司馬勤

在過(guò)去的幾個(gè)月里，評(píng)論界受到了很多……嗯， 批評(píng)。去年2 月，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的一篇文章挑釁地提出這個(gè)議題：“學(xué)術(shù)化的文學(xué)批評(píng)：它有什么好處？”第二天，同一家報(bào)紙上刊登了另一篇文章，題為“藝術(shù)評(píng)論家群體中的分歧擴(kuò)大”。

然而，大約一周后，“狗屎事件”出現(xiàn)了。

無(wú)論你關(guān)心何種藝術(shù)形式， 面臨的問(wèn)題都是一樣的。上文提及的第一篇刊登于《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的文章， 聚焦了學(xué)術(shù)評(píng)論家約翰· 吉洛里（John Guillory）的新書(shū)《專業(yè)評(píng)論》（Professing Criticism ），該書(shū)從本質(zhì)上提出了一個(gè)問(wèn)題：高度專業(yè)化、理論復(fù)雜的評(píng)論，能真正為公眾服務(wù)嗎？

我們應(yīng)該注意到，吉洛里習(xí)慣于煽風(fēng)點(diǎn)火，把事情搞得一團(tuán)糟。大約30 年前，他在《文化資本》（Cultural Capital ）一書(shū)里，也發(fā)表了類似的挑釁性聲明——提醒人們，在你想討論的任何領(lǐng)域， 所謂的“偉大的經(jīng)典作品”，內(nèi)容并不是永久固定的，而僅是一個(gè)架構(gòu)且會(huì)就其內(nèi)容定期進(jìn)行開(kāi)放談判。吉洛里對(duì)前來(lái)參與磋商的人并不完全滿意， 但他的想法與20 世紀(jì)90 年代初“身份政治”的興起產(chǎn)生了強(qiáng)烈共鳴。在當(dāng)時(shí)，女性、有色人種和其他各種少數(shù)族裔群體開(kāi)始質(zhì)問(wèn)，為什么這么多社會(huì)元素被排斥在外。

在過(guò)去的幾年里，這些變革之風(fēng)已經(jīng)升級(jí)為狂風(fēng)暴雨，“黑人的命也是命”和其他的社會(huì)事件都在呼吁提高藝術(shù)的多樣性，并要求對(duì)缺乏社會(huì)包容性的行為進(jìn)行歷史解釋。這已經(jīng)成為國(guó)際藝術(shù)評(píng)論家協(xié)會(huì)（International Association of Art Critics）的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵性爭(zhēng)議話題的來(lái)源背景：視覺(jué)藝術(shù)究竟需要多大程度的多樣性——不僅僅是在藝術(shù)從業(yè)者中，也包括那些存在于藝術(shù)作品的角色？國(guó)際藝術(shù)評(píng)論家協(xié)會(huì)總部位于巴黎，由約6000 名作家（其中約有500 名美國(guó)作家）組成。

但這些基本上都是些雞毛蒜皮似的小爭(zhēng)吵。幾天之內(nèi)，一名編舞家在中場(chǎng)休息時(shí)與一名舞蹈評(píng)論家發(fā)生對(duì)峙，這場(chǎng)沖突幾乎升級(jí)為一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。當(dāng)時(shí)，漢諾威國(guó)家歌劇院的芭蕾舞總監(jiān)和首席編舞馬爾科· 戈克（Marco Goecke）質(zhì)問(wèn)《法蘭克福匯報(bào)》（Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ）的評(píng)論家維布克·胡斯特（Wiebke Hüster）在劇院里做什么，因?yàn)楫?dāng)天早上維布克· 胡斯特在報(bào)紙上發(fā)表的評(píng)論中聲稱， 馬爾科· 戈克剛剛在荷蘭世界首演的舞蹈作品《在荷蘭山中》（In the Dutch Mountain ），讓觀眾“在精神錯(cuò)亂和無(wú)聊中反復(fù)交替”。然后，他從口袋里掏出一袋狗屎，把它涂抹在了評(píng)論家的臉上。

