黑名單工作室 + 拆除大隊 / 憤怒之愛 （1990）

詞曲‧編曲‧製作：
黑名單工作室 + 拆除大隊

Side A：我們不再等（國語）
Side B：感謝老賊（台語）

1990年野百合學運中正廟流通的抗議歌曲卡帶

回給友人的信，關於Dylan沒有在中國表態的雜感

XX：

有趣的意見，謝謝轉寄。這幾天也看了不少國外媒體對此事件的評述，感覺上，大致分成兩個方向，第一種比較傾向政治表態學，埋怨Dylan沒有或明或暗地示意某種反叛姿態（即便只是象徵上的），反倒多所遷就官方立場，在中國（艾未未事件的當下）與越南（當年那些反戰歌曲的對象客體）等地避唱某些關鍵曲目（一個有趣的心理分析式細節，Dylan第一場中國表演，首條歌是Gonna Change My Way Of Thinking，可歪譯為：「換了位置就換了腦袋」）。

另一種詮釋，則接近這位德國朋友的講法，基本上用一種較為erudite的藝文愛好者論調，覆頌Dylan個人英雄史裡，那段棄絕抗議歌手標籤的往事，認為要他政治發言既無必要，也不實際，不該那麼懷舊，因為就像She Belongs To Me裡唱的，「他是個藝術家，才不回頭哩」。（但說實在的，有誰不是帶著一絲昔日風情，去參加這場演唱會？）

我的感覺是，這兩種角度都有所不足。確實歌手無需、也不能為運動代言，但是若第一種論調在Dylan身處的西方輿論界都不在少數，那做為第三世界的人們，若有意無意地誤讀或挪用其意象，或許仍有過度天真，且認識不清的問題，卻也不能想當然爾地馬上用第二種「你不懂真正的Dylan」論調來回應。

怎麼說呢？假如「Dylan學」是一套knowledge system，人們在那個無網路且資訊匱乏的時代，原本就是用很在地的脈絡與視野，去建構自己想像中的「迪倫」或「狄倫」。也許有人翻譯了文章，也許有人輾轉看到了紀錄片Don't Look Back，才像拼馬賽克般，慢慢組成一個（對西方嚴肅樂迷來說或許永遠不夠「真確」、「完整」的）Dylan形象。換言之，這種樂迷資訊的「lag」，本來就是非英語地區樂迷的宿命，其實沒甚麼好說嘴的。我們本來就是用自己的方式，在理解、詮釋跟挪用Dylan，而西方歌手也是到了晚近二十年唱片工業不景氣，才懂得大幅開發亞洲等地的演唱會市場。讀到有些西方評論，用心良苦地一直上課，言外之意是你們仍舊落後，彷彿總是反智，I'm Not There的Dylan永遠領先，這種說詞，恐怕也不能讓人太滿意。

我的感覺是，若觀察Dylan，會發現他80年代有好長一段低潮期，作品素質良莠不齊，創作方向模糊，常被認為是昔日黃花 -- 永遠記得，We Are The World的最後，他像個魔教大教主現身，唱著奇怪又媚俗的訊息，真是生涯最低點。這個地位危機，後來他用兩個方式超越，首先是找好的製作人處理、加強新作品質（Oh Mercy的Daniel Lanois是一例），其次是在90年代開發所謂的bootleg series，大量推出昔日壓箱的歷史舊作，並開始授權紀錄片（如No Direction Home）與傳記出版。大部分的樂迷，也是到了這個階段，方有充足機會，並被半強迫地要求去認識所謂的（加括號的、文化產業中介的）「真正的Dylan」。

但這種正統授權的史觀與斷代法，基本上都是Dylan及其產業所希冀的想像方式，有時候我十分懷疑，套著這種思路去爭論誰比較懂，誰才是Dylan專家，怎樣的Dylan知識才是全面的、Dylan真誠於否，在這次事件上，是不是真的那麼有意義？這個懷疑與保留不一定是反智，而是在理解歌手的知識同時，也未必要順著「作者論」的角度照單全收。沒錯，他拒絕抗議或政治歌手的封號了，但在那些彷彿永遠出不完的bootleg series與商品裡，難道沒有絲毫他（及其代理建制），仍在「flirting」（想不出更好的動詞）這種叛逆與抗議形象，藉以讓事業回春並維持熱度，並拓展市場的蛛絲馬跡？是的，他說不要回頭，幹嘛懷舊，但說實話，他現在能（會）開一場演唱會，結果裡面全是近十年的近作嗎？

Dylan產業對其形象的神秘化與掌控，應該是流行音樂研究極有趣的個案（還記得Don't Look Back裡他如何操弄記者嗎？）。不能鄉愁，但明明大家是在懷舊，不該指望他抗議，但明明他的意象，追究到底也就是一身「傲骨」罷。我們永遠抓不住Dylan，但這也讓他無論如何詮釋，永遠都是歌手與聽者的詭譎棋局裡，永遠先我們一手的不敗贏家 -- 不像Leonard Cohen，有一絲自嘲反諷的弱者形象。I'm Not There的意思是，每當我們以為趕上了，他（的產業）又會說：「迪倫不是這樣的」。也許做為歌迷，我們可以享受這種有些自虐的觀看與聆聽位置，但這畢竟不是評論該有的角度。

