《後桃花源記》

錦田 釜山
藝術交流計劃
“In Search of the Peachland”
Art Exchange Project
between Kam Tin ( H.K. )AND Busan ( Korea )

索
引

INDEX
01

序言  /  Introduction

04

計劃詳情  /  Program Information

06《 桃花源記 》 文本  /  “The Peach Colony”

08

釜山行  /  Busan Field Trip

13

一起在錦田  /  At Kam Tin Together
14  _ 地圖  /  Map16  _ 64K報  /  64K Post
27  _ 午後之…  /  After Noon...
31  _ 桃花源後  /  After “In Search of the Peachland”
35  _ K計劃  /  PROJECT K
39  _ 我想流動  /  I Want to Flow43  _ 垃圾袋計劃  /  Garbage Bag Project

47

學生後記  /  Students’ Postscript66 	《 從反到本 重返到地 》 ― 劉建華

82“Foundation Ground, or de-tour” by Jaspar Lau

100

評後桃花源記 ― 張煒森

102

鳴謝  /  Acknowledgement23

序言 Introduction
陶淵明於東晉公元419年創作《桃花源記》，寫出他的理想國度，同時也暗諷當時政權的腐敗。桃花源的故事，自此流傳萬世。它曾是香港中學課程的必讀文章，也是不少華人食肆和按摩店喜用的
名稱。在韓國，於朝鮮王朝時期，也有著名畫家：安堅，畫過桃源景致。1447年(中國明朝期間)，朝鮮王子安平大君做了個夢：夢見自己與友人走進山谷，見到桃花園林，繼而沿著樹林小徑步行，穿越山洞，喜見世外桃源，因而記起陶淵明詩作。一覺醒來，安平大君隨即邀請朝廷畫家安堅替他繪
出夢境，成就了韓國藝術史上一幅舉足輕重的水墨畫作：《夢游桃花源圖卷》。中韓文化交流，有著
長遠歷史。彼此的文人雅士，在追尋理想國度方面，也不無相互影響。
桃源景致每每予人出世的印象，充斥著道家思想，與朝廷為鞏固政權而斷章取義的儒學文化，背道而馳。余秋雨先生在《文化苦旅》的《白蓮洞》中，對於那個通往桃花源的洞口，曾有一番引人入勝的描寫：「這個武陵人終於來到一個理想國。從此，哪一個中國人的心底，都埋下了一個桃花源。桃花源，《後桃花源記》是對惡濁亂世的一個挑戰。這個挑戰十分平靜，默默地對峙著，一聲不吭。待到實在耐不住的時候，中國人又開掘出一個水簾洞。這個洞口非同小可，大鬧天宮的力量正在這兒孕育。
桃花源和水簾洞，氣氛不同，性質相仿，都是群眾意志的會聚。桃花源中人惘然於時間，也惘然於空間，融洽怡和，不見個體衝撞。孫悟空有點個性，卻也只是某種整體意向的象徵，水簾洞裡的秩序，倒是寧謐無波。」1“In Search of the Peachland”
Art Exchange Project between Kam Tin (Hong Kong) and Busan (Korea)

錦田 | 釜山
藝術交流計劃

彷彿，中國人特別善於活在自行建構的「平行時空」，直至政權腐敗至極，以及客觀生存環境被扼殺到令人忍無可忍的時候，才會有點反動。
本藝術交流計劃：《後桃花源記》正有意借「桃源」去幫助解讀近年在新界錦田一帶漸漸凝聚起來
的文化藝術社群，以及進一步開拓對文明的想像、進一步去追尋當代的「桃源」。所謂「後」，除了
是《桃花源記》之後，也希望道出此文藝社群，並非純粹避世或烏托。「耕田也是抗爭的一種方式。
」
是次參與藝術家之一勞麗麗曾說。在高度發展的香港，農耕是對盲目城市化的積極抗衡，而在距離邊境不遠的新界土地耕種，更是對「發展是硬道理」的殖民手段之一種徹底反抗。至於耕田是藝術，也早已是不容置疑。
除了在反高鐵運動後轉而務農的勞麗麗，參與是次計劃的其他藝術家並非從事農耕，卻也不約而
同地在近年搬到錦田。在從事藝術創作之餘，他們在鄉郊生活中從新自我學習。例如，MUDwork
的吳家俊和鍾惠恩曾分享到，錦田的社群令他們親身體驗鄰里互助精神的可貴，促使他們也希望
能以一己所長貢獻社區，諸如修橋補路、建立旱厠等，而另一位善於繪畫的藝術家陳素珊則為八鄉
社區報繪畫插圖。總之，各自發揮所長，共同建設。
不過，凡此種種，對於自小已在錦田圍村長大的藝術家鄧國騫來說，又有著不同的意義。大自然，
於他並不陌生。而不同勢力，長年累月為土地財富而起的爭端，他也是歷歷在目。如何保存以及重
新體現圍村的遠古文化傳統，重構本土文化身份，在此時此刻，更形迫切。
陶淵明的《桃花源記》相信最晚是十三世紀前被引入朝鮮。相對於十五世紀，在全球化的今天，各地的「平行時空」都更加緊扣。時至今日，世界各地的99%互通訊息，並不困難，但要再加以連結、進而在追尋理想國度的路途上，能互相扶持，則需更多互相深入了解、深耕細作。

1   余秋雨. 文化苦旅. pp38. 上海：東方出版中心.  2006.

00
01

《後桃花源記》是一個涉及許多不同層次的交流計劃，當中包括來自韓國釜山和香港錦田的6個藝術單位(5位藝術家和1個藝術組合)、12位來自嶺南大學視覺研究系的學生。他們在2015年2月底前
往韓國釜山參觀當地不同的藝術機構、藝術空間和藝術院校，與當中一些藝術家、策劃人和藝術學生對談。在交流過程中，大家都不難發現香港和釜山，這兩個遠離國家首都的沿海城市，所面對
因城市發展和重建而產生的問題，均十分相似。在3月份，兩位來自釜山的藝術家:金大洪和金美英
也進駐錦田。各藝術家與參與學生一起在錦田進行創作，並於2015年3月21和22日，把作品在地呈現，之後更以文獻方式在C&G藝術單位展示。
鄉郊生活、務農為生，並非一種時尚或潮流，而是對惡濁亂世的一個徹底挑戰。至於藝術家在箇中
的參與，也並非帶著任何既定藝術形式介入，而是以開放的思考方式，真誠地投入生活，進而把在
地的素材轉化成可見的理想載體。

The Chinese classic titled ‘The Peach Colony’ (or translated as ‘Tale of the Peach-Blossom
Spring’ sometimes) by Tao Yuanming, in AD419 during Eastern Jin dynasty, described theparadise the poet longed for, while indirectly criticizing the corrupted government at the time.
The story about this hidden peach-land was widespread throughout history ever since. This fable
was once included in the syllabus of the Chinese subject in Hong Kong’s secondary school, andit certainly is not difficult to find restaurants or massage shops named after this in the Chinese
communities around the world nowadays. In Korea, there also was a painting about this peachland by a famous painter, Ahn Gyeon, during the Joseon era. In 1447 (during the Ming Dynasty
in China), Prince Anpyeong had a wonderful dream, in which he walked with a friend into a valley
with many peach trees in bloom. They kept walking along the small path in the wood. After
passing through a cave, they saw the earthly paradise that reminded Prince Anpyeong of ‘The
Peach Colony.’ Waking up from the dream, Prince Anpyeong invited Ahn Gyeon, who was thepalace’s artist, to paint this dreamland on a scroll of silk which became the masterpiece titled:‘Dream Journey to the Blossom Land.’ Cultural exchange between China and Korea had a long
history amongst their litterateurs, and there certainly exist many linkages between the two cultures when it comes to the search for an ideal state.
The image of this peach-land is often associated with the Taoist philosophy, which does notdirectly engage oneself in society and does not echo the Confucian culture promoted by thedynastic rulers. Mr. Yu Qiuyu had written an extraordinary passage in his book ‘Cultural Odyssey’
about the cave that led one to the peach-land. Such a peach-land exists in the soul of every Chinese, ever since the main character in Tao Yuanming’s fable discovered this ideal state. Although
the imagination of the peach-land was very clam, it, indeed, strongly challenged the corrupted
world in silence. Another important cave in Chinese literature emerged later in Ming Dynasty
in the classical novel of ‘Journey to the West.’ It was the ‘cave heaven of the water curtain’ thatgave birth to the rebellion energy. Despite the different natures of the peach-land and the caveof water curtain, Yu thought both sites converge significant energy of the mass. The people living in harmony in the peach-land were not aware of time and space. Monkey king from ‘Journeyto the West’ had distinctive characters and attitudes, but was still only a reflection of certain
populated imagination. The cave of water curtain was always in good order indeed.

Colony,’ but also suggests the current cultural cluster in Kam Tin is not only a pure escape fromsociety or merely a utopian imagination. ‘Farming is another kind of protest,’ Natalie LO once
mentioned. In an over-developed city like Hong Kong, farming, no doubt, is a pro-active resistance against the neo-capitalistic urban development. Agriculture developed near the Hong
Kong border in the New Territories, in fact, is a protest against the colonial governing ideologyof ‘nothing but development.’
Besides Natalie LO who turned to the farmland after the anti-express-rail-link movement, theother participating artists who moved to Kam Tin in the past few years are not full-time farmers.
Many of these new-comers of Kam Tin learnt a lot from the rural communities. For example, NG
Ka chun and CHUNG Wai Ian appreciate very much the supportive spirit in the neighborhood,which in turn encourages them to devote themselves in various volunteering projects for thecommunity, like small bridge construction and compo toilet project etc. Another participating
artist, Sushan CHAN also has applied her talent in drawing to help with local community newspaper in the area.
All these may have a different meaning for another artist TANG Kwok Hin who grew up in walledvillage in Kam Tin though. The nature is never a stranger to him, nor the argument and fightfor land and wealth. For TANG Kwok Hin, the preservation and revival of the traditional local
cultures of the walled villages seem to be more urgent for the moment.
TAO Yuanming’s ‘The Peach Colony’ was believed to reach Korea before the 13th century.
Compared to the 15th century when Ahn Gyeon did the painting about peach-land, nowadays’
alternative communities, which operate in parallel with the authoritative main-stream, aroundthe globalized world can connect with each other more easily. However, in order to formulate astronger force in the search of the ‘peach-land,’ more in-depth mutual understanding is necessary.
‘In Search of the Peachland’ is an art exchange project involving many different layers of idea
exchanges amongst different parties: including 6 art units from Kam Tin and Busan (5 artists and1 artist group), 12 students from the Visual Studies Department of Lingnan University. They went
to Busan for a field trip in the end of February, 2015, to visit different art organizations and art
students in Busan. During the trip, it was not difficult to find out that both Hong Kong and Busanalso encounter similar problems, when undergoing intensive urban development and redevelopment. After the field-trip, two artists from Busan: KIM Dae Hong and KIM Mi Young came toHong Kong for an artist-in-residency period in Kam Tin during March. All participating artists
from Kam Tin and Busan worked with students together in Kam Tin for various art projects,
which were shown on-site on 21st and 22nd of March 2015. In the end, the documentation of theon-site projects was displayed at C&G Artpartment, for a month, for the public to have an overview of the whole exchange program.
Rural lives and agriculture is not a fashionable living style, but a rebel against the current corrupted world. The role of artists is not to bring in any pre-defined artistic acts. Instead, they are
sincerely engaged in the livings with their open-mindset, and, ultimately, help transform various
materials to be containers for the peach-land.

It seems that Chinese civilians are always good at living in their own ‘parallel time and space.’
Only until the ruling party is extremely corrupted and only until the objective factors in theliving environment completely collapse, then there would exist certain reactions in the Chinesesociety.

張嘉莉  Clara Cheung 3.3.2015

參考書目/ Reference：

The current art exchange project, ‘In Search of the Peachland,’ attempts to understand andinterpret the newly grown cultural cluster around Kam Tin, in order to open up the imaginationof ‘peach-land’ in the contemporary world. The Chinese title of the project is ‘post peach-land’
which is not only describing the current project chronologically taking place after ‘The Peach

Youngdae, Park. Translated by Johnson, Chris. Essential Korean Art From Prehistory to the Jeseon
Period. Korea: Hyeonamsa Publishing. 2004.
吳焯. 朝鮮半島美術. 北京: 中國人民大學出版社. 2004.
余秋雨. 文化苦旅. 上海：東方出版中心.  2006.

02
03

計劃詳情
主辦及策劃：		
合辦：			
合作夥伴：		項目統籌： 		program information
C & G藝術單位Openspace Bae (韓國)嶺南大學 視覺研究系、擔泥
張蓉

參與藝術家：		香港  - 陳素珊 (Susan)、張景威 (Reds)、鍾惠恩、                                                                 勞麗麗 (Natalie)、吳家俊 (阿喜)、鄧國騫			
韓國  - 金大洪、金美英

Presented by:		C & G Artpartment
Co-organizer:		Openspace Bae (Korea)
Partners:			Department of Visual Studies of Lingnan University, MUDwork
Project Coordinator:		CHEUNG Yung
Participating Artists:		HK - CHAN So Shan (Sushan), CHEUNG King Wai (Reds), CHUNG Wai			Ian, LO Lai Lai (Natalie), NG Ka Chun (Hei), TANG Kwok Hin
			Korea - KIM Dae Hong, KIM Mi Young
Writer-Respondent:		

藝術評論：		LAU Kin Wah (Jaspar)

劉建華 (Jaspar)參與學生：								

- 嶺南大學 視覺研究系 朱穎楠、何舒婷、劉慧兒、李朗儀、梁金仲、萬綺麗、吳鎮杰、
吳莉莉、吳詠心、冼秀眉、司徒玉婷、余仲晞

前往釜山交流：       		2015年2月23日 (星期一) 至 2月27日 (星期五)錦田現場導賞：		
						

2015年3月21日 (星期六) 及22日 (星期日)，下午1:00 - 5:00
地點 1  - 香港 新界 元朗 八鄉 錦上路 謝屋村生活館
地點 2  - 香港 新界 錦田 錦田公路 永隆圍閘口

文獻展覽開幕：		
藝術家講座：		
展覽日期：		展覽時間：					展覽地點：					

2015年3月28日 (星期六)，下午6:30
2015年3月28日 (星期六)，下午7:00 - 8:00
2015年3月29日 (星期日) 至 4月27日 (星期一)下午2:00-7:30，逢星期四、五、六、日、一(星期二、三及公眾假期休息)
香港 九龍 太子 西洋菜南街222號 三字樓
(港鐵太子站B2出口，始創中心後)

學生文獻藝術牆展覽日期：		展覽地點：					

2015年4月20日 (星期一) 至 9月25日 (星期五)屯門 虎地青山公路8號  嶺南大學
何善衡樓二樓 視覺研究系 藝術牆Participating Students:
Department of Visual Studies of Lingnan University 			CHU Wing Nam Nancy, HO Shu Ting, LAU Wai Yi, LEE Long Yi, 					
LEUNG Kam Chung, MAN Yee Lai, NG Chun Kit, NG Lee Lee,
			NG Wing Sum, SIN Sau Mei, SZETO Yuk Ting, YU Chung Hei
Field Trip To Busan:		(Mon) 23 February to (Fri) 27 February, 2015

On-Site Guided Tours
1:00 - 5:00pm, (Sat) 21 March & (Sun) 22 March 2015
at Kam Tin:		
Location 1 - Sangwoodgoon, Tse Uk Tsuen, Kam Sheung Road,				
Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong			
Location 2 - Main Entrance, Wing Lung Wai, Kam Tin Road, Kam Tin,				
New Territories, Hong Kong
Documentation Exhibition
Opening: 			
Artists Talk:		
Exhibition Period:		
Exhibition Time:					
Address:						

6:30pm, (Sat) 28 March, 2015
7:00 - 8:00pm, (Sat) 28 March, 2015
(Sun) 29 March to (Mon) 27 April, 2015
2:00 - 7:30pm, Thursday to Monday(Closed on Tue, Wed and Public Holiday)
3/F, 222 Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Prince Edward, Kowloon, H.K.
(Exit B2, Prince Edward MTR Station, Behind Pioneer Centre)

Student Documentation Art Wall
Exhibition Period:		
(Mon) 20 April to (Fri) 25 September, 2015
Address:			Art Wall, Department of Visual Studies of Lingnan University,			
8 Castle Peak Road, Fu Tei, Tuen Mun, N.T. Hong Kong

04
05

“The Peach Colony”
by Tao Yuanming

桃花源記 (公元419年)
作者： 陶淵明
晉太元中，武陵人，捕魚為業，緣溪行，忘路之遠近；忽逢桃花林，夾岸數百步，中無雜樹，芳草鮮美，落英繽紛；漁人甚異之。復前行，欲窮其林。林盡水源，便得一山。
山有小口，彷彿若有光，便舍船，從口入。
初極狹，纔通人；復行數十步，豁然開朗。土地平曠，屋舍儼然。有良田、美池、桑、竹之屬，阡陌交通，雞犬相聞。其中往來種作，男女衣著，悉如外人；黃髮垂髫，並佁然自樂。見漁人，乃大驚，問所從來；具答之。便要還家，設酒、殺雞、作食。村中聞有此人，咸來問訊。自云：「先世避秦時亂，率妻子邑人來此絕境，不復出焉；遂與外人間隔。」問「今是何世？」乃不知有漢，無論魏、晉！此人一一為具言所聞，皆歎惋。餘
人各復延至其家，皆出酒食。停數日，辭去。此中人語云：「不足為外人道也。」
既出，得其船，便扶向路，處處誌之。及郡下，詣太守，說如此。太守即遣人隨其往，尋向所誌，遂迷不復得路。南陽劉子驥，高尚士也，
聞之，欣然規往，未果，尋病終。後遂無問津者。

(translated by Lin Yutang)

During the reign of Taiyuan of Chin, there was a fisherman of Wuling. One day
he was walking along a bank. After having gone a certain distance, he suddenly
came upon a peach grove which extended along the bank for about a hundred
yards. He noticed with surprise that the grove had a magic effect, so singularly
free from the usual mingling of brushwood, while the beautifully grassy ground
was covered with its rose petals. He went further to explore, and when he cameto the end of the grove, he saw a spring which came from a cave in the hill.
Having noticed that there seemed to be a weak light in the cave, he tied up his
boat and decided to go in and explore.
At first the opening was very narrow, barely wide enough for one person to go
in. After a dozen steps, it opened into a flood of light. He saw before his eyes awide, level valley, with houses and fields and farms. There were bamboos andmulberries; farmers were working and dogs and chickens were running about.
The dresses of the men and women were like those of the outside world, andthe old men and children appeared very happy and contented. They weregreatly astonished to see the fisherman and asked him where he had comefrom. The fisherman told them and was invited to their homes, where wine wasserved and chicken was killed for dinner to entertain him. The villagers hearingof his coming all came to see him and to talk. They said that their ancestors hadcome here as refugees to escape from the tyranny of Tsin Shih-huang (builder
of Great Wall) some six hundred years ago, and they had never left it. They werethus completely cut off from the world, and asked what was the ruling dynasty
now. They had not even heard of the Han Dynasty (two centuries before to two
centuries after Christ), not to speak of the Wei (third century A.D.) and the Chin(third and forth centuries). The fisherman told them, which they heard with great
amazement. Many of the other villagers then began to invite him to their homesby turn and feed him dinner and wine.
After a few days, he took leave of them and left. The villagers begged him not
to tell the people outside about their colony. The man found his boat and cameback, marking with signs the route he had followed. He went to the magistrate’s
office and told the magistrate about it. The latter sent someone to go with him
and find the place. They looked for the signs but got lost and could never findit again. Liu Tsechi of Nanyang was a great idealist. He heard of this story, andplanned to go and find it, but was taken ill and died before he could fulfill his
wish. Since then, no one has gone in search of this place.
Reference: (http://news.sina.com.tw/books/know/barticle/3602-1.html)

0607

釜山行 Busan Field Trip
(Mon) 23 February to (Fri) 27 February, 2015

HK airport
香港機場

DEPARTFeb 22A r r iv

alGamcheon Culture Village
甘川文化村

DAY 1
Feb 23

Busan Museum of Art
釜山市立美術館

DAY 2
Feb 24

Visiting Gamcheon Culture Village
參觀甘川文化村
Internal sharing:“How does your utopian land look like?”
討論會：你的理想國度是?

Visiting Busan Museum of Art
參觀釜山市立藝術館
Group discussion in a park
公園內的小組討論

Gathering at Hong Kong Airport
齊集香港機場李朗儀 繪  By LEE Long Yi

何舒婷 的 日誌 HO Shu Ting’s Journal

08
09

Openspace Bae
Bae 藝術村

DAY 3
Feb 25

Toward Openspace Bae攀山涉水前往 Bae 藝術村

Pusan National
University
B Space &DIY Tong

釜山國立大學DAY 4
Feb 26

Found a Peach Tree, after crossing a tunnel to Bae
在穿過隧道後，發現桃花
Guided tour of art exhibit, “Perfect Perception” by artist KIM Won Jung
藝術家Kim Wong Jung 介紹其展覽
Artist Sharing about their artworks and their thoughts on “utopia”
各藝術家分享其作品及對理想國度的想法

吳詠心 的 日誌 NG Wing Sum’s Journal

Visiting art students at Pusan National University
與釜山大學藝術系學生交流
Chatting with members from DIY Tong and B與 民間文化藝術機構DIY Tong 和 B空間  成員交流

朱穎楠 的 日誌 CHU Wing Nam’s Journal

李朗儀 的 日誌 LEE Long Yi’s Journal

10
11

Re

Busan Field Trip

n

DAY 5
Feb 27

23Feb ~ 27Feb 2015

tur

Hong Ti Art Center
虹田藝術中心一起在錦田
新界元朗 | 錦上路

Visiting Hong Ti Art Center參觀虹田藝術中心
Chatting with Art Center’s curator, Enjin Yang與虹田藝術中心的策展人交流
Visiting Mr. Park Tae Hong’s art studio參觀雕塑藝術家 Park Tae Hong 的工作室
Heading back to Hong Kong起程回港

At Kam Tin Together
Projects along Kam Sheung Road district, Yuen Long
64K Post _16
After Noon... Extended Shelf-life Afternoon Tea _27
After In Search of the Peachland _31
PROJECT K _35
I want to flow _39
Garbage Bag Project _43

64K報16 午後之…保存期限下午茶27
桃花源後31 K計劃35 我想流動39

圾垃43

12

12

13

13

《64K報》第十二頁的導覽地圖
The guide map from “64K Post” p.12

14
15

《64K報》 封面   “64K Post” cover

64K 報
64K Post

陳素珊
CHAN So Shan (Sushan)collaborated with朱穎楠
CHU Wing Nam Nancy
劉慧兒
LAU Wai Yi

迷你出版
Mini-publication

2015
64 K 巴士線的非官方小報，試圖將我們對鄉郊的想像濃縮在一程64K車程裏。
This is a non-official newspaper for the bus route 64K, with an attempt to contain our
imaginations of the countryside in a single trip on 64K.

16
17

《64K報》 第三、四頁   “64K Post” p.3-4

18
19

《64K報》 第五、六頁   “64K Post” p.5-6

20
21

《64K報》 第七、八頁   “64K Post” p.7-8

22
23

《64K報》 第九、十頁   “64K Post” p.9-10

24
25

午後之…
保存期限下午茶
After Noon...
Extended Shelf-life
Afternoon Tea

勞麗麗
LO Lai Lai (Natalie)collaborated with吳詠心
NG Wing Sum
司徒玉婷
SZETO Yuk Ting

混合媒介
Mixed Media2015
把過多的、剩餘的肢體，漬醃成自家廚房的秘密武器，濃縮成營養汁液。
To make use of all the left-overs and excessive parts for the invention of secretweapons in one’s kitchen.

Andy Wong @littlepost

26
27

Andy Wong @littlepost

Andy Wong @littlepost「一小步」訪問勞麗麗Interview with Natalie by littlepost.hk:  
http://littlepost.hk/2015/03/27/

28
29

桃花源後
After In Search of
the Peachland鄧國騫
TANG Kwok Hin
collaborated with
萬綺麗
MAN Yee Lai
吳莉莉NG Lee Lee
余仲晞

混合媒介，錄像

YU Chung Hei

Mixed Media, Video2015
有關自身未來的想像及送給其下好幾代的話題。
About the imagination of one’s future and about leaving
a discussion topic for the next few generation.

30
31

鄧國騫在自己圍村的家中，與參加導賞的觀眾交流
TANG Kwok Hin’s artist sharing at his home in Wing Lung Wai

萬綺麗 的 日誌  MAN Yee Lai’s Journal吳莉莉 的 日誌  NG Lee Lee’s Journal吳莉莉 的 日誌  NG Lee Lee’s Journal

余仲晞 的 日誌  YU Chung Hei’s Journal

余仲晞 的 日誌: 在錦田的地景藝術創作
YU Chung Hei’s Journal: about her land art project in Kam Tin

32
33

K 計劃
PROJECT K

MUDwork × Reds CHEUNG

鍾惠恩
CHUNG Wai Ian
吳家俊 (阿喜)NG Ka Chun (Hei)
張景威
CHEUNG King Wai (Reds)
collaborated with何舒婷
HO Shu Ting (Nana)吳鎮杰NG Chun Kit (Andy)旱廁
Pit Latrine

2015「一小步」訪問鄧國騫Interview with TANG Kwok Hin by littlepost.hk:  
http://littlepost.hk/2015/03/26/
桃花源後 －余仲晞 (鄧國騫錄製)“After In Search of the Peachland– Heidi” (video by TANG Kwok Hin)
https://vimeo.com/123537639
桃花源後 －萬綺麗 (鄧國騫錄製)“After In Search of the Peachland– Ella” (video by TANG Kwok Hin):
https://vimeo.com/123535540

34
35我們的計劃源自於一個簡單的概
念—藝術家到底可以做些什麼令農村生活得到認同？同時設想農村的
真實需要。
來自MUDwork的兩位年輕藝術
家，近年由市區搬到錦田，活在香
港的桃花源，了解當地的人物事宜。當他們知道
附近的生活館需要建一所旱廁時，我們都被旱廁
這種建築背後的象徵意義吸引。順理成章，旱廁
成為我們今次合作計劃的一個重要元素。
試想像當我們所建的廁所不再是排污系統眾多入
口的一個，而是盛載土地需要的容器。跟農鄉生
活一樣，旱廁所代表的不應是落後、簡陋或臨時，更應代表永續的生活態度。參考國外的例
子，興建旱廁是一門專業，公司之間的競爭除了
產品舒適實用外，還包含可持續性等對環境作考慮的因素。縱使我們沒有辦法大量興建旱廁，但都想透過旱廁給我們的啓示，轉化成一個符號，
用藝術計劃傳遞。因此我們所建立的不只是解決
排污功能的建築，它是個訊息。

、

計劃嘗試經營旱廁背後的象徵意義。當經營順利，「收成」之時，我們將可以出品「旱廁菜」、「旱廁果醬」、「旱廁酒」等，與將日常生活和
土地割裂的香港人分享桃花源土壤旳甘甜。
Our project comes from a simple idea: How can artists make rural life to be recognized?
When we are told that Sangwoodgoon need acomposting toilet, we are interested in finding out
the significance and meaning behind it. Imagine that
our toilet is no longer just an entrance of the sewage system, it can also be a container that holds thenecessities of the land. Similar to rural life, instead ofrepresenting laggard, primitiveness and temporariness, composting toilet should be symbolizing theattitude of sustainable development. Even though
we cannot build a great number of composting
toilets, we would still like to deliver the message withthe help of the art.
In this plan, we are trying to operate the symbolic
meaning behind composting toilet. Upon harvesting,
we are expected to produce vegetables, jam andwine. In this way, we can share our fruits with Hong
Kong citizens, who live in urban areas and rarely
get in touch with farmland.

