INTERVIEW
　　that’s where the name came from.
　　We started in 1978 as a performance group – a music performance group – but what we did was not mainstream： it was difficult for the audience to accept and to adapt. That’s why we received very little suport… we had no space in the public eye， or in the galleries， and we were so young， so new， that people didn’t really get what we did. So we did a lot private work， private performances， and we had to travel a lot to find places to work and perform in， because in our own city there was very little support. Then there were I think 5 or 6 festivals when we managed to get in but the audiences and the organisers often stopped our performances by cutting off the electricity –and we endured quite a heavy， conflicting situations， you know， including censorship from the organisers – and from our side as well.
　　We often had very provocative performances or positions， and at certain points we were refused and censored. We got the idea of doing our own festival. Certainly that was in parallel with the development of an independent music scene and the punk， the “new wave” movement towards the mainstream music scene. We were developing our own structures， our own shape， to have a new opportunity in the mainstream， so we started producing and distributing ourselves. And we said that， also， we wanna make our own festival， and as a joke we said we’d do it in Bangkok.
　　So， that was abstract， and we started to think what we could do… and Bernard Müller， the third guy from the group at that time， he had already done something in Bangkok in some strange museum which belonged to the princess， which was called the Bhirasri Institute of Modern Art. So we said we’d go there！ And after a long discussion we developed the idea of bringing our culture to Asia， not to be hippy tourists or on businessTHING， so we thought we had to do something different， and to bring something along with us.
　　So we came to the idea of a“stone” as a heavy rock’n’roll monument – rock and roll in both senses. It was basically to take with us some of the oldest traces of European culture– Celtic culture， manifest in Stonehenge. The original idea was to steal A stone from Stonehenge and bring it to Asia， but that was obviously impossible… we would have been immediately arrested for harming a cultural heritage site. So instead we took a stone from A quarry in the Prescelly mountains in west Wales， where the inner circle of Stonehenge was originally taken from. The history is that they transported those blue granite stones， which make up the inner circle of the Stonehenge， for 300km from the Prescelly mountains， on fleeces， rolling it up to the position of Stonehenge today. 　　So we took a stone from the Prescelly mountains… Basically we took a neutral stone that embodied the so-called “Celtic or Druid culture”. While nobody knows exactly what this culture was， certainly it would have been easier to take a “Roman” stone， but then we would have been connected to Roman culture. So it was kind of neutral to bring this contextually “virgin stone”.
　　The stone was the catalyst of the project. We had a very complicated system of finan-cing because nobody believed we could achieve it.
　　We tried in different ways to finance our project： we made shows， concerts and looked for sponsors， and then we started with a private share. We couldn’t put it on the stock market， but it was a share- the first “artist” share.
　　We created shares to co-finance the project- it was about$30 for one share， which meant 400 grams of the stone and 1km of the trip to Asia. We finally had about 2，000， or 2，500 co-owners， we made 20，000 shares， today Müller， one of the members of the group， is “keeping hold” of 10 or 15，000. He left the group in 1984 and converted to Islam， and became quite “extreme”- recently we had some very interesting dialogues with him， because he was really eager to work with us again but he wanted us to be using his religious language， Karl and me， and we didn’t want to convert to Islam…
　　And also， it was in a sense against the beginning of the project – we didn’t want to connect our work to some esoteric parts or to some political or religious context， but to a neutral one， a humanistic one， an energetic oneto research into this whole trip. The idea of “archiving”Europe （European forms and contents）， and Asia （Asian forms and contents） was a central aim， very strong-ly to find common forms and languages of cultural information.
　　To give an example， suppose we want to make an avant- garde salon today. If you take avant-garde salons in the 1920s， of the Dadaists in Zurich in the 1920s – how would we realise that today？
　　Well， for example， we came to a village in Turkey， and we had a washing machine with a generator but we needed the water. So we put up the washing machine with the generator near the water well and started washing， and that gave the women of the village a pretext to come and see us because washing is women’s business in Islamic culture. This was in public， because it was a central place， so we created a platform of discussion and a kind of salon（through the washing）， where we could talk with women， which is usually prohibited in rural， Islamic Turkish context . But if I were to say， okay， here today in Berlin， in the avantgarde theatre in Berlin， I’ll put a washing machine on stage- the same idea of exchange， of a salon， wouldn’t work. So the same content always has a culture-dependant form， and this was one main research and technical results. If we wanted to develop our practice and experience fur-ther， would we have continued the Minus Delta T， with the experience we had as a music group， as a mythological new wave punk group， with a mythological theme about provocative actions and performance art？ 　　We were seriously trying to exchange out of the normal norms which in today is something normal （with globalism）， but at that time in the 80s it was rather difficult. We were seriously trying to exchange out of the normal norms， which today is something normal （with globalisation）， but at that time in the 80s it was rather difficult.
　　I mean， one of the ideas was also to basically do a radio station on a truck， something realistic today which was absolutely impossible in the 80s. You’d get thrown into jail immediately. I mean， we went through Turkey， which was ruled by a military government， Iran had a military government， India too， and fundamentally China as well. So， you know， it was impossible to get freedom of expression on a traditional level of new media like today. Sure， we made reports on the trip（which was co-financed）. Every two weeks we sent a radio show to the Austrian national radio， and every Friday there was a kind of travel report which became a cult show in the music box （Musikbox） program in ORF， broadcasted in the whole of Austria.
　　LZH： Which year was that？
　　MH： This was 1982-1983. Basically， every Friday we had a radio show and a lot of people could follow what we were doing， and that became quite a cult， you know… also there was this book by Merve editions I gave you， this Minus Delta T book. Merve was one of the most important philosophical publishers in Germany in the 70s and 80s， who first translated the French philosophers Félix Guattari， Baudrilliard， and other people like Deleuze， et cetera.
　　They published our book before we made the trip， and so we got a lot of credit through that later. We realised about 80% of what was written in this book. But the book was just concept， later it became real… the main fight we had with the editors is that we didn’t want to publish our old performances， but they’d said “we have to put some of your performances， otherwise people won’t believe anything”. Anyway they took the risk and published mainly our concepts， and they had the big credit of publishing our concept outside of the art market. Outside of the art mafia， you know， which was basically based on some galleries， based on state money， and based on the system of“I’m a serious artist， and you are not a serious artist.” So we were not serious artists， nobody from official cultural context was sponsoring us， in exception the Austrian ministries gave us a little money and some diplomatic help for the road with the embassies， but we started working with sponsors in a time when sponsorship in art didn’t even exist， you know. 　　We also had a cigarette company as a sponsor， and there were some English and German artists who insulted us because we were advertising a cigarette company. The same people are paid today – BY Philip Morris， no problem with sponsoring. Funnily enough， some of our sponsor companies trusted us more because we said we were going to do an expedition to the Himalayas， and this equipment sponsoring from those companies. You’d go and visit them and they analysed US guys， who had a truck and believed in the project. The company owners took us by their own romantic nostalgia： “I started with a little Volkswagen in my company and it was a big adventure up until today， and now these young guys are here and they have this truck for this adventure with a stone– are they going to grow just like us？” so the sponsoring was an identification of the company owners in our group taking a risk in an impossible project that they liked.
　　The company came for the sympathy or emotional resonance of our project， which reminded them of the beginnings of their business. So that’s why they financed us， which the art people didn’t do. People in the art scene thought：“Who are these punks， these hooligans who just want to rip off our money with their fake shares. They’re never going to travel.” You know a lot of people who bought the shares said “hahaha！ What a smart way to get money from them！ Now they are going to put them in frames…”
　　So there was a BIG back and forth with finding financing/ sponsoring， so I have to say we arrived in Turkey （after a European tour of about 6 months） with $2000. Then we dealt with our sponsored reserve tires， and sold them， or we exchanged American army jackets with Iranian revolutionaries for 800 litres of diesel， which was nothing for them but for us a lot. Years later we found a lot of money out of the ministries， when the project was running， for exhibitions about the project. So all the investment was essentially done by us and developed by us and not by the art scene.
　　The idea of the Stone Project was to travel with it through different countries， staying at different places， getting people to interact with it， and performing， and trying to document this salon-exchange idea with photos， films and videos. That was what we called “Archive Europe， Archive Asia”. We arrived in India， where we deposited the stone in the Ganges， for about 3 or 4 years.
　　That was the time when Bernard Müller， from the group， split to Pakistan， and converted to Islam quite extremely. He got his wife and kids to Pakistan and took our truck， and started a business trading Pakistani furniture to Europe. He prayed every day， and as an extreme convert his wife had to walk… behind him. 　　He is more moderate today， but we didn’t work with him any more. We still have contact with him， but we involved other people， more people， and tried to communicate our research and our experiences… The original idea was to go with the stone to Bangkok， but it wasn’t possible because Burma was closed – I don’t know how it’s called， Myanmar？ – It was closed and there weren’t any roads to Thailand： it was cut from India. So we went by aeroplane to Bangkok and organised – in a time of military curfew – we organised a festival of performance and art in the Birasri Institute of Modern Art， and for this we invited people from Europe with the minimal budget that we had. About 15-20 people came， and so we did our first performance festival in Asia in Bangkok， Thailand.
