Recluse

The four-month stay in Germany has turned me into a recluse.

选择 真不容易

给Nio最近一篇blog的评论。Nio的这篇blog讲她自己是否start over，在法国重新选择自己喜欢的时装设计专业，还是沿着自己原来的室内设计的职业之路，轻松却并不愉快地走下去。其实同样的问题，一样在困惑我，只不过，作为一个非艺术专业的人，我的兴趣所在就来得更为模糊和难以把握。好在终于明白，与其困惑，不如不断地去尝试。让每天都离梦想更近一点。

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Nio一定要学、要做自己喜欢的，有passion的专业。要选择那种让你每天早上一起床，想到要做这样的事情，就会为之兴奋的职业。

想清楚自己要什么，什么时候去做都不晚。最可怕的倒是，到老了的时候，依然在生计和兴趣之间尴尬地徘徊，而回想起当年一念之差没有让脑子跟随心走，就永远不能原谅自己。

所谓就业前景、钱，这些东西只能支撑你糊口。时势风尚皆易变，没有一个职业能永处上升之势。惟真心的喜爱才能成为做事的动力。而所谓的财富和声名，都不过是在执着于自己所爱的路上，无意间尾随而至的花车而已。

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

附：Nio的blog

有一瞬间,觉得自己好迷茫。可能因为我一直很迷茫，而那瞬间的清醒让我觉得有太多事情要面对，犹如站在喧嚣大马路的十字中间，被四周各种笛声叫嚣到混乱，不知道该何去何从。

我喜欢自己以前的工作，所以当时才选了这个学科。我觉得我做的不错，而且有着那份敏感。

可惜梦想太高现实太低。在一个与美学几十年无关的国家，只有摸的到的真金白银才是钱，而那些在脑子里的想象是不值钱的，是可以任意蹂躏的。有钱的就是爷，有钱就有决定权，一句话，可以让一个月的工作从新来过。90%的客户的要求是：人家（邻居）怎么样我就怎么样。花1000多万买幢空空如也连厕所门都没有的别墅，花4、5万买个吊灯，从欧洲空运全部家具的人多的是，可轮到花钱在设计上时，最理想的状态是：你最好是不收钱。反正也只是指点一番呀，动动嘴皮子，耍耍笔杆子，画画图纸的，要花什么钱呢？1、2千怎么也够了吧。

我真的受够了这样的工作，一边看着他们大笔的甩钱，一边看他们吝啬的嘴脸。后来知道了，有钱人就是这么来的。

后来想，做一份一个人或少数几个人可以完成的工作，可以自己说了算。这样，就不用在思想上被人强奸了吧。在我帮人家做房子的时候，就碰到些客户老问我身上的衣服在哪里买的，然后她们也就跟着去买了。而且我不是自夸，我真的是掏便宜货的高手。在我开服装店时，我20块淘来的丝质吊带衫，200多的价格挂出去，不到两天就卖了；60块钱找到的样板超好的牛仔裤，自己拼了个水钻十字架，200多挂出去还被人家批评说卖得便宜，只好把价格再往上提。

出国后，一直想学服装。无奈，这学校的价格年年上涨。短短的几年就翻了一倍。我实在太吃惊了，那么多中国边远地区来的小孩怎么就那么有钱，那么多人在读私校的时装课程呢。

我粗粗的算了下：私校的学费7000欧到11000欧不等，一年的生活费加房租在巴黎怎么也要个8000欧，加之学校做作业，每套估计100欧，一年怎么也得做个四五套吧，有是500欧，这么加来加去的，一年差不多是20000欧，三年下来就是60000欧~~~算成人民币就得再加个零 T_T 看的我眼都晕了。况且，这一学就是3年啊，等我毕业了，我都半老徐娘了。

问题是，毕业出来能找到工作吗？一般私校出来找实习不难，很多公司要，但是，留下来工作就又是一回事了。雇佣外国人，公司要付比雇佣法国人高的多的税。听说过私校出来在KENZO实习的，但后来还是不了了之。

于是我找啊找啊，找到个专业只为期一年的学校，而且是我喜欢的首饰专业。我觉得不错啊，学习珠宝及帽子，我一向对这个很有兴趣。美中不足就是我觉得时间短了点，我想象不出来怎么在一年，其实只有6个月里面学那么复杂的事。

昨天跟罗纳地区服装协会的头见了个面，希望他能给我点建议，结果开完了会，我就更晕了~~~ ~~~以他的经验来说，1年的文凭在法国是很不专业的，一般都要2-3年的专业学习。如果想留在法国找工作机会的话，私立学校是个好选择，特别是前面说到的那个每年11000欧的，是个名校，也是质量最好的学校之一。而且他建议我留在里昂，因为这里的学校和巴黎的学校质量一样，但生活费用要低得多，而且学校收费也相对便宜了那么一点。我问他，那在那个学校毕业的话，能否确保找到工作呢？他说，因为我以前有工作经验，而且因为往后法国跟中国的贸易会一直增长，所以对我来说是有利的。

“有利”，并不是“确保”，而且法国近年的失业率一直居高不下，很难说将来的事。其实，很多人到这里来，申请一个公立的硕士，不花多少钱，回去了国家又承认，学位又高了一级，可谓一举两得。可问题是，要读硕士就不能转专业，我还得干原来的老本行，不能换专业。以后，不管在法国还是在中国，又要重新面临我以前已经极其厌烦的问题。

所以，现在晕极了。路交叉的叠在我眼前，每一条都看不见未来的结局。我到底要学哪个呢？

想念青菜

除了有两次在Hauptwache的金马超市，从那个上海老板手里买到过家乡的青菜外，再没有过关于青菜的记忆了。真是很想她啊，几乎是我最爱的蔬菜了。看着她，就觉得自己的健康有了指望。清炒或下汤皆宜。

周六在Kaufhof的地下大超市里边看到了一种叫Mangold的意大利菜，形似江南的青菜，但更粗壮，叶厚且色深。喜出望外地拿了一棵。等到结帐时，EUR2.2的价格吓了我一跳。想想夏天的时候，上海菜市场的青菜只卖人民币一毛钱一斤，简直是不可思议的共产主义啊！

刚查了金山词霸，对Mangold的解释是“一种饲牛用的甜菜”，哭笑不得。关于“甜”，现在正吃着呢，没觉着。不过，相对于欧洲很多做色拉的微苦蔬菜来说，不苦应该就算是“甜”了吧。要不就是亚洲人对于苦味的味蕾比西方人要敏感的缘故。

春意袭来

春天是在这个礼拜噼里啪啦地席卷而来的。

整整一个礼拜没出远门，眼看着对面的梧桐嫩叶抽芽到今天已经很茂盛的样子了。

窗前的那棵不知名的小树叶也唏里哗啦地由红转绿了。

刚才上街送洗衣服，穿着一件夹克都嫌多了。

一路上发现颜色一下子丰富起来，夹竹桃满枝绽放；路边人家院子里的郁金香、迎春花，还有好多不知名的各色花儿藏匿了漫长的冬天后，全都冒出来争奇斗艳了。

春天真的到了；城市也变得生机勃勃起来。回来的路上，看到已经有游客手持travel guide在仔细打量着附近的一家叫Yuemei的日本餐馆了......

羊排

自己做的羊排，色、香、味俱全。很得意。嘿嘿。

独立

觉得自己是到了今年，才真正长大了的样子。

10多年前上大学的时候，因为住校，第一次有了安排自己生活和前途的感觉。有些辛苦，但内心是踏实而满足的－－感到未来掌握在自己的手上，一切美好都可能去缔造。

随着毕业，被赶出校门，又回到了一切被安排的悠闲岁月；曾经一度长大了的心又开始缩水、倒退。不是没有过反抗，没有过拒绝被照顾、被服侍的经历。言词激烈的争吵过后，生活依然照旧。毕竟不用担心的奢侈是方便而惬意的。

独立意志渐渐被消磨殆尽，不光是生活，思考和工作也连带受累。心智成熟与个人成就是呈正相关关系的，而且相关度很高。5年前，在幽静的泰安路上，一个老外开的酒吧里举行的某个所谓young professional的聚会上，一个美国背景的上海男人这样评价我，大概就是那种会从父母的温暖老窝，直接跳进丈夫的甜蜜小窝里，过一辈子的人。有点愠怒，向他强调自己是精神独立的。“只要没有经历过一个人生活的日子，永远都不知道什么叫做独立。”无语。今天想来，他是对的。

父母的照顾和关心，对于意志不够坚强的人来说，不是雨露，而是桎梏。小时候学游泳的时候，老师说，我的方法就是把你一个从来不会游泳的人扔进深水区。暴君一个，所以我躲着他。直到离开游泳队，都没有学会游泳，因为错过了被扔进深水区的阶段了。

当代西方艺术往何处去？

同感。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－　　　　　　　

当代西方艺术往何处去？

　　高行健

　　1993年，法国《世界报》的—二月专号《辩论》（Le Monde des Debats）以《当代艺术：画家或是骗子？》为标题，概要地报导了当今法国文化界正在发生的一场大论战。正如这篇文章所说，一种越来越强烈的意见认为，目前正在进行的画廊展出，国际博览会行销，且由美术馆加以颂扬的当代艺术，早已失去了艺术的性质，艺术发展到「当代艺术。，究竟是“革命”还是“招摇撞骗”？

