Chapter 97 Chapter 17 The Avant-Garde Is Dead—Art After 1950 2

2 But what happened in the art world? At first glance, the most impressive changes are probably the following two: First, after the period of catastrophe, the development of high art in the world has undergone a geographical change, from the traditional heartland of elite culture (Europe) to Second, based on the unprecedented prosperity in the world at that time, the financial resources to support elegant art activities also increased greatly.However, if you study carefully, you can find that the situation is not as encouraging as it seems. "Europe" is no longer the stronghold of high art (for most Westerners from 1947 to 1989, the so-called Europe refers to "Western Europe"), which is a well-known common understanding.New York is proud to have replaced Paris as the art capital.This shift means that New York is now the center of the art market, in other words, where artists become high-priced commodities.A more significant change came when the judges of the Nobel Prize for Literature—whose political undertones seemed to be more intriguing than their literary taste—began to seriously consider the works of non-European writers from the 1960s onwards.Until then, work in this area had been almost entirely ignored - with the exception of North America, where other laureates have followed since Sinclair Lewis first won the title in 1930.By the 1970s, any serious reader of fiction should have had access to Latin American writers.Serious film appreciators will definitely appreciate the many major Japanese directors who have successively conquered the world film industry, led by Akira Kurosawa (1910-) since the 1950s, or the Indian and Bangladeshi director Saya Jiray ( Satyadjit Ray, 1921-1992) was revered, or at least praised. In 1986, the first sub-Saharan African, Nigerian Wole Soyinka (1934-), won the Nobel Prize in Literature, and no one was surprised.

The focus of art has shifted far away from Europe, and it is more obvious in another absolute visual art, that is, architecture.We have seen earlier that the modernist architectural art made little achievements between the two wars; it was not until the end of World War II that the "internationalist" became famous and reached its peak in the United States, where the largest and most works appeared, and even more The upper floor, mainly through the cobweb-like hotel chains in the United States around the world in the 1970s, exported its peculiar form like a dream palace to the world, providing services for senior managers and tourists.Usually this typical American design can be recognized at a glance, because there must be a hall at the entrance, or a passage like a large greenhouse, with lush flowers and trees, gurgling water, and indoor or outdoor transparent elevators. Visitors can only see glass everywhere, and theater-style lighting everywhere.Such a design was built for the bourgeoisie in the late 20th century, just as the traditional standard opera building was built for the bourgeoisie in the 19th century.However, as far as the modern school is concerned, its famous buildings can be seen not only in the United States, but also in other places: Kebisiye built an entire capital city in India-Chandigarh; Niemeyer in Brazil (OscarNiemeyer, 1907-) also has a similar great cause - the new capital Brasilia (Brasilia).As for the most beautiful works of art in the modernist trend (also commissioned by the public rather than private investment), the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City (National Museum of Anthropology 1964) is probably the first to be recommended.

And Europe, the original art center, is obviously showing signs of fatigue under the torment of the war.Only in Italy, inspired by the spirit of anti-fascist self-liberation (mostly led by the Communist Party), set off a cultural revival, which lasted for about 10 years, and through Italian "neo-realism" (neo-realism) films, in Internationally leaving the imprint of its impact.As for French visual art, at this time it no longer has the reputation of the Parisian school between the two wars.The reputation of French novelists is also based on rationality rather than literary talent itself: either they are vain techniques—such as the new novels (nouveau roman) in the 1950s and 1960s—or they are non-fiction authors like Sartre. Known for his prolific creative output. After 1945, among the "serious" novelists engaged in pure literature in France, until the 1970s, which one gained fame in the international literary world?Probably none.In contrast, the British art world is much more active, and its greatest achievement may be the transformation of London into one of the main venues for world music and stage performances after 1950.In addition, the United Kingdom has also produced several avant-garde architects. With their bold and innovative works, they have achieved greater fame overseas—Paris, Stuttgart, Germany—than at home.However, although Britain's position in the Western European art scene after the war was somewhat higher than that before the war, its literary achievements, which it has always been best at, are not very prominent.That is to say, in terms of poetry, the performance of little Ireland after the war can be more than that of Britain.As for the Federal Republic of Germany, the comparison of its rich resources with its artistic achievements, or, in other words, its glorious Weimar era, with Bonn today is striking.This disappointing performance cannot be prevaricated with the scars left by Hitler's 12 years of rule.It is particularly worth noting that in the 50 years after the war, the most active talents in the West German literary world (Paul Celan, Gunter Grass, and many new talents from East Germany) all Not native to West Germany, but from a few places further east.

Germany, of course, was divided between 1945 and 1990.The strong contrast between the two Germanys reflects a peculiar side of the flow of high culture—on one side is West Germany, which actively implements democracy, freedom, market economy, and Western character; .But under the communist regime, it flourished (at least some of the time).However, this phenomenon obviously does not apply to all art projects, and certainly does not appear in some countries. What's more, since art is sponsored by the public, the space for artists to choose and develop naturally shrinks.Row after row of "Neo-Victorian" buildings stand in an empty square - when we mention this, Moscow's Smolensk Square (Smolensk Square) immediately comes to our minds - this kind of 1950s Some people may appreciate the standard style one day, but what contribution to the art of architecture may have to be judged in the future.But on the other hand, we have to admit that in some countries, the local communist government subsidizes cultural activities very generously, which obviously benefits the arts a lot. The avant-garde opera directors in the West in the 1980s were talents recruited from East Berlin, and there is probably a reason for this.

