A Milestone Panel discussion - Contemporary Art and the Community

A Milestone Panel discussion - Contemporary Art and the Community

February 16, 2007 2:00pm

--Recorded by Luchia Lee (Curator) 

Kenneth E. Howell(Editor)

There was a milestone panel discussion held at the Amerasia Bank Gallery, Flushing, Queens, NY on the subject of “Contemporary Art in the Community.” The panel discussion was organized by Luchia Meihua Lee, a Taiwanese American art curator; she invited Tom Finkelpearl, Executive Director of the Queens Museum of Art, as moderator who joined with Flushing area community developers such as F & T group president, Michael Meyer, and Chief Architecture, Albert Chen. Others who participated in the discussion included Amy Winter, the director of Godwin-Ternbach Museum, Queens College; Yi Miao Huang, the Director of Taiwan Center; Roger McClannan, Trustee of Snug Harbor Cultural Center. Persons who attended and participated in the discussion included Daisy Rosenblum, New York Foundation for the Art; Joan Gauer, Asian Americans for Equality; Korea Village; and Lucy Davison, Flushing town Hall, Gary Shapiro from New York Sun, Stephen Stirling from time Ledger, and the artist included Yang Chin Chih, Hai Zhang, YoYo Xiao, Jon D’razio, Jeff Liao, and Chee Wang NG, Lin Shih Pao, Quan Han Dong, Zhang Hong Tu, Cui Fei, Yu Shi Chao.

As background, organizer: Luchia Meihua Lee writes:

The Flushing area has been growing very rapidly in population, as well as in business and commercial activity. Although the art scene has awakened and is vigorous in Flushing, the art most commonly shown is traditional in style. Many of these early groups of traditional artists still exist in various corners of the community. But it is disconnected from the main arena of New York City art (to be found in Manhattan and Brooklyn) which has long been the center of the international art world. Not only is there no professional contemporary art space in Flushing, but also the exhibitions presented in the area have been far from what they should be. But far from lacking any presence in contemporary art, Queens has been the temporary home of MOMA, and the permanent site of PS1, which has become an internationally renowned alternative space.

While Queens is the most diverse county in the entire country, Flushing’s growth has not been broadly based. Indeed, its commercial district is packed with restaurants and small vendors. Some of the local art galleries have been run by corporations or banks, such as Crystal Gallery, the Amerasia Bank Gallery, and World Journal Gallery. But none of them has been able to provide serious professional art. In contrast, in Brooklyn and Manhattan there are many more cultural activities. The Queens Museum of Art, the Godwin-Ternabch Museum at Queens College and the QCC Gallery are the art venues closest to Flushing; but because transportation to them is inconvenient, Flushing residents rarely visit these sites. In this panel discussion, we would like to investigate this situation and discuss future directions. This panel will bring together art historians, community developers, architects, non profit Asian organizations, providers of public space in Flushing, and artists to discuss methods to give Flushing a world class image and also link it with the contemporary art scene.

The panel discussion topics are cover: Change in the Flushing community and its residents, The advancement of art in the community, Contemporary art in Flushing

Will contemporary artists survive in Flushing? Will alternative spaces and contemporary art come to Flushing? The possibility of expelling exoticism? Concern about the landscape of the community, Dilemma: business or contemporary art.

The proceedings started when Luchia Lee, curator of Beyond Measure and organizer of the panel discussion, wished everyone a Happy New Year and introducing Jimmy Tsai, general manager of the Amerasia Bank.

Jimmy welcomed everyone and said that the bank was glad to help bring art to the community by providing space for free at the Amerasia Bank Gallery.

Luchia then introduced Tom Finkelpearl, Executive Director of the Queens Museum of Art and moderator of the panel discussion.  Tom pointed out that the best discussions involve disagreement and asked people to be frank and informal.  He then invited the panelists to introduce themselves.

Michael Mayer explained the development plans of the F&T Group, which include using art to attract people to their buildings, most notably Queens Crossing at the intersection of 39^th Avenue and Main Street.

