Mr. Tsang Tsou-Choi (King of Kowloon) Showcase at ArtisTree, 1/F., Cornwall House, Taikoo Place, Quarry Bay, until 31st May, 2011.
＊在展館內，一篇一篇他的文字樂，一筆一揮他對著自己身世不修篩的堅持，再看他歲月遺痕的身外物，不奇然令人心神震撼，拿起相機的當時，手與眼睛不禁有點激動。 一生不斷地寫，在每一街角流下自己思潮的引記，就是那麼有血有肉的漫長訴說。
*Mr. Tsang spent all of his life time on writing on his claiming as the King of Kowloon as in his royal family trace from the past Chinese dynasty. He kept on writing and writing at every corner of the streets. His writing is so simply straight out of his mind and heart. Personally I don't agree to what SCMP's claim on his writing as graffiti. It should be Mr. Tsang's own calligraphy - his own world in his own heart.
7 comments:
謝謝告知 香港傳奇 揮筆餘生 絕非塗鴉
別客氣。
artwork of an underprivileged genius, sigh, thought of the movie "genius and idiot", contrast of artist Tsang and the idiot Tsang and his administration ..
A popular saying "worse comes to worst". So we have to save ourselves from not expecting too much from the cute Gov't.
This is very touching.
A sad story and life of the legacy King of Kowloon.
But at least he has expressed all his heartfelt thoughts into words.
Thank you SEA for showing this to us.
You are a good writer in both Chinese and English.
I argue that Tsang's calligraphies is graffiti in the sense that it was written on property without consent of the owner. His writings expressed subversive ideas like Banksy and Fekner. Of course they are graffitis. We can debate whether Tsang's work is art or not. For more in-depth review of Tsang's exhibition, you might find the following useful: http://artswise.blogspot.com
Thanks Sundial for your comment. I would somehow consider graffiti is created with the canned paint sprayer; whereas calligraphy is in the use of a writing brush. It can be arguable whether this is an art or not, but I quoted already on that "I personally don't agree it's graffiti", but I didn't say it's an art either. Furthermore, whether these acts are law abiding or not is another point. The showcase is to tell how this man restlessly and hysterically wrote on his own, regardless of the violation of laws in writing that on someone's property or public property. In this connection, I don't agree to what his act was, since it's very intruding. So if you re-read my briefing, I just pointed at the thing on his hysterical writing and how he lived and wandered in those days by telling the others what he was.
Post a Comment