Shortlist: The Dispute Over Art Criticism: Politics, Public Affairs, and the Search for Identity (Hong Kong)
推介館藏: 藝評干戈:政治、公共、身份追尋 (香港)

Tang Siu Wa, poet, writer, and cultural critic
鄧小樺, 詩人、作家、文化評論人
August 2014

Overview 中文版本

[This shortlist is produced in conjunction with ‘Hong Kong Conversations’, an ongoing talk series focusing on Hong Kong’s cultural ecology within a social and political framework that is part of AAA's Teaching Labs programme. The following shortlist, prepared by poet, writer, and cultural critic, Tang Siu Wa, accompanies the panel ‘Constructive Contention: Hot Spots in Hong Kong Art Criticism’ held 26 April 2014. The panel invited art writers from different backgrounds and generations to share their experiences and discuss changes in the environment, audience, and methods of art writing in Hong Kong since the 1970s.]

This talk is based on the premise that the writing of art criticism is driven by the writer’s desire to build through constructive criticism. This desire in turn plays a key role in starting rounds of heated debates about art, a subject that occupies a marginal position within the society of Hong Kong. Such critical writing is different from art writing that offers stable, calm reading of artworks. It harbours an acute urge to instigate change through which we can sense an energy that directs itself towards destablising the status quo, and upsetting existing power relations. It often finds itself in an antagonistic position, and hence is keen to develop tactics that counter opposing opinions. While such art writing is indeed uncommon in Hong Kong’s art history, its occurrences is often leading and indicative of the changes of a milieu.

One must acknowledge/admit that these sharp exchanges, or what could be called ‘turning of the soil’ in the writing field are not systematically organised; they scatter in and around various publications or in the silent corner of history, not yet discovered. While writing that gives a larger perspective of an art ecology is relatively rare, there is much more on individual artists, artistic phenomenon, analysis on the relationship between art and its times. There are multiple intriguing points of views and turns in these writings, which is indeed rather interesting to explore. This essay tries to articulate the state and development of Hong Kong’s art criticism through a selection of significant publications of such writing.

The clashes between Chinese and non-Chinese cultures are in some ways framed by political legacies and Hong Kong’s historical background as a former colony. One of the speakers of the talk Mui Chong Kee is such an example. Mui received training as an artist and practitioner in Mainland China, and left for Hong Kong [when the Chinese Cultural Revolution began]. His participation and provocations in Hong Kong’s art ecology at the time focused on challenging tastes that favoured Western styles, stirring up considerable debates. In (Visual Colours: Essays on the History of Hong Kong Visual Culture), Kwok Hei Lun’s text ‘On the Forgotten Camps of Art: The Cases of Fu Luo Fei and Huang Xin Po’, and Jack Lee’s ‘A Record of Renjian Art Group’s Activities in Hong Kong’ both inform readers on how artists who settled in Hong Kong from Mainland China held practices that emphasised the sympathies for and critique of reality, a literati tradition passed on from the May Fourth Movement [in earlier twentieth century China]. Such practices indeed challenged the prominent attitude in the art scene, which distanced itself from politics. Eliza Lai Mei Lin’s ‘Rickey Yeung Shau Cheuk’s early life and works’ also laid out the extraordinary artist’s critical and progressive practice, and the process of its formation. Oscar Ho Hing Kay wrote in his essay ‘Out of Context: A Historical Exhibition’ about the exhibition ‘Out of Context’, which included various artists returning from overseas education in the 1980s who gravitated towards each other to form an alternative force. The exhibition took place in an old house on Kennedy Road—a temporary, informal space for art—and responded to dominant aesthetics and artistic systems in various ways. When Oscar Ho revisited the debates and discourse that the exhibition ignited, he described it as a contention that began ‘in defense of individual artistic ideas, a result of refusing to compromise. It also reflected the high level of individualism and multiplicity in a new generation of artistic practitioners and practices.’ Art did stir up arguments in society at the time—does the heat and power of discussion of the time still continue in retrospect? The text collated in Visual Colours are short in length, and hence would qualify more as ‘chronicles’. The publication casts a gaze more towards visual culture, resulting in a broader collection of texts, covering areas from high/pure art to antiques, collectibles, postcards, catalogues, fashion, banknotes, architecture, film, etc. The horizon of this publication is broad and multiple, its scope of visual culture resonant with people’s livelihood; the publication thus effectively reflect and refract the interaction between politics, society, and art.

