2016年11月29日 星期二

公園與街道的顛覆

文:市川美佐子
譯:林暉鈞

東京都正中央一座森林公園的一角,有一個藍帳篷村,【註一】是無家可歸的遊民(編按:露宿者)居住的聚落。2003年秋天,我開始在這裡住下來;直到現在,這裡仍然是我最想望的安身之處。因為我覺得,在整個東京之中,這裡是我最有可能存活下去的地方。一般人被允許活著,只是為了支付高昂的房租與稅金,為了從事充滿壓力的雇傭勞動;但是在這個藍帳篷村裡的生活不一樣。在東京,每天有大量還可以使用的日用品與衣物、還可以吃的食物,被當作垃圾丟棄;這個村子裡的居民,就靠著收集、分享這些東西生活著。都市每天排放的垃圾,在這裡不但是資源,而且是聯繫人與人的溝通工具。這樣一個幾乎不倚賴金錢的、另類的社區,就存在東京──世界最高度發展的商業都市──中心的公園裡。當然,這種生活的社會基礎非常脆弱,甚至必需面對來自歧視與偏見的各種暴力襲擊。正因為如此,我們更需要社區的存在,絕不能讓人奪走社區居民彼此之間相互依存的聯繫。

聽說友人在公園裡的帳篷村搭建了自己的帳篷,於是我前來探訪──那是我第一次來到藍帳篷村。當時已經有超過三百以上的人住在這個村裡,不但有專門為人用藍色防水布搭建小屋的工匠,還有交誼廳、理髮廳,甚至還有打麻將的地方。在這座東京最有名的森林公園裡,在這森林的深處,當帳篷村突然出現在我眼前,我還以為自己已經離開了東京,來到不知名的地方。然而事實上,這裡正是東京現實的濃縮之處。

居民之中,有一些人對生活感到絕望,正打算結束自己生命的時候,漂蕩到這裡落腳。也有的人原本從事提供膳宿的土木建築業,一日之間同時失去工作與居所,開始了目前的生活。在變成遊民之前,每個人都有他各自的故事;大部份的人並不是自願成為遊民的。當然,遊民也有享受社會福利制度的權利,如果和社福機構協商順利,或許也可以選擇領取社會救濟金,在福利社施、社會住宅中生活。但是,這裡絕大多數的人都經驗過那種以金錢為基礎的生活,而且是失敗的經驗。與其再回到那種日子,他們寧願待在這裡,不需要倚靠大量的金錢,創造自己的生活,經營自己的人生。這難道不是逃脫、抵抗資本主義經濟社會的實踐嗎?就在東京的正中心?我立刻升起了在這裡居住的願望。毫無疑問,這才是我要的生活。我決定留在這個村裡,和這裡的居民共享這裡的變遷。

我搭起自己的帳篷,開始在這裡生活之後,立刻和先我而來的小川哲男先生一起在帳篷前開設了以物易物的咖啡座──「有畫相伴」,並且成立了每週一次的畫會。在這裡喝茶或咖啡,不是用錢,而是用物品付費;不但藍帳篷村的居民可以利用,也歡迎來自公園外的訪客,是雙方交流的場所。同時我們也可以收集各種人家不用的東西,再分送給有需要的居民。每週一次畫會的作品,就拿來佈置我們的咖啡座。

藍帳篷村的居民,有各式各樣的人,各式各樣的個性。有一些是無法適應既有公寓空間生活的人。即使是身障或高齡、行動不便的人,也可以配合自己的身體條件,搭建適合自己的帳篷或小屋。有的人具有靈巧的雙手,利用廢材蓋出功能俱全的小屋;也有人只是在身旁放置日常用品,上面覆蓋著藍色塑膠布,每天隨著自己身體的行動或物品的位置改變形狀,他的家就是一團不定形的物品。我剛搬進來的時候,在這藍帳篷村裡,還有相當遷移的空間。有一陣子我的隔壁住著一位男性,每次我和他在一起的時候,周遭的人都把我看成他的附屬品,使我很不舒服;於是我一個人搬到村子裡的另一頭。在這個社區裡的共同生活,雖然也有來自人際關係的壓力,但是搬家的負擔比住在公寓裡的人要輕很多。

講到這裡,不得不討論一下性別的問題。遊民之中,男性壓倒性地居多。在這個男性為主的社會中,女性數量極少,生活上有許多困難。女性除了一邊切身感到暴力與性暴力的威脅、一邊生活下去,別無他法。我確實地感覺到這一點,於是開始了每個月一次,只有女性能夠參加的茶會。我開始四處走動,找尋散居在村子裡的女性,親自邀請她們來參加聚會。雖然大家都居住在村子裡,卻幾乎沒有任何交流,甚至不知道彼此的存在;在茶會上碰面的時候,才曉得帳篷村裡住著這麼多的女性,大家都嚇了一跳。當時350人左右的居民中,女性大約佔了30名。聚會中,大家交換各自的生活經驗,有時候產生共鳴,有時候也會分化成派系。但是在這藍帳篷村裡,這樣有機的集會,的確形成社區中小小的力量。當然,問題不會因此就解決,不過透過茶會的活動,我感覺到男性與女性之間的勢力關係,產生了些許變化。現在對我來說,由於茶會所形成的女性網絡,讓這個男性居多的帳篷村,居住起來舒服多了。

性別問題,絕對不只是遊民社會專有的問題。以公園這樣的開放場所來說,一座公園是優先為了什麼樣的人而開放?是基於哪一種人的立場,根據什麼樣的思想而設立?對任何人來說,這都是我們切身的問題。這樣的問題不只存在於公共領域;在一般認為屬於私領域的場所中,比方民宅、公寓等空間,甚至家庭這樣的組織,女性、以及性傾向上的弱勢者,也都處在暴力與性暴力的威脅之下。建立在父權體制之上的家族,正是孕育性歧視與性暴力的溫床。既存的「家族」關係,經常踰越其「再生產」活動所需的角色,以不必要的「羈絆
」侵犯人權,但這些惡行卻以家庭內的隱私為藉口,被掩蓋起來。不論男女,一般人在想像女性遊民生活的時候,總認為她們因為沒有家族、沒有可以上鎖的房間,所以經常處於危險的狀態下;但這是先入為主的、樣板式的想法。她們的危險處境,不能完全歸咎於遊民的生活形態;對於女性、或是性傾向的弱勢者來說,公園、車站等公共空間,甚至是私領域的家庭中,也絕對不是可以安心、自由的場所;就算不談這個公園裡女性的處境,我們也該更嚴肅地探討女性在家庭中的安全與自由。

另外還有一點迫切需要思考的事。在討論公園以及其它公共空間的安全問題時,管理單位經常使用這樣的說法:「因為遊民的存在,使得公園對女性和兒童來說,成為危險的地方。」他們將遊民描繪成危險人物,以逃避自己應該面對的暴力問題,完全是不負責任的作法。只要想一想,所謂的「遊民」有90%是男性;將責任強加在遊民身上,管理單位的立場和心態可想而知。是什麼因素使得「女性」和「兒童」不得不成為受照顧與保護的對象?即使違反本人的意願,我們也可以把「管理」強加在他們身上嗎?不論是公園管理也好、兒童管理也好,所謂的管理單位,應該慎重面對這些問題。我並不是主張遊民不具任何危險性,我完全沒有這樣的意思;但是我必需強調,管理者將加害者劃在「遊民」這個範疇裡,這種政治考量,無法對應公園裡實際發生的暴力,以及公園正遭受暴力侵蝕這個現實的狀況。

且讓我們以性別的角度來觀看資本主義。男性通常被要求成為「強者」,「永不示弱」,要「守護女性與兒童」。如果不能達到這些要求,男人多半就會從資本主義的競爭中敗下陣來,游離在支撐資本主義的父權體制之外,開始擔心自己是否會成為遊民。特別是低薪勞工、非正式雇用者、以及打工兼職的飛特族(freeter),感受到資本主義的威脅,內心暗自希望自己「不要變成遊民」,努力為自己增添學歷、文憑,從事雇傭勞動,保持「強悍」,強迫自己「永不示弱」。這樣的男性傾向於認為遊民是缺乏忍耐力的失敗者,否定他們,甚至進而對他們進行身體的攻擊。報紙或大眾媒體報導的攻擊遊民的事件,犯人幾乎清一色是男性,其中又以青少年居多。影響這些青少年最深的,無非是行政體系與社會的價值觀,以及成人的態度。行政體系在各地所進行的中產階級化(gentrification)步驟,【註二】首先就是排除居住在公園、河畔、以及車站四周高公共性空間的遊民們。行政體系從來不和遊民對話協商,直接填塞他們睡覺的空間,破壞他們的帳篷或小屋,強制拆除他們的生活場所。透過這些措施,逐漸奪走他們露宿的空間,將他們推向更惡劣的環境。行政體系甚至不願意去想像,每位個別的遊民都有他們各自的需求與意見,遊民的社群也有他們的共同生活與營生手段,一逕地以暴力排除他們。我們的社會閉上眼睛,故意不去看這些行為,對於被迫要成為「強者」、被迫「永不示弱」的青少年,有多麼大的影響。

換句話說,對於以遊民的狀態生活著的我們來說,最大的威脅既不是食物的缺乏,也不是冬天的寒冷,而是社會對遊民的歧視、偏見、攻擊、以及排除。

父權體制下的資本主義社會,將社會所懷抱的不安與怨恨轉嫁到遊民身上,以逃避他們真正應該面對的問題。對於無法符合父權資本主義社會規範的遊民,難道就沒辦法予以尊重嗎?女性、性傾向的弱勢者、兒童、窮人,甚至襲擊遊民的青少年們,明明和遊民同樣處於弱勢的狀態,然而卻否定他們、與他們對立。很遺憾,所有的人都可以平等享受的公園,可以說一個也沒有。我們不是常說「公園是開放的空間」、「這是大家的公園」嗎?這些話真正的意思,應該是一個所有的人都可以發揮各自的立場與力量,舒展各自意志的場所。我們不要強加的「安全」,施捨的「安心」,也不要被認可的「自由」。我們拒絕所有意圖在公共空間裡分化我們的安全措施。

無家可歸的人,大多滯留在公共空間。來自行政體系的人要不是說:「出去,這裡不是住人的地方!」把我們趕走,就是勸我們「努力自立」,要我們住到社會福利設施裡。我們也聽過一般市民有相同的主張。

既然講到這裡來,我想要談一談「公共」這個概念。「出去,這裡不是住人的地方!」這種說法,表示這是公共場所,不屬於任何特定的人,我一個個人,不應該長時間佔據。每次聽到這樣的話,我很就想告訴他們:只要我有生存的意願,就必定會佔據某個空間(雖然實際上我不會想要和行政單位進行這種對話)。換句話說,只要我們身處公共空間,就必然會產生這種讓我們無法區分「公/私」空間的矛盾。舉例來說,不論在哪一塊土地上,我們只要認定某個場所不屬於特定的人,這種矛盾就會發生在所有人身上;但是大部份在私領域中,付出金錢以居住在房子裡的人,不會去思考這種事。還有,以要求「努力自立」為由來排除遊民,其實暗中假定「遊民的狀態不是自立的」。這個想法以這樣的認知為前提:所謂自立市民的生活,就是從事雇傭勞動,付錢住在房子裡,從事消費與再生產活動,並且納稅。遵照這個模式生活的人,國家會賦予他假想的「主體」身分;所謂的「公共」,就是這樣的市民用稅金建構而成的。納稅是自立的證明,而「自立=公共的構成」。國家就利用這樣的制度,全面地控制「自立的市民」;於是認同國家的市民,異口同聲地告訴我們:「自己站起來!繳稅!」

