虚拟形式的寓言

A Fable about Virtual Form
有关虚拟形式的寓言
Lying, Self-Reference, and Mortification in the Age of Computing
谎言、自我指涉、及在电脑时代的羞辱
Donald Kunze 杜拿德、昆泽
Penn State University 宾州大学
Virtual architectural spaces made possible in recent years by computer hardware and software have, for better or worse, liberated architectural representation from the fetters of rectilinear thinking, traditional construction and manufacturing practices, environmental strictures, and materiality. However, in addition to what the computer screen creates and makes possible, the screen itself is present in space and in the mind of the architect in particular ways that radically condition this new free-form speculation.

虚拟的建筑空间在最近几年成为可能,由于电脑的硬体与软体已经解放建筑的符号再现,免除直线式的思维,传统建筑及制造的实际做法,环境的窄化,及物资性,无论影响结果的好坏。可是,除了电脑萤幕所创造及使成为可能的东西,萤幕本身被呈现在空间,及建筑师的心里,以特别的方式,强烈地制约了新的免除形式的思维。
Albrecht Dürer, who stood at the edge of another revolution in visual thinking, would have understood this exactly. “An Artist and Model in the Studio” (above) is perhaps the most publicized of this artist’s œuvre because it is said to portray the dominance of the male gaze in Western visuality. However, the opposite case can be made. While it is true that Dürer seemed to know consequences of mechanizing the relationship between the viewer and the viewed, other structures are both evident and deeply informative.

在视觉思想,阿布瑞奇、杜瑞尔,处于另外一个革命的边缘,他本来会确实地了解这一点。「艺术家与在画室的模特儿」可能是这位艺术家的最传世的著作。因为据说它描述在西方的视觉意象里,男性凝视的支配性。可是,相反的情况也能够成立。虽然杜瑞尔似乎知道,将观看者及被观看者之间的关系机械化的各种后果,其他的结构既是明显,又是深具资讯。
Some, such as the topiary tree and water vase on the windowsill (icons found in some paintings of the Annunciation) possibly convey the notion that the work of art is a form of incarnation. Other elements seem to be very modern — the lucinda’s “pixelation” of the mediating plane, the radical pictorial division between subject and object, the right angle between the picture plane and surface of representation (cf. the split in production between input and output), the lateral position of the model (“objectivity” rather than “passivity”), the vertical obelisque immobilizing the artist’s eye and establishing a teleological relationship between the view and its representation, and the drawing paper’s duplication of the lucinda’s grid. If some elements have made the 500-year trip from Dürer’s instructional manual for draftsmen to the present world revolutionized by the microcomputer revolution, perhaps this image can say something about the creation of architecture through the use of virtual, computer-generated spaces.

有些结构,譬如,修剪装饰的树及窗框上的装水花盆,(在圣母画派Annunciation 的一些图画里被发现的图像),可能传递这个观念:艺术作品是圣灵化身的形式。其它因素是非常现代—中介层次的栏栅的点位化,在主体与客体之间的强烈的画面的区分,在画面层次与符号再现的表面之间的适当角度。(譬如,在输入与输出之间的产品的分裂),模特儿的倾斜位置 (客观化,而不是被动化),让艺术家的眼睛不能动弹及建立目的论的关系的垂直中介物,处于景象跟它的再现之间,以及栏栅的框格的画纸的复制到目的论关系。假如一些因素已经让这500年的旅行,从杜瑞尔的画匠的教导手册,到微电脑的革命所革新的目前的世界,或许这个意象能够说出某件东西,关于建筑的创造,凭借虚拟的由电脑制作的空间的使用。

The devices of the Dürer engraving have an enigmatic kind of “curvature” that makes the analogy of the Möbius band particularly apt. Properly understood, this curvature reveals symptoms of the future of architecture. I shall present these symptoms in their barest form, so that the astute reader, who “knows how the story ends,” can make the ultimate connections. The Dürer image is subtle in its use of vectors and personifications, and several “experiments” are required.

