A Day in Nagoya

A comely lady was basking in the warmth of the sun

Under a tree of snowy white plum blossom.

The petals were blown away in the gentle Spring breeze

And fell across her cherry red cheeks.

The snowy white settled for awhile on her palm and a light easterly air arose.

The lady walked in beauty in the cloudless climes

towards the temple next to the pines.

The pines against the flat blue serene sky,

where wishes were heard from her peaceful mind.

***

After watching “The Great Contemporary Art Bubble”

In 2008, the world economy began contracting and making an
impact on credit crunch, but the art market continued onwards and
upwards, which gave rise to a new paradigm that the art market was
immune to other economic forces.  The sales of paintings by
the genuine masters continued to create new records over the past
few years: Edvard Munch’s The Scream (1895)
reached $119.9 million in the auction sale in Sotheby’s, New York
in May 2012; The Card Players (1892-93) by Paul
Cézanne broke the record of the most expensive painting ever sold,
at a price of $250 million, bought by the Royal Family of Qatar in
2011.  It appears to be quite true for the modern art market
from various sales records.  What about the contemporary art
market? The data of top hammer prices from 2007 to 2012 as
tabulated below, extracted from Artprice annual reports on the
contemporary art market, shows a significant drop in the year
2009/2010 – the Great Recession (the global recession of
2009).  It is obvious that the contemporary art market is
closely attached to the financial market, and is flat out logical
for those billionaire collectors to cash in their collections and
stop buying when they need money.  While the global economy is
still stagnant at the moment, the contemporary art market shows
signs of recovery.  The explosion of the contemporary art
bubble in 2009/2010, not to a great extent, prohibited the
competition.  The top hammer price gradually rose after the
global financial crisis and finally reached the level of that in
2007/2008. Table 1: Extract of Artprice annual reports on the
contemporary art market (from 2006 to 2012)

Year	Artist	Birth Country	Top Hammer Price
2006/2007	Damien Hirst (1965)	United Kingdom	€ 12,752,080
2007/2008	Jeff Koons (1955)	United States	€ 14,536,000
2008/2009	Damien Hirst (1965)	United Kingdom	€ 11,606,720
2009/2010	Peter Doig (1959)	United Kingdom	€ 6,019,200
2010/2011	Jeff Koons (1955)	United States	€ 10,804,500
2011/2012	Jean-Michel Basquiat (1960-1988)	United States	€ 14,312,900

Starting from 2005, the Chinese
contemporary art market began to emerge.  Chinese contemporary
artists like Zeng Fanzhi, Zhang xiaogang, Chen Yifei and Zhou
Chunya are now on the list of top 10 international contemporary
artists in terms of the auction sales turnover.  Some of them
had extraordinarily good sales performance, for instance, Zeng
Fanzhi is ranked higher than the top sales record holders Jeff
Koons and Damien Hirst.  However, only local collectors and
dealers are involved in the Chinese contemporary art market,
therefore it is not being discussed here. In the 21st century,
contemporary art has become a global commodity, which makes no
difference to steel, gas, property or oil.  People are allowed
to buy and sell shares of major art pieces like what they do in the
stock market, but without any official supervision.
 ArtExchange is one typical example of the art and
finance service company in Paris.  In the view of
microeconomics, demand and supply is an economic model of price
determination in a market.  However, the abundant supply of
art pieces in the contemporary art market makes it different from
the others and drags it out of the ordinary demand-and-supply
theory.  What plays a part in determining the prices in the
contemporary art market?  What makes the market so tempting
and appealing to the billionaires?  Ben Lewis, an author, art
critic and the award-winning documentary filmmaker of The
Great Contemporary Art Bubble (2009), mentioned in his
film that speculation, mass production, public exhibitions, price
protection, and the love of art, all helped to create a
contemporary art bubble.  Therefore, factors contributing to
the bubble by different parties in the market system will be
analysed. Contemporary art is a lifestyle choice of the current
generation.  The public relationship with the contemporary art
has been transformed.  Once it was distrustful and dismissive,
however the attendances at museums and galleries were shot up over
the past decades.  “Art has really seized the masses.  It
has become a genuine phenomenon, just like pop culture, music,
concerts, theatre, and opera… The visual arts are like that today,
with their own events.  People go to the Biennales, the
Documenta, art fairs, exhibition openings, and museums… Art has
become something that speaks to an entire generation, that reflects
a generation and that it reflects on.” said by Gerd Harry Lybke,
the gallery owner of Galerie Elgen+Art, in the interview with Zoran
Solomun in Super Art Market (2009).  It
is also the readiness and availability of contemporary art that
makes it more accessible to new collectors and dealers, hence
encouraging more people to get on board.  Francis Outred, the
contemporary art specialist, said, “You can still buy the
masterpieces of contemporary art as they are still available, but
you can’t buy masterpieces of modern art.  You can’t buy
masterpieces by old masters, as readily as you can [for]
contemporary art.”  In addition, there is a growing number of
people internationally who possess the capability, means and
interest to collect these iconic trophy objects.  Out of
triumphalism, curiosity and the desire of possession, the
collectors attempt to find the newest, the hippest and the hottest
in the art market, resembling a racing game that they compete with
each other and eventually push the prices further. 
Contemporary art is like other commodity, but with a difference
that it provides people with a certain social status and a sense of
privilege.  Collectors also lend their collections to school
and institutions to generate publicity, together with the regular
exhibitions in galleries, to increase visibility of the artists and
drive business.  Galleries organise private viewings, guided
tours and VIP dinners with artists to boost sales.  All these
VIP activities create a sense of honour and pleasure to the
collectors. Apart from personal and psychological aspects, some
collectors see the contemporary art market from a commercial
perspective.  People treat the market as a haven for their
cash and as a way to avoid tax.  In some countries, people
receive tax exemption when donating their collections of artworks
to museums or institutes.  Sponsorship to art events by
bankers and corporations has always been recognised as a mixture of
charity, PR and business, as well as a channel to promote their
brands and to reach out to rich clients.  The possibility for
the billionaires to make a tidy profit out of it leads to the
increase in involvement of the collectors and the consequent
increase in demand of contemporary artworks, which contribute to
the booming of the market. Other than the collectors and gallery
owners, the auction houses, art dealers, and the artists also play
major roles in manipulating the contemporary art market.  The
art market is characterised by lack of government monitoring and
observation, and therefore there are no rules in playing the game
in the art market.  Even if the art dealers corner the market,
they are safe from prosecutions.  For example, the Mugrabi’s
family owned around 9% of world important Warhols while Aby Rosen
owned another 1% by 2008.  The market domination together with
the concerted actions by the auction houses, continued to heat up
the contemporary art market at the time.  Auction houses like
the Sotheby’s and the Christie’s offered different kinds of credit.
 Some buyers were given unusually generous payment terms like
prolongation of payment period without charging interest.  In
1987, Irises (1889) by Vincent Van Gogh was sold
in a record price, £29.5 millions.  The final price was more
than twice what the painting had been expected to reach.  The
bidding rose from the starting point of £8.5 millions to reach the
final sale price in less than two minutes.  The buyer, Alan
Bond, could only reach this price because the Sotheby’s lent him
half the final price, as a result of controversy that followed, the
New York State Assembly held an inquiry into the art market. 
Such strategy used by the auctions houses artificially inflated the
value of artworks, and helped to fizz the market. On the other
hand, the practice of auction houses to offer guarantees, in order
to attract major works, is also speculative and risky.  The
auction houses promise to pay the seller a guarantee the minim
price whether the work is sold or not.  By this action, the
auction houses are sort of making judgement to the values of art,
and betting the prices will be higher.  It is dangerous for
the auction houses, as they have become part of the system. 
The Sotheby’s guarantees had increased by seven-fold within merely
two years to nearly half £1 billion by 2007.  The more the
people can borrow, the longer time they can defer payments and the
more they afford to pay, the more the prices will be driven up.
 Price protection by the art dealers is also a key factor for
the prices to soar.  Art dealers routinely bid the works by
the artists they represent, in order to secure sales.  Some
may even place bids through telephone then stop bidding in the
middle of the on-going auction, making the prices stand high
– Scott Reyburn, an art market reporter, called to mind
of his experience in interviewing a major British art dealer. 
The momentum in the market was then built up, and consequently more
people were attracted to this freewheeling market. Artists who are
alive, like Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, Jean-Michel Othoniel,
continue to produce large quantity of artworks in series.
 Some of them carry out mass production of artworks in their
art factories, giving incentives for the existing collectors to
amass plenty of artworks and at the same time encouraging new blood
to take part in the collecting race.  In April 2012, Hirst
created an enormous new factory to produce his next ‘masterpieces’
– to convert slaughtered animals into lucrative artworks. 
Will this hasten the burst of another bigger contemporary art
bubble?

