Archive for September, 2009

龐蒂論自由 01

September 30, 2009

龐蒂論自由 01
Merleau-Ponty on Freedom
From The Phenomenology of Perception 感覺現象學 p.434

Again, it is clear that no causal relationship is conceivable between the subject and his body, his world or his society. Only at the cost of losing the basis of all my certainties can I question what is conveyed to me by my presence to myself.

再一次,顯而易見,我們無法想像,主體跟其身體、世界、或社會,有任何因果關係。只有以喪失我所有的穩定結構的基礎作為代價,我才可能會質疑到,我存在於自我世界,所被傳達的訊息。

Now the moment I turn to myself in order to describe myself, I have a glimpse of an anonymous flux, a comprehensive project in which there are so far no ‘states of consciousness’, nor, a fortiori, characteristics of any sort. For myself I am neither ‘ jealous,’ nor ‘inquisitive’, nor ‘ hunchbacked’, nor ‘ a civil servant’.

此時,我一轉身內省,以便描述自己,我瞥見一股無以名狀的流動,一種迄今尚無「意識狀態」,遑論有任何特徵的全面洪流。對我自己而言,人家說我妒嫉、好打聽、駝背、或公務員,皆非我內在屬性。

It is often a matter of surprise that the cripple or the invalid can put up with himself. The reason is such people are not for themselves deformed or at death’s door. Until the final coma, the dying man is inhabited by a consciousness, he is all that he sees, and enjoys this much of an outlet. Consciousness can never objectify itself into invalid-consciousness or cripple-consciousness, and even if the old man complains of his age or the cripple of his deformity, they can do so only by comparing themselves with others, that is, by taking a statistical and objective view of themselves, so that such complaints are never absolutely genuine: when he is back in the heart of his own consciousness, each one of us feels beyond his limitations and thereupon resigns himself to them. They are the price which we automatically pay for being in the world, a formality which we take for granted. Hence we may speak disparagingly of our looks and still not want to change our face for another.

我們時常驚奇,殘障人士跟病患為何能忍受他們自己的處境。道理很簡單,對他們自己而言,他們並沒有意識到自己是殘障或彌留病床。直到昏迷之前,逗留在垂死者心中的,只有一種意識,那就是他自己是他所看到的一切,對於這樣的逃避現實,他坦然心安。意識永遠無法客體化成為成為病患意識,或殘障意識。即使老人抱怨自己的年老體衰,殘障人士抱怨自己的殘疾不全,他們會如此抱怨,是因為跟別人互相的比較,或是透過別人眼光看待自己,換句話說,他們開始以量化及客觀的觀點看待自己,所以這種抱怨並非全然都是真誠發出。當他回到自己意識的核心,我們每個人都會感覺到,自己能超越自己局限性,因此對於他們也就不會那麼耿耿於懷。我們生存在世,必然要付出代價承接這樣的局限性,這是我們視為理所當然的條件。因此我們或許會對自己的容貌自慚形穢,可是依舊不願以自己的容貌跟別人交換。

No idiosyncrasy can, seeming, be attached to the insuperable generality of consciousness, nor can any limit be set to this immeasurable power of escape. In order to be determined ( in the two sense of the word) by an external factor, it is necessary that I should be a thing. Neither my freedom nor my universality can admit of any eclipse. It is inconceivable that I should be free in certain of my actions and determined in others: how should we understand a dormant freedom that gave full scope to determinism? And it is assumed that it is snuffed out when it is not in action, how could it be rekindled? If per impossibile I had once succeeded in making myself into a thing, how should I subsequently reconvert myself to consciousness?

似乎,意識這種無法客體化的普遍性,也不能將它歸咎於任何怪誕行徑,正如人有逃避現實的無窮能力,也無法受到任何限制。我若是要受外在因素所決定(決定論的雙重意涵),我必然會淪為物化的命運。可是,我的自由跟我的意識無法客體化的普遍性,卻不容許受到任何損害。我們無法想像,我的某些行為是自由行使,而在其它行為上卻是受到命運決定。我們怎麼可能理解:我們的自由會備而不用,卻讓決定論大行其道?有人假設自由不行使時,會像燭火熄滅,那請問要如何重新點燃?就算是我有朝一日真的成功地將自己物化(實際上不可能),我以後要怎麼將自己重新轉換回到意識?

Once I am free, I am not to be counted among things, and I must then be uninterruptedly free. Once my actions cease to be mine, I shall never recover them, and if I lose my hold on the world, it will never be restored to me. It is equally inconceivable that my liberty should be attenuated; one cannot be to some extent free, and if, as is often said, motives incline me in a certain direction, one of two things happens: either they are strong enough to force me to act, in which case there is no freedom, or else they are not strong enough, and then freedom is complete, and as great in the worst torments as in the peace of one’s home.

一但我是自由,我就不可能被認為是物化,我必須毫無阻礙地自由。一但我的行動不再屬於我自己的意志,我將身不由己。假如我失去對於世界的掌控,我將永遠無法恢復這種掌控世界的自由。我們也同樣無法想像,我的自由應該受到約束,因為我們不可能只是有限度的自由。就算是如俗話所說,動機會使我們必然走向某個方向,這時只有兩種可能:一種是動機足夠強烈,我不得不聽令行事,在這種情況,我無自由可言。另一種是動機不夠強烈,我的自由毫髮無傷,無論是接受苦刑拷打,或是在自己平靜的家裡,我都自由自在。

We ought, therefore, to reject not only the idea of causality, but also that of motivation. The alleged motive does not burden my decision; on the contrary my decision lends the motive its force. Everything that I ‘am’ in virtue of nature or history—hunchbacked, handsome or Jewish—I never am completely for myself, as we have just explained; and I may well be these things for other people, nevertheless I remain free to posit another person as a consciousness whose views strike through to my very being, or on the other hand merely as an object.

因此,我們不但應該拒絕因果的觀念,而且也要拒絕動機的觀念。別人所宣稱的動機,並沒有成為我決定的負擔,相反的,我的決定借助力量給動機。我因為天生或歷史遺傳的我的屬性,無論是駝背,帥俊,或猶太人血統,我都不是因為自己而擁有這些屬性,如我剛才所說,而是因為別人的看待才如此被物化。可是,我始終擁有自由選擇另外一個人一方面作為意識,這個意識的觀點直接襲擊到我存在核心,或者另一方面僅僅是當一個客體。

It is also true that this option is itself a form of constraint: if I am ugly, I have the choice between being an object of disapproval or disapproving of others. I am left free to be a masochist or a sadist, but not free to ignore others. But this dilemma, which is given as port of the human lot, is not one for me as pure consciousness: it is still I who makes another to be for me and makes each of us be as human beings.

沒錯,這種選擇本身也是一種受到約束的形式:假如我長得醜,我可以選擇成為別人不認同的對象,也可以選擇不認同別人的觀點。問題是,我有自由選擇成為受虐狂者或虐待狂者,卻沒有自由選擇不理會別人觀點。但是這個困境是人類的部份命運,我並不必要把它當著是我的純淨意識:創造另一種困境來充當我的存在,使我們兩個人各自擁有作為人的存在的,依舊是我。

Moreover, even if existence as a human being were imposed upon me, the manner alone being left to my choice, and considering this choice itself and ignoring the small number of forms it might take, it would still be a free choice. If it is said that my temperament inclines me particularly to either sadism or masochism, it is still merely a manner of speaking, for my temperament exists only for the second order knowledge that I gain about myself when I see myself as others see me, and in so far as I recognize it, confer value upon it, and in that sense, choose it.

而且,即使作為人的存在是上天賦予,聽任我選擇的方式只有一種,這依舊算是一種自由的選擇,假如我們考慮到這種選擇的本身的性質,並且不要去理會選澤的方式是多麼有限。即使我的性情據說會使我特別傾向於成為虐待狂,或受虐狂,那也是表達的問題,因為我的性情的存在,僅是我對於自己的次級的知識,也就是我依照別人看待我的方式看待自己,再依照我的認識,賦予價值在那個知識上,然後以那個意義選擇我的性情。

What misleads us on this, is that we often look for freedom in the voluntary deliberation which examines one motive after another and seems to opt for the weightiest or most convincing. In reality the deliberation follows the decision, and it is my secret decision which brings the motives to light, for it would be difficult to conceive what the force of a motive might be in the absence of a decision which it confirms or to which it runs counter.

在此誤導我們的是,我們往往在一廂情願的深思熟慮中尋求自由,將動機反覆審察,似乎總是選擇最沉重,或是最令人信服的。事實上,先有決定才跟著深思熟慮,而且是我的秘密決定使動機為人所知,因為動機所證實,所對立的決定若是不存在,我們很難想像動機的力量是什麼。

When I have abandoned a project, the motives which I thought held me to it suddenly lose their force and collapse. In order to resuscitate them, an effort is required on my part to reopen time and set me back to the moment preceding the making of the decision. Even while I am deliberating, already I find it an effort to suspend time’s flow, and to keep open a situation which I feel is closed by a decision which is already there and which I am holding off. That is why it so often happens that after giving up a plan I experience a feeling of relief: “ After all, I wasn’t all that involved’; the debate was purely a matter of form, and the deliberation a mere parody, for I had decided against from the start.

當我已經放棄一個計劃,原先讓我堅持以赴的動機,會突然失去力量而崩塌。為了復甦這些動機,我必需要努力重新開啟時間,讓我回到做決定前的那個時刻。即使在我深思熟慮的時刻,我發覺要費相當努力,才能將時間的流動懸置,並開放一個情境。這個情境被我認為是已經存在,而且我正在抗拒的決定所封閉。這就是為什麼在我放棄一個計劃之後,我往往會經驗到身心輕鬆的感覺:「畢竟,我還不至於那麼欲罷不能!」所爭議的純粹是形式的問題,深思熟慮充其量是扭捏作態,因為從一開頭,我就已經是決定反對。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

新情境主義

September 28, 2009

The New Situations 新情境主義
By Claire Deherty 克列爾、帖荷提

Situations describe the conditions under which many contemporary artworks now come into being. By ‘situated’, we refer to those artistic practices for which the ‘situation’ or ‘context’ is often the starting point. This book does not approach ‘context’ as purely a discreet category of public art discourse, nor is it concerned with ‘contextual practice’ as an artistic genre. Rather, it is concerned with ‘context’ as an impetus, hindrance, inspiration and research subject for the process of making art, whether specified by a curator or commissioner or proposed by the artist. By way of an introduction, this text reflects on the analytical, dialogic and anecdotal evidence in this publication to draw out some of the tendencies and implications of the shift from studio to situation.

情境主義描述的情況,就是許多當代藝術品存在的狀況。所謂「情境」,我們指的是那些以「情境」或「內涵」為出發點的藝術表現。本書處理「內涵」,並不純粹當著是公共藝術論述的質樸範疇,也不是把「內涵表達」當著是一種藝術型式。相反的,我們把「內涵」當著是創造藝術過程的推動力,阻礙,靈感跟研究主體,不論是藝術館館長或委託人所指定,或藝術家所建議。作為導言,本文反思出版本書所提供的分析,對談,及軼事的證據,描繪出一些從畫室轉移到情境傾向及暗示。

On 11 April 2002, 500 volunteers were supplied with shovels and asked to form a single line at the foot of giant sand dune in Ventanilla, an area outside Lima in Peru. This “ human comb” pushed a quantity of sand a small distance, thereby moving a 16,00 foot long sand dune about four inches from its original position. The act constituted When Faith Moves Mountains, a project by artist Francis Alys, in collaboration with Rafael Ortega and Cuauhtemoc Medina. It was acclaimed in the international art press as a “ biblical performance” and “ one of the artistic highlights of 2000”. Subsequently the film of the event became an editioned artwork—a 34 minute long, three-channel video installation which was purchased for the Guggenheim Collection in New York later that year.

在2002年四月十一日,在祕魯,利馬郊區的凡坦尼拉,義工帶鏟子,在巨大沙丘底下排列成一長排。這種「人身梳子」將沙推退了一小段距離,因此將16,00英呎長的沙丘推離原來位置四英吋。這個舉動稱為「信心移山時」,由藝術家法蘭西斯、阿萊思跟拉費,奧鐵嘉及梅地那合作企劃。被國際藝術新聞稱讚為「創世紀成就」及2000年藝術高潮之一。隨後,這個事件被拍攝成影片,成為發行的藝術品,三十四分鐘長度,錄影帶可安置在三個頻道播放,那一年稍晚,被紐約的古根罕藝術館收藏。

How do we come to judge such an event, and its documentation, as art? Where does the work start and end? Where does meaning reside—in its execution and/or documentation, in the fledgling idea or in the posthumous circulation of the anecdote? How does such a work operate in, what might be termed, its ‘ originating’ context and subsequently its ‘displaced’ context ( an American art collection or curated exhibition) ? And what is the difference between the experience of the work’s first and second audiences—from the participants in the desert outside Lima to the museum visitors on Fifth Avenue? Furthermore, if this work is not exactly ‘ site-specific’, why not? Though it can be removed from its original context or functional site, unlike Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty, 1970-one of its antecedents—it is, nevertheless, a work made in context, the product of a ‘situated’, rather than studio-based, artistic practice.

我們如何判斷這樣一個事件,及其記錄影片,當著是藝術品?作品從何處開始?從何處結束?意義在哪裡?在呈現當時?或在記錄影片?在意念的初起之時?或是在事件過後的流傳?這樣的作品如何運作於所謂的「原創」內涵,及隨後的「替代」內涵(美國的藝術品收藏或藝術館展示)?作品最初的觀眾,里碼郊區沙漠的參與者,跟後來的觀眾,第五街藝術館的參觀者,感受有何不同?而且,假若這個作品並不完全是以「地點取向」,為什麼不是?不像它的先輩作品,1979年,羅伯、史密森的「迴旋防波堤」,它能夠從它原先的內涵或功用地點移開,儘管如此,它仍然是以內涵創作,算是「情境」的作品,而不是在畫室創作的藝術品。

Francis Alys describes When Faith Moves Mountains as “ my attempt to de-romanticise Land art”.

法蘭西斯、阿萊思描述「信心移山時」,當著是「我企圖破除大地藝術的浪漫幻想」。

Here, we have attempted to create a kind of Land art for the land-less, and, with the help of hundreds of people and shovels, we created a social allegory. This story is not validated by any physical trace or addition to the landscape. We shall now leave the care of our story to oral tradition…Only in its repetition and transmission is the work actualized.

在此,我們企圖創造一種大地藝術替代大地消失,靠著數百人及鏟子的幫忙,我們創造一種社會寓言。這個寓言的故事是否成為真實,不在於有無留下地理遺跡,或增添什麼景觀。我們的故事是否延續下去,留給口耳相傳的傳統。就在反覆述說及代代相傳過程,我們的作品自然呈現。

When Faith Moves Mountains was Alys’ contribution to the third Bienal(Ibero-American Biennale of Lima). Visiting the city for the first time in 2000 with curator Cuauhtemoc Medina, Alys was confronted with the turmoil and instability that preceded the collapse of the Fujimori dictatorship:

「信心移山時」是阿萊思對於利馬市南美洲兩年一度美術展的貢獻。在2000年,他跟藝術館館長梅提那初次拜訪該市時,適逢富士摩瑞的獨裁政權崩潰,社會頗為動亂不安。

I felt that it called for an ‘epic response’, a ‘beau geste’ at once futile and heroic, absurd and urgent. Insinuating a social allegory into those circumstances seemed to me more fitting than engaging in some sculptural exercise.

我覺得這樣的社會需要「史詩回應」,那是一個徒勞而壯烈,荒謬而迫切的「優雅姿態」。將社會的動亂寓言,在那些處境中明白諷刺出來,對我而言,比從事雕刻作品更為適宜。

Alys was called upon to make a work that would resonate in a highly charged local context and translate to a global biennale culture. He neither professed to reveal something new to the local inhabitants (his practice as a whole is ‘ complicit’ rather than ‘investigative’). Nor did he position his experience as outsider or tourist at the centre of the work. The performance simply effected a near imperceptible ‘ linear geological displacement”. Yet, by establishing a shift in the status-quo, by creating a memorable and metaphorical act for ( one hopes and imagines) the participants and certainly us, the secondary audience, Alys made a work that is embedded in the context of Ventanille, but which is not simply about Ventanilla, Lim or Peru.

阿萊思被要求創作一部作品,能夠在高度動亂的社會內涵引起迴響,並可以成為全球性的兩年一度的藝術文化。他既沒有宣稱給當地居民帶來任何新奇事物(他的作為整體而言,與其說是「探究」,不如說是「共謀」)。他也不將自己作為外來人或觀光客的經驗,放置在作品的中心位置。表演僅僅是造就一個近乎覺察不出來的「直線的地質的移位」。可是,他證明現狀是能夠改變的,他創造一個可紀念的影射活動給參與者,當然是指我們,次級的觀眾(讓我們一廂情願罷)。阿萊思創造的作品鑲嵌於凡坦尼拉的內涵,但是意義可不只限於凡坦尼拉、利馬、或祕魯。

Alys is what Miwon Kwon, in her significant study One Place After Another: Site-specific Art and Locational Identity, has identified as one of a burgeoning number of nomadic artists:

在其重要的研究著作「漂泊:地點取向的藝術及位置的認同」,米萬、柯萬將
阿萊思定位為為少數前衛的遊牧藝術家之一。

The increasing institutional interest in current site-orientated practices that mobilize the site as a discursive narrative is demanding an intensive physical mobilization of the artist to create works in various cities throughout the cosmopolitan art world.