杜瑞尔雕塑的各种设计具有一种谜团一般的「凹面」,让莫比斯环带的类比特别的容易。它适当地被理解,这个凹面显示建筑未来的病征。我将呈现这些病征,以它们原初的形态,这样敏锐的读者,知道「这样的故事如何结尾」,他就能够做最后的连接。杜瑞尔的意象是微妙的,在它使用各种向量及人格化,以及好几个「试验技术」被要求。

Experiment One: the Blind Spot
试验一:盲点

First, reverse the presumed artist-to-model direction of the gaze. Have the model project a visual field, regulated by a device (“lucinda”) that is a part of the model’s structure, and you have Jacques Lacan’s flip of the standard Derrida interpretation that has for over twenty years underwritten this condemnation of the (male) gaze. In fact, the model’s indifference, her supine tranquility, her lateral position (which leaves the artist with an end-on view) make signification into a fluid flow from authority (“the Other”) to the artist-subject who is immobilized (the “barred subject,” which Lacan symbolizes as $). The artist’s view is framed “from the inside” by the small blind spot — the central eye-point — which is the point at which the scene looks back at the artist. It “commands” him to be there and at no other point. Quite literally, it frames the scene from the inside out, for the scene is not the scene unless the artist occupies this one fixed spot.

首先,倒转假设的艺术家跟模特儿的凝视的方向。将模特儿投影到一个视觉的领域,由一个类似栏栅的设计,那是这个模特儿的结构的一部分。你就理获得雅克、拉康的翻阅标准的德希达的解释,这种解释过去二十年来,饱受男性凝视的文字的谴责,事实上,模特儿的漠不关心,她的脸孔上扬的宁静,她的倾斜的位置,(让艺术家处于一种观看的目的)。这造成意义的流动,从权威(大他者),到不能动弹的艺术家的主体(被划杠的主体, 拉康给予符号象征$)。这个艺术家的观点「从里面」被给予框架,由于这个小小的盲点—中央的眼睛点—在这个点,这个场景「回顾」艺术家。它「命令」他在那里,而不是在其他的点。从实质上来说,它从里面向外框架这个场景。因为这个场景并不是这个场景,除非艺术家佔有这个固定的地点。
We, the audience of the engraving, also have a blind spot — the lucinda. Dürer has cheated on the one-point perspective’s vanishing point by moving it to the right of where it should be. Normally, we would find it in the middle of the composition, directly behind the lucinda. If that had been the case, we would only be able to see the wooden edge of the frame. With the vanishing point between the vase and topiary tree, we can see a bit of the screen. The lucinda is like the “anamorphic” images painters inserted into images to be seen “correctly” from some extreme angle. The only “correct angle of view” for the lucinda is the artist’s, doubly confirming this element as “anamorphic.”

我们,这个雕塑的观众,也有一个盲点—这个栏栅。杜瑞尔曾经靠着这个一个点的透视的消失点欺骗,凭借将它移动到它应该所在地右边。正常来说,我们将会找到它,在图画制作的中间,直接就在这个栏栅背后。假如当时是这个情况,我们仅能够看出这个框架的木材的边缘。使用处于花盆与修剪装饰的树之间的这个消失点,我们能够这个帘幕的一些。这个栏栅就像是这个「变形」的各种图像,被插入图像,为了「正确地」被看见,从极端的角度。这个唯一的「正确的观看点」,对于栏栅而言,是艺术家的观看点,双重地肯定作为「变形」的这个元素。

Experiment Two: The Audience Factor (Enthymeme); Metaphor and Metonym
试验二:观众的因素:隐喻与换喻
The thing that makes this particular illustration perennially fascinating is the angle of view taken by the audience of the engraving. This line of view is (as is normal) at a right angle to the plane of the picture. But, because the artist is also an audience, producing a “work within a work,” what we see is a parody of what the artist sees. The lucinda is a pivot point, and it works somewhat like a mirror or jewel, tessellating the scene into puzzle parts but also making each angle of view depend on its internal placement.

让这个特别的说明长久令人著迷的东西,是雕塑的观众所採取的观看角度。这个观点的脉络 (属于正常状态),针对图画的层次的适当角度。但是,因为艺术家也是观众,产生一种「作品中的作品」,我们所看见的是一种模拟,对艺术家所看见的东西的模拟。这个栏栅是一个枢纽点,它的运作就像是一面镜子或珠宝,将这个场景配套成为组合的部分,但是也让观点的每个角度依靠它内部的位置。
To get from our point of view to the artist’s, we need an account, a story, a fantasia (Ø). How is it that we came to drop in on the artist in the middle of a project? And, wasn’t our scene constructed in exactly the same way, with a lucinda and a sheet of grided paper? Aren’t we seeing a sideways version of our own tunnel-like visual “cone of representation,” where any one front-on view completely conceals and trumps the others that “lie behind” it?

