台北當代藝術館 官方網站 Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei

21世紀更多的是關於對話（conversation）。

──漢斯－尤利希．歐布里斯特（Hans-Ulrich Obrist）


想像一下：有什麼樣的一個人，會讓你想用一年的時間與他╱她對話？一年之後，什麼樣的事物足以代替你╱們，講述這一年間所說出的與未曾說出的？這段「時光」又可以如何感性地綻放、觸人思弦地牽動起他人的迴盪？

對話的欲望與危機

對話從來就不只是一種「活動」，而是基本的「欲望」，從單純的好奇心，到尋求理解、認同、建立共識乃至推使行動等⋯，然而，在不斷被提起「需要更多對話」與「對話美學」蔚為潮流的今日，為何我們卻感受到一種「對話的危機」？對話彷彿淪為一種口號，愈成為一種政治化的主張與浮濫、虛假、貧乏、形式化的活動？

或許，對話早已不再素樸、自然，而其形式，則總是某種權力關係的具現。回應「對話的危機」，「梅爾汀計畫」將日常生活中再平常不過的「對話」提予重新想像，以重拾/重思關於「對話」的欲望、期待與潛力，並嘗試從藝術的位置、「一年對話實踐」遊戲規則與展覽機制，將想像蔓延至他者、社群、社會、體制、國族、歷史等層面，以從中探問：對話在當代扮演的角色與意義為何？如何從一種個人需求擴展為面對社會乃至行動的方式？


關於「梅爾汀計畫」

一切堅固的東西都煙消雲散了。 ──卡爾．馬克思

「梅爾汀」來自英文「melting」音譯，並將之延展為「會見」（Meeting）、「遭逢」（Encounter）、「遺落」（Lost）、「痕跡」（Trace）等發生在日常生活、多元、繁複且動態的諸種對話活動「M.E.L.T.Ing」。這看似「無意義」與「不可辨識」的中英譯可能引發的揣測、聯想或詮釋活動，便如同對話的發生必然涉及到「語境」（觀者的背景）與「想像力」，並朝向一種「相互理解/感受」的期望。

另一方面，「梅爾汀」試圖與馬克思一句描述現代性（modernity）的名言「一切堅固的東西都煙消雲散了」（All that is Solid Melts into Air）進行對話。馬克思以此描述德國現代化社會的劇烈轉變，一度堅實的信仰與社會價值迅速崩解、煙消雲散，導致十九世紀歐洲的虛無主義，這是melt下一種絕望的現代性經驗。逾百年後，美國學者馬歇爾‧伯曼（Marshall Berman）寫下《一切堅固的東西都煙雲散了－現代性體驗》，藉由對現代性的批評、反省，伯曼使一切煙消雲散的melt轉為價值重建與重生的希望。

對現代性問題的關注，是本展覽計劃的基底，而對話如何扮演起對考掘此種經驗的角色？對現代性問題的關注，是本展覽計劃的基底，而對話如何扮演起對考掘此種經驗的角色？（重覆）佇立於全球化狀況、後殖民歷程、亞洲現代性探索以及台灣主體性困惑的我們，如何藉由「對話實踐」析離出自身在全球政經情勢與文化政治網絡中的「對話」位置，以為未明的他者做出面對與展開對話的準備？


一年對話實踐

接納他者的觀念不只是一個課題，而總是更根本地顯現為創作的形式領會。

──尼可拉．布希歐（Nicolas Bourriaud）

受謝德慶《一年行為表演1983-84（繩子）》啟發，梅爾汀設計了「一年對話實踐」的遊戲規則：依據「對話的欲望」與「梅爾汀精神」，策展人首先邀請許芳慈（台灣）、高俊宏（台灣）與包麗莎（Lisa Bauer-Zhao，德國）參與這一計畫，再請三位藝術家基於相同精神自行邀請對話對象，最後與Post-Museum（新加坡）、麥巔（中國）、趙立東（中國）分別組成三組藝術團隊，以2014年一整年為期進行「對話」。

在實驗期程結束後，我們提出「縫線、鬼故事、逃離」這三件事來探討、呈現對話的各種層次──欲望、情境、機制、規則、過程、產物等。此外，本展亦籌辦兩場論壇：一、「社會改變的基礎為何？」（5/3，台南齁空間）；二、「對話作為方法」（5/17，台北當代藝術館）、加映講座：「新加坡記憶政治與台灣失憶美學」（6/12，台北當代藝術館），希冀以更多元對話形式與主題碰觸，來延展梅爾汀精神與可能之後續反應。

「梅爾汀計畫」以其遊戲與實驗性格，充滿未知的結果，也許是對話文件、影像、訪談，也許是共同的一趟旅程、生活時光，也許是音樂╱行為表演，也許是成為秘密的過程本身⋯這些結果，究竟能說明關於「對話」的什麼？或者，僅是在重重的困惑、質疑與挫折中，始為真實的對話做出準備？一年的時間足夠長，來醞釀對話的真實性與深度嗎？面對展示的問題，究竟「過程與結果」會是太多或太少？我們如何看待對話與遊戲規則之間的關係？以及，這是否能為「對話美學」、「文化融異」、「創作/展覽再現思維」等面向開展出新的談論空間？