Since Michael pointed out that he would need to leave after 15 minutes, Tom immediately posed the following question to him:

How do you intend to address the challenge of changing the tone of Flushing?  Michael replied that 13 years earlier he had started a similar project with Miami Beach.  At that time, Miami Beach was depressed and there were no national retailers there, nor an art presence.  What Miami Beach did have, like Flushing now, was abundant street life.  Artists led a renaissance in Miami Beach

 Tom pointed out that something like that happened in Soho, which was first popularized by artists but now is far too expensive for artists and galleries.  Tom said that there is a popular misconception that artists were the victims when the neighborhood became more expensive, but that really it was the poor who were shunted aside, not the artists.

Michael pointed out that affordable housing was only one aspect of keeping New York within reach of the middle class, and that it was a larger political issue.

Amy Winter pointed out that Soho had already lost its economic base before its transformation – contrary to the situation in Flushing.

Tom pointed out another difference – Queens in general, and Flushing in particular, can boast a very strong middle class.

Tom then went on to ask:  what art the fundamental challenges in integrating art and the community?

Huang Yi Miao said that it is difficult to get people to visit the Taiwan Center to see what is going on there.

Tom said that while some openings at the Queens Museum had been very successful, it had been difficult getting people to return.  Roger said that this was his impression as well.

Huang Yi then posed a sharper question:  How could non-Taiwanese be induced to visit the Taiwan Center?

Amy said that Queens College is an enclave unto itself, isolated by poor public transportation.

Tom commented that the spoke system of transportation makes it easier to get from any point in Queens to Manhattan than it does between two points in Queens.

Tom pointed out that the reason the Queens Museum is expanding is that the average museum visit is three hours, and the Queens Museum must be a substantial enough destination to attract visitors.

Having discussed the challenges of transforming Flushing, Tom moved on to ask about Flushing’s greatest advantage.

With the departure of Michael Meyer, Albert Chen now represented F&T.  He responded that Flushing had the opportunity to bring art to the people.

Hai Zhang said that artists who cannot show in Manhattan go to Queens to find alternative places to show their art.  But he was surprised that at the Queens Museum one doesn’t find people from Queens.

Chee said that outreach is very important.

Tom said that 50% of immigrants had arrived in the last 10 years, so turnover is very great and it is a challenge to appeal to the very newest immigrants.

Chee drew the distinction between high and low art.

Tom disagreed about the importance of this distinction, preferring to focus on different tastes.  As an example of non-elitist catering to one taste, he talked about QMA’s reaching out to Corona to gather recipes, pass them by a nutritionist, and collect them in a book of recipes.

Amy said that Albert’s idea of developers bring art to the community is not only feasible but also commendable.

Albert replied that the presence of art will improve his stores, but that he is not “selling” art.  He commented that although F&T had tried for a full year, they had been unable to attract major tenants because of the character of Flushing.

Amy pointed out that it should be considered “showcasing” art, not selling it.

Albert said that there were two approaches in putting art into a building
            - install pure art, where the art takes precedence, and

- lure people into the building with art.

Tom said that the second approach, which is what has been implemented with a public space at the Pompidou Center in Paris, is what QMA will do.

Tom returned to Albert’s plaint that he had been unable to lure Barnes & Noble as an anchor for the development at Queens Crossing.  Tom asked if anybody really wanted Barnes & Noble in Flushing anyway.  The response to his question was mixed.

Jon D’Orazio commented that Flushing is all commerce and has no open spaces.  His proposed solution was satellite museums, which also solve the difficulties of poor public transportation.

Albert said that art is intimately linked with life, for example art tells the best way to eat, to drink, and so on.

Huang Yi Miao said that May is Asian month.  Taiwan Center will visit public schools to introduce Asian art.  In doing this, it would be easy to mention other art venues in Queens.

Tom thoughtfully mentioned that there is a moral dimension to outreach programs.  For example, QMA’s outreach program in Corona drew many visitors from Manhattan, who may have decided that Corona is a convenient place to live, thus hastening Corona’s gentrification.

Tom also explained the 1.5 generation show that QMA is doing next summer.  He said that QMA is operating on the assumption that members of the 1.5 generation – those who immigrated here when they were in their early teens – would be much more likely to visit the museum than first generation immigrants.  When he asked the audience if they agreed with this assumption, he got a mixed response.

