Friday, November 27, 2009

Meeting Gary Snyder

Great to meet one of the members of Beat Generation, although he refused the label of "Beat writers".
I am not a big fan of Snyder, yet I appreciate his insistence on Zen's ineffability - which makes the Koan of a monk got his finger cut make sense -and I am happy to know that there is another Noh fan.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Badiou; 15 Theses on Contemporary Art

I think everybody has the 15 theses, it is necessary, I think, for the talk. I'll comment about the theses and you can read them. I think the great question about contemporary art is how not to be Romantic. It's the great question and a very difficult one. More precisely, the question is how not to be a formalist-Romantic. Something like a mixture between Romanticism and formalism. On one side is the absolute desire for new forms, always new forms, something like an infinite desire. Modernity is the infinite desire of new forms. But, on the other side, is obsession with the body, with finitude, sex, cruelty, death. The contradiction of the tension between the obsession of new forms and the obsession of finitude, body, cruelty, suffering and death is something like a synthesis between formalism and Romanticism and it is the dominant current in contemporary art. All the 15 theses have as a sort of goal, the question how not to be formalist-Romantic. That is, in my opinion, the question of contemporary art.

Lombardi is really a good example, and I am very glad to speak here tonight. We can see that there is something like a demonstration, a connection, points of connections. You have something very surprising, because Lombardi knew all that before the facts. We have somewhere, a great drawing about the Bush dynasty which is really prophetic, which is an artistic prophecy, that is a creation of a new knowledge, and so it's really surprising to see that after the facts. And it's really the capacity, the ability of art to present something before the facts, before the evidence. And it's something calm and elevated, like a star. You know, it's like a galaxy, see, it's something like the galaxy of corruption. So, the three determinations are really in the works of Lombardi. And so it's the creation of a new possibility of art and a new vision of the world, our world. But a new vision which is not purely conceptual, ideological or political, a new vision which has it's proper shape, which creates a new artistic possibility, something which is new knowledge of the world has a new shape, like that. It's really an illustration of my talk.

The first thesis: Art is not the sublime descent of the infinite into the finite abjection of the body and sexuality. It is the production of an infinite subjective series through the finite means of a material subtraction.

This is an intimation of how not to be a Romantic. It consists of the production of a new infinite content, of a new light. I think it’s the very aim of art; producing a new light about the world by means of precise and finite summarization. So, you have to change the contradiction. The contradiction today is between the infinity of the desire for new forms and the finitude of the body, of the sexuality, and so on. And new art needs to change the terms of this contradiction and put on the side of infinity new content, new light, a new vision of the world, and on the side of finitude, the precision of means and of summarization. So, the first thesis is something like the reversal of the contradiction.

Subtraction: the word subtraction has two meanings. First, not to be obsessed with formal novelty. I think it’s a great question today because the desire for novelty is the desire of new forms, an infinite desire for new form. The obsession of new forms, the artistic obsession with novelty, of critique, of representation and so on, is really not a critical position about capitalism because capitalism itself is the obsession of novelty and the perpetual renovation of forms. You have a computer, but the following year it’s not the true computer, you need a new one. You have a car, but the coming year it’s an old car, something like an old thing and so on. So, it’s a necessity for us to see that the complete obsession with new forms is not really a critical position about the world as it is. It’s a possibility that the real desire, which is subversive desire, is the desire of eternity. The desire for something which is a stability, something which is art, something which is closed in-itself. I don’t think it’s quite like that, but it’s a possibility because the perpetual modification of forms is not really a critical position, so the desire of new forms is certainly something important in art, but the desire for the stability of forms is also something important. And, I think we have to examine the question today.

The second meaning of subtraction is not to be obsessed with finitude, with cruelty, body, suffering, with sex and death, because it’s only the reversal of the ideology of happiness. In our world there is something like an ideology of happiness. Be happy and enjoy your life and so on. In artistic creation we often have the reversal of that sort of ideology in the obsession with suffering bodies, the difficulty of sexuality, and so on. We need not be in that sort of obsession. Naturally a critical position about the ideology of happiness is an artistic necessity, but it’s also an artistic necessity to see it as a new vision, a new light, something like a positive new world. And so, the question of art is also the question of life and not always the question of death. It is a signification of the first thesis; we have to search for an artistic creation which is not obsessed with formal novelty, with cruelty, death, body, and sexuality.

Second thesis: Art cannot merely be the expression of a particularity (be it ethnic or personal). Art is the impersonal production of a truth that is addressed to everyone.

The great question here is a question of universality: is there, or is there not, a universality of artistic creation? Because the great question today is the question of globalization, the question of the unity of the world. Globalization proposes to us an abstract universality. A universality of money, the universality of communication and the universality of power. That is the universalism today. And so, against the abstract universality of money and of power, what is the question of art, what is the function of artistic creation? Is the function of artistic creation to oppose, to abstract from universality only a singularity of particularities, something like being against the abstraction of money and of power, or as a community against globalization and so on? Or, is the function of art to propose another kind of universality? That’s a big question. The more important issue today is the main contradiction between capitalistic universality on one hand, universality of the market if you want, of money and power and so on, and singularities, particularities, the self of the community. It’s the principal contradiction between two kinds of universalities. On one side the abstract universality of money and power, and on the other the concrete universality of truth and creation. My position is that artistic creation today should suggest a new universality, not to express only the self or the community, but that it’s a necessity for the artistic creation to propose to us, to humanity in general, a new sort of universality, and my name for that is truth. Truth is only the philosophical name for a new universality against the forced universality of globalization, the forced universality of money and power, and in that sort of proposition, the question of art is a very important question because art is always a proposition about a new universality, and art is a signification of the second thesis.

Third thesis. It’s only a definition of the universality of art. What is an artistic truth? Artistic truth is different from scientific truth, from political truth, from other sorts of truths. The definition is that artistic truth is always a truth about the sensible, an outline of the sensual. It’s not a static sensible expression. An artistic truth is not a copy of the sensible world nor a static sensible expression. My definition is that an artistic truth is a happening of l’Idèe in the sensible itself. And, the new universality of art is the creation of a new form of happening of the Idea in the sensible as such. It’s very important to understand that an artistic truth is a proposition about the sensible in the world. It’s a proposition about a new definition of what is our sensible relation to the world, which is a possibility of universality against the abstraction of money and power. So, if art seems very important today, it is because globalization imposes to us the creation of a new kind of universality, which is always a new sensibility and a new sensible relation to the world. And because the oppression today is the oppression of abstract universality, we have to think of art along the direction of the new sensible relation to the world. And so, today, artistic creation is a part of human emancipation, it’s not an ornament, a decoration and so on. No, the question of art is a central question, and it’s central because we have to create a new sensible relation to the world. In fact, without art, without artistic creation, the triumph of the forced universality of money and power is a real possibility. So the question of art today is a question of political emancipation, there is something political in art itself. There is not only a question of art’s political orientation, like it was the case yesterday, today it is a question in itself. Because art is a real possibility to create something new against the abstract universality that is globalization.

Fourth thesis. This thesis is against the dream of totalization. Some artists today are thinking that there is a possibility to fuse all the artistic forms, it’s the dream of a complete multimedia. But it’s not a new idea. As you probably know, it was the idea of Richard Wagner, the total art, with pictures, music, poetry and so on. So the first multimedia artist was Richard Wagner. And, I think multimedia is a false idea because it’s the power of absolute integration and it’s something like the projection in art of the dream of globalization. It’s a question of the unity of art like the unity of the world but it’s an abstraction too. So, we need to create new art, certainly new forms, but not with the dream of a totalization of all the forms of sensibility. It’s a great question to have a relation to multimedia and to new forms of images, of art, which is not the paradigm of totalization. So we have to be free about that sort of dream.

A few words about theses five and eight. The question here is what exactly is the creation of new forms. It’s very important because of what I previously said about the infinite desire for new forms being a problem in contemporary art. We have to be precise about the question of new forms in themselves. What is the creation of new forms? I hint that, in fact, there is never exactly pure creation of new forms. I think it’s a dream, like totalization, pure creation of absolute new forms. In fact, there is always something like a passage of something which is not exactly a form to something that is a form, and I argue that we have something like impurity of forms, or impure forms, and purification. So, in art there is not exactly pure creation of forms, God created the world, if you want, but there is something like progressive purification, and complexification of forms in sequence. Two examples if you wish. When Malevich paints the famous white on white, the white square on white square. Is that the creation of something? In one sense yes, but in fact, it’s the complete purification of the problem of the relation between shape and color. In fact, the problem of the relation between shape and color is an old one with a long story and in Malevich’s white square on white square, we have an ultimate purification of the story of the problem and also it’s a creation, but it’s also the end, because after white square on white square there is, in one sense, nothing, we cannot continue. So we have a complete purification and after Malevich all correlation between shape and color looks old, or impure, but it’s also the end of the question, and we have to begin with something else. We may say that with artistic creation, it’s not exactly the pure creation of new forms, something like the process of purification with beginnings and with ends too. So, we have sequences of purification, much more than pure rupture of pure creation. And it’s the content of theses five and eight.

We come now to theses six and seven. The question here is what exactly is the subjective existence of art? What is the subject in art, the subject in the subjective sense? It’s a great discussion, a very old one. What is the subject in art? What is the agent of art? The subject in art is not the artist. It’s an old thesis too, but an important one. So, if you think that the real subject in artist creation is the artist, you are positing the artistic creation as the expression of somebody. If the artist is the subject, art is the expression of that subject, thereby art is something like a personal expression. In fact, it is necessary for contemporary art to argue the case that art is a personal expression, because you have no possibility to create a new form of universality and you oppose to the abstract form of universality only the expression of the self or the expression of communities. So, you understand the link between the different problems. It’s imperative for us to say that the subject in artistic creation is not the artist as such. “Artist” is a necessity for art, but not a subjective necessity. So, the conclusion is quite simple. The subjective existence of art are the works of art, and nothing else. The artist is not the subjective agent of art. The artist is the sacrificial part of art. It’s also, finally, what disappears in art. And the ethic of art is to accept the disappearance. Sometimes the artist is someone who wants to appear, but it’s not a good thing for art. For art, if you want art to have today the very important function of the creation of a new universality, if you think that art is something like a subjective expression for the market, it’s necessary that the artist make a great appearance, naturally, but if art is the creation, the secret creation, something like that, if art is not something of the market, but is something against the force of universality of the market, the consequence is that the artist must disappear, and not to be someone who appears in the media and so on. And a critique of art is something like a critique of something like desperation. If the ethic of art is something like desperation, it is because what show are works of art, which are the real subjective existence of art in-itself.

It’s also the same thing in thesis nine. I don’t comment The question of the ethic of art is not to be imperial. Desperation because operation is always something like imperial operation, because the law of operation is today imperial law.