據(jù)說(shuō)，遭到狗屎襲擊后，胡斯特尖叫起來(lái)。等到她恢復(fù)冷靜，她離開(kāi)劇院并報(bào)了警，還提出了刑事指控。漢諾威國(guó)家歌劇院院長(zhǎng)勞拉· 伯曼（Laura Berman）也立即獲知這宗事件，因?yàn)槟繐粽邠?dān)心情況會(huì)變得更糟。

有關(guān)這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)執(zhí)的消息很快在網(wǎng)上瘋傳。表演藝術(shù)圈差不多人人都在談?wù)撨@宗事件。在精英文化的世界里，這相當(dāng)于威爾· 史密斯（Will Smith）在奧斯卡頒獎(jiǎng)典禮上扇了克里斯· 洛克（Chris Rock） 一巴掌。人們一直在問(wèn)，為什么馬爾科· 戈克這樣一位受人尊敬的藝術(shù)家，并且他剛剛在2022 年贏得了德國(guó)著名的舞蹈獎(jiǎng)Deutschen Tanzpreis 獎(jiǎng)， 會(huì)如此公開(kāi)地攻擊這樣一位著名的評(píng)論家？這是否表明藝術(shù)家回應(yīng)公眾批評(píng)的方式發(fā)生了變化？

截至目前，馬爾科· 戈克執(zhí)導(dǎo)的作品仍保留在漢諾威國(guó)家歌劇院的劇目中。但在事件發(fā)生后的那周末，這位編舞家失去了劇院芭蕾舞總監(jiān)的工作。顯然，作為一名藝術(shù)家，他對(duì)負(fù)面評(píng)論的反應(yīng)很容易被理解，并且在某種程度上可以容忍；但作為一個(gè)政府機(jī)構(gòu)的公眾代表，人們對(duì)他的容忍度就沒(méi)那么高了。

《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》關(guān)于文學(xué)和視覺(jué)藝術(shù)評(píng)論的文章傳達(dá)出的信息是，如今，任何藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的任何實(shí)質(zhì)性分析，都在受到社會(huì)文化和資本力量的威脅。一方面，文學(xué)界已經(jīng)進(jìn)入了一個(gè)“后批判” 階段，重視隨意的“外行閱讀”（以及同樣隨意的新聞簡(jiǎn)介和網(wǎng)絡(luò)聊天），而不是專業(yè)評(píng)價(jià)；另一方面，發(fā)表藝術(shù)評(píng)論的媒體越來(lái)越少，哪怕僅是膚淺的泛泛之談?！都~約時(shí)報(bào)》稱，大多數(shù)視覺(jué)藝術(shù)的評(píng)論家所發(fā)表的評(píng)論，更像是為博物館和畫(huà)廊寫(xiě)的銷(xiāo)售文案。

但是，多虧了一袋狗屎，我們才能看到一個(gè)獨(dú)立意見(jiàn)的力量是多么強(qiáng)大。

“回想起來(lái)，我清楚地意識(shí)到，在我們爭(zhēng)論最激烈的時(shí)刻，這樣做是一個(gè)可恥的行為。”戈克在一份正式聲明中說(shuō)，但似乎沒(méi)有人愿意相信他的言論。事實(shí)上，這位編舞曾向德國(guó)公共廣播公司NDR 抱怨說(shuō)，胡斯特多年來(lái)一直在用評(píng)論攻擊他。但說(shuō)真的，當(dāng)發(fā)生分歧時(shí)，有多少人口袋里剛好會(huì)裝著一袋狗屎？

荷蘭舞蹈劇場(chǎng)立即回應(yīng)稱，戈克的行為“違背了我們的價(jià)值觀”，但仍讓他繼續(xù)擔(dān)任副編舞。但在澳大利亞芭蕾舞團(tuán)，戈克就沒(méi)那么幸運(yùn)了， 該芭蕾舞團(tuán)放棄了本演出季晚些時(shí)候帶戈克的作品去倫敦皇家歌劇院巡演的計(jì)劃。