Art criticism in Hong Kong seemed to be at its height in the 1990s, with ample space for writing in cultural pages of print media. The imminent 1997 Handover also pushed art to delve into deep reflection, which in turn created a context that generated much energy for critique. The conference proceedings published by AICA’s Hong Kong Chapter ‘Hong Kong Art Review’ claimed ‘there was more discussion on Hong Kong’s society than on art!’ (preface by Eric Otto Wear). Articles in this publication illustrate clearly Hong Kong art community’s search for a local identity, as well as their dissatisfaction of being framed as part of a larger Chinese nationalism (text by David Clarke). These sentiments were a key force behind a collective effort to simultaneously excavate and fabricate a local history (text by Oscar Ho), to remap Hong Kong art’s history that grips between Chinese and Western cultures (text by Nigel Cameron). This publication also includes writing that reflected on how Hong Kong’s cultural/racial identity could be based on a strategy of ‘being at home with homelessness’ (text by Eric Otto Wear), as well as a critique on education policies around art (text by Kith Tsang Tak Ping). Most of the writing in this publication is still based on a western knowledge infrastructure, and marks the beginning of independent thinking concerning a ‘Hong Kong identity’. The object of criticism focuses on power structures such as regime, government, and policy. Through the transformation of western-educated intellectuals, art practitioners turned their challenges from aesthetics to public issues of politics. This path towards a more public realm for discussion is still followed by many art writers today.

David Clarke has continuously been concerned about Hong Kong art’s quest for an identity. His monograph Hong Kong Art: Culture and Decolonization combines political society and art in an effort to comb through Hong Kong art’s situation before and after the Handover. The book proposes that Hong Kong artists need not aspire to qualify themselves as ‘international’ by looking at other international cities like New York. Rather, in their quest for identity, they must look towards the local. Clarke’s position not only questions nationalism, but also is one in the margins. In the post-Handover context, Clarke noted the powerlessness felt by Hong Kong artists facing up to significant political and social issues, which resulted in personal and metaphysical retreats of some artists. He also noted on the lack of a common goal of lineage in Hong Kong’s art practitioners, since various generations of Hong Kong artists developed in different cultural soils and knowledge infrastructures. This also explains the persistent difficulty in developing art criticism in Hong Kong: interlocutors are a rarity. Yet it is interesting to note how David Clark expands his ‘post-Handover framework’ to encompass and reflect on Hong Kong art’s intervention into social activist issues as heritage preservation, universal suffrage, and human rights as a way of enriching the argument on Hong Kong art’s subjectivity.

(Through the Transition and Over the Millennium: Self-Selected Visual Art Criticism Essays by Seven Critics) includes Chinese and English writing by seven art writers of different generations, and is the publication that captures most of the debates. Writing in this publication range from pieces on individual artists, exhibitions, to commentary on visual culture, art ecology, curatorial statements, etc., but are linked via several lines of focus. One focal point is the historical question of Hong Kong’s local identity before and after the Handover—several art critics mapped out the development of local art history, and explored the possibility of decolonisation through art history. Parallel to this focus is an inquiry into how Hong Kong art’s local identity can be politically located beyond a Chinese nationalistic framework.

This link between a search for identity and political pressure was also opened up under the umbrella of public art (in particular through the relocation of Pillar of Shame). This emphasis towards the ‘public’ was further extended in 2006, when artistic practices were dominantly present in activist movements related to preservation of heritage and public space. The sculpture The New Man also sparked much controversy—art, in the name of avant-garde, resisted the sexual conservatism of the apparatus that manages public space. In revisiting this book, I have also become aware of this line of focus and empathy that continue to feature today in Hong Kong’s art criticism. I also see that art criticism since the 1990s has exceeded the struggles between stylistic factions in the earlier decades, and have turned its effort to shaping and articulating a public, civil society. Art writing after the 1990s focuses on critiquing the government’s system and positions, the narrow-mindedness of official and mainstream positions on politics and sexuality in art. Such writing affirms what the official position would regard as ‘art that was not pure and genuine’ as a means of injecting new thinking into a increasingly stringent artistic system. This indeed marks the conceptual beginning of socially-engaged and/or political art. The seven art critics also attempted to carve out their own spaces outside of the academy, reading and writing about social issues through the lens of art in a language without jargon and theory. The publication comprises of a selection by the writers themselves; it is the least focused of all publications introduced in this essay, but its content is the richest. This particular publication carries on the past and will impact writings to come. It significance will emerge and can be better articulated with critical distance in time.

