2008年5月31日 星期六

note. Art Povera



Definition of MoMA

D'autre info en Centre Pompitou

The term 'Arte Povera' was introduced by the Italian art critic and curator, Germano Celant, in 1967. His pioneering texts and a series of key exhibitions provided a collective identity for a number of young Italian artists based in Turin, Milan, Genoa and Rome. They were working in radically new ways, breaking with the past and entering a challenging dialogue with trends in Europe and America. Zero to Infinity: Arte Povera 1962-1972 examines the work of fourteen key artists: Giovanni Anselmo, Alighiero Boetti, Pier Paolo Calzolari, Luciano Fabro, Piero Gilardi, Jannis Kounellis, Mario Merz, Marisa Merz, Giulio Paolini, Pino Pascali, Giuseppe Penone, Michelangelo Pistoletto, Emilio Prini and Gilberto Zorio.

As the Italian miracle of the post-war years collapsed into a chaos of economic and political instability, Arte Povera erupted from within a network of urban cultural activity. This exhibition encompasses a decade that opened with the birth of this energetic scene and closed with the emergence of these artists as individuals of significance within an international arena.

As opposed to endorsing a distinctive style, Arte Povera described a process of open-ended experimentation. In the wake of the iconoclastic artistic innovations of Italian precursors Lucio Fontana and Piero Manzoni, artists were able to begin from a zero point, working outside formal limitations. Arte Povera therefore denotes not an impoverished art, but an art made without restraints, a laboratory situation in which a theoretical basis was rejected in favour of a complete openness towards materials and processes.

The artists associated with Arte Povera worked in many different ways. They painted, sculpted, took photographs and made performances and installations, creating works of immense physical presence as well as small-scale, ephemeral gestures. They employed materials both ancient and modern, man-made and 'raw', revealing the elemental forces locked within them as well as the fields of energy that surround us. They explored the context of art-making itself, and the space of the gallery, as well as the world beyond the gallery, reflecting on the relationship between art and life. Essentially, they placed the viewer at the centre of a discussion about experience and meaning.

Contemporary artists continue to operate on ground that was cleared by Arte Povera. To revisit Arte Povera at its moment of genesis is thus to explore the history of the present and the beginning of now.

(from Tate)

2008年5月3日 星期六

movie Quadrophenia


197x年的英國應該是個藥物氾濫而狂飆的年代吧,本片發行於1979,但唱片早在1971年就發行,跟 Stanley Kubrick 的 "A Clockwork Orange" 同一年。而在1979,另一部當代更有名的經典 Pink Floyd "The Wall" 發行專輯,並於1982年被拍成電影。這三組作品互相指射,有心人應該可以拿來寫學術論文吧,然後加一點現代性對人的異化、藥物對人的倫理辯證、教育制度的僵化以及各項衍生出來的社會問題,長篇大論寫不完。我覺得到1996年的 Trainspotting 都有點續集的味道,只是配樂換成了90年代的歌手,電子味更重,而非70年代前輩們那種 hardcore 的老搖滾。

音樂電影雖然不少,但由音樂創作者來主導電影拍攝意念的,我目前只知道 the wall 和 quadrophenia 兩片。the who 的 Tommy 雖然是創舉,但對現在的我而言實在是消化不良。

相對於 the wall 的具有許多抽象概念,Quadrophenia 是很白描寫實的,如果單獨來看的話,或許會被劃到 YA片的範圍內,但過了三十幾年後,已經蛻變成極具歷史價值的 YA片,尤其是想感覺 Mod 到底是什麼意思的時候。或許故事是很簡單、甚至帶有某種回首少年青澀的味道,但配上 the who 的音樂後,反而像是在看一組連貫的 mv,就算聽不懂那口音極重的的英國腔和俚語,還是看得懂整部片,而Qudrophenia 專輯的歌詞,就是劇情的主要腳本。

在25歲以前,聽搖滾樂就像是呼吸一樣自然,但隨著年紀逐漸增加,涉入社會的程度加深,是否能持續聽/唱大量憤怒激情的旋律,可能就看個人造化了。3J死於26,Kurt Cobain 撐到了27,在某種程度上是幸運的,或者是他們故意的,因此則不需擔心創作失去力道與高度。搞搖滾不比搞文學有機會細水長流,而是個個都要像張愛玲那樣出名趁早,如果不能趁早,可能就會被社會現實沈重的生存壓力給腐蝕掉了。除非改行進 jazz ,但我好像還沒聽過有人搖滾不行之後能在 jazz 的領域混出名堂的。

片尾,主角發現了原來在 Mod 裡面看起來混最大的 Ace,在現實生活中也不過是個在門口拿行李的 bell boy,於是幹走他帥氣的 scooter,然後一路騎到讓他的一切開始帶賽的海邊小鎮;最後一幕是那台摩托車衝出斷崖砸個粉碎。Say goodbye to youth.




2008年5月1日 星期四

movie. 投名狀





在近幾年大陸電影的表現上,我覺得陳可辛是很不錯的,尤其是在整部電影的氣氛掌握上,並不會出現張藝謀那種做作的感覺,算是有創意的芭樂,或許可以稱之為類型電影高手吧。投名狀既描寫到了戰爭的大場面:全軍覆沒的屍體堆、弓箭陣屠城,也不免俗地去帶到一些iconic 的細節:戰死的兄弟之家人傷痛、戰到無糧且灰頭土臉的貧兵、還有亂世兒女情。

陳可辛至少已經連兩部片用三角戀情來豐富作品了,當然這可能是劇情公式?對中國人而言,兩個男人爭一個女人是較少在古典文學中出現的情節,甚至在我看過的有限的當代華語電影裡,這樣的情節好像也不多。畢竟,跟兄弟搶女人是大忌,而電影的商業考量若是為了消遣,那這樣的禁忌不管讓誰搶到都不討好,所以結局通常是誰也沒搶到:死,或出走。

不過三角戀情確實賦予角色更多的人性面,也用另一種柔性的緊湊情節,連綴了戰爭打打殺殺的激動場面。追根究底,人活著就是為了愛與死,若有餘裕才談得到理想抱負。

影片中穿插了很多或許可被稱為東方主義的元素(雖然我還沒看薩伊德的論述):薙髮的中國人;又有昆劇又有京劇(到底桃園三結義算是哪種?);權謀間的圍棋;趙二虎當土匪時的山寨窩非常的經典,沿途還有貞節牌坊,看起來很突兀,不曉得是實景還是搭出來的;很虎爛的中國式古戰爭衝鋒畫面;投名狀(忽然冒出來的新名詞,之前誰聽過這種東西?);原來古人戰死也是跟美軍一樣會有牌子跟草鞋一起還給家屬?!

但畢竟是一部商業片,合情而不合理的虎爛橋段層出不窮:最好是被插了好幾矛還可以打打殺殺、飢餓的中國貧兵還可以講出五餅二魚故事的中國版、一城太守會像娘們一樣求死(感覺起來完全是太性格的電玩主將而不像是個兵不厭詐的官)。

不過,整體說來,劇情算是有創意的,尤其是最後龐青雲要上任遇刺的那段,從片頭開始的旁白暗示一路開展,但他最後竟然還是被那幾個老頭給暗算掉了,就他權謀的觀點非常諷刺,但就投名狀兄弟情這個層面卻得以成仁。主角到最後都死了,整齣戲像是用血寫成的悲歌,但悲的層面藉由三男一女各自衍生,最後歸於太平盛世底下的暗潮洶湧。