緣起
風雨飄搖愛國時是一個假正經的玩笑。八九民運期間，中國物價飛漲、官倒橫流，官員貪污腐敗成風，時局飄搖動盪。那時學生因著愛國，跪地請求對話，絕食抗議…二十年後的中國，表面和諧處處，實為言論封鎖，內地同輩在謊言中長大，紀念六四對他們而言可能是講國家是非的不愛國行為。因此，我們談六四或是一個討論何謂愛國的機會。
他們的六四？
紀念六四其實與記憶，或是否親身經歷關係不大。參展者的個人經驗或許是理解他們動機／出發點的切入。其實，重要的是六四如何偷偷溜進我們的故事。這可能是從師長、父母的對話，也可能是一齣戲、一首歌、一段文字…從此觸發他們追尋／傳承的理由。而他們在個人歷史／感受中抽取那一部份去言說，或已代表／提出思考六四的另一角度，或是他們認為如何較有力(有趣？) 地討論六四的形式。
情意結
他們要麼對鎮壓行為痛心，要麼為六四漸漸被淡化而感到傳承的必要，要麼保持暗地關心並保持「不會忘記」的姿態 (但沒有記憶如何忘記)。部份其實，對歷史與自身感受的真空，感到難以名狀(記憶遭到「打格仔」)。但他們總難稱六四為情意結。情意結外，坦克可以不是血腥的符號，而變成悼念六四的蠟燭，可以是打掃民主女神像的樂高積木，他們能以反斗、黑色幽默，但亦認真的態度講述六四。
六四的游離票？
有一部份人，介乎於立場強烈與冷漠之間，他們是六四的游離份子，他們或自覺未身在其中，了解不足而不想選擇表態，又或對六四同樣感受強烈但只願暗自悼念，他們不主動表述亦不抗拒接觸。
但可能這群游離份子才是承傳六四的對象，從而讓討論延續，橫向伸張，被動漸漸成為主動…
(政治議題的) 藝術需要游離嗎？
立場容易隱身於藝術形式，因為她常常是抽象與開放。但我站在一張畫前，我被感動了，那並不是「非此即彼」的感受，也不是嚴謹分析論證的文章論辯可以代替。
兩極化常使事情進入「有嘢講，無偈傾」的局面，但好的作品總邀請我們坐下來傾傾。
愛國／時空
他們或許與廿年前的學生有共通，或許兩者對社會發展的關心差異也不大，只是參與形式的不同。對應正面抗爭的行動，他們則以反諷的話語表達不滿，他們無需不論壇上爭相發言，他們可在個人博客上抒發意見。
（但這是否折射那對政治參與的無力感？我們原來只能發表，但未能動搖政制？可以製造一時的輿論，但難以累積？）
八十後
與出生年份無關，社會中廿多歲的一群，他們的想法總是珍貴。
雖然，他們可能是最後一代對六四尚存零星印象，或仍因成長中不斷接觸中英談判與回歸的恐懼等，而對中共存負面印象，這可能是最後一代對中國身份仍保持「清醒」距離。
展覽的剪報
如果展品是今天年青一代如何理解六四的圖像，展覽展出一系列廿年前的剪報及雜誌，則是一平行對照，讓觀眾身在其中，融入當時的氣氛。
《FENG YU PIAO YAO AI GUO SHI ─ art response to June 4th 20th anniversary》curatorial notes
LEE Chun-Fung
“Feng Yu Piao Yao Ai Guo Shi” (Patriotism in the storms) is an irony which pretended to be serious. During the 1989 democratic movement, great inflation and serious corruption among government officials placed China into a turmoil. Patriotic students kneeled, begged and launched a hunger strike to crave for a chance of conversation. Twenty years have passed and the same piece of land has changed – censorship on expression persists, but the regime has sugared the pill by propagandizing a mirage of a prosperous society. Our mainland counterparts were born and bred in concealments. To some of them, memorial to June 4 is probably an unpatriotic gossip. Discussing June 4 may help us to meditate on the meaning of patriotism.
Their June 4?
To commemorate June 4 is in fact not so directly bonded to firsthand memory and experience. The individual exposure of the artists may act as the trigger for understanding their intentions and starting points. What really matters is how June 4 has subliminally incorporated itself into our sense of meaning and how it constructs its own linkage to our mind and form part of our story. Such linkage may be bonded to our conversations with our teachers and parents, or to one of our favourite movies, songs or articles. This trigger provides the momentum for the artists to start their zealous search for truth or transmission to later generations. The artists extracted this very part of their own history or mentality and voiced out. Their works may represent a new perspective in / throw some light on interpreting June 4 in a more powerful (or interesting) way of discussing the issue in their own sense.
Nostalgia
Some of them respond deeply to the call of the incident. Some reflect that there was a need to pass on as June 4 lingers and fades. Some secretly keep their concern and a “never-forget-always-remember” pose for the issue. (But how can we forget it if we have no firsthand memory at all?) But most of them have been absent from history and internal feelings, finding themselves ambiguous. (Memory in mosaic?) In a nutshell, it’s hard to claim June 4 as a nostalgia or retrospect. Without such nostalgic retrospect, the tank doesn’t look gigantic and fail to trigger a conditional reflex, and can be transformed into a candle in remembrance of June 4, or even a Lego cleaning the Goddess of Liberty. That’s how they exemplify a serious attitude in June 4 discourse with amusements, tricks and black humour.
Do we need floating group of June 4?
We do not need to be overwhelmingly calm, withdrawn or objective in discussing June 4. Yet, we should accept blurriness, which situates in between passion and indifference. A lot of people feel uninvolved and don’t feel like voicing out. They inconspicuously care about the issue. But they don’t take an active role nor oppose a small stray.
Does (political) art need to be “floating”?
It is easy to conceal one’s stance in art, owing to its abstractness and openness. But when I was standing in front of a painting, I was touched. It was not a feeling of “either this or that”, nor could it be replaced by an organized analysis or discourse.
Binarism tends to speak but fails to talk and discuss. But good works of art always invite us to sit down and chat.
Time and space of patriotism
They might be sharing the same genes with the students twenty years ago. Or both groups show little discrepancy on their concern for social development. What marks their difference is their distinctive ways of engaging in the issue. In response and parallel to the direct confrontation, they mocked and expressed their resentment metaphorically. They don’t need to fight for a chance of expression in public forums. They can voice out in their personal blogs.
But does this reflect their inability to take part in politics? Are we just to voice out, but not to overthrow a tyranny or political system? Or are we successful in creating a wave of temporary criticisms, but which are not meant to accumulate and sustain?
Post-80
Regardless of the year of birth, the thoughts of the 20s are always cherished by society.
Although they might be the final generation with scattered pieces of memory of June 4, or the ones bred under the shadow of Sino-British struggles and the once imminent handover, with a negative image of the PRC, probably, they are the last ones kept “alert” to and distanced themselves from the Chinese identity.
The news clippings of the exhibition
If the exhibited works are recording how younger generations today understand June 4, the series of news clippings and magazine 20 years ago exhibited simultaneously must be an exact mirror image. They invited audience to go back to the past and immerse in the atmosphere at that time.
