Domino Factory

脱逃

----关于任航的DV短片《饱合》

19分钟，因为初次使用DV拍摄，几乎没有任何经验，也谈不上镜头语言的运用。就是这样一个几乎没什么剧情的短片，在我看过之后，觉得什么也没看到，最后却发现还是记住了几乎所有的画面片断和细节。（这使我很惊讶，明明是略感失望的作品，却深刻地记住了它。）

任航的这部DV作品，完全不同于他拍照生猛投入的状态，他变得又安静又哑然。

我们的情感不是太脆弱就是太多不坚定，总之很难又单一又纯粹。要还是不要？要这样还是那样？有时候，明明情欲在饱合，却极可能因为一时的软弱而无形崩溃。
短短的19分钟，我看出蔡明亮式，近乎冷淡无聊的叙述下面，隐匿着飘摇的激烈，以及那些因纠结而产生的内心动荡。任航却说他因为对于电影《颐和园》的热爱（他总是一遍遍看那部影片），才想要去拍一部DV作品。没有剧本，没有台词，两个男孩在一个狭小的房间，一盏灯的背景下，像两俱身体的互相观望。那个房间是其中一个男孩和女友合住的房间，女孩一个人在公园里，街道上不知所谓地行走，莫名地奔跑，停顿，要回去他们的房间。而这个房间里，两个男孩在犹疑不定的亲密和疏离亲密间挣扎，逃脱。

似乎是简单的故事，也不见得苦涩，但这种情绪我们一生总会遇到，并且很可能不止一次的遇到，它并不见得只是跟性取向有关。

附：

《饱和》
Saturation

花的饱和不是果实 , 云的饱和不是天空

风的饱和不是海啸 , 雪的饱和不是沙漠

梦的饱和不是清醒 , 爱的饱和不是快乐

你的饱和不是苍老 , 我的饱和不是自由

by　任航　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2010,7,9　米诺

任航短片《饱和》试片会+现场演出

现场乐队：禅婵，汤旭，lilisay，另有神秘嘉宾
时间：2010年7月10号 晚8点
地点: 北京 东城区 旧鼓楼大街152号紫月私房菜地下一层 窖
票价：预售&学生20元 现场30元 订票短信：134 6676 8593

活动链接：http://www.douban.com/event/12191241/

Artist：Beat Kuert
艺术家：彼特•库尔特

Duration：2010/7/10--2010/7/31
展览时间：2010/7/10--2010/7/31

Opening Reception: 2010/7/10    15:00
开幕时间：2010/7/10   15:00

Place：Inter Art Center / Inter Gallery
展出地点：映艺术中心 / 映画廊

Art Advisors：Gu Zheng / Wang Chunchen / Wu Hong
艺术顾问：顾睁 / 王春辰 / 吴鸿

Curator: Na Risong
策展人：那日松

A War between Narration and Image: Digital Image Art by Swiss Artist Beat Kuert

By Wu Hong

The works of Beat Kuert can not be easily demarcated by a specific art type. In his art, various elements are fused into an organic whole, hard to be dissected in an analytical way. His rich art experiences contribute much to this fact.

In the stage when film was first born, or the age of the Lumière, the lens of camera imitated human eyes to observe the world. A bit curiously and timidly, it watched the outside world. So is this “world” observed from the camera different from the one that we see with our eyes? The answer is obvious, for otherwise mankind wouldn’t have been so fascinated by what’s shown on the screen. But what on earth is this “difference”? It’s the characteristic of “narration” reflected on the screen. Although the shooting process of the early operator of camera was disordered and subconscious, with the intrinsic logic of images being revealed when they flicker on the screen, human being’s potential of “narration” got demonstrated. Such potential comes from man’s childhood experience, when a child acquires the most basic ability of describing images, he can use this ability to describe a narrative “plot” to you, maybe from his own experience, or perhaps just a fantasy. In short, the moment when image came into being, the possibility of linking what happened “before” and “after” it in time and space had come into existence: centering around “Dasein (existence)”, the linear logic connecting what’s past and after it in time, this is what’s called “narration”.

The “motion pictures” brought about by the Lumière camera or Edison camera further strengthened image’s function of narration. By this time, what the audience experienced had become the will of “the man behind the camera” and his narrative logic. The great will power embodied by such “narrative logic” even surmounted the role of a traditional playwright or director，for in a traditional play, the will of the playwright or director has to be displayed through the actor’s performance. Furthermore, even the same actor’s actual performance may vary in different shows of play, while “the man behind the camera” can accomplish the dissolution and reorganization of the “linear logic” of time, via free processing of images. The actor’s performance, being recorded on the films and turned into “solidified image”, is now but a trivial element in the process of dissolution and reorganization. Now we can roughly learn the difference between a “play director” and a “movie director”, their different characteristics revealed in the linear logic of time. In a play, though there are techniques of breaking time’s linear logic such as flashback and interspersed flashback, the director can not break the actor’s linear process in live performance. While in a movie, time and space are decomposed into frames, the unit of film. A specific frame of “film unit” is subordinate to a bigger “narrative unit” in the process of narration, meanwhile, it also demonstrates an independent value, which will be cited again in the following discussion.

