訪談：何穎雅
文化脈絡、本土性及批判力
何穎雅（何）：你覺得你的藝術實踐更屬於context-specific, site-specific或者site-conditioned（按照你的理解）請解釋。
李俊峰（峰）：我其實不太了解這三個字眼的意思, context和site很多時是同時考慮, 兩者也有互動關係。大概我的實踐是從理念／命題出發，如我對人、社群、社會大眾之間的串聯，與藝術的對話能力如何在之間建立意義，引發行動? 很多時，context和site是借題發揮的對象，人的關係和想法才是主角。
何：按我的理解，那聽起來更像site-conditioned，可是“引發行動”這樣的一個實踐可能也需要自己的一種類型來深入了解，可能因為都是跟人際關係有關的，它沒有辦法按照context- specific/site-specific藝術來判斷某一周成品和結果。這種不斷地變化feedback和“feed- forward”很有意思。那看你最近在瑞士做的創作，有什麼元素是直接從你香港的實踐帶過去來用呢？在你不熟悉的環境下能有同樣的批判性嗎？批判性與本土性對你來說有什麼關係？
峰：這次在瑞士並不是駐場創作，而是與那邊朋友一起構思一個跨地域的教育計劃。一般來說，在活化廳，很多意念和實踐都是從街坊或成員朋友間jam出來的，那累積的脈絡很重要。通常若我在新的環境裡，由於深入認識一個地方需要時間，也不容易建立的緊密的互動，那種有往有來的實踐就會和活化廳的不同。所以這些情況我很多時會定位為觀察者，從我的背景分享一些觀點。像有次在東京駐場，我就訪問了當地一個婆婆的抗議故事。因為那社區要建公路，婆婆每天早上一個人在車站舉牌抗議，這事持續多年，但很多東京市民不知道，於是我就將故事整理起來，以幾個藝術行動和工作坊將這抗議、展場和不同的人串聯起來。不過，想強調說，這些從外帶進來的實踐雖然有一定意義，但在地深耕始終才是重點。
批判性，我覺得是具普遍性的，不太受特殊背景限制。批判性對自己時是測驗我對實踐與理念之間究竟有多真誠，對外是揭示現實裡複雜的權力關係和結構，指示出行動的方向和意義。
本土性，我覺得是一個人對與那滋養你成長的 “土壤” （政治、經濟、社會文化...）所建立的認同與關聯，也是一份許諾 (commitment)。比如說，我在香港的8,90年代成長，這裡的社會大事、城市發展、流行文化、教育體制、前輩們的抗爭實踐等... 都構成了今日的我，而這也反映在我的想法與行動上，在歷史上連成一線。我與這些積累建立起一份許諾，覺得要守衛這些有價值的事情，像收了一份禮物，它成了我的資產，也是負債，我有感恩、答謝的需要。另需要留意，「本土性」在不同的脈絡背景下也會有它的特殊意義。比如local的中譯已有幾個版本：本土（指稱意識形態？）、在地（指稱實踐的態度？）、本地（指稱地方空間？）、地道（指稱庶民文化？）... 使用這概念而不釐清當中的指向，很多時會產生誤會。
破與立：社區 x 藝術 x 行動主義
何： 我所理解活化廳的實踐中，宣傳與溝通是整個項目的一個很重要部分。可是另一方面，我也感覺到內部組織與對外宣傳的某一種衝突。community在這兩個之間站在哪個位置？
峰：或許放在新自由主義的脈絡下，community在香港一面是"破"另一面是"立"，活化廳裡，藝術家們的實踐很大程度偏重了"破"， 打破／批判一些現況問題與提出新的可能性，而不是建立... 因此，宣傳與溝通的過程也較難在"破"的脈絡下著地成長，長遠自然成為內部沖突與不能延續發展的原因之一。community不能只停留在姿態性、行動性、或批判性的層面，裡頭包括"common"的建立和持續的溝通，但很多社區藝術計劃在香港卻在種種限制下，難以進入到這種力度。
何：在這種偏重了“破”的態度上，也許也不叫“community”啦。你覺得呢？如果不是的話，為甚麼這個標簽在活化廳的自述上那麼重要？如果還是能理解為一種community，那有更好的字眼來簡單地描述你麼嗎？ 比如，我們選活化廳的兩個項目——類似于早期的“多多獎”和後期的“壁街事變”（或者你選兩個不同的項目來作為例子）——來進行對比，它們對於community有什麼不同的看法？
峰：我覺得「破」和「立」也是建構 community 的過程。批判或打破既有的現實是一個階段，從碎片組織再建立又是另一階段，兩者相輔相承。但香港的情況，一般太著意將所有事情徹底破壞，較少積極地提問「我們可建立什麼樣我生活？」。其實原因可能是在這裡你很難確實的把握到權力去改變，反而姿態性的行動就總有些方法發表（所謂言論自由？），持續究竟會是指向更大的無力還是希望？你可說希望和絕望同是虛妄的，但最少在希望裡我們才能找到未來。
在早期活化廳的實踐，community是對應那些急速消失與破裂的社會關係，但發展到後來，倡議的工作已差不多，所以有責任將理念實踐到生活裡，那些計劃都希望能較長線的發展。如「活化報」和「活化墟」。「多多獎」與「碧街事變」兩個計劃相距差不多5年多，「多多獎」的概念很閃耀，但當中民眾參與的成份其實也很便宜。藝術家去訪問一下街坊，找些有趣的點子，然後造個獎盃，街坊也高高興興的收下了。這計劃確實比空降社區的公共雕塑多份親切，比起與街坊一同畫畫壁畫又多點啟發性，但真正是否深刻的在街坊裡建立什麼？大概只是攪攪氣氛，有些啟發而已，因為計劃就只那麼一兩個月。有意思的是因為那計劃，我們和街坊的關係有更長遠的申延，比如有街坊在頒獎給她三年後把獎盃拿回來維修，那表示那獎盃對她很重要，但重點是因為有些東西一直持續做，這事才會發生。
