按:这篇访谈是由美国人马睿奇发起,约我一起交流关于艺术和市场的看法,感谢他的访谈。以下是访谈的第二部分(第一部分见这里):
马:在90年代及之后,一些策展人向企业寻求支持来创建独立画廊。这是更好的解决方案吗?好像有的画廊是这样运作的?
罗:我觉得严格说来不是支持,更像一种交易。他们通过向艺术家收藏等额价值的作品,来收回投入展览的资金。世上没有免费的午餐。 Continue reading
按:这篇访谈是由美国人马睿奇发起,约我一起交流关于艺术和市场的看法,感谢他的访谈。以下是访谈的第二部分(第一部分见这里):
马:在90年代及之后,一些策展人向企业寻求支持来创建独立画廊。这是更好的解决方案吗?好像有的画廊是这样运作的?
罗:我觉得严格说来不是支持,更像一种交易。他们通过向艺术家收藏等额价值的作品,来收回投入展览的资金。世上没有免费的午餐。 Continue reading
Note: This interview is posted by R. Orion Martin, and this is the part II(Part I). Thanks Orion:)
This is part 2 of an interview I did with curator Luo Fei, in which we discussed the successes and failures of the Chinese art market, and its influence on art. Our discussion is loosely based on the views that Huang Zhuan expressed in a 1991 interview with Art Market.
Orion: In the 1990s and later, some curators asked companies for economic support in order to create independent galleries. Is this a better solution? Perhaps some galleries work like this?
Luo Fei: Strictly speaking, they do not support. Rather they rely on a kind of exchange. They ask for gifts from the artist or collectors in order to regain the capital invested in the exhibition. There’s no free lunch. Continue reading
近日拜访了刘丽娟位于昆明二环北路核桃箐的工作室,工作室原先是一个两层阁楼的商铺,面积不大,做版画还刚好合适。她将一楼用作工作室,二楼居住。
刘丽娟曾在西安美院学习石版画,后来在云师大学习版画研究生课程,主要创作木刻,今年即将毕业。曾参加过第二届云南国际版画展、第五届中国北京国际美术双年展等。
她在这几年间创作了数量惊人的作品,我们到访只是欣赏到其中一部分。
虽然她在云南师从著名版画家郝平先生,但她的木版画和云南绝版木刻相比,在风格、手法上都有非常大的差异,以思茅版画为代表的那种狂野、粗粝、原始、色彩浓烈厚重相比,更显宁静、淳朴、细腻、丰富、富有想象(观念)、甚至暗藏玄机。好些作品如果不看原作是无法体会其中的趣味和实验意识,它们不是传统意义上的单面版画,而是从一张纸的两面同时印,有的以油水分离原理制作特别质感,还有一些是透过几层薄薄的宣纸反复叠加在一起制造的朦胧感,有的作品在不同的光照下也会看到不同的信息……这些在印刷品或翻拍之后就无法体会到。当然,这也为如何展示和保护展品提出了不小的挑战。
按:这篇访谈是由美国人马睿奇发起,约我一起交流关于艺术和市场的看法,感谢他的访谈。以下是访谈的第一部分:

苏富比拍卖行
1991年,黄专曾接受《艺术市场》杂志的一次采访。在采访中,他提出中国艺术市场的创建需要建立相对公平的竞争环境,在那里,艺术家既可以竞争,也可以获得支持。他进一步解释说,艺术家总是在压力之下工作(政治、宗教、社会和经济),这也是对真正的艺术家的测试,就是他/她如何回应这种压力。
20年后,我想很多在中国的人会说,艺术市场的发展并没有像他预期的那样完全建立起来。我和策展人罗菲坐下来就此进行了一些讨论。
马睿奇(以下简称马):让我们说说在这篇访谈之后中国艺术市场所发生的状况。在1990年代,中国的艺术其实是由外国商人们“发现”的。
罗菲(以下简称罗):是的,的确是这样。在90年代一些外国大使馆对中国艺术家来说起到了非常重要的作用,尤其作为替代性展示空间。
马:这就是所谓的“使馆艺术”?
罗:是,那时艺术家没有空间展示作品,有时他们愿意在大使馆或私人场地展示。当然,能在大使馆或使馆官员私人空间展示的艺术家,都是已经被挖掘出来比较受关注的艺术家。
马:整个90年代,中国艺术界受到越来越多的关注,但主要的拍卖行如苏富比和佳士得,它们是什么时候参与进来的?
