Reviews & Articles

Captions:
1. Ho Sin Tung: Parapraxis 2, graphite and digital print on paper, 2012. Published in Ming Pao, 15 April 2012 after a Hong Kong newspaper vendor was attacked that week by mainland visitors for being unable to speak Mandarin. (Image courtesy of Ho Sin Tong)

2. Street sticker, Sham Shui Po, Hong Kong, in support of artist Ai Weiwei during his detention on the mainland, 2011 (Photograph: John Batten)

3. Display of work, protest and reconstruction (by artist Ng Ka Chun) of Master Fung's desk inside Woofer Ten. Master Fung was a street artist who worked nearby from a small hand-built stall in Shanghai Street, Yau Ma Tei; recently demolished by government street cleaning/Lands Department staff, 2012. (Photograph: John Batten)

4. Rental United (Stephanie Sin, Damon Tong, Timothy Zau): Performance C, outdoor performance during Hong Kong ArtWalk, 14 March 2012. (Photograph courtesy of Rental United)

5. One of Tse Chi Tak's series of photographs of villagers, displayed as an enlarged photocopy on a village house during Choi Yuen Village Art Festival, organised to protest against demolition of village, 2010. (Photograph: John Batten)

圖片說明:
1. 何倩彤的作品《Parapraxis 2》發表於今年4月15日的香港報紙「明報：星期日生活」，有關香港報攤店主因不懂國語而被內地人毆打事件。墨汁、數位印刷（圖／何倩彤

2. 2011年香港街頭可見聲援艾未未在中國被捕的街頭塗鴉貼紙。（圖／John Batten)

3. 藝術家吳家俊在「活化廳」內為街頭畫家馮畫師裝置的抗議和重建作品。馮畫師在油麻地附近的上海街，親手建造了小畫攤，於今年被政府的清潔隊拆除。（圖／John Batten）

4. 「夾租團」於今年3月14日在香港藝術博覽會期間所進行的戶外行為藝術表演。（圖／夾租團）

5. 香港政府和港鐵為興建廣深港高速鐵路，迫遷石崗菜園村。2010年謝至德在拆村前展出了一系列紀錄反迫遷事件的攝影作品以示聲援。（圖／John Batten）



( 中文翻譯請往下看 Please scroll down to read the Chinese translation.)

The Hong Kong of-the-street has had for decades - and continues - a nascent spirit, energy for the possible and a surprising acceptance of difference and others’ strongly held attitudes. First-time visitors note the palpable energy in the air and amongst all this an Asian allowance for fate tempered by hard work. There is freedom of thought (despite the lack of democracy) and, importantly, a dogged determination not to allow this openness of spirit to be compromised.

The city also has a stultifying government and a solid but passive bureaucracy that together reinforce the hard edges of concrete parks, high-rise buildings and roads that overwhelm the urban environment. (1) There is also a serious widening wealth gap, poverty, and an unsavoury coziness between officialdom and big business. Above is the real and imagined presence of China, as motherland and as the ultimate power. However, the sceptical public - and the entrepreneurial, creative, independently minded and ambitious - can and do ignore most of this; they confidently continue being sceptical and independent ….and ‘do things.’

Appreciating Hong Kong’s ethos is easy; trying to define it can be inexact. Similarly, historian Isaiah Berlin groped to understand the essence of European Romanticism – a movement that recoiled against some of the excesses of the Age of Enlightenment. Many of Berlin’s examples of the early 19^th century romantic spirit precisely fit Hong Kong’s recent and current social landscape and these sentiments can be taken as a rudder for the city’s economic, political and cultural fabric. Berlin listed them to include:

“…the primitive, the untutored, it is youth, the exuberant sense of life of the natural man, but it is pallor, fever, disease, decadence….It is the confused teeming fullness and richness of life…inexhaustible multiplicity, turbulence, violence, conflict, chaos, but it is also peace….Also it is the familiar, the sense of one’s unique tradition, joy in the smiling aspect of everyday nature...concern with the fleeting present, desire to live in the moment, rejection of knowledge, past and future, the pastoral idyll of happy innocence, joy in the passing instant, a sense of timelessness. It is nostalgia, it is reverie, it is intoxicating dreams, …the sense of alienation, roaming in remote places, especially the East….It is beauty and ugliness. It is art for art’s sake, and art as an instrument of social salvation. It is strength and weakness, individualism and collectivism, purity and corruption, revolution and reaction, peace and war, love of life and love of death.” (2)

