He Jing | 贺婧





Copyright © 2014 He Jing Art.
All rights reserved.

http://hejingart.com/files/gimgs/th-68_10609509_10203757884560914_9113447712766828558_n.jpg
http://hejingart.com/files/gimgs/th-68_10647062_10203757881720843_1373941853094713520_n.jpg

访谈:尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德 (中文)

采访: 贺婧
原文刊载于《艺术界》2014年8月刊“里程”栏目

贺婧:对您来说“双年展”在今天这个时代究竟意味着什么?这种展览的形式是否更符合您在《茎生——朝向一种全球化美学》 一书中所谈到的“游牧性”,无论是对艺术家还是对策展人而言?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 是的,双年展首先是个“展览”,同时也是根治于某一特定文化背景的项目,需要在尊重某些在地规则的同时亦传递出具有国际视野的信息。双年展的策划与组织提供了一种际遇,使得展览本身与其承办城市(或国家)的在地状况相互协调、 通过根植于当地文化背景的艺术家来丰富展览的意义。所谓的“茎生”植物(radicant)是一种在生长中不断从茎部生根的组织,比如常青藤。我想我自己就是属于这一科属范畴的——我的“根”是无所不在的,由此我得以更好地理解他者、更快地去适应。

贺婧:在不久前于台北所做的演讲中,您提到过总是尽量避免将展览做成“任意一个理念或想法的示范”,但具体来说如何才能真正避免这样的情况呢?如何能使展览本身“大于”(beyond) 双年展的主题、避免主题与作品之间的“插图性”关系?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 的确。一般来说,试图对一个先期已然存在的主题进行注释的展览是糟糕的。如果作品在一个展览当中的功能是插图性的,那是对作品能量的一种截肢行为。因此,对我而言展览不是纪录片,或者说不是一个通过相遇的经历来寻找其主题的纪录影片。我的展览更接近“虚构纪录片”(docufiction)的模式,即它们反映当代艺术的现实性,透过某一图像或一个中心假设被组织起来。于其中,观看者可以选择跟随展览文本或者去创造他们自己的解读;也可以听取策展人的想法或者将注意力完全集中在作品上。就像在一出歌剧中,文本和音乐的地位是平等的。

贺婧:在同一演讲中您还提到,“作为一个策展人,应当沉浸于艺术家所创作的东西中”(As a curator, you have to be overwhelmed by what the artists do)。那么您如何定义自己与展览的相关因素(作品、艺术家、叙述结构)之间的关系?在何种层面上存在一种您或您的主题作为主体对其他因素的控制?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 我们永远不能将作品简化为某个唯一的、解释性的主题。那些伟大的艺术作品,无论是当代的或是古代的,都能够以千百种不同的方式予以阐释,否则将很无趣——思考维度的复杂性乃是判断的标准。而对我个人来说,我将策展人看作是一个展览的“作者”(author);不是艺术家,而是像导演一般的“作者”——通过与其他创作者的合作来完成一部影片。就像你们所了解的那样,导演的方法有很多种,从斯坦利·库布里克(Stanley Kubrick)到奥森·威尔斯(Orson Welles)再到法国“新浪潮”那些更具参与性的导演…… 至于我所提到的关于策展人沉浸于(overwhelmed)作品的说法,它意味着我将展览看作一种对话,作品本身总是会超越那些将其聚集在一起的理由。如果一个双年展仅仅满足于将一些当下时髦的或过去发现的艺术家并置在展场中,那就没必要邀请我来策展。我尝试着将每个展览都看作是在一个特定地点拍摄的电影,采用不同的演员和适合其上下文的剧本,为每个展览项目带来其独创的故事。

贺婧:这次台北双年展的主题是“剧烈加速度——人类世的艺术”(The Great Acceleration - Art in the Anthropocene) ,您个人对此一“加速度”现象的态度是怎样的?它将被如何具体地呈现在展览中?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: “加速度”首先是人类尺度(human scale)的一种失败,它恰恰体现出我们在信息化经济系统前的一种无能为力。在这一系统中,各种决议都是以光速操作的计算模式来执行的(在美国,“高频交易” 已经占据了金融操作份额的四分之三)。“人类世”并非一个地质学概念,它亦指向这样一个时代,即人类已经成为他们自己搭建的基础设施的牺牲品。我们看到今天在个体/公民和其支配物所构成的新兴阶层之间出现了一种前所未有的政治联盟:动物、植物、矿物质和大气层从今以后都被一种明确地脱离于公民社会的工业技术系统所侵袭。在“加速度”这个展览中,我集合了那些以不同方式来反映这种新型世界关系的各个层面的艺术家。

