LANDSEASKY: revisiting spatiality in video art

重访录像艺术的空间性

revisiting spatiality in video art

MAAP – Media Art Asia Pacific & OCAT Shanghai

Editor Kim Machan Design Paul Bai Publisher MAAP – Multimedia Art Asia Pacific Inc. and OCAT Shanghai www.maap.org.au www.ocatshanghai.com MAAP Board Zane Trow (Chair), Dave Allen, Christopher Meakin, Paul O’Kane, Naomi Evans, Jeffery Sams MAAP Staff Kim Machan, Director Ashlee Sang, Exhibitions Assistant Davina Li, Research Assistant, China Project Support Eunju Kim, Korean Project Manager Rue Young-Ah, Korea Research Support Catalogue Translation, Alvin Li, Esther Zheng Supporting staff at host venues are acknowledged on pp 93 – 94 © 2015 MAAP – Media Art Asia Pacific Inc. and OCAT Shanghai. All rights reserved Published November 2015 Brisbane Printed in Shanghai ISBN 978-1-921858-29-1

海陆空–重访录像艺术的空间性编辑– 金曼设计– 白浦文本翻译–李佳桓，曾宪姝出版机构：亚太媒体艺术，OCAT上海馆版权为亚太媒体艺术与OCAT上海馆共同所有

LANDSEASKY has been supported by: the Australian Government through the Australia Council and the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, Queensland; the Queensland Government through Arts Queensland, part of the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts; the Confucius Institute at Queensland University of Technology; the Copyright Agency Cultural Fund; Australia Korea Foundation; the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Italian Institute of Culture Shanghai; the Consulate General of Italy in Shanghai; Australian Consulate-General Guangzhou; Suhe Creek; !topia Talent Serving The Arts; Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. LANDSEASKY has also been supported by project partners: OCAT Shanghai, Artsonje Center, Lee Hwaik Gallery, One and J Gallery, Opsis Art, Gallery IHN, Gallery Skape, National Art School Gallery, Griffith University Art Gallery, Griffith University Queensland College of Art, Guangdong Museum of Art.

Jan Dibbets The Netherlands Yeondoo Jung South Korea

Derek Kreckler Australia

Kimsooja South Korea

Barbara Campbell Australia

Jo達o Vasco Paiva Portugal / Hong Kong

Yang Zhenzhong China

Zhang Peili China Paul Bai Australia

Shilpa Gupta India

Wang Peng China

Zhu Jia China

Giovanni Ozzola Italy Lauren Brincat Australia

Wang Gongxin China

Sim Cheol-Woong South Korea

Craig Walsh Australia

Heimo Zobernig Austria

curated by Kim Machan

Installation view of Jan Dibbets’ Horizon I – Sea, Horizon II – Sea, Horizon III – Sea at OCAT Shanghai. 扬·迪波茨的作品《地平线–海》1，2，3 在 OCAT上海馆的装置现场。

Contents Kim Machan — Introduction 9 Jan Dibbets 14

João Vasco Paiva 16 金曼 — 序言 18 Kimsooja 22 Paul Bai 24

Ingrid Periz — Looking seaward, and elsewhwere 26 Zhu Jia 30

Derek Kreckler 32

英格丽特·佩雷兹 — 看向海，看向别处 34 Yeondoo Jung 36

Giovanni Ozzola 38

Andrew McNamara — A short sketch of spatial visual art 40 Yang Zhenzhong 44

Sim Cheol-Woong 46

安德鲁·麦克纳马拉 — 空间视觉艺术简要梗概 48 Zhang Peili 52

Shilpa Gupta 54

Paul Bai — A brief introduction to the concept of Third Spatial Position 56 Barbara Campbell 60 Lauren Brincat 62

白浦 — “第三空间位置”概念简介 64 Wang Peng 68

Craig Walsh 70

Judith Blackall — LANDSEASKY: National Art School Gallery, Sydney 72 Wang Gongxin 74

Heimo Zobernig 76

朱迪斯·布莱科尔 — 《海陆空》－澳洲国家艺术学院美术馆 78

Naomi Evans — LANDSESKY: Griffith University Art Gallery, Brisbane 80 钠奥米·埃文斯 — 《海陆空》－格里菲斯大学美术馆 82 Sunjung Kim — Promenade in Seoul 84 金宣廷 — 在首尔漫步 85

Mariagrazia Costantino — 王 Wáng 86 玛丽娅·科斯坦蒂诺 — 王 87 Artist Biographies 88

LANDSEASKY venue profiles 91 Acknowledgements 93 鸣谢 94

Installation view of Shilpa Gupta’s 100 Hand Drawn Maps of India at Griffith University Art Gallery. 库普塔的《100幅手绘印度地图》在格立菲斯大学美术馆的展览现场。

Introduction LANDSEASKY: revisiting spatiality in video art travelled to eleven venues in three countries. Often referred to as a touring exhibition, it is better thought of as an exhibition plotted across multiple locations configured and reconfigured in the prevailing space. The plasticity of the exhibition through site and context is a leading characteristic of the project, as are notions of landscape and its elements, video1 and its sculptural attributes, contemporary art and its spatial approaches. These concerns were omnipresent as the exhibition developed over an extended period beginning in 2012 with OCAT Shanghai as our foundation exhibition partner followed by Griffith University Art Gallery, Brisbane and a subsequent curatorial residency at Seoul Art Space Geumcheon. As the project progressed a new spatial array in Seoul was brokered with the generous support of Sunjung Kim, to consolidate a cluster of six venues in the Samcheongdong cultural district. Two other institutions joined adding to the diversity of exhibition spaces and audience dimensions – the National Art School Gallery in Sydney and finally, the Guangdong Museum of Art in Guangzhou. A collection of essays by participants and collaborators are offered here to reflect upon the exhibition. The artistic directors of the non-commercial host venues Mariagrazia Constantino, Artistic Director of OCAT Shanghai; Sunjung Kim, Chief Curator of Art Sonje Center; Naomi Evans, Acting Director of Griffith University Art Gallery (2012 – 2015); and Judith Blackall, National Art School Curator and Gallery Manager contribute commentary from their city venue and to varying degrees, the supporting context. Andrew McNamara offers a very specific historical examination of early spatial experiments in modernist art in Europe through his research evidencing Erich Buchholz’s spatial experiments in 1922 that are prescient to Kurt Schwitters’ Merzbau project. Paul Bai extrapolates spatial theory recounting Henri Lefebvre’s and Edward Soja’s perspectives before offering a progressive proposition to apply to contemporary art’s critical reading. Ingrid Periz writes as an observer, responding to the exhibition with her reflections and insights, and acknowledging Alain Corbin’s historiography notes where ‘the Western seaside is a postEnlightenment, and specifically Romantic project, underwritten by the new science of geology and the history of Dutch landscape painting’. The curatorial project that is LANDSEASKY: revisiting spatiality in video art, was born of a desire to revisit, clarify and extend video as a fine art tool, a medium to be understood and expressed fundamentally as a sculptural experience rather than a cinematic narrative. By approaching video as an ‘object in space’ the aim was to offer a moment to pause, to recalibrate and attune the medium before us. By reintroducing one of the earliest Conceptual Art moving image works by Jan Dibbets, the tone of the exhibition offered a focused aesthetic counterpoint, addressing artistic problems that are international, able to be approached cross-culturally, and one that made the actual experience of the works in-situ of paramount importance. Imagining an exhibition in Shanghai, Seoul, Guangzhou, Sydney and Brisbane naturally created geographical parameters that informed the exhibition. Thinking about these disparate cities, what do we share and what lies between us? We stand on the land with the sky above, and the sea between us. The components of landscape – land, sea and sky, inform our fundamental understanding of spatial relationships and go back to the beginnings of visual representation expressed in all civilisations. The limitation of the image – sky and land or sky and sea – restricts the visual elements to reveal the artists’ conceptual approaches with the intention of exposing a medium-specific analysis of screen space as an image with both sculptural and conceptual attributes. The curatorial approach is to bring to the foreground evidence of artists working with an analysis of screen space that demonstrates a variety of sophisticated approaches. This project attends to reinstate video as a medium to focus and draw upon its history within fine arts, and challenge the illusionist elements that we readily consume in screen culture. Peter Weibel summarily describes the Media Art of the 1960’s and 1970’s as being ‘anti-illusion’ and Media Art of the 1990’s onward as having ‘illusion and allusion tendencies’.2 Weibel, also an artist himself using film and video in the 70’s, goes on to describe the dangers of both anti-illusion and allusory art. To revisit and potentially transgress these dichotomies, LANDSEASKY turns away from popular screen media references to face the elemental and phenomenological. While researching the notion of the horizon, the work in photography and film by Dutch conceptual artist Jan Dibbets’ figured prominently. His Perspective Corrections dating from 1968 transformed the way we

think about photography as an art medium. His calculating and conceptual approach to photography contributed to a particular aesthetic canon that is analytical, disciplined and reductive. In 1970 and 1971 Dibbets made a series of 16 and 32mm films that employed the movement of the camera as an editing technique to record systematically smooth sweeping pans up and down, side to side and diagonal movements across land and seascapes. These works simultaneously force the illusion of space and the reality of space into one plane. While the moving image can be read as a depiction of a sea horizon by the recording of sea and sky, the rapid reorientation of the horizon line insists that this is an abstraction, a flat image that is projected through light and space. Short excerpts of the Horizon – Sea series were available online at the Netherlands Media Art Institute (NMAI)3 website where I saw these works moving for the first time. Through Jan Dibbets’ support and consultation with the Stedelijk Museum, all three works were made available for the exhibition and shown simultaneously for the first time since they were originally created in 1971.4 This fact is a rich point to savour in the history of the moving image. Before the advent of data projectors assembling seven 16mm film projectors in one space would have been a sizeable achievement in itself. It took just over forty-three years for Horizon – Sea series I, II and III to unite in an extended installation at the five venues in an accumulated viewing period nearing 200 days. Dibbets’ work sets an anchor point into the Conceptual Art movement and spatial experiments with the moving image of the early 70’s. From this launch point, the art works in LANDSEASKY turn to an investigation of video space, revealing a wide range of approaches. The art works are constructed more than edited in appearance. Each work, notwithstanding single channel projection works, is situated as an ‘image object’ within the gallery’s architecture grounding them within the site rather than onto it. In several instances this was achieved by forcing the projection image to meet the floor (João Vasco Paiva, Giovanni Ozzola, Derek Kreckler, Craig Walsh, Zhu Jia and in one venue Lauren Brincat) thereby constructing another curious horizon proposition – where the wall meets the floor. Three works in particular break into the gallery space through varied screen projection strategies. Heimo Zobernig’s Untitled Nr 23, 2005, single channel projection slightly exceeds the assembled six portable screens allowing the edges to slip past to the wall directly behind. Through the use of chroma keying, the real and the projection of the projection screens are further confused, resulting in waves of liminal and reconciled spatial experiences. Addressing a similar artistic problem, Paul Bai’s Untitled (Wind Charm), 2013, employs two white flat timber sheets that lean against the wall to catch part of an intense bluesky projection in which a spinning wind charm meditatively performs. His projection of the sky is in fact a recording of the sky, projected through the sky, albeit sky that is surrounded by gallery walls. The projection of the sky breaks open the interpretation of the space before us to question where the work, or for that matter the sky, begins or ends. In another work Littoral, 2014, by Derek Kreckler, the never repeated visual experience is articulated through a custom-made sliced paper screen that is randomly disrupted by an oscillating electric fan. The image of waves rolling to shore, spilling through the screen, extends the projection through the uncertain space between the wall and the screen creating a tentative and unstable territory. Another sea horizon features in João Vasco Paiva’s work Forced Empathy, 2011. In contrast to Dibbets’ analogue image manipulation, he uses computer programming to switch the orientation of the horizon. By upturning the laws of nature between the sea and the inanimate buoy, the image proposes an impossible view where the ocean buoy remains steady and the sea compensates to take on the natural movement of the object. The juxtaposition of these works separated by forty years celebrates Dibbets’ prescient work that was often mistaken in this exhibition as a recent work using software filters to add the appearance of scratched film footage.5 Kimsooja’s seascape in Bottari - Alfa Beach, 2001, is reminiscent of Dibbets’ camera orientation strategy by employing a 180-degree inversion. The low resolution of the digital image creates flattened areas with less detail, subsequently becoming painterly in effect. The ominous dark sea and clouds, reminiscent of romantic painting, are infected with the closing text revealing the significance of the site. The geographic and historic external information change the reading of this horizon to evoke the dimensions of modern globalisation that also resonate in the works of João Vasco Paiva, Sim Cheol-Woong, Lauren Brincat, and Craig Walsh. Each of these artists’ work refers to a specific geographic location or city with histories that impact upon the reading of the site of the horizon. Whether that be in a sacred site for Australian Aboriginals in Craig Walsh’s work, the uses of the Tempelhof Airport in Berlin within Lauren Brincat’s work, or the reframe of imagery of the Han River in Seoul portrayed by Sim Cheol-Woong.

Unique approaches exploring sculptural qualities in the moving image were proposed in new works made for the exhibition. Wang Gongxin’s The Other Rule in Ping Pong, 2014, integrates two projections and a small monitor through perfect triangulated synchronisation. The unexpected and humorous volley between the three image surfaces, complete with precise audio cues, implies a small ball is travelling through three dimensions. While we understand the illusion, the artist forces our eyes to uncomfortably read within a void between the three positions. Another new work, Barbara Campbell’s close, close, 2014, introduced an interactive experience where the viewer’s body in space revealed a partial view of the landscape with corresponding audio zones. A motion sensor detected the changing distance between the viewer and the projection wall enabling the landscape ‘slither view’ to be tentatively explored up and down by moving back or forward in space. Moving through space was also at issue in The Distance of a Kilometre, 2010, by Zhang Peili. The work sandwiched the viewer between two large projections that revealed the one kilometre journey, walked in real time, from opposing ends of a street. As the two camera views approach a particular area, the image increasingly degrades as electronic interference increases and then subsides to reinstate it agian. Standing between the two screens, the illusion of distance is created and destroyed through the documentation of the walk and the subsequent flat abstraction of the digitally degraded image. With hundreds of square meters to consider as exhibition space, Zhu Jia chose to create a work for this exhibition that was small and discreet. It’s beyond my control, 2014, projects a recording of a hand delineating a corner with a pencil. The image in 1:1 scale was forced back in a corner of the gallery demonstrating an irreconcilable tension between the representation and actual space. While Dibbets forced the real and the abstract into two dimensions, Zhu Jia chose to consider the problem in three dimensions. The contradiction was well exposed in the projection that resulted not in a rectangle, but an irregular heptagon splayed across the walls and floor. Lauren Brincat also used the juxtaposition of projection and geometry in This Time Tomorrow Tempelhof, 2012 in which a ceiling high timber isosceles triangle supported the rectangular projection screen. The triangular support that referenced the vanishing point in the video, acted as an elemental monument to perspective in actual space. Moving through the many exhibition venues, some works found quite perfect ready-made situations to be installed such as Yang Zhenzhong’s Passage, 2012. The work was projected on the landing of the main entry staircase in the Guangdong Museum of Art where the architectural lines dramatically emphasised single point perspective adding to the dizzying effect of the camera’s movement forward through space. Yeondoo Jung’s screen monitor diptych Handmade Memories - On the Dividing Line Between Body and Soul, 2008, also explored single point perspective in a complex theatrical construction of space, an illusion built through layers of projection and mixed media, paired with personal commentary. Wang Peng’s screen monitors in his triptych Beyond, 2014 invokes a quite different approach to space where the concept of distance is poetically used as the creator of space: distance between a man and a woman; distance between the land and the sky; distance between seeing and not seeing. Giovanni Ozzola’s Garage - sometimes you can see much more, 2009-2011, is another visually poetic and sculptural work that plays with light, seeing and not seeing, to heighten and transform our spatial awareness. A garage door methodically rolls up to slowly reveal a sparkling bright ocean horizon that fills the gallery space with an expansive view. The door’s inevitable descent transforms the gallery to semi darkness and the reality being an unoccupied space. It was the moments of transition and the uncertainty of that experience that urged the viewer to look harder and stay longer. The association of body and awareness of scale were evident qualities in Shilpa Gupta’s 100 Hand Drawn Maps of India, 2007-2008. Gupta utilised a small custom-built table replicating the original drawings’ size to capture the down projection. The experience of peering onto the small glowing tabletop with the steady flow of fade-in fade-out hand drawn maps, conjured the one hundred people and their interpretations of constructed territorial space. The work deftly alerts us to the conceptual foundation of space, that being, an artificially constructed concept that does not exist independently or universally. LANDSEASKY: revisiting spatiality in video art was an extraordinary opportunity to bring together a collection of works that emphasised and indeed insisted, the phenomenological and sculptural experience was of paramount importance to critically explore video as a fine art medium rather than a cinematic narrative that could be delivered through any number of interchangeable screen sizes and formats. The brief descriptions of the artists’ works offered here demonstrate the key concerns of the project. However, the brevity inevitably restricts more complex commentary on the individual works and also on the ways the

works were presented, venue-by-venue, in different countries and galleries. The opportunity to present this exhibition in five cities, in so many different situations and configurations, was not only a satisfying challenge it was an immense pleasure that would not have been possible without the strength of our partners. It would not be complete without speaking of the many additional activities that complemented the exhibition and the excellent exhibition support, press conferences, television and media coverage, artists’ interviews and hospitality shown by our hosts at OCAT Shanghai, Art Sonje Center and SAMUSO, The Guangdong Museum of Art, Griffith University Art Gallery, and the National Art School Gallery. Thanks also to the SIVA – Shanghai Institute of Visual Art, Fudan University which hosted the LANDSEASKY symposium, as well as the vast network of artists and galleries in Seoul that contributed and explored many possibilities! An extensive page of thanks is included in this publication to name many other people that contributed to the depth and quality of this project. It was a privilege to work with the artists and I thank them all sincerely for their artistic contributions, long discussions, suggestions, good humour and support that was so generously offered over the extended three years of development and presentation.

Kim Machan Artistic Director/Curator of LANDSEASKY exhibition

Notes: 1. ‘Video’ and ‘media art’ are terms used in this essay to refer to moving image and screen-based technologies in general. Video was chosen to evoke the origin of the moving image in contemporary art. 2. Peter Weibel, ‘A Genealogy of Media Art’, in Fan Dian and Zhang Ga eds, Synthetic Times,. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008), pp. 112-116. 3. Due to government funding cuts the NMAI closed. The web site no longer supports the hundreds of artist’s videos that were once available to preview. 4. Horizon II – Sea (3 channel film projection) was shown in the solo exhibition ‘Jan Dibbets’, curated by Rudi Fuchs at the Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands in November 1971. 5. One of the ambitions of this exhibition was to attune viewers to read the medium before them. Dibbets’ work acted as an important reminder of the first experiments in moving image produced and the sign post back to analyse what we see.

Below: workers installing Heimo Zobernig’s Untitled Nr.23 at OCAT Shanghai. 下图：工作人员在OCAT上海馆安装奥地利艺术家黑默·佐伯尼格的作品《无题–第23号》。

Horizon II – Sea

Horizon III – Sea

Jan Dibbets Horizon I – Sea, 2 channel video projection, colour, no sound, 4’:39”/ 4’:39”, 1971 Horizon II – Sea, 3 channel video projection, colour, no sound, 0’:20”/ 0’:29”/0’:7”, 1971 Horizon III – Sea, 2 channel video projection, colour, no sound, 3’:25”/ 3’:26”, 1971

Jan Dibbets (b.1941, Netherlands) was one of the early pioneers to use the camera as a contemporary art tool. He has worked across photography, film and video, but is best known for his photographic works that transform natural landscapes into geometric abstractions through shifts of angle and perspective. These seminal works are exemplary of Dibbet’s early moving image experiments, and demonstrate three approaches to framing the sea to produce different spatial effects. This is a rare opportunity to see the complete series presented in one space to create a dynamic shifting portrayal of the horizon abstracted by the camera’s point of view. Each work in the Horizon series tips and alters the camera’s frame so that the horizon line dissects the screen and in doing so both disrupts the illusion of realism of the video and flattens the pictorial space denying the illusion of depth.

《地平线I –海》，双屏录像，彩色，无声，4分39秒, 1971 《地平线II –海》，三屏录像，彩色，无声，0分20秒/0分29秒/0分7秒, 1971 《地平线III–海》，双屏录像，彩色，无声，3分25秒/3分26秒, 1971 扬·迪波茨（生于1941年，荷兰）是最早将相机作为一种当代艺术工具的先锋者之一。他的工作横跨摄影、电影和录像艺术等领域，但最出名的是他通过角度和视角的变化将自然景观转化为带有几何抽象风格的摄影作品。这些开创性的作品是迪波茨早期移动图像实验的典型，展现了三种不同的取景方式，使画面中的海洋产生不同的空间效果。本展是一个难得的契机，供观众欣赏完整地呈现于同一空间中的系列作品，相机的视角抽象地演绎着一个海平面的动态变化的图景。“地平线系列”中的每一件作品，都提示和改变了相机的画框，使水平线剖析画面，这样做既瓦解了录像的写实主义幻觉，也拉平了画面空间并否认了幻觉上的远近关系。

Horizon I – Sea

João Vasco Paiva Forced Empathy, single channel video, no sound, 7’:29”, 2011

João Vasco Paiva (b.1979, Portugal) has been based in Hong Kong since 2006. Using installation, video, sculpture and bi–dimensional objects, his practice challenges representation and medium specificity. In Forced Empathy (2011) the artist captures a buoy floating in a Hong Kong seascape. However, through computer editing, Paiva disciplines the sea, anchoring the buoy in the centre of the frame and subsequently forcing the surrounding seascape to move in compensation. The point of view has remained intact though the behaviour of the elements that construct space has essential attributes re-assigned. The unnatural movement is unsettling though the environmental order is modified in a way that is not difficult to accept.

《强制移情》，单屏录像, 7分29秒, 2011 周奥（出生于1979年，葡萄牙）自2006年以来一直生活工作于香港。他的创作以装置，影像，雕塑和平面物体为主，对媒介特性和艺术表现进行挑战。在《强制移情》（2011年）中，艺术家捕捉了浮标漂浮在香港的海景。然而，通过电脑编辑，艺术家控制了海洋，把浮标固定在画面中心，然后让浮标周围的海景相对运动起来。视点不变，但空间构建元素的基本属性得到了重新分配。虽然不自然的运动还是让人感到不安，但环境秩序的改变方式并不让人难以接受。

Above: stills of Forced Empathy. Left: installation view of Forced Empathy at National Art School Gallery. 上图：《强制移情》的视频截图；左图：在澳洲国家艺术学院美术馆的装置现场。

序言《海陆空：重访录像艺术的空间性》已在三个国家、十一处场地进行了展出。与其说这是一轮巡回展，不如说是被分布在各个地点，在通行的空间中被安置和重置的一场展览。本项目最抢眼的特性，就是展览在现场和语境中的可塑性。此外，就是景观的概念及其元素；1 录像及其雕塑属性；当代艺术及其空间运用。从展览最初开始，到经过一段时期的发展，我们所关心的这些问题已经有了相当的普适性。项目于 2012年在上海OCAT（我们的基础合作方）启动，并得到了布里斯班的格里菲斯大学美术馆的支持，策展观念成熟于位于矜川的首尔艺术空间的一个策展驻留计划。随着项目的继续进行，在金宣延女士的支持下，我们整合了三清洞文化区的六个场地，在首尔形成了新的空间格局。澳大利亚国家艺术学院美术馆（悉尼）和广东美术馆（广州）两个新的机构加入，使我们展览空间和观众范围都更具多样性。本书收录了诸多参与者和合作者的文章以回顾这场展览。OCAT上海馆艺术总监玛丽娅·科斯坦蒂诺、艺术善载中心主策展人金宣延、格里菲斯大学美术馆代理总监纳奥米·埃文斯、澳大利亚国家艺术学院美术馆总监朱迪思·布莱科尔等人分别从各自的城市特性出发，从不同层次和语境对展览做了评论。安德鲁· 麦克纳马拉的文章则以历史学的方式考察了欧洲现代主义艺术中的早期空间实验，他在文中指出，埃里希·布赫霍尔茨在1922年所做的空间性实验是为屈特·施维特斯的《莫兹堡》的先行。白浦列举了从昂利·列斐伏尔到爱德华·索亚等各种角度的空间理论，随后提出了适用于当代艺术评论的进步性提议。英格丽德·佩里兹从观察者的角度出发，以她自己的思考和观察回应这场展览，并肯定了阿兰·科尔班的观点：“海岸在西方文化中的象征意义是后启蒙运动、尤其是浪漫主义的产物，之后被地质学这门新科学和荷兰风景画历史所巩固。” 《海陆空：重访录像艺术的空间性》这一策展项目缘起于对录像进行重访、厘清和延伸的欲望，录像在此被视为美术工具，一种需要从根本上被理解和表达的媒介，它与其说是电影式的叙事，更应是观众对雕塑的体验。将录像作为“空间中的物体”，其目的是要提出一个暂停的时刻，重新标定我们面前的这个媒介。通过重新介绍早期观念艺术家扬·迪波兹的动态影像图像作品，这场展览的基调提供了集中的审美对位供我们体验，该作品将在现场中的实际体验放在了至关重要的位置上。设想一场在上海、首尔、广州、悉尼、布里斯班的展览，这种自然的地理边界就是这场展览的特点。想到这些各自分离的城市时，我们有哪些共性，又有哪些隔阂？我们的大地之上有天空覆盖，中间有海洋相隔。风景的组成 —— 陆地、海洋和天空是我们对空间关系的根本理解，并回归到所有文明最初的视觉表达。天空与陆地或天空与海洋，这种图像上的局限将视觉元素限制在揭示艺术家的观念手段上，它试图将屏幕空间作为兼具雕塑性与观念性的图像，进行这一媒介特有的分析。本展的策展手段是强调一系列艺术家通过多样精致的手法对屏幕空间分析。这个项目试图将录像还原为媒介，关注录像作为美术媒介的历史，并且挑战其中的幻象元素。在彼得·维贝尔的概述中，他描述道，1960年代至1970年代间，媒体艺术是“ 反幻象”的，1990年代之后，媒介艺术有了“幻象化和影射化的趋势”。2 作为艺术家，维贝尔本人也在 70年代使用电影和录像进行过创作；他在文章中随后提醒道，无论是反幻象艺术和幻象艺术都有其危险之处。为了对这种二分法进行反思并用暧昧的方式将其破除，《海陆空》抛弃了流行的屏幕媒体文化，直面其中的基本问题和现象学问题。在研究地平线的概念时，我注意到荷兰观念艺术家扬·迪波茨在摄影和电影工作上的重要意义。他从1968 年开始的《透视校正》（Perspective Corrections）改变了我们将摄影作为一种艺术媒介的思考方式。他的摄影手法兼具计算性和观念性，促成了特殊的美学标准，这种标准是解析的、规训的、简化的。迪波茨在 1970年和1971年制作了一系列16毫米和32毫米的影片，影片中将摄像机的运动作为剪辑技法，系统性的记录风景：从上到下、从一边到另一边、从陆地到海景的对角线运动。这些作品使空间的幻象和现实共处

