Art intervention
Discourses and practices emphasizing on the social responsibility of art emerged in the mid-90s, and in certain cases of intervention in space, served as “an instrument for critiquing the totalitarian society, the capitalist society, and even for direct intervention to intensely reform society.”
At first, the use of “intervention” emphasized on “art” being different from or outside of something. Meanwhile, it also highlighted the viewpoint about the autonomy of art. In 1999, HUANG Hai-Ming curated “The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art,” in which the curator and featured artists underwent the examination of critics for being “outsiders” throughout the preparation process and during their interaction with community residents. The next year, in his article, titled “The Formation of Regional Art City—Dots, Lines, and Planes of Chiayi’s Contemporary Art in 2000,” HUANG Hai-Ming utilized “‘foreign entities’ and ‘foreignness’” to describe the process of intervention. A similar viewpoint was mentioned in the art events of Kio-A-Thau in 2007 and LIAO Hsin-Tien’s essay of 2010, “The Intervention of Contemporary Thoughts in the Taiwanese Contemporary Art Criticism: Towards an Idea Analysis of Cultural Studies,” in which Liao discussed the route that was “born without and reached within.”
After French art critic Catherine GROUT published Pour de l'art dans notre quotidien: Des oeuvres en milieu urbain (For art in our daily lives: urban works, translated by YAO Meng-Ying; and a new and updated edition was published in 2017) in 2002, which was translated into Chinese and published in Taiwan, the term “art intervention” has been extensively used in related artistic creations, exhibitions, and reviews, though with a rather vague definition. At the end of the same year, the Bamboo Curtain Studio organized the “Festival of Art & Environment at Chu-Wei,” which started from public space as a way to reflect on a latent tendency of leaning towards consumerism observed in the mode of participation shaped by large-scale art exhibitions and events at the time. The festival expanded the implication of “art intervention,” in which art was viewed as a “mediator” for mending or managing different types of relationships.
However, the term “intervention” in the Chinese context signals a condescending, top-down power relation, and also conveys the meaning of “interfering” or “interrupting.” In the 2010 Taishin Forum, “Artists: Social Interactor—Regarding the Social Identity of Contemporary Artists, or Contemporary Artists as a ‘Servo Motor,’” CHEN Tai-Sung stated that we could perhaps replace “intervention” with “interaction.” In 2014, the use of the new term was continued by WU Ma-Li in the title of the exhibition, “Art as Social Interaction · Hong Kong/Taiwan Exchange.”
“Art Intervention” as a distinct form of art was also influenced by cultural policies in its development. From 2008 to 2012, the Council for Cultural Affairs launched the “Aesthetic Life Movement in Taiwan,” which inherited the foundation built by past work of community empowerment. The movement was divided into four sub-topics to elevate cultural civil right, one of which being the project of “art intervention in space.” The objective was to achieve the goal of “art as life, life as art” by enhancing the public’s attention to aesthetics while facilitating the development of tourism industry through fostering knowledge of and participation in aesthetics of space. Nevertheless, art intervention directed by the government was contradictory to the avant-garde and critical spirit inherent to the art form. To KAO Jun-Honn, using civic aesthetics as the criterion and standard for “art intervention in space” could lead to the centralization of resources and power in the hands of specific groups and result in increasing conservatism in art practice due to the tendency of avoiding conflicts.
References
At first, the use of “intervention” emphasized on “art” being different from or outside of something. Meanwhile, it also highlighted the viewpoint about the autonomy of art. In 1999, HUANG Hai-Ming curated “The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art,” in which the curator and featured artists underwent the examination of critics for being “outsiders” throughout the preparation process and during their interaction with community residents. The next year, in his article, titled “The Formation of Regional Art City—Dots, Lines, and Planes of Chiayi’s Contemporary Art in 2000,” HUANG Hai-Ming utilized “‘foreign entities’ and ‘foreignness’” to describe the process of intervention. A similar viewpoint was mentioned in the art events of Kio-A-Thau in 2007 and LIAO Hsin-Tien’s essay of 2010, “The Intervention of Contemporary Thoughts in the Taiwanese Contemporary Art Criticism: Towards an Idea Analysis of Cultural Studies,” in which Liao discussed the route that was “born without and reached within.”