對我來說，那麼標榜異質又不流俗，演唱會向以我行我素聞名的他，這次被抓包配合官方自我檢查，也就不是「妥協與否」的問題 （就算他能唱那幾條經典老歌，又能代表甚麼？中國民主就會突然進步十年嗎？要是沒有艾未未事件，西方輿論說不定還會稱讚中國讓他表演，是開明進步之舉）。

這件事情比較像，一個妥善保護、難以穿越的神話外殼，突然裂了幾個不甚美觀、足堪說嘴的「裂縫」，no more，no less。

而埋怨他沒順勢表態，雖是誤會一場，實際意義不大，且終究「所託非人」，但這種一廂情願，倘若不從作者論角度去看，並將它放在產業與社會脈絡下，倒也不是那麼難以理解，更無需用音樂專家的口吻，太去數落尋覓政權「裂縫」的異議者。

歌手的「裂縫」，政權的「裂縫」，兩種少見的「裂縫」。

不過有了「裂縫」，才有光進來，是吧？ （Cohen說的）

2011/2/24

聽入與聽出---我的搖滾樂之旅 （鍾永豐）

如果你年過二十還沒聽入搖滾樂，我不再覺得有何遺憾可言，畢竟現下社會提供更多樣開放的人生選擇。但對於青年時期身心受制但又處心積慮想頂幾句想回幾拳如我輩年過四十者，很難不從某些搖滾樂中聽見那些聳動誘人的招喚。然在我們這個從政治經濟到社會文化全面受美式資本主義、現代主義與個人主義強勢貫穿的半邊陲國度，聽搖滾樂、迷搖滾樂、追踪搖滾樂而能不變成形式主義買辦或孤絕自封的菁英，或能不亢地迎接外來文化、不卑地看待在地的文化生態，我必須承認，這不是簡單的事。即使我們矢志超脫被殖民的局勢，在認識上我們往往陷入二分法的魔障，在實踐上我們又很難不落入眼高手低的窘境。我們年輕在容易聽入搖滾樂的年代，但卻活在不易聽出搖滾樂的社會；這是我輩的幸與不幸。

一九八六年某個冬夜，即將被三二踢出成大前，我一遍又一遍地聽許常惠編輯的「賴碧霞的客家民謠」（請容我充滿敬意與謝意地備註：中國民俗音樂專集，第十四輯，第一唱片廠有限公司）。每當賴女士唱到最「黑」的老山歌曲調，我總覺得淚腺溯源至心臟。但那些湧出的淚水不止關於遙遠的童年記憶，還混雜著悔悟：「幹！這就是藍調呀！」正如同藍調乃關乎被壓迫的勞動黑人，老山歌之於我先是勞動者，然後才是客家。只是--勞苦的客家祖先啊，真失禮喲，不肖子弟是聽了幾百張六、七○年代的盜版搖滾樂唱片後，經高人指點才知道搖滾樂的根源在藍調後，又聽了十幾張的Lightnin’ Hopkins、Robert Johnson、Robert Pete Williams、Muddy Waters、Leadbelly、Son House、Blind Lemon Jefferson、Big Mama Thornton後才翻醒：哦！原來你們也在唱藍調呀！

雖然祖先傳下的山歌不吐嘈、不抗議，缺乏刺入骨的反諷與幽默，但這不防礙我天真地推測：凡是被壓抑勞動者的音樂都具備藍調的某些特性，或者，其實「藍調」可以理解為勞動者音樂的某些普同性。再回過頭來看待六○年代的白人藍調搖滾樂團（比如Rolling Stones、Fleetwood Mac、Ten Years After等），即使他們一貫矯情或出於商業投機地把藍調形式化與白人化，也算是向主流社會吐舌頭或倒味口，同時為起源於五○年代、燎原於六○年代的反向文化運動添薪加柴。但六○年代的搖滾樂運動不僅向邊緣取用文化形式，也朝底層向工會運動挪借抗爭文化，足堪代表者便是Bob Dylan。他不僅延伸並復興了老左派的工運民謠，六四年所出版的The Times They Are A-Changin’專輯更將美國工會的本位主義推向國際主義的高度（請聽North Country Blues），並在這樣的高度上批判了白人的帝國主義意識型態（請聽With God on Our Side）。

但文本意義的激進，尚不足以說明Bob Dylan帶給民謠美學的劃時代影響。我甚至認為，其影響直可比擬布萊希特（Bertolt Brecht）的疏離劇場為現代戲劇帶來的衝擊。六四年以後，老左派與純粹民謠論者咬定掄起電吉他的Bob Dylan背叛民謠運動。但真要對他的「背叛」追根究底，電吉他絕非重點。從首張專輯開始，他就與民謠傳統分道揚鑣了。

