In respect of the local art community, 2008 is a remarkable year, with the gradual successful development of the Fotanian, and also the opening of the Jockey Club Creative Art Center, seems like the alternative art community is now on the right track. However in 2nd FEB2009, there was an article that criticized the JCACC. I summarized the article in a few points:
1) Criticizing the usage of the JCACC (As the reporter says, there were less than 25% of the studios in JCACC is exercising during his 3 visit)
2) Some of the studios are occupied by paper box, therefore the reporter suspects that some of the places in JCACC are being used for the purpose of stock instead of artistic sake.
3) Even the studio is open for the public, but the content of that “artwork” is doubtful. (The reporter miss read the work of a local artist Lee-kit as an interview of Paul Wong, a local rock band – Beyond.)
4) The JCACC is only encouraged to open to the public, and there are no compulsory rules. When the audiences become less, the opening of these studio becomes less too, thus it leads to a vicious spiral.
After this article published in the MingPao on the 2nd Feb2009, there were immediate responses from the artists all over Hong Kong. They urge for a formal apology from MingPao in regarding of their incorrect report on the JCACC. In Hong Kong, freedom of speech is the absolute right for everybody, one can see from the protest that against the Enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law in 2003. However, the right of free speech does not mean that one can say anything without taking any responsibility. As a reporter, his/her basic responsibility is at least – factual. Before the report wrote this report, at least, I would suggest he/she to do some research about art, not to miss read Lee-kit as rock singer.
However, the contingency of this event manifests an essential question: what is the role of the Hong Kong government regarding “art”? It is certain that the aid of the government in local art development is very important, but it seems like it is now becoming an intervention. The entire event, since the very first report until today has already passed a period of 10 days. There are several replies from the artists and also the reporter. (For more information on this please check http://www.inmediahk.net/.) Through these discussions, the gap in between artist and the reporter, and also, artists and the government is being embodied.
Therefore, I think it is definitely imperative for us to re-think the role of the government in the local art community. In Hong Kong, there are now 3 main art community, they are the Fotanian, JCACC and the Cattle Depot Artist Village. The background of these communities are fundamentally different, but they all share the same sake – to make art into the public. If not there would be no Fotan open studio; if not, the JCACC would not emerges; if not, the events which took place in the CDAV are all meaningless. However, what is the role of the Hong Kong Government in advancing the local art development? In another words, does the Hong Kong Government really advancing the art development, or it is just another way to promote Hong Kong as an international city?
The policy of the Hong Kong government in regarding the cultural industry is actually embracing a commercial purpose. Since the very start of the JCACC, the aim of the government essentially not for art sake. As the previous Secretary for Home Affairs, Dr Patrick Ho said to the public, the JCACC is a possible place for the tourist to visit. The metonymy behind his word is: the JCACC is just the same as Disneyland, for economy sake, for tourist purpose. Therefore, it is the responsibility for those artist to “do something” to attract people to visit, otherwise, it is a waste of the government resources. And this lead to the news report from MingPao.
Art/ culture is never an industry. The term “cultural industry” is an ideology. From the story of CDAV (the original venue of CDAV is actually located at the abandoned building of the Government Supplies Department. In 1997, the government rent this place to different art communities at a price which belows the market. However, in 1998, the government refused to renew the contract with these art communities due to the further development policy. The latest planing of this place is an area which consists of hotels and shopping mall.), one can find the limitation and also the apathy from the government towards local art. (for example, the 3 months contract renewal which burdened the art communities in CDAV). The different attitudes of the government in between the CDAV and JCACC is therefore a paradox which imbeded the ideology - the ideology behind the term “cultural industry”.
1) Criticizing the usage of the JCACC (As the reporter says, there were less than 25% of the studios in JCACC is exercising during his 3 visit)
2) Some of the studios are occupied by paper box, therefore the reporter suspects that some of the places in JCACC are being used for the purpose of stock instead of artistic sake.
3) Even the studio is open for the public, but the content of that “artwork” is doubtful. (The reporter miss read the work of a local artist Lee-kit as an interview of Paul Wong, a local rock band – Beyond.)
4) The JCACC is only encouraged to open to the public, and there are no compulsory rules. When the audiences become less, the opening of these studio becomes less too, thus it leads to a vicious spiral.
After this article published in the MingPao on the 2nd Feb2009, there were immediate responses from the artists all over Hong Kong. They urge for a formal apology from MingPao in regarding of their incorrect report on the JCACC. In Hong Kong, freedom of speech is the absolute right for everybody, one can see from the protest that against the Enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law in 2003. However, the right of free speech does not mean that one can say anything without taking any responsibility. As a reporter, his/her basic responsibility is at least – factual. Before the report wrote this report, at least, I would suggest he/she to do some research about art, not to miss read Lee-kit as rock singer.