的幻象和现实共处于一个平面。尽管通过对海洋和天空的刻画，这种移动的图像可以被理解为海平线，但海平线的高速位移则告诉我们，这个图像实际上是一幅用光线与空间绘制的抽象平面图。《地平线–海》的摘要可以在荷兰媒体艺术研究所的网上看到，笔者也是在这个页面上第一次看到这些作品的动态。3 在迪波茨的支持和阿姆斯特丹市立博物馆的帮助下，这三件作品终于出现在我们的展览上，并且是在1971年问世后首次被一起展出。4 这也可以算是移动图像史中的一个可回味之处。在数字放映机诞生之前，异想天开地在同一空间里安置7台16毫米胶片放映机，这本身就是了不起的成就。三部《地平线–海》在43年之后统一在了一套扩展装置中，在五个场馆的开馆期间持续运转，累计时间近200天。无论是在观念艺术运动中，还是在70年代早期移动图像与空间性试验的结合中，迪波茨的作品都树立了标杆。以此为起点，《海陆空》所收录的作品对录像空间进行考察，以囊括范围更广的制作手法。在呈现上，这些作品更像是被构建的，而不是被编辑的。每件作品，即便是单频投影，也被作为“图像客体”融入到了美术馆的建筑环境中，而不是拼凑进去。一些作品投影联接了地板（周奥、乔凡尼·欧佐拉、德里克·克雷克勒、克雷格·沃什、朱加，以及另一处的劳伦·布伦凯特），从而构建出另一个独特的地平线命题——墙面与地板的相遇。展中尤其有三件作品，通过各异的投影策略闯入了美术馆的空间。黑默·佐伯尼格的《无题–第23号》（2005）通过单频道将稍微过大于六块便携式屏幕面积的影像边缘投射到后面的墙上。通过色度的调控，现实和投影进一步混淆，形成了时有时无的，不确定的空间体验。白浦的《无题（风铃）》（2013）致力于一个类似的艺术问题。他将两片扁平的白色木板倚靠在墙边来捕捉一部分的蓝天投影，一个风铃在蓝天中如沉思般旋转。在白浦的这件作品中，蓝天的投影实际上是天空的录像，并通过天空放映，尽管天空已被博物馆墙所包围。这件对天空的投影引发了这样的疑问：这件作品，或说我们的天空，起于何处，又终于何处？这个问题事关我们对空间的解释。在另一件德里克·克雷克勒的作品《沿海》（2014）中，屏幕由订制的薄纸条做成，时而被风扇无规律地扰乱，从而清楚地表达出了一种永不重复的视觉体验。海浪冲击岸边的影像从屏幕中溢出，通过屏幕与墙壁之间不确定的空间，创造出一个临时的不稳定地带，从而使投影得以延伸。周奥的作品《强制移情》（2011）则凸显了另一种海平线。与迪波茨模拟出来的图像操作不同，周奥通过电脑编程来控制海平线的定位。通过改造大海与无生命的浮标之间的法则，这件作品创造出了一个不可能的景观：浮标在景象岿然不动，而大海则相对地运动了起来。这些并置的作品有着四十多年的时间跨度，致敬迪波茨的先锋作品——在我们的展览中，迪波茨的作品常被误认为当代之作，人们以为作者通过后期滤镜来增强表现磨损了的连续镜头。5 金守子《包袱-阿尔法海滩》（2001）中的海景采用了180度的倒转，让人联想到迪波茨的摄影机定位策略。金守子的数码图像创造出细节甚少的扁平化区域，在手法上非常接近绘画。被不详笼罩着的幽暗海洋和云朵让人想到浪漫主义绘画，作品的结束文本则揭示了这一地点的意义，附加的地理和历史信息改变了对这一处地平线的解读，从而唤起了现代全球化的维度。周奥、沈铁雄、劳伦·布伦凯特和克雷格·沃什这些艺术家的作品都指向某个具有特定历史的地点或城市，历史影响了对这一处地平线的解读。克雷格· 沃什的作品里表现了受尊崇的澳大利亚土著；劳伦·布伦凯特的作品在柏林滕佩尔霍夫机场取景；沈铁雄则描画了首尔汉江的意象重建。为本次展览所准备的新作品通过独特的手段探索了移动图像的雕塑性。王功新《乒乓球的另一种规则》（2014）使用了两台投影仪和一台小型显示器，三者达成同步。三台显示设备之间的投射节奏出人意料且颇具幽默感，加上精确的提示音，小球仿佛穿行于三个维度之间。尽管我们明白这种幻象，但作者依然能够迫使我们的目光停留在三个位置之间的留白处。另外一件来自芭芭拉·坎贝尔的新作《近，近》（2014 ）引入了互动体验，观看者位于空间中的身体也成为景观影像和音频的一部分。作者装入了一台传感器，能够探测观看者与投影墙之间的距离，通过身体在空间中的移动，景观中的“滑行影像”随之上下。张培力的作品《直线距离一公里》（2010）所关注的是穿梭于空间中的移动。这一作品将观者夹在两幕巨大的投影中间，投射着现实时间中从街道的两端走过的一公里的旅程。当两台摄像机的镜头接近一个特定的区

域，电子干扰逐渐增加，与此同时图像逐步地分解；随着干扰渐渐减少，图像又慢慢复原。站在这两个大屏幕中间，步行的过程被记录在影像中，随后数字化降解的图像被扁平抽象化，距离的幻象由此产生而又毁灭。尽管有数百平方米的空间供其展览，朱加却决定为本展创造一件小而低调的作品。《控制之外》（2014）记录了一只手用铅笔绘出一个角落的影像。影像以1:1的比例被置于画廊角落，展示了表征和现实空间之间不可调和的矛盾。如果说迪波茨努力将现实和抽象强置于二维空间中，朱加则选择了以三维的视角考虑问题。投影充分暴露了这之间的矛盾，该影像并非是矩形的，而是一个横跨墙面和地板上的不规则七边形。劳伦·布伦凯特在其作品《明天此时, 滕佩尔霍夫机场》（2012）中同样将投影和几何并置，以木材搭成高及天花板的等腰三角形支撑着矩形的投影屏幕。这个三角形的支撑体参考了录像中的消失点，像一个简易纪念牌，映衬了实际空间中的透视。在各个展览场馆间历经辗转后,一些作品，比如杨振中的《通道》（2012), 找到了恰巧适合装置的现成位置。这一作品被投射在广东美术馆主入口楼梯末端的平台上，楼梯的建筑线条显著强调了单点透视，为摄像机在空间中向前移动而摄的画面更添一分令人晕眩的效果。郑然斗的双屏作品《身体灵魂的分界线 —“ 手工记忆”项目》（2008）对空间进行了复杂而戏剧化的建构，同样探索了单点透视，通过层层叠加的投影、混合媒介，再配以个人评论，制造了这一幻象。王蓬的三屏录像作品《超越》（2014）运用了迥然不同的展现空间的手法；作品中距离这一概念（男人与女人的距离、陆地与天空的距离、见与不见的距离）被诗意地化作了空间的创造者。乔凡尼·欧佐拉的《车库 — 有时你会看到更多》（2009–2011)，是另一个在视觉上充满诗意和雕塑性的作品，以光影作笔，以见与不见为题，借以加强并转变我们的空间意识。车库门徐徐卷起，慢慢露出闪闪发光的海平面，画廊的空间随即被广阔的景致填满。门最终落下，空间变得半暗，现实中空旷的画廊空间再现眼前。正是这些过渡时刻及体验过程中的不确定性促使观者伫立更久，更仔细观看。库普塔的《100幅手绘印度地图》（2007–2008）则明显强调了对规模的意识和身体的关联。库普塔复制原始手绘地图的尺寸定制了一张小桌子，用以捕捉从上方投下的影像。小桌在发着光，桌上覆盖着平稳流动、淡入淡出的手绘地图影像，观者在凝视桌面时就如同望见了那一百人，还有他们对于构建的领土空间的理解。这一作品巧妙地警醒了我们，空间的概念基础是经由人工构建的，它既不独立存在，也不普遍存在。《海陆空：重访录像艺术的空间性》提供了一个绝佳的机遇，它所汇集的一系列作品皆着重强调：录像不仅仅是一个能在任意尺寸、格式的屏幕上得以呈现的电影故事，它也是一个美术媒介，其现象学和雕塑性的体验在对这一媒介的钻研探索中更是至关重要的。为艺术家作品提供的简要描述旨在表明此项目的着重关注点，但这些描述简短扼要，难免限制了对每件作品以及它们在不同国家、画廊这些场所的展陈方式做更详尽的评注。这一次能有机会在五座城市的不同境遇中以不同形式呈展不仅是一项令人满意的挑战，更带来了无尽的愉悦，而若没有合作伙伴相助一臂之力是不可能成功的。此外，必须提及多项为展览增色的附加活动，以及OCAT上海馆、艺术善载中心和SAMUSO、广东美术馆、格里菲特大学美术馆，以及国家艺术学院画廊的东道主呈现的杰出展览支持、新闻发布会、电视以及媒体报导、艺术家采访，以及款待。同时感谢上海视觉艺术学院承办《海陆空》座谈会，以及首尔的大量艺术家和画廊协力探索本展的各种可能性！本出版物还收录了一页详细的致谢单，注明了为本项目的深度和质量作出贡献的许多其他人员。此番有机会与艺术家一同合作是我的荣幸，我诚挚地感谢他们在本项目长达三年的发展和展陈过程中慷慨地提供了艺术贡献、长时间的讨论、建议、好脾气以及支持。

金曼艺术总监／策展人

注释 1 本文中出现的“录像”和“媒体艺术”这两个词汇皆意指广义上的动态影像和基于屏幕的技术。选用录像旨在唤起动态影像在当代艺术中的起点。 2《媒体艺术谱系》(A Genealogy of Media Art), Synthetic Times, 2008 112–116页 3 NMAI由于政府经费原因而被关闭。该网站曾提供的上百件艺术家录像作品如今已无法获得。 4《地平线II-海》（3通道投影）曾在1971年11月荷兰埃因霍芬的市立美术馆（Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum）举行的“扬·迪波茨”个展上出现。该展览由 Rudi Fuchs策展。 5 本展览的旨趣之一，是希望观众能够在接触这些作品之前对媒介进行阅读。对于移动图像的初体验来说，迪波茨的作品是一个重要的提示。当对我们今天所看到的进行解析时，他的作品也是一个重要的指向标。

Kimsooja Bottari – Alfa Beach, single channel video, no sound, 6’:18”, 2001 Kimsooja (b.1957, Korea) works in video, installation, sculpture and performance practices. Kimsooja’s work is highly meditative, achieved through the mindful repetition of actions, imagery and materials drawn from the everyday. The video work Bottari – Alfa Beach (2001) examines the notorious Nigerian beach of the work’s title, a site used to ship slaves off the continent, bound for colonial destinations around the globe. The artist has described the horizon she saw on Alpha Beach as ‘the saddest and most shocking line I’ve ever seen’. The inverted horizon, rather than the trope of optimism or romance, is now uncharacteristically negative and an enduring link to the site’s horrific past. The infusion of history to an otherwise anonymous view into space dramatically expands our perception and conceptually animates the landscape.

《包袱 – 阿尔法海滩》，单屏录像, 6分18秒，2001 金守子（出生于1957年，韩国）的创作包括影像、装置、雕塑和行为表演。金守子的工作是非常冥想化的，通过重复日常生活中的所注意到的动作、图像和材料而实现。录像作品《包袱-阿尔法海滩》（2001年）探讨了作品标题中标注的臭名昭著的阿尔法海滩，它曾经是用来运送奴隶离开非洲到各个殖民地的场所。艺术家将她看到的阿尔法海滩地平线形容为“我所见过的最悲伤和最令人震惊的海岸线”。颠倒的地平线没有丝毫的乐观或浪漫，而是一种一反常态的消极和对于那可怕过去的持久联系。历史和匿名景象的结合在空间中会极大地扩展我们的感知，同时让风景被概念化地生动起来。

Above: installation view of Bottari – Alfa Beach at the National Art School Gallery. 上图：《包袱 – 阿尔法海滩》在澳洲国家艺术学院的装置现场。

Paul Bai 白浦 Untitled (Wind Charm), single channel video projection insallation, timber, sound, 10’:00”, 2013 Paul Bai (b.1968, China) proposes a spiralling wind charm as an image to contemplate and reconcile. What is the reality of its orientation? Is it spiralling left or right, up or down? As the split projection suggests a physical orientation of the spatial context, the image that is separated by two leaning wall panels also introduces the projection space into the physical space of the gallery. To this extent, the blue sky, the gap between the panels, and the wall panels’ casually leaning position all demonstrate a spatial status that is temporal, indeterminate and liminal, and doesn’t adhere to the conventional binary tensions, or as the artist would call it – the Third Spatial Position.

《无题（风铃）》, 单屏投影装置，护墙板，音频, 10分种, 2013 白浦（生于1968年，中国）将螺旋上升的风铃作为图像去思考它的现实方向是什么？风铃的螺旋是向左或向右，向上或向下？分割开的投影在显示了展览空间的物理方向的同时，两块依墙而立的墙板也将投影空间融入了展览的物理空间。在这个意义上，投影里的蓝色天空背景和两块墙板之间的空隙同时展示了一种无定向，临时性的、不确定的、临界的空间状态 — 正如艺术家所提出的“第三空间定位”。

Installation view of Untitled (Wind Charm) at Gallery IHN. 《无题（风铃）》在韩国首尔IHN画廊的装置照。

Looking seawards and elsewhere Ingrid Periz I saw LANDSEASKY on a wet and blustery winter’s day in August 2014, when the exhibition was installed at the National Art School Gallery in Sydney. Housed in the old Darlinghust Gaol, the gallery is part of a campus clad in Sydney sandstone, or yellowblock, a Triassic period sedimentary stone that undergirds the entire Sydney area as well as marking the city’s colonial architecture. Inside the gallery however, all markers of location and of history large and small, seemed temporarily abandoned. As orchestrated by curator Kim Machan in the gallery’s large upstairs space the show’s confluence of video images of waves and water, shifting shorelines, and tilted or reversed horizon lines marked out a site where orientations changed and few points appeared fixed. The one fixed point, digitally produced in João Vasco Paiva’s Forced Empathy of a buoy resolutely stationary in Hong Kong waterways served to heighten, by contrast, this illusion of disequilibrium. LANDSEASKY has appeared in different iterations with an occasionally variable roster of artists. In addition to Sydney the exhibition traveled to Shanghai, Brisbane, Guangzhou, and Seoul, where it was hosted across six venues. As several of the texts gathered here point out, each location produced its own effect. Sunjung Kim likens the experience in Seoul of strolling from one venue to another to a promenade in a scroll painting. Judith Blackall, National Art School Gallery manager and curator, recalled in conversation that some students regularly spent their lunch hours in front of favourite works and Naomi Evans, writing of the two venues hosting the exhibition in Brisbane notes the potency of interstitial states alluded to in both the title and a number of the works. Central to any experience of the exhibition was Jan Dibbets’ Horizon – Sea (1971) Series I, II and III, a work comprising seven projections, shown simultaneously for the first time in the exhibition. Installed as a three-part suite of paired, tripled, and finally paired projections, the work shows a series of maritime horizons, aligned vertically, horizontally and diagonally. In the first pair, vertical waves roll horizontally into the center of the screen; in the second triptych, horizontal waves roll vertically to the bottom of the screen (much as they appear to do at the beach); and in the final pair, diagonal waves on left and right roll into the center diagonally. Complicating this is Dibbets’ use of a pivoting camera. Thus, the vertical horizon lines of the first projected pair shift horizontally, the horizontal horizon lines of the centre group shift vertically, and the diagonal horizontal lines of the last projected pair move diagonally. While the camera movement is uniform within any single one of the seven projected “views,” the speed of movement varies from view to view. Confronting the work of course, any spectator probably intuits Dibbets’ procedure in less time than it would take to read the above description; nevertheless, one of the initial pleasures of the work is the mental recreation of this process. (1) Dibbets’ work arrests, in large part because the sideways and oblique movements of the horizon line disturbs the assumed verticality of the viewing body. To this extent the work is anti-illusionistic; the screen space is flattened, treated in the first and last diptychs as a surface for a series of what look like cinematic wipes. Horizon – Sea extends the investigation into the nature of perception and representation that Dibbets initiated in his Perspective Corrections, begun in 1968. Here he photographed a series of lawns, studio floors and walls onto which a single trapezoidal shape had been drawn. The perspective of the camera confronting the surface made this shape look like a square in the resulting photographs. In subsequent series Dibbets collaged together photographed land- and seascapes to produce a uniform horizon line, showing how the latter is both a structuring principle of photographic representation as well as a subjective element in viewing. Dibbets has called the horizon a straight line in three dimensions. Horizon – Sea brackets the horizontal in the experience of the horizon: the seas run sideways, the breaker line appears to bounce up and down. That this is not a discomfiting viewing experience may be due to the Newman-esque zips in each of the work’s three sections, the interstitial vertical lines marking where the edge of each image meets the next. (2) These zips provide a vertical orientation point. In Sydney,Horizon – Sea was flanked by Derek Kreckler’s Littoral (2014) which projected footage of breaking waves onto a regularly incised screen, the resulting curtain of strips nudged gently by an oscillating fan placed behind it. At times the swells of airborne strips echoed the waves’ breaks and swells, their gently regular unpredictability undoing the projected image on the flapping screen to reveal a second, intact one directly behind. A little joke on illusionism with its homely apparatus of fan and strip curtain, Littoral’s apparent simplicity recalled the appeal of early cinema’s plethora of images of waves and seashores.

Machan’s idea of a universal “looking to the shoreline” was given very specific inflections in work by Shilpa Gupta and Kimsooja, installed in Sydney with the work by Dibbets, Kreckler and Vasco Paiva. Gupta’s 100 Hand drawn maps of India (2007–08) shows the coastline of the Indian sub-continent drawn and redrawn by 100 adults, the boundaries of the country changing, its coastline in its particularities almost as elastic as its eastern and western-most boundaries. Shorelines are borders too, marking cartographic boundaries, and with them constructs of national identities. Gupta’s work suggests both the fantasmatic dimension of this ideological operation as well as its bloody working out in imperial and post-imperial history. Kimsooja’s Bottari—Alfa Beach (2001) is an inverted view of the eponymous Nigerian beach from where slaves were shipped. As sombre in its historical reference as 100 Hand Drawn Maps of India, the work’s reference remains invisible. The horizon line produced by the inversion of sea and sky yields nothing now except perhaps a kind of abyssal space of horror. (3) Dibbets’ “straight line in three dimensions” operates in historical time as well as space, as Gupta and Kimsooja make plain. Indeed the initial placelessness of that large Sydney room, it might be argued, was the result of specific aesthetic strategies rather than any universal meaning of the horizon line, particularly the maritime one. As Alain Corbin argues in The Lure of the Sea: The discovery of the seaside 1750–1840, the shoreline and with it the sea has a history of meanings, produced through a range of aesthetic and discursive practices. (4) Corbin shows how the Western seaside is a post-Enlightenment, and specifically Romantic project, underwritten as well by the new science of geology and the history of Dutch landscape painting. In his account the meanings accruing to the practice of looking to the sea–girt horizon are inseparable from this web of discursive and aesthetic representations. Thus, when we speak now of the spaces of LANDSEASKY, of the different forms of spatiality that are “revisited” in and by the works selected, as Paul Bai and Andrew McNamara’s deeply suggestive essays make clear, we do so through the languages of modernist aesthetic practice. (5) Outlining what he calls the Third Spatial Position, an “other than” to the familiar binary of inside/outside, Bai alludes to the phenomenologically–inflected thrust of Minimalism’s interest in the spatiality of the viewer. He writes of minimalism making the ‘spatial turn’ to ‘connect artwork to its surrounding space,’ a project undertaken in a different register by Kurt Schwitters’ Merzbau as McNamara recounts in his history of spatial art and early modernism. McNamara writes of Schwitters’ debt to artist Erich Buchholz who planned a spatial art of mobile screens and imagined the possibility of walk-in pictures. That these goals might be realized in “immersive” technologies, let alone the more prosaic bounds of a video installation, seems in this instance beside the point; as McNamara notes, a perennial theme of spatial art was movement. Bai asks: What would be the precondition of spatial construction, the “no space” that exists, unmarked by up/down, left/right, inside/outside, before space? Perhaps amniotic space offers a model for this kind of ur-space, a space also experienced from within the movements of the sea. Corbin hints as much when glossing Novalis’ Disciples at Saïs. He writes of diving into the sea and “experiencing the coenesthetic harmony that exists between the movements of the sea and those of the original waters carried within the human body.” (6) Untitled (Wind Charm) (2013), Bai’s installation in LANDSEASKY, suggests a different way of figuring this space. Instead of a sensory combination, the work proposes an analysis of sensory terms in Bai’s deceptively simple doubled projection of a spiraling wind chime. The chime’s movement is ambiguous; structured like a screw, it is difficult to establish whether it moves up/down or left/right, an effect that helps destabilize a viewer’s orientation in front of the work. In addition to this suspension of the viewer’s compass bearings, Bai de-realizes the illusion of the screen surface which leans against the wall behind it. (Leaning is itself a minimalist trope, a way of intruding into the viewing space so that space becomes experiential, while emphasizing the weighted materiality of the viewed surface.) In spite of these interventions, the apparent regularity of the chime’s turn makes this a meditative work that invites a lengthy, stilled contemplation. By way of contrast Barbara Campbell’s interactive close, close (2014) retains the shoreline orientation, showing footage of migratory shorebirds in their habitat, and demands activation by the viewer whose movement to and from the screen controls the aperture of a horizontal slice of the image which moves up and down the screen. Up close to the screen, this activation leaves the viewer ‘submerged’, a sensation cued as well by sound. Campbell plays on the blinds used by bird watchers and hunters to hide themselves while observing their quarry. Inverting this scenario by making the viewer activate the unfolding scene, the work withholds any complete perceptual field, subtly undoing the illusion of spectatorial agency. Like close, close, Wang Gongxin’s The Other Rule in Ping Pong (2014) creates an illusory space, created

by the peregrinations of a ping pong ball which is spat, ricochets, and finally swatted at over three screens set up in a triangular arrangement. The ball moves unpredictably; a viewer might want to duck whenoccupying the same space as its trajectory. Eschewing any reference to a vertical or horizontal horizon line, the work illustrates precisely Dibbets’ dictum that the horizon exists in three dimensions, “activated” here by synchronized video legerdemain. Zhu Jia’s It’s beyond my control (2014) similarly addressed video’s capacity to configure spatiality. Positioned in a corner, the work shows a hand holding a pencil outlining the edges of the corner by marking the junctions of wall and floor. In Sydney the projection was almost exactly co-extensive with the corner into which it was projected, the hand’s action doubly demarcating illusionistic and real space and undoing their difference. LANDSEASKY offered no single conception of spatiality in its concatenation of moving images designed to be addressed by moving bodies. That “sea between us,” in Machan’s words, is multiple and if it offers the possibility of a coenesthetic Romantic immersiveness, it is equally the ground for formal invention, reflexivity, and historical reckoning.

Notes: 1. Dibbets is most frequently called a conceptual artist, but this work complicates that designation. Writing of the earliest phase of Postminimalism, a term he coined, Robert Pincus-Witten notes, “the virtual content of the art became that of the spectator’s intellectual re-creation of the actions used by the artist to realize the work in the first place.” PincusWitten calls this first phase, which peaked in the United States 1968-70, “painterly.” (Dibbets trained as a painter.) Robert Pincus-Witten, “Introduction”, Postminimalism into Maximalism: American Art, 1966-1986, (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1987), p.11. 2. Barnett Newman used thin vertical strips of colour to separate large areas of colour, giving his mature paintings spatial definition and unity. Additionally, according to Yves-Alain Bois, the zip also served as a command to the beholder to “stand here [with the zip] ...and you will know exactly where you are.” Bois adds that Newman’s greatest wish was to give the beholder a sense of place. See Yves-Alain Bois, “Newman’s Laterality”, in Melissa Ho ed., Reconsidering Barnett Newman: A Symposium at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2002), p.33. 3. Other photographers producing work that documents sites of historical atrocities where all markers of the event have disappeared include Ricky Maynard and Tomoko Yoneda. Kimsooja’s inversion however is singular. “Horror” is only one of several possible responses. 4. Alain Corbin, The Lure of the Sea: The discovery of the seaside 1750-1840, Jocelyn Phelps trans., (London: Penguin, 1994). 5. Thus Dibbets’ “painterly” (in Pincus-Witten’s terms) concerns with horizontality and the picture plane might usefully be discussed with reference to Mondrian’s versions of Pier and Ocean (1914/1915). 6. Corbin, op. cit., p.178. Coenaesthesia can be defined as the general sense or feeling of existence that arises from the sum of bodily impressions. Ingrid Periz writes about contemporary art and artists. She recently curated ‘Robert MacPherson: The Painter’s Reach’ for Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art, in Brisbane Australia.

