(圖片說明：2008年6月6日「香港作動」活動，青年藝術家模仿岳敏君作品「粉紅兵馬俑」之行為藝表演。)
歡迎加入聯署
國際藝評人協會(香港分會)、 《文化現場》及獨立媒體(香港)對於時代廣場管理層去信《明報》高層，投訴程展緯先生早前於《明報》發表的文章「故意將時代廣場現正舉行之『岳敏君藝術展』與六四事件拉上關係，作法非常不當」，並要求《明報》就此「更正」，我等非常不安。
任何尊重言論自由的社會，都會包容對事物的不同理解和演繹；我們希望處身的香港同樣如是。以藝術品或展覽產生或接收時的社會、文化、政治、時事為脈絡作出討論或詮釋，實屬平常，並有助公眾認識藝術在社會的意義和重要性。政治角度是談論藝術的眾多角度之一，同樣能促進多元化討論，應為公眾所樂見。縱有社會人士或對某種詮釋持不同意見，亦不應被視為「不當」，評論亦不應被干預。
當讀者對於出版物的評論有任何意見，合理的慣常做法是以讀者回應方式提出異議。重視公眾討論的優良報刊，均樂於刊登不同意見。然而時代廣場管理層卻直接把「投訴」寄交《明報》高層，並要求「更正」論點。時代廣場(可能是出於公關形象或商業利益)就其不滿意的論點對《明報》施加壓力並干頇評論自由，我們認為做法不當。
文化評論的自由，是文化認知和發展的基石，排拒政治觀點，只會導致不健全的藝術生態，對社會文化發展產生不良影響。
我們要求時代廣場管理層重新思考應有取態；對於他們為公眾帶來的藝術品，及其引起公眾之各種多元化討論，應予歡迎。我們同時讚許《明報》為藝術評論提供寬闊自由的議論空間所作出的努力。
國際藝評人協會(香港分會)
《文化現場》
獨立媒體(香港)
備註：
程展緯：〈在時代廣場紀念六四〉，《明報》「星期日生活」，2008年6月1日。
*相關報導，可參〈承認紀念六四活動沒申請藝團：相約時代廣場看展覽〉，《明報》，2008年6月4日，A11版。及〈在時代廣場紀念六四﹝最新消息：時代發信表明不容許悼念活動﹞〉，《獨立媒體》http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1000156 。
-國際藝評人協會成立於1950年，為聯合國科學及文教組織贊助之非政府組織。(http://www.aica-int.org)
-《文化現場》為評論月刊 (http://www.cforculture.com )
2008年6月6日
Joint Statement: in respond to the Times Square's request for correction of art criticism on Ming Pao
6th June 2008
Members of the International Association of Art Critics Hong Kong (AICAHK), C for Culture and Inmedia (Hong Kong)are deeply disturbed by the recent incident in which the management office of Times Square filed a complaint to the senior management office of Ming Pao against art critic Mr. Luke Ching, claiming that his article concerning the exhibition of the Chinese artist Yue Min Jun held at Times Square, was “inappropriate” inasmuch as he “related it to the June 4th incident”*.
Any society that respects freedom of expression allows and accommodates differences in perception and interpretation. In Hong Kong we greatly treasure this freedom. Writing about an artwork or exhibition and commenting on the context of its production or reception is a common practice and an important means of understanding the meaning and significance of artworks for a society. The political dimension should be one amongst the different aspects that help foster a lively discussion of the arts and should therefore be welcomed. Even if some members of society disagree with a particular interpretation, we cannot see why this kind of discussion should not take place or be considered “inappropriate.”
When readers of publications disagree with a critic, it is common practice to write a reply; good newspapers that value public debate should be open to printing diverse arguments. However, the management office of Times Square made its complaint directly to the senior officers of Ming Pao, asking that the paper “correct” Mr. Ching’s analysis. We view this as highly inappropriate, as it appears that Times Square was asking Ming Pao to curtail and suppress freedom of criticism where they disagreed (and quite possibly out of exaggerated concern for their own public relations or commercial interests).
Freedom of cultural criticism is one of the foundations of cultural understanding and development, and the exclusion of the political aspect in it can only led to an unhealthy arts ecology, with adverse effect upon our culture and society.
We request the management office of Times Square to reconsider their position and to welcome a wide and diverse public discussion of the art that they have brought to the public. We applaud Ming Pao for enabling and encouraging an unfettered and open dialogue about art.
International Association of Art Critics Hong Kong (AICAHK)**
C for Culture
Inmedia (Hong Kong)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reference:
Luke Ching, “19 years after. The Square,” Ming Pao, 1st June, 2008, "Sunday special section", pp. 4-5. (in Chinese)(Re-posted on the Inmedia: http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1000156)
* The quotation from the letter (originally in Chinese) is quoted by the editor of Mingpao, 6th June, 2008, p. A11 ; and inmedia, appearing also in http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1000156 .
**The International Association of Art Critics (AICA), is a NGO, founded in 1950 under the patronage of UNESCO. (http://www.aica-int.org)