As for the Soviet Union, it has always maintained a state of alienation. Compared with the glorious years before 1917, it is not as good as it used to be, and it is not even as good as the turbulent era around 1920.Only poetry is an exception, because only poetry is the art that can be done most privately; and only poetry, the great Russian tradition of the 20th century, can continue to be maintained after 1917 - Akhmatova , 1899-1966), Tsvetayeva (Tsvetayeva, 1892-1960), Pasternak (Pasternak, 1890-1960), Blok (Blok, 1890-1921), Mayakovsky ( Mayakovsky, 1893-1930), Brodsky (Brodsky, 1940-), Voznesensky (Voznesensky, 1933-).Akhmadulina (Akhmadulina, 1937-).However, the visual art of the Soviet Union suffered great damage due to the strict restrictions of ideology, aesthetics, system and other aspects, coupled with its long-term isolation from the outside world.Fanatic cultural nationalism began to rise in parts of the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev period, such as Solzhenitsyn's orthodox and Slavic style, and Paradjanov's (Sergei Paradjanov, 1924-) film The atmosphere of Armenian medieval mysticism conveyed in the book and so on.The reason is that artists have nowhere to go. Since they are opposed to everything the government and the party advertise (just like many intellectuals), they can only learn from the conservative style of Benshi.What's more, the intellectual class in the Soviet Union was not only completely isolated from the government system, but also out of tune with the general public in the Soviet Union.The latter accepted the legitimacy of Communist rule and adjusted themselves to the only way of life they had ever known; in fact, in the 1960s and 1970s, their lives could be said to have progressed considerably.Intellectuals hate the rulers and despise the ruled, even when they eulogize the peasants and put the idealized Russian spirit on the image of the Russian peasants (such as those "new Slavophiles").In fact, their ideal incarnation of peasants has long since ceased to exist.For creative art workers, this is not an ideal creative atmosphere; paradoxically, once the high-pressure confinement imposed on intellectual activities disintegrates and disintegrates, it will instead incite all kinds of creative talents.Solzhenitsyn, who is very likely to be famous as a great writer of the 20th century, still has to write novels to instruct him—"A Day, in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" (A Day, in the Life of Ivan Denisovich) ) "The Cancer Ward" (The Cancer Ward) and so on - precisely because he is not yet free to preach and criticize history at will.

As for Communist China, there are occasional moments of loosening restrictions (such as "a hundred flowers bloom"), but their purpose is to identify the victims of the next purge struggle.Mao Zedong's rule reached its peak during the Cultural Revolution in 1966-1967. The fundamental purpose of this movement was to be anti-culture, anti-education, and anti-intellectual, which is unmatched in the history of the 20th century. After 10 years of turmoil, China's secondary and higher education were completely closed, and Western classical and various music activities were also completely stopped (even musical instruments were destroyed if necessary).The national film and television repertoire has also been reduced to only half a dozen politically correct model plays, which are repeatedly staged (selected and choreographed by Jiang Qing, the wife of the great helmsman and a former second-rate star in Shanghai).

But on the other hand, the brilliance of creativity shined brightly in Eastern Europe under the communist regime, at least as soon as the confinement of emphatic orthodoxy was relaxed a little.The film worlds of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, before that, were unknown even in their own countries. Since the late 1950s, they have bloomed unexpectedly all over the place, and even became one of the important sources of odd films for a period of time.It is even more surprising that an art that relies on government funds like movies can achieve outstanding artistic achievements under the Communist regime, which is more surprising than the performance of literary creation.Because of literary works, you can write them "under the cabinet" in private, or write them to close friends in the circle for circulation.In fact, writers from several communist countries enjoyed international honors—although they may have had a small readership when they first wrote—including East Germany, and Hungary in the 1960s.East Germany produced far more literary talents than the affluent West Germany; Hungarian works did not spread to the West until after 1968 through immigration at home and abroad.

These talents have one thing in common, which is rare for writers and filmmakers in developed market economies, and it is an ideal that Western theater workers dream of, that is, a feeling of being needed by the public (drama workers in the United States and Britain, from the 1930s) started with a habit of political activism).In fact, in the absence of real political life and free journalism, only those engaged in artistic work can speak for the common people—at least for the educated among them.This kind of feeling is not limited to artists in communist countries, but also occurs in countries where intellectuals are also at odds with the current political system and can, if not without restrictions, speak more or less openly.Take South Africa as an example, because of the stimulation of the apartheid system, many excellent literary works have been produced among the opponents, which is an unprecedented phenomenon in this land. In the mid-1950s, most intellectuals in Latin America south of Mexico probably experienced some period of political refugee life in their lives.Their cultural contribution to this part of the Western Hemisphere cannot be ignored; the same is true of Turkish intellectuals.

However, certain arts blossomed in Eastern Europe, and their significance was not limited to playing an opposing role with the tolerance of the government.The young artists were, in fact, fueled by the flame of hope that, after the horrors of war, their country would at last usher in a new era.Some of them—although they don’t want to mention it now—even really felt that the sails of youth were full and quivering under the breeze of the Utopia, at least in the early post-war years.A few, even consistently inspired by their times, such as Ismail Kadare (1930-), the first Albanian writer to attract the attention of the outside world, were not so much a hardliner of the Enver Hoxha regime The sounding board of the country, rather the spokesperson of this small mountain country, won it a place in the world for the first time (Kadari moved abroad in 1990).But most people quickly embarked on the road of varying degrees of opposition.But despite their opposition, in a world of dichotomous political systems, they too often reject the only other path at hand—whether running across the West German border, or through Radio Free Europe ) broadcasts are not what they want.Even in a country like Poland, even if the current regime has been completely opposed, except for young people, most people are very clear about the history of their country since 1945, so they know that the contrast between propagandists is either black or white. Among them, there is also the gray area with different shades.This helpless ability to recognize reality adds a touch of tragedy to the films of Czech director Andrzej Wajda (1926-). The ambiguous atmosphere in the works of Czech directors in their thirties and East German writers such as Christa Wolf (1929-) and Muller (Heiner, Muller, 1929-) in the 1960s is due to Although their dreams are shattered, they can never be forgotten.

A strange phenomenon is that in some parts of the socialist second world and third world, artists and intellectuals often enjoy great honor, and have better living conditions and some special rights than ordinary people.In socialist countries, they may even be among the wealthiest group in the country, and enjoy the right to go abroad, and sometimes even have access to foreign literature.In various third world countries, being an intellectual, or even an artist, is a status that is a public property.The most outstanding writers in Latin America, regardless of their political stance, almost all have the opportunity to go abroad, especially in Paris, where the headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural and Educational Organization (UNESCO) is located. Every country can send several personnel to this cultural and elegant "Left Bank" (Left Bank) coffee shop resort.And university professors also have the hope of joining the government to form a cabinet, among which the economic department is the first choice. In the 1980s, people in the art world turned into candidates for the presidency, or actually ascended to the presidency. It seems that it is only recently (for example, a novelist in Peru ran for the election; while the Czech Republic and Lithuania after the fall of the Communist Party The president is really a literati), in fact, as early as several generations ago, there were precedents in some new countries in Europe and Africa.They tended to confer titles of honor on a handful of outstanding citizens of their country who could make a name for themselves abroad—perhaps a pianist, as in Poland in 1918; or a French poet, as in Senegal; or a dancer, as in Guinea.But conversely, the novelists, dramatists, poets, musicians and other artistic figures in most developed Western countries are often completely irrelevant to the political entanglement, even those with rational tendencies among them.The only exception may be the posts in the cultural sector - such as the posts of the ministers of culture of France and Spain, which are held by the writers Andre Malraux and Jorge Semprun respectively.