目前地點取向的作品,動員地點當著是擴散的論述,引起越來越多的機構感到興趣。它們要求藝術家廣泛地動員各地,在全球性的藝術世界的各種城市創造作品。

And nowhere is this more evident than at the biennale. There are currently over 50 biennales of visual art world-wide including those in Lima, Berlin, Havana, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Gwangju, Liverpool, Lyon, Sydney and Venice, as well as Manifesta, the nomadic European biennale, not to mention Documenta and Skulptur Projekte Munster. This broad biennale culture has emerged from the integration of the festival model and scattered-site international exhibition over the past ten years, through which cultural activity has become allied with economic growth. The public’s experience of the biennale phenomenon has developed from viewing to participation, giving rise to a marked shift, in some instances, in the role of the artist from object-maker to service provider. The creative and operational workforce, within or outside existing art institutions in biennale cities, which initiates, produces and sustains this considerable level of artistic public output, have developed a diverse range of curatorial strategies to support the visiting artist, particularly in relation to the creation of new work. Concurrently, off-site commissioning and artist residency programs have responded to the discernable emphasis on engagement in current artistic practice, by drawing upon the complex discourse of the relationship between artist and place, re-imagining place as a situation, a set of circumstances, geographical location, historical narrative, group of people or social agenda.

這種現象在兩年一度的藝術展最為顯著。全世界目前有超過50個視覺藝術的兩年一度藝術展,包括在利馬、柏林、哈瓦那、伊斯坦堡、約翰尼斯堡、光州、利物浦、里昂、雪梨跟威尼斯,以及遊牧歐洲雙年展的馬尼凡斯塔,更不用說是德國卡塞爾文獻展,跟明斯特雕塑展。過去十年來,藝術季模式跟散佈各地的國際美展合併起來,出現這種普遍的雙年展文化。經由這樣,文化的活動跟經濟的成長結合起來。大眾對於雙年展的現象的經驗,由觀賞到參與,產生明顯的改變,在有些情況,藝術家的角色由作品的創造者,轉變成為服務的供應者。這種創造性跟功用性的勞動力,在雙年展的現有藝術單位,研發,創造及維持相當水準的藝術品的公開展出,並發展出各式各樣藝術館的經營策略,來支持來訪的藝術家,特別是跟新奇作品有關的藝術家。同時,外地委託創作及駐在藝術家計劃,回應顯而易見的強調:大眾要求參與目前的藝術創作,藝術家跟地方之間要有互相認同的情懷,重新想像地方當著是一個情境,一連串的處境,地理上的位置,歷史的描述,族群或社會的變遷。

When Daniel Buren commented, in the winter of 1970-1971, that, “ it is impossible…by definition, to see a work in its place”, he was referring to the conventional appreciation of the studio as primary site of meaning, in isolation from the real world. Since Buren first proposed to work in situ, we have witnessed the convergence of site-specific, installation, community and public art, institutional critique and political activism. Miwon Kwon suggests, as artists and cultural theorists have become informed by a broader range of disciplines ( including anthropology, sociology, literary criticism, psychology, natural and cultural histories, architecture and urbanism, political theory and philosophy), “ so our understanding of site has shifted from a fixed, physical location to somewhere or something constituted through social, economic, cultural and political processes”. Given this new mutable notion of site, practitioners, commissioners and critics have become dissatisfied with the expression “ site-specific’, submitting a gamut of new terms to describe artworks and projects which deal with the complexities of context-amongst them context-specific, site-oriented, site-responsive and socially engaged.

當1970年到1971年的冬季,丹尼爾、波頓評論,定義上很不可能看到一部作品在其位置上,他指的是傳統對於畫室的賞識,當著是意義的最初位置,孤立於真實世界之外。自從波頓建議要在情境中創作,我們曾見證到,地點取向,裝置藝術,社區跟公共意藝術,體制批判及政治激進主義,彼此匯聚起來。米萬、柯萬建議,如同藝術家跟文化理論家變得通曉各門學問(包括人類學,社會學,文學批評,心理學,自然及文化歷史,建築學及都市規劃學,政治理論跟哲學),我們對於地點的了解,已經從一個固定的地理位置,轉移到某個地方,某個經由社會,經濟,文化及政治的過程組成的東西。考慮到地點觀念的變化,藝術業者,藝術委託人及藝評專家對於「地點取向」一詞的表達開始不滿意,提出各式各樣的新術語,來描述藝術品跟企劃案,這樣才有辦法來處理內涵的複雜性,包括內涵取向,地點取向,回應地方及社會參與。

What distinguishes the situated practices in this publication from the historical premise of site-specificity is the convergence of three key factors: firstly, if as Kwon suggests, feeling out of place is the cultural symptom of late capitalism’s political and social reality”, then to be ‘ situated’ is effectively to be displaced. Hence, what emerges through the artworks discussed here is an emphasis on experience as a state of flux which acknowledges place as a shifting and fragmented entity; secondly, as Nicolas Bourriaud suggests in his “ Berlin Letter about Relational Aesthetics”, a new vocabulary has emerged, “ one analogous to Minimal Art and that takes the socius as its base”. Bourriaud suggests that relational aesthetics operates to elude alienation, the division of labor and the commodification of space which characterizes our new “ network society”. And finally, as cultural experience has become recognized as a primary component of urban regeneration, so the roles of artists have become redefined as mediators, creative thinkers and agitators, leading to increased opportunities for longer-term engagement between an artist and a given group of people, design process or situation.

本書所描述的情境表現,跟地點取向的歷史作為,不同的地方在於三個主要因素的匯聚:第一、如柯萬所建議的,假如跟環境格格不入,是晚期資本主義政治及社會現實的文化病徵,那麼「處於情境」就是顯而易見的情境錯置。因此,在此所討論的藝術作品展現的,是強調經驗作為流動的狀態,承認地方是變遷的不連貫實體;第二、正如尼古拉、寶駱在「關係美學的柏林信件」書中所建議的,一個新的詞彙已經出現,「這個詞彙類似極簡抽象畫藝術,以同事朋友作為基礎」。寶駱建議,關係美學運作為了逃避疏離,勞工區隔及空間的商品化,這些都是我們新的「網絡社會」的特徵。第三、如同文化經驗已經被承認是振興都市的基本要素,藝術家的角色重新被下定義為媒介者、創意思想家跟煽動家,因此藝術家有越來越多的機會長期參與特定人群、設計過程或情境。

Despite increasingly sophisticated curatorial appraisals of what place might mean to artists and participants in projects which profess to ‘ engage’, there is still considerable debate about whether projects can or should respond directly to a place, considering the itinerancy of most international artists and the consequential lack of sustained contact with the host city or context. In his essay, “ The Artist as Ethnographer”, Hal Foster warns that participants are often defined by their habitation of ‘elsewhere’, acting as the ‘other’ to the ‘ideological patron’ of the artist. Furthermore, even if the ethnographic mode of ‘rapport’ is to be avoided through either a process of complicity or genuine collective decision-making and shared responsibility, how does an artist begin such a process and what are the pitfalls? Given the social and cultural experience of being ‘out of place’, how is this state of being reflected in the process and final forms of works or curatorial activity which responds to given situations?

雖然有些活動企劃宣稱要大家「參與」,地方對於藝術家及參與者有何意義,主辦單位的評估也越來越不落俗套,可是活動企劃是否應該直接回應地方,爭議依舊很大,因為大部份的國際藝術家千里迢迢而來,對於主辦城市或內涵必然欠缺持久的接觸。在其論文「藝術家作為少數民族」,赫爾、佛斯脫警告說,參與者往往被定義為居住在「他處」,充當藝術家的「意識形態贊助者」的「他者」。而且,就算能夠透過積極參與跟誠懇地共同決策及分擔責任,來避免淪為少數民族的「關係模式」,藝術家如何開始這樣一個過程?其陷阱又是什麼?假如我們考慮到,「格格不入」在社會及文化上的經驗,這種存在的狀況如何被反映在創作的過程跟最後的作品,或主辦單位要回應特定情境的活動?

This publication presents a number of strategies set within a critical context, which by no means comprehensive, are representative of the broad tendencies of situated practice—from the spectacular re-enactment, to the quiet intervention, from remedial collaboration to dialogic, open-ended process.

本書提供許多在關鍵內涵的配套策略,並沒有面面俱到,僅是代表情境創作的大略的傾向--從驚心動魄的一再演出,到默默地介入,從邊做邊修正的合作,到對談的不設底線的過程。

The groundwork
Where to start? What emerges through the interviews and conversations here is a common process of resistance. Though this may not always reveal itself as a process of derive, described by Guy Debord of the Situationist International as, “ playful-constructive behavior and awareness of psycho-geographical effects’ in which person “ drops their usual motives for movement and action…and let themselves be drawn by the attractions of the terrain and the encounters that they find there”, all artists and collectives here maintain that their status as artists allows them to circumnavigate predictability. Kathrin Bohm states, “ As an artist you’re non-threatening , because no one expects you to have power “ Jeremy Deller suggests, “ your role is far more fluid”, whilst Jimmie Durham proposes, “ I’m not an outsider or an insider and I still have the great privilege to talk.” Contrary to Hal Foster’s cautionary note, many of these artists resist ethnographic processes of mapping, but rather, introduce themselves through a series of conversations( Bohm, Shaw, Deller), or merge into the daily activities of a city (Wentworth, Dant, Mejor Vida Corp.) )or become residents themselves( Oda Projesi, Hirschhorn).They resist the ascribed role of witness, often choosing to research or observe the overlooked ( Coley, Dickison).

基礎紮根
從何開始?在此透過訪問及對談所呈現的是抗拒的共同過程。雖然這並不表示這策略是「遊戲三昧」的過程,如國際情境主義大師居伊、德波所描述的「知曉心理跟地理的影響,嬉戲而有建設性作為」,在此情境下「人們拋開他們平時行動跟行為的動機,聽任自己被身處的環境際遇所吸引」,但是藝術家跟共同體在此還是主張,作為藝術家的地位,他們可以逾越世俗常規。凱司林、波恩說:「身為藝術家,你並不具有威脅性,因為沒有會預期你有多大本事。」傑瑞米、鉄洛建議說:「你的角色地位更具有流動性。」吉米、杜罕建議說:「我並非局外人,也非局內人,我還是有權利說話。」跟赫爾、佛斯脫的警告的語氣相左,這些藝術家大多抗拒被定為少數民族,相反的,他們透過一系列的對談介紹自己(如波恩、蕭、鉄洛等),或是融入當地城市的日常活動當中(如溫窩斯、坦特、梅焦、維達公司等)或是自己成為當地居民(窩達、普羅傑西,郝希蜂等)。他們抗拒被指定當見證者角色,時常選則研究或觀察被忽視的東西(如科利,迪欽森等)。

Irit Rogoff’s critical analysis of the distinction between fieldwork that is done “ through a mode of rapport (of proximity and a sense of having rapport with place) and fieldwork that is done through an understanding of one’s complicity with the work” is crucial to this process of enquiry. It proposes a strategy for preparing the ground.

「實地創作有兩種,一是透過接近的關係模式及跟地方產生關係的感覺,另一種是透過自己參與作品創作而產生了解。」艾瑞、羅勾夫的精闢的分析跟區分,對於我們的研究過程大有助益。他建議一種基礎紮根的策略。

When projects occur at the artist’s instigation within the context of their own practice, the idea—such as The Battle of Orgreave or The Milgran Reenactment—is simple, though the period of research can stretch to years, involving the recruitment of participants, experts and skilled practitioners. In contrast, artists such as Minerva Cuevas or Adam Dant work almost virally within their home territory, using the mechanisms of the media to distribute their ‘ products’ for free. Though Further Up in the Air proposed a conventional residency relationship for the 18 invited artists, the groundwork, as Paul Dorrela observes here, was laid by the artist-organizers, Neville Gable and Leo Fitzmaurice, who built up a relationship with the community over five years, recognizing it as “ an unstable transitional context”. Like Oda Projesi, Gabie and Fitzmaurice recognize the residents’ involvement as significant to the legacy of the project in the long-term.

由於藝術家的建議,在自己可行的範圍內,產生了一些企劃活動。諸如「奧瑞維礦廠罷工示威暴力事件」或「米格蘭心理測驗重演」,點子很簡單,但是策劃時間延續好幾年,牽涉到參加人員的徵募,專家及專業的人員。比較起來,像米內瓦、苦瓦司或亞當、坦特等藝術家,幾乎就是在自己家中領域內工作,使用媒體的設備,免費地散播自己的作品。依照保羅、多枚拉所觀察,在「高樓擎天」企劃活動,雖然有十八位被邀約的藝術家,有著傳統的駐在關係,基礎紮根還是由藝術家兼企劃者所奠定。尼微洛、嘉比跟李奧 菲莫瑞斯,五年來跟社區建立密切關係,體認到社區是「一個不穩定的變遷內涵」像窩達、普羅傑西,嘉比跟飛莫瑞斯體認到,居民的參與關係重大,對於長期的企劃活動能否產生後續影響。

The engagement process
In many of these projects, process and outcome are marked by social engagement. Maria Lind distinguishes the difference between aspects of participatory practice, using Vienna-based critic Christian Kiavagna’s four models: ‘ working with others’, interactive activities, collective action, and participatory practice. What seems to distinguish the types of engagement evident here is whether a dialogical relationship is established. In a significant text on littoral art, Grant Kester has proposed this as, “ that which breaks down the conventional distinction between artist, artwork, and audience—a relationship that allows the viewer to ‘ speak back’ to the artist in certain ways, and in which this reply becomes in effect a part of the work itself”. It is vital, when reviewing the stated aims and outcomes of such projects, to establish the distinction between those practices which, though they employ a process of complicit engagement, are clearly initiated and ultimately directed by the artist ( Hirschhorn, Deller, Colley) and those which, though still often authored by the artist or team, are collaborative—in effect ‘ social sculpture’ ( Bohm, Oda Projesi, Shaw). Furthermore, where practices become peripatetic in the social fabric of a city, a distinction should be made between the strategies of the activist ( Cuevas) and the trickster ( Dant and Durham), though their intentions may be similar-namely to provoke social conscience, it is important to attempt to find a language for engagement, because the gaps between the current rhetoric of engagement and actual experience may lead to confusion about the aims and potential outcomes of a project.

參與過程
在這些企劃活動中,過程跟結果大多由社會的參與表現出來。馬麗亞、琳達拉斯區別實際參與的方式,使用維也納的藝評家克立斯丁、拉瓦那的四個模式:跟別人共事,互動活動,集體活動,實際參與。使這四種參與顯而易見的區別是,對話的關係是否建立。葛蘭、凱思脫有一篇重要的文章討論「外圍藝術」,將它定位為「突破傳統對於藝術家,藝術品及觀眾的區別。新的關係讓觀眾能夠以某種方式對藝術家頂嘴,這種回應實際上是作品的一部份」。當我們評論企劃活動所陳述的目標跟結果,區別那些做法是很重要的,有些做法雖然使用共同參與的過程,但實際上顯然是由藝術家創始,最後也是由他導演(如赫希峰恩、鉄洛、科利等)。還有些做法,雖然是由藝術家跟團隊所創作,實際上是合作而成,所謂「社會雕塑」(如波恩,窩達、普洛傑西,蕭等)。而且,有些做法在城市的社會結構中遊移,因此我們應該區別激進份子的策略跟遊戲三昧者的策略(如坦特跟杜罕),儘管他們的意圖非常相近。換言之,他們都是要喚起社會良心。設法替參與找到一種語言表述非常重要,因為目前參與的表述跟實際經驗有差距,可能會導致目標跟企劃活動的預期結果,混淆不清。

The exhibition and curator
Given that these processes of engagement and intervention need interlocutors, as Bourriaud notes, the role of the curator or commissioner as mediator becomes vital. In many cases, such as the partnership between Kunstverein Munchen and kunstprojekte-Reim for Oda Projesi or Gasworks in the case of Kathrin Bohm and public works, the role of the art institution to initiate, mediate and sustain relationships with participants beyond the project is crucial. Furthermore, as Catherine David explains, new exhibition models are addressing the implications of cross-cultural engagement and representation, many of which are cumulative in process, open-ended and dialogic. The biennale is a natural home for situated practice. It bears a resemblance to a ‘ circus blowing through town’, flouting its propensity for transient encounters, and hence the festival context in which such projects occur lends itself to the situated work as performance, event, screening, re-enactment or workshop. But it is the capacity for the work to morph from one form to another that allows these artists to produce work for the biennale, the art institution and a local context. As practitioners, commissioner, participants and viewers, we need to understand the complex processes of initiation, development, and mediation of this work. We need to make the distinctions between the types of engagement that are occurring and the promises that are made. We need to question what levels of support this work needs ( information, time, technical resources, distribution mechanisms and personnel). And we need to find a critical language to unravel the implications of this work beyond the specifics of time and place.

展覽及館長

假如考慮到參與和介入的這些過程都需要對話者,如寶瑞德注意到,藝術館館長或行政人員作為媒介者的角色就變得很重要。在很多情況,如肯波隆、慕晨及肯羅傑、瑞姆,跟窩達、普羅傑西的合夥關係,或是嘉思窩在凱司林、波恩及公共作品所扮演的藝術機構的角色就很重要,他扮演建議、媒介及維持跟企劃活動外圍參與者的關係。而且,如凱薩林、大衛解釋,新的展覽模式在處理跨越文化的參與及表現的意涵,很多過程是累積性、開放性、及對話性。雙年展是情境創作的天然家園。它類同於「巡迴演出的馬戲團」,在性質上因為演出觀看的時間短而受到冷嘲熱諷,因此跟此企劃活動相連的藝術季的內涵就有助於情境作品,作為表演,事件,拍攝,重新演出,或工作坊。但是,正因為作品有能力從一種形式轉換成另一種形式,這些藝術家才能夠替美術雙年展,藝術機構,及當地內涵創作作品。作為藝術業者,行政人員,參與者及觀眾,我們需要了解作品是如何開始,發展,及媒介的複雜的過程。我們需要區別正在進行的參與的種類,跟給予的許諾。我們需要詢問作品需要什麼程度的支持(資訊,時間,技術資源,發行機制及工作人員)。我們需要找到一種重要的表述,來說明作品有何超越特定時空的意涵。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塞尚的疑惑

September 26, 2009

Cezanne’s Doubt 塞尚的疑惑
Maurice Merleau-Ponty 龐蒂

It took him one hundred working sessions 節課 for a still life靜畫, one hundred- fifty sittings 模特兒作姿 for a portrait 肖像. What we call his work was, for him, an attempt企圖 , an approach方法 to painting.

