Some Possibilities to Engage in Social Issues with Art Intervention - On Li-Hui Huang's Works

By Chen Wei-Chien for Huang Li-Hui (黃立慧)

I.

Many people have been discussing the relation and distance between art and society. The validity of this question relies upon the prerequisite of "art for art's sake." Naturally, this prerequisite should be understood in the context of art history; however, the fact that this prerequisite has become a point of contention shows that it has various aspects that are worthy of more discussion. Meanwhile, these contentions also involve issues of boundary, such as the evaluation and criteria of artistic creation and social conscience. Perhaps, we can discuss them by looking within the context of artistic creation. In this article, I attempt to explore some possibilities to engage in social issues with art intervention by examining the performance and installation series, Reversi, created by artist Li-Hui Huang in recent years.

Before applying the Reversi series to the discussion of engaging in issue with art intervention, we should first look at how this issue came to be. Prior to the concept of "art for art's sake," art existed to mainly serve religion or politics; therefore, such an issue did not exist at that time. The slogan of "art for art's sake" was first voiced in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, we should also examine the topic of "symbol" in visual art. Before the nineteenth century when art was predominantly in the service of religion and politics, symbols were largely used to construct various types of narrative. Moreover, based on the concept of stylistic analysis employed in the study of art history, we can also see that gaining control over the interpretation of "symbols" has also brought about stylistic changes. For example, Renaissance humanism had taken over the interpretation of religious symbols with its interpretation from a humanistic perspective. In the past, it had been forbidden to create the image of God, but Michelangelo had defied this religious convention and painted a vivid image of God in his depiction of the Book of Genesis on the ceiling of Sistine Chapel.

After the emergence of the middle class in the nineteenth century, this contention about the control over interpretation changed its course. To overthrow the manipulation of symbol by religion, aristocracy, and nationalism that had prevailed in art, artists moved onto the study of forms. The most obvious example would be that many painting schools after Impressionism had removed symbols through various approaches while solely pursuing the meaning of form per se. However, humanity has been using symbols to communicate and tell stories for thousands of years. As artists were advocating the removal of symbols, the so-called "modern art" had gradually evolved into a pursuit of aesthetic conception. Nevertheless, after Marcel Duchamp's appropriation of the readymades, symbols in art could be interpreted in a contemporary sense, which was the emancipation of interpretation; and it is one of the characteristics that allows us to identify contemporary art.

From this brief review, "to engage in social issues with art intervention" reveals humanity's attempt to create more possibilities for connection and contemporary interpretation in addition to pursuing formal beauty in art. What questions would we encounter in this attempt, then? We shall first examine two common approaches of making connection. The first one is a rather traditional approach, called "representation," meaning that artists would use their creations to communicate issues with more people. This approach that established painting's position as the witness was already challenged and destabilized upon the invention of photography, which also pushed painting further towards the study of form at that time. Therefore, the approach of "representation" in this era has become more complex. Representation is no longer simple documentation. Instead, it involves artists' self-reflection in a role similar to the "informant" in the field of anthropology or their legitimation of issues in a site of art, of which the latter would be the second common approach.

The so-called legitimation of an issue means to invite people involved in the issue to make their voices heard in an artistic site while artists or curators act as partners that provide technical or theoretical support. The controversy over this approach is whether the work by these involved people can be considered art. Is it necessary to give it affirmation in an artistic site? Many supporters uphold the idea that "life is art, art is life" when discussing this issue, which might be a valid point in the field of art. However, to engage in issues with art intervention entails engagement with other fields. So, we must be realistic and ask: why pouring resources into art if everything is considered art in the contemporary Taiwan, where resources are scarce and limited?

Herein lies the dilemma of engaging in issues with art intervention. Even though artists only aim to represent an issue, they cannot run away from existing criteria and ethical examination involved in the issue. After all, the act of seeing is itself a manifestation of power. Furthermore, artists hold absolute control over interpretation in terms of the display of artworks. If they relinquish this control, we might end up with nothing but an empty space created in the name of art. On the surface, this approach seems to expand the boundary of art, but it might cost us the possibility to face reality. In view of this dilemma, contemporary artists have shown us another possibility, which is to construct scenarios, in which audience can face and perceive the reality with their own body and make their own choices.

