以下為嘗試翻譯稿，請謹慎閱讀。如有誤導，概不負責。

海杜克：現(xiàn)代繪畫的新事物是關于一層膜，以及突破那層膜。我探討了立體主義的觀點，即集中的概念。要么向內壓縮，要么向外、向邊緣發(fā)散。正如“菱形宮”那樣，在“菱形宮”里集中的、體積的形式向線性的、平面的條件轉換。隨著體積向空間延伸，它變得更加幾何化，不再那么有機（生物形態(tài)）。我從來不曾真正定義過這些問題，只是研究它們。

沃爾：風格派廢除了中心，以整體的動態(tài)平衡取代之，而立體主義則頑強地堅持著集中形。你試圖將這對立的一對“撮合”在一起。

海杜克：是的。嘗試在做，這在建筑學中是困難的。

沃爾：你是否認為在這段時間里，你的創(chuàng)造性思維被這類問題所占據，以致于排除了所有其他的問題?

海杜克：是的。學術上的“全心投入”。因為他們屬于那個時代。

沃爾：但在建筑學領域，并沒有其他人有任何程度的參與，所以你怎么能說這個問題是“他們那個時代”的呢?

海杜克：因為別人沒有參與？那？他們參與了什么？

沃爾：其他的一些領域。他們所涉及的領域與你不太一樣。所以，當你說“他們屬于那個時代”時你到底指什么意思？這是一個你經常使用的措詞。你所指的到底是哪個時代，別人的還是你自己的?

海杜克：（停頓）我有嘗試區(qū)分。但，那樣我就會脫離時代。不再屬于那個時代，而是脫離時代。這是屬于他們那個時代的作品。這并不是要讓人困惑。只有在回溯時，才會說作品屬于那個時代。德克薩斯住宅、菱形住宅和墻宅都屬于學術研究，它們的內在主題并不在于回溯，而是向前展望尋求完全的釋放，探索建筑的新的前沿。前沿探索的是什么？哪些人在建筑學領域做過哪些事？他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了什么？

沃爾：你的意思是我們這個時代的建筑是一種關于深入思考和研究建筑的建筑？這種研究即便不是所有的建筑，也是現(xiàn)代建筑的基礎。

海杜克：是的。

沃爾：這么說，這是對應用基礎論述的富有洞察的解讀?

海杜克：也許吧。

沃爾：因此，這是一個特殊的時代。一個本應出現(xiàn)，但除了你的作品以外，卻并沒有出現(xiàn)的時代。只能這么理解。

海杜克：希望如此。

沃爾：這讓你總是輕微，甚至明顯地與他人所從事的不太一致，但從在適應和擴展中尋求持久性的進化的角度來看，卻總是與時代保持學術同步。

海杜克：有一個深層次的原因：在于我不只是看一個時代的表象，更確切地說，一種思想的表象。就是如此。我使它越來越深入。社會基本上害怕深入探索，因為這樣做對社會結構是危險的。因此，在他們的心目中，我成了一個革命者/反動派，因為他們在作品中認識到一種潛在的威脅。就好像世界以這種方式旋轉（做手勢），而我的作品永遠不能成為其中的一部分，就像一顆“彈珠”彈開一樣。然而這些作品的所有論點都來自于（世界的）中心。這與作品的模糊性有很大關系：“它看起來像”、“它可能是風格派的”、它看起來“像立體主義”，但其實并不是。這也是我工作的失敗。模棱兩可為工作的失誤提供了借口。

沃爾：劇院假面沒有什么含糊不清的地方，柏林假面也沒有什么模棱兩可的地方，因為他們既不“禮貌”，也不“溫文爾雅”。最近的大部分工作都將人的真實狀況灌輸給了“讀者”，而這些問題都是不能回避的。

海杜克：嗯，很難確定柏林項目的模式是否含糊不清。對某些部位可以這么說，但對平面卻不能。

沃爾：只對某些部位。例如……美杜莎的頭部。

海杜克：它是新的。沒錯，它是新的，我之前從來沒有用過。

沃爾：所以你不能用其他的術語來表述?

