The 30th issue of Night School, “Site without Boundaries”, has opened up a great deal of discussion on the “liveness” of live art, leading to the discussion of performance artist Dong Jie’s latest solo exhibition, “One Place, One Place”. “On the opening day of the exhibition, a special action was carried out to break the conventional way of viewing the exhibition – unlike the previous live works, the artist himself would carry out a live performance in the exhibition space, but rather an unexpected scenario: the audience walked into the exhibition hall to see the artist’s live connection to the site of another location, where the artist himself was live on the line. At the other location, the artist himself did not appear in person on the opening day. A series of questions were raised about how to understand the live nature of this type of work, and whether the site where the artist is not present is still a site. On the evening of September 27, 2023, a number of curators, critics, scholars, and artists came to the 30th issue of Night School – Thick Garden Horticultural Thoughts to discuss and discuss the dialogue around the topic of “live nature”, under the hosting of Yang Ran. A dialog discussion will be held.
Artist Dong Jie puts forward 5 thoughts about the works in the exhibition:
- Is the scene where the artist is not present still the scene?
- Is the interaction between the substitute “scene” and the audience still valid?
- Is the virtual reality composed of AI, AR, VR and other high-tech still reality? Is the virtual presence of the artist still the presence of the artist?
- The audience is completely isolated, completely unaware of the audience’s response to the live works, what will be the difference between the artist and the audience? 5. Reflections on identity: the work responds to the current social context of the identity problem, different environments in the “identity” is defined differently. 6. Labeling.
Li Han:
The title of the exhibition “One Place after Another” comes from Mi-won Kwon’s dissertation One Place after Another-Site-Specific Art andLocational Identity, which have been translated respectively as “One Place after Another-Site-Specific Art andLocational Identity, respectively. “. In her article, Kwon Mi-won broadly categorizes site-specific art into three overlapping and parallel, non-sequential models:
① Phenomenological model: opposes the autonomy of modernist artworks from the field, emphasizing the inseparability of bodily perception and spatial field.
② Institutional Criticism Model: focuses on the institutional and social regulations of the art field.
③ Discourse model: from indoor art field to public non-art field, actively intervening in social issues.
Social participatory art is, in my opinion, a perfect example of these three models. Both the institutional critique and discourse models are expressed in social participatory art, and I also understand the actions in this exhibition as a confrontational participatory art practice.
Mi-won Kwon’s discussion of site-specific art is still one that favors public art, and the text discusses a great deal about local relations and the socio-cultural sphere. It does not specifically discuss the many forms of site-specific art that we refer to today, such as performance art and experimental theater, which may be mostly incorporated into phenomenological models, but Kwon’s analysis of site-specificity at a more macro level also provides a reference for specific site-specific art, and hopefully will lead to more discussions on the “site-specificity” of site-specific art. It is also hoped that this will lead to more discussions on the “liveness” of live art.
He Liping:
It seems that the scene mentioned above is more of a social scene, but I think it should originally refer to the scene of experience in social life, the scene of perception and life experience, and such a “scene” is the scene referred to in contemporary art. But when we go back to the behavior in the scene, do you find that? We often refer to the scene of performance, but I don’t think they are comparable, nor can we discuss them together.
Tian Meng:
When we talk about presence, from the perspective of the development of art history, it is not a question of direct reference to the social scene, that is, just now we talked about the institutional critique itself, which refers to the social scene in an indirect way, it is not direct, including the development of Minimalism, which also talks about outward reference in a phenomenological way, and which carries a metaphysical discussion.
Referring to a certain kind of presence through “absence” has always existed in the history of art, whether it is Klein or Ciera, there is such a correlation. Whether in the history of Western philosophy or Chinese philosophy and thought, whether it is Plato’s “Idea” or “Tao”, or the Christian God, they are all a kind of invisible existence, a kind of absolute but invisible, invisible existence. They are all unmanifested beings, absolute but invisible, unmanifestable beings. We can talk about it and depict it, but it is not manifested in itself, only through purely logical aspects, or by manifesting it in our phenomenal world. The peak of civilization in the so-called Axial Age in history came from the fact that it had the logical deductive ability to no longer depict the world as the mythological or sorcerous systems had done before that, but rather to speak of it in terms of a logical concept, and is the world in the abstract a kind of presence? It is in fact a presence that is invisible to us, yet it is absolutely present.
Li Jie:
When I went to see the then Documenta Kassel 10 years ago, I participated in a curatorial program, and it just so happened that I would go to discuss their exhibitions with the main curator of Documenta Kassel at the time, and one of the things he mentioned was a completely vacant gallery, the main gallery of the Museo dei Ferridelli. The first big hall that Documenta Kassel went into was completely empty, there was nothing there.
Why is this space like that? It was because one of the artists refused the curator’s invitation, which was supposed to be a very powerful masterpiece, and the curator wanted to place the work in the best place, but it was rejected, and after the rejection, the curator decided not to show any of his works, and exhibited the artist’s letter of rejection.
Another group of artists came up with a crazy idea, using the original funds for the exhibition to do a very complicated renovation, to make this field produce a new meaning: the Felidrisi Museum in the first session of Documenta Kassel is the garden exhibition hall is no ceiling and windows, so that session of the exhibition of Picasso, Miro and so on the works are on display in the semi-outdoor, so made a temporary roof, not even a window. So the works of Picasso, Miro and so on were displayed semi-outdoors, and a temporary roof was made, and the windows were not even installed, and the paintings inside were hung like this, which is what the Documenta exhibition of the first world looked like.