About theses ten and eleven, I think we can demonstrate that imperial art is the name for what is visible today. Imperial art is exactly Romantic-formalism. That is a historical thesis, or a political thesis if you want. The mixture of Romanticism and formalism is exactly the imperial art. Not only today, but, for example, during the Roman Empire too. There is something common between the situation today and the situation at the end of the Roman Empire. It’s a good comparison, you see, and more precisely between the United States and the Roman Empire. There is really something very interesting with that sort of comparison, and in fact the question is also a question of artistic creation, because by the end of the Roman Empire we have exactly two dispositions in artistic creation. On one side, something really Romantic, expressive, violent, and on the other, something extremely formalist, politically straight. Why? When we deal with the situation of something like an empire, something like having the formal unity of the world, if you want, it’s not only the United States, it’s finally the big markets, when we have something like a potential unity of the world, we have in artistic creation something like formalism and Romanticism, a mixture of the two. Why? Because when we have an empire, we have two principles. First, all is possible because we have a big potency, a unity of the world. So we may say, all is possible. We may create new forms, we may speak of everything, there is not really laws about what is possible, what is not possible, so everything is possible. Yet, we also have another maxim, everything is impossible, because there is nothing else to have, the empire is the only possible existence, the only political possibility. So, you can say that everything is possible and you can say that everything is impossible, and when the two are said you have an artistic creation, formalism, that is to say all is possible, new forms are always possible, and Romanticism and nihilism because all is impossible, and finally, we have the mixture of the two, and contemporary art is saying that all is possible and that all is impossible. The impossibility of possibility and the possibility of impossibility. That is the real content of contemporary art. To escape that sort of situation is to state that something is possible, not all is possible, not all is impossible, but something else is possible. There is a possibility of something else. So, we have to create a new possibility. But to create a new possibility is not the same thing as to realize a new possibility. It’s a very fundamental distinction, to realize a possibility is to think that the possibility is here and I need to conceive the possibility. For example, if all is possible, I have to realize something, because all things are possible, but, naturally, it’s quite a different thing to create something possible. The possibility is not here. So, it is not true, that all is possible, some things are not possible, and you have to create the possibility of that thing which is not possible. And it is the great question of artistic creation. Is artistic creation the realization of a possibility or is artistic creation the creation of a new possibility? The possibility of something, the possibility of saying something is possible. If you think all is possible (that is the same as to think all is impossible), your conviction in the world is finished, the world is something closed. It is closed with all the possibilities, which is the same thing that everything are impossibilities and artistic creation is closed too, it’s closed in formalist-Romanticism which is the affirmation that all is possible and all is impossible. But the true function of artistic creation today is the possibility of saying that something is possible, so to create a new possibility. But where can we create a new possibility when something is impossible? Because we can create a new possibility when something is not a possibility. If all is possible, you cannot create a new possibility. So, the question of a new possibility is also the question of something impossible, so we have to assume that it’s not true that all is possible, that also it’s not true that all is impossible, we have to say something is impossible where something is impossible. I have to create a new possibility. And, I think the creation of new possibility is today the great function of art. In other activities of circulation, communication, the market and so on, we have always the realization of possibilities, infinite realization of possibilities. But not creation of possibility. And so it’s also a political question, because politics truly means the creation of a new possibility. A new possibility of life, a new possibility of the world. And so the political determination of artistic creation is today whether it is possible, or impossible to create a new possibility. Actually, globalization carries the conviction that it is utterly impossible to create a new possibility. And the end of Communism, and the end of revolutionary politics is, in fact, the dominant interpretation of that all: it is impossible to create a new possibility. Not to realize a possibility, but to create a new possibility. You understand the difference. And I think the question of artistic creation lies here. It proves for everybody, for humanity in general, that it is a possibility to create a new possibility.

About thesis twelve. It’s a poetic thesis. The three determinations of artistic creation, to compare artistic creation with a demonstration, with an ambush in the night and with a star. You can understand the three determinations. Why a demonstration? Because finally the question of artistic creation is also the question of something odd, something possessing a sort of eternity, something which is not in pure communication, pure circulation, something which is not in the constant modification of forms. Something which resists and resistance is a question of art also today. Something which resists is something endowed with some stability, solid. Something which is a logical equation, which has a logical coherence, consistence, is the first determination. The second determination is something surprising, something which is right away the creation of a new possibility, but a new possibility is always surprising. We cannot have a new possibility without some sort of surprise. A new possibility is something that we cannot calculate. It’s something like a rupture, a new beginning, which is always something surprising. Thus, the second determination. And it’s marvelous, like something in the night, the night of our knowledge. A new possibility is something absolutely new for our knowledge, so it’s the night of our knowledge. Something like a new light. Elevated as a star because a new possibility is something like a new star. Something like a new planet, a new world, because it is a new possibility. Something like a new sensible relation to the world. But the great problem lies elsewhere. The formal problem for contemporary art is not the determination, one by one. The problem is how to relate the three. To be the star, the ambush, and the demonstration. Something like that. And Lombardi is really a good example, and I am very glad to speak here tonight. We can see that there is something like a demonstration, a connection, points of connections. You have something very surprising, because Lombardi knew all that before the facts. We have somewhere, a great drawing about the Bush dynasty which is really prophetic, which is an artistic prophecy, that is a creation of a new knowledge, and so it’s really surprising to see that after the facts. And it’s really the capacity, the ability of art to present something before the facts, before the evidence. And it’s something calm and elevated, like a star. You know, it’s like a galaxy, see, it’s something like the galaxy of corruption. So, the three determinations are really in the works of Lombardi. And so it’s the creation of a new possibility of art and a new vision of the world, our world. But a new vision which is not purely conceptual, ideological or political, a new vision which has it’s proper shape, which creates a new artistic possibility, something which is new knowledge of the world has a new shape, like that. It’s really an illustration of my talk.

The last thesis. I think the great question is the correlation between art and humanity. More precisely the correlation between artistic creation and liberty. Is artistic creation something independent in the democratic sense of freedom? I think if you consider Lombardi for a second time, we may consider the issue of creating a new possibility as not exactly a question of freedom, in the common sense, because there is an imperial definition of freedom today, which is the common democratic definition. Is artistic creation something like that sort of freedom? I think not. I think the real determination of artistic creation is not the common sense of freedom, the imperial sense of freedom. It’s a creation of a new form of liberty, a new form of freedom. And we may see here that sort of thing because the connection between the logical framework, the surprise of new knowledge, and the beauty of the star is a definition of freedom which is much more complex than the democratic determination of freedom.

I think of artistic creation as the creation of a new kind of liberty which is beyond the democratic definition of liberty. And we may speak of something like an artistic definition of liberty which is intellectual and material, something like Communism within a logical framework, because there is no liberty without logical framework, something like a new beginning, a new possibility, rupture, and finally something like a new world, a new light, a new galaxy. This is the artistic definition of liberty and the issue today consists not in an art discussion between liberty and dictatorship, between liberty and oppression, but in my opinion, between two definitions of liberty itself.

The artistic question of the body in some art forms, like cinema or dance, is precisely the question of the body within the body and not the body without body. It is an idealistic conception of the body without the body or the body as something else, crucial in the story of Christianity and in Paul. For example in the Greek classical painting the body is always something else than the body, and if you consider something like the body in Tintoretto, for example, the body is something like movement which is body like something else than the body. But in fact today the body has a body, the body in the body is the body as such. And the body as such is something very hard, because the body has no representation which is really a representation as a star, something like that. In that sort of painting (Lombardi), we have names, and no bodies. It is a substitution of names to bodies. We have no picture of Bin Laden, but the name of Bin Laden. We have no picture of Bush, but the name of Bush. Father and sons.

Zizek: 20 Years of Collapse

20 Years of Collapse


TODAY is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. During this time of reflection, it is common to emphasize the miraculous nature of the events that began that day: a dream seemed to come true, the Communist regimes collapsed like a house of cards, and the world suddenly changed in ways that had been inconceivable only a few months earlier. Who in Poland could ever have imagined free elections with Lech Walesa as president?

However, when the sublime mist of the velvet revolutions was dispelled by the new democratic-capitalist reality, people reacted with an unavoidable disappointment that manifested itself, in turn, as nostalgia for the “good old” Communist times; as rightist, nationalist populism; and as renewed, belated anti-Communist paranoia.

The first two reactions are easy to comprehend. The same rightists who decades ago were shouting, “Better dead than red!” are now often heard mumbling, “Better red than eating hamburgers.” But the Communist nostalgia should not be taken too seriously: far from expressing an actual wish to return to the gray Socialist reality, it is more a form of mourning, of gently getting rid of the past. As for the rise of the rightist populism, it is not an Eastern European specialty, but a common feature of all countries caught in the vortex of globalization.

Much more interesting is the recent resurgence of anti-Communism from Hungary to Slovenia. During the autumn of 2006, large protests against the ruling Socialist Party paralyzed Hungary for weeks. Protesters linked the country’s economic crisis to its rule by successors of the Communist party. They denied the very legitimacy of the government, although it came to power through democratic elections. When the police went in to restore civil order, comparisons were drawn with the Soviet Army crushing the 1956 anti-Communist rebellion.

This new anti-Communist scare even goes after symbols. In June 2008, Lithuania passed a law prohibiting the public display of Communist images like the hammer and sickle, as well as the playing of the Soviet anthem. In April 2009, the Polish government proposed expanding a ban on totalitarian propaganda to include Communist books, clothing and other items: one could even be arrested for wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt.

No wonder that, in Slovenia, the main reproach of the populist right to the left is that it is the “force of continuity” with the old Communist regime. In such a suffocating atmosphere, new problems and challenges are reduced to the repetition of old struggles, up to the absurd claim (which sometimes arises in Poland and in Slovenia) that the advocacy of gay rights and legal abortion is part of a dark Communist plot to demoralize the nation.

Where does this resurrection of anti-Communism draw its strength from? Why were the old ghosts resuscitated in nations where many young people don’t even remember the Communist times? The new anti-Communism provides a simple answer to the question: “If capitalism is really so much better than Socialism, why are our lives still miserable?”

It is because, many believe, we are not really in capitalism: we do not yet have true democracy but only its deceiving mask, the same dark forces still pull the threads of power, a narrow sect of former Communists disguised as new owners and managers — nothing’s really changed, so we need another purge, the revolution has to be repeated …

What these belated anti-Communists fail to realize is that the image they provide of their society comes uncannily close to the most abused traditional leftist image of capitalism: a society in which formal democracy merely conceals the reign of a wealthy minority. In other words, the newly born anti-Communists don’t get that what they are denouncing as perverted pseudo-capitalism simply is capitalism.

One can also argue that, when the Communist regimes collapsed, the disillusioned former Communists were effectively better suited to run the new capitalist economy than the populist dissidents. While the heroes of the anti-Communist protests continued to dwell in their dreams of a new society of justice, honesty and solidarity, the former Communists were able to ruthlessly accommodate themselves to the new capitalist rules and the new cruel world of market efficiency, inclusive of all the new and old dirty tricks and corruption.

A further twist is added by those countries in which Communists allowed the explosion of capitalism, while retaining political power: they seem to be more capitalist than the Western liberal capitalists themselves. In a crazy double reversal, capitalism won over Communism, but the price paid for this victory is that Communists are now beating capitalism in its own terrain.

This is why today’s China is so unsettling: capitalism has always seemed inextricably linked to democracy, and faced with the explosion of capitalism in the People’s Republic, many analysts still assume that political democracy will inevitably assert itself.

