公共藝術 和 文化交流 隨筆： 從場地申請開始說起
On Public Art and Cultural Exchange: beginning with venue application
文： 張嘉莉
31/10/2016
(Please roll down for English)
這是我第三趟赴孟買參與[en]counters公共藝術節。第一趟是2013年，以藝術家身分參與，也協助一點統籌事宜。第二趟是2014年，以聯合策展人的身分參與，協助申請資助，統籌香港藝術家的參與。今趟，我則是替「藝術到家」統籌香港藝術家參與的部分，參加的包括：朱耀煒、王鎮海(海狗)、陳佩玲、女子組合Come Inside (麥影彤和黃嘉瀛)。他們之前都沒有去過孟買，但卻是喜歡與他人交流、合作的藝術工作者。
有關場地許可證
今年[en]counters的選址位於人流繁多的CST火車站。Art Oxygen去年申請使用這車站進行藝術活動時，過程相當順利，車站主管也十分支持。因此，他們今年申請使用同一場地時，也是充滿信心。可是，今年的車站主管換了人，對Art Oxygen 的工作不大認識，而相關的場地牌照也就遲遲未批。事實上，香港藝術家於10月1 日到達孟買時，火車站仍未發出場地許可證 。不過藝術團隊早已作了多手準備： 若果拿不到CST的許可證，那我們於10月8日的藝術展演, 便會移施至另一較易申請到的公共空間 : Carter Road，並且嘗試以游擊式的手法在火車上進行創作。由於各地點的客觀條件都很是不同，作多手準備其實相當困難。
結果，10月3日早上，主策展人Leandre D’Souza穿上整齊鮮豔的戰衣，再次拜訪CST火車站辦公室， 並成功取得許可證明文件。不過，當中卻有一小插曲：基於安全理由， 車站主管要查明各藝術家的背景，並指出由於印度與巴基斯坦正鬧得緊張，來自中國的藝術家令他擔憂。Leandre立即解釋道這些藝術家是來自香港，而非中國大陸，迅速為事件打圓場。
在公共空間進行藝術活動，應否申請場地牌照？
在公共空間進行藝術活動，應否申請場地牌照？這問題反複出現在每次藝術節的相關討論裡，而回應這問題也需要從不同角度去思考活動的性質。作為「公共藝術節」的主辦單位， 是樂於見到藝術家主動提出不同的游擊方案，並希望盡量協助藝術家在不同的場域作實驗性的嘗試，但同時主辦者也有責任去處理相關的場地申請，讓藝術家可在安全的環境下創作。
印度藝術家Pradeep L. Mishra 在開幕式的講座上，便提出要注意藝術家的安全問題。Pradeep 的話提醒我們，要避免把「藝術行動」過份浪漫化，在公共空間創作和展覽，必須持續運用「常識」處事， 也要有心理準備去應付突發事件，諸如作品被刻意破壞、遇上情緒有問題的群眾等等。綜觀是次在「流動倉庫」的各個作品，海狗的流動電台(名為「臨時無定空間＃2」) 雖不以視覺效果取悅途人、但卻提供了最開放的平台讓公眾參與。作為電台節目主持人，海狗邀請車站的乘客參與他節目的錄製及直播部分。在車站展演的第二天，有數位乘客主動前來要求在節目中講話，並以印度文發表了他們的政見。演講期間，有個別觀眾走來向我表示應該停止這乘客講話，因為當中的內容是「不對」的。海狗聽不懂講話內容，幸好，有在場觀眾幫忙作簡單翻譯； 聚集聆聽相關演講的人群愈來愈多，也幸好，演講者發言完畢後，便自行離去，沒有嚷成口角或衝突。作為主持人的海狗，聽不明白，沒有能力直接回應，卻提供了一個微妙的緩衝區： 開放了一個平台讓不同的意見共存，卻不急於提出辯論或爭辯的空間。
閱讀藝術作品的不同層次
此外，Pradeep提出，外國藝術家在當地公共空間創作時較有優勢，因為公眾對外地人充滿好奇，樂意留步去了解其作品。在不同性質的公共空間作展演，當然也有不同的效果。2012與2013年舉行[en]counters 計劃的Carter Road，是沿海散步區，有較多閒情駐足觀看的途人。相反，在人流較多的CST火車站，留下觀眾深入閱讀藝術作品，則比較困難。不過，由於車站售票區是個室內空間，以展覽設計的角度看，車站是比戶外空間更易於讓多組作品一拼展示，建立一個整體的氛圍。再者，火車站對於香港藝術家而言，絕不陌生，所以作事前準備功夫時，也會較易想像。
朱耀煒在兩天的火車站展演中，做了個小實驗： 第一天，《流動藝術自動售賣機》的繪畫速度比較快，觀眾與《售賣機》互動後，很快便可看到機器繪畫的火車站古舊建築。第二天，他在早上，把機器的繪畫速度調慢，令觀眾不能在短時間內辨認到繪畫的主體，下午則再把繪畫速度加快。結果是，當機械緩慢地繪畫時，圍觀人數頓減。《售賣機》的現場觀眾中，較多是喜愛深入了解機械和電腦程式的運作，但也有的是關注藝術家會如何運用這個《售賣機》籌來的款項。藝術家也坦誠回答是給兒子籌的，這答案卻令問者好奇：「這些零錢可不夠用啊！」，於是整個藝術家自嘲「搵唔到食」的狀況就不言而喻。