「碧街事變」其實沒有差很遠，但需要更深入的社區脈絡才能發生。其實我們一直考究這事多年，因此計劃一拉動就能動用很多人脈和資料，將時空加起來，那意義和韌力就很不同。比如演出那天油麻地很多友好也一起前來參與，整件事像是一觸即發，之後也有延伸的討論。如演出後不久就發生反新界東北撥款的行動、幾個月後就是雨傘運動，都是與這民眾自發的抗爭呼應。其實這計劃得著較多的可能是策劃團隊。因為89年油麻地街坊是如何自發地去支援學運？落區訪尋過後就大概有個圖像。這對我們這一代不在現場的，就產生連接到過去的歷史感。64也就不止是發生在那時空的事，而是與今天這地方的過去相連。至於街坊，最少這事是從消失的歷史中被重新發掘出來，成了一個「事件」。比如說劇中有個街坊，他當年在附近一間中學掛橫額，我們重提這事後，他也問自己，這事放下多年，今天是否可以做什麼？
若你問我比較兩者，我會說其實兩個計劃都是一次性的實驗，未做到很深刻的交流，也沒進深到思考意識型態，偏重提問、尋訪，而不是長遠的建立／組織理念。我覺得，這些計劃創造了什麼關係? 什麼連結? 將來或可創造什麼行動？這才重要。然後要讓時間積累、交織，那將指向真正的抵抗關係，社會的改變才真正具有基礎，否則只是民粹、情緒化的宣洩。「社區 x 藝術 x 行動主義」的意義大概是這樣。
何：你覺得香港的community art怎麼從西方social practice摘取了什麼樣的東西，在哪裏脫離了西方實踐變成了香港的specific東西？
峰：很大的問題！首先，"community" 這字眼本身也是來自西方的，我所知道在華文世界及至日文裡，community的翻譯也依據當地的政治文化脈絡有不同的轉譯。像廣東話的"街坊"，相對 於"社區"這詞，與英語的"community" 意思比較接近，若從人與人的親密性的觀點去看，裡頭有特定的歷史、時空、政治經濟文化脈絡因素造成（如殖民統治下居民自發組織叫"街坊福利會"）。而"街 坊"在台灣及中國大陸的詮釋卻不一定有這種想像／意涵在其中。所以，"community art" 是更複雜的討論，不同文化脈絡對"community art" 的詮釋也應不一樣，沒有從背後的文化脈絡觀點出發去談別人為什麼做某事，真正的對話與交流是幾乎不可能的。
簡單說就是，"community art" 無論在香港或什麼地方，其實踐對應的是什麼關係？倡議什麼價值？反映了那個社會的什麼問題？對應那一時空？什麼方法、內容？誰是建立的對象？之間的倫理 等？也是運用這字眼時需要回應的問題。（否則只是隨意挪用的反射行動，能深入發展的可能性不大，也是在消費這概念的激進性）至於來 自"西方"的手法，我覺 得主要是"現代性"的差異，有些東西在"西方"曾經驗，到另一脈絡自然出現差異，有specific的發展。但再強調，那不應只是一 種文化"移植"，而很需要連繫到在地的背景來思考，及我們如何詮釋當中的意義。
何： 我也知道這個詞語在亞洲也是個很引起誤會的線上，上次在馬來西亞跟zulu 也談過。我想聽一聽你為香港的藝術界描述以下它在香港的具體意思，包括你提到了的那些那麼好問題（其實踐對應的是什麼關係？倡議什麼價值？反映了那個社會的什麼問題？對應那一時空？什麼方法、內容？誰是建立的對象？之間的倫理 等？）能以你的實踐來回答嗎？
峰： 既然community要套進香港的語境才能準確理解它的意思，那以上問題其實就是回答，並為之給予意義。像碧街事變是否在對應：誰掌管歷史話語權的問題？如果由個人來把握，那方法和希望是否一種根莖式、去中心的行動平台？能實現／不能實現的原因是什麼？如覺得香港悼念64的方法一直太單一，那多元、民間自發地討論64的方法是否可行？這些問題之間，其實在暗示一些共同性，就是在權力下的個人（諸眾？），如何抵抗體制的壓抑，而藉著理念的聯合，會否是自救的可能？
時間、倫理與「示威區」
何：我之前聽說ADC不支持活化廳的批評是在時間上的點？你怎麼看這樣的問題？
峰：簡單說就是ADC會覺得那空間是臨時性的，因此活化廳待在那邊時間愈長就愈有離開的壓力。這其實是官方理解這些空間資源如規劃出來的"示威區"，反正它們把握了 99%的資金，主導權還在它們手裡，而活化廳的意義在於，在這種規限下，（是否能）一定程度突破這"示威區"，生產框架以外的抵抗關係和想像，當中的知識和倫理又是什麼？怎樣申延開去？ 在那個時空，主要思考的是這問題。
何：這樣的話，我還是覺得那你一直很清楚活化廳做的事情不一定是 community art了，其實那種緊迫性也隨著你提到的批判性。如果明明是“示威區”你覺得你們的批判性能有什麼力量呢？你自己回頭看的話，覺得有在“一定程度突破這 ‘示威區’，生產框架以外的抵抗關係和想像嗎？又反問你，”當中的知識和倫理又是什麼？”
峰：都是那問題，community art 這概念其實很鬆散、很模糊，沒對應現實的脈絡就更難對焦。是說要建立community嗎？服務community？或處理一些community裡的問題？藝術能解決問題嗎？能處理的若不是實際問題，那又可以是什麼？我覺得我在活化廳的實踐，想處理的其實是in between 議題上觸及community的 “community art” 及以community為服務對象的 “community art”。
