余杰-我在這個像蒸籠一樣的島國自由地言說

 （轉載自台灣教會公報2015年3月2日～3月8日/3288期）


【專文】我在這個像蒸籠一樣的島國自由地言說

余杰    2015-03-10 11:31

出走 不再見
 2012 年1月11日，我攜妻兒從北京登上直飛美國首都華盛頓的飛機。那 一天，沒有一個親朋好友前來送行，「送行」的是幾名負有特殊使命的國保警察。當廣播宣布「乘客開始登機」時，那個名叫姜慶杰的國保頭子故作客氣地說：「余先生，再見!」 不到4歲的兒子，以為這些面容和善的「叔叔」是爸爸的朋友，笑容可掬地向他們揮手告別。我沉默不語，登上舷梯時頭也不回。我知道他們正拿著相機對我拍照， 然後回去交差。我知道，這一生大概不會有機會跟他們 「再見」了。

在我人生的下半段，離開中國的時間將以十年為單位計算。我不會像1989年六四屠殺之後離開中國的民運人士，過於樂觀地做出「中共在未來三、五年內必定垮台」的預言。既然暴政的形成是 「冰凍三尺，非一日之寒」，那麼從臣民社會蛻變為公民社會的「解凍」則需要更加漫長的時間。中共的暴政一天不垮台，我就不會回中國，我回去的應當是一個自 由民主、地方自治的中國。

我沒有中國士大夫自憐自艾的鄉愁，那種余光中式精緻而唯美的鄉愁。我有那在淨光高處的信仰。正是對故鄉的那片土地和那些同胞的愛，我才選擇暫時性地離開。我不以流亡為苦，我絲毫沒有華人慣有的「葉落歸根」的念頭，於我而言，「自由在哪裡，祖國就在哪裡」。我知道，有一片更大的青山綠水在等待我、呼喚我。我是一名流亡作家——儘管我並不喜歡流亡這個詞語，但姑且沿用之。自古以來，流亡似乎總是那些追求真理和自由的作家的宿命。波蘭流亡作家、詩人米沃什寫道：

他頭髮倒豎，耳朵聽見搜捕的尖叫，他逃過冰凍的原野，而他朋友和敵人的靈魂留在了結霜的鐵絲網後面。

這就是一幅我的畫像：我自由了，可是我的朋友、諾貝爾和平獎得主劉曉波仍然在監獄中，從2010年10月起他的妻子劉霞被非法軟禁至今。這是為了自由，不得不付出的代價。


鄉居 再行腳
抵達美國之後，我沒有選擇去華人眾多、處處鄉音的加州或紐約，而是定居在更具「美國性」的維吉尼亞風光如畫的鄉間。我新家的前院，有十多棵顏色不同的櫻花 樹，每到春天，如雲霞般的櫻花便飄進了書房。在這樣一間探出頭去就能與知更鳥親嘴的書房裡，若不能文思如泉湧，還能怪誰呢？我喜歡這片留下過清教徒腳蹤的 土地。這裡離華盛頓不到一個小時車程，周圍遍布華盛頓、傑佛遜和麥迪遜這些美國開國之父們的莊園。空氣裡有清甜的青草味道，不遠處的馬場、酒莊與森林美不勝收。在這裡，我終於可以安靜地埋頭讀書、寫作，有時一個星期也不會有一通電話或一個訪客來打擾。

在寧靜的、宛如世外桃源的美國鄉居生活的間隙裡，我有機會到台灣訪問。與此前身在中國時兩次走馬觀花式地訪問台灣不同，身在北美的我可以從容展開台灣「行腳」——2013年春和2014年春兩次訪台，加起來超過四個月時間，差不多走遍了台灣的每一個縣市。

台灣的熱鬧與北美的寧靜宛如火與冰的兩個世界。初春時節，維吉尼亞還是料峭春寒，台灣已宛如碩大的蒸籠,溼熱的氣候讓我揮汗如雨。比氣候更加躁動的、更加熾熱的，是新發於硎的公民社會對回潮的威權體制的抗爭。我很高興成為這一歷程的觀察者和參與者。


砥礪 磨長劍
台灣之美，最美的是自由。在這裡，我可以自由地言說、自由地發表和出版作品。這幾年來，我的新作與舊作陸續在台灣出版。在沒有出版自由的中國之外，有香港和台灣可以出版作品，這是用華文寫作的我，比昔日用俄語寫作的俄國流亡作家更幸運之處——那些俄國流亡作家只能在美國一家專門出版俄語著作的小出版社出版作品，很多書僅僅有數百冊銷量。而我在香港和台灣仍然擁有為數眾多的讀者，甚至有不少陸客到香港和台灣旅行的時候購買我的書，再偷偷帶回中國，雪天讀禁書， 不亦樂乎？

2013年之後，隨著中共對香港的步步緊逼，香港的出版自由變得日漸蹇逼。此伏彼起，我在台灣出版的作品數量逐漸超過了香港。於是，到台灣與台灣的讀者朋友面對面地交流，成為我生命中一種不可或缺的寶貴經驗。