陳佩玲和Come Inside 也巧妙地運用了，與場地色調有強烈對比的色彩，讓她們的作品在火車站售票大堂顯得矚目。 陳佩玲的《生日快樂系列》以六枝光亮的銀色碗形裝置，盛載著喇叭，播放來自香港的印度人之祝福話語和歌聲，在車站偏黃的燈光下， 有種特別的科幻效果。Come Inside 的《障礙物》中的淡粉紅色，是在車站極難找到的色調。當3米高的粉紅色氣泡膠裝置豎立在顏色相對深沉的月台或售票範圍時，就更突顯作品的詩意。這兩組作品並不止於營造可觀的視覺效果，《生日快樂系列》邀請途人駐足聆聽遠方同鄉的話語，《障礙物》也邀請途人把氣泡掐破，呼吸來自中國的空氣。 據香港藝術家的觀察，與香港觀眾相比，孟買的市民一般都較踴躍發問，更願意花時間駐足觀察或討論。藝術作品的意涵有許多層次，在不同場域面對不同觀眾群的時候，閱讀的深入程度也必有差異。如何在公共場域造就機會， 讓觀眾在獵奇、觀看、傾聽、觸碰之餘，對作品提出更多不同層次的閱讀，正是對藝術家和策展人的一個考驗，也是該場域的公民素質之反映。
傳統與當代的公共藝術
近年，有關「公共藝術」的討論在香港以及印度均大幅增長，講座中另一位印度藝術家Owais Husain 提到有記者問及他對新興的「公共藝術」之看法，他回應說其實「公共藝術」自古有之，並非新鮮事物。不過，近年當代藝術中的相關論述尤其注重社群參與、互動溝通這些層面。撇除創作媒介的美學分野，其實不難在孟買街頭發現，很有凝聚能力、善於「介入」社群的藝術裝置和活動，這些都是為傳統節慶而設的祭壇、舞台、燈飾。湊巧，今年[en]counters的開端，也是印度教和回教的多個重要節日，讓是次參與的香港藝術家，有幸在孟買各處欣賞到當地人，熱情地投入在公共空間發生的各節慶活動： 看傳統話劇、在路中心設置祭壇參拜、男女老少都在街上載歌載舞等等 。
與香港藝術家同日於車站展出的印度藝術家Teja Gavankar， 在其參與式作品中，也轉化了印度人在宗教節慶時在門前、路上的傳統彩沙繪畫: Rangoli。這彩沙繪畫是以染色的米粉、麵粉、幼沙或花瓣在地上繪畫的七彩圖案。圖案的設計，是一代傳一代，不同地區也會有其地方特色，但多是以基本的網格點作繪畫的開端，透過運用不同的線條去連接這些點，而營造多樣的圖案：有對稱的圖形，也有隨意伸延，甚至是具象的圖畫。Teja的作品是在火車站內邀請途人，在已印有四個網格點的透明膠片上，隨意繪畫連接的曲線，參與者在繪畫時可任意摺疊膠片讓線條重疊，作出多樣的變化。最後，Teja把各參與者的圖像重組，轉化成電腦影像投射出來，讓不同的公繪畫連結一起。她還把一些圖形製成銀色金屬塊狀，在車站和展覽中，平放在蓋了黑布的桌上展示，令公眾繪畫的圖案變成一塊塊精緻的拼圖， 在象徵現代化的火車站中，勾起搭客有關兒時已開始接觸的傳統藝術，也為傳統繪圖之設計和承傳開拓新的方法與想像，讓人重新審視當代藝術中的公共藝術與傳統宗教的接合點。(05, 06.jpg)
由於文化背景的差異，香港藝術家在[en]counters的參與，重點均是放在提供不同的平台讓公眾接觸不同形態的藝術，以及虛心地去與當地人交流、分享和學習，而並非進行需要長期持續的「社群藝術」項目。 當然，若主辦單位能持續地引入多面向的外地藝術創作，定期與當地的特定社群分享，那「社群」的凝聚，還是可以透過策展單位在社區中的長期工作而形成的。香港在過去半個世紀的「藝術視野」多停留在歐美的國度，忽視了其他區域和文化。 不過， 情況在近十年，已略有所改善。但願香港未來與印度、東南亞、東歐等地的交流，不只囿於經濟掛帥的想像，而能透過與這些地區的微型藝術交流計劃，建立更多元的文化交流橋樑。
這是我第三趟赴孟買參與[en]counters公共藝術節。第一趟是2013年，以藝術家身分參與，也協助一點統籌事宜。第二趟是2014年，以聯合策展人的身分參與，協助申請資助，統籌香港藝術家的參與。今趟，我則是替「藝術到家」統籌香港藝術家參與的部分，參加的包括：朱耀煒、王鎮海(海狗)、陳佩玲、女子組合Come Inside (麥影彤和黃嘉瀛)。他們之前都沒有去過孟買，但卻是喜歡與他人交流、合作的藝術工作者。
有關場地許可證
