新情境主義

The New Situations 新情境主義
By Claire Deherty 克列爾、帖荷提

Situations describe the conditions under which many contemporary artworks now come into being. By ‘situated’, we refer to those artistic practices for which the ‘situation’ or ‘context’ is often the starting point. This book does not approach ‘context’ as purely a discreet category of public art discourse, nor is it concerned with ‘contextual practice’ as an artistic genre. Rather, it is concerned with ‘context’ as an impetus, hindrance, inspiration and research subject for the process of making art, whether specified by a curator or commissioner or proposed by the artist. By way of an introduction, this text reflects on the analytical, dialogic and anecdotal evidence in this publication to draw out some of the tendencies and implications of the shift from studio to situation.

情境主義描述的情況,就是許多當代藝術品存在的狀況。所謂「情境」,我們指的是那些以「情境」或「內涵」為出發點的藝術表現。本書處理「內涵」,並不純粹當著是公共藝術論述的質樸範疇,也不是把「內涵表達」當著是一種藝術型式。相反的,我們把「內涵」當著是創造藝術過程的推動力,阻礙,靈感跟研究主體,不論是藝術館館長或委託人所指定,或藝術家所建議。作為導言,本文反思出版本書所提供的分析,對談,及軼事的證據,描繪出一些從畫室轉移到情境傾向及暗示。

On 11 April 2002, 500 volunteers were supplied with shovels and asked to form a single line at the foot of giant sand dune in Ventanilla, an area outside Lima in Peru. This “ human comb” pushed a quantity of sand a small distance, thereby moving a 16,00 foot long sand dune about four inches from its original position. The act constituted When Faith Moves Mountains, a project by artist Francis Alys, in collaboration with Rafael Ortega and Cuauhtemoc Medina. It was acclaimed in the international art press as a “ biblical performance” and “ one of the artistic highlights of 2000”. Subsequently the film of the event became an editioned artwork—a 34 minute long, three-channel video installation which was purchased for the Guggenheim Collection in New York later that year.

在2002年四月十一日,在祕魯,利馬郊區的凡坦尼拉,義工帶鏟子,在巨大沙丘底下排列成一長排。這種「人身梳子」將沙推退了一小段距離,因此將16,00英呎長的沙丘推離原來位置四英吋。這個舉動稱為「信心移山時」,由藝術家法蘭西斯、阿萊思跟拉費,奧鐵嘉及梅地那合作企劃。被國際藝術新聞稱讚為「創世紀成就」及2000年藝術高潮之一。隨後,這個事件被拍攝成影片,成為發行的藝術品,三十四分鐘長度,錄影帶可安置在三個頻道播放,那一年稍晚,被紐約的古根罕藝術館收藏。

How do we come to judge such an event, and its documentation, as art? Where does the work start and end? Where does meaning reside—in its execution and/or documentation, in the fledgling idea or in the posthumous circulation of the anecdote? How does such a work operate in, what might be termed, its ‘ originating’ context and subsequently its ‘displaced’ context ( an American art collection or curated exhibition) ? And what is the difference between the experience of the work’s first and second audiences—from the participants in the desert outside Lima to the museum visitors on Fifth Avenue? Furthermore, if this work is not exactly ‘ site-specific’, why not? Though it can be removed from its original context or functional site, unlike Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty, 1970-one of its antecedents—it is, nevertheless, a work made in context, the product of a ‘situated’, rather than studio-based, artistic practice.

我們如何判斷這樣一個事件,及其記錄影片,當著是藝術品?作品從何處開始?從何處結束?意義在哪裡?在呈現當時?或在記錄影片?在意念的初起之時?或是在事件過後的流傳?這樣的作品如何運作於所謂的「原創」內涵,及隨後的「替代」內涵(美國的藝術品收藏或藝術館展示)?作品最初的觀眾,里碼郊區沙漠的參與者,跟後來的觀眾,第五街藝術館的參觀者,感受有何不同?而且,假若這個作品並不完全是以「地點取向」,為什麼不是?不像它的先輩作品,1979年,羅伯、史密森的「迴旋防波堤」,它能夠從它原先的內涵或功用地點移開,儘管如此,它仍然是以內涵創作,算是「情境」的作品,而不是在畫室創作的藝術品。

Francis Alys describes When Faith Moves Mountains as “ my attempt to de-romanticise Land art”.