But what if this strain of authoritarian capitalism proves itself to be more efficient, more profitable, than our liberal capitalism? What if democracy is no longer the necessary and natural accompaniment of economic development, but its impediment?

If this is the case, then perhaps the disappointment at capitalism in the post-Communist countries should not be dismissed as a simple sign of the “immature” expectations of the people who didn’t possess a realistic image of capitalism.

When people protested Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the large majority of them did not ask for capitalism. They wanted the freedom to live their lives outside state control, to come together and talk as they pleased; they wanted a life of simplicity and sincerity, liberated from the primitive ideological indoctrination and the prevailing cynical hypocrisy.

As many commentators observed, the ideals that led the protesters were to a large extent taken from the ruling Socialist ideology itself — people aspired to something that can most appropriately be designated as “Socialism with a human face.” Perhaps this attitude deserves a second chance.

This brings to mind the life and death of Victor Kravchenko, the Soviet engineer who, in 1944, defected during a trade mission to Washington and then wrote a best-selling memoir, “I Chose Freedom.” His first-person report on the horrors of Stalinism included a detailed account of the mass hunger in early-1930s Ukraine, where Kravchenko — then still a true believer in the system — helped enforce collectivization.

What most people know about Kravchenko ends in 1949. That year, he sued Les Lettres Françaises for libel after the French Communist weekly claimed that he was a drunk and a wife-beater and his memoir was the propaganda work of American spies. In the Paris courtroom, Soviet generals and Russian peasants took the witness stand to debate the truth of Kravchenko’s writings, and the trial grew from a personal suit to a spectacular indictment of the whole Stalinist system.

But immediately after his victory in the case, when Kravchenko was still being hailed all around the world as a cold war hero, he had the courage to speak out passionately against Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts. “I believe profoundly,” he wrote, “that in the struggle against Communists and their organizations … we cannot and should not resort to the methods and forms employed by the Communists.” His warning to Americans: to fight Stalinism in such a way was to court the danger of starting to resemble their opponent.

Kravchenko also became more and more obsessed with the inequalities of the Western world, and wrote a sequel to “I Chose Freedom” that was titled, significantly, “I Chose Justice.” He devoted himself to finding less exploitative forms of collectivization and wound up in Bolivia, where he squandered all his money trying to organize poor farmers. Crushed by this failure, he withdrew into private life and shot himself in 1966 at his home in New York.

How did we come to this? Deceived by 20th-century Communism and disillusioned with 21st-century capitalism, we can only hope for new Kravchenkos — and that they come to happier ends. On the search for justice, they will have to start from scratch. They will have to invent their own ideologies. They will be denounced as dangerous utopians, but they alone will have awakened from the utopian dream that holds the rest of us under its sway.

Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities in London, is the author, most recently, of “First as Tragedy, Then as Frace.

Terayama Shuji: Pastoral Hide-and-Seek

寺山修司的田园之死 (Pastoral Hide-and Seek, 1974, dir. Terayama Shuji)

By Venus Lau
《田园之死》 是寺山修司五部长片之一,是新手观其电影的入门课。片中华丽的视觉隐喻流溢,碎片般的情节,穿插期间的古怪人物(马戏团里的空气女,侏儒,全身披黑袈裟, 带海盗眼罩的白面老妇,硫磺味弥漫的恐山,化浓妆的小孩等),种种意象搭构出寺山修司的世界,跟寺山修司的整个电影系列组成庞大的风格化异色空间。

不少人看过《田园之死》后均认为其为寺山的自传体作品,除了以第一人称作为陈述角度外,戏中主角(以成人和少年两种姿态出现)与寺山修司同月同日生(同为12月10日,但寺山修司生于公元1935年,主角“我”出生年份则为昭和49年,即公元1974年,亦即该片拍摄年份); 寺山修司在日本青森县出生,戏中主角的出生地是位于青森县,有日本三大灵场之称的恐山(电影里主角称自己的出生地--恐山地处东京市)。种种非巧合的安排,证明寺山修司欲一借电影改写自己的历史而重生的意图。故此,解读此片的时候,不少人会堕入以作者生平为阐释作品的单一切入点的圈套,出色的电影随即代替作者经验(empirical)生活成为主线,不论是意难平或者有病呻吟,戏里的肆意的意象和诗意都沦为对作者来得太迟的抱怨的附庸。

艺术作品一如艺术家之儿。父母和子女的关系强调的是被伦理强化的,以脐带为象征的血缘关系。但是作品不是艺术家的附属,作品俨如离开子宫的幼儿,已然是独立个体,而不是父母共同投下的影子。电影是开放的,流动的文本,解读(虽然所有阐释都是误读)若然只取作者主导的方式,难免减损作品的价值--作品的价值就是的每次阐释的内容,每一次解读赋予作品新的生命。我不否定寺山修司欲以〈田园之死〉来表现昔日屈服于母亲权威下迟熟的反抗,继而获得重生,但寺山修司的想法并不是诠释的唯一路标,而且这观点在云云有关寺山修司的评论已被多番提及,更有有心人以寺山修司生平对号入座,把电影各元素与寺山生平的经验事件等同,把寺山多彩诡奇的想像力拉低到生活牢骚的水平, 艺术里的直观成分亦被完全消去。

寺山修司电 影里对权威的反抗极为明显,如在实验短片《番茄酱皇帝》里小童追杀成人,《再见方舟》近亲表兄妹不顾坚固的贞操带的阻隔,坚持尝试做爱,片中人物对权力象征权力实体的颠覆意图都非常明显。这些露白的反抗行动是寺山修司电影的重要课题。对权威的挑战在《死在田园》展示为弑母意识。主角想借对记忆的操控,让少 年时代的自己杀掉母亲,事与愿违,弑母计划最后失败。


不少人认为弑母是一种“反俄狄浦斯”, 把寺山得作品一把跟法国哲学家德勒兹(Gilles Deleuze)联系起来。但是单单把主角身兼父职的母亲等同德勒兹以差异和生成(becoming)挑战being的游牧,似乎有有点太草率。俄狄浦斯情结作为主体进入象征界(the symbolic)的关键,也是主体建立和认同(identification)的关键,当中的关键词是弑父意图,继而带出父明(the name of father)。田园之死里的弑母意图,与其说是对传统主体概念的颠覆,倒不如说是对家庭结构的崩坏和重组。
无论在寺山的电影,还是在他主持的《天栈屋敷》话剧团的作品里,时间的象征和隐喻无处不在:《再见方舟》内失去时间的村庄;舞台剧由真人扮演的巨钟,或者,,〈田园之死〉主角母亲收集的破钟堆。形形色色,表报不同时间的时钟,没有提醒人时间,相反,它们让人忘掉时间。时钟不但是象征,更是实际工具,令量化客观时间的统一结构可以复印在世界之上。 至少是人所认知的世界,之上。

客观时间是我们所熟悉的时间,三点半,美国比中慢,十三小时,一分钟等 同六十秒。。。。。这都是被普遍默认的,跟本真时间对立的派生概念。客观时间也是“时间对我们显现为各个当下,各个现在的次序” (1)这些现在可以在某写发 生事情的时段上被计数”,这种概念为时间的量化和一体化提供了可能性。相反,本真时间没有经过任何概念的干扰,是本原地向人展示的时间。本真时间就是我们 的此在,就是我们的主体性,那是真正的自我 (无意识?他者的语言?),而非透过线性时间里,拉康的镜象自我。

〈死在田园〉主角母亲尝试把自己的 儿子(少年时代的“我”)困在她的时间里,此举跟客观线性时间的霸权如出一辙。唯压力越大反抗越大,主角为古灵精怪的马戏团所吸引,决心逃离母亲,离开村 子过新生活,最后他阴差阳错失去了童贞。客观时间象征--母亲的时钟堆--渐渐远离的同时,少年手上多了一只象征本真时间的手表。比起弑母此类 对某一权力对象的颠覆,重新阐释时间, 并展示时间的伯格森式(Bergson)不可分割性并以此建立主体性是更为彻底的革命。

除了控制戏中人的时间,〈田园之死〉也操控观者的时间。电影开端小朋友玩躲猫猫,原本的小玩伴忽然变成大正年代打扮的诡异人物,电影结尾主角跟母亲在故乡家中,刹那间四面墙倒下,主角暴露与东京繁华的街头,还有电影中 空气女的呻吟,系在殉情男女身上的红线,鬼火般飘浮的日本老童谣。。。。。。这些感官异觉化(视觉和听觉上)不啻是寺山修司强烈风格特征,也是延长艾柯 (Umberto Eco)在〈优游小说林〉里述及的阅读(观看)时间的技巧。对于电影和书本里寻常的物事和情节,我们会用在现实中早已熟知的经验/取自经验的逻辑推断,加 快阅读时间。面对寺山修司精心布局的奇形怪状,既有逻辑无用武之地,观众只好费尽心神寻找当中的意蕴,或者象我那样,尽情享受日本cult 片鬼才预备的感官盛宴。如是者,观众所经验的时间不是放片的102 分钟,而是他们迷路的时间。


在 阳光灿烂的日子(或原著《动物凶猛》)里,主角马小军越深入自己的记忆,就越发现处处出错,到后来甚至黑白不分,我们就知道记忆的不可信。记忆隐恶扬善,只保留对意识有利的叙述,甚至对你作出彻底背叛。《死在田园》的“我”以为可以驾驭记忆,并以这种自信武装自己回到故乡恐山。可惜,当他跟昔日年轻的自己开始对话,少年主角马上揭 露成年主角美化了过去,记忆本是一连串谎言。记忆就是这么不可靠。无奈的是,我们需要从记忆抽取经验来建立自我的主体性和应付生活上的决定,无法进入记忆和意识的,就是我们生活里的惊颤。



寺山修司的重口味freak show 意向让不少人把他跟费里尼(Federico Fellini)连在一起,也有人说寺山修司象拍过Salo的柏索里尼(Pier Paolo Pasolini ),因为大家都有或隐晦或露白的性描写。 但,


Eyes Wide Shut: The Feng Jiangzhou solo

Eyes Wide Shut: Feng Jiangzhou opens the realm of senses

Venus Lau

Among the world’s living creatures, human beings are a species that relies heavily on vision, a perception that fosters itself in art with intoxicatingly bright colors and eye-catching images on canvas and sculpture and allows an equation between art and visual art. This assessment is further reinforced by the conditioned practice that humans have of watching TV, by which they let canned laughs and big grins determine the point at which they should be amused. Perhaps this is what is most exciting about Feng Jiangzhou’s first solo exhibition, “Dharmaguptaka-vinaya,” a multimedia art show that promises enough sensual texture to steer a little bit away from the ocularcentricism of the contemporary art world, and ultimately the world at large.

After producing copious amounts of music under the names of The Fly and Far East Digital Hardcore, and others, and following his 2006 solo release Si Fen Lü (Dharmaguptaka-vinaya), Feng began a move into the realm of multimedia art, including designing stage works for famed director Meng Jinghui. The artist-cum-musician finally had his first solo debut in October 2008.