　　LZH： How long did it take to move a stone from Europe to Bangkok？
　　MH： Well， we all stayed in different countries for a while. We left in October ’82， and we arrived in India in April’83， and we did the festival in Bangkok in May ’83. But there were some places where we stayed longer： we traveled through Bulgaria， Romania， and Slovakia to Turkey， then we made a visit down to Lebanon， Syria， back to Turkey， and then to Iran， Pakistan， India. And the stone never reached Thailand！
　　For a long time we had the idea to bring it to China， for five years. We tried hard but it was just impossible by land with the truck. It would have worked to bring the stone with a ship， but we wanted to travel， to have this interaction， so this didn’t work… we tried a lot， but it didn’t work.
　　Now it can work， and now we’ll do it as well. The idea being to bring the stone to China， our original plan was to bring it to Tian’anmen square， which is perhaps politically impossible – but we were young and we thought that this（being political） was important. Our other idea， in the 80s， before Russia’s political system changed in 89， was to go from China into Russia via Moscow， and to transport the stone to Cuba， and then go from Cuba to Cape Canaveral and shoot the stone into space with a rocket. And we told people we’d do this， but finally we understood it’s more important that the stone travels. It was an ideal educational way to learn how to communicate， BY transporting this stone.
　　Because the stone is a projection surface for everybody who comes there， and a lot of interaction happened at the scene. The stone became loaded with the strong energy of all of these people who came and projected onto it. Some of the most common questions that we were asked， were things like “Why did you do this？”， “Which religion do you believe in？”， or “What are you selling？” – “No， no， no， we’re just transporting the stone.” 　　And they started fantasising， projecting. It wasn’t a “it’s a Roman stone”， “ah… you’re from the Greek/Roman culture”，or “you’re Christian？”– the stone was neutral， and it was important to have a neutral， un-carved stone without meanings. So it could be a projection platform， or our“framework” for the people.
　　LZH： But that’s always the case， because when people talk about something with the object， they always try to project things. I also want to ask you questions related to this performance or the contextualised work： are you also affected or related to Fluxus， or like Dada， which you mentioned？ And why？ Because this was at a different time， what were the shifts between peoples’ concepts： why they responded in their way， and why you did in your way？
　　MH： I could not really say that at the time I was informed by Dada or Fluxus. I knew a lot about those people， and they were basically also censoring us because they were established– they were the generation before us， the Fluxus people， for example. I couldn’t stand Beuys – excuse me， in China you’re all fans of him – I felt he was terrible in his charismatic guru replacement thing for Germany’s lost generation， I thought it was terrible… but okay， he became like an icon of German art， and it’s okay. We didn’t want to mix with these people， we wanted nothing to do with these people. But the live art was important for us， for us it was important to integrate art in life， and， I mean， Fluxus and Dada were iconic， symbolic performance acts. Some people tried – for example Kaprow， some other people around him – they tried to involve life a lot. But the show program and symbolic stuff， public theatre … we didn’t like it so much. So certainly our position was quite against Fluxus and Dada – by that I mean it wasn’t enough live art.
　　So， when you’re in dialogue with some systems， and you’re opposed to it， it strengthens your own system because your enemy makes you stronger. In that way we did have a lot of enemies because were young， because we were loud， because we wanted to do better， because we didn’t want to be part of their family， we didn’t have that heritage thing. We were a solitary group contrary to this， when I met with the Moscow conceptualists for the first time（where we also had contacts in the 80s， when I met them via Infermental video magazine– I was editor and producer of 2 editions of Infermental magazine in the 80s.
　　When we first met the Moscow conceptualists in 1989， they were 15 or 20 people. Having a cup of coffee with the medical hermeneutics and their friends， Anton Kabakov said ‘yes， I’m the third generation of the Moscow conceptualist artist group’， which surprised us…they had a total heritage way of thinking from father to son or from senior to junior， which we （Minus Delta T – MDT） didn’t have at all. We were left alone， we had to invent something. Now partially I have my clients where I take this role （of a heritage） which I rejected before… I rejected the role of being the “father”of a movement， or something like that， and maybe this was the strength we really had， and that’s why I found Karl too. 　　He didn’t want to have anything to do with that art system either – he wanted something different. We weren’t so experienced， we were learning the whole time. When I was in confrontation with all these “not good art” discussions， the quality definition of the art market repulsed us. In the art market they basically always try to break up the artist groups –their classic thing was to pay one member in an art group and not the others. A group would be finished （through this） if it was weak. We refused， you know， we refused to say there was a leader – we said we were a group.
　　When there is negotiation in the group for a concept for an exhibition， we send the youngest of our group. They always want to talk to Mike， to me， to Karl， but we send the youngest and say that ‘he’s responsible for this project， we’re not’. So we always change， there’s been no putting one name forward. Minus Delta T had 6 or 8 members always coming and going， besides Karl and Mike as basic group members.
　　Today the heritage is Karl and me， because the others were engaged in other things – at that time it was protecting the group， protecting the label. It was reinforcing the thinking that we were a hermetic group. Sure， it was our mistake sometimes， but that’s how we kept our density and identity. There were women who wanted to travel with us on the Stone Project， and we refused. There were about 6 or 7 women who wanted to make the trip with us： we said‘you make your own women’s group then you travel， we don’t want to be bodyguards for you in Arab countries， and be responsible for the disastrous behaviour of men towards women in the world – you make the experience alone’. There was one woman who wanted to travel as a man –her project failed， but it was to think of the people who really wanted to do it， this thinking of doing and find a practical way. I mean， there were groups like Die Toten Hosen – you probably know them， punk group from Dusseldorf – we started music at the same time as them， they wanted to come to Iran and play in Persepolis， but they couldn’t manage. The management at that time was much more difficult than today. There was no EasyJet or cheap airlines. It was very expensive， and communication was so expensive – in some art shows in galleries we wanted our telephone bills to be paid by the galleries. Initially they’d say， ‘okay， what are your fees？’We’d give them the telephone bills for a month， and they would all refuse because they were afraid of the fees， which were incredibly expensive at that time. 　　LZH： That’s very interesting as we’re talking about the early 80s， you know the issue of Visas， and also… as you said， you have to cross many countries， and certainly （there are） clear taboos with culture– refusing women to join you –and telephone issues… I mean， with all these things， how did we finally get these pictures back？ Nowadays， to imagine that is really hard！ It’s really， very hard to understand what the world was like 30 years ago.
　　MH： We had a situation a year ago in Prague， where we had a retrospective exhibition based on the Van Gogh TV （project）， of our following up group of Minus Delta T （Ponton Media Art Group Lab was the name）， and what we did there was a timeline on a wall： what， in the 70s， were the major political events， inventions， EastWest conflicts， who were the dictators of the world？ all these were documented to visualise the context ， who was doing what， what was invented – and it’s so hard for people today to imagine a situation without telephones. For example， in Moscow in the 80s there were public telephones which didn’t cost anything， but everybody knew they were being listened to. So the Moscow people had a system so that they’d never talk on the telephone when they visited somebody， to avoid surveillance. Rather these people would go from this apartment to the next one， to the next one， to the studio（in the art scene， I mean） and to have this kind of daily life where you didn’t make a date， you didn’t fix things – it was all open， it had to be.
　　You just need to compare with the beginning of the Van Gogh TV project – that was in ’92. We were calling from the Baltics， Latvia and Lithuania. An international telephone call back then meant 16 hours of waiting to get connected. I mean， imagine you’re trying to do a project today with whatever technology， telephone or text， and then you have to wait for 16 hours to reach connection！ Four months later we got sponsored by Nokia for the Baltic project， and we had the first “fat” handie （Nokie mobile phones）， these big heavy bricks of mobile phones， and the communication was five dollars a minute， which was totally incredible， but we were sponsored so we could do the whole project in the Baltics. We could phone from the Baltic to Moscow. Moscow was even more difficult to reach： it could take 30 hours to connect on an official telephone line for an international call to Moscow.
　　So we had these mobile phones sponsored by Nokia， and we could communicate from there to Germany， the centre in Kassel at the Documenta 1992， in real time. At that time， the first Ponton MEDIA project in public was in 1987. 　　LZH： 87？
　　MH： This “Piazza Virtuale”was in ’92. ’92 was the Van Gogh TV project. In 1987 we were with Minus Delta T in Documenta， with a media bus. We were invited to the performance program and we did an illegal radio show which we declared was a “sound sculpture”.
　　This was also in a time when there were no private radio stations – which you can’t imagine today. So what happened？ We had a wellprotected transmitter and we were transmitting every day from different places， and we always had four people watching out for the police， or the post people who might come searching for the transmitter. There were these post cars which were driving around – those search cars with antenne to find out where our transmitter was. So what we did was， we cut the tires of those cars： we broke in to the place where they kept these cars， and we put sugar in the tanks， so they were broken and they couldn’t follow us any more.
　　Also， we had walkie-talkies to communicate with each other： we would put the transmitter for example on the bordel（brothel） and you had the pimps there who didn’t like the police at all – “did you let the police in？” So by the time the police reached the roof we were gone， and the transmitter was turned off and hidden.
　　We were on the roof of the bordel （laughter）with the transmitters – we changed the transmitting position every day， until we were legalised. It was an incredible activism， you know， protecting our broadcast– a performance in itself. So many of the people taking part were participating because they were romantic about these illegal actions and this game of hide-and-seek. MDT didn’t share this enthusiasm of “being against” （the system）， we weren’t trying to be against， we tried to be for something： that is， creating our own thing. But we had a lot of fans who were in this “against” culture. Today we live in a society of “against culture”， Che Guevara T-shirts are mainstream， but the mainstream of “being against”is the isolation of little groups into clubs， into specialists –which are better consumers， you know.
