请登陆我们的网站首页  VISIT THE MAIN HomeShop SITE

For the next meeting of the Happy Friends Reading Club, scheduled for 5 pm on Sunday, September 1st, 2013 we will cover chapters 8–10 of Who Owns the Future? by Jaron Lanier (2013… read what you can).

Following a sequence of readings on science fiction, utopia, human economies, and value, we turn to the words of “the prophet of Silicon Valley” (Simon & Schuster, publisher) to wonder whether micropayments can redeem the promises of this dystopia we have sunk into. mmm, sounds a little Utopian.

Please leave a comment if you would like to receive a copy of the text.





Two interviews in 3 days in March by Asta of Peking University, and photographer and writer Lo Yin Shan. Is this community-based practice?

 

In the springtime HomeShop had a few visitors, as well as some very curious though inevitable vacancies (including the seeming concerted evaporation of occupants from the workshare space a month ago; now much ameliorated). During this time, and facing an uncertain future, a number of us began considering our established models of supporting and running the space. A discussion among various Beijing-based art spaces and projects also attempted to find some answers to the question of what kinds of activities are felt to be needed now in this city, and how they could be sustained.

 


On a return, the Teapot Exhibitions space was found to have been shattered to pieces, December 2012.

 

For a brief moment, following the positive experience of having UK-based artist Maurice Carlin here as first “official” resident, the idea to pursue a residency program seemed like a good way to regularly fill space and provide some inquisitive new energy, as it keeps many a Beijing institution afloat or well-padded. We consulted our friend at a space in Caochangdi to hear about how their program is run, but found that—however viable such an option might turn out—in our case it would veer down a path of specific identity and program that few of the organizers at HomeShop were really willing to adjust to. Add to that the preparation time required, and we would be looking at the rest of the year singularly geared to making this transition to something we didn’t necessarily feel consensus about achieving.

 


Reinaart Vanhoe and Maurice Carlin each sojourned in HomeShop, April/May 2013.

 

Likely an existing truism: many of the awkward feelings come from more than the reality of money, but from inside the organizational structure itself. Personal relations ripple through everything we do as a group, as well as all the effects palpable to others. And to us, or to me, at least, it hasn’t always been a desired separation, us and others. But how many others? And who? On that cusp of inside and out, the question of who gets to say, who gets to decide, has never been quite satisfactory to many. “Business” and “art group” sections were proposed at one meeting that seems like ages ago; institutional affiliations too; not to mention suggestions of becoming a real shop or a gallery. (Even old Uncle Long Beard came by one day to ask about starting a restaurant in the front space—if not at our friend’s place across the hutong, which looked empty to him.)

 


A curious neighbour ponders the latest question on the 問題 blackboard, May 2013.

 

The physical and social scale of HomeShop seems perfect for trying out the sticky substance of collaborative authorship, but each move has been prone to all the foibles and concentrations of skills and interests particular to the individuals involved. We could say this is natural, but it essentially means a certain recurring, quasi-naturalized predisposition of roles.

 


The Party Project does portraits! And political parties! Find out more! Ongoing deal!

 

This is me editorializing—when my tone turned whiny, another recent returning visitor, Reinaart Vanhoe, recommended giving space and recognizing the specific qualities of the individuals involved. This is true. If part of HomeShop’s character these last couple of years (regardless of which direction it goes in) might have been in prioritizing the values that exist in between those frequenting HomeShop, this may also be seen as its radical difference from many other spaces, organizations, and groups in Beijing. This is also what has left it open to critiques of opacity, inwardness and lack of structure; at the same time, this is what makes it exhausting and insecure. It’s a fiction.

 


The Aquaponics Workshop, started in early Spring 2013, is finally achieving system operation, with fish on the way any week now!

 

Giving space: how to understand that at this point? A time that oscillates between a feeling of latter-day busywork and a sense that we are only now achieving certain promises embedded in this inhabitation of HomeShop? Ambiguity and ambivalence sit side by side in the shopfront window with all its virtuality, while this discussion on giving space is for the most part conducted behind closed doors (like this one). In such discussions we talk about what will happen next year when the space’s contract meets its maker. Sometimes it feels a decision has already been made, and sometimes it feels that oscillation has produced the possibility that this decision is not up to us. It might appear in the question, will this given space be missed? or maybe rephrased as, who wants to take it? The offer is there.

