「蝙蝠筵席實驗室」創作筆記：「自然保育」與「傳統文化」的衝突
- art bio
- Oct 27, 2021
- 13 min read
Updated: Feb 24, 2022
文 / 顧廣毅 Ku, Kuang-Yi
上篇提到的《零殘忍皮革》與《預見未來肉》為生態保育提出的替代方案，主要聚焦人工合成動物組織，並複製出原本動物的細胞，然而許多其他相關作品更加入了基因改造（genietic modification）、合成生物學（synthetic biology）等等生物科技的概念，試圖探勘重新組合不同生物的基因來創造新的混種合成生物，並將之應用於本文前述的生物作為商品與食品的倫理爭議之中。例如荷蘭設計師法蘭克・克洛克曼（Frank Kolkman）的《黑金》（Black Gold, 2014）[1]，就是在研究中醫藥領域，使用犀牛角造成的犀牛瀕臨絕種的環境問題。他提出將犀牛的基因鑲嵌入鳳梨這種植物的基因之中，透過基因轉殖讓鳳梨的果實變成犀牛角的形狀與成分。他希望透過這個生物科技的未來想像可以提出一種可能的解法，去取代獵殺犀牛的現狀。而這個作品在討論的是細胞內遺傳物質DNA的重新組合，也就是在解剖的層級上是比動物組織培養更小尺度的創作與想像。同時在不同生物的基因的組合上，也帶出了人類透過科技創造新的生物種類的倫理議題。
荷蘭設計師法蘭克・克洛克曼的《黑金》（2014）。圖片來源：https://youtu.be/P1Uk0_HYPrg
不管是「細胞與組織層級」的人造肉想像，抑或是「基因層級」的虛構合成生物，兩種不同方向的生物科技相關的創作，針對同一個生態保育與動物保護的議題，都提供了不同的思考路徑。但是若我們回到本文初始的爭議，蝙蝠本身存在的傳統飲食觀光文化，真的能夠被生物科技的替代肉品或是透過與植物混合的合成生物去取代嗎？或許我可以從我自己的兩件作品《虎鞭計畫》（2018）[2] 與《新滿漢全席》（2019-2020）[3] 來回應前述數件作品的侷限。前述計畫，多少還是著墨在技術的開發，例如《黑金》相對地就沒有更深入地研究中醫藥使用犀牛角的脈絡，也因此其所推測的未來情境可能就少了原本該傳統文化的核心精神，合成出來的犀牛角究竟該怎麼跟其他的中藥搭配成藥方？原本的藥方還能夠適用嗎？這些問題都被西方的設計師給省略了，這也可能暗示著這樣的提案，若真的進入市場也很有可能會不被接受。因此，《虎鞭計畫》與《新滿漢全席》試圖突破這樣的狹隘，除了大量應用相關生物科技之外，更與中醫師等等傳統文化專家合作，加入許多原本中醫藥與亞洲飲食的傳統作法，融合傳統文化於未來想像，希冀可以創造保有原本文化核心價值的未來提案，並嘗試打造保護環境與延續傳統的雙贏局面。
台灣藝術家顧廣毅與香港食物設計師的作品《新滿漢全席》（2019-2020）。圖片來源：顧廣毅
顧廣毅《虎鞭計畫》（2018）。圖片來源：顧廣毅
前述的作品事實上始終還是環繞著怎麼提出新的解法，以處理面對環境保護與傳統文化的爭議。最後要討論的作品則是從一個非常不一樣的角度切入，這個作品透過參與式的創作計畫，試圖讓人類觀眾可以從身體去感受另一種生物於環境中的生存模式。這裡要提的作品是旅居荷蘭的台灣藝術家羅晟文與陳儀霏的共同創作《F/EEL》（2020-ongoing）[4]。在這個計畫中，藝術家在一個狹長型的立體空間裡面設計了一系列的裝置系統，整個系統是模擬歐洲鰻魚生活史的遷徙過程。參與者需要在空間中彷彿參與密室脫逃遊戲一般穿越重重障礙才能抵達終點，中間的障礙裝置都呼應到歐洲鰻魚在不同生態空間移動可能遇到的阻礙，作品尤其嘗試模擬了許多因人為所造成的障礙。
台灣藝術家羅晟文與陳儀霏的共同創作《F/EEL》（2020-ongoing）。圖片來源： https://www.shengwenlo.com/f-eel
歐洲鱺鰻在荷蘭是當地傳統料理煙燻鰻魚的食材，其魚苗也透過走私大量流入亞洲市場；但是近年歐洲鰻魚的數量銳減，即將絕滅的機率非常高。鰻魚的整個生活史必須在不同的水域產卵、孵化、以及長成成年鰻魚，整個過程都會有不斷在不同區塊的水域洄游的生態習性，且目前尚無法人工繁殖；這也讓鰻魚的復育顯得格外困難。我認為《F/EEL》這件作品雖然不像其他設計計畫試圖找尋生態保育的解法，但整個計畫透過讓參與者實際以「身體」去體驗鰻魚在生態環境中的挑戰，反而更有機會激起一般大眾對於野生生物生存困境的關注，「身體性」在這個計畫裡巧妙地扮演了一個非常重要的角色。同時這件作品也有可能引發人類轉向從非人生物的視角去看待事物與環境，藝術家在作品中似乎是在嘗試拓展人類以非人類中心角度面對地球環境的可能性。
台灣藝術家羅晟文與陳儀霏的共同創作《F/EEL》（2020-ongoing）。圖片來源： https://www.shengwenlo.com/f-eel
《F/EEL》對我來說或多或少有暗示一種期待人類可以更理解非人生物於自然生存的處境，並且若能激起人類對自然的愛與關懷，或許有機會可以在現今氣候變遷的時代，重新調整人類與自然環境共存的節奏。我認為這個背後所隱藏的訊息，跟許多主張保育的部落主義者（Tribalist）有許多有趣的類似性。部落主義者認為自然環境中的萬物皆存有神靈，人類必須要努力重新和自然萬物建立和諧的對應關係。原住民文化中的生活方式成為了這樣價值觀的典範，他們期待世界各地的原住民部落可以成為與自然共存的標竿。然而，也有許多批判的聲音，反方認為他們質疑是否是因為原住民文化的科技與技術發展不足，導致必須服膺於自然的力量，才發展出尊重自然的核心概念。與部落主義類似的保護主義者（Preservationist）也有類似對於自然的無盡的愛，像是美國早期環保運動的領袖約翰・繆爾（John Muir）就是在這樣的思想的代表人物，他曾經創建了美國重要的環保組織塞拉俱樂部（Sierra Club）。他的許多著作以及思想，很大程度地影響了現代環保運動的形成。他曾於他的書中提及：「不論受到人類怎樣的輕視忽略，美國的森林在上帝眼中必定是極為受珍愛的，因為它們是上帝親自栽種的所有森林中最美好的部分。」[5] 從文中我們可以發現，保護主義對於自然環境的熱愛與宗教和信仰是有強烈的連結的。他們認為上帝創造萬物，信仰中的道德標準和保護自然被併置在一起。但可想而知，這樣的思想某種程度上是很難被沒有特定宗教信仰的人認同的。
