邱黯雄 未知博物館

LZH： What kind of research subjects h a s “M u s e u m o f U n k n o w n”focused on？ The topic of interdisciplinary collaboration has been discussed a million times in the past 5 years. You mentioned discussions that happened on the platform of “Museum of Unknown”： did they point at or resolve any questions related to the notion of inter – disciplinary work？ Why was“Museum of Unknown” essential for the issues it addressed？

QAX： Producing artistic work is not the major goal of “Museum of Unknown”： we only produce work after an idea is mature. Meanwhile， we never do one-off works - we will stick with one idea and develop versions continuously. In the past a few years， we have been discussing on the following topics：

I.the crIterIa of art value We did the As we talk about art， what are we talking about？ project， at BizArt new exhibition space（2010）， and later in UCCA （2012）； Decor project， at Arrow Factory（2011）； Lent Art project at Shanghai Contemporary Art Museum （Power Station） Shanghai （2013）.

II.the seat of medItatIon project In this series， we did： The Seat of Meditation-Museum of Unknown， Art House， Shanghai （2010）， Social Meditation- Party， at AIKEDELLARCO （2012），Social Meditation – Drift， at Yuan Space， Beijing

（2013）， Social Meditation Social Meditation- Goodman from Sichuan performance project of Museum of Unknown， Germany Culture Center Shanghai（2014）， and The Seat of Meditation， Gastr？um Public Art Festival （2014）.

III. t h e r e l at I o n s h I p b e t w e e n a r t and scIence In this series， we did： PatternVortex-Encounter， Museum of Unknown， Space Station， CAFA， Beijing and Time Art Museum， Guangzhou（2011）， as well as EventStructure discussion， at the OutLook Magazine， Village， Beijing.

As for “inter-disciplinariness”，we are not really passionate about this “fashionable” topic. When we launched “Museum of Unknown”， we realised that China’s art world was limited in its thinking methods and knowledge， which also set boundaries for its vision. In response to this， we wanted to construct some channels for communication， to bridge discussions between art and science.

As a start， we worked with Songshuhui-Association of Science Com- municators and invited scientists to join the discussions， and later on more people became interested in this subject. For us， the process of discussion is also the process of learning - learning what was， back then， unknown to us. These discussions did not look for particular answers： most questions about inter-disciplinary work cannot reach straightforward conclusions. ’Til today， discussions and conversations around these topics are still going on. What we do is like kindling the flame of discussion， igniting people’s interest， as opposed to providing answers or solutions. We do， nevertheless， look for methodologies and paths without knowing who will be the one to solve the questions： there might not be results， but that’s where the value of “Museum of Unknown” lies，regardless.

Regarding “essential”… for the general public， the sense of something being essential emerges when something is accomplishedhowever， not for an abstract， yet to be delivered idea. I think perhaps this feeling of “essential” is more about yourself， it is the belief and urge to conduct and achieve something. Back then when we started “Museum of Unknown”， we just thought that the discussions on art were replaced by those on markets and auctions. What we did was not to deny that the market is a part of the art scene and that we ought to avoid talking about it， but to argue that the criteria or assessment of art was overly driven and guided by market price， and that was problematic - art should always have independent criteria. So this was the backdrop of the motive of“Museum of Unknown”； and also what I just mentioned， the issue of knowledge and visions.

LZH： In terms of artistic methodologies， how does Museum of Unknown differ from your own practices？ What subjects are you responding to？

QAX： My own artistic practice has its own range and idea： the pursuit for artistic languages is fundamental and my embedded motive. My work also relies on art mechanisms， or working around them - which is problematic. The work of “Museum of Unknown”， on the other hand， is more like a laboratory where you are allowed to make mistakes and are encouraged to collaborate with others. It is also where we can work in various contexts， on diverse subjects. You are allowed to open up. “Museum of Unknown”feels like a type of retreat for me， retreating from the systems that I am so engaged in. From it I earn the freedom to be distant， and to wander around. Of course in this process I more or less got involved in the conventional system again， but the core intention is to let “Museum of Unknown” stay independent in its working methodologies and guiding attitudes.