The Blockbuster Exhibition in Paris: Edward Hopper

Curated by Didier Ottinger, associate director of Musée National d’Art Moderne and the Centre Pompidou, the blockbuster exhibition by Edward Hopper held in Grand Palais, Paris, has attracted more than 580,000 visitors since its opening on 10th October 2012.  With the overwhelming response, the exhibition period has now been extended to 3rd February 2013.  In what appears to be the organiser’s attempt to accommodate the greatest numbers of visitors and to whet the French audience’s appetite for American art, the exhibition will be opened from 9:00 to 23:00 between 29th January and 31st January, and for 62 consecutive hours from February 1 until its closing.

This Edward Hopper exhibition is a collaboration project between the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza and the Réunion des Musées Nationaux Grand Palais, in partnership with the Centre Pompidou.  It was first shown in Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, before arriving in Paris.  However, the two Hopper shows had taken on very different ways of presentation.  The Madrid presentation adopted a relatively modest and implicit approach to highlight the uniformity and harmony of Hopper’s way over the decades in spite of the various emerging avant-garde movements, as described by David Anfam in his exhibition review in the January 2013 issue of The Burlington Magazine.  The exhibition showcased 70 works by Hopper and was structured into two principal sections.  The first began with Hopper’s earlier time in the studio of Robert Henri at the New York School of Art and covered the years of his training, displaying alongside works by his contemporaries.  The second section focused thematically on Hopper’s mature work in a chronological sequence, with an emphasis on the most recurring motifs in his paintings.  From various reviews, the exhibition was described as one that was very representational yet run-of-the-mill.  When compared to that earlier show, the current exhibition at Grand Palais, with its attempt to turn Hopper into an American art hero and a harbinger of the 20th century culture, may be regarded as an overkill.  Is the retrospective presenting an overstatement?

It is of note that French museums seem to have a particular fondness for American artists: in 2010, the Louvre commissioned Cy Twombly to create a 3,750-square-feet ceiling for its Salle des Bronzes; a month ago, the Centre Pompidou hired Sylvia Chivaratanond in New York as its first adjunct curator, in order to keep the Paris team up-to-date on the contemporary art scene and to develop diversifying programs to search for and attract donations of American art.  With the unceasing support and invaluable donation of major works of American art by Brice Marden, Dan Flavin, Philip Guston, Eva Hesse, Barnett Newman, Cy Twombly, and Donald Judd by the Centre Pompidou Foundation (an American foundation dedicated to supporting the development of the centre), the Centre Pompidou opens the door to France for American art (and particularly Edward Hopper, as none of the French museums possess works by him), is at an ideal position to organise such a blockbuster show in Grand Palais, a place with a reputation for organising high quality exhibitions.  It is also a gesture of gratitude to the museum’s American donors.  Therefore, the retrospective show not only offers a valuable opportunity for the public to get to know about the tradition of modern realism and Americanism that lies beneath each of Hopper’s characteristically bland brush stroke, but also serves as a reminder to the French museums that it’s about time to acquire a collection of his oeuvre.

The retrospective exhibition in Grand Palais generally shares the same structure with the Madrid’s one.  It has gathered together 128 works by Hopper from major museums and institutions across the US, including the MoMA and the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Columbus Museum of Art in Ohio, the Addison Gallery of American Art in Andover, and the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia, in addition to various private collections and with a particularly generous loan from the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York.  In this context, it does come across as being a little Francocentric, if not flat-out boastful, to say that the exhibition is a reminder of “how much George Washington owed to General Lafayette”, as Gerald Mangan did in his review, “A Country Boy in a City” published on 16th November 2012 in The Times Literary Supplement.  It is obviously a win-win situation for both the American museums and the Centre Pompidou: for the former, the high-profile exhibition gives them a great opportunity to showcase their country’s art tradition; for the latter, it also allows the Centre to be the pioneer to bring an influential artist like Hopper to the French soil.