罗:我不是很确定具体的时间,不过798的合法化是重要转折点,它是政府开始承认当代艺术的一个信号。798最初是独立自发的,就像昆明创库艺术社区一样,是艺术家和艺术机构自发聚集的地方,它们一直与城市发展的压力进行抗争。然后在2000年代中期,798成为公认的文化中心。
马:2000年的上海双年展也是一个重要转折点,对吗?
罗:是。我记得那时好些艺术杂志大量介绍了双年展,而在之前它们很少集中介绍当代艺术。
马:然后在2006年,艺术市场开始真正的热起来。那以后,又稍微冷下来一点。但在2000年以后,的确有大量的热钱用来投资艺术。
罗:在05至06年的云南,最火的不是艺术市场,而是“江湖”(一系列由丽江工作室支持的实验艺术活动)。然而也在那之后,市场对云南的影响也越来越明显。尤其在06年,许多云南艺术家都受邀去到上海等地展出,差不多有二三十位云南艺术家出去做展览,他们多数是创作油画、雕塑、装置和摄影等类型的作品。其中一个在上海做的大型展览是原弓美术馆做的“新动力”艺术展。我想这对云南艺术家有一定的影响,有机会出去展出,看其他不同的展览。通过几轮大型展览把有商业价值的艺术家过滤出来。因此有好些艺术家的作品都销售了,并且和画廊有进一步合作。
而亲历商业化运作对云南艺术家来说也是一次学习的机会,我记得那时我在布展的时候上海的中国邮政有人来展厅,问我们是否愿意把作品印在他们的明信片上,他们想通过这个方式来拓展市场和影响力。我当时想,在云南的中国邮政是不大可能专门派人跑到展览上谈合作的,你去找他们,他们肯定都是爱理不理,云南的整个市场环境显然还非常不成熟。
马:在这之后呢?
罗:在那两年有好些艺术家到北京等地建立工作室,好些艺术家的工作室空间特别大,像画廊空间一样,适合创作大型作品。有的年轻艺术家也开始聘用两三人的助手团队一起工作。在那时候确实有很多钱投入到工作室、创作、团队以及销售当中。我记得那时我做了一件简单的扬声器装置作品,其中有一根6米高的木头,木头上挂着喇叭播放关于禁止在公共场合展示暴力血腥行为艺术的通告。就是为了这根木头,主办方租了一张大型集装箱运输车,从昆明拉到上海。个人来讲,我觉得为了一根木头不是那么必要搞个集装箱。我完全可以做一个新的作品。但在那时很多画廊真的不是很介意付出多少成本,他们想方设法呈现一个大型而雄伟的展览。这种事情我觉得在今天很难再发生了,除非你是很成功的艺术家。
马:在你看来,市场现在是否已经通过“竞争法则”来建立起 “合法的竞争”呢?(黄专访谈里的用语)
罗:首先,我需要说我自己并没有在市场里,我更关注实验艺术。但好些参与到市场里的朋友和老师都说,其实艺术市场和其他经济领域没什么区别。的确是这样,艺术市场也是在中国特色的竞争法则下进行,整个社会的竞争法则显然是有问题的,有太多潜规则和暗箱操作。比如薄//熙//来的事儿就是一个很戏剧化的个案,在官方新闻背后有太多复杂的故事。也许艺术市场不像政治那样戏剧化,但具有相同特征。
马:你是说艺术市场里有腐败问题吗?
罗:有点不同。在政治领域我们有腐败,但在艺术圈表现为其他形式,比如拍卖里众所周知的游戏,一个老板想要支持某个艺术家可能会叫人来高价收购。
马:有一些报道称中国艺术品拍卖里,一些机构安置一些买家来抬高价格。
罗:是,这就是个游戏。另外,作为评估艺术价值的批评家也卷入其中。比如老板会为买家和批评家安排聚餐,批评家针对某个艺术家的作品提出许多看上去很学术的褒奖意见,之后他/她会得到一个红包(中国传统送礼或行贿的方式)。当然批评家能有收入也是很好,只是失去了独立性。
马:黄专认为在艺术市场里批评家扮演着一个非常重要的角色。你是否认为批评家能够成为艺术价值的仲裁者?