 


Pointy, circa 2011, one of the many errant cats who have lived and loved and left HomeShop.

 

*Fine print: Taking the given space wouldn’t be a deal made for survival. In any case, debts may be incurred, facilities and signatures may be withdrawn, free labour may be cut back partially or in whole, and name may be subject to change. Then, you ask, what is offered, exactly? What is it without those things, and what can it become? If you’ll excuse the slippery language, what would be circumscribed by a survivability clause would be a set of possibilities, a certain kind of ground for particular approaches to say, art, design, critical engagement, social organizing, self-determination etc. to come into their own forms. Survivability in a sense meaning, to live beyond the lives of the individuals involved. Again, this is not about legacy, nor about feeling good about taking exits—it is about seeing that value is held by more than this current group of individuals, and recognizing the limits of these individuals in giving space.
My friend, a plurality is on offer! The Beijing wind is on offer!

**Disclaimer: these statements (which are actually questions) are the responsibility of the author and do not reflect the views of HomeShop; no offer is valid unless expressly stipulated by HomeShop.

***Note: This text was written several months ago but put on hold pending a host of unresolved questions that may have caused confusion about what was really being addressed here. At the present time, there are indeed more open discussions about the uncertain future and ways to confront the realities of rising rents, authorship, structure, and cooperation. If you are interested in joining this discussion, get in touch! More people are needed. More info on that soon…




  参与者召集

家作坊谨此宣布参与式艺术项目“一派胡言”正式启动。

在活动网页上获得跟多细节和例子 :
www.homeshopbeijing.org/partytime

参与者将被邀请注册自己的party,通过不同的平台构建与活动策略来探索自我组织的可能性。一派胡言对参加者的年龄、出身、诉求与组织方式都没有限制,你的party甚至可以穿越时间和地域,让你的想象成为你的领袖吧。无论如何,这都是是值得一试的,因为到目前为止,还没有任何人能玩通过这个游戏。

第一步:来到家作坊,填写派别登记表,或直接从网上下载登记表,填写完毕后电邮给我们。


第二步:设计party形象,我们将按照你的具体要求帮助你设计选举海报

第三步:party整体规划!通过设计party活动来积累人气,撰写新闻宣传稿,举办晚宴,与三教九流建立秘密盟友关系。

第四步:参与“一派胡言”的各种活动,为9月的选举做好准备。

如果你想具体了解一个party是如何建立起来的,你可以参考已经注册的party,希望它能给你一些启发,如果你有任何建议的话也欢迎联系。

 

  Call for participants!

Announcing the Party Time Project, a participatory campaign initiative of HomeShop, taking place in Beijing over the summer months of 2013.

See the project website for details and examples:
www.homeshopbeijing.org/partytime

Participants are invited to invent and register their own parties, to develop their platforms and campaign strategies that imagine a better possible world. The Party Time project sets no limits on age, place, era or political system—the Animal Rights Militia from Cold War Korea? Corporate Fascist Banana Plantations Party? Let your imagination be the leader! It’s worth a try, because obviously nothing attempted has yet worked!

Step one: Come to HomeShop to fill in your registration form, or download it and send it back to us.

Step Two: Develop your party image; we will help you design your election poster according to your specifications.

Step Three: Organize your party! Build morale with your own events: collect signatures, write a press release, host a dinner, shake hands on the street.

Step Four: Attend Party Time Project events, culminating in the elections in September!

For further information, to see registered parties, and for any questions get in touch or stop by!

Join in on the Party Time Project! Let’s make history!




 

“In defence of… Gentrification”
By Igor Rogelja

My first doubts and concerns over how the term gentrification is used didn’t arise so much from a discussion on the applicability of the term in different socio-economic contexts. Neither were they stoked by the oft-cited misuse of the term by social observers, or by a desire to go against the grain of critical urban geography’s canon of work.  While these are all issues I’ve worked with, the first time I actually, physically, flinched was when a city official from Kaohsiung, a Taiwanese port city, used the term in an overwhelmingly positive way, leaving no doubt that such a spatial restructuring was desirable: gentrification as a tool for development. There are of course several possible explanations – maybe the term was simply misused. Perhaps it is a rare and naïve display of candour that city bigwigs in most Western cities have long since learned to avoid, using instead either vacuous terms produced by PR departments or hiding behind complicated urban planning argot. Or both.