The works on show are arranged over two floors of the big corner section of the Grand Palais complex and is divided chronologically into two main sections.  The first one covers Hopper’s formative years (1900-1924), juxtaposing the paintings by his contemporaries and art he saw during his three early sojourns in Paris, between 1906 and 1910, which might have considerable influence on him.  The second section brings into focus the art of Hopper’s mature years, from the first paintings emblematic of his personal style, House by the Railroad (1925), to his last one before death, Two Comedians (1966).  The exhibition begins with a huge video projection of Manhattan City, Manhatta (1920-1921) by Charles Scheeler and Paul Strand.  The high growth of uprising, strong slender irons, the threading of steamships, the wall scaffolds and the vast frameworks of bridges and roads symbolise the dawn of modernism and industrialisation, which is implicated here as the recurring theme under the distinctive depiction and deceptive simplicity in Hopper’s paintings.  The influence of his Realist compatriots is palpably acknowledged in this first section on the developmental stage of his career.  Some little-known paintings by Robert Henri (the founder of the Ashcan School of Realism), Thomas Eakins, John Sloan and George Bellows are shown to indicate his years in Henri’s studio at the New York School of Art.  However, Ottinger frankly admits the insufficiency of this part in the catalogue introduction – the leaving out of works by Charles Sheeler, Ben Shahn, Thomas Hart Benton and Winslow Homer, which also contributed influences to Hopper in his formative years.

The French influences to Hopper are, on the other hand, indisputable.  He was moved by the soft and harmonious style of impressionism, which was reflected in his paintings from the period.  He also studied works by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Alfred Sisley, Edgar Degas and Édouard Manet.  An important work by Degas, Un bureau de coton à la Nouvelle-Orléans (1873), is exhibited alongside Hopper’s in the exhibition.  The artist was also interested in the coarse lines and vivid colours used by the Fauvists to paint landscapes; Albert Marquet’s Le quai Bourdon (1908) is credited in this regard.  The display of works by familiar French painters, together with Hopper’s sketches and paintings of Parisian cafés and riverside of the Seine, recreates a dialogue that existed between Hopper and these artists at the time, and somewhat acts like the bridge between the contemporary French audience and Hopper, making the exhibition more accessible and enjoyable as a whole.

A selection of his illustrations for magazine covers, such as The Morse Dry Dock Dial and Hotel Management, shows the growing mastery of the artist’s skill in manipulating light and shadows which is evident in his later etchings, and also paves the climax of the show – the prime years of his career.  The most striking work in this section is the expressionistic, bird’s eye view of the dark street in Night Shadows (1921), where the compactly etched shadow of a telegraph pole stretches across a street to give the impression of the ominous scenes in crime movies.  As the viewers make their way through the floor, the subject of Hopper’s works can be seen to gradually change from the obsolete locomotives or abandoned disused trucks by motorisation and modernisation – thanks partly to the first acquisition of his first car in 1927 enabling him to extend his field of activity and increasing his range of subjects – to realistic yet symbolic excursion into philosophy and the search of his inner personality.  This is evident from House by the Railroad (1925), depicting a desolate house in the countryside that may or may not be abandoned, to portraits of situations which urge people into actions, like Room in New York (1932), Office at Night (1940) and the most arresting Nighthawks (1942), and finally to still lifes of vacant rooms with sunlight shedding on their plain white walls, including Rooms by the Sea (1951) and Sun in an Empty Room (1963).  Comprehensive in its scope and scrupulously systematic in its presentation, the exhibition leads the audience to go through the artist’s journey of À la Recherche du temps perdu.

However, the perfect flow of the exhibition does not run till its end.  The curator’s effort to go the whole hog to include the most works by other artists has been ruined by unnecessarily gilding the lily to resemble Hopper’s works with that by Philip-Lorca diCorcia, the American photographer named one of Martell’s 2012 Artists of the Year.  The technique of dramatic theatrical lighting used in staged photography is essential and practically inevitable, as suggested by its name “staged”, which should not be taken to compare with Hopper’s realisation of the natural daylight and ambient lights by paint and brush.  The exhibition gives a boost to the fame of diCorcia and brings about conjecture that the exhibition may be a prelude to publicise his upcoming solo show at the Schirn Kunsthalle, Frankfurt, and the Museum De Pont, Tilburg, in 2013.  The exhibition thus seems to cater for the general public, for the sake of blockbuster, rather than the cognoscenti or art lovers.

 

The Artist is Absent

When I saw a video work by one of the graduates in the SCM graduation show this year, I truly wanted to say that her work is indeed an awful replica of Marina Abramović’s work Imponderabilia.  (Her work is a video of a naked woman and a naked man standing face to face projecting through a dark narrow gap onto the wall, which is exactly Ulay & Abramović but a Hong Kong version without the passing through by audience)  “A faithful replica of nothing that ever existed” quoted from the architecture critic, John Pastier.  Her work is re-created by inappropriate medium and lacking in basic artistic judgment, which makes her work less provocative and redundant.  The dark narrow gap became irrelevant in the inapt setting but merely an ostentatious and gimmicky decoration which tried to form a sense of pressure to the video.  On the other hand, this attempt reminds the audience of the unfoundedness and feebleness of her work that the gesture and position of the performers is simply a brainless and nonsensical copy of Abramović’s work.  The headphones isolating the sound from the video had fallen into disuse and resembled unnecessary and unfitting amphigory.  The use of the word “sensual claustrophobia” in the artist statement excuses her from the guilt of copying Abramović’s work; nevertheless, adds the fragrance of arbitrariness and ethical outrage against artists.  Her approach is so brazen that does not have the least respect for the internationally renowned artist.

I had seen the real work of Marina Abramović’s work Imponderabilia once in March 2010 at MoMA, New York, performed by her students.  She herself was performing another piece of work, sitting on a chair with visitors along a long table for 700 hours.  (Please click to see the video.)  I was waiting for a chance to sit with her but in vain.  The invisible queue seemed to be never ending.  Although I didn’t walk through her naked students, I was moved by the performance, by just seeing it from a distance.  It was so visually poignant and mesmerizing, yet powerfully and timelessly vocal in its message, echoing the beauty and conflict of nakedness.  The message is perfectly conveyed through live performance but not a video nor an installation.  Media other than live performance will simply ruin her work and show incapability and defenselessness.