　　批判的一方主要以《精神》一刊为据点，惋惜以往作为“好手艺”的艺术业已丧失，攻击当代作品评论晦涩难解而无意义，进而认为：当今艺术批评的自由精神已经消失，艺术的审美判断跟随市场的时尚潮流后面，艺术家的声音早已被媒体和广告所淹没，而跨国的艺术市场几乎左右了新闻媒体，这样下去无疑是艺术的死亡。辩护的一方仍是力图将活的艺术从「现代主义的学院派" 中区分开来，赞扬当代艺术的创新和标新立异，认为回归过去的传统并没有希望。但愿而易见，辩证一方远不如攻击一方有力，且在节节败退之中。可以说，近两年来，法国文化界对当代艺术大论战，涉及面之广，触及问题之系，是二次大战后尚未有过。而且其范围一开始就不限于法国，它震动了整个西方艺术界，对二十一世纪西方艺术的走向，有着巨大影响。今对远扬论战中的不同意儿作一简单综述。

　　一“胡来”：评价标准的崩溃

　　对当代艺术一种最广泛的批评是：它已失去了评价熛准。当艺术已无好坏高低之分时，它澴能成为艺术吗？瑞士洛桑大学教授莫理罗（Jean Molino）在《当今艺术》一文中指出”当今的艺术，甚幺都是，谁都能做，却无人能评价。这裹堆些椅子，那里放个洒几点颜料的鸭绒被，再不到处涂满有规则的色条，还总有人看、有人买、有人编印目录、有人评论、有人赞扬，自然也有人声称甚幺也看不懂……。恰如莫里哀的戏中的达尔丢夫说的：“现令其弄绝了！”

　　噶亚尔（Francoise Gaillard）则干脆把当代艺术称之为“胡搞”，并将其根源追溯到杜象。她认为1917年杜象在一个现成的瓷小便池签上个名“R．Mutt”，就算是对传统艺术的“颠覆或嘲弄”，艺术史就此也已写得过多了“这小小的举动，各式各样的先锋主义者和现代艺术史论家，都引以为据……一切先锋运动都引为先驱……他既是始作俑者，现今也是终结者。正是他把艺术拖进了一个命定的旋涡……自达达以后，1920年以来，我们便在对重复之解构，及对解构之重复，循环往复的狂热中摆动不已。”

　　她进而分析" 这种胡来所以不仅被接受而且得到辩护" 的原因，认为问题在于「艺术同美学分离。既然随便甚幺东西或随便甚幺实施，由于某一”艺术家。的独断可以进人艺术品的行列，那幺，这种分离便自然导致“艺术品”的终极目的的转移，而自从现代性出现后，这络极目的不再以美为其目标。”胡来。的两种极为巧妙的遁辞，倒让我们看清了艺术目标怎样转移。其一是找寻艺术的本质，可那本质总也在逃遁，以至于只能在无穷后过的极限里才希冀可以找到（诸如从单一的颜色到空无一物的展厅，造类的经验便得以解释）。其二是引起社会争议（各种各样的挑衅，诸如行动艺术，介人与装置也由此得以解释）。

　　“胡来”有两个条件。，她引用德杜福（Thiers de Duve）的话，用以说明后杜象的现代性如何得以安身立命：“胡来”必须在艺术史上或社会史上具有意义，“胡来”得作试验或激起反感。她进而认为，”试验与颠覆两者远非冲突，倒是相辅相成……前者基于美学的土壤，后者基于意识形态的土壤。但是，今天当代艺术的危机根源正在于以往的一切基础已经解体，”在一个变得务实的世界，又如何其要求探索艺术的本质？在一个大家都接受的世界里，怎样还有抗议的意图？艺术家（后现代的？）便只好玩玩伎俩，或是接受犬儒主义或机会主义，远也是我们造社会予以并认可的唯一的态度。于是，批评家只好哀叹艺术完蛋了……。最后她不无嘲弄地评论道：“多亏杜象，现代性从这类死胡同里也许还能出头，但天知道时间会不会再次种情于远种等待呢？”

　　而莫理罗则更多地把评价标准的丧失，归因于当代艺术已失去内涵，日益变成毫无意义的形式，艺术家以玩远些空洞的形式为目的，远跟现代艺术的精神正好相背。他举出，即使是抽象画的鼻祖康定斯基也反对“甚幺都不表达的艺术，只成为一种简单的几何图形的装饰，类似地毯或领带”。恰如康定斯基所说，艺术家“得有东西可传达，因为对形式的把握并非目的，形式不过是内在表现的一种妀写。”而纯艺术本来是没有的。然而，“现代性的史学家们。却把艺术写成“向纯化的胜利进军。”殊不知，永远也到不了顶峰，却到了山峰背面。无主题、无对象、无辣度、无远无那，所有远些定义、解说都是否定式的，将别的全搁置一边，如此不已，导致甚幺“按某一顺序组合的颜色。，一些形式、一些形式、一些举动、一些动作、一些效果、一些主意，如此等等。与此同时，又「出现种种挪用的策略，诸如拼贴、现成品、组合、装置，越益扩散，越用越滥，“都引为时髦”。

　　他认为这一切都来自艺术家追求的“自给自足”，自给自足成了当代艺术的一条基本原则，即所谓“属于总体艺术行为的任何成分都可分离，从而成为艺术生产的一种可变通的策略。……或是材料，或是面积，或是框子，或是作品陈放的场地，或是主意如观念艺术，或是举动留下的说不准的痕较，自然归根结祇，也就无价值可肓……某些人便把这类实施现为艺术极至的其诸，艺术内部解构，便只留下个空壳……我们渲时代只不过把渲过程推到极限”。我们也总算知道，如今随便甚幺都是艺术。


　　二“新癖”：对艺术自身的否定

　　对当代艺术争论的另一焦点是所谓“创新的原则”。批评的一方认为当代艺术立足在渲一原则上，不断批判前人。这种永远”求新的冲动。，唯新是好，最终不可避免导致对艺术自身的否定，艺术日益被「非艺术。取代。《精神》杂志的主将多麦克山（Jean-Philippe Domecq）将其概括为《新癖》，他指出“当今的艺术，以当代反对现代”。，而当代对现代的批判，只以“创新”作为唯一的标准，安迪·沃荷（Andy Warhol）便是个例子。

　　1991年，《精神》便发过文章批评安迪?沃荷，多麦克尖刻地称他以由画商卡斯特里抬起来的艺术新癖的大明星。众所周知”远位画商从美国人的抽象表现主义后期到波普艺术，都出过大力。沃荷的国际巡迥大展从纽约到巴黎、伦敦、法兰克福、尼斯转了一圈，出尽风头。”但沃荷的才能何在？他既非画家，也非艺术家，却是60年代的大社会学家和当代性阶淡的花花公子两相结合，甚至无性别。他的作品不过把广告与媒体图象做成系列，毫无艺术内涵可言，要想看成是对消费社会的批评，或是对造社会的颂扬，或是我们周围比比皆是无用的物品和图象营造的一文不值的形象，怎幺都成。如今他的行情果其惨跌。

　　多麦克对艺术界奉为金科玉律的“创新原则”提出了怀疑。因为，“依照造种必然不断进步的见解，某一先锋派若将前者悉尽铲除自然就被视为更好的。现代艺术也就有规有矩从先锋走向先锋，把富有成果的遗产铲除”。值几十年来，甚至于每每将之前的先锋也一并隔断。远种历史主义进而说是，就每一先锋而言，当时不能批评，因为其时是必要的。现在看来，这种思路大可讨论。

　　费兰克布兰（Catherine Francblin）则认为这种创新的原则，也使艺术家丧失了”自我。她在《对实物的迷恋》一文中指出：“从本世纪初，艺术家们就不摸把其物纳人到作品中去，弄不好便时常丧失了自己，作者也就消失了”。杜象并非是鼻祖，本世纪头十年就有过“贴纸革命”。布拉克和毕加索是始作俑者，索弗尔（Michel Seuphor）赞为“一举抓住了险些逃逸的现实”。到60年代，复绋者众多……到了施维特斯（Schwiters）和毕加比亚（Plea）的孙子辈，其东西则成了艺术的神圣价值的替代物，俨然成为反美学的口号，呼唤生活的号召。波普和新现实主义者又用直接、粗俗、日常的其实来滋养这迷恋，以致他们的后论者进而利用物品和环境，把博物馆和画廊的空间仿造成第三度的商品广告和玩乐的世界……对实物迷恋的结果……不可避免把艺术家也弄没了……最实在的作品也只能变得类似自然一部分，一块岩石、一棵树、一片云。事实，事实，如此远般，近几十年来似乎就是渥样引导艺术家们挖空心思，耗费时间。

　　莫里罗则将创新原则称为破坏艺术的另一种专制。他认为现在已不是马奈受到保守的资产阶级攻击的上个世纪末，近二十年来，另一种「现代性的专制。弄得唯新是好，谁要对渲种”官方艺术。稍有异议，便被舆论的操纵者指投为”反动派。，”恰如政治上的左派与右派之分，要不是多多少少开放的马克思主义，要不就是浅薄不堪的反共。正是在渥种意识形态专制下，艺术追求越来越纯粹、越来越其、越来越新、越来越自给自足。现在，我们如进行反思，这种线性演变的公理岂不也该丢弃？。

