評論
打印
The universalizing imperative of technology is irresistible. Barring the catastrophe of nuclear war, it will continue to shape both modern culture and the consciousness of those who inhabit that culture.
工藝技術的普遍應用是不可抗拒的。只要沒有核戰爭給世界帶來毀滅性災難，這種應用將繼續影響現代文化以及創造這種文化的現代人的思想意識。
This brings us to art and history again. Reminiscing on the early work of Francis Picabia and Marcel Duchamp, Madame Gabrielle Buffet-Picabia wrote of the discovery of the machine aesthetic in 1949:"I remember a time...when every artist thought he owed it to himself to turn his back on the Eiffel Tower, as a protest against the architectural blasphemy with which it filled the sky....The discovery and rehabilitation of ... machines soon generated propositions which evaded all tradition, above all, a mobile, extra human plasticity which was absolutely new....”
這又把我們的注意力帶回到藝術和歷史方面來了。迦百列布菲·皮卡比阿夫人追憶弗朗西斯·皮卡比阿和馬塞爾·杜尚的早期作品時對1949年機器美學的產生作了這樣的描寫："我記得有一個時期…每一位藝術家表示對埃菲爾鐵塔的蔑視，譴責這座污染天空，褻瀆神明的建筑是自己義不容辭的責任…機器…的發明與發展很快就提出了一些傳統思維完全無法解決的命題，一種全新的、靈活的、超出人的理解力的可塑性…"
Art is, in one definition, simply an effort to name the real world. Are machines "the real world" or only its surface? Is the real world that easy to find? Science has shown the in substantiality of the world. It has thus undermined an article of faith: the thingliness of things. At the same time, it has produced images of orders of reality underlying the thingliness of things. Are images of cells or of molecules or of galaxiesmore or less real than images of machines? Science has also produced images that are pure artifacts. Are images of self-squared dragons more or less real than images of molecules?
曾有人下定義說，藝術就是一種給現實世界命名的嘗試。機器是"現實世界"本身還是僅僅是其表面呢?現實世界容易發現嗎?科學已經證明，世界是虛無的。這就動搖了人們認為世界的物質是客觀實在的信念。同時，科學又創造出了潛存于客觀實在之中的各種不同種類和范疇的現實世界的形象。機器的形象與細胞、分子或是銀河系這些物體形象相比較，哪一個更實在呢?科學還創造出了純屬人造物的形象。一個張牙舞爪的龍的形象比分子的形象是更接近現實還是更遠離現實呢?
