhibited at aaajiao’s solo exhibition： cybernetics）， the notion of which is about measuring the length of data and people can take with them in exported pieces. Here is where I think the project becomes arty. LZH： Art is complete when people participate in it， I think this also explains the source of art works. Do the symbolic meanings of your work echo with the notion of audience participation？
XWK： The black stone （monolith） in this piece is a symbol of human civilization and wisdom： data printed from the laser printer inside of the monolith then expresses a sense of satire towards civilization and wisdom. This is a kind of obscure symbolism.
LZH： Media art to a larger extent exists and thrives in virtual environments， one example is the birth of the bitcoin. Also your piece， a box that opens and closes automatically， can be seen as your approach to “artistic creation” which pulls existing information from the internet directly and has it manifested artistically. Does the goal and process of this kind of “artistic creation” fulfill what you anticipated？ What is the role of the artist in this context？
XWK： I use the notion of the internet as a way of categorising the abstract. Many works of this type seem more like critical nodes as my own thinking evolves， as opposed to final presentations.
LZH： It is very difficult to treat art today as “final presentations” or a “final statement”： after Duchamp， any type of art piece can also be the material for something else. Time-based art， or timebased presentations， are unavoidable topics in discussions today. Could you describe your notion of connecting your “mind nodes” on a time based context？
XWK： I see this as a conversation about validity， or about whether there is transient， or connective art pieces. When we research a dynamic subject， it is essential to have a continuous series of art pieces to elaborate on or reflect the thinking. Some pieces we discussed before are transient or connective in this sense. Different to these linking examples， are other works that can be seen as“statements”， providing categorising labels for your research subject.
LZH： Your recent work， “The Screen Generation”， and “Obj.12” are both screen based. You explained this before： “Create objects on the screen， enjoy objects.” The process of “creation” via displaying technologies can also be viewed as an electronic visual experiment which produces no twodimensional remnants. Art here is more detached from the medium of video art. I think the situation is that more and more people are experimenting in this direction， trying to skip the jargon of fixed two-dimensional mediums and explore the possibilities of unstable mediums. XWK： When the screen appears as “a medium”， the fact that its own information and characteristics already exist independently thus slips from our attention. The living nature of the screen has long exceeded the definition of“two-dimensional”， it is variable， it can grow. For me， I am not making use of this “medium”， instead， I live in the living scenario or the ecology of the screen， I even become part of the screen. This will give birth to more uncer-tainties.
lZH： The “living scenario” of information， or information ecology， as part of our life， has also been updating constantly. How do you treat the relationship between this “living nature” of information， and its connection to your own work？
XWK： We will eventually be merged into the information ecology， whist our natural attributes continue to exist. The way we communicate will change ultimately， till the day when we become some communication nodes that have fresh， or natural attributes. That is the moment when our natural attributes do not count anymore as we only exist because we communicate. On that day， the definition of death will equate to “being offline”.
When we arrive at this kind of information ecology， creation will still exist as the most valuable part of “being”： it will override the content release process of existing structures. That being said， I could not imagine what ‘creation’will be like in the future： it could be a sudden， drastic amplification of experience， or something more untouchable.
