文/丁博
财富堂（后简称“FA”）：也许我们可以先从你在中国的经验开始。我知道你去年在上海的昊美术馆曾经举办过一场个展，前段时间又在成都参与了保时捷主办的活动，我很好奇，你和中国的缘分是怎么开始的？
丹尼尔·阿尔轩（Daniel Arsham，后简称“DA”）：我以前也来过中国，但是第一次在中国大陆举办展览就是在你刚提到的昊美术馆。在过去的几年间，通过社交媒体上的互动，我发现一些中国的观众开始愿意了解甚至收藏我的作品。此外，一些重要的收藏方也开始联系我的画廊，并表达了他们对作品的兴趣。
昊美术馆的展览最让我感到印象深刻的事情，就是观众——特别是年轻观众——所表现出的极大热情。这场展览也许是我迄今为止举办过的最大的实体展览之一，上海的展览空间也相当大，但是那次开幕的情形却是我在美国完全没有体验过的。当时差不多有一万人参与了开幕，而这在美国是极少出现的情况，所以我确实被中国观众的热情震憾到了。
我认为，这是一群非常愿意去参与并理解艺术的年轻人，而且他们进入艺术的方式也与我在欧美国家接触过的观众有所不同。对中国的观众来说，艺术似乎更加是一种娱乐，也是他们可以比较自在地去参与的事情。而在西方，艺术似乎总会带着某种“历史的重量”，这对年轻观众来说，也许会是一种阻碍。
FA：让我印象深刻的是当时你建立的那间实验室，这个想法是怎么产生的呢？
DA：多年来，我一直在研究“虚构的考古学”这个概念。我把当下的物件被投射到未来的时空，以搅乱我们对时间的理解。所以，虽然我们在作品里看到的是一个我们熟识并可能拥有的物件，但它给我们的感觉却好像是从未来穿梭回来的一般：我们似乎身处万年之后，正在揭开它们的变化。我一直在设想这些物件被发现时的挖掘现场，所以便在美术馆里创建了一个非常完整的勘探现场，包括了各种设备、挖掘区域以及一个用于将物件分类处理的实验室。这一过程也因此具有了一定的表演性。这些物件每天都会被慢慢地挖掘出来，而到了晚上又会被重置或重新填埋。我和当地艺术学院的一些学生合作创造了这个虚构的场景，而这也为他们提供了一种了解作品以及美术馆的特殊方式。
FA：那么观众是如何参与到这个过程里的呢？
DA：我们使用了老式的复写纸来制作实验室的单据，并邀请观众在参观完成后写下自己的观察与感受。这些单据的首联被美术馆留作展示，成为展览的一部分，并借此将每日前来的观众也容纳进入作品之中。
FA：这里面有没有令你印象深刻的留言呢？
DA：当时我并没有直接表达自己的用意，作品的呈现也非常务实。这件作品是关于时间转移的，而很多观众的观察也都是在猜测这种未来的可能。如果说，我所创造的这些场景可以让当下的物件被传送到未来的话，人们往往都会产生一个疑问：这是什么时候？我是不是已经去世了？这是不是我身后的时代？这会引发人们的困惑，也将吸引他们去思考。
FA：我听过你在 Cooper Union 的讲演，其中介绍到了“未来遗迹”（Future Relics）这一系列作品。我很好奇，你一开始是怎样思考时间与历史的？有时如何开始尝试影响人们对时间的感知？为什么会想到要通过对物件的改变，来回应这些议题呢？
DA：从很早的时候开始，我就希望自己的作品可以不去描绘某个特定的时期。实际上，我在学校里受到的训练是绘画，而非雕塑。而我早期的许多画作，描绘的都是带有建筑或人造结构的景观。但它们都没有明确的时间印记，因为画中没有人物，也没有任何可以被识别的时间线索。这些作品成功地打开了解读的可能性。作为一名艺术家，我总是认为最好的作品不会回答任何问题，而是要引发提问。所以，当一件作品可以允许观众去提问，去思考发生了什么、自己的经验与作品有什么联系的时候，这才是艺术体验的应有之意。
“未来遗迹”这个想法最早开始于十多年前。当时，我参观了地处南太平洋的复活节岛。那是一个与世隔绝的地方，并以岛上的巨像而闻名。岛上的文明在15、16世纪左右便没落了，而人们至今仍未探知个中原因。这就让我想到，当我们以一个全球性的视角看待历史的时候，当我们通过博物馆或艺术史的书籍了解过去的时候，呈现出来的观察往往是盖棺定论式的。比如，古希腊、古罗马时期的事件往往借由各种物件被描述成为某种“事实”。而在复活节岛，考古学家们关于当地文明没落的原因仍然莫衷一是。我很喜欢“坚硬真相”下的这种裂缝，它告诉我们，考古学其实也是一种艺术：我们当然不可能真的知道一万、五千、甚至两千年前的事情，一切都是推测。而艺术家的职责之一，就是描绘那些近在眼前却又总被熟视无睹的事物。通过把当下的物件投射到未来，我便可以创造出这种缝隙。
当时我正在为一本书创作一系列绘画，因此在岛上待了不短的时间，并走访了许多游客通常不会去的地方，其中就包括当地的一个垃圾场。因为这个岛实在太与世隔绝了，所以根本不值当把这些垃圾运走。我当时就想，千年之后，岛上的那些古代雕像与现在被扔在岛上的汽车、电脑或是别的什么技术物之间的时间距离将会被缩短，而这种时间的坍缩会激起各种奇怪的问题。因此，当我们从过去的角度来看待事物的时候，我们在时间长河中的位置就决定了我们所构建的故事。这让我好奇，自己能否对考古学进行反向工程，能否发明一种未来的考古学。
FA：这让我想到两件事。第一，我知道有一些艺术家也在试图回应你刚刚提到的那种确定性的历史，而他们的方法往往是去记录看似无关紧要的日常生活，并试图颠覆原有的历史书写的权力：如果有足够多的人在书写历史，那么历史就可能存在多种叙述与解读。所以，当你在讲演中提到，自己希望选择那些可以被不同文化所识别的物件时，其中是否也存在着一种记录的愿望呢？第二，你所选择的这些物件，大多是所谓的“科技物”（比如体现了科技进步的相机、电脑等），但这种选择似乎是从“科技创造者”的角度完成的，而不是“科技使用者”的角度。比如，扫帚也许是和磁卡一样普遍——甚至更加普遍的——物件。另外，你作品中出现的很多物件也是带有品牌属性的，而它们又与消费主义紧密相关。这其中的关系颇为复杂，我很想听听你是怎么想的。
