“I think the main function of exhibitions is to put into question the routine, the habitus. The routine is the death of the exhibition, and I’m very much convinced that we need to redefine the necessity for every exhibition from scratch.”

“While classical exhibition history emphasized order and stability, we now see fluctuations and instability and choices and limited predictability.”
Hans Ulrich Obrist

Observation:
The exhibition has become a new paradigm of contemporary culture. It produces narratives. Yet, recent history of contemporary art has shown that a themed exhibition may be too interpretative in nature, despite the curator’s liberal intention. What the audience encounter, in some cases, is a superficial thematic focus or a pastiche of work arranging in a linear direction. By generalizing the diverse interests of the participating artists, the curator risks the uniqueness of each exhibited work. While the number of galleries and art spaces in Hong Kong has been rising nowadays, a majority of them, however, favor the thematic exhibition model.

Questions:
If the thematic parameter impedes the artist’s creativity and possibly ends in a closed narrative under a static entity, how can we open up our curatorial practice by adopting an open-ended, fluid, and collaborative structure? Can a show be mounted without a “theme” but a “structure” only? Can we define exhibition-making as a set of rules that can function as a framework and if so, how could it be described? Can we incorporate a quality of “unfinishedness” and “incompleteness” in an exhibition? What about time and its relevance to the exhibition making process? Can we turn an exhibition into an “evolving organism”?

Hypothesis:
In the age of meaning overflow, a group show does not necessarily have to be thematic. It is, of course, desirable to have a string that holds the show together; but imposing a theme on an exhibition is only one of the many curatorial solutions. In this regard, we proposed presentation formulas that rejected the thematic exhibition structure of expressing grand ideas. Instead, we are inspired by Thai artist Rirkrit Tiravanija’s practice and his notion of purposelessness in art making. Through a series of untitled shows, artworks are intended to set free from the meaning framework.

Experiment:
(Show order: Tang Kwok Hin > Ivy Ma > Hanison Lau > Justin Wong > Damon Tong > Lee Kit)

Works by 6 artists will be juxtaposed and piled up at wrongplace in 6 individual exhibitions over the period of 6 consecutive weeks. Each participating artist has to predefine a rule according to his or her own artistic beliefs and pass to the next. Each artist then arranges his or her works by adopting the rule set by the preceding one. Like a generative chain reaction, the second artist has to add his or her works in the exhibition for the next round, again following the rule from the first artist. It is therefore an accumulative act that every individual exhibition becomes the matrix of yet another one. With a constant flow of changes between each round of modification based on rules, the show is re-defined and transformed from a site of presentation into a site of production.

The exhibition can be seen as an ongoing conversation, as well as a platform for dialogues and exchange of ideas between artists, curators and the audience. It is neither a representation of the works on display, nor is it a situation controlled by a single party. Above all, the curator is not the exhibition author with an overarching authority. He or she can simply act as a facilitator who convenes the show and offers a platform for meaning to evolve, whereas the artists fill this curatorial “structure” with their artistic “contents”. In this experiment, by facilitating this expansion of meaning rather than containing it, we envisage setting up conditions that yield unforeseeable outcomes so that the meaning of an artwork can be multiplied, reduced, confused and transmuted. It is not intended to be the ideal curatorial model that replaces the thematic strategy. Instead, it is an attempt to create possible yet unpredictable juxtapositions. The methodology is simple; the outcome is infinite.

Laboratory Presentation and Discussion

Another presentation and discussion entitled “Everything you always pretended to know about curating and were afraid to be asked” will be held on Saturday 6 November 2010, 3.00 - 5.30 pm at L7-19 JCCAC. (Conducted in Bilingual, Free Admission)

Laboratory Open Days

Laboratory Open Days: 30 October - 5 December, Thursday to Sunday, 1.00 - 7.00 pm

展覽實驗四：無題展

(陳靜昕 及 方詠甄 策劃)

觀察：
展覽已成為當代文化的新典範，可以生產話語。但從近年的當代藝術發展中，儘管策展人有多開明的意願，我們看到主題展本質上有被過份詮釋的傾向。在好些情況下，觀眾所遇到的不過是一個膚淺的主題化焦點，又或者是一堆朝著單一方向的藝術品拼湊。策展人透過把參展藝術家的不同想法概括在一起，而冒着犧牲每件作品獨特性的風險。現今香港畫廊和藝術空間的數目持續增加，可是它們大多傾向專題展覽的模式。

問題：
如果正是專題這因素妨礙着藝術家的創造力，並可能因此而令創作終結於一靜態個體裡的封閉敘事中。我們如何才能解放策展方式，並去採取一個較開放的、流動性和協作性的結構？一場展覽可否不被一個「主題」框着，而只需要「結構」？我們可否把展覽製作定義為一套規則，並用作展覽的框架。如果是這樣，它可以怎樣被描述？我們能否把「未完成」和「不完整」作為某種特質而納入一場展覽之中？而時間跟展覽製作過程的關係又如何？是否可以把展覽轉化成一個「進化中的有機體」？

假設：
於這個意義泛濫的年代，一場聯展並不一定需要主題。當然，我們要有一根繩去把展覽串連在一起；但利用「主題」只是眾多策展解決方案的一種。在此，我們提出一種展示公式，是要拒絕主題展那表達偉大思想的展覽結構。受到泰國藝術家Rirkrit Tiravanija與他「無所為」的藝術創作理念所啟發。我們希望透過一系列的無題展覽與其開放性的框架，希望可以將藝術品從意義的框架中釋放出來。

實驗：
（展出次序： 鄧國騫 > 馬琼珠 > 劉學成 > 黃照達 > 唐偉傑 > 李傑）

在連續六個星期內的六場獨立展覽中，六位藝術家的作品將會在wrongplace並置、累積。每位參展藝術家須基於他的藝術信念，預先定下規則。而每位藝術家則須根據前者定下的規則，以自己的作品籌劃展覽。就像一連串衍生性的連鎖反應，第二位藝術家須根據第一位藝術家所定的規則，在既有的展覽中加入自己的作品。作為一個累積過程，每一場獨立展覽都會成為下一場獨立展覽的基礎。藉着每一回合基於規則而產生的演變進程，展覽從一個展示的場所，從新定義和轉化成生產的場所。

我們可以把展覽看作成一場持續的對話，一個作為藝術家、策展人和觀者的交換意念與對話的平台。它既不是展出作品的再現，也不是一個受單方面控制的場所。最重要的是，策展人沒有聲稱自己為作者並有總攬全局的權力。他可以作為一位促進者去為展覽提供一個平台，而藝術家則用他們的作品去為這個策展「結構」注入「內容」並讓意念不斷演化。透過這場實驗，我們希望設定一些處境，去產生不可預知的結果，從而讓藝術品的意義倍增、被消減、被混淆和蛻變。我們不是要它成為一個理想的策展模式去取代主題性展覽的取向。反之，我們視它為一個充滿可能性而又無法預計的並置場所。方法是簡單的，但結果是無限。

另一場名為「所有你假裝知道又擔心被問及有關策展的問題」的實驗室發佈會暨座談會將於2010年11月6日（星期六）下午3時至5時30分於賽馬會創意術中心L7-19室舉行。（費用全免）

實驗室開放日