GFW
-
李振华 X 徐文恺
李振华：GFW是一个有趣的作品，作品的如同一个来自《2001：遨游太空》中的石碑，一个神秘的象征物。期间石碑中不断出现的数据则来自GFW的数据，这个转化的关系通常一般的观众是无法通过视觉来完成的，你认为这一转换的关系是否完整，或者说准确的表述了你对GFW的真实看法？在这个作品中艺术性存在于哪里？
徐文恺：石碑中出现的数据是被decode过一遍的，观众是无法阅读出实际信息的，这样做法等同于GFW本身的机制，干扰阻碍无法解读，对我来说这样的处理方式反而是GFW抽象视觉的扩展。GFWlist 是数据度量衡系列中的一件，是测量数据的长度，观众可以将输出的数据拿走带回。也是我认为艺术性存在之处。
李振华：艺术性是依靠观众参与完成的，以及作品的来源的问题，也或多或少得到了一些解释，而具体到作品本身，作品的象征意义和这些有关吗？
徐文恺：作品的黑石（石碑）象征文明和智慧，内置的热敏打印机释放出的数据确实对文明和智慧的一种戏虐，这样的关系是晦涩的象征意义。
李振华：媒体艺术在很大程度上依存于一个虚拟的环境中，如比特币的出现，如你制作的自我开关的盒子，这些都可以被看作你直接使用了来自网络的信息或实践，完成了“艺术创作”，这一艺术创作的过程和目标是否完全的完成了你所需要的？艺术家在这一情况下的作用是什么？
徐文恺：对互联网概念的使用，对我来说也是一种抽象的整理，有些作品更像是思维演进的节点，并不是最终的结果。
李振华：艺术在今天和难成为一种最终结果的呈现，如果之前还存在着原始材料，在杜尚之后，任何艺术作品本身也可以作为一种原材料的时候，那么基于时间的艺术，或者说基于时间的展示，都在成为今日最不能忽视话题的时候，能不能链接一下你思维节点的再现。
徐文恺：这里是有效性的讨论，或者说是否存在过渡的作品，即链接式的作品，当我们面对一个动态的研究区域，需要一些作品担任链接的作用，之上涉及到的一些作品在如此的研究方式中就在承担这样的作用，另一部分也许是宣言式的，给研究的范围贴上标签。
李振华：你最新的作品《屏幕一代》以及《物》都是基于屏幕的，你对物的解释：‘在屏幕中造物，赏物。’通过显像来完成造物的过程，也可以被看作是一种基于电的视觉实践，在这一实践中，并没有基于平面媒介的任何遗留物，艺术在这里成为比录像艺术或是电影，更没有介质的存在。作为众多现实存在的情况一样，越来越多的艺术家开始在这个方面进行着探索，也就是如何拜托二维介质这一传统媒介，并探讨不稳定介质的可能性。
徐文恺：屏幕，被当作介质出现时，我们往往忽略了它本身信息的属性已经构成一种生态，这样的生态早已超越了二维，而是多维度可变甚至可生长的。对我来说并不是使用和利用这样的介质，而是生存在屏幕生态系统中，甚至变为它的一部分，这样的方式将会给艺术家带来更多的不可知性。
李振华：信息属性的生态，或是日常生活的一部分，我们所处时代不断的更新变化，你如何解释这个生态的关系，以及如何对应生态的自然部分，以及如何区分你的创造。
徐文恺：我们终将成为信息生态的一部分，而我们的属性（自然属性）会保持，但我们沟通的方式将彻底改变，我们只是一个拥有自然属性的肉的（软的）沟通节点，我们的自然属性也许不再重要，我们会因沟通而存在，当我们离线（offline）的时候即消亡。当我们抵达如此的生态，创作依旧是生态里最具价值的部分，凌驾于结构的内容释放，只是我无法想象那时候创作以何种方式呈现，一种体验瞬间的放大或者是其他更不可描述的东西吧。
aaajiao（徐文恺），1984年生于中国西安，后移居上海并工作、生活至今。徐文恺是国内前沿的媒体艺术家、博客写手，同时也是一位文化交流的积极推动者。2003年创建声音艺术网站cornersound.com。2006年，创办基于We Make Money Not Art的中文新媒体信息平台We Need Money Not Art。致力于推广processing，一款开源的视觉程序软件。Dorkbot，一个非盈利的倡导创造的活动，以及eventstructure，一家基于上海的跨艺术、设计、学术以及新媒体技术领域的独立研究开发机构。他的作品通常专注于对数据的挖掘和使用，并试图以多种多样的形式将其表现，以此在数据与现实的“调制解调”之中完成对作品内涵的完整表达。他对中国新媒体艺术最重要的审美贡献在于他以自身的活跃姿态，在电脑软件的艺术应用方面，尽力扮演了国内外最新趋势的交流者与先行者角色。
LZH： GFW is a very interesting piece of work. It is like the mystic， symbolic black monolith in A Space Odyssey. This “monolith” presents data from the GFW， a transformative process cannot easily be accomplished by eyes for the general audiences. Do you think this kind of embedded， metaphorical transformation is integrated， and expresses your view towards GFW precisely？ Where does this piece’s artistic aspects lie in？
XWK： Data presented by the monolith has been encoded， whereas audiences cannot read directly. This is in fact what the GFW is doing-setting blocks for communication and disturbing comprehension. For me， this encoding method is extending the abstractness of GFW’s vision. GFWlist is one piece among the data measurement series （it was exhibited at aaajiao’s solo exhibition： cybernetics）， the notion of which is about measuring the length of data and people can take with them in exported pieces. Here is where I think the project becomes arty. LZH： Art is complete when people participate in it， I think this also explains the source of art works. Do the symbolic meanings of your work echo with the notion of audience participation？
XWK： The black stone （monolith） in this piece is a symbol of human civilization and wisdom： data printed from the laser printer inside of the monolith then expresses a sense of satire towards civilization and wisdom. This is a kind of obscure symbolism.
