The Abode of Anamnesis
Symposium
Time: April 14, 2019
Venue: Auditorium, 1st Floor, OCAT Institute
The second symposium of Abode of Anamnesis aims to investigate the complex relationship between history, memory and visual narratives, to explore the different strategies contemporary artists have adopted in order to enter historical narratives with images, and to conduct contextual analyses on the causes that led to this trend. The symposium also attempts to examine the connection between these artists’ strategies and their works, and to navigate the unique perspective photography has contributed to historical narratives from different viewpoints.
Panel I: Historical Narrative and Memory Reconstruction
Time: 10:00-12:20
Moderator: Chang Mengsu (PhD Candidate in History, Stanford University)
“Narration” refers to the incorporation of historical events in a fixed linguistic structure; its goal is not only to “represent” history, but also to secure the right to interpret historical events. 40 years ago, Jean-François Lyotard already examined the decline of grand narratives in the postmodern world in his book, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Within the field of contemporary art, artists’ attempts to narrate history with various media and strategies are manifestations of their efforts to reexamine the authenticity of history and memory, and of the possibilities of rewriting history and reconstructing memory.
10:00-11:30 Guest Talks
The Imaginary of the Image
Speaker: David Bate (Artist, Writer, Professor of Photography, Westminster School of Arts, University of Westminster)
Bio-Archiving: Shenyang Underground Music and Chinese Art in the 1990s
Speaker: Dong Bingfeng (Curator, Researcher of Cross-Media Art Institute, China Academy of Fine Arts)
Picturing Histories: Re-writing Family Album
Speaker: He Yining (Writer and Curator)
Anthro-Photographic Studies: Narrating the Past with Imaginations from the Future
Speaker: Yang Yunchang (PhD Candidate in Anthropology, University College London)
11:30-11:45 Coffee Break
11:45-12:20 Panel Discussion
Guests: Chang Mengsu, David Bate, Dong Bingfeng, He Yining, Yang Yunchang
Panel II: Re-writing Archives in Contemporary Art
Time: 14:00-16:30
Moderator: Hu Hao (Writer, Curator)
When we walk into exhibition halls, flip through documents and read the news, it’s easy to notice that what we see as “archive” or “archival art” is gravitating naturally toward highbrow concepts such as knowledge, libraries and museums in the way it carries itself. It moves ever closer to solemn topics such as history, memory and trauma in its flesh and blood, as if—by being tactile—an archive is valuable simply by being present, or at least by its automatic ability to be serious and profound in a “high-quality” way… But because this is taken for granted, archives and the art behind it now find themselves in an awkward position under this scam wherein superficial perspectives are also caught in games of jargon. In this panel, curators, artists and writers will talk about “archive fever” in the context of global culture since the 20th century from different perspectives, and explore questions like the definition of “archive” and “archival art”, and how we should go about “practising archives” in the context of contemporary art.
14:00-15:30 Guest Talks
What is an archive? What is archival art?
Speaker: Hu Hao (Writer, Curator)
Reliving the History through Archives: A Case Study of “Crescent: Retrospectives of Zhao Wenliang and Yang Yushu” and “The Lonely Spirit” and “The Lonely Spirit” exhibition
Speaker: Su Wei (Senior Curator, Inside-Out Art Museum)
Why Rewrite? Speaker: Li Ran (Artist)
“Archive”: Reflexivity
Speaker: He Wenzhao (Writer, Curator)
15:30-15:50 Coffee Break
15:50-16:30 Panel Discussion
Guests: Hu Hao, Su Wei, Li Ran, He Wenzhao, He Yining
Abstracts of Speeches
David Bate: The Imaginary of the Image
How does a spectator navigate the meaning of an online or offline image? When does “archive fever” play a role in developing a historical imaginary? Where does a memory of the observer intersect with the meaning of an image? Why does the composition of a photographic image matter as a strategy for the production of the imagination of the viewer?
