沃夫冈•提尔门斯

Wolfgang Tillmans


[attachment=24075]

在一个影像泛滥的媒体世界里，德籍艺术家沃夫冈•提尔门斯籍艺术家沃夫冈•提尔门斯艺术家沃夫冈•提尔门斯(Wolfgang Tillmans)却选择了摄影作为他质疑普罗群生的审美观和打造个人视觉标记的工具。或许提尔门斯经常误差失焦、拙劣的灯光效果，有时候表面还出现刮伤或污点的摄影作品，并不能完全迎合以技巧取胜的职业摄影师们，可是提尔门斯一双能够自平凡的人事景物里，捕捉到当代文化冲击力的透视眼，和他执意与众不同的作品展示方式，依旧让他在2000年成为泰纳奖第一位以摄影展夺魁的黑马。


　　戴上英国前卫代表艺术家的桂冠后，提尔门斯的人气和作品便水涨船高，各大美术馆的邀展接踵而至，其中计有德国科隆鲁威格美术馆(2001)、巴黎东京宫和纽约古根汉美术馆(2002)、伦敦泰德美术馆(2003)、东京歌剧城艺廊(2004)、瑞士巴塞尔美术馆(2005)等，期间他还抽空回德国，担任法兰克福史泰德艺术学校(Stadelschule)的客座教授。今年春天提尔门斯在纽约P.S.1当代艺术中心的个展刚结束不久，芝加哥当代艺术馆和洛杉矶的汉默尔美术艺术馆和洛杉矶的汉默尔美术术馆和洛杉矶的汉默尔美术馆，紧接着又联袂为他举办一文件集合了300张摄影作品和录像装置的回顾展，继芝加哥当代艺术馆目前的首展后，将艺术馆目前的首展后，将术馆目前的首展后，将巡回至汉默尔美术馆、华盛顿特区的赫胥宏美术馆和雕塑园林。


　　浅尝涉猎的实验摄影师


　　来自于普普艺术文化背景的提尔门斯，1968年出生于德国中西部莱因河流域旁的伦雪得(Remscheid)，1980年末前往英国，1990至1992年时就读于英格兰南边以平面设计、影片制作等科系著称的柏尼矛斯和普尔艺术学院(Bournemouth & Poole College of Art)。毕业后即定居伦敦，曾为《i-D》、《The Face》等时尚生活杂志设计版面编排，同期间又兼拍摄夜总会当初在欧洲刚奠基成形时的纪录影像，并以静物、文化政治界和演艺圈的人物照、及友人的私密生活写真，逐渐发展出自己的风格。在提尔门斯早期的作品中，他一方面强调其个人对自由民主的坚持态度，一方面也间接地表达了他对流浪汉、种族歧视、同性恋等社会议题的热衷关切。


　　提尔门斯擅长运用伸缩尺度的变换和旋转式的影像，让每一张照片都自成一个世界，在他的镜头下，餐桌台上的一罐果酱和一道霹雳闪电，或是一场浩荡的政治示威行动一样重要，他对显现于框格中的每一个影像都投注以同等程度的用心，试着从不同的角度，将人们日常生活经验中粗枝大叶的残像光影，调理成一致性的视觉效应。不过提尔门斯的摄影作品并不是他获颁泰纳奖荣衔的唯一要素，因为提尔门斯最为独特的创作手法，是表现于他个展作品的装置组合上，经由他仔细挑选的代表作——计算机印图或是光面照片，各以大小不等的尺寸、高低悬殊的位置、装框和不装框的混合形式，分别用箝夹或胶带直接张挂于墙上，除了零散的水平垂直方块线条外，整体架构找不出一个可以遵循的规则。不过在每一次的展览中，提尔门斯总是重新设定几个脉络来联系群组的集锦照，企图让单一的影像，在无形中带动周围丝缕相关的其它作品。多年来提尔门斯持续以丰富量产的照片，与更替穿插影像的组装方式，来转述观者能够自行附会编导的故事，和挑战一般人对摄影展的固有印象，他表示：「我尝试推翻照片只有保留影像用途的说法。」