《莊子·秋水》一書中記載：「莊⼦與惠⼦遊於濠梁之上。莊⼦⽈：『鯈⿂出遊從容，是⿂樂也。』惠⼦⽈：『⼦⾮⿂，安知⿂之樂？ 』莊⼦⽈：『⼦⾮我，安知我不知⿂之樂？』」[6]莊⼦與惠⼦的這段辯論暗⽰了⼀個哲學上的命題：⼀個⼈是否能夠了解另⼀種⽣物的感受？也就是說部落主義者與保護主義者對於非人生物、自然環境的愛，會不會是一種一廂情願，因為我們並不一定能夠理解其他生物對於人類行為的真實看法。尤其在基督宗教中人類被視為萬物之靈，特定宗教內被塑造對環境的愛是否更像是人類對於其他非人生物的憐憫？或許這會是一個難以被釐清的哲學問題，但也許可以嘗試從不同於部落主義者與保護主義者的效益主義（Utilitarianism）所提出的觀點，來重新思考自然保育的原因。效益主義的保育人士把自然保育看成是透過效益計算的結果，而不是宗教和道德的原因[7]。其中的論述像是他們認為保護環境與非人生物是為了人類的利益，讓地球資源可以一 直不斷地被使用，替未來的人類帶來更多益處。人類若用最高效益以及效率投資在自然保育上，那麼就可以期待在未來人類可以得到自然的回報，並讓我們投注在保育上的資源回本。事實上，這就是一種以人為中心的思考邏輯，雖然這樣的想法有時會遭人批判人類過於自私，但是當保育觀點伴隨著保護人類利益時，這樣的實踐通常可以無往不利。舉例來說，現在我們保護生物多樣性，讓大部分的物種不要瀕臨絕種，或許未來我們可以從這些生物體的體內裡發現治療癌症的藥物成分，而這樣的觀點事實上對大多數人都是很有說服力的。只不過這樣的觀點，有時候會與其他派別的保育觀點產生紛爭，像是1912年在美國舊金山，美國政府試圖在優勝美地蓋水庫，提供水給舊金山灣區的民眾，但是前段文章所提及的約翰·繆爾就反對這項建設。他認為惟有保留現狀，才是對待自然環境最好的方式，但是效益主義觀點的保育人士，則認為保育生態應該要讓人類有限度的取用大自然的資源，並在有限的條件下發揮最大的效用。
事實上不管是以人為中心的自然保育觀點，或是嘗試以非人中心觀點的自然保育論述或作品，似乎都很難達到完全的共識。我們也可以發現這些不同論點有時候反而彼此會產生衝突，而至今這些觀點在哲學層次上面，仍然是處於永無止境的辯論狀態，沒有任何一方可以百分之百的說服另外一方。但是不可否認的，我們眼前的地球，的確面對了這樣的困境。回到文章一開始提及的食用蝙蝠引起的蝙蝠保育問題，以及食用野生動物可能造成的病毒傳染，都是真真切切的實際問題。若從創作的角度來看這些問題，我們或許需要提問的是，作為創作者的我們究竟要如何提出更多的感性敘事去激起社會大眾對於這些議題的關注？不管是以解決問題為導向的設計計畫，抑或是探索更多抽象情感的藝術創作，甚至是難以被定義的跨領域實踐，我都認為若能有更多元的創作走向，那麼就有機會開展出更多針對相關議題的不同視角，這些環境爭議能夠被解決、被理解、被感受、被挑釁的機會也就更高。而創作的多元性我認為也是仰賴每個創作者在自身創作脈絡中，能夠與相關議題對話的差異性。這種差異也許是本身文化背景的不同，或是創作手法的迥異，我認為都有機會在概念與表現形式上產生不同的與大眾的對話方式。因此，在針對相同爭議之下，多元的創作便有機會打開不同的思考路徑，引導大眾從不同觀點去反芻各種不同的論述。
除了創作本身的多元之外，我認為另一個重點便是每個生物本身在自然環境中的生態習性的不同，以及該生物與人類文化的關係的差異。從本文中提到的多個創作作品的例子，我們可以發現創作者不管是嘗試解決自然保育爭議或是想要觀眾對該生物有更多感受，創作的核心都不外乎是必須緊扣著該非人生物本身在自然界中的位置與特質，甚至是該生物在人類社會中扮演的角色。透過對於不同的非人生物的研究，每個創作者從生物學或是文化理論中爬梳出該生物的獨特位置，我們也藉此體驗到了每個作品替該生物譜出的故事。我認為即使是同一個創作者在面對類似的爭議，但研究對象若是不同的生物，也絕對會開展出一個完全不同的故事。也就是說本篇文章一開始所關注的焦點「蝙蝠」，當牠成為創作的研究對象時，他可以被說的故事也將因為創作者本身的脈絡以及其本身的生態特性，而會被編織出一個更不同的敘事。在這個後疫情時代，蝙蝠、病毒與人類三者彼此的複雜關係，勢必將成為它與其他動物保育與傳統文化的衝突的差異。不管是歐洲鰻魚、老虎抑或是犀牛，每種非人動物在地球上的狀態，都值得被我們去理解以及感受，在創作者的再次詮釋之下，我們也有機會可以從另一個角度，再去重新檢視我們人類與其他非人生物在地球共存的更多可能。
本文獲國家文化藝術基金會、文新藝術基金會贊助現象書寫–視覺藝評專案支持
》English Version