为了从我们的观点转移到艺术家的观点,我们需要一种描述,一个故事,一个幻见(大他者被划杠)。我们如何在计划的中途探访这位艺术家?那难道不是我们的场景被建构,以确实相同的方式,具有一种栏栅及一张有框格的画纸?我们难道不是正在看出我们自己的符号再现是一种像隧道的视觉圆锥体,从倾斜角度观看?在那里,任何从正面观看完全隐藏并且压倒「位于它的背后」的其它东西。
In Latin, the verb “to lie,” latere, also has the sense of “to lie concealed,” as in hiding: “to lie doggo,” as the British say. A standing model would have been more “visible” to the artist and to us, the second audience. This model’s repose and obliqueness to the artist is a part of the philosophical lesson of this illustration. The audience of the engraving sees stretched along its length the layers that the artist must see piled on top of each other, each using its opacity and order of appearance to conceal and, sometimes, metaphorically represent what it conceals. In the stretched out version, we see the contiguous, metonymic relationship of these layers: parts relating to parts. Normally, we take contiguity to be really “for the sake of” a metaphoric order, the machinery that enables a representation to stand in the place of something.

在拉丁文,「to lie」latere的动词,拥有「隐藏位于」的意涵,像是在玩躲藏遊戏:「召魂」,如同英国人所说。一个站立的模特儿本来会更加地「可观看得到」,对于艺术家及我们,这第二个观众。对于艺术家,这个模特儿的安逸与倾斜是这个说明的哲学的教学的一部分。雕塑的观众看到这几层被延伸,沿着它的长度,艺术家必须看见它们互相被堆积在彼此上面,每一层都使用它的模糊及表象的秩序来隐藏。有时,它们隐喻地代表它所隐藏的东西。在这个被延伸到版本,我们看到这几层的这个靠近的,换喻的关系:部分跟部分的关系。正常来说,我们将这个靠近,确实是「为了」隐喻的秩序,这种机械结构让符号再现能够代替某件东西。、
Experiment Three: Chiasmus, the Acousmatic Imaginary (Ø), and Flat-out Lies
试验三:灵肉交错,声音的想象(大他者被划杠) 及扁平的谎言
If we flatten the operational vectors of this image into a diagram we get a scissors (chiasmus, fugue) whose main axis is the gaze of the artist and whose minor axis establishes our relation to the engraving both visually and philosophically. The immobilized artist is really the “victim” of the “Other,” because he must sacrifice motility to use his instrument of desire. The Other overflows its frame not only by going beyond the edge of the lucinda’s grasp but by having, at its center, a stain on its otherwise immaculate surface — a point that, related to the artist’s immobility, frames the scene “from the inside.” This point has a mechanical relationship to the artist and model, but for us it is the element that carries us away, through the anamorphic pivot of the center, to an image created some 200 years later, the title page illustration of Vico’s New Science (1744).

假如我们扁平这个图像的运作的向量成为一个图表,我们获得一把剪刀(交错与赋格)。它们的主要的轴心是艺术家的凝视,它的次要轴心建立我们跟这个雕塑的关系,在视觉上以及在哲学上。这个动弹不得的艺术家确实这个「大他者」的受害者,因为他必须牺牲动力,为了使用他的欲望的工具。大他者泛滥出它的框架,凭借超越这个栏栅掌握的边缘,但是在它的中央,放置一个污点,在它的另外一边的乾净的表面。这一点跟艺术家的动弹不得息息相关,它从「里面」框架这个场景。这一点拥有一个机械的关系跟艺术家及模特儿,但是对于我们,这个元素让我们著迷。通过中央的这个变形的枢纽,到大约200年后,成为被创造的图像,这个标题页是维科在「新科学」的插图(1744年)。

A woman with winged temples (Metafisica) is seated on a globe, leaning on a plinth whose engraving repeats in Latin the theme of concealment: Ignota Latebat (“She lay hidden”). Metafisica’s gaze constructs a triangle. A mirror takes up the role of the lucinda, and Metafisica’s eye is immobilized by the angle. In the mirror, it appears that Metafisica sees another triangle, this one modeled after a builder’s square.

