mMK

看到眼前異像,想起是天空之城中,那籲人需根紮土地的民歌

趁是星期三,把握最後機會去了看王無邪,甚無感覺,反是虛白齋那邊的黃賓虹冊頁跟題字有些國畫小趣味.另而頗意外還有一把梅蘭芳墨梅真扇,題給某某同志.臨走時則在大堂遇上昨天到步這個星六就又走的延基枰.

記起那天的hkmagazine又hit the bull's eye.
政府口口聲聲叫人唔好用翻版,自己卻打算拆了鐘樓起個假古董.
唔要翻版,就不可接受假古董.
這是論辯之理力,還是思考遊戲之過過癮小聰明而已?

在blog裡,在那裡也好,無疑,如在紐約時洪強很不妥我的話我:
你睇得自己太大.
昨天從cyk口中則聽到這種話:唔好想咁複雜,本嘢無人睇.
那使我想起讀書第四年,我想把老師們勸我正正規規展覽畢業的說話統統記錄下來.
唔好想咁複雜,本嘢無人睇.兩句話可一點也不簡單.那可以是我對藝術感疑惑的另一標準案例.
藝術若果選擇了conform,我可當然寧要confront.

Gore appeared in Oscar ceremony for his inconvenient truth, and he play act a little. that could also be some making art politically as well?

this year HK film fest seems quite attractive, though the heyday of my interest in unknown directors' films has long gone (the luxury of being a full-time student). believe it or not, this is also my first time to see Jia Zhangke, and also my primary and secondary schoolmate, mark chan's movie.

一早與兩個藝術家通過電話,改變了主意,抽起了原來給fotan 100Q的政治藝術和政治地藝術表態式噪音,改以問題的思考圈來加強注意說話的脈絡.是否更滿意,我不知,好像政治藝術有時會防礙政治地藝術咁,但我會拒絕去相信事情如此.
或者我也該去申請綜援,把那寫入個人中大藝術系傑出校友履歷裡?

這次擦邊球很盡了,clk對我說.我問擦邊球(大陸語?)點解.
原來是指在展覽場地事宜上,我們討價還價已去到很盡.
若是我當初直接接受了那些小職員說不可以的東西,那我們豈連球也未回過?
小職員說不可以的東西,上面結果批了,clk又說這是大粒佬之間講掂數.
原來有大佬在後面撐我?我無要求過,我唔會賣這種大佬賬.
若佢地任何一方同我咁講,我會說我只想據理力爭,無從下而上的表達渠道,那就好應要自我檢討.要賣人面賬,forget it好過.
接著又輪到有職員說段片有問題,要"scan"過.lc答得妙,說這些嘢我唔想聽,你最好唔好同我講.clk那時走過,我就跟佢說,這是我們的training.的確那就是我們讀藝術的人們的專業表現.
從當年salon des independants的hanging committee踰矩拒掛duchamp的nude descending a staircase起,一直就是一些(本不相干的)人自我劃界,卻要去審查自由藝術,從adc職員當年怕我的文章,到今日場地職員怕lc的片,都是不稱身份的權力作怪,禍心,或者就是打好份工(無驚無險又到收工)的那種心態作祟.

今天又一次遇到一個因談論也不許而(本極簡單平常就讓我人生極少難得快樂)要變成的傷心事,心不覺就想起lk早前來電,謂藝術系50週年系方想出版一傑出系友資料集.我當時一聽到個名,就唔想有份,生活潦倒,不學無術,跟傑出根本扯不上邊,但後來來的電郵,就一直沒有回覆.於是此時就索性坐下來寫了如下email寄回去.
feeling down again today and I suddenly remember about this request for info. and it reveals how the two are not unrelated.
sorry for this late reply, but I am not sure I want to be portrait as an art critic, curator etc., for I see myself first of all, an unemployed (not even self-employed) person, still not finding what he wants to do, someone at lost. (not that I won't encourage others to be socially meaningful art critic or curator.) The prime role I have now is a homemaker, and someone's son, which I do hope I could do better, by quiting all arts related odd jobs. (That wasn't something worth mentioning in most people eyes, I guess, and I am sure lots of other alumni did these jobs better than I do.)
I could provide something or edit something u prepare, if you still what to include me, but I am thinking how we are to really face the question of the usefulness of arts education to a human person, a citizen, rather
than meaningless self-boasting.
jaspar

民建聯陳鑑林話減一個月差餉幫唔到低下階層,於是建議政府減兩季.
真是低能無腦.更是變相加重貧富懸殊.