前者如很多從建制空降下來的藝術計劃，ego較focus在藝術家身上，背後其實是精英的；後者則像很多藝術美化社區的計劃，主體較重視參與對象本身，美學／批判性所扮演的角色較低。然而，有沒有一種平等對話的平台，大家的ego也可以有一些位置？
簡單說，我想做的是「異質關係」的重建，而美學可以在中間帶動／啟發對話和創造。在新自由主義下，藝術家的角色是否可以從精英／特權階級落到底層階級去組織和反抗，作為定位？只要清晰的一步步前進，我不敢說最後將帶來革命，但至少方向正確，我們能創造一個活在真誠的社會空間。每個人也能有尊嚴、平等、自由地生活，這或不是我們這一代能做到，但未來還是有希望。
究竟是否能突破「示威區」？若行動積累的知識與關係能積累前進，我覺得已比留在「示威區」，阿Q地作姿態表述更具抵抗性。「示威區」是一個安全的位置，藝術家選擇留在裡面，自我感覺良好有其原因，但「示威區」不會直接引發行動，因那地方也是建制規劃出來的，當你主動「越界」的那一刻，才是觸及建制的神經，那才算真正的行動，示威不也是為了這？而當中的倫理就是要問自己，在「示威區」積累的是否有責任帶到下一步？還是只停留在「示威區」呃like?（討大家認同和支持？）我覺得這責任是存在的，不是說大家各做各擅長的，盡自己角色，就不用追問這倫理，要知道藝術家往往比底層弱勢把握更多的文化資源和話語權，沒有這視野，那就很容易會變成藝術家從被壓抑者的身上得到些好處，最後還參與了壓抑機器的一部份。
持續性、重回起點、真實的反抗
何：在回顧反思活化廳的項目，你覺得最值得帶去延續的計劃是什麼？
峰：大致上覺得，值得批判的有很多，過程到當下，團隊與眾人有什麼反思？比有什麼計劃繼續做下去更重要。有什麼計劃應持續，那是手法的層面，沒處理價值討論而談延續，其實很容易掉進另一種重複的cycle，永遠不能突破到社會結構上的轉變，最後大家feel good/feel warm而已。這不應是藝術家處理的事情。
何：你說得很好，我也覺得家作坊的實踐做的不夠好因為它把所有批判隱藏了在feel good/feel warm後面，太多人沒有get得到。也許這也是我們在大陸的context的一個現實，可是手法意外，你肯定學到或者收到了某種對於這種的實踐的啓發。 能給我一個具體的例子嗎？如果不要留在feel good的層面上，我們feel critical／feel bad後改變了什麼？
峰：如之前所說，究竟這些實踐在建立什麼？抵抗什麼？你必須很清楚的問自己，否則這些行動最終都可能沒有很堅固的意義。那建立和抵抗的，你必須指向問題的結構，而不是表象。像如你弄個天台農場，倡議綠色生活，但很多城市空間裡可自發去綠化種東西的地方卻全面被規管，農地也給收掉，到處市紳化發展，然後你認為這些事情不用去管，只是小確幸的在那小小的天台澆水種花？有否想過提出更激進的可能性？是否願意付出更多去改變這些問題？還是停留在comfort zone？我身邊很多朋友弄天台種植，先聲明我這裡是沒有指向性，因他／她們很多都是知行合一的。我想強調的還是那倫理責任，不是說盡自己所能就足夠，而是要超越功利主義的邏輯，追問責任倫理的完整性。要知道，有些事情不是說：「一人做啲！」就能解決。這statement的前提是有指向性的，是社群主義和利他的，feel good自己做的一點點，而不考慮到倫理價值的背景，並不是「一人做啲！」
另還有一點，就是資源從何來？自主的意義是什麼？那些資源與你要抵抗的，有什麼關係？有些人會覺得進入建制裡拿資源是一種策略，不過策略能否與初衷遺背？有沒有底線？最基本的是，不應參與那些來自你要抵抗的體制，即使是所謂在體制提出反對與改良，你也是在建構那壓抑他人的力量，使其變得更強。如你與街坊一起對抗重建發展，又去拿市建局的資源去做社區計劃，你是否在銷售自己經營的草根／基進形象？而且似乎賣得很便宜，誰有權使這決定？若拿建制資源的目的是期望接觸更多的人，從而動員更大的反抗力量？但假如在那些平台沒有造成深刻的對話，我覺得只是在加速消費這些抵抗理念，若不幸的，更只是在製造另一種民粹，或被建制加以模仿。那長遠又是否幫到大家更持續的對抗？我見很多個案，與虎謀皮的結局最後都是被同質化的居多。所以行動之先還是有堅固的理念較重要。未談到改變，連基礎都不牢固，誰能肯定那一定是正面的改變？但大多數人感興趣於行動、實驗、實踐自我，而非追問事情的出發點。這不可能創造真正的抵抗。
Questions out of the Demonstration Area -- LEE Chun Fung in dialogue with Elaine W. HO
// The interview is originally published in the publication <ART IN CONTEXT: Learning from the Field>, and did by Elaine W. Ho in 2016
---