In September of 1906, at the age sixty-seven—one month before his death—he wrote: “I was in such a state 狀態 of mental 精神 agitation 激動, in such great confusion 混亂 that for a time I feared my weak reason 理性would not survive存活…. Now it seems I am better that I see more clearly the direction my studies are taking. Will I arrive at the goal, so intensely 強烈sought and so long pursued追求? I am working from nature, and it seems to me I am making slow progress”.

Painting was his world and his mode 模式of existence. He worked alone without students, without admiration 崇拜 from his family, without encouragement from the critics. He painted on the afternoon of the day his mother died.

In 1870 he was painting at l’Estaque while the police were after him for dodging逃避 the draft 徵召. And still he had moments of doubt about this vocation職業.

As he grew old, he wondered whether the novelty 新奇of his painting might not come from trouble with his eyes, whether his whole life had not been based upon an accident of his body.

The hesitation 猶豫or muddle-headedness糊塗 of his contemporaries 當代人equaled 相等 this strain 壓力and doubt. “The painting of a drunken privy 私人的cleaner清潔工,” said a critic in 1905.

Even today, C. Mauclair finds Cezanne’s admissions 承認 of powerlessness無力感 an argument 論點 against 不利於him.

Meanwhile, Cezanne’s paintings have spread throughout the world. Why so much uncertainty不確定, so much labor努力. so many failures, and, suddenly, the greatest success?

Zola, Cezanne’s friend from childhood, was the first to find genius天才 in him and the first to speak of him as a “genius 天才 gone wrong出毛病.”

An observer 觀察者of Cezanne’s life such as Zola, more concerned with his character than with the meaning of his painting, might well很有理由 consider it a manifestation證明 of ill-health.

For as far back as 1852, upon entering the College Bourbon at Aix, Cezanne worried his friends with his fits of temper脾氣 and depression沮喪. Seven years later, having decided to become an artist, he doubted his talent and did not dare to ask his father—a hatter and later a banker—to send him to Paris.

Zola’s letters reproach 譴責 him for his instability不穩定, his weakness, and
his indecision 猶豫. When finally he came to Paris, he wrote: “The only thing I have changed is my location 位置: my ennui has followed me.” He could not tolerate容忍 discussions, because they wore him out 精疲力盡and he could never give his reasoning.

His nature was basically anxious. Thinking that he would die young, he made his will at the age of forty-two; at forty-six he was for six months the victim受害者 of a violent, tormented折磨, overwhelming 壓倒passion 激情of which no one knows the outcome and to which he would never refer提到.

At fifty-one he withdrew 隱退 to Aix, where he found landscape 風景best suited to適合 his genius but where also he returned to the world of his childhood, his mother and his sister.

After the death of his mother, Cezanne turned to his son for support. “Life is terrifying,” he would often say. Religion, which he then set about 開始practicing for the first time, began for him in the fear of life and the fear of death.

“It is fear,” he explained to a friend; “I feel I will be on earth for another four days—what then? I believe in life after death, and I don’t want to risk 冒險roasting烤焦 in aeternum烤箱.”

Although his religion later deepened, its original motivation動機 was the need to put his life in order 有條理 and be relieved of it. He became more and more timid膽小, mistrustful不信任, and sensitive敏感.

Occasionally he would visit Paris, but when he ran into 遇到 friends he would motion 做動作to them from a distance not to approach接近 him. In 1903, after his pictures had begun to sell in Paris at twice the price of Monet’s and when young men like Joachim Gasquet and Emile Bernard came to see him and ask him questions, he unbent 不屈服a little.

But his fits of anger continued. (In Aix a child once hit him as he passed by; after that he could not bear any contact接觸.)

One day when Cezanne was quite old, Emile Bernard steadied 穩定 him as he stumbled絆倒. Cezanne flew into a rage勃然大怒. He could be heard striding 大步around his studio 畫室and shouting that he wouldn’t let anybody “get his hooks鉤 into me.”

Because of these “hooks” he pushed women who could have modeled for him out of his studio, priests, whom he called “pests,”害蟲 out of his life, and Emile Bernard’s theories out of his mind, when they became too insistent.堅持

This loss of flexible有彈性 human contact 接觸; this inability to master 控制new situations; this flight into established habits, in an atmosphere氣氛 which presented no problems; this rigid 嚴格 opposition 相對between theory and practice between the “hook” and the freedom of a recluse隱士—all these symptoms 病徵 permit one to speak of a morbid 病態constitution 身體 and more precisely as , for example, in the case of El Greco, of schizothymia 精神分裂.

The notion of painting “from nature” could be said to arise from the same weakness. His extremely close attention to nature and to color, the inhuman character in his paintings (he said that a face should be painted as an object) his devotion to the visible world: all of these would then only represent 代表 a flight 逃避 from the human world, the alienation 疏離of his humanity 人性.

These conjectures 推測nevertheless do not give any idea of the positive side of his work; one cannot thereby conclude that his painting is a phenomenon of decadence 頹廢 and what Nietzsche called “impoverished貧瘠 life or that it has nothing to say to the educated person.

Zola’s and Emile Bernard’s belief in Cezanne’s failure probably arises from their having put too much emphasis on psychology and their personal knowledge of Cezanne.

It is nonetheless 可是 possible that Cezanne conceived a form of art which, while occasioned 造成by his nervous condition, is valid有效 for everyone. Left to himself, he was able to look at nature as only a human being can. The meaning of his work cannot be determined from his life.

This meaning will not become any clearer in the light of art history—that is, by considering influences (the Italian school and Tintoretto, Delacroix, Courbet, and the impressionists),
Cezanne’s technique 技巧or even his own pronouncements 宣佈on his work.

His first pictures—up to about 1870—are painted fantasies幻想 : a rape強暴, a murder. They are therefore almost always executed 執刑 in broad strokes 筆觸and present the moral 道德physiognomy 生理of the actions rather than their visible aspect.

It is thanks to the impressionists 印象主義, and particularly to Pissarro, that Cezanne later conceived 構想 painting not as the incarnation 化身of imagined scenes, the projection投射 of dreams outward, but as the exact study of appearances: less a work of the studio 畫室 than a working from nature.

Thanks to the impressionists, he abandoned 放棄 the baroque 巴洛克 technique, whose primary 最初 aim is to capture 補捉movement, for small dabs 輕觸 placed close together and for patient hatchings 細線.

He quickly parted ways with the impressionists, however. Impressionism was trying to capture, in the painting, the very way in which objects strike our eyes and attack our senses.

Objects were depicted 描述as they appear to instantaneous 瞬間的 perception, without fixed contours輪廓, bound together by light and air.

To capture this envelope 涵蓋 of light, one had to exclude排除 siennas褐色, ochres黃土色, and black and use only the seven colors of the spectrum光譜.

The color of objects could not be represented simply by putting on the canvas畫布 their local tone, that is, the color they take on isolated 孤立 from their surroundings 環境; one also had to pay attention to the phenomena of contrast 對比 which modify local colors in nature.

Furthermore, by a sort of reversal倒轉, every color we perceive in nature elicits 召喚the appearance of its complement互補; and these complementaries 互補 heighten強化 one another.

To achieve sunlit 被太陽照射colors in a picture which will be seen in the dim light of apartments隔間, not only must there be a green—if you are painting grass— but also the complementary red which will make it vibrate 震動.

Finally, the impressionists break down the local tone itself. One can generally obtain any color by juxtaposing 對以rather than mixing the colors which make it up 組成, thereby achieving a more vibrant震動 hue 顏色.

The result of these procedures 程序 was that the canvas畫布—which no longer corresponded對應 point by point to nature—afforded a generally true impression through the action of the separate parts upon one another.

But at the same time, depicting 描述the atmosphere 氣氛 and breaking up the tones 色調submerged 淹沒 the object and caused it to lose its proper 適當的weight.

The composition 組成 of Cezanne’s palette畫板 leads one to suppose that he had another aim. Instead of the seven colors of the spectrum光譜, one finds eighteen colors—six reds, five yellows, three blues, three greens, and black. The use of warm colors and black shows that Cezanne wants to represent代表 the object, to find it again behind the atmosphere.

Likewise同樣的, he does not, break up the tone; rather, he replaces this technique with graduated漸層colors, a progression of chromatic 彩色的 nuances 纖細 across the object, a modulation 調和 of colors which stays close to the object’s form and to the light it receives.

Doing away with廢除 exact 確實 contours 輪廓 in certain cases, giving color priority優先over the outline— these obviously mean different things for Cezanne and for the impressionists.

The object is no longer covered by reflections 反映and lost in its relationships to the atmosphere 氣氛and other objects: it seems subtly 微妙地 illuminated 照亮 from within, light emanates發出 from it, and the result is an impression of solidity 固體 and material 物質 substance 物體.

Moreover, Cezanne does not give up making the warm colors vibrate震動 but achieves this chromatic 顏色 sensation感覺 through the use of blue.

One must therefore say that Cezanne wished to return to the object without abandoning the impressionist 印象主義 aesthetics 美學 which takes nature as its model.

Emile Bernard reminded him that, for the classical artists, painting demanded 要求outline輪廓,
Composition組成, and distribution 分怖of light. Cezanne replied: “They created pictures; we are attempting a piece of nature.” He said of the old masters that they “replaced reality with imagination and by the abstraction 抽象 which accompanies陪伴 it.”

Of nature, he said, “the artist must conform to 一致 this perfect work of art. Everything comes to us from nature; we exist through it; nothing else is worth remembering.”

He stated that he wanted to make of impressionism “something solid like the art in the museums.”

His painting was paradoxical矛盾: he was pursuing追求 reality without giving up the sensuous感官 surface, with no other guide than the immediate impression of nature, without following the contours輪廓 , with no outline to enclose 圍入 the color, with no perspectival 觀點or pictorial 圖畫
arrangement.

This is what Bernard called Cezanne’s suicide: aiming for reality while denying拒絕給予 himself the means to attain it.

This is the reason for his difficulties and for the distortions 扭曲 one finds in his pictures between 1870 and 1890. Cups and saucers碟子 on a table seen from the side should be elliptical橢圓形 , but Cezanne paints the two ends of the ellipse橢圓 swollen 腫脹 andExpanded擴大.

The work table in his portrait 肖像 of Gustave Geffroy stretches, contrary to相反於 the laws of perspective透視法, into the lower part of picture. In giving up the outline Cezanne was abandoning himself to chaos 混亂of sensation 感覺, which would upset擾亂 the objects and constantly不斷地 suggest illusions幻覺 , as, for example, the illusion we have when we move our heads that objects themselves are moving—if our judgment did not constantly 不斷地 set these appearances straight.

According to Bernard, Cezanne “submerged 淹沒 his painting in ignorance無知 and his mind in shadows 陰影 .” But one cannot really judge his painting in this way except by closing one’s mind to half of what he said and one’s eyes to what he painted.

It is clear from his conversations with Emile Bernard that Cezanne was always seeking 設法 to avoid the ready-made alternatives 替代 suggested to him: sensation versus對抗 judgment; the painter who sees against the painter who thinks; nature versus 對抗 composition 構景; primitivism 原始as opposed to 相對 tradition.

“We have to develop an optics光學,” Cezanne said, “by which I mean a logical vision視覺 —that is, one with no element 元素 of the absurd荒謬.” “Are you speaking of our nature?” asked Bernard. Cezanne: “It has to do with both.” “But aren’t nature and art different?” “I want to make them the same. Art is a personal apperception 統覺, which I embody 具體表現 in sensations and which I ask the understanding to organize into a painting.”‘

But even these formulas 公式 put too much emphasis on the ordinary notions of “sensitivity” or “sensations” and “understanding”—which is why Cezanne could not convince by his arguments and preferred to paint instead.

Rather than apply to his work dichotomies 二分法 more appropriate 適合 to those who sustain 維持 traditions than to those—philosophers or painters—who found them, we would do better to sensitize 敏感於 ourselves to his painting’s own, specific明確 meaning, which is to challenge挑戰 those dichotomies 二分法.

Cezanne did not think he had to choose between feeling and thought, as if he were deciding between chaos and order. He did not want to separate the stable 穩定的 things which we see and the shifting 轉移 way in which they appear.

He wanted to depict 描述 matter as it takes on form, the birth of order 秩序 through spontaneous 自動自發 organization 組織. He makes a basic distinction 區別 not between “the senses” and “the understanding” but rather between the spontaneous organization of the things we perceive 感覺 and the human organization of ideas and sciences.

We see things; we agree about them; we are anchored 固定 in them; and it is with “nature” as our base that we construct 建構 our sciences.Cezanne wanted to paint this primordial 原始 world, and his pictures therefore seem to show nature pure, while photographs of the same landscapes 風景 suggest man’s works, conveniences, and imminent 逼近的 presence.

Cezanne never wished to “paint like a savage 野人.” He wanted to put intelligence, ideas, sciences, perspective 透視, and tradition back in touch with the world of nature which they were intended to comprehend 理解. He wished, as he said, to confront面對 the sciences with the nature “from which they came.”By remaining faithful to the phenomena 現象 in his investigations of perspective 透視, Cezanne discovered what recent psychologists have come to formulate 說明: the lived perspective透視, that which we actually perceive, is not a geometric 幾何的or photographic攝影 one.

The objects we see close at hand appear smaller, those far away seem larger than they do in a photograph. (This is evident in films: an approaching train gets bigger much faster than a real train would under the same circumstances.)To say that a circle seen obliquely傾斜地 is seen as an ellipse橢圓形 is to substitute代替 for our actual perception what we would see if we were cameras: in reality we see a form which oscillates 搖擺 around the ellipse 橢圓 without being an ellipse.

In a portrait 肖像 of Mme 夫人 Cezanne, the border邊緣of the wallpaper on one side of her body does not form a straight line with that on the other: and indeed it is known that if a line passes beneath a wide strip 條紋of paper, the two visible segments 分割 appear dislocated分開. Gustave Geffroy’s table stretches into the bottom of the picture, and indeed, when our eye runs over a large surface, the images it successively連續receives are taken from different points of view, and the whole surface is warped 彎曲.

It is true that I freeze these distortions扭曲 in repainting them on the canvas畫布 ; I stop the spontaneous 自動自發 movement in which they pile up堆積 in perception and tend toward the geometric 幾何的 perspective. This is also what happens with colors. Pink upon gray paper colors the background green.

Academic painting shows the background as gray, assuming that the picture will produce the same effect of contrast 對比as the real object.Impressionist painting uses green in the background in order to achieve a contrast as brilliant as that of objects in nature.Doesn’t this falsify虛假 the color relationship? It would if it stopped there, but the painter’s task is to modify修改 all the other colors in the picture so that they take away from the green background its characteristics 特性 of a real color.

Similarly同樣 , it is Cezanne’s genius that when the overall 全面的composition of the picture is seen globally, perspectival distortions 扭曲are no longer visible in their own right but rather contribute 促成, as they do in natural vision, to impression of an emerging 出現的 order秩序, an object in the act of appearing, organizing itself before our eyes.

In the same way, the contour 輪廓 of an object conceived as a line encircling包圍 the object belongs not to the visible we but to geometry 幾何 .If one outlines輪廓 the shape of an apple with a continuous line, one makes an object of the shape, whereas the contour 輪廓is rather ideal limit toward which the sides of the apple recede消退 in depth.Not to indicate 指示 any shape would be to deprive the objects of their identity.

To trace just a single outline sacrifices 犧牲 depth—that is, the dimension 向度 in which the thing is presented not as spread out before us but as an inexhaustible 耗不盡 reality full of reserves 儲備力.

That is why Cezanne follows the swell膨脹 of the object in modulated調整 colors and indicates 指示 several outlines in blue.Rebounding反彈 among these, one’s glance captures 捕捉 a shape that emerges 出現 from among them all, just as it does in perception.

Nothing could be less arbitrary 任性多變 than these famous distortions扭曲 which, moreover, Cezanne abandoned in his last period, after 1890, when he no longer filled his canvas with colors and when he gave up the closely-woven 密集編織 texture 質料of his still lifes 靜畫

The outline should therefore be a result of the colors if the world is to be given in its true density 密度 .

For the world is a mass without gaps. a system of colors across which the receding 隱退perspective 觀點, the outlines 輪廓, angles 角度, and curves are inscribed鐫刻 like lines of force; the spatial空間 structure vibrates震動 as it is formed.

“The outline and the colors are no longer distinct 區別 from each other. As you paint, you outline輪廓; the more the colors harmonize 和諧, the more the outline becomes precise 準確…. When the color is at its richest, the form has reached plenitude豐富.” Cezanne does not try to use color to suggest the tactile 觸覺 sensations which would give shape and depth.

These distinctions區別 between touch and sight are unknown in primordial原始 perception. It is only as a result of a science of the human body that we finally learn to distinguish between our senses. The lived object is not rediscovered or constructed建造 on the basis of the contributions 貢獻 of the senses; rather, it presents呈現 itself to us from the start as the center from which these contributions radiate煥發.