境心相遇 The Next State of Mind

「大凡地有勝境，得人而後發；人有匠心，得物而後開。境心相遇，固有時耶？」

——　唐 · 白居易 · 《白蘋洲五亭記》

白居易在《白蘋洲五亭記》的最後幾句對物境與匠心之間關係的評點，令一篇枯燥乏味的文字提升為說園名篇。「境心相遇」是形容古代工匠的心思與境物相融，造出細心照顧人的需要且寓意於物的建築。這亦適用於現代藝術家用不平常理解的方法將周邊平凡事物解合並重新表達，指水為油，點石成金，將意思從物質中釋放同時暗藏在作品當中。而藝術家正就是得物而後開，讓人工之物融入物色並化解合一，發掘境物背後的更多思意。

由上下當代藝廊舉辦的新媒體藝術聯展，精選四位藝術界新銳：卓思穎 (Chloe Cheuk)、何家僖 (Kahei Ho)、何佩霖 (Enrica Ho) 及黃智銓 (Kenny Wong)，以《境心相遇》為題創作出四種不同媒體、不同風格的作品。作品包括電儀機械裝置、數碼攝影、錄像及生物藝術和聲音裝置。

我於是次聯展將展出全新的錄像及生物藝術作品《Death is Free》。作品紀錄了一條魚死前的一刻，經過求生、掙扎、抽搐然後終止。我將整個過程完整地投映在該魚屍上，藉以表達死者對世事的遺忘、活者對死亡的無知以及兩者狀態的含糊分界。「Free」釋「隨意的」、「不受約束的」、「自由的」、「免費的」、「解放」、「解脫」等意思。我希望利用「Death is Free」這個陳述來否定死亡的真實性和可能性。「死亡是隨意的」、「死亡是不受約束的」、「死亡是自由的」、「死亡是解放」、「死亡是解脫」⋯⋯ 這些都是愚昧無知的人們的主觀想法。觀眾站在作品面前，身為旁觀者的他們若能反思生命與死亡，便隱然為付上生命的魚兒默哀。

與其閱讀一些語焉不詳的圖文，倒不如到畫廊一趙，親身感受和了解作品之微妙。

Death is Free  ｜ Enrica Ho  |   2012  ｜ video installation  |  video, fish tank, formaldehyde, water

Death is Free is a video installation by Enrica Ho.  By documenting the last moments of a fish before projecting the video back on its preserved body, the work seeks to contemplate the obliviousness of the dead, the ignorance of the living and the indeterminacy separating the two states of being.

Death is Free (Video) from Enrica Ho on Vimeo.

《境心相遇：新媒體藝術聯展》

地點：上下當代藝廊

開幕預覽：2012年8月11日（星期六）下午 6 時至 9 時

展覽日期：2012年8月15日至 9月7日

地址：香港火炭山尾街31-35號華樂工業中心F座22樓26室

電話：(852) 5638 7708  |  電郵：info@nextoart.com

營業時間：星期二至星期六上午11時至晚上7時

Open Call for Artist in Residency in Saigon (Vietnam, 2012)

The 1st International Collaborative Residency for Artists in Saigon (Vietnam, 2012) is now accepting applications.

Collaborative Residency for Artists – application deadline extended to September 2012

Pandora Studio offers to new media artists from South-East and Far-East Asia, an amazing and challenging experience in a collaborative and cross disciplinary program. The residency will take place at the Le Thanh Theater in Ho Chi Minh City in November 2012 [to be confirmed].  The residency is related to production of a new performance which will be shown at Ben Thanh Theater ( in the central district of Ho Chi Minh City ) on the second half of September 2012.

This project is supported by the ANA – Arts Network Asia (www.artsnetworkasia.org), an enabling grant body, set up by a group of independent artists, cultural workers and arts activists from Asia, that encourages collaboration initiated and sited in Asia, an carried out by Asian artists.

Pandora Studio will provide food and accommodation for selected artists joining from abroad during the three weeks of the residency. Also the cost of the flight ticket will be refunded.

Project
During the three weeks of residency all the involved artists will collaborate in the development of a common project: an interactive dance performance reinterpreting in modern style an ancient legend. The story of the Carp who became Dragon.

Will be particularly welcomed the applications of artists working and experimenting in the field of:

• interaction design
• motion tracking
• 2D or 3D generative art
• sound design.

Facilities
The residency will take place in the upper spaces of Le Thanh Theater (sited in 25 Phan Phu Tien, District 5, HCMC). The stage is about 6 meters by 3 meters, and it is equipped with video and lights system. The hotel for the artists coming from abroad is nearby. The theater location is in the heart of the Chinatown, in the district beside the central district of Ho Chi Minh city. The organization does provide meals for residents, and offers full support in getting around the city and other practicalities.

Technical Information
There will be 2 available computers and internet connection on the working stage. In addition, the space of the residence will be equipped with a projector, a sound system, a 3D tracking system and light system.

The author will take responsibility upon the following:

• to collaborate to the common project during the residence
• to hold a public presentation of a past artistic projects as self presentation
• residency time is up to 21 days 
• to take its own laptop

Pandora Studio will take responsibility upon the following:

• provision of production material
• provision of food and accommodation during the whole period of residency working in Ho Chi Minh City
• to refund the flight ticket costs for selected artists joining from abroad
• payment of monthly expenses of the hosting stage at Le Thanh Theatre

Application requirements
Please send your CV enclosing a list of your works and projects to carps2dragon@gmail.com (subject: Application for collaborative residency in Saigon).  We accept applications until July 22, 2012. Selected artist will be contacted by email. The selection will be confirmed after a quick video conference. Artists from all South East and Far East Asia at all professional levels are encouraged to apply.

