I – 空間政治、社群互動 Spatial Politics, Community Interaction

在2023年12月28日的「社群共學討論會」中，與會者圍繞「畸零地景藝術節」計畫展開深度討論，探觸了藝術介入公共場域的多重面向與可能性。台灣的地景藝術發展有其獨特脈絡，從1990年代受歐美影響的早期實踐、1992年始的瀨戶內海藝術祭帶來的區域啟發，到2016年桃園地景藝術節等在地化嘗試，呈現出不同階段的轉變。相較於國外地景藝術多在自然環境中進行創作，台灣的畸零地景更多涉及都市空間與人為干預。這種特性使得在地實踐必須面對更複雜的空間政治與社會脈絡。

土地使用與主體性的議題成為討論的重要環節。孟榆以工作室後方的空地為例：「一部分是河流地，一部分是垃圾填河流長出來的地，這些事情都有點像是一種暗示或者是一種象徵。」從河川地、都市計畫、到社區營造，土地權屬與使用方式的複雜性不斷被提出。特別是「三不管地帶」的現象，當土地涉及多方權責單位時，往往產生管理真空，進而形成畸零空間。這些空間可能被轉化為暫時性的綠地，或被在地居民以各種方式使用。在台北，這種現象曾透過「台北好好看」計畫體現，將閒置空地轉為暫時性的公園綠地，卻也引發容積獎勵的爭議。這些空間政策往往反映了城市發展中的矛盾與張力。

「畸零地景藝術節」計畫希望藉由分期進行，包含討論會、知識架構整理與示範性呈現，建立一套有別於傳統展覽導向的工作方法。正如凱文所提醒：「藝術介入不應流於表面的美化或短期性的改造，而是要創造更多對話與想像的可能。」計畫強調過程性與實驗性，試圖在藝術介入與社群互動間找到新的可能。透過與不同社群的對話，包括原住民部落、在地組織、環境倡議團體等，計畫期待能打開更多元的視角與實踐方式。

從實務經驗來看，藝術介入社區往往需要面對複雜的權力關係與利益糾葛。以2009年的大溪撒烏瓦知（Saowac）部落為例，藝術家許淑真與建築師盧建銘個展、策劃《植–物 新樂園—從菜園中誕生、​​河岸阿美的物質世界》​​獲得2010年第八屆台新藝術獎年度視覺藝術類大獎，獎金轉而支持部落重建。這個案例說明了藝術介入不僅是美學層面的考量，更涉及社會正義與居住權的議題。同時，這也凸顯了藝術家在介入社區時，需要謹慎處理各方期待，避免成為單純的美化工具或政策工具。

在策展方法上，計畫提出了幾個關鍵的思考方向。首先是如何定義與篩選參與社群，避免過於廣泛而失焦，同時也不能過度限縮而失去開放性。其次是藝術家角色的重新思考，建議模糊藝術家與參與者的界線，讓互動更為自然與有機。第三是空間介入的方式，建議將重點放在未被主流論述關注的面向，創造新的對話可能。這些思考反映了當代藝術實踐中，對於藝術家角色與創作方式的重新檢視。

本次會議尤其聚焦於藝術如何在體制內、外運作：從官方計畫到民間自主行動，每種路徑都有其優勢與限制。參與者認為，重要的是找到一個能夠在體制內保有自主性的工作方式。這包括如何在補助機制下維持計畫的實驗性，如何在既有框架中創造對話空間，以及如何讓不同參與者都能找到適合的位置。這種思考反映在計畫的結構設計上，試圖在既有體制與創新實驗之間找到平衡點。

整體而言，「畸零地景藝術節」展現了一種新的藝術介入方法論。它不只關注空間的物理形態，更著重於人與空間的關係建構，以及藝術如何在其中扮演催化劑的角色。參與者強調，計畫應避免過度概念化或理想化，而是要從具體場域與互動經驗出發，逐步建立屬於在地脈絡的工作方法。這種從實踐中摸索前進的態度，或許正是面對當代社會複雜議題時最務實的取徑。

