New Generation
In 2007, in the forum planned and moderated by LIN Hong-John, titled “The Art of Frustration in Taiwan; or, Starting from the absence of Political Art” organized by the Artist magazine, WANG Sheng-Hung cautioned that the discussion about “Art of Frustration” might include the issue of generation. In another article of his articles, “Revisiting the Self-absorbed—About the Interpretation of ‘the Art of Frustration’ by the Young Generation,” Wang argues that such viewpoint based on “generation” should consider the complexity between different generations and the structural issue regarding art production. Amy CHENG Huei-Hua, in “The Role of the Avant-garde Art in Contemporary Society—Rethinking ‘Frustration’ and Political AwarenessArt in Art PracticeCreation,” states that discourses about the “Art of Frustration” seem to “target a generation” but “without specifying clearly a certain group. The overall discourses appear to target artists in the academic system… [These discourses] do not specify an age group or one generation from different disciplines… but tend to discuss the context and phenomenon within the academia.” KAO Chien-Hui, in her “Mustering the Q Power: The Production Context in the ‘Micro/Soft Discourse’ of Taiwan’s New Generation” of 2010, asserts that the nature of such generation-based discourses is tinted with a sense of generational struggle. Different from reviewing and teasing out the aesthetics of different periods, it reveals an “a priori speech,” which has been discussed extensively from 2001 to 2009: “The subject in the discussions about ‘the artistic aesthetics of the new generation’ in Taiwan mostly refers to those born in the 1970s and 1980s—namely, artists grew up in the post-Cold War period and a globalized context.” Terms associated with this group of artists include “Anime and Manga Generation,” “Weak Painting,” and “Art of Frustration.”
Regarding observations of the new generation from 2001 to 2009, in “Things You Will Not Learn in School—A Reading of Identity Imagination in ‘About the Orientation of 21st Century Artists,’” WANG Sheng-Hung believes that the art ecology at the time “often shows young artists producing a collective action consciousness similar to that of a generation or cohort, with which they package their own ideas or politicalness to sustain their visibility in the art circle.” In CHEN Hsiang-Wen’s “Reflection on the Discourses about the New Generation: All of Us Are Not Free,” the author comments on the new generation shaped by art exhibitions, reviews, and awards, stating that such gathering or grouping outside the academic scene still holds onto the way of forming groups defined by the departmentalization in academia or having specific figures as main leaders. This shows the fact that some of the young artists have not been able to free themselves from the dependence on academic resources. When the academia and the production of contemporary art become considerably overlapped, “a conflict between the sense of mission heralded by the avant-garde and the institution of academia” has occurred consequently. Moreover, the codependence between academic resources and artists could easily lead to a qualitative change of professional ethics, which, in turn, hinders the creation of new mechanisms and production methods. According to Chen, from 2006 