贺婧:请您谈一下这次双年展作品选择的框架。

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德:(这次双年展)除了邀请那些直接质疑人类与自然、动物之间关系的艺术家,也包括与这后两者合作创作的艺术家,比如胡晓媛和朱骏腾。新一代艺术家尝试探索那些由人类活动所创造的“关联性材料”(informed materials )的本质,尤其会运用那些属于聚合物门类下的合金材料进行创作(如Roger Hiorns、Marlie Mul、Sterling Ruby、Alisa Barenboym、Neil Beloufa、Pamela Rosenkranz的作品) ,或是发起对材质的批判(如Peter Buggenhout、Harold Ancart 或Roger Hiorns作品中的“雾化”或“粉尘化”形式)。然而这种“聚合作用”(pulvérisation)已经成为一种(艺术创作的)构成与组合方式、一种于异质元素之间生成的软合金或人工合金式的创造(模式)——正如我们在Laure Prouvost、Ian Cheng、Rachel Rose 或Camille Henrot的录像作品中、在Mika Rottenberg、Nathaniel Mellors 和Charles Avery的装置中、以及在Roberto Cabot 或 Tala Madani的绘画中看到的那样。其他的则尝试围绕“重力”(pesanteur)这一概念进行创作,将像素的轻盈转化为具有体量的物(如David Douard、Neil Beloufa、Mattheus Rocha Pitta……)

贺婧:在您2009年出版的《茎生》一书中,谈到了热衷于寻找“根源”的现代主义的终结、全球化浪潮下当代艺术家新的“游牧”式创作与思考方式、以及对于 “移植”(transplantation)和“转译”(translation)等概念的兴趣等。在这次双年展中,您对于“反人类中心论”(anti-anthropocentrique)这一观念的兴趣与您之前的“茎生”理论之间有着怎样的延续性?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德:我的每本书都会启发我下一本书的内容,我的展览也是一个接着一个依次链接的。比如,我意识到之前在伦敦策划的名为“另类现代”(Altermodern)的展览事实上已经包含了这次在“剧烈加速度”中意图探讨的主题,但当我开始策划那个展览时我并没有想到这些。题目其实已经在那里了,就在众多的作品之中,只是我还没有看到而已。对我个人而言,一路延续下来的策展线索来自于对人类新的存在条件的一种持续探索,以及去询问这些新的变化是如何作用于艺术作品、如何作用于艺术家对自己作品的组织与制作方式上的。但我的意图并非在于“反人类中心论”,对于这一观念我是持批判态度的。

贺婧:您如何看待近年来关于“思辩唯实论”(Speculative realism) 或“万物有灵论”(Animism) 这些热衷于“物”的哲学与美学思潮在当代艺术领域中的位置与影响?在艺术领域正在发生的那些实践可以在某种程度上被看作是对这些思潮的具体回应吗?您本人的美学思考与上述思潮的关系是怎样的?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 就像我刚刚说过的,我个人对于所谓的“思辩唯实论”是持批判态度的:展览并不是为水母或树木而作的,艺术完全是属于人类间相互关系领域的活动。相反地,这一新的关于“物”的思潮为我们的生态系统带来一个非常不同的视角,它引发了一种将人类所处的关系领域延伸至“物”、至“生命体”、至我们周边环境的生态意识。从这个角度上来说,“思辩唯实论”可以更新我们的观看方式,而在这次展览中引起我兴趣的则是这种被拓宽的观看方式与我在90年代所定义的“关系”(美学)概念下的各种实践之间的碰撞。在此我又将两者并置在一起看待并提出问题。人类人际关系网络的现实形式是什么?艺术可以跨出人类界关系的领域吗?至于说到“万物有灵论”——在过去的两年里这一思潮引起了很多讨论——在我看来的确是处于“反人类中心论”立场的:“万物有灵”式的观点在于强调为“物”或“动物”赋予心灵,即为其提供人类的特性。看起来今天的艺术家们似乎并不满足于这一点,并试着以此发展出更多不同的方向:从“物”到生命机体,从矿物质到工业产品,从植物的到数码的,从人类到动物……