德里克·克雷克勒参展作品《沿海》的局部照。

Installation detail of Derek Kreckler’s Littoral.

Zhu Jia 朱加 It’s beyond my control, 2–channel synchronised video installation, sound, 10’:00”, 2014

Zhu Jia (b.1963 China) is a first generation Chinese video artist with a practice dating from the early 1990’s. He predominantly works in moving image and photography where his early video work explored urban phenomena revealing an analytic approach to imagined and real space. The creation and articulation of space through drawing is fundamental – through video the artist generously shares the process of contemplating the relationship of drawing and video, merging with architectural space. Conflating and confounding several visual planes, Zhu Jia offers his work to cross-examine his observations and artistic proposition. The work, through its medium and sparse aesthetic, sets up a heightened awareness of representational and real space.

《控制之外》，双屏录像投影, 音频，10分钟，2014 朱加（生于1963年，中国）是第一代中国录像艺术家，其艺术实践可以追溯到90年代初期。他的作品主要体现在移动影像和摄影方面，早期作品在探索城市现象的同时，展现了对想像和现实空间的解析。素描对空间创造和体现来说是很基本的表达方式；凭借录像，艺术家与我们共同思考有关素描，录像与建筑空间的融合。通过几个不同的视觉平面的合并与混淆，朱加用作品来对他的观察和艺术主张进行盘诘。本作品利用它的媒介和简约的美学，对空间的代表性和真实性建立了一个高度的认识。

Derek Kreckler Littoral, single channel video installation, olefin fibre screen, electric fan, no sound, dimensions variable, 2014

Derek Kreckler (b.1952, Australia) works in performance, video, sound and photography. The littoral zone is an environmental term that describes the space between the shore and the water. Littoral zones are understood as abundant spaces, essential to much plant, animal and marine life. This installation employs the word â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Littoralâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; both literally and metaphorically to acknowledge the rich space of potential between viewer and artwork. In Littoral, waves roll toward an unseen coastline. A fan causes the sliced projection screen to move and fragments the work to create multiple silhouettes. Littoral seeks to create an immersive experience for the viewer using low-fi technologies that nonetheless evoke the immensity of sea and sky.

《沿海》，单屏录像装置，纸带屏幕，风扇，2014 德里克·克雷克勒（生于1952年，澳大利亚）的作品包括行为表演、录像、声音和摄影。‘沿海地带’是一个环境术语，用来描述海岸和水域之间的空间。沿海地带也是富有生机的地域，对众多海洋生物，植物，陆地动物的生存有直接的影响。装置使用‘沿海’作为名称，在字面和比喻上承认了在观众和作品之间的富有潜力的空间。在《沿海》中，海浪扑向看不到的海岸线，电扇吹的风使割成条状的投影屏幕飞舞移动，打碎了作品的整体同时制造出许多剪影。《沿海》尝试着通过低科技手法给观众创造一种虚拟的经验同时唤起海与天的广阔。

This page & opposite: installation view of Littoral at Griffith University Art Gallery. 此页和对页：《沿海》在格里菲斯大学美术馆的装置现场。

看向海，看向别处英格丽德·佩里兹

我在一个湿冷大风的冬日里参观了《海陆空》一展，那是2014年的8月，展览设在悉尼的国立艺术学校画廊。画廊所在地曾是达令赫斯特监狱，是校舍的一部分，外墙用悉尼砂岩（一种黄色石块）堆砌起来，这种三叠纪的沉积岩在悉尼随处可见，更是这座城市里殖民建筑的标志性元素。而在画廊内部，所有代表着这个地方及其历史的标记，无论大小，似乎全都被暂时遗弃了。金曼精心策划了这次展览，画廊楼上巨大的空间中装设的录像里汇聚了各类水、波、漂移的海岸的影像和歪斜颠倒的地平线，规示出一片区域，方向不断改变，没有几处是固定的。其中一个固定的点，在周奥的《强制移情》中以数码形式呈现，这一浮标安稳地停在香港水域中，对比之下，更强调了这种颠倒的幻境。《海陆空》一展举办了数场，每场参与的艺术家阵容偶尔有所不同。除悉尼之外，展览来到了上海、布里斯班、广州和首尔，而首尔一展在六处不同的地点举办。正如本册中不少文章提到的那样，每个地点都对展览产生了不同的效果。金宣延就写到，在首尔从一个地方去往另一个场馆，就好像在一幅长卷画中漫步。国立艺术学校画廊经理、策展人朱迪思·布莱科尔则在一次谈话中回忆起了一些学生经常在展中自己最心仪的作品前享用午餐。纳奥米·埃文斯在谈及布里斯班布展的两处场馆时，指出展览标题和其数部作品暗喻了间隙之地的潜在力量。在各场展览中都现身的要作是扬·迪波茨的《地平线 I,II,III — 海》系列，作品包括七幅投影，首次同时展出。投影分别以双幅、三幅、最后再是双幅的形式呈现，从垂直、水平、对角线的不同方向展示了一系列的海平面。在第一组投影中，垂直的波涛滚滚地水平流向屏幕的中心；在第二组的三幅投影中,水平的波涛垂直涌向屏幕底部，就像浪涛拍岸；最后一组影像中，斜着的海面沿左右对角线流到屏幕中心。迪波茨使用一台枢转摄像机，摄影效果让作品更加复杂化。因此，我们看到第一组投影中垂直的海平面水平流动、第二组中水平的波浪垂直运动，而最后一组投影里的对角水平线则沿对角线移动。摄像机在七幅“风景”中各自的运动是一致的，而每一幅影像行进的速度则有所不同。当然比起阅读以上描述，任何人只要直接看到了这些作品，应该都能更快、更直观地理解迪波茨的处理手法。然而，这件作品主要的乐趣之一，就是看懂这一过程所带来的精神上的愉悦。(1) 迪波茨的作品之所以吸引人，很大程度上是因为海平面横向和斜向的运动对观者普遍以身体惯有的垂直角度进行观赏的经历形成了干扰。从这个意义上来说，这个作品是反幻觉主义的；屏幕空间平面化了，在第一组和最后一组三幅影像中处理为一个平面，使其看起来像一系列的电影划接场面。《地平线海》深入探查感知和表征的本质，而迪波茨自1968年的《透视校正》（Perspective Corrections）项目起就开始进行这样的尝试。他这一项目中拍摄了一系列草坪、工作室地面和画着一个梯形图案的墙壁的影像相机对准该平面的角度使成片中的梯形看起来像个方形。在后续系列中，迪波茨把一些照片中的地面和海景画面拼贴在一起，衔接成一条一致的地平线，展示出后者既是摄影表象的构图原则，又是观赏过程中的一个主观元素。迪波茨将这条地平线称为三维中的直线。《地平线》将横向线条加入了海平面的运动：海洋横向流动，拍岸的海浪像根线般上下移动。这种画面并没有令人产生不适感，可能是因为三组影像中都有巴内特·纽曼式的“拉链”式线条，这些间隔的垂直线标示了每一幅影像间的衔接处。(2) 这些拉链提供了一个垂直定位点。在悉尼展览时，《地平线》的两侧是德里克·克雷克勒的《沿海》(2014)，海浪激涌的片段被投映在了一面均匀切割成条状的屏幕上，屏幕后方一座摆动的风扇轻轻吹动着这块条状幕帘。时不时地，在空中涌动的长条屏幕对接上了波浪的起落，轻柔而不可预测地消解了扁平屏幕上投射的影像，接着呈现出一幕完整的影像。《沿海》使用了电扇和条状幕帘这两件家中常见的装置，就像是一个针对幻觉主义的玩笑，简单、显明，让人回忆起了早期电影中对波浪和海岸的影像的滥用。金曼让全展呈现一致的“观望海岸线”的视角的想法，因为希尔帕·库普塔和金守子的作品而有了明确的转调，他们的作品在悉尼和迪波茨、克雷克勒和周奥的作品一同展出。库普塔的《100幅手绘印度地图》(2007 – 08) 展示了一百名成年人绘制或重绘的印度次大陆的海岸线，该国家的边界不断变化，它独特的海岸线几乎和其最东面和最西面的边界一样灵活多变。海岸线也是边境线，在标记着地图的边界的同时架构起各个民族的身份。库普塔的作品提醒了观者这类意识形态行动的幻想维度，以及其在帝国和后帝国时代历史中的血腥事实。金守子的《包袱 – 阿尔法海滩》(2001)展示了与之齐名的尼日利亚海滩的倒转景象，奴隶就是被船运至此地。该作参考的历史与《100幅手绘印度地图》一样阴暗沉郁，但在相比之下却不为人知。如今看来，倒置的海天所呈现的地平线可能只会叫人跌入一片恐怖的深渊。(3) 库普塔和金守子的作品指明，迪波茨所述的“三维中的直线”是在历史的时间和空间中运作着的。确实，有另一种看法认为，悉尼那间庞大的展厅之所以初看起来没有固定位置，是由特定的美学策略所引起,而不是任何地平线（尤其是海平线）的普遍意义的结果。阿兰·科尔本在《海的诱惑：发现海边1750 - 1840》（The Lure of the Sea：The discovery of the seaside）中指出，海岸线和海的意义有着自己的变迁史，由一系列美学和推论实践所产生。(3)科尔本阐明，海岸在西方文化中的象征意义是后启蒙运动、尤其是浪漫主义的产物，之后被地质学这门新科学和荷兰风景画历史所巩固。以他所言，观看海平面这一实践所积累产生的意义，与推论和美学的表述所织成的网络是密不可分的。因此，当我们说起《海

陆空》的空间、谈及展出作品所表现、所“重温”的不同形式的空间性 — 就像白浦和安德鲁·麦克纳马拉发人深省的论文所点明的那样—我们正以现代主义审美实践的语言进行表述。(5) 白浦在对“第三空间位置”，即为我们所熟悉的内/外二分概念之外的一种“其他”存在的概述中，提到了受现象学影响的极简主义对观者空间性产生的兴趣。他写到极简主义的视角“向空间的转向”是为了“将艺术品与其周围空间联系起来”；而麦克纳马拉在他对空间艺术和早期现代主义历史的追溯中，将屈特·施维特斯的《梅兹堡》视为对同一目标用不同方式所做的尝试。麦克纳马拉写到，施维特斯的创作要归功于艺术家埃里希·布赫霍尔茨，后者构想了由移动屏幕构成的空间艺术，展望了创作可步入式图像的可能性。这些目标可能会由“拟真”技术（更不用提录像装置所界定的平凡无奇的范围）所实现，似乎在此处偏离了重点；正如麦克纳马拉说的，空间艺术在当时持久不衰的主题是运动。白浦问道: 什么是空间建构的前提，是空间诞生之前就存在的，被上/下、左/右、内/外所忽视的“非空间”吗？也许羊膜内的空间是这种‘原空间’的一个模型，而这样的空间在人深陷海水的运动中时也能被感受到。当为诺瓦利斯的《赛斯艺徒》写注释时，科尔本同样提示过这一点。他描述了深潜入海时 “体会到海水和人体内所具备水份的运动之间存在的相互麻醉的和谐感”。(6) 白浦在《海陆空》展览中的装置作品《无题(风铃)》(2013)，暗示了认知这种空间的另一种方式。作品不同于感官的结合，白浦看似简单地将一只螺旋转的风铃进行了双重投影，提供了一种对于感官条件的分析。风铃的运动并不明确；由于其结构就像一个螺丝，很难确定它是在上下还是左右移动，这一效果扰乱了观众在作品前对方向的定位。除了悬置观众的方向感，白浦消解了屏幕的幻象，将屏幕倾斜靠在其后的墙上。(倾斜本身就是极简抽象艺术的一种表现方式，通过侵入观看的空间，将空间变为一种经验，同时强调了观看载体这一平面作为物质材料具有重量。）且不论这种介入，仅是风铃明显有规律的转动就能使观者长时间静止地凝视这一引人冥想的作品，陷入长久的沉思。对比之下，芭芭拉·坎贝尔的互动作品《近，近》（2014）则并不改变海岸线的方向，展示迁徙的海鸟在其栖息地的片段，作品要求观众靠近或远离屏幕来控制画面水平部分的光圈大小，在屏幕上上下移动。靠近屏幕，这类激活的动作让观众感觉自己“浸入”了作品，听觉上也接受到了信号。坎贝尔的作品是对观鸟者和猎手在观察猎物隐藏自身时常用的百叶帘的玩味。通过让观众激活展现场景来将这一情节倒置，该作品抑制了所有完整的感知领域，巧妙地消解了观众的幻觉。类似《近，近》，王功新的《乒乓球的另一种规则》（2014）创造了一个虚幻的空间，一个乒乓球在三面排成三角形的屏幕上不断运动着，飘飞、弹跳，最后被猛地击中。球的移动轨迹不可预知；当观众所占空间与球的运动轨迹重合时，可能会尝试躲避飞来的球。这一作品回避了对任何垂直或水平的地平线的参考，恰恰说明了迪波茨的名言，即地平线存在于三维空间中，在此作中通过同步视频的手法被“激活”。朱加的《控制之外》(2014)同样演示了录像构造空间的能力。作品放置在一个角落里，画面中可见一只手拿着一支铅笔，通过标记墙壁和地板的结合处来勾勒角落的边缘。在悉尼，这一影像与所投映的角落几乎是延伸至同一空间的，手的动作在为幻觉与真实空间划清界限的同时，消解了其间的差别。《海陆空》一展将一系列专供移动中的身体观赏而设计的移动图像串联在了一起，没有单一的空间性概念。用金曼的话来说，“我们之间的海”是多样的，如果它提供了一种激发身体存在知觉的浪漫主义的沉浸感，那么它同时也是供我们进行形式上的发明、自反和历史评定的场域。注释： 1. 迪波茨通常被称为观念艺术家，但这一作品让这一称谓复杂化了。在写到“后极简主义”（该术语是他生造的）的最初阶段时，罗伯特·平库斯提到，“艺术的虚拟内容成为了观者动用智慧进行再创造的行为，这类行为首先是被艺术家用来完成作品的。” 罗伯特·平库斯把这第一阶段称为“绘画性阶段”，而这一阶段在1968–1970年间的美国达到了顶峰。(迪波茨曾接受专业绘画训练。）罗伯特· 平库斯–维藤，“介绍”，《从后极简主义到极繁主义:美国艺术1966–1986》，（UMS研究出版社，安娜堡，密歇根，1987），11 页。 2. 巴内特·纽曼曾运用垂直的有色细线分割大色块，这一绘画方式为其成熟的作品赋予了空间上的定义和整体性。此外，根据伊夫-阿兰·博瓦的说法，纽曼的“拉链”同样告诉观看者“（和拉链一起）站在这儿，你就会知道自己在哪儿。”博瓦又说，纽曼最大的愿望就是给予观者一种空间感。详见伊夫–阿兰·博瓦，“纽曼的偏重”，收于梅丽莎·侯（编），《重访巴内特·纽曼：费城艺术博物馆的一场研讨会》（费城艺术博物馆：费城，宾夕法尼亚，2002），33页。 3. 有其他摄影师，包括瑞奇·梅纳德和米田知子，也有作品记录历史上暴行的发生地，而这些事件的印记已全被抹去。金守子的倒置作品可说是独一无二。面对这样的作品，应该还会有除“恐惧”之外的反应。 4. 阿兰·科尔本，《海的诱惑：发现海边1750 - 1840》, (1988), 乔斯林·菲尔普斯（译）（企鹅图书：伦敦，1994）。 5. 因此，平库斯-维藤的术语所描述的迪波茨的“绘画性阶段”与水平状态相关，而在讨论其画平面时也可以参考蒙德里安版本的《码头和海洋(1914/1915)》。 6. 科尔本, 前面引用的书，178页。 “存在感觉（Coenaesthesia）”可以被定义为源自总体的身体印象的一般意义上的存在感。

Yeondoo Jung Handmade Memories – On the Dividing Line between Body & Soul, dual channel HD video on wall-mounted displays, sound, 9’:16”, 2008

Yeondoo Jung (b. 1969, Korea) is well known for his constructed photographs and videos that interpret and represent the recollections of others. His still and moving images capture elaborate hand-made sets that reconstruct memories of subjects, events and scenery in real-time. This diptych video work forms part of the Handmade Memories series. In one screen, an elderly man recounts a personal story set around a train journey. In the other, a projection of pre-recorded video footage of a train track is set into a staged environment. We become aware of several spatial layers in the assembly of imagery and narration.

Above: installation view of Handmade Memories – On the Dividing Line between Body & Soul. Right: still of Handmade Memories – On the Dividing Line between Body & Soul.

上图：《身体灵魂的分界线 —“手工记忆”项目》在格里菲斯大学美术馆的装置现场。右图：《身体灵魂的分界线 —“手工记忆”项目》的视频截图。

《身体灵魂的分界线 —“手工记忆”项目》，双屏高清录像，音频，9分16秒，2008年郑然斗（生于1969年，韩国）为人熟知的是他构造的摄影和录像作品，阐释和表述了其他人的回忆。他的摄影和录像作品抓住了精致的手工制作舞台场景，重建了主题、事件和背景在现实中的记忆。这种双屏影像作品的形式构成了“手工记忆”系列。在其中一个屏幕上，一位老人讲述了他自己的一个关于火车旅行的故事；同时在另一个屏幕上，一段预录的铁轨影像被设置成阶梯型的环境。我们在这图像和叙事的集合中意识到了若干空间层面。

Giovanni Ozzola Garage - sometimes you can see much more, single channel video projection installation, sound, 2009 – 2011

Giovanni Ozzola (b.1982, Italy) works primarily in video and installation. Central to Ozzola’s practice is the exploration of three-dimensional space and its relationship to light. The senses sharpen in the dark and are then overwhelmed by the strong light of a wider space. A tribute to Edward Hopper’s “Rooms by the Sea”, the rattling, mechanical movement of the rolling door shutter clashes with the opening of the horizon onto the sea. The shutter operates as a diaphragm between two dimensions.The video sequence of a roller door rising and falling dramatically alters the viewers’ perception of the room the work is installed within.

《车库 — 有时你会看到更多》, 单屏录像投影，音频, 2009 － 2011 乔凡尼·欧佐拉（生于1982年，意大利）的作品以录像和装置为主。欧佐拉的艺术实践之核心是对三维空间和光线之间关系的探索。当感官适应了黑暗环境后，突然被一个更广阔的空间带来的强光所淹没。作品是向爱德华 ·霍珀的《房间的海》的致敬，卷帘门嘎吱嘎吱机械反复的动作和海平面的开阔形成了强烈的冲突。卷帘门就像是快门一样搁在两个空间维度之间不断地上下开合，这一录像片段戏剧性地改变观众对于作品所在空间的感知。

Right: installation view of Garage - sometimes you can see much more at OCAT Shanghai.

右图：《车库 — 有时你会看到更多》在OCAT上海馆的装置现场。

A short sketch of spatial visual art Andrew McNamara The story of spatial art is the alternative history explaining what occurred within the visual arts (and what happened to it) over the course of the twentieth century. Its legacy informs many of the practices found in the LANDSEASKY exhibition; we could not comprehend these practices without understanding this history. Nonetheless, this legacy of spatial visual art is understood only in a sporadic way as a set of disparate, individual or idiosyncratic practices that lack a coherent framework or narrative underpinning its history. In some ways, this is apt. The history of spatial visual art in the twentieth century is far from continuous, it is not a movement, and its history fractured, but it explains the pathways from modernism to contemporary art better than the standard history that concentrates on modernist painting as an exclusive sphere of self-contained possibility. 1. 1922/23 In 1923, Kurt Schwitters knocked on the door of Herkulesufer 15, Berlin. Finding no one home, Schwitters modified one of Erich Buchholz’s business cards to let him know he had stopped by. What would Schwitters have found behind the door of that apartment if Buchholz had been at home to open it? 2. 1922/1972 In 1972, in an obituary for Buchholz in Berlin newspaper, Tagesspiegel, Heinz Ohff made a remarkable claim about that very apartment Schwitters had visited almost half a century earlier. ‘In 1922,’ Ohff declared, Buchholz had ‘remodeled his studio flat at Herkulesufer 15 into the first “environment,” the first abstractly designed three-dimensional space in art history.’ (I) Chiming in, Eberhard Roters wrote that Buchholz was the first to create a new prototype in art: “the first ‘walk-in picture.’ ” (II) A walk-in picture? At the time, there was no set terminology for such an innovation in art, but the idea is clear: it was three-dimensional and encapsulated the space around the viewer, who entered the work like entering a room. In other words, Buchholz could claim a significant innovation in modernist art practice, today we might say he created the first installation piece, or—given it took up his entire Berlin apartment— he took abstract art into the three-dimensional realm. 3. 1948/1923 Well after Buchholz’s innovation in post-World War One Berlin, the American critic Clement Greenberg noted an interesting feature of emerging abstract art: its reversibility. In a review of an exhibition of Mordecai Ardon’s art, Greenberg detects this aspect of abstract art much later (1948) in regard to artwork that was far less abstract at the time: … the most important threads in contemporary painting now converge: the even, all over, ‘polyphonic’ picture in which every square inch is rendered with equal emphasis … Texture and surface carry everything, and the picture becomes reversible … with beginning, middle, and end made interchangeable. (III)

Already reversibility was a key feature of the impetus behind the abstract works of El Lissitzky. (IV) Like Mordecai Ardon (Max Bronstein), the Russian artist originally had an artistic ambition founded in Jewish mysticism, but emerged to focus on radical spatial, abstract goals. In 1923, Lissitzky was one of four artists—that originally included Buchholz—commissioned to create an abstract room for the Great Berlin Art Exhibition in late 1923. The idea was to display whole rooms transformed by these new abstract, three-dimensional formulations in which the eye was led around the room. Works of visual art were now experienced by entering them; of course, ‘beginning, middle, and end’ had become interchangeable, if not to some extent evaporated. Only Lissitzky’s Proun Room received funding and was realized. Buchholz missed out. The economy was a mess, the politics tumultuous and violent, and innovations in art were unheralded. Lissitzky’s Proun Room would eventually be regarded as a landmark of modernist art. It was perhaps the most directed because it did try to lead the viewer on a kind of directed visual journey along a sequence of walls, as if to suggest along the way that one could experience the course of painting into complete abstraction. 4. 1923 And Schwitters? We know he began to create assemblages in 1923 that would soon acquire a larger

scale, and also become an installation of sorts, initially inhabiting a portion of a room, then steadily consuming it, and finally taking over his house in Hanover. But that was all to come: the resulting work, the Merzbau, or Cathedral of Erotic Misery, would eventually be retrieved for art history as a modernist classic, even though destroyed by allied bombing during World War Two and even though it was largely inassimilable to its most conventional accounts of abstract art. Another sort of modernism was brewing and the Merzbau would play an important role. 5. 1970 Schwitters readily acknowledged the precedent of Buchholz’s apartment, but Lissitzky was more reticent. Buchholz was left to lament the consequences of art-historical fate. Buchholz wrote often. One of the last pieces before his death was a 1970 treatise condemning art history, its fabrications, its inaccuracies and, most of all, for leaving him out of the picture: Art history is nothing but a forgery; there are only differences of degree between deliberate interpretation—spawned by some fictional system of aesthetics—and interpretation that is inadequately informed. (IV)