　　虽然提尔门斯以他充满活力的影像及他出奇制胜的作品装置，被誉为是过去20年来最重要的当代摄影艺术家之一，但他始终没有独树一帜的取材格式，说穿了他其实是一位广泛涉猎的实验者：在他拍摄静物、人像、建筑物、风景天象的同时，也对平面设计和图案纹样感到兴趣。如展览中巨幅的垂卷纸张，是他黑白无彩的极简作品；口袋车边与背景橱门框饰呼应的泛白牛仔裤，则为他信手拈来的「tone on tone」范例；室内游泳池周缘镶嵌的小方格彩色瓷砖，更像是他作品装置的缩影蓝图。


　　旧瓶新装的年志史


　　从1990年代起，提尔门斯的作品愈益趋向抽象化，这回芝加哥当代艺术馆艺术馆术馆特别空出一间画廊，让他展示近年来的纯粹抽象作品。它们是数张不用相机，直接感光于纸上的暗房作业，其中包括有《绯红》(Blushes)、《自在游》(Frei-schwimmer)等系列作品。看起来仿似一片氤氲云雾的《绯红》，具有一种慢速稀释晕染的动态，如一幅艳彩泼墨；而发丝般线条肌理的《自在游》，则有漂浮波折、抑扬顿挫的节奏感，宛若一帖流体的现代草书。


　　除抽象画廊之外，芝加哥当代艺术馆艺术馆术馆还邀请提尔门斯亲自规划美术馆一楼两个主要展厅的格局设计，提尔门斯便将展厅的设计模型带回工作室，仔细推敲他的作品选辑。在一间提尔门斯命名为「事实研习中心」的展厅里，他安放了数张木桌，上头展示着杂志散页、剪报、信函、和他自己的摄影作品，显示他对其他媒体等同待遇的接纳态度。身为一个倍受瞩目的活跃创作者，不断推出新作被认为是理所当然，可是提尔门斯的个展作品总是新旧杂陈，因为他常在筛拣旧照的过程中，酝酿出新生的展览主题，如同往昔的记忆被新近的经验改造，一切又可以重头演发。


　　旧作品，尤其是人像，不单是留影写真，且忠实地记录了提尔门斯也曾是其中一部分的时代精神和形象，如他因爱滋病病故的亲密伙伴凯文，定静地躺在澡缸里的私房照；好友苏珊和鲁兹则各以一身拼凑改装的军服打扮，率直地表达了年轻当代的人生观与活泼创意的生活品味。另外《帝国系列——庞克》也是一件现代年志史性质的代表作，这一大张传真扫描的计算机印图，原版来自提尔门斯以前拍摄的一帧人像，后来在一次联展中，他为了要效法安迪•沃联展中，他为了要效法安迪•沃展中，他为了要效法安迪•沃荷(Andy Warhol)的绢印复制版画，便用传真机拷贝他的照片，2005年时又将传真人像放大，作为今年个展中低显像度、高科技处理的招牌作品之一。跟许多精雕细琢型的掌镜者比较起来，提尔门斯算是一位相当质朴的摄影师，纵然他也为一些知名人士拍照，但向来是一付平易近人的家常味，在他的镜头前，即使是凯特•摩斯(Kate Moss)、娜欧蜜•坎贝尔(Naomi Campbell)等超级名模，也不由地卸下包装面具，还原为天真嘻笑的大女娃。而英国摇滚乐团Blur的主唱戴蒙•艾尔邦(Damon Albarn)更是放下身段，以一张淅哩哗啦的淋浴头像裸裎面对观者。


