试译 | 沃尔再访谈——海杜克《美杜莎的面具》

以下为尝试翻译稿，请谨慎阅读。如有误导，概不负责。

海杜克：现代绘画的新事物是关于一层膜，以及突破那层膜。我探讨了立体主义的观点，即集中的概念。要么向内压缩，要么向外、向边缘发散。正如“菱形宫”那样，在“菱形宫”里集中的、体积的形式向线性的、平面的条件转换。随着体积向空间延伸，它变得更加几何化，不再那么有机（生物形态）。我从来不曾真正定义过这些问题，只是研究它们。

沃尔：风格派废除了中心，以整体的动态平衡取代之，而立体主义则顽强地坚持着集中形。你试图将这对立的一对“撮合”在一起。

海杜克：是的。尝试在做，这在建筑学中是困难的。

沃尔：你是否认为在这段时间里，你的创造性思维被这类问题所占据，以致于排除了所有其他的问题?

海杜克：是的。学术上的“全心投入”。因为他们属于那个时代。

沃尔：但在建筑学领域，并没有其他人有任何程度的参与，所以你怎么能说这个问题是“他们那个时代”的呢?

海杜克：因为别人没有参与？那？他们参与了什么？

沃尔：其他的一些领域。他们所涉及的领域与你不太一样。所以，当你说“他们属于那个时代”时你到底指什么意思？这是一个你经常使用的措词。你所指的到底是哪个时代，别人的还是你自己的?

海杜克：（停顿）我有尝试区分。但，那样我就会脱离时代。不再属于那个时代，而是脱离时代。这是属于他们那个时代的作品。这并不是要让人困惑。只有在回溯时，才会说作品属于那个时代。德克萨斯住宅、菱形住宅和墙宅都属于学术研究，它们的内在主题并不在于回溯，而是向前展望寻求完全的释放，探索建筑的新的前沿。前沿探索的是什么？哪些人在建筑学领域做过哪些事？他们发现了什么？

沃尔：你的意思是我们这个时代的建筑是一种关于深入思考和研究建筑的建筑？这种研究即便不是所有的建筑，也是现代建筑的基础。

海杜克：是的。

沃尔：这么说，这是对应用基础论述的富有洞察的解读?

海杜克：也许吧。

沃尔：因此，这是一个特殊的时代。一个本应出现，但除了你的作品以外，却并没有出现的时代。只能这么理解。

海杜克：希望如此。

沃尔：这让你总是轻微，甚至明显地与他人所从事的不太一致，但从在适应和扩展中寻求持久性的进化的角度来看，却总是与时代保持学术同步。

海杜克：有一个深层次的原因：在于我不只是看一个时代的表象，更确切地说，一种思想的表象。就是如此。我使它越来越深入。社会基本上害怕深入探索，因为这样做对社会结构是危险的。因此，在他们的心目中，我成了一个革命者/反动派，因为他们在作品中认识到一种潜在的威胁。就好像世界以这种方式旋转（做手势），而我的作品永远不能成为其中的一部分，就像一颗“弹珠”弹开一样。然而这些作品的所有论点都来自于（世界的）中心。这与作品的模糊性有很大关系：“它看起来像”、“它可能是风格派的”、它看起来“像立体主义”，但其实并不是。这也是我工作的失败。模棱两可为工作的失误提供了借口。

沃尔：剧院假面没有什么含糊不清的地方，柏林假面也没有什么模棱两可的地方，因为他们既不“礼貌”，也不“温文尔雅”。最近的大部分工作都将人的真实状况灌输给了“读者”，而这些问题都是不能回避的。

海杜克：嗯，很难确定柏林项目的模式是否含糊不清。对某些部位可以这么说，但对平面却不能。

沃尔：只对某些部位。例如……美杜莎的头部。

海杜克：它是新的。没错，它是新的，我之前从来没有用过。

沃尔：所以你不能用其他的术语来表述?