LEE Chun Fung is an artist and curator from Hong Kong, his practice best known for his work with WooferTen[2], the artist-run community art space active in the Yaumatei area of Kowloon from 2009-2015. As a young practitioner whose art school days coincided with what critic Jaspar LAU Kin Wah describes as the “late arrival of ‘the real 1997’”[3] and growing politicisation of art and artists in the early 2000s, Lee has grown to become a veteran of the Hong Kong aesthetics of protest. He is the only original member of WooferTen to staunchly stick to the project, from the time of its initial stewardship as recipient of the Hong Kong Arts Development Council’s (ADC) Shanghai Street Art Space commission all the way until the lamentable closing of its doors after a two-year controversy and stalemate. The following interview is an insight into Lee’s reflections on the practice of WooferTen and socially engaged art practice in the context of Hong Kong.
Context, locality, criticality
Elaine W. HO: During the TransActions in the Field master class, a great deal of discussion was placed upon context-specificity, which at times makes the possibility for learning and exchange difficult when we are all working in extremely different situations with diverse resources, sociopolitical backgrounds and intentions. While terms such as site-specific, context-specific or site-conditioned have been often used in the art world to describe varying degrees of relation between time-space and the artwork, within the discussion of socially engaged practice the consideration of these terms perhaps needs to be refined further. I think very much about the place-making nature of people, events and situations themselves, which then creates an ongoing dialogue between time and space.
LEE Chun Fung: Actually I don't really understand the differences between context-specific, site-specific or site-conditioned, but context and site are very often considered together; they have an interactive relationship. Generally, my practice begins from the concept and topic. How can meaning be established between people, groups and society at large via the dialogical capacity of art, and can this meaning also trigger action? Very often, context and site are misplaced targets; the ideas and relations between people take the real leading role.
