徐文愷

Aaajiao （XU Wenkai） was born in 1984 in Xi’an， and later moved to Shanghai， where he continues to live and work. Aaajiao is one of China’s foremost media artists， bloggers and free culture developers. In 2003 he established the sound art website： cornersound.com， and in 2006 he founded the Chinese take on the blog We Make Money Not Art： We Need Money Not Art. He is devoted to Processing， an open source visual programming software， Dorkbot， a non-profit initiative for creative minds， and eventstructure， an interdisciplinary center for art， media technology and academic research based in Shanghai. In his works in general， Aaajiao focuses on the use of data and its various forms of display， and how meaning is understood through the process of transforming the movement from reality， to data， and back again. His most significant aesthetic contribution to new media in China is a social one， acting as a vector for the interpretation and communication of international and local trends in the usages of software in artistic practice.

aaajiao（徐文愷），1984年生于中國西安，后移居上海并工作、生活至今。徐文愷是國內(nèi)前沿的媒體藝術(shù)家、博客寫手，同時也是一位文化交流的積極推動者。2003年創(chuàng)建聲音藝術(shù)網(wǎng)站cornersound.com。2006年，創(chuàng)辦基于We Make Money Not Art的中文新媒體信息平臺We Need Money Not Art。致力于推廣processing，一款開源的視覺程序軟件。Dorkbot，一個非盈利的倡導(dǎo)創(chuàng)造的活動，以及eventstructure，一家基于上海的跨藝術(shù)、設(shè)計、學(xué)術(shù)以及新媒體技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的獨立研究開發(fā)機構(gòu)。他的作品通常專注于對數(shù)據(jù)的挖掘和使用，并試圖以多種多樣的形式將其表現(xiàn)，以此在數(shù)據(jù)與現(xiàn)實的“調(diào)制解調(diào)”之中完成對作品內(nèi)涵的完整表達。他對中國新媒體藝術(shù)最重要的審美貢獻在于他以自身的活躍姿態(tài)，在電腦軟件的藝術(shù)應(yīng)用方面，盡力扮演了國內(nèi)外最新趨勢的交流者與先行者角色。

LZH： GFW is a very interesting piece of work. It is like the mystic， symbolic black monolith in A Space Odyssey. This “monolith” presents data from the GFW， a transformative process cannot easily be accomplished by eyes for the general audiences. Do you think this kind of embedded， metaphorical transformation is integrated， and expresses your view towards GFW precisely？ Where does this piece’s artistic aspects lie in？

XWK： Data presented by the monolith has been encoded， whereas audiences cannot read directly. This is in fact what the GFW is doing-setting blocks for communication and disturbing comprehension. For me， this encoding method is extending the abstractness of GFW’s vision. GFWlist is one piece among the data measurement series （it was exhibited at aaajiao’s solo exhibition： cybernetics）， the notion of which is about measuring the length of data and people can take with them in exported pieces. Here is where I think the project becomes arty.

LZH： Art is complete when people participate in it， I think this also explains the source of art works. Do the symbolic meanings of your work echo with the notion of audience participation？

XWK： The black stone （monolith） in this piece is a symbol of human civilization and wisdom： data printed from the laser printer inside of the monolith then expresses a sense of satire towards civilization and wisdom. This is a kind of obscure symbolism.

LZH： Media art to a larger extent exists and thrives in virtual environments， one example is the birth of the bitcoin. Also your piece， a box that opens and closes automatically， can be seen as your approach to “artistic creation” which pulls existing information from the internet directly and has it manifested artistically. Does the goal and process of this kind of “artistic creation” fulfill what you anticipated？ What is the role of the artist in this context？

XWK： I use the notion of the internet as a way of categorising the abstract. Many works of this type seem more like critical nodes as my own thinking evolves， as opposed to final presentations.

LZH： It is very difficult to treat art today as “final presentations” or a “final statement”： after Duchamp， any type of art piece can also be the material for something else. Time-based art， or timebased presentations， are unavoidable topics in discussions today. Could you describe your notion of connecting your “mind nodes” on a time based context？

XWK： I see this as a conversation about validity， or about whether there is transient， or connective art pieces. When we research a dynamic subject， it is essential to have a continuous series of art pieces to elaborate on or reflect the thinking. Some pieces we discussed before are transient or connective in this sense. Different to these linking examples， are other works that can be seen as“statements”， providing categorising labels for your research subject.

LZH： Your recent work， “The Screen Generation”， and “Obj.12” are both screen based. You explained this before： “Create objects on the screen， enjoy objects.” The process of “creation” via displaying technologies can also be viewed as an electronic visual experiment which produces no twodimensional remnants. Art here is more detached from the medium of video art. I think the situation is that more and more people are experimenting in this direction， trying to skip the jargon of fixed two-dimensional mediums and explore the possibilities of unstable mediums.

XWK： When the screen appears as “a medium”， the fact that its own information and characteristics already exist independently thus slips from our attention. The living nature of the screen has long exceeded the definition of“two-dimensional”， it is variable， it can grow. For me， I am not making use of this “medium”， instead， I live in the living scenario or the ecology of the screen， I even become part of the screen. This will give birth to more uncer-tainties.

lZH： The “l(fā)iving scenario” of information， or information ecology， as part of our life， has also been updating constantly. How do you treat the relationship between this “l(fā)iving nature” of information， and its connection to your own work？

XWK： We will eventually be merged into the information ecology， whist our natural attributes continue to exist. The way we communicate will change ultimately， till the day when we become some communication nodes that have fresh， or natural attributes. That is the moment when our natural attributes do not count anymore as we only exist because we communicate. On that day， the definition of death will equate to “being offline”.

