mMK

decided to start a new blog for my diary for the trip instead:
http://mmk06us.blogspot.com/

Before I leave, I try to avoid promising to keep on writing this blog during the US trip, but I just arrived at an appartment for visiting artist of the San Francisco California College of Arts. With internet access, it seems to allow me at least to carry on writing during this part of the trip. Though I feel sad to leave home, and the town that I passed by seem pretty quiet (it is Sunday morning here), picking up the keys right from the venue of CCA Wattis Insitute, where the Thomas Hirschhorn's exhibition is on show, suddenly lifted my spirit a bit. Hope everything runs smooth.

今天午間去了一個講檢討博物館的"政治飯局",我因為一雙波鞋不合dress code,累到大伙人要換一層樓.我就是這樣不屬於那個圈子.那天有人說楊鐵樑教英文,說低下階層用pardon,上等人用what.大概那就是財大氣粗的一種文化?今天的am730標題說:胡錦濤晤蓋茨允打盜版,一國家的主席,既然向一個首富的王國落允.一切都是錢作怪.若藝術不是創意工業,不是娛樂消遣,那種藝術,卻恐怕我們香港人自己都未夠班.

星期5晚的迷彩--政治地藝術的形式主義!?放映ICA(Boston) Thomas Hirschhorn 展覽特製專輯+分享,既然場地主人家決定了7pm,就七點吧!(但habitus跟藝評班的email我都再收不到好耐了,真麻煩check check!).
平時也不多搞o野,這次其實無非是臨走敘敘的藉口,或者之後一齊食個飯,但若大家也忙,冇計.隻碟我自己也未睇過,上次在Boston僅看了展場外的濃縮版,也算是某種(隻碟的)首映.上次到美國chelsea new museum雖然見到也想過想在香港播(documentaX時看過)的(Johan Grimonprez)Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y 的DVD,但不過湊巧trip前得知中大uc已有,於是就決定省錢算了.
p.s.這輪看得guidebk多,我也建議大家以後來mMK最好是中午,我在藍田接,大家一齊先在藍田復康會的聰鳴餐廳吃個午飯,才再到我家,之後有興趣更可到會所打場波或游陣水.至於請大家來屋企食餐我煮的家常便飯?對不起,臨走前可能連老婆都無機會,又點會輪得到大家!

那天出席John Batten的畫廊結業,遇上些好友都變得也不知還有什麼好說,大家積極不是壞事,心灰卻何苦抱怨,個體藝術其實又何必要和藝壇爭什麼.這好像很消極,但若藝術(美學)不可以對社會的價值作最根底的反思,提供另一種世界的價值/想像,汪丁丁又或J.Schumpeter意指的企業家,我認同,就是當代最出色的"創新"藝術家.
看了黎健強的留言,總覺彼此又試交叉走位(雖然我走來走去都是原地踏步居多,不似其能潛心學問又坐言起行),記得當我有感藝術史很不當代,黎健強話我不該事事都要有用來看學術.但對藝術與藝評的社會性要求,總覺其又比我要求更高,社會政治性也來得硬性.或者這正是雙行的意思.(我上次說的雙行,其實是對頭車才真,答咀不對榫.)
以前聽過黎健強話仍當自己是藝術家(最近路經灣仔,見到個議員之類的橫額海報,幅辦公室照,就立刻使我想起黎健強跟黃志遠的<<三三>>那幀人像硬照),搞藝術先是一種介入,這次說藝評,也是同一個介入.這"介入"大概正是中大藝術系從來沒有教過我的一樣東西.中大過去西洋藝術史提也沒提的Situationist本來誇張的景觀社會理論被當代重新炒熱,完全可以視作中大過去生產的藝術家型態的一大死穴.
近日在百忙中讀著oxford-a very introduction系列的Dada and Surrealism,和上次看Understanding Installation相似,都讓我再次感到他們如dance theatre一樣,其實東西本來出現時,其實也有一些political agenda,不過是發展下來,那一部份總是稜角很快就無了.(於此就又想起,讀書時硬啃過本講柏林達達的書,貪的正是其政治性.)至於一種cutting edge的當刻藝術介入和歷史意識的關係,其實內裡真是可能大有文章.(正如反過來creativity不談傳統又會是怎麼樣的創意.)

