利物浦双年展Lorenzo Fusi的访谈

(Scroll down for English)

汪单：信心中心是我参观今年利物浦双年展的第一个展场。印象很深刻！我记得2008年的双年展场地仅限于一些常规的艺术机构，比如利物浦泰特美术馆，Fact，Bluecoat等。而今年选择了Renshaw街道作为利物浦双年展的主会场。我想知道是怎么样的过程？

Lorenzo Fusi: 整个过程分好几个层面。每一种情况都是因地制宜得。在某些情况下，我们已经对空间有一个设想。但是我不是说根据场地来选择艺术家得。整个过程更像是一种引导而不是指令。整个主展场是到最后一刻才确定下来得。在两年前我刚到的时候，我就关注这座建筑。随着时间的推移，这个地方的雇主搬走了，大楼被摈弃了。（利物浦双年展）非常想用这个地方。但是和房产商经过了很复杂的一个沟通。比如说，我们在展览开幕前三周才签下了合约。所以我并不能完全设计整个会场。在展览中有一个很重要的部分是反思交易，其思想体现于整个大楼的底层，直接连接了视觉，心理学和窗外的街道。而这个想法是确认了场地之后才迸发得。所以很多想法是确认场地后而加强得。

单：我认为很多作品都是根据场地而产生得(Site-specific)。艺术家在做作品之前，对场地做了很多调研吗？

Lorenzo: 我现在对这一概念之艺术家根据场地而做作品是有一点抵制得。尽管这一概念在80和90年代盛行，但是我不认为现在还那么重要了。往往一件作品根据一个特定的语境而做却不能传达到其他的语境下。有时候作品被实际环境引导或是指示，比如建筑，空间或是一个特殊场合。作品符合一个特定的语境，但是我觉得不是唯一的艺术创作方法。正如我所说的那样，大部分的双年展场地到最后才核实。艺术家在准备作品前，走访了利物浦。我们（利物浦双年展）也提供了很多可能性的场地和相应的理论来支持艺术家的创作。在刚起步的时候，我们更注重一个理念，主题，方法和艺术家的反馈。然后，实施方案和最后完成作品是因场地而产生得。所以，策展思路在一个具体的语境中要明确。就实施而言，具体的选择是根据公共空间而订得。

单： 我还记得第一天到这里的时候，利物浦双年展主席Lewis Biggies给我做了一个简短的介绍。其中有一个 策展思路是在这样的环境下，模糊艺术作品和非艺术品。我发现这栋大楼仍保留了原来的内部装潢，比如破旧的墙纸，灯泡和插座。有时候在没有作品标签的情况下，我无法清晰的分辨出是艺术作品还是一件物品。

Lorenzo： 可能会在公共环境下，因为整个展览占据了这个空间。所以你会认为大部分的物品都是这个展览中的。但是你可以想到一个艺术项目，如果在墙外，街道，在公共空间里的元素或是规则让你觉得更真实，视觉上更兴奋。这些往往强于一件艺术作品。

单：那场地和艺术作品到底是什么关系？尤其是在这个展览下，又意味着什么？

Lorenzo: 我认为保留原有这座建筑的记忆，保留原有的精神。所以我们保留了原来的建筑内部装修。我认为这建筑物本身的魅力强于艺术作品。历史的沉淀和丰富的经历富有感情地在这栋楼里。重新装修这栋楼会是一个错误。

单：那艺术的介入在这建筑里体现了什么作用？艺术能激活这座建筑吗？

Lorenzo: 我认为艺术在这座建筑关闭之后体现了一个很重要的作用。这座建筑本来是利物浦的城市中心。而现在远离了人们的视线。利物浦双年展希望通过展览能让人们重新关注这座建筑。就政治决策而言，我们提出了一个观点：一个矛盾的情况是在城市新大楼建设的同时，老旧却仍可用的楼房被废弃了。所以在一个公共空间，你要尽量突出空间中每一个可及之处。因为它们是城市中的元素。因此，利物浦双年展在房产关闭之后体现了一个很重要的作用。这个地段变得越来越穷苦，社会活动远离了这个地方。有这块房产的人们至今还在挣扎中。
Reshaw街曾经代表利物浦的辉煌如今在自我破坏。企业商很高兴心利物浦双年展选择了此地做展览。这低迷的地段因为双年展的介入而被激活了。