EWH: To speak of a practice towards triggering action exactly needs its own vocabularies and categorization to understand it more fully. Because you address work and a way of working inherently tied to human relations, perhaps there is no way to compare with the final ‘piece’ or resulting outcome of much context-specific and site-specific art. Considering relations is a constant feedback and feed forward dialogue of a never-ending, processual nature.
But looking at the more recent work you’ve done this year in Zürich then, were there any elements directly taken from your practice in Hong Kong that could be transferred to the new context?
LCF: Zürich this time was not really a residency or period for my own creative work. I was working together with friends there to develop a trans-regional education programme.[4] At WooferTen, many of our ideas and activities began out of impromptu talks between members of the community or friends. The accumulated rhythm of these kinds of ‘jam sessions’ is very important.
The kind of coming-and-going practice of entering a new environment is different from my work at WooferTen. It takes time to go more deeply into a place, and it is not easy to develop closer interactions with others. So in cases like these, I rather take the position of the observer or share perspectives from my own background. There was one time when we visited an elderly woman in Tokyo and listened to her story of protesting the highway to be built in her community. For several consecutive years, she went every morning to the station to hold up her sign in protest, but even then many of the city residents were unaware of the situation. So I organised the details of the story together, and by means of several artistic interventions and workshops hosted by 3331 Arts Chiyoda was able to connect the protest, an exhibition space and several different people together. However, what I want to stress is that while these kinds of externally imported practices have a certain significance, my focus is still upon the rooted locality of Hong Kong.
EWH: Is it possible to have the same measure of criticality when working in an unfamiliar environment? What is the relationship for you between criticality and locality?
LCF: I think criticality is universal and not something limited to those from certain backgrounds. Self-criticality is an evaluation of the degree of sincerity between concept and praxis, and criticality towards the other points out the orientation and meaning of one’s action, revealing the complicated power relations and structures of reality.
As for localness, I think of it as the identity and relations created by the ‘soil’, which has nourished your development, including the political soil, economic soil and the socio-cultural soil. It is also a commitment. For example, I grew up in Hong Kong in the 80s and 90s, and all of the major events, urban development, pop culture, education system, and resistance movements of those before me, etc., make up who I am today. This is reflected in my thinking and action like the accumulation of history. I create a promise with these layers of history in order to protect that which I value. Similar to receiving a gift, the soil becomes my property, but also something I am indebted to, and for this I am thankful; there is a need to acknowledge it.
Another thing to take note of is that ‘localness’ takes on distinct meanings in different contexts. For example, the Chinese translation of ‘local’ has different versions: 本土 bun tou (local referencing an ideology?), 在地 zoi dei (referencing a mode of action?), 本地 bun dei (referencing place/space?), 地道 dei dou (referencing common or folk culture?), etc. To use these concepts without a clear grasp of which particularity is being referenced can often lead to serious misunderstandings.
Po, Laap: Community x Art x Activism
EWH: From what I understand of WooferTen's practice, media and communication were very crucial aspects of the project. But looking at it from another angle, I sometimes sensed a kind of conflict between the internal organisation of the group and its external publicity or representation. Where does community stand within this conflict?
LCF: In the context of neoliberalism, ‘community’ in Hong Kong could be understood on one hand by the word ‘破 po' (to destroy), and on the other as ‘立 laap' (to establish). At WooferTen, a majority of the artists’ practices tended towards ‘po’. Rather than direct creation or building up, we smash down and critique issues relating to the current situation as a way of pointing out new possibilities. As a result, in our context of po it becomes rather difficult to grow in the process of publicising and communication. In the long-term, it is a reason for internal conflicts and the inability to sustain our development. Community cannot wallow at the levels of posturing, activity or critique; it must also include the establishing of a ‘common’ and continuous communication. But many community art projects in Hong Kong suffer various constraints, and it is difficult to push towards that point.
EWH: If the attitude tends closer towards destruction, can it still be called ‘community’?
LCF: I think that to destroy and to build up, unmaking and making, are parts of the process of establishing and constructing. The reality of critique or destruction is one phase, and the organisation of smashed fragments to re-establish something new is another. They supplement and complement one another. But within the situation of Hong Kong, usually too much emphasis is placed upon thorough destruction, with too little know-how to positively ask, "What kind of life can we create?" Actually, the reason is probably that here you have little possibility to take hold of the power necessary to create change. On the contrary, a so-called freedom of speech means that action at the level of posturing will always manage to be seen. Does the ability to continue only point out our greater powerlessness or our continued hope? You could say hope and despair are both fabricated, but at least it is through hope that we go towards a future.
EWH: Why is this label of ‘community art’ so important for describing WooferTen? Are there better terms to describe you and how you perceive community? If we take two projects from WooferTen as examples in order to make a comparison, like Few Few Prize, Many Many Praise from the early period, and one of the last projects, Pitt Street Riot: Rolling Theatre of Tiananmen Massacre, how did these two projects conceive of community differently?
LCF: During the early period of WooferTen's practice, ‘community’ corresponded to those quickly disappearing and ruptured social relations. But as those social problems were addressed, the responsibility shifted toward ideas being practiced in real life. Those later projects all hoped for longer-term development.
Few Few Prize, Many Many Praise and the Pitt Street Riot projects have five years' distance between them. The concept behind Few Few Prize was quite flashy, but the actual publicly participatory elements were rather cheap. Artists went out to interview neighbours, look for interesting bits, later made trophies, and then the neighbours became the happy recipients. This project was of course much more down-to-earth than those public sculptures that appear to drop down from the sky into a community, and it is also a bit more inspiring than “let's paint murals together with the neighbours.” But did we really create something deep within the community? Probably it was only just stirring things up, and maybe it was somewhat inspiring, but the project only lasted one to two months. What was interesting was that because of that project, we were able to engage in longer-term relationships with the neighbours, like for example with one neighbour who came back three years later with her trophy asking for it to be repaired. That meant that trophy was really quite important to her. But the key point is that that could also only happen because we were continuously active.
Pitt Street Riot was actually not so different, but it could only happen with entering more deeply into the context. Actually, we had been investigating this historical incident for many years,[5] so once the project kicked off we were able to refer to many people and research materials. Considering the factors of time and space, the significance and spirit of this project are very different from Few Few Prize, Many Many Praise. For example, on the day of the performance many good friends from the Yaumatei area came to participate, and the whole event was like an explosive climax; there were many lengthy discussions afterwards. Not long after the performance, there was an action to raise funds against the northeastern New Territories development plan, and a few months later the Umbrella Movement began. All of these are the echoes of spontaneous resistance from the people. The group organisation of Pitt Street Riot actually brought the greatest number of possibilities to the project, because after entering the community to look for answers, together we were able to gain a picture of how, back in 1989, the Yaumatei community was able to support the student movement. For those of us of this generation, not present at the scene in '89, we were able to make a connection to this history. June Fourth is precisely an event that goes beyond that time-space; it is our connection to the past via this place today. As for the community, at least it’s possible to say this event could resuscitate a vanished history to become an ‘event’ at all. In one instance, during our street play we reenacted the action of a neighbour who had been there that year and hung banners at a nearby middle school. Seeing this, he also began to ask himself, “This incident has been discarded for so many years…what can we still do today?”
If you ask me to compare the two projects, I would actually say both were one-time experiments, unable to communicate very deeply, and unable to reach a more in-depth ideological reflection. They stress a form of questioning and inquiry, not a long-term thinking about building-up and organizing .
What kind of relations have these projects created? What kinds of connections, futures or possible movements? That is what is really important. Allowing for the accumulation of time, for an intertwining, can lead us towards real relations of resistance, and only then can the foundations be laid for social change. Otherwise it's only populism and emotional catharsis. This is the general meaning of “Community x Art x Activism”.
EWH: Because the term ‘community art’ is often referred to even in the Hong Kong context in English, it is easy to make the connection towards its genealogy in the west, like its use by state-supported initiatives in the United Kingdom from the 1960s. Seeing that WooferTen also stems from a government initiative, do you think community arts in Hong Kong have extracted certain elements from this history of western social practice? Where do they depart from western practices to become something specific to the Hong Kong context?
LCF: From the Chinese to the Japanese speaking worlds, the translation of the word ‘community’ itself varies based upon different local cultural and political contexts. For example, the word ‘街坊 kaifong' in Cantonese is relatively closer to ‘community’ in English than the word ‘社區 se keoi’ (more like district or sub-division). If you look at it from the angle of intimacy between people, these words are created from particular historical, temporal and spatial, political, economic and cultural contexts (like how residents self-organise a "kaifong mutual welfare association" under colonial rule). ‘街坊 kaifong’ does not necessarily have the same associations and connotations in Taiwan and mainland China. Therefore, ‘community art’ becomes a complex discussion, and different cultural contexts necessarily explain ‘community art’ in varying ways. Without starting from the cultural context grounding why people go and do something, genuine dialogue and exchange is almost impossible.
To put it simply, no matter whether in Hong Kong or any other place, we must ask upon what relations do the practice of 'community art' reflect? What values does it propose? What problems does it reflect in that society? What temporality and spatiality does it correspond to? What are its methods, its content? Who are its targets? What ethics are embedded? These are the questions to be answered when using this word, otherwise it is only a casually applied diversion in reaction, without any greater possibility for deeper development—only a consumption of the radicality of this concept. As for strategies adopted from the west, I think it is mainly an issue of the discrepancies of 'modernity'. Some things that have been experienced in 'the west' and brought to a different context will naturally diverge and have their own specific development. But to stress again, it should not be a kind of mere 'cultural transplantation', and it is very necessary to tie in to a contextual background in order to answer those questions.