　　平铺直叙的静观自得


　　洗尽铅华的人物照以外，提尔门斯不假修饰的写实作风，也在他的静物、建筑物和风景照等作品中得到印证。从一杯上面浮着参天古树般的龟裂纹茶泡、一把红、橙、褐颜彩斑斓的印第安玉米和颗珠状的石榴粒、一朵长着玫瑰尖刺的奇异百合，到一座三面脸人像雕塑，提尔门斯的静物照充满了温婉的悠闲适意。摩天大楼、废弃工厂、私人住宅、和社区的儿童游乐场等建筑结构，原可以视为是大型体积的静物，可是提尔门斯的建筑物摄影作品，却总是弥漫着一股等待后续的动感情境，像是两架巡逻直升机在休眠都会的夜空中扫光搜寻的悬疑警示；一道封闭式的夹壁长廊，诱引观者进入一个充满未知数的室内空间；一系列相同的建筑外观和一截含苞绽放的歧出枝桠，在黑天白日的颠倒时差里，沉默地传达节令的期许；又如《苏醒》中，销声匿迹的偌大厂房里，遍地狼籍的瓶罐，然而盈室的赤红光影和天花板上的挂灯垂饰，却透露着意犹未尽的一夜喧嚣。


　　纵使大自然的景象瞬息万变，但是快门按下的剎那，往往是没有始末的停凝状态，于是，风景照变成为时空间隙里的美丽静物。一如提尔门斯海天交接的《路易士安那》，晶亮的微波水光和柔缓的蓝绿渐层色调，天工巧妙地交织出一份明净澄澈的悦目清凉。至于提尔门斯著名的《震教徒的彩虹》，是他在1998年造访美国震教徒(注)社区时所拍摄的即兴佳作，横跨在一幢小白屋上的七彩弯弧，意外地把蓝空分画为深浅不同的色阶，奇幻般的异样景致，颇令人玩味。提尔门斯从小喜欢天文，常带着相机追逐日月星辰的踪迹，譬如他的《日蚀》、《月出》等作品，皆是他个人的天象纪录。也许提尔门斯的风景照平淡得不足以拿来作为明信片，可是它们不着痕迹地提醒我们惯性忽略的事物和时刻，一如其它的作品，在平铺直叙的观照下，提尔门斯成功地将生活周遭通俗、不起眼或异常的人文自然景观，转化为美术馆和艺廊里让我们驻足思索的视觉艺术。


　　注： 英国基督教徒领导者安•李(Ann Lee，人称Mother Ann)，因被误解歧视，于1774年率八人团移居美国，重起炉灶。跟从她的信众，在他们集体聚会的行持仪式中，常伴随着蹬脚晃身的肢体动作，因而被称为震教徒(Shaker)。目前美国缅因州的沙贝斯戴湖畔(Sabbathday Lake)仍保有一个震教徒专属的社区。 Courtesy of the Andrea Rosen Gallery, New York and Regen Projects, Los Angeles 沃夫冈•提尔门斯(Wolfgang Tillmans)《自在游15》•摄影•2003。 Courtesy of the Andrea Rosen Gallery, New York and Regen Projects, Los Angeles Wolfgang Tillmans 展地◎芝加哥当代艺术馆艺术馆术馆 展期◎05.20-08.13 网址◎[url]www.mcachicago.org (转载自《典藏•今艺术》)

艺术家简历

[attachment=24178] [attachment=24179] [attachment=24180]

[attachment=24172] [attachment=24173] [attachment=24174] [attachment=24175] [attachment=24176] [attachment=24177]

[attachment=24167] [attachment=24168] [attachment=24169] [attachment=24170]

[attachment=24165]

[attachment=24166]

[attachment=24164]

[attachment=24161] [attachment=24162] [attachment=24163]

[attachment=24156] [attachment=24157] [attachment=24158] [attachment=24159] [attachment=24160]

Alex with cock plant, 1992

Wolfgang Tillmans
German, born 1968 [attachment=24151]

Wolfgang Tillmans - Flash in Pool, 1999
C Print. Signed and numbered
60 x 50 cm; 23.4 x 19.5 in. Edition of 3. [attachment=24152]

[attachment=24153] [attachment=24154] [attachment=24155]

[attachment=24076]
Installation of 17 photographs

[attachment=24077]
grey jeans over stairpost, 1996
bubblejet print
approximately 48 x 68 "
edition 1, 1 A.P.