贺婧:您在《双年展笔记》中提到,“关系艺术之所以遭到责难,就在于它还是过于倾向于‘人类中心论’的,甚至人文主义,…… 所以在某些人眼中,才觉得关系美学难以忍受或者落伍了”。《关系美学》一书出版于上世纪九十年代,伴随着冷战结束与互联网的初步兴起,那么时下社会语境的变化让您对当初提出的这一美学议题又有了新的思考或调整吗?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 这个展览的想法来自于以前读过的一篇文章,说今天这个时代互联网上的机器人要比人类多地多。在网络诞生25年之后,人类的确迷失了……由此意味着要对那些导出“关系美学”的理念重新加以思考。后者究竟扮演了怎样的角色?恰如上世纪五六十年代的结构主义,“思辩唯实论”的诞生使得人类主体得以重新配置:那时候我们谈“结构”,今天则谈“物”。然而,如果从“物”(substance)的角度来观看世界,——正如“思辩唯实论”的支持者希望我们看到的那样,即是放弃以“关系”网络的方式来理解这个世界。在这种情况下,“存在”凌驾于“认识”之上;同时,“物”亦超越了我们看待和思考“物”的意识。如果从唯物主义的思考框架出发,即就我个人的观点来看,在物质与非物质之间并不先验地存在任何等级的区分。但是从政治视角来看,我认为在今天这样一个世界资本主义系统将生命体统统转换为产品、“物化”(reification)从未如此主导的时代,赋予人类以特权乃是十分重要的。

贺婧:自2000年以来,围绕与“关系美学”相关的艺术实践被赋予了很多不同的称谓,包括“参与性艺术” (participatory art)、“社会介入性艺术”(socially engaged art,)等等, 用以描述这种参与性的或制造“关系”的艺术创作现象。您是如何判断它们之间哪怕是非常微妙的差异?比如,在“关系美学”与Claire Bishop所探讨的“参与性艺术”之间,究竟有怎样的区别?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 参与性艺术诞生于上世纪六十年代,伴随着Allan Kaprow、激浪派(Fluxus)以及之后的Gordon Matta-Clarck等艺术家和创作流派的实践。其主要目标在于拓宽艺术实践的领域,而并没有集中针对“跨人际关系”(inter-human relations)的形式和本质提出思考。“社会介入性艺术”亦不是近些年才出现的,Joseph Beuys的实践早已证明了这点…… 而(真正)在上世纪九十年代才产生的新现象,则是出现了一批将“人际互动”(interaction)的形式作为其创作主体的艺术家,此外他们有时也从上述历史线索中汲取养分。参与性实践正如“社会介入性艺术”,这两者既是九十年代兴起的“关系艺术”的子集,也是后者的两个祖先。

贺婧:您在《关系美学》中用不少篇幅谈到了“形式”(form)——“当代艺术作品的形式超越了其物质形态本身,而成为一种联结因素、一种粘合作用” ,甚至认为关系艺术的产物“不仅是意识形态与实践领域的变革,更带来艺术形式领域的新发展”。同时在这次双年展的笔记里,您又谈到“超形式”(exforme),即“所有位处于分歧和权力、排除和承认、物和废弃物、自然和文化之间过渡状态的符号”。具体在展览中,您是如何处理展览形态(形式)的?(当然不仅限于可见的物质形式)

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 一方面,是所谓的“展览的形式”,即在一个群展框架下由策展人主导的各个因素的集合。而对于我们一般(在艺术中)所理解的“形式”,这是艺术家的事情。我的工作致力于(在展览中)确立新的形式法则、探索作品之间独特的组合方式、并尝试去阐明内容。你刚刚提到的“流通(关系)的形式”(la forme-circuit)和我称之为“超形式”这两个概念,在今天是非常重要的。我们可以在各个工作室和不同的展览中观察到它们,(事实上)在当今这个时代应当将这两个概念置于更宽广的视角下来看待,去理解这些形式是从何处来、并促使它们与技术、社会、政治、文化的演进发生关联。我试着呈现一个可以与形式的演进相一致的展览,同时通过这个展览来突出这些形式。

贺婧:您在一篇与法国艺术家Loris Gréaud的访谈里谈到当下环境中的一种快速、只停留于表面的“传递性“(transmission)现象。您本人似乎是格外推崇这种转译与传递,至少作为一种方法学。然而,如果我们只谈“连接/传递”现象本身而不谈其中的各个因素,是否是有问题的呢?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 并不存在没有内容的“传递”,但传递的形式本身决定并影响着其内容。如何去设想一个不具内容的传递形式呢?反之,艺术家又为什么要去创造一个仅仅作为过渡媒介或结构的形式?

