McKee, Yates, (copyright 2017) Strike art : contemporary art and the post-Occupy condition Verso 麦基，耶茨，（2017 年版权）《罢工艺术：当代艺术与占领后状态》Verso
Staff and students of University of Brighton are reminded that copyright subsists in this extract and the work from which it was taken. This Digital Copy has been made under the terms of a CLA licence which allows you to: 布莱顿大学的教职员工和学生们请注意，此摘录及其来源作品均受版权保护。此数字副本是根据 CLA 许可证的条款制作的，允许您：
access and download a copy; 访问并下载一份副本；
print out a copy; 打印一份副本；
Please note that this material is for use ONLY by students registered on the course of study as stated in the section below. All other staff and students are only entitled to browse the material and should not download and/or print out a copy. 请注意，此材料仅供注册在以下所述课程的学生使用。所有其他员工和学生仅有权浏览该材料，不应下载和/或打印副本。
This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied to or made by you under the terms of this Licence are for use in connection with this Course of Study. You may retain such copies after the end of the course, but strictly for your own personal use. 此数字副本及根据本许可条款提供给您或由您制作的任何数字或印刷副本仅可用于与本课程相关的用途。课程结束后，您可以保留这些副本，但仅限于个人使用。
All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be destroyed and/or deleted if and when required by University of Brighton. 所有副本（包括电子副本）应包含此版权声明，并应在布莱顿大学要求时予以销毁和/或删除。
Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution (including by email) is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder. 除版权法另有规定外，未经版权持有者的同意，不得进一步复制、存储或分发（包括通过电子邮件）。
The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the work and neither staff nor students may cause, or permit, the distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work, or any other derogatory treatment of it, which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author. 作者（该术语包括艺术家和其他视觉创作者）在作品中享有道德权利，工作人员和学生不得造成或允许对作品的扭曲、 mutilation 或其他修改，或对其进行任何其他贬损处理，这将损害作者的荣誉或声誉。
Course of Study: AGP400 - Introduction to Visual Communication: Orientation & Exploration 课程名称：AGP400 - 视觉传播导论：导向与探索
Title: Strike art : contemporary art and the post-Occupy condition 标题：罢工艺术：当代艺术与占领后状态
Name of Author: McKee, Yates 作者姓名：麦基，耶茨
Name of Publisher: Verso 出版商名称：Verso
INTRODUCTION 引言
We strike art to liberate art from itself. 我们打击艺术，以解放艺术自身。
MTL, “#OccupyWallStreet: A Possible History” MTL，“#占领华尔街：一个可能的历史”
The chaos of experimentation breeds possibilities. 实验的混乱孕育着可能性。
Suzhan E., “An Occupier’s Note” 苏展 E.，《占领者的笔记》
Saturday nights are “pay what you will” at New York’s Guggenheim Museum. Rain or shine, thousands of people stand in a line that wraps around the block to avoid the typical $22 paywall enclosing the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed landmark and the works of modern and contemporary art displayed on its walls. The night of March 30, 2014 seemed no different as the crowds began to pour into the ground-floor rotunda, themselves becoming part of the spectacle as others looked down from the five spiraling floors above. 周六晚上，纽约古根海姆博物馆实行“随意支付”政策。无论晴雨，成千上万的人排成长龙，绕着街区，以避开典型的 22 美元入场费，这个费用将弗兰克·劳埃德·赖特设计的地标和展示在其墙上的现代与当代艺术作品包围起来。2014 年 3 月 30 日的晚上似乎也没有什么不同，人群开始涌入一楼的圆厅，自己成为了这一景象的一部分，而其他人则从上面五层螺旋楼梯俯视下来。
About half an hour after the doors had opened, however, the flow of the museum was unexpectedly interrupted. In the middle of the rotunda, a young girl stood still for about fifteen seconds, her eyes trained on a nearby video camera. She then removed a large choir bell from a knapsack, gave it a vigorous ring, and disappeared into the crowd. The bell 然而，在开放大约半小时后，博物馆的流动意外中断。在圆形大厅中，一个年轻女孩静静地站了约十五秒，她的目光盯着附近的摄像机。然后，她从背包中取出一个大合唱钟，猛地摇响，随后消失在人群中。钟声
created a momentary pause in the buzz of the museum as curious visitors cut short their conversations and began to lean over the balconies to see what was taking place downstairs. 'Then a second sound rang out-a high-pitched battle cry of sorts - and with that, thousands of pieces of what looked like paper currency were tossed from the fifth floor into the rotunda. For more than a minute, the bills floated down like so many snowflakes, falling gently upon the visitors below as cameras flashed and murmurs of surprise and delight rippled through the space. Looking up from the ground floor as the currency fluttered and flickered against the backdrop of the enormous skylight in the ceiling of the museum, it was as if one were seeing a reel of abstract film pass through a projector. 在博物馆的嗡嗡声中，创造了一个短暂的停顿，好奇的游客们缩短了他们的谈话，开始俯身靠在阳台上，想看看楼下发生了什么。然后，第二声响起——一种高亢的战斗吼声——随之而来，成千上万张看似纸币的东西从五楼被抛向圆厅。在一分钟多的时间里，这些钞票像雪花一样飘落，轻轻落在下面的游客身上，闪光灯闪烁，惊讶和喜悦的低语在空间中荡漾。从一楼仰望，随着货币在博物馆天花板上巨大的天窗背景下飘动和闪烁，仿佛在观看一卷抽象电影在放映机中播放。
Was this a work of art? After all, the event was unfolding in an art museum. 'The exhibition on display showcased Italian Futurism, a movement from the early twentieth century famous for disruptive and noisy performances that aggressively challenged what was perceived to be the complacent culture of the bourgeoisie. (While some avant-garde groups such as Dada would push this nihilistic impulse in the direction of left politics, the Futurists were sympathetic to fascism.) By contrast, this action aimed less for a repelling shock effect, than to enchant its audience with a gesture of festive generosity. Yet if there was an element of pleasure and even beauty to the shower of currency, as museumgoers stooped to retrieve these gifts, the dark side of the action soon became apparent. Mimicking the size and design of a dollar note, the bills were inscribed with the words “NO SUST’AINABLE CULTURAL VALUE.” In place of an historical personage or monument, the note was illustrated with a hand-rendered drawing of the Guggenheim’s planned new branch in the oil kingdom of Abu Dhabi, designed by star architect Frank Cehry. On the left side of the bill, a small figure tossed money off a building, echoing the very distribution process through which the bills had come into the hands of museumgoers. On each of the four corners of the bill was written " 1%1 \% " in place of a denomination. 这是一件艺术作品吗？毕竟，这一事件发生在一家艺术博物馆内。展览展示了意大利未来主义，这是一场源于二十世纪初的运动，以其颠覆性和喧闹的表演而闻名，积极挑战被视为资产阶级自满文化的现象。（虽然一些先锋派团体如达达主义会将这种虚无主义的冲动推向左翼政治，但未来主义者对法西主义持同情态度。）相比之下，这一行动的目的并不是为了产生令人震惊的效果，而是通过一种节日般的慷慨姿态来吸引观众。然而，当博物馆的参观者弯腰去拾取这些礼物时，尽管货币的洒落中有一种愉悦甚至美感，但这一行动的阴暗面很快显露出来。模仿美元纸币的大小和设计，这些钞票上写着“没有可持续的文化价值”。在历史人物或纪念碑的位置上，钞票上绘制了一幅手绘图，描绘了古根海姆博物馆计划在阿布扎比石油王国新分馆的设计，由明星建筑师弗兰克·盖里设计。 在钞票的左侧，一个小人正从建筑物上扔钱，这呼应了钞票进入博物馆观众手中的分发过程。在钞票的四个角落上都写着“ 1%1 \% ”以代替面额。
As bemused visitors puzzled over the bills, and as activists distributed agitational pamphlets, embeded journalists fanned throughout the crowd scribbling notes, taking pictures, and sending tweets. Museum guards, aided by a phalanx of police officers, emptied the museum of 当困惑的游客对账单感到困惑时，活动家们分发着煽动性的宣传册，嵌入式记者在人群中穿梭，记录笔记、拍照并发送推文。博物馆的保安在一队警察的协助下，清空了博物馆。
G.U.L.F. action, Guggenheim Museum, March 28, 2014. G.U.L.F. 行动，古根海姆博物馆，2014 年 3 月 28 日。
visitors and shut the building down. Within a few hours, detailed reports of the event had gone viral, appearing on websites like Hyperallergic and Gothamist, and eventually reaching global media outlets including the Guardian and the New York Times. 访客并关闭了大楼。在几小时内，事件的详细报告迅速传播，出现在 Hyperallergic 和 Gothamist 等网站上，最终传达到包括《卫报》和《纽约时报》在内的全球媒体。
The mediagenic intervention was the latest in a sequence of actions carried out by the Global Ultra Luxury Faction (G.U.L.F.) over the course of the spring of 2014. The group had formed a few weeks earlier to bring what it called “creative direct action” into the service of a longstanding campaign by labor rights activists and artists called the Gulf Labor Campaign (GLC), which sought to expose and redress the abhorrent labor conditions on Sadiyyat (“Happiness”) Island. Sadiyyat is an artificial landmass under the jurisdiction of Abu Dhabi which is slated to house a massive complex of luxury apartments and cultural amenities, including branches of New York University, the Louvre, and the Guggenheim Museum. Tens of thousands of migrant laborers from South Asia work at the island’s construction sites, living in a state of debt servitude to labor recruiters, toiling for unlivable wages, and dwelling in heavily 媒体介入是全球超奢侈派系（G.U.L.F.）在 2014 年春季进行的一系列行动中的最新举措。该组织在几周前成立，旨在将其所称的“创造性直接行动”服务于一个由劳动权利活动家和艺术家发起的长期运动，称为海湾劳动运动（GLC），该运动旨在揭露和纠正萨迪亚特（“幸福”）岛上令人发指的劳动条件。萨迪亚特是一个位于阿布扎比管辖下的人造陆地，计划建造一个庞大的豪华公寓和文化设施综合体，包括纽约大学、卢浮宫和古根海姆博物馆的分支。成千上万来自南亚的移民工人在岛上的建筑工地工作，生活在对劳动招聘者的债务奴役状态中，挣取无法维持生计的工资，居住在极其恶劣的环境中。
policed work camps. Union organizing is outlawed, and wildcat strikes and disruptions by workers have been met with violent repression and often deportation by the state. In other words-as NYU professor and G.U.L.F. member Andrew Ross put it in a New York Times op-ed timed to appear a few days before the action-underlying the spectacular development of the “high culture” of the island, we find the same forms of hyper-exploited “hard labor” evident throughout the global capitalist system. ^(1){ }^{1} 被监管的工作营。工会组织被禁止，工人的野猫罢工和抗议遭到国家的暴力镇压，常常伴随驱逐。换句话说——正如纽约大学教授、G.U.L.F.成员安德鲁·罗斯在《纽约时报》的一篇社论中所说，该社论恰好在行动前几天发表——在岛屿“高文化”的壮观发展背后，我们发现了全球资本主义体系中普遍存在的同样形式的高度剥削的“艰苦劳动”。
At once confrontational and jubilant, the G.U.L.F. action had a dual logic. On the one hand, it disrupted the workings of an elite institution, damaged the high-visibility brand of the museum, and amplified an ongoing transnational struggle for the rights of workers at the crux of Wall Street and contemporary art. On the other, it instigated a form of aesthetic experience based in sharing and abundance rather than either the luxury consumption characteristic of Abu Dhabi or the deadened spectatorial routines of the museum itself-routines that the Guggenheim was so committed to preserving that it called in the police to restore order before eventually shutting itself down completely G.U.L.F.行动既对抗又欢欣，具有双重逻辑。一方面，它破坏了一个精英机构的运作，损害了博物馆的高知名度品牌，并放大了在华尔街与当代艺术交汇处工人权利的跨国斗争。另一方面，它激发了一种基于分享和丰盈的美学体验，而不是阿布扎比特有的奢侈消费或博物馆本身的麻木观众例行程序——古根海姆对此如此执着，以至于在最终完全关闭之前，呼叫警方恢复秩序。
This logic was visible in the illustrated currency tossed into the atrium, designed by Noah Fischer. One side evoked a grim landscape of cultural monuments underpinned by intensive exploitation, ecological destruction, and imperial geopolitics, framed by the iconic figure of the " 1%1 \%." At once a phrase, an image, and a declaration of class antagonism, " 1%1 \% " had over the course of the previous three years become a household name for the oligarchic rule of financial powers over the life of humanity beyond any nominally representative political system. The term had of course issued forth from a precarious tent city installed three years earlier in Zuccotti Park, an otherwise unremarkable plaza in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan that became the base camp for Occupy Wall Street (OWS) in the fall of 2011. 这种逻辑在诺亚·费舍尔设计的投掷到中庭的插图货币中显而易见。一面唤起了一个阴郁的文化纪念碑景观，这些纪念碑在强烈的剥削、生态破坏和帝国地缘政治的支撑下，框架中是“ 1%1 \% ”的标志性形象。“ 1%1 \% ”同时是一个短语、一幅图像和一个阶级对立的宣言，在过去三年中，它已成为金融权力对人类生活的寡头统治的家喻户晓的名称，超越了任何名义上代表的政治体系。这个术语当然源于三年前在祖科蒂公园搭建的一个不稳定的帐篷城市，祖科蒂公园是位于下曼哈顿金融区的一个原本不起眼的广场，2011 年秋季成为占领华尔街运动（OWS）的基地。
This very site was evoked on the reverse side of the G.U.L.F. currency, which featured a luminous globe festooned with a banner reading “What would an ethical museum look like?” The banner was surrounded by throngs of tiny people waving flags, inspired by the motto at the top of the bill made famous during OWS by one of the infinite handmade placards 这个地方在 G.U.L.F.货币的背面被提及，货币上有一个发光的地球，装饰着一条写着“一个伦理博物馆会是什么样子？”的横幅。横幅周围是成群的小人挥舞着旗帜，灵感来自于在占领华尔街运动期间由无数手工标语牌所传达的口号。
G.U.L.F. currency, distributed at Guggenheim Museum, March 28, 2014. Design by Noah Fischer. G.U.L.F. 货币，分发于古根海姆博物馆，2014 年 3 月 28 日。设计者：诺亚·费舍尔。
that would become the signature aesthetic of the movement in its early phases: “By the authority of shit is fucked up and bullshit.” To the right, there was a skyline of New York City, against which appeared Mark di Suvero’s Joie de Vivre, the abstract modernist sculpture sited at Zuccotti Park, presiding like a sentinel over the teeming encampment below. 这将成为该运动早期阶段的标志性美学：“凭借权威，糟糕透顶和胡说八道。”右侧是纽约市的天际线，马克·迪·苏维尔的《生活的喜悦》出现在其上，这座抽象现代主义雕塑位于祖科蒂公园，像哨兵一样俯视着下面熙熙攘攘的营地。
It was under the shadow of Joie de Vivre that the members of G.U.L.F. first encountered one another during the occupation, an event that involved an historic conjunction of contemporary art and radical politics. The work of G.U.L.F., which will be further discussed later in this book, is but one example of a veritable renaissance of the avant-garde that has grown from the cradle of Zuccotti Park over the past four years. ^(2){ }^{2} Encompassing a wide diversity of of styles and tactics, this renaissance has been characterized not by a canon of Great Artists of the kind sanctified by traditional art history as leading from Michelangelo to Thomas Hirschhorn, but rather by the collective genius of insurgent multiplicities 在生活的乐趣的阴影下，G.U.L.F.的成员们在占领期间首次相遇，这一事件涉及当代艺术与激进政治的历史性结合。G.U.L.F.的工作将在本书后面进一步讨论，它只是过去四年中从祖科蒂公园的摇篮中成长起来的先锋艺术真正复兴的一个例子。这个复兴涵盖了广泛的风格和策略，其特征不是由传统艺术史所神圣化的伟大艺术家典范所主导，从米开朗基罗到托马斯·希尔施霍恩，而是由叛乱多元体的集体智慧所主导。
engaged in a simultaneous negation and affirmation of art itself. On the one hand, this renaissance involves the unmaking of art as it exists within the discourses, economies, and institutions of the contemporary art system-including its progressive sectors nominally concerned with public participation and civic dialogue. At the same time, it involves the reinvention of art as direct action, collective affect, and political subjectivization embedded in radical movements working to reconstruct the commons in the face of both localized injustices and systemic crises that characterize the contemporary capitalist order. Strike Art recounts the unfolding of this dialectic in the prehistory of OWS, during the movement itself, and in its contemporary aftermath-a period I will call the post-Occupy condition. 同时对艺术本身进行否定和肯定。一方面，这场文艺复兴涉及到对艺术的解构，艺术在当代艺术体系的论述、经济和机构中存在，包括那些名义上关注公众参与和公民对话的进步领域。与此同时，它还涉及到艺术作为直接行动、集体情感和政治主体化的再创造，这些都嵌入在努力重建公共领域的激进运动中，以应对当代资本主义秩序所特有的地方性不公和系统性危机。《罢工艺术》叙述了这一辩证法在占领华尔街运动的前史、运动本身以及其当代余波中的展开——我将称之为占领后的状态。
The purpose of the book is at once scholarly and strategic. In scholarly terms, it aims to record and analyze in all of their aesthetic texture and semiotic density a remarkable set of hitherto unstudied cultural practices, images, and objects that inflected the political imaginary of OWS and related projects coming in its wake. I use the term “imaginary” here with several overlapping valences, all of which treat it as something more than mere ideological delusion or false irreality. First, it alludes to social science literature that posits “imagination as a social practice” essential to the making of collective identities across time, space, and media, from the “imagined communities” of nationalism classically studied by Benedict Anderson to the contested “movement imaginaries” of contemporary transnational activism tracked by scholars like Jeffery S. Juris and Alex Khasnabish. ^(3){ }^{3} Second, it points to anarchist tendencies influenced by the Surrealists and Situationists that understand imagination as a creative or indeed insurrectionary force crystallized in sensuous forms-words, objects, images, dreams, actions-that speak to the possibility of other modes of collective life beyond what Mark Fisher has called “capitalist realism.” This term designates a social condition wherein the dictates of the market become “a pervasive atmosphere, conditioning not only the production of culture but also the regulation of work and education, and acting as a kind of invisible barrier constraining thought and action.” ^(4){ }^{4} 本书的目的既具有学术性又具有战略性。从学术的角度来看，它旨在记录和分析一组迄今为止未被研究的文化实践、图像和物品，这些内容在美学质感和符号密度上都相当显著，并影响了占领华尔街运动（OWS）及其后续相关项目的政治想象。在这里，我使用“想象”一词，具有几种重叠的含义，所有这些都将其视为超越单纯意识形态幻觉或虚假非现实的东西。首先，它暗示了社会科学文献中将“想象视为一种社会实践”的观点，这对于在时间、空间和媒介中构建集体身份至关重要，从本尼迪克特·安德森经典研究的民族主义“想象共同体”到杰弗里·S·朱里斯和亚历克斯·哈斯纳比什等学者追踪的当代跨国行动主义的争议“运动想象”。 其次，它指向受到超现实主义者和情境主义者影响的无政府主义倾向，这些倾向将想象理解为一种创造性或确实是叛乱的力量，凝结在感性的形式中——文字、物体、图像、梦境、行动——这些形式传达了超越马克·费舍尔所称的“资本主义现实主义”的其他集体生活方式的可能性。这个术语指代一种社会状态，在这种状态下，市场的指令成为“普遍的氛围，不仅影响文化的生产，还调节工作和教育，并作为一种无形的障碍，限制思想和行动。”" ^(4){ }^{4}
In strategic terms, following the work of Nicholas Mirzoeff-whose own theorization of Occupy has been a crucial point of reference-I 在战略层面上，参考尼古拉斯·米尔佐夫的研究——他对占领运动的理论化一直是一个重要的参考点——我
understand this book as contributing to a project of para-academic “militant research” of the sort that has arisen in other contexts of political upheaval around the world in the hopes that the stories it tells and the propositions it offers can in turn feed back into the contested work of movement-building. ^(5){ }^{5} As Pamela Brown has argued, an essential part of this work involves interrogating the limits of who or what constitutes a movement at all, and asking how a politics of solidarity can be articulated that works against ongoing dynamics of white supremacy, patriarchy, and class privilege in organizing spaces while constructing a common horizon of the Left. ^(6){ }^{6} Strike Art is finally intended as a strategic address to those working in the art field more specifically to consider how the various kinds of resources at our disposal might be channeled into movement work as it unfurls with ongoing moments of political rupture. If, as David Joselit argues, “art is a currency,” this book is an invitation to reappropriate the values associated with it-creativity, autonomy, even beauty itself-for a new cultural commons that works against the perverse combination of elite profit and proletarian precarity that structure the art system as we know it today? 理解这本书是为了为一种“激进研究”的准学术项目做出贡献，这种项目在世界各地的政治动荡背景下出现，希望它所讲述的故事和提出的命题能够反过来为运动建设的争议性工作提供支持。正如帕梅拉·布朗所论述的，这项工作的一个重要部分涉及质疑谁或什么构成运动的界限，并询问如何能够表达一种团结的政治，以对抗在组织空间中持续存在的白人至上主义、父权制和阶级特权的动态，同时构建左翼的共同视野。《罢工艺术》最终旨在作为一种战略性呼吁，特别是对艺术领域的从业者，考虑我们手中各种资源如何能够在政治破裂的持续时刻中被引导到运动工作中。 如果正如大卫·乔斯利特所言，“艺术是一种货币”，那么这本书就是邀请重新占有与之相关的价值——创造力、自主性，甚至美本身——以建立一个新的文化公域，反对构成我们今天所知艺术系统的精英利润与无产阶级不稳定的扭曲结合
END OF THE SET READING 阅读结束
What Was Contemporary Art? 当代艺术是什么？
In April 2012, journalist Paul Mason filed a report for the BBC provocatively entitled “Does Occupy Signal the Death of Contemporary Art?” Describing his encounters with artists like the Illuminator collective, known for its mobile guerilla projections of anticapitalist imagery onto corporate headquarters, government buildings, and museums in the service of organizing campaigns, Mason mused that 在 2012 年 4 月，记者保罗·梅森为 BBC 撰写了一篇挑衅性标题为“占领运动是否预示着当代艺术的死亡？”的报道。梅森描述了他与像照明者集体这样的艺术家的遭遇，该集体以其在公司总部、政府大楼和博物馆上进行反资本主义图像的移动游击投影而闻名，旨在组织运动。梅森沉思道
