‘We all know joy and loss. We all spend
most of the time in some nameless mood
between these two extremes. Sometimes,
I get nostalgic, and I start to reminisce.’
‘It’s all up to you, while I started to forget
something.’
‘My impression of you is hard to comprehend.’
‘Sunday
morning it feels like shit.’
‘I might be thinking about my family,
my partner, some nonexistent corner of
the city, or some person I saw once but
never really met.’
‘Sometimes, sharing is an odd concept.’
‘Details are
blurry.’
‘Judy, where’s the carpet?’
(All above texts taken from exhibition and
official programme brochure.)
In the mood for thought
The lofty rooms of Cattle Depot Artist Village looked almost empty. There was no eye-catching exhibit guarding at the entrance, nor
was there any lavish piece anchoring at the centre; and down were all the
spotlights that one might suspect to have arrived at the wrong time. With the
T-shirt hung from the wall, the open parasol, the beach chair, the stand-alone
bucket, or the prefab guardhouse strategically arranged, one began to discern
that these unassuming objects were art installations – or ‘settings’ according
to the artist. Together with the micro-situational video works and canvases of blurred
imageries, Lee Kit spelt out his participation in the 2013 Venice Biennale on
home turf under the new title of ‘You.’. Incidentally, somewhat ponderous but
consistent with Lee’s reflective programme, ‘You(you).’ was the title of his
entry at the biennale.
Under the dramatic truss roofs of the former slaughterhouse, art was carefully
staged and its materiality was suppressed to attain a symbolic state of non-presence.
This is the dilemma for conceptual artists who engage in minimal visual expressions,
knowing at core that by reducing their works to unrecognizable anonymity the identity of an
artist ceases to exist. Hence for the most reduced form of paintings by Yves
Klein, so to say, there are the barest frames and canvases to exist; for any Beckettian
theatre, there is the performer(s) with or without the stage; and for the
ambient music of Brian Eno, there are yet detectable sonorities however close
to silence.
The white bench and fire extinguisher as art pieces,
perhaps?
In ‘You.’, through the array of self-effacing settings,
the artist took to the viewers’ psychological automatism to experience their
visits and to respond instinctively without direction from the mind. For this
reason, there were no titles for all individual pieces to convey any specific messages;
thus for Lee, visual tectonics were reduced to essentials and interventions to audiences’
responses were minimized. For meditations on ordinary presence, one might even
take the old fire extinguisher on the wall as an inspiration for personal revisitation.
The idea that everything is art and nothing is art - heralded by Duchamp
through Fountain 1917, is reinterpreted by Lee a century later.
The Lure of Pure
Essence
In causal terms, time is the order of duration and
duration supposes time. The quality of the responses from audiences, however indeterministic,
is built upon acquired experiences. The spirit of Lee’s programme lay on the open-ended
interactions between the artist and viewer. Admittedly, there was nothing
esoteric among the exhibits though plenty of tantalizing ambiguities were
mapped out for interpretations. But there might be gaps where communications
break down and the audiences including my wife hit a blank wall. Personally, I
had moments of irritation from the equivocation of his settings. His texts, with
a literacy that carried meagre inspiration, make reading an unpalatable act for
avid readers.
Lu Shou-kun, Zen Painting, 呂壽琨,禅畫, 1964
(Image∣www.yishu.net)
Liu Gou-song, Midnight Sun, 劉國松,子夜太陽, 1970
(Image∣www.theedgegalerie.com)
There exists a tendency to distill the representation
in art, thinking that the less the narrative contents, the purer the concept
will remain in a work. It is tempting to equate verses in writings with
expressions in visual art and arrive at the conclusion that more is excess. The
same rationale applies to the inclination to avoid specifics. From what had
been learned in the 1960s-70s that the New Ink Painting Movement in Hong Kong had grown into
believing that the historicist shackles must be broken. A liberation from
ethnic adherence was in earnest and universal values, understandable to all, could
be achieved. This self-fulfilling group of artists immersed
themselves into subjects of cosmic pondering, religious refuge and other
abstract reveries. Their mutual influences gradually developed into an upward,
or downward if you like, spiral of reductionism; and as such an inflated
nothingness leading to a total detachment from audiences was resulted.
