Controversies Surrounding The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art
The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art originated from a plan to demolish “Ri Mao Hang” (日茂行), an old shipping firm (traditionally known as “chuantou hang” [船頭行]) in Lukang Township, of which its historical architecture was damaged due to construction of urban planning in 1997. The incident caught the attention of local people and cultural-historical workers, who subsequently launched a rescue initiative to salvage the historical buildings. With the coordination of the Taiwan Provincial Government’s Department of Culture, a joint team was formed, which comprised the Lukang Township Office, Huafan University’s Department of Architecture, the Studio of Space, Culture, and Social Development (空間文化與社會發展研究室), and the Lukang-based Rimao Studio (日茂工作室). The Lukang Township Office first commissioned an urban renewal plan, which was funded by the Taiwan Provincial Government’s Department of Culture, and invited Tseng Tse-Fong, who was then associate professor at Huafan University’s Department of Architecture, to chair the project, titled “Urban Renewal Overall Planning for Preserving the Historical Area of Ri Mao Hang in Lukang” (鹿港日茂行歷史城區保存都市更新整體規劃). The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art was part of the project, and was curated by Huang Hai-Ming, who had already collaborated with the Taiwan Provincial Government’s Department of Culture for multiple times back then. According to Tseng, the purpose of holding the installation art exhibition was to “stimulate and revitalize people’s ‘imagination’ of the historical space, which would become the foundation and vision of people in Lukang in terms of their imagination of local development in the future.”
The exhibition featured eleven artists, namely, Ku Shi-Yong, Lien Pao-Tsai, Wu Tien-Chang, Hwang Buh-Ching, and Chen Sheng-Chih, who were all born in Changhua, as well as Fang Wei-Wen-, Kuo Bor-Jou, Chuang Ming-Chi, Huang Ming-Chuan, Lo Sen-Hao, and Chen Bo-Nian (architect). During three consecutive months, they traveled to Lukang every weekend for field survey, and talked to the locals before eventually proposing their art projects. At that time, the exhibition was planned to be presented in the space and streets around Ri Mao Hang for a duration of nearly one year. However, shortly after the exhibition opened, some works were objected by the locals, and conflicts emerged. At first, Chuang Ming-Chi’s work, Wake Up! Lukang (醒來吧！鹿港), which comprised writings in a tongue-in-cheek, provocative style posted on street walls, along with many images of eyes, angered the locals, and was reported by environmentalists. Then, the locals demanded the exhibition venue of Lien Pao-Tsai’s Prosperity and Peace—Following the Footprints of History (國泰民安—溯著歷史的足跡), which showed a religious statue covered in bank notes, should be changed. Lo Sen-Hao’s New Favorite and Old Flame (新歡舊愛) was accused by the Lukang Township Office for violating the Water Act. Hwang Buh-Ching’s Memories of the Ocean (海水的記憶), Chen Sheng-Chih’s Lobotomy (蘿蔔偷蜜), and Ku Shi-Yong’s January 1st, 2001, the Road Home (2001年1月1日—回家的路上) were all moved and damaged by people. As a result, the curatorial team had no choice but to temporarily de-insrall Prosperity and Peace—Following the Footprints of History and other works.
Facing a series of conflicts with the local community, Huang Hai-Ming stated that “a new power could contrarily emerge from these real conflicts.” However, this statement also invited further questioning: “Who has this new power?” and “Who gets to collect and accumulate this new power?” After local residents, the village chief, and Tseng Tse-Fong convened a negotiation meeting, a community development organization – the Xingong Village Historic Block Empowerment and Development Committee (新宮里歷史街區再造發展委員會), with local residents as its primary members, was established. Meanwhile, Rimao Studio was asked to design talk series and related activities, which invited professionals to share about topics related to community development, local aesthetics, and contemporary art. In September, after “Rimao Feast—Filming the Community,” the exhibition was resumed with all the works displayed again on the square in front of Ri Mao Hang. In the same year, Wang Mo-Lin wrote in “Where is the Way Out for Avant-garde Art?—Thoughts on the Incident Concerning the Installation Art in Lukang” (前衛藝術的出路在哪裡？──鹿港裝置藝術事件我見我思), stating that the incident would “surely create a more expansive space for critical thinking. In the post-martial law society in Taiwan, such a space of critical thinking should indeed be accepted. Democratic social practice could only be achieved through the constant recurrences of and reflection upon controversies.”