法蘭西斯、阿萊思描述「信心移山時」,當著是「我企圖破除大地藝術的浪漫幻想」。

Here, we have attempted to create a kind of Land art for the land-less, and, with the help of hundreds of people and shovels, we created a social allegory. This story is not validated by any physical trace or addition to the landscape. We shall now leave the care of our story to oral tradition…Only in its repetition and transmission is the work actualized.

在此,我們企圖創造一種大地藝術替代大地消失,靠著數百人及鏟子的幫忙,我們創造一種社會寓言。這個寓言的故事是否成為真實,不在於有無留下地理遺跡,或增添什麼景觀。我們的故事是否延續下去,留給口耳相傳的傳統。就在反覆述說及代代相傳過程,我們的作品自然呈現。

When Faith Moves Mountains was Alys’ contribution to the third Bienal(Ibero-American Biennale of Lima). Visiting the city for the first time in 2000 with curator Cuauhtemoc Medina, Alys was confronted with the turmoil and instability that preceded the collapse of the Fujimori dictatorship:

「信心移山時」是阿萊思對於利馬市南美洲兩年一度美術展的貢獻。在2000年,他跟藝術館館長梅提那初次拜訪該市時,適逢富士摩瑞的獨裁政權崩潰,社會頗為動亂不安。

I felt that it called for an ‘epic response’, a ‘beau geste’ at once futile and heroic, absurd and urgent. Insinuating a social allegory into those circumstances seemed to me more fitting than engaging in some sculptural exercise.

我覺得這樣的社會需要「史詩回應」,那是一個徒勞而壯烈,荒謬而迫切的「優雅姿態」。將社會的動亂寓言,在那些處境中明白諷刺出來,對我而言,比從事雕刻作品更為適宜。

Alys was called upon to make a work that would resonate in a highly charged local context and translate to a global biennale culture. He neither professed to reveal something new to the local inhabitants (his practice as a whole is ‘ complicit’ rather than ‘investigative’). Nor did he position his experience as outsider or tourist at the centre of the work. The performance simply effected a near imperceptible ‘ linear geological displacement”. Yet, by establishing a shift in the status-quo, by creating a memorable and metaphorical act for ( one hopes and imagines) the participants and certainly us, the secondary audience, Alys made a work that is embedded in the context of Ventanille, but which is not simply about Ventanilla, Lim or Peru.

阿萊思被要求創作一部作品,能夠在高度動亂的社會內涵引起迴響,並可以成為全球性的兩年一度的藝術文化。他既沒有宣稱給當地居民帶來任何新奇事物(他的作為整體而言,與其說是「探究」,不如說是「共謀」)。他也不將自己作為外來人或觀光客的經驗,放置在作品的中心位置。表演僅僅是造就一個近乎覺察不出來的「直線的地質的移位」。可是,他證明現狀是能夠改變的,他創造一個可紀念的影射活動給參與者,當然是指我們,次級的觀眾(讓我們一廂情願罷)。阿萊思創造的作品鑲嵌於凡坦尼拉的內涵,但是意義可不只限於凡坦尼拉、利馬、或祕魯。

Alys is what Miwon Kwon, in her significant study One Place After Another: Site-specific Art and Locational Identity, has identified as one of a burgeoning number of nomadic artists:

在其重要的研究著作「漂泊:地點取向的藝術及位置的認同」,米萬、柯萬將
阿萊思定位為為少數前衛的遊牧藝術家之一。

The increasing institutional interest in current site-orientated practices that mobilize the site as a discursive narrative is demanding an intensive physical mobilization of the artist to create works in various cities throughout the cosmopolitan art world.

目前地點取向的作品,動員地點當著是擴散的論述,引起越來越多的機構感到興趣。它們要求藝術家廣泛地動員各地,在全球性的藝術世界的各種城市創造作品。

And nowhere is this more evident than at the biennale. There are currently over 50 biennales of visual art world-wide including those in Lima, Berlin, Havana, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Gwangju, Liverpool, Lyon, Sydney and Venice, as well as Manifesta, the nomadic European biennale, not to mention Documenta and Skulptur Projekte Munster. This broad biennale culture has emerged from the integration of the festival model and scattered-site international exhibition over the past ten years, through which cultural activity has become allied with economic growth. The public’s experience of the biennale phenomenon has developed from viewing to participation, giving rise to a marked shift, in some instances, in the role of the artist from object-maker to service provider. The creative and operational workforce, within or outside existing art institutions in biennale cities, which initiates, produces and sustains this considerable level of artistic public output, have developed a diverse range of curatorial strategies to support the visiting artist, particularly in relation to the creation of new work. Concurrently, off-site commissioning and artist residency programs have responded to the discernable emphasis on engagement in current artistic practice, by drawing upon the complex discourse of the relationship between artist and place, re-imagining place as a situation, a set of circumstances, geographical location, historical narrative, group of people or social agenda.