At the Community Learning Discussion Meeting held on December 28, 2023, participants engaged in an in-depth discussion about the “Marginal Landscape Art Festival” project, exploring multiple dimensions and possibilities of artistic intervention in public spaces. Taiwan’s development of land art has followed its unique trajectory, from early practices influenced by Western art in the 1990s, through regional inspiration from the Setouchi Triennale beginning in 1992, to localized attempts like the 2016 Taoyuan Land Art Festival. Unlike international land art that often takes place in natural environments, Taiwan’s marginal land art more frequently engages with urban spaces and human intervention, necessitating practitioners to confront more complex spatial politics and social contexts.

Land use and subjectivity emerged as crucial discussion points. Meng-Yu illustrated with the vacant lot behind their studio: “Part of it is riverbank land, part is land formed from garbage filling the river—these things are like hints or symbols.” From riverbanks to urban planning to community building, the complexity of land ownership and usage rights was repeatedly addressed. The phenomenon of “no man’s land” was particularly noted, where areas under multiple jurisdictions often result in management vacuums, creating marginal spaces. These spaces might be converted into temporary green spaces or appropriated by local residents in various ways. In Taipei, this was exemplified by the “Taipei Beautiful” project, which transformed vacant lots into temporary parks but sparked controversy over floor area ratio incentives, reflecting the contradictions and tensions in urban development.

The “Marginal Landscape Art Festival” plans to proceed in phases, including discussion forums, knowledge framework organization, and demonstrative presentations, establishing a methodology distinct from traditional exhibition-oriented approaches. As Kai-Wen cautioned: “Artistic intervention should not merely result in superficial beautification or temporary transformation but should create possibilities for dialogue and imagination.” The project emphasizes process and experimentation, seeking new possibilities through artistic intervention and community interaction. Through dialogue with various communities, including indigenous villages, local organizations, and environmental advocacy groups, the project hopes to open up diverse perspectives and practices.

Practical experience shows that artistic intervention in communities often confronts complex power relations and conflicting interests. For instance, in 2009, at the Sawaz tribal settlement in Daxi, artists Hsu Shu-Chen and architect Ko Chien-Ming collaborated with the tribe on “New Paradise of Plants: Born from the Garden, The Material World of Riverside Amis,” which won the 2010 Taishin Arts Award Grand Prize, with the prize money supporting tribal reconstruction. This case demonstrates that artistic intervention extends beyond aesthetic considerations to issues of social justice and housing rights, while highlighting the need for artists to carefully manage various expectations and avoid becoming mere tools for beautification or policy implementation.

Regarding curatorial methodology, the project proposed several key directions for consideration. First is defining and selecting participating communities, avoiding both over-breadth and excessive limitation. Second is rethinking the artist’s role, suggesting blurred boundaries between artists and participants to enable more natural and organic interactions. Third is the approach to spatial intervention, recommending focus on aspects overlooked by mainstream discourse to create new possibilities for dialogue. These considerations reflect a re-examination of artists’ roles and creative methods in contemporary art practice.

The meeting particularly focused on how art operates within and outside institutional frameworks: from official projects to grassroots initiatives, each path has its advantages and limitations. Participants emphasized the importance of maintaining autonomy while working within institutional structures. This includes maintaining experimental nature under funding mechanisms, creating dialogue spaces within existing frameworks, and ensuring all participants can find appropriate positions. These considerations are reflected in the project’s structural design, attempting to balance existing institutions with innovative experiments.

Overall, the “Marginal Landscape Art Festival” presents a new methodology for artistic intervention. It focuses not just on physical spatial forms but emphasizes the construction of relationships between people and space, and how art can act as a catalyst within this context. Participants stressed that the project should avoid over-conceptualization or idealization, instead building locally contextual working methods through concrete field experience and interaction. This approach of learning through practice may be the most pragmatic way to address complex contemporary social issues.