The show put on display a video and a multi-track sound art installation, the former titled Ni Kan Jian Xu Kong Dui Ni Zha Yan Le Ma?, or, to be more concise, Do You See the Void Blinking Back at You?, and the latter titled Dharmaguptaka-vinaya (also the name of the show as a whole). The video consists of an appropriation of the Yongle Gong (literally “Forever-Bliss Palace”) painting in Shanxi province, a mural dating back to the Yuan dynasty, in which the 200-plus supernatural Taoist immortals of the original wall painting are made by Feng to blink imperceptibly at the audience. Calling reference to a Zen Koan about “the emptiness blinks,” the piece meshes elements of Taoism and Zen, and offers a Chinese cultural label wittier than the Orientalist fantasy of mass-producing Mao’s face in 70 different colors. The appropriation of the symbols in both religions also engenders a look into nihilism characterized by negation.

If this piece grants any pleasure (or more precisely, jouissance), the pleasure comes from — instead of the surprising witness of a Taoist immortal blinking at you after a long wait — how the video exposes viewers to the uncanny gaze of the actually larger-than-human Taoist immortals in a reification of the “Big Other.” It is a bit unsettling to look into the eyes of deities on video, looking into the absolute alterity manifested in the face and the heavy ruffles on the ancient Chinese costumes: this is the otherness whereby death is forever postponed, while I am still stuck in the "being towards death," in a plural form with other beings. It would be wrong to spend too much time on this piece, waiting for a wink from a nameless deity. The piece requires intrinsic power beyond mere size in order to allow the gaze to be activated between the piece and the viewers; otherwise, it could easily be criticized for transplanting Chinese visual icons of any type onto a digital screen and calling it Chinese new media art.

Feng’s Buddhist proclivities led him to titled the show Dharmaguptaka-vinaya (also the name of his 2006 album), which means “the discipline in four parts” and is a title taken from a Theravada Buddhist book of rules. Feng’s audio installation is a 3.5 meter cage-like metal structure covered with black fabric, with amplifiers fixed on the inner frame. This constructed dark space creates total blindness while the amplifiers radiate random sounds from different directions, tickling and distracting the listener from localization within the body of blackness. The disorientation of senses constructs a space that is occasionally disrupted by sound morsels and recalls what anthropologist Edmund Carpenter referred to as “Eskimo Space,” described in his seminal 1973 work, Eskimo Realities, as a place where there is no distance and there are no angles or contours but only a barely-visible cold mist rising from the ice. Similarly, Feng’s piece creates a nomadic space, a stroll in darkness navigated by sensory geography in which the database of perception is rendered useless. As the sounds are produced out of context, the listener perceives the immediate power of the piece without an ability to decode it. It would be cliche to conclude this synopsis piece with a simple diagnosis of regression to the mother's womb. Man, as an animal of meaning, is thrown into this blanket of insecurity (the dark cage), the signification process for the noise — glitches that are the symptom of its signifying system — sounds like a futile attempt. Just as Zizek notes in Lacanian Real Television, the symbolic representation of the subject always ends up as a signifying surplus trying to hide fundamental lack. In this piece, Feng Jiangzhou takes a poetic artistic practice, providing poetry as a known symbolic dispositif pointing to an unknown. This is a subversion of language inside itself, transforming the it-is-very-dark-in-here installation into a smooth plane with only it inside itself.

If I may add another personal point, I would like to express my respect for Feng Jiangzhou's use of numerals in his concepts, explicitly highlighted in the pieces' titles. From Si Fen Lu in this show to Ba Yin,the Mariko-Mori-esque sound installation, the artist successfully brings an aesthetics of musical precision to his work.

This exhibition may claim nothing worth “seeing,” but it makes an effort to trick the senses into the process contradicting our obsession with residues of light reflections.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009



来自美国Brigham Young University 的一项研究:清新的气味,清爽的环境能使人变得更加宽宏大量,行为举止更加文明。简单的说,只要使用几支香味剂,人类就能进入‘文明社会’。




齊老又有新書:First as Tragedy, Then as Farce.

Friday, October 23, 2009



家里也 給我燉制大量補品,固本之余清清身體,因為西藥毒。補藥除了比較大路的北芪黨參雞湯,花旗參瘦肉,蟲草鵪鶉,紅參,燕窩,紅棗肉餅水,水魚,鱷魚肉,南豆衣等。




Thursday, October 22, 2009




(給Abbas Kiawostami,那天我就在你身後)你電影裡的長鏡頭,和你的短促的俳句式詩歌相映成趣,你的詩歌像呼氣那麼短,連吸氣的時間段都取消,比Rubaiyat 更短?



Saturday, September 19, 2009




最早知道他们的死信的是对面楼的那个长期生病的男人。他在自己房间的窗户一直看着。他们服药,躺下,面对面, 然后换了几个姿势,抽搐,面对面。


Wednesday, September 16, 2009



Thursday, September 3, 2009



Monday, August 24, 2009



嘉賓:My Little Airport阿P,JENNY

他們將在上海街的唐三──一幢舊唐樓隱匿於紅粉霓燈、新建豪宅和種種現代建制之例外接踵摩肩的一處空間── 以音樂感動這七月流火的夜。



抿一口啤酒就唱起了他傷感、蒼老的情歌,就像Tom Waits在美國的小酒館,那催人淚下的滄桑感,絕對是貨真價實的。 ──廖偉棠

老大的吉他也簡單,有布魯斯的味道,有西北民歌的味道,但就像他按著琴弦的手指一樣,又靈活又粗糙。他唱的不是那些歌,而是他的生命。所有的苦,所有的美好回憶,他的窮睏和悲哀,他的自由的靈魂。 ──顏峻



查詢、聯絡或訂票請電:91310851(Jenny) / 93189719 (阿Cat)

Saturday, August 22, 2009

寺山修司的田园之死 (Pastoral Hide-and Seek, 1974, dir. Terayama Shuji)

By Venus Lau

《田园之死》 是寺山修司五部长片之一,是新手观其电影的入门课。片中华丽的视觉隐喻流溢,碎片般的情节,穿插期间的古怪人物(马戏团里的空气女,侏儒,全身披黑袈裟, 带海盗眼罩的白面老妇,硫磺味弥漫的恐山,化浓妆的小孩等),种种意象搭构出寺山修司的世界,跟寺山修司的整个电影系列组成庞大的风格化异色空间。

不少人看过《田园之死》后均认为其为寺山的自传体作品,除了以第一人称作为陈述角度外,戏中主角(以成人和少年两种姿态出现)与寺山修司同月同日生(同为1210日,但寺山修司生于公元1935年,主角出生年份则为昭和49年,即公元1974年,亦即该片拍摄年份); 寺山修司在日本青森县出生,戏中主角的出生地是位于青森县,有日本三大灵场之称的恐山(电影里主角称自己的出生地--恐山地处东京市)。种种非巧合的安排,证明寺山修司欲一借电影改写自己的历史而重生的意图。故此,解读此片的时候,不少人会堕入以作者生平为阐释作品的单一切入点的圈套,出色的电影随即代替作者经验(empirical)生活成为主线不论是意难平或者有病呻吟,戏里的肆意的意象和诗意都沦为对作者来得太迟的抱怨的附庸。

艺术作品一如艺术家之儿。父母和子女的关系强调的是被伦理强化的,以脐带为象征的血缘关系。但是作品不是艺术家的附属,作品俨如离开子宫的幼儿已然是独立个体,不是父母共同投下的影子。电影是开放的,流动的文本,解读(虽然所有阐释都是误读)若然只取作者主导的方式,难免减损作品的价值--作品的价值就是的每次阐释的内容,每一解读赋予作品新的生命。我不否定寺山修司欲以〈田园之死〉来表现昔日屈服于母亲权威下迟熟的反抗,继而获得重生,但寺山修司的想法并不是诠释的唯一路标,而且这观点在云云有关寺山修司的评论已被多番提及,更有有心人以寺山修司生平对号入座,把电影各元素与寺山生平的经验事件等同,把寺山多彩诡奇的想像力拉低到生活牢骚的水平, 艺术里的直观成分亦被完全消去。

寺山修司电 影里对权威的反抗极为明显,如在实验短片《番茄酱皇帝》里小童追杀成人,《再见方舟》近亲表兄妹不顾坚固的贞操带的阻隔,坚持尝试做爱,片中人物对权力象征权力实体的颠覆意图都非常明显。这些露白的反抗行动是寺山修司电影的重要课题。对权威的挑战在《死在田园》展示为弑母意识。主角想借对记忆的操控,让少 年时代的自己杀掉母亲,事与愿违,弑母计划最后失败。


不少人认为弑母是一种“反俄狄浦斯”, 把寺山得作品一把跟法国哲学家德勒兹(Gilles Deleuze)联系起来。但是单单把主角身兼父职的母亲等同德勒兹以差异和生成(becoming)挑战being的游牧,似乎有有点太草率。俄狄浦斯情结作为主体进入象征界(the symbolic)的关键,也是主体建立和认同(identification)的关键,当中的关键词是弑父意图,继而带出父明(the name of father)。田园之死里的弑母意图,与其说是对传统主体概念的颠覆,倒不如说是对家庭结构的崩坏和重组。

无论在寺山的电影,还是在他主持的《天栈屋敷》话剧团的作品里,时间的象征和隐喻无处不在:《再见方舟》内失去时间的村庄;舞台剧由真人扮演的巨钟,或者,〈田园之死〉主角母亲收集的破钟堆。形形色色,表报不同时间的时钟,没有提醒人时间,相反,它们让人忘掉时间。时钟不但是象征,更是实际工具,令量化客观时间的统一结构可以复印在世界之上。 至少是人所认知的世界,之上。

客观时间是我们所熟悉的时间,三点半,美国比中慢,十三小时,一分钟等 同六十秒。。。。。这都是被普遍默认的,跟本真时间对立的派生概念。客观时间也是时间对我们显现为各个当下,各个现在的次序 1这些现在可以在某写发 生事情的时段上被计数,这种概念为时间的量化和一体化提供了可能性。相反,本真时间没有经过任何概念的干扰,是本原地向人展示的时间。本真时间就是我们 的此在,就是我们的主体性,那是真正的自我 (无意识?他者的语言?),而非透过线性时间里,拉康的镜象自我。

〈死在田园〉主角母亲尝试把自己的 儿子(少年时代的)困在她的时间里,此举跟客观线性时间的霸权如出一辙。唯压力越大反抗越大,主角为古灵精怪的马戏团所吸引,决心逃离母亲,离开村 子过新生活,最后他阴差阳错失去了童贞。客观时间象征--母亲的时钟堆--渐渐远离的同时,少年手上多了一只象征本真时间的手表。比起弑母此类 对某一权力对象的颠覆,重新阐释时间 并展示时间的伯格森式(Bergson)不可分割性并以此建立主体性是更为彻底的革命。