[attachment=24078]
industrial landscape, 1996
bubblejet print
approximately 68 x 48 "
edition 1, 1 A.P.

[attachment=24079]

Lutz & Alex, back, 1992
bubblejet print
approximately 68 x 47 "
edition of 1, 1 A.P.

[attachment=24080]

Zermatt, 1996
bubblejet print
approximately 70 1/4 x 106 "
edition 1, 1 A.P.

[attachment=24081]

Pumpkin, tomato, & pomme granate, 1996
bubblejet print
approximately 48 x 68 "
edition 1, 1 A.P.

[attachment=24082] 《苏醒》·摄影·2001 ..
[attachment=24083] 《月出》（波多黎各）·摄影·1995
[attachment=24084] 震教徒的彩虹·摄影·1998
[attachment=24085] 《三面脸人像》·摄影·2002

[attachment=24086] 《苏珊和鲁兹》（白衣、军装裙）·摄影·1993
[attachment=24087] 《浑沌之杯》·摄影·1997
[attachment=24088] 《自在游15》·摄影·2003
[attachment=24089] 《游乐场》（卢森堡）·摄影·1986

[attachment=24090] 《路易士安那》·攝影·1996
[attachment=24091] 《牛仔褲在白色背景上》·攝影·1991
[attachment=24092] 今年5月在芝加哥当代艺术馆所举办的提尔门斯个展现场
[attachment=24093] 今年5月在芝加哥当代艺术馆所举办的提尔门斯个展现场

Shades, 2001
© Wolfgang Tillmans [attachment=24095]

[attachment=24096]
between bridges, 1999
© Wolfgang Tillmans, 2003

[attachment=24097]
lovers, 1999
© Wolfgang Tillmans, 2003

[attachment=24098]
desert sunset, 1999
© Wolfgang Tillmans, 2003

[attachment=24099]

shiny shorts, 2002
© Wolfgang Tillmans, 2003

Buracona, 2002
© Wolfgang Tillmans, 2003 [attachment=24100]

Wolfgang Tillmans Knotenmutter [attachment=24101]

[attachment=24102] [attachment=24103]

[attachment=24104] [attachment=24105]

[attachment=24106] [attachment=24107]

[attachment=24108] [attachment=24109]

[attachment=24110] [attachment=24111]

[attachment=24112] [attachment=24113]

[attachment=24114] [attachment=24115] [attachment=24116]

[attachment=24117] [attachment=24118]

[attachment=24119] [attachment=24120]

[attachment=24121] [attachment=24122]

[attachment=24123] [attachment=24124]

[attachment=24125]

[attachment=24126]

[attachment=24127]

[attachment=24128]

John and Paula, Sitting Bottomless, by Wolfgang Tillmans
[attachment=24129]


When I was asked to provide a page-three image for G2, I obviously wanted to do something that challenged the standard formula. Conventional page-three pictures aren't subversive. They're not even inclusive: they serve only half the population. My page three would be as modern as possible.
I chose an unpublished photograph which I had taken recently. It shows a woman sitting in a relaxed fashion, with her legs spread, as though she is at breakfast. She is nude and the image shows her body from her belly button to her knees. The facts of her body are just there - natural, striking in their presence, and fascinating for it.

The photograph shows very clearly what a woman's genitals look like - something few men, even heterosexual men, have any real idea of. Its focus is sex, but it also acknowledges that this is where we come from. The image doesn't beat around the bush: it isn't titillating, nor is it shocking. However, it was felt to be too explicit to be published in G2.

I first started thinking about playing with the idea of male and female nudity in the early 1990s. The fact is, toplessness in a man is not equal to toplessness in a woman. For a man to experience the same level of exposure and commitment to the image as a woman posing topless, he must appear bottomless.

That was the principle behind my series Like Brother, Like Sister, created for iD magazine in 1992 and showing a man and a woman side by side, she topless, he bottomless. The title had nothing to do with the relationship between the people in the photographs (both friends of mine); it simply registered the equality between the man and the woman. To the managers of WHSmiths, however, the title referred to incest and the images were obscene. The chain refused to stock that issue of iD, almost closing the magazine.