6. Spatial art history Could we say something similar in regard to the whole, diminished history of spatial art? Are we inadequately informed about its history—and not just the particular case of Buchholz? The story of spatial art is the alternative history explaining what occurred within the visual arts (and what happened to it) over the course of the twentieth century. Its legacy informs many of the practices found in the LANDSEASKY exhibition; we could not comprehend these practices without understanding this history. Nonetheless, this legacy of spatial visual art is understood only in a sporadic way as a set of disparate, individual or idiosyncratic practices that lack a coherent framework or narrative underpinning its history. In some ways, this is apt. The history of spatial visual art in the twentieth century is far from continuous, it is not a movement, and its history fractured, but it explains the pathways from modernism to contemporary art better than the standard history that concentrates on modernist painting as an exclusive sphere of self-contained possibility. 7. 1922/1969 By the 1960s, many of the practices and artworks just mentioned were being rediscovered after the tumult of two world wars, the Great Depression, the rise of totalitarianism, the Holocaust, and atomic weapons. Recreations of Schwitters, Buchholz and Lissitzky were being constructed; the coloured environments of de Stijl were being recovered, all after fading from art-historical memory. Buchholz wrote an article in 1969 to describe what he had created in his small apartment nearly half a century earlier. By then, the same section of Berlin he had lived in no longer existed in the same way. His article, “A Coloured Room, 1922,” explained what he had created back in 1922. Buchholz noted the interchange between colour and relief. The wall surfaces that remained smooth after the removal of a heavy brownish, floral wallpaper were painted light blue, the rough surfaces a vaguely complementary green. The wooden floor and austere furniture were painted grey; the door and window frame white; the relief elements and glass ceiling construction black and gold. The focus was on surfaces and the visual movement around the room. Buchholz’s studio was simultaneously a space of discourse. He notes the many visitors to see what he had constructed and the debates and intense discussions over topics, such as kinetic art, spatial vibrations in the eye of the viewer, physiology of the eye, and physics. These spatial practices, though often highly abstract, respond to issues within the visual arts and the general “cultural climate” one hundred years ago. For the artists, they were themes that could no longer be contained within the boundary of picture plane. Instead the practices responded to a sense that the world had transformed in ways that eluded or confronted conventional perception. 8. Sputnik and art, 1958 Over a decade earlier, Buchholz had written another essay on spatial art and its curious fate. On the 4th October 1957, the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik into space. For Buchholz, it was a confirmation of possibilities heralded by the avant-garde so many decades earlier. He did not mention that the Soviet Union had also successfully tested the world’s first intercontinental ballistic missile earlier in August the same year. His main point was that by 1958 everybody had forgotten Malevich and his crucial importance for spatial art. Responding to Sputnik and Malevich, Buchholz declared that the pencil point on the page

should not be regarded as a point that leads to a line, but an accumulation on a surface that is vertical and suggests taking off from the page or surface and into space. That same year, 1958, the first post-war exhibition of Malevich’s art was held in Braunschweig, Germany. By the 1960s, Buchholz had begun to return to the theme of floating screens. In 1924, he had sketched designs for mobile screens in a public setting as part of an array of architectural projects he devised in the mid-1920s. In 1965, he created a mobile, floating installation, documentation b-3, which featured screens similar in design to the ceiling of the Herkulesufer apartment. These screens did not float off into space but instead moved independently of the artist, courtesy of small machinery, in a shuffling sequence as if demonstrating kinetic spatial art—the topic of the discussions back in 1922. Movement was a perennial theme of spatial art. 9. Vilem Flusser, “Line and Surface”, 1973 (V) A few years later in Brazil, Vilem Flusser ruminated on similar themes to Buchholz, specifically the spatial differences between lines and surfaces. Flusser’s ruminations were prompted by the technological transformations that impacted upon our perceptual awareness. The line, Flusser suggests, is indicative of alphabetical writing. Its primary mode is linear or chronological; it suggests a sequence—from left to right—and that ‘one aims at getting somewhere.’ (23) For this reason, Flusser asserts that lines are distinctive of official discourse as well as the emblem of historical thinking. The focus is always on ‘getting somewhere.’ Of course, the directional impulse is assumed. ‘Until recently,’ Flusser notes, ‘official Western thought has expressed itself much more in lines than written surfaces.’ (25) So what happens with surfaces? Flusser thought that surfaces had begun to proliferate long before personal computers. Surfaces exert an all over effect and elicit a random, wandering eye. The initial response is one of synthesis followed by analysis. This is because the surface is categorically different to the line with its unidirectional movement, say from left to right. Yet, the transformation is not a linear one from line to surfaces. Film, for instance, is hybrid. According to Flusser, film ought to be considered a composite of surface— films, he declares, are visually surfaces, but spatial to the ear (25)—and of a line due to their narrative structure, which follows a text. (24) One of the visitors to Buchholz’s apartment was Viking Eggeling and one could typify his ambition as promoting film as pure surface, even though the movement of lines govern the abstraction of his Diagonal Symphony (1924). Eggling sought to escape the hybrid quality of film, while utilizing both the linear and surface dimensions of the medium. Flusser declares that we still “read” film and television ‘as if they were written lines’, thus failing to ‘grasp their inherent surface quality.’ (25) Yet, somewhat echoing Greenberg on abstract painting, he observes that such media are ‘partially reversible’, thus allowing the possibility of ‘the reader to control and manipulate the sequence of pictures.’ (25) In more utopian flourishes (or do his observations merely anticipate a coming digital media transformation?), Flusser extends this insight to suggest that these potential transformations ‘imply a radically new meaning of the term historical freedom.’ (25) Flusser may project too much in his ruminations about the perceptual-historical changes prompted by technological transformations, but he does lend a vivid insight into the motivations prompting the earliest avant-garde aspirations when venturing into the first wholly abstract, spatial visual artworks. In a declaration strangely resonant with the themes of Buchholz’s essay, “Sputnik and art,” (1958) Flusser notes in his essay, “The Vanity of History,” (1969): ‘Rockets have done away with the concept of distance in the traditional sense.’ (139) 10. Perceptual challenge and spatial art Examining what prompted spatial visual art, a common thread is not the question of optimism or pessimism, but that of art’s response to perceptual upheavals. It is possible to say that spatial visual art is always tied to a perceptual failing. At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a common view was that the world had transformed without precedent, such that the changes surpassed traditional historical calculation. There was an almost tangible sense of things speeding up, everything changed before one’s eyes, and the intimation that the conventional parameters of perception were failing. When spatial practices come to the fore again in the 1960s, this sense of foreboding that emanates from social or technological transformation becomes prominent. Whether it be Robert Smithson’s emphasis on entropy, completely expelling the linear, chronological expectation that Flusser argues is epitomized by the line; or Dan Graham’s contention that the proliferation of glass windows and surfaces actually does

not indicate greater transparency, but an evermore tightly circumscribed social and architecture space that we struggle to inhabit; or Gordon Matta-Clark’s suggestion that his strange cuts, or extractions, into derelict buildings sought a “… strange sort of connection AND divergence at the same time”, while also transforming “lost” spaces into “images”—these are all concerns that echo through the history of spatial visual art, that is seeking to animate new spaces of and for art, while transforming that legacy in continuing it.

Notes: (I) Heinz Ohff, “Als Unbequemer unersetzlich. Zum Tode von Erich Buchholz [The Irreplaceable Inconvenience: an obituary of Erich Buchholz]”, Der Tagesspiegel, 30 December 1972; cited in Mo Buchholz and Eberhard Roters eds, Erich Buchholz (Berlin: Ars Nicolai, 1993), pp.117-118. (II) Roters, in Erich Buchholz, ibid, p.21. (III) Clement Greenberg, “Review of an exhibition of Mordecai Ardon-Bronstein and a Discussion of the Reaction in America to Abstract Art”, The Nation, 6 March 1948; in John O’Brian ed., Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Vol. 2, Arrogant Purpose, 1945-49, pp.217-218. (IV) Yves-Alain Bois, “El Lissitzky: Radical Reversibility”, Art in America, April 1988, pp.161-181. (V) All page references that follow are from Vilém Flusser, Writings, Andreas Ströhl ed., Erik Eisel trans., (Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2002). Andrew McNamara is an art historian and Professor, Visual Arts at QUT, Brisbane. His publications include: Sweat—the subtropical imaginary (2011); An Apprehensive Aesthetic (2009); Modern Times: The Untold Story of Modernism in Australia, with Ann Stephen and Philip Goad (2008). He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities.

Above: a model of Erich Buchholz’s studio at 15 Herkulesufer, Berlin. 上图：埃里希·布赫霍尔茨位于柏林海格立苏菲尔街15号工作室的模型。

Yang Zhenzhong 杨振中 Passage, single-channel video installation, sound, 14’:19”, 2012

Yang Zhenzhong (b. 1968) has explored spatial relationships in many of his video projects throughout his career. In an ongoing examination of the personal, political and institutional, Yang turns the camera to record actions and construct situations that deliberate from a precise point of view. Using the convention of perspective, Passage speaks to the transitional space between spaces. A space that is cut away, removed from all visual references of ‘the other side’. While portraying an exaggerated long space it is in fact a flat screen space that is before us that we must reconcile.

《通道》，单屏录像，音频，14分19秒，2012 杨振中（生于1968年，中国）在他的艺术生涯中创作了许多录像作品来探索空间关系。在一场对于个人、政治和制度的持续检验中，杨振中用摄影机记录行为并且从精确的视点来建构情景。利用透视关系的常规，《通道》表现了空间里的过渡空间。一个被切除的空间，所有“另一边”的视觉参考元素被移除。在描绘了一个夸张的长通道的同时，需要我们来领悟的是它实际上是只不过是一个摆在我们面前的平面屏幕空间。

Above: installation view of Passage at Guangdong Museum of Art; Left: still of Passage. 上图：《通道》在广东美术馆的装置现场；左图：《通道》的视频截图。

Sim Cheol-Woong An│other River, 3 channel video installation, sound, 2011 Sim Cheol-Woong (b.1949, South Korea) works predominantly in digital video and often employs special effects in his videos. In An│other River (2011) the artist grafts together two sides of a river. At the top of the screen, the image pans along the Han River in Seoul showing a relentless length of high-rise development on the south bank. The bottom half of the screen shows video of the river lapping onto the northern riverbank, captured at a static position. Formally, the work references traditional Korean ink painting that uses a bird’s eye perspective. However, as cued by the imagery of skyscrapers, it is modernization that Cheol-Woong speaks to, and in particular, the loss of the traditional cultural landscape as another twist in Korea’s dramatic history.

《另/一条河流》，三屏录像装置，音频，2011 沈铁雄（生于1949年，韩国）的作品主要是体现在数字录像领域从事创作，并经常在录像作品中融入特效。在《另/一条河流》（2011年）中，艺术家把汉江两岸的景色嫁接在一起。在画面的上方，展示了首尔汉江南岸不断发展的城市景象。画面的下方则是汉江北边的河岸。从形式上看，作品参考使用了韩国传统水墨画中的鸟瞰视角。然而，由于加入了摩天大楼的意象，艺术家的作品批评了现代化的进程，尤其是韩国动荡的历史中的另一个转折，即传统人文景观的流逝。

Above: still from An│other River: History. 上图：《另/一条河流：历史》的视频截图

Above: still from An│other River: Dream. 上图：《另/一条河流：梦》的视频截图。 Below: still from An│other River: Blood. 下图：《另/一条河流：血》的视频截图。

空间视觉艺术简要梗概安德鲁·麦克纳马拉

1. 1922/23年 1923年，屈特·施维特斯敲响了柏林海格立苏菲尔街15号的大门。发现家里没有人后，施维特斯修改了埃里希·布赫霍尔茨的名片以告知他曾拜访过。如果布赫霍尔茨当时在家并开了门，施维特斯会在公寓的门后发现什么呢？ 2. 1922/1972年 1972年，在一份柏林报纸－《每日镜报》为布赫霍尔茨刊登的讣告中，海因茨·奥夫针对施维特斯在半个世纪前拜访过的那间公寓发表了一条颇为惊人的评论。“在1922年，”奥夫宣称，布赫霍尔茨已经“把他在格立苏菲尔街15号的工作室公寓改造成了艺术史上的第一个 ‘环境’(I)，第一个经过抽象设计而建的三维空间。” 埃伯哈德·罗特斯亦附和着写道，布赫霍尔茨开创了一个全新的艺术模范－“第一幅 ‘可步入式图画。’” (II) 一幅可步入式图画？当时，这样的艺术革新没有一个固定的名称，但它的概念很明确：它是三维的，将观众环绕于空间内部，进入作品就仿佛走进了一个房间。换句话说，布赫霍尔茨为现代艺术实践带来了一个重大的创新，我们在今天兴许可以说他创作了史上第一个装置作品，或者－由于作品占据了他位于柏林的整座公寓－他将抽象艺术带入了三维的领域。 3. 1948年/1923年继布赫霍尔茨在一战平息后的柏林的创新之举之后，美国评论家克莱门特·格林伯格洞察到了新兴抽象艺术一个有趣的现象：它的可逆性。在为莫笛凯·阿尔东一艺术展而作的一篇评论中，格林伯格在当时相较而下远没有那么抽象的艺术作品中发现了更晚期的抽象艺术（1948年）的这一特性： “...当代绘画最重要的思路现在正在聚拢：那些均匀、全面、富有韵律变化的图画中的每一寸都被赋予了同等的重视...纹理和表层承载了一切，图片变得可逆了...它的开端，中间和结尾变得可以相互替换。”(III) 可逆性早已是埃尔·李思兹基抽象作品创作动力中的关键特征。就像莫笛凯·阿尔东（马克思·布龙斯坦)，这位俄罗斯艺术家最开始时在犹太神秘主义的基础上建立了自己的艺术抱负，但逐渐转而将目标专注于激进的空间化、抽象化。1923年，李思兹基成为了被委任为年末大柏林艺术展创作抽象房间的四位艺术家之一 — 这其中本来也包括了布赫霍尔茨。他们的想法是展出被这些全新的抽象、三维构想而转化的房间，并让参观者的视线被房间内的每个角落所吸引。如此，这些视觉艺术作品需要进入其中才可以被体验到；当然，“开端，中间和结尾变得可以相互替换”，甚至在一定程度上已经消失。唯独李思兹基的《普朗屋》受到了资助并得以实现。布赫霍尔茨错失了机会。当时经济一团糟，政局动荡暴力，而艺术上的革新鲜有人承认。李思兹基的《普朗屋》最终被认作现代主义艺术的一块里程碑。它兴许是定向最明确的一个作品，因为它试图引导观众顺着一列墙壁踏上一个经指导的视觉旅途，沿路似乎暗示着观众，绘画的过程可以在彻底抽象中得以体验。 4. 1923年那么施维特斯呢？我们知道他在1923年开始创造集合艺术，它们的规模很快越来越大，也成为了某种装置，从一开始只占房间的一部分，然后稳步扩张，直到最后占领了他位于汉诺威的整座房子。然而这也就是发生的一切：其成品《莫兹堡》，又名情欲痛苦大教堂，最终上成为了艺术史上的一幕现代主义经典之作，尽管它在第二次世界大战期间盟军的轰炸下已被摧毁，而且它在很大程度上没有被抽象艺术的最传统的概念所同化。另一类型的现代主义正在酝酿着，而《莫兹堡》扮演了一个重要的角色。

5. 1970年施维特斯很乐意地承认了布赫霍尔茨的公寓是一个先例，但李思兹基则比较沉默。这样就只剩下布赫霍尔茨在哀叹着艺术史宿命的后果。布赫霍尔茨经常写作。他在逝前最后的作品之一，一篇作于1970年的论文中，谴责了艺术史，它的捏造，它的误差，还有最重要的便是它迫使他沦为了局外人： “除了赝品，艺术史什么也不是；在有意的阐释(由某种虚构的美学体系所孵化)与无知的阐释之间，只有程度上的区别而已。”(IV)

6. 空间艺术史我们是否能给整体上已消散空间艺术史予以类似的评价？我们是否对该段历史，而不只是布赫霍尔茨这个别的案例，本就知之甚少？空间艺术的故事是一卷解析二十世纪期间视觉艺术界内变迁（及其所历经事故）的或然史。其功绩为许多《海陆空》展览中的实践手法提供了灵感；我们若不了解它的历史，也就无法理解这些实践。然而，空间视觉艺术的功绩要想被理解，只能用一种零散的方式—也就是说，要把它们当作一套有差异的、个人的或者是特异的实践，缺乏一个支撑其历史的清晰构架，或者说叙述。在某种程度上，这个说法是恰当的。二十世纪中空间视觉艺术的历史远非连贯，它不是一个运动，其历史时断时续，但是比起把现代主义绘画看做自成一体的专属领域，并聚焦于此的标准艺术史，它更好地阐释了现代主义到当代艺术的演变之路。 7. 1922年/1969年到了1960年代，许多刚才提及的艺术实践与作品在经历了两次世界大战、大萧条、极权主义的崛起、犹太人大屠杀以及核武器等一系列的骚乱之后，被重新发掘。施维特斯、布赫霍尔茨、李思兹基作品的仿造物正在修建之中; 在从艺术史的记忆中褪去之后，风格派那色彩斑斓的环境也逐渐恢复。布赫霍尔茨在1969年写了一篇文章，描绘了半世纪前他在自己的小公寓中的创作。到那时候，他在柏林居住过的那片区域已经不再是同一个样了。他在《一间着色的房间，1922年》一文中对他1922年的创作进行了阐释。布赫霍尔茨记录了色彩和浮雕之间的互换。撕去了厚重的褐色花卉图案墙纸后的墙面的光滑部分被涂成了浅蓝色，而粗糙的部分则被涂成了一种模糊的富有当代感的绿色。木地板和朴素的家具被漆成了灰色的；门和窗框则成了白色的；浮雕元素和玻璃顶棚建筑分别是黑色和金色的。全屋的焦点在其表面，以及环绕房间的视觉运动。布赫霍尔茨的工作室同时也是一个讨论的空间。他提到了许多前来一睹他的构造物的访客，以及围绕一系列包括动力艺术、观众眼中的空间振动、眼睛的生理机能，以及物理在内的话题而展开的辩论和激烈讨论。这些空间上的实践，尽管总是高度抽象，却是对视觉艺术、以及一百年前总体的“文化气候”中所存在的问题的回应。对这些艺术家来说，这是一些不再能被闲置在图像平面的边界之内的主题。相反，这些实践向世界对传统感知的方式的逃避或者是对峙做了响应。 8. 斯普特尼克和艺术，1958年十年多前，布赫霍尔茨曾写过另一篇关于空间艺术及其古怪命运的文章。1957年10月4日，苏联成功向太空发射了“斯普特尼克号”人造卫星。对于布赫霍尔茨来说，这是对数十年前先锋派所提出的预言的证明。他没有提到，苏联在同年八月份还对世界上第一个洲际弹道导弹进行了测试。他的主要观点是，到1958 年，所有人都已经忘却了马列维奇，以及他对于空间艺术的至关重要性。作为对斯普特尼克号和马列维奇的响应，布赫霍尔茨宣布，铅笔在纸上的一个点不应该被视作导致一条线的一点，而应该被视作在一平面上竖向的堆积，并暗示着它正从纸张或者平面起飞进入空间。同年，马列维奇艺术作品在战后的第一个展览在德国布伦瑞克举行。到了1960年间，布赫霍尔茨开始回归到漂浮屏幕这一主题。在1924年，他已经为某个公共环境中的移动式

屏幕做了设计草案，这是他在1920年代中期一系列的建筑项目设计的一部分。1965年，他创造了一个可移动的、漂浮的装置，《文件b－3》，它由数块与他在格立苏菲尔街的公寓的天花板从设计角度而言十分相似的屏幕构成。这些屏幕并没有飘向太空，相反，多亏了小型机械装置，它们在艺术家的控制之外独立地以一个拖曳的节奏移动着，似乎在展示着动态空间艺术－1922年的讨论话题。运动曾是空间艺术的一个永恒主题。 9. 威廉· 弗卢塞尔，《线条与平面》，1973年 (V) 几年后在巴西，威廉·弗卢塞尔陷入了对与布赫霍尔茨所述十分相似的几个主题的沉思，尤其是线条与平面在空间上的差异。弗卢塞尔的沉思源于影响了我们的感知意识的技术转变。弗卢塞尔提议，线条象征着字母文字。它的主要模式是线型的，或者说按年代顺序排列的；它暗示着一种顺序—从左至右—以及“一种要到达某处的目标。”为此，弗卢塞尔坚称，线条是官方论述以及历史性思索的象征的特色。它的重点永远在于“到达某地。”（23）当然，它在方向上的冲力是假设存在的。 “直到最近，”弗卢塞尔写道，“正式的的西方思想一直都更多地以线型来表达，而不是被写上了字的平面。”（25）那么那些平面发生了什么呢？弗卢塞尔认为，平面早已在个人电脑的发明之前就已经开始激增。平面能施以全方位的影响，吸引任何漫无目的而散漫的视线。最初的回应是综合，接着是分析。这是因为平面与线条有着绝对的区别，后者作单向性运动，比如从左至右。然而，从线条到平面的转化不是线型的。举例来说，电影是一个混合体。据弗卢塞尔所言，电影应该被视作一种复合体，它既包含平面—他宣称，电影从视觉角度来看是平面，但是从听觉角度而言是属于空间的 (25) —又包含着线条，因为它们有遵循着文本的叙事结构。(24) 布赫霍尔茨的公寓昔日的访客中有一位便是维金·埃格林，他的志向可以被视作将电影是纯粹平面这一观点寄以发扬的典型，尽管他所作的《对角交响曲》（1924年）中的抽象概念是被线条的运动所支配的。埃格林力图摆脱电影的混合属性，但同时却应用了此媒介的线性和平面性的双重维度。弗卢塞尔宣称我们仍然总在“阅读”电影和电视，“就好像它们是写出来的线条一般”，因此未能“领会它们与生俱来的平面性。”但是，似乎是在附和着格林伯格对于抽象绘画的见解，他评论说这个媒介的“ 一部分是可逆的”，因此它容许“读者去控制、并操纵画面顺序”的可能性。(25) 揣着更理想化的臆想（抑或是说，他的观察结果仅仅预见了一个即将来临的数字媒体变革？），弗卢塞尔继续延伸这一见解并提出这些潜在的转型“暗示了‘历史自由’这一术语的一个彻底的新义”。(25) 弗卢塞尔也许在他对被技术改革所促使的感知历史变化的沉思中寄望太深了，但是他的确为那些最早期的先锋派在探索第一批完全抽象的空间视觉艺术作品时心生抱负的动机提供了生动的见解。在弗卢塞尔的文章“历史的虚荣”（1969 年）中一段与布赫霍尔茨的“斯普特尼克和艺术”（1958年）的主题有着奇妙共鸣的宣言中，他写道：“ 火箭已经废除了传统意义上的距离概念。”（139）当空间艺术实践在1960年间再次涌现，这种由社会或者技术改革所带来的不详预感成了人们关切的焦点。不论是罗伯特·史密森对于熵的强调，和他对弗卢塞尔认为是线条所象征的线型和年代顺序性的指望的彻底否决；还是如丹·格雷厄姆所述，玻璃窗和平面的普及所预示的不是更高的透明度、而是我们挣扎着栖息的社会和建筑空间正愈加局限；亦或是戈登·玛塔–克拉克认为自己对遗弃建筑的怪诞的切割或萃取探索了“同一时间存在的某种奇异的联系和分歧”，但同时又将“迷失的”空间转化为“图像”的见解—这些都是空间视觉艺术历史上一直存在的一些担忧，而其历史就是这样一段历史：它一方面在想方设法地鼓励艺术的新空间，并为艺术而激活空间，一方面又在延续中改变着这种遗产。

注释 (I )海因茨·奥夫，“无可替代的麻烦：给埃里希·布赫霍尔茨的讣告 (Als Unbequemer unersetzlich. Zum Tode von Erich Buchholz)”, 《每日镜报》，柏林，刊于1972年12月30日；收录于莫·布赫霍尔茨，埃伯哈德·罗特斯（编），“埃里希·布赫霍尔茨”，阿尔斯·尼古拉，柏林，1933年版，第117-8页。 (II)罗特斯，收录于《埃里希·布赫霍尔茨》，阿尔斯·尼古拉，1933年，第21页。 (III)克莱门特·格林伯格，“莫笛凯·阿尔东–布龙斯坦展览评论以及对抽象艺术在美国的反响的议论”,《民族周刊》，刊于1948年3月6日；收录于约翰·奥布赖恩（编），《克莱门特·格林伯格：随笔与批评文合集，第2卷:傲慢的意志》, 1945-1949年，第217-8页。 (IV)博伊斯，伊夫–阿兰。“埃尔·李思兹基：彻底可逆性”,《艺术在美国》，1988年4月，第161–181页。 (V)接下来所有的页码索引出自：威廉·弗卢塞尔，《作品》，安德烈亚斯·斯特罗尔（编），埃里克·艾泽尔（译），明尼苏达大学出版社，明尼苏达/伦敦，2002年。

安德鲁·麦克纳马拉先生是昆士兰理工大学视觉艺术系的艺术史教授，出版过多本有关现代艺术史的书籍并为澳大利亚人文学院的研究员。

Above: Erich Buchholz’s studio at 15 Herkulesufer, Berlin, 1922. 上图：1922年埃里希·布赫霍尔茨位于柏林海格立苏菲尔街15号工作室。

Zhang Peili 张培力 The Distance of a Kilometre, 2 channel video installation, sound, colour 26': 33”, 2010

Zhang Peili (b.1957, Hangzhou) is a senior artist who emerged in the first wave of Chinese contemporary art in the 1980s. His video work 30’ X 30’ (1988) has been regarded as the first piece of video art in China. In The Distance of a Kilometre, the two screens show two people’s point of view, each holding a video recorder while walking a kilometre along the same street but from opposing directions. As the walkers get closer with their cameras the image progressively degrades as the distance between then diminishes. The electronic disturbance and noise increases until the images are unreadable – a mediated deconstruction of representational space.

《直线距离一公里》，双频录像投影装置，有声，彩色，26分33秒， 2010 张培力（生于1957年，中国杭州）是一位资深艺术家，曾在80 年代积极的参与中国当代艺术的启蒙运动，他所制作的录像艺术品《30 X 30 》(1988) 被誉为中国第一部录像艺术作品。《直线距离一公里》是一双频投影作品，银幕展现了两个人的视角，他们各自手持一个录像机，在一公里的距离内互相走进并拍摄对方，不过在他们接近对方的同时，双方的录制图像也逐渐丧失清晰度，直到不可辨认。

Above: stills of The Distance of a Kilometre.

Right: installation view of The Distance of a Kilometre at Guangdong Museum of Art.

上图：《直线距离一公里》的视频截图；下图：在广东美术馆的装置现场。

Shilpa Gupta 100 Hand Drawn Maps of India, single channel video projection, table, no sound, 3’:42”, 2007– 08

Shilpta Gupta (b.1976, India), One Hundred Hand Drawn Maps of India draws us into the complexities of the construction and delineation of space articulated in man-made borders. The video sequence features numerous representations of the Indian map, as drawn from memory by 100 Indian adults. The variety of forms produced throw into question how political borders are created, imagined, and learnt. A highly subjective interpretation of the territory of a nation sees states skipped or incorporated with the attitude of each author. The work is made in times where the identity of the nation state has been emphasized and the relationship between an individual and the imagined state is ambivalent.