贺婧:作为本次双年展的策展人,除了作演讲、发表双年展的主题文本,您还不断以片段、笔记形态的文本发表自己的观点。那么,上述这些文字与您最终呈现给观众的展览之间的关系是怎样的?在写作者与策展人二者之间,是否前者对您来说更为根本和自然?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 我尝试着让写作和策展这两个活动不会被艺术系统分出不同的等级,以确保它们中的任何一个不会从属于另一个。反之,我始终在探索如何让这两者共生运行:由此,一篇论述能够产生出一个或多个展览;而同时一个展览也可以将我带至写作之中。比如,《关系美学》的写作过程就是由这样两个展览所引领的:1996年1月的“交通”( Traffic )和同一年于纽约举办的“合资企业”(Joint ventures ),都是在《关系美学》出版之前。而当我在英国泰特现代艺术馆策划“另类现代”展览的时候,我同时平行地在写作《茎生》一书。这样两个不同活动的过程是相互呼应和彼此丰富的。但是,就像我常常提到的那样,当我想要提出一个问题,我会去做展览;而当我有了一些答案,我会将之付诸于写作。展览(事实上)是一个提问媒介:它是一种聚合、一种合唱般的模式;而写作则是一个更为孤独和自我反思的过程。我的整个职业生涯正是在上述这两个位置之间作无休止的往返。

贺婧:今天这个时代存在着不同类型的策展人。比如您常常强调自己不是一个哲学家,而是策展人和批评家。但如今我们看到很多策展人自定义为“知识生产与传播者”,这与哲学家的角色是部分重叠的。您如何看待策展人角色中思辨、智识部分与艺术鉴赏部分的重叠或交叉?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 作为一位策展人,我的工作(确实)处于智识领域与艺术领域的交叉路口上。策展人既不是哲学家,也不是艺术家, 但他应当同时做到将艺术家的形式思考转译为语言,并创造出展览的形制——即作品的呈现与组织法则。仅仅围绕一个松泛的主题来选择一批艺术家的策展方式是不够的,还应当持有一个立场和态度,来阐明关于艺术及其未来的理念。要想做到这一点,对写作的精通是必需的:在这里我指的不仅仅是文本的写作,还包括展览语法的“写作”。在同一空间内将两件作品并置在一起,这本身已然是一种“写作”。

贺婧:我们了解到最近在巴黎,您对于国立高等美术学院(École Nationale des Beaux-arts à Paris)的改革引起了不少争议,那么对您来说,这样一所著名的高等美院在今天究竟意味着什么?您认为艺术是“可教授的”吗?同时作为“关系美学”的倡导者、国际策展人和一所颇具法国传统的美术学院的掌舵者,您如何平衡这些不同角色之间的关系?

尼古拉斯·伯瑞奥德: 事实上存在两种不同的传统:死去的和活着的。对于巴黎国立高等美院的改革,应当根植于这所学校的基因,即它依旧鲜活的那些传统。也就是说,依据它从十九世纪以来基于学生、艺术家、艺术作品共存的教学模式和通过“工作室”制度来传授知识的学院授课结构,而不是根据“(综合性)大学模式”来进行改革 。巴黎美院自身拥有庞大的艺术品收藏、一个展览空间和一家出版社:学校应当利用这些资源来担当起自己独特的模式,同时不能恐惧二十一世纪的到来…… 与亚洲大学和盎格鲁-撒克逊传统的大学不同,我们并不完全向综合性大学看齐。巴黎美院恰恰存在于与传统学院和当代艺术世界都相等距的位置,我把这一点看作是一种巨大的机遇。在这里,我只需要提到我们学校29个工作室导师中的几位艺术家,比如Kawamata、Tania Bruguera、James Reilly 、Pascale Marthine Tayou、Djamel Tatah、Tony Brown、Michel François 及 Ann Veronica Janssens, 巴黎美院就可以立即跻身国际水准的艺术院校。