As mentioned, “Victimless Leather” and “Meat the Future” propose alternative solutions to ecological conservation, focusing on cultured tissues and replicating cells of the source animals. Meanwhile, other artists are adopting biotechnological concepts, such as genetic modification and synthetic biology, into their practice, attempting to combine genes of different species to create hybrid beings and using new beings to deal with those ethical controversies. For instance, “Black Gold” (2014)[1] by Dutch designer Frank Kolkman responds to the rhinoceros endangerment caused by using rhino horns in Chinese medicine. Kolkman proposes to grow rhino horns synthetically in pineapple through genetic transfer, aiming to bring out a solution to preserve the endangered rhino species through biological speculation. This work, then, deals with the recombination and synthesis of DNA on a smaller scale than tissue culture at the anatomical level. Meanwhile, it brings out the ethical issue of humankind creating new species through biotechnology.
Frank Kolkman, Black Gold. Source: https://youtu.be/P1Uk0_HYPrg
Whether it is the speculation of cultured meat on the “cellular and tissue level” or the fictional synthetic organism on the “genetic level,” both projects offer alternative approaches to deal with ecological conservation and animal preservation issues. However, back to the point of departure of this article, can the traditional food and tourism culture of bats eating be replaced by biotechnology-based alternative meat or synthetic plant-based meat? Here, I would like to respond to the inquiry with my two works, “Tiger Penis Project” (2018)[2] and “Tiger Penis Project” (2019-2020)[3]. The projects mentioned focus on the development and possibility of biotechnology. For instance, “Black Gold” doesn’t pay close attention to the cultural background of using rhino horns in Chinese medicine but the synthetic biotechnology itself; therefore, the future scenario it speculates may be missing the context of traditional culture. How do we integrate synthetic rhino horns s into Chinese classic herbal formula? Would the existing formula still be effective when adopting synthetic rhino horns? It seems that Western designers tend to neglect all the cultural factors, which may imply that such a proposal would probably not be accepted by the market. Therefore, “Tiger Penis Project” and “New Ultimate Imperial Feast” attempt to break through the limit. In addition to extensively adopting relevant biotechnology, I also collaborate with traditional Chinese medical practitioners and other experts in traditional culture to integrate many of the traditional practices of Chinese medicine and Asian culinary culture into the speculative scenario. I hope to bring out proposals that maintain original cultural core values and create a win-win situation that preserves the environment and perpetuates the traditional culture.