海杜克：不能。

沃爾：你談到了你作品中的威脅性方面。你如何用作品中簡單的意象來回避威脅？例如，這是一個3/4圓，這是一個3/4正方形，這是一艘拖船，這是一架飛機，這是一艘潛艇，這是一個黑色的立方體，這是一個藍色的圓柱體：非常直接，非常熟悉，沒有什么威脅。沒有模糊性，所有這些元素都與神秘無關。元素層面上沒有復雜的東西。明確，正面。

海杜克：它們看起來是“無害的”。

沃爾：但他們并不是。

海杜克：你說對了。

沃爾：嗯，如果“惡性成分”并不存在于部分，那么它一定存在于各部分的組合方式中。

海杜克：你已經用過這個詞……不透明度。人們不喜歡不透明的密度。

沃爾：這里有一個悖論。這些作品看似簡單，事實上，乍一看甚至很幼稚。這一直吸引著我。當我看“告別住宅”的時候，如果我把它分成幾部分來看，它顯得很幼稚：一扇窗戶；一個樓梯；一個附加形式，曲線形外輪廓。這一切都是非常直接的，沒有試圖在形式的操縱中模糊化。然而，有一些關于整個事物組合在一起的東西……

海杜克：……有差異性。是的……當憑直覺意識到這一點時，這就是社會的問題。

沃爾：但真是這樣嗎？立體派的一個特點是，它總是正面觀察物體，直截了當，管樂就是管樂，小提琴就是小提琴，正面或者反面。從不試圖回避事物本身的真實性。你的作品與此非常相似：非常正面、直接、“迎頭直上”。然而，當它被“組裝”起來時，一些事情發(fā)生了……

海杜克：這里有個“交叉點”。在內部。

沃爾：你是說，頭？

海杜克：當然，你以為“思想的橫截面”是關于什么的？確實有個交叉點。你最初的設想并一定就是最終的結果：還有其他事情在發(fā)生?？纯戳庑巫≌?。很多事情都是無法解釋的。

沃爾：德克薩斯的房子也有這種差異性嗎?

海杜克：有，Richard Pommer指出了這一點。我從未看出來，但他看出來了。

沃爾：所以你在做這個作品的時候沒有意識到這些屬性?

海杜克：沒有。這種差異性是后來才有的。我在學術層面上意識到了這些，在霍珀，薩塞塔的作品中。盡管總是有點晚。

沃爾：如果你沒有意識到這種“差異性”，那么你是如何在顏色、形狀、排列上做出具體決策的呢？就如墻宅——為什么用藍色，為什么用綠色，等等?

海杜克：（笑）理由是，藍色僅代表洗浴，紅色代表溫暖，用于壁爐，黃色代表廚房，灰色代表圖書館，黑色代表睡眠……這一切都是老生常談。你看，真的老套……(繼續(xù)笑)

沃爾：你說的“老套”是什么意思？老套并不意味著陳腐，不是嗎?

海杜克：是的。老套的是……被困在歐洲和美國之間的陌生感。我的才智被歐洲所吸引。但我的“觸覺敏感”卻是美國人。就像你要用零件拼成一輛汽車。一個非常務實的前提——它是由部分組成的。這也正是奇怪的地方。也許我們正從這些問題中得出一些結論。這些作品的神秘之處在于，它們具有深厚的、知性的、理性的歐洲特質，然而它們卻以美國人的方式呈現(xiàn)為孤立的部分。你必須把這兩者結合起來。這很奇怪。也許這會導致平庸。當然，他們不是歐洲的：他們不是立體主義或那種思維方式，甚至也不是里特維爾德意義上的風格派。他們并不屬于那一類，還欠缺一些東西。但他們也不是純粹的“美國蘋果派”。

沃爾：嗯，它很像機械師的操作手冊：有擋泥板、保險杠、尾燈，他們在圖表中都是獨立的待組裝的部件。從這個意義上說，這很老套。然而，我想到的另一個事實是，有很多歐洲藝術試圖在作品本身中解決學術問題。

海杜克：是的。

沃爾：你的并不是。它試圖在觀察者的腦海中解決這些問題。

海杜克：對。這是一個很不錯的表述。

沃爾：這正是你的作品一直困擾我的地方。它很簡單；作為部分來看，它看起來幼稚、平庸、正面、平淡無奇、簡單、直接，但當我想象把它們放在一起，隨著時間的推移，它變得不再是那些東西。我的腦子里發(fā)生了一些事情。在蒙德里安的畫作中，一切都發(fā)生在畫布上。這很歐洲化。唯一的例外是印象派，視覺的混合在觀察者的視網膜上發(fā)生。以及，超現(xiàn)實主義，聯(lián)想的混合發(fā)生在潛意識記憶中。

