邱黯雄 未知博物館

LZH： What kind of research subjects h a s “M u s e u m o f U n k n o w n”focused on？ The topic of interdisciplinary collaboration has been discussed a million times in the past 5 years. You mentioned discussions that happened on the platform of “Museum of Unknown”： did they point at or resolve any questions related to the notion of inter – disciplinary work？ Why was“Museum of Unknown” essential for the issues it addressed？

QAX： Producing artistic work is not the major goal of “Museum of Unknown”： we only produce work after an idea is mature. Meanwhile， we never do one-off works - we will stick with one idea and develop versions continuously. In the past a few years， we have been discussing on the following topics：

I.the crIterIa of art value We did the As we talk about art， what are we talking about？ project， at BizArt new exhibition space（2010）， and later in UCCA （2012）； Decor project， at Arrow Factory（2011）； Lent Art project at Shanghai Contemporary Art Museum （Power Station） Shanghai （2013）.

II.the seat of medItatIon project In this series， we did： The Seat of Meditation-Museum of Unknown， Art House， Shanghai （2010）， Social Meditation- Party， at AIKEDELLARCO （2012），Social Meditation – Drift， at Yuan Space， Beijing

（2013）， Social Meditation Social Meditation- Goodman from Sichuan performance project of Museum of Unknown， Germany Culture Center Shanghai（2014）， and The Seat of Meditation， Gastr？um Public Art Festival （2014）.

III. t h e r e l at I o n s h I p b e t w e e n a r t and scIence In this series， we did： PatternVortex-Encounter， Museum of Unknown， Space Station， CAFA， Beijing and Time Art Museum， Guangzhou（2011）， as well as EventStructure discussion， at the OutLook Magazine， Village， Beijing.

As for “inter-disciplinariness”，we are not really passionate about this “fashionable” topic. When we launched “Museum of Unknown”， we realised that China’s art world was limited in its thinking methods and knowledge， which also set boundaries for its vision. In response to this， we wanted to construct some channels for communication， to bridge discussions between art and science.

As a start， we worked with Songshuhui-Association of Science Com- municators and invited scientists to join the discussions， and later on more people became interested in this subject. For us， the process of discussion is also the process of learning - learning what was， back then， unknown to us. These discussions did not look for particular answers： most questions about inter-disciplinary work cannot reach straightforward conclusions. ’Til today， discussions and conversations around these topics are still going on. What we do is like kindling the flame of discussion， igniting people’s interest， as opposed to providing answers or solutions. We do， nevertheless， look for methodologies and paths without knowing who will be the one to solve the questions： there might not be results， but that’s where the value of “Museum of Unknown” lies，regardless.

Regarding “essential”… for the general public， the sense of something being essential emerges when something is accomplishedhowever， not for an abstract， yet to be delivered idea. I think perhaps this feeling of “essential” is more about yourself， it is the belief and urge to conduct and achieve something. Back then when we started “Museum of Unknown”， we just thought that the discussions on art were replaced by those on markets and auctions. What we did was not to deny that the market is a part of the art scene and that we ought to avoid talking about it， but to argue that the criteria or assessment of art was overly driven and guided by market price， and that was problematic - art should always have independent criteria. So this was the backdrop of the motive of“Museum of Unknown”； and also what I just mentioned， the issue of knowledge and visions.

LZH： In terms of artistic methodologies， how does Museum of Unknown differ from your own practices？ What subjects are you responding to？

QAX： My own artistic practice has its own range and idea： the pursuit for artistic languages is fundamental and my embedded motive. My work also relies on art mechanisms， or working around them - which is problematic. The work of “Museum of Unknown”， on the other hand， is more like a laboratory where you are allowed to make mistakes and are encouraged to collaborate with others. It is also where we can work in various contexts， on diverse subjects. You are allowed to open up. “Museum of Unknown”feels like a type of retreat for me， retreating from the systems that I am so engaged in. From it I earn the freedom to be distant， and to wander around. Of course in this process I more or less got involved in the conventional system again， but the core intention is to let “Museum of Unknown” stay independent in its working methodologies and guiding attitudes.

LZH： I think it is interesting that you mentioned the art system， what is the art system in China？ Generally， an art system ought to have very specific ways of circulation， resulting in clear allocations of professional work. It is still vague in China， in that it’s even hard to say what a “museum system”is ， or what a “gallery system” is.

In terms of your work， what kind of system do you rely on， or work around？

QAX： “Art system” is a grand phrase： to put it more precisely， each country or region - be it China， Europe， or the US - has its own type of “art system”. In today’s China， the system has an odd status： the official system - say， the Association of Art Museums and all those official art museums - is still playing dominating roles. They do not reject contemporary art at all， sometimes they even claim to be updated and“contemporary” in their operation. However， they have never given up the censorship habit. For those non-official art institutions， the scene is more diverse. Most of these institutions do not have their own collections， some of them do， but their collection is more based on the personal interests of wealthy collectors， and not professional. This is the chaotic “art system” of China： things are springing up lively and enthrallingly， however a lot of these happenings do not seem to have long-lasting value - like floating clouds passing by and vanishing in time.

I think maybe we need to wait longer for real， interesting things to happen- there are so many co-existing micro systems currently composing“the system” of art in China. I have been exhibited in different types of venues： official art museums， private art museums or galleries， international art museums， domestic and international biennials…these are of the academic systems， there’re also commercial systems…if you want to sell your work， you have to be part of the economic value system. All these systems are both interrelated and independent from each other， altogether addressing impacts on your life and work. From my personal point of view， we have entered a globalised state of life - I do not have profound knowledge of overseas art systems， but I do know that they have influenced China’s system a lot， largely because we do not have value criteria of our own.

