吉拉德·奈斯特勒

Li Zhenhua： Please tell us more about yourself and your project dealing with economy.

Gerald Nestler： As an artist （trained as a painter at the Academy of fine arts Vienna） I engaged with media and internet art in the beginning of the 1990s. the world wide web was then not a reality but there was a strong notion of the ’primordial’ internet as a new field of artistic experiment， exchange and aesthetics. However， I realized rather quickly that its development would result in a social field of multifarious actors and interests， with the economy as a major player （while the initial utopia was more about an alternative field beyond economic profit relations）. This led me to investigate economy and （as I thought of it as a pressing issue， the aspect that had become its core） financial markets. Rather than studying the field academically， I decide to engage directly - as an artist I was not only interested in the theory but also in the practices in the field as well as the possible ’effects’ on me as a person - and started to work as a broker and trader （1994-7）. This artistic fieldwork was certainly extremely instructive on a lot of levels and has since posed the foundation from which I’ve developed my work both as an artist and a researcher/ writer. I read financial derivatives as a state of the art convergence of mathematics， physics， speculation， economics， quantification， logistics， and computation in between probability regime and matter， which in my reading has informed social relations beyond finance and the market proper - hence what I call Human Derivative as the currently constitutive notion of biopolitical subjectivity， or， in other words， the glue and at the same time solvent of relationality （in the words of Stiegler， the both toxic and curing‘pharmacon’）. social relations， therefore， to me have in many ways become derivative （thus extending the notion of financilization）， not in the simple use of the term ‘deriving from’ but by an apparatus that was initially developed in finance to rationalize and evaluate risk and thus render a future-at-present. in line with Elie Ayache， I see derivatives as a technology proper， or， what I term， a technowledge - and one of the initial fields of algorithmization. here lies the root that allows reading（i.e. forces us to read） them beyond their distinct and rather arcane manifestation in the markets， as the increasingly underlying principle of social relations/evaluations between people as well as their institutions.

In very short words （too short， I fear）， while from the perspective of politics we speak of subjects， a society that bases its desire to produce a future out of the present on economization is derivative.

Li Zhenhua： so what the next deri-vatives， and what you think of the social-media engaged auction and sales？ how much we involved in the future-at-presents with the technology which will change our behavior and society， importantly our mind of thinking and reaction to things， what do you see the participative culture today and the occupy spirit？ Your work plastic tradeoff is a real time project focus on the changes of the economy world， what brings you this focus and why？

Gerald Nestler： plastic trade-off is a project we realized in 2006 and thus before the current crisis （the foundation of my concept of Human Derivatives was also developed long before this epochmaking event）. it maps notions such as globalization， concurrency， competition， technolo-gy， algorithmic circuits， and econo-mics realized in the markets and at the same time illustrates in the most obvious ways in as much these notions are ideologies rather than realities - meaning that ideology is framing and making reality against other possible realities. If you like， it is the portrait， or emblem， of a bio-political system beyond politics by addressing the turn in notions such as performance， speculation， logistics， decision-making power， etc. I won’t go into further details of the work as such， as you can find those on my and Sylvia’s webpages（http：//www.geraldnestler.net / plastictradeoff/index.htm / http：//syleckermann.net /plastictradeoff/index.html）

Li Zhenhua： your work function on the world economy surveillance system， what have been changed in the last 8 years， do you gathering those info for further development in your work， and what that relate to the reality？ does money transfer change the world or does that have a invisible relation to the change of the world today？

Gerald Nestler： plastic trade-off is a project we realized in 2006 and thus before the current crisis （the foundation of my concept of Human Derivatives was also developed long before this epochmaking event）. it maps notions such as globalization， concurrency， competition， technolo-gy， algorithmic circuits， and econo-mics realized in the markets and at the same time illustrates in the most obvious ways in as much these notions are ideologies rather than realities - meaning that ideology is framing and making reality against other possible realities. If you like， it is the portrait， or emblem， of a bio-political system beyond politics by addressing the turn in notions such as performance， speculation， logistics， decision-making power， etc. I won’t go into further details of the work as such， as you can find those on my and Sylvia’s webpages （http：//www. geraldnestler.net / plastictradeoff/index.htm / http：//syl-eckermann.net /plastictradeoff/index. html）

Li Zhenhua： your work function on the world economy surveillance system， what have been changed in the last 8 years， do you gathering those info for further development in your work， and what that relate to the reality？ does money transfer change the world or does that have a invisible relation to the change of the world today？