This approach of constructing scenarios has been adopted by many artists. However, in Huang's Reversi series, the artist not only represented the scenarios by using space and readymades, but also incorporated the concept of game to reinforce audience's perception and awareness. Therefore, space played a part in bodily perception whereas readymades functioned as symbols to facilitate understanding, and rules of game created character identification and thinking for the audience. To put it in simpler words, it was "to represent site with space, and to represent scenario with game." This showed that the field of art offers more possibilities than other fields when engaging in social issues. For this reason, this series of works is worthy of a further investigation from the angle of engaging in issues with art intervention.

II.

Huang's Reversi series was shown for the first time in Reversi—Li Hui Huang’s Solo Exhibition at Black and White Gallery in Taichung in April 2016. In October of the same year, Reversi was on view almost in an identical form in the 2016 Street Fun, Fun Street Community Art Festival curated by the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA), Taipei. In both exhibitions, this art piece revealed a combination of performance and installation. Huang's Happy Paradise exhibited in the 2016 Taipei Biennial, which adopted a similar form, could also be viewed as a work derived from Reversi.    In Reversi—Li Hui Huang’s Solo Exhibition at Black and White Gallery in Taichung, a large Reversi board and game disks were placed at the center of the gallery space. The four edges of the board were written with names of the roads demarcating Zhongxin Market, which housed Black and White Gallery. The artist invited tourists as well as Zhongxin Market residents and shopkeepers to be the two sides of players in the board game and respectively use the light and dark disks. Each participant could only make one move every day. A mark indicating the direction of north that was hand-drawn with a pencil could be seen in the middle of the empty floor space in front of the board, and a light that rotated with time was hanging from above. Every tourist entered the space at an allotted time, and the artist would mark his or her silhouette with black, thin tape on the wall. As for the local people, the artist used starch paste to create their figures according to the relative position between their homes and the art gallery. Meanwhile, tourists would leave the time of visit by their silhouette, and the locals would write down how long they have lived in Zhongxi Market.    Judging from the space and the installation, we could tell that the Reversi board epitomized the entire space of Zhongxin Market. In addition, the silhouettes of the locals on the wall, with their rough texture created with smeared starch glue, also conveyed a sense of history, implying that the locals have lived there for a longer time. In contrast, the tourists' empty figures outlined with thin tape hinted at the transiency of their stay. However, the disparity in the numbers of the two groups created a visual effect that the they were in a neck and neck situation; and this feeling became stronger as the exhibition progressed. Furthermore, it was a very accurate choice to discuss the issue of urban renewal concerning Zhongxin Market with a board game.

Zhongxin Market is a deserted market in an area of high-priced housing in Taichung. The residents there have been wrestling with construction companies regarding the issue of urban renewal. As a matter of fact, old and deserted Zhongxin Market has always been a rather eyesore to the people living in expensive apartments and mansions around the area. Even citizens of Taichung City also consider the dilapidated market to be out of tune with this whole area despite the market's transformation through the intervention of art and creative culture. Therefore, the assessment of this time-worn and derelict market and the plan for its future have become a point of continuous contention.

More interestingly, when the artist designed this game, tourists and locals were not necessarily opponents. Although the players from opposing sides in the board game might uphold different values, tourists could also betray their side and assist the other side to gain an advantage and win the game by assessing the situation of the game themselves. What made this game legitimate and effective was that although each member of the participating audience might be assigned with a role pertaining to the rules of the game, he or she could still make an independent choice in the game and exercise an influence according to individual values and judgement. However, no one could have the absolute advantage and determine the outcome of the game with just one move. The artist did not simply provide the audience a symbolic role; every participant had to face his or her own values in this scenario and exercise an individual influence in the situation. In truth, this design has already come close to the situation of contemporary democracy.

In terms of "symbol" that we have discussed earlier, the game of Reversi set up by the artist onsite was indeed a symbol. However, as the artist created a situation through the game's rules, her values were not revealed. There were no restrictions and punishments regarding the stance of each participant. It meant that the participants could turn on their own team and influence the game without being exposed. The artist only represented the situation so that every participant could have a chance to consider and face all kinds of possibilities, which allowed everything symbolized by this board game to be re-interpreted in a contemporary way. It even enabled everyone to interpret his or her own situation and standard of judgement in the game. Moreover, participants could feel a sense of ease as they "played" because it was, after all, a game. In the name of "art," audiences, who might have been reluctant to express their minds or feeling distant and unfamiliar with the issues, were also given a chance to engage in the issues and reflect upon them from a different perspective.

