Talk to Artist | Jan Herdlicka: Besides Human | Interview on Art Yourself Atelier

JAN: First of all, thank you for the question that allows me a rare retrospect on my years of practice. I would say that the reason for my photography nowadays to look the way it looks lies in the time I have invested in this particular part of my work over the years. It is time-brewed. And in spite of the conscious endeavors I have willed to implement, there may also have been the unconscious influence from history, from my life, from the casual talks as we are having here.

I have to say that it is within the field of canonical photography that I see the foundation of my artistic work, and that was where I started off. My first artistic practice was more or less exclusively focusing on the black/white film photography, and for some many years I found inspiration and motivation from the legendary street photographers such as Joel Meyerowitz, Bruce Gilden or Daido Moriyama. They all have their unique and sometimes peculiar approaches to photography that may seem bizarre at the time when they were born, but these methods would later also find their way into the traditional photographic canon. And that is to say as we are discussing my oeuvre’s relationship with the tradition, "tradition" is also a comparative concept that’s subject to limbo and frequent changes.

After years of working within the domain of traditional photography, at a sudden point it all spread out and I more and more found myself being creatively caged in the mode of capturing "realities", realities in the sense as they could be seen and collected with classical photographic techniques. That’s when I started to feel the haunt of repetition, but it took me years, years of working within the cage, to know where the liminal cage was actually placed. From then on, my work has shifted its weight to widen the boundaries within the medium, and I gradually developed my way to chemically (mis)treat film rolls, to (mis)use cameras and so on.

In the oldest body of work I still show on my website, and I still consider it to be part of my portfolio, there is a series called "Arkadia". In this body of work you may find a bridge between the old and the new way I tried to include artistic photography in my creative approaches. And this series also indicates another reason for me working the ways nowadays: the freedom of creating imagery motifs within photography allows me to link this part of my artistic work much better with the other genres I included over the years like sculpture, installation, mixed media, etc. Photography gives birth or develops on the prototypal motifs, and there’s an interaction and flexibility innate within the genre that kind of predicts the inter-genre method.

JAN: A biographical detail that might relate to the question is that I am about to hand in my PH.D thesis on posthuman theories this year, and these studies conducted over the years have heavily infused my artistic work. For this reason I guess it might also be a right time to explain the thematic part of my work in more details.

If a definitive tone there needs be, to put it in a very basic way, my work tries to reflect the interrelations between humans and nonhumans in a sometimes experimental and sometimes playful or dreamlike way. This essentially entails the need to drastically review our own existence on earth and to view animals, plants and even the non-living matters as equal partners in order to refocus on our collective planetary well-being. In theory, of course, there are many important discussions about the interrelations, and my works have been informed by scholars and writers in the Posthuman field such like Timothy Morton and Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented-Ontology, Donna Haraway’s Chtulucene and String-Figures, New Materialism and the works of Karen Barad, Rosi Braidotti, Anna Tsing, among many more.

However, as complicated as the battlefield of theory can get, the relationship between artistic work and theory is also more sophisticated than it seems. As for my work, though being informed by these theories, they more importantly differ from or in some cases oppose the theories I start with.

On the one hand, I do not want my work to be "streamlined" into a direct expression of the theoretical discussion. I see the posthuman field more like a "tool-box" from which I here and then may take conceptual fragments/models and ideas for my artistic approaches. And on the other, as many artists, I also retain the power for my artwork to engage with the theoretical discussion. A very often-seen misconception about research-based artwork is that art can be seen as a secondary expression, a by-product to infuse the theory with more vitality. Art’s power to modify, to rewrite has been underestimated.

This is why in the preparation of my work I also emphasize not focusing solely on academic works but also trying to open myself up more to various sources. I very much admire children’s books for their depth, darkness, and multiple meanings behind the seemingly simple text. I admire Romanticism for its twisted and fundamentally unrealistic view on the concept of nature. I admire Japanese pop culture for its inclusion of Shintoism and a fresh weirdness to a Western eye. I admire various forms of Science-Fiction for its sheer power of imagination. In general, I think the most valuable thing when it comes to arts is trying to be thematically, methodologically, and technically rich and variable while still being able to establish an aesthetic language which is unique and consistent throughout the resourcefulness.

