28 Sep 2011 spirit   » (Journeyer)

靳军
(1966年-),现任中央美术学院设计学院教师。1989年获清华大学工学士学位,1995年获中央工艺美术学院硕士学位,1998年获美国波士顿大学艺术硕士学位。主要作品展览有 《靳军平面设计展》等。

靳军:素描是
一种真诚的艺术

艺报:请谈谈关于您和这个展览的渊源?
靳军(以下简称靳):这个展览当初主要是徐冰院长的一个想法,我参与进来稍微晚了一点。他们把这个展览划分为三个部分。素描是一个很基础、本质的东西,对艺术创作来说,以前每个学艺之人都会去画,几乎很少有一个全面完整的素描展,所以借着09年建国六十周年的契机,我们做了一个整体的组织,来对公众进行传达。
艺报:在学院教育里还很重视素描,但当代艺术似乎越来越远离素描了。
靳:无论是传统艺术还是传统艺术教育,到现今的一些创作,素描对他们每个人来说都不是无足轻重的。我们做这么一个展览来对素描进行完整的呈现,是希望大家能够重新对素描进行思考,一个旧事物再给人新感受,这种新感受帮助我们对自己的思想认识再整理,每个人通过这个展览去感受素描的本质魅力和对其创作的意义作用。素描帮助艺术家把个人情感转化为视觉表达,如画面构图、气氛烘托、人物精神刻画等。
艺报:在您的素描概念里,它是一种造型手段吗?
靳:实际上素描就是绘画最简单、最直接的绘画形式,使用任何工具都可以完成,是对造型最直观的表达,艺术家可以通过这种方式完成对空间、情绪的表达要求,它是绘画的第一步。
艺报:作为一个设计学院的老师,您如何看待设计学院的素描教育?
靳:设计和传统绘画是一个整体,绘画在几百年前也是为社会服务的,设计学院只不过是直接为社会服务的,当然这也是有其商业目的的,它把形式的东西与社会需要结合起来,所以设计也叫“实用美术”,更提倡功能性和形式性,从这个角度上说,设计与素描的关系更密切,它需要不停地画素描稿。
艺报:现在艺术包括设计越来越朝着观念性方向发展了,那素描的功用是不是也弱化了?
靳:观念虽然是一个抽象的想法,但最后还是要通过画面去实现,只不过它的目的和关注点不一样,虽说重点不在画面本身,但还是需要画面来完善。素描是一个手段,也是能力的表现,它不是仅仅把一个东西画出来,而是包涵了作者的审美情趣,对黑白灰的处理、空间的感觉、情感的触动,这是一种最基本的能力。
艺报:现在西方对素描并不那么重视了。
靳:西方的情况和我们不一样,他们对视觉艺术的认识是从小培养的,生活中信手拈来,绘画、雕塑、建筑等,素描的美学影响在很小就开始了,所以艺术教育就不是按传统模式进行了,更多地是注重其他新形式。当然这只是一部分,有些建筑设计类的专业的学生,他们的素描功底比造型专业的更强。他们的认识和能力已经融汇在生活中了。我们国家可能比较缺失这一块社会土壤,所以到了艺术院校需要更加强。
艺报:谈谈你策划的这部分“素描与创作思维”在整个展览中的意义。
靳:我们通过整理一些艺术家大型创作的素描稿,重点集中在对人物的创作上,有英雄、群众、领袖等,把握对人的认识是选取作品的一个原始方向。通过几十年的变迁,很多经典作品已经遗失了,所以我们把这些素描稿集中起来,也可以从另一角度了解这些作品。我们可以看到,素描在艺术家创作过程中的作用,他们是如何关注主题的,从哪些角度思考、认识的。就拿冯法祀先生创作的《刘胡兰就义》来说,他画了100多幅很大素描稿,对每个人物都做了很细致的刻画。老一辈的艺术家下的功夫很深,他们为了题材内容,深入生活,到与主题有关的地点考察写生、找相应的模特。画200天的作品和2个小时的作品是绝对不一样的,艺术也是要计量劳动的。
艺报:现在的艺术家似乎很少能这么沉下心来花这么多功夫。
靳:是的,现在很多人只是完成一件任务和事情,艺术还是需要真诚的,能力是一回事,但真诚是非常重要的。

殷双喜


good luck to Dave. better luck to Jim. They are all going to need it.
http://business.in.com/printcontent/28472

The Cool Maneuvers and Battle On the Net
We are living in the age of the cool maneuvers, a period of intense and sustained virtual struggle on the Internet
by Oxblood Ruffin | Sep 19, 2011

... the concept of war has become anachronistic, an outmoded approach.
- H.H. Dalai Lama

In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first satellite, Sputnik I. It was nothing short of a shock to the US and it had no choice but to retaliate, at least in terms of innovation. President Dwight Eisenhower created the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to recapture the technological lead in the arms race. The idea of a national communications network was hatched. It was designed in such a way that if one node was shut down owing to, say, a military strike, the network would stay up and running.

