From a Social Perspective—On Creative Public Events and Mobilization Concepts

Talk to Lecturer - Tang Huangzhen × Huang Jianhong

Tang Huangzhen:

From 1997 to 2004, I intervened to strive for the "Huashan Special Zone", which was originally a "land reserved by the Legislative Yuan", to become the "Huashan Art and Culture Special Zone" as a "state-owned art and cultural land". social movement. In Taiwan, where art has long been exiled to the fringes, "how (why must) the city center become the place for all citizens' artistic activities" is the core issue of this movement. To observe the importance of cultural cities, such as Paris and Berlin, "the city center is public and more artistic" in the shaping of a cultural country, we demand that "Huashan", which is located in the center of Taipei's nearly eastern district, should not be reduced to The land hyped by businessmen or occupied by government agencies should be a central node where all citizens can stream activities. It is further recommended that cultural authorities make good use of Huashan Guang, Tongjie, and have a profound understanding of contemporary cross-border avant-garde art performances. Attractive space advantage, use this as a base for avant-garde art creation, accumulate quality, and use this as a "bridgehead", a way for Taiwan to ascend to the status of the art world.

However, in 2006, the Cultural Development Association contracted Huashan to a businessman, and let the businessman operate and manage it with the task of "cultural innovation" for fifteen years. After Huashan changed its "owner", the businessman changed its name to "1914 Huashan Cultural and Creative Park". The Cultural Development Association and the management unit agreed not to mention the art initiative in 1997. Since then, the cultural and creative park has been rented very high, and the number of art exhibitions has dropped sharply. In addition to a spontaneous social movement energy from the bottom up since 1997 in the art world. There are six cultural and creative businesses that the government has handed over to businessmen: creative video, creative performance, creative entertainment, creative market, creative sales, and creative education. It can be said that "the word is vague and the goal is infinite", just type the word "creative". After entering the park and setting up a venue, the management unit repeatedly called Huashan “Wenchuang World Trade Center”, but no one told the citizens: Taipei City already has three World Trade Centers, why do they still want to leave the Art Base to create a Wenchuang World Trade Center? What can you see in Taiwan when there are huge World Trade Zones?

On October 31, 2010, I passed by Huashan. "Huashan" was holding a local cultural feast held by the Cultural Association. We saw tents selling food and specialty products covering the open front of Huashan, and heard the high-decibel stage being set up. Auction-style sales were carried out, and there was still a lot of noise in the park, and there were still a few audience members who could figure out what was being traded or whether it was a performance of the "Huashan Uprising"? Is an afternoon that mothers and children live like this the cultural life that the public needs? If this is the prospect of "Huashan" that the art community desperately fought over for cultural Taiwan in 1997, what should the cultural centers across the province and the Miaocheng, the center of old activities, do? Is it possible for a businessman to imagine the artistic dimension of a society without commercial interest? Is it possible for the cultural authority with administrative powers and budget allocation to get rid of the objections of art citizens based on performance calculations, and return to the most basic of cultural construction - the national dimension of art and culture? The propositions here are the same. They are all related to the issue of Taiwan's cultural orientation. Whether it can become the national identity of a cultural country is also at stake in "every member (all) from the perspective of a social group." This is the foundation and philosophy of the campaign for the Huashan Arts and Cultural Zone as a public event.

A social event takes art as an issue, is it possible for a work of art to mobilize a social proposition? Take two of my works for example. The first is "Travel Five/A Landscape Postcard" that took place in four countries (South Korea, Taiwan, France, Italy) and spanned five years (2003~2005). The operation invited local participants to take me on an actual trip to retake an old photo of Taiwan in my memory. The paradox is that the images (photos) in my memory will not be shown, and instead, "My memory statement about this photo" will be used to describe the images in words, which will be translated and repeated in different languages. Before departure, I will discuss this old photo in my memory with the willing participants. After the members are complete, we will arrange a one-day trip and arrive at the selected beach. The participants will fall into the "photo scene" at the moment of shooting simulating the actions of the characters. — My memory time and space for the photo in this memory. This trip of virtual and real interpenetration involved a group of people, a group of participants from four places, and constructed a collective flow of language, image memory, imagination and culture, and even a process full of communication and travel practice. This involves publicity, the expansion of culture, and the art proposition that language, video, interpretation, and communication fall into sociology. Of course, this is an attempt to expand the public involvement of action art and the collective impact of ideology, and its mobilization purpose requires art. Recently, more and more social movements have seen the power of art, and they have borrowed artistic techniques to carry out their social movements, but the purpose of their mobilization is to demand the opinions of the society they belong to. The techniques are interpenetrated, but the essence is different. I don't think they can be confused.