“Hong Kong Contemporary Dance Series 123…” (Talks & Video Screening)
「多空間」主辦 Presented by Y-Space

2007年香港藝術節35週年的一台本地舞壇鉅獻“我的舞蹈生涯—進化論”，邀請了本港的舞壇巨子：陳敏兒、黎海寧、劉兆銘、梁家權、龍植池、馬才和、梅卓燕、伍宇烈、王榮祿、曹誠淵、王延琳、邢亮、楊春江、楊惠美、嚴明然及余仁華進行創作及演出，勢必成為城中的舞壇盛事！
「多空間」特別為是次盛會，安排“香港當代舞蹈系列123…” 以講座及錄像播放形式，為香港舞迷在欣賞香港舞壇紅星的比併盛宴前，先解構並分析各個舞蹈紅人的生涯及其創作特色與風格。要知到本地薑有幾辣，又想了解這批舞蹈紅星的創作底牌，這是難得的機會……！
(每場講座及錄像播放會將另外邀請本港當代舞蹈界代表出席作嘉賓，並設有討論時段，歡迎各位舞迷積極參與)

2007年2月24日(六)
嘉賓：陳敏兒、楊惠美、龍植池
主持：馬才和及嚴明然
時間：7:30 p.m.
地點：「多空間」- Y劇場
地址：「多空間」香港葵涌葵豐街33-39號華豐工業中心第一期3樓B室
門票：$40, $30 (「多空間」會員、全日制學生、長者及智障人士)
套票: $100 及 $80 (「多空間」會員、全日制學生、長者及智障人士)
查詢及預訂門票：24700511 Ms Chow / 94923673 Vinci
www.y-space.org

Bio Of The Guest

楊惠美
楊氏於1990年畢業於演藝學院舞蹈學院，主修現代舞，獲頒演藝深造文憑。畢業後獲沙田扶輪社獎學金遠赴美國愛荷華大學修讀舞蹈，並取得藝術碩士學位。楊氏活躍於舞蹈編排工作，過去很多作品曾被邀到世界各地作巡迴演出，包括墨爾本、台北、東京、大阪、漢城、哥本哈根及紐約等地，及後更於2001年榮獲香港舞蹈聯盟頒發香港舞蹈年獎。楊氏亦一直致力於瑜伽及舞蹈教學工作，為美國瑜伽聯盟之註冊教師。任教機構包括演藝學院舞蹈學院、城市當代舞蹈中心、香港藝術中心、香港科技大學、及多間特殊學校等。楊氏現為自由身舞者、編舞、舞蹈教師及瑜伽教師。

陳敏兒
畢業於香港演藝學院；曾為城市當代舞蹈團舞者(1991-1998)；1996年獲亞洲文化協會獎學金赴美進修，往後曾為香港及海外編舞家演出之客席舞者。1997年與友人楊惠美成立雙妹嘜舞蹈劇場並為該團聯合總監之一，所編作品曾於紐約、東京、漢城、台灣及新加坡公演。陳氏憑《光纖纖》(2002)之編舞、《春之祭》(2004)之演出、雙妹嘜舞蹈劇場《尋找家豬的故事》(2006)之編舞與演出及參與DanceWide HK/NY Dance Exchange Project 分別於2003年、2004年及2006年獲香港舞蹈聯盟頒發舞蹈年獎。2005年在紐約創辦CHAN-CAN-DANCE THEATRE，並被邀參與Joyce SoHo, the Chashama’s OASIS Festival, the BAX Women Festival, 92nd Street Y, Galapagos Arts 及 the Mulberry Street Theater之演出。陳氏現居於紐約，但仍往返本港參與舞蹈製作。

龍植池
龍植池在英國設菲爾德修讀美術，隨後於英國Laban Centre、Goldsmiths’ College、University of London 畢業。在學期間已獲當代名編舞家Lea Anderson 邀請到法國200週年革命紀念作業性表演。畢業後，龍植池創立了自己的表演團體作巡迴演出，並替Yolanda Snaith Theatredance 及 Jonathan Burrows Group 作巡迴表演，及獲多個歐洲刻院及藝術節委約創作。龍植池以《中國精》裝置舞蹈作品獲得英國 Wingate Foundation 所頒發的1997年度藝術家獎學金。98至99年，分別在阿根廷及印度南部的少數民族中，進行研究、演出及教育工作。99年秋，龍植池剛於日本發表了一連串的表演，並同 時 教授工作坊，地點包括名古屋、大板及東京等大城市。其他個人創作包,一個錄像裝置作品，以及於2000年5月由Brighton International Arts Festival 2000 委約創的全新作品，並邀請中國大陸的變性人金星演出探討兩性之間及以外身份及在社會的角色。

