米倉及中國語境

在本次documenta 15 策展團隊的詮釋里，米倉即是有形的、儲存共同資源的隱喻空間，又是無形的、行動機制的概念集合。在米倉，不同的集體和網絡將自身在地緣實踐中得到的啟發和創作共享並儲存起來。如此一來，資源以及創作的「盈餘」就可以更平等的分享和流通，並在更大的社群網絡里持續地滾動下去。

本小冊子中多次提及「米倉」概念的來源，它根植於傳統農業文化和許多地方性的生態系統，有著很強的社區聯結以及共享原則。讀到此處，難以避免地生出些被集體的藝術實踐衝刷過的怪誕的親切，像某種迫切的認同，卻又始終找不到任何錨點。在中國的當代藝術場景里，我們能找到冠以「參與式藝術」之名的、強調集體聯結又訴諸行動的藝術實踐，同樣也能數出不少自我組織，擁抱平等合作和互助精神的替代性空間和平台——我們還需要一個「米倉」嗎？在疫情尚未結束卻已進入「後疫情時代」的今天，米倉作為一種資源分配、社會互動和觀念革新的機制，它的出現是否可以幫助我們想象一種新的共存模式?

打撈「共同」

如果說米倉是一種對於既有的公共資源和行動力的匯集，從08年至今的大陸的當代藝術集體實踐彷彿更像是一種對「家家有糧，心中不慌」的追求。

在中國當代藝術的敘事中，在地的集體實踐從2000年後就漸漸地翻湧出來：一部分是藝術家在鄉村和城市近郊進行的團體實踐，比如渠岩的「許村計劃」到歐寧和左靖的「碧山計劃」， 靳勒的「石節子村美術館」、 焦興濤的「羊磴藝術合作社」；還有一部分是在城市中建立現場，以面對當代藝術的評價體系、每況愈下的政治氣候和新自由主義下原子化個體的掙扎，比如誕生於北京的「家作坊」，「箭廠」，上海的「定海橋互助社」，廣州的「觀察社」、「上陽台」、「夾山改梁藝術小組」之類。事實上，這些參與地緣性的知識生產或者實驗自我組織和空間政治的藝術實踐，都在企圖捕獲當代中國激烈、複雜、撕裂的現實，並在迥異的現場里打撈各自的問題意識——某種「共同」。

這種對「共同」的打撈無疑是舉步維艱的。相較於米倉機制里不同藝術組織和集體間由「獨立」和「耐力」形成的信任和分享，對於中國的在地藝術實踐來說，如何能先做到「自家有糧」就已經是一種持續性的拷問。馬庫斯·米森（Markus Miessen）在《參與的惡夢》中曾提到過「共識的陷阱」¹，他認為藝術家主體無法在不放棄自我的身份之下參與到特定情景的創作。事實上對於很多國內的集體藝術實踐而言，預兆性的共同想象以及在日常實踐中社群間的摩擦和調和就是創作本身。但是這種基於空間政治的關係性社群往往生存於官方體制控制、商業資本裹挾以及當代藝術圈話語權的夾縫中。自組織的替代性框架以及對「獨立」和「耐力」的憧憬不得不面對「系統-資本」一體兩面的外部現實不斷敲擊。儘管身處於一個褪色的公民社會以及基礎設施的匱乏的環境中，許多藝術行動者企圖保持激進的集體面向。她們以日常、相處和勞動來克服身份政治或者單一的創作意圖，以求在共生的社群環境中創造「歧見」（dissensus）。無奈的是，不斷攀升的地租和不斷加碼的審查中，儘管實踐者們晃蕩著堅持，許多集體實踐仍在數年掙扎之後不可避免的陷落……剩下的，或許只有沈重的、與彼此、與社群之間加速型的「激烈的友誼」。

米倉的思想價值總是強調「共享原則」，這是一種基於長時間的相處和糾葛帶來的慷慨、信任和互相依賴。它不對立個人和整體，而是著眼於促進融合。而在中國的在地語境中，當共同行動還在不斷從「公共」被擠壓成「私人」，當共同體中的自由和佔有沒法在一個更具支持性的社會網絡中考慮、建構和拓展，當創作實踐的主體還在內部「激烈的友誼」中碰撞，那「共享原則」的基礎將如同一頭被凍僵在房間里的大象——它沈默地存在著，卻也無法更進一步。

