HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
161
placing of spittoons all over the place because we do not encourage spitting everywhere.
For this reason, when we discard a certain type of artwork or decide not to support it, we should consider its use. We cannot generalise things. If you want to scold certain Members, I think you are just being unfair to them. They have no chance to respond. I think we made clear on the day of the debate concerning the Pillar of Shame why we did not support its display at the suggested venue. However, that does not mean we will not support a similar type of artwork in future and least of all that we do not support popularisation of visual art.
I don't know if I should mention names. Anyway, I agree to certain viewpoints given in Mr. LEE Kwok-keung's speech. Emphasis on self-initiated expression is one. Unfortunately, he did not elaborate on whether he felt we should only grant subsidy to encourage art as self-initiated expression. On whether there is need for censorship, as pointed out by Mr. LAM Man-sai, should the Entertainment Select Committee request for a plan before granting subsidy for development of visual art? If so, it can be a form of censorship.
On the suitability of venue and the use of public space, parks etc., I think it is empty talk. That sort of space is required for all sorts of activities like a carnival, game stalls, handicraft classes and so on. I do not mean that no vetting of any sort should be carried out or that all public space should be made freely available to citizens. I just think that the Council is confused over issues. I am sorry, after hearing fellow colleagues' speeches, I can't even grasp the main point of my motion.
Shall I say that you have expressed your differences of opinions? I still want everyone to face the question on whether the Council should seriously promote popularisation of visual art. I mean actually doing this seriously, not just piecemeal efforts by individual Select Committees during the Summer vacation, a carnival here, a fun day there or a workshop hosted by a visual art worker from time to time. I just want us to consider the issue with planning. In fact, some local bodies are working hard at it. They would like to obtain some resources to take up the role.
A Member mentioned that it was not a matter of resources but artistic freedom that visual art was not promoted. I hope he can find time to understand the situation more. He will then realise whether the problem lies with resources or the loss of artistic freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I haven't finished actually. I don't want to see my motion misused and taken apart for discussion. I hope Members will focus on promotion and popularisation of visual art. I hope you will support my original motion without politicising the motion or the aspirations of visual artists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 158 of 654
Page 158 of 654
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
161
placing of spittoons all over the place because we do not encourage spitting everywhere.
For this reason, when we discard a certain type of art work or decide not to support it, we should consider its use. We cannot generalise things. If you want to scold certain Members, I think you are just being unfair to them. They have no chance to respond. I think we made clear on the day of the debate concerning the Pillar of Shame why we did not support its display at the suggested venue. However, that does not mean we will not support a similar type of art work in future and least of all that we do not support popularisation of visual art.
I don't know if I should mention names. Anyway, I agree to certain view points given in Mr. LEE Kwok-keung's speech. Emphasis on self- initiated expression is one. Unfortunately, he did not elaborate on whether he felt we should only grant subsidy to encourage art as self-initiated expression. On whether there is need for censorship, as pointed out by Mr. LAM Man-sai, should the Entertainment Select Committee request for a plan before granting subsidy for development of visual art? If so, it can be a form of censorship,
On the suitability of venue and the use of public space, parks etc., I think it is empty talk. That sort of space is required for all sorts of activities like a carnival, game stalls, handicraft classes and so on. I do not mean that no vetting of any sort should be carried out or that all public space should be made freely available to citizens. I just think that the Council is confused over issues. I am sorry, after hearing fellow colleagues' speeches, I can't even grasp the main point of my motion.
Shall I say that you have expressed your differences of opinions? I still want everyone to face the question on whether the Council should seriously promote popularisation of visual art. I mean actually doing this seriously, not just piecemeal efforts by individual Select Committees during the Summer vacation, a carnival here, a fun day there or a workshop hosted by a visual art worker from time to time. I just want us to consider the issue with planning. In fact, some local bodies are working hard at it. They would like to obtain some resources to take up the role.
A Member mentioned that it was not a matter of resources but artistic freedom that visual art was not promoted. I hope he can find time to understand the situation more. He will then realise whether the problem lies with resources or the loss of artistic freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I haven't finished actually. I don't want to see my motion misused and taken apart for discussion. I hope Members will focus on promotion and popularisation of visual art. I hope you will support my original motion without politicising the motion or the aspirations of visual artists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 158 of 654
Page 158 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.