We see the depth, the smoothness, softness, the hardness of objects; Cezanne even claimed that we see the odor. If the painter is to express the world, the arrangement of his colors must bear within this indivisible 不可分的whole, or else his painting will only hint at things and will not give them in the imperious 絕對必要的 unity, the presence, insurpassable 無法被超越的 plenitude豐富 which is for us the definition of the real.

This is why each brushstroke 筆觸 must satisfy an infinite number of conditions.

Cezanne sometimes pondered 沉思hours at a time before putting down a certain stroke, for, as Bernard said, each stroke must “contain the air, the light, the object, the composition, the character, the outline, and the style.”

Expressing what exists is an endless 永無止境的 task.

Nor did Cezanne neglect the physiognomy 面容 of objects and faces: he simply wanted to capture it emerging出現 from the color.

Painting a face “as an object” is not to strip剝除 it of its “thought.” “I agree that the painter must interpret 解釋it,” said Cezanne. “The painter is not an imbecile 白癡.”

But this interpretation 解釋 should not be a reflection 反映 distinct 不同於 from the act of seeing.

“If I paint all the little blues and all the little browns, I capture and convey表達 his glance眼光. Who gives a damn if they have any idea how one can sadden 悲傷a mouth or make a cheek smile by wedding 連接 a shaded green to a red.”

One’s personality is seen and grasped 捉住 in one’s glance, which is, however, no more than a combination 聯結 of colors. Other minds are given to us only as incarnate 具體表現, as belonging to faces and gestures 姿態.

Countering 反對 with the distinctions of soul and body, thought and vision is of no use here, for Cezanne returns to just that primordial 原始experience from which these notions are derived 得來 and in which they are inseparable.

The painter who conceptualizes 概念化 and seeks the expression first misses the mystery— renewed 更新 every time we look at someone—of a person’s appearing in nature.

In La peal de chagrin Balzac describes a “tablecloth white as a layer of fresh-fallen snow, upon which ,the place settings rose symmetrically 均稱, crowned 蓋住 with blond rolls.”

“All through my youth,” said Cezanne, “I wanted to paint that, that tablecloth of fresh-fallen snow…. Now I know that one must only want to paint ‘rose, symmetrically, the place settings’ and ‘blond rolls.’

If I paint ‘crowned’ I’m done for 完蛋 , you understand? But if I really balance and shade my place settings and rolls麵包 as they are in nature, you can be sure the crowns, the snow and the whole shebang 事情will be there.”

We live in the midst of man-made objects, among tools, in houses, streets, cities, and most of the time we see them only through the human actions which put them to use.

We become used to thinking that all of this exists necessarily and unshakably 無可動搖.

Cezanne’s painting suspends 懸掛 these habits of thought and reveals 顯示the base of inhuman nature upon which man has installed 安置himself.

This is why Cezanne’s people are strange, as if viewed by a creature of another species品種 . Nature itself is stripped of剝除 the attributes屬性 which make it ready for animistic 精靈論communions 交流 : there is no wind in the landscape, no movement on the Lac d’Annecy; the frozen objects hesitate 猶豫as at the beginning of the world.

It is an unfamiliar world in which one is uncomfortable and which forbids all human effusiveness過份熱情.

If one looks at the work of other painters after seeing Cezanne’s paintings, one feels somehow relaxed, just as conversations resumed 重新開始 after a period of mourning 哀悼的 mask the absolute 絕對的 change and restore to the survivors their solidity 團結.

But indeed only a human being is capable of such a vision幻覺, which penetrates 貫穿 right to the root of things beneath the imposed 賦予 order of humanity.

All indications 暗示 are that animals cannot look at things, cannot penetrate them in expectation of 期望 nothing but the truth.

Emile Bernard’s statement 陳述 that a realistic寫實 painter is only an ape人猿 is therefore precisely 準確地 the opposite of the truth, and one sees how Cezanne was able to revive 復活 the classical definition of art: man added to nature.

Cezanne’s painting denies neither science nor tradition. He went to the Louvre every day when he was in Paris.

He believed that one must learn how to paint and that the geometric 幾何的study of planes 平面 and forms is a necessary part of this learning process過程 .

He inquired 詢問 about the geological 地質學 structure of his landscapes風景 , convinced that these abstract 抽象的 relationships, expressed, however, in terms of the visible world, should affect the act of painting.

The rules of anatomy 解剖 and design are present in each stroke 筆觸 of his brush筆刷 just as the rules of the game underlie 作為基礎 each stroke 揮動 of a tennis match’網球賽.

But what motivates 引起動機 the painter’s movement can never be simply perspective 透視 or geometry or the laws governing 支配 the breakdown 分解 of color, or, for that matter, any particular knowledge.

Motivating all the movements from which a picture gradually emerges 出現 there can be only one thing: the landscape in its totality 完全的 and in its absolute絕對的 fullness, precisely準確 what Cezanne called a “motif 主題 .”

He would start by discovering the geological 地質學的foundations 基礎of the landscape; then, according to Mme Cezanne, he would halt 停下來and look at everything with widened eyes, “germinating” 發芽 with the countryside.

The task before him was, first, to forget all he had ever learned from science and, second, through these sciences to recapture 補捉 the structure of the landscape as an emerging 剛出現的organism有機體.

To do this, all the partial views one catches sight of must be welded 鑲嵌together; all that the eye’s versatility 多樣 disperses 擴散的 must be reunited重新聯合 ; one must, as Gasquet put it, “join the wandering hands of nature.”

“A minute of the world is going by which must be painted in its full reality.” His meditation沉思 would suddenly be consummated 圓滿 : “I have a hold on my motif主題 ,” Cezanne would say, and he would explain that the landscape had to be tackled 處理 neither too high nor too low, caught alive in a net which would let nothing escape.

Then he began to paint all parts of the painting at the same time, using patches 塊of color to surround his original charcoal 焦碳 sketch 素描 of the geological 地質的 skeleton架構.

The picture took on 形成 fullness and density密度 ; it grew in structure 結構and balance; it came to maturity 成熟 all at once.

“The landscape thinks itself in me,” he would say, “and I am its consciousness.” Nothing could be farther from naturalism than this intuitive 直覺 science. 這種直覺的科學絕非是自然主義。

Art is not imitation模仿, nor is it something manufactured製造 according to the wishes of instinct 本能or good taste 品味.

It is a process 過程 of expression. Just as the function 功用 of words is to name—that is, to grasp 捉住 the nature of what appears to us in a confused困惑的 way and to place it before us as a recognizable 可認出的 object—so it is up to the painter, said Gasquet, to “objectify客體化,” “project計劃 ,” and “arrest捕捉住 .”

Words do not look like the things they designate指明 ; and a picture is not a trompe-l’oei 立體感而逼真的錯視法l. Cezanne, in his own words, “writes in painting what had never yet been painted, and turns it into painting once and for all一勞永逸地.”

We, forgetting the viscous黏著 , equivocal 曖昧的 appearances, go through them straight to the things they present呈現 .

The painter recaptures重新補捉 and converts轉移 into visible objects what would, without him, remain walled up 封閉in the separate 分開的 life of each consciousness: the vibration 震動 of appearances which is the cradle 搖籃of things.

Only one emotion 情感is possible for this painter—the feeling of strangeness陌生 — and only one lyricism抒情曲—that of the continual 不斷地 rebirth 重新誕生 of existence.

Leonardo da Vinci’s motto 格言 was persistent 持續 rigor精力 , and all the classical works on the art of poetry tell us that the creation of art is no easy matter. Cezanne’s difficulties—like those of Balzac or Mallarme—are of a different nature.

Balzac (probably based on Delacroix’s comments) imagined a painter who wants to express life through the use of color alone and who keeps his masterpiece 傑作 hidden.

When Frenhofer dies, his friends find nothing but a chaos 混亂 of colors and elusive 難理解的 lines, a wall of painting. Cezanne was moved to tears When he read Le chef-d ‘oeuvre inconnu and declared 宣怖 that he himself was Frenhofer.

The quest 追求 of Balzac, himself obsessed 著迷於 with “realization,” sheds light on 使真相大白 Cezanne’s. In La peau de chagrin Balzac speaks of “a thought to be expressed,” “a system to be built,” “a science to be explained.”

He makes Louis Lambert, one of the abortive夭折的 geniuses of the Comedie Humaine, say: “I am heading 出發 toward certain discoveries . . ., but how shall I describe the power which binds綁住 my hands, stops my mouth, and drags 拖住 me in the opposite direction from my vocation職業?”

To say that Balzac set himself to understand the society of his time is not sufficient. It is no superhuman 超人的task 工作 to describe the typical traveling salesman, to “dissect 解剖 the teaching profession,” or even to lay the foundations 基礎 of a sociology社會學.

Once he had named 命名 the visible forces such as money and passion激情, once he had described the manifest 明顯的 workings 結構of things, Balzac wondered where it all led, what the impetus推動力 behind it was, what the meaning was of, for example, a Europe “whose efforts tend 傾向 toward some unknown mystery神秘 of civilization.”

In short, he wanted to understand what inner force holds掌控 the world together and causes the proliferation 增多 of visible forms.

Frenhofer had the same idea about the meaning of painting: “A hand is not simply part of the body, but the expression and continuation 繼續of a thought which must be captured and conveyed…. That is the real struggle! 奮鬥

Many painters triumph 勝利 instinctively本能地, unaware of this theme 主題 of art. You draw a woman, but you do not see her.”

The artist is the one who arrests 捕捉 the spectacle 景象in which most men take part without really seeing it and who makes it visible to the most “human” among them.There is thus no art for pleasure’s sake alone. One can invent pleasurable objects by linking old ideas in a new way and by presenting forms that have been seen before. This way of painting or speaking “second hand” is what is generally meant by culture.

Cezanne’s or Balzac’s artist is not satisfied to be a cultured animal but takes up culture from its inception 開始 and founds it anew 重新: he speaks as the first man spoke and paints as if no one had ever painted before.

What he expresses cannot, therefore, be the translation of a clearly defined thought, since such clear thoughts are those that have already been said within ourselves or by others.

“Conception 觀念 ” cannot precede 預先存在 “execution 表現.” Before expression, there is nothing but a vague 模糊的 fever 狂熱, and only the work itself, completed and understood, will prove that there was something rather than nothing to be found there. Because he has returned to the source 來源of silent and solitary孤獨 experience on which culture and the exchange of ideas have been built in order to take cognizance 認出 of it, the artist launches開始 his work just as a man once launched the first word, not knowing whether it will be anything more than a shout, whether it can detach抽離 itself from the flow of individual life in which it was born and give the independent existence of an identifiable 可辨認meaning to the future of that same individual life, or to the monads 單子coexisting共存 with it, or the open community of future monads單子.

The meaning of what the artist is going to say does not exist anywhere— not in things, which as yet have no meaning, nor in the artist himself, in his unformulated 尚未形成的 life. It summons one away from the already constituted 組成的 reason in which “cultured men” are content to shut themselves, toward a reason which would embrace 擁抱 its own origins.

To Bernard’s attempt to bring him back to human intelligence, Cezanne replied: “I am oriented toward the intelligence of the Pater Omnipotens.” He was, in any case, oriented toward the idea or project 計畫 of an infinite 無限 Logos宇宙法則.

Cezanne’s uncertainty and solitude are not essentially 未必 explained by his nervous temperament性情 but by the purpose of his work.

Heredity 遺傳 may well have given him rich sensations感覺 , strong emotions, and a vague feeling of anguish痛苦 or mystery which upset擾亂 the life he might have wished for himself and which cut him off 隔離 from humanity; but these qualities特質 cannot create a work of art without the expressive act, and they have no bearing on關聯 the difficulties or the virtues 品德 of that act.

Cezanne’s difficulties are those of the first word. He thought himself powerless 無力 because he was not omnipotent 萬能, because he was not God and wanted nevertheless to portray 描述the world, to change it completely into a spectacle 景象, to make visible how the world touches us.

A new theory of physics can be proven because calculations 計算 connect the idea or meaning of it with standards of measurement 測量 already common to all human beings.

It is not enough for a painter like Cezanne, an artist, or a philosopher, to create and express an idea; they must also awaken the experiences which will make their idea take root 生根in the consciousness of others. If a work is successful, it has the strange power of being self-teaching. The reader or spectator觀眾, by following the clues線索 of the book or painting, by establishing the concurring同時 points of internal 內在 evidence 證據and being brought up short 中斷 when straying 漫遊 too far to the left or right, guided by the confused 困惑 clarity 澄清of style, will in the end find what was intended打算 to be communicated.

The painter can do no more than construct 建造an image; he must wait for this image to come to life for other people.

When it does, the work of art will have united 聯合 these separate 分開的 lives; it will no longer exist in only one of them like a stubborn 頑固的 dream or a
persistent 持續的 delirium 幻覺, nor will it exist only in space as a colored piece of canvas畫布. It will dwell居住 undivided 沒有分裂in several minds, with a claim 宣稱 on every possible mind like a perennial 永恆的 acquisition 獲得.

Thus, the “hereditary 遺傳的 traits 特性,” the “influences”—the accidents in Cezanne’s life—are the text 本文 which nature and history gave him to decipher詮釋. They give only the literal實質 meaning of his work. But an artist’s creations, like a person’s free decisions, impose on this given 已知事實 a figurative比喻的 sense which did not exist before them.

If Cezanne’s life seems to us to carry the seeds種子 of his work within it, it is because we get to know his work first and see the circumstances 環境 of his life through it, charging 賦予them with a meaning borrowed from that work.

If the givens 已知事實for Cezanne which we have been enumerating列舉, and which we spoke of as pressing 迫切的conditions, were to figure 包含in the web 網絡of projects 計畫which he was, they could have done so only by presenting呈現 themselves to him as what he had to live, leaving how to live it undetermined 未決定.

An imposed 賦予 theme 主題at the start, they become, when replaced 代替 in the existence of which they are part, the monogram 組合圖案 and the symbol 符號 of a life which freely interpreted 解釋itself.

But let us make no mistake about this freedom. Let us not imagine an abstract 抽象的 force which could superimpose 優先 賦予its effects on life’s “givens” 已知事實or cause breaches 破裂in life’s development. Although it is certain that a person’s life does not explain his work, it is equally certain that the two are connected.

The truth is that that work to be done called for要求 that life. From the very start, Cezanne’s life found its only equilibrium平衡 by leaning on依靠 the work that was still in the future. His life was the preliminary 最初 project of his future work. The work to come is hinted at 暗示, but it would be wrong to take these hints 暗示for causes, although they do make a single adventure of his life and work. Here we are beyond causes and effects; both come together in the simultaneity 同時性 of an eternal Cezanne who is at the same time the formula公式 of what he wanted to be and what he wanted to do.

There is a relationship between Cezanne’s schizoid 精神分裂 temperament 性情 and his work because the work reveals 顯示 a metaphysical形上學的
meaning of his illness (schizothymia as the reduction 化簡 of the world to the totality 全部of frozen appearances and the suspension懸掛 of expressive values); because the illness thus ceases being an absurd 荒謬 fact and destiny命運 to become a general possibility of human existence confronting面臨, in a consistent 一貫的, principled 原則的way, one of its paradoxes矛盾—the phenomenon 現象of expression—and because in this to be schizoid 精神分裂 and to be Cezanne are one and the same thing.

It is therefore impossible to separate分開creative freedom from that behavior, as far as possible from deliberate刻意, already evident明顯 in Cezanne’s first gestures 手勢as a child and in the way he reacted to反應 things.

The meaning Cezanne gave to objects and faces in his paintings presented itself to him in the world as it appeared to him. Cezanne simply released 釋放 that meaning: it was the objects and the faces themselves as he saw them that demanded要求 to be painted, and Cezanne simply expressed what they wanted to say.

How, then, can any freedom be involved? True, the conditions of existence can only affect consciousness indirectly間接, through raisons d’etre 存在的理性 and the justifications 理由consciousness offers to itself.

We can only see before us, and in the form of goals目標 , what it is that we are—so that our life always has the form of a project計畫 or choice, and thus seems to us self caused. But to say that we are from the start our way of aiming 目標at a particular future would be to say that our project has already been determined with our first ways of being, that the choice has already been made for us with our first breath.

If we experience no external constraints 約束, it is because we are our whole exterior 外在.

That eternal永恆的 Cezanne whom we see springing出來 forth from the start and who then brought upon the human Cezanne the events and influences deemed認為 exterior, and who planned all that happened to the latter—that attitude 態度 toward humanity and toward the world which was not chosen through deliberation刻意—may be free from 免除 external causes, but is it free in respect to 關於itself?

Is the choice not pushed back beyond life, and can a choice exist where there is as yet no clearly articulated表達 field of possibilities, only one probability and, as it were, only one temptation誘惑?

If I am a certain project from birth, the given and the created are indistinguishable 區別 in me, and it is therefore impossible to name a single gesture which is merely hereditary 遺傳 or innate 天生, a single gesture 姿態 which is not spontaneous自動自發—but also impossible to name a single gesture which is absolutely 絕對 new in regard to that way of being in the world which, from the very beginning, is myself.

There is no difference between saying that our life is completely constructed建造 and that it is completely given. If there is true freedom, it can only come about in the course of our life by our going beyond our original situation and yet not ceasing 停止 to be the same.

Such is the problem. Two things are certain about freedom: that we are never determined and yet that we never change, since, looking back on what we were, we can always find hints of what we have become.

It is up to us to understand both these things simultaneously同時, as well as the way freedom dawns啟明 in us without breaking our bonds 默契 with the world.Such bonds are always there, even and above all when we refuse to admit they exist.