實際上，米倉的中對於共享的構思是由從ruangrupa 在雅加達搭建的 Gudskul 藝術生態系統出發，逐漸豐富成為一種資源分配、社會互動的模式。在米倉的傳統場景中，農夫豐收之後就會拿走自己認為需要的東西，並把剩餘儲存到米倉里。在本次D15的情境里，策展小組不僅要摸清資源，還要識別和瞭解各個團體的基本需求及上限，以辨認每個發起者/組織（有形和無形）資源的盈餘，以分享給他人。在目前中國的當代藝術現場中，有別於米倉如同「資源銀行」一樣的構思，許多面對「共同」的實踐十分強調「聯結」作為一種自發的、去中心的/警惕權力過於集中的關係性網絡。的確，不同地區的藝術集體實踐都是根據自己特有的語境、文化場景，尤其是社會經濟的資源上不同的情況來進行活動的。當根莖式的實踐埋入質地不均的土壤中，根系仍然可以如暗流一般勾連。在一次次的互通有無中，藝術實踐者的在地經驗在具身的場景里形成了許許多多的共識，並在來回之間直接地滋養本地的社群。然而這種交往可能更多的是點於點之間的相互結識，還未在更廣泛的文化層面結網，對於一個可以識別並收集盈餘，為共同利益進行集中和管理的「容器」或許只能容納進願景之中。

在加速坍塌的社會現實面前，如果說能做到「家家有糧」或「鄰里互助」已屬不易，當集體創作和行動在艱巨的外部環境下一再被瓦解，我們如何談論對創作資源的進一步的儲存以及共享？

更多的機構行動主義

米倉的平台搭建中屢屢提及到一個不可或缺的「完善的網絡」，因為一個有強大的本地根基和可持續的網絡才是能夠支持組織間合作和共享的根本。米倉的相當一部分重點放在這個新藝術經濟組織網絡的建設里，囊括了以實驗、行動主義、空間的想象、經濟、教育和生態等等領域。這種對更廣泛的組織和群體的招募也反映了米倉模式中對各種社會資源支持的重視。同時，米倉希望合作的夥伴並不局限於小型的本地組織，還包括世界各地的、願意重新思考科層制和權力結構也願意認真尋求集體福利的機構。這個層面上來看，米倉之所以能被稱之為一種生產-分配的模式，不僅因為它開放了一個價值創造的網絡並讓互相關聯的利益相關者維護這些共享的資源，而是因為它企圖利用目前的藝術資本循環體系，將資本的採掘市場變為基於互惠原則的米倉的協作儲存式生產模式的一環。

在中國，無論是機構行動主義還是「自發的機構」，具有異質性的機構作為有意義的知識生產場所不斷地被討論。這些替代性藝術機構實踐與米倉提倡的「自發的機構」有相似的革命性和跨越體制邊界的行動力。姚嘉善（Pauline Yao）以空間屬性將中國的可替代空間用三個維度展開，分別是「觀念空間」、「非制度體系空間」和「替代性空間」，其意涵及範圍可變，並且可以有多種解讀⽅式²。她提及到在這些替代性的機構里，不僅有另類的實踐，還包括另類的思考，包括對⾃我組織的強烈偏好和基於草根組織的理想，或者⼀種由藝術家經營、集體管理的組織思路。

這些替代性藝術機構以及非盈利空間仍然可以作為一種自我革命式的包容性存在，但在加速的現實和未來面前，一個能夠集結更多諸眾的藝術生態系統，一個橫向的知識生產模式是需要被提前想象以及練習的，以一種實驗的甚至是赤身肉搏的姿態。

正如邁克爾·哈特（Michael Hardt） 和安東尼奧·奈格里（ Antonio Negri）在《集群》里說的那句話，「奪取權⼒，但換種⽅式（Take power, but differently）³」。米倉的構想中充滿了對當今藝術體制的反叛，伴隨著對既有制度的背離和利用，企圖將搭建系統和發明方法的權力分散到藝術家集體與組織之間。而理想中，藝術家的創作也不僅體現在最終的作品產出之上，而是以互相合作創造出的新的勞動形式和合作網絡作為生產。對於中國的藝術行動者而言，或許這一切設想都帶著點殘酷的樂觀主義精神（Cruel Optimism）⁴——剛逃出參與的噩夢，又走進合作的樂觀。但在後疫情時期的陰影中，在藝術失效的這個時代，比起代價高昂的獨自摸索，或許從「激烈的友誼」開始也不錯。

‍

注釋：

1, Miessen, Markus. The nightmare of participation (Sternberg Press, 2010).

2, Yao, Pauline J. "Towards a spatial history of contemporary art in China." Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art 5, no. 2-3 (2018): 117-129.

3, Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Assembly (Oxford University Press: 2017).

4, Berlant, Lauren. "Cruel optimism." In Cruel Optimism (Duke University Press: 2011).

