Description‧Explanation ─ The Argument about Historical Facts and Conception of History－ZHAO Liu Solo Exhibition
2015.12.18～2016.02.21
09:00 - 17:00
This exhibition stems from the series of artwork by Taiwanese Artist Zhao Liu, a series which has been displayed in the University of Hong Kong as the final stop of the touring exhibition titled
Conformity to Vicinity: A Cross-strait Four-region Artistic Exchange Project 2014.” As curator from Taiwan and after a long discussion with the artist, I have profoundly comprehended that the exhibition itself is not so much an exhibition as a piece of artwork. As a matter of fact, the
artwork” not only embodies the entire progress of the Artistic Exchange Project 2014 exhibited in Hong Kong, but also the events and personnel encompassed, and surely curators like me are all regarded as part of the
artwork.” An exhibition (or artwork) involves an interpretation process via narratives. In other words, when an exhibition makes a preliminary interpretation, more interpretations from various positions may be set forth. Consequently, I am inclined to inquire further in this regard. What is truth when history is a composite integrated with facts? Is it possible to reveal the truth merely by narratives? Does the narrative of historical facts implicitly indicate a kind of interpretation based on historical concepts? Under the inseparable effects from
pre-structure” of concepts, what is the significance of history, in particular when historical horizons are based on existing prejudice? Take British Hong Kong as an example, it is an artwork composed of a one-pound British banknote surrounded by obsolete Hong Kong dollar bills, currency used in the colonial Hong Kong under British rule. All the banknotes in this artwork bear the head of Queen Elizabeth II. Hence, may we regard it as a symbol of the reign imposed by an autocrat? Chinese Hong Kong displays the current Hong Kong dollar banknotes and Renminbi, which are juxtaposed in a check pattern. In the artwork the twining banknotes against each other may delineate a picture, wherein people may wonder if the two states can really share the harmonious felicity. The current Hong Kong dollar banknotes and Reminbi displayed in Occupying Central I and Occupying Central II play the roles of center and margin, and exchange with each other in the two artworks. Then, a question is inevitable; which one plays the center? As scheduled to be exhibited in the University of Hong Kong, the series brought to the artist the interference and pressure that were exerted from other authority beyond the art community. However, the incidence turned out to highlight the subject matter revealed within the artworks, enriching the progress of dialectical thinking as well. Kasimir Malevich (1878-1935) dedicated himself to promoting Suprematism. The series titled A Homage to Malevich: Composition Practice in Abstract Art is inspired by his well-known centerpieces and consists of Work No. 1 Black on White and Work No. 2 White on White. When the exhibition travelled to Hong Kong, Black on White and White on White were respectively placed upon Occupying Central I and Occupying Central II. The series ofOccupying Central was camouflaged rather than disappeared. Being unseen, the artworks were still present in the exhibition venue of the University of Hong Kong. Through the replicas of black and white, the supremacy of black and white is highly proclaimed, and the hail to supremacy of black and white veils the existing reality. In so doing, does black and white explicitly reveal its symbolic meaning of truth and falseness? Now, in terms of the exhibition in Taiwan, after the replicas of black and white are removed, can the visible represent the reality? As far as the manipulation of artists and the discourses of curators are concerned, aren’t they a kind of personal interpretation which is inevitably blended with all the considerations mentioned above? Critical thinking is ubiquitous and will endure as well. . . .