DA：你提到的那个扫帚的类比很有意思，因为你说的没错，我确实希望去挑选那些带有普遍性的物件，它们可能出现在中国、纽约、布鲁塞尔、澳大利亚或其他任何地方。但不同之处在于，我要找的是可以标记某个特定时间的物件。如果我拿给你十把不同的扫帚，一样也是被侵蚀的样子，你可能就无法告诉我它们分别是在什么时代生产的。其中一把可能是现在的，另外一把可能是两百年前的，但它们可能看上去却区别不大。而与此相对的，一台苹果的Macintosh 电脑很明确地就是1980年代的产物。同样地逻辑也适用于那些文化物件，比如篮球的出现也有其相对明确的时间线。这样，一个物件就与一个特定时间联系了起来。我认为这是有必要的，因为当你试图引导观众进入未来的时候，你需要一个锚点；你可以制造一定程度的不确定，但这种不确定也需要被控制。
FA：我刚刚想的是你说到的那种“时间坍缩”现象会让物件的时间属性变得模糊，但你说的也很有道理，这种不确定感确实需要一定的控制。我还想再提一点，就是那些古代雕像在生产的时候，便意欲长久存续，它们也许与宗教或仪式相关，本身就是面向未来之物。但我强烈地感受到，如今大规模生产的物件，往往并不再在意持久性。它们在设计之初，就是为了消费、消亡、消失的。那么从未来的视角去看，你如何处理这些物件在未来可能不复存在的可能性呢？
DA：物质材料在我的作品中一直扮演着关键的角色。比如我所制作的电脑或者篮球，我其实可以直接使用现成的物件，将它们打破再绘制成朽坏的样子。从观众的角度来看，这样做也许区别不大。但我的做法是，先制作原始物件的模型，再用水晶、火山灰等地质材料重塑该物件。当我们去看一件从古代流传下来的物件时，材料是很重要的一个因素：不管是青铜、赤陶，还是陶土、大理石，那种材料的物理状况会显示该物件的年龄。而水晶的形成也需要很久的时间。虽然它们常常呈现为一种正在朽坏的样子，但另外一种解读则是它们实际正在成长为某种完整的形态。这也是一种时间的滑动，有可能是向后滑动，也就是一种分解；也有可能是向前滑动，也就是正在成型。
FA：我想继续聊聊你的工作方法。我能感觉到你有一个很有能力的工作室，可以照顾到所有的细节。你曾说展览的体验和作品本身一样重要，那么你的展览是不是一直是自己设计的呢？如果是和某位策展人合作或者参加某个群展的话，你会如何维持一贯的展览体验呢？
DA：我的工作室里有一名全职的展览设计师，而他的职责就是设计建筑空间、灯光以及所有作品之外的展览元素。昊美术馆就是一个很好的例子，因为我当时几乎重建了整个美术馆，从灯光、天花板，到入口乃至整个展览的动线，都做了重新的设计。我们在入口处搭建了一个类似迷宫的结构，有一排凿开孔洞的墙壁。你会看到别的观众正穿梭其中，所以观众也就变成了作品的一部分，并向你展现了你即将体验到的东西。同时，它也放缓了观众的脚步，因为他们必须来回穿行才能通过。而与之相对的，在勘探挖掘区的天花板就会比较低。此外，我也特别设计了展览的光线与声音环境，而这些因素都会影响作品最终的呈现效果。
FA：独立艺术家往往自己决定与作品相关的所有问题，那么你和团队的工作关系是怎样的？是你告诉他们要做什么，还是他们向你提议？
DA：工作室里的很多成员都是和我一起工作多年的员工，而我也有自己一套独特的展览语言。所以他们确实会根据对我的了解来向我提议。而在其他一些方面，我仍然是完全是靠自己完成的，比如任何人都不会插手我的绘画作品。当然，不少雕塑作品确实不可能只靠一个人完成。以昊美术馆的展览为例，勘探实验室所遵循的都是我多年来发展出的一套设计语言，而我的工作室团队对此早已了然于心。
FA：这么说来，已经有支持团队的你是怎么和画廊进行合作的呢？
DA：你知道，我主要合作的画廊是贝浩登，而且我们已经合作超过 20 年的时间了，这已经是我的大半辈子了。所以我和他们之间存在着一种特别的关系，我在这个过程中和他们一起成长，他们也对我的作品有着极深的理解。他们也有自己的展览设计师，如果展览不是我来设计的话，也许他们就会去帮忙。
FA：你还与另一位建筑师合作了一个建筑设计与产品设计的工作室 Snarkitecture，你是如何平衡这两个相互独立的实践呢？
DA：Snarkitecture 在创立之初主要是为了实现我手头上的一些需要建筑思维的项目。所以一开始的时候，我们的项目会比较贴合我自己的风格。但随后这一实践逐渐发展出了自己的立足点、客户与语言。现在它也集合了许多优秀的设计师，而他们每个人也都将自己的理念融入了我们所创造的这个小宇宙。就像我自己的工作室那样，这些设计理念往往可以用特定项目中某种材料的限制来进行总结，比如缺少颜色，或者更准确地说是缺少颜色的变化，所以我们的项目往往会表现出某种单一材料的颜色。我很高兴能够看到这一实践的发展，因为我本人并不是一名建筑师，所以我对日常设计细节的介入相对较少，主要参与的是项目的观念构建。我的角色有点像是这些设计方案的评论人，会在某些方面进行提点。工作室最近的一些项目正在实现我们一开始想要做的事情，对此我感到很欣慰。
FA：你们的项目一般都会有一个客户么？
DA：对，Snarkitecture 是一个设计工作室，我们做了很多与零售业相关的项目，比如我们与一家纽约的品牌 Kith 就有过很多次合作。最近我们还在日本东京设计了一间新的餐厅，那也是很有意思的一个项目。