我認為重要的分野有三。第一，他高突了民謠創作與演唱的作者論地位，背離了左派民謠中强調與人民合音合調的民粹主義。第二，他脫離了民謠傳統中的兩個基本美學：田園式的快樂主義與高貴的憂傷主義；他的方法與布萊希特用以使傳統戲劇發生質變的疏離美學，在方法論的意義上正屬同一性質（請聽首張專輯中的Man of Constant Sorrow與 House of the Rising Sun，那憂傷與憤怒是前所未有地冷酷）。第三，在疏離美學的作用下，他的批判現實主義作品把左派場域中等待感動與煽動的被動聽眾易轉為冷靜的辯證思考者。容我大膽地說：正是這三個基本的「背離」，不僅使得Bob Dylan的某些民謠作品具備了能與現代社會深刻對話的「當代性」，甚至放在後來的時代中，都歷久彌新深具「前衛性」。

布萊希特的創作與理論在1940年代的歐洲左派文藝陣營中，激起了廣泛的表現主義論爭，而60年代的美國左派卻只計較Bob Dylan的電吉他正當性，沒能在方法論上探究現代民謠的發展問題，後知之明地看來，不無遺憾。（未完）

Potlatch Digital: A Perspective on the Future Economy of Music (Jacques Attali)

I wrote »Noise« in 1977, and still today I try to explain that it’s impossible to look at music, or any other form of human endeavour, when you put it outside of the global context. Of course, music is very specific for a number of reasons. One economic reason is that music is pure information. In economies, information is a devil – it’s impossible to manage. For example, the whole of economic theory is the theory of scarce resources. If milk is freely available, then the price of milk is down; if milk is scarce, the price is up: this is economic theory. But it doesn’t work for music: it doesn’t work for information as a whole. If I had a pot of milk, and I give it to you, I don’t have it anymore. But if I give you a piece of information I still have it, I keep it. Which means that if I have something and I give it to you, I create something new: abundance. And this means that economic theory doesn’t work for information, when that information can be separated from its material support – a CD, or whatever is the case today.

When I have something that is scarce, its value is linked to the fact that it is scarce, and that it belongs to me and nobody else. In an information economy, something has more value when a lot of people have it. For example, if I am the only one to have a telephone, it doesn’t mean anything, not if there is no one else to call. If I am the only person to speak a particular language, its value is zero, because I cannot speak to anyone else. In info theory, the value of something increases with the number of people sharing it. It’s why we must be very careful, when we speak about music, not to have in mind the main economic laws.

But there are also other reasons why we cannot rely on economics to understand music. Every human activity has a history, and it is a history that existed before economics, when things had a value that was not a price. So if you want to understand something’s value, you must try to understand what its value was before it was given a price. This is true for everything. It is only when you have found what is the value, what is the role, what is the function of something before it had a price that you understand why it can be considered to have a value in economics, why it still has a value even today.

What is the value of music in precapitalist society? In my view, music is a metaphor for the management of violence. When people listen to music, they listen to the fact that society is possible: because we can manage violence. If violence is not managed, then society collapses. The only way for individuals to survive is for violence to be channelled or tamed. In anthropology, it can be explained that the best way to manage violence requires us to accept the two following hypothesis.

One: We are violent only when we have the same kinds of desire as the other person, and we become rivals. Two: The way to manage violence in society is to organise differences – not inequalities – between people, in order that they do not desire the same thing, and through the channelling of violence by the creation of scapegoats. Scapegoats are a crucial element in the organisation of a society. They are somebody or something which must be hated, and also admired. Without them society is impossible, because violence is everywhere.

What’s the relationship between that and music? If you look at music as a way of organising differences among noises, then you have music as a metaphor for the organising of scapegoats. Noise is violence, it is killing. Organising noises, creating differences in noises, is a way of demonstrating that violence can be transformed into a way of managing violence. And this is true everywhere. In thousands of myths there are relations between violence and noise; music and peace; musicians and scapegoats; music and relationship to gods; dance and religious ceremony. In every case they present the same thing: trying to find a way to organise possible life in society.

Music is prophetic. Why? If we consider music to be a kind of code, we can see that there are many different ways of organising that code: different melodies, different rhythms, different genres. Moreover, we can explore these different forms of organisation much more easily, much more rapidly, than we can explore different ways of organising reality.

Music is just one element in the management of violence, and there are different stages in this. The first and longest stage in the history of mankind was through religion. We may say it began at least 15,000 years ago. Music didn’t exist as an art – for art didn’t exist. Music, dance, prayer, daily life were exactly the same; everything was alive, everything had a spiritual dimension. In this world, music was an expression of God, as well as a way to speak to God. It’s what I call music linked to sacrifice or ritual.

The Bible is the first sacred book in which music is said not to come from gods, but having been invented by men. It is presented as a human way of managing violence, and from Babylon to Egypt, the Greek and Roman and Chinese empires, we see the appropriation of »sacred« or »holy« powers by emperors, that is, by men. It is the beginning of division of labour, particularly between the three main powers – religion, the arts and the military – in which each plays a role in the management of violence. Music is the beginning to become increasingly important in this management process, and remains so right through the Middle Ages.

