2007/10/29

 

尾巴;出[事]處

In the US and elsewhere, there are campaigns to boycott the Beijing Games ... As a Chinese person, I would encourage backers of these efforts to consider the positive effect Olympics could still have in China ...
...在美國及其他地方,有杯葛北京奧運的活動,作為中國人,我鼓勵這些支持者,考慮奧運在中國帶來的正面影響...

(am 730/26.10.2007)

2007/10/28

 

Simply Mistype or Sth More ?

Just recieved an email reply on my Feedback on Green Paper on Constitutional Development, the interesting thing is how it also mistaken, or mistyped my name as Lau Kin Wai. While for all the while, I have just used my Chinese name in the letter and email it out with my jasparlkw account.


Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:26:59 +0800 (HKT)
From: "views@cmab-gpcd.gov.hk"
To: "jasparlkw"

Subject:
Re: 回覆: Feedback on Green Pa per on Constitutional Development

#message1508573833661587134010950425441747883601769 { overflow:auto; visibility:hidden }

Kin Wai
Lau:

è¬è¬ä½ çš„é›»éƒµï¼Œä½ æå‡ºçš„æ„è¦‹å·²æ”¶åˆ°ï¼Œç¤¾æœƒå„ç•Œçš„æ„è¦‹å°æˆ‘å€‘å°±ã€Šæ”¿åˆ¶ç™¼å±•ç¶ çš®æ›¸ã€‹çš„å…¬çœ¾è«®è©¢éžå¸¸é‡è¦ã€‚
ä½ çš„æ„è¦‹æ—¥å¾Œæˆ–æœƒè¢«å…¬é–‹ä¾›åƒé–±ã€‚å¦‚æžœä½ å¸Œæœ›èº«ä»½æˆ–äº¤ä¾†çš„æ„è¦‹ä»¥ä¿å¯†æ–¹å¼è™•ç†ï¼Œè«‹åœ¨æ­¤é›»éƒµç™¼å‡ºæ—¥æœŸ14天
å…§ï¼Œä»¥é›»éƒµå‘æœ¬å±€äº¤å›žå¡«å¦¥çš„å›žæ¢ï¼Œæ¸…æ¥šèªªæ˜Žè¦æ±‚ã€‚å¦‚ä½ åªè¦æ±‚æŠŠèº«ä»½ä¿å¯†ï¼Œä½ çš„æ„è¦‹å°‡ä»¥ä¸å…·åæ–¹å¼è¢«åˆŠè¼‰ã€‚
如在此電郵發出日期14å¤©å…§æˆ‘å€‘ä»æœªæ”¶åˆ°ä½ çš„å›žè¦†ï¼Œæˆ‘å€‘å°‡è¦–ä½ ä¸åå°æŠŠæäº¤çš„æ„è¦‹è¢«å…¬é–‹ä¾›åƒé–±ã€‚
政制及內地事務局
回條
致:
政制及內地事務局
地址:
中區政府合署中座及東座3樓
傳真: 2523 3207
ï¼ˆè«‹åœ¨åˆé©çš„æ–¹æ ¼åŠ ä¸Šâ€œx”號)
â–¡
請將我(們)的身份保密,我(們)的意見可以不具名方式刊載。
â–¡
請將我(們)的意見和身份保密。
註:
å¦‚ä½ (們)ä¸åå°æŠŠä½ (們)çš„æ„è¦‹æ—¥å¾Œè¢«å…¬é–‹åƒé–±ï¼Œä½ ç„¡é ˆå¡«å¯«æ­¤å›žæ¢ã€‚
簽名:
姓名:

所屬公司/團體:
(如適用)
日期:

 

搵食還易說,唔信你又做難解

仍然是超忙,但和兩個藝術家還是分別去了午飯及下午茶短敘,加上現在寫blog,月底幾天看怕一定會趕到天昏地暗.
兩位仁兄,一個抱怨我輩幾個小策展人都唔找佢,一個繼續勸我做番藝術家.對於前者,我的答覆是我都唔信藝術,我不過在搞政治,不同路者,無計.後者有趣得多,因為我的確也唔信展覽,但咁點解我又會係依家依個位置?大概正是因為我本以為在策展位置一直搞政治,可以把多些藝術家引向政治,明白關注這面相的重要性,慢慢成為同路人.但似乎這不是人仍唔明解,就是我都陷於無奈與冇符.

2007/10/25

 

backfire of direct engagement

Being given a derserving hard time by Phoebe Wong the other day for not completing the HistoriCITY Art Project according to schedule, check out the http://mmkprojecthkah.blogspot.com/ for more in what to follow.

Today, Tobias also exerted much pressure on me, to do more self-initiative research beyond Hong Kong and what I already know, in compensate for not able to go to China. An example of what they saw in Shenzhen last Sunday here (a Map Office link).

I have nothing against finishing things more on time, or doing more research. But I also do like to see to the possibility of the extreme, of a project allowing a truly "open-end commitment/commit-los", and question why is dealing with art in Hong Kong alone necessarily not enough?

 

New Blog for

Public Security Against Suicidal Hong Kong Jacobin Committing Cultural Terrorism Project (PSASHKJCCTP) has just been founded.

 

writing on PS trip 07 (part 2)

Creating a show in which nothing could fail was, to Szeemann, a waste of time.
- David Levi Strauss, in Curating in Cautionary Tales: Critical Curating, p.24.

Don't take me wrong for my last entry (part 1), I am still very much interested in following the discussion/debate (alas, writings) in assessing the various shows this summer, particularly the reception of seemingly "disastrous" Documenta (which was not included in this ps trip might already be a noteworthy point?) [Interestingly, Documenta, seems to prefer seeking people outside of the already well-known mainstream curators in the present biennial circuit. Enzewor's Johannesburg biennale might be one tiny exception. As the so-called most important art exhibition around the world, let's see if the coming one will yield to this, owe to the "failure" pressure of this last one?)

So far, much has been said between Storr (07VB) and Buergel (07 D11), but Hou (07IB) and Obrist (07LyonB, herefater LB) could be another interesting pair, especially considering their previous partnership on various occassions. (I do hope I could touch on that a bit later on.) But despite Francesco Bonami frequently jumps between comparising Storr's VB with Buergel Documenta11 in his contribution to ArtForum, his major critique of Storr is fundamentally circulating the question of:

What a Biennial is (supposingly)? What curating VB is really about?

To him:


"a truly contemporary show must be about challenges, discovery, failure – the moment".
– Francesco Bonami, "Isolated Incident," Artforum, Sept 2007, p. 396.

and in his eyes, Storr, as the "museum-trained" curator, failed to recognize the unique character of a biennial and particularly that of the VB.

But wasn't that (view of Bonami) a kind of fixed expectation (of Biennial) as well?
Robert Storr's uncompromising speech in his catalogue essay, of "proceed on the faith," in want of "breaking the public of its habit of rapidly comsuming images," claiming that "nor are biennials for people in a hurry," could actually be posing another kind of "challenges," and risking oneself becoming a "failure" too. (If risk and failure is really so important to biennial and curating.)

The failure of Storr, to me, was however not in Arsenale, despite Jorg Heiser too, has also very similar complaint as Jerry Saltz, that "In the Arsenale, Storr adopts a gambit I call 'Curator As Anchorman.' Here, a curator in effect says, 'Whenever there's a problem in the world, I'll be there." (full text here
) For me, I guess the failure happened in the Italian Pavilion in Gardini (which might be too close to being a museum space that it laid a trap for Storr). As usual, the exhibits were a mix of good and bad works, but with Sigmar Polke's huge painting occupying the central foyer, and the dead artists above in the attic, the usage of these strategical positions seems to have betrayed the kind of "emerging patterns" and falling back to the "epiphanies" in his catalogue essay of "Think with the Sense – Feel with the Mind. Art in the Present Tense." As critic Jerry Saltz puts it earlier on, with all the A-listers artists, it exemplifies that "this Biennale is Storr's résumé", but unfortunately "brilliant errors are missing here."

