HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
153
When it comes to the lending out of venues, the Council usually makes arrangements without going through any sort of vetting. As long as circumstances allow and there is no clash of dates, venues are lent out for use.
In fact, none of our Members object to the popularisation of art. The focal point of today's motion is actually on non-vetting of the content of programmes as pointed out by Mr. WEN Choy-bon in February and any lawful activity can be staged as put by Mr. PAO Ping-wing. Those words were spoken time and again as the policy of the Council. Here and now, the same policy is facing a most unfortunate challenge.
This incident is also a reflection on bureaucracy within the Urban Council. The Council's staff is incompetent when handling an application which is actually a political test case. People on the job were at a loss as to how to respond. They never saw the work of the artist or reviews of the work. Yet, they came up with this remark that display of the work of art would not be in line with the use of venue and they worried that park goers would be affected.
The behaviour of Councillors is disappointing too. I don't want to lash out strong criticism here. I would just like to look at the matter more closely. Whether we look at a so-called political piece of art or an ordinary piece of art, art critics tend to believe there is a political idea or role behind it. At times, even if the artist does not intend to make a political statement, one such statement becomes prominent due to objective circumstances. If you look at the statue of a queen at Statue Square, do you think it signifies a colonial era? What about the statue of a bank taipan? What about the statue of Queen Victoria at Victoria Park?
Therefore, allow me to say that arguments on whether a work of art is political are meaningless. Some people judge on the intention of the artist at the time of creation or the message put forth. In fact, even if an artist presents clear political messages in his work and locks them in through communal signs, he cannot control the interpretation of people who look at the piece of art. In this case concerning the Pillar of Shame, the sculptor said that it could be interpreted as an allegation against suppression on Hong Kong people in the colonial era and a tribute to the fight of indigenous people of Hong Kong against violent repression. As such, in his opinion, it would be appropriate to create another pillar of members of the Regional Council or others in the New Territories in the fight against the British rule. He felt that the two could be put on display side by side.
I would like to sum up here. Apart from throwing in money and resources to promote visual art at a district or territory level, it is more important for us to protect artistic freedom. Freedom in artistic creation is in fact an element for the promotion of development in art. It is an essential element. Standards and development of art are bound to be subjected to a heavy blow within a politically closed and artistically restricted society. Even if the Urban Council has a lot of resources and throws in a large investment, without artistic
Page 150 of 654
Page 150 of 654
Page 150Page 151