36
37

我想流動
I want to flow

金美英
KIM Mi Young
collaborated with李朗儀
LEE Long Yi  吳莉莉NG Lee Lee

記錄於永隆圍及生活館的裝置
Documentation of the Installation in Wing Lung Wai and Sangwoodgoon

2015
這是一個有關石屎地的故事。它從前曾是泥土。而我則在它當中看到自己。我們都想自由地流動。
This is the story of concrete ground, which was soil before. I found a similarity of mine from it.
Both of us want to flow.

「一小步」訪問擔泥XReds
Interview with MUDwork X Reds by littlepost.hk:  
http://littlepost.hk/2015/03/27/

38
39

40
41

垃

金大洪
KIM Dae Hong

Garbage Bag
Project

collaborated with
梁金仲
LEUNG Kam Chung  冼秀眉
SIN Sau Mei

行為藝術／錄像
Performance/Single channel video

2’28”  	 於香港巴塞爾藝術展
Garbage Bag Project in 2015 HK Art Basel2’43”  	 於錦田生活館
Garbage Bag Project in Sangwoodgoon area2015
細小物體的蠕動。這不單是他們的故事，也是我們的故事和生活。
The struggling of tiny beings, it isn’t only the stories of them, but also our stories and our life.

「一小步」訪問金美英Interview with Mi Young by littlepost.hk:  
http://littlepost.hk/2015/03/31/

42
43

44
45

學生後記
Students’ Postscript
是次交流活動的尾聲，除了有嶺南大學的同學在校園內以簡約小裝置，記述他們在錦田參與的藝術項目
外，還有他們寫的後記和回顧文章。礙於篇幅有限，本書只有把各學員的文章節錄如下，與讀者分享。
Toward the end of the current exchange program, besides the minimal installations at Lingnan University’s campus to recall the essences of the on-site projects in Kam Tin, the twelve Lingnan students「一小步」訪問金大洪Interview with Dae Hong by littlepost.hk:  
http://littlepost.hk/2015/03/31/

also have written reflective articles about their experiences and observations within the program.  Dueto the page limit, only selected passages from their articles are included in this book.  

46
47

後桃花源的態度 (節錄) ― 吳莉莉
The Pursuit of the Peachland (excerpt)
by NG Lee Lee, Lily
陶淵明的《桃花源記》寫於政治腐敗的朝代，與今時今日的香港有微妙的相似之處。對於無能的政
府，當時已退隱田園的陶淵明揮毫寫出《桃花源記》，描寫他心中理想完美的樂土，對比出他現實身處的世代的醜惡，抒發他對政府的不滿與就是自身無能為力的鬱悶。

「有良田美池桑竹之屬，阡陌交通，雞犬相聞。」
在桃花源裡，有農田、池塘、桑樹、竹子等，田野路路相通，隨處都聽到雞鳴狗吠的聲音。由此可見，陶淵明的桃花源其實是一個農村社會、一個原始社會。當一切都回歸到最原始時，人為了「吃」、
為了生存而耕作。沒有物質的引誘去催生慾望，沒有「權力」的觀念，不會因想去管治別人而衍出階級觀念，人人生而平等、守望相助，自得其樂。這種沒有差異的社會，與儒家思想提出的大同社會
意味相似，這也是陶淵明欲藉《桃花源記》帶出的理想國。對於當時紛亂的世代，陶淵明眼見著在位者為了私慾而發動大大小小的戰爭，若社會不講求發展，可倒退到最原始的模樣，只求溫飽，只求滿足最基本的需要，社會則少有擾亂，人民亦毋須受無謂的苦。
所謂的「後」桃花源記，並非要現今社會還原到農村樣貌。要人不講經濟發展，全都走到農地耕作，的確是沒可能。所謂的「後」桃花源記，追求的是一種態度，一種不應對生活麻木的態度……
提倡陶淵明的桃花源思想。把自己抽離這個世界，摒除這世界諸附給我們的包袱和慾望，回望自己的生命和社會，從心去感受這個社會的變化和作出回應。譬如，是次C&G發現錦田這地方，有越來
越多的藝術家進駐，便出現了《後桃花源記》這計劃來作出回應。一眾藝術家在看見社會有不公義的事情發生後，發起社會運動，以藝術品去回應，去對抗不公義的事情。對比起一些在社會出現越來越多矛盾但仍覺得事不關己的人，他們做的事，實在多了。

…The Chinese classic “The Peach Colony” was written in a chaotic dynasty. The situation was subtly
similar to today’s Hong Kong. The author, Tao Yuanming, would like to express his disappointment
towards the corruptive court through creating his own ideal paradise in the article. In Tao’s thought,
the paradise was equivalent to a rural community. The scale of the community was not big. There
were farms, ponds, mulberry and bamboo in the paradise. Still, we could easily hear the cock crowed.
When everything is back to simple, people would not have too much desire. Without social hierarchy,
everyone is equal to each other. Tao believed that wars and conflicts would be diminished due to thedevelopment of this kind of primitive society.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to propose Tao’s idea to our society. Nowadays, as the society is economically developed, it is hard to give up all the financial achievements and push the general public tofarm only. It sounds ridiculous. Actually, there are some people doing the so-called “ridiculous” behaviors in order to respond to some social issues. After the anti-eviction campaign in Choi Yuen Village,some artists and farmers have formed Sangwoodgoon. They farm in Kam Tin and grow their own food.
They respond to the local agricultural development and the land policy through turning their lives intoa rural condition. Recently, more and more artists choose to move to Kam Tin and live this way. Theirways of living are somehow an implicit animadversion to the incompetent government.
To me, the utopia means the pursuit of an attitude: an attitude towards awareness of life. We should
be awarded of the changes in our society. We may easily get lost due to the lure from the materialistic
society. What Tao proposed in his colony is, we should minimize our desires and put more efforts on
feeling the changes in our society, and giving response to the social injustice, just like those artists andfarmers in Sangwoodgoon, fighting the injustice through farming.

吳莉莉 的 日誌  NG Lee Lee’s Journal

司徒玉婷 的 日誌  SZETO Yuk Ting’s Journal

後桃花源中的自覺性 (節錄) ― 梁金仲Being Conscientious During the search of the Peachland (excerpt)
by LEUNG Kam Chung… Bae 是位於釜山西北部的「桃花源」。我是這樣認為的。我們香港小隊步行而上，走過沙地，枯萎的森林，小小山路，最後進入神秘的「時光隧道」，仍未看見藝術空間Bae 的踪跡。一出隧道，映入眼簾的卻是，一棵棵手牽著手、排列整齊的梨樹。雖然正值冬季，梨樹只剩下光禿禿的樹幹，沿住山路直走，被眾樹包圍，確有來到桃花源的感覺。不經不覺，原來已經到達Bae。Bae 一間位於山
中，開放的藝術空間，任藝術家自由創作、任全球藝術家自由參與，任意念隨自然奔放。… Bae為全
球藝術家開放駐地小帳篷，以梨樹林作為後花園，以天空作為天然屏幕，全日美景一覽無遺。重要
的是，在Bae, 我們見到的山不再是人造的；樹也不再被石泥包圍，我們自然而然地，聽到了自然的聲音。
…我有幸與其中一名韓國藝術家合作，並第一次嘗試行為藝術創作，印象甚為深刻。常觀察及留意
身邊小事物的藝術家金大洪，發現垃圾袋身處不論是哪裡，也沒人問津。垃圾袋給予人被遺棄的感覺就好比社會裏的最基層，總會在大時代裡，作首個被遺忘的群體。於是金大洪決定走進垃圾
袋的世界，以身體語言為垃圾袋發聲。作品自身除了帶出當今議題外，亦令我留意到環境，人以及物件三者之間的關係。人處於某個環境，都有某個角色之擔當，或者因著某個環境的影響，有不同
回應。在行為藝術期間，當一個會動的垃圾袋出現在行人面前，各人有不同反應又或者沒有反應，
這分別與垃圾袋的動作形成強烈對比。無論一動一靜的對比，或是一左一右之巧合對稱，均讓人
感覺到萬物之神奇——毋需刻意安排，卻常製造驚喜。

48
49

…無論釜山或是錦田，其實大致上，人們面對的問題都差不多：租金上漲、城市急速發展。而努力
作出改變的是一群對生活、對藝術、對未來具熱誠的不同群體。釜山的B space 及 Openspace
Bae，以及錦田裡的藝術群體，以自己的行動堅守自己的理想國度。
…另外，我認為社會需要一個平衡的系統。無論是人、生態及環境，應按既有的結構而活動。既有的結構並非指一定的標準，而是按結構內各持分者的比例而變動。例如城市與自然應該並存，而非
城市自行搶佔所有領域；人口的密度也應該合乎環境所容納的限度而調整。所有的考慮因素應以
人為本，而非由現今的資本主導或被任何價值凌駕於上。人置身於社會，經歷萬變，不得不承認有其醜惡的一面，例如貪婪、不誠等。自給自足的生活無疑最具自由，人們也毋須因為外在干預或環
境影響，無奈地接受現實的擺布。但前提是，人們有自覺性，自覺地控制慾念、自覺地保護社區的
價值、自覺地尊重別人的價值，否則桃花源也只能淪為想像、成為逃避的藉口。

Bae is the peachland located in the northwestern Busan. This was what I thought after my visit. We
walked along, passing through a construction site, a withering forest, a small path, and then finally entered a mysterious “time tunnel”. Openspace Bae was not there yet, even after we went out of the tunnel. However, there stood orderly a line of pear trees with arm-to-arm branches next to the sidewalk.
Although only bare branches were remained on the pear trees, I felt like I had arrived at the Peachland
already. Openspace Bae is an art space on a small hill with its space open to worldwide artists. All artists are welcome here to freely create and contemplate in the nature… Bae provides residency space
for artists, with pear forest as its backyard and the sky as its natural screen. More importantly, there
is no more artificial hills in Bae, and trees are not surrounded by concrete. So naturally, we heard thesound of the nature.
…It was my pleasure to collaborate with one of the Korean artists, KIM Dae Hong, as well as to do
performance art for my first time. KIM Dae Hong, who always keeps an eye on little substance in life,
noticed that no matter where a garbage bag is located, it is always neglected. Similar to the garbage
bag, grass-roots class in the society is always neglected in a flourishing age. KIM Dae Hong decided towalk into the world of garbage bags, and spoke for garbage bags by his special body language. The
work itself is not merely bringing out the contemporary issue, but also highlighting the relationshipbetween environment, people and objects. People play different roles, bear different responsibilities
or have different reactions in different situations. During the performance, when a living garbage bag
manifests itself in public space, no matter if the audience members react or not, a strong contrast
between the movements of the garbage bag and audience was already formulated. Either the contrast
between the dynamic and static statuses, or the coincident symmetry between the two, implies a magical universe, which always creates surprises without intentional arrangement.
…Problems, such as rapid urban development and high rental prices, are everywhere including Busanand Kam Tin. However, different groups of people with fully devotion have been endeavoring for life,
art and future. For exampls, artists from B space and Bae in Busan, and Kam Tin are taking actions tosave their ideal world.
Moreover, I think a balance system should take place in the society. Human beings, the ecological system or environment all should practice according to the existing structures. Existing structures do notrefer to a set of fixed standards. Instead, the structures would vary according to the ratio of different
related factors. For instance, urban cities should coexist with the nature, but should not occupy all theland for urban development. Or, the population density should be adjusted with the consideration of
the environment. The final decision should be based on humanistic values, not the capitalistic ones. It
is difficult to deny the fact that human beings bear ugliness, like greed and dis-honesty. Self-sufficiency,
beyond doubt, can provide us a fully free living-style because we would not be restricted by too muchexternal interference. I think the pre-requisite of a self-sufficient community is self-consciousness ofeach individual in the system. People should control their desires, be willing to protect and respect
others’ and community’s values with their conscientiousness. Otherwise, peachland could only be an
excuse to escape from responsibilities. Therefore, I think conscientiousness is the key that helps sustain
harmonious human relationships in a community.

「了解」是一種人生態度 (節錄) ― 吳詠心
The Urge to Understand — The Attitude in Life
By NG Wing Sum (Angel)…在 Open Space Bae 交流時，知道釜山當地有著不同的藝術組織，各著重於不同的藝術領域，歷
史有長有短，有長達數以十年計。而在第四天參觀的藝術組織 (B)，即使因為業主收回物業而失去了原來的聚集地後，仍然不放棄，改以遊擊的方式，由集中變為分散，分佈在社區中不同角落，融入在社區之中。雖然分散，但聯系仍舊，以另一種方式增加著對社區的影響力。這行程中，最令我關注的是兩地的藝術工作者之生活態度和兩地的城市發展空間問題，而前者也是我在回到香港之後，在錦田的生活館跟隨勞麗麗時所體會最深的。
…從第一天到錦田生活館，和勞麗麗一起下田，在此之前以為久住屯門對田園也算是有一兩分了解的我，發現到自己其實一無所知。在整個三月，每一次到生活館，我都按捺不住自己的好奇心，不停地發問，渴望了解更多。而隨著時間漸逝，本來對農務笨拙的我也漸漸開始上手，對各種作物丶
野草等也多了幾分了解，也了解到為何麗麗他們要在生活館當農夫。正如在過程當中，麗麗對我們說的「了解」是基礎，對一樣事物有所了解才會信任，有所了解才會堅持。我們做農務、以田中剩食做餐點給展覽當時前來的人吃也是希望令人了解，從書上丶文字上看是不足夠，只有親身經歷過才會真真正正地明白當中的細節、當中的原由。
…就像種田一樣，當我們有種子，這是一個機會，也要有泥土丶養份等資源，然後我們就需要一個
地方去安放他們，讓時間給予成長的空間。最後是我們的態度，我們要了解自己和自己在做的事，
才會知道我們想要建立一個怎樣的「桃花源」…

…During the cultural exchange with Openspace Bae, I learnt that the art organizations in Busan had
different specialized areas and I also learnt about their history in the art field. The art organization, “B,”that we visited on the fourth day insisted in continuing their work even after the owner of the property
retrieved their previous building. They reopened their shops and studios in different areas within thecommunity. Although the locations of these shops are spreaded around, they are adapting a new
way to continue their influence in the community. What caught my attention the most during the tour
include the attitude of the artists and issues about the capacity for urban development. The particular
attitude in life turns out to be what impress me the most in the second half of the project, when working with Natalie LO at Sangwoogoon.
…When working in the farm, I could not stop being extremely curious because everything in the farmis very new to me. I kept asking Natalie questions to learn as much as possible. After a month, I am
more skillful in cooking and farming. Also, I have a deeper understanding of Natalie’s purpose in beinga farmer in Sangwoodgoon. As Natalie have said, “understanding” is fundamental. You have to understand all the details, before you believe in what you are doing and insist in doing so continuously. The
purpose of being a farmer, to prepare and serve meals to visitors is to help others to understand more.
The only way to obtain understanding is to experience throughout the process. This is actually very
similar with what we have observed in the artist-run workshops and cafe in Busan, which is to encourage people to experience the details by themselves. Since the process of understanding and mutual
influence toward arts and community is slow, “sincerity” is essential to touch others from one’s heart.
…It is like farming. Having seeds alone would not be enough. Soil and nutrition is needed for thecrops to grow. Space must be provided also, to let the plant stretch its branches and grow in the way
it wants. Last but not least, our attitude is essential. We have to understand what we are doing andunderstand ourselves, so that we know what kind of utopia land we long for, and how to achieve it.
Such a unique utopia land cannot be achieved without persistence.

50
51

尋找桃花源 (節錄) ― 司徒玉婷Searching for Peach-Land (excerpt)
By SZETO Yuk Ting, Sita

relationship between different experiences of agriculture and food, such as agriculture, organic farming and the difficulties of farming in Hong Kong. What’s more, food is derived from soil which is thefundamental of food. On the farmland of Kam Tin, as art placed on soil, our actions and performances,such as cooking also can be a form of art. Through the various practices, we can present and expresswith a sense we want.

…我們拜訪 Bae 之時，正是當地藝術家 KIM Won Jung 的展覽，展期為一個月，並於二月至三月進行。當日，KIM Won Jung 亦親身為我們介紹了她的展覽和作品，其主題是探討人類和農作物之間的關係為主，在展覽中可看見有數十盆盆栽擺放着，有的在桌上有的在地上，每盆盆栽也是獨立
且不同的，而這些盆栽所用的托盤全是沒有用，執拾回來的盤子和飯碗。而在展覽的中間有一級級
階梯向下行，在盡頭有些稻草，稻草上擺放着一個枕頭和些少石頭，寓意着人類，食物和大自然之間的關係。
…在錦田計劃中，我到達藝術家勞麗麗工作的生活館，進行一些農務，包括清除雜草、移植植物、播種等，並且制作剩食食物。就剩食食物方面，我們的概念是透過利用田裏沒有人要的蔬果來制
作食物，例如是一些因較遲收割而過熟的蔬菜，因為通常農夫對於這類的農作物，既不能賣出但又沒有多大用途，故此大多都是棄掉它們的，我們認為其實這些農作物仍是可以利用和吃的，不應浪
費它們。我們原是想弄剩食便當的，但最後考慮到便當的製作過程較為多工和複雜，且未必每人能
享用，故此最後改為弄剩食下午茶。我們所用的方法主要是醃製食物，因這方法可以令食物保存期
高，而且製作方便快捷。我們選用了蘿蔔，紅菜頭作為主要食材，並且最後弄成蔥油漬豆腐、茼蒿醬、芥蘭頭漬、廣東糖醋醃蘿蔔、辣漬紅菜頭葉、紅菜頭汁白蘿蔔漬等，在導賞團當天，我們還即場製作了印度薄餅和中式薄罉，每一個也是我們從自家搓發的麵團，再按壓成圓型薄片，最後放進
熱的煎鍋中煎熟，這樣便可配以漬物和醬一起食用。
同時我們希望能透過這次的下午茶，讓人們有更多不同的經驗去思考農業和食物之間的關係，例
如在香港的農業、有機耕作的日常和困難等，而食物本是源於泥土，是食物的根本。在錦田的農田
上，當藝術放置於泥土上，我們的行為甚至少是製作食物，也可以是藝術作品，透過這一種種手法，帶出我們想表達的意義。
…When we were at Bae, artist, KIM Won Jung had an exhibition there for a month from February to
March. Also, she was very nice to give us a tour to introduce her exhibition and works to us. The themeof her artworks was to explore the relationship between humans and nature. There were dozens of potted plants in the exhibition, and some of them were on the table, some of them were on the ground.
Every potted plant is different and independent. These bonsai trays all were useless and hence KIM
Won Jung tidied and picked them for placing the plants. What’s more, there was a stair for going down
to a small space. At the end of the ladder, there were some straws, some stones and a pillow. It was a
symbol of the relationship between humans, food and nature.
…In Kam Tin, I did the project with the Hong Kong local artist Natalie Lo in Sangwoodgoon. At there,
I did some agricultural tasks, such as weeding, transplanting plants, planting, and making use of theleftover food. Our concept was to use some leftover fruits and vegetables, which no one would buy
or want to serve a meal. For example, due to late harvest, vegetables cannot be sold. Most of themwould be discarded. We thought that actually all of them still are eatable, and we should not waste
them. First, we designed lunch boxes. However, by taking account of the production process and costfor lunch boxes, we decided to make afternoon tea instead. We mainly preserved the fruits, to makethe food more long-lasting. The production process is convenient. We chose the carrots, beetroots as
the main ingredients to make some greasy onion tofu (bean curd not homemade), fresh Tonghaosu
sauce, broccoli head stains, Guangdong sweet and sour pickled radish, spicy pickle beetroot leaves,
beetroot juice stains and others. For the days of the guided tours, we also made some India Naan andChinese Naan. Each Naan was from our own dough, being pressed into round slices, and then put into
hot frying pan. Finally, people could enjoy them with pickles and sauces together.
At the same time, we hoped that through the afternoon tea, people can have more ideas about the       冼秀眉 的 日誌
SIN Sau Mei’s Journal       梁金仲 的 日誌
LEUNG Kam Chung’s Art Journal

桃花「完」？ (節錄) ― 余仲晞
The “End” of the In Search of the Peachland program?
By YU Chung Hei (Heidi)…印象最深刻的，是旅程第四天中到了釜山大學與當地藝術系學生進行交流。我們嶺南大學視覺
研究系的學生主要修讀一些理論性的課程，故這次能與一些藝術系的韓國學生交流，是一次難忘的經歷。我們各自分享了雙方的學系學習情況，他們亦展示了他們不同的作品，最後我們更在學校
飯堂內一起用午膳！那間飯堂位處於一個充滿大樹的環境，就像身處於樹林中野餐，這是香港校
園中難以體會到的事。
…我們這一組並沒有特定的創作範圍，而我們的首次見面是延續釜山時上的「香港藝術」課堂，遊走了港島的藝術空間。然後，則到訪了錦田，而我亦重新認識了「錦上路」這個地方…而我們最後決定於錦莆路旁橋底進行地景藝術創作。我的作品是透過不同水潭形狀的鏡面紙張來展現地面上也能出現「天空」的景象。而觀眾看到的，將會是他們到訪的時間所呈現的獨特的天空。儘管我的作品於導賞那兩天因天氣因素未能展現到藍天，儘管我的作品現在已被沖走……但這是我人生第一次進行地景藝術的創作，透過鏡面和天空的混合，我重新暸解到這個世界是充滿
無限可能性。…這次計劃完結了，我追尋自己理想世界這條路—「一直忠於自己，做自己想做的事」
仍未結束。
52
53

…Meeting art students in Busan University was my most remarkable experience. Visual Studies
students from Lingnan University often focused on theories. Therefore, we wanted to learn more from
Korean art students about how they practice arts. We showed our art works and shared our learning
experience with each other. We even had lunch in campus canteen together! It felt like going panic
in a forest because of giant trees surrounding the canteen. It is not something can be experienced in
Hong Kong definitely.
…One of my precious memories was a lesson about Hong Kong arts. Taught by artist, TANG Kwok
Hin, I learned a lot more about current Hong Kong art industry. In fact, Hin taught us the current art
development and different ways to make arts.
…In the end, we decided to make a piece of land art in Kam Tin. I want the audience to see a uniquereflection of the sky – a fragment of sky that only belongs to themselves. I showed that the ground
could also be “sky” seen through mirrors in different organic shapes. Even though my work could notreflect the sky due to the bad weather, it was still my first time ever working on land art. Mixing themirrors and sky helped me to see the infinite possibility of our world. …The end of the program came,but my search for my true-self still has a long way to go…

藝術，社區和後桃花源 (節錄) ― 朱穎楠
Art, Community and ‘In Search of the Peachland’ (excerpt)
By CHU Wing Nam (Nancy)
在那短短的幾天裏，我印象最深刻同時也讓我反思得特別多的，是甘川文化村。這是我第二次去文
化村，跟第一次去時的感受很不一樣。第一次去的時候覺得文化村十分有藝術氣息，因為到處都是壁畫和一些小裝飾，即使是一些不起眼的角落裏也有精緻的圖案，居民所住的房子都是五顏六色的。整個文化村讓我十分興奮，全是漂亮的壁畫。
這一次，我顯然沒有上一次的雀躍，但同行的同學像我上次那樣興奮，不停地照相。我對各種壁畫雖說不上是反感或討厭，但總有無聊、鬱悶的感覺，還產生「有什麼值得照相」的想法，但周圍卻有很多遊客在照相。是因為那些壁畫的內容很有趣很漂亮嗎？還是壁畫上的繪畫技巧很高？還是因
為跟壁畫有某種關係或產生共鳴？我無法給自己一個完美答案。之後我穿過大大小小的樓梯，嘗
試走進一些小巷，穿插於民居中，想要走一些上一次沒走過的路。我發現，在很多的屋子外牆或門前都沒有壁畫，只有一些小小的盆栽，或者一些晾著的衣服，很顯然，沒什麼人到那裡逛或照相，即使有，也是幾個在查看地圖，尋找出名景點的遊客。這才是一個社區的本來面，沒有了壁畫包
裝，文化村只是一個普通的村莊而已。
在這個被譽為「韓國聖托裏尼」的藝術村莊裏，看似一切都充滿藝術氣氛，但實際上，這種藝術不是由心而發的，而是為創作而創作的，這樣的藝術很多時候都經不起考驗。我不能說甘川文化村裏
沒有藝術，村莊裏的壁畫在我看來勉強稱得上是藝術，但不是社區藝術。我無法得知當初藝術家們
和當地居民一起打造這個文化村的目的是什麼，唯一可以肯定的是，居民們同意這樣的決定，用色
彩來裝扮村莊，用藝術來包裝社區。雖然這個色彩斑斕的村莊吸引了無數遊客，並被他們視為「藝術」村，對我來說，這種藝術其實很表面…充斥著商業意味多於藝術…在錦田寫生的時候，我認真觀察了很多不起眼的花草，例如一顆小草牢牢地長在石縫中、鐵網上纏滿了樹根和葉子、被人踐踏的花朵，當我細心看著它們的時候，似乎對它們產生了一種感情，這種感情是什麼，我很難說清，但總有一種想要記錄下這一刻的它們和我的感受，於是我畫下了這些
可人的花草。…我一直認為藝術可以引領人多方面地思考，使人能反省社會和自身，甚至是改變人的處世態度和價值觀。每人天生都有發現美好事物的本領，只需要一個介體去把本領激發出來，
而我願意做這個介體。

…I was very impressed by Ganchuan
Culture Village, which led me rethinkprofoundly. This was my second time
to Ganchuan Culture Village and gave
me a completely different feeling comparing to my first visit. When I visitedthe village for the first time, I thought
the village had great art atmospherebecause beautiful murals and decorations could be seen everywhere. There
were exquisite designs at different
obscure corners in particular streets,
while many residents lived in colorfulhouses. The Culture Village was as
dreamy as fairytale scenes that mademe extremely excited.
This time, I was not eager to lookaround and take photos but myschoolmates were as excited as meduring my first visit. I was not disgusted and annoyed by murals but felt
bored and dulled. I wondered why
so many people were interested in
the village and so many tourists weretaking photos there. Is it because of
the interesting and beautiful contents
in the murals? Is it because of the great
painting skill? Is it because of certain
dialogs being created between themurals and visitors? I could not give朱穎楠 繪  By CHU Wing Nam
myself a perfect answer. I wanted to
explore different places so I passed
through different staircases to discover various alleys and find many normal houses in the residential
area. Around this area, I realized that, instead of murals and decorations, there were only some small
potted plants and hanging clothes outside the houses. Even passers-by around the corner would notstay long, but were searching for other touristic spots on their maps. This is the real and normal part ofthe village.
Ganchuan Culture Village is known as the ‘Korean Santorini’. It seems everything is artistic. I do notknow why artists and residents want to paint the walls and decorate the village. The only certainty
is that they are using colors to adorn the wall, using art to embellish the community. Although thecolorful village attracts many tourists who may consider it as ‘art’ village, the arts here seem to bequite superficial and tourist-business oriented. Those paintings become representatives of the culturalvillage. In the end, visitors focus on tourist spots but not the community or art itself.
…In Kam Tin, I carefully observed and sketched many unrecognized plants such as grass, root and wild
flowers. I had strong feelings about these plants when I earnestly looked at them. It is difficult to describe the feeling but I had an urge to record those plants and my feeling at that moment. I particularly
paid attention to lines, colors and shadow of the plants. I was amazed because of the greatness andcharm of nature. Meanwhile, I felt ashamed of myself for having ignored these beautiful things all thetime. Through the communication with plants, I found art in life and discover life through art.
…In my viewpoints, art can lead people to think deeply and arouse people’s awareness on society andtheir own. Everyone has an instinct to figure out what beauty is, but there must be a mediator to spark
off such an instinct. I am willing to be the mediator.

