Chemical Gilding, Keep Calm, Galvanise, Pray, Gradient, Ashes, Manifestation, Unequal, Dissatisfaction, Capitalise, Incense Burner, Survival, Agitation, Hit, Day Light. III' CHOU YU-CHENG Solo Exhibition
'電鍍金,保持冷靜,鍍鋁鋅版,祈禱,漸層,灰燼,抗議,不均,不滿,資本,香爐,佼存,激動,擊,日光。三'
周育正個展
2016.09.03-2016.10.09
>>關於藝術家 About Artist
'電鍍金,保持冷靜,鍍鋁鋅版,祈禱,漸層,灰燼,抗議,不均,不滿,資本,香爐,佼存,激動,擊,日光。三'
周育正個展
2016.09.03-2016.10.09
>>關於藝術家 About Artist
WORK LIST
Chemical Gilding, Keep Calm, Galvanise, Pray, Gradient, Ashes, Manifestation, Unequal, Dissatisfaction, Capitalise, Incense Burner, Survival, Agitation, Hit, Day Light. III 電鍍金,保持冷靜,鍍鋁鋅版,祈禱, 漸層,灰燼,抗議,不均,不滿,資本, 香爐,佼存,激動,擊,日光。三
合成皮、摩擦、規則運動、社會、棉紗、坍塌、茶漬、應答、玫瑰金、髒話、排練室、小確幸、擴散、橋、躁動(上)
文字|呂岱如
周育正所採用的計畫名稱/展名《電鍍金,保持冷靜,鍍鋁鋅版,祈禱,漸層,灰燼,抗議,不均,不滿,資本,香爐,佼存,焦慮,擊,日光。》文字長度教人訝異,十五個分立字彙碎裂不成句型,無法一眼明究的關係與意義也同時讓人感到困惑。此展覽對外透露出的第一個訊息由這些名詞、動詞、形容詞所拼貼組裝,不覺令人展開幾種意義上的聯想方式:
1. 作為關鍵字,它們指涉對於特定感知世界或是現實處境的理解提案;
2. 作為對話性集合,它們彼此知會相互共感,像是樂譜上的記號,其合奏的聲音將透過演奏者彈出;
3. 作為特定能指,與現場展出物件對接達成具有共識意義的輸出;
4. 以字串而非語句的呈現,與展出物件的文法、或說形式,所對應在形式語言上的關係。
這些可能的暗示方向開闢了多義複雜的狀態、想像延伸與留白空間,且和藝術家長期的創作脈絡有著顯著的變裂。其以往作品命名方式多半採直接爽明的點題法,例:東亞照明、李斯特),透過某種邏輯規則的設定來將藝術家的角色安插於一套系統機制的巧妙節點上,擾動之於價值認可、交換、勞動、生產上的路徑,以構建某種藝術家在社會裡可能擁有的創造性空間及角色功能。若說藝術家向來處理的議題是一種與當代社會交涉協商的技術,於總總機制、空間場域、甚至生命歷史間撥開支配原則關係,賦予觀看(seeing)及形象(figuration)新的意義和可能,周育正確實在過去幾年間持續地創造他獨特的透視技巧,為不可見的關係和邏輯賦予視覺造型,並對於每項計畫處理的核心議題造成挑釁、介入。
平行在此對周育正藝術創作的認識上,我們再進一步觀察回顧他在創作階段中幾種創作內在狀態改變的歷程。從《東亞照明》一直到《取之社會、用之社會》等作品計畫裡,其創作野心在於關注藝術家的角色能在社會中確實起到何種改變力量,去理解:藝術家「能」做什麼、可以做到什麼。後來作品發展到與盧皆得、莫里諾等以人為合作主體對象時,他轉進思考更多關於生命政治的問題,以處理各種在勞動、機制、個人史、藝術史等中介於身份的多樣問題,並產生了更多自省與懷疑的部分;這些計畫像是也隱含了一個自我提問的意圖:藝術家「應該」傳達什麼?應該扮演什麼角色?如何和藝術史發生關係?這些內部的心理構成因素都在這些作品最終的表現語言裡轉化為不同的調節與安排。而目前這個最新轉向所揭示的創作考量又落往哪裡?在這個枝開葉闊的標題下,藝術家所面對的問題和內在世界為何?