Dong Bingfeng: Bio-Archiving: Shenyang Underground Music and Chinese Art in the 1990s
“Shenyang Underground Music 1995–2002” is not only an exhibition project (shown at Taikang Space and the Art Gallery of Luxun Academy of Fine Arts in 2017), but also a textual project that aims to conduct critical research on artists, artworks and visually-oriented narratives of art history from art under the influence of marginalized concepts and alternating modes. At the same time, “Shenyang Underground Music 1995–2002” entails a variety of cross-disciplinary exhibition and performance modes, such as underground music, performance art, independent films and experimental theatre, which correspond to the trends of institutional experiment and self-organization in the 1990s Chinese art scene. Together, they combine to form a unique historical narrative and “bio-archiving” in memory. This talk will focus on Dong’s latest research projects.
He Yining: Picturing Histories: Re-writing Family Album
In the past decade or so, Chinese photographic practices that utilize vintage photographs in the biographic construction of individual and family histories in have illustrated the importance of family albums in the artistic exploration of personal, family and collective memory, as well as the numerous possibilities for artists to enter historical narratives through the rewriting of family photos. This talk will focus on the works of four Chinese artists who use photography as their main medium, and reexamine three ways family albums are transformed into works of art: first, through the investigation, organization and reenactment of images found in family albums; second, through the attribution of new objectives as a result of rewriting family albums; and third, through the artists’ continuous exploration of the connection between collective history and individual memory, which has been divided in collective consciousness.
Yang Yunchang: Anthro-Photographic Studies: Narrating the Past with Imaginations from the Future
The history of anthropologists’ encounters with photography is a history of “taming” the wildness of this medium of modernity. While such effort has proven to fail, anthropologists and visual culture scholars have provided us with an alternative approach to understanding photography—to confront the exorbitance and contingency of the Photograph, as to liberate the medium from singular definitions and static discourses, and relocate it as a social actor that bridges historical narratives and future imaginations.
Hu Hao: What is an archive? What is archival art?
Although we can often spot artworks that look like archives in appearance or that have actually appropriated what’s classified as archival material in many self-defined surveys of contemporary art, it is far from wise to equate these artworks with archival art. As a noun that has never been clearly defined but has hurriedly acquired an unreserved philosophical air, “archive” itself is obviously not enough to be the only prerequisite for the imagination, description and even judgment (which can be called criticism) of an “archivist.” Aside from the unacceptability of the disconnection between this approach and the artworks, its ambiguity is also problematic in itself. With archival art, can the question of “archive” as “archive” really be so unimportant? Is it really so self-explanatory that “archivists” can delve right into it and patter in miscellany? I think we only have the right to judge the value of “archive” in relation to archival art and critiques of archival art when we have clarified the concept of “archive.”
Su Wei: Reliving History through Archives: A Case Study of “Crescent: Retrospectives of Zhao Wenliang and Yang Yushu” and “The Lonely Spirit”
The evolution of consciousness and value in historical archives, individual cases in history and historical progression have received renewed attention from art researchers as well as public and private art institutions in recent years. In the context of this trend, what has resurfaced is not only the desire to dig into the past along other miscellaneous reasons but also basic questions related to research, the core of which lies in our perspective and urgency to reexamine and catch the individuals and moments that have largely remained silent in archives. When we try to reimagine the condition of archives back in the days, we have to restore their “vitality” while introducing today’s zeitgeist and uncertainties, rather than falling into the sentiments evoked by a solemn, distant past. I hope to share my approach to archives in “Crescent: Retrospectives of Zhao Wenliang and Yang Yushu” (Inside-Out Art Museum, Beijing, 2018) and “The Lonely Spirit” (Inside-Out Art Museum, Beijing, 2018–2019). These two exhibition projects I curated last year heavily rely on archival research. I wish to share my thoughts with art professionals on the ways to translate a facet of history into exhibition making.
Li Ran: Why Rewrite?
When we are once again faced with the application of “archive” in creative and curatorial practices, we must see that it is not a type of categorization in art. So how should we understand the involvement of this practice as a phenomenon? Some artists have called it a fight for the right to speak, but then the question becomes—how should we understand its political nature? Who is the enemy we are fighting against? If we win, where will this right to speak take us? I’m afraid we have to admit that, if we don’t clarify the definition of “archive,” it will remain an abstract fragment of data without direction. But if we define “archive” as a piece of evidence that has already become normalized historical expression, it will look like we have new objectives and questions when we reprocess this data from the past… in this “political” act, along with the careful examination of the data, we can complicate the situation further. In my work, the sources of historical photographs, documents, and other materials already come with fragments of data that are formal and informal, unknown and well-known, so the individual capacities needed in the process of organizing and editing must take place together. The process is full of complications that come with experience and history. When it comes to this realm, I think we no longer look at a tug-of-war between concepts of historical writings, but something more like an entry point outside preexisting frameworks. Here, “outside” does not refer to a kind of otherworld found in literature and poetry, but rather to more specific creative demands…In this talk, I will use two recent works as examples to explore artistic creations involving “archive.”
He Wenzhao: “Archive”: Reflexivity
People tend to forge, or tend to obsess. But “archive” is neither. It is much more composed, goal-oriented, and determined. It forgets and remembers not as a result of human negligence, but as a result of its instrumental nature and technological ethics. As an instrument of power, a set of governing accessories that come from, point to, or identify with others, “archive” needs to be clear, logical, readable, and ready for enlistment whenever it’s required. We have good reasons to often suspect that “archives” actually control and own the truth. It is responsible not only for collecting and outputting selectively reliable versions of reality but also for arranging and allocating powers of ordinary and unusual phenomena in discourse. In some extreme cases in history, it even appears as a form of oppressive discourse in charge of escorting different bodies to different execution grounds. When I try to “objectify” archive in my teaching and emphasize its effectiveness as “methodology,” I merely share the right to abuse a certain kind of administrative strategy with many artists. Although the ascent of power that accompanies technological uprising is coming at us with full force, our blustering with outstretched necks and reddened faces is just a haphazard imitation of real power and historical configuration. We are fooling ourselves by self-indulging our avoidance of this context. I will discuss my present doubts regarding “archival art” from my own ruminations and experience of the exhibition.
About speakers and moderators
Michelle Mengsu Chang is a PhD Candidate in History at Stanford University, where she studies totalitarianism in the 20th century. Her research focuses on the interface between state and individual under totalitarianism, as well as how economic organization and material reality influence political consciousness and identity. Prior to pursuing her doctorate, she worked as a researcher at the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin. Michelle received an MA in International Relations from Yale University and a BA in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley. Beyond academia, Michelle also works as a photographer. Her first exhibition—“The Atlas of Stranger”—which features her street photography work from the past seven years, opened in Beijing last November.
David Bate is an artist and writer with a well-known international reputation for his work on photography, visual arts history, theory and culture. He is a Professor of Photography at the University of Westminster, supervising PhD work and teaching in the MA Photography Arts programme. He is also an editor of the international photography theory journal Photographies started in 2008: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rpho20/current.
Dong Bingfeng is a curator and producer based in Beijing. He is a research fellow at the School of Inter-media Art, China Academy of Art. Since 2005, Dong has worked as a curator at the Guangdong Museum of Art and the Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, Deputy Director of Iberia Center for Contemporary Art, Art Director of Li Xianting’s Film Fund, and Academic Director of OCAT Institute. In 2013, Dong was awarded the “CCAA Chinese Contemporary Art Critic Award”. In 2015, he was awarded the Chinese Contemporary Art Critic Award of Yishu: Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art. In 2017, he was awarded the Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Greater China Research Grant.
HE Yining (born. 1986) is a curator and writer of photography. She is a graduate of London College of Communication, University of the Arts London. In 2010, she began to work as a curator, translator, and writer specializing in photography and visual culture. Her work is principally focused on the way in which photography is able to freely straddle the boundaries of contemporary art, responding to and raising questions about contemporary and historical social issues through effective, diverse, and interdisciplinary means. He’s exhibitions have been held in museums, art museums and galleries, and other institutions in China and Europe. Her publications include Photography in the British Classroom, and The Port and the Image, among others. Further information and detailed descriptions of her work can be found on her website, www.heyining.com.
Yang Yunchang holds an MA degree in Anthropology of Media from SOAS, University of London (2014) and an LLB in Anthropology from Sun Yat-sen University (2013). He is now a PhD Candidate in Material and Visual Culture at the Anthropology Department of University College London (UCL). His research area includes inter-disciplinary studies across photography and anthropology, and visual culture and arts from early modern to contemporary China.
Hu Hao is a writer, curator, researcher at Taikang Space. He graduated with a BA in philosophy (2013) and an MA in aesthetics (2017) from the School of Philosophy at Renmin University of China. His essays were shortlisted for the International Awards for Art Criticism (IAAC) in 2016 and 2017. In 2017, his research project was selected for the inaugural “Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Greater China Research Grant: Research Workshop”. His curatorial projects include “Border Resonance” (with Zhang Wenxin, Goethe Institut, Beijing 2018), “Metamorphosis: Art Practices Now Activating Archives and Public Memories” (exhibition preview, with Liu Zhangbolong & Nie Xiaoyi, OCAT Institute, Beijing 2018), and “The Card Players” (Lianzhou Foto, Lianzhou 2018).
Su Wei is a curator and art critic based in Beijing. He is the Senior Curator of Beijing Inside-Out Art Museum.
Li Ran 1986 Born in Hubei, Li Ran currently lives and works in Shanghai, China. Graduated from Sichuan Fine Arts Institute, Oil Painting Department with BFA. Li Ran has exhibited at the Center Pompidou, Paris; basis voor actuele kunst (BAK), Utrecht; Haus der Kulturen der Welt (HKW), Berlin; Contemporary Arts Museum Houston (CAMH), Houston; Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, Montreal; The Museum of Moscow, Moscow; Centre d’Art Contemporain Genève, Geneva; CCA Wattis Institute for Contemporary Arts, San Francisco; NTU Centre for Contemporary Art Singapore (CCA), Singapore; Museum of Contemporary Art and Design (MCAD), Manila; Sifang Museum, Nanjing; OCT Contemporary Art Terminal (OCAT), Shenzhen, Shanghai and Xi’an; Ullens Center for Contemporary Art (UCCA), Beijing; CAFA Museum (CAFAM), Beijing; and other venues, He has held solo exhibition at OCT Contemporary Art Terminal (OCAT), Xi’an (2015). He won the “Best Artist Award” at the 2014 Moscow International Youth Art Biennale and was nominated for the “Future Generation Award” by the Pinchuk Art Center in 2017.
He Wenzhao is a writer with an ongoing interest in local practices and social art, and guest lecturer at various institutions.
视觉叙事的再想象：历史、记忆与档案
4月14日 10:00-16:30
地点：OCAT研究中心展厅一层报告厅
“记忆寓所”第二期研讨会旨在考察历史、记忆和视觉叙事之间的复杂关系，探究当代艺术家通过图像进入历史叙事的不同策略，试图对产生这种潮流的原因进行语境分析。与此同时，研讨会还将考察这些摄影艺术家所运用的不同策略以及作品之间的某种联系，从不同角度来探索摄影在历史叙事中所提供的独特视角。
上半场：历史叙事与记忆重构
所谓“叙事”，指的是将历史事件编排进一个固定的语言结构当中，其目的不仅在于“呈现”历史，更重要的是占有对历史事件的解释权。早在40年前，利奥塔在《后现代状况》一书中便考察了后现代状况下宏大叙事的凋零。而在当代艺术的领域内，艺术家运用各种媒介和策略来进行历史叙事的例子展现出实践者们对历史、记忆的真实性的反思，以及重新改写历史和重构记忆的可能性。
10:00－11:30 主题发言
主持人：常梦苏（斯坦福大学历史学博士候选人）
发言人及发言题目：
［英］大卫·贝特（艺术家、英国威斯敏斯特大学艺术学院教授）
《图像的想象》
董冰峰（策展人、中国美院跨媒体艺术学院研究员）
《生命文献：沈阳地下音乐和1990年代中国艺术》
何伊宁（学者、独立策展人）
《描绘历史：重写家庭相册》
杨云鬯（伦敦大学学院人类学博士候选人）
《摄影-人类学研究：历史叙事与未来想象》
11:30－11:45 茶歇
11:45－12:20 圆桌讨论
参与嘉宾：常梦苏、大卫·贝特、董冰峰、何伊宁、杨云鬯
下半场：重写档案
当我们观看展览、翻看文献、阅读新闻的时候，不难发现那些被当作“档案”或“档案艺术”的东西正天然地与知识、图书馆、博物馆这些充满了学究气的词在气质上靠拢着，与历史、记忆、创伤等不能更严肃的话题在血脉上切近着，就好像是：作为可感物的档案，它的在场本身就有价值，或至少是自动生成一种严肃且深刻的“高级效果”……但事实上，正是在这一充斥着“想当然”的骗局之下，档案及其身后的档案艺术才被摆到如今这个尴尬的位置上——它们被淹没在各种话语生产的游戏中，并时不时被迫与一些浮于浅表的对象为伍。在本次研讨会中，我们将邀请策展人、艺术家、写作者，面对20世纪以来全球文化语境中的“档案热”，从不同的层面探讨究竟什么是档案，什么是档案艺术，以及我们应该如何在当代艺术的语境下进行“档案的实践”。
14:00－15:30 主题发言
主持人：胡昊（写作者、策展人）
发言人及发言题目：
胡昊（写作者、策展人）
《何为档案，何为档案艺术》
苏伟（中间美术馆高级策展人）
《辨微、钩沉与转译：以“新月”展和“想象·主流价值”为例》
李然（艺术家）
《为何重写？》
和文朝（写作者、策展人）
《“档案”，反身。》
15:30－15:50 茶歇
15:50－16:30 圆桌讨论
参与嘉宾：胡昊、苏伟、李然、和文朝、何伊宁
发言题目简介
大卫·贝特：《图像的想象》
观众如何理解线上或线下图像的含义？“档案热”何时在发展历史想象中发挥作用？观者的记忆与图像的意义在哪里交汇？为什么摄影图像的构图作为创造观众想象力的策略意义重大？
董冰峰：《生命文献：沈阳地下音乐和1990年代中国艺术》
“沈阳地下音乐1995-2002”不仅是一个展览项目（2017年曾先后展出于泰康空间与鲁迅美院美术馆），同时也是一个尝试从非中心区域概念下的艺文生态和替代性模式出发，来对以艺术家及作品，以及视觉中心为论述主导的艺术史著述展开批评研究的文献计划。同时，“沈阳地下音乐”题目下包含的地下音乐、行为艺术、独立电影与小剧场等多种样态的跨领域展演模式，与1990中国艺术涌动的体制实验与自我组织的潮流互为呼应，形成一种独特的历史叙事和记忆中的“生命文献”。本次发言即介绍近期的研究工作。