there has been so much art centered around the Occupy experience that it is, even this early, possible to ask whether we are seeing the emergence of an Occupy “style”-a tangible artistic movement in response to this major political event in American life that could upset the world of the white-walled galleries. ^(8){ }^{8} 围绕占领运动的艺术作品已经如此之多，以至于即使在这个早期阶段，我们也可以问是否正在出现一种占领“风格”——一种对这一重大政治事件的有形艺术运动，可能会动摇白墙画廊的世界。
He then went on to cite a dramatic claim by London artist Kulendran Thomas: 他接着引用了伦敦艺术家库伦德兰·托马斯的一个戏剧性声明：
Contemporary Art faces a potentially terminal crisis. Contemporary Art has sold itself as a non-specific, expanding, universal non-genre, much as neoliberalism passed itself off as the natural state of things. The realization that Contemporary Art is in fact a time-limited historical period, that can end, is a radical moment. But it’s an idea that’s gathering momentum…I can’t see what will emerge afterwards…but Occupy art can be seen as foreshadowing what replaces Contemporary Art. 当代艺术面临着一个潜在的终极危机。当代艺术自我推销为一种非特定的、扩展的、普遍的非类型，就像新自由主义自我标榜为事物的自然状态一样。意识到当代艺术实际上是一个有限的历史时期，可能会结束，这是一个激进的时刻。但这是一个正在积聚势头的想法……我无法预见之后会出现什么……但占领艺术可以被视为对取代当代艺术的预示。
Mason himself is not an art critic, and yet his BBC article stands as one of the most provocative statements concerning the ramifications of Occupy for contemporary art-namely, his suggestion that the former heralded the terminus of the latter. To be sure, thoughtful commentary on Occupy emerged from within the world of professional art magazines such as e-flux Journal, Art in America, Artforum, and October (the insights of which I sometimes draw upon throughout the pages of the current book). ^(9){ }^{9} Such commentary was generally sympathetic to the grievances articulated by Occupy, but few seemed to grapple with the chasm identified by Mason between groups such as the Illuminator and the business-as-usual of the 梅森本人并不是一位艺术评论家，但他的 BBC 文章却成为关于占领运动对当代艺术影响的最具挑衅性的论述之一——即他暗示前者预示着后者的终结。诚然，关于占领运动的深思熟虑的评论出现在专业艺术杂志的世界中，如 e-flux Journal、Art in America、Artforum 和 October（我在本书的各个章节中有时会引用这些见解）。 ^(9){ }^{9} 这些评论通常对占领运动所表达的不满表示同情，但很少有人似乎认真对待梅森所指出的照明者与日常商业活动之间的鸿沟。
Illuminator projection with G.U.L.F. and MTL, March 24, 2014, Guggenheim Museum. 照明投影与 G.U.L.F.和 MTL，2014 年 3 月 24 日，古根海姆博物馆。
contemporary art system. The work of the llluminator has been embedded in an expanded field of movement-based cultural production, largely indifferent to the discourse of curaters and art critics, and exposed to surveillance and even detention by the police, as when Illuminator artists Kyle Depew and Grayson Earle were themselves arrested on charges of “illegal advertising” for projecting the phrase “Koch=Climate Crisis” onto the facade of the Metropolitan Museum during a gala celebrating its fossil-fuel billionaire-donor David Koch. ^(10){ }^{10} 当代艺术系统。照明者的工作嵌入了一个扩展的基于运动的文化生产领域，基本上对策展人和艺术评论家的话语不以为然，并且遭受了警方的监视甚至拘留，例如照明者艺术家凯尔·德皮尤和格雷森·厄尔因在庆祝其化石燃料亿万富翁捐赠者大卫·科赫的晚会上将“科赫=气候危机”这一短语投影到大都会艺术博物馆的外立面上而被逮捕，面临“非法广告”的指控。
Despite the depth of Mason’s intuition about a crisis-if not death-of contemporary art, his approving citation of Thomas’s characterization of contemporary art as an indifferent white-walled gallery housing a “nonspecific, expanding, universal non-genre” was in fact a reductive foil against which to pose Occupy, one that recalled Simon Critchley’s quip that " contemporary art is an easy thing to hate," Indeed, the relationship between Occupy and contemporary art was both deeper and more fluid than Mason allowed for in his bracing polemic. On the one hand, much art surrounding Occupy in fact emerged in part from within certain tendencies in contemporary art rather than absolutely leaving them behind. On the other hand, Mason’s speculation that there might be an artistic “style” or even artistic “movement” pertaining to Occupy misses a major feature of Occupy itself and its ongoing afterlives-namely, that art and artists were essential to the core of the movement itself as initiators and organizers, rather than secondary decorators adding their work onto a social movement that could have otherwise existed without them. Indeed, as discussed below, many of the most astute observers have suggested that, from a certain angle, Occupy itself might be considered an artistic project in its own right. 尽管梅森对当代艺术危机——如果不是死亡——的直觉深刻，他对托马斯将当代艺术描述为一个容纳“非特定、扩展、普遍非类型”的冷漠白墙画廊的赞同引用，实际上是一个简化的对照，用以提出占领运动，这让人想起西蒙·克里奇利的玩笑：“当代艺术是一件容易仇恨的事。”确实，占领运动与当代艺术之间的关系比梅森在其激烈的论战中所允许的要更深刻、更流动。一方面，围绕占领运动的许多艺术实际上部分源于当代艺术中的某些倾向，而并非完全抛弃它们。另一方面，梅森推测可能存在与占领运动相关的艺术“风格”甚至艺术“运动”，却忽视了占领运动本身及其持续影响的一个主要特征——即艺术和艺术家作为发起者和组织者，对运动的核心至关重要，而不是作为次要的装饰者，将他们的作品附加在一个本可以在没有他们的情况下存在的社会运动上。 确实，如下所述，许多最敏锐的观察者已经提出，从某种角度来看，占领运动本身可能被视为一个独立的艺术项目。
Thus, pace Mason and Thomas, and in the interest of fleshing out the larger implications of their provocative claims: what is-or wascontemporary art? One can of course approach this question from various vantages, ranging from the most capacious to the most highly specialized: 因此，尽管梅森和托马斯的观点值得商榷，但为了阐明他们挑衅性主张的更大意义：什么是——或曾经是——当代艺术？当然，可以从各种角度来探讨这个问题，从最广泛的视角到最专业的视角
At one end of the spectrum, as a kind of hypothetical ground zero, contemporary art could be taken to be that art which is made in the present historical moment, with “art” dissolved into a more generic 在光谱的一端，作为一种假设的零点，当代艺术可以被视为在当前历史时刻创作的艺术，其中“艺术”被溶解为一种更通用的形式
understanding of cultural creativity encompassing all forms of imaginative making and sensuous expression including but not limited to those informed by professional skill or institutional recognition: this would include an infinite variety of images, objects, designs, performances, rituals, dances, songs, stories, poems, and communicative activities of everyday life-including the vast universe of what Gregory Sholette calls the “dark matter” of anonymous cultural creation occurring online. ^(12)On{ }^{12} \mathrm{On} the one hand, this may seem like a banalization of the term “art” so as to render it almost useless. And yet, it speaks to a Romantic anthropology of art that in fact has its own art-historical pedigree ranging with various inflections from William Morris to Joseph Beuys, whose declaration that “everyone is an artist” haunts contemporary art discourse. This leveling of art to a more general sense of creativity in turn raises the question of how capital submits our creative powers to regimes of exploitation and valorization. Indeed under conditions of post-Fordism “art” and values associated therewith such of freedom, expression, and independence are often posited as the paradigm for work in general, an ideological endgame suggested by the fast food corporation Subway referring to its minimum-wage workers as "sandwich artists."13 对文化创造力的理解涵盖了所有形式的想象性创作和感性表达，包括但不限于那些受到专业技能或机构认可的影响：这将包括无尽的图像、物体、设计、表演、仪式、舞蹈、歌曲、故事、诗歌以及日常生活中的交流活动——包括格雷戈里·肖莱特所称的在线匿名文化创作的“暗物质”的广阔宇宙。 ^(12)On{ }^{12} \mathrm{On} 一方面，这似乎使“艺术”一词变得平庸，几乎毫无用处。然而，这反映了一种浪漫的人类学艺术观，实际上具有自己的艺术历史谱系，从威廉·莫里斯到约瑟夫·博伊斯，各种变体交织在一起，博伊斯宣称“每个人都是艺术家”的话语在当代艺术话语中萦绕不去。这种将艺术平等化为更一般的创造力的做法，反过来又引发了一个问题，即资本如何将我们的创造力置于剥削和价值化的制度之下。 确实，在后福特主义的条件下，“艺术”及其相关的自由、表达和独立等价值观常常被视为一般工作的范式，这是一种意识形态的终局，快餐公司赛百味将其最低工资工人称为“三明治艺术家”。13
A second approach to contemporary art might be described in terms of a consumerist mentality concerned with that art (largely “visual” art but cross-pollinated with music, theater, poetry, architecture) which is considered up-to-date or cutting-edge by the commercial galleries of Chelsea, institutions like the Whitney Biennial, or reviewers in the pages of New York magazine. Whatever the actual quality of any particular practice may be-undoubtedly many beautiful and provocative new works appear every two years at the Whitney Biennial-this consumerist mentality understands contemporary art in terms of flavor-of-the-month novelty and celebrity spectacle, whether it be an “up and coming” painter having left their peers laboring in obscurity, or the cynical artistic dabblings of figures like James Franco and Kim Kardashian. ^(14){ }^{14} 对当代艺术的第二种看法可以用一种消费主义心态来描述，这种心态关注的是被切尔西的商业画廊、惠特尼双年展等机构或《纽约杂志》上的评论家视为最新或前沿的艺术（主要是“视觉”艺术，但与音乐、戏剧、诗歌、建筑等交叉影响）。无论任何特定实践的实际质量如何——毫无疑问，每两年在惠特尼双年展上都会出现许多美丽而引人深思的新作品——这种消费主义心态将当代艺术理解为当月的新奇和名人表演，无论是一个“崭露头角”的画家让他们的同龄人默默无闻地辛勤工作，还是詹姆斯·弗兰科和金·卡戴珊等人物的愤世嫉俗的艺术尝试。
The final and most rigorous approach to contemporary art is one that takes it as an object of critical analysis concerning the meaning of contemporaneity and art alike. The discourse of the contemporary, as it might be called, pertains to a highly specialized sector of the contemporary art 对当代艺术的最终和最严格的研究方法是将其视为一个批判性分析的对象，涉及当代性和艺术本身的意义。可以称之为当代话语的这一领域，涉及当代艺术的一个高度专业化的领域。
system that exists in close proximity to academia and identifies itself as a self-consciously left-wing endeavor. ^(15){ }^{15} 一个与学术界紧密相连并自我认同为一种自觉的左翼事业的系统。
Before elaborating on the stakes of this discourse of the contemporary, I want to note that throughout this book, I will be using the phrase “art system” as a way to displace the deeply engrained figure of the “art world.” The latter term connotes a unitary, self-enclosed cultural universe of likeminded cognoscenti making, viewing, judging, and sometimes buying and selling works of art. ^(16){ }^{16} Even when used disparagingly, as in the phrase “art-world elites,” the phrase homogenizes and neutralizes what is in fact a highly complex and uneven landscape. 在详细阐述当代话语的利害关系之前，我想指出，在本书中，我将使用“艺术系统”这一短语，以取代根深蒂固的“艺术世界”这一概念。后者一词暗示了一个统一的、自我封闭的文化宇宙，里面充斥着志同道合的鉴赏家，他们创作、观看、评判，有时还买卖艺术作品。即使在贬义的用法中，例如“艺术世界精英”这一短语，也会使实际上高度复杂和不均衡的景观同质化和中立化。
In New York alone, this landscape would include, among other things: institutions unabashedly servicing the 1%1 \% like Sotheby’s auction house; commercial galleries devoted to both turning a profit and supporting the work of critically compelling artists (Greene Naftali, Barbara Gladstone); major museums torn between the imperative of touristic consumption and the cultivation of public taste (MoMA, Whitney); nonprofit entities with a bent toward civic engagement and educational programming (Queens Museum, Creative Time); governmental agencies (the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, New York State Council on the Arts); left-oriented academic platforms (Vera List Center for Art and Politics at the New School, the Institute for Hemispheric Studies at NYU); and unabashed radical activist spaces ( 16 Beaver, Interference Archive). Such entities are sustained with various configurations of public, private, and communal funding, and they exist in symbiotic relationship with two other facets of the art system. The first of these is the arts mediascape encompassing traditional print-copy magazines like Artforum and October, websites like Hyperallergic capable of generating real-time journalism and criticism, and the unique critical platform of e-flux Journal. The second of these is the art-education complex encompassing debt-fueled art schools and the exceptional, tuition-free para-academic institution of the Whitney Independent Study Program (discussed in chapter one). 仅在纽约，这一景观将包括其他事物：毫不掩饰地服务于 1%1 \% 的机构，如苏富比拍卖行；致力于盈利和支持具有批判性吸引力艺术家的商业画廊（Greene Naftali，Barbara Gladstone）；在旅游消费的迫切需求与公众品味的培养之间挣扎的主要博物馆（现代艺术博物馆，惠特尼博物馆）；倾向于公民参与和教育项目的非营利实体（皇后博物馆，创意时刻）；政府机构（纽约市文化事务部，纽约州艺术委员会）；左翼学术平台（新学院的维拉·利斯特艺术与政治中心，纽约大学的半球研究所）；以及毫不掩饰的激进主义者空间（16 Beaver，干扰档案馆）。这些实体通过公共、私人和社区资金的各种配置得以维持，并与艺术系统的另外两个方面存在共生关系。 这些中的第一个是艺术媒体景观，包括像《艺术论坛》和《十月》这样的传统印刷杂志，能够生成实时新闻和评论的网站如 Hyperallergic，以及 e-flux Journal 这一独特的批评平台。第二个是艺术教育综合体，包括以债务为基础的艺术学校和惠特尼独立研究项目这一卓越的免学费准学术机构（在第一章中讨论）。
Thus, by “system” I do not mean a monolithic entity with all of its elements working in equilibrium, but rather an unstable assemblage or meshwork with an ever-present potential for antagonism between what 因此，我所说的“系统”并不是一个所有元素都在平衡中运作的单一实体，而是一个不稳定的集合或网络，始终存在着对立的潜力
Pierre Bourdieu would call the dominant and dominated elements thereof. ^(17){ }^{17} If, at one end of the spectrum, an entity like Sotheby’s is indistinguishable from the global luxury economy, at the other end, a space like Interference Archive struggling to make ends meet through grants, donations, and communal work blends seamlessly into the world of anarchist organizing of the sort that led directly into occupy. 皮埃尔·布迪厄会称之为主导和被主导的元素。如果在光谱的一端，像苏富比这样的实体与全球奢侈经济无法区分，那么在另一端，像干扰档案馆这样的空间通过补助、捐赠和社区工作勉强维持生计，完美融入了直接导致占领运动的无政府主义组织的世界。
Thus, throughout this book, my use of the phrase “art system” will most of the time refer to what could described as the “mainstream” or “core” elements of that system encompassing well-funded museums, galleries, public art agencies, and academia that, even in their most politically progressive guises, remain within the relatively comfortable habitus of “art” as a professional field. To be clear, participation in such networks is not something to be moralistically condemned. Purity is not the point. Even as they act as a constraint, they also sustain bodies of artistic creativity, however precarious, that would otherwise be unable to flourish or would be immediately channeled into corporate advertising and design. The question remains how, if at all, the potentialities of certain nodes within the core of the art system might be tapped and redirected into emerging political formations that would be autonomous from them. The discourse of contemporary art emerges from the push-and-pull between these extremes. It is largely articulated by artists, academics, and curators working somewhere in the middle, aspiring to radical political engagement, but constrained by the norms, protocols, and cultural cynicism that comes from working in mainstream art institutions and academia. 因此，在本书中，我使用“艺术系统”这一短语时，大多数情况下将指代可以描述为“主流”或“核心”元素的系统，这些元素包括资金充足的博物馆、画廊、公共艺术机构和学术界，即使在其最具政治进步色彩的表现形式中，仍然保持在“艺术”作为一个专业领域的相对舒适的习性中。需要明确的是，参与这样的网络并不是道德上应当被谴责的事情。纯粹性并不是重点。即使它们作为一种约束存在，它们也维持着艺术创造力的主体，尽管这种创造力是脆弱的，否则将无法蓬勃发展，或者会立即被引导到企业广告和设计中。问题在于，如何以及是否能够利用艺术系统核心中某些节点的潜力，并将其重新引导到与之自主的新的政治形态中。当代艺术的 discourse 源于这些极端之间的拉锯。 这在很大程度上是由艺术家、学者和策展人表达的，他们在某种程度上处于中间地带，渴望进行激进的政治参与，但受到主流艺术机构和学术界所带来的规范、程序和文化愤世嫉俗的限制。
It was out of this very specific intellectual configuration that, at the end of the first decade of the 2000s, the meaning and status of contemporary art became an object of prolific discourse. ^(18){ }^{18} Questions concerning its temporal logics and historical conditions, its economic entanglements and political conundrums, its disciplinary parameters and intellectual criteria, became a veritable obsession. This was so much the case that highlighting the vexed nature of “contemporaneity” itself seemed to become a requisite gesture for being recognized as a contemporary writer or artist worthy of the name. 正是在这种非常特定的知识结构中，到了 2000 年代第一个十年的末期，当代艺术的意义和地位成为了丰沛话语的对象。关于其时间逻辑和历史条件、经济纠葛和政治难题、学科参数和知识标准的问题，成为了一种真正的痴迷。情况如此，以至于强调“当代性”本身的复杂性似乎成为了被认定为值得称之为当代作家或艺术家的必要举动。
Several world-historical dynamics informed this proliferation of discourse. The first was a sense that, as long prophesized by figures such as 几种世界历史动态促成了这种话语的激增。首先是一种意识，正如长期以来被诸如
Theodor Adorno, Guy Debord, and Fredric Jameson, the production, circulation, and consumption of art was ever more integrated into the culture industries of capitalism. Since 1989-a date often invoked in periodizing the contemporary-this process of market integration was now taking place at a fully globalized scale, encompassing tourism, celebrity entertainment, real-estate development, speculative investment, and more, exemplified by what Hal Foster described as the “Bilbao effect” of the Guggenheim’s transnational brand and the architectural confections of Frank Gehry accompanying it. ^(19){ }^{19} Under these conditions, art did not simply become a luxury commodity for the conspicuous consumption of elites or a resource to be poached for corporate advertising, as had long been the case, but rather, following Jameson, a significant element of the economic “base” of capitalism itself, rather than a superstructural expression thereof. ^(20){ }^{20} 西奥多·阿多诺、吉·德波和弗雷德里克·詹姆逊认为，艺术的生产、流通和消费越来越融入资本主义的文化产业。自 1989 年以来——这一日期常被用来划分当代——市场整合的过程现在以完全全球化的规模进行，涵盖了旅游、名人娱乐、房地产开发、投机投资等，哈尔·福斯特所描述的古根海姆跨国品牌及其伴随的弗兰克·盖里的建筑作品便是这一现象的典范。在这些条件下，艺术不仅仅成为精英阶层显性消费的奢侈商品或企业广告的掠夺资源，正如长期以来的情况，而是，遵循詹姆逊的观点，成为资本主义经济“基础”的一个重要元素，而不是其上层建筑的表现。
The globalization of the economies and institutions of the art system during the 2000s involved the proliferation of biennials, art fairs, and festivals of various kinds across the world, often harnessed to urban and national campaigns of branding what David Harvey would call their “monopoly rent” for investors. ^(21){ }^{21} Yet at the same time, as Terry Smith points out, these exhibitions often brought into visibility the work of artists outside the dominant purview of US and Western European criticism, and provided significant space for autonomous intellectual discourse. ^(22){ }^{22} 在 2000 年代，艺术系统的经济和机构的全球化涉及到双年展、艺术博览会和各种类型的节日的激增，这些活动往往与城市和国家的品牌推广活动相结合，正如大卫·哈维所称的“垄断租金”以吸引投资者。然而，正如特里·史密斯所指出的，这些展览往往使得那些不在美国和西欧主流批评视野中的艺术家的作品得以显现，并为自主的知识话语提供了重要空间。
Exemplary in this regard was the work of curator Okwui Enwezor. Beginning in the mid-1990s. Enwezor navigated the institutional and financial flows of the global art system in such a way as to create a remarkable series of exhibitions and platforms from the Johannesburg Biennale (1996) to Documenta 11 (2001) to the Venice Biennale (2015), wherein contemporary artists and thinkers from around the world could converge to collectively explore the political and artistic imaginaries of the postCold War conjuncture. As articulated by Enwezor, the contemporary was not an indifferent flux of novelty, but rather a “postcolonial conjuncture” characterized by multiple temporalities, entangled histories, and competing claims on the foundational terms of modernity like democracy, freedom, and justice. ^(23){ }^{23} 在这方面，策展人奥克维·恩维佐尔的工作堪称典范。自 1990 年代中期开始，恩维佐尔以一种独特的方式驾驭全球艺术体系的制度和资金流动，创造了一系列引人注目的展览和平台，从约翰内斯堡双年展（1996 年）到第 11 届文献展（2001 年）再到威尼斯双年展（2015 年），使来自世界各地的当代艺术家和思想家能够汇聚一堂，共同探讨后冷战时期的政治与艺术想象。正如恩维佐尔所阐述的，当代并不是一种无动于衷的新奇流动，而是一个以多重时间性、交织的历史和对现代性基础条款（如民主、自由和正义）的竞争性主张为特征的“后殖民交汇”。
Enwezor’s work helped to cement the idea of the contemporary art 恩维佐的工作帮助巩固了当代艺术的概念
exhibition - along with its attendantevents, platforms, and publicationsas a serious public sphere, and provided a stage for amplifying several strands of work in the 2000s that would come to represent that vanguard of contemporary art. 展览及其相关活动、平台和出版物作为一个严肃的公共领域，为 2000 年代多个工作方向提供了一个舞台，这些方向将代表当代艺术的先锋。