As stated above, because of its narrative potential, when commercialized, early movies inevitably adopted traditional play’s technique of narrative logic in its development，for repeated “motion pictures” are boring, while a well-knitted narration is attractive. Meanwhile, over-dramatizing also confined film’s self-support as an independent art type.  Thus in the first three decades of last century, quite a few independent artists in New York and Paris were engaged in an experiment that was later called “avant-garde film”. The production of avant-garde films was based on the greater background of Modern Movement of fine arts. In this background, the visual “modeling element” was no longer subordinate to the need of narration or modeling. Claiming independence, the “modeling element” sought its own value of existence in two aspects: color and shape. Pursuant to this logic, modern arts kept developing from impressionism, postimpressionism to abstractionism. In the cultural logic of “abstractionism”, “shape” and “color” no longer serve the need of modeling, but directly serve the psychological and spiritual logic on a higher level. Born in such an abstractionist cultural background, the extremity of avant-garde film is self-evident. In the form of avant-garde film, narration and plot are totally abandoned, and what’s expressed through the “motion” of images is a rhythm in step with man’s spiritual and psychological aspects. Here, we might as well regard it as an abstractionist painting “in motion”.

Though avant-garde film in this period was produced in an individual and independent way, its dear cost and alternative aesthetic taste made it impossible to promote its development via the law of commercial investment and returns, or further make it an independent art form.

It’s only after the arising of analog production devices and play devices, and also the arising of three-in-one “videos” with the function of video camera, player and television, that “video art” could possibly exist as an independent art form. But again, the expensive post-production devices forced many independent artists to turn to professional institutes or personnel to finish their artwork. Also, the possibility of image processing is rather limited on an analog video device. So during this period, “video art” that can truly distinguish itself from early films or avant-garde films in the sense of “image” is quite rare. What’s more common is the combination of a video play device and an installation, which turns out to become a subcategory of art form: “video installation art”.  In this art form, the relation of time and space “within” images got strengthened, abstracted or extended in an installation in a wider space range.

With the arrival of digital era, the process of post-production can be done on personal computers, so that the complete production process can be truly “personalized”. At the same time, digitalization also enables an artist to process graphics with software programs. It was such a background that made the “digital image art” distinct from the film age and video age possible.

As stated above, in a traditional play, the meaning unit of narration is “show”, the concept of coherent performance; while in a film, the meaning unit of narration is “footage”, the concept of coherent shooting with a camera, and it’s the frame of film that embodies the meaning of image; while in digital image, it’s the pixel dot that embodies the meaning of image. This evolution from “show” to “frame” to “pixel” reflects not only the progress in technology, but also a possibility for “image” to separate from narration and become independent.

What’s said above is exactly the complete process of Beat Kuert’s art experiences.

He started from early avant-garde films, later got involved in shooting and directing commercial films and TV documentaries. Eventually, with the arrival of digital age, he gave up his previous occupation with commercial imaging and dived into the creation of digital image art. Thanks for the richness of his work experience, we can see both diversity and compromise in his works.

Beat Kuert mixed in his works varied “performance” elements such as performance art, narrative performance and chance performance, combining a variety of image processing approaches brought by digital image processing technology. The “narrative” meaning embodied by performance and the “image” meaning embodied by digital image processing constitute two most basic axes of his work. Parallel or intersectant, the relation between the two axes forms the rich and varied visual effect of his work.

As said above, “footage” or “frame” is subordinate to the need of narration as far as a commercial or traditional film director is concerned, while in the hands of an avant-garde film artist, it becomes the tool of deconstructing and overturning linear narrative logic. As for digital image artists, digitalized pixel dots become the element of dissolving, remodeling and reorganizing images.

So in Beat Kuert’s digital image artworks, we can see narrative “performance”, montage “footage” editing, and the dissolution and rebirth of “image” in the sense of pixel dots, the three of which form a progression relationship. During this process, the narrative logic produced by performance in the first place keeps being overturned and deconstructed by footages and pixel dots, like a “war” for meaning, fighting for the right of interpretation.

Some critics are keen on talking about Beat Kuert’s metaphorical symbolism revealed via actress’ performance and their use of props. They are actually falling into his preset trap of “meaning”. When these critics focus on the performing process of the actors, the subject of shooting, they forget that Beat Kuert’s intention of footage employing and digital image processing is not to visually “beautify” the subject. On the contrary, as an independent element, they play an indispensable role in constituting the final meaning of the work. Returning to the old question: Is what we see real? This issue is no longer nouveau in philosophical discussion, yet still has great values when expressed in a way with abundant visual experience. That’s why Beat Kuert’s works also possess an ultimate philosophical value while satisfying our visual sense.

Now let’s move on to his two-dimensional photography works, which are either selected from motion pictures, or taken in a “motion picture” way, so the above stated viewpoints also apply to the interpretation of his pictures.

Our belief in the essential meaning of this world is based on a transcendentalist “narrative” logic. The “physical world” that can be observed constitutes the narrative element, “image” is a persistence of vision of the physical world, and “pixel” the basic component of image, and finally, it’s “us” who gain control of the form of pixels. In this circulating process of logic, these concepts rely on one another, meanwhile deconstruct one another. They define, and at the same time blur the dividing line between the knowable and unknowable in the world that we live in, or maybe, even “us” is a subject unknowable.