Berlin’s flowery description can be physically appreciated throughout Hong Kong, but there is an artistic element in the Fotan industrial area. Situated mid-way between Shatin and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Fotan is in a valley surrounded by steep hills that replicate the mountainous shrouds of a Chinese traditional painting on a misty winter day. Nearby are high-rise industrial buildings housing a variety of practical car repair, logistics, engineering, food production, storage and other small businesses. Amongst this commercial activity and completely compatible is a scattering of about 80 artist studios housing individual and shared studios of up to eight artists in each. This is the largest concentration of artist studios in Hong Kong, although studios are also found in Hong Kong’s other industrial areas of Chai Wan, Ap Lei Chau, Wong Chuk Hang, Kwun Tong, Tsuen Wan, Kwai Hing and San Po Kong.

The varied art produced in Fotan is a world away from the well resourced programming of Hong Kong’s official art funding channels, museums, public and private exhibition spaces that are essentially conservative and self-protective in approach. Fotan’s art studios are all self-financed and independent with no constraints on artistic expression. In contrast, the government initiated Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre (JCCAC) provides studio, exhibition and theatre facilities but resident artists have at times complained about inflexible rules and a non-conducive artistic environment. Since opening, the JCCAC has become increasingly occupied for institutional studio uses such as children’s private art tuition classes and teaching facilities for the Hong Kong Arts Centre. There is certainly a need for such business-related (or “cultural industry”) uses, but the original intention of the JCCAC to provide predominantly artist studios has met resistance from its target group: artists themselves.

Rental United is the name of the shared Fotan studio of artists Stephanie Sin, Damon Tong and Timothy Zau. Each has recently graduated from art school and they are predominantly painters, who have not – yet – received any glossy magazine attention. These three artists are an example of the practicalities necessary to present as a committed artist in the art world and experienced by many of their fellow artists.

Rental United have evolved since originally opening their studio in 2010 for viewing during the yearly Fotanian Open Studios – an event visited by thousands of people. In a conscious decision to use different media in their work, they have presented a series of performances as a group rather than show their individually executed paintings. In 2011, attired in formal suits and standing statue-like on plinths, the artists silently stood stock-still in daily five-hour performances over two weekends. It was only later that they realized, to their embarrassment and unfortunately too common for Hong Kong artists with a hazy knowledge of art history, that British artists Gilbert & George had done similar in their celebrated Underneath the Arches living and singing sculptural performances of the early 1970s.

Again dressed in suits but identifying themselves as “hygiene technicians”, Rental United performed a ritualized cleaning of their white studio space accompanied by the music of a free-form playing solo guitarist in front of an intrigued audience over four days during this year’s Fotanian open days. This scenario is not far from Hong Kong’s authorities’ obsession with cleanliness, extending to the official sanitizing and demolition of Hong Kong’s older urban areas and implying a destructive SARS-like potential if ignored.

A few months later, a similar but critically stronger performance was undertaken around Central’s streets during Hong Kong ArtWalk 2012, attended by 2,000 participants and the passing public. Unannounced, Rental United appeared outside Central and Sheung Wan commercial galleries and thoroughly and obsessively cleaned a gallery’s front windows, leaving an adhered note of job completion (with the sly hope, largely unrealized, of receiving payment for services rendered). Their participation in these two large public events, allowed Rental United’s performances to be seen by thousands of people, an audience wider and larger than the tight arts crowd who would have seen their paintings if solely exhibited in a gallery.

Rental United’s first performances were essentially done as a theatrical attempt to be different alongside more conventional artist studios and exhibitions. However, as they debate their work with other artists and the public their artistic confidence has grown due to this close interaction with an audience. It is the sort of boost needed when you are generally ignored in an art market that highlights the consciously careful paintings seen in auctions of mainland contemporary art and the varied high-price offerings along the shopping mall-like aisles of another “international” art fair.