The first of these strands involved the reinvention of documentary as a critical problem in photography, film, and various hybrid formats. As amply demonstrated by the work of T. J. Demos on artists such as Steve McQueen, The Otolith Group, and Walid Raad, the documentary turn in contemporary art aimed to produce critical knowledge about postcolonial dynamics of war, displacement, and economic violence through means that swerve away from any traditional appeal to the putative certainties of photographic self-evidence alone. ^(24){ }^{24} Instead, procedures of archival haunting, fictional speculation, and perceptual disjunction are employed in such a manner as to trouble what Jacques Rancière calls “the partition of the sensible.” For Rancière-who became a talismanic figure for critics in the 2000s-this phrase refers to the distribution of what is seeable, hearable, and sayable as legitimately political in a given social order. Rancière understands politics as the opening of a void of possibility in the partition of the sensible wherein new political subjects emerge in excess of the “police principle” that strives to maintain the fixed roles, positions, and identities on which the functioning of the state depends. ^(25){ }^{25} 这些线索中的第一个涉及将纪录片重新定义为摄影、电影和各种混合形式中的一个关键问题。正如 T. J. Demos 对史蒂夫·麦奎因、耳石小组和瓦利德·拉德等艺术家的研究充分证明的那样，当代艺术中的纪录片转向旨在通过偏离任何传统对摄影自证的假定确定性的诉求，来产生关于后殖民战争、流离失所和经济暴力动态的批判性知识。相反，档案幽灵、虚构推测和感知断裂的程序以一种方式被运用，以干扰雅克·朗西埃所称的“可感知的划分”。对于在 2000 年代成为批评家护身符的朗西埃来说，这个短语指的是在特定社会秩序中，什么是可见的、可听的和可言说的作为合法政治的分配。 朗西埃将政治理解为在感知的划分中打开一个可能性的空白，在这个空白中，新的政治主体超越了“警察原则”，而该原则努力维持国家运作所依赖的固定角色、位置和身份。 ^(25){ }^{25}
Rancière would also provide a touchstone for another key critic of contemporary art, namely Claire Bishop. Bishop established her critical profile in the 2000s with a groundbreaking critique of what was known as “relational aesthetics,” defined by its originator Nicolas Bourriaud as "a set of artistic practices which take as their theoretical and practical point of departure the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space. ^(326){ }^{326} This paradigm claimed to move away from art objects per se-associated by Bourriaud with a scenario of “passive spectatorship” in the face of a stereotypically static painting or sculpture. Instead it advocated work aiming instead to catalyze participatory interactions and processes among audience members, communal meals in galleries, for example, so as to restore a social bond otherwise lost through the atomizing forces of capitalism. Bishop argued that the 朗西埃还为当代艺术的另一位关键批评家克莱尔·比肖提供了一个基准。比肖在 2000 年代通过对所谓“关系美学”的开创性批评确立了她的批评形象，这一概念由其创始人尼古拉·布里奥所定义为“以人类关系及其社会背景的整体为理论和实践出发点的一系列艺术实践，而不是一个独立和私密的空间。”这一范式声称要摆脱艺术对象本身——布里奥将其与面对典型静态绘画或雕塑的“被动观众”情境联系在一起。相反，它提倡旨在催化观众之间参与互动和过程的作品，例如在画廊中的集体用餐，以恢复因资本主义的原子化力量而失去的社会纽带。比肖认为，
valorization of “social relations” as a cardinal value in and of itself failed to conceptualize the quality of those relations in both aesthetic and political terms. Rather than endorse works claiming to create an “immanent experience of togetherness and community,” Bishop looked to works that instead created instances of disjunction and discomfort in the audience. Exemplary for Bishop would be the precarious monuments to radical philosophers like Bataille and Gramsci situated by Thomas Hirschhorn in subaltern neighborhoods far afield from the physical confines of the art institutions that sponsor them; Jeremy Deller’s orchestration of a collective reenactment of the 1984 miners’ strike in Britain in which “original” historical actors were prompted to switch roles between police and demonstrators; or Tania Bruguera’s hiring of off-duty police officers to perform crowd-control techniques from horseback in the space of the museum. In each case, the artist constructs a scenario that does not solicit identification with this or that political project. Rather, the artist instead leaves the audience to grapple in uncertain terms with the singular relations set up by the work between audience members themselves and the objects, images, and spaces comprising the project. For Bishop, this is, in Rancière’s terms, the “politics of aesthetics,” which negotiates between art as a realm of autonomous, non-instrumental experience, on the one hand, and the pressures of social antagonism on the other. “社会关系”的价值化作为一种基本价值本身未能在美学和政治层面上概念化这些关系的质量。比肖并没有支持那些声称创造“内在的共同体和团结体验”的作品，而是关注那些在观众中创造出断裂和不适感的作品。比肖所认为的典范是托马斯·希尔霍恩在远离赞助它们的艺术机构的边缘社区中为激进哲学家如巴塔耶和格兰西所建立的脆弱纪念碑；杰里米·德勒组织的 1984 年英国矿工罢工的集体重演，其中“原始”历史参与者被促使在警察和示威者之间互换角色；或塔尼亚·布鲁盖拉雇佣退役警察在博物馆空间内骑马表演人群控制技巧。在每一种情况下，艺术家构建的场景并不要求与某个政治项目产生认同。 相反，艺术家让观众在不确定的条件下，与作品所建立的观众之间以及构成项目的物体、图像和空间之间的独特关系进行斗争。对于比肖而言，这在朗西埃的术语中是“美学的政治”，它在一方面作为自主的、非工具性体验的艺术领域与另一方面的社会对抗压力之间进行协商。
Bishop’s project stands as a rigorous tonic for those who would posit art as an agent of naive consensus, harmony, or identification, and it upholds an argument for the political import of the sensory forms of art. And yet, despite her interest in political conflict-and indeed the Rancièreian figure of “the police” - Bishop seldom addressed art embedded in social movements that would involve actually confronting the police as forces of state violence, as opposed to isolated artistic gestures in the space of the gallery or public art commission. To draw this distinction is not to privilege one mode of working over another-let alone to fetishize the police-but it brings into relief an entire world of artistic practice emerging throughout the 2000 s not from the institutions of the mainstream contemporary art system but rather from the autonomous cultural and political ferment of the alterglobalization movement marked in the Global North by the Battle of Seattle in 1999. 毕晓普的项目对那些将艺术视为天真共识、和谐或认同的代理者而言，构成了一种严谨的激励，并为艺术的感性形式的政治重要性辩护。然而，尽管她对政治冲突——确实是朗西埃所说的“警察”这一形象——感兴趣，毕晓普很少涉及嵌入社会运动的艺术，这些艺术实际上需要面对作为国家暴力力量的警察，而不是在画廊或公共艺术委托空间中的孤立艺术手势。划分这一区别并不是要优先考虑某种工作模式，更不是要物化警察，而是突显出一个在 2000 年代涌现的艺术实践世界，这些实践并非源自主流当代艺术体系的机构，而是源自于自主文化和政治的激荡，这种激荡在全球北方以 1999 年西雅图之战为标志，属于反全球化运动。
This was described in 2002 by the anthropologist-and future Occupy participant-David Graeber as the New Anarchism. ^(27){ }^{27} For Graeber, the key principle of this phenomena was creative direct action, understood as an action undertaken autonomously without permission from any mediating power-such as a political party or an art institution-in which the ruling order is challenged even as a new world is “prefigured” in the action itself. The occupation of a campus, for instance, often involves not just a protest against this or that policy, but also the creation of an autonomous space of working and learning together on the part of the students that embodies a different model of education altogether. In this respect, collective resistance and collective invention are inseparable, and it is in such situations that the sensory forms and imaginative visions of art per se are liberated from their intuitional enclosure to participate in the construction of new forms of life-in-common. 这在 2002 年被人类学家兼未来的占领参与者大卫·格雷伯描述为新无政府主义。对格雷伯而言，这一现象的关键原则是创造性的直接行动，理解为一种在没有任何中介权力（如政党或艺术机构）许可的情况下自主进行的行动，在这种行动中，统治秩序受到挑战，同时在行动本身中“预示”出一个新世界。例如，校园的占领往往不仅仅是对某项政策的抗议，还涉及学生们共同创造一个自主的工作和学习空间，体现出一种完全不同的教育模式。在这方面，集体抵抗与集体创造是不可分割的，而正是在这样的情况下，艺术本身的感官形式和想象愿景从其直观的封闭中解放出来，参与到新共同生活形式的构建中。
By the late 2000s, certain elements of the New Anarchism had begun to resonate within the contemporary art system itself, especially through the curatorial work of Nato Thompson, who would eventually become the chief curator of the esteemed public art institution Creative Time. Thompson’s series of exhibitions The Interventionists (2004), Experimental Geography (2007), Demotracy in America (2008), and Living as Form (2011) lent a certain visibility and support to activist art practices, and synergized with the work of critics like Gregory Sholette, Brian Holmes, and Gerald Raunig working to theorize and push forward the cultural-political ferment of the alterglobalization movement in the Global North. ^(28){ }^{28} Perhaps inevitably, these energies would gradually be channeled into the more comfortable, institutionally sanctioned discourse of “social practice art” grounded in liberal ideals of civic dialogue that critics like Grant Kester and the journal Field have consistently interrogated (indeed, a leading voice in the discussions catalyzed by Thompson was Queens Museum curator Tom Finkenperl, selected as New York City’s director of cultural affairs by the de Blasio administration in 2014). ^(29){ }^{29} 到 2000 年代末，新无政府主义的某些元素开始在当代艺术体系中产生共鸣，特别是通过纳托·汤普森的策展工作，他最终成为著名公共艺术机构 Creative Time 的首席策展人。汤普森的系列展览《干预者》（2004）、《实验地理》（2007）、《美国的民主》（2008）和《作为形式的生活》（2011）为激进艺术实践提供了一定的可见性和支持，并与像格雷戈里·肖莱特、布赖恩·霍尔姆斯和杰拉尔德·劳宁等批评家的工作相结合，推动了全球北方反全球化运动的文化政治激荡。 或许不可避免，这些能量将逐渐被引导到更为舒适、制度上认可的“社会实践艺术”话语中，这一话语基于自由主义的公民对话理想，批评家如格兰特·凯斯特和《领域》期刊对此进行了持续的质疑（实际上，在汤普森催化的讨论中，皇后博物馆的策展人汤姆·芬肯佩尔是一个重要的声音，他在 2014 年被德布拉西奥政府任命为纽约市文化事务局局长）。 ^(29){ }^{29}
With the work of figures like Enwezor and Thompson in mind, we can see that, far from the banal consumerist wasteland evoked by Paul Mason in his BBC report, contemporary art by the end of the first decade of the 2000s was in fact a harbor for progressive-minded and oftentimes 考虑到恩维佐和汤普森等人的工作，我们可以看到，远离保罗·梅森在其 BBC 报道中所描绘的平庸消费主义荒原，2000 年代第一个十年末的当代艺术实际上是一个进步思想者的避风港，常常充满活力
self-consciously left-wing cultural work, even as it remained haunted by at least three contradictions: the proximity of left-aspiring art to the actual forces of capital; the constriction of those aspirations to the norms and protocols of art institutions; and, as I discuss in chapter three of this book, the economic inequalities traversing the art system itself. Indeed, even with the prominence of political concerns in major institutions of contemporary art, many participants still expressed a certain ethical unease with what was perceived to be an overall atmosphere of comfort and complacency. In an acerbic assessment by famed practitioner of “institutional critique” Andrea Fraser, we read: 自觉地左翼文化工作，尽管它仍然受到至少三种矛盾的困扰：渴望左翼艺术与实际资本力量的接近；这些渴望被限制在艺术机构的规范和程序之内；以及正如我在本书第三章中讨论的，艺术系统本身存在的经济不平等。事实上，即使在当代艺术主要机构中政治关切的突出表现，许多参与者仍然对被认为是整体舒适和自满的氛围表达了一定的伦理不安。在著名的“制度批评”实践者安德里亚·弗雷泽的尖刻评估中，我们读到：
It increasingly seems to me that politics in the art world is largely a politics of guilt, or of self-interest generalized in the name of a narrowly conceived and privileged form of autonomy, and that critique most often serves negation in the Freudian rather than Marxian sense, distancing, above all, those economic conditions and our investment in them. As such, it is a polities that functions to defend against the contradictions that might otherwise make our continued participation in the art field, and access to its considerable rewards-which have ensconced many of us comfortably among the 10 percent, if not the 1 percent or even the .1 percent-unbearable. ^(30){ }^{30} 在我看来，艺术界的政治越来越像是一种罪疚政治，或者是一种以狭隘构思和特权形式的自主权名义泛化的自利政治，而批评往往在弗洛伊德而非马克思的意义上服务于否定，尤其是使我们与那些经济条件及我们对其投资保持距离。因此，这是一种政治，旨在防御那些可能使我们继续参与艺术领域及获得其可观回报（这些回报使我们中的许多人舒适地位于前 10%，如果不是前 1%甚至前 0.1%）变得无法忍受的矛盾。
Fraser’s remarks were made in the immediate aftermath of Occupy, an event catalyzed in part by artists and other precarious workers living far from the comfort of the " 10 percent" and concerned less about a “politics of guilt” and more about the prospects of building radical movements in the face of capitalist crisis. These developments would come to a head at 16 Beaver, an artist-run space in Lower Manhattan that over the course of the decade was a cosmopolitan incubator of conversations concerning art, radical politics, and indeed the meaning of revolution itself in the unlikely context of the US. Crystallizing a range of forces on local, national, and global scales-including most proximately the cycle of struggles stretching from the 2009 University of California occupations to the Arab Spring-16 Beaver would be an important crucible for Occupy as an autonomist, assembly-based movement inaugurated just outside its doorstep in August 2011. 弗雷泽的言论是在占领运动之后立即发表的，这一事件部分是由生活在“10%”舒适区之外的艺术家和其他不稳定工作者所催化，他们对“内疚政治”关注较少，而更关心在资本主义危机面前建立激进运动的前景。这些发展将在 16 Beaver 达到高潮，这是位于下曼哈顿的一个艺术家主办的空间，在过去十年中，它成为了一个关于艺术、激进政治，甚至在美国这一不太可能的背景下革命意义的国际对话孵化器。16 Beaver 汇聚了地方、国家和全球范围内的一系列力量，包括从 2009 年加州大学占领运动到阿拉伯之春的斗争周期，成为了占领运动的重要熔炉，这一以自治和集会为基础的运动于 2011 年 8 月在其门口启动。
What Was Occupy? 占领运动是什么？
Four years after an anticapitalist tent city was first collaged into the heart of the Lower Manhattan financial district in response to the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression and the global struggles emerging in its wake, both the US Left in general and the artistic field remain, in the words of journalist Sarah Jaffe, "post-occupied."31 Occupy is variously an object of obsession and irritation, celebration and cynicism, and everything in between. Overall, the ramifications of Occupy stand as a looming question mark that continues to animate many leading debates about the status and future of the Left. 在反资本主义帐篷城市首次被拼贴到下曼哈顿金融区的心脏地带，作为对自大萧条以来最深刻经济危机的回应，以及随之而来的全球斗争的反应四年后，美国左翼整体以及艺术领域仍然如记者莎拉·贾菲所言，处于“占领后”的状态。占领运动既是痴迷和恼怒的对象，也是庆祝和愤世嫉俗的象征，以及介于两者之间的一切。总体而言，占领运动的影响如同一个悬而未决的问题，继续激发着关于左翼现状和未来的许多重要辩论。
For Bhaskar Sunkara of Jacobin, for instance, Occupy expressed a “moral and ethical critique of capitalism,” yet lacked the discipline to establish a reinvigorated mass-based socialist movement with a plan for a “plausible transition to a successor society.” ^(32){ }^{32} Similarly, for Chantal Mouffe, the extra-parliamentary ethos of Occupy-which is to say, its deliberate eschewing of electoral politics and finite demands in favor of process-intensive self-organization-risked dovetailing with the neutralization of politics by neoliberalism and crippling the prospect of a left-populist hegemony of the sort that would inform European parties such as Syrzia and Podemos. ^(33){ }^{33} 对于《雅各宾》杂志的巴斯卡·孙卡拉而言，占领运动表达了对资本主义的“道德和伦理批判”，但缺乏建立一个有计划的“可行过渡到继任社会”的振兴群众基础社会主义运动的纪律。类似地，对于尚塔尔·穆夫而言，占领运动的超议会精神——也就是说，它故意回避选举政治和有限要求，而倾向于过程密集型的自我组织——冒着与新自由主义中政治中和相结合的风险，从而削弱了左翼民粹主义霸权的前景，这种霸权将影响像希腊的激进左翼联盟（Syriza）和西班牙的波德莫斯（Podemos）这样的欧洲政党。
More sympathetically, Jodi Dean found great potential in the class division declared by Occupy between "the 1%1 \% " and “the rest of us.” This “rest”-conjured by the declaration "we are the 99%99 \% "-is a universalizing imaginary of the People in need of leadership from a “communist party.” Though the organizational form of the latter has yet to be determined, it is explicitly opposed to the freewheeling direct democracy that animated Zuccotti Park in the first place. ^(3+){ }^{3+} 更具同情心的是，乔迪·迪恩发现“占领”所宣称的“ 1%1 \% ”与“我们其余人”之间的阶级分化具有巨大的潜力。这个“其余人”——由“我们是 99%99 \% ”的宣言所召唤——是一个需要“共产党”领导的人民的普遍想象。尽管后者的组织形式尚待确定，但它明确反对最初激励祖科蒂公园的自由直接民主。 ^(3+){ }^{3+}
Meanwhile, from the more insurrectionary end of the spectrum, Endnotes suggests that Occupy ultimately amounted to a reflexive protest against the immediate effects of austerity and indignation at official corruption, and thus remained within a horizon of social democracy inadequate to fulfill the revolutionary possibilities presented by the terminal crisis of capitalism. ^(35){ }^{35} 与此同时，从更具叛乱性质的角度来看，Endnotes 认为，占领运动最终成为了一种对紧缩政策直接影响的反思性抗议，以及对官方腐败的愤慨，因此仍然停留在一个社会民主的视野中，这一视野不足以实现资本主义终极危机所呈现的革命可能性。
All such critiques are of interest, and they speak to the depth of the questions brought to the fore by Occupy concerning the state, capitalism, 所有这些批评都很有趣，它们反映了占领运动所提出的关于国家和资本主义的问题的深度
and indeed revolution itself. ^(36){ }^{36} My own approach to Occupy in this book, however, finds a closer affinity with those thinkers who have approached it not in terms of a predetermined metric of success relative to which Occupy would be found lacking, but rather in terms of the unknown possibilities and impassioned energies it unleashed for the present. ^(37){ }^{37} Such an approach does not mean adopting an uncritical stance that would idealize Occupy or attempt to repress the antagonisms traversing it. Indeed, grappling with such antagonisms is an essential part of the learning process at work in what Marina Sitrin and Dario Azzellini call in They Can’t Represent Us: Reinventing Democracy From Greece to Occupy the “social laboratories” of movements like Occupy. From this angle, the movements are to be appreciated in their refusal of representational politics while initiating self-organized experiments with political and economic practices-local assemblies, recuperations, autoreductions, eviction free-zones, communes, popular kitchens-grounded in collective needs and desires yet nevertheless capable of tactically engaging the state. 确实是革命本身。 ^(36){ }^{36} 然而，我在本书中对占领运动的看法，与那些并未以预定的成功标准来评判占领运动的思想家更为接近，而是从它为当下释放的未知可能性和激情能量的角度出发。 ^(37){ }^{37} 这种方法并不意味着采取一种不加批判的立场来理想化占领运动或试图压制其内部的对立。实际上，处理这些对立是 Marina Sitrin 和 Dario Azzellini 在《他们无法代表我们：从希腊到占领运动的民主重塑》中所称的占领运动“社会实验室”学习过程的重要组成部分。从这个角度来看，这些运动应当被欣赏，因为它们拒绝代表性政治，同时发起以集体需求和愿望为基础的自我组织实验，如地方集会、回收、自动减租、无驱逐区、公社、公共厨房，然而它们仍然能够在战术上与国家进行互动。
Sharing this spirit is Antonio Hardt and Michael Negri, who read Occupy and its kindred movements as a declaration of independence by the “multitude” that opens onto new constitutive processes of “commoning” at odds with both the tyranny of the market and undemocratic state administration. Hardt and Negri posit four “subjective figures of the crisis”: the represented (the putative constituents of electoral politics); the mediatized (the blurring of consumption and participation in corporatedominated media networks); the indebted (being in debt as the condition of social reproduction for workers); and the securitized (the generalization of surveillance and policing across all domains of life, especially targeting subaltern communities preemptively framed as threats to social order) - to which I would add the displaced (those dispossessed of the territorial bases of subsistence by foreclosure, gentrification, privatization, colonization, and environmental disaster). Each of these, Hardt and Negri suggest, have become sites of political subjectivization in recent years - not just in the form of reactive protest, but in an emerging desire to work together in constructing the commons. In opposing the proprietorial logic of the market, commons here means neither the public 分享这种精神的是安东尼奥·哈特和迈克尔·内格里，他们将占领运动及其相关运动视为“众多者”的独立宣言，这开启了与市场暴政和不民主的国家管理相对立的新共同体构建过程。哈特和内格里提出了四种“危机的主观形象”：被代表者（选举政治的假定选民）；被媒介化者（消费与参与在企业主导的媒体网络中模糊不清）；负债者（负债作为工人社会再生产的条件）；以及被安全化者（监视和警务在生活各个领域的普遍化，特别是针对被预先框定为社会秩序威胁的边缘社区）——对此，我还想补充被驱逐者（那些因止赎、士绅化、私有化、殖民和环境灾难而失去生存基础的群体）。哈特和内格里建议，这些群体近年来已成为政治主体化的场所——不仅仅表现为反应性的抗议，而是表现为一种共同构建公共领域的愿望。在反对市场的所有权逻辑时，这里的公地既不意味着公共的