And yet, the notion of gentrification as a function of urban development opens new insights into the ways in which cities (especially in rapidly industrializing and developing countries) are being altered, with municipalities increasingly mimicking the input required to set off a gentrifying chain of event which, presumably, result in pleasant streets populated by attractive coffee-drinking people. In a manner that is both real estate-driven and top-down (and thus markedly different from real estate-led gentrification in New York, or the gentrification ground-zero of London’s Islington, where Ruth Glass first coined the term), it is as much a modernist state project, as well as a distinctly free-market driven process. Within the tension between these two loaded terms, project vs. process, I however see no inherent contradiction. Indeed, one finds an analogous shift within the mode of governmentality1 of the contemporary state, where broad societal visions (the project) are being complemented by a web of communities, stakeholders and interests, often reinterpreting the work of the state into a facilitator of personal (and corporate) aspiration, i.e. facilitating the process. Within this new city, whether we call it neoliberal or late-capitalist, gentrification has come to be seen as a central process (or culprit) by which spatial restructuring takes place and by which dilapidated housing stock is replaced, rejuvenated or otherwise shifts from the poor to the aspirational – often with at least the tacit support of the planning authority. Detected all over the globe and discussed in different academic fields, it is no surprise the term is both over-used (spurring Loretta Lees (2003) to upgrade it to ‘super-gentrification’), as well as maligned for its lack of clarity and tendency to obfuscate other important issues – a case which Julie Ren makes in a previous post about Beijing on this blog.

If we however suppose that the radical spatial restructuring in Asian cities is ‘something else,’ especially in the time since the idea of the creative city travelled there via epistemic networks in the late ’90s and 2000s, this requires a back to basics approach. My intention is to try to vindicate the use of the term even in contexts as varied as Beijing, Bangkok or Kaohsiung by looking at gentrification as a function of a late-capitalist spatial restructuring, especially when symbolic capital (Ren Xuefei, 2011) is taken into consideration and the producers of the symbolic meaning, Florida’s ‘creative class,’ become important actors in the field. What this means in practice is that gentrification by culture has become the dominant trend in Greater China, though it can be broken down further to identify both state, commercial and independent actors. Whereas ‘galleries, cafés and artists’ was a well-known gentrification cocktail in the West, these are now joined by an entrepreneurial state, advised by an epistemic community of planners and businessmen, and often following pre-existing templates.  While examples ranging from Beijing’s hutong chic to Shanghai’s Xintiandi have been variously termed as commercialization, preservation, adaptive re-use and gentrification, they have in common a transition from being a place of local (and often marginal) meaning to (replicable) places of consumption and source of pride for the city authorities. Such also, is an example of Kaohsiung’s Park Road, once a messy stretch of hardware shops which has recently been redeveloped, as the jargon goes, into an artsy park as part of a city-wide effort to catch the creativity bandwagon.

Formerly, the area was known as Hardware Street (Wujinjie) and was very much a proxy for the city’s economic history – Taiwan’s dirty, sweaty port city where ships were disassembled, sugar exported and naphtha cracked. It is also a uniquely diverse city, as the rapid industrialisation pulled in large numbers of rural workers into the city – unusual for Taiwan’s otherwise rather tame rural migration. Since the late 1990s however, and for reasons deeply connected to Taiwan’s two party system (Kaohsiung is traditionally the bastion of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party), the city has embarked on an ambitious plan to rebrand itself from cultural desert to cultural hub. In itself, this is nothing remarkable; Manchester, Liverpool, Bilbao, Detroit have all had such turns in urban policy, successful or not. Rather, what is of interest in this case is the micro-level to which the city was engaged in the project of beautification and revitalization of the ailing blue-collar neighbourhood through which Hardware Street cuts. With its cluttered shop floors, oil slicks and loud noise of clunking metal, the street had been earmarked for ‘beautification’ in the run up to the World Games in 2009 in order to create a tourist corridor towards the Pier-2 Art Centre (a reused set of warehouses housing a municipal modern art complex) and to complete a bicycle lane network across the Yancheng neighbourhood (another strategy to attract the ‘creative class’). The demolition was divided in four stages, with the first one beginning in 2007 and the last one completed in 2011. Though the land is publicly owned and a park had been loosely envisaged in the area for decades, the issue here is not so much of legality – in any case the Taiwanese 1998 Urban Renewal Act grants municipal authorities ample powers to reconstruct urban areas, especially on publicly owned land.

