• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.


公共人與One Place after Another

Page history last edited by 舒婷 8 years, 1 month ago

Miwon Kwon (2004) One Place After Another- site-specific art and locational identity. MIT Press. introduction, 1,3,4,6


About Miwon Kwon


*本書原為博士論文,2004年出版。2012年和另一位合作多年的策展人Philipp Kaiser共同策劃以地景藝術(1974)為主題的展覽。

*撰寫許多當代藝術藝評;藝術家名單包含:Francis Alÿs, Michael Asher, Cai Guo-Qiang, Jimmie Durham, Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Barbara Kruger, Christian Marclay, Ana Mendieta, Josiah McElheny, Christian Philipp Müller, Gabriel Orozco, Jorge Pardo, Richard Serra, James Turrell Do Ho Suh等。

*「挑戰藝術常規」(challenging the conventional concepts of art)訪問稿:“I’m interested in art that refuses to be a static object, whether it’s landscapes that are used to make artwork that the climate then destroys, or art designed for specific locations that can never be moved, or purely conceptual art,” “I look at art as a living thing. I don’t like thinking of it as just treasures to be stored away.”






*site-determined, site-oriented, site-referenced, site-conscious, site-responsive, site-related—site-specific art, as a return of sorts (to rehabilitate the criticality associated with anticommercial site-specific practices of 1960s-1970s), and also to distinguish current practices from those of the past (those of aesthetic and political exhaustion). (p. 1)

*然而,到底什麼是現地製作藝術?實需重新分析檢視藝術品和地點之間的關係site? site & art? Site & artist?

*不把現地製作藝術視為既成類別,而是將之問題化(a problem-idea),以藉此分析藝術和空間政治(the book situates the questions concerning the siting of art as a spatio-political problematic.),這也就是Rosalyn Deutsche所謂「都市-美學」(urban-aesthetic)或「空間-文化」(spatial-cultural)論述。(p.2)

*作者將現地製作視為更廣泛的社會、經濟、政治進程的文化中介(cultural mediation);也就是這些面向組織了都市生活及都市空間。(…site specificity as the cultural mediation of broader social, economic, and political processes that organize urban life and urban space)(p.3)

*作者認為大致的演進架構如下(但不是線性發展,而常有重疊): 1960s/回應極簡主義

Of physical attributes of a particular location network of interrelated spaces and economies more “public”, much broader cultural, social and discursive; can be literal, or conceptual

這也是作者提出的架構:phenomenological/ experiential social/ institutional discursive


*Site概念轉變:from sedentary to nomadic

*reconfiguration: from immobility to transience / from producers of aesthetic objects to cultural-artistic service providers (行政的美學→美學的行政)


*藝術要有用才行?(social function requirement)

(公共藝術三種常見形式:art-in-public-places(例如Serra的作品)art-as-public-places(例如街道家具)art-in-the-public-interest(語出Arlene Raven,也就是Lacy所謂新類型公共藝術))

*2個案例著手:Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc (1981-1989),以及John Ahearn 1991年在紐約South Bronx所做的雕塑設置案

*爭議很大的Tilted Arc


“To remove it is to destroy it.”  “the experience of art itself is the social function” 

*受作者肯定(?)John Ahearn案例-whose art is it?(community-based public art, i.e. from site to community, or to say, conversion of community into a site)



*site specificity to community specificity- new genre public art (p.6)

*Mary Jane Jacob 1993年策展”Culture in Action”為案例,作者分析裡面8個子計畫,分成4種社區合作類型:community of mythic unity, sited community, temporary invented communities, and ongoing invented communities.


*批評:new genre public art may exacerbate uneven power relations, remarginalize (even colonize) already disenfranchised groups, depoliticize and remythify the artistic process, and finally further the separation of art and life (despite claims to the contrary) 



*本章是文獻回顧:Hal Foster, Grant Kester, Martha Fleming, Iris Marion Young, Jean-Luc Nancy

*community as necessarily unstable; the identity or definition remains open, as a scene of political struggle; like “public sphere”, seen as phantom, a discursive formation

*Nancy: not a “common being” but nonessential “being-in-common”  (解構的共通體)

*to imagine: collective artistic praxis, rather than community-based art


*dynamics of deterritorialization/ increasing instances of locational unspecificity (同質化的問題)

*延伸議題:between subject/object and location, the interplay between place and space


(1) Jameson: cognitive mapping;

(2) Lucy Lippard: lure of the local;

(3) Kenneth Frampton: critical regionalism;

(4) Certeau: walking in the city;

(5) Lefebvre: production of space

*作者認為:site-specific art as an analogous artistic endeavor, is both compensatory symptom and critical resistance; different from nostalgic (rooted) or antinostalgic (nomadic), there might be the theorization of “wrong place”—a new model of belonging-in-transience

* critical capacity of intimacies based on absence, distance, and ruptures of time and space?