The real change occurred when a new means of managing violence appears: money. There was another way of managing violence, and another way of managing violence through music. More people wanted to be part of society, so it became impossible to tame violence through the old model. Where an »elite« form of music existed, it was in the courts, in the company of the king. But then a new group of money managers emerged in the form of the middle classes, the bourgeoisie, the shopkeepers. They wanted to access to music but were too numerous and not in a position to finance musicians full time. Thus emerged the public performance. What’s interesting is that not only does this begin to organise music economically – people would put on a concert and others would buy tickets – but that new stiles and new instruments begin to have an aesthetic impact, such as the symphony and the sonata. This is what I see as a period characterised by representation. All this is linked to the fact that there is an increased number of patrons for whom the musician can work, but also because music was being used as a representation of power. Patrons were there to show one another that they are the new elite, that they are powerful.

This developed through the 18th and 19th centuries, and then you have a whole new form of music appearing, linked to the need of developing a representational economy , leading not just to stars – individuals – but to large orchestras of 50 to 100 people… and ultimately the conductor. What is the conductor? He is someone who tames the orchestra, but also someone who is demonstrating to the audience that it is possible to tame the orchestra – we see one of us taming the workers, organising the division of labour, avoiding violence and creating harmony.

At the end of the 19th century, as the burgeoning middle classes began to consolidate their position within society, it was not enough for music to be confined to the concert hall – it had become impossible to give access for music to all those that wanted it. By the way, it is here that music begins to develop an economic value in the form of copyright. What is important to understand is that copyright is not property right. Copyright is given during the lifetime of the musician, and to some extent, that of their children – it’s limited. This means that music has never been accepted as being the property of the musician. Copyright exists to finance his life, but not as property in itself, such as a car. So, to continue: at the end of the 19th century, it was necessary to create another way of organising music, in order to allow more people access to that music. It was time to invent the gramophone. The gramophone was needed because it was impossible to build enough concert houses for the hundreds of thousands of people who were in a position to buy music.

There was a need to create a means of having a private concert, because this was the only way to accommodate all those in a financial position to access music. Actually, there were two ways, which would go on to influence one another throughout the 20th century. Firstly, there was the gramophone – the concert without limit. And secondly there was the radio, which would pose exactly the same problems as the Internet does today, in that it offered free music.

Thus began what I see as the third stage after ritual and representation – namely repetition, beginning at the end of the 19th century. What is interesting here is that music begins to be seen as something that can be stored, and then copied and copied and copied. The gramophone exists before television, before the car industry, before you have a society characterised by mass consumption. Once again, music was a prophecy, not only in the technological terms that facilitated the production of more music for more people, but also, once again, in terms of style. One of the first styles to emerge in this new era was jazz, which is itself predicated on repetition. And after that, of course, the whole »scientific« or »theoretical« approach to music, also characterised by repetition, that was taken by people like Stravinsky, Ravel, Boulez, Stockhausen, Reich and Glass. It was a way of reproducing stylistically what was happening technologically. Today, the music industry faces yet another problem, in that there are limits to the amount of music that they can sell to people. Why? Because there are physical limits to the amount of music that people can store at home, even if you miniaturise the sales format – CD, DVD, or whatever. It’s simply too much, it takes too much space. There is an economic need to facilitate greater storage within a smaller physical space. What is required is a kind of »virtual music«.

I think we may be entering a fourth era, one which will not replace repetition, just as repetition did not replace representation, and representation ritual. For instance, we still attend the types of concert that emerged during the representational period. There are a number of points to consider here. Firstly, when people talk about »pirates«, we should remember that the music industry is the biggest pirate of all, and has been from the very beginning. Who created the possibility of duplicating and distributing music, if not the record industry itself? You will find the same thing happening at each stage of the technology’s evolutionary development – the record industry shoots itself in the foot. One arm is producing music and complaining that technology is making it easier to steal that music, while the other arm is producing the very technology that it claims to be damaging its interests. This was true for cassettes, this was true for CDs, and it is true again for the Internet. Napster is of marginal importance here. Gnutella or Aimster were born within the industry. Both came out of AOL and they escaped like a virus that escapes a laboratory. They try to prevent it, but they can’t.

The second point to bear in mind is that we must make distinctions between three different types of copying. If I copy something for my own personal use, it is not illegal. Secondly, if I make a copy to give as a gift to another person, that too is not illegal, and this right is upheld across any number of formats, from CD to cassette to DVD. Interestingly, legislation exists that attempts to make it illegal, for the first time in mankind’s history, for me to make such a gift over the Internet… which means that it will not work. The third type of copying, namely the mass duplication of music for sale or profit, is clearly illegal.

But there are roughly one billion MP3 files in circulation on the Internet, and this figure increases by around 100 million each month. The question is whether it is possible to tame this kind of thing, whether it is possible to put the genie back in the bottle. In answer to this, I propose three scenarios. Two scenarios see us remain in a repetitive era, in which we try to treat digital file formats as if they were physical commodities. In one of these, the majors win. They would have to rely on effective cryptography to prevent duplication of music; also necessary would be the destruction of all MP3 files or, at the very least, control over the production of the devices that play digital file formats. This is rather similar to the approach taken by the industry when trying to shift consumers from vinyl records to CD. So it is possible that the industry will begin to produce devices that are incompatible with the MP3 format. This is certainly the approach that the industry is taking at the moment, but to my mind this will not work. It would require legislative support, and it would need to be policed worldwide. It would have to install a system for monitoring email traffic on a global scale, to ensure that no MP3 files were being sent or received. Moreover, it would probably require the industry to control what kind of music was played in a live concert or rave party, or what have you. Most significantly, any monitoring system would inevitably be used not just to check for signs of illegal music, but for wider surveillance as well. My bet is that such a system will not work. But if it does, music will be a prophecy of nothing less than a future totalitarian society.

