不朽的人類：葛羅伊斯的藝術政治

本文申論，藝術哲學家葛羅伊斯採取了文化生態學的新觀點再詮釋古典前衛派。他推翻藝術求新只是毀滅傳統文化的虛無政治，主張藝術創作實為改造現實生活的未來技術；也就是說，作品的藝術生產抵抗了物質時間的流逝，支撐著人類生命的永續。在此主張中，本文將深究，若把檔案和媒介概念設置到當代世界中，葛羅伊斯的技術視角將會怎麼回應從博物館到互聯網的體制轉型？進一步探問，葛羅伊斯的藝術理念如何重塑了社會科學和共產政治，透過發現科技現實中的不朽生命力，從而更新人文主義式的文化生態學？全文欲證成，葛羅伊斯重認了前衛藝術的當代關連，再沉思不朽人類的共產政治。第壹節宣稱葛羅伊斯經由藝術品的生產技術，追求新人類的收藏與照護。第貳節觀察在博物館到互聯網的體制液化中，前衛藝術可順勢運用紀實的儀式時間和表演的參與空間來做出回應。第叁節分析葛羅伊斯考古學重建了前衛藝術、共產政治、社會科學的未來烏托邦，轉化科學政治成為藝術政治。第肆節評價葛羅伊斯暗示技術文化的生態學浮現於後歷史時期，藝術的病毒可能感染政治有機體。以結果論，葛羅伊斯超越了現代藝術史的專門領域，復甦社會與政治思想的古典想像，重估檔案與媒介現實的當代體制，展望世界文化的生態烏托邦。1

This essay contends that art philosopher Boris Groys adopts a novel perspective of cultural ecology to reinterpret the classical avant-garde. He overturns the preconception that artistic pursuit of the new amounts to nothing but annihilist politics which destroys traditional culture, and proposes instead that artistic creation is actually a future-oriented technology which transforms real life. That is to say, the production of an artwork resists the passing of material time in order to sustain the immortality of human life. Given this proposal, the article will explore how Groys’standpoint of technology would respond to the transformation of institutional settings from the museum to the internet once his concepts of the archive and media are installed inside the contemporary world. Furthermore, the article will examine how Groys’idea of art could reshape social science and communist politics by discovering immortal vitality within technological reality and henceforth renewing a humanist type of cultural ecology. This paper seeks to argue that Groys recognizes the contemporary relevance of avant-garde art and reconceives the communist politics of immortal humans. Section One asserts that Groys embarks on a quest of collecting and caring for neo-humans by means of the technology of producing artworks. Section Two observes that the avant-garde might utilize the ritualized time of documentation and the participatory space of performance as artistic responses to the institutional liquidation from the museum to the internet. Section Three analyzes that Groys rebuilds an archaeology of future utopias for avant-garde art, communist politics and social science, transforming the politics of science into a politics of art as a result. Section Four evaluates that Groys suggests the emergence of an ecology of technical culture in the post-historical period when the virus of art might infect political organisms. In conclusion, by transcending the specific domain of modern art history, Groys revives the classical imagination of social and political thoughts, revalues the contemporary institutions of archiving and mediated reality, and prospects for an ecological utopia of world cultures.