海杜克：你指出的的不僅僅是我的作品，也是一種美國現(xiàn)象。我基本上同意。

以下英文原稿

Hejduk:?What was new in modern painting was a membrane, and the breaking through of that membrane. I probed the Cubism bit, the notion of centralization, either compressing inwards or going outwards towards the edges and dissipating. So that was the Diamond Museum, where centralized, volumetric forms moved to linear, planar conditions. As the volume went out into space it became more geometric, and less organic (biomorphic). I never really defined these issues, only investigated them.

Wall:?The De Stijl abolished the center in favor of allover kinetic equilibrium, while Cubism held on tenaciously to centralization. You took the two antagonists and tried to bring them together.

Hejduk:?Yes.?Tried to, which in architecture is difficult.

Wall:?Would you say that during this time your creative thinking became preoccupied by these types of issues to the exclusion of all else?

Hejduk:?Yes. Intellectual preoccupation. Because they were of their time.?

Wall:?Yet no one else was involved with them to any degree, in architecture, so how could you say that such issue were "of their time"??

Hejduk:?Because people weren't involved with it? So? What were they involved in??

Wall:?With other things. But they weren't involved with the same thing you were. So, when you say "They were of their time," and it is a phrase often employed by you, just what do you mean? Which time are you referring to, other people's time or your time??

Hejduk:?(Pause) I'm trying to sort that out. No, I was out of time that way. Not of that time, but out of time. The work was of their time. This isn't meant to be confusing. The work was of their time only in retrospect. The issues which were inherent in the Texas Houses, the Diamond Houses and the Wall Houses-and they were all studies-were not looking back but looking forward for complete release, probing new frontiers in architecture. What were the frontiers to be probed? Who was doing anything in architecture then? What were they finding??

Wall:?Are you saying that an architecture of our time is one deeply involved with speculations, investigations about architecture, and that this inquiry is fundamental to modern architecture if not all architecture?

Hejduk:?Yes.

Wall:?So it is an astute reading of the discourse that underlies application?

Hejduk:?Perhaps.

Wall:?It is therefore of a special kind of a time, a time that should have taken place but didn't, except in your work. That makes sense.

Hejduk:?I hope so.

Wall:?That makes you always slightly or significantly out-of-phase with what others are engaged in, yet always being synchronized with intellectual time perceived from an evolutionary point of view which seeks persistence within adaptations and extensions?

Hejduk:?There's a deep reason for that : the reason is that I don't just take the surfaces of a time, the surfaces of a thought to be more exact, and leave it at that. l allow it to get deeper and deeper. Society is basically afraid of probing into depth, because to do so would be a danger to the structure of that society. Consequently, I become a revolutionary/reactionary in their minds because they recognize in the work a potency that threatens. It's as if the world is spinning around this way [gestures with hands ] and my work can never be part of it, like a floating marble it bounces off, yet all the arguments of the work come from the center (of the world). A lot has to do with the ambiguity of the work: "it looks like," "it could be De Stijl," it seems "like Cubism," but it's not. That also is failing of my work. Ambiguity gives an excuse for dismissal.?

Wall:?There's no ambiguity about the Theater Masque, none about the Berlin Masque especially since they are neither polite nor studies. Most of the recent work shoves the reaIity of human condition right down the throats of the spectator where avoidance with the issues is not possible.

Hejduk:?Well, it's harder to pinpoint the ambiguities the schema of the Berlin project isn't. It could be said of some of the objects, however, but not of the plan.

Wall:?Only of certain of the objects. For example ...? the Medusa head.

Hejduk: That's new. Yes, it's new, I've never used it before.

Wall:?So you cannot rephrase it into other terms?

Hejduk:?No.

Wall:?You spoke of the threatening aspect of your work. How do you equivocate threat with the simplicity of the imagery of the work? For instance, this is a 3/4 circle,this is a 3/4 square, this is a tug boat, this is an airplane, this is a submarine, this is a black cube, this is a blue cylinder: all terribly straightforward, all terribly familiar, nothing threatening. There is no opacity, there is no mystery associated with any of the elements. Nothing complex at an elemental level. Straightforward, frontal images.

