今次作品與社會議題有關，以規則為基礎（Rule-based），正如 Grant Kester 所說建立情景，而不是內容，並讓觀眾完成作品。作品較著重概念，以導引的方法去吸引觀眾表達意見（問大家為了買樓放棄了甚麼？），觀眾的答案是無法預知的，結果是開放的，多元的，並兼容差異的，通過並置（juxtaposition，所有答案排成磚牆）方法去看類似性和差異性，從而再進一步推進討論。
參考賈克·洪席耶 「美學的政治：可感性的分配」(Jacques Rancière , The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible) 的概念，社會交往式藝術可以是打破社會秩序的藝術形式。作品具開放的意義，變成不是藝術家主導，而是以觀眾主導，可以是一種權力的轉移，在藝術生產過程中去建造並與更多人分享權力，加上藝術充權的形式，甚至成為多種論述平等存在的角力場。藝術家是一起始者的角色，與觀眾是伙伴的關係，觀眾間可互動，交流不同想法，這是對多元性、個體、民主參與的肯定。作品一方面是社會調查的一種，看某個社羣對某個設定的意見，亦可以共同檢視或挑戰一些主流觀點，例如買樓是否必須的，能否有新的可能性? 最後看能否總結大家的意見，再做到思維方式轉變 (paradigm shift)。結果往往連藝術家也不能控制，例如作品在香港和台灣展出，問大家為了買樓放棄了甚麼？許多人都放棄了很重要的東西，例如夢想、自我、人生，普遍都瀰漫著一種可悲、身不由己的氛圍，當這個氛圍累積濃重到一個厚度，就有人開始質疑原本的命題，問為何買樓是如斯重要？為了家人放棄家人？為了活得更好卻放棄了生命的可能性？除了買樓，還有其他安身的形式嗎？但亦有人維護主流論述，認為其他人沒樓在抱怨，沒樓是因為個人不夠努力。
Phoebe Ching Ying MAN (2016/9/13)
“Erosion of Home” is a series of works which started from my own story and the observation of the society. Art theories help me to develop the work.
I worked with the audience in one of my works in 2012. After that, I was fascinated by having a dialogue with the audience in my work. That was a good experience. I have been working on the topic about sexual assault for too long. Then I asked the audience a question, “What is rape?”. I received very good replies which were funny, diversified and out-of-the-box. After that, I tried to involve audiences in my work.
I used some the socially engaged art concepts to develop the work “Erosion of Home”. It addressed social issues. It is a rule-based work. Like Grant Kester has described, I tried to build a situation, not the content and let the audience finish the work. It is a conceptual piece. I provided a direction but the work was open and the result was unknown.
The main point of the work is not the finished product. It is the intention of the artist, the process, the discussion and the experience of the audience. The work encourages audience to participate and express its views, interact with the work, the artist and others in the audience. It is to increase the awareness of the social issue, to discuss and to reflect.
To make reference of the concept of Jacques Rancière “The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible”, socially engaged art can be an art form to reposition the social order. The art work is open and the power shifts from the artist to the audience. The audience can interact with each other and express diversified views. It is a democratic participation. The work is also a kind of social research. It shows the views of a specific group of people who are the audience of the museum. We can examine or challenge some mainstream concepts, for example, “is it a must to own a house?” Are there any other possibilities? After a lot of answers are shown, we can see whether we can have a better understanding of the situation and take one step forward to have a paradigm shift. The result cannot be controlled by the artist; for example, I have asked what people have given up to buy a flat. Many people said they gave up a lot of important things which included dreams, lives, themselves, etc. A pathetic atmosphere was generated. People started to question the assumption and asked why it was so important to buy a flat. They said they wanted their families to have better lives but they did not have time with their families and had to give up their families! People want to have better lives but abandoning many possibilities of life. We might need to ask, besides working so hard to buy a flat, is there any other way to have a stable life?
Besides the above mentioned characteristics of socially engaged art, “DIY” (do it yourself) is also a usual practice of socially engaged art. For example, I made the bricks myself. It comprises a spirit of anti-formula, anti-industry made.
The art work is visual art but text was also used. It is very common for the rule-based conceptual art. Text is easier for communication and is able to arouse attention, making meaning and encouraging discussion.
The art work evoked response from more than 6000 viewers. Through the note of the docent, we can also know the interesting and rich discussions during the exhibition period. Since the art work does not want to be dialectic, there is no model answer and an open platform is provided for discussions.
Kester, Grant H. Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art. Berkeley: U of California, 2004. Print.
Rancière, Jacques. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London: Continuum, 2004. Print.