Increasingly, the recent newspaper headline, “Galleries bloom amid heady art boom,” reflects the popular press view of Hong Kong’s art scene. (3) The press depicts Hong Kong’s art market as being successful and having a prominent position on the world’s art stage. The facts, however, indicate otherwise. The recent opening of international galleries in Hong Kong confirms for the press a booming art market; however, the actual number of “international” galleries opening over the last three years is six in total. Over the coming year, other overseas galleries are muted to open (e.g. Pearl Lam from Shanghai; Galerie Perrotin from Paris; a large gallery for secondary sales by Sotheby’s), however these sort of numbers, not even reaching double figures, cannot warrant the puffed up “art boom” label.

Any overseas gallery that opens in Hong Kong does so for strategic and legitimate business reasons. The obvious advantage of being located in Hong Kong is having the flexibility to book sales (but not necessarily move a physical piece) of art through Hong Kong and benefit from the city’s free-port status, low taxation and absence of sales tax. The opening of these galleries does indicate a trend in the globalization of the art market and also confirms Hong Kong’s long accepted porous money transfer and liberal banking environment.

The major auction houses of Christie’s and Sotheby’s have long recognized the advantages of basing some of their operations in the city. Hong Kong does have collectors of antiquities, but there are few collectors of contemporary art and the city’s current level of twice-yearly auctions and a yearly international contemporary art fair, and despite record auction prices being achieved, indicates that there are limits in Hong Kong being able to accommodate many more contemporary art sales outlets and events.

If Hong Kong were a true booming art market then this city with a population of 8 million people and yearly tourist arrivals of 42 million (2011) would be able to support more than the 70 commercial contemporary art galleries currently operating. Anecdotally, many of these galleries struggle to actually make a profit. Likewise, with the dominance of Chinese contemporary art over the last ten years, such an “art boom” would also see commercial exhibitions of such auction house darlings as Zhang Xiaogang, Fang Lijun and Wang Guanyi in Hong Kong – but they are not. Similarly, the claim that mainland collectors will become major international buyers of contemporary art is presently untested – indeed, if European modern masters were being bought by mainland collectors, then why is the work of these artists only offered for sale outside Asia? Furthermore, auctions on the mainland are claiming record-breaking bid results, but many buyers actually fail to complete their purchase and even Christie’s and Sotheby’s in Hong Kong now demand deposits on some premium lots from potential bidders. (4) This all indicates that the “art boom” is a fickle catchphrase.

A booming art market environment also supposes that success at the top trickles down – eventually passing success onto Hong Kong’s own artists. Similar to other countries, Hong Kong has a handful of successful artists able to live off their artistic output, however the majority need income from other employment - Rental United is an example: there is no trickle down for these artists.

One of the outcomes of Hong Kong’s press-inspired “art boom” is that a handful of Hong Kong artists are continually featured in the media and these same artists invariably appear in local and, sometimes, international curated group exhibitions and in public and private art commissions. The art market is, of course, not fair – the most successful artists are not necessarily the most talented. But in Hong Kong’s relatively small art scene, the ranking of the city’s small pool of artists in this way is disappointing. This revolving door of artists, gallerists, curators and other art tastemakers who network and socialize amongst themselves are often disparagingly, or with envy, viewed and labeled as “players.” The reality is this is the art world’s usual practice: welcome Hong Kong!

The perimeters of Hong Kong’s art scene often provide the most forward thinking and intelligent art ideas. At the moment, art spaces Woofer Ten, 1aspace, C&G Artpartment, commercial galleries Osage, Grotto and Gallery Exit, and private artist studio exhibitions are generally the most active places to view critically good Hong Kong art; and at times, the Asia Art Archive provides an intellectual environment for visual art enquiry.

