★英語(yǔ)資源頻道為大家整理的china daily 雙語(yǔ)新聞：時(shí)尚界的混搭也就是另一種創(chuàng)造，供大家參考。更多閱讀請(qǐng)查看本站英語(yǔ)資源頻道。
Ninety-seven years ago, a young French artist walked across Manhattan into 118 Fifth Avenue, an outlet for J L Mott Iron Works. Perhaps tickled by the prank he was about to play, Marcel Duchamp purchased a Bedfordshire urinal. Returning to his studio, he signed it on the rim, “R. Mutt 1917”, and gave it a title: “Fountain”. The date - a day late, perhaps? - was April 2.
97年前，一位年輕的法國(guó)藝術(shù)家穿過(guò)美國(guó)紐約市的曼哈頓，走進(jìn)JL莫特鐵制品廠(J L Mott Iron Works)位于第五大道118號(hào)的一家銷售店。馬塞爾杜尚(Marcel Duchamp)也許正為他要玩的惡作劇開心不已：他買了一個(gè)貝德福德郡小便池?；氐焦ぷ魇液螅谛”愠剡吷虾炇鹆恕癛. Mutt 1917”的字樣，并為這個(gè)作品起了個(gè)名字——“泉”(Fountain)。那一天的日期是4月2日。
Duchamp's “Fountain” vanished almost immediately; perhaps thrown away, perhaps smashed to pieces by the outraged committee at the Society of Independent Artists, which had opened an exhibition to all comers only to find Duchamp calling its bluff. Yet as we know, the story does not end there.
杜尚的《泉》差不多很快就消失了，也許它被扔掉了，也許被獨(dú)立藝術(shù)家協(xié)會(huì)(Society of Independent Artists)怒不可遏的委員們打成碎片了——該委員會(huì)為所有提交作品者舉行了一次展覽，卻遭到了杜尚的公然挑戰(zhàn)。不過(guò)，正如我們所知道的，故事并未到此結(jié)束。
“Fountain” was copied: 15 replicas adorn art galleries, each endorsed by Duchamp. But more interesting are the transformations of “Fountain” that produce something new - for instance, Andy Warhol's “Campbell's Soup Cans” or Pablo Picasso's “Bull's Head”, to say nothing of the idea that a work of art could be just that: an idea.
《泉》被復(fù)制了：共有15件復(fù)制品，被各個(gè)畫廊收藏，每件復(fù)制品都是由杜尚授權(quán)制作的。不過(guò)，更有意思的是，《泉》的變形形式帶來(lái)了一些新的東西——比如安迪沃霍爾(Andy Warhol)的《金寶罐頭湯》(Campbell's Soup Cans)和巴勃羅?畢加索(Pablo Picasso)的《牛頭》(Bull's Head)。且不提“一件藝術(shù)品就是一個(gè)創(chuàng)意”這種觀念了。
It has become fashionable to assert - as the writer and director Kirkby Ferguson has done in his films - that “everything is a remix”. All creative acts, he says, copy, combine and transform earlier ideas. It's a convincing thesis. Gutenberg's printing press was inspired by a wine press, while Apple's Macintosh borrowed from Xerox's Alto, Nirvana's “Smells Like Teen Spirit” transforms a riff from Boston's “More Than A Feeling” and George Lucas's Star Wars owes a debt to Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.
如今，聲稱“一切都是混搭”——正如編劇兼導(dǎo)演柯克比?弗格森(Kirkby Ferguson)在其電影中所做的那樣——已經(jīng)成了一種時(shí)髦。弗格森說(shuō)，所有創(chuàng)作行為都是對(duì)先有創(chuàng)意的復(fù)制、結(jié)合和轉(zhuǎn)變。這是一個(gè)有說(shuō)服力的論點(diǎn)。古登堡(Gutenberg)印刷機(jī)的靈感來(lái)自葡萄酒榨汁機(jī)，蘋果(Apple)的麥金塔電腦(Macintosh)借用了施樂(lè)(Xerox)阿爾托(Alto)的創(chuàng)意，涅槃樂(lè)隊(duì)(Nirvana)的《少年心氣》(Smells Like Teen Spirit)把波士頓樂(lè)隊(duì)的《超越感覺(jué)》(More Than A Feeling)中的一個(gè)重復(fù)段落做了變形，而喬治?盧卡斯(George Lucas)的《星球大戰(zhàn)》(Star Wars)構(gòu)思來(lái)源于黑澤明(Akira Kurosawa)的《戰(zhàn)國(guó)英豪》(The Hidden Fortress)。
But what is it about an idea that makes it remixable? It's worth distinguishing between an idea that provokes lots of derivative work, and one that inspires something new and exciting. “Fountain” did both but perhaps there's a trade-off between fecundity and the ability to inspire original successors. “Apache” by the Incredible Bongo Band has been much sampled but hardly inspired a generation in the way that the Velvet Underground did.