今年[en]counters的選址位於人流繁多的CST火車站。Art Oxygen去年申請使用這車站進行藝術活動時，過程相當順利，車站主管也十分支持。因此，他們今年申請使用同一場地時，也是充滿信心。可是，今年的車站主管換了人，對Art Oxygen 的工作不大認識，而相關的場地牌照也就遲遲未批。事實上，香港藝術家於10月1 日到達孟買時，火車站仍未發出場地許可證 。不過藝術團隊早已作了多手準備： 若果拿不到CST的許可證，那我們於10月8日的藝術展演, 便會移施至另一較易申請到的公共空間 : Carter Road，並且嘗試以游擊式的手法在火車上進行創作。由於各地點的客觀條件都很是不同，作多手準備其實相當困難。
結果，10月3日早上，主策展人Leandre D’Souza穿上整齊鮮豔的戰衣，再次拜訪CST火車站辦公室， 並成功取得許可證明文件。不過，當中卻有一小插曲：基於安全理由， 車站主管要查明各藝術家的背景，並指出由於印度與巴基斯坦正鬧得緊張，來自中國的藝術家令他擔憂。Leandre立即解釋道這些藝術家是來自香港，而非中國大陸，迅速為事件打圓場。
在公共空間進行藝術活動，應否申請場地牌照？
在公共空間進行藝術活動，應否申請場地牌照？這問題反複出現在每次藝術節的相關討論裡，而回應這問題也需要從不同角度去思考活動的性質。作為「公共藝術節」的主辦單位， 是樂於見到藝術家主動提出不同的游擊方案，並希望盡量協助藝術家在不同的場域作實驗性的嘗試，但同時主辦者也有責任去處理相關的場地申請，讓藝術家可在安全的環境下創作。
印度藝術家Pradeep L. Mishra 在開幕式的講座上，便提出要注意藝術家的安全問題。Pradeep 的話提醒我們，要避免把「藝術行動」過份浪漫化，在公共空間創作和展覽，必須持續運用「常識」處事， 也要有心理準備去應付突發事件，諸如作品被刻意破壞、遇上情緒有問題的群眾等等。綜觀是次在「流動倉庫」的各個作品，海狗的流動電台(名為「臨時無定空間＃2」) 雖不以視覺效果取悅途人、但卻提供了最開放的平台讓公眾參與。作為電台節目主持人，海狗邀請車站的乘客參與他節目的錄製及直播部分。在車站展演的第二天，有數位乘客主動前來要求在節目中講話，並以印度文發表了他們的政見。演講期間，有個別觀眾走來向我表示應該停止這乘客講話，因為當中的內容是「不對」的。海狗聽不懂講話內容，幸好，有在場觀眾幫忙作簡單翻譯； 聚集聆聽相關演講的人群愈來愈多，也幸好，演講者發言完畢後，便自行離去，沒有嚷成口角或衝突。作為主持人的海狗，聽不明白，沒有能力直接回應，卻提供了一個微妙的緩衝區： 開放了一個平台讓不同的意見共存，卻不急於提出辯論或爭辯的空間。
閱讀藝術作品的不同層次
此外，Pradeep提出，外國藝術家在當地公共空間創作時較有優勢，因為公眾對外地人充滿好奇，樂意留步去了解其作品。在不同性質的公共空間作展演，當然也有不同的效果。2012與2013年舉行[en]counters 計劃的Carter Road，是沿海散步區，有較多閒情駐足觀看的途人。相反，在人流較多的CST火車站，留下觀眾深入閱讀藝術作品，則比較困難。不過，由於車站售票區是個室內空間，以展覽設計的角度看，車站是比戶外空間更易於讓多組作品一拼展示，建立一個整體的氛圍。再者，火車站對於香港藝術家而言，絕不陌生，所以作事前準備功夫時，也會較易想像。
朱耀煒在兩天的火車站展演中，做了個小實驗： 第一天，《流動藝術自動售賣機》的繪畫速度比較快，觀眾與《售賣機》互動後，很快便可看到機器繪畫的火車站古舊建築。第二天，他在早上，把機器的繪畫速度調慢，令觀眾不能在短時間內辨認到繪畫的主體，下午則再把繪畫速度加快。結果是，當機械緩慢地繪畫時，圍觀人數頓減。《售賣機》的現場觀眾中，較多是喜愛深入了解機械和電腦程式的運作，但也有的是關注藝術家會如何運用這個《售賣機》籌來的款項。藝術家也坦誠回答是給兒子籌的，這答案卻令問者好奇：「這些零錢可不夠用啊！」，於是整個藝術家自嘲「搵唔到食」的狀況就不言而喻。
陳佩玲和Come Inside 也巧妙地運用了，與場地色調有強烈對比的色彩，讓她們的作品在火車站售票大堂顯得矚目。 陳佩玲的《生日快樂系列》以六枝光亮的銀色碗形裝置，盛載著喇叭，播放來自香港的印度人之祝福話語和歌聲，在車站偏黃的燈光下， 有種特別的科幻效果。Come Inside 的《障礙物》中的淡粉紅色，是在車站極難找到的色調。當3米高的粉紅色氣泡膠裝置豎立在顏色相對深沉的月台或售票範圍時，就更突顯作品的詩意。這兩組作品並不止於營造可觀的視覺效果，《生日快樂系列》邀請途人駐足聆聽遠方同鄉的話語，《障礙物》也邀請途人把氣泡掐破，呼吸來自中國的空氣。 據香港藝術家的觀察，與香港觀眾相比，孟買的市民一般都較踴躍發問，更願意花時間駐足觀察或討論。藝術作品的意涵有許多層次，在不同場域面對不同觀眾群的時候，閱讀的深入程度也必有差異。如何在公共場域造就機會， 讓觀眾在獵奇、觀看、傾聽、觸碰之餘，對作品提出更多不同層次的閱讀，正是對藝術家和策展人的一個考驗，也是該場域的公民素質之反映。
