The “One Hundred Strolling” Incident
“One Hundred Strolling” was one of the event derived from SU Hui Yu’s work, Stilnox Strolling, featured in the exhibition, “Live Ammo” (2011), which was presented by the Museum of Contemporary Art (MoCA), Taipei and curated by CHEN Hao Yi, CHEN Zi An, LIN Hong John, YANG Ya Lin, and TSAI Jia Zhen. According to the curatorial statement, the exhibition “deals with the real and reality at the same time, viewing itself as a space where living and art practice coexist. The design of the exhibition space especially highlights ways of manipulation that enable art to shift the order of reality.” In short, the exhibition aims to foreground a state in which aesthetic reality and social reality become intermixed. The initial proposal of “One Hundred Strolling” was to ask participants to bring their own Stilnox, a prescription sleep medicine, to the art museum, and take a pill before viewing the exhibition. After several revisions, the final version of the event entailed the artist himself playing the role of a medical personnel to first explain a notice for taking the drug, have the participants sign the “Rules and Waiver for Participants of One Hundred Strolling,” and give each participant one pill before leading him or her into the exhibition to begin their viewing. Because the artist had already promoted the event and the properties of Stilnox online via an online video before the exhibition opened, plus the live broadcasting of the event by the media, the public began to have doubts about whether the artist and the event violated the “Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act,” given that Stilnox was classified as a schedule IV controlled substance and known for its side effect of causing sleepwalking. (Stilnox has been listed as a prohibited drug since 2020). Due to the media’s attention and coverage, the Department of Health (now the Ministry of Health and Welfare) became concerned, and the Criminal Investigation Bureau also initiated investigation procedures.
Shortly after the event, the organizer MoCA, Taipei issued a statement, and explained the artist’s self-regulatory measures: before the event, the artist suggested that the participants should also be patients who had a doctor’s prescription, and could legally use this type of sleep medicine. In addition, the pills gave out in the event were in fact candies made to look like the drug. With the curatorial team and museum staff helping maintain order onsite, the event did not disturb other visitors. According to the museum, “in a way, ‘the artist only fakes it, and the media mistakes it for real,’ is one of the strategies utilized in the exhibition.” However, this explanation also raised doubts in the minds of other artists exhibiting in the show as well as the participants of the event. After “Live Ammo” ended, the Taipei Contemporary Art Center (TCAC) organized a discussion sessiontalk, titled ““Friday Bar: ‘Who Fires Blanks?’—The Situation of Contemporary Exhibition Planning and Culture Managing in ‘Live Ammo,’” which was moderated by CHOU Chia Hui and LAI Chun-Chieh, and was joined by the artist SU Hui Yu, one of the curators, CHEN Hao Yi, as well as art critics and media workers, including WU Mu Ching, HSU Ming Han, and WANG Sheng Hung, to discuss the disparity between “the real” and “the fake,” and the issue of media violence. In “Clearly, It’s Not Candy—Who Emptied the Reality of ‘Live Ammo’?”, CHEN Wei Chen recorded this discussion: artist HUANG Li Hui, who was a participant of the event and an exhibiting artist in “Live Ammo,” stated that she was shocked by the museum’s statement as well as the media reports. CHEN Hao Yi stated that it was oversimplifying when those who commented on the event only relied on second-hand information, and also reviewed the curatorial team’s response to the media.
In his article, “Which Ethics is ‘Real’? Starting from ‘One Hundred Strolling,’” CHEN Tai Sung believed that “whether the pills are real or not is not an empirical question. What matters is the agreement between the two parties so that the fake can be said to be real, and vice versa. It all boils down to what the artist and the collaborators have agreed on. This is just like when facing the mainstream politics and media machine, both parties can have a mutual understanding to enjoy the climax of ‘playing it real,’ and deny what has happened afterwards due to their loyalty to each other.” Regarding the media reports and related discussions set off by the event, the artist believed that they all constituted an extremely important part of this work regardless of the truth.