LZH： As an artist who exhibited in Documenta very early， you must have some understanding of art practices centred around German culture. Has your understanding changed turning to your recent work in China？

QAX： My study in Germany has gained me some understanding of its art， and its art concepts have had huge impacts on me， especially those of the Fluxus and Beuys.

On the other side， I am also fascinated by classical Chinese culture - perhaps I firstly got interested because I didn’t know much about it， so I started working on it， and my work in Shanghai was also conducted within the framework of traditional Chinese art. Chinese contemporary art was very popular back then， but I did not see clear value established in the scene. It felt like a state of culture consumption to me， when everyone was borrowing and quoting popular theories without deeply looking into them. If we look at Germany， they have a very systematic notion of value， there is a clear idea and logic in their history of art practices， through which a lot of stuff is generated and could serve as soil for further inventions. However in China， that is not the case： nobody wants to deeply root their work in history while overnight success is more dreamed of. Unfortunately， this kind of quick success will have very little resonance in history.

LZH： What has changed since you came back to China？ Say， your work， your financial situation， or your exhibitions and attention you receive - how have these changed and what kind of effect has this had on you？ What is your contribution， and criticism， towards Chinese contemporary art？

QAX： I changed a lot. I have started experimenting with new media， ranging from animation， installations， photography and live performances. I am enthused to try new things. Then more and more exhibition opportunities and attention came to me， which in the beginning was exciting， however later on I felt kind of driven by those. You will feel kind of passive when you are overloaded with shows， it will even have bad influences in the result of your work. Now I’m taking more care of my own pace as opposed to being driven purely by the outside world. Regarding income， it has always been just enough for basic living： I do make more now， but I also spend more.

Chinese contemporary art needs to slow down a little bit， and be more patient for more fundamental work. Moreover， we need to bring the critics back： nowadays criticism does not exist as independent sections in the landscape of Chinese contemporary art，critics are not popular anymore. In the 80s and 90s， many critics came from art history backgrounds， they used to curate and write criticisms. However most of them are not curators now because curators are empowered more； also it’s because nobody pays critics for “criticism” now. Paid articles produced today are all filled with parsing， promotion languages： the living space of criticism， on the other hand， is minimal. This is really problematic， it’s like giving up our immune system in art. Same as China’s political system， it’s“mutually conditional”， it’s obscure without a balancing mechanism - or the balancing mechanisms are blackbox operated and are not transparent to the general public. The whole scene is still totalitarian.

If one gains power， then nobody speaks against him. Once someone does， the normal disputes will upgrade to personal hatred， resulting in malicious， antagonist behaviour between parties. People do not discuss and negotiate in a healthy way， nor do they take the matter on its merits. A lot of them are， still， dictators. “Museum of Unknown”has been a discussion about how to improve the mechanism， on a micro scale. We haven’t contributed too much， we just focus on what we think is worth doing， and let the next generation judge our value.

LZH： “Museum of Unk nown”presented “The Seat of Meditation”in Zurich， in which you presented a channel for people to enter， to arrive at a meditative status in this space， separated from the city. The manifestation of art in this project， of course， is not the Seat-shaped installation itself， but the moment when people enter and participate. How do you see the position of participants in this form of art？ And the function of art in this context？

QAX： Yes， the Seat of Mediation is simply a place for mediation. It could be functional， but meditation itself is not functional. This is what’s contradicting and interesting about this project. The Seat of Mediation provides you with a function that is quintessentially “useless”， which is in itself a retreat from the pragmatism of modern civilisation， offering a questioning perspective. The Seat of Mediation is more of a “space”than an “installation”. It is making use of the void， or making use of the useless.

LZH： I like “making use of the useless”， do “Museum of Unknown”produce many works similar to this？ Does this attitude come from your study in Buddhism？

QAX： All the works in the “Seat of Mediation” series are useless， perhaps it’s related to my Buddhism studies. When we say something is pragmatic， we imply that it’s for some purpose. In the context of Zen， however， the process from A to B， either in time or space， is no longer differentiated： A is B.

李振華 X 邱黯雄 未知博物館

李振華：能不能介紹一下你自己和“未知博物館”的關系？

邱黯雄：作為未知博物館的發起者，最初我提出要做這個虛擬博物館的初衷是建立一個跨學科的文化交流合作機制和平臺，另一點是對價值體系的考量，今天我們以什么作為藝術的評判標準？很幸運的是有一些年輕藝術家有熱情和興趣參與這個工作，最初有廖斐，吳鼎，鄭煥，李曉華等人，還有些人后來沒有參與了，也有很多參加不同項目的藝術家，科學家以及其他文化工作者，從開始到現在做組織工作的是我和廖斐，吳鼎，鄭煥他們。總的來說這是個集體的項目，許多人一起工作，2007年以來我們做了很多展覽和活動還有討論，討論是最多的。未知博物館開始時是一個自然凝聚的狀態，現在我希望它能夠有持續的獨立工作方式，而不僅僅是靠熱情，所以現在需要去建構這個基礎和條件，這是我目前要去做的工作。

李振華：“未知博物館”具體的創作和傾向曾經有哪些？跨界在這五年來說一個很主流的話題，但是鮮有人真正做到，那么你提到討論的時候，有些問題得到解答了嗎？以及“未知博物館”在當時做的必要性是什么？

邱黯雄：未知博物館并不是以創作為主，創作是當某些想法成型后的結果，一個想法開始后也不會一次性消費，會持續的做下去，這幾年有幾個話題是我們持續討論的，一.藝術的價值標準的討論，我們做了《當我們談論藝術時，我們在談論什么？……