《100幅手绘印度地图》，单屏录像投影，桌，3分42秒, 2007 － 2008 库普塔（出生于1976年，印度）的《100幅手绘印度地图》引领我们陷入对人为空间构建与边界划分的复杂性的思索。作品根据100位印度成年人的记忆绘制了不同的印度地图。地图不同的形状所产生的问题使我们联想到政治边界是如何产生、想象和领会的。由于对于国家领土的解读是非常主观的，所以每一个人画的地图都是不同的。这件作品产生于民族国家的身份一直被强调的时代，而个人与想象的国家之间的关系是矛盾的。

Above: detail of 100 Hand Drawn Maps of India. Left: installation view of 100 Hand Drawn Maps of India at Lee Hwaik Gallery. 上图及左图：《100幅手绘印度地图》在韩国 Lee Hwaik画廊的展览现场。

A Brief Introduction to the Concept of Third Spatial Position Paul Bai Australia, an island continent, surrounded by the sea, is often regarded as the “bottom” of the world. Distanced from the majority of countries, the geographical isolation and the country’s vast open space gave rise to my awareness of spatiality and the meaning it represents. As a Chinese migrant, the physical and psychological distances between “old home” and “new country” were the primary factors in my adjustment to Australia, and this re-adjustment has been an ongoing process that keeps me from committing to the dichotomised concepts of ‘here’ or ‘there’, or ‘us’ and ‘them’. For some years I have found myself in a position that is between China and Australia, relating to both places, but also not belonging to either. To this extent, national boundary and spatial identity are secondary to my interpretation of space and its meaning. The personal adaptation of a spatial independence has assisted in my maintaining certain non-conformist and critical attitudes towards general and conventional spatial interpretations and representations. I view my spatial position as a constant process of defining and redefining, and the result of my migrant experience has affected the notions such as in-between and ‘otherness’ in my conscious self-positioning. This aspect of my ‘position’ has developed into the investigation of the Third Spatial Position in my art practice. This essay briefly discusses the notion of Third Spatial Position that is critically open to other spatial interpretations and not solely adherent to the binary debates. Unlike artists driven by the postcolonial political motivations, I do not desire to reverse the values of a dichotomy or to supplant one of its terms. I use the term ‘third’ because I identify with a spatial position that is entirely alternative to the conventional dichotomised spatial terms such as here/there, inside/outside, central/marginal, physical/conceptual etc. In his essay Thirdspace: Towards a New Consciousness of Space and Spatiality (2009), American political geographer Edward Soja states: The spatial dimension of our lives has never been of greater practical and political relevance than it is today. Whether we are attempting to deal with the increasing intervention of electronic media in our daily routines; seeking ways to act politically to deal with the growing problems of poverty, racism, sexual discrimination, and environmental degradation; or trying to understand the multiplying geopolitical conflicts around the globe, we are becoming increasingly aware that we are, and always have been, intrinsically spatial beings, active participants in the social constructions of our embracing spatialities. Perhaps more than ever before, a strategic awareness of this collectively created spatiality and its social consequences has become a vital part of making both theoretical and practical sense of our contemporary life worlds at all scales, from the most intimate to the most global. 1

If art should reflect the social and political conditions of our time, and space is becoming more than ever crucial to the contemporary social and political changes, then it is equally important the focus on spatiality is particularly relevant to contemporary art practice. From the fundamental level, the focuses on spatiality offers an insertion point that allows us to rationally examine the relationship between representation and the audience occupied reality. As for much needed art criticism in our contemporary times, the understanding of spatiality in art practice can certainly indicate the level of communication between the artwork’s conceptual ambition, physical realisation and its contextualisation with the actual environment. To explain the concept of Third Spatial Position, first I will briefly introduce a couple of important findings by the French theorist Henri Lefebvre on the notion of space and its representation. In his seminal book The Production of Space (1991), Lefebvre proposes the space we perceive is the product of social development, designed to meet the needs of political dominance, institutional requirement, economical demand and religious belief. To Lefebvre, space is not a natural entity, but a concept that is realised through the artificial constructions in nature. These constructions, i.e. building, city, map or painting, allow spatiality to manifest through lines, boundaries and perspectives, while we are viewing and perceiving the dimensionalities of the constructs, we are also sensing the existence of space. Though Lefebvre does not satisfy with such a conclusion, as the conceptual and physical aspects of space together form a binary relationship, such dichotomy is not sufficient to explain the spatial construction to its full extent. Rather it confines spatiality to the abstract representations, on both conceptual and physical levels. Lefebvre criticises such binary logic as the ‘double illusion’ in spatial recognition.

If it is true (social) space is a (social) product, how is this fact concealed? The answer is: by a double illusion, each side of which refers back to the other, reinforces the other, and hides behind the other. These two aspects are the illusion of transparency on the one hand and the illusion of opacity, or ‘realistic’ illusion, on the other. 2

According to Lefebvre: The illusion of transparency goes hand in hand with a view of space as innocent, as free of traps or secret places. Anything hidden or dissimulated – and hence dangerous – is antagonistic to transparency, under whose rein everything can be taken in by a single glance from that mental eye which illuminates whatever it contemplates … an encrypted reality becomes readily decipherable thanks to the intervention first of speech and then of writing. 3

To this extent, a spatial reality is supported through visibility, language and writing, thus the mental overwrites the actual. On the other hand the “realistic illusion’ is “the illusion of natural simplicity … the mistaken belief that ‘things’ have more of an existence than the ‘subject’, his thought and his desires.” 4 Edward Soja also sees the ‘realistic illusion’ as one that ‘ … Reduces spatial reality to empirically definable spatial practices, material or natural objects, to the geometry of things in themselves.’ 5 This powerful critique on spatial double illusion has demonstrated the deceptive nature of both conceptual space and physical space in spatial interpretation, and initiates the introduction of a third option into the study of spatiality that would steer spatial interpretation away from the pitfall of double illusion. To break out of the deadlock of double illusion, Lefebvre introduces the spatial triad that encompasses both physical and conceptual spaces and also includes a third element – ‘lived space’, the space that is actually experienced by the inhabitants. Space as directly lived through its associated images and symbols, and hence the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ … It overlays physical space, making symbolic use of its objects. 6

The ‘lived space’ is not an actual space but is the actual experience of the space, where participants can make decisions about their interactions in the space and how they perceive the spatial construct. Edward Soja furthers Lefebvre’s analysis and amplifies the concept of ‘lived space’, in doing so Lefebvre’s spatial triad turns into a reconstitution, which Soja termed as the Thirdspace: Thirdspace epistemologies can now be briefly re-described as arising from the sympathetic deconstruction and heuristic reconstitution of Firstspace (physical) –Secondspace (conceptual) duality, another example of what I have called thirding–as--Othering. Such thirdings is designed not just to critique Firstspace and Secondspace modes of thought but also to reinvigorate their approaches to spatial knowledge with new possibilities heretofore unthought of inside the traditional spatial disciplines. 7

To Soja, the Thirdspace not only includes both physical and conceptual modes of spatial thinking but also opens to the ‘unknowable’, like the ‘lived space’, the Thirdspace is an indeterminate space, a negotiating space, a spatial context that is open and critical, where people make the decisions and changes. As the ‘lived space’ and Thirdspace both intend to break up the traditional spatial dualism, this is very close to the role of the ‘Third Spatial Position’ that I try to establish and identify in art practice. My proposed term of Third Spatial Position is derived from Edward Soja’s spatial term Thirdspace. To name it Third Spatial Position is because such a notion accentuates the concepts of Thirdspace, to assume a position beyond the traditional spatial dialectics, and offers the ‘other than’ option. As this other is based on neither of the binary options, the third position still paradoxically relates to the binary, together they form an open yet critical trialectical spatial relationship. The third spatial position will keep the spatial representation alive and also critical to any established definitions. Being labelled as a ‘position’ reflects that the Third Spatial Position doesn’t necessarily have a designated location to operate within, it rather is an intellectual position to recognise the options and possibilities beyond the existing dichotomised spatial definitions. As the Third Spatial Position in my current research is based on the in-between spatial moment, the characteristics of third spatial position can be described as: tentative, transitional, situational, indeterminate and open. The turn to spatiality is not a new trend in art, as British art historian Peter Osborne observes, the shift from the time focus to spatial relations has mainly been used as in the 1980s and early 1990s to distinguish postmodernist from the modernist theory. 8 Here I would like to emphasis that the 1960s Minimalism art movement already moved away from the modernist spatial isolations, and initiated spatial relations with the exhibition context. In other words, the postmodernist practice already started along with the artistic developments in the 1960s.

In his book The Return of the Real (1996) Hal Foster claims that minimalism does not mark the end of the modernist art, rather is ‘a paradigm shift toward postmodernist practices.’ 9 Anne Rorimer also in New Art in the 60s and 70s – Redefining Reality (2001) describes the art of late 1960s and 70s as: ‘Crossing the divide between the modernist belief in the self-contained object and postmodernist attention to relational, non-autonomous, multifaceted open-endedness.’ 10 If the modernist artwork can be seen as isolated from the external spatial contexts and becoming the object in space, to break out of the transcendental and isolationist shortcomings of modernist art practice, Minimalism in the 60s made the proactive ‘spatial turn’, directly connecting artwork to its surrounding space. Through spatial juxtaposition and integration, the minimalists created confusion and ambiguity between content and context, which are also the traits of postmodernist art practice until today. Conceptual Art practitioners favour to dematerialise the physical existence of artwork, as the work’s final presentation often manifests through language and text, and artwork’s spatial concerns consequentially also become conceptual. At least from the spatial perspective, the Minimalism and Conceptual Art movements of 1960s and 70s that subsequently evolved as the postmodernist art might distinguish their practice by celebrating the tensions between physical and conceptual, abstract and real, onside and offside, yet they still limit their spatial understanding within the spatial dichotomies and double illusions that both Lefebvre and Soja want to break. By focusing on the in-between space I want to identify a spatial moment as the Third Spatial Position, which is more of a conceptual position than the physical position in space – although in practice it often recourses to a physical context for demonstration purposes. The binary debates are only secondary to the argument of the Third Spatial Position — as it opens the way to the spatial interpretation that is beyond the existing spatial dialectics. The Third Spatial Position holds no determinations, though offers the spatial moment, or a conceptual position beside the established spatial binaries. It is the reminder of the preexisting context that precedes any spatial construction, a non-place that we must have in any spatial interpretations and structures. Through co-existing with the binary elements of a structure, the third spatial position will keep the representation open and critical. The natural world that precedes human inhabitation is not spatially defined, it doesn’t have up and down, left or right, inside or outside etc. it is a reality that is hidden by the later spatial structures, and it is crucial and fundamental to the spatial construction. Therefore this hidden reality should be remembered in the spatial representation and subsequent analysis. Without acknowledging this precondition of spatial construction, the spatial representation will always be trapped in the binary debates such as physical/ conceptual, inside/outside, centre and peripheral etc. The Third Spatial Position I try to establish uncovers and identifies the precondition of spatial construction. By emphasising its neutral and indeterminate status within the spatial structure, I would argue this precondition should be seen as an entity of its own, and one that can coexist within the spatial structure among other binary elements. The non-committing nature of the Third Spatial Position allows us the time and interval to review the established spatial structure, to consider or contemplate before making a commitment. We should always remember there is ‘no space’ before space. Notes: 1. Edward Soja, “Thirdspace: Towards a New Consciousness of Space and Spatiality”, in Communicating in the Third Space, Karin Ikas and Gerhard Wagner ed. (New York: Routledge, 2009), p.49. 2. Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, Donald Nicholson-Smith trans., (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1991, p.27. 3.Ibid., p.28. 4.Ibid., p.29. 5. Edward Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), p.157. 6. Lefebvre, op. cit., p.39. 7. Peter Osborne, “Non-places and the Spaces of Art”, The Journal of Architecture No.6, 2001 pp.183-192. 8. Hal Foster, The Return of the Real: the avant-garde at the end of the century, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996), p.36. 9. Anne Rorimer, New Art in the 60s and 70s: Redefining Reality, (London: Thames and Hudson, 2001), p.275.

Still from Wang Peng’s Beyond. 王蓬参展作品《超越》的视频截图。

Barbara Campbell close, close, single channel responsive video projection, sound, 5’:00”, 2014 Camera and edit, Gary Warner Responsive programming, John Tonkin

Barbara Campbell (b.1961 Australia) works between multiple concepts of spatiality—mediated, architectural and geographic—to create singular experiences for the viewer/participant. She has been following the journey of migratory shorebirds on the East Asian-Australasian flyway, the flight path that links the birds in Australia and New Zealand to their breeding grounds in Siberia and the Arctic through the all-important feeding and resting sites on the Korean Peninsular and China’s east coast; a path that uncannily tracks the very trajectory of this exhibition. In her responsive video installation close, close Campbell creates a space to observe and perform within. Multiple horizons, seen and implied, are synthesized within the work.

《近，近》，单屏互动录像，5分钟，2014 拍摄和编辑：加里·华纳互动编程：约翰·唐金芭芭拉·坎贝尔（生于1961年，澳大利亚）的作品介于媒介、建筑和地理等空间的多重概念之间，为观众/参与者制造新奇的经验。艺术家一直跟随着在东亚和大洋洲一带迁徙的水鸟的踪迹，飞行路径包括从澳大利亚、新西兰到西伯利亚、北极圈繁殖地，途径重要的觅食栖息地朝鲜半岛和中国东部沿海地区——这条线路和本次展览的巡回路线惊人的一致。在互动录像装置《近，近》中坎贝尔创建了一个空间来进行观察和表演。多种地平线，看到的与暗示的在作品中合成为一。

Above & below: installation view of close, close at National Art School Gallery. 《近，近》在澳洲国家艺术学院美术馆的装置现场。

Lauren Brincat This Time Tomorrow, Tempelhof, documentation of an action, single-channel digital video; 16:9, colour, 5':19'', 2011

Lauren Brincat (b.1980 Australia). Brincat’s work includes a variety of media, including video documentation of ‘actions’. Her practice is guided by early performance art of the 1970s. Perspective exaggerates this simple recorded action made for video. The artist walks into frame and follows the airport runway line at Berlin’s Templehof Airport till she disappears. Space and references to time in the title activate histories of Templehof Airport: the second world war, the Berlin Airlift, the Cold War, and the now dormant space since the airport was closed in 2008. While the video is directly recorded and not altered through post-production, the artist diminishes relatively quickly as she walks toward the horizon point and evaporates at the point of convergence.

《明天此时，滕佩尔霍夫机场》, 行为记录,单屏数码录像，彩色，音频，5分19秒, 2011 劳伦·布伦凯特（出生于1980年，澳大利亚）创作各种媒体作品，包括行为艺术记录，这类作品通常由艺术家本人亲自完成。布伦凯特的创作在很大程度上遵循了20世纪70年代早期的行为艺术。《明天此时，滕佩尔霍夫机场》通过夸大的视角简单地记录了艺术家的行为。艺术家行走在画面之中，沿着柏林滕佩尔霍夫机场的跑道直至画面的尽头。作品选择的特殊场地唤起对这条跑道关于二战、“柏林空运”以及冷战的历史记忆。现在该机场因2008年关闭而处于闲置状态。

Installation view of This Time Tomorrow, Tempelhof at National Art School Gallery. 《明天此时，滕佩尔霍夫机场》在澳洲国家艺术学院美术馆的装置现场

“第三空间位置”概念简介白浦

澳大利亚是一个岛洲，它四面环海，常被认为是世界的“底部”。由于与绝大多数国家相距甚远，这个国家的地理隔离及其辽阔开放的空间激发了我对空间这一概念所代表的含义的意识。作为一个中国移民， “老家”与“新国”之间的物理上和心理上的距离是影响了我对澳大利亚的适应过程的主要因素，而这个过程一直在持续进行着，并阻止我在思想上向“这里”与“那里”，或者“我们”和“他们”这般的二分化概念靠拢。好些年来，我发现自己一直处于中国与澳大利亚之间的某个位置，与两地皆有联系，却又不属于任一地。在这个程度上，国界及空间界定在我对空间以及含义的理解中是次要的。个人对于空间独立性的适应一直协助着我对普遍、传统的空间阐释与表征保持某种不顺从的，且批判性的态度。我把自身的空间定位视作一个不断定义和再定义的持续过程，而我的移民经历对我在有意识的自我定位过程中“中间”、“他者” 等概念的生成颇有影响。我在“定位”上的认识如今已发展成了我在艺术实践中对“第三空间位置”的调查研究。本文将概括的讨论挑战常规二元空间，且不仅仅依附于二元辩论的‘第三空间位置’的概念。与那些受后殖民主义的政治动机所驱使的艺术家有所不同，我并不寄望于颠倒某个二元论的价值，或篡改其中任意一个术语。我之所以使用“第三”一词是因为我为自身所确定的空间定位是彻底异于那些传统的、二分化的空间术语的，比如这里/那里、里面/外面、中间/边缘、物质上的/概念上的，等等。美国政治地理学家爱德华·索亚在《第三空间：关于空间和空间性的新型意识》（2009年）一文中写道：我们生活中的空间维度从未像今日这般与实用性和政治性如此息息相关。不论在我们企图应对日常生活中电子媒体愈加频繁的介入时，亦或是在寻觅政治表现方法以处理日益剧增的贫困、种族歧视、性别歧视，以及环境质量下降等问题时，还是在尝试悟懂世界各地竞相繁殖的地理政治冲突时，我们越来越清晰地意识到，我们现在是，而且从来都是本质上的空间生物，是社会对周遭空间性的建构过程中的活跃参与者。也许与以往任何时候相比, 这个由集体所创造的空间性及其社会后果的战略意识已成为了从最私人到最全球尺度来探索整个当代生活世界的理论及实际意义的过程中至关重要的一部分。1

如果说艺术应该反映我们时代中的社会和政治气候，而空间对于当代社会以及政治变革也变得比以往更加关键的话，那么对空间性的关注于当代艺术实践来说也是同样重要的。在最基本的层面，对于空间性的聚焦提供了一个切入点，让我们理性地审视表征与观众所处的现实之间的关系。对于我们当代急需的艺术批评而言，对艺术实践中空间性的理解必定能指明作品在概念上的抱负、物质上的实现，和在实际环境的语境化之间的沟通水平。为了解释“第三空间位置”这一概念，首先我会简短地介绍法国理论家昂利·列斐伏尔在空间及其表征的概念上的几个重要发现。列斐伏尔在他的重要著作《空间的生产》（1991年）中提出，我们所感知的空间是社会发展的产物，它专为满足政治统治、制度要求、经济发展、以及宗教信仰之需而设计。对列斐伏尔而言，空间不是一个自然实体，而是一个通过自然中的人造建筑结构才被认识到的概念。这些建筑结构，即建筑、城市、地图或绘画，让空间性得以通过线条、边界和视角而彰显，当我们在观察和感知这些建构的维度时，我们同时也在感受着空间的存在。然而列斐伏尔并不满足于这样的一个结论，既空间由概念和物质双方面一起构成了一个二元关系，这样的两分却不足以为空间构造做充足的解释。相反，它导致空间性在精神和物质两个层面上都限制入了抽象表征的范畴。列斐伏尔批评了这样二分性的逻辑，称其为空间识别中的“双重幻觉”。如果说（社会）空间是一个（社会的）产物这一命题是真实的，那么这个事实是如何被掩盖的呢？其答案是：被一种双重的幻觉所掩盖，这两种幻觉彼此交涉，相互巩固，并相互掩盖。其一是透明性的幻觉，其二是非透明性的，或者说“ 现实主义”的幻觉。2

在列斐伏尔的批评文中对“透明性的幻觉” 的定义：与透明性的幻觉密切相关的是将空间视为单纯的，毫无陷阱或隐秘地点的这一观点。任何隐藏着的或伪装的（也就是危险的）都与透明相敌对，在透明性的统治下，那心理之眼将照亮任何它所思忖的东西，一切皆一目了然...一个被编码的现实在首先是言说，然后是书写的介入之后就变得很容易被解读。 3

在这个意义上来说，一个现实空间是被可视性，语言以及写作支撑着的，也就是说，精神高于实质。可是在另一方面，“真实的幻觉”是“对自然的简洁性的幻觉 ... 是认为‘事物’比‘主体’，比其思想和欲求有着更高的存在性这一错误观念。”4 爱德华·索亚也将“现实主义的幻觉”视作一个“将空间现实简化为几何性的，物质的或者天然的物体，通过经验即可定义的空间实践”的理论。5 这个对于空间双重幻觉的有力批判证明，空间诠释中的精神空间以及物质空间皆有欺骗性，并将一个让空间诠释摆脱双重幻觉之陷井的第三个选择介绍到了对空间的研究中。为了破解双重幻觉的僵局，列斐伏尔提出了空间三元论，它不仅包含了物质空间和精神空间，还包含了一个第三元素 —“生活空间”，这是一个被其使用者实际体验着的空间。通过与其相关联的图像与符号而生存的空间，也就是说“占有者”和“使用者”的空间...它位于在物质空间之上，对它里面的物体的做象征性的使用。 6

“生活空间”不是一个实际的空间，而是对此空间的实际的体验，参与者能在这里决定如何与空间互动及如何感知空间构造。爱德华·索亚将列斐伏尔的分析结果加以延伸，并详述了“生活空间”这一概念，如此一来，列斐伏尔的空间三元论变成了一个重造的体质，索亚把它叫做“第三空间”：第三空间认识论如今可以被重新描述：它源于对第一空间、第二空间二元论的肯定性解构和启发性重构，是被我称为生三成异（ thirding-as- Othering）的辩证论的另一个例子。之所以提出此理论不仅是为了批判第一空间和第二空间的思维方式，也是为了通过注入新的可能性来使它们掌握空间知识的手段恢复活力，而这些可能性是传统的空间科学未能认识到的。7

对索亚来说，第三空间不仅包含物质和观念这两个模式的空间思维，而且存在着“不可知”的可能性。就像“生活空间”一样，第三空间是一个模糊的空间，待磋商的空间，它是一个开放且临界的空间语境，人们能在此做决定，并进行改变。因为“生活空间”与“第三空间”两者都有意打破传统的空间二元论，这和我在艺术实践过程中尝试创立并确定的“第三空间位置”所扮的角色非常相近。我提议的“第三空间位置”这一术语源自爱德华·索亚的空间术语“第三空间”。把它称为“第三空间位置”是因为这个概念强调了“第三空间”的理念，也就是在传统的空间辩证法之外去假定一个定位，并提供一个“其他”的选项。因为这个“其他”不以那二元选项中的任何一个为基础，所以这第三个定位仍然矛盾地涉及到那二元选项，而它们一起形成了一个开放的，却又是批判性的三元辩证性的空间关系。 “第三空间位置”使空间的表征得以成立，并对任何既定定义具有批判性。它被贴上的“位置”这一标签反映了“第三空间位置”不一定有一个供其运转的指定区域，它不如说是一个供人识别在现存的二分性的空间定义外的选项和可能性的知识立场。我当前研究中的“第三空间位置”是以过渡性的空间过程为基础的，因此“第三空间位置”的特性可以被形容为：经验性的、过渡的、情境化的、无定性的，且开放的。转向于空间性不是艺术界内的一股新潮，据英国艺术史学家彼得·奥斯本观察，从对时间的关注到向空间关系的转变在八零年代和九零年代早期主要被用于把后现代主义理论与现代主义理论区分开来。8 我在这里要强调，六零年代的极简派艺术运动早已背离了现代主义艺术家对空间的孤立，并在展览语境中初步探讨了空间关系。换句话说，后现代主义实践随同1960年代的艺术运动一起就已启动。

哈尔·福斯特在《现实的回归》（1996年）一书中宣称，极简派艺术并未标志了现代主义艺术的终结，它反而彰显了“一个走向后现代主义实践的范式转移”。9 安妮·罗密尔在《60 与 70年代的新兴艺术 — 重新定义现实》（2001年）中将六零年代末期和七零年代的艺术形容为：“跨越了现代主义艺术家对艺术品独立自足性的信仰和后现代主义者对关系化的、非自主的、多层面，无限制开放等理念的关注之间的分水岭。”10 如果现代主义艺术作品能被视为与外界的空间环境相隔绝，并能变成空间中的客体，那么，为了突破现代主义艺术实践中先验的和孤立主义的缺陷，六零年代的极简派艺术便做了一个前瞻性的“空间转向”，将作品与周遭环境直接地联系起来。通过对空间的并置和集成，极简派艺术家在作品内容和语境之间创造了困惑与模凌两可，而它们至今都还是后现代主义艺术实践的特性。观念艺术实践者倾向于让艺术作品的物质存在变得非物质化，因为作品最终往往通过语言和文字得以陈述，作品与空间的关系也就必然变得更概念化。至少从空间角度而言，六零和七零年代的，且后来逐渐发展成后现代主义艺术的极简派艺术与概念艺术运动的实践或许能因其对物质与概念、抽象与具象、内部与外部之间的张力的颂扬而出众，但他们还是将对空间的认识限制在了空间二分论和列斐伏尔以及索亚有意打破的双重幻觉之内。我想通过聚焦于过渡空间以确定一个能被称作“第三空间位置”的空间状态, 尽管它在实践中往往为了演示用途而依赖于一个物质语境, 它相比在空间中的物理定位来说更多地是一个概念定位。二元辩论对于“ 第三空间位置”这一论点而言是次要的，它仅仅开启了在现存空间辩证法之外的空间阐释之路。“第三空间位置”毫无绝对，但它提供了在既定的空间二元论之外的一个空间点，或者一个概念上的定位。它提醒着我们，在任何空间构造之前都有一个先存的语境，而在任何空间阐释和结构之中一定都有一个“无”地方。与空间结构里的二元元素的共存，第三空间定位将保持该空间表征的开放性与临界性。人类出现之前的自然世界是缺乏空间上的界定的，它没有上与下、左与右、里与外、等等。它是一个被随后的空间建筑物遮蔽起来的现实，而它对于空间建构有着决定性和根本性的作用。因此，这个被遮蔽的现实应在对空间的表征以及随后的分析中被牢记。若对这一空间构造的前提一无所知，任何对空间的表征将总会被困于如同物质/精神、内部/外部、中间/外围等等的二元化争论中。我设法建立的“第三空间位置” 揭示了，并确定了空间构造的先决条件。凭借着对其在空间结构中中立且不定的地位的强调，我认为这一先决条件应被视为一个独立的实体，而且能在空间结构中与其他二元成分共存。“第三空间位置”的不确定性给予了我们时间和间隙用来回顾和审查已经建立的空间结构，让我们在作出承诺之前加以考虑和沉思。我们应该始终记住：在空间之前是无空间。

注释: 1. 爱德华 · 索亚，“第三空间：关于空间和空间性的新型意识”，收录于《在第三空间中交流》编辑：卡琳·伊卡斯与格哈德 · 瓦格纳（纽约：劳特利奇出版社，2009年），第49页。 2. 昂利 · 列斐伏尔，《空间的生产》（牛津：布莱克维尔出版公司，2001年），第27页。 3. 出处同上，第28页。 4. 出处同上，第29页。 5. 爱德华·索亚，《第三空间：去往洛杉矶和其他真实和想象地方的旅程》（牛津：布莱克维尔出版公司，1996年），第157页。 6. 昂利 ·列斐伏尔，《空间的生产》（牛津：布莱克维尔出版公司，2001年），第27页。 7. 爱德华 · 索亚，《第三空间：去往洛杉矶和其他真实和想象地方的旅程》（牛津：布莱克维尔出版公司，1996 年），第81页。 8. 彼得 ·奥斯本，“非空间与艺术的空间”，《艺术期刊》第六册：第183-192页。 9. 哈尔 · 福斯特，《现实的回归》，（美国：麻省理工大学，1996年），第36页。 10. 安妮 · 罗密尔, 《60和70年代的新兴艺术－重新定义现实》,（伦敦：，泰晤士和哈德森出版社，2001年），第 275页。

Installation view of Wang Peng’s Feeling North Korea at Griffith University Art Gallery. 王蓬的《感受朝鲜》在格里菲斯大学美术馆。

Wang Peng 王蓬 Beyond, 3 channel video, sound, 20’:00”, 2014 Feeling North Korea, single channel video, sound, 12’:15”, 2007

Wang Peng (b.1964, China) explores a very particular logic relating to screen space in his recent video work. His approach is realised through constructed techniques that includes the synthesis of two or more spatial points of view within the one screen. In Beyond it is the separation and relationship between the three screens’ imagery with reference to an obscured (or invisible) horizon that is employed. In Feeling North Korea half of the screen is flattened by imposing a black void, while the other half screen plays out footage the artist discreetly filmed on a visit to Pyongyang.