Comparing to Reversi—Li Hui Huang’s Solo Exhibition at Black and White Gallery in Taichung in April 2016 and the version of Reversi on view in MOCA Taipei's Street Fun, Fun Street Community Art Festival in October, Happy Paradise exhibited in the 2016 Taipei Biennial in September of the same year offered an intriguing contrast. Unlike the solo exhibition in Taichung, the other two exhibitions were group exhibitions. At MOCA Taipei, Reversi was shown in a metal-sheet hut on the museum's plaza, and Happy Paradise was displayed on the right-hand side of the hall of the Taipei Fine Arts Museum (TFAM) in the Taipei Biennial. Both spots were rather prominent and eye-catching. The version of Reversi shown at MOCA Taipei was similar to the one displayed in Taichung; however, the version on view in the Taipei Biennial only retained a certain part of the concept and form from the previous version. What difference did it create, then?

The biggest difference between Happy Paradise and Reversi was the removal of the board game, and their similarity was that both art pieces still emphasized on the connection between the artworks and the time and space of their localities. In Happy Paradise, the artist installed three historic images that were associated with the TFAM's urban location on the French windows of the museum's hall; the images were Prince Hirohito's procession along the Imperial Messenger Road, Eisenhower waving to the crowds, and the relocation of Taipei Zoo. Digits on the images indicated the temporal distance between the events and the TFAM in 2016, whereas other related events/remnants were annotated on the lobby floor in a corresponding spatiotemporal map. Happy Paradise adopted a similar method to Reversi, which was audience's silhouettes marked on the French windows. However, in this work, the silhouettes were covered with silicone. The artist also invited audiences to place personal items in the silicone, which was peeled off after it dried up. The silicone flakes were then piled as a human figure that had layers resembling geological strata. Finally, the theme song for the zoo's relocation, "Happy Paradise," could be heard in the space.

In comparison with Reversi, the artist removed the board game from Happy Paradise but more strongly emphasized on the historical traces created on the walls. One of the reasons for this alteration was that the issue of urban renewal, such as that of Zhongxin Market, did not exist in government-owned places, such as the TFAM. Furthermore, when Reversi was shown at MOCA Taipei, the work functioned as a public space that visualized the fight between the government and the private sector in the old neighborhood. In the TFAM, which was a public space, the artist aimed to address citizens' collective memory; and she was indeed able to form an adequate and captivating situation through correlations between the miscellaneous personal items in the human-shaped silicone figure and the collective memories displayed on the French windows. Nevertheless, unlike Reversi that allowed participants to make individual choices, audiences were passively transformed into a stratum in the silicone figure in Happy Paradise, and left a slightly recognizable personal clue in the pile at best. Of course, this symbolized the insignificant resistance a citizen could perform in an urban plan orchestrated by the public sector. However, in this piece, everything remained only symbolic.

III.

Taking a closer look at Huang's works in the past, one can see that the key to her works have always been establishing scenarios and interacting with audience; and both have been quintessential to her works. We can see this in her Make Me High and More series, which have been exhibited five times since 2007; 15 Minutes of Marriage that has been exhibited twice since 2010; Asian Babe created during her study in Chicago; and See the Image, Forget Me Not that was created during an artist residency at Treasure Hill Artist Village. Chronologically speaking, Make Me High and More was probably her earliest exhibition of performance. This performance comprised of two parts in a wooden box. Audiences could control the vibrator inside the artist's body. Although the performance seemed alarming and shocking, the actual experience came near to the experience of making a confession to a priest. The underlying reason might be that, despite the extremely intimate atmosphere of the situation, the artist had placed the power to initiate the situation in the hands of the audience, subverting the approach of manipulating the interpretation of sex adopted by many other artists while relaxing the audience so that a dialogue could be created. 15 Minutes of Marriage followed a similar logic. The artist first created a wedding scenario in the exhibition (Live Ammo version), and then, invited visitors to marry the artist for fifteen minutes, which entailed a wedding ceremony and a customary celebration in bridal chamber. This shortened marriage ritual challenged the generally accepted sanctity of marriage. This was, of course, a privileged practice entitled by the artistic license; but it was precisely because the performance was conducted in an artistic site, the participants had felt secured enough to try this act of marriage; and it was the only way that the concept challenged by the artwork could be perceived by each participant.