罗:这是批评家的其中一个职责,就是去分辨艺术的好坏,为艺术赋予意义,为公众解释艺术。但对于艺术的最终评价,我自己并不认为批评家可以完全扮演仲裁的角色。对于艺术的公共价值,我更倾向于建立一个以博物馆为主的完善丰富的艺术体系,因为博物馆系统是一个更为公平来选择优秀艺术家的方式。目前批评家都是自由职业或在学校任教,有一些为画廊工作,就像我为诺地卡工作,因此我的职责是为公众介绍艺术家。有意思的是,有的独立策展人会让他们的学生来替他们写评论文章,这让价值判断变得很暧昧,模棱两可,艺术批评变成了软文。
马:他们让学生写一些漂亮的文章?
罗:是,作为学生参与实践的一种方式。有的艺术家常向我抱怨这样做的批评家,因为其实代笔是很容易识别出来的,质量明显很差。
马:你提到博物馆作为更好的选择,但如果有更多的博物馆,会像云南省博物馆那样吗?我最近在那儿看了一个实在很糟糕的展览。
罗:我不是指官方博物馆,我的意思是由企业或个人独立运作的博物馆,买家购买艺术品是为了收藏历史。那些公共机构(企业或机构)从社会盈利,之后又将赚来的钱转换为文化价值返还给社会。这就是博物馆的功能。
马:就是说那种独立大型画廊和私人博物馆。
罗:是的,我们需要不同类型的机构来向公众展示不同的价值。理想的看法是,批评家不应该具备完全的权力。不同的系统反映不同的价值理念,我们需要一个丰富的艺术生态,有商业的、有非营利的、有实验的、有政治的、有宗教的、有古典的、有时尚的、有保守的、有大型的、有小型的、有固定的、有流动的……观众自己去决定什么是好的艺术,或者说在不同的领域里去判断什么是好。
访谈第二部分将于下周发布……
Note: This interview is posted by R. Orion Martin, he interviewed me last week, and this is the part I. Thanks Orion:)

View from the auction floor of Sotheby
In 1991, Huang Zhuan participated in an interview for the magazine Art Market. In it, he argued that the creation of an art market in China would establish a relatively fair arena in which artists could compete while also supporting those artists. He further explained that artists are always under pressure (political, religious, social, and economic), and that the test of a true artist is how he or she responds to that pressure.
20 years later, I think many in China would say that the development of the art market didn’t work out quite as well as he predicted. I sat down to discuss his ideas with curator Luo Fei.
Orion: Let’s begin by talking about what happened to the development of the Chinese art market after this interview written. During the 1990s, Chinese art was “discovered” by foreign dealers.
Luo Fei: Yes that’s right. In the 1990’s foreign embassies became important to Chinese artists as alternative sites of exhibition.
Orion: This is the so called “embassy art”?
Luo Fei: Yes. At that time artists had no space to exhibit. Sometimes they would show in embassies or private spaces. Of course, the artists who were able to exhibit in an embassy or a diplomat’s house were those artists who were already discovered and were relatively well known.
Orion: Throughout the 1990s there was more and more attention paid to Chinese art circles, but what about major auction houses like Sotheby’s and Christies? When did they become involve?
Luo Fei: I’m not sure about the specific dates, but the legitimization of 798 was a major turning point because it was a signaled that the government had acknowledged contemporary art. In the beginning 798 was a spontaneous, independently founded community like the Artist’s Loft in Kunming. It was a place where artists and art organizations gathered together and resisted the pressure of urban development. Then in the mid-2000s it was recognized by the government as a cultural center.
Orion: The 2000 Shanghai Biennale was also an important turning point, correct?
Luo Fei: That’s right. I remember reading many art magazines talk about the biennale when before they had never introduced contemporary art.
Orion: Around 2006 the art market really began to heat up. Since then it has cooled a bit, but there was a lot of money invested in the 2000s.
Luo Fei: In Yunnan during 2005 and 2006, the hottest thing was wasn’t the market but Jianghu (a series of experimental exhibitions funded by the Lijiang Studio). After that, the market’s influence on Yunnan became stronger and stronger. Particularly in 2006, many Yunnan artists were invited to display in Shanghai and about 20 or 30 artists participated in an exhibition. Most of the pieces where oil paint, sculpture, installation and photography. One particularly large event was the “New Impulse” exhibition held at the Yuan Gong Fine Arts Gallery. I think this definitely had an influence on Yunnan artists, the chance to go out and exhibit, look at different kinds of exhibition. Through these large exhibitions, artists with commercial value began to filter out. Some good artists sold all their works and began to work closely with galleries.