sector nor simply a pool of shared resources, but rather an activity"commoning" - that involves the egalitarian cultivation of the means of collective survival in such a way as to generalize itself across all social relationships that have otherwise been enclosed by capital. ^(3%){ }^{3 \%} 不仅是一个部门，也不仅仅是一个共享资源的池子，而是一种“共同活动”——涉及以平等的方式培养集体生存的手段，从而使其在所有被资本封闭的社会关系中普遍化。
Theorists like Sitrin and Azzellini and Hardt and Negri are especially relevant to the artistic emphasis of this book in that they are closely attuned to the subjective, affective, and imaginative dimensions of the movements in their practices of commoning and their creative reinvention of democracy-a term they hold on to despite important countercurrents by figures including Dean and Endnotes suggesting that the term has been irredeemably corrupted by capitalism and subsumed into reformist crisis-management. From this perspective, “democracia real YA!” can indeed be articulated with what is variously described as commoning, communization, or indeed communism in recent theory (each of which has its own valence), provided we understand democracy as being at odds with current forms of state power as well as fantasies of “the people” as an all-inclusive harmonious consensus. ^(39){ }^{39} 像西特林、阿泽利尼以及哈特和内格里这样的理论家与本书的艺术重点特别相关，因为他们在共同体实践和民主的创造性重塑中，密切关注运动的主观、情感和想象维度——尽管包括迪恩和《附注》在内的一些人物提出该术语已被资本主义不可挽回地腐蚀，并被纳入改革主义危机管理的反流，但他们仍坚持使用这一术语。从这个角度来看，“真实民主现在！”确实可以与最近理论中被不同描述为共同体、共同化或共产主义的概念相结合（每个概念都有其自身的价值），前提是我们理解民主与当前国家权力形式以及“人民”作为一种包容性和谐共识的幻想是相悖的。
Having flagged some general characterizations of Occupy at work in contemporary theory, what, for the purposes of this book, was Occupy? The truism of the blind man and the elephant is relevant here, which is to say that many definitions and angles are possible, none of which can be considered exhaustive-including my own artistically inflected approach. Indeed, as Kate Khatib remarks in the introduction to the important anthology We Are Many: Reflections on Movement Strategy From Occupation to Liberation, it is a sign of the generative power of Occupy to have solicited such a multiplicity of voices and debates. ^(40){ }^{40} Thus, I should direct readers first of all to the richly contentious literature focused concretely on Occupy itself not least of all that written by participants themselves-including some of those mentioned above-appearing in movement-based media such as the magazines Tidal, Indig-Nación and the Occupy Gazette. ^(41){ }^{41} I should also note that I myself have been a participant in many of the projects detailed here, which colors my perspective and admittedly sometimes results in’a slippage between OWS as a geographically specific political assemblage based in New York City, and Occupy as a more general phenomena that I think can be described in three ways: as verb, noun, and event. 在当代理论中标记了一些关于占领运动的一般特征后，本文的目的是什么，占领运动究竟是什么？盲人摸象的真理在这里是相关的，这意味着许多定义和角度都是可能的，没有一个可以被视为详尽无遗的——包括我自己带有艺术色彩的视角。实际上，正如凯特·哈提布在重要选集《我们是众多：从占领到解放的运动策略反思》的序言中所指出的，能够引发如此多样的声音和辩论，正是占领运动的创造性力量的标志。因此，我首先应该引导读者关注那些具体聚焦于占领运动的丰富而有争议的文献，尤其是参与者自己撰写的文献——包括上述提到的一些人——出现在以运动为基础的媒体中，如《潮汐》、《土著国家》和《占领公报》。 我还应该指出，我本人参与了这里详细介绍的许多项目，这影响了我的观点，并且不可否认地有时导致了“占领华尔街”作为一个以纽约市为基础的地理特定政治集合体与“占领”作为一种更普遍现象之间的模糊，这种现象我认为可以用三种方式来描述：作为动词、名词和事件。
Occupy as verb. First, Occupy is a transitive verb, a call, injunction, or interpellation addressed to those who would undertake occupation as a tactic, one which is originally grounded in the seizure and holding of space. ^(42){ }^{42} 占领作为动词。首先，占领是一个及物动词，是对那些将占领作为战术的人发出的呼吁、命令或质询，这一战术最初是基于对空间的夺取和占有。
On the one hand, occupation is a term associated with colonizing powers and the violent enclosure of territory, resources, and populations. On the other, the verb also brings with it histories involving the re-appropriation of space for common use by the disempowered and disenfranchised, including the occupation of agricultural lands, factories, schools, apartment buildings, public squares, and more. What these share is a simultaneous shutting-down of the space as controlled by the powers that be, and a reactivation of that space through the antagonistic invention of new forms of communal life and mutual care outside relations of property and the wage, however fleetingly. 一方面，"占领"是一个与殖民势力以及对领土、资源和人口的暴力围封相关的术语。另一方面，这个动词也带来了与被剥夺权力和选举权的群体重新占用空间以供共同使用的历史，包括对农业用地、工厂、学校、公寓楼、公共广场等的占领。这些共同点在于，空间被现有权力所控制的同时，通过对新形式的共同生活和相互关怀的对抗性创造，重新激活了该空间，尽管这种状态是短暂的。
Though it is ancient as a tactic, the verbal injunction “Occupy” is of recent vintage. In a global context, it first appeared in the 2000s in the slogan of the Brazilian landless workers movement: “Occupy, Resist, Produce.” In the United States, it emerged during the strikes and occupations in the University of California system in 2009, where the call to “Occupy Everything, Demand Nothing” was prominent among the slogans of the most militant elements. ^(43){ }^{43} However, the verb would be given a global amplification with the advent of Occupy Wall Street beginning in September 2011, wherein it was associated with the occupation of squares unfolding throughout the previous year from Egypt to Spain to Greece. 尽管作为一种策略它源远流长，但“占领”这一口头号召却是近代的产物。在全球背景下，它首次出现在 2000 年代，作为巴西无地工人运动的口号：“占领、抵抗、生产。”在美国，它在 2009 年加利福尼亚大学系统的罢工和占领活动中出现，其中“占领一切，要求无物”的呼声在最激进的元素中尤为突出。然而，随着 2011 年 9 月“占领华尔街”的出现，这一动词得到了全球性的放大，与前一年从埃及到西班牙再到希腊的广场占领活动相联系。
The occupation of Zuccotti Park in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan would provide the viral matrix for Occupy as a mobile, reiterative structure that would spread to cities across the United States. Occupy as a verb would be transposed not only to far-flung geographical sites, but also to a range of other terms and objects-Occupy Theory, Occupy Museums, Occupy Faith, Occupy Homes, Occupy University, to cite only a few-suggesting the inseparability of occupation as a physical tactic from an imaginative procedure in which familiar phenomena undergo a process of defamiliarization, transforming them into sites of struggle and reclamation.4 扎科蒂公园在下曼哈顿金融区的占领将为“占领”运动提供一种病毒式的矩阵，这种运动作为一种流动的、反复出现的结构，将扩展到美国各城市。“占领”作为一个动词，不仅会被转移到遥远的地理地点，还会被应用于一系列其他术语和对象——如占领理论、占领博物馆、占领信仰、占领住房、占领大学，仅举几例——这表明占领作为一种物理战术与一种想象程序之间的不可分割性，在这种程序中，熟悉的现象经历去熟悉化的过程，将其转变为斗争和重夺的场所。
Occupy as noun. This brings us to the second meaning of Occupy, one that is, for lack of a better word, sociological, even as it challenges typical sociological description. Was Occupy a “movement”? The language is admittedly hard to avoid, and I will sometimes draw upon it in the following pages given that the word was often woven into narratives of Occupy itself, both by participants as well as commentators. ^(45){ }^{45} However, I will be using “movement” here in an expansive sense of creative unrest, activity, and mobilization, rather than a finite organizational structure or political program. 占领作为名词。这使我们来到了“占领”的第二个含义，缺乏更好的词汇，这个含义是社会学的，即使它挑战了典型的社会学描述。“占领”是一个“运动”吗？这种语言确实很难避免，在接下来的页面中，我有时会引用它，因为这个词常常被参与者和评论者编织进“占领”的叙述中。然而，我在这里使用“运动”一词是以一种广泛的意义，指代创造性的动荡、活动和动员，而不是有限的组织结构或政治纲领。
This is not of course to say that Occupy was simply an unstructured free-for-all. Beginning with the paradoxical spectacle of direct democracy during the Zuccotti Park occupation a common set of languages, principles, and practices were developed-however imperfectly-that in turn spread throughout the country in various iterations including the populist figure of the 99%99 \%, the form of the general assembly, the embodied technology of the People’s Microphone, the aesthetics of cardboard signage, and the tent encampment with its infrastructures of mutual aid. 这当然不是说占领运动仅仅是一个无结构的自由混战。从祖科蒂公园占领期间直接民主的矛盾景象开始，发展出了一套共同的语言、原则和实践——尽管不完美——并在全国范围内以各种形式传播，包括民粹主义人物 99%99 \% 、人民大会的形式、人民麦克风的具象技术、纸板标牌的美学，以及带有互助基础设施的帐篷营地。
As Mark Bray has demonstrated in great empirical detail through hundreds of interviews, the ideological orientation of core participants of Occupy was overwhelmingly anticapitalist and anarchist, even if such labels were generally eschewed-or rather “translated,” as Bray puts it-into accessible nonsectarian terms concerning the value of direct democracy and economic solidarity in the face of Wall Street rapacity and the exhaustion of electoral politics. ^("th "){ }^{\text {th }} As suggested by David Graeber, this anarchism was less a programmatic doctrine than a loose, pragmatic orientation characterized by autonomy from the state and political parties; an emphasis on direct action regardless of its legality in the eyes of the existing legal system and its police enforcers; a refusal to issue finite demands that could be satisfied by the existing order (even while helping to amplify demand-oriented campaigns pertaining to specific sites of injustice); an emphasis on prefigurative, nonmonetized mutual aid economies of work, sustenance, education, technology, culture; and an aspirational ethos of democratic empowerment and horizontally distributed “leaderful” participation through assemblies, spokes, and affinity groups (which is to be distinguished from the rule-bound “theology of 正如马克·布雷通过数百次访谈所展示的那样，核心参与者的意识形态取向在很大程度上是反资本主义和无政府主义的，即使这些标签通常被避免——或者更确切地说，正如布雷所言，被“翻译”为关于直接民主和经济团结价值的可接近的非教派术语，以应对华尔街的贪婪和选举政治的疲惫。正如大卫·格雷伯所建议的，这种无政府主义并不是一种程序性的教义，而是一种松散的、务实的取向，其特征是与国家和政党的自主性；强调直接行动，无论其在现有法律体系及其执法者眼中的合法性如何；拒绝提出可以被现有秩序满足的有限要求（即使是在帮助扩大与特定不公正事件相关的需求导向运动时）；强调前设的、非货币化的互助经济，包括工作、维持生计、教育、技术和文化；以及通过集会、发言人和亲和小组实现民主赋权和水平分配的“领导型”参与的理想主义精神（这与有规则的“神学”有所区别）
consensus” that would assume the possibility of eliminating power and leadership altogether). ^(47){ }^{47} Though Occupy often involved alliances with conventional political actors like unions, community groups, and nongovernmental organizations, its overall political disposition was what Bernard Harcourt called “political disobedience”: “civil disobedience accepted the legitimacy of political institutions, but resisted the moral authority of resulting laws. Political disobedience, by contrast, resists the very way in which we are governed.” ^("$8 "){ }^{\text {\$8 }} “共识”将假设完全消除权力和领导的可能性。尽管占领运动常常与工会、社区团体和非政府组织等传统政治参与者结盟，但其整体政治倾向是伯纳德·哈考特所称的“政治不服从”： “公民不服从接受政治机构的合法性，但抵制由此产生的法律的道德权威。相比之下，政治不服从则抵制我们被治理的方式。”
Another empirical feature of Occupy that should be noted is its class composition, even though part of the imaginary of Occupy was to construct a new universal We-the 99%-setting everyone off against the common enemy of Wall Street in such a way as to refuse the “partition of the sensible” into discreet sociological groups or interests. ^(49){ }^{49} Core participants in Occupy largely but not exclusively comprised students, organizers, artists, writers, designers, programmers, and other “creative workers” in their twenties and thirties living under conditions of precarity and indebtedness that had been exacerbated by the financial crisis. ^(50){ }^{50} 另一个值得注意的占领运动的经验特征是其阶级构成，尽管占领运动的部分想象是构建一个新的普遍的“我们——99%”，将每个人与华尔街的共同敌人对立起来，从而拒绝将“可感知的划分”分割成离散的社会学群体或利益。占领运动的核心参与者主要但不 exclusively 由学生、组织者、艺术家、作家、设计师、程序员以及其他“创意工作者”组成，他们大多是生活在不稳定和负债条件下的二三十岁年轻人，这种状况因金融危机而加剧。
As a loosely networked political formation, Occupy intensively, if precariously, coalesced in Zuccotti Park and other sites throughout the country during the fall of 2011. This period of simultaneous spatial concentration, media virality, and political wildness in the camp constituted the first phase of Occupy as an organized entity with a common name. The second phase of Occupy involved the proliferation of more tightly organized projects and campaigns in the months following the eviction of Occupy Wall Street from Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011. Over the following several years, elements of Occupy periodically reassembled in projects such as Strike Debt and Occupy Sandy, and beyond that expanded alliances with other groups and movements while ultimately leaving the Occupy moniker behind. This has been a period of intensive political experimentation, collective learning, and connection-building, the fruits of which are only now beginning to ripen. 作为一种松散网络化的政治形态，"占领"在 2011 年秋季在祖科蒂公园及全国其他地点密集而又脆弱地聚集。这一时期的空间集中、媒体传播和营地内的政治狂野构成了"占领"作为一个有共同名称的组织实体的第一阶段。"占领"的第二阶段涉及在 2011 年 11 月 15 日"占领华尔街"被驱逐后几个月内，更加紧密组织的项目和运动的扩展。在接下来的几年中，"占领"的元素定期在诸如"罢工债务"和"占领桑迪"等项目中重新聚集，并与其他团体和运动扩展联盟，最终逐渐抛弃了"占领"这一称谓。这是一个密集的政治实验、集体学习和建立联系的时期，其成果现在才开始显现。
Occupy as event. The third and final meaning of Occupy does not concern its status as a political tactic, a verbal injunction, or a sociological phenomenon, but rather as what Alain Badiou has called "the event."51 For Badiou, this term designates something extraordinary that 占领作为事件。占领的第三个也是最后一个意义并不涉及其作为政治策略、口头禁令或社会现象的地位，而是阿兰·巴迪欧所称的“事件”。对于巴迪欧来说，这个术语指的是某种非凡的事物。
“punches a hole” in the constituted order of our knowledge, expectations, and historical horizons. The event requires that “I completely rework my way of living my situation,” with no turning back to how things were before. ^(52){ }^{52} Drawing on Badiou to describe the ongoing ramifications of the explosion of feminism in the 1970s, art historian Rosalyn Deutsche writes that “fidelity to the event” requires that we “persist in the rupture” in a manner that is neither melancholic nor triumphant. The event does not incapacitate us in the manner of a trauma, beckon us backwards with rose-tinted nostalgia, or affirm our powers in triumphant narcissism; rather, it opens a void in which we as subjects do not yet exist except as the locus of a call to action beyond what was previously known or deemed possible. Thus, the event is not a known quantity that automatically prescribes a way forward. The event is incalculable, and its status as event is precisely that its outcome is uncertain and contested, unleashing what Badiou calls a "truth-process."53 “打破”了我们知识、期望和历史视野所构成的秩序。这个事件要求“我完全重新调整我的生活方式”，不再回到之前的状态。 ^(52){ }^{52} 艺术史学家罗莎琳·德意志借用巴迪欧的观点来描述 1970 年代女性主义爆炸的持续影响，写道“对事件的忠诚”要求我们“坚持这种断裂”，以一种既不忧郁也不胜利的方式。这个事件并没有像创伤那样使我们失去能力，也没有用玫瑰色的怀旧将我们召唤回去，或在胜利的自恋中肯定我们的力量；相反，它打开了一个空白，在这个空白中，我们作为主体尚不存在，除了作为一个超越之前已知或被认为可能的行动呼唤的中心。因此，事件不是一个已知的量，自动规定了前进的方式。事件是不可计算的，其作为事件的状态恰恰在于其结果是不确定和有争议的，释放出巴迪欧所称的“真理过程”。53
A core contention of Strike Art is that Occupy indeed unleashed such an agonic truth-process for both the Left in general, and the Left-aspiring elements of the contemporary art system in particular. Invoking an earlier truth-event that helped to inspire Badiou’s own concept, Occupy participant and New York Times critic Martha Schwenender has put it thus: "2011 was my 1968."54 This truth-process, however, involves not only grappling with the event as a negative rupture to be theorized retrospectively. In a sympathetic critique of Badiou, Hardt and Negri instead contend that the working-through of the event occurs immanently, in the course of ongoing struggle and imnovation. ^(55){ }^{55} Occupy was and continues to be an event in this sense, giving rise to a post-Occupy condition that, as I discuss in the final chapter of this book, has now been recoded and radicalized by the event of the Ferguson uprising and subsequent mobilizations. 《罢工艺术》的核心论点是，占领运动确实为左翼整体以及当代艺术体系中渴望左翼的元素释放了这样一种激烈的真理过程。引用一个早期的真理事件，这个事件帮助激发了巴迪欧自己的概念，占领运动参与者和《纽约时报》评论员玛莎·施温德尔这样表述：“2011 年是我的 1968 年。”然而，这一真理过程不仅涉及将事件视为一种需要事后理论化的负面断裂。在对巴迪欧的同情批评中，哈特和内格里则主张，事件的深入探讨是在持续斗争和创新的过程中内在发生的。在这个意义上，占领运动是并且仍然是一个事件，产生了一种后占领状态，正如我在本书最后一章中讨论的那样，这种状态现在已经被弗格森起义及随后的动员事件重新编码和激进化。
Perhaps the most profound stakes of Occupy was a concern over what Sandra Nurse, a core Occupy organizer who would go on to work in the climate justice movement and the Movement for Black Lives, has called “crossing a threshold of freedom.” For Nurse, this is an experience that is at once singular and collective, and it involves a process of “losing complacency and fear” in the face of both the apparent immovability of 或许“占领”运动最深刻的利益在于，核心组织者桑德拉·护士（Sandra Nurse）所称的“跨越自由的门槛”的担忧。对护士而言，这是一种既独特又集体的体验，涉及在面对明显不可动摇的事物时，“失去自满和恐惧”的过程。
neoliberalism and the ever-present threat of state violence-a threat that looms differentially over white people and people of color. ^(56){ }^{56} 新自由主义与国家暴力的持续威胁——这一威胁在白人和有色人种之间呈现出不同的阴影。
Indeed, a question that traverses all the facets of Occupy discussed above is that of race. Numerically, Occupy comprised mostly white people, and an animating experience for many participants was a newfound eviction from the dream of upward mobility traditionally assumed as a norm for white subjects. That said, as Kate Khatib has argued, it is simplistic to characterize Occupy as a "white movement."57 People of color-including artists-frequently took leading roles; intellectual analyses of the intersection of race, class, and gender were widespread, and multiracial alliances were forged in arenas including labor, housing, and anti-police work. However, as many participants argued during and after its zenith, with its privileging of the universal class divide of the 99%vs99 \% \mathrm{vs}. the 1%1 \%, Occupy overall was not inherently a movement against white supremacy, the dynamics of which were often reproduced in both its public imaging and within its own milieu even as many strands of work sought to combat it. ^(58){ }^{58} The advent of Black Lives Matter has thrown this dimension of Occupy into high relief, and retroactively haunts the political imaginary crystallized in many of the artistic phenomena discussed in this book. 确实，贯穿上述所有占领运动各个方面的问题是种族。从数量上看，占领运动主要由白人组成，许多参与者的一个激励性体验是新发现的被驱逐出传统上被视为白人主体的向上流动梦想。尽管如此，正如凯特·哈提布所论述的，将占领运动简单地描述为“白人运动”是过于简化的。包括艺术家在内的有色人种经常担任领导角色；关于种族、阶级和性别交叉的知识分析广泛存在，并且在劳动、住房和反警察工作等领域建立了多种族联盟。然而，正如许多参与者在其巅峰期间和之后所争辩的，尽管其优先考虑了普遍的阶级分裂，占领运动整体上并不本质上是反对白人至上主义的运动，这种动态在其公共形象和自身环境中经常被再现，即使许多工作努力试图与之作斗争。 《黑人的命也是命》的出现使得占领运动的这一维度变得更加突出，并且在许多本书讨论的艺术现象中，追溯性地萦绕在政治想象之中。
Occupy and/as Contemporary Art 占领与/作为当代艺术
Thus far, I have sketched out working definitions of both contemporary art and Occupy, pointing to the complexity and contestedness of each. So what is the relationship between the two? Far from two separate entities, Occupy and contemporary art were in fact immanent to one another, involving a dual dynamic in which artists who engaged with Occupy undertook an exodus or desertion from the art system, on the one hand, while taking that system itself as a target of action and leveraging on the other. 到目前为止，我已经勾勒出了当代艺术和占领运动的工作定义，指出了它们各自的复杂性和争议性。那么两者之间的关系是什么呢？占领运动和当代艺术并不是两个独立的实体，实际上它们是相互内在的，涉及一种双重动态：一方面，参与占领运动的艺术家从艺术系统中进行了一次出走或背离，而另一方面，他们又将该系统本身作为行动的目标并加以利用。