The second scenario is one in which the majors are not in a position to do it, but where artists will want to do it and will do it. Artists will say, »I don’t want to be rewarded only for selling the T-shirt«. There will be a fight – Courtney Love is famous for that – but I think a lot of artists would fight against the majors and try to organise the selling of their own music. I think this has a chance to work for the major artist, for the specialised artist, but this is not going to help the main global thing.

The third thing, which, one of three, I think has the best chance of succeeding, is what I would call the »potlatch scenario«, where people will exchange music just for the pleasure of actually giving. This is, of course, how MP3.com originally started, where people posted their music as amateurs, not as professionals. There are two directions in which this scenario could develop. Firstly, if repetition proves to be enough to tame music, we might witness the emergence of what has been called »cultural capitalism«. And as I have said, information does not conform to normal economic rules that rely on scarcity.

But technology can be used to create artificial scarcity, so that cultural goods can be bought and sold like any other commodity. At the same time, one way of utilising actual scarcity might be to maintain a focus on live entertainment. If I look at the final of a soccer world championship, it is an entirely different experience to watch it live than it is to watch it two hours later, when you already know the result. You don’t need any technology in order to be able to sell a live event, because the value lies in the fact that you absolutely cannot know how it will end. A live concert in many ways is not a live event, because you have an idea of what is going to happen – unless it is totally improvised. So we can imagine cultural capitalism emphasising live events which are either totally improvised, or for which a conclusion cannot be forecast.

However, if I am correct when I say that repetition will not be enough to tame music in the future, a fourth stage in the evolution of music may emerge, which I call »composition«. The future is no longer to listen to music, but to play it. It is different from everything that I have mentioned before. As a theorist, I have to say that composition would be done first and foremost for ourselves, for each of us, for the simple pleasure of making music. This is significant not only because you do it outside of the economy, for your own personal enjoyment, but because the only person listening to the piece is the same person playing it. It lies primarily outside of communication. And, stylistically, this is important because, as any musician will tell you, what you like to play is often not the same as what we like to listen to.

The tools of composition will be tools that are linked to the body: prostheses. Certainly we can use sexual metaphors here: the first characteristic of composition would be masturbatory. Of course, this would be just one element of the compositional act, followed closely by the need to share with another. It says in the Bible: »You should love others as you do yourself.« I have always understood this to mean that it is impossible to like others if you don’t like yourself first. Of course, the market economy may try to distort composition, to reorganise it in its own image. For example, I am fascinated by the recent work of Paul Allen. As a fan of Jimi Hendrix, he has created a museum in Seattle in which you can simulate the sensation of appearing as Jimi Hendrix live on stage, complete with applause at the end. I am sure this is going to develop as a kind of market-led recreation of composition, where you will simulate being an artist with a simulated audience. Nevertheless, the real pleasure of composition would exist outside of the market economy, just for the fun of it, where violence is rechannelled through creation. For when I create something, and I then give it to you, I may have a chance of living in your memory forever.

大音希聲，大象無形 ――張照堂的攝影藝術與生命風景 (郭力昕)

大音希聲，大象無形
――張照堂的攝影藝術與生命風景

郭力昕

在攝影做為一種觀景窗與快門藝術的年代裡，張照堂也許是台灣攝影史裡，藝術境界最高的一位攝影家。翻開張照堂的攝影履歷，洋洋灑灑不一而足：他從1958年就開始拍照，至今未歇寶刀不老，已整整半個世紀；他50年來有至少30次以上的攝影個展、聯展和策展紀錄，得獎無數，同時從事電視片、紀錄片與劇情片的創作、策展與教學；他策劃、主編、撰寫多種台灣攝影家的叢書，與攝影主題的專書…。

這些赫赫的事功，也許說明了他對攝影創作和推動攝影文化的熱情與勤奮，但並不是我推崇張照堂為台灣最優秀之攝影家的主要評斷依據。對我而言，張照堂是一位真正的藝術家。這不僅是由於他的多重才華與藝術境界，更在於他的藝術，和他這個人、他的生活、他的生命態度，是高度一致的。而且，他總是在一種既踏實於現實生活之中、靈魂又同時行走在世俗之外的奇妙狀態裡，使他做為一個藝術家，永遠有趣而不可預測。他是一位真正的藝術家，因為他根本不在乎「藝術家」等等這些頭銜或概念，而且嘲笑它。我想，他只在乎有趣的生活與炙熱的生命。

重新閱讀由他主編的「台灣攝影家群象」（台北：躍昇文化，1989）叢書中《張照堂》這一冊裡，由他自己所寫的短文〈非影像筆記〉，我發現其中一段札記，似乎生動貼切地映照了張照堂的某種生命狀態：

加班到凌晨四點半，一個人站在十三樓等電梯，恍惚中抽著煙。指示燈上得很慢，長廊黑漆漆的，我好像聽到一種奇異的撞擊聲。電梯終於上來了，門一開，一隻犀牛從裡面擠了出來……（1975.12.15.）