Please Note: Vietnamese Government requires a self presentation and some documentation which indicate your activity as artist or professional before granting permission to participate to the residency.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON RESIDENCY PROGRAM AND CONDITIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US ATcarps2dragon@gmail.com OR CHECK OUR WEBSITE www.carp2dragon.net

雅加達的天空

提到印尼這兩個字，除了人煙稠密、堵車、貧窮、搶劫、暴力、風化、貪污、 歧視、宗教衝突、自殺式爆炸，你還會聯想到甚麼？去年聖誕，我第一次踏足這個人口超過八成屬伊斯蘭教全世界最大的穆斯林國家。參與雅加達雙年展盛事，與雙年展策展人及其幹事交談，還有和各地藝術家交流和參觀其藝術空間，令我在印尼看到另一片天。

雅加達雙年展是由雅加達藝術局組織策劃，並由雅加達市政府出資。其前身為「印尼繪畫大展」，自1968年開始舉辦，直到1982年才首次使用「藝術雙年展」的名稱舉行，成為兩年一度的藝術盛事。在2009年，雅加達雙年展首次邀請外國藝術家參加，今屆已是第十四屆了。今屆雅加達雙年展的主題 Maximum City: Survive or Escape?  印尼當地策展人 Bambang Wijanarko，Ilham Khoiri，Seno Joko Suyono 和來自菲律賓的策展人 Eileen Legaspi-Ramirez 有感雅加達是一個蛻變中的城市，並希望將這股蛻變的動力填滿至其極限。而這源源不絕的力量亦無形間造成某種環境氛圍，迫使雅加達市民決擇，或去或留。去，須去得瀟灑而非逃避；留，得要有辦法地生存下去。「去」與「留」兩個字看似自相矛盾，但經過深思過後，其實兩者有著同一種表達。今屆雅加達雙年展以五個不同的副題劃分，以藝術表現雅加達的不同社會現象：Violence and Resistance（暴力與抗力）、Narcissism, Voyeurism and The Body（自戀、窺淫與身體）、Game, Leisure and Gadget Victim（遊戲、 閒暇及小玩意受害者）、Metro-Text Seduction（都市文字的誘惑）和 Citizen and Homo Ludens（城市居民和遊戲的人），包羅一百六十多件各國藝術家的作品，分別在多個地方展出，當中主展覽場地及開幕禮於 Galeri Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian National Gallery) 舉行。雙年展的作品囊括錄像、繪畫、雕塑、攝影、互動裝置、聲音藝術、行為藝術、塗鴉藝術、生物藝術等等跨媒介創作。作品眾多，實不能盡錄，但印象較深刻的有中國藝術家艾未未的作品《葡萄》（Grapes）(2010)、李暉的《蛻變》（Metamorphosis）(2010)、香港藝術家何佩霖與澳洲藝術家 Julia Burns 合作的《菁華的空虛》（The Solitude of Jing Hua）(2011) 表演基礎的錄像裝置、來自挪威的菲律賓藝術家 Jet Pascua 的作品 《Excessive Delicacy》(2007)、來自紐約的伊拉克藝術家 Wafaa Bilal 的展覽裝置《Domestic Tension》(2007)、Yudhi Sulistyo 的一比一大小的坦克模型《Pahlawan tanpa tanda jasa》(2011) 和瑞典藝術家 Stina Pehrsdotter 的《Multiple》(2011) 錄像裝置。

艾未未 |《葡萄》 (2010)

艾未未將十多張清朝板凳建築成一個向外防禦的結構，而清朝板凳載滿中國歷史、藝術、文化及民間感情，你會閱讀為作品將其破壞還是重建呢？

李暉｜《蛻變》(2010)

李暉透過《蛻變》展現出傳統與現代之間的緊張狀態和當中蘊藏著的爆發力量，呈現自古以來東方與西方的價值衝突。李暉用他獨特的方法，讓變動的過程本身成為一種目標。看到這件作品，我有感傳統或古代文化、技術產物等被現代化衝擊而遭見棄。

Jet Pascua |《Excessive Delicacy》(2007)

一個適合全家老幼用來野餐的溫馨地方；一種優雅用來進食的餐具，經過 Jet Pascua 的表達後頓變成暴力的園地。像是提醒著人們社會的繁榮歡欣背後總帶著悲痛和黑暗面。

Wafaa Bilal  |《Domestic Tension》(2007)

Wafaa Bilal 於一間與囚室相若的密閉空間自我判處監禁三十天，任由線上觀眾射擊。線上觀眾可透過互聯網與 Wafaa 接觸，目睹他的一舉一動，自由選擇射擊與否。而一旦觀眾選擇射擊，室內的一台遙距控制的彩彈槍便對準 Wafaa 進行射擊。Waffa 希望通俏皮的互動式的視頻遊戲帶出伊拉克人民和家庭的疏遠隔離，和他們每天需面對的暴力戰事，並描繪伊拉克國內的緊張局勢和戰爭帶來的痛苦。

Enrica Ho（何佩霖）& Julia Burns |《菁華的空虛》The Solitude of Jing Hua

我亦有幸被邀請參展雅加達雙年展。《菁華的空虛》（ The Solitude of Jing Hua ）是一個以表演為基礎，圍繞女性內心的恐懼與空虛作為題的裝置藝術。印象深刻的原因除了是因為作品本身的跨媒體性，結合了舞蹈、錄像、聲音、雕塑及裝置，亦因為題材貼身，吸引的多是女性觀眾，像是將眾人的心聲娓娓道來。當然，錄像中的菁華亦留住不少男觀眾的腳步。透過工廠生產流水線的輸送帶，隱隱道出女主角菁華這位四十歲女子對年華將逝的不安和恐懼，因而追求被標準化的青春和美麗。她的追尋不止是出於虛榮心，而是源於面臨空虛寂寞的惶恐。《菁華的空虛》反映了現代女性自信心低落的普遍性。這種內心的恐懼與無形的壓力多源於現代社會的世俗眼光、瘦身美容熱潮和化妝品及時裝廣告的影響。作品由一個大型的裝置藝術及一班表演者的肢體動作所構成。雕塑是模仿工廠生產流水線所造的環形輸送帶，透過這環形輸送帶配合表演者的肢體動作和表情，表達中年女性不斷渴求外在美以挽回逐慚消逝的青春及失落了的愛。