且又從一種假設性前提開始理解,若展覽名稱在此被硬凹改為「合成皮、摩擦、規則運動、社會、棉紗、坍塌、茶漬、應答、玫瑰金、髒話、排練室、小確幸、擴散、橋、躁動」,那麼作品是否還能成立?是換了形式造型?還是挪動其原來錨定的意義?這個方式是否有能力像周育正掏空畫廊地板那樣擲地有聲地挖掘出他最新創作系列的美學空間內裏,並且試圖敲探這創作轉折上的意義?
Synthetic Leather, Regular Motion, Society, Cotton Yarn, Collapse, Tea Stain, Response, Rose Gold, Profanity, Rehearsal Room, Small Solid Happiness, Diffusion, Bridge, Restlessness (I)
Esther Lu
The project titled by Chou Yu-Cheng as Chemical Gilding, Keep Calm, Galvanize, Pray, Gradient, Ashes, Manifestation, Unequal, Dissatisfaction, Capitalize, Incense Burner, Survival, Agitation, Hit, Day Light. is unusually long. It is not in a sentence form and consists of 15 characters in Chinese and 19 words in English. It is impossible to comprehend the connection and the meaning between the words upon first glance, making it quite puzzling. The first message provided by this exhibition is assembled with these nouns, verbs, and adjectives, sparking different ways of associating the words in a meaningful way:
1. As keywords, suggesting ways for comprehending certain situations in the perceptual world or in reality;
2. As configurations with a dialogical nature, to be connected with each other and are mutually responsive; like musical notes, for them to be played in harmony requires the gestures of a performer;
3. As specific signifiers, to be connected with the objects on display and to result in outputs of consensual significance;
4. As a string of words and not a phrase, presenting the relationship based on a formal language with the grammar or perhaps the forms of the objects on display.
These clues hint at possible directions, opening up ambiguous, complex situations, imaginative extensions and empty spaces and clearly straying away from the artist’s customary creative context. Chou usually opts for a more direct and clear approach with his artwork titles (e.g., TOA Lighting, Liszt), employing a set of logic to meticulously position the artist’s role in certain institutions or mechanisms, which unsettles the path for value recognition, exchange, labor, and production, seeking to construct possible creative space and functional role for the artist in society. If the issues the artist has always dealt with are regarded as a skill for engaging and negotiating in the contemporary society, as he breaks away from the relationship built on dominance principle with different institutions, spaces, domains, and even the history of life to bestow new meaning and possibilities for seeing and figuration, Chou, then, has in the past few years persistently created a distinctive approach to perspective, providing visual forms to invisible relationships and logics, resulting in provocations or interventions in the core issues dealt with in each of his projects.
With this understanding for Chou’s art, we can take a further step to examine and look back on the different transitions he has been through on his creative journey. From his artworks such as TOA Lighting to Taken from Society / Give Back to Society, it is observed that he focuses his creative ambition on the substantial transformative power that an artist can spark in society, seeking to understand what “can” the artist do and what can be done. When Chou began collaborating with others, such as Lu Chief-Te and Geoff Molyneux, he began contemplating further on issues associated with bio-politics, dealing with a wide range of identity issues in areas including labor, institution, personal history, and art history, which have prompted more self-reflection and speculation. These projects seem to hold the intention of self-questioning, asking what “should” by conveyed by the artist? What role should the artist play? What relationship should the artist have with art history? These internal psychological factors are then transformed into different considerations and arrangements in the final expressive language applied in his artworks. Where is this creative consideration revealed in his latest turning point heading? Under this elaborate title, what are the issues and the inner world confronted by the artist?