When we arrive at this kind of information ecology， creation will still exist as the most valuable part of “being”： it will override the content release process of existing structures. That being said， I could not imagine what ‘creation’will be like in the future： it could be a sudden， drastic amplification of experience， or something more untouchable.

GFW

-

李振華 X 徐文愷

李振華：GFW是一個有趣的作品，作品的如同一個來自《2001：遨游太空》中的石碑，一個神秘的象征物。期間石碑中不斷出現(xiàn)的數(shù)據(jù)則來自GFW的數(shù)據(jù)，這個轉(zhuǎn)化的關(guān)系通常一般的觀眾是無法通過視覺來完成的，你認為這一轉(zhuǎn)換的關(guān)系是否完整，或者說準確的表述了你對GFW的真實看法？在這個作品中藝術(shù)性存在于哪里？

徐文愷：石碑中出現(xiàn)的數(shù)據(jù)是被decode過一遍的，觀眾是無法閱讀出實際信息的，這樣做法等同于GFW本身的機制，干擾阻礙無法解讀，對我來說這樣的處理方式反而是GFW抽象視覺的擴展。GFWlist 是數(shù)據(jù)度量衡系列中的一件，是測量數(shù)據(jù)的長度，觀眾可以將輸出的數(shù)據(jù)拿走帶回。也是我認為藝術(shù)性存在之處。

李振華：藝術(shù)性是依靠觀眾參與完成的，以及作品的來源的問題，也或多或少得到了一些解釋，而具體到作品本身，作品的象征意義和這些有關(guān)嗎？

徐文愷：作品的黑石（石碑）象征文明和智慧，內(nèi)置的熱敏打印機釋放出的數(shù)據(jù)確實對文明和智慧的一種戲虐，這樣的關(guān)系是晦澀的象征意義。

李振華：媒體藝術(shù)在很大程度上依存于一個虛擬的環(huán)境中，如比特幣的出現(xiàn)，如你制作的自我開關(guān)的盒子，這些都可以被看作你直接使用了來自網(wǎng)絡(luò)的信息或?qū)嵺`，完成了“藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作”，這一藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的過程和目標(biāo)是否完全的完成了你所需要的？藝術(shù)家在這一情況下的作用是什么？

徐文愷：對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)概念的使用，對我來說也是一種抽象的整理，有些作品更像是思維演進的節(jié)點，并不是最終的結(jié)果。

李振華：藝術(shù)在今天和難成為一種最終結(jié)果的呈現(xiàn)，如果之前還存在著原始材料，在杜尚之后，任何藝術(shù)作品本身也可以作為一種原材料的時候，那么基于時間的藝術(shù)，或者說基于時間的展示，都在成為今日最不能忽視話題的時候，能不能鏈接一下你思維節(jié)點的再現(xiàn)。

徐文愷：這里是有效性的討論，或者說是否存在過渡的作品，即鏈接式的作品，當(dāng)我們面對一個動態(tài)的研究區(qū)域，需要一些作品擔(dān)任鏈接的作用，之上涉及到的一些作品在如此的研究方式中就在承擔(dān)這樣的作用，另一部分也許是宣言式的，給研究的范圍貼上標(biāo)簽。

李振華：你最新的作品《屏幕一代》以及《物》都是基于屏幕的，你對物的解釋：‘在屏幕中造物，賞物?！ㄟ^顯像來完成造物的過程，也可以被看作是一種基于電的視覺實踐，在這一實踐中，并沒有基于平面媒介的任何遺留物，藝術(shù)在這里成為比錄像藝術(shù)或是電影，更沒有介質(zhì)的存在。作為眾多現(xiàn)實存在的情況一樣，越來越多的藝術(shù)家開始在這個方面進行著探索，也就是如何拜托二維介質(zhì)這一傳統(tǒng)媒介，并探討不穩(wěn)定介質(zhì)的可能性。

徐文愷：屏幕，被當(dāng)作介質(zhì)出現(xiàn)時，我們往往忽略了它本身信息的屬性已經(jīng)構(gòu)成一種生態(tài)，這樣的生態(tài)早已超越了二維，而是多維度可變甚至可生長的。對我來說并不是使用和利用這樣的介質(zhì)，而是生存在屏幕生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中，甚至變?yōu)樗囊徊糠郑@樣的方式將會給藝術(shù)家?guī)砀嗟牟豢芍浴?/p>

李振華：信息屬性的生態(tài)，或是日常生活的一部分，我們所處時代不斷的更新變化，你如何解釋這個生態(tài)的關(guān)系，以及如何對應(yīng)生態(tài)的自然部分，以及如何區(qū)分你的創(chuàng)造。

徐文愷：我們終將成為信息生態(tài)的一部分，而我們的屬性（自然屬性）會保持，但我們溝通的方式將徹底改變，我們只是一個擁有自然屬性的肉的（軟的）溝通節(jié)點，我們的自然屬性也許不再重要，我們會因溝通而存在，當(dāng)我們離線（offline）的時候即消亡。當(dāng)我們抵達如此的生態(tài)，創(chuàng)作依舊是生態(tài)里最具價值的部分，凌駕于結(jié)構(gòu)的內(nèi)容釋放，只是我無法想象那時候創(chuàng)作以何種方式呈現(xiàn)，一種體驗瞬間的放大或者是其他更不可描述的東西吧。