After French art critic Catherine GROUT published Pour de l'art dans notre quotidien: Des oeuvres en milieu urbain (For art in our daily lives: urban works, translated by YAO Meng-Ying; and a new and updated edition was published in 2017) in 2002, which was translated into Chinese and published in Taiwan, the term “art intervention” has been extensively used in related artistic creations, exhibitions, and reviews, though with a rather vague definition. At the end of the same year, the Bamboo Curtain Studio organized the “Festival of Art & Environment at Chu-Wei,” which started from public space as a way to reflect on a latent tendency of leaning towards consumerism observed in the mode of participation shaped by large-scale art exhibitions and events at the time. The festival expanded the implication of “art intervention,” in which art was viewed as a “mediator” for mending or managing different types of relationships.
However, the term “intervention” in the Chinese context signals a condescending, top-down power relation, and also conveys the meaning of “interfering” or “interrupting.” In the 2010 Taishin Forum, “Artists: Social Interactor—Regarding the Social Identity of Contemporary Artists, or Contemporary Artists as a ‘Servo Motor,’” CHEN Tai-Sung stated that we could perhaps replace “intervention” with “interaction.” In 2014, the use of the new term was continued by WU Ma-Li in the title of the exhibition, “Art as Social Interaction · Hong Kong/Taiwan Exchange.”
“Art Intervention” as a distinct form of art was also influenced by cultural policies in its development. From 2008 to 2012, the Council for Cultural Affairs launched the “Aesthetic Life Movement in Taiwan,” which inherited the foundation built by past work of community empowerment. The movement was divided into four sub-topics to elevate cultural civil right, one of which being the project of “art intervention in space.” The objective was to achieve the goal of “art as life, life as art” by enhancing the public’s attention to aesthetics while facilitating the development of tourism industry through fostering knowledge of and participation in aesthetics of space. Nevertheless, art intervention directed by the government was contradictory to the avant-garde and critical spirit inherent to the art form. To KAO Jun-Honn, using civic aesthetics as the criterion and standard for “art intervention in space” could lead to the centralization of resources and power in the hands of specific groups and result in increasing conservatism in art practice due to the tendency of avoiding conflicts.
References
- CHANG, Ching-Wen. “On the Meaning and Context of ‘Artistic Intervention’ in Taiwan.” Tsing Hua Journal of Art Research, no. 2, 2020.12, pp. 37-62.