跳過去預看了三藩市的電影節(http://www.sfiff.org/)節目,也有些得意的東西: 如ART SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL是齣借講Can the artistic experience be taught?的gleefully filthy and winsomely wise black comedy. IBERIA講舞的電影可播足四場.如關乎電影TEK範疇的POCKET CINEMA和SCRIBBLE, SCRAPPLE, I.C. YOU,都幾前衛及如MICROWAVE節. THE BRIDGE講關於三藩市金門大橋的自殺聖地的DOCUMENTARY,當然並不得意.而另有的THREE TIMES(侯考賢)與THE WAYWARD CLOUD(謝明亮),不知是否又是因我不在香港錯失了,連電影節也沒放?就像那裡NEW DIRECTOR類別中的ALL ABOUT LOVE(再說一次我愛你)般?另而PERHAPS LOVE作為BIG NIGHT之一,我倒對作為港人感到頗沒面子.走在三藩市,我就寧願碰上劉華.(不知兩個劉華又或會否坐同一班機呢?)

ps.唔去都唔留意,文晶瑩原來正是在現在Enwezor作dean,新聘了侯瀚如作museum/curatorial學部的head的San Francisco Art Institute進修畢業.

連續在大銀幕看人撒骨灰看了三次,一次熊人,一是外交官場現形記,一是風流債風流還.人愈大愈發覺,人與人的情,要珍惜,但人要活,也要識let go,否則連自己也幫不到自己.
香港國際電影節影評人心水,朗天選了三套,其中包括荷索的熊人,按語精警(也縮骨),就是"荷索,荷索,荷索".荷索的戲不再是戲時,戲實在就是關乎荷索自己,而荷索又總是那麼荷索.第一齣白鑽石,拍一個之前意外弄死了一個攝影師的氣球飛船痴在原始雨林樹冠(canopy)上慢翔拍攝的心願,第一趟起飛,荷索堅持自己帶著鏡頭隨船,以為首航不能沒有攝影機隨船,我以為除了是為了電影,都可見到荷索此人的一些尋死傾向,一些自以為是.說希望瀑布後的秘密不會公開,其所拍鏡頭也不會放,以尊重土人意願,則和其於第二齣熊人中,荷索聽了那對男女慘死於野熊下的錄音帶卻叫友人不要聽並把它消毀一樣,或是出於好心,在鏡頭前卻同似有些此地無銀三百兩.幸好最後他們也讓土人飛了一趟飛船.至於熊人,兩人死因也不在於荷索所謂indifferent眼神的殺人熊,而是觀察了熊多年已沒有從中學知危險徵兆的另一種視而不見,荷索有的是事後孔明?David Letterman問熊人會否有一天看到其被熊噬,其實不是一種玩笑.(比重播百萬富翁更攞命?)最後一齣荷索是藍星人懷鄉曲,請幾個科學家來合作亂嗡一餐,怎樣尋找出宇宙不同引力的通道加速宇宙航行,最後尋到另一宇外世界,當這班太空人決心在那裡開商場,把地球變成星球殖民的陽光海灘,殊知太空之旅的時間流快,地球已又回到了冰河後的另一原始狀態,這種時間觀的劇情玩笑,卻無論如何始終不及影片本身,把在浮冰下的奇異海底世界的片段充當外星世界的畫面玩笑見到荷索那種橫行無忌. 白鑽石和熊人的主人翁,都是些荷索式麻煩人物,對某東西的執迷,也害成了人家.外交官場現形記,講的是一種世界,社會作用於人,風流債風流還則只能說是人如何待自己,related則是作種動詞用.Sam Shepard飾的主角混噩過了幾十年,辛苦的終醒過來(最後拒絕與敗壞世界related的,反是尋失蹤主角的bounty hunter),但不是因為(天使般的)女兒,而是多虧給主角誕下兒子的女角給主角的一番教訓?每個人的生命也是道門,若不認真,就don't come knocking好了.如何活,本身就是最艱深的一門藝術.