If we were to understand this under a hypothetical premise and alter the exhibition title to: Synthetic Leather, Regular Motion, Society, Cotton Yarn, Collapse, Tea Stain, Response, Rose Gold, Profanity, Rehearsal Room, Small Solid Happiness, Diffusion, Bridge, Restlessness, is the artwork still valid? Has it taken on a different shape and form? Has its original objective been shifted? Would this approach have the same capacity demonstrated by Chou to empty out the gallery floor and dig vigorously to unveil the aesthetic interior of his latest creation, meanwhile seeking to investigate and explore the significance behind this creative transition?
文字|呂岱如
周育正所採用的計畫名稱/展名《電鍍金,保持冷靜,鍍鋁鋅版,祈禱,漸層,灰燼,抗議,不均,不滿,資本,香爐,佼存,焦慮,擊,日光。》文字長度教人訝異,十五個分立字彙碎裂不成句型,無法一眼明究的關係與意義也同時讓人感到困惑。此展覽對外透露出的第一個訊息由這些名詞、動詞、形容詞所拼貼組裝,不覺令人展開幾種意義上的聯想方式:
1. 作為關鍵字,它們指涉對於特定感知世界或是現實處境的理解提案;
2. 作為對話性集合,它們彼此知會相互共感,像是樂譜上的記號,其合奏的聲音將透過演奏者彈出;
3. 作為特定能指,與現場展出物件對接達成具有共識意義的輸出;
4. 以字串而非語句的呈現,與展出物件的文法、或說形式,所對應在形式語言上的關係。
這些可能的暗示方向開闢了多義複雜的狀態、想像延伸與留白空間,且和藝術家長期的創作脈絡有著顯著的變裂。其以往作品命名方式多半採直接爽明的點題法,例:東亞照明、李斯特),透過某種邏輯規則的設定來將藝術家的角色安插於一套系統機制的巧妙節點上,擾動之於價值認可、交換、勞動、生產上的路徑,以構建某種藝術家在社會裡可能擁有的創造性空間及角色功能。若說藝術家向來處理的議題是一種與當代社會交涉協商的技術,於總總機制、空間場域、甚至生命歷史間撥開支配原則關係,賦予觀看(seeing)及形象(figuration)新的意義和可能,周育正確實在過去幾年間持續地創造他獨特的透視技巧,為不可見的關係和邏輯賦予視覺造型,並對於每項計畫處理的核心議題造成挑釁、介入。
平行在此對周育正藝術創作的認識上,我們再進一步觀察回顧他在創作階段中幾種創作內在狀態改變的歷程。從《東亞照明》一直到《取之社會、用之社會》等作品計畫裡,其創作野心在於關注藝術家的角色能在社會中確實起到何種改變力量,去理解:藝術家「能」做什麼、可以做到什麼。後來作品發展到與盧皆得、莫里諾等以人為合作主體對象時,他轉進思考更多關於生命政治的問題,以處理各種在勞動、機制、個人史、藝術史等中介於身份的多樣問題,並產生了更多自省與懷疑的部分;這些計畫像是也隱含了一個自我提問的意圖:藝術家「應該」傳達什麼?應該扮演什麼角色?如何和藝術史發生關係?這些內部的心理構成因素都在這些作品最終的表現語言裡轉化為不同的調節與安排。而目前這個最新轉向所揭示的創作考量又落往哪裡?在這個枝開葉闊的標題下,藝術家所面對的問題和內在世界為何?
且又從一種假設性前提開始理解,若展覽名稱在此被硬凹改為「合成皮、摩擦、規則運動、社會、棉紗、坍塌、茶漬、應答、玫瑰金、髒話、排練室、小確幸、擴散、橋、躁動」,那麼作品是否還能成立?是換了形式造型?還是挪動其原來錨定的意義?這個方式是否有能力像周育正掏空畫廊地板那樣擲地有聲地挖掘出他最新創作系列的美學空間內裏,並且試圖敲探這創作轉折上的意義?