FA：那么你是如何在满足客户需求的同时，保持自己的艺术原则与设计理念呢？你是如何获得客户的信任，让自己的方案得到认可呢？
DA：我觉得现在与我们接触的客户一般都看过我们之前的项目，也喜欢我们的设计语言，所以我们在美学方面的沟通不会太有挑战。
FA：说起你与许多不同品牌的合作项目，你曾经在别的场合提到过，有些人会说这些品牌是在利用你的创意产出，而你却认为自己也在利用他们的渠道让自己的表达被更多人看到。我觉得你的这个解释很有启发，同时也很想了解，你希望借助这些渠道去传达的是什么内容？以及这样的渠道是否也会对内容有一定的限制？
我们不得不承认的是，媒介本身会影响借助这一媒介进行表达的内容，某些媒介渠道可能就是更加适合某类特定的内容。比如在中国，现在比较流行的媒介就是直播，很多品牌都在找主播合作，不少艺术机构或者艺术家都希望能借助直播的渠道来传播自己的作品，但是这些项目的效果并不一定总是理想。我想知道你在进行这类合作的时候是如何考虑的。
DA：我最早合作过的比较重要且具有国际影响力的品牌就是阿迪达斯，但这和艺术的距离很远。因为我从小就喜欢球鞋，也很迷耐克和阿迪达斯。有趣的是，一开始我收到的否定都是来自所谓的主流艺术圈，他们质疑我的做法，还说怎么能让这个商业品牌利用我的作品来卖鞋子。而我的真实感受却是：这是一个伴随我长大的品牌，它对我来说很重要，同时我也知道它对其他人的意义。所以和他们的合作，就和我在作品里引用篮球或者电脑是一样的。我个人认为，相比于其他品牌，美术馆和画廊在与普通观众的沟通方面做得还不够好。所以，我只是觉得自己做了一双还不错的球鞋，即使它和艺术毫无关系。可能有些艺术家会专注于某个特定的领域，整天待在工作室里思索自己作品的意义，但我不会这样，我对生活中的方方面面都感兴趣。
所以，从那个项目得到的反馈让我明白了几件事情，其中一条就是，艺术世界在拓展受众方面其实是有些落后的。实际上，从某种角度来说，他们也并不在乎那些喜欢球鞋的观众。而我的作品却想要与观众互动，而且是越多越好。
我的下一个重要的合作项目是 Rimowa，他们是一家知名的德国行李箱品牌，也是我本身就很喜欢、也经常在旅行中使用的产品。他们在设计行李箱时，就希望产品能够持久耐用，而行李箱上的磕碰与划痕也就成了你旅行的记忆。而我们也利用类似的方式，让观众进入到艺术作品之中。我与迪奥以及保时捷的合作也同样如此，希望能够拓展观众的人群。我们可以先用某样东西吸引他们，等他们来了之后，就会进入另一个艺术的宇宙，他们也就可能因此去关注那些与之前那样东西完全无关的其他展览。
FA：我感觉关于艺术家与公众的关系这个问题，存在两种看法。一种看法认为艺术家应该具有批判性，并敢于成为那个“不受欢迎”的人；另一种看法则认为那些边缘艺术家之所以如此愤怒，正是因为他们没有得到自己想要的关注。我相信没有一个创作者是真的不希望自己的作品被更多人看到的。你刚刚的回答也触及到一个很重要的问题，那就是艺术世界似乎一直有着自己的一套评价与流通系统，这一系统与商业世界有着很大的不同。
DA：我会说那也是一种商业，只是它们会故意把自己封闭起来。
FA：说得没错。而你却是一名在两边都取得了不俗成绩的艺术家，你懂得如何利用商业世界的资源，来让自己的作品被更多人看到和讨论。这其实需要一种特别的能力，也是一项非常具体的工作：如何与客户沟通、如何让他们理解你的想法、如何统一双方的利益、如何对最终结果取得共识。
DA：这里很关键的一点就是，在我上面提到的所有合作项目中，每次在对方的公司里总有一个我认识、尊重且信任的人。其实这些年来，也有不少其他的机会找到我，表示了与我合作的兴趣，但如果我不知道结果是否能如我所愿，就会拒绝他们。实际上，可能有机会合作的项目要远远比我们最终实现的项目多。此外，我合作过的品牌也都原本就是我生活的一部分。比如我从小就很喜欢保时捷的汽车，后来又因机缘巧合认识了他们公司的某位高层，于是才有了我们长达两三年的合作项目。
另外值得一提的是，我合作的这些项目即使是对品牌方来说，也是相当激进的——如果你能看到保时捷高管听到我的计划后的表情的话，你就明白了（笑）。合作方能否给予足够的自由，对我来说也是很重要的。
FA：你的一些作品似乎是介于设计品与艺术品之间的，你觉得两者的区别是什么？或者说，你是否在做这种区分？
DA：对我来说，这主要取决于最终的使用者。再拿迪奥那个项目举例，我们当时做了很多可被视作是消费品的东西。但是时间有可能会让这些东西最终变成艺术品。我也保存了一套完整的产品，并用艺术品的方式对它们进行归档与保存。这并不代表我认为这些作品现在就很重要，可以被放在美术馆里展示。但是如果我们在三十年后回看我的整个艺术实践的话，它们可能会是很有趣的作品。不管它们算不算艺术品，它们都可以展现我为了与观众沟通所做的选择以及作品对大众文化与艺术的融合。
FA：也许我们还可以从收藏的角度来看这个问题。现在有很多人在对待球鞋与玩具的时候，不仅是在“购买”，而且是真的在“收藏”。
DA：我可能也是其中一员。但不同之处在于，我拥有的每一双球鞋，我都真的会穿。它们对我来说曾经是难以获得的东西，现在我也会好好的收藏并照料它们，就像我对待其他重要的物件（比如艺术品）一样。
FA：最后，可以跟我们分享一下你最近在思考些什么嘛？