In this era of unprecedented prosperity and affluence, the amount of public and private funds invested in art is naturally far greater than before.Even the British government, which has never been very active in taking care of the arts in the past, spent more than 1 billion pounds on art projects in the late 1980s. In contrast, it only spent 900,000 pounds on art in 1939 (Britain: An Official Handbook 1961, p. 22; 1990 p. 426).As for the proportion of private sponsorship is relatively low, with the exception of the United States.Encouraged by financial incentives, American billionaires donate more generously to education, academia, and culture than anywhere else in the world.Partly out of a genuine love for the higher things in life—especially self-made, first-generation business tycoons—and partly because American society lacks a formal social hierarchy that allows for a bit of cultural aristocracy. The status of a person is always better than nothing, and it can be regarded as just enough.As a result, these large-scale art tycoons not only donated their collections to national or municipal art galleries (this is an old practice in the past); they also competed to set up exhibition venues named after themselves, at least in existing museums. , has a gallery of its own.The artworks in it are exhibited according to the form specified by the owner or donor. As for the art market, since the 1950s, it has been discovered that the nearly half-century-long depression has been resolved.The price of artworks, especially the works of French Impressionists, Post-Impressionists, and the most famous early Paris modernism, began to skyrocket to sky-high prices.Until the 1970s, the center of gravity of the international art market shifted from London to New York for the first time.At this time, the value of the international art market is equal to the highest record in the "Age of Empires" era.Entering the crazy skyrocketing market in the 1980s, it even broke records and soared all the way.The prices of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist works soared 23 times in the 15 years from 1975 to 1989 (Sotheby, 1992).But since then, the appearance of the art market can no longer be equated with the past.Yes, rich people still continue to collect—generally speaking, the silver from Shilu’s old family prefers the treasures of the older masters; while the newly released wealthy people chase after novel masterpieces—but today, more and more Most people buy art as an investment, the same motive as bidding for shares in a gold mine used to be. The British Rail Pensions Fund, for example, has made a few fortunes on art (with the best advice).A buyer like this cannot be regarded as an art lover, of course.And the one transaction that best highlights the characteristics of art trading in the late 1980s is the purchase of a Van Gogh (Van Gogh) work for 31 million pounds by a Western Australian tycoon who became rich first.Most of the funds are borrowed by the auction unit, and both parties naturally hope that the price can continue to rise. In this way, not only can the value of the mortgage be higher when used as bank loan collateral, but also the broker can get more lucrative profits from it.As a result, both sides were disappointed: Mr. Bond in Perth (Perth) went bankrupt, and the art market boom caused by speculation was also completely shattered in the early 1990s. The relationship between money and art is often ambiguous. Whether some of the major artistic achievements in the second half of the 20th century were attributable to money is hard to predict.The only exception is architecture, in which generally speaking big is beautiful, and at least it is relatively easy to get included in travel brochures.On the other hand, however, there was another economic development which obviously had a great influence on the arts, namely, their integration into academic life and into institutions of higher education - the rapid expansion of which was discussed in the preceding chapter (p. ten chapters).This phenomenon has two levels, general and specific.Generally speaking, the decisive development of culture in the 20th century, the first to promote popular entertainment for the masses, its revolutionary vigorous growth, not only pushed the traditional high art to the small circle confined to the elite; From the mid-term onwards, most of the members of this elite cultural circle also belonged to people with higher levels of