Two years later, I photographed another set of nudes for a Japanese magazine. My G2 page three - John and Paula, Sitting Bottomless - comes from that series. The magazine published John and Paula, Sitting Bottomless, but couldn't do so without it being censored. And so John appeared with a big orange dot covering his penis.

It's important to show acts of censorship in this way - because otherwise no one notices that it is actually happening. This is what was great about Todd Solondz's movie Storytelling. It has a sex scene that is so explicit the producers wanted it cut. But Solondz refused. Instead he put big red bars over the actors' genitals for the duration of the scene. Every time the actors move, the bars move too. It looks hilarious - but it's much better than if the scene had been cut altogether.

Censorship varies so much geographically. On the continent most publications will depict a naked man or woman. America, though, is completely different. Since the Mapplethorpe scandal in 1989 (his male nude photographs caused such a furore that rightwing politicians voted to ban government funding for "obscene or indecent" art), galleries can't afford to take any risks. In 1996, I made an installation for a group show at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. All the work had to be screened by the curator. He waved through every female nude - but every male nude became the subject of discussion, and several were vetoed.

It's ridiculous that supposedly rational people can be so blind to this inequality. And it's not just an inequality between men and women. It is still considered more obscene to show two men kissing before the watershed on TV than it is to show two men kill each other. How can something as atrocious as the destruction of two men be acceptable, and the sight of men kissing scandalous? This isn't just upsetting. It's obscene.

Essentially, ideas of obscenity are defined by powerful political interests. Sexuality is one of the few things that is absolutely free - sex can sell, but sex between two people isn't marketable. It's the one thing that people can do for fun for free. A lot of people have a problem with this - they think sexuality needs to be controlled.

When people deem an image obscene, often it's not just because it shows someone naked, but because it shows someone who is empowered. Since the mid-90s youth magazines, such as the Face, have prided themselves on pushing the boundaries with their fashion stories. There was a lot of very crass sexual photography used at that time. But the models were always tools of a male fantasy - they were never empowered beings. Such images may have shouted, "Hey, I'm shocking", but their risque wildness was just self-congratulatory. This style of fashion photography shared all the faults of an ordinary tabloid page three.

If sex and violence are used to entertain people or to market something, they are acceptable. It's aimless, directionless sex that shocks and scares people most. Normally when women are photographed they are offering themselves in some way. People don't mind that - it's when self-affirmed, powerful women are shown to be in control of their sexuality that people feel threatened. And yet to me such images are harmless - innocent, even. How odd, that the most innocent image should seem the most obscene.

Nudity is such a powerful thing that I try to avoid using it gratuitously in my photography. And when I do use it, I want to do so only in a disarming - and so shocking - way. I want to show human beings who are at once vulnerable and confident about who they are, about themselves inside their bodies. This is such a fragile thing to represent that I don't want to overdo it - which is why I have taken perhaps just three dozen images involving nudity. Although I'm still interested in nude equality, I haven't returned to the image of John and Paula I took in 1994. The pictures I took then still make their point, one there is no reason to carry on making.

Ten years ago, I couldn't have created such a matter-of-fact image of a woman's body as I did in the crotch shot. That was a step forward for me. And the friend who modelled for it is extremely happy with the picture. She is happy because it shows the vagina as something that is actually present: not as a negative, a hole, as it is in many men's imaginations, but as an organ with protuberances. And there is nothing obscene about that.

· Franz Ferdinand say
"When we were asked to edit G2, we were thrilled, but a bit surprised at the foolhardiness of a broadsheet allowing a daft pop group to take the reins. It reminded us of the Oz magazine trial and this discussion led us on to our first theme. The idea of an image on page three of G2 which would challenge readers' concepts of obscenity appealed to us."

[attachment=24150]

怎么没人说说

感性经验静观自得,作者捕捉发现的是灵启的刹那,自然比先验的概念鲜活自在触动心灵.