海杜克：不能。

沃尔：你谈到了你作品中的威胁性方面。你如何用作品中简单的意象来回避威胁？例如，这是一个3/4圆，这是一个3/4正方形，这是一艘拖船，这是一架飞机，这是一艘潜艇，这是一个黑色的立方体，这是一个蓝色的圆柱体：非常直接，非常熟悉，没有什么威胁。没有模糊性，所有这些元素都与神秘无关。元素层面上没有复杂的东西。明确，正面。

海杜克：它们看起来是“无害的”。

沃尔：但他们并不是。

海杜克：你说对了。

沃尔：嗯，如果“恶性成分”并不存在于部分，那么它一定存在于各部分的组合方式中。

海杜克：你已经用过这个词……不透明度。人们不喜欢不透明的密度。

沃尔：这里有一个悖论。这些作品看似简单，事实上，乍一看甚至很幼稚。这一直吸引着我。当我看“告别住宅”的时候，如果我把它分成几部分来看，它显得很幼稚：一扇窗户；一个楼梯；一个附加形式，曲线形外轮廓。这一切都是非常直接的，没有试图在形式的操纵中模糊化。然而，有一些关于整个事物组合在一起的东西……

海杜克：……有差异性。是的……当凭直觉意识到这一点时，这就是社会的问题。

沃尔：但真是这样吗？立体派的一个特点是，它总是正面观察物体，直截了当，管乐就是管乐，小提琴就是小提琴，正面或者反面。从不试图回避事物本身的真实性。你的作品与此非常相似：非常正面、直接、“迎头直上”。然而，当它被“组装”起来时，一些事情发生了……

海杜克：这里有个“交叉点”。在内部。

沃尔：你是说，头？

海杜克：当然，你以为“思想的横截面”是关于什么的？确实有个交叉点。你最初的设想并一定就是最终的结果：还有其他事情在发生。看看菱形住宅。很多事情都是无法解释的。

沃尔：德克萨斯的房子也有这种差异性吗?

海杜克：有，Richard Pommer指出了这一点。我从未看出来，但他看出来了。

沃尔：所以你在做这个作品的时候没有意识到这些属性?

海杜克：没有。这种差异性是后来才有的。我在学术层面上意识到了这些，在霍珀，萨塞塔的作品中。尽管总是有点晚。

沃尔：如果你没有意识到这种“差异性”，那么你是如何在颜色、形状、排列上做出具体决策的呢？就如墙宅——为什么用蓝色，为什么用绿色，等等?

海杜克：（笑）理由是，蓝色仅代表洗浴，红色代表温暖，用于壁炉，黄色代表厨房，灰色代表图书馆，黑色代表睡眠……这一切都是老生常谈。你看，真的老套……(继续笑)

沃尔：你说的“老套”是什么意思？老套并不意味着陈腐，不是吗?

海杜克：是的。老套的是……被困在欧洲和美国之间的陌生感。我的才智被欧洲所吸引。但我的“触觉敏感”却是美国人。就像你要用零件拼成一辆汽车。一个非常务实的前提——它是由部分组成的。这也正是奇怪的地方。也许我们正从这些问题中得出一些结论。这些作品的神秘之处在于，它们具有深厚的、知性的、理性的欧洲特质，然而它们却以美国人的方式呈现为孤立的部分。你必须把这两者结合起来。这很奇怪。也许这会导致平庸。当然，他们不是欧洲的：他们不是立体主义或那种思维方式，甚至也不是里特维尔德意义上的风格派。他们并不属于那一类，还欠缺一些东西。但他们也不是纯粹的“美国苹果派”。

沃尔：嗯，它很像机械师的操作手册：有挡泥板、保险杠、尾灯，他们在图表中都是独立的待组装的部件。从这个意义上说，这很老套。然而，我想到的另一个事实是，有很多欧洲艺术试图在作品本身中解决学术问题。

海杜克：是的。

沃尔：你的并不是。它试图在观察者的脑海中解决这些问题。

海杜克：对。这是一个很不错的表述。

沃尔：这正是你的作品一直困扰我的地方。它很简单；作为部分来看，它看起来幼稚、平庸、正面、平淡无奇、简单、直接，但当我想象把它们放在一起，随着时间的推移，它变得不再是那些东西。我的脑子里发生了一些事情。在蒙德里安的画作中，一切都发生在画布上。这很欧洲化。唯一的例外是印象派，视觉的混合在观察者的视网膜上发生。以及，超现实主义，联想的混合发生在潜意识记忆中。