54
55

桃花源的尋覓與實踐 (節錄) ― 吳鎮杰
Finding and realizing the “Peachland” (excerpt)
By NG Chun Kit, Andy
OpenSpace Bae，是位於崎嶇的山嶺之巔，但卻遠離繁囂，即使我們參觀當天，亦需要經過一段攀
山涉水的驚險路程。… 它的工作室居高臨下，背後又被比茂密的樹林包圍，彷如與大自然共生似的。而當中最令我印象深刻的，就是當值展覽期間的藝術品，它們可謂我的桃花源的「引路石」。有一件藝術品，是以不同高度的草本植物，以不同高度的桌子擺放，最終令它們擁有一致的高度。以此象徵社會上不同的人都能平等地生存，這不就是桃花源中，各人各司其職、又能平等對待對方的
理想生活嗎?
…蓋建旱廁…是各人同心合力的成果。例如第一天開墾田地時，全賴一眾藝術工作者們幫忙搬運
雜物及木材；開始搭建旱廁時，呀喜和呀欣憑著專業的知識，提供了很大合適的建議，並教授了我
很多不同的木工技巧；在後期工程時間倉卒之際，亦有不少修讀美術的學生助我們一臂之力，加速了工程進度。以上種種，已經體現了旱廁除了一個建築物外的藝術價值，呈現出「桃花源」生活中
各人同心合力的成果。旱廁計劃中，真正由我們同學全盤負責的，可說是「旱廁特飲」了。我們把不同的飲料，如檸檬汽水、蜂蜜雪梨茶、冰紅茶等，混合調配成「旱廁特飲」。結果反應熱烈，人們最初對它的顏色十分忌諱，不太敢喝。但一喝之下，卻發現味道極佳。由此可見，人們通常對多元文化
的新事物感到抗拒，往往侷限了自己的生活態度。「桃花源」亦是如此，假若人人都對它持有信心，
願意踏出第一步，必定能為「桃花源」的實踐作出貢獻。…
…Openspace Bae is located at the top of rugged hills... It is away from the hustle and bustle, eventhough we need to go through a period of mountaineering wading thrilling journey before arrival.
For example, we past through the dark sewers, crossed the streams, and climbed many steps on themajestic hill. Its studios are surrounded by woods in the nature. What impressed me the most is theexhibition at Bae, which inspired my own ‘peachland’. There was an artwork, made by herbs withdifferent heights. Sitting on top of different tables in different heights, those herbs obtained the same
ultimate height. It showed that different people, with assistance, could survive on social equality. It isthe ‘peachland’ in my mind, where everyone carries out his/her ideas and duties, and at the same time
respects others ideals.
…the artistic value of the composting toilet … is not only (about) a building. The working process
shows the idea of ‘peachland’ which consists of concerted efforts of everyone.…“Composting Toilet’s
Special Drink” was a projet taken up solely by the students. We put different drinks, such as lemonade,honey-pear tea, iced tea together and mixed up the “Composting Toilet’s Special Drink.” The resultof it was very nice. People were fear of it because of its color. They did not dare to drink. However,after drinking, they found its taste to be excellent. People often have resistance toward new things
and, therefore, are confined to their own realm of values. The attitude toward the idea of peachland
is similar to this situation also. If everyone has enough confidence or courage to take up the first step,then h/she will be able to contribute to the realization of the ‘peachland’.

       吳鎮杰 的 日誌
Ng Chu Kit’s Journal       司徒玉婷 的 日誌
SZETO Yuk Ting’s Journal       冼秀眉 的 日誌
SIN Sau Mei’s Journal

後桃花源與「K計劃」的藝術元素 (節錄)‘In Search of the Peachland’ and the art elements in ‘K Project’ (excerpt)
by HO Shu Ting, Hanna― 何舒婷「K計劃」是由擔泥與和張景威的一個合作項目，由於錦田的社群令他們親身體驗鄰里互助精神的可貴，促使他們也希望能以一己所長貢獻社區。當我們知道附近的生活館需要建一所旱厠時，我們都被旱厠這種建築背後的象徵意義吸引。試想像當我們所建的厠所不再是排污系統眾多入口的一個，而是盛載土地需要的容器。跟農鄉生活一樣，旱厠所代表的不應是落後、簡陋或臨時，更應
代表永續的生活態度。當經營順利，「收成」之時，我們將可以出品「旱厠菜」、「旱厠果醬」、「旱厠酒」等，與將日常生活和土地割裂的香港人分享桃花源土壤旳甘甜。
生活館的旱廁不僅是一個別具功能性和改革意念的設施，也是一個大型的藝術品代表著一些重要
的信息和態度。杜尚的著名藝術作品噴泉的照片被我們掛在旱廁上，也是旱廁的靈魂之一，關連著
這個計劃的藝術和象徵意義。噴泉在1917展出於在紐約的大皇宮中央，它不但是一個非常具有爭
議性的藝術品，更被廣泛視為是二十世紀藝術上的圖標。當時杜尚為了表達他對藝術史不滿和疑問，提到兩個重要的問題，一是藝術的創作過程是否重要，而另一點是甚麼時間是藝術。噴泉是他
從超級市場買回家的一個現成廁所，然後在這現成物上簽署，並聲稱這是他的藝術作品。可是，噴泉的出現引起極大的爭議，一些反對者認為技術是藝術創作的一個十分重要元素，然而這個作品
只是一個現成的產品，並沒有足夠的藝術價值和意義，而且廁所的象徵意義和概念也是挑戰著長久以來對藝術的定義。事實上，噴泉的確存在著許多藝術的價值。杜尚曾說噴泉的出現是為了轉變一直根深柢固觀念，從著重實體的作品遷移到思想、概念的詮釋，例如噴泉彷彿在邀請觀眾在廁
所上小便般，這個邀請也吸引了一些藝術家如瑞典行為藝術家比昂·基爾托夫特、法國行為藝術家
皮耶·皮農切利進行小便和攻擊。
噴泉具有深層次的藝術的價值，而生活館的旱廁亦同時存在其藝術意義和價值。第一，外觀設計。
生活館的旱廁設計有別於典型的鄉村房屋，如棚屋、鐵皮屋等簡陋的外型，我們希望旱廁有著一個較現代的外型，甚至能成為當地的地標，不代表落後、簡陋或臨時，而且一個新的概念和生活態度。例如旱廁的外型呈三角錐體，彷彿指著一個方向，而且木材的材料和質感使它更融入大自然的氣息當中。另外，門前設有一個寬敞的平台，以及特色的窗戶，讓使用者能夠欣賞和感受田園的風光。可見，旱廁在建築和結構的設計上，具有其藝術價值和美感，有別於平常所看到的廁所或臨時
房屋。
56
57

此外，旱廁的概念亦是一個概念藝術。一些特別的想法或概念是概念藝術中最重要的元素，然後利用一些工具來達到其目的。在這個計劃中，我們嘗試尋找旱厠這種建築背後的象徵意義，跟農鄉生活一樣，旱厠所代表的不應是落後、簡陋或臨時，更應代表永續的生活態度。因此我們希望透
過這件作品表達這種新概念來改變市民根深柢固的想法，縱使我們沒有辦法大量興建旱厠，但都想透過旱厠給我們的啓示，轉化成一個符號，用藝術計劃傳遞。
除此之外，關係美學和參與性美學也是旱厠的主要藝術元素之一。關係美學和參與性美學能使在觀眾直接參與到藝術創作過程中，讓他們加入，並體驗藝術作品。例如我們鼓勵市民使用生活館
的旱厠，並體驗它的系統運作。由於旱厠能把人類排泄物中的營養物質收集並發酵成養份，成為農
田的肥料，幫助有機耕作，因此市民的使用成為了環保的行動，間接增加市民體驗旱厠的次數，而這些參與性和互動是其藝術的價值之一。

Moreover, the relational and participatory aesthetics is also the major art factors of our compositing
toilet. It is a method to making art in which the audience is engaged directly in the creative process, allowing them to join and experience the artwork. Our composting toilet engages audiences to use andexperience the system of it. The actions of using the composting toilet contribute to the farmlands in
Sangwoodgoon because composting toilet can capture the nutrients in human excreta and change tothe fertilizer. Hence, the interactions of the audiences show the relational and participatory aesthetics
in this composting toilet.

…“Project K”, which is coordinated with the Mudwork and Reds CHEUNG, who want to provide
meaningful contributions to the community in Kam Tin because of the friendliness in the village. When
we are told that Sangwoodgoon need a composting toilet, we are interested in helping them andfinding out the significance and meaning behind it. Imagine that our toilet is no longer just an entranceof the sewage system, it can also be a container that holds the necessities of the land. Similar to rurallife, instead of representing laggard, primitiveness and temporariness, composting toilet should besymbolizing the attitude of sustainable development. Upon harvesting, we are expected to produce
vegetables, jam and wine. In this way, we can share our fruits with Hong Kong citizens, who live inurban areas and rarely get in touch with farmland.
Not only a useful and reformed facility in Sangwoodgoon, but our composting toilet is also a huge
artwork that delivers some important messages and attitudes. A case in point is the Fountain, which is
the most popular artworks of Marcel Duchamp, the aesthetic and symbolic meaning is similar to ourcomposting toilet in Kam Tin. Fountain is an extremely controversial artwork at the Grand Central Palace in New York in 1917 and widely seen as an icon of twentieth-century art. Duchamp expressed his
discontented feeling to the art history and mentioned two important issues, which was considering theimportant of making art and the time of art. He bought a ready-mades toilet from the supermarket andsigned his signature on it. Therefore, it caused amounts of controversy when he brought this artwork
to the Grand Central Palace. Some opponents asserted that this is not an artwork since technique isan important factor of making art but fountain just is a ready-mades product. It did not have enoughaesthetic and meaningful values of it. Consequently, Fountain posed a conceptual challenge by theready-mades product and the symbolic meaning of the toilet. However, there was still having many art
values in this artwork. Duchamp expressed that the purpose of his artwork is want to change the idea
and focus from the entity to the ideological interpretation of works. His artwork seems to invite the audiences to urinate at the fountain and this invitation attracted some performance Artist such as Pierre
Pinoncelli and Björn Kjelltoft to make art.
Considering the art value and history of this example, it is easier to find out the art values and meanings of our composting toilet. First, unlike the typical housing in the village such as squatter shacks
and metal shacks, the design of our composing toilet is quite modern and aesthetic. For example,
the appearance of the composing toilet looks like a triangle and points at a direction. The composing
toilet also provides a wide platform in front of the door and a window for users to view the landscapeof the farmlands. It shows the aesthetic of the design and structure in this building and different with
the normal toilets in the villages.
In addition, the concept of this composting toilet is also a conceptual art. The idea or concept is themost important aspect of the work in conceptual art and this idea becomes a machine that makes theart. In this project, we are trying to operate the symbolic meaning behind composting toilet. Similar torural life, instead of representing laggard, primitiveness and temporariness, composting toilet should
be symbolizing the attitude of sustainable development. Therefore, we want to though this artwork
to express the new concept of composting toilet and use this idea to change the citizen’s thoughts.
Even though we cannot build a great number of composting toilets, we would still like to deliver themessage with the help of the art.

劉慧兒 的 日誌LAU Wai Yi’s Journal

在後桃花源看到的藝術家 (節錄) ― 劉慧兒
The artists in the Peachland (excerpt)
By LAU Wai Yi (Winnie)…藝這個名詞，藝術這個稱謂，是我在實習期間最想理解的。
…全職藝術家鄧國騫說，藝術家有很多種，包括以藝術之名的人，或者以生活為本的人。在我看來，鄧國騫既是以藝術之名，又是以生活為本的人。因為他是全職藝術家。全職藝術家為了生活，
也要通過售賣藝術品或參加某些活動去賺取金錢，維持生活。這也許就是他所說的，生活中，魔鬼的一面。我認為這是可以理解的。鄧國騫又說他靠的還有運氣。他說畢業後，人們便稱他為藝術家。他又說畢業後，便有師弟找他參與展覽。於是，他便開始了作為藝術家的生活。因此，要成為藝術家，靠的除了實力外，人脈與運氣似乎也是重要的。但是，像鄧國騫這樣的藝術家算窮嗎？只聽說過他的作品價值不菲。
…在釜山與錦田的交流，除了藝術這個名詞與藝術家這個稱謂的問題，桃花源又是一個問題。…釜山的花草幸福嗎？被藝術家看上，在展覽中充當主角，在室內得到無微的照顧。花草在展覽中似是58
59

有價值可言，但展覽場可是屬於花草們的桃花源？在錦田，人們沒有留意那四棵有缺口的樹，它們
不是主角。但它們卻在大自然中自然地成長著，與釜山看到的展覽品確是不同。每天乘搭64K的人
覺得那只是普通的樹，沒有特別的。有的人甚至不曾留意它們的存在。我想，大概是彼此間沒有情感交流，沒有相處經歷，才會否定樹的價值。
到錦田寫生當天，由下車走到錦田市街，看見睡在馬路旁邊較為年邁的狗，在焗促的店內聽著收音
機的士多老闆，坐在護養院走廊上閉目養神的老伯伯，帶著小朋友上學的人，踩著單車的行人……
如果說這裡是他們的桃花源，他們會是點頭還是一笑置之？但如果你問我，我會說這裡與我家鄉
的生活差不多，也就是和我所想的桃花源差不多。
我的桃花源裝載著我的童年回憶。想不到那個自小住在錦田，年紀與我相約的男孩，卻全不留意他
附近的，那四棵有缺口的樹，更別說喜歡了。現在，住在十一樓的我，就像釜山的花草，也快忘掉家鄉的生活，家鄉的那棵樹，那棵不知名的樹。

Passengers think the fours trees are nothing special and some even do not know the existence of thetrees. In my opinion, the lack of communication and experience are the main reasons for passengers tonegate the value of the trees.
When we went to do sketches in Kam Tin, we saw an old dog, an old man, a store shopkeeper andpassersby. If I said Kam Tin is their dreamland, would they agree? But if you ask me, I would say Kam
Tin is like my life in my hometown.
For me, dreamland should be real. My hometown is my dreamland which is not fictitious. I experienced
my childhood there and met friends. There are trees and the sea that I like. In my mind, I know thefeeling of living there and the feeling of leaving there. Then, I would notice that this place is my dreamland. I would pay attention to the tree in front of my house in hometown. I think it is special. I would
take a rest and play under the tree. My dreamland is a place that recalls my memory of my childhood.
It is unbelievable that the boy who lives in Kam Tin never notice the existence of the four special trees.
Now, I live on the 11th floor. I think I am just like the flowers and plants in Busan.

The meaning of Art and Artist, …become the topic that I am interested in…
…A full-time artist TANG Kwok Hin (Hin) said, there are many kinds of artists, including those who bear
the name of artists for whatever reasons, or those who rely on arts for a living. In my opinion, Hin is
both, as he is a full-time artist. Full-time artists have to sell their artworks or teach workshops for earning a living. Perhaps that is what he meant by the devil side in our lives. It is understandable. Moreover,Hin said that he is lucky to be able to be an artist. After graduation, people called him ‘artist’ and oneof his junior fellow schoolmates asked him to join an exhibition. Hin, therefore, started his life as an artist. In this manner, strength is needed to be an artist, but personal network and luck is also important.
However, is this kind of artist poor? I heard that his artworks are valuable.
…Art the flowers and plants happy in Busan? There were the main characters in the exhibition and taken care by an artist. They seem valuable, but is the exhibition centre there dreamland? In Kam Tim, no
one would pay attention to the four trees with a breach. The trees are not the main characters. However, they are growing up in the nature which are different from the items on display in Busan’s exhibition.

劉慧兒 的 日誌  LAU Wai Yi’s Journal

後桃花源記之感想 (節錄) ― 李朗儀
In Search of the Peachland Project – Reflective Essay (excerpt)
By LEE Long Yi (Rachel)…回到香港也象徵著我們和各位藝術家合作創作的開端。我有幸能在一個月間，和韓國藝術家金美英合作，她是釜山人，在首爾讀書，過去的藝術創作主要為雕塑和利用視覺上的錯覺而製成的。
我認爲我們之間的交流更像文化交流，而不是單單的藝術交流。不過我並不覺得可惜，反而樂在其中。和她合作，給予我一個機會去了解一個藝術家的創作過程。從獲得靈感到基本概念，再到製作
過程以及最後的成品。…在此以後，我發現其中的過程與製成品一樣有趣。我最享受了解藝術家如
何得到靈感，那令我們明白他們的構想和表達。這給我們空間去思考、去期待成品的面貌，而不只
是在看過藝術品後再了解藝術家的用意和心境。另外一個與外國藝術家工作的獨特之處是，語言的隔膜會令創作更困難。加上藝術本來就是主觀、難以交流，使過程變得蠻有挑戰性。幸好的是，
利用著一點韓語，一點英語，配合著身體語言，我們還是越過了難關。現在回想著我們曾經的努力和嘗試，不單是有趣更是鼓舞。如同我們最後的展覽，能讓自己看到和向別人展現我們過去幾個
星期的努力成果都使我們滿足和有成就感。即使我們可能未能有效的把想分享的都傳達給有去展覽的人們，至少我們盡力了，而他們大部分也對我們的努力給予正面的回應。
Coming back to Hong Kong marked the beginning of our respective projects with the artists. I worked
together with Miyoung KIM for one month. She is from Busan, studied in Seoul, previous artworks are
sculpture and optical illusions oriented. It has been more of a cultural exchange than an art exchange.
However, I am glad about it and I honestly enjoyed it a lot. Working with her, gave us a chance toobserve how an artist does art. We were exposed to her progress from inspiration to initial basic ideas,then to the making of art and finally, the product. If not for this program, we would always be onlookers
who only see the last part of a piece of art. Which I have to admit is, every part of the making of art is
as interesting as the product. I myself enjoy learning about the inspiration of the artist the most. It lets
you know what the artists thinks about and wants to express about, it gives spaces for you to imagine
and anticipate how the final piece is going to look like, instead of learning about the ideas after
viewing the artwork. Another thing about working with an international artist is that, art is originallysomething subjective and hard to communicate. Then, you also have this language barrier to make it
more challenging. However, we managed to get pass that using some Korean, some English and bodygestures. Now thinking back to those efforts we made to communicate and make things work wassomething really interesting and rewarding. So as the exhibition, being able to see and be remindedof what we have been doing in the pass few weeks have been satisfying. Although, we may not be able
to effectively communicate all of our ideas to people who came to the exhibition, at least we tried andmost of them seemed to enjoy that.

60
61

美好只止於嚮往? (節錄) ― 萬綺麗垃圾Beauty and grace is only in utopia? (excerpt)
By MAN Yee Lai (Ella)

Garbage or art? … Reality or Utopia? (excerpt)
By SIN Sau Mei (Simmy)

桃花源在香港看似遙不可及，藝術家鄧國騫更說香港是沒有桃花源。…生活館…中一位(工作者)更說
他因不能忍受城市的生活而搬到錦田，他視為避世。社會失衡，市民不滿，近期發生的事件是否證明
香港沒有美好的一面，漸漸吹向互相指責的情況？香港人一向健忘，容易接受新事物，亦容易忘記。
激情過後，香港人又再回到舊有的生活習慣。

…於當代藝術，垃圾袋可能是藝術品嗎？我們到過Art Basel，想要為垃圾袋買一個VIP的身分，我們走進垃圾膠袋，想要走進場，保安人員為我們指引路線，可是整個行為藝術的表演走過入口便被策劃單位中止了，垃圾袋也被收藏(沒收)好了，以防垃圾袋在場館內再鬧事。既然無法成為藝術，我們繼續為垃圾袋尋找別的身分。走過錦田的西鐵站、巴士站、垃圾堆、生活館，我們找到了會耐心地靜聽它潛藏深處聲音的觀眾。在他們面前，垃圾袋不再是垃圾，而是一個會說話、會跳舞、有情感、實實在在的一個獨立個體。垃圾袋的生命很有限，數場表演過後，垃圾袋不再手舞足蹈，安份地走進垃圾堆裡。好一些有長生不老之術，不會被陽光或自然分解。可是它們沒有身份，也沒有靈魂，拖著不會老的軀體賴著－賴著。大洪認為垃圾袋正是城市人的寫照，在沉悶又單一的工作與生活下，我們不又是尋尋覓覓，努力尋找自我身份的肯定與價值？作為港人，我們常有迷思，不斷地遊走於英國殖民與中國人之間。除此以外，我們還可以是什麼呢？

…Hong Ti Art Center 的負責職員帶我們參觀中心，和一位藝術家的工作室。她講述自己到外國讀
書，見到的文化與風情。我感受到她樂於分享自己的經驗、與我們對話。與她傾談可以見到自己渺
小，人生經驗不足。她的說話令我記起一位老人家說的話。他說我們青年人缺乏經驗，應該到不同地
方去感受，吸收經驗。世界那麼大，我們只屬於其中小生物，好多事物未必能親身體驗。但只要有一個經驗能深入腦海，這個經驗足以影響你對世界的看法。
…在一次戶外寫生活動，我們邀請了兩位韓國藝術家同行。…寫生的時候更聽到鳥類的叫聲、微微的
風聲，這些聲音都是我們常常忽略的。平日生活節奏急速的香港人，應到郊外感受這寧靜的土地。香
港的美好可能是這美好的天然資源，而兩位韓國藝術家不認為香港會有這樣的景色。他們十分喜歡
下白泥。常常困在城市中，有時會遺忘了城市以外的風光，出外走走便會發現更多值得注視的地方。
…最後，我們選擇以地景藝術作為回應錦田這地方。錦田位於近郊地區，有不少市民在新界地區耕
作。…我的地景藝術是模擬真實農地，帶出人類要珍惜大自然給予的資源。我利用明渠附近的閒置空
間上的泥土堆成一條長條狀模仿農地泥土，再利用本身地上有的植物作為農地上生長的植物。同時，我收集樹葉、花朵、枯葉放在農地上帶出大自然給予我們生命與死亡。創作地景藝術時間正值中午，當日天氣炎熱，我完全感受到農夫耕作的辛勞。我手拿工具，彎著腰，把泥土推起來。…
…Peachland may seem distant in Hong Kong and the artist TANG Kwok-hin said Hong Kong is no utopia… One of them (from Sangwoodgoon) said he could not tolerate city life, so he moved to Kam Tin.
Social imbalance, public dissatisfaction with recent events proves that Hong Kong is going into a darkera. Hong Kong people can quickly adjusted to new things and also easy to forget. Hong Kong people
will continue to live with their old habits after a series of enthusiastic movements.
…The staff from Hong Ti Art Center took us to visit her center and an artist’s studio nearby. She shared
her experience when she studied overseas, and her thoughts about western culture and customs. I
could feel her happiness when listening to her. Her sharing made me feel myself being so insufficientin many ways. Her words reminded me an old man once told me, “Young people are lacked of experience. They should go to different places to feel and experience.” The world is so big. We are just small
creatures. Different experiences can affect your view about the world.
…During an outdoor sketching activity, we invited the two Korean artists to join us… It brings a quiet,
comfortable feeling to me, especially when I heard the sound of birds, and wind. These sounds areoften ignored in a crowded city… These natural resources are part of the beautiful aspects of HongKong. While the Korean artists did not believe that such a beautiful place existed in Hong Kong, they
were very fond of Ha Pak Nai. Being stuck in the city, one sometimes forgets about the rural scenery.
Once s/he returns back to the nature, s/he would be able to discover much.
…Finally, we have chosen land art as a response to Kam Tin, which is located in the suburbs, withsome people still farming… the idea of my work is to imitate a real farmland on empty space nearby asewage stream, to highlight nature and to cherish the resources we have. I collected the soil from theground and placed it in a straight line to imitate farmland… Also, I collected some flowers, leaves andplaced them in the scene to suggest that nature gives us life and death. It was at noon, when this landart piece was made. The weather was so hot that I totally felt the toil of farmers. I used tools to push up
the soil on the ground and my waist was stooping, like what farmers would do in farmland…

或藝術? 現實或理想? (節錄) ― 冼秀眉

再重新思索理想國度，以上經歷教我重新思考人與環境的關係，當中涉及兩大問題：一是自我身分
的肯定：我們到底怎樣看自己？二是對當下時代的批判：我們怎樣看所身處的環境？反觀我們正在經歷的時代，既是荒謬又是快樂的年代。面對大是大非，有時我們會忽然熱血，走出來抗爭抗命，但風波過後，我們又再回歸安逸快樂的日常生活之中。於今日社會環境下，我們難以仿傚陶淵明辭官歸古里，過著與世隔絕的歸隱生活。與其消極至此，不如積極求變。理想國度看似是個浪漫又毫不踏實的課題，但現實與理想國度其實是不分離的。現實實是前人敢於想像繼而勇於實踐下的產物。時代需
要進步，我們需要勇於想像，努力想辦法實踐出來，改變現狀，為未來建立更好的環境。
…Can garbage bag become art under the open context of contemporary art? In search of the identity,
we had a performance at the VIP entrance in Art Basel. Yet, the performance was terminated by theorganiser. It is also our honor that the garbage bag was also collected by Art Basel. We had several
performances in different places in Kam Tin such as MTR station, bus stop, and Sangwoogoon. Acted
differently from the organiser of art basel, the audience members in Kam Tin showed their respect andpatience to the whole performance. Garbage bag is no longer a rubbish, but a lively individual who isable to speak, dance and feel. Nevertheless, the lively garbage bag had very limited lifespan, it thencome back to the disposal sites after performance. Some plastic bags are biodegradable, however, thenon-degradable one would never be disappeared in the world. Daehong thought the garbage bag is
a metaphor for citizens who search for their own identities and existence in a stereotypical and boring
life. Hong Kong people are always confused about our own identity between Chinese and the Britishcolonised. Is there any other possibility other than these?
While rethinking about the dreamland, the experience in Busan and Kam Tin inspired me to think of
the relationship between human beings and the environment. There may be two possible questions:
The first one is “how do we perceive ourselves?”. The second one is “how do we review our times?”.
We have fallen on hard times in Hong Kong. Many of us came out and fought for justice and democracy. Then, we came back to the normal life very soon. It seems that nothing has happened. Under
the critical political and social context today, it is impossible for us to act like Tao coming back to thenature and live in seclusion. Actually, there is no contradiction between the reality and the utopia. An
English poet, William Blake said “what is now proved was once only imagined”. The reality was once
imagined by our ancestor who worked really hard to make their utopia come true. What we lack today
is the courage of imagination and dogged determination.

