Bringing Things Back to Life: Creative Entanglements in a World of Materials
Bringing Things Back to Life: Creative Entanglements in a World of Materials
复制标题
让事物复活：材料世界中的创意纠葛
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Ingold
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Ingold
根据亚里士多德的说法，事物的创造涉及形式（morphe）和物质（hyle）的结合。在随后的西方思想史中，创造的自然形态模式变得更加根深蒂固。从人类学和考古学到艺术史和物质文化研究等领域的当代讨论继续再现其基本假设。
本文的目的是揭露这些假设，并取代模型与本体论，赋予首要地位的形成过程，对他们的最终产品，并对物质的流动和嬗变的状态。这一论点有五个组成部分。
首先，有人居住的世界不是由被认为是有界的、自足的实体的物体组成的，而是由事物组成的，每一个事物都是生命之线的特定集合。
第二，生命不应被理解为一种内在的生命力，而应被理解为一种由各种力和物质组成的场域的生成能力，在这种场域中，各种形式得以产生和维持。这个“生命”的概念不应该与“能动性”的概念混淆，后者是将事物还原为对象的同一还原的产物。
第三，对生命过程的关注要求我们注意的不是物质本身，而是物质的流动和流动。我们必须跟随这些流动，追踪形式生成的路径。
第四，为了理解这些路径是如何创造性的，我们必须将创造性“向前”理解为与形成过程的即兴结合，而不是“向后”理解为从完成的对象到代理人头脑中的想法的绑架。
最后，即兴练习展开的路径沿着不是一个事物和另一个事物之间的联系，而是它们不断形成的沿着的线路。因此，必须从字面上和精确地理解事物的纠缠，而不是将其理解为连接的网络，而是将其理解为生长和运动的交织线的网状结构。
The creation of things, according to Aristotle, involves a bringing together of form (morphe) and matter (hyle). In the subsequent history of western thought, the hylomorphic model of creation has become ever more deeply embedded. Contemporary discussions in fields ranging from anthropology and archaeology to art history and material culture studies continue to reproduce its underlying assumptions.
The aim of this paper is both to expose these assumptions and to replace the model with an ontology that assigns primacy to processes of formation as against their final products, and to the flows and transmutations of materials as against states of matter. The argument has five components.
First, the inhabited world consists not of objects, considered as bounded, self-contained entities, but of things, each a particular gathering of the threads of life.
Secondly, life has to be understood not as an interior animating force but as the generative capacity of that encompassing field of forces and materials wherein forms arise and are held in place. This notion of ‘life’ should not be confused with the concept of ‘agency’, which is a product of the same reduction that reduces things to objects.
Thirdly, a focus on life-processes required us to attend not to materiality as such, but to the fluxes and flows of materials. We have to follow these flows, tracing the paths of form-generation.
Fourthly, to understand how these paths are creative, we must read creativity ‘forwards’, as an improvisatory joining in with formative processes, rather than ‘backwards’ as an abduction from a finished object to an idea in the mind of an agent.
Finally, the pathways along which improvisatory practice unfolds are not connections between one thing and another but lines along which they continually come into being. Thus the entanglement of things has to be understood literally and precisely, not as a network of connections but as a meshwork of interwoven lines of growth and movement.