我到台灣時，充滿了感恩之心。不過，一開始，我的台灣的看法，像大多數中國知識分子那樣，受制於利己之心和宏大敘事：我們都認為，台灣的民主和自由，可以成為未來中國社會轉型的參考與樣版。故而，我懷著焦灼的心態，向台灣朋友介紹六四屠殺、「天安門母親」群體和諾貝爾和平獎得主劉曉波，希望更多的台灣人關注中國議題。這樣做固然沒有錯，但當我一步步地深入台灣社會的肌理，就越來越真切地認識到，不能僅僅把台灣視為一個可以利用的資源，我也應當為台灣民主的深化盡一份力。

台灣不僅有美食、美景和溫婉的人情，更有民主憲政深化過程中的劍戟與攻防。我有幸加入到光明的陣營，對抗那無邊的傲慢、僵冷的黑暗。我遇到最可愛的人，是那些目光炯炯、怒髮衝冠的青年，他們常常帶給我驚喜與觸動。2013年春天訪問台灣時，我應邀作了20多場公開演講；2014年春天訪問台灣時，原計畫作30場演講，但實際上演講的數量增加了一倍，最多的一天有三場——「太陽花」學運後，有那麼多台灣朋友希望更多了解中國的真相，並傾聽一名「異鄉客」和「世界人」對台灣社會問題的看法。由此我也成了「太陽花」的一分子，成了台灣公民社會的「榮譽成員」。

邀請我前去演講的單位，除了此前的大學、教會、出版社之外，這一次更有獨立書店、咖啡館、醫院、公民團體 等，甚至還有中學和原住民部落。在台灣，與我對話的作家、學者、律師、牧師和文化界人士濟濟一堂：鴻鴻、吳明益、王丹、楊憲宏、林培瑞、徐斯儉、沈清楷、 李筱峰、姚嘉文、黃國昌、宋澤萊、李敏勇、顏厥安、莊萬壽、陳芳明、曾建元、葉浩、梁文韜、鄭仰恩、 王昭文、王貞文、盧俊義、白光勝、羅文嘉、王成勉、蘇南洲、康來新、洪耀南、鄭村棋、周渝、王興中、李酉潭、 許家豪、林保華、李雪莉、陳君愷、陳至潔等數十人。

在這些主題不同的演講中，我不僅講述自己的觀點與看法，通常還會留一定的時間，請聽眾提問或辯難。在後一環節，思想與思想之間碰撞出了光芒四射的火花，某些小小的火花使我萌生了關於下一篇文章嶄新而鮮活的思路。

我 對台灣的朋友們說，我在台灣一天講的話，比在美國一個星期講還要多，更比在中國一個月講還要多。在美國，有講話的自由，卻沒有聽眾；在中國，連講話的自由都沒有——在長達十年的時間裡，我被禁止在超過三、五十人的場合公開講話；而在台灣，既有講話的自由，也有熱情似火的聽眾。如果說我的思想和文字如同一柄長劍，那麼我在台灣演講時遇到的每一位朋友和讀者都如同一塊緻密的磨刀石—— 若沒有磨刀石，劍怎麼可能有削鐵如泥的鋒利呢?

我是台灣人
我的這些演講，以太陽花學運為中心，以台灣民主化歷程為時間軸，以中台港澳及海外華人世界對民主價值的認同與追求為空間軸。我不無驚訝地發現，太陽花學運興起後，關於太陽花學運的評價，我與許多曾是好朋友的中國民主派人士產生巨大分歧。這一分歧引起我的警醒與深思：為什麼在海外生活多年並自稱支持民主、自 由、人權的人士，一旦面對台灣獨立議題，立刻就跟共產黨一模一樣，窮凶極惡喊打喊殺，猙獰的面目讓我無法辨認？

中國知識界論及台灣問題時荒腔走板的時空錯位，一方面是因為他們對台灣的歷史與現狀缺乏基本了解。他們反共，便以為聲稱「反攻大陸」的蔣介石是救星，卻不知 道被蔣介石迫害的雷震和殷海光才是懷著「自由中國」願景的民主鬥士；他們反日，便對日治時代台灣的進步與文明一筆抹殺，甚至全盤接受國民黨「二二八是親日分子的叛亂」的說法。他們期盼國民黨重返中國執政，認為馬英九取 代習近平是「最美的夢想」。