Inspired by the paintings of da Vinci 達文西 , Valery梵樂希 described a monster 怪物of pure freedom, without mistresses女主人, creditors債主, anecdotes軼事, or adventures. No dream intervenes 介入 between himself and the things themselves; nothing taken for granted 視為當然 supports his certainties 確定性; and he does not read his fate命運 in any favorite image, such as Pascal’s abyss 懸崖. Instead of struggling against 奮鬥對抗the monsters怪物 he has understood what makes them tick 起作用, has disarmed解除武裝 them by his attention, and has reduced 化簡 them to the state of known things.

“Nothing could be more free, that is, less human, than his judgments 判斷on love and death. He hints at them in a few fragments 片斷 from his notebooks筆記: ‘In the full force of its passion激情 ,’ he says more or less explicitly明確 , ‘love is something so ugly that the human race 種族 would die out (la natura si perderebbe) if lovers could see what they were doing.’

This contempt藐視 is brought out 表現 in various sketches描述, since the leisurely悠閒examination of certain things is, after all, the height of scorn藐視. Thus, he now and again draws anatomical 解剖 unions 結合, frightful 可怕的crosssections 交會 of love’s very act.”2

He has complete mastery駕馭 of his means 工具, he does what he wants, going at will from knowledge to life with a superior 高級 elegance 優雅. Everything he did was done knowingly, and the artistic process過程 , like the act of breathing or living, is not beyond his ken 視野.

He has discovered the “central attitude態度 ,” on the basis of which it is equally possible to know, to act, and to create because action and life, when turned into 成為 exercises, are not contrary相反 to detached 隔離的knowledge.

He is an “intellectual 知識的 power”; he is a “man of the mind.” Let us look more closely. For Leonardo there was no revelation啟明 ; as Valery said, no abyss懸崖 yawned張開 at his right hand.Undoubtedly 無疑的 true. But in Saint Anne, the Virgin, and Child, the Virgin’s cloak 衣袍suggests a vulture 禿鷹 where it touches the face of the Child.

There is that fragment 片斷 on the flight 飛行 of birds where da Vinci suddenly interrupts 中斷himself to pursue追求 a childhood memory: “I seem to have been destined 註定 to be especially concerned with the vulture禿鷹, for one of the first things I remember about my childhood is how a vulture came to me when I was still in the cradle搖籃, forced open my mouth with its tail 尾巴, and struck me several times between the lips with it.”3

So even this transparent 透明的 consciousness has its enigma謎 , whether truly a child’s memory or a fantasy 幻想 of the grown man. It did not come out of nowhere憑空 , nor did it sustain 維持itself alone.

We are caught in a secret history, in a forest of symbols符號. One would surely protest 抗議if Freud were to decipher 解釋 the riddle 謎from what we know about the meaning of the flight of birds and about fellatio口交 fantasies幻想 and their relation to the period of nursing嬰兒.

But it is still a fact that to the ancient Egyptians the vulture was a symbol of maternity母親 because they believed all vultures were female and that they were impregnated 懷孕by the wind.

It is also a fact that the Church Fathers used this legend傳說 to refute反駁, on the grounds 理由 of natural history, those who were unwilling to believe in a virgin處女 birth, and it is probable that Leonardo came across偶遇 the legend傳說 in the course of 過程his endless 無窮盡reading. He found in it the symbol符號 of his own fate命運: he was the illegitimate son 私生子of a rich notary 公證人 who married the noble Donna Albiera the very year Leonardo was born.

Having no children by her, he took Leonardo into his home when the boy was five. Thus Leonardo spent the first four years of his life with his mother, the deserted被拋棄 peasant 農夫的girl; he was a child without a father, and he got to know the world in the sole 只有company陪伴 of that unhappy mother who seemed to have miraculously 奇蹟一般created him.

If we now recall 回憶 that he was never known to have a mistress 情婦or even to have felt anything like passion激情 ; that he was accused控訴—but acquitted宣告無罪 —of sodomy雞姦; that his diary, which tells us nothing about many other, larger expenses, notes with meticulous 細節 detail the costs of his mother’s burial埋葬, as well as the cost of linen and clothing for two of his students—it is no great leap 跳躍 to conclude that Leonardo loved only one woman, his mother, and that this love left no room for anything but platonic 柏拉圖tenderness 溫柔he felt for the young boys surrounding him.

In the four decisive years of his childhood he had formed a fundamental 基本的 attachment 感情, which he had to give up when he was recalled to his father’s home, and into which he had poured all his resources 資源of love and all his power of abandon 放縱.

As for his thirst 渴望 for life, he had no other choice but to use it in the investigation調查 and knowledge of the world, and, since he himself had been “detached隔離,” he had tobecome that intellectual 知識的 power, that man who was all mind, that stranger among men.

Indifferent, incapable of any strong indignation奮怒 , love or hate, he left his paintings unfinished to devote his time to bizarre古怪的 experiments; he became a person inwhom his contemporaries 當代人 sensed a mystery神秘.

It was as if Leonardo had never quite完全 grown up, as if all the places in his heart had already been spoken for, as if the spirit of investigation調查 was a way for him to escape from life, as if he had invested 投注all his power of assent 同意in the first years of his life and had remained true to his childhood right to the end.

His games were those of a child. Vasari tells how “he made up 發明 a wax 蠟油 paste黏土 and, during his walks, he would model 模擬 from it very delicate 微妙 animals, hollow 空洞and filled with air; when he breathed into them, they would fly; when the air had escaped, they would fall to the ground.

When the wine-grower種植葡萄酒主人 from Belvedere found a very unusual lizard蜥蝪, Leonardo made wings for it out of skin of other lizards and filled these wings with mercury水銀 so that they waved and quivered 振動whenever the lizard moved; he likewise 同樣made eyes, a beard, and horns角 for it in the same way, tamed馴服 it, put it in a box, and used the lizard to terrify嚇 his friends.”4

He left his work unfinished, just as his father had abandoned 放棄 him. He paid no heed 注意to authority 權威 and trusted only nature and his own judgment 判斷 in matters of knowledge, as is often the case with people who have not been raised in the shadow 陰影 of a father’s
intimidating 嚇人的and protective power.

Thus even that pure power of examination, that solitude孤獨, that curiosity—which are the essence 本質of mind—only developed in da Vinci in relation to his personal history. At the height of his freedom he was, in that very freedom, the child he had been; he was free on one side only because bound 跳躍 on the other. Becoming a pure consciousness is just another way of taking a stand立場 in relation to the world and other people.

Leonardo had learned this attitude in assuming 假定 the situation into which his birth and childhood had put him. There can be no consciousness that is not sustained維持 by its primordial原始 involvement參與 in life and by the manner of this involvement. Whatever is arbitrary 任意 in Freud’s explanations cannot in this context 本文 discredit 不足釁任psychoanalytic intuition直覺.

True, the reader is stopped more than once by the lack of evidence證據. Why this and not something else? The question seems all the more pressing迫切 since Freud often offers several interpretations解釋, each symptom病徵 being “over-determined” according to him.

Finally, it is obvious that a doctrine信條 which brings in sexuality性 everywhere cannot, by the rules of inductive 推論的logic邏輯, establish its effectiveness anywhere, since, excluding all differential cases beforehand事先 , it deprives 剝奪itself of any counterevidence反證.

This is how one triumphs勝利 over psychoanalysis, but only on paper. For if the suggestions of the analyst 分析師 can never be proven, neither can they be eliminated減少: how would it be possible to credit 推崇 chance with the complex複雜的 correspondences對應 which the psychoanalyst discovers between the child and the adult?

How can we deny否認 that psychoanalysis has taught us to notice echoes回聲, allusions 暗示, repetitions 重複from one moment of life to another—a concatenation 連續 we would not dream of doubting if Freud had stated 陳述the theory correctly 正確?

Unlike the natural sciences, psychoanalysis was not meant to give us necessary relations of cause and effect but to point to motivational 動機 relationships which are in principle simply possible.

We should not take Leonardo’s fantasy 幻想 of the vulture 禿鷹, or the infantile 嬰兒past which it masks掩蓋, for a force which determined his future. Rather, it is like the words of the oracle預言 , an ambiguous 曖昧symbol符號 which applies in advance 事先 to several possible chains鎖鏈 of events事件.

To be more precise準確: in every life, one’s birth and one’s past define categories分類 or basic dimensions 向度 which do not impose 賦予any particular act but which can be found in all.

Whether Leonardo yielded to屈服 his childhood or whether he wished to flee from it, he could never have been other than he was.

The very decisions which transform 轉變 us are always made in reference to提到 a factual situation; such a situation can of course be accepted or refused, but it cannot fail to give us our impetus 動機 nor to be for us, as a situation “to be accepted” or “to be refused,” the incarnation 具體化身 of the value we give to it. If it is the aim of psychoanalysis to describe this exchange between future and past and to show how each life muses over 沉思riddles 謎語 whose final meaning is nowhere written down, then we have no right to demand inductive 推論 rigor 精力from it.

The psychoanalyst’s hermeneutic 解釋musing沉思, which multiplies 加倍 the communications between us and ourselves, which takes sexuality性 as the symbol 符號of existence and existence as symbol of sexuality, and which looks in the past for the meaning of the future and in the future for the meaning of the past, is better suited than rigorous 精力充沛 induction推論 to the circular 循環 movement of our lives, where the future rests on依靠 the past, the past on the future, and where everything symbolizes 象徵everything else.

Psychoanalysis does not make freedom impossible; it teaches us to think of this freedom concretely具體的, as a creative revival 復活of ourselves, always, in retrospect回顧, faithful 忠實於to ourselves.

Thus it is true both that the life of an author can teach us nothing and that—if we know how to interpret 解釋it—we can find everything in it, since it opens onto his work. Just as we may observe觀察 the movements of an unknown animal without understanding the law that inhabits 居住 and controls them, so Cezanne’s observers 觀察者did not divine 推測the transmutations轉變 he imposed 賦予on events 事件and experiences; they were blind to his significance重要, to that glow 光輝 from out of nowhere which surrounded him from time to time有時候 .

But he himself was never at the center of himself: nine days out of ten all he saw around him was the wretchedness悲慘 of his empirical 試驗性的 life and of his unsuccessful attempts, the debris of an unknown celebrations

Yet it was in the world that he had to realize his freedom, with colors upon a canvas畫布. It was from the approval 同意 of others that he had to await the proof 證據of his worth. That is why he questioned the picture emerging 出現beneath his hand, why he hung on 逗留the glances other people directed toward his canvas畫布. That is why he never finished working. We never get away from our life. We never see ideas or freedom face to face.

塞尚的疑惑

September 26, 2009

Cezanne’s Doubt 塞尚的疑惑
Maurice Merleau-Ponty 龐蒂

It took him one hundred working sessions 節課 for a still life靜畫, one hundred- fifty sittings 模特兒作姿 for a portrait 肖像. What we call his work was, for him, an attempt企圖 , an approach方法 to painting.

In September of 1906, at the age sixty-seven—one month before his death—he wrote: “I was in such a state 狀態 of mental 精神 agitation 激動, in such great confusion 混亂 that for a time I feared my weak reason 理性would not survive存活…. Now it seems I am better that I see more clearly the direction my studies are taking. Will I arrive at the goal, so intensely 強烈sought and so long pursued追求? I am working from nature, and it seems to me I am making slow progress”.

Painting was his world and his mode 模式of existence. He worked alone without students, without admiration 崇拜 from his family, without encouragement from the critics. He painted on the afternoon of the day his mother died.

In 1870 he was painting at l’Estaque while the police were after him for dodging逃避 the draft 徵召. And still he had moments of doubt about this vocation職業.

As he grew old, he wondered whether the novelty 新奇of his painting might not come from trouble with his eyes, whether his whole life had not been based upon an accident of his body.

The hesitation 猶豫or muddle-headedness糊塗 of his contemporaries 當代人equaled 相等 this strain 壓力and doubt. “The painting of a drunken privy 私人的cleaner清潔工,” said a critic in 1905.

Even today, C. Mauclair finds Cezanne’s admissions 承認 of powerlessness無力感 an argument 論點 against 不利於him.

Meanwhile, Cezanne’s paintings have spread throughout the world. Why so much uncertainty不確定, so much labor努力. so many failures, and, suddenly, the greatest success?

Zola, Cezanne’s friend from childhood, was the first to find genius天才 in him and the first to speak of him as a “genius 天才 gone wrong出毛病.”

An observer 觀察者of Cezanne’s life such as Zola, more concerned with his character than with the meaning of his painting, might well很有理由 consider it a manifestation證明 of ill-health.

For as far back as 1852, upon entering the College Bourbon at Aix, Cezanne worried his friends with his fits of temper脾氣 and depression沮喪. Seven years later, having decided to become an artist, he doubted his talent and did not dare to ask his father—a hatter and later a banker—to send him to Paris.

Zola’s letters reproach 譴責 him for his instability不穩定, his weakness, and
his indecision 猶豫. When finally he came to Paris, he wrote: “The only thing I have changed is my location 位置: my ennui has followed me.” He could not tolerate容忍 discussions, because they wore him out 精疲力盡and he could never give his reasoning.

His nature was basically anxious. Thinking that he would die young, he made his will at the age of forty-two; at forty-six he was for six months the victim受害者 of a violent, tormented折磨, overwhelming 壓倒passion 激情of which no one knows the outcome and to which he would never refer提到.

At fifty-one he withdrew 隱退 to Aix, where he found landscape 風景best suited to適合 his genius but where also he returned to the world of his childhood, his mother and his sister.

After the death of his mother, Cezanne turned to his son for support. “Life is terrifying,” he would often say. Religion, which he then set about 開始practicing for the first time, began for him in the fear of life and the fear of death.

“It is fear,” he explained to a friend; “I feel I will be on earth for another four days—what then? I believe in life after death, and I don’t want to risk 冒險roasting烤焦 in aeternum烤箱.”

Although his religion later deepened, its original motivation動機 was the need to put his life in order 有條理 and be relieved of it. He became more and more timid膽小, mistrustful不信任, and sensitive敏感.

Occasionally he would visit Paris, but when he ran into 遇到 friends he would motion 做動作to them from a distance not to approach接近 him. In 1903, after his pictures had begun to sell in Paris at twice the price of Monet’s and when young men like Joachim Gasquet and Emile Bernard came to see him and ask him questions, he unbent 不屈服a little.

But his fits of anger continued. (In Aix a child once hit him as he passed by; after that he could not bear any contact接觸.)

One day when Cezanne was quite old, Emile Bernard steadied 穩定 him as he stumbled絆倒. Cezanne flew into a rage勃然大怒. He could be heard striding 大步around his studio 畫室and shouting that he wouldn’t let anybody “get his hooks鉤 into me.”

Because of these “hooks” he pushed women who could have modeled for him out of his studio, priests, whom he called “pests,”害蟲 out of his life, and Emile Bernard’s theories out of his mind, when they became too insistent.堅持

This loss of flexible有彈性 human contact 接觸; this inability to master 控制new situations; this flight into established habits, in an atmosphere氣氛 which presented no problems; this rigid 嚴格 opposition 相對between theory and practice between the “hook” and the freedom of a recluse隱士—all these symptoms 病徵 permit one to speak of a morbid 病態constitution 身體 and more precisely as , for example, in the case of El Greco, of schizothymia 精神分裂.

The notion of painting “from nature” could be said to arise from the same weakness. His extremely close attention to nature and to color, the inhuman character in his paintings (he said that a face should be painted as an object) his devotion to the visible world: all of these would then only represent 代表 a flight 逃避 from the human world, the alienation 疏離of his humanity 人性.

These conjectures 推測nevertheless do not give any idea of the positive side of his work; one cannot thereby conclude that his painting is a phenomenon of decadence 頹廢 and what Nietzsche called “impoverished貧瘠 life or that it has nothing to say to the educated person.

Zola’s and Emile Bernard’s belief in Cezanne’s failure probably arises from their having put too much emphasis on psychology and their personal knowledge of Cezanne.

It is nonetheless 可是 possible that Cezanne conceived a form of art which, while occasioned 造成by his nervous condition, is valid有效 for everyone. Left to himself, he was able to look at nature as only a human being can. The meaning of his work cannot be determined from his life.

This meaning will not become any clearer in the light of art history—that is, by considering influences (the Italian school and Tintoretto, Delacroix, Courbet, and the impressionists),
Cezanne’s technique 技巧or even his own pronouncements 宣佈on his work.

His first pictures—up to about 1870—are painted fantasies幻想 : a rape強暴, a murder. They are therefore almost always executed 執刑 in broad strokes 筆觸and present the moral 道德physiognomy 生理of the actions rather than their visible aspect.

It is thanks to the impressionists 印象主義, and particularly to Pissarro, that Cezanne later conceived 構想 painting not as the incarnation 化身of imagined scenes, the projection投射 of dreams outward, but as the exact study of appearances: less a work of the studio 畫室 than a working from nature.

Thanks to the impressionists, he abandoned 放棄 the baroque 巴洛克 technique, whose primary 最初 aim is to capture 補捉movement, for small dabs 輕觸 placed close together and for patient hatchings 細線.

He quickly parted ways with the impressionists, however. Impressionism was trying to capture, in the painting, the very way in which objects strike our eyes and attack our senses.

Objects were depicted 描述as they appear to instantaneous 瞬間的 perception, without fixed contours輪廓, bound together by light and air.

To capture this envelope 涵蓋 of light, one had to exclude排除 siennas褐色, ochres黃土色, and black and use only the seven colors of the spectrum光譜.

The color of objects could not be represented simply by putting on the canvas畫布 their local tone, that is, the color they take on isolated 孤立 from their surroundings 環境; one also had to pay attention to the phenomena of contrast 對比 which modify local colors in nature.

Furthermore, by a sort of reversal倒轉, every color we perceive in nature elicits 召喚the appearance of its complement互補; and these complementaries 互補 heighten強化 one another.