一个女人的两边太阳穴长出翅膀,坐在一个球形上,倾靠着支撑基座。这个基座的雕塑用拉丁文重复隐藏的主题:「她隐藏躲著」。梅塔非西卡的凝视建构一个三角形。一个镜子扮演这个栏栅的角色。梅塔非西卡的眼睛由于这个角度动弹不得。在镜子里,似乎梅塔非西卡看见另外一个三角形,这个三角形模拟一位建筑家的四方形。
To explain how there could be any resemblance between Dürer’s engraving and this image — most likely composed by practicing Rosicrucians — I will have to make an unusual claim. Giambattista Vico, author of the idea of a universal series of historical stages applicable to all aspects and objects of the human world — a radical teleological scheme — posited just the opposite idea as an antidote: an a-historical, self-engendering theory of mind.

为了解释在杜瑞尔的雕塑与这个图像之间,如何能够有任何的的类似—后者很有可能是实习的罗西儒新画派所绘制—我将必须做一个不寻常的宣称:纪姆巴提塔、维科,历史性阶段的普遍性系列的观念的作者,这些阶段适用于人类世界的各方面及对象—这是一个目的论的计划—维科提出恰恰相反的观念,作为解药。一种非历史,自我产生的心灵的理论。

One might call this a “theory of portable origins.” Vico is, I claim, the father of the field of artificial intelligence (“AI”) because, in Lacanian fashion, he correctly diagrammed the “first” human moment as one where the idea of god-in-nature was “back-projected” from an “acousmatic” encounter with thunder, which the first humans took to be the word of the god. Hence, the world becomes metonymically disconnected (our relationships are written into a language structure) but visible only from a metaphorical direction, from a “victim’s point of view.” According to Lacan, we can “see through” this stack of metaphors back to the origin (“name the Father”), if we but become psychotics in the process.

我们可以称之为「可移动的起源的理论」。我宣称,维科是人工智慧(AI)的领域之父。因为用拉康的方式,他正确地设计出「最初的」人类的动作,作为这个动作:本质上是上帝的这个观念,从以声音跟打雷遭遇,而反射回来。最初的人类将这个打雷视为是上帝的话语。因此,这个世界在换喻中被中断,(我们的关系被书写进入语言的结构」,但是仅有从隐喻的方向,从受害者的观点,才看得见。依照拉康,我们能够「看透」这一大堆的隐喻,回到起源(以父亲之名),只是在在个过程,我们会成为精神病患。
The first humans, who believed thunder was a word of a god, saw in nature their own psyche and form (prescience again: Lacan proposes that the subconscious is “on the outside”). Human imagination was a by-product of fearful (back-) projection of the Other (really their own nature) whose demands were put into an indecipherable code. Hence, religious texts and poetry are “by definition” radically indecipherable. Misreading is essential. It’s a system where lying (Ø) is the only escape from the all-engrossing symbolic system of meanings, escaping the injunctions of the Other and the rigidity of “true of false.” The best lies are the type told by Cretans who say all Cretans are liars.

最初的人类相信,打雷是上帝的话语,他们在自然界看出他们自己的心灵及形态(预测未来的力量:拉康建议,潜意识是「在外面」)。人类的想象是对于大他者的恐惧的反射的副产品。大他者确实他们的自己的天性,大他者的要求被写进无法诠释的符码里。因此,宗教的文本跟诗在定义上,强烈地无法诠释。误读是基本的。在这个系统,谎言(大他者被划杠)是唯一的逃避,逃避涵盖一切都意义的符号系统,逃避大他者的命令,及真实或虚假的严酷。最佳的谎言是克瑞腾人说的谎言:所有的克瑞腾人都是说谎者。

Experiment Four: Möbius, Cretan Liar, and She Who Lay Hidden (Latebat)
试验四:莫比斯环带,克瑞腾说谎者,她隐藏躲避

