Critique of OurHK Foundation’s Report on Art 評《藝術創共融 世界顯大同》 (1/2)
Originally published and translated in Artomity Autumn 2018
中文版請往下閱讀
References at the end of part 2
The policy report Celebrating the Inclusive Power of the Arts, released by the Our Hong Kong Foundation (OHKF) this March, is hamstrung by its own reductive view of inclusion and the power of art. Its failure to accurately define its own terms of engagement means that it is condemned to reach over-restrictive, unhelpful conclusions.
OHKF is a high-profile, outspoken supporter of government policies. Its recent report Re-imagining Hong Kong with a Game-Changer: Enhanced East Lantau Metropolis was released at an event officiated by its chairperson, Hong Kong’s first chief executive and now a vice-chairman of mainland China’s CPPCC, Tung Chee-hwa.
Similarly, media coverage of the launch of Celebrating the Inclusive Power of the Arts was bolstered by prominent speakers including Bernard Chan, convenor of Hong Kong government’s Executive Council; Gwen Kao, chairman of the Charles K Kao Foundation for Alzheimer’s Disease; Adeline Ooi, director Asia of Art Basel; Gavin Glayton of New York’s Arts & Minds; and Richard Ings of Arts Council England. With such influential backing, the report deserves closer scrutiny before its version of arts inclusion takes root in Hong Kong.
Disappointingly, the report suffers from poor arguments and the misuse of key literature to propose an incomplete framework for inclusiveness. The results are recommendations disconnected from inclusion, to be carried out according to a sterilised vision of art.
Celebrating states that it has chosen to value the arts as a means to and end rather than for having any intrinsic worth. This is a simplistic division at a policy proposal level. Since antiquity, rituals and arts have been a vessel for individual processes and social interactions. In contemporary times art has become a highly specialised field removed from function, but the arts as a general practice continue to permeate daily lives and impact societies (Belfiore & Bennett, 2008). Even Art for Health, a UK report heavily cited by Celebrating, connected artistic quality with function by stating that “quality of artwork should be a primary focus of a project’s aims” (Health Development Agency, 2000). As artists, NGOs and some levels of government have realised over recent decades, the arts as a means to an end and them having intrinsic value are not mutually exclusive positions.
Celebrating has identified six areas where art can have a social impact. However, it only focuses on one of them, Health and Wellbeing, while the others, Personal Development, Social Cohesion, Community Empowerment and Self-determination, Local Image and Identity, and Imagination and Vision, are cast aside without explanation. There is no rational reason that a report from an organisation that claims to unite Hong Kong through art should ignore the comprehensive framework that it has built. It suggests the report believes that all six areas can be reduced to Health and Wellbeing, or that art has no impact in other areas.
The rationale behind this argument emerges in chapter 2 of the report…(read on in part 2/2)
評《藝術創共融 世界顯大同》
團結香港基金於今年3月發佈了《藝術創共融 世界顯大同》藝術創新研究報告，報告對共融和藝術力量狹窄的概念導致其論點薄弱。報告無法明確定義參與條款，注定會得出過度約束且無益的結論。
團結香港基金是一個坦白並高調地支持政府政策的機構。基金會最近在一個活動上發佈了《跳出框框 想像未來 — 強化東大嶼都會》報告，活動由基金會主席兼香港首任行政長官和現任全國政協副主席董建華主持。
《藝術創共融 世界顯大同》的發佈活動同樣有很多知名演講者參與，包括行政會議召集人陳智思、 高錕慈善基金主席高黃美芸、巴塞爾藝術展亞洲總監黃雅君、Arts & Minds行政總監Gavin Glayton和Arts Council England特別項目高級經理Richard Ings，吸引大批傳媒報導。有如此強大的陣容支持，我們更應該在報告所指的藝術共融在香港紮根之前仔細研究一下。
報告論點欠佳，錯誤引用重要文獻，導致共融框架有欠完整，令人失望。報告的建議按一種不實際的藝術想像進行，與共融的關係脫節。
報告把藝術視為一種手段，而非著重其任何內在價值，這是政策建議層面的簡單劃分。自古以來，儀式和藝術一直是個人發展和社會互動的載體。如今藝術的功能性已經消失，成為了一個高度專業化的領域，但它仍然會充斥日常生活和影響社會（Belfiore & Bennett，2008）。即使是報告大量引用的英國報告《Art for Health（藝術對健康的影響）》，也指出「藝術品的質素應是計劃目標的主要焦點」，把藝術品質與功能聯繫（Health Development Agency，2000）。 近幾十年來，藝術家、非牟利組織和各級政府開始了解到藝術作為手段和具有內在價值兩者並不矛盾的事實。
報告指出了六個藝術可以為社會帶來影響的領域，但它只著重講述身心健康一環，而忽略了個人發展、社會凝聚力、社會充權和自我認同、本地形象和身份，以及想像力和願景。一份聲稱要透過藝術凝聚香港的報告沒理由會忽視其全面的框架，這暗示了報告認為六個領域都可以簡化成身心健康一環，又或說藝術在其他領域根本沒有影響。
此論點背後的理據源於報告的第二章…(read on in part 2/2)