海杜克：你指出的的不仅仅是我的作品，也是一种美国现象。我基本上同意。

以下英文原稿

Hejduk: What was new in modern painting was a membrane, and the breaking through of that membrane. I probed the Cubism bit, the notion of centralization, either compressing inwards or going outwards towards the edges and dissipating. So that was the Diamond Museum, where centralized, volumetric forms moved to linear, planar conditions. As the volume went out into space it became more geometric, and less organic (biomorphic). I never really defined these issues, only investigated them.

Wall: The De Stijl abolished the center in favor of allover kinetic equilibrium, while Cubism held on tenaciously to centralization. You took the two antagonists and tried to bring them together.

Hejduk: Yes. Tried to, which in architecture is difficult.

Wall: Would you say that during this time your creative thinking became preoccupied by these types of issues to the exclusion of all else?

Hejduk: Yes. Intellectual preoccupation. Because they were of their time. 

Wall: Yet no one else was involved with them to any degree, in architecture, so how could you say that such issue were "of their time"? 

Hejduk: Because people weren't involved with it? So? What were they involved in? 

Wall: With other things. But they weren't involved with the same thing you were. So, when you say "They were of their time," and it is a phrase often employed by you, just what do you mean? Which time are you referring to, other people's time or your time? 

Hejduk: (Pause) I'm trying to sort that out. No, I was out of time that way. Not of that time, but out of time. The work was of their time. This isn't meant to be confusing. The work was of their time only in retrospect. The issues which were inherent in the Texas Houses, the Diamond Houses and the Wall Houses-and they were all studies-were not looking back but looking forward for complete release, probing new frontiers in architecture. What were the frontiers to be probed? Who was doing anything in architecture then? What were they finding? 

Wall: Are you saying that an architecture of our time is one deeply involved with speculations, investigations about architecture, and that this inquiry is fundamental to modern architecture if not all architecture?

Hejduk: Yes.

Wall: So it is an astute reading of the discourse that underlies application?

Hejduk: Perhaps.

Wall: It is therefore of a special kind of a time, a time that should have taken place but didn't, except in your work. That makes sense.

Hejduk: I hope so.

Wall: That makes you always slightly or significantly out-of-phase with what others are engaged in, yet always being synchronized with intellectual time perceived from an evolutionary point of view which seeks persistence within adaptations and extensions?

Hejduk: There's a deep reason for that : the reason is that I don't just take the surfaces of a time, the surfaces of a thought to be more exact, and leave it at that. l allow it to get deeper and deeper. Society is basically afraid of probing into depth, because to do so would be a danger to the structure of that society. Consequently, I become a revolutionary/reactionary in their minds because they recognize in the work a potency that threatens. It's as if the world is spinning around this way [gestures with hands ] and my work can never be part of it, like a floating marble it bounces off, yet all the arguments of the work come from the center (of the world). A lot has to do with the ambiguity of the work: "it looks like," "it could be De Stijl," it seems "like Cubism," but it's not. That also is failing of my work. Ambiguity gives an excuse for dismissal. 

Wall: There's no ambiguity about the Theater Masque, none about the Berlin Masque especially since they are neither polite nor studies. Most of the recent work shoves the reaIity of human condition right down the throats of the spectator where avoidance with the issues is not possible.

Hejduk: Well, it's harder to pinpoint the ambiguities the schema of the Berlin project isn't. It could be said of some of the objects, however, but not of the plan.

Wall: Only of certain of the objects. For example ...  the Medusa head.

Hejduk: That's new. Yes, it's new, I've never used it before.

Wall: So you cannot rephrase it into other terms?

Hejduk: No.

Wall: You spoke of the threatening aspect of your work. How do you equivocate threat with the simplicity of the imagery of the work? For instance, this is a 3/4 circle,this is a 3/4 square, this is a tug boat, this is an airplane, this is a submarine, this is a black cube, this is a blue cylinder: all terribly straightforward, all terribly familiar, nothing threatening. There is no opacity, there is no mystery associated with any of the elements. Nothing complex at an elemental level. Straightforward, frontal images.