education.The vast majority of audiences of drama and opera, of national literary classics and pure literature, poetry and prose, of museums and art, are people who have at least completed secondary education.The only exception is the socialist world, which has never had a hard time getting ahead of profit-maximizing entertainment—though once the communist regime fell, it could no longer keep it out.Any urban culture of the late twentieth century was based on mass entertainment—movies, radio, television, popular music, and so on—and the elite shared in this popular culture (due to rock and roll, of course). However, as an intellectual, at the same time, it is inevitable to add a bit of academic atmosphere to it, so as to be more in line with one's own advanced taste.Apart from this exchange, the two types of audiences are completely separated.Because most of the people that the mass-market industry wins over can only get a glimpse of art by chance, and come into personal contact with the type of art that the so-called "high culture" boasts.For example, in the 1990 World Cup football match, Pavarotti sang Puccini's arias at the beginning; or Handel and Bach's classical music became the unknown background of TV commercials soundtrack.So one need not bother to watch Shakespeare if one is not planning to join the middle class.Conversely, if one really intends to jump into the ranks of the middle class (the most natural way is to pass the prescribed examinations of secondary schools), it is inevitable to meet Shakespeare's protagonists—because they are all designated subjects for school examinations.In the most extreme case, you can take Britain, where there are distinct classes, as an example: there are two kinds of newspapers there, one for the educated class and the other for the uneducated; depending on its content, it is like two planets product of. In a specific aspect, the astonishing development of higher education has provided employment opportunities and brought a market for male and female scholars who originally had no commercial value.This situation is especially prominent in literature.Poets take classes at universities, or at least become poets-in-residence.In some countries, the occupations of novelists and professors even overlap to a great extent, and a whole new literary genre became active in the 1960s.For most of the likely readership is intimately familiar with the atmosphere that fosters this type, that of academic literature.It does not use the theme of ordinary novels, that is, the love between men and women as its material; instead, it deals with other more mysterious topics, conducts academic exchanges, international dialogues, and expresses campus gossip and student idiosyncrasies.What's more dangerous is that academic needs, in turn, stimulate the creation of this type of anatomical research and analysis, and learn from the great writer Joyce, relying on the complexity of the works—if not because of their incomprehensibility— —and worth ten times as much.The number of critics on Joyce's future works may not be less than the number of real readers.Therefore, the poems of poets are written for other poets, or for scholars who may study their works.Therefore, under the protection of school salary, research grants, and required reading lists for courses, this group of non-commercial art creation prides, although they may not have the hope of wealth and prosperity, at least they can live a comfortable life.This fresh wind blown by the Academy had another spin-off effect, undermining the acquired position.Because these modern exegetical scholars, who have a lot of money, pursue the meaning of every word, and never let go of every image, even advocate that the text is independent of the author, and only the reader's comprehension is the real measure that determines the content of the work.They believe that critics who interpret Flaubert's works have as much creator status for (Madame Bovary) as Flaubert the author himself-probably more than the author himself.Moreover, because a work is circulated, it can only survive through reading by others, especially for academic purposes.In fact, this theory has long been embraced by avant-garde theater workers, for whom (and as expected by casting agents and movie moguls of the old school) Shakespeare or Verdi, They only provide the original material, and as for the real interpretation, it is up to them to play boldly-preferably provocatively.Yet such