展览“慢进？我们如何共处”（详情点击此处）由比利安娜·思瑞克策划、广东时代美术馆主办。艺术家马里奥·加西亚·托雷斯（Mario García Torres）为展览创作了一件全新的作品《要是我想到了恰当的词该多好》。早前，新华社联合搜狗公司发布首个AI合成主播[1]。在本篇对谈中，艺术家加西亚·托雷斯将介绍这一与搜狗公司共同开发的新作品，他的项目方案是由AI主播在视频中完成播稿。[1] 2018年11月7日第五届世界互联网大会，搜狗与新华社联合发布全球首个全仿真智能AI主持人-新华网
比利安娜·思瑞克（以下简称BC）：当我最初向你发出展览邀请时，你就已经有了非常具体的想法。许多受邀艺术家都会选择先来中国做调查研究，熟悉一下这里的本土环境。而你不同。你第一次来中国就带着非常明确的目标的想法。这是为什么？你的想法和兴趣从何而来？马里奥·加西亚·托雷斯（以下简称MGT）：这里涉及两个相关问题：第一个与我之前的方案《询问》（An Inquiry）有关；另一个则是对于海外邀约的反应（艺术家对当地的语境并不熟悉）。这都涉及到可行性、当下性和在地性。如今，如果要保留传统的在地式的创作方式，我们不能将其作为一个地理概念，而应该是一种关于生产场所的特定对话。在给中国举办的展览提出的方案中，我觉得不一定要围绕特定的政治历史或社会经济环境，而更多的围绕从当地技术生发出的思想、梦想和对未来愿景的假设。这可以成为你从外部和远处对当下的切入点。对未来的投射可以成为作品的创作语境，我喜欢这种想法。应对海外展览邀约很重要的一点是协商，既要尊重语境的特殊性，又要打造出一片让我的主观性和当地语境能够共存的空间。通过与当地某个实体的合作，或许能够实现这一目标。在接到你的邀约之前，出于个人兴趣我已经读了不少关于中国AI技术发展的文章，这对当今中国社会产生了广泛的影响。于是我想到，中国的AI可以与我在墨西哥构思的想法发生对话。这就是整个方案的产生过程。也因此，这次在中国的调研之旅变得有点像马拉松式商务会谈。
团队在北京搜狗办公室，由蔡俏凌拍摄
BC：你所谓的当地实体指的是什么？
MGT：我写了几段舞台独白，希望继续深化这方面的实践。因此，我幻想着AI人物能够担任某种翻译的角色，而不用真人演员，将我在中国产生的想法转译出来。在调研过程中我们的对话肯定会对最终的脚本产生影响。不过，我相信最终的作品会是此前各种假设和调研体验的综合。BC：能说说脚本吗？
BC：比如，脚本跟你之前创作的关系。出发点有何不同？
MGT：我的许多创作都是从写作开始的。近期的创作更多的是口头剧本，后者说独白。目前，我完成了三段式独白，希望可以进一步深化。有些事看起来显而易见，但我觉得如果某人脑海中有了一个非常明确的想法，然后直接面对面地跟你说，这还是很有意思的。以这种方式展开的公共参与跟电影、绘画作品非常不一样。甚至比起行为或舞蹈类作品，我依然认为演讲的形式是提出论点最直接而有力的方式。至于内容，我写的这几段独白可以看作是对发展和进步的辩护，强化事实和理性的确定性。其中一段提出，失败是一种操作方式；另一段则讲述了一个数学家的故事，他终其一生都试图在诗歌中推导理性；第三段则围绕犹豫和延迟决策展开辩论。BC：为什么要给AI主播写独白？
MGT：这算是一种实验。我的好奇心来自内心的冲动；希望打造这样一种空间，作为观众的你在里面的时候不知道到底是谁在跟你说话。我很喜欢这种高度似人的机器所创造的张力。机器“人”能否传递想法，这是一个挑战。在这个空间内，你允许自己受骗，因为这个前所未见的新生事物让你着迷。这是我最主要的创作出发点，当然，目前还处在假设阶段。BC：你会发布一段一分钟的介绍片……
马里奥·加西亚·托雷斯，《要是我想到了恰当的词该多好》
作品由广东时代美术馆2019年展览“慢进？我们如何共处”委任创作，该展览由比利安娜·思瑞克策划蔡俏凌：在本次展览前，她还会主持一场论坛。
MGT：是的。根据目前我们所了解到的情况，这是雅妮（注：搜狗AI合成主播“雅妮”）的第二份工作；她的第一份工作是担任一场线上文学论坛的虚拟主持人。因此，在我们发布这件作品之前，可能一部分中国人已经见过她了。但是总的来说她亮相的时间并不长，也不会被过度定义。这也是我喜欢雅妮的地方，不久后她可能成为当红主播！BC：作为艺术家，探究未来的意义何在？
MGT：嗯，未来影响着我们每个人，不是吗？不仅仅艺术界，科学界、政治界、商界都要考虑未来，只是方式不同。我们根据预判来做决策。我们生活在一个超前的世界。艺术与未来始终息息相关。每一个潜在的演绎或解读都是互为关联的，形成一个永续的过程。可以说，艺术始终来源于未来；从不隶属于当下。我认为，未来将会以全新的方式对艺术产生影响。如果雅妮开始其他工作，作品的意义或许会发生改变；这就好比演员在整个演出生涯扮演不同的角色，我们对他们的印象也会随之发生变化。我所感兴趣的不是作品的静态意义，作品中出现的人物可能会有“来世”，有新的意义，这才是最激动人心的。BC：这对于我们的工作语境意义何在？技术让人与人的距离越来越远，不是吗？你曾说你想通过自己的实践打造一个亲密的邂逅空间。而在AI主播的表演中，这种亲密性在哪儿？