JAN: I think this very interestingly brings us back to the previous topic on photography’s genre tradition as well. Like I mentioned there, photography as a medium to capture a certain kind of reality only kept me motivated for a short period of time. What ensues after that, however, is not a total embrace of the full freedom of image-making. Up to now I still hardly ever use digital post- production and still shoot the absolute majority of my work using film. Film photography is dependent on the chemical reaction of the tiny particles, and from this perspective, I am still working within the "factual", physical aspect of the world. It seems that I am kept somewhere in between: not being interested in portraying realities while also not working in any way with the potentialities nowadays technology would offer to enhance or interfere with human perception.

I am sure that there must be all kinds of artistic approaches exploring nonhuman perspectives on photography, but when it comes to myself I see a clear benefit of limiting my own artistic "tool-box" so that I can have an ongoing need for creative solutions within these self-imposed limitations. The self-limitation is probably my way of catalyzing my creativity. And after all, in order to cross the boundaries, there must be some boundaries in the first place.

JAN: Though I haven’t received this feedback in person, interestingly it is a question I have posed to myself from time to time. Over the years I am certain that I do not want to be seen as a conceptual artist. Viewing other’s work and my work alike, I am appealed by artworks that manage to be aesthetically interesting, be it aesthetically pleasing or thrilling, tranquil or evocative, while the artworks can still incorporate a certain level of conceptual seriousness and freshness. This is a standard I apply equally to myself and to viewing others’ works.

To view it closely, the relationship between an artwork’s aesthetics and its thematic concept is a mesmerizing, manifold mechanism. It can be as entangled as an interpersonal relationship in a Victorian novel, and it is the entanglement that attracts me. My latest photographic works, "Zentralgestirne" and "Laputas Horizontierungen" for example, might evoke some feelings of being cheesy or cliché at the first sight, but to view the series in the context of its narrative there immediately arises a contrast, an irony with the theoretical content. Therefore, to go back to where we started off, what do I see as the power dynamics between the concept, narrative and photographs? I think these factors in combine form the organism we call artwork, an organism that is not a cohesive unity without fracture, but a cacophony full of dissonance.

JAN: Most definitely! When I was composing the narrative behind "Kontrol", I did not mean to generate an impression that the series was completely fear-driven, but you have brought up a very interesting point regarding the role of fear in my work.

Even though the emotional background in most of my works might not be as striking as the personal anecdote I share with "KONTROL", but fear is a persistent undertone, a significant artistic drive in general. All my early photography works can be interpreted as an attempt to conserve something that is doomed to leave me – time. To press the shutter resembles a strategy of coping with the fear of losing something with time, and a strategy to construct an alternative world that may be slightly immune to the washing of time.

The alternative world is also an outer world – an outer world dependent on film, chemicals, on the objective physical rules, an outer world ruled by nonhuman agencies. That’s how my fear relates me to the topic of posthuman, very subtly, very unexpectedly, almost in a direction that’s opposite to others. Over the years, I have found it very strange that fear’s role has barely been acknowledged, neither by critics, nor by artists themselves. Probably admitting I fear something thus I created my work is an act of renouncing the artistic agency, but from the perspective of posthumanism, this renouncing of agency is exactly what we need to start off.

JAN: 首先我想要谢谢这个问题的提出，这给了我一个很鲜见的能回顾自己这么多年来艺术实践的机会。对于这个问题比较概括的回答是，我当下的作品之所以呈现出它们如今的状态，是很多年来累积的结果，是时间孵化、赋予了这样的样态。并且，对于任何一个艺术家而言，除了我们能说清道明的有意识的努力，许多来自于历史、来自于个人生活的无意识影响，或是来自于随意谈话的灵感，都会参与对艺术作品的塑造。这后一部分是我作为一个有限的个体难以说明的。

尽管我现在的作品看起来与传统摄影有所出入，但传统摄影，或者说正统摄影，确乎是我作品的基础和起始点。我最初拍的照片几乎完全集中于黑白胶片摄影，并且在很长一段时间内我都持续观看、学习街头摄影艺术家Joel Meyerowitz, Bruce Gilden和Daido Moriyama的作品。他们对摄影的理解在当时看来可能相当独特以及怪异，但随着时间的流逝，也逐步进入了摄影的正统。所以当我们今天在讨论我的看似“另类”的摄影与正统摄影的关系时，我们或许也该为正统说一句公道话。所有的正统都是一个正在爆炸、持续膨胀的范畴，它是动荡的、生长的，它的边界并不如许多人想象的那样明确。