Rather, the motivation for the decision is the key to understanding the way in which a gentrified ‘creative Kaohsiung’ is being constructed, not only as a physical space, but also as a space of identity and a new authenticity for Kaohsiung – a city of industrial heritage and a creative future. In this case, the radical restructuring of the abstract space of the plan caused the demolition of over 400 shops and adjacent living quarters and the forced historicization of what was very much a living industry. Thus, shops selling and repairing machine parts were replaced by public art and street furniture constructed out of the very parts which were the hardware shops’ livelihood, commissioned by the municipality and produced by local artists, many of whom have been intimately involved with the setting up of the nearby art centre as well. The area is now a showcase of Kaohsiung’s authenticity, its gritty industrial character now cleaned up for public consumption.

Faced with questions of identity and the allocation of space, the ‘authenticity’ of the area fragmented, as Sharon Zukin has shown on the case of New York’s gentrifying neighbourhoods (2010). In this case, the lived authenticity of the chaotic metalworking shops and the illegible network of unmapped lanes and gaps in the organically (illegally) grown neighbourhood is substituted by a planned authenticity of a different kind – in itself an important trait of gentrification. The industrial character of the area is translated through the instrument of public art into a dizzying array of street furniture and installations, all of which explicitly reference the history of the area – the irony is not lost on the remaining shopkeepers: ‘They took the things that kept us alive and made them dead,’ noted Mr. Bai, a hardware shop owner, while an elderly resident took things one step further, calling the park a place for dogs to shit where rich people can jog around, adding she has no time for such leisurely activities.

Though not explicitly expressed in city planning documents, the notion of authenticity is crucial to this neighbourhood from an economic standpoint and explains the effort to gentrify the area, rather than raze it completely or simply build a new part of town. Not only is the city government promoting mass tourism in the area, but a planned creative industry park also relies on the area’s authenticity to attract investment – most recently a large Hollywood digital effect firm. The firm, Rhythm&Hues, was initially being groomed by the municipal economic development office to occupy a suburban software industry park, but decided to base itself in an old warehouse instead, embracing the industrial feel of the building, which was inaugurated by Ang Lee in November 2012. The area thus gained a new role as a creative park and tourist attraction, though many residents are demonstrably cool towards the weekend crowds, and have moreover found alternative uses for some of the artwork as chairs or even places to dry laundry.

While property-owning residents might financially benefit from the long-term revitalization of the area, the displacement of poorer residents by wealthier newcomers is of course never a total or complete process.2 What is striking is that what had occurred in Kaohsiung has all the outer marks of gentrification, with old shops closing and giving ways to design boutiques and artisanal coffee shops, followed by a 30% increase in real estate prices. And yet, this was a top-down initiative with clearly stated goals, an agreed timeline and due process in the city’s council. It was a project that relied from the outset on the collaboration of the city’s artist community, as well as the approval of the construction businesses, which were granted permissions to construct taller residential buildings in the area.
Gentrification by fiat, if you will.

What then about this example from one Asian marginal city is relevant to the rehabilitation of ‘gentrification’ as a useful term in describing the changes befalling Asian cities? Is it not simply a project of demolition, an Haussmannian echo of sorts? The simple answer is yes, that is precisely what it is, but within it lies the idea that art and creativity can and will change urban space, and beyond that, that they will change it in a way that accommodates ‘Soho-style living,’ as the city’s urban plan bluntly puts it. The legacy of a gentrifying New York or London does not necessarily live unchanged as an endless repetition of successive waves of real-estate price hikes and demographic changes. It manifests itself also in the ordered representations of space of the urban plan. But when aimed at working class neighbourhoods, it is (and always has been) a deproletarization of space; pausing on whether it is ‘planned’ (slum-clearance) or ‘organic’ (gentrification) is in many cases distracting from the point that the displacement typical of gentrification is not only the displacement of people, but in a Lefebvrian way, of the lived space of a neighbourhood for financial and political gain of established elites. To reiterate, the imposition of new conceptual space upon the city is not a natural or spontaneous process. Seeing such changes outside of the social and spatial context is not only incomplete, but also conservative in that it perpetuates neoclassical economists’ insistence on the emergent qualities of gentrification or slum-clearance, endowing urban restructuring with an air of unavoidable, organic change – precisely what Kaohsiung’s municipality tried to convey by consigning to history and artistic representation the living, clunking workshops of its waterfront.