　　总之，”现代性这种镀金的神话所造成的历史独断主义，弄得唯前进、唯进步，才好、才美。甚至于凡不属进步的最后一浪，便成为反动派。

　　三软弱无力的辩护

　　为当代艺术辩护的一方，有的把问题归结为政治斗争，认为是右派回潮，也有认为是革新与保守的矛盾，对艺术上的批评却反驳无力。

　　艺术评论家达离Philippe Dagen）在（新中之其）承认，由《精神》挑起的争论在艺术界弄得人心动荡，造成一场大乱。他也承认许多官方艺术机构、博物馆和有关的一些负责人在”维护一种统称为“当代艺术”的官方艺术。，并认可对布伦（Daniel Buren）的批评，也认为他制作的那类“政治上、社会上全然无害的中性的”作品。，是些装饰性的毫无感觉无关痛瘩的物品。他认为”法国的官方裁判与艺术市场固然遇到危机，但并不能由此得出当今的艺术全都是骗人的把戏或平庸之作的结论。”把沃荷的成功作为现代义事的极至，而不等时间来判断，往他头上安个”插图匠。的字眼，无侪于事，更别着谈艺术哲学。他进而反驳”远种谱系学。，特别指出在多麦克的（当代反对现代》一文对未来展望中和历史肯定中的虚无，难道「唯有贾克梅第，或者说那位法兰西学院诗人保纳夫瓦笔下的贾克梅第，才是二十世纪的样板……。他那圣地，只有艺术，唯有艺术方能触及，而造虚空与无限，也只有在神秘的精神恍惚之中才其正达到。艺术乃近乎神秘主义？那幺甚幺是非神秘主义的艺术？形式主义的先锋派。？毕加索算不算？拿贾克梅第反对毕加索？拿呈现来反对再现，拿存在来反对不断显现，是艺术令后的出路吗？难道恢复圣体存在的神学使命才是渲场公案的症结？远种神学显然不能容忍一切怀疑论者、醒世论者、自负不逊的画家以及对激情的分析，譬如毕加索或沃荷。

　　事实上不少的批评者仍属法国知识分子中的左派，并非主张复营或回归宗教。拿上世纪末现代主义兴起时过境迁的理由来反驳，而回避当今非术中的问题，显然缺乏说服力。就艺术本身而言，倒是奥廷若（Didie Ottinger）在《美术》杂志田aux Arts，no．110，1993）上的一文多少标及到问题的实质，对当代艺术“胡来”的鼻祖杜象予以肯定。

　　他回顾了杜象对本世纪艺术造成的巨大影响，重新肯定他的功绩。他指出：1913年当杜象把一个自行车车叉安在一张白圆凳上，正是”对数千年来致力于墙上和画布上堆集图形和色彩的功用的蔑视……这闻所未闻的举动，创造了这现成品，如此彻底，以致许久都无法再创造甚幺学派。他认为，正因为杜象的创新具有巨大的震撼性，才导致艺术家们对他无止境的摹仿。”本世纪的艺术家们从50年代末开始迷恋杜象的发明。1959年，第一本关于他作品的英文专着在纽纯出版，一批美国”艺术家纷纷把物品引进到他们的绘制中。随后，波普艺术家们又将物的应用和拣来的图象推而广之。而法国，来自现成品的最初“风格”便随同新写实主义一起出现。克里斯托（Christo）用现成品来包装，阿耳曼（Arman）用作反复重复，斯波里（Spoerri）用以黏贴，丁格里（Tingnely）和塞查（Cesar）用来组合。与此同时，圣断（Sanriouand）也用他的装置向形而上馈域。年复一年，用对象制作的艺术流派繁殖，克拉格（Cragg）的巴罗克风格，佛拉文（Flavin）的形式主义和几何形体的古典风格，而卡尔?安德尔（Carl Andre）则装配霓虹灯或砖头。违物的艺术既有克因豪茨（Xienho切叙述式的，当然也包括了那位沃荷，或里赤登斯坦（Lichtenstein图解式的。白南准（Paik）将电视显象管组合起来有都市味，理查·朗（Richard rong）把石头和朽木加以排列，因而有生态的意味。贯穿历史的渲后现代，显然便靠杜象留下的衣架支撑。他一再强调在”60、70年代，所有最彻底的先锋派，那怕不搞现成品的，看来也出自杜象。50年代那第一批行动艺术得力于音乐家会凯吉（Job Cage）、舞蹈家库宁李（Mere Cunningham）、画家饶申伯格（Rauschenberg）同杜象的交流，才得以在黑山学院诞生。无论是莫理斯（Robert Moms）1963年的观念艺术的先驱作也好，还是60年代的人体艺术，无疑都受了杜象启发。因而，”本世纪艺术上的大胆和违章……都来自杜象。先锋派即等于杜象。”现成品人人有份！其中包括众多的评论家、哲学家、史学家、作态的模仿者、献媚者及许多正宗学院的教授。

　　其实，杜象在1962年评论他同时代的艺术时，就已经感到渲种趋势发展下去的危险性，艺术也许会堕落成”胡搞。他说过：”遗新达达，现今叫新现实主义、波普、组合等等，不过是借达达的成就做的轻而易举的游戏。而我当时发明那现成品，意图是给乌烟瘴气的唯美主义泼益凉水。可新达达却用来发现他们的所谓美学价情。但奥廷若懿为，杜象不是后现代主义的潜藏的反对派。在他看来，重读杜象的作品，得丢开他的偶象崇拜者和气急败坏的反对者双方的善恶二元论。论者进而分析杜象作品中的视觉效果和色情成分，又回顾他那些现成品之作的演变，认为第三度空间才是杜象的色情主义的核心之一，筋是他企图超越历史上已经过时的透视和平面性，寻找通往辣度的路。”因此，他的远些作品才不断刺激清教徒和善恶二元论者的视网膜，今顽固不化用遮羞布挡住隆起部分的那种现代主义的伪君子们揣揣不安。

　　但是，无论怎样辩护，肯定杜象的历史地位也好，赞扬他对渲后现代主义艺术影响巨大也好，当代艺术的支持者却对当今艺术拿不出艺术的评价。回顾历史看眼的也只是艺术对社会的挑舋，而渲源起于现代主义的艺术不断革命论，或唯新论，在现今的消费社会倒相反成为时髦，却不再具有社会批判的意义。

　　现时代的艺术是否就这样继续走下去？艺术走向艺术的否定是否还是艺术的出路？对当代艺术的质疑是否就一定走回头路？甚至回到十九世纪？就一定回到宗教？违才是值得讨论和研究的。


　　四．争论背后的问题

　　这场唇枪舌战自然并非只是一场纳学术的争论，既涉及到法国现今的文化政策，也带有法国政局右派与左派斗争的痕妀，而更为徕刻的是，道场争论反映了当今西方文化普遍存在的危机。它在如年代冷战结束后爆发，绷E偶然。如《世界报》的综述所说，对现当代的艺术类似的争论由来已久。早在1987年，《精神》就刊载过莫金（Olivier Mongin）的《如何判断当代艺术》一文。 1988年，多麦克也在该刊呼唤：”一场关于当代艺术的辩论在等待我们。而《世界报》更早在1981年就发表过人类学家列维?史陀对当代艺术的批评，题为《丧失了的手艺》。1986年2月号《现时代》也发表过《造形艺术：一种政策的形象》，而《评论》则于1990年连赣四期以《法国文化政策协题，进行批评。然而直到《精神》1991年7、8月号的《当今艺术》、1992年2月号（当代艺术的危机）和10月号的（当代艺术反对现代艺术？》接连三期排炮，才引起许多报刊与艺术刊物的强烈反响。以至于同年10月巴黎举行的当代艺术博览会刚开幕，法国电视二台的直播新闻节目崟艺术界的要员们都挡不住批评的声音。有人竟惊呼：”右派还没上台，就已叫起当代艺术已死川

　　对现已发表的近百篇文章与著述稍加研究就不难发现，问题已远远超越新与旧、革新与保守之争的老格局，也超越了法国左派与右派的传统政治分野。其中一个隐含的中心问题就是如何看待”现代性。

　　当代艺术的拥爨者无疑在捍卫由现代艺术和后现代艺术所集中体现出来的现代性。那种宣称艺术专业和精英地位的丧失，那种融人大众传媒和商业流通的艺术形式革命，无疑正是当代西方社会某一种重要性质，而当代艺术的批判者却怀疑并反思渲种现代性是否合理。

　　正如贪理罗所就：”从波特莱尔到本雅明，对成批系列生产的时代的抗议所孕育的美学思考，在渲个舐息社会的时代，已无意义……我们已进人另一种新的现代性…。远时代最大的好处在于摆脱了线性和辩证发展的障碍……到处甚幺都有，甚幺都是艺术已成定局。人人都有权利和义务进行价偿判断……毕加索未必是本世纪最伟大的画家。那无法归类的保罗?克利，不属任何流派，不属任何时髦的主义，却更接近我们的远另一种现代性。