6263

劉慧兒 繪 By Lau Wai Yi

6465從反到本 重返到地
― 劉建華
（一）
…雖然「敘述」是這次展覽的總概念，但實際上它也是一個出發點，在受到時間和空間上所帶來的掣肘下，每件作品都發展出了一個新的方向。這個展覽打破了專題聯展的規則，摒棄了在一個嚴格的策展框架下委約藝術家創作「特定場域」(site-specific) 作品的慣例。
這次展覽在很大的程度上是一次練習的本質，嘗試在一個公營機構的機制中和陌生的環境下，透過提供所需要的資源，再配合開放度
和靈活性，進一步大規模地促成與呈現了每位藝術家的創作軌道。由於這次的構想和製作跨越了一般「特定場域」的概念， 所以這些
在油麻地的展覽場地，包括商舖、寫字樓、公園和天橋下的空地，着實不應被視為作品內容的一部分， 它們儘其量也只是每件作品成形的催化劑。在這為期一個月的展覽期間，這些被遺棄和忽略的空間，將被一連串的藝術創作再次活化，發展出新的契機…
… 總括而言，「M+進行：油麻地」不論是規模和深度都很可能是香港第一個由博物館主辦，真正地在社區舉辦的當代藝術展覽，隨着
市區重建計劃的全速前進，油麻地的居民見證了區內一連串的急速變化。為了適應新的模式，其文化、社會、歷史成份正不斷地被重組
和重塑。雖然這批作品並非完全衍生自藝術家對油麻的歷史或其當下的轉變之深入研究，然而每一件展品都描繪和陳述了一個故事。
透過這些都市新聲，我們和藝術家們攜手以自己的方式為隱藏在這些牆壁之間的層層歷史，併貼上關於過去和現在的敘述。…
― Tobias Berger 、馬容元：〈重組交敘的樂章〉(2012)

探討、實踐新生活價值的實驗場。
―「生活館」簡介縱觀整個「後桃花源記」計劃，無疑有很豐富（如藝術展覽／作品的、教育性的、活動策劃的、海外
交流層面上...）的不同面相，以至個別偶發的好些事情都很值得人們檢視，但礙於種種理由，我個人較想把握的焦點（無論是否代表性地反映於計劃，又或被計劃那豐富性導致失焦的），定在於計劃所選的藝術家們都是居住在計劃籌辦展覽的那個地區。（事實上，是次計劃的出現，正是由於他
們都同在錦上路一帶居住，1 引起策展人張嘉莉的注意，策動計劃並建議展覽的創作都也在那裡發生。）選這起點為著眼點，除了覺得其比較本地晚近一些貌似相關（如重視地方性／在地性、連結社區和社群的）展覽的發展方向中仍有其特別之處外，無疑亦因策展人如此安排，可以說是有意把生活空間及生活模式的因素，與香港社會當下政治抗爭的意識連結起來想像。
筆者對於本地社會和政治以及藝術與其之關係，長期感到興趣，卻對於大部份以藝術作為創意抗爭之舉（藝術行動／藝術社運）的說法往往有所保留，故我談到的計劃重點，實也止步於描述的層面，然後希望在本文中對其引伸的政治抗爭想像作批判性的討論。（事實上，把生活空間及模式與
社會當下政治抵抗連結想像，我在提式裡實也沒有藝術的份兒。）這種角度是否合乎計劃邀我擔當觀察評論員的預期，我不肯定，但我正從（不曾能自我養活的）藝評／策展人身份過渡為(一半仍
是從事藝術教育和研究的）「半農半Ｘ」2 的錦上路居民，這背景該也是計劃當初考慮邀我參與的一部份理由？故我一直容許自己以這身份出發的視點來觀察計劃開展。最後得出的本文，雖表面是對計劃起點的生活－政治底子來個拆題式論述，多於就所見所聞作藝術性的事後評按或作品賞
析，但計劃的經驗，自問是引導論述的思考材料，以求與各式想法作辯難對話。

展覽的藝術家們，都是居住在計劃籌辦展覽的地區，這意味了什麼？選址發生在錦上路，除可預見
展覽發生空間的性質就不再是專為藝術展覽而設的展場，在這地區建立起怎麼樣的藝術展覽模
式，很多東西跟細節，就因而要由策展人及藝術家自行重新設想或交涉，行走在專業規範和陌生變通之間，這樣的環境改變該為藝術家及策展人帶來一定的實驗性挑戰，也可為觀展者帶來不同的觀賞經驗。但更重要的，是藝術家創作的目的、對象、環境…種種考量也可以從原有的地區生活經驗出發，而觀賞展覽者進入了創作者的生活空間，則可以更近距的去思考藝術作品跟生活模式
和空間的脈絡關係。這可能性，是我覺得這計劃跟一般／大部份展覽的不同和值得一書的可貴之處。
但我說展覽的藝術家們都是居住在計劃籌辦展覽的地區，這說法其實也是留下了空間，意味這個
模式不一定需要發生在錦上路一帶，於城市其他地方也可能出現。但為什麼這個藝術活動模式，至少在我個人認知中，在城市裡似乎沒有被人提點或實踐出來？是城市人的地理空間概念／生活模式（如對於社區／地方性社群的歸屬感／公共空間的使用自由度／交通網絡的便利性…）有所不同所
致？又或城市空間地區間的同質性（感覺上大同少異）有關？(當然也可能是我確而孤陋寡聞，加上
這種活動正正無必要作大力的跨區宣傳？)抑或誇張一點說，今時今日揀選或有條件住在市區的，跟揀遷或被迫住到鄉郊的（自置物業或原居當地自是例外），會是很不同類型的人，跟工作／生活與選擇參與何種藝術活動及展覽也隱然
相關？反過來，鄉郊生活在本質又還是當下脈絡裡，是否有什麼特殊的意義，吸引他們落戶？並影
響／烙印於他們的創作？錦上路一帶，又是否真算是鄉郊？香港城市的主流文化和價值於此止步
麼？住在這裡的又不是城市人？要借用政府對土地的規劃性質來界定嗎？會否把在錦上路一帶生
活便當成為鄉郊生活，掉過來才是誇張？
策展人覺得這「近年在新界錦田一帶漸漸凝聚起來的文化藝術社群」是個值得探討的現象，那究竟
在其眼中這是個怎樣的現象？3「當代的桃源」？我們從策展人以中國古代晉朝選了回鄉歸田的陶源明筆下的「桃花源」作為參照典故，或者可就此問題見到一些端倪。《桃花源記》一文，在策展人
眼中，是一篇描寫「理想國度，同時也暗諷當時政權的腐敗」的文學創作。策展人一方面指出其帶有「出世」的道家思想，另方面卻借一評論人之口，指這種平靜的對峙，亦是「對惡濁亂世的一個挑戰」。
但這樣對桃花源作的雙重詮釋，不正是藏了美學該純粹不沾政治，藝術其理想化和純淨性才是最有政治威力的那種弔詭論調的空間化翻版？當策展人忍不著以為「中國人｛彷彿｝善於活在自行建
構的平行時空，政權腐敗至極……忍無可忍的時候才會有點反動」，言詞似乎對於桃花源究竟真
是「對於腐敗政權和亂世是一個挑戰」，抑或是個「出世／避世」的平行時空，就有點搖擺不定，仍
是有點埋怨（《桃花源》文本多少反映）中國人往往過度容忍、苟且偷安的文化習性，哀其不爭的順民性格。或也因為這樣，策展人選了以「後－桃花源」來特以描述錦上路一帶這當下出現的文藝社
群；加按其「後－」字的用意，正是點明這一社群在其眼中斷非「純粹避世」？（可是這裡我看到的問題，反大概是這種把桃花源視為對峙的文藝詮釋。）（一．一）
在那不如直截了當以「後－桃花源」的平行時空的反動性來理解策展框架前，我覺得《桃花源》的
文本倒還是有幾點值得我們留意，以資「後－桃花源」留意思考的。
一是文本的敘事結構，那由外人發現桃花源的視點下筆，配以（參展藝術家陳素珊重讀《桃花源記》時所留意、並在釜山一次分享會中所提到）文本中桃源中人對外人說其生活實「不足為外人道」
的這逆向視點和角度。這雙重視點產生的反思性，提點了我們要理解敘事者視點與其生活跟那個1   策展人一直用上「錦田一帶」來描述計劃中藝術家的群聚地帶，但由於謝屋村屬於八鄉上村而非錦田，以錦上路一帶描述這個地理區域，似乎比較恰當。
2  「半農半Ｘ」的概念，參（日）塩見直紀：《半農半Ｘ的生活》（台北市：天下，2006）。

3     參張嘉莉：〈《後桃花源記》錦田、釜山藝術交流計劃（引言）〉（2015）。

66
67

平行時空間的關係，尤在「不足為外人道」自然暗示「家家有本難諗的經」的難言辛酸外，也可平鋪直說為「不外如是」、「不值一談」，若非那是「請不要外揚」的叮囑。4 如此一來，我們亦可提問，
為什麼這藝術展覽模式也沒有在鄉郊社群裡自然地發生，反是由一個城市居住的策展人提出來？
這論述會否最終只是一種城市人／藝術人的想像話語，一個意識化借桃花源作為當代暗諷的藝術
策展文本而已？

（二）

對於計劃發生在這個社區，當代藝術的展覽於此其實仍是一種相對陌生的文化活動，需由外來投
入促成不奇，但那計劃又如何重縫其與鄉郊社區的居民生活脈波？這個鄉郊社區觀眾與藝術觀眾
間的落差，是合理的預期，或還已是政治不正確的起點？（社區藝術與當代藝術真有分界？分界在於觀者（身份／水平…）？）（事實上，獨立策展人林漢堅的「環境現代藝術館」在九十年代回歸後
就曾活躍於錦田的吉慶圍館址，錦田居民對此不知仍可有印象？至少藝術圈就這段本地藝術歷史
便甚少有人提及。）能夠吸引當代藝術的觀眾到來的，又是什麼，那是與他們對鄉郊生活抑或藝術
旨趣相關？

…那時山高皇帝遠 如今一小時生活圈
口袋只有鈔票 隨便換高貴的方便…

其實當計劃從策展人論述一交回到藝術家手，藝術家如何看待拿捏自己的居民／（社區藝術家／）
藝術家角色面對本區／非本區及藝術圈／非藝術圈對象，當中取捨或比重都變成了藝術家個人藝
術創作範疇的決定，但而這藝術決定究竟受什麼生活環境脈絡因素的影響，會否也值一談？怎樣
的創作，又才會使我們覺得那是對應其生活／生活空間，以及帶出反動性的作品？
藝術計劃的出現，使藝術家必有回應策展的意識化發生，其必然跨越單純反映一種現存的社區社
群現象，更像一種在現存基礎上，因藝術介入才生產的複雜互動產物。（其實藝術計劃是如何反映
一種現象的呢？我們要讀的是作品，還是作品的組成結構／基礎？兩者如何被扣連成有關的？）在
錦上路一帶的這文藝社群，平常或閒來生活和藝術的關連，真跟其它本地藝術工作者有什麼不同
嗎？那也會在準備鄉郊展覽的不同環境和創作中反映出來嗎？這又和場鎖性（in-situ）的創作有什麼不同？一種「地利人和」？ 一種（創作人）熟悉的陌生化遇上一種（觀者）陌生的熟悉化？
《桃花源記》的文本，作為烏托邦遊記體的文學論述，依仗一個外人闖入的發現為視點的敘事結構，一方面是為與現實世界的扣連作敘事性解畫，其後設層面卻意味：發現者總會選擇回去其本來「亂世」（否則作者已從原來人間消失）？想深一層，烏托邦作為無何有之鄉，人們只能想像總（祗能發生）在別處，而非自己的生活世界？而《桃花源記》主人翁雖不理那「不足為外人道」的要求，
把見聞公告世人，但又安排眾人尋訪不遂，是把話語驗證之門關上，還是那區隔的重新出現，會是
因我們的心底都相信沒區隔的桃源，人們必定湧往，又因為我們的人性，一切恐怕只會兇多吉少？
然後，第二個要點，則是桃花源的理想國投射（若非一種不憂生活、毋用勞動的渡假式世外桃源），
那投射的理想性指什麼？是建基於什麼？既然那時桃花源內外的社會也大概仍是農業社會，那桃
花源的理想性會否不過就是（單單的）與亂世／苛政暴政的隔絕？那又為什麼可以隔絕？而且是隔
絕地生存？那與亂世／苛政暴政的隔絕地生存的理想性，說穿會否其實又不過就是避世？抑或我們該對文本中原來地位角色不明的農耕，改給作為自給自足理想生活的基礎的肯定？

…親愛的戰友 有口難言…
― 周思中：《自由的滋味（新界版）》(2015)― 周思中：《自由的滋味（新界版）》(2015)

為什麼談鄉郊生活一再談到反動？或是什麼樣的反動，讓策展人搬出《桃花源記》的文本來？就在策展人述說過錦上路一帶這文藝社群並非「純粹避世」後，其立即接上的，不是其它，恰恰就是引
用參展藝術家勞麗麗所說：「耕田也是抗爭的一種方式」的話。策展人續而描述農耕作為對盲目城
市化的積極抗衡的例子，把其形容為是對發展是硬道理的殖民手段之一種徹底反抗。把耕田視為
一種反抗當下的生活方式，無疑已慢慢被不少人留意，勞麗麗也參與了在《你必須改變你的生活》
一書中談論其參與「生活館」經驗的一章。6
但先不理會策展人續說那：「耕田是藝術，也早已是不容置疑」的說法是怎樣的一種假設（以完整
化耕田＝藝術＝抗爭之論辯？），除了參與生活館的勞麗麗可以「半農半Ｘ」過活來形容外，其它參與計劃的藝術家都並非能以從事農耕來形容，那農耕是否真合適作為慨括是次計劃參與者的一種
共持的反動生活／精神面貌？退溯本地八十後牽頭的反高鐵、護菜園村（也就是位於錦上路一帶）
運動的抗爭與後遺經驗的生活價值轉化，比較起耕田生活，會否是對這一伙社群遷居這裡生活，
一個更恰當的反動性根源的把握？又或計劃其中藝術家與（位於城中油麻地區的社區藝術空間）「活化廳」的合作而培拾的社區投入感／兼及反動性（同也參與反高鐵）才是藝術與反動的結連根
源？那大家都是修讀藝術，更是對反動感興趣的根源？群聚這裡，地點／生活方式種種反而是個偶合？
策展人就參展單位「擔泥（MUDwork）」和陳素珊的介紹，都著重在他們為社區建設（建橋／參與
社區報等）各揮所長，把「後桃花源」的「後－」，置在這個脈絡，會否該被解讀成要把新世界的理想
化國度投射打消，改為把理想置入現實，從現實出發，甚至，以實用性的建設來與投射式的虛幻性
作積極／消極（避世）之分？反動性，於是就（不過）是對於藝術的實用化？（或而藝術的實用化被理想化為反動？）還是，藝術參與了理想主義行動的實際化／反動的實踐？正如《八鄉報》這份社
區報的出現，到底還跟反高鐵護菜園村運動有一定的後反高鐵續演化關係，「後－桃花源」暗示的「後－」轉折，會否是指一種反抗爭運動後的新生活？（更即有了（可被視為抗爭的）農耕出現，桃花源的投射才後繼出現？若沒有新冒的農耕現象，我們本也就沒有對於鄉郊的理想想像？）來到我們這個時代，「(後－)桃花源」又被投射了／可以投射出什麼理想性／特性？那它的「平行時空」又建基於什麼？（依靠什麼樣與外界隔絕的條件嗎？）扯上桃花源，會否僅是當下城市人厭惡
城市而嚮往小農鄉村生活的浪漫情懷？（什麼是嚮往？若人們都僅嚮往又拒絕如是生活？）還是真
的指向務農生活的價值意義，抑或仍有對於鄉郊生活的另些面相（圍村人情味、青山藍天親近大自然…）有所垂青？（又有所誤解？）5 當然，「後－桃花源」還可以是個對現實不再存在理想家園的
幻滅，但故而藝術計劃又改而把理想性投射轉向反動性，以反動來追逐理想／揭示革新的理想性？
（但反動也需有它的基礎吧？）

事實上，一直以來，都有一些參與性社區/社群/社會打造的路線都以真實接合烏托邦來作其論述。
但一方面這些建橋、社區報搞作，就是這批文藝社群在地區內的一些活動，也不見得這些就是他們
的藝文活動（重覆策展人談勞麗麗的的耕田＝藝術例子？)；另方面在藝術研究者 Claire Bishop 關於社區和參與性藝術等議題（並恰恰題為「Artificial Hell」）的著論中就提出說，不少的藝術計劃
雖都指向社區功能，卻總是以藝術名義和場合來呈示，逃避社科對其社區功能的衡量。7 這讓我想起吳家俊（「擔泥」藝術家）贈予生活館農夫那柄被割短了幾寸的鋤頭，使用上其實就會有其缺陷，4     據香港中文大學古典精華編輯委員會編纂的《中國文學古典精華》（1997）給予「不足」的注釋，不足有「不必，不值得」之意思。另廣
智書局出版／宋晶如註釋的《考正古文觀止》（無年份）的白話語譯為：「你不要同外面的人去說呢！」（下冊／頁283）。

6     周思中、黎立本、勞麗麗：〈在生活館Back to Nature –從一粒米實現生活〉，《你必須改變你的生活》（香港：圓桌精英，2012），
第八章。

5     梁啟智：〈香港不同社區居民的新界想像〉，《香港.城市.想像》（香港：匯智出版，2014），頁73-93。

7   參Claire Bishop, “The Social Turn,” in Artificial Hell (London: Verso, 2012), p.19.

68
69

但這用家的心聲，恐怕到相關展覽（《我要食餐好》）計劃完畢時，也乏人問津。8）反動，會否其實正正就是社區出現了藝術搞作自身？更是藝術反烏托邦的自我滿足的反動性？
鄉郊地方的業權有時分散不一，又不太精準，頗多複雜的灰色地帶，政府投入的基建及管理完備度
較低，似乎容許更多持份者不待別人或官府的官僚程序而親力親為，但這種文化既一進村屋屋苑
都經已止步，並也不表示市區沒有其他類似自己幹（D.I.Y./Do It Yourself）的空間或另種的社區自
助與互助的可能。（香港的樂施會也出版過有關社區經濟的《不是烏托邦》（2004），例子就從城
市到農莊也有。）
相反，鄉村的灰色地帶也是紛爭的溫床，譬若鄉間的路權路費問題，相反城市處事模式往往更重視如法規、私隱、一視同仁等原則而成為了其吸引現代人的優點。原居民社群間因為著金錢利益及各式問題而存在緊張，既非外人所能瞭清，借助另種勢力秩序及至訴諸暴力處理也偶有所聞。鄉郊
傳統的鄉事勢力，與親政府及至親中親共的建制派陣營長期互通聲氣，也是不爭的事實。
所以，若說這群文藝人之間的少許鄰里互動真的也算構成一個社群，那原居民的強大社群，可才是和政府與發展商主宰鄉郊現實發展的可能性。文藝社群作為非原居民社群，與原居民社群間交往
始終有限，在與非原居民的社群間，同樣也有相處問題可能出現。在《Hong Kong Mobile（譯：香港移動》一書的最後一章，就有學者對於大澳不同的村民派系和外來人的複雜互動作了研究，警惕我們對鄉土民淳的美化，和遊人對於什麼是本土傳統的誤認，而即使如我們印象中那小小的大澳，也非我們外人想像的區隔鄉村，有著全球化的流徙。9在計劃裡也是原居民的藝術家鄧國騫，在探討自己身份的思考時，就提出過自己反對丁權（新界原
居民男丁興建村屋的權利／特權），但他及後又表示，若有機會他可未必不會行使丁權，因他覺得
把建成的丁屋部份分租，以支持丁屋部份用作藝術的交流場所也是個不錯的主意。（這大概就是
一種立場與身份弔局中的可能抉擇，但我總是懷疑，那到底他是否仍算是反對丁權？）藝術發展（
無論是私人或公眾從而得益）是值得違反或凌駕反對背後的理由嗎？（若有人想起老人院，那又如
何，若每一間丁屋都掛著或這或那的理由，那還是要反對丁權嗎？）反對丁權的決定，不是該放在另一種公義的原則性眼光？但把反對不反對也屬於你的特權轉化借用，那不是比等待政府從上而
下來做事更具積極自主性嗎？這樣建立平行時空／反動又可行嗎？應該嗎？手段和目的的政治倫
理該如何想？（再者，藝術的目的，真是反動嗎？反動又只得一種立場原則？）
若說「後桃花源」正也表示認識到了當下鄉郊現實並非絕對的完美理想，回過頭來叫這個文藝社
群把這些生活優點／缺點和藝術創作（之名／之實）扣連，其實反映了每個人如何看待其生活與藝術的關連，對個人藝術在這社區能／該如何發生的面貌的一種投射（那是其／藝術於理想國中的角色位置？）為了這關連，藝術家需要對其創作的個人／藝術本位作改弦易轍的思考麼？反動性的投射，其實有多匹配這個藝文社群還是投射的表面問題，我想追問的，依仍是有什麼作為這反動性（非紙上空談）的基礎？

（二．一）
若有外人問我鄉郊生活有什麼好，我可以數很多優點來，但把鄉郊生活優點羅列，我怕會引到更多人搬進來，那很快，我就也會因負擔不了因需求而提升的租金而得要再搬家了？（這不也是一個
鄉郊生活真是不足為（為者，向也）外人道的理由？）。但你也可以說我是杞人憂天，因為我首選鄉
郊的最吸引處是可以過耕田生活，然而（／幸然乎？）普遍人卻都不會欣賞我推舉的這個最大的優點。那我順而羅列都伴隨這農耕生活而來的優點，又可否拆件式看待呢？(事實自然是，當商機存在，發展要來就來，為的也當然不是耕田。)
於香港，住在那一區，往往得先考慮個人的負擔力問題，負擔力則往往指向你的工作入息。城市人看鄉郊生活，生活的空間好像相對空曠寬敞，就是交通與配套等吸引力不足，說到尾，其實沒有什
麼是非住某處不可的理由，相反往復工作的交通是個重要考慮。（全城物業租售市場體系的定價
公式（目光），背後更重要的，是它不就是眾多消費者如是決定所構成？）事實上，一日鄉郊也是市
場的一部份，需求存在時，鄉郊租金怎不也會亦步亦趨？舊屋改建（甚至劏房化）加租，實際每天在發生。低承受力的，不唯是祗好一搬再搬到更郊野偏僻之地？（或而得多找兼職？更多的出入市區？）於是每當我真的聽到人要問鄉郊生活相較城市生活如何的這種問題時，我個人總是回應道，以我當下的工作要負擔在城市居住，那其實根本不可能，故無論鄉郊生活換來什麼的優點或令人羨慕的想法，我們或也不該忽略這個前題。這先意味著，我並沒有跳出這個與大家同困的地產霸權的時
空，只是，在城市中我負擔得來的生活，我（在知道了鄉郊這選擇後）無法接受，但那是否正意味
兩個不可互換的平行世界（心理時空）？抑或徹徹底底的階級世界？（生活質素又是可以如何衡量
的？人的心理實被階級意識形態改變？)鄉郊的租金，金額上是低於城市，這是由於從城市人的眼光來看，鄉郊沒有便利的生活配套，更需
長途的交通出入。但假如我們改變這種城市方為中心的想法，想要自己幹的樂趣而非消費式的便利，我們總是在地生活而深居簡出？那我們會見到一個反常理的樓宇價值市場，而事實上，我覺得一些窮鄉僻壤真是些好生活的地方，問題是我們總未夠堅定如是生活，都仍依賴城市，就像很多社區藝術、政治藝術未甩得掉藝術的尾巴般。(但你還是可以一如「擔泥」把生活和工作室合併減低
出入的必要，而文藝社群的被時代創意經濟論述推向的自由工作者的工作性質與模態，又的確比較一般人在工作地點上容易遷就安排。)
事實上，若要我來提出把生活空間及生活模式與香港社會當下政治抵抗的意識連結起來想像，我立刻想到的，也必然就是農耕。（雨傘運動的金鐘佔領區闢有實驗農田，那可能才是策展人要找結
合現實和象徵的抗爭桃花源？）我真的相信農耕是一種有其獨特性的生活模式，有其貼近養活生
存的第一序生產基礎，一種包含價值的育成、自給自足的自然基礎。故而甚至是半農半Ｘ，都比較
於藝文自由工作者的以散工補貼支撐藝術創作有不同尋常處。（當然，也可或因為半農未必可支撐
投入藝術的那半X。）可是農耕，其實跟當代藝術沒有任何必然的關係（農耕不過是那「什麼也可以是藝術」另一個代入的X），當代藝術相比農耕或者正因為太聰明，以其能點可成金的手指能否
將反動嫁接開來，我已不太肯定（由於我信美學是政治性的，所以當X在其脈絡是反動，那它是政
治性的，是否藝術不是我關心的考量），我擔心的是，反是藝術同可出賣生活／政治，一切瞬間成
金。

（二．二）
當代藝術作品經常說自己是「有關於…」什麼，但這個僅僅的「有關於…」，於我來說已變得愈來愈可疑，因那「有關於…」最終都總只能與其關於的什麼擦身而過。同一個問題，終也會在《後桃花源》計劃中出現：本文雖然欲去續談生活和另組平行時空的反動抵抗問題，而農耕本來確或能佔
很獨特的位置，但耕種又到底該並非本計劃要／能刺入的核心（正如這個文藝社群搬來這鄉郊，
不像我是為了逐步結束於藝術圈的前身份），故我也並不便在這裡開展探討我也未能摸清農耕的
地方性的真正政治性意味。10 我唯有試試顧左右而言它，而在計劃的框架中，仍未仔細思考的，倒還有「平行時空」這個概念。
據策展人說，「平行時空」這概念或該說是「平行結構」，那是她從學者許寶強一篇題為〈升級與落8     參吳家俊：〈另一種永續〉，《我要食餐好》（2015）場刊，頁20。（得補充的是，那鋸短了幾寸的鋤頭柄，被用了來作食具，雖是實
用性之物，但取之於鋤頭柄，是種象徵的連結，故該作品非單純是這裡談的藝術實用化的問題。
9     參Chan Wing-hoi, “A Sense of Place in Hong Kong: The case of Tai O,” in Hong Kong Mobile – Making a Global Population(Hong Kong: HKU Press, 2008), pp.367-.

