An Interview with Hsu Tsun-Hsu 「小世界」訪談集 ——許村旭

The below interview is published at Small World Journal, on the occasion of Taipei Biennial 2023. (scroll down for Chinese)

In 1987 Taiwan ended its 38-year era of martial law (1949–1987). The following year Hsu Tsun-Hsu joined the photography department of China Times, embarking on a journalistic career that would span over two decades. This Taipei Biennial features a photographic chronicle of images taken by Hsu Tsun-Hsu in his role as a journalist. They stand as microcosmic encapsulations of the turbulent changes in Taiwanese society and its process of democratic progress. As the exhibition drew to a close, curator Freya Chou joined Hsu in looking back at the moments in time that his images captured. 

FC: I remember in the first few meetings, we spent some time discussing which of your works we would select and which years they would cover. And I asked you, “Looking back at your journalistic career that lasted a few decades, which moments were the most interesting or the most memorable?” You answered, the first decade following the lifting of martial law (1987–1998), because everything was chaotic, but it was also a time of hope. This led me to select this period as the time span for your works, because for me, Taiwan today also seems chaotic, and we don’t know which way to go.

HTH: We chose a crucial decade in Taiwanese history. This decade was compelling because it was an aggregation of many different events, both large and small. We did not select a single event, because that would have been too difficult. News events were happening every day. Three key incidents did take place during this decade—the democratic election of the “never-ending National Assembly,” whose members had been in office for over four decades (1990); the discontinuation of Article 100 of the Criminal Code, which criminalized political dissent as sedition (1991); and the first direct presidential election (1996). But a pervasive sense of ludicrousness was in the air throughout the whole period. This had been the case ever since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) arrived in Taiwan in 1949. Looking back from the present day, Taiwan entered a completely absurd era from that moment. So when I first started pondering how to present this period of history, I was left scratching my head. When I was doing the news, my role was passive. Often I was told to provide pictures for a single specific event. But now, because of this exhibition, 

I have been enpowered to speak. The bar for what satisfies me has been raised, and I hope to have my own agency and not be dominated by any system or boss.

FC: Could you comment on the arrangement of photographs in the installation? This “salon” style of display takes the focus off any one image or one moment in history, and instead presents the viewer with an overall impression of another era. What impression would you like viewers to take away from this display?

HTH: When you started discussing the works with me and gave me the freedom of interpretation, I started considering how I could present the most all-encompassing things, the aspects I just had to get off my chest, the things I had always wanted to express. I almost slept with these pictures for half a year, locking them in my gaze every day, because sometimes you can’t figure out the presentation method that you want. What’s more, these photos had been set aside for over thirty years. They were familiar yet also unfamiliar, because I suddenly wanted to elevate my field of vision and see the big picture, to look back on exactly what it was that I was confronting in my youthful ignorance, as I tried to amass deep thoughts by acting quickly. Then one day I had an epiphany: why not divide them into several chapters and talk about them not from the angle of events, but as the things experienced by little people in big times. So I developed a few categories as extensions of the three political reforms that I just mentioned: the budding of the democratic movement, the appearance of President Lee Teng-hui as an era