“The Second Scene”——Basic Position on Event Art

“The Second Scene”——Basic Position on Event Art.

By Shi WanWan

In 2004, Cai Guojie started his imaginative “Land boundary selling plan”at the corner stores in Taipei. In the following ten years, Cai Guojie continued to sell his land all over the world: The boundary line between the two pieces of land, a ” Land without owner” hidden between various power spaces. As long as you like, you can buy the world’s borders from the artist. This later officially named “Half-Field plan”, which proposed an artist-style land reform: land reform in the power gap. This is a typical event art, also known as the art of   creation in the ground.

Event art is not aimed at creating images, shapes and forms. Most of them occur in public environments or public issues. They are one-time creations, and works cannot leave the actual context and cannot be copied. The works can only present the “event process” through a comprehensive medium such as images, documents, sounds and physical evidence. Therefore, formalist artists do not like event art, first because event art cannot provide “formal aesthetics”, and this is precisely an aesthetic experience that is very important in art. In the eyes of modernist artists, the vividness of a work is done by form, and form is art. At the end of the 19th century, British art critic Clive Bell once said: “Art is a meaningful form.” Form is not a reproduction of meaning, the form itself is all. So we can see that many modernist works take form innovation as the most important goal, and the exhibition hall becomes the form of space scene, which is the “theatre” pointed out by Michael Fried.

In fact, we can now see that this “theatre” – the exhibition space is facing a trend of standardization and homogenization, due to the identity of the space, the exhibition hall is becoming the “space production”, which is pointed out by Henri Lefebvre: the space is constantly copied and reproduced under the circumstance of instrumental rationality and consumerism. For example, the Super Gallery, the New York showroom and the Hong Kong showroom are homogeneous in time and space. In this sense, space has wiped out time and space has lost its scene. Art needs to escape from the exhibition hall and find a new place where the “event” takes place – a scene that resists identity and space production, that is, grounded creation.

Second, when the event becomes art, the controversy is even more: Is the event a simple material for art production? Is the artist consuming the event? The potential implication is: Do you still need art in front of the event? The French philosopher Alain Badiou said: “Events are the way to the truth,” and events occur only in certain areas and under certain conditions. There are four such areas: art, science, love, and politics. “Events” cannot be in a constant place, only in unstable “situations”, and “the event itself cannot be (directly) represented”

In the year from 2016 to 2017, artist Ma Yujiang completed his 《How Heavy is the Night》by collecting the consumer credentials of the homeless in Hong Kong. These extremely short bills displayed in the works reveal the constraints on the living space of these bottom-level workers in Hong Kong. This work has displayed the highly developed capitalist in Hong Kong and its special side: on the one hand, the international urban space squeezes the living space of the bottom laborers; on the other hand, consumption and business become the most basic ethical logic of human-to-human interaction. Homeless people get the basic reason to stay overnight at McDonald’s through minimum spending, not just sympathy and charity help.

Alan Badiou believes that “there can be event field in the historical context.” In Ma Yujiang’s works, the survival needs of the homeless and the nighttime McDonald’s space game constitute the first scene (fact) of the event. The works created by the artist constitute the “appearance” of the “facts” – events. The ground-based scene and the exhibition hall constitute an important structural relationship: the facts in the historical scene (situation) and the events that are revealed, that is, the first scene and the second scene.

The basic attributes of the work are established, that is, the second scene of the event, the first scene can be complete, and the event is “historic.” On the other hand, there is no second scene, the first scene is only a general natural situation, a neutral situation. Alan Badiou believes that the occurrence of events is not the inevitable result of historical laws. The historical law (the so-called objective truth) is precisely the product of the retrospective construction of events. It is not overnight that McDonald’s can explain Ma Yujiang’《How Heavy is the Night》, but the work 《How Heavy is the Night》 makes ” Overnight at McDonald’s ” become understandable. The “artistic” of the work is to reveal the first scene to the greatest extent and to establish a path to “truth”. This is the basic standpoint of “event art” and “art in the ground” as the second scene, and the full meaning of the “truth” of art.

August 18, 2019.

In Suzhou

Tak Chun Art Garden

“Tak Chun Art Garden”

– Cai Guojie’s solo exhibition

Preface

“Conceiving philosophy as a conceptual generation, and art as an emotional generation is to be in the field of mobility, placement, and distribution.”