　　LZH： So who was the curator at that time， in 92 and 87 as you mentioned？ Why did they select your project？ What did they feel about your activist situation？
　　MH： Well， in 87 we were very famous through the Stone Project and through several other projects – such as the Death Opera project. We were known. We were invited to Documenta by Elisabeth Jappe from Koln， a curator who specalised in performance. So she curated us for this program with Mr Schneckenburger， and he agreed to put our media bus next to the performance program at the Documenta. We used the opportunity to invite the Chaos Computer Club（hackers） to the Documenta， to our media bus， we had chats with the world through“The Well” in San Francisco， which was the first telephone modem chat connection where we could talk with people from around the world. So all these innovative things， all these things were elements and possibilities in our media bus our mobile lab and radio studio. We were the first ones to invite Chaos Computer Club into an art context， and we also had this radio TV RABOTNIK from Amsterdam involved in our Documenta action project， which was more or less a SQUAT TV radio station. We brought together the left-wing people with the art people in Germany， which is sometimes a problem because the leftwing were historically antiart – and today the left-wing monopolise the contextual arts scene in Europe. 　　You had a lot of contextual art which is not open to political thinking， I think， and we brought these people together， so there were a lot of conflicts back then， in our project in the Documenta in ’87. I think we involved like eighty or a hundred people during 3 months （not including the audience）， so the network idea， the mobile atelier was always there. The Stone Project was also a mobile atelier with a mobile transport. So in the live art process， what the atelier processes is important. In general art thinking we have the atelier， the process is excluded and private， and then you have the exhibition as a result. But the result， however， is dead， because it’s in the museum， and the process of developing art is finished.
　　Certainly， one of our ideas was to make the process through the product， and this is why we continued with these mobile public labs， the media bus we had in the Documenta in ’87， and a radio station which was at first illegal and then got legalised as a sound-sculpture， a temporary sound-structure. That was a bit strange because all the political （the left-wing anarchistic） radios who were in the process， or had been caught by the police or sued（for illegal broadcasting）， came to us and wanted our papers. They wanted the government paper which legalised us as a sound sculpture， to present in the juristic process， and we refused because we said we were doing the radio in a different， artistic context， and they （these radio stations） weren’t interested in art.
　　For us， it was an honour to do a subjective radio show in that period. I mean， this was also something people didn’t understand. Official media was objective， monolithic， it was controlled by political opinion， and it was pyramidal， vertically controlled （hierarchically）. We were horizontal， we were at a democratic level where we had subjectivity， which is what art is – art is totally subjective， you know. And this was what people understood， and this is why we called our first TV station Van Gogh TV， because everybody – the most uneducated guy knows that Van Gogh was an artist and that he cut off his ear. So with this in mind， it was clear for most people that the station was connected to art， and wasn’t
　　“Blue Sky” TV or anything.
　　LZH： This is very different in terms of understanding media art at that time. I would say， to describe what you mentioned：“contextualised art”. For example， Nicola Bourriad’s Relational Aesthetics， which he wrote in the 90s， do you see a connection there？ Do you see yourself as related to“relational aesthetics”， or do you see yourself related to the so-called “media art” label？ Because you’ve been treated as a media art group （which is very interesting）， and I’ve never heard somebody mentioning you or your group as major representatives of relational aesthetics. But you were even earlier than them （relational artists）. 　　MH： The thing is quite simple– representation didn’t matter so much （to us）， we care more about the production. And now， concerning media art， we always had a problem with the concept of “solo signature”， that kind of “I am an artist”signature. We were a group， so that was also a problem on the level of copyright. We didn’t know what would belong to “me” if we were doing something together， and there was a conflict. Sure， the video artists had this problem of about how to get money， when could they， since they do work in so many different systems of video art.
　　For example， in the 80s， in the Netherlands， to say video art was serious， there were rules regulating financial support for video art. Thus there was no music allowed in video art work because music came under the heading of“music clips”， and that was commercial. So you had a lot of totally humourless clips， or boring Dutch video art with no music at all. Otherwise （if they had music） they wouldn’t get money from the state （because they were treated as “sponsored by commercial parties”）， so this was a kind of strange substitution， on a monetary level， about how art was orientated， and designed itself around how artists got money.
　　When we started doing art TV， the art people said “you are doing bad video art”， and even the most important video art critics said that， because they couldn’t think in a live art sense and in the context of interactivity. Now they speak about us very differently， in the context of history， but we were doing live TV and interactive stuff which they initially said was “bad video art”. I mean， they didn’t understand what we were doing， but the audience did understand， and people reacted to it.
　　So this independent thinking， creating independent fields of working， was always important， and I would say that 20% of our work was in the art field： meaning that we created other working platforms beside the classical art scene （i.e. galleries）. Okay， we were at Ars Electronica and a lot of these new media festivals –those were also relatively new scenes at the time. We did big projects there too， but it was maybe 30% of our total work –the rest was in different fields， integrated into society or into different states. The Frigo group， which was the French group I talked about before， was also an independent production place outside of the art scene.
　　Now the art museums want to expose us in an artistic context but at the time they said “oh， you don’t fit in here， you’re not close to an artistic or similar statement”， etc. Censorship till today is not to “forbid” something but not to “finance” it. 　　On the other hand， we weren’t controllable， and that was the point， too. I mean， you’re a group， you have an infrastructure， you’re independent： you’re not the helpless， genius baby artist which they’d like to have， while the critics say “oh you poor little artist， you don’t even know what to do， I have to write some text about you saying that you are an artist…and i get paid for my text”.
　　Now this is what you have about contextual artists today， people say that they put a piece of paper on the wall， and when they write three pages about it， then it becomes art – that’s not independence， that’s making the artist little babies. And， say， okay， you’re a genius （LZH： Or a handicapped baby ） Yeah（laughs）， and he is so inspired by his creativity and his genius that he has to take drugs， and he’s a handicapped， oh fuck you， you know…
　　LZH： But my question is， as you mentioned this… today we talk a lot about contextualised art and so-called “relational aesthetics”. I think that the difference is， a lot of artists from the ‘90s were doing it in certain kinds of contexts， which was more about between human beings. And I think your work in the 80s was even more about that， more than that， because in a way you’re involved with so called“mediation” issues. So you see – if we are to talk about contextualised art – how can we understand contextualised art？ Because certainly it is in a context： if we don’t read about it， how can we understand or access this kind of art？ And why are we doing this kind of art？
　　MH： I would put it into three different levels. We have three processes of art. The first one is the individual level， the second is the dialogue level， the third is the living aspect level.
　　Or… so， you say you can have the journalistic， or the portrait artists， or the documentarists， who can reproduce a beautiful landscape， or a beautiful portrait， or see very well in a journalistic context. I think a lot of art today is a journalistic， commenting on what’s happening in society： it’s not inventing culture， it’s commenting （on） culture.
　　The second （dialogue） level of art， to me， is a symbolic way of connecting different philosophies. Often we see a combination of icons put together in an installation. Maybe you are developing philosophies of thinking at different levels， but the pro- blem is， it is still something symbolic， and not a live act. A lot of artists are doing symbolic works， for instance： a lot of the contextual people do symbolic works which have nothing to do with their solidarity， for example， for the poor Africans. When I was in art school in Hamburg in the ‘90s， people said “we have to do something against racism”， and I said“okay， the best thing you can do against racism is to sign up on a visa form or to take up some responsibility for the person， and then a black person can get a bed at your parents’ house， or you just give them money， then it’s okay.”But all the rest is crap， you know， this solidarity – this ‘we hold hands around a lake and light candles’ – some symbolic shit. Certainly it’s important to develop the language with the new writing， and to find new forms – for example， old installations of Ilya Kabakov are also journalistic， and there were descriptions of Stalinism， but in a visual way. So sure， the visual language is very important for us， and we did the research on it through these different countries in the Stone Project， to find the same content with different forms and cultures. 　　The third and most important（level） is prototypes of life， and prototypes of culture， not to be commentary of what’s produced on TV but to produce culture ourselves - which is even more difficult today， because we have this total politically-correct censorship. And what you think is maybe not politically correct. If you start being creative， maybe this isn’t politically correct. This is my main interest- not being politically correct adapted， but developing a culture of ourselves， which may become folklore or mainstream. Not just being there and saying“I’ll be the cynical or sarcastic commentariat， making a commentary on what I see on TV， on politics， and how people walk around”. I mean- nobody is inventing their own clothes. I mean， some do， but not really- it’s basically imposed on us， say， restricted to what Nike stuff we should wear.
　　But， there is also the human aspect in these levels of art – a） you have the individual which grows up and finds his own identity and his consciousness， and b） you have the gang， which is the young people who listen to the same music， and wear the same hair. It’s a kind of homosexual self-mirroring， the love of the other comes from the love of yourself. Homosexual is maybe not the right word， but it’s this kind of achieving your own identity through others， to be more precise. And c） on the third level， you have “the other”， which in the historical sense is the man-woman relationship. And that’s the only fruitful business， because something will come out of it. In a manwoman combination， or in “the other” or in “the network”， some products will naturally come out of the network itself. I say that you have three levels of artworks： you have individual work， you have the gang or group， and you have the networking work， which is the art and which is fruitful， and it’s basically the most important thing to continue， because it makes babies， in parentheses and resources. I remember that time when we were doing this networking or interactive stuff， and naturally the traditional curators said that “oh， this isn’t art， this is social therapy”.
