<
>
 

 

開放平等的前衛精神
關於我們
對抗世界的進步 從而實現自己的進步
不是公園的「伊通公園」
隱地
伊通十年感言─冷漠的伊通、激情的公園
城市綠洲伊通公園
伊通「吧台」 分拆與匯聚的難題
無可替代的當代藝術空間─「伊通公園」二十週年誌記
伊通二十歲生日思想起……

中文
 

A Few Thoughts to Commemorate the Twentieth Birthday of IT Park Gallery

Text by Mei Dean-E 2008

Not long ago I received a telephone call from “Art Today” asking me to write an article for the “IT Park Gallery Twentieth Anniversary Celebratory Catalogue.” I paused for a moment and my mind went blank as I though how hard it would be to recall all of my memories over a two decade period. I was even more concerned at the prospect of putting my selective memory into words and the inevitable pressure that comes from holding up one’s own personal “view of history” to some kind of moral examination. In addition, with the passage of time and the realization of mistakes, reflections on the past are often subject to a certain degree of resignation on the part of the writer. With the editor hinting that it would be good “to extend the discussion as much as possible” and assuming that reviewing the past to inform the present remains a positive approach to life, I decided I might as well say some of the things I have never previously had the opportunity to elaborate on.

Early IT Park

IT Park Gallery was established in 1988, which just happened to be my fifth year in New York. In other words, at the time “IT Park style” was taking shape, I was overseas struggling with myself over how to be an “alternative” Chinese artist. Naturally, that meant I forewent the opportunity to experience first hand the historical end of martial law in Taiwan, but fortunately I had a job in the news media and that allowed me to keep a close watch as events unfolded in Taipei.

A friend once said to me that the development of art in Taiwan has been lateral in nature, that is to say lacking any horizontal linkage or depth. What he meant by this was that local painting tended to over rely on new trends from the west, as a result of which the inherent creativity of artists was subsumed by new trends before it had time to take root and bloom in its own right. My own interpretation of “horizontal depth” differs slightly, focusing more on the fact that the import and influence of the older generation of Taiwanese artists on future generations has never been properly acknowledged. As a result of this reliance on external information and failure to internalize past experience there have been countless fissures and I would identify this as the central reason for the lack of “depth.” For example, it is all but impossible to answer in any detail what influence the nativist art movement of the late 1970’s has exerted on contemporary art. Although nativist realism did incorporate some of the convenience of popular western photographic realist language, it also highlighted conscious reflection following the fall in popularity of pan abstract art from the 1960’s. The obvious question to ask then is what has become of that conscious reflection today? Putting to one side the historical significance of the sudden arrival of “abstractionism” from elsewhere, it is often forgotten that it was not until 1982 that the Ministry of the Interior permitted the establishment of the “ROC Modern Painting Association”, making it the first legally registered art organization in Taiwan. In other words, the modern art of the early 1980’s came at the tail end of the “nativist realist” movement, which therefore served as a prelude to the flourishing of modern art in Taiwan.

The Rush to Study Overseas and Diversity

The advent of IT Park Gallery was no accident. Ever since the slow demise of abstract painting in the 1960’s, new artists such as Huang Hua-cheng, Su Hsin-tien, Lee Chang-chun, Lu Ching-fu had appeared as representatives of a small group that experimented with Pop and Conceptual art, using them as a springboard to different types of combinations. Beginning in the 1970’s, the Photorealism popular in New York gave rise to a number of “professional painters” overseas. Encouraged by art magazines these individuals had unprecedented success in the international art community. At the same time, Hsieh Li-fa wrote a series of article from Soho, New York, offering a full and comprehensive assessment of art news from home and abroad. With younger artists unable to agree on anything there was a collective impetus towards a “seeing is believing” attitude. Although most of the earliest Taiwanese painters studied in Europe, those attending schools in New York later came to dominate, mainly because education policy at home began to follow a more US orientation and this made it relatively easier to accept a US-type school system. As a result, beginning in the 1980’s modern art in Taiwan was ready to welcome an era of great diversity.