practices, while sometimes very successful, deepen at the same time the incomprehensible mysteries of high art.For now they are critiques of critiques, expositions of expositions, critiques of previous critiques, opinions for the opinions of others;This trend even affects the new directors of populist films. Therefore, in the same film, on the one hand, he promotes his profound and profound film cultivation to the elites with high taste—because only the latter can understand what the film wants to convey. On the other hand, you only need to satisfy the general public with the appearance of fist pillows and bloody pornography (of course, it is best to include the box office). How will cultural historians of the 21st century judge the achievements of high art in the second half of this century?The answer is obviously hard to guess.However, they must have noticed a change, that is, when the "standard art types" that flourished in the 19th century and continued into the first half of the 20th century entered the second half of the 20th century, they began to show at least a regional decline.Sculpture, is an example that immediately comes to mind.Among other things, it is evident from the almost total death of the art's most important form, public monuments, after the First World War.Only in a dictatorship country can we see new works popping up everywhere—it’s just that there is no equal sign between quality and quantity, and this is a point of view that everyone in the world agrees with.As for painting, even compared with the inter-war period, it is inevitable to immediately have the impression that it is not what it used to be.Counting the painters from 1950 to 1990, it may be difficult to find a universally recognized master figure (for example, an artist whose works are worthy of museum collections outside his country).But if you take out the list between the two wars, there are several world-class masters that come to mind immediately, at least Picasso, Matisse, Soutine (1894-1943) and Chagall (Paris School) can be listed. Chagall 1899-1985), Rouault (1871-1955), and two or three Russian and German masters such as Klee, plus one or two Spanish and Mexican painters.How does the second half of the 20th century compare with such a heavyweight list?Even including several representatives of New York's "abstract expressionism", such as Francis Bacon, and a few Germans, I am afraid that it is nothing compared to others. As for classical music, the decline of the old style is also deceived by the prosperity of the appearance; because although the number of people and the number of performances have increased greatly, the repertoire and repertoire of the performances have always been limited to classical works. How many new opera repertoires created after 1950 have established their status in international or domestic repertoires?In fact, operas all over the world have been repeating old operas in a continuous cycle. Among their authors, the youngest one was born in 1860 in the last century.With the exception of the German and British—Henze, Bretten, and at most two or three others—composers in general rarely attempted large-scale operas at all.Americans, such as Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990), preferred another genre with a less formal style: musical theater.Besides, besides the Russians, how many composers in the world today are composing the symphony that was once called the king of instrumental music in the 19th century?Music talents are still high and music talents are still abundant today, but these talents have given up the traditional ways of expression one after another—although classical music still occupies a dominant position in the "elegant art" market. Another nineteenth-century art genre, the novel, clearly showed similar general signs of retreat.True, novels are still produced in large numbers and bought.However, if we want to look carefully for the great novels and great novelists in the literary world in the second half of this century—the kind of works and authors whose themes are the cross section of the whole society, or the depth of the history of the whole era—we have to look to the West. Peripheral survey of the cultural center area - the only exception, I am afraid, is Russia again.With the publication of Solzhenitsyn's early works, the novel resurfaced as the main creative method for Russian writers to organize their experience of Stalin.Outside of Russia, the great tradition