這是他小兒子出生的那一年，張照堂為了生活負擔不得不努力工作。但世俗的工作，從沒有拿走他自由遊蕩的藝術靈魂和狂想能力。他用如此的幻想力與幽默感，以拒絕被俗世的平庸生活所吸納、同化，也給予我們抵抗庸俗的想像和鼓舞力量。正是基於張照堂攝影創作背後的這種現實情境，使我們在觀看和分析他的攝影藝術時，必須將他所處的時代氛圍、生命情境、與他的人格特質等各種脈絡，一併閱讀，或許才能比較準確的理解和評斷張照堂的攝影藝術，和它的意義。


一、 時代背景

張照堂成長於一個極度壓抑、苦悶的年代，並且在這樣的時代氛圍裡，走過了他創作的精華歲月。台灣的這個時代背景，政治空氣是高壓、肅殺的，攝影文化是空白或貧乏的；張照堂的攝影藝術，就在這樣的政治與文化悶局裡，迸出了一個獨醒的、清越的高音。

他出生於1943年，二次大戰未歇，日本仍殖民台灣；他上小學時，蔣介石政權從中國大陸撤退到台灣，政治上繼續高壓統治著台灣人民。1950年韓戰爆發，台灣成為美軍的後勤補給基地；美國為了防堵共產陣營在東亞擴張的冷戰佈局，將台灣編入美國的協防地區，並開始提供經濟援助。這個佈局，讓蔣介石和國民黨政權得以偏安殘喘於台灣，並且可以開始對島內展開政治戒嚴，以正當化其獨裁統治。

1950年代到1985年代中期，是台灣社會受到高度政治控制與思想箝制的三十多年，而張照堂的攝影創作高峰，正好落在這個時代裡。蔣政權的右翼反共思想，與蔣介石深受日本士官訓練影響的軍國主義、窮兵黷武、與軍事化教育，讓台灣人民在這個漫長的年代裡，從身體到精神都備受壓抑。除了反共話語之外的一切政治言論或進步思想，皆為禁忌；所有涉及社會現實之反映或再現的藝術表達形式，皆無空間。

在這樣緊張、低迷的社會空氣裡，當時主流的攝影實踐，只有兩種：一是做為官方喉舌的、歌功頌德粉飾太平的新聞照片，一是唯一容許在民間操作的「沙龍攝影」。前者沒有一般人能隨意進入的工作空間，更不必談反映真實社會的新聞自由空間。後者則由順從並配合國府藝文政策的中國早期攝影家郎靜山主導，將沙龍畫意的休閒業餘攝影，推廣為民間攝影文化的唯一被認可方向；若稍微將鏡頭對準比較寫實的農村景觀或類似之真實生活題材，就會遭到壓制。沙龍攝影是一種玩攝影器材和工具技術的休閒攝影文化，它的題材和攝影概念千篇一律陳腐無趣，但是因為這樣的題材有著不碰現實、去政治性的效果，受到了官方的歡迎和鼓勵。

在這種政治氣候與攝影文化場景下，回顧張照堂的早期作品，與全盛期的大部分作品，即可清楚的理解，做為一個具有卓越視覺藝術才華、和反叛時代之政治壓迫氣氛的張照堂，為何在他的影像裡，展示著這樣強烈的超現實感、荒謬劇場、疏離觀點、甚至殘酷美學。從1960年代起，普遍受到西方現代主義思潮和藝術手法影響的台灣文學界和各類藝術創作圈，確實爭相模仿西方的現代主義美學語彙，成為某種流行和風雅。儘管如此，我認為在攝影這種能立刻反應政治現實、因此被嚴格看管的藝術形式裡，以及對張照堂這樣具有叛逆性格的藝術家，超現實、荒謬、疏離、冷酷的影像語言，首先是一種試圖掙脫苦悶的抵抗與救贖之道。

張照堂在1960年代初期具代表性的、冷冽疏離的、超現實風格的攝影作品，一出手就是非常沈重的、具有壓迫性之巨大視覺張力的藝術。也就是說，他的攝影在創作之初，立刻抵達一個相當成熟的藝術高度。這樣的攝影家，讓人想起西方攝影史上的Andre Kertesz，Robert Frank，Henri Cartier-Bresson，和W. Eugene Smith等天才型人物。他們皆於創作之初，在影像掌握上，即已臻攝影快門藝術的成熟和高度。

張照堂出生於台北縣的板橋，早期的一些經典影像，場景座落在他的家鄉，別有意味。我們固然可以在不知道「板橋」是什麼、在哪裡的情況下，閱讀這些作品本身的視覺張力與藝術趣味；但是，那些「無頭」年輕男子的身軀，那些失焦模糊的兒童的臉，那如鬼魅般冒出鏡頭前、立於稻田之中或裸身之上、浮現於布幔後、閉鎖於塑膠袋內的怪異頭臉，是出現在板橋的浮洲里、江子翠、村道上、廢墟前，背景甚至是清晰的稻田與觀音山時，那些代表著家鄉的地景，就讓這些無頭、糊臉、陰影與鬼魅，有了更讓人沈思的壓迫性與窒息感。這些鬼魅，是映照並宣洩著青年張照堂之抑悶不安的藝術精靈，也可以是台灣社會在那個時代裡，身體和慾望沒有出口、靈魂和思想無路可逃的黑色共同印記。