The Sage and Joker
It is inconclusive to suggest that this development
of ink art had its inspiration from the minimalist art that thrived in the west
of the same time. Further afield in our own time, both movements of then have
their point of reference to Martin Creed who stretches the blandness of
anything and everything in the visual world to extremes. His contributions to contemporary art, however controversial, at least can be commended on merits of honesty and
self-mockery. In unembarrassing terms, he keeps telling everyone that he doesn’t
know what people like in his works and “don’t know”s are invariably his favorite
answers to questions*. To understand his phenomenal success, it might require extraordinary
objectivity in order to bring to light the ridicules he produces that mirror
our everyday lives. (In interviews, he always repeats that he doesn't know if
he is an artist; hence it is fair to use other terms than ‘artwork’ to describe
his creations.)
All photos above and below from Martin Creed’s
major retrospective - What’s the point of it?
Hayward Gallery, Jan-Apr. London, 2014 (Photos∣Linda_Nylind@BlouinArtinfo)
In ‘You.’, Lee’s carefully constructed art has an
appeal of freshness among contemporary excess – that is an anticipated result. His
works of intended ordinariness or even blandness, share much in common with
Creed’s. The difference between them may be one of ascetic positivity versus playful
wickedness. On Lee, it may be tempted to say that, given the melancholic traits
of his works, a certain Stendhal syndrome permeates among thinkers. In contrast
and less guarded in manners, there are plenty of nauseating fun with the
British artist that cannot be separated from his absurd looking works. As
always, one has to examine the artist’s personality in order to understand his
or her works. It is this honesty, however brutal it might be, one yearns from
Lee.
The restraint in elaboration on works and written
narratives can certainly keep Lee Kit in the safe zone. So far so good. But
like the liu-bai effect (lit. leaving
blank) in ink paintings, the clear-cut visual imageries and meta-physical inclinations,
however enticing they can be, may lead to serious withdrawal consequences from
audiences due to a lack of connectivity. It is more acute when the poise for serious
thinking by artists becomes predictable. Before Lee is pushing the limit of open
discourses in future, I hope he can tell us more of himself and through his
works than otherwise.