放映ICA(Boston) Thomas Hirschhorn 展覽特製專輯+分享

Screening ofThomas Hirschhorn's
UTOPIA,
UTOPIA = ONE WORLD, ONE WAR, ONE ARMY, ONE DRESS

The Institute of Contemporary Art (Boston) Documentary DVD 16 minutes

mMK invites you to this private art-reflection (conduct in Cantonese) sharing at Habitus
21st April 2006 Friday night, 7pm.


"Thomas Hirschhorn's energetic new installation explores the current world situation through the metaphor of military camouflage, which has been adapted from battlefield uniform to street fashion. Featuring footage of Hirschhorn in his Paris studio and commentary from philosopher Marcus Steinweg and ICA Chief Curator Nicholas Baume, the video uncovers an artist of unrelenting intensity, revealing the working methods and philosophies that underpins his work."
- dvd cover

What does it mean when a cotume of war becomes a look or a style? Does it imply that conflict has become fasionable, or does it simply indicate mass indifference? – Nichloas Baume & Ralph Rugoff

… if we take the historical lessons of camouflage seriously – from Thayer to Caillois to Picasso – we see its fashionable iteration as just another decoy, a crude (because apparently frivolous) diversionary tactic in the world's arsenal of perpetual voilence. – Pamela M. Lee

湯瑪士.歇斯漢(Thomas Hirschhorn，1957-)，在九十年代成為世界藝術界側目的駐居巴黎的瑞士前衛藝術家，尤以一系列哲學家的公共紀念站(如Bataille Monument, Documenta 11, 2002; 24 heures Foucault, Palais de Tokyo, 2004)而被廣受注目，先後得Prix Marcel Duchamp (2000), Joseph-Beuys-Preis (2004)等獎項。歇斯漢在art basel 2003，更宣佈由於一名極右政見人仕當上瑞士上議會成員，而決定不再在瑞士展出。其針對同一事件的巴黎Centre culturel suisse展覽Swiss-Swiss democracy，更惹來瑞士國會削減Pro Helvetia, Arts Council of Switzerland組織經費的政治風波。原來授學於瑞士蘇黎世的設計學院(Schule fuer Gestaltung)的歇斯漢，強調自己為「形式主義者」，其創作口號，「我不搞政治藝術，而是政治地搞藝術」，反映出一種獨特的藝術-政治觀。是這次放映的為其於波士頓ICA及三藩市Wattis Institute的UTOPIA, UTOPIA = ONE WORLD, ONE WAR, ONE ARMY, ONE DRESS展覽所出版的錄像特輯。
Jaspar將同場分享一些其搜集關於歇斯漢的參考資料。

黎健強在上則entry留言,問到{藝評與藝術史}可不可以是雙線行車呢?
本來就是目的地不同,當然是雙行/多行不悖.
但那又豈不是現狀?
既是也不是.
所以我也十分的自我矛盾,我那天堂上直說看到(那標舉課程適合通識/視藝科老師修讀,視覺藝術部份由陳靜昕主持的)邊走邊評2006藝術評論發展計劃就驚,但我不知驚什麼.
導師人選?可能有一點,因為作為這範/傳統的忠實本地讀者,我對其文字沒甚印象(在明報,信報,藝術家刊過文?我那天在中大就特意羅列我所有文章的出現過地方,不是show quali,卻是特顯文章的出現和學生未有看過的massively produce,massive ignored現象).這blog提過其於ampost寫曾翠薇,就是我唯一印象(為什麼用繪畫本體論來講曾翠薇就是錯?我沒有這意思,但我的判斷告訴我這就是同學問有否時候作品會承不了藝評喜愛套加理論的好例子;另而在ampost場合,如此短幅談繪畫本體論,其中必須的簡化,也很考功夫).
大概如Harold Rosenberg話齋,我信:"No systematic approach is viable in art criticism."我怕的是那種可教(再生產)的自信(一如當代懶埋藝術是否可教的mfa(還有dfa!)進修潮,),最後專業和positionlessness仍可否並存,我不知.讀James Elkins的What happened to Art Criticism?,稍少一點self-reflectivity,就會看不出Elkins咬著Jerry Saltz的positionlessness唔放,不單是不明何解,而是正恰知道那是藝評的巧妙所在.(這不期然使我想起的,是matrix的特工,其實私下很想知道人類自由意志的秘密,想逃離自己世界的監牢.)