不過(guò)，到底是什么令一種創(chuàng)意可以混搭？在這里，應(yīng)該區(qū)分兩種不同創(chuàng)意，一種創(chuàng)意引發(fā)一系列衍生性作品，另一種創(chuàng)意則能啟發(fā)某些新的激動(dòng)人心的東西。《泉》兩種特點(diǎn)兼而有之，但也許在衍生性和啟迪原創(chuàng)繼承者的能力之間有所取舍。非凡邦戈樂(lè)隊(duì)(Incredible Bongo Band)的《阿帕奇》(Apache)曾被大量借鑒，然而它并未象地下天鵝絨樂(lè)隊(duì)(Velvet Underground)那樣啟迪一代人。
Andres Monroy-Hernandez, now a researcher at Microsoft, and Benjamin Mako Hill, a hacker and researcher at the University of Washington, have conjectured that there may be a “remixing dilemma“: the elements that encourage people to appropriate and adapt a previous work are, alas, not conducive to originality in the new work.
微軟(Microsoft)研究員安德烈斯蒙羅伊-埃爾南德斯(Andres Monroy-Hernandez)和黑客、華盛頓大學(xué)(University of Washington)研究員本杰明馬科希爾(Benjamin Mako Hill)認(rèn)為，或許存在一種“混搭困境”：早先的藝術(shù)品中鼓勵(lì)人們借用并修改的元素，不利于新藝術(shù)品的原創(chuàng)性。
Mako Hill and Monroy-Hernandez suggest that an idea that is fairly simple, that comes from an already-famous creator, and that is itself a remix, will tend to spawn many imitators. But these are precisely the qualities - moderate simplicity, notoriety and being part of a chain of remixes - that might reduce the originality of further derivative work.
馬科希爾和蒙羅伊-埃爾南德斯提出，如果一個(gè)創(chuàng)意相當(dāng)簡(jiǎn)單，來(lái)自一個(gè)已成名的創(chuàng)作者，而且本身是一種混搭，那么它很可能催生許多模仿者。然而，可能正是這些特質(zhì)（適度簡(jiǎn)約，名聲響亮，而且是某個(gè)混搭鏈條的一環(huán)）可能會(huì)降低衍生作品的原創(chuàng)性。
Mako Hill and Monroy-Hernandez have tested their hypotheses in one particular setting, Scratch, a child-friendly programming language with a strong community. Scratch programmers are encouraged to share their programs and to use those of others as a basis for further work. A rich dataset is available, allowing the researchers to compare the complexity, popularity and (to some extent) the originality of programs shared on the site.
馬科?希爾和蒙羅伊-埃爾南德斯以面向兒童的編程語(yǔ)言Scratch為對(duì)象，測(cè)試了自己的假說(shuō)。Scratch具有強(qiáng)大的社區(qū)支持，編程者被鼓勵(lì)分享他們的程序，并被鼓勵(lì)利用他人程序作為進(jìn)一步開發(fā)的基礎(chǔ)。該語(yǔ)言提供了一個(gè)海量數(shù)據(jù)集合，令研究人員能夠比較網(wǎng)上所分享程序的復(fù)雜度、受歡迎程度，以及（在某種程度上）原創(chuàng)性。
In Scratch, there does seem to be a remixing trade-off: more famous community members find their work remixed a lot - often in trivial ways; the same is true for already-remixed projects. But the trade-off is less apparent on the important metric of complexity. More complex programs are remixed more often, yet also with more originality, than simple ones. This is surprising given the conventional wisdom in open-source software that it is best to release simple, early versions to encourage the community to improve on them.
在Scratch中，混搭似乎確實(shí)存在取舍：比較有名的社區(qū)成員的程序被混搭了許多次——往往是以瑣碎的方式；那些原本就是混搭的項(xiàng)目也存在這種現(xiàn)象。不過(guò)，在復(fù)雜度這個(gè)重要指標(biāo)上，這種取舍表現(xiàn)得不那么明顯。比較復(fù)雜的程序被混搭的次數(shù)更多，而這些混搭也比簡(jiǎn)單程序更具原創(chuàng)性。這一點(diǎn)讓人意外，因?yàn)樵陂_源軟件領(lǐng)域有一種“傳統(tǒng)智慧”：盡早發(fā)布簡(jiǎn)單的早期版本，鼓勵(lì)社區(qū)加以改進(jìn)。
Then again, Duchamp's idea could hardly have been simpler - and nobody could suggest that subsequent artists have ignored it.
