Political Art
In “‘The Territory of Taiwan’ in Artistic Creation—Political Art in Taiwan,” SUN Li-Chuan mentions that political art “[…] uses art, together with personal artistic ideas and vocabularies, to convert issues of nation, ethnic group, society, history and culture, along with observations of social environment, to examine or deal with the object at large faced by artists.” In his article, entitled […] “A Passionate Eye on Politics, and a Cold Eye on Art—Two Creative Examples in ‘Exhibition of Taiwanese Political Art,’” SHIH Jui-Jen states that the rise of political art in Taiwan is related to the lifting of martial law in 1987. The definition of political art is broad: “[…] Any artwork that exposes problems of reality and attempts to convey a certain stance and viewpoint […]” could be classified as political art. In “A Way Out for New Political Art,” LIN Chi-Ming borrows the argument formulated by the French art historian and art critic, Dominique Baqué, in her Pour un nouvel art politique: De l'art contemporain au documentaire, and asserts that artists placing an emphasis on authenticity and documentation because “[…] it gives political art the space and form to be realized overall.”
Political art usually reflects directly the political reality faced by artists. CHEN Tai-Sung, in his article “The Poetics of Periphery—Politicizing Taiwan-ness,” responds to the idea of “a non-national nation” stated by LIN Hong-John in his comments on the Taiwan Pavilion in the 52nd Venice Biennale, “ATOPIA.” Chen argues that political art has never been absent in Taiwan but instead appeared in a form that is more difficult to detect. However, because artists were confined by the conundrum stemming from the issue of national subjectivity, they shifted to symbolism, which was converted into their expression, and eventually found themselves in an embarrassing circumstance of not being able to deepen their work. In the same year, in “Political Art is (Not) Absent in Taiwan: Sacrificing the Other for Others” included in the March issue of Artco Monthly, “The Art of Frustration in Taiwan,” CHEN Tai-Sung states that after the artists were faced with the helplessness of political reality at the time, they started adopting the strategy of parody and playing dead to blend into the system to wait for opportunities for future actions.
The 2008 Taipei Biennial co-curated by Manray HSU and Vasif KORTUN focused on issues of border, migration, confrontation, informal politics, and urban transformation. Meanwhile, the biennial also included a forum co-organized with the German collaborative platform, “Dictionary of War,” which invited artists, scientists, and social activists to discuss the conflicts and power competition taking place at the time. The 2010 Taipei Biennial co-curated by LIN Hong-John and Tirdad ZOLGHADR, on the other hand, pointed out the difference between political art and “[…] the politicalness of art”—political art refers to the content and function of art as well as its relationship with people, whereas the politicalness of art “points to the internality of art and reveals its production, consumption and modes of circulation… It is about how art constitutes and creates itself.[…]”
The extensive discussions and shift in issues brought about by political art have also prompted reflection. In “Reflection on the Thermal Phenomenon of Political Art,” CHEN Chiao contends that forms attached to the information system could possibly erase pre-linguistic experiences existing outside the meaning system. LIN Chi-Ming, on the other hand, points out the dilemma faced by political art: “[…] On the one hand, [political art] will always find itself faced with the call of political parties for its service at certain moments; and on the other hand, if it maintains its purity, then the art of revolution could only remain revolutionary art, moving away from people and unable to change reality.”
Reference
Political art usually reflects directly the political reality faced by artists. CHEN Tai-Sung, in his article “The Poetics of Periphery—Politicizing Taiwan-ness,” responds to the idea of “a non-national nation” stated by LIN Hong-John in his comments on the Taiwan Pavilion in the 52nd Venice Biennale, “ATOPIA.” Chen argues that political art has never been absent in Taiwan but instead appeared in a form that is more difficult to detect. However, because artists were confined by the conundrum stemming from the issue of national subjectivity, they shifted to symbolism, which was converted into their expression, and eventually found themselves in an embarrassing circumstance of not being able to deepen their work. In the same year, in “Political Art is (Not) Absent in Taiwan: Sacrificing the Other for Others” included in the March issue of Artco Monthly, “The Art of Frustration in Taiwan,” CHEN Tai-Sung states that after the artists were faced with the helplessness of political reality at the time, they started adopting the strategy of parody and playing dead to blend into the system to wait for opportunities for future actions.