　　In this context， I think you have to analyse and put it together： we’ve done contextual art but in a practical way， not in the sense of philosophical abstract reflection. I think contextual art is a good school of thinking， a good school of reflection， but we always started from the practice level. We do what we wanted to do， how can we do this， how can we realise this –always with mistakes， sure， but in a practical way， and not in a pre-designed way. 　　For example， Peter Weibel … in the end of 80s， he was jealous of us when we started the Van Gogh TV. He was totally jealous because he established interactive art as a type of art genre to be financed by three festivals in Europe， which were Ars Electronica LINZ ， Karlsruhe （zkm）， and maybe 2 or 3 other places in Europe. Each installation， each interactive installation， cost 70，000 to 80，000 euros， even 100，000 euros， because you have to pay the artist， the materials etc.
　　He was in control of the so called interactive art media scene. There were about 10 people controlling the distribution of this money， and I would say that he was one of them. And then we came and did a social thing， while we had an interactive system which cost nothing， or very little. Peter Weibel hated opensource interactive stuff， which we were the first to establish， you know. I mean， there were other people working on it， but he had no relationship to the hackers and all these （opensource developers） … we had a relation to the hackers， we did the benefit festivals for the first hackers when they got into prison for hacking into company computers （to prove the lack of security-something normal today）. When they hacked into the security systems to show that the people weren’t safe， there were a lot of them in prison. There were no fucking artists there， in ’91 or in ‘90.
　　LZH： I think you’re talking about the particular kind of…you know， people usually think about this kind of validation or legitimacy with their own kind of art. So it’s no longer about this so-called democratic thinking. I think your work is very important， because from the very basis they’re democratic actions， taking action and sharing with people. So I think your work also makes your art a bit weak， and away， isolated from the market – because that kind of art is certainly not interested in the market. The market is more interested in this so-called “old style”， the “classical way”， the socalled original thinking in art.
　　MH： Well， on that level it’s important that you also have your own style. I have to say I make more money today with flatware – flatware means pictures， things you can hang in galleries （LZH： Twodimensional stuff. ） Yes – than I did with teaching and other projects. So as long as you do experimental art or media art， on the budget level you plus， minus， and the curators get more money than the artists. This is， we have to say， the truth… maybe not you， but I know a lot of people are very aware that every fucking secretary gets paid（the payment of the artist is last on the list） – they have a budget of 200，000 euros for a show， and there are 15 artists， and they say “sorry， we have no money”. It is clear that to keep the integrity of the art that I want to do， I have to say no to certain conditions， which means I need to reserve money. So I don’t have private money， and I have other jobs. I have a teaching job and I have a music job， I was in some commercial consulting stuff， I was in media consulting， in media art too. It’s always there， one of these jobs to finance the others that don’t bring in any money. For example， the cheese club yesterday didn’t bring in any money in the first three years （now it does）， because nobody was really into it and they thought it was too expensive . People think it’s too expensive to spend money for that in the art field， and the same goes for the video art： when we did the first video art festival in the beginning of the 80s， there was no fucking point to make money with it. 　　I mean， there was a gallery in the 70s – gallery Oppenheim– her collection is now in the Landes Museum in Bonn. She was with the de Appel in Amsterdam， the first people who bought video art in Europe. In the USA there are another 3 or 4 places， like Long Beach Museum， so from 5，000 artists you know how many of them have been bought from. And in this sense， it’s always that you have to invest at least 2， 3， up to 5 years into certain projects， before they kind of carry themselves along. And it’s always carried through a sponsor or something， which you do by yourself， and there are certain moments when they become adult， and they walk alone.