EWH: As TransActions in the Field participating artist KAGEYAMA Zulu also brought up during the master class, this word has indeed created many misunderstandings in the Asian context. I would like to hear you explain a bit further about the meaning of 'community' in the context of the art and activist spheres in Hong Kong particularly, including how you would answer those challengingly posed questions above. Can you answer them with respect to your own practice?
LCF: It is exactly when we discuss 'community' within the context of Hong Kong that we can be more precise about what is meant, but the questions above are already answers, and they are what give meaning to community. Does the Pitt Street Riot project correspond to the questions of who controls the voice of history? If history is in the hands of individuals, are the methods and hopes underpinning it a rhizomatic, decentralising platform for action? What are the reasons this can or cannot be realised? If we think that Hong Kong's manner of grieving June Fourth is too simplified, would a more diverse and spontaneous form of civic discussion be feasible? Between the lines of these questions is the hint of a commonality or individuality amidst authority (the multitude?). How do we resist the oppression of the system and conceptually link together? Would that be a possibility for saving ourselves?
Time, Ethics, ‘The Demonstration Area’
EWH: I heard before that criticism towards the ADC’s decision to end support for WooferTen was premised on the question of time: “How can you place a time limit on community?” How do you see this issue?
LCF: It is exactly that the ADC sees the Shanghai Street Art Space as temporary, so the longer WooferTen stayed there, the greater the pressure for us to leave. This is actually how the government understands the resources of these spaces and programmes as their 'demonstration area'. They control 99% of the resources anyway, and the invitations are in their hands. The significance of WooferTen lies in whether or not it was able, despite these kinds of rules and limitations, to break through this ‘demonstration area' to some degree. What relations and imaginaries of resistance could be created outside of their frameworks for production, and what are the knowledge and ethics of them? How to continue? At that moment and place of existing as WooferTen at the Shanghai Street Art Space, these were the main questions to reflect.
EWH: If that is the case, I think to some extent perhaps you were always clear that what WooferTen was doing did not necessarily fall under the label of community art, and actually the urgency of action and response follows what you mentioned previously concerning criticality. If the space was merely a 'demonstration area', what kind of power does your criticality have? Looking back, do you think the practice of
WooferTen was indeed able to break through the 'demonstration area’? And yes, what were the relations and imaginaries of resistance created outside of their frameworks for production? To ask you that question exactly, what were the knowledge and ethics of the work?
LCF: It all refers back to the problem of the vagueness of the concept of community art. Without referring to a particular context in reality, it is harder to focus. Are we saying we want to create community? To service the community? Or to solve some problems within the community? Can art solve problems? If what it resolves are not real problems, then what are they? I think what I actually wanted to address with the practice of WooferTen was in between ‘community art’ addressing issues of the community and the community as a target of 'community art’. The former is like many of the art projects that come from the system—relatively focused upon the ego of the artist and actually grounded by the elite. The latter is like many of those neighbourhood beautification art projects. Their protagonists emphasise participation itself, and aesthetics and criticality play relatively small roles. Even so, whether or not there is a kind of platform for equal dialogue, is there a place for each one's ego?
Simply put, what I want to do is rebuild ‘heterogenous relations', and the aesthetics within these relations can spur on and inspire dialogue and creation. Under neoliberalism, can the role of artists come down from that of the elite and privileged classes in order to organise and revolt, to become a role of positioning? I don't dare to say clearly going forward one step at a time will bring about revolution, but at least it will be the right direction, and we will be able to create a social space in which we can live sincerely. Maybe our generation will not bring us to the point where each person can live with dignity and freedom in equality, but there is still hope for the future.
Are we able to break through the 'demonstration area'? If the knowledge and relations accumulated by our actions can positively enter the situation, I think our resistance will already be stronger than simply remain inside the demonstration area. There are reasons for artists to choose to remain inside feeling self-satisfied; the demonstration area is safe. But this zone cannot directly lead to action, because it is also programmed by the system. It is only in the moment when you actively cross its rails or border tapes that you really strike at the nerve of the system, and only then can it be called a real movement. Isn't that the reason for the demonstration in the first place? Ask yourself the ethics embedded within this: is there a responsibility to take that which has been accumulated from within the demonstration area to the next level? Or do we remain forever within the demonstration area attracting people’s favour and support with facebook ‘likes'? Artists can grasp cultural resources and the right to speak more easily than the weakest or lowest levels of society. Therefore, I think that responsibility exists, and we cannot say each person just does their own thing, doing what they're good at without discussing the ethics of it. If we did that, then it would be too easy for artists to gain from those oppressed and in the end, play a part in the machines of oppression.