傳統與當代的公共藝術
近年，有關「公共藝術」的討論在香港以及印度均大幅增長，講座中另一位印度藝術家Owais Husain 提到有記者問及他對新興的「公共藝術」之看法，他回應說其實「公共藝術」自古有之，並非新鮮事物。不過，近年當代藝術中的相關論述尤其注重社群參與、互動溝通這些層面。撇除創作媒介的美學分野，其實不難在孟買街頭發現，很有凝聚能力、善於「介入」社群的藝術裝置和活動，這些都是為傳統節慶而設的祭壇、舞台、燈飾。湊巧，今年[en]counters的開端，也是印度教和回教的多個重要節日，讓是次參與的香港藝術家，有幸在孟買各處欣賞到當地人，熱情地投入在公共空間發生的各節慶活動： 看傳統話劇、在路中心設置祭壇參拜、男女老少都在街上載歌載舞等等 。
與香港藝術家同日於車站展出的印度藝術家Teja Gavankar， 在其參與式作品中，也轉化了印度人在宗教節慶時在門前、路上的傳統彩沙繪畫: Rangoli。這彩沙繪畫是以染色的米粉、麵粉、幼沙或花瓣在地上繪畫的七彩圖案。圖案的設計，是一代傳一代，不同地區也會有其地方特色，但多是以基本的網格點作繪畫的開端，透過運用不同的線條去連接這些點，而營造多樣的圖案：有對稱的圖形，也有隨意伸延，甚至是具象的圖畫。Teja的作品是在火車站內邀請途人，在已印有四個網格點的透明膠片上，隨意繪畫連接的曲線，參與者在繪畫時可任意摺疊膠片讓線條重疊，作出多樣的變化。最後，Teja把各參與者的圖像重組，轉化成電腦影像投射出來，讓不同的公繪畫連結一起。她還把一些圖形製成銀色金屬塊狀，在車站和展覽中，平放在蓋了黑布的桌上展示，令公眾繪畫的圖案變成一塊塊精緻的拼圖， 在象徵現代化的火車站中，勾起搭客有關兒時已開始接觸的傳統藝術，也為傳統繪圖之設計和承傳開拓新的方法與想像，讓人重新審視當代藝術中的公共藝術與傳統宗教的接合點。(05, 06.jpg)
由於文化背景的差異，香港藝術家在[en]counters的參與，重點均是放在提供不同的平台讓公眾接觸不同形態的藝術，以及虛心地去與當地人交流、分享和學習，而並非進行需要長期持續的「社群藝術」項目。 當然，若主辦單位能持續地引入多面向的外地藝術創作，定期與當地的特定社群分享，那「社群」的凝聚，還是可以透過策展單位在社區中的長期工作而形成的。香港在過去半個世紀的「藝術視野」多停留在歐美的國度，忽視了其他區域和文化。 不過， 情況在近十年，已略有所改善。但願香港未來與印度、東南亞、東歐等地的交流，不只囿於經濟掛帥的想像，而能透過與這些地區的微型藝術交流計劃，建立更多元的文化交流橋樑。
“On Public Art and Cultural Exchange: beginning with the venue application”
by Clara Cheung
This is my third time to participate in [en]counters public art festival in Mumbai. The first was in 2013, when I participated as an artist and helped with some coordinating works. The second was in 2014, when I co-curated the Hong Kong segment within this festival. This round, I helped Art Together to organize the participation of Hong Kong artists in [en]counters. 2016’s Hong Kong team include CHU Yiu Wai, WONG Chun Hoi, Peggy CHAN and the female artist duo, Come Inside (with MAK Ying Tung and WONG Ka Ying). None of them has been to Mumbai before, but all of them enjoy collaborating with others.