Woofer Ten is currently Hong Kong’s sole artist-collective and artist-run space, located at the publicly owned Shanghai Street Art Space in the inner urban district of Yau Ma Tei. Initially spearheaded by writer and artist (and art world outsiders) Jaspar Lau Kin Wah and Luke Ching Chin Wai, the group does community art projects in the locality; so, their exhibitions are often an extension of surrounding life and businesses, but brought inside an art space. At times, this is confusing for everyone. They have developed a following akin to the attractions of a musty community drop-in centre, both with the local shop-keepers, market stall-holders, the elderly and younger Pakistani children who all live nearby – people who live in some of Hong Kong’s poorest accommodation.

Many of the artists active in Woofer Ten were also involved in the 2010 protests and artist exhibitions and performances against the construction of the fast rail line connecting Hong Kong to the mainland’s own fast rail network and the demolition of the rural Choi Yuen Village. There has been rising tension and concern about social and livelihood issues of Hong Kong’s grassroots people since the mass public protests of 2003, and these were again highlighted in the recent ‘small-circle’ and undemocratic Chief Executive election and criticism of the elitist practices of big business and decision-makers. Woofer Ten’s grassroots focus actually mirrors the sentiments of the general public and there has been enthusiastic involvement by Yau Ma Tei residents in the activities undertaken by Woofer Ten.

Public engagement in art is a serious topic in Hong Kong and an oft-stated requirement for Hong Kong’s massive US$4 billion arts complex at West Kowloon. This and other similar projects could become white elephants if the public is not successfully enabled, encouraged or allowed to participate, and more importantly, is proud of and have a sense of belonging towards these new cultural facilities.

Woofer Ten’s varied activities remind me of the early exhibitions mounted by Para/Site Art Space in the late 1990s, which had a concern for its neighbouring Sheung Wan community. Many exhibitions were related to Hong Kong’s own unique, and at times confused, identity - this was the time of Hong Kong’s return to the mainland. But today’s Para/Site is a completely different entity: no longer artist-run and often replicating much of the goings-on of the mainstream art market, including artists exhibited and issues tackled. Now headed by an influential board of management and a professional curator – and with little art community involvement in its programming. Para/Site is waiting for its own next big thing and hopes to be allocated (as are many others) a space in the soon to be renovated historic Central Police Station.

After public debate and rejection of a new large high-rise structure, the presently under-renovation Central Police Station will have an art and heritage focus, housed within a series of heritage buildings and two new wings designed by Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron. These new wings will be Hong Kong’s first purpose-built non-government contemporary art spaces. Hopefully, it will fill a real need for a contemporary art space similar to the sort of facilities provided by The Serpentine Gallery in London. However, final details of its funding, governance and by whom it will be operated have worryingly yet to be decided.

The recent Chief Executive election saw a series of allegations of misconduct each made by the two main candidates, Leung Chun-ying and Henry Tang Ying-yen. The resulting scandals caught the attention of the Hong Kong public who had rarely seen such public political mudslinging before. In a spirited burst of artistic freedom on Facebook and other social media websites, the general public posted hundreds of manipulated film posters and photographs relating to the scandals to pour scorn on the flawed election and each candidate. Likewise, and exacerbated by an increase in the numbers of mainland mothers giving birth in Hong Kong and whose children automatically receive Hong Kong permanent resident status, a series of incidents between Hong Kong residents and Mandarin-speaking mainland visitors over language and behaviour has seen similar cartoons, graffiti and newspaper illustrations.

This follows a pattern of witty and critical actions against the detention of Chinese artist Ai Weiwei initiated by the Hong Kong art community during 2011 – the only place in China where such protests were allowed and tolerated. Such parody and satirical imagery and freedom of expression has had a long history in Hong Kong and is particularly prevalent in low-budget movies and nightly TV shows using comedy as populist political and social commentary.

The newly elected Chief Executive, Leung Chun-ying, has proposed the formation of a new Culture Bureau to co-ordinate the currently weak and ill-considered arts and culture policies of his predecessors. But there is justifiable wariness for a new all-powerful Bureau. And a complete mind-shift in decision-making and sharing of ideas is needed for any new Bureau to be effective. The West Kowloon Cultural District Authority, for example has only one person related to the arts sitting on its 21-person governing board.