Hejduk:?They look benign.

Wall:?But they are not.

Hejduk:?You got it.

Wall:?Well, if the malignancy doesn't lie in the parts, then it must reside in the way the parts are being assembled.

Hejduk:?You used the word already ...? opacity. People don't like opaque densities.

Wall:?There's a paradox here. The work looks simple, indeed, perhaps naive at first glance. And that has always intrigued me. When I look at the Bye House, if I look at it in parts, it looks very naive: it's a window; it's a stair; it's an attached form, it's curvilinear in outline. It's all very straightforward, no attempt at obscuration in the manipulations of forms, and yet there is something about the whole thing coming together which . . .

Hejduk:?. . . has an otherness. Yes . . . that's society's problem when they intuit that.

Wall:?But is it really that? One of the things that Cubism had, is that it always looked frontally at objects, straightforward, a pipe is a pipe, a violin is a violin, in elevation or otherwise. No attempt to fudge the reality of the object as such. Your work is very similar to that: very frontal, direct, head-on. And yet, as it gets assembled, something happens . . .

Hejduk:?There is a cross-over. Internally.

Wall:?You mean to the head?

Hejduk:?Sure, what do you think a "Cross Section of a Thought" is all about? There really are cross-overs. What you think it is initially isn't what it is ultimately: there are other things going on. Look at that Diamond House. Lots of things are inexplicable.

Wall:?Do the Texas Houses also possess this otherness?

Hejduk:?Yes, Richard Pommer pointed this out. I never saw it, he did.

Wall:?So you are not aware of these attributes when doing the work?

Hejduk:?No. It comes later, this otherness. I am aware of these things on an intellectual plane, in the work say of Hopper, Sassetta. Always later though.

Wall:?How then do you make specific decisions as to choice of color, shape, arrangements, if you are not conscious of this "otherness"? That Wall House over there-why the blue, why the green and so forth?

Hejduk:?[Laughs] The reasoning is that blue is simply for bath, the red was for warmth, for fireplace, the yellow was for kitchen, the grey was for library, the black was for sleeping . . . it all has banal reasoning, you see, really banal . . . [keeps laughing].

Wall:?What do you mean by "banal"? Banal doesn't mean trite does it?

Hejduk:?No. The banal is . . . the strangeness of being caught between Europe and America. My intellect is drawn to Europe. But my tactile sensibilities are American. It's like you would build from parts of a car. A very pragmatic condition. It's made up of parts. And that's what's so strange. Maybe we are coming to something here by these questions. The mystery in the work is that they have a deep, intellectual bent, cerebral of a European nature, yet they are presented as isolated parts in an American manner. And somehow you have to put those two together. And it's very strange. Maybe this leads to the banality. Certainly they are not European: they are not Cubism and that kind of mentality, nor De Stijl, even, in the sense of Rietveld. So they are not that, yet they owe something to that, nor are they pure American apple pie.

Wall:?Well, it's very much like a mechanic's manual: there's a fender, a bumper, a tail light, and the diagram shows them all as separate pieces awaiting assembly. In that sense it's very banal. One aspect that does occur to me, however, lies in the fact that much of European art attempts to resolve the intellectual issues in the work itself.?

Hejduk:?Yes.

Wall:?Yours does not. It attempts to resolve the issues in the head of the observer.

Hejduk:?Yes. That's a very good statement.

Wall:?This is what has always perplexed me about your work. It is straightforward ; looked at as parts, it looks naive, banal, frontal, obvious, simple, direct, and yet when I think about putting them all together and starting into it over time, it is not at all those things. Something is happening inside my head. With Mondrian's painting, everything happens on the canvas. It's very European. The sole major exceptions to this would be Impressionism where optical mix took place in the observer's retina, and Surrealism where the associative mix took place in the memory subconscious.

Hejduk:?You're leading not just to my work, but an American phenomenon, which I agree with substantially.

1. 本篇英文原稿及封面來自Mask of Medusa，by John Hejduk；

2. 更多相關翻譯歡迎關注個人ID：IDsCeLeee