Publicness
The word “publicness” is derived from the word “public.” Its classical meaning, according to the American expert in public administration, H. George Frederickson, stems from two Greek words: The first one is “pubes,” which means “mature or adult” and emphasizes on shifting one’s attention from self-care or personal interest to the interest of other people, indicating an understanding of the importance between one’s relations to others and therefore deriving the meaning of “collective or communal.” Its another Greek root is “koinon,” stemming from “komois,” which means “care” and is the etymological root of the English word “common.”
The attention to “publicness” in Taiwanese contemporary art could perhaps be comprehended in relation to the changes of cultural policies as well as the promotion and exhibition of specific genres of art. The former includes “cultural civil right” proposed by the Council of Cultural Affairs and related community empowerment projects in 2005. In the article, “From Space to Place—Reflection on the Publicity of Contemporary Art in Taiwan,” KUO Pi-Tzu examines and teases out the concepts frequently discussed in the discussions about publicness, which include “intervene,” “participatory,” “new genre public art,” and “dialogue-based creation.” In “Happy Empowerment Workers,” TSENG Shu-Cheng points out that “public participation,” following the development of democratization, has become a popular claim in many fields, for instance, community construction, public art, public policy, social education, etc. The examples of exhibitions named by the author include the “Kaohsiung International Container Arts Festival” (2005), the “4th City on the Move Art Festival” (2006), “Very Fun Park II” (2007), “Art as Environment - A Cultural Action on Tropic of Cancer” (2007), as well as various projects involving “artistic construction of streets” and “art intervention in space.”
Among the critical reviews about the “Kaohsiung International Container Arts Festival,” JANG Jing-Yuh states in her article that “containers become a construction instrument through living, artistic or playful imaginations, and enable an exploration of the collective imagination in the city through the participation of citizens living in the city.” CHEN Ru-Pyng and HSIAO Chong-Ray consider the exhibition form of the container art festival to be “inscribed with historical memories of the city.” Jo HSIAO, the curator of the “City on the Move Art Festival,” quotes American art critic and curator Jeff Kelley’s viewpoint and argues that “a site is closely formed through memories created by some individuals’ and the public’s collective values in a certain place, which have been maintained for a long period of time.” To HSIUNG Chuan-Hui, the primary purpose for “Very Fun Park” to go into community is to “construct the collective communal memories.” A similar concept is also found in the article discussing the self-construction of the Togo Rural Village Art Museum: in TSENG Shu-Cheng’s “Continually Producing Public Arts—The Inspiration of To-Go Self-constructing Experience,” the author asserts that “the process of self-construction is also a process of ‘continually producing publicness.’”
The process of “communication” and “interaction” often forms the core of discussions about the publicness of exhibitions to prompt people’s reflection. When reviewing “Art as Environment - A Cultural Action on Tropic of Cancer,” CHIEN I-Ming argues that “elitism and closed, arbitrary definition and framework of art will inevitably be questioned and shelved. The formation of a text of art in such process and action will gradually move towards a result that is open, dialogue-prone and intertextual.” Jason WANG Chia-Chi uses the “Kaohsiung International Container Arts Festival” as an example to point out the crisis behind interaction: “an exhibition designed in the name of ‘interaction’ would often degrade into an event in which the pubic wreak havoc in the end…How should the container arts festival achieve a balance between unadulterated artistic creation and the functionality of providing a playground?” In her discussion about public art, community construction, art as social intervention and “art as social interaction,” KUO Pi-Tzu asserts that “while cultivating civil aesthetics in the name of art, only a few people would reflect on what imagination stemming from ‘a collective lack’ has driven all those interconnected lives involved in such a form of connection, participation and interaction to work together.”
References
The attention to “publicness” in Taiwanese contemporary art could perhaps be comprehended in relation to the changes of cultural policies as well as the promotion and exhibition of specific genres of art. The former includes “cultural civil right” proposed by the Council of Cultural Affairs and related community empowerment projects in 2005. In the article, “From Space to Place—Reflection on the Publicity of Contemporary Art in Taiwan,” KUO Pi-Tzu examines and teases out the concepts frequently discussed in the discussions about publicness, which include “intervene,” “participatory,” “new genre public art,” and “dialogue-based creation.” In “Happy Empowerment Workers,” TSENG Shu-Cheng points out that “public participation,” following the development of democratization, has become a popular claim in many fields, for instance, community construction, public art, public policy, social education, etc. The examples of exhibitions named by the author include the “Kaohsiung International Container Arts Festival” (2005), the “4th City on the Move Art Festival” (2006), “Very Fun Park II” (2007), “Art as Environment - A Cultural Action on Tropic of Cancer” (2007), as well as various projects involving “artistic construction of streets” and “art intervention in space.”