如果對話才剛開始？

2014年跨入2015年的那一刻，「一年對話實踐」結束，而三組藝術團隊的實驗結果皆為失敗。

「許芳慈（台灣）－Post-Museum（新加坡）」經歷原訂對話人選的更換，最終確定「Post-Museum」的加入已是2014年十月。僅餘兩個月不到，既考驗著策展人與藝術家如何重新協調這一計畫的運作方式，亦突顯了「堅守遊戲規則」與「真實對話關係」牴觸下的兩難。最終，Post-Museum以《武吉布朗墓園索引》系列參展，而該團隊與策展人則從2015年三月正式展開透過網路通訊媒介進行的研究性對話，許芳慈將以此為基礎於展期間籌組活動。

「高俊宏（台灣）－麥巔（中國）」從最初一趟西藏旅行的構想，到討論參與「『每個人的東湖』藝術計畫第三回：人人都來做『公共藝術』」的可能性，最終兩造仍無法在期程內創造「會面的條件」，於是調整為以麥巔提前一個月抵台的這段期間，進入高俊宏的工作場域踏查並進行作品拍攝。會面的條件如何困難？或者，不過就是煞有默契地履行一種「逃離」──對體制與遊戲規則──的微小堅持？

「包麗莎（德國）－趙立東（中國）」是唯一完成遊戲規則的團隊。「對話」之於語言經驗、關係以及「線」的想像，是該團隊反覆探索的觀念、媒材與合作形式。該組最初以「評論者－藝術家」位置來設計兩造間的對話實踐，到約莫半年後因感覺到「這樣的對話假假的」而停止，最終，面對展示機制時，毅然決定捨棄掉一年中各種形式積累的對話記錄，僅回到這一計畫構想的開端，以「線既是對話的想像、亦是對觀者的邀請」來連接起自始至終對對話的關懷。

失敗毋寧說是無奈、可喜且是重要的，這揭示著對話或許從來就無法在「遊戲規則」下進行？或許唯有在對各種規則形式的抵抗下，方能滋養與生長真實對話的環境。對話才剛開始？2015年過後方能驗證。 The twenty-first century would be more like conversation. --Hans-Ulrich Obrist

Image: what kind of a person would make you want to converse with him or her for a whole year? After one year, what kind of things would be adequate to take your place to express what you have said and not said throughout the year? How could this period of “time” be transformed into something with sensibilities and trigger other people’s thoughts and feedback?


The Desire and Crisis of Dialogue

From simple curiosity, to seeking understanding and recognition, to reaching consensus and forming actions, dialogue is never just an “activity” but a basic “desire.” However, when the slogan “more dialogues are needed” and the term “the aesthetics of dialogue” have become a trend today, why is it that we feel there is “a crisis of dialogue”? To conduct a dialogue has seemed to become nothing more than a slogan, a political argument as well as an activity that is excessive, hypocritical, empty and all too formalized.

Perhaps, dialogue is no longer simple and natural; and its format has become an embodiment of certain power relation. Responding to “the crisis of dialogue,” M.E.L.T.Ing Project reimagines the extremely common behavior, “dialogue,” in the everyday life, in the hope to regain and reflect upon the desire, expectation and potential of “dialogue.” It also attempts to extend this imagination to the other, social communities, societies, systems, nations and history from an artistic point of view and through a set of rules and exhibition of “One Year Practice of Dialogue,” and asks: what is the role and meaning of dialogues in the contemporary society? How could it be expanded from the level of being an individual need to a social level and become a means of taking actions?


About M.E.L.T.Ing Project

All that is solid melts into air. --Karl Marx

The title of the project “M.E.L.T.Ing” resembles the word “melting,” but refers to “Meeting,” Encounter,” “Lost,” and “Trace,” all the diverse, complex and dynamic activities in dialogues that take place in everyday life—“M.E.L.T.Ing.” Conjectures, associations and interpretations triggered by this seemingly “meaningless” and “unrecognizable” phonetic translation from English to Chinese are like what would happen in dialogues: it involves “contexts” (the background of the audience) and “imagination” with an underlying anticipation for “mutual understanding and perception.”

On the other hand, “M.E.L.T.Ing” aims to create a dialogue with Marx’s famous words when he describes modernity: “all that is solid melts into air.” Marx said this to capture the drastic changes of the modernized German society when all the once strong beliefs and social values disintegrated and disappeared, paved way for the nihilism in the 19th century Europe. It was a modern experience that melted the desperation to come. Nearly a century later, American scholar, Marshall Berman, wrote the book, All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity, which, through criticism of and contemplation on modernity, reclaimed what had disappeared and transformed it into the hope of reconstructing values and the possibility of a rebirth.