可話說(shuō)回來(lái)，杜尚的創(chuàng)意恐怕簡(jiǎn)單得不能再簡(jiǎn)單，但沒(méi)人敢說(shuō)后代的藝術(shù)家忽略了它。
Ninety-seven years ago, a young French artist walked across Manhattan into 118 Fifth Avenue, an outlet for J L Mott Iron Works. Perhaps tickled by the prank he was about to play, Marcel Duchamp purchased a Bedfordshire urinal. Returning to his studio, he signed it on the rim, “R. Mutt 1917”, and gave it a title: “Fountain”. The date - a day late, perhaps? - was April 2.
97年前，一位年輕的法國(guó)藝術(shù)家穿過(guò)美國(guó)紐約市的曼哈頓，走進(jìn)JL莫特鐵制品廠(J L Mott Iron Works)位于第五大道118號(hào)的一家銷售店。馬塞爾杜尚(Marcel Duchamp)也許正為他要玩的惡作劇開心不已：他買了一個(gè)貝德福德郡小便池?；氐焦ぷ魇液螅谛”愠剡吷虾炇鹆恕癛. Mutt 1917”的字樣，并為這個(gè)作品起了個(gè)名字——“泉”(Fountain)。那一天的日期是4月2日。
Duchamp's “Fountain” vanished almost immediately; perhaps thrown away, perhaps smashed to pieces by the outraged committee at the Society of Independent Artists, which had opened an exhibition to all comers only to find Duchamp calling its bluff. Yet as we know, the story does not end there.
杜尚的《泉》差不多很快就消失了，也許它被扔掉了，也許被獨(dú)立藝術(shù)家協(xié)會(huì)(Society of Independent Artists)怒不可遏的委員們打成碎片了——該委員會(huì)為所有提交作品者舉行了一次展覽，卻遭到了杜尚的公然挑戰(zhàn)。不過(guò)，正如我們所知道的，故事并未到此結(jié)束。
“Fountain” was copied: 15 replicas adorn art galleries, each endorsed by Duchamp. But more interesting are the transformations of “Fountain” that produce something new - for instance, Andy Warhol's “Campbell's Soup Cans” or Pablo Picasso's “Bull's Head”, to say nothing of the idea that a work of art could be just that: an idea.
《泉》被復(fù)制了：共有15件復(fù)制品，被各個(gè)畫廊收藏，每件復(fù)制品都是由杜尚授權(quán)制作的。不過(guò)，更有意思的是，《泉》的變形形式帶來(lái)了一些新的東西——比如安迪沃霍爾(Andy Warhol)的《金寶罐頭湯》(Campbell's Soup Cans)和巴勃羅?畢加索(Pablo Picasso)的《牛頭》(Bull's Head)。且不提“一件藝術(shù)品就是一個(gè)創(chuàng)意”這種觀念了。
It has become fashionable to assert - as the writer and director Kirkby Ferguson has done in his films - that “everything is a remix”. All creative acts, he says, copy, combine and transform earlier ideas. It's a convincing thesis. Gutenberg's printing press was inspired by a wine press, while Apple's Macintosh borrowed from Xerox's Alto, Nirvana's “Smells Like Teen Spirit” transforms a riff from Boston's “More Than A Feeling” and George Lucas's Star Wars owes a debt to Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.
如今，聲稱“一切都是混搭”——正如編劇兼導(dǎo)演柯克比?弗格森(Kirkby Ferguson)在其電影中所做的那樣——已經(jīng)成了一種時(shí)髦。弗格森說(shuō)，所有創(chuàng)作行為都是對(duì)先有創(chuàng)意的復(fù)制、結(jié)合和轉(zhuǎn)變。這是一個(gè)有說(shuō)服力的論點(diǎn)。古登堡(Gutenberg)印刷機(jī)的靈感來(lái)自葡萄酒榨汁機(jī)，蘋果(Apple)的麥金塔電腦(Macintosh)借用了施樂(lè)(Xerox)阿爾托(Alto)的創(chuàng)意，涅槃樂(lè)隊(duì)(Nirvana)的《少年心氣》(Smells Like Teen Spirit)把波士頓樂(lè)隊(duì)的《超越感覺(jué)》(More Than A Feeling)中的一個(gè)重復(fù)段落做了變形，而喬治?盧卡斯(George Lucas)的《星球大戰(zhàn)》(Star Wars)構(gòu)思來(lái)源于黑澤明(Akira Kurosawa)的《戰(zhàn)國(guó)英豪》(The Hidden Fortress)。
But what is it about an idea that makes it remixable? It's worth distinguishing between an idea that provokes lots of derivative work, and one that inspires something new and exciting. “Fountain” did both but perhaps there's a trade-off between fecundity and the ability to inspire original successors. “Apache” by the Incredible Bongo Band has been much sampled but hardly inspired a generation in the way that the Velvet Underground did.
