mMK

Must got to admit I am out of touch with this world, the comment from 麻甩陀地 get me to see that it is me looking for the wrong thing from a wrong place. (That's perhaps why the paper like Karl more than Jaspar?)

The logic in the comment reminds me the sentence in Hirschhorn installation.
The critical without true critique is nothing but cynical. Only by hyper is critique possible?

Earlier, when Leung Po is drafting that statement against ADC criticism website, she listed a number of magazines to try and get the market rate for writing, I saw at least one of them left blank, that was Yishu, am I as a recent contributor supposed to fill it in? I then thought. Finally I got the answer recently from a Yishu editor, they are prepared to pay

nothing,

just complimentary issues. I told Leung Po about this, but she didn't seem surprised, they claim that they are an academical journal, she said. But I thought all these are really serious issues, especially if one is openly demanding something. Does this for example meant we have great prospects, or let ADC off the hook, if ADC decided to launch an academic journal instead, just like the annual year book? What's the matter with this profession, as someone calls it?

btw, I just brought the white text 03, but so much texts I seemed to have read elsewhere, I am beginning to hate this spending decision. Should I write for them too so I could just get a complimentary copy? PS deadline again seems to defer and defer, and editor is even offering me time to write another piece, just because it has already turn into a special issue and no more a periodical? As an author, I do like to see the writing comes out asap, when the context is still right. Also, as an author, I certainly do not like to see one's own different writings appearing in one same issue.
Why is Documenta 12 magazine platform holding its forum here? what an irony!

saw this editor's bit in the bc magzine, a bit shock they are so irresponsible and mean:

On another matter, wasn’t it lovely to see the great and talentless of the local entertainment industry bonding to complain about something meaningful – sadly it wasn’t about the imprisonment of a blind journalist in China, nor was it about pollution, global hunger… nor even about piracy. It was about a flash of bra strap and some back-stage photos. Voyeuristic probably, and out of order if the pictures were of a member of the public, but Gillian Chung of pop duo Twins is not any old joe shmo, she’s a ‘celebrity,’ an actress and singer who has used the media to fuel her ascent to superstardom, riches and the glamorous lifestyle she now enjoys. The hypocrisy of her position and her inane comment about the effect of the pictures on her young fans thus have no need of comment. Gillian, if I may be so informal, without the mass-market magazines and the paparazzi you would probably still be just another office girl. I suspect that as Gillian (massive publicity), Easy Finder (increased sales) and other local media (again increased sales) all benefited from the photos, so expect to see more voyeuristic exposés conveniently timed to coincide with said artist’s new film, album, tour etc. Now if only they could find something worthwhile to complain about, or make better use of the time by learning to sing.
s.d

or am I being hypocritical too?

just able to watch the last 15 minutes of the Libeskind last night, forgot about it for occupied in cooking a pretty satisfying meal last night.
Forgot about the film on William Eggleston earlier too. anyone saw it?

Tonight is Marina Abramovic's talk, at APA from 800 to 930. Saw her renacting Beuys' work at Guggenheim, one of her seven easy piece series, and but feel nothing of interest out of it or most of her previous works.

Shen Wei, as I have once put it, the most talked about Chinese-American choreographer, is coming to town too. I meet this former Guangdong Modern Dance Company dancer and saw his work at the ADF dance criticism arts journalism insitute, but still not persuaded by all the praises that he has recieved. Instead of writing a review after the show, I wrote a preview imagining a Hong Kong context as homework, having the sense that this sort of East meet West, high profile stuffs will soon be coming to here. Shortly after I am back, not to my surprise (but surprise about my sixth sense), I found the New Vision Festival has really bring him here. But some say the rite of spring his company will perform here is his best work so far, so let us see.

The situation of arts journalism in US is no better than HK,
wanna have a good editor, those days are gone.
Village Voice Dismisses 8, Including Senior Arts Editors (1/9/2006)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/business/media/01voice.html?th&emc=th

我一點也不介意承認,我post的去他者的文中,是刻意偷換了在洪清田那裡香港學台灣學跟大陸學,中國學的平等位置, 原因在於前者的現代性的判準.後者成學,卻可說是它的蠻理.