然而，戈克聲稱他只是想加入有關(guān)評(píng)論的辯論。他說(shuō)，這主要是想建立起評(píng)論“分界線”的問(wèn)題。他告訴《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》，“評(píng)論家不應(yīng)以個(gè)人主觀意見(jiàn)和泄憤的方式寫(xiě)作”，特別是“當(dāng)藝術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)在遭遇因新冠疫情停擺后，仍在試圖重新站穩(wěn)腳跟和重新吸引觀眾的時(shí)候”。然而，該事件的目擊者稱，戈克認(rèn)為胡斯特個(gè)人應(yīng)對(duì)許多芭蕾舞的“鐵粉”們?cè)谝咔楹笕∠麄兊募酒倍?fù)責(zé)。在交流過(guò)程中，他還威脅要永遠(yuǎn)禁止她進(jìn)入劇院。

不出所料，《法蘭克福匯報(bào)》指控戈克不僅對(duì)評(píng)論家進(jìn)行了人身侮辱和身體傷害，還恐嚇媒體。此后，至少有另外四位國(guó)際舞蹈的評(píng)論家，公開(kāi)了他們?cè)趯?duì)戈克的作品發(fā)表負(fù)面評(píng)價(jià)后，收到的戈克發(fā)出的奇怪的敵對(duì)信件。

無(wú)論如何，這場(chǎng)著名的對(duì)峙，在當(dāng)時(shí)對(duì)戈克個(gè)人來(lái)說(shuō)可能非常滿意，但對(duì)其職業(yè)生涯的后續(xù)影響是嚴(yán)峻的。漢諾威國(guó)家歌劇院在其網(wǎng)站上立即指出劇院的聲譽(yù)受到“巨大的損害”。藝術(shù)媒體在德國(guó)的地位可能比在其他文化背景的國(guó)家都要好，但由于評(píng)論家所剩無(wú)幾，藝術(shù)家們必須仔細(xì)選擇他們的隊(duì)伍和立場(chǎng)。正如伏爾泰在臨終前對(duì)試圖讓他與撒旦斷絕關(guān)系的牧師所說(shuō)的那樣：“現(xiàn)在不是樹(shù)敵的時(shí)候?！?/p>

從這一點(diǎn)上看，胡斯特為戈克的其他作品發(fā)表評(píng)論的可能性幾乎為零，并且很難想象其他任何評(píng)論家會(huì)對(duì)戈克的作品感興趣，或者能夠僅僅根據(jù)其藝術(shù)價(jià)值來(lái)發(fā)表客觀評(píng)論。

In the past few months， criticism has been com?ing under a lot of， um， criticism. Last February， an article in The New York Times provocatively asked “Academic Literary Criticism： What Is It Good For？” The next day， another article in the same newspa?per appeared under the headline “Rift Widens Amid Group of Art Critics.”

Then， a week or so later， came the dog poo.

No matter what artform you turn to， the prob?lems are mostly the same. The first Times article focused on a new book by academic critic John Guillory entitled Professing Criticism ， which asks essentially， what purpose do highly specialized， theoretically sophisticated readings really serve for the general public？

Guillory， we should note， is used to stirring things up. Some 30 years ago， his book Cultural Capital made a similarly provocative statement， reminding people that the so-called Canon of Great Works— in any field you care to discuss—is not a permanent fixture but rather an imaginary construct periodically open to negotiation. Guillory was not entirely happy with the people who came to negotiate， but his ideas resonated heavily with the rise of identity politics in the early 1990s， when women， people of color and various other minority groups started asking why so many elements of society were excluded.

