来源：顾灵博客

原文刊载于Institution of the Future，由Biljana Ciric主编的《未来机构》文集

既然问题摆在台面上，它本质上是个历史问题、时间问题

而眼前，我们把未来视作过去与现在的重来或抛弃

那么，让我们来瞧一瞧这所谓未来的机构，它的时间问题

讨论这个时间问题，它到底在如何谱写日常的节奏与韵律

近年来，我们有“国际调研”与“现代”美术馆

还有“当代艺术”的画廊与中心。哦，还有别的可换

那些商业试险与艺术家自己开的空间

更别提他们展出的那些艺术家，一个个儿都是模特儿

一年展出好几回，比皇帝和皇后还神气

为了接着讨论未来的机构，我们还必须考虑

这种机构的时间表应该怎么排——它一开门

就得来人。那来了人，总得有点儿意思吧？

它得准点，就好像教堂或菜场，或四点差一刻

每天，每星期，每月，每年，每两年、五年或更久？…

有胆儿说，有一天，我们不再有展览，让我们聚在一起

每隔一阵儿，永恒的话题我们都挨个儿乱说一气，

取而代之，我们仅仅聚在一起，看看西洋镜，那些或固执或消极的风景

艺术若要没了这口公共井，立马就要干涸。从她、

或他、或它（艺术的）仪式用途里抢来，永远不该传出去。不过，

仪式的发明，也不过是过时的把戏。

那些双年展、三年展们，试着给仪式喘口气

多耍花样，扩大空间，延长展期。

但还是太过僵硬死板，在那儿，仪式并不讨人欢喜

或把自己当作祭品，或生造出神来，丰富人类社会（她正逐渐贫瘠）

剩下的，我们可还得请沙漠里那位半人半兽支个招。

莫妮卡·申兹科（Monika Szewczyk）

2012年6月

Institutional Thoughts To be Sung with Feeling

Since the question on the table is historical and temporal in nature –

The future being thinkable as rejection and/or redemption (nurture)

Of the past and present (as these are known by the current culture) –

Let us consider the timing of the so-called institution for the future,

And by timing I mean how it shapes our daily rhythms and rhymes.

In the recent past, we’ve had “universal survey” and “modern” museums

Followed by the galleries or centres for “contemporary art”. And it seems

That even the alternatives – like commercial ventures and artist-run spaces,

regardless of the faces they may put on – tend to obey a model that deems

Temporary exhibitions, switched a few times annually, to be kings or queens.

To develop the debate about the institution for the future, we should therefore

Consider what kind of a calendar such an institution could keep – when doors

Would open and when people would meet. When there are solid ideas in store?

Or still on a regular basis, like church or the farmers market or at quarter to four,

Each day, or week, or month or year or two years or five years or more…?

Some venture to say that some day, we won’t have shows, that being together

Periodically, and discussing or debating alternatives can occupy us forever.

But gathering to see things collectively, allowing what appears to bind or sever,

Is a public practice without which art is rather impoverished. This robbing of her

Or his or its (of art’s) ritual function should never be allowed to pass. However,

The invention of ritual has, if anything, stagnated or become a bit of a bore.

Perennial exhibitions (biennials, triennials) have attempted to enliven the practice,

Going far to vary the type of experience, its spatial dimension, its hours of access.

But they remain too regular and regulated to assert that the ritual is not there to bless

Or consecrate or create gods, but to enrich human society (which has less and less).

For the rest we might have to consult that half human/half beast in the desert.

Monika Szewczyk