麻烦来了：对评论不太艺术的回应

司马勤

在过去的几个月里，评论界受到了很多……嗯， 批评。去年2 月，《纽约时报》的一篇文章挑衅地提出这个议题：“学术化的文学批评：它有什么好处？”第二天，同一家报纸上刊登了另一篇文章，题为“艺术评论家群体中的分歧扩大”。

然而，大约一周后，“狗屎事件”出现了。

无论你关心何种艺术形式， 面临的问题都是一样的。上文提及的第一篇刊登于《纽约时报》的文章， 聚焦了学术评论家约翰· 吉洛里（John Guillory）的新书《专业评论》（Professing Criticism ），该书从本质上提出了一个问题：高度专业化、理论复杂的评论，能真正为公众服务吗？

我们应该注意到，吉洛里习惯于煽风点火，把事情搞得一团糟。大约30 年前，他在《文化资本》（Cultural Capital ）一书里，也发表了类似的挑衅性声明——提醒人们，在你想讨论的任何领域， 所谓的“伟大的经典作品”，内容并不是永久固定的，而仅是一个架构且会就其内容定期进行开放谈判。吉洛里对前来参与磋商的人并不完全满意， 但他的想法与20 世纪90 年代初“身份政治”的兴起产生了强烈共鸣。在当时，女性、有色人种和其他各种少数族裔群体开始质问，为什么这么多社会元素被排斥在外。

在过去的几年里，这些变革之风已经升级为狂风暴雨，“黑人的命也是命”和其他的社会事件都在呼吁提高艺术的多样性，并要求对缺乏社会包容性的行为进行历史解释。这已经成为国际艺术评论家协会（International Association of Art Critics）的一个关键性争议话题的来源背景：视觉艺术究竟需要多大程度的多样性——不仅仅是在艺术从业者中，也包括那些存在于艺术作品的角色？国际艺术评论家协会总部位于巴黎，由约6000 名作家（其中约有500 名美国作家）组成。

但这些基本上都是些鸡毛蒜皮似的小争吵。几天之内，一名编舞家在中场休息时与一名舞蹈评论家发生对峙，这场冲突几乎升级为一场战争。当时，汉诺威国家歌剧院的芭蕾舞总监和首席编舞马尔科· 戈克（Marco Goecke）质问《法兰克福汇报》（Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ）的评论家维布克·胡斯特（Wiebke Hüster）在剧院里做什么，因为当天早上维布克· 胡斯特在报纸上发表的评论中声称， 马尔科· 戈克刚刚在荷兰世界首演的舞蹈作品《在荷蘭山中》（In the Dutch Mountain ），让观众“在精神错乱和无聊中反复交替”。然后，他从口袋里掏出一袋狗屎，把它涂抹在了评论家的脸上。

据说，遭到狗屎袭击后，胡斯特尖叫起来。等到她恢复冷静，她离开剧院并报了警，还提出了刑事指控。汉诺威国家歌剧院院长劳拉· 伯曼（Laura Berman）也立即获知这宗事件，因为目击者担心情况会变得更糟。

有关这场争执的消息很快在网上疯传。表演艺术圈差不多人人都在谈论这宗事件。在精英文化的世界里，这相当于威尔· 史密斯（Will Smith）在奥斯卡颁奖典礼上扇了克里斯· 洛克（Chris Rock） 一巴掌。人们一直在问，为什么马尔科· 戈克这样一位受人尊敬的艺术家，并且他刚刚在2022 年赢得了德国著名的舞蹈奖Deutschen Tanzpreis 奖， 会如此公开地攻击这样一位著名的评论家？这是否表明艺术家回应公众批评的方式发生了变化？

截至目前，马尔科· 戈克执导的作品仍保留在汉诺威国家歌剧院的剧目中。但在事件发生后的那周末，这位编舞家失去了剧院芭蕾舞总监的工作。显然，作为一名艺术家，他对负面评论的反应很容易被理解，并且在某种程度上可以容忍；
但作为一个政府机构的公众代表，人们对他的容忍度就没那么高了。