“Culture” is not just paintings on museum walls and sculpture in parks, but an appreciation of the entire spirit and physical make-up of a city. Hong Kong has allowed for too long bureaucratic needs and dubious administrative efficiency rather than a people-centred approach towards decision-making. The city’s vernacular institutions such as street markets, dai pai dong (outdoor restaurants), hawkers, tong lau (low-rise buildings), chan cha teng (Hong Kong style cafes), heritage landscapes, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and good urban planning influence every aspect of people’s lives – all these need to be cared for and appreciated.

A recent determination by Hong Kong’s Development Bureau to ease planning restrictions to allow conversion of industrial buildings to office and residential purposes has resulted in higher rental costs and a tighter market for industrial buildings. Many low-margin businesses, including artists in their studios, have been affected by this simple and shortsighted change in government urban planning policy. There will be a point in the not-to-distant future when reasonably priced industrial space will be almost unobtainable. In such circumstances, Rental United’s studio name could itself represent a real challenge in Hong Kong’s evolving political and cultural landscape.

Footnotes:
(1) The recent election of Leung Chun-ying as Hong Kong Chief Executive is not expected to change this impression in the immediate future.
(2) Isaiah Berlin, The Roots of Romanticism, the A.W. Mellon lectures in the Fine Arts, 1965, edited by Henry Hardy, Pimlico, 2000, pp 16-18.
(3) Vivienne Chow, “Galleries bloom amid heady art boom” in South China Morning Post, 6 April 2012, p1 and p3.
(4) Peter Foster, “Almost half of £1million Chinese auction bids unpaid six months after they were lodged”, in The Telegraph, 11 October 2011.

Originally published in Chinese in: ARTCO Monthly, Issue 236 (May, 2012).



空穴來瘋

香港街頭數十年來有股躍躍欲試的草創精神，能夠高度接納差異與他人的執念。初訪者會注意到空氣中這股可觸知的能量，當中還有亞洲人因辛勤工作而對命運產生的接受度。這裡擁有思想自由（儘管缺乏民主），更重要的是不容許開放精神遭到妥協的一股執著。

這座城市有乏味的政府、堅固但消極的官僚體系，它們強化了都會環境的混凝土公園、高樓大廈及道路等硬體設施。（註1）這裡有嚴重並持續擴大的貧富差距和惱人的官商勾結。在這之上，還有中國在現實及想像中的存在，它既是祖國、又是終極力量。然而，存疑的大眾（以及企業、創作、獨立思考和具有抱負的大眾）可以忽視大部分狀況；他們自信地保持懷疑和獨立，繼續我行我素。


浪漫精神的城市

要欣賞香港的社會精神很容易，要定義就難以精確。歷史學家以撒．伯林（Isaiah Berlin）曾試著理解歐洲浪漫主義的本質──這是對啟蒙時代的過盛產生的反動。伯林19世紀初浪漫精神的樣本，完全適用於香港近現代的社會環境，其中的觀點也能作為香港經濟、政治和文化結構的準則。伯林列舉：

它原始、未受開化、年輕，是自然人類豐富的生命感，但它也蒼白虛弱且頹廢……它是對生命飽和的困惑……無盡的多樣、紛擾、暴力與動亂，但它也是和平……它是熟悉的、是對自身獨特傳統的感受，是對日常愉悅之處的喜樂、它關切稍縱即逝的現在、渴望活在當下，拒絕知識、過去和未來，是快樂純真的牧歌，此刻的喜樂，是永恆、是鄉愁、是幻想、是醉夢……是異化感，漫遊在遠處，尤其是東方……它既美亦醜。是為藝術而藝術，而藝術是社會救贖的工具。它既強亦弱、個人亦集體、純潔亦腐化、革命亦反動、和平亦戰爭，愛生命亦愛死亡。（註2）

伯林的華麗敘述可在香港實際體驗到，在火炭村工業區還有種藝術成分。火炭村位於沙田和香港中文大學之間陡坡環繞的山谷內，在多霧的冬日彷彿中國山水畫的翻版。鄰近是工業高樓，兼備了實用的汽車維修、物流、工程、食品製造、倉儲和其他小型企業。和這些商業活動兼容共處的是約80間的藝術家工作室，有個人的，也有多達八名藝術家共用的。這是香港最大的藝術工作室集中處，雖然香港其它工業區也有類似地方，例如柴灣、鴨脷洲、黃竹坑、觀塘、荃灣、葵興和新蒲崗等。

