“The significance of the 20th
and 21st century Japanese design is undisputed, both in the East
Asia region and globally. As such, design from Japan will necessarily assume an
important place in M+’s design collection. Shiro Kuramata (1934-91) was
regarded as the most influential and widely-known Japanese furniture and
interior designer of the late 20th century. Out of more than one
hundred architecture interiors designed by Shiro Kuramata, only three still
exist today and the work in question is one of them. The acquisition of
“Kiyotomo Sushi Bar” is an important milestone for M+ in collecting and
studying Asian designs.”#1
M+ responded to a query from a member of
the Legislative Council after the acquisition controversy was leaked by the
local media.
Shiro Kuramata leaning against his Dinah
chiffonier
(Image∣www.mr-erno.com)
Kuramata’s
industrial works: Cabinet de Curiosite (left)
and Miss Blanche (right)
(Image∣www.phaidon.com)
Sofa
with Arms (left) and Copacabana (right)
(Image∣www.phaidon.com)
Shiro Kuramata was a member of the Memphis
Group, which influenced much of his industrial design approach in the 1980s.
His furniture pieces are visually striking and those with limited production
are still sought after in auctions. Many design museums are eager to keep them
as novel gems. Kuramata’s works like the ones by Michael Graves or Ettore
Sottsass, expanding possibilities whilst representing a post-modern movement of
reactionary forces against functionalist dogmas, are radiance in the spectrum
of design fads of recent times.
The
sushi bar (gross area of 75 sq m) and shop front will become a major permanent
exhibit in M+.
(All Kiyomoto Sushi Bar drawings and photos∣Editoriale
Domus)
Contrary
to his product designs, Kuramata’s interiors are invariably restrained with
hints of Japanese aesthetics. To the right, Ya Ya Ho lightings by Ingo Maurer
and Ko-Ko bar stools by the architect himself are present.
It
was Oriental Daily which made headlines by revealing that the museum committee had
decided to transplant Kiyotomo Sushi Bar in Hong Kong as a major permanent
exhibit, come M+’s opening in 2017. The Tokyo restaurant had already ceased
business in recent years and the price tag of fifteen million HKD is definitely
the biggest cheque the owner receives in its entire history of operation. The
museum is expected to dish out another two million at least for its ‘take-away’
operation of dismantling, shipping and re-assembly. Kuramata probably had never
imagined such outcome, nor did we. Between gasps of breath, there are a few
questions we’d like to throw in.
Entrance
sliding door guarded by curved blue wall.
Floor plan showing the tiny restaurant
space.
What is
Kiyotomo Sushi Bar?
Not perturbed by my own ignorance on the
interior project, I tried very hard to find something, or anything, on it in
the Hong Kong University Library. Without turning every single page on the
bookshelves, my attempts though persistent by most standards only yielded to an
emotional tribute by Sottsass in the February issue of Domus, 1996.
In parallel, this research was developed into a
game of luck through search engines in English, Chinese and Japanese (which was
stretching my ability), the result was dismal. Even Kuramata’s official website
offers no information - in fact none of his interior works are shown. It leads
to a thought that the case of oversight across the board on an ‘important
milestone’ as M+ describes, in reality presents a huge gap.
In case of doubt, it is always worth going
back to first principles:
“You employ stone, wood and
concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces: that is
construction. Ingenuity is at work. But suddenly you touch my heart, you do me
good. I am happy and I say: This is beautiful. That is architecture.”#2
Based on Le Corbusier’s yardstick of
excellence and other thoughts, I am not affected despite repeated studies on the work. With ambivalence
of concept, furtive expressions and proprietary finishing, this is, in my view,
not an interior architecture worthy of museum collection. Its fateful escape
from demolition does not warrant a reason to preserve. In short, I have all but
reservation on its standing in the 20th century art and design. If
any reader has any insight on this work attaining in typically Sottsassian
expression - ‘sweet metaphysical dreams’#3, I am all ears.
Finn Juhl’s interior and house revived as part
of
the Ordrupgaard Museum in Copenhagen, Denmark.
(Image∣www.stephembrookes.com)
The Shröder’s House by Gerrit Rietveld in
Utrecht, Holland –
it surpasses the role as a museum to become
a synonym for
the De Stijl movement.
(Image∣www.studyblue.com)
Why buy
a contemporary interior?
The precedence of re-locating interiors to
become museum pieces is not unheard of. For historical collections, they are
plentiful and citing is unnecessary. For interests in mid-century works, the
interiors are seldom separated from the shells that contain them. The interior
of Finn Juhl’s house preserved for appreciation makes sense when the building that
houses it is intact, same case for the Shröder’s House. The reason being so arranged,
their complementary existence would be at a lost otherwise.