Gerald Nestler： Yes， I do. And regarding the ‘changes’ - not long after Plastic Tradeoff was presented， the financial crisis hit at global dimensions. Interestingly， this did not lead to stricter regulation. Quite to the contrary， we are even more under the dictates of neoliberal economic ’necessities’ with financial markets as the paradigmatic institutions of global governance. Nation states have been financialized to a much larger degree than before. For a lot of people， reality has a darker shade of meaning with terribly restricted possibilities for their present as well as future. Technological development， quantitative evaluation and self-regulation have brought about a situation in which financial markets – even though they constitute a heavily contested field of diverging ideologies and interests within - has become quasitotalitarian， i.e. governs the world but cannot be governed by the ‘world’. Crucially， self-regulation interferes with public interests， which have to submit to the wills of financialization. Financial markets from stock exchanges to complex derivative markets are based on money as the ‘material’ equivalent of price （with price discovery being the essence of financial markets） and therefore money is the agent of these changes. It’s not only money in its physical appearance but as a token against uncertainty， as the medium of pricing the future（at-present）. If price negotiates change in the world （what is valued over something else）， money supplements this process as agent （an extremely powerful agent， as it were， as the immense range of agency from austerity measures and debt traps to quantitative easing and offshore tax havens indicates）. Today， money is rather a speculative trajectory redeeming future profits on quantified risk options at present （with the future and the present divided by microseconds only in high-frequency trading） rather than an investment tool for classical capitalist production cycles.

Li Zhenhua： When we talk about economy or intangible issues in art， what do you see your position for now？

Gerald Nestler： This question is not easy to answer because it depends on the entry point for the discussion.

it would on the one hand mean a discussion of （partly conflicting） terms such as value and price， credit and speculation - i.e. recognition and the notion of making the future as an interpretative （probabilistic） ‘oracle’of the world in which we will dwell or will be expelled from （both in human and algo time horizons） and a forensics of the future in contrast to reality constructs of the past - it therefore deals with the politics of narratives in which the intangible is less a form of the spiritual （of whatever color） but options of matter not yet actualized but already calibrated （derivatives as evaluation machines）. this is specifically interesting for（visual） art， as it entails a power regime that arguably for the first time in history is ‘iconoclast’ - it is not only devoid of representation but would rather destroy representation if there was one （how do you visualize the maths of algorithms or derivatives that are the cybernetic profit and evaluation machines in order to communicate their meaning， i.e. tell their story？ to me， not by coincidence this is beyond the visual as we know it）. so， how can we comprehend， narrate and counter a system quite devoid of visuality and representative artifacts（a fundamental precinct of human perception and understanding）？ what are our material means to unearth what seems immaterial and is at the same time truly material in the way it constructs relations？ Thus the new interest in philosophy in objects as a narrative vectors of relations rather than fixed things？ how much affirmation is entailed to comprehend in order to craft artistic works that incorporate actual critique？ there seems to be a necessity for a change towards research， performance and activism， a more political approach which once more focuses on the Aristotelian divide between polis and oeconomia but with an understanding of technologies， media and recognition apparatuses...

on the other hand， with less and less artistic space for exchange， discussion and representation outside the market framework （which today not only includes collectors， galleries， auction houses， art fairs but increasingly museums， biennials and other formats）- which implies an increase in precariousness - the intangible is， bluntly， whatever is not touched by the market. one could， in very brief words， surmount this to the observation of the collector-gallery-art fair-triumvirat in which the underlying value （paradigmatic modern and avant-garde art） is sustained by engagement with contemporary work， which would here be defined as being based on （i.e. contextualising） the underlying； yet and crucially is devoid of its radical political impetus. a true derivative principle， which allows maintaining the price of the pure （castrated） value of modern/avantgarde art by scores of contemporary risk options which deliver the future artistic ’hall-of-famers’ （or， with a word used， the ‘blue chips’） and thus ongoing ideological supremacy， the sine qua non of a specific understanding of art on a level of economized rather

than political relations and engage-ment. this， to be clear， is a trap also political art tends to fall into more often than not， when it is part and parcel of attention economy strate-gies.

Li Zhenhua： Iconoclast is an interes-ting term， What is the tradition， do we construct it ourselves， or we just use it because is better to be there for the contrast of something unpredicted or unstable？ I am also interested in what you said about the artistic exchange and space， I assume we have never the broad band like today to connect art is a full and total in our time， art have been transformed so much， in your work plastic tradeoff， the artistic engagement is so strong still， because the dynamic and comprehensive involvement of the work have construct or just shifted the beauty of the reality make it so fascinating， even without the knowledge of the economy of today， that people can still experience the light as enlightenment， that make me think lots of what we know and what we do not know， and our society developed so much in this direction toward the separated knowledge based modular or micro social society. People do not share the same knowledge or a common ground for understanding， do you see art have the possibility in sharing understanding， but not in the tool or usefulness driven aspect.