We need a zone for the “possibly true, possibly false,” because of the twist, the rotation, the anamorphic middle of the artist’s studio, which makes of this image and our looking at it into a Möbius strip experience. What does this mean? The situation is Heisenbergian, because it has to do with matters of self-reference, recursion, and the geometry of fractals. The Cretan tells his audience, “All Cretans are liars.” The audience knows that, within the “lateral” symbolic reality established by the Cretan speaker, the value of true and false must fluctuate between lie (he is a Cretan, his statement applies to him and he’s lying) and truth (if the statement really applies to him, and he’s lying, then it’s a true statement). The philosophical paradox becomes a theatrical joke when the audience is included in the syllogism (enthymeme). The “falsehood” becomes a “lie” (in the punned sense of latere) that “lies hidden” within the enthymemic structure of the relationship.
我们需要一个地区来收容这个「可能真实,可能虚假」,因为这个变化,这个旋转,艺术家的工作室的变形的中间,它解释这个图像及我们观看它进入莫比斯环带的经验。这是什么意思?这个情况是海森堡式的,因为它必须处理自我指涉,重复发生,及分子几何学的物质。克瑞腾告诉他的听众,「所有的克瑞腾人都是说谎者。」听众知道,有这位克瑞腾仁建构的「后边的」的符号象征的现实界,真实与虚假的价值必须摇摆于谎言与真理之间。谎言是,他是克瑞腾仁,他的陈述应用到他身上,而他正在说谎)。真实是,假如这个陈述确实应用到他身上,而他正在说谎,那么这是一句真实的陈述)。这个哲学的悖论变成一个戏剧的笑话,当听众被包括在这个三段论法。这个「虚假」变成「谎言」,(用隐藏这个字的歧义性)它「隐藏躲避」在这个关系的三段论法的结构里。

The literal form of the enthymemic syllogism, where the role of the audience is present as the “silent” middle term (it doesn’t appear in the conclusions, illustrates how the back-projection might be seen as a scissors-vector travelling through the “anamorphic” statement of the speaker to the “little other” (‘a’) that frames the speaker “from the inside” (that is, in a fractal and recursive way). Little ‘a’ is surplus to the Large ‘A’, because it lies outside of the system of signifiers that demands that the statement be judged either true or false.

三段论法的实质形式,在那里,听众出现作为这个「沉默的」中间术语 (它没有出现在结论里,说明这个反射投影可能被视为一个剪刀的向量,旅行越过言说者对于这个小他者(a)的「变形」陈述,架构言说者,「从里面」(也就是,以一个微分而重复的方式)。这个小它者(a)是大他者(A) 的剩余,因为它位于能指的系统的外贸,要求这个陈述应该被判断为真实或虚假。

Fig. 4. The audience’s role is comparable to the “silent middle term” of the syllogism.
图形4、听众的角色可类比于三段论法的「沉默的中间术语」。

It seems that the “lateral” element of Dürer’s model is structurally related to the lateral function of “laying hidden.” Little ‘a’ lies hidden within large ‘A’ as a surplus relates to the unobtainable element within the Other that immobilizes desire in a Zenonian way.

似乎,杜瑞尔的模式的「后边」的元素,在结构上跟「隐藏躲避」的后边功用是连接的。小他者隐藏在大他者里面,作为多余的,跟大他者内地无法获得的元素相关。大他者以禁欲的方式,让欲望动弹不得。

Experiment Five: Flips and the Dogs of Mortification
试验五、翻阅与羞辱的狗

Let’s pause for a consideration of two other appropriations of the Dürer image. One comes from Arthur Chen, an architectural theorist working at the University of Minnesota.
让我们停顿一下,考虑杜瑞尔图像的两个其他运用。一幅来自亚瑟、陈,一位建筑理论家,在密尼苏塔大学研究。

The rotation of the image approximates Duchamp’s scheme of “bride above, bachelor(s) below.” In The Large Glass, bachelors use machines, gimmicks, and trickster devices, but the bride’s domain remains “ineffable” in the sense of resisting representation. One is reminded of God’s cautionary response to Moses’ request to see Him, that only the hindquarters could be made visible without destroying the mortal viewer.

这个图像的旋转类似杜张普的企划图「新娘在上,单身汉在下」。在「大镜子」单身汉使用机器,花巧及灵巧设计,但是新娘的领域始终是「无法表达」,因为它抗拒符号再现。我们想到上帝的谨慎回答,对于摩西的要求见他。仅有后半身能够看得见,才不会毁灭观看的人的生命。
Another liberty might be taken with the Dürer engraving: readjusting it so that it matches the general format of Vanvitelli’s sculptural composition at the foot of the cascade at Caserta.