話說回來,誠實納稅的市民們,除了擁有自尊之外,那些高公共性的公共空間或公共設施,真的是為他們構成的嗎?我看不見得,許多反例正陸續發生。最近的新聞報導,有些市立圖書館委託大型書店營運。還有,2009年澀谷區和大型運動用品公司NIKE締結合約,由NIKE捐贈公園內的設施,條件是區立宮下公園必需改名為「NIKE PARK」,而且全面改造成與以往完全不同形態的運動公園。透過重新命名,這個計畫讓公共公園變成NIKE的形象代表;為了進行改造工程,驅逐原本居住在公園內、大約30名的遊民。而且,「NIKE PARK」將設置形狀像獸欄一樣、巨大的滑板場,目的是將滑板族趕出一般道路,誘導他們進入柵欄之內。此外,這個「NIKE化」的公園將由澀谷區負責管理(當然是用市民的稅金作經費),但是NIKE主辦的活動,有優先使用公園空間的權利。

社會一味地強化「生產力高就是好」這種所謂合理主義的價值觀,行政體系與企業合為一體;這樣的想法甚至膨脹、蔓延到公共空間來。市街中專為消費的空間不斷擴大,地價上漲,窮人遭到驅趕;市街的結構演變成一套精巧的裝置,專為誘導大家購買大企業製造的商品而存在。透過權力與龐大的金錢力量,市街原本的自律文化,隨著空屋、廣場、小巷道以及城市的空隙,一同瓦解。

不過,在這中產階級化的潮流中,我們並不是完全無力的。

讓我們回到上述的事件。在引進NIKE計畫之後,澀谷區為了開始施工,決定以圍籬封鎖宮下公園。就在封鎖的前一天,反對這個計畫的藝術家和社會運動者組成「蹲點藝術家」團體(Artist In Residence, A.I.R),在宮下公園裡搭起了帳篷,開始就地創作。隔天,我們一方面以直接行動阻礙搭建圍籬的工事,進行行為藝術的表演,同時展示我們的作品;大約100名的行動者,成功地阻止了澀谷區的封鎖。之後這些「蹲點藝術家」繼續駐紮在公園內,同時將公園開放,以「打造公園」為主題,持續進行就地創作、作品展示、現場音樂會、電影放映會、工作坊、會議、研討會等活動,甚至在公園裡開闢田地。越來越多的人來參觀,進而加入「打造公園」運動,以各自的方式質問所謂「公共」的意義。

半年後,澀谷區集合了警備人員、警察,強制封鎖了宮下公園,將蹲點藝術家們的物品全數強制拆除、撤離。隨後NIKE公司發表聲明,撤消「NIKE PARK」的命名。宮下公園就在封鎖的狀態下,由NIKE公司開始進行施工;公園維持原有的名稱,但取消漢字,改以平假名「みやしたこうえん」標示,同時改造成區立運動公園。不過直到今天,反對運動仍未停歇,持續對公園、澀谷區公所、以及NIKE公司展開抗議行動。

伴隨著電視塔「東京天空樹」(Tokyo Sky Tree)的建設,周邊地區開始進行中產階級化。今年,居住在當地的遊民們仍在抵抗。雖然公園與河岸工程的驅趕,帶給露宿在當地的遊民們莫大的壓力,但是他們仍然舉行祭典,開設咖啡座,不但遊民本身組織起來,同時也與前來聲援的群眾互動、形成連盟。緊鄰著遊民們的帳篷與小屋,怪手一邊發出低吼、一邊施工,但是遊民毫不退縮。於是現在,工程處於中止的狀態。

在今日的公園裡,透過相互監視的方式(雖然沒有人命令我們這麼做),我們消磨時光的方式、玩耍的方式、以及休息的方式,都受到控制與支配。自從2011年3月11日的東日本大震災與核能事故之後,急速的復興與開發不斷進行。確實,處在今日的我們,不論對於細微或巨大的事物,都感到劇烈的喪失感;而大眾媒體還在以既有的安心與希望的象徵,催眠那些想要從苦痛中逃脫的人。然而這些安心與希望的象徵,只是一些過去的幻影;現代都市的開發、現代家族的羈絆,這些過去我們冀望的事,和促成核能事故的因素有密切的關係。我想要竭盡所能,刨出它的根源。那些我們視為當然的規範之結構,和文化有莫大的關係。透過有關希望與幸福的論述,規範不斷被加強、固若金湯。如果我們遵守規範,就會獲得贊許;但要是我們偏離規範,就會受到社會的制裁與責難。這樣的相互監視系統,力量越來越強大。

我們可以這樣說:遊民是一種從現代家族的逃脫,對現代國家的不服從,以及對都市開發的抵抗。違反現代社會意志的人遭到排除,他們的存在被抹消,應該開放的空間正逐一被閉鎖。但是,作為一種抵抗,被現代社會放逐的人、與現代社會格格不入的人,將要劈開幽閉的場所,親手創造自己的空間。對我們來說,這才是真實的空間,這才是生存的場域。作為陌生人的集合,作為對都市進行重新評價的場所,公園孕育著無限的可能性。

當人與人真實地彼此關聯,一定會產生各式各樣的彼此對立的立場;恐怖與緊張原本就存在我們生存的空間,不曾離開。我們本身,該如何對應這樣的恐怖?有的人假裝暴力不存在,否認人類的脆弱,這樣的看法才是更為暴力的吧。冒著遭到誤解的危險,我必需說,甘於在威脅中度日,正是忠於權力的態度。這時候,恐怖與憤怒將化為具體,緊緊扣著我們的生存。

公園與街道,決計不是安全的地方;說不定在都市之中,那是最沒有受到文明影響的場所。這是抵抗的戰場,我將繼續在這裡創造空間,絕不放手。

譯註:
【註一】:日本的遊民習慣以藍色的塑膠布搭建帳篷,故名。
【註二】:中產階級化(Gentrification)又譯為紳士化、縉紳化、貴族化,是都市發展中的一種現象。都市中某些老舊、發展停滯的地區,因為經濟優勢人口的遷入,導致地價上昇,原本較為貧窮的居民無法負擔而遷出、離散,地區特有的文化與特色遭到破壞。近年來國家與財團主導的都市更新與都市開發計畫,以及藝術家進駐老屋、空屋的「藝術村」,都是人為的gentrification;其背後真正的動機往往是土地開發帶來的巨大利益。

﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣

Subversion in Parks and Streets
/ Expert /
/ Written by Misako ICHIMURA /

In a corner of the forest park right at the centre of Tokyo, there is a blue-tent village, a place where the homeless lives. I started to live here since autumn in 2003. And until now, it is still my ideal shelter, as I believe that this is where I could most probably live in the whole Tokyo. The commoners are allowed to live for paying sky-high rent and taxes, and for laboring in stressful employment. Yet, life in the blue-tent village is totally different. Many usable commodities, clothes and edible food are thrown away as rubbish every day in Tokyo. People in this village make a living by collecting and sharing the discarded stuff. Rubbishes not only become resource here, but also a communication tool connecting people. Such alternative community that almost doesn't rely on money actually exists in the park at the centre of Tokyo, world’s most developed metropolis. Of course, a community that runs on such basis is vulnerable, especially to different violent attacks coming from discrimination and prejudice. But right because of the attacks, we need the community. The interdependent connection of people living in the community is what we can never let go.

As I heard that my friend built a tent in the tent village in the park. I paid a visit there – that was the first time I visit the blue-tent village. Back then, more than 300 people were already living here. We have workmen specifying in building tent with the blue waterproof canvas, a common room, a hair salon, and even a place where you can play mah-jong. Deep in the famous forest park in Tokyo, I thought that I had left Tokyo to an unknown place when I saw the tent village. However, this is actually the epitome of reality in Tokyo. 

Among the people living in the village, some of them used to feel desperate and even plan to end their life but ended up settling here, some others worked in construction companies that provided meals and accommodation but turned out losing both work and houses on the same day. They all have their own stories before becoming vagrants. Most of them live as vagrants involuntarily. Vagrants are certainly entitled to enjoy social welfare. If they negotiate with the social welfare organization successfully, they may choose to receive social assistance and live in social welfare facilities or social houses. However, most of the people here have experienced failure in living based on money, they would rather stay here and live their own life without relying on loads of money instead of going back to the old days. Isn’t it an escape from and resistance of the capitalist economy? Even right at the heart of Tokyo. I immediately want to live here. This is the life I want unquestionably. I decide to stay in the village and experience the changes with the people here. 

After I started living in my own tent here, I set up a barter café with Mr Tetsuo Ogawa, who lived in the village before I came, in front of the tent. We organize art jamming every week. You pay with material instead of money for a tea or coffee. The café is open to people in the blue-tent village, but we also welcome visitors outside the park. So the café becomes where exchanges of the inside and outside take place. Meanwhile, we collect unused materials and distribute them to those in need. The artworks made in the weekly art jamming are used to decorate the café. 

People in the blue-tent village are very different people, each with their own personality. Some people cannot get used to the prearranged living space in apartment building. However, in the blue-tent village, people with special needs or the elderly can build their own tents or huts that fit their physical conditions. Making use of discarded materials, some build huts that basically provide everything. Some other guy simply puts his stuff around them, and covers it with a piece of blue canvas. His house is in irregular shape, changing everyday according to his movement and the position of his stuff. When I just came to the village, there was still plenty of room for moving. I lived next door to a guy for a while.  People saw me as his subordinate whenever they saw us. It made me very uncomfortable, so I decided to move to the other end of the village alone. Living in this community, you are still under pressure of interpersonal relationship, but it is much more easy to move as compared with people living in apartment. 

I have to talk about the gender issue here. The overwhelming majority of the vagrants are male. Only very few women live in this male-dominated community and they have to face a lot of difficulties here. Women have no choice but to live under the imminent threats of violence and sexual violence. I truly feel like this and therefore I started the monthly tea gathering exclusive for women. I started to wander around in order to find out women scattered in the village and invite them to the gathering. We hardly have any interaction and may not even know each other’s existence even though we both live in the village. When we firstly met up in the gathering, we were so shocked to find out that there were actually so many women living here. Among 350 villagers in total, there are around 30 women. We share our own experience during the gatherings. Sometimes we agree with each other, sometimes we don’t and even get divided. But in the blue-tent village, the organic gatherings indeed help to bring together a small bonding in the community. Even though the problems would definitely not be solved by the gatherings, I sense that the power relation between men and women in the community has slightly changed. This women network formed by the tea gatherings makes the life in the male-dominated tent-village much more comfortable. 

The gender issue is definitely not exclusive to the vagrant community. Take an open space like a park as example, who, in top priority, is the park open for? Whose position and what kind of thinking gave rise to such decision? These questions are pivotal to everybody, and they exist not only in the public realm, but also in areas usually regarded as private, for instance space like houses and apartments, and even in families. Female and sexual minorities are often exposed to threats of violence and sexual violence. Family, a relationship built up in patriarchy, is exactly the breeding ground of sexual discrimination and sexual violence. The existing “family” relationship often transgresses its role needed for “re-production” and violates human rights with unnecessary fetter. Family privacy is often used as an excuse to mask such evil deed. Both men and women tend to think that female vagrants are exposed to dangers as they have no family and no rooms with lock. But this is all prejudice and stereotype. The dangers are not totally a result of the vagrant life. To women and sexual minorities, both public space, such as parks and stations, and private areas like home are not where they can feel safe and free. Regardless of the situation at the park, we should nonetheless seriously discuss safety and freedom of women in the household.

Another issue that needs to think over is that, park management often accuses vagrants for posing dangers to women and children whenever the issue of safety in public space is discussed. It is irresponsible to describe vagrants as the source of danger and ignore the violence issue that the management must deal with. I am not saying that vagrants hold absolutely no responsibility to the problem. But I must emphasize that accusing vagrants as victimizers is actually a political decision. And it fails to respond to the actual violence, which is in fact eating away the park. 

Let’s try to look at capitalism in a gender perspective. Men are often told to be strong, not to show their weakness and protect women and children. If a man fails to meet these demands, he will likely be defeated in the capitalist competition, wander outside the patriarchic system that supports capitalism, and start to worry if he will become a vagrant. Especially for those low-income labours, informal employees and freeters, they feel this threat of capitalism and wish that they wouldn’t become vagrants. They work hard to earn qualifications and engage in employment in order to stay strong, forcing themselves to expose any weakness. These men tend to see vagrants as losers lacking of persistence, and some may even attack the vagrants. In almost all the news about vagrants being attacked, the victimizers are men, mostly teenagers. Influences of the teenagers come from the administration, society values and the adults’ attitude. Gentrification is being carried out by the administration of many districts: they rule all vagrants out of public space, such as parks, riverbanks and station area. The administration never talks and negotiates with the vagrants, however forcefully destroys their tents and demolishes their living space. With such measures, the administration is actually pushing the vagrants to some even more difficult conditions. The administration refuses to think that each vagrant actually has specific needs and opinions, and community has its own collective means of living. Our society shuts up its eyes, pretending such incidents bring no influence to the teenagers at all.

In other words, to people like us who lead a vagrant life, the most enormous threat doesn’t lie in the lack of food or the winter cold, but the discrimination, prejudice, attack and banishment from society. 

The patriarchic capitalist society shifts all its anxiety and hatred on to the vagrants and escapes from the real problems that they need to tackle.  Is it possible for the vagrants who do not fit the patriarchic capitalist norm to get respect from common people? Women, sexual minorities, children, the poor and even the teenagers who attack the vagrants share exactly the same disadvantageous situation with the vagrants. But they remain in opposition and deny the vagrants. There isn’t any single park where all people are equally free to enjoy. We often say that “park is an open space”, or “the park belongs to everyone”. What these expressions really mean is that the park should be a space where all can express their respective positions and power, and exercise their free will. We do not need imposed “safety”, granted “security”, or approved “freedom”. We say no to all safety measures that attempt to divide us in public space. 

Those homeless tend to stay in public space. The administration either pushes us away by saying that public space is not a living space, or persuades us to be independent and ask us to move to social welfare facilities. We have also heard common people having similar opinions. 

Let’s talk about the very notion of “public”. The saying that pubic space is not a living space suggests, as public space doesn’t belong to any particular individual, any individual should not occupy the space for a long period of time. Whenever I hear saying like this, I am so eager to tell them that: as long as I have the will to live, I will occupy a certain space (even though in fact I am reluctant to start such conversation with the administration). As long as we stay in public space, such contradiction of unable to separate “public” from “private” will appear. No matter where are we standing, if only we regard the location not belonging to a certain person, all people will then have to face such contradiction. But for those who spend money on houses in their private realm, they would not put such situation into consideration. Moreover, banishing vagrants by asking them to be independent and support themselves is indeed an assumption that “vagrant life is not independent”. There is actually a certain premise behind such thinking: an independent citizen is who is employed, pays for house, engages in consumption and re-production activities, and pays taxes. People who follow such norm will be granted an imaginary “subjectivity” by the government. The so-called “public” is in fact constructed by taxes paid by citizens living in such norm. Tax paying becomes a proof of your independence as “independence = construction of public”. Such system is what the government uses to exercise complete control over “the independent citizens”. As a result, the citizens, in association with the nation that they identify with, tell us in one accord: “Stand on your own feet! Pay taxes!”

Anyway, do the upstanding citizens who pay taxes actually own, beyond their own pride, the public space and public facilities? I don’t really think so. More and more counterexamples are coming up. In recent news, the operation of some city libraries has been outsourced to mega bookstore. In 2009, the Shibuya district signed a contract with the sports brand Nike: Nike will donate all the facilities in the Miyashita Park, and in return the park will be renamed as “Nike Park”. And transformed into a sports park totally different from what the park used to be like. Through renaming, the public park now represents Nike’s image. And due to this renovation, around 30 vagrants who had been living in the park were expelled. A big skateboarding ground is built in the park. However, its design looks like a cage: the objective behind it is to rule the skateboarders out from the streets and get them into the cage like skateboarding ground. Besides, the Shibuya government will be responsible for managing this “Nikelized” park, with taxes from people. However, events organized by Nike will have priority in using the park.

Society blindly strengthens such rationalist belief in productivity. Administration now unites with corporation. Such ideas have been expanded and spread to the public space. Street space related to consumption activities gets bigger and bigger. With ever increasing land price, the poor is expelled. The structure of the street turns into a delicate apparatus, which is made for luring people to buy the products of the big corporation. Because of authority and gigantic power of money, the original self-disciplined culture of the streets, together with empty houses, plaza, alleys and gaps in the city, are all vanished. 

Nonetheless, we are not completely impotent under this trend of gentrification. 

On the day before Miyashita Park is closed for renovation, artists and activists who opposed to the plan started an Artist in Residence (A.I.R.) programme by building tents and making art in the park. On the following day, we hindered the workers from setting up fences through direct action and at the same time performed performance art and exhibited our works. Around 100 activists successfully stopped the park from being locked up. The A.I.R. remained stationed in the park and opened it under the theme of “Creating the Park”. Events including art making, exhibitions, concerts, screenings, workshops, conferences and seminars were held. And we even started a farm in the park. More and more people came to visit and eventually joined this “Creating the Park” movement. People came and questioned the meaning of the so-called “public” in their own ways. 

Six months later, police and security sent by the Shibuya district sealed off the park with a strong hand. They demolished and evacuated all the stuff of the A.I.R. artists. In a statement that followed, Nike repelled renaming the park as “Nike Park”. Nike then started the construction as Miyashita Park was completely sealed off. The park kept its original name, but instead of putting it in Kanji, the name is now shown in Hiragana “みやしたこうえん”.  Moreover, the park is now transformed into a district sports park. However, resistance is not yet over. Protests against the park, Shibuya district government and Nike are still on the go. 

Now, the ways we spend time, play and rest are all being controlled and dominated through the means of mutual monitoring – even nobody tells us to do so. Since and earthquake and the subsequent nuclear incident on March 11, 2011, rapid revival and development have been constantly carried out. Indeed, we all feel a severe sense of loss towards both meticulous and significant matters now. However, the mass media continues to make use of obsolete symbols of security and hope to hypnotize those who wish to be free from suffering. Such symbols of security and hope are merely shadows from the past. Things that we used to long for – urban development, lies of the modern family – are closely related to the factors leading to the nuclear incident. 

We can put it this way: vagrant life is actually an escape from modern family, disobedience towards modern state, and resistance against urban development. Those who act against social will get banished. Space that should be kept open is shut down one by one. Yet, the exiled and those who do not fit with the modern society will break into the closed arena and create their own space as a way of resistance. To people like us, this is what a real space means. This is our living site. Endless possibilities can be found in the park, from a place where strangers gather to an area where we can re-evaluate the urban city.  

Parks and streets are certainly not somewhere totally safe.  In terms of civilization, perhaps they are the least influenced part of the urban city. They are the battlefields of resistance.  I will keep on creating space there. Never letting go. 

/ Translated by Sumyi Li (ENG)




「你們有在工作嗎?」 -湯皇珍與藝術家職業工會

文:高俊宏


藝術創作者是什麼工作?台灣有藝術創作者嗎?你們有在工作嗎?  
                                                                           行政院勞委會人員


透過加入「藝術創作者職業工會」取得你應有的職業保險、工作條件,不僅宣示自己的專業工作狀態,也是充分利用職業工會對於沒有一定雇主、自營作業的專業者提供工作保障的職能(聯盟與協會無此職能)。經過爭取,突破勞委會既有之職業界定與工作定義,目前工會在藝術範疇上包含:視覺藝術、表演藝術、藝術類策、評之藝術創作者,而“以藝術創作為職業”意謂:由提供意念、構想,並公開執行、發表此意念之“勞工”,亦即入會的藝術創作者必須每年在工會所在區域(台北市)有公開發表的“工作”事實,作為入會的條件。
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      湯皇珍

        2008年起,因應高齡化社會的來臨,臺灣政府開始採行國民年金的制度,凡是沒有相關職業保險(勞保、軍保、工保、農保)的人都必須加入國民年金的保險體系裡,國民年金保險的對象主要範定對象為「經濟弱勢的家庭主婦或無工作者」
。暫且不論此制度的優劣,但由於臺灣社會乃至於官僚體系一時難以接受藝術家是一種職業,長期以來並未核可過相關的藝術家職業工會,國民年金意外觸及創作者長期以來社會地位不明確的敏感問題。因此,由湯皇珍、陳界仁、蔡明亮等多位創作者共同發起了成立工會的運動
,呼籲政府組織藝術家工會,工會終於在2011年完成立案
,其中,最重要的主力推手,當屬湯皇珍一人!