另一 方面，因為中國知識分子大都不能正確理解人權真諦。英國思想家以賽亞•伯林指出：「人權這個觀念建立在一個正確的信念之上，就是普遍存在著某些特定的品性——自由、 正義、對幸福的追求、真誠、愛—— 這符合整個人類的利益，而不只是符合作為這個或那個民族、宗教、職業、身分的成員的利益。滿足這些要求，保護人們這些要求不被忽視或否認，都是正當的。」以此理念出發，獨立的訴求是人權重要組成部分，台灣獨立、香港獨 立、西藏獨立、新疆獨立，乃至作為四川人的我期盼的四川獨立，都是理所當然的、天經地義的價值。與當年掙脫英國殖民統治、獨立建國的北美十三個自治邦民眾 一樣，獨立與自由是台灣人民不可剝奪的基本人權。台獨不是負面價值，而是正面的價值；不支持台獨的中國知識分子，不是台灣人民的真朋友。我從不迴避在任何公開場合支持台獨，我更以書為媒，在演講中、臉書上，結識越來越多台灣朋友，我的台灣朋友比中國朋友還多，在這個意義上，我也算是台灣的半個在地人了。

我在台灣發表演講，是身體力行支持台灣民主進程。這些演講稿中的十篇彙編成這本書，漸次展開當下台灣社會萬眾矚目的議題：台灣憲政體制的癥結在哪裡？台灣獨 立的前景如何？中國民主化與台灣獨立有何關係？為何馬英九當局與中共謀求的是「虛假的和平」？為什麼說台灣社會的分裂是「臣民社會」與「公民社會」的分 裂？知識分子如何彰顯公共性同時又堅持獨立性？

我鮮明的觀點，在台灣引發不同的迴響。演講中即有聽眾提出截然相反的意見，部分講稿片段在媒體發表後，也有讀者在網路留下商榷的看法。伯林說：「理解反對意見能磨練人的鑑別能力，機靈和聰明的論敵常常能幫助你剔除謬誤和錯誤。在政治學和理論學中，最壞的不過是狂熱固執著少數簡單的觀點，作為放之四海而皆準的鑰匙。」因此，我不斷修正自己的觀點，讓自己離真 理越來越近。整理每篇講稿時，盡可能收入聽眾的問答及與談者、主持人的發言。這樣不僅更有現場感，讀者亦可窺見我的台灣觀一步步孕育成形的軌跡。

1963 年6月26日，美國總統甘迺迪訪問西柏林時，曾以德語說「我是柏林人」，這句擲地有聲的宣告鼓舞了無數與極權體制抗爭的人們。在同個意義上，在太陽花綻放的台灣，我是一名不持有台灣護照的「台灣人」，我把台灣視為自己精神的原鄉，視為詩人布羅茨基筆下「水手們的十字架在那兒泛著白光」的美麗島。如果中共有 一天武力犯台，我願以肉身去抵擋中共的坦克——如同1989年在北京攔阻坦克屠殺學生的「坦克人」一樣。面對國共兩黨聯手葬送台灣民主憲政、走向終極統一的陰謀，我願與所有熱愛自由和獨立的台灣人併肩戰鬥——我深信，總有一天，我們能坐在自己的葡萄樹和無花果樹下，歌唱與歡笑。

 

 （轉載自台灣教會公報2015年3月2日～3月8日/3288期）

Zhang Hongtu's Water Painting

RE-MAKE OF MA YUAN'S WATER ALBUM (780 YEARS LATER)

by Luchia Meihua Lee 

Zhang Hongtu, MY-H, Oil on Canvas
50" x 72" 2008

Ma Yuan, Walter Album 11"x16.5"

In 2008 Zhang Hongtu created 12 oil paintings entitled RE-MAKE OF MA YUAN'S WATER ALBUM (780 YEARS LATER). Each piece is 50 x 72 inches. The original series is referred to as the Water Album by Ma Yuan, an album of 12 paintings depicting water in various situations. The original series has been esteemed as the most vivid, best presentation of water in traditional Chinese painting. Ma Yuan (1160-1225) was one of the best-known literati and painters of the South Song Dynasty. The water album was formerly in the collection of Taipei National Palace Museum. Now the album is in the collection of the Palace Museum in Beijing. The size for each painting in the original series is 11x16.5 inches. The most difficult challenge for brush ink painters is to draw water, because it is formless, and changeable. In this, it is like human minds.

Zhang Hongtu’s art work, while quoting the past, is all related to the present, as in these reflections on the environment. Everything is cross cultural, and hybrid. From his early work in NY, his art reflects his attitude toward art, society, and himself. And Zhang is true to himself, while also changing his point of view frequently. In his statement “if Ma Yuan still lived today and saw the polluted water today, would he still paint his twelve paintings of water?” Zhang continues both to reference and to challenge western and eastern painting.

Zhang kept Ma Yuan’s different wave patterns on his canvas, but floating on the water is trash or foam from chemical pollution, or the clear water has become soy sauce colored. Ma Yuan’s water paintings remain, but they are updated to reflect current conditions.

The uncompromising black and white nature of traditional Chinese brush ink painting in general, and in Ma Yuan’s work in particular, is shockingly subverted by Zhang’s addition of color. In different paintings, he tints the water or the sky green or purple or red to emphasize its contamination. In another painting in the series, Zhang shows cracked, sunbaked earth in spaces that Ma Yuan filled with abundantly flowing water.

