mMK

個展覽今日結束,遺憾的是展覽本身很ironic,但一直欠缺深入討論.我相信(激烈)討論才是整個計劃的重點所在.所以唔好得個'想'字,請'閙'.已等左半年.
 

其實我都好想知點解有人話好呀，你不如講我聽點唔好先啦！：Ｄ
我去睇heritage d 展覽通常都係對個budget慨嘆...所有野都好貴呀＄.＄
 

我當然知這樣寫就該要有下文,但我其實真無打算講佢,elkins書仔d藝評話齋,讚好都唔夠時間寫,彈乜鬼吖,總是那些眼冤東西反而有討論(又一山人都經已兩鑊),這太便宜了吧?策展種種,文化博物館本身就是一個擋箭牌,都不知佢想幾藝術,上次eve tam篇文已領教,還未有時間覆(始終都要覆,see?),但有人話我知曾建華房間段片來歷,有人又話我知amy件坦克內有乾坤,我作為觀眾統統不知情,想看看掛起來的照片資料又找不著,要出聲,我覺得始終該由這些藝術家們出聲先,除非,不來他們很滿意現狀?
 

有budget在手,想impress到人,確會往往就此出事.反過來,藝術空間都好不到那裡,見到佢地面牆凹凹凸凸都要扮white cube.
 

To me it's also a really bad show. It's a show that exhibition design hijacked art. It's pretty pretentious to be "in" where as genuine exhibition design would just give good feeling without announcing its contribution. (That reminds how elaborate the design of the captions and banners of the museum shows here as the designer wants to "tell" you they do their job.

The show had no edge as you don't see any coherence among artworks. No criticism on consumerism. (Indeed it'd show their gut if they dare to turn it as a real shopping.)

I just didn't see the reason why they had to put art in the show!
 

Nice to hear real discussions and i think that is what Stella wants... :-)

It's interesting to hear the word "hijacked art". Honestly I don't see a lot of shows which don't "hijack art" to a certain extent. Every show has its own agenda and I am quite sure it is about the old debate of curator vs artist things again...

However, what I can read from the show is, it is exactly tackling the issue of "art being hijacked". I don't think the main purpose of the show is to criticize consumerism. (though the theme is obviously leading us to think in that direction) Instead, it is "hijacking shopping mall's display method" (a place where art is hijacked most recently) to deal with art...To me it is somewhat a challenge to the method of display and how art could be received. (maybe this time they don't have to pretend to be a white cube) Issue of "captions" is just an example....well, all the information is listed in the catalogue, is it still necessary to put it next to the works? It leaves me plenty to think...Also, the way how they categorise artworks is something worthy to talk about...

I don't think this show is bad in this sense (at least it is a bold try in a government's museum), not because I am very close to Stella :-) but just I believe that there're always a lot of different readings to a show. And some of them are needed to be discussed in order to bring out "new meanings"....maybe this is one of them.
 

one thing cruical that wo brings up, is exhibition design, which could be part of curatorial work, but also as sth separate to a certain degree.
for the ex design, I think it is pretty disasterous, as for the curatorial, if it is as tat says, hijack what the mall hijacked, it is a failed hijacking of a failure model. Since you can't be better or worse than the real thing, this only leads to the another lukewarm interpretations of meanings. for the curatorial part over the artists, it flops too as wo says.
I knew stella is reading the blog, so I deliberately post such an entry, risking that it will turn into another round of gossiping without substance. I still don't think it will get any more serious, compare with what pamela prepared for her part on Choi Yan Chi panel discussion and email exchange before and afterwards. (thanks to wo and tat, if it seems more like it now).
But I instead have the intention to bring note another point via raising this, and that is for most of the time, the opinion is so obvious to most of us, that we don't bother to discuss them or put them in writing. (in other words, controversially speaking, many of the Hong Kong art has not gone beyond the level of intuitive opinion, making art criticism superficial or theory laden, over serious looking.) It is that I encounter this strange different opinion that I think, let them say why they think it is good for a change. Critics, I assume, do really like to write art and exhibition they enjoy much more. Surely lots of us like to push criticism from judgmental to articulated discourse, but I again argue against myself, and think we need perhaps honest opinion first.
 

