「《輿圖計畫》 SLY X TAV 」NO.2液態城市 波浪進擊 The Wave-Like Onslaught of Liquidity City
《輿圖計畫》 SLY X TAV NO.2液態城市 波浪進擊
The Wave-Like Onslaught of Liquidity City
LI,MING-CONG X CHEN,HSUAN-CHENG:
剛剛高怡良提到的「都市計畫」，在我看來都市計畫就是始於「劃線」的，各式各樣的劃線說，這裡是商業區那裡是工業區，或者是農業區。19世紀中期80都市計畫的起源，起源於劃那一條一條的線來「界定部落」，界定出什麼地方是公園，應該如何的保留，又是什麼樣的地方變成這個商業區?所以，因為他把鍛鍊的東西，同時之間我看到劃線的另外一個「曖昧性」在於─他是between跟point介於「點跟面」。所以說點線面，這是介於點跟面，若是利用這樣的一個領域來談論:「點」─是一個完全「原子化」而且「疏離化」個體的狀況；而「面」─就是一個「高度社會性」並且可以溝通的「公眾」；「線」─是介於「完全疏離」的點，以及成為一個「符合式共同體」中的一個非常重要的內部動作，是一種「人際行動」。所以，我覺得這種劃線的方式出現在創作中時，我可以看到各種線條的不交錯，但正因為不交錯而形成了各種無限延伸的可能，我覺得這很有趣。
那其實，試著幫藝術家Ann回答陳宣誠老師所提的一個問題，關於「感官」的問題。因為Ann有藉著「聲音」的沿用，以聲音的部份來說，關於Ann的工作其實非常的有趣的，她的工作就是試圖用「視覺」把聽到的東西呈達出來，同時之間，是不是有可能，在未來是可以產生一種「跨界」方式，也就是和聲音藝術家合作。這樣一來，就可以使得看的見的東西利用聲音的方式被表達出來，這樣的方式，就會跟你的作品產生一個對話。同時之間，我有一個小小的建議，就是Ann有沒有想過使用「非物質性」的線條來進行創作。
事實上，藝術家Anne提到的部份，剛好就是我要談的重點。我個人認為，她的作品其實也很有趣，而最有趣的一個結構就是在她的設計，discover意味著要把裡面的東西inside out出來，被大家看見，這也是結構主義運動裡面談inside out時，一個很重要的精神：把看見的東西重新呈現出來。所以做衣服不是讓你單純只看到外在，而是要幫觀者把裡面的東西翻出來，在這個伸展台上面能夠被看到。我覺得有趣的地方是在於，她不只是inside out而且還是outside in，她讓我們看到表面，讓我們以為這就是表面，但事實上不是這樣；她突破了既有傳統上面經常會出現的「二元對立」，也就是表面以及裡面。相對來說，表面的是比較是沒有深度的，裡面是比較有深度的，表面的東西只是一個外觀且缺乏意義，富含意義的，只有裡而已。
不過我覺得，她的作品事實上是試著在告訴我們，表面的東西事實上，反而會製造出一種關於事物的「非固定性」，不是即存的，並非存在於這邊；而是可以不斷地被「重組」，不斷地被「介入」跟改變。闗於上述的過程，我覺得是很有趣的，那這也讓我看到，藝術家張菀玲的作品；我覺得她更有趣的是，同時之間這個計劃中會有一個呼應，當我們認為表面的事物看起來就是這樣時，其實不見得是如此。張菀玲的作品，就是要用來表示如同空氣或者親密關係、城市，這些看起來有「固定運作的物件」，在固定運作的習慣方式下，都是可以被重新去了解的，我用一個字詞來表達，就是把「熟悉的東西重新去熟悉化」，所以呼吸總是都在呼吸，但在呼吸中多加一個媒介物時，呼吸就變成是一種可被「重新察覺」跟「展示」到的動作。
當然「親密關係」很難完全是這樣，加上親吻都是固定和同樣的方式在進行，當有一個「物質」被置放在中間，親吻這件事就變得好像有點可笑。我們之間又重新可以去想像，甚麼是親密互動；我認為，城市也是一樣，城市有固定的運作方式跟習慣，但是城市裡面到處都出現垃圾，當垃圾被風吹時，垃圾就會開始移動。但若是有一個物質成為城市和垃圾的中介，採用一種非正常且人為的方式時，成為一種有點自然又不太自然地行為時，他就會「凝結」。這個城市裡面許許多多我們習以為常，習焉不察，甚至覺得自然而然的事物，也可以根據藝術家黃文琳的作品來觀察。她也擁有一種，在我看來是一種藝術家非常重要的一個特質：一種可以「意外發現有趣事物」的能力。是這樣的一個觀念，讓她意外發現，而不是藝術家特別去找，這樣的方式，會比別人更容易發現不同的事物。
比如說，一般人都會看到燕子在築巢，但是藝術家竟然可以把這樣的一個「行為」紀錄下來，並且紀錄下來還不夠，她嘗試去做一個類似像GIS的作品。GIS是在地理學經常出現的一個專有名詞，將一個地方標示起來，然後寫成一個具有「地理訊息」的一個系統。所以事實上，黃文琳做的「燕子築巢的GIS」，其實非常有趣，千萬別妄自菲薄並且很謙虛的談論這件作品。其實這件作品的意義非常重要，當這樣的作品被產出時，對動物學、對生態學家或對地理學家，這個意義都非常重大。作品的藝術工作者們可能覺得創作的浪漫程度比理性程度多很多，但事實上有時的意義卻很重大。同時之間，我覺得她也試圖去「銜接」關於「超自然的信仰」，像是算塔羅牌跟超自然，塔羅牌並不是一個自然的產物，跟日常生活百無聊賴的工作、愛情、人際關係，；大家都無聊的活著，但是又希望能夠透過超自然的方式去比較。
事實上，這不是只有城市，我覺得他是一個符號，這個符號的概念，事實上塔羅牌是一個「媒介」。
很有趣的是文琳把「動植物」跟「人為的地景」，「超自然現象」跟「人為」的。雖然文琳沒有刻意做這件事，但是算塔羅牌這件事，本身就是一個很有趣的「轉譯」的。那最後一個是我對高怡良作品的看法，我覺得他有很多很多的觀察是我覺得非常有趣的，他把「濕地」跟「荒地」乃至於「人為」所組合的，也就是，事實上，人造的，不斷在做各式各樣的，但事實上就自然來講就是一種nature，那麼回歸到一個最本質的濕地的思考。我覺得這讓我重新不斷地去思考，在那個powerpoint底下到底需要一個什麼樣的城市？我想，這個是大家的問題，也是我的發問。