這種現象在兩年一度的藝術展最為顯著。全世界目前有超過50個視覺藝術的兩年一度藝術展,包括在利馬、柏林、哈瓦那、伊斯坦堡、約翰尼斯堡、光州、利物浦、里昂、雪梨跟威尼斯,以及遊牧歐洲雙年展的馬尼凡斯塔,更不用說是德國卡塞爾文獻展,跟明斯特雕塑展。過去十年來,藝術季模式跟散佈各地的國際美展合併起來,出現這種普遍的雙年展文化。經由這樣,文化的活動跟經濟的成長結合起來。大眾對於雙年展的現象的經驗,由觀賞到參與,產生明顯的改變,在有些情況,藝術家的角色由作品的創造者,轉變成為服務的供應者。這種創造性跟功用性的勞動力,在雙年展的現有藝術單位,研發,創造及維持相當水準的藝術品的公開展出,並發展出各式各樣藝術館的經營策略,來支持來訪的藝術家,特別是跟新奇作品有關的藝術家。同時,外地委託創作及駐在藝術家計劃,回應顯而易見的強調:大眾要求參與目前的藝術創作,藝術家跟地方之間要有互相認同的情懷,重新想像地方當著是一個情境,一連串的處境,地理上的位置,歷史的描述,族群或社會的變遷。

When Daniel Buren commented, in the winter of 1970-1971, that, “ it is impossible…by definition, to see a work in its place”, he was referring to the conventional appreciation of the studio as primary site of meaning, in isolation from the real world. Since Buren first proposed to work in situ, we have witnessed the convergence of site-specific, installation, community and public art, institutional critique and political activism. Miwon Kwon suggests, as artists and cultural theorists have become informed by a broader range of disciplines ( including anthropology, sociology, literary criticism, psychology, natural and cultural histories, architecture and urbanism, political theory and philosophy), “ so our understanding of site has shifted from a fixed, physical location to somewhere or something constituted through social, economic, cultural and political processes”. Given this new mutable notion of site, practitioners, commissioners and critics have become dissatisfied with the expression “ site-specific’, submitting a gamut of new terms to describe artworks and projects which deal with the complexities of context-amongst them context-specific, site-oriented, site-responsive and socially engaged.

當1970年到1971年的冬季,丹尼爾、波頓評論,定義上很不可能看到一部作品在其位置上,他指的是傳統對於畫室的賞識,當著是意義的最初位置,孤立於真實世界之外。自從波頓建議要在情境中創作,我們曾見證到,地點取向,裝置藝術,社區跟公共意藝術,體制批判及政治激進主義,彼此匯聚起來。米萬、柯萬建議,如同藝術家跟文化理論家變得通曉各門學問(包括人類學,社會學,文學批評,心理學,自然及文化歷史,建築學及都市規劃學,政治理論跟哲學),我們對於地點的了解,已經從一個固定的地理位置,轉移到某個地方,某個經由社會,經濟,文化及政治的過程組成的東西。考慮到地點觀念的變化,藝術業者,藝術委託人及藝評專家對於「地點取向」一詞的表達開始不滿意,提出各式各樣的新術語,來描述藝術品跟企劃案,這樣才有辦法來處理內涵的複雜性,包括內涵取向,地點取向,回應地方及社會參與。

What distinguishes the situated practices in this publication from the historical premise of site-specificity is the convergence of three key factors: firstly, if as Kwon suggests, feeling out of place is the cultural symptom of late capitalism’s political and social reality”, then to be ‘ situated’ is effectively to be displaced. Hence, what emerges through the artworks discussed here is an emphasis on experience as a state of flux which acknowledges place as a shifting and fragmented entity; secondly, as Nicolas Bourriaud suggests in his “ Berlin Letter about Relational Aesthetics”, a new vocabulary has emerged, “ one analogous to Minimal Art and that takes the socius as its base”. Bourriaud suggests that relational aesthetics operates to elude alienation, the division of labor and the commodification of space which characterizes our new “ network society”. And finally, as cultural experience has become recognized as a primary component of urban regeneration, so the roles of artists have become redefined as mediators, creative thinkers and agitators, leading to increased opportunities for longer-term engagement between an artist and a given group of people, design process or situation.