In the past few years， those winds of change have escalated to gale force， with Black Lives Matter and other social causes calling for greater diversity in the arts and demanding historical accounting for the lack of inclusion. This has become a key source of dispute among the Paris-based International Association of Art Critics， an organization of about 6000 writers （500 or so based in the United States）： How much should diversity—not just among arts practitioners but also the people who write about them—be required in the visual arts？

But these were basically small family quarrels. Within a few days， the conflict escalated to near-warfare at the Hanover State Theater when a dance critic was confronted by a choreographer at intermis?sion. Marco Goecke asked Wiebke Hüster， a writer for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung， what she was do?ing in the theater， particularly after her review in the paper that morning where she claimed that his dance piece In the Dutch Mountain—which had just had its premiere in the Netherlands—made the audience al?ternate “between a state of feeling insane and being killed by boredom.” Then he pulled a bag of dog feces from his pocket and smeared it on her face.

By all accounts， Hüster began to scream and， once she regained composure， left to alert the police. Laura Berman， the head of the Hanover State Opera， was also immediately alerted， as witnesses were con?cerned that the situation might get even worse.

News of the altercation quickly went viral. People in the performing arts were talking about little else. In the world of rarefied culture， it was the equiva?lent of Will Smith slapping Chris Rock at the Oscars. Why， people kept asking， would such a respected artist—Geocke had just won Germanys prestigious Deutschen Tanzpreis in 2022—so publicly assault such a prominent critic？ And did this indicate shift?ing standards in what is considered an acceptable response to public criticism？

As of now， Goeckes works will remain in Ha?novers repertory， but by the end of the week the choreographer had lost his job as the companys ballet director. Apparently， his reaction as an art?ist was easy to understand and—to some extent— tolerate; as a public representative of a government institution， not so much.

The take-home message from the Times articles on literary criticism and the visual arts is that any substantial analysis of work in any artistic field is threatened today by forces both cultural and eco?nomic. On one hand， the literary world has moved into a “postcritical” phase that values casual “l(fā)ay reading” （and equally casual news blurbs and in?ternet chatter） over professional evaluation; on the other hand， fewer and fewer media outlets publish arts criticism on even a superficial level. Most people who write about the visual arts， the Times says， pay the bills by writing essentially sales copy for muse?ums and galleries.

But thanks to a handful of doggie dung， we can see how powerful an independent opinion can be.

“In retrospect， I clearly realize that this was a shameful act in the heat of the moment，” Goecke said in a formal statement that no one appears to believe. Actually， the choreographer had complained to the

German public broadcaster NDR that Hüster had been “throwing shit [at him] for years.” And really， how many people just happen to be carrying a bag of dog excrement in their pocket？

The Netherlands Dance Theater immediately re?sponded that Goekes actions were “contrary to our values，” but has still kept him on as associate cho?reographer. He was not so lucky with the Australian Ballet， which dropped plans to take his work on tour to Londons Royal Opera House later this season.

Goecke， though， claims he was just trying to join in the critical debate. Mostly， he said， it was a matter of establishing boundaries. Critics， he told The New York Times ， “should not write in a personal and hate?ful way，” particularly when arts institutions across the board are still trying to regain their footing （and audiences） after the Covid-19 shutdown. Eyewitness to the event， however， claim that Goecke blamed Huster personally for many regular balletgoers hav?ing cancelled their season tickets after the pandemic. During the exchange， he also threatened to ban her permanently from the theater.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ， unsurprising?ly， accused Goecke not just of personal humiliation and bodily harm but also of intimidating the press. At least four other international dance critics have since come out reporting bizarrely hostile correspondence from Goecke after reviewing his work negatively.

However personally fulfilling the famous encoun?ter might have been for Goecke at the time， the fallout is professionally grim. On its website， the Ha?nover State Opera immediately noted the “massive damage” to its reputation. The arts press might be in a better position in Germany than other cultural capitals， but with so few critics left standing artists have to choose both their battles and their battle?fields carefully. As Voltaire told the priest trying to get him to renounce Satan on his deathbed， “Now is not the time to make enemies.”

At this point， the odds of Hüster ever attending another work by Goecke is pretty much zero， but it would be hard to imagine any other critic getting ex?cited about his work， or being able to review it solely on its artistic merits.