10     最接近的一篇文章，參：〈改變自己的生活世界（來！）〉，《藝術觀點》（第58期／2014），頁50-60。

70
71

區〉反思雨傘運動路向的文章中摘引而來。在該文中，許寶強嘗試把其也稱作「第二文化」的「平行結構」作為雨傘抗爭運動可以考慮的一種升級方向。「平行結構」的路數，有(學者羅永生經常介紹的)東歐捷克作家哈維爾（Vaclav Havel）其政治抗爭的歷史脈絡，用許寶強的描述，那就是從事「官方體制容許的範圍以外的組織形式和社群生活，例如地下書刊、地下演出、地下音樂會、研討會、展覽，又或是與官方體制平行共存，甚至相互競逐民心的教育、工會、經濟和與外界的交往聯繫。」11 其用意可說是要擺脫或架空現存權力體制，以另種的戰線跟對手競逐及而蠶食對方的掌控而脫出政治盟權／市場霸權重拾自主，「慢慢孕育出有別於香港主流價值和生活習性」。
平行時空依其表面意涵，該不難讓人把桃花源既區隔於濁世而又與之並存的想像代入。農耕生活
作為一種自給自足的生活模式，或也不難借用平行結構或第二文化來加以想像。可是這個計劃的
策展框架嘗試以平行時空來帶出的平行結構的反動性，到底存不存在於這個錦上路一帶社群中，
我問的不是他們的生活時空或文藝活動內容形式，而是兩者有沒有其平行結構式的結構／基礎。
若社群的生活非繫以一種在地生活的模式，或並無繫成一種社群的生活，若社區生活又談不上社
區經濟，沒法提供生計，那文藝社群會是一種半藝半Ｘ（Ｘ＝社區生活）才真嗎？那也算反動嗎？
到底，在時空的區隔和另種自由自主的平行結構間，前者欠了文化內容給空間作實質的填充（於是接近純粹避世？），相反後者正是要和抗爭對象作平起平座的結構性並存，那才能體現它的自由自主不是單純一個烏托邦。與主流文化和社經結構作抗爭／反動，太多香港人卻都會立刻聯想到（娛樂戲劇性的）無間道／邊緣人，但這種太聰明（故受藝術圈讚揚）的勾結式無間道，12 恰恰是我所
想像的平行結構或第二文化的相反面（及而第二文化不滯的可能原因）：犬儒。

(三)...如果農民需要通過種植稻谷穀來買自己生產不了的東西，而稻穀價值在國際市場突然上漲三倍，他們通常不會多種而是少種...因為他們仍保留自主的傳統...只有當這個世界上大部份人變得病態的時候，資本主義才可能出現...
－大衛•格雷伯 (David Graeber)：《無政府主義人類學碎片》（2004）...就暫不論落區這詞本身是否已具備上下層級自尊自大的意思。就只問如果落區是為培育一個更民主的社會的話，那是什麼意思？...
－李維怡：〈傘落社區創新天？》（2015）

策展人把錦上路一帶的社群聚落生活，恰巧用上「平行時空」而非平行結構來加以形容桃花源，或者想對應其獨特時／空，我覺得用以對於錦上路一帶的文藝社群生活層面作把握，雖進入不了我
以為農耕作為更深層抗爭（平行結構）的討論，然而針對一個短暫（時間）進入（空間）這一生活空
間的藝術計劃，未嘗不是一個（妥協於無奈限制下）湊巧平行／合適／同構的閱讀辦法。
有什麼的概念框架是合適如是借而開啟閱讀展覽的時空？對比仍是硬與農耕的關連作思考切入（似乎除了鄧國騫，各本地參與藝術家都有一點關連，雖陳素珊的《64K報》以專欄形式來談農耕有點隔一層次；於是這令我想到個從藝術家居住在第幾層樓來推論其在地性層次的想法，雖帶玩
笑成份卻又好像未嘗不通），我覺得借從交通入手或也可算是別開生面。我們過去，實在鮮有以作

11     原載《明報》（2015／2／9）觀點版。（另載http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1031407）。
12     參羅永生：《殖民無間道》（香港：牛津，2007）。

品或展覽中的社區基礎與生活習性來看展覽或作品的習慣。交通既屬於這社群生活的一種模式習慣，也可以是理解城市人對這個時空的區隔或是並存（所謂是山高皇帝遠還是一小時的生活圈）的雙視點載體（可圈可點引導我這樣想的，自是陳素珊的《64K報》作品）。
看《後桃花源》提供參觀者的地圖或宣傳，西鐵線的錦上路站彷彿就是這空間對外的窗口，提供了一條吸引城市人高速抵達到這區來的途徑，極大化地減少人們抱怨距離造成對時間的花耗，更是
由於鐵路接駁了全港眾多地區，乘搭西鐵的指示也彷彿代表了不論你從那裡出發，也立即知曉了如何前來，是與便利世界連結的一部份。（但假若西鐵線一點都不便利你轉乘呢？）也正因屬於便利世界，由錦上路站到錦田市中心這地段，就將是政府下一步打算發展的橋頭堡。這段路，乘車好
像太近又複雜，但對初來報到的人們而言，區區數分鐘步行又需有一點指引，鄧國騫作為錦田村民
便留意到這城－鄉的空隙而想到單車接載觀眾的服務，但單車作為居民自身的輕便、替代性交通，用以載客，就多少出現技術問題。
至於從錦田市到錦上路謝屋村，可乘的公共交通是巴士和小巴，但都是要在綿上路（而非錦田公路/大街）才可乘搭，綠色小巴有不同路線得要分辨。兩者都有八達通，但巴士要付現金才有分段優
惠，紅色小巴不經西鐵錦上路而省時，卻沒有八達通可用。掉過來謝屋村到錦田市，巴士沒有分段
價格，紅色或綠色小巴卻可以付分段價格，綠巴用八達通付費要揚聲知會司機，兼有只到西鐵站而
不達錦田的特別班次。這些日常生活的小細節，試問怎樣可以全面告知（又而不煩嚇）到訪觀眾？
雖則這些其實也可以是包含了一些對於地理環境的理解，但或者專程為展覽到遊的觀眾，總不會
計較那一角幾毫，清晰便利反是他們想要的指示（而那不就像計劃交流團在釜山時行動一樣？）。
可是，我其實還沒有加插個人出入市區平常盡量地不乘搭西鐵，而選擇大欖隧道轉車，在那裡橋
下有免費接駁巴士往返謝屋村。不過參觀者要從同一號碼兩個方向的巴士站挑正確的一個上車（
而到錦田則得又選另一號碼巴士）也有些添亂。老實說，刻意地把這些細節巨細無遺寫到關於一
個展覽的論述中，可真讓我這個街坊不亦樂乎，除因描述個人熟悉在行的生活世界好像給我一種
知識的優勢，亦有著個人生活選擇的價值觀／代價的抉擇在背後，還有就是這堆東西好像十分在
地卻不起眼（並不被以為跟展覽很相關），而這正可說明那跟展覽周末時穿梭趕場而直截了當乘
拾的士的觀眾，彷彿仍是存在於兩個不同的生活世界。（當然農友也曉得何時湊數乘的士的成本
效益。）
但就是由於大家本存在於兩個不同的生活世界，他們作為觀眾，為何要認識掌握這些非其生活常用的知識？而他們生活在城市，不又是有更多這些小細節（不過那可能換成了如在那裡先嘟百達
通，再而節扣乘搭地下鐵而已）？這些東西（尤其錙銖必較的知慳惜儉）不必要成為所有參觀展覽者認知經驗的一部份吧？但若我們說這次計劃觀賞展覽者既然選擇進入了創作者的生活空間，那我們於是可以更近距的去思考作品跟其生活模式和空間的脈絡關係，我們選什麼的方法進入，會否卻從進入方法上已釀成不得其門而入的差異經驗？

（三．一）
陳素珊的謝屋村居所頗近馬路，能眺看或聽到巴士埋站。搬進來後找到的一份工作，使其每個工作日早上都得走到對面馬路乘64Ｋ去上班。《64Ｋ報》既有藝術家一慣以類報紙（採新聞／文字／排版／插畫／出版等）方式進行的創作形式，也有利用其參與制作的社區報的格調手法（如問卷調查／約地方人士撰稿等）。而從前西鐵時代的64Ｋ路線反映的新界發展史，談到現時路線脫班等
問題，交通作為內容焦點指向社區報式的居民日常生活選材，加上藝術家選的好幾個錦上路的巴士站的派發點，都在生活館至上村的路段，非參觀展覽在兩地點間穿梭的觀眾被建議路線的必經之地，對象似乎更多看上本區巴士搭客。
而藝術家在「樹猶如此」的專題報導中，則以巴士做成路旁大樹形態的不完整，自喻一種在地社區
生活的缺憾，滲入了其對自身每天出出入入離區返工生活模態的探問。但而社區的受訪人們往往都沒人注意到這榕樹隧道，更不消說借此想到其與自我生活的關係。再而村民真要思考本區就業，72
73

種菜太辛苦的話，又可以找到什麼工作乎？作品觸碰反思這種城鄉穿梭的生活規律，其實恰就是
對平行時空提出一種藝術自省，既問時空有多隔絕（／真能隔絕？），也提想在地生活的完整性和
現況落差。在讀報的藝術觀眾眼裡，那是一份另個社區社群小小新聞透視的紀念刊物。藝術家似乎選擇了在一個藝術場合，與她的鄰里打交道。觀者要成為《64Ｋ報》的讀者對象（巴士常客），那
樹消失的部份，才與你真正扣連。
換轉頭說，勞麗麗與鄧國騫都可說沒有牽涉到出入城郊的交通，甚至沒有「擔泥」要從上村走到生活館開工的些許距離，以更屬一己的地點來進行他們的藝術活動。勞麗麗選在半農工作的生活
館，以零碳足印的距離訴說農業的剩食如何與市區有別，並加以烹調予人品嘗；鄧國騫則在第二天
選在圍村的家中訴說其給城市不同展覽創作有關於鄉村生活的作品，以播影錄像代步（也代替首
日的私人單車導賞）認識周遭。但勞麗麗的《午後之…保存期限下午茶》的活動／作品藝術性在那
裡（藝術什麼也行？勞麗麗是藝術家？廚餘交換食品的互動？藍染的工藝？食品的味道？），耕田也
是藝術的疑問亦又回歸，不同的是，我們見到是關於耕田種種的一個藝術節目；而鄧國騫的第二個活動天於客廳為觀眾提供作品分享，但為計劃創作的作品在那裡？（也是藝術什麼也行？藝術變成
後設的分享？還是在其導引學生的創作？轉載生活的作品藝術性由參與過展覽去保證？） 藝術會
因為要載有Ｘ（地方生活），就能載入Ｘ乎？當代藝術果真是如此一個尊崇自身無基礎的（平臺）。
到一個地方認識別人的生活環境，如何也是認識別人的藝術的方法？其實就視乎那人的藝術是什麼？藝術作品的內容要跟生活環境直接相關才有什麼在地性嗎？到錦上路來是想透過藝術認識
這裡的生活，還是透過認識這種生活來欣賞這些藝術？這跟去參觀藝術家的開放工作室，分別在哪？到生活館雖不似一般藝術家的工作室，但卻也算是到了勞麗麗的工作地點看創作，到鄧國騫的家，雖是深入圍村，卻不是上樓參觀工作室，相反似是到了較不規格的暗室看投影聽藝術講座般。
（還有加上陳素珊的文字，要把社區生活向外人們展示，似乎還是需要作品內外頗多的言語說明和交談？）究竟改弦了在不同場地發生，藝術家有變得以地方為本，還是仍以藝術為中心？作品應在地只此一家，還是可以傳遞予城市人讓他們反思其生活的？
我沒錯是在利用一些極端二分法來提出問題，而計劃卻或正是努力嘗試把這兩方面達至相輔相成，讓觀者走到這些地方來，進入陌生的另一時空來經驗藝術，又透過藝術了解另一些人選擇的另樣生活世界的循環互補吧？但要把藝術與某些生活世界硬夾起來碰撞，將生活剪裁納入藝術，
會否可能同樣也是極端？而在穿梭於地方及藝術之間，我們遇上的，又是否仍是那原來的生活？在地的生活知識，換轉了觀眾對象，易轉了生活環境，可能用不上並不出奇，那扣連在地生活的藝術，
有沒有誰／在那用得上／用不上的問題呢？會否，更基本地，該先問在地生活用不用得上藝術？用不得上的介入，不就是干擾？把生活用作為藝術的活生生佈景版有沒有問題？生活披上藝術性外
衣又如何？
鄉郊生活被納入於藝術，放在勞麗麗或鄧國騫作品上都皆適用，但藝術又被如何重置入生活環
境？藝術家為了提供藝術，家居被徵用並對外開放，田中本要清作堆肥的過時疏菜被保留拿作烹調；至於藝術觀眾有機會進入平常外人止步的圍村／一嚐電視常見在田間品嚐新鮮有機食物的下午茶，不也會自覺是特權式／獵奇式／消費式的遊客嗎？煞有介事的藝術活動，很易成為利用在地
生活的消費先頭部隊。生活若非僅是消費，那大家在地方生產出來的，是什麼？作為生活在這裡的
文藝社群，不就該如魚得水生產藝術（做展覽）？然後用作品來反映這藝術生活？（生活即反動，
竟是栽在藝術源於生活？）我說自己極端的原因其實還在於我想問，藝術要載入社區社群的生活，
是單純的一種載入？不是叫藝術家們帶作品出城，而是叫更多觀者跑到鄉郊現場來，究竟算否是在
地的藝術？其實兩者不也同在製造更多距離的穿梭？
「擔泥」從一開始定案（為生活館）起旱廁，我本以為代表了最實用至上的「後-桃花源」 想法（當然勞師動眾起旱廁，我作為生活館的農夫一路也懷疑其比較原來（無疑祗方便了男士們的）野放桶
的總體成本效益；另其本來說要以節慶方式作揭幕，也指向另一種本值一書的社群藝術面向）。旱
廁並非日常大家城市人會使用的設施，但「擔泥」刺激我去思考的，不是旱廁這「作品」（甚至其關連廢物製肥價值），而是他們展覽天另而特備了金黃帶泡的「旱廁特飲」給觀者分享。或者我總是懷著小人之心，它卻令我想到，是觀者被分享到的，究竟是作品的什麼的問題。我的意思是，旱廁
作品是建給農田的實用性建築／社區的在地建設，於是特飲會否是顧忌觀者可能覺得整件作品工程太在地而身不關己，於是悉心提供連繫事件的一個幽默參與渠道？
分享，本來或是個這裡值得重視可談的社群藝術價值，但旱廁特飲更吸引我去想，是那會否是防止（亞瑟‧丹托 (Arthur C. Danto)所論）藝術作品全然瓦解 (collapsing) 成現實的妙藥？但藝術若需要和現實保持距離，我卻想到在地是否卻正是各種距離的消失。「擔泥」成員住於上村，有車路
可達卻離錦上路馬路有些距離，工作室則本來設在錦田旁的大江埔，以單車（到學電單車）到私家
車的交通演化後，最終還是索性把工作室遷到與居所為鄰。反過來，旱廁也當然起在用家（上廁／施肥）的田間，但要到車不可直達（或也是仍保作為農田未被發展之原因）的生活館起旱廁，訂來
的建材和工具都得以接駁一程手推車，村口卸貨既有村民干涉，甚至田間借電也是硬著頭皮第一趟（勞麗麗則選了在我家作她的電動攪拌菜汁，再而拿回田間）。但把旱廁起成，讓女仕們日後如
廁不必再頻撲，肥料的生產又多了一種不假外求的可能，基建大概就是這樣想為把事情空間壓縮
而時間可以長期化的東西。
錦上路謝屋村的生活館，望朝社區農場方向發展，不也是要欲把生產和消費的距離縮小？其實生
活館並非計劃的協辦單位，但是或者文藝社群大都非屬原居民，都得小心避免策辦活動而與鄰里
和原居民起磨擦，未有／未敢（如鄧國騫般）把自己租來的屋或鄰毗空地用作展覽，生活館的農田
於是似成了可借以活動的空間。但事實上，租田也有不少租田的潛規矩。作為鄉郊租戶在生活地方
或耕地，做一些偏離原來目的的藝術活動，雖可增加認知與交流，另方面卻也可帶來業主猜疑的目
光，鄰田及家居對絡繹外人的警惕、商業活動的疑竇，搭添建築物就更是敏感兼受法例規管。展覽
都是短暫的，其帶來的牽連或後遺，卻會影響續後於該處生活及工作的人／社群的關係，這和一般
藝術展覽短暫發生在無用顧忌生活起居脈絡的白盒子大不相同。
旱廁可說是唯一展覽後留下來被使用的作品，似是強調了實用性，把藝術資源變成另些用途的資源。這種論述及思維，我過去也會用，更也常（又是極端化）望直接把資源轉放在反動性活動上，
而這當然多虧藝術家杜尚（Marcel Duchamp）帶來的當代藝術唯名論（nominalism），13 可是現
實上，為覓取資源如是做往往得借助一種曲線的論述作掩飾，說明當代藝術頗多時候都實不真正
開放和自由。然而更堅實的反動，是否也可以是以社群之內另豎的另類結構為基礎，不必過於依賴
外界？從確立自創的基礎原則上已與主流分道揚鑣，拒玩不公正的遊戲，拒與各式的審查玩捉迷藏(又或自以為是無間道)，這種自食其力的方法，讓真誠作為真正的原則，或者可才是建立永續平
行結構的（最佳／必要）方法？覓自主的基礎，基本上與覓自主，本就是一碼事。
從生活館的棚看過去旱廁，恰見到其窗口內掛著，是杜尚的作品《噴泉》（1917）的尿兜照片。那尿兜照片甚至不是最初流通（的Alfred Stieglitz）版，而是無背景的作品照，那是有實用性指向（旱廁只宜收集小便）目的？還是給旱廁一種藝術作品的位格點綴？我覺得從藝術史的脈絡來看，懸掛的作品，更該是力求擴展藝術概念的波依斯（Joseph Beuys）的那件《馬塞杜尚的沉默被高估了》（1964），以道出創作之於實用性的反動意向，而非向現成物（Readymade）智竊勞動成果的
概念藝術致敬？明明是勞動的成果，「擔泥」卻選而滔杜尚的光，無形地說明當代藝術是建基於故有的怎樣一種價值思維？

（三．二）
來港的韓國藝術家金美英，第一次出國，靠英語也不易與之溝通，初看其作品介紹，見其用鏡也可
以是不求反映，而更像是自我隱藏，有感其素用藝術自築一個靜觀世界，疑惑其駐場創作會研究社
區的什麼。結果來港駐場一個月，她的作品低調得有點難以置信。藝術家原來索竹和繩，想在步往
生活館途經的鄰田排水道架搭什麼，我雖擔憂會否擾人不便，還是判斷不阻礙水流都該問題不大，13     參Thierry de Duve, Kant After Duchamp（Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1996）.

7475

結果其最後卻改而走下水坑找來些石粒，在河床砌成環境語境相配的英文短句：「I wanna flow」，(我可不肯定是否因這一來一回的改動使) 作品給我眼前一亮。
長途跋涉老遠飛來香港做創作，作品最終是那樣輕巧，彷彿順手沾來，我著實驚訝藝術家的自信
和作品的煉力，說實也驚訝觀眾的欣然接受。或者，正是自知難以通過溝通深入所處環境的文化
脈絡情況下，藝術家復而創作一種個人藝術與物理環境對應的創作，反而比刻意加入在地元素，有更好的效果。作為要靠山溪來水的農友，我除因不斷踩單車下田經過作品，自覺比較到訪觀眾更能持續地欣賞作品的變化外，更是有感有人同冀有水流過的那上天眷顧的滋味。
再在展覽日到錦田市，在得工作人員提示下，才在幾輛車底發現金美英同是用石粒砌成的第二件作
品：「I want to flow」。想像到村民見著一批批遊人來到找尋被輾在車底的所謂藝術作品，情景又變得有點滑稽可笑。雖有扭曲的紋狀，石屎地如何能流動？水溪那「wanna」的輕鬆自在與石屎地那「want to」以意志對抗現實之別，我也分不清是否無心插柳之誤，但後者又彷帶了以微弱（任被緩緩破壞）之身，對該人為環境作一種想像力的抗衡。作品雖是頗無中生有的藝術趣味，卻或因漂
亮地示範了不擾民、無手尾，慢慢自行融回環境的作品精神，可說意外地頗得我心。
換過來，當觀眾在錦田大街見到金大洪躲進黑色垃圾膠袋（正確言是金大洪披裹著垃圾膠袋飾演
一袋會緩移的垃圾），我對於這更短暫便過眼雲煙的表演，卻明顯沒法投入耐性專注。或者這是因
為我對能以英文更好溝通的金大洪，結果選擇的創作，還也是無特別要進入一個社群脈絡的自我隔絕而有點失望。一方面大隱於市，另方面卻使我們煞有介事去留意人們對其的（互動？）反應。因為系列式地出現各處，其也落得一種能行走江湖和不同環境百搭碰撞的作品模態，在錦上路的垃
圾站出現好像滿足了一種脈絡化（到底鄉間垃圾處理不似城市被極力隱藏以免沾污市容，反更是
多方人們虎視眈眈之物），但知悉其行動也在巴塞爾藝術博覽展銷會出現，還要在垃圾袋上貼上入場證件成功闖進入會展展場，我見到垃圾也拖著一條荒謬的藝術尾巴。當然，你也可以於是說，是使藝術露出垃圾尾巴的批判及自我批判。
當代藝術對垃圾的把玩已是其過剩自況的長期虛無情意結，其中Thomas Hirschhorn讓清潔工人清走其藝術的作品，是難得也包括勞動的元素和個體，至於不能堆填或焚化至眼不見為乾淨，活生生的垃圾這次我倒是第一次見。（同樣接觸活生生的一團黑，我其實還可以想到拿來和香港藝術家吳鋌灝有機動懸空垃圾袋而名作黑雲的作品，又或鄧國騫《棘園過客》（2011）以人喬裝猩猩
和人們進行長時間的互動作品比較。）

主義者是否真的與其作品相干？或會令我們對於作品的意義詮釋和價值判斷變得不同起來？（那是生活與藝術的連結證明？）但非真實的藝術論述沒錯富想像力，卻怕沒有多少自身的自主基礎，
平行時空的反動性又只是在於一種想像？藝術真正的社會政治經濟的基礎，反是落在於藝術作品
作為市場商品，以及藝術發展背後被政府作為文化產業跟城市品牌化的種種算盤？
其實一直以來，多不勝數的例子說明，藝術家對相對自由的生活空間的追逐和群聚進駐，往往便
其成為地區蘇豪化／市紳化的先鋒／幫兇。可現在有不少城市，急於打造自身成為創意都市，甚至
連藝術浪族的生活模式為舊社區增添朝氣，特色格調逐漸被追捧，成為讓物業升值的風尚的轉變
過程也待不了，索性借仗外力，以活化之名，將一些公共文化遺產和土地空間給創意人無端吞併，
略施形象包裝或建立地標，社區物業市值卻從中翻過幾番，順把無法賺錢捱不起新租的都淘汰
掉。
甘川文化村從南北韓戰爭時難民村落被髹塑成希臘小村，美化的表面化明顯著跡，卻不阻成為大批遊客拍照的觀光景點。虹田工業區中的藝術中心雖有社區藝術之搞作，卻也是整帶發展先對社區人口產生了傷害後的弔詭安排。這些作為全球化現象，其實不用長途跋涉，我們本土的例子都經已夠多了；看到嶺大學生到釜山國立大學與當地藝術學生有限時間的交流，竟是選了香港元創方（ＰＭＱ）作報告主題，還冗長地作宣傳口吻的介紹，我想學生或許做些當地研究，找個他們熟悉的
類似例子來加以類比，韓國和香港的同學們就是有些語言溝通的阻礙，都必一點即明。（當然，大家有否真把自己生活世界的問題想通想徹，又是另一問題。）
藝術空間如何建來，個體自有自行打造的權利，恰恰因為鄧國騫這方面的想像牽涉丁權，更好讓我
提問藝術意圖真有凌駕其他價值的意義和權力嗎？目的和手段間的關係，有什麼要想透的政治倫理嗎？韓國的強勢政府，對於藝術的介入推動和鼓勵大財團注資，真是我們想見的藝術「發展」之路？（Openspace Bae 的例子又如何？）仍有點民望，差點以為可以當上香港首位文化局局長的黃英琦，在訪問中坦然流露對韓國流行文化對藝人的機械式訓練的產業化的羨慕欣賞時，我們還
可以寄望談什麼創意工業政策？14 在一個工人連休息時間也不足的工廠區搞社區藝術，展出歐洲
城市平靜街景的影音紀錄作品，不又是另一藝術對自己存在意義的地方性反諷？公共資源應如何
投放，總該有些原則，有些什麼是重要並先於藝術的吧？