本書所描述的情境表現,跟地點取向的歷史作為,不同的地方在於三個主要因素的匯聚:第一、如柯萬所建議的,假如跟環境格格不入,是晚期資本主義政治及社會現實的文化病徵,那麼「處於情境」就是顯而易見的情境錯置。因此,在此所討論的藝術作品展現的,是強調經驗作為流動的狀態,承認地方是變遷的不連貫實體;第二、正如尼古拉、寶駱在「關係美學的柏林信件」書中所建議的,一個新的詞彙已經出現,「這個詞彙類似極簡抽象畫藝術,以同事朋友作為基礎」。寶駱建議,關係美學運作為了逃避疏離,勞工區隔及空間的商品化,這些都是我們新的「網絡社會」的特徵。第三、如同文化經驗已經被承認是振興都市的基本要素,藝術家的角色重新被下定義為媒介者、創意思想家跟煽動家,因此藝術家有越來越多的機會長期參與特定人群、設計過程或情境。

Despite increasingly sophisticated curatorial appraisals of what place might mean to artists and participants in projects which profess to ‘ engage’, there is still considerable debate about whether projects can or should respond directly to a place, considering the itinerancy of most international artists and the consequential lack of sustained contact with the host city or context. In his essay, “ The Artist as Ethnographer”, Hal Foster warns that participants are often defined by their habitation of ‘elsewhere’, acting as the ‘other’ to the ‘ideological patron’ of the artist. Furthermore, even if the ethnographic mode of ‘rapport’ is to be avoided through either a process of complicity or genuine collective decision-making and shared responsibility, how does an artist begin such a process and what are the pitfalls? Given the social and cultural experience of being ‘out of place’, how is this state of being reflected in the process and final forms of works or curatorial activity which responds to given situations?

雖然有些活動企劃宣稱要大家「參與」,地方對於藝術家及參與者有何意義,主辦單位的評估也越來越不落俗套,可是活動企劃是否應該直接回應地方,爭議依舊很大,因為大部份的國際藝術家千里迢迢而來,對於主辦城市或內涵必然欠缺持久的接觸。在其論文「藝術家作為少數民族」,赫爾、佛斯脫警告說,參與者往往被定義為居住在「他處」,充當藝術家的「意識形態贊助者」的「他者」。而且,就算能夠透過積極參與跟誠懇地共同決策及分擔責任,來避免淪為少數民族的「關係模式」,藝術家如何開始這樣一個過程?其陷阱又是什麼?假如我們考慮到,「格格不入」在社會及文化上的經驗,這種存在的狀況如何被反映在創作的過程跟最後的作品,或主辦單位要回應特定情境的活動?

This publication presents a number of strategies set within a critical context, which by no means comprehensive, are representative of the broad tendencies of situated practice—from the spectacular re-enactment, to the quiet intervention, from remedial collaboration to dialogic, open-ended process.

本書提供許多在關鍵內涵的配套策略,並沒有面面俱到,僅是代表情境創作的大略的傾向--從驚心動魄的一再演出,到默默地介入,從邊做邊修正的合作,到對談的不設底線的過程。

The groundwork
Where to start? What emerges through the interviews and conversations here is a common process of resistance. Though this may not always reveal itself as a process of derive, described by Guy Debord of the Situationist International as, “ playful-constructive behavior and awareness of psycho-geographical effects’ in which person “ drops their usual motives for movement and action…and let themselves be drawn by the attractions of the terrain and the encounters that they find there”, all artists and collectives here maintain that their status as artists allows them to circumnavigate predictability. Kathrin Bohm states, “ As an artist you’re non-threatening , because no one expects you to have power “ Jeremy Deller suggests, “ your role is far more fluid”, whilst Jimmie Durham proposes, “ I’m not an outsider or an insider and I still have the great privilege to talk.” Contrary to Hal Foster’s cautionary note, many of these artists resist ethnographic processes of mapping, but rather, introduce themselves through a series of conversations( Bohm, Shaw, Deller), or merge into the daily activities of a city (Wentworth, Dant, Mejor Vida Corp.) )or become residents themselves( Oda Projesi, Hirschhorn).They resist the ascribed role of witness, often choosing to research or observe the overlooked ( Coley, Dickison).