Venturi在第14章conclusion篇,還提了一個頗有趣的觀點,其以為"it is the experience of contemporary art that teaches us to see the art of the past and not the reverse"..."this is confirmed Winckelmann and Hegel who, just because they based the interpretation of all art on the absolute pre-eminence of Greek art, ended by misunderstanding both Greek and contemporary art."(p.348)這立刻就使我想到Harold Rosenberg於Criticism and Its Premises中的類似說法:"Art Criticism is art history today. The critic sees art history backwards."相比於如藝術史專攻過去,藝評專攻現在,這多少有理卻無甚理據基礎的想法,這把問題好像又說得有哲學味點.然而Venturi另外所說:"Art transcend history while participating in it."(p.350),則使我想起了Michael Newman在芝加哥藝評座談跟History of Art Criticism課堂中所說的另一觀點,但那個觀點我依仍未能好好把握,大意是藝術的性質本就不該是以歷史作為其系統論述的基礎.我有次同友人談起,她說她不甚明白,但就她所理解的,就覺得我很錯,我聽了都幾開心,因為我從美國學了些真的前衛極端的想法,容我再去推敲.

提了幾次的Lionello Venturi, History of Art Criticism (1936第一版,紐約出版)這書真精彩{原來作序的正是上次引過其話的Gregory Battcock}.在此書第13章的Critical History of Art{名稱本身就已是一些外國學系藝術史採的新名目,有些更是把history 作眾數添},Venturi對一些的藝術史學家不滿,針對的是背後藝術史的成型的歷史性問題,如就Winckelmann,其以為他"offered a type of genetic history … deficient in the intuition of art, of its individuality, its irrationality, he made, in fact, the history of schemes and types, not of art, under the guise of art history. … he was one of the greatest obstacles to the direction of art criticism." (p.330-1)"The paradox of the death of art in the modern era has nothing to do with the definition of art given Hegel as the sensible appearance of the idea, but derives from the influence of Winckelmann upon the Hegel's taste."(p.337)結果,要在美學較弱,藝術史無甚成就(!)的法國,藝評"… was left to journalist, to the reporters of exhibitions. … in France, during the eighteenth (Diderot) … nineteenth century (Delacroix, Stendhal, Baudelaire and Zola) …"(p.334)產生了一種活於當刻的藝術評論書寫.

今天出機票,23號就起程,7月中後才返.臨時本還是想除消多一程內陸機,總覺得美國內陸機很麻煩,不似市區就有的長途巴士站,先要專程到機場,華人拿馬來西亞護照,又往往要特別嚴密的保安檢查,兩次也要當眾除鞋除腰帶,電腦取出來抹片檢查一番,携行李量又不同國際線,諸多問題,好像分分鐘出事般,最主要,則還是錢,巴士改期改時都沒大不了,飛機卻動輒加錢,無任何彈性.
上次在芝加哥見到Helene Cixous,下午十幾人圍坐傾計,Helene Cixous講到自己這次來美國在機場被海關關了起來盤問,連致電找接機的人來幫口都不許,感到很不快,說想過不想再來美國,估不到堂堂Helene Cixous也有這種"糟"遇,我於是煽風點火,問為什麼不就不再來美國吧,作為個知名知識份子,此舉一定有點效果,Helene Cixous卻就軟下態度躲了問題.
那天晚上Helene Cixous的talk講及Roni Horn(Roni Horn最近就出了本書Helene Cixous的大頭相集),於是我就問佢有沒看過de Duve寫Roni Horn,可惜她卻說沒有.SAIC搭單把Helene Cixous擺埋入States of Art Criticism都不過是見有名的visiting writer在就唔好嘥的心態.本來得知這次從durham走,會經芝加哥轉直飛返港,於是我也以唔好嘥的心態,心想可不可以再訪多一次芝加哥(剛草草寫成的短短上程報告給acc,我就也只集中講了芝加哥),無奈又要預繳補錢,就決定算數罷了.