‍

本文是第十五屆卡塞爾文獻展的米倉中文介紹小冊的序言之一，寫於2022年5月，經作者同意授權全文發佈。

作者：燕子（謝思堰）是一名藝術研究者、寫作者與實踐者。她是米倉藝術家 BOLOHO 的參展項目成員及出版米倉成員 Reading Room 的創始人之一。目前，她也是香港中文大學中國藝術史博士候選人，研究中國大陸的參與式藝術社群。自 2017 年起她活躍在香港、廣州與上海的藝術自組織現場。

On lumbung and the Chinese Context

From the interpretation of the documenta 15 curatorial team, lumbung is both a tangible, metaphorical space for storing common resources and an intangible, conceptual collection of active mechanisms. In lumbung, different collectives and networks share and preserve their inspirations and creations from their local practices. By doing this, resources and creative "surplus" can be shared and circulated more equally and continue to roll over in a broader community network.

The origin of the concept "lumbung" is mentioned several times in this booklet. It is rooted in traditional agrarian culture and multiple local ecosystems, with strong community ties and a principle of sharing. When reading the etymology, it is hard for a Chinese reader like me to avoid the strange feeling of familiarity with the term that has been washed out by practices of collective art in China - one might wish to identify with the term but cannot find any anchor point. In the contemporary art scene of China, we can find practices that emphasize collective connection and action of resistance under the name of "socially engaged art"; and we can also name several alternative spaces and platforms that are self-organized, embracing the spirit of equal collaboration and mutual help. Do we still need a "lumbung" in China? As days of the pandemic has not yet ended but has already been recognized as "post-pandemic era", can the emergence of lumbung - the mechanism for resource distribution, social interaction, and innovative concepts, help us imagine a new model of coexistence?

Salvaging the "Common"

If the lumbung can be seen as an assembly of existing public resources and agencies, the collective practice of contemporary art in mainland China from 2008 to the present seems like a pursuit of "having grains in the house, panicking no more".

In the narrative of Chinese contemporary art, local collective practices have gradually emerged since 2000: one part is artists' group practices in rural and suburban areas, such as "Xucun Project" by Qu Yan, "Bishan Project" by Ou Ning and Zuo Jing, Jin Le's "Shijiezi Village Musuem" project and "Yangdeng Art Cooperative" etc; the other part is on site in the urban area to confront the evaluation system of contemporary art, the deteriorating political climate and the struggle of atomized individuals in the shadow of neoliberalism, including the "Homeshop" and "Arrow Factory" in Beijing, the "Dinghaiqiao Mutual Aid Society" in Shanghai, the "Observation Society", the "Seong Yoeng Toi" and "Jasagala" in Guangzhou. In fact, these artistic practices that deeply involved in localized knowledge production, self-organized experiments and spatial politics, all attempt to capture the intense, complex, and lacerated reality of contemporary China. They try to salvage the problematique of their own - a certain kind of the "common" - within the very different daily scenes.

The salvaging of the "common" is undoubtedly a difficult task. Compared with the trust and sharing created by spirits of "independence" and "endurance" among organizations and collectives in lumbung mechanism, the question of how to "have grains in the house" is already a continuous torture for local practices in China. In The Nightmare of Participation, Markus Miessen mentions the trap of consensus in which he argues that the artist as a subject, is hard to participate without giving up his own identity in a given situation. From my observation, for many Chinese collective practices, a shared imagination and practices in daily life can be the artistic production itself. However, such relational communities based on spatial politics often strive to survive in the crevice between the control of official institutions, the coercion of commercial capital, and the struggle of discourse in the contemporary art scene. The alternative framework of self-organization and the search for "independence" and "endurance" must face the external reality of "system-capital". Despite being situated in a fading civil society that lacks supportive infrastructure, many "artivists" attempt to maintain the radicalness toward working in collectives. They overcome the identity politics and monolithic creative intentions by valuing daily interactions and labor, to preserve "dissensus" in a co-living community. Unfortunately, although some practitioners try to persist in spite of rising rents and increasingly oppressive censorship, many collective practices still inevitably foundered after years of struggle…What remains is perhaps only a heavy, accelerated "fierce friendship" with each other and with the community.

lumbung values have always emphasized the "principle of sharing", a certain generosity, trust and interdependence based on long periods of gathering and entanglement. It does not eye on separating the individual from the group but aims to promote integration. In the local context of China, where public action is still being driven out from the "public" to the "private", where the common cannot be considered, constructed, or expanded from a more supportive social network, and where the subjects of creative practices are still locked and collided in an internal "fierce friendship", the foundation of the "principle of sharing" is the frozen elephant in the room - it always exists in silence, but cannot go anywhere.