LZH： I think it is interesting that you mentioned the art system， what is the art system in China？ Generally， an art system ought to have very specific ways of circulation， resulting in clear allocations of professional work. It is still vague in China， in that it’s even hard to say what a “museum system”is ， or what a “gallery system” is.

In terms of your work， what kind of system do you rely on， or work around？

QAX： “Art system” is a grand phrase： to put it more precisely， each country or region - be it China， Europe， or the US - has its own type of “art system”. In today’s China， the system has an odd status： the official system - say， the Association of Art Museums and all those official art museums - is still playing dominating roles. They do not reject contemporary art at all， sometimes they even claim to be updated and“contemporary” in their operation. However， they have never given up the censorship habit. For those non-official art institutions， the scene is more diverse. Most of these institutions do not have their own collections， some of them do， but their collection is more based on the personal interests of wealthy collectors， and not professional. This is the chaotic “art system” of China： things are springing up lively and enthrallingly， however a lot of these happenings do not seem to have long-lasting value - like floating clouds passing by and vanishing in time.

I think maybe we need to wait longer for real， interesting things to happen- there are so many co-existing micro systems currently composing“the system” of art in China. I have been exhibited in different types of venues： official art museums， private art museums or galleries， international art museums， domestic and international biennials…these are of the academic systems， there’re also commercial systems…if you want to sell your work， you have to be part of the economic value system. All these systems are both interrelated and independent from each other， altogether addressing impacts on your life and work. From my personal point of view， we have entered a globalised state of life - I do not have profound knowledge of overseas art systems， but I do know that they have influenced China’s system a lot， largely because we do not have value criteria of our own.

LZH： As an artist who exhibited in Documenta very early， you must have some understanding of art practices centred around German culture. Has your understanding changed turning to your recent work in China？

QAX： My study in Germany has gained me some understanding of its art， and its art concepts have had huge impacts on me， especially those of the Fluxus and Beuys.

On the other side， I am also fascinated by classical Chinese culture - perhaps I firstly got interested because I didn’t know much about it， so I started working on it， and my work in Shanghai was also conducted within the framework of traditional Chinese art. Chinese contemporary art was very popular back then， but I did not see clear value established in the scene. It felt like a state of culture consumption to me， when everyone was borrowing and quoting popular theories without deeply looking into them. If we look at Germany， they have a very systematic notion of value， there is a clear idea and logic in their history of art practices， through which a lot of stuff is generated and could serve as soil for further inventions. However in China， that is not the case： nobody wants to deeply root their work in history while overnight success is more dreamed of. Unfortunately， this kind of quick success will have very little resonance in history.

LZH： What has changed since you came back to China？ Say， your work， your financial situation， or your exhibitions and attention you receive - how have these changed and what kind of effect has this had on you？ What is your contribution， and criticism， towards Chinese contemporary art？

QAX： I changed a lot. I have started experimenting with new media， ranging from animation， installations， photography and live performances. I am enthused to try new things. Then more and more exhibition opportunities and attention came to me， which in the beginning was exciting， however later on I felt kind of driven by those. You will feel kind of passive when you are overloaded with shows， it will even have bad influences in the result of your work. Now I’m taking more care of my own pace as opposed to being driven purely by the outside world. Regarding income， it has always been just enough for basic living： I do make more now， but I also spend more.

Chinese contemporary art needs to slow down a little bit， and be more patient for more fundamental work. Moreover， we need to bring the critics back： nowadays criticism does not exist as independent sections in the landscape of Chinese contemporary art，critics are not popular anymore. In the 80s and 90s， many critics came from art history backgrounds， they used to curate and write criticisms. However most of them are not curators now because curators are empowered more； also it’s because nobody pays critics for “criticism” now. Paid articles produced today are all filled with parsing， promotion languages： the living space of criticism， on the other hand， is minimal. This is really problematic， it’s like giving up our immune system in art. Same as China’s political system， it’s“mutually conditional”， it’s obscure without a balancing mechanism - or the balancing mechanisms are blackbox operated and are not transparent to the general public. The whole scene is still totalitarian.