Apart from the above publications, I also recommend Walter Benjamin, or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism by Terry Eagleton (such a recommendation necessarily shows my background in literature). This book uses the research into Benjamin’s writing to push forward a fluidity by which writing on and about artworks simultaneously brings out a revolutionary progressiveness that the viewer embodies. Another book by Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic, questions the noble and safe position of art. These western theories take a long time to transfer and apply to Hong Kong’s particular situation. Professor Leung Pingkwan in (Cultural Space and Literature of Hong Kong), which was written in the 1990s, brings the characteristics of Hong Kong’s cultural space, for example, pragmatism and hybridity, to the fore. Wan Minan’s (The Factory of Images), on the other hand, studies individual paintings under a framework that combines aesthetic imagination and theoretical analysis. The book also dares to point out absurdities in contemporary China. In Cultural Studies, writing art criticism often emphasises critical positions more than the artwork itself or aesthetic experience. I would very much like to see the same approach come to fruition in Hong Kong art criticism, which can only happen in a healthy and stable environment. Gao Shiming’s (The Book of Action) presents an array of theoretical insights into contemporary curatorial practice. In a post-capitalistic society, curatorial practice has become an endeavour that mobilises people to regain experience and power of action, thus is inherently critical in nature. In response to local experience, (Woodstock in Spring: Art for the cause for Choi Yuen Village) is another important book, albeit non-conceptual and non-theoretical, that describes notions of art outside of auction houses—the hope for revolution.

The aim of discussing art criticism, theories, and cultural criticism as well as activist art in one shortlist is to consolidate and promote critical writings on art, which I hope will deepen and expand local art criticism since Hong Kong has experienced considerable development before and after Handover. I would like to extend my gratitude towards Asia Art Archive for granting me the chance to learn from this experience.

(translated text)


概述

[此推介館藏為配合《香港對話》而設,《香港對話》為文獻庫持續舉辦的講座系列,以社會及政治框架探討香港獨有的文化生態,亦是文獻庫教學實驗室的其中一個部份。2014年4月26日舉行的《香港對話》由詩人、作家及文化評論人鄧小樺主持,題為「爭持的建設:香港藝評的干戈空間」,通過幾位來自不同年代的藝評作者、研究者的交流與思考,繼續啟動香港藝術的齒輪,豐潤評論的筆尖。]

本次座談的題目設定,起於這樣一種假設:藝評寫作是作者個人的一種批判性建設的欲望,以致可以在藝術處於邊緣的香港社會,一度又一度地激發出激烈的干戈。這種批判性的建設欲望所帶動出來的寫作,有別於閒雅安穩地解讀藝術作品的寫作,它有著一種迫切想改變什麼的欲望,因而顯示出某種指涉更大體系、不安於位的躁動能量;它也因為有批判的對立面,而特別講求策略(tactic)。無疑,這種書寫在香港藝術史上並非常見形態或大多數,但它的出現往往也指涉或帶動著大環境或大思潮的改變。

必須承認,這些論戰或筆耕,現時在香港藝術史中仍然欠缺整理,以斷簡零篇的狀態散落於書冊或寂靜的歷史某處。縱觀型的文章相對稀少,對於個別藝術家、藝術現象、時代與藝術關係之分析,則較為豐富,有許多殊異的觀點與趣味在其中顯現,頗堪玩味。本文試從幾本優秀而重要的香港藝評書籍去管窺香港藝評的狀態與脈絡。

香港的殖民地背景,中外文化交流撞擊中有政治脈絡的影響,比如講者之一的梅創基就曾以其南來背景的藝術訓練與觀點,參與、發動對當時的香港藝術界偏重西方的藝術圈品味之挑戰,引發干戈。在《形彩風流—香港視覺文化史話》中,我們可從郭喜倫〈從符羅飛與黃新波看被遺忘了的藝術陣營〉、李世莊〈人間畫會在港活動紀錄〉等文章中,看到大陸來港的藝術家們,如何以其著重現實的關懷,習於批判的手段,以及自五四傳統下來的文人組織形式,向本來著重閒雅淡泊的藝術圈發出挑戰。另外黎美蓮〈楊秀卓的早年生活與作品〉,則可見這位卓立不群、著重批判與基進的藝術家的修養及實踐過程。何慶基〈「外圍」:一個歷史性的展覽〉則以一個展覽,透視了八十年代由外國回港的諸名藝術家,形成的一股鮮明的另類動力,在堅尼地道的古老大屋(非正規的臨時性藝術空間),以多元方式回應當時主流美學和藝術建制。何慶基回顧當時出現的爭議及討論時,形容「這為維護個別藝術信念,互不妥協而觸發的熾熱爭議,也反映出新一代本地藝術工作者在創作時高度的個人化和多元化。」藝術在當時社會是可以引起爭議的,回顧時寧不感到當時曾有的熱度與力量?《形彩風流》中收集的文章篇幅較短,故稱「史話」;而其著眼於視覺文化的角度,令致書中文章涵蓋面較廣,除了高雅的純粹藝術之外,亦涉及古物、收藏、明信片、圖錄、服裝、鈔票、建築、電影等範疇,視野廣闊多元——而各種更接近民生社會的視覺文化範疇,也更能折射政治、社會因素與藝術的互動。