　　一向支持当代艺术的理论刊物艺术新闻》出版了《历史在织续》专号（Are Press ‘l’histoire continue”，1992年底），对当代艺术作了一番回顾和检讨，它也意战到了论战的实质是如何看待现代性。该刊主编米耶（Catherine Millet）认为：“当代艺术的问题在于如何”重新舂待现代性。“人们对现代性的渲些典范远远未普理解，即使是那些充当现代性的辩护者。艺术机构、院校、市场和传播媒体，凡是新东西，一概敞开大门，以致次品泛滥成灾，弄得价值无存。

　　她承认”普经太天其，按照印象主义的命运的模式来理解艺术与公众的关系：资产阶级先是反感，继而有感，最后则一概倾倒。60、70年代，我们真诚相信我们捍卫的先蜂派也会是同样的命运。他们当时也是想批评社会……彼此都相信热忱传播新教会有收效。然而，没想到时过境迁，「现当代艺术博物馆极端的自由放任主义一反往昔排斥的态度，如今竟让数不胜数的平庸之作把艺术的品质度尽。全球中产阶级的艺术爱好者，为了避免像他们祖先在马奈面前闹过的笑话，竞相消费由艺术界中大部分人竭力制造的种种代用品，老的市场机制把一些别的行业也带动起来，公立和私营机构的主管同越来越多的艺术评论家相互竞争，每天发现新的艺术家成了他们经济上和道义上为生的理由。她也列举新近对布伦和康斯（Koons）的吹捧作为例子。”艺术界人口膨胀导致的后果。，其一是”复来者登上艺术史的舞台已为时太晚，只好自己来挑起大争端，美国的远一批带异端性，或假装引起争议的最后浪潮（诸如Holzer，Kruger, Gober, Hammons, Barmey），完全适应这全球中产阶级的期待。其二是参加过第一批先锋派的知识分子、作家和批评家已同渲艺术界分道扬镰，其中最杰出的一些人物，因为这地盘已无需多少认其的思考。，便撒手转向其他头城。因而，这艺术界无论是文章还是作品”都缺少判断能力。，大部分「思想平庸，观念混杂，东拼西凑，似是而非。，”艺术领域从此不再是出新思想的地方，只仿效传播媒体，思想退化，语汇贫乏。

　　她抨击的只是后现代主义，认为「复现代主义则正是全球中产阶级的意识形态。其历史主义求助以往的一切债偿，用来肯定现令的产物，且不管是甚幺。它同折衷主义并驾齐驱，取消一切价值判断。诚如某些人（诸如Danto，Belting）声称历史已终结，一切全都可以写人历史，不用作审美选掸，因为靠定义选择，排斥前者，便得出后来者肯定居上。这不只是种犬儒主义的立场，而且也表明一种双重人格，因为选择总带有道德取向。

　　“近年来，许多艺术家都接受了后现代主义精神提出的极限，当中不仅是那些摘录主义的画家，也时常是一批现成品主义者。在制造历史已终结渲寓言之前，那些把杜象的举动弄成神话的人，就已经用那幺个艺术与非艺术的命题，把艺术可能的天地限死。拣来件东西，弄成一张”画。或是图象。，大戟甚幺视角、取景，如拉维耶（Lavier的《绘制的物》、《立体照片》……毕尔（加房子一般大的现成品……麦茨（Merz）的劈柴和霓虹灯……科勒（Kelley）的破布娃娃……果波（Gober）在蜡上插蜡烛……杜象剽镇的举动现今已成为远些公认的作品美妙的根据……当年生活在一小圈爱好者之中的杜象宣称：”是着的人在创作。，他又那能预料到有一天，着的人竟然是大众。复现代主义意识形态并非没有诱惑力，因为终结历史的伎俩让人尔而然……它是一盏神灯。是不是仅仅为了逃避黑暗。，”银幕一亮。，人才”如同盲目的昆虫投过去？或者出于潜意识？”或者，远些电子的、媒体的，现今又加上美学的影屏，只不过是恋物与自铁两个巨大无比的影屏的多面体？

　　综上所述不难看出，这场论战已远远超出当代艺术的范围，也对本世纪以来的现代艺术的观念和历史都有所柳动。而且，看来还仅仅是个开端。对当代文学和美学的检讨也已露端倪，诸如对法国当代小诺的危机的批评已牵扯到巴尔特的后结构主义，对解构主义的批评也见诸文字，《精神》和《艺术新闻》等刊已就此发表不少文章。而更为练刻的背景，则是我们面临的这个意识形态态崩溃，没有主义的时代。

　　《新观察家》周刊（Le Nouvel obsevateur， no． 1508，1993）惊叹”法国知识界的政治路标已断然消失，原先肯定的已荡然无存，原有的观念则营垒倒宜。，不少著名的知识分子甚至表示”左派右派遣些调已无意义。，”第三种知识分子已出现？。”一个闻所未闻的世界正在冒头，远二十年的变化胜过两个世纪，终归绝不会惨凄怀一团混乱，要骚动也妙不可言。而德里达（Jacque Derrida）在新近的哲学著作《马克斯的幽灵》中，则呼唤“马克思精神”，并号召建立“一个新的国际”。回到马克思主义，难道就是出路？

　　（原载《二十一世纪》22期）

高行健－为自救而写作

2000年诺贝尔文学奖得主，法籍华裔流亡作家

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
高行健：我的创作观

　　我应该说，无论政治还是文学，我甚么派都不是，不隶属于任何主义，也包括民族主义和爱国主义。我固然有我的政治见解和文学艺术观，可没有必要钉死在某一种政治或美学的框子里。现今这个意识形态分崩离析的时代，个人想要保持精神的独立，可取的态度，我以为□有质疑。
　　我作为一个流亡作家，唯有在文学和艺术的创作中才得以自救。这并不是说，我就主张所谓纯文学，那种全然脱离社会的象牙塔。恰恰相反，我把文学创作作为个人的生存对社会的一种挑战，哪怕这种挑战其实微不足道，毕竟是一个姿态。

　　我为自己赢得表述自由的时候，才倾心于语言。我有时甚至游戏语言，可这并不是我写作的终极目的。而语言的游戏对作家往往是一个陷阱，如果这游戏背后不能传达通常难以表达的意味，即使玩得再聪明、再漂亮，也徒然□是某种空洞的语言形式。我所以找寻新的表述方式，□因为常规的语言限制了我，无法把我的感受表达得十分真切。

　　文学创作所以有趣正在于个人的独创和不重复。作为原则说来容易，人事实上往往生活在他人的阴影里，特别当你由衷欣赏某些作家或某些作品的时候。我的经验是尽量拉开距离。

　　流亡西方对我并非坏事，相反为我提供更多的参照。我在国外完成的《灵山》与《山海经传》，已经了结了所谓乡愁。前者是中国的社会现实引发的感受，后者则是对中国文化的源起的思考，都费了多年的心血。人一旦脱离所谓祖国，有种距离，写起来倒更为冷静。中国文化已消溶在我的血液里，毋需给自己再贴商标。传统的中国文化正面与负面，我已自行清理。一个作家重要的是超脱出来，有所创造，不必靠变卖祖宗的遗产过日子。 倘要找出同西方作家的区别，恐怕是一种静观的态度，我对社会和自我都一概采取这种态度，当然也可以说发自根深柢固的中国文化传统，有别于西方作家通常采用的心理分析和体验。可老庄哲学的无为和佛家的出世过于消极，我毕竟想做点甚么，我非道非佛，取的□是一种观省的态度。

　　我把文学创作作为自救的方式，或者说也是我的一种生活方式。我写作为的是自己，不企图愉悦他人，也不企图改造世界或他人，因为我连我自己都改变不了。要紧的，对我来说，□是我说了，写了，仅此而已。

死亡－上帝的礼物

死亡－－上帝给予人类社会的最好礼物。有时候，一个新时代的开启，往往是以旧时代保守人物的亡故为肇端的。

----------------------------------------

德语媒体 | 2006.03.04

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 用什么来捆绑财产
定于本周日召开的中国全国人大年度会议继续引起德语媒体关注。“法兰克福汇报”以“是否社会主义”为题刊登一篇文章，探讨本届会议何以不审议新财产法？

该报写道：“当本周日，中国人大本年度会议召开时，有一个重要的议案将不列入会议议程：审议并通过一项新的财产法。围绕该法，中国国内发生激烈争议，并促使中国领导层决定暂时收回该法草案。中国领导层担心，相关的争议会导致出现更多壕沟。

…
“正统左派利用这一争议，从整体上置疑改革政策。20年来，中国社会曾达成一项共识，即不再进行‘姓社还是姓资’的讨论，对法律或政策只看其实际效用如何。…然而，时过境迁，在中国国内，经济改革和私有化再度成为争论焦点。而实际上，这一新法律根本就没有触及中国私有财产的核心问题，没有对土地的私有权做出明确规定。

“新法律的支持者在法律界和经济学界占多数，他们十分惊讶地看到自己处于守势，而且在意识形态方面占了下风。他们本来是想通过这一法律在中国实现对于国家、个人和集体财产的一视同仁的保护。”

“法兰克福汇报”在叙述了因一名北大教授的信而引起关于该法律的激烈争议并最终导致该法律被搁置的过程后指出：

“该法律的所有赞成者都担心，法律制定过程将重又政治化。他们担心，随着财产权法的受阻，中国公民法的制定也将被推延。…

“有关姓社姓资的争论已然卷土重来，这对（中国）党而言实在来得不是时候。在棘手的意识形态问题上，党更愿意停留在抽象的层面上，而不做出确定的结论。颇得人心的不满情绪和正统社会主义思维结成的联盟有可能给党带来新的困局。”

德国之声版权所有
http://www.dw-world.de
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Commuting poverty
Mar 16th 2006 | BEIJING
From The Economist print edition

Poor peasants surround Beijing

“EUROPEAN cities with an African countryside” is how a report published in China this month describes the gap between booming Beijing, the nearby port-city of Tianjin and a “belt of poverty” around them. It is an exaggeration. No Chinese city has western European levels of development, and African-style deprivation is rarely seen in China. Yet the gap is huge and growing. For increasingly vocal critics of China's imbalanced development, it is a particularly alarming example.