本來同阿麥訂了王秀雄的藝術批評的視野(2006),但由於為入中大作準備,書未來,唯有在商務打書釘,可是看了第一二章,友人就來電,知情後就說服了我多買一本給其學校用,於是我就買下來看,殊知這書讀落真幾唔妥,不單行文怪怪好似不通順的譯本,如一入第三章,藝評文的種類,其分類法有畫家專論,傳記,書信,接著卻是雕刻專論,個別作品以及多才多藝的藝術家,真是看得使人摸不著頭腦,尤其加入一些又冇一些的媒體範疇,大概真是一個難以叫滿意的基礎.
藝術批評與藝術史關係,是我近期很關心的課題,上次我談此書時說他"守舊到不得了"是看了他第十章的列表兩者比較,但這次就發現另一個證據在於其第一章也有一個藝術批評與藝術史的小章節,當中引了L. Venturi的History of Art Criticism (1936)一書,此書我好彩在芝加哥的一間亂七八糟的二手書店中以三元美金買到手,這本譯自意文的著作,在這麼早的著寫年份,就經已採了一個針對藝術史的視角,偏偏王秀雄就讀不到這種激烈處出來,真是可惜,或者,這激烈正是這類教科書式著作所要避免的?否則就只會像我入中大講藝評的結果,好像一切無成法,試問咁又可以教d乜?
(下次再引說Venturi講咗d乜.)

為延至昨天才入中大在may fung的art as profession課談藝評,加上要搞機票,又要看電影,沒有了寫blog的時間,十頁的稿加自己的中大出身背境交待,我不知是輕(輕觸式)或還是已過哂重,最後幾篇未講就早overrun,要俾大家討論,我夜瞓加上無o野落過肚,中場已腦筋也有些鈍緩了,又忘了drop notes逐點回應.有趣是有些同學對現代性有些興趣,或者現在藝術系已都加了一點理論.但最大的反應,爭持在描述,形式主義分析有何不妥,我的立場是沒有,但它不能是全部.(同一道理,而當大家接受藝術史是藝評一種,我就更不會去攻擊而是捍衛它.)結果,我沒有好好的交代其實這的而且確是大量藝評一般時候要做的東西/工作,一些好藝評,就是如此評論作品時,表現得相當出色而成名.我不過是要argue一個最闊最鬆的定義/空間給藝評,但就是忘了補充,這不是常態,而是我一個人(極少數/理論上)的極端而已.但我閱讀藝評的經驗使我感覺,好藝評大多都明白這點.(好,當然不過是我從我所理解的藝評傳統標準出發.)

反對聯合國於2008年停用繁體中文 (正體中文)!
Say NO to United Nations' abolishment of Traditional Chinese in 2008!