To achieve sunlit 被太陽照射colors in a picture which will be seen in the dim light of apartments隔間, not only must there be a green—if you are painting grass— but also the complementary red which will make it vibrate 震動.

Finally, the impressionists break down the local tone itself. One can generally obtain any color by juxtaposing 對以rather than mixing the colors which make it up 組成, thereby achieving a more vibrant震動 hue 顏色.

The result of these procedures 程序 was that the canvas畫布—which no longer corresponded對應 point by point to nature—afforded a generally true impression through the action of the separate parts upon one another.

But at the same time, depicting 描述the atmosphere 氣氛 and breaking up the tones 色調submerged 淹沒 the object and caused it to lose its proper 適當的weight.

The composition 組成 of Cezanne’s palette畫板 leads one to suppose that he had another aim. Instead of the seven colors of the spectrum光譜, one finds eighteen colors—six reds, five yellows, three blues, three greens, and black. The use of warm colors and black shows that Cezanne wants to represent代表 the object, to find it again behind the atmosphere.

Likewise同樣的, he does not, break up the tone; rather, he replaces this technique with graduated漸層colors, a progression of chromatic 彩色的 nuances 纖細 across the object, a modulation 調和 of colors which stays close to the object’s form and to the light it receives.

Doing away with廢除 exact 確實 contours 輪廓 in certain cases, giving color priority優先over the outline— these obviously mean different things for Cezanne and for the impressionists.

The object is no longer covered by reflections 反映and lost in its relationships to the atmosphere 氣氛and other objects: it seems subtly 微妙地 illuminated 照亮 from within, light emanates發出 from it, and the result is an impression of solidity 固體 and material 物質 substance 物體.

Moreover, Cezanne does not give up making the warm colors vibrate震動 but achieves this chromatic 顏色 sensation感覺 through the use of blue.

One must therefore say that Cezanne wished to return to the object without abandoning the impressionist 印象主義 aesthetics 美學 which takes nature as its model.

Emile Bernard reminded him that, for the classical artists, painting demanded 要求outline輪廓,
Composition組成, and distribution 分怖of light. Cezanne replied: “They created pictures; we are attempting a piece of nature.” He said of the old masters that they “replaced reality with imagination and by the abstraction 抽象 which accompanies陪伴 it.”

Of nature, he said, “the artist must conform to 一致 this perfect work of art. Everything comes to us from nature; we exist through it; nothing else is worth remembering.”

He stated that he wanted to make of impressionism “something solid like the art in the museums.”

His painting was paradoxical矛盾: he was pursuing追求 reality without giving up the sensuous感官 surface, with no other guide than the immediate impression of nature, without following the contours輪廓 , with no outline to enclose 圍入 the color, with no perspectival 觀點or pictorial 圖畫
arrangement.

This is what Bernard called Cezanne’s suicide: aiming for reality while denying拒絕給予 himself the means to attain it.

This is the reason for his difficulties and for the distortions 扭曲 one finds in his pictures between 1870 and 1890. Cups and saucers碟子 on a table seen from the side should be elliptical橢圓形 , but Cezanne paints the two ends of the ellipse橢圓 swollen 腫脹 andExpanded擴大.

The work table in his portrait 肖像 of Gustave Geffroy stretches, contrary to相反於 the laws of perspective透視法, into the lower part of picture. In giving up the outline Cezanne was abandoning himself to chaos 混亂of sensation 感覺, which would upset擾亂 the objects and constantly不斷地 suggest illusions幻覺 , as, for example, the illusion we have when we move our heads that objects themselves are moving—if our judgment did not constantly 不斷地 set these appearances straight.

According to Bernard, Cezanne “submerged 淹沒 his painting in ignorance無知 and his mind in shadows 陰影 .” But one cannot really judge his painting in this way except by closing one’s mind to half of what he said and one’s eyes to what he painted.

It is clear from his conversations with Emile Bernard that Cezanne was always seeking 設法 to avoid the ready-made alternatives 替代 suggested to him: sensation versus對抗 judgment; the painter who sees against the painter who thinks; nature versus 對抗 composition 構景; primitivism 原始as opposed to 相對 tradition.

“We have to develop an optics光學,” Cezanne said, “by which I mean a logical vision視覺 —that is, one with no element 元素 of the absurd荒謬.” “Are you speaking of our nature?” asked Bernard. Cezanne: “It has to do with both.” “But aren’t nature and art different?” “I want to make them the same. Art is a personal apperception 統覺, which I embody 具體表現 in sensations and which I ask the understanding to organize into a painting.”‘

But even these formulas 公式 put too much emphasis on the ordinary notions of “sensitivity” or “sensations” and “understanding”—which is why Cezanne could not convince by his arguments and preferred to paint instead.

Rather than apply to his work dichotomies 二分法 more appropriate 適合 to those who sustain 維持 traditions than to those—philosophers or painters—who found them, we would do better to sensitize 敏感於 ourselves to his painting’s own, specific明確 meaning, which is to challenge挑戰 those dichotomies 二分法.

Cezanne did not think he had to choose between feeling and thought, as if he were deciding between chaos and order. He did not want to separate the stable 穩定的 things which we see and the shifting 轉移 way in which they appear.

He wanted to depict 描述 matter as it takes on form, the birth of order 秩序 through spontaneous 自動自發 organization 組織. He makes a basic distinction 區別 not between “the senses” and “the understanding” but rather between the spontaneous organization of the things we perceive 感覺 and the human organization of ideas and sciences.

We see things; we agree about them; we are anchored 固定 in them; and it is with “nature” as our base that we construct 建構 our sciences.Cezanne wanted to paint this primordial 原始 world, and his pictures therefore seem to show nature pure, while photographs of the same landscapes 風景 suggest man’s works, conveniences, and imminent 逼近的 presence.

Cezanne never wished to “paint like a savage 野人.” He wanted to put intelligence, ideas, sciences, perspective 透視, and tradition back in touch with the world of nature which they were intended to comprehend 理解. He wished, as he said, to confront面對 the sciences with the nature “from which they came.”By remaining faithful to the phenomena 現象 in his investigations of perspective 透視, Cezanne discovered what recent psychologists have come to formulate 說明: the lived perspective透視, that which we actually perceive, is not a geometric 幾何的or photographic攝影 one.

The objects we see close at hand appear smaller, those far away seem larger than they do in a photograph. (This is evident in films: an approaching train gets bigger much faster than a real train would under the same circumstances.)To say that a circle seen obliquely傾斜地 is seen as an ellipse橢圓形 is to substitute代替 for our actual perception what we would see if we were cameras: in reality we see a form which oscillates 搖擺 around the ellipse 橢圓 without being an ellipse.

In a portrait 肖像 of Mme 夫人 Cezanne, the border邊緣of the wallpaper on one side of her body does not form a straight line with that on the other: and indeed it is known that if a line passes beneath a wide strip 條紋of paper, the two visible segments 分割 appear dislocated分開. Gustave Geffroy’s table stretches into the bottom of the picture, and indeed, when our eye runs over a large surface, the images it successively連續receives are taken from different points of view, and the whole surface is warped 彎曲.

It is true that I freeze these distortions扭曲 in repainting them on the canvas畫布 ; I stop the spontaneous 自動自發 movement in which they pile up堆積 in perception and tend toward the geometric 幾何的 perspective. This is also what happens with colors. Pink upon gray paper colors the background green.

Academic painting shows the background as gray, assuming that the picture will produce the same effect of contrast 對比as the real object.Impressionist painting uses green in the background in order to achieve a contrast as brilliant as that of objects in nature.Doesn’t this falsify虛假 the color relationship? It would if it stopped there, but the painter’s task is to modify修改 all the other colors in the picture so that they take away from the green background its characteristics 特性 of a real color.

Similarly同樣 , it is Cezanne’s genius that when the overall 全面的composition of the picture is seen globally, perspectival distortions 扭曲are no longer visible in their own right but rather contribute 促成, as they do in natural vision, to impression of an emerging 出現的 order秩序, an object in the act of appearing, organizing itself before our eyes.

In the same way, the contour 輪廓 of an object conceived as a line encircling包圍 the object belongs not to the visible we but to geometry 幾何 .If one outlines輪廓 the shape of an apple with a continuous line, one makes an object of the shape, whereas the contour 輪廓is rather ideal limit toward which the sides of the apple recede消退 in depth.Not to indicate 指示 any shape would be to deprive the objects of their identity.

To trace just a single outline sacrifices 犧牲 depth—that is, the dimension 向度 in which the thing is presented not as spread out before us but as an inexhaustible 耗不盡 reality full of reserves 儲備力.

That is why Cezanne follows the swell膨脹 of the object in modulated調整 colors and indicates 指示 several outlines in blue.Rebounding反彈 among these, one’s glance captures 捕捉 a shape that emerges 出現 from among them all, just as it does in perception.

Nothing could be less arbitrary 任性多變 than these famous distortions扭曲 which, moreover, Cezanne abandoned in his last period, after 1890, when he no longer filled his canvas with colors and when he gave up the closely-woven 密集編織 texture 質料of his still lifes 靜畫

The outline should therefore be a result of the colors if the world is to be given in its true density 密度 .

For the world is a mass without gaps. a system of colors across which the receding 隱退perspective 觀點, the outlines 輪廓, angles 角度, and curves are inscribed鐫刻 like lines of force; the spatial空間 structure vibrates震動 as it is formed.

“The outline and the colors are no longer distinct 區別 from each other. As you paint, you outline輪廓; the more the colors harmonize 和諧, the more the outline becomes precise 準確…. When the color is at its richest, the form has reached plenitude豐富.” Cezanne does not try to use color to suggest the tactile 觸覺 sensations which would give shape and depth.

These distinctions區別 between touch and sight are unknown in primordial原始 perception. It is only as a result of a science of the human body that we finally learn to distinguish between our senses. The lived object is not rediscovered or constructed建造 on the basis of the contributions 貢獻 of the senses; rather, it presents呈現 itself to us from the start as the center from which these contributions radiate煥發.

We see the depth, the smoothness, softness, the hardness of objects; Cezanne even claimed that we see the odor. If the painter is to express the world, the arrangement of his colors must bear within this indivisible 不可分的whole, or else his painting will only hint at things and will not give them in the imperious 絕對必要的 unity, the presence, insurpassable 無法被超越的 plenitude豐富 which is for us the definition of the real.

This is why each brushstroke 筆觸 must satisfy an infinite number of conditions.

Cezanne sometimes pondered 沉思hours at a time before putting down a certain stroke, for, as Bernard said, each stroke must “contain the air, the light, the object, the composition, the character, the outline, and the style.”

Expressing what exists is an endless 永無止境的 task.

Nor did Cezanne neglect the physiognomy 面容 of objects and faces: he simply wanted to capture it emerging出現 from the color.

Painting a face “as an object” is not to strip剝除 it of its “thought.” “I agree that the painter must interpret 解釋it,” said Cezanne. “The painter is not an imbecile 白癡.”

But this interpretation 解釋 should not be a reflection 反映 distinct 不同於 from the act of seeing.

“If I paint all the little blues and all the little browns, I capture and convey表達 his glance眼光. Who gives a damn if they have any idea how one can sadden 悲傷a mouth or make a cheek smile by wedding 連接 a shaded green to a red.”

One’s personality is seen and grasped 捉住 in one’s glance, which is, however, no more than a combination 聯結 of colors. Other minds are given to us only as incarnate 具體表現, as belonging to faces and gestures 姿態.

Countering 反對 with the distinctions of soul and body, thought and vision is of no use here, for Cezanne returns to just that primordial 原始experience from which these notions are derived 得來 and in which they are inseparable.

The painter who conceptualizes 概念化 and seeks the expression first misses the mystery— renewed 更新 every time we look at someone—of a person’s appearing in nature.

In La peal de chagrin Balzac describes a “tablecloth white as a layer of fresh-fallen snow, upon which ,the place settings rose symmetrically 均稱, crowned 蓋住 with blond rolls.”

“All through my youth,” said Cezanne, “I wanted to paint that, that tablecloth of fresh-fallen snow…. Now I know that one must only want to paint ‘rose, symmetrically, the place settings’ and ‘blond rolls.’

If I paint ‘crowned’ I’m done for 完蛋 , you understand? But if I really balance and shade my place settings and rolls麵包 as they are in nature, you can be sure the crowns, the snow and the whole shebang 事情will be there.”

We live in the midst of man-made objects, among tools, in houses, streets, cities, and most of the time we see them only through the human actions which put them to use.

We become used to thinking that all of this exists necessarily and unshakably 無可動搖.

Cezanne’s painting suspends 懸掛 these habits of thought and reveals 顯示the base of inhuman nature upon which man has installed 安置himself.

This is why Cezanne’s people are strange, as if viewed by a creature of another species品種 . Nature itself is stripped of剝除 the attributes屬性 which make it ready for animistic 精靈論communions 交流 : there is no wind in the landscape, no movement on the Lac d’Annecy; the frozen objects hesitate 猶豫as at the beginning of the world.

It is an unfamiliar world in which one is uncomfortable and which forbids all human effusiveness過份熱情.

If one looks at the work of other painters after seeing Cezanne’s paintings, one feels somehow relaxed, just as conversations resumed 重新開始 after a period of mourning 哀悼的 mask the absolute 絕對的 change and restore to the survivors their solidity 團結.

But indeed only a human being is capable of such a vision幻覺, which penetrates 貫穿 right to the root of things beneath the imposed 賦予 order of humanity.

All indications 暗示 are that animals cannot look at things, cannot penetrate them in expectation of 期望 nothing but the truth.

Emile Bernard’s statement 陳述 that a realistic寫實 painter is only an ape人猿 is therefore precisely 準確地 the opposite of the truth, and one sees how Cezanne was able to revive 復活 the classical definition of art: man added to nature.

Cezanne’s painting denies neither science nor tradition. He went to the Louvre every day when he was in Paris.

He believed that one must learn how to paint and that the geometric 幾何的study of planes 平面 and forms is a necessary part of this learning process過程 .

He inquired 詢問 about the geological 地質學 structure of his landscapes風景 , convinced that these abstract 抽象的 relationships, expressed, however, in terms of the visible world, should affect the act of painting.

The rules of anatomy 解剖 and design are present in each stroke 筆觸 of his brush筆刷 just as the rules of the game underlie 作為基礎 each stroke 揮動 of a tennis match’網球賽.

But what motivates 引起動機 the painter’s movement can never be simply perspective 透視 or geometry or the laws governing 支配 the breakdown 分解 of color, or, for that matter, any particular knowledge.

Motivating all the movements from which a picture gradually emerges 出現 there can be only one thing: the landscape in its totality 完全的 and in its absolute絕對的 fullness, precisely準確 what Cezanne called a “motif 主題 .”

He would start by discovering the geological 地質學的foundations 基礎of the landscape; then, according to Mme Cezanne, he would halt 停下來and look at everything with widened eyes, “germinating” 發芽 with the countryside.

The task before him was, first, to forget all he had ever learned from science and, second, through these sciences to recapture 補捉 the structure of the landscape as an emerging 剛出現的organism有機體.

To do this, all the partial views one catches sight of must be welded 鑲嵌together; all that the eye’s versatility 多樣 disperses 擴散的 must be reunited重新聯合 ; one must, as Gasquet put it, “join the wandering hands of nature.”

“A minute of the world is going by which must be painted in its full reality.” His meditation沉思 would suddenly be consummated 圓滿 : “I have a hold on my motif主題 ,” Cezanne would say, and he would explain that the landscape had to be tackled 處理 neither too high nor too low, caught alive in a net which would let nothing escape.

Then he began to paint all parts of the painting at the same time, using patches 塊of color to surround his original charcoal 焦碳 sketch 素描 of the geological 地質的 skeleton架構.

The picture took on 形成 fullness and density密度 ; it grew in structure 結構and balance; it came to maturity 成熟 all at once.

“The landscape thinks itself in me,” he would say, “and I am its consciousness.” Nothing could be farther from naturalism than this intuitive 直覺 science. 這種直覺的科學絕非是自然主義。

Art is not imitation模仿, nor is it something manufactured製造 according to the wishes of instinct 本能or good taste 品味.

It is a process 過程 of expression. Just as the function 功用 of words is to name—that is, to grasp 捉住 the nature of what appears to us in a confused困惑的 way and to place it before us as a recognizable 可認出的 object—so it is up to the painter, said Gasquet, to “objectify客體化,” “project計劃 ,” and “arrest捕捉住 .”

Words do not look like the things they designate指明 ; and a picture is not a trompe-l’oei 立體感而逼真的錯視法l. Cezanne, in his own words, “writes in painting what had never yet been painted, and turns it into painting once and for all一勞永逸地.”

We, forgetting the viscous黏著 , equivocal 曖昧的 appearances, go through them straight to the things they present呈現 .

The painter recaptures重新補捉 and converts轉移 into visible objects what would, without him, remain walled up 封閉in the separate 分開的 life of each consciousness: the vibration 震動 of appearances which is the cradle 搖籃of things.

Only one emotion 情感is possible for this painter—the feeling of strangeness陌生 — and only one lyricism抒情曲—that of the continual 不斷地 rebirth 重新誕生 of existence.

Leonardo da Vinci’s motto 格言 was persistent 持續 rigor精力 , and all the classical works on the art of poetry tell us that the creation of art is no easy matter. Cezanne’s difficulties—like those of Balzac or Mallarme—are of a different nature.

Balzac (probably based on Delacroix’s comments) imagined a painter who wants to express life through the use of color alone and who keeps his masterpiece 傑作 hidden.

When Frenhofer dies, his friends find nothing but a chaos 混亂 of colors and elusive 難理解的 lines, a wall of painting. Cezanne was moved to tears When he read Le chef-d ‘oeuvre inconnu and declared 宣怖 that he himself was Frenhofer.