九十年代香港的藝術評論風氣似乎是歷來最盛,傳媒文化版面空間較闊,面臨九七回歸也讓不少藝術充滿深思。這種背景產生批判能量。由國際藝評人協會香港分會出版的研討會文集,《香港藝術概覽 Hong Kong Art Review》,甚至「談香港社會比談藝術還要多呢!」(書中華立強序)。書中文章清晰地反映出當時香港藝術界所出現的本土身份之追尋欲望,這種欲望顯現為對被置入中國民族主義框架下的不滿(書中祈大衛文),因而對本土歷史進行同時發掘以及虛構創造的群體現象(書中何慶基文),重新鉤勒香港藝術在中西文化間隙中摸索的歷史(書中金馬倫文),思考以「無家為家」作為香港文化/種族身份的策略(書中華立強文),並對於現行藝術教育制度的批評(書中曾德平文)。書中文章的立足仍是以西方知識架構為背景,初立「香港身份」的獨立思考,而重點是筆端批判的對象集中於權力建制(政權、政府、政策)。通過西方式知識份子的轉化,藝評挑戰者由早年的流派、主流審美,轉向公共政治議題,這條走向公共性的道路,仍為今日的不少藝評工作者所沿襲。

祈大衛(David Clarke)對於香港藝術的身份追尋一直抱持關注,其香港藝術的研究專著《Hong Kong Art: Culture and Decolonization》,乃以結合政治社會與藝術的學術眼光,梳理回歸前後的香港藝術狀況,其中說到香港藝術家的身份追尋,已不必再面向國際城巿如紐約等的藝術語境或標準來證明自己的「國際化」,反而是面向本土。始終質疑民族主義、立足邊緣視角,進入後回歸語境,祈大衛發現到香港藝術家在面對巨大的政治及社會議題時的無力,致令部分藝術家向個人和內心撤退,也注意到香港藝術界的代際傳承,往往沒有共通的前設,因為各代的香港藝術家往往來自不同的土壤和知識框架。這也解釋了香港藝評一直存在的困難:對話者稀缺。而令人饒有興趣的是,祈大衛將如何轉換他的「後回歸框架」,去容納及思考香港藝術近年介入保育、普選、人權等社會運動議題的實踐,進一步豐富香港藝術的主體性追尋歷程之內涵。

從過渡跨越千禧—七人視藝評論自選文集》,包括以中英文寫作的不同世代的七位藝評人的文章,是紀錄最多批評干戈的文集,在個別藝術家/個別展覽/視覺文化評論/藝術生態評論/策展前言等格式不一的文章中,貫穿著幾條共同的關注線。首先是回歸前後的香港本土身份與歷史問題,幾位藝評人都從不同角度,去鉤勒本土藝術史系的脈絡,在藝術史中尋找解殖的可能,也在尋問如何在中國式民族主義外,找到有政治能動性的香港藝術本土身份定位。這種身份的尋找與外在的政治壓力扣連一起,也曾以公共藝術(尤其國殤之柱的去向)為話題而展開,其中「公共」的關懷面向延續到後來2006年以來保育運動及公共空間運動中的藝術實踐。另外別出一枝的「新人」雕塑爭議,則也是以藝術的開放前衛角度,對抗性別意識保守的公共空間管理。筆者回看此書,發現了香港藝評在今日仍然屹立不倒的關注路線;也看到九十年代以後,藝評超越早期藝術界內部的流派之爭,而出現的一種「公共」的開拓:針對政府的制度和設置,針對官方及主流在政治和性別上對於藝術的狹窄箝制意識,通過肯定一般被認為「不夠純粹藝術」的藝術創作來為日趨僵化的藝術建制注入新思維,也看到日後日趨蓬勃的社區藝術及政治藝術的思想泉源。七位藝評人也在學院建制以外嘗試拓寬空間,例如針對社會熱話作藝術角度的評論,也包括要求自己不依靠術語和理論來進行評論。以其自選集之體裁,書焦點最散,但收納的內容最豐富,其承先啟後的重要作用,當時間過去後更為明晰。