除了控制戏中人的时间,〈田园之死〉也操控观者的时间。电影开端小朋友玩躲猫猫,原本的小玩伴忽然变成大正年代打扮的诡异人物,电影结尾主角跟母亲在故乡家中,刹那间四面墙倒下,主角暴露与东京繁华的街头,还有电影中 空气女的呻吟,系在殉情男女身上的红线,鬼火般飘浮的日本老童谣。。。。。。这些感官异觉化(视觉和听觉上)不啻是寺山修司强烈风格特征,也是延长艾柯 Umberto Eco)在〈优游小说林〉里述及的阅读(观看)时间的技巧。对于电影和书本里寻常的物事和情节,我们会用在现实中早已熟知的经验/取自经验的逻辑推断,加 快阅读时间。面对寺山修司精心布局的奇形怪状,既有逻辑无用武之地,观众只好费尽心神寻找当中的意蕴,或者象我那样,尽情享受日本cult 片鬼才预备的感官盛宴。如是者,观众所经验的时间不是放片的102 分钟,而是他们迷路的时间。


阳光灿烂的日子(或原著《动物凶猛》)里,主角马小军越深入自己的记忆,就越发现处处出错,到后来甚至黑白不分,我们就知道记忆的不可信。记忆隐恶扬善,只保留对意识有利的叙述,甚至对你作出彻底背叛。《死在田园》的以为可以驾驭记忆,并以这种自信武装自己回到故乡恐山。可惜,当他跟昔日年轻的自己开始对话,少年主角马上揭 露成年主角美化了过去,记忆本是一连串谎言。记忆就是这么不可靠。无奈的是,我们需要从记忆抽取经验来建立自我的主体性和应付生活上的决定,无法进入记忆和意识的,就是我们生活里的惊颤



寺山修司的重口味freak show 意向让不少人把他跟费里尼(Federico Fellini)连在一起,也有人说寺山修司象拍过Salo柏索里尼(Pier Paolo Pasolini ),因为大家都有或隐晦或露白的性描写。 但,



Tuesday, April 28, 2009


弟弟失踪了。不知跑那去了。都半夜十二点了现在。一个小学生,你说他能跑到哪去。我沿着家门前的河一直走,河边的街灯在半干的河道 投下层层叠叠,好似颤搐的白菊的碎冠。明明只有一支街灯,却无端生出那么多枝枝节节的浮影,是谁在这样的夜里倒泻满盘的银晕,任由它在流动的齐黑里自生自 灭,繁衍疯长,爆出一丛丛银火花。河岸堆积一塚塚死贝,福寿螺还有一些像青口的小贝。全都是指甲大小,没什么肉,肉又无味。所以覬覦看不上他们。那些小贝 成队的塞着河道水闸,所以要把他们挖出来。那些带壳生物今早已堆于此地,贝肉晒了一整天,都腐烂了,死肉流出黄濁的尸水。烂艳的颜色半明半灭如死去的珍 珠。我一边呼喊弟弟的名字,一边吸入腐烂贝肉的咸腥,嗅到其在衰敗中渐渐模糊的肌肉纹理。

前面有小水一滩,落满了破败的星宿,猎户座的腰 带轻贱的簪在水面。要是我以履作舟涉水而过,不知可会惊起鸥鹭一群,响天的白羽一离空变成了箭雨,落在将军的桐花枝上。蒙尘的破布鞋且置一旁,我要用落凡 的银河濯洗泥污的赤脚。弟弟啊,吾弟,你在哪里。天上的水里的下弦月弯开释迦智目一双,两眼遥遥相望,所有的秘密洞穿,你到底看见了什么,告诉我。欲问吾 弟身在何。藕花深处抑杨柳堆烟之途?死水泡得我足色如乳胶白,碎步浮浮,一跨一沓都似乎在水中央,鱼们把我的皮屑,脱落的肌肉啄食。走了十步不到,我再也 行不了,弓腰扶着一棵紫荆树喘气。这树不知何德何能赢得市花之名,丧气到不得了,叶子一年四季都是青黄不接的颜色,黛啊翠啊这些颜色词它从未够资格穿上 身,那个花红不红紫不紫的,又干又扁,仿佛从未流出花蜜,从未丰润甘甜。正当花季的时候,花团如一树吊死的瘦骨伶仃的老处女乘春暖梳头弄髻,从没见过丧气 如斯的树。紫荆是我见过最不像生物的树,我不时身备界刀,忍不住要刮下那树皮色的脂粉,要那混凝土结成的枝干重见天日。紫荆树,你跟那些水门汀麻花柱,是 不是一家?但今夜,我要说,今夜。紫荆花在月下开得特别艳,苏摩用光华在嫩瓣画出我从未见过的兰紫色,嘿,我知你为自己随机的惊艳沾沾自喜。连我,今夜也 要你做依靠。

沿河一路,似行了几十年,好累。我弟我弟,你在何方。你会不会让那个河里的阿姨,偷偷抱去了。你妈姐弟四个,就那个阿姨最聪 明,三岁背唐诗,窗前明月光,疑是地上霜。霜和月光都白白你那个好聪明阿姨说。你妈只会担水劈柴,沉默地过草垛,跟你那个阿姨一点不似。阿姨生的好靓,外 婆说阿女你真靓,眼珠亮晶晶又圆似两粒龙眼核,皮肤白胜瓷,红嘴文又细。你姐皮肤十足粗沙陶。他们姐妹几个都比不上你一个,加加埋埋都比不上。唉是不是有 鬼迷,又,是不是红颜,必招天妒。你才八岁那么个人仔,怎怪不给那大水冲了去呢。我们家前的那条河,不宽不深,但急到死,肥硕的照夜白在里面也站不住脚。 难怪是虚龄八岁的小小女孩儿。河未小到成溪,大又没大到江那样,水色从不清澄,没人看过那河底,但又不如黄河颜色有厚实的泥濁,这条河,就这样不温不火, 不紧不慢,日复日慢悠悠扶着不汤不水的颜色淌过,它的每一个弯转,都提醒人们它的平凡及不足挂齿。阿姨你呢个人中之凤,那个玉串样精致的身体,亮晶晶眼, 瓷白肌肤,文细红嘴,沉在那条不汤不水河的河床,真不抵。阿姨我没有见过你,你还在怨吗,恨那推你落河的谁谁谁吗?恨那生满苔藓的湿滑石阶嘛。呢你是不是 抱走我弟,要是请把他抱回来。我烧你一双红鸳鸯绣花鞋,阴丹士林旗袍翡翠头花。阿姨啊你是不是抱走了他。

其实不用担心呢我真傻,我弟,可 能你是踢球去了,三里外的球场,夜里没有灯,要一直摸黑回来。我到得家里,必看见你带回一身调皮的泥污,泄气的皮球,大堆的牢骚话,在春天的烂泥球场探头 探脑的饮管粗的蚯蚓。又,也许你是去了朋友家里玩那种穷一生都玩不完的电脑游戏,寻找青龙演偃月刀倚天屠龙剑。一脸光辉地履行勇者的任务。我左脚踏进家门 时你一定会扑向我,如数家珍地说你的历险。你如何从龙潭虎穴救回的貌美的异国公主,皇者之剑又怎样反射太阳之辉。我弟,你都会告诉我,你说是不是。可能你 是让一个爱唱歌的人邀去了,他一生注定要歌唱,他要你帮。点样帮点样帮。你要随他走。一开步,满头黑发落。二开步,你的蜜色皮肤连里面蓄了一年的阳光成块 剥落,三开步,宝石红的内脏跳出,一跃妆一朵湿濡的闪光 ,四开步,歌者云现在你得棚骨啦细路,不如你把脆响的白骨,比埋我。弟弟你一生都那么善良,你一定默默点了头,你的声带已经没了。发皮肉骨,歌者用你,作 了一个琴。你从来没听过自己唱歌,想不到第一次,那么好听。弓上绷直的发,扫到你发育没完全的声带,夭折的肌肉,易啊啊。我弟,你是不是变了那么一个琴, 在歌人双手之间以不完整饕客。喂。

快走到家时,迎面来了焦急的妈妈,好似没有看见我那样,直行直过。嗨如果丢了的是我你还会不会这样紧 张。妈妈不应我,一头栽进外面的夜色。我住的港式公营屋村,楼房七层高,四四方方棺材咁,多年来葬送不少人的身份和特征。在屋村范围内走到哪里都会遭建筑 物呆笨的线条围困包抄,一楼至七楼都一个样,因为每层楼都用相同的铸件砌就,叠积木那样叠上去,看来如一个个一模一样的额头,眉骨的位置一样那抬头纹一 样,里面装的也一样。住客都一个样,陈师奶黄师奶刘生张生都一样。黄林两家甚至连教仔的口吻也无有分别,全村对准顽皮马髅的枪口口径式样为一致的,哎你个 短命仔,睇你今晚无饭食就知死,正一干巴铲。全村人都这样闹仔,字数从不增不减。个个阿爸阿妈这样骂,个个仔都当他们唱歌好少理。全村的男女老幼都顶着同 一发型,春夏板寸,秋冬one-length。我偶尔电个发,便遭全村指摘,从此村内设施均不让我沾手,按电梯按钮都要用塑料袋包着手,对所有村人我要以 敬语称呼之,那管他是三岁小毛孩,我成了村内的贱民,因为我跟他们不一样,哪怕只是一点。在如此千人一面的环境里我不入仙南铎也像陷进五里云雾,常常不知 谁是谁认不出哪是哪,同时目睹自己的指纹在雾里模糊。所以我在这里由细住到大却成天迷路,一次下午三点放学回家在屋村里天光转到天黑,跌撞于重复的排比的 风景之间,找到家时,家人已睡,大被盖过头,若已忘了我此人。兜兜转转之间,忙于流汗着急疲惫,我也差点忘了自己,只记得后楼梯一个个整齐的合格式的代表 楼层的黑色数字。

弟弟啊。我还没找到你。快到家了。走廊的拐角处坐了三四桌人高声歌唱且同时吃喝,神乎其技真如人人有两把口。在他们吞咽 歌声豪声饮笑语的间隙间我问那些喝到火红火绿的男人有没有见过我弟弟,他们忽然有默契地放下筷子,一个卤水蛋轱辘轱辘滚在地。他们互相交换了一下眼色,确 定了某种内容后同声说不知道。然后一起把口臭从我面前移到桌上一大金属锅边,里面咕嘟咕嘟冒泡煮什么好香,他们对着那锅紫黑哇哇声,我知我知,他们吃小 孩,未出世的死胎。他们又朝我不怀好意的笑,其中一个女人向我展示T恤上的窟窿,并不住以五指之力把它越撑越大,直至我看见她半个溃烂含脓的茄色乳头。我 抱起地上黑白相间的箭猪,掉头走,后面起哄的笑声是一堆骚动的死苍蝇缠在我发上。

家里静英英。弟弟不在。连妹妹都出去了,一个人没有。窗 外的月华亮得晃眼,甚至有点不友善了。一片及时的稀云把它罩住,云随飋而漾, 俨如在空中放旧了的无主棉铃,鱼丝一般坚韧,足以成为止血的伤疤,我手多多 把云撕下来,月忽的就暗了,我抬臂去摘,握在掌中的是发黑的头盖骨,一捏,即成灰。妈妈在楼下的大树旁,和妹妹把弟弟颈项上,拉着红藻状血丝的绳子,解下 来。