A little known fact about Occupy is that, beginning with the inception of the camp itself in September 2011 and subsequently throughout its various phases, artists were core actors in the movement, often dissolving their specialized identities and articulating their skills within an expanded field of movement work. With Occupy, artists were not just 一个鲜为人知的事实是，从 2011 年 9 月营地成立之初开始，艺术家在运动中扮演了核心角色，贯穿了其各个阶段，艺术家们常常解构自己的专业身份，将他们的技能融入到一个扩展的运动工作领域中。在占领运动中，艺术家不仅仅是
decorative adjuncts to the real business of organizing for a movement that would otherwise exist without them. Rather, in the words of Amin Husain and Nitasha Dhillon of MTL-a collective whose work will be a crucial point of reference throughout this book-Occupy involved the emergence of “the artist as organizer.” The phrase alludes to Walter Benjamin’s famous figure of the “author as producer,” wherein he argues that the political significance of an artist’s work lies not simply in expressing a radical tendency within the established institutions of the art system-as suggested above, contemporary art is suffuse with radical tendencies and content-but rather when it takes on an “organizing function” in the creation of a new collective assemblage of authorship, audience, and distribution networks embedded in political struggle. _(-)^(-5%){ }_{-}^{-5 \%} 装饰性附属物，实际上是为一个本可以在没有它们的情况下存在的运动进行组织的真正业务。相反，正如 MTL 的 Amin Husain 和 Nitasha Dhillon 所言——一个在本书中将成为关键参考点的集体——占领运动涉及“艺术家作为组织者”的出现。这个短语提到了沃尔特·本雅明著名的“作者作为生产者”的概念，他认为艺术作品的政治意义不仅在于在艺术系统的既定机构中表达一种激进倾向——如上所述，当代艺术充满了激进的倾向和内容——而在于它在创造一个嵌入政治斗争的新集体作者、观众和分发网络的过程中承担“组织功能”。
During Occupy and beyond, artists engaged in every facet of movement work, including facilitating massive assemblies; designing direct actions; choreographing trainings; preparing and serving food; developing messaging, slogans, chants, and songs; producing concerts; writing communiqués; publishing pamphlets and magazines; and making puppets, costumes, ścreen-prints, props̀, banners, signs, posters, stickers, memes, and every other conceivable media form. To be sure, artists were not the only participants in Occupy engaged in such activities, nor did they play a privileged role qua artists-a professional identity that was of secondary importance even while specific artistic skills and resources proved highly valuable. Reciprocally, as theorized by the Beautiful Trouble training network, organizers and participants in Occupy with no professional training in art per se found their own work inflected by aesthetic concerns with visuality, performance, and poetics. ^(60){ }^{60} 在占领运动及其之后，艺术家参与了运动工作的各个方面，包括组织大型集会；设计直接行动；编排培训；准备和提供食物；开发信息、口号、歌声和歌曲；制作音乐会；撰写公报；出版小册子和杂志；以及制作木偶、服装、丝网印刷、道具、横幅、标志、海报、贴纸、表情包和其他所有可想象的媒体形式。可以肯定的是，艺术家并不是占领运动中唯一参与这些活动的人，他们作为艺术家的身份并没有占据特权地位——这一专业身份的重要性是次要的，即使特定的艺术技能和资源被证明是非常有价值的。相应地，正如“美丽的麻烦”培训网络所理论化的那样，在占领运动中没有专业艺术训练的组织者和参与者发现他们自己的工作受到视觉性、表演和诗学的美学关注的影响。
It might be objected that just because artists are involved in a particular kind of activity - say, facilitating an assembly, dropping a banner, or setting up a Facebook page-does not mean that this activity is worthy of consideration from the vantage of contemporary art. This is a fruitful line of questioning that goes to the heart of both the discourse of contemporary art as well as Occupy as a cultural and political phenomenon. Two major points can be made in response to this concern. The first is to emphasize that questions about the boundary between-or merging of-“art” and “non-art” are themselves recurrent and essential in the 可能会有人反对，仅仅因为艺术家参与了一种特定的活动——比如，组织集会、悬挂横幅或建立 Facebook 页面——并不意味着这种活动值得从当代艺术的角度进行考虑。这是一个富有成效的质疑，触及了当代艺术话语以及占领运动作为一种文化和政治现象的核心。对此关切可以提出两个主要观点。首先，强调关于“艺术”和“非艺术”之间界限或融合的问题本身就是反复出现且至关重要的。
history of modem art. The second point is that Occupy as a totalityrather than just this or that phenomena within it-can itself arguably be considered an artistic project in its own right, assuming we reimagine our sense of what art is or can be. 现代艺术的历史。第二点是，整体的占领运动而不仅仅是其中的某些现象，可以被认为是一个独立的艺术项目，前提是我们重新构想艺术的定义或可能性。
To the first point, I will offer some art-historical background, starting with the acute concern about the boundaries, status, and stakes of art itself in contemporary art, as indicated by a cluster of recent books with titles such as After Art, Leaving Art, Forgetting the Art World, Art Is a Problem, This Is Not Art, and What Art Is For. ^(61){ }^{61} As noted earlier, at one end of the spectrum, there is the looming question among critics about what separates art from entertainment, tourism, or speculative investment. In this scenario, art is threatened with dissolution into the capitalist culture industry, a condition to be lamented and, in principle, resisted. At the other end of the spectrum, the boundary separating art from other kinds of social activity, such as education, academic research, urban planning, and environmental engineering, is increasingly porous. This “de-disciplining” of art, as Silvia Kolbowski has put it, oftentimes emphasizes the virtues of collaborative processes over finite works, and rhetorically distances itself from art and its institutions even while being dependent thereon. We are then presented with the question: how and why, if at all, does art survive as specific form of making, experiencing, and perceiving? ^(62){ }^{62} 关于第一个观点，我将提供一些艺术史背景，首先关注当代艺术中关于艺术本身的边界、地位和利益的尖锐问题，这一点在一些最近出版的书籍中得到了体现，如《艺术之后》、《离开艺术》、《忘记艺术世界》、《艺术是一个问题》、《这不是艺术》和《艺术的目的是什么》。正如前面提到的，在光谱的一端，评论家们面临着一个迫在眉睫的问题，即什么将艺术与娱乐、旅游或投机投资区分开来。在这种情况下，艺术面临着融入资本主义文化产业的威胁，这是一种值得哀叹并原则上应当抵制的状态。在光谱的另一端，艺术与其他社会活动（如教育、学术研究、城市规划和环境工程）之间的边界正变得越来越模糊。正如西尔维亚·科尔博夫斯基所说，这种艺术的“去学科化”往往强调协作过程的优点，而非有限的作品，并在修辞上与艺术及其机构保持距离，尽管实际上却依赖于它们。 我们接下来面临的问题是：艺术作为一种特定的创造、体验和感知形式，如何以及为什么能够存续？ ^(62){ }^{62}
The tendency in the contemporary art system to strive for the dissolution of art into other fields of social practice is informed, however faintly, by the dream of the historical avant-garde to liquidate the bourgeois institution of art itself, understood as a specialized, individualized realm of aesthetic appreciation whose aura of autonomy served to cut it off from collectivity with struggle. ^(63){ }^{63} This aspiration animated the late work of William Morris, who was influenced by the visions of “communal luxury” enacted by the radical art workers of the Paris Commune. ^(6+){ }^{6+} Dada and Surrealism aspired to renew art outside of both bourgeois institutions as well as the world of waged labor in favor of new forms of collective existence, while the Russian Constructivists momentarily became officially sanctioned artistic engineers of the Soviet Union. ^(65){ }^{65} 当代艺术体系中追求将艺术溶解于其他社会实践领域的倾向，虽然微弱，却受到历史先锋派梦想的影响，旨在液化资产阶级艺术机构本身，这被理解为一个专门化、个性化的审美欣赏领域，其自主性的光环使其与集体的斗争隔绝。 ^(63){ }^{63} 这种愿望激励了威廉·莫里斯的晚期作品，他受到巴黎公社激进艺术工作者所实施的“共同奢华”愿景的影响。 ^(6+){ }^{6+} 达达主义和超现实主义渴望在资产阶级机构和有偿劳动的世界之外更新艺术，以追求新的集体存在形式，而俄罗斯构成主义者则短暂地成为苏联官方认可的艺术工程师。 ^(65){ }^{65}
Following World War II, this avant-garde impulse would live on in 第二次世界大战后，这种先锋冲动将继续存在
various ways in the United States. For several generations, art historians focused on a narrow “neo-avant-garde” milieu of the contemporary art system, including happenings, pop art, minimalism, and conceptualism, all defined by agonized meditations on how art might grapple with the conditions of everyday life under the dominance of consumerism and mass media spectacle. ^(66){ }^{66} More recently, however, historians have begun to rediscover artistic groupings in the 1960s that deserted the institutions and economies of the art system in favor of direct participation in the culturalpolitical world of the antiauthoritarian Left as activists and organizers in their own right. The ur-example of course comes from the Situationist International in France, which aimed to reactivate the memory of the Paris Commune and redeem the incipient revolutionary desires of Dada and Surrealism. During the late fifties and early sixties they developed a set of analyses and concepts - spectacle, detoumement, psychogeographythat would feed directly into the events of May '68, which for them exemplified the simultaneous liquidation and fulfillment of art as such. ^(67){ }^{67} 在美国的各种方式中，几代艺术史学家专注于当代艺术体系中狭隘的“新先锋”环境，包括事件艺术、波普艺术、极简主义和观念艺术，这些都以对艺术如何在消费主义和大众媒体景观主导下应对日常生活条件的痛苦沉思为特征。然而，最近，历史学家们开始重新发现 1960 年代的艺术团体，这些团体抛弃了艺术体系的机构和经济，转而直接参与反权威左翼的文化政治世界，作为活动家和组织者。显而易见的原型来自法国的情境主义国际，该组织旨在重新激活巴黎公社的记忆，并拯救达达主义和超现实主义初生的革命愿望。在五十年代末和六十年代初，他们发展出一套分析和概念——景观、转向、心理地理，这些直接影响了 68 年五月的事件，对他们而言，这些事件体现了艺术的同时清算与实现。
In the United States, several examples of what Gavin Grindon has called “the communization of the avant-garde” are pertinent to thinking about the stakes of Occupy. ^(68){ }^{68} These would include the counter-spectacular interventions of the Yippies, the DIY movement media of Guerilla Television and Third World Newsreel, the militant direct actions of Black Mask, the creative “zaps” of women’s liberation groups like New York Radical Women and W.I.T.C.H., and the revolutionary cultural apparatus of the Black Panthers. ^(69){ }^{69} All such work was embedded in an expanded sense of movement culture of the New Left and the creation of new forms of collective life beyond not only the art system but the wage system as well. 在美国，Gavin Grindon 所称的“先锋派的共产化”的几个例子与思考占领运动的利害关系密切相关。这些例子包括 Yippies 的反观众干预、游击电视和第三世界新闻片的 DIY 运动媒体、黑面具的激进直接行动、纽约激进女性和 W.I.T.C.H.等女性解放团体的创造性“闪击”，以及黑豹党革命文化机构。所有这些工作都嵌入了新左派运动文化的扩展感，以及超越艺术系统和工资系统的新集体生活形式的创造。
Of special pertinence is the San Francisco Diggers, who started as drop-out art students influenced by the Living Theater. ^(70){ }^{70} The Diggers took their name from the seventeenth-century Diggers of London, famous for having occupied and cultivated a piece of unused royal property according to the theological principle that the earth is a common treasury bestowed equally upon all humanity, rather than something to be enclosed as private property by the few. ^(71){ }^{71} The Diggers’ “program for a post-competitive, free city” is remarkably resonant with 旧金山挖掘者（Diggers）特别相关，他们最初是受到生活剧院影响的辍学艺术学生。挖掘者的名字来源于十七世纪伦敦的挖掘者，以占领和耕种一块未使用的皇家财产而闻名，依据的神学原则是土地是一个共同的财富，平等地赐予全人类，而不是被少数人圈为私有财产。挖掘者的“后竞争、自由城市计划”与之产生了显著的共鸣。
the anarcho-communist ethos of Occupy, involving a biopolitical infrastructure of nonmonetized spaces, services, and resources ranging from legal services, health care, food, printing, festivity, and even gunsmithery. Rather than treat countercultural communalism as an end in itself, the Diggers understood it as the necessary condition for both culturally prefiguring and practically sustaining a base for militant life in solidarity with other groups including the Black Panthers, whose revolutionary magazine was published in its early phases using Digger equipment. (Among the inaugural actions of the Diggers was their occupation of Golden Gate Park, wherein they literally installed an enormous frame in front of their encampment through which visitors were invited to pass, marking the camp as a kind of artistic project that involved undergoing a threshold experience of entering an altered reality.) 占领运动的无政府共产主义精神，涉及一种非货币化空间、服务和资源的生物政治基础设施，这些包括法律服务、医疗保健、食品、印刷、庆典，甚至是枪械制造。挖掘者并不将反文化的共同主义视为目的本身，而是将其理解为文化预示和实际维持与其他团体（包括黑豹党）团结的激进生活基础的必要条件，黑豹党的革命杂志在其早期阶段就是使用挖掘者的设备出版的。（挖掘者的首批行动之一是占领金门公园，他们在营地前面字面上安装了一个巨大的框架，邀请访客通过，标志着这个营地是一种艺术项目，涉及经历进入一种改变现实的门槛体验。）
By and large, despite their knowledge of art, such groups eschewed the institutions and discourse of the art system, developing parallel institutions “in the shell of the old,” while remaining on the offensive as part of the New Left. 总体而言，尽管这些群体对艺术有一定的了解，但他们避开了艺术系统的机构和话语，发展出“在旧壳中”的平行机构，同时作为新左派的一部分，保持进攻态势。
Other artists during this period, however, did not so much abandon the art system in favor of an expanded realm of movement work, as target the institutions of art itself as sites of political grievance and democratization. As I discuss in chapter three, the Art Workers’ Coalition (AWC), which existed from 1969 to 1971, brought artists together in a new political imaginary of the artist as “art worker,” opposing the ruling elites of the art system. ^(72){ }^{72} Though short-lived, the AWC represented a high point of politicization with artists acting autonomously both for their own interests, as well as in solidarity with the broader political mobilizations of the era. The AWC would also be an important event in the emergence of what became known as “institutional critique”: art that works within the institutions of the art system, but takes as its purpose exposing the political, economic, and ideological interests underlying the institution of art itself. ^(73){ }^{73} The legacies of Institutional Critique are an important point of reference for this book, but an important difference is that many of the projects explored here work autonomously, without permission or authorization from any art institution, and indeed oftentimes in complete disregard thereof. 然而，这一时期的其他艺术家并不是完全放弃艺术体系以追求更广泛的运动工作领域，而是将艺术机构作为政治不满和民主化的场所进行针对。如我在第三章中所讨论的，艺术工作者联盟（AWC）于 1969 年至 1971 年间存在，汇聚了艺术家，形成了一种新的政治想象，即将艺术家视为“艺术工作者”，反对艺术体系中的统治精英。尽管存在时间短暂，AWC 代表了艺术家自主行动的政治化高峰，既为自身利益，也与当时更广泛的政治动员团结一致。AWC 还将成为“制度批评”兴起的重要事件：在艺术体系的机构内运作的艺术，但其目的在于揭示艺术机构本身所潜藏的政治、经济和意识形态利益。 本书的重要参考点是制度批评的遗产，但一个重要的区别在于，这里探讨的许多项目是自主运作的，未经任何艺术机构的许可或授权，实际上往往完全无视这些机构。
Having highlighted these art-historical points of reference, we now come to the second major point regarding the dialectic of art and non-art in thinking about the expanded realm of activity undertaken by artists during Occupy: namely, the possibility that Occupy itself could be considered a kind of artistic project. Of course, this suggestion requires many caveats, and it is but one of many analytical lenses one could bring to Occupy. 在强调了这些艺术历史的参考点之后，我们现在来讨论关于艺术与非艺术在思考占领期间艺术家所进行的扩展活动领域的辩证关系的第二个主要观点：即占领本身可以被视为一种艺术项目的可能性。当然，这一建议需要许多警告，它只是可以应用于占领的众多分析视角之一。
To begin with, this provocation should be read alongside wellestablished analyses of the transformative role of art and culture in social movements. For example, in his classic study The Art of Protest, cultural studies scholar T. V. Reed cites the Freedom Songs of the Civil Rights Movement, the poetics of feminist consciousness-raising circles, and the theatrical actions and agitational graphics of ACT UP as’ essential forces in the work of these movements. ^(74){ }^{74} In a similar vein, Robin D.G. Kelley has called for activists to rediscover the poetic powers of the “black radical imagination” coursing through the “freedom dreams” of twentieth century liberation movements. ^(75){ }^{75} Challenging the long-standing left aversion to “spectacle” understood unilaterally in terms of the mystificatory delusions of the culture industry, Stephen Duncombe (a former ACT UP and alterglobalization activist himself) has called for progressive forces to highjack the imaginative powers of mass media spectacle - now diffused and hybridized in expanded social networks-in the construction of new dream-images of anticapitalist resistance under conditions of seemingly ironclad capitalist realism. ^(76){ }^{76} With filmmaker Meg McLagan, I myself have contributed to a growing body of literature concerning the aesthetic dimension of activism that emphasizes the importance of the sensuous, embodied experiences of sight, sound, and touch in the staging of nongovernmental political claims and the forging of movement imaginaries relative to the media assemblages within which political action is inscribed. ^(7){ }^{7} Nicholas Mirzoeff has helped to steer the discourse of visual culture-once confined to decoding the hegemonic imagery of states, corporations, and mass entertainment-into a partisan methodology of “visual activism” that tracks the image-worlds generated by insurgent movements as they move from street to screen and back again at everincreasing scales and velocities. ^(78){ }^{78} T. J. Demos has recently studied the 首先，这一挑衅应与关于艺术和文化在社会运动中转型作用的成熟分析一起阅读。例如，在他的经典研究《抗议的艺术》中，文化研究学者 T.V. Reed 引用了民权运动的自由歌曲、女性主义意识提升圈的诗学，以及 ACT UP 的戏剧行动和煽动性图形，称其为这些运动工作中的“基本力量”。同样，Robin D.G. Kelley 呼吁活动家重新发现流淌在二十世纪解放运动“自由梦想”中的“黑人激进想象”的诗意力量。挑战长期以来左翼对“景观”的厌恶，Stephen Duncombe（他本人曾是 ACT UP 和反全球化运动的活动家）呼吁进步力量劫持大众媒体景观的想象力——这种景观现在在扩展的社交网络中被扩散和混合——以在看似铁板一块的资本主义现实条件下构建新的反资本主义抵抗梦影。 与电影制作人梅格·麦克拉根一起，我本人也为日益增长的关于激进主义美学维度的文献做出了贡献，这些文献强调了在非政府政治主张的呈现和与政治行动所铭刻的媒体组合相关的运动想象的形成中，感官、具身的视觉、听觉和触觉体验的重要性。尼古拉斯·米尔佐夫帮助引导了视觉文化的讨论——曾经局限于解码国家、企业和大众娱乐的霸权影像——转向一种“视觉激进主义”的党派方法论，该方法论追踪由叛乱运动生成的影像世界，随着它们在街头与屏幕之间不断移动，规模和速度不断增加。德莫斯最近进行了研究
ways in which artists concerned with the biopolitics of climate crisis have channeled certain aesthetic techniques and institutional platforms cultivated in the art system into the expanded media networks and visual cultures of environmental justice organizing (a topic I take up in chapter four of this book). ^(79){ }^{79} 艺术家们关注气候危机的生物政治，如何将艺术系统中培养的某些美学技巧和机构平台转化为环境正义组织的扩展媒体网络和视觉文化（这是我在本书第四章中讨论的主题）。
Finally, art historian Gavin Grindon and curator Catherine Flood have highlighted the role of what they call “disobedient objects” in radical social movements: the material things, structures, and devices that mediate and shape the experience of people as they engage in political action, such as banners, tents, shields, barricades, puppets, masks, buttons, stickers, floats, as well as the technologies through which these are recorded and disseminated as images. ^(30){ }^{30} (Of particular significance for me in Grindon and Flood’s approach is their attention to aesthetic and tactical deployment of banners, a hitherto understudied artistic medium in its own right that reappears throughout the present book.) 最后，艺术历史学家加文·格林登和策展人凯瑟琳·弗拉德强调了他们所称的“违抗物品”在激进社会运动中的作用：这些物质事物、结构和装置在政治行动中调解和塑造人们的体验，例如横幅、帐篷、盾牌、路障、木偶、面具、按钮、贴纸、花车，以及通过这些物品记录和传播的图像技术。 ^(30){ }^{30} （在格林登和弗拉德的研究中，横幅的美学和战术运用引起了我特别的关注，这是一种迄今为止研究较少的艺术媒介，在本书中反复出现。）