In recent years China's leaders have themselves stressed the need to narrow regional imbalances. This was a major theme of the annual ten-day session of China's parliament, the National People's Congress, which ended on March 14th. The 3,000 Communist Party-picked delegates approved a budget that promises more cash for farmers and a new five-year economic plan to create a “virtuous synergy” between the wealthy seaboard, central China and the poor western regions.

Yet criticism of these disparities has also become a way for some to air more general grievances about China's embrace of capitalism. The government recently shelved plans to submit a new property law to the congress after a chorus of opposition, led by a Peking University academic, Gong Xiantian. He argued that the draft, which protected property rights, was un-Marxist and unconstitutional.

Though state-controlled, China's media are adept at pinpointing issues that embarrass officials. One example is the comparison of Beijing, Tianjin and their surrounds which appeared in an annual report on regional economies in China by the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences. One Chinese web portal devoted a special page to reports on the poverty belt, with a headline “so close and yet so far”. A commentary in the Farmers Daily, published by the ministry of agriculture, said the poverty of areas of Hebei Province around Beijing and Tianjin was “astonishing”.

The academy's report echoed the findings of an Asian Development Bank study published last year. It said the belt consisted of 32 counties, mostly to the north and north-west of Beijing and Tianjin, with an impoverished population of 2.7m living in nearly 3,800 villages. Poverty is defined as an annual income of less than 825 yuan ($102). The average urban income in Beijing last year was 17,653 yuan a year. Chen Mengping, one of the report's editors, says many of these villages are in mountainous places whose economies have been hit by a bid to improve the purity of Beijing's water, which they supply. This has involved closing factories, and planting trees instead of crops.

According to the ADB study, these areas represent extremes of poverty in a province that has failed to cash in on the growth of Beijing and Tianjin. Hebei has more officially designated “poor counties” and probably more people living in poverty than any other eastern province, it says (though officials say their numbers have been falling). Hebei's failure to develop more rapidly is in marked contrast with the hinterlands of Shanghai and Shenzhen. Wealth has radiated from these thriving port cities as manufacturing industries have mushroomed around them. Hebei has a bigger state-owned sector than the areas around Shanghai and Shenzhen—no recipe for fast development—and relatively little foreign investment.

Politics is partly to blame. The cities of Beijing and Tianjin enjoy provincial status and the advantages of being the capital city and a major port. Hebei has received fewer favours. Central government assistance in recent years has focused on China's west and the north-eastern rust belt. Some Hebei delegates at the National People' s Congress openly grumbled that their province had not been rewarded for sacrifices it had made for the two cities: providing them with water, and curbing industrial development to keep it clean.

How to make China even richer

Many years ago, when I tried to explain China's land system to my foreign clients, I commented that it was the only few badges the government hopes to keep for the proclaimed socialism in the country. Today, I found almost the same description and commentary in the following artical on the same topic.
------------------------------------------------
How to make China even richer
Mar 23rd 2006
From The Economist print edition

Let the peasants own their land

IN 1940, nine years before his Communist Party seized power, Mao Zedong set out his plans for a “new China”. The republic would, he said, “take certain necessary steps” to confiscate land from rural landlords. Under the principle of “land to the tiller”, it would then “turn the land over to the private ownership of the peasants.” If only things had turned out this way.

The “necessary steps” involved widespread slaughter. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of landowning rural residents and their families were executed or beaten to death by fellow villagers. The peasants got their small parcels of land, but not for long. By the late 1950s, private land ownership had been eliminated and peasants had become property-less members of “People's Communes”. It was an upheaval that, along with bad weather and a frenzied attempt to catch up with American levels of industrial production, contributed to millions more deaths in a nationwide famine.

As our survey describes, China has yet to undo the damage. A few years after Mao's death in 1976, the People's Communes were dismantled. Under Deng Xiaoping, agricultural production soared as for the first time in 30 years peasants were allocated (but not given full ownership of) plots of land to farm independently. This marked the start of the economic transformation that today holds the world spellbound. But it is the prosperity of urban China that mesmerises foreign businesses. Since its boom in the early 1980s, the countryside has lagged ever further behind.

This time, a genuine great leap forward

Deng kept in place two pillars of the Maoist rural order: collective land ownership and an apartheid system that barred rural residents from moving to the cities. The latter has begun to erode, due to the need for cheap labour to sustain a manufacturing boom. But the former remains firmly in place.

Now is the time to revive Mao's vision of a new landowning order. This would ease rural strife, fuel growth and help develop the genuine market economy the leadership claims to want. Giving peasants marketable ownership rights, and developing a legal system to protect them, would bring huge economic benefits. If peasants could mortgage their land, they could raise money to boost its productivity. Ownership would give them an incentive to do so. And if peasants could sell their land, they could acquire sufficient capital to start life anew in urban areas. This would boost urban consumption and encourage the migration of unproductive rural labour into the cities. For China to sustain its impressive growth rate and reduce inequalities, getting the many tens of millions of underemployed peasants off the land and into wealth-creating jobs is essential. The exodus would help those left behind to expand their land holdings and use them more efficiently.

No government, least of all the control freaks who run China, would embark on such a momentous exercise lightly. Communist Party ideologues are all too aware that a failure to handle rural issues properly can be destabilising. They worry that allowing peasants to sell their land could restore a rural landowning class, and that peasants would sell up in huge numbers and descend upon ill-prepared cities, throwing up shanty towns and pushing up crime.

Some officials also see collective ownership of rural land as one of the few remaining badges of China's professed “socialism”, and fear the explosion of divisive political debate if this bit of constitutional dogma is changed. In China's case, however, it is the absence of reform that is proving destabilising, as peasants protest violently against land seizures by local governments keen to exploit the land themselves. Though materially better off than they were in 1949, many peasants say that local bureaucrats have in effect become the landlords, sometimes using mafia-type gangs to push them off their fields.

A few opponents of land reform in the countryside say they are acting in the rural population's own interests. They point to the lack of social-security provisions for peasants. Though peasants have limited control over the land they farm, in most cases it can at least help to feed them.

The weakness of this argument is that forced appropriations by local governments have already deprived as many as 40m peasants of some or all of their land since the early 1990s, with little or no compensation. Besides, the best way to secure the welfare of the peasants is not to keep them trapped on underworked land but to spend more directly on services for the poor. With strong revenue growth, a low budget deficit and a booming economy, China can afford this. Compensating peasants for appropriated land on the basis of market values, not just minimal agricultural ones, would help too. And introducing a value-based property tax would persuade local governments to worry less about losing the one-off revenues they now enjoy from the sale of land rights.

It would be disingenuous to deny that land reform will loosen party control in the long run. A decade ago almost all urban housing was owned by the state. In one of the most dramatically successful economic reforms of the past quarter century in China, most is now privately owned. This has fostered the growth of a middle class that wants guarantees that its new assets are safe from the party's whims. Property owners are electing their own landlord committees—independent of the party—to protect their rights. A new breed of lawyers, not party stooges as most once were, is emerging to defend those whose properties are threatened by the state. Property owners want a clean environment around their homes. Green activism, which hardly existed in China a decade ago, is spurring the development of a civil society.

Even so, China's Communist Party has shown that it will take big risks if economic development demands them. Hence the widespread closure and privatisation of state-owned enterprises in the past decade, with the loss of millions of jobs. The leadership knows that China's history has been one of recurring bloody upheavals by landless peasants; it is caught between wanting to retain control and wanting to avoid another upheaval. This is the moment to complete the unfinished business of rural reform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiki's explanation on "civil society"

Civil society or civil institutions refers to the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations or institutions which form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system).

While there are myriad definitions of civil society, the London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society working definition is illustrative:

Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women's organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.

Examples of civil society institutions:

non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
private voluntary organizations (PVOs)
peoples' organizations
community-based organizations
civic clubs
trade unions
gender, cultural, and religious groups
charities
social and sports clubs
cooperatives
environmental groups
professional associations
academia
businesses
policy institutions
consumers/consumer organizations
the media
citizens' militia
religious organizations

Whether all of these institutions are by definition part of civil society is up for debate. Neera Chandoke, a scientist from India, thinks not. She concludes that only institutions that are critical of the state are the real thing, while the rest are merely not governmental. The notion here is that not every institution is a 'countervailing power' to the state. In developing countries, civil society is popular with aid donors because it can make government behave in a better way. But mock civil society organisations can exist that serve only to gain access to development aid.