Unfortunately, I didn't see that reflexiveness of the curatorial practice in the show. The exhibition design (of shopping display) was incorporated to "be exhibited" but not to exhibit. The discrepancy also lies on the four chosen artists' projects which urged us to be 'away" from this pseudo shopping space. Here the show flat effect didn't spark any parody or irony but was due to be consumed anyhow just as the space in a real shopping mall. (Actually I imagine it far more interesting to exhibit the real show flats of Hong Kong developers in the museum.)

Another resonance of this Museum's practice could be seen from time to time in their overtly designed display (of displays) in the nearby New Town Plaza. I understand it may aim to "attract" shoppers to visit the museum which is only 5 min-walk from the shopping mall but just wonder if this really works. Looking at the revamped interior there and all sorts of cell phone/ credit card promotions, this museum publicity work seemed to be so powerless.
 

Thanks for the response, Jasper and Wo. I think I tend to agree with your points that the show is more or less a lukewarm interpretation and it could be more interesting if we see the involvement of real developer in the show. (in fact, they have done that during the West Kowloon Project Consulation / promotion stuff, maybe that's the real shopping mall show?...:-) Sure, as a show it has a lot to improve in terms of the curatoral practise and exhibition design. But as a show "in a HK museum", it is rather encouraging to see that at least it is trying to pose a question, if not making a challenge...i.e. what an exhibition in a museum could become. (at least that's my privilege to know the initial idea from Stella) Actually. I bet nobody would expect them (the museum) to do such thing (questioning)...

To me, it's easy to say whether a show is good or not because usually there are something quite obvious. (good things and bad things) But I would rather see its significance from the whole picture. Just try to think what kind of people will go to museum exhibition and what kind of people will go to art space like those in Cattle depot or Parasite....there are two types of audience (in this sense, general public and people in the art circle). Museum (in HK) never sees the latter as their main target audience. And, if you have a foreigner friend visiting hk, you will never bring it to MA, or HM first (because everyone knows "real" art isn't happening there....) But what I can feel is, this show really tries to attract art people to come and importantly, to discuss the issue of art. (unfortunately there aren't any real discussion until now) Well....fairly speaking, the result may not be sth they (or stella?) expect. But I admit that I am satisfied with their sincerity this time.

I know it sounds like I am defending the show but truly, I am not. Also it is not an excuse to escape from the fate of being judged (whether it is failure or not), I just try to express a view point based on what I have experienced "behind the show...."

I totally agree with Jasper -- honest opinion first. And I think Stella would be happy to hear that.
 

I think yrs is the kind of argument I abhor most, that sincerity counts. From the whole picture perspective, then anything should be encouraged, and let the public experience something new, irregardless how it could have the opposite effect and do otherwise, like turning people (if I am still a student, definitely) away from museum which disappoint you, and avoid coming back, despise on them for how poorly they have done even when they got the time and space, staff and budget. btw, I think the discussion here is not about art at all, but an insitutional problem and "art being hijacked".
 

唏，其實有d似星光熠熠賀台慶。：Ｄ講錯說話了哈哈。
 

hi Jasper...maybe that's very personal and it is just about how I learn to appreciate things (not just art)... sincerity is absolutely something I would count and it doesn't imply that bad quality should be encouraged (or bear). I just don't see a direct relationship between the two.

I have no hesitation to criticize a show if it is really bad and yet I could still appreciate its sincerity.

I also don't see why the discussion of institution problem and "art being hijack" isn't part of art discussion.
 

Institution problem (or more specifically, heritage museum problem) and art being hijacked are art issues; however, they are only side dishes of this exhibition, maybe (I guess) that's why jaspar said the discussion is not about art (artowrks of this exhibition).
These issues are not included in the curatorial aim and also none of the artist in this exhibition aimed to work on these issues. I felt like they work on their own works, they dont care how and what is the framework.

And then, the whole discussion was brought out after the exhibition was setup. (Feedbacks from the participated artist and audience.)

