Robert Adams

Robert Adams說：

ART IS by nature self-explanatory。 We call it art precisely because of its sufficiency。 Its vivid detail and overall cohesion give it a clarity not ordinarily apparent in the rest of life。

藝術在本質上是不言自明的。我們稱他為藝術恰恰是因為它的充分性。它生動的細節和全域性性的濃縮給了一種明示，這在生活中的其他部分通常是不明顯的。

And so if the audience lives in the same time and culture as does the artist， and if the audience is familiar with the history of the medium， there is no need to append to art a preface or other secondary apparatus。

如果觀眾生活在與藝術家相同的時代和文化當中，如果觀眾熟悉這種媒介的歷史，就沒有必要去附加藝術一種前言或者是另外一種解釋。

Successful writing about works of art is accordingly an unusual achievement。 It is self-effacing， devoted to establishing the adequacy of the art without the writing。 John Szarkowski described an appropriate measure for critical writing： “ The better the writing is the more necessary it makes the picture。” There are only few commentators who can do that - Robert Hughes， for instance， and Szarkowski himself。

關於藝術作品成功的寫作是一個不同尋常的成就。它是一種自謙，是致力於建立沒有寫做的藝術的充份性。John Szarkowski描述了一種評論的適度尺度： 寫作越好，越有必要製作照片。只有極少的評論員可以做到這點，例如，Robert Hughes， 和Szarkowski自己。

Several important artists have been effective critics - the painter Fairfield Porter was， for example， an accomplished writer for The Nation but they have not earned reputations either as artists or critics by explaining their own art。 Photographers are quick to note this because they are so often asked to spell out the significance of their pictures， something they resist trying to do。 Yes they can say a little about what brought them to begin， though this is not to discuss what resulted， and they can describe the equipment they used and the processes they followed in the darkroom， but they know that if these are the secrets then the pictures are not very important。

幾個重要的藝術家是有效的評判者，例如，畫家Fairfield Porter， The Nation的作者，但他們沒有像藝術家和批評家一樣靠解釋他們的藝術獲得好的聲譽。攝影師很快就注意到這點因為他們經常被要求說出他們圖片的特點，也就是他們努力迴避做的事情。他們的確可以說一些是什麼讓他們開始的，就算這不是在討論結果是什麼，他們也可以描述他們所用裝置，他們在暗室裡所採用的過程，但是他們知道如果這些就是秘密，那麼他們的照片就不是那麼很重要了。

The frequency with which photographers are called upon to talk about their pictures is possibly related to the apparent straightforwardness of their work。 Photographers look like they just record what confronts them - as is。 Shouldn‘t they be expected to compensate for this woodenness by telling us what escaped outside the frame and by explaining why they chose their subject？ The assumption is wrong of course， but an audience that knows better small， certainly smaller than for painting。 Photographers envy painters because they are usually allowed to get by with gnomic utterances or even silence， something permitted them perhaps because they seem to address their audience more subjectively， leaving it more certain about what the artist intended。

攝影師被要求談論他們作品的頻率，有可能與他們作品的直白有關。攝影師看起來僅僅是記錄了他們面對的東西。他們不應該被期望補充一些什麼嗎？告訴我們在框架之外有什麼？解釋為什麼他們選擇了這主題？當然這種假設是錯誤的，能理解的觀眾數量是很少的，甚至於少於繪畫的。攝影師羨慕畫家因為畫家經常被容許用格言來表達或者甚至於用沉默，可能是因為他們對觀眾表達時更加有主題性，留下更多

藝術家想做什麼

的確定性。

Years ago when I began to enjoy photographs I was struck by the fact that I did not have to read photographers ’ statements in order to love the pictures。 Sometimes remarks about the profession by people like Stieglitz and Weston were inspiring， but almost nothing they said about specific pictures enriched my experience of those pictures。 Photographers seemed so strikingly unable to write at length about what they had made， in fact， that I came to wonder if there was any exception at all， a single case where an artist‘s writing did not end up making a picture smaller， less complex less resonant， less worthy of comparison with life。

多年前當我開始享受攝影時我被事實震驚，我不必去讀攝影師的陳述來愛上一幅作品。有時候，像Stieglitz和Weston的專業評論的確是令人鼓舞的，但是，他們對這些特定的照片說的話對我沒有影響。攝影師意外的不能對自己的作品做出過多的寫作。我變得有點疑惑到底有沒有哪個藝術家的描述不會把作品的震撼力縮小，複雜減少，共振減少，以及降低作品和生活比較的價值。

Part of the reason that these attempts at explanation fail， I think， is that photographers， like all artists， choose their medium because it allows them the most fully truthful expression of their vision。 Other ways are relatively imprecise and incomplete。 Why try the other ways？ As Charles Demuth said， “ I have been urged… to write about my paintings… Why？ Haven’t I， in a way， painted them？ ” Or as Robert Frost told a person who asked him what one of his poems meant， “ You want me to say it worse？ ”

解釋失敗的部分原因是攝影師像所有的藝術家一樣，以視覺作為最完整真實的表達。其他的方式相對不精確不完整。那麼為什麼要嘗試其他的方式？如Charles Demuth說：我被敦促於寫關於我的繪畫，為什麼，我不是畫出來了嗎？或如Robert Frost對一個問他的詩的意思的人說，你希望我以更差的方式來表達嗎？

Photographers are like other artists too in being reticent because they are afraid that self-analysis will get in the way of making more art。 They never fully know how they got the good pictures that they have， but they suspect that a certain innocence may have been necessary。