DA：当然，和所有人一样，我也在关注新冠肺炎的疫情。此次疫情对世界的影响很深，但同时也让我们所有人不得不放慢脚步，重新思考自己在这个世界中的位置。而它给我带来的一个重要机会，就是重新回到工作室去作画。在过去这些年间，我只能零星地创作绘画作品；而我上一次展出绘画作品都已经是2012年的事了。这其中一个原因就是，我在绘画的时候总是会被旅行与其他事情打断。对某些作品来说，我可能需要一个月的时间来完成。而如果我在这期间离开的时间太长，作品的某些品质就会遗失掉了。所以我在过去六个月里创作的绘画可能比我过去十年做的都要多。能够在这段时间里重新回顾那些重要的东西，也算是不幸中的一丝慰藉了。
Interview/Text by Bruce Ding
FortuneArt (FA): Maybe we can start with your experience in China. I know you had a solo exhibition at How Art Museum in Shanghai last year, and participated in an event hosted by Porsche in Chengdu shortly before. I am wondering, how did your connect with China begin?
Daniel Arsham (DA): Sure. So I had been in China before. But the first time that I had an exhibition in mainland China was the exhibition at How as you mentioned. In the past few years, through interactions on social media, I found that some Chinese audiences are willing to learn about or even collect my works. In addition, some collectors also contacted my gallery and expressed their interest in my works. What struck me prominently about the How’s exhibition was the great enthusiasm shown by the audience, especially the young audience. This exhibition at How was probably one of the largest exhibitions I’ve made physically.
The exhibition space in Shanghai is also quite large, but the opening scene is something I have never experienced in the US. At that time, almost 10,000 people showed up in the opening, and this is a rare occurrence in the US, so I was really shocked by the level of interest for the works from the Chinese audiences.
FA: What impressed me was the laboratory you established at the time. How did this idea come about?
DA: I had been working through these ideas surrounding a kind of ‘fictional archaeology’ concept for many years. I project the objects of the moment into the future space and time to confuse our understanding of time. Therefore, although what we see in the work is an object that we are familiar with and may own, it feels like a time travel back from the future: we seem to be uncovering their changes after 10,000 years. I have been imagining the excavation site when these objects were discovered, so I created a very complete exploration site in the art gallery, including various equipment, excavation areas, and a laboratory for classifying objects. And in that way, it also became sort of performances. These objects are slowly excavated every day, and at night they will be reburied or refilled. I worked with a number of students from the local art college to sort of create this fiction with them and give them another way to engage with the work in the museum really in a special way.