二、 關於「現代主義攝影」

張照堂攝影創作的一個高峰期，大約展現在1970-1985年間。若以他的重要個展來看，則1983年的「恩寵與寬容」，大約代表了這個時期的主要創作精神，而1986年的「逆旅」，則總結了這個時期的攝影成果。這段期間的作品，有一部份保持了他一慣冷冽、詭譎、突梯的視覺風格或訊息；但是更大一部份的代表作，則如「恩寵與寬容」這個展覽名稱所示，是一種非常厚重、溫暖、素樸的人文精神的流露和確認。這裡面有著令人如沐春風的老人與童顏，有田間騎牛的兒童、街頭的算命先生、笑容專注玩著撲克牌的戲班子成員、和面容哀戚的燒冥紙婦人，等等。這樣的內容與風格，和1970年代之前的早期作品，是相當不同的。

然而，在1986年之後，至2005年為止的最近二十年創作裡，張照堂在影像內容上，一方面可以看到他對生命有著更多的寬容與自在，另一方面又繼續著曖昧、鬼魅、抽象、虛實不定、與奇異趣味的張式風格。後者的這些趣味，讓人很快的想起活躍於1960-70年代的美國攝影家Garry Winogrand那些精彩銳利的街頭風景、與美國社會面貌；我們也可以在張照堂的影像裡，看到他在台灣的寫實場景裡，呼應著Robert Frank和Lee Friedlander等大家的某些趣味。

從張照堂早期那些最強烈突出的超現實或荒謬劇場式的影像，到後期的這些對真實/虛擬/幻境的操演，使不少人認為張照堂的攝影藝術，是一種「現代攝影」或「現代主義攝影」，他也被認為是台灣「現代主義攝影」最具代表性的人物。從張照堂的某個突出且一貫的攝影風格或語彙來看，似乎這樣「望影生義」的說法也自成道理；但是，這個詞彙和概念，還需要爭辯與明察。

「現代」做為西方歷史文明進展的定義性詞彙，或者「現代主義」做為西方社會一種文學藝術的美學理論或風格主張，是衍生自西方工業文明與科技理性下的產物。它的語境，是西方文明「現代性」的發展，和對這種西方現代性的批判與對抗。當台灣1960年代起的藝文界，移植、模仿著西方現代主義文藝理論、哲學思維和美學形式時，台灣卻基本上不在「西方現代性」意義下的社會與文化狀態裡。那時的台灣，都市化與工業化尚未發生，人民的生活習性保留在農業社會的狀態（其實在某個意義上，這樣的習性在台灣許多地方、或許多人身上，至今沒有多少根本的改變，包括不少工作與居住在都市裡的人）。工具理性、資本主義、公共領域、和推動進步的政治/社會制度等這些西方現代性的最主要內涵，在台灣的1960年代，都還沒有出現，甚至連影子都沒有。

也就是說，台灣在1960-70年代的任何「現代主義」文藝風格，並不是在回應著一個高度工業化、現代化了的社會，所產生的諸種異化、疏離、壓迫、剝削，所形成的藝術思維或話語實踐，而是去脈絡地將西方社會形成的一套藝術語彙，不著邊際地空降到台灣的傳統農業社會裡。如果說，這是一種純粹「為賦新詞強說愁」的西方藝文技術移植和模仿，也不完全公允；當時台灣社會的「愁」肯定是有的，但是這個「愁」，並非西方工業文明與資本主義社會裡所產生的那些現象，而是台灣當時的傳統社會，在社會封閉、政治高壓與身體抑悶之下，所累積的煩悶感和束縛感。西方的「現代主義」文藝美學和語法，恰好可以「拿來」當做一個好用的、又在形式表達上「安全」的（因為檢查藝術內容的官方看不懂）宣洩情緒與時代苦悶的方法。

從這個社會與文化脈絡，回頭檢視張照堂的攝影，或許可以比較清楚的定位他的攝影藝術，大抵跟西方概念下的現代主義攝影，無太多關係。他攝影藝術的獨特性，不在於有多少神似西方現代主義語彙的影像，而是由於他回應、對抗當時所處的政治壓抑與身體禁錮之台灣戒嚴社會的方式，竟然與西方的某些視覺語彙和心理情緒，可以如此維妙維肖地相互輝映。另一方面，張照堂攝影藝術裡，同時存在的溫暖人文質地、與剃刀般冷凝鋒利的雙重性，也使得這位藝術家的獨特與豐富，已不再需要「現代主義攝影家」這類以西方美學概念為尊的冠冕，或者這樣的描述既不準確、亦不能完整的說明張照堂做為攝影家的多樣內涵。


三、 再評價張照堂

張照堂的攝影創作持續了半個世紀，未曾真正中斷；從他的近作來看，他對快門藝術之攝影語彙的掌握依然精準，功力不減當年，趣味也未曾轉趨稀薄。然而，他的攝影藝術，至今停留在快門藝術的攝影概念裡，且這樣的藝術成績，如我前文所說，在他早期的作品裡，已經粲然樹立。那麼，在這個數位化拼貼、改造、後製影像極為方便，使攝影可以自由地和多媒材、裝置、觀念藝術等各類前衛實驗手法結合的年代裡，我們應該如何看待並安置張照堂快門攝影藝術的價值，以及張照堂這位藝術家的意義？