The sudden popularity of studying overseas came about not only as the result of an increase in national income. After so many years cut off from access to the latest information, the only way open to anyone wanting to explore modern art was overseas study (at the time men had to be at least 30 and offer evidence of a huge level of savings at a local bank to be able to apply for a tourist visa). As wave after wave of students returned to Taiwan from their studies overseas an artistic elite, drawn from different parts of the country, came to represent the crystallization of new thinking on modern art. Many went into education and made a crucial contribution to the development of modern art in Taiwan. Generally speaking however, pretty much everyone remained unclear about what exactly constituted “modern thinking” or how to achieve qualitative change through a quantitative approach.

An IT Park Vision

The origins of IT Park Gallery can be traced back to the return of Richard Lin from the United Kingdom in 1982, who then set about promoting Minimalism. A cursory review of the art environment that existed at that time reveals the following:

1983 Official opening of Taipei Fine Arts Museum (TFAM)
1984 Richard Lin curates the “Alien - Play of Space” exhibition at Spring Gallery, featuring Tsong Pu, Cheng Yen-ping, Yeh Chu-sheng, Chen Hsing-wan, Hu Kun-kung, Chang Yung-tsun.
1985 Spring Gallery organizes the “Transcendent - Play of Space II” exhibition where Jun T. Lai displays work.
1986 Jun T. Lai establishes “SOCA” (Studio of Contemporary Art), its inaugural exhibition being “Environment, Installation, and Video”, showing works by Tsong Pu, Hu Kun-jung, Chang Yung-Tsun, Lu Ming-te, Kuo I-fan, Ye Chu-sheng, Lu Mi.
1987 Taipei Fine Arts Museum holds the “Experimental Arts – Behavior vs. Space” exhibition, showing works from many of the aforementioned artists.
1988 Taiwan Museum of Arts organizes the “Media・Environment・Installation” exhibition, also showing works from many of the aforementioned artists

From this brief history we can see how, promoted by recently established art museums, artistic forms related to spatial installation aesthetics and minimalist concepts tended to blur the distinction between “installation” and “experimental,” a tendency gradually reinforced by the appearance of new modern art forms. It is widely known that after returning to Taiwan from Spain, Tsong Pu played a key role in the development of an IT Park “understanding.” In addition to bringing together a group of like-minded artists, in the days before IT Park Galley was established, the above exhibitions activities led Jun T. Lai and Tsong Pu to set up “SOCA.” At that time a group of young artists including Chen Hui-chiao, Liu Ching-tang, Huang Wen-hao and others become followers and friends of Tsong Pu, so that when “SOCA” came to an end they began to look for a new “alternative space.” Finally, Liu Ching-tang rented a two story building close to Yitong Park; one floor was turned into a photographic studio, the other provided a small space where people gathered to discuss art. Tsong Pu described the motivation behind the establishment of IT Park Gallery thus: “Artists returning from overseas had many ideas but nowhere to show their works as there was almost no exhibition/performance space for modern art at the time. We really wanted a space where we could get together and talk about art. In this way, we were all able to encourage each other to explore the various possibilities inherent in art, starting with our relatively immature ideas and work.” Chen Hui-chiao has said that the gallery decided to use the word “Park” in its name out of a widely held desire to maintain the sense of openness and leisure associated with that word. Despite this, the external environment at that time was extremely challenging. For example, the “101 Modern Art” established in the end of 1982 and the single-focus “Taipei Painting Group” established in 1985, both strove to combine the new expressionism popular in the west with nativism. In the period after the suspension of martial law the “nativist movement” with its focus on painting and “Hsiung Shih Art Monthly” established a strategic alliance which in the early 1990’s launched a theoretical debate calling for the “nativization” or art. Ever since it was first established IT Park Gallery has been more interested in the creation of a “spiritual forum” and not how best to socialize art. Chen Hui-chiao observed: “We were looking for our own way and so searched the field of artistic creativity. All things artistic motifs that have passed through here have forced us to reflect, learn, and search for explanations as to essential meaning.” It was perhaps the power of this desire to maintain a “spiritual forum” that enabled IT Park to resist various artistic movements and gave it the strength to stick to its principles.

An “Alternative Space” ?

Tsong Pu has said: “Everyone used the exhibitions as a vehicle to express their own ideas on art. At that time we deliberately “did away with traditional forms” and only wanted to display installation art. As to IT Park’s later development, it was completely “natural” rather than the result of deliberate planning.” Given the truth of this statement then, outsiders should not expect too much from the gallery’s “mission.” Today, IT Park Gallery is widely considered the most important “alternative art space” in Taiwan, a subject on which I have a few of my own observations.

