Art ＆ 轉型正義 (I)

前些時候在「Café Philo 哲學星期五」聽了一場一位建築師友人謝文貴的演講，談的題目是「中正紀念堂更名事件-談建築做為威權象徵及空間轉型正義」。演講內容中談到德國藝術家 Guenther Demnig從1994年至今在歐洲各地持續進行的公共藝術計畫 “Stolperstein”，中文意為「絆腳石」，是一個有關反省德國納粹時期人權迫害、追念受害者的一個都市人行空間鋪面裝置計畫。Demnig為納粹時期被國家不當暴力拘捕的人民當時住宅外的人行道上設置石塊鋪面，上面雕鑿受害者的名字、生日、受害日期，刑度、歿日等資料。一顆石頭記錄一個受害者，花費大約一百歐元，任何個人或團體皆可參與贊助此一活動。這個計畫從科隆開始，柏林接著推廣，現已擴及全德580個城市，共有九個國家共襄盛舉，至今總共設置約28，000顆石頭。這是一個人民可以普遍參與的藝術-政治行動，也讓所有市民皆能對於過往的歷史能感同身受，體會到國家暴力曾經就在你身邊肆虐。文貴兄的講題也是作為當代藝術的研究者的我深感興趣的題目，我不禁再度反省轉型正義這個課題在台灣當代藝術領域裡，是如何地被看待？ 

轉型正義一詞沸沸揚揚地出現在台灣各種論談中，大致開始於解嚴後的九零年代初期，當時的政治語彙聚焦點，無可避免地落在與台灣政權轉換有直接關聯、發生於 1947年的「二二八事件」。不僅行政院在1990年年底成立「二二八事件專案小組」，小組委員更主動建議政府協同民間觀點組成建碑委員會為二二八籌建紀念碑，並於 1992年 2月 26日成立「二二八建碑委員會」，當年九月公告的二二八紀念碑設計圖徵選辦法更被視為是台灣史上最大規模的藝術徵件行動，然而整個徵選過程，不同主事者對紀念主體的認定，與所使用的紀念象徵語言嚴重欠缺共識的現實下，過程中可說是爭議不斷。[1] 儘管徵選結果，在隔年決選出建築師王俊雄與藝術家鄭自財共同提案的「生命與歷史的象徵」一作後暫告一段落，然而這個事件也突顯出台灣藝文界向來對二二八事件，甚至整個台灣歷史，對話匱乏的事實。誠如歷史學者蕭瓊瑞在1998年寫道：「歷史真實的凝視與歷史圖像的形塑，對歷來的台灣文化工作者而言，是陌生而不必要，甚至是危險而多餘的」。[2] 

相近時期另一個也是由官方主導紀念二二八的美術事件，是在 1996 – 1999 年間由台北市政府主辦，台北市立美術館承辦一連四屆的「二二八紀念美展」。當時北美館的主事者也曾盡力主張其藝術專業之立場，試圖以多樣化的角度來回顧、紀念、檢視、再現這個歷史事件，因而每屆提出不同的策展主題，並邀請不同的客座策展人，期望能藉此為二二八事件灌注多元的觀看、理解的可能。從首屆展覽的直接呈現受難者及其家屬、好友的作品、事件的直接剪報、漫畫文件等，到關懷較為隱性的受害族群，亦即是「二二八被遺忘的女性」觀點的第二屆展覽，乃至於邀請「後二二八世代」的創作者重新進入歷史，以其本身慣用的形式修辭提出各自對二二八的思考並製作新作；甚至是重建「歷史現場」讓藝術家再度「見證、反思、再生」進行創作。[3] 回顧這段歷史，壓縮在短短四年間的對二二八的反覆咀嚼、提煉與質問，雖然相當程度地呈顯出個別藝術家多元創作能量的潛力，但是否已能達到透過藝術凝聚「對和平的期待，將歷史悲情昇華」的終極目標，則仍存疑。 

維基百科對「轉型正義」開宗明義的解釋是「民主國家（尤其東歐民主國家）對過去政府違法和不正義行為的彌補，通常具有司法、歷史、行政、憲法、賠償等面向。」一般說來，對轉型正義的關注，通常是先發生在政治的場域裡，而且往往伴隨著政權板塊的位移，也就是新的民主政權取代了獨裁或極權政權之後的歷史回顧與全面檢討。在民主不夠深化的國家裡，因為舊有的政權在既存的社會結構中仍保有其影響力，如果歷史沒有被仔細檢討，亦即德國經驗裡所謂的Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung（是個中性名詞，直譯為對「過往」（Vergangenheit）的「掌握、解決」（bewaeltigung），轉型正義便極容易淹沒在統治權的角力當中，相對的弱化了對歷史、真相、社會公平與正義等具普世性價值的深沉反思與熱切追求，進而粹練出感動人心，甚至是足以構成殷鑑的藝術作品（當然也包括文學與建築作品）。 

為什麼在開啓一個新藝術網站的時刻要談論一個歷史性的問題呢？ 

因為我認為當代藝術一個重要的面相，就是對藝術具有(政治、社會)力量（sociopolitical power）的信仰；從美術史的角度而論，當藝術家選擇揮別現代藝術對純粹形式美學的眷戀後，就意味著他們意圖對當下的社會或政治問題作出回應，並企望與社會溝通甚至進行改變，所以，對一個以討論當代藝術為主的網站而言，對當今社會，政治，文化的歷史回溯是無可迴避的。從這個角度而言，轉型正義對藝術家而言，可以不必然是對過去的不公義進行直接地反擊、抗爭。相反地，我期待透過藝術的力量或可能見證人類歷史幽晦的反覆本質，或藉以回復（recover），再發現（dis-cover）被主流歷史刻意摒除的個別故事，進而產生撫慰的同理心，或激勵繼續生存的勇氣。在此觀點上，近來多位藝術家的作品，都可以視為是對公義社會的追求與實踐。剛獲第11屆台新藝術獎提名的藝術家陳界仁 2012年的創作計劃「幸福大厦」，隱喻士林文林苑的王家事件，同時也自省藝術創作裡的勞力分工問題。第八屆台新藝術大獎得主建築師盧建銘和甫去世的藝術家許淑真的「植物新樂園：從菜園中誕生、河岸阿美的物質世界」，直接投入原住民部落撒烏瓦知部落的重建，他們透過建屋、植栽文化復育的參與，重構了該部落的文化與歷史記憶。電影導演蔡明亮為北師美術館序曲展所創作的短片「化生」，蔡導忠實地以自己精練的影像藝術語言，冷靜凝視二二八事件裡最具象徵性的畫面 -- 前輩畫家陳澄波被處決後的照片。而這只是幾個顯著的例子而已。 

這些近期而鮮明的藝術事例，更讓我相信在開啟象徵著新時代網路精神的當代藝術對話平台 “ArTalks” 的同時，回顧「藝術的轉變力量」這個歷史性的命題，是亙古而彌新的。 

[1] 有關二二八紀念碑徵選的背景與過程，可參見＜二二八紀念碑設計作品專輯＞，二二八建碑委員會，1994.2，台北。 

[2] 蕭瓊瑞，「後二二八世代與二二八–從建碑到美展的思考」，11頁。 

[3] 參見北美館出版：「回顧與省思–二二八紀念美展」(1996)、「悲情昇華 - 二二八美展」（1997）、「凝視與形塑–後二二八世代的歷史觀察」（1998）、「歷史現場與圖像–見證、反思、再生」（1999）。 