The 2008 Taipei Biennial co-curated by Manray HSU and Vasif KORTUN focused on issues of border, migration, confrontation, informal politics, and urban transformation. Meanwhile, the biennial also included a forum co-organized with the German collaborative platform, “Dictionary of War,” which invited artists, scientists, and social activists to discuss the conflicts and power competition taking place at the time. The 2010 Taipei Biennial co-curated by LIN Hong-John and Tirdad ZOLGHADR, on the other hand, pointed out the difference between political art and “[…] the politicalness of art”—political art refers to the content and function of art as well as its relationship with people, whereas the politicalness of art “points to the internality of art and reveals its production, consumption and modes of circulation… It is about how art constitutes and creates itself.[…]”
The extensive discussions and shift in issues brought about by political art have also prompted reflection. In “Reflection on the Thermal Phenomenon of Political Art,” CHEN Chiao contends that forms attached to the information system could possibly erase pre-linguistic experiences existing outside the meaning system. LIN Chi-Ming, on the other hand, points out the dilemma faced by political art: “[…] On the one hand, [political art] will always find itself faced with the call of political parties for its service at certain moments; and on the other hand, if it maintains its purity, then the art of revolution could only remain revolutionary art, moving away from people and unable to change reality.”
Reference
- CHEN, Chiao. “Reflection on the Thermal Phenomenon of Political Art.” Artist, no. 436, 2011.9, pp. 168-71.
- CHEN, Tai-Sung. “The Poetics of Periphery—Politicizing Taiwan-ness.” 52nd La Biennale di Venezia, Taiwan: ATOPIA. Ed. CHANG Fang-Wei. Taipei Fine Arts Museum, 2007.
- CHEN, Tai-Sung. “Political Art is (Not) Absent in Taiwan: Sacrificing the Other for Others.” Artco Monthly, no. 174, 2007.3, pp. 134-7.
- LIN, Chi-Ming. “A Way Out for New Political Art.” The Journalist, no. 931, 2005.1, pp. 104-5.
- SHIH, Jui-Jen. “A Passionate Eye on Politics, and a Cold Eye on Art—Two Creative Examples in ‘Exhibition of Taiwanese Political Art.’” Artist, no. 327, 2002.8, pp. 406-9.
- SUN, Li-Chuan. “‘The Territory of Taiwan’ in Artistic Creation—Political Art in Taiwan.” Dragon: An Art Monthly, no. 82, 1996.11, pp. 88-91.