五花马,千金裘,蛾儿雪柳黄金镂,苹果笔记本,步步高dvd机,威而钢蓝精灵。扎彩铺里堆满各色纸品,种类之繁令人咋舌。我肢体小小的挪动总要以跌撞的代 价换得。触到冰冷的蜡光纸如摩挲死人脸,朱红雀蓝松叶绿之类鲜辣颜色,预告生命炎尽之后。殡仪馆的死人,总是画着比生前任何时候都浓的妆,最尾一次化妆, 总要化的好好睇睇。人断了气,油彩就可以大摇大摆,就此一次,不用附庸会出汗,发怒,皱眉的脸皮。然后安心在千度高温的猛火里干裂焦黑,于窝着蠕虫的沃泥 里溶化腐败,发出烂肉味。彩红彩绿的扎纸像太阳一样,快把我晒盲。老板怕我砸了人家身后的荣华富贵,连连扬手示意我离开。我说看看又怎么着。看你这金楼玉 柱乱生色,一放入那个铁皮小屋一烧,扎得几靓到头来不就一堆灰。还有啊,儒释道都没有叫人烧衣啊老细,你这不是骗人是什么。老板别过面,抬起地上半张桌子 大的纸坦克,又拿了双红烛出了门口。我问他你烧这给谁?他也不搭理。拿起一盒纸扎烧卖,白纸压成四方方,剪刀剪出浑浑圆的绿纸充青豆,拿起来真轻清,没有 一点湿气,多余的重量。我死后,天地是否摇身一变成白纸那样浅薄干净。从此只需意会,抛弃世界,拧掉多余的动作,咬嚼吞,视嗅闻。对一只苹果,省略牙齿交 吻的动作,食道的艰难,粉红胃袋的絮絮研磨,不移一步,直达甜美的核心。引诱夏娃的糖汁,跳过了青蛇,注入精神。那么生活可以扼死几许枝节,世界不用再被 暗哑的小麻烦以黄旧布条束住脚。不过话时话,这样的淡木木烧卖,真是揾鬼食。莫不道,他朝君体也相同啊。小姐你属木,命又硬,生命线快伸至腰间,好长命啊 你至少有八九十岁命啊。那个睇相佬五十多岁,睁着一对女人那样亮晶晶眼睛跟我说。


天 花跌了什么在我头顶,痒得不得了。抬头望才知天花是扎纸铺里唯一不漆红色的地方,满地的彩色纸花纸人都照不亮上面发黑的木板,密封的天堂。头顶像有蚁咬, 好痕。摸摸头皮,已经长了无数疙瘩,小小的圆润光滑讨好指尖。火辣辣的很痒。宛如生了满头山棯。小时候暑假故乡的瓜田边有山棯,它们吵吵的,偷倚藤架。小 小紫浆果,舅婆管它们叫火炭仔。没有什么汁,好甜,每次路过山便都会吃。后来知道有种叫胭脂虫的圆轱辘小虫,通体酱紫,性喜伏于灌木枝上冒充甘果,还做戏 做全套的分泌粘甜的体液,跟山棯差不多样。整个身体没有器官,塞满一肚的白虫卵。不知我在吃山捻的时候曾把多少的胭脂虫吞下,让他们孵化再麻麻密密地锁满 支气管。从此我一见山棯就痒,连喉咙也痒,仿佛身体里所有瘦瘦的管道生满甜滴滴赘瘤。谁也好,请把这些无用的肉芽连同他们故作的媚态从我头上宛出,留下我 脑袋空空。我叫老板老板。没人应。只有过度的寂静憋出来的电流般的鸣咽声。

浮想联翩之间,冷不防踩中一纸马,马体高壮甚有盛唐遗风。马身 蒙上鲜红玻璃纸,桃红色绿色黄色装饰图案往马壳上贴,恰是花钿两面煎。我踩断纸马的一腿一尾,不知从哪冒出来的老板面露不悦,是是,可以理解,我弄坏人家 店里的东西,还搞搞震无帮衬。后生仔,那腿断了烂了不能卖了。“老板你急忒?它原来就不会跑腾,没了个腿又如何?断了的是我们的期望”。“细路”“我们冀 望从它身上知道形体,而形体失,就没用了,扫它去垃圾桶吧”“老细把它卖给我好吗?“ “不要钱,你,留下衣服”

我一丝不挂,抱着血红纸 马。低头看,阴毛都变得陌生。陌生人似乎更熟悉我身体,他们用五感进入我身,我的五感却困坐乏味的肌肉愁城。离开扎彩店,越走那纸马越热,随时都会烧着。 不知是不是那老板怀恨在心落了降头。我走三步看那纸马,走两步又看瞟瞟那纸马。越走越热我是抱着一怀虚火。燎燎的焚三焦。但玻璃纸上带沙的红光宁静如烟 波,我怎能对它生疑呢,它在我怀里那样乖。回头看看那光光红的铺头,老板不见了,店比刚才越发假十足模型胶屋,雕栏玉砌地划生者的歉咎到彼岸,店门前一双 扎彩童男童女妆着蜡光纸的虚华脸红红对我笑。店里燃着的劣质檀香很臭,笨重地盆卷愚黄色,烧炼恶菩提,闻得我好留恋现世。四下望望,才发现周围非常黑。街 道墨漆漆跟其他更黑的交错的巷接轨。扎彩铺是唯一的光源,太阳月亮缺席。连小小鼻屎大的星都隐沉。极目而望就得我一个人。无声在敲响玉磬,耳鸣处处扩散 开,一环环。

十步以外的东西完全看不清了因为实在黑。能看见的楼房,都是十多年前的式样,长长方方,十多层重复吟唱一样的小气窗户,水管 及灰色外墙。是最宜用来扼杀想象力建筑物。眼下的街道是从文明疲乏的灰嘴唇拉的长长的嚼到无味的香口胶,长远淡稀薄。两边建筑些许辛辣的棱角被反芻至血肉 模糊,变了黑团团的寒酸在路旁。我爱的人住在长街另一头,要见他必要经过黑里黑的夜路,这世人我又惊鬼又惊贼。我实在不敢。吾爱,真的,对不起。柏油路望 望我洒手拧头的怯懦样子,妖笑一声,挨欹高尖音跑到天边,死了,那街更长了。黑夜的纤索曳不到天光那头。我不会再见到白日了。我知道这里从没有昼日。眼眯 眯只见右手面一间大茶楼,三层,有大会堂那么大,人气一点无有,招牌上的字号青铜色。乌灯黑火楼上面看不见一个人,但隐隐有声声唤。时而高亢一点,退下去 时如半垂的眼目,几乎可以感到睫毛在手背念念扫。纸马盯住二楼,原来二楼的窗里点着暗兰色鬼火,饮茶鬼在自己的尸骨描画蓝莲花。埃及种的蓝莲,酿成酒喝了 飘飘然,四肢又面又软。女祭司干杯后迷迷糊糊跳神舞,清醒的人在她身后又拜又唱,眼珠游离粗黑眼线 : 阿努比斯!阿努比斯!我如那些鬼,歠醉餔薰,穷一生祭自身。二十岁前以为自己擅写能画,到头来发现自己是色盲,红绿不分,过马路看错灯,差点让撞死。用间 尺也画不成直线。常用的字不多于一百个。读小学的小表妹问我功课问的我口哑哑。

茶楼里不知有没有坐了爷爷,我从来没见过的爷爷,抛妻弃子 的男人。他离家时爸爸好小,上小学那时。爷爷做酒楼,会整广式点心,有些我听都未听过,例如猪润烧卖。爸爸说爷爷正一酒鬼,一天到晚抱住樽孖蒸喝, 年年过去,酒依旧清澄,酒精把爷爷的眼球腌的白濁。爷爷后来差不多半盲了。


一 楼黑墨墨,依稀见得有钟,指针全断了,分不出长短针。行楼梯上二楼,木板支呀呀,好旧了纸马说。我踏一步镶在檀木上的裂口又深一些。上得二楼,二楼地上铺 了纸皮石,密密细,整整齐齐排出死人蓝色,殡仪灯笼的蓝色。四周放置台凳,没有一个人。锈得发黑的痰罐斜瞟着我看,里面干干的一滴水都没有,暗哑的黑色内 壁独自回应空洞。乖孙。乖孙,你来。爷爷坐在最黑哪个角落里,边叫我,边煽起蓝鬼火。你来。快来。我在爷爷纸白的脸上找不到眼珠,鬼火就在那两个窟窿鲽 出。爷爷唱支曲你听。凉风有信。秋月无边-----边。他越唱,我的口越干,及至到最后我口中没有一滴口水,说话时差点把舌头吞下去,舌苔像愤怒的赤目粒 粒饱开。爷爷跟我说乖孙你饿不饿。我点点头。已经说不出话。爷爷掀开上衣,就是那种白色的厨房佬衫,干净得丝毫人气都不占,条条衣纹宛如白拍子手上纸扇一 样洁净。你吃。爷爷递给我两个烧卖,冷的。跟他手一样。放倒口里我才发现我没了味觉了,我忍不住哇啦哇啦呕出包有指头的烧卖,泼了满地黄胆水,半个指甲插 在舌头暖红肉上,同但就是吞吐不出味道。爷爷刚才把烧卖收埋的地方,近着肝那里,破了一个大洞,里面半个烂肝,肿瘤层层绽开若山茶。我转身走,凉鞋面上的 十多个小银玲,一齐响了起来,是一城的艳妓妆罢顶着金步摇脂粉亭亭赘。耳根揉搓厌人的花枝招展。我回头看,爷爷的肩上伏了个人,是个皮色粉蓝的男子,刘海 疏软形如櫛,睫毛的影子映入眼底,吊稍眼角晕染粉红,那红花红粉染就,我一看就想起那些冷硬的深红如披旧盖头的茶果。男人看看我,又对爷爷媚笑,低低唱便 赏心乐事谁家园。忘了说,他有一个头,而且就只是一个头,粉颈根底虚空悠悠下潛。


再 找不到扎彩铺。街上只能是更黑。我一直走,一个暗影蹲在地上,差点被她绊倒。那女人四十上下,脸上隐隐蛤蟆色的斑点,夜里她的黑脸更黑。她木木的半蹲坐, 已经死了,口里叼住发臭腐坏的肥肉。我估计那肥肉本来放在旁边的石老虎的口里。那肥肉用来祭那白虎的------那石雕的百兽之王。其实那石头一点也不像 老虎,连眼耳口鼻都欠奉,只在大石上勾出弯弯的尾巴。倒像折手断脚的灰鹦鹉,了无生气的一旧肉,灰色羽毛辗作尘,红喙流不出鸟语那是血和口水。你知道吗隔 壁陈生那只红顶灰鹦鹉,好贵又会学人语,陈生好疼它,比自己个仔还亲,天天带它公园散步,睡觉都要放在身边。有一天陈生个仔把鹦鹉翅膀齐根用剪刀剪断,从 二十几楼丢落街。今天驚蟄, 春雷惊破满山毒。以前阿婆跪在大榕树下打小人,一打你小人脚,打到你有鞋不晓着。二打你小人口,打到你食饭都会呕。麻麻带我打小人好细个的时候,选个破 日,买猪血肥猪肉,润润那白虎口等它不会咬人,买份大白衣,烧了。 拿一只拖鞋,一块砖头,使劲打。周身病。婚外情。考试落第。人际关系欠佳。统统打扁扁敲碎。生活顿时甩开如蚤虱的诸多死结,人也轻松起来。在那张霉霉烂烂 的草纸上,绿线描绘的古人陋像旁边我睥见妈妈的名字。
那个死女人不见了,谁能告诉我那不是假的呢。我手抹了抹石虎口,上面腻满了珠黄肥油粒的无牙 的洞,还有发了臭的血,已是橡紫色。把命运的不能理解借动物的凶猛还魂,人就是这样。街越走越黑,连影子都沉吟在一色的鳗黑里,不露面。背后的空茶楼还依 依传出乖孙乖孙。你去边。飘呀飘的飘至我耳边。漾如烟线,好似麻麻葬礼上,火葬到尾声的时候,淡墨色细烟,断断续,续续断,慢慢把焦肉香从烟囱拖出抽出掏 出。我突然疯了似的跑起来,连自己都不知道拔足的缘由,可能想在这条街烧盛一点点人气。