        湯皇珍是臺灣資深的行動藝術家,除了創作外,她積極、長期關注在地藝術環境發展,追溯其這方面的相關行動史, 「華山藝文特區」的催生可以算得上是第一個例子,臺灣藝術生態經歷80年代底的畫廊狂飆期之後,90年代起藝術領域相關「有力者」開始產生一種瘋狂的「產值領悟」:從畫廊式的「藝術作品=貨幣」的商業模式,轉向空間、場所經營的「空間=貨幣」的空間政策擬定,成為今日臺灣文創產業的「鋪路」階段。湯皇珍與一票藝文界朋友,成功推動公賣局「台北酒廠」廢墟保留,轉型為「華山藝文特區」。90年代末期「華山藝文特區」作為一個免費、自由展出的大型場域是當時非常重要的前衛藝術指標,創作者可以在裡面幹任何事,只要不要放火燒了它就好
 ,筆者在那個時候剛好在藝術學院,躬逢參與了相關的活動,特區裡創作自由之風氣是今日難以感受的。

        可是,一旦「空間=貨幣」的運作模式成功地將這些「文化襲產」(王志弘),轉化成ROT / RO等文化資產商業化、私有化進程,那麼執政者便開始瘋狂、無意識地進行複製的動作,將各式各樣的空間改變為文創園區。2003年文建會(現文化部)將「華山藝文特區」委託給「橘園國際藝術策展股份有限公司」,2007年更以ROT的方式委託給私人文創產業,收取高昂的場租,染下台灣藝術空間新自由主義化第一個污點。然而,華山的事情和後來的藝術家工會有什麼關係?我認為應該將湯皇珍過往的行動(包含藝術家工會促成)放在臺灣整體性地新自由主義危機中,它顯然對應了更大的結構。

藝術家工會:對機器人與文人的雙重批判
      
        新自由主義在香港不是什麼新鮮的辭彙,但對於臺灣而言,這樣的批評仍然存在著一定的解離作用。這種解離不僅來自於90年代以降各種私有制度的確立,更凸顯了社會關係內部價值的功利化傾向,因而,1984年俞國華宣布國際化、自由化所形成的後續效應比較是外在的因素,真正值得注意的是一套英、美自由經濟思維怎麼樣在亞洲社會「本土化」、「扎根化」。這牽涉到臺灣漢人移民社會的儒教思想如何接軌到亞太冷戰後期的新自由主義,換句話說,臺灣社會移植過來的儒教系統恰好供給了新自由主義旺盛的特異生命,新自由主義希望人們成為「工蟻」,這點在儒教社會所信仰的「倫理」綱常中特別有用,人們壓抑自我、甘為螞蟻、不求特異、努力工作、泯滅個性,某種原因來自於功利能夠使人在家庭、社會關係中取得一定的穩定關係,這就是透過工作的功利主義所能夠形成新的倫理力量,對此,湯皇珍提到藝術家做為另一種工作者的可能性:
   
        最近正好在閱讀Alain de Botton的《工作工作》一書,其中職涯諮商一章有幾段很有趣,他說:「現代人認為個人選擇的職業代表了個人的身分認同,以致我們初識陌生人所問的第一個問題,通常不是對方來自何處,也不是對方的父母是誰,而是對方從事什麼工作,這種行為背後的假設乃是認為:有意義的人生必得經由有償的工作才能達成。」接著他說:「然而這種觀念並非自古以來就存在。從西元前四世紀延續兩千多年,亞里斯多德定義了財物需求使人處於奴役及動物的位置,唯有私人收入與閒暇生活才能讓公民享受音樂與哲學帶來的高度樂趣。到了文藝復興時期,實用活動的榮譽才被提及,最早指的就是藝術創作,然後擴及百工。」不會帶來財物報酬的活動被剝除所有重要性,成為頹廢的業餘人士偶一為之的嗜好「開始於十八世紀崛起的中產階級」,從此認定「不事生產的人絕不可能獲得快樂」,然而,如此「生產」與「成功」的定義所帶來的幸福卻少之又少讓作者深受煎熬!
湯皇珍

         我認為:如果職業選擇對人生具有極重大影響,工作是我們主要的生命風景,我們的社會的確不能把這麼重大的事如此輕易的拋在一旁,任由金錢決定或人云亦云。至於藝術創作之於我這個藝術創作者,用來面對生命意義的命題多過於用來解決生活的實務。如果慾望如資本主義所行銷是沒有邊界是至死方休,那麼誰說精神躍昇的欲求不是如此?
 湯皇珍

        事實上,從歐陸(特別是德、法)體系而言,藝術家這個「個體」是不能外在於經濟體系而獨立思考的,其原因自然與文化工業的啟蒙及成型有關,為了有別於傳統工人階級的勞動者,哈特與內格里因而開始以新的名詞:「非物質勞工」(immaterial labor)定義作家、設計、藝術創作等創意工作者。事實上,哈特與內格里的「非物質勞工」指的首先是服務業、IT產業裡的工作者,而immaterial的另外一層意思是微不足道,似乎也再次貼合了新馬克思主義思維下,以「帝國」、「全球化」取代過往馬克思的社會結構論(上、下層建築)。藝術家作為「非物質勞工」,當然隱含著創作者無法逃脫成為離資本主義螞蟻的悲觀觀點,可是在螞蟻之外,創作者也絕非一廂情願地符應於工作社會所規範出來的朝九晚五那種邁向死亡的方式。他自身無固定(但絕非無業)的工作形態,正也是對資本主義訓練出來的古典機器人的反制,往往難以為世人明白的便是內在於藝術創作倫理的這種平行結構,也因此藝術家通常幾乎「醒着就在工作」的狀況,卻常被社會詬病為是一群無所事事之徒。對於這點,湯皇珍提到:

        藝術家的群落──這一社會中的分眾,在台灣始終面目模糊。最初亞理斯多德主張「最有價值的生命投入乃是享受音樂與哲學」,到了十九世紀產業革命資本主義興起,人的生命風景變成:「工作為了收入,收入投入消費」以便累積資本。「收入多寡決定才智高低」是不可動搖的主流,藝術創作開始成為中產階級的娛樂項目,甚至因為收入的不確定,讓人根本否定了去從事。如果你跟父母說你要當藝術家,他們總是憂心你吃不飽,力勸你不要去做;若是跟一般人提起你從事藝術創作,他們會翻著眼要你「好好去找個工作來做」,或者諷刺你「難道不要吃麵包嗎」,這些現象背後其實就是上述資本主義價值觀的寫照。

        相對藝術家在文化國家的地位──由於那些國家的發展脈動以藝術為要務,對於藝術抽象、非利、分享的質性,藝術的教育推動,長久持續而得深化,因之文化國家的藝術家面目相對清晰。然而,台灣──這樣一個重商、為商、政商關係掛結深厚的國家結構底下,藝術施政不外「插花」層次。近年雖隨世界風潮高舉「文化創藝產業」,卻還是以傳統產業──集中育成、計利傳銷的那一套概念來操作,藝術家面對的其實是長期被認知為「無業」、「無所事事」的處境,是可以想見的必然狀況。我們也許並未來得及覺察或者遁逃去覺察。

        我個人從1991迄今,持續進行並發表創作計畫,清晰意識以藝術創作為身分、專業,並投注生命時間,當我接獲沒有工作必須強制納保的國保保單,驚悟惡劣的處境已經必須反抗,衝撞國家體制與社會價值以求質變。

                                                              湯皇珍

        創作者職業工會的推動,首先挑戰了社會對於藝術家身分認知的慣性,藝術家介入社會為自己的身分辯駁,這與以修身為起點的傳統東方人文精神思想大相逕庭。另外,「當代藝術」無疑是從資本主義社會所產生出來的,而其根源不是因為資本市場因應自身的需求而產生(換言之「當代藝術」不具備亞當‧斯密所定義的自由調控的市場特質)。我們毋寧從歷史性的角度來理解,促發當代藝術場域的開展,是國際冷戰下的文化戰而非單純的資本市場。而當代藝術創作者仍然可取之處在於,在普遍強調「個體性」的西方政治、市場中,雖然現階段藝術家的工作夠真正脫離資本主義的案例極少,但創作行為自身也挑戰著資本主義虛構出來的機器人生命,這是藝術家這一行業的永恆矛盾及處境。假設我們斗膽地說,當代藝術家這個身分由冷戰以及西方資本主義所領銜創造,那麼藝術家能夠從「藝術家內部」創造什麼?我覺得這創造了一個最值得玩味的問題:「外邊」,如同傅柯對於「藝術家是一種身分?」提問的震驚,所延伸出來一系列的主體哲學問題。

        藝術家職業工會基本上也涉及了社會如何面對一種「外邊行業」的問題,它永恆地處於雙重辯證之中:一方面首先是對藝術家在社會體制中的「身分認同」問題,另一方面同時也是一般人對於藝術家的「看法」, 因為藝術家的角色在當代社會中依然普遍被認定為色情的、噁心的、非理性的、消耗的、逃避的、墮落的、不事生產的危險人物,哪位父母希望下一代立志成為一個好的藝術家?要彌補這個巨大的鴻溝也絕非透過勞保「職業認定」的取得而同時就可以產生的,而藝術家也不一定要經由社會認同才能從事藝術,問題的癥結在於當代藝術(無論它的歷史性前因後果)如今已然是一個多向度的對話關係,是一種特殊的社會「關係」的界定、折衷工作,大範圍來說它就是一種「殘存着象徵功能的社會行動」。換言之,藝術家工會將藝術家導向一種行業,除了替藝術家在社會保險的網路中爭取一定資源之外,反過來也藉由藝術 「殘存着象徵功能的社會行動」的特質,反過來批判當今資本主義的「死勞動」,但是這種批判不會在藝術封閉的「再現場域」裡(當然也不會在東方文人所深居的山野書齋裡)自我完成,而是必須進入體制的抗爭中去突顯:

在這一必須伸張對「工作」、「職業」、「藝術工作價值」重新定義與認知的運動底下,充分暴露這些行政單位(文建會、勞委會、稍後的勞保局等)對其執行業務的僵化態度,對於其所定義的定義背後的意識狀態無所知覺。如果所有這些龐大、環環相結的人事所進行的審查會議、行政規章都是為了阻擋「非現行事物」,而不能在發現問題後進行疏通,顯示了官僚體系的存在是如何讓「雇用體系來服務我們」的人民產生莫名的哀傷與憤怒!

       藝術創作者職業工會由2009年4月開始發動「種植藝術」,至2011年2月19日成立,投入兩年的時間。職業工會的籌組推動一方面既是藝術相關問題的倡議運動,不可避免借鏡社會運動的模式:首先座談釐清問題,進行議題的宣示發聲,接著擴大連署、拍製短片尋求眾意,遊說民意代表支持,隨後發動上街陳情,激化論辯問題核心的價值差異,借壓力取得與主管單位面對談判的機會。另一方面,面對主體群落的藝術家,對工會定義、職能、入會條件、倡議方針等交換、凝聚意見,歷經十數次前置會議,最後將過程記錄放入臉書平台。籌組行至一年後,我們循著「先有職項才能組織工會」的法令行政展開長期的公文旅行,運動來到可能的停滯期,思考工會籌組的敏感核心不只是所謂藝術群落爭取其被忽視的權益,更是一種身分意識以及藝術存有的主體危機,此一命題的深化才是關係工會運動形式能否成功的根本關鍵。身分意識以及藝術存有的複雜辯證唯有藝術才能拆解,在徵求核心成員的認同下,我個人首度以藝術計畫介入在行進中的文化運動──也就是「旅行九/遠行的人」。
                                                              湯皇珍

在藝術家職業工會的推動過程, 無可避免地運用了一般社會運動在催生議題時的手法 。這些動作幾乎都是以社會運動的方式追求藝術工作者的「正名化」,湯皇珍似乎在進行的是一種復原藝術家是一個社會正常人的狀態,而藝術家是社會正常人的觀點早在歐陸行之有年:

    法國在1952年即有「藝術家之家」,是視覺藝術家進行諸多權益爭取的最有力組織,其他還有許多藝術相關工作的工會組織。因為人數龐大,對於國家文化預算與工作權益的大型示威時有所聞。法國操作文化政策歷史久遠,對於藝術節、季的襄助,刺激藝術人口社群的成長,當代藝術教育的連結有諸多推展方式,法令的靈活度以及人事的專業度都高,猶如一個龐大的專業組織網。

至於德國的藝術家早在1983年即有「藝術家保險」,不必像台灣在2011年還要借經勞工保險來保障規定在德國藝術家保險中的項目。設在科隆的職業藝術家聯盟(BBK)接受來自科隆市政府一定預算經費,擁有一棟位於市中心的建築作為基地,一樓是展覽空間,由聯盟來規畫展覽,不限定只有會員可以參展。所有工作人員皆是藝術家(包括志工),關心藝術家最基礎實質的權益:創作工作之條件,藝術家間的聯繫,智慧財產權保護,發給藝術家證可以免費進入藝術場所等等。
                                                                      
        藝術家是一種身分。這一身分的演變就社會學所研究的工作形態以及哲學所思索的生命命題都有長遠的歷史與龐大脈系,要問的是:為什麼在資本主義出現後藝術家的主體身分開始消失?是不是藝術的娛樂化以及工作螺絲連結消費軀體的資本價值體系,注定要消弭藝術的非消費性及精神活動的非具體性,將人類徹底的物化、量化、異化成為非人類?我們也許不必像馬克斯ㄧ樣將資本主義的修正推往共產的另一極端,但是我們也許已經來到必須面對「非人」的自己。工作就是收入?職業就是謀生?你的生命目標就是計算幾棟房子、幾部車子的成就?藝術家之於當代社會的意義也許就是重回非利動機、非消費質性,如此藝術才可能開闢當代的另一震撼途徑,作為對照,藝術家才有存在之必要。

藝術創作不為社會運動服務,也不直接對以藝術倡議為題的文化運動服務;不是每一個藝術創作的形態都需要連結體制運動及改造,我也不認為行動藝術必定就是服膺波依斯的定義。我個人對由波依斯所帶出的藝術概念有癖好,認為藝術在意識狀態改組上有衝撞的能量,如此藝術對生活的質變產生意義才使藝術成為藝術。我不認為藝術是茶餘飯後,是風花雪月,是可有可無。每一位藝術家都應有其對藝術的定義,由此產生其從事的動機與恆久的狂熱。
                                                               湯皇珍

德國1983年的社會保險法Künstlersozialkasse (Artist Social Insurance) 中,對藝術家的核心名稱是 Künstler und Publizisten,意即藝術的言論者,自己就是自己的老板。在這個詞語中,一個相對新的身分概念及可能性被拋出,它包含了藝術家、作家、報導者……等相關行業,換言之,創意言論被涵概進入社會化的層面同時被保障,而職業的認定也能夠表現某個社會的成熟度。在台灣,當官僚主義越是質疑「你們有在工作嗎?」,藝術家便越有需要從各個層面進行「自我賦權」,特別是進入社會場域的鬥爭中。

藝術家職業工會成立兩年後的今天,當藝術家某種程度已經初步成為內政部法定職業之後,其實存在著另外一個關乎當代美學,同時也關乎當代社會認同的問題,即「藝術家」是什麼?在美學的思考上它或許是一個饒富趣味的議題,但在現實上,這卻是一個攸關生命樣態的「存在」問題。事實上,藝術家職業工會能夠讓藝術家身分在官僚體系裡面有一定的正名作用,但難就難在社會整體無法理解藝術家。但是,要社會整體都理解任何藝術的內容,無異是一種幻覺。可是,要社會理解藝術家確確實實是一種工作者,有其必要性,這是藝術家職業工會成立以後的挑戰:在說服官僚體系之後,回到日常生活場域裡,繼續以行動說服我們周遭的人。

﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣
“Are You Working?” 
– Tang Huang-Chen and Art Creators Trade Union
(Exerpts)

KAO Jun-Houn

“What kind of job do art creators do? Are there any art creators in Taiwan?? Are you working?”
Staff member of Labour Affairs Council, Executive Yuan


Since 2008, Taiwan government launched the National Pension scheme in order to prepare for the coming ageing society. All individuals who do not participate in Labour Insurance, Farmer’s Health Insurance, Government Employee’s Insurance and Insurance of Military Personnel become the insured persons of the National Pension scheme. Let’s not to discuss the pros and cons of the scheme for the time being, as Taiwan society and its bureaucracy do not see artist as an occupation at the moment, and have never approved any set up of artists trade union, the National Pension scheme accidentally touches upon the sensitive yet outstanding issue concerning uncertain social status of art creators. In response to that, Tang Huang-Chen, Chen Chieh-Jen, Tsai Ming-Liang and many other artists initiated a movement to advocate for a trade union. In 2011, the trade union’s constitution was completed. And Tang Huang-Chen is definitely the most crucial artist in this movement.

Tang Huang-Chen is an experienced Taiwan artist and activist. She has been concerning local art development for a long time. An early example would be her advocacy of  “Huashan Art Zone”. After the gallery boom in 1980s, the “people with power” in the art field start to have this crazy idea about output value since 1990s – a shift from “artwork=currency” commercial model of gallery to “space=currency” spatial policy that could be found in different venues – and it actually paved the way for cultural industries in Taiwan today. Tang and other friends in the cultural community succeeded in persuading the Tobacco and Liquor Corporation to preserve the Taipei Winery and turn it to “Huashan Art Zone”. “Huashan Art Zone” then became a big site where exhibitions could be held freely in late 1990s. It was a very important avant-garde space where art creators could do anything there, providing that you do not burn the place down. I was studying in art school back then, and was so lucky to catch up activities there. The freedom of creation in the art zone is really unimaginable as compared with the situation today.   

However, as soon as the “space=currency” operation model successfully transforms “cultural heritage” (Wang Zhi-Hong) into ROT (Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer)/ RO and goes through commercialization and privatization of the cultural industry, the authority starts to copy this model unconsciously and turns different space into cultural parks. In 2003, the Council for Cultural Affairs (currently restructured as Ministry of Culture) entrust “Huashan Art Zone” to L Orangerie International Art Consultant Co., Ltd. And in 2007, the site was commissioned to a private company in creative industry through ROT. The rent of the site tremendously increased, bringing the first black mark to art space in Taiwan under neoliberalism. However, why is what happened in Huashan related to the art creators trade union?  In my opinion, Tang Huang-Chen’s past actions (including the advocacy of the union) actually correspond to a bigger structure of the general neoliberalism crisis in Taiwan. 

Art Creators Trade Union: A Double Critic on Robots and Men of Letters

Unlike in Hong Kong where neoliberalism is no longer new and foreign, a critic on neoliberalism still creates dissociation. Such dissociation not only comes from different kinds of privatization established since 1990s but also manifests the utilitarian tendency underneath the social bonding. The effects after Yu Kuo-Hwa’s
 campaign on internationalization and freedom in 1984 were rather extrinsic factor. What we need to pay attention to is how this free market economy idea from the west localizes and takes root in an Asian society. How did the Confucius thinking rooted in Chinese immigrant society in Taiwan get in line with neoliberalism in Asian Pacific in the late cold war period? In other words, the transplanted Confucius system precisely gives life to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism wants people to work like worker ants. This is where Confucius ethics fit in well as it values conformity instead of individuality, teaches people to suppress themselves and focus on work only. Neoliberalism is favoured in Confucius society as utility helps people to get hold of stable relationship in family and society at large. Utilitarianism in work helps forming a new ethics. 

In fact, in the European system (especially in Germany and France), “artist” as a subject is inseparable from the economic system. Reason behind such thinking is related to the enlightenment and forming of cultural industry. In order to differentiate from the traditional worker class, Hardt and Negri use a new terminology “immaterial labor” to describe creative practitioners including writers, designers, artists and etc. Actually Hardt and Negri initially use the term “immaterial labor” to refer to workers in service industry and IT industry. “Immaterial” also means negligible, and again it matches with in current neo-Marxist thinking in which the class structure in Marxist theory (superstructure and substructure) is replaced by “empire” and “globalization”.  As artists are now treated as “immaterial labor”, it implies a pessimistic view that art creators can never escape from becoming worker ants under capitalism. Yet, it doesn't mean that art creators would wishfully compile to the nine-to-five norm. By not having a fixed mode of work (yet not being jobless), artists challenge the classic robots trained in capitalism. What makes the artists’ work incomprehensible in the eye of common people is exactly this parallel structure intrinsic in the ethics of art creation. To the artists, they work while they stay awake. But still, they are often denounced as idlers. 

The advocacy of Art Creators Trade Union challenges the social inertia towards artist identity. Artists try to intervene and to defend their own identity. Such action contradicts with the traditional Eastern humanity that firstly values cultivating one’s moral character. “Contemporary art” undeniably stems from capitalism; however, its origin has nothing to do with the supply and demand of the capitalist market. (In other words, you cannot find the free market characteristics as defined by Adam Smith in “contemporary art”.) Let’s look at it from a historical perspective: the contemporary art is related to the war on culture during Cold War, and not simply a matter of capitalist market. Even though there are very few artists who manage to get away from capitalism in a real sense, art making is in itself a protest against the robotic life made up in capitalism. And this is the eternal contradiction and condition faced by the artists. If I presumptuously suggest that the identity of contemporary artist is created by Cold War and Western capitalism, what the artists can do on “their internal part”? It brings out an interesting issue worthy to think over: “the external part”. Similar to Foucault’s shock on the question “Is artist an identity?”, it brings about a series of philosophical questions on subjectivity. 

In 1983, the German government issued Künstlersozialkasse (Artist Social Insurance). In the legislation, Künstler und Publizisten, opinionator of art, is used as the core title of artist. A relatively new concept on identity, and as a result further possibilities, arise from such name. This new name covers artists, writers, reporters and other related occupations. Creative speech is incorporated in this socialisation and is being protected at the same time. The recognition of occupation also represents the maturity of a society. In Taiwan, as the bureacury is still questioning if the artists are really working, it shows the increasing neccessity for the artists to “self-empower” in different aspects, especially to participate in social struggle.


Two years after the establishment of the Art Creators Trade Union, as artists now preliminarily becomes statutory occupation under the Ministry of the Interior, another question concerning both contemporary aesthetics and social identification still exists: What is the reason of being an artist? It may be an intriguing issue aesthetically, but in reality it is an existential matter about one’s life condition. The union helps to make artist identity recognized by the bureaucracy, but what's even more difficult is that society at large actually finds artists incomprehensible. To have society understanding all contents of art is nothing but an illusion. Nonetheless, it is necessity to have society understanding that artists are actually a kind of workers. And here comes the challenge ahead of the Art Creators Trade Union: After lobbying the bureaucrats, it has to continue lobbying in sites of daily life and keep persuading people around us through our action. 