Hejduk: They look benign.

Wall: But they are not.

Hejduk: You got it.

Wall: Well, if the malignancy doesn't lie in the parts, then it must reside in the way the parts are being assembled.

Hejduk: You used the word already ...  opacity. People don't like opaque densities.

Wall: There's a paradox here. The work looks simple, indeed, perhaps naive at first glance. And that has always intrigued me. When I look at the Bye House, if I look at it in parts, it looks very naive: it's a window; it's a stair; it's an attached form, it's curvilinear in outline. It's all very straightforward, no attempt at obscuration in the manipulations of forms, and yet there is something about the whole thing coming together which . . .

Hejduk: . . . has an otherness. Yes . . . that's society's problem when they intuit that.

Wall: But is it really that? One of the things that Cubism had, is that it always looked frontally at objects, straightforward, a pipe is a pipe, a violin is a violin, in elevation or otherwise. No attempt to fudge the reality of the object as such. Your work is very similar to that: very frontal, direct, head-on. And yet, as it gets assembled, something happens . . .

Hejduk: There is a cross-over. Internally.

Wall: You mean to the head?

Hejduk: Sure, what do you think a "Cross Section of a Thought" is all about? There really are cross-overs. What you think it is initially isn't what it is ultimately: there are other things going on. Look at that Diamond House. Lots of things are inexplicable.

Wall: Do the Texas Houses also possess this otherness?

Hejduk: Yes, Richard Pommer pointed this out. I never saw it, he did.

Wall: So you are not aware of these attributes when doing the work?

Hejduk: No. It comes later, this otherness. I am aware of these things on an intellectual plane, in the work say of Hopper, Sassetta. Always later though.

Wall: How then do you make specific decisions as to choice of color, shape, arrangements, if you are not conscious of this "otherness"? That Wall House over there-why the blue, why the green and so forth?

Hejduk: [Laughs] The reasoning is that blue is simply for bath, the red was for warmth, for fireplace, the yellow was for kitchen, the grey was for library, the black was for sleeping . . . it all has banal reasoning, you see, really banal . . . [keeps laughing].

Wall: What do you mean by "banal"? Banal doesn't mean trite does it?

Hejduk: No. The banal is . . . the strangeness of being caught between Europe and America. My intellect is drawn to Europe. But my tactile sensibilities are American. It's like you would build from parts of a car. A very pragmatic condition. It's made up of parts. And that's what's so strange. Maybe we are coming to something here by these questions. The mystery in the work is that they have a deep, intellectual bent, cerebral of a European nature, yet they are presented as isolated parts in an American manner. And somehow you have to put those two together. And it's very strange. Maybe this leads to the banality. Certainly they are not European: they are not Cubism and that kind of mentality, nor De Stijl, even, in the sense of Rietveld. So they are not that, yet they owe something to that, nor are they pure American apple pie.

Wall: Well, it's very much like a mechanic's manual: there's a fender, a bumper, a tail light, and the diagram shows them all as separate pieces awaiting assembly. In that sense it's very banal. One aspect that does occur to me, however, lies in the fact that much of European art attempts to resolve the intellectual issues in the work itself. 

Hejduk: Yes.

Wall: Yours does not. It attempts to resolve the issues in the head of the observer.

Hejduk: Yes. That's a very good statement.

Wall: This is what has always perplexed me about your work. It is straightforward ; looked at as parts, it looks naive, banal, frontal, obvious, simple, direct, and yet when I think about putting them all together and starting into it over time, it is not at all those things. Something is happening inside my head. With Mondrian's painting, everything happens on the canvas. It's very European. The sole major exceptions to this would be Impressionism where optical mix took place in the observer's retina, and Surrealism where the associative mix took place in the memory subconscious.

Hejduk: You're leading not just to my work, but an American phenomenon, which I agree with substantially.

1. 本篇英文原稿及封面来自Mask of Medusa，by John Hejduk；

2. 更多相关翻译欢迎关注个人ID：IDsCeLeee