Not long ago during “Friday Philosophy at Café Philo” I listened to a speech by an architect friend of mine, Hsieh Wen-kui, titled “Changing the Name of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall – a Discussion of Architecture as Authoritarian Symbolism and Spatial Transitional Justice.” During the talk, Hsieh mentioned German artist Guenther Demnig’s “Stolperstein,” an ongoing public art project acrossEuropethat started in 1994. The “stumbling blocks” used in this work are part of an urban space art installation that creates small, cobblestone-sized memorials to commemorate individual victims of Nazism. Demnig installs these in the pavements outside the residences of those violently detained by the state during the Nazi era and on each one is carved the name, year of birth, fate as well as dates of deportation and death if known. Each stone costs about 100 Euros and the artist welcomes sponsorship from individuals or groups. The project started inCologne, expanded toBerlinand has since been welcomed by 580 cities acrossGermanyand a total of nine countries, with about 28,000 stones so far installed. In essence, the project is an art-political event in which people anywhere can take part, it also enables urban residents to experience history first hand and be more aware of the brutality of state violence so close to home. As a researcher of contemporary art, I was particularly interested in Hsieh’s talk and moved to reflect on how the issue of transitional justice is viewed in contemporary art circles inTaiwan. 

The use of the term “transitional justice” in Taiwancan broadly be traced back to the post Martial Law era in the early 1990s. Back then, most of the political discourses were unavoidably connected to the transition of political power and the “228 Incident” in 1947. Not only did the Executive Yuan establish a “228 Incident Taskforce” in 1990, members of the taskforce proposed that the government should coordinate with popular opinion in forming a preparatory committee for the establishment of a 228 memorial monument. This led to the formation of the “228 Memorial Monument Committee” in 1992. In September 1992, the “228 Memorial Monument Design Competition Measures” were announced, in what was the largest artistic competition of its kind in Taiwan. However, given the lack of consensus over the themes and symbolic language to be incorporated into a memorial, the process was fraught with difficulties and contention.¹ Although these disputes were temporarily shelved the following year with the selection of the “Symbol of Life and History” proposed by architects Wang Chun-hsiung and Cheng Tzu-tsai, this highlighted the lack of dialogue in artistic and cultural circles in Taiwan over the 228 Incident and Taiwanese history in general. As historian Hsiao Chong-ray wrote in 1998: “Over the years a focus on historical reflection and reconsideration has been strange and unnecessary or even dangerous and superfluous for those working in the field of culture in Taiwan.” ² 

Another officially-initiated commemorative art event at about the same time, was the “228 Art Exhibition” sponsored by the TaipeiCitygovernment, and staged at the TaipeiFineArtsMuseumfrom 1996-1999. Despite the obvious political agenda behind the organization of the exhibition, the museum had attempted to introduce an artistic perspective in reflecting the issue by adopting multiple points of view in remembering, commemorating, examining and re-presenting this history. To achieve this goal, different guest curators were invited to develop a theme for each edition. Beginning with the first edition that directly showcased the artworks by the victims, their family members and friends, along with newspaper clippings, cartoons and articles to bring light into the hidden victims of the incident in “The Forgotten Women of the 228 Incident”, the theme of the 2^nd edition of the 228 Art Exhibition. Furthermore, in the 3^rd edition, the younger generation, the so-called “post 228 Generation”, were invited to revisit the history and then to provide artwork begotten from their reflection or interpretation of the Incident. Efforts were even made to recreate the “historical scene” thereby enabling artists to “witness, reflect on and be inspired by” the historical incident.³ In retrospect, although the repeated focus on the 228 Incident in this four year period showcased the diverse creativity and potential of individual artists, whether it achieved its ultimate objective of using art to “hope for peace and transform historical sadness” remains open to question. 