单：利物浦双年展之后，这个地方会变成什么样了？

Lorenzo：很不幸的是这个不是双年展能决定得。首先，这座房产会从卖商手中重新利用。我猜想其中一个可能性是被作为商务利用。如果让我决定的话，我希望会是一个城市委员会。作为一个政治决定的话，我希望是一系列关于当代文化中心，像是艺术家工作室或是文化活动场所。因为它的地段是在城市的中心，离车站又很近。它可以是多功能的场地。但是双年展的介入其实体现了一个可实施的途径，它体现了不同的可能性。

单：利物浦双年展的策展思路让我联想到在今年夏天我在上海地铁策划的展览《海世盛楼》。我简明扼要地说一下，希望能听听你的意见。《海世盛楼》的策划主题是探寻在世博会期间的真实上海。展览的场地非常有挑战性。一方面，它是一个换乘通道，每天有10万的客流量。而且针对的群众是普通乘客。另一方面，在换乘通道里有四十七个灯箱，平时是展示商业海报得。现在灯箱片换成了艺术作品。其整个场地限制了艺术表现形式即二维的图像。我后来和地铁公司协商把作品介绍牌贴到了艺术作品的边上，为此让乘客们能进一步了解每一幅品。在某些程度上，我想通过介绍牌把艺术作品和普通的广告区分开来。

Lorenzo：我认为在普通情况下，当你在公共空间做展览的时候，你要对整个作品有信心，不要急着去解释作品。艺术作品应该能自我阐述观点。如果一件作品需要人为的解释，我不觉得是一件好作品。我认为公共艺术不需要太多的标注解释。应该是有一个其他的方法让更多人了解作品，比如网站或是传单。与此同时，这是一件很矛盾的事如果你想把教育放进公共领域，你又希望有更多的交流，为什么不选择美术馆或是画廊。在公共空间，你要面对的是到处矛盾的信息会迷惑艺术作品的呈现。


单：我的情况是当时没有很多展览信息。我有幸与一些乘客交流，他们发现这个空间有所改变，但是不知道到底哪里变了。也没有认为那些海报是一系列艺术作品。

Lorenzo：当你在操作展览时，最初你就要很清楚地意识到将要表达什么。从策展角度来谈，在最初开展项目时，就要预计到会遇到的情况和你能提供的最大限度的信息。很多方面是要在展览实施之前就考虑到得。如今，许多国家，地区已经高度信息程序化了，人们可以直接通过像网络那样渠道去了解他们想知道的资讯。但是在公共领域，我不觉得你可以做得到像那样直接传达你的艺术思想。没有一个引导性或结构完整的方法。美学，美感或是兴奋点在公共领域是有一定的限制得，你必须要妥协你所能用的语言。

单：在这样的情况下，你认为策展人有必要去引导观众吗？

Lorenzo：我觉得在个人的认识上应该是自由得。当然，你希望把自己所能表达的传递给别人。艺术家不应该只有一种方法去表达自己的作品，策展人也不应该用一种眼观去看待一件作品。它应该是多元得。就像你在写一篇论文，你把力所能及的表达出来，但这些仅仅是你的视角。我的想法却恰恰想法。如果是一件作品能开拓人们的视野，那会更有意思。甚至对作品的理解是你重来没有想到过得。这使作品的意义更为丰富了。在这个展览里，我最喜欢的是具有观众有不同的解释和体验的作品。有时这是一个推敲的过程。我想这样的方式比仅仅一种解读有趣得多。

单： 你怎么看审查制度得？在这边还存在吗？我之前和艺术家Peter Mcdonald 聊过这个问题。他曾经在伦敦地铁做过一个项目。他告诉我在实施前，策展人很清楚地告诉他什么样的画面是不可以放上去得。这有一个很清晰的标准。而我在做上海地铁项目时，审核制度是很模糊得。直到艺术家做出作品之后，我才知道是否能被展出。