I will try to line up more failures here below, the major ones that I felt over the other two biennials (IB07 & LB07), not that I believe they are valid critiques in any ways, but as fulfilled duties, so that I could move on back to the basics that I wanted to write as my part 3.

For LB07
Obrist failed to come up with (at least from himself) any substantial statements. (wasn't "handover/talkover" doing the same thing? wasn't "handover/talkover" being criticized for the same thing? (issue of artist as curator/"sub-curating" as Jeff puts it/artists picking artists.../role of curators)
For the art that he picked, it seems he is not shy from showing a pretty narrow taste of aesthetics, unified, yet remained quite Euro(?)centric.

For IB07
Hou failed in many contradictory ways. The major one to me is how "Burn it or Not" and "World Factory" is more sucessful than the proper art venue of "Entre-polis" in curatorial sense, but Xu Zhen occupying such a signifcant place in "Burn it or Not" ruins the whole show there, while "World Factory" is a prefabricated series moving in from San Francisco, and proved too packed to do justice to the works.


2007/10/23

 

Jerry Maguire, master of kwan


2007/10/22

 

新詩一首

小瑟
作者:得仔

克拉娜
海迪
海迪
爺爺 爺爺
大角羊

2007/10/21

 

何不吃藝術?

無論"都係搵食"或是"搵口苦飯"
我舊的反駁的前提都是,"乜依家有飯開嗎?"
(搞妥那"開飯"的(最後)問題先把啦.)

在de appel的號召力和0團費的吸引力下,參加了鴨仔團,上課原來就是出席一個接一個的opening,沒法.若果憑此以為我轉性,想"搵食",可別誤會,但若我給了任何人如此的感覺,希望話我知,等我引以為戒.
may fung昨天就話我都係個institution.我希望那僅是一個懶理佢有冇飯開的institution,而任務則在於deinstitutionalizing.

要話飯唔重要,其實意味著"信"某樣o野,用A. Doblin當年的Alexanderplatz開首引的話:

people do not live on bread and butter alone.

2007/10/19

 

陳雲 on wk

無眼睇

2007-09-16 明報 周日話題

提起西九,想講粗口。幸好馬家輝當年倡議「西九」這個市井簡稱,令我可以按捺得住,大家也可意會我的脾氣。西九是我切身但又毫不切身的事。我自一九九七年起出任文化政策研究的專職,從藝術發展局到民政事務局,從頭到尾都跟貼事態發展,但我從未參與過西九的政事,公眾諮詢會議沒出席,建築模型更沒瞄一眼。一來無眼睇,二來睇眼冤。政府的西九規劃,根本混帳一宗。我以前一直有評論西九,都是從政治、從程序,從沒有用自己的專業知識和文化熱忱評論過西九。面對這種政府,根本沒機會實現,連聽也不聽你的,談來做什麼?如果不是編輯黎佩芬閑談之間,忽然提議,不如將我的規劃願景講出來,我寧願一直相信,我對西九從來沒意見。


提起,就一把火

本年六月三十日,從民政局的研究總監這個虛位退職之後,在家靜靜寫作香港文化政策史。至今寫了一半,年底完成,交託花千樹出版。寫書,除了是要留下點經驗,予來者參考,還是用學術理性來埋藏或埋葬我的怒火。怒火,整整燒了十年。特別是西九,一提起,心頭一把火。
這裏,我放下學術的火筆,用輕鬆通俗的語言,講文化政策,談西九願景。看不看,隨便你。不看,更好。(免得像我一樣的發火。)文化政策是最高段數的政治,今稱「軟力量」(softpower),可以打通經脈,令人武功大進,也可以廢人武功,取人首級於千里。在世界霸主美國,沒有成文的文化政策(a written cultural policy),然而,美帝的文化政策的執行者,是令人不寒而慄的CIA(中央情報局),以及與CIA 拍檔的一眾基金會。以為我危言聳聽的,可以閱讀桑達斯(Frances S. Saunders)的《文化冷戰:中央情報局與文學及藝術的世界》(The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and theWorld of Arts and Letters,2000)。為何回歸之後,香港沒有可以拿得出來見得人的、實實在在的文化政策,只有殖民地沿用的四句混話——促進藝術自由、維護多元文化、保護知識產權、支援發展環境?答案一字咁淺,因為香港受到北京統治,除非香港人齊心維護自己的權利和自由,否則香港不會有體現文化視野(cultural vision) 、文化權利(cultural rights)與文化民主(cultural democracy)的文化政策。所以,拜託,以後不要追問港府的文化政策,令高官難做人,好麼?

「官督商辦」與「商督官辦」

我記得,大建築師何弢先生講過, 「冇passion,唔好講文化。」前朝的老董,滿腔熱誠,西九文娛藝術區是他主力倡議的。可惜他沒見識,他的致命傷,是迷信商人的能耐,鄙視文人學士,不相信搞文化建設原來也要有點學術斤的。
西九那塊填海地,舊殖民地政府的本意,是瘋狂賣地賺取政費之後,良心發現,要紓緩臨海舊區的環境擠逼,弄一個大型海濱公園,令大家透透氣。以前政府在九龍的新填地,是舊區的伸延,社區、生意與街道,新舊打成一片,大家多了地方用。以致大家今日走到油麻地、大角嘴、長沙灣一帶,都不察覺那是新填地,那是巧妙的、新舊區之間的無縫連接。這種以民生為本的老式填海取地政策,在回歸前後放棄了,換來的是為豪門大戶圈禁土地的新填海政策。目前靠近西九的臨海填地,已經建了隔絕舊區的高速車路和屏風豪宅(擎天半點、凱旋門之類),成為有錢人的租界,以前新舊區無縫連接的規劃思維,無從實現。在西九建一個人民公園來補償,為市民增添公共空間,是最基本的社會公義。
不知怎的,後來人民公園變成賣靚地、撈政費的商住區域,後來也不知怎的,旅遊協會(今稱旅遊發展局)隨便搞了個遊客調查(做學術的都知道這類調查有何意義),說訪港遊客期望在香港看演藝活動,於是便提議在西九建一個綜合演藝場地,長期上演香港的首本戲碼和國際演藝。注意:只是一個場館。這確是合理的提議,旅遊協會還是有點理性的。不過,在同時,規劃署的調查說,香港缺乏一個水平橫臥式的藝術區。臊主意落到老董手上,有好戲看了!老董有美國商人性格,喜歡think big,一下子將一家綜合演藝場館,發大開來,變成一個文娛藝術區。
老董心目中的藝術,是百老匯、古根漢、龐比度中心與巴伐洛堤。他盲目信任商人,西九規劃的原意,是「官督商辦」,將公共空間化為商人督辦、假裝公共的商業空間,裏面不准菲傭聚集,趕走搞搞震、無幫襯的閑人。商人辦藝術,不是不可以,美國有各大老牌基金會興辦的美術館博物館,日本有六本木與森美術館。香港呢?乜都冇。老董的老友記,美國商會主席問政府取錢,搞過一次億元「維港巨星匯」,效果是:掟錢落海。老董不相信文化規劃是一門專業,結果他成為老友記主義(cronyism)的搖錢樹,熟人向他建議戲曲、水墨、大博物館、大演奏廳等等,文化區成了文化諸侯的封邑(fiefdom)。
他提議的單一招標,以為一個業主管理,就有風格和統籌。他違反了公平競爭,商業知識也太局限。
天可憐見, 由一眾投地的地產商組成一個商團(consortium)來規劃和管理,其功能也如單一業主,這點腦筋,竟然也轉不過來。

