STATEMENT TO MARIUS DE ZAYAS
Pablo Picasso
1923
我無法理解何以研究(research)在現代藝術被賦予如此重要的意義。在我看來，尋找(search)在藝術中毫無意義。發現(find)才是重點。沒有人會對一個整天只盯著地板看能否幸運地撿到錢包的人感興趣。但一個人如果發現了一個東西，無論它可能是甚麼，或甚至這個人的目的不是為了找它，那就算這個人不能贏得我們的敬意，但總是會引起我們的好奇心。
我被指控的諸多罪名中，沒有一項比這更錯誤的，那就是認定我的作品中有著研究精神 (the spirit of research)。當我作畫時，我的對象是展現我所已經找到的而不是我還在尋找的。在藝術中，光是意圖 (intentions) 是不夠的，就像我們在西班牙常說：愛不是靠理由、而是靠行動來證明的。重要的是人做了甚麼，而非他意圖去做甚麼。
我們都知道藝術非是真相 (truth)。藝術是一種謊言，它讓我們了解真相，或至少給了我們一個去了解的真相。藝術家必須知道如何透過謊言的真實性來說服他人。如果他只是在作品中表現他已經尋找過的(searched)、以及研究過的 (re-searched)，以表現他的謊言，那麼他必然一事無成。
研究(research)的概念經常讓藝術誤入歧途，也讓藝術家迷失在精神修練之中。這很可能已經是現代藝術的原則上錯誤。研究的精神已經毒害了那些還未全面了解現代藝術中正面與重要要素的藝術家，並驅使他們去畫那些不可見的 (invisible) 與其實不可繪的 (unpaintable)。
他們常將自然主義 (naturalism) 對反於現代繪畫。我很想知道，究竟誰看過藝術的自然作品 (a nature work of art)。自然與藝術，本為兩種，不可能是同一事物。我們透過藝術表現的，是我們心中而非自然所有的概念。
維拉斯奎茲 (Velazquez) 遺留給我們的是他在那個時代對於人的概念。無可置疑地這些人並不是如其所繪的樣子，但除了維拉斯奎茲的繪畫外，我們沒有其他的方式可以想像菲利浦四世的樣貌。魯本斯 (Rubens) 也為這位國王畫了頭像，但魯本斯繪的頭像看起來卻完全是另一個人。我們選擇了相信維拉斯奎茲，因為他以他有效的權力說服了我們。
從那些作品很明顯就與自然完全不同的原創性、原始性的畫家，到如大衛 (David) 、安格爾 (Ingres) 乃至於到布格羅 (Bouguereau) 這些認為將自然如其所是地畫出的畫家們，藝術永遠都是藝術而非是自然。從此觀點看來，藝術中並不存在所謂具體或是抽象的形式，而只有其謊言較有或較無說服力的形式。那些對我們心中的自我重要的謊言超越一切懷疑，因為透過它，我們塑造了看待世界的美感。
立體派 (Cubism) 與其他學派的繪畫並無任何區別。同樣的原則、同樣的元素在它們中都是普遍的。關於立體派在長時間中沒有人能夠理解，甚至沒有人沒能夠看出當中的一點端倪，這不代表甚麼。我不會英文，英文書對我來說就像無字天書。但這並不說明英語並不存在，有甚麼道理我應該去責備任何人而不是我自己，因為我無法看懂那些我看不懂的？
我也經常聽到演化 (evolution) 這個詞。不斷地有人要求我去解釋繪畫的演進。對我來說，藝術沒有過去也沒有未來。如果一個藝術作品無法永遠在當下存活，那它一定不需要被列入考慮。那些古希臘的、古埃及的、以及其他偉大的畫家活在其它的時代裡，但他們的作品永遠不屬於過去的，甚至可能在現代比在過去還要更有生命力 (more alive)。藝術自身不會演化，改變的是人的概念與表達的方式。當我聽到人講起關於一個藝術家的演化時，那聽起來就像是他們在這個藝術家前後面對面地各放了一面鏡子，映照出無限的影像，然後他們將其中一面鏡子裡連續的影像當成過去來沉思，又沉思另一面鏡子中的影像當成他的未來，卻完全無視於兩面鏡子之間、當下的他本人。他們無法理解這許多的鏡像是同一個影像在不同平面上的呈現。
變化 (variation) 並不意味著演化。如果一個藝術家改變了他的表達方式，那只表示了他改變了他的想法 (manner of thinking)，而在變化中，結果可能變好，也可能變差。
我在繪畫中所使用了許多手法並不能視為是一種演化，或是一種追求未知繪畫概念的過程。我所做過的一切都只是為了當下，並且希望它永遠被保留在當下。當我發現一個想要表達的東西時，我不會去想關於過去或是未來的問題。我不認為我在不同的手法中使用了本質上不同的元素。如果一個我想要表達的主題是需要我以不同的手法去表現的，我會毫不猶豫地採用。我從不會去做嘗試或實驗。當我有想要說的話時，我會用我感覺到它應該被陳述的手法來說話。不同的動機 (motives) 需要不同的表現方法。這與演化或進程無關，而與人所採取來表達的概念和表達概念的方式有關。
過渡的藝術 (arts of transition) 並不存在。在藝術的時間歷史中，有些時期較其它時期更為正面、更為完整。這表示某些時期的藝術家比其他時期的更好。如果藝術的歷史可以用地圖方式來呈現，就像一個護士用來標示病患體溫變化的紀錄一樣，那麼看起來會像山脈剪影一樣，並證明藝術非是上升的趨勢，而是在任何時期中都有升有降。這在同一個藝術家身上也是一樣的。