In this book I draw on all of these strands of analysis, but, strangely enough, the question and status of art per se persistently poses itself in thinking about Occupy. For instance, Nathan Schneider, in his authoritative history Thank You, Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse, finds himself repeatedly noting the overwhelming presence of artists in the organizing process, and himself resorts to artistic language in describing what he sees. He remarks that Zuccotti Park “became a canvas for the image of another world,” and describes the camp as a "living work of “t brining every aspect of life into sharper focus.” Schneider continues: "It was a utopian act, but in the form of realism. With artists mainly in charge, Occupy was art before it was anything properly organized, before it was even politics. It was there to change us first and make demands later."81 在这本书中，我借鉴了所有这些分析的线索，但奇怪的是，艺术本身的问题和地位在思考占领运动时始终显现出来。例如，内森·施奈德在他的权威历史著作《谢谢你，无政府主义：来自占领末日的笔记》中，反复注意到艺术家在组织过程中的压倒性存在，并且他在描述所见时也诉诸于艺术语言。他提到祖科蒂公园“成为了另一个世界形象的画布”，并将营地描述为“一个活生生的作品，将生活的每个方面都更加清晰地呈现出来。”施奈德继续说道：“这是一种乌托邦式的行为，但以现实主义的形式。由于艺术家主要负责，占领运动在任何适当组织之前，甚至在政治之前就是艺术。它首先是为了改变我们，然后再提出要求。”
Schneider’s intuition is given an inverse formulation by artist Thomas Gokey, co-initiator of the post-Occupy Rolling Jubilee debt-abolition project discussed in chapter three. Gokey describes the gap between the “wild collective creativity of the park” and the “play-acting of our radical desires” taught in art school. Gokey writes that "the artworld’s values, and the ways of making art within it, seem so out of step with the values of democracy that it’s simply wrong to go back to making art in that way. 施耐德的直觉被艺术家托马斯·戈基以相反的形式表达，戈基是第三章中讨论的后占领运动滚动朱比利债务废除项目的共同发起人。戈基描述了“公园中狂野的集体创造力”和“艺术学校教授的激进欲望的表演”之间的差距。戈基写道：“艺术界的价值观以及在其中创作艺术的方式，似乎与民主的价值观格格不入，因此以那种方式回归艺术创作是完全错误的。”
I feel like Occupy has ruined art for me, in a good way. Art isn’t worth doing any more, there is more important work to do. But, on the other hand, I feel that after Occupy, art has become possible again, really for the first time in my generation." Alluding to Badiou, Gokey writes, 我觉得占领运动在某种程度上毁了我的艺术，但这是一种好的方式。艺术不再值得去做，还有更重要的工作要做。然而，另一方面，我觉得在占领运动之后，艺术真的在我这一代人中第一次变得可能了。”提到巴迪欧，戈基写道，
There was a rupture or a break that makes it hard to describe the person I was before Occupy in post-Occupy terms, just as it’s hard to describe the person I am now in pre-Occupy terms. The same struggle presents itself when I think about art, or how to go on making art…The real task, and our real creative work, is to find new ways of cooperating with each other based on different values. It’s not enough to analyze and critique systems of oppression, or just to say “Nol” We need an affirmation to be paired with this negation. We need to start articulating and building the alternative way of living and being that we want. ^(82){ }^{82} 在占领运动之前，我的身份与占领运动之后的身份之间存在一种断裂或分裂，这使得我很难用后占领的术语来描述我之前的自己，就像我现在也很难用前占领的术语来描述我自己一样。当我思考艺术，或者如何继续创作艺术时，同样的挣扎也会出现……真正的任务，以及我们真正的创造性工作，是基于不同的价值观找到彼此合作的新方式。仅仅分析和批判压迫系统，或者仅仅说“不”是不够的。我们需要与这种否定相伴的肯定。我们需要开始阐明并构建我们想要的替代生活和存在方式。
Occupy took the avant-garde dialectic of “art and life” to a new level of intensity, whose immediate predecessors since the 1960s would be, as I discuss in chapter one of this book, ACT UP in the late 1980s and the New Anarchism of the 2000s. Like ACT UP, Occupy involved an expansive sense of art and life, one touching on the biopolitical reality of collective survival and sustenance. And yet, also like ACT UP, art in the more limited sense of the word was woven throughout the practices, cultures, and actions of Occupy in a variety of ways. From the prominent presence of precarious, indebted cultural workers in the overall demographic profile of the movement, to the deployment of imagery and tactics inherited from art history, to the targeting of artistic institutions as sites of injustice, to the leveraging of artistic spaces as organizing platforms and resource pools, Occupy and its afterlives would be unthinkable without a certain proximity to and entwinement with the art system and its attendant tensions and contradictions. 占领运动将“艺术与生活”的先锋辩证法提升到了一个新的强度，其直接前身可以追溯到 1960 年代以来的 ACT UP（1980 年代末）和 2000 年代的新无政府主义。与 ACT UP 一样，占领运动涉及对艺术与生活的广泛理解，触及集体生存与维持的生物政治现实。然而，同样如 ACT UP，艺术在更狭义的意义上贯穿于占领运动的实践、文化和行动中，以多种方式表现出来。从运动整体人口特征中不稳定、负债的文化工作者的显著存在，到从艺术史中继承的图像和战术的运用，再到将艺术机构作为不公正的目标，以及将艺术空间作为组织平台和资源池的利用，占领运动及其后续发展在某种程度上与艺术系统及其伴随的紧张关系和矛盾是不可分割的。
Strike Art 罢工艺术
The title of this book is intended to capture an overall ethos and injunction that runs through the wide spectrum of practices-existing both during and after Occupy-surveyed here. The phrase “Strike Art” can be 本书的标题旨在捕捉贯穿于此处调查的广泛实践（包括占领期间和之后）的整体精神和指令。“罢工艺术”这一短语可以
read in at least two ways. First, it might be read as describing a particular kind of art, art pertaining to or associated with the strike as a political tactic. Or, second, it might be read as a call to strike art itself, in the metaphorical sense of dealing it an aggressive blow or crossing it out. 可以至少有两种解读。首先，它可以被解读为描述一种特定类型的艺术，即与罢工作为政治策略相关的艺术。或者，第二种解读是将其视为对艺术本身的罢工，隐喻上意味着对其施加攻击性打击或将其划掉。
Both these senses of the word “strike” provoke further questions. First, what does the strike as a political tactic look like today, when significant portions of the population are either excluded from work, or work in ways that are precarious, contingent, or otherwise cut off from a classic workplace environment with its constant and intensive coneentration of workers? Of course, despite the massive disempowerment of organized labor over the past three decades, recent years have nonetheless seen important workplace-based strikes erupt, including the Chicago Teachers Union strike of 2012 and the nationally coordinated strikes of low-wage workers in 2013 and 2014. In the updated revision of his canonical history Strike!, Jeremy Brecher sets these strikes against a political backdrop indelibly marked by Occupy Wall Street, the latter of which he lauds but does not consider a strike in and of itself. ^(83){ }^{83} 这两个“罢工”一词的含义引发了进一步的问题。首先，作为一种政治策略的罢工在今天是什么样子，当相当一部分人口要么被排除在工作之外，要么以不稳定、临时或其他方式与经典的工作环境隔绝，而经典的工作环境则是工人们集中和密集工作的地方？当然，尽管在过去三十年中，组织工会的权力大幅削弱，但近年来仍然发生了一些重要的以工作场所为基础的罢工，包括 2012 年的芝加哥教师工会罢工以及 2013 年和 2014 年全国协调的低工资工人罢工。在他经典历史著作《罢工！》的更新版中，杰里米·布雷彻将这些罢工置于一个深受“占领华尔街”影响的政治背景下，后者受到他的赞扬，但他并不认为其本身就是一次罢工。
However, other, more heterodox notions of the strike percolated within the intellectual milieu of Occupy, notions that decoupled the figure of the striker from the identity of the worker or the space of the workplace per se. For instance, the Neo-Situationist entity Claire Fontaine has proposed the “human strike” that involves “the whole of life and not only its professional side, that acknowledges exploitation in all the domains and not only at work.” ^("$4 "){ }^{\text {\$4 }} The human strike is a general potential for noncompliance, nonwork, and non-identity, with an ever-present power of revolt. This spirit was shared by the shadowy group Strike Everywhere that emerged from the embers of Occupy, who called for “strike” to be taken as an active verb to be tested out in practice in every possible domain rather than a static noun whose contours are known in advance. 然而，其他一些更为异端的罢工观念在占领运动的知识环境中逐渐渗透，这些观念将罢工者的形象与工人身份或工作场所的空间本身解耦。例如，后情境主义实体克莱尔·方丹提出了“人类罢工”的概念，涉及“生活的整体，而不仅仅是其职业方面，承认在所有领域的剥削，而不仅仅是在工作中。”人类罢工是一种普遍的非顺从、非工作和非身份的潜力，具有随时爆发的反抗力量。这种精神被从占领运动的余烬中崛起的神秘组织“无处不在的罢工”所共享，他们呼吁将“罢工”视为一个主动动词，在所有可能的领域进行实践测试，而不是一个事先已知轮廓的静态名词。
More familiar is the historical figure of the General Strike, the collective withdrawal of the population from the economic functioning of capitalism and the state, typically but not always catalyzed by a local strugglewhether at a workplace or otherwise-that then becomes universalized. ^(85){ }^{85} Other kinds of strikes have also unfolded in recent years-campus strikes, rent strikes, fare strikes, as well as the historically unprecedented concept 更为人熟知的是总罢工这一历史人物，即人口集体退出资本主义和国家的经济运作，通常但并非总是由地方斗争（无论是在工作场所还是其他地方）催化，随后这种斗争变得普遍化。近年来还出现了其他类型的罢工——校园罢工、租金罢工、票价罢工，以及历史上前所未有的概念。
of a student debt strike, which I address in chapter three of this book. ^(86){ }^{86} Further, in their capacity to shut down and temporarily liberate entire urban zones, neighborhood uprisings against police violence as seen in Ferguson and Baltimore in recent years should also be considered within an expanded orbit of the strike. Finally, and most speculatively, is the figure of the “climate strike,” which I discuss in chapter four. 学生债务罢工，我在本书第三章中对此进行了讨论。 ^(86){ }^{86} 此外，近年来在弗格森和巴尔的摩等地发生的针对警察暴力的社区起义，因其能够关闭并暂时解放整个城市区域，也应被纳入罢工的扩展范畴。最后，最具推测性的是“气候罢工”的概念，我在第四章中对此进行了讨论。
In thinking through the question of the strike in the context of a book called Strike Art!, we are bound to mention the phrase “art strike.” Though several artists have used the term, its most important instance is Art Strike Against War and Racism (typically referred to as Art Strike). ^(87){ }^{87} This was initiated by AWC affiliate Robert Morris when he closed his solo show at the Whitney Museum two weeks ahead of schedule in 1970, leading into a twofold call: it called on New York art institutions to shut down on the day of the National Vietnam Moratorium, and it also enjoined artists to indefinitely cease the production of art. Art Strike was thus imagined as a temporary, exceptional withholding of artistic labor from mainstream institutions in order to protest their complicity with warmongers in the realm of government and corporate power. 在思考《罢工艺术！》一书中罢工问题时，我们必然要提到“艺术罢工”这个词。尽管几位艺术家使用过这个术语，但其最重要的实例是反对战争和种族主义的艺术罢工（通常称为艺术罢工）。这是由 AWC 成员罗伯特·莫里斯发起的，他在 1970 年提前两周关闭了自己在惠特尼博物馆的个展，发出了双重号召：一是呼吁纽约艺术机构在全国越南停战日关闭，二是要求艺术家无限期停止艺术创作。因此，艺术罢工被设想为一种暂时的、特殊的艺术劳动从主流机构中撤回，以抗议它们在政府和企业权力领域与战争贩子的共谋。
Art Strike is an important historical reference, but Strike Art is not about the withholding of art in general, nor does it take as its exclusive horizon the contemporary art system in the manner of AWC (even though that system remains a constant point of reference). I take the term “strike art” from a manifesto by MTL, the following passage of which can function as a coda for the introduction to the book as a whole: 艺术罢工是一个重要的历史参考，但罢工艺术并不是关于一般艺术的拒绝，也不以当代艺术系统作为其唯一的视野，尽管该系统仍然是一个持续的参考点。我从 MTL 的一份宣言中借用了“罢工艺术”这个术语，以下段落可以作为本书整体引言的尾声：
Art as we know it is corrupt, exhausted and weak…We strike art to liberate art from itself. Not to end art, but to unleash its powers of action, imagination, and beauty that have been held captive by the artworld. Art does not dissolve into so-called real life. Art defamiliarizes life, rendering it surreal. Our surreal spirit is less that of Breton’s European vanguardism than Suzanne Césdire’s freedom dream, mindful as it is of the ongoing histories of slavery, imperialism, and debt. Art here opens directly onto our ways of existing and working together. How do we create spaces that counteract the multiple forms of oppression that structure our relationships? These are inseparable from how we reproduce our lives in a material sense, whether we think of an occupied 艺术在我们看来是腐败、疲惫和脆弱的……我们打击艺术是为了使艺术从自身中解放出来。不是为了结束艺术，而是为了释放被艺术界囚禁的行动、想象和美的力量。艺术并不溶解于所谓的现实生活中。艺术使生活陌生化，使其变得超现实。我们的超现实精神与布列东的欧洲先锋主义相比，更接近于苏珊·塞兹迪尔的自由梦想，时刻关注着奴隶制、帝国主义和债务的持续历史。在这里，艺术直接打开了我们共同存在和合作的方式。我们如何创造空间来对抗结构我们关系的多种压迫形式？这些与我们在物质层面上如何再生产我们的生活是不可分割的，无论我们是否考虑一个被占领的……
park, a collective house, a neighborhood, a city-wide network or the planet itself. Art challenges us to respond to this question with direct action for which we ourselves are responsible rather than any preexisting institution. We strike art as a training in the practice of freedom. ^(88){ }^{88} 公园、集体住宅、邻里、城市范围的网络或整个星球。艺术挑战我们以直接行动来回应这个问题，而这种行动是我们自己负责的，而不是任何现有的机构。我们将艺术视为自由实践的训练。
Structure of the Book 书籍结构
Strike Art is divided into four chapters encompassing the pre-history of Occupy (2000-2011), the period of the high point of Occupy as a movement (2011-2012), and the ongoing aftermaths of Occupy (2012-2015). Though this is the basic timeframe covered in the book, broader historical references to the history of art and politics alike are woven throughout. 《罢工艺术》分为四个章节，涵盖了占领运动的前史（2000-2011 年）、占领运动的高峰期（2011-2012 年）以及占领运动的持续后果（2012-2015 年）。尽管这是本书所涵盖的基本时间框架，但更广泛的艺术与政治历史的参考贯穿其中。
Chapter one analyzes the prominent concern among contemporary artists in the 2000s with the “politics of democracy.” I locate this interest within the world-historical situation of post-Cold War neoliberalism, as well as challenges to it in the form of the alterglobalization movement and the creative direct actions that flourished therein. I then examine two directions in which this concern with the politics of democracy would go in the late 2000 s, one leading toward the institutionalization of “social practice art” as a genre, the other leading to Occupy Wall Street. 第一章分析了 2000 年代当代艺术家对“民主政治”的突出关注。我将这种兴趣置于后冷战新自由主义的世界历史背景中，以及以反全球化运动和其中蓬勃发展的创造性直接行动的形式对其的挑战。然后，我考察了这种对民主政治关注在 2000 年代末的两个发展方向，一个是朝着“社会实践艺术”作为一种类型的制度化，另一个是导致了占领华尔街运动。
Chapter two focuses on the artistic dimensions of the Occupy Wall Street camp itself in terms of the relation between occupation and sitespecificity. It concludes by examining two examples of artists working to reinvent the meaning of occupation in the aftermath of the eviction of Zuccotti Park, namely the Not an Alternative collective and the shapeshifting entity MTL. 第二章关注于占领华尔街营地本身的艺术维度，特别是占领与场所特异性之间的关系。最后，通过考察两个艺术家的例子来探讨在祖科蒂公园驱逐后重新定义占领意义的工作，即“非替代”集体和变形实体 MTL。
Chapter three takes up the triangulation of art, work, and debt during Occupy itself and in post-Occupy projects such as the Rolling Jubilee and G.U.L.F. It examines the attempts to reinvent the identity of the “art worker,” the artistic imaginary of the General Strike, and the emergence of the debtor as a political subjectivity. These case studies highlight the movement by artists between an expanded realm of political organizing and a more focused engagement with the institutions and platforms of the contemporary art system. 第三章探讨了占领运动期间以及后占领项目（如滚动的禧年和 G.U.L.F.）中艺术、工作和债务的三角关系。它考察了重新定义“艺术工作者”身份的尝试、总罢工的艺术想象，以及债务人作为政治主体性的出现。这些案例研究突显了艺术家在扩展的政治组织领域与当代艺术系统的机构和平台之间的更为集中参与之间的运动。
Chapter four looks to the rupture of the Ferguson uprising and its aftermath in the upsurge of creative direct action and artistic production 第四章关注费格森起义的破裂及其后果在创造性直接行动和艺术创作的激增中
in the Black Lives Matter movement as a lens through which to highlight the relationship between contemporary art, the post-Occupy condition, and the politics of decolonization. In particular, it homes in on the arts of the post-Occupy climate justice movement, exploring questions concerning white supremacy, state violence, and collective displacement, and linking these in turn to the horizon of Palestinian liberation. 在“黑人的命也是命”运动中，作为一个透镜来突出当代艺术、占领后状态和去殖民化政治之间的关系。特别是，它聚焦于占领后气候正义运动的艺术，探讨有关白人至上、国家暴力和集体流离失所的问题，并将这些问题与巴勒斯坦解放的前景联系起来。
Read together, these chapters chart a journey of radicalization in art and politics that resonates with our knowledge of the historical past, yet which for a long time has seemed like an impossibly distant thing to ever actually enact or experience. As a momentary crystallization of crisis and creativity Occupy changed all of that, and places us in a new situation for which we have no ready-made guide. 这些章节共同描绘了一条艺术与政治的激进化之旅，这与我们对历史过去的认知产生共鸣，但长期以来似乎是一个无法真正实施或体验的遥不可及的事物。作为危机与创造力的瞬时结晶，占领运动改变了这一切，并将我们置于一个没有现成指南的新情境中。
NOTES 注释
Introduction 引言
Andrew Ross, “High Culture and Hard Labor in the Gulf,” New York Times, March 28, 2014. For more on G.U.L.F. see chapter three of this book, as well as Andrew Ross, ed., The Gulf: High Culture, Hard Labor, O/R Books, 2015. 安德鲁·罗斯，《海湾的高文化与艰苦劳动》，《纽约时报》，2014 年 3 月 28 日。有关 G.U.L.F.的更多信息，请参见本书第三章，以及安德鲁·罗斯主编的《海湾：高文化，艰苦劳动》，O/R 图书，2015 年。
I use the term “renaissance” here both to suggest a general sense of rebirth and flourishing and as a kind of art-historical provocation. In doing so, I am mindful of the fact that the term brings with it the baggage of imperial history-and the repression thereof in canonical liberal accounts. The socalled flourishing of European art at the time with its Great (white male) Artists and enlightened patrons is inseparable from the powers of global finance, war, plunder, and slavery. On the historiographical politics of the Renaissance, see James Elkins and Robert Williams, eds., Renaissance Theory, Routledge, 2008. The renaissance I speak of here too is marked by these forces, but the artwork is made not to serve the state, 1%1 \% patron, or the glorious career of the individual artist; rather it is created by precarious cultural workers to innervate insurgent movements. I am also mindful of historian and activist Douglas Crimp’s remark in response to celebrations of the outpouring of art about the AIDS crisis: “What we need is not a cultural renaissance. We need cultural practices actively participating in the struggle against AIDS,” “Introduction,” October, Vol. 43, AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism, Winter 1987. I discuss the role of art in ACT UP 我在这里使用“文艺复兴”这个术语，既是为了暗示一种普遍的重生和繁荣的感觉，也是作为一种艺术史上的挑衅。在这样做时，我意识到这个术语带有帝国历史的包袱——以及在经典自由主义叙述中对此的压制。所谓的欧洲艺术的繁荣与其伟大的（白人男性）艺术家和开明的赞助人是不可分割的，这与全球金融、战争、掠夺和奴隶制的力量密切相关。关于文艺复兴的历史政治，参见詹姆斯·埃尔金斯和罗伯特·威廉姆斯主编的《文艺复兴理论》，劳特利奇，2008 年。我在这里所说的文艺复兴同样受到这些力量的影响，但艺术作品的创作并不是为了服务于国家、赞助人或个别艺术家的光辉事业；相反，它是由不稳定的文化工作者创作的，旨在激励叛乱运动。我也想起历史学家和活动家道格拉斯·克里普姆在回应对艾滋病危机艺术涌现的庆祝时所说的话：“我们需要的不是文化复兴。我们需要的是积极参与抗击艾滋病斗争的文化实践。” 43, 艾滋病：文化分析/文化行动，1987 年冬季。我讨论了艺术在 ACT UP 中的作用
in chapter one of the present book. A final term to note here is the Harlem Renaissance, a moniker retrospectively given to the artistic and intellectual ferment of African-American modernism in the 1930s and 1940s. Though he does not use the term renaissance, I also have in mind Conor Tomas Reed’s account of the flourishing of radical black arts in the context of recent popular mobilizations in response to police violence, which I draw upon in chapter four. Reed, “Black Arts Boomerang,” New Inquiry, February 18, 2015. 在本书第一章中需要注意的一个最终术语是哈莱姆文艺复兴，这是一个追溯性地赋予非裔美国现代主义在 1930 年代和 1940 年代的艺术与知识激荡的称谓。尽管他没有使用文艺复兴这个术语，但我也考虑到 Conor Tomas Reed 关于在近期针对警察暴力的公众动员背景下激进黑人艺术繁荣的论述，我将在第四章中引用这一观点。Reed, “黑色艺术回旋镖”，新探究，2015 年 2 月 18 日。
A key figure here is the anti-authoritarian, psychoanalytically oriented Marxist Comelius Castoriadis, whose Imaginary Institution of Society (1974) sought to account for the role of the imagination in both the establishment of social orders and their creative undoing or indeed subversion. Castoriadis was revived in the early 2000s by the journal Public Culture in its special issue devoted to “social imaginaries,” which largely focused on the cultural work of states rather than democratic social movements. See Dilip P. Goanokar, “Toward New Imaginaries: An Introduction,” Public Culture, 14.1, 2002, 1-19. For a robust articulation of the social-scientific and artistic senses of the imaginary focused on the alterglobalization movement, see Jeffery S. Juris and Alex Khasnabish, eds., Insurgent Encounters: Transnational Activism, Ethnography, and the Political, Duke University, 2013. Also see the special issue of the journal Affinities devoted to “Radical Imagination,” edited by Juris and Khasnabish, 2012. Of special importance too is David Graeber’s chapter on imagination in his Direct Action: An Ethnography, AK Press, 2009, 457-89. 这里的一个关键人物是反权威、心理分析取向的马克思主义者科尔纽斯·卡斯托里亚迪斯，他在《社会的想象机构》（1974）中试图解释想象力在社会秩序的建立及其创造性解构或颠覆中的作用。卡斯托里亚迪斯在 2000 年代初被《公共文化》期刊复兴，该期刊的特刊专注于“社会想象”，主要关注国家的文化工作而非民主社会运动。参见 Dilip P. Goanokar 的“走向新的想象：导言”，《公共文化》，14.1，2002，1-19。关于聚焦于反全球化运动的想象的社会科学和艺术意义的有力阐述，参见 Jeffery S. Juris 和 Alex Khasnabish 主编的《叛乱者的遭遇：跨国行动主义、民族志与政治》，杜克大学，2013 年。此外，还请参见 Juris 和 Khasnabish 主编的《亲和力》期刊专刊，专注于“激进想象”，2012 年。大卫·格雷伯在其《直接行动：一种民族志》（AK Press，2009，457-89）中关于想象的章节也尤为重要。
Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, Zero Books, 2009, 18. 马克·费舍尔，《资本主义现实主义：难道没有替代方案？》，零书出版社，2009 年，18 页。
Nicholas Mirzoeff, ed., Militant Research Handbook, New York University, 2013. Citing the examples of Colectivo Situaciones in Argentina, Observatorio Metropolitano in Spain, and Moisreen in Egypt, Mirzoeff defines this concept as follows: “Militant research might be defined as the place where activism and academia meet. There is a wide range of advocacy research in universities that comments on and about activism without expecting the work to be directly engaged with it. Militant research works in and with the movements it is concerned with,” 4 . For further elaboration on the concept, see Andrew Ross, “Research for Whom?” in the same volume, 8-10. For Mirzoeff’s own chronicling of Occupy and its aftermath, see his remarkable “durational writing” project at nicholasmirzoeff.com/O2012. 尼古拉斯·米尔佐夫（Nicholas Mirzoeff）主编，《激进研究手册》，纽约大学，2013 年。米尔佐夫以阿根廷的 Colectivo Situaciones、西班牙的 Observatorio Metropolitano 和埃及的 Moisreen 为例，定义了这一概念：“激进研究可以被定义为激进主义与学术界相遇的地方。大学中有广泛的倡导性研究，评论激进主义而不期望这些工作与之直接相关。激进研究在其关注的运动中进行并与之合作。”有关该概念的进一步阐述，请参见安德鲁·罗斯（Andrew Ross）在同一卷中的“研究为谁？”（“Research for Whom?”），第 8-10 页。有关米尔佐夫对占领运动及其后果的记录，请参见他在 nicholasmirzoeff.com/O2012 上的杰出“持续写作”项目。
Pamela Brown, “Tracing the Contours of the Movement,” in Mirzoeff, ed., Militant Research Handbook, 30-32, and “Solidarity for Reparation,” Tidal4, Spring 2013, 10-11. 帕梅拉·布朗，《运动的轮廓追踪》，收录于米尔佐夫主编，《激进研究手册》，30-32 页，以及《赔偿的团结》，《潮汐 4》，2013 年春季，10-11 页。
David Joselit, After Art, Princeton, 2013. 大卫·乔斯利特，《艺术之后》，普林斯顿，2013 年。
Paul Mason, “Does Occupy Signal the Death of Contemporary Art?” bbc. com, April 13, 2012. Here I would like to thank Ross Wolfe and Chris Mansour for their invitation to reflect publically on this text as part of the 保罗·梅森，“占领运动是否预示着当代艺术的死亡？”bbc.com，2012 年 4 月 13 日。在此，我要感谢罗斯·沃尔夫和克里斯·曼索尔邀请我公开反思这篇文章。
panel “Aging in the Afterlife: The Many Deaths of Art,” on February 23, 2013, at the New School along with,Anton Vidokle, Greg Horowitz, and Paul Mattick. “在来世的衰老：艺术的多重死亡”小组讨论，2013 年 2 月 23 日在新学院举行，参与者包括安东·维多克尔、格雷格·霍罗维茨和保罗·马蒂克。
e-flux Joumal published a number of rich commentaries on Occupy, starting with Claire Tancon, “Occupy Wall Street: Carnival Against Capital,” December 2011; Hito Steyrel, “Art as Occupation: Claims for an Autonomy of Life,” December 2011; Martha Rosler, “The Artistic Mode of Revolution: From Occupation to Gentrification,” March 2012; Art in America published a “Debating Occupy” feature edited by Nato Thompson, with ten artists invited to write small paragraphs, all of whom offered thoughts about Occupy as a political phenomena, rather than something directly impacting their work. The one exception was filmmaker Astra Taylor (whose work with the Rolling Jubilee we will consider later) who wrote, “Occupy is the biggest social movement of my lifetime…and there is too much at stake to just observe from the sidelines. That’s not to say there’s not a place for art, for creative expression, and critical reflection-there is. Nonetheless, I think Occupy poses a profound challenge to artists and cultural producers who identify with the Left. Social movements don’t last forever; we can have abstract conversations about aesthetics and politics another day. The exhilarating, exasperating beauty of Occupy is something to experience first hand,” 101. Finally, October 142, Fall 2012, edited by Carrie LambertBeatty and David Joselit, contained a questionnaire devoted to Occupy Wall Street, along with “The Social Artwork: A Roundtable,” featuring Joselit, Silvia Kolbowski, and Matthew Friday, 74-85, and Emily Apter’s “Occupy Derivatives!/Politics ‘Smallest p,’” 86-106. See especially the collective responses by Spaulding, Daniel Marcus and Jaleh Mansoor concerning the relation between art, autonomy, and the discourse of communization, 48-50, and the reading by Wiegben, Jackie Wang, and Ariana Reines of Occupy as a “mass for the dead” rather than a “mass movement,” 54-58. Artforum published an interview between senior editor Michelle Kuo and leading movement theorist David Graeber, but the conversation was framed in such a way as to focus largely on the ambivalent status of “critique” as an intellectual disposition in contemporary art and theory, “Another World: An Interview With David Graeber,” Artforum, June 2012. e-flux 期刊发表了一系列关于占领运动的丰富评论，首先是 Claire Tancon 的《占领华尔街：反对资本的狂欢》，2011 年 12 月；Hito Steyerl 的《作为职业的艺术：对生活自主权的要求》，2011 年 12 月；Martha Rosler 的《革命的艺术模式：从占领到绅士化》，2012 年 3 月；《美国艺术》刊登了由 Nato Thompson 编辑的“辩论占领”专题，邀请了十位艺术家撰写小段落，他们都对占领作为一种政治现象发表了看法，而不是直接影响他们工作的事。唯一的例外是电影制作人 Astra Taylor（我们稍后将讨论她与 Rolling Jubilee 的工作），她写道：“占领是我一生中最大的社会运动……而且有太多的利益在于不能仅仅旁观。这并不是说艺术、创造性表达和批判性反思没有空间——是有的。尽管如此，我认为占领对认同左派的艺术家和文化生产者提出了深刻的挑战。社会运动不会永远持续；我们可以在另一天进行关于美学和政治的抽象讨论。” “占领运动的令人振奋又令人恼火的美是值得亲身体验的，”101。最后，2012 年秋季的《十月》142 期，由 Carrie LambertBeatty 和 David Joselit 编辑，包含了一份专门针对华尔街占领运动的问卷，以及“社会艺术：圆桌讨论”，参与者包括 Joselit、Silvia Kolbowski 和 Matthew Friday，74-85，以及 Emily Apter 的“占领衍生品！/政治‘最小的 p’”，86-106。特别要注意 Spaulding、Daniel Marcus 和 Jaleh Mansoor 关于艺术、自主性与共同化话语之间关系的集体回应，48-50，以及 Wiegben、Jackie Wang 和 Ariana Reines 对占领运动的解读，认为其是“死者的群众”而非“群众运动”，54-58。《艺术论坛》刊登了高级编辑 Michelle Kuo 与主要运动理论家 David Graeber 之间的采访，但对话的框架主要集中在“批判”作为当代艺术和理论中的一种知识倾向的矛盾状态上，“另一个世界：与 David Graeber 的采访”，《艺术论坛》，2012 年 6 月。
For overviews of the Illuminator, see Mark Read, “The 99% Bat-Signal: A Cry From the Heart of the World,” Brooklyn Rail, December 10, 2011; and Nadine Bloch, “Shine a Light On It,” in Khatib et al, eds, We Are Many, 325-36. On the arrest of Depew, Earlson, and myself, see Julia Friedman, “Three Arrested, Charged in Koch Plaza Protest at Met,” hyperallergic. com, September 12, 2014. For the sake of transparency, I should note that I too was arrested during the incident, but as an episodic collaborator rather than a core organizer with the group. As this book goes to press, Depew, Earle, and myself have, with the generous assistance of Sam Cohen, Esq-, launched a First Amendment lawsuit against the NYPD on the grounds that 关于照明者的概述，请参见马克·里德（Mark Read）在《布鲁克林铁路》（Brooklyn Rail）上发表的文章“99%蝙蝠信号：来自世界心脏的呼喊”，2011 年 12 月 10 日；以及纳丁·布洛赫（Nadine Bloch）在 Khatib 等人编辑的《我们是众多》（We Are Many）中的文章“为其照亮”，第 325-336 页。关于德皮尤（Depew）、厄尔森（Earlson）和我自己的逮捕，请参见朱莉亚·弗里德曼（Julia Friedman）在 hyperallergic.com 上发表的文章“三人因在大都会博物馆的科赫广场抗议活动被捕并被控”，2014 年 9 月 12 日。为了透明起见，我应该指出我在事件中也被逮捕，但作为一个偶发的合作者，而不是该组织的核心组织者。随着本书的出版，德皮尤、厄尔和我在萨姆·科恩（Sam Cohen）律师的慷慨协助下，已对纽约警察局提起了一项第一修正案诉讼。
their confiscation of the projection equipment was a preemptive violation of our capacity to engage in free political speech in advance of the People’s Climate March and Flood Wall Street (discussed in chapter four). See Hrag Vartanian, “Members of the Illuminator Sue NYPD for False Arrest, First Amendment Retaliation,” hyperallergic.com, April 21, 2015. 他们对投影设备的没收是对我们在人民气候游行和洪水华尔街（在第四章中讨论）之前进行自由政治言论能力的先发制人的侵犯。见 Hrag Vartanian，“照明者成员因虚假逮捕和第一修正案报复起诉纽约警察局，”hyperallergic.com，2015 年 4 月 21 日。
Simon Critchley, “Absolutely-Too-Much,” Brooklyn Rail, August 1, 2012. 西蒙·克里奇利，《绝对过多》，《布鲁克林铁路》，2012 年 8 月 1 日。
Gregory Sholette, Dark Matter: Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture, Pluto, 2011, and Trebor Scholz, ed., Digital Labor: Internet as Playground and Factory, Routledge, 2013. See also the speculative reframing of this dynamic between online creativity and unacknowledged capitalist value-extraction in Laurel Ptak’s Wages for Facebook, which undertakes a line-by-line rewriting of Silvia Federici’s “Wages Against Housework” manifesto from 1975. See wagesforfacebook.com 格雷戈里·肖莱特，《黑暗物质：企业文化时代的艺术与政治》，普鲁托，2011 年；特雷博尔·肖尔茨主编，《数字劳动：互联网作为游乐场和工厂》，劳特利奇，2013 年。另见劳雷尔·普塔克的《为 Facebook 支付工资》，该书对西尔维亚·费德里奇 1975 年的《反对家务劳动的工资》宣言进行了逐行重写，探讨了在线创造力与未被承认的资本主义价值提取之间的动态关系。请参见 wagesforfacebook.com。
See Maurizio Lazzarato, “Immaterial Labor,” in Michael Hardt and Paolo Vimo, eds., Radical Thought in Italy, Minnesota University Press, 1996; and Gerald Raunig, Factories of Knowledge, Industries of Creativity, Semiotext(e), 2013. 参见毛里齐奥·拉扎拉托，《非物质劳动》，收录于迈克尔·哈特和保罗·维莫主编，《意大利的激进思想》，明尼苏达大学出版社，1996 年；以及杰拉尔德·劳宁，《知识工厂，创造力产业》，Semiotext(e)，2013 年。
Jerry Saltz, “How and Why We Started Taking Kim Kardashian Seriously,” vulture.com, May 20, 2015. 杰瑞·萨尔茨，《我们为何开始认真对待金·卡戴珊》，vulture.com，2015 年 5 月 20 日。
See Carrie Lambert-Beatty, “The Academic Condition of Contemporary Art,” in Hudson and Dumbadze, eds. Contemporary Art, 235-48. 参见卡莉·兰伯特-比蒂，《当代艺术的学术状况》，载于哈德森和杜姆巴泽主编的《当代艺术》，第 235-248 页。
See Pamela Lee’s reading of Arthur Danto’s foundational idea of the “artworld” as a figure set off against the “ground” of the broader society that surrounds it, as well as Lawrence Alloway’s later suggestion of “art system.” The latter formulation maintains the idea of a closed, autonomous circuit, leading Lee to instead think of it as an “open system” increasingly entangled with the political economy of globalization. Pamela Lee, Forgetting the Art World, MIT Press, 2012. 参见帕梅拉·李对亚瑟·丹托“艺术世界”基础概念的解读，该概念被视为与其周围更广泛社会的“基础”相对立的一个图像，以及劳伦斯·阿洛威后来的“艺术系统”建议。后者的表述保持了一个封闭、自主的循环的概念，这使得李转而将其视为一个与全球化的政治经济日益交织的“开放系统”。帕梅拉·李，《遗忘艺术世界》，麻省理工学院出版社，2012 年。
As Bourdieu put it long ago in his description of intellectuals as “the dominated fraction of the dominant class,” “they are dominant in so far as they hold the power and privileges conferred by the possession of cultural capital…but…dominated in their relations with those who hold political and economic power.” Pierre Bourdieu, “The Intellectual Field: A World Apart,” in P. Bourdieu, ed, Matthew Adamson, tr., In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, Polity Press, 1990, 145. 正如布尔迪厄早在描述知识分子时所说的，他们是“统治阶级的被统治部分”，“他们在一定程度上是占主导地位的，因为他们拥有文化资本所赋予的权力和特权……但……在与那些掌握政治和经济权力的人关系中，他们又是被统治的。”皮埃尔·布尔迪厄，《知识领域：一个独立的世界》，收录于 P. Bourdieu 主编，马修·亚当森翻译，《换句话说：走向反思社会学的论文》，波利提出版社，1990 年，第 145 页。
The key texts on contemporaneity from the last few years of the decade include Okwui Enwezor, Terry Smith, Nancy Condee, eds., Antinomies of Art and Culture: Modernity, Postmodernity, Contemporaneity, Duke University Press, 2009; Hal Foster, ed., “Questionnaire on the Contemporary,” October 130, Fall 2009; e-flux joumal, ed., What is Contemporary Art?, Sternberg Press, 2010; Terry Smith, What Is Contemporary Art?, University of Chicago Press, 2010; Suzanne Hudson and Alexander Dumbadze, eds., Contemporary Art: 1989 to the Present, Blackwell, 2013, and Claire Bishop, Radical Museology, or, What’s “Contemporary” in Museums of Contemporary 近年来关于当代性的关键文本包括：Okwui Enwezor、Terry Smith、Nancy Condee 主编的《艺术与文化的对立：现代性、后现代性、当代性》，杜克大学出版社，2009 年；Hal Foster 主编的《当代问卷》，《十月》130 期，2009 年秋；e-flux 期刊主编的《什么是当代艺术？》，斯特恩伯格出版社，2010 年；Terry Smith 的《什么是当代艺术？》，芝加哥大学出版社，2010 年；Suzanne Hudson 和 Alexander Dumbadze 主编的《当代艺术：1989 年至今》，布莱克威尔出版社，2013 年；以及 Claire Bishop 的《激进博物馆学，或当代博物馆中的“当代”是什么》。
Art?, Koenig Books, 2013. For my own take on the question circa 2009, see my response to the October questionnaire (Fall 2009), 64-73. 艺术？科尼希书籍，2013 年。关于这个问题我在 2009 年的看法，请参见我对 2009 年秋季问卷的回答（2009 年秋季），64-73。
19. See Hal Foster, “Master Builder,” chap. 3 in Design and Crime, Verso, 2002, 27-42. 19. 见哈尔·福斯特，《大师建筑师》，收录于《设计与犯罪》，维尔索，2002 年，27-42 页。
20. Fredric Jameson, The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998, Verso, 2000. 弗雷德里克·詹姆逊，《文化转向：后现代的选集》，1983-1998，Verso，2000。
21. David Harvey, “The Art of Rent,” chap. 4 in Rebel Cities, Verso, 2012, 89-113. 大卫·哈维，《租金的艺术》，《反叛城市》第四章，Verso，2012 年，89-113 页。
22. Terry Smith, “Our Contemporaneity,” in Hudson et al., Contemporary Art, 207-233. 特里·史密斯，《我们的当代性》，载于哈德森等，《当代艺术》，207-233。
23. Okwui Enwezor, “The Post-Colonial Constellation,” in Condee, Smith, and Enwezor, eds., Antinomies of Art and Culture, 23. 奥库伊·恩维佐，《后殖民星座》，载于康迪、史密斯和恩维佐主编，《艺术与文化的对立统一》，
24. T. J. Demos, The Migrant Image: The Art and Politics of Documentary in Times of Clobal Crisis tr. Steven Corcoran, University of California, 2013, and Demos, Return to The Postcolony, Stehrnberg Press, 2013. 24. T. J. Demos，《移民影像：全球危机时期的纪录片艺术与政治》，翻译：史蒂文·科尔科兰，加利福尼亚大学，2013 年，以及 Demos，《回归后殖民地》，斯特恩伯格出版社，2013 年。
25. Jacques Rancière, Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics, Bloomsbury, 2010. 雅克·朗西埃，《异议：政治与美学》，布鲁姆斯伯里，2010 年。
26. Claire Bishop, Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship, Verso, 2012. 克莱尔·比肖，人工地狱：参与艺术与观众政治，Verso，2012。
27. David Graeber, “The New Anarchists,” New Left Review, January/February 2002. 27. 大卫·格雷伯，《新无政府主义者》，《新左派评论》，2002 年 1 月/2 月。
28. See Gregory Sholette, Dark Matter: Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture, Pluto Press, 2011; Brian Holmes, Escape the Overcode: Activist Art in the Control Society, Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum, 2009; Gerald Raunig, A Thousand Machines, Semiotext(e), 2010. 28. 见格雷戈里·肖莱特，《黑暗物质：企业文化时代的艺术与政治》，普鲁托出版社，2011 年；布赖恩·霍尔姆斯，《逃离过度编码：控制社会中的激进艺术》，斯泰德利克·范·阿贝博物馆，2009 年；杰拉尔德·劳尼希，《千台机器》，半符号文本出版社，2010 年。
29. See Tom Finkenperl, ed., What We Made: Art and Social Cooperation, Duke University Press, 2010; Grant Kester, The One and the Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context, Duke University Press, 2011; Kester, “The Device Laid Bare: Some Limitations in Current Art Criticism,” e-flux Journal, December 2013; and the first issue of Field: A Journal of Socially Engaged Art Criticism, Spring 2015, edited by Paloma Checa-Gismero, Alex Kershaw, Noni Brynjolson, Stephanie Sherman, Julia Fernandez, Michael Ano, and Mai Corlin, available at field-journal.com. 29. 见 Tom Finkenperl 编，《我们所创造的：艺术与社会合作》，杜克大学出版社，2010；Grant Kester，《一与多：全球背景下的当代协作艺术》，杜克大学出版社，2011；Kester，“揭示的装置：当前艺术批评的一些局限性”，e-flux 期刊，2013 年 12 月；以及由 Paloma Checa-Gismero、Alex Kershaw、Noni Brynjolson、Stephanie Sherman、Julia Fernandez、Michael Ano 和 Mai Corlin 编辑的《Field：社会参与艺术批评期刊》第一期，2015 年春季，网址为 field-journal.com。
30. Andrea Fraser, “L’1%, C’est Moi,” Texte Zer Kunst, January 2012, 126. 安德里亚·弗雷泽，“1%是我”，《艺术文本》，2012 年 1 月，126 页。
31. Sarah Jaffe, “Post-Occupied,” truth-out.org, May 14, 2014. 31. Sarah Jaffe, “占领后的状态,” truth-out.org, 2014 年 5 月 14 日。
32. Bhaskar Sunkara, "Project Jacobin: Interview with Bhaskar Sunkara, New Left Review 90, November-December 2014. 32. 巴斯卡·孙卡拉，《雅各宾计划：与巴斯卡·孙卡拉的访谈》，《新左派评论》90 期，2014 年 11-12 月。
33. Chantal Mouffe, “Radical Politics Today,” chap. 4 in Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically, Verso, 2013, 65-87. 33. 香塔尔·穆夫，《今天的激进政治》，收录于《争斗论：政治思考世界》，维尔索，2013 年，65-87 页。
34. Jodi Dean, “Occupation and the Party,” chap. 6 in The Communist Horizon, Verso, 2012, 207-250. 34. 乔迪·迪恩，《职业与政党》，载于《共产主义的视野》，维尔索，2012 年，207-250 页。
35. “The Holding Pattern,” Endnotes 3, 2013, 12-54. 35. “保持模式，”附录 3，2013 年，12-54。
36. See the special issue of Viewpoint magazine devoted to the status of the state, viewpointmag.com 请参阅《观点》杂志专门讨论国家地位的特刊，viewpointmag.com
37. Marina Sitrin, “Measuring Success: Affective or Contentious Politics?,” in Mirzoeff, ed., Militant Research Handbook. 37. 玛丽娜·西特林，《衡量成功：情感政治还是争议政治？》，收录于米尔佐夫主编，《激进研究手册》。
38. Michael Hardt and Toni Negri, Declaration, self-published, 2012; Peter Linebaugh, Stop Thief! The Commons, Enclosure, and Resistance, PM Press, 2013; George Caffentzis, In Letters of Blood and Fire, Common Notions, 2012. 38. 迈克尔·哈特和托尼·奈格里，《宣言》，自出版，2012 年；彼得·莱恩博， 《停止小偷！公地、圈地与抵抗》，PM 出版社，2013 年；乔治·卡芬齐斯，《血与火的书信》，常识出版社，2012 年。
39. See Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, “The Fight for ‘Real Democracy’ at the Heart of Occupy Wall Street,” Foreign Affairs, October 11, 2011; David Graeber, The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement, Spiegel and Grau, 2013; Michael Hardt, “The ‘Common’ in Communism,” in Costas Douzinas and Slavoj Zizek, eds., The Idea of Communism, Verso, 2010. On “commoning” as an active verb rather than passive understanding of “shared resources” see Hardt and Negri, Declaration and Peter Linebaugh, Stop, Thief! The Commons, Enclosure, and Resistance, PM Press, 2013. On “communization” see Benjamin Noys, ed, Communization and its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles, Minor Compositions, 2011. 39. 见迈克尔·哈特和安东尼奥·涅格里，《占领华尔街中心的“真实民主”斗争》，《外交事务》，2011 年 10 月 11 日；大卫·格雷伯，《民主项目：历史、危机、运动》，斯皮格尔与格劳，2013 年；迈克尔·哈特，《共产主义中的“共同体”》，见科斯塔斯·杜齐纳斯和斯拉沃热·齐泽克主编，《共产主义的理念》，维尔索，2010 年。关于“共同化”作为一种主动动词，而非对“共享资源”的被动理解，见哈特和涅格里，《宣言》和彼得·莱恩博，《停下，窃贼！公共资源、圈地与抵抗》，PM 出版社，2013 年。关于“共产化”，见本杰明·诺伊斯主编，《共产化及其不满：争论、批评与当代斗争》，小型作品，2011 年。
40. Kate Khatib, Margaret Killjoy, Mike McGuire, eds., We Are Many: Movement Strategy from Occupation to Liberation, AK Press, 2012, 1-8. 凯特·哈提布，玛格丽特·基尔乔伊，迈克·麦圭尔，编，《我们是众多：从占领到解放的运动策略》，AK 出版社，2012 年，1-8 页。