Going back to gentrification as function of development, I suggest the baggage with which the term is burdened is what gives it the critical punch needed to make sense of the spatial transformations in Asian cities, where expectations of development clearly exhibit a tendency to create both the disinvestment needed to create ‘gentrifiable’ areas, as well as a pool of gentrifiers. While the debate between production-side and consumption-side explanations of gentrification thankfully no longer rages, we will be well served to remember that both explanations agree that gentrification as a phenomenon is essentially conditioned by a late-capitalist system. In China especially, where a retreating state has left municipal authorities dependent on land-dealing and thus with a clear interest in rising (or raising) land values, a race towards ever greater exploitation of urban space may manifest itself as either commercialization, gentrification or simply urban development, all of which are apparent not only in the physical space, but in the abstract, conceived space which seeks to impose itself on the city. Viewed in this light, the opening of a café or gallery may not be as serious a sign of gentrification as the commitment of district chiefs to pursue creative policies, though how far the market-driven side will progress remains to be seen. In Kaohsiung certainly, gentrification by culture remains a tool in the arsenal of urban policy.

1) Miller and Rose’s “Governing the Present” (2008) is a great look at the questions of governmentality in advanced liberal democracies, though many nuances equally apply to non-democratic states in advanced stages of development. 

2) While the displacement of working class residents with middle class newcomers is the usual hallmark of gentrification, I reject notions that this substitution must be complete. Vast stretches of London’s Hackney or Islington still remain predominately working class, while in other cases, such as on Broadway Market in Hackney, the mainly Turkish immigrant landlords have benefitted from rising commercial rents. Despite this, both areas remain clear-cut cases of gentrification.

Igor Rogelja is a PhD candidate at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. His research is focused on the role of creative city theory and art in urban redevelopment in Taiwan and China.




Tyler Coburn (USA) will be performing I’m that angel in HomeShop at 7 pm on Saturday, August 3rd. The language of performance will be English.

“I’m that angel is a cycle of writings and performances that explore the conditions of how we work on and against the computer, narrated from the perspective of a “content farmer”: an emergent type of online journalist contracted to generate articles based on words peaking in Google Trends.” —Tyler Coburn

八月三日下午7时泰勒科伯恩(美国)将在家作坊做《我是那个天使》行为艺术表演。工作语言:英语。 “我是天使”是一个系列写作和行为艺术,探讨我们是如何用电脑工作又对其充满无奈的状态。从一个“时文佃户”的视角来叙述:一种新兴网络记者,受雇于人,以谷歌高频词为基础生成文章。

 

Tyler Coburn (b. 1983, New York City) is an artist and writer based in New York.  He received a Bachelor of Arts in Comparative Literature from Yale University and a Master of Fine Arts from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.  Coburn’s projects have been presented at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, London; the Whitney Museum of American Art; Objectif Exhibitions, Antwerp; CAC Vilnius; LAXART, Los Angeles; and SculptureCenter, New York.

泰勒科伯恩(出生1983年,紐約市),長年在纽约市發展,具有藝術家和作家背景。 他獲得耶魯大學的比較文學文學士以及洛杉磯南加州大學美 術碩士。
科伯恩的作品已在倫 敦當代藝術院以及惠特尼美國藝術博物館、安特衛普和紐約的雕塑中心展示。




真和假第二期 True and False 2
家作坊@北京有机农夫市集
HomeShop @ Beijing Farmers’ Market

7月27日周六上午11点到16点在颐堤港购物中心将举办“真和假”活动第二期。家作坊再次现身农夫市集并推出两项活动。

On Saturday July 27th, from 11:00 to 16:00 at INDIGO mall HomeShop will hold its second edition of True and False as part of the Beijing Farmers’ Market and Country Fair, hosting  two activities.

12:00 pm — 酒仙桥艺术之旅 Jiuxianqiao Art Tour

艺术的转基因作用,被转基因后的艺术。假作真来,真亦假。真作假来,假亦真…与 “见”赏大师一起去发现有机艺术…

This tour of the new international art works in the Jiuxianqiao area addresses the transgenetic function of  art, and the genetically modified art: When the false is considered true, the true is the false, when the true is considered false, the false is the true… Let’s find organic art together…

全天 all day — 蔬菜洗礼仪式 Vegetable Purification Ceremony

修女艾丽萨 安妮 玛丽 玛丽亚 主持的蔬菜祝福服务主持。
为了保证口味十足,带你的农产品来接受祝福。

Led by Sister Eliza-Annie-Mary-Maria
Bring your produce for a ritual blessing. Guaranteed to enhance taste. 




 

为了庆祝攻占巴士底狱日与一个现代意义上的国家的建立,家作坊将在7月14日晚7点举办聚餐会。届时举办的活动包括:

1.武林高人自我防卫术现场指导

2.家作坊“一派胡言”计划介绍


3.自我组织出版物Concrete Flux的介绍

菜肴将呼应该纪念日主题,参加者需要提前预约,
请发信至lianxi@homeshop.org.cn

人数上限:30人
费用:30元每人

 

On Sunday, July 14th, from 7 pm, celebrate the storming of the Bastille and the birth of the modern nation with us at HomeShop’s July potluck.

A number of presentations will burst into the courtyard, including:

— Self-Defense Qi Gong by Zhu Feng

— A preview of HomeShop’s “Party Time” Project

— An introduction of the independent journal Concrete Flux by its editors

The menu will reflect this momentous date appropriately.

RSVP by Saturday at: lianxi@homeshop.org.cn

Max. 30 places, 30 元 per person.




For the next meeting of the Happy Friends Reading Club, we will read the final chapter of “Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value” (2001) by David Graeber (Chapter 7: “The False Coin of our own Dreams”). The meeting will take place at 5 pm on Sunday, July 21st at HomeShop.

On a string of meetings on utopia, events, and non-visible energy—all things not quite in existence, at least not to the naked eye—we follow with a chapter from anthropologist David Graeber’s questioning of value as “blind spot” of anthropology. For even in this field, concerned with understanding cultures of the other, there is a common risk of understanding value in economic terms. From the introduction:

“If one reads a lot of anthropology, it is hard to escape the impression that theories of value are all the rage of late. One certainly sees references to ‘value’ and ‘theories of value’ all the time—usually thrown out in such a way as to suggest there is a vast and probably very complicated literature lying behind them.1 If one tries to track this literature down, however, one quickly runs into problems. In fact it is extremely difficult to find a system- atic “theory of value” anywhere in the recent literature; and it usually turns out to be very difficult to figure out what body of theory, if any, that any particular author who uses the term “value” is drawing on. Sometimes, one suspects it is this very ambiguity that makes the term so attractive.” (p. 1)

Please leave a comment for a copy of the text!

Your presence valued greatly!





“无形” non-visible videostills

non-visible
a project by Asako Iwama and Derrick Wang
June 21-23
家作坊 HomeShop

The “non-visible” project has evolved from a series of video interviews with various practitioners in Europe and China with experiences or familiarity working with non-visible energy, or ‘qi’. Interviewees have included dancers, cognitive scientists, Feng Shui and I Ching masters, psychics, traditional medicine doctors and physicists. 

How can the non-visible be made visible and/or comprehensible? We would suggest that we are constantly swinging between the two poles of subjective and objective reality. Through the process of our interviews, we have attempted to find points of connection between the various practices we have encountered, while acknowledging our own groundlessness in terms of having to constantly transform our perceptions and expectations of the people we have met. 

In a film installation and series of events organized during the June solstice and under the full moon (June 21-23), we hope that some of the hidden layers contained in our interactions and recordings will become visible to or felt by those who participate, and that a new understanding of the non-visible may emerge.