許多人以為立體派是一種過渡藝術，一種將導出某種未知結果的實驗。有這樣想法的人並沒有理解立體派。立體派既非一種種子、也非是一種胚胎，而是一種主要在處理形 (forms) 的藝術，而當一個形被理解了，形即在彼而獨立存在 (it is there to live its own life)。如一個礦物質，有其自身的幾何形態 (geometric formation)，不是為了某種轉變的目的而存在，它只是保持其所是，且永遠保持其形體 (form)。但如果我們要將演化與轉變 (transformation) 的概念放到藝術中，那我們必須承認所有的藝術都是暫時的 (transitory)。如此，則藝術反而不屬於哲學上的絕對論 (philosophic absolutisms)。若立體派是一個過渡藝術，那麼我確定它所帶來的，只是另一種型態的立體派。
數學、三角學、化學、精神分析、音樂與其他種種，都被牽扯上立體派來給予它一個較簡易的詮釋。這些全部只是純文字，不能說是無意義，至少它們成功地用理論蒙蔽了人的眼睛。
立體派保持在它自身的限度與繪畫的侷限之中，從未嘗試去超越此。在立體派中所理解與實作的手繪 (drawing)、設計、顏色，其精神與手法也被在所有其它學派中理解與實作。我們的主題可能有所不同，因為我們所繪畫的對象與型態在從前是被忽視的。我們只是保持雙眼還有頭腦明白雪亮來看待周遭。
我們竭盡我們所能見到的，來賦予形和色彩以其獨自特有的意義 (significance)；在我們的主題中，我們保持著發現 (discovery) 的樂趣、對不期而遇的愉悅；我們的主題本身必然是一個興趣的來源。但是要透過它來說明我們在做甚麼，而讓每個看到它的人，只要他想，都能看得明白，那有何意義呢？
'Picasso Speaks,' The Arts, New York, May 1923, pp. 315-26; reprinted in Alfred Barr: Picasso, New York 1946, pp. 270-1. retrived from http://www.learn.columbia.edu/monographs/picmon/pdf/art_hum_reading_49.pdf 2017/4/20.
翻譯：簡瑋麒 2017/4/20 夜 於Essen
版權所有，轉錄請先徵求作者同意。
原文：
I can hardly understand the importance given to the word research in connection with modern painting. In my opinion to search means nothing in painting. To find is the thing. Nobody is interested in following a man who, with his eyes fixed on the ground, spends his life looking for the purse that fortune should put in his path. The one who finds something no matter what it might be, even if his intention were not to search for it, at least arouses our curiosity, if not our admiration.
Among the several sins that I have been accused of, none is more false than that I have, as the principal objective in my work, the spirit of research. When I paint, my object is to show what I have found and not what I am looking for. In art intentions are not sufficient and, as we say in Spanish, love must be proved by deeds and not by reasons. What one does is what counts and not what one had the intention of doing.
We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know how to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies. If he only shows in his work that he has searched, and re-searched, for the way to put over lies, he would never accomplish anything.
The idea of research has often made painting go astray, and made the artist lose himself in mental lucubrations. Perhaps this has been the principal fault of modern art. The spirit of research has poisoned those who have not fully understood all the positive and conclusive elements in modern art and has made them attempt to paint the invisible and, therefore, the unpaintable.