If one gains power， then nobody speaks against him. Once someone does， the normal disputes will upgrade to personal hatred， resulting in malicious， antagonist behaviour between parties. People do not discuss and negotiate in a healthy way， nor do they take the matter on its merits. A lot of them are， still， dictators. “Museum of Unknown”has been a discussion about how to improve the mechanism， on a micro scale. We haven’t contributed too much， we just focus on what we think is worth doing， and let the next generation judge our value.

LZH： “Museum of Unk nown”presented “The Seat of Meditation”in Zurich， in which you presented a channel for people to enter， to arrive at a meditative status in this space， separated from the city. The manifestation of art in this project， of course， is not the Seat-shaped installation itself， but the moment when people enter and participate. How do you see the position of participants in this form of art？ And the function of art in this context？

QAX： Yes， the Seat of Mediation is simply a place for mediation. It could be functional， but meditation itself is not functional. This is what’s contradicting and interesting about this project. The Seat of Mediation provides you with a function that is quintessentially “useless”， which is in itself a retreat from the pragmatism of modern civilisation， offering a questioning perspective. The Seat of Mediation is more of a “space”than an “installation”. It is making use of the void， or making use of the useless.

LZH： I like “making use of the useless”， do “Museum of Unknown”produce many works similar to this？ Does this attitude come from your study in Buddhism？

QAX： All the works in the “Seat of Mediation” series are useless， perhaps it’s related to my Buddhism studies. When we say something is pragmatic， we imply that it’s for some purpose. In the context of Zen， however， the process from A to B， either in time or space， is no longer differentiated： A is B.

李振華 X 邱黯雄 未知博物館

李振華：能不能介紹一下你自己和“未知博物館”的關系？

邱黯雄：作為未知博物館的發起者，最初我提出要做這個虛擬博物館的初衷是建立一個跨學科的文化交流合作機制和平臺，另一點是對價值體系的考量，今天我們以什么作為藝術的評判標準？很幸運的是有一些年輕藝術家有熱情和興趣參與這個工作，最初有廖斐，吳鼎，鄭煥，李曉華等人，還有些人后來沒有參與了，也有很多參加不同項目的藝術家，科學家以及其他文化工作者，從開始到現在做組織工作的是我和廖斐，吳鼎，鄭煥他們。總的來說這是個集體的項目，許多人一起工作，2007年以來我們做了很多展覽和活動還有討論，討論是最多的。未知博物館開始時是一個自然凝聚的狀態，現在我希望它能夠有持續的獨立工作方式，而不僅僅是靠熱情，所以現在需要去建構這個基礎和條件，這是我目前要去做的工作。

李振華：“未知博物館”具體的創作和傾向曾經有哪些？跨界在這五年來說一個很主流的話題，但是鮮有人真正做到，那么你提到討論的時候，有些問題得到解答了嗎？以及“未知博物館”在當時做的必要性是什么？