《超越》，三屏录像，平角显示器，20分钟，2014 《感受朝鲜》，单屏录像，有声，2007

王蓬（生于1964年，中国）在近期的录像作品中，探索了屏幕空间的一个非常特定的逻辑关系。他的方法是通过合成建构手法包括将多重视像融入同一个屏幕来实现。在作品《超越》中，他利用了三个屏幕图像之间的距离和关联，形成了一条模糊（或不可见）的地平线。《感受朝鲜》中屏幕的一半被黑色遮挡，而另一半播放的画面是艺术家在访问平壤时秘密拍摄的。

Installation view of Beyond at Griffith University Art Gallery. 《超越》在格里菲斯大学美术馆。

Craig Walsh Standing Stone Site, single-channel digital animation, colour, no sound, 10:00 loop, 2012

Craig Walsh (b.1966, Australia) often uses projection and photography in relation to environments he experiences. On the Burrup Peninsula, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia − ‘Murujuga’ in local Aboriginal language − there is a significant site, sacred to Aboriginal people, featuring 96 standing stones. It is the largest concentration of standing stones in one area in Australia. Walsh has recorded the changes of light across the rock forms at the extremes of the day, sunrise and sunset; and through digital animation he has composed the images into a fluid and dynamic representation of the illuminated landscape.

《立石场》，单屏数码动画，10分钟，2012 克雷格·沃什（生于1966年，澳大利亚）经常会通过投影来表现回应现有环境和风景。他的作品经常会大规模地创造身临其境和有趣的投影体验，使现实空间面对虚幻空间。《立石场》（2012年）使用了延时摄影技术，记录了位于西澳大利亚州原住民的圣地皮尔巴拉（Pilbara）96块站立着的铁矿石上日出和日落的景观。通过数码动画技术的编制，这些图像流畅并有力的呈现了大地被照亮的景色。

Above & below: stills of Standing Stone Site.《立石场》定格图像。

LANDSEASKY: National Art School Gallery, Sydney Artists have long been influenced by the vastness of nature, with the distant horizon – bound by land, sea and sky – as the embodiment of this fascination. Contemporary artists working in the digital era are no exception. Curator Kim Machan brought a rigorous conceptual and spatial approach to her selections of screen-based artworks for the exhibition LANDSEASKY at the National Art School Gallery. The gallery is housed in a two-storey sandstone building that dates from 1841, a former cell-block for male prisoners in Sydney’s Darlinghurst Gaol. Since 1922 the site has been occupied by one of Australia’s earliest and most respected art schools. The gallery, a well-proportioned space with high ceilings and timber floors, presented work by twelve artists: Paul Bai, Lauren Brincat, Barbara Campbell, Jan Dibbets, Shilpa Gupta, Kimsooja, Derek Kreckler, Giovanni Ozzola, João Vasco Paiva, Wang Gongxin, Wang Peng and Zhu Jia. The artists share a commitment to working beyond the two-dimensions of the projected frame, incorporating sculptural, environmental, architectural and conceptual concerns. In LANDSEASKY they explored a range of themes and experiences by utilising the gallery spaces to present three dimensional engagement. The careful positioning resulted in a visually rich and thought-provoking exhibition of artwork by leading Australian and international contemporary artists. LANDSEASKY was anchored by the seminal work of pioneering conceptual artist Jan Dibbets. Horizon I, II & III – Sea (1971) was presented in the upper space along a single, ten metre length of wall, exhibited as a seven-channel installation. Dibbets’ experimental film in three parts dates from the early 1970s, shot in 36mm and 16mm film. The altered horizon line produced by the artist tilting his camera at various angles, and the random dips and juxtapositions of sea and sky were clearly visible in this singular, mesmerising layout. Still in the upstairs gallery, Derek Kreckler’s major site-specific work Littoral (2014) featured a huge projection of a vast, heaving ocean. The title refers to the ‘littoral zone’, the valuable stretch between shoreline and water, recognised as a zone of abundance for life. The screen comprised strips, which wafted in the breeze of a fan, moving and fragmenting the image of the waves rolling to shore. Combining sophisticated hi- and low-fi technologies, Kreckler’s work created a large-scale, immersive experience, with audiences interacting with the screen and the space behind it. As visitors entered the downstairs gallery, they experienced Barbara Campbell’s work close, close (2014), a deep space with a horizontal band of projected imagery on the end wall. Reminiscent of the view from a bird watcher’s hide, the screen revealed flocks of wading birds. As the visitor moved closer, the audio of the bird cry was activated, and the horizon responded by moving up, revealing more of the scene. Campbell is concerned with migratory birds and their journey from non-breeding grounds in Australia and New Zealand, north to the feeding and resting sites in Korea and China’s east coast, and on up to their breeding grounds in Siberia and the Arctic. Many of the works in LANDSEASKY explored the horizon-line as a timeless metaphor for humanity’s relationship to the world. Others drew connections between history and society with a fresh perspective, and others, such as Zhu Jia’s work Beyond My Control (2014) simply articulated a poetic, visual experience. Occupying a quiet, easily-missed landing at the top of the stairs, a projector pointed into a corner. The video showed a hand busily tracing the contours of the corner between floor and wall. The work delivered a refreshing and memorable juxtaposition of moving imagery and every-day space. LANDSEASKY demonstrated ways artists working with video can extend to incorporate a range of other approaches. All the works contributed strong physical and visual impact with rigorous focus on the formal qualities. This approach enabled viewers to experience the works primarily as fine art objects — eloquent interventions in space rather than video narratives. In Sydney a range of public programs were offered. They included artist talks in the gallery with Barbara Campbell, Lauren Brincat and Derek Kreckler; an Art Forum Lecture by Kim Machan in which she discussed her curatorial approach to LANDSEASKY; she also delivered a tutorial to NAS Post-Graduate

students on digital media and its application in gallery-based installations. Sydney-based artist Emma Hicks conducted a three-hour workshop, Space without Edges, drawing on themes in LANDSEASKY and using experimental video sequences. A comprehensive education resource for primary and secondary school visual arts students — available in PDF format on-line — provided background notes, resources and suggestions for practical art-making. National Art School drawing lecturers recognised the potential for creative investigation and inspiration for students, and conducted workshops in the gallery. Based on Shilpa Gupta’s work 100 Hand-Drawn Maps of India (2007-8), art students spent hours drawing in the dark, exercises utilising mark-making and memory, to broaden their approaches and ideas.

Judith Blackall National Art School Curator and Gallery Manager

Above: installation view of Jan Dibbets’ Horizon I – Sea, Horizon II – Sea, Horizon III – Sea & Derek Kreckler Littoral at National Art School Gallery. Left: visitors looking at Shilpa Gupta’s 100 Hand Drawn Maps of India. 上图：扬·迪波茨的《地平线 — 海》，1，2，3 与德里克·克雷克勒的《沿海》在澳洲国家艺术学院美术馆的装置现场。左图：参观者正在欣赏库普塔的《100幅手绘印度地图》

Wang Gongxin 王功新 The Other Rule in Ping Pong, 3 channel synchronized video installation, sound, 3’:23”, 2014

Wang Gongxin (b.1960 China) has emphasised the sculptural by incorporating objects into his projections and spatially considered screen arrangements. In this work, Wang synchronises two wall projections and one monitor to construct a simulated ping-pong game in screen space. The ball appears to move with speed from wall projection to monitor to wall projection, implied by rhythmic audio cues describing the ball’s movement. The conventional expectation of the game and the balls movement is ruptured by unexpected behaviours. The perception of the space (built in the relationship between the projections and monitor) is both constructed and subsequently deconstructed with conflicting rules.

《乒乓球的另一种规则》，三屏同步录像装置，音频, 3分23秒, 2014 王功新（生于1960年，中国）通过将物体与投影的合并，及屏幕的空间布置来强调作品的雕塑性。在这件作品中，王功新使两面投影和一部显示器同时运作，在屏幕之间构建一场模拟的乒乓球比赛。球似乎在两面投影和显示器之间伴随着有节奏的声音快速运动。然而出乎意外的行为打乱了人们对于比赛和乒乓球的常规期待，因此，建立在投影和显示屏之间的空间认识在被建构同时也被冲突的规则所解构。

This page & opposite: installation view of the Other Rule in Ping Pong at Griffith University Art Gallery 《乒乓球的另一种规则》在格里菲斯大学美术馆的装置现场。

Heimo Zobernig Untitled (Nr. 23), video, colour, sound, 9’: 26”, video projection, projection screens, 2005

Heimo Zobernig (b.1958 Austria) employs various media to address a distinct selection of artistic problems in Modernism. In this work he uses chroma-key post-production effects to introduce layers of spatial views and in turn highlight the materiality of the medium. The video alternates between flat monochrome blue and external views to a garden through gridded windows and venetian blinds. The artist, moving the blinds and the projection screens up and down, performs a repertoire of movements to create the editing framework. The projection sometimes exposes the screens (the real image support) at other times camouflaging the elements, perpetuating honest confusion about the verge of materiality and the editing technique.

《无题–第23号》, 录像，彩色，音频，9分26秒, 2005 黑默·佐伯尼格（生于1958年，奥地利）利用多种媒介来着手一系列显著存在的现代主义艺术问题。在这件作品中，他使用了色度分叠的后期制作特效，引入了空间视图层次，从而突出了该媒介的物质性。通过网格窗和百叶窗，蓝色的空白画面和花园的景色在录像中不断地切换。随着百叶窗和投影屏的上下移动，艺术家通过一系列动作来建立编辑框架。投影有时会出现一些真实的屏幕，有时会遮掩这些元素，延续了屏幕的物质性能和编辑技术之间直白的混乱。

Right: installation view of Untitled (Nr 23) at Griffith University Art Gallery.

右图：《无题–第23号》在格里菲斯大学美术馆的装置现场。

《海陆空》— 澳洲国家艺术学院美术馆

长久以来，艺术家们都受到浩瀚无际的大自然的影响，而遥远处那条被陆地、海洋和天空所约束着的地平线，就是这痴迷的化身。这对于在数字时代中从事创作的当代艺术家们也不例外。策展人金曼以一种严谨的、概念化，且注重空间性的方式，为于国立艺术学院美术馆举办的展览《海陆空》甄选了以屏幕为主的艺术作品。国立艺术学院美术馆栖于一座可以追溯至1841年的双层砂岩建筑物中，她的前生是为悉尼达令赫斯特监狱的男囚犯而设的牢房。自1922年以来，澳大利亚最早开设的，且最负盛名的一所艺术学院一直在使用此场所。画廊内部空间比例匀称，有着超高吊顶和木制地板，而她在本展中呈现的作品来自以下十二位艺术家：白浦、劳伦·布伦凯特、芭芭拉·坎贝尔、扬·迪波茨、希尔帕·库普塔、金守子、德里克·克雷克勒、乔凡尼·欧佐拉、琼奥·瓦斯卡·帕瓦、王功新、王蓬，以及朱加。这些艺术家在创作的过程中，都致力于突破投影画面的二维空间，并将他们对雕塑、环境、建筑，以及概念的考虑结合到作品之中。在《海陆空》一展中，他们利用美术馆空间来呈现作品对三维空间的结合，从而表现了对一系列的题材和经验的探索。此番苦心定位的成果就是这场汇集澳大利亚本土，以及国际上的顶尖艺术家之作的视觉丰富，且引人深思的艺术展。《海陆空》以概念派艺术家中的先驱 — 扬·迪波茨的《地平线I, II, III—海》作为压轴作品。该作品呈现在画廊上层的一面十米长的墙上，以七频道装置的形式展出。迪波茨的实验性电影分为三部，可以追溯到 1970年代早期，以36毫米和16毫米胶片拍摄。艺术家变换多种角度倾斜相机拍摄出变形的地平线，且海洋与天空之间那随意的起伏与并置在这个令人着迷的单件装置中显得分外鲜明。同样陈列于画廊第二层，德里克·克雷克勒的特定场域的力作《沿海》（2014）在一幅硕大的投影上呈现了一片辽阔起伏的海洋。作品标题参考了“滨海带”— 在海岸线与海水之间珍贵的延伸区域，这是一片有着富饶的海洋生态的地带。屏幕整体由数块条状屏幕组成，随着电扇吹出的微风摇荡，让海浪翻滚扑向海滨的影像移动，并支离破碎。通过将尖端的高保真度和低保真度的影视技术相结合，克雷克勒的作品为观众创造了一个大规模的，身临其境的体验，让观众与屏幕及幕后的空间得以互动。当访客步入画廊底楼，就会在一个深邃的空间中望见投映于后墙上的一条影像－那是来自芭芭拉·坎贝尔的作品《近，近》（2014）。该作品在屏幕上呈现了一群群涉水鸟，令人联想起从一个鸟类观察者的藏身处往外看时的景象。当游客走近屏幕时，音频中的鸟鸣声就会被激活，而镜头的视角也相应地抬高，从而显露了更多的景色。坎贝尔所关注的主题是候鸟及其旅程－她们从澳大利亚和新西兰的非繁殖地带启程，向北迁徙至韩国和中国东部沿海地区觅食并歇息，接着继续北迁至位于西伯利亚和北极的繁殖地带。《海陆空》一展中的许多作品将地平线表现成了指向人类与世界的联系的某种永恒隐喻。其他数件作品以全新的角度将历史与社会联系起来，而此外还有些作品，比如来自朱加的《控制之外》(2014)，则纯粹带来了一番诗意的视觉体验。该作品占据了楼梯顶端的一个僻静、很容易就被忽视的平台，有一架投影仪指向角落。录像展示了(艺术家)的一只手，它正忙着描绘地板与墙壁的拐角处的轮廓。这件作品中移动的影像与日常空间的并置让人耳目一新，且难忘不已。《海陆空》向观众展示了从事录像制作的艺术家们在创作中融入一系列其他表现手法的可行途径。所有作品都具有形式品质上的严谨，及有力的物质性和视觉冲击。这种方法使观众能够将作品主要作为艺术物体来体验 — 与其说是录像叙述体，不如说是是对空间的生动的介入。

本展在悉尼展出期间提供了一系列的公共项目。这包括在画廊举办的由芭芭拉·坎贝尔、劳伦·布伦凯特以及德里克·克雷克勒参与的艺术家讲座，以及金曼带来的艺术论坛演讲－金曼在演讲中讨论了本展的策展方式；此外，她还向国立艺术学院的在读研究生开授了一堂有关数字媒介及其在基于画廊的装置作品中的应用的教程。常驻悉尼的艺术家艾玛·希克斯结合《海陆空》中的多个主题，同时运用一些实验性电影的片段，主持了一场长达三小时的研讨会－“无边的空间”。一个为中小学视觉艺术学生所编的综合性教育资源（以PDF格式在线提供）为学生的实际艺术创作提供了背景注释，资源，和建议。国立艺术学院的绘画教师认可了本展作创新研究，并为学生带来灵感的潜能，在画廊内开办了数个工作坊。受希尔帕·库普塔的作品－《100 幅手绘的印度地图》(2007–8)启发，艺术学生花了数个小时在黑暗中作画，这是对他们运用标记和记忆以拓展自身的创作手法和理念的锻炼。

朱迪思·布莱科尔国家艺术学院策展人兼美术馆负责人

Installation view at National Art School Gallery

LANDSEASKY: Griffith University Art Gallery, Brisbane Planes and spaces, volumes, elemental phenomena, ephemeral images – where definitions of one thing predicate consideration of what they are and are not – LANDSEASKY linguistically posits consideration of three nouns — so simple and restrained. By deleting the spaces between words, Kim Machan’s exhibition title, however, asserts connectedness with a range of associations – linguistic, observable and imagined. The potency of interstitial states, or ‘between’ zones , is evident throughout LANDSEASKY in touchstone artworks featuring geographically distant regions, cultures and philosophies. The constancy and mystery of a horizon line fusing sea and sky or land and sky is figurative of Machan’s compelling themes for consideration — what is the nature of the screen, projection and movement that so effectively pries our perceptions open, reinserting spaces in which to savour complications of words, symbols as aggregate elements. Griffith University Art Gallery is based in Brisbane, Australia, in a precinct called South Bank. Brisbane is often referred to as a ‘River City’, and our metropolitan area is characterised by a broad curlicue of water funnelling through highrises and parklands. Griffith University Art Gallery is modest in scale, and housed within the campuses of Grifffith University’s Queensland College of Art. It is an angular building divided into three gallery spaces where we contend with several oblique and acute angles. The screen-based exhibition LANDSEASKY occupied the vertical, horizontal x and y axis of our gallery walls, but also includes sculptural components into the third dimension. Derek Kreckler presents images of crashing waves on a shore over a massive cut screen of Tyvek material that sways and breaks apart when hit with the breath of an oscillating electric fan. Barbara Campbell’s interactive video reveals a slice of vision mimicking the view from an animal or bird ‘hide’ (the built structure that conceals the presence of humans, and cameras, with the intent to observe wildlife without disrupting their behaviour) and this slice of video responds to sensors tracking the speed of a viewer’s movement toward the screen or back, frustrating or rewarding the viewer with glimpses and misses. As a curator of screen-based exhibitions, with Kim Machan I cannot ignore the 3D-ness of the equipment present in spaces, the ‘methods of production’, as they fundamentally impact our viewing experience, however successful a work might be in seducing our attention to and seemingly through the area of a projection. Jan Dibbets’s seminal silent films from 1971 called Horizon I, II, III — Sea presented on loan from the Stedelijk Museum, The Netherlands formed the central locus of Griffith University Art Gallery’s two chapter approach to realising LANDSEASKY. On the floor, seven projectors with 4:3 aspect ratio were readily apparent along with the small media players and syncing cables. Prior to this exhibition, Dibbets’s two and three-channel pieces had never before been exhibited together, given that seven expensive and specialty use 16mm projectors would have had to be sourced or loaned. The transfer of the films to HD video, with the artist’s explicit approval, is a highly significant moment to acknowledge here. That technological possibility has made it possible for viewers to experience the films in a way that the artist desired, but that even he at the time of making was not able to achieve. The transfers are excellent and we are enormously privileged to be among the first institutions to realise the full installation and present that experience in Australia. Occupying three large walls in our main gallery, the horizon that fuses sea and sky rose and fell, pitched, drew back and enveloped the viewer. Wang Gongxing is another pre-emninent artist whose current work engages with technology that was previously unavailable, to sync and choreograph multiple screens and sounds. The installation of an artwork titled The other Rule in Ping Pong showed a ping-pong ball shot from one wall-based projection, as if down into the space of a flatscreen monitor (lying horizontally like a table) then ricocheting upward into another projection. The installation required exactitude in order to maintain the playful absurdity of his piece. The fidelity of the sound deftly supported the illusion of an actual ball. We are grateful that Wang Gongxin, and Wang Peng, represented in this exhibition with two works Beyond and Feeling North Korea, both gave generously of their time and flew from China to Brisbane to participate in artist talks. Their knowledge, dialogue and open-ness in sharing their approaches to art making was invaluable.

In collaboration with Machan, and in respect of the artists’ wishes for presentation of their work, we were able to present 18 artworks across two installation chapters. While Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 phases had distinct characteristics, the totality of the exhibition stays with many people who saw the show, and have commented that the practical separation is almost forgotten. The works have had time to resonate and coalesce in conversation long after they were seen. Movement on screen manifests an acknowledgment of time passing in a way that circumnavigates our three starting words – LANDSEASKY devolves 2D, through 3D and into the fourth dimension. And Machan’s selection of conceptually rigorous artworks might be approached through a cluster of meta-narratives but also on the most personal and idiosyncratic level, which of course is where memories reside. Naomi Evans Griffith University Art Gallery Actiing Director (2012 –2015)

Installation view at Griffith University Art Gallery. 《海陆空》在格里菲斯大学美术馆的展览场景。

《海陆空》— 格里菲斯大学美术馆平面与空间、体积、自然现象、转瞬即逝的图像－在这些范畴中，事物的诸多定义断定了人们对于它们是什么、而不是什么的斟酌 —《海陆空》这一标题通过语言引起了人们对这三个名词的思索，如此简单而拘束。然而，金曼的展览标题通过剔除三个词语的间隙，宣示了它与一系列联想（语言的、可觉察的，还有构想的）之间的牵连。间隙之地，或者说“中间”地带的能量，在贯穿全展的以地域距离、文化、以及哲学为专题的艺术作品中一目了然。海洋与陆地，或陆地与天空交融而生的那条地平线坚定又神秘，与金曼引人瞩目的主题相辉印，并让人陷入沉思：屏幕，投影和移动影像到底有着什么本性让它们如此有力地激活了我们的感知意识，并在其中重新开辟空间，以供我们品味作为其聚合元素的词汇和符号的复杂性。格里菲特大学艺术画廊位于澳大利亚布里斯本的南岸区内。布里斯本常被誉为“河都”，而我们城市地区的特点就是一条宽阔河流，缓缓穿过高楼和公园草地。格里菲特大学美术馆为中等规模，坐落于格林菲特大学昆士兰艺术学院校区内。该建筑棱角分明，被分为三个画廊空间，任几个倾斜或尖锐的角度各自争鸣。本展《海陆空》以屏幕为基础，占据了画廊内横竖双向的X、Y轴线上的墙面，但也包括融入三维空间的雕塑成分。德里克·克雷克勒将海浪击打海滨的影像呈现在一块由聚乙烯合成材料制成的巨大屏幕上，每当摇头电扇吹风过来的时候，屏幕就会摇晃并裂开。芭芭拉·坎贝尔的互动式影像模拟着从一片动物或者鸟的“藏身处”（一个用于掩饰人类和镜头的存在的构筑物，其意图是让人在不干扰野生动物的行为的情况下观察它们）探出的视角，而这个视频是根据几个追踪着观众靠近或离开屏幕时运动速度的传感器作响应的，它一会儿任观众一瞥究竟，一会儿又让他们错失良机。作为以视频展览为主的策展人，我无法忽视金曼在展览空间所呈现的设备的三维性，及展出作品的“制作方法”，因为不论一件作品能多么成功地将我们的注意力吸引到其投影面，制作方法对我们的观影体验总有着关键性的影响。摄于1971年，扬·迪波茨影响深远的默片系列《地平线 I, II, III — 海》借自阿姆斯特丹市立博物馆，它们构成了格里菲特大学美术馆通过两个章节呈现的“海陆空”的中心所在。在地面上，七个4:3显示模式的投影仪和一些小型的媒体播放机以及同步连接线被放在了醒目的位置。本展之前，迪贝茨的双通道以及三通道作品从未在一起展出过，原因是这需要人找到并借来七个昂贵的、供专业用途的16 毫米投影仪。我们得到了艺术家的明确批准，为本展将这些胶卷影片转换成了高清视频，这必须承认是意味极其深远的一刻。技术上的可能性让观众得到了以艺术家本人曾渴求、却无法在他创作当时实现的方式来体验这些影片的机会。影像转换过程非常顺利，我们也甚是荣幸成为第一批将全套装置加以展出的机构之一，并将这段经历在澳大利亚呈现。占据着我们画廊主厅的三面大墙的一条海洋与天空交融的地平线时起时落，它向前倾跌，又往后回退，将观众包围了起来。王功新是另一位卓越超群的艺术家，他在当前的创作中运用以前没有的技术，将多个屏幕与声音同步起来。一件名为《乒乓球的另一种规则》的装置艺术品展示了从一个墙面的投影中射出的一颗乒乓球，它好似坠入了一块（像个桌子一样平躺着的）平板显示屏的空间之中，接着又一跳而起，跃入了另一块投影。此装置需要完美的精确度以表现作品那玩味十足的荒诞色彩。装置音效的高保真度机敏地支撑着这是个真球的幻觉。我们要感谢为本展分别带来了作品《超越》以及《感受朝鲜》的王功新以及王蓬，两位都慷慨地抽出了大量时间，从中国飞来了布里斯本参加艺术家座谈会。他们的学识、对话以及对自身的艺术创作的途径的大方分享是十分宝贵的。通过与金曼的合作，并听取了艺术家对于他们作品展示的寄望，我们有机会通过两个装置章节展出十八件艺术作品。尽管第一章与第二章各有其鲜明的特性，很多看过展的人都感受到了本展的整体性，并评论说他们都忘却了展览实际的分离。这些作品在观赏过后的很长一段时间内的谈话中还会引起共鸣。屏幕上的移动影像表明，飞逝而去的时间是环绕着我们最初讲到的三个名词－《海陆空》从二维转移到三维然后进入第四维的空间。金曼所选出的这一系列理念深刻的艺术作品可能可以通过大量元叙事来理解，但它与此同时也能在最个人、最异质的层面上加以探索，而那就是回忆栖居之处。

