Text: Lee Chun-Fung
/ Founding Member of Woofer Ten
---
Origin: A
series of independent “community / art” experiments:
Woofer Ten was not established around a
single ideology. Instead, it serves as a rather open platform that sets its
focus on addressing certain issues. Its
future is unknown. By constantly
exploring new ideas and making adjustments to existing ones, we try to answer
the following questions: What can this
space eventually become? What should it be like? And, how should it be
managed? In the blink of an eye, we have
come this far.
The original idea for Woofer Ten came from Ching Chin-Wai when he stumbled across the Shanghai Street Artspace Exhibition
Hall Project application posted on the Arts Development Council website. The council defined it as a space for
“community art.” Thus, he began to
explore the field of “community art” through the operation of this space,
which was located in a rapidly
developing neighborhood along Shanghai Street in Yau Ma Tei. Situated in a grassroots community, it was
able to conduct its operations through guerilla tactics, while also
establishing a base and connections with the surrounding community. Over the years, artists whose works focused
on social and political issues were invited to join the cause . Woofer Ten was created as a result.
Woofer Ten was never intended as a long-term
project at that time. Rather, it was meant to act as
an artist-run space, an experimental project that would last no more than one
to two years. The platform was intended
to let artists explore and create community art in a neighborhood setting,
while providing an escape for their imagination. It also opened up a conversation about
society, prompting discussion regarding art and its ability to enliven a community. The premise of the project was based on
bilateral communication and sharing.
Community and art in daily life:
The development of Woofer Ten utilized a
two-pronged approach. One consisted of
daily operations that catered to the neighborhood. The other focused on the implementation of
experimental art projects. The former
revolved around the notion of a “living room,” which can be thought of as an official
institution, as well as a hub where the public and private domains intersect. The space was decorated into a cozy living
room, and featured a sign that read “drop by anytime” next to its
entrance. The space provided amenities
like water fountains, a study room, computers, etc. It successfully blurred the lines between a
community center and an art space (a place where art is displayed). Yet, the most important element to a “living room”
is people.
Generally, many themed projects are brought
into fruition with such a pretext in mind.
For the exhibition, Few few prize, Many manypraise, artists scavenged the
neighborhood to search for something interesting; Mastermind and FungShan Shui Hey ; Faking it focused on
political incidents and clashes; 64 Incidents discussed the history of the
community and the Tiananmen Square incident. For the See Through Project, artists were invited to display their art, and art was distributed as
small gifts for Monthly Jet-so.
Through such an approach, Woofer Ten provided
artists with an entrance into a grassroots community. Neighborhood residents also participated in
the dialogue by sharing their perspectives.
Each project featured an experimental theme and executed alongside
events organized by frontline members. This resulted in an interesting
combination. Human elements also acted
as a core theme for the exhibitions. For
example, Mastermind served as a tribute to the local arts and crafts
industry. It not only brought much
insight into the industry, but also established a unique dialogue between
artisans and artists in an attempt to form a “story.”
From
experimental projects to a community art space:
However, just one year after its founding,
the Arts Development Council revealed its intention to recover the space. Woofer Ten found itself facing a tough
challenge: should it stick to its original plan or continue its planned
development? After much deliberation, a
consensus was reached: members who were willing to continue would work
alongside new members to find a solution.
The original plan was for Woofer Ten to be handed over to the community
once its operations stabilized. Only
then, would the founding members discontinue their involvement. In response to this, a few members began to
draft a proposal. Thus, Woofer Ten survived.
During the third year, a new generation of
members joined Woofer Ten based on a foundation established by the ten founding
members. Most of the new members were
born after the 1980s and carried little experience. Yet, they provided new perspectives. With these changes to its initial framework,
the development of Woofer Ten also steered towards a different direction.
First, Woofer Ten’s experimental format for
creating art was loosened. As a result,
members spent more time interacting with the surrounding community, which
helped establish a local network. Member
who worked on the front lines also increased, and they did not just show up
only when required. Certain individuals
forged deep bonds with the local residents, and their relationship with the
community became even more significant.
Those who became involved included rooftop gardeners, street vendors,
social activities, and artists. The
experience and knowledge obtained from these newly formed relationships helped
Woofer Ten deepen its roots as a platform.
Many of its projects continued previous themes.
Another change included an increased interest
in activism. This can be attributed to
the new members who were already deeply involved in social activism. However, I think this change is more attributed
to “effectiveness”, and serves as a sincere reflection of itself. As mentioned previously, most of the new
members showed a tendency and desire to cultivate the local community. In fact, the previous trial and error
approach was just a start. When Woofer
Ten became established in the community, it had to figure out how to become a
part of the daily life of local residents.
On another end, on-site events and exchange helped establish many
connections. Participants often became
involved in the creative process, which led to a deeper impact on life as well
as internal change. Its events served as
more than a mere single consumer experience.
Neighborhood
Activism - Art, Politics, and Social Action
During its interaction with the community,
can we sense that Woofer Ten has been able to improve its operations, while
increasing the amount of declaration, participation, and even action? This is like Hajime Matsumoto’s The Poor
Strike Back or Kojin Karatani’s proposal of the Association movement idea. Within a community, there exists a group of
“poor people” who share ideas similar to ours.
However, the question becomes: how do we mobilize everyone so that we
can materialize this invisible network?
This idea might be not to limit the object of mobilization to the
streets, but should also include participating artists, members, and even
society at large. From one small
community to the larger society and back - this is the interaction between the
two. As a result, when one mentions
activism, it is actually referring to how a person directly implements social
change. And, these are based on how we
establish a sustainable regional network that can be spread into daily life.
For example, as compared to the earlier MiniWest Kowloon Biennial, which also served as a response to urban development
issues, the Yau Ma Tei Self-Rescue Project & Demonstration Exhibition
deliberately attempts to reshape and reconnect broken community relations. An example is Mr. Feng, a painter who had his
stall removed. The exhibition also
explored the community networks of the neighborhood, the rooftop gardens of Yau
Ma Tei, and the non-stop bombardment of pamphlets that led to a situation in
which the community formed an organized resistance. The curators visited every corner of the
neighborhood to gauge public opinion.
The purpose was not to produce case studies for the sake of enjoyment or
discussion. Rather, it was intended as
a means to restructure a community, and spread such ideals to all corners of
the neighborhood.
Fusion of
subjectivity and objectivity in community/art
On the foundation of a region actively
constructed by members, some interesting phenomena began to appear at Woofer
Ten. Members of the neighborhood
gradually began to take initiative in planning. They not only started to
propose various events to us, but also planned activities on their own. Members
only provided assistance.
Interestingly enough, the subject of
community became blurred because the artist no longer held the ultimate authority. Instead, the members of the neighborhood
began to take over the entire business.
Woofer Ten became a platform to spark this spontaneous energy of the
community. This also reflected the
foundation for establishing a certain community network and developing a
possibility for mutual sharing in a local gift economy. In truth, this actually split from the
previously proposal of being a “hall that served the neighborhood.” As a result, under the guidance of new
members, we followed the lead of the neighborhood a few months ago. With artists helping in providing a
direction, they proposed a new year plan.
Surprisingly, the Arts Development Council stated that there was “not
enough diversity” as an excuse to stop our operation of this space.
How do we
live and create art together?
In any case, we have to find the cause behind
this. If Woofer Ten was still an
influential “community” experiment like it was three years ago, then that would
be rather charming. What makes us stay
together? What kind of community do we
want to create? These are not questions
that can be answered without further deliberation. Nevertheless, we strive to achieve a splendid
ideal. Since its inception three years
ago, Woofer Ten has dared to experiment, creating many platforms along the
way. This is based on a very simple
premise: I am an artist and an ordinary human being. What can I do to make myself useful?
Either inspired by Woofer Ten’s initial
experimental approach or its later focus on daily life, we always strive to
approach the creative process with a bit more “liveliness.” In this context, “liveliness” means art that
lies close to the lives of ordinary people.
The result is engaging and unpretentious artworks. Instead of making bold statements, we
practice what we preach. We engage
communities with sincerity and listen to the voices of the residents. It is as simple as that. Of course, I want to say that this is already
a big feat for an artist because it is not in their nature to do so. In the end, I have to ask myself, “For whom
am I doing this?” Up until now, the
neighborhood and the artists, each with their strengths and weaknesses, live
together and share values that are both similar and different. Over the course of three short years, how
does one continue to live and create art together from now on? For me, this is the most interesting aspect
of community art, yet also the toughest question that needs to be addressed.
This article is originally published in the Publication of〈Reverse Niche – Dialogue and Rebuilding at the City's Edge〉in 2013
This article is originally published in the Publication of〈Reverse Niche – Dialogue and Rebuilding at the City's Edge〉in 2013