About Venue Permit Application
One major venue for [en]counters this year is the most crowded and busy railway station in Mumbai: Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST). Having had nice experience with [en]counters at CST last year, Art Oxygen was quite confident about the venue permit application at the beginning. However, the person in charge at the CST was changed. As the new manager did not know too well about Art Oxygen’s works, the permit application process was delayed. Indeed, upon the arrival of the Hong Kong group on 1st October, 2016, the permit still was not out yet. Artists had to prepare several contingency plans for various possible sites. In case if we could not get any permission from the train station, one of the plans was to launch the art actions on Carter Road and to take some of the art projects onto train compartments in a guerilla style.
In the morning on 3rd October, [en]counters’ chief curator, Leandre D’Souza, put on a smart-looking dress in bright pink color to visit the CST office again, and successfully obtained the venue permit this time. Despite the success, there was a little episode in this final stage of application. Due to safety reason, the CST manager had background-check of all participating artists again and further pointed out that he was worried about the artists from China, because of the current tension between Pakistan and India. Instead of attempting to explain again the nature of the artworks and the art festival, Leandre simply stated that these artists were not from China, but from Hong Kong. It, somehow, quickly clamed the nerves of the manager.
Is permit application necessary for public art events?
Is permit application necessary for public art events? This question appears amongst artists’ discussion in every [en]counters. The answer actually varies, depending on different natures of the art activities or art actions. As I understand, Art Oxygen welcomes very much artists to initiate various guerrilla proposals, and would try their best to assist the artists. This reveals the experimental spirit of [en]counters public art festival. However, the organizer is, at the same time, responsible for venue application process in order to try to provide a safe environment for participating artists.
Indian artist Pradeep L. MISHRA reminded us, during the festival’s opening talk, to pay attention to artists’ safety issue when they exhibited artworks in public space. In fact, it is necessary to avoid romanticisation of any art actions. When one makes art in public space, s/he should always apply “common sense” and be prepared for unexpected outcomes, such as destruction of the artworks by others in purpose, disruption by mentally ill passersby etc. Amongst all the artworks in “Bori Bunder,” the mobile radio, which was titled “Temporarily non-locatable public space #2,” by WONG Chun Hoi(nickname: Hoi9) is the most visually subtle, but enables the most democratic platform for visitors to participate. As a radio host, Hoi9 invited passengers at CST to join his radio show in both the pre-recorded interviews and live broadcast sessions. On the second day of the festival at CST, several passengers self-volunteered to join the radio program, and spoke about their political opinions in Indian languages. During their speeches, a passerby came to me directly to tell me that the speech of this passenger at the radio show should be stopped, since what he said was “wrong.” Although another audience member tried to translate part of the speech to Hoi9, Hoi9 could not really understand well. More and more passengers gathered at the radio station, as the speech went on. Fortunately, the speakers left politely after finishing their political statements. As Hoi9 was not able to understand the content of the speeches, he could not directly address the content as a radio host. Hoi9’s silence actually created a buffer zone, which was an open platform for different opinions, instead of a space for immediate debate.
To reveal the different layers of meanings in the artworks
Pradeep also pointed out that foreign artists usually attracted more attention in public art events, since the public usually would be more curious about foreign cultures and, therefore, more willing to understand their artworks. Audience’ response varies in different sites, indeed. For example, in 2012 and 2013, [en]counters took place on Carter Road, which was a pedestrian area along the seaside with more passersby in a relaxing mood to encounter different pop-up events. It is comparatively more challenging to deeply engage visitors in CST that has a massive passenger flow everyday. However, the advantage of CST for [en]counters festival is that the large indoor space, next to the ticketing office, can be easily transformed as an exhibition space for many sets of artworks to generate a cohesive atmosphere to engage visitors. Besides, compared to other public sites in Mumbai, the site of a train station would be easily associated with, by Hong Kong artists who have never been to to Mumbai. This certainly helped their imaginations and preparation works before this art trip.
CHU Yiu Wai did an experiment with his art piece during the two days of [en]counters at CST. On the first day, the drawing speed of “Portable Art Vending Machine” was faster. Audience could see the drawing of the train station’s historical architecture quite quickly after inserting coins into this vending machine. In the morning of the second day, the machine drew slower. It was so slow that the audience could not identify the subject matter of the drawing immediately. The drawing speed increased in the afternoon later on that day again. The result was when the machine drew slower, the crowd around it also decreased dramatically. Many audience of “Portable Art Vending Machine” liked to observe carefully to understand the mechanism and the computer program in the work, while some also were concerned what the artist would use the collected money for. CHU honestly answered the audience as well. He told them the money was for his 3-year-old son. This response made the audience members puzzled and curious. One participant even commented, “Such small amount of money is not enough though!” The satire about the poor livelihood of artists, therefore, was automatically unfolded.