不過(guò)，到底是什么令一種創(chuàng)意可以混搭？在這里，應(yīng)該區(qū)分兩種不同創(chuàng)意，一種創(chuàng)意引發(fā)一系列衍生性作品，另一種創(chuàng)意則能啟發(fā)某些新的激動(dòng)人心的東西。《泉》兩種特點(diǎn)兼而有之，但也許在衍生性和啟迪原創(chuàng)繼承者的能力之間有所取舍。非凡邦戈樂(lè)隊(duì)(Incredible Bongo Band)的《阿帕奇》(Apache)曾被大量借鑒，然而它并未象地下天鵝絨樂(lè)隊(duì)(Velvet Underground)那樣啟迪一代人。
Andres Monroy-Hernandez, now a researcher at Microsoft, and Benjamin Mako Hill, a hacker and researcher at the University of Washington, have conjectured that there may be a “remixing dilemma“: the elements that encourage people to appropriate and adapt a previous work are, alas, not conducive to originality in the new work.
微軟(Microsoft)研究員安德烈斯蒙羅伊-埃爾南德斯(Andres Monroy-Hernandez)和黑客、華盛頓大學(xué)(University of Washington)研究員本杰明馬科希爾(Benjamin Mako Hill)認(rèn)為，或許存在一種“混搭困境”：早先的藝術(shù)品中鼓勵(lì)人們借用并修改的元素，不利于新藝術(shù)品的原創(chuàng)性。
Mako Hill and Monroy-Hernandez suggest that an idea that is fairly simple, that comes from an already-famous creator, and that is itself a remix, will tend to spawn many imitators. But these are precisely the qualities - moderate simplicity, notoriety and being part of a chain of remixes - that might reduce the originality of further derivative work.
馬科希爾和蒙羅伊-埃爾南德斯提出，如果一個(gè)創(chuàng)意相當(dāng)簡(jiǎn)單，來(lái)自一個(gè)已成名的創(chuàng)作者，而且本身是一種混搭，那么它很可能催生許多模仿者。然而，可能正是這些特質(zhì)（適度簡(jiǎn)約，名聲響亮，而且是某個(gè)混搭鏈條的一環(huán)）可能會(huì)降低衍生作品的原創(chuàng)性。
Mako Hill and Monroy-Hernandez have tested their hypotheses in one particular setting, Scratch, a child-friendly programming language with a strong community. Scratch programmers are encouraged to share their programs and to use those of others as a basis for further work. A rich dataset is available, allowing the researchers to compare the complexity, popularity and (to some extent) the originality of programs shared on the site.
馬科?希爾和蒙羅伊-埃爾南德斯以面向兒童的編程語(yǔ)言Scratch為對(duì)象，測(cè)試了自己的假說(shuō)。Scratch具有強(qiáng)大的社區(qū)支持，編程者被鼓勵(lì)分享他們的程序，并被鼓勵(lì)利用他人程序作為進(jìn)一步開發(fā)的基礎(chǔ)。該語(yǔ)言提供了一個(gè)海量數(shù)據(jù)集合，令研究人員能夠比較網(wǎng)上所分享程序的復(fù)雜度、受歡迎程度，以及（在某種程度上）原創(chuàng)性。
In Scratch, there does seem to be a remixing trade-off: more famous community members find their work remixed a lot - often in trivial ways; the same is true for already-remixed projects. But the trade-off is less apparent on the important metric of complexity. More complex programs are remixed more often, yet also with more originality, than simple ones. This is surprising given the conventional wisdom in open-source software that it is best to release simple, early versions to encourage the community to improve on them.
在Scratch中，混搭似乎確實(shí)存在取舍：比較有名的社區(qū)成員的程序被混搭了許多次——往往是以瑣碎的方式；那些原本就是混搭的項(xiàng)目也存在這種現(xiàn)象。不過(guò)，在復(fù)雜度這個(gè)重要指標(biāo)上，這種取舍表現(xiàn)得不那么明顯。比較復(fù)雜的程序被混搭的次數(shù)更多，而這些混搭也比簡(jiǎn)單程序更具原創(chuàng)性。這一點(diǎn)讓人意外，因?yàn)樵陂_源軟件領(lǐng)域有一種“傳統(tǒng)智慧”：盡早發(fā)布簡(jiǎn)單的早期版本，鼓勵(lì)社區(qū)加以改進(jìn)。
Then again, Duchamp's idea could hardly have been simpler - and nobody could suggest that subsequent artists have ignored it.
可話說(shuō)回來(lái)，杜尚的創(chuàng)意恐怕簡(jiǎn)單得不能再簡(jiǎn)單，但沒(méi)人敢說(shuō)后代的藝術(shù)家忽略了它。