They speak of naturalism in opposition to modern painting. I would like to know if anyone has ever seen a natural work of art. Nature and art, being two different things, cannot be the same thing. Through art we express our conception of what nature is not.
Velazquez left us his idea of the people of his epoch. Undoubtedly they were different from the way he painted them, but we cannot conceive a Philip IV in any other way than the one Velazquez painted. Rubens also made a portrait of the same king and in Rubens' portrait he seems to be quite another person. We believe in the one painted by Velazquez, for he convinces us by his right of might.
From the painters of the origins, the primitives, whose work is obviously different from nature, down to those artists who, like David, Ingres and even Bouguereau, believed in painting nature as it is, art has always been art and not nature. And from the point of view of art there are no concrete or abstract forms, but only forms which are more or less convincing lies. That those lies are necessary to our mental selves is beyond any doubt, as it is through them that we form our aesthetic view of life.
Cubism is no different from any other school of painting. The same principles and the same elements are common to all. The fact that for a long time cubism has not been understood and that even today there are people who cannot see anything in it, means nothing. I do not read English, an English book is a blank book to me. This does not mean that the English language does not exist, and why should I blame anybody else but myself if I cannot understand what I know nothing about?
I also often hear the word evolution. Repeatedly I am asked to explain how any painting evolved. To me there is no past or future in art. If a work of art cannot live always in the present it must not be considered at all. The art of the Greeks, of the Egyptians, of the great painters who lived in other times, is not an art of the past; perhaps it is more alive today than it ever was. Art does not evolve by itself, the ideas of people change and with them their mode of expression. When I hear people speak of the evolution of an artist, it seems to me that they are considering him standing between two mirrors that face each other and reproduce his image an infinite number of times, and that they contemplate the successive images of one mirror as his past, and the images of the other mirror as his future, while his real image is taken as his present. They do not consider that they are all the same images in different planes.
Variation does not mean evolution. If an artist varies his mode of expression this only means that he has changed his manner of thinking, and in changing, it might be for the better or it might be for the worse.
The several manners I have used in my art must not be considered as an evolution, or as steps toward an unknown ideal of painting. All I have ever made was made for the present and with the hope that it will always remain in the present. When I have found something to express, I have done it without thinking of the past or of the future. I do not believe I have used radically different elements in the different manners I have used in painting. If the subjects I have wanted to express have suggested different ways of expression I have never hesitated to adopt them. I have never made trials or experiments. Whenever I had something to say, I have said it in the manner in which I have felt it ought to be said. Different motives inevitably require different methods of expression. This does not imply either evolution or progress, but an adaption of the idea one wants to express and the means to express that idea.
Arts of transition do not exist. In the chronological history of art there are periods which are more positive, more complete than others. This means that there are periods in which there are better artists than in others. If the history of art could be graphically represented, as in a chart used by a nurse to mark the changes of temperature of her patient, the same silhouettes of mountains would be shown, proving that in art there is no ascendant progress, but that it follows certain ups and downs that might occur at any time. The same occurs with the work of an individual artist.
Many think that cubism is an art of transition, an experiment which is to bring ulterior results. Those who think that way have not understood it. Cubism is not either a seed or a foetus, but an art dealing primarily with forms, and when a form is realized it is there to live its own life. A mineral substance, having geometric formation, is not made so for transitory purposes, it is to remain what it is and will always have its own form. But if we are to apply the law of evolution and transformation to art, then we have to admit that all art is transitory. On the contrary, art does not enter into these philosophic absolutisms. If cubism is an art of transition I am sure that the only thing that will come out of it is another form of cubism.
Mathematics, trigonometry, chemistry, psychoanalysis, music and what-not, have been related to cubism to give it an easier interpretation. All this has been pure literature, not to say nonsense, which has only succeeded in blinding people with theories.
Cubism has kept itself within the limits and limitations of painting, never pretending to go beyond it. Drawing, design and colour are understood and practised in cubism in the spirit and manner in which they are understood and practised in all other schools. Our subjects might be different, as we have introduced into painting objects and forms that were formerly ignored. We have kept our eyes open to our surroundings, and also our brains.
We give to form and colour all their individual significance, as far as we can see it; in our subjects, we keep the joy of discovery, the pleasure of the unexpected; our subject itself must be a source of interest. But of what use is it to say what we do when everybody can see it if he wants to?
沒有留言:
張貼留言