Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei

The twenty-first century would be more like conversation.--Hans-Ulrich Obrist Imagine: what kind of a person would make you want to converse with him or her for a whole year?After this year, what kind of things would be adequately to express what you have said and not said throughout the year?How could this period of “time” be transformed into something with sensibilities and trigger other people’s repercussion? The Desire and Crisis of Dialogue Perhaps, dialogue is no longer simple and natural; and its format has become an embodiment of certain power relation. Responding to “the crisis of dialogue,” M.E.L.T.Ing Project reimagines the extremely common behavior, “dialogue,” in the everyday life, in the hope to regain and reflect upon the desire, expectation and potential of “dialogue.” It also attempts to extend this imagination to the other, communities, societies, institutions, nations and histories from an artistic perspective, and through a set of rules of “One Year Conversation” and institution of exhibition to ask: What is the role and aesthetic capacity of conversation in the contemporary and between the individual need and social level? All that is Solid Melts into Air）--Karl Marx The title of the project “M.E.L.T.Ing” resembles the word “melting,” but refers to “Meeting,” Encounter,” “Lost,” and “Trace,” all the diverse, complex and dynamic activities in dialogues that take place in everyday life. Conjectures, associations and interpretations triggered by this seemingly “meaningless” and “unrecognizable” phonetic translation from English to Chinese are like what would happen in dialogues: it involves “contexts” (the background of the audience) and “imagination” with an underlying anticipation for “mutual understanding and perception.” On the other hand, “M.E.L.T.Ing” aims to create a dialogue with Marx’s famous words when he describes modernity: “all that is solid melts into air.” Marx said this to capture the drastic changes of the modernized German in 18th century, when all the once strong beliefs and social values disintegrated and disappeared, paved way for the nihilism in the 19th century Europe. It was an experience of modernity that melted the desperation to come. Nearly a century later, American scholar, Marshall Berman, wrote the book, All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity, which, through criticism of and contemplation on modernity, reclaimed what had disappeared and transformed it into the hope of reconstructing values and the possibility of a rebirth. The objective of this exhibition project is to investigate the problem of modernity. How does dialogue play a role in the examination of the modern experience? As we are facing globalization, having experienced post-colonialization, attempting to explore Asian modernity and being trapped by the ambiguous state of the subjectivity of Taiwan, how do we position ourselves in the “dialogue” in the global political and economic situation and in the network of cultural politics through “the practice of dialogue” so that we could face the unknown others and prepare ourselves for dialogues? The concept of accepting others is not simply a topic, but always more fundamentally appears as the realization of creative forms. --Nicolas Bourriaud Inspired by Tehching HSIEH’s One Year Performance 1983-1984 (Rope Piece), we designed “One Year Conversation.” Based on “the desire of dialogue” and “the spirit of M.E.L.T.Ing,” the curator first invited Fang-Tze HSU (Taiwan), Jun-Honn KAO (Taiwan) and Lisa BAUER-ZHAO (Germany) to participate in this project; and then, these three artists set out to invite the other parties for their dialogues based on the same spirit. Finally, the three artists formed three artist groups individually with Post-Museum (Singapore), Dian MAI(China), and Lidong ZHAO (China/ Germany), and conducted “dialogues” that lasted one year throughout the year 2014. After the experiment ended, we proposed three topics for discussion, which were “thread, ghost story and escape,” to discuss and display the different levels in dialogues—desire, context, institution, rules, process, product, etc. In addition, we organize two forums with Bamboo Curtain Studio and Howl Space: (1) “What is the foundation of Social Change?” + “Mapping the Ghost Storytelling” (Howl Space, Tainan; May 3rd); and (2) “Dialogue as a Method”(5/17) + “The Politics of Remembering in Singapore and the Aesthetics of Oblivion in Taiwan” (MOCA, Taipei; June 12th). We hope to explore the topics with more diverse forms of dialogues, further promoting the M.E.L.T.Ing spirit and sustaining the subsequent reactions. With a touch of playfulness and its experimental spirit, “M.E.L.T.Ing Project” had been filled with unknown possibilities; they could be dialogues in the forms of documents, videos, or interviews, as well as a shared journey or moments in life. They might be music or performances; or, they could be the process of how secrets were formed. What could these results eventually enlighten us about the nature of “dialogues”? Could it be that we could only prepare for authentic dialogues in constant confusion, doubts and frustration? Would one year be enough to achieve the authenticity and depth of dialogues? In terms of exhibition, would “the processes and results” be excessive or inadequate? How should we see the relation between dialogues and the project rules? Moreover, could this project really new discussions about “the aesthetics of conversation,” “cultural hybridity,” and “the representation thinking of art and exhibition”? As 2014 ended and 2015 began, “One Year Conversation” officially came to an end, and all three artist groups were deemed failed in this experiment. “Fang-Tze HSU (Taiwan)—Post-Museum (Singapore)”: after a change of the previously selected interlocutor for the dialogue, it was already the October of 2014 when Post-Museum confirmed to join the project. With less than three months, this change challenged how the curator and the artist should proceed with the project. It also made obvious the dilemma when “sticking to the rules of the game” and “having authentic dialogue” collided. At the end, Post-Museum participated in the exhibition with “Bukit Brown Index”, and HSU will edit an alternative catalogue “Murmuring while M.E.L.T.Ing” as the conversation to the follow-up of exhibition. The group and the curator started a dialogue of a research nature via Internet communication in March, 2015, and HSU will organize activities based on the dialogue. “Jun-Honn KAO (Taiwan)—Dian MAI (China)”: taking a trip to Tibet was proposed at the very beginning. Then, the artists discusse the possibility to participate in the project “‘East Lake Art Project Ⅲ’: Everybody Can do ‘Public Art,’” initiated by two Wuhan-based artists, LI Juchuan and LI Yu. However, at the end, these two people were unable to set “the conditions of meeting” within the designated time of this project. As a result, they adjusted the plan that MAI would come to Taiwan one month before the exhibition to co-work and film a video work at the working site of KAO. Was it that difficult to find a way to meet up? Or, did they just have an understanding with each other that they would “escape”—a kind of minor resistance—from the system and rules? “Lisa BAUER-ZHAO (Germany)—Lidong ZHAO (China/Germany)”: they were the only group that followed the rules and completed the experiment. “Dialogue” as the experience of language, relations and imagined as “a thread,” was the concept, medium and collaborative form, which the group repeatedly explored. At first, they carried out their dialogue as a critic and an artist, but soon felt “this dialogue seemed a bit phony” and stopped it after half a year and then change the way. Eventually, when thinking about the exhibition, they decided to abandon all writings of dialogues conducted throughout the year, and returned to the origin of this project and works developed from their direct dialogue, examined the idea of dialogue with a premise: “thread as an imagination of dialogue as well as an invitation to the audience.” Failure is indeed frustrating, rewarding and important. Did the failure in this project imply that dialogues could never take place when there was “a set of rules”? Perhaps, only with resistance to all kinds of rules and designs could we create a nurturing environment for authentic dialogues. Have the dialogues just begun? We will see after 2015.