十二位表演者圍著環形輸送帶作肢體動作就像一個運行中的時鐘，代表著時間的流逝。另有兩位表演者在輸送帶上就像時鐘上的兩針指向中心角色。中心角色菁華，是一名四十歲的離婚女子，而「四十」這個數字正代表著女性對年齡的恐懼、時間的消逝和無法重拾愛的那種寂寞孤獨。年齡的增長及青年人迷戀的時裝行業，導致女性自信心下降，亦間接導致女性對於自我形像大大提高要求。這不但削弱了女性的自信心，亦使他們心靈變得容易受創。《菁華的空虛》正正切合 Narcissism, Voyeurism and The Body（自戀、窺淫與身體）這副題的內容。

以下是一段菁華的告白：

「我叫菁華，在1971年的香港出生。父母在六十年代為逃避『一月風暴』從上海逃離到香港。我是父母的掌上明珠，他們希望把最美好的東!西留給我，「菁華」就是他們對我的希望和心意。最近，他們正計劃回鄉過退休生活。我替他們感到高興的同時，亦感害怕……害怕失去。

我是一位貿易公司的業務經理，公司對我的待遇不俗，工作亦頗算順利。還以為是上天厚待我之際，我在2006年發現丈夫有外遇。當時，我的心情極度低落，感到沮喪之餘亦感無助。那時我的世界就像沒日一樣，完全崩潰，無法想像自己可怎樣活下去……我多麼的渴望挽回失去的青春，多麼的渴望擁抱被愛的每一刻。經過內心的多翻掙扎後，作下離婚的決定。原來一個人生活很不容易，要習慣自我照顧，要習慣孤獨。如今我四十歲了，菁華已竭，我不想這樣，還能怎樣？」 —— 菁華

Claro Ramirez ｜《Wanted: Plumber》(2011)

雖然這次雅加達雙年展不算得上完美的一次，反而還貫徹印尼的混亂作風，於開幕前有約十個藝術家的作品被扣留海關，無法展出。但這也看到各工作人員和藝術家對藝術的熱誠，藝術家在團隊的協助下在極短的時間內利用有限的物資造出新的展品。Claro Ramirez 的《Wanted: Plumber》(2011) 原是多組大型的橙色水管及錄像投映組成的互動聲音裝置，可惜水管組件被海關扣留未能展出，故 Claro Ramirez 利用在場建築工人所用的鐵台架和一部收音機，製造出作品的另一個「土炮」版本。觀眾觸摸鐵台架時，便成了一件發聲的樂器，當與另一位觀眾有任何身體觸碰，收音機便會發出的聲音，而聲音的頻率取決於觸碰的方式與時間的長短。這件作品可同時容納多位觀眾參與，讓觀眾成為藝術交響樂的一份子。

曾與雙年展統籌之一的 Vicky Rosalina 談過，原來這次雅加達雙年展是她第一次接觸藝術的經驗，她的本科是語言學（俄語系），亦從未試過在藝術學校讀書。這次能與眾多藝術家交談及深入了解藝術作品的經驗，令她對以往遙不可及的藝術產生興趣，還說藝術令她深思更多，會考慮報讀有關課程。藝術，的確能令很多人找到屬於自己的一片天。我希望雅加達這股蛻變中的力量，能令屬於它的這片天越變越清，越變越藍。

是衍生、借取、還是抄襲？

由 2006 年開始，周俊輝玩弄這電影手段作為繪畫題材已有四年，我絕對同意 April 同學所說的「換湯不換藥」的比喻，仍舊打著他「電影衍生的繪畫」的旗號故技重施。當我看到展覽簡介提到「以繪畫家傳戶曉的華語電影為手段，探討藝術作品在主題上不斷自我衍生的可能性」時，我不其然地思考何為衍生和何為 Reproduction，而按照文字上的解釋看似是兩種不同的東西。「衍生」有旁生或英文字 derive 演變而產生的意思，而 Reproduction 則有再生、再製造、複製或使其再現、重現的意思，兩者具有大差別。先不咬文嚼字談中英文名字有否錯配，與其說其繪畫乃是衍生，不如說是再製造（Reproduction）更為貼切。所謂衍生（derive）是演變而產生的意思，例如當一個理論經思考而演變成另一個新的理論時，衍生便成立。而周俊輝將電影的畫面「照辦煮碗」用磁漆布本的方式繪畫出來，名義上是由電影衍生的繪畫，但實質上兩者又不是衍生出來的東西。將圖像進行形式轉換的工作，只是在處理手法方面進行改變，例如將一幅油畫改用塑膠彩來重繪而內容不變。電影的畫面是來自電影的，沒有一分加以變改；繪畫手法是來自於中世紀的歐洲，源遠流長，又何來衍生呢？然而，這些也可從他的繪畫中看到的。他的電影繪畫系列作品在構圖上刻意預留上下兩行黑粗邊，抄襲電影在大銀幕上播放時的上下兩條黑色邊緣。這個有意識的選取說明了其刻意抄襲的成分，既然明目張膽的抄襲又為何須取巧地用「衍生」這動聽的名字為題呢？

我並不是否定所有「照辦煮碗」的衍生。若果將一幅繪畫改由攝影的手法來處理，我認為這樣的衍生是成立的。繪畫是一種在二維的平面上以手工方式臨摹自然的藝術，源於中世紀的歐洲。當時，人們常把繪畫稱作「猴子的藝術」，因為如同猴子喜歡模仿人類活動一樣，繪畫也是模仿場景。（這是從 wikipedia 網頁中搜得的解釋）而我覺得繪畫除了以上之外，還是一種利用二維空間去表達三維空間事物的演繹媒介，亦無形間記錄當時從畫家角度出發所看到的或感觀到的事物（way of seeing and perspective）。加上畫家的獨特處理手法，在畫布上把事物加以主觀的物理上（例如材料的選取）、質感上（筆觸和力度）或視覺表達上（光暗強調和顏色運用）的改造，對事物作出全新的表達和演繹。另外，繪畫亦能反映著某個年代和某種藝術風格。而一般攝影雖然同樣地可以將三維空間的事物原本地記錄於二維平面的相片當中，而且比繪畫更能反映出某個年代的特色，但事物本身沒有經過作者主觀的物理上的改造，而質感和視覺表達手法的改造亦較繪畫有限，故此以一般攝影表達的事物較繪畫的客觀。但當以攝影去模仿繪畫時，前者的二維平面表達必須通過三維的媒介才能達到。由二維表達（繪畫）演化為三維（現實空間），再用另一種二維的表達方式（攝影）去演繹，當中包含了兩次變換狀態。在第一次的變換狀態中，作者能夠加入主觀的原素（例如 staged photography），打破一般攝影的客觀，再加上以一種不同效果的記錄方式（由繪畫到攝影），後者的二維平面表達便與前者的具有大不同，而這些變換便能達到衍生的目的。相反，由電影這種本屬二維平面的東西，改由另一種二維平面來表達，如果當中欠缺內容上或物理上的變換，又有何價值呢？從前我初學寫生的時候，練精學懶地乾脆用相機攝下風景，然後在家中慢慢抄畫而被別人罵我不應該，罵我不是在寫生而只是在抄寫，原因是相片中的風景只是一個已變成平面的圖像，並非那處於三維空間的真實風景本身，即便我如何抄畫得相像也會欠缺實物的立體感和當時處身於當中的感覺，繪出來沒有味道也沒有意思，也是初學繪畫的大忌。