When “IT Park Gallery,” “Space II” and “No-1” were at the forefront of the transformation of community buildings into galleries, everyone became interested in their origins. This resulted in the wide misuse of foreign examples and expressions and an alphabet soup of nomenclature; Alternative art space, Non- profit art organization, Experimental art space, Others art space, Co-operative gallery, Marginal, art space, Eclectic gallery etc. The question then became which term best suited IT Park Gallery?

Firstly we need to define the parameters of “alternative space.” The Chinese word “Ti Dai” comes from the English “alternative,” but that word does not mean “Substitute” as the Chinese rendering does, but rather emphasizes “choice.” In other words, “alternative space” does not, as is often misunderstood in Chinese, mean one space ready to replace another space. What it does do is create a new meaning for space or utilize a more autonomous approach in executing its objectives. That is to say, alternative space has its own specific tasks and ideals it is more than just a change of physical space. As such, different alternative spaces will have different objectives and be managed differently, that is part and parcel of what “alternative” means.

Most people tend to think that alternative space and non-profit making organizations are synonymous, wrongly believing that a non-profit making organization is necessarily one that organizes experimental art exhibitions but does not engage in the buying and selling of art work. In fact, because non-profit organizations are first and foremost organizations their objectives directly or indirectly touch on operational problems. In other words, such organizations are able to obtain operating capital through a number of legal channels but their activities must be charitable in nature. “Art In General,” a non-profit making organization established by two artists in New York in 1982, was set up to “display” unconventional art. For the last two decades and more it has been the classic non-profit making organization in NYC organizing art exhibitions, operating a membership system, providing an artists village for international resident artists and proactively participating in public art events, a program to promote art on campuses etc. In recent years, the organization has also started to act as an agent for artist’s works. Although this is a quintessentially American example, the point is that in the beginning everyone made their own way across unfamiliar terrain. One important difference is that an organization needs to have concrete objectives and plans for it to be possible to evaluate results. That brings to mind P.S.1 (1971~), a renowned New York non-profit making art organization from the 1980’s. In 2000, P.S.1 established an alliance with MOMA New York, as a platform for its development into international contemporary art. “Artists Space” (1972~) is another example, initially renowned for its display of video, electronic media, performances, architecture and design. Another eye-catching example is that of “New Museum” (1977~), whose new building, which opened at the end of last year, was selected as one of the seven architectural wonders of the world. Although these organizations have operated for more than three decades, they have all expanded most rapidly over the last ten years or so. Every time I think of the way in which they have been able to accumulate experience and use that as a foundation for the expression of their own ideals, I cannot help but be frustrated by leaden feet of modern art in Taiwan.

Conceptualized Experimental Space

Many people like to compare “IT Park Gallery” and “Space II” and I would like to take this opportunity to offer a few comparisons of my own. “Space II” was established the year after IT Park (though strictly speaking its public exhibition activities started before the establishment of IT Park). Broadly speaking, the members of IT Park were artists who leaned towards Europe (some suggest this is the result of learning European languages and culture). The well established humanistic environment and romantic salon atmosphere of Europe appears better suited to focusing “neutral” energies. However, if we look at the members of IT Park Gallery when it was first established then it actually resembled a painting association. There was always some sense that there existed a tacit understanding between those early founders, so it is not entirely accurate to claim that “IT Park” was neutral.

A quick review of 1980’s France is instructive. In 1981, following the election of Francois Mitterand of the Socialist Party as President, he appointed Jack Lang, one of the leaders of the 1968 leftist student movement, as Minister of Culture. In the past the Department of Culture had previously viewed cultural policy as a vehicle to be used in the pursuit of national development and the democratization and diversification of culture had consistently been the core of leftist policy. Other than proposing the opening up of different artistic horizons, the new government attached particular importance to expanding the field of “life art.” It believed that the promotion of art was the duty of the vast majority, not the sole preserve of a self-appointed social elite. Given that art has the power to change society, the policy was to encourage popular spontaneous art and thereby nurture new art. The new government did not argue that art should have immediate results believing that sooner or later society would benefit from its development. Substantial public funding also indirectly contributed to the enrichment of international students studying in France. The question is whether as they benefited from cultural welfare policy in other countries, Taiwanese students reflected on the reasons for this munificence and their good luck? Could an aesthetic ideal based on social justice and “anti-elitist” sentiment could ever take root in Taiwan?