Chap. 1 Genealogy of Site Specificity

*一開始和實際地點緊密相關(site as an actual location),但逐漸發現「地點」也是個複雜的概念,每個人賦予不同意義,因此「地點」亦為動態、流動,而非固著地的想像

* site specific—to be “specific”, meaning to expose, to unveil those hidden  (1970s火熱議題:to expose—the apparatus the artist is threaded through) culturally specific? To (re)produce specific forms of knowledge / not at all universal or timeless standards (p.19)


*”work”: from noun to verb, from the fixed to process/ 關係建立在unfixed impermanence

* art as one among many forms of cultural work //美學或藝術史問題反而不是首要考量 (p.24)

*”site”:地點多元、方法/學科多元、媒介/議題多元 (p.26)

*site-oriented art—discursively determined, i.e. a field of knowledge, intellectual exchange, or cultural debate/ the site is not defined as a precondition, rather, it is generated by the work (the content) and then verified by its convergence with an existing discursive formation. 「地點」透過作品生成,並和論述一同脈動。(p.26)

*本質論到功能論?--site-oriented practice as “functional sites” (James Meyer) // (inter)textually rather than spatially, not a map but an itinerary, a fragmentary sequence of events and actions through spaces; path articulated by the passage of the artist

*使空間文本化,但也使論述長出空間感 (texualize spaces and spatialize discourses) (p.29)

*小結:engage audience, thus to strengthen art’s capacity, redefining the public role of art and artists // site specific to site-oriented?


Chap. 2 Unhinging of Site Specificity


Chap. 3 Sitings of Public Art: Integration versus Intervention

*將公共藝術視為解藥:美化城市?(-p.64) //很像工程的公共藝術(p.67)//簡化問題?似乎只要硬體完成,社會責任亦了(p.69)—反擊:Guerrilla Girls //site, the sculpture, as medium? So as to inquire? (-p.78)

*Serra作品爭議(p.79-83)Ahearn作品討論及爭議(p.84~97) (keypoint: labor/一起工作)

--affirm rather than disturb?// politically empowered (p.97)



Chap. 4 From Site to Community in New Genre Public Art: the Case of “Culture in Action”


*針對”Culture in Action”的討論(p.117-135)



Chap. 5 The (Un)Sitings of Community


Chap. 6 By Way of a Conclusion: One Place after Another

*in a world of placelessness (Frampton), of diminishing spatial barriers to exchange, movement and communication (Harvey) (p.156)

*”Whether we enjoy it or not, we are culturally and economically rewarded for enduring the ‘wrong’ place. We are out of place all too often. Or, perhaps more accurately, the distinction between home and elsewhere, between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ places, seem less and less relevant in the constitution of the self.” (p.156-157)

*differential function of places // site-specific art→ site-oriented practices, can be viewed alike as symptomatic of the dynamics of deterritorialization as theorized in urban spatial discourse (p.157)

*Lucy Lippard: place as a kind of text of humanity, from a position of an insider, place as therapeutic remedy? (“for a slower, more sedentary mode of existence”/作者:nostalgic impulse?)

**”production of difference, to say it more general terms, is itself a fundamental activity of capitalism, necessary for its continuous expansion. One might go so far as to say that this desire of difference, authenticity, and our willingness to pay high prices for it only highlight the degree to which they are already lost to us (thus the power they have over us).” (p. 159)

*Deleuze: nomadic condition, site as predominantly an intertextually coordinated, multiply located, discursive field of operation; James Meyer: “functional site”, embracing the idea of meaning as an open, unfixed constellation/ i.e. the fluidity of identities and subjectivities  (作者質疑這類歌頌的說法,提出擔憂:it may leave oneself to vulnerable to new terror and dangers) (p.160)

**這章節用了Don DeLillo的劇本Valparaiso為例(短短影片連結):experience real only via media representation; discontinuous spatial experience; locational misrecognition, i.e. losing way in the world // a sense of belonging, thus, bound to a system of movement, bodies channeled, and attributed to the system. (p.162-163) (請參照p.163末段說明)

**作者認為:awakening; wrong place as escape from a “wrong” place that once thought to be “right” (?) (p.164)

*the freedom of choice?—the choice to forget, the choice to reinvent, the choice to fictionalize, the choice to belong anywhere, everywhere, and nowhere. This choice, of course, does not belong to everyone equally. The understanding of identity and difference as being culturally constructed should not obscure the fact that the ability to deploy multiple, fluid identities in and of itself is a privilege of mobility that has a specific relationship to power. (p.165-166)

*Frampton’s “double mediation”—i.e., in site-specific art practice, to find a terrain between mobilization and specificity, to be out of place with punctuality and precision (p.166)

**Homi Bhabha: the globe shrinks for those who own it; for the displaced or the dispossessed, the migrant or refugee, no distance is more awesome than the few feet across borders or frontiers. // relational specificity in today’s site-oriented practice—辯證、對話之可能?”to address the uneven conditions of adjacencies and distances between one thing, one person, one place, one thought, one fragment next to another, rather than invoking equivalences via one thing after another.” (p.166)

*if these oppositions can be seen as sustaining relations: can this relational sensibility turn local encounters into long-term commitment? (p.166)

* not into an undifferentiated serialization, one place after another. (p. 166)



「若邊緣果真如後現代主義思想家所設想般,是個充滿生產力、具有顛覆性的所在,那麼,他們為何要廢除邊緣?如果在邊緣與多數之間並沒有明顯的區隔,那又該怎麼辦?就社會主義者看來,現今世界的真正荒謬是裡頭的每一個人都被流放到邊緣。隨著跨國企業的不斷發展,一群人失去了立足之地。整個國家都被推入邊緣。所有人都被認為是失常的。社群被連帶拔起,被迫進行遷徙。」(Terry Eagleton After Theory p.33-34)






借用Abrams的概念:Mirror and Lamp,或許可以mirror→lamp→mirror(Foucault或Lacan的鏡子?)來理解。


Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.