回想參觀這次展覽，我依然最喜歡的是那重畫《新半斤八兩》的逐幀動畫（stop motion animation）。利用逐幀動畫的形式來重演《新半斤八兩》電影，刻意用人手放置繪圖的做法和逐幀動畫為畫面帶來的不暢順使其帶有原始味。同時也加強了漫畫性，減低真實感，與《新半斤八兩》本來的「鬼馬」作風互相配合，而且更提高喜劇色彩從而加強諷刺意味。細看每一幅小繪畫時，你便會看到畫家的繪畫複製功力是如此厲害，令人嘆為觀止！

的確，為了不使藝術停滯不振，除了不斷創新外，我們還得要從既有的東西借取再進行演變，然後衍生新產物，是靈感的相互啟發，例如王家衛的《花樣年華》從劉以鬯的《對倒》結構中獲取靈感，而我於大學一年班時所創作的《畫眉》亦是由我鍾愛的王家衛的《花樣年華》中找出靈感等。「周：如果有多一張船票，妳會不會跟我走？蘇：如果有多一張船票，你會不會帶我走？」與「男房東：我是多麼的渴望能執著妳手替妳畫眉…… 女房客：我是多麼的渴望能執著你手教你畫眉……」兩段字幕同樣擁有「對倒」的特殊重象，但這只是從「對倒」意念所衍生的創作，是潛移默化得來的成果，也是種對偶像的熱愛和尊敬的表現，並不屬於抄襲。我們應先明瞭既有材料的內容和懂得分辦既有材料的價值，選取適合的材料後再進行思考和分析如何運用所借取的材料，這樣衍生的東西才有意思。

City · Flâneur

「城市漫遊者—社會紀實攝影」是繼「光影神韻—攝影大師陳復禮、簡慶福、黃貴權」展覽後的第二個香港攝影系列展覽，結集了三十五組攝影師的二百六十多幅涵蓋一九五零年代至當今的都市風貌攝影作品。個人比較喜歡「光影神韻」的作品，如畫般美，藝術味兒重一點（笑）。這次展覽的策劃人特別將兩個互不咬弦的國家的文字拼湊成展覽的名字《City Flâneur》[1]，相信是別有用心吧。無論是為了突出我們香港這個戴著英治標記的「City」，還是突顯那種自工業革命以後漸漸被人意識到的冷眼旁觀世態炎涼、享受純粹的觀察和自我沉溺的心理狀態，均與城市獵影息息相通。我特別喜歡 Flâneur 這個字，除了因為自己喜愛法文外，這字也許為那些熱衷於用鏡頭去表現他們心目中社會的印象卻被廣泛地稱為「龍友」的獵影者改了一個很優雅浪漫的新名詞。

是次展覽劃分為四個主題，包括「街頭攝影」、「社會紀實攝影」、「新地景主義」與「觀念及矯飾攝影」。傳統的紀實攝影是現實的片段式和瞬間性記錄，攝影師將鏡頭前面的景象拍成照片，過程牽涉主觀的人為判斷，同時也包含物理機件的客觀性，但社會紀實攝影則包含第二層含義。在純粹的記錄之上，反映某種社會狀態，感染讀者繼而影響社會。這也與新聞攝影不同，因後者旨在紀錄單一事件，而非反映正在進行中的社會動態。雖然社會紀實攝影亦有為單一事件作紀錄，但焦點依然放於該事件對社會所產生的影響。傳統上，大家都認為紀實攝影不應該存有任何後期加工或修改，因這些加工行為會令照片失去真確性。這個社會紀實攝影展卻包羅由攝影師擺佈，經電腦加工修飾，甚至是裝置拼貼的合成影像作品，或許試圖改變某種文化觀念，嘗試為紀實攝影立新的定義。

在第一部份的「街頭攝影」中，翟偉良鏡頭下攝的都是充滿人情味的街頭獵影。他能捕捉最原始的、最真實不過的景象，見證不同年代的工人生活。那個導賞員每每停在相片前都說想當年這想當年那⋯⋯ 想當年香港物資貧乏，小孩子的娛樂就是坐在街邊看漫畫呀！這些街頭攝影均將當年大眾的生活習慣原原本本地展現出來，亦代表了一個時代的文化，印證著民間的社會變遷。在第二部份有著我老師吳文正的作品《街坊老店》，每幅作品都洋溢著濃厚的地道感情，用溫情來紀錄每一間店舖、每一個家庭的歷史。那四個大男人的笑容和詼諧的動作最能表現出舊時社區的人情味和表達情牽社區的信息。第三部份「新地景主義」大多反映近二十年來香港的多項大型建設和急速發展對社會的影響。從陳廣源的一系列彩色燈箱照片中，我們可以看到維港兩岸高聳入雲的建築物與及穿插於高樓大廈當中的大型廣告牌。而 Michael Wolf 所攝的《透明城市》系列雖遠在美國芝加哥市區拍攝，卻與陳廣源不謀而合地展現出城市景觀變得全面奇觀化的特性。最後的「觀念及矯飾攝影」部份則展出在電腦後期加工或影像被攝影技術扭曲的作品，當中最為人熟悉的作品應是朱德華的《遊行》系列和馮建中的《樓花》系列。《遊行》令我最佩服的是他創作背後的意念，很多個香港人都堅持自己的理念在大遊行中爭取些甚麼似的，但看真一些每一個人都是同一個人。究竟爭取民主是一小撮人所幹的事還是整個香港人的事呢？究竟他們是否只在盲目跟隨呢？而馮建中的《樓花》早於2009年在香港藝術中心展出過，亦推出了攝影集，所以對他的作品非常眼熟了。