Some said that the 1.5 generation would be more likely to visit; some said that it depended on the programming, not the generation; some said it would make no difference; and Albert said that everybody should be welcome.

The discussion then moved to how the various art institutions in Queens could cooperate.  As an example of the lack of cooperation, Tom asked how many people in the room had been to the Louis Armstong house.  No hands went up.

But many people felt that it would be a good thing for the various art venues in Queens to work together.  He suggested that it would be important to foster relationships between groups, and that these would strengthen the community.

Daisy Rosenblum asked if artists feel they belong to a community, since NYFA is interested in fostering such community.  Perhaps because none of the artists present live in Flushing, the response was minimal.

Tom held up as a model for all Queens art institutions the Queens Public Library.  He said that the Flushing branch is the most heavily used branch library in the entire US.  It is free, it has good and varied programming, it has an ideal location, and it has good architecture.  He said that QMA would host a branch of the Queens Public Library after it remodeled.

Tom was discussing the number of visitors to the Queens Museum of Art, and he wanted to attract both visitors from other boroughs and also members of the neighboring communities.

Hai Zhang pointed out that it might be difficult to appeal to both of these groups with the same programming.  For example, if artists create works with the local community in mind and QMA displays them, more sophisticated visitors from outside the area might find them provincial.  Conversely, an exhibit catering to the international art world might have no relevance to the local communities.

Tom replied that this is a very deep question and confessed that he worries about this dilemma.  But he says that he tries to have it both ways by displaying art that at the same time is meaningful for both audiences.  As an example, he gave Jeff Liao's photographic work centered about the #7 train.  While the quality of the work was admired by all, visitors from Corona who were in QMA to view the Mexican exhibit could also identify individuals in Jeff's photos.

(Hai Zhang question to Tom, that on one side, the artists should be doing things for the community where they rooted, and Tom as the director of the museum probably should be happy that the things he is exhibiting do attract the people from the local communities.  But on the other hand, maybe (not always) the exhibition seems not to fit the people from other communities such as the ones from Manhattan or such on, even seems ridiculous.  What is Tom’s priority and how to deal with this complicit?   He pointed out that when Manhattanites visited QMA and saw art relevant to the community, they returned to Manhattan and reported that QMA showed nothing but junk.

Tom allowed that this was a very deep comment, and that he tried to have it both ways – showing good art that was relevant to the community.  As an example, he gave Jeff Liao’s photographic exhibition on the 7 train, which accompanied an exhibit of Mexican art.  Many of those from Corona who visited QMA for the Mexican art saw Jeff’s photographs and recognized individuals therein.)

Fu Chia Wen said that much of the discussion centered on art institutions and artists, however this was insufficient.  She said that most people don't like art, don't think they like art, don't live art, and don't think they can make art.  But art is all around us.  Taking contemporary art to the community must reach beyond museums.

She continued that:

1) The traditional approach has been to look for ways for museums to draw more visitors and for artists to create works that appeal more to the community.

2) A newer and better approach is community-centered art, in which the people as a whole are the artist, not an individual.

For example, is graffiti community-centered art?

Fu said that it is vital to identify the most important activities in the community and give them an artistic context. She suggested that community centers might come to replace museums.

Addressing the issue of  Contemporary Art and Community, we need to established a mind set for doing community-centered art/projects instead of artist-centered or institution-centered ideas. It is a basic concept for artists and institutions to come up with projects. Museums and artists can still play a role to create ideas to go beyond the 'white wall' of the museum to reach the heart of the community. I believe quite a few museum have already been doing this including Queens Art Museum and Bronx Art Museum ...etc."

Four people came from the Korean Village Open Center. The owner mentioned to organizer Luchia Lee that he was impressed by this panel discussion. He himself is a developer, but had only thought about business and making money. When he looks at the landscape of downtown Flushing, he worries that real culture and art is mostly replaced by commercial activity. He echoed some of the other panelists in saying that this is the time to work together in culture and art, without regard to racial divisions. He hopes this is the start, and another forum along these lines will soon follow.