It seems, to have such an outcome, misunderstood / miscommunication must occur during the curatorial process. At this point, what I interested is, why the artist keep silence through the process if they feel uncomfortable of being framed in that way? (...唔鍾意的何不出聲,或索性唔展...)

Does it reflect certain kind of conspiracy of "artist" and "museum" in HK? or, some other problems?
 

For me, definitely it's about art as I believe, you can't separate art from the art institution. (Otherwise, your wouldn't see the point of Hans Haacke.) And this is why I don't feel comfortable with HM's approach to embrace the package (only) of art exhibitions.

To respond to Tat, I found difficult (and also don't want to care) to judge someone's sincerity in an art debate. Of course I do appreciate his/her sincerity but then it's not limited to art matters. I think we should be careful with the risk to confuse artistic and conscientious judgements.
 

under tat's description, is HM an art insitution, I began to doubt it.
insitution problem occurs everywhere, when our chief executive say he is sincere with his policy and we as citizen has no way to check it and stop it, it is a political problem.
 

one has the insitutional power to hijack sth, not what the hijacker hijacked, is what the problem is about. of course, assuming it is a hijack. or unless artists like to be hijack so they got exposure (and being discussed) too that way.
 

to save 陀地麻甩 trouble, yes, curating is the art of hijacking too.
 

I agree with Wo that we should be careful not to be confused by that. Thanks for reminding.

But I just want to make myself clear that I am not making judgment based on sincerity, like saying "This is a good show because it is sincere." What I mentioned sincerity is sth more about appreciation rather than using it to make judgement. I don't see why I can't appreciate the museum to make new attempt with good wish. (Don't get me wrong, whether the result is a failure and turning ppl away is subject to discuss, which I am expecting to happen here).

I said I am satisfied with its sincerity is just because I am satisfied (and largely based on my previous low expectation to a museum show) . You may feel abhor but that's my personal encounter with the show. yes, that's very personal and I actually didn't expect us to spent so much time to discuss this issue here.

I am not a person who used to express my opinion in Art in these kind of place because I don't like those bad blood....that's not me if you know what kind of ppl i am. But I hope my comments here is somewhat a response to jasper's topic "(不)公開的(不)表態" instead of an act of trouble making.
 

I agree that art cannot escape from institution. Also, anyway there will be someone to hold the power of the institution. but then I suspcious whether curator rank staff are those who hold the power in HM. (should be AD/DD/D???)

Does artists have a say to the "art of hijacking"? If no, why not? They are not that devoted into the curatorial idea? They simply dont want to say? or they have no chance to say during the process?

On the other hand, does the institution want to listen the ideas from the artists (Real 'listen'!) after they selected the artists?

If there is such a space for curator and artist to talk about the "art of hijacking", I think there is still difference between "curating" and "pure hijacking".

But then "art of hijacking" may still a thoughtful description of curating...

In addition, I think only a small of amount of people in the field (in HK) care about the political issue behind. Especially artists, most of them are opportunitists. That's why the system can run silently and peacefully till now.

you want to challenge and dont want to play this game? Cool, then you are out of the system! But, remeber, most artists want to be inside! Even the critcs here are out! I meant there maybe gosships among the staffs but these issues will never be discussed in the HM meeting.

This is the "fine" art scene, dont you think so?
 

Unlike many shows that are predictable or boringly ‘right’, I treasure something that is uncertain and even riskingly ‘wrong’. In response to the schizophrenic situation in hk: the increasing number of shopping malls; the mall that attempts to turn themselves into museums (WKCD effect); museum shopping (museum collection) vs mall shopping (crafty object); binary exhibition approach either by theme or by medium… I was thinking to pose questions (not answers) on multiple issues but not simply to make a show to impress our visitors. The show is somewhat ‘unthinkable’ at the beginning because it didn’t look like any other shows. For me, the easiest way is to frame it within the box of consumerism, like the shows called ‘shopping’ in London or ‘art for sale’ in Shanghai. It is intended not to go into this direction and to ‘prove’ a thesis in the exhibition. What is more important is to ‘think out loud’, to challenge visitors to think and to question, and to make noise in the ‘quiet’ art circle like hk.