基礎紮根
從何開始?在此透過訪問及對談所呈現的是抗拒的共同過程。雖然這並不表示這策略是「遊戲三昧」的過程,如國際情境主義大師居伊、德波所描述的「知曉心理跟地理的影響,嬉戲而有建設性作為」,在此情境下「人們拋開他們平時行動跟行為的動機,聽任自己被身處的環境際遇所吸引」,但是藝術家跟共同體在此還是主張,作為藝術家的地位,他們可以逾越世俗常規。凱司林、波恩說:「身為藝術家,你並不具有威脅性,因為沒有會預期你有多大本事。」傑瑞米、鉄洛建議說:「你的角色地位更具有流動性。」吉米、杜罕建議說:「我並非局外人,也非局內人,我還是有權利說話。」跟赫爾、佛斯脫的警告的語氣相左,這些藝術家大多抗拒被定為少數民族,相反的,他們透過一系列的對談介紹自己(如波恩、蕭、鉄洛等),或是融入當地城市的日常活動當中(如溫窩斯、坦特、梅焦、維達公司等)或是自己成為當地居民(窩達、普羅傑西,郝希蜂等)。他們抗拒被指定當見證者角色,時常選則研究或觀察被忽視的東西(如科利,迪欽森等)。

Irit Rogoff’s critical analysis of the distinction between fieldwork that is done “ through a mode of rapport (of proximity and a sense of having rapport with place) and fieldwork that is done through an understanding of one’s complicity with the work” is crucial to this process of enquiry. It proposes a strategy for preparing the ground.

「實地創作有兩種,一是透過接近的關係模式及跟地方產生關係的感覺,另一種是透過自己參與作品創作而產生了解。」艾瑞、羅勾夫的精闢的分析跟區分,對於我們的研究過程大有助益。他建議一種基礎紮根的策略。

When projects occur at the artist’s instigation within the context of their own practice, the idea—such as The Battle of Orgreave or The Milgran Reenactment—is simple, though the period of research can stretch to years, involving the recruitment of participants, experts and skilled practitioners. In contrast, artists such as Minerva Cuevas or Adam Dant work almost virally within their home territory, using the mechanisms of the media to distribute their ‘ products’ for free. Though Further Up in the Air proposed a conventional residency relationship for the 18 invited artists, the groundwork, as Paul Dorrela observes here, was laid by the artist-organizers, Neville Gable and Leo Fitzmaurice, who built up a relationship with the community over five years, recognizing it as “ an unstable transitional context”. Like Oda Projesi, Gabie and Fitzmaurice recognize the residents’ involvement as significant to the legacy of the project in the long-term.

由於藝術家的建議,在自己可行的範圍內,產生了一些企劃活動。諸如「奧瑞維礦廠罷工示威暴力事件」或「米格蘭心理測驗重演」,點子很簡單,但是策劃時間延續好幾年,牽涉到參加人員的徵募,專家及專業的人員。比較起來,像米內瓦、苦瓦司或亞當、坦特等藝術家,幾乎就是在自己家中領域內工作,使用媒體的設備,免費地散播自己的作品。依照保羅、多枚拉所觀察,在「高樓擎天」企劃活動,雖然有十八位被邀約的藝術家,有著傳統的駐在關係,基礎紮根還是由藝術家兼企劃者所奠定。尼微洛、嘉比跟李奧 菲莫瑞斯,五年來跟社區建立密切關係,體認到社區是「一個不穩定的變遷內涵」像窩達、普羅傑西,嘉比跟飛莫瑞斯體認到,居民的參與關係重大,對於長期的企劃活動能否產生後續影響。

The engagement process
In many of these projects, process and outcome are marked by social engagement. Maria Lind distinguishes the difference between aspects of participatory practice, using Vienna-based critic Christian Kiavagna’s four models: ‘ working with others’, interactive activities, collective action, and participatory practice. What seems to distinguish the types of engagement evident here is whether a dialogical relationship is established. In a significant text on littoral art, Grant Kester has proposed this as, “ that which breaks down the conventional distinction between artist, artwork, and audience—a relationship that allows the viewer to ‘ speak back’ to the artist in certain ways, and in which this reply becomes in effect a part of the work itself”. It is vital, when reviewing the stated aims and outcomes of such projects, to establish the distinction between those practices which, though they employ a process of complicit engagement, are clearly initiated and ultimately directed by the artist ( Hirschhorn, Deller, Colley) and those which, though still often authored by the artist or team, are collaborative—in effect ‘ social sculpture’ ( Bohm, Oda Projesi, Shaw). Furthermore, where practices become peripatetic in the social fabric of a city, a distinction should be made between the strategies of the activist ( Cuevas) and the trickster ( Dant and Durham), though their intentions may be similar-namely to provoke social conscience, it is important to attempt to find a language for engagement, because the gaps between the current rhetoric of engagement and actual experience may lead to confusion about the aims and potential outcomes of a project.

