II – 社會參與、社會脈絡 Community Participation, Social Context

本場社群共學討論會，與會者深入探討了「畸零地景藝術節」計畫的核心概念與實踐方向。討論從計畫緣起開始，強調這不是一個單純因應經費而產生的藝術節，而是源自於對空間、社群與藝術介入的深度思考。計畫希望打破傳統藝術家被分配到特定地點創作的模式，轉而建立一個更具社群性、共同討論的平台。這種轉變反映了對當代藝術實踐的反思，試圖在機構化的藝術生產模式之外，尋找更有機的創作與社群互動方式。

對於「畸零地」的概念，與會者提出了多元的詮釋。從都市計畫的技術層面來看，畸零地往往源於不同政權對都市空間的想像衝突，特別是在中華民國來台後的現代化進程中更為明顯。這種空間不僅體現在實體環境中，也反映了台灣社會的歷史創傷與主體性議題。與會者提出了將畸零地視為一種「症狀」的觀點，認為它是都市規劃失敗的某種體現，同時也是一種剩餘空間（Remainder）的概念。這種詮釋將畸零地從純粹的空間概念提升到社會文化現象的層次，使其成為觀察台灣現代性的一個重要視角。

討論中特別有趣的是對「畸零地作為一個人」的想像練習。有與會者認為，如果畸零地是一個人，他會是一個存在感很低但無所不在的角色，能夠自然地融入各種場合而不被注意。也有人提出畸零地可能是一個精神分裂的個體，承載著多重且往往相互衝突的身份認同。這些人格化的想像不僅幫助與會者更深入理解畸零地的本質，也為後續的藝術實踐提供了豐富的創作素材。

在討論社群參與機制時，計畫強調要避免將藝術家簡單地分配到特定場域，而是希望透過討論會、知識架構整理等方式，讓不同社群能夠提出他們對畸零地景的理解。這種參與不限於實體空間，也考慮到數位平台的可能性。運成提出了使用區塊鏈技術發行參與證明NFT的想法，作為建構分散式社群的一種方式。這種數位化的參與機制，可能為傳統的藝術節模式帶來創新的可能性。

g0v社群的經驗分享成為討論中的重要參照。作為台灣重要的公民科技社群，g0v的「Nobody」精神（每個參與者都是「沒有人」）提供了一種去中心化、反階層的組織思維。這種精神與畸零地景藝術節想要建立的開放性平台有許多共通之處。同時，g0v的實踐經驗也提醒了團隊在推動開放專案時可能面臨的挑戰，特別是如何在保持開放性的同時確保專案的持續發展。

關於計畫執行，與會者討論了三個階段的規劃：第一階段主要是討論會與論壇；第二階段將討論內容集結成文章，透過如hackMD等平台公開；第三階段則進行示範性的實驗呈現。計畫採取國藝會多元藝術的先導計畫模式，強調過程性與實驗性，而非直接進入呈現階段。這種分階段的推進方式，讓計畫有足夠的時間醞釀和調整，確保每個階段都能夠產生具有意義的成果。

「畸零地景」作為一個複合概念，不僅涉及實體空間，也包含了人文風景的層面。正如運成所提到的「人文地產景」概念，「景」往往與人文活動相關，包括節慶等文化現象。這種理解擴展了計畫的可能性，使其不僅關注物理空間的改造，更著重於人與空間關係的重構。在討論中，團隊也提到了台北市「好好看」計畫的案例，這個源自郝龍斌時期的政策，將閒置空地轉化為暫時性的綠地，某種程度上也是對畸零空間的一種回應。

此外，與會者也討論了組織運作的實務面向，包括會議頻率、記錄方式等。考慮到跨地域合作的特性，建議採用混合式會議模式，結合實體與線上參與。團隊決定使用Google Meet進行線上會議並錄影，方便製作逐字稿和建立資料庫。同時，為了確保計畫的永續性，討論了如何在不過度依賴經費的情況下，建立有意義的社群連結。

整體而言，這次討論展現了「畸零地景藝術節」計畫的多層次思考：從概念定義到實踐方法，從社群經營到技術應用，試圖建立一個能夠持續發展的藝術實踐平台。計畫強調參與過程的重要性，期待透過不同社群的對話與互動，共同建構對畸零地景的理解與實踐方式。這種開放性的態度，或許正是回應當代社會複雜性最務實的方式。

At this Community Learning Discussion Meeting, participants engaged in an in-depth discussion about the “Marginal Landscape Art Festival” project. The discussion began with the project’s origins, emphasizing that it wasn’t simply a response to available funding, but rather emerged from deep reflection on space, community, and artistic intervention. The project aims to break away from the traditional model where artists are assigned to specific locations, instead establishing a more community-oriented, discussion-based platform. This shift reflects a reconsideration of contemporary art practice, seeking more organic ways of creation and community interaction beyond institutionalized art production models.

