Response

Text: Christopher KU

Where there is fire, there will be smoke. Before we know there is a fire, we shall see the smoke first from afar.

In the context of contemporary art, do we have the work first or the concept?

In general, bigger the fire will give more smoke, but when there is only smoke without fire, or when there is only fire without smoke, people will start to ask questions.

When we resolve the above question, we will go on to ask what has caused the fire.

Is this fire caused by a picnic party?

Is it a prank made by a misanthropist?

Is it merely decoration for a fun party?

Is it a signal of danger?

Is it an accident?

Is it a lonely person trying to draw our attention?

Is it set for something constructive or destructive?

Likewise the same question can be applied to contemporary art.

When the above question is answered, we will continue to ask more.

Have the processes of modernism and modernisation taken place in Hong Kong? Have we followed the processes and entered the context of post-modernism critising modernism?

Hong Kong has been modernised without going through the theories and practice of post-modernisation. But did the results of modernisation¹  lead us to the post-modernised (or post-modern) way of thinking? When we fail to criticise modernism by looking at its achievements and processes, the term "post-modernised" bears no meaning at all. We are then not qualified to say if post-modernism, together with the truths it has uncovered in the West, could solve the above question. In light of this, can any of us become a real contemporary artist? If we just try to express our concepts or ourselves as individuals without tracing the course of history, what we build up will be an ambiguous context without any connection with the true cause behind.

Lack of reflection on the cause and result of post-colonialism is like a picture taken in the West, showing fire without smoke, or showing smoke without fire. It has brought neither crisis nor comfort. We are marching towards a self-centre. Loss of thinking will create a culture that blindly follows the benefits of post-consumerism. A post-modern (post-modernised) context that nobody can share will be established. It is unconscious and numb.

Artists of Hong Kong are degenerating without their knowing it. They shut themselves up in an artist playground where they find their dreams come true. They show smiling faces in pictures, but there is no soul, just like the fire captured in a photograph. What happened were only concerns and worries brought by others, and such concerns and worries have intensified the happiness of those artists in the artist playground. Absence of meanings and a clear mind fits well in a culture that is self-entertaining and complacent.
As an ending note: Hitler² recruited 1,000 academics 3 for critising the relativity theory. Einstein told him that to prove the relativity theory wrong 4, only one person is enough.

 

1. "Modernised" is better described as "modern" in Hong Kong.
2. The curator
3. Just like 1,000 art academics from Hong Kong or 1,000 exhibitions
4. Right or wrong is determined by Hitler (the curator). The desire for power is no different between Hitler and a curator.
5. There is no such person in Hong Kong. We will not be able to find him even if there is.

 

​

​

回應

文：谷敏昭

當我們還沒見到火時，我們會先在遠處看到煙霧。

而當代藝術是先有理論還是先有作品？

通常火愈大，煙也愈大，但如只有煙沒有火，或只有火沒有煙，疑問便將產生，藝術中之概念與作品亦將受到同樣的質疑。

當我們解答了以上的疑點。我們隨之追問，是什麼引起了一場煙火？

是一席野餐舞會？

是厭世者之惡作劇？

是尋歡派對裡作裝飾的？

是危機的警示？

是無意識的意外？

是不甘寂寞時吸引人注意的？

是有建設性的或是破壞性的？

說的雖是一場煙火，但當代藝術問題同時也可被代入以上例子分析。

當以上問題得到答案後，我們繼續追問如下。

現代主義與現代化實踐過程是否當在香港進行一個實踐過程而讓我們隨而進入後現代主義對現代主義之審批過程之語境？並沒有現代主義理論與實踐過程，然而香港現代化起來了，而此等現代化¹結果，是否能引領我們到後現代化（法）的思維？當我們沒有現代主義之建樹與過程對現代主義之批審，後現代化這個詞並沒有任何意義，更談不上後現代主義與它在西方挖起之誘因與內容尚未解決以上之問題，而我們是否真正能作為一個當代藝術創作人？單以我們一個個體之性格表現或自創概念而不顧前因地去建立一個語境，以及未經認真反思後殖民之因果，如同在顯示一張在西方攝錄了火而沒有煙，或攝錄了煙而沒有火的照片，沒有帶來一點危機也沒有帶來愜意。一切像大步向前走向一個自我中心，意念失調的後消費主義利益之盲從文化，建立出一個沒有共識的後現代法（化）語境，卻是無意識的、麻木的。

整個香港藝術創作人在墮落中而不自覺，自娛在一個夢想成真的藝術家樂園，帶著笑容在照片中，沒有靈魂，如同火的真實性只存在一張照片中，發生的一切祇是一場別人帶給我們的虛驚與不安，卻在藝術樂園中增強了藝術家們的歡樂感，意義與精神的缺席，正正能滿足一個自娛自滿的文化空間。

最後，希特拉² 當年曾組織過1000名3學者，集體批駁“相對論”，愛因斯坦回應道，要證明“相對論”是錯的4，一個人就足夠了。

​

​

1.現代化在香港倒不如說是現代法。

2. 策展人

3. 那怕是1000個香港藝術學者或1000個展覽。

4.對的與錯的只是被希特拉（策展人）的權力所支配，與當今策展人之權力慾相等。

5. 香港的確沒有這樣的一個人。有也被埋沒了。

​