地產諸侯與文化諸侯

老董下台,輪到老曾,他是個實際的人,文化不合他的脾胃。目前西九的做法,是賣地埋單;至於文化,貴客自理。誰是貴客?大商家是大貴客,文化諸侯是小貴客。西九管理局,掌權的將是大商家,用的是公帑,唱戲的是幾個文化諸侯。以前的「官督商辦」,變了今日的「商督官辦」。地產諸侯分得豪宅地,文化諸侯分得場館地。這下不是擺平了嗎?
那些文化諸侯說的理據與統計,在文化統計學來看,只是笑話一場。搞戲曲中心還有點道理,有現成的藝術與觀眾,現時的戲曲場地也不合用。興辦M+博物館?在現有的博物館,用M+的策展觀念,搞幾場試試看?一年、兩年?看你能維持到幾時?傑出的策展觀念,與興建一家容納這些觀念的永久場館,是兩回事。西班牙Bilbao 的古根漢,威風了好幾年,到如今,戲愈來愈難唱下去了。龐比度中心,也是疲不能興。德國卡斯魯爾市(Karlsruhe)的多媒體藝術博物館ZKM,有頭威,冇尾陣。以前藝術發展局的主席周永成先生,很懂得藝術,他講過一句評估新場地的至理名言,很市井的: 「新搭屎坑——三日香。」三日之後,人人放低幾看家本領之後(after everybody left their shit),你搞埋我份。
我的規劃,人民的規劃假如由我規劃,我第一句要提醒大家的,是香港的公共文化,已經過度規劃了。文化藝術界,受夠了規劃之苦。由六十年代的大會堂,規劃了中產精英(移民走了一大半),到後來的大小場館,規劃了社區藝術和小眾藝術,官老爺的文化規劃(cultural planning)已經玩夠了。第二句要提醒大家的,是西九不適宜大搞文化。那兒關山阻隔,遠離民居,缺乏民氣與歷史感,除非有奇蹟,硬要搞大來做,是恆久的維港巨星匯——掟錢落海。
由我來做,西九的公園原意,是補償因賣豪宅地而失去的公共空間。共享海濱美景,是無上的規劃律令(imperative),當這個律令冇到,是埋沒學術良心。財務方面,地還是要賣的,既然現存的屏風樓已經阻擋了舊區,不必堅持全部做公園用地了。限制建築高度,成為一個梯次,令屏風樓不那麼礙眼,也是好的。西九賣地得的錢,是公帑,不應亂花,大部分要回歸庫房,支付醫療、教育、福利等,可觀的一部分,例如三百億元,應成立一個文化基金,一筆是為了西九建公園和演藝場地,另一筆,是注資予現存的文化場館與藝術機構。翻新大會堂,注資演藝學院、藝發局、藝術中心,做創作資助、社區藝術、藝術教育。在新區提升現存的文化會堂,支付康文署員工的培訓費,安排場館公司化,多招聘合約的專家與管理人才,這些都需要新的資金。

Outgrowth 與Spin-Off

西九公園內,只需興建一個與黃土綠地藍海風格相呼應的一個特大型的綜合演藝場館,興建費用務必要低,以備將來要拆。大型場館,是暫時替代尖沙嘴文化中心的功能之用,並且多加幾個小場,建成之後,將現時的文化中心拆去,重新興建,那兒是上佳的演藝場館地點,必須鎮守住,不要分心。大型場館的演出,是容納現時各場館超載、溢出的藝術活動,稱為outgrowth,在大型新場地上演,可以保證若干觀眾(也只是若干而已!)。大型場館之外,是清純的綠野、樹林、小徑,而不是鬼五馬六的文化建設。
大型場館如果成功,待之以年,市民喜歡看,藝術家有意思搞、有本領搞,就可以spin off,在其他預留的草地上,興建其他新場館。這是符合文化生態的規劃,人民自主的規劃。萬一大型場館失敗,香港藝術家無力回天,待尖沙嘴的文化中心重新建好之後,將之改變用途,或拆掉更好,將土地還給大地與人民。
在微風、樹林、鳥獸和大海之前,藝術家要懂得禮讓。比起大自然,比起在公園坐椅上打盹的老人,藝術家是什麼?我也是藝術家,我很狂傲,不過我也有謙卑的時候。



理性務實說西九
《信報》 2007-10-04

編按 香港的文化政策像四月的太平山,被雲霧重重圍困,市民觀之如五里霧中遊大觀園,只聞美好願景,真容卻難得一見。西九發展方案反覆折騰,文化委員會報告書建議的改革泥牛入海,保育政策忽冷忽熱……。市民看不透遮掩決策邏輯的面紗,除了怪罪問責人,月旦文化之際,難以有的放矢。事實上,政府也從來沒有清晰而獨立的文化政策,每每是便宜行事,見步行步。  


陳雲在政府山修煉五年,如居雲上,眼觀文化政策如何順宦海潮流而飄盪。在下山撰寫香港文化政策史之際,他因公忘私,暫擱〈我私故我在〉專欄,先以一系列文章,探討西九及香港文化政策近況,交代五年民政局幕府生涯之所思所想,是為〈雲上的日子〉。
  


  沙田已有文化區,何不來個管理局?沙田歷史悠久,政府率先在此引入城市規劃概念之後,成了人口最多的新市鎮,是城市上班中產族的聚居處,如果略作改動,便已有個現成的文化區。探討西九文化區的管理架構之前,何不先做個沙盤推演,看看實情?

  沙田有文化場館群落,連綿有十個私營商場、兩個公營屋商場,有中央公園、史諾比主題公園、賽馬場、單車徑、城門河、萬佛寺、車公廟、望夫石、曾大屋等景色,又有體育學院及體藝中學等體藝教育設施,如果將沙田大會堂、圖書館及文化博物館公司化,政府注資成立營運基金,組成「沙田文化管理局」,馬上可以在沙田康文署總部辦公(前區域市政局大樓),加建沙田大會堂,在公園空地多建幾個小場館,政府再動用可以隨便支配的外基金,運用政治影響力,收購附近的商場,用商場部分租金收益補貼文化場館,然後在商場增設文化活動和展覽,招徠人流,引人入勝,沙田文化區的概念就形成了。包裝得宜,甚至可以變成嶄新的房地產信託基金上市,公開招股認購。

癡人說夢的「文化區」

  聽到這裏,你會直斥我妙想天開,簡直癡人說夢!但是,這個看起來荒謬絕倫的建議,可要比政府提出在西九收租經營文化區的模式合理得多啊。說到底,沙田是個有各種成熟的條件,而西九,是遠離民眾的飛地,十劃未有一撇。
  返回現實吧。目前沙田的新城市廣場連同幾個鄰近商場地帶,是香港人流最多的商場區,租金收益前景美好,然而,一心去逛商場的人很少去沙田大會堂,儘管之間只是隔了一條短短的有蓋行人天橋。「自由行」政策之後,大陸遊客蜂擁來沙田購物,很多住在鄰近酒店,但絕少會順路去沙田大會堂和文化博物館。沙田是中產和基層混合居住的大城鎮,更是連接新界與九龍的交通樞紐,沙田大會堂的觀眾,都是從鐵路網(東鐵、馬鐵)和廣泛連接民居的公車網輸送來的,西九有這個優勢嗎?曾德成局長口中的港穗高速鐵路總站,會為西九帶來奇嗎?艱苦栽培數十年的沙田,文化設施的成就也不外如是,西九行嗎?
改變賣地歸公的社會合約
  辦一個場館與藝團雲集的文化區,屬於文化政策上的創意管理(creativity management),政府決意注資補貼文化,代市民行使美學和品味判斷,需要若干冒險精神,但冒險得來,決不可違反公共行政及公共文化的大原則。現在西九諮詢文件,最大的危機,不在於建多少演藝場館,也不在於是否盡快上馬,是否成立西九管理局,而是在於政府在文化服務上,竟然採取房屋委員會、鐵路公司、機場管理局及貿易發展局的營運模式,錯把文藝當成是必不可少的民生服務,實行「以土地補貼服務」的方式——政府變相買斷了商場業權,然後用商場的地租去供養西九管理局,使之能夠財政自主,成為獨立王國,以後不必受到大部分民選的立法議會的年度撥款監察。此中,危機四伏,立法議會萬一大意,草率通過政府提交的西九管理局法案,隨時鑄成大錯,遺害百姓。
  房屋委員會、鐵路、機管局及貿發局的營運模式,無疑是以土地收益(賣地或場租)補貼服務虧損,並使其獲得財政自主權。然而,房屋、集體運輸、機場和促進貿易及會議展覽服務,都是現代城市不可或缺的公共服務,其服務原則上都可以全民共享,惠及全港,不會偏袒某個階層或某個地區,況且服務亦有客觀標準,可以量度成效,便於公眾監督。為市民提供基本的公共文化服務,如果受到民主議會的直接監察,勉強可以說得上是公共服務,但西九是屬於已經滿足基本需求之後的第二期場館興建,而其發展路線主要將是採取商業市場傾向的高檔文藝,並非全民共享,其收益亦難以惠及整體市民,故此絕不可採取「以地養文」的模式。否則,日後各種事業都會假借公益為名,在發展項目上向政府索取隱性的土地補貼,令港府的賣地收益愈來愈多被人截留或「抽水」,失去賣地的公共財政收入。犧牲舊區居民,以填海或重建方式,賣地補貼公共開支,充實庫房,是香港的社會合約之一,西九「以地養文」的模式,是改變了「賣地利益盡歸公家」的社會合約,不可不慎也。