to 2009, “CO-Q” and its publication, “SuperGeneration@Taiwan,” “About the Orientation of 21st Century Artists,” “Weak Painting,” the art group “Wonder Boyz,” and “POST.O: The Reverse of TOPOS” joined by Sponge Project were all examples of the new generation at that time. Furthermore, “if we hope to find a way out for the discourses about the new generation, we must first resolve the dependence on the resources. When responding to the discourses established by previous generations, whether artworks, reviews or curatorial projects should all be effective. Otherwise, these efforts would simply be an attempt at an ineffective solution.” In “Keyword: Generation,” Rikey CHENG Wen-Chi (Rikey Tēnn) points out the ineffectiveness of applying the generation-based classification to art. This is partly because we can hardly use age to outline the overall reality of people’s position in society, and partly due to the fact that the term “generation” is about the “past” rather than the “present”; as a result, it is and will always be pushed towards history by the constantly changing reality.(Text/Li Kuei-Pi/2021)
Reference
Regarding observations of the new generation from 2001 to 2009, in “Things You Will Not Learn in School—A Reading of Identity Imagination in ‘About the Orientation of 21st Century Artists,’” WANG Sheng-Hung believes that the art ecology at the time “often shows young artists producing a collective action consciousness similar to that of a generation or cohort, with which they package their own ideas or politicalness to sustain their visibility in the art circle.” In CHEN Hsiang-Wen’s “Reflection on the Discourses about the New Generation: All of Us Are Not Free,” the author comments on the new generation shaped by art exhibitions, reviews, and awards, stating that such gathering or grouping outside the academic scene still holds onto the way of forming groups defined by the departmentalization in academia or having specific figures as main leaders. This shows the fact that some of the young artists have not been able to free themselves from the dependence on academic resources. When the academia and the production of contemporary art become considerably overlapped, “a conflict between the sense of mission heralded by the avant-garde and the institution of academia” has occurred consequently. Moreover, the codependence between academic resources and artists could easily lead to a qualitative change of professional ethics, which, in turn, hinders the creation of new mechanisms and production methods. According to Chen, from 2006 to 2009, “CO-Q” and its publication, “SuperGeneration@Taiwan,” “About the Orientation of 21st Century Artists,” “Weak Painting,” the art group “Wonder Boyz,” and “POST.O: The Reverse of TOPOS” joined by Sponge Project were all examples of the new generation at that time. Furthermore, “if we hope to find a way out for the discourses about the new generation, we must first resolve the dependence on the resources. When responding to the discourses established by previous generations, whether artworks, reviews or curatorial projects should all be effective. Otherwise, these efforts would simply be an attempt at an ineffective solution.” In “Keyword: Generation,” Rikey CHENG Wen-Chi (Rikey Tēnn) points out the ineffectiveness of applying the generation-based classification to art. This is partly because we can hardly use age to outline the overall reality of people’s position in society, and partly due to the fact that the term “generation” is about the “past” rather than the “present”; as a result, it is and will always be pushed towards history by the constantly changing reality.(Text/Li Kuei-Pi/2021)