Continuity, Going Back to the Beginning, Real Resistance
EWH: Looking back at WooferTen's work, which project do you think is most worthwhile to continue in the future? What is the most important lesson for you personally as an artist?
LCF: Basically I believe that there is a great deal worth criticising throughout the process to the present. The question of what the team and the community reflects upon is more important than which project will continue. Whichever plan should continue is a technical question. To speak about continuing without having addressed the discussion of values would be to fall into another repetitive cycle, and it will be impossible to ever break through toward transformation of the social structure. In the end everyone only feels good and warm, and that is not something artists need to deal with.
EWH: Well said. I also think that the practice of HomeShop fell into the trap of hiding criticality behind fun and warm feelings, and too many people never saw beyond that. This veiled way of working is of course also due to the realities of the mainland context, but outside of technique, you must have learned or felt inspired by something from the experience over the years, no? Can you give an example? If we are to not linger at the level of 'feeling good', what have we changed after feeling critical or feeling bad? Depression is also a symptom of our individualisation under neo-liberalism! So how do we turn individual subjectivities, both the elated and the despondent, into collective action?
LCF: Like what was mentioned before, what have these practices actually established? What have they resisted? You must ask very clearly ask yourself these questions, otherwise movements will ultimately have no solid meaning. To build and to resist, you must point out the structure, not simply their appearance, of problems. If you make a rooftop farm and propose a type of green living, but in the meanwhile many urban spaces that could be self-organised for greening and planted upon are regulated, farms are repossessed and everywhere is gentrified and developed, how can you, with your bit of luck, continue to ignore the situation and keep watering the plants and flowers on your tiny rooftop? Can you call it the best of your ability? Is there a need to point out more radical possibilities? Are you willing to put forth more of a stand, or remain in a comfort zone? That is the question. To many of my friends have rooftop gardens, please understand that these questions are not personally directed; what I want to emphasize is an ethical responsibility over 'each does his own'. People like to do as they please, but who isn't thirsty after eating salted fish? Things shouldn't be like this, and it is necessary to overcome this kind of neoliberal logic, to interrogate the integrity of our ethics of responsibility. We must realise that there are some things that cannot be easily done or resolved alone. The premise of “Each person does their bit!” is personally directed, and there is a communitarian and altruist slant to feel good that you can play your little part without the ideas really changing. It's not so simply “Each person does their bit!”
One other point: where do resources come from? What is the significance of autonomy? What is the relationship between resources and that which you fight against? Some people think that going inside the system to take resources is one kind of strategy, but how far does the strategy then drift from intention? Where is the limit? As a basic, you shouldn't take from those whom you fight against. If you oppose redevelopment together in the neighbourhood, then take funds from the Urban Renewal Authority in order to make community projects, are you not selling out, for very cheap, the very image of grassroots radicality which you try to operate? Is the goal of taking resources from the system in hopes for reaching more people in order to mobilise a stronger resistance? Or have you only manufactured another kind of populism? If there is no in-depth dialogue, is it not merely a fast-paced consumption of the idea of resistance or a kind of replication by the system? In the long term are you able to help everyone to persist in revolt?I've seen many cases in which unrealistic results are homogenised by the majority. So it is still relatively important to have a solid concept before action. If the foundation is not even steady, who would assure positive change before even getting to the point of change? Most people are interested in action, experimentation and self-practice without asking about the starting points of the situation, and this can never lead to real resistance.
[1] Lee Chun Fung's work and writings can be found online here: http://leechunfung.blogspot.com/ or http://curatorsintl.org/collaborators/lee_chun_fung.
[2] For more information about Hong Kong community art space WooferTen, please visit: http://wooferten.blogspot.com.
[3] LAU Kin Wah, Jaspar. “Politics of a Bio: Hong Kong Art from Dissemination to Usage”. Hong Kong Eye: Contemporary Hong Kong Art (Milan: Skira Editore S.p.A.) 2012.
[5] On the 7th of June in 1989, just a few days after the tumultuous events at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, a riot spontaneously erupted from Pitt Street in Yaumatei. Over 7,000 protesters became involved and several injured or arrested, resulting in the cancellation of a planned public strike in support of the students in Beijing. WooferTen’s Pitt Street Riot project encompassed a street theatre performance based upon oral histories collected from the Yaumatei neighbourhood. The video documentation of this reenactment, with additional documents and texts, were compiled in 2014 for a publication of the same name. www.pittstreetriot.blogspot.com