Zhang uses “re-make” both in this series and in his ongoing Shan Shui series, which is a virtuosic combination of Impressionist master pieces with Chinese Landscape painting. He uses “re-make” – meaning re-produce or re-present – when he is hybridizing a new and an old style in a way that might cause discomfort at first sight. This RE-MAKE OF MA YUAN'S WATER ALBUM is related to his ongoing Shan Shui [1] Today series. It reflects on the serious pollution problems of China, and by extension in the rest or world, and in a beautiful way focuses on this urgent phenomenon.

Chinese brush ink painting is a fusion of mind and matter; it is said that for the painter the images and feeling should melt together, and this be is should be evident in his work. Relatively speaking, early western art uses more realistic images to express profound feelings. Direct representations of reality are not valued as highly in Chinese brush ink painting, which is much more abstract and emphasizes emotional and philosophic content over details such as perspective.

Zhang Hongtu MY-A

Ma Yuan, Water Album

There is a calligraphy by Hongtu in the upper left section of the first painting in his remake of Ma Yuan’s Water Album. This first of Ma Yuan’s paintings is entitled “Waves Pushing the Golden Wind” and Zhang’s commentary reads “Part of the painting has been lost. Ma Yuan was born 800 years ago. He left these 12 water paintings. That the paintings are still with us is our fortune, and deeply appreciated; but the water depicted in the painting, is it still there?”

Although the original Ma Yuan Water paintings have individual titles,[2] Zhang uses captions of the form RE-MAKE OF MA YUAN'S WATER ALBUM- A. C. D. F. and so on.

The Original Ma Yuan[3] Water Album conjures up splendidly vivid and exciting demonstrations of different types of water. Ma Yuan inherited and further developed the Northern style landscape, and brought new ideas to painting. His brush is full of emotion and at the same time disciplined and careful; although he did not use colors, he indicated various tints by employing shades of grey. Large strokes depict cracked hard rocks. A few economical strokes suffice for trees, whose structure is more twisted and runs in a crosswise direction; the viewpoint is natural and vivid. His water paintings offer a detailed observation of nature and paradoxically a superb realistic ability.

By making visible the Chinese environmental crisis in a pictorial way that is both classical and modern, Zhang Hongtu opens a critical public space in which environmental issues can be scrutinized and changed. His images have inspired people to rethink the meaning behind the fake and fatal beauty of landscape, what has passed before and what has been left to us, and what to pass on to the next era. As a result, we might pay more attention and take action on several fronts. To investigate these paintings, we must adapt not only the formal perspective on the painting, but also consider the spirit of the post-communist, free market economic system to discuss the Eco art expression. Also, through the historical aesthetic spirit of beauty, and cultural connotation, we should penetrate the ugliness and melancholy with the compassion of the artist mind’s to ponder our mother earth and humankind.

In traditional Chinese philosophy, harmony with nature, and therefore with heaven, gives humans the possibility to unit with oneness. That is the Taoist sense of nature.[4]  This philosophy permeated lyrics in seals and poems that were included in paintings and represented the mind of the painter. Unlike western landscape, in Chinese Shan Shui the figure either is wrapped inside a hut, walking along the mountain trail or rowing a boat in the river – melting into the landscape, like a puzzle game. Humans should be seen as a small and insignificant part of nature, and not in a precise proportion or the perspective. In a way, we might name it as surrealism in its disregard of representation, while it is exact in its expression of the philosophy of harmony.

Zhang’s appropriation of the work of one of the most acclaimed exponents of Chinese landscape painting thus takes on an additional layer of irony.

---

[1] Shan Shui is literally translated as “mountain and water” although more idiomatically it might be rendered as landscape. Chinese Landscape painting  did not reflect directly the top of steep peaks, nor the feet of cliffs, nor towering mountains , nor paths, nor people sitting alone – although it contain all these elements

[2] The 12 paintings in this album were titled 1.  Wave Pushing the Golden Wind, 2. Dongting Lake breeze,  3. Waves Overlapping Waves, 4.Cold Pond, 5.Yangtze hills, 6.Yellow River Reflux, 7.Autumn water echo wave, 8. Cloud generate sea, 9. Splendid lake water, 10. Stretch clouds, curb  waves, 11. Dawn breaking over the hill,, 12. Small waves floating. (波蹙金風、洞庭風細、層波疊浪、寒塘清淺、長江萬頃、黃河逆流、秋水回波、雲生滄海、湖光瀲灧、雲舒浪卷、曉日烘山、細浪漂漂)

[3] He is one of the most important painters of the Southern Song Dynasty; his paintings won royal favor, and many bore inscriptions by Emperor Ningzong or his empress; Ma Yuan, Li Tang, Liu Song, and Xia Gui collectively were referred to as the "four Song masters," while Ma Yuan and Xia Gui gave their names to the Ma-Xia school of painting.