FA: How does the audience participate in this process?
DA: We customed old-fashioned carbon copy sheets to make laboratory receipts, and invited the audiences to write down their observations and feelings after the visit. The first couplet of these documents was reserved by the museum for display and became a part of the exhibition, and thereby accommodates the daily audience into the works.
FA: Are there any messages from the audiences that impress you?
DA: I didn't express my intentions directly at the time, and the presentation of the works was also very pragmatic. This work is about time shift, and many viewers' observations are also speculating about this possibility in the future. If it is said that these scenarios I have created can allow the objects of the moment to be transmitted to the future, people often have a question: when did this happen? Am I dead? Is this the era behind me? It can create these sort of confusing notions around our own experience of life that I think can be provocative for people.
FA: I have listened to your talk at Cooper Union, in which you introduced the series of "Future Relics". And I was just wondering, how did you think about time and history in the first place? How do you start to try to influence people's perception of time? why are you trying to address this issue through the manipulation of objects?
DA: From a very early time, I hope that my works can not depict a specific period. In fact, the training I received in school was painting, not sculpture. And a lot of my early paintings depicted landscapes with architecture, or human construction that floated in time. But none of them have a clear time stamp, because there are no people in the painting, and there is no time clue that can be identified. These works successfully opened up the possibility of interpretation. As an artist, I always think that the best work will not answer any questions, but will provoke questions. Therefore, when the works can allow viewers to question what is happening where their own life experience fits to the work. This is actually where the kind of experience of artwork should lie in.