MGT：这是一场冒险。近来，我越发感到作为艺术机构我们正在衰败。美术馆的数量越来越多，但电影作品或者需要耗费大量时间的作品则越来越少。在这个意义上，我的一部分作品其实在传统美术馆空间里也是失败的。它们变成了某种传闻、或者抽象的故事；我虽然也喜欢这些作品，但当下这个被youtube-instagram主导的时代确实改变了作品的意义。人们的习惯发生了改变，由此，艺术作品的意义和精确性也发生改变。当下，耗费大量时间的作品只能在家庭或者办公室这种亲密程度的空间存在。如果这类作品标榜自己要搜寻勇敢的公众，那么在当前的环境下，它们唯一的希望就是在一个不断萎缩市场里寻找那个真正的“勇者”。想法的存活期和受关注期越来越短，先验传播或许会沦为非公共消费。至于雅妮，我不知道她的未来会怎样。我还得继续尝试，看看她打破极限的潜力。我相信由似人非人所创造的空间会十分引人入胜。
在北京的考察之行，由蔡俏凌拍摄
BC：你为雅妮写剧本的过程是怎样的？你知道她的样子，和她说话的方式。在我的感觉当中，阅读剧本是一件关于我们自身的事情，是自我的投射，寄托着人对“从不完美但接近完美”的基本的愿望。雅妮既是一位人工智能主播，也是我们。
MGT：当我看到雅妮读我写的第一段剧本的时候，我就很清楚的意识到这是一个鬼魂般的整体。如果说我对数字机器人近乎人类的行为和外表产生了一种诡异的感觉的话，当我听见它在说我写的文字的时候，这种感觉就变得更加引人入胜了。当时我明白了一点，那就是当我们在对机器人接管世界这件事既期待又害怕的时候，它其实是一种投射，一个形象，像鬼魂一样。类似的，我想这位AI新闻主播也生活在一个中间地带。不是在生与死之间，而是在一个充满了光明的未来和一个社会的末路之间。因此，他们作为我们的希望和投射被建造出来，是我们希望自己所成为的样子。于是，我产生了关于镜子的话语的想法并把它放到了剧本当中。这位AI女演员是一件永远不完美的创造，但是与此同时，也是我们作为人类投射出的一个更好的自我。BC：可以谈一下你为什么要把剧本分为11个不同的章节吗？
MGT：把它分为11个章节完全是情况使然。我认为我可以花更多时间完善这份剧本。有时候我必须停下来，让剧本变成真正的讲话状态。我产生了一个有趣的想法，那就是随机播放这些章节。剧本不是根据学术论文的逻辑开展的，它更像一场永无休止的争论，各种想法即将形成却无法形成。AI机器人也一样。它几乎是个真人，有时却没办法做到。这11个章节是滚动的想法，以非系统的方式持续运动。我尝试以一种开放的态度选择中心线索，去模拟一种肤浅的基于网络的研究，在此之中，哲学、事实和流行文化都被置于同一水平。因为争论并没有结果，所以我认为可以以任何顺序阅读剧本。BC：给雅妮设计独白的过程中有一个有意思的地方，那就是她不知道如何停顿。因此，停顿在剧本写作中成为非常重要的一部分。从展览角度出发，AI不懂如何停顿这一点很有趣，因为缓慢跟进步的概念是相反的。可以详细聊一下这一点吗？
MGT：给一个话音单调的人写独白是一个很大的挑战。跟人类说话不同，雅妮说话中没有微妙之处、激动感或者亲密感。我很早就非常清楚，AI女演员能做的、能变成人的唯一一件事，就是拒绝成为机器人，或者停止、停顿，拒绝开发自己的功能。我加入的停顿越多，我就越发意识到这件事情。我觉得它们体现了一种人类所说的缺憾之美。在这种情形下，这似乎是机器人拒绝程序的唯一办法，但是，它在这样做的时候会让它更具有人性，因为它会让说出来的让人困惑，停下来思考，并研究接下来要说些什么。她的每一次停顿，都会让独白突然转变，就好像她在重新整理思路一样。我希望大家也可以感受到这一点。
马里奥·加西亚·托雷斯用某APP美颜自拍
图片由蔡俏凌提供
马里奥·加西亚·托雷斯生活和工作于墨西哥城。在过去20年里，他以作品质问了某些概念的稳定性，比如时间、记忆、图像以及艺术家在社会中的根本角色。他对不确定性和对抗叙事深感兴趣，通过研究和多种讲故事的策略，在作品中模糊了事实与虚构的空间。他近期的展览包括“Illusion Brought Me Here”, 美国明尼苏达州明尼阿波里斯沃克艺术中心（2018-2019）；“Caminar juntos”, Tamayo博物馆 （2016）；“An Arrival Tale”, TBA21, 维也纳 （2016）；“马里奥·加西亚·托雷斯”, 汉默美术馆，洛杉矶（2014）；“Until It Makes Sense”，项目艺术中心, 都柏林 (2013)；“¿Alguna vez has visto la nieve caer? ”，索菲娅王后国家艺术中心博物馆，马德里 (2010)。他还参与了第13届沙迦双年展（2017）、 第11届欧洲当代艺术双年展（苏黎世，2016）、第8届柏林双年展（2014）、第9届南方共同体双年展（2013）和第13届卡塞尔文献展（2012）。
For the exhibition Modes of Encounter: An Inquiry (click to read more), curated by Biljana Ciric, and presented by Times Museum, in Guangzhou, China, Mario García Torres has been invited to produce a new piece If Only I'd Thought of The Right Words. Below the artist discusses his new project currently being developed with Sogou. Earlier this year, the Chinese tech company released an Artificial Intelligence based news anchor for