與其說他是一個，不如說他是一個實際上而不斷的在的，那我有一個小小的意見就是背上最後的這個觀察，如果說我們的觀察不是在某個的層面，而是一個實際上他怎麼樣可以被action出來，那麼事實上我覺得整個城市的那個地景就不是，有或者沒有、人工或者自然對比。而是一直都會不斷被加上去的一種像是，一種像般的，就是以中舞濕地為一個素材，就是你寫完然後再把他刮掉然後再寫，可是你在寫上去的時候其實之前刮掉的東西括不乾淨，依然看到。
所以每一次的「複寫」都是對於前一次的「括除」，但是括又括不乾淨，所以我覺得都市也是這樣，那既然是這樣的話，做為一個藝術工作者，事實上我可以做的就是在每一次結構性的力量再刮除一些整合過程裡面，我們去看讓那些刮不乾淨的東西透過藝術表現來進行再現，或者進行一種提點，讓那個刮不乾淨的東西變得好髒，然後好更容易被看見，以致於讓這張裡頭洋溢般的地景在「結構性的力量」試圖讓他永遠都是固定的、乾淨的、沒有分歧的、統一的這樣的一個「量化過程」裡面為他找到分裂的、骯髒的，然後充滿歧異性的這個空間，那我想這就是我們要做的，所以與其說我們到底要一個什麼樣的城市，也許在做出這樣的烏托邦想像之前，因為所有都市設計都在用這個做為一種召喚，那說不定我們最大的功能反而是說我們要怎麼樣的一個城市，對，那覺得這個對於幫人的一個結構本身就是一種然後不是，本身就是一種對於人跟人之間可以有什麼樣的，一個最有效的世界，好，不好意思，我占用了各位的時間，但是為了扮演好我的角色盡可能就是。
其實三位藝術家，特別是文琳跟菀玲，她們的作品一直給我一種「古典感」，就是「島」、「島嶼」，因為台灣是一個島的國家。其實，我對島非常迷戀，就是說島有一個很有趣的部份，你今天可以非常非常地近距「微觀」去看一種「關係」，裡面有一種很大的「抽離感」，而在那種抽離感之後，甚至在像坐船到島的另一邊去看的時候，其實會看得非常宏觀；然後把這種「連結」切斷，他就會用另外一種方式再連結。所以我覺得二位藝術家，讓我知道不管是作業或者是塑膠袋的部分，透過連接的部分，她們會讓我覺得，其實你們想提到的事情就是在說本來的連結被切斷之後，其實這個我覺得他形成一種很特殊的景觀對我來說─是那「空間觀」。所以我剛會問，會想要討論他們兩位是說，他是一個「連續性」的一個「面」，那討論你們，其實我會希望那個像「島」一樣的這個「空間觀」，去思考那個不管你剛講的那個的問題還是什麼的問題，那我覺得像高怡良，我剛剛已經跟他討論這件事情就是說到底做為一個景觀的建築師，我們如何再處理我們那個「自然跟人工的邊界」，我們如何去處理那個問題，所以我覺得，其實我們常在想這個問題，
我們忘了一件事就是說，靠緊我們人的位置，知道他們在什麼地方，就是那個人的位置他如何要，到底那個人工跟自然的邊界，我們要濕地也好，我覺得像那些溼地那個做得很好得看過的，其實都在思考這「個人的位置」突然跟植物啊動物啊那些東西他們之間關係的「距離」，我們要如何去做處理，所以我覺得你用另外一種方式來討論他們在討論的這些，這些不管是那個邊界的問題、不管是那個距離的問題、不管是在人觀的問題，我覺得反而在五個人的討論是，你是一個比較不一樣的方式在討論這個議題在藝術上面的一個呈現這樣，我再簡單補充一下， 謝謝。
The urban planning that Kao Yi Liang just mentioned from my point of view starts from the drawing of lines. All sorts of lines tell us that this is the industrial area or agricultural area. In the mid-19th century, 80 urban plans originated from those lines that define the borders of tribes. They defined what places are parks, how they ought to be preserved, and what kinds of place become commercial areas. Therefore, the things that have been wrought out are of between and point, between point and surface.At the same time, I see the ambiguity of drawing a line here. So of point-line-surface, this is in between point and surface, if we were to have a discussion on the territory, a point is a completely atomized and isolated condition from an entity while a surface is the public that is highly socialized and communicative. A line is an important internal action that is interpersonal, it is between a completely isolated point and a compliant community. Therefore, I think it is interesting that when creating, through drawing lines I can see lines never merging or crisscrossing, and it is precisely for this that they form infinite possibilities of extension.