41. Nicholas Mirzoeff, nicholasmirzoeff.com/occupy2012; Not An Alternative, “Occupy: A Comon Name,” March 23, 2012, notanalternative.net; Sitrin and Azzellini, They Can’t Represent Us!; Khatib, Killioy, McGuire, eds., We Are Many; Carla Blumenkranz, Keith Gessen, Mark Greif, Sarah Leonard, Sarah Resnick, Nikil Saval, Eli Schmitt, and Astra Taylor, eds., Occupy! Scenes from Occupied America, Verso, 2011. Nathan Schneider, Thank You, Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse, University of California Press, 2013; Mark Bray, Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street, Zero Books, 2013; David Graeber, The Democracy Project; W.J.T. Mitchell, ed., Occupy: Three Inquiries into Political Disobedience, University of Chicago, 2012; Colby Hopkins, Another World IS Possible: Freedom, Economic Truth, and Creating a Society of Humanness, 'The Humanness Project Press, 2013; Michael A. Gould-Wartofsky, The Occupiers: The Making of the 99%99 \% Movement, Oxford University Press, 2015; Emily Welty, Matthew Bolton, Meghana Nayak, and Christopher Malone, eds., Occupying Political Science: The Occupy Wall Street Movement from New York to the World, Macmillan/Palgrave, 2012; Ron Shiffman, Rick Bell, Lance Jay Brown, Lynne Elizabeth, Anastassia Fisyak, and Anusha Venkataraman, eds., Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of Assembly and the Occupation of Public Space, New Village Press, 2012; see also the special issues devoted to Occupy of American Ethnologist, May 2012 and Social Text, February 2013; for primary sources that contain analyses and descriptions developed in the real-time of the movement see Tidal: Occupy Theory, Occupy Strategy at tidalmag.org; Occupy Gazette at nplusonemag.com; Occupied Wall Street Journal at occupiedmedia.us; Indig-Nacion at indignacion.com, and the extensive coverage of the movement at wagingnonviolence.org. 41. 尼古拉斯·米尔佐夫，nicholasmirzoeff.com/occupy2012；Not An Alternative，“占领：一个共同的名字”，2012 年 3 月 23 日，notanalternative.net；西特林和阿泽利尼，《他们不能代表我们！》；哈提布、基利奥伊、麦圭尔主编，《我们是众多的》；卡拉·布卢门克兰茨、基思·盖森、马克·格雷夫、莎拉·伦纳德、莎拉·雷斯尼克、尼基尔·萨瓦尔、埃利·施密特和阿斯特拉·泰勒主编，《占领！被占领的美国的场景》，Verso，2011 年。内森·施奈德，《谢谢你，无政府状态：来自占领末日的笔记》，加利福尼亚大学出版社，2013 年；马克·布雷，《翻译无政府状态：华尔街占领的无政府主义》，Zero Books，2013 年；大卫·格雷伯，《民主项目》；W.J.T. 米切尔主编，《占领：对政治不服从的三次探究》，芝加哥大学出版社，2012 年；科尔比·霍普金斯，《另一个世界是可能的：自由、经济真相与创造人性社会》，《人性项目出版社》，2013 年；迈克尔·A·古尔德-瓦尔托夫斯基，《占领者： 99%99 \% 运动的形成》，牛津大学出版社，2015 年；艾米莉·韦尔提、马修·博尔顿、梅哈娜·纳亚克和克里斯托弗·马龙主编。《占领政治学：从纽约到世界的占领华尔街运动》，麦克米伦/帕尔格雷夫，2012 年；罗恩·希夫曼，里克·贝尔，兰斯·杰伊·布朗，林恩·伊丽莎白，阿纳斯塔西娅·菲西亚克和阿努莎·文卡塔拉曼主编，《超越祖科蒂公园：集会自由与公共空间的占领》，新村出版社，2012 年；另见《美国人类学家》2012 年 5 月和《社会文本》2013 年 2 月专门讨论占领运动的特刊；有关在运动实时中发展出的分析和描述的主要来源，请参见 tidalmag.org 上的《潮汐：占领理论，占领战略》；nplusonemag.com 上的《占领公报》；occupiedmedia.us 上的《被占领的华尔街日报》；indignacion.com 上的《土著国度》，以及 wagingnonviolence.org 上对该运动的广泛报道。
42. W. J. T. Mitchell, “Preface,” in Occupy: Three Inquiries in Political Disobedience, University of Chicago Press, 2013. 42. W. J. T. 米切尔，《前言》，载于《占领：政治不服从的三项研究》，芝加哥大学出版社，2013 年。
43. Daniel Marcus, “From Ocoupation to Communization,” Occupy Gazette 3, December 2011. 丹尼尔·马库斯，“从占领到公有化，”《占领公报》第 3 期，2011 年 12 月。
44. See Marina Sitrin and Dario Azzellini, Occupying Language, Zuccotti Park Press, 2012. 44. 见 Marina Sitrin 和 Dario Azzellini，《占领语言》，Zuccotti Park Press，2012。
45. See Michael A. Gould-Wartofsky, The Occupiers: The Making of the 99 Percent Movement, Oxford University Press, 2015. For a very different take, see the response of Ariana Reines, Jackie Wang, and Laura Wiegben to the October questionnaire on Occupy Wall Street, “Occupy was not a movement, much less a mass movement. It was a mass.” They go on to describe Zuccotti Park as a space of mourning and praying for the dead of capitalist history, but whose political potentials were betrayed-perhaps inevitably-by attempts to unify the moumers under the rubric of the 99%99 \%, thus effacing the different and intersecting wounds brought to the space (pp. 54-58). 45. 见迈克尔·A·古尔德-瓦尔托夫斯基，《占领者：99%运动的形成》，牛津大学出版社，2015 年。对于一个截然不同的看法，参见阿里安娜·雷恩斯、杰基·王和劳拉·维根对十月关于占领华尔街问卷的回应：“占领并不是一个运动，更不是一个群众运动。它是一个群众。”他们接着描述祖科蒂公园是一个为资本主义历史的死者哀悼和祈祷的空间，但其政治潜力却被试图在 99%99 \% 的名义下统一哀悼者的努力所背叛——这或许是不可避免的——从而抹去了带入这个空间的不同和交错的创伤（第 54-58 页）。
46. Mark Bray, Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street, Zero Books, 2013. 46. 马克·布雷，《翻译无政府主义：占领华尔街的无政府主义》，零书出版社，2013 年。
47. See David Graeber, “The Anarchist Roots of Occupy Wall Street”, aljazeera. com, November 30, 2011; Bray, Translating Anarchy; and Cindy Milstein, “Occupy Anarchism,” in Khatib et al., We Are Many, 241-305. For a critique of “consensus” posited by some iterations of anarchism as a the ultimate horizon of democracy, see L. A. Kaufman, “The Theology of Consensus,” Occupy Gazette, 2, October 2011. 47. 见大卫·格雷伯，《占领华尔街的无政府主义根源》，aljazeera.com，2011 年 11 月 30 日；布雷，《翻译无政府主义》；以及辛迪·米尔斯坦，《占领无政府主义》，收录于卡提布等人编，《我们是众多的》，241-305 页。有关一些无政府主义变体所提出的“共识”作为民主最终视野的批评，见 L.A.考夫曼，《共识的神学》，《占领公报》，第 2 期，2011 年 10 月。
48. Bernard E. Harcourt, in Mitchell, ed., Occupy, 47. 48. 伯纳德·E·哈考特，见米切尔主编，《占领》，47。
49. Drawing on Rancière and Badiou, Kristin Ross notes that one of the ways in which the memory of truth-event of May 1968 in France has been neutralized is by sociological studies that attempt to reduce it to a demographically determined “youth revolt”; see Kristin Ross, May '68 and its Afterlives, NYU, 2002. 49. 基于朗西埃和巴迪欧的观点，克里斯汀·罗斯指出，1968 年法国真相事件的记忆被中和的方式之一是通过社会学研究，这些研究试图将其简化为一个人口统计决定的“青年反抗”；见克里斯汀·罗斯，《68 年及其余波》，纽约大学，2002 年。
50. See Ruth Milkman, Stephanie Luce, and Penny Lewis, Changing the Subject: A Bottom Up Account of Occupy Wall Street in New York City, Murphy Institute/City University of New York, 2013. 50. 见 Ruth Milkman、Stephanie Luce 和 Penny Lewis，《改变主题：纽约市占领华尔街的自下而上叙述》，墨菲研究所/纽约市立大学，2013 年。
51. See Alain Badiou, tr. Gregory Elliot, The Rebirth of History: Times of Riots and Uprisings, Verso, 2012; Žižek, “Conclusion: Signs From the Future,” chap. 10 in The Year of Dreaming Dangerously, Verso, 2012; and Hardt and Negri, “Next: Event of the Commoner,” in Declaration. 51. 见阿兰·巴迪欧，格雷戈里·埃利奥特译，《历史的重生：骚乱与起义的时代》，Verso，2012 年；斯拉沃热·齐泽克，“结论：来自未来的迹象”，收录于《危险梦想之年》第 10 章，Verso，2012 年；以及哈特和内格里，“下一步：平民的事件”，收录于《宣言》。
52. Alain Badiou, Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil, Verso, 2001, 35. 阿兰·巴迪欧，《伦理学：对邪恶理解的论文》，Verso，2001 年，35 页。
53. Rosalyn Deutsche, tr. Peter Hallward, draws on Badiou’s concept of “truthevent” in her understanding of the implications of the feminist revolution of the 1970s for contemporary art history in “Not-Forgetting: Mary Kelly’s Love Songs,” Grey Room 24, Summer 2006, 26-37. 53. Rosalyn Deutsche，彼得·霍尔沃德翻译，借鉴了巴迪欧的“真事件”概念，以理解 1970 年代女性主义革命对当代艺术史的影响，见于《不被遗忘：玛丽·凯利的爱情歌曲》，《灰色空间》24 期，2006 年夏季，26-37 页。
54. Martha Schwenender, response to Occupy Wall Street questionnaire, October 142, 67. On May '68 as a truth-event, see Ross, May ‘68 and its Afterlives. 54. 玛莎·施温登德，回应《占领华尔街》问卷，十月 142，67。关于 1968 年五月作为真相事件，见罗斯，《1968 年五月及其余生》。
55. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Commonwealth, Harvard, 2009, 115-116. 迈克尔·哈特和安东尼奥·尼格里，《公有制》，哈佛大学出版社，2009 年，115-116 页。
56. Sandra Nurse, “Losing Complacency and Fear,” Tidal: Occupy Theory, Occupy Strategy 2, March 2012, 24-28. 56. 桑德拉·纳斯，“失去自满与恐惧，”《潮汐：占领理论，占领战略》2，2012 年 3 月，24-28。
57. Kate Khatib, “Introduction,” We Are Many, 3, 1-8. 凯特·哈提布，《导言》，《我们是众多的》，3，1-8。
58. See the following in Khatib, et al.: Manissa Maharawal McCleave, “Reflections on the People of Color Caucus of Occupy Wall Street,” Yvonne Liu, “Where Was the Color in Occupy?” Max Rameau, “Occupy to Liberate,” 177-185, 185-7, and Joel Osteen, "Whiteness and the 99%99 \% " in Khatib et al., We Are Many; Pamela Brown, “Solidarity for Reparations, Tidal 4, 8-10. 58. 请参见 Khatib 等人的以下内容：Manissa Maharawal McCleave，“对华尔街占领运动有色人种小组的反思”，Yvonne Liu，“占领运动中的色彩在哪里？”Max Rameau，“占领以解放”，177-185，185-7，以及 Joel Osteen，“白人特权与 99%99 \% ”在 Khatib 等人编著的《我们是众多》中；Pamela Brown，“为赔偿而团结”，Tidal 4，8-10。
59. MTL, “Occupy Wall Street: A Possible History,” in Nicholas Mirzoeff, ed., The Militant Research Handbook, New York University, 2013, 16-18. The paraphrase is Walter Benjamin, “The Author as Producer,” in Peter Demetz, ed., Edmund Jophcott, tr. Harry Zohn, ed., Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, and Autobiographical Writings, Schocken, 1986, 220-238. Benjamin’s title has often been paraphrased to describe emerging tendencies or impulses among contemporary artists, as with Hal Foster’s “The Artist as Ethnographer,” chap. 6 in The Return of the Real, MIT Press, 1996. 59. MTL，“占领华尔街：一个可能的历史”，见尼古拉斯·米尔佐夫主编，《激进研究手册》，纽约大学，2013 年，16-18 页。该段的释义为沃尔特·本雅明，“作为生产者的作者”，见彼得·德梅茨主编，埃德蒙·乔普科特，哈里·佐恩翻译，主编，《反思：论文、格言与自传写作》，肖肯出版社，1986 年，220-238 页。本雅明的标题常被释义为描述当代艺术家中出现的趋势或冲动，例如哈尔·福斯特在《真实的回归》第六章中的“作为民族志学家的艺术家”，麻省理工学院出版社，1996 年。
60. See Andrew Boyd and Dave Oswald Mitchell et al., Beautiful Trouble: A Toolbox for Revolution, O/R Books, 2012. 60. 见安德鲁·博伊德和戴夫·奥斯瓦尔德·米切尔等，《美丽的麻烦：革命工具箱》，O/R 图书，2012 年。
61. David Joselit, After Art, Princeton, 2013; Suzann Lacy, Leaving Art; Writings on Politics, Performance, and Publics, 1974-2007, Duke University Press, 2010; Pamela Lee, Forgetting the Art World; Chris Kraus, What Art Is For, Semiotext(e), 2012; Joshua Dechter, Art Is a Problem: Selected Interviews, Criticism, and Curatorial Projects (1986-2012), Stemberg, 2013. An earlier important framing of these problems is Nina Felshin, ed., But Is It Art? The Spirit of Art as Activism, Bay Press, 1995. 61. 大卫·乔斯利特，《艺术之后》，普林斯顿，2013 年；苏珊·拉西，《离开艺术：关于政治、表演和公众的著作，1974-2007》，杜克大学出版社，2010 年；帕梅拉·李，《遗忘艺术世界》；克里斯·克劳斯，《艺术的目的》，Semiotext(e)，2012 年；约书亚·德赫特，《艺术是一个问题：精选访谈、批评和策展项目（1986-2012）》，斯坦伯格，2013 年。对这些问题的早期重要框架是尼娜·费尔辛编，《但这算不算艺术？艺术作为行动主义的精神》，湾出版社，1995 年。
62. See Silvia Kolbowski, David Joselit, and Matthew Friday, “The Social Artwork,” October 142, 2013, 74-85. This rich discussion is framed in part as an exploration of the ramifications of Occupy for contemporary art. 62. 见 Silvia Kolbowski、David Joselit 和 Matthew Friday，《社会艺术品》，《十月》142，2013 年，74-85 页。此丰富的讨论部分被框定为对占领运动对当代艺术影响的探索。
63. See Peter Burger, tr. Michael Shaw, Theory of the Avant-Garde, Minnesota University Press, 1984. 彼得·布尔格，迈克尔·肖译，《先锋派理论》，明尼苏达大学出版社，1984 年。
64. Kristin Ross, Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune, Verso, 2015, and The Emergence of Social Space: Rimbaud and the Paris Commune, Minnesota University Press, 1988. 克里斯廷·罗斯，《共同奢华：巴黎公社的政治想象》，Verso，2015 年，以及《社会空间的出现：兰波与巴黎公社》，明尼苏达大学出版社，1988 年。
65. Gavin Grindon, “Surrealism, Dada, and the Refusal of Work: Autonomy, Activism, and Social Participation in the Radical Avant-Garde” Oxford Art Journal 34:1, 2011, 79-96. 65. 加文·格林登，《超现实主义、达达主义与拒绝工作：激进先锋中的自主性、行动主义与社会参与》，《牛津艺术杂志》34:1，2011 年，79-96。
66. Benjamin Buchloh, Neo-Avantgarde and Culture Industry, MIT Press, 2000. 本杰明·布赫洛，《新先锋派与文化产业》，麻省理工学院出版社，2000 年。
67. See Thomas McDonaugh, ed., Guy Debord and the Situationist International: Texts and Documents, MIT Press, 2002. Also see McKenzie Wark, The Beach Beneath the Street: The Everyday Life and Glorious Times of the Situationist International, Verso, 2011; and Kristin Ross, May ‘68 and Its Afterlives, NYU Press, 2002. 67. 见托马斯·麦克唐纳（Thomas McDonaugh）编，《盖·德波与情境主义国际：文本与文献》，麻省理工学院出版社，2002 年。另见麦肯齐·沃克（McKenzie Wark），《街道下的海滩：情境主义国际的日常生活与辉煌时代》，Verso 出版社，2011 年；以及克里斯汀·罗斯（Kristin Ross），《68 年五月及其余波》，纽约大学出版社，2002 年。
68. Gavin Grindon, “Poetry Written in Gasoline: Black Mask and Up Against the Wall Motherfucker,” Art History 38:1, Fall 2014, 170-209. 68. 加文·格林登，《用汽油写的诗：黑面具与对抗墙壁的混蛋》，《艺术史》38:1，2014 年秋，170-209。
69. For a reading of the Yippies and Guerilla TV set off against both the contemporary art system and the media landscape of the 1960s, see David Joselit, Feedback: Television Against Democracy, MIT Press, 2007, For primary documents on the performative actions of New York Radical Women and W.I.T.C.H., see Robin Morgan, ed., Sisterhood Is Powerful, Vintage, 1970. 69. 关于将 Yippies 和游击电视与 1960 年代的当代艺术体系和媒体环境进行对比的阅读，请参见 David Joselit 的《反馈：反对民主的电视》，麻省理工学院出版社，2007 年。有关纽约激进女性和 W.I.T.C.H.的表演行动的主要文献，请参见 Robin Morgan 主编的《姐妹情谊是强大的》，Vintage，1970 年。
70. See The Diggers, “The Post-Competitive, Comparative Game of a Free City” (1967) and “The Diggers Papers,” in Alexander Bloom and Wini Breines, eds., "Takin’ it to the streets”: A Sixties Reader, 3rd ed., Oxford, 2010. 70. 见 The Diggers, “自由城市的后竞争、比较游戏”（1967）和 “The Diggers Papers”，收录于 Alexander Bloom 和 Wini Breines 主编的《Takin’ it to the streets”: A Sixties Reader》第三版，牛津，2010 年。
71. On the London Diggers, see Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution, Penguin, 1984. 关于伦敦挖掘者，参见克里斯托弗·希尔，《世界颠倒：英国内战期间的激进思想》，企鹅出版社，1984 年。
72. See Julia Bryan-Wilson, Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam Era, University of California Press, 2010; and Alan W. Moore, Art Gangs: Protest and Counterculture in New York City, Autonomedia, 2012. 72. 见朱莉亚·布莱恩-威尔逊，《艺术工作者：越南时代的激进实践》，加利福尼亚大学出版社，2010 年；以及艾伦·W·摩尔，《艺术帮派：纽约市的抗议与反文化》，Autonomedia，2012 年。
73. See Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson, eds., Institutional Critique: An Anthology of Artists’ Writings, MIT Press, 2011. 73. 见亚历山大·阿尔贝罗和布莱克·斯廷森主编，《制度批评：艺术家著作选集》，麻省理工学院出版社，2011 年。
74. T. V. Reed, The Arts of Protest: Culture and Activism from the Civil Rights Movement to the Streets of Seattle, University of Minnesota Press, 2005. 74. T. V. Reed，《抗议的艺术：从民权运动到西雅图街头的文化与行动主义》，明尼苏达大学出版社，2005 年。
75. Robin D.G. Kelley, Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination, Beacon, 2003. 罗宾·D·G·凯利，《自由梦想：黑人的激进想象》，灯塔出版社，2003 年。
76. Stephen Duncombe, Dream: Re-Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy, New Press, 2007. See also Duncombe’s entry on “ethical spectacle” in Andrew Boyd and David Oliver Mitchell, eds., Beautiful Trouble: A Toolbox for Revolution, O/R Books, 2012. With Steve Lambert, Duncombe is the co-director for the Center for Artistic Activism, which has developed a training program for activists informed by these insights. See artisticactivism.org. 斯蒂芬·邓科姆，《梦：在幻想时代重新想象进步政治》，新出版社，2007 年。另见邓科姆在安德鲁·博伊德和大卫·奥利弗·米切尔主编的《美丽的麻烦：革命工具箱》中的“伦理景观”条目，O/R 书籍，2012 年。邓科姆与史蒂夫·兰伯特共同担任艺术行动中心的联合主任，该中心开发了一个基于这些见解的活动家培训项目。请参见 artisticactivism.org。
77. Yates McKee and Meg McLagan, eds., Sensible Politics: The Visual Cultures of Nongovernmental Activism, Zone Books, 2012. 77. Yates McKee 和 Meg McLagan 主编，《理性政治：非政府行动的视觉文化》，Zone Books，2012。
78. Nicholas Mirzoeff, How to See the World, Penguin, 2015. 尼古拉斯·米尔佐夫，《如何看世界》，企鹅出版社，2015 年。
79. T. J. Demos, Decolonizing Nature: Contemporary Art and the Politics of Ecology, Stemberg Press, 2015. 79. T. J. Demos，《去殖民化自然：当代艺术与生态政治》，斯坦伯格出版社，2015 年。
80. See Catherine Flood and Gavin Grindon’s exhibition catalog Disobedient Objects, Victoria and Albert Museum, 2014. This book concludes with a remarkable roundtable discussion between T. V. Reed, Julia Bryan-Wilson, queer theorist Jack Halberstam, and autonomist philosopher John Holloway. 80. 参见凯瑟琳·弗拉德和加文·格林登的展览目录《不服从的物品》，维多利亚与阿尔伯特博物馆，2014 年。本书以 T·V·里德、朱莉亚·布莱恩-威尔逊、酷儿理论家杰克·哈伯斯坦和自主主义哲学家约翰·霍洛威之间的精彩圆桌讨论结束。
81. Nathan Schneider, Thank You, Anarchy. 81. 纳森·施奈德，《谢谢你，无政府主义》。
82. Thomas Gokey, “Fidelity to the Future: Notes on the Possibility of Making Art After Occupy,” Animal Shelter 4, Spring 2015, 9-17. 托马斯·戈基，《对未来的忠诚：关于占领后创作艺术可能性的笔记》，《动物庇护所》4，2015 年春季，9-17。
83. Jeremy Brecher, Strike!, PM Press, 2014 [1972]. See also Brecher, “The Power of the Powerless,” Tidal 3, July 2012, 14-15. 杰里米·布雷彻，《罢工！》，PM 出版社，2014 年[1972 年]。另见布雷彻，“无权者的力量”，《潮汐》3，2012 年 7 月，14-15 页。
84. Claire Fontaine, The Human Strike Has Already Begun and Other Essays, Post-Media Lab Books, 2013. Thomas McDonough situates Claire Fontaine 克莱尔·方丹，《人类罢工已经开始及其他论文》，后媒体实验室出版社，2013 年。托马斯·麦克唐纳将克莱尔·方丹置于。
within a contested genealogy of the situationists and the French ultra-left in “Unrepresentable Enemies: On the Legacy of Guy Debord and the Situationist International,” Afterall 28, Fall/Winter 2011, 42-55. 在“不可代表的敌人：关于盖·德波和情境主义国际的遗产”一文中，探讨了情境主义者和法国极左派的争议谱系，刊载于《Afterall》第 28 期，2011 年秋冬，42-55 页。
85. See Brecher, Strikel and, with the context of Occupy in mind, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “General Strike!” Tidal 1, December 2011, 8. 85. 见 Brecher, Strikel 和考虑到占领运动的背景，Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “总罢工！” Tidal 1, 2011 年 12 月, 8.
86. See the compendium of “strikes” collected in Tidal 2, February 2012. 86. 请参见 2012 年 2 月的《潮汐 2》中收集的“罢工”汇编。
87. See Gerald Raunig’s discussion of Gustav Metzger’s use of the term in “Art Strike for All!” in Factories of Knowledge, Industries of Creativity, 85, which I draw upon in chapter three of this book. Another use of the term is that of Art Strike, an English group including Stewart Home and Bob Black, whose call for artists to “stop making art” between 1990 and 1993 was informed by a combination of conceptual art and semi-nihilistic punk aesthetics. Both Metzger and Art Strike took the institutional art world as the horizon of their negation, and neither were proactively engaged with social movements. On Art Strike in New York, see Bryan-Wilson, “Hard Hats and Art Strikes: Robert Morris in 1970,” in Art Workers, 72-98. For a helpful conversation of the various historical iterations of Art Strike, see Gabriel Mindel Saloman, “On Hiatus: The Imminent Impossibility of the Art Strike,” Journal of Aesthetics and Protest, vol. 9, 2013. 87. 请参见 Gerald Raunig 在《知识工厂，创造力产业》中的讨论，关于 Gustav Metzger 在“为所有人艺术罢工！”中使用该术语的内容，85 页，我在本书第三章中引用了该内容。另一个使用该术语的例子是艺术罢工（Art Strike），这是一个包括 Stewart Home 和 Bob Black 在内的英国团体，他们在 1990 年至 1993 年间呼吁艺术家“停止创作艺术”，这一呼吁受到概念艺术和半虚无主义朋克美学的影响。Metzger 和艺术罢工都将制度化的艺术世界视为其否定的地平线，且两者都没有积极参与社会运动。关于纽约的艺术罢工，参见 Bryan-Wilson 在《艺术工作者》中的文章“硬帽与艺术罢工：1970 年的 Robert Morris”，72-98 页。有关艺术罢工各种历史变迁的有益讨论，请参见 Gabriel Mindel Saloman 的文章“暂停：艺术罢工的迫在眉睫的不可能性”，发表于《美学与抗议杂志》，第 9 卷，2013 年。
88. MTL, “#OccupyWallStreet: A Possible History,” in Mirzoeff, ed., Militant Research Handbook, 17. 88. MTL，“#占领华尔街：一个可能的历史”，见 Mirzoeff 编，《激进研究手册》，17。
1. Contemporary Art and the Politics of Democracy, 1987-2011 当代艺术与民主政治，1987-2011
See Hudson and Dumbadze, eds., Contemporary Art: 1989 to the Present. 参见哈德森和杜姆巴泽主编的《当代艺术：1989 年至今》。
See Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, “Globalization and Democracy” and Chantal Mouffe, “For An Agonistic Public Sphere,” in Okwui Enwezor et al., Democracy Unrealized (Vienna: Hatje Cantz, 2002) originally presented as talks as part of the massive, multi-platform assemblage of the Documenta XI exhibition. For the prominence of Rancière to contemporary art in the 2000s, see the special issue of Artforum “Regime Change: Jacques Rancière and Contemporary Art” (March 2007). 参见迈克尔·哈特和安东尼奥·涅格里的《全球化与民主》以及尚塔尔·穆夫的《为一个对抗性的公共领域》，收录于奥克维·恩韦佐尔等人的《未实现的民主》（维也纳：哈特耶·坎茨，2002 年），该作品最初作为 Documenta XI 展览的多平台大型汇编的一部分进行演讲。有关朗西埃在 2000 年代当代艺术中的重要性，请参见《艺术论坛》特刊《政权更迭：雅克·朗西埃与当代艺术》（2007 年 3 月）。
An epoch-defining document for contemporary art devoted to these questions is “Every Form of Art Has a Political Dimension: Chantal Mouffe interviewed by Rosalyn Duetsche, Branden W. Joseph, and Thomas Keenan,” Grey Room 02, Winter 2001, 98-125, which revolves around Hans Haacke’s dedication of a monument “to the population”-as opposed to “the people” within the grounds of the German parliament building. 一份定义当代艺术时代的文件是“每种艺术形式都有政治维度：香塔尔·穆夫与罗莎琳·杜埃切、布兰登·W·约瑟夫和托马斯·基南的访谈”，《灰色空间》02，2001 年冬季，98-125 页，围绕汉斯·哈克为德国国会大厦内的“人民”而非“民众”献上的一座纪念碑。
Rosalyn Deutsche, Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics, MIT Press, 1997. 罗莎琳·德意志，《驱逐：艺术与空间政治》，麻省理工学院出版社，1997 年。
Deutsche, Evictions, 32. 德意志，驱逐，32。
Krzysztof Wodiczko, “Strategies of Public Address: Which Media, Which Public,” in Hal Foster, ed., Discussions in Contemporary Culture, 1, Dia Foundation for the Arts, 1987, 42. 克日什托夫·沃迪茨科，“公共演讲的策略：哪些媒体，哪些公众，”收录于哈尔·福斯特主编，《当代文化讨论》，第 1 卷，艺术基金会，1987 年，42 页。