Gerald Nestler： My use of the term iconoclast is less about a furor to destroy images and narratives but more about a notion of a realm which ‘has never known’ images， representations， as a form of public communication. Algorithms， for example， are operations， not representations. However， to communicate and convey meaning and deal with the unstable and unpredictable， as you say， the visual， or to use a broader term， the sensual， is prerequisite. So， I don’t use iconoclast within its typical meaning. It rather denotes operational processes that are beyond perception（quasi-aniconic）. One example how to dissolve such‘iconoclasm’ at least to some degree is the story I tell in my work Countering Capitulation （https：//vimeo.com/ geraldnestler） and my accompanying text Mayhem in Mahwah （www.geraldnestler.net - last text in the white book）.

Knowledge society proves to be less about learning to know than aboutbeing informed （in its double meaning）， less about inquiring than participating. By taking part we are information resource； we are shifting and changing‘states，’ still stable enough to attach specific ‘truths’ to a person （e.g. by data mining）. This ‘truth’ is part of the current construction of subjectivity； it is our cultural sphere. Beauty as a notion of disinterested enjoyment might （again） be a luxury for the few， the 1 per cent； but I’m not sure if this classical Western idea is still valid. What is disinterest if speculation is on interest of appreciation？ However， beauty might be in the complexities that form societies， organisms， etc.， which could lead to the insight that beauty is precondition for inquiry beyond conventional contemporary art and its interpretative openness– you can playand enjoy the symbolic level but an alternative approach might be triggered， which would lead to queries and a deep involvement with specific issues. We “know” （but might not always admit it） that everything we do has consequences. In a world of networked information， everything is connected and thus becomes a sensor and a trigger. Consequences abound. Concerning artistic practice， I think “aesthetics in the field of consequences” （to use a term by Anselm Franke and EyalWeizman） is an example for an interesting approach， as it goes beyond symbolic representation （and， of course， the old divide between the artist/genius and the observing art lover） to forms of artistic engagement both of archeological and/or forensic investigation and the visualization of presences from which evidence emerges. This approach seems to fulfill the idea of sharing an understanding even though it is not （or doesn’t have to be） participatory or interactive in the sense of e.g. media art. Rather， it opens to discourse， knowledge， and debate by inviting and assembling different spheres， or， as you say， “micro” societies of engagement. It might not facilitatefar-reaching common ground directly but is still the site of \"common grounding\" as a process of focusing and sharing radical thought and activism. Those who participate often engage in different forms of activism， and art would be a ‘place’ where different forms of activism meet， share and discuss. Other than that， artworks might sometimes be able to provoke emotions and thought， but I’m not sure if as an artist you can or should control this if you don’t want to engage in art as calculus. We all speculate， I guess， but in my case， I prefer to speculate on speculation rather than on instrumentalizing my ‘success options.’

“后人類學”的世界

-

李振華 X Gerald Nestler

（李振華=LZH ， Gerald Nestler=GN ）

LZH： 請向讀者介紹一下你自己，以及你以經濟為話題的項目。

GN：我是一名藝術家，早年在維也納藝術大學接受了繪畫訓練。自90年代初期起，我投入在媒體藝術和網絡藝術的創作中。在當時，我們今日熟知的“萬維網”（world wide web）還不是廣泛存在的現實，但當時已存在強烈的、以網絡形態的原始雛形作為新興藝術實驗、交流和審美發生場所的觀念。然而，我迅速地意識到，網絡的發展將會帶來更廣泛的、擁有多重參與者和興趣點的社會領域的誕生，在這個社會形態中，經濟將會扮演主要的角色（而早期的烏托邦概念則更多地是關于一種有別于經濟利益關系的社會形態）。

這樣的意識讓我開始研究經濟領域，尤其是金融市場。在網絡的早期時代，對金融市場的注意力激增。我并沒有用學術的方法來研究這個領域，而是選擇了直接參與進去——作為一個藝術家，我不僅對理論感興趣，也想了解金融領域中的實踐、以及這些實踐對于我作為個體所產生何種生理和心理“效用”。因此，在94年到97年之間，我選擇了從事金融交易員和經紀人的工作。這次藝術的領域研究無疑是在很多層面極其有指導性的，也為我作為一個藝術家和研究者/寫作者的工作發展奠定了很好的基礎。

我理解金融衍生品為一種建立在概率和物質的邊界上的、融合了數學、經濟學、量化、電腦運算和邏輯學的藝術狀態，并置身于一個量化推測的空間，鏈接物質與概率、不確定與確定的風險抉擇。……