纳奥米·埃文斯格里菲特大学美术馆策展人

The opening night of LANDSEASKY at Griffith University Art Gallery. 《海陆空》在格里菲斯大学美术馆的开幕酒会。

Promenade in Seoul Art Sonje Center, Gallery IHN, ONE AND J Gallery, Lee Hwaik Gallery, Gallery SKAPE, OPSIS ART The director of MAAP Kim Machan and I talked about the LANDSEASKY exhibition and the way it might tour to Seoul before it continued to China and Australia. After considering the circumstances of the exhibition, I suggested a different style of presentation that would depart from a conventional exhibition and solve some of the logistical issues that a large group video installation exhibition poses. I thought if we can show the art works in several galleries across the Samcheongdong district, the audience can have more time to consider each individual gallery’s exhibition through the physical walk between the galleries, which are situated quite near by each other. The image of audiences sightseeing in the cultural district, like taking a promenade from one place to another, is reminiscent of scenes we might see in traditional oriental painting. The project ‘Platform Seoul’ (2006–2010), introduced a similar multiple gallery collaborative exhibition format. When several galleries participate in one project together, it naturally creates more opportunities and spaces for the art works to be exhibited thereby increasing the different possibilities of grouping works within each particular venue. This format allows more space to be given to each video installation and that in turn offers audiences a comfortable environment to concentrate and appreciate works. The exhibition in Seoul was presented in six ‘chapters’ where approximately three artists were shown in each gallery, supporting audiences in a situation where they could give their full focus on a small number of works at a time. The uncluttered and calm use of the gallery spaces by the artists’ video installations enabled the viewers to pursue the art works with little disturbance from other works. The short time spent travelling between venues gives the audience a thoughtful space to ponder upon the art works they have just viewed before they move to the next venue to see more. From this strategy, audiences will not only perceive the difference of the space between and within the art works, but also experience a sense of rational time through the promenade. All six venues, including Artsonje Center, are of a different spatial size and character, and has its own setting and its own condition that contributes to the rhythm and texture of the exhibition in Seoul. Artsonje Centre hosted Jan Dibbets, Kimsooja and Joao Vãsco Paiva’s works under the theme of the conceptual horizon. The changing landscape through time and light was demonstrated in works from Giovanni Ozzola, Sim Cheol-Woong and Craig Walsh at the Opsis Art. At ONE AND J Gallery exhibited the works by Derek Kreckler, Barbara Campbell and Wang Peng showed the moving path of the space. Gallery SKAPE projected works by Lauren Brincat and Craig Walsh through their 2nd Floor street window at night. Lee Hwaik Gallery hosted works by Yeondoo Jung, Shilpa Gupta and Lauren Brincat. Gallery IHN exhibited the works from Paul Bai, Wang Gongxin and Heimo Zobernig. Paul Bai proposes a spiraling wind charm as an image to contemplate and reconcile. Wang Gongxin synchronises two wall projections and one monitor to construct a simulated ping-pong game in screen space. Heimo Zobernig use chroma-key post-production effects to introduce layers of spatial views and in turn highlighted the materiality of the medium in <Nr.23>. Through the promenade, audiences can experience another space in our imagination – one that is constructed and connected through the images of the land, the sea and the sky within each video installation in the six different venues. Sunjung Kim Artistic Director of ACC Research & Archive in Asian Culture Center; Chief Curator of Art Sonje Center

]

在首尔的漫步 MAAP的总监金曼和我早在《海陆空》一展抵达中国和澳大利亚之前便讨论过此展可能巡游至首尔的途径。在考虑了有关本展的详情后，我提议以一种别样的方法呈展，这不仅能让它从传统展览中脱颖而出，同时还能解决举办一个大规模录像装置群展所要面临的物流问题。我认为，如果我们能在三清洞区的数间画廊内分别展出这些艺术品，受众就能有更多的时间在行走于相互毗邻的画廊间时斟酌每个独立的展览。观众在文化街区游览的这幅景象就像在两地之间漫步一样，叫人联想起传统东方绘画中常能看到的场景。2006至2010年间的《平台首尔》(Platform Seoul) 项目也采取了类似的安排，由多间画廊合作呈展。当数间画廊一起参与同一个项目时，它自然而然地为展出作品提供了更多的机会和空间，也就提高了在每一个展馆内组合艺术作品的不同可能。这一格局给予了每件录像装置更多的空间，也为观众提供了一个舒适的环境，以供专心欣赏作品。在首尔，这场展览以六个章节的形式呈现，每个画廊内陈列大约三位艺术家的作品，让观众得以在每个展馆内全神贯注于少量的作品。艺术家们的录像装置十分整齐又恬静地填补了画廊内空间，使得观众在欣赏每件作品中不会被其他作品所干扰。在呈展场所间游历的短暂间隙为观众提供了一个体贴的空间，供他们在进入下一个展馆前仔细考虑方才所见的作品。通过这一策略，观众不仅能感知作品之间和作品之内的空间的差别，而且能在漫步时对理性时间有所体会。展览所在的六个场所，包括艺术善载中心，大小、特色各不相同，每个画廊自身的布置和情况都为这场在首尔举行的展览的节奏和质感锦上添花。艺术善载中心以概念地平线为主题呈现了扬·迪波茨，金守子，和祖坚·包华的作品。Opsis Art画廊内来自乔凡尼·欧佐拉，沈铁雄，和克雷格·沃尔什的作品则展现了时间、光线流动下变更的风景。One and J 画廊展出的德拉克·克雷克勒、芭芭拉·坎贝尔、和王蓬的作品呈现了空间移动的。SKAPE画廊于夜间在二楼窗口投映了来自劳伦·布伦凯特和克雷格·沃尔什的作品。Lee Hwaik画廊呈现了来自郑然斗、希尔帕·库普塔和劳伦·布伦凯特的作品。IHN画廊展出了来自白浦、王功新和黑默·佐伯尼格的作品。白浦带来的作螺旋运动的风铃呈献了一幕供人沉思的景象。王功新将两件墙面投影与一个显示器同步，在屏幕空间中营造了一场虚拟乒乓球赛。黑默·佐伯尼格运用色键后期制作效果呈现层叠的空间景象，以此强调了《Nr.23》一作所用媒介的物质性。通过漫步，观众能体验到另一个存在于我们想象之中的空间，而这一空间是由六个不同场所里的录像装置中海、陆、空的图像连接、构造而成的。

金宣廷亚洲文化中心ACC研究&文献库艺术总监，艺术善载中心策展总监

王 wáng OCAT Shanghai The LANDSEASKY exhibition project evoked in my mind the Chinese character “king” – 王 wáng – that in the cultural tradition and history of China is the one who connects the sky and the earth. The character shows three horizontal traits crossed by a vertical line: the central horizontal stroke actually stands for the human sphere, somewhere in-between sky and earth. At a further, careful consideration, this is exactly the function of the “medium”, that in the pre-modern world is the officer of shamanic ritual (the one connecting gods and men, or the dead and the live), it’s now also the paradigm of technology, the so-called “media”. All these aspects make LANDSEASKY a pretty unique project. By bringing this project inside the space of OCAT Shanghai, Kim Machan and the exhibited artists have brought the enchantment of serene landscapes inside the old bank warehouse at the ground floor of a deco building located on the northern shore of the Suzhou River, and showed how the same landscapes may find a meaning, but also get disrupted by the human intervention, establishing a thread which connects different worlds: China (eminently man-made) and Australia (dominated by nature); East and West; city and countryside. What LANDSEASKY does indeed is bridging instances inbuilt in human vision, in the way we relate to space, the way we control it and use it to get an understanding of the physical and social world and our presence in it. At the same time, landscapes can contain history or be contained in it, they can shape our way to relate to society or be shaped by socio-historical circumstances, and cultural values. Landscapes can be even modeled by fashion, but eventually always go back to the basic alignment of natural elements, and the slightly curved line (always reminding us the shape of this world) separating the sky from the land – or the sea. The enlightening experience of hosting this exhibition has made us and the audience come close to another possibility and approach to media-based art, one that finds its inception with Land Art and the conceptual experiments with space of the Sixties, but it’s now enriched with references to contemporariness, to new economical and political courses, to the contradictions implied in the encounter/clash between old landscapes and new sceneries, between physical dimensions and virtual or augmented reality, which is no less real. LANDSEASKY also marks the collaboration between OCAT Shanghai and MAAP. Organising this show with Kim Machan has been a very valuable experience for the international dialogue it triggered but also for the insight we could gain, through the eyes of Kim, her team, and of course those of the seventeen featured artists showing that media art is a genuinely cross-national and transcultural language. From my personal point of view, in these time of uncertainties when uniting moral and economical forces has almost become an imperative, when large (and not so large) institutions are somehow delegitimized and local artistic practice cannot and should not be self-sufficient, this type of cooperation across nations, cultural contexts and operative backgrounds is a successful model that is already becoming a standard for the years ahead. We were extremely happy to act as forerunners, and we are sure this will not remain an isolated case or exception. Mariagrazia Costantino Artistic Director at OCAT Shanghai

王初见“海陆空”这个展览标题，便让我想见“王”这个汉字：在中国传统文化和历史之中，“王”代表了天空和大地的连接，字的结构也向我们暗示了这层意义：最中间的一横代表天地之间的人类世域，中间的一竖连起了天和地。审慎视之，这也恰恰是“媒介”所起的作用：在“前现代”的世界里，“媒介”是一位连接神明和人类、掌管生和死的巫师；但现在“媒介”这个词汇已经变成现代技术的模范，即所谓的“ 媒体”。所有这些要素使得“海陆空”成为一个相当特殊的项目。通过在OCAT上海馆的展出，澳大利亚策展人金曼和参展的艺术家们用宁静风景的魅力，占据了这座曾经作为银行仓库而竖立在苏州河北岸的百年建筑。相同的风景也许可以构建起一定的意义，但也可能被人为的介入所瓦解，如此他们建立了一种连接不同世界的通道：中国（人造的风景）和澳大利亚（自然的境界）；东方和西方；城市和农村。“海陆空”展览所起的关键作用，是将置于人类视觉内的功能和特点弥合在一起，强调我们和空间的基本关系，控制它以更好地了解我们在空间中的存在。同时，风景既能包含历史，也能被历史包含；它们影响着我们和社会的关系，也可能会被社会历史与文化价值所影响。风景可以被时尚所定式，但终究它们都会回归到自然元素中：那条略弯的曲线（提醒着我们地球的形状）天空和大地——或着海洋——的分割线。主办本次展览，对于OCAT上海馆的团队而言是一种很有启发的经历，并为我们和观众带来了一次难得的机会，去发现媒体艺术间不同的可能性和对待方式。大地艺术和空间观念试验最早出现于二十世纪六十年代，但现在这种艺术研究却充满了当代性，是一种全新的经济、政治进程，并在传统风景和新的定义之间产生了一些矛盾。这种矛盾是现实维度和所谓虚拟/增强现实之间的竞争所引起的。 “海陆空”标志着OCAT上海馆和MAAP（亚太多媒体艺术）之间的良好合作。金曼的组织策划是关于国际间对话的宝贵经验，通过金曼、她的团队以及十七位参展艺术家的视野，我们得到了对于媒体艺术这种跨国界、跨文化语言更深远的认识。从我个人角度来看，在这个非常不确定的时代，道德和经济资源的联合是一种必然。无论艺术机构规模的大小，它们的权利都比之前有所削弱，而在地艺术实践不能也不该满足于自给自足。因此这种跨国界、跨文化、背景资源共享的合作已经变成一种成功的范例，形成一种未来合作的标准。我们非常高兴成为先行者，而且我们相信这将不是一次例外。

玛丽娅·科斯坦蒂诺 OCAT上海馆艺术总监

Artist Biographies PAUL BAI Selected Solo Exhibitions 2012 Pestorius Sweeney House, Brisbane 2010 Pestorius Sweeney House, Brisbane 2006 Return to Aesthetics, Ausstellungsraum Ursula Werz, Germany 2004 Paintings +more, Ausstellungsraum Ursula Werz, Tubingen, Germany 2003 Pestorius Sweeney House, Brisbane 2002 Painting, Institute of Modern Art, Brisbane Selected Group Exhibitions 2015 GOMA Q, Queensland Art gallery I Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane 2015 NEW15, Australian Centre for Contemporary Art, Melbourne 2008 Primary Views, Monash University Museum of Art, Melbourne 2007 Lion, Sarah Cottier Gallery, Sydney 2006 TURRBAL–JAGERA, University of Queensland Art Museum, Brisbane LAUREN BRINCAT Selected Solo Exhibitions 2014 No Performance Today with Bree van Reyk and the NSW Police Marching Band for Sonic Social, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney 2013 It’s Not the End of the World, Anna Schwartz Gallery, Melbourne 2012 SHOOT FROM THE HIP, Anna Schwartz Gallery, Melbourne 2010 Shine on you crazy Diamond MONA FOMA Festival of Music and Art, Museum of Old and New Art, Hobart 2010 Best Time Ever, (with Dominic Finlay-Jones), Splendor in the Grass, Woodford 2009 Pushme Pullyou (with Will French), Peleton, Sydney Selected Group Exhibitions 2013 The Wandering: Moving images from the MCA Collection, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney 2013 Anne Landa Award, Art Gallery of NSW, Sydney 2012 Basil Sellers Art, Ian Potter Gallery, Melbourne   2012 Contemporary Australia: Women, Queensland Art Gallery I Gallery of Modern Art, Queensland   2011 Nothing Like Performance, Artspace, Sydney 2010 MONA FOMA Festival of Music and Art, Tasmania BARBARA CAMPBELL Selected Solo Exhibitions 2015 Barbara Campbell: ex avibus, University Art Gallery and Macleay Museum, University of Sydney 2011 Farewell to Meng Haoran at Yellow Crane Tower, performance with Yu Bao Di for Site Lab at Minto Mall, New South Wales 2011 Refer to Source: Ali Baba Aurang

and Barbara Campbell, works on paper, Cross Art Projects, Sydney 2010 News Haiku from the West, Perth Institute of Contemporary Art, Perth 2005 –08 1001 nights cast, durational performance, online at http://1001.net.au. 2002 Flesh Winnow, performance survey, University of Sydney and the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Selected Group Exhibitions 2014 Venice International Performance Art Week, Palazzo Mora, Venice 2014 Far and Wide: narrative into idea, UTS Gallery, Sydney 2010 (to) give time to time, Mildura, Victoria 2010 Siteworks, Bundanon Trust, New South Wales 2010 Kent State: four decades later, University Art Gallery, University of Sydney 2009 Chance Encounters, Salamanca Arts Centre, Hobart and South Australian School of Art Gallery, Adelaide JAN DIBBETS Selected Solo Exhibitions 2014 Jan Dibbets: Another Photography, Castello di Rivoli Muso d’Arte Contemporanea, Turin 2013 Jan Dibbets, Gladstone Gallery, New York 2013 Jan Dibbets, New Color Studies 1979-2012, Konrad Fischer Galerie, Berlin; Nelson-Freeman Gallery, Paris 2011  3 x Jan Dibbets, Cultuurcentrum Mechelen, Mechelen, Belgium 2010  New Horizons, Gladstone Gallery, New York    1972  Jan Dibbets, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam  Selected Group Exhibitions 2014 Making Links: 25 Years, SCAI the Bathhouse, Toyko   2013 When Attitudes Become Form: Bern 1969, Venice 2012 Minimal and Beyond, Kunsthalle Hamburg, Germany  2011 Light Years, Conceptual Art and the Photograph, 1964-1977, The Art Institute, Chicago   2009 In & Out of Amsterdam: Travels in Conceptual Art, 1960-1976, Museum of Modern Art, New York   1969 Exhibition by Mail, Seth Sieglaub, New York; TV as a Fireplace, Fernsehgalerie Gerry Schum, Dusseldorf, Germany  SHIPLA GUPTA Selected Solo Exhibitions 2015 My East is Your West, Two person show with Rashid Rana Palazzo Benzon, The Gujral Foundation, Venice 2014 Shilpa Gupta, Galeria Continua, Sangigimano 2013 Shilpa Gupta, MAAP SPACE, Brisbane, Australia 2012-13 Will we ever be able to mark enough?, Galerie im TaxisPalais, Innsbruck; Museum voor Moderne Kunst, Arnhem; Cultuurcentrum, Bruges

2010 2652, Dvir Gallery, Tel Aviv 2009 Solo Show, Yvon Lambert, Paris Selected Group Exhibition 2015 Between the Idea and Experience, 12th Havana Biennial, Cuba. 2015 Göteborg International Biennial for Contemporary Art (GIBCA), Gothenburg 2015 A Century of Centuries, SALT Beyoğlu, Istanbul 2015 Experiments with Truth: Gandhi and Images of Nonviolence, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum, Geneva. 2015 After Midnight: Indian Modernism to Contemporary India 1947/1997, Queens Museum, New York 2014 No Country: Contemporary Art for South and Southeast Asia GuggenheimUSB Collaboration, Singapore’s Centre for Contemporary Art YEONDOO JUNG Selected Solo Exhibitions 2015 Galleri Charlotte Lund, Stockholm, Sweden 2014 Spectacle in Perspective, Plateau Samsung Museum of Art, Seoul, Korea 2013 Wonderland, K11 art space, Shanghai; Wuhan 2012 Inside Out, Tina Kim Gallery, New York 2010 An Ordinary Paradise, Espacio Third Hermes, Singapore 2007 Memories of You – Artist of the Year 2007, National Museum of Contemporary Art, Gwacheon, Korea Selected Group Exhibitions 2014 K P.O.P – Process, Otherness, Play, Museum of contemporary art of Taipei, Taipei 2013 Video Art in Asia 2002 to 2012, Alternative space Loop, Seoul 2013 Artist File 2013, The National Art Center, Tokyo 2010 New Organ, Space C, Seoul, Korea 2009 Artists of the Future, Roh gallery, Seoul 2009 Truly Truthful, Art Asia Miami, USA DEREK KRECKLER Selected Solo Exhibitions 2014 Untitled, video (Littoral) installation, Project Contemporary Art Space, Wollongong 2012 Accident and Process, photographic installation, Peloton Gallery, Sydney  2012 Appropriated Circumstance, photographs installed on Billboards, Princess Highway Heathcote and Waterfall, NSW  2011 Big wave hunting, photographic installation, University of Wollongong  2011 Adaption, video installation, University of Wollongong  2010 How to discipline a tree and Photographs from China, Installation of sculpture and photography, The Paper Mill, Sydney

Selected Group Exhibitions 2013 Good Little Soldier, performance visual dramaturgy for Animal Farm Collective, Radialsystem V Berlin. 2013 Many a slip…, Bowness Photographic Prize, Monash Gallery of Art, Melbourne  2009 Blind Ned, video installation, Twelve Degrees of Latitude: Queensland regional gallery and University art collections tour 2007 Opinionated, video, ARTIST MAKES VIDEO Artrage Survey 1994–1998, Queensland College of Art, Brisbane  2004 White Goods, On Reason And Emotion, Sydney Biennale, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney  2004 Holey 1, 2 & 3, Adelaide Festival Biennale of Contemporary Photomedia, Art Gallery of South Australia  GIOVANNI OZZOLA Selected Solo Exhibitions 2015 Dove nasce il vento, Gazelli Art House, London, UK 2013 LA THÉORIE DES COMÈTES, Galleria Continua, Beijing, China 2013 Giovanni Ozzola, Flash Art Event, Palazzo del Ghiaccio, Milano, Italy 2012 Castaway Depot: 41° 7’ 31’’ N 16° 52’ 0’’ E – In a sentimental mood, Doppelganger, Bari, Italy 2010 On the Edge, curated by Elena Forin, Elgiz Museum, Istanbul, Turkey 2008 Giovanni Ozzola – Video Works, curated by Michiyo Miyake, Waseda University Department of Arts and Letters, Tokyo Selectd Group Exhibitions 2014 On Another Scale, curated by Ricardo Sardenberg, Galleria Continua, San Gimignano, Italy  2014 Geografie, curated by Alexandra Gracco Kopp and Giulia Giovanardi, Festival Attraversamenti, Ostuni, Italy 2014 Posizioni attuali dell’Arte Italiana, Premio Artistico FONDAZIONE VAF – VI edition, (touring exhibition), S!CHAUFLER FOUNDATION - SCHAUWERK SINDELFINGEN/STADTGALERIE KIEL, Germany; PALAZZO DELLA PENNA, Perugia, Italy 2013 Paraphernalia, De Garage, Cultuurcentrum Mechelen, Belgium 2013 Rêves De Venise, Institut Culturel Bernard Magrez, Bordeaux, France 2013 Pen To Paper, Al Madad FoundationAthr Gallery, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia JOÃO VASCO PAIVA Selected Solo Exhibitions 2015 Mausoleum, Encounters, Art Basel Hong Kong, Hong Kong 2015 Counter Space, Zurich, Switzerland 2014 Cast Away, Casa Garden Fundaçao Oriente, Macao 2013 Near and Elsewhere, Edouard Malingue Gallery, Hong Kong 2011 Palimpseptic, Saamlung Gallery, Hong Kong 2010 Sea of Mountains, Para/Site Central, Hanart Tz Gallery, Hong Kong Selected Group Exhibitions 2014 A few reasons for a non dismissive

art, Laboratorio das Artes, Museu Natural da Electricidade de Seia; Campo Arqueologico de Mertola – Casa Amarela; Museu de Portimao; Museu Nacional Ferroviario, Portugal  2014 The Part in the Story, Witte de With, Rotterdam, The Netherlands  2013 Vladivostok Biennale, Vladivostok, Russia  2012 Hong Kong Eye, Saatchi Gallery, London 2012 What should I do to live your life, Sharjah Art Foundation, Sharjah, UAE 2011 Seoul International New Media Festival, Seoul  KIMSOOJA Selected Solo Exhibitions 2015 Kimsooja: Thread Routes, Guggenheim Bilbao Museoa, Bilbao, Spain 2014 Kimsooja, A Needle Woman: Galaxy was a Memory, Earth is a Souvenir, A SiteSpecific Instillation for Intimate Cosmologies: The Aesthetics of Scale in an Age of Nanotechnology, 1st Cornell University Biennale Ithaca, New York 2013 Kimsooja, To Breathe: Bottari, The Korean Pavilion, 55th Biennale di Venezia, Venice 2012 Kimsooja, Musée D’Art Moderne de Saint Etienne, St. Etienne, France 2011 Kimsooja, Mumbai – A Laundry Field, Sullivan Gallery, School of the Institute of Chicago, Chicago 2010 Kimsooja, Earth – Water – Fire – Air, NPPAP - Yong Gwang Nuclear Power Plant Art Project, Organized by The National Museum of Contemporary Art, Korea, Selected Group Exhibitions 2015 Experiments with Truth: Gandhi and Images of Nonviolence, The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum, Geneva 2015 The XIV Biennial of Photography of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain 2014 Intimate Cosmologies: The Aesthetics of Scale in an Age of Nanotechnology, 1st Cornell University Biennale, Ithaca, New York 2014 True Colors, Yebisu International Festival for Art and Alternative Visions, Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography, Tokyo 2014 The Eye of the Needle. Embroidered Art, KODE – Art Museums of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, travelling to The National Museum of Art Architecture and Design, Oslo, 2013 Making Space. 40 Years of Video Art, Musée cantonal des Beaux-Arts, Lausanne, Switzerland SIM CHEOL-WOONG Selected Solo Exhibitions 2014 De-sp[l]ace, Art Space Gallery Jungmiso, Seoul 2013 The Wall Given No, KDB Daewoo Securities WM Class Yoksamyok Art Space, Seoul, 2012 Moments of Nomadic Journeys, Motor Gallery, Lisbon, Portugal 2011 An|other River, KunstDoc Gallery,

Seoul 2011 Welcome to Media Space, Sim, Cheol-Woong’s Special Day Art Space Gallery Jungmiso, Seoul 2008 Moments of American Life Broad Art Center, David Bermant Gallery, UCLA, California Selected Group Exhibitions 2013 Korean Art from the Museum Collection: Grand Narrative Part II, National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Seoul 2012 Korean Modern Art (Trazos de Corea), Galeria Nacional, San Jose, Costa Rica 2011 Korea-Re-Imagining The City, The Arts Centre Gold Coast, Australia 2010 Platform 2010, Projected Image, SAMUSO, Artsonjae Center Art Hall 2009 Drawing of the World | World of Drawing, Museum of Art (MoA), Seoul National University 2006 The Paris Cinema, Palais de Tokyo, Paris CRAIG WALSH Selected Solo Exhibitions 2013-14 Embedded, Institute Of Modern Art, Brisbane; Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney 2010-11 Digital Odyssey: MCA National Media Arts Residency, Museum of Contemporary Art Touring Project, (touring project through rural and remote Australia) 2008 Heads Up, C3West, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney 2001 K:\012044 (collaboration with Cox Rayner Architects), Brisbane City Gallery, Brisbane 2001 Blurring the Boundaries, Vietnam Institute of Architects, Hanoi Selected Group Exhibitions 2013 Traces Blue, Setouchi Triennale,Teshima Island, Japan, In collaboration with Hiromi Tango 2012 Home/Gwangju, Roundtable, Gwangju Biennale, South Korea. In collaboration with Hiromi Tango 2009 Jakarta Biennale XIII, Jakarta 2008 01SJ Biennial, San Jose, California, 2006 Re: Search, Sendai Mediatheque, Sendai, Japan 2006 Media City Seoul, 4th Seoul International Media Art Biennale, Seoul WANG GONGXIN Selected Solo Exhibitions 2015 Present · Being – The Video Works of Wang Gongxin Over 20 Years, OCT– Contemporary Art Terminal, Shanghai 2013 Wang Gongxin, MAAP SPACE, Brisbane, Australia 2011 My Sun, Asia Society and Museum, New York 2010 Relating, Platform China, Beijing 2009 It’s not about the neighbors, Arrow Factory, Beijing 1995 Digging a Hole in Beijing, SOLO Show, NO.12 House of Arts, Beijing,