參與過程
在這些企劃活動中,過程跟結果大多由社會的參與表現出來。馬麗亞、琳達拉斯區別實際參與的方式,使用維也納的藝評家克立斯丁、拉瓦那的四個模式:跟別人共事,互動活動,集體活動,實際參與。使這四種參與顯而易見的區別是,對話的關係是否建立。葛蘭、凱思脫有一篇重要的文章討論「外圍藝術」,將它定位為「突破傳統對於藝術家,藝術品及觀眾的區別。新的關係讓觀眾能夠以某種方式對藝術家頂嘴,這種回應實際上是作品的一部份」。當我們評論企劃活動所陳述的目標跟結果,區別那些做法是很重要的,有些做法雖然使用共同參與的過程,但實際上顯然是由藝術家創始,最後也是由他導演(如赫希峰恩、鉄洛、科利等)。還有些做法,雖然是由藝術家跟團隊所創作,實際上是合作而成,所謂「社會雕塑」(如波恩,窩達、普洛傑西,蕭等)。而且,有些做法在城市的社會結構中遊移,因此我們應該區別激進份子的策略跟遊戲三昧者的策略(如坦特跟杜罕),儘管他們的意圖非常相近。換言之,他們都是要喚起社會良心。設法替參與找到一種語言表述非常重要,因為目前參與的表述跟實際經驗有差距,可能會導致目標跟企劃活動的預期結果,混淆不清。

The exhibition and curator
Given that these processes of engagement and intervention need interlocutors, as Bourriaud notes, the role of the curator or commissioner as mediator becomes vital. In many cases, such as the partnership between Kunstverein Munchen and kunstprojekte-Reim for Oda Projesi or Gasworks in the case of Kathrin Bohm and public works, the role of the art institution to initiate, mediate and sustain relationships with participants beyond the project is crucial. Furthermore, as Catherine David explains, new exhibition models are addressing the implications of cross-cultural engagement and representation, many of which are cumulative in process, open-ended and dialogic. The biennale is a natural home for situated practice. It bears a resemblance to a ‘ circus blowing through town’, flouting its propensity for transient encounters, and hence the festival context in which such projects occur lends itself to the situated work as performance, event, screening, re-enactment or workshop. But it is the capacity for the work to morph from one form to another that allows these artists to produce work for the biennale, the art institution and a local context. As practitioners, commissioner, participants and viewers, we need to understand the complex processes of initiation, development, and mediation of this work. We need to make the distinctions between the types of engagement that are occurring and the promises that are made. We need to question what levels of support this work needs ( information, time, technical resources, distribution mechanisms and personnel). And we need to find a critical language to unravel the implications of this work beyond the specifics of time and place.

展覽及館長

假如考慮到參與和介入的這些過程都需要對話者,如寶瑞德注意到,藝術館館長或行政人員作為媒介者的角色就變得很重要。在很多情況,如肯波隆、慕晨及肯羅傑、瑞姆,跟窩達、普羅傑西的合夥關係,或是嘉思窩在凱司林、波恩及公共作品所扮演的藝術機構的角色就很重要,他扮演建議、媒介及維持跟企劃活動外圍參與者的關係。而且,如凱薩林、大衛解釋,新的展覽模式在處理跨越文化的參與及表現的意涵,很多過程是累積性、開放性、及對話性。雙年展是情境創作的天然家園。它類同於「巡迴演出的馬戲團」,在性質上因為演出觀看的時間短而受到冷嘲熱諷,因此跟此企劃活動相連的藝術季的內涵就有助於情境作品,作為表演,事件,拍攝,重新演出,或工作坊。但是,正因為作品有能力從一種形式轉換成另一種形式,這些藝術家才能夠替美術雙年展,藝術機構,及當地內涵創作作品。作為藝術業者,行政人員,參與者及觀眾,我們需要了解作品是如何開始,發展,及媒介的複雜的過程。我們需要區別正在進行的參與的種類,跟給予的許諾。我們需要詢問作品需要什麼程度的支持(資訊,時間,技術資源,發行機制及工作人員)。我們需要找到一種重要的表述,來說明作品有何超越特定時空的意涵。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: