關於 victoria art plus ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【一起來寫】#崛起的迷因美學：「蒸氣波文化」與藝術崇古心理（下）// 鄭雋立
.
德國哲學家包姆嘉通（Alexander Baumgarten）曾指出「美學的對象就是對 #感性認知的完善，這就是美；感性認知的不完善，就是醜」（楊辛、甘霖，2001），如同蒸氣波創作者經常喜好用全形文字或疑似亂碼的多國語言混用、拼出aesthetics（#美學）或相關詞彙，他們確實正在重複古典美學家詮釋的審美活動，逐次在視／聽覺建構當代 #網路次文化的美學，並且不斷完善這種感性認知。
.
■ #蒸氣波的靈感源頭：#超現實主義繪畫
.
上集筆者提到蒸氣波視覺隱約可見超現實主義繪畫的影子，雖無確切證據顯示蒸氣波創作有意致敬或造成戲仿（Parody）效果，但若回顧超現實繪畫的思維與脈絡，會發現許多不謀而合的旨趣。
.
◆見圖一：音樂家「猫シCorp.」在Bandcamp網站的大頭照，網址：https://catsystemcorp.bandcamp.com。
.
■ #超現實繪畫的前身：#義大利畫家基里訶
.
談到超現實主義，就不得不提討論義大利畫家基里訶（Giorgio De Chirico），他被認為是超現實繪畫的重要啟蒙者，作品畫面充斥 #希臘羅馬雕像與石柱、謎樣的剪影及斷裂的肢體，詭譎而神秘的氣氛，融合了古典美學的既成物、日常事物及 #幻覺。基里訶少年時代起便嫻熟哲學理論、崇尚希臘羅馬遺跡與雕像，透過大量臨摹石膏像奠基繪畫技巧，專事創作後便以這些素材畫出自己的幻覺體驗，他在文稿〈一個秋日午後的謎〉寫道：「我確信在肉眼可見的平凡事物背後，存在著深遠而神祕的現實。」（胡永芬，2001），基里訶的作品當時被稱為『#形而上繪畫』（metaphysical painting），受到超現實主義領導者布列東（André Breton）大力推崇，影響達利、馬格利特等人，並被後世認定為達達主義等20世紀藝術的先驅（許麗雯，1994）。
.
◆見圖二：基里訶畫冊《Giorgio De Chirico: The Changing Face of Metaphysical Art》封面與神似蒸氣波的畫作。
.
■ #呼應藝術崇古心理
.
上集提到了書畫家盧福壽教授提出的『#藝術崇古心理』，現今蒸氣波文化描繪幻覺體驗、大量採用的希臘羅馬3D模組與其他設計素材的大膽拼貼、套上迷離如嗑藥幻覺般的霓虹光…這些都是1980年代個人電腦興起時大眾文化與設計常用的手法，對照基里訶的畫面呈現，可說是同樣生於藝術崇古心理，又殊途同歸、走向幻覺與潛意識的世界（超現實=夢與潛意識、古希臘VS.蒸氣波=嗑藥或其他次文化、對1980年代的眷戀）。
.
◆ 見圖三：日本數位設計公司「株式会社フォーラムエイト （FORUM 8 Co., Ltd）」開發的素材庫『hade 実用3Ｄデータ集 森シリーズ 神話の森』，這類3Ｄ模組在1980年代曾隨著NEC PC-98、麥金塔等個人電腦的普及而大受歡迎，也是蒸氣波創作最愛的素材。與超現實繪畫不同的是，這些雕像總是跟現代數位科技、商場消費文化甚至動漫畫之類的素材並置，並染上醉人的霓虹色調。
.
■ #描繪幻覺與崇古的目的
.
研究原型與集體潛意識的心理學家榮格（Carl Jung）認為：在現象與本體、經驗與超驗、意識與無意識間，並沒有可通過科學方法架設起來的橋樑。這種瞬間的溝通只有藉助於幻覺、直覺，科學越發達，精神就越空虛；人們也就越需要幻想、嚮往科學解釋不了的神話（馮川，2014）。
.
■ #回不去的美好年代
.
美國在二戰後成為世界強國，但也因為移民血緣等因素眷戀歐陸的古典文化，加上藝術圈的崇古心態作為動力，間接導致1980年代的 #消費文化，如百貨商場、唱片等，使用崇古元素搭上幾何、殘影等 #早期數位設計 混搭包裝的原因（早期視覺設計儀器介紹詳見上集），既先進又崇高。隨後日本也因為戰後高速崛起、動漫畫與流行音樂等大眾文化興盛而成為1980年代的文化輸出大國，影響了CyberPunk的科幻創作風潮（如《銀翼殺手》裡出現的漢字等東方元素），因此 #動漫畫 的挪用也成為後來蒸氣波的其中一種文化符號。
.
新自由主義與消費文化曾對全球帶來樂觀積極的氣氛，但到了2010年世界沒有變得更好。在蒸氣波藝術家眼裡，遠去的1980年代已經是一種「#鄉愁」（Nostalgia）、思鄉之痛、對舊日情懷的嚮往以及隱含的矛盾情緒（Constantine Sedikides, Tim Wildschut, 2018），也因此蒸氣波創作通常都離不開 #感傷或自嘲的情緒。引榮格語，潛意識裡的原型導致人不斷藉由重複特定行為，消融原型以達到心理平衡與 #補償作用（馮川，2014），而蒸氣波無疑是當代精神處境的體現。