邱黯雄：未知博物館并不是以創作為主，創作是當某些想法成型后的結果，一個想法開始后也不會一次性消費，會持續的做下去，這幾年有幾個話題是我們持續討論的，一.藝術的價值標準的討論，我們做了《當我們談論藝術時，我們在談論什么？》2010，比翼藝術空間，《裝飾》 2011，箭廠空間，《當我們談論藝術時，我們在談論什么？2》2012尤倫斯美術館，《借藝術》2013，上海當代藝術館。二.冥想臺計劃，《冥想臺》2010，上海襄陽路368號；《社會冥想-Party》2012，艾可畫廊；《社會冥想-漂移》2013，北京元空間；《社會冥想-四川好人》 2014，上海德國領事館文化處；《冥想臺》2014，蘇黎世Gastr？um公共藝術節。 三. 藝術與科學，《圖案，漩渦，遭遇》2011，北京空間站，廣州時代美術館，北京中央美院美術館，《事物的結構》討論會，北京三里屯新視線雜志社。說到跨界，我們并不是想去摻和這個時髦話題，在未知博物館成立之初，我們意識到國內藝術圈的思維和知識視野很狹窄，對藝術圈以外對東西不太了解，我們想搭建一些溝通渠道。比如藝術與科學的話題，我們和科學松鼠會合作，找到了一些科學家一起討論，后來也有很多人開始對藝術和科學的話題感興趣。討論對于我們來說更多時候是學習的過程，很多話題中的知識我們都還是未知的，在討論中我們學習到了更多有趣的知識。這類問題很難說去找到一個答案，因為這些問題很難下一個簡單的結論，而且到今天為止，這些話題的討論可以說才是個開始。我們就像點了一個火種，更多人看到了感興趣來參與。也許解決問題的不是我們，但是我們去找一些路徑和方法，也許最后都不對，但這是未知博物館的存在價值。說到必要性，對于別人來說很多事情做出來了才會去談論他的必要性，如果只是一個想法，沒有成為事實前，沒有人會覺得它有什么必要。必要性更多是對自己而言吧，就是自己覺得一定要把它實現出來的沖動。當時就是覺得沒有談論藝術，都在談市場，談拍賣。當然市場也是整個藝術生態的一部分，不是說不去談，但是用市場價格作為藝術價值的標準是有問題的。藝術的價值評判應該有自己獨立的標準，而不是跟著市場走。還有前面提到的知識范圍和視野的問題，這個是未知博物館產生的主要動機。

李振華：未知博物館的工作方法和你自身的藝術創造有什么不同，或者說你在具體的回應什么？

邱黯雄：我自己的創作還是有一個線索和范圍，對語言的要求是基本的，也是工作的內在動力。還有這個工作依賴于藝術的體制，甚至是圍繞這個體制展開的，這正是有問題的地方。未知博物館的工作方式更像實驗室工作，可以試錯，可以合作，可以在不同的語境和話題里工作，可以完全敞開。未知博物館對我來說像是一個退出機制，從正在其中的體制中退出，保持距離，讓思想散步。當然在實踐過程中，還是或多或少的卷入了體制的工作方式，但是我希望未知博物館能保持獨立的態度和工作方式。

李振華：你提到的藝術體制，我覺得很有趣，因為中國的藝術體制是什么？通常一個體制應該有很具體的循環，以及常年工作下來的各自位置和分配。在中國甚至很難說什么是博物館體制，什么是畫廊體制等，那么你所依賴或者圍繞的體制是什么？

邱黯雄：體制是個大詞，具體到實際情況中，中國有中國的體制，歐洲有歐洲的體制，美國有美國的體制。但今天中國的體制是個很奇怪的狀態，官方體制仍然存在，有美協，有官方美術館，而且也不拒絕當代藝術，甚至很積極的宣稱自己也當代了，但是他們審查機制從未放松過。民間的藝術機構水準參差不齊，但大多美術館沒有館藏，有的館藏沒有館藏標準，很多時候就是有錢人的個人的趣味。就是這樣的一個混亂的情況，所有的事情都在發生，看起來很有活力，但大多數發生的事情又好像沒有什么留存的價值，過了就過了。也許我們還需要等待一段時間，就會有有意思的事情發生。我說的體制就是這些已經存在的系統。具體點說，比如我參加不同的展覽，有中國的官方美術館，有私營美術館，也有國外的美術館，有國內國外的雙年展，這是學術層面的，還有市場層面的，你要賣作品就是進入這個經濟體制，進入他的價值體系，這些都是體制。可能它們非常不同，但是都會有關系，也會影響你的工作方式和生活。從我自己的生活軌跡來看，我們已經進入一個全球化的生活，盡管我們對國外的體制的了解不深，但是他對中國的影響力卻很大，很大原因是我們沒有自己的價值標準。