Actually, I am trying to answer Mr. Chen Cong Ming’s question concerning senses for Anne because she uses the extension of sounds. Regarding sounds, Anne’s work is really quite fascinating, her work is an attempt to represent audio with visuals. At the same time, it is possible that a territory-transcending method might occur in the future, which is a collaboration with a sound artist. In this way, seen things can be conveyed via audio means, creating a dialogue with your work. I also have a small suggestion, which Anne might like to consider when using non-material lines to create.
In fact, what Anne mentioned is the main point of my discussion. I personally think that her work is very fascinating, and the most interesting part is her design. To design is to invent, to let what is inside be seen. This is also an important concept of when the structuralism movement speak of inside -out — to represent unseen things. That is why making clothes is not simply letting one see the exterior but to help the observer discover what lies within and let it be seen on the runway. What I find interesting is that she is not only inside out but also outside in. She lets us see the surface, and we think that is the surface yet it is in fact not so. She breaks through traditional binary oppositions — inside and outside. Relatively speaking, the surface has less depth and the inside has more; things of the surface are mere appearances that lack meaning and only the inside is rich in meaning.
Yet I feel like her work tries to tell us that superficial things in fact generate an instability concerning matters, it is not immediate nor does it exist here. It can be infinitely re-constructible, intervened, and changed. Of the descriptions above, I find it interesting. This also made me look at artist Chang Wan Ling’s work, I find what makes her work even more interesting is that there is correspondence. When we think that what we see is what we get, it might not be so. Chang’s work tries to convey that, like air, intimate relationships and cities, things that seem to operate evenly under regular methods can be understood again. Let me express this in one word that is to re-familiarize familiar things. Breathing is always breathing, yet when a new medium is introduced, breathing can become a movement that can be re-perceived and represented.