the Chinese broadcasting agency Xin Hua. The proposal from García Torres implies a script to be delivered by an AI character in a video. Biljana Ciric and Cai QiaolingBiljiana Ciric: When I reached out to you, the first time, with an invitation to participate in this project, you were very specific about your interest. Many artists invited would first visit China to research and spend some time in the local environment; however, you came to China, making your first ever trip, with a very specific aim and interest. Maybe you can describe a little bit of why and where that interest come from? Mario García Torres: Let's talk about two questions that are intertwined here: the first has to do with my early proposal for An Inquiry... and the other with a certain reaction to foreign invitations (meaning from contexts an artist is not that familiar with), which discusses the viability, today, of site-specificity. If we were to save today the notion of working in a site-specific way, we would not be able to consider that a geographical notion, but maybe a particular discourse as the site of production. Somehow, I started to think that my proposal for an exhibition in China shouldn’t necessarily be around a certain political history or socioeconomic context, but more around a hypothesis of ideas, dreams, and visions of the future, all developed through technology in that area of the world. That is something you can have a sense of today, from far away. I like the idea that those coming-times projections could become the context of the work. An important part of the way an invitation like this is negotiated, has to do with respecting the specificities of that context and inventing a place where my subjectivity and that of the context could coexist. It might be possible to arrive at that place through collaboration with a local entity. Before your invitation, curiosity had led me to read what I could around the development of Artificial Intelligence in China, and its seemingly prevailing impact in that society today. I started to think that the minds around AI in China, could become a certain interlocutor for my own ideas developed back home in Mexico. That’s what happened, and what has turned this research trip into a kind of business-meeting-marathon. BC: What is the local entity?