火炭藝術村離資源完備的計畫相當遙遠，如香港官方的藝術贊助管道、博物館、公立及私立展覽空間等，這些機構本質上是保存和自我保護的。火炭村的藝術工作室經濟獨立，藝術表現並不受限。相反地，政府創辦的「賽馬會創意藝術中心」（JCCAC）雖提供工作室、展覽和劇場設施，但其駐村藝術家常抱怨僵硬的規矩和無益的藝術環境。自開幕以來，JCCAC逐漸被機構用途占據，如兒童私人美術班和香港藝術中心的教學設備。當然這類商業相關（或「文化產業」）的用途有其需求，但JCCAC最初的目的主要是提供藝術家的工作室，如今卻遭受其預設族群的反彈。


年輕藝術家的吸睛策略

「夾租團」（Rental United）是藝術家洗朗兒、唐偉傑和鄒昊共有的火炭村工作室。他們都剛從藝術學校畢業，主要身為畫家，尚未受到任何流行雜誌的注意。這三名藝術家的例子說明了在藝術界中表態藝術家身分的必要性，許多藝術同行也有類似經歷。

夾租團工作室在2010年開幕，當時是火炭村年度的工作室開放日，湧入數千人參觀，之後便持續發展。他們刻意在作品中使用不同媒材，以群作方式呈現系列演出，而非展示各人的繪畫。2011年，藝術家們西裝畢挺、如雕像般站在基座上，連續兩週每天進行五小時沉默靜止的演出。他們後來才慚愧地知道（不幸的是香港藝術家通常只有如此模糊的藝術史知識），1970年代早期的英國藝術家吉伯特與喬治（Gilbert & George）已在著名的活人歌唱雕塑演出《在拱門下》（Underneath the Arches）做過類似的事。

今年的火炭村開放日，夾租團再度穿上西裝，但這回身分是「衛生技師」，在自由彈奏的吉他手配樂下，他們連續四天在困惑的觀眾面前、在自己的白色工作室空間表演清掃儀式。這齣劇碼和香港當局對清潔的偏執相去不遠，可延伸到官方對早期都會區的消毒與拆除，並暗示一旦忽視便可能造成「SARS」般的毀滅。

數月後的「香港ArtWalk 2012」，有總計2000名參與者和觀眾出席，此時市中心街頭進行了一項類似但更具批判性的演出。在事前並未宣布的情況底下，夾租團出現在市中心和上環的商業藝廊外，偏執而徹底地清潔櫥窗，並貼上完工通知（期待能僥倖收到服務費用，但大多未實現）。夾租團在這兩場大型公共活動上的參與，使數千人看到他們的演出，遠高於他們畫廊個展能吸引的藝術小眾。

夾租團的首次演出本質上是種劇場實驗，不同於較傳統的藝術工作室及展覽，和其他藝術家與大眾談論過自己的作品後，他們藉由互動提升了藝術的自信。當你總是受到藝術市場的忽略，因為它們只看重中國當代藝術拍賣會上的刻意畫作，或是在其他「國際」藝術市集如商場展示般的高價品時，這種推進更顯必要。


只造就少數光環的藝術潮

近日的報紙標題「藝術潮中的藝廊盛世」反映出媒體對香港藝術現狀的一般看法。（註3）媒體形容香港藝術市場的成功，在全球藝術舞台占有醒目位置，但事實並非如此。近日香港國際藝廊的開幕對媒體肯定了蓬勃的藝術市場；但在過去三年內新開幕「國際」藝廊的正確數字是六間。今年，其他國外藝廊默默開幕（上海的林明珠、巴黎的Perrotin藝廊、蘇富比次級市場的大型畫廊），但這些甚至不到兩位數，無法證明誇大的「藝術潮」。