The quest 追求 of Balzac, himself obsessed 著迷於 with “realization,” sheds light on 使真相大白 Cezanne’s. In La peau de chagrin Balzac speaks of “a thought to be expressed,” “a system to be built,” “a science to be explained.”

He makes Louis Lambert, one of the abortive夭折的 geniuses of the Comedie Humaine, say: “I am heading 出發 toward certain discoveries . . ., but how shall I describe the power which binds綁住 my hands, stops my mouth, and drags 拖住 me in the opposite direction from my vocation職業?”

To say that Balzac set himself to understand the society of his time is not sufficient. It is no superhuman 超人的task 工作 to describe the typical traveling salesman, to “dissect 解剖 the teaching profession,” or even to lay the foundations 基礎 of a sociology社會學.

Once he had named 命名 the visible forces such as money and passion激情, once he had described the manifest 明顯的 workings 結構of things, Balzac wondered where it all led, what the impetus推動力 behind it was, what the meaning was of, for example, a Europe “whose efforts tend 傾向 toward some unknown mystery神秘 of civilization.”

In short, he wanted to understand what inner force holds掌控 the world together and causes the proliferation 增多 of visible forms.

Frenhofer had the same idea about the meaning of painting: “A hand is not simply part of the body, but the expression and continuation 繼續of a thought which must be captured and conveyed…. That is the real struggle! 奮鬥

Many painters triumph 勝利 instinctively本能地, unaware of this theme 主題 of art. You draw a woman, but you do not see her.”

The artist is the one who arrests 捕捉 the spectacle 景象in which most men take part without really seeing it and who makes it visible to the most “human” among them.There is thus no art for pleasure’s sake alone. One can invent pleasurable objects by linking old ideas in a new way and by presenting forms that have been seen before. This way of painting or speaking “second hand” is what is generally meant by culture.

Cezanne’s or Balzac’s artist is not satisfied to be a cultured animal but takes up culture from its inception 開始 and founds it anew 重新: he speaks as the first man spoke and paints as if no one had ever painted before.

What he expresses cannot, therefore, be the translation of a clearly defined thought, since such clear thoughts are those that have already been said within ourselves or by others.

“Conception 觀念 ” cannot precede 預先存在 “execution 表現.” Before expression, there is nothing but a vague 模糊的 fever 狂熱, and only the work itself, completed and understood, will prove that there was something rather than nothing to be found there. Because he has returned to the source 來源of silent and solitary孤獨 experience on which culture and the exchange of ideas have been built in order to take cognizance 認出 of it, the artist launches開始 his work just as a man once launched the first word, not knowing whether it will be anything more than a shout, whether it can detach抽離 itself from the flow of individual life in which it was born and give the independent existence of an identifiable 可辨認meaning to the future of that same individual life, or to the monads 單子coexisting共存 with it, or the open community of future monads單子.

The meaning of what the artist is going to say does not exist anywhere— not in things, which as yet have no meaning, nor in the artist himself, in his unformulated 尚未形成的 life. It summons one away from the already constituted 組成的 reason in which “cultured men” are content to shut themselves, toward a reason which would embrace 擁抱 its own origins.

To Bernard’s attempt to bring him back to human intelligence, Cezanne replied: “I am oriented toward the intelligence of the Pater Omnipotens.” He was, in any case, oriented toward the idea or project 計畫 of an infinite 無限 Logos宇宙法則.

Cezanne’s uncertainty and solitude are not essentially 未必 explained by his nervous temperament性情 but by the purpose of his work.

Heredity 遺傳 may well have given him rich sensations感覺 , strong emotions, and a vague feeling of anguish痛苦 or mystery which upset擾亂 the life he might have wished for himself and which cut him off 隔離 from humanity; but these qualities特質 cannot create a work of art without the expressive act, and they have no bearing on關聯 the difficulties or the virtues 品德 of that act.

Cezanne’s difficulties are those of the first word. He thought himself powerless 無力 because he was not omnipotent 萬能, because he was not God and wanted nevertheless to portray 描述the world, to change it completely into a spectacle 景象, to make visible how the world touches us.

A new theory of physics can be proven because calculations 計算 connect the idea or meaning of it with standards of measurement 測量 already common to all human beings.

It is not enough for a painter like Cezanne, an artist, or a philosopher, to create and express an idea; they must also awaken the experiences which will make their idea take root 生根in the consciousness of others. If a work is successful, it has the strange power of being self-teaching. The reader or spectator觀眾, by following the clues線索 of the book or painting, by establishing the concurring同時 points of internal 內在 evidence 證據and being brought up short 中斷 when straying 漫遊 too far to the left or right, guided by the confused 困惑 clarity 澄清of style, will in the end find what was intended打算 to be communicated.

The painter can do no more than construct 建造an image; he must wait for this image to come to life for other people.

When it does, the work of art will have united 聯合 these separate 分開的 lives; it will no longer exist in only one of them like a stubborn 頑固的 dream or a
persistent 持續的 delirium 幻覺, nor will it exist only in space as a colored piece of canvas畫布. It will dwell居住 undivided 沒有分裂in several minds, with a claim 宣稱 on every possible mind like a perennial 永恆的 acquisition 獲得.

Thus, the “hereditary 遺傳的 traits 特性,” the “influences”—the accidents in Cezanne’s life—are the text 本文 which nature and history gave him to decipher詮釋. They give only the literal實質 meaning of his work. But an artist’s creations, like a person’s free decisions, impose on this given 已知事實 a figurative比喻的 sense which did not exist before them.

If Cezanne’s life seems to us to carry the seeds種子 of his work within it, it is because we get to know his work first and see the circumstances 環境 of his life through it, charging 賦予them with a meaning borrowed from that work.

If the givens 已知事實for Cezanne which we have been enumerating列舉, and which we spoke of as pressing 迫切的conditions, were to figure 包含in the web 網絡of projects 計畫which he was, they could have done so only by presenting呈現 themselves to him as what he had to live, leaving how to live it undetermined 未決定.

An imposed 賦予 theme 主題at the start, they become, when replaced 代替 in the existence of which they are part, the monogram 組合圖案 and the symbol 符號 of a life which freely interpreted 解釋itself.

But let us make no mistake about this freedom. Let us not imagine an abstract 抽象的 force which could superimpose 優先 賦予its effects on life’s “givens” 已知事實or cause breaches 破裂in life’s development. Although it is certain that a person’s life does not explain his work, it is equally certain that the two are connected.

The truth is that that work to be done called for要求 that life. From the very start, Cezanne’s life found its only equilibrium平衡 by leaning on依靠 the work that was still in the future. His life was the preliminary 最初 project of his future work. The work to come is hinted at 暗示, but it would be wrong to take these hints 暗示for causes, although they do make a single adventure of his life and work. Here we are beyond causes and effects; both come together in the simultaneity 同時性 of an eternal Cezanne who is at the same time the formula公式 of what he wanted to be and what he wanted to do.

There is a relationship between Cezanne’s schizoid 精神分裂 temperament 性情 and his work because the work reveals 顯示 a metaphysical形上學的
meaning of his illness (schizothymia as the reduction 化簡 of the world to the totality 全部of frozen appearances and the suspension懸掛 of expressive values); because the illness thus ceases being an absurd 荒謬 fact and destiny命運 to become a general possibility of human existence confronting面臨, in a consistent 一貫的, principled 原則的way, one of its paradoxes矛盾—the phenomenon 現象of expression—and because in this to be schizoid 精神分裂 and to be Cezanne are one and the same thing.

It is therefore impossible to separate分開creative freedom from that behavior, as far as possible from deliberate刻意, already evident明顯 in Cezanne’s first gestures 手勢as a child and in the way he reacted to反應 things.

The meaning Cezanne gave to objects and faces in his paintings presented itself to him in the world as it appeared to him. Cezanne simply released 釋放 that meaning: it was the objects and the faces themselves as he saw them that demanded要求 to be painted, and Cezanne simply expressed what they wanted to say.

How, then, can any freedom be involved? True, the conditions of existence can only affect consciousness indirectly間接, through raisons d’etre 存在的理性 and the justifications 理由consciousness offers to itself.

We can only see before us, and in the form of goals目標 , what it is that we are—so that our life always has the form of a project計畫 or choice, and thus seems to us self caused. But to say that we are from the start our way of aiming 目標at a particular future would be to say that our project has already been determined with our first ways of being, that the choice has already been made for us with our first breath.

If we experience no external constraints 約束, it is because we are our whole exterior 外在.

That eternal永恆的 Cezanne whom we see springing出來 forth from the start and who then brought upon the human Cezanne the events and influences deemed認為 exterior, and who planned all that happened to the latter—that attitude 態度 toward humanity and toward the world which was not chosen through deliberation刻意—may be free from 免除 external causes, but is it free in respect to 關於itself?

Is the choice not pushed back beyond life, and can a choice exist where there is as yet no clearly articulated表達 field of possibilities, only one probability and, as it were, only one temptation誘惑?

If I am a certain project from birth, the given and the created are indistinguishable 區別 in me, and it is therefore impossible to name a single gesture which is merely hereditary 遺傳 or innate 天生, a single gesture 姿態 which is not spontaneous自動自發—but also impossible to name a single gesture which is absolutely 絕對 new in regard to that way of being in the world which, from the very beginning, is myself.

There is no difference between saying that our life is completely constructed建造 and that it is completely given. If there is true freedom, it can only come about in the course of our life by our going beyond our original situation and yet not ceasing 停止 to be the same.

Such is the problem. Two things are certain about freedom: that we are never determined and yet that we never change, since, looking back on what we were, we can always find hints of what we have become.

It is up to us to understand both these things simultaneously同時, as well as the way freedom dawns啟明 in us without breaking our bonds 默契 with the world.Such bonds are always there, even and above all when we refuse to admit they exist.

Inspired by the paintings of da Vinci 達文西 , Valery梵樂希 described a monster 怪物of pure freedom, without mistresses女主人, creditors債主, anecdotes軼事, or adventures. No dream intervenes 介入 between himself and the things themselves; nothing taken for granted 視為當然 supports his certainties 確定性; and he does not read his fate命運 in any favorite image, such as Pascal’s abyss 懸崖. Instead of struggling against 奮鬥對抗the monsters怪物 he has understood what makes them tick 起作用, has disarmed解除武裝 them by his attention, and has reduced 化簡 them to the state of known things.

“Nothing could be more free, that is, less human, than his judgments 判斷on love and death. He hints at them in a few fragments 片斷 from his notebooks筆記: ‘In the full force of its passion激情 ,’ he says more or less explicitly明確 , ‘love is something so ugly that the human race 種族 would die out (la natura si perderebbe) if lovers could see what they were doing.’

This contempt藐視 is brought out 表現 in various sketches描述, since the leisurely悠閒examination of certain things is, after all, the height of scorn藐視. Thus, he now and again draws anatomical 解剖 unions 結合, frightful 可怕的crosssections 交會 of love’s very act.”2

He has complete mastery駕馭 of his means 工具, he does what he wants, going at will from knowledge to life with a superior 高級 elegance 優雅. Everything he did was done knowingly, and the artistic process過程 , like the act of breathing or living, is not beyond his ken 視野.

He has discovered the “central attitude態度 ,” on the basis of which it is equally possible to know, to act, and to create because action and life, when turned into 成為 exercises, are not contrary相反 to detached 隔離的knowledge.

He is an “intellectual 知識的 power”; he is a “man of the mind.” Let us look more closely. For Leonardo there was no revelation啟明 ; as Valery said, no abyss懸崖 yawned張開 at his right hand.Undoubtedly 無疑的 true. But in Saint Anne, the Virgin, and Child, the Virgin’s cloak 衣袍suggests a vulture 禿鷹 where it touches the face of the Child.

There is that fragment 片斷 on the flight 飛行 of birds where da Vinci suddenly interrupts 中斷himself to pursue追求 a childhood memory: “I seem to have been destined 註定 to be especially concerned with the vulture禿鷹, for one of the first things I remember about my childhood is how a vulture came to me when I was still in the cradle搖籃, forced open my mouth with its tail 尾巴, and struck me several times between the lips with it.”3

So even this transparent 透明的 consciousness has its enigma謎 , whether truly a child’s memory or a fantasy 幻想 of the grown man. It did not come out of nowhere憑空 , nor did it sustain 維持itself alone.

We are caught in a secret history, in a forest of symbols符號. One would surely protest 抗議if Freud were to decipher 解釋 the riddle 謎from what we know about the meaning of the flight of birds and about fellatio口交 fantasies幻想 and their relation to the period of nursing嬰兒.

But it is still a fact that to the ancient Egyptians the vulture was a symbol of maternity母親 because they believed all vultures were female and that they were impregnated 懷孕by the wind.

It is also a fact that the Church Fathers used this legend傳說 to refute反駁, on the grounds 理由 of natural history, those who were unwilling to believe in a virgin處女 birth, and it is probable that Leonardo came across偶遇 the legend傳說 in the course of 過程his endless 無窮盡reading. He found in it the symbol符號 of his own fate命運: he was the illegitimate son 私生子of a rich notary 公證人 who married the noble Donna Albiera the very year Leonardo was born.

Having no children by her, he took Leonardo into his home when the boy was five. Thus Leonardo spent the first four years of his life with his mother, the deserted被拋棄 peasant 農夫的girl; he was a child without a father, and he got to know the world in the sole 只有company陪伴 of that unhappy mother who seemed to have miraculously 奇蹟一般created him.

If we now recall 回憶 that he was never known to have a mistress 情婦or even to have felt anything like passion激情 ; that he was accused控訴—but acquitted宣告無罪 —of sodomy雞姦; that his diary, which tells us nothing about many other, larger expenses, notes with meticulous 細節 detail the costs of his mother’s burial埋葬, as well as the cost of linen and clothing for two of his students—it is no great leap 跳躍 to conclude that Leonardo loved only one woman, his mother, and that this love left no room for anything but platonic 柏拉圖tenderness 溫柔he felt for the young boys surrounding him.

In the four decisive years of his childhood he had formed a fundamental 基本的 attachment 感情, which he had to give up when he was recalled to his father’s home, and into which he had poured all his resources 資源of love and all his power of abandon 放縱.

As for his thirst 渴望 for life, he had no other choice but to use it in the investigation調查 and knowledge of the world, and, since he himself had been “detached隔離,” he had tobecome that intellectual 知識的 power, that man who was all mind, that stranger among men.

Indifferent, incapable of any strong indignation奮怒 , love or hate, he left his paintings unfinished to devote his time to bizarre古怪的 experiments; he became a person inwhom his contemporaries 當代人 sensed a mystery神秘.

It was as if Leonardo had never quite完全 grown up, as if all the places in his heart had already been spoken for, as if the spirit of investigation調查 was a way for him to escape from life, as if he had invested 投注all his power of assent 同意in the first years of his life and had remained true to his childhood right to the end.

His games were those of a child. Vasari tells how “he made up 發明 a wax 蠟油 paste黏土 and, during his walks, he would model 模擬 from it very delicate 微妙 animals, hollow 空洞and filled with air; when he breathed into them, they would fly; when the air had escaped, they would fall to the ground.

When the wine-grower種植葡萄酒主人 from Belvedere found a very unusual lizard蜥蝪, Leonardo made wings for it out of skin of other lizards and filled these wings with mercury水銀 so that they waved and quivered 振動whenever the lizard moved; he likewise 同樣made eyes, a beard, and horns角 for it in the same way, tamed馴服 it, put it in a box, and used the lizard to terrify嚇 his friends.”4

He left his work unfinished, just as his father had abandoned 放棄 him. He paid no heed 注意to authority 權威 and trusted only nature and his own judgment 判斷 in matters of knowledge, as is often the case with people who have not been raised in the shadow 陰影 of a father’s
intimidating 嚇人的and protective power.

Thus even that pure power of examination, that solitude孤獨, that curiosity—which are the essence 本質of mind—only developed in da Vinci in relation to his personal history. At the height of his freedom he was, in that very freedom, the child he had been; he was free on one side only because bound 跳躍 on the other. Becoming a pure consciousness is just another way of taking a stand立場 in relation to the world and other people.

Leonardo had learned this attitude in assuming 假定 the situation into which his birth and childhood had put him. There can be no consciousness that is not sustained維持 by its primordial原始 involvement參與 in life and by the manner of this involvement. Whatever is arbitrary 任意 in Freud’s explanations cannot in this context 本文 discredit 不足釁任psychoanalytic intuition直覺.

True, the reader is stopped more than once by the lack of evidence證據. Why this and not something else? The question seems all the more pressing迫切 since Freud often offers several interpretations解釋, each symptom病徵 being “over-determined” according to him.

Finally, it is obvious that a doctrine信條 which brings in sexuality性 everywhere cannot, by the rules of inductive 推論的logic邏輯, establish its effectiveness anywhere, since, excluding all differential cases beforehand事先 , it deprives 剝奪itself of any counterevidence反證.

This is how one triumphs勝利 over psychoanalysis, but only on paper. For if the suggestions of the analyst 分析師 can never be proven, neither can they be eliminated減少: how would it be possible to credit 推崇 chance with the complex複雜的 correspondences對應 which the psychoanalyst discovers between the child and the adult?

How can we deny否認 that psychoanalysis has taught us to notice echoes回聲, allusions 暗示, repetitions 重複from one moment of life to another—a concatenation 連續 we would not dream of doubting if Freud had stated 陳述the theory correctly 正確?

Unlike the natural sciences, psychoanalysis was not meant to give us necessary relations of cause and effect but to point to motivational 動機 relationships which are in principle simply possible.

We should not take Leonardo’s fantasy 幻想 of the vulture 禿鷹, or the infantile 嬰兒past which it masks掩蓋, for a force which determined his future. Rather, it is like the words of the oracle預言 , an ambiguous 曖昧symbol符號 which applies in advance 事先 to several possible chains鎖鏈 of events事件.