Here are some issues that I want to raise:

Design:
clear messages have been given to the commissioning parties NOT to mimic the mall but perhaps it’s a rather challenging task for them to think about what would that be like. Obviously there is no guarantee whenever we commissioning work and you cannot force the others to follow strictly on your thoughts. The initial idea is about an in-between space, i.e. neither a mall nor a museum but somewhere in-between. When the museum has to compete with shopping mall, it’s meaningless to copy them directly, not mentioning that the museum itself, to some degree, is already like a mall for visitor’s consumption! the interesting questions remain: are we mocking the mall or declaring the malling of museum? To go a little bit further, can we transform the museum exhibition into a pure universe of desire, attraction and seduction (like the shopping mall did)? Very often, in-house design team may be too locked in old philosophies and not being able to stand back and assess what needs to be done. In this case, we’ve invited outside designer to make a show with corporate identity, in opposite to those ‘faceless’ exhibition. I have to say that the purpose of the design element is not to make more trendy. It’s an attempt to treat the show like a new brand and see what will come next.

Curatorial framework:
During the preparation process, we’ve employed the team curating structure where artist/curator/architect/designer worked and discussed together. The architect also worked closely with the artists to come up with the spatial design and the juxtaposition of all museum collections. It’s a collective effort. It is also the curatorial strategy not to put captions right next to the work, and to place abundance of works inside the gallery (as a reminiscence of the ‘cabinet of curiosity’). frankly, the works are mostly object-like that seemingly blur the boundary between art and product. visitor can always find the caption information in the little booklet or in the computer touch screen in the respective zone. In addition, you may notice that there is no barrier for works if you visit the show earlier.

In my perspective, the major difference between a curator and an organizer/an art manager is, the former provide interpretation/entry point for the viewer to look at the work/show. From this perspective, you may call it ‘hijacking’ or ‘post-production’ borrowing Nicolas Bourriaud’s term. Who is the author when we’re talking about ‘hijack’?

Coherence among the work:
On what ‘table’ have we become accustomed to sort out and to look at so many different and similar things? Every system has its own limitation and how can we expand our vision and interpretation? Since I’m skeptical about the existing classification system, i.e. print, painting, sculpture or ceramics. And I also doubt about the importance of some of the thematic shows (in many cases, the theme is superficial but it pretends to look very substantial). I was thinking to categorise the works by themes but they’re indeed meaningless, or at least the works superficially articulated with each other. Due to the ironic classification system, i.e. the one borrowing from the shopping mall directory, the works come together under a theme but seemingly without any theme/framework. It’s like a sea of goods spreading out, a monstrous confusion, seemingly without order. Interestingly, alternative narrations evolved. unlike other thematic exhibitions, the taxonomy it proposes, lead to another kind of thought… If the function of a museum is to classify the world’s objects in order to make some knowledge out of it, what kind of knowledge will it be under this ‘system’? and it must be emphasised, however, that its purpose is to free ourselves sufficiently to discover other orders and this is only one of the many possible ones…

Institutional critique?
Of course the show is very different from 賀台慶. The outcome looks similar but the purpose/process is completely different. 賀台慶 really wants to celebrate, but not to serve as a self critique. What would you think if the show is a black humor re-examining the museum or the artistic production in hk? Most press coverage reviewed the show as something interesting, fun, playful, fashionable and that’s all. Apart from the general public, this show intends to attract the artists/art practitioners’ attention because usually they don’t bother to come and visit. Imagine the show is like an onion and has several layers. It is designed to cater for the needs of visitors from diverse background and levels. The show is indeed designed for various readings. This also reminds me about rosanna li’s work in langham place long time ago. I smiled when I first encountered the paper shoes and paper bags inside the vitrine, because apparently it’s about the consumerist culture in the mall. Yet, other visitors (and even the organizer) might think she’s celebrating the shopping culture! When we’ve to deal with institution, no matter the museum, para/site, arts centre, etc, we have to deal with the limitations and the political issues. Instead of giving up (or just bomb it), I’d rather try to make a way out in a more constructive sense.