李振華：作為從卡塞爾回來的中國藝術家，你對以德國文化為中心的藝術實踐一定有認識，那么在中國的工作中這些認識發生了什么改變？

邱黯雄：在德國的學習可能還是比較粗淺的認識，但是對我還是有很大的影響，尤其是激浪派、博伊斯的藝術觀念。但另一方面，我又對中國自身的文化傳統感興趣，可能是因為不了解才感興趣。那時候想做的工作是往這個方向去的，回到上海也是在這個框架下開始工作，中國當代藝術那個時候很熱，但是看不到具體的價值建立，都是臨時用一下時髦理論背書，更像是文化消費的狀態。再回頭看德國，他們的價值系統還是很完整的，藝術實踐的推進是有其自身的邏輯和線索的，他們留下的東西都可以成為未來的土壤和營養。而現在中國能留下的東西很少，大家都不愿意作短期在面上看不見的下水道的工作，都想一蹴而就，一蹴而就的東西是經不起時間考驗的。

李振華：回來中國后你發生了什么改變嗎？你的工作以及經濟上的收入，或者說更多的展覽和關注，讓你發生了什么變化？你對中國當代藝術的批評和貢獻是什么？

邱黯雄：變化很大，我的創作開始了新媒體的嘗試，動畫、裝置、攝影、現場表演，我都想去嘗試。后來有了很多的展覽機會和關注，開始很興奮，后來發現這個方式自己變得很被動。當展覽太多時，你的工作就很被動，甚至會影響到作品 的完成度，這時候會考慮保持自己的節奏和速度，而不是跟著外面走。收入上一直是剛夠生活支出，現在收入比以前多，但是開支也大了。中國當代藝術需要更慢一點，更有耐心一點，做更多基礎的工作。還有中國的藝術機制中沒有批評這一環節了，批評家不吃香了，八九十年代的批評家很多是美術史專業的，又同時在作策展工作，也寫文章。后來都去做策展人了，因為策展人的權利更大。還有一個原因是沒人為批評掏錢，現在請人寫文章都是宣傳推廣說好話的。所以批評沒有生存空間，但是這是很大的問題，相當于一個生態中沒有免疫機制。這和中國的政治系統是一個邏輯，互為表里，沒有制衡機制，或者說制衡機制不是公開透明的，而是黑箱操作，整個圈子還是江湖化，集權化的。勢力大的就沒人敢提意見了，而且一旦有人提意見，就會變成私人恩怨，人身攻擊，你想整我搞我。而不是一個討論商榷的心態，就事論事的心態，很多人都還是獨裁者心態。未知博物館想在小范圍內探索討論機制。貢獻現在還談不上，我只是盡量做好自己想做的事情，后人自有評判。

李振華：“未知博物館”在蘇黎世的項目為一個“冥想的碗”，作品擁有一個可進入的通道，在空間中完成一個小群體和城市隔離的冥想狀態。藝術顯然不是這個具有碗形態的雕塑，而是在參與的時刻。你怎么看待這一藝術形式中參與者的作用，以及藝術的功能？

邱黯雄：是的，冥想臺是提供給人去冥想的地方，可以說是有功能性的，但是冥想本身又是一個無用的狀態。這是比較矛盾但也是比較好玩的地方。冥想臺提供了一個讓人處于無用狀態的功能，這本身是對現代文明的實用主義的抽離和懷疑。冥想臺與其說是一個裝置，不如說是一個空間，以空為用，或者說無用之用。

李振華：“無用之用”很棒，那么“未知博物館”是否有很多這樣的作品，或這是你在成為佛教徒之后的一種狀態？

邱黯雄：冥想臺這個項目中的作品都是無用的，也跟我學佛有關系吧。實用都是有目的性的，空間上時間上都有一個過程，就是從A到B。冥想，禪定，就是在A，也同時在B，沒有分別。