Peggy CHAN and Come Inside both nicely chose color tones that contrasted strongly against the venue’s background colors in their art pieces. Standing in the CST, no one would miss out their outstanding works. Peggy’s “Happy Birthday Series” used six big shiny silver bowls, on six one-meter-tall stands, to hold the speakers that sent the best wishes from Indians in Hong Kong to all the passengers in Mubmai’s CST. Under the yellow lights in the station, this series of silver installation stood out, like certain odd equipment from a science fiction. The pink color in “Obstacles” by Come Inside was also extra-ordinary in the station. The 3-meter-tall structure with heart-shaped bubble wrap in the romantic pink color generated a very poetic and surreal atmosphere in the middle of the train platform and ticket area. Beyond the spectacle effect, these two artworks attempted to further engage the visitors. Upon catching the attention of the passersby, the sound from the “Birthday” piece invited audience to lean toward the futuristic silver bowls to carefully grasp the messages from faraway. The pink bubble wraps on “Obstacles” also automatically generated the desire to pop up the bubbles, which would release air from China instantly. According to the Hong Kong artists’ observation, the public audience in Mumbai usually is more willing to pause to observe and tends to ask more questions, compared with the general public in Hong Kong. Each art piece has many layers of meanings to be uncovered. Depending on different sites and audience members, the readable layers vary. How to encourage visitors to go beyond the first spectacular layer of the art piece, to further observe, listen, interact and then try to discover even more? This is an important question for the artists, the curators, and, at the same time, for the audience as well, because it actually depends on the quality of the civil society to enable an environment for meaningful reading.
Public art from the tradition and that in contemporary art scene
There is much more discussion about “public art” for the art communities in Hong Kong and India in recent years. During the opening art talk, another Indian artist, Owais HUSAIN, mentioned that one journalist asked him about his opinion on this kind of new trend of “public art” in an interview. Owais did not regard “public art” as anything “new” per se. Public art has its own long history indeed. However, the recent discourse about “public art” actually focuses on community engagement and interactive dialogues. Despite different aesthetic preferences amongst various art media, it is actually not difficult to see many socially-engaged art installations and activities in Mumbai’s public space, which are the decorations, stages and events for religious festival celebrations. It was a wonderful coincidence that the beginning of this year’s [en]counters was also the dates for several important festivals for Hindus and Muslims. This allowed the participating artists from Hong Kong to be able to appreciate the high-level of engagement of Mumbai people in public space during their festivals. Many went on streets to watch traditional dramas and to pray in pop-up temples in the middle of the road. People in different ages would just dance and sing along on the streets as well.
India artist, Teja GAVANKAR, who showed her work at CST in the same weekend with the Hong Kong group, did involve a traditional art form, “Rangoli,” in her project at the train station. Rangoli is a kind of sand painting, with colorful flour, rice powder, sand, or flower petals, on the floor at home entrances or on the streets for festival celebration. The patterns for rangoli are past on from the previous generation to the next one. Therefore, different regions’ rangoli may have their own regional characteristics. The basic startup for rangoli drawing began with several grid dots. The artists would then use various lines to connect these dots to develop different compositions, which may be symmetrical or in free styles. Sometimes, rangoli drawings even involve figurative images. Teja’s work at CST was to invite passengers to use curve lines to connect four grid dots on transparent sheets. Participants were also encouraged to fold the sheets in order to derive more different drawing patterns. In the end, Teja turned all the drawings by participants into digital formats, connected them altogether, and showcased the collaborative work created by the public with computer projection. Besides, she also transformed some shapes derived from these drawings into metal pieces in silver color, which looked like many very elegant puzzle pieces. Based on an art form familiar to all locals since their childhood, Teja’s project juxtaposes the public’s memory about a traditional art form with the train station that symbolizes modernity and, at the same time, invites the public to develop new patterns with different tools collaboratively. Although foreign visitors may not be able to contemplate much in this project, it successfully provides a platform for the connection of a traditional public art form with the contemporary one for the community from the same culture.
Due to the different cultural backgrounds, Hong Kong artists’ participation in [en]counters focused more on the provision of open platforms for the public in Mumbai to meet various art forms, instead of launching “community art projects” that requires long period of time for community engagement. In fact, the Hong Kong group always bared a humble mind in the exchange trip for sincere cultural exchange, sharing and learning. The current model of [en]counters with foreign artists’ participation can still provide the element of community development, if the curatorial unit succeeds in weaving different art projects by foreign and local artists together to provide a long term and holistic picture for the public in Mumbai. It certainly is one of the objectives of Art Oxygen who launches the festival of [en]counters annually since 2010. The “artistic vision” of Hong Kong has mainly been Euro- and American centric in the last century, while missing out a lot of important arts and cultures very close-by. This situation has been slowly changed in the past two decade. It will take even more efforts of our cultural practitioners to help develop the mutual exchange platforms to encourage more sincere appreciation of our neighbors’ cultures, instead of emphasizing the economic growth promoted by our government.
