霍夫曼：創作自述

以下這篇〈創作自述〉是漢斯●霍夫曼（Hans Hofmann, 1880~1966）一九五一年因應其在紐約某畫廊舉行的個展而撰寫的；這位時年七十歲的老畫家概要地梳理了本身的創作理念，全文雖不算長，惟卻十分夠力。霍夫曼是抽象表現主義藝術的先驅人物。這位從德國移居美國的藝術家和教育家，為二戰後美國前衛藝術運動作出了重要貢獻。抽象表現主義藝術創作群體有幾種套路，其中像書寫效果、潑灑技法、平塗表現等都與霍夫曼與其個人在繪畫創作上的探索息息相關。在某種意義上，說他是「抽象表現主義之父」一點也不為過。霍夫曼在該文中所陳述的一些觀點，其中不乏與物理學和哲學領域相關聯的概念，我也都使盡「洪荒之力」去理解一番、且再三斟酌後含恨譯出來，所以被逼補上三四條註釋。這樣做的目的，無非是不想給有興趣瞭解相關內容的街坊們感到困頓和疑惑，進而裹足不前——嗚呼，那就白白浪費我的一番苦心了！譯文的全部責任都在我，若有不當之處，敬請教正。

視覺藝術中的對象物⑴——它在三維現實所發揮的作用與其二維圖像化實現過程

塞尚曾經說過：他花了四十多年才終於搞清楚繪畫與雕塑並不是一回事。至今還有不少人認為現代藝術仍未能從整體上解決圖像創造的基本問題。到目前為止，所有嘗試不設限地探究問題根源的努力只能發掘出一些複雜的碎片，每一碎片都具有很高的美學水平。這些分裂化反映了我們整個時代的特徵。我們把千千萬萬個機械零件裝配在一起，創造了生活中的機械化奇觀。現代藝術的多元表現僅足以證明所有關涉圖像創造的問題都極為艱深。不難理解，有關大師們在更早之前的偉大發現一直都被秘密地禁錮在修道院裡。二十世紀的藝術家採取了種種相反的做法——他使用能更好地進行推理的大筆刷將積澱在藝術中所有智慧從學院中解放出來。最早始於印象主義畫家對客觀現實⑵的廢黜。那樣涵蓋了專斷蠻橫的形勢，遂使精神上不斷遭到蒙蔽、折磨長達數百年。純粹考慮藝術家到底是幹嘛——僅僅在畫作中反映其周遭環境豈不是讓本身喪失了成為某一最高秩序之創造者的絕佳機會。有必要明確地強調：對象物即為創造者本身。除了在特質上和心理上的功能之外，對象物亦能給空間注入活力——它創造了其所有的節奏奇觀，而且（總的）創造了令人難以置信的空間美。空間從客觀現實即是在空間中生存的……就像每種生命形式都存有於生命中那樣。現代畫家絕不會毀掉外在對象來探求其本身對創造功能的認知，反觀，通過從屬於其間的關係來提純並整合成更高的形式——這種形式存在於每一件真誠的創作的審美形式所賦予的一個整合統一體。對象物本身要不是具備了對這種純化的更高要求，便永遠不可能創造出藝術作品來，一如審美形式也無法單憑繪圖手段的活潑靈巧⑶而能夠在沒有任何客觀現實支撐之下存在。這便是非物象藝術⑷的起因。這是圖像生機衍變的主因——而並非對象物的活潑靈巧——因此導致繪畫從整體上活靈活現。一個外在對象的圖像實現過程與其活靈活現想必會通過逐步擴展這一整體性的生機衍變而產生，而有關對象物最終在造型上和心理上的實現經過將呈現出創造邏輯之結局。

如今，我們把客觀現實從生物學意義和美學意義上這二者之間的形式問題進行區分，而在這中間創造以精神性的層面見諸於藝術作品。前一個是有關對象物的物理邏輯，後一個對象物則牽涉了心靈創造的形式。這兩方面的統一整合在所有名家巨匠的偉大作品中都是有跡可循的。僅舉馬諦斯、畢卡索和勃拉克為例來說，他們都採取了各自的做法，而少數其他人亦能在這個艱深的問題上駕馭自如。