Ku Kuang-yi, Tiger Penis Project(2018). Photo credit: Ku Kuang-yi
However, these projects are still centered on speculative solutions for environmental preservation and traditional culture controversies. Lastly, “F/EEL,” a collective project by the Netherlands-based Taiwanese artists Lo Sheng-wen and Chen Yi-fei, takes a particular perspective. As a participatory project, this work allows the audience to experience the living condition of another living being physically. The two artists design a space equipped with a series of interactive contraptions that simulate European eels’ life trajectories. Participants should pass through a series of obstacles in the space as if they are playing an escape room game. Obstacles throughout the passage symbolize hindrances that European eels may encounter when moving through various areas, and the artists try to rebuild artificial barriers for the European eels.
Ku Kuang-yi in collaboration with Hong Kong food designer, New Ultimate Imperial Feast(2019-2020). Photo credit: Ku Kuang-yi
Lo Sheng-wen and Chen Yi-fei, F/EEL, (2020-ongoing) source: https://www.shengwenlo.com/f-eel
The European eels are the ingredient of smoked eels, a traditional dish called gerookte paling in the Netherlands, and a large amount of eel fry enter the Asian market through smuggling. However, the population of European eels has dropped drastically, and the species is critically endangered. Eels begin their life cycle in the ocean and migrate to freshwater, returning to the ocean to spawn. They constantly migrate through various areas, and it is not yet possible to breed eels artificially, which makes eel conservation particularly difficult. In my opinion, “F/EEL” doesn’t attempt to seek solutions to ecological conservation conundrums but offers an opportunity for its audience to experience eels’ migratory pathway physically. It is more likely to raise the public’s awareness of the plight of wildlife through the critical “physicality” within the project. Meanwhile, the work may trigger the audience to consider the whole environment from a non-human perspective, and it seems that the artists are attempting to explore a non-human-centric standpoint through this project.