MGT: I have made a few stage monologues now, and I hope I can keep developing that part of my practice. In this case, I kind of dreamt that an AI character could become the shape of that translator, or interpreter of my ideas in China, instead of an actual person-actor. I think the conversation we have had throughout this trip will certainly impact the development of my final script. In any case, I am certain that the final work will still be shaped by my pre-trip assumptions, and this experience as well. BC: Can you talk a little more about the script?
MGT: It’s very difficult to talk about it right now. BC: Maybe how does this relate to your previous works? It’s a different departure?
MGT: A lot of my work tends to start from writing. Lately, it feels like the spoken scripts, or monologues, have prevail a certain part of my practice. So far, I have made three stage monologues, and I hope I can keep developing more. In a way it’s so obvious, but I think it is very interesting what happens when someone with a specific idea in mind speaks directly to you, in the flesh. I think that public engagement in this way is very different than say, a film, or a painting. Even in relation to other performatic or dance driven works, I think the most straight-forward presentation of an argument as speech is still very powerful. In terms of content, the monologues I have made so far are some kind of defense against progress, and the imposing certitude of the factual, or the rational. One of them defends failure as a mode of operation, another tells the story of a mathematician that throughout his life gives all his reasoning to poetry, and yet another argues for hesitation, for delaying decisions. BC: What does it mean to write a monologue for the A.I. news anchor?
MGT: That’s a kind of experiment. I think that my curiosity comes from some kind of impulse; a desire to create a space where, as a spectator you don’t know exactly who is talking to you. I like the tension created by a machine that looks very much like a human. It’s a challenge to see if this robot-cum-person is able to transmit an idea too. It is in this sort of space where you allow yourself to be cheated, because you’re intrigued about this new thing you’ve never seen. That’s my main interest, but it’s still a premise, so far. BC: And you will release a one-minute introduction of this…
MGT: Yeah, she could be the announcer, the image of the show! Cai Qiaoling: She’ll be the host for another conference before this exhibition.
MGT: Yeah, so from what we know, ours will be Yanny’s second job; the first will be as a virtual host of an online literature conference. By the time we release the work she may have been seen by some in China, but she will not have been used for too long. She will not be overly defined yet. It’s one thing I like about Yanny, she might become very famous as a broadcaster in the near future! BC: What does this mean for you as an artist to delve into the future?
MGT: Well, the future drive us all, doesn’t it? Not only for us in the arts, but also -in a different way- for people in science, politics, and certainly business, we make decisions in relation to what can be predicted. We live in an ahead-world. Art, itself is always about the future. Every potential rendition and every potential interpretation can only lead to another, in a continual process that never wear out itself. Thus art is perpetually coming from the future; it is never from its present. Now, in this case, I would like to think that it will be the future that impacts art in a retrofitted way. If Yanny starts doing other jobs, the meaning of the work might change, the same way we see actors differently after years of seeing them play different roles throughout the years. I am not interested in a static meaning of a work, so the idea of using a character that could have an afterlife, is exciting. BC: What does it mean in our working context? Because technology separates us from one another, right? You also claim that you try to produce this intimate space of encounter with your practice. Where is this intimacy now, with an AI anchor performing?
MGT: It is a gamble. Lately, I have realized, at least for me, we are failing as an institution, meaning the institution of art. Numbers in art museums are greater than ever, but when it comes to films, and more time-demanding works, we are further away than ever. Some of my own works in that sense, are not successful in that space anymore. They have become rumors, abstract tales, which I like, but they have definitely changed in this youtube-instagram era. Habits change, and with that, the meaning and the accuracy of works of art. I think that today, time-consuming works, are only able to survive in the intimacy of the home, maybe the office. If those works at some point defined themselves as searchers for brave publics, today, their only hope is for an ever-reducing niche, the real brave. Survival of ideas, are reduced to a shorter and shorter attention span, and transcendental circulation is maybe reduced to non-public consumption. As for Yanny, I am not sure what’s going to happen. I still need to test, how successfully she manages to transcend those limitations. I am betting on that intriguing place created by a non-human-humanoid. BC: What was the process of writing the script for Yanni like? You knew what she looks like, how she talks… Reading the script, my personal impression was that the piece is also very much about us, functioned as a projection of us, describing the basic human desire: “never perfect but almost.” As much as Yanni may be an AI, she is also a news anchor and us in many ways.