Maybe the failure of the show is the overall mis-communication. Yet, I think it’s also interesting to see how people misunderstood the whole show and judged using their preconception and the same old ruler.

(不)公開的(不)表態:
I like the heading of this topic - (不)公開的(不)表態. in Hong Kong, I think our biggest enemy is not criticism/judgment, but our collective silence and perhaps apathy! what the art circle would be like if nobody really cares! I don’t care about the issue of sincerity when judging an artwork/exhibition. Yet, I think it’s a pity when we blame something irresponsibly without providing any in-depth explanations/elaborations. This is even worse than gossiping without real substance.

The exhibition itself is an experiment. I won’t take it for granted that there will be some serious discussions. Perhaps it is my (our) destiny to have things buried under the ground (as usual) and to start from zero again and again…
 

dear all,
sorry for my belated sharing. yes, i promised to write a review for it definitely deserve a serious discussion- not just gossip or under-table. But I found it too complex, so I have to give up before I left. I’m glad to see here is a hot-pan,
- I think, I have my long bitterness, toward museum, curators, artists, art departments or even our art spaces that I see no future in HK. We have to put our bitterness aside before any sincere discussion.
- Hi-jack. In Choi Yan-chi’s forum, I asked why we have to feel sad that art is beginning to be out of sight, and then out of mind. (this question also apply to HK art). I even doubt myself as an artist, there so many art and artists, do we really need so many of them? As an artist, I treasure the moment people understand and respect my art, but I equally respect people who has a substantial statement and strong reason to ‘use’ art in a ‘non-art’ way. Art exhibition is not the only mode of exhibition. If you found it not a satisfying answer, please simply think of art auction: does the market value or market activities “truly” respect and reflect the meaning of the art work? Or what other circle of meanings it creates/ involves?
- What I dislike most in the art circle (not just hk) generally is the conspiracy of artist- artistic and personal integrity in exchange just an exposure. Be it with the developer, art dealer, curator, art spaces or whoever. If artist choose to play the game (and in this case artists were well-informed) pls don’t complain or gossip under table. And in this case, why not open our mind and heart, wait and see what possibilities of the meaning of the works. I found it especially interesting when the ‘beauties-ladies/ gentles’ in works of art being display as object of desire, so explicitly- art is long a commodity and sex is long the ad. It is for the first time that our museum in HK introduce such critical aspect of their properties.
- Dis-play of space: I also found the viewing experience extremely interesting that the design of space avoid direct encounter of audience and “art works”- the conventional museum display presume viewing experience is a one-on-one encounter between the work and audience (works on wall, audience facing to the wall) as if there is a no-man land + the very quiet (no mobile phone!) and intense atmosphere. But for MALL, there is always someone in front, behind, beside of the work, or one is being watched while looking. This somehow create a psychological tension between the viewers – and it’s so interesting to see and listen to other viewers respond to the work, both gesturally and verbally. I remember the day when I visit (I visited twice), the were a straight couple taking photos in front of the work, just as what we usually see in mall- so, photography is a lesser fulfillment of the desire of ownership.
- Situationist: I don’t know if they will be too challenging- why do give the viewers a floor plan of, say festival walk, pacific place, lancham place to tour the exhibition. That may help to bring in a sense of reality (shopping mall landscape, consumerism) to the mall show, and your ‘ironic’ intention will be more clear.
I don’t have my note with me. that’s all for the moment, waiting for more discussion.
Love,
leungpo
 

討論總可以讓我們知多些東西,但討論的東西對我來說(相對於譬如關心exhibition design的)於是一直在變,我的感覺是hm一下子就又由給平常人(不是for 藝術圈)看的文化博物館,變回一個超級前衛的藝術策展實驗場所,現實可能樣樣角色都有些,但就是這樣就夠lukewarm(還是騎呢),也算是個institutional定位的問題,真不知如何說起.
 

