2007/02/21
寫在PS27(原來合併了27,28?)前
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
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