The term civil society is currently often used by critics and activists as a reference to sources of resistance to and the domain of social life which needs to be protected against globalization. However, within the United Nations context, the phrase "civil society" has been a source of some controversy, as its meaning also includes businesses as well as private voluntary organisations – see United Nations: Partners in Civil Society.

On the other hand others see globalization as a social phenomenon bringing classical liberal values which inevitably lead to a larger role for civil society at the expense to politically derived state institutions.

石油危机何以未导致全球范围的严重通货膨胀？

今天和CC就“石油危机何以未导致全球范围的严重通货膨胀”的问题进行了讨论，觉得大有收获和感悟。

准备花点时间记录下来。

另外，还讨论了“Consultants hardly make it to CEOs in Fortune 500 companies”的原因。以后我们要如何避免这些常犯的pitfalls。也会找时间记下来的。

Pick Yourself up

Lyrics by Diana Krall from her album "When I Look in Your Eyes" released in June 1999

Nothings impossible I have found
For when my chin is on the ground
I pick myself up, dust myself off, start all over again

Don't lose your confidence if you slip
Be grateful for a pleasant trip
And pick yourself up, dust yourself off and start all over again

Work like a soul inspired till the battle of the day is won
You may be sick and tired but you'll be a man my son
Don't you remember the famous man who had to fall to rise again?
They picked themselves up, dust themselves off and started all over again

La Vie Normale

人总是要到迫不得已的时候，才会改变。然后，“穷则变，变则通。”再之后，“通则富，富则怠”，“怠则又穷”；如此周而复始，循环往复。看下面活生生的法国全国大罢工，反对“青年劳工法案”的例子。

APRIL 10, 2006 Business Week by Carol Matlack

France Sacks Youth Labor Law

The government has withdrawn the law that caused months of protests. But what happens now to an economy that's still in need of reform?

At last, France can return to normal. On Apr. 10, President Jacques Chirac's center-right government withdrew a youth-employment law that had ignited two months of tumultuous protest. Now that the protesters are declaring victory, the labor strikes will abate, students will go back to school, and everyone can enjoy the balmy spring weather.

But beneath the outward calm, France's political landscape has changed dramatically. And in the aftermath of the protests, the chances for major reform to revive a faltering economy seem more remote than ever.

WINNERS AND LOSERS. First, the politics. The big loser is Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who as recently as January was considered a leading presidential contender in the 2007 elections. The suave, silver-maned Villepin has effectively self-destructed. His approval rating has plummeted to 25%, half the figure in December.

Even supporters of the labor law, which was intended to boost youth employment by making it easier to hire and fire workers ages 26 and under, say Villepin botched the situation. He pushed the legislation through Parliament without first trying to sell it to a skeptical public. As protests intensified, his refusal to negotiate came across to many voters as arrogant, rather than principled.

The big winner is Nicolas Sarkozy, the ambitious Interior Minister. Villepin's meltdown gives him a near-lock on the conservative UMP party's presidential nomination. It also makes Sarkozy the front-runner in the race, since the fragmented Socialists haven't found a candidate to rally around.

Sarkozy has long presented himself as a market-friendly reformer. During the labor-law protests, he criticized the government for failing to consult with unions and student groups before putting the legislation to a vote. But he never said what he would do about the 22% youth unemployment rate that the legislation was intended to address.

NO REFORM. Indeed, the biggest loser of all may be France's economy. After seeing what happened to Villepin, no French politician will dare propose major reforms before the elections -- which will probably be held next spring -- and perhaps not even after that. "I am very sad today, as are many executives across the country," says Marc Touati, chief economist at Paris-based Natexis Banques Populaires. "We have a confirmation that France will not, can not reform."

No question, the French economy is in trouble. Growth has averaged below 1.5% for the past four years, national unemployment hovers around 10%, and the government is piling on debt to pay for generous social programs. Employers, burdened with some of the world's highest payroll taxes and stringent anti-layoff laws, have sharply curtailed hiring and are shifting work to less-expensive labor markets whenever they can (see BW Online, 3/21/06, "Job Security Ignites Debate in France").

That helps explain the seemingly incongruous fact that France Inc. is still perking along nicely. Corporate profits are strong. The CAC 40 index of leading stocks is up more than 10% this year. These big companies are expanding globally, while trimming their French payrolls. Alcatel (ALA), the telecom equipment maker that recently announced a deal to acquire Lucent Technologies (LU) of the U.S., is just one example. The chief victims of France's heavy taxes and labor restrictions are smaller companies. In healthy economies, these companies are the engines of job growth. In France, they are hanging on for dear life.

JOBS NEEDED. For all the fury it unleashed, the youth labor law would have done little to address this dilemma. True, it would have allowed employers to fire or lay off younger workers without going through the usual cumbersome procedures. But existing protections would have remained in place for older workers who make up the vast majority of the labor force.

"The fundamental issue is France's capacity to create employment," says Amaury Eloy, who owns a chain of photocopy shops and is a leader of Croissance Plus, an organization of French entrepreneurs. But, he laments, "instead of reforming once and for all, the focus is on small technical reforms" such as the youth labor measure (see BW Online, 3/29/06, "France: Will Youth Strike Out?").

The French stalemate is all the more alarming when compared with Germany and other European countries that have begun reforming their labor laws. And now France will lose another year, since reform looks politically impossible until after the 2007 elections.

Would Sarkozy tackle the problem if he became President? He has warned repeatedly that France can no longer cling to its old ways and must embrace globalization and free markets. Yet recent public-opinion surveys suggest that a majority of French voters don't agree. Sarkozy has not yet laid out a detailed economic program. Now, the debacle of the youth labor law is likely to make him even more cautious.

FULL CIRCLE. Despite its problems, France is still wealthy enough to keep cushioning most of its citizens from severe economic pain. Indeed, economist Touati says, "We can easily continue without reforms for another 5 to 10 years. The consequences will be a reduction of 0.1% to 0.2% in economic expansion per quarter. It's in 10 [or] 20 years that we'll feel it fully."

After weeks of tumult, a return to la vie normale is surely a relief. But in many ways, it's the last thing France needs.

活络

今天无意中和老公聊到关于我是否活络的问题。

答案是显而易见的－－不活络。不懂得拍老板马屁；要是拍，也只会拍一眼就能识破的马屁。

悲愤啊！

会不会拍马屁，拍得好不好，是不是和智商有密切关系啊？？？

Work-life Balance

"Often, people think, 'To get real balance, I'd have to radically change my life.' And that's not practical for many of us. But all you really need to do is make incremental change," says Sandholtz. "Even making two or three relatively small changes, and freeing up a few extra hours a week, can make a huge difference."

So where do you start? First, Sandholtz recommends keeping a detailed diary for a couple of days, just to see where your time is really going. Then look at it and ask yourself which activities you could cut out, or delegate to someone else. (A small but typical example: Did you really have to spend half an hour yesterday picking up dry cleaning? Can you find a dry cleaner who delivers?)

At the same time, decide which area of your life--work, family, friendships, or self-care--most sorely needs more attention than it's getting.

"From dads, we most often hear it's time with the kids that's lacking," says Sandholtz. "From women, it's usually self-care--an hour or two here or there to exercise, get a facial, read, or just think."

Once you have a clear idea of what you're spending time on now, and where you want to redirect some of that time, you can choose a tactic that will help you get there.

Here are five practical strategies that can help you devote more time to the pursuits you truly value:

1. Alternating. This technique involves immersing yourself completely in work for a specified period, and then not working at all for a while--rather like a freelance writer who works feverishly on a book project for a year and then takes three months off. If arranging a sabbatical isn't realistic, at least be sure to go on regular vacations. Too many people neglect to take these vital breaks, and ultimately become less productive.

"If you use your vacation time to catch up on chores--or worse yet, don't take a vacation at all--you're not getting that essential recharging that relaxing time off can give you," says Sandholtz.

2. Outsourcing. Identify activities you're willing to let someone else take over. For example, hire a housecleaning service instead of doing all the mopping and dusting yourself. Rather than do your taxes yourself this April, hire an accountant. At work, try to find a few tasks you've been tackling yourself that really could be delegated--it could gain you a few extra hours each week for strategizing.

3. Bundling. This tactic can help you get more mileage out of the same number of hours. Wish you had more time to hang out with your friends? Never get the chance to go to the gym enough? You can fit both friendship and exercise into your schedule by power-walking with a friend. Sick of living on takeout? Get together with a couple of pals on Sunday evenings and cook meals that can be stashed in the freezer for the coming week.

4. Techflexing. As the name suggests, this strategy allows you to make use of technology, including a home office, to work more flexible hours (if you have the kind of job that permits it). If a pager or a broadband connection would make it easier for you to take a few hours off in the middle of a workday on occasion, go ahead and make the investment (or better yet, see if your employer will reimburse you).