Participants offered diverse interpretations of the concept of “marginal land.” From an urban planning perspective, marginal lands often emerge from conflicting spatial imaginations of different political regimes, particularly prominent after the ROC’s modernization efforts in Taiwan. This spatial phenomenon exists not only in the physical environment but also reflects Taiwan’s historical trauma and issues of subjectivity. Participants proposed viewing marginal land as a kind of “symptom,” seeing it as both a manifestation of failed urban planning and a concept of residual space (Remainder). This interpretation elevates marginal land from a purely spatial concept to a socio-cultural phenomenon, making it an important perspective for observing Taiwan’s modernity.

An interesting aspect of the discussion was the imaginative exercise of “marginal land as a person.” Some participants suggested that if marginal land were a person, they would be someone with a low presence but ubiquitous, naturally blending into various situations without being noticed. Others proposed that marginal land might be a person with multiple personalities, carrying multiple and often conflicting identities. These personified imaginations not only helped participants better understand the essence of marginal land but also provided rich creative material for subsequent artistic practices.

Regarding community participation mechanisms, the project emphasizes avoiding simply assigning artists to specific venues, instead hoping to enable different communities to present their understanding of marginal landscapes through discussion forums and knowledge framework organization. This participation isn’t limited to physical spaces but also considers digital platform possibilities. Lucky Chen proposed using blockchain technology to issue participation proof NFTs as a way to construct distributed communities. This digitalized participation mechanism might bring innovative possibilities to traditional art festival models.
The sharing of g0v community experience became an important reference in the discussion. As a crucial civic technology community in Taiwan, g0v’s “Nobody” spirit (where each participant is “nobody”) provides a decentralized, anti-hierarchical organizational mindset. This spirit shares many commonalities with the open platform that the Marginal Landscape Art Festival aims to establish. Meanwhile, g0v’s practical experience also reminded the team of potential challenges in promoting open projects, particularly how to ensure project continuity while maintaining openness.

Concerning project implementation, participants discussed a three-phase plan: the first phase focuses on discussions and forums; the second phase involves compiling discussion content into articles for public access through platforms like hackMD; and the third phase involves demonstrative experimental presentations. The project adopts the National Culture and Arts Foundation’s multi-art pilot project model, emphasizing process and experimentation rather than immediately entering the presentation phase. This phased progression allows the project sufficient time to develop and adjust, ensuring meaningful outcomes at each stage.

“Marginal landscape” as a compound concept involves not only physical spaces but also aspects of cultural landscapes. As Lucky Chen mentioned regarding the concept of “humanistic geography,” “landscape” often relates to cultural activities, including festivals and other cultural phenomena. This understanding expands the project’s possibilities, focusing not just on physical space transformation but more on reconstructing relationships between people and spaces. During the discussion, the team also mentioned the case of Taipei’s “Beautiful” project from the Hau Lung-bin era, which transformed vacant lots into temporary green spaces, in some ways responding to marginal spaces.

Participants also discussed practical organizational aspects, including meeting frequency and documentation methods. Considering the cross-regional nature of cooperation, a hybrid meeting model combining physical and online participation was recommended. The team decided to use Google Meet for online meetings with recording capabilities, facilitating transcript creation and database building. Additionally, they discussed how to establish meaningful community connections without over-relying on funding to ensure the project’s sustainability.

Overall, this discussion demonstrated the multi-layered thinking behind the “Marginal Landscape Art Festival” project: from concept definition to implementation methods, from community management to technology application, attempting to establish a sustainable art practice platform. The project emphasizes the importance of the participation process, hoping to collectively construct understanding and practice methods for marginal landscapes through dialogue and interaction with different communities. This open attitude might be the most practical way to respond to the complexity of contemporary society.