In quasi-preservation settings, the Geffrye
Museum makes up the drawbacks by devoting itself to the theme of domestic
designs of the past 400 years. The series of historical interiors transplanted
in the Met achieves similar effect. But a recent interior exhibit preserved out of context
and in isolation is a challenge to the audiences and curators alike. With
limited references to other contemporary paradigms in the museum, what meaning can the sushi
bar convey to our city?
Section
across the restaurant.
Axonometric view from the entrance.
View from the chefs’ side towards the same
direction.
How to
handle an artefact of contemporary interior design?
When the interior is taken down and re-constructed
in M+, there are a series of issues to be considered. Assuming that every piece
of the finished materials is salvaged and preserved in a meticulous manner,
otherwise the business of buying the restaurant fitting-out as a ‘genuine
article’ would be pointless. After all, the museum opines that the work is
ranked among the “most important and major work of art”#4. As such, meddling
with its authenticity is profanity to the curators.
It is therefore expected that the water
stains on the skirting, the worn-off timber veneer on the walls, the chipped
granite flooring and every bit of scratch mark anywhere would be faithfully re-assembled
to match its existing conditions in Tokyo. Is it feasible in reality? Will
there be new and unsightly sealant joints or finishes deviating from the
originals? These are some of the nagging questions. Unlike ancient interior
preservations we are accustomed to, the transposition of this aged contemporary
interior might transcend its re-birth with cryptic nuances.
Having absorbed on this mental picture, the
restaurant interior faithfully re-constructed is still not the restaurant envisaged.
The absence of waiting staff, food and tableware would render this
re-construction incomplete and sterile in appearance. Would we see barrier
ropes and people freely roam about in this tiny space of alternative spectacle?
View
from the entrance.
Beside
the M+ architectural model are some members of the Museum Committee. The
governing body is basically made up of bureaucrats who invariably endorse the
recommendations by the Interim Acquisition Committee comprised of professionals.
(Image∣West
Kowloon Cultural District Authority)
More questions than answers
The task of filling up M+ with its own
collection is daunting, considering the ambitious museum has a net area of 26000
sq m exhibition space to start with. As far as information made public, this building
of visual culture has amassed a variety of visual art, moving images,
architectural materials, popular designs, and the list is expending. Eschewed
from elitist tendency, Sundial believes that a museum of mixed directions
should maintain a very rigorous selection policy.
The reason is simple: Art and design serve
different needs in a society, any attempt to blur the two would be detrimental
to all. Its damage is gradual but caustic, reverting the course is extremely difficult.
To illustrate with examples, just imagine a pair of trainers is conceived like an artwork to the extent that the basic performances are compromised. Or any hyped-up
poster that is no better than a picture illustration is celebrated along with
serious art.
For every plus, there is privation in
return. Populist intents embraced by M+ are no substitute for lax acquisition
policies. Hence, an art museum proper would not incorporate a design gallery and a
house of fine art should not mix with applied arts. Before all of us are
confused, would M+ let us know what you are up to? Is this ‘plus’ a liberal inclusion
of visual culture – a boundary-free confine that defies calls for focus, or a
leverage of authority to squander on public coffers?
#1 and #4 Official response from M+ to Hon Christopher
Chung, member of the Legislative Council based on his letter dated February,
25, 2014. Link here: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/english/panels/wkcd/papers/wkcdcb2-1104-1-e.pdf
#2 Le Corbusier: Towards a New Architecture (France 1923)
#3 Ettore Sottsass: Kiyomoto Sushi Restaurant in Tokyo (pp58-62, No. 779 Domus,
February 1996)
M+,是加還是減? 〈中文翻譯〉
倉俣史朗(1934-91)在上世紀八○年代是曼菲斯團隊(Memphis
Group) 之一員，並深受該運動影響其工業設計意念。他的家具作品尤為奪目，限量生產之作迄今一直得到眾拍賣行的青睞。不少設計博物館還在爭相擁有他的設計為收藏亮點。猶如米高．紀夫斯(Michael Graves, 1934
- ) 或埃托．索薩斯(Ettore
Sottsass, 1917-2007) 的創作，倉俣史朗的貢獻在於擴闊設計框架之餘， 還推動抗衡狹隘的功能主義，以當代反動之派別潤澤設計風尚的光譜。
《東方日報》用顯注篇幅率先踢爆M+最高委員會决議購置倉俣設計的清友壽司吧，並奉以重要固定展品之名。這間座落東京市的餐廳話說已結業多年，而這個一千五百萬港元的售價肯定是店主營運歷來最大的單一交易。按估計，M+還需額外付出至少二百萬的“外賣”費用，當中包括拆卸、運輸及重組工程。對於作品落戶香港的結局，相信倉俣也意料不及，而我們亦何嘗不是。在咄嗟之同時，我們有若干問題還是不吐不快。
清友壽司吧是什麽一回事?