Personal experience with commercialization was an important learning experience for Yunnan artists. I remember that once when I was installing an exhibition in Shanghai, someone from China Post came and asked if I was willing to print my works on postcards. They wanted to expand the market and its influence by printing these postcards. I remember thinking that there were no China Post officials in Yunnan going to exhibitions and asking about collaboration, and if you went to them they would definitely look at you with indifference. The entire Yunnan market was still clearly very immature.
Orion: What happened then?
Luo Fei: In those years there were many artists who moved to Beijing or other locations and established studios. Many of their studios were huge, even as big as a gallery, in order to make large works. Some young artists also began to employ small teams of assistants to produce their work. At that time there was really a lot of investment in studios, art production, teams and selling. I did a very simple installation involving a loudspeaker on a six meter long wooden pole that played recordings of the prohibition of violent and grotesque performance art in public spaces. They wanted to take the installation to Shanghai but to move that long piece of wood across the country they had to rent a huge shipping container. Personally, I thought it was unnecessary, I just wanted to do a new art project in Shanghai. But at that time many galleries really didn’t care how much the price was. They wanted to try presenting a grand exhibition. I think that this kind of thing rarely happens today unless you are a very successful artist.
Orion: In your opinion, does the market now establish a “legitimate arena” with “rules of competition”? (terms drawn from Huang Zhuan’s piece)
Luo Fei: First I should say that I’m not in the market. I focus on experimental art. But my friends and teachers who are involved say that the art market is no different than other areas of the economy. In actuality, the Chinese art market is governed by Chinese rules of competition. All of the society’s rules of competition clearly have problems, there are too many unwritten rules and background connections. For example, Bo Xilai’s case is dramatic because there are a lot of things going on behind the official news. Maybe the art market is not as dramatic as the political sphere but it has the same characteristics.

The infamous Bainsbridge vase, a dusty antique discovered in an English home that auctioned for a stunning $85.9 million dollars
Orion: Are you referring to corruption in the art market?
Luo Fei: It’s a bit different but yes, it’s there. In politics we have corruption, but in art circles it is expressed in a different form. For example, if a boss wants to support an artist, he may ask someone to buy their work at a high price in an auction.
Orion: There are reports that during auctions of Chinese works, some organizations will plant buyers in order to push up the prices.
Luo Fei: Yes, it’s a game. In addition, the critics who assess value are also involved. The boss will gather buyers and art critics for dinner. The critic says good things and at the end of the night he/she gets a red envelope (Chinese tradition for passing gifts of money or bribes). It’s good that the critic gets some income but they lose their independence.
Orion: Zhuan sees a very large role for critics in the art market. Do you think critics can be the arbiter of art’s value?
Luo Fei: This is one of the critic’s responsibilities, to distinguish between good and bad, to assign art value, and to publicly interpret art. But as to the value of art, I personally do not believe that critics can act as the final arbiter. In terms of the public value of art, I am more interested in establishing a robust art system based on museums. Museums are a more fair way of selecting outstanding artists. Critics today are all self-employed or teaching at schools. Some work in galleries. I work at TCG Nordica, and therefore my responsibility is to introduce artists to the public. Interestingly, some independent curators will ask their students to write essays for them. This makes evaluations of worth very dubious and ambiguous, turning art criticism into a kind of advertisement.
Orion: They just tell the students to write some nice things?
Luo Fei: Yes, as a kind of practice for the students. Artists often complain to me about critics who do this. You can read the work and recognize that it’s really bad.
Orion: You mentioned that museums are a better alternative, but if there were more museums, wouldn’t they be like the Yunnan Provincial Museum? I recently saw an exhibition there that was absolutely terrible.
Luo Fei: I’m not talking about official museums. I mean those run by companies or independent individuals. In this system, buyers buy the art in order to collect the history. The public institution (whether private or a type of organization) profits from society, and then those profits are translated into cultural value and given to society. This is the function of those museums.
Orion: We’re talking about independent large scale galleries and private museums.
Luo Fei: Yes, we need different kinds of organizations that can show the public there are different values. Ideally, art critics would not have all the power. Different systems would reflect different values. We need a rich art ecosystem with all kinds of organizations including commercial, nonprofit, experimental, government, religious, classical, fashion, conservative, large scale, small scale, stable and mobile. The audience can decide what good art is, or what is good in different areas.
Part 2 will be posted next week.