The ARPANET went live in 1969. Over time, universities in the United States and Europe were connected and the Internet became a sort of geeky communications medium with military network development happening quietly on the side.

Then there was a tectonic shift. Tim Berners-Lee, a British scientist, invented the World Wide Web in 1990 and changed the entire playing field. The Web represents the mainstreaming and democratisation of the Internet. As of March 2011, there were over 2 billion Internet users internationally. The Internet is a global communications medium of staggering proportions. It has become an international publishing platform, a marketplace, and a battleground.

But the fruit never falls far from the tree.

Something akin to the Cold War has re-emerged. Only, instead of the US and the Soviet Union it is now the US and China jockeying for position; defining and fighting for zones of influence; forming coalitions of nation states, and non-state actors; and, never quite boiling over.

We are living in the age of the Cool Maneuvers, a period of intense and sustained virtual struggle on the Internet. But unlike the Cold War which was animated by fear of nuclear annihilation, the Cool Maneuvers cannot be attributed to any one event or factor. Broadly speaking the information revolution has restructured society, challenged centrally managed institutions, and empowered individuals. On the Internet anyone can become powerful, and many are attempting to become so.

The threat scenarios for cyberspace are many. Cybercrime is far and away the greatest challenge to individuals through fraud and identity theft. State and corporate sponsored cyber-espionage can rock governments and corporations; some impact has also been generated in this category by cyber-activists, Anonymous being the principle practitioner.

And all of this is causing a great deal of hyperventilation. Breathless editorialists are warning of the dangers of cyberwar and digital Pearl Harbours as if these things could actually happen. The likelihood of some sort of Internet Armageddon is so unlikely that such speculations are better suited to Bollywood backlots than any serious consideration. Remember, the Cold War came about because governments realised after Hiroshima that their countries could not afford a nuclear war. By the same logic, there will be no cyber meltdown.

Just for starters, it is in no one’s interest to shut down the Internet. Cyber-criminals would do everything to keep it up and running — it’s their bread and butter. Governments need the Net to conduct cyber-espionage as do corporate players and cyber-activists. Anything other than a well-functioning Internet would be counter-productive. The entire objective is to steal sensitive data and monitor one’s political opposition.
mg_56362_cyberwar_280x210.jpg

Infographics: Vivek L. Shinde

But in a bait and switch act, governments are using the public’s fear of cybercrime and cyberwar to extend their controls over the Internet, a technology that was designed to prevent it in the first place.

Internet ‘kill switches’ are being furiously worked towards from Egypt to the US; UK wants to be able to monitor and control social networks; Danish police want to end online anonymity.

Most international governments appear to be moving to the model already prevalent in China: An Internet that is used more as a surveillance network, propaganda tool, and to control dissent. And it should be noted that China is now exporting censorship and surveillance technologies to dictators and despots around the world.

But it’s not just censorship and surveillance at which China excels. It has become a grandmaster of cyber-espionage, thieving corporate and government secrets at an alarming rate. And dirty tricks?

Last year, a Chinese telecom company ‘accidentally’ re-routed 15 percent of the world’s Internet traffic through its own servers. Official explanations of the accident reached comic proportions.

Virtual conflict extends the notion of war and requires a perceptual shift. Heretofore war was the business of nation states. It required large and well-provisioned armies and a great deal of effort to see war through. The Internet has changed all of that. It is now possible for an army of one to have a significant impact on the state of the Internet. And the troops are not necessarily all soldiers. Virtual conflict is more properly referred to as information war (infowar), essentially an umbrella term.

It is comprised of cyberwar, involving state actors, and netwar, involving non-state actors. The latter category is comprised of cyber-criminals and terrorists, and increasingly hacktivists who use technology to improve human rights. Infowar is a large and contradictory mix.

Theoretically, cyberwar is possible. Information security experts, politicians, and military strategists all say so. But what they fail to agree on is that one has actually happened. While the widely publicised Stuxnet malware was an innovative event — a kind we may see more of in the future — it was cyber-espionage. And thanks to it being unmasked and thoroughly analysed, security professionals are a step ahead, taking precautions to deflect similar probes in future.

The only countries capable of mounting true cyberwar are the nuclear powers. Not only is it difficult to project with certainty the outcome of a virtual assault. The fear of retaliation and those uncertainties also weigh on the equation. And of course there is the physical response with which to contend. A nuclear power would never enter into virtual conflict with another nuclear power. Espionage, yes. Knocking out a communications grid, never. A cyber-assault would be interpreted as the precursor of a physical war. Bombs would follow. Cyberwar at this level will not be happening. As with the Cold War, the Cool Maneuvers will generate heat but not cause a conflagration.

Canadian-born Oxblood Ruffin is a long time and old school hacker and member of the hacker group Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc). Ruffin is also a ‘hactivist’, a term he helped define, meaning the use of hacking as a tool for political protest.

Latest blog entries     Older blog entries

X
Share this page