ere organized by ADC & Ming Pao and C & G Artpartment respectively. Whether the forum was named “Roles of Artists’ Village in Hong Kong” by ADC or “The Alternative Art Spaces in the Hong Kong contemporary art's development;” whether the group size was large (over 10
0 people) or small (around 30 people), I saw people, especially the younger generation, sighing out their helplessness in finding ideal art spaces and their concerns for the art development in Hong Kong. I believe that people gather not simply because of the widespread discontent with that questionable report by Ming Pao, but mostly because of their urge for bringing public as well as the government’s attention to the real situation and difficulties that the Hong Kong artists are facing today. Who will take the blame for the false impression made on Hong Kong artist villages? Is the reporter of Ming Pao, the Hong Kong government, or someone else?The reporter is just one of the general public who do not understand the art world. People working in the art field should therefore stand out and speak the truth. How about the Hong Kong government? It is certain that the aids given by the government for so-called non-profit-making projects are always limited. Otherwise, there is no wonder that the government will intervene in all aspects of the projects it subsidized. In either way, cries of discontent will rise all round. Before the government, by chance, putting forward a constructive policy for local art development, what can others do? On one hand, some people should keep lobbying the government; on the other hand, would art workers unite to do more for the good of their career development? It is definitely a long way to get everyone understanding the importance of art to the whole of cultural life.
As recorded, before the establishment of Hong Kong City Hall in 1962, there was nearly no well-found and fixed venue for art exhibitions, and hotel function rooms and churches became the common places for artists’ choices. Afterwards, Hong Kong Arts Center and Hong Kong Fringe Club were built in 1977 and 1984 respectively. With increasing needs for the flexibility in dealing with different forms of exhibition, artists started to set up art exhibitions and art spaces in the community by themselves. For examples, some returned artists made use of an antique house at No. 15 Kennedy Road as an exhibition and performance venue for their experimental art activity called 「外圍」 in October 1987. Besides, the Quart Society formed in 1990 was regarded as the first autonomous art space in Hong Kong for art exhibitions, performances, and gatherings. Open studios were also organized by some artists in 1993 and 1994. As most of the artists resided in their studios, people got chances to know their living as well. Subsequently, the formation of Para/Site Art Space (1996), Artist Commune (1997), Most (1998), and 1a Space (1998) contributed to the diversification of art development in Hong Kong. In 1998, the first artist village in Hong Kong was born. More than 30 art groups, artists, designers, photographers, and architects clustered in the former government warehouse in Oil Street, North Point because of its very low rental rate. When the government decided to retrieve the old warehouse after the lease expired at the end of 1999, the Oil Street Community started negotiations and succeeded in acquiring the former Cattle Depot in Tokwawan, Kowloon as a replacement. In 2001, Cattle Depot Artist Village was established, and it was home to 20 artists and art groups. Entering into the 21 century, we could find different art spaces / artist villages set up in different sites like Fotanian (2000), Foo Tak Building Studios (2003), and Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre (2008); whilst, some artists would station at other industrial buildings in Kwun Tong, Kwai Chung, Tsuen Wan, or Chaiwan.
When conceiving the idea of artist village in Hong Kong, other than the government and the public’s concerns of economic benefits, artists also have different expectations. Some artists prefer a space for working without disturbance while others welcome visitors. According to individual needs, some artists choose to reside at the art spaces / art villages which will only open on special occasions while others prefer an open area where they do not mind people watching them when working. Taking JCCAC as an example, it is expected to develop one-stop services in a place where embraces the following elements: 1. art spaces for working; 2. an art community full of variety which encourages interaction among tenants and visiting people; 3. exhibition / performance venues; 4. joint forces of commercial galleries; 5. promotional and commercial activities for art sales; 6. art shops / stylish cafés. All these settings aim at a win-win situation that brings art development as well as economic benefits to the community.
People commented that it might be too idealistic to accomplish the purpose desired. For my point of view, it seems to be a tight squeeze to get all proposed elements in a building. Is it feasible to expand the design to the whole community of Shek Kip Mei? While leaving private art spaces and exhibition and performance venues in the building for the resident artists, the government may bring in other art facilities like commercial galleries, art shops, stylish F&B outlets, and public art in the community at the same time. Through art education, people can change their concepts toward art and culture. Through participation, people may find the joy of art in life. Arousing people’s attention to the changes of the community and having their involvement in art activities are significant of art development. To transform an old district to an art community, neither setting up an artist village in the community nor letting people see artists working in their studios can do. Artist village is definitely not a zoo but a working place for artists. It can also act as a motivity for art promotion in the community. Would art workers unite to do more for the good of the community? Perhaps studio open days, outdoor exhibitions / performances, outreach art programmes, and talks / forums can enhance interaction between artists and the community.
For artists who rent the government properties for their art spaces, they have to fulfill the terms of their obligation. At the same time, for artists who run their own studios in the private sectors, they possibly suffer high rental according to the market price. Although there is limited sponsorship from the government, art workers always find their ways to survive. I am delighted to see different art spaces / artist villages in different forms spreading out in many places in Hong Kong.
------------------------------------
Roles of Artists' Village in Hong Kong
Date: 13 February 2009 (Friday)
Time: 3:00pm - 5:00pm
Venue: Hong Kong Arts Development Council
Moderator: Mr. Louis Yu, Chief Executive of HKADC
Speaker: Mr. Mathias Woo, Executive Director of Zuni Icosahedron
Dr. Ho Siu Kee, Academic Head of Hong Kong Art School
Mr. Jeff Leung, Independent Art Curator
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alternative Art Spaces in the Hong Kong contemporary art's development
Date: 20 February 2009 (Friday)
Time: 6:30pm – 8:00pm
Venue: C & G Artpartment
Host: Tse Yin Mo
Guests: Mr. Oscar Ho, Ms. Choi Yan Chi
----------------------------------------
References:
梁展峰: 我看香港「藝術邨」 (2008-03-12)
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/309897
梁展峰: 轉載：概述十年藝術展覽主要場地的更替 (2009-01-21)
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002062
梁寶: 藝術家要求《明報》道歉 (2009-02-04)
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002160
梁寶: 文化創意空間研究計劃調查結果摘要 (2009-02-12)
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002236
梁寶: 轉載：《明報》今日續談石硤尾藝術村 (2009-02-16)
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002271
No comments:
Post a Comment