However, the contingency of this event manifests an essential question: what is the role of the Hong Kong government regarding “art”? It is certain that the aid of the government in local art development is very important, but it seems like it is now becoming an intervention. The entire event, since the very first report until today has already passed a period of 10 days. There are several replies from the artists and also the reporter. (For more information on this please check http://www.inmediahk.net/.) Through these discussions, the gap in between artist and the reporter, and also, artists and the government is being embodied.
Therefore, I think it is definitely imperative for us to re-think the role of the government in the local art community. In Hong Kong, there are now 3 main art community, they are the Fotanian, JCACC and the Cattle Depot Artist Village. The background of these communities are fundamentally different, but they all share the same sake – to make art into the public. If not there would be no Fotan open studio; if not, the JCACC would not emerges; if not, the events which took place in the CDAV are all meaningless. However, what is the role of the Hong Kong Government in advancing the local art development? In another words, does the Hong Kong Government really advancing the art development, or it is just another way to promote Hong Kong as an international city?
The policy of the Hong Kong government in regarding the cultural industry is actually embracing a commercial purpose. Since the very start of the JCACC, the aim of the government essentially not for art sake. As the previous Secretary for Home Affairs, Dr Patrick Ho said to the public, the JCACC is a possible place for the tourist to visit. The metonymy behind his word is: the JCACC is just the same as Disneyland, for economy sake, for tourist purpose. Therefore, it is the responsibility for those artist to “do something” to attract people to visit, otherwise, it is a waste of the government resources. And this lead to the news report from MingPao.
Art/ culture is never an industry. The term “cultural industry” is an ideology. From the story of CDAV (the original venue of CDAV is actually located at the abandoned building of the Government Supplies Department. In 1997, the government rent this place to different art communities at a price which belows the market. However, in 1998, the government refused to renew the contract with these art communities due to the further development policy. The latest planing of this place is an area which consists of hotels and shopping mall.), one can find the limitation and also the apathy from the government towards local art. (for example, the 3 months contract renewal which burdened the art communities in CDAV). The different attitudes of the government in between the CDAV and JCACC is therefore a paradox which imbeded the ideology - the ideology behind the term “cultural industry”.
Hong Kong is yet to go through the process of de-colonization. Since the colonial period of Hong Kong, the British government gradually shaped Hong Kong into a financial city or a trade center of the east instead of a cultural one. As a colonizer, the British, of course focused on the financial aspect, which would the most benefit her own. Hence, there is an absent of critical thinking throughout the education system. Critical thinking is actually being taken, as a danger; it awakes people ‘s sense of criticizing the government, and therefore makes the ruling of the colonial people more difficult. And this is one of the reason that the direction of local education is more focusing on the economic side and this economic mindset is subsequently being rooted in everybody’s mind. After the return of Hong Kong in the 1997, in order to keep the image of Hong Kong as an international commercial city, the Hong Kong government follows the British government, even in the aspect of art. Thus, art as a cultural activity is being developed under the discourse of an industry.
However, art appreciation needs critical thinking. Without a critical mindset, how could people understand art? Today’s situation is therefore induced by the fundamental absent of critical training in Hong Kong education system. Hong Kong, definitely has her own potential to become a cultural city, but in order to start with, she needs a essential change in its concept towards art:
However, art appreciation needs critical thinking. Without a critical mindset, how could people understand art? Today’s situation is therefore induced by the fundamental absent of critical training in Hong Kong education system. Hong Kong, definitely has her own potential to become a cultural city, but in order to start with, she needs a essential change in its concept towards art:
Art represents culture and culture is not an industry.
Remarks:
1) For those who would like to know more about the history of Cattle Depot Artist Village an dthe local art community, there is an exhibition calls A Study of Hong Kong Alternative Art Community ( Parallel with Beijing/ Singapore) Documentary Exhibition is now taking place at the 1a space, Cattle Depot Artist Village from 17th Jan – 7th Mar.
2) And also there is a forum which will be held on 13th Feb, 1500 at the Hong Kong Arts Development Council, this forum is organized by The Hong Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC) in collaboration with MingPao (Feature Section) regarding the “Roles of Artists Village in Hong Kong”. The main purpose of this forum is to facilitate discussion and exchange on the above issue, with an aim to explore the possible development modes of an artists' village in Hong Kong. ( Too bad that I am currently out of town, hence I cannot attend this forum, but I will bring back some more information regarding this discussion if possible.)
No comments:
Post a Comment