– Gilles Deleuze

The “Half-Field Project” is an imaginative art project by artist Cai Guojie. Starting from the “Linear Store” implemented in Taipei in 2004, Cai Guojie borrowed the land development and sales model to sell the boundary line between the land sections in the world. It is a borderline that is a mixture between various “spaces of power” and “spaces of consumption”. In the game of selling the borderline, the “Half-Field Project” suggests a solemn concept: the space of power and the jurisdictional boundary.

What is space? What is the space of power? After the French philosopher Henry Lefebvre published “The Production of Space” in the 1970s, the academic understanding of space gradually shifted from ontology to practice, recognizing that in the developed capitalist world, capital ruled our lives with space. There is a “turn to space” that took place: in developed capitalist society, capital is no longer satisfied through profit from producing goods, and space becomes the object of production and the object of reproduction. In the same era of Space Production Theory, the French philosophers Deleuze and Guattali proposed the theory of “Jurisdiction of Space” and “Deterritorialisation.”

“Jurisdiction of Space” and ” Deterritorialisation” are aesthetic concepts proposed by Deleuze and Guattari by means of geography theory, which actually refers to the process of people fleeing from the existing space of desire (Guattari called it De-coding, De-jurisdictionalisation). That is to say, if we understand the present space as the composition of various spaces of power and consumption, and that these spaces rule our lives and control our thoughts, then escaping from the jurisdiction of space becomes a necessary means to get rid of control. Therefore, we can see that with the help of the “Half-Field Project”, Cai Guojie discovered in art practice that there is a boundary between various spaces of power and consumption in real life. This boundary is hidden in the gaps and misplacement of spaces. This boundary has the characteristics of “non-ownership” and “differentiation”. These characteristics make it possible for us to escape from the rule of space. Deleuze called this important way of “Deterritorialisation ” as an “escape line.”

Different from his previous “Half-Field Project”, the artist’s current solo exhibition “Tak Chun Art Garden” in the Macau Art For All Society records and exhibits the continuous re-circulation process after the sale of “a land line” in front of the Tak Chun Macau Art Garden. “Tak Chun Art Garden” is a brand new attempt in the entire “Half-Field Project”. The artist gives up the production control of the work and makes the work flow and spread in nature. As long as humans recognize the exchange of such forms, this project will continue to circulate over time, self-generating, never ending, and is “nomadic” in its nature: the flow of decentralization (de-centering) process and the breeding of aesthetic characteristics. This flowing line in “Tak Chun Art Garden” has become the artist’s determination to resist the structure of the old rule of space, “Deterritorialising” in nomadism, flowing and spreading. This is a new and profound aesthetic attempt.

Shi Wanwan

August 16th, 2019 in Nantong

Curatorial Text of the ” Half-Field Plan ” in Florence


Curator, text: Livia Dubon

Guo Jie Cai’s conceptual and performative work questions the idea of “belonging” related to the concept of ownership. The artist is thus linked to all the literature, starting with Deleuze and Guattari (1972), which sees in capitalist societies the imposition of the market abstract values against more concrete needs. Moving away from this capitalist logic, by “de-territorializing”, the meaning of ‘land’ can change: it is no longer an abstraction, an agreement on a map, but a series of actions that we perform, in response to what surrounds us, stimulated by material necessities. Perhaps it is not the land that belongs to us, but us to her. Like the concept of “de-colonization”, “deterritorialization” aims to remind us of the relativity of these values and the origin of these concepts: they are a product of the Global North. For Cai, the West has a history characterized by continuous mutilation, violence, and reunification in the name of abstract and political borders. With his work, he wants to remind us of the ‘natural’ state and the need to ‘de-territorialize’ so as to see the land as seamless space, free from the desire of ownership. For this reason, Cai explores the cadastral maps, looking for hiatuses of free ownership which, however small, symbolize a different value. The virtual sale of these spaces, reiterating the process of “re-territorialization” of capitalism, aims to mimic and, at the same time, to challenge the action of institutions which represent this process: states and real estate companies.

Luxury Flats, -Cai Guo-jie Solo Exhibition by Chen Kuang-yi

Luxury Flats by Mountain Parks

– Cai Guo-jie Solo Exhibition

Text: Chen Kuang-yi

PhD holder in Contemporary Art History from Paris X Nanterre (University of Paris X Nanterre); Professor of the Graduate School of Fine Arts and Dean of the College of Fine Arts at National Taiwan University of Arts

Liminal

Cai Guo-jie’s ” Half-Field Plan “, originally a site-specific art project on different urban locations, has been going on for more than 10 years -with exhibitions evolving from the Yong Kang Street, Taipei in 2004, the Warehouse No. 20, Taichung in 2005, to the Macao Ox Warehouse in 2015 and the Post-ox Warehouse Experimental Site and the Tap Seac Gallery in Macao in 2018, and then from Florence, Italy the same year to the NIDO Asia gallery in Hong Kong this time.

These maps from Cai, though looking completely different from his previous colourful paintings of cityscapes, originate from the same idea: urban tranformation results in decentralisation, deconstruction and loss of functionality of the city while hindering spatial readability and generating nostalgia among other things. Therefore the maps evoke viewers’ memories about transformations and reconstructions, while also triggering relevant imaginations. It does not matter if they are drawings or a project.

The exhibition shows cadastral maps, city maps and other big maps along with pictures of buildings instead of landscape paintings. This technique of urban depiction was based on a train of thought related to mapping, triggered by Charles Beaudelaire’s concept of flânerie and Guy Debord’s theory of Dérive. These ideas were further developed by Robert Smithson, who had built a system of “sites” and “non-sites”: “sites” refer to specific places in the world characterised as panoramic, borderless, decentralised and incomprehensible territories in which all historical and cultural concepts are nullified; “non-sites” are the museum-based displays of the materials, photographs, maps, survey diagrams, etc. of these specific places, which collectively summarised these geographic sites in an abstract manner.

Early modern artists often regarded maps as a symbol of power. “Maps give men and women the power of gods and captains,” said Robert Storr while curating the exhibition Mapping at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1994. Meanwhile, the global geopolitical instability and the emergence of urban politics have led artists to use cartography to try to visualise gradual power shifts.

In his attempt, Cai Guo-jie does not only address the dialectic relationship between sites and non-sites but also clearly focus on territorial power and ownership rights. The artist presents a large number of cadastral maps (most related to the exhibition location) used in land sales, land contracts and notices of land sales. Moreover, he sets up an office table on which virtual deals could be made, with simulated land purchase contracts being signed between himself /real estate agent and any visitors. As soon as the ‘deal’ is inked, the sold plots would be marked on the maps exhibited. Such ‘performance’, taking place in Hong Kong, a place known for its land shortage and high housing costs, will undoubtedly attract huge public attention, as it addresses thorny local issues like stratospheric home prices, revitalization of old blocks, allocation of public housing and deteriorating living conditions.

However, how can an artist have land resources for sale? Does he have the right to sell them? How does art reveal or expose the issue of urban space allocation, and “show, interpret, work out and reconstruct the power across media and space?” – just as what the artist has proudly claimed.

In my opinion, Cai has cleverly answered this crucial question by introducing the concept of liminality. This anthropological term developed by Victor Turner has been used widely in different senses: in psychology, it means being at a sensory threshold or barely perceptible to the senses; in describing a person, it refers to someone living in between two identities. A liminal space is yet-to-be-defined, contradictory, transitional and in between two things (entre-deux). As a self-dubbed borderline manager, Cai sells “interspaces”, a designation he gives to areas that arise from the inevitable margins of error occurring when dividing land and floor spaces. His act may seem rather absurd and ridiculous, but the idea of selling these barely perceptible, indefinite and transitional spaces as someone in between an artist and real estate agent in a venue that is half-gallery, half-real estate agency makes it poetic, even if it is raising important issues about ownership of urban spaces and the art market economy. The visitors welcome it with open arms because at little cost they can get an imagined space to escape from reality.

Finally, notwithstanding the artist’s performance art and visitors’ participation, it is noteworthy that all the cadastral maps, floor plans and survey diagrams.

《第二現場》—— 作為事件藝術的基本立場

文/石玩玩

2004年,蔡國傑在臺北市的街角商店開始了他具有想像力的的“土地界線販賣計畫”,在之後的十多年裡,蔡國傑不斷的在全世界販賣他的土地:兩塊土地的交界線,一塊隱藏在各種權力空間之間的“無主之地”。只要你願意,你可以向藝術家購買全世界的邊界線。這個後來被正式命名為《半田計畫》提出的是一種藝術家式的土改:權力縫隙裡的土地改革。

這是一件典型的事件藝術,也稱之為在地創作藝術。

事件藝術並不以創造圖像、造型和形式為目的,大多發生在公共環境或者公共議題中,為一次性創作,作品無法離開實際語境,無法複製。作品只能靠圖像、檔、聲音、物證等綜合媒介呈現“事件程序”。所以形式主義藝術家不喜歡事件藝術,首先是因為事件藝術無法提供“形式審美”,而這恰恰是藝術裡很重要的一種審美體驗。在現代主義藝術家看來,作品的生動性是靠形式來完成,形式就是藝術。19世紀末英國藝術評論家克萊夫·貝爾(Clive Bell)曾提出:“藝術是有意味的形式”。形式不是意義的再現,形式本身就是全部。所以我們可以看到很多現代主義作品以形式創新為最重要目標,展廳成為形式的空間現場,也就是邁克爾·弗雷德(Michael Fried)指出的“劇場”。

實際上在現在我們可以看到,這個“劇場”——展覽空間正面著越來越臨標準化和同質化的趨勢,原因是空間的同一性,展廳正在淪為列斐伏爾(Henri Lefebvre)指出的“空間生產”:在工具理性、消費主義裹挾下空間不斷的複製和再生產。例如超級畫廊,紐約展廳和香港展廳時空體驗上是同質的。在這個意義上,空間消滅了時間,空間失去了現場。藝術需要逃離展廳,尋找新的“事件”發生地——一個抵抗同一性和空間生產的現場,即在地創作。

其次,當事件成為藝術時,爭議更大的是:事件是否成為藝術生產的簡單素材?藝術家是否在消費事件?潛在之意是:在事件面前,還需要藝術嗎?法國哲學家阿蘭·巴迪歐(Alain Badiou)認為:“事件是通往真理的途徑”,而事件只在某些特定領域、根據某些條件而發生。有四個這樣的領域:藝術、科學、愛和政治。“事件”不可能在恒定的場所中,只會發生在不穩定的“情境”中,並且“事件本身不可能被(直接)表現”。

2016年至2017年的一年時間,藝術家馬玉江通過收集香港夜宿麥當勞的無家可歸者的消費憑據,完成了他的《夜晚有多重》。在作品展示的這些極短的票據中,透露出這些香港底層勞動者生存空間的拮据。這件作品展示處於高度發達資本主義香港及其特殊的一面:一方面國際化城市空間對底層勞動者生存空間的擠壓;另外一方面消費、生意成為人與人交往的最基礎倫理邏輯。無家可歸者通過最低消費得到夜宿麥當勞的基本理由,而不只是同情和慈善受助。

阿蘭·巴迪歐認為在“在歷史情境中才能出現事件場所”。在馬玉江的作品裡,無家可歸者生存需求與夜間麥當勞空間博弈,構成了事件發生的第一現場(事實)。而藝術家創作的作品構成了“事實”的“顯現”——事件。在地性的現場與展廳構成了一個重要結構關係:歷史場景(情境)中的事實與被顯現出來的事件,也就是第一現場和第二現場。

確立了作品的基本屬性,也就是事情的第二現場,第一現場才能完整,事件才具備“歷史性”。反過來講,沒有第二現場,第一現場只是一般性自然情境、中立情境。阿蘭·巴迪歐認為,事件的發生不是歷史規律的必然結果,歷史規律(所謂客觀真理)恰恰是事件回溯性建構的產物。不是夜宿麥當勞可以解釋馬玉江的《夜晚有多重》,而是《夜晚有多重》這件作品讓“夜宿麥當勞”變得可以解釋。作品的“藝術性”在於最大程度揭示第一現場,建立通往“真理”的途徑。這就是“事件藝術”、“在地性藝術”作為第二現場的基本立場,也是藝術“真理性”的全部意義。

2019年8月18日

于蘇州

識閾與換位-蔡國傑與石玩玩香港雙個展

文/陳貺怡

台灣藝術大學美術學院院長/美術系所專任教授/巴黎第十大學當代藝術史博士

識閾(liminal)

蔡國傑的《半田計劃》,首先是於城市中針對特定地點所進行的場域特定藝術(site-specific art)計劃,歷時十餘年尚在進行中:從2004年台北的永康街、2005年台中的20號倉庫,2015年澳門的牛房倉庫展、2018年澳門後牛房實驗場及塔石藝文館、同年義大利的佛羅倫斯,到這次香港的NIDO ASIA畫廊。蔡國傑曾畫過色彩絢爛的城市風景,然而這些造形表現上看起來截然不同的地圖乃是植基於同樣的立足點:隨著城市的變遷、中心的喪失、結構的解體、城市的失能、空間的難以閱讀,以及隨之而來的對於過往之緬懷等等,促使觀眾萌生來自於情感與記憶深處的變造、重建甚至想像;畫也好,計劃也好。

因此,展場當中的大片地圖、地籍圖、城市地圖、建物照片代替了風景畫;這種據有城市的方法乃是植基於一連串關於「地圖繪制」(mapping)的思考,此一思考始於波特萊爾(Charles Beaudelaire)的「漫遊」(la flânerie)與德波(Guy Debord)的「漂移」(la dérive),而將之發揮到極致的則是建立了「地點」(sites)與「非地點」(non sites)系統的史密斯遜(Robert Smithson):「地點」意指世界中某特定的地點,某塊領土(territory),其特徵是全景的、無邊際、無中心、歷史與文化概念皆失效,難以真正理解。而「非地點」則是此一地點透過物質的搬移、照片、地圖、測量圖表等在美術館中的呈現,它可以被視為是場域的抽象概括。至於晚近的藝術家們,經常將地圖象徵性的視為是權力的標誌,誠如1994年Robert Storr在紐約現代美術館策劃Mapping這個展覽時指出:「地圖賦予男人與女人神祉與船長的權能。」而全球政治地理學(Geopolitical)上的不穩定,以及城市政治學的興起,更促使藝術家們嘗試透過地圖去建構逐漸變化中的權力圖象。

蔡國傑不但試圖涉足於地點與非地點之間的辯證關係,他對於領土的興趣更明顯的聚焦在權力問題上。他在展場中大量展出銷售土地範圍之地籍圖(通常與展覽地點相關)、土地契約、土地買賣公告。他還在現場設置了工作台,由自己或房地產仲介人員與展覽參與者簽訂土地合同、進行真實的買賣,並立即在地圖上標示出已售出的土地。這樣的藝術行為在土地短缺、寸土寸金的香港進行,毫無疑問的將引起高度的關注,並指向錯綜複雜的房價飆升、舊樓重建、公房分配及居住品質等香港居民的切身問題。

然而一個藝術家有何地可賣?有何權力賣地?藝術又如何揭露或顯現城市中的空間分配問題,並如藝術家自許的將權力「在空間媒體跨度中顯現、演繹、鬆動、重建」?依我之見,在這個關鍵性的問題上蔡國傑聰明的帶入的正是「識閾」(liminal)的概念。這個源自於Victor Turner的人類學用語在各個領域被廣泛的應用:在心理學上,指的是位於感知的邊緣,介於幾乎可以察覺即幾乎察覺不到之間;而形容一個人時,指的則是位於兩種身分間隙之間的人。而一個識閾的空間則是一個無法定義、矛盾的、過渡的、介於二者之間(l’entre-deux)的空間。蔡國傑自稱界線管理師,販售的是劃分土地或樓層時因無法解決的誤差而出現的被他稱為「間性空間」的土地。這樣的行為乍看之下相當的荒謬與可笑,但正是因為擺蕩在藝術家與房仲兩種身分之間的他,在介於畫廊與房屋仲介所的展場中,販售那介於可察覺與不可察覺、明確與不明確的過渡空間,使他的行為在嚴肅的詰問城市土地歸屬與藝術市場經濟的同時,頓時變的詩意了起來;而觀眾們也因此而趨之若鶩,因為他們只需以極少的代價,即能從藝術家那裡購得一條介於幻想與真實之間的邊境,作為逃離現實的出口。

最後,還得一提的是,縱使撇開所有藝術家的行為以及觀眾的參與,那獨自留在牆上地上的種種地籍圖、樓層圖、測量圖都標示著某一種終極的繪畫巧合,並提供給畫家一種與視覺再現系統斷裂的工具,介於精准的再現與極度的抽象之間、介於可視與可讀之間。

如是,兩位藝術家的場域特定藝術計劃,皆以城市記憶作為材料,透過識閥與換位的手法,激活觀眾的想像,從而重建與創造出那不斷變動中的香港的真實。

《德晉藝術花園》

《德晉藝術花園》
——蔡國傑個展

前言
“把哲學構想成一種概念的生成,把藝術構想成感性的生成,就是置身於流動、佈置和分送的領域”。
——吉爾·德勒茲




《半田計畫》是藝術家蔡國傑一個極具想像力的藝術計畫。從2004年在臺北實施的《線性商店》開始,蔡國傑借用土地開發銷售模式,在全世界售賣土地版塊之間的邊界線:一個夾雜在各種“權力空間”、“消費空間”之間的 “邊界線”。《半田計畫》在售賣邊界線的遊戲中,提示的卻是一個嚴肅的概念:權力空間與轄域邊界。

何為空間?何為權力空間?上個世紀70年代法國哲學家亨利·列斐伏爾發表《空間的生產》後,學界對空間的認識逐漸從本體論轉向實踐論,認識到在發達資本主義世界,資本借助空間統治了我們生活,這就是 “空間轉向”:在發達資本主義社會,資本已經不滿足於通過生產商品獲得利潤,空間成為生產物件和再生產物件。在空間生產理論的相同的時代背景下,法國哲學家德勒茲與瓜塔里提出了“空間轄域” 與“解轄域化”理論。

“空間轄域” 和“解轄域化”是德勒茲與瓜塔里借助地理學理論提出的美學概念,實際是指人們從現有的慾望空間中逃離的過程(瓜塔里稱之為 解—碼,解—轄域化)。也就是說,如果我們將現在空間理解成各種權力空間和消費空間的組成,這些空間共同在統治著我們的生活、控制著我們的思想,逃離轄域成為擺脫控制的一種必要手段。所以我們可以看到借助《半田計畫》,蔡國傑在藝術實踐中,發現了現實生活中各種權力空間、消費空間之間存在一條邊界。這個邊界隱藏在各種空間的縫隙與錯位中,這個邊界具有“無主性” 與“差異性”的特點,這些特點使得我們逃離空間統治成為可能。德勒茲將這個“解轄域化”中的重要途徑稱之為“逃逸線”。

區別於之前的《半田計畫》,藝術家在這次澳門全藝社的個展《德晉藝術花園》是將澳門德晉藝術花園門前的“一條土地線”售賣後,把不斷再流通的過程記錄下來並展出。《德晉藝術花園》是整個《半田計畫》中的一個全新嘗試,藝術家放棄作品的生產控制,讓作品在自然中流淌,蔓延。只要人類認可交換這樣的形式,這個計畫會隨著時間不斷流通,自我生成,永無止境,具有“遊牧性”:去中心化(解中心)過程中的流動、滋生的美學特點。《德晉藝術花園》中這個流動的線,成為了藝術家抵抗舊有空間統治的結構的決心,在流動、蔓延、遊牧中“解轄域化”。這是一種全新又非常深刻的美學嘗試。

石玩玩

2019年8月16日於南通

《半田計劃》駐佛羅倫斯的策展文


策展人,文:Livia Dubon

蔡國傑的作品提出了歸屬概念與所有權概念相關的問題。因此,藝術家的構
思與一本著作所有內容均有關,從德勒茲和古塔里(1972)的《反俄狄浦斯:資
本主義與精神分裂》中提到,在資本主義社會中,人們認為市場抽象的價值與具
體的需求相違背。從資本主義的邏輯出發,通過去領土化的方式,「土地」的含
義可以改變:它不再是一個抽象,一個地圖上的協議,而是一系列我們所執行的
行動,以回應物質生活所影響的東西。也許這片土地不是屬於我們的,反而是連
同我們一切東西都屬於該土地的。就像「去殖民化」的概念一樣,「去域化」旨
在提醒我們這些價值觀的相關性和這些概念的起源:它們是北方世界的產物。對
蔡國傑來說,西方有一段歷史,以抽象和政治邊界的名義,以不斷的破壞、暴力
和統一為特徵。在他的作品中,他想要提醒我們“自然”的狀態和「去地域化」
的需要,以便把土地看作是一個無縫的空間,沒有所有權的欲望。基於這個原因,
蔡國傑探索了地籍地圖,尋找自然的空間土地的擁有權,無論多麼小,它象徵著
不同的價值。這些空間的虛擬銷售,重申了資本主義的「重新定位」的過程,目
的是模仿並同時挑戰代表這一過程的機構的行為:國家和房地產公司。

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started