這是還沒有獲得普遍認知的，也就是說，畫作表面藉以一種逆轉衝動的造型活動自動地回應了造型意識的生機衍變。它也意味著有關圖像的活靈活現在畫作表面上的自然反應受到內在規律的支配，這一內在規律亦對造型活動上的活潑靈巧做出最為準確的回應。基於這個理由才有可能在一個平面上產生動勢，這一作用不僅是從極高精確度的推拉意義上使彼此互相推擠，而是進一步以同樣精確的強大力度，包括循著深度滲進而異變的速度及其對逆轉迴響的回應作用。造型的創造活動必須藉由推與拉的回力反擊作用並且隨著力的強弱變化才會結成正果。容我們再說一遍，對象物是一個空間創造者。如此看來，在造型創造上這是絕頂的靈感源泉了。然而，這個外在對象——或更簡要些——這個模特在用來使圖像活靈活現之前卻有必要先被拆解成諸多空間化的碎片。不單單受限於與客觀現實的關係面而言，這些碎片顯然仍會進一步涉及空間面向的整體，也就是將對象物擺在一個從屬位置這一框架中來考慮各自的功能作用。

由此可知，在創作上起主導作用的並不是把對象物加以整合的知覺能力，恰恰相反，能夠從空間整體上融會貫通的意識作用，理應把客觀現實充作其整個結構的一部份。基於空間整體上的圖像具體化之緣故，最終導向外在對象的形象之「顯現」。這應可確認為創造活動的最後結果了。

在把空間總體打破成空間碎片之際，這一打碎過程與點、線和塊面等繪畫手段相互融合，從而為純造型形式——僅通過形式和內容的化零為整——的創作活動賦予圖形上各種必須的服務。空間整合是畫作表面上一個先決的設定——這種整合作用在整個繪畫過程中間不該遭到終止，甚且可以藉由約化成無限多這一轉換方式融匯貫通一番。空間美最終在其繪畫活動的意涵中每一部份的節奏關係下展現出來。只有通過一步步地擴充發展，造型經驗的改觀情況始能在畫作表面的造型實現中定下型來。從本質上考慮空間整體的簡化，以及摒棄那些非本質的——其本身便是一門技藝——而成就了抽象。客觀的考慮必須退居從屬位置。

造型創造既需要從自然的本質傾向去感受，也要能夠感受到表現媒介的自然的本質傾向。從前者所獲的造型經驗必須化為其它方面的造型語言。自然無法依法炮製。從某一種感受轉入另一種感受的抗衡作用決定了創作的品質。它涉及了藝術家的整體敏感度和脾性。

前面所講的種種發現僅僅回應了結構上的形式問題。繪畫關乎色彩——可是色彩問題也進一步地延伸至形式問題，而非單指將顏彩塗抹於畫作表面上的方式而已。色彩具備了創造體積感與明彩度的能力。體積是一種維度——一種凹入和凸出的深度。每一種不同的明暗調子在深度穿注之際製造了不同的速度變率。由於其受到明彩度所牽制，色彩在色調上並非多麼奏效，一如在相應的明暗調子的關係般：不管採以對比色或和諧色，還是藉由各種明暗強度乃至不協調地同時塗抹來應對之。色彩相應於像間層似的形式：第二、第三、第四、第五，諸如此類，彷彿音樂。這般能力使色彩成了位居首席的造型手段。在如此相當的操作下色彩可以造就戲劇、詩歌、渴望、痛苦、歡愉，等等等等。色彩沿著其自身規律擴充發展。色彩的擴展不需要跟著形式的開發同一個樣。由於它是獨立的，它無論如何完美地與結構的形式發展重合起來。客觀的呈現方式最終唯獨只能藉以色彩的擴充發展達成。從對象物的物理邏輯的意義上言之，形式無法決定色彩的發展趨向，可是反過來說，恰恰是有鑑於圖像規律之下關於色彩的擴充發展主宰了客觀形式的統一整合。這是繪畫活動！客觀形式以及審美形式一旦未蘸染色彩的光焰和血氣便造就不了——未經過對統一整合的需求或也無法達成，而淪為打圖樣。那麼它就好比裝潢和花飾圖案，應該歸入實用美術那一環，非關繪畫藝術。