# posted by jaspar @ 07:29 0 comments

Improvisation Land XVI –Let’s Dance

諸位super stars: ABBY、DANIEL、FRANCIS、VICTOR、MANDY、惠美、阿祿、龍植池憑著他們的肢體及經驗聯同精通多類型樂器的瘋狂音樂鬼才陳偉發、邱立信(Nelson) 一起來一次完全沒有綵排的即興Free Jam <自己跳自己>

日期：2007年2月25日 (星期日)
時間：7 : 30 p.m.
地點：「多空間」Y 劇場
香港葵涌葵豐街33-39號華豐工業中心第一 期3樓B室
門票：$100, $80 (「多空間」會員、全日制學生、長者及智障人仕members of Simple Book Club)
表演者：楊惠美、楊春江、梁家權、陳敏兒、龍植池、王榮祿、嚴明然及馬才和

音樂 ：陳偉發及邱立信
燈光設計及舞台監督：李智偉

查詢及預訂門票：「多空間」(T) 24700511Ms Chow /94923673 Vinci www.y-space.org


售票地點Ticketing:
「多空間」Y-SPACE 電話 Tel：2470 0511
香港葵涌葵豐街33-39號華豐工業中心第一期3樓B室
3/F Flat B, Wah Fung Ind. Ctr., Block 1 , 33-39 Kwai Fung Crescent, Kwai Chung, HK

阿麥書房 Mackie Tix 電話Tel: 2808 0311
香港銅鑼灣恩平道52號2樓A室
Flat A, 2/F, 52 Yun Ping Rd. , Causeway Bay , HK

阿麥書房別館 Mackie Study the AC Shop 電話Tel: 3582 4840
香港灣仔港灣道2號香港藝術中心地下A鋪
Shop A, G/F, Hong Kong Arts Centre, 2 Harbour Road , Wanchai

嶺大李嘉言那篇的文章,倒有一點特別值得一提一讚,就是提到了羅文樂那件para/site門口作品來作焦點,我在回想para/site十年時也無醒起.我寫其一文章想到配合梁美萍當年提出解散parasite的想法時,用了梁美萍跟梁志和兩件早期的work作對比.寫完後來才又想到李志芳的標本與燒豬.寫文有更充足的research的話多好.
今天剛收到羅文樂email來英國新作,逗得我大笑.發覺火炭早前促我覆email他們的問卷,但說實沒有什麼想補充,覺得反已說得太多,對於發展成"盤"嘅嘢尤其有點介心.反而見到羅文樂的新作,就有股衝動,想一再重申,我最喜歡的香港藝術家,依仍係佢.沒有會(用dd所形容)usurp/disempower策展人的藝術家,當策展人其實不會很無癮嗎?

由於上次提及的嶺大文章也有談到ps外判的事,我想我當時這封內部email或也值得公開,讓多些人想想內裡問題.