針無兩頭利─以台北藝術創作者職業工會為例

文:梁寶山

由藝發局提出不合理的招標條件和比賽細節、到向大企業為主傾斜的版權條例、以至淫褻及政治審查......每當藝術受到各種禁制,大家總愛感歎─如果香港工會之類的總職,為我們討公道就好了!但衝突平息或被淡忘以後,往往便回復在工作室或排練場裡孤軍作戰趕死線的常態。在這個去中心化的網絡動員時代,加上藝術家在政治上的無政府主義傾向(或者其實只是務求彈性和實用的新自由主義!),超越個別議題、 世代、 媒材,而又具規範性的恆常組織,像協會、聯盟、工會等,看來既不合時宜,也無從入手。

藝術的個人性和社會性

自2009年6月,經兩年組織並與政府磋商,以市為界的「台北市藝術創作者職業工會」,終於在2011年2月,獲行政院勞工委員會(下稱勞委會)接納成為第505個職業項目,藝術家可以透過加入工會,成為受到職業保障的勞工。「成功爭取」的消息傳出,香港藝術家羨慕不已,有朋友甚至說,我們不如去台灣加入工會好了!有鑑於此,同年4月,活化廳邀請發起及組織爭取、剛從火線上退下來資深藝術家湯皇珍,來港駐場,舉行多場講座,又與職工盟幹事交流。

湯皇珍早年是小學老師,1980年代末決意出走「旅行」,到巴黎第八大學造型藝術系深造,1991年回台。而我記憶中的湯老師,個子矮小,不事修飾,生活更是非常刻苦,把所有精力都投放在藝術上,不管是個人的藝術創作(其實她的作品充滿互動元素),抑或為大家爭取更好的藝術生態,包括在還未有閒置空間再利用的政策前(即台北市文化局的「藝響空間」計劃),已爭取保留酒廠作為華山藝文特區。這次來港,湯老師仍是我1990年代末見面時的樣子,氣質比當年更要擇善固執。「藝術創作者以工會途徑突圍對於社會的積極意義─一種文化運動的可能性」講座上,她指出工會能成功爭取什麼實利還是其次,她要所有從事藝術創作的友伴去思考,藝術家與社會的雙向關係─付出了的勞動,有沒有被體制所承認?藝術家如何以公民身份參與社會?從2009年4月起舉辦以「種植藝術」系列論壇開始,分別就「金融風暴下藝術家的生存危機」、「藝術工作者的社會位置」等「藝術家的公民參與方式」主題,廣邀藝術家以至社運老手互相激發思考。湯老師強調以社會運動模式先爭取勞動法上的「正名」,再組織具代理權的工會。開場白更以19世紀西方爭取女性投票權的歷史為例,說明─不主動走出來,誰會知道你的需要?來呼召藝術家的能動性。

工會的邊界

撇開組織辦法與法律認可的執行細節,遇上的第一條難題卻是─誰是藝術家?恆常組織不能迴避設定排拒性的邊界─那誰有權判定誰是(和誰不是)藝術家?若果把藝術定義為一種質性的知識技能,會否違反文化民主(例如「人人都是藝術家」之類)?若不,又如何避免主觀的自我宣稱?更高層次的思考是,投身藝術,不是追求物質回報的職業,而是偉大的職志;又或剛好倒過來─藝術只是陶冶性情的個人興趣,為什麼要社會為你買單?對於類似問題,湯老師似乎不想糾纏在哲學定義上,而選擇以社會向度回應─她同意人人都可能成為藝術家,卻不是人人都是藝術家。而藝術是什麼,每一位認真創作的藝術家都會有不同的答案。所以重要的是個體到底是否處於創作狀態,並且在社會上表現出來。所以藝術家工會重視的是成員的展演往績,並以「於申請日起過去一年內,曾於本會所在組織區域─台北市─舉辦公開發表」作為入會門檻。

與脫序政府周旋

2009年6月,藝術家凝聚了身份界定的共識,組織到包括陳界仁和蔡明亮等30位發起人、並500名藝術工作者聯署,決定爭取成立體政府認可的「創作者職業工會」。但要得到被法律認可的代表性,這群志同道合的藝術家仍得在政府與立法機關之間周旋,把專業翻譯成官僚能聽懂的行政話語。台灣的工會織法,包含三個類別:1. 企業工會(以成員所屬的公司為界);2. 產業工會(以傳統工業內各種工種為主,如海員、鐵路、礦業、塑膠、皮革、林業等約60項);3, 職業工會(以同區各職業技能為界,從銀行、宗教服務、大眾傳播、會計、攤販、小吃、民宿、星相、導遊甚至瑜珈教學人員等超過400個職業)。藝術創作者作為個體勞工,與職業工會定義最為脗合,於是籌備成員遂向負責勞工事務的「行政院勞動委員會」提出要求。但由於現行認可職項裡,並無「藝術」一類,申請無法辦理,組織者並要求解析藝術如何是「有工作的職業」。「藝術」被認可為職業,涉及勞工保障的法定權力。台灣的全國性退休保障,沿用資本主義慣常的差別待遇,即是把有工作的受薪公民,與無工作無受薪的公民區別處理(例如家庭主婦)─前者採僱、佣及國家共同投保方式處理;後者則只由國家投保,退休後只能享有每月只有3000元台幣(不足1000港元)的象徵式退休金!換句話說,這種差別待遇,視藝術家為游手好閑者,與個體藝術家就是自己僱主(港稱自僱人士,台稱自營作業者)、或藝術家長期處於零散工狀態的實況脫序(台式用語,解脫節);且與台灣近十年大力發展文創產業,並國民黨馬英九總統宣稱「以文化立國」的承諾名不符實。爭取不得要領,成員先後找立法委員和文建會協助溝通,並於11月織職遊行,提出「組工會、要保障」,國民黨籍立委鄭麗民到場支持,並協助約見勞委會。事延至2010年8月,湯皇珍再度到勞委會解析,「藝術創作」終於被納入「職業工會分業表」,成為第505項分業,但為免與現有相關分業重覆(如77影劇歌舞服務、78音樂服務、79鼓樂、347漫畫從業人員、438項藝文創作人員等),限定該分業只能包括視覺藝術、表演藝術及藝術類策評三項。分業立案後,以後如何來界定「藝術創作者」,將由工會自理。而工會將能代表零散工或自營作業的會員投保,讓成員取得較「國保」優厚的「職保」待遇。至此,台灣藝術家終於踏出在資本主義體制內「正名」的第一步,未來有望與德、法等由國家或市政府認証制度看齊!

藝術獨立原是幻?

台北市藝術創作者工會「成功爭取」的來龍去脈,大家可在工會的網頁上找到。約稿當然是想看看從湯老師的實例,可對大家的處境有什麼啟發。從傳統行會到工會,全球各地的藝術家工會不勝其數,但原來專門的學術研究竟然不多(亦可能由於時間所限)。這裡且舉出兩個南轅北轍的歷史範例,以助我們重新審視藝術家之於社會的矛盾位置。

  1. 紐約藝術家工會
1920年代,美國經濟大蕭條,藝術家陷入困境。1933年,一群藝術家開始在Reed Club聚集,希望政府以委約創作方式,讓藝術家渡過時艱,並由25人共同發表聲明,指出「政府有責任讓藝術家免於只能依賴私人贊助的不幸」。聲明遂蛻變成凝聚起約300名藝術家的「失業藝術家組織」(Unemployed Artists Group – 下稱UAG) ,並向工務部(Civic Work Administration- 下稱CWA)提出一系列由教學、壁畫、到商業藝術等工作項目。工務部成功獲得財政部撥款後,轉而委託Whitney Museum處理。但Whitney Museum卻廣邀市內其他藝術組織─除卻UAG之外,提交藝術家名單。此舉立即引起藝術家反彈,並遊行示威。翌年,CWA遂批出眾多藝術委約項目。藝術家獲得工作,UAG遂刪去失業二字,更名為藝術家工會Artists Union。每周的定期聚會甚至能召集到600名藝術家携同一家大小出席,不單成為凝聚Greenwich Village, Chelase 甚至Brooklyn藝術家的龐大組織,更成為連結其他左翼工會的據點。而聯邦藝術計劃Federal Art Project的主事者,更與工會達成某種默契,以向上級爭取更大的預算。

但與受惠於CWA的工種不同,藝術家不但得到最優厚的待遇,更間接令全國的藝術預算高度集中在紐約。其他工人渴望不景氣盡快過去,重新獲得「真正」的工作,但藝術家卻希望計劃能加以拓展並恆常化。最激烈的一次行動在1936年,藝術家佔領藝術辦公室,最終219名藝術家被捕。事件引致輿論反彈,認為藝術家是貪得無嫌的斯文敗類。但藝術家再接再勵,與曼克頓區國會議員籌措提交藝術議案成立科學、藝術與文學部,其後再縮小範圍至爭取成立藝術部。而事與願違,1939年國會的主流意見是如果私人贊助未能養起那麼多藝術家,即是藝術家人數過剩的證明;藝術計劃亦鐵定於四年內結束。加上政治氣氛緊張,工會成員數目銳減,最終加入了Congress of Industrial Organization。美國國家政府並無直接主導藝術發展的部委級部門,藝術應屬於私人事務或民間領域,仍是社會大致共識。


  1. 前蘇聯的藝術家工會

The Union of Artists of the U.S.S.R.是一個統合起所有前蘇維俟政權的龐大維織,1970年代擁有超過15,000會員,入會者須認同並遵從若干倫理、美學及意識形態目標,具備專業訓練,並曾參與公共展覽。工會將為成員提供創作以至生活所需,成員則需以藝術水平向自己和社會負責。工會每年會向會員與非會員徵集作品聯展,評審團以投票方式甄選展品,因此展覽亦是讓工會吸納新血的方式。貫徹蘇維俟的組織方式,工會備層級架構,由中央與16個共和國的地區、及藝術家資歷升遷。地方與中央文化部會透過展覽或委約方式購買作品,是為藝術家收入的主要來源。藝術家亦會按不同的媒介分配與其他專業結合,例如馬賽克與彩色玻璃會與街道及大廈建設配合、雕塑與建築合作無間、平面媒介會應用到書籍插畫、海報宣傳上。工會的財政後盾是藝術基金,提供藝術家一切物料供應,尤其大型紀念碑創作的技術及技工配套,並會從藝術品銷售中抽取2%。基金還在16個共和國設有藝術宮,配合創作甚至渡假需要提供短期食宿,尤其在風景優美的黑海一帶。年青藝術家更可參加考察團,到偏遠地區或大型工農項目找取創作靈感。蘇聯1977年的憲法規定,集體的自由建基於個體的自由,國家將為國民提供其發揮所長的機會;國家更關注如何利用精神財產以增進國民的德道、美感和教育水平。


藝術家的現代迷思之一,是其在工業(以至現在的後工業)社會中之獨立性,以及美學自主性。在資本主義與社會主義模式之間,上述兩種工會典型,正好展現出藝術家處於國家/公共領域與市場/私人領域之間的理想與現實。在資本主義體制裡,藝術家視市場為壓迫的力量,希望國家伸出援手,維護藝術自主性;而在社會主義體制裡,國家擔負起供養藝術家心靈物質需要的全部責任,但藝術不但不屬於個人,更必須服從意識形態以至倫理目標。不少論者早已道明,藝術的獨立性只是由市場充撐的幻覺─藝術品脫離皇室貴族與宗教贊助人,其實即是把藝術家「流放」到市場,在交易與交易之間,藝術得到彷彿超然的獨立性。而在自由民主的社會裡,對獨立的願望,卻又迂迴地重新寄託到國家之上(當然,國家也樂於接受利用,以把國家打造成文明的維護者。) 然而,相比起其他隨着現代化而變得「專業」的工作,藝術這一行在階級屬性上一直特殊而曖昧─它屬知識階層卻又是無產者,故此不算資產者;但藝術家的知識水平與文化趣味又與無產者存在距離。

不要以為這種分野已是冷戰時代的陳年舊事,筆者與國內藝術家聊天,仍會碰上這種概念與經驗「死角」。在我們高談博物館、藝術發展局等公共機構,應如何如何維持公平開放,捍衛言論自由,國內朋友不是無法把握何謂「公共」體制,就是對香港藝術家向政府拿錢嗤之以鼻,視為「bite the hand that feed」式「撒嬌」,甚至進而質疑所謂民間藝術機構的獨立性。能夠排除萬難,眾志成城組織起來,當然可喜可賀。而這種概念與體驗死角,正是一面鏡子,幫助我們從矛盾反思。反思主要分為兩方面,概念上與執行上的。先就概念而言:

  1. 專業與權益:隔岸閱讀爭取成立工會過程的報導,以及湯老師的親自表述,工會成立的理據,均大量使用了專業和權益話語,並以官僚作為對比 ─ 即是反覆說明官僚不懂,而且不尊重藝術。
  2. 由藝術到文創產業: 這些討論均強調台灣大力發展文創產業的環境改變,一方面說明「藝術有用」(包括社運宣傳功用),另一方面又表達出創業化令藝術家生計更力朝不保夕的焦慮。對於藝術應為作為文創產業一部份,還是應該在政策及行政上分庭抗禮,並沒有原則性共識。

這兩個問題之所以關鍵,是因為小罵可能成為大幫忙!例如討論中經常援引的法國失業救助制度,以零散工作為普遍僱佣方式,在達到每一年限定工時之後,藝術家其餘沒有受僱的日子,可被當成失業計算而得到政府補助。此舉對藝術家來說,當然能帶來即時效果,但長遠來說會否助長公私營機構扭盡六壬,把工作零散化,逃避為僱員提供保障的責任?又或者變相鼓勵藝術家在競爭越來越劇烈的就業市場上迎合價低者得的遊戲規則,自我剝削。不獨在台灣,面對文創產業這股大潮,不少地方的藝術家的態度不是欲拒還迎,就是猶抱琵琶半遮面─文創產業令原來位置邊緣的文化藝術急速主流化,甚至成為有用的經濟工具。但與此同時,藝術家卻又面臨要脫離原來公共體制、「拋個身出黎」的誘惑。其中最令人最難以抉擇的,是藝術家往往搞不清到底自己是僱員還是僱主─ 文化藝術的經營方式多以混合營利和非營利項目的小機構為主。加上伴隨文創產業而來的企劃主義(entrepreneurialism),和領導能力leadership,一方面向行業中的個體賦權,同時又把產業風險下放。事實證明,1990年代當法國政府改革就業保障制度時,藝術家也曾嘗試團結反抗,但號召力有限,因為對「自己就是自己老闆」的小機構來說,既找不出可以作為抗爭對象的公敵,罷工就更如拿石頭砸自己的腳,亦無法取得工人階級的同情。
 再者,這更牽涉組織上的挑戰:

  1. 工會規模與議價能力:工會能否為成員謀幸福,成敗關鍵是團結人數,使僱佣雙方都受到足夠的壓力遵守行規與公價。就台北案例而言,向政府爭取權益只是展開全面工會工作的第一步,更關鍵的核心,是在累積到決定性多數成員數目時,進而議定行規與定價。但要我行我素的藝術家嚴格遵守,又要回應行業的瞬息萬變,難度非常高。

  1. 地域工會的排他性:此外,全球化帶來全球地分工(global division of labour),保住此地工人飯碗,可能意味着別處工人飯碗被打破,並成為各地工會現正面臨的危機。(因此共產是以國際為目標,否則國家差異終究還是會損害工人利益) 白種工人運動(white unionism)在不少歐美後工業城市方興未艾,演變成排斥新移民與外來工的右翼政治群體。無論在台灣抑或香港,藝術家工會能夠發展成這樣具影響力的組織,當然還有很長的距離。但就是在未有工會成立之前,藝術家群體的地緣及族群性,身在其中,也有不自覺地成為壓迫力量的時候。

本文只是個開始,拋出的問題很零散。只是作為說明藝術家作為職業在概念與實際可能發生的矛盾。姑且以法蘭克福學派〈啟蒙辯證法〉引文作結:

“ As naturally as the ruled always took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the deceived masses are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. They have their desires. Immovably, they insist on the very ideology which enslaves them.” 


而對引文作者Gerald Raunig來說,藝術家唯有停止創作,才是癱瘓文創產業這部欲望機械的終極辦法。

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
參考資料:
李昭陽:〈檢視脫序演出的藝術政策與藝術工作者被忽視的權益─「金融風暴下藝術家的生存危機」論壇〉,《破週報》,2009年4月10日,復刊555期。(http://www.pots.com.tw/node/2129 )
李昭陽:〈知難,行易乎?:國內外藝文政策與資源的多向閱讀 ─藝術經濟小學堂座談紀實〉,《破週報》,2009年5月29日,復刊562期。(http://pots.com.tw/node/2496 )
凌美雪:〈求生計保障 藝術圈再號召組工會〉,《自由時報》,2009年6月30日,D 08版。
〈藝術創作者遊行 訴求組工會要保障〉,《民眾日報》,2009年11月1日,A04版。
凌美雪:〈藝術家今赴勞委會解惑─勞委會問:藝術工作是什麼工作?有在工作嗎?〉,《自由時報》,2010年8月9日,D 08版。
朱芳瑤、吳垠慧:〈藝術創作終於成為職業〉,《中國時報》,2010年8月10日,A16版。
陳惠雲、陳國賁、莊迪文:《活在香港─在港內地專才與藝術文化工作者的移民經驗》,香港:三聯書店 及 香港浸會大學當代中國趼究所,2013年。
「台北市藝術創作者職業工會」網站http://www.artcreator.tw/


﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣

You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat It Too 
– Taipei Art Creators Trade Union as an example(Exerpts)

Anthony LEUNG Po Shan

After two years of negotiation with the government since June 2009, Taipei Art Creators Trade Union, a union with a perimeter covering the Taipei city, finally got art creators accepted as the 505th occupation category by the Ministry of Labour in February 2011.  From then onwards, artists can be protected by the Labour Insurance through joining the trade union. Artists in Hong Kong got so excited and envy hearing this news. Some friends even say, let’s go to Taiwan and join the Trade Union! In April 2011, Wooferten invited veteran artist Tang Huang-Chen who initiated and organized the set up of the Union and has just retreated from the firing line for an artist residency in Hong Kong. Several talks and seminars were held, including an exchange with staff member of Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. 

Putting the details involved in organization set up and legal recognition aside, the first question arises is a tough one: Who is an artist? A regular organization can’t avoid setting up an exclusive boundary. However, who has the power to judge who is (and who isn’t) an artist? Would it violate the principle of cultural democracy – as triumphed in the famous motto “everyone is an artist”– if art is defined by qualitative knowledge and skill set? If not, how do we prevent subjective self-declaration? Try to think it deeper: art making is not an occupation for the pursuit of material return, but a great vocation. Or it can be exactly the opposite; art making is a personal interest that cultivates your own mind, why is the government obligated to pay for you? Instead of tangling with philosophical definitions, Tang Huang-Chen chooses to respond to these questions with a social perspective. She agrees that everyone has the ability to become an artist, but it doesn't mean that everyone is an artist. Every artist who works hard in art making has a different definition of art. What’s important is if the individual is in the state of art making and presents his/her works to the public. As a result, the union values the exhibition experience of their members. Only artists who have presented their artwork publicly in Taipei – the location of the union – in a year dating back from the day they apply for the membership can proceed with the application. 

One of the modern myths of artists is their independence and aesthetics autonomy in the industrial and the current post-industrial society.  There are two different models of trade union in capitalist and socialist society respectively and they precisely represent the ideal and reality faced by artists when it comes to their position in the state, the public realm and market, as well as the personal realm. Under the capitalist system, artists regard market as repressive force and hope that the state would help to uphold art autonomy. And under the socialist system, the state is responsible for providing for artists’ needs, both psychological and material ones. No longer belongs to any individual, art must be submitted to ideology and moral goal. Some critics have made it clear that independence of art is only an illusion made up by the market; artists are actually in exile to the market after leaving from the ties with aristocracy and patrons. Between trading of artworks, art seems to have acquired a supreme independence. So even in a society that triumphs freedom and democracy, the hope for independence is now indirectly reposed in the state. (The state is glad to be made use of, so that it will become the defendant of civilization.) However, as compared to the other jobs that get professionalized along with modernization, class categorization of art has long been special and ambiguous. It can be seen as intellectual but at the same time proletariat, so artists can’t be bourgeoisie; yet the knowledge level and cultural taste of artists are clearly distant from that of the proletariats. 

Do not think such differentiation is some old history from the Cold War era. I often encounter these deadlocks in concepts and experience when I talk to artists in Mainland China. When we are discussing how public institutions like museums and Art Development Council can be fair and open, and uphold freedom of speech, friends from mainland either fail to understand what public institutions mean, or despise Hong Kong artists for getting subsidy from the government. They think that getting government subsidy is no difference than acting like a spoiled child and bite the hand that feed you. They further question the independence of the so–called non-governmental art organization.  For sure it is very encouraging to mobilize together amid so many obstacles, yet such deadlock of concept and experience acts as a mirror for us to reflect on our contradiction. 

The unemployment assistance system in France is often cited as example. In France, the usual mode for artist employment is freelancing. Artists will receive government allowance for the days they are not employed (the unemployment period is counted by deducting certain working hours that artists reach in a year). Such measure brings immediate help to the artists. However, would it makes both public and private organizations changing all jobs to freelance in order to avoid their responsibility to take care of their employees in the long run? Or does such measure in a way encourage artists to be self-exploited and to adapt to the rule that “the lowest bid wins” in this employment market in which competition is getting increasingly fierce? Not only in Taiwan, artists in many places are being ambiguous to this powerful trend of cultural industry. Cultural industry turns art and culture, which have long been marginalized, into mainstream in a rapid speed, and even into a functional economic tool. While at the same time, artists have to face the seduction of leaving its original public system and get themselves into the market. Artists are often not sure if they are employers or employees. It is the hardest decision to make. The most common operation model of art and culture are small scale organizations which are mixed profit or non profit. Entrepreneurialism and leadership come along with cultural industry; individuals in the industry are empowered, however at the same time they are required to bear risk. In 1990s, artists had tried to gather and resist against it when the French government reformed its employment security system. But the call was so confined, as the small organizations that were actually self-employed could not locate a common enemy for their resistance. Going on strike would be like shooting oneself in the foot, and it would probably fail to get any sympathy from the worker class.

This article is only a beginning raising many problems all over the place. It tries to illustrate the possible contradictions that may arise between the concept and reality when we see artists as an occupation. Let me end this with a citation from Dialectic of Enlightenment of the Frankfurt School: 

“ As naturally as the ruled always took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the deceived masses are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. They have their desires. Immovably, they insist on the very ideology which enslaves them.” 


According to Gerald Raunig who wrote the above, the ultimate way to paralyze the desiring-machine – the cultural industry – is to stop making art. 