在看李金銓的超越西方霸權-傳媒與文化中國的現代性,第一章第一頁最後一句,就說到全球化未始不是擴建美國霸權的飾詞.後者的不可不學,同也是種現代的蠻理.

brought a sunday morning post for its soundbites column, nothing much interest anywhere in the paper, only find ATV world thurs at 8pm will have a program on Daniel Libeskind. Learn about him long ago, when he exhibited his reading machine etc. in venice biennale, but seems the berlin jewish museum being his peak. I only like one idea of ground zero site, that there is one point there where sunlight will stroke at the specific memorial moment.

all the books shipped from the US finally arrived.
the first that I gave away is this Museum Inc. booklet, belonging to the same paradigm series as Elkins' What happened to Art Criticism?
I presented this to lmp for she is writing a paper on Guggenheim Going Global, hope she could get something out of this little book, I read the few chapters in the beginning, but the author wrote in a very conversation or joking style, it seems hard for me to grasp at times what he is really talking about. if talking behind someone's back is really fun for somebody, I guess this Paul Werner, being a helper to Thomas Krens Guggenheim's director, certainly enjoys it much too. But when the media is all positive to projects like Bilbao (or Echigo-Trumari locally everywhere now), how could you got yr skeptical message of them across anyhow?

1a的展覽上周末揭幕,我沒打算在這裡宣傳,也不太投入,因為這本就是一個被交到我手上來的東西,要做的都是些必要的無聊功夫而已.我給它寫的第一篇文,也是貌離神離,卻起碼是我的個人出發點.

去他者的邊緣化
-試析港、台藝術展覽交流的本土(香港版)文化政治新座標

藝術若果真有挑戰現實、尋找或建構另種真實的能力，那我特別感興趣的地方，會是它切入(或更準確說是切出)和產生反彈作用於的那一現實脈絡。若果藝術祗不過是另一種社會文化的現實建構，那我有興趣的地方，則是現實脈絡中對於藝術的「去魅」(disenchentment)何為，審美判斷的迴光返照，恐怕更彰顯現代性的自我立法如何自陷於虛無。正是那介面處，最能體現藝術想像與政治現實之間的張力。從藝術作品入手，若然屬一般看藝術展覽的方法，那本文就不妨先以從政治到文化到藝術作為論述的軌跡，以逆向的討論來先行探討「零座標的疆域」港台兩地藝術交流展覽於牛棚藝術村「1a空間」第一站揭幕於我個人所勾起的想像。

後九七的(中)港台範式轉移

「零座標的疆域」，擺在表面的，是一個港台之間的藝術展覽，然而繫結港台兩地之間藝術家的，或者正是對「中港台」範式中所缺席那第三者的反動。本是亞洲四小龍的香港與台灣，在一個時移勢易下，結果還是要處處活在那甦醒中的巨龍陰影下。香港跟台灣的關係，其實不得不也同時要看中國大陸跟香港、中國大陸跟台灣的關係因素，這在九七後的「中國.香港」自然更不消說。在一國兩制下，雙十的青天白日旗海不見了，換了是灰濛海灣裡的霓虹飛龍，從北望神州到北上搵食，所謂風水輪流轉，九七前評論人洪清田提出的「香港學」、「台灣學」值得中國學、大陸學，到已有民選總統的台灣以香港落實「一國兩制」落空為話柄，而使香港作為兩岸對內對外的示範櫥窗意義(也是港人願望投射)趨零，港人的新身份，港台之間的關係，舊有一直被沿用(「華人社會」的)「中-港-台」典範，因隨時勢，統統都有待文化視野上的重整。

依評論人朗天的說法，九七的衝擊一直被延，還是要到二ＯＯ三年的「七一」之後，香港才真的進入「後-後九七」。正如最近的《截取通訊及監察條例草案》審議，一再呈現立法議會監察政府功能的徹底失效，這才慢慢回過來讓人意識到從立法局到立法會間的九七直通車脫軌，任由臨立會所通過種種惡法做成的長遠遺害。現時的政府的「厲行強政」(林行止語)自我破壞社會的和諧、行政立法關係，一再使社會分化。飛龍成為倒董符號雖先泡湯，終而卻化灰冒出對奕的普選鳳凰，文化政治的角力無疑起了作用。但公民黨的出現，隨即引起平反八九.六四列不列入黨綱的爭議，香港政治空間的一次根本反省，或者反值留意的是比公民黨還要晚出的社民連線。