◆按原稿打字／紐約／1951年5月1日／藝術家產權

【譯註】

⑴ Object一般上指「實體」，意即「可看見或可觸摸到的物體」。Object在哲學層面則是作為「客體」或「對象」來解讀，也就是指「可感知或可引發某種情感或行為的任何事物」，一方面包括客觀存在並可觀察到的事物（具體的如人物、樹木、房屋；抽象的如自由、物價、動態），二方面還包括想像的事物（如神話中的人物）。在物理學領域，object一詞通常被譯作「物體」，亦即是一大群物質的聚集，例如，棒球可以被認為是一個物體，但是，棒球本身係由許多粒子構成的；「……物體是可以被古典力學或量子力學的理論描述的；也可以用科學儀器，做客觀的實驗，來證明這些理論的正確。這包括位置的測量，或在空間裡方位的測量，以及因為施力造成的這些測量值的改變。例如，萬有引力會使物體加速，如果此物體沒有被固定住，導致它的位置改變。但是，值得注意的是，物體位置的改變並不須要有力量的存在——只有物體位置的變率，就是速度，會因力量的作用而改變。」（參見《維基百科》有關「物體」的條目；檢索日期：2020年5月7日。）在這篇創作自述中，霍夫曼分別從美學、哲學、物理學等不同的面向使用object一詞，淺見以為，其論述要義比較趨近德國哲學家黑格爾（Hegel）所提出的「美是主體的創造，是主體的客體化，並且是主客觀的統一」這一概念或主張。（詳見「黑格爾對美的看法」，https://web.nkuht.edu.tw/97project-2/teaching-2-5.html；檢索日期：2020年5月8日。）

⑵ 十九世紀末期，印象主義畫家群體首先打破過去數百年來西方繪畫發展中、一眾畫家均對現實世界中的外在對象一板一眼的摹擬、再現方式這樣一種創作觀念和公式，他們既將光與色的科學觀念引進繪畫之中，又在形式方面進行了大膽探索和變革，進而為現代藝術的產生奠下了基礎；無論如何，印象主義畫家群體的創作目的仍然是儘可能客觀真實地把個人眼中所見的外在對象描繪出來。在某種意義上，對象物即是客觀現實，不依賴於人的存在而存在，它有形狀、顏色、聲音、味道，是具體可感的；如「柳」是一種客觀現實，它有形狀顏色，是一個對象物。

⑶ Animation一詞在英文中含有「生氣、生機；生動、活潑」等不同意思；所以，譯者按原文語境分別譯成「生機衍變、活潑靈巧、活靈活現」等三種詞義。

⑷ 亦譯作「非具象藝術」，專指抽象藝術中，攸關藝術家所創作的形體並非以自然世界或客觀現實為參考對象的表達方式。

【英文原文】

STATEMENT (1951)

The object in the visual arts—its function in three-dimensional reality and its two dimensional pictorial realization.

Cezanne has said once: it has taken him forty years to discover that painting is not sculpture. One may still say today that modern art has not yet digested the fundamental problems of pictorial creation in its entirety. All attempts so far to go unrestrictedly to the roots of the problem have yielded only sophisticated fragmentations, each one of them on a very high esthetical level. This fragmentation characterizes our entire time. We put tens of thousands of mechanical parts together to create living mechanical wonders. The multi-expression of modern art confirms only the immensity of all the problems involved in pictorial creation. It is understandable that in earlier times the great discovery of the old masters has been buried in the convents in great secret. The Twentieth Century Artist does the opposite—he has used the broom of good reasoning to liberate the arts of all the coagulated wisdom of the Academy. It started with the dethroning of the object by the Impressionists. The tyranny of its synthesis has obscured and tortured the minds of centuries. Considered only as what it really is—it lost its significance of being itself a creator of highest order solely in its reflection of its environment. It must be categorically emphasized: the object is a creator itself. Beside its characteristic and its psychological function, it enlivens space—it creates all its rhythmic wonder and (in total) the unbelievable beauty of space. Space lives from the object which is space...just as every form of life lives from life. In recognizing its creative function the modern artist by no means destroys the object, but on the contrary sublimates it through subordination and integration into the higher form—of a compositoric entity given by the esthetic form in which every genuine work exists. The object can never create a work of art without the demand of such a higher sublimation, whereas an esthetic form can exist without any object solely through the animation of the pictorial means. This is the reason for nonobjective art. It is primarily the animation of the pictorial means—not the animation of the object—that leads into pictorial over-all animation. The pictorial realization and animation of an object will result from a step by step development of such an over-all animation, wherein the final plastic and psychological realization of the object represents the logical finale of the creation.