　　But if you rely on the system， the system’s gonna censor you. People know that if they work with my plans they can’t tell me what to do， so they’re afraid to work with me because I refuse if I don’t have my conditions. I’m not talking about money， because I’m bad at money management， but as for the content， they can’t tell me. But I know a lot of artists， when the sellers tell themdon’t do this style， don’t do that style， change it- they do it！
　　This is about pride， we MDT never change， we never wanted to change in that way. But we’re writing history in what we did， and I think for a lot of people we symbolise something like a dream come true： if you want it， you should， or can do it. （OR OBAMALIKE HAHA WE CAN DO IT ）
　　We wanted to transport a stone， and we didn’t think a lot beforehand， we said we wanted to bring it to Asia and we achieved it. This whole process of learning we made on the way， that was fantastic， and I think for everybody this was a fantastic experience. It’s a deeply philosophical and also educational experience to be permanently confronted in real situations with other cultures， and I wish this for other kids– that’s why I want to meet at least another 20 or 30 stones， and send them around the world with other people.
　　LZH： So where is the stone now？ Eventually？
　　MH： The stone is in New Delhi， it’s by the Austrian embassy. It was about two years in the temple in New Deli before it was on the river Ganges and it’s always been waiting to go to China. They kind of rebuilt the temple， so we had to take it away and put it back in the Austrian embassy（because Karl is Austrian）. And now we want to go China next year， and to continue this trip with the stone， and I think we will bring it to Beijing.
　　LZH： 我们或许应该把话题从中国的艺术市场转移到你的作品上。我们知道你在80年代末期、90年代早期介入了中国的艺术环境。在德国的好几个城市。而我对你在其它国家的个人实践感兴趣，比如德国的几个城市。所以，让我们聚焦于你和Karl Dudesek一起合作的“大石头项目”（Bangkok Project），可以和我们分享一下这个项目的背景吗？你如何为它命名，你们起初如何付诸实施，以及你们如何在资金上实现了这个项目？ 　　MH： 我们的艺术家小组叫做Minus Delta T，这个名字的来源是一个用来计算将来可能发生的事件的数学形式，或者说，它的隐喻是 “未来的回声”。这个名字的来源有些数学游戏或者哲学游戏的意味在里面（我们和一些哲学家与数学家进行了讨论）。
　　我们1978年成立了艺术家小组，当时我们是一个表演艺术小组，或者说表演音乐艺术小组...当然，在那个时代，我们不是主流，至少对于观众来说，不是特别容易接受。这也是为何没有能在常见的艺术场所进行表演的机会，我们进不去画廊，我们太年轻，也还没有进入公众视野。所以我们做了一系列非公开的演出。那个时候我们必须经常旅行以找到演出场合，参加不同的音乐节，在我们自己的城市几乎没有得到演出方面的支持。我想大概是5-6个音乐节后，出现了不少插曲，当时的人们出于审查制度，在我们表演的时候切断了电源。因此我们其实处在一个充满的冲突的大环境里，这种冲突来自于审查制度，也来自于我们充满了挑衅感的表演本身。
　　后来，我们产生了这样一个念头：我们要做自己的音乐节——当然，这个念头也一定地符合了当时的独立音乐潮流、独立朋克和“新浪潮”音乐的潮流。我们开始逐渐发展自己的制度、形态，也逐渐在主流音乐节有了一点位置，我们也开始生产和传播自己录制的碟。同时，我们也决定做自己的音乐节，在一次玩笑话中，我们提到：“不如把这个音乐节做到曼谷去吧。”
　　所以，简单说来，就是这样的抽象，而我们也确实开始想，我们要怎么做才能把这个音乐节做到曼谷去。我们当时的艺术家小组成员之一，Bernhard Müller， 已经在曼谷做过一些活动，其中包括一个奇怪的、属于泰国公主博物馆：比拉斯基当代艺术馆（Bhirasri Insti-tute of Modern Art，译者注）。所以，通过这层联系，我们决定在亚洲做我们的音乐节。在漫长的讨论之后，我们决定将我们自己的文化带去那里，我们不希望这次旅程成为一个嬉皮之旅，也不希望它成为一个商业行为，我们希望这个旅程可以实现一些其他的东西，所以我们也必须带来一些东西。
　　所以我们开始探讨“滚石”这个有着双关意义的概念，当然滚石是一个摇滚丰碑的名字，但它也可以被直接地理解为“滚动石头”——我们希望寻找欧洲文明最先祖的痕迹，并“滚动”至遥远的东方。这个痕迹，我们能找到的最古老者是凯尔特文明的巨石阵……好吧，坦白说，我们最开始的计划是去巨石阵偷一块石头然后带上亚洲之旅，显然这是不可能实现的，以那里的安保措施，他们会以迅雷不及掩耳之速以毁坏文物的罪名将我们逮捕。因此，我们选择了去西威尔士郡的普利赛里（Prescelly） 山区——这里也是巨石阵内圈石头的最初产地——来寻找我们的石头。早期的巨石阵石头是一块一块从萨里郡的山上采集的蓝色花岗石，一块一块地滚过威尔士大地，直到三百公里外的、最终的史前巨石阵所在地。
　　所以我们去威尔士的采集了一块天然石头，这个石头是来自于传说中的“凯尔特”或者“德鲁伊”文明...当然，没有人真正知道凯尔特或者德鲁伊文明到底是什么，似乎寻找一块“罗曼文明”的石头会更为容易（让人理解）。但是凯尔特文明的石头也反倒因为不为人知，变成了一块中立的石头，而人们对它的投影则会成为这块石头的催化剂。
　　关于我们的资金来源，有一个非常复杂的资金系统，因为那个时候没人相信我们真的会去做这个项目。我们建立了一个“私人股份制度”，当然我们显然不能把这个项目放上股票市场，但是我们确实针对这个项目建立了第一个“艺术股份”制度。我们建立了一个共同出资支持这个项目的“股份制度”，当时大约是30美元一股，也就意味着我们需要400股来支持石头一公里的旅程。因此，总共我们有了2000到2500个共同持股者，总共有20，000股，当时我们团队的成员Müller “据有” （拿走了）其中的大约10，000到15，000股，但是后来他转到了伊斯兰教，并且变得有点“极端”，所以我们得跟他沟通，事实上沟通的过程非常有趣，他还是想和我们合作，但是希望我们的项目能转换成伊斯兰语言，当然Karl和我不太能接受这个提议。出于各方面的原因，我们拒绝了他的提议，原因是我们不希望“大石头项目”和某些深奥的语境、政治的语境甚至宗教的语境有所联系，反之，我们希望它是一个中性的项目、一个人性的项目，我们希望通过这个项目来研究整个旅程，在过程中实践“存档”欧洲（欧洲的文化形式和内容）或者“存档”亚洲（亚洲的文化形式和内容）的概念，而为了实现这个概念，我们必须寻找一种对不同的文化和民族来说都有共同习惯的语言和呈现形式。
　　举个例子，如果你知道20世纪20年代发生在苏黎世的达达主义沙龙，那么，这样的概念在今年的实现形式会是什么呢？
　　我们当时在土耳其去了一个村庄，我们有一个有电池的洗衣机，但是我们需要水。所以我们在洗衣机上接上了发电机，然后开始洗衣服。在阿拉伯文明里，洗衣服通常是女人的工作，因此提供洗衣服务则成了当地女性在公开空间见到我们，并且与我们讨论的“挡箭牌”——我们创立了这样一个讨论的场所，或者说当代的“沙龙”，通过这个平台我们可以打破“禁止与男人沟通的”的宗教禁规，与女性们进行交流（通过洗衣服这件事情和这个空间）。然而，如果在柏林，我们把这个洗衣机放在一个柏林的先锋剧场，我不认为会有这样的效应，原因是，同样的形式因为文化背景的差异，必须相应的改变。
　　这也是我们的主要研究方向之一——如果我们依然是做Minus Delta T项目的话。加入我们作为音乐团队的经验，作为神秘主义的新浪潮朋克团队，拥有着神秘的、挑衅的主题和表演艺术，我们非常严肃地尝试着从传统的形式中解离出来，这在今天的全球化环境下已经不是难事，但是在当时（80年代）却非常不容易。
　　嗯，我们当时的想法之一是在一辆卡车上装上一个广播电台，当然你必须意识到很多今日司空见惯的东西在80年代是几乎不能实现的，在当时的社会审查制度下，很可能你会直接进监狱。我们当时穿越了土耳其——一个军事区域，伊朗——一个军事区域，印度——还是军事区域，中国——也没什么差别。所以说，一个传统概念上的“新媒体”，以及相关的自由表达，在很多地方是不存在，也不可能获得的。我们一路上都在做共同赞助的新闻报道，每两周，我们会将一期节目送去奥地利国家电台，每个周五，我们放送的“旅途报道”（名字是“音乐盒子”：Musikbox）在奥地利维也纳的ORF广播电台更是风靡了起来。 　　LZH： 那是哪一年？
　　MH： 大约是在82年或者83年的样子，我们每周五都生产一出广播节目，然后一些听众就可以跟随我们，事实上我们当时掀起了不小的一股风潮…当然，这本我给你的由Merve出版的Minus Delta T 的书——Merve 是德国最有名的哲学编辑之一，翻译了包括菲利斯·嘎达菲（Félix Guattari），鲍德里亚（Baudrilliard）和德勒兹（Giles Deleuze）在内的著名法国哲学家的著作。
　　所以他们在我们启程之前就把我们的概念收集出版成书，我们也因此获得了很多名声。我们实现了书中大约80%的内容，这本书也经历了从纯概念到现实的过程。我们和Merve的编辑们进行的斗争之一是我们不太想出版我们旧的演出，可是他们说：“我们必须放一些你们曾经的作品在里面，不然，人们不会相信书里的任何东西的”，他们冒了这个险，出版了这样一本书，也正是因此，他们通过在艺术市场之外出版我们的概念，得到了很多肯定。艺术市场在当时主要是基于画廊，或者国家资金的注入来维持运转，而这样的一个艺术市场往往有这样的一个观念系统：“我是一个真正的艺术家，而你不是一个真正的艺术家。” ——在当时的时代背景下，我们确实不被看做是“严肃的”或者“真正的”艺术家，也没有人赞助我们，上奥地利州的政府机构给了我们一定的支持，然而，我们事实上在“艺术赞助”这个概念还没有出现时，就开始了艺术赞助行为。
　　我们找到了一个香烟公司的赞助，有一些英国和德国艺术家开始攻击我们，因为我们为一个香烟公司进行广告宣传。其实这样的现象在今天已经司空见惯，像Philip Morris这样的艺术家甚至靠这种方式吃饭，而我们开始的时候也是如此。有趣的是，商业公司信任我们，而艺术家们却并不。我们告诉商业赞助的公司，我们要去喜马拉雅考察！所以你可以支持一个去喜马拉雅或者撒哈拉沙漠的考察计划。这样这些公司也给我们提供了装备的赞助，你知道，当我们去参观这些公司的时候，他们也在悄悄地考察我们。有些公司的老板甚至被我们激发起了一丝浪漫怀旧情怀：“我刚成立公司的时候，开着一辆小破大众车，经历万难走到了今天的地位。而现在，这些年轻人开着卡车，要把一块石头送上远征，他们不正像年轻的我们一般吗？他们会成长成什么样呢？”
　　他们出于“同情”，或者某些关于创业初期心态的情感共鸣赞助了我们。然而，我们却没有得到艺术界的支持：“这些朋克青年是谁啊？这些野蛮人，他们肯定只想拿我们的钱，他们才不会去远征考察呢！”你知道，很多购买我们股份的人也并不相信我们实现的能力，他们说：“哈哈哈，这是多么聪明的圈钱的方式啊！他们拿到了钱，现在他们会把钱放在相框里裱起来 ……”
　　所以，我刚才分享的是我们筹集赞助的迂回故事，所以，在欧洲部分六个月的旅程结束后，我们终于带着2000美金踏上了土耳其的土地，这个时候我们也不得不进行很多交易活动，比如说我们用美国的军服和伊朗的革命主义者交换到了800升的柴油…对他们来说根本不算什么，对我们来说却意味着很多。所以我们在旅途中必须一直进行这样的交换活动（比如说把美国军服跟伊朗革命军交换），而很久之后，我们的州政府给了我们财政支持，但是这笔资金到来的时候，项目已经进行了好一会了。所以这个项目的资金可以理解为基本由我们——而不是艺术世界——筹集和发展的。
　　这个项目的初衷是让大石头穿越不同的国家，在不同的地方停留，和当地人交互，并且进行表演，在这个过程中通过图片和影像践行和记录“沙龙”想法。这也是为什么我们的口号是：“存档欧洲、存档亚洲”。我们到了印度，将石头在恒河里沉淀了一段时间（3-4年），那个时间段正是我们的团队成员Bernhard Müller走向了巴基斯坦群体，并且信仰转向了伊斯兰教。他和妻儿一起移居巴基斯坦，拿了我们的车并开始做起了巴基斯坦家具生意，每天都在祈祷，带着他的妻子一起…他的妻子只能走在他的身后。
　　和那时相比，今天的他相对温和了许多，不过从那时开始，我们就不在项目上和他进行合作了，虽然我们时至今日仍然有联系。后来，我们也引入了更多的人，最开始的想法是直接把石头陆运到曼谷，后来我们意识到不可能，因为当时的缅甸还没有开放，很多地方都没有路，它和印度隔开，所以我们只好搭乘飞机，越过缅甸而到了泰国曼谷。在军事宵禁期间，我们在那个公主的博物馆举行了一场表演和艺术的庆典，为了这个艺术节，我们用手头仅有的小额预算邀请了欧洲艺术家，而且他们都来了。大约来了15、20人，我们也于泰国曼谷成功举行了我们在亚洲的第一场演出。
　　LZH： 把大石头从欧洲运到曼谷花了多长时间？
　　MH： 事实上，我们在每个路过的国家都停留了一段时间。所以，我们是82年的十月出发的，83年的四月我们到达了印度，同年的五月我们在曼谷举行了艺术节。但是，其实我们在一些其他地方停留的时间更长，我们的旅途穿过了保加利亚、罗马尼亚、斯洛文尼亚、土耳其，然后从土耳其我们向南到了黎巴嫩、叙利亚，再回到土耳其、再到达伊朗、巴基斯坦和印度。
　　有长达五年的时间，我们试图把石头运到中国，我们做了非常大的努力，但是用我们的卡车从陆地过去确实几乎不可能。当然，如果我们用海运的话很容易可以实现，但是我们更希望有这种与本土的互动，所以海运不是我们的选择，而陆运方面我们尝试了很多方法，都没有实现。当然，在今天的条件下是可能了。最开始的时候，我们非常希望把石头放去天安门广场（政治上不可能）——可能只是因为我们当时很年轻，我们认为有政治感是非常重要的一件事。
　　我们在80年代的另一个的想法是——因为那时刚好是在东欧苏联解体之前——我们希望从中国去到莫斯科，然后到佛罗里达州的卡纳维拉尔角（一个火箭发射基地），最后把石头送上一颗火箭飞上太空。当时我们也告诉大家我们会这么做，后来，我们理解到了这个想法的极端性。也逐渐认识到这个石头的旅行过程中，有一定的关于人际沟通的教育目的。因为石头是一个投影空间，对每一个来的人开放，每一个人都可以在石头上投射一定的东西（观念、内容、思考）。因此，石头上也沉积了来访者的强烈的能量，也有很多有趣的对话发生，比如人们会问：“你们为什么运送石头？” “你们是哪个宗教的信徒？” “你们是在兜售什么吗？”——我们回答：“不不不，我们只是石头的运输者而已。” 　　然后他们开始对这个项目进行幻想——当然不是“这是一个罗曼文明的石头”“啊，我懂了，所以你是希腊罗马那一带来的人”“所以你是基督徒？”之类的幻想……石头本身拥有中性的色彩，这个未经雕刻的、中性的、没有任何预定含义的石头使得它可以成为人们的投射空间，或者说，我们给人们提供的空白画框。
　　LZH： 嗯，不过当人们谈到物件对象时，往往会有这样的反应，他们会在对象上投射自身……我也非常想问你关于你的这些表演或者语境化（情境化）的作品的关系：你是否也多少被激浪派运动或者达达主义影响？为什么？激浪派和达达主义在不同的年代，在这些观念的交替之间，发生了什么样的转折？为什么他们用那种方式表达，而你用你的方式表达，这之间的区别在哪里？
　　MH： 我并不认为我受到了达达主义或者激浪派的影响，我认识他们中的很多人，他们事实上也在监视和审查着我们，因为他们是已经有所建树的“上一代人”——比如说激浪派的那些艺术家。我非常不能忍受博伊斯，原谅我，我知道他在中国很热门，但是我认为他很糟糕。他的那种极富魅力的、如同教主一般的去替代德国“失落一代”的现象，我认为很糟糕，当然，没问题，他成为了德国艺术的符号，我可以接受。但是我们作为一个艺术家团体，我们可不想跟这些人有任何联系。话说回来，现场艺术作为一个流派，对我们确实有一些影响。对我们来说，把艺术融入生活环境中是非常重要的，当然，激浪派和达达们也有非常象征性的表演行为，更多地在这个方面进行尝试的是开普罗（ Allan Kaprow，偶发艺术代表）之类的偶发艺术家们，他们一直尝试将艺术融入生活。虽然有时候他们有一些极端。总之，那些展览项目、那些符号化象征的东西、那些所谓的“公共剧场”（或指达达主义的在公共场合搜集人类原始思想、行为的方式），我们并不那么喜欢。所以，我们的灵感来源事实上是：反对他们。
　　你会和一些既成的系统进行沟通和交涉，你必须为你自己的系统来争取。所以，你的敌人会让你变得更为强大，在这个语境中，我们可以说是有很多的敌人——因为我们想变得更好，我们也拒绝被定义，拒绝被放在一个流派里，拒绝那种“传承”观。 当我们最初同莫斯科的概念主义艺术家们产生联系时，是通过我当时（80年代） 担任编辑的INFERMENTA期刊（一个年度出版的视频艺术杂志），我们去和他们见面，他们大约来了15到20人，在喝咖啡的时候，卡巴科夫（Anton Kabakov ）说：“嗯，我是莫斯科概念主义学派的第三代人……”这话让我们无比惊讶，你看，他们有这种强烈的艺术传承感，“从父亲到儿子，从上一代到下一代”。而我们完全没有，我们是被单独留下的存在，因此，我们必须发明一些东西。现在我有我自己的客户，而我有时候也愿意承认自己带上了传承者的色彩，但是以前我是绝对拒绝的…… 我拒绝这个“某个运动之父”的角色，或者其他类似的称呼。也许这种不被束缚的感觉也是我们作为艺术团体的长处，这也是我和Karl的共同之处。
　　Karl也不想和那个既定的系统有什么关系，他想要做一些不同的事情，他想要我们去经历未曾经历的东西，因此我们在整个成长过程中都在学习。当我面对那些“这不是好艺术”的质疑时，以及艺术市场的质疑时——你要知道，艺术市场是会尝试将艺术家群体打散的。传统的运作方式是，如果有一个艺术家团体，他们中只有一个人会“代表”团体得到报酬，而这往往也会让一些脆弱的团体因为财政分配问题而解散。我们则拒绝被打散，我们的对策就是我们没有领袖，我们是一个团队。
　　举例来说，如果我们的艺术家团队要就一个展览概念与人沟通，我们会派出我们中最年轻的一个。很多时候对方会想和Mike，和我或者和Karl沟通，但是我们派出最年轻的艺术家并告诉他们：“他是对这个项目的负责人，我们不是。”所以我们不停地更换对接人和代表者，从来不会把所有功名归于一个人名下。在 Minus Delta T的历史中，除了Karl， Mike和我这三个“基本成员”以外，一共有过6到8名艺术家。
