致:
激发研究所（北京）

^To:
Institute for Provocation (Beijing)

宋轶，策划人、写作者、影像作者，独立空间“激发研究所”运营者之一，新工人影像小组发起人之一。

激发研究所的前身移动剧场（Theatre In Motion）从 2008 年起开始策划相关艺术项目了。当时的活动组织人只是建筑师陈淑瑜和来自比利时的汉学家 Els Silvrants-Barclay 。项目多是让欧洲和中国的艺术家进行交流交换，更关注身体表演和社会空间介入等艺术项目。在2010年，“激发研究所”这个名字正式启用，又在 2011 年偶然发现了一个三进的四合院，于是租下了那个地方。有了正式的空间。

2011年的空间在北京二环内的黑芝麻胡同，是一个很接地气的环境；2019年搬到了798艺术区里，是一个离职业化的艺术环境更近的地方。

疫情开始之后，开展了10年的国际艺术家驻地项目不得不暂停，我们开始把艺术项目的工作放在了北京以外的其他省份(比如青海、甘肃、重庆、广东)，和那里的当地艺术家和独立空间合作。变成了一个发散和移动的工作状态。北京这边也做了一次国内策展人的驻地，还有十几次跨学科的讲座、放映活动，但总的来说，数量比疫情前要少。

最近的一次活动是1月份策展人杨天歌关于“抗战时期西南写生”的一个讲座，是属于艺术史研究的范畴

我最近比较关心的是策划人如何可以以一种在多个地方移动、当地人一起参与性的、需要到现成实地感受的方式来进行工作。这种方式本身的形式感和仪式感，是怎么样的？背后的思维逻辑是什么？——这些都是我关心的。

空间包含很多形态，需要有物理空间，也需要有一个更广阔的联络网络，就是可以和自己合作的朋友的网络，这个网络是需要发现和开拓，以及策划一些活动，能让大家有兴趣来参与的。这些都是空间的含义

空间的生存我们主要是申请资金支持，但这些支持因为疫情的影响变得尤为脆弱，所以我们目前更多的做法是降低空间生存的各种成本，在难以开源的情况，尽可能地节流。因为我很警惕在总体经济衰退的背景下开源，会过度占用我们做艺术项目的精力和时间。毕竟，艺术空间的目标是做艺术，在还活着的情况下尽量多做一些，而不是为了生存而生存。如果进入为了生存而生存的逻辑陷阱，最后做的事情很有可能是违背初心的。那样的话，我觉得还不如不做。

我认为独立空间的未来是一种网络状的联合体，有的地方可能比较适合经典意义上的独立空间（即有固定的展览空间、固定的交流场所，或者有驻地项目），有的地方可能只是一些项目形态的存在，有的地方适合做独立书店，有的地方适合有一个研究学习的基地，有的地方还很难产生独立空间但适合发展一些驻地活动，这些不同形态，我觉得需要有一个网络能联合起来，至少能相互熟悉，在有可能策划一些联合活动的时候，心里清楚可以和谁合作。

只想到一个：“不识趣儿”——这是一个自我调侃的话。

我觉得独立空间在今天，“独立”这个字面上的意思可能已经不太准确了。那种不追随主流艺术形态和主流社会价值的态度和探索，在我看来已经算不上是多么坚定的抵抗，也算不上是多么有差异的区别，而是一种“不识时务”或者“不识抬举”的倔强，用“不识趣儿”这个词我感觉比较准确。

Song Yi is a curator, writer and filmmaker；is one of the founders of the Migrant Workers Video Collective. He is currently the artistic director of the independent art space Institute For Provocation.

The Institute of Provocation grew out of Theatre In Motion which has been curating various art projects since 2008. Back then, there were only architect Chen Shuyu (CN) and Belgian sinologist Els Silvrants-Barclay (BE) who were in charge of organizing events. Most of the projects are for exchange and communication between European and Chinese artists, which mainly focus on performance and social space intervention. In 2010, the name Institute for Provocation (IFP) was officially used. In 2011, I stumbled upon a quadrangle and rented the place, which became the official art space for IFP.

The original space started in 2011 was located in the Heizhima Hutong in Beijing’s Second Ring, which is a very friendly and welcoming environment that allows the connection with its neighbourhood and community; in 2019, we moved to the 798 Art District, engaged with a more professional art context.

The international artist residency program lasted for ten years had to be suspended due to the epidemic. We started some art projects in other provinces outside Beijing (such as Qinghai, Gansu, Chongqing, Guangdong), and cooperated with local artists and independent art spaces there. It becomes a working state of divergence and mobility. For the events in Beijing, we held a residency for local curators once, as well as a few interdisciplinary lectures and screenings; but in general, compared to the time before the epidemic, the number of activities decreased.

The latest event held in our art space was a lecture by curator Yang Tiange in January on "Sketching from Life in Southwest China during the Anti-Japanese War", which belongs to the realm of art history research.

What I've been interested in lately is how curators can work in a way that travels across multiple places and involves local people participation, which requires to experience the place in person. What is the sense of form and ritual of this method? What is the logic behind it?

An art space contains various forms. It needs a physical space, but also needs a border network of contact, that is, a network of friends who can cooperate with. This network needs to be discovered and developed through curating events to attract more people to visit and participate. This is the meaning of an art space.

For the survival of the space, we mainly rely on the application of financial support, but these supports have become particularly vulnerable due to the impact of the epidemic. Therefore, our current approach is to reduce the various costs for space survival, and save as much as possible when it is difficult to borden sources of financial support. Because I'm wary that searching for financial sources in the context of a general recession will take too much of our energy and time instead of doing art projects. After all, the goal of art space is for art practice, to do as much as possible while still able to do it, but not for the sake of survival. If you fall into the logical trap of existing only for survival, the last thing you do is likely to go against your will. In that case, I think it's better not to do it.

I think the future of independent art space is a kind of networked union. Some places may be more suitable for independent art space in a traditional sense (that is, there are fixed exhibition spaces, fixed communication places, or residency projects). Some places may only allow the existence of art projects. Some places are suitable for independent bookstores, some places are suitable for research-based projects, and some places are difficult to generate independent art spaces but are sufficient for developing some residency and related events. For these different forms, I think it is necessary to have a network that can unite, or at least get acquainted with each other. When the time comes to curate some joint activities, we would have more insights for choosing partners and cooperators.

Only word comes to mind is "insensible" - as a self-mocking remark.

I think independent art space in nowadays context, the literal meaning of "independent" may not be accurate anymore. The attitude and exploration of refusing to conform to the mainstream art forms and social values, in my opinion, is no longer a firm resistance, nor any distinct characteristics, but a kind of stubbornness of "ignorance of current times" or of "not showing any appreciation of favors”. I feel like it is more accurate to describe it in the word “being insensible".

_{☞ 激发研究所
     Institute fro Provocation}