在进行了很多年的传统拍摄过后，突然有一天一切溶化了，并且迅速扩展开来。我越来越明显地感觉到被一种一直以来遵守的边界束缚着，而这个边界就是关于“真实”的概念。摄影应该拍摄“真实”，只有能被传统摄影技术记录下来的才算是“真实”，这种真实让我觉得被困住了，同时，一种很可怕的自我重复开始占领了我的拍摄。现在回想起来，我的确是花了很多年的时间在这个范畴内拍摄，才慢慢明白这个范畴的边界究竟在哪儿，而当我明白了之后，我便缓慢地将我创作的重心转移到冲撞、突破这个边界。从那以后，我开始采用很多化学方法来处理/破坏我的照片，试验不同的方式去使用/误用我的相机。

在我个人网站上如今依旧展示了一集名为Arkadia的早期作品，我依旧认为它是我如今代表作的一部分。在Arkadia中，你能非常明显地看到我两个不同时期摄影实践的融合痕迹。也是在这一系列中说明了为何在尝试过很多种艺术媒介后，我最终还是选择了摄影作为我的基石：摄影实际赋予了我很大的自由，让我能够将照片与许多其他艺术形式结合起来。我尝试过雕塑、装置艺术、混合媒介，这并不是因为我对摄影产生了任何游移，而是摄影这一形式本身宽阔的翼展让我能够在不丧失主体的同时吸收其他形式的创造力。摄影能够创造并且不断开发原始的图像，并且将这一图像的前世今生，图像的发展与演变过程记录下来。

JAN: 其实我长久以来就对非人类中心主义理论有很强的兴趣，并且将在今年完成我关于这一话题的博士论文。不过我一直以来的想法是，希望我的理论研究和艺术实践互不干预，也就一直没详细介绍过我这几个系列作品的创作背景。简单来说，我希望用一种实验性的、玩味的、如梦境一样的方式来重现人与非人存在之间的关系。这种重现意味着彻底重新审视人类在地球上的存在，并且将非人类的存在，例如动物、植物、以及其他无生命的物质视为与我们同等的存在。在理论上已经有非常多的写作者讨论过人类与非人类存在之间的关系：Timony Morthon, Graham Harman围绕“物”展开的本体论，Donna Haraway的著作，以及Karen Barad, Rosi Braidotti, Anna Tsing的研究也都对我的摄影有了很多的启发。

不过就像理论本身是非常复杂且充满矛盾的一样，艺术实践和理论的关系也很难简单地概括。就我自己的作品而言，尽管受到了很多理论的启发，但很多时候摄影本身是为了反对最初的理论，或是对理论提出异议或修正。一方面，我不希望我的艺术被流水线式地解读为某种理论的直接表达；对于非人存在的研究更像是我的工具间，我从中出出入入，以捡拾更多的概念性碎片和模型让自己能更好地构思摄影。但另一方面，我认为艺术同样能介入存在于理论中的讨论，它对理论是有影响力的。对于研究型的艺术常常存在的一个误解就是，艺术在批评中被和某种理念直接挂钩，艺术被认为是一种次要的表达，一种为理念注入了更多活力和感染力的衍生品。在我看来这样的解读是极度低估了艺术对理论的反作用力。

为了在一定程度上让艺术和理论的关系变得更加复杂，在拍摄的准备过程中，我总是试着把自己向尽可能多的影响敞开。比如我就很喜欢在这个过程中阅读很多的儿童书，童书特别简单的语言里能传达出来很幽深的回响，或是让人脊背发寒的黑暗，或者很多重复杂的寓意。浪漫主义也是在这个话题上一个很好的灵感来源，它实际上对于自然有着非常“扭曲”的且极度反真实的想象。日本的流行文化中包含着部分日本神道教（Shintoism）的思想，对于我而言这也是非常新奇甚至有一些怪异的灵感。当然，还有就是各式各样的科幻作品和它们具有滋养力的想象。所有的这些都在理论之外让我对人和非人类存在之间的关系产生了很多新的想法，我想对于一个艺术家而言，最最重要的一点就是让自己在理论、方法和技法上都丰沛起来，多样起来，并且能在丰富的变化中始终如一地表达出自己独特的美学。