--Recorded by Luchia Lee (Curator)  Kenneth E. Howell(Editor)

一個重要的里程碑-當代藝術在紐約社區座談會

 

一個重要的里程碑-當代藝術在紐約社區座談會

 

2007年2月16日星期五下午，有一場劃時代的座談會在法拉盛第一銀行畫廊舉行，主題是當代藝術在紐約社區，這一個座談會是由專業獨立策展人李美華所策劃，她邀請皇后美術館館長Tom Finkelpearl擔任主持人，座談人士包括法拉盛地區開發商F&T 集團總裁Michael Meyer及總建築師Albert Chen ，另外有傅家琿博士 (Parsons University藝術史教授) ，Dr. Amy Winter (紐約市立皇后大學美術館館長) ，Huang Yi Miao 黃怡妙 (台灣會館執行長) ，Roger McClanan (Staten Island 司諾港文化中心董事, 紐約大學教授) ，Lucy Davison (法拉盛藝術委員會) ， Daisy Rosenblum(紐約藝術基金會) ，Joan Gauer (亞洲人平等會) ，Wayne Park, Julia Lee(韓國村開放空間)機構代表參與，Gary Shapiro 自紐約太陽報, Stephen Stirling 自Time Ledger,另與會的藝術家有：楊金池、張海、YoYo(蕭維) 、Jon D’razio、廖健行、吳子雲、林世寶、全漢東、張宏圖、崔斐、虞世超等。

座談會起因於居住離法拉盛不遠的策劃人李美華所觀察的背景: 法拉盛地區不但人口激增，商業活動也日趨活絡；文化藝術方面雖然也正在蓬勃發展，但多傾向於傳統藝術，許多早期的傳統藝術家仍在社區的各不同角落存活著，但卻已經和久居世界藝術核心地位的紐約市主流藝術(可從曼哈頓和布碌崙地區嗅出藝術氣息)脫節。目前法拉盛地區非但缺乏專業的當代藝術展出空間，同時在與主流藝術接軌的運作上也與該有的水平還有一段長遠的距離。不過皇后區在當代藝術領域中也並非完全無立足之地，像現代美術館在整修期間就曾經以皇后區作為暫時棲身之處，而已享有國際知名度的PS1另類美術館則以皇后區為永久館址。

皇后區可說是全美最多元化的郡縣，因此其實法拉盛的發展應不僅限於此。事實上，它的商業區只是被一些餐廳和小商販圍繞著，僅有的一些畫廊也是由公司行號或銀行在經營，例如協和畫廊、第一銀行畫廊及世界日報畫廊，而沒有一家能夠以專業的藝術畫廊方式營運。相對地，布碌崙和曼哈頓就有比皇后區多得多的當代專業藝術活動。皇后區美術館 或是皇后大學美術館及皇后社區大學藝廊是距法拉盛最近的藝術集中點，但卻由於交通的不便，使得法拉盛居民很少會去參觀。在這次的座談會上，我們就想來研究這個現象並討論未來的走向，我們請到了藝術史學家、社區開發業界人士、建築師、皇后區藝術相關組織、法拉盛公共空間提供者、以及藝術家來共同討論，如何為法拉盛尋求一個世界級形象定位的方法，並將其帶領到當代藝術的領域中。

研討議題包括:法拉盛社區環境和居民的變遷、 藝術在紐約社區的進展、 當代藝術在法拉盛、 當代藝術家在法拉盛能生存嗎？另類展出空間和當代藝術會光臨法拉盛嗎？去異國文化風情的可能性、 對社區景觀的關注、兩難：商業或當代藝術。

座談會開始由李美華向大家拜年，並介紹紐約第一銀行畫廊經理Jimmy Tsai，Jimmy說明第一銀行提供免費空間讓藝術家展出已經有近十五年的時間，是法拉盛市區最早的由華人主持的藝術空間，李美華接著將座談交給館長Tom Finkelpearl主持，Tom Finkelpearl提及座談會的重要是提出異議，並要求與會者坦白，及放鬆自在談話，並讓與會者自我介紹。

總裁Michael Mayer首先發言解釋F&T Group 的發展計畫，Michael Mayer 計畫將運用藝術去吸引人們親近建築體，最近的計畫是Queens Crossing 在 39^th Avenue and Main Street.的交口處，當總裁Michael Mayer指出他必須逾十五分鐘後離開，館長Tom 馬上向他提出兩個問題:

1)您如何計畫去面對改變法拉盛社區整體氣氛的挑戰?