In fact, the idea of sharing in lumbung is inseparable from Gudskul, the art ecosystem built by ruangrupa in Jakarta. The embodied practice of art ecosystem is gradually accumulated into a model of resource distribution and social interaction. In the traditional scenario of the lumbung, the farmer takes what he needs after the harvest and stores the surplus in a lumbung. In the scenario of documenta 15, the curatorial team not only has to map out the resources, but also identifies and understand the basic needs and the upper limits of each participating artist, in order to figure out the amount of surplus of each initiator/organization's (tangible and intangible) resources to share with others. 

In the current art scene of China, unlike lumbung’s concept of "resource bank", many practices of building a common emphasize the idea of "tying" (lianjie, 连结 in Chinese), as a spontaneous and decentralized relational action that is wary of the danger of over-centralization. Indeed, collective practices in different regions operate according to their own specific contexts, cultural scenarios and, above all, socio-economic resources. When rhizomatic practices are buried in unevenly textured soil, the roots can still be connected and tied as undercurrents. In the process, the local experience of art practitioners forms a consensus in the embodied scene, and directly nourishes the local communities back and forth. However, this interaction may be more of a mutual understanding from point to point and has not yet become a network at a broader cultural level. As of the idea of forming a "container" where the surplus can be identified and collected, and where common interests can be managed centrally, it may only be achieved in the future vision.

In front of the accelerating collapse of social reality, when collective creation and action are repeatedly disintegrated under the formidable external circumstance, it is already too hard to "have grains in the house" and turn it into a mutual-aid process, then how can we talk about storing and sharing of resources? 

More Institutional Activism

The construction of lumbung platform repeatedly mentions a well-run network that is indispensable, since a strong locally anchored root and a sustainable network are essential to supporting any collaboration and sharing among organizations. A significant part of lumbung’s focus is on building a network of innovative art economy that encompasses fields such as experimentation, activism, spatial imagination, economy, education, and ecology. This recruitment of a broader range of organizations and groups also reflects the importance of various social resources supporting the lumbung model.

At the same time, the partners that lumbung hopes to work with are not limited to small and local collectives, but also bigger institutions around the world that are willing to rethink hierarchies, power structures, and are in a serious quest for collective wellbeing. From this perspective, lumbung can be called a production-distribution model, not only because it opens up a network of value creation and allows interconnected stakeholders to maintain these shared resources, but also because it attempts to leverage the current circulation system of art capital by turning the extractive external market into part of lumbung’s collaborative model of production based on the principle of reciprocity.

In China, whether it is institutional activism or "self-initiated institutions", these heterogeneous institutions are being regarded as meaningful sites of knowledge production. Some alternative institutional practices are like the "self-initiated institutions" advocated by lumbung in terms of the radical nature and the ability to act across institutional boundaries. Pauline Yao distinguished alternative spaces in China in three dimensions in terms of spatial characteristics: "conceptual space", "non-institutional space", and "alternative space". The definitions are variable in meaning and scope and can be interpreted in many ways. She mentioned that in these alternative institutions, there are not only alternative practices, but also alternative thoughts, including a strong preference for self-organization and an idealistic vision from grassroots organizations, or a collective managing mindset by artists.

These alternative art institutions and non-profit spaces can still exist as self-revolutionary and inclusive entities, but in front of the accelerating reality, an art ecosystem that can gather multitudes as well as a horizontal mode of knowledge production can be imagined and practiced in advance, in an experimental manner or even in a bare-bones posture.

As Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri put it in Assembly, "take power, but differently", the vision of lumbung incorporates a sense of rebellion against the present art world, accompanied by a departure from and utilization of the established system. lumbung attempts to decentralize the power, giving it to artists’ collectives and organizations to build new mechanisms and methods. Ideally, artists' creations are not only embodied in the final output of works but manifest through building new forms of labor structure and collaborative networks. For Chinese artivists, perhaps all of this is envisioned with a bit of Cruel Optimism - escaping from the nightmare of participation yet suddenly entering the optimism of collaboration. However, in the shadow of the post-pandemic period, in a time when the aura of art is fading, instead of stumbling alone, it might be better to start with a "fierce friendship".

About the Writer: Yanzi (Siyan Xie) is an art researcher, writer, and practitioner. She is a team member of lumbung artist BOLOHO’s exhibiting program and a co-founder of lumbung publisher Reading Room. Currently, she is a Ph.D candidate in Art History at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, researching socially engaged art communities in mainland China. She has been active in the art scenes of the self-organized art community in Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shanghai since 2017.