To be more precise準確: in every life, one’s birth and one’s past define categories分類 or basic dimensions 向度 which do not impose 賦予any particular act but which can be found in all.

Whether Leonardo yielded to屈服 his childhood or whether he wished to flee from it, he could never have been other than he was.

The very decisions which transform 轉變 us are always made in reference to提到 a factual situation; such a situation can of course be accepted or refused, but it cannot fail to give us our impetus 動機 nor to be for us, as a situation “to be accepted” or “to be refused,” the incarnation 具體化身 of the value we give to it. If it is the aim of psychoanalysis to describe this exchange between future and past and to show how each life muses over 沉思riddles 謎語 whose final meaning is nowhere written down, then we have no right to demand inductive 推論 rigor 精力from it.

The psychoanalyst’s hermeneutic 解釋musing沉思, which multiplies 加倍 the communications between us and ourselves, which takes sexuality性 as the symbol 符號of existence and existence as symbol of sexuality, and which looks in the past for the meaning of the future and in the future for the meaning of the past, is better suited than rigorous 精力充沛 induction推論 to the circular 循環 movement of our lives, where the future rests on依靠 the past, the past on the future, and where everything symbolizes 象徵everything else.

Psychoanalysis does not make freedom impossible; it teaches us to think of this freedom concretely具體的, as a creative revival 復活of ourselves, always, in retrospect回顧, faithful 忠實於to ourselves.

Thus it is true both that the life of an author can teach us nothing and that—if we know how to interpret 解釋it—we can find everything in it, since it opens onto his work. Just as we may observe觀察 the movements of an unknown animal without understanding the law that inhabits 居住 and controls them, so Cezanne’s observers 觀察者did not divine 推測the transmutations轉變 he imposed 賦予on events 事件and experiences; they were blind to his significance重要, to that glow 光輝 from out of nowhere which surrounded him from time to time有時候 .

But he himself was never at the center of himself: nine days out of ten all he saw around him was the wretchedness悲慘 of his empirical 試驗性的 life and of his unsuccessful attempts, the debris of an unknown celebrations

Yet it was in the world that he had to realize his freedom, with colors upon a canvas畫布. It was from the approval 同意 of others that he had to await the proof 證據of his worth. That is why he questioned the picture emerging 出現beneath his hand, why he hung on 逗留the glances other people directed toward his canvas畫布. That is why he never finished working. We never get away from our life. We never see ideas or freedom face to face.

雄伯手記980924

September 26, 2009

雄伯手記980923

人生無常,電腦也無常。凌晨起來,打開手提式電腦,趁網路暢通時刻,下載一些免費電影檔案。不料,天亮時再過來看,螢幕一片漆黑,重新開機,影像呈條紋狀,模糊不清,只好送店家檢測,被判定是顯示卡故障,更糟糕的是,筆記型電腦的顯示卡,跟主機板連成一體,送回原廠都不見得有零件換,能換也是很貴。

筆記型電腦壽終正寢,我尚有一台組裝式電腦可備用,一時不急。但是人呢?當人好端端的肉身,有朝一日醫療罔效,一命歸天,那可是一了百了,沒啥備用啦!

那你要怎麼辦?

你還能怎麼辦?除了堅守傳統倫理的信仰:子女的傳宗接代,就是我們生命的延續,或是看看你的宗教信仰怎麼解釋天堂或淨土。能認命看開,坦然接受最好。人總是會有臨終撒手的一天,外加臨終前的病痛跟煎熬。

讀書寫作是成就表現,還是興趣好奇,心境不同。前者急躁功利,後者享受閒散。餘生的旅程若能摒除從小被制約的積習,放開心情,無時不自在,無處不自得。

雄伯手記980922

September 24, 2009

雄伯手記980922

參加退休人員讀書會,講著講著,不知不覺地投入專注起來,回神過來的時候,懊惱地醒悟到自己佔用了別人的時間。

「入流、亡所」意思是入所修法門之流,而亡失了法門與自我中心,而進入能所雙亡的解脫境。為什麼?」

「亡讀無!」一位國文老師糾正。

我先引金剛經須菩提對世尊回答的「名曰入流,其實無所入。不入音、聲、香、色、觸、法,是名須陀洹」,來銓釋入流與亡所之間的名實及前後關係。再以楞嚴經的世尊回答「清淨世界為何生出山河大地?」所說的「因明立所,所既妄立,人亦生妄能。」來說明人有能力辨別美醜、高低、好惡、是非、讚美或批評的價值差別相,而產生勢利眼或歧視的差別心。修行之道理應從減少僵化的及沒有必要的差別心做起。例如,同樣都是你的子女、學生、或朋友,不要因為他們的美醜,成績的優劣、禮金的多寡,而產生不同的歧視態度。最後再引用心經的「照見五蘊皆空,度一切苦厄」,來說明五蘊就是能,一切苦厄就是所。百分之百做到就是能所雙亡

「諦聽潮音,一是主觀的聽,一是客觀的被聽,直到耳根清圓通,功德成就時,已不是用耳朵聽,而是用自性聽自性。自性是空性,空性即佛性,此時就是開悟了。這是觀音菩薩自我修證的境界」。

聖嚴法師的這個說明已經夠淺白,我卻還想發揮:「人與人間的聽與被聽,都難免都帶有主觀性,相互之間自以為的了解跟被了解,其實都帶有幾分自戀的幻想及幻覺,常常經不起客觀的事實驗證。諦聽潮音,是人跟自然宇宙的溝通,人主觀的心念或自戀在自然宇宙客觀而漠然地觀照下,會顯得多麼微不足道。山河大地,人事興亡都是自古有之的因緣起滅的空性,個人的生死、得失及愛瞋心念,何嘗不也可以視為緣起緣滅的空性而坦然釋懷?」

「任何一個地方,任何一個人,有求於觀音菩薩,菩薩就去度脫。沒有好惡之分,也沒有善惡之別,即使有惡徒早上殺了人,到了下午懺悔,祈求觀世音菩薩,觀世音菩薩也會度他。無一眾生不度,如此平等的滋悲,就是大悲心。」

我原是用無量壽經的「若不度盡眾生,誓不成正覺」的淨土度脫觀念,跟觀世音普門品的苦難救度的觀念有所區別。再引申到陀羅尼經的「唯除不善、不至誠」跟無量壽經的「唯除五逆,毀謗正法」,來說明惡人也要救的大悲心觀念。

但是現在追述到此,心頭猛然掠過一個不祥的警示:我是在談論一個我自己並未親身修證,也並不真正深信的法門。我賣弄知識般地談論得越多,知天機者不祥的反諷陰影越是明顯。

我應無言!

雄伯手記980910

September 10, 2009

雄伯手記980910

「各位,我有兩件重大事情報告!」

新學期第一次退休人員的讀書會,在一片閒話家常,互相問候寒暄中,J 突然從座位站起來,一臉端莊地說:「第一件事,我媳婦新生了一位男嬰,我要當祖母了。」

「那你要不要去幫忙帶孫兒?」馬上有人提出最現實的問題。

「我還能有說不要的選擇嗎?」

臉上始終堆滿了笑容的J,看不出是喜不自勝的自我解嘲,還是真的是無法拒絕的無奈。曾經有過帶小孫女在海邊、郊外、美崙山到處玩耍的我,忍不住地勸進:「能夠跟新生的嬰兒互動相處,何嘗不是千載難逢的機會,讓自己回歸幼年的黃金時代,親炙幼嫩生命成長的驚奇?」

J 聽了不置可否,再尊重其事地宣佈第二件重大事件:「我上個月發現脖頸有凸出硬塊,前去醫院儀器照相掃瞄,發現硬塊還不只一處。還好這些甲狀腺瘤都是良性。」

最近一直在沉思生死流轉的我,忍不住冒失地權充烏鴉:「我們當然都希望那是虛驚一場,你會活到一百歲!但是假設地說,萬一醫生的結論是惡性瘤,你在世的日子所剩無多,你能承受這樣的打擊而不陷入驚恐嗎?我的意思是,人作為動物身軀的生命,本質上就是無常的。無論你如何細心照顧,病痛絕症仍然可能會來,不在脖頸,也可能在腳、胃腸、心臟、或肺。更何況,還有車禍、天災等不可抗拒的因素。我的問題是,你迄今所擁有的知識或宗教信仰,能讓你有足夠的力量跟勇氣,來面對終有一天會來臨的死亡嗎?」

J遲疑了一下,堅定地回答:「我相信佛教的安樂淨土觀,死亡後,再也不要陷入重新投胎的來世輪迴。」

「怎麼?讓你重新投胎為人,你不要?你覺得你聰慧、美麗、幹練的這一生,過得那麼不愜意嗎?」

黃昏之戀 06

September 4, 2009

黃昏之戀 06

I woke in the small hours半夜, not remembering where I was. The girl still slept in a fetal 胎兒position, her back to me.

I had a vague 模糊feeling that I had sensed 覺察her getting up in the dark and had heard water running in the bathroom, but it might have been a dream.

This was something new for me. I was ignorant of 無知the arts of seduction誘拐 and always chosen my brides新娘 for a night at random隨便地, more for their price than their charms魅力, and we had made love without love, half dressed most of the time and always in the dark so we could imagine ourselves as better than we were.

That night I discovered the improbable 不可能的pleasure of contemplating 沉思the body of a sleeping woman without the urgencies 迫切of desire 慾望or the obstacles 阻礙of modesty 謙虛.

I got up at five, uneasy because my Sunday column 專欄was supposed 應該to be on the editor’s desk before noon.

I moved my punctual bowels內臟, still with the burning of the full moon, and when I pulled the chain I felt that my past rancors仇恨 had gone down to the sewer 陰溝.

When I returned to the bedroom, refreshed精神煥發 and dressed, the girl was asleep on her back in the conciliatory 調和的light of dawn, lying sideways斜躺 across the bed with her arms opened in a cross 易怒, absolute絕對 mistress 女人of her virginity貞潔.

God bless you, I said to her. All the money I still had, both hers and mine, I put on the pillow枕頭上, and I said goodbye forever with a kiss on her forehead前額.

The house, like all brothels 妓院at dawn, was the closest thing to paradise天堂.

I left by the orchard果園 gate 大門so I wouldn’t meet anyone. Under the burning sun on the street I began to feel the weight 重量of my ninety years, and to count計算 minute by minute the minutes of the nights I had left before I died.

雄伯曰:作者在九十歲生日,要給自己一個禮物,就是要跟青春少女狂戀wild love。他花大錢托妓女院老鴇找來一位十四歲處女,臨場卻是連誘拐的技巧都不會,只端坐床邊沉思少女沉沉入睡的姿態,然後將自己身上的錢全部放在枕頭下離開。像凱子一樣的行徑,反映出九十歲老年人的悲哀:人生無愛,空有錢財何益?生命已到達以分鐘計算的階段,還有什麼好執著?

黃昏之戀 05

September 3, 2009

黃昏之戀 05

There was no escape. I went into the room, my heart in confusion 混亂, and saw the girl sleeping in the enormous 巨大的bed for hire 租用, as naked 赤裸and helpless as the day she was born.

She lay on her side側躺, facing the door, illuminated照亮 from the ceiling 天花板by an intense強烈的 light that spared no detail 一覽無餘.

I sat down to contemplate 沉思her from the edge 邊緣of the bed, my five senses感官 under a spell 迷住.

She was dark and warm. She had been subjected to承受 a regimen 攝生法of hygiene 衛生and beautification 美容that did not overlook 忽略even the incipient 接受者down on her pubis 恥骨.

Her hair had been curled捲曲, and she wore natural polish 光亮on the nails 指甲of her fingers and toes腳趾頭, but her molasses糖漿-colored skin, looked rough粗糙 and mistreated 沒保養好.

Her newborn breasts 胸部still seemed like a boy’s, but they appeared full to bursting 爆開with a secret energy 能源that was ready to explode 爆炸.

The best part of her body were her large, silent-stepping 腳步輕盈 feet with toes as long as sensitive 敏感as fingers.

She was drenched浸泡 in phosphorescent 閃亮perspiration 汗水despite the fan 電風扇, and the heat became unbearable 無法忍受as the night progressed 進行.

It was impossible to imagine what her face was like under the paint 粉面applied with a heavy hand, the thick layer of rice powder粉撲 with two daubs 塗抹of rouge 胭脂on her cheeks, the false lashes睫毛, her eyebrows眉毛 and lids眼皮 smoky with kohl 化裝墨, her lips augmented 增強by a chocolate glaze 釉色 .

But the adornments 裝飾and cosmetics化裝品 could not hide her character特性: the haughty 高傲nose,, heavy eyebrows 眉毛, intense 強烈的lips. I thought: A tender 幼嫩 young fighting bull 小牛.

At eleven I tended to 照顧my routine例行的 procedures 程序in the bathroom, where the poor girl’s clothes were folded 摺疊on a chair with a rich girl’s refinement細膩: an etamine dress with a butterfly蝴蝶 print 花案, cheap yellow panties短內褲, and fiber 纖維sandals涼鞋.

On top of the clothing were an inexpensive bracelet 手鐲and a very fine chain with a medal 獎牌of the Virgin 聖母.

On the edge of the sink水槽, a handbag with a lipstick 口紅, a compact 盒of rouge胭脂, a key, and some looses 鬆散的coins. Everything so cheap and shabby襤褸 with use that I couldn’t imagine anyone as poor as she was.

I undressed 脫衣so as not to muss 弄髒the silk shirt襯衣and pressed熨燙 linen 亞麻西裝. I urinated 尿尿in the chain-flush 抽水toilet 馬桶, sitting down as Florina de Dios had taught me to do from the time I was a boy so I would not wet弄溼the rim 邊緣of the bowl 盆子, and still, modesty aside 除了謙恭外, with the immediate, steady 穩定stream 尿流of an untamed 未馴服的colt 小馬.

Before I went out I peered偷窺 into the mirror over the sink水嘈. The horse that looked back at me from the other side was not dead but funereal令人沮喪, and he had a Pope’s 教皇般dewlaps 垂肉, puffy 腫脹的eyelids, and thin, lank 不捲曲的hair that had once been my musician’s mane鬃毛 .

“ Shit,” I said to him, “ what can I do if you don’t love me?’

雄伯曰:這段性愛前上盥洗室的描述頗為詭異。他一方面將自己比喻為未馴服的小馬在尿尿,另一方面,走出盥洗室時窺視一下水槽上鏡中的自己,也是一頭馬從另一端觀看自己,雖然尚未死亡,但是令人沮喪。回想起自己年輕當音樂家時的馬鬃張揚般地意氣風發,不禁感歎:「若你不愛我,我能做些什麼?」他,你,我,實際上是內心告白的自言自語:「自己若不懂得愛自己?誰會來愛你?」

Trying not to wake her, I sat on the bed, naked, my eyes accustomed by now to the deceptions欺騙 of the red light, and I scrutinized審察 her inch by inch.

I ran the tip 尖端of my index finger 食指along the damp nape 頸項of her neck, and she shivered顫抖 inside, along the length of her body, like a chord 弦on the harp 豎琴, turned toward me with a grumble咕嚕, and enveloped 蓋住 me in the ambience 氣氛of her acid 酸性breath 呼吸.

I pinched捏著 her nose with my thumb 大姆指and index finger 食指, and she shook herself, moved her head away, and turned her back to me without waking.

I succumbed to 屈服於 an unforeseen 出乎意料temptation 誘惑and tried to separate 分開her legs with my knee.

On the first two attempts 企圖, she resisted 抗拒with tensed 緊密thighs大腿. I sang into her ear: Angels 天使surround 環繞the bed of Delgadina. She relaxed a little. A warm current 水流traveled up my veins 靜脈, and my slow, retired animal woke from its long sleep.

Ponty 龐帝 01

September 2, 2009

安慰劑效應 01

A Phenomenology of the ‘Placebo Effect ’ : Taking Meaning from the Mind to the Body
安慰劑效應的現象學:將意義從心靈轉移到身體

ORON FRENKEL
University of California, Berkeley/University of California, San Francisco, Berkeley, CA, USA

Most mainstream attempts to understand the “ placebo effect ” invoke expectancy theory, arguing that expecting certain outcomes from a treatment or intervention can manifest those outcomes.

大部份企圖了解「安慰劑」的主流思維,都引用預期理論,主張說預期某種治療或作為會有某種效果,會展現那些效果。

Expectancy theory is incompatible with the phenomena of placebo responses, more appropriately named “ meaning responses. ”

預期理論跟安慰劑反應的現象,並不相容,更適當地說,可取名為「意義反應」。

The expectancy account utilizes reflexive consciousness to connect a world of conceptual representations to mechanical physiology.

這種預期的論述利用射的意識,來連接一個觀念的浮號,到機械式的心理學。

An alternative account based upon Merleau-Ponty’s motor intentionality argues that the body understands and is capable of responding to meanings without the need for any conceptual or linguistic content.

另外有一種論述,以梅洛、龐帝的動力意圖為理論基礎,主張身體了解意義,也能夠反應意義,而不需要任何觀念上或語言上的內涵。

A motor intentional framework of meaning poses dramatic implications for the interpretation of clinical trials and in the clinical practice of medicine.

動力意圖的意義架構對於診所試驗及醫學的診所做法,具有石破天驚的意義。

Most strongly, it argues that the empathic physician can facilitate the physiologic effects of treatments through skillful participation and manipulation of the meaning response.

它強烈地主張,具有同理心的醫生對於病人的意義反應,若能巧妙地參與跟運用,可以使治療發揮生理邏輯的效果。

Keywords: meaning , phenomenology , placebo effect

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw