竟敢提品味

原因很多，但今天當然是沒人提品味這詞的藝術世界。

透過李如一的譯稿，才發現 Paul Graham 寫的這篇重要文章：”How Art Can Be Good“。這時代，藝術相對論是創作者和觀眾聽眾雙方的最佳保衛盾牌，沒幾個人敢戳藝術品味、藝術好壞這種議題，除了像過去 Clement Greenberg 之類的極少數（參見他那本刀光劍影的 Homemade Esthetics: Observations on Art and Taste, Oxford University Press, 1999）。

Paul Graham 文章基本是論證藝術其實能分好壞，品味也有高下。不少段落一箭中的，值得細讀。其中兩段我認為特別深切：

There are two main kinds of error that get in the way of seeing a work of art: biases you bring from your own circumstances, and tricks played by the artist. Tricks are straightforward to correct for. Merely being aware of them usually prevents them from working. For example, when I was ten I used to be very impressed by airbrushed lettering that looked like shiny metal. But once you study how it’s done, you see that it’s a pretty cheesy trick—one of the sort that relies on pushing a few visual buttons really hard to temporarily overwhelm the viewer. It’s like trying to convince someone by shouting at them.

The way not to be vulnerable to tricks is to explicitly seek out and catalog them. When you notice a whiff of dishonesty coming from some kind of art, stop and figure out what’s going on. When someone is obviously pandering to an audience that’s easily fooled, whether it’s someone making shiny stuff to impress ten year olds, or someone making conspicuously avant-garde stuff to impress would-be intellectuals, learn how they do it. Once you’ve seen enough examples of specific types of tricks, you start to become a connoisseur of trickery in general, just as professional magicians are.

What counts as a trick? Roughly, it’s something done with contempt for the audience. For example, the guys designing Ferraris in the 1950s were probably designing cars that they themselves admired. Whereas I suspect over at General Motors the marketing people are telling the designers, “Most people who buy SUVs do it to seem manly, not to drive off-road. So don’t worry about the suspension; just make that sucker as big and tough-looking as you can.”

他這裡提出要跨過的就是，除了你自己眼中帶有的偏見之外，藝術作品其實常只在耍許多障眼的「把戲」。而事實上我們心裡都有數，今日藝術僅存的，也只有一些為數極少的簡單「把戲」而已；背後呢，空無一物。

而如何才能視破這些把戲，真正掌握對藝術的品評呢，Paul Graham 以下的建議極其具體貼切：

I think with some effort you can make yourself nearly immune to tricks. It’s harder to escape the influence of your own circumstances, but you can at least move in that direction. The way to do it is to travel widely, in both time and space. If you go and see all the different kinds of things people like in other cultures, and learn about all the different things people have liked in the past, you’ll probably find it changes what you like. I doubt you could ever make yourself into a completely universal person, if only because you can only travel in one direction in time. But if you find a work of art that would appeal equally to your friends, to people in Nepal, and to the ancient Greeks, you’re probably onto something.

也就是多了解體會不同時間、不同空間的藝術。

越過假象，看穿本質。這跟超級紅星 Criss Angel 的障眼幻術一樣。觀眾，甘作傻瓜的除外，要練的就是怎麼看破它。

最近， Penn & Teller 的八方打假電視節目 Bullshit!（鬼扯淡！） 又開播了第五季度。不過實在看不下去，因為主題皆已重複，西洋世界的把戲已經沒得揭發了。但立即讓人想到的是，Penn & Teller 應該快快把這節目拉過來，焦點對準亞洲，對準 XX 國（請自填國名），多大一個騙人把戲滿天飛的精彩世界。節目排到二十季都拍不完。

你眼前幾乎可以看到 Penn & Teller Bullshit! 小組特別製作 Special Series: Art in XX Today! 精彩內容包括：當代藝術圈、年年雙年三年展、策展人專題、數字藝術、互動藝術、程序藝術、媒體藝術、裝置藝術、聲音藝術、聲音裝置藝術、互動程序身體裝置媒體藝術…

4 個留言 »

    1 | pyridine | 07/26/2007 - 7:14 am

  1. hi. 我以前常常讀 Paul Graham 討論 LISP programming 的文章. 想不到在您這兒會讀到有關 Paul Graham 的評論. 我對 How Art Can Be Good? 不滿意的地方, 是他提出怎麼分辨壞的藝術, 不過沒有討論怎麼辨別好的藝術.

    有趣的是 Paul Graham 討論軟體設計的文章, 就深思熟慮得多. 直接道破什麼是好的 (或是美的) 設計. 也許是他對廣泛的美學, 還沒有發展出比較完整的見解吧.

    2. 2 | Dajuin | 07/26/2007 - 9:31 am

  2. pyridine,

    畢竟這只是他的一篇隨筆，所以就論理來說，不是很周全。
    不過，他的確談到了什麼才是好的藝術（雖然不夠清楚）：

    Audience

    I think the key to this puzzle is to remember that art has an audience. Art has a purpose, which is to interest its audience. Good art (like good anything) is art that achieves its purpose particularly well. The meaning of “interest” can vary. Some works of art are meant to shock, and others to please; some are meant to jump out at you, and others to sit quietly in the background. But all art has to work on an audience, and—here’s the critical point—members of the audience share things in common…

    至於他的其他文章我都沒讀過，要再去了解。

    3. 3 | lawrence | 07/26/2007 - 5:55 pm

  3. Graham 的文章一般只有电脑人才看，实在是可惜。他文笔极好（事实上他对于写作的兴趣不亚于电脑）。所有英文写作书都会讲要简明扼要，要用简单的词，要用短词，但真正让我明白为什么的是 Graham 的这些杂文。由于工作需要经常要读艺术文论，读多了回头看 Graham 的文章，很有在一间满地狗屎的密闭房间里待久了，突然打开窗呼吸新鲜空气的感觉。

    4. 4 | pyridine | 07/27/2007 - 7:09 am

  4. Lawrence: 有趣的是有很多人讀 Paul Graham 是想學習怎麼創業賺錢. 懂軟體, 懂美術, 又文筆好, 也許不是太少見. 不過同時又會賺錢, 就很少見了….:)

於此留言

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

貼圖請用: <img width="500" src="http://....jpg" />

Text & Photography Copyright © 2006-2010   姚大鈞   Dajuin Yao.   All Rights Reserved.