洪清田過去曾說過台灣的民主化，使(當日想過在蘋果報賣廣告大派民國旗幟的)評論人黃毓民無後顧之憂，不再是其包袱；但現在黃毓民(作為社民連發言人)就要替時代重劃左右的定義，不再以親向(實質走資的)中國共產黨及(無論是否國民黨執政的)台灣而作區分左右，改以支持強勢政府為右，為普羅低下階層謀福利為左。於是黃毓民的立場，一下就從舊有的本土定性為右，一跳而成一個社會民主陣型下的新左派。除了旗幟鮮明的當在野的反對派，撥亂清源，無疑更俱有把本地政治評析在種種原來扭曲荒謬下重新接上現代世界政治學論述的重要性。在不過六點的〈社民聯線籌委宣言〉，在其關於八九.六四的第四點後，第五點正是關於台灣海峽兩岸的分治看法，認為將人民福祉視為才是統一手段的目的，並須以民主自由均富為基礎。中國大陸對台灣施以的反分裂法、國際孤立，反過來無疑成了港人對台胞的包袱，一如港人迎碰台灣的台獨議題，難免處處顧忌。

城/邦的文化生活比較視野

雖然文化不離文化政治，但由於全球化的帶動，在文化上，大中華的資訊與知識平臺和文化人的游走，早已待不及政治領域的鬆綁而對這新時代的跨地域性嘗試了不同的協作和交流。陳冠中在替我們這一代的香港人嘗試總結「香港作為方法」時，無疑是將洪清田過去就兩岸三地政治層面的宏觀分析，改從生活文化層面著手，以城市作為文化想像的單位，帶出一系列如就台北、上海、北京等地的比較描述。這種城市生活風格形同文化品牌，在台北生存的一百個理由後，香港翻出它的一Ｏ一版本，接而登陸上海。問題是若果香港的文化評論人都四出外覓新的發展空間，改投如《南方都市報》或改戰網上媒體，這就難怪乎香港要靠作客的前台北市長龍應台，介入香港的西九文娛區論爭，在報章提出公民抗命的精神，才使本地文化界知恥更乎勇。其就內地為對象而寫的系列文章，也成了一種兩岸政治壁壘以外的文化思辯空間。文化論述的素質，說到尾還是和迫在眉睫的文化政治視野緊扣，至於全球性和本土性的思與行，也是缺一不可。

隨著中國近年成為世界觸目的發展焦點，其當代藝術經香港策展人作為其第一階跳版，台灣雜誌出版物作為其市場推波者，其在過去十數年間迅速打入國際主流，香港和台灣藝圈對於長期參與全球藝壇的身份角色思考，都因此為所衝擊。但當我們的目光急轉北向，思索上海、廣州等地的大型雙(/三)年展、新興博物館與藝術空間熱時，我們似乎忽略了我們藝術圈長期以來自身發展的本土獨特性。至於香港比較內地在創作(表達)自由基礎上的優勢，彷彿反怪哉成了海外對於中國藝術地下政治性想像的負資產。至於藝術建制各環也比香港成熟的台灣，近年在藝術學院的培訓下，藝術家的創作思路與或評論人的藝術理論基礎和論述能力，均有學術性上的進一步發展，可惜藝圈的目光卻仍是不敵中國當代藝術在國際間的招搖過市。但藝術創作、策展和評論在參與遊戲時如何處理當中的文化政治，其實正也在塑造它本身的政治文化。

從學者周蕾的文化研究、後殖民理論中抽取了「Para/Site」概念作為名字的「藝術空間」，近年不著轉型，在展出於美國因其政治運動分子身份而急速竄紅的香港出生美國紐約藝術家陳沛之(Paul Chan)個展之後，下月又將是另一珠江三角洲為藍的展覽。同期的藝術公社展覽，說是湊巧或其實也不是什麼的意外巧合，則正是一個香港廣州澳門的雕塑交流展。這種的策展路線現象，使我想到周蕾在其剛出版的新著The Age of the World Target中，對於地區(譬若亞太)研究如何植根於美國的冷戰思維，後結構理論的自我解構，實無助於他者逃出被他者化。本文從政治到文化到藝術來舖陳「零座標的疆域」，或者正是一次對於被持續邊緣化的經驗的反動導引，好讓展覽能夠反過來，真正的從兩地本土的文本主體性出發，把被邊緣的座標重撥成「零度」。展覽觸動的互為主體性，就是鏡照港台兩地的藝術家的同位和差異性格的那介面。至於兩種方向的詮釋並存，大概則正是藝術想像與政治現實之間張力的一種見證。