Among the critical reviews about the “Kaohsiung International Container Arts Festival,” JANG Jing-Yuh states in her article that “containers become a construction instrument through living, artistic or playful imaginations, and enable an exploration of the collective imagination in the city through the participation of citizens living in the city.” CHEN Ru-Pyng and HSIAO Chong-Ray consider the exhibition form of the container art festival to be “inscribed with historical memories of the city.” Jo HSIAO, the curator of the “City on the Move Art Festival,” quotes American art critic and curator Jeff Kelley’s viewpoint and argues that “a site is closely formed through memories created by some individuals’ and the public’s collective values in a certain place, which have been maintained for a long period of time.” To HSIUNG Chuan-Hui, the primary purpose for “Very Fun Park” to go into community is to “construct the collective communal memories.” A similar concept is also found in the article discussing the self-construction of the Togo Rural Village Art Museum: in TSENG Shu-Cheng’s “Continually Producing Public Arts—The Inspiration of To-Go Self-constructing Experience,” the author asserts that “the process of self-construction is also a process of ‘continually producing publicness.’”
The process of “communication” and “interaction” often forms the core of discussions about the publicness of exhibitions to prompt people’s reflection. When reviewing “Art as Environment - A Cultural Action on Tropic of Cancer,” CHIEN I-Ming argues that “elitism and closed, arbitrary definition and framework of art will inevitably be questioned and shelved. The formation of a text of art in such process and action will gradually move towards a result that is open, dialogue-prone and intertextual.” Jason WANG Chia-Chi uses the “Kaohsiung International Container Arts Festival” as an example to point out the crisis behind interaction: “an exhibition designed in the name of ‘interaction’ would often degrade into an event in which the pubic wreak havoc in the end…How should the container arts festival achieve a balance between unadulterated artistic creation and the functionality of providing a playground?” In her discussion about public art, community construction, art as social intervention and “art as social interaction,” KUO Pi-Tzu asserts that “while cultivating civil aesthetics in the name of art, only a few people would reflect on what imagination stemming from ‘a collective lack’ has driven all those interconnected lives involved in such a form of connection, participation and interaction to work together.”
References
- KUO, Pi-Tzu. “From Space to Place—Reflection on the Publicity of Contemporary Art in Taiwan.” Art Critique of Taiwan, no. 62, 2015.4, pp. 146-9.
- TSENG, Shu-Cheng. “Continually Producing Public Arts—The Inspiration of To-Go Self-constructing Experience.” Public Art Newsletter, no. 70, 2006.4, pp. 4-7.