三 几个阿婆身穿玄色蜡光衫,有一搭没一搭地说着话,轻松的道家常,一个个混濁的浮泡从她们乾瘪的嘴唇悃悃而出。我忍不住摸摸她们谷壳样的嘴。笑意全滑进她们 的唇纹里。她们围住一个桶。那高身錫桶水半满,插菊花,数有五六。黄色紫色菊花,非雪球非蟹爪,最普通的拜山菊,说不上名字来。水里习习煮婆婆的皱纹,酸 臭薄薄流,是那菊根已烂。挨尽了菊老荷枯几度秋。菊花在檀香炉灰边,比耄耋老得更快,馥香自管瓣瓣上扬,那黄那紫已没有激烈地干戈相向,各自背对背,困坐 愁城。唉,惜费尽三春,东风渡。


寺 里一间间房,房里一排排神主牌,神主牌上照片一张张,有些好旧了,蒙蒙尘。家人可能很久没有来过,可能,移了民,可能。或者连家人朋友都死了,一针针钩断 个人的不朽。处处塔香昏昏烧,油灯滴滴亮,房里还是阴凉,看的我眼睛好冷,眼水干。油灯是古装片里看到那种,油拖灯芯拉着火。人死了,作古了,真是古了, 成历史的一坏土了,连油灯都有古意。房间都没有门,众生詵詵,随意来随意去。香炉余烬温温,让先人黑白照片吸饮。

未见天未出生的小儿,没 有神主牌,就一张纸,画满细长方格,名也没有,就叫血光。佛门也不得清静,一双双腿大张,流出烂熟樱桃红。一张张腿,也没有脸,只是成脚的血。一个身体换 一个身体。女人排排坐,等什么。等落仔。其中一个落仔前还在打机。无敌马里奥,人头碰砖头,叮叮叮,掉出好多金币,一滴血都没有,面不红气不喘,汗也无一 滴。小小儿女们,是不是如电视游戏里的红怪物,一团团模糊等着人踩,过了几步路,再生,几步路,细胞分裂,几步路,成形,复而在你身后喊,妈妈,是我。有 好多方法:用真空吸管吸,刮宫,打盐水,注射前列腺素,割腹取儿。上一辈就用崩大碗五花茶西瓜绿豆沙,至寒至凉。多么方便。为了不负责任我们发明了那么多 方法。杀一个人好像用剪刀采朵花般利落。嚓。嚓。坐我隔壁的女人,说那时我六个月才发现有病,开肚拿出那东西。宝宝满身血,好似湿水鸡仔。拿了出来医生说 要把她浸在水里,好在那个女来的,我老公恨仔。个女没有多久就死了,好过要在鋅盆里慢慢等饿死。那时我流了好多血。扫地阿婶话那些血,抹了就无问题,下一 个。

好难才找到你,你就是一行蝇头小字。你被搅碎,穿过我阴道飞出,变了七个字。哪个是你眼,哪个是你,没有手指的球状的手,哪个是你张 不开的嘴,注满粘液的鼻?“黄泉路上头不回,去一切苦厄阿弥陀“僧人的灰衣染炉灰,已是更不纯不清不楚的灰,具足戒的颜色。他大声念佛经,也听不清楚他说 的什么。万物为声,即鸣动的总和,念经声似乎不是来自声带的肉质,而是现世孤寂在沙燥的石化的喉咙上推刮,刮出珊瑚灰,落纷纷。干哑照亮房里的每个小角 落,明明灭灭如烛火。僧手里鈸又把烛花剪复剪,照住纸扎小蓝人笑,我望着僧人的寸头,和下面绝血的嘴唇,凸出如黄铜片带锋利边沿,金属的冷声,积在天花 板。所以室里更冷。地上大块绿方砖划出生锈棺材钉颜色,打在我儿身上,我的儿的身体像僵蚕了。从粉红变白。丁丁丁。和尚的唱念几时完,铜鈸敲得我头痛,阿 弥陀佛啊阿弥陀佛,经咒流入我体。沿着我儿独行的路。浓盐水沿着同一幽径,小朋友敲浆而过之处,冲洗到子宫,母亲的手抚皱你们的肉,那皮多么细,碰到空气 都会痛,何况炙人的浓盐液。像一千个大海的活火烧你们身,你们还没有见过火呢。盐水把你们铸成鲜红。薄荷而饮。杯里盏盏生红浪。眼里的微血管都爆裂,内脏 全扭碎。我明白了你们为什么叫血光,因为你们的父母满手血,因为要他们看他们推你们走的路,步步生滚烫沥青色恶莲。你的路就是他们的,一红一蓝重叠着,谁 道不是他朝君体也相同。你的父母像两个做错事的孩儿,牵着冷手,在菩萨面前一句话也不敢说。从此你们恨,跟你们的父母一样,跟所有人一样,恨。父母借你们 翻搅乳海,你们一端洒甘露一段煽毒火,最后你们的恨很纯粹,厚厚奶白色。僧人的经还没有念完,锵锵说着大道理,色即是空空即是色,诸法空相,潄过人的挤满 黄牙齿的口腔,竟成了像北京夜行动物馆里的倭蜂猴,两眼空空的,坐在假树枝上。(夜行动物馆五点收工。照明用的灯是长关的,剩下一盏盏暗红灯泡赶着动物活 动。)半梦半醒地看不见天明。绒毛揉散灯泡的红光,玻璃因缺乏清洁而生出白翳,小生物的大眼睛,还是空空的,以至连死亡之降临也看不见。晚上慈禧光绪,挂 着朝珠来。缺了眼珠的窟窿,一样双目空空。渡一切。如何渡。还要我给封利事与那僧。这样的经听得我眼睛发绿发蓝惧光。

外面的白石观音满了 尘,四处围满神主牌,鲜红的枣红的。 人造的彼岸近在咫尺,行两步路,便得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提,从一个世界到另一个世界,可呢真如我们期望的那么直接干净,甚至于连蔓珠沙华都焚尽,沿路没有风 景。走着,发现连路也没有。俗諦义諦不二,根本空。心灭世灭何有蹊。观音后面一个小池,锦鲤黛水悠悠转,污物里互相推撞。有三条小小的,一条是你,一条是 我,一条呢,是我儿。远一点有金身地藏菩萨,匾额书“地狱未空誓不成佛“,旁边有个钟,善男信女过过往往,那钟我不敢敲。

出得到近门口 处,见有浅池两个,上罩拱形红铁条网。大大小小巴西龟伏在瓷砖上,有些比我双掌大,淡黄石绿撇出脸上花纹。拿硬币擲那些龟,擲中者,多福多寿,生生富贵。 真是好。有一个小龟,孩儿巴掌大,龟壳边沿崩了大块,里面装着的黑暗也没有流出来。里面的情况不知怎样,不过我肯定那小龟死了,壳都发暗了,已然不是有呼 吸的东西。龟壳前面有小滩墨绿稠浆,依稀可辨龟首和被拉长的颈项的形状。大龟们悠然的晒着太阳,他们如何以缓慢的步伐,笨重的不勤的四体,短厚的尾巴,把 幼小的同类从抵御性里扯出。也还不见血。从长圆的白卵到火焰状的固甲,肉从生到死,是由骨到骨。

大龟们,叠褶的皮间揣上虚构的国籍与假山及葡币周旋。温柔的草食者眼睛,不知望着何界。原来小龟残壳里填满了更小的蛆 ,肉生肉,变色变相,色无相相无色,园融无碍。大龟们还是,两颊大红不易色。

越 过寺门,外面的声音一下冲上来,各色各样的脑袋个个撞上来。闪着蜡光的橙,葱油烧味饭,傲直的剑兰,荒弃照相馆阳台的通花大门,琳琅满目像垃圾山傀俄崩坍 而下,打得我头钝痛一阵阵。鲜桃红色小发糕委身小小白瓷碗,连指甲油也不敢用的辣色,强撐手臂,啜饮碗沿,大咆哮。这样的东西真是揾鬼吃。我想起一张唱碟 的封套,卷头发女人,穿过金黄星星的中央的洞口,把身体挤往宇宙。脸上的表情跟二十年代的广告明星的一样,她是不是已预知面前的镜像,才摆出这样的姿势。 我儿的眼欠眼帘缺睫毛,雨花石黑洞洞,从碗沿看世界。

离开寺。各类冰冻饮料,用来灌醒身体。热啊。冻柠茶挟着寒毒,过甜的刀锋一直开到子 宫的创口。密密流血的地方,那里有一个绿色小凳子,因为我的孩子跟我一样喜欢树叶和湖水。他坐在那里等如他软软的手指的细枝,涨出新芽,月亮底下的水从蓝 色变成绿。一直等。妈妈我可以看到林花,春红吗?可以的,只要你一直等。妈妈我可以看到夜行动物园里,扎着暗朱神台灯的箭猪和眼镜猴吗?可以的,但你要 乖,要乖乖等。妈妈我可以看到那个木造的大种,无端敲响十二声吗?可以的。妈妈,我可以见你吗?可以的。只要你乖。你要等。







"輝夜姬乘飛車,同天人俱昇天際.身著羽衣,則返天人之性.俗世種種,無論喜怒哀樂之事,皆將忘卻.是超脫人間業障,俗世依情已不值一顧. "








北京的树,很多都很老,从它们的根到树梢,我就活了几世。孔庙的大丝柏,辩忠奸,电光闪闪。树上两个人头,朝珠垂到月夜里。震震。树干在你脸上扭出流水 纹,你一边摇头一边唱“君子有所为有所不为”,牙齿碎在喉头,牙龈发黑,裸露北风下。面圣时候如何说。几多功名。烂在鞋底下。

