Curatoral Statement

The aim of founding Landescape1823 was to extricate artists from the shackles of the system. The ruins granted us space and abundant nourishment for creation. On one hand, we are free from all bureaucratic authority, and on the other hand, we need not be bound by capitalists, who make us worry about materials and space. In a deserted land, the land and the artists complement each other. We have always been living and creating in a systematically established city. Sociologist Richard Sennett pointed out that the regular urban environment allows us to stay in our infancy period perpetually and isolate ourselves in our own communities. After being occupied by artists, the abandoned site became an art space, which interfered with the entire system and played a role of disorder. The existence of abandonment is not a space for us to escape, but to make the city more diverse.

A trend in the art market has caught my attention: artwork tends to be "socialized" in order to obtain governmental funding (socialization is to bring individuals into an existing social order without questioning its order). The artist’s role in the artwork has gradually become subservient. Therefore, landscape1823 downplayed the interaction between artists and audiences in previous events. Landscape1823 is labelled as site-specific art instead of public art. In "Notes on Sculpture: Part II”, Robert Morris pointed out that “The better new work takes relationships out of the work and makes them a function of space, light, and the viewer's field of vision.” Site-specific creation is not purely defined by physical location. But also through contact with the scene full of contingency, which includes the audience. After three events in the abandoned site, Landescape1823 has strived for a space that could facilitate interactions with audiences. By chance, I was fortunate to receive MOST’s curatorial invitation and venue arrangement. I am also very grateful to our generous sponsors, including Pure Art Foundation, Professor Professor Mayching Kao Fine Arts Fund, Museum of Site (MOST) and OM, which allow 2021 Landescape1823 Project: A Clockwork Lai Chi to present bold, new works by artist representing a broad range of identities and perspectives which might not otherwise be seen in Hong Kong, connecting audiences to boundary-pushing ideas, experiences, and expressions through direct access to artists.

The predecessor of the Jockey Club Creative Arts Center building was the "Shek Kip Mei Factory Building" completed in 1977 and has now been revitalized into an art village and art center. After the exit of factory workers, the artist walks in. Do the artists in residence maintain the entire art ecology in the role of a worker? In a Macroscopic view of contemporary art, scholar Diana Crane pointed out that the art market is becoming more and more capital and labour-intensive with a large-scale of production. The "post-factory" art production mode has alienated the identity of the artists. Even if we return to the public space with uniform, can we get rid of the factory model of art production? 

Jeremy Bentham invented a circular prison design -- panopticon, whose power dominance model permeates all walks of life, including factories, and even the entire society and our everyday life. The ultimate goal is to induce in the inmates a state of conscious visibility.  The exhibition uses CCTV to explore the boundaries of seeing (public space on L5) and being seen (green space on L7), creating a space for domestication, correction and education. Anyone can feel the gaze of an invisible object (ghost) . Hence, audiences and artists will experience (Michel Foucault) Michel Foucault's bio-power, which involves intervening and manipulating our thoughts And body.

The public space of the JCCAC is not laid abandoned. Landescape1823 has been pursuing to get rid of regulations and restrictions. But why should we walk into a managed place? In the past, even we went to ruins, artists were portrayed as the weak for creation, sneaking into (or trespassing on) a place. In fact, we have cleverly used strategies to confront the institution and through creation, we have different interpretations of the language of a place and transformed it into a brand-new space. In the words of De Certeau, we adopted the practice of "time for space", infiltrating a place in a circuitous way, and seizing the time to turn everything into opportunity (de Certeau, 1984: xix). Here, rules and restrictions become the stepping stones of creation. The space that is seen and not seen stimulates isolation, which can also draw the viewer's gaze.

Why do I describe ourselves as the vulnerable one? It is because we are never the owners of space. Moreover, who has given me the power to lead the artists into a venue?  By extending this question, another question has quickly come to my mind: Who has granted the authority to the venue owner?  Actually, the proper question should be: Does “state of nature” exist in the room of creativity?  To me, “State of nature” only takes place in a Thought Experiment.  Unless the Big Bang happens tomorrow, and the entire universe has only left you and me.  At that moment, it would be a primitive society with no laws and order.  In reality, even if I live on my own and do not interact with others, does it mean that we do not have the obligation to abide by the law? (Editor’s note: Artists also set a lot of restrictions for their solo  exhibitions). We consider ourselves that we have the ability to get rid of rules and regulations, but could we break away from them? Philosopher John Locke once pointed out that due to the theory of Tacit Consent, people would obey the law in an unconscious manner, notwithstanding the fact that we have never agreed to abide by the law in our mind. Take the following as an example of Tacit Consent: From the time we step into JCCAC, we are made to comply with the rules and regulations, just because we have enjoyed the resources here in the Centre.  “Free” and “Not free” is an opposing idea, and so does “Agree” and “Disagree”.  Human beings should have the choice of “Disagree”, so that the choice of “Agree” could only be meaningful.  However, in the absence of choice, could our behaviour be deemed as “Agree”? 

Looking at Hong Kong, we are all “A Clockwork Lai Chi” .