The idea of ‘future relics’ initially began more than ten years ago. At that time, I visited Easter Island in the South Pacific. It's famous for these massive statues. The civilization on this island collapsed sometime in the 15th or 16th century, and people have not yet ascertained the reason. This makes me think that when we look at history from a global perspective, when we learn about the past through museums or art history books, the observations presented are often definitive. For example, events in ancient Greece and Rome are often presented as ‘facts’ through various objects. And on Easter Island, there is heavy disagreement between archaeologists about the events surrounding the collapse of that civilization. I really like this kind of break under the ‘hard truth’. It tells us that archaeology is actually a kind of art: of course we can't really know things ten, five thousand, or even two thousand years ago. Everything is speculation. And one of the duties of an artist is to depict things that are close in front of them but are always ignored. By taking these objects from now and projecting them into the future, I'm able to create those breaks.
At that time, I was creating a series of paintings for a book, so I spent a long time on the island and visited many places that most tourists would not normally visit, one of the places that I happened to pass by was the town where all the trash is sent. Because this island is so isolated from the world, it is not worth transporting the trash away. I thought at the time that after a thousand years, the time distance between the ancient statues on the island and the cars, computers, or other technical objects thrown on the island will be shortened, and this time collapse will stimulate all kinds of strange problems arise. Therefore, when we look at things from the perspective of the past, our position in the long period of time determines the story we build. This makes me wonder whether I can reverse engineer archaeology and invent a future archeology.
FA: It makes me think about two things. First of all, I know that some artists are also trying to respond to the kind of deterministic history you just mentioned, and their method is often to record seemingly irrelevant daily life and try to subvert the original power of historical writing. : So then if there are many people get to write about the history that history can have multiple narrative that have multiple interpretations. So, when you talked about that you want to choose objects that can be recognized by different cultures, is that also a sort of intention to kind of doing a bit of documentation or of the current? Secondly, most of the objects you choose are so-called ‘technological objects’ (such as cameras and computers that reflect technological progress), but this selection seems to be done from the perspective of creators, not the perspective of technology users. For example, broomsticks may be as common — or even more common — objects as magnetic cards. In addition, many of the objects in your works also have brand attributes, and they are closely related to consumerism. The relationship here is quite complicated, and I would love to hear what you think.
DA：The analogy of the broom you mentioned is very interesting, because you are right, that I look to select objects which have a kind of universal quality. It's an object that you might find in China, in New York, in Brazil, right in Australia. However, the difference in the object of the selection that I'm trying to make is - I'm looking for objects that mark a particular moment in time. If I handed you ten different broomsticks, and they were all sort of cast and an eroded, it might not be possible for you to tell me when the brooms were made. One of them may be modern, and the other may be two hundred years ago, but they may not look very different. In contrast, an Apple Macintosh computer is definitely a product of the 1980s. The same logic applies to those cultural objects. For example, the appearance of basketball also has a relatively clear timeline. In this way, an object is identified and located in a particular era. I think this is necessary because when you are trying to guide the audience into the future, you need an anchor; you can create a certain degree of uncertainty, but this uncertainty also needs to be controlled.
FA: I was thinking about what you just say about the easter islands and how objects are compressed into a moment of time, which would make the time attribute of an object obscure. But I think you're definitely right, this kind of uncertainty does require a certain amount of control. I would like to mention one more point, that is, when those ancient statues were produced, they intended to last for a long time. They may be related to religion or rituals, and they are built with the intention that could be passed on to the future. But I feel strongly that nowadays mass-produced objects often no longer care about durability. They were designed to consume, die, and disappear at the beginning of their design. So from the perspective of the future, how do you deal with the possibility that these objects may no longer exist in the future?
DA: Material in my work has always played a critical role. For example, for the computers or basketballs I make, I can actually use ready-made objects directly, break them and draw them into a decayed or older look. From the audience's point of view, this may not make much difference. But my approach is to first make a model of the original object, and then reshape the object with geological materials such as crystals and volcanic ash. When we look at an object handed down from ancient times, the material is a very important factor: whether it is bronze, terracotta, clay or marble, the physical condition of that material will show the age of the object. The formation of entropy also takes a long time. Although they often appear to be decayed, another interpretation is that they are actually growing into a complete form. This is also a kind of sliding in time. It may be sliding backward, which is a decomposition; it may also be sliding forward, which is growing together to a kind of completion.