Synthetic Leather, Regular Motion, Society, Cotton Yarn, Collapse, Tea Stain, Response, Rose Gold, Profanity, Rehearsal Room, Small Solid Happiness, Diffusion, Bridge, Restlessness (I)
Esther Lu
The project titled by Chou Yu-Cheng as Chemical Gilding, Keep Calm, Galvanize, Pray, Gradient, Ashes, Manifestation, Unequal, Dissatisfaction, Capitalize, Incense Burner, Survival, Agitation, Hit, Day Light. is unusually long. It is not in a sentence form and consists of 15 characters in Chinese and 19 words in English. It is impossible to comprehend the connection and the meaning between the words upon first glance, making it quite puzzling. The first message provided by this exhibition is assembled with these nouns, verbs, and adjectives, sparking different ways of associating the words in a meaningful way:
1. As keywords, suggesting ways for comprehending certain situations in the perceptual world or in reality;
2. As configurations with a dialogical nature, to be connected with each other and are mutually responsive; like musical notes, for them to be played in harmony requires the gestures of a performer;
3. As specific signifiers, to be connected with the objects on display and to result in outputs of consensual significance;
4. As a string of words and not a phrase, presenting the relationship based on a formal language with the grammar or perhaps the forms of the objects on display.
These clues hint at possible directions, opening up ambiguous, complex situations, imaginative extensions and empty spaces and clearly straying away from the artist’s customary creative context. Chou usually opts for a more direct and clear approach with his artwork titles (e.g., TOA Lighting, Liszt), employing a set of logic to meticulously position the artist’s role in certain institutions or mechanisms, which unsettles the path for value recognition, exchange, labor, and production, seeking to construct possible creative space and functional role for the artist in society. If the issues the artist has always dealt with are regarded as a skill for engaging and negotiating in the contemporary society, as he breaks away from the relationship built on dominance principle with different institutions, spaces, domains, and even the history of life to bestow new meaning and possibilities for seeing and figuration, Chou, then, has in the past few years persistently created a distinctive approach to perspective, providing visual forms to invisible relationships and logics, resulting in provocations or interventions in the core issues dealt with in each of his projects.
With this understanding for Chou’s art, we can take a further step to examine and look back on the different transitions he has been through on his creative journey. From his artworks such as TOA Lighting to Taken from Society / Give Back to Society, it is observed that he focuses his creative ambition on the substantial transformative power that an artist can spark in society, seeking to understand what “can” the artist do and what can be done. When Chou began collaborating with others, such as Lu Chief-Te and Geoff Molyneux, he began contemplating further on issues associated with bio-politics, dealing with a wide range of identity issues in areas including labor, institution, personal history, and art history, which have prompted more self-reflection and speculation. These projects seem to hold the intention of self-questioning, asking what “should” by conveyed by the artist? What role should the artist play? What relationship should the artist have with art history? These internal psychological factors are then transformed into different considerations and arrangements in the final expressive language applied in his artworks. Where is this creative consideration revealed in his latest turning point heading? Under this elaborate title, what are the issues and the inner world confronted by the artist?
If we were to understand this under a hypothetical premise and alter the exhibition title to: Synthetic Leather, Regular Motion, Society, Cotton Yarn, Collapse, Tea Stain, Response, Rose Gold, Profanity, Rehearsal Room, Small Solid Happiness, Diffusion, Bridge, Restlessness, is the artwork still valid? Has it taken on a different shape and form? Has its original objective been shifted? Would this approach have the same capacity demonstrated by Chou to empty out the gallery floor and dig vigorously to unveil the aesthetic interior of his latest creation, meanwhile seeking to investigate and explore the significance behind this creative transition?