　　今天我们这个团体的传承只剩下了Karl和我， 原因是其他人都离开了走向了其他的方向...可能也是对这个团体的一种保护，保护我们的标志，保护我们的思维方式，我们是一个密闭的组织，有时候也会犯错误，但那也是我们维持使命感的方式。举例来说，当我们进行“大石头项目”时，有女性希望可以和我们一起旅行，而我们拒绝了。其实当时大约有6到7位女性希望和我们一起出行，但是我们说，你们可以成立自己的团体并进行项目，我们并不想在阿拉伯国家被迫当你们的保镖，并且为你们可能面临的，某些国家男人对女人的态度而负责。简单来说，我们不太能做也不愿意做你们的保镖。
　　你们可以自己创造自己的体验，所以我记得当时有一个女性她试图以男人的方式旅行…她的项目失败了，但是非常值得强调的是，当时的人们非常希望能实现他们的项目——这种对项目执行的思考……当时有一些团体，比如说Die Toten Hosen（德国死裤子乐队，著名的五人摇滚乐队组合），你或许听说过他们，他们当时就非常想和我们一起表演，他们希望跟我们去伊朗的Persepolis（波斯波利斯，伊朗古都）进行表演，但是他们实现不了。你知道，对项目的管理在当时比今天要艰难，当时没有easyJet（欧洲廉价航空公司），也没有其他的廉价航空公司。旅行是一件昂贵的事情，尤其是电话通话当时极其昂贵...那时，我们也在跟一些画廊沟通，希望他们支持我们的项目。他们说，好呀你的经费是多少？当时一个月的电话费用就惊人，他们拒绝了我们，原因就是当时当时惊天的电话费。
　　LZH： 如果我们聊聊80年代早期，那将是非常有趣的，比如有关于签证的问题，还有就像你说的，当跨越不同的国家的时候，也会有一些文化上的禁忌……比如你就拒绝了和女性同行，还有高昂的电话费……我的意思是，有如此多的阻碍，最后是怎么把画面带回来的？在今天去想象30年以前，真的非常能理解当时的世界是什么样子的。
　　MH： 一年以前在布拉格，我们遇到了这样的一个局面，我们基于Van Gogh TV（梵高电视台）项目做了一个纪念展，这个Van Gogh TV 项目是我们MDT的一个后续艺术团体（官方名字是Ponton Media Art Group Lab）。我们当时想做的是一个墙上的时间线，包括谁在70年代是世界的独裁者，谁都在做什么，什么东西被发明了出来……来呈现当时的世界。对今天的人们来说，想象没有电话的生活是很难的。但是，70年代正是这些媒介和科技得到发明和应用的阶段，也因此有了很多有趣的现象。比如说，在当时的莫斯科，有免费的公共电话，但是每个人都知道这些电话是被监听的。所以，莫斯科人发明了一个系统，一个不被监视的系统，永远不在电话里说他们去哪里，去见谁。但是这个系统也是在人与人之间建立起来的，他们的沟通不是通过电话，而是从一个公寓到下一个公寓，再到工作室（在艺术界是这样的）。这也是一种日常生活的系统，在这个系统里，你不固定日期，不透露细节...就像是绝对开放的形式一样。 　　当我们最开始做梵高电视台项目时——跟最开始的状况相比是很有趣的——那时候从波罗的海地区打国际电话需要花16个小时才能连接到对方。想象一下，在今天的环境里，你要做一个项目，不论是通过短信还是什么当代的形式，你需要等到16个小时才能建立连接，想象一下那是什么感觉……四个月以后，我们得到了诺基亚的赞助，拥有了第一个“胖胖的”，那种像砖块一样的早期诺基亚手机，我们用那个手机进行通话的费用是5美元一分钟，简直不可思议，当然还好我们得到了赞助，所以能完成这个项目。我们可以从波罗的海地区打电话到莫斯科，连接到莫斯科更难，需要等到30个小时，所以我们可以在这个项目的支持下，在诺基亚的赞助下与德国卡塞尔文献展的中心进行通话，那是在1987年。
　　LZH： 87？
　　MH： 我们后期进一步发展的Piazza Virtuale/ Van Gogh TV 项目是在1992年。1987年，我们当时以Minus Delta T的身份在参加文献展，在一个媒体车上。在这个表演项目中我们做了一个非法的电台，后来我们称之为声音雕塑。在那个时候，私立电台是不合法的。所以我们当时做的事情是……我们装了一个保护的好好的发射器，并不断地移动，每天都从不同的地方发出信号。我们有四个人监视这台发射器，提防警察和四处开着找我们的邮车，那种带有天线的探测车希望能抓住我们，找到发射器在哪里，所以我们把他们的车胎拿下来，我们闯进这些车的停放地点，往他们的油箱里灌上糖，因此他们就不能追踪我们了，我们用对讲机彼此联系，我们甚至把发信器放在了妓院的屋顶上，你知道妓女们是最憎恨警察的。所以，当警察爬上屋顶的时候，由于妓女们的成功阻截，我们的发信器已经关好并藏到了别处。
　　我们每天都在换位置，直到后来我们的行为被“合法化”了，这是一场令人惊叹的行动主义经历，也是一场表演。当时很多参与者，他们参与的原因是他们对这种非法的行动主义有一种浪漫情怀。其实我们并不是在故作反对，我们一直尝试的是“为了”某种东西而努力。但我们却有了很多来自“反对派”的粉丝，他们给了我们很多支持因为我们是“反主流的”，今日我们生活在的充满了切·格瓦拉T恤的“反主流”文化中。这种“反主流”事实上却隔离开了很多个小团体，而这些小团体往往是更好的消费者。
　　LZH： 所以当时92年和87年的策展人分别是谁？为什么他们选择了你们的项目？他们对你们当时的激进主义状态如何理解？
　　（1987年的策展人为：Manfred Schneckenburger， 1992年为：Jan Hoet）
　　MH： 在87年，因为大石头项目我们变得很有名，还有一些其他的项目比如说“Death Opera”，都为我们在业界的认知做了很多积累。我们收到 Elisabeth Jappe 的邀请参加文献展，她和Schneckenburger先生（译者注：1987年卡塞尔文献展策展人）为我们策划了这个项目，并同意我们的媒体巴士能在那儿。因此我们利用这次机会，第一次将黑客邀请到了文献展—— Chaos 电脑俱乐部被邀请来到我们的媒体巴士。我们通过旧金山的一个叫做”well”机器与世界对话，那是第一个你能够与人聊天的网络电话路由器。所有这些媒体艺术创作都是基于这些革命性的东西，而我们是第一个把黑客和电脑概念引入艺术语境的。我们将来自于阿姆斯特丹的收音机电视机器人（SQUAT 占据运动），纳入到我们的文献展中。我们把左翼份子以及艺术家聚集在了一起。在历史上左翼份子是非常反对艺术的，今天的许多地方，左翼份子占据了语境艺术的世界。
　　有很多对政治思潮持不开放态度的语境艺术家，而我们把这些人聚集在了一起，当然，这也引起了不少冲突。在87年的文献展中，我们在3个月的时间里聚集了差不多上百的人。这个社交网络的概念和移动工作室的概念，其实一直存在——大石头项目其实也是一个移动工作室。在艺术现场，工作室的过程很重要的。通常情况下，工作室的过程是私人的、排他的。在一个展览中展示你的结果，结果却是终结，因为它发生在博物馆里。
　　所以，我们的想法之一就是通过产品来展现过程，这也是我们的移动公众实验室、我们在87年文献展上展出的媒体车项目的初衷，媒体车项目最开始是一个非法的电台，后来它以“声音雕塑”的名义被合法化了，一个“临时的声音雕塑”。这个非常有趣，当时很多的政治电台（在过程中或者因为非法播报被“逮住”的左翼电台）过来找我们，希望看我们的文件——当然，文件上说我们在做一个声音雕塑——所以他们希望能利用这个政府合法化的文件为他们的司法程序进行辩护。当然我们拒绝了这个提议，告诉他们 “我们的项目是在艺术语境中的，而你们其实对艺术不感兴趣。”
　　对我们来说，在那个年代做一个带有主观的电台是一种荣耀，因为在那个时候，“主观媒体”这个概念是很多人不理解的，在那个年代，媒体被认为是主观的、是铁板一块、是政治观点的喉舌、是三角形结构的、垂直控制的存在，而我们却是横向控制的，我们在一个更为民主的层面，我们有“主观性”——事实上，艺术就是主观的。这也是人们对艺术的理解，因此我们给我们的第一个电视项目命名为梵高电视台，因为每个人都知道……最愚蠢都人都知道梵高是一个艺术家，他切掉了自己的耳朵。所以我们叫它梵高电视台，因为这样来说，对每个人都很清楚，这是一个跟艺术相关的项目。因此我们不会将其命名为，比如说，“蓝天”项目之类的模糊名字。
　　LZH： 所以，对于理解媒体艺术来说，这是一种很不一样的视角。我想，在那个时候，去理解媒体艺术或者理解你说的“语境艺术/情境艺术”，或者跟尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德（Nicola Bourriad）90年代写就的《关系美学》一样，是不一样的视角。不过，你是否可以看到这几者之间的联系呢？你是否认为你是和关系美学相关？或者跟“媒体艺术”相关，因为你一直被认为是媒体艺术小组的成员，我认为这很有趣，我从来没有听到别人描述你为“关系美学”实践者的代表，但是你在这方面的尝试比很多的关系美学艺术家都要早，事实上。 　　MH： 其实这很简单，对我们来说，呈现或者表达的用语并不是那么重要。对我们来说，生产过程更为关键，而对于媒体艺术来说，也是如此。比如说，我们一直都对那种“独立署名”式的艺术方式很反对，比如说“我是一个独立艺术家”这种方式，跟我们作为艺术小组的性质是有不同的。同样的，在版权层面，我们也经历过一些问题，我们是早期的小组艺术家之一，我们起初并不知道，如果我们共同进行创作，哪些部分是属于“我”的，这些都造成过一些问题。
　　录像艺术家们经历过很多关于资金的问题，而录像艺术的执行过程也有非常多不同的系统。
　　比如说80年代在荷兰，录像艺术是一项严肃的事业，在录像艺术中基本没有音乐，原因是在当地人看来，音乐片段是商业化的。所以荷兰出现了很多丝毫没有幽默感的，干燥的录像艺术作品，因为如果不用那些无趣、枯燥的声音片段配音而使用“商业”的音乐的话，政府就不会给他们资金支持了。所以从资金层面讲，录像艺术事实上处于非常奇怪的状态。当我们开始做我们的艺术视频时，人们开始批判我们说，甚至当时一些有名的录像艺术评论家也指责我们做的是“坏的录像艺术”，当然了，现在他们对我们的评价大有改观。事实上，当时我们尝试的是带有互动性质的录像艺术，但是他们说那是坏的录像艺术，我觉得，他们并没有理解我们在做什么，但是当时的观众却理解了，当时的观众会同我们的作品进行互动和反馈。
　　所以创立独立工作领域的独立思考往往是重要的，我们的作品大约只有20%左右是在纯粹的艺术领域，比如说在Ars Electronica之类的地方出现。也许我们在那里做的大项目能达到我们项目总数的30%左右，但事实上我们其他的项目都在不同的领域中，是跟社会和其他的内容相整合的。法国的Frigo Group（译者注：法国新媒体团队）也是一个独立的艺术生产小组，我当时也同他们沟通过，我们都在艺术环境之外发声。