[4] As it is expressed in Tao Te Ching, Man follows earth, earth follows heaven, heaven follows Tao, and Tao follows Nature.

Below is the reference images of these 12 paintings

RE-MAKE OF MA YUAN'S WATER ALBUM (780 YEARS LATER)
Oil on canvas
50 x 72 inches, 2008

(Left) Zhang Hongtu Re-make of Ma Yuan Water Album

MY-

(Right) Original Ma Yuan Water Album  

 MY-H 

  

MY-D

MY-F 

  MY-O

MY-P

MY-Q

MY-RR 

MY-S

MY-X

 

   

   

The Moment 當下. 瞬間

The Moment                                                                                                                 當下. 瞬間

by Luchia Meihua Lee

As defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary, MOMENT can mean a minute portion of time, importance, a stage in historical or logical development, or the product of quantity (as a force) and the distance to a particular axis or point.

While the presentation through visual practice has many different interpretations, artwork in displays its own physical and psychological moment, as the product of a unique insight and the distance the artist has carried his or her conception.

The concept of The Moment concept is to investigate the play of the virtual and the real, inward and outward, our intimate reflection on a surface, dark and light, or a view of self in the outside environment. These “MOMENT” is a glance to visualize a picture, an object, a location, a person, or a memory.

The Moment uncovers artist encounters commenting upon the intersection of the inner mind and the outside environment. Artists fuse their creativity in two dimensional painting or manipulate it in new technology to discover new modes of relaying ideas, frameworks, and innovative interfaces between physical worlds in ways that provoke the imagination and problematize art interaction.

The Moment is a live direct or indirect program that brings the participants to view, physically touch, and spiritually experience elements that might be generated through graphic, sound, video, or other art presentation. Through re-interpreting the idea of festival, we take technology to a wider application in the real world. Creative humanness, when the visitor is watching a video, seated at a computer, or touching a screen, will supplement reality and increase the two dimensional plane to a time axle moment. In one direction, it points to the past, and in another direction it imagines the future.

The Moment will develop a multi-disciplinary program to be built upon, leading to deeper, richer, and more personalized experiences – experiences that we can take part in together. In the meantime, we can all stand to gain from improving the way we share our experiences together. In order to share the moment, audiences will express the complex appreciation, desire, and fondness we have for what we pay attention to. And this will expand their cultural and art experiences to a virtual museum.

• • There will be an exhibition including over 15 artists, arranged to show the moment of force, masses and electric charge.
    
    
  • The fixed reference points allowing the viewer to calculate moment is different for every piece of art. For example, for Amy Wen’s piece it is the “peephole” through which we must look to gain a new vision. At the same, the view limits our perspective to see and to sense, enabling this this piece to comment on moment of vision.
  • Other artists have focused on mechanically oriented challenges to stereotypes of writing literature or painting canvas, or weaving, or composing letters, or cutting through canvas to discuss physical moments.
  • An intimate moment of force results from sharing a close relationship while walking through a hallway in an imaginative performance piece. This may lead to reflection on self-experience and more meaningful observation of the locations traversed in life.
  • These pieces involve a mind change or a reminiscence through a virtual space to dialogue in their time space, in three dimensional animation of the structure of the universe. Sharing a perspective with such art, Ming Jer’s “reconstruction” reviews the city in aerial photographs and deconstructs the ordinary view of the urban skyline of the city. Interacting with the space, by means of lighting, and a moving robot are the chosen means of expression of the third group. The performance and the image design centers this piece firmly in the intersection of visual and performance art.

(the program will be developed and announced)

從心所欲: 張宏圖的生活故事         Following the Heart: Zhang Hongtu
By Luchia Meihua Lee

生活故事
生活覺察是創作思想的源泉，連續性的混淆改變再重組，再詮釋與體驗成為展覽軸線。張宏圖前半生在毛時代的中國成長，是顛沛流離困苦的，1982到美國的前期艱苦勞動,但精神上是自由的，創作力是源源不斷的。他熱愛生命，個性樂觀；生活淡泊。從未停止創作，他的作品呈現著生活的﹑混種的﹑對話的多元面貌。他不追求風格也不被風格限制，他隨心所欲，時以旁觀者的精神﹑局外人的角色去挑戰一般人欣賞的慣性, 去打破美學形式上的習慣，反抗重複製作的形式，自我捨棄某種已經被接受的原有創作，所以他能在每一階段採用當代媒材及語彙不斷延展出新的構想與表現形式。

