描述
开 本: 32开纸 张: 胶版纸包 装: 平装-胶订是否套装: 否国际标准书号ISBN: 9787549643523
小商品市场和艺术空间，看似风马牛不相及，但是就这么和谐共生了整整六年。 “聊天搓麻”的商贩对于“神神叨叨”的艺术家，从避而远之到欣然接受再到评头论足……艺术似乎回到了本源的状态。安顺路98号小商品市场内26号铺不足六平方米的“兼容的盒子”，从突发奇想开始，以突如其来结束。
生活还要继续，生活一样继续。
以兼容之态，重新构建艺术与日常生活之间的联系。
2011-2017年，在上海一条小商品市场弄堂内，开启了一个名为“兼容的盒子”的杂货铺实验空间，鼓励各路艺术家在此实践个人创意。六年时间，这个“无经费、无宣传、无解说”的“三无”六平方米空间，每两周变身一次，中外艺术家在此尝试着当代艺术的各种可能性，最终因市场整体拆迁，项目结束，共计完成项目152期。2024年，中法两国建交60周年之际，该项目发起人、有着多年中法两国当代艺术领域教育经验的艺术家夫妇，以21个章节讲述这个项目的来龙去脉，在实践过程中发生的各种故事，以及关于当代艺术的思考。
序 /第二眼，艺术/001
一 / 一只“白立方”空出来了 /001
二 / 和“上海当代”同时开幕 /006
三 / 就地取材 因地制宜/011
四 / 专业的，业余的/019
五 / 误解万岁/033
六 / 无用的劳动 /048
七 / 一起来玩寻宝游戏 /058
八 / 激活•蔓延 /066
九 / 欢迎进入•不许进入 /079
十 / 一种奇怪的经济模式 /091
十一 / 一直在现场的艺术家/101
十二 / 不在场的艺术家 /111
十三 / 亮在识其微 /116
十四 / 3D立体绘画 /120
十五 / 休息，休息一下！ /124
十六 / 蔓延的笔触 /130
十七 / 暑期特别策划/145
十八 / 愉快的合作 /157
十九 / 着力即差 /168
二十 / 前传——隐于花市 /176
二十一 /旧的不去，新的不来 /181
附录1/关于杂货铺兼容计划及其挑战 /185
附录2/“兼容的盒子”项目清单 /199
感谢/221
序
第二眼，艺术
艺术，当然可能在任何地方发生。但我们已经如此习惯了在正式宣布 /表演 /展示“这是艺术”的那些地方遇见艺术——无论是博物馆、画廊、雕塑公园还是其他类似地方——以至于当艺术出现在某些不可预料的场所时，比方说，出现在市中心一个熙熙攘攘的集市上，我们则会倾向于以一种完全不同的方式去诠释它——如果我们真的看见了的话。即使艺术没有被刻意隐藏在手机、厨具、清洁用品、草药、香料和新鲜蔬菜之中，我们也很可能不会将其视为艺术。在现代化进程中，艺术已在很大程度上成为脱离背景的特殊存在，而非与环境兼容的存在。我们可以说，艺术在其所依赖的声明性框架之外，已失去了其自证能力：当艺术相对溶于周围环境的时候，其特定可见性系数（这使得艺术看起来特别像艺术，而不仅仅是一个不起眼的物体或行为）则变得受损。在集市这种高度竞争的注意力经济中，所有东西都在企图吸引顾客的眼球，我们很可能满目都是各种东西，而只在第二眼，才会将其中某些视为艺术。
穿走在杂货铺小街长长走道上，寻找一间小画廊，完全不清楚它长啥样，路过的迷你小铺一家挨着一家。给一家米店门口的自行车拍了几张晦暗的照片。一张有着长长蓝色阴影小路的照片，两边的小铺挂满了金灿灿的物件、干货、层层堆叠的东西、家居用品。停在一条又长又窄的小路光线明亮的某处，被堆积如山的待售物品包围起来。坐在一包什么东西上，拿出一些纸和一小套绘画工具。一个灯箱标识看上去很有趣。把它画了下来。不确定哪家小铺就是画廊，仍然不确定该找什么。把那些字母画了下来，不知道怎么读，只是冲着形状和颜色（黄和红）还有，那些字母有书法的律动，虽然那个灯箱是塑料做的。
正是为了验证他们的直觉，即“兼容性”已经取代“特殊性 ”成为当代艺术实践的关键算法，保罗·德沃图（Paul Devautour）和夏意兰开启了非同寻常的“杂货铺兼容方案”，作为一种全面的思想实验，他们在一个充满活力的上海小商品市场弄堂里运作了六年，作为他们所说的“非宣言性”和“集市兼容”艺术的一种试验场，在2011年至 2017年期间，在他们租赁的摊位上共完成了 152个项目。他们的举措在艺术史上的重要性值得注意——而这与它在运行期间所受到的艺术界关注成反比（正因为它是在艺术界注意力经济的雷达下运行的）——这是得译工作室的这本出版物作为一种矢量的重要性所在：将一种倡议带入更广泛的对话，预示着展览形式以外的新艺术工作模式。