Michael回答以曾經在十三年前，他開始了一個相似的開發計畫，當時邁阿密海灘景觀非常的低迷，並且沒有國家鐵路穿過，更沒有藝術的呈現，現在邁阿密海灘什麼都有了，如同法拉盛地區有了川流不息的人們，藝術家帶來了邁阿密海灘的文藝復興。

Tom指出某些狀況的發生如同紐約蘇活區，藝術家們是首先進入蘇活區的人，但是現在居處在蘇活區對於藝術家或是畫廊而言，房價已經過度的昂貴而無法負擔，但這期間出現一種錯誤的說法是: 社區開始真正發展後藝術家成為受害者，但實際上，是貧窮者被拋棄了，並非藝術家。

Michael指出一般人可負擔的平民住宅是維持紐約中產階級的要素，但這是一個相當大的政治議題。

皇后大學美術館館長Amy Winter指出紐約蘇活區在轉型之前，已經失去它經濟上的基礎，這是與法拉盛的發展情形有所不同。

Tom 提出另一不同之處:皇后區，特別是指法拉盛可以發展非常堅實的中產階級。

Tom 問到什麼是完整藝術及社區基本的挑戰。

Huang Yi Miao(台灣會館執行長)說最困難的是讓人們了解並到台灣會館參加活動。

Tom接著說: 有些成功的展覽開幕時都帶來很多的人潮， 但是非常難再讓人們回到美術館參觀。

Roger也說他對這種狀況印象很深刻。

Huang Yi Miao提出一個直接的問題，如何誘導非台灣人至台灣會館。

Amy Winter(皇后美術館館長)提到皇后大學美術館則被自己所包圍，孤立於缺乏公共交通工具。

 

Tom提出一個看法: 現有的公共交通系統自皇后區任何一點至曼哈頓之往返較容易，而在皇后區內任何兩點間往返則困難的多，他並說明為何皇后美術館需要擴建計劃，因為一般美術館都是三小時參觀計畫，所以皇后美術館必須維持足夠的空間與參觀內容去吸引觀眾停留。

 

論及法拉盛的轉型挑戰問題，Tom同時提及法拉盛最大的優勢。

在Michael Meyer離席後，Albert Chen總建築師代表F&T集團發言，他回應法拉盛地區有機會將藝術帶給人們的空間。

 

藝術家張海(Hai Zhang)提及，當藝術家無法在曼哈頓找到展出空間時，才會到皇后區找尋另類藝術空間展出作品，但也非常訝異皇后美術館並未在皇后區找尋藝術家。

 

藝術家Chee接著說向外發展是非常重要的事。

Tom說百分之五十的移民都已住在紐約常達十年，所以讓她們重返參觀是相當的重要的事，現在如何去吸引新移民是一具挑戰性。

Chee 則提出高藝術及低藝術的區分，當藝術家創作時多半僅考慮其原創性，對觀眾的可親近性較乏，可考慮兩者兼之。

Tom則不同意這種區分的重要性，他傾向應專注於區分不同的品味，例如一般的外燴師各有不同種口味嗜好，他舉例說到皇后美術館至可樂那區去尋取得食譜，後交給專業營養師，之後即合成一本食譜書籍。

Amy說Albert所屬的的開發企業將藝術帶到社區不僅是去完成這件事而已，而是極具價值的事。

Albert答藝術的呈現可以改善商店內在與外觀，但並不是要販賣藝術，他說F&T雖然花上整半年的時間仍無法去吸引主要的商家進駐，這是因為整個法拉盛的景觀及特質不足。

Amy說應去思考展現藝術而不是去販賣藝術。

Albert有雙重方式去將藝術呈現在建築物中:

1)裝置純藝術作品，藝術成為主要重心 2)誘引人們因為要看藝術品進入建築物。

Tom說第二種方式是法國龐畢度藝術中心已經施行，也是皇后美術館將要執行的，他轉回Albert的說法，F&T無法去吸引主要的商家如Barnes & Noble進入Queens Crossing，他向觀眾提出一個問題，我們真的要Barnes & Noble到法拉盛嗎? 回應出現不同的聲音，藝術家Jon D’Orazio說法拉盛有太多的商家但沒有開放空間，並提出衛星美術館的計畫，這可同時解決交通不方便的問題。