《纽约时报》关于文学和视觉艺术评论的文章传达出的信息是，如今，任何艺术领域的任何实质性分析，都在受到社会文化和资本力量的威胁。一方面，文学界已经进入了一个“后批判” 阶段，重视随意的“外行阅读”（以及同样随意的新闻简介和网络聊天），而不是专业评价；
另一方面，发表艺术评论的媒体越来越少，哪怕仅是肤浅的泛泛之谈。《纽约时报》称，大多数视觉艺术的评论家所发表的评论，更像是为博物馆和画廊写的销售文案。

但是，多亏了一袋狗屎，我们才能看到一个独立意见的力量是多么强大。

“回想起来，我清楚地意识到，在我们争论最激烈的时刻，这样做是一个可耻的行为。”戈克在一份正式声明中说，但似乎没有人愿意相信他的言论。事实上，这位编舞曾向德国公共广播公司NDR 抱怨说，胡斯特多年来一直在用评论攻击他。但说真的，当发生分歧时，有多少人口袋里刚好会装着一袋狗屎？

荷兰舞蹈剧场立即回应称，戈克的行为“违背了我们的价值观”，但仍让他继续担任副编舞。但在澳大利亚芭蕾舞团，戈克就没那么幸运了， 该芭蕾舞团放弃了本演出季晚些时候带戈克的作品去伦敦皇家歌剧院巡演的计划。

然而，戈克声称他只是想加入有关评论的辩论。他说，这主要是想建立起评论“分界线”的问题。他告诉《纽约时报》，“评论家不应以个人主观意见和泄愤的方式写作”，特别是“当艺术机构在遭遇因新冠疫情停摆后，仍在试图重新站稳脚跟和重新吸引观众的时候”。然而，该事件的目击者称，戈克认为胡斯特个人应对许多芭蕾舞的“铁粉”们在疫情后取消他们的季票而负责。在交流过程中，他还威胁要永远禁止她进入剧院。

不出所料，《法兰克福汇报》指控戈克不仅对评论家进行了人身侮辱和身体伤害，还恐吓媒体。此后，至少有另外四位国际舞蹈的评论家，公开了他们在对戈克的作品发表负面评价后，收到的戈克发出的奇怪的敌对信件。

无论如何，这场著名的对峙，在当时对戈克个人来说可能非常满意，但对其职业生涯的后续影响是严峻的。汉诺威国家歌剧院在其网站上立即指出剧院的声誉受到“巨大的损害”。艺术媒体在德国的地位可能比在其他文化背景的国家都要好，但由于评论家所剩无几，艺术家们必须仔细选择他们的队伍和立场。正如伏尔泰在临终前对试图让他与撒旦断绝关系的牧师所说的那样：“现在不是树敌的时候。”

從这一点上看，胡斯特为戈克的其他作品发表评论的可能性几乎为零，并且很难想象其他任何评论家会对戈克的作品感兴趣，或者能够仅仅根据其艺术价值来发表客观评论。

In the past few months， criticism has been com?ing under a lot of， um， criticism. Last February， an article in The New York Times provocatively asked “Academic Literary Criticism：
What Is It Good For？” The next day， another article in the same newspa?per appeared under the headline “Rift Widens Amid Group of Art Critics.”

Then， a week or so later， came the dog poo.

No matter what artform you turn to， the prob?lems are mostly the same. The first Times article focused on a new book by academic critic John Guillory entitled Professing Criticism ， which asks essentially， what purpose do highly specialized， theoretically sophisticated readings really serve for the general public？

Guillory， we should note， is used to stirring things up. Some 30 years ago， his book Cultural Capital made a similarly provocative statement， reminding people that the so-called Canon of Great Works— in any field you care to discuss—is not a permanent fixture but rather an imaginary construct periodically open to negotiation. Guillory was not entirely happy with the people who came to negotiate， but his ideas resonated heavily with the rise of identity politics in the early 1990s， when women， people of color and various other minority groups started asking why so many elements of society were excluded.