張宏圖出生於虔誠的中國穆斯林回教家庭, 成長於不斷遷徙與被殊離的環境中。 在二次大戰後, 因宗教及經濟的背景造成政治上對家庭的嚴重打擊，他目睹文化革命對中國社會與人心的摧毀。1960年他曾在中央美院附屬高中上學，後因中央美院停止招生而於1964年轉至中央工藝美院學習。1966 文化革命開始政治批判的活動連接不斷，他被下放到到河北省農村工作， 在1980參加中國最早的非官方藝術組織之一「同代人」， 他強烈感到藝術創作生涯被犧牲，在1982年以參加紐約藝術學生聯盟（Art League）研習考察的名義而得到機會出國。并藉著到紐約Art League的機會移居美國，自此遠離了他生活了近40年的祖國，而離開之前,他已打定主意不再回到那令他不適的政治體制與生活方式。抵美後，面對全然陌生的環境，興奮又擔憂,他日日打工，在建築工地賺取生活費；兩年半之後把妻子和兒子接到自由的國度，逐漸建立穩定在紐約的家庭。雖在美困難打工生活，他自始自終沒有放棄他心中流動熱切的創作力，在抵紐約的兩年後賣出兩幅畫受到了鼓舞，持續的朝向專業創作者的方向前進。

豐富的生活點滴提供了視覺上直接衝擊與創造資源，當生活逐漸穩定，自由民主國度的環境提供放心的條件，掩藏在他潛意識內的影像就更為明晰，年青時代中國文革的毛澤東的魅影浮現在他日常生活的物品上，也引發他以一貫的「局外人」的精神處處去戲毛，這些在他「物質毛」系列作品一一呈現；「物質毛」中的毛像是鏤空的輪廓，毛圖像是虛的，不存在於實體中，但而卻如鬼影般無所不在。張宏圖運用隨手可得的材料進行創作，如報紙，醬油，水墨的出現，在某些作品中可以看出來他自在的運用各種現成品當媒材。居住在紐約這世界藝術中心大都會，西方觀念藝術的表現方式的當然也啟發他的某些靈感。他的作品丟棄負面的思維，丟棄悲觀，他在其間變戲法，越玩越樂；在「主席們」作品則越是玩弄毛到了出神入化，九組件毛輪廓與西方經典作品的結合，讓毛與杜象（Marcel Duchamp）﹑安迪瓦霍(Andy Wahol)等西方藝術史上熟知的影像玩在一起。也在同時忠實著自我內心深層的創痛，進行不為人知的心理治療階段。正在此時，他的創作也隨著內心層層的恢復逐漸的受到了西方世界的肯定。

張宏圖是第一位挑戰以毛澤東為主題進行創作的中國藝術家。在芝加哥大學巫鴻的文章裡也提到；他的反偶像崇拜有絕對的跨文化﹑跨國界意象，在體會他的作品趣味與好玩之餘，也带出更為深刻的醒思。張解構毛形象的作品有絕對性的政治體制挑戰的隱性企圖，也突顯這位中國背景藝術家的獨特性，與國際性議題接軌。在張宏圖的看法中，目前中國的政治體制與二十年前中央集權控制與保守毛的時期本質上是相同的，所有的經濟發展與向資本主義的靠攏，基本上還是個表象，也是現在多數的迷失與被矇蔽的氛圍情況。如同世界當代藝壇的中國藝術熱潮，很大部分是表象與不成熟的炒作，如果沒有認清共產政治的事實，跟隨這些名義跳躍， 就會落入相同圈套。

行走的人
在美的初始階段，張宏圖作品出現黯淡的色調與拼貼手法等，在他1980一幅「行走的人」的畫,有著梵谷(Vincent Van Gogh)的「播種者」(The Sower, 1888)形式與筆觸,但是更接近宏圖真實人生的艱辛的表現。後續的系列拼貼作品有西方當時羅森柏格（Robert Rauschenberg）的影子；美國抽象表現及普普的風格明顯的組合在他的生活心像轉換中，另有他的醬油的畫作、陶土的頭像﹑拼貼作品，還有在紐約時報上作的墨與壓克力油畫，這些作品從未對外發表過；從形式上看來他有試圖著在找尋自我文化特質的傾向，如書法揮毫或是潑墨的效果；而必然的去呼應生活環境中當時期美國抽象表現主義中自由與大筆觸揮灑時代風格；而從一件捲軸鏤空的拼貼作品中，我們逐漸的看到中國傳統文化語彙更頻繁的出現在他的作品中；並且有更明顯的解構﹑轉換﹑與再現，從這兒看見他更自在優游在東西古今中外文化間。

從不怠於嘗試新媒材與題材的他, 電腦數位技法的運用是必然的，再加上他一貫熟練的文化混血思維，把似乎不合理的圖像結合成為一系列的傑作；同時也呈現了對偶像崇拜與流行文化的嘲弄令人會心一笑，其中廣為人知的作品，如代表美國流行普普風格加上中國圖案的青花可口可樂瓶，青銅器麥當勞系列，另外十二生肖的唐三彩毛裝陶藝作品, 這些立體作品圖像出現在他自製的蘇富比拍賣的贗品圖冊中。另雙幅卷軸式的數位作品描繪著成千的工人騎著腳踏車進與出工業區，背景是有沈周的山水與及毛青年時期的山水多嬌感歎詩，带出了某改革時代的背景；還有達文西的舉世名作「最後晚餐」的耶穌基督與十三個弟子被宏圖改頭換面成為十三個毛澤東，其中有趣的細節如西洋餐具變成碗與筷子，桌下巧妙擺放了中國獨有也是毛澤東日用的痰盂，這些以電腦技法去組合的圖像，呈現荒謬中的美感與好笑。張的作品面貌就如同他可愛、不隨俗或不刻意個性。