After Huang returned to Taiwan in 2015, her works have shown continuation of Across the Universe from her Chicago period and the Reversi series while See the Image, Forget Me Not that was created during her residency at Treasure Hill Artist Village might reveal another origin of the Reversi series. In this exhibition, the most prominent part was when the artist drew and projected the images of tourists who were visiting the exhibition at the artist village and taking selfies. These images taken by the artist were related to the unique spatial quality of Treasure Hill Artist Village and revealed the history of Treasure Hill as well as its current state as an artist village. Similarly, the artist did not show any value judgement in this work. In the installation, she only re-created the space's past residents with chalk, simultaneously using human existence as a measurement of space and time and placing human existence in the scenario.

Huang has always characterized her work as performance; but comparing to traditional performance works that evolve around "events," Huang's performance works seem to lean towards "situations" more. The installations combined with her performances not only serve as a background of events to evoke audience's perception and shared experience, they also function as a basic design to assist audience in entering the game. The performance here does only simply refer to the artist's actions, it also includes the audience's participation, even the interaction between different participants, instead of the mere performance by the artist or the interaction between audience and artist.   In fact, the interaction between audience members might be an important route to connect them with the addressed topics in Huang's works. From the works mentioned above, we could see that the artist does not only pay attention to one single issue; instead, she cares about the condition of different people involved in an issue and its context prior to and after the discussion of said issue. An issue might be judged and evaluated in different ways, and every person has his or her own values. However, each person's situation might also be suppressed in the discussion of an issue. Therefore, Huang replaces the criteria employed to assess an issue with the rules of games, and represents a scenario that allows every audience member to face the issue in his or her own way. This approach might not be able to propel the progress of specific issues, but it might be helpful in terms of getting people to reflect on an issue and to empathize with an opposing stance.

This approach also offers another route for engaging in issues with art intervention. As the field of art functions as an important factor for contemporary society to explore the subject of boundary, the importance of engaging in issues with art intervention is not to make artists visible, but to create more room for discussing issues through the ability of exploring boundaries with art and the space it creates. It avoids the possibility of minimizing available options due to the urgency in the original field of an issue. In the meantime, if the field of art wishes to preserve its meaning and significance in contemporary society, when it intervenes into issues, it is important to retain the original artistic characteristics and avoid adopting straightforward representation or being reduced to a camouflage for legitimacy.



藝術介入社會議題的幾個可能性-由黃立慧作品談起


文 / 陳韋鑑

(一)

藝術與社會間的關係與距離一直是許多人探討的問題,這個問題的成立預設了"為藝術而藝術"此一前提,當然這有藝術發展的歷史背景,但是也揭示了這個前提有許多值得討論的地方,導致這個提問成為許多爭論的焦點,這些爭論同時也涉及了藝術創作的評價與判準、社會道德等界限問題,或許我們可以試著回到創作來討論,本文試圖以行為藝術家黃立慧近年的<黑白棋系列>作品來探討創作介入社會議題的幾個可能進路。

在以<黑白棋系列>為例討論藝術界入議題前,我們可能要先看看,這個議題是怎麼成立的,邏輯上來說,在過去尚未有"為藝術而藝術"概念以前,當藝術是為宗教或是政治服務的時代,基本上應該不會有這個問題,而這個口號大概是在十九世紀被提出來的,另一方面,我們如果從視覺藝術裡的"象徵"來看,十九世紀前藝術替宗教或政治服務的時代,為了推動敘事,不得不大量運用象徵,而在過去藝術史所運用的風格分析概念裡,我們也可以看到奪取"象徵"詮釋權也推動了這些風格的改變,例如文藝復興所謂人本主義,就是以人的角度奪取宗教象徵的詮釋權,過去禁止替上帝造像的聖經律令,在米開朗基羅的<創世紀>中卻明確地放在西斯汀大教堂天花板上。

這樣的搶奪詮釋權在十九世紀中產階級市民興起後,為了試圖打破過去藝術中充斥著被宗教、貴族與民族國家操弄的象徵,直接走向形式上的研究,最明顯的例子應該是印象派以後的許多畫派,各自以不同的方式試圖減去象徵,單純追求形式本身的意義;只是人類以象徵來溝通、來說故事的需求已經有上千年的歷史,而且在推廣這個概念的過程中,逐漸地讓這些所謂的「現代藝術」只剩下為美感追求,不過,另一方面在杜象的現成物挪用後,藝術裡的象徵因著現成物而有了當代的詮釋,可以說是詮釋權的解放,這也是我們辨認當代藝術的特徵之一。

如果從上述簡單的回顧來看,"藝術介入社會議題"其實是人類追求藝術的形式美感外,企圖有更多的連結,有更多當代的詮釋,只是在這個企圖中,會遭遇那些問題呢?我們可以先看看兩種比較常見的連結方式,一種是較為傳統的"再現"概念,藝術家透過創作將議題傳播給更多人認識,這種方式在攝影技術剛開始發明時就已經挑戰過繪畫的目擊者地位,事實上在當時也的確推動了繪畫通往更為形式研究的方向,也因此在這個時代的"再現"概念是更為複雜的,並非單純的紀錄,它涉及了包括藝術家以類似人類學中"報導人"角色的自省或者是以藝術場域給予議題合法性的操作方式,而後者即是常見的第二種手法。

所謂給予議題合法性的概念指的是在藝術的場域中,邀請當事者發言,藝術家或策展人作為夥伴,給予技術或是論述的支持,這種做法比較常引起的爭議是,這些當事者的作品算不算是藝術?有沒有必要在藝術場域被肯定?很多支持者秉持著"生活即藝術,藝術即生活"的價值判準來談,這樣的說法在藝術場域內部或許成立,只是藝術介入議題本身就是與其他場域發生交集,那麼我們就必須很現實的問,在資源有限的台灣當代如果甚麼都是藝術,為什麼還要傾注資源給藝術?如果甚麼都是藝術,甚至我們也都不再需要藝術。

由此可見藝術介入議題的兩難,藝術家即便只是再現議題,都無法逃避議題領域原有的判準及涉入倫理上的檢視,畢竟觀看本身就是種權力,如何展出這些作品更是藝術家獨斷的詮釋權力,而如果讓出詮釋權,那麼最後會不會只剩下以藝術為名的空間,這種做法看似拓展藝術的邊界,實則是失去面對現實的可能性?面對這個兩難,當代的藝術家們則是展現另一種可能,建立情境讓觀眾得以用自己的身體去面對、感受與選擇。

這種建立情境的創作方式其實已經是不少藝術家的方向,不過黃立慧的<黑白棋>系列比較特別的是她不只是利用空間與現成物去再現情境,她還加上了遊戲的概念,更加強觀眾的感受與認知,空間提供身體的感知,現成物提供象徵的理解進路,而遊戲規則提供觀眾角色認同與思考,簡單講就是「以空間再現場域,以遊戲再現情境」,這顯示了藝術領域在關心社會議題中較之於其他領域的更多可能性,也因此這一系列的作品是值得我們以藝術介入議題的角度來觀察的。

(二)

黃立慧的<黑白棋>系列第一次展出是2016年四月在台中黑白切藝文空間展出的「黑白棋-黃立慧個展」,同年十月份在台北當代藝術館的<2016街大歡喜>展出「黑白棋」,展出的形式幾乎是一樣的,都是行為藝術加上空間裝置,同年九月份在<2016台北雙年展>中展出的「快樂天堂」則是有類似的展出形式,可以說是該系列衍生出來的相關作品。

台中黑白切藝文空間首次展出的「黑白棋-黃立慧個展」,在展場正中間的是一個巨大的"黑白棋"棋盤與棋子,棋盤四邊對應的是黑白切藝文空間所在的忠信市場四周道路名稱,藝術家分別邀請遊客與在地居民、商家分執黑白子進行棋戲,每人每天限行一步,棋盤前的空間正中地面上有鉛筆手繪的指北圖示,上方則是裝有隨著時間轉動的光源,每個遊客依照進入展場的時間,由藝術家以細黑膠帶留下身影,而在地人則是依照居所與黑白切的相對位置,由藝術家以糨糊留下身影,同時遊客在身影邊寫下到訪時間,在地人則是寫下在忠信市場所居住的時間。

從空間與裝置來看,藝術家將棋盤對應整個忠信市場的空間,還有在地人在牆上留下全身身影的對應位置,以糨糊全面塗抹在地觀眾人形後,糨糊乾燥後留下的斑駁質感也強調了在地觀眾較長的時間感,而遊客觀眾則是以細線空虛人形對應時間的短暫,但是人數的多寡卻讓兩者影像有著勢均力敵的視覺效果,尤其隨著展覽日漸增長,感覺更是明顯;另一方面以棋盤遊戲來談忠信市場面對都更的議題,更顯準確。

忠信市場是位於台中高房價區域的廢棄市場,都更議題一直是在地居民與建商的角力,而事實上對鄰近區域的豪宅居民來說,老舊廢棄的忠信市場,一直是整個區域相當礙眼的黑洞,甚至對台中市民來說,雖然忠信市場後來因為藝術與文創的介入而得以翻轉,然後其破舊也的確與整體區域格格不入,到底該對這個老舊廢棄市場怎麼評價,如何進行進一步的規劃,也的確是如棋戲般的彼此角力。

更有趣的是,在藝術家設計的這個遊戲中,遊客觀眾與在地觀眾彼此並不見得是對立的,黑白兩方的參與者彼此可能就有著不同的價值觀,遊客觀眾也可以背叛所執棋色,自行以棋局中的走勢,協助對方佔有棋盤上較大的空間好贏得棋局;這個遊戲設計有效的地方在於,每個觀眾雖然在規則的限制下已經有固定的角色,但是每個個人都依然可以在棋盤中有自己的選擇,以自己的價值判準在棋局中發揮影響,但是,卻也沒有誰是可以一步定勝負的決定者,藝術家提供給觀眾的不只是一個只具有象徵性的角色,每個觀眾都在情境裡面對自己的價值觀,進而在局勢中發揮那僅有的影響,其實這聽起來已經非常像是每個人在當代民主政治中的情境了。

若我們從前述"象徵"的角度來看,藝術家在場域裡提供的黑白棋戲的確是象徵,但是事實上,藝術家在此藉由遊戲規則再現情境,藝術家本人的價值觀並沒有顯現,對每個參與者的立場沒有任何限制與逞罰,也就是說參與者即便是"叛變"也不見得有人知道,但確實有一定的影響,藝術家只是再現這個情境,讓每個參與者自己去思考與面對各種可能性,讓這個棋戲所象徵的所有一切都可以重新地在當代被詮釋,甚至是在規則內每一個人自己情境與判準下的詮釋;而也因為只是遊戲,每個參與者都可以更為輕鬆的"玩",同時以"藝術"之名,可能也讓更多原來不願意表態,或者對相關議題有距離或陌生的觀眾,有機會用不同的角度重新接觸與思考。

相較於同年四月份在台中展出的「黑白棋-黃立慧個展」,同年十月份在台北當代藝術館的<2016街大歡喜>展出「黑白棋」,與同年九月份在<2016台北雙年展>中展出的「快樂天堂」則是一組有趣的對比,與台中版相比,這兩次的展出都是聯展,當代館展出時是在館外廣場的鐵皮屋中獨立展出,「快樂天堂」是在台北雙年展大廳右方,可以說都是頗為引人注目的位置,當代館展出的版本基本上與台中版沒有什麼差異,但是台北雙年展展出的版本則是只剩下某些概念接近,形式上也只剩下部分類似,而這會帶來什麼不同呢?

「快樂天堂」與「黑白棋」最大的不同在於取消了黑白棋戲,一樣的是強調與在地的時空連結作為起點,在北美館的大廳落地窗上,藝術家貼上三幅與北美館此地點有關的歷史圖像,包括日本皇太子裕仁經過敕使街道、艾森豪跟群眾揮手、動物園搬家,而圖像上的數字為該事件發生跟「2016年的北美館」的時間差和距離,其他的相關事件/遺跡,則被註記在大廳地板上的相對時空位置圖;兩者相同的手法在於「快樂天堂」依然使用在落地窗上邀請觀眾留下身影的做法,只是這次以矽膠塗滿人形輪廓並邀請觀眾放置個人物件,待乾後再撕下來堆疊出類似地層狀,最後則是空間裡放著當年動物園搬家時的主題曲"快樂天堂"。

相較於<黑白棋>系列,「快樂天堂」取消了棋戲但加強了牆面上歷史軌跡的部分,當然這有可能是因為北美館原地一直是公部門用地,不像台中版的忠信市場有都更議題,或是當代館版利用當地老社區在公部門與私領域之間的角力,作為一個公有空間,黃立慧強調的是市民的集體記憶,尤其是撕下的矽膠人型堆疊層裡混雜的各種私人物品對應到落地窗上的集體記憶時,的確是有足夠的情境吸引人,只是相對於<黑白棋>系列中藉由遊戲讓觀眾可以自主選擇,「快樂天堂」中觀眾只能被動地成為堆疊中的一層,頂多在堆疊中留下一點不見得足以被辨認的個人痕跡,當然這也是在公部門的都市計畫中,市民所能做的微小抵抗,只是在作品裡,這一切就只能是象徵。

(三)

從黃立慧過去的作品來看,建立情境與觀眾互動一直是其作品成立的重點,兩者缺一不可,例如2007年後展出五次的<讓我一次愛個夠>系列、2010年後展出兩次的<十五分鐘的婚姻>或者在芝加哥留學時期的「亞洲寶貝」、返台後在寶藏巖駐村的「勿忘影中人」等;從時序上來看<讓我一次愛個夠>系列大概是她最早的行為藝術個展,主要展出形式是在木箱中隔成兩區,由觀眾操控藝術家體內的跳蛋,看似驚世駭俗的作品,但是實際體驗後卻發展出類似在向神父告解的感受,這或許是因為藝術家以極度私密的性愛氛圍作為情境,但是又將啟動情境的權力放在觀眾手中,顛覆過去許多藝術家只是操控性愛在社會中被詮釋的作法,也讓觀眾得以放鬆的對話;<十五分鐘的婚姻>也是如此,在展場建立一個結婚的情境(活彈藥版),邀請觀眾與藝術家結婚十五分鐘,這十五分鐘包括結婚儀式與鬧洞房等,藝術家以濃縮的結婚儀式挑戰了一般對婚姻神聖的概念,這當然是在藝術領域中所擁有的特權,但也因為是在藝術領域,參與的觀眾對在此結婚的行為反而才有安全感的投入嘗試,而作品試圖挑戰的概念才會被每個投入的觀眾感知。

2015年黃立慧返台後的作品除了延續芝加哥時期的<Across The Universe>系列與<黑白棋>系列以外,同年在寶藏巖駐村的「勿忘影中人-黃立慧個展」可能是<黑白棋>系列的起源之一,在此展覽中最主要的元素就是藝術家替來寶藏巖藝術村看展並自拍的遊客畫下自拍的姿態投影,這些姿態多半與寶藏巖本身特殊的空間感有關,這同時顯現了寶藏巖歷史元素與當下做為藝術村的狀態,一樣的,藝術家在此也沒有做出任何價值批判,在空間裝置中也只是以粉筆將展場過去民居狀態顯現,以人作為空間與時間的度量,同時也讓人進入情境。

黃立慧一直以"行為藝術"描述自己的作品,與傳統的行為藝術以"事件"為主軸相比,黃立慧的作品又更往"情境"傾斜,空間裝置在此提供的不只是事件背景以招喚觀眾的感知與共同經驗,是協助觀眾進入遊戲本身的基本盤,所謂的行為藝術指的不只是藝術家本身的行為,也包括了觀眾們的參與,甚至是觀眾與觀眾間的互動,而非是藝術家單方面的表演或是觀眾與藝術家之間的互動而已。   觀眾彼此間的互動對黃立慧的作品來說,可能是連結其關心主題的重要路徑,從上述作品來看,我們大概可以看到黃立慧關心的不是單一議題,而是這些議題在被討論前後,各種人在此議題時空中的狀態,議題本身可能有各式各樣的判準,每個人也有自己的價值觀,然而每個人的處境也常在議題的討論中被壓縮,黃立慧以遊戲規則取代那些判準,再現情境讓每個觀眾都可以用自己的方式去面對議題,這種做法或許無法替某些特定議題判準搖旗吶喊,然而對吸引人去思考、甚至去同理對立面的處境,可能比較有所幫助。

這可能也是藝術涉入議題的另一種途徑,如果藝術場域作為當代社會中保留探索邊界的重要一環,那麼藝術涉入議題的重要性恐怕不只是讓藝術家活在地面上,而是透過藝術探索邊界的空間與能力,讓議題有更多被討論的空間,而非在原有的議題場域中可能因著急迫性而被壓縮到只剩下少數的方向,同時,藝術領域若是想保有自身在當代社會中的意義,那麼在介入議題的同時,保有藝術自身的特性而非只是再現或淪為合法性的保障就有一定的重要性。