這個香港攝影系列展覽的確有點兒貪婪，用「社會紀實攝影」這麼一個小袋子裝載著那麼多不同類型的「社會紀實」作品，然而大開眾人的眼界，令我們帶著新的觀點去看我們的過去、現在和未來。

參考：明報 — 七色部落—攝影﹕城市漫遊者——社會紀實攝影

[1] City Flâneur —— 西歐世界於十九世紀中葉進入所謂「發達資本主義時期」，就此面對一個前所未有的世界新局。當中，資本主義、理性主義，和其所代表的資產階級，及其庸俗品味主導一切。以波特萊爾為代表的藝術家從中窺見了「現代性」邏輯，並尋獲一種新的生活策略，即扮演起「漫遊者」。他既觀察人群，又屬於人群，既批判資本主義，又利用資本主義，並以「現代的代言人」自居，班雅明擴大探索「漫遊者」的作用，並將他的「凝視」提昇到歷史和人類宿命之中。透過「收集」及「記憶」，及不斷地予以去魅，以其達成個人與全人類的救贖。

《發達資本主義時期的城市漫遊者——從波特萊爾到班雅明》—— 吳錫德著

這些是我偷偷影下來的照片。

 

*****

 

最後，不得不提我在這次參觀展覽的小趣事。那個展館的導賞員一而再再而三的強調那些 staged photography 是沒有用任何閃光燈，是真真正正最自然的生活照，與我們平常擺出 V 字手勢的生活照大大不同，因那些照片中的主角們都不是望著鏡頭的。他又將作品地點由兒童醫院錯說為幼稚園，更說作品的獨特之處是因為幼稚園的特色是下午關大門，而大家都從未試過在深夜到訪幼稚園。還有他說某某的作品為「冇咩特別」，還有更多更多⋯⋯ 我為攝影師們感到傷心難過。

Philosophic Art Criticism

This is my review and summary of what James Elkins says about the philosopher’s essay in his book What happened to Art Criticism?

The Author James Elkins mentions two outstanding philosophic writers to illustrate the topic of “philosopher’s essay”, namely Arthur Danto and Thomas Crow. He thinks that Crow has a denser and more concertedly philosophic tone in his writings, whereas Danto has a lighter tone and tends more towards his claim of the end of art history.

Crow’s essays are mainly focus on minimalism and conceptual art. His writings comprise philosophic problems which called for philosophic criticism. Elkins quotes Crow’s saying that philosophic criticism, for the time being, came to provide the most important venue where demanding philosophical issues could be aired before a substantial lay public, in which I interpreted substantial lay public as a very large group of laymen audience. Crow also says that the best criticism has to be “distinguished by a thoroughly appropriate elevation of tone and an impersonal precision of language.”, that is the best ones are to be more profound and at the same time not being too personal language. Elkins takes two examples of minimalism artist and conceptual artists to explain Crow’s discourse, Sherrie Levine [1] and Gordon Matta-Clark [2]. However, Elkins thinks that to criticize the conceptual artworks is hard in the nature of text, because the artworks themselves are philosophy in visual form which are more attractive, challenging, interesting and demanding to pose the philosophic problems than that in the form of words.

What makes Elkins question about Danto’s writings is the very idea/purpose of writing art criticism after the end of the history of art. Elkins interprets that in the state of art after history, anyone’s voice might be helpful and no need to promote one interpretation over another. However, it is strange that the ideas, artists, styles and movements still compared with one another in the state of art after history (just like the situation before the end of art history). He thinks that art after the end of art history cannot be theorized. Therefore, he says the only way to separate the contemporary art criticism from those criticisms before the end of art history is to write without using the conventional and traditional judgments and concepts that were used before 1963 (claimed end of art history). In that sense, Elkins disagrees with the approach of Danto’s art criticism. He thinks that Danto’s art criticism is illegible because he still adopted the same approach in his writings even after the end of art history, but just only asked his readers not to comprehend his criticism as historical references. This is quite contradictory and inconsistent between his act and position.

Elkins finally mentions about interesting art criticism in recent decades can be called “philosophic” as they share the common characteristic of taking artworks as irreplaceable sites for philosophic work.

———————————————————————————————————

1. “Sherrie Levine’s plywood panels” refers to her paintings on wood. Sherrie Levine first gained widespread critical recognition in the early 1980s for her photographic re-creations of famous works of art, typically by men, through which she questioned the ideals of high modernism and confronted issues of authorship, repetition, and authenticity. Although known for these works, which redefined the role of appropriation strategies, Levine’s concerns are never specific to any media; sculpture, drawing, and painting have always been a part of her practice. Later in her career, she began to make works inspired by the precedent of a generic type, rather than a particular work of art. Her series of stripe paintings, for example, refers to both Russian Suprematist painting of the first part of the 20th century and American Minimal painting of the 1960s. Untitled (Check 2) is from a series of game-board motifs, marking the first time Levine drew source material from outside the art-historical realm.

Quoted from The Art Institute of Chicago.

2. “Gordon Matta-Clark’s action” refers to the “building cut” action. During the 1970s, Matta-Clark made the works for which he is best known: his “anarchitecture.” These were temporary works created by sawing and carving sections out of buildings, most of which were scheduled to be destroyed. He documented these projects in photography and film. Although he made interventions into a former iron foundry in Genoa, Italy, in 1973, his first large-scale project has been defined as Splitting (1974). To create this work, Matta-Clark sawed two parallel slices through a nondescript wood-frame house in Englewood, New Jersey, and removed the material between the two cuts. In addition, he cut out the corners of the house’s roof, which were subsequently shown at John Gibson Gallery in New York. He made similar gestures in some of his photographs, cutting the actual negatives rather than manipulating individual prints.

Quoted from Guggenheim Collection Online.