Introduction to William Eggleston’s Guide by John Szarkowski (I)

其實在介紹 William Eggleston’s Guide 的那篇，就偷偷歸到了個 Introduction to William Eggleston’s Guide by John Szarkowski 的分類，暗暗埋下了伏筆（我也算個 Formalist 哩）。當年把 Eggleston 推上檯面，Szarkowski 絕對是最重要的角色。他為 William Eggleston’s Guide 寫的這篇導讀（檄文？），除了 Eggleston 作品，也觸到了一些關於攝影、形式、色彩等等的討論。雖然難免有一些專業名詞的咬文嚼字，但大抵還算白話易近。全文共分五大段，在這裡拾人牙慧，很不專業地試著翻譯，試著在兩種語言的交替下，多接近一點大師們的想法。

ps: Eggleston已將他的作品交付基金會，很多照片（非常多產的攝影家）、文章，包括這篇導讀的全文，都可以在他的網站上看到。

— 我是分隔線 —

Introduction to William Eggleston’s Guide
by John Szarkowski

AT THIS WRITING I have not yet visited Memphis, or northern Mississippi, and thus have no basis for judging how closely the photographs in this book might seem to resemble that part of the world and the life that is lived there. I have, however, visited other places described by works of art, and have observed that the poem or picture is likely to seem a faithful document if we get to know it first and the unedited reality afterwards – whereas a new work of art that describes something we had known well is likely to seem as unfamiliar and arbitrary as our own passport photos.

下筆的此刻，我（沙考斯基 John Szarkowski）還沒拜訪過孟斐斯（Memphis）或是密西西比州北部（譯註：艾哥斯頓 William Eggleston 的故鄉），因此無從判斷這本書裡的照片有多麼貼近那裡的世界和生活。然而，到訪過其他曾被藝術作品所描述的地方，我發現，如果先經由藝術作品認識某地再造訪，就會覺得那些詩作或影像是忠實的紀錄；如果第一手認識未經詮譯過的真實，再看到新作描述那些我們已經熟識的地方，就會像看到自己護照上的大頭照一樣，覺得那些作品陌生又武斷。

Thus if a stranger sought out in good season the people and places described here they would probably seem clearly similar to their pictures, and the stranger would assume that the pictures mirrored real life. It would be marvelous if this were the case, if the place itself, and not merely the pictures, were the work of art. It would be marvelous to think that the ordinary, vernacular life in and around Memphis might be in its quality more sharply incised, formally clear, fictive, and mysteriously purposeful than it appears elsewhere, endowing the least pretentious of raw materials with?ineffable dramatic possibilities. Unfortunately, the character of our skepticism makes this difficult to believe; we are accustomed to believing instead that the meaning in a work of art is due altogether to the imagination and?legerdemain of the artist.

於是，當外地人有意地去尋找這裡所描述的人事景物時，那些人事景物很可能和它們的影像明顯地相似，他就認為影像即反映現實生活。如果可以認為，不僅僅是影像，這地方本身就是個藝術作品，以為在孟斐斯周遭日常生活的本質，跟其他地方比較起來，深深地刻印著清楚的型態，幻象又神祕般地充滿意義，賦予了藝術家毫不做作，又充滿著難以言喻、驚奇可能的素材，那就太棒了。不過很不幸地，總是心存懷疑的我們很難如此相信；我們更習慣相信藝術作品的意義靠的全是藝術家的想像力和他的奇特戲法。

Artists themselves tend to take absolutist and unhelpful positions when addressing themselves to questions of content, pretending with Degas that the work has nothing to do with ballet dancers, or pretending with James Agee that it has nothing to do with artifice. Both positions have the virtue of neatness, and allow the artist to answer unanswerable questions briefly and then get back to work. If an artist were to admit that he was uncertain as to what part of the content of his work answered to life and what part to art, and was perhaps even uncertain as to precisely where the boundary between them lay, we would probably consider him incompetent.

當回應關於作品內容的問題時，藝術家們傾向採取絕對論者的姿態，假掰竇加﹝Edgar Degas﹞的作品跟芭蕾舞者無關、艾傑（James Agee）的作品跟巧妙技巧無關，對於問題的回答完全沒有幫助。這兩種立場都有著簡潔的好處，讓藝術家能夠簡短地回答難以回答的問題，很快回到工作上頭。如果藝術家承認了他不確定作品的哪個部分回應了生活，哪個部分回應了藝術，甚或不能明確指出這兩者的界線何在，我們很可能認為他不及格。

I once heard William Eggleston say that the nominal subjects of his pictures were no more than a pretext for the making of color photographs – the Degas position. I did not believe him, although I can believe that it might be an advantage to him to think so, or to pretend to think so. To me it seems that the pictures reproduced here are about the photographer’s home, about his place, in both important meanings of that word. One might say about his identity.

我曾聽艾哥斯頓說他影像裡名義上的對象，僅只是他創作彩色照片的藉口 ─ 竇加式的立場。我不相信。雖然我可以相信他這樣想，或假裝這樣想，對他是有利的。對我而言，這裡再現的影像是關於攝影者的家，關於他的地方，關於這兩者所代表最重要的意涵。也可以說是關於他的身分。

If this is true, it does not mean that the pictures are not also simultaneously about photography, for the two issues are not supplementary but coextensive. Whatever else a photograph may be about, it is inevitably about photography, the container and the vehicle of all its meanings. Whatever a photographer’s intuitions or intentions, they must be cut and shaped to fit the possibilities of his art. Thus if we see the pictures clearly as photographs, we will perhaps also see, or sense, something of their other, more private, willful, and anarchic meanings.

如果我是對的，也並不表示這些影像本身和攝影無關。這兩個議題（譯註：內容和攝影）並非互補，而是並存的。無論照片是關於什麼，終不免是關於攝影這個承裝所有意義的載體。無論攝影者的直覺或意圖為何，一定得經過剪裁以符合其藝術的可能性。所以如果我們明白地將影像視為照片，也許會看到，感覺到，其他更私密、更任性、更不受規範的意義。

— 我是分隔線 —

感謝 m 幫忙修改我莫名其妙、不知所云的中文（汗），讀起來通順許多，很多意思也能更清楚地表達。

這裡把 picture 翻作「影像」，photograph 翻作「照片」。照片指的是實體的東西，從沖洗店拿回來的，拿來搧風的那張相紙。影像則是透過照片所看到的畫面，抽象的資訊。

Eggleston 說他影像裡的主題，是三輪車或是老太太並不重要，他追求的是最後的那張彩色的照片，採取了「純為藝術」的姿態創造實體物件。Szarkowski 則認為影像其實代表了 Eggleston 的身分認同，也要考慮「回應生活」的畫面資訊，不能假掰混過。當然影像畫面和照片實體兩者是並存的，「攝影」這個主題更是如影隨形（真是文字遊戲過頭），包含了影像、照片等各個層面的意義。所以他雖不同意但能接受 Eggleston 的說法，更進一步地認為，唯有把影像和照片合而為一地看待，我們才能真正進到 Eggleston 的想要展現但又隱匿的私人空間。

。。。

都是些怪咖 orz 還得繼續往 Part II 前進啊～