of the novel emerged in several peripheral regions of Western culture, such as Lampedusa in Sicily with The Leopard, Ivo Andric in Yugoslavia. , Miroslav Krleza, and writers from Turkey and other places.As for Latin America, of course you can find its traces. Before the 1950s, the novels here were unknown to the outside world except in the author's home country.But since then, he has stood out and become famous, and has firmly grasped the focus of attention in the literary world since then.Márquez's (A Hundred Years of Solitude), a great novel that was immediately recognized around the world as a masterpiece, came from Colombia, a country so small that even an educated person in a developed country would find it difficult to identify it on a map—until It and cocaine have joined each other so far; yet it has created a great work for the world.The status of Jewish novels is also noteworthy in many countries—especially the United States and Israel—and its rise may reflect the deep pain suffered by the Jewish nation under Hitler’s persecution.Jewish writers felt that they had to face and overcome this painful traumatic experience directly or indirectly before they could explain it. Naturally, the decline of high art and classical literature is not due to the withering of talents.Even if we do not know much about the changing distribution of geniuses and eccentrics among the world, it may be safely assumed that the causes which prompt these talents to manifest their gifts have changed quite drastically in the present day.The channels, motives, forms, and stimuli of its expression have also undergone tremendous changes.The decline of classics is not due to the reduction of talent supply.We have no reason to think that the Italian Tuscans today are not as talented as they used to be, and we can't even assume that their aesthetic taste is necessarily inferior to that of the Florentine Renaissance in the Middle Ages.In the final analysis, today's artistic talent simply abandons the old ways of seeking expression, because new ways have been born, which are more attractive and more lucrative.Just as a younger generation of "avant-garde" composers - even as far back as the interwar years - such as Orelik and Bretten, may not be tempted to write for film scores instead of for string quartets.Many details in painting have now been replaced by the victory of the camera. Taking the display of fashion as an example, it has been completely replaced by photos, and there is no need for laborious brushwork.As for the serial novel, which was dying between the two wars, a more complete capitulation in the age of television will give way to serials on the screen.And movies have replaced the dual status of novels and dramas.Because after the fall of the factory-style Hollywood production system, the new generation of movies not only allows individuals to show their talents more, but also has a large number of movie audiences. They return to their TVs at home, first watching movies and then watching videos.In today's cultural society, if every person who loves classical culture can correctly name the author of two stage plays from no more than five surviving playwrights; If you are a fan, you can recite the important works of a dozen or more directors like a few treasures.In fact, this is a matter of course, and there is no more natural result.The only thing that is still saving the traditional art genre from further rapid decline is the social status that accompanied the old "high culture". However, there are two more important factors at hand, also undermining the high culture of classical art.First, the mass consumer society is triumphant all over the world.Since the 1960s, the imagery that has accompanied people in the Western world—and increasingly in Third World urban areas—from life to death, is full of advertising and all kinds of things that represent consumer culture and are dedicated to mass commercial entertainment.The sound of commercial pop music fills the space of urban life, diffused indoors and outdoors.Compared with this ubiquitous and pervasive penetration, the impact of the so-called "high art", even on the "most educated", can only be contacted intermittently and occasionally at best.何况又有科技的进步，使得声光画面更上层楼，使得一向以来，作为高雅文化作者写就的言情小说；专攻男性读者的各类恐怖小说；或在这个一切解放的时代里，一些色情文学或黄色作品——还能在职业、教育或其他学习目的以外找到阅读意义的认真读者，在今天已成为少之又少的稀有动物。教育的革命，虽然在名目上大大扩增了受教育的人数，可是实际的阅读能力，却在许多理论上应该全民识字的国家里日见低落。因为印刷文字，已经不再是一扇大门，可以让人进入那超越口耳相传阶段以外的广大世界。 