We differentiate today between form in a biological sense, which concerns the object, and between form in an esthetic sense, in which the work exists spiritually as a work of art. The first concerns the physical logic of the object—the other is a form which is exclusively created by the mind. The merging of both is documented in all the great works of the old masters. Only Matisse, Picasso, and Braque, each of them in his own way, and a few others have mastered this mammoth problem.

It is still not yet generally recognized that the picture surface answers the animation of a plastic impulse automatically with a plastic counter-impulse. That means the automatic reaction of the picture surface of pictorial animation is dominated by inherent laws which respond plastically with highest precision to such animation. It is for this reason possible to generate forces on such a surface which respond to each other not only with greatest exactitude in the sense of push and pull, but furthermore and with the same exactitude in the sense of intensity and speed with which to vary depth penetration as well as its answering counter-echo. Only from the varied counterplay of push and pull and from its variation in intensities will plastic creation result. Let us repeat that the object is a space creator. Considered as such, it is a source of highest inspiration for plastic creation. But to be of use for pictorial animation the object, or in short, the model must be broken down into spatial fragments. These fragments must be further considered in their function not only in relation to the object, but predominantly in relation to the spatial totality in the frame of which the object is only a subordinated part.

It is therefore not a consciousness of the synthesis of the object that should primarily dominate the creation, but a consciousness of the synthesis of the spatial totality should consider the object as an integrated part of it. It is out of the pictorial realization of spatial totality that the image of the object should finally "emerge." It should be the confirmation as the "finale" of the creation.

In breaking down the spatial totality into spatial fragments this fragmentation assimilates itself with the pictorial means: points and lines and planes a.s.o., to serve pictorial necessities in the creation of pure plastic form which is given only through identity of form and content. Spatial synthesis is a priori given in the picture surface—its synthesis should never be broken throughout the whole pictorial development, but its synthesis can be transformed by subdivision into the infinite. The beauty of space is finally presented in the rhythmic relation of all parts involved within the meaning of its pictorial functions. It is only through step by step development that the transfiguration of plastic experience into the plastic realisation on the picture surface takes hold. Simplification of spatial totality under consideration of the Essential and Elimination of the unessential—an art in itself—leads to abstraction. Objective consideration must be subordinated.

Plastic creation asks for feeling into the essentuality of nature as well as for feeling into the essentuality of the nature of the medium of expression. The plastic experience gained by the former must be transformed into the plastic language of the other. Nature cannot be copied. A continued counter-balancing from one feeling aspect into another determines the quality of the work. It involves the whole sensitivity and the temperament of the artist.

The foregoing findings deal only with the formal problems of composition. Painting involves color—but the color problem is also to a great extent a formal problem, in the way in which color is placed on the picture plane. Color has the faculty to create volume and luminosity. Volume is a dimension—a dimension in and out of depth. Every difference in color shade produces a difference of speed in depth penetration. In hand with it goes its luminosity, which is not so much presented in the color shades as in the relation of corresponding color shades: corresponding either by contrast or harmony and through differences of intensity or by dissonancy as simultaneous rendering. Colors correspond in the form of intervals: in seconds, thirds, fourths, fifths, a.s.o., as music does. This faculty makes color a plastic means of first order. The way that colors are related can create drama, poetry, lust, pain, pleasure, ache a.s.o. Color development follows its own laws. The color development is not necessarily the same as the formal development. Independent as it is, it overlaps however perfectly with the formal development of the composition. Objective presentation arrives finally exclusively only from the color development. And it is not form, in the sense of the physical logic of the object, that determines the development of color, but it is on the contrary the color development under consideration of pictorial laws that determines integrated objective form. This is painting! Objective form and also esthetic form not arrived at through the fire and blood of the color—or not arrived at through the demand of integration, is only design. It is décor and ornamentation and belongs, as such, in the realm of applied art—not painting.

■ Typescript, New York, 1 May 1951, estate of the artist

◆本文貼於譯者個人臉書（2020.05.08）