文化人管商場:兩頭不到岸

  政府連房屋委員會的商場管理都不滿意,都要私有化,連管理物業幾十年的專局最終也要被迫放棄商場營運,政府何以妙想天開,竟然相信混雜了文化人、贊助人、商家與退休高官的西九管理局,人多口雜,可以妥善管理一個高檔的商場?為何不將商場用地拍賣,將款項歸公——當中也可抽出若干成數為文化基金?難道這些準備「分田分地」的文化諸侯,真的可以創造商業奇嗎?如果他們可以創造商業奇,根本不應稀罕政府的土地補貼了!
  以前市政局和區域市政局也是財政自主的獨立王國,在政府的協商下,每年抽取差餉(房產物業稅)之中的幾個百分率(一般是百分之三至五)做議會主要收入,補貼包括文化康體在內的市政服務。但是不管市政局的文化品味如何,上世紀八十年代,市政局好歹都是逐步民選的議會(一九九五年全部民選),擔正文化民主(cultural democracy)的名義,為全港市民提供公共文化服務。港府的諮詢文件,雖然強調管理局將如何如何問責,但建議中的西九管理局的問責程度,比得上民選的市議會嗎,比得上立法會監察之下的年度撥款嗎?
  創意管理的第一條規律,就是管理不來的,就不應勉強管理。隨其自然,彼此互動,期之以年,水到渠成。連香港地產商都對商場發展無甚把握,發展高檔品味的商場,本地的成功例子聊聊可數。西九的商場應該拍賣予發展商,起碼保證若干程度的成功,將來再與文化場館的管理當局磋商互動就好了,冒險委託文化當局管理,胡亂cross-over,難免兩敗俱傷——商場不成商場,場館不成場館。在創意管理之前,先做好風險管理。這是創意管理的第二條規律。根本不宜用文藝法定組織管理的商場,委託予法定組織管理,只是將弊端用制度來隱藏和延擱,導致議會無從問責而已,香港這方面的例子還少嗎?

企圖擺脫議會監督

  由於文化政策是一門專業,目前香港輿論評論西九,都不能觸及問題的核心:文化當作公共服務的理據,以及創意如何管理。況且西九已經一拖再拖,放棄了單一招標之後,政府的錯誤減少了,輿論與議會都彷彿覺得應該放政府一馬,新進的中年官人,比朱培慶還要急色,顧不得「馬上風」了,更紛紛催促「上馬」。
  目前西九的輿論批評,老調重彈,了無新意。反對的有:招標論與地積比例論、場館變成大白象論;贊成的有:藝團缺乏場館演出首本節目論、場館建築比賽創造香港地標論。聽得市民神情麻木,意興闌珊。專制政府推出方案,最喜歡「輿論疲乏」的境況出現,因為可以為所欲為,即使鑄成大錯,事後也有民意和議會可以抵賴。當年倉卒推出「強積金」方案,也是延擱多時,弄到輿論疲乏,結果立法會無甚異議而草率通過,引致今日謬誤百出,例如積金投資機構竟然是跟隨僱主而不是跟隨僱員,如今眼看西九方案,將以扶植文化之名,加速上馬之聲,鑄成大錯了。
  政府經營公共文化(public culture)其中一個的大原則,就是確保公共文化不會違反公眾利益,其中一個最大保證,就是當中的大筆經費,必須受到議會監察。即使需顧及文化團體跨年規劃,也可用整筆撥款(block grants)的形式,藝團可靈活調度,問題是必須經由議會撥款。目前民政局及屬下的康文署,藝發局、演藝學院及藝術中心等的經費,都受立法會的年度撥款監察,確保民意有效監督。假若西九管理局取得可觀的商場租金補貼,享有財政自主,那麼它捧出市場或美學之名,浪費公帑為實,專門推出崇洋媚外、為美帝臉上貼金的作品,推出反共辱華作品,或向自己喜歡的藝團輸送過分的利益(可以合法進行!),或推出泛濫的商業媚俗作品,又或推出媚共的樣板戲,公共文化變為商業文化(commercial culture)或私家文化(private culture),市民均無從透過議會,加以有效的過問。諮詢文件列出的所謂問責方式:《防止賄賂條例》啦,董事申報利益啦,出席立法會答問啦,有公務經驗的人都心知肚明,在虛無飄渺的文化服務上,一旦財權在手,即可為所欲為,此等限制,形同虛設,得啖笑而已。二○○三年,港府胡亂「科水」予美國商會舉辦的《維港巨星匯》,扔錢落海,冤哉枉也,問責去了哪裏?教訓還不夠深麼?



一切向西九出發?
《信報》2007-10-11

  香港政治可愛之處,就是凡事都笨笨的,不識修辭與文飾。掃除文物、拆樓賣地的,不叫建設局,叫發展局。在西九將藝術推出市面,不叫「西九藝術局」,卻叫「西九管理局」。不論中文的「西九管理局」,還是英文的WKCD Authority,藝術要管理局,culture要跟從authority,聽來都令人憂心忡忡。趙丹在一九八○年臨終痛斥中共管理文化的弊端,已靜靜降臨香港:「管得太具體,文藝沒希望。」香港的公共空間與公共文化,已經「過度管理」,還嫌管得不夠嗎?西九說是拆牆鬆綁,放開公共文化與藝術的包袱,放心下海,唯利是圖,卻用了「管理」之名?那麼管理的是什麼呢?是藝術創意,還是收支賬目?西九成為香港文藝的金鑾殿,向西九出發,就是向錢看了。沒有西九的日子,香港的首本節目雖然不大揚名,但總算是多元分布,各有擅長;西九之後,此地的藝術頂蓋(ceiling),恐怕是由《劍雪浮生》、《男人之虎》與《東宮西宮》之類封定了。富士德建築師樓的天篷取消,但商業牟利的無形天篷,遮天蔽日,更是可怕。

從規劃到傳承的曲折

  西九的概念,是藝團與創意中介人才群集(cluster),商業與藝術協同(synergy),仿效商業中心區(CBA),用建築地標、資源聚與管理革新的三道板斧,試圖雕鑿出文化中心區。然而,從規劃到成功,到成為市民共同的傳承,期間曲折離奇。上次我用沙田為例,這次不妨回顧香港第一個文化區的經歷—緊貼中環心臟地帶的大會堂建築群。
  香港不是歐洲,香港是託管於英國的殖民地,社會由移民、漁民與難民組成,鄉村、鄉鎮和漁港仍有社區文化傳統,但城市缺乏公共文化傳統。市內的公共文化,無疑必須經由政府規劃,從文化規劃到有所成就,變成傳承(heritage),須累積發展,不可揠苗助長。建立香港大會堂之前,民間已有業餘藝團、學會與書樓,大會堂提供現代管理及開放空間,遂容納而壯大之。從大會堂與鄰近公共空間可以看出,由啟用到有所成就,培養出大量中產精英觀眾和文藝青年,變成本地人使用的公共空間,形成文化傳承,期間經歷無數互動甚至流血衝突的公民抗爭(抗議加價、保釣、中文運動等)。有意識的公共空間論述,要等到去年至今的天星碼頭與皇后碼頭的保育行動,方才警醒若干民眾的認同。由規劃到真正成為民意認同的公共空間,由落成啟用到共同傳承,自一九六二年至二○○七年,改朝換代,歷時四十五年。
  西九說要創造地標,當年的大會堂現代主義的明淨建築,曾是香港之光,是小學教科書的封面,然而,今日大會堂內部於二○○四年經歷火劫之後,修復還未完善,廣場被水馬及圍板阻隔,恐怕枯萎由之,將來拆樓賣地。政府過去如何推崇大會堂的地標,今日又如何冷待?香港大會堂是有真實歷史的文化地標,落在新政府手上,命運尚且如此,新政府對西九的文化熱誠(passion),可思過半矣。