Interview avec Nicolas Bourriaud

Interview with Nicolas Bourriaud
By He Jing

In the 1990s, Nicolas Bourriaud became one of the most influential authors of contemporary art criticism thanks to his work Relational Aesthetics . From 1999 to 2006, he served as co-director of Palais de Tokyo, the Paris contemporary art space he co-founded with Jérôme Sans. Bourriaud has a wealth of experience in curating international art exhibitions, having worked on the 2005 and 2007 Moscow Biennial (as co-curator), 2005 Lyon Biennale of Contemporary Art (as co-curator), the fourth Tate Triennial in 2009, and the 2011 Athens Biennale, among others. Now, he is the curator of the 2014 Taipei Biennial, due to open on September 12, 2014.

HE Jing Is the exhibition format of the biennial suited to the concept of the radicant you discuss in your book Radicant: Pour une esthétique de la globalisation?

Nicolas Bourriaud  Yes. A biennial is both an exhibition and a project rooted in a specific cultural context. While respecting certain local norms and rules, the curator also delivers information from an international perspective. The curatorial process behind the organization of a biennial provides an opportunity for mutual collaboration between the exhibition and the local conditions of the host city or country, and artists with local cultural backgrounds bring a rich layer of significance to the event. A radicant is a plant that takes root in different places as it grows, like ivy, for example. I think of myself as belonging to this genus; my own roots are spread out everywhere, and because of this I am better able to understand the Other and adapt quickly to new environments.

HJ  Recently, in a lecture you gave in Taipei, you discussed the importance of avoiding turning an exhibition into a “demonstration of one arbitrary concept or idea.” How can we steer away from this, such that an exhibition goes beyond a solely illustrative relationship between theme and artwork?

NB  Indeed, generally speaking, when an exhibition attempts to expound upon a pre-existing theme, it can go badly. If the function of the artwork is merely to illustrate a theme, then the full power held in those works is truncated. So for me, an exhibition isn’t a documentary—it isn’t an account searching for its own pre-established identity through the experience of some encounter. My exhibitions more closely resemble docufiction, reflecting facets of the reality of contemporary art coming together through a certain image or central hypothesis. In this way, the viewer can choose to follow the exhibition text, to create his or her own interpretation, to listen to the thoughts of the curator, or to place attention entirely on the works themselves. Just as in an opera, text and music are of equal status.

HJ   The title of the Ninth Taipei Biennial is “The Great Acceleration: Art in the Anthropocene.” What are your thoughts on acceleration? How is it manifested in the exhibition?

NB  Acceleration is a failure of human scale. It embodies our powerlessness in the face of the information economy, where every decision is handled at the speed of light and executed by computing models (in the United States, high-frequency trading already makes up 75% of all equity trading volume). The anthropocene is not only a geological concept but also a reference to an era like this one, in which humankind has already become a victim of its own infrastructure. We can see, amidst an emerging hierarchy of individuals or citizens and their disposable objects, a kind of unprecedented political alliance: animals, plants, minerals, and the atmosphere are attacked by an industrial-technological complex that has broken with civil society. In this exhibition of acceleration, I have brought together artists employing a range of approaches to reflect upon this new world order.

HJ  In The Radicant, you also discuss the final stages of modernism, marked by a committed search for root causes. You engage with contemporary artists’ new nomadic working styles and philosophies as they confront a wave of globalization, exploring concepts like transplantation and translation. Does this biennial continue your study of the non-anthropocentric and your interest in the radicant?

NB  Each of my books inspires the content of the next, and my exhibitions are similar. For instance, I recently realized that the exhibition I curated in London, “Altermodern,” actually contained the original intention and curiosity that would later give rise to “The Great Acceleration.” Though the explicit idea came later, the theme was already present in many of the works shown in London, just without me recognizing it. For me, personally, a continuous thread through curatorial practice comes from an ongoing exploration of the evolving conditions of human existence, an inquiry into how these changes function in works of art, and an examination of the role they play in artists’ organization and production of their work. But my intention is not based in the creed of anti-anthropocentrism; I retain a critical stance toward the idea.