張宏圖他從沒有停止挑戰自己，他發展出獨有的中國山水皴法與西洋印象派點描派的交互運用表現，如芥子園的圖譜與莫內的筆觸、色彩與光線的研究；深入探究東西景觀的牴觸點交融處，而同時他關心生活環境﹑都會的發展、自然的破壞，在二十世紀人類的生存的危機議題，出現與馬遠山水與水污染系列作品中。這系列也一貫的呈現他的古典色調與生活的關心。還有張宏圖這系列作品就如林似竹的文章中點出的，初看時這一種優美的景觀立刻被吸引了我們的目光，但也產生一種不自在的尷尬，似乎應該是熟悉的圖像，但是卻同時產生陌生感，這一種矛盾與和諧性同時存在。非常有趣値得觀賞與更深入的探討。

戲毛
張宏圖的混種性延伸玩弄毛的作品，除以西方大師的圖騰與手法去操弄，去挑戰於毛對中國人在精神上的入侵與某層面的傷害。在解構﹑遊戲﹑中西方流行文化外，有種輕鬆性的幽默，也影射某層面的毛的荒謬性，相當不同於一般直接的或是意圖性的政治文宣議題表現的藝術家，以及其後跟隨者所標榜呈現的毛的表象與造形。

張宏圖穆斯林的家庭背景在共產主義官方的無神主義下尤其受到摧毀與打擊，在普林斯頓大學(Princeton University) Dr. Jerome Silbergeld 的文章中有張背景詳細的描繪。在1949年錯失離開中國的時機, 全家最後落入遭到前所未有的迫害。張在少年和青年時期經歷了毛澤東時代的社會變遷, 共產當的專制獨裁統治、文革的痛楚、紅衛兵製造的惡夢、疏離與犧牲。相較與其後年輕10歲的下一世代，張有更直接而深刻的感受。自1982到美後，遠離共產社會體制的壓迫，呼吸到自由民主的新鮮空氣，也同時為了生活而從事許多的粗工；相較下精神上卻是得到甦放轉換的空間，張宏圖在紐約初期一些陰暗沉重的繪畫、拼貼、混合媒材後， 漸漸的出現有中國意向的中西合併創作品。

在經歷了長達30多年共產黨環境浸染毛洗腦教育。毛無處不在的影像不知不覺中已存在於潛意識之中，1987 在「物質毛」的第一組作品的貴格麥片 (Quaker Oat), 就是在天天吃麥片的同時,貴格罐子外帶帽子的白髮老公公的臉，浮現了毛的影子，而開始將之改妝成為毛的形象，之後並以各種物質媒材以遊玩心態進行戲謔性的創作；如倣Duchamp的 HIACS作品(He is Chinese Stalin)，1989 年的「最後晚宴」諷刺毛的神話與思想上的神聖性。天安門事件也讓張的創作生涯作了大的轉換。物質毛系列之後延伸的作品，如鏤空的「乒乓毛」球桌，「紅門」在門後偷窺毛錄像的作品等等；在雙語針炙圖,，宏圖將毛的半裸圖標出針炙的定點，標出中英雙語穴位名稱，如頭部的「階級鬥爭」和腳下的「民主，思想」等，影射了對毛的意識形態及社會體制的了解。另「最後的晚餐」﹑ 「十二生肖」﹑其後毛的系列則以特殊的手法，表現詼諧與傳遞某種階段訊息。

雖然政治普普，政治文宣主義與以毛澤東形象內容來探討中國與政治性為主題的展覽，在紐約與世界各都會近年來相當多。在創作中以出現毛的頭像應以普普大師的Andy Walho的版畫為首，也有他純然的一貫流行消費主義的戲玩。張宏圖某部分類似倪匡等激烈的反共作家，他們都曾從解放軍中出來，而投入反對共黨政治遊戲的陣營中，而張宏圖是以溫和與戲弄去解除他的不適；不同於如艾未未的直接挑戰與遊走危險的邊緣，張宏圖他則更為落實於實際的作品形像。在他的作品中比較直接而赤裸表現他的批判態度有2008 參加德國策展人的奧運的「立體主義的鳥巢」，因色調黯暗，畫面出現西藏人權字眼等被北京海關扣留，而沒機會進入到中國大陸本地展出；也證實了中國的的集權監控實質並沒有因為濟活躍而有所改變，只有專制體制下的社會才會刻意為藝術的價值定訂下明確的標準。