Friday June 21
18:00-20:00 reading and discussion with the Happy Friends Reading Group (download reading material)
20:00-22:00 film installation

Saturday June 22
18:00-20:00 book reading and discussion with Du Shun Gie Laoshi (Feng Shui master), Zhang Li Rem Laoshi (Yijing master), Eva Bergwall (eurythmy teacher and healer), Hartmut Walter (acoustic and vibration engineer), Zhu Feng (Qi Gong master) and other guests
20:00-22:00 film installation

Sunday June 23
19:00 dinner prepared by Emi Uemura and Asako Iwama and open discussion (organic & vegetarian dinner, cost 88RMB, reservation required; please email lianxi@homeshop.org.cn)
20:00-22:00 film installation

Asako Iwama (born in Tokyo, Japan) is an artist and cook, who lives and works in Berlin, Germany. Asako Iwama’s practice has developed around the idea of the ontology of eating. Referring to the social aspects of eating as a metaphor of our relation to nature, Iwama seeks to transform the perception of nourishment, both aesthetically and epistemologically within her practice and work.

Derrick Wang (born in Montreal, Canada) is a second generation Chinese from Canada who has a background in architecture, and is currently working as a filmmaker in Beijing, China.

in collaboration with HomeShop / Emi Uemura, Michael Eddy, Qu Yizhen, Tan Zhengjie, Fotini Lazaridou-Hatzigoga

 

“无形”
项目发起人:岩間朝子,Derrick Wang
6月21-23日
家作坊 HomeShop

“无形(non-visible)”项目采访了许多生活在欧洲和中国的人,这些人或拥有运用无形能量(或“气”)的能力,或拥有这样的体验,他们的职业各式各样,其中包括舞者、认知科学家、风水先生、易经大师、通灵者、中医师和物理学家等等。

如何让无形的、不可见的能量可见或被理解?我们不断地在主观和客观现实的两极之间摇摆。在采访的过程中,我们试图找到这其中的共通点,然而,遇到的人不断地改变我们的看法和对他们的期望,我们也不得不承认自己的局限性。

在夏至和月满之际,我们将在6月21-23日这三日间,运用影像装置等一些列活动呈现该项目,希望我们的互动和记录中所包含的内容能让参与的人“看见”这些能量,并对其有新的认识。

周五6月21日
18:00-20:00 乐友读书会及讨论(阅读内容在此下载
20:00-22:00 影像装置 

周六6月22日
18:00-20:00 读书会及与风水大师杜顺杰、易经大师张力壬、音语舞老师治疗师Eva Bergwall、声学和振动的物理工程师Hartmut Walter、气功大师朱峰等特邀嘉宾进行讨论
20:00-22:00 影像装置

周日6月23日
19:00 晚餐及公开讨论(有机素食,88元/人,由植村絵美和岩間朝子掌厨,请邮件预定:lianxi@homeshop.org.cn
20:00-22:00 影像装置

岩間朝子(出生于日本东京),艺术家及厨师,生活和工作在德国柏林。岩間的实践和研究主要围绕于“吃”的本体论。鉴于“吃”作为某种社会文化现象所隐喻的人类与自然关系, 岩間旨在于美学和认识论上转换人对饮食的认知。

Derrick Wang(出生于加拿大蒙特利尔),加拿大华人第二代,拥有建筑学背景,目前作为导演在北京工作。

合作者:家作坊/ 植村絵美, Michael Eddy, 曲一箴, 谭争劼, Fotini Lazaridou-Hatzigoga

 

–––
Supported by ifa – Institut für Auslandbeziehungen e.V.
“无形”特由ifa支持。




 

第三期“献宝兑宝”活动

时间:
6月15日,12点-晚7点

6月15日周六,请把你的钱包留在家中,来参加家作坊第三期的献宝兑宝活动吧。这一天,来自北京每个角落的人都会聚到家作坊,来参加这个和钱无关的交换活动直至满意而归。
“献宝兑宝”活动是个和钱不相关的交换市集,由家作坊(艺术家社区空间)成员(包括北京有机农夫市集的发起者们)和Suvi(2012年3月Brandnu的交换活动组织者之一)共同组织。活动全天都安排有探讨可持续生活方式的工作坊及演说。

今年这第三期的“献宝兑宝”活动会:

  • 举办全天的交换市集
  • 组织种子换种子以及书换书
  • 安排以“可替代经济”为主题的演说及讨论

 

时间表:

1:30-2:15 —  “集资在中国”… 何峰,demohour公司的创始人主讲(中文)

2:30-3:15 — “北京的另类空间和价值”… 家作坊,艺术家群落空间和北京城市农民联盟创始人联合主持(中/英文)