面對這作品，筆者沒有被自己的無知而卻步； 反之，我去了香港大學圖書館意圖尋找多少資料。在沒有翻箱倒籠的情況下，縱使自己多麽堅持不懈，只能找到索薩斯(Sottsass)為Domus期刋在一九九六年二月第七七九號裡發表的一篇充滿感性的頌文。
與此同時，我在互聯網的搜尋，無論用中文、英文、甚至日文，盡管寄望運氣的眷顧，最終零星的線索亦欠奉。我更想不到在倉俣的網站亦掏個空，裡面連一個室內設計項目都沒有。從多方面觀察， M+所說的“重要里程碑”， 屬蒼海遺珠的狀况，現實上暴露了一大鴻溝。
面對疑惑，我們值得顧本溯源，尋求基本論據：
人們使用石材、木料、水泥，憑借這些材料，他們蓋出房子或宮殿。這是營造。此刻，靈巧的心思得以體現。然而一刹那，你觸動了我的心底，你讓我得著。我感到喜悦，我說：這是美麗，那才是建築。
筆者用柯布西耶 (Le Corbusier) 對建築藝術的尺度及自己的準則套用在這作品上，可惜反復思量仍未受感動。可以說，作品含糊的概念、幽秘的表現手法及行貨般的工藝並非博物館應收藏的貨色。它沒有被拆掉，只表示命運的使然，但絕非是保育的契機。就M+辯稱它是二十世紀重要設計並擁藝術價值，本人絕對有所保留。如果讀者持不同角度，甚至同意索薩斯以〝甜美及形而上的夢想〞來描述，筆者在此聳耳聆聽。
為何購置當代室內建築
博物館重構室內建築的先例並不罕見。富歷史價值的收藏品更是多不枚舉。然而以上世紀為例，室內的構建甚少與它們的建築外殼分離。比如說，Finn Juhl的室內佈置與他的房子一併保存，體會意義豐厚；同理，Shröder’s House亦然。考其原因，這兩個相互依靠之體若遭分割，它們的獨立存在則黯然失色。
另外，Geffrye Museum的家居場展嚴格來說不正統，但它以搜羅近四百年的佈置為題，倚多為勝，彌補不足。Met的系列式歷史居住內景亦得以廻避上述問題，廣為接受。但近代單一及脫離脈絡的室內建築展品絕對是對觀眾及策展人的挑戰。在同場有限的參考及對比下，試問這個壽司吧在香港能發揮什麼意義呢？
怎樣處理室內設計原件
在這個原件被拆卸及重構的過程裡，要考慮的問題確實眾多。有鑒購置這裝璜涉及〝原件真蹟〞，所有原裝面材定當得到傾力保存，這樣才可與博物館給予的重要評價匹配。以策展人的角度看，任何削弱到作品的真確性絕對是褻瀆。
那麼，可以想像地腳線的水蹟、損壞了的木面牆體、破爛的石材樓面及各式各樣的損耗將會一一被保留及重構，慕求與現今在東京的狀態不無他樣。但現實上可能嗎？他日重構後會不會有新增或甚至不雅觀的硅膠縫，又或者有新舊不一的面材嗎？這些只是部份絆腳的難題。與具歷史性的保育或重構有異，這個當代設計的遷建可能超脫它的前生，帶著曲隱的含義，重新面世。
從腦海裡建構了這景象之餘，壽司吧的設計縱使巨細無遺地重組亦不一定是倉俣的原構思。畢竟在沒有侍應生、餐具、食物下，這餐廳的重構亦不完整，缺乏生氣。再者，在這另類的空間展品，細小不在話下，我們會不會受攔杆阻擋？我們能否自由自在地瀏覽？
疑問多於答案
M+致力尋找足夠的藏品活用這二萬六千平方米的展覽凈空間，其任務甚為艱巨。據已披露的資料，這視覺文化館旨于收藏各類型的視覺藝術、動態影像、建築展材、流行設計；可以說，這個範圍亦不斷在擴大中。自覺精英主義之流弊的同時，筆者仍相信一所多元的博物館需維持嚴謹的篩選策略。
理由是淺而易見的：藝術與設計在社會上擔當不同角色，意圖去模糊兩者的身份只會適得其反，兩敗俱傷。這個破壞是漸進的、亦帶腐蝕性，要扭轉過來更是困難重重。以實例証明：試想設計一雙運動鞋，只顧藝術般考慮導致基本功能亦遭忽略。又或者，一張潮爆海報被捧上天，與嚴肅藝術作品並駕齊驅，共領風騷。這樣的後果是堪虞的。
查每一個增加背後不無減耗。M+擁抱民粹之餘亦不應寬鬆收購策略。因此，一所合度的藝術館不會涵盖設計展廳，而美術館亦無須與應用美術混為一體。在大家還未感困惑不解前，M+可否告訢我們你究竟在搞什麼？你的「加號」是否任意包涵的諸色視覺文化 - 就是說，一個無彊無界拒絕聚焦的準則？還是一個浪費公帑，帶槓桿式的權責把玩？