50年代以后，甚至连西方富有国家受过教育者的儿女，也不再像其父母一辈，那么自然地亲近书籍了。 如今支配着西方消费社会的文字，再不是神圣经书，更非凡人作品，却是商品——或任何可以金钱购买之物——的品牌商标。它们印在T恤上，附在其他衣物之上，宛如神奇的护身符般，使穿者好像立登龙门，在精神上取得了这些名牌所象征并应有的生活方式（通常属于一种年轻有活力的青春形态）。而成为神祇偶像，受到大众消费娱乐社会膜拜的，则是明星与罐头。难怪在50年代，在消费民主社会的核心重地，一群执当时牛耳地位的画家，会在这些偶像的制造者面前俯首称臣。因为比起旧有的艺术形式，后者的威力实在非凡。于是“波普艺术”的画家们——沃霍尔（Warhol）、利希腾斯坦（Lichtenstein）、劳申伯格（Rauschenberg）、奥尔登伯格（Oldenburg）——开始以无比的精确度，以及同样无比的麻木，全力复制美国商业大海的视觉装饰：汤水罐头、旗帜、可口可乐瓶、玛丽莲·梦露。 以19世纪的定义而言，这种属于“匠人工艺”（art）的新时尚自然难登大雅之堂。但是其中却正证明大众市场所以称雄的基础，不但建立于满足消费者的物质需要，而且有相当一部分基于满足消费者的精神需要。长久以来，广告代理商就已经模糊地意识到这个事实，因此在他们发动的广告宣传中，推销的并“不是牛排，而是烤牛排的滋滋香味”（not the steakbut the sizzle）；不是香皂，而是美丽的倩影；不是一罐罐的罐头汤水，而是一家人用餐的其乐融融。50年代越来越明显的一种趋势，即在这类广告手法，具有一种可以称之为美感经验的层面，一种制作者必须全力以赴、竞争提供的普通群众性创作活动（偶尔或带有主动性的创造，多数时候则属被动性）。50年代底特律的汽车设计，带有太多的巴洛克装饰线条，就正是基于这项观点。60年代，有一批优秀的文评家，开始深入探讨在此之前一直被贬斥为（商业艺术），或毫无美感层次的创作活动。换句话说，就是那些真正吸引街头凡夫俗女的玩意（Banham，1971）。而老一派的知识分子，现在愈来愈被形容为“精英分子”，他们过去一向瞧不起平凡大众，认为后者只能被动地接受大公司大企业要他们相信的东西（“精英”一词，于60年代为新一派的激进主义热情采纳）。然而50年代的降临，却借着“摇滚乐”的胜利凯歌，最戏剧化地证实了大众自己知道自己喜欢什么，至少，可以认出自己喜欢的东西（“摇滚”之名，原是青少年语，来自北美黑人聚居文化圈内那些自成腔调的都市蓝调）。靠摇滚乐大发其财的唱片工业，并不是摇滚流行的创造者，更从不曾策划摇滚的诞生；它们只不过是从首先发现摇滚的业余者及街角小店手中，把它接收下来罢了。在这个过程当中，摇滚乐自然受到一些腐蚀作用。“匠人工艺”（如果可以用这个字眼形容）的精髓，被视为来自泥土本身，而非泥土之中开出的奇花异果。更有甚者，随着民粹意识同为市场和反精英激进主义共同拥抱，重要的已经不在如何分辨好坏，或区分繁简，却在看出哪一种艺术吸引的人比较多，哪一种吸引的比较少。在这种新思潮的冲击之下，旧有的艺术观念自然没有多大空间可以容身了。 但是除此之外，另有一个破坏高雅艺术更大的因素，即“现代主义”的死亡。自从19世纪晚期以还，不以实用为目的的美术创作，即在现代主义的提携下得以扶正。而“现代主义”更为艺术家们提供了打破一切限制束缚的有力辩白。创新，是现代主义的真精神。借科技以为譬喻，所谓“现代”（modernity），即暗地假定艺术也是进步式的，因此今日新潮，一定胜于昨日旧风。于是循此定义，现代艺术是“前卫”者的艺术（“前卫”一词，在19世纪80年代开始进入艺术批评语汇），也就是少数人的艺术。在理论上，有朝一日必将能夺得多数人艺术的地位；可是在实际上，却由于尚未多数化而沾沾自喜。不论其特定的形式如何，基本上“现代主义”是对19世纪资产阶级自由派趣味及旧习的反动，包括社会与艺术两方面。同时也基于一种认识，认为有必要为科技上与社会上都已经发生惊天动地大革命的20世纪，创造一种比较合适的艺术形式。简单地说，英国维多利亚女皇、德皇威廉，或美国威尔逊总统御下的旧日艺术，根本就不适合现代人的身份和趣味（参见《帝国的年代》第九章）。理想上，这两项目标可以相辅相成，如立体派，即是对维多利亚画派的驳斥，也是一种取代这种旧画风的新途径，同时更是一组由还其本我的“艺术家们”所创作的还其本我的“艺术作品”。但是在实际上，两项目标却不见得同时发生，正如很久以前，杜尚的便壶和达达艺术精心传递的艺术性虚无主义，即已证实此论的不实。这些东西，并不打算被视为任何艺术，事实上根本就反艺术。但是在理想上，“现代派艺术家”又以为他们在20世纪所寻找的社会价值，与将之诉诸文字、声音、图像的方式应当自然融合汇流；正如它们在现代派建筑上斐然的成果一般。因为现代的建筑，不正是一种以适合社会乌托邦理想的形式，将社会乌托邦体现出来的建筑风格吗？但是在这里，形式与实质却再度缺乏合理的逻辑联系。比方说，为什么柯比思耶建造的“辉煌城”（cite radieuse）内的高楼，就一定得是平顶，而不是斜顶的呢？ 然而，正如我们所见，“现代主义”曾在本世纪上半期发挥过极大作用。当时，其理论基础的薄弱处还为人所忽略；其应用公式在发展上的局限性也尚未为人完全测试（如十二音阶音乐、抽象艺术等）；而其质地织造，也还不曾被内部的矛盾与潜在的罅沟所断裂。已过的战争、现存的世界危机、未来可能爆发的世界革命，种种经验，使得前卫派的创新，仍然与社会的希望紧紧熔铸在一起。反法西斯的岁月，延后了反思的时刻。现代主义依然属于前卫，依然列身对立面，只有工业设计界和广告代理界将它纳入主流。现代主义，尚未成为正统。 除了社会主义政权之外，现代主义之风，随着对希特勒的胜利也吹遍全球。现代派艺术与现代派建筑风靡美国，于是大小画廊，与素有名望大公司的办公室里，便挂满了这一类的作品。美国城市的上班区，充斥着所谓“国际风格”的象征符号——细长的长方盒子条条竖立，直上云霄，但是那扁平的楼顶，倒不像在“摩天”，反似削平了脑袋以“顶天”。有的姿态优雅，如密斯范德罗厄的西格拉姆（Seagram）大楼；有的徒有其高，如纽约的世界贸易中心（两楼都在纽约市）。美国的这股新趋向，在旧大陆也受到几许相随，而现在众人都倾向将“现代主义”与“西方价值”等同观看。视觉艺术上的抽象主义——所谓“非造形艺术”（non－figurative art）——与建筑上的现代主义，遂成为既有文化景观的一部分，有时且成为其中的主调。甚至连在两股风气似乎已行停滞的英国，此时也有死灰复燃之势。 但是60年代末期起，对现代主义反动的现象开始愈为明显；到80年代，在“后现代”（post-modernism）的标签之下，这股风气变得更加时髦起来。“后现代”其实说不上是一种“运动”，它的精神，在于拒绝现有的任何艺术评价标准；事实上，根本拒绝任何标准存在的可能。“后现代”，在建筑上首先亮相，便是在摩天大楼顶层盖上18世纪新古典奇彭代尔式（Chippendale）的山形墙尖顶。最令人感到刺激的，乃是向现代派挑战者不是别人，竟就是“国际风格”一语创始人之一的约翰逊（Philip Johnson，1906－）本人。眼前尽是随意线条的曼哈顿（Manhattan）的天际轮廓，在批评家的眼里，原是现代城市景观的标准模型；如今他们却发现原来那全无结构的洛杉矶市，才有其优点存在。放眼望去，只见有细节，却没有形状；这真是“各行其是”者的天堂乐园——或许是地狱。而现代派建筑外表上看来也许毫无理性可循，事实上却始终遵循着美感道德的法则行事。但是反现代兴起了；从此开始，什么规矩都没有了。 回首现代派运动在建筑上的成就，实属有目共睹。自从1945年以来，在它名下的建筑，包括将世界连成一家的飞机场，还有工厂、办公大楼，以及许许多多依然待建的公共建筑物——第三世界国家的首都，以及第一世界里的博物馆、大学和戏院。当60年代，全球大兴土木，纷纷重建它们的都市时，也是由现代主义发号施令。此外，由于现代派建筑在材料工艺上的创新，可以于短时间内兴建起大批平价住宅，进度既快，成本又低，于是连社会主义国度的地平线上也出现了它的芳踪。现代主义无疑造就了相当数目的美丽建筑，有的甚至可列入不朽杰作。丑陋者也不在少数，最多的却是毫无特色缺乏人性的蚂蚁窝。而战后现代派在绘画雕塑上的成就，相形之下，就逊色很多，而且其表现也往往比两战之间的前辈差劲。试将50年代巴黎画派的作品，与20年代同派的画作并列，两者孰优孰劣一望可知。战后的现代派艺术，是一系列用愈来愈穷急的伎俩，以求在瞬间建立个人特有风格的商标；是一连串沮丧与放弃的显示（在“非艺术”洪流的袭击之下，旧派别纷纷灭顶——如波普艺术、迪比费（Dubuffet）的涩艺术（artbrut）之类）；是胡涂乱抹，以及与其他种种残余剩屑的拼凑组合。或者说，是将那种纯为投资目的而制作的“艺术”以及此类艺术的收藏者，一并降至可笑境地的荒谬手法。比方说，在一棵砖或一堆土上，加上一个人名即成——是之谓“最小主义艺术”（minimal art）；或为避免艺术成为一项商品，故意掐短它的寿命，以去除其永久性——“行动艺术”是也（performanceart）。 于是便从这些林林总总的过火“前卫”中，嗅出了现代派的死亡气息。未来不再是他们的了，不过到底会是谁的，也没有人知道答案。但是他们却知道，自己的边缘地位，比前更甚。而且，论概念的表达与理解，老与那些只以赚钱为目的者靠科技达到的惊人效果相比，现代派波希米亚画室实验的形式创新，根本就只是小孩子过家家。未来画派（Futurism）在画布上对速度所作的描摹，怎堪与真实速度相比？甚至只消在火车头驾驶台上架起一台摄影机——而且此事谁都会做——也比企图靠画布捕捉的速度不知真实上千万倍。现代派作曲家制作的电子音乐，他们的实验音乐会，更是每一个乐团都深知的票房毒药。他们的实验结果，又怎能与将电子乐带进百万人音乐生活的摇滚音乐相比？如果将所有“高雅艺术”的人口分成小圈圈，难道前卫艺术家们看不出自己这一圈小到无以复加，而且还在不断缩小着？只要随便把勋伯格作品的销售量与肖邦比一比，便一望可知。而随着波普艺术的兴起，甚至连现代派视觉艺术的最大重镇，也失去了它的霸权地位。具象一门，再度成为嫡系正统。 因此，“后现代主义”攻击的对象，便包括那自信自满的一帮，也包括那江郎才尽的一门。换句话说，自信自满者，即那势必继续进行的活动——不论风格如何变换——如建筑、公共工程。而江郎才尽者，则属于在本质上并非不可或缺之流，如匠人式的大批制造画作，以便单张售卖。这两项都遭到后现代的攻击反对。因此，若误以为后现代的风气仅限于艺术界，如同较早的前卫派一样，那就大错特错了。事实上，我们知道，所谓“后现代”一词已经广布各界，其中有许多根本就与艺术毫无关系。