LZH： Media art to a larger extent exists and thrives in virtual environments， one example is the birth of the bitcoin. Also your piece， a box that opens and closes automatically， can be seen as your approach to “artistic creation” which pulls existing information from the internet directly and has it manifested artistically. Does the goal and process of this kind of “artistic creation” fulfill what you anticipated？ What is the role of the artist in this context？
XWK： I use the notion of the internet as a way of categorising the abstract. Many works of this type seem more like critical nodes as my own thinking evolves， as opposed to final presentations.
LZH： It is very difficult to treat art today as “final presentations” or a “final statement”： after Duchamp， any type of art piece can also be the material for something else. Time-based art， or timebased presentations， are unavoidable topics in discussions today. Could you describe your notion of connecting your “mind nodes” on a time based context？
XWK： I see this as a conversation about validity， or about whether there is transient， or connective art pieces. When we research a dynamic subject， it is essential to have a continuous series of art pieces to elaborate on or reflect the thinking. Some pieces we discussed before are transient or connective in this sense. Different to these linking examples， are other works that can be seen as“statements”， providing categorising labels for your research subject.
LZH： Your recent work， “The Screen Generation”， and “Obj.12” are both screen based. You explained this before： “Create objects on the screen， enjoy objects.” The process of “creation” via displaying technologies can also be viewed as an electronic visual experiment which produces no twodimensional remnants. Art here is more detached from the medium of video art. I think the situation is that more and more people are experimenting in this direction， trying to skip the jargon of fixed two-dimensional mediums and explore the possibilities of unstable mediums. XWK： When the screen appears as “a medium”， the fact that its own information and characteristics already exist independently thus slips from our attention. The living nature of the screen has long exceeded the definition of“two-dimensional”， it is variable， it can grow. For me， I am not making use of this “medium”， instead， I live in the living scenario or the ecology of the screen， I even become part of the screen. This will give birth to more uncer-tainties.
lZH： The “living scenario” of information， or information ecology， as part of our life， has also been updating constantly. How do you treat the relationship between this “living nature” of information， and its connection to your own work？
XWK： We will eventually be merged into the information ecology， whist our natural attributes continue to exist. The way we communicate will change ultimately， till the day when we become some communication nodes that have fresh， or natural attributes. That is the moment when our natural attributes do not count anymore as we only exist because we communicate. On that day， the definition of death will equate to “being offline”.
When we arrive at this kind of information ecology， creation will still exist as the most valuable part of “being”： it will override the content release process of existing structures. That being said， I could not imagine what ‘creation’will be like in the future： it could be a sudden， drastic amplification of experience， or something more untouchable.