Lo Sheng-wen and Chen Yi-fei, F/EEL, (2020-ongoing) source: https://www.shengwenlo.com/f-eel “F/EEL” implies, in a sense, an expectation that humankind could better understand the living conditions of non-human beings in nature. If we could evoke human beings’ love and care for nature, there might be a chance to modify how human beings deal with the natural environment in the time of climate change. In my opinion, the message hidden behind this work shares thought-provoking ideas in common with tribalists who advocate environmental conservation. Tribalists believe the natural environment possesses spiritual essences, and humankind must strive to re-establish a harmonious relationship with all beings in nature. Lifestyles in indigenous cultures provide us a paradigm for such values, and the tribalists thus look to indigenous tribes around the world to serve as a model for coexisting with nature. However, the counter-argument questions whether the concept of respecting nature comes from the lack of technological development in indigenous cultures, which forces them to surrender to nature. Similarly, preservationists have the same endless love for nature. John Muir, an early advocate for the preservation in the United States, was a leading and influential figure in naturalist thinking, having founded the important environmental organization Sierra Club. Many of his writing and thoughts have significantly shaped the modern environmental movement. In his Our National Parks (1907), he wrote, “The forests of America, however slighted by man, must have been a great delight to God; for they were the best he ever planted.” From the lines, we can see that the conservationist enthusiasm for the natural environment is strongly linked to religion and faith. They believe that God created all things and that the moral standards of faith and the protection of nature are juxtaposed. As one can imagine, on a certain level, it isn't easy to share such an idea with people who do not have a particular religious belief.
Back to the start of the article, it is urgent and relevant to deal with the conservation of bats and the possible infection and virus transmission caused by consuming wildlife. From an artist’s perspective, perhaps the question we should raise is how we can develop more narratives of affect and arouse the public’s attention to these issues. Whether it is a problem-solving design project, an artwork exploring abstract emotions, or even an indistinct cross-disciplinary practice, I believe that if there are more diversified approaches, there will be a chance to develop various perspectives to solve, comprehend, feel, and provoke those issues. The diversity of art creations also relies on artists’ distinct interpretations of the current situations, which may be different from their cultural backgrounds or various means of creation. Therefore, artists are likely to generate different ways of dialogue with the public with their concepts and expression.
In addition to the diversity of artists’ works, other crucial elements are different tendencies of individual living creatures in the natural environment and the differences and relationships between animals and humans in the cultural context. From the examples mentioned in this article, we can see that whether the artist intend to deal with a nature conservation controversy or to provoke the audience’s empathy for the creature, the core of the works focus on the position and characteristics of the non-human creature itself, even their status and the role they play in human society. Through the study of each non-human creature, artists encapsulate a unique position of each animal in the context of biology and cultural theories, and through the interpretations, we realize stories behind these creatures. Thus, when the “bat” becomes the research subject, different artists would develop distinct stories depending on their backgrounds. In the post-pandemic era, the complex relationship between bats, viruses, and humans offers the bats a specific position in the midst of conflicts between wildlife conservation and traditional cultures. Whether it is the European eel, the tiger, or the rhinoceros, animals deserve to be understood. The artists offer us opportunities to explore the possibilities of living with other creatures on earth from alternative perspectives through their artworks.
[5] Muir, John. Our National Parks. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1901.
[6] Zhou, Z. (476–221 BC). The Debate on the Joy of Fish. chapter “Qiu Shui”, Zhuangzi.
[7] Singer, Peter. Animal liberation : a new ethics for our treatment of animals. London: Jonathan Cape, 1975.
Comments