Albert 說藝術與生活是息息相關的，舉例說藝術可告訴民眾最好的方式去吃，喝及其他事。

Huang Yi Miao提到五月是亞洲月，台灣會館將會到各學校去介紹亞洲藝術，經由這種方式較容易去提到皇后區的藝術。

Tom 周延的提及一種多角度的向外發展計畫在道德上的問題，例如，皇后美術館在可樂納區的活動吸引了許多曼哈頓的人潮，也許會有很多人思考可樂納區是一個方便的居住區，這同時引發了這一個區域加速引進富者驅逐貧者的情形發生。

Tom解釋了美術館將會在明年夏天辦理1.5世代(年輕一代在他們青春期前即移民國外者)的展覽，他說美術館假設1.5世代將會較第一代移民參觀美術館人數多，他並詢問其他與會者的看法，有人持不同意見，如應視展出的內容而定，有些人認為兩者世代觀眾應相同，Albert 說所有的人應該都要受到歡迎。

討論進行到不同的藝術機構應當如何的合作議題，例如當Tom 問到有哪一位曾經去過Louis Armstong house，沒有人舉手，但許多人認為在皇后區的機構應當一起作些事，他建議這將會幫助團體之間的關係，並且可以強化社區。

Daisy Rosenblum(紐約藝術基金會代表)問及如果藝術家覺得她們屬於某一個社區，紐約藝術基金會將會有興趣去協助這一個社區，或許因為很少在場的藝術家表示居住在法拉盛，所以沒有太多回應。

Tom舉紐約市立圖書館為範例，法拉盛圖書分館是所有美國圖書館中工作量最大的據一點，因為可免費進入，而且有很好及多元的節目，並具有相當方便的位置，以及好的建築體，他提及當皇后美術館擴建後，將會有一個市立圖書館分館設在其中。

 張海詢及美術館是否應迎合社區辦理社區創作藝術品? 從一種角度而言，藝術家創作與他們所處的社區相關聯的主題，美術館也許很樂於見到吸引許多的社區觀眾，但對於其他社區如曼哈頓的藝術家前來參觀時卻覺得有些荒謬，他指出當曼哈頓的藝術家參觀皇后美術館時並看見社區藝術作品時，他們返回曼哈頓的報導是皇后美術館沒什麼藝術只有垃圾。

Tom同意這種相當深入的看法，他試圖去展出好的並與社區相關的藝術品，如廖健行的七號地鐵攝影創作，與墨西哥展覽同時舉行，當他們到美術館參觀墨西哥藝術的同時也看到廖的展覽，並在社區藝術展覽內容中認識與其生活有關的個別人事物。

傅家琿認為許多討論多集中在藝術機構與藝術家，但這是不夠的，許多人不喜歡藝術，也不認為他們喜歡藝術，不生活在藝術中，也不認為他們可以創作藝術，但藝術是在我們四周環繞，論及當代藝術應當要跳開美術館的思維。

她繼續說

1)     傳統藝術與民眾接觸的方式是用美術館去吸引更多的訪客，並讓藝術家創作新作品以吸引更多社區的人。

2)     而一個新的以及較好的接觸點，應是社區-即為藝術的中心，也就是民眾就是藝術家，並非個人，舉例而言，塗鴉算不算社區中心藝術。

3)     一個更重要的挑戰是去認同重要的社區活動，並且給他們一個藝術的主張，她認為社區中心將取代美術館。

位於北方大道的韓國開放空間有四位代表前來，擁有人也是土地開發商向策劃人李美華表示，他心中非常的感動這一場研討會的舉辦，以及對法拉盛市區發分析，以一開發商的身分他認為商人不可不對社會有文化藝術方面的責任，不應該僅僅思考賺錢為主，他爲法拉盛社區的景觀日下感到憂心， 他認為文化藝術的工作將要加緊腳步，這是一個時機不分族群一起努力，他希望這是一個開始，下一場論壇能很快再合作舉行。

 

 

紀錄:李美華(策展人)

侯康德(英文編譯)