而21世紀中國經濟的崛起，受到世界對中國的矚目，以及社會主義國家無法避免的對於資本主義的崇拜與追逐，而在政治上仍難解下共產的面具的矛盾情結，在中國民間尤其明顯的是毛的陰魂不散，這是文化大革命的陰影? 是洗腦的成功? 讓這位殺人五千萬遠多於希特勒、史達林與歷史世界任何獨裁者，在當年的飢餓枯骨滿地、妻離子散、文化遺產與社會精英損失、中國倒退50年的的人間魔王再度活了起來。中國當代藝術家的以毛像﹑毛裝﹑毛的標語海報作品此起彼落，當然的也出現多次的深入討論與研討中，在1995年，知名紐約華裔服裝設計師Vivienne Tam 與張宏圖合作，採用了宏圖的毛系列作品製造長的高領洋裝。我們並未在台灣看見有關展覽或是議題去評析或呼應類似的題目與活動，在2011艾未未缺席的臺北市美術館的展覽中,因為艾的被捕入獄，整個展覽處理，明顯的與艾的行動精神相反的，他被低調的處理了。

山風水景的合併解構
張宏圖他富於策略、反諷與逗趣地將一切事物攪混成一團，使得上下顛倒，內外失序。以便打開一個漫不經心地自由嬉弄的場所，就如「杜象的作品只是一組巧妙的策略，用以摧毀觀賞者經由社會制約所形成的習慣與價值。」宏圖東西文化的交互運用是他的題材, 也是實質環境與內心交錯. 印象派大師與中國歷史大師的對話,發現的創意是沒有時空限制的。

也許外界所熟知的是他中西合併, 印象派與中國山水大師的合併解構「中國山水再製系列」作品,這些呈現的熟悉而詭異的山水大作的美感，在1887年至90年的作品中, 可和多媒材創作的系列中看出對他西方當時藝術語彙的採用; 而早在1998年, 他運用電腦數位藝術,將中國傳統藝術的元素結合社會的現象手法,早已出現在他「騎車的人」和「佳士得拍賣目錄計畫」的作品上; 他的可口可樂,麥當勞擷取了造型上的獨特商業識別形象加上西方對於中國的代表青花瓶與青銅器的圖案,更表現出張宏圖對東西當代獨特的觀察.

局外人

他的另一件「紅門」的作品，一面是嚴密層層的鎖，在門內的探視孔看出去是毛與女子跳舞的錄影帶；在毛統治的年代能看到毛跳舞幾乎是不可能的。而當讓有些觀者竊喜到這個「偷窺」的機會，也警覺對於毛政權的害怕成份而進退維谷時，其中已涉及自己對「偷窺」的道德與政治專制判斷，以及對藝術的期望與評量標準。面對「紅門」，你就像掉入宏圖為你而設計的陷阱，難以自拔地掉入觀者和作品間迷離而糾葛的互動關係中，甚至無可避免地成為作品中不可少的一個成份。因為你是共同作者之一。而作品的動機是把觀眾設計到作品裡面，讓他不再只有冷漠﹑苛評﹑ 崇拜等傳統反應模式，而是在作品中看到他看事物的「觀點」。在這個意義下，宏圖的許多作品就像是是杜象「給予的門」，「因為它不但包含了一個三度空間的視覺現象，還包含了使這個視覺現象得已呈現的「觀點」本身。」

事實上，如果我們貫串宏圖的生活言行，或許不像杜象與安迪瓦霍的是一種徹底的懷疑論心態。我們在看宏圖的作品了解他的生活與成長過程，或又有內外的矛盾與不解之處，困苦的環境與遊戲性的作品呈現，似乎必需此人有著高度的樂觀精神智慧。Cabanne 曾問杜象：「那你相信什麼呢?」他答：「當然什麼都不相信！相信（belief）又是一個錯字，就像評判（judgment）這個字一樣。兩者都含有可怕的意念，而這個世界卻賴以為礎石。」「在數學裡，從一個簡單的定理推演到一個非常繁複的定理，其實還是原來那簡單的定理。所以，形上學﹑重複﹑宗教﹑重複，什麼都重複。」懷著這種基礎自然衍生出對藝術的反復原則的徹底否定，從而使他絲毫無視於任何成規。這種對成規的蔑視，經常被視為他在創作上的無限自由。

美國策展人林似竹在她最近「山水今天」的文章中說到 張宏圖的「局外人」的角色來觀察與創作；是以點出了三個特質:不受他人﹑ 潮流﹑ 與自己所學所影響。他在逐進入七十而從心所欲不逾矩的年歲，生活的態度是更當下的，禪的精神在他的生活經驗中冒出來，無意的發現與靈感是挑戰，也是樂趣。達摩的臉與梵谷的自畫像在此時再相遇。張宏圖再一次推翻自己，開發自己再重組，在材質﹑主題﹑表現上又將有一個新的創作形式。張宏圖對於創作生命任何時刻的熱愛與珍惜, 存在的沉重使命感是他的生活與創作潤滑劑, 轉化成對於當下的珍惜與醒思。

 (待續 to be Continued....)

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)