在上述以外,筆者推薦以下書籍(筆者的文學背景在此呈現出影響)。伊果頓的《瓦爾特.本雅明,或走向革命批評 Walter Benjamin, or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism》,借本雅明的書寫之研究,推動一種既流連表象,又能在藝術品脈絡中帶出觀者革命能動性的書寫方式;及至於《審美意識型態》,則更對於藝術本來崇高而安全的位置作出挑戰。這種西方的理論,在本土生根之餘,仍然需要漫長的在地化過程。也斯在九十年代中寫的文集《香港文化空間與文學》,能夠帶出香港文化空間的特色,例如反高蹈、混雜等型態。在文化研究重視位置(position)多於作品內在脈絡及審美經驗的評論氣氛中,汪民安的《形象工廠》,每篇以一幅畫為對象,審美想像與理論分析並不互悖,也不避指出當代中國的怪異,我也期望在香港藝評書寫中見到這些,不過這首先要香港存在健康穩定的藝評空間。高士明的《行動的書:關於策展寫作》裡面有許多關於當代策展的理論思考,策展已是一種進入後資本主義社會中,重新調動人群而讓受眾恢復經驗與行動力的組織工作,其本質依然必須是批判的。作為在地的回應,《新春糊士托.菜園藝術快樂抗爭》雖然並不重於概念與理論,卻是本土藝術的另一重要支流實踐,指涉一種外於拍賣行的藝術理念:革命的希望。

同時討論藝評、理論、文學文化評論及抗爭藝術作品,是希望這些書籍將個別的書寫欲望組織或凝聚成筆者所嚮慕的一種批判性藝評書寫之方向,深化回歸前後藝評曾開拓過的深度與廣度,以期將來再可擊起藝術評論的拍岸驚濤。感謝亞洲藝術文獻庫推動我的是次學習。

Recommended Readings

Clarke, David, Hong Kong Art: Culture and Decolonization, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, 2001
Eagleton, Terry, Walter Benjamin, or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism, Verso, London, 2009
Eagleton, Terry, The Ideology of the Aesthetic, Blackwell, Malden, 1990
Gao Shiming, The Book of Action, Gold Wall Press, Beijing, 2012
高士明,《行動的書:關於策展寫作》,金城出版社,北京,2012
Lai Kin Keung Edwin, Visual Colours: Essays on the History of Hong Kong Visual Culture, Joint Publishing, Hong Kong, 2002
黎健強編,《形彩風流—香港視覺文化史話》,三聯書店,香港,2002
Lai Kin Keung, Leung Po Shan, eds., Cong guodu kuayue qianxi: qiren shiyi pinglun zixuan wenji (Through the Transition and Over the Millennium: Self-Selected Visual Art Criticism Essays by Seven Critics), Hong Kong Arts Centre, Hong Kong, 2002
黎健強、梁寶山編,《從過渡跨越千禧:七人視藝評論自選文集》,香港藝術中心,香港,2002
Leung Ping Kwan, Xianggang wenhua kongjian yu wenxue (Cultural Space and Literature of Hong Kong), Youth Literary Book Store, Hong Kong, 1996
也斯,《香港文化空間與文學》,青文書屋,香港,1996
Tse Ngo Sheung, Tse Chi Tak Ducky, eds., Xinchun hushituo. Caiyuan yishu kuaile kangzheng (Woodstock in Spring: Art for the Cause for Choi Yuen Village), Kubrick, Hong Kong, 2012
謝傲霜、謝至德編,《新春糊士托.菜園藝術快樂抗爭》,KUBRICK,香港,2012
Wang Minan, The Factory of Images, Nanjing University Press, 2009
汪民安,《形象工廠:如何去看一幅畫》,南京大學出版社,南京,2009
Wear, Eric, Oscar Ho, eds., Hong Kong Art Review, The International Association of Art Critics, Hong Kong, 1999
華立強、何慶基編,《香港藝術概覽》,國際藝評人協會,香港,1999