Reference
Shortly after the event, the organizer MoCA, Taipei issued a statement, and explained the artist’s self-regulatory measures: before the event, the artist suggested that the participants should also be patients who had a doctor’s prescription, and could legally use this type of sleep medicine. In addition, the pills gave out in the event were in fact candies made to look like the drug. With the curatorial team and museum staff helping maintain order onsite, the event did not disturb other visitors. According to the museum, “in a way, ‘the artist only fakes it, and the media mistakes it for real,’ is one of the strategies utilized in the exhibition.” However, this explanation also raised doubts in the minds of other artists exhibiting in the show as well as the participants of the event. After “Live Ammo” ended, the Taipei Contemporary Art Center (TCAC) organized a discussion sessiontalk, titled ““Friday Bar: ‘Who Fires Blanks?’—The Situation of Contemporary Exhibition Planning and Culture Managing in ‘Live Ammo,’” which was moderated by CHOU Chia Hui and LAI Chun-Chieh, and was joined by the artist SU Hui Yu, one of the curators, CHEN Hao Yi, as well as art critics and media workers, including WU Mu Ching, HSU Ming Han, and WANG Sheng Hung, to discuss the disparity between “the real” and “the fake,” and the issue of media violence. In “Clearly, It’s Not Candy—Who Emptied the Reality of ‘Live Ammo’?”, CHEN Wei Chen recorded this discussion: artist HUANG Li Hui, who was a participant of the event and an exhibiting artist in “Live Ammo,” stated that she was shocked by the museum’s statement as well as the media reports. CHEN Hao Yi stated that it was oversimplifying when those who commented on the event only relied on second-hand information, and also reviewed the curatorial team’s response to the media.
In his article, “Which Ethics is ‘Real’? Starting from ‘One Hundred Strolling,’” CHEN Tai Sung believed that “whether the pills are real or not is not an empirical question. What matters is the agreement between the two parties so that the fake can be said to be real, and vice versa. It all boils down to what the artist and the collaborators have agreed on. This is just like when facing the mainstream politics and media machine, both parties can have a mutual understanding to enjoy the climax of ‘playing it real,’ and deny what has happened afterwards due to their loyalty to each other.” Regarding the media reports and related discussions set off by the event, the artist believed that they all constituted an extremely important part of this work regardless of the truth.
Reference
- SU, Hui Yu. “Three Stories—Some Thoughts on Video Art and Contemporary Media Experience.” Action and Boundary: Dialogue in Contemporary Video Art Forum. National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts, 2012.