In the past few years， those winds of change have escalated to gale force， with Black Lives Matter and other social causes calling for greater diversity in the arts and demanding historical accounting for the lack of inclusion. This has become a key source of dispute among the Paris-based International Association of Art Critics， an organization of about 6000 writers （500 or so based in the United States）：
How much should diversity—not just among arts practitioners but also the people who write about them—be required in the visual arts？

But these were basically small family quarrels. Within a few days， the conflict escalated to near-warfare at the Hanover State Theater when a dance critic was confronted by a choreographer at intermis?sion. Marco Goecke asked Wiebke Hüster， a writer for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung， what she was do?ing in the theater， particularly after her review in the paper that morning where she claimed that his dance piece In the Dutch Mountain—which had just had its premiere in the Netherlands—made the audience al?ternate “between a state of feeling insane and being killed by boredom.” Then he pulled a bag of dog feces from his pocket and smeared it on her face.

By all accounts， Hüster began to scream and， once she regained composure， left to alert the police. Laura Berman， the head of the Hanover State Opera， was also immediately alerted， as witnesses were con?cerned that the situation might get even worse.

News of the altercation quickly went viral. People in the performing arts were talking about little else. In the world of rarefied culture， it was the equiva?lent of Will Smith slapping Chris Rock at the Oscars. Why， people kept asking， would such a respected artist—Geocke had just won Germanys prestigious Deutschen Tanzpreis in 2022—so publicly assault such a prominent critic？ And did this indicate shift?ing standards in what is considered an acceptable response to public criticism？

As of now， Goeckes works will remain in Ha?novers repertory， but by the end of the week the choreographer had lost his job as the companys ballet director. Apparently， his reaction as an art?ist was easy to understand and—to some extent— tolerate; as a public representative of a government institution， not so much.

The take-home message from the Times articles on literary criticism and the visual arts is that any substantial analysis of work in any artistic field is threatened today by forces both cultural and eco?nomic. On one hand， the literary world has moved into a “postcritical” phase that values casual “lay reading” （and equally casual news blurbs and in?ternet chatter） over professional evaluation; on the other hand， fewer and fewer media outlets publish arts criticism on even a superficial level. Most people who write about the visual arts， the Times says， pay the bills by writing essentially sales copy for muse?ums and galleries.

But thanks to a handful of doggie dung， we can see how powerful an independent opinion can be.

“In retrospect， I clearly realize that this was a shameful act in the heat of the moment，” Goecke said in a formal statement that no one appears to believe. Actually， the choreographer had complained to the

German public broadcaster NDR that Hüster had been “throwing shit [at him] for years.” And really， how many people just happen to be carrying a bag of dog excrement in their pocket？

The Netherlands Dance Theater immediately re?sponded that Goekes actions were “contrary to our values，” but has still kept him on as associate cho?reographer. He was not so lucky with the Australian Ballet， which dropped plans to take his work on tour to Londons Royal Opera House later this season.

Goecke， though， claims he was just trying to join in the critical debate. Mostly， he said， it was a matter of establishing boundaries. Critics， he told The New York Times ， “should not write in a personal and hate?ful way，” particularly when arts institutions across the board are still trying to regain their footing （and audiences） after the Covid-19 shutdown. Eyewitness to the event， however， claim that Goecke blamed Huster personally for many regular balletgoers hav?ing cancelled their season tickets after the pandemic. During the exchange， he also threatened to ban her permanently from the theater.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ， unsurprising?ly， accused Goecke not just of personal humiliation and bodily harm but also of intimidating the press. At least four other international dance critics have since come out reporting bizarrely hostile correspondence from Goecke after reviewing his work negatively.

However personally fulfilling the famous encoun?ter might have been for Goecke at the time， the fallout is professionally grim. On its website， the Ha?nover State Opera immediately noted the “massive damage” to its reputation. The arts press might be in a better position in Germany than other cultural capitals， but with so few critics left standing artists have to choose both their battles and their battle?fields carefully. As Voltaire told the priest trying to get him to renounce Satan on his deathbed， “Now is not the time to make enemies.”

At this point， the odds of Hüster ever attending another work by Goecke is pretty much zero， but it would be hard to imagine any other critic getting ex?cited about his work， or being able to review it solely on its artistic merits.

推荐访问:来了 不太 麻烦