When they went to salvage this history, they thought that this museum had now become a beautiful tomb, it had beautiful decoration and standardized museum system, so they made a decision to bring in natural air from outside, held a series of hearings with residents and hearings on the preservation of the historic building, and used all of the budget of this original exhibition to make a Fresh air system, this fresh air system will enable people to smell the flowers and coffee outside.
We learn about the curator’s intentions and the failure of his intentions, to a new translation of the space and the story behind it. Behind all of this, something is obvious, which is that the institutional critique of this must fail, because not everyone can listen to the curator talk about what’s going on behind the scenes, and the viewer is still presented with an empty gallery and a letter, and does not clearly notice the presence of a new air conditioning system.
In this case, the artist uses his own position and the vacant site to form a kind of tension between them, allowing everyone to generate unlimited thinking, criticism or imagination, and these may precisely be the complicity of the artist and the curator, is because they feel that these are the things that are most lacking in the current society, which is not necessarily a criticism of a particular spatial institution, but may be some reflection on the human being itself, which corresponds to It is not necessarily a critique of a particular spatial institution, but may be a reflection on people themselves, corresponding to a kind of group unconsciousness, or a pursuit of a certain political correctness.
Chen Liuyi:
Many scholars hold the view that “presence” is the primary and fundamental nature of performance art. Some scholars believe that performance cannot be preserved, recorded, or otherwise represented or circulated: once it is done, it becomes something other than a performance. Some scholars believe that performance art is about the artist’s real presence, a unique, unmediated exchange with the audience. Here I would like to share with you an article I came across that holds a different viewpoint. This article attempts to explain the relationship between performance art and its reproductions (e.g., photographs and images documenting the performance) and the performance itself, and reflects on the lofty status of “liveness” that is often given to performance art.
In this article, Amelia Jones argues that there is almost no difference between performance art that is present and performance art that is reproduced through copying techniques. This is because performance art has certain symbolic properties. For example, when we watch a performance scene, we do not just focus on the presence of the purely physical body, but we try to find some meaning, some artistic expression in it. If we think that the energy and the reference together constitute the entirety of a work of art, and the reference is infinite and uncertain, then we can never say that we have mastered the entirety of a certain piece of performance art. Even being able to physically touch this to artist cannot guarantee this. Thus the effect of touching a work through a site and through a replica may be similar.
Jones also suggests that the complete, present body of the artist is eternally missing, something that “presence” can never compensate for: performance art marks the absence of the body itself (loss) – for the viewer, the performance is always the viewer’s projection of himself. For the viewer, the scene of the performance is always a scene in which the viewer projects his or her own desires (understanding and interpretation). Even the technology of reproduction makes up for these deficiencies, as photographs and videos reinforce the real presence of the body.
Zeng Qunkai:
In today’s scene, we will find that on the one hand, in discussing the “white box” of art, as Mr. Zhao said, there is a time “waiting” for its establishment in our field, and on the other hand, we may be facing the fact that in the process of discussing the system of art, the system and the discipline, the system and the discipline are still being established and synchronized. Perhaps when we are discussing art systems, institutions, and regulations, we are faced with the fact that in the process of discussion, the institutions and regulations are still being established and synchronized.
When we are in a specific oriental context and a specific localized situation, we are bound to face the discrepancy of intellect and the correction of action in such a scene, and we are concerned about the “validity” of the specific event or work itself. As in the case of Dong Jie’s solo exhibition today, when an individual observes such an exhibition, he or she conducts a kind of theoretical combing and analysis of the curatorial sources, and can find the obvious attributes of the textual support, which is becoming a tool and method for today’s behaviors, while the establishment of the non-documentary body itself has become an important component of today’s practice.
Distinction and clarity appear to be important, and there is no doubt that such an approach applies in the face of a particular situation. On the one hand, the universal applicability of such a site exhibits limiting characteristics when removed from the specific context and in the present. The distance between the scene and the public education, between the art ontology and the practicality of the industry, there is often a “common field” of divine meeting and lack of understanding. In the process of “generating” on-site, a new definition of order is produced, or a constructive adjustment is reached, or a new perception is provided, which is of course effective, either in terms of theory, or as a methodological tool, or in terms of discipline and the system itself. At this level, it is not necessarily limited to interventions and critiques of the grand order, but sometimes it may simply provide a new sensation, which is in fact a production of practical utility.
Yang Ran:
I can feel the wide participation of everyone at the sharing session today, and among the many expressions of mobility, I think one of the most interesting points is why some people will respond to academic thinking with their personal specific life history experiences in the final discussion. I think this is a more important response to the topic of “scene” today – when we conceptualize “scene”, do we interpret it empirically, or do we interpret it in terms of generative production? When we conceptualize “scene”, do we interpret it empirically, or do we understand it from the perspective of generative production, and what is the object of this scene? What is the object of the scene? Does this question determine the boundaries of our expression? Maybe we are interpreting it conceptually, maybe we are depicting it empirically, but some people will respond to it with their own private life experiences, and this phenomenon is, in fact, quite urgent. Maybe too much of it is hard for us to summarize today, but is there a system and order of value judgments behind it that guides our exchanges and conversations today? Sometimes there seems to be some inequality in this kind of conversation, but I think it is a stimulus that has been surrounding us.