2014年1月16日 星期四

藝術創作者以工會途徑突圍對於社會的積極意義 ─ 一種文化運動的可能性


藝術創作者以工會途徑突圍對於社會的積極意義 ─ 一種文化運動的可能性
The Social Significance of Establishing an Art Creators Trade Union: The Possibility of Cultural Movements




2011年4月14日,下午6時30分至8時30分
地點:香港上環荷李活道233號荷李活商業中心10樓,A Space
語言:國語

亞洲藝術文獻庫與活化廳邀請來自台灣的行動藝術家湯皇珍舉辦講座。 

2010年,一群台灣藝術家突破工作的既有定義,呼籲公眾正視藝術創作的專業,由成立職項到組織「藝術創作者工會」,翌年經行動藝術家湯皇珍號召下成立「台北市藝術創作者職業工會」。在籌備過程中,湯氏接觸到藝術與藝術家的核心意識狀態,不單屬社會運動,而且更可能是一種促成文化運動的突圍之道。成立藝術創作者職業工會,目的除了為從事文化藝術工作者組織一個完全自主的團體外,還有什麼社會意義?是次講座,湯氏將概述有關成立藝術創作者職業工會的種種議題,由社會運動的模式、藝術創作身分的特殊問題、定義名詞所帶出的意識狀態、到藝術創作者職業工會是什麼在刺耳、藝術創作者成立職業工會挑戰了什麼等,並會分享當中複雜而深刻的歷程,也會牽涉到她的一趟遠行計劃:《旅行九》。

有關講者:
湯皇珍,行動藝術家,生於中華民國台灣台北,畢業於師大美術系、巴黎第八大學造型藝術系。1991年自法國返台灣,每年持續發表新作計畫,迄今40餘件行動。她長期關注台灣藝術文化生態的締造:1997年發動爭取廢棄十年的台北酒廠作為跨領域藝術展演場地,促成「華山藝文特區」,2008年發動「種植藝術」,2009年籌組「藝術創作者職業工會」,2011年2月成立「台北市藝術創作者職業工會」。今年四月,湯氏將以駐場藝術家身份於本地藝術家組織活化廳進行一項名為「尋找城市裂縫─由台北到香港」的計劃 (有關詳情,請瀏覽部落格http://blog.roodo.com/citybody2011) 。

In 2010, a number of Taiwanese artists gathered together and set up an Art Creators Trade Union to establish a set career trajectory for art workers, labeling new definitions of ‘work’ and invoking public respect for art creation as a profession. The following year, Taiwanese artist and activist Tang Huang-Chen called on local artists to set up the ‘Taipei City Art Creators Trade Union’. Through the process, Tang realised that by connecting the core beliefs of many, artists could indeed trigger a cultural and social movement. 

Aside from the need for an independent and autonomous organisation for art and cultural workers, is there any other social significance in establishing a work union for art creators? In this talk, Tang will discuss various issues related to establishing an art creators trade union, from social movement models, identity issues, and ideological definitions of art creators, to the impact and challenge of establishing such a union. She will also relate her discussion to her travelling project, entitled Go Traveling IX / The Sojourner.

About the Speaker: 
Artist and activist Tang Huang-Chen was born in Taipei, Taiwan. She graduated from the Department of Fine Arts, National Taiwan Normal University, and the Department of Plastic Art, University Paris VIII. In 1991, Tang returned to Taiwan from France, and continued initiating art projects and more than 40 actions to this day. Tang has been consistently concerned with the development of the Taiwanese art and cultural ecology. She transformed a wine factory that had been abandoned for 10 years into a cross-disciplinary exhibition and performing art space, and thereafter launched the ‘Huashan Art District’ in 1997. In 2008, Tang initiated an art action project entitled ‘Plant Art Act’. She and several other Taiwanese artists set up the Art Creators Trade Union in 2009. In early 2011, she set up the Taipei City Art Creators Trade Union. In April 2011, Tang will be stationed at the local Hong Kong organisation, Woofer Ten, as their artist-in-residence and will initiate a project entitled In Search of the Crevice in a City – from Taipei to Hong Kong (tentative translation). For more details, please visit: http://blog.roodo.com/citybody2011



2011年9月17日 星期六

活化廳 社區駐場計劃(三)市村美佐子 Wooferten Artivist in Residency Program (III) Homeless Artist: Misako Ichimura


For ENG version,plx roll down,
活化廳 社區駐場計劃(三)
無家藝術家:市村美佐子
活化廳邀請到來自東京的市村美佐子,一位八年來一直以露宿者方式生活的藝術家,並策動不同關注東京露宿者生活處境的藝術行動。藝術家將於駐場期間舉行分享會,介紹她的露宿生活/創作,並創作一系列回廳油麻地的公共空間及露宿者生活的藝術行動。
在香港,不少人把露宿者標籤為精神有問題,又或是癮君子等「危險」人物。(甚被傳媒稱他們為喪屍!)事實上露宿者選擇露宿街頭原因眾多。他們或因長期失業、家庭糾紛等而露宿,部份人也是地產霸權的受害者。東京自九十年代起出現大量露宿者,估計至今約有一萬多人,數字更隨大地震日益上升。其實部份露宿者擁有正當職業,甚至有能力負擔公寓的租金。但他們選擇在公園紮營居住,全因他們拒絕只為交租而活。而在露宿者社群裡,我們可找到由露宿者經營的酒吧、理髮店、咖啡館等。部份露宿者更以以物易物形式解決生活需要,實踐了一種脫離資本控制的生活方式。露宿者們互相照應,更建立一種homeless but homey的社群歸屬感。
八年前,藝術家市村美佐子選擇以露宿者方式生活。市村在「無一屋簷下」,藉露宿生活策動不同藝術行動,關注東京露宿者的處境。她從不間斷,每周在公園的無家者社群中開辦免費咖啡廳及自助繪畫班。此外,她更開展一個專為連結女性無家者而設的組織,一同創作針織手作品,於跳蚤市場中出售。她也曾隻身到一間被人放火燒毀的紙皮屋現場住上半年,期間在紙皮屋貼上美麗的裝飾物。後來,市村更無意中發現路人見這紙皮屋太過奇怪,不敢破壞它。因此這怪宅出奇地吸引了附近的無家者移近,尋求保護。

作為一位女性的無家者,美佐子縱合她多年來的觀察,出版了一本描寫東京女性無家者生活的書信插圖繪本《Chocolate in a Blue-Tent Village: Letters to Kikuchi from the Park》。她亦是近年東京 “no-nike”運動的策劃者之一。三年前,東京政府擬將涉谷一個開放予公眾的宮下公園的管理權售予nike發展成體育公園,使得發展後大部份空間及設施都要收費。此舉不單讓市中心損失多一片非商業的公共空間,更令原本居於公園的露宿者變得「無家可歸」。美佐子與一眾藝術家及行動者朋友聯合起來,發動了“no-nike” 運動,並於公園內舉辦各式藝文活動及討論會。當中美留子策動了「宮下公園藝術家駐場計劃」,邀請了來海外藝術家前來留守聲援,霎時模糊了警察視線,泯去藝術家與露宿者的界限。

市村美佐子將於本月十三日假活化廳舉行分享會,詳細闡析她如何透過露宿者生活來創作。駐場期間,她會以油麻地的公共空間及露宿者生活為題,創作一系列藝術行動,並於本月廿一日開幕的成果發表展覽中發表。展覽開幕當日將設大食會,歡迎自攜食物參與。

***
活化廳 藝術家社區駐場計劃(三):市村美佐子
駐場期間:1/8-28/8
策劃:李俊峰

藝術家講座:(講座以日文進行,付以廣東話翻譯)
時間:13/8 () 3:00-6:00 p.m
地點: 油麻地上海街404號地下 活化廳 

成果發表展覽 大食會:
展覽開幕大食會:21/8 () 6:00 p.m
地點: 油麻地上海街404號地下 活化廳
展覽日期: 21/8-11/9 (closed on Mon)
展覽時間: 1:00 p.m - 8:00 p.m
(歡迎自攜食物及樂器)

查詢:info@wooferten.org / 9558 9394(峰)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wooferten Artivist in Residency Program (III) Homeless Artist: Misako Ichimura
Wooferten has invited Misako Ichimura from Tokyo, an artist who curates and leads art actions that concern the living condition of the homeless people in Tokyo, as she herself has been living with them in the state of homeless-ness for the previous eight years.
During her residency, she will talk about her homeless life and introduce her different creative acts under such a living condition. She will also create a series of art action that response to different public space in our Yaumatei neighborhood and the livelihood of the homeless.
In Hong Kong, people often related the homeless people with mental illness patients, drug addicts, all sorts of potentially dangerous threatening people. One media recently just even blackened them as “Zombie”! But, instead, there are all sorts of reasons that they have to stay homeless, such as having long period of unemployment, family quarrels, etc.. They are also, in fact, victims of the Hong Kong extreme land and housing policy.
Since the 90s, there were huge numbers of homeless people appearing in Tokyo, estimate figure could be over ten thousand, and even more joining in after the quake. Part of the homeless people have a proper day-time job, some could even afford the rent of some apartments, but they all choose to camp and live in the park, for they refuse to live and work just for the rent. In their community, we could actually find bars, barber shops and cafés run by themselves. Some of them satisfied their everyday needs through bartering, which allows them to retreat from a way of capitalistic life dictated by monetary exchange. They could always take care of one another, forming a maybe homeless but homely sense of community belongings.
Around eight years ago, Misako Ichimura decided to live the homeless way. By being one amongst them, she leads different kind of art activities, focusing on the situation of the homeless. Every week, she holds a free coffee corner and painting course. She also helps the female homeless to form a network, in which they knit and weave, and bring the products to be sold in the flea market. 

For once, Misako as moved to a carton hut that has been deliberately set fire by someone, and redecorated this carton hut with beautiful graphics. People there gradually accept the carton hut and the hut even draws more homeless to settle around it in hope of seeking safety and protection.

Misako has published an illustrated book describing the life of a female homeless person, titled Chocolate in a Blue-Tent Village: Letters to Kikuchi from the Park.

She is also one of the co-founder of the Tokyo “no-nike” movement. For three years ago, the Tokyo government intended to offer the rights of running a park within the Shibuya district to the giant sport wear company Nike, for them to develop a sport-themed park. But the plan will resulted in the lost of a certain area of non-commercial public space, many of the future facilities actually needs entry fees or charges. Many of the homeless people settling there too, will have to move out. So Misako and some activist friends started this “no-nike” campaign, organizing all sorts of art activities and forums there. Misako also invited foreign artists to stay there as part of her Miyashita Park artist residency project, blurring the identities of artists and the homeless, confusing the authority.
Misako will have her sharing on the 13th of August here in Wooferten, talking about how she combines her homeless life and her artistic life. Her work will also be presented in the exhibition that is going to open on the 21st August. On the opening day, we will have a gathering, with food and snacks served, while you are welcome to bring your prepared food over too.

***

Period: 1/8-28/8
Curator: Lee Chun Fung

Artist Talk:

Date: 13/8 (sat) 3:00-6:00pm
Venue: Wooferten, G/f, 404, Shanghai street, Yaumatei
The talk will be conducted in Japanese, with Cantonese Translation

Exhibition:
21/8 - 11/9 (closed on Mon), daily 1pm - 8pm

Residency Exhibition Opening Party:
Date: 21/8 (sun) 6:00pm
Venue: Wooferten, G/f, 404, Shanghai street, Yaumatei 
(Bring Your Food & Musical Instrument)

Enquiryinfo@wooferten.org / 9558 9394fung

***
市村美佐子 Misako Ichimura
Born in Amagasaki, She currently lives in the Blue-Tent Community in the Yoyogi Park in Tokyo. In 2002, she stayed in a squat in Amsterdam and engaged in art creation. She has been living in the park with the homeless for almost eight years since she returned to Japan in 2003. She participated in the “no-nike” movement, which aroused public attention to the issues of public space and the condition of the homeless. She has also written and illustrated a book on the condition of homeless women in Tokyo, Chocolate in a Blue-Tent Village: Letters to Kikuchi from the Park. What's more, she runs a cafe and organizes a painting session for the homeless in the Yoyogi Park in Tokyo every week.
http://kyototto.com/chocolate.pdf
http://airmiyashitapark.info/wordpress