Selected Group Exhibitions 2012 It’s About Art – It’s about China, RedLine Space, Denver,USA 2010 The Constructed Dimension -2010 Chinese Contemporary Art Invitational Exhibition, National Art Museum of China,Beijing 2008 Drawn in the Clouds, Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art, Helsinki 2008 Christian Dior Chinese Artists, Ullence Foundation, Beijing 2007 All about Laughter, Humor in contemporary art, Mori art Museum, Japan 1998 Inside Out, New China’s Arts, P.S.1 New York WANG PENG Selected Solo Exhibitions 2013 One Man As a Group, Today Art Museum, Beijing 2007 Wang Peng’s photo exhibition, Tra Gallery, Beijing 2005 Designed Meaninglessness, Platform China, Beijing 1997 Passing Through, Performance in New York 1996 Inside & Outside, Vermont Studio Center, Johnson, VT 1984 84’s Performance, Beijing Selected Group Exhibitions 2012 A Bigger Splash: Painting after Performance, Tate Modern, London 2011 Light from Light, State Library of Queensland, Shanghai Library, National Library of China & Hangzhou Public Library 2007 Chengdu Biannual, Chengdu, China 2007 The Real Thing: Contemporary Art from China, Tate, Liverpool, UK 2002 The 4th Gwangju Biennale, South Korea 1998 Inside/Out, P.S.1, New York YANG ZHENZHONG Selected Solo Exhibitions 2014 Eternal Return/Вечное возвращение, Moscow Manege Museum and Exhibition Association, Moscow 2013 Trespassing, OCT Contemporary Art Terminal, Shanghai 2011 Don’t Move, ShanghART Beijing space 2008 Overpass, Canvas International Art, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 2008 Yang Zhenzhong Solo Exhibition, Nikolaj Copenhagen Contemporary Art Center, Copenhagen 2006 Yang Zhenzhong, IKON Gallery, Birmingham, UK Selected Group Exhibitions 2014 Kochi-Muziris Biennale 2014, KochiMuziris, India 2014 Art from Elsewhere, Gallery of Modern Art Glasgow, UK 2013 La Biennale de Lyon 2013, Lyon 2012 Fruits de la passion, Musée national d\’art moderne, Paris 2011 Moving Image In China: 1988-2011, Minsheng Art Museum, Shanghai 2011 Play Van Abbe: Part 4: The Pilgrim, the Tourist, the Flaneur (and the Worker),

Van Abbe museum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands ZHANG PEILI Selected Solo Exhibitions 2012 Zhang Peili, MAAP SPACE, Brisbane Australia 2011 CERTAIN PLEASURES/Zhang Peili Retrospective, Minsheng Art Museum, Shanghai 2009 Govett-Brewster Art Gallery, New Plymouth, New Zealand 2008 Zhang Peili, Jack Tilton Gallery, New York 1998 Zhang Peili: Eating, The Museum of Modern Art, New York 1996 Video Forum, Art 27’96, Basel, Switzerland Selected Group Exhibitions 2011 Light from Light, National Library of China, Shanghai Library and State Library of Queensland 2010 Not only time: Zhang Peili and Zhu Jia, REDCAT, Los Angeles, USA 2007 85 New Wave: The Birth of Chinese Contemporary Art, Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing 2007 We Are Your Future, White Box, New York 2007 Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art, Moscow 2006 China Power Station, Serpentine Gallery, London  ZHU JIA Selected Solo Exhibitions 2013 ZHU JIA: The Face of Facebook, ShanghART Singapore, Singapore 2013 Video Bureau Archive 17: Zhu Jia, Video Bureau, Guangzhou and Beijing 2012 ZERO, Solo Exhibtition, ShanghART Beijing 2011 The Face of Fecabook, ShangART Beijing 2008 We Are Perfect, Zhu Jia Solo Exhibtition, ShangART H-Space, Shanghai Selected Group Exhibitions 2015 Art Changsha China: Bridges to History, Technology, Poetry and Grace, Changsha Municipal Museum; Tan Guobin Contemporary Art Museum, Changsha 2015 Mobile M+: Moving Images, Hong Kong 2014 In & Out Réel ShanghART, Réel Department Store, Shanghai 2012 Accidental Message: Art is Not a System, Not a World, the Seventh Shenzhen Scultpure Biennale, OCT Contemporary Art Terminal, Shenzhen 2011 Moving Image In China : 1988-2011, Minsheng Art Museum, Shanghai 2010 Not Only Time, Zhang Peili and Zhu Jia, REDCAT (Roy and Edna Disney/Calarts Theater), Los Angeles HEIMO ZOBERNIG Selected Solo Exhibitions 2015 Austrian Pavilion, 56. Biennale di Venezia, Venezia

2014 Mudam Luxembourg, Musée d’Art Moderne Grand-Duc Jean, Luxembourg 2013 Heimo Zobernig, Kunsthaus Graz 2012 Heimo Zobernig, Palacio de Velázquez, Museo Reina Sofía, Madrid 2011 Galerie Christian Nagel, Köln 2010 Permanent Reversal, Pestorius Sweeney House, Brisbane Selected Group Exhibitions 2015 Die 80er Jahre. Pluralismus an der Schwelle zum Informationszeitalter, MUSA, Wien 2015 Picasso in der Kunst der Gegenwart, Deichtorhallen, Hamburg 2015 Adventures of the Black Square: Abstract Art and Society 1915-2015, Whitechapel Gallery, London 2014 Die andere Seite. Spiegel und Spiegelungen in der zeitgenössischen Kunst. Eine Ausstellung des Belvedere, Museum Moderner Kunst Kärnten, Klagenfurt 2012 Minimalism in Germany. The Sixties II, Daimler Contemporary, Berlin

LANDSEASKY VENUE PROFILES 《海陆空》承办场所一览 OCAT – OCT Contemporary Art Terminal

was established in 2005 under the direction of the well-know art historian and critic Huang Zhuan. Actively Involved in the project are the Chicago based curator Wu Hung, Tate curator Marko Daniel, and the artists Sui Jianguo, Wang Guangy, Wang Jianwei, Zhu Jia. OCAT Shanghai was set up as the Shanghai branch of OCAT in the Suzhou Creek area. With the opening of Yang Fudong’s solo exhibition “Quote Out of Context” in September 2012, it officially started its autonomous activity as a space for display and research of Chinese and International Multi-media Art. www.ocatshanghai.com OCAT（OCT 当代艺术中心）于2005年在著名艺术史学家兼评论家黄专的指导下成立。目前积极参与OCAT建设的包括策展人巫鸿、英国泰特美术馆策展人马科·丹尼尔、以及艺术家隋建国、王广义、张培力、汪建伟和朱加。OCAT上海馆位于上海苏河湾区块，是OCAT在上海的分馆。2012年9月，OCAT上海馆以“断章取义-杨福东作品展”为开馆展，正式开启了对于中国和国际多媒体艺术的展示和研究。 MAAP SPACE features regular curated

exhibitions of media art from Australia and the Asia Pacific regions. MAAP has supported, generated, exchanged and collaborated on hundreds of projects with major international partners in Australia and abroad. MAAP was conceived as a not-for-profit cultural organisation and was registered as Incorporated Association in 1998. Between 1998 and 2006, MAAP cultivated an international reputation for annual and biannual media art festivals. In all, MAAP produced 7 international media art festivals across Brisbane, Beijing and Singapore, encompassing collaboration and representation from 14 countries. MAAP explores media art through critical exhibitions and research initiatives that engage the region’s major and emerging practitioners and producers. www.maap.org.au

MAAP 空间常期举办为澳大利亚以及亚太地区媒体艺术所策划的展览。成立至今，MAAP已与国内外多家重量级合作机构一同支持、出产了数百件项目，并相互交流展出。MAAP起初被构思为一家非营利性文化机构，于1998年正式登记成立。1998年至2006年间，MAAP通过承办每年或半年一次的媒体艺术节博得国际知名度，共出产了七届国际媒体艺术节，分别于布里斯本、北京以及新加坡举行，展现了与十四个国家的合作成果。通过高质量的展览，以及与本土资深和新锐艺术实践者、生产者的合作研究，MAAP毅然坚持着对媒体艺术的探索。 The Art Sonje Center, founded in 1998, is a private art museum, which supports current and experimental contemporary art. With an open attitude and the spirit to experiment with exhibition methods, the

Art Sonje Center shows art from “here and now.” Actively searching for the opportunity to collaborate with those in the fields of music, literature, architecture, dance and fashion. The Art Sonje Center also has the mandate to provide radical exhibition planning to support new projects. Through networking with major art museums and artists especially in other Asian countries, the Art Sonje Center is becoming an important center for Asian cultural exchanges. www.artsonje.org 艺术善载中心是一家成立于1998年的私营艺术博物馆，常期支持极具实验性的当代艺术。秉承着开放的态度和对展览手法的实验精神，艺术善载中心致力于展现“此时此地”的艺术。在积极与音乐、文学、建筑、舞蹈和时尚领域的才能跨界合作之余，艺术善载中心的另一目标便是以激进的展览规划支持新锐项目。通过与各大艺术博物馆以及来自其他亚洲国家的艺术家的频繁合作，艺术善载中心正日益演变为亚洲文化交流的重要枢纽。 Gallery IHN was established in April 1989

and promotes, represents, supports and exhibits the new and innovative works of major Korean artists. The gallery aims to develop relationships between the art, the artists, the audiences, and the collectors. The gallery has been dedicated to contemporary Korean art, bringing together artists from different generations, whose names are widely represented in Korea as well as in the international art market. Gallery IHN has obtained its reputation in organising ambitious and innovative exhibitions of leading artists. The gallery acts as a consultant to major museums and public art institutions and as a precursor to Korean contemporary art. Gallery IHN has held exhibitions specialized in contemporary Korean art including painting, sculpture, photography, mixed media and installations. www.galleryihn.com

IHN 画廊成立于1989年4月，通过代理、展出来自著名韩国艺术家的新锐作品以宣传并支持他们的革新思维。画廊旨在促进艺术、艺术家、受众和藏家间的沟通交流。画廊专为当代韩国艺术而设，将名声享誉韩国以及国际艺术市场的不同年代的艺术家汇集一堂，并以其举办的创新、大胆的展览而闻名。画廊为著名博物馆和公共艺术机构扮演着顾问的角色，对韩国当代艺术的发展起到了推动作用。IHN画廊迄今举办的展览涵盖了绘画、雕塑、摄影、多媒体、和装置等多种媒介的当代韩国艺术佳作。 ONE AND J. Gallery was founded in

September 2005 in Seoul as one of the first galleries to focus primarily on young contemporary Korean artists. Currently, the gallery represents a strong lineup of emerging and mid-career artists and has begun to show non-Korean artists in Seoul on a regular basis. Artists represented by the gallery have participated in an impressive array of group and solo exhibitions and works included in international and national collections since the inception of the gallery. In 2015, the gallery launched a night program titled 1NJ629 focusing on film, video art, performance, music and

design. The program allows the gallery to present a diverse array of artists that are not formally a part of the gallery program but provides a platform for a community of compelling appreciators of the creative process. www.oneandj.com One and J 画廊在2005年9月成立于首尔，是城内首批聚焦于年轻当代韩国艺术家的画廊之一。目前，画廊代理着一批备受瞩目的新锐艺术家，并已开始定期展出来自其他国家艺术家的作品。所代理艺术家参与过数量惊人的群展和个展，作品多次选入国际、国内外馆藏。2015年，画廊发起了名为1NJ629的夜间项目，呈现电影、录像艺术、行为艺术、音乐和设计作品。通过该项目，画廊得以呈现一系列未被其正式代理的艺术家之作，为艺术创作鉴赏群体提供了一个绝佳的平台。 LEEHWAIK Gallery opened in 2001 and representing leading figures in Korean contemporary art, presenting exhibitions and promoting artists to galleries and dealers worldwide. At the same time, it unwearyingly discovers and supports rising artists in Korea. LEEHWAIK Gallery continuously participates in the international art fairs such as Art Stage Singapore, Abu Dhabi Art and KIAF, also in the auctions by Christie’s and Sotheby’s in order to promote Korean artists to international viewers. Such opportunities enable artists to enter the international art markets and eventually contribute to the advancement of the Korean contemporary art market. LEE HWAIK Gallery will spare no efforts to increase public understanding and appreciation of the contemporary art. www.leehwaikgallery.com LEEWAIK 画廊成立于2001年，在之后的十年中一直注心于代理韩国当代艺术界的领军人物，举办展览，并向全球范围的画廊和艺术品商人宣传旗下的艺术家。同时，该机构亦孜孜不倦地挖掘、支持韩国新锐艺术家。LEEWAIK画廊一直踊跃参与包括艺术登陆新加坡、阿布扎比艺博会和韩国国际艺博会在内的国际艺博会，以及佳士得和苏富比拍卖会，以便向国际受众宣传韩国艺术家。此般契机让艺术家们得以进军国际艺术市场，最终为韩国当代艺术市场的发展做出贡献。LEEWAIK画廊将为提高公众对当代艺术的理解和鉴赏而全力以赴。 OPSIS ART is a new and energetic gallery that opened in 2012. Representing both young and experienced artists, the gallery specialises in conceptual art practice in domestic and international spheres. The gallery embraces challenging art works across media and interdisciplinary practice. The gallery is located in the center of the cultural district, with a number of art galleries, museums including the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, and the historic Kyungbok Palace in close proximity. In its short history, Opsis Art has developed a strong and consistent reputation for its high-quality exhibitions, and is now seen amongst the most influential art spaces in Korea. www.opsisart.co.kr OPSIS ART 于2012年开张，是一家全新的、充满活力的画廊。画廊聚焦于国内外的概念艺术实践，既代理年轻艺术家，又代理经验丰富的艺术

家。它坐落于首尔文化区中心，毗邻包括现当代艺术博物馆在内的多间艺术画廊和博物馆，以及历史悠久的景福宫。在成立后的短短三年内，OPSIS ART因其高质量的展览博得了一贯好评，现已被誉为韩国影响力最深远的艺术空间之一。 Gallery SKAPE, with aim of appreciating multiformity and perceiving the landscape of today’s art scene, Gallery SKAPE opened its doors in September 2004. Actively promoting contemporary Korean artists, the gallery has been quickly positioned as a platform of the ‘newness’ within Korean art scene. Furthermore, by its distinctive taste of contemporary art, Gallery SKAPE has become a forefront of discovering and promoting Korean artists. Participation in international well known art fairs is also an important activity for Gallery SKAPE to promote Korean contemporary art. Gallery SKAPE is progressively gaining international recognition along with the representing the most promising contemporary artists in Asia. www.skape.co.kr SKAPE 画廊于2004年9月成立，致力于鉴赏艺术多样性和洞察当下艺术界之景象。画廊一直踊跃宣传当代韩国艺术家，成立不久即被定位为韩国艺术界中的一个新锐平台。此外，凭借着对当代艺术的独到眼光，SKAPE画廊已成为挖掘、宣传韩国艺术家的领军机构。SKAPE画廊亦十分重视参与国际知名的艺博会，以此宣传韩国当代艺术。通过代理亚洲最具潜力的艺术家，画廊正逐渐获得世界范围的瞩目。 The National Art School (NAS) Gallery

encourages appreciation and critical perspectives of art and its role in society through direct engagement with artists and innovative art practices. The program consists of research, publications, public programs, artist residencies, and exhibitions featuring multi-discipline group and solo projects by Australian and international artists, including the end of yearshowcase of graduating students. The NAS Gallery is housed in the former A-Wing of the old Darlinghurst Gaol. Originally built between 1836–41, the building was refurbished and opened to the public in 2006. www.nas.edu.au/nasgallery 国立艺术学院画廊 (NAS) 通过与艺术家的紧密合作和对革新艺术实践的大力支持，激发公众对艺术的鉴赏、锐化艺术视角，并促进公众对艺术的社会角色的认识。画廊常期致力于研究、出版、公共项目、艺术家驻留项目，并举办国内外艺术家云集的群展和个展，包括毕业生年终展。国立艺术学院画廊栖于一座始建于1836-41年的建筑的 A翼中，该建筑的前身是达令赫斯特监狱，经重修后于2006年向公众开放。 Griffith University Art Gallery is a free pub-

lic gallery at the Queensland College of Art’s South Bank campus. A diverse and rigorous range of exhibitions are generated in-house, or toured with regional, state or national galleries in a bid to focus attention on contemporary practices and their historical contexts.

www.griffith.edu.au/visual-creative-arts/ griffith-artworks/griffith-university-artgallery 格里菲斯大学艺术画廊是一家坐落于昆士兰艺术学院南岸校区内的公共画廊，免费向公众开放。画廊常举办多样且策划考究的展览，并常与当地、州内、以及国家范围内的画廊一同巡展，让公众聚焦于当代艺术实践及其历史语境。 Guangdong Museum of Art is a major cultural establishment in the province and the largest of its kind in China. Equipped with modern facilities, this museum, like the best art museums in advanced countries, is a place where works of art are preserved, studied and displayed. The museum also promotes education and cultural exchange. With a total area of 20,000 square meters and a display area of over 8,000 square meters, the Guangdong Museum of Art consists of twelve exhibition halls, in which exhibitions of both large- and small-scale work may be shown. The 300-seat auditorium has an advanced projection and video facilities. www.gdmoa.org 广东美术馆是位于广东省内的一家顶尖文化机构，是国内同类博物馆中最大的一所。馆内设备先进优良，堪比发达国家中的优秀艺术博物馆，是保存、学习、展示艺术品的圣地。博物馆同时重视宣传教育和文化交流。全馆占地20,000平方米，展馆面积超过8,000平方米，内有十二间展厅，展出各种规模的艺术品。此外，馆内还有间可容三百人入座的礼堂，内有高端投影和录像设备。

THANK YOU LANDSEASKY was an extended collaboration that was made possible through the generous support of our partners and many individuals that contributed invaluable expertise and resources. It is impossible to list all by name, but MAAP extends sincere gratitude to all those who were involved in the development and presentation during the near four years of this project. Sincere thanks to the MAAP Board once again for steady advice and stewardship through the many phases of this project: Zane Trow, Paul O’Kane, Naomi Evans, Christopher Meakin, Dave Allen, and Jeffery Sams. Thanks to the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam for the extended loan of Jan Dibbets works from its collection; David Pestorious for assistance with the loan of work by Heimo Zobernig; MAAP and Craig Walsh wish to acknowledge the Circle of Elders (the traditional custodians), the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, and Rio Tinto staff. Thank you to the Confucius Institute at QUT for their support with artist's residencies and publications. OCAT Shanghai Director, Yuan Jingping; Executive Director, Zhang Peili; Artistic Director, Mariagrazia Costantino; Curatorial Assistant, Tao Hanchen; Exhibition Affairs & Designer, Lele Geng; Media and public relation, Gini Yuan; Public Educator,Yu Xixi; Secretary, Tang Yani SIVA – Shanghai Institute of Visual Art, Fudan University, Vice Dean Hu Jieming, Translator Lixin Bao, Mu Jin Guangdong Museum of Art, Director Luo Yiping, Yuqing HU, Hairong HUANG, Chunyuan ZHOU, Ye Jing Art Sonje Center Chief Curator Sunjung Kim, Brandon Lee, Najung Kim, Sunmin Lee / Gallery IHN Ihn Yang, Jini Yang / Lee Hwaik Gallery Hwaik Lee, Donghyun Kim / ONE AND J Gallery Pat Lee, Vicky Kim / Gallery SKAPE Kyung-ae Son, Somi Sim / OPSIS ART Woong-kie Kim / Special assistance Rue Young Ah and Jun Young Chang / Technical Installation, Multi Tech Griffith University Art Gallery Acting Director Naomi Evans 2012-2015, Exhibition and Public Programs Officer Rob Corless. National Art School Gallery NAS Director Michael Snelling, Curator and Gallery Manager Judith Blackall, Jane Barrow and a vast array of volunteers. Technical installation, Gotaro Uematsu. MAAP – Media Art Asia Pacific Director Kim Machan, Exhibition and Tour Support Ashlee Sang, Gallery Assistant Jessica Row, Research Assistant and China projects support Davina Li, Korea Project Manager Eunju Kim, LANDSEASKY Graphic and Identity design Paul Bai, Exhibition Design Drawings Bridgette Li, Exhibition Models Nicholas Brand, Exhibition support Troy Skewes, Compilation Assistant Zoe Knight. Image credits All artworks were photographed as they were installed at multiple LANDSEASKY venues. Other images stills as provided by the artists. Copyright of the artworks remains with the artist unless otherwise stated. All photography © MAAP-Media Art Asia Pacific Inc., excluding otherwise named photographers: Courtesy OCAT Shanghai, photographer Allan pp 6, 13, 39 Courtesy Griffith University Art Gallery, photographer Mick Richards pp 8, 32–33, 36, 67–69, 74–77, 80–81, 83 Courtesy Gallery IHN, photographer Jung Dong Kwang pp 24–25 Courtesy National Art School Gallery, photographer Peter Morgan pp 16, 22–23, 30–31, 63, 73, 79 Courtesy the artist, photographer Craig Walsh p 71 Courtesy the artist, photographer Marah Weston p 61 Courtesy the artist and Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam pp 14–15 Courtesy the artist and Anna Schwartz Gallery pp 62–63 Courtesy the artists and ShanghART Gallery, pp 30–31, 44–45 Courtesy the artists and David Pestorius Projects pp 13, 24–25, 76–77 Courtesy the artist and Edouard Malingue Gallery p 17 Courtesy the artists pp 29, 32–33, 46–47, 52–53, 59, 67–69, 74–75

特别鸣谢《海陆空》这一合作项目历时甚长，通过各个合作伙伴的支持和多位独立个人献出的宝贵专长和资源才得以圆满落成。我们无法在此处罗列所有参与者的名字，但MAAP对参与了这一长达四年的项目的发展和呈现的各位致以真挚的感谢。我们将再一次对MAAP的理事会在项目各个阶段所提出的中肯意见和严谨的工作态度表示特别的感谢，董事会会员包括：赞恩·特洛，保罗·欧凯恩，纳奥米·埃文斯，克里斯托弗·米金，戴维·艾伦，以及杰弗里·山姆斯。感谢阿姆斯特丹市立博物馆长期借予我们其馆藏中来自扬·迪波兹的作品；感谢大卫·佩斯托力欧斯为租借黑默·佐伯尼格的作品提出的援助；MAAP和克莱格·沃尔什在此鸣谢 the Circle of Elders 理事会（传统管理人），Murujuga土著公司，以及力拓集团的工作人员。感谢昆士兰理工大学孔子学院。 OCAT上海馆馆长：袁静平；执行馆长：张培力；艺术总监：玛丽娅·科斯坦蒂诺；策展助理：陶寒辰；展务设计：耿泊渊；媒体推广：袁青仪；公共教育：郁熙熙；文员：汤娅妮 SIVA－复旦大学上海视觉艺术学院副院长：胡介鸣，翻译：木巾，吴歌广东美术馆馆长：罗一平，胡宇清，黄海蓉，周春源，叶婧艺术善载中心策展总监：金宣廷，李范九，金娜廷, 李鮮旼／IHN画廊：梁仁, 梁眞禧／Lee Hwaik画廊：Hwaik Lee, Donghyun Kim／One and J 画廊：Pat Lee，Vicky Kim／SKAPE画廊：孫瑞瀯, 沈昭美／OPSIS画廊： Woong-kie Kim／研究及特别援助：柳英雅，同时感谢張俊英／ Multi Tech 格里菲特大学美术馆执行馆长：纳奥米·埃文斯（2012–2015），展览和公共项目指导：罗伯特·科尔勒斯国家艺术学院画廊总监：迈克尔·斯内林；策展人兼画廊经理：朱迪思·布莱科尔，简·巴罗以及大量志愿者；声频及视觉装置：戈塔罗·植松 MAAP－亚太媒体艺术馆长：金曼；展览及巡展支持：阿什利·桑；画廊助理：杰西卡·罗；研究助理和中国项目支持：达维娜·李；韩国项目经理：金银铢，展览设计绘图：布里奇特·李；展览模型：尼古拉斯·布兰德；展览支持：特洛伊·斯奎斯；编译助理：佐伊·奈特

图像所有权所有艺术品图像皆于《海陆空》多个展览场所装置现场拍摄而得。其他定格图像由艺术家提供。除特此注明的摄影师外，所有摄影版权属于MAAP-亚太媒体艺术有限公司。致谢OCAT上海馆，摄影师：周玉强 pp 6, 13, 39 致谢格里菲特大学美术馆，摄影师：米克·理查兹 pp 8, 32–33, 36, 67–69, 74–77, 80–81, 83 致谢IHN画廊，摄影师：鄭東洸 pp 24-25 致谢国家艺术学院画廊，摄影师：彼得·摩尔根 pp 16, 22–23, 30–31, 63, 73, 79 致谢艺术家本人，摄影师：克莱格·沃尔什 p 71 致谢艺术家本人，摄影师：玛拉·威斯顿 p 61 致谢艺术家本人以及阿姆斯特丹市立博物馆 pp 14–15 致谢艺术家本人以及安娜·施华兹画廊 pp 62-63 致谢艺术家本人以及大卫·佩斯托丽欧斯项目 pp 13, 24–25, 76–77, 54–55 致谢艺术家本人以及马凌画廊 pp 17 致谢艺术家们 pp 29，30–31，32－33，46–47，52–53，59，67–69，74–75