「第二期發育」與公共文化

  正因為香港的公共文化與公共空間不是來自歷史傳承與文化共識—如巴黎的公共空間不須多少立法爭議,而是來自當年政府的善意規劃及市民爭取,落入「呵護備至」的新政府手上,假使市民不爭,公共空間便無聲消逝。請勿怪市民忽然熱情投入保育,也勿怪市民眷戀舊朝代,請新政府反省,自己是否公心為政,還是化公為私,將公共空間商業化,借助商業管理,將市民管得帖服?是故市民不應放任西九商業獨大,除了保證其文化的公共性格之外,還須關注西九場館之外的公共空間,以至整體香港文化生態的均衡發展。
  以文化生態學而言,西九是香港文化設施的第二期發育,而且是在荒地之上建立,與滿足基本需求的第一期基建不同:第一期的場館已配備基本的節目、藏品和觀眾,而且選址於市內交通要衝,可謂水到渠成。第二期文化建設猶如報章戲稱的女人第二期發育—隆胸,或如餐廳亂開分店擴充營業,多是一時風光,後患無窮。
  目前香港的文化經費毫不充足,很多藝團的正路經費連年削減,捉襟見肘,被迫謀算奇形怪狀的合作項目,行走偏鋒,賣藝求存。政府「豪擲」一百九十億元予西九管理局,不單無視其他文化生態之貧乏,也無視康文署的管理生態—西九將成為香港公共文化行政的治外法權,西九場地與康文署場地難有公平競爭場景(level-playing field)。假若政府用心於香港公共文化,一百九十億元(或更多的經費撥備)應公平分配,一筆成立西九文化基金,在西九建公園和演藝場地,另一筆是注資於現存的文化場館與藝術機構:翻新香港大會堂,重修或重建香港文化中心(可待到西九大場館落成之後重建),提升新市鎮的文化設施,並注資藝發局、藝術中心、創意藝術村等,做創作資助、社區藝術與藝術教育。此外,支援藝術中介組織(arts agencies如藝團聯盟),支援康文署員工的專業培訓,提供充足資金予公司化後的場館,多招聘合約的專家與管理人才。如此,才是生態共榮之道。

文化生態的共榮發展

  愚見認為,毋須倉卒成立西九管理局。西九初期的公共空間用地,只須建立一個大公園,內有一家綜合大場館,應付目前演藝場地不足,容納現在各場館超載、溢出的藝術活動—稱為outgrowth,在大型新場地上演,這可以保證現成節目及觀眾,不須濫開節目、亂增開支。其餘應預留空地,漸進發展。大型場館成功了,有新的文化需要,就可以spin off,興建其他新場館。至於統籌組織—西九管理局或西九藝術局,可待大場館營運之後,要擴大加建其他場館之時,方考慮成立,到時由現成的幾個公司化場館組成臨時管理聯盟(consortium),再組成新的公司或法定組織,提升組織層次即可。一切按部就班,循序漸進。在西九新建的第一所大場館,只須成立一家公司化的機構,籌建時期甚至可託管予康文署,配合外聘人才(或公司),採用革新方法管理,形成文化管理的生態延續體:目前康文署部分場地正籌劃公司化,應予西九配合,彼此新舊結合,而不是分化隔離。西九的公司化場館將會帶動康文署其他場地的公司化進程,康文署可以派員實習,西九在一段時間內充當康文署改革的孵化器與火車頭。
  平心而論,當初西九賣斷予地產商人承包(當然不是用單一招標與定好建築設計圖樣的笨方法!),官督商辦,權責分明,與公共文化分庭抗禮,切磋琢磨,是較善之策。如今既要收回公營,便須顧及公共文化的開放性與公益性,就不能另立山頭,置全港文化生態與文化管理於不顧了。否則一不留神,便落得個不公不商,半死不活。新政府口講循序漸進,理性務實,實則好大喜功,揮金如土。昨天發表的《施政報告》已將西九列入所謂「十大建設」,催促議會在明年中通過法例,盡早成立「西九管理局」。也難怪,走馬上任者,都喜歡馬上揚鞭,春風得意,WKCD變成PAAG(隆胸填料),在所難免矣。(雲上的日子 二)


2007/10/16

 

西九

LC彈來這位link:2007年10月11日全民開講 - 西九是禍是福

 

do not cross


是我嚇到藝術家退避三舍?還是藝術家就是天生不喜歡守規則?(just kidding la!)

大部份行為藝術家,確會令我退避三舍.偏我其實還是對界線之後的皇后更感興趣.

 

TAT

short clips just added, of Tobias on TAT, RTHK4 program 04/09/2007

2007/10/15

 

Sketches Of Frank Gehry

October 15, 2007 Monday at 8pm ATV world

I was in the US when the film was out. It came later in HKAFF, and also shown in certain cinemas or HKAC? I however just saw part of it today, but too my surprise, it has interviewed Hal Foster (below) and edited in his skeptic comment on Gehry.

I personally have nothing much interest in Gehry's buildings or his architecture. I haven't been to Bilbao, but visiting Chicago and LA and I already felt I got the taste for it, without any particular excitement. I like Swire plan for HK cultural space reshuffling, but please no more Gehry global trademade for as our local landmark.

 

writing on PS trip 07

(revised version 25/10/2007)

Though Tobias asked me and others in the curatorial programme to write about the trip already in Istanbul before we parted, haven't really the time or the determination to write on the rest of the trip. After coming back, failed again to scramble up something quick for Jörg Heiser (German editor of Frieze magazine, author of Ploetzlich diese Uebersicht - was ist gute Kunst) who happened to be in town, for it was just few days before the HistoriCITY function.

Missed that first deadline, I asked in a later meeting about in what style should we write in, for it is always crucial (for me at least) to know first what publication platform or target audience one is writing to and or addressing. Gladly to hear, Tobias suggested we start with the most causal kind of writing as that of writing in yr own blog. I took it literally and this is what you are seeing here in my blog now.

In my first draft for Heiser, I started then with a larger picture, for I thought I could easily get lost in the details with so much that I have seen on the trip, but with actually not much big idea or strong opinion about the things I saw. I might like one work seen here, recorded an observation there, the only constant thought running through is excitement (new places) as much as fatigue (more art). Most of the materials (particularly the written ones) I gathered, I have not digested yet. But I am thus cheating wanting to be more informed (playing it safe by taking in others opinion first), rather than pronouncing my instinctive judgement?

(Take for example, the roundtable at Platform in Istanbul just days after the opening of the Istanbul Biennial Hou Hanru curated. How Tobias speaked up then, against a round of negative views on the Biennial. That certainly left me a strong impression, of how a quick confident judgment with a certain degree of articulation is cruical in the, let's say, business/trade of curating. (Hope I could upload a CLIP here later.) And I am actually as much impressed, when after revisiting the few exhibitions in the biennial, Tobias could frankly allow himself a certain degree of adjustment in his view, thinking that the show might not be as great as his first praised.

Yet writing maybe something different altogether, by putting yr views black in white. Despite that you could write about your second opinion, you can't erase what has been written/published. I am at least more used to giving things an after thought, or the distance gain via a "thinking through writing" approach.)

