ancorena

1. Power of the Light

Opaque/ Obscure Light
This is a photograph of a Nazi rally during its regime in Germany. For the people who are not familiar with this, the straight lines are search lights pointing to the sky. Janet Ward spoke of this period, stated that Nazi diminished the lighting commercial, and noted: “…As Henri Lefebvre has suggested in The Production of space, Nazism thus weighed down the façade that Weimar modernism had sought to lighten.”, and she continued, “It was through the electrically inspired, never-ending ossification that Nazism reemphasized the opacity of the façade after the Bauhaus’ translucent modernization of the same.” The grand lighting wall of search lights, which is called “Cathedral of Light”, of the Nazi rally was the best example of all the architechture endeavors in the period. No personal detail pass through the wall that is of no sign but the light itself, the wall as such applying the ut-most modern power of the electricity and purification, implying the ultimate supporting power of the state. The light façade was thus the most translucent façade, and even until now, it continued to illuminate every architect with a total state in mind.

Now let’s see the next photograph, please note that the salute of the soldiers to the light. This photograph clearly describes the power of the signified of this symbol, a performance of national myth in Roland Barthes’ way.

Then, to the contemporary, after 911, American made a compensational structure of the collapsed WTC, and it looked like this. This is clearly a more compact and efficient version of Nazi’s “Cathedral of Light”. The most appearent difference between the two cases is the void in the middle of the light façades, comparing with the whole rally of Nazi supporters. The opaque is therefore further accomplished the form. More importantly, through over half a century, in two seemingly different regimes, THE POWER REMEMBERS. It remembers the hidden power of this modern mythical symbol.

Seeing Through
By the opinion of Murrey Melbin(1987), west civilization invade and occupy the night as frontier by the assistance of artificial illuminatiion. And as many authors have stated, conquering the darkness is always a great motive for many civilizations. “To see through” is the command of the uses of the light by power. Not only does it contain the motif of illumination, but also to ensure and to secure the path between the vigilant eye of power and the subjects need to be seen. Power needs to see the subjects, and it does so by requiring the subjects to make themselves to be illuminated, that is, to stand IN the light.

2. Enlightened Objects Graffiti/ Light Graffiti

I’m not gonna show you the image of the common graffiti attached to the objects, due to some technical problems, and I imagine that you’re more or less familiar with that.

(What I want to show you is,) Recently, a group of artists posted their work called “light graffiti” on the internet. It looks like this. We can see in the first picture that the light graffiti, in parallel of the traditional ones, have been lifted and liberated from the surface of the everyday objects. And by its character to glow, graffiti have acclaimed the weapon of power. Meanwhile, as these photographs indicates, the emptiness of meaningful symbol is just as the same as the light mentioned in the first paragraph, yet maintains the rewriting force of the space that graffiti holds.

3. The Self-Revelation of the Residues

Under the Searchlight
Social life engages if the light conditions permit, especially in the night. As Wolfgang Schivelbusch notes that, in the European history, public lighting had enabled three kinds of activities in the night: the conventional (that is, the increase of street and square pedestrian), commercial (that is, profitable window shopping and ad display), and producing (that is, for factory owners to keep the line working in the deep night). This statement was also very true in the East for the lighting technologies and policies were rather globally applied but not developed separately. From this view, Schivelbusch provided us a vivid scene: the auditorium. The seventeenth-century theatre “consisted of two performance spaces of equal importance: the stage and the auditorium”, the auditorium was “more of a social, festive centre than a true auditorium” in the beginning, and “Illumination made its contribution by lighting up the stage and the auditorium equally.” Yet in the eighteenth century, the auditorium was darkened, and the stage lightened. The light was deliberately reduced to increase the concentration toward the “illusion” of the audience, and thus erased the social life under the stage. And that’s also the case with public lighting. When civilization grants its people a lightened space, most of the sociability will be attracted under the conduct, and thus keep the order under the light, which is granted, but never fully fulfilled for all.
And thus the light has become material. The Light Lures, and the social activities in the night happen beneath it. Yet during the night, the shadow which is not yet illuminated expands and deepens to be a true fracture. In the ancient documents of China and Europe, the ruling eye was frightened by the people lurking in the dark (or holding their own lights). And therefore the curfew, the night guards, and the closing of the city walls. There is a comment of Marx further proofs the point: “Capitalism’s darkness necessitated a struggle for light; the divide of the day and night could be transcended only in a revolutionary overturning of all estranged relations, central to which was class power.” Meanwhile, as we gather beneath the light, we become the light bearers, and each of us carries the duty to be seen by the order, that is, to become the reflexive object of the light. So in the society of the night, every individual carries the light, and lives with the light, in order to be seen. And those who lives under or even shed light, but STILL be seen as the darkness or shadow of the society/ civilisation, such as Rave, graffiti, and other illegal/ delinquent gatherings, would be the concept that I call “residual light.”