Lorenzo：审查这个话题是很有趣但是有时候也很可怕。我个人有类似的经历。审查制度是有一定的模式得。于此同时，当你实施的时候，审核变得间接。尽管现在是民主得，目的都是有利于集体，有一个很好的许诺。但还是有很多碰撞得。甚至艺术形式上也有限制。给你一个例子，否则不是很清楚地知道我在讲什么。比如，艺术家Tala Madani在公共场所用BBC屏幕放映一系列的动画片。你知道BBC这样的国家广播台是有很严格的规章制度得，这些规章是根据保护儿童制定得。而这部动画片在我看来是非常讽刺和玩乐性得。里面有很强烈的信息，但这些不是我们所经历的那种暴力。在某种程度上，我期待着最为解放的审查制度。但是BBC不准放映这部动画片，理由是不适合儿童。所以就如我所说的，审查是有不同的评估和层面，并不是说什么是不能说得。而是你要发现新的方法去自由的表现。

单：如果我回归艺术创作，你认为策展人或是艺术家在做展览之前，必须要考虑到什么样的观众吗？

Lorenzo：要知道你是针对什么样的观众。这是很关键得！但是于此同时，我不认为这是绝对限制得。否则观众会理解偏差或是影响了作品的可能性。所以在委任项目或是做作品时，并不是只有唯一的方法。这有不同的方法去针对审核制度。在大量的限制中，如果我们服从严谨的标准，很容易就通过审核了。有时候机构不允许或是禁止某些作品，因为这些作品不适合某些特定的语境。在这样的情况下，策展人必须意识到这样的情况，并且避免无用的冲突，矛盾和不必要的压力。


Lorenzo Fusi, 是2010年利物浦双年展的国际策展人。直到2009年，他是意大利sms contemporanea in Siena 的策展人。

Interview with Lorenzo Fusi, the international curator of the Liverpool Biennale

Venue: ground floor at Information Centre, 52 Renshaw Street, Liverpool,UK

Time: 3:30 pm 26th Oct 2010

Dan Wang: Information Centre was my first biennale venue where I visited this year. It was really impressive. Comparing to the Biennale in 2008, I remember there were a number of conventional institutions such as the Tate Liverpool, Bluecoat and Fact etc. But this time the Renshaw Street was chosen as one of the main places, I am curious of the process. How did it work? Which did it come across first, the venue or the names of the artists?

Lorenzo Fusi: It has been happening on the multi-level. Each one case was sort of individual circumstance. In some case, we have already had the idea of the space. But I won’t say the artists being chosen accordingly to the space. It was more like guiding through rather than dictating. The majority of the space became available until the last minute. As for this building, 52 the Renshaw Street, I had my eyes on it since I first arrived. After throughout time ( over two years ago), the place has been vacuum and deserted, and the enterprise here were moved somewhere. We were very keen on using the space.

But the negation was a bit difficult. For example, we did not sign the contract until three weeks before the opening. So I could not possibly design the exhibition around it. A great section was basically titled Re:thinking Trade. It happened throughout the ground floor and has direct relationship both vision and psychology with the street. It was pretty much influenced by the idea of having a space available. It was about the history of trading exchanging covers, and of course it was a compliment on this exhibition. So the idea started before, and the space came along afterwards. But some of ideas have become more powerful since the space was occupied.

D: I felt a lot of art works were embodied by the space and they were very site-specific. Did artists do the research of the space first before make the ideas? How was the process?

L: Now I was a bit resisted speaking about the word ‘site-specific’. Although the word was past notion throughout 80s and 90s, I don’t think it is so fundamentally important now. A lot of works have been done and said. I am also resisted works made lots of sense in one specific context were not translated sometimes if you did not replace them somewhere. Sometimes some works were suggested or dictated by actual environment. I mean like architecture, the site or circulation which you might take into consideration. That is I still consider as a bible form of site-specificity. To be site-specific in that meaning, it only has to make sense in the meaning to the specific site. But I do not think it is a good way to operate.

So as I said, the majority of sites have not been defined until later on. Of course, these artists have visited Liverpool and we gave them many possibilities. There were many options like many sites of showing the works and theories being occupied. But nothing was really confirmed. So at the beginning of the process was more about suggesting the title, the theme, the approach and sensitivity of the artists. Then the way materialized and taken the final form can be said ‘site-specific’. The way you have chosen, it really needs to be crystallized in order to make sense in a specific environment. So certain chooses in terms of solutions were suggested to the public spaces.

D: I still remembered the first day I arrived, Lewis Biggies( the director of Liverpool Biennale) gave me a brief introduction of the space. He told one of the curatorial approaches was to make ambiguity between art works and non-art objects. I found the space still kept the original inner facility such as old wall paper, soakers and lamps. Sometimes I was confused to recognize whether it was an art work without clear labels.

L: You might find in the public realm. I mean this place. It becomes evident which is entirely occupied by this exhibition. So you expect the majority of elements, features or objects would belong to the exhibition. But if you think about the commissioning art in the public realm, outside the wall, in the streets or squares whatever, the same rules and regulations applied make you think in reality and became visual excitement, which are much stronger than the art works.

D: So what is the relationship between the site and the art, particularly in this show?

L: I think it is very important in particular this building. To keep the memory of what the building has been. To keep spirit in psychological way. That is why many memories have been persisted. Then I thought it was beautiful than any art works being represented. It is a history and fascinating, and experience has been sentimentally set in this building. It will be a mistake to cancel everything inside.

D: So what is the role of art intervention in the space? Can art reactive this space?

L: I think the role of art in this specific building. It has been the key after the enterprise closed down. The building has been empty for over years. It is interesting enough that this building was considered as the most central part of the city. Now it became invisible to the sight of the people. What the Liverpool Biennale did through the exhibition was to make sure people would become aware again of the building at the present. It is also pointing the figure in terms of political decision. So it is a contradiction that so many new buildings are being developed around the town when persisted buildings under use will not be used at all. So whenever you occupy a public space, you basically highlight accessibility to make as much as possible. It is a fabric of the city.

In this respect, the Liverpool Biennale is very important. The enterprise was shot down one after the others. So the area became poorer and poorer in terms of human beings and activities were alienated. People who still have enterprise here are struggling because the Renshaw Street which once presented the highlight of Liverpool became ruining itself. People from the enterprise association are happy with what the Biennale did. The declining area has been activated and turned to be Biennale’s achievement.

D: What will this building happen after the biennale?

L: Well, unfortunately the decision will be managed by the state and returned to the company. The first side of the fact, it has been renewed interest in using the building from resellers. I assume one option in the future can be reoccupied by business. If it was my decision, it should be more like a city council. As a political decision, this building should be going through more consistent like quality house residencies or artists’ studios. It would become a cultural centre or presentational activities relating to contemporary culture because it is very central and close to the stations. It can be a multifunctional site. But the Biennale is marking a possible track which shows the possibility to do different things here.

D: The Biennale curatorial approach reminds me the show I curated in Shanghai Metro station in this summer. Please tell me your commend later. I tried summarizing the story: The exhibition Invisible City took place in a passage way of one Shanghai metro station and its aim was to explore the real shanghai in the period of the World Expo. The site was really changeling. On the one side, it opened to various groups of people, approximately 100,000 audiences passing through the place and majority were not specialized in art. One the other side, the site used to display advertisements was limited to the form of the works as a series of two-dimensional posters. At the end, I also put labels on these art works in order to give more information to the audiences. In some way, I tried to make clear border between art works and advertisements.