References
The exhibition featured eleven artists, namely, Ku Shi-Yong, Lien Pao-Tsai, Wu Tien-Chang, Hwang Buh-Ching, and Chen Sheng-Chih, who were all born in Changhua, as well as Fang Wei-Wen-, Kuo Bor-Jou, Chuang Ming-Chi, Huang Ming-Chuan, Lo Sen-Hao, and Chen Bo-Nian (architect). During three consecutive months, they traveled to Lukang every weekend for field survey, and talked to the locals before eventually proposing their art projects. At that time, the exhibition was planned to be presented in the space and streets around Ri Mao Hang for a duration of nearly one year. However, shortly after the exhibition opened, some works were objected by the locals, and conflicts emerged. At first, Chuang Ming-Chi’s work, Wake Up! Lukang (醒來吧！鹿港), which comprised writings in a tongue-in-cheek, provocative style posted on street walls, along with many images of eyes, angered the locals, and was reported by environmentalists. Then, the locals demanded the exhibition venue of Lien Pao-Tsai’s Prosperity and Peace—Following the Footprints of History (國泰民安—溯著歷史的足跡), which showed a religious statue covered in bank notes, should be changed. Lo Sen-Hao’s New Favorite and Old Flame (新歡舊愛) was accused by the Lukang Township Office for violating the Water Act. Hwang Buh-Ching’s Memories of the Ocean (海水的記憶), Chen Sheng-Chih’s Lobotomy (蘿蔔偷蜜), and Ku Shi-Yong’s January 1st, 2001, the Road Home (2001年1月1日—回家的路上) were all moved and damaged by people. As a result, the curatorial team had no choice but to temporarily de-insrall Prosperity and Peace—Following the Footprints of History and other works.
Facing a series of conflicts with the local community, Huang Hai-Ming stated that “a new power could contrarily emerge from these real conflicts.” However, this statement also invited further questioning: “Who has this new power?” and “Who gets to collect and accumulate this new power?” After local residents, the village chief, and Tseng Tse-Fong convened a negotiation meeting, a community development organization – the Xingong Village Historic Block Empowerment and Development Committee (新宮里歷史街區再造發展委員會), with local residents as its primary members, was established. Meanwhile, Rimao Studio was asked to design talk series and related activities, which invited professionals to share about topics related to community development, local aesthetics, and contemporary art. In September, after “Rimao Feast—Filming the Community,” the exhibition was resumed with all the works displayed again on the square in front of Ri Mao Hang. In the same year, Wang Mo-Lin wrote in “Where is the Way Out for Avant-garde Art?—Thoughts on the Incident Concerning the Installation Art in Lukang” (前衛藝術的出路在哪裡？──鹿港裝置藝術事件我見我思), stating that the incident would “surely create a more expansive space for critical thinking. In the post-martial law society in Taiwan, such a space of critical thinking should indeed be accepted. Democratic social practice could only be achieved through the constant recurrences of and reflection upon controversies.”
References
- Huang, Hai-Ming. “Representing Historical Space – Ri Mao Hang in Lukang—The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art.” Artist, no. 48, January 1999, pp. 368-9.
- Chen, Yi-Chun. “Are You an Insider or an Outsider?—A Record of The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art in Lukang.” ARTouch, no. 78, March 1999, pp. 252-6.
- Chen, Wen-Pin. “Wake Up! Artists.” Taiwan Daily, January 1999.
- Huang, Hai-Ming. “The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art.” Central Region Office of Council for Cultural Affairs, Executive Yuan, 2000.
- “Where Is Lukang’s ‘Heart of History?’ Who Gets to Define It? Who Gets to Tear it Down?”