About Venue Permit Application
One major venue for [en]counters this year is the most crowded and busy railway station in Mumbai: Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST). Having had nice experience with [en]counters at CST last year, Art Oxygen was quite confident about the venue permit application at the beginning. However, the person in charge at the CST was changed. As the new manager did not know too well about Art Oxygen’s works, the permit application process was delayed. Indeed, upon the arrival of the Hong Kong group on 1st October, 2016, the permit still was not out yet. Artists had to prepare several contingency plans for various possible sites. In case if we could not get any permission from the train station, one of the plans was to launch the art actions on Carter Road and to take some of the art projects onto train compartments in a guerilla style.
In the morning on 3rd October, [en]counters’ chief curator, Leandre D’Souza, put on a smart-looking dress in bright pink color to visit the CST office again, and successfully obtained the venue permit this time. Despite the success, there was a little episode in this final stage of application. Due to safety reason, the CST manager had background-check of all participating artists again and further pointed out that he was worried about the artists from China, because of the current tension between Pakistan and India. Instead of attempting to explain again the nature of the artworks and the art festival, Leandre simply stated that these artists were not from China, but from Hong Kong. It, somehow, quickly clamed the nerves of the manager.
Is permit application necessary for public art events?
Is permit application necessary for public art events? This question appears amongst artists’ discussion in every [en]counters. The answer actually varies, depending on different natures of the art activities or art actions. As I understand, Art Oxygen welcomes very much artists to initiate various guerrilla proposals, and would try their best to assist the artists. This reveals the experimental spirit of [en]counters public art festival. However, the organizer is, at the same time, responsible for venue application process in order to try to provide a safe environment for participating artists.
Indian artist Pradeep L. MISHRA reminded us, during the festival’s opening talk, to pay attention to artists’ safety issue when they exhibited artworks in public space. In fact, it is necessary to avoid romanticisation of any art actions. When one makes art in public space, s/he should always apply “common sense” and be prepared for unexpected outcomes, such as destruction of the artworks by others in purpose, disruption by mentally ill passersby etc. Amongst all the artworks in “Bori Bunder,” the mobile radio, which was titled “Temporarily non-locatable public space #2,” by WONG Chun Hoi(nickname: Hoi9) is the most visually subtle, but enables the most democratic platform for visitors to participate. As a radio host, Hoi9 invited passengers at CST to join his radio show in both the pre-recorded interviews and live broadcast sessions. On the second day of the festival at CST, several passengers self-volunteered to join the radio program, and spoke about their political opinions in Indian languages. During their speeches, a passerby came to me directly to tell me that the speech of this passenger at the radio show should be stopped, since what he said was “wrong.” Although another audience member tried to translate part of the speech to Hoi9, Hoi9 could not really understand well. More and more passengers gathered at the radio station, as the speech went on. Fortunately, the speakers left politely after finishing their political statements. As Hoi9 was not able to understand the content of the speeches, he could not directly address the content as a radio host. Hoi9’s silence actually created a buffer zone, which was an open platform for different opinions, instead of a space for immediate debate.
To reveal the different layers of meanings in the artworks
Pradeep also pointed out that foreign artists usually attracted more attention in public art events, since the public usually would be more curious about foreign cultures and, therefore, more willing to understand their artworks. Audience’ response varies in different sites, indeed. For example, in 2012 and 2013, [en]counters took place on Carter Road, which was a pedestrian area along the seaside with more passersby in a relaxing mood to encounter different pop-up events. It is comparatively more challenging to deeply engage visitors in CST that has a massive passenger flow everyday. However, the advantage of CST for [en]counters festival is that the large indoor space, next to the ticketing office, can be easily transformed as an exhibition space for many sets of artworks to generate a cohesive atmosphere to engage visitors. Besides, compared to other public sites in Mumbai, the site of a train station would be easily associated with, by Hong Kong artists who have never been to to Mumbai. This certainly helped their imaginations and preparation works before this art trip.
CHU Yiu Wai did an experiment with his art piece during the two days of [en]counters at CST. On the first day, the drawing speed of “Portable Art Vending Machine” was faster. Audience could see the drawing of the train station’s historical architecture quite quickly after inserting coins into this vending machine. In the morning of the second day, the machine drew slower. It was so slow that the audience could not identify the subject matter of the drawing immediately. The drawing speed increased in the afternoon later on that day again. The result was when the machine drew slower, the crowd around it also decreased dramatically. Many audience of “Portable Art Vending Machine” liked to observe carefully to understand the mechanism and the computer program in the work, while some also were concerned what the artist would use the collected money for. CHU honestly answered the audience as well. He told them the money was for his 3-year-old son. This response made the audience members puzzled and curious. One participant even commented, “Such small amount of money is not enough though!” The satire about the poor livelihood of artists, therefore, was automatically unfolded.