另外一种对杜瑞尔的雕塑的任意处理是:重新调整它,这样它跟范维特里的雕刻的构图的一般形式相配合,在卡色塔的瀑布下。

The statuary represents Actæon and his dogs in a group on an island on the right (we have reversed the image for reasons that will be clear later on), the goddess Diana and her attendants are on a companion island shown here on the left. The story of Actæon is informative, not just for the history of Brides and Bachelors but for the story of representation, ancient and modern. Actæon and his friends go hunting but kill more than they need.

这个群体雕像代表阿塔安及他的狗群,在右边的岛上(我们已经倒转图像,理由后来会清楚),女神戴安娜和她的侍女在左边显示的一个伴同的岛。阿塔安的故事具有启发性,不仅是为了新娘与单身汉的历史,而且为了符号再现的故事,古代及现代。阿塔安及他的朋友去打猎,但是杀死超过他们所需要的。

Actæon, stumbles across Diana (also related to Dianus, or Janus), the goddess of the wood, and her attendants bathing naked in a spring-fed pool. Actæon did not intend to spy upon the goddess, but he inadvertently sees her naked body and her reflection (or lack of same) in the pool. This mirroring is the key to her nakedness, as the sculptural arrangement makes clear. In retribution, Diana splashes him with water (which “contained” the would-be reflection?), transforming him into a stag, which his dogs consider to be edible. They pursue and devour him. Curiously, Ovid names and describes each of the 33 dogs in great detail, as if the process of mortification had to occur metonymically, in order of ingestion.

阿塔安偶遇戴安娜,这位森林之神,跟她的侍女,正赤裸地在温泉水池沐浴。阿塔安并没有意图要窥视女神,但是他偶然地看到她赤裸的身体及她在水池里的倒影 。这段镜子映像是她的赤裸的关键,如同雕刻的安排显示的。作为报复,戴安娜对他泼水,将他转变成为一隻雄鹿,让他的狗群认为是佳肴。它们追逐并吞吃他。耐人寻味地,奥维德非常详细地命名及描述这33隻狗的每一隻,好像羞辱的过程,必须换喻地发生,按照消化道顺序。
These two examples suggest that virtual form is a complexity not easily summarized. The fable of Diana and Actæon teaches that the discovery of form involves transformation and self-consumption. The “Duchampian” qualities in Dürer and Vanvitelli suggest that virtuality can be allegorized into a fable. We’re faced, however, with a specific turn in the history of architectural form, namely the radical upgrading of the middle element, what in the Dürer engraving is the simple lucinda/paper/obelisk machine but what now is capable of producing virtual Ladies as well as representations of real ones, reclining or otherwise.

这两个例子建议,虚拟的形式是一个不容易作结论的复杂。戴安娜与阿塔安定寓言教导:形式的发现牵涉到转变及自我消灭。在杜瑞尔与范维特里的这些杜张皮画风意味着,虚拟能够被描述成为寓言。可是,我们面对一个明确的转变,在建筑的形式的历史。换句话说,中间因素的强烈提升。

Final Experiment: A Visual Fable
最后的试验:视觉的寓言
We might hear Vico, unacknowledged inventor of AI, saying . “All human intelligence is artificial.” In fact, he did say, Verum ipsum factum (est), “The true is convertible with the made,” meaning that, just as God has perfect knowledge of the world because he created it, humans can have perfect knowledge of the worlds they create through language and cultural institutions. Because factum is artificial; the factum can be perfect (verum).

我们可能听到维科,人工智慧的没有被承认的发明者说:「所有人类的智慧都是人为的。」事实上,他确实说:「真实的东西跟人为的东西可以转换。那个意思是,正如上帝拥有完美的知识,对于这个世界,因为他创造它,人类对于他们通过语言与文化机构所创造的世界,能够拥有完美的知识。因为人为是人工造成的,这个人为能够完美。

Because there really is no knowledge that can be true in this sense outside of the realm of the made, “all true knowledge is artificial” — a more radical statement than any made by, say, Marvin Minsky. Making and knowing are convertible. But, what contemporary AI theorists are often missing is the appreciation of the Möbius-band logic of this self-knowledge. In architecture as in other fields, AI is associated with computer techniques, which stop short of rendering the full story of representation and its role in thought. The computer might have a much more intriguing and comprehensive role if it were not limited, in the popular mind, to the construction of virtual spaces analogous to the ones in the current stack.