「歷史之心」裝置藝術大展爭議（Controversies Surrounding The Heart of History – Exhibition of Installation Art）
「歷史之心」裝置藝術大展源自於1997年鹿港鎮的舊船頭行遺址「日茂行」因都市計畫導致的歷史建築損壞並面臨拆除的事件。該事件引起地方居民與文史工作者對於歷史建物的搶救行動，後來經臺灣省文化處協調，由鹿港鎮公所、華梵大學建築系、空間文化與社會發展研究室及鹿港日茂工作室組成聯合小組，經鹿港鎮公所委外提出都市再造計畫，由台灣省文化處提供經費，邀請時任華梵大學建築系副教授的曾梓峰主持「鹿港日茂行歷史城區保存都市更新整體規劃」，而「歷史之心—裝置藝術大展」為計畫的一部分，並由當時已經與省政府文化處有多次合作經驗的黃海鳴擔任總策畫。曾梓峰認為舉辦裝置藝術大展的目的：「在於激發和活化民眾對於歷史空間的『想像』並進一步成為鹿港民眾對於未來地方發展想像的基礎與視野。」
該展覽共邀請了顧世勇、連寶猜、吳天章、黃步青、陳昇志等出生於彰化的藝術家，以及方偉文、郭博洲、莊明旗、黃明川、羅森豪，與建築師陳柏年共十一人參與。透過連續三個月每週末往返鹿港進行實地探勘，與居民間的對話作為發想，提出作品。當時預期在日茂行四週空間與街道上展出近一年，但作品在展出後不久隨即引起居民的異議與衝突：起先莊明旗的作品《醒來吧！鹿港》因採諧謔、挑釁的方式書寫文宣品張貼在街道牆壁上，伴隨大量眼睛圖像，引起居民的不滿與環保人士舉發；接著連寶猜的作品《國泰民安—溯著歷史的足跡》因將宗教塑像覆上鈔票外衣，遭居民要求更換展示地點；羅森豪的作品《新歡舊愛》遭鹿港鎮公所控告違反水利法；黃步青的《海水的記憶》、陳昇志的《蘿蔔偷蜜》與顧世勇的《2001年1月1日—回家的路上》皆遭到民眾的移動與破壞，策展團隊不得不暫時撤出《國泰民安—溯著歷史的足跡》等作品。
面對一連串與在地間的衝突，黃海鳴認為「在這些真實的衝突中，反而可以產生新的力量」，但此一說法當時也引起「新的力量是誰的力量？」以及「新的力量累積到誰身上？」的疑慮。後來經在地居民、里長及曾梓峰協商，召開工作協調會議，成立以居民為主的社區發展組織「新宮里歷史街區再造發展委員會」，同時請日茂行工作室擬定系列講座及相關活動，邀請專業人士分享社區營造、地方美學、當代藝術等相關內容，在九月舉辦「日茂饗宴—社區開麥 拉」後，全部作品才在日茂行廣場前復展。同年，王墨林在文章〈前衛藝術的出路在哪裡？──鹿港裝置藝術事件我見我思〉中認為此事件：「勢必打造出一個更寬廣的思辯空間，在解嚴後的臺灣社會，這樣的思辯空間更是應該被接納的。民主的社會實踐，只有通過爭議不斷地發生到思辯才能完成。」
參考文獻
該展覽共邀請了顧世勇、連寶猜、吳天章、黃步青、陳昇志等出生於彰化的藝術家，以及方偉文、郭博洲、莊明旗、黃明川、羅森豪，與建築師陳柏年共十一人參與。透過連續三個月每週末往返鹿港進行實地探勘，與居民間的對話作為發想，提出作品。當時預期在日茂行四週空間與街道上展出近一年，但作品在展出後不久隨即引起居民的異議與衝突：起先莊明旗的作品《醒來吧！鹿港》因採諧謔、挑釁的方式書寫文宣品張貼在街道牆壁上，伴隨大量眼睛圖像，引起居民的不滿與環保人士舉發；接著連寶猜的作品《國泰民安—溯著歷史的足跡》因將宗教塑像覆上鈔票外衣，遭居民要求更換展示地點；羅森豪的作品《新歡舊愛》遭鹿港鎮公所控告違反水利法；黃步青的《海水的記憶》、陳昇志的《蘿蔔偷蜜》與顧世勇的《2001年1月1日—回家的路上》皆遭到民眾的移動與破壞，策展團隊不得不暫時撤出《國泰民安—溯著歷史的足跡》等作品。
面對一連串與在地間的衝突，黃海鳴認為「在這些真實的衝突中，反而可以產生新的力量」，但此一說法當時也引起「新的力量是誰的力量？」以及「新的力量累積到誰身上？」的疑慮。後來經在地居民、里長及曾梓峰協商，召開工作協調會議，成立以居民為主的社區發展組織「新宮里歷史街區再造發展委員會」，同時請日茂行工作室擬定系列講座及相關活動，邀請專業人士分享社區營造、地方美學、當代藝術等相關內容，在九月舉辦「日茂饗宴—社區開麥 拉」後，全部作品才在日茂行廣場前復展。同年，王墨林在文章〈前衛藝術的出路在哪裡？──鹿港裝置藝術事件我見我思〉中認為此事件：「勢必打造出一個更寬廣的思辯空間，在解嚴後的臺灣社會，這樣的思辯空間更是應該被接納的。民主的社會實踐，只有通過爭議不斷地發生到思辯才能完成。」
參考文獻
- 黃海鳴，〈重現鹿港「日茂行」歷史空間—「歷史之心」裝置藝術大展〉，《藝術家》48期，頁368-369，1999.01。
- 陳宜君，〈看熱鬧﹖還是看門道﹖--鹿港「歷史之心裝置藝術大展」紀實〉，《典藏藝術》78期，頁252-256，1999.03。
- 陳文彬，〈醒來吧！藝術家〉，《台灣日報》，1999.01。
- 黃海鳴，《歷史之心裝置藝術大展》，文建會中部辦公室，2000。
- 鹿港的「歷史之心」何在？由誰定義？由誰拆除？