3:30-4:15 — “股东,利益相关者,和群落”… 傅强主持,北京外国语大学,IES北京中心驻地学者。目前在本大学讲授中国的环境,政府,市民社会和外交政策等课程。卡尔利斯Rokpelnis,民族大学民族生态学学生(中/英文)

4:30-5:15  —  “奇怪的经济:利用市场机制提高公平性和幸福”的优点和缺点,Raya Yampolsky致力于北京环境和国际事务交叉处的事业,探讨满足二十一世纪需求的系统性的解决方案。(英文)

 

想要来参加,您只需要把您不再需要的各种宝贝们在6月15日12点至晚6点期间带到家作坊,参加宝贝交换!不过你得小心哦,我们Waobao团队可是会对 您的宝贝们进行鉴定估“价”,甚至会决定拒收您太过破旧的宝贝们。我们也欢迎您来交换您的技能或是服务,比如说语言课、烹饪课什么的。所有宝物,先到先 得;特别棒的呢,我们会在18点开始拍“卖”!

地址:
北京市东城区交道口北二条8号,邮编:100007 (北新桥地铁西北方向第二个胡同)电话 (中): 13811809604

***********

WaoBao! 3!

Date and time:
June 15th, 12-7PM

On Saturday June 15th leave your wallets at home and take part in HomeShop’s third edition of WaoBao!, where crowds from all corners of the city gather together and swap to their heart’s content. Organized by members of HomeShop (artist-run community space and founders of Beijing Urban Farmers Union) and Suvi Rautio (co-organizer of brandnu’s shipping container swap event held in March, 2012), Waobao is a no-money zone swapping bazaar with all day creative workshops and talks exploring sustainable lifestyles.

This year WaoBao! will feature:

  • An all-day participatory swapping bazaar
  • Seed-swap and book-share groups organized sporadically throughout the day
  • Talks and open discussions under the heading “Alternative Economies”

 

Schedule:

1:30-2:15 — “Crowdfunding in China” … He Feng, Co-founder of Demohour (CN)

2:30-3:15 — “Beijing’s Alternative Spaces and Value” … HomeShop, Artist-run community space and founders of Beijing Urban Farmers Union (CN/ENG)

3:30-4:15 — “Shareholder, Stakeholder, and Community” … Chad Futrell 傅强, Resident Scholar at the IES Beijing Center at Beijing Foreign Studies University where he teaches courses on China’s environment, government, civil society, and foreign policy; Karlis Rokpelnis, Ethnoecology PhD candidate at Minzu University. (CN/EN)

4:30-5:15 — “Strange Economies: The merits and shortcomings of using market-based mechanisms to increase equitability and well-being” … Raya Yampolsky, Pursuing a career at the intersection of environmental and international affairs in Beijing to explore systemic solutions to meet the needs of the 21st century. (ENG)

 

To take part, all you need to do is bring all your unwanted goods to HomeShop on June 15th from 12 to 6pm and swap! Do keep in mind, the WaoBao! team can appraise or reject broken or damaged goods at their discretion. We are also open for participants to swap services and skills, such as language and cooking classes.  All items go on a first come, first served basis, and selected priority items will be set aside to be auctioned off at 6pm on the day.

Address:
Jiaodaokou Beiertiao Number 8 (second hutong north-west from Beixinqiao subway)
Beijing 100007 Dongcheng District. Tel (EN): 15001127304

 

********************

WaoBao! 2 照片 pictures!

To follow updates over the next couple of days visit the HomeShop websiteDoubanFacebook events pages or follow our posts on Weibo @jiazuofang & @我是小苏v. 

欲知活动各种细节,请在活动前访问家作坊网站, Facebook 或者刷刷微博 @jiazuofang / @我是小苏v,逛逛豆瓣小组。 

WaoBao Helpers!: If you would like to participate in volunteering to help prepare and assist in running the event, please get in touch with Suvi (suviprautio@gmail.com) or Michael (michaelceddy@gmail.com)

支持WaoBao!:如果你愿意以志愿者身份加入并帮助我们做活动的准备工作,请与Suvi (suviprautio@gmail.com) 或迈克尔 (michaelceddy@gmail.com) 联系。


See you on Saturday!