My Win 98/celeron buddy finally broke down, but I sympathized with it for it deserves a break just as badly as I do. The unfortunate thing is that many of my files working upon or stored in it are gone, but I can’t go on strike like it did. One of the document that I have written that has now gone is my response to PS magazine open to proposals, which I dropped off and let allow it to cool down after finishing it. I try to rewrite it here for I think it speaks some senses to me from the bottom of my heart, which drove me to write it then despite all the other works ahead of me then. Here is the rewritten version:
It is a sort of proposal, or more accurately, maybe a counter proposal. To make things clear, I am totally FOR this open invitation gesture. Yet, it could make a lot more difference if this move of inviting proposals for PS magazine comes for example a year earlier. In fact, I do proposed a more editor-lead or special issue mode for running PS in the past year, and at one point, Janice and me are almost entrusted to each handle two issues of the coming four issues, which however has not been realized due to (pretty unclear) circumstances. Anyhow, in contrast to my support to the principle of letting the best proposal be given the resource to be realized, I feel, at the same time, even more sad that PS magazine and Para/Site organisation has come to such a decision/position. This seemingly open proposal and principle, is in fact not unlike what ADC is doing. By using the resource to bait someone to be held responsible for a project with pressing schedule under a tight budget, and worst of all, I hate it for it never allows people to plan ahead on their own initiative, but expect people to response to theirs. Maybe most of us do not trust those who review the proposals in or for ADC, but somehow, I feel it is even worse if PS is taking over this at a secondary level. ADC at least has some vague guidelines or general criteria to follow, but the PS invitation has none whatever from what I saw. And who is going to review it? Very probably the board members. If they are really in favour of giving the editor more independence (which in my opinion is a good thing, but already exist as such for long), then why should they been the judge for something not tie with Para/Site direction? (Why not then donating them to White Tube or other art magazine like Besides, sponsoring for their 2 issues without using the name PS anymore?) We simply don’t know what is in the board members’ mind to make such a move. Is this really beneficial to Para/Site (as an organisation) which is responsible for the resource to be used in such a direction? Or are they no longer considering PS art criticism class and its publication an essential part of Para/Site unified activities. Do they think the arts community or “public” really doesn't care less? (have no rights to care? – for a public make private matter)? Such a big re-direction should be given clear thought and avoid occasional shifting back and forth, which could be harmful to the PS image (if there are any in the first place, as well as in its long run). The bottom line, I think, is that the interested parties should at least be entitled to know if these two issues are the last two or not? An editor taking over PS without considering from the PS’s future is also not a responsible attitude. Otherwise, it is again the same one-off mode that we criticize what ADC has been doing. Besides, is it wasteful of energy to the art circle, by repeating another round of proposal assessment that ADC has already done to this same sum of money? And even the legitimacy of this procedure might be in question (The open invitation implicit is a failure of the proposal submitter in fulfilling the contract). That’s why in my eyes, the open invitation move of PS is one very symptomatic phenomenon, which signifies two major things. First, a fundamental reorientation of Para/Site executive direction, and the way PS used and is going to be run. Secondly, it reflected some fundamental problems around local criticism / publication. Despite I am always a bit of an outsider to PS, I firmly believe, if it was a year ago PS is facing the present situation, PS will certainly entrust this task of publishing PS to the art criticism class members (just held this last year!) so they could also try their hands on the jobs and gain first-hand experiences from it under some more experienced members guidance (very possibly gained via the same practical way.) A way that I learned much, btw. Of course, I was not even an ex-course member of Para/Site Art Class, but I started getting involved with PS since meeting the PS group at Hong Kong 1st time in Venice Study Group. I tried to help reform PS at some point but former editor Tiny West told me in one of those meetings or an open email, that PS is really a 仝人雜誌 (which meant something like a private club or family business), I was then gravely disappointed to hear that, thinking that PS members are not un-conscious of it but is doing nothing to change that impression. However, slowly onward, I am really beginning to appreciate the beauty of such a mode of running the magazine (or actually the only way?) and feel that I am going to miss it so much that I decided to write this counter proposal.
I say at the beginning that it is only a sort of proposal, for I have not contacted any writer, designer, coming up with any time schedule. Instead, I propose that we run the two coming issues just the way we did as in the past, with feature column staying for upholding a consistence till the very end. Let everyone interested contributes, each one sharing the workload, and celebrates one last time its way of running. If there are no people willing to take up the responsibility, which is a grave fact which PS should think seriously about whether they should continue PS at all, then those who applied for the funding in the first place should be held responsible, even by DIY method, they should finished what they promised to ADC, and not lend other people’s hands completely, taking the role of a sub-contractor. For the funding is expecting them to the producer, not sub-contractor. Of course, since I am writing this “sort of” proposal, this mean that at least I will be involved as well, as editor or not is of no importance.
There are two major agenda which my proposal is after,
first to let those who like to realize something via contributing to PS get realized,
secondly, reflect and probe on the situation PS / Art criticism publication is facing.
My personal proposal for the 2 issues of PS is as follow:
- Venice Biennale 2005 (With special issue reporting on the last two Venice Biennale, I think we should not miss the third; My longer essay on the collective of the last biennale for CU Visual Art Yearbook wasn’t published and might also fit in here. Via contributing to PS, hopefully I could paid for a trip to go to Venice, this, I admit, is my personal agenda for the whole proposal). - PS Rebirth or What?
Tobias Interview (and perhaps a sample of his writing: best a review of Venice Biennale as well) or interview the board members to explain the decision for PS to hire a curator
- Report on artworks on 71
- The state of art criticism (local and abroad)
interview the board members to explain their planning for the future PS
Survey of the rationale of the other writing platforms organisers: MingPao Sunday Art Criticism Class, ampost, shout, IATC, 1a Newsletter (even White tube is planning to have their own criticism publication).
- Survey of Web-(art)-magazine(prepare for the end of or new beginning of PS)
- the old PS mag grand reunion and farewell

哥與嫂的嬰孩出了世,先有了英文名,中文名才有著落,也是幾保守的選擇.
但嬰孩一出世,就被我拍下個樣,不但肖像權被侵,我的母親仲叫我冒佢之名把相email到世界不同角落,出世兩天就上了互聯網世界,這就是新世代世界.