國外藝廊在香港開幕都是基於策略和合法的商業理由。明顯優點就是經由香港可以享有預訂藝術交易的彈性（不一定要移動作品實體），也能受益於該地的自由港口地位、低稅率和免交易稅。這些藝廊的開幕確實指出藝術市場的全球化潮流，也認可了香港長期以來的多方轉帳與開放銀行環境。

佳士得和蘇富比的主要拍賣所早已肯定在此地進行部分營運的優點。香港有骨董收藏家，但當代藝術收藏家很少，儘管曾刷新拍賣金額記錄，該地目前的標準是一年兩次拍賣會及年度的國際當代藝術市集，這指出香港容納當代藝術交易場地和活動上的限制。

若香港真的是蓬勃中的藝術市場，那麼以該地8百萬人口和每年4,200萬觀光客（2011年）而言，應能支持高於目前70間當代藝廊的數量。但據聞，許多藝廊都在努力求生存。另外，隨著過去10年中國當代藝術的強勢，這種「藝術潮」也應把這類拍賣會寵兒的商業展覽視為香港的張曉剛、方力鈞和王廣義──但他們不是！同樣地，有關中國收藏家將成為主要國際當代藝術買家的說法，目前仍未經證實。的確，若歐洲現代大師作品能被中國收藏家收購，為何這些藝術家的作品只在亞洲以外的地區交易？甚者，中國的拍賣會標榜破記錄的競標結果，但實際上許多買家並未完成買賣，香港佳士得和蘇富比如今甚至也向可能的競標者收取某些高價拍賣品的押金。（註4）這全都指出「藝術潮」的不可靠。

蓬勃的藝術市場環境也應有成功的降臨──最終將臨到香港自身的藝術家。和其他國家類似，香港有些成功藝術家能靠藝術成品過活，但大部分人仍需要其他工作收入──夾租團就是一例：成功並未降臨在這些藝術家身上。

香港媒體塑造出「藝術潮」的結果之一，便是一些香港藝術家持續受到媒體關注，同樣一批人不斷出現在當地或（偶爾的）國際群展，以及公共或私人的藝術委託案上。這種藝術市場當然不公平，最成功的藝術家不見得最有才華。但在香港相對狹小的藝術現場，將一小群藝術家如此排名的作法令人無奈。這些互通有無的藝術家、畫廊主人、策展人和其他藝術時尚人士常被蔑視為「玩家」，其中或許帶點嫉妒意味。而這就是現實的藝術界慣例：歡迎香港加入！


活躍的各類民間藝術空間

香港藝術現場邊緣常提供最具前瞻性的想法和有智識的藝術靈感。目前，藝術空間如活化廳、1aspace、C&G藝術單位，商業藝廊如Osage、嘉圖畫廊（Grotto）、安全口畫廊（Gallery EXIT），以及私人藝術工作室展覽等，這些活躍地點常有具批判性的優秀香港藝術；有時，亞洲藝術文獻庫也為視覺藝術查詢提供知性環境。

「活化廳」（Woofer Ten）是香港目前唯一由藝術家共有經營的空間，位於油麻地中心都會區的公有上海街視藝空間內。這個群體最初由作家和藝術家（兼藝術界局外人）劉建華和程展緯領軍，在當地進行社區藝術企畫；他們的展覽往往是週遭生活與商業的延伸，只不過進入了藝術空間，有時這令人感到困惑。他們接著發展成類似從前社區開放中心的形態，兩者都有當地店家、市場攤販，鄰居的巴基斯坦大小孩童──住在香港最貧困地區的人們。

許多「活化廳」的活躍藝術家都曾參與2010年的抗爭和藝術展演活動，當時是為反對香港與中國間高速鐵路的建造和菜園村的拆毀。自2003年抗議之後，香港草根對社會議題持續造成緊張與關注，而由於近日極不民主的小圈子特首選舉，以及大企業與決策者的菁英作法引起的批評，這些議題繼續成為焦點。活化廳的草根重點其實反映出大眾的心聲，而活化廳策畫的活動也都有油麻地居民的熱忱參與。