- CHANG, Ching-Wen. “Art Criticisms about ‘Publicness’ from 2007 to 2008: An Inducive Reading, Part 1.” Writing about Art, Official website of Dimension. Endowment of Art.
- CHANG, Ching-Wen. “Art Criticisms about ‘Publicness’ from 2007 to 2008: An Inducive Reading, Part 2.” Writing about Art, Official website of Dimension. Endowment of Art.
公共性（Publicness）
公共性（publicnesss）一字在英文中來自於公共（public），其古典意義按美國公共行政專家福雷德里克森（H. George Frederickson） 的說法，來自於兩個希臘文：「pubes」，意思為「成熟」，強調從自我關心或個人利益的關注中移轉到他人的利益上，理解個人與他人關聯的重要性，衍伸出「共同的」意思；另一希臘文為「koinon」，來自於「komois」，意思為「關心」，同時也是英文「common」的字源。
臺灣當代藝術對於「公共性」的關注，或可從文化政策層面的轉變、特定類型藝術的推動與展覽等層面來理解。政策層面上如2005年文建會提出的「文化公民權」及相關的社居總體營造等；郭璧慈在〈從空間到地方—反思台灣當代藝術的公共性〉一文中，整理出「介入」（intervene）、「參與式」、「新類型公共藝術」、「對話型創作」等經常在提及公共性時所討論的概念；曾旭正在〈幸福的營造者〉一文中指出，伴隨著民主化的發展，「民眾參與」成為許多領域熱門的主張，如社區營造、公共藝術、公共政策、社會教育等。相關展覽案例包括「高雄國際貨櫃藝術節」（2005）、「第四屆城市行動藝術節」（2006）、「粉樂町Ⅱ」（2007）、「嘉義縣北回歸線環境藝術行動」（2007）等，及各項「藝術造街」與「藝術介入空間」型態的展演等。
在「高雄國際貨櫃藝術節」相關的評論裡，張金玉的文章指出藝術節「以生活化、藝術性或遊戲性進行想像，貨櫃成為一種營造工具，藉由生活在城市中的公民參與，開發城市的集體想像。」，陳茹萍、蕭瓊瑞認為貨櫃藝術節的展演形式「刻記著城市歷史記憶」。「城市行動藝術節」的策展人蕭淑文引用美國藝評兼策展人傑夫・凱利（Jeff Kelley）的觀點，認為「一個場所是由一個地點中，一些個人和大眾共同的價值觀，經過長時間的維護而形成記憶所緊密結合而成。」。熊傳慧認為「粉樂町」進駐到社區當中，主要的目的是「營造社區的集體記憶」，相同的概念也出現在探討土溝農村美術館自力營造的相關文章中，曾旭正在〈不斷生產公共性—土溝自力營造經驗的啟發〉裡認為「［…］，自力營造的過程即是一個不斷『生產公共性』的過程，［…］」。
「溝通」與「互動」的過程往往成為討論展演公共性的核心，並引起人們的反思，簡義明在評論「嘉義縣北回歸線環境藝術行動」時認為：「菁英主義與封閉性、專斷性的藝術定義與框架，勢必要遭受質疑與擱置。一個藝術文本的形成，在這樣的過程與行動中，遂趨向開放性、對話性與互文性的結果。」；王嘉驥藉由「高雄國際貨櫃藝術節」的例子，指出了互動背後的危機：「［...］以『互動』為名的展覽，最後往往變相為民眾動手搞破壞的活動……貨櫃藝術節應如何在純粹的藝術創作和機能性的遊樂場之間取得平衡？」；郭璧慈在談論公共藝術、社區營造、藝術介入社會以及「與社會交往的藝術」時，認為「［...］在以藝術之名培養公民美學的同時，鮮少有人反思在諸多連結、參與和互動形式中彼此連帶的生命，究竟因為何種『共缺』的想像而齊心共力？」。
參考文獻
臺灣當代藝術對於「公共性」的關注，或可從文化政策層面的轉變、特定類型藝術的推動與展覽等層面來理解。政策層面上如2005年文建會提出的「文化公民權」及相關的社居總體營造等；郭璧慈在〈從空間到地方—反思台灣當代藝術的公共性〉一文中，整理出「介入」（intervene）、「參與式」、「新類型公共藝術」、「對話型創作」等經常在提及公共性時所討論的概念；曾旭正在〈幸福的營造者〉一文中指出，伴隨著民主化的發展，「民眾參與」成為許多領域熱門的主張，如社區營造、公共藝術、公共政策、社會教育等。相關展覽案例包括「高雄國際貨櫃藝術節」（2005）、「第四屆城市行動藝術節」（2006）、「粉樂町Ⅱ」（2007）、「嘉義縣北回歸線環境藝術行動」（2007）等，及各項「藝術造街」與「藝術介入空間」型態的展演等。
在「高雄國際貨櫃藝術節」相關的評論裡，張金玉的文章指出藝術節「以生活化、藝術性或遊戲性進行想像，貨櫃成為一種營造工具，藉由生活在城市中的公民參與，開發城市的集體想像。」，陳茹萍、蕭瓊瑞認為貨櫃藝術節的展演形式「刻記著城市歷史記憶」。「城市行動藝術節」的策展人蕭淑文引用美國藝評兼策展人傑夫・凱利（Jeff Kelley）的觀點，認為「一個場所是由一個地點中，一些個人和大眾共同的價值觀，經過長時間的維護而形成記憶所緊密結合而成。」。熊傳慧認為「粉樂町」進駐到社區當中，主要的目的是「營造社區的集體記憶」，相同的概念也出現在探討土溝農村美術館自力營造的相關文章中，曾旭正在〈不斷生產公共性—土溝自力營造經驗的啟發〉裡認為「［…］，自力營造的過程即是一個不斷『生產公共性』的過程，［…］」。
「溝通」與「互動」的過程往往成為討論展演公共性的核心，並引起人們的反思，簡義明在評論「嘉義縣北回歸線環境藝術行動」時認為：「菁英主義與封閉性、專斷性的藝術定義與框架，勢必要遭受質疑與擱置。一個藝術文本的形成，在這樣的過程與行動中，遂趨向開放性、對話性與互文性的結果。」；王嘉驥藉由「高雄國際貨櫃藝術節」的例子，指出了互動背後的危機：「［...］以『互動』為名的展覽，最後往往變相為民眾動手搞破壞的活動……貨櫃藝術節應如何在純粹的藝術創作和機能性的遊樂場之間取得平衡？」；郭璧慈在談論公共藝術、社區營造、藝術介入社會以及「與社會交往的藝術」時，認為「［...］在以藝術之名培養公民美學的同時，鮮少有人反思在諸多連結、參與和互動形式中彼此連帶的生命，究竟因為何種『共缺』的想像而齊心共力？」。
參考文獻
- 郭璧慈，〈從空間到地方—反思台灣當代藝術的公共性〉，藝術觀點，62期，頁146-149，2015.4。
- 曾旭正，〈不斷生產公共性—土溝自力營造經驗的啟發〉，公共藝術簡訊，70期，頁4-7，2006.4。
- 張晴文，〈2007～2008年「公共性」相關藝評：一個歸納性的閱讀（上篇）〉，藝術書寫工廠
- 張晴文，〈2007～2008年「公共性」相關藝評：一個歸納性的閱讀（下篇）〉，藝術書寫工廠