何伊宁：《描绘历史：重写家庭相册》
在过去十多年间的中国摄影实践中，采用传记体形式，用老照片来构建个人和家庭历史的作品以丰富的面貌展现出家庭相册在艺术家探讨个人、家庭和集体记忆的过程中所扮演的重要角色，以及艺术家通过重写家庭照片来进入历史叙事的多种可能性。发言将重点介绍四位以摄影作为主要媒介的中国艺术家的作品，来重新观看家庭相册被转化为艺术作品的三种方式。一是对家庭相册中图像的调查、整理及再现；第二种是通过对家庭相册的改写赋予其新的目的；而第三种方法，则是艺术家对大众智慧中被割裂的集体历史与个人记忆之间的关系所进行的持续探索。
杨云鬯：《摄影-人类学研究：历史叙事与未来想象》
人类学家接触摄影的历史是一部“驯服”现代性媒介野性的历史。虽然这种努力被证明是失败的，但人类学家和视觉文化学者为我们提供了理解摄影的另一种方法，即直面照片的过剩性和偶然性，从而将作为媒介的摄影从单一的定义和静态话语中解放出来，并将其重新定位为一个沟通历史叙事和未来想象的社会角色。
胡昊：《何为档案，何为档案艺术》
虽然在许多自诩记录了当代艺术之面貌的文献中，我们经常看到一些外表上很像档案，或者是实然地挪用了被认定为档案材料的作品，但若凭此一点就将这些作品等同于档案艺术的话，绝非明智之举。很显然，“档案”这个从未被澄清、却又全然被急急赋予一种纯然的哲学姿态的名词，其本身，并不足以构成“文献工作者”想象、描述，甚至是判断（我们将这些动作称为批评）的唯一前提。除了这一路径与作品之间的断裂是无法被接受的以外，它本身的含混不清也不禁令人蹙眉。对档案艺术而言，“档案”之为“档案”的问题真的没有那么重要吗？它真的足够不言自明，以至于“文献工作者”们能够长驱直入，对它进行各种形式的言说吗？我想，或许只有在我们真地澄清“档案”这一概念，才有资格对“档案”之于档案艺术、之于对档案艺术的批评的价值做出判断。
苏伟：《辨微、钩沉与转译：以“新月”展和“想象·主流价值”为例》
历史档案、历史上的个案、历史进程中意识与价值的演变，今天正在得到不同艺术研究者和公、私性质的艺术机构的重新关注。在这样一种潮流中，重新泛起的不只是考古的欲望和许多难以揣测的动机，还有一些基本的关于研究的问题进入我们的视野，这其中的核心是从今天的视角和紧迫性，回望和捕捉沉静在档案中的个体与瞬间。当我们重新“悬想”档案在当时的境况时，总要在还原其“热烈”的同时，引入今天的玄机和关键，而不是仅仅沉浸在其静穆、悠远带来的好古情绪中。我希望和同行们分享我在《新月：赵文量、杨雨澍回顾展》（2018年，北京中间美术馆）和《想象·主流价值》（2018-2019年，北京中间美术馆）中，尝试实践对于档案的辨微、钩沉与重塑，以及如何将这样一种切片式的研究，转译到展览之中。
李然：《为何重写？》
当我们又一次谈到“档案”在艺术创作实践与展览策划实践当中的运用时，总要看到这不是一种艺术中的类型化，那么这种实践作为现象，我们该怎么理解它的参与？有艺术家同伴直截了当的形容这种工作是一种话语权之争，那么问题在于怎么理解这种政治性？斗争对象又是谁呢？假若赢得了叙述权又把我们带入何处？我想，我们必须承认，如果不去明确“档案”的具体定义，它便是一个抽象的、方向不明的数据残骸。但是如果我们定义“档案”就是一个历史表述惯例的佐证时，那么再次处理这个过往数据就会显得是有对象的、有新问题的……而在这个“政治性”的动作里，和对这些数据的审慎时，问题依然会再次复杂化。在我的工作里，由于这些历史照片文献，资料等等的收集渠道首先已经包含了正式的与“非正式”的、未命名的与熟知的等等碎片化的信息数据，那么组织和编纂时所需要的个体诉求必须随之调动起来。这个过程充满复杂性，这种复杂性合乎经验和感受，在抵达这个区域时，我想已经不仅仅是一个历史学书写概念的拉锯战，可能更接近一个超越既定框架外的口岸，而这个“之外”绝不是文学化和诗性的世外之地，我想这里是有更具体的创作要求的……本次发言，我以两件近作，来谈谈“档案”参与进入的创作。
和文朝：《“档案”，反身。》