先從他的快門藝術說起。攝影藝術的古典意義，即快門掌握的瞬間藝術，以及創作者透過這個瞬間的捕捉，描繪或詮釋世界的方式。張照堂在這個平面影像形式裡，已到了一種多數人難以看齊、遑論超越的純熟而深刻的境地。過於純熟的技藝，常常會讓藝術作品，減低或甚至喪失了原本足以感動人的力量；而這大抵不成為張照堂的問題，則是因為他總能用新鮮而犀利的視角，看見平凡場景中的異質趣味，而且以攝影的快門和構圖，將它們轉化成藝術語言。

他的作品全部取材自現實場景，但幾乎沒有一幅作品，是直接描述事件本身、提供見證功能、或訴諸表面情緒的。所有的情緒、訊息、或觀點，都經過進一層的隱喻、轉化、沈澱、或聯想，使他的攝影裡的苦痛、荒謬甚或殘酷，從沒有敲鑼打鼓、哭天搶地的喧囂，而是一種深邃、無言、甚至欲哭無淚的悲哀和喟嘆；即使在他很少出現的歡樂或笑靨的畫面裡，我們也不敢掉以輕心的觀看，而更多的是以凜然的心情，閱讀這些溫暖著或激勵著我們向前的生命。

然而，張照堂的攝影藝術，或者說，他做為攝影藝術家的價值，不僅僅表現在快門功力與影像境界上，更在於他的藝術結晶，和他這個人，與他的生命狀態，是極其一致的。在台灣的攝影圈裡，我認為這是非常稀有的品質。也許很多人認為，談論藝術價值，不需要把藝術家的個人因素考量進來，只要從作品論斷即可，尤其對並非涉及新聞或紀錄攝影這類具有較多道德性考量的攝影類型時。但我必須要說，若能夠瞭解張照堂其人的特質，應該會更懂得欣賞他的攝影藝術，何以如此獨特，歷久不衰。

在吳忠維訪問、撰寫的《看‧不見‧張照堂》（台北：時報，2000）裡，張照堂誠實的描述自己做展覽的態度並不積極，也沒有特別的計畫或企圖；和國外一些成就突出的大攝影家相比，自己的創作顯得不夠努力或缺乏紀律。然而，他接受自己的這種創作狀態，覺得既然如此性情，即不欲刻意改變或勉強自己。也曾有評者認為，張照堂雖才氣縱橫，但是對攝影創作這件事，卻一直處在一種「業餘狀態」。坦白說，我早些年也多少有類似的看法。然而，多增添了一點歲月，和對生命的體悟，我大幅地修正了自己的看法。

有才情的藝術家大分為兩種。一種是對創作高度紀律化、企圖心很強、步步為營經於計算、甚至生產行銷皆絲毫不差的人；他們成功的累積成果，打造自己藝術的「重要性」，以確保能進入主流藝術的殿堂。另一種人則如張照堂，他們認真創作、更忠於自己地生活；對如何可以更快的、更有效的推銷自己，沒有什麼太積極的興趣，甚至對那樣的「企圖心」嗤之以鼻。我當然不能說，具有積極性與企圖心、認真創作的藝術家，不值得鼓勵，但我毋寧是更欣賞後者的。

張照堂認真工作，熱情生活，對各類藝術涉獵極廣，尤其音樂、電影、和劇場。他勤於從最新的藝術創作和思潮中不斷汲取養分，對教育學生也不吝惜自己的時間和經驗。當台灣許多二流的攝影家，汲汲於隆重地出版自己印刷精美的大型攝影集時，張照堂至今沒有類似的興趣。他的不急於展示自己，一方面看到他的從容自在與自信，另一方面，也說明了這位藝術家是一直向前看的，不覺得需要、或者值得眷戀已有的成績。

他的「不積極」、「業餘」、隨遇而安，並且願意將許多精力和時間，留給教育學生和充實生活。這些於我而言，皆說明了張照堂基本上不是一個自戀的人（如不少傑出的藝術家程度不同的共通特質）。他熱情而專心地注視著世界，並不老是看著鏡子中的自己。這樣的特質，可以使他的藝術裡包含更多的真誠與純粹，更少的矯情與造作。當生命狀態與藝術作品可以如此誠懇一致，則「業餘」與「無企圖心」所生產出來的攝影藝術，兀寧是更動人、更有意義的。

我慶幸能夠在自己年過五十的此時，得以重新閱讀、思索、再評估半個世紀以來的張照堂的攝影，並為此文。我因此可以真正懂得張照堂的藝術精神，和他生命的意義與重量。他的藝術，以及更重要的、他這個人的存在與生命態度，已經自動成為一種風範和標竿。並且我相信，張照堂心裡的那頭犀牛，還是一樣不馴服的、生命力勃發的要從壓迫狹仄的電梯裡，衝擠出來。

（作者為攝影評論者，任教於台灣政治大學傳播學院）