This is how I originally started this article:


Venice-Basel-Kassel-Munster (Grand Tour), then Istanbul-Lyon-Athens (floating territories). The meaning of the Europa Grand Tour has changed with the "Transbiennial". No longer to visit the heritage (however much in ruins), but Biennials one after the other. If it is the linkage to what kind of heritage that decided who we are, no wonder, we recognized ourselves as Contemporary, with an insatiable pursuit of the latest.? (But equally in ruin?)



[floating territories (L.Gillick design) n grand tour]

But then last week, picking up the Sept issue of Art Forum from Para/Site,

[While Tobias bring to our notice that Art Forum (Sept07) was having the same cover featuring the same work as Frieze, Art Forum came up with the idea of asking Enwezor (last artistic director of Documenta) to review this year Documenta, and Francesco Bonami (last artistic director of Venice Biennial) to review this year Venice Biennial!]

As I was reading Okwui Enwezor’s “History Lessons,” I discovered that the author has lend a similar strategy and topic to begin his article:
… the so-called Grand Tour – an anachronistic label for this year’s trio of shows that, in truth, only hints at the level of dehistoricization at which contempoary art field is currently operating …

He also argued, that “of all the exhibitions this summer, Documenta 12 is the only one that invites us to take a shot at it – impelling us to reject it, to quarrel with it, to debate the purpose of an exhibition as an aesthetic and intellectual experience.”

I am not sure if he has seen Istanbul, Athens and or Lyon Biennials before he wrote the article [As matter of facts, he has contributed both to the catalogue of IB07 and LB07 with his essays], but I personally find no personal urge to write about these shows that I saw in the trip. (Pity though, it was not so much the other possibility, that I am starting to learn and appreciate the works in the biennials ignoring the curatorial.) Or even Documenta, if just for argument sake. Why is that? Does it owe to the formulation of the exhibitions or is it just me (my fault).



[Maybe more on Enzewor's dehistoricization later, for it seems quite a contrary consider the art "about" social political issues in Venice, Istanbul and also Lyon Biennial that look back at the past decade. For me, the dehistoricization is more in tune with Paul Virilio's "contempoary art, sure, but contemporary with what?" as he put it in Art and Fear. In a different context, Julian Stallabrass mentioned about the eclecticism of contemporary art as a tradition of rupture, hence a tradition simultaneously historical and dehistoricized.]

Just as I told my friends, that since I have no lessons from the curatorial training programme before I visited these exhibitions, I have not with me any new tools/special perspective to see them other than in the way I used to. But I joined in this programme partly because I felt exhausted with my previous arbitrary (hence inexhaustible) way of writing. Seeing more obviously did not help. I am a bit bored by them, or felt the biennials becoming rotten (mainly because of the parties nights after nights?).

So I rather turn back to the basics here. (but what is actually the basics? other than unanswered, or even unformulated questions?)

To begin with. What is to comment, to write about? (Are we really (bounded to) having so much opinions?) Over the years, I became doubtful who really cares about your personal opinion? To see things objectively for a change, in a more professional (occupational?) manner? Or that our raised discussion could actually help shape the language and discourse over this (still relatively young?) profession/trade of curating?

What I am interested in, of this phenomenon of seeing art, visiting biennials, is how an audience is supposed to response, and not just to one show, but a train of them! How is one to discuss about one singular biennial? Judging a biennial being “outstanding” perhaps implies already the need to compare (and not just the shows happening around the same time, but also it precessors). Or should we treat each of them as unique, as if a work of art by itself?

Very often, these comparison between biennials are portrayed as competition (aesthetically?), but the “grand tour” arrangement has already demonstrated it otherwise (cultural tourism wise?). Instead, it is coming close to that it is the comparison or competition in the visitors’ mind, which make the individual shows (the single trip) all the more interesting. So the assessing of one show is really by the comparison of it with another? hence an excuse for ever more travelling?

(I do think however that since these shows happened within a short span of time, they do might share a similar global context which make a comparison between them more valid. {Take for example, the works dealing with the theme of war in Storr's VB07 and the thematic treatment on gobal warfare in Hou's IB07.} While comparison with previous biennials make sense with the local context, venues selection etc. {Take for example, the character of Arsenale in various VBs, the choice of venues in Documentas} Yet, as the global and local context are certainly interwined, and so together they inevitably redirected our attention to the curator’s vision (What to focus) being the key again?)

(Yet since a biennial will soon be in another curator’s hand, or these institution as big as Documenta or Venice Biennial could, no matter what, have things their ways, in the end, it is mostly the reputation of the curator which is more at stake? With the curatorial frameworks inevitably being the focus of comparison?) Considering the scale, are we inevitably looking and apprehending the curatorship, or is it still the addition of “outstanding” singular work(s) that decide on the quality of a show. What is coherence in a show? What's the difference between having a curatorial contextual wrapping and turning works into merely curatorial illustrations?

I am not trying to criticize the development, the scale of biennials, at least not here (many has been commenting on this already, see for example BIENNIAL CULTURE by Jerry Saltz), but this condition of mobility, inevitably remind me to think of what kind of tourist and traveler am I? If as some has argued, that artists should not be air-borne, I don't see why viewers could still do so? I thought I am worst than the tourists lining up in front of museums in Venice, or those on the grand tour in the past, eager to embrace their heritage. Ours is so much more a kind of instant consumption, taking everything in without real digestion.

Earlier, I read Lam Wai Kit’s photo essay in Muse magazine on Venice. And interestingly, Lam took quite a few shots, not of the touristic city or sights, but that of the tourists (as if trying to stand apart from them?). Ofcourse, to my disapppointment, its text describing the Hong Kong Pavilion in Venice is just like taken straight out from the press release. But to be honest, if I have to write on the HK Pavilion (ofcourse a PC incorrect term), I don’t think I could fair any better. To me, Amy Cheung’s work has stopped functioning (at least on the days we were there) or the collapsed tent of Cao Fei in the China Pavilion (btw, also curated by Hou Hanru) as I posted here earlier, could be the only thing I particularly like to raise, for that is the truth of reality, but these news were never getting any coverage.

(I really wonder why, for example, I heard no one connecting them with Ai Wei Wei's collapsed work in Documenta as pronouncing the same phenomenon, if not symptom? Simply because we are not travelling with Cao Fei to the next opening somewhere in the world, seeing her performing again live in Lyon for the opening preview, but travelling in a wrong direction and being too late arriving at Venice that is to blame?)

(part 2 coming)


 

This could be serious if this is true (will dig on this)

Dear friends,

Today, our petition to China and the UN Security Council to stop the brutal crackdown on peaceful Burmese protesters is being delivered to the world in a full page ad in the Financial Times worldwide -- but the ad was rejected by other newspapers like the South China Morning Post and the Singapore Straits Times. Our message is an invitation to China to do the right thing in Burma, not an attack -- yet even that seemed too much for media that fear Chinese reprisals.

We won't let our voice be silenced like this. We're taking our message to the streets, in an international day of action on Saturday -- details are on our petition page, and below. And we're redoubling our efforts to make our voice louder: our petition is approaching 600,000 signatures, closing fast on our 1 million goal.The petition link is below - send this email to all your friends and family and help us reach 1 million voices by Saturday!

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/w.php

To organize an event for the global day of action, just follow the steps below. To attend an event, scroll down our petition page at the link above for a list of events around the world. Here's some simple steps for organizers:

Choose a public place or landmark in your town, and organize friends to go there all wearing the same maroon red clothing as the Burmese monks. Tell local media about your plans, and email the details and contact information to dayofaction@avaaz.org -- we will try to advertise your event on our petition page.
Ask people attending your event to share their feelings on this crisis and the need for action, and then tie a red ribbon or piece of cloth around fences or trees to leave a more lasting sign of your support for the Burmese.
The worldwide outcry to save Burma's peaceful monks and protesters is one more sign of how the world is getting closer, feeling increasingly responsible to each other, and for each other as human beings. We're bringing a voice of humanity to this desperate situation, and we must not be silenced.