Wikipedia defines the term “transitional justice” as a remedy undertaken by democratic countries (especially those in Eastern Europe) to make up for the former illegal or unjust actions of its government, that is often accompanied by legal, historical, administrative, constitutional and compensatory aspects. Generally speaking, the initial focus on transitional justice tends to take place in the political arena and frequently follows a major shift in political power, for example the historical reflection and retrospection that comes when a democratically elected government replaces an authoritarian or totalitarian regime. However, in countries where the roots of democracy are not deep, the fact that members of the old political regime retain influence in society means that a failure to discuss history can lead to what the Germans call “Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung” (literally, to control, or solve (i.e. bewaeltigung) the past (i.e. Vergangenheit)). In such situations, transitional justice can be overwhelmed by the struggle for power, which weakens the depth of reflection and pursuit of such universal values as truth, social fairness and justice. This in turn makes it difficult to create works of art (including, of course, literature and architecture) that people find moving or that can teach us lessons about the past. 

Why is it important to address such historical issues as we launch a new art website? 

Because I believe that one crucial attribute of contemporary art lies in the belief of art’s power of social change. From the perspective of the art history, when contemporary artists chose to wave goodbye to their sentimental attachment to the purely formal aesthetics of modern art, they already made the statement of their intention to respond to current social or political issues and a desire to communicate with and even change society. As such, it is unavoidable that a website featured on contemporary art will reflect on the historical origins of the society, politics and culture of today. However, for artists, transitional justice does not necessarily involve directly attacking or struggling against the injustices of the past. On the contrary, I am hoping to see how the power of art may unveil the obscured essence of the repetitive human history, or may recover, and dis-cover those individual stories that are oft disregarded by mainstream history, and thereby may elicit comforting empathy and encourage the continued existence of such courage.

As a matter of fact, over the past few years many contemporary Taiwanese artists’ works may be viewed as part of a larger effort to realize social justice. The artist Chen Chieh-jen’s project “Happiness Building,” nominated for the 11^th Taishin Arts Award, alluded to the Wang family incident in Taipei’s Shilin District (in which the family home was razed as part of an eminent domain claim). Simultaneously, Chen’s project also reflects more specifically on the division of labor involved in the creation of so-called collaborative art projects nowadays. Another conspicuous example is the 8^th Taishin Arts Award recipient “Plant-Matter NeoEden: Born in a Vegetable Patch & Material World in the Amis Tribe of Riverbank,” collaborated between architect Lu Chien-ming and visual artist Hsu Shu-chen. This project directly involved in the rebuilding of Sa’owac settlement, an outcast urban aborigine group. However, the artists’ ambition is not only limited to the rebuilding of houses for the expelled indigenous people, but rather through planting the indigenous flora they hope to help revive the historical memory, or even, to reconstruct the nearly-lost living culture of the Sa’owac tribe. At the juncture of starting this platform, the film director Tsai Ming-liang coincidentally produced a short film entitled “Transformation”, in which he used his own unique visual rhetoric to shed new light to the most reproduced image of the 228 Incident – a photograph of the remains of painter Chen Cheng-po after being executed. 

These recent artistic examples convince me that it is timely and appropriate to look back to the history and to ask the aged question of the transformative power of art at the launching of the ArTalks, an online platform for contemporary art.

Moreover, these are just a few of the most obvious examples.

1.   For more details on the background and process of the “228 Memorial Design Competition” see “228 Memorial Design Work Catalogue” (二二八紀念碑設計作品專輯), “228 Memorial Committee” (二二八建碑委員會), February 1994, Taipei. 

2.   Hsiao Chong-ray “228 Incident and the Post 228 Generation – A Few Thoughts on Establishing a Memorial and an Art Exhibition” (後二二八世代與二二八–從建碑到美展的思考), p11. 

1. See “Remembrance and Reflection: 228 Commemorative Exhibition” (1996), “Sadness Transformed: 228 Commemorative Exhibition” (1997), “Reflection and Reconsideration: Historical Observations of the Post 228 Generation” (後二二八世代的歷史觀察) (1998) and Historical
   Event Remapping: Witnesses, Reflections, Revivals” (1999), published by Taipei Fine Arts Museum.