吉他不时拉紧你的肌腱 一,二,三,四,
吉他不时拉紧你的肌腱 一,二,三,四,
吉他不时拉紧你的肌腱 一,二,三,四,
同你一起 摔死在山水的盘子里

Wednesday, April 22, 2009


刚才看到一篇新闻,标题是1.2兆美元可以做什么, 有人说可以再打一场伊拉克战争,或者成立一个癌症基金。但是我们不是大国政府,作为一芥草民,兆这个数字实在是大的超过人们想像范围,变成抽象了。该贴的回复基本上是在争论兆到底有多少,一般认为是10的12次方,也有人认为是10的六次方,亦即一百万,连字典也没有统一解释,但是现在一般取前者为解释。

兆作为一以汉字表示的数学概念,代表一万个亿,后来我在网上搜索汉字的“十进制” (万位以上的是万进制)依次为:个,十,百,千,万, 亿,兆,京,垓,秭,穰,沟,涧,正,载,极,恒河沙,阿僧祇, 那由他,不可思议,无量。另外又有十退制,依次为:分、厘、毫、丝、忽、微、纤、沙、尘、埃、渺、莫、模糊、逡巡、须臾、瞬息、弹指、刹那、六德、空虚、清静。最大跟最小的都跟佛教有关系,大概是因为中国古时跟印度僧人交流了除了经卷佛学,也包括数学吧。我觉得到了最大或者最少了,就已经不是人数了,已经是另一境界了,都无所谓了。就空了。或者这样说,作为星斗市民,亿跟兆基本上对我来说一样,是个数字,是个能指的能指,两者互相抵消,就好像阿基米德要计算宇宙球体里沙的总数,数到最后沙和球体互相抵消,就空了。

Tuesday, April 21, 2009



Monday, April 13, 2009


今天看到了一位艺术家的作品,跟有限期有关。食品上药品上的expired by 清楚明了刻下有用跟无用的分界线,也描画了物品状态一路走下坡的地图, 同时把个人生活和物品网入“客观”量化时间的格子里。偏偏有些东西,例如为了一次特别场合卖的衣服,为了朋友庆生卖的蜡烛,这些物品的有限期缠缠绵棉,有用跟无用的分界含糊不清,是不是巴塔耶的色情经济学再这里发生了作用,这些延搁/阉割了的消费。。。

另外,今天看到有人问一人份到底有多少?我因为爱吃所以爱煮,继承了祖母的遗传,我一般材料分量都是“随量”, 除非碰见了烘焙类我一直甚少接触的领域。如果我吃了两人份的菜肴(经常发生), 是不是我在烹饪的层面上就是两个人呢?我们对一个人和另一个人的理解是在否定的层面上, 也是面孔为代表的不可制约性,在烹饪世界里,你跟我,一人或二人,是建基于我跟你之间的相同处,甚至是连结,就像在一条绵延的面条上,这里切一刀,就是我的后面的就是他人的, 也是因为有了一个人的机制,所以第二人的出现才变的可能。这种强加于我自己和别人之间的绵延的统一,我称之为面条关系。

Friday, April 10, 2009




Thursday, April 9, 2009


早前看了Milk, 前几天看了饥饿 (Hunger), 后来又听到妹妹说她在今届香港电影节看了出四个小时长的哲古华拉电影,当我今天看到Bobby Sands 的生平的时候, 觉得我们对英雄和烈士的消耗量还是很大的,只要那个烈士不是自己的话。


今天在某网站看见一名为“Venila Style”的拍照方式,基本上就是俯卧,脸朝上望镜头,屁股翘起,正面看屁股高于头部,罗宋此一新开发招牌拍照姿势比东亚少女的撑眼七分面V字手势明显强悍好几倍,在此连结(可以一睹俄国少女的vilena风采。奇怪的是, 我本着无知者无畏的信条在浩浩网络海洋寻找有关Venila-style的资料,发现搜到的资料大部分来自中文网站,我要调查下,唔唔唔唔。

Tuesday, April 7, 2009



他们有很多人, 我不知道他们是谁,只知道他们寄住在我的房子里。我自己住小房间,他们住的房间, 有四分之一个足球场那么大。


Monday, April 6, 2009



看同治的病历的时候看到“走马牙疳” 一词,本来以为是牙周病,但是病征非常吓人,不只是牙痛那么简单。

Sunday, April 5, 2009



那个房间连地板都没有,就是一个坑坑洼洼的泥地上面罩着几面墙,一个屋顶。泥地上面深深插着铁架床, 她爬下床去看,一条蚯蚓正在探头,离头一两寸的地方有个淡粉色环。



Night Butterflies

昨天晚上看了比利时动画大师Raoul Servais的合缉。这张dvd去年我就买了,那时侯被封面上的夜之蝶("Nachtvlinders" /"Nocturnal Butterflies")的精美剧照吸引,才掏了钱买高于市价一倍的价钱把它收归门下。夜之蝶是Raoul Servais的后期作品,有别于Raoul Servais早期政治味浓, 批判战争和媒体对话语的控制,作品如 To Speak or Not to Speak (1970) 或者Operation X-70都属此类。作为对比利时超现实大师Paul delvaux的致敬/挽歌,夜之蝶把Harpya (Raoul Servais 1979年半动画作品,该作品获得同年康城电影节最佳短片)的半动画半电影。


ps. 搜了下夜之蝶的影评,竟然有人说夜之蝶是Raoul Servais跟Paul delvaux合作的作品,他老人家分分钟从棺材弹起,哎。


Thursday, April 2, 2009



Sunday, March 29, 2009


爸爸前天给我个电话,我说我在工作,爸爸支支吾吾跟我说姑妈已经过身了,有十几天了,怕影响我工作所以一直没有告诉我。姑妈其实是爸爸的表姐,爸爸是独子,姑妈就像他亲姐姐一样了。我小时候, 因为父母常在深圳做生意,好几年是在姑妈家住,姑妈照顾我。姑妈有四个孩子,三女一子,我叫他们家姐哥哥。


姑妈在我童年占了极大的位置,她的离开让我觉得自己很大的一部分空空落落。我一直认为我的现在是挤在过去和将来的轮里,现在觉得我的过去由一部分不是跟着我的当下转动,像一个齿轮其中一个齿脱落,突然变成了骨头, 好像我在一家快倒闭的超级看到的冷藏柜看到的一包火腿,粉红全然褪尽,变成了灰色。

Monday, March 23, 2009


昨天晚上头疼嗓子疼,一边吞口水一边辗转反侧居然成了上刀山之等难事。这个痛一直深入到梦里(好像电视上的药物广告), 在梦里的我,辗转反侧想睡, 却隐隐知道自己睡去了就会死。整个梦里我艰难的一次一次把自己从水里拖上来,好像西方酷刑历史里专门用来教训多嘴女人的浸水椅,这是一个貌似天平的刑具,犯人被绑在椅上,固定在天平的一端 (这一端一般是布置在河边,湖边,水井甚至沟渠), 另一方则有刽子手把犯人时而浸到水里,时而提上来透透气。后来我就放弃了,自己做自己的刑具太累了。



他们都不说话。 其实我都不清楚他们到底有多少人。看的到的,看不到的,可能有几十人,也可能是没有人的。但是这个药店为什么一点药味都没有。看不到的人,你不可以不算他是人,因为这样有些不礼貌。








Sunday, March 15, 2009

Jeff Koons in Milk

Milk 已经看完,电影中规中矩,但是Harvey Milk作为争取同性恋权益的一个Icon,绝对值得拍一部电影来纪念他。 电影看完出credit的时候,赫然看到被称为“balloon animal lover” 的Jeff Koons的大名。初时以为是时同名同姓,后来上网一找,发现有关讨论的搜寻结果铺天盖地,片中人果然是Jeff Koons。Koons一直不是我杯茶,所以在这种艺术八卦的语境上面看见他的“out of place”, 符号交换之间就觉得有些意思慢慢溢出来。

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Akihiro Miwa 美轮明宏

从朋友那边借来了日本导演深作欣二的六十年代作品黑玫瑰公寓(1969,Black Rose Mansion),朋友说我大有电影里面黑玫瑰之风范云云。片中的黑玫瑰并非香港电影里的女侠盗,却是神秘又吸引的歌女,歌女手中一朵黑玫瑰是她的动情银 针,当歌女遇到真爱,玫瑰会由黑转红,最后故事以悲剧告终(不透露剧情了)。

电影的Femme Fatale老土情节对我来说不是卖点,倒是电影的坎普氛围和“妖气冲天”地反串女主角美轮明宏才是戏中亮点。美轮明宏原名丸山明宏,生于1935 年,17岁作为歌手出道,翻唱Edith Paif 等歌手的法国香颂,丸山有种中性美,而且有种诡异的气质,连唯美至死的三岛由纪夫也忍不住要赞丸山为天人。丸山的妖气不单迷到了三岛,也促使鬼才寺山修司 以其话剧团天井桟敷之名度身定做的《青森県のせむし男》和《毛皮のマリー》。 丸山在某年觉得受到感召, 脑海中出现“美轮”二字,继而把自己的名字改为美轮明宏。近年丸山仍旧活跃艺能界,包括为宫崎峻的哈尔移动城堡里的荒野女巫配音, 其招牌造型是其一把染成鲜黄色(真是黄色,不是金色)的秀发,看上去大有草间弥生婆婆的风范。


Tuesday, March 3, 2009

哀悼格里耶 (Alain Robbe-Grillet,1922-2008)


第一次知道格里耶“是当年(“当年”的意思是,那时我看的是录像带,不是vcd更没有dvd)在朋友家中看了阿伦雷奈的去年在马伦巴L'Annee Derniere a Marienbad,1961), 那时看完电影就想看看原文, 知道作者是法国新小说创始人格里耶。真正看到格里耶的作品是四五年前,那时侯跟一个深圳的劳工组织工作,我在一个为工人而设的图书馆里,在一堆堆廉价,颜色鲜烈的杂志之间,看到了格里耶比较早期的作品橡皮。前年某出版社出版了一套格里耶的作品,就又买了好几本。

格里耶死后就开始有讨论,讨论他能不能上文学殿堂。这些死后功名我是不太感兴趣,我最喜欢的三岛由纪夫都没有拿过诺贝尔奖啦。媒体报道说格里耶“因为不理解这个世界,所以动笔写下来。然而写作不断,他对世界却越来越不理解”,我觉得很多人写作都有这样一个过程,由于受到几千年来东西哲学的 “求真” 包袱,老想在文字里面理清一些什么,然后找出个形而上的拐杖,慢慢的,写着写着,就发现离开所谓的真(如果有的话), 所谓的世界越来越远,笔下的已经是另一个现实。好像入梦以后,在另一个梦里醒过来。

廖伟棠很久以前在他的博客上引用了瓦雷里的一句诗:“人体最深刻的地方是皮肤”。当我看到格里耶白发苍苍,皱纹满面,不禁黯然。那些在他小说里让人迷路的女孩,凶杀,石头路,青蛙。。。都敌不过我们一开始就想翻阅的东西,当我们开始的时候,原因已经翻了一面,变成结果了。德里达去世的时候一位朋友哭了,那时侯不明白,现在是有点知道了。通过文字,音乐或者其它,我们试图把自己跟他人连结起来,试图造就我们的,或者他们的,身后的不朽,这种友爱的关系开始的时候就注定被“没有回应” - 德里达在别了,列维纳斯提到的,列维纳斯对死亡的解释。