a CONVERSATION Gabriel Fl端ckiger
&
Harry Leung
I. 3rd April 2014 / 2.30pm / a local restaurant, Chai Wan, Hong Kong GF:
The most dominant convention of presenting art in the 21st century is probably the isolated hanging on white walls which allow the audience to perceive the work in a fully focused and concentrated way. In the case of the art-shopping mall -- K11, they present art exhibition as they present advertisements, in which the piece of art is not highlighted or distinguished.
HL:
It’s depreciated.
GF:
In a way, yes.
HL:
Did you see the news-TV in the MTR-trains? It’s quite terrible for me because the news – say, the War in Iraq – is supposed to be a tragedy. But they’re presented in a crowded environment where people are very tired. Therefore, for people inside the compartment, they don’t have the ability to react to such tragic news at all. This contrast is really horrifying. The empathy we human beings obtain somehow disappears.
GF:
Definitely, also the format of short News-Clips adds to this way of reception. You spend two minutes to read a breaking news and then the content changes to something completely different.
II. 5th April 2014 / night time / Tsim Sha Tsui & Yau Ma Tei, Hong Kong
HL:
And the empathy is gone.
GF:
Or is not even established.
HL:
This is a similar problem with how art is presented in this world full of media influences, how is art presented? And on the other hand, how are we reacting to works of art under this particular circumstances as an audience? When we talk about art, let’s say, in the light of art history, we tend to believe that it bears a certain role or function. For example, in Middle Age, art is regarded as a tool to spread gospel stories to the illiterates. At that time, it was possible for art to serve this function. However, in the world nowadays where information flashes in an unprecedented speed, does art still bear such function? More precisely, is it still possible for art to be believed in delivering a certain meaning?
GF:
It’s very difficult to draw back to the Middle Ages, people often do this, but it’s over-simplifying the history. There are more than 500 years of social, political changes happening inbetween – the conception of art that is prevailing today is bascially a very aestheticed, art-for-art-sake-style, this is connected with a certain structure of society and subjectivity, see the 19th century developments of citizenship, individuality. In the middle ages there were no such ideas existing. One can even question if people had a notion of functionality that could be compared with today’s conception of when/how something is useful/functional.
K-11
欲迎又拒 :
3 1 1 8 8 0 7 0
3
Localility
8
8
0
7
0
本土性
Perfection
Consumption
Purity
Dissemination
完美
消費
俗不可耐
大眾化
3
1
1
8
8
0
7
3 1 1 8
7
2
1
0
1
8 0 7 0
0
香 港 藝術館
攀往更高地位 : 2
0 1 1 6
1
欲迎又拒 : 3 1 1 8 8 0 7 0 欲迎又拒 :
2 7 2 1
1
1
6
2 7 2 1
Hong Kong Museum of Art
攀往更高地位 : 2 7 2 1 0 1 1 6 Whole-person Learning
全人發展
Passion
熱情
攀往更高地位 : 2
Excellence
優越
7
2
Enjoyment
Sharing
耳目一新 有福同享
1
0
1
1
6
0 1 1 6
HL:
You have a very cautious logic when we talk about art. It is so inspiring. yes you are right that we can’t over-simply the history. But go back to the context nowadays, it seems that the majority of us still see art as functional, being made to achieve a particular mission.
GF:
:
The exhibition at K11 thinks of art also as functional, doesn’t it? One of the texts accompanying the works was saying that art helps to reveal the roots of the local tradition in a time of global urbanisation or something like this. They think of art also as a means, similar to our idea of intervention. But it’s on a different level. Still we should reflect on this ideological background. At K11 it’s also a state-ideology, they’re referring to a Hong Kong or Chinese identity. This is definitely not our goal but we have this functionality in it. But why do we want to bring the notion of art in this context?
HL:
To me art should help people realize the environment that we’re living in. Because in our daily life, we’re losing our ability to think about the relationship between us and our surroundings. You can still live a good life without realizing the world outside, isn’t it?
GF:
Do you see this in reference to a certain conception of individuality? A subject which is enlightened and present of his own surrounding, knowing in which context that he is in? Do you mean an awareness?
衝出香港
0 2 1 7
2
2
0
0
0
2
1
7
西 九 HONG KONG M+
2 2 0 0
:
2 2 0 0
衝出香港 : 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 7 Global Movement
Transcultural
Transnational
Dialogue
Narrative
國際流汗
跨文化
國際漫游
吹水
話事
衝出香港
:
2
2
0
0
0
2
1
7
0 2 1 7
HL:
Yes. It’s harsh to think at that level as no one is obliged to do this. But as artists, they (or we) can provoke a click and a hint.
GF:
But what if nothing happens and it’s not noticed? Or if people even reject it, they think, it’s stupid?
HL:
Then it’s a failure. Because it means that I could not use the appropriate language.
GF:
Shouldn’t there also be an option that people can reject it? Otherwise you’re instrumentalizing them for your own thinking.
HL:
Yes, that’s true.
GF:
Still, what’s the goal? You mentioned to become aware or to intervene daily perception. Our sticker should then provoke a kind of irritation. In the context of this mere mass of advertisements, should we find something that is attracting prople’s attention? Advertisements are usually just overlooked. We should also consider the way of aesthetics that we use.
HL:
I like your word ‘irritation‘. We are not pleasing the audience. But at the same time, we are not using the form of ‘in-yer-face‘ to shock the audience. Rather, we are manipulating an existing language (appearance of advertisements) and twisting its content as normally expected. For me, the goal is to arouse both passers-by and people in the art circle’s awareness. First, it’s the excessive usage of ads nowadys. Secondly, it’s the unrealistic point of view towards art that the art institutions in Hong Kong still hold.
In Hong Kong it is common for services, products and shops to advertise on the streets with flyers, stickers, banners or salesmen. Sometimes these ads can be very informal and obscure, only with a phone number and short description written down on a pillar or electric box. These observations were the starting point for the collaboration by Zurich based Gabriel Fl端ckiger and Hong Kong based Harry Leung. In discussions about these phenomena and the notion of whether art or artists can also promote services, it became clear that art is still often seen by both the public and local art institutions in a very ideological context, attributing different pleasing and valuable properties to art, artist and the reception of art. The stickers produced by the two students took up different keywords used by three of the major Hong Kong art institutions. These keywords are found in their official websites to describe their attitude and expectations towards art. The layout of stickers imitates those we can find in the streets of Hong Kong. We posted them in the very busy and crowded districts of Yau Ma Tei and Tsim Sha Tsui. Thereby the notion of art and all the ideologies that come with it are introduced into a non-official context. Also, modes of communicating about art (especially within art institution) are changed into something informal.