- TUNG, Wei-Hsiu. “An Expanded Field: Artistic Intervention into Public Sphere.” Art Forum (reissue), no. 7, 2015.11, pp. 95-108.
- HUANG, Hai-Ming. “Art Intervention in Space Activates Complex Relations and Changes—The Conceptual Shift and Changes of Operational Mode in Art Intervention in Space in Recent Years.” Artist, no. 437, 2011.10, pp. 221-5.
- CHANG, Ching-We. “No Response to Pretentious Needs—Discussing ‘Art Intervention in Space’ from ‘Highway Project.’” Artist, no. 437, 2011.10, pp. 221-5.
藝術介入(Art intervention)
強調藝術對於社會的責任,相關論述與實踐在臺灣始自於90年代中期,在一些介入空間的案例當中,「批判極權社會、資本主義社會,甚至直接介入、激烈地改造社會的工具的意味」。
「介入」的使用在一開始強調「藝術」異於或外於某事物,同時,也彰顯了藝術自主性的觀點。在1999年黃海鳴所策畫的「歷史之心—裝置藝術大展」中,策展人與藝術家作為社區的「外來者」,在籌備過程裡與社區居民的互動,受到評論者的檢視,隔年,黃海鳴的文章<地區性藝術城市的形塑—談2000嘉義當代藝術的點、線、面>,使用「『外來異物』的『異物性』」來形容介入的過程;相同的觀點在2007年對於橋仔頭藝術活動,與2010年廖新田在<臺灣當代藝術評論中的當代思潮介入:朝向一個文化研究的理念探析>一文裡提及「自外而內」的路徑被提及。
在2002年法國藝評家卡特琳・古特(Catherine Grout)的《Pour de l'art dans notre quotidien: Des oeuvres en milieu urbain》(我們日常生活中的藝術:都會裡的藝術創作)一書被翻譯為《藝術介入空間:都會裡的藝術創作》(譯者:姚孟吟,2017年增訂新版)後,「藝術介入」一詞被廣泛地使用在相關創作、展演及評論當中,但當時的定義鬆散。同年底,竹圍工作室所舉辦的「竹圍環境藝術節」自公共空間出發,反思當時大型藝術展演活動形塑的參與方式向消費主義靠攏的隱憂,擴增了「藝術介入」一詞裡將藝術視為「中介者」,修補或經營各種關係的內涵。
由於「介入」一詞在中文語境中帶有上對下的權力關係,及「干預」、「中斷」的意味,在2010年的台新論壇<藝術家:社會的交往者--關於當代藝術家的社會身份,或做為「伺服機動者>中,陳泰松提到,或以「交往」取代「介入」。2014年時這個詞彙持續為吳瑪悧所沿用,作為展覽的題目:「與社會交往的藝術—香港臺灣交流展」。
「藝術介入」作為一特定的藝術形式,發展過程也受到文化政策的影響。在文化建設委員會2008年到2012年所推動的「台灣生活美學運動」中,延續了過去社區總體營造推行的基礎,分為四個子項目提升文化公民權,當中一項即為「藝術介入空間計畫」。希冀透過提升大眾對於美學的重視,達成藝術生活化、生活藝術化的理想,並透過空間美學的認識與參與,促進觀光產業發展。但由官方主導的藝術介入與其前衛的批判精神相違背,高俊宏認為,以公民美學作為「藝術介入空間」的評判標準,有可能出現因資源、權力集中於特定群體,導致藝術實踐上為了迴避衝突而趨向保守。
參考文獻
「介入」的使用在一開始強調「藝術」異於或外於某事物,同時,也彰顯了藝術自主性的觀點。在1999年黃海鳴所策畫的「歷史之心—裝置藝術大展」中,策展人與藝術家作為社區的「外來者」,在籌備過程裡與社區居民的互動,受到評論者的檢視,隔年,黃海鳴的文章<地區性藝術城市的形塑—談2000嘉義當代藝術的點、線、面>,使用「『外來異物』的『異物性』」來形容介入的過程;相同的觀點在2007年對於橋仔頭藝術活動,與2010年廖新田在<臺灣當代藝術評論中的當代思潮介入:朝向一個文化研究的理念探析>一文裡提及「自外而內」的路徑被提及。
在2002年法國藝評家卡特琳・古特(Catherine Grout)的《Pour de l'art dans notre quotidien: Des oeuvres en milieu urbain》(我們日常生活中的藝術:都會裡的藝術創作)一書被翻譯為《藝術介入空間:都會裡的藝術創作》(譯者:姚孟吟,2017年增訂新版)後,「藝術介入」一詞被廣泛地使用在相關創作、展演及評論當中,但當時的定義鬆散。同年底,竹圍工作室所舉辦的「竹圍環境藝術節」自公共空間出發,反思當時大型藝術展演活動形塑的參與方式向消費主義靠攏的隱憂,擴增了「藝術介入」一詞裡將藝術視為「中介者」,修補或經營各種關係的內涵。
由於「介入」一詞在中文語境中帶有上對下的權力關係,及「干預」、「中斷」的意味,在2010年的台新論壇<藝術家:社會的交往者--關於當代藝術家的社會身份,或做為「伺服機動者>中,陳泰松提到,或以「交往」取代「介入」。2014年時這個詞彙持續為吳瑪悧所沿用,作為展覽的題目:「與社會交往的藝術—香港臺灣交流展」。
「藝術介入」作為一特定的藝術形式,發展過程也受到文化政策的影響。在文化建設委員會2008年到2012年所推動的「台灣生活美學運動」中,延續了過去社區總體營造推行的基礎,分為四個子項目提升文化公民權,當中一項即為「藝術介入空間計畫」。希冀透過提升大眾對於美學的重視,達成藝術生活化、生活藝術化的理想,並透過空間美學的認識與參與,促進觀光產業發展。但由官方主導的藝術介入與其前衛的批判精神相違背,高俊宏認為,以公民美學作為「藝術介入空間」的評判標準,有可能出現因資源、權力集中於特定群體,導致藝術實踐上為了迴避衝突而趨向保守。
參考文獻
- 張晴文,〈「藝術介入」的意涵與在地脈絡〉,清華藝術學報,2期,頁37-62,2020.12。
- 董維琇,〈擴大的界域:藝術介入社會公眾領域〉,藝術論壇,復刊7期,頁95-108,2015.11。
- 黃海鳴,〈藝術介入空間啟動複雜關係與改變—近年藝術介入空間的觀念轉變及操作模式與規模的改變〉,藝術家,437期,頁221-225,2011.10。
- 張晴文,〈不做虛假需求的回應—從「公路計畫」看「藝術介入空間」〉,藝術家,437期,頁221-225,2011.10。