- CHEN, Tai Sung. “Which Ethics is ‘Real’? Starting from ‘One Hundred Strolling.’” IT Park.
- Statement about “One Hundred Strolling” issued by MoCA, Taipei, April 7, 2011.
- WU, Ying Hui, CHIU Li Ying. “Calling People to Take Medicine and Experience Sleepwalking, the Artist Might Break the Law.” China Times Online, April 5, 2011.
- CHEN, Wei Chen. “Clearly, It’s Not Candy—Who Emptied the Reality of Live Ammo?” Pots Weekly, reissue no. 664, June 9, 2011.
- “‘Friday Bar: ‘Who Fires Blanks?’—The Situation of Contemporary Exhibition Planning and Culture Managing in ‘Live Ammo.’” Taipei Contemporary Art Center.
「百人夢遊」事件 （The “One Hundred Strolling” Incident）
「百人夢遊」是藝術家蘇匯宇參與台北當代藝術館（以下簡稱當代館）的展覽「活彈藥」（2011）的作品《使蒂諾斯之夢遊美術館》所延伸出的活動之一。該展覽由陳豪毅、陳璽安、林宏璋、楊雅苓、蔡家榛共同策畫，希望「同時處理了真實與現實，把展覽本身視為生活與藝術實踐共處的空間；除了在展場的規劃上，特意點出藝術擾動現實秩序的操作方式。」用以指出美學現實與社會現實交融的狀態。「百人夢遊」最初的提案是請參與者攜帶安眠藥使蒂諾斯（Stilnox）到美術館服用後再觀展。幾經更改後，最終版本由藝術家扮演成醫務人員，為參與者講解用藥須知，並且在填寫完「百人夢遊參加辦法暨切結書」後，發給一顆藥物，帶領觀眾進場參觀展覽。因展出前藝術家已經透過網路影片宣傳該活動與藥物使蒂諾斯的特性，再加上活動當日的媒體轉播，使得原為第四級管制藥品、有夢遊等副作用，需醫師處方使用的使蒂諾斯（已於2020年被列為禁藥）引起人們對於藝術家觸犯《毒品危害防制條例》的疑慮，在媒體關注下，也引發衛生署關切與刑事局的介入調查。
在該場活動結束後不久，主辦單位當代館發出聲明，說明藝術家在活動前已經向館方提出以領有有醫生處方、能夠合法使用此類安眠藥的患者作為參與者的自我規範；此外，活動當時發出的藥丸，皆為仿製的糖果，並且在策展團隊及美術館館員協助下維護秩序，並未造成對於其他觀眾的干擾。「『藝術家玩假，讓媒體當真』，就某方面來說也正是這個展覽的操作策略之一」，但此種說法引起了其他參展藝術家及參與者的疑慮，在「活彈藥」展覽結束後，台北當代藝術中心策畫了「星期五酒吧：是誰射了空包彈？從「活彈藥」談當代策展實踐與文化治理的現況」座談，由周家輝、賴駿杰主持，邀請參與展覽的蘇匯宇、陳豪毅與吳牧青、徐明瀚、王聖閎等藝評及媒體，討論「真」、「假」之間的落差與媒體暴力。在陳韋臻的〈明明就不是糖果－誰掏空了活彈藥的現實？〉文章中記錄了這場討論：當時既是活動參與者也是「活彈藥」參展藝術家黃立慧表示對於實際狀況、當代館聲明與媒體報導皆感到錯愕，陳豪毅提出對於評論者依賴二手訊息作為基礎過於簡單的問題，以及團隊在媒體應變上的檢討。
陳泰松的文章〈哪個「真」的倫理 從「百人夢遊」談起〉認為「藥丸的真假不在於實證問題，而在於彼此的約定，以至於假的是可以被說成真的，真的也可以被說成假的，端看作者與合作者兩方如何約定，猶如在面對主流政媒機器時， 雙方可以很有默契在「玩真」高潮後否認此事，並忠誠以對。」，對於因事件所誘發的媒體報導及相關討論，藝術家認為無論其真實性如何，都是構成了這件作品極為重要的一環。
參考文獻
在該場活動結束後不久，主辦單位當代館發出聲明，說明藝術家在活動前已經向館方提出以領有有醫生處方、能夠合法使用此類安眠藥的患者作為參與者的自我規範；此外，活動當時發出的藥丸，皆為仿製的糖果，並且在策展團隊及美術館館員協助下維護秩序，並未造成對於其他觀眾的干擾。「『藝術家玩假，讓媒體當真』，就某方面來說也正是這個展覽的操作策略之一」，但此種說法引起了其他參展藝術家及參與者的疑慮，在「活彈藥」展覽結束後，台北當代藝術中心策畫了「星期五酒吧：是誰射了空包彈？從「活彈藥」談當代策展實踐與文化治理的現況」座談，由周家輝、賴駿杰主持，邀請參與展覽的蘇匯宇、陳豪毅與吳牧青、徐明瀚、王聖閎等藝評及媒體，討論「真」、「假」之間的落差與媒體暴力。在陳韋臻的〈明明就不是糖果－誰掏空了活彈藥的現實？〉文章中記錄了這場討論：當時既是活動參與者也是「活彈藥」參展藝術家黃立慧表示對於實際狀況、當代館聲明與媒體報導皆感到錯愕，陳豪毅提出對於評論者依賴二手訊息作為基礎過於簡單的問題，以及團隊在媒體應變上的檢討。
陳泰松的文章〈哪個「真」的倫理 從「百人夢遊」談起〉認為「藥丸的真假不在於實證問題，而在於彼此的約定，以至於假的是可以被說成真的，真的也可以被說成假的，端看作者與合作者兩方如何約定，猶如在面對主流政媒機器時， 雙方可以很有默契在「玩真」高潮後否認此事，並忠誠以對。」，對於因事件所誘發的媒體報導及相關討論，藝術家認為無論其真實性如何，都是構成了這件作品極為重要的一環。
參考文獻
- 蘇匯宇，〈三個故事—關於錄像藝術與當代媒體經驗的某些思考〉，《行動與界線：當代國際錄像藝術對話論壇》，國立臺灣美術館，2012
- 陳泰松，〈哪個「真」的倫理 從「百人夢遊」談起〉，伊通公園網站
- 台北當代藝術館「百人夢遊」活動聲明稿，2011.04.07
- 吳垠慧、邱俐穎，〈號召民眾服藥體驗夢遊 藝術家恐觸法〉，2011.04.05，中國時報新聞網
- 陳韋臻，〈明明就不是糖果－誰掏空了活彈藥的現實？〉，《破週報》復刊664期，2011.06.09
- 星期五酒吧：是誰射了空包彈？從「活彈藥」談當代策展實踐與文化治理的現況，台北當代藝術中心網站