5. Simplifying. Is earning more and owning more always better? Not necessarily--especially when you can't find time for the things you really value. Free yourself up by figuring out what you can live without. "You may make small sacrifices, such as cancelling magazine subscriptions," the authors suggest.

Or, you could make a bigger sacrifice, such as taking a voluntary pay cut in exchange for reducing your hours.

None of these solutions is one-size-fits-all, as Sandholtz is the first to admit. (To pinpoint which approaches would suit you best, take our quiz: What's the Right Work-Life Strategy for You?) And for most people, the best strategy of all might be to borrow a bit from all five, as Sandholtz does himself. He and his wife have six kids, but he still manages to coach peewee soccer, volunteer at his church, help out at home so his wife can train for 10K races, and hold down a job that requires lots of travel.

"Work-life balance isn't an impossible dream," he says.

Entrepreneurship

A female entrepreneur

Saundra Charles, a chemical engineer who quit a career with Fortune 500 oil companies to start a metal-fabricating and welding company called BI Group in Irvington, N.J. Revenues last year were about $300,000, "but I don't see any reason we couldn't eventually be a $20 million company," says Charles, 47.

Doesn't she run into skepticism from big industrial customers who aren't expecting someone named Saundra to be running the show? "Sure, but once they see that you understand their business, it's no problem," she says. "Be yourself. Have a thick skin. Be true to what you're trying to accomplish. And just do it."

Do you need school to succeed?

Michael Dell, Founder and chariman, Dell

"Most of entrepreneurship, for me, is about instinct and intuition. Many times I have been asked by someone considering a new venture if he should go for it. But an entrepreneur knows instinctively when to go for it."

Wally Amos, Founder, Famous Amos Cookies

"You can't teach someone not to be afraid when he is almost out of money or to believe in his idea no matter what."

Palm Sunday

Just got to know today is Palm Sunday. (圣枝主日,棕枝全日或称棕榈星期日)

It is the Sunday before Easter, observed by Christians in commemoration of Jesus's entry into Jerusalem, when palm fronds were strewn before him.

Have no idea whether people in Germany regard it a special day, cos haven't found anything special, pedestrians in the street are no more or fewer than on any ordinary Sundays.

The only exception seems to be the resounding tolls from the neighboring Jewish church far more frequent than normal Sabbath days.

迷上JAZZ

一个人在家，感觉最好的时候，就是边听Jazz，边或坐或躺在沙发里，写我的博客。

音乐在流淌，思路便也悠悠地流淌出来。

原来美妙的Jazz是思考的最佳催化剂。

Diana Krall的这张Sunshine Express购于丽江背山傍水的一家小店。在上海没有看到过这样有品位的CD。也许是因为人只有在客乡，才会激起探索的精神。

听了无数遍了，永远都不会听厌的，我想。

有起色了

连着两天晚上去gym踏脚踏车，去得很晚，都是最后一个走。看到前台的工作人员都有点不好意思了。但是终归是一大进步。虽然每天都是拖到不能再拖的时候才去，至少是去了，能做到持之以恒的锻炼就应该鼓励一下自己。

然后是CFA的准备也开始渐渐有效率。就如老妈说，时间不多了。惭愧得很，每次都是临时抱佛脚，这回依然如故。不过终究还是比以往要提前了不少了。也鼓励一下。

一定要坚持下去，而且不断进步。要对得起自己。

英伦游照片发布

照片发布在MSN Space上。

一到伦敦就下雨，整个行程里，几乎没怎么见着太阳。所以照片的色调都是灰灰的，很不好看。

伦敦深厚的文化底蕴和国际化，以及英格兰乡村的静谧和美丽，在我的预料中。非常喜欢。伦敦的吸引力在于她的多元化，任何人都不会对她失望。打个比方，伦敦相当于中国把北京和上海两个城市的优势浓缩到了一个城市中。谁会不爱她呢？

Trivia：
吃坏肚子一次，在肯辛顿大街的美味泰国大餐后。发作于志摩GG赋咏的康桥未名河上的punt，结束于已经关门大吉的格林威治天文台。

相机的生命终结于剑桥的划桨小男生之手。因此，现在看到的尽是Minolta Dimage F300的遗作。此后的游览，诸如肯辛顿宫、海德公园、格林威治等等都只能留在了记忆中。

在Her Majesty's Theatre如愿以偿地看了一场The Phantom of the Opera，但不幸由于票子handling的问题，永远地错过了开头。说“永远”是因为此生再也不会花40胖子去现场看这部音乐剧了。

在Windsor和Cambridge各参加了一次教堂的service。相对更喜欢在Cambridge 著名的King's College Church的那次choir service. 是我迄今听到过的最好的choir，和声处理得相当完美。

对梦想负责

为了给父母办理申根签证，真是花了很多的时间和精力。并非帮助他们准备材料费时费力，而是，必须不停地反复和他们解释早已说过千遍万遍的注意事项。

提出的问题都是在寄去的材料，来往的email中反复重复强调过N次的。

不知道是不是因为年纪大了，就什么东西也不再想看，也不再想思考，完全依赖别人来告诉他们应该先做什么，后做什么。打个比方，他也想去彼岸走走，但是他却不想自己驾舟；他唯一做的就是等待。等待有好心人给自己驾舟。如果一生都没有等到好心人的出现，那么他就会一直滞留此地，直到老之将至。如果有了好心人，他当然高兴，但是至于到彼岸去哪儿看，没关系，走走就好。别人让我去哪儿，我就去哪儿。完全把自己的快乐以至命运放在了别人的掌心。

这样的他快乐吗？？？？？

老爸有很多梦想，从年轻做到年老，从退休前做到退休后。梦依然是梦。有梦，而没有魄力、勇气和恒心去实现它，是最悲哀的。我想，到那一天到来的时候，老爸一定会为自己没有勇气去实现自己一生的梦想而悔恨万分的。不要说，这一切是因为人变得现实了，知道什么是不可能。这些无不是屈服于自己的缺点的借口。没有人会拒绝一张飞来的100万元支票，或是一次免费的环球旅行......说明人们的梦想永远存在。只是当需要自己努力、艰辛地去争取这些幸福的时候，不少人就会退缩。世界上许多人成功，只是因为有更多的人中途放弃，甚至害怕踏上征程而已。

想想老爸年轻时，也是个才华横溢、血气方刚的男儿。几十年计划经济和文革时代的思想禁锢，让他们这一代人变得软弱和唯唯诺诺，不敢越雷池半步，不敢说自己所想，不敢为自己所愿。奴性的人，便于统治。但也不再具有任何除仆人以外的价值。和他同时代的人，也有一些是能够挣脱时代束缚的。与其说是时代的束缚，不如说是自己对自己的束缚。

老爸退休后，就再也不愿意工作了。我想，除了他想休息一下以外，令他做出这一决定的最主要原因是，他并不喜欢自己的工作。换句话说，他不能从这份工作中得到任何心理上的满足。他没有成就感。所以，退休后，他就恨不能快快逃离那个纯粹聊以谋生的地方。

希望，有一天，老爸从睡梦中醒来，终于决定要去实现他依然抱有的梦想。一个一个地去实现，在老之将至之前。当他愿意对自己的梦想和幸福负责的时候，我将是他最坚定的支持者，我也才可能给他更好的帮助。

这就是我对老爸的最美好的祝福。

Gregory Peck

Oldtime heartthrob Gregory Peck was born 90 years ago today. Nominated for the Best Actor Oscar five times, Peck won in 1962 for his role as Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. The American Film Institute voted Atticus Finch the greatest cinema hero of all time in their special feature, AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains. Peck usually played upstanding, stalwart, and honorable men, but forayed into darker territory with his acclaimed role as a sadistic Nazi doctor in The Boys From Brazil.

Quote: "You have to dream, you have to have a vision, and you have to set a goal for yourself that might even scare you a little because sometimes that seems far beyond your reach. Then I think you have to develop a kind of resistance to rejection, and to the disappointments that are sure to come your way. " – Gregory Peck

这两年

这两年来，表面上一事无成；完全处于反刍状态。由于某些机缘，得以在家，在旅途中，在闲逛时，在煮饭间思考和反省。收获可能远大于浑浑噩噩地随波逐流。

1.关于事业

过去的7、8年，过的一直是有头脑，没灵魂的日子。在被不断推赶之际，侥幸学了些糊口的技能。但是就如同没有钱串子的铜钱，满满地洒了一屋子，却没法派上大用场。这么多年，始终处于既在乎，又不在乎的状态。和别人一样地努力工作，同时却又表现出与世无争的矛盾。不喜欢，甚至是讨厌和憎恶那份工作。但是既然大家都说是份“打着灯笼也找不到”的好工作，我又怎能轻言放弃。频繁地徘徊在去与留之间。最终的走，依然是被动的。因为是机会来找我了。

庆幸自己，在30岁的时候，终于懂得要做喜欢做的事；放胆告别了自己很不喜欢，却令人艳羡的工作。有位朋友说，你怎么会辞职？难道不知道这家公司，做满两年就会有高达几十万的房贴？我在网络这头只能笑笑，是尴尬的笑，无奈的笑，亦或窃笑，自己也琢磨不透。我只觉得，我不后悔。为了薪水，为了房贴而去忍耐，做一份不喜欢的工，我想我不会这样了。当然，现在的我的确要比刚出道时多了些底气。年纪大了，反而有了份做人做事的豪爽和闯劲。就像李敖赞美富兰克林的评语“年轻时保守，年老时反而激进”。