*Recommended YouTube interviews and talk with
Martin Creed at here:
1. Martin Creed interviewed by Fanny Keifer, part 1
of 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cm-MZ3bj8Q
2. Martin Creed interviewed by Fanny Keifer, part 2
of 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWIR_92jmb8
3. Meet Martin Creed (with performances) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdWSOL7x3LA
‘You.’ – Lee Kit
6 March to 13 April, 2014 at Cattle Depot Artist
Village,
Hong Kong
你/我 - 游離于馬田．克特與李傑之間 〈中文翻譯〉
我們都知道快樂和失落。大部份時間，我們
都在這兩個極端之間、難以名狀的情緒之
中。有時侯，我開始想念、思憶。
「既然我的記憶力已逐漸減退，就隨你吧。」
「我對你的感受難以言喻。」
「週日的早晨像屎一般。」
那對象可以是我的家人、伴侶、某個已不
存在的城市角落、或是某個曾遇上卻不認識
的人。
「在某些時候，分享是一個奇怪的概念。」
「細節很模糊。」
「朱廸，地毯在哪兒？」
(以上文字摘取自展場及官方文宣)
此刻愛思考
寬敞的牛棚藝術村呈空置模樣。不只大門入口不見耀目的展品，館中央沒有壓場大作，連鎂光燈亦被關掉起來，觀眾有誤以為在閉館時段到達。及後閲畢牆上的汗衫、傍置的水桶、預製更亭、張開的太陽傘及沙灘椅，我們方始領悟這些不經意之物其實是展覽的裝置，或按藝術家的稱謂 – 佈置(setting)。加上處境式的「微觀」錄像及隱晦的畫像，李傑將2013年威尼斯雙年展參加的作品重置于本地主場，並採用「你。」這個新標題。以資參考，「你（你）。」為該雙年展的名稱。雖然有點累牘，兩者的連貫性依然。
李氏作品暨文字的曖昧性委實可讓他立於安全境地。情况迄今還好。但彷如水墨畫的「留白」現象，甚說迷思，不管視覺及形而上具吸引力，如關切不足，觀眾的背離感覺加倍顯著。一旦藝術家強行帶出的思索性刻意得被看破，公眾的反彈更大。在李傑繼續發展這一類開放式論述之同時，筆者希望他能為自己及作品裡表現多點真身而非隱藏。
在牛棚的桁架下，李的作品得到仔細的鋪排，但牠們的實物狀態卻被壓抑至「非存在」的象徵境界。這是概念藝術家運用簡約表現手法卻常陷於困窘之情况，理由是他們通曉若作品簡約至不復辨識境地，他們的自我身份亦隨之煙沒。因此，算是多麽勵節的繪畫，一如伊夫．克萊(Yves
Klein)，他的畫布及框架還是不能或缺；多麽貝克式(Beckettian)戲劇，縱使沒有舞台，表演者依然存在；多麽前衛的環境音樂，白賴仁．伊諾(Brian
Eno)仍須在淵肅的背景上賦予音效，那怕是最輕聲的蹤跡。
通過連串不經意的佈置，李傑務求將觀者的直覺反應釋放出來。至此，展品均不設名稱，以免傳遞具體訊息。在「你。」的作品集，視覺構築以精鍊為尚，自主思維的干擾亦減至最少。面對場館的平凡事物，那管是牆上的滅火器，它們有助重建觀眾回憶的幽徑。由杜尚的〈噴泉1917〉裡倡導之念 –
“物物皆藝術，無物是藝術”，在一個世紀後，李氏得再演繹。
精鍊的誘惑
從因果先後述，時間乃歷練的格致，歷練需以時間為先。無管有多少非定命性，觀眾的反饋質素，總離不開個人累計的經驗。「你。」戲碼的精髓在于藝術家與觀者沒有前設的互動。誠言，作品不存在艱深苦澀之處，只有暗藏虛實供詮釋。但這裡同時藴藏不少隔閡，導致交流斷路。觀眾其中包括內子同樣不免碰壁，小吃悶棍。就現塲竊念，筆者面對部份含混的佈置亦難掩懊惱。他的綴句，在語文層面欠啟發、敗景意；對愛文字者言，閲讀彷彿是苦差。
淨化藝術表達的向性在于相信減少敍述內容後，作品的概念定當更純粹。我們很容易將寫作的文筆與視覺藝術的表現相互評較，對「多則冗贅」的論說趨之若鶩。同理，但凡具體的描述亦應避之則吉。借監1960至70年代的香港新水墨運動人士深信歷史的牢鐐須被砸爛。當民族的包袱鬆綁過後，普世共詠之大同境界則指日可待。至此，這群自我感覺良好的藝術工作者沉醉于天地的冥想、宗教的藩籬及其他抽象物意的讚頌。他們的互為影響，循簡化論傾向，往牛角尖深處裡鑽。就這樣，一個澎張不堪的假大空，完全脫離群眾，最終亦為這個運動蓋棺謝幕。
智者與謔師
新水墨運動的產生和發展是否源自西方同期的簡約主義，這裡暫且沒有結論。但兩個流派與今天的馬田．克特(Martin
Creed)擁相當的參考價值，特別是他擅於尋找視覺世界裡的乏味事，那理大小，只管推至極端，。當然他對當代藝術的貢獻極富爭議，但至少在真誠及自謔兩個層面他卻值得讚譽。在沒有丁點兒尷尬下，他常說不明白在啥處人家喜愛他的作品；而“不知道”更是他慣用回應問題的答案*。要了解他成功之處，我們需抱有高度客觀性，摒棄偏見，才可顯現其創作的荒誕 – 那股表露現今生活之實况。（用偏離藝術語言來形容他的作品還是公平的，蓋他亦經常重複說自己不是藝術家。）
李傑細心構建的「你。」在今天的泛濫世代讓人有十濁一清之感，帷這是可預計的。他經營的尋常性甚或木訥感與克特的作品有異曲同工之妙。他們之別在於前者帶克己的積極性及後者愛玩的黠慧。在李傑的作品裡，考其悲天憫人之踪迹，也許多少司湯達綜合症(Stendhal
syndrome)徵狀彌漫于好思考的觀眾。反之，克特的舉手投足，以至他接近荒謬的作品，既鬱悶亦帶回甘玩味。我們每每需考量藝術家的性格來了解他們的創作。就是這種誠意，不管好醜，我們冀望李傑開懷。
「你。」- 李傑
2014年3月6日至4月13日
香港馬頭角道63號牛棚藝術村