L: I think there are many different cases. In general, whenever you operate the public realm, you should be confident enough of consistency, do not feel urgent to put more labels. I think the art work should speak for itself. The art works which need too much explanation are not successful. So there will be other acceptance. I would say public art should not need labeling. There might be a platform where all information will be provided like website or leaflets. It will be other form to communicate or equal information. At the same time, it will be contradictory if you add too much educational approach in the public realm. If you want more communication, it should be in the gallery space. In the public realm, you have to face the fact that there are many conflicting messages around which will be delusive by something else.

D: In my case, there was no information on the website and passengers had no idea what was happening in this space. They knew something changed but they did not consider these posters as pieces of art works at the beginning.

L: Whenever you operate the content, you have to be aware at the beginning. What are you going to present at the early stage. From the curatorial view point, it is important to initiate the project, being aware of the situations and realize maximal information that you can provide. This information is going to be interrupted, not necessary as an art work. It is ordinary language and can communicate which are there. I think the consideration should take place before the project starts. Nowadays, there are many countries highly computerizing literature, which means incredibly simple way to provide more information like a website. Some people get more information from there. I do not think you can actually have both in the public realm. You can not have very guided and constructed way to provide information for your project. As for the aesthetics, the beauty and excitement in the public realm, there is a limit that you have to comprise the language you use.

D: In this circumstance, do you think is it necessary for the curator to navigate the audience?

L: I think it should be freedom in individual interpretation. Of course, you want to provide material of your thinking. That is your way to look at things. Artist should not have only one way to operate, even the curator should not be aware of only way to look at art. It should be diverse. Whenever you write an essay or a piece of paper, that is your own vision about it and you try to provide as much as inside that you have. But it is not necessary truth available about it. It is not only way to look at things. Actually I think the opposite way. It will be much more beautiful and more interesting to be open- minded art works. The interruption which you are not completely aware and never think about makes the art works richer and richer instead of becoming dryer and dryer because of the one way to read about it.

In my experience here, the art works I like best have been read or experienced in many different ways. Sometimes it is very construing way. I think it is more interesting rather than a single way.

D: Let us talk about censorship. Does censorship exist in public realm here? I also discussed with the artist Peter Mcdonald before, and he had a project of Art on the Underground. He told me that curator gave him really clear requirement of what can be shown or can not be at the early stage. As for my show in Shanghai metro station, the boundary of censorship was blurry. I was not sure whether the art works could be presented until the artists finished producing.

L: Censorship is fascinating and scaring issue at the same time. I have an experience of myself for other process. There is a pattern of form of the censorship, and at the same time you do experience indirect censorship which basically happens in registration. Although it is demarcated, good for community and starts at good promises, it is anyhow has an impact what can not be said, and ever better in the form what can not be said.

Give you an example; otherwise it will be a bit confusing. For instance, there is a series of animations by the artist Tala Madani in public area using BBC open air screen. You know BBC as a national broadcast company, has a straight regulation of which can be shown or not according to protection of children. The idea of this animation all I think is incredibly ironical and so playful. There are very strong massages, but they are not in particularly violent, comparing to our experience in regular cases. In a way, we expect most emancipated censorship. BBC did not want us to establish this work because their view point is not suitable for children. So what I mean, there are so many different valuation and sub-lines about censorship which do not necessarily mean you can not do. You have to invent ways which allows freedom for what you want to present.

D: If I go back to artistic practices, do you think the curator should consider the type of the audiences or the exception before making the show?

L: It is important to understand what audiences you are talking to. That is the key. At the same time, I do not think it should be absolute limitations. Otherwise you will deflect people and affect the possibilities. So it should not be only one principle to follow whenever you produce or commission art works. But at the same time, there are many different ways to exercise a form of censorship. At the majority of the limitations, we can easily pass if you follow the rules being structured. Sometimes institutions want to prohibit or inhibit the works because the context is not suitable for that certain circumstance. In this sense, curators should be aware of the situation and try avoiding useless conflicts or contracts or not necessarily stress.

Lorenzo Fusi, an International curator for the Liverpool Biennial 2010. Until April 2009 he was Curator of sms contemporanea in Siena (Italy) and until 2008 he was Chief Curator at the Palazzo delle Papesse.

Resource: http://www.acax.hu/index.