多年以后，与意兰说起，原来她和保罗经常走这条杂货铺小街，因为离家很近。某天见一小铺出租广告，这给了他们就地租下作为艺术空间的想法。非声明性的、与小街上所有其他商品并列展示。就近、走路抵达、方便打理。在地、触手可及。他们开始邀请艺术家来使用这个空间。把钥匙交给他们。艺术家们安装、表演、观看、等待，悬挂物件、与邻居聊天、分享杂货铺的空间。做做艺术、买卖、手工、塑型、制造噪音。又或来些颜色。忙忙碌碌的杂货铺小街，变得有些陌生、有些好玩、因为这个空间带来了一些意想不到的体验。在这里出现的各种方案，为街头巷尾的闲聊创造出长久的话题，各种邀请、朋友带朋友，丰富了各种关系。而鞋匠邻居对这些艺术作品都有自己的点评：喜欢这个，不喜欢那个。
也是后来才知道，那天画的灯箱不是小街上哪个店家的招牌，与哪个铺子也没关系，而是一位名叫 Clément de Gaulejac 的艺术家，几年前被邀请在 “兼容的盒子” 做的一件作品。它被安置在小街上方，后来就一直留在那里。那个灯箱，是那天我在杂货铺小街的唯一水彩写生，天知道怎么回事。这个被安置在杂货铺小街上的空间，就是有趣在这里，它模糊了艺术和小商品的界限，寻找艺术还是寻找一个花盆似乎没啥区别——不过当时那种自发性冲动，确是为了把之前这位艺术家的灯箱手绘，依样画下来。
在集市的氛围中，人们可能不会指望看到任何艺术。但假设人们知道那里有一些艺术品，只是不知道具体是什么，也不知道具体在哪里。则至少有四种可能。1.没有看到任何艺术，只看到了非艺术，艺术被错误地归入了非艺术的范畴。这种不加区分的情况可以理解，尽管很无聊。2.正确区分艺术与非艺术。这种情况不太会发生，但同样令人厌烦，可能是碰到了艺术管理专家。3.根本看不到任何非艺术的东西，而把一切都视为艺术，因为暗示某处存在艺术本身就会给一切投下一种无形的光辉。这无疑是一种更值得庆幸的情况，因为它使人们注意到艺术的变革潜力。4.人们将艺术视为非艺术，将非艺术视为艺术。这种颠倒认识的情景是迄今为止最有趣、最发人深省的，因为它强调了艺术并不是某种给定的东西，而只是一组与语境相容的属性、能量和故事。事实上，它揭示了将艺术与非艺术如此截然区分是不合时宜的，艺术完全是第二眼产物。我们知道以前艺术都在殿堂里。在集市上，今天恰好碰到了更多的艺术——如果你再多看一眼。
斯蒂芬•赖特 &塔玛琳德•罗塞蒂
斯图加特 Künstlerhaus艺术中心总监
序（英文版）
Art, Incidentally
Art, of course, can take place anywhere. But so accustomed have we become to encountering art in places devoted to declaring it to be art, or performing it and showcasing it as art — be they museums, galleries, sculpture parks or what have you — that when art crops up elsewhere, let’s say in a bustling bazaar in an urban centre, we tend to see it under very different auspices, if we see it at all. Even if the art is not deliberately hidden amongst the cell phones, kitchenware, cleaning utensils, herbs, spices and fresh vegetables, we may well not see it as art. In the course of modernity, art has largely become context specific, rather than context compatible. We might say that outside of the declarative frame upon which art has become reliant, art loses its self-evidence; its coefficient of specific visibility (which allows art to look specifically like art rather than a mere object or action) becomes impaired, as it becomes relatively compatible with its surroundings. In the highly competitive attention economy of a bazaar, where everything is seeking customers’ attention, we may well see whatever it is, but only incidentally as art.