Conformity to Vicinity: A Cross-strait Four-region Artistic Exchange Project 2014.” As curator from Taiwan and after a long discussion with the artist, I have profoundly comprehended that the exhibition itself is not so much an exhibition as a piece of artwork. As a matter of fact, the
artwork” not only embodies the entire progress of the Artistic Exchange Project 2014 exhibited in Hong Kong, but also the events and personnel encompassed, and surely curators like me are all regarded as part of the
artwork.” An exhibition (or artwork) involves an interpretation process via narratives. In other words, when an exhibition makes a preliminary interpretation, more interpretations from various positions may be set forth. Consequently, I am inclined to inquire further in this regard. What is truth when history is a composite integrated with facts? Is it possible to reveal the truth merely by narratives? Does the narrative of historical facts implicitly indicate a kind of interpretation based on historical concepts? Under the inseparable effects from
pre-structure” of concepts, what is the significance of history, in particular when historical horizons are based on existing prejudice? Take British Hong Kong as an example, it is an artwork composed of a one-pound British banknote surrounded by obsolete Hong Kong dollar bills, currency used in the colonial Hong Kong under British rule. All the banknotes in this artwork bear the head of Queen Elizabeth II. Hence, may we regard it as a symbol of the reign imposed by an autocrat? Chinese Hong Kong displays the current Hong Kong dollar banknotes and Renminbi, which are juxtaposed in a check pattern. In the artwork the twining banknotes against each other may delineate a picture, wherein people may wonder if the two states can really share the harmonious felicity. The current Hong Kong dollar banknotes and Reminbi displayed in Occupying Central I and Occupying Central II play the roles of center and margin, and exchange with each other in the two artworks. Then, a question is inevitable; which one plays the center? As scheduled to be exhibited in the University of Hong Kong, the series brought to the artist the interference and pressure that were exerted from other authority beyond the art community. However, the incidence turned out to highlight the subject matter revealed within the artworks, enriching the progress of dialectical thinking as well. Kasimir Malevich (1878-1935) dedicated himself to promoting Suprematism. The series titled A Homage to Malevich: Composition Practice in Abstract Art is inspired by his well-known centerpieces and consists of Work No. 1 Black on White and Work No. 2 White on White. When the exhibition travelled to Hong Kong, Black on White and White on White were respectively placed upon Occupying Central I and Occupying Central II. The series ofOccupying Central was camouflaged rather than disappeared. Being unseen, the artworks were still present in the exhibition venue of the University of Hong Kong. Through the replicas of black and white, the supremacy of black and white is highly proclaimed, and the hail to supremacy of black and white veils the existing reality. In so doing, does black and white explicitly reveal its symbolic meaning of truth and falseness? Now, in terms of the exhibition in Taiwan, after the replicas of black and white are removed, can the visible represent the reality? As far as the manipulation of artists and the discourses of curators are concerned, aren’t they a kind of personal interpretation which is inevitably blended with all the considerations mentioned above? Critical thinking is ubiquitous and will endure as well. . . .
This exhibition stems from the series of artwork by Taiwanese Artist Zhao Liu, a series which has been displayed in the University of Hong Kong as the final stop of the touring exhibition titled
Conformity to Vicinity: A Cross-strait Four-region Artistic Exchange Project 2014.” As curator from Taiwan and after a long discussion with the artist, I have profoundly comprehended that the exhibition itself is not so much an exhibition as a piece of artwork. As a matter of fact, the
artwork” not only embodies the entire progress of the Artistic Exchange Project 2014 exhibited in Hong Kong, but also the events and personnel encompassed, and surely curators like me are all regarded as part of the
artwork.” An exhibition (or artwork) involves an interpretation process via narratives. In other words, when an exhibition makes a preliminary interpretation, more interpretations from various positions may be set forth. Consequently, I am inclined to inquire further in this regard. What is truth when history is a composite integrated with facts? Is it possible to reveal the truth merely by narratives? Does the narrative of historical facts implicitly indicate a kind of interpretation based on historical concepts? Under the inseparable effects from
pre-structure” of concepts, what is the significance of history, in particular when historical horizons are based on existing prejudice? Take British Hong Kong as an example, it is an artwork composed of a one-pound British banknote surrounded by obsolete Hong Kong dollar bills, currency used in the colonial Hong Kong under British rule. All the banknotes in this artwork bear the head of Queen Elizabeth II. Hence, may we regard it as a symbol of the reign imposed by an autocrat? Chinese Hong Kong displays the current Hong Kong dollar banknotes and Renminbi, which are juxtaposed in a check pattern. In the artwork the twining banknotes against each other may delineate a picture, wherein people may wonder if the two states can really share the harmonious felicity. The current Hong Kong dollar banknotes and Reminbi displayed in Occupying Central I and Occupying Central II play the roles of center and margin, and exchange with each other in the two artworks. Then, a question is inevitable; which one plays the center? As scheduled to be exhibited in the University of Hong Kong, the series brought to the artist the interference and pressure that were exerted from other authority beyond the art community. However, the incidence turned out to highlight the subject matter revealed within the artworks, enriching the progress of dialectical thinking as well. Kasimir Malevich (1878-1935) dedicated himself to promoting Suprematism. The series titled A Homage to Malevich: Composition Practice in Abstract Art is inspired by his well-known centerpieces and consists of Work No. 1 Black on White and Work No. 2 White on White. When the exhibition travelled to Hong Kong, Black on White and White on White were respectively placed upon Occupying Central I and Occupying Central II. The series ofOccupying Central was camouflaged rather than disappeared. Being unseen, the artworks were still present in the exhibition venue of the University of Hong Kong. Through the replicas of black and white, the supremacy of black and white is highly proclaimed, and the hail to supremacy of black and white veils the existing reality. In so doing, does black and white explicitly reveal its symbolic meaning of truth and falseness? Now, in terms of the exhibition in Taiwan, after the replicas of black and white are removed, can the visible represent the reality? As far as the manipulation of artists and the discourses of curators are concerned, aren’t they a kind of personal interpretation which is inevitably blended with all the considerations mentioned above? Critical thinking is ubiquitous and will endure as well. . . .