Returning to the collision of works of art on the state of public consciousness, I then discussed the “Professional Union of Artists Creators” movement and the “Travel Nine/Walking People” ( 2010 ~ 2011), the interrelationship between works and plans, further expounding the occurrence of a creative public event. We often ask people: "Where do you work?" For already recognizable occupations: such as teachers, journalists, lawyers, doctors, etc., your answer, your identity, and your social position do not seem to have any problems. . However, when an artist is faced with the question "Where do you work?", when you answer: "I am an artist." This earnest answer is irritating and makes one think: You have not answered his question at all! Is an artist a job for "others" who are not artists? Is being an artist a profession? Is art at work? Can an artist be a job? Corresponding to the perspective of others, how does the artist perceive his own creative work? is a profession? Is it a profession? It's a career so it's not a career? Artists work all the time, so it doesn't need to be defined by work? How many artists naturally answer "I'm an artist"?

How do government mechanisms view artists? It is regarded as the first: unemployed, and the second: not working, so artists who have no "job" and no "part-time" will receive the "National Pension Insurance" that must be compulsory for no job. Furthermore, the official definition of the definition of "work": work equals income. No income means no work. No job - no job, and of course no occupational (job) insurance: no job-related disasters, pensions, etc., are the guarantees that a job should have.

"Work equals income" is the mainstream trend of thinking about social value since capitalism. Capitalism requires that people must work, and work is to obtain tangible money. Only with money can consumption be made, and capitalists can use this to circulate progressive capital. The social foundation promoted by capitalist values is based on the "work screw" theory: the cycle of work → earning → consumption, less money means a person's status and even the decline of intelligence and morality. Looking at an artist with capitalist values is that the artist cannot state that he is an artist—this is the dilemma of a professional job, because creation does not necessarily have income, and our work does not necessarily have substantial monetary income.

There is a fundamental problem in the movement of "art creators' professional unions". If there are no art creators, there is no art creation profession, and of course there will be no art creators professional unions; without art, without art creators, how can there be What about professional unions for art creators? Therefore, the "far traveler" must start its ninth journey: set out to find whether art exists, does artist exist?

"The Traveler" set out to find art with a questionnaire. She asked, "Why are you an artist? Is everyone an artist? Is an artist a job? Is an artist working?" The proposition also seems to have come to the re-search for the meaning of art and the identity of the artist, like a question, like chasing the back of a self who is looking for art. I,

An artist, facing society, facing art. At this time, social movements and art projects pushed and taught each other, and really entered my life, "What is an artist? Does art exist? What is artistic creation?". The success of the trade union movement can only be resolved in the face of art. "I am an artist" is not just a sociological problem, it is also a problem of the individual's state of self-consciousness. An age-old question of art.

The "trade union" movement re-examined the "value of work" and made breakthroughs in the labor system, making it possible for artists to form trade unions. Regardless of whether our "occupation" is not typical or "work" is not typical,

"Value" is not typical - such a pursuit and anti-Bo is definitely not just for artists. When one day you see a society that can accommodate multiple values and abstract forces, you will realize how precious it is for our artists to fight for their own social value and positional identity. To generate new thinking about our original (old) things, to fight against our original institutional values, art has such creative energy, and it is not only social movements that can mobilize the public.

Huang Jianhong:

I was just listening to Huang Zhen talking about his creations and her sports. In fact for me, she came up with a very complex dialogue and content. On the other hand, we can also see from him the artist's focus on a problem. If you ask many people, "Is an artist a worker?" or "Is art a job?" In fact, he may answer, he has his opinion or something. But in fact, this problem is not painful, it is work, OK, you are still doing it, whether you are a worker or not, you are still doing it. In fact, it itself is an artistic question for me, because she is asking a question to the society, "how to be concerned". In Huangzhen's expression just now, we can feel that the biggest tension in it is "the tension between the individual and the society". To me, the artist's importance in this society is a constant defending of individual values, and he must also use his constant ability to express, through which individual values are recognized, or aroused, and then let Every individual in the society recognizes the other party, or values the other party's views. This is my very basic view of a certain aspect of the artist.

