In the Name of Body / 舉身為名

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Concept>

《舉身為名 In the Name of Body》是一件以社會現象為基礎的 VR360° 作品，探討 AI 時代中人類身體、意志與存在之間的關係。作品以台灣街頭兩種具代表性的「舉牌」現象為核心：一者是因台灣固定廣告法規限制，而在房地產與商業街景中產生的舉牌工；二者是 2025 年台灣大罷免運動中走上街頭、以身體承載政治意志的抗議者。前者透過人的身體規避制度成本、轉為商業機動性的移動廣告載體；後者則以身體為自由發聲、公共表態與集體行動的現場。

舉牌工是一份低技術、看似最容易被機器人取代的工作，卻在現實中顯示出一種荒謬的「不可取代性」。在台灣的天候、薪資與都市管理環境下，聘僱一名低薪舉牌工，比購置與維護機器人更符合成本邏輯；而當有人檢舉或警察前來取締時，舉牌工可立即逃離，甚至由其個人承擔開罰的風險。這種遊走於法律邊緣的任務，無法被寫入機器的程式倫理之中，卻可以被轉嫁到人類身體上：肉身在此成為資本與制度縫隙中最便利、最脆弱，也最難被機器取代的介面。而大罷免運動中的舉牌者，則指向另一種身體的價值：自由發聲。抗議、罷免與遊行並不總是基於利益最佳化的理性計算；人們往往介於對意識形態的理解、情感的驅動、群體的召喚與倫理判斷之間行動。即使在違背自身短期利益的前提下，人仍可能選擇站上街頭，為某種道德立場或公共信念發聲。這使遊行中的舉牌不單是符號的展示，也是身體對自身立場的承擔：為了某種信念，親自現身、承受，並宣告。作品分為四個段落：開場中的舉牌人站在搖晃的蹺蹺板上，象徵身體與聲音、物質與訊號、自由意志與機器模擬之間的拉扯；第二段轉入城市，呈現舉牌工在商業街景中的循環勞動，人的身體被迫成為流動的廣告、法規的漏洞與最後的人力資源；第三段進入隧道中的遊行隊伍，將舉牌轉化為無法沉默的集體聲音，那些憤怒、眼淚與尚未說完的話，在此刻成為無法複製的現場；最後，觀者穿越抽象通道空間，看見思想逐漸轉化為訊號、語言被切分為 token，大腦與意識則化為蝴蝶般飄散的殘影。

作品回應梅洛龐蒂的身體現象學：身體不只是工具，而是人感知世界、承受世界，並在世界中留下痕跡的根本媒介；在 AI 能夠生成影像、語言與聲音的時代，作品並不拒絕機器，而是追問：當一切皆可被模擬、計算與生成，還有哪些時刻必須由人親自站在那裡？這作品是一則人類仍在場的告白。當語言終將成為訊號，思想終將被轉譯為資料，身體仍是意志最初、也是最後的棲身之所。

*In the Name of Body* is a VR360° work grounded in social observation, exploring the relationship between the human body, will, and existence in the age of AI. The work centers on two forms of “sign-holding” in Taiwan’s streetscape: commercial sign-holders produced by regulations on fixed advertisements, and protesters who appeared in the streets during Taiwan’s 2025 Grand Recall movement. The former turns the human body into a mobile advertising device that circumvents institutional costs and preserves commercial flexibility; the latter transforms the body into a site of free expression, public declaration, and collective action. Commercial sign-holding is low-skilled labor that seems easily replaceable by machines. Yet in practice, it reveals an absurd form of human “irreplaceability.” Under Taiwan’s climate, wage conditions, and urban management environment, hiring a low-paid worker is often more cost-effective than purchasing and maintaining a robot. More importantly, when complaints are filed or police arrive, the sign-holder can flee, or personally bear the risk of being fined. Such a task, operating at the edge of legality, cannot be ethically programmed into a machine, yet it can be transferred onto the human body. Here, flesh becomes a convenient, fragile, and difficult-to-replace interface within the gaps between capital and regulation. By contrast, the sign-holders in the Grand Recall movement point toward another value of the body: the freedom to speak. Protests and marches are not always guided by optimized self-interest. People act between ideological understanding, emotional impulse, collective calling, and ethical judgment. Even when action contradicts immediate personal benefit, one may still choose to stand in the street for a moral position or public belief. The protest sign is therefore not merely a displayed symbol, but a bodily commitment: to appear, to endure, and to declare. The work unfolds in four sections. The opening scene shows sign-holders on a swaying seesaw, evoking the tension between body and voice, matter and signal, free will and machine simulation. The second section moves into the city, where commercial sign-holders repeat their labor as moving advertisements, regulatory loopholes, and the last reserve of human labor. The third enters a tunnel-like procession, transforming sign-holding into a collective voice that can no longer remain silent. Anger, tears, and unfinished words become an unrepeatable site of presence. Finally, the viewer passes through an abstract passage, where thought turns into signal, language is divided into tokens, and consciousness dissolves into butterfly-like traces. Responding to Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of the body, the work considers the body not as a tool, but as the fundamental medium through which humans perceive, endure, and leave traces in the world. In an age when AI can generate images, language, and voices, the work does not reject the machine. It asks instead: when everything can be simulated, calculated, and generated, what moments still require a human being to stand there in person? This project is a confession of human presence. When language becomes signal and thought becomes data, the body remains the first and final dwelling place of will.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Scene Design>