|

■ #筆者推薦藝術家與其他 🙌
.
□ #音樂：

1.猫シ Corp.（cat system corp）
https://catsystemcorp.bandcamp.com/

2.Vektroid（別名：Macintosh Plus）
https://vektroid.bandcamp.com/

3.New Soviet Wave，最早以蒸氣波的蘇聯變體流派 #蘇維埃波 為主題的音樂頻道（2018-），曲風較為簡約理智，整體氣氛像科普教育節目。
https://www.youtube.com/c/NewSovietWave

4.Earth, Wind & Fire - Let's Groove，老牌樂團：「大地風火」1971年的經典名曲MV，視覺效果正是採用上集提到的Scanimate製作，後來1980年代影視文化大量仿製了這種風格，這首歌有夠純！
https://youtu.be/Lrle0x_DHBM
.
□ #視覺藝術：
.
1.Shapiro500（本名Gavin Shapiro，動畫師，作品偏滑稽取向）
https://giphy.com/shapiro500
https://www.instagram.com/shapiro500/

2.A e s t h e t i c 波（視覺設計師，把風景攝影作成霓虹感）
https://www.facebook.com/aesthvisionofficial/

3. SeerLight（插畫家、動畫師，擅長挪用日本ACG文化符號，感傷情緒的最佳代表）
https://www.instagram.com/seerlight

|

■ #上集回顧：https://www.facebook.com/Pseudoscholarship/posts/1597765127077773
.
// 本文探討的超現實主義僅限於繪畫部分，文學方面鑑於範圍過廣不適合同時討論，未盡之處尚請讀者見諒 //

|

■ #參考文獻
.
1.Victoria Noel-Johnson.(2019).《Giorgio De Chirico: The Changing Face of Metaphysical Art》.Milan: Skira Editore

2.Constantine Sedikides, Tim Wildschut.(2018).〈Finding Meaning in Nostalgia〉

3.楊辛、甘霖（2001）《美學》（第二版），北京市：北京大學出版社，頁4-5

4.胡永芬（2001）《藝術大師世紀畫廊：古典與虛無之間──基里柯》，台北市：閣林。

5.許麗雯（1994）《西洋近現代巨匠畫集：基里訶》，台北縣：錦繡。

6.榮格（Carl Gustav Jung）著，馮川、蘇克譯《心理學與文學》（2014），南京市：譯林出版社，頁12-13（譯者序，由馮川執筆）

#周末愉快！ 試咗係K11 MUSEA新開嘅 COBO HOUSE HONG KONG! 無敵維港景、簡約而充滿藝術品嘅interior 加上神秘菜單，四道菜神秘午餐（$680/位），加3杯葡萄酒pairing ($480/位），慢活一下，原來好容易就可以食3小時！🤣🤣食物精緻，好似藝術品，wine pairing 配撘不錯! Cheers! 🥳🥂🍷仲有我最愛嘅草簡彌生作品係同層嘅art space! 😍😍
#HappyWeekend! Tried the newly opened Cobo House at K11 MUSEA! With panoramic Victoria Harbour View, chic with many art pieces interior, plus mysterious 4-course lunch ($680/pax). If u like wine pairing, u can add 3 glasses for $480. It’s quite slow living to enjoy a 3-hour sumptuous lunch! 🤣🤣Each dish is like at art piece & winw pairing is quite nice! Cheers! 🥳🥂🍷Don’t miss the art exhibition on the same floor! So happy to see my favorite artist Yayoi Kusama’s sculpture here! 😍😍
#wine #winepairing #foodandwine #champagne #champagnersrv #COBOHOUSE #K11Musea #yummy #HatbourView #DiscoverHongKong #weekendvibes #ccwinevoyage #詩詩酒樂園
#COBOHOUSEMoments #TheKnifenSpoon
#chefraychoi #chefdevhou #ouiworkshop

根據計算，100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東；200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。

順道一提香港15～30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看，兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。

另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair，幾天內湧進40萬人次，照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。（http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg）

當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車，幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。

而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。

順道一提，因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現：

https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/

EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)