FA: I want to continue to talk about your working methods. I can feel that you have a very capable studio; Because everything's looks like it has been done to a perfection. You once said that the experience of the exhibition is as important as the work itself, so have you always designed your exhibition? If you are collaborating with a certain curator or participating in a group exhibition, how will you maintain a consistent exhibition experience?
DA: There is a full-time exhibition designer in my studio, and his responsibility is to design the architectural space, lighting, and exhibition elements other than all works. How Art Museum is a good example, because I almost rebuilt the entire museum to create that show the lighting, the ceiling, the way that you entered. the whole experience of moving through an exhibition. We built a maze-like structure at the entrance, with a row of walls with holes. When you enter it, you can see people actually moving through it, so the audience becomes part of the work and shows you what you are about to experience. At the same time, it also slows down the audience's pace, because they have to walk back and forth to pass. In contrast, the ceiling in the exploration and excavation site will be relatively low. In addition, I also specially designed the light and sound environment of the exhibition, and these factors will affect the final presentation of the work.
FA: Individual artists often decide all issues related to the work by themselves, so what is your working relationship with the team? Did you tell them what to do, or did they suggest to you?
DA: Many members in the studio are employees who have worked with me for many years, and I’ve also built my own set of exhibition language. So they will indeed suggest to me based on what they know about me. In other aspects, I still do it entirely by myself. For example, no one will touch my paintings. Of course, many sculptures cannot be done by one person. Taking the exhibition at How Art Museum as an example, the exploration laboratory followed a set of design language that I developed over the years, and my studio team already has the feeling in a perception about the day they carry on.
FA: So, how did you cooperate with the gallery?
DA: You know, my main gallery is Perrotin, and we have been cooperating for more than 20 years. This has been more than half of my life. So I have a special relationship with that team. I grew up with them in this process, and they also have a deep understanding of my work. They also have their own exhibition designers. If the exhibition is not designed by me, maybe they will help.
FA: You also have an architectural and a product design studio called ‘Snarkitecture’ in collaboration with another artist. How do you balance these two independent practices?
DA: When Snarkitecture was founded, it was mainly to realize some of the projects I had on hand that required architectural thinking. So at the beginning, our project will fit my own style. But then this practice gradually developed its own foothold, customers and language. Now it also gathers many outstanding designers, and each of them has blended their own ideas into the small universe we have created. Just like my own studio, these design concepts can often be characterized by the limitations of a certain material in a particular project, such as the lack of color, or more accurately the lack of variation of color, so our projects often show the color of a very singular material. I am very happy to see the development of this practice, because I am not an architect myself, so I’m relatively less involved in the details of daily design, mainly involved in the concept construction of the project. My role is a bit like a reviewer of these designs, and I will raise some points in some aspects. Some of the studio's recent projects are achieving what we wanted to do in the beginning, and I am very pleased with this.
FA: Does your project normally have a customer?
DA: Yes, Snarkitecture is a design studio. We’ve done a lot of projects for hospitality. For example, we have cooperated many times with a New York brand called Kith. Recently we also designed a new restaurant in Tokyo, Japan, which is also a very interesting project.
FA: So how do you maintain your own artistic principles and design concepts while meeting customer needs? How do you gain the trust of your customers and make your plan recognized?
DA: I think the customers who are in contact with us now generally have seen our previous projects and like our design language, so our aesthetic communication will not be too challenging.
FA: Speaking of your cooperation projects with many different brands, you have mentioned on other occasions that some people will say that these brands are using your creative output, but you think you are also using their channels to make your expression was seen by more people. I think this explanation of yours is very enlightening, and at the same time I want to know, what do you hope to convey through these channels? And will such channels also have certain restrictions on content?
What we have to admit is that the medium itself will affect the content expressed through this medium, and certain media channels may be more suitable for certain types of content. And here in China, for instance, now the most popular channel for communication is the live streaming platform. Many brands are looking for broadcasters to cooperate. Many art institutions or artists hope to use live streaming channels to spread their works, but the effects of these projects are not always ideal. I want to know how you think about this type of cooperation.