到90年代，世上已经出现了“后现代”哲学家、“后现代”社会科学家、“后现代”人类学家、“后现代”史学家，以及在过去始终无意向前卫艺术术语借鉴——就算恰好与其有些瓜葛——的其他各行各业。文学批评对其热烈采用，自是当然反应，不足为奇。事实上“后现代”这股时尚，在法语知识圈中曾以各式各样名目打过先锋——如解构主义（deconstruction）、后结构主义（post－structuralism）等等——然后一路推销到美国院校的文学科系，最终并打进其余人文和社会科学。 所有的“后现代主义”都有一个共同特色，就是对客观性现实的存在存疑；或可说，对以理性方法达成共识的可能性，极表怀疑。它们都倾向于一种激进的“相对观点”（relativism），因此，它们也都对一个建立在相反假定之上的世界的本质，提出挑战——换句话说，它们质疑的对象，就是这个被以此为出发点的科技所转型的世界，以及反映其本质的所谓进步式意识形态。在下一章里，我们将进一步讨论这奇特，但并非完全不能逆料的矛盾现象。至于范围比较限定的高雅艺术界，其中矛盾就没有这么严重，因为正如我们所知（参见《帝国的年代》第九章），现代派的前卫艺术家们，已经将所谓“艺术”的局限发挥到了极至（至少，凡是可以做出成品，并或售或赁，或以任何方式，以“艺术”之名，离开创作人之手的获利活动，都可以包括在内）。可是“后现代主义”造成的效应，却是一道鸿沟（主要是属代沟）。深隔在两岸的人，一边对眼中所见的新风格的虚无无聊，感到恶心之至；一边却认为把世界看得太过“严肃认真”，正是已成荒废之过去遗留下的又一陈俗。“文明的垃圾堆积场上……盖着塑胶伪饰”，曾如此激怒了著名法兰克福学派（Frankkfurt School）最后的中流砥柱——社会学哲学家哈伯马斯（Jurgen Habermas）。可是后现代主义者却认为，这又有什么大不了（Hughes，1988，p．146）？ 因此“后现代主义”并不只限于艺术一门。不过，这个名词之所以首先出于艺术，恐怕却有几个很好的理由。因为前卫艺术的核心本质，即在寻求崭新的方式，用以表达那些不再能以过去旧辞令表达的事物，即20世纪的新现实。这个愿望，是本世纪伟大梦想中的一个；而另外一个，即在为这个现实寻求出激烈的转变。两者在不同的字义上同具有革命意义，可是它们处理的对象却又是同一世界。它们在19世纪80年代和90年代，曾有某种程度的配合；其后在1914年至击溃法西斯之间的岁月里，又再度相随出现。因这两个时代的创作人才，往往都在这两方面带有革命色彩，至少颇为激进——通常均属左派，不过绝非人人如此。然而，两股理想都遭梦断。但是在事实上，它们对两千年世界造成的改变如此深远，以致两个留下的痕迹自然也不可能轻易抹去。 如今回溯起来，前卫革命的大业，从一开始便注定了失败的命运：一是由于其理性上的恣意专断，另一则出于自由主义资产阶级社会在制作模式上的艺术创作本质。在过去数百年里，前卫艺术家所做的任何意图性宣示，论其目的与手段，也即目标和方法，几乎都缺乏必然的一贯性。某种特定的创新形式，并不一定便是拒斥旧形式的必然结果。刻意回避音调的音乐，不见得就是勋伯格的序列音乐（serial music）——勋伯格序列音乐，是建立于半音阶上十二个音符排列而成——而且，这也不是序列音乐的唯一途径；反过来说，序列音乐也不一定就是无调之乐。至于立体主义，不管它多么富于吸引力，更毫无理论基础可言。事实上，就连放弃传统程序规则的决定本身，也与某种特殊新方法的选择一般，纯是一种极为武断随意的作为。“后现代”移植到棋术之上，所谓20年代时“超高现代”（hyper－modern）的棋论——这一类棋手包括雷蒂（Reti）、格朗菲德（Grunfeld）、尼姆佐维茨基（Nimzowitsch）等等——其实并没有改变棋赛本身的规则。他们只不过充分利用证伪法，与传统的棋路唱反调——即塔拉什（Tarrasch）的“古典”棋派——故意以不寻常的手法开棋，并注意观察中央地带，而不一举占领。多数作家，尤其诗人，采取的也是同样做法。他们继续接受传统设定的程序，比方在合适之处，就遵守格律韵脚，却在他处以其他方式，特意推陈出新。因此卡夫卡便不及乔伊斯“现代”，因为他的文字没有后者大胆。更有甚者，现代派人士虽然自诩其风格有知识上的理性基础，比方说表达机器时代（或其后的电脑时代）的时代精神，但是事实上两者之间，却仅限于暗喻关系。总而言之，一方是“在这个纪元里，具有'科技复制性'的'艺术所为'”（Benjamin，1967），另一方却是只知道艺术家个人灵感为何物的旧有创作模式；两者之间，若企图产生任何同化，自然只有失败一条路。创作，如今基本上已经变成合作而非个人，科技而非手工。50年代时，法国一批年轻的影评人曾发展出一套电影理论，认为电影是独一创作者（auteur）的作品，即导演一人的成就（这个理论的基础，来自他们对三四十年代好莱坞B级电影的热爱）。可是此说根本不通；因为协调妥善的分工合作方式，不但在过去是、并且在现在也是影视业和报章杂志业的不二法则。20世纪创作的典型模式，往往是应大众市场而生的产品（或副产品）。进入这些行业的创作人才，绝不比古典19世纪资产阶级模式的人才为差，可是却再也没有古典艺术家孤人独行的那份奢侈。他们与古典前辈之间，唯一尚存的环节，只有透过古典“高雅艺术”的有限部门。而这个部门的运作，即使在过去，也一直在集体的方式下，通过舞台进行。如果黑泽明、维斯孔蒂（Lucchino Visconti，1906－1976）、爱森斯坦——试举3名绝对可以名列本世纪最伟大艺术家的大师，3人都有剧院经验——竟希望以福楼拜、库尔贝（Courbet），甚至狄更斯等艺术家独自营造的方式创造，恐怕没有一位能取得什么成就吧！ 正如本杰明的观察所示，这个“科技复制性”的世纪，不仅改变了创作方式——因此电影，以及其他所有由电影而生的事物（电视、录像带），就成为本世纪的中心艺术——而且也改变了世人观看现实并体验创作物的方式。19世纪资产阶级文明里的典型表记，如博物馆、画廊、音乐厅、公共剧院，为世间文化的膜拜者提供了瞻仰祈祷的庙堂，可是却不再是本世纪的途径了。如今挤满在这些古典“教堂”里的信众，少有本地的人，多是被旅游业带来的外国游客。旅游与教育，于是成为这种艺术消费形式的最后要塞。今天经历过这种文化经验的人数，自然远比以往为多。可是就连这些在佛罗伦萨乌菲齐美术馆（Florence Uffizi）急急挤到前排，然后在一片静默的敬畏中，瞻仰名画（Primavera）的观众，或是那些为准备考试，才不得不阅读莎士比亚，结果却深受感动的学子，他们日常的生活环境，却是另一种于此完全迥异的大千世界。感官印象、甚至连概念思想，都由四面八方向他们同时袭来——头条、画面、内文、广告，在报纸上并列纷呈；而眼睛一面测览着报页，耳机里同时又传来阵阵声音；于是图像、人声、印刷、声音，五花八门、斑然杂陈——可是这一切信息的接收状态，却难有中心，虽然目不暇接、耳不暇听，却无一样信息，可以摆得他们短暂的专注。长久以来，游园、比赛和马戏杂耍式娱乐的运作方式，已经是都市人的街头经验。这从浪漫时代以来，就为艺术家和批评家所熟悉。到了今日，其新奇之处则在科技使得艺术如水银泻地，浸入人们的生活。要想避开美感体验，再也没有比今天更难的了。但是“艺术所为”，却反而在川流不息的文字、声音和影像的洪流当中消失了，在这个一度被称为艺术的广大空间里失去了踪影。 它们还可以被称之为艺术吗？对有心人而言，永久性的伟大作品，依然可以辨认出来。虽然在发达国家中，由个人创作，并且只可归于其个人的创作愈来愈少。即使连那些不以再制复制为目的，除此一家另无分号的单件工程或创造，也难再归功于单独一人——只有建筑还算例外。资产阶级文明盛世的审美规则，还可继续判断评定今天的艺术吗？答案是肯定的，也是否定的。年代的久远与否，向来不适用于艺术。创作作品的好坏，绝不因其古老就变得比较美好（如文艺复兴时期的谬见）；也不会由于年岁较浅，就忽然高人一等（如前卫派即持这种谬论）。而后面这项取舍标准，于20世纪后期与消费者工业的经济利益结合中，变得极为可笑。因为大众消费的最高利润，即来自倏忽即逝的短暂流行，以及以高度集中却为时甚短的使用为目的的迅速且大量的销售。 就另一方面而言，在严肃与胡闹之间，在伟大与琐细之间，在专业与业余之间，在美好与拙劣之间，还是有可能也有必要进行艺术上的区分。更何况一群利之所在的人，竟口口声声，拒绝这种区别的存在。有些人大言不惭地宣称，只有销售金额，才是区分优劣的唯一准绳；有些人则自以为高人一等，是精英，是优异；还有些（如后现代派）竟主张根本不可能进行任何客观判定。因此，辨认工作更加成为必要。事实上，只有有贩卖意识的思想者，以及贩卖商品的推销员，才胆敢厚颜无耻地如此公开表示。但是在私下里，连这些人当中也有多位知道如何鉴别“好”“歹”。1991年时，某位生产发达的英国大众市场珠宝商，即曾掀起一场风波。原来他告诉满会场的企业界人士，他的利润，都来自卖烂贷给那些根本没有品味使用好东西的傻瓜。这位老兄不像后现代主义的理论家，他知道价值的判定，仍然是生活中的一部分。 然而，如果这种判别仍有可能，是否便适用于今天的世界呢？这是一个对绝大多数都市居民来说，生活与艺术、内感与外情，甚至连工作与娱乐，两者差异愈形模糊，彼此领域益发重叠的世界。或者说，在传统艺术依然可以寻得栖身之地的学院小圈圈外，这些判定标准是否仍然有效？实在很难回答。因为这一类的问题，不论找答案或拟问题，都难免有以假定为论据的循环论证嫌疑。提笔写一篇爵士乐史，或对爵士乐的成就进行讨论，均可借用与古典音乐研究极其类似的角度，只需充分考虑两者社会环境的不同，以及此种艺术形式特有的听众及经济生态即可。然而同一种研究方式，是否也能适用于摇滚乐呢？答案却很模糊。虽然不论爵士与摇滚，两种音乐都源自美国的黑人音乐。路易斯·阿姆斯特朗（LouisArmstrong）和帕克（Charlie Parker）的成就为何？两人胜于同时代人的优点何在？答案已经有了，而且极为明确。可是反过来说，对一个这辈子从来没有特别钟情过哪一种乐风的人，要他或她在过去40年蹚游于摇滚江河的无数摇滚团体之中，硬挑出一支队伍，岂不难上加难？霍利迪（Billie Holiday）的歌声舞曲，即使在她逝世多年后才出生的听众，也能与之产生共鸣。反之，曾在60年代搅动无比激情的滚石乐团（RollingStones）如今若非他们同代之人，又有谁会兴起任何类似当年的那种热情？同样，反观今日对某一种声音、某一种图像的狂热激情，到底有多少是基于认同的归属意义？也就是说，它们之受到喜爱，是因为本身的美妙可贵？抑或只因为这是一首“我们的歌”？我们实在不能回答。而在我们能够答复这个问题之前，21世纪当代艺术所将扮演的角色，甚至存亡，都将始终面目隐晦。 可是科学则不然，它角色清楚，任务分明。