With hope and determination,

Ricken, Paul, Graziela, Ben, Sarah, Iain, Galit, Pascal, Milena and the whole Avaaz Team.

PS – Here are some great links for local reporting on the current situation in Burma:

http://www.irrawaddy.org
http://www.mizzima.com/

'Stand with the Burmese Protesters'
Please add avaaz@avaaz.org to your address book to make sure you keep receiving emails from Avaaz, or go here to unsubscribe.
Avaaz.org is staffed by a global team of campaigners operating on 3 continents. We have administrative offices in London, New York, and Rio de Janeiro. Please direct mail to our NY office at 260 Fifth Avenue, 9th floor, New York, NY 10001 U.S.A.

2007/10/12

 

返大陸啦 新香港人


在我反倒了方向次序來看的<<在黑夜的死寂中唱歌>>,看到尾才看到歐寧寫的序,也經已以北京策展人自居了.歐寧同也提到,<<黑鳥通訊>>曾經給對結社,對自己幹(diy),以有限資源反建制,起了很大的參考作用.「從國家的將來看香港,為自己作出正確定位」,香港作為中國的地下的一個公開基地,無疑與新香港人視野不謀而合!?

2007/10/10

 

《政制發展綠皮書》的回交意見書


thought of sending in my placard for the Green Paper on Constitutional Development consultation in the afternoon, but decided finally to take the green paper with me and read it while on my way to batten's new gallery. After getting back from Osage's dance performance, finally sit down and draft the following letter, and just in time to have it emailed in.

re: 《政制發展綠皮書》的回交意見書

中央就香港特區政治體制的角色,在《基本法》條文中經已列明,其擁有的最終決定權力,在於人大常委會的最後「確定」,香港特別行政區並非一個主權體制,當然不能自行決定其政治體制;因此「確定」的過程,正是主權象徵的體現。但中央對於香港如何達至最終普選的時間與及普選的模式及設計,亦故僅有「確定」或否的「最終決定權力」。在普選的時間與及普選的模式及設計問題上,《綠皮書》2.08(i)有誤導之嫌,否則提出及討論《綠皮書》也已有踰權之嫌?反過來,中央有憲制權責為香港特區提出的普選方案(普選時間與及普選的模式及設計)而決定是否啟動修改《基本法》的機制予以配合。「不能輕言修改《基本法》規定的政治體制的設計和原則」意指僅「不能輕言」,但並非不能。正因普選落實的重要性,下文提及的一些相關的修改絕非任何「輕言」。

要爭取最大機會落實普選,我們在考慮不同的普選方案時,該以最長遠的國家及地方的政體結構為前題,民主人權基礎為依歸,而非本未倒置尋求符合《基本法》當初的僵化條文,一時三刻的多數市民以及並非全面直選加上分組點票下的立法會三分之二議員支持;更是不該以「方案有可能獲得中央的接納」作無謂的自縛。中央有表示不能接納的,都已寫進基本法中,中央若還有其他不接納的,既無法預知,就不該糊亂自行猜測,因此不該如《綠皮書》般列入考量之內。要考量又不能考量者,只能作不能考量者計。

基本法起草委員會主任委員姬鵬飛先生在1990年3月28日第七屆全國人民代表大會第三次會議上發表關於《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法(草案)》及其有關文件的說明中指的「循序漸進」,人大常委會在2004年4月26日就2007年行政長官和2008 年立法會的產生辦法所作的《決定》中的「均衡參與」,皆非《基本法》內而來的政治規範。《綠皮書》雖提出其對「一般理解」的理解,但「循序漸進」不一定是關乎來屆的議席組合及數目,亦可以是市民對於普選的討論、認識和追求愈發深入民心的一種「循序漸進」的發展,因此根據特區實際情況發展,《綠皮書》提出對「循序漸進」的「一般理解」可能已不適合於香港實際情況,反而立刻進行普選,或才是(根據從八八年爭取普選至今、民智不斷成熟的特區實際情況) 「循序漸進」的正確回應。「均衡參與」更該是透過普選以達成,而非保留或更改任何形式的功能組別議席,以使公司票等產生的一人多票的不公平狀況得到解決。由於區議會仍有委任制度,故以區議會取代功能組別議席同樣沒有正面朝向最終雙普選的意義。故就《綠皮書》提出三類立法會未來設計方案:本人支持以地區直選議席全面取代所有功能界別議席。

至於行政長官產生辦法,《綠皮書》將「有廣泛代表性」以現行選舉委員會看作為參照,是忽略了基本法就政制設計的最終設計的全面普選保持開放性的(可能性)原意。現時的選舉委員會的組成並非民選產生,因此實有革改的必要。本人贊同社會民主連線於附件(GPA258)所提出任何合資格的市民,只要取得一定數目(如其所提如五萬)的合資格選民提名,即可參選行政長官的有關建議。這可以視為是把提名委員會作一種全面的改組/民主化,因此並不一定不符合《基本法》的規定,建議重加入作為「最後方案」的特首提名「最終」方案。

最後有關於路線圖及時間表
本人支持2008始進行立法會全面直選,
2012(或2012前,修改基本法後)進行立法會及特首之雙普選。

一名市民
劉建華
10/10/07

 

政治藝術的相互借力

在看(竟是由明報出版的)<<在黑夜的死寂中唱歌>>,對於郭達年(lenny)的一些過來的反思印象深刻,可套人們說(我並未看的)陳冠中給我們重拾的一種過去時代的參考資源.(若果有進過我在1a的handover/talkover中佈置的房間,你可能已留意到,我那裡模仿kith當年的<<哈囉!香港>>裝置,故我也在其中放一點南音(我沒有真的觀賞過<<哈囉!香港>>的裝置,因此這些都是依據文獻而來).我不知kith當年播的是什麼,但我的其實是黑鳥寄調南音的<<香港史話>>.在此來個事後感謝.) jeff早前把我引用beyond曲的那有關本土行動的文post到in-media (web2.0或creative commons等於可以不問而轉載嗎?我不知道,我倒關心我文章出現的時間性和場合),何來留言說多謝,我想事情該是倒轉來才真.

in-media上的這段片,最後以文字作控訴,其實白貶了聲畫的威力,影畫訴說不了的,也難怪有人留言反駁.在新聞看到何來說參選是當藝術行動來做(大意),我想這也是(政治藝術)倒轉來的另一借力例子/怪現象.

2007/10/09

 

RECOMMENDATION


If you have no clue what's this guy doing?...
若果你毫無頭緒這條友仔係度搗乜鬼?...
... then his art must be on the right track.
那相信他的藝術咁就似樣喇.
Recommenting Law Man Lok to Lingnan University Artist in Residency is still a great pleasure of mine, despite Pheobe Wong said that I was narrowed mind to recommend him (for Lam Tungpang was the first Lingnan have had, and the two are of similar background). I protested to Phoebe's comment by saying that, I love one and hate the other, and that should have proved the background is of no importance in this case.

Recieved his below email notifying one function of his series of activities for Lingnan unfortunately late, otherwise I could definitely attend it.



Visual Studies Programme
Department of Philosophy
Lingnan University

Seminar By Law Man-lok
" Let's value "Harmony" most Institutionalization of Hong Kong art "
以和為貴 -- 機構化中的香港藝術
8 October 2007 (Monday)
16:30 – 18:00pm
Studio (NAB323)

Abstract
This is a question. From the TV promotion of Western Kowloon Reclamation Project, we have heard a lot of "Art equals to profit return as well as life celebration". But is it the only aspect in talking about Art? What kind of life celebration is it when we can no longer sing in our parks? (Reference:
http://kui.name/NEWS/HK/2006-05-16/19567.html) From the recent social issues, artist Lawman smells the emergency of critical art practice in Hong Kong. In this class, he will introduce his own practice and also some institutional critique art practices that inspire him.

Law Man-lok
Law Man-lok was born in Hong Kong, 1978. Law studied a MFA course in Goldsmiths College, University of London. He is known as a nomadic conceptual artist that makes critical works based on the context and issues floating around him. Recent exhibitions included: "Time After Time" (2007, HK, China), "Rag and Bone Fine Art Exhibition" (2006, London, UK), "YCCA - Young Chinese Contemporary Art" (2005, HangART-7, Austria).