A review of “Space II” provides an interesting contrast and comparison. “Space II” was a cooperative art space, jointly run by a group of “art workers.” Their mission statement talked of the need to focus the spirit of freedom, self awareness, spontaneity and self-help, to address the artistic environment, discuss modernism and adopt a rational approach to any debate on things new and local. By choosing the role of “art workers” rather than the appellation “artist,” this group’s focus on reflection and criticism was seemingly very “leftist” in nature. Lien Te-cheng observed: “Alternative space in Taiwan is very modern art museum-like.” In saying this, he also noted that the fact that: “The types of work and utilization of space at IT Park Gallery is largely based on stylistic considerations, experimental efforts at stylistic focus, using a space that is purely autonomous in character to showcase the free value of art from a diversity of angles.” He concluded that a “neutral space” was not the same thing as “a different space,” because it did not lend itself to the easy expression of feminism, minority cultural identity, multi-racial politics or social problems seen in western alternative spaces, and even were they to make an appearance they would be quickly eliminated by the art for art’s sake attitude.” If such doubts are taken to represent the basic educational spirit of “Space II ”, it is not difficult to understand that the invitation extended by Taipei Fine Arts Museum (TFAM) to “Space II” to organize an exhibition in an opened up “B04,” marked the end of any meaning to which the term “alternative space” might have been clinging. If art museum were able to absorb alternative space, then what sort of art was there that could not be replaced?

In addition, most of the members of “Space II” returned from studying in the United States. If we consider that background as being important to their artistic development, then the concept of alternative space actually becomes much simpler, in as much as the broad picture can best be seen through the cultural policies of the Democratic and/or Republican parties. In the 1980’s Republican President Ronald Reagan followed a policy of economic conservatism, slashing subsidies and grants to popular culture. Only forced to fend for themselves did various alternative spaces truly come to life. Different cultural bodies displayed different strengths and many years later the field had grown substantially. The most successful organization was the New Museum, which sought to position itself as a contemporary art space located somewhere in between grassroots alternative space and mainstream art museum. This was an art organization with its own fixed ideas that chose to focus on young emerging artists, an approach that differed completely to that of Co-op Gallery, run by a group of painters with very different ideas. At present, New Museum is the most successful non-profit art organization in America. There is also a special space called the “Alternative Museum” which does not seek to replace mainstream art museums as much as support creative work that gives voice to social awareness. Such an “anti-commercial” art organization, located at the very art center of commercial New York, is unquestionably alternative. In 2000, the museum closed its real world operations and evolved into an e-museum. It does not accept any external sponsorship and in addition continues to produce a political news network and such organize charitable Internet art activities for issues such as health care, claiming for itself a role as the conscience of contemporary art in the United States. Paradoxically, this spatial spirit with its strong sense of European sociology has been brought all the way back to Taipei by students who studied in the US, whereas artists at IT Park Gallery who actually studied in Europe have maintained a distance from the humanist society to which they belonged. Is it possible that the mutual spiritual displacement of these two representative spaces depicts a certain lack of gravity in contemporary Taiwanese art? Certainly, Taiwan found itself in a period of change in the early 1980’s. After the opening of Taipei Fine Arts Museum (TFAM) the central question was whether “professionalism” should listen to “popular opinion” or occasionally play a more “avant-garde” role. If art museums played the role of locomotive for modern art in Taiwan, then all of the artists returning home from overseas were just so much fuel for the cause and museums and alternative art space did in fact learn and grew together. However, even today it remains difficult to establish a system in which the cultural position of alternative spaces, art galleries and art museums can be delineated with any degree of clarity. In such a situation, the question has to be asked to what can content ever be considered truly “alternative”?