　　现在，艺术馆、博物馆们希望能展出我们的作品，可是在过去，他们都说：“不不，你们的作品不符合我们的需求。” 你直到，“审查制度”在今天的实现方式不是通过“禁止”，而是通过“不赞助”。
　　当然，他们也不能控制我们，所以我想这种不可控性也是一个非常重要的原因。我的意思是，你们是一个艺术家团体，你们有自己的基础结构，你们是独立的，你们不是艺术馆们热爱的那个，无助的天才宝贝。就像批评家有时是这样：“噢，你这个小小艺术家好可怜噢，你甚至都不知道自己该怎么做，我必须帮你写一些评论，这样我也能赚钱。”
　　所以，现在很多人对艺术的理解都是这样被塑形的，你把一张纸挂墙上，然后我对着这张纸写出三页长篇大论，它就成了艺术——这不是独立的艺术，这是把艺术家变成小婴儿，然后还告诉他们：“你是天才” （LZH：或者说，他们是被残废的婴儿）， 对……被残废的婴儿！哈哈。而且这个婴儿还如此地被自己的创造力和天才所打动，他去嗑药，他被这个系统所残废，他妈的！……你懂的，你懂的……
　　LZH： 而我的问题是，就像你刚才提到的，我们总是讨论“语境艺术/情境艺术”或者说“关系美学”，我想区别是，在90年代，人们创作艺术的方式是在关于人与人之间的情境的基础上进行的。而我认为你的作品在80年代就已经体现出了这种特点，你参与了关于“媒介化”的讨论——那么，如果我们要来讨论一下“语境艺术/情境艺术”，我们如何理解它？“语境艺术/情境艺术”自然脱离不了它的“情境”，可是如果我们不去阅读这种艺术的背景，我们怎么去介入和理解这种艺术形式？进一步来说，为什么我们要做这样的艺术？
　　MH： 我想我会从不同的层面来看待这个问题。我们有三种艺术创作的形式，第一个是个体形式，第二个是“对话”形式，第三个是生活或者是生命形式。我们有很多“记者型”或者“肖像型”的艺术家存在于当世，肖像型的艺术家会画出美丽的风景和肖像，而他们也从新闻和社会的语境里看待世界。我认为当下很多的艺术都属于这种“记者型”，就是说，艺术家在发表对于社会上发声的事情的评论，而不是在创造新的内容。艺术家在“评述”文化，而不是在“创制”文化。
　　当代艺术的第二个层面（对话）是“象征化”的主题，在一个装置中，链接不同的哲学和符号，把他们都放在一起，把不同的哲学思考容纳在一个作品中。但是问题在于这依然是一个象征化的东西，而不是一个有生命的行为。现在还是有很多艺术家喜欢做象征化的作品。很多“情境”艺术家也在做象征化的作品，比如说很多关于非洲的作品在探讨的、和“团结起来面对非洲的贫穷现状”无甚关系的象征语言……我记得在90年代时候，艺术学校里很多人说我们必须做一些事情来反对种族主义，然后我说：“可以，你能做的最好的反对种族主义的事情是你签署一个协议，然后黑人可以和你的家庭一起生活，你们甚至去资助他们……” 我认为这个方法是可以的，其他的很多象征性的团结方案都是瞎扯。比如说那种“我们手牵着手围着一个湖，点起蜡烛”，那种象征符号的垃圾，我认为是根本没用的，当然，在新的书写中或许可以引入这种语言。举例来说，伊亚·卡巴科夫（Ilya Kabakov ）的装置作品也是记者型的、充满了视觉上对斯大林主义的描写。……视觉语言对我们来说不是不重要，比如说我们在大石头项目的旅途中做了很多研究，找到相同内容的不同视觉形式。
　　第三个也是最为重要的艺术（层面）是生活的模型，和文化的模型，这是艺术的方向，艺术不是专门关于评论电视上已经评论过的事物，而是关于生产关于我们自己的文化。这在今天变得更为困难，因为我们有了这种关于“政治正确”的审查制度，所以你想的未必是“政治正确的”，很多时候，当你开始有创意的时候，你也可能不是政治正确的。这是我的主要兴趣之一，亦即：不要只考虑政治正确，而是考虑如何我们自己生产出一种文化。这个文化可能是民俗的也可能是主流的，但是绝对不是那种坐在那里，恶意或者讽刺地扮演者评论家的角色，大谈特谈在电视上看到了什么或者人们在做什么。我认为，现在没有人在发明他们自己衣服，有些人在发明，但是又不完全是。有些感觉似乎是被强加给我们的，比如我们必须穿耐克的某种衣服，之类。我们需要“发明”出自己的衣服，而不是被告知。 　　当然，我谈的一切中也有一种人性的成分在里面。a）一种类似于人的比喻，比如说一个个体逐渐成长，拥有了自我意识，b）然后有了“帮派”，往往是这种听着相同音乐，扎着相同发型的年轻人组成的。这里有一种带着同性性质的自我镜像——你爱别人，因为你爱自己，因为别人看起来就是你自己。可能“同性化”不是最好的用词，这里更准确语义是说的从像自己的群体处找到自己的身份和定位。c）在个体和“帮派”之后，你有了第三个层面——“他者”。在历史的语境下，“他者”其实表示了男性和女性的关系，这也是三种关系中唯一一种会有产出的关系。因为男性和女性可以带来小孩。而不论是个体还是之前的同性帮派，都不会拥有这样的产出。“男性-女性”关系事实上是“他者”关系或者说“网络”关系的一种必须，所以，我认为艺术有这样的几种形式：个体作品、“帮派”作品和“他者”/“网络”作品，而第三种是会有持续的产出的，也将会最值得继续的艺术形式，因为它会诞生父母关系和未来的孩子。我记得最开始我们试图进行“关系”创作或者“互动”创作时，传统的策展人认为我们在做的是社会心理治疗。
　　所以，在这个语境下，我认为很多概念可能需要被放在一起来分析。我们做了一些“语境艺术/情境艺术”的作品，但是却是在一种可实践的指导下，而非哲学的、抽象反思的逻辑下进行的。我认为“语境艺术/情境艺术”是一个非常好的思考学派，一个非常好的反思学派，但是我们对它的反馈方式就是从执行的角度来看待它——我们如果想实现一个东西，怎么做，然后就做出来。当然也会犯错，但是也是在实践中犯错，而非从概念上或者“预置”我们的错误。
　　举个例子，Peter Weibel…当我们开始梵高电视项目时，他非常嫉妒，因为他事实上建立了交互艺术这个方向，而他是被三个艺术节赞助的， Ars Electronica， Karlsruhe und wurde（ZKM）和另外两三个艺术节。而他的每一个交互装置都可能会花掉70，000～80，000甚至100，000欧元的费用，因为还得支付艺术家和材料费等等。
　　所以事实上Peter Weibel是受到控制的，当时有大约10个人在控制他的预算，当然他也是资金管理中的一员。而当我们开始做一些社会交互创作的时候，我们做了一个成本极其低的交互系统。所以说，Peter Weibel憎恨开源的交互艺术，而我们正是后者的建立者。你知道，有很多其他人也在研究这个概念，但是他并没有可以实践的极客的联系，而我们有，我们最早合作的黑客曾经因为黑进了公司安保系统而入狱（他们这么做是为了证明安保的不完善），我记得是91年或者90年的时候，当时参与的只有黑客，没有半个艺术家。
　　LZH： 我想你在讨论的是一种非常具体的形式。你知道，人们对“被认可”或者说“合理性”是非常在乎的，尤其是当他们在创造自己的艺术形式的时候。所以“认可”或者“合理”发生，艺术或者说思考的民主性就会画上一个问号（谁来认可，谁来使之合理？）所以，我认为你的工作是很重要的，因为从基础层面上，你的作品就已经是远离艺术市场，独立于市场之外的。显然，市场也不会对你的作品有太多的兴趣，他们对老式的、传统的作品，所谓的“原创”艺术作品更感兴趣。
　　MH： 从这个角度讲，拥有你自己的风格是非常重要的，我必须承认，我通过对“平面”的创作赚到的钱比其他新媒体艺术作品要多，比如说图画，或者能被“挂”进画廊的东西（李振华：二维作品），嗯，二维的作品，我也教书，基本上，如果你从事媒体艺术或者实验艺术，你的预算基本是岌岌可危的，而策展人又经常赚得比艺术家多很多。这个……我必须说，是一个事实。或许它对你来说不适用，但是很多人关于这些策展系统中的行政人员赚了多少钱是有概念的，艺术家不幸地处于支付系统的底层。
　　有时候策展团队有超过200，000欧元的预算，而他们选 15个艺术家，有时候还是会告诉艺术家，对不起我们没有钱。同时，很显然我为了保持我想做的艺术的完整性，我必须对特定事情和特定的条件说不。说不的代价就是我必须自己存钱，我没有私人的钱所以我必须用其他的工作来供养自己。我必须教书，和做音乐，还做一些商业咨询、媒体咨询甚至媒体艺术咨询的工作。只有这样，才能形成一种造血关系，我的工作中有一些可以来对其他的不赚钱的项目提供资金和运行的支持。举个例子，The Cheese Club在三年以来一直没赚到钱，原因是人们认为这样的艺术形式不值得投资，视频艺术也是这样，我们五年前做了第一个视频艺术节，当然，没有他妈的赚到任何钱。
　　我记得，在70年代有一个画廊，Gallery Oppenheim，现在是波恩的一个收藏，他们当时是跟荷兰阿姆斯特丹的一个De Appel艺术中心一起的，这些是第一批在欧洲收藏录像艺术的人 ，在美国，有3到4个类似的“据点”，比如说长岛美术馆。但是事实上，5000多个录像艺术家里，你知道能被收藏的屈指可数，所以，录像艺术的发展方式是你在一些项目上投入两年，三年甚至五年的时间，用自己的资金支持，或者通过赞助商，五年之后，这些项目或许可以“成年”，然后自己供给自己。
　　然而，如果你依赖某个资金系统，系统也会审查你。大家都知道，如果跟我一起工作，别想告诉我要做什么。因此，很多人也害怕跟我合作，因为我的条件如不得到满足，我会拒绝工作。当然我不是在讨论资金条件，我是一个极其糟糕的资金管理者，我是在说内容上的条件，在内容上我不支配。我知道很多艺术家，当艺术品经纪人对他们大喊：“不要这么做，不要用这个风格，换一种方式！”他们很可能就换了！ 我认为对内容的忠诚是关于艺术家的自豪！我们Minus Delta T不能改，至少不能以这种方式被要求轻易改变。从某种程度上，我们是在书写历史，我想这也是很多人心中我们的象征：MDT象征着可以实现的梦想，就像是“如果你想要，就去做吧。”
　　我们想把大石头从欧洲运到亚洲，在开始做之前我们甚至都没有缜密思考，但是我们却实现了这个项目。在整个旅程中，我们都在不断的学习，而这些学习实在是太美妙了，真的太美妙了。我想对每一个关注我们项目的人，这也是一场美妙的体验，一场深度哲性的、甚至是有教育性的体验。这种当你面临其他的文明时的状态，这都是绝佳的素材。而我希望这些能被传递出去，因此我希望能再做20-30个这样的项目，把石头运向世界其他地方。
　　LZH： 那这些石头现在在哪？最终？
　　MH： 现在它在新德里，在奥地利使馆旁。大概有两年的时间它在新德里的一座庙宇里，再之前它沐浴在恒河中，当然，它一直都等待着去中国……最近这个庙宇需要修缮，因此我们不得不把石头运出来，因为Karl是奥地利人，所以我们就把它送到了奥地利使馆旁边。当然，我们现在在计划将它送去中国，希望这个石头的旅程会继续，我想我们会让它去到北京。