遗憾的是，我依然不知道自己最终的职业归宿在哪里。也许没有一个人真正清楚。可喜的是，我至少明白要通过不断地尝试、放弃，再尝试、再放弃的反复中，找到属于自己的路。

Steve Chandler 在100 ways to motivate yourself中说，目标是什么并不重要，你可以永远去改你的目标，但是你不能没有目标。

想不清楚的时候，就先抓一个最喜欢的，去take action，竭尽全力地去体验自己是否喜欢。

Steve说，悲观者不易行动，因为老想着worst case，太多的worries，觉得要做就要做到完美。到头来的结果就是什么都不做，因为对悲观者而言，任何事情都不可能做到完美。我想，那么多年来，我以为自己是乐观的，殊不知自己居然就是如此的悲观者。事事追求完美，做不好宁可不做，实际上是多么愚蠢的想法。

感觉到纠缠了多年的心结在慢慢打开。好了，在行动中，一切都会好起来的。我有信心了。

2.关于感情

感情渐趋稳定。不再怀疑自己的选择和未来的幸福。分离是感情最大的杀手。现在两个人耳鬓厮磨，吵吵闹闹；把以前解不开的结都一一给解了。未来的日子无限美好。

即使还会有很多争执和吵闹，但我们至少明白，那些肯定都不是大碍了。真好。

两年的休养，很快就要结束。我想，我已经在心理上准备得差不多了。

杂感

晨起，脸未洗，饭未吃，开始看The Phantom of the Opera的libretto。 关于第一场排练Hannibal的场景，就让我摸不着头脑。Hannibal是谁？他做了什么壮举，令两千多年后的现代人仍在颂扬他？对于古罗马的荣耀历史，记忆已经模糊，决心恶补一下。

Wiki的解释详尽之极，对公元前218年－前203年Hannibal率领的Carthaginian和罗马人的旷世之战Second Punic War，做了白描般的勾勒。Hannibal被认为是Carthage最著名的将领，以谋略和埋伏见长，尤以Battle of Cannae一役令罗马人威风扫地，堪称以少胜多的典范。Hannibal最惊人之举在于得不到本国政府支持的情况下，靠争取外国城邦的支持和吸纳外国乃至敌国新兵入伍的方式维持兵力，实现其the conquest and humiliation of Rome的终生梦想。但最终因兵力耗尽而战败，并饮毒自尽。

1. 关于东西方绘画

Wiki上Hannibal的条目下另有一幅Jacques-Louis David的油画Napoléon crossing the Alps (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Napoleon4.jpg)，描绘拿破仑.波拿巴在Second Italian Campaign中翻越阿尔卑斯山，意在将拿破仑与当年羞辱罗马人的Hannibal相媲美。

对着图片凝视良久，不得不钦佩于画家对光、影、色彩以及人体和生物解剖结构的精湛把握。16-19世纪的西方绘画，仿真技术日益高超。究竟是绘画刺激了生物学的发展，还是生物学刺激了绘画的仿真性，我并不知晓。但是画家对于生物结构的了解是显而易见的，也许肇端就始于拥有科学家和画家双重身份的Leonado Da Vinci吧。（但愿有攻西方艺术史的高人指点一下）

西洋人在艺术领域彰显出对于真实性（或者说fact）的追求，一如其在经济、政治和科学领域一样。他们的思维趋于以事实出发的（fact-based）、客观的、严谨的、求证的、有条理的和讲究逻辑的。这些习性体现在绘画艺术上的结果就是，我们所看到的接近摄影的写实主义。

一直到19世纪末，随着摄影技术的出现和发展，越来越多的画家出于对自身职业的生存危机感，而开始转向表现主观自我，代表人物当然是赫赫有名的毕加索。

禁不住要对比中国绘画。在中国，绘画的真实性在12世纪宋朝时已发展到高峰，尤以郭熙的早春图为写实主义巅峰，以后就开始转向主观情趣的抒发。自北宋后，中国绘画渐趋注重笔墨情趣的形式主义，举例而言文征明的画即意不在山水的描绘而是借由山水来堆砌各种运笔的手法。到15世纪的明朝末年，清朝初期时，画家已经开始向表现自我方向转化，不注重客观世界的描绘。八大山人、扬州八怪、任伯年、吴昌硕等都有很强的自我风格，而不再计较再现自然的真实性。

但中国的写实主义即使在在最颠峰时，也仍然是二维平面的描画，对细节的关照远不如西方绘画来得忠实，而对气韵和意境极为讲究。写意派一直在相当长的历史时期内，独霸中国绘画流派，并延续至今。艺术形式的背后，是中国人由来已久的对于"差不多"“大约摸”的心满意足。同样的心态和国民性，影响到中国社会的其他方面；比如科学和技术，越是到近代，中国的贡献就越发乏善可陈。时至今日，中小学课本里依然在宣扬祖国悠远的四大发明，而对近现代的空白三缄其口。

象西方那样的生物学和绘画相辅相成的发展，在中国绘画史中，我们看不到。

2. 关于对Wiki的封锁

不能想象，如果没有Wiki的详尽解释，如何能引出我如此拓展性的思考和有关知识的扩充。

Wiki上有篇申告材料这么写道：“在经济和信息日益全球化的今天，面对这样一个影响力日益扩大的，开放版权和内容的，全球性的知识共享计划，更有效的方式不是拒之于国门之外，而是积极参与其中。封禁维基百科，我们将失去一个向世界发出中国声音的机会，任由邪教、台独等势力左右计划中相关内容的发展，向全世界展示一个扭曲的中国；我们也将失去一个与世界共享学术知识的机会；而作为使用者，我们也会失去一个获取知识的渠道，而且这个渠道的重要性正在不断上升；这种做法无异于自断喉舌，自闭耳目，是互联网时代的闭关锁国。希望有关部门能够核实维基百科的内容与性质，及早解除对其的封禁。”

在另一篇关于“中国大陆封锁维基媒体事件"一文中，对该事件产生的影响做出如下评述：

“中文维基的中立性受影响
中国大陆用户在中文维基计划的缺席，影响中文维基各项目内容的完整性、中立性。例如介绍中国大陆地理、社会、文化、历史等的诸多条目，将因编者缺乏而逐渐荒疏，或依旧保留空白。政治方面的条目，中国大陆的主流观点将难于体现在内容中。例如：主张台湾独立的某些激进人士可能会加入有违中立的内容，或者某些人士对诸如“六四事件”、“法轮功”、“九评共产党”等条目做巧妙却恶意的修改以宣传其单方面的论述，其他海外编者由于不了解中国大陆内情，可能会认为这些都是中立公允的事实阐述而予以接受；同时，由于中文维基在华语世界和维基媒体在世界上的广泛影响，可能会导致世界其他地区的用户对中国大陆政府的看法上有偏见，这些都将会对中国大陆政府及社会带来严重的不良影响。

阻碍了中文文化的交流与发展
中文维基不能在中国大陆地区正常使用，也是整个中文知识累积过程的损失，可能会导致中文知识的逐渐匮乏。普通百科全书的价格、知识面、便携性远远没有维基百科强。可能会给大量网民、新闻工作者、科学研究者甚至学生带来莫大的不便。

中文维基的各个项目，由于有众多的参与者，在华语圈的学术思想观念交流、词汇统一等方面有很大的影响，中文维基的简繁系统所衍生出来的各项工作，比如简繁词汇对应、译名统一、字形整理、规则设立等，不仅仅只限于技术，对中文文化认同、交流、统一起了极大作用。中国大陆隔断了维基这一国际性的项目，使得文化隔阂将会重新加剧，使得例如“互联网”、“网际网路”这样有区域性的指称多起来。

香港报纸专栏作家黄世泽他表示这些封锁可能会使维基媒体的香港或台湾等地区的用户以各自的生活方式和思想习惯编辑，最终使到与在中国大陆的用户距离愈来愈大。并且这种由中国大陆政府造成两地文化分裂，可能再次使到中文维基项目分裂为繁体中文版和简体中文版。长远来道可能会影响未来年轻一代做好统一中国，以及使两岸三地整合变得更加难达到。”

当然，事情并不那么简单，政府应当也是有其苦衷的。中国绝大多数民众的受教育程度不高，对信息公正度的判断能力并不强。政府怕的是对不明事理的民众形成的不良影响，及可能引起的社会不安定因素。只是如此防微杜渐的代价恐怕也是巨大的。

谁让中国那么大，民众间的差异又如此悬殊呢？仿佛一个好生和差生同处一班的教学，老师必无法让两者同时满意一样。好生唯一能做的就是祈祷差生尽快好起来；中国的好学生从来不愿意真心去帮助差生摆脱现状，虽然这样做可能是最快最有效地解决问题的办法。好学生只知一味地抱怨老师的无能，嫌弃与他同班的差生兄弟们。只是“利人利己”的双赢做法从来不是我们中国人血液中的一部分。因为我们当中能真正看到这样做的好处的人，寥若星辰。