The objective of this exhibition project is to investigate the problem of modernity. How does dialogue play a role in the examination of the modern experience? As we are facing globalization, having experienced post-colonialization, attempting to explore Asian modernity and being trapped by the ambiguous state of the subjectivity of Taiwan, how do we position ourselves in the “dialogue” in the global political and economic situation and in the network of cultural politics through “the practice of dialogue” so that we could face the unknown others and prepare ourselves for dialogues?


One Year Practice of Dialogue

The concept of accepting others is not simply a topic, but always more fundamentally appears as the realization of creative forms. --Nicolas Bourriaud

Inspired by Tehching Hsieh’s One Year Performance 1983-1984 (Rope Piece), we designed “One Year Practice of Dialogue.” Based on “the desire of dialogue” and “the spirit of M.E.L.T.Ing,” the curator first invited Fang-Tze Hsu (Taiwan), Jun-Honn Kao (Taiwan) and Lisa Bauer-Zhao (Germany) to participate in this project; and then, these three artists set out to invite the other parties for their dialogues based on the same spirit. Finally, the three artists formed three artist groups individually with Post-Museum (Singapore), Dian Mai (China), and Li-Dong Zhao (China), and conducted “dialogues” that lasted one year throughout the year 2014.

After the experiment ended, we proposed three topics for discussion, which were “stiches, ghost stories and escape,” to discuss and display the different levels in dialogues—desire, context, mechanism, rules, process, product, etc. In addition, there will be two concurrent forums: 1) “What is the Basis for Social Changes?” (Tainan Howl Space; May 3rd); and 2) “Dialogue as a Method” (MoCA, Taipei; May 17th). There will also be an additional talk: “The Politics of Memory in Singapore and the Aesthetics of Forgetfulness” (MoCA, Taipei; June 12th). We hope to explore the topics with more diverse forms of dialogues, further promoting the M.E.L.T.Ing spirit and sustaining the subsequent reactions.

With a touch of playfulness and its experimental spirit, “M.E.L.T.Ing Project” had been filled with unknown possibilities; they could be dialogues in the forms of documents, videos, or interviews, as well as a shared journey or moments in life. They might be music or action performances; or, they could be the process of how secrets were formed. What could these results eventually enlighten us about the nature of “dialogues”? Could it be that we could only prepare for real dialogues in constant confusion, doubts and frustration? Would one year be enough to achieve the truthfulness and depth of dialogues? In terms of exhibition, would “the processes and results” be excessive or inadequate? How should we see the relation between dialogues and the project rules? Moreover, could this project really create new discussions about “the aesthetics of dialogue,” “cultural integration and differences,” and “the thinking of art and exhibition representation”?


What if the dialogue has just begun?

As 2014 ended and 2015 began, “One Year Practice of Dialogue” officially came to an end, and all three artist groups were deemed failed in this experiment.

“Fang-Tze Hsu (Taiwan)—Post-Museum (Singapore)”: after a change of the previously selected interlocutor for the dialogue, it was already the October of 2014 when Post-Museum confirmed to join the project. With less than two months, this change challenged how the curator and the artist should proceed with the project. It also made obvious the dilemma when “sticking to the rules of the game” and “having a truthful dialogue” collided. At the end, Post-Museum participated in the exhibition with “Bukit Brown Index” series. The group and the curator started a dialogue of a research nature via Internet communication in March, 2015, and Hsu will organize activities based on the dialogue.

“Jun-Honn Kao (Taiwan)—Dian Mai (China)”: taking a trip to Tibet was proposed at the very beginning. Then, the artists discussed a possible project, titled “‘Everybody’s East Lake’—The Third Art Project: Everybody Makes ‘Public Art.’” However, at the end, the two parties were unable to set “the terms of how they should meet” within the designated time of this project. As a result, they adjusted the plan that Mai would come to Taiwan one month before the exhibition to film his video works at the working site of Kao. Was it that difficult to find a way to meet up? Or, did they just have an understanding with each other that they would “escape”—a kind of minor resistance—from the system and rules?

“Lisa Bauer-Zhao (Germany)—Li-Dong Zhao (China)”: they were the only group that followed the rules and completed the experiment. “Dialogue,” being a kind of verbal experience, relations, and being imagined as “a line,” served as a concept, medium and collaborative form, which the group repeatedly explored. At first, they carried out their dialogue as “critic vs. artist,” but soon felt “this dialogue seemed a bit phony” and stopped it after half a year. Eventually, when thinking about the exhibition, they decided to abandon all types of dialogues conducted throughout the year, and simply returned to the origin of this project and examined the idea of dialogue with a premise: “line as an imagination of dialogue as well as an invitation to the audience.”

Failure is indeed frustrating, rewarding and important. Did the failure in this project imply that dialogues could never take place when there was “a set of rules”? Perhaps, only with resistance to all kinds of rules and designs could we create a nurturing environment for truthful dialogues. Have the dialogues just begun? We will see after 2015.