I absolutely think what he is doing, is (to me) the most exciting things happening in Hong Kong art scene for the moment.

And I heard from him that second part of the seminar is coming, the title is "THIS IS GRAFFITI TOO!" a study on Luke Ching's Hijacking space project and some of Tozer Pak's works. That's really inspiring even from the title alone.

All are welcome for these seminars.


For enquiries, please call 2616 7488 or e-mail to dphilo@ln.edu.hk

Btw, Law Man Lok just passed me this link as well, more activities on the 20th Oct: http://www.ln.edu.hk/infoday/art03.html

 

not free to have nothing to say

IATC asked me if I like to write a dance review for them and another dance review for the Wenwei, I turned them all down. Actually I have not the urge to write any "visual arts" review at all too, after seing the Biennials at Istanbul, Lyon and Venice, as well as documenta. But it was requested for the course, so I am trying to compose a piece out of some sincere questions about the urge (or lack of) to comment on things.

I was asked causally the other day in cattle depot 1a about how I think about the show there, but to be honest, I have nothing that consitute a though, a comment to say at all, maybe only a few associations, but what is association anyway?

As for the show in Artist Commune, I can't help think the whole show is a joke, on artistic freedom. which is the reason for me to take these photos.

a few pieces from videotage on the media about limitation might have in comparison something more to say.

2007/10/08

 

雙十 截止

就普選行政長官及立法會的模式、路線圖和時間表諮詢公眾的《政制發展綠皮書》公眾諮詢期至二零零七年十月十日結束。
請把對有關議題的意見傳送到:
views@cmab-gpcd.gov.hk
or fax: 2523 3207
or postal address:
香港中環下亞厘畢道 政府總部中座三樓 政制及內地事務局
政制及內地事務局局長

2007/10/06

 

The muddle of HistoriCITY

Discovered that the latest issue of muse magazine (Sep 2007) has an article on "Hong Kong: A personal survey of books about its history." I thought for a split second if it was by Dr Koon, but it turned out it was written by Leo Lee Ou-Fan. (Dr. Koon's contribution to muse was constantly closer to one of art criticism.) But since he was already in the symposium in CU for my project "A Realm with No-Coordinates" on identity, yet without leaving a strong impression, I have not thought of inviting him again for the AAA project. The essay however raised a few remarks that coincident with my own concern in the Historicity project.
Maybe for most of the while, I trust more in writings than in dialogue if we are to get deeper in our discussion. (the fan of Derrida will surely caught me by the hind-leg here.)
If you are interested, a series of responses to the Roundtable are coming out in the HistoriCITY blog (http://mmkprojecthkah.blogspot.com/) owe to a Yeung Yang's email, but I just thought it was hopelessly muddled.

 

語文政治.香港的未來

嶺南大學文化研究系/公開研討會
2007/10/7 (7)
2:30-5:30 pm
4/f, Meeting Rm #2,
HK Cultural Center, TST

2007/10/03

 

Istanbul Bombing, Biennial and Books Books Books

While Burma's situation definitely worth us to see how we should lend our hand, heard from the news that some bombs went off again in Istanbul. Hou Hanru's sense of urgency/emergency is never far away from this city. That's maybe why he said, and I do believe, of all the biennials, Istanbul is the one he most like to curate, at least if I may add, for his present stage of career. Yet enough of that already, allow me to write more on the city.

My impression on Istanbul from my first trip there is quite positive, despite we as tourists ran into some dishonest taxi-drivers, and one friend recieved a forged paper money. I am however particular impressed to see how the new and the old/traditional ways of life could co-exist together, and there are so much tiny, well-worn, family-run shops which has almost completely extincted in HK that touches me.

And there was a roundtable that we attended, in which the local speaker report on the modern / contemporary political development of Turkey, which despite a bit too detailed, at least allow me to grasp the local picture beyond what I could see as merely a tourist. But at the same time, despite I used to think such act (speech/discourse) could help gain more international solidarity, recently, I tend to think as it is still us alone in the end to fight our local battles, so why bother waste this energy?

Via the talk that I listened, I do noticed that Turkish intellectuals are quite "theoretically informed" (as to quote LP's phrase in the Historicty roundtable). Translation into Turkish seems to be functioning alongside well. And from the few bookstores, some amongst are the English bookstores, that I visited along the mainstreet, I already have some very good finds. The one focusing on Arts book was quite good as well.

here in the first photo is a second hand bookshop down in the basement, just in the alley where the bombing happened some years ago, for there was this British embassy? down the street, but heard also that it is the HSBC there that got bombed. (Note there is even a Karl Loewith bk on shelf!)























Besides these modern bookshops (and modern bk cover design, note that one is using a Gerhard Richter's painting), there is also a 2nd hand book bazaar at the old city quarter.





























I finally brought two books from these bkshops, one is from the above pandora, that of Scott Lash's Another Modernity, my most wanted book which I could not find anywhere wherever I travelled. The other one is a new discovery, Reflective Authenticity - rethinking the project of modernity (1998) by Alessandro Ferrara, at another academic bkshop near to their Goethe Institut. It was written even before Lash, but already included concepts such as the groundless ground, and raised a few topics of Lash's book, such as Kant's reflective judgment, Simmel's lesson, yet instead of involving the aesthetics, it has a chapter on art interpretation.


 

most promising artist

I saw Cao Fe (don't mistaken me, I do not know her personally, at least luckily till now) at both Istanbul and Lyon opening,
but not in Venice, for its opening has been a long time ago, and this is what is left of her work for me, this VB latecomer to see.

 

small small circle

2007年香港藝術發展局藝術範疇代表推選活動投票結果
登記選民共有7029人,
投票人數為1836人,
投票率26.12%。較2004年增長57.87%;

需要角逐的六個藝術範疇獲最高票數的候選人:
陳清僑先生(藝術評論) ?votes
何浩川先生(舞蹈) ?votes
寒山碧(韓文甫)先生(文學藝術) ?votes
費明儀女士(音樂) ?votes
李錦賢先生(視覺藝術) ?votes
阮兆輝先生(戲曲) ?votes

其他四個藝術範疇自動當選的候選人:
吳壽南(吳鏡輝)先生(藝術行政)
黃素蘭女士(藝術教育)
古天農先生(戲劇)
杜琪先生(電影藝術)

do anyone know the exact votes recieved by each candidates?

I got the right to vote this year for AICA register for me, into the art criticism sector, and then AICA asked me to help nominate Batten. I am not sure my passiveness is a correct attitude. (Seem close for me to quit AICA perhaps, for they are about to draft a unified view on WKCD).

the one(s) I want to vote do not need my vote (unless there is a too little votes regulation or even penalty?).
the one I want to vote away I cannot do that (or should I write my protest on the ballot?)
Some more people from the visual art sector of ADC should really come out to run next time around!
But I am constantly more interested in Legco, so I am wondering if Stephen Chan (or John Batten?) could step up even for that election.

 

seemingly encouraging?

Well, what should I say about the roundtable the other day?On the one hand, I am truly relieved by the turnout, for it should have pleased AAA and HKMA. Owed much to AAA publicity network? But to me, what I am expecting maybe just at most 10 people from within the discipline to come, and generate some more in depth dialogue over the subject according to the planted questions. In that aspect, it failed completely. And a large part owed to that I was away in the last month for better preparation, but as said, it is a platform for the speakers to talk on what they most like to address.
For more, I will write once YY send in her revised response.

 

seemingly rewarding?


started my trip with an empty luggage filled with nothing much but cup noodles,
just to prepare for most room for collecting books and catalogues and other references materials.
here are what I have gathered from my last trip (Istanbul >Amsterdam >Einhoven / Sittard / Rotterdam >Lyon >Venice >Paris).


Have talk with Tobias and he basically agree, will see how to present these materials at a corner in Para/Site continuously during our course there, once after their hectic auction coming up.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?