在一邊排美國簽證一邊讀著年鑑,想在走前寫一點關於本書.counter的人問我如何成為了個critic,我答well, i just write.在非不得已,我才不會如此自稱.換個位置,見到一個如此從頭到腳都唔似有tastes,有classes之人,我都唔信佢係critic啦.之後到ifc接人,路經一個fashion和藝術的catwalk crossover展,有Irving Penn ,Robert Mapplethorpe等各一幅半幅,還有些其他,但未正式揭幕,來者又是賓衣香鬢影,就沒逛逛看,風頭卻當然不及幾十億畢卡索等待拍賣品吸引傳媒.
我們的藝術,我懷疑其實仍停留在摺摺飛機的個人玩意,那天藝術作動,身邊的阿kith一見臺上在摺紙飛機就忍唔著又要摺,放埋落場,叫馬仔定要拍埋.真是一句講哂:貪玩!點知那天看到新聞,一個香港人贏了地區性的摺飛機鬥遠比賽,可以代表香港去好似歐洲還是邊度,問佢心得,佢話佢唔係對此有研究之人,不過是比賽前上網找找摺法,這樣就把獎贏來,真的吹漲,這真是香港人文化中的表表者.連摺飛機都可以比貪玩更冇文化.

originally interested to go, but clash with my film fest timing. see if u are free in today and tomorrow's evening.

DANCE IMPROVISATION LAND XIII 緣舞場 十三
Gecko in Sandals 「踢拖壁虎」多空間 主辦
Free Sound Improvisation 自由聲音即興
Free Body Expression 自由身體表達
Dada Haiku Lounge 達達俳句酒廊

Musicians, composers, performers and dancers from US, Japan and Hong Kong,a performance you simply cannot miss this year!
來自美國、日本與香港的音樂人、作曲家、表演者及舞者交織出本年最不能錯過的自由即興作品！
Bill Hsu (US): Lap-top ComputerSoji Ikai (Japan): Movement, Voice and Haiku(Japanese poem)Nelson Hiu (HK-US): Mandolin, Melodion with ElectronicVictor Choi Wo ,Ma (Hong Kong): Dance and MovementMandy Ming Yin ,Yim (Hong Kong): Dance

8 & 9/4/2006 (Sun, Sat) 19:30

演出地點 Venue: Y-劇場 Theatre Y門票 Ticketing: $80, $60(member,student,disable and elderly)
3/F., Flat B, Wah Fung IND. Centre, Block 1, 33-39 Kwai FungCrescent, Kwai Chung,Hong Kong
香港葵涌葵豐街 33-39號華豐工業中心第一期3字樓B室

售票地點 Ticketing︰「多空間」 Y-劇場 Theatre Y 及阿麥書房 Mackie Tix 28080301(香港銅鑼灣恩平道52號2樓A室 Flat A, 2/F, 52Yun Ping Road, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong)
查詢及訂座電話︰24700511 (Y-劇場 Theatre Y), 95615559 (Martin)
「多空間」網址︰www.y-space.org

幸運地至今未看過 熱愛基本法 的mv,只是從in-media的 殺死我吧 Kill me Pls! --fred 的標題的好奇心下,才發現此陳輝陽作曲,鄭國江填詞,李克勤梁詠琪陳慧琳主唱的恐怖歌曲.好彩速速有首重填歌詞串番轉頭的給消消氣.
不過其實上陣子,我也找來過一張題為me? we!的雙cd.有黃貫中,有恭碩良,有葉世榮,有黃耀明等,加上包以正為每張碟分別以think east!和go west!作開頭,原以為幾有瞄頭,加上有幾首曲名,叫七月之熱(angelita li)和聖誕九七(群星合唱),以為有料到,會幾玩o野,點知一聽,首聖誕九七,就可謂有熱愛基本法一半的惡頂,尤其是沒有想過這班人會和那班流行曲偶像一樣無腦.黃貫中後97的幾隻碟都唔錯吖,幾有批判控訴力,怎知會在一隻聞說2004年出街的碟中忽然這樣?出版的J-Sonic Entertainment Limited,說到自己好有音樂抱負,但單這可惜唔夠.
見到J-Sonic Entertainment Limited的label,就順便一提,不知為什麼,文化界總經常叫西九做Cultural District,或者政府有時也是,但幾次聽曾特首說,佢都清清楚楚叫這做文娛區,文化=文化(+娛樂)的思維,其實一直都才是西九的精髓,才可以市場化,我於是再查看,發現西九應全名作文化娛樂藝術區,真的慘,原來還有藝術=文娛的典範尾巴.(不知幾時,是否又會有篇文,說我把這界線絕對化的對立?唉!)