回說藝術計劃當初談及韓國交流的部份，包括了對於位處於市郊梨園為伴的Openspace Bae介
紹（那也是金大洪曾工作之藝術空間），於是帶來了一些外地鄉郊環境（甚至農業）可以如何與藝術扣連的想像，然而這也該是一廂情願的誤會。Openspace Bae選址，到底不過是不敵市區貴租
後的一招釜底抽薪，空間主任也直說選取的方案跟空間外的鄉郊並不要求需有特定連結的關係。
只是參觀那天走到山上偏僻的展場，放目周遭都是草木，然後步入展廳，看到的展覽，竟是一室由一位當地藝術家（譯音金容政）收養一盤盤城市野草的展覽，那場景脈絡，我也分不清又是荒謬的
藝術情景，或還是一種藝術的自我批判。

（三．三）
若果在釜山參觀藝術館、藝術中心、藝術學院的地方都是正常不過的藝術體制，和錦上路一帶文
藝社群比較相像的，或者要數那長箭區的小組織的社群網絡，當中有小店食肆音樂 band 房木工
室社區中心，除了大家都是蚊型規模，從下自發的合作連結模式，這種親切性，更或是由於那跟油
麻地一路發生的社群小組織的連結有點像，兩者都又該自有和松本哉／素人之亂等的日韓幾地例
子相互借鏡。但事實上，可著眼的，又沒有藝術／展覽或藝術空間（那當下剛剛結束），有什麼必要參觀的理由？因為開小店，玩音樂，辦社區藝文空間，或還是如節慶化的示威夠反動？(證明平行時
空也可以在城市出現？可創意產業也早已留意到這種群聚效應？) 或還，這個社群正是失去了正規
的藝術展場，它才恰好驅走了藝術造假的印象？

該藝術家似是有意從人們對農作物和野草之別，挑戰人類自我中心給予他們的價值分野。但要訴說對自然生命的愛護，可不是以濫情（兼同樣單向暴力）的方法作提示吧？若果生活上藝術家確是
位果食主義者，我還覺得那或有別論（當然，當代藝術不是採這樣身體力行的道德評價方式）；否
則太多以微觀表達對大自然的愛心，似是尊重每條小於人類的小生命，然而實情卻對更多人類面
臨的人道處境或個人起碼的同理心，表現出比重失衡。這讓我也想到，在《64Ｋ報》看到同學們的
「搭64Ｋ去寫生」欄內，寫了不少的小花小草和樹木，雖有標示寫生處，配搭著人文關懷的說明，
卻與那社區的人文生活環境變得幾乎無干。

或也是基於個人在活化廳來的社區藝術經驗，我覺得要呈示社區生活的精神是頗困難的，因為它
首先不是為了呈示而存在，於是藝術圈慢慢發展出一套有關於參與式作品／計劃的詞彙，以及甚至紀錄再現活動的概括模式，但我很懷疑這種形態的活動和紀錄，尤其那些被稱成藝術行動的紀錄，它們開始成為一些套路，甚至跨地區的人們一再重覆應用，反而偏離與無視了從社區／社區人
物的特殊性入手出發的多元可能。節慶嘉年華亦雖可見參加者都高興投入，可那卻正屬人們日常
生活以外的豁出狀態。（長箭區那社區藝文空間連我們外地短暫路經的遊人電郵也要索取，除用來報數交差，這添加給他們自己的工作量有意思嗎？）

或者，藝術有關於什麼的論述，不少時候，都指向其作為象徵，如關注野草實是關注被視為無價值者的隱喻，把藝術家的作品當成真的信念表現，是搞錯了藝術平臺的特質，一如藝術家是否位果食14     參〈創意不死：黃英琦專訪〉，《讀書好》（第91期／2015），頁20-26。創意產業更大的深層問題，參DOXA：〈從創意經濟到危機經濟〉，《創意空間》（香港：圓桌精英，2014），頁24-39。

76
77

我不是想凡事都質疑別人的用心，只是我覺得本來可能極平常普通的社群連帶，當發展到一種意
識化，形象建立的自覺化，及而當人們想到了對外（及至外地來的訪客）的教育宣傳推廣結連時，
不平等／非在地的文化資源，就會開始干擾／改變人們的日常生活價值優次，不易取得平衡。那就正如保育和或想改善生活的發展想法開始有所抵觸，也意味不同主張的（甚至不知情的）持份者將
開始出現根本分歧，而安於簡陋的窮鄉僻壤生活者往往處於被動和邊緣。那在推動文化發展之前，社區建立共識的機制，文化資本的平等運用原則，抑制社區走向單一化／兩極化的租金管制等等
是否值得先來關注？介入社區，實在得有對自己的有意無意影響有所理解，當然藝術上最後如何決
定採什麼樣式的進路介入，還是藝術家的選擇，但由在地的藝術家或短暫駐場的藝術家所能對後
果作出的承擔，卻就很截然不同了。
過去已遇上不少記者，總愛一來就問搞社區藝術空間最深刻最難忘的經歷是什麼？這次就這個藝術計劃，也來了一個問著類似的問題。記者問這種問題，可能無可口非，卻反映著是一種認識他人（以完成自己任務）的（精簡化的）效率要求，反映著一種以趣味性／特殊性／極端性來把握別人
的報導手法，而我所以總是（以另一種極端性）回答，做社區藝術其實就是沒有什麼特別時刻（甚或該打消這種念頭），因為每一分每一秒都算的，不論是與人相處或注無人關注時，甚至詳細部署
或無預期的大事或瑣事也同等重要。
而且同樣重要，是我們根本就不該只著眼在這些個別的藝文空間，他們提供了社群什麼，而是整個社區如何仍容得下這種那種的各式活動，這個所謂的社區基礎，在租金以外還能說什麼？人情味如
何建立？比較起文藝人的活動，當你走在這些區的街道，覺得那是行人可以暢步，見到社區仍有人
在馬路邊種菜，其實我們就已經感覺到那社區還算安好吧，但這種社區的總體基礎種種，又是如
何借鑑轉移？
就像我若說搬入鄉郊最好是可以耕田一樣，若這個最重要的分野都已是站在另一個價值典範有感而發，而大家既然都不是站在同一典範／生活世界，那大家是／能如何溝通？真是可溝通嗎？認知另一套的價值典範，意味著什麼，人們可以從中吸收什麼？穿越人們生活的社區，看了一串又不是
有看頭的景點（某種新潮景觀），然後，聽一場介紹，遊人實在只能看到社區的表面，（帶著（對方又未必理解的）自己的問題意識）問到一些表面的問題，可真正的社區生活，卻往往是如此綿延，扣於多重基礎及瑣碎細節，不足以為外人道，可以或應該如何認識？
社區的安好，有時需要一些遊人，但有時候無遊人更好。以遊人幫助生計，其實等於把自主的經濟
基礎交予此起彼伏的全球經濟。不依仗或過賴旅遊服務行業，如何令市民有優質生活，我們又回到著眼社會的發展政策，人們對於文化政策發展的想像。但什麼是優質生活？桃花源的啟示若是在於那裡沒有政府？西九從上而下的發展教訓夠大了，但細型的民間搞作，下層的民間另類／非正規經濟基礎，對於社區可以如何自活，其實我們也沒有想透，或者，因我們仍有太大的藝術包袱？
我們或都曉得研究他人的生活世界，需要耐性地進入和仔細的觀察，但當整個希望別人學習如是
的遊學模式卻偏並非如此，這不是一種教學的言不由衷？我們的韓國釜山之旅就是快速穿越別人
的社區和生活世界。人們接待匆匆的我們，正如我們有時接待他們到訪一樣，大家都明白和體諒
時空穿梭成本太高，但大家都相信互訪的都是有心人，要盡地主之儀，教育分享和推動國際連結。
但有時間跨區遠遊，思考異地知識可以如何在地化轉移，何不更低成本地花在自己社區，自己動手來嘗摸自己的道路？因為跨國的預算安排，我們難以達到自己開出的理想標準，那我們為什麼仍要
成行？藝術圈已有一些對於藝術活動的教育化轉向（educationa turn）的論述，15 是否也是時候
再思藝術家駐場／大學教育的遊學化是什麼一回事？

不更該是計劃想談論一種在地性，卻以跑到老遠去為方法？那是否一個讓我們嘗一嘗作為遊客，
抓捉一下那竄擾別人社區的觀光者行為心理，為別人將會來竄擾自己社區先來個同情性理解的刻
意安排？對於旅遊增廣見聞，那只能說也是對的，但增廣見聞又不必然要與旅遊有關，那並且也只是從參觀者角度出發而言。城市對於接待遊客產生的社會／城市壓力，自由行已讓香港人領教了一課，有時還提出一種人工化興建景點以作分流的解決方案，旅遊明顯並很早就已成為了一種工業，
但現在學習也與旅遊扣連，捨近望遠的安排怎麼不會加劇一種學習的貧富差距？
我們縱是去認真考察，遊客始終就是我們在韓國做的事情和身份，因我們不是去生產，不用勞動，旅行就是一種消費式的離地生活。曾造訪及駐場的香港藝術家，甚至當地藝術人，都一再跟我們介
紹那全球最巨商場的桑拿浴場。這邊廂大家剛吃過地道的韓菜，接著大家仍是要到全球著魔的咖啡店呷一口進口咖啡，這些作為文化體驗那裡起那裡終？換到大眾來到錦上路參觀展覽，會否也
是其他城市人的平行空間一日遊，可以是一種教育，接觸有關於Ｘ，然後有始有終（總是回去），甚至參加者們，大家又是同樣上餐館吃一頓飯（頂多換成一個商品化盤菜），灌下不健康的飲料，留下剩餸，說自己關心大自然。生活不似要就因接觸到的另種生活世界的價值而改變，反而我們大家
都需要回去舊生活，再工作，以換取酬勞，再旅遊（認真考察交流／散心），周而復此？
新興的文化旅遊推銷鄉村的異域情調，將大自然馴化描繪如桃花源給觀光客消費，如台灣在文創後漸出風頭的農創，誰敢說不會帶來如創意產業幌子同樣的負面後果？有農友就告訴過我，他在
剛過的第13屆文件展遇到一句「因為我們是農夫，所以我們都是藝術家」的口號，是這尊貴的藝術
場合給了「後－桃花源」策展人張嘉莉農耕＝藝術想法的保證嗎？16 當一般的藝術借生活空間，大談反思生活，反思藝術，卻而再生產再消費更多的藝術，甚至征服這些新空間，會否真要在藝術計
劃裡，終止藝術生產，那種介入生活的反映，方能重新理解生活藝術是何物？會否，策展人所不喜歡的（中國）人們那安甘於自我區隔的生活，已是生活作為抵抗抗爭的極致？將其作為烏托邦的污
名化，其實就是要大家相信資本主義的全面勝利，提倡不要再要求那些不可能的其它更好的社會
制度的必要／可能，接受現狀 (頂多伴隨修修補補／動輒億億救市) 的那新自由主義意識形態？

（三．四）
後桃花源計劃的過程，遇上就政改問題而發生的佔領行動，然後演化成「雨傘運動／雨傘革命」，
展覽可說發生在「後雨傘」的香港語境，反動的抗爭者，都經歷了一種從激昂到失落的心境轉化，
佔領區生活時空的被解體。對於許寶強文中把「後極權」社會的平行結構或第二文化套用到佔領區的好些活動，我覺得似是由於太急於引介概念，而多少有點把概念濫用。展覽或音樂會，都是些與「慣常藝術」活動性質相近者，沒錯是可以是人們／運動的發聲平臺，但其實對抗爭運動朝目標
的升級深化的政治作用，我覺得不宜高估。
就是藝術作品／活動表面帶正面意義的吸引了人們前來佔領區和逗留，甚至達到了藝術／訊息分享的作用，其實也可能是在反映運動失卻下一步行動方向的癥候。我不是說佔領區不需要藝術，或不是人人有權做創作，而是若我們說到藝術計劃的抗爭和反動希冀，我們為了運動，更需要政治地藝術，而那意味，我們得也改變一些藝術的慣性，真正加深我們思考的厚度，影響生活（及至生命）的強度。平行結構，本不是指「官方體制容許的範圍以外的組織形式和社群生活」，是「有別於香港主流」的麼？那可大不同於指在官方體制不容許的佔領區範圍內的平庸形式化藝術活動。

我覺得後桃花源計劃頗鴻心壯志地加添了一次外地的考察之旅，並無疑很有效率地讓我們看到釜山多種不同的藝術文化面貌，但比較起這認識其他地方吸收的不同經驗，我覺得此安排有趣之處，

許寶強提出的是升級與落區，升級雖詞彙出處是針對佔領行動對於衝擊否的爭論，但作者正是望
把對升級的行動目光，及而把反動／革命的發生場域來個轉移，指向深化／模式的轉變。轉換個地
方場域，本身不一定就是深化，卻可以接觸到另一些人（相對避免向佔領區的同道人宣教），在更接近人們生活的地方（比照佔領區展覽或音樂會的時空）作更有力更持久的情感交流、宣傳教育。
若能夠把握利用到這空間與生活的關係的轉變作為介入點，那也就會有機會產生一種深化，這種

15     參 http://tranzit.org/curatorialdictionary/index.php/dictionary/educational-turn16     展中有有關於綠色議題的關注，但也受到類同的批評。
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2012/10/art/gardens-beyond-eden-bio-aesthetics-eco-futurism-and-dystopia-at-documenta-13

78
79

深化，基礎就在於那與人們的日常生活及持續的時間空間有所關連，不單對問題有所認知，也可以
有一己相應的行動，並從一己的行為展現思想的身教。17 那樣，人們不是通過留守佔領區暫停自己的日常生活，而是跳出／改變自己一路以來所接受的所謂正常生活，讓運動深入生活／生命，從中找回支撐運動的基礎。這種對於日常生活的政治要求，恰恰就在日常生活的層面，抵抗日常生活被「後極權」的集體犬儒化滲透。
但我由此又立即想到，若我們都明白日常生活的抗爭的重要性，那深化運動會否弔詭地意味落區
離開佔領區？這若真是我們需要的升級，為什麼我們不願離開佔領區？（就是被驅離了佔領區，我們也要鳩嗚式地落區？）為什麼我們相信，離開佔領區就離開了運動？（我們的日常生活真那麼遠離運動目標？那運動目標又會否是同樣遠離我們的日常生活？）佔領區通過群體活動的規模，提供
了一種媒體／予外間的可視性，但那也可能淪成一種景觀性，然後我們已慣了景觀性的思維去配合
傳播，甚至去想政治問題，使得我們一直都想保持運動的集體形勢，就是現實已成了一籌莫展的窮巷暗角，仍是希望靠犧牲／癱瘓日常生活以討價還價地換取一些現行體制（自該本該執行）的改善
改革。於是到了這種特殊時刻／緊急狀態，我們被發現民主運動的支持者實反太慣於把政治也與
日常生活切割開來，於是連革命也要和日常生活切割，不想把革命推展到改變自身的日常生活？
真正反動的運動，是否也該承認，甚至普選特首與立法會，也不是什麼靈丹妙藥，問題反而在於我們仍是相信代議政制，我們想要去政治化的生活，把政治交給代理人，偶爾才來投一次票，逃避真
正的自主以享受另一片面（明知在萎縮中／例如藝術創作）的自由。若把佔領區的藝術搞作視作為
第二種文化，平行時空／結構，那這種藝術可能也正樂於存在於這種逸出於日常的空間（雖然這次
並非藝術館或白盒子），因它更有利於藝術（那沒有自身生活基礎的自主性）無束地表現自己，並以為自己藝術地參與了一場政治運動，卻實連反動的基礎也未攪清，未有為此推進，反而記錄照料
藝術作品，似在拖運動的後腿。藝術教育對於藝術作品的概念象徵力量過於著迷，甚至以此和實用性／政治效度分道揚鑣。但藝術創作僅是關乎於思考的空間？沒有政治地層次上意義的藝術，其實會否是在幫閒，在消費運動才真？

鏗鏘，因為那清晰的對於不想被金錢操控生活的反抗訴求外，還重要是附提了新的基礎：成為自足的生產者。
追求自由的藝術，你沒有必要改變自己生活，生活更然可以是得過且過，我是否把反動的生活在一
個藝術計劃中想得太認真？我既不曉從桃花源的小農何時何步發展會成為國家／又從小國寡民墮
入到亂世，我也不曉從農業走到經商社會，世界還有沒有可以逆流發展的可能，但若說計劃展覽策
展意念是有意試把生活空間及生活模式的因素，與香港社會當下政治抗爭的意識連結起來想像，我只能說，平行時空需要平行結構，需要讓生活紮根的另樣基礎，時空該意味有人在地生活，以一
種本不可能的自主構成真正的政治。基礎若是真有政治經濟的自主基礎有點難度，在另樣的社區
經濟／非正規經濟如何下開晚近David Graeber給無政府主義連到人類學的禮物經濟的過盛條
件，又使我想回到農耕的奇妙處。但不談農耕，佔領中環的禮物經濟課堂後，藝術家程展緯也提出
藝術存在禮物經濟中那過盛分享的條件，但因為那以概念藝術為基礎，不是很容易把握其流通和反動效能，更易見的，仍是當代藝術（及藝術家）的生產過盛。反而，我覺得有了生活的基礎，好的文化藝術都會自然發酵，《64K報》「路上耙專欄」所談的歌曲《自由的滋味（新界版）》，正給大家娓娓道來，建議大家不妨上網搜來聽聽。
展覽日子過去，抽空來參觀的城市人都在活動日後消散，計劃／展覽對觀者有沒有什麼啟發？做藝
術的，似乎就得相信藝術已播下了啟蒙的種子，只有看回到城市生活的人們有沒有這樣的緣／自我（啟蒙的）造化？（當然我們可以再來文獻展、出版物…，這些顛覆第一手觀察必要性的補充）但我們有否把啟蒙的自我啟蒙要求放回到我們自身上，會否才可能是(不該再拖要追問的)要點？留在鄉間的我，只知計劃有些地方有些瑣碎的手尾要清，看著這些為藝術生產的東西，想到藝術依然如是，就總覺得原委都錯了。可沒理由要別人專程長道跋涉回來處理這些手板眼見工夫吧？(交通曾給人一些減低距離成本的想像，但正如梁文道在一次於菜園村的反高鐵集會上所言，高鐵將大
大便利他的工作，但他的問題是，為什麼可以犧牲其他人的家園和生活來換取像他這自身的便利呢？) 反過來，生活劃出的距離雖然很是限制，但同時也是很真實，值得想想如何加施應用，反動
的革命基礎本就是從這些基礎的反動而來。

當然，這裡既不是討論農耕的場合，也不是討論雨傘運動的佔領行動（及或所謂藝術社運）的場
合，我如是帶過，祗是欲指出升級（和第二文化的催生）和可持續生活改變（活在真誠）間的重要
關聯，那或才是平行結構對於展覽計劃的最重要啟發性意義。地區工作之難作，那大概是因為我們的生活早不在地，社群的連帶已被原子化，工作租金生活的壓力，只容得下代議政客和議會，社
會的分工亦然 (也是在這意義下，自己建自己的社區／家居設施有它的反動意義，提升自主的能力)。
但找工作搵生計，衣食住行，其實都是一籃子相互牽連的價值抉擇，生活容不容得下人們自主的規劃，視乎你要怎樣的生活。
後雨傘的後，有雙重的可能意思，一是生活又一切回復正常，一是生活從此不一樣。放在桃花源來
想，探訪過桃花源，人們選擇了回去，但怎麼都沒有打算在自己的現實世界把理想國度實踐出來嗎？（理想國度連這種衝擊力也沒有？）生活的每時每刻，其實都是潛在反動決定的重要時刻，消費者運動總比消費運動好，而傳統政治光譜的左翼社會民主主義到共產主義外，也有脫出無政府
主義直接民主的「共同」（commons）佔領運動提出不同的另樣生活模式。這些論述已愈來愈易被接觸，甚至在藝術論述中被提及，但本地的藝術館不但不會加入佔領行列，未來的視覺文化博物館則更是拒收這方面的東西，生的死的政治他們都不要，我實不明白除了在自己的生活拿起決心
為自己所信的生命政治尋築出基礎，我們還可以待誰，或在待什麼。
理論家齊澤克在佔領華爾街的時候，曾給運動打氣，重點正是我們要「要求那不可能的！」（demand the impossible）。消費的「impossible is nothing」口號才真的是虛空，因為你最後做的是
消費提出這個口號的產品，而不是對它說不。（事實上，穿什麼鞋的問題上，我們近乎有選擇嗎？）
在勞麗麗有份撰寫的關於生活館的抗爭性何在的文章中，我以為論述比較策展人的論述必然在地

17     參李維怡：〈傘落社區創新天？？〉，《中大學生報》（2015年3月號），頁15。

80
81

Foundation Ground,or de-tour
LAU Kin Wah
Be realistic, demand the impossible!
— Che Guevara
Dismiss the Government!
— anonymous graffiti in the Umbrella Movement(1)
As introduced by Clara CHEUNG, curator of the project, “In Search of the Peachland” is “anart exchange project involving many different layers of idea exchanges amongst different
parties.” As an invited observer, I could hardly follow and write on all aspects, and thus I try
to keep my focus on the central idea that this project are lined up with artists that are all living around the same district, namely the Kam Sheung Road area same as mine. I believe thatamongst the recent exhibitions in the city with emphasis on locality, community and the like,this seemingly straightforward grouping rationale is still a relatively unexplored approachwith its special meaning, that by linking up where and how one lives, it seemed an attempt
to open up the needy discussion on political resistance based on everyday life.
Yet when I am saying where and how one lives could be linked to a kind of resistance basedon everyday life, I actually leave art out of the formulation (I will briefly argue why later on). I
leave out in the formulation too, the specificity of the chosen area, for as long as the exhibition takes place where the artists live, their decisions on their works could then be based on
their everyday living experiences, and such resistance should be able to emerge anywhere.
Surely, Kam Sheung Road district is a comparatively rural area of Hong Kong, choosing to
exhibit here should be a deliberate choice, and I will not deny or ignore it. But is there something so unique to the area that the ways of life addressed in the art here could constitute akind of resistance not able to happen elsewhere? I am not sure. I am not ruling out that ruralarea is quite distinctive, but we have many other rural areas in Hong Kong too, and what is so
distinctive about the rural?
As such a project is quite unprecedented (so far that I know), the giving birth of it happening
in the rural area might be hinting us there are really some differences between the urban andthe rural area, such as the degree of the sense of belonging, community bonding, freedom
using the public space, the generic quality of development, etc., that encourage or discourage people to think and act in this model. But could these be proven or refuted? Is livingin the New Territories nowadays really so vast a difference, that a certain rural favour could
be reflected in the way one lives, or the artwork one produces? Is Kam Sheung Road district
really that remote, where the mainstream value of the city ceased to dominate? Is it a kind of
exaggeration, to suggest living in Kam Sheung Road district equal as having a rural way oflife? What I tried to raise, is perhaps some skepticism towards an unreflective rural imagination of Kam Sheung Road area, and keep considering resistance that are generally relevant
to present day Hong Kong as a whole.
But why then an artists community gather here in the Kam Sheung Road district? Is there
anything special of this artists community as spotted by our curator? Maybe her explicationon lending the literary reference of “The Peachland” by Tao Yuanming of Eastern Jin Dynasty
for the title of the project could give us some hints? To her, this piece of literature portraits
an ideal state of idyll setting, which also indirectly criticizing the corrupted government at
the time. She noted however the text is also at once a Taoist wish of resigning oneself fromsociety, as well as (by quoting another writer), “a silence but strong challenge posted against
the corrupted world.”
Such a pair of contrasting attitudes, seemed to echo the paradoxical argument of aesthetics
being the most powerful political critique, by withstanding any politicization, only this time
wrapped in a spatial metaphor. But Clara seemed to feel that Chinese civilians are probably
too good at generating their own parallel time and space, they only fight back when the ruler
is extremely corrupted making their life absolutely unbearable. This means the resigning ideal might be more, that of an escapist ideology, withholding people from engaging in resistances and uprisings. Yet Clara distinctively made her remark, that the community settling in
Kam Sheung Road district, in her eyes, is one that is opposite to the typical Chinese escapism, which is why she added the “post” prefix to Peachland in the Chinese title to distinguish
one from the other. Yet before we hence move straight on to study on this “Post-Peachland”
concept, a detour in Peachland might still reveal us a few worthy reminders.
(1.1)
The first note I find interesting is that to announce Peachland as an ideal state, it always needa narrative viewpoint from an outsider. The residents of Peachland, on the contrary, tried topersuade the intruder not to tell other outsiders of the encounter, (but quite surprisingly) for
the reason they believe there is nothing really worthy to tell about their existence. In such aperspective, is our curator initiating the project being someone living in the city (outside the
district) a merely coincident?
For holding a contemporary art exhibition in a more rural setting (unfamiliar with contemporary art exhibition, despite independent curator Andrew Lam, also not a native villager, hassetup his MOST (Museum of Site) inside the walled village of Kam Tin in the late 90s), theneed of some outsiders to give it a push is understandable (but why are the initiatives always
not coming from the arts community living there?). With the introduction of a broader scaleof publicity towards the art audiences, the project has exceed itself as a merely communal art
project, but yet how one persuades the art audiences that art in such a district is (and in whatway) relevant to them? (Or they are well-used to travelling afar to see art anyway?) And withwhat measures, could the gap between the local people with contemporary art be bridged?
(Or is such already a politically incorrect assumption?)
Perhaps as always, once the curatorial statement is set, things that matters are passed backinto the hands of the artists. How they determine their role, in between being a community
resident, community art artist, or simply an artist, and their addressing subjects being thosefrom the community or beyond, are very much in the realm of artists’ individual decisions.
Yet other than each creativity capacity, what I am interested is that, we could now try study
the artists’ ways of life and the living environment to see what and how they are contributing
to these artistic decisions too. Yet how do we identify these relationships, and what countas rebellious or resistance under what context (the rural one, or the rural/urban one)? The
introduction of any art project in such a region, will naturally surpass a merely (objective) reflection of the regional phenomenon, and resulting something more like a complex reflexive
interaction. I believe it is therefore as meaningful that we read alongside the content of thework, or the formal language of the work, the real condition of such artistic production, for it
is not just an in-situ work, but a work in-situ.
82
83

What is quite peculiar to this genre of utopian literature like Peachland, is that their discursive plots often enough rely on some travelers’ testimonies. I am not talking about theeye-witness’ credit it tries to generate in proving the existence of utopia, but the precondition, for the existence of such accounts to occur, these travelers must choose to return tothe reader’s world every time. Hence, it implies that those who discovered the utopia will
nevertheless choose to come back to our corrupted world? While for the impossibility ofre-entering the utopia, could it be subconsciously revealing our assumption of the imperfecthuman nature that could only ruin such idealistic paradise if it is accessible to all? Utopia justseems destined to be forever elsewhere.
The second point to note is the projection of the ideal state out of this Peachland. If thoseliving inside are not living heavenly, carefree with no need of laboring, what is so idealisticof such a way of life, especially if the societies inside and outside Peachland (when the text
was written) were both still very much an agricultural one? What is it that make one projects
it as ideal? Could it not be its sealing off from (hence the absence of) war, harsh ruler, or
corrupted state, that people see it as ideal/utopian? How is war or corruption avoided and or
could be avoided in such a state? How is it possible to maintain such separation, and being
self-sustainable under such separation? Are we not then falling back to a kind of escapism
as ideal, only this time we are frustrated not by wars, but by the over-developed city and its
grimy political development, pushing the urban dwellers to start dreaming of the romantic
idyll of the suburb and rural? (Or such way of living is a price people are actually willing to
pay in exchange for peace?) Should we probe deeper into the uncertain role of farming, as akind of solid foundation in sustaining some more autonomous, independent ways of life? Or
are people longing really for stronger community bonding? Or proximity to nature instead?
Could these projections be merely misconceptions, idealized- projection onto ways of life
different from oneself? What are longings anyway, if they exist only in thoughts, and nevermotivate people to becoming one’s way of life in reality?