DA: The most important and internationally influential brand I first worked with was Adidas, but it is far from art. Because I have been fond of sneakers since I was a child, and I was a fan of Nike and Adidas. One of the things that I experienced in the beginning was actually the rejection from the mainstream art world about my collaboration with how could you allow this sneaker brand to be using your work to sell sneakers. But my real feeling is: this is a brand that grew up with me, and it means as much to me and I know what it means to other people of my generation. So working with them is the same as quoting basketball or computers in my work. I actually think museums and galleries do a terrible job of reaching mass audience, worse than other types of brands. My feeling was I created a sneaker, which I thought was a great sneaker not having necessarily anything to do with art. Maybe some artists will focus on a certain field and stay in the studio all day to think about the meaning of their work, but I don't do that. I am interested in all aspects of life.
So, the reaction of that initial project told me a couple things. One was that the art world was sort of behind the curve in terms of thinking about how to reach audience. In fact, from a certain perspective, they don't care about audiences who like sneakers. But my work wants to interact with the audience, and the more the better.
My next important cooperation project is Rimowa. They are a well-known German luggage brand, and they are also products that I like very much and often use in travel. When they design the suitcase, they hope that the product will be durable, and bumps and scratches on the suitcase will become your travel memory. And we also use a similar method to let the audience enter the works of art. I have the same reason for my cooperation with Dior and Porsche, which is to expand the audience. We can first attract them with something, and when they come, they will enter another artistic universe, and they may therefore pay attention to other exhibitions that have nothing to do with the previous thing.
FA: I feel like there's two views of how the artists who have a relationship with public. One view is that artists should be critical and dare to be the ‘unwelcome’ person; another view is that the reason why marginal artists are so angry is precisely because they don't get the attention they want. I believe that no creator really does not want his work to be seen by more people. And also I think you touch a very important and actually critical point of conventionally art has its own evaluation and circulation system, which is very different from the business.
DA: I would say that it is also a kind of business, but they will deliberately close themselves
FA: That's right. But you are doing very good on both sides. You're leveraging this business side of the circulation system and to get people discuss and wanted to get into your works. This actually requires a special ability and a very specific job: how to communicate with customers, how to make them understand your ideas, how to unify the interests of both parties, and how to reach a consensus on the final result.
DA: I think the critical thing here about all of those collaborations is, there was somebody at those companies that I knew and respected and trusted. And there are many other opportunities that have come up which the entity or the brand was very interesting to me. But I didn't feel that the result was going to be what I wanted. And I turned those down.
In fact, there may be far more projects that have the opportunity to cooperate than the ones we finally realize. In addition, the brands I have worked with are originally part of my life. For example, I have liked Porsche cars since I was a kid, and later I met a certain senior of their company by chance, so we have a two- to three-year cooperation project.
It’s also worth mentioning that the projects I’ve worked with are quite radical even for the brand side-if you can see the expressions of Porsche executives after hearing my plan, you will understand (laughs) . Whether the partner can give enough freedom is also very important to me.
FA: Some of your works seem to be between design and artwork. What do you think about the difference between the two? In other words, are you making the distinction between design and artwork?
DA: For me, it mainly depends on the end user. Take the Dior project as an example. We did a lot of things that could be considered consumer goods. But time may turn these things into works of art. I also preserved a complete set of products, and archived and preserved them in the form of artworks. This does not mean that I think these works are important now and can be displayed in art museums. But if we look back at my entire art practice thirty years later, they may be very interesting works. Regardless of whether they are considered artworks, they can show the choices I made to communicate with the audience and the integration of popular culture and art.
FA: Maybe we can also look at this issue from the perspective of collection. Nowadays, when many people treat sneakers and toys, they are not only ‘purchasing’ but also ‘collecting’ them.
DA: I may also be one of them. But the difference is that I can really wear every pair of sneaker I own. They used to be difficult to obtain for me, and now I will also collect and take care of them, just like I treat other important objects (such as artworks).
FA: Finally, can you share with us what you are thinking about recently?
DA: Of course, like everyone else, I am also concerned about the COVID-19 epidemic. The impact of the epidemic on the world is profound, but it also makes us all have to slow down and rethink our place in this world. And an important opportunity it brought me was to return to the studio to paint. In the past few years, I can only create paintings sporadically; and the last time I exhibited paintings was in 2012. One of the reasons for this is that I am always interrupted by travel and other things when I am painting. For some works, it may take me a month to complete. And if I leave for too long during this period, some marks of the work will be lost. So I've made more paintings in the last six months than I have probably in the last almost 10 years. Being able to review those important things during this period of time is also a bit of comfort in such misfortune.