昨日被呂振光叫入中大客串講作品,(此任務)完全唔係我個路,在唔知搞乜和藝術家everything goes之間,我只知why art cannot be taught.

從中大趕出港島途中,卻得知acc的飯敘紐約客臨急取消.本來不知會否見到在紐約才認識的eva tam,但在回家途中,拿出從莫家良手上拿來的2004藝術年鑑兩冊,卻看到了eva的文章,講藝術館與設計,其中提到了我(劉建華註腳錯植了,倒也算攪些設計的曾建華!)ampost那篇紅白藍短文,我有點奇怪,我在紐約時有對eva提過那篇文,倒是她沒有跟我提過談過她撰文此舉.(據聽聞,董橋支持"她"字不用女字旁,不知從否.)

文中對那被拿來認真讀的短文,有很多的解讀,對我而言都是miss了我的point,但佢要這樣讀,我很明白,也舖陳得不錯,讀者只知我就是(作者想)極化的立場二之一.我不知應否在這裡覆,因為那邊文章就是要進入歷史,但我被這樣進入歷史這大概絕不會忿氣,這對我面言說明歷史幾無聊,只有某些位置發聲者才被count.

但若我下次回來坐低認真寫,恐怕我難忍得著再手下留情(對,上次經已是很手下留情,我在文中暗批晦提的,那些其實都是些極嚴肅和極嚴重的東西,表面談個展覽的三言兩語,反不過單的是個人意見,至於要對eva的文作反駁,則不過是理論問題).因此若寫,這將可能是一場大仗.我本以為這場強弱懸殊的仗我早已放棄了,滿足於曾經表過了態,但現在建制反過來連這小文章也要強勢解讀,未明內裡文章,恐怕就沒法不去碰.

順提一點,我很奇怪,我談香港時愈來愈唔想用什麼理論,但有時香港人好像很相信理論有力有用,可加強說服力,但對我而言,理論是助開無用之門,豐富另樣的閱讀可能.不正如是,人們才會說:唔好同我講理論!

before I went to sleep on Sunday, I recieved a call from On and On Theatre, saying that there were still tickets available, so without sleep, I headed to Cattle Depot. I have seen Chan Ping Chiu's works before, but somehow, one reason or another, not once of Steven Pang or the 20 Beans & a Box. In between the play, there was also an additional outdoor piece by Theatre du Pif and friends. So I seized the chance and took some photos.

Read from Steven's blog, that the theatre circle is finally willing to talk about his plays. How sad if that's really the case. I have not thought about this before, for I thought I did read about them in the IATC published annual year-round discussions often enough.
As I met Steven before the play, he told me that this piece wasn't that typical of his or 20 Beans, but to me, they seem much like what I expect to see at Cattle Depot Theatre, though I did notice a few difference, thanks to those discussion mentioned above, of Tiny West maybe?
(btw, I seated by TW in the two shows, and I thought I caught him drowsing for some short period! I, as not such a good audience, always like to look around at the audience's reaction too, and I remember also once reading an article of a critic deliberately going to see a show for many times, writing one review for each round. And he listed also the people seat next to him each time and how they might affected his impression on the play.)

Maybe I am still the local (islander) of the essay that I wrote over the night, I enjoyed Chan's piece much more, for it set a scene at TST, between a mainlander and a local. Besides, I am always a bit distanced in viewing to imagine or make believing there is another world before me. The same case as I went to see Andy Ng's Art Fest play at Cattle Depot. Maybe I am contradicting myself, for all plays no matter what content is a world within world, so too is the Theatre du Pif outdoor, in situ piece.