MGT: As soon as I saw our Yanni speak the first short script I wrote, it was very clear to me that it was a ghostly entity. If it’s true that we experience an eerie feeling when looking at a digital robot behave and look so precisely like a person, it gets even more intriguing and awkward when it speaks your own words. There I understood that more than the space between our hope and our fear for robots to take over our world, it is a projection, an image, like a ghost. As such, I think this AI news anchor exists in a kind of in-between space; not necessarily between the living and the dead, but between the possibility of a bright future and a certain societal dead end. And so, the AI is built upon our hopes and projections of what we wish we could become. This is where the discourse around the notion of the mirror began to appear in the script. The AI actress as a never-quite-perfect creation but at the same time, a projection of an upgraded version of ourselves as humans.BC: Can you discuss the decision to turn the script into eleven different chapters?
MGT: The development of eleven chapters was a totally circumstantial thing. I could have continued to develop the script much further, but I had to stop at some point and allow the script to become a real speech. What I think became even more interesting was the idea of playing the chapters in a random manner. The script is not written with the logical progression of an academic essay, but more as a never-reaching argument, where ideas are becoming but are never fully articulated. This is similar to the way that we perceive an AI robot: an almost-human being that at some point fails to succeed in becoming truly human. The eleven chapters contain ideas that roll-over and keep moving onward in an unsystematic way. I tried to be very open when choosing the paths for the ideas to take in an effort to imitate the superficial progression of internet based research—where philosophy, facts, and pop culture are placed all on the same level. So, as there is no final argument, I thought the script could be read in any direction.BC: One interesting aspect I noticed in how you developed the mode of delivering the monologue for Yanni was that she didn’t know how to take pause. The pauses that you introduced into the writing of the script seem to be very meaningful, since these are things an AI generally doesn't “comprehend.” This is particularly interesting within the context of the exhibition, which addresses notions of slowness in a number of ways, which is posed as opposite to the notion of progress. Can you elaborate on this aspect of the work?
MGT: Writing a monologue for a monotone speaker is a real challenge. There are no subtleties; there is no excitement nor intimate forms of speech, as in human speech. Very early on, it became clear to me that the only thing the AI actress could do, to become human, was to reject being a robot, and stop—pause—reject the development of its function. When I realized this, I started to introduce such pauses more and more. I think they speak to what we humans call the beauty of imperfection. It felt that it was, in this case, the only way a robot could refuse a program, and by doing so it would gain some additional level of humanness, because it will connect what is being said with confusion, and further with an off-moment to think, to consider what to say next. Every time she pauses, there is a radical change in the monologue, as if she is rerouting her ideas. I hope others perceive these moments in the work. Mario García Torres (b. 1975, Monclova, Mexico) lives and works in Mexico City. Over the past twenty years, his work has questioned the stability of such concepts as time, memory, image, and the very essence of the artist’s role in society. An artist deeply interested in uncertainty and counter-narratives, his work blurs the space between fact and fiction through research and a wide range of storytelling strategies. His recent solo exhibitions include Illusion Brought Me Here, Walker Art Center, Minneapolis & WIELS Contemporary Art Centre (2018-2019); Caminar juntos, Museo Tamayo (2016); An Arrival Tale, TBA21, Vienna (2016); Mario García Torres, Hammer Museum, Los Angeles (2014); Until It Makes Sense, Project Arts Centre, Dublin (2013); ¿Alguna vez has visto la nieve caer?, Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, Madrid (2010). He has also participated in Sharjah Biennial 13 (2017); Manifesta 11, Zurich (2016); Berlin Biennale 8 (2014); Bienal do Mercosul 9 (2013); and Documenta 13 (2012).
{{newsData.good_count}}
{{newsData.transfer_count}}
分享