在看一本black dog publishing的書:Art and its institutions - current conflicts, critique and collaborations.看著人們的對前沿模式的實驗就很羨慕,兼頓時發現heritage museum若要稱上前衛,還是缺了一個極重要的當代策展品質,就是權力民主化的政治意識.欠了這個,談什麼策展的前衛性,確是有點誤導成份.

曾經在中學一短陣子用過andy,但知到劉華亦然就速速改了.於是作為個波牛,因為一個叫jesper olsen的人,就改了作jesper,不久後就轉成jaspar至今.
昨天發現曾鈺成竟也叫jasper(而jasper倒確跟玉有關),雖不同我採的jaspar,可使我更進一步唔喜歡自己這個名字.

lp早前在email中夾了這份文章,香港學院中有這種題目的文章出現,本想是件好事,但看落才知驚.究竟有沒有導師過過目,或還導師都對所談論的事情都是唔清唔楚.文中對我頗算例外留面,但我反會否有責任指出當中問題一二.遲些附注後我會把我的版本放上.這是原來的.

李嘉言：從「國際的」藝術雙年展到「本港的」藝術雙年展 看香港「另類」藝術空間與全球化的關係 (http://www.ln.edu.hk/cultural/programme/panel3_p3.pdf )

友人能夠在草地上行婚禮,真的羨慕.
結婚人生大事本身也當然要恭喜一番.















(相中不是漂亮新娘的裙子,只是我們嘉賓的座椅套)

從被lc捉去少睡一天,到臨展覽與座談又通宵,作日終於嘔起了個proposal,就去好好睡覺,結果可能睡多了,又有點頭痛.
由於小孩時被臥放睡床太多,結果個頭枕位變扁了,年來愈來愈發覺個腦於是唔夠用,又或於是性格總是有些偏執?
哥哥的孩子快要生,希望成長得健健康康,母親就平平安安.

跟lc作了件漂亮的事情,覺得這會成為legendary的,縱使我又想起要低調,想逃離歷史.
在快餐店看龍應台的<<龍應台的香港筆記>>,不知怎樣,眼也紅了,在眼濕未淚下前,我還是趕把書合上.書中除了她的好文章,還收了一些香港人寫給她的書信,證明很多人也跟我一樣,會因她的文章演講而激動,雖有些信對她的漫罵使我們比那些shame of oneself的信更對身位港人而感shameful.

前晚上小樺電台單位,蠢蠢作動,想的是如何在live節目加入幾句近日城中的口頭蟬,但要顧著個討論的flow,沒有太成事,只有半句出了街.昨晚又有公開場合,到葵青劇院拿舞盟頒的獎,想著上台如何說,有些擔心自己是否又會臨陣正經果頭,好彩節目一開始,大家都拿了這份工來笑,我的一份卻正是指我們做嘢唔係祗係當做嘅o野係份工而已.
曾作為行政長官,徹底就是殖民地看檔人的思維,打份政府工,無願景,根本不知政治家為何物.

藝術家lc同我講,我想做的東西,透過寫文章未必是好方法,叫我做番藝術家把,我想我是的話只會做個政治藝術家,因為我接受th說做藝術家是想對自己負責,負全責.正是藝術可以使我擔起作為公民的全部.
否則,我不能.
看到藝訊講天水泥,300公斤泥都是在濕地公園採,黃麗貞說挖集後才發覺這區區300公斤的泥土只佔整個自然環境毫不起眼的一部份,這足以證明人類在自然界中何等的微不足道.
我完全覺得很害怕這種責任,我絕唔會去做陶泥,把一樣大自然有機可變化形態的東西,燒成你塑的形象,無法還原.憑什麼?濕地公園知道自己在做什麼嗎?我覺得那絕對是破壞環境,但願藝術家也知自己在做什麼?我們對泥土的感情正是在這種為我所用的思維所摧殘.微不足道要這樣才感知的嗎?
我很疑惑.

收到信,本預算落空的夢正式告吹,不是因申請失敗本身有失望,而是人走到這裡,人生還是有些事未想通,亦只能是一個人獨自去想.
或要騰些時間認真看祈克果和卡夫卡.