JAN: 我觉得这个问题也非常好地回应了我们对摄影传统和媒介的讨论。就像我介绍过的，“摄影为了捕捉真实”这种理念只陪伴了我职业生涯的初期。但是，在背离了这种理念后，我也并没有全盘接受数码处理、编辑照片，我作品中的虚构与想象并不是通过PS等编辑手段完成的。一直到今天，我依旧鲜少使用数码工具处理照片，依旧用胶片拍摄我大部分的作品。从这个角度看，你甚至可以说我的工具和我作品的表达是全然相反的，我的手法依旧是“真实的”、物理的，就像胶片的成像是一种有赖于化学和物理规律的颗粒反应。所以对于照片虚构潜能的探索，我大概是既激进又保守的一个中间状态：我既不感兴趣拍摄眼见的实在，也不感兴趣用数码制作一种完全与现实无关的感知。

光在摄影的领域探索艺术虚构潜能与想象力的方法就有很多很多种，但对于我个人而言，我清楚地知道对自己设置一些限制是有切实好处的。我需要限制我的“工具箱”，这样在此路不通的时候，我才能够另辟蹊径，带有新意地去解决问题；而如果我一开始没有给自己设置任何围墙的话，我也就想不出来能跳过围墙的十八般武艺了。或许这种自我设限是我激发自己创造力的方法，并且我也始终相信，为了要能够“越界”，首先得要有“界”。

JAN: 很有趣，虽然没有观众直接向我提出这个问题，但这却是一个我在创作过程中时常问自己的问题：这些文字和摄影的关系是什么，它们会对图片形成挑战吗？长久以来，我能确认的是我不想成为一个“概念性艺术家“，也不希望我的作品给人带来这样的印象。我自己的作品也好，他人的作品也好，我总是喜欢那些能令我在审美上感到兴奋的，这种兴奋不一定是愉悦，也可能是惊惧、愤怒、恶心、平静等很多形式，与此同时，作品也需要经得起细想，也需要能包纳思想上的复杂性、严肃性与新意。这是我对自己和他人共同秉持的标准。

认真观察每一幅作品，我觉得其中作品和理念、文字的关系都是很复杂、多面的，复杂得就像长篇小说里的人物关系一样，而去解读这种复杂纠缠也就成了观看的一部分。以我最新拍摄的两个系列Zentralgestirne和Laputas Horizontierungen来说，图像乍看上去可能是甜美的、老套的，甚至是俗气的。但是文字所标注的整个语境又给了它一个外部空间，让作品有了新的底色。对照着文字观看，图像立刻形成了一种反差，一种极富讽刺意味的对理论的攻击。所以，如果要直接回答最开始的问题 – 我如何理解文字部分和图像的关系？我觉得是所有这些因素结合在一起，才形成了我们称之为艺术作品的有机体，一个并非是和谐统一的有机体，一个有很多裂缝、充满不协和音的有机体。

JAN: 绝对是这样的。就算Kontrol不是一个完全由恐惧催生的系列，恐惧也是我的创作中一个非常非常重要的动因。我所有早期的摄影作品都源于一种无法让时间留驻的恐惧，我害怕时间的流走总会带走些什么，所以每一次快门落下就很像一种对恐惧的应对，去创造一个在时间维度上没有那么脆弱的替代存在。

而这种替代存在事实上也是一种纯外部的存在，一种有赖于胶片、颗粒、化学药水的存在，有赖于客观的物理规律的外部世界，由非人类的要素决定着。这或许是我的恐惧如何最终成为了一种非人类中心主义的表达，当然，这远不如对自然的亲切和深情直观，也许是一种很曲折的路径。其实我觉得很奇怪的是，这些年来人们越来越少地承认自己的恐惧，在艺术批评中恐惧也成为了一个很少被提及的话题。或许人们需要艺术家是一个具有很强心性的角色，又或许承认自己的恐惧意味着放弃一部分艺术能动性。但是，从非人类研究的角度来说，部分放弃这种我们拼命抓住的能动性，不再坚持我们与“物”的分野，便是重新认识世界的开始。