It operates on different conceptions of time and space. The world of the future may have no clocks.
— Tom McGrath(1.2.1)
As we reckoned that an idealistic homeland is becoming ever harder to find in reality, maybe
what is idealistic, need no longer be of something concrete and workable, but exist exactly
as a projection against the un-idealistic society? But what if we need them as real resistance?
What then could be their foundation? I think it is highly revealing, that immediately after
defining the Kam Sheung Road artists community as not escapists, Clara quoted a line fromparticipating artist Natalie LO to back up her argument, suggesting “Farming is anotherkind of protest.” Farming has undoubtedly been given lots of attention lately, global wise,
as a form of social movement, contributing to an alternative future that is more sustainable.
(The idealistic projection of a rural life might however have not existed too, prior to the new
movement in organic farming in Hong Kong.) Yet, other than Natalie Lo being a part-time
farmer at Sangwoodgoon, farming is not a representative activity for the group of artists
being chosen.
Other than TANG Kwok Hin being a native settling here since birth, these post 80s (born inthe 80s generation) artists started to know of this area, owed much probably to their varying
involvement in the earlier movement (2009-) against the building of the High-Speed Railway
connecting to China and the demolishing of (the non-indigenous) Choi Yuen Village (locatedexactly in Kam Sheung Road area) for its construction. More art related, the group are all

related to the Yau Ma Tei’s community art space of Wooferten in various degree, as either
members/staffs or at least as invited artists, where artistic traits concerning the communityand civil resistance were encouraged. But given that Wooferten was also actively supporting
the Anti- High-Speed Railway movement, this movement might be a more creditable sourceof the transformation of value they have, in determining how to live one’s life. (Btw, even
Sangwoodgoon is born out of this movement.)
Clara followed on to introduce Mudwork (of NG Ka Chun, Chung Wai Ian, and RedsCHEUNG) for their community construction projects, as well as NG and CHUNG’s involvement with the community newspaper “Pat Heung Post,” together with Sushan CHAN.
Does this mean a further emphasis (other than Natalie LO’s farming) on utilitarianism inthe “Post-Peachland” paradigm, that contrast oneself with the usual utopian projection,
appreciating things/actions that are functional and intervening the reality? (Art putting up a
resistance to utopian rhetoric?)
But could art now be serving a realistic goal other than itself, or a resistance movement, notbe another self-idealization? There has always been some literatures over participatory community and social experiments juxtaposing terms such as that of the Real Utopia. But should
the community works by our artists be seen as artworks, or being seen as merely community
works (by artists)? U.S. Art professor Claire Bishop has posed a similar question in her publication Artificial Hell, suggesting that many participatory works now claim their community
function, but yet choose to present themselves as art and in art context, instead of allowing
them be assessed by standards of community work.
It is true that in rural areas, there are much spaces less closely monitored and maintainedby the government, or of ownership only loosely defined, leaving much occasions that one
could decide to take up the responsibility oneself. (Whether there are such rooms in theurban district for one to intervene, I guess, count as always, more on how creative one is.) Yet
such culture not just came to a halt within those newer estates with management companies, conflicts also often occurred due to such grey areas, where problems are resolved lessthrough lawful procedures, but resorting to local hierarchy of power and even violence.
Besides, the pro-government stance of the traditional indigenous groups out of shared interest is also widely known. One must thus admit, the artists community here is only a weakly
cohered minority, having little say in determining how the area is going to be developed.
Different groups have each their interests to defend, and this tension often even spread toin between non-indigenous groups. The rural reality is thus hard to be idealized once you
glimpse into this insiders’ picture.
As for artist TANG Kwok Hin, he reflected on one ocassion his own indigenous villager identity in a sharing session, and claimed himself to be against the policy of allowing indigenous
male villager the (discriminative/privileged) right to claim land and build one’s own house.
Yet he also interestingly mused on the scenario, that if he got this permission, he might actually go ahead and build one, renting a part of it, so as to support a part reserved for artist
in residence program or the like. Is it not a dilemma that an unjust policy could put people
into? For to claim what you are entitled to, and put them to realize one’s own vision, is it
not also a way to take things into one’s hand rather than waiting for the government to dosomething top-down? (Yet, is he still really against this policy then? Or could we assume art
still reactionary?)
With such background in sight, we could see the relationship between the artists’ ways oflife and the role they wanted art to play could be quite complicate, different as usual fromperson to person, the subject and means of resistance might also vary, hardly forming any
84
85

unified movement. Is there still anything shared that is more general?
(1.2.2)
While farming is not likely the common reason the artists moved in for, cheaper rent should
be an undeniable factor. Yet as long as demands for flats continue to exist, the rising of rentof Kam Sheung Road district could be of no exception. Transforming of old houses into
smaller apartments for rent besides newly constructed ones are happening on daily basis.
Those who could no longer afford the rise, could only opt for area even further out, or seeking extra income (by travelling more frequently out to town?). People moving to the New
Territories are often having not much choice over where to live owed to affordability, rather
than having any specific reasons why one needs to live here and not elsewhere. The property
market as a sum of all factors, reflects how Hongkonger generally prefer convenience of thecity, while shorter time and money spend on daily commute to work being a strong preference too.
For my case, despite I want to live where I could farm, I am highly aware that I simply could
not afford to live anywhere else in the city, consider the income I made with my present time
distribution on various works. So am I facing a choice here? Maybe a conscious choice ofwhat I want to do, which (brings a natural consequence on what way of life and where I could
live, that) at the same time is really an unalterable class confinement? Yet what if you do not
see the city as the loci centre of your activities, that you prefer more DIY and less temptationof unnecessary consumption, that you prefer to stay put in a less-modernized community?
As long as you can make your own living this way, one might suddenly see the “wrongheadedness” of the whole property market. Yet how far could one push this (resistance?) to theextreme, and yet survive? While farming might be coming close to a sustaining practice,“half farming half X” could be a less extreme option.
“Half X half artist” might be more true however, for most arts practitioners in Hong Kongthat their art are not generating them full income, and so they need to earn from somewhere
so as to support their arts. (The artists recruited in this project varies in this spectrum.) As
farming is producing something that oneself also needs, there is a subtle foundational difference, from even non-commercial art resources and working mechanism, not to mention thecommercial selling market. While art could be about anything (hence also about farming),
I think farming is in return quite unique or exemplary, when one is trying to think of living
an autonomous life of resistance. Yet framing it by art is however more about bringing art
into the picture by filling in the subject matter. Such is the dilemma of contemporary art,
constantly about this or that, while retaining a distance, to keep its own identity when evenaddressing art as being the way of life. This is also the feeling I have of the project, as well as
perhaps my hesitation seeing rural as an indispensable focus of the project, if farming/agriculture is not truly engaged.
(1.2.3)
To put it in a different way, to pursue a way of life, an art project could be the hindrance, as
the two have two set of bio-politics. According to Clara, “parallel space/time” is a term she
modified, from the original concept of “Parallel Structure” from a piece of writing by local
scholar HUI Po Keung, discussing what could still be done next during the stalemate of theUmbrella Movement. It could also be used in alternately with a “Second Culture,” which
could both be traced to Czechoslovakia’s dissent Vaclav Havel’s resistance strategy against
the post-totalitarian regime. It addresses the kinds of organization and community life which
are beyond what the authority approved of, such as underground publications, performances, concerts, conferences, exhibitions, or those that exist alongside the official structure,completing with them over the socialization of the civilians. By estranging out a space where

the political hegemony with the official establishments terminate, people could then beliving in truth. And through such a way, HUI wishes a new kind of value and life-form beyond
the mainstream could start forming in Hong Kong.
The modification from “Parallel Structure” to “Parallel Space/Time” could be understandable consider Clara is trying to bring Peachland into the discourse. But also with this slight
modification, the crucial structural foundation that support the “Parallel Space/Time” startfading out of the picture. It is out of this same concern, instead of reading what the artworks
in the project are about, I try keep asking how and on what foundation (forms of sustainable way of life) these artworks are constituted that make it having a meaningful dialogue/
response to the project. After all, a purely space/time isolation could be consider a kind of
escapism that still need to be filled by some substantial content, a substantial resistance on
the other hand need not a special space/time segregation, for space/time in our life are partof the needed structuring that constitute the resistance. How we use our space/time, is thebattle.
“Parallel Space/Time” characterization of Peachland is thus falling short illuminating what
HUI Po Heung suggest as a “parallel structure”. Yet, such discrepancy is nevertheless a goodreflection on the project itself, as a temporal space/time event, in relation to the long term
communal residence and art embedding in a way of life that it wants to address. How thencould space/time as a foundation to such a project be discussed? Sushan CHAN’s artwork“64K Post” (64K being the number of the bus route travelling in between Tai Po and Yuen
Long serving the Kam Sheung Road district) brought the idea of commuter’s travelling to mynotice.
For paying the project a weekend visit, Kam Sheung Road station of the West Rail acts as
an entry point in all the publicity materials. Being connected to the Mass Transit Railway
network is highly significant for it reduces the remoteness that people might have over Kam
Sheung Road district, or at least people seems to feel more secure knowing how to reach
there. It is this accessibility, no doubt, that leads the area between Kam Sheung Road station
to Kam Tin being planned to be developed into some housing estates by the government, anews that Clara also noted in her introductory text. TANG Kwok Hin living in Kam Tin sensitively noticed that this few minutes walk through alleys could be posting some challenges tothe visitors, he thus came up with the idea of bicycle pickup service from Kam Sheung Road
Station. But changing the use of this personal commuting tool, and it inevitably raised a few
technical problems.
Giving directions get immediately more complicated when one needs to travel to and froto the other major venue Tse Uk Chuen, where Sangwoodgoon is located. Bus and minibus
options, Octopus or cash discount, all these are minor details familiarized by the residents,
yet quite difficult to fully explain to new visitors, especially they will be only here for a single
weekend, clear and easy options are perhaps more important than the excessive information
to save a little cost. But such an attitude, however minor, suggested a split in the mode ofexperience approximating the living experience, to try and remain focusing on the quest
after the art itself.
The pick of transportation could indeed reveal a lot about the area and the commuter, as thisis not just decision based on the cost coeffiency to space/time, but different value embedded in a personal way of life in respect to space/time, as well as the historic and structural
handling of space/time in a much larger public and regional scale. But there are surely lots ofsimilar tiny details that one could take note in the city, so why should we expect someone totake note of those outside their own life-world, that lacks the everyday functionality to them?
8687

(Or if one is really so much an art enthusiast, and do not want to miss the experience that
Sushan CHAN got her inspiration from, maybe such an audience should really take a 64K bus
from Tai Po to Kam Sheung Road? But again, does that really matter that much?)

The problem is that this clash of positions—which concerns pressing global conflicts over food production andthe status of the natural world—was not explicitly engaged in the exhibition’s framework (only by individual
authors and artists). As a result Christov-Bakargiev’s project betrayed a (non)position of uncommitted pluralism, a tendency familiar in the liberal milieu of contemporary art, happy to allude to crises and emergencies
but take no clear stand in relation to them.
— T.J. DemosAt best, daily life, like art, is revolutionary. At worst it is a prison-house.
— Paul Willis(1.3.1)
Sushan CHAN lives just a stone’s throw away from Kam Sheung Road, with a 64K bus stop insight. After moving in, she found a job that needed her to travel by the bus every weekdays
back and forth. For this project, she turned again to produce a communal newspaper as her
art piece. Going through the process of news gathering, writing, illustration, layout, printing, binding and distribution, the work is hence like taking on another job, but this is oneof a community nature. By lending use of questionnaires and interviews, touching on topics
such as bus schedule, it tries to arouse the interest of the commuters fellows who lives in thesame area, especially consider the few bus stops near Sheung Tsuen where she distributed
these papers. Yet if one consider it is a rare occasion having an art project set in the districtfor public visitors, it is actually quite intriguing that she lend the chance to try communicate,targeting at the other people who are also living there but need to constantly travel out of
the area for work.
Natalie LO and TANG Kwok Hin are both successful in reducing the distance of transportation by realizing their works at their workplace and home respectively. With zero carbon
footprints, Natalie experimented with leftover, not from the kitchen and dining table, butfrom the farm, shifting the topic from the usual consumers’ end back to the less disclosed
producer end, consuming the veggie that has reached its end before departing from where
they were grown. TANG on the other hand, opened his home in a walled village in Kam Tinon the second day of the exhibition weekend, to do a marathon sharing for visitors, introducing his works that are related to his indigenous villager experience. A video that recorded
the travel he made in the area was shown, in replacement of the personal bike tour he provided for limited audiences on the first open day.
Both artists, fair to say, combined their life in the area into their art. But where the art resides?
Is Natalie’s art the relational participation in the exchange for her food? The handkerchiefsouvenirs? Her food servings? Her interest and her work and observation at the farm seems
perfectly blended, but it seems they are tailor made presented as an art event at the verysame time. TANG Kwok Hin’s work is hard to pinpoint in another opposite way, for we have a
direct viewing of selected artworks on the projection screen, related to aspects of his village
life or examination of his personal identity. But is our artist lending the form of the muchfamiliar format of artist sharing, forming a new work in a meta-level for the project? Artworks
become the windows here for the artist to show you the surrounding outside, but sometimes
you slip into fictive elements (often of cyber sources) in the artworks.
Encountering the daily working environment of the artist, is it not like an open studio visit

then? When the production studio and the artwork are all present together, what kind ofknowledge for art or beyond art, came out of this overlapping experiences? Joining in theactivity of Natalie LO at Sangwoodgoon, you might not be feeling inside an artist’s studio,
but the farm is actually the environment where she work (revealing her half identity of farmer
other than half artist?) and choose to present her work (which other than this one for the
project, were not always farming related). Yet visiting the living/dining room of TANG Kwok
Hin’s family, you are actually inside the place where he lives (but not his studio), yet being
temporarily converted into an incongruous screening room, encountering an artist sharing
session which might usually happens in an art space. Together with the texts in Sushan
CHAN’s 64K Post, disclosing the context of one’s living in relation to one’s artworks, seems
quite a challenge to all artists and most of them resort to much verbal/textual communication and explication.
When we wanted to place emphasis on locality in art, does it automatically lead one to focus
on the contextual side, or should it still be art-centric/art-oriented to start with? Are we looking for some unique experiences not to be found elsewhere, or expecting something more
universal for the audiences to reflect on themselves? More fundamentally, how is art to relate
to something, or how is it to present something? What has this interest on locality to do with
art in the very first place? Is art not a platform that is empty by itself, allowing itself to present
whatever suggested? (While the resistance is based on this reflective distance?) One mightperhaps have doubt here, that I am exaggerating the problem in a binary oppositional way,that the art and lifeworld are both permeable by one another. Yet if knowledge of a lifeworldof a locality might be of no use to another life-world, could the art that is also connectedto that lifeworld (of a person) be invalid to another lifeworld (of another person)? Or moreradically, if the original lifeworld has no conception of art, then by inserting it and singling
it out, has the lifeworld been used as just a backdrop to art? Will an art coating be a better
metaphor?
Rural life being framed into art, I believe, is apt to describe works of both Nataile and TANG,
but how are these works being placed back into the living environment (with that zero distancing)? When the visitors moved in between these art and their locality, is it the everyday
life any more that they experienced? For artists to present their art, the family’s living room
was being recruited for screening, the vegetation that were supposed to be clear away forcompost in the farm has been retained for keeping in the food cycle. The visitors might encounter not everyday life but be turned tourists for the prepared exotic experience, accessing inside the historic walled village that is normally restricted, and a taste of fresh organic
food right at the field like much trendy television cooking programs.
(1.3.2)The way I feel I need to post questions in a radical manner, is perhaps because I felt that art
remained the production here for people to experience, while my formulation is however
seeking an everyday life that the locality provides its resistance to redundant artistic production, to make itself politically charged. That is why, when Mudwork decided on building
a wooden structure privy (for Sangwoodgoon) in this project, I originally think it might be
the exemplar of an utilitarian response to the framework of Post-Peachland (despite that asa half-farmer of Sangwoodgoon, I doubted whether the input of its construction material,
manpower and plot of land is worthy, particularly in comparison with the original bucket in
the wild which fulfilled its job nicely for men). Yet what I found interesting is that the group
actually served visitors a drink they called “privy cocktail,” yellowish and with little bubbles
during the opening weekend. That led me to rethink what is there to share to the visitorsfrom the artwork? As the artwork is such a functional construction made for the farm, could
there be really not much things that the visitors could relate themselves to? Which is why a8889drink of humour is offered for visitors to share?
Sharing might be amongst the keywords of relational works or community art, but instead ofseeing the “privy cocktail” as such an offering, I am wondering if it is at the same time some
additional measure, to prevent the functional artwork from collapsing totally into reality(as Arthur C. Danto draws the line for art)? So while the art project aims to focus on locality
keep on the march in reducing distance in its various aspects, art seems to constantly needretaining this distance. What is the collapsing of distance for? For efficiency? Reduction of
cost? Sure, but behind these reasons, I guess it demonstrates the foundational conditioningof a space/time locality in support of its sustainable autonomy. In Sangwoodgoon, there isno electricity, and it could not be access by automobiles. These led one to resolve problem in one’s own way (yet this trouble is perhaps why it could still be retained for farming),
in self-manageable scale and methodology. Bigger constructions are executed only whenthings turned needy, or that resourceful occasion arise. The privy could be seen as such alater case project co-working with MUDwork.
After moving in to Sheung Chuen of Pat Heung, MUDwork first setup their workshop at Tai
Kwong Po nearby Kam Tin, and they tried to resolve the frequent commute in between withbikes, then motorcycle and car. Then finally came the chance they moved their studio backto just beside their home. Working at Sangwoodgoon thus produced some logistic needfor dropping building materials off by the roadside carpark overlooked by the villagers, andlending electricity from our neighbouring farmers. These requests seem trivial yet perhaps
a true test of the relationship built over time. In reverse, could it be that most artists living in
the area still felt uncertain of having their work/activities happening around their home, thatthey finally resort to the fields of Sangwoodgoon? (Tang’s official permission to use the space
upon written notification demonstrated a different working system for within the indigenous
group.)
Yet the field rent for farming has also its own customary set of rules, hard to be fully comprehended. Bringing in art activities with influx of visitors will quite naturally be seen as something beyond the original purpose of the agricultural land use, and might bring skepticism
from the sensitive indigenous villagers that might also be the landlords. No one could be
sure how they might react, for example speculating the event perhaps as commercial activity? Art project happening in existing community has temporary short span, but unlike working in an institutional white cube which welcome such short term moving in and out model,
it involved now the farmers/residents/tenants, who need to stay and bear with the unknown
longer term consequences. This is also the particular pressure the seemingly autonomous
way of life the arts or farming communities need to face, as these non-indigenous group has
still no land of one’s own as their permanent secure foundation. (Distributism is inevitably
political as it considers the rights for each to owe land of one’s own).
MUDwork’s privy is one big physical piece of work that will have a functional after-life beyond
the short exhibition weekend. Not just having a practical use, it utilized resources from one(the arts) field and lend it for another (the farm fields). I used to try and utilize arts resourcesin a similar way, and transferring them even more directly to reactionary projects. Artist Marcel Duchamp’s nominalism tradition of contemporary art, no doubt strengthen the legitimacyof such strategic practices. Yet often the act needs a discourse to justify it, which thus led it
being dressed under the cloak of art. This demonstrated how contemporary art is not reallya free nominalistic platform as we want to believe. Instead of appropriating resources in suchmanner, finding one’s own sustainable foundation while living in truth, seems a more coherent means to end way for autonomous resistance.

Now as we see through the window of Mudwork’s privy from the farm shelter, we could see
a photo hanging inside, that of Marcel Duchamp’s urinal Fountain (1917). The picture is noteven the Alfred Stieglitz version, but one of empty background. Is it hanged there as anenigmatic/functional reminder that this privy collected only urine (but not solid feces)? Or
more possibly to add an arty reference to the work, linking it back to an art (historical/theoretical) context? If it is a theoretical footnote, the work that I will hang will be Joseph Beuys’
The Silence of Marcel Duchamp is overrated (1964) instead. As a work of labour and of functionality, the homage of the work is now given to the artist that conceptually steal the credit
from all workers, turning their products into readymade. This discrepancy of understandingin contemporary art, has now reached even to the fields.
(1.3.3)
Korean artist KIM Mi Young is having her first trip abroad for this project, and getting toknow her work from her presentation, the works she did seem quite self-effacing. And as it ispretty hard to communicate with her in English, I did worry how she could tap deep into the
local context for her work to be presented here. After some studies, she originally asked forsome bamboo rods and wires for some construction at the waterway besides the fields. I wasworried if it could cause obstruction to the water flow and irritate our neighbouring farmers,
but she changed her mind in the end and placed tiny rubbles found onto the riverbed of thebrook, forming into a sentence that of “I wanna flow.”This work surprised me, not in the sense that it is very different from what Mi Young did in
the past, but that it isn’t, that she maintained her style of work having a silent dialogue withthe environment. It thus also surprised me, how the scale of a work produced for a foreign
residency, and needing people to travel afar to see, could be so daringly lightweight, so
seemingly spontaneous, and yet people accept it by recognizing the quality shining through.
As someone that is able to see it in its various state over the days, I have the privilege toexperience the work a very different way compared with the visitors, my feeling for it is also
more that of our shared desire to have water flowing in the brook, despite mine is for agricultural needs, hers of an aesthetics sensation. But the work seems to have given the brook awill of its own too.
The other work she set in Kam Tin, happened to have been rolled over by a parking car the
first day when I visited it, and I only spotted it with the help from someone. The similar statement “I want to flow,” by rubbles placed on the concrete floor, seems not as harmonious asits twin to the surrounding. It embodied however a poetic critique of the deaden cement
environment, demonstrating a strong will over matter, despite executed in a highly fragile
form. I can’t help amused by the thought too, how the villagers of the nearby communal
centre think of the scene, seeing people come and go, looking underneath a car for viewing
an artwork as such.
The other Korean artist KIM Dae Hong, despite much more fluent in speaking English,
produced in the end, a performance that cut himself off from the surrounding, by wrapping
oneself in a black garbage bag and moving slowly on the Kam Tin main street. People in therural are generally more tolerate with garbage, if you consider how litter has been systematically being removed from sight in the city. Yet what kind of interaction could one expect, andwhat sort of reflection might it trigger, with such a deliberative act? The one that paid themost attention to it, are not the curious village kids (not much nowadays), but probably theother performance artists that came. Pretending one in Kam Sheung Road and one might
too nicely blend into the environment, but by bringing it to Art Basel, whose emperor’s coat
is it then? The scene of a staff at the gate of Art Basel checking the litter bag stick with avalid entry ticket on the documentary video seems amusing, but is hardly funny to me, as I
9091

see everywhere a possibility of being the X for this work. (The aliveness of the big black mass
reminds me of TANG Kwok Hin’s more evolutional and interactive public art project The
Spine Passerby (2011), which however spanned over weeks in duration.)
When the project is still in its recruiting stage, I was told about the Openspace Bae (where
Dae Hong once worked) situating in Busan’s rural area, with pear farm surrounding it. My
imagination of it having a close tie with such an environment and maybe even agriculture,
turned out to be just my wishful thinking. The pick of location was owed again, simply to thehigh rent in the city, and the artists’ proposals selection demands no need of any particularconnection with such a surrounding context. Yet when we finally made in, arriving there in
the woods, we entered the gallery and saw before us, an exhibition filled with pots of plants,that later came to know are wild plants/weeds adopted by the artist from the city. The surrounding seemed not irrelevant, but provided us a heightened sense of ridiculousness. The
exhibiting artist seems wanting to challenge us on how we determine between plants andweeds, bringing us to note our anthropocentric bias. Yet is art not the most anthropocentric
here in the nature? How is one to overcome it? By having all people following fruitarianism?
Or could the critique at least be a more valid one, if the artist is a practitioner of fruitarianism
indeed? Do we judge art this way? What is the persuasion for change?
In the 64K post, we have also sketches by students done in the Kam Sheung Road area, yetmuch of the drawings are of plants, weeds, wild flowers. The discourse on appreciating thesmall things and little details in life that accompany the drawings has seemingly become
some popular sentiments of affect. If an accusation of them overlooking the huge crisis in
humanity being too heavy, one could at least see it from the angle of a community post, as
indulging into something that one could projection their feelings onto, rather than making
the move to start interacting with other community members. Sushan CHAN’s identification
with the trees by Kam Sheung Road with a corner trimmed by the bypassing double deckbuses, to symbolize the somewhat incompleteness of her communal life, surely is hard tofind someone with equally strong sensitivity to respond to, but that is at least addressing toanother layer of reality to me.
(1.3.4)
Very often, the way discourses in art points towards the symbolic, treating the projection
as if it is already an accomplished linkage. The weeds (as well as the little flowers, even theextreme case of garbage) maybe representing those things that we overlooked. Yet wanting
to know how the artist handle the seeds of these plants, or the diet principle or ecologicalview on agriculture of the artist might all be too serious and too real a demand. But if we are
only after symbolic interpretations, what about the claim art made, trying to be connected
to our real everyday life? Should we not ask about the solid foundation to the imagination ofresistance?
No wonder the real foundation of art, the social political foundation, has in our era, been thatof art as commodity, part of the speculative art market, part of the culture and creative industry, rounding up the creative economy of creative class and creative city that the government
tried to brand and market oneself (reinforcing so called economical competiveness). Gentrification has been the fate from endless examples of artists being its pioneers in spotting out
spaces for a better way of living in less developed quarters of the cities. Now, the process iseven more aggressive and oftenly do not wait for the transformation to naturally happen, but
seizing directly the district or building of lesser commercial value and repackaging it with thehelp of various artistic input for new purposes.
The refugee settling village of Gamcheon Culture Village has been cosmeticized into a

Mediterranean-Greek-like picturesque scenery for tourists’ photo taking, Hong Ti Art Center
despite having its community art program, has an ironical pre-history as part of the development that first brought devastation to the old village and its population. It has been a
global phenomenon that the arts and cultural creative industry is being used as excuses fordevelopment at the expense of its aged community. These examples are so abundance, we
actually do not need to look far overseas. That is why I felt so unbearable for the Lingnan
students to present the case of Hong Kong P.M.Q. to the Korean art students in view there
is so little time for more genuine exchange. I bet just a little research and compare it witha similar case in Busan could be much more effective for all to understand what should be
obvious enough; unless we still have not know well enough the nature of things within ourown ecology to begin with, and its ties to globalization, despite we are now becoming partof such a game.
When the government changed the purpose of a concrete physical space to accommodate
art, the legitimacy of its clause should be examined, for arts and cultural clauses are notunconditional. The residency that TANG Kwok Hin imagined, despite a personal decision
it seems, still involved the exercising of an indigenous right not granted equally to all, andexemplified the question on the priority of art amongst different values. Could one haveit both ways (as the popular imagination of being an undercover)? Or should the means
be bounded by the goal (demanding a coherence in value, action and belief)? The arts
development is nowadays closely connected to the arts and cultural policy of a country. So
is the proactive Korean government in pushing the arts and creative industry and letting big
corporations founding their private cultural foundation the way we wish our government tofollow? In Hong Ti, the government now has resources to let an art center lead its community
art project, while the nearby workers still worked to exhaustion daily, and could only take ashort lunch break in the sculpture garden at best. Shouldn’t the well-being of the livelihoodof the workers be part of the government policy and agenda if it really take its community art
program seriously? (And how should an artist position oneself in such a situation?) The quiet
videos showing the scenes and soundscapes of different European cities inside the exhibition hall are somehow again a travesty of the contextual situation.

