Motherflag Project
2017
Flags are usually perceived as a symbol of a certain collective consciousness. In many cases, flags are created for a particular “political moment”. However, there have been controversies over some flags, when they correspond to a particular imagination of nationhood, while the restricted boundary of the nationhood may not be the consensus of all related parties. Here is an example—the flag of the Republic of China, which is still the only legal national flag in Taiwan till now. However, although it has been in use for 94 years, the truth is that the regime of R.O.C. has been taken over and forced to exile to Taiwan for long. As a result the flag has actually lost its representative status due to its political status nowadays. Therefore, debates have erupted on whether the flag of R.O.C should be suspended, and whether Taiwan needs a new national flag in recent years. In another case—Kashmir area, its flag, as a spiritual symbol, is also a complicated issue due to the everlasting nationality and sovereignty controversy.
Where flags are displayed would bring about changes on its character and function. Flags belonging to an apparatus or not would have differences between their designs, which would also have different effects on mobilizing people. An apparatus tends to seek universal values, and to design a visual system with colors and patterns to coherence with those values. That is to push a top-down assimilation, shaping a unified outlook. In contrast, flag design beyond an apparatus usually highlights the dissimilarities and fragmented personal messages, in order to deconstruct a system, and to achieve the transmission of information eventually. People who are mobilized don’t consider reaching a consensus their first priority, on the other hand, they constantly “make noise” to interfere with the messages from mass media so that refreshing public opinion could become possible. Also, the public discussion could be effective on de-symbolization the body of an apparatus.
Through the process of de-symbolizing the body of an apparatus and amplifying the experience of each individual, the gathering of general public and their discussion could be a way to resist oppression. Take a common scene under social movement context as an example: the oppressed is deified; their portraits have become a certain spiritual symbol. However, this method could diminish the feminine traits of the social movement itself, and gradually create another field for masculine ideology reproduction, aligned with the ideology of the oppressor. In my point of view, it could create a tendency so dangerous that the method and tools for oppression-resistance would go near to what the oppressors have manipulated. As a result the resistance becomes a mere formality.
Where flags are displayed would bring about changes on its character and function. Flags belonging to an apparatus or not would have differences between their designs, which would also have different effects on mobilizing people. An apparatus tends to seek universal values, and to design a visual system with colors and patterns to coherence with those values. That is to push a top-down assimilation, shaping a unified outlook. In contrast, flag design beyond an apparatus usually highlights the dissimilarities and fragmented personal messages, in order to deconstruct a system, and to achieve the transmission of information eventually. People who are mobilized don’t consider reaching a consensus their first priority, on the other hand, they constantly “make noise” to interfere with the messages from mass media so that refreshing public opinion could become possible. Also, the public discussion could be effective on de-symbolization the body of an apparatus.
Through the process of de-symbolizing the body of an apparatus and amplifying the experience of each individual, the gathering of general public and their discussion could be a way to resist oppression. Take a common scene under social movement context as an example: the oppressed is deified; their portraits have become a certain spiritual symbol. However, this method could diminish the feminine traits of the social movement itself, and gradually create another field for masculine ideology reproduction, aligned with the ideology of the oppressor. In my point of view, it could create a tendency so dangerous that the method and tools for oppression-resistance would go near to what the oppressors have manipulated. As a result the resistance becomes a mere formality.
旗幟作為一種群體意識的象徵，其出現往往伴隨了一個特殊的政治時刻，在過去的一些例子當中，旗幟直接對應了國族的想像，同時也因為國族所侷限的範疇引起爭議，比如說台灣目前所使用的中華民國國旗，在九十四年的使用歷史當中，經歷了政權的變遷與流亡，並且在離開當初設計旗幟的時空後逐漸喪失了象徵意義，所以在近年來引起了目前的國旗是否需要停止使用與重新設計的討論。
旗幟所出現的地方同時也影響了旗幟的性質與作用方式，機構內與機構外的旗幟擁有不同的設計方法，並間接影響了群眾的凝聚方式：當機構內尋求普世性的價值，並設計出一套直接對應於顏色與符號的視覺系統時，正透過從上而下的同化，形塑出制式的樣貌；而機構外的設計往往透過差異性的尋求，零碎的個人訊息，來解構這一個系統，並以此達成訊息傳達的目標，對於因此出現的諸眾而言，凝聚言論的共識並不是首要的追求目標，而是不斷地透過干擾主流媒體的傳播訊息來誕生出新的言論，並且透過討論來去除符號化的機構身體。
但在去除機構身體的過程裡，擴大個體的經驗，並且透過聚集人群與引發討論作為對抗的方法，比如說，英雄化受壓迫者，讓受壓迫者的肖像成為某種精神指標，成為社會運動當中常見的場景，同時也使得社會運動自身的陰性特質降低，並且逐漸成為一個相對於反抗對象的另一個陽剛話語生產的場所。對我而言這正逐漸形成一個極為危險的傾向：因為無法在工作所使用的工具與方法當中形成與反抗對象的差異性，相同的傾向最終將讓反抗流於形式。
旗幟所出現的地方同時也影響了旗幟的性質與作用方式，機構內與機構外的旗幟擁有不同的設計方法，並間接影響了群眾的凝聚方式：當機構內尋求普世性的價值，並設計出一套直接對應於顏色與符號的視覺系統時，正透過從上而下的同化，形塑出制式的樣貌；而機構外的設計往往透過差異性的尋求，零碎的個人訊息，來解構這一個系統，並以此達成訊息傳達的目標，對於因此出現的諸眾而言，凝聚言論的共識並不是首要的追求目標，而是不斷地透過干擾主流媒體的傳播訊息來誕生出新的言論，並且透過討論來去除符號化的機構身體。
但在去除機構身體的過程裡，擴大個體的經驗，並且透過聚集人群與引發討論作為對抗的方法，比如說，英雄化受壓迫者，讓受壓迫者的肖像成為某種精神指標，成為社會運動當中常見的場景，同時也使得社會運動自身的陰性特質降低，並且逐漸成為一個相對於反抗對象的另一個陽剛話語生產的場所。對我而言這正逐漸形成一個極為危險的傾向：因為無法在工作所使用的工具與方法當中形成與反抗對象的差異性，相同的傾向最終將讓反抗流於形式。