Reference
- KAO, Chien-Hui. “Mustering the Q Power: The Production Context in the ‘Micro/Soft Discourse’ of Taiwan’s New Generation.” Artco, no. 207, 2010, pp. 52-6.
- CHEN, Hsiang-Wen. “Reflection on the Discourses about the New Generation: All of Us Are Not Free.” Art Critique of Taiwan (ACT), no. 41, 2009.12, pp. 173-179.
- SUN, Xiao-Tong. “Lin Ping: To Appreciate the Art of the New Generation, You Must Be Shallow.” Cans Contemporary Art News, no. 50, 2009-03, pp. 88-9.
- CHENG, Amy Huei-Hua. “The Role of the Avant-garde Art in Contemporary Society—Rethinking ‘Frustration’ and PoliticalAwareness in Art Practice.” Artco, no. 178, 2007.7, pp. 146-8.
- WANG, Sheng-Hung. “Revisiting the Self-absorbed—About the Interpretation of ‘the Art of Frustration’ by the Young Generation.” Artco, no. 178, July 2007, pp. 149-52.
- CHENG, Rikey Wen-Chi. “Keyword: Generation.” the significant trivial things (blog).
新世代（New Generation）
在2007年由藝術家雜誌社主辦，林宏璋負責規劃主持的「頓挫藝術在台灣：或者，從政治藝術的缺席開始」的討論會當中，王聖閎提醒「頓挫藝術」可能存在著對於世代問題的視野，並且在文章〈再論喃喃自語—關於「頓挫藝術」中的年輕世代詮釋問題〉，提出「世代」的說法應面對世代間的複雜性，與藝術生產的結構性問題。鄭慧華也在〈前衛藝術在當代藝術中的角色–「頓挫」與創作中的政治意識再思考〉裡，認為頓挫藝術具備了「世代針對性」，但「［…］並沒有明確指出特定的族群，整體討論似是傾向於針對藝術學院系統的創作者…也並非明確地指稱一個年齡層，或指不同領域間的同一世代…比較傾向學院內的脈絡和現象探討［…］」。在高千惠2010年〈Q力量的集合—台灣新世代「微/軟論述」的生產情境〉中，認為世代論述的本質帶有世代鬥爭的色彩，不同於年代美學的整理，是一種「先驗性的言說」，在2001年至2009年間被大量討論，「［…］台灣『新世代的藝術美學』指稱對象，多泛指1970和1980年代出生—即後冷戰時期與全球化文化語境成長的創作者。」，相關的族群詞彙包含了「卡漫世代」、「弱繪畫」、「頓挫藝術」等。
對於2001至2009年間當時新世代的觀察，在〈那些學院不會教你/妳的事—閱讀『21世紀少年—游牧座標』的身分想像〉一文中，王聖閎認為當時的藝術生態「［…］越來越常看到年輕創作者凝聚出某種類似世代或是團塊的集體行動意識，來包裝自我的理念與政治性，並藉此維持他們在圈內活動的能見度」。在陳湘汶的〈新世代論述的反思：我們都不是自由的〉裡，評論受到展覽、評論及獎項所塑造的新世代面貌，認為學院外的集結或團體，仍未脫離學院中以系所劃分或特定對象為主要領導者的群聚方式，顯示了部分年輕創作者無法擺脫對於學院資源的依賴，當學院與當代藝術生產大量重疊時，「前衛的使命感與學院機制的矛盾」因此產生，而且學院資源與藝術家間所建立的共生關係容易使得專業倫理產生質變，阻礙新機制與生產方法的建立。她認為2006年到2009年間「CO-Q」的展覽與出版、展覽「小・碎・花・不—亂變新世代」、「21世紀少年—游牧座標」、「弱繪畫」、以及藝術團體萬德男孩、海綿計畫參與的展覽「後地方：地方性的逆轉」等都是當時新世代的例子，而「如果我們期望在新世代論述上尋找出口，要先擺脫對資源的依賴；回應前幾個世代建立起的論述，不論作品、評論或是策展都必須有效，否則也只是隔靴搔癢。」。在鄭文琦的文章〈世代〉中，則指出「世代」的分類方法難以在藝術中展現成效，是因為難以用年齡在社會中所佔據的位置來區分出整體面貌，也因為世代這個詞彙是關於「過去」的而非「現在」的，終將為不斷改變的現實推向歷史。
參考文獻
對於2001至2009年間當時新世代的觀察，在〈那些學院不會教你/妳的事—閱讀『21世紀少年—游牧座標』的身分想像〉一文中，王聖閎認為當時的藝術生態「［…］越來越常看到年輕創作者凝聚出某種類似世代或是團塊的集體行動意識，來包裝自我的理念與政治性，並藉此維持他們在圈內活動的能見度」。在陳湘汶的〈新世代論述的反思：我們都不是自由的〉裡，評論受到展覽、評論及獎項所塑造的新世代面貌，認為學院外的集結或團體，仍未脫離學院中以系所劃分或特定對象為主要領導者的群聚方式，顯示了部分年輕創作者無法擺脫對於學院資源的依賴，當學院與當代藝術生產大量重疊時，「前衛的使命感與學院機制的矛盾」因此產生，而且學院資源與藝術家間所建立的共生關係容易使得專業倫理產生質變，阻礙新機制與生產方法的建立。她認為2006年到2009年間「CO-Q」的展覽與出版、展覽「小・碎・花・不—亂變新世代」、「21世紀少年—游牧座標」、「弱繪畫」、以及藝術團體萬德男孩、海綿計畫參與的展覽「後地方：地方性的逆轉」等都是當時新世代的例子，而「如果我們期望在新世代論述上尋找出口，要先擺脫對資源的依賴；回應前幾個世代建立起的論述，不論作品、評論或是策展都必須有效，否則也只是隔靴搔癢。」。在鄭文琦的文章〈世代〉中，則指出「世代」的分類方法難以在藝術中展現成效，是因為難以用年齡在社會中所佔據的位置來區分出整體面貌，也因為世代這個詞彙是關於「過去」的而非「現在」的，終將為不斷改變的現實推向歷史。
參考文獻
- 高千惠，〈Q力量的集合—台灣新世代「微/軟論述」的生產情境〉，《典藏今藝術》，209期，頁52-56，2010.2。
- 陳湘汶，〈新世代論述的反思：我們都不是自由的〉，《藝術觀點》，41期，頁169-173，2009.12。
- 孫曉彤，〈林平：要欣賞新世代的藝術，你就必須很淺〉，《當代藝術新聞雜誌》，50期，頁88-89，2009.3。
- 鄭慧華，〈前衛藝術在當代社會中的角色—「頓挫」與創作中的政治意識再思考〉，《典藏今藝術》，178期，頁146-148，2007.7。
- 王聖閎，〈再論喃喃自語—關於「頓挫藝術」中的年輕世代詮釋問題〉，《典藏今藝術》，178期，頁149-152，2007.7。
- 鄭文琦，〈關鍵字：世代（○○世代）〉，the significant trivial things