夏天裡，我與朋友參觀了古根漢美術館的新展《藝術執照：古根漢收藏六面觀》，這是古根漢首次邀請藝術家參與策展，展覽頗為帶出了一些新鮮的視角與獨特的觀點。
展覽一共展出了美術館三百多件20世紀的現當代藝術館藏，六個單元分別由曾經在該美術館舉辦個展的六位重量級藝術家策展，包括蔡國強（Cai Guo-Qiang）、陳佩之（Paul Chan）、珍妮．霍爾澤（Jenny Holzer）、朱莉．梅雷圖（Julie Mehretu）、理察．普林斯（Richard Prince）和嘉莉．美．威姆斯（Carrie Mae Weems）。不難發現，有些藝術家相當熟悉策展的語言和規範，學術味十足，但對我來說，更有意思的是理察．普林斯和蔡國強策展的單元，兩者乍看都不怎麼「當代」，只有在細看展覽介紹以及對藝術家創作脈絡有一定了解的情況下，才看出展覽的趣味甚至是尖銳的視角。
理察．普林斯是個充滿爭議性的當代藝術家，他的創作往往是截取他人的Instagram圖像打印出售，而且售價不菲，將藝術市場與互聯網時代版權的灰色地帶玩弄於股掌之中。在《執照》中，他展出了四、五十年代世界各地一些非常相似的抽象繪畫，看似與他個人的創作分離，但其實他在追問：二戰後，抽象表現主義被奉為美國自由主義社會的象徵，但這種藝術表現手法真的是美國「原創」的嗎？還是具有更廣泛的普遍性？這其實延續着普林斯對原創性、著作權以及價值構建體系的思考：誰擁有圖像或藝術的著作權？它的價值是如何被構建出來的？普林斯還展出了一組與抽象表現主義大師傑克遜．波洛克相關的作品，一件是館藏的波洛克原作，另一件則是普林斯個人收藏的波洛克仿作。如果沒有仔細查看作品說明，仿作很容易會被誤認為是重要館藏，而諷刺的是，誰說這件仿作不會因為這次展出而名留藝術史？
蔡國強策展的單元同樣充滿玩味而不失尖銳。蔡是第一位能夠在古根漢美術館舉辦個展的華裔藝術家，「非．品牌」的策展主題，表明了他試圖探討藝術體系中的品牌構建與權力構建的野心。從展示上來看，他回到了20世紀以前流行的一種「沙龍式」展覽方式（如圖），摒棄現代藝術展覽的範式，為藝術去魅，幫助觀眾看見藝術史上那些「未經包裝」的作品。而從作品的選取來看，他不僅只展出了藝術家的早期作品，還「魚目混珠」地置入了一些個人的早期創作，挑戰策展的客觀性與學術性─如此打破禁忌，無非為了假設另一種藝術史書寫的可能，以策展虛構現實，最大程度地行使一個藝術家的自由與權利。
認真地追究起來，藝術執照談的是甚麼？它是一紙文憑還是長長的藝術履歷？它賦予了藝術家自由還是規訓？權利還是義務？我想這個展覽中已包含了不少耐人尋味的回答。
原載於 C2文創誌 第三十五期
During the summer, my friend and I visited a new exhibition named Artistic License: Six Takes on the Guggenheim Collection at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City. This is the first-ever artist-curated exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum which provides some interesting and unique perspectives on particular art topics.
Artistic License: Six Takes on the Guggenheim Collection exhibits a total number of over 300 contemporary and modern art pieces from the last century through six units. The six units are curated by six heavyweight artists respectively who had exhibited at the Guggenheim Museum before. They are Cai Guo-Qiang, Paul Chan, Jenny Holzer, Julie Mehretu, Richard Prince and Carrie Mae Weems. It is apparent that these artists are very familiar with the language and standards of curating art exhibitions. Their final works are like textbook standard. As for me, the most interesting units are the ones from Richard Prince and Cai Guo-Qiang. The exhibition units do not seem to fit the contemporary and modern exhibition theme. Only when the visitors read the information about the exhibition or have a general understanding of the two artists’ art philosophy will they recognise the fun elements and the hidden messages behind the art pieces.
Richard Prince is a controversial contemporary artist. His works of art are often products of screenshots of Instagram pictures and are sold at an expensive price. It seems that he is playing with social media and the art market making use of the grey areas in the intellectual property law. At Artistic License, he exhibits abstract paintings collected during the 1940s and 1950s around the world. The exhibiting art pieces seemingly have styles that are very different from his own artistic expression. Prince is, in fact, questioning the assumption that abstract expressionism is an artistic expression originated from the U.S. “Is it really originated from the U.S.? Or there is a universality to it?” these are the questions Prince is asking. In fact, these essential questions are an extension of Richard Prince’s critical reflection on originality, intellectual property and value system. “Who has the ownership of images or works of art? How their value was constructed?” Richard Prince also showcases a collection of art pieces that are related to Jackson Pollock, the renowned abstract expressionist in the last century. One art piece from the collection is an original work from Pollock while the other is from Prince’s personal replica collection of Pollock’s artworks. If you don’t look closely and read the information about the displaying items, it is very easy for you to mistake the replica for an authentic artwork from Pollock. Even more ironically, it remains unknown whether this replica would become famous in the art field because of the exhibition.
Cai Guo-Qiang’s exhibition unit is powered by fun elements and sharp artistic expression as well. Cai is the first Chinese artist to curate a solo show at the Guggenheim Museum. Naming his show Non-Brand, Cai aims to explore brand building and authority establishment in the art world. When it comes to the exhibition layout, Cai seemingly adopted a salon-like exhibition design that was popular in the 20th century, refusing to conform to the modern exhibition standards and simplifying the exhibition of artworks. This provides visitors with the opportunity to see the unbranded artworks in art history. Cai not only selected different artists’ early works but also put some of his own early creations in the exhibition to challenge the idea that exhibitions should be academic and objective. He wants to explore another possibility of how art history can be presented by breaking the traditions and standards and constructing a virtual reality. Cai is maximising his freedom and rights as an artist.
Let’s think deeper about this. What does Artistic License really talk about? Is it just pieces of proof or is it an artistic portfolio? Does it empower artists to have more freedom of does it promote more disciplines? Is it about rights or obligations? I believe a number of meaningful answers are already embedded in the exhibition.
Source: C2 Issue35