公眾的藝術參與是香港的重要議題，香港耗資4億美金的西九龍藝術複合區也常發出這類訴求。若無法成功鼓勵或允許大眾的參與─以及對這些新文化設施感到驕傲與歸屬，其他類似的企畫都可能淪為大而無用之物。

「活化廳」的多樣活動讓我想到1990年代末Para/Site Art Space的早期展覽，當時同樣關注鄰近的上環社區。許多展覽都是關於香港時而令人困惑的獨特認同──這是香港回歸中國的時代。但今日的Para/Site是完全不同的實體：它不再由藝術家經營，無論展出藝術家或觸及的議題，都常複製主流藝術市場的內容。目前負責的是頗具影響力的管理委員會和一名專業策展人，計畫中很少有藝術社區的參與。Para/Site正等待自己的下一步，並（和許多人一樣）期盼能在即將翻新的中區警署舊址分到一席之地。

經過對新高樓大廈的公開辯論與反對，目前整修中的中區警署將聚焦於藝術與文化遺產，建物是一系列古蹟建築和兩棟由瑞士建築師赫爾佐格和德梅隆（Sheung Wan community）設計的新側翼。這幾棟新側翼是香港首次非政府設置的當代藝術空間。希望這能滿足當代藝術空間的需求，像在倫敦的蛇型藝廊（Serpentine Gallery）。但令人憂心的是，最後的資金細節、管理權和管理者都有待商榷。


中國唯一的異議特區

在近日的香港特別行政區首長（以下簡稱特首）選舉，兩名候選人梁振英和唐英年各自揭發了一連串不當管理的申述，這些醜聞吸引了香港大眾的注意，他們之前很少看到如此赤裸的政治隱私。臉書和其他社群媒體網站上爆發了一股藝術自由的風潮，大眾紛紛貼出有關醜聞的電影海報和照片的改圖，以指責選舉和候選人的缺失。另一方面，香港居民和說普通話的中國觀光客間也出現言語和行為上的衝突，而隨著越來越多的中國婦女在香港分娩，她們的孩子自動享有永久居留權，為這些衝突火上加油，類似的漫畫、塗鴉和報章插圖的出產就變成了香港的常的風景。

接著是去年中國藝術家艾未未的居留事件，香港藝術社群發起一波詼諧批判活動，這是全中國唯一容許這類抗議的地方。這種諷刺圖像與表達自由在香港由來已久，在低成本電影和夜間搞笑政論節目上格外受歡迎。

剛當選的特首梁振英提議成立新文化局，以協力改善前人欠缺考量的藝文政策，但全能的新機構也必須審慎以待。任何新機構要有效運作，都須在決策與提案上有徹底的心態改變。像西九龍文化區管理局在21人委員會中，只有一人與藝術相關。

「文化」不僅是美術館牆上的畫作和公園雕刻，而是對城市整體精神與實質構成的欣賞。香港長期容忍官僚的無理需求和令人質疑的行政效率，缺乏以人為本的決策方針。本土機構如街市、大排檔、熟食、唐樓、茶餐廳、傳統風貌、室內外休閒設施及良好都會規劃，都影響人民生活的各個面向——這一切都需受到照顧與欣賞。

香港發展局近日決定放寬限制，讓工業建築可以轉作辦公室和居住之用，於是造成租金提高和工業建物市場吃緊。這項簡單而短視的政府都市計畫政策，影響了許多小本生意，包括藝術家工作室。遲早，合理價位的工業空間將不復存在。在這樣的環境下，「夾租團」的名稱本身正挑戰著香港逐漸成型的政治文化風貌。

註釋:
註1　近日梁振英當選香港首長，不見得會在短期內改變這種印象。
註2　Isaiah Berlin, The Roots of Romanticism, the A.W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, 1965, edited by Henry Hardy, Pimlico, 2000, pp 16-18.
註3　Vivienne Chow, “Galleries bloom amid heady art boom” in South China Morning Post, 6 April 2012, p1 and p3.
註4　Peter Foster, “Almost half of £1million Chinese auction bids unpaid six months after they were lodged”, in The Telegraph, 11 October 2011.

翻譯:  郭書瑄
原文刊於《典藏.今藝術》雜誌236期(2012年5月號) 。