Landscape Transformation：How to present a grass to you?, 2010
In the concept of “「Landscape Design：How to present a grass to you?(White paper manifesto of village head election in Da Ci 2014 )」, I reflected on the question concerning the way of how contemporary art blends into the space. For art, the path leading to the community contains “possibility” and “construction”. They both involve in essence some ethical questions and play a balancing role between the overuse of the arts and the negligence of the local reality, or vice versa. Art activities and art workers have problems of positions and the location where art happens begins to get named. It is no longer just the ethics of art in a white space in the gallery, art museum or art center.
I went into a valley in Daci trying to plant one more blade of grasses, just like many other grasses that have already existed. I wonder what else I can do. Art can do nothing to a seemly developed place yet never stops reconstructing unless art can provide the space a naming rule that can exclude the space itself. This rule cannot coexist with the reality, the utilitarian aesthetics. The relation of art and space should be looked at from the angle of uselessness
For me, naming a space is very important. Art activity is not a reverse packaging but is to name some absent objects in the space through manifesto. The naming process excludes all traditional naming rules of regionalism; instead, it presents the space with a nonrealistic attitude: “If one space has one more grasses, in fact there is no any effect but the concept is never going to be the same.” Under this circumstance, if art has its own name, it will reveal a superficial question: there is no way for creation activity to detach from the environment. It also reveals an ultimate question and that is how an artist evaluates the active and passive roles between “self” and “external matters”.
“Before the Transformation of Landscapes”, Giclée.
“After the Transformation of Landscapes”, Giclée.