… We need to go more radical, more extreme than revolution, we need to go one step beyond. And thestraightforward answer is to concentrate on ourselves and on local change. In short, we need to set a good
example. An important mental step in escaping the power of government is to understand that, to some degree, we ourselves are complicit with the problem. By not acting for ourselves, we allow others to act for us. …
— Tom Hogdkinson(1.4.1)
If the places we visited in Busan, that of the art museum, art department of university,
even art space organization all being quite normal art institutions, the one that might mostclosely reminiscent of Kam Sheung Road area informal artists community could be that ofthe various community spaces scattered in the district of Jangjeon-dong. These restaurant,
woodwork studio, band-room, gadget shop, are all loosely connected, tiny scale, self-initiated enterprises. Does it seems more lively, having no art presented, owed perhaps to that thegallery has been closed down when we visited it? What is so special about this place? That
parallel space/time could actually exist within community and city if you recognize it? Yet
creative cluster is not some new concept either.
Based on my experience in Wooferten community art space, how to capture the spirit ofcommunal life is almost an impossible task, for it does not exist to be documented, to be
represented. Participatory and communal art project has thus slowly developed a sort of92
93

cliché way and language of presenting themselves. They are becoming models, as if they
could be transfer and repeated in different communities, on different people, in particularly
with the kind of multiple exchanges in between these groups, even more around Tokyo andSeoul, considering themselves now as a network.
I am not trying to question their authenticity or dedication, it is just I have more interestin resistance based on everyday life as its foundation (that it is the everyday life that got
transgressive), than models (needing agents) that are not embedding in. The festival as anoccasion for an escape from everyday life could be applied to the festive carnival demonstration, yet it could still need a network accumulating day by day, so is it providing a window
to see beyond the present way of life? Demonstration as a contained procession, is at thesame time perhaps not bad if it is being positive to self-empowering, than fulfilling theoriginal purpose of spreading out of the message to make an influence. All in all, the various
contexts shape the variety of resistances. It is just this contrast of being part of everyday life
and its meta-reframing via art, that are generating two different kinds of bio-politics. The
externalized, wholly conscious way, is more in tune with visibility, which could lead to social
capital and be put in use for promotional or educational purposes. This will yet bring about
a difference in cultural resources distribution which generate unequal development in theshared neighbourhood, a direction of development after all, with or without all stakeholders
acknowledgement and consensus.
In the past, I have been often been asked by reporters, what is my most memorable thingworking in Wooferten, and I encountered this question again when interviewed for thisproject. I guess they really have to finish their jobs, to summarize the subject in an extreme
succinct way, yet in hope to retain some excitement or funny scenes, meaning that they needto grab things by means of the peculiar, outstanding moments. Yet to me, community art
project is a work that every moment big or small counts, that should hence simply resist thiskind of representation. Even more obvious, how could we focus solely on the art spaces but
regardless of its community? If we need to know what they are offering to the community,
maybe we should know by how has the community been accommodating them first? Thisshould lead to a study of many contextual factors beyond just the rent index. Just walking
in the street of Jangjeon-dong, feeling unthreatened by traffics, finding someone growing
vegetables in plots by the roadsides, and one could safely judge it is still an alive community.
But how could one copy the whole communal organic setting to be reproduced elsewhere?
For what we originally have here is not organic, not sustainable, we need to import moreorganic model?
What are the inner values or principles needed, in sustaining the shared community, the way
of ways of life? Are they the foundations I kept try asking about? How should we as outsiders
acknowledge and ask to learn more about the foundation, with approaches like or unlike thereporters do? Is this not unlike what Sushan Chan noticed by rereading the Peachland text,
the “inexpressible/not worthy mentioning” quality of the Peachland residents think of themselves? The layerings of a community life is so complex and intertwined with so much tiny
details, not to mention every agency is a different person, it is simply hard for one to know
where to begin and where to halt to describe it.
The well being of a community might depends on visitors to a certain degree, but relianceon the tourist industry as an economical pillar, is like placing the well-being of a place in thehand of a much more fluctuating global economy, and the community will start losing one’s
own independence. How should a community maintain its well being? Is policy the true (ormore influential) foundation really? Is a proactive cultural policy a better one? I do think wehave not learnt much from our own experience, for even policies are not easily transferable,

especially linking to the difference in between regional cultures. If we have enough bad experience of all the top-down approaches in cultural planning and development like the West
Kowloon Cultural District, should we not spend more efforts on those bottom-up self-initiatives? What if the revelation of the Peachland be exactly that people could live their life welleven without any government?
(1.4.2)“In Search of the Peachland” project is ambitious in trying and achieving the almost impossible task of getting to know the many different layers of art organization in Busan withless than a week time, followed with the implementing the exhibition in Kam Sheung Road
district. Yet other than what we visited and observed, the peculiar thing to my interest is definitely that with this aim of advancing a project with a special angle on locality, we travelled
far away to another land. Owed to the difference in context, huge efforts are needed to see
how the experience may or may not be transferrable. Close observation no doubts do help,
but it also depends on what we have that are corresponding in our own context.
But if in terms of an educational arrangement, I guess we do hope we could passed on themessage, that a study on another person, community, or lifeworld, such observation haveto be done with our respect, and with great patience, the trip we did is however still one ofextreme speed, aren’t that not self-contradictory? Travelling aboard always bring about cost,which make them hard to be of longer duration. It is so understandable, that people still
received us in good faith, as we received those passing by, in hope the brief exchange could
be more meaningful. This makes me wonder, if the trip is actually an arrangement for us tohave a firsthand taste of what is going on in the mind of those visitors, that hurried in and outof other people’s community, so for the project happening in Hong Kong, we could have abetter approach in handling these people? (Complete a full cycle. Structure compressed into
Space/Time.)
Hong Kong people should be quite clear though, the pressure and potential mishaps that
visitors could generate to the urban surroundings. To disperse the overloaded tourist spots,
some officials often suggest the building of more sites for visit, the industrialize tourism isgetting more and more artificial. Now that even education is joining aboard this site-seeing
industry, affordability will inevitably be generating more inequality in education. The art circle
has been noticing the educational turn in contemporary arts, but what to think of the grandtour of arts education happening?
It is simply hard not to be a tourist when you are in a foreign place, for we are usually cut
off from producing anything, and everything depends on consumption to sustain. Are wenot the same person, in a transported space/time, having an authentic Korean meal in one
minute, followed next by an imported cappuccino? Even the Korean curator know how
Hongkongers are attracted with Spaland in the Hinsegae Centum City Guinness World Records largest shopping complex, maybe they are as enthusiastic too? How is the line to draw
between experiencing another culture, with what? Experiencing another culture for art sake?
Even back in Hong Kong, we planned a Walled-Village style Hot Pot meal for welcoming the
Korean artists, despite it is now somewhat commercialized and commonplace, and in return,they led us the way to Korean cuisine restaurant they have tried out in Yuen Long.
The rationale of a visit, the joy of a visit, is the coming and going of people from places toplaces, learning about something. But we always have got to move on, such scheduling isgetting so packed, we hurried from one to another, writing more proposals on the way. We
finally carved to be back home, as human with roots, after all these hops, but leaving little
time and effort to develop things around it. How is one not to be a tourist, if one is continu94
95

ing the way of life which is groundless? It is always having the good clause (if not excuse)things are done for educational, enlightening purposes. Yet we still consume soft drinks atan organic farm, left behind food having meal in restaurant, and yet draw flowers to showthat we appreciate nature? These are trips that assumed right from the beginning, that wewill be back, to work, to earn our living, as we wish more of these study trips and travelling
excursions could happen again. (Was this drive to experience locality first hand, not the same
impulse as what is feeding the global biennials and fairs frenzy?)
After more sophisticated cultural tourism, attention is now shifting to the rural and nature, so
is the creative industry, there is in Taiwan this phrase of “Agriculture Creative Industry,” that
repackage a green consumerism and eco-friendly enterprises. A half-farmer has returned
earlier after visiting Documenta 13 and told me that he encountered in the park, a statementthat goes something like: “We are farmers, therefore we are artists.” Is this not echoing withClara CHEUNG’s assimilation of Nataile LO farming practice as art, and backed up now by
one of the most important art show in the world?
Contemporary art keep on advancing itself into the territory of everyday life, and yet always
just as an X substitution, not as its foundation, for it has this propensity to cover every thing
not yet included as art into art, yet by reducing the bio-politics of each into one formalistic
equality in art, rather than gaining an understanding of the politics of their own, and madetowards these everyday life, that they repeatedly failed to capture. Its strategy is for art tooccupy the reality, the space, the time, without reflecting itself being part of the (and not
the resistance to) reality anymore, while its has reality framed away from everyday life. Even
when reflection is made, we are in the vicious circle, and could rely only on an enlightenment
rhetoric, which hence brought in the educational turn as its last remedy. (But is not enlightenment a demand to “think for ourselves”?) Sometimes I do wonder, maybe, the way that rural
people live in seclusion is the pinnacle of living as the resistance, which however have noneed for art. Only by discrediting such life as escapism, could capitalism claim its final victory
over even utopia, and ask us to embrace the neo-liberalism order which they claim will selfamend itself (even by means of public bailing the crisis they produced).
(1.4.3)In the process of enacting the project, Hong Kong has undergone its Umbrella Revolution/
Movement opposing the government proposed election reform package without a genuine
universal suffrage. But the movement has been brutally suppressed and the occupations
lasting for months are finally dispersed by force. This project hence took place under sucha social atmosphere. Many artists are encouraged by the creativities sprung in the occupy
zone, but I personally think, HUI Po Keung’s application of the parallel structure or second
culture concept onto some of the arts and cultural activities in the occupy movement was a
bit too hasty move, owed perhaps to his eagerness to introduce the concept to the public.
Exhibition (artworks display) and concerts are just common form of arts activities, that no
doubt might encourage (and function as a platform for) people to air their voices, but hardly
were these acts politically useful in helping the movement deepening its discourse, andadvancing innovating resistances.
The artworks produced might draw people to come and stay around the occupation longer,
reaching some functions of art sharing or message communication, but it might also just be
more preaching to the converted. It might be also a symptom of the movement, not able toadvance in any other more politically innovative ways toward its goal. I am not saying thatthe occupation movement or zone do not need artworks, or that not every one should havethe right to participate in the arts, but for achieving substantial resistance, we need art thatis of some truly political nature. We have to alternate also the usual way of art making andpresenting, in order to generate breakthrough, via making art politically. Parallel structure isabout organization form and communal life that is beyond what the regime official permits,
and alternate to the mainstream, it is not meant to be used to address banal artworks oractivities, solely because they happened in the unauthorized occupation zone.
What HUI Po Keung tried to bring out, is how an escalation of the movement need not be
one steering towards more violence, it could also be of an all together different direction,that of returning back and start our political work on/within our community. Surely, shifting
the arena alone does not naturally bring new depth to the movement. It might yet bring incontact with a different group and more different groups of people. The significance of thisdirection, as an escalation, is that all that we do for the movement, will be tied and embedded, as this art project originally thought, in our real everyday life, facing, interacting andshaping real communities. It is not just a change of site reaching more people, having moretime to spend, continue on our education/political propaganda, the real new edge is that bygetting back to continue the movement in our community, we have to change the way of discussion, even more than translating them into an everyday language, we need to find ways ofliving of ourselves that could demonstrate the new values and make them more persuasivein the eyes of the people, so the complicity between our way of life and the governance wedislike have to be disclosed, and restructuring is being demonstrated as something real andpossible with our action. It is on this everyday life level, all our actions are a countenance tothe pressure of cynicism of a post-totalitarian society.
But if we all realize the importance to spread our resistance beyond the occupied zone to
our everyday life, do that mean we should paradoxically end the occupation? Why leaving
the zone and we could feel we are deserting from the movement? Does this not reflect how
far away our everyday life is, separated from the clause of the movement? Or how little faith
we have that we could bring out resistance in our everyday life? By assembling a mass, theoccupation seemed to have gained a visibility for the outside, but beyond this existence, thisvisibility could be also only a spectacle. We are actually responding to the way the media
work, even internalizing/lending it to think about the political issue ongoing. Even when
we are being dragged into dead ends and dark corners, targeted by all kinds of irrational
violence, we still wish for the glory image of a public movement comeback.
Might it, however, be exactly this reliance on the mass rather than each individual, that we
rather left behind our everyday life to join in the euphoria, rapture, for we know too little
how to start changes in within our everyday life, since we have be complicit in maintaining
an ideological separation of politics with everyday life for too long? For a genuine resistancemovement/ revolutionary mind, one should perhaps think even further, that a universal
suffrage and direct election of the legislature is still not the cure to all social problems, there
is always this need to see the weaker, marginal players, or even the one that has not becounted got a more just treatment. This critique of representative politics is not something
new, yet most people in the city are still longing to be a represented citizen, expecting tovote only once in a while, and willingly hand their power to the politicians, so they could
keep their everyday life going as usual, and meanwhile enjoying their freedom, despite we
all know deep down, these freedoms are limited and contracting.
(1.4.4)To think of the art that happened in the occupied zone as the Second Culture, we might
have idealized them, for they have no foundation of their own to survive, their seemingly
autonomy are really counting on the special space/time that has been gained by the movement, something which often rely on other’s autonomy structures that cut off from everyday
life to perform, only in this case, it was not the museum white cube, but street barricades.
96
97

The practitioners of these art or cultural activities in the zone usually feel good thinking thatthey have participated in the movement and been contributing to it with their own skills
and talents, but in fact what happened other than that they crossed path in space and time?
Without changes in their political constituents, art is hardly truly helping the advancing of the
movement. Energy spend on taking care of these arts could be hindrances instead. Beingobsessed with the symbolic rhetoric, it has not allowed the politics to take effect on itself,
political art as such has the suspicion of rather consuming the movement.
The true difficulty for one to leave the occupy zone and start one’s resistance in one’s own
community is that our everyday life is hardly embedded in the local anymore, there is nocommunity to be found. People has been atomized, and pressure from work and for living
left us only able to devote limited time and accessing little space for community nurturing.
Being a voter, once every few years, is a division of labour extending to political representation. To counter such development is a huge task, for decisions made on work, housing,food … are all interlinked, so one has thus to change one’s way of life in countless aspects, tostart building up one’s own community, taking things back in one’s own hand. That’s why DIY
has its own resistance dimension, gearing up our capacity to attain a greater autonomy ineveryday lifeworld. The inconvenience of the rural might be turning something negative into
something positive after all?
The “post-” in the post-umbrella movement has its double possible interpretations, for it
could be that the movement is now over and everything is back to normal, the opposite ishowever, that after this, life is never gonna be the same again. If we bring in the metaphor of
the Peachland to try go beyond it, how are we to live now that we are back to our post-umbrella movement world? Why do we have no drive to try and realize what we experienced,
simply because the reality is no dreamland? What is an idealistic life, if it could not make an
impact and lead us to try imitating one in our life? Every moment in our daily life is adding
up to what a kind of an everyday life and community we have, or a post totalitarianism stateand prison. Even as a consumer, one could start a consumer movement, and the resistancespectrum has a lot more further possibilities, from leftist, socialist, to anarchist. Ideas of
informal economy and commons are getting more commonly discussed in the art discourse
nowadays, but as seen in Hong Kong, one could not expect the art institutions to join in thepolitical movement (to at least straighten out their own foundation), they are even not interested to collect items around it, despite some fashionably named themselves anchored in
the discipline of visual culture. They do not want something even dead, not to mention somereal alive and kicking politics. So why should we still expect something to be done via them,instead of our own hands?
During the global Occupy Wall Street movement, theorist Slavo Zizek, in contrast with those
who think the movement lack a specific goal, has praised the movement for demanding theimpossible. We have instead an advertisement not long ago, with the slogan of Impossible isnothing. It is surely cynical nothing, for despite all, it is an advertisement, the true impossibility is how to get a pair of sport shoes nowadays not manufactured by these global big brandsport wear companies. The kind of autonomy one could gain via everyday life is bounded
to be still very limited, yet what is our true necessities? In the article written by Natalie LO
and friends at Sangwoodgoon, they raised this basic question, and came up with the idea ofleading a life not fully controlled by money, and to make a living, which in Cantonese slang,is to feed oneself, and that farming could be the answer for it.

the art is portraying, projecting it onto everyday life. I do not know how and when communities will turn into a country and led to a totalitarian or warring state that in return threaten thelife of the people. I do not know either, now that the society has moved on to a global scale
capitalistic world, is it really possible to turn back the tide and lead people back to revive an
agricultural life. All I know is very straightforward, that any resistance need its foundation,and for mean and goal be compatible, one got to find an alternative sustainable way of lifethat could develop this foundation. It is not just that resistance now need a different front,
but that for resistance to truly take place, it needs to have a life of its own. Space/ Time isabstract until they turned into the locality of someone.
To build up self-reliance and gain autonomy from an alternative economy is definitely a hard
and long process, consider how much we mankind have done in the opposite direction for
how long. If we really try to estrange ourselves from such, some anthropological studies ongift economy as alternative model are recently being rekindled by anarchist David Graeber.
Speaking of abundance instead of scarcity, the productive wonder of nature that agriculture tries to master comes to my mind again. All along, agriculture is still a foundation for
all the human cultural development, despite retreating from the life of many people, being
monopolized by transnational corporations to a large degree, yet we have now permaculturesuggesting principles on how we could improve on our own situation.
In 2011, there is an Occupy Central action when the occupy wall street movement spread to
Hong Kong, and there in its Free School, scholar HUI Yuk has given a series of workshops
on gift economy which leads artist Luke CHING to become fascinated by the idea. Yet if
the potential of art as a gift economy is one that of its conceptual dimension, as some sortof common knowledge beyond the physical work (object), it is hard to trace its circulationand functionality. Over-abundance of art nowadays on the other hand is a much more easy
to identify phenomenon. For me, I now tend to like works that naturally comes by in one’s
way of life, which are not aimed primarily for artistic production and consumption, but given
back as art as an everyday life activity. The song performed by Sangwoodgoon members ah
Chow & Jenny on their wedding as mentioned in 64K Post is a case as such, the voices of themodern city farmers are there, check it out yourself.1
As the weekend public activities of the project have passed, the people that came for art trip
were all gone. If enlightenment really need to be a self-lifting from self-imposed immaturity,
there is nothing else to do for the art project (or perhaps more documentary exhibition andpublication… which contradict all needs of first hand encounter?), for the seeds of changes
are planted via the visiting experience into the heart of the visitors, but will there be soil/
foundation for it to grow out of its original context? For me, who still stay in the area, there
were little follow-up works (and garbages) here and there that need to take care of, something that often lead me to question what is the point of all these art making, but they are
not really any big matters either, that rather than complaining about it or waiting for people
dwelling in the city to come back and handle them, wrapping things up (or killing off theseeyesores) swiftly by oneself seems the best option as ever. Space/time are so real that one’s
everyday life is much bounded by it, but so too, as they are so real, it is a pity if we do not
seize them as the ground for living a better life out of it.

(1.4.5)Art is supposed to be free, but how free do you want your life to be? I do not know if I havetaken the hint of resistance too seriously, for it may be just another symbolic adherence that1      https://youtu.be/1G0N6jQyR_c

98
99

評後桃花源記 ― 張煒森Art criticism on “In Search of the Peachland”
by Eddie CHEUNG Wai Sum將「後桃花源記（錦田 – 釜山 藝術交流計劃）」這個項目約化成論述框架與藝術形式的層面時，它
是個集教育、跨地文化交流、在地藝術實踐的項目。他們先在2月底，跟藝術家與創作單位到過韓國釜山作交流，從序言中提到，他們在這次的到訪經驗中，發現錦田與釜山兩地均面對城市發展與
重建的問題。依據這個起點，是次計劃在3月21日及22日兩天時間於錦田舉行「後桃花源記」，毫無
疑問，這是按地域發展出來的項目，除韓國的金大洪、金美英及嶺南大學視覺研究系的學生不算在內，其他參與的藝術家與創作單位如勞麗麗、陳素珊等，均是落戶錦田的居民。計劃旨在透過錦田一帶漸漸凝聚起來的文化藝術社群，而非「空降」形式的藝術家駐留計劃，他們更能貼心地理解該
地域的生景，利用一些即時性及持續性的藝術計劃，對現時的社會環境作出叩問與反抗，成就出「後桃花源」（「後」除了指時序上的先後次序外，亦有反抗的意味）。
近年香港的藝文活動趨向更強的流動性與跨越性，先不計其性質，譬如活化廳不少活動、西九自由
野、Art Central 或是香港版畫工作室的「Pop Up Press!」等，都將固有慣性的展覽形式推向事件(happening) 的策展模式，不論是時間、地點、藝術的展示模式與形式都漸趨短暫而難以定位，甚至有很多活動都不能再以「可視」的範疇來界定及概括，而偏向「經驗」作主導，讓受眾參與其中。
當中，有的是商業的考慮，有些則是從精神層面出發，然而，當事件令藝術的邊界迷糊了以後，受眾怎樣接納與受落？這些藝文活動或已成為當代藝術中的異質，策展者或組織必須慎思當中的策略。而另一方面，回看這次計劃的論述框架，雖有說藝術的華光早就消逝，但實際上，這個華光只
是以其他方式存在，藝術從來都是個安全區，因論述的框架或創作背後的理念，所帶出的信息是
好是壞，是完整還是存有漏洞，其實都能通過藝術的手段而變得合理化，只要它能令受眾從中得
到反思及詮釋。「鄉郊生活、務農為生，並非一種時尚或潮流，而是對惡濁亂世的一個徹底挑戰。」
實際情況如何確是值得商榷，到底挑戰涉及到中心與邊緣等複雜的權力關係，或者最終只會是一
廂情願的自我滿足。
因此，受眾如何接收這些信息，以及地域為主體的藝術實踐是怎樣操作，則成為我所關注的問題。
計劃有別於既有的展覽模式，觀眾未必如預期般看到側重於美學審美觀的藝術作品，而將地區視
為一個展示及藝術實踐的場所，它所面對的問題及限制有三：一是受眾的規限，觀眾某程度上是「外人」，他們會對該地方造成入侵與介入，因此受眾的人數不能多，亦要盡量避免受眾只成為旁觀者；另一方面是它以什麼方式呈現，因在沒有畫廊等環境的烘托下，不論什麼浪漫、實際形式底下的創作，很易淹沒在環境之中，相信難以讓人發現；第三則是創作如何有效地順從地區及土地
原生的法則在地發展，讓地域成為主體。因應這些情況，我們可見這次錦田計劃的取向，不以審美
或可視的作品為主軸，而是建立於溝通與交換經驗之上，當中不少創作都是因時制地的有其功能
與實用性。
作為一個陌生的訪客，也會對錦田有種「異國風情」之感，導賞成為最直接的方式，對受眾與導賞
員來說都是經驗的累積與交換，而這次展出的「可視作品」，大概有一些學生的創作，還有吳家俊（阿喜）、鍾惠恩和張景威（Reds）在錦田生活館附近所興建的旱廁 Project K（旱廁計劃），它功
能性地成為農地耕作生產中的一部分。如鄧國騫在首日用單車把觀眾接載到目的地，翌日則邀請觀眾到其家中分享，這些取向雖有美學上的考慮，但性質卻側重於溝通、交換經驗之上，也可以說是計劃的核心所在，然而，這種展示與創作的模式，就算對許多藝術工作者來說，要介入或接受也
有一定難度。我們習慣以可視的藝術作品為主體，大眾往往期望透過「作品」來理解事物與藝術家的視角。要改變這種思維，還要下功夫。而作為一項以地域性為主軸的藝術項目，這次「後桃花源記」確實帶了不少可能性。
(原文載 art plus issue 43, 05-2015, p.98)

100

100

101

101

主辦及策劃
Presented by :C & G藝術單位 出版
2015年11月首次印刷
印數500冊合辦Published by C & G Artpartment

Co-organizer :First published in Nov 2015
Print run: 500 copies
校對 Proof Read :張嘉莉 CHEUNG Clara
鄭怡敏 (阿金) CHENG Yee Man (Gum)張蓉 CHEUNG Yung

合作夥伴Partners :設計 Design :四維幫 4d group
版權所有，不得翻印
All Rights Reserved
ISBN:  978-988-13837-0-9

鳴謝    釜山的友好及團體Acknowledgement :Organizations and friends in Busan

Busan Museum of Art‘B’Art Collective
Hong Ti Art Center
HyeLinKunWoo
KIM Won Jung
KIM Soonim
Students from the Art Department of
Pusan National University
生活館 Sangwoodgoon
蘇慧怡 Zoie So

資助
Supported by :  

香港藝術發展局全力支持藝術表達自由，本計畫內容並不反映本局意見。
Hong Kong Arts Development Council Fully Supports Freedom Of Artistic Expression.
The Views And Opinions Expressed In This Project Do Not Represent The Stand Of The Council.

102
103