If the museum talks about public art, what does the point of view on artists just reminded me have to do with public art? There is a problem in public art, that is, "How to discuss publicity through the ability of art?" The reason why public art is in this relatively conceptual thinking, in fact, has many possibilities for development. As far as the earliest public art in Taiwan is concerned, the most successful one should be

It's a bronze statue! The bronze statues of the founding father and Jiang Gong always choose a place very accurately. In this kind of symbolic public art, our imagination of publicity is still stuck in the publicity. Publicity is that everyone must agree. Only at this time will a specific, solid object that can even stay for a long time be used as a matter of public art. When democratization began (after the 1990s), in the process of democratization, these things that belonged to social consensus or appeared in public spaces were quickly led to a so-called healthy society and an open society; but first of all What is the means? Just beautify. After the post-modern era, artists finally set up beautification in these public spaces. Let everyone believe in a healthier, more open and more beautiful future.

The public art festival planned by Ma Li this time actually gives another imagination. This imagination seems to correspond to a democratization in the 21st century, which is an international issue. Who would simply believe in a more open, democratic and healthy society? If you are in a real feeling, you will find that in our society, it is the same everywhere in the world, full of a lot of mistrust, and then the life between each other and each other is farther and farther away. Everyone's alienation from politics, especially public affairs, we arrange him out of life. Politics and the lives of people and individuals are often linked through two levels. One may be the economy, how much pressure you can feel, or comfort, or pressure, which is the face of the economy. The other is the emotional aspect. No matter what, it must make you angry, make you feel beautiful, etc., so that you have the construction of the emotional part.

In fact, whether it is economics or emotional discourse, we will find that these things have become today. It is reasonable to say that if everyone wants to pay attention to the matter of publicity, this aspect is very important. And when the government or the consortium is running the funds, the individual is very far away and cannot have any sense of participation, and when the artist is investing in public acts, is there any way to reconnect with people? This is an experiment that I think public art and the projects in this good time are focused on. When it comes to publicity, or public art, for me, public art has high expectations for the creation of publicity.

Publicity has become a paradoxical question because of many levels, that is, does publicity exist? If you take the popularity of Channel 4, Facebook and MSN, then there is indeed publicity long ago. But this kind of publicity lacks one thing, that is, all your modes of communication and communication are limited to the language on its interface; moreover, there is always a distance between the body and the body or the body and the society. In fact, there is a problem with these interfaces. In fact, everyone will become more and more like living in a certain brand, and there is no way to form a real publicity, nor is it the most urgent publicity. Because you can chat online, you can pay hundreds of dollars

Thousands of friends, but they have no way to provide better publicity, or to communicate something out.

Whether today's public art can be in a historical stage, that is, from bronze statues, from beautification, from interaction, to the so-called community, that is, the issue of communication and participation, this is what public art needs to face in particular, and The concept will definitely come earlier than the administrative judge; because administrative regulations will limit the development of many forms of public art, and relatively limit the possibility of publicity, so everyone must work hard.

Tang Huangzhen:

In what Mr. Huang said and in my opinion—in fact, public art is recognized as art by everyone, so the more interesting thing about art is to bring out the individual's personality first. When the individual is not obvious, it is difficult for the public to have a "public" sex". Now there is a false impression that the so-called "public nature" actually comes down from the top. For example, "artistic intervention in space" is a policy vigorously promoted by the CCA. Why? Who said that art should intervene in space, why is public art beautification? What is beauty, what is beautification? Why beautify the environment? Does space need art intervention?

It seems that there is a will, which may be guided by a certain kind of regulation, a certain cultural policy, or through a certain kind of economic connection, and then form a so-called mainstream, a goal, and then press down, telling us that public art must do so. I think we should think about it the other way around. If Mr. Huang just said that art has the ability to help you show your personality, it should be through art that individuals let everyone know the individual energy of art; public art is actually to fully stimulate individuals and fully stimulate Only the concept of art can be interwoven to form the so-called "public" opinion.

Art works are not in a hurry to explain the "results" of publicity. Art inspires everyone, and it is not in a hurry to shape the so-called publicity. As mentioned above: the way of seeing is not as good as the way of thinking; because the way of thinking changes, the way of seeing will change. It is not a matter of beautification, it is a question of "Why beautify?" "What is beauty?" I think this kind of public art is more important than the publicity of art.

This article is excerpted from the words and thoughts page of the personal work website of action artist Tang Huangzhen

Soundtrack "Roaming, but I am still myself" Arrangement: Anonymous