HJ  What is your view on the position and influence of speculative realism and animism in contemporary art, these recent philosophical and aesthetic movements absorbed by the question of things? Can current artistic practices be seen as concrete responses to these intellectual trends?

NB  As I just mentioned, I maintain a critical attitude with regard to what is called speculative realism. This exhibition does not exist for the sake of jellyfish or trees; art is an activity that belongs to the realm of human relationships. Conversely, this new concern with objects lends itself to a very different perspective on our ecosystem—extending the human field of vision to encompass an ecological awareness of objects, of other life forms, and of our surrounding environment. From this angle, speculative realism has the potential to rejuvenate the way we see things. For this exhibition, what interests me is the collision between practices influenced by an expanded approach to observation, and by the relational concept of aesthetics I developed in the 1990s. I juxtapose the two, looking at them together as a way to generate questions. What is the true composition of the network of human interpersonal relationships? Might art be able to bridge these relationships? As for animism—a trend that has incited much discussion in the past two years—in my view it closely approaches anti-anthropocentrism in that it emphasizes the endowment of objects or animals with souls, assigning them human characteristics. It seems as though today’s artists are unsatisfied with this phenomenon, and are attempting to move out in different directions: from objects to organisms, minerals to products of industry, the world of plants to the world of the digital, humankind to animals …

HJ   In your notes on the Biennial, you write, “Relational art is often blamed for being overly inclined towards ‘anthropocentrism,’ even humanism … in the eyes of some, relational aesthetics is behind the times and difficult to stomach.” Your book Relational Aesthetics was published in the 1990s, coinciding with the end of the Cold War and the rise of the internet. Do changes in the present social context bring about an intellectual adjustment for you, in terms of your original aesthetic proposition?

NB  The idea behind this exhibition comes from an essay I read that suggested that today the number of task-performing bots on the internet is greater than the number of humans on the planet. Twenty-five years after the birth of the internet, humankind has gotten lost, so the original principles of relational aesthetics must indeed be revisited. What role do these principles play now? Like the structuralism of the 1950s and 1960s, the birth of speculative realism has reconfigured humankind’s status as subject. In those days we talked about structure; now we talk about substance. But if we observe the world from the perspective of substances, as advocates of speculative realism would prefer—that is, if we abandon our understanding of the world in terms of a series of relationships—then existence overrides knowledge and substances themselves override the awareness we derive from looking at and thinking about them. I see that, if we take the materialist framework as our starting point, no hierarchical distinction exists a priori between material and non-material entities. But, from a political perspective, with the capitalist system reifying and converting organic systems into products as never before, it is extremely important at this juncture that we give human beings their own special rights.

HJ  Since 2000, artistic practices surrounding relational aesthetics have been accorded many different names, including participatory art, socially engaged art, and so on. These titles are used to describe a kind of participatory phenomenon that produces relationships in artistic creation. How do you determine the subtle differences between all of them?

NB  Participatory art was born in the 1960s alongside the practices of artists like Allan Kaprow, those behind the Fluxus movement, and then later Gordon Matta- Clark. The main objective of participatory art is to broaden the field of artistic practice, as opposed to proposing ways to consider the form and nature of interpersonal relations. Socially engaged art is not a recent mode of practice either; Beuys’ work proves this point early on. But the newer phenomenon that we see emerging in the 1990s is a group of artists who choose interaction as a subject of their creative work. Outside of this, they do occasionally draw from elements of their interactive antecedents. Both participatory art and socially engaged art are subsets as well as predecessors of the relational art of the 1990s.

HJ  What is the relationship between different forms of writing and the exhibition you ultimately present to your audiences? Between writing and curating, which kind of work is more fundamental for you?

NB  I am trying to prevent the art system from placing writing and curatorial work into a stratified framework. Neither is subordinate to or dominant over the other. I’ve also been consistently engaged in an investigation of ways in which the two might be symbiotic: a discourse can produce an exhibition or several; an exhibition can bring me back into writing. For instance, I was writing The Radicant at the exact same time that I was planning “Altermodern” at Tate Modern. The processes of these two activities echo and enrich one another. When I want to pose a new question, I’ll do an exhibition; when I’ve uncovered some answers, I’ll put it into writing. An exhibition is a medium for open questions: it is a gathering place where voices come together. Writing is a more solitary, reflective process. My whole career is an ongoing back-and-forth between these two states.