- “About the 2010 Taipei Biennial.” Website of the 2010 Taipei Biennial.
- “International Forum of the 2008 Taipei Biennial: Dictionary of War.” Website of the 2008 Taipei Biennial.
政治藝術（Political Art）
孫立銓在〈美術創作中的「臺灣版圖」–談台灣的政治性藝術〉中提到政治藝術「［…］以藝術的身分，將國家、族群、社會、歷史、文化等議題的轉變，及對社會環境的觀察，以個人的藝術理念與藝術語彙，來檢視或面對藝術家所面對的大我客體［…」」。石瑞仁在〈熱眼看政治，冷眼看藝術—從「台灣政治藝術展」的兩種創作實例談起〉中，認為政治藝術在台灣的興起與1987年的解嚴相關，政治藝術的定義廣闊，「［…］凡是牽涉到現實問題的揭發，意在傳達某種立場見解的藝術創作［…］」，都可以含括在內。林志明在〈新政治藝術的出路〉一文中，借用法國藝術史學者與評論家多明尼克・巴給（Dominique Baque）在《邁向一種新的政治藝術：由當代藝術到紀錄形式》的說法，認為藝術家對於真實與記錄的著重，「［…］其整體的意義則在於政治性藝術重新得到了施展的空間和形式。」
政治藝術通常直接反映了藝術家所處的政治現實，在陳泰松2007年〈邊境詩學的政治性在台灣〉這篇文章中，對於林宏璋在第52屆威尼斯雙年展台灣館「非域之境」展覽中所提及的「非國家性的國家」的概念做出回應，認為政治性藝術在臺灣從未缺席，而是以另外一種更不易為人所察覺的形式出現。只是因為藝術家受限於國家主體性的困境，轉而以符號化的形式作為表達方式，卻困在難以深入窘境裡。同年，在典藏今藝術三月份的專題「頓挫藝術在台灣」裡，陳泰松另外一篇文章〈政治藝術在台灣的（不）缺席：犧牲大他，完成小他！〉也提及了當時藝術家在面對政治現實的無可作為後，以擬仿、裝死混入體制，伺機擾動的策略。
在徐文瑞與瓦希夫‧寇東（Vasif Kortun）共同策畫的「2008台北雙年展」關注於疆界、遷移、對抗、非正式的政治、都會轉型等議題，並與德國的「戰爭辭典」 (Dictionary of War)合作舉辦論壇，邀請藝術家、科學家、社會運動者共同探討發生在當下的衝突與權力競逐。由林宏璋與提達‧佐赫德（Tirdad Zolghadr）共同策畫的「2010台北雙年展」則指出了政治藝術與「藝術的政治性」的不同，認為政治藝術指向藝術的內容、功用與人民關係，而藝術的政治性「［…］指向藝術的內部，顯示藝術的製造、消費及流通模式。［…］是藝術本身如何構造自身的方式，［…］」。
政治藝術所形成的大量討論與議題轉向，也引起了反思，在陳蕉的〈政治藝術熱現象反思〉中，認為帶有依附於訊息系統的形式，使位於意義系統之外的前語言經驗可能因此受到抹消；林志明則指出了政治藝術的兩難「［…］一方面，他們總會在特定時刻面臨黨要求為其服務的召喚；另一方面，如維持其純粹性，則革命的藝術祇能是革命性的藝術，遠離群眾而無法改造現實。」
參考文獻
政治藝術通常直接反映了藝術家所處的政治現實，在陳泰松2007年〈邊境詩學的政治性在台灣〉這篇文章中，對於林宏璋在第52屆威尼斯雙年展台灣館「非域之境」展覽中所提及的「非國家性的國家」的概念做出回應，認為政治性藝術在臺灣從未缺席，而是以另外一種更不易為人所察覺的形式出現。只是因為藝術家受限於國家主體性的困境，轉而以符號化的形式作為表達方式，卻困在難以深入窘境裡。同年，在典藏今藝術三月份的專題「頓挫藝術在台灣」裡，陳泰松另外一篇文章〈政治藝術在台灣的（不）缺席：犧牲大他，完成小他！〉也提及了當時藝術家在面對政治現實的無可作為後，以擬仿、裝死混入體制，伺機擾動的策略。
在徐文瑞與瓦希夫‧寇東（Vasif Kortun）共同策畫的「2008台北雙年展」關注於疆界、遷移、對抗、非正式的政治、都會轉型等議題，並與德國的「戰爭辭典」 (Dictionary of War)合作舉辦論壇，邀請藝術家、科學家、社會運動者共同探討發生在當下的衝突與權力競逐。由林宏璋與提達‧佐赫德（Tirdad Zolghadr）共同策畫的「2010台北雙年展」則指出了政治藝術與「藝術的政治性」的不同，認為政治藝術指向藝術的內容、功用與人民關係，而藝術的政治性「［…］指向藝術的內部，顯示藝術的製造、消費及流通模式。［…］是藝術本身如何構造自身的方式，［…］」。
政治藝術所形成的大量討論與議題轉向，也引起了反思，在陳蕉的〈政治藝術熱現象反思〉中，認為帶有依附於訊息系統的形式，使位於意義系統之外的前語言經驗可能因此受到抹消；林志明則指出了政治藝術的兩難「［…］一方面，他們總會在特定時刻面臨黨要求為其服務的召喚；另一方面，如維持其純粹性，則革命的藝術祇能是革命性的藝術，遠離群眾而無法改造現實。」
參考文獻
- 陳蕉，〈政治藝術熱現象反思〉，藝術家，436期，頁168-171，2011.9。
- 陳泰松，〈邊境詩學的政治性在台灣〉，張芳薇主編，《第52屆威尼斯雙年展：藝術現在式—知覺思考，心智感受；台灣館-非域之境》，臺北市立北美館，2007。
- 陳泰松，〈政治藝術在台灣的（不）缺席：犧牲大他，完成小他！〉，典藏今藝術，174期，頁134-137，2007.3。
- 林志明，〈新政治藝術的出路〉，新新聞，931期，頁104-105，2005.1。
- 石瑞仁，〈熱眼看政治，冷眼看藝術—從「台灣政治藝術展」的兩種創作實例談起〉，藝術家，327期，頁406-409，2002.8。
- 孫立銓，〈美術創作中的「臺灣版圖」–談台灣的政治性藝術〉，炎黃藝術，第82期，頁88-91，1996.11。
- 〈2010臺北雙年展展覽論述〉，2010臺北雙年展網站
- 〈2008臺北雙年展國際論壇：戰爭辭典〉，2008臺北雙年展網站