Walking through the long halls of the bazaar, looking for a gallery, without any idea what it might look like, passing by tiny stores next to tiny stores. Took some dark photos of a bicycle in front of a rice shop. A photo of a long, blue-shadowed pathway between shops of golden hanging things, dried things, piled things, household things. Stopped in a brightly-lit part of a long, narrow corridor, overflowing with stacked items for sale. Sat down on something and took out some paper and a small paint set. A sign looked interesting. Did a painting of it. Not sure which stall was the gallery, still not exactly sure what to look for. Painted the letters, without being able to read them, simply because of their shape and the colors (yellow and red) and the way the letters moved like calligraphy, though the sign was plastic.
It was precisely to test their intuition that ‘compatibility’ had replaced ‘specificity’ as the key operator of contemporary art practice that Paul Devautour and Xia Yilan developed their extraordinary Bazaar Compatible Program as a kind of full-scale thought experiment, which for six years they operated in a vibrant Shanghai market, as a kind of test site for what they refer to as ‘non-declarative’ and ‘bazaar compatible’ art, hosting some 152 projects in the stall they leased between 2011 and 2017. The art-historical importance of their initiative is noteworthy; and it is inversely proportionate to the artworld attention it received while it was running (since it operated under the radars of the artworld attention economy), which is precisely what makes DeYi Studio’s publication so essential as a vector to bring into the broader conversation an initiative which prefigures a new modus operandi for art beyond the exhibition format.
Years later, talking to Yilan, it turns out that she and Paul walked through that bazaar all the time, since it was close to their house, and one day they saw a for-rent sign, which is how they got the idea to lease it and show art there, undeclared, in the bazaar alongside all the traders. Since it was close to their house, it was easily accessible, within walking distance. Local. Available. And from this they invited artists to use the space. They gave them a key. The artists installed or performed or watched or waited or hung things and talked with the neighbors and shared the space of the bazaar. With art and with selling and with doing and shaping and making some noise. Or some color. Some strangeness and some fun and bringing unexpected experiences into the busy space of the bazaar. All the invitations and the program’s very longevity created conversations and relations, and the shoe vendor had opinions on which artworks he liked, which he didn’t.
And later, too, it emerged that the sign that became a painting that day did not belong to a merchant in the bazaar, was not linked to any of the shops along the alleyway, but stemmed from an invitation years before when an artist called Clément de Gaulejac had came to the Bazaar Compatible Program and installed the sign a few stalls down, where it had remained ever since. It was the one and only thing that became a watercolor that day in the bazaar, who knows why. Interesting that the space of the gallery in the bazaar had so blurred the delineation between art and merchandise, between looking for art and looking for a pot — yet the spontaneous temptation was to record the record of an earlier artist making a sign.
In the atmosphere of a bazaar, one might not expect to see any art. But suppose one knew there was some art there; one just didn’t know what exactly it was, nor exactly where. At least four scenarios are possible. 1. One fails to see any art whatsoever, only non-art, the art being incorrectly assimilated into the category of non-art. An understandable, albeit boring, case of indiscriminateness. 2. One correctly distinguishes between the art and the non-art. An improbable but equally boring scenario only likely to befall the experts of art administration. 3. One fails to see any non-art at all and sees everything as art, since the very suggestion that there is art somewhere casts a kind of invisible glow on everything. This is definitely a more felicitous scenario, as it draws attention to the transformative potential of art. 4. One sees the art as non-art and the non-art as art. This scenario of inverted recognition is by far the most amusing and thought-provoking, since it underscores that art is not something given but merely a cluster of context-compatible properties, energies, and stories. Indeed it reveals that the very distinction between art and non-art is misplaced, and that art is entirely incidental. We knew there was art in the cathedral. In the bazaar, there just happens to be more art, incidentally.
Stephen Wright Tamarind Rossetti
Artistic Directors, Künstlerhaus Stuttgart
L’art est ce qui rend la vie plus intéressante que l’art.
—— Robert Filliou
所谓艺术，就是让生活比艺术更有趣的那个东西。—— 罗伯特•费洛
评论
还没有评论。