Reflective/ Luminous
Although bearing the burden of being survailanced by the vigilant eye, this ethic code “To Be Seen” can be transformed into an action of self-revelation. The light graffiti, with the artists’ action to post these photos on the internet, would be a good example. Other gatherings or social activities, which by my definition be the “residual light”, in this days, unlike those used to be, tend to reach out to the world, and make themselves to be seen, not as a subject to the order, but a conscious and active light-giver. And thus they can change the structure of the seeing power.

Self- Revelation
Here I’d like to show two paragraphs of other scholar’s work in order to better describe the current analysis of graffiti. It goes like this:
(Recent Taiwan, 畢恆達，郭一勤) “To the graffiti artists, space is where the (police) power cannot reach, the fracture of power. Through the writing of graffiti, space can be resurrected, city space can be revolved and become fluid. ...(graffiti) subverts the continuity of time and space. The artists challenge and redefine the space which have been monopolized by power and capital.”
(UK, Chatteron and Hollands) “Indeed, one of the strengths of the margins is its temporality, unpredictability and fleetingness, its ability to form and reform in order to evade and bypass laws and regulations.Yet…their transient nature means that they are more apt to disrupt rather than overthrow”…and in the words that follows, they put the hope of subvertion to the more organized night life that challenges the globalization and link themselves on the internet.
But after these examplary analysis of graffiti presented above, what I’d like to argue is, this action of self-revelation extands the symbolic force of graffiti, and ultimately, let us understand that there IS a common ground of subvertive cultural actions. And by the analytical methods of light/ illumination, this linkage can be established, and thus give us a wider sense to be sensitive about the potentialties among this world.

（中文翻譯，已修正部份細節）

從塗鴉到餘者光源

在這場發表中，我將試著引介自己正在進行的主題之一。這次發表將會包含某些我在他處發表的論文題旨，然而是較為簡短的形式。首先我想為此致歉，並非常樂意對有興趣者提供進一步的解釋。

1. 光的權力

不透明╱隱誨的光

這是一張納粹在德國執政時集會的照片。若有人對此不熟悉，這些直線是指向天空的探照燈。Janet Ward曾提及這個時期，宣稱納粹消滅了電光廣告，並提到：「正如Henri Lefebvre在【空間的生產】裡提及，納粹主義因此抿息了威瑪現代主義所要點亮的立面」，她繼續道，「納粹主義是透過了由電力啟發的，永不止息的僵化而在包浩斯的同質性半透明現代化之後重新強調了立面的不透明性。」在納粹集會中這面稱為「光之教堂」的，巨大的聚光柱牆面，是該時期建築成果的最佳範例。個人的細節無法穿透這面除光本身之外不具任何符號的牆，這樣的牆啟用了關於電力與淨化的現代最高力量，暗示著對於國家權力的無上支持。光柱立面因此是最不透明的立面，直到今日，仍繼續啟發每一個懷想著總體國家的建築師。

現在看下一張影像，請注意軍人向光柱的致敬禮。這張照片清楚地描述了這個象徵的符指力量，一種羅蘭巴特式的國家神話展演。

接著，來到當下，在911後，美國人為崩垮的世貿大樓製作了補充性的建築，看起來像是這樣。這清楚地是一種更集中與更有效率版本的納粹「光之教堂」。兩者之間更明顯的差異是光柱立面之間，相較於納粹支持者大隊集結的空虛。這種不透明性因此更成就了形式本身。更重要地，歷經逾半世紀，在兩個看似不同的政權下，權力有所記憶。它記憶著這種現代神話象徵中隱藏的力量。

看透

Murrey Melbin(1987)提出，西方文明藉由人工照明的幫助，入侵並佔據了有如美國西部荒地的夜晚。而如同許多作者曾說過的，征服黑暗一直是許多文明所具有的強大動機。「去看透」是光為權力所用時接受的指令。不僅是因為它包含了照明的動機，同時也要去確保與保全在權力警戒之眼與必須被看見的主體之間的路徑。權力需要看見主體，而它透過要求主體要讓自己被照亮，也就是，站在光亮之處，來完成這個要求。