GFW
-
李振华 X 徐文恺
李振华：GFW是一个有趣的作品，作品的如同一个来自《2001：遨游太空》中的石碑，一个神秘的象征物。期间石碑中不断出现的数据则来自GFW的数据，这个转化的关系通常一般的观众是无法通过视觉来完成的，你认为这一转换的关系是否完整，或者说准确的表述了你对GFW的真实看法？在这个作品中艺术性存在于哪里？
徐文恺：石碑中出现的数据是被decode过一遍的，观众是无法阅读出实际信息的，这样做法等同于GFW本身的机制，干扰阻碍无法解读，对我来说这样的处理方式反而是GFW抽象视觉的扩展。GFWlist 是数据度量衡系列中的一件，是测量数据的长度，观众可以将输出的数据拿走带回。也是我认为艺术性存在之处。
李振华：艺术性是依靠观众参与完成的，以及作品的来源的问题，也或多或少得到了一些解释，而具体到作品本身，作品的象征意义和这些有关吗？
徐文恺：作品的黑石（石碑）象征文明和智慧，内置的热敏打印机释放出的数据确实对文明和智慧的一种戏虐，这样的关系是晦涩的象征意义。
李振华：媒体艺术在很大程度上依存于一个虚拟的环境中，如比特币的出现，如你制作的自我开关的盒子，这些都可以被看作你直接使用了来自网络的信息或实践，完成了“艺术创作”，这一艺术创作的过程和目标是否完全的完成了你所需要的？艺术家在这一情况下的作用是什么？
徐文恺：对互联网概念的使用，对我来说也是一种抽象的整理，有些作品更像是思维演进的节点，并不是最终的结果。
李振华：艺术在今天和难成为一种最终结果的呈现，如果之前还存在着原始材料，在杜尚之后，任何艺术作品本身也可以作为一种原材料的时候，那么基于时间的艺术，或者说基于时间的展示，都在成为今日最不能忽视话题的时候，能不能链接一下你思维节点的再现。
徐文恺：这里是有效性的讨论，或者说是否存在过渡的作品，即链接式的作品，当我们面对一个动态的研究区域，需要一些作品担任链接的作用，之上涉及到的一些作品在如此的研究方式中就在承担这样的作用，另一部分也许是宣言式的，给研究的范围贴上标签。
李振华：你最新的作品《屏幕一代》以及《物》都是基于屏幕的，你对物的解释：‘在屏幕中造物，赏物。’通过显像来完成造物的过程，也可以被看作是一种基于电的视觉实践，在这一实践中，并没有基于平面媒介的任何遗留物，艺术在这里成为比录像艺术或是电影，更没有介质的存在。作为众多现实存在的情况一样，越来越多的艺术家开始在这个方面进行着探索，也就是如何拜托二维介质这一传统媒介，并探讨不稳定介质的可能性。
徐文恺：屏幕，被当作介质出现时，我们往往忽略了它本身信息的属性已经构成一种生态，这样的生态早已超越了二维，而是多维度可变甚至可生长的。对我来说并不是使用和利用这样的介质，而是生存在屏幕生态系统中，甚至变为它的一部分，这样的方式将会给艺术家带来更多的不可知性。
李振华：信息属性的生态，或是日常生活的一部分，我们所处时代不断的更新变化，你如何解释这个生态的关系，以及如何对应生态的自然部分，以及如何区分你的创造。
徐文恺：我们终将成为信息生态的一部分，而我们的属性（自然属性）会保持，但我们沟通的方式将彻底改变，我们只是一个拥有自然属性的肉的（软的）沟通节点，我们的自然属性也许不再重要，我们会因沟通而存在，当我们离线（offline）的时候即消亡。当我们抵达如此的生态，创作依旧是生态里最具价值的部分，凌驾于结构的内容释放，只是我无法想象那时候创作以何种方式呈现，一种体验瞬间的放大或者是其他更不可描述的东西吧。