應該是題外話，但好奇心驅駛，請恕我冒昧，因為心裏其實有好幾個謎都想係呢處請教下：
1) HM裏對Curator的譯名是否存在爭議？(博物員/館長/策展人)
2) curator rank staff在museum 體系裏有無工會之類o既組織？
3) 承上題，如有，其主要工作之一會唔會係協助curator rank staff從渣弗人手中爭取更多展覽策劃話事權？(長遠=>institution 定位)
4) 承題2)，如無，curator間會唔會諗過搞類似o既組織？實行internalize critic(同開evaluation係唔同o既)，以自身專業同上面啲AO出身o既旗手攜手打做「超級前衛的藝術策展實驗場所」品牌。)

p.s. 以前覺得museum體系裏頭卧虎藏龍，尤其年青一輩個個剛剛學有所成，大都想一展拳腳，但就係個體制入面磨到"sit"晒，加上現實問題($)，難以抽身。唔知依家點呢？會唔會已經凝聚到一班有心人準備革museum的命呢？

望知情者賜教。
 

以上所說的或許是展覽的真正intention,但這些討論可能永不會在展覽的catalogue裡出現，因對博物館來說，他們一向面向的，只是general public，而general public 永不需要／明白這些東西。我想博物館的定位不會因為這個展覽而變得“騎呢“，因為對他們來說，這是一個非常成功的“yet another show in the museum“，看看這次media feature 的數量及其報導的方向便知一二。（一點也不前衛，實驗性）展覽的真正目的，大抵只得少數人知道。或許這正正是展覽最失敗的地方。在建制裡提出對建制的反思,卻又被建制包裝成建制裡被認為成功的結果，而反思本身卻從沒被人討論，被buried的，大抵正是這些。又或許這也正是展覽最有趣的地方，不同人對展覽不同的閱讀，產生了對展覽極不同的理解....是正面好，是負面好，也是一種對展覽的再再創造
...

我突然覺得這是一個真真正正關於hijack的課題，但這些究竟是一種怎麼樣的hijack? 是什麼被hijack? (the artworks? artists? the museum? the curatorial concept?) 是誰hijack? (the curator? the critics? the auidence? or the media?)....
 

大抵諗藝術(practical/curatorial) 的人最擅長拿手的還是做作品和搞展覽去發聲,亦因此對以政治和行政等手法(e.g.搞工會etc)去發聲顯得有點乏善可陳.

若果這次展覽的意圖是反思建制, 那麼"the art of hijacking" 所hijack的槍頭, 並不應指向藝術品, 而是建制對外(與媒體)的聯繫. (令建制外的人瞭解museum建制裏的情況, 來改革推動建制...)

但當參與的藝術家和觀眾大多數只感受到hijack的是作品的話, 那麼curator可能真的沒有把展覽焦點找都準(也就是failure), 也等如沒法做到hijack建制去借媒體/大眾反建制. (當然, 媒體/大眾是否已經有所覺悟去幫手反, 又是另一問題.)
 

什麼是建制？

或許展覽的真正intention,可能永不會在展覽的catalogue裡出現，
{THIS IS PROBLEM #1, WHY? AND SO DON'T EXPECT PEOPLE TO JUDGE U BY THAT UNKNOWN SINCERITY INTENTION OR WHATEVER}

因對博物館來說，他們一向面向的，只是general public，而general public 永不需要／明白這些東西。
{THIS IS PROBLEM #2, AND THIS IS INSULTING TO THE PUBLIC, AND IF THEY DON'T NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MUSEUM PRESENT, WHAT IS IT FOR, OR THEY HAVE THE WRONG THING PRODUCED}

我想博物館的定位不會因為這個展覽而變得“騎呢“，因為對他們來說，這是一個非常成功的“yet another show in the museum“，看看這次media feature 的數量及其報導的方向便知一二。

{THIS IS PROBLEM #3, THE TEAM IS TRYING ONE THING KNOWINGLY BEYOND THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING, WASN'T THAT WIERD?}

{THIS IS PROBLEM #4, IF THE (CURATORIAL) INTENTION IS NOT STATED, NOTHING IS GOING TO EVALUATE THE EXHIBITION ACCORDING TO THAT, HENCE THE NEXT SHOW WILL THUS NATURELY BE YET ANOTHER SHOW}