2. 被照亮的物件

塗鴉╱光塗鴉

因為一些技術問題，以及我預期各位多少已有概念，我不會展示一般貼附在物件表面的塗鴉。我所要展示的是，最近，一個創作者團體在網路上張貼他們自稱為「光塗鴉」的作品。看來像是這樣。我們能看見在第一張照片裡，與傳統塗鴉並列的光塗鴉，在創作者手中從日常物件的表面上分離且解放了。而其閃耀的特質，光塗鴉收取了權力的武器。同時，就像這些攝影作品所指出的，具有意義的象徵所具備的空泛性正如在第一張照片裡提到的光，而同時也維持著塗鴉所掌握的重寫空間的特性。

3. 餘者的自我呈現

聚光燈下

社會生活總在光亮之下展開，特別在夜晚。正如Wolfgang Schivelbusch所摘記，在歐洲歷史上，近代公共照明促成了三種夜間活動：集會（即街道與廣場行人的增加）、商業（即有利可圖的櫥窗與廣告展示），以及生產（即工廠主在深夜仍能維持生產線運作）等。由於現代照明技術與政策是全球性而非由各地獨立發展，因此這個聲稱在東方也能成立。從此處出發，Schivelbusch提供我們一個生動的場景：觀眾席。十七世紀的劇場「包含兩個同等重要的展演空間：舞台與觀眾席」，觀眾席在一開始「比起一個真正的觀眾席更像是社交與歡慶的中心」，而「照明的貢獻在於同等地照亮舞台與觀眾席」。然而在十八世紀時，觀眾席逐漸黯淡，而舞台逐步增亮。光度被刻意地減少以增強觀眾對演出「幻象」的專注，由此抹除了舞台下的社會生活。這也在公共照明的現象裡發生。當文明許諾其人民以更亮的空間，多數的社交行為將受此引導，在光下維持秩序。同時這樣的許諾卻不曾為每個人實現。

於是光開始具備物質性。光能誘引，而夜裡的社會活動即在旗下發生。然而在光亮的夜裡，尚未照亮的陰影延展並加深而成為實際的裂隙。在古代的中國與歐洲，統治之眼恐懼在黑暗裡騷動或掌握自主光亮的人們。於是有了宵禁、守夜人，與夜裡關上的城門。一段馬克斯的說法更確證了這點：「資本主義的黑暗使得為了光的鬥爭成為必須；日夜的分際唯有在將所有疏離關係加以革命性地推翻時才可超越，此關係的中心即階級權力」。在此同時，當我們在光下集結，我們變成光的承載者，我們每個人都承擔著被秩序看見的責任，此亦即，變成光的反射體。所以在夜間的社會裡，每個個體都攜帶著光，並與光並存，以使自己被看見。其中那些在光之下或甚至發出光亮，卻仍然被視為社會╱文明的黑暗或陰影之處，如銳舞、塗鴉，以及其他非法╱虞犯集結等等，即屬於我稱之為「餘者光源」的概念。

反射╱發光

儘管背負著被警戒之眼所監控的重擔，「被看見」這樣的道德指令仍可被轉換成自我呈現的行動。光塗鴉，以及其創作者將作品登上網路的行動，即為佳例。其他集結或社交行動，在我定義中稱為「餘者光源」的，與以往不同地，傾向與世界接觸，並使他們自身成為可見。並非以臣屬於秩序之姿，而是一種有意識並主動的發光者。也因此他們具有改變觀看權力結構的能力。

自我呈現

此處我想展示兩段其他學者的作品以清晰地陳述當下的塗鴉分析。文字如下：

（台灣近期，畢恆達、郭一勤）「對塗鴉者而言，空間即是權力（警力）所不及之處，是權力的縫隙。透過書寫，空間得以重生，賦與新生命而扭轉城市乾坤，讓空間得以流動起來。...（塗鴉）正顛覆了時間與空間的連續性。...塗鴉者挑戰了被權力與資本所壟斷的空間」

（英國，Chatteron and Hollands）「確實，邊緣的強處之一即其暫時性、不可預期性和逃逸性，以及其為了閃躲和避開法律與規範的，型塑與重塑的能力。然而...他們無常的天性意味著他們更傾向於搗亂而非傾覆」，在接下來的文字裡，他們將顛覆的希望放在更有組織、直接挑戰全球化並將自己連結上網路的夜間生活形式之上。

然而在上陳的塗鴉分析範例之後，我所欲爭論的是，這種自我呈現的行動也會在塗鴉現象上延展其象徵力量，最終也能使我們理解到此處確有一個顛覆性文化行動的普遍立場。而藉由光╱照明的分析方法，這種普遍性的連結能被建立，也藉此讓我們對這個世界的潛力能有更寬廣而更敏感的視野。