An Improving Environment

Two years after its establishment, IT Park Gallery began soliciting for works to exhibit as away of expanding. I was introduced to Chen Hui-chiao and Liu Ching-tang by Chu Chia-hua. It turned out that shortly before I left Taiwan I had been a substitute teacher in an art class Chen had attended. Her detailed recollection of those events gave me an acute attack of conscience and forced me to ask what I had ever given back to society myself? In 1992, I signed a contract with Gallery Pierre and decided to return home to Taiwan. Indeed, that also provided me with a convenient excuse to end my days of self-imposed “exile.” At the time, Taiwan’s economy was considered one of the four Asian dragons and art galleries had begun to spring up like bamboo shoots after a spring rain, presenting the possibility of a rich and hopeful future for Taiwanese art. As a friend of one of the early members of “Space II”, I was more familiar with that particular group, but it soon became apparent that there were major difference of opinion and before it dissolved. After the oldest members left, I joined “New Paradise” (1994-). Because this was a cooperative-type alternative space, the membership fee served as a guarantee that each member would have the chance to hold a solo exhibition. Actually, at that time I was restricted by the terms of my agency contract, so I was unable to “experiment” on the side, and before long I left New Paradise.

Despite the energetic development of the gallery business, such rapid growth also brought with it many concerns for the future, as seen in the ideological struggle between mixed media and traditional painting. In the mid-1980’s, those of us studying overseas were aware that the global popularity of new expressionism was coming to and end to be replaced by installation art. However, because Taiwan had had no real introduction to conceptual art most people found it difficult to accept artistic forms other than painting. In other words, Taiwan was not psychologically prepared for the great diversity of “contemporary art.” In the early 1990’s, installation art became mainstream and that this more than anything else gave “IT Park Gallery” its historical importance.

Not long after, Gallery Pierre faced with financial difficulties terminated my contract and I went into teaching. At around the same time, the local gallery industry went into rapid decline as the exuberance of earlier years came to an end. Based on my own academic ideas, I very much hoped that alternative spaces would take up the challenge and that was why I started to actively participate in exhibition activities at IT Park Gallery. In 1994, I curated an installation exhibition entitled “Post-Martial Law -- Conceptual Mobilization” at the Gate Gallery, inviting many artists associated with IT Park to show works. I still remember when Hsieh Te-ching returned home. Myself, Chen Kai-huang, Koo Shih-yung, Liu Ching-tang, Chen Hui-chiao all visited him at his family home in Pingtung and we ended up chatting through the night until the sun came up. Not long after, IT Park opened a bar at the gallery and although this proved a big hit and attracted more people than ever before, the earlier atmosphere of passionate debate was now less frenetic, replaced as it was by a flow of international information. As one of the key promoters of installation art IT Park Gallery suddenly found itself very much on the same wavelength as the international art scene and soon took on the a mantle as Taiwan’s number one “underground” contemporary art museum. In 1996, the New York Times’ art critic Andre Soloman visited IT Park and wrote a column on art in Taiwan. This was the first time modern art in Taiwan had been the focus of the US art community, a portent of the “Taiwan Art Craze” yet to come. In 2000, I was invited for the first time to hold a solo exhibition at IT Park and rashly presented works on the issue of national position in a “neutral space.” Although this was perhaps a little inappropriate, it did serve to prove the breadth of mind epitomized by the gallery. I was also very fortunate that it was pictures of that scene at IT Park that figured in the pages of US publication “Newsweek,” an unspoken image tying us together forever.

Taiwan first experienced an economic miracle and then a political earthquake, with the replacement of the KMT government of the previous 50 years by the opposition DPP. In the 1990’s, discussions of “Taiwanese identity” were hugely popular as government officials came to realize that the sheer vitality of contemporary art could make up for restrictions in diplomatic space. As a direct result, much lost or unused space was released to be managed by art groups as a way of encouraging new artistic talent. At the same time, I started hear rumors that IT Park Gallery was experiencing financial problems. I know that most of the expenses incurred by the gallery are paid out of the income Liu Ching-tang makes from his photographic workshop and that this was doing poorly. Here was a man who went so far as to occasionally cook his own food to offer guests, just to sustain the friendly artistic atmosphere of the gallery, he was that devoted. Today IT Park Gallery has grown up. It is now an irreplaceable space, forever infused with a life energy that is instantly recognizable as its own.

Happy birthday to “IT Park Gallery”
   
Copyright © IT PARK 2024. All rights reserved. Address: 41, 2fl YiTong St. TAIPEI, Taiwan Postal Code: 10486 Tel: 886-2-25077243 Fax: 886-2-2507-1149
Art Director / Chen Hui-Chiao Programer / Kej Jang, Boggy Jang