人经常容易忘记，或倾向于偏执地加以铭刻。但“档案”两者皆非，它要冷静得多，目标明确，意志坚定，无论忘记或铭记，都绝非出于人性的疏忽一类，而是因为其工具属性与技术伦理。作为权力工具，一套来自或对着他人，或以他人自视的治术配件，“档案”被要求清晰、条理、可读，随时可以在必要时候加以调用与备征。在许多时候，我们都会正当的怀疑“档案”即是对真相的管制和占有，它负责收纳和输出某个程度上可信赖的现实，打理并配比一般类型与特异现象在话语中的权能。而在历史的极端时刻，它甚至是作为一种话语钳制出场的，曾负责将不同的身体押送前往不同的刑场。当我在学院教学中试图将档案“客观化”，强调其作为“方法”的有效性时，无非是与艺术家们分有了对某种传统治术的滥用权。虽然技术下替伴随的权力上移正汹涌而来，但我们的自我鼓吹，抻着脖子，面红耳赤，却仅出于对现实权能与历史设置的狂乱模仿，并在自陷的上下文里藏头曳尾，志得意满。结合个人思考，与展览现场所见，我将试着表达对“档案艺术”的即时疑心。
发言嘉宾及主持人简介
常梦苏
美国斯坦福大学历史系博士生。她主要研究极权主义下政权与个人的关系，以及物质文化和经济形态对政治意识与认知的影响。在此之前，她曾在德国柏林的全球公共政策研究所担任研究员。她于耶鲁大学获得国际关系学硕士学位，于加州大学伯克利分校获得经济学学士学位。学术研究之余，常梦苏也是一名摄影师。她的个人首展《初见》于2018年11月在北京展出。
大卫·贝特
艺术家和作家，他在摄影、视觉艺术史、理论和文化方面的作品在国际上享有盛誉。他是威斯敏斯特大学的摄影教授，博士生导师，并负责摄影艺术项目的硕士教学。他还是国际摄影理论杂志《摄影》的编辑，该杂志始于2008年。
董冰峰
1974年生于山西，现为中国美院跨媒体艺术学院研究员。曾先后担任广东美术馆与尤伦斯当代艺术中心策展人、伊比利亚当代艺术中心副馆长、栗宪庭电影基金艺术总监、北京OCAT研究中心学术总监。同时他也担任多个艺术机构、艺术理论丛书和影展的学术委员、主编与国际评委。他曾获“CCAA中国当代艺术评论奖”（2013）、“《YISHU》典藏国际版中国当代艺术评论奖”（2015）和“何鸿毅家族基金中华研究驻留奖”（2017）。董冰峰的研究领域包括影像艺术、独立电影、中国当代艺术史、展览史与当代批评理论。
何伊宁
摄影史学者、策展人。毕业于伦敦艺术大学伦敦传媒学院。2010年开始从事摄影及视觉文化的写作、策展和翻译等工作。她关注出入艺术自由的摄影实践在回应，并提出与历史及当下相关的社会议题时的有效性、多样性和跨学科性。何伊宁策划的展览曾先后在中国及欧洲的博物馆、美术馆、艺术空间和摄影节上展出，出版物包括《英国摄影教室》《港口与影像》等。
杨云鬯
1990年生于广东，现为伦敦大学学院人类学系物质与视觉文化方向博士候选人。他于2014年获得伦敦大学亚非学院媒介人类学硕士学位，2013年获得中山大学人类学学士学位。研究兴趣包括摄影的人类学书写、中国视觉文化、艺术理论等。
胡昊
写作者，策展人，泰康空间研究员。他于2013 年毕业于中国人民大学哲学院，获哲学学士学位，于2017 年毕业于中国人民大学哲学院，获美学硕士学位。他撰写的文章分别于 2016 年、2017 年入围国际艺术评论奖（IAAC）。2017年，他的研究项目获选首届“何鸿毅家族基金中华研究奖助计划：研究工作坊”。他策划的群展主要包括，“边界共振”（与张文心合作，歌德学院，北京，2018）、“重组/演绎：激活档案与公共记忆的当代艺术实践”方案预展（与刘张铂泷、聂小依合作，OCAT研究中心，北京，2018），“打扑克的人”（连州国际摄影年展，连州，2018）。
苏伟
生活在北京的策展人、写作者，现为北京中间美术馆高级策展人。
李然
1986年出生于湖北，目前工作生活在上海。2009年获四川美术学院油画专业学士学位。他的作品曾在巴黎蓬皮杜中心，柏林世界文化宫，乌德勒支BAK艺术中⼼，休斯顿当代美术馆，蒙特利尔当代美术馆，莫斯科国家美术馆，日内瓦当代艺术中⼼，旧金山CCAWattis当代艺术中心，新加坡NTU当代艺术中心，马尼拉当代艺术与设计美术馆，北京尤伦斯当代艺术中心，南京四方美术馆；OCAT深圳馆、上海馆与西安馆等机构展览展出，并在OCAT西安馆举办过个展（2015）。他在2014年莫斯科国际青年艺术双年展中获得“最佳艺术家奖”，并被平丘克艺术中心2017年举办的“未来世代奖”提名入围。
和文朝
艺术写作者。长期关注在地实践与社会艺术，以零时教员身份出没于学院讲台。
Reply