攝影師像其他藝術家一樣沉默，因為他們害怕自我分析將阻止他們創造更多藝術。他們從來沒有完全知道過他們是怎樣獲得的他們的好照片，但他們猜測有一種天真是必需的。

［A］rtists don‘t willingly describe or explain what they produce is， however ， that the minute they do so they’ve admitted failure。 Words are proof that the vision they had is not， in the opinion of some at least， fully there the picture。 Characterizing in words what they thought they‘d shown is an acknowledgment that the photograph is unclear and that it is not art。

藝術家們不想描述和解釋，一旦他們這樣做了就等於承認失敗。在一張圖片中語言證明了視覺沒有證明的。用文字描述他們展示的東西是承認照片不清楚和這不是藝術。

Of course if you believe in the merit of your work you reject the accusation of failure that is implied by a request to explain it。

當然如果你相信你的作品，你就拒絕暗含要求你們解釋作品的請求。

In this respect all artists are elitists。 They are convinced that some viewers lack patience to see what is clear。

在這方面所有的藝術家都是精英。他們相信一些觀眾缺乏耐心去看什麼是明顯的。

Probably the best way to know what photographers think about their work， beyond consulting the internal evidence in that work， is to read or listen to what they say about pictures made by colleagues or precursors whom they admire。 It is as close as photographers usually want to come to talking about their own intentions， though even this testimony must be interpreted carefully because it is guarded （ no one undergoes the trouble of serious picture making if he or she believes that anybody else has done exactly what most needs doing ）。 Almost all photographers admire a selection of work by others， though， and sometimes the achievements they notice are closely related to their own。

瞭解攝影師是如何看他們自己的作品的最好方法可能是，除了查閱該作品內部證據以外，就是去讀去聽他們講關於他的同事是怎樣做出照片的，或他們所崇拜的前輩。像攝影師通常想去談論他們自己的意圖一樣靠近，雖然這些被保護的見證必須被小心翼翼的被解讀（沒有人願意去經歷製作照片嚴肅的過程的帶來的麻煩，如果他們相信其他人能夠準確的完成他所需要的。）幾乎所有的攝影師崇拜至少一個其他人的系列作品，有時候，他們所注意到的這些成就近似於他們自己的成就。

For photographers， the ideal book of photographs would contain just pictures - no text at all。 There have been a few volumes like that， but publishers complain they don’t sell， so not many have been allowed， which leaves photographers to endure the botched clarity and wasted effort required of them。 （ Writing under the best of circumstances is demanding； Red Smith， the eminent sportswriter， addressed everybody who supposes otherwise： “ There‘s nothing to writing， ” he said， “ all you do is sit down at the typewriter and open a vein。 ” ） I remember once working through more than a hundred drafts of a four-paragraph statement for a catalog。 all to find something that would just keep out of the way of the pictures。

對於攝影師來說，理想的攝影書籍是僅僅包含了圖片沒有任何的文字。僅有很少的幾卷書是這樣的，因為印刷者抱怨他們不好銷售，因此，被允許的不多，留給攝影師的是忍受拙劣的清晰度，和被浪費的努力。（在最好情況下的寫作是要求很高的。Red Smith ， 傑出的運動作家，對每個不認可的人說：這沒什麼好寫的。他說你要做的就是坐在打字機旁放鬆。）我記得曾經為了一個關於目錄的四段話

做過

一百多份草稿，一切都是為了想出一些不會妨礙圖片的東西。

Things are not about to improve either。 University presses for example， which publish some of the best photography hold increasingly to a policy that requires books of pictures to incorporate “substantial ” texts。 This often means not only layering together pictures with the photographer’s words but also sandwiching the concoction between slabs of social scientific balloon bread。

事態也沒有在變好。印刷過最好的攝影作品的一些大學出版社越來越堅持一個政策：圖片的書籍需要包含大量文字。這意味著不僅將圖片與攝影師的文字疊加在一起，還要把這些混合物夾雜在社會科學之間。

Photographers continue to write because they need to have their pictures reproduced in quantity； is the only way they can convey an adequately sized vision of things。 To get published I have tried every kind of cheating - I have quoted others to the same end as mine， I have talked about photography in general in order to imply what I was attempting personally。 Experience has shown， however， that the best way to avoid talking about the pictures is to talk about their subjects - tract houses or fields or trees or any of the myriad and interesting details of life。 If you have to fill the quiet of a picture， the least destructive way seems to be to speak about what was in front of the camera rather than about what you made of it。 It seems the least a trick， the closest you can get to speak about the meaning of a picture without actually doing so

攝影師繼續寫作是因為他們需要把他們的照片大量的複製；這是傳遞事物的唯一方法。為了印刷出版我嘗試過各種手段，我有用其他人的話來說自己的作品，有討論過攝影這整個主題來暗示自己的意思。經驗表明，避免解釋照片最好的方法就是談論他們的主題，田野和樹木和任何有趣的生活細節。如果你必須填滿一張照片，破壞性最小的方式看起來就是講照相機前面是什麼而不是你是怎樣完成它們的。這似乎不算是技巧，但是是在避免描述作品最接近的方式。

C。 S。 Lewis admitted when he was asked to set forth his beliefs， that he never felt less sure of them than when he tried to speak of them。 Photographers know this frailty。 To them words are a pallid， diffuse way of describing and celebrating what matters。

C。S。 Lewis承認，他從沒有對自己的信念感到有多不確定直到他被要求闡述它們。攝影師知道這個弱點。對他們來說，用詞語來表達重要的事物是一種蒼白且無針對性的方式。

整理/ Organize：Lisa

編譯/ Cindy & Mary

稽核/ Celine & Louis

製作/ Produce：AIPU