Of course, intimate relationships can hardly be the same, not to mention kissing is conducted in a fixed way. When a matter is placed within intimate relationships, kissing becomes laughable. We can imagine, afresh, what intimate interactions are. I think that the city is also like this, it has many fixed ways of operating and habits, yet it is garbage-strewn and when the wind blows the garbage moves. But, if there were a substance that could act as a medium between the city and garbage, when adopting abnormal and artificial ways it becomes a behavior that is somewhat natural yet not very natural, it congeals. In this city things that we take for granted, things we take no notice of, or things that seen natural, can be observed through artist Huang Wen Lin’s works. She possesses a trait that I find crucial in artists — serendipity. It is a concept like this that allows her to discover at random, unintentionally, and a method like this allows for discoveries that other might not find.
For example, common people see swallows building a nest, yet an artist can document this action and, beyond that, attempt to create a work similar to a GIS. GIS is a technical term from geography, it is to record location and write them into a system that possesses geographical information. Therefore, in fact, Huang’s swallow nest GIS is very intriguing, so do not speak of this work so self-deprecatingly or modestly. This work actually holds profound meaning. When a work like this is made, it has great meanings for zoologists, ecologists and geologists. Artists might find that the work is more romantic than it is rational, yet that could actually be greatly meaningful. I also think that her work attempts to combine supernatural beliefs, such as tarot cards and supernaturalism. Tarot card are not of nature’s products, but it is related to the inexhaustible problems of work, love, and interpersonal relationships. Everyone lives in boredom yet seeks to compare through supernatural means.
In fact, I think it is more than a city. I think it is a symbol. With this concept of a symbol, tarot cards actually serve as a medium.
It is interesting that Wen Lin has combined natural and artificial landscapes, supernatural phenomena and that of the mundane. Although she did not do so intentionally, tarot card reading itself is a fascinating conversion. Lastly is my opinion of Kao Yi Liang’s work, I find many of her observations interesting. She combined marshes and wastelands with artificial things, man-made in various forms. Yet speaking of nature from a natural point and returning the rudimental ponderings of a marsh, I think this lets me think afresh, continuously. What kind of city do we need under that PowerPoint presentation? I think this is a question everyone asks.
Instead of saying it is one, you might as well say it is actually an infinite existence. I have a small suggestion which is my final observation — if our recordings are not of a certain layer, how can it be made into action in reality? Then I feel like the city landscape no longer exists; in existence or not, the contrast of what is artificial and natural. it can be continuously added to, something like the material of a marsh which can be written then scraped off and rewritten. Yet when you rewrite the previous marks are still visible.
Therefore every rewriting is the scraping off of previous ones, yet it can never be clean. I feel like the city is like this, and if it is like this, what an artist can do is to scrape off some processes of integration when reconstructing. We represent what cannot be scraped off cleanly or give hints, allowing what can’t be clean to be filthy, rendering it more easily visible. Making the structural power this landscape be forever fixed, clean, without divergence and united. In this quantifying process finding the space that is divided, filthy, and forever teeming with divergence. I think this is what we must do. That is why instead of claiming what city it is that we want, before imagining utopia, for every city sees it as a calling, perhaps our greatest function is to say what kind of city we want. Yes, the structure itself is and is not, between humans, a world of efficacy. Alright, pardon me for taking up your time, I am simply trying to play my role to the best of my ability.
Actually the works all three artists, especially Wen Lin and Wan Ling, give me a sense of the classical, an island. I am actually infatuated with islands, for Taiwan is an island. A very interesting aspect of an island is that you can observe it from close proximity and feel a great sense of disengagement. After this feeling of disengagement, much like when you take a boat to the other side of the island, you have a very holistic view of things. Sever this connection and it will reconnect in a different way. I think these two artists taught me that, be it an art piece or a plastic bag, thanks to the connections, the things you think of are actually special scenes that have been severed, then reformed. The sense of space is very special for me; therefore, I ask, of them, the surface of continuity and of you, I hope it can be from a point of the scope of the island, to think about whatever problem it is that you mentioned. Like Kao, I already discussed with her about how, being an urban planner, we deal with the borders between artificial and natural. I think it is a question we often think about.
I forgot to mention one thing, being close to us humans, knowing where they are, how we deal with the borders of what is artificial and what is natural. It is good that we want marsh lands, I think people think about their positions and the distance between them and the animals and plants. How do we deal with this? That is why I think you are discussing what people have discussed in a different way, be it the problem of borders, distance, or problems from a human’s point of view. I think of the five people you have a more different approach to discussing how to represent them in art. A small supplementary comment of mine. Thank you.