因为确实没有知识能够成为真实,从人为的这个领域的外面的这个意义来说,「所有的真实的知识都是人为的」–一个更加强烈的陈述,比起,譬如,马文、闵思基所发表的任何陈述。创造与知道是能够转换。但是当代的人工智慧的理论家往往错过的东西是,对于自我知识的莫比斯环带的逻辑的赏识。在建筑,如同在其他领域,人工智慧跟电脑的技术息息相关。但是电脑技术没有办法将符号再现及其在思想的角色的完整故事,让它们生动表现。电脑可能拥有更加迷人而全面性的角色,假如在通俗的心灵里,它没有被限制于虚拟空间的建构,类同于这目前的堆积里的那些建构。
Vico constructed what might be best called a “cosmogram” — a vector-specific model of the psyche whose traces can be found in the Dürer engraving and the sculptures of Diana and Actæon. The three sources for the following collage are: (1) the frontispiece of the New Science, called the dipintura; (2) the title-page engraving of the same book, known as “Ignota Latebat” because of the inscription on the plinth, and (3) Dürer’s engraving, “The Artist and Model in the Studio,” with the overtones of Duchamp and Vanvitelli cited above.

维科建构最恰当所谓的「几何宇宙图」心灵的向量的模式,心灵的这些痕迹能够被找到,在杜瑞尔的雕塑及戴安娜跟亚塔安定雕刻里。以下的併贴的三个来源是:一、「新科学」的前景,被称为dipintura 。二、相同的那本书的标题页的雕塑,众所周知的Ignota latebat, 因为在支撑基座的铭记。 三、杜瑞尔的雕塑,「艺术家及工作室的模特儿」,具有以上被引述的杜张普与范维特里的风格。

The lucinda “complex” has been unwound as a joint in the connection between the other (symbolized by the eye in the triangle) and the “immobilized” artist, the statue of Homer. The artist experiences the phallic (appearing, disappearing) divine point as an (acoustic) moment of jouissance (pleasure/pain) internally framing the array of symbols that structure the human world. The altar of sacrifice, the first human institution honoring this jouissance, has borrowed a vase and topiary from Dürer’s windowsill. The now-jointed line of view is disseminated by the jewel on the breast of Metafisica (nature), not unlike the technique of distributing light across the computer monitor’s screen.

这个栏栅「情结」曾经被解开,作为大他者(由三角形的眼睛所象征)与这个「动弹不得」的艺术家(荷马的雕像)之间的关联的连接。艺术家经验这个阳具(出现,消失)的神圣点,作为欢爽(快乐与痛苦)的发声时刻。它们从内部作为架构人类世界的符号的安排的框架。牺牲的祭坛,第一个推崇这个欢爽的人类的机构,曾经从杜瑞尔的窗框借用花盆与修剪装饰的树木。这个现在被连接的观点线条,由这个珠宝扩散到梅塔非思卡(自然)的胸膛,有几分酷似分佈到电脑萤幕的光的分佈的技术。

The link between all of these images is the recurring theme of winged temples. In both the Ignota Latebat image and the dipintura, Metafisica has winged temples. Lying at the foot of Homer’s statue is the helmet belonging to Hermes, god of tricky boundaries. Lacing through these eyelets allows us to string together the images into a Möbius band, where the fable about virtual space becomes the container that contains itself, accommodating any and all contradictions. The lesson of Dürer is that artists have always required such machines.

在所有这些图像之间的这个关联,是太阳穴长出翅膀的重复的主题。在Ignota Latebat 与dipintura的图像,梅塔非思卡的太阳穴长出两个翅膀,躺在荷马的雕像脚下,是属于战神赫密士的头盔,这位戏弄边界的神祗。通过这些眼洞的镶边,让我们能够贯穿这些图像,成为莫比斯环带。在那里,有关虚拟空间的寓言变成包容它自己的容器,收容任何以及所有的矛盾。杜瑞尔的教训是:艺术家总是要求诸如其类的机器。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: