透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.17.150.163
  • 學位論文

藝術田野踏查--以許淑真與盧建銘的共同創作為地圖

The Field Research of Art Mapping by Collaboration Creations of Hsu Su-Chen and Lu Chien-Ming

指導教授 : 徐文瑞
共同指導教授 : 陳愷璜(Kai-Huang Chen)

摘要


本文試圖以台灣近代以來的公共文化政策與藝術創作的脈絡,對於在當代藝術內產生的針對「人」與「社群」之藝術田野調查進行研究分析。 「田野調查」源自於人類學對「他者」的研究。古典人類學來自於歐洲殖民時期,白人對於非白人的人種、文化、社會進行的調查書寫,因此遭受種族主義、殖民霸權等批判。直到八零年代詮釋人類學所進行的反思,將原命題「在地者觀點」的書寫角度轉換為「是誰的在地觀點?」開啟具自我反身性民族誌的修正人類學,也進一步納入研究者所代表的社會文化成長背景,從「深度訪談」的報導方式轉變為「深度描述」的第一人稱觀點。廣義的田野工作其實便是「對於他者(任何事物)產生問題意識進而開始研究」的方法。 而在台灣近十年內的當代藝術活動中也經常可以看到人類學或社會學的田野調查方法論的挪用,如許淑真與盧建銘的「植物新樂園:從菜園中誕生、河岸阿美的物質世界」,侯淑姿的「亞洲新娘之歌」,陳界仁的「殘響世界」等。本文試圖釐清藝術創作者與社會科學研究者在終端產出的分歧上將導致田野過程上有哪些不同。但藝術田野真的是解決一切藝術在邁入後現代過程所產生的問題的萬靈丹嗎?Clair Bishop在《人造地獄》中對於近來全球當代藝術圈對「參與」一詞的熱衷提出批評,並對跨界的可能進行反思與評斷。本文以許淑真和盧建銘的共同創作「植物新樂園」系列作品作為主要案例,並與關係美學相關理論文獻、社造政策互相參照,勾勒藝術田野的可能面貌。

並列摘要


This paper attempts to focus on the context of Taiwan public cultural policy and art works and tries to analysis the art fieldwork of "people" and "community" in contemporary art. Field research came from Anthropological study of "otherness". Classical anthropology came from Europe during the colonial period, white men survey non-white races, culture, societies, therefore it criticized from racism, colonial hegemony. Until the eighties anthropological interpretation of reflection carried out, the original proposition “The local views" writing angle is converted to "Whose point of views on the place?" Turn all self-reflexive ethnography anthropology amendment also included further researchers represents the social and cultural backgrounds, the reports manner "depth interview" is converted to "thick description" of the first-person point of view. Widely fieldwork in fact is “Studies with the problem comes from looking at otherness.” In Taiwan's contemporary art scene in the last decade also used fieldwork methodology of anthropology or sociology, such as Hsu Shu-chen & Lu Chien-ming with the "Plant-Matter NeoEden: born from the garden, and the material world of Amis “," Song of Asian Foreign Brides in Taiwan“ by Hou Shur-tzy, "Realm of Reverberations “by CHEN Chieh-Jen. This paper attempts to clarify how the creators of art and social science researchers in terminal output lead differences. But the art fieldwork really is a good way to fix everything? Clair Bishop in the "artificial hell" mentioned that the the global contemporary arts chasing “participation" are all the rage, she made criticism and judgments about the possibilities of cross-border. This paper based on Lu Chien-Ming & Hsu Shu-Chen’s co-authoring "New Plant Paradise" series of works, and the relationship between aesthetic theory literature, social policy ,outlining what might art field looks like.

參考文獻


廖億美(2006),《藝術介入公共領域的創造性關係—一個台灣環境運動的視野》,臺北藝術大學藝術行政與管理研究所碩士論文。
畢恆達《女學學誌:婦女與性別研究》第20期,2005年12月。
Claire Bishop. 《Artificial Hells》(2012),ISBN-10: 1844676900
吳瑪悧、謝明學、梁錦鋆 譯 (2006)。《對話性創作:現代藝術中的社群與溝通》。台北:遠流。Kester, Grant H. (2004). Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art.
黃珮玲、黃恩霖 譯(2010)。《傷心人類學:易受傷的觀察者》。群學。Ruth Behar(1997) The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart

延伸閱讀