Conformity to Vicinity: A Cross-strait Four-region Artistic Exchange Project 2014.” As curator from Taiwan and after a long discussion with the artist, I have profoundly comprehended that the exhibition itself is not so much an exhibition as a piece of artwork. As a matter of fact, the
artwork” not only embodies the entire progress of the Artistic Exchange Project 2014 exhibited in Hong Kong, but also the events and personnel encompassed, and surely curators like me are all regarded as part of the
artwork.” An exhibition (or artwork) involves an interpretation process via narratives. In other words, when an exhibition makes a preliminary interpretation, more interpretations from various positions may be set forth. Consequently, I am inclined to inquire further in this regard. What is truth when history is a composite integrated with facts? Is it possible to reveal the truth merely by narratives? Does the narrative of historical facts implicitly indicate a kind of interpretation based on historical concepts? Under the inseparable effects from
pre-structure” of concepts, what is the significance of history, in particular when historical horizons are based on existing prejudice? Take British Hong Kong as an example, it is an artwork composed of a one-pound British banknote surrounded by obsolete Hong Kong dollar bills, currency used in the colonial Hong Kong under British rule. All the banknotes in this artwork bear the head of Queen Elizabeth II. Hence, may we regard it as a symbol of the reign imposed by an autocrat? Chinese Hong Kong displays the current Hong Kong dollar banknotes and Renminbi, which are juxtaposed in a check pattern. In the artwork the twining banknotes against each other may delineate a picture, wherein people may wonder if the two states can really share the harmonious felicity. The current Hong Kong dollar banknotes and Reminbi displayed in Occupying Central I and Occupying Central II play the roles of center and margin, and exchange with each other in the two artworks. Then, a question is inevitable; which one plays the center? As scheduled to be exhibited in the University of Hong Kong, the series brought to the artist the interference and pressure that were exerted from other authority beyond the art community. However, the incidence turned out to highlight the subject matter revealed within the artworks, enriching the progress of dialectical thinking as well. Kasimir Malevich (1878-1935) dedicated himself to promoting Suprematism. The series titled A Homage to Malevich: Composition Practice in Abstract Art is inspired by his well-known centerpieces and consists of Work No. 1 Black on White and Work No. 2 White on White. When the exhibition travelled to Hong Kong, Black on White and White on White were respectively placed upon Occupying Central I and Occupying Central II. The series ofOccupying Central was camouflaged rather than disappeared. Being unseen, the artworks were still present in the exhibition venue of the University of Hong Kong. Through the replicas of black and white, the supremacy of black and white is highly proclaimed, and the hail to supremacy of black and white veils the existing reality. In so doing, does black and white explicitly reveal its symbolic meaning of truth and falseness? Now, in terms of the exhibition in Taiwan, after the replicas of black and white are removed, can the visible represent the reality? As far as the manipulation of artists and the discourses of curators are concerned, aren’t they a kind of personal interpretation which is inevitably blended with all the considerations mentioned above? Critical thinking is ubiquitous and will endure as well. . . .
Works