在寫文時,發現了Norman Ford除了那篇“What Have We Done To Deserve This?” (18.08.2005)講我們圈的"島"仔心態,也寫過如下一段文於網上:

Has anyone else noticed the plethora of photo shows recently? I'm referring to the many Almond Chu, Lau Ching Ping and related artists' work. Plus the shows by Jeffrey Aranita and Caroline Chiu at Sin Sin, Michael Wolf, documentary shows at the Fringe, 3 photo-based shows at 1apsace, etc.. I see 2 trends here: First is a strong modernist, 'formal' aesthetic being played out by Aranita, Chiu, Chu, Wolf and so on. Second is the activist, social reform side explored in Batten's recent exhbiition with Leong Ka Tai/ Simon Go and 1apsace's Walk Don't Run (with Almond Chu and others taking part in both). So - two sets of questions:

1. Is the kind of formal, modernist photography found all over town able to move beyond its beauty and traditional aethetics? Does it even need to? Is it adding anything to the current art scene? If we dig deeper, beyond the technical/formal skill, do we find ideas and issues worth our efforts? Should we be asking for more from photography here? This is relevant as the work is getting lots of local and overseas attention.

2. What are the problems and power discourses involved with activist driven art? Can these shows impact the social issues they are concerned with? Do these shows add power to the issue or perhaps distract from the point by staging there efforts as art? Are they truly concerned with the issues (like I feel Batten's is) or are they facile 'uses' of social issues to make more work? I'd appreciate any responses, comments, questions, disagreements.

Norm

我在文中思考的是第二堆問題,若果如黎健強等有份搞這些展覽的人會出來說說就好了,也可當是事後檢討.

至於第一堆問題
1. Is the kind of formal, modernist photography found all over town able to move beyond its beauty and traditional aethetics? Does it even need to?
若果我第二條問題答no(yes, it doesn`t),好似就唔需要答1.(btw,我感覺其modernism用法也不一定妥)
Is it adding anything to the current art scene?
什麼嘢都加緊嫁啦,除非你說展他們就排斥了其他.
If we dig deeper, beyond the technical/formal skill, do we find ideas and issues worth our efforts?
總有咯,否則就唔係deeper啦.不過我不是已答了第二條no嗎?
Should we be asking for more from photography here? This is relevant as the work is getting lots of local and overseas attention.
要求高d總好咯,多d嘛,但唔又係問題2?因為多人留意,這倒是個唔太relevant,唔係要deeper嗎?

我沒有想過我本想認真來想,結果卻會得出這種好似嬉笑怒罵的答覆,但這就是我覺得你可不可以要求人做嘢,仲要係做你想佢做嘅嘢.上陣子黎健強問過我點睇程展緯d攝影,我都幾奇怪,講到攝影,佢當然才是專家,依我看,好多攝影嘢,都係開了個框框頭,做開就做埋落去,又可以成為一種series.好難講是沒發展,又不易說是有新意.記得薛力愷係一次難得碰頭同我講,近期佢地搞的camera obscura發展愈來愈少人知做多咗d乜,佢舉咗個例子就係Luke現在這輪相,都攝入了窗框,技術上如何做,沒什麼,不過就是在室內再加多面牆,把孔口向入退.下次再談我做camera obscura的一些落手落腳的感受.

終於又是要捱通宵才趕起篇文,不是太長,卻是我愈感自己乏味的英文.
但昨晚還是不能爽約,去了看香港作動,入場時撞上阿kith,得他一句"那有人是孤島",把我從一個文章的牛角尖位扯回來,多謝哂,篇文有現時這樣的title,也有你份.
中場時又被May Fung拉去講藝評talk的眉目,沒法看看那仍未有大框模樣的文章下半部.我說到香港都無什麼去做藝評的誘機,其實我不是講什麼很深奧的理論問題,不過是指找生活都唔掂,點講什麼專業化,看每個人的造化不是更重要?
今天的牛棚演出,票售磬了居多,也發現竟然miss了漫有引力的兩場研討會,鄧小樺加智海加Kongkee,真是可惜.好彩4月9日還有一場,由梁款和杜琛等主講.時間是3-4:30pm麥高利.

其它,瞓一覺後先算.