Peggy CHAN and Come Inside both nicely chose color tones that contrasted strongly against the venue’s background colors in their art pieces. Standing in the CST, no one would miss out their outstanding works. Peggy’s “Happy Birthday Series” used six big shiny silver bowls, on six one-meter-tall stands, to hold the speakers that sent the best wishes from Indians in Hong Kong to all the passengers in Mubmai’s CST. Under the yellow lights in the station, this series of silver installation stood out, like certain odd equipment from a science fiction. The pink color in “Obstacles” by Come Inside was also extra-ordinary in the station. The 3-meter-tall structure with heart-shaped bubble wrap in the romantic pink color generated a very poetic and surreal atmosphere in the middle of the train platform and ticket area. Beyond the spectacle effect, these two artworks attempted to further engage the visitors. Upon catching the attention of the passersby, the sound from the “Birthday” piece invited audience to lean toward the futuristic silver bowls to carefully grasp the messages from faraway. The pink bubble wraps on “Obstacles” also automatically generated the desire to pop up the bubbles, which would release air from China instantly. According to the Hong Kong artists’ observation, the public audience in Mumbai usually is more willing to pause to observe and tends to ask more questions, compared with the general public in Hong Kong. Each art piece has many layers of meanings to be uncovered. Depending on different sites and audience members, the readable layers vary. How to encourage visitors to go beyond the first spectacular layer of the art piece, to further observe, listen, interact and then try to discover even more? This is an important question for the artists, the curators, and, at the same time, for the audience as well, because it actually depends on the quality of the civil society to enable an environment for meaningful reading.
Public art from the tradition and that in contemporary art scene
There is much more discussion about “public art” for the art communities in Hong Kong and India in recent years. During the opening art talk, another Indian artist, Owais HUSAIN, mentioned that one journalist asked him about his opinion on this kind of new trend of “public art” in an interview. Owais did not regard “public art” as anything “new” per se. Public art has its own long history indeed. However, the recent discourse about “public art” actually focuses on community engagement and interactive dialogues. Despite different aesthetic preferences amongst various art media, it is actually not difficult to see many socially-engaged art installations and activities in Mumbai’s public space, which are the decorations, stages and events for religious festival celebrations. It was a wonderful coincidence that the beginning of this year’s [en]counters was also the dates for several important festivals for Hindus and Muslims. This allowed the participating artists from Hong Kong to be able to appreciate the high-level of engagement of Mumbai people in public space during their festivals. Many went on streets to watch traditional dramas and to pray in pop-up temples in the middle of the road. People in different ages would just dance and sing along on the streets as well.
India artist, Teja GAVANKAR, who showed her work at CST in the same weekend with the Hong Kong group, did involve a traditional art form, “Rangoli,” in her project at the train station. Rangoli is a kind of sand painting, with colorful flour, rice powder, sand, or flower petals, on the floor at home entrances or on the streets for festival celebration. The patterns for rangoli are past on from the previous generation to the next one. Therefore, different regions’ rangoli may have their own regional characteristics. The basic startup for rangoli drawing began with several grid dots. The artists would then use various lines to connect these dots to develop different compositions, which may be symmetrical or in free styles. Sometimes, rangoli drawings even involve figurative images. Teja’s work at CST was to invite passengers to use curve lines to connect four grid dots on transparent sheets. Participants were also encouraged to fold the sheets in order to derive more different drawing patterns. In the end, Teja turned all the drawings by participants into digital formats, connected them altogether, and showcased the collaborative work created by the public with computer projection. Besides, she also transformed some shapes derived from these drawings into metal pieces in silver color, which looked like many very elegant puzzle pieces. Based on an art form familiar to all locals since their childhood, Teja’s project juxtaposes the public’s memory about a traditional art form with the train station that symbolizes modernity and, at the same time, invites the public to develop new patterns with different tools collaboratively. Although foreign visitors may not be able to contemplate much in this project, it successfully provides a platform for the connection of a traditional public art form with the contemporary one for the community from the same culture.
Due to the different cultural backgrounds, Hong Kong artists’ participation in [en]counters focused more on the provision of open platforms for the public in Mumbai to meet various art forms, instead of launching “community art projects” that requires long period of time for community engagement. In fact, the Hong Kong group always bared a humble mind in the exchange trip for sincere cultural exchange, sharing and learning. The current model of [en]counters with foreign artists’ participation can still provide the element of community development, if the curatorial unit succeeds in weaving different art projects by foreign and local artists together to provide a long term and holistic picture for the public in Mumbai. It certainly is one of the objectives of Art Oxygen who launches the festival of [en]counters annually since 2010. The “artistic vision” of Hong Kong has mainly been Euro- and American centric in the last century, while missing out a lot of important arts and cultures very close-by. This situation has been slowly changed in the past two decade. It will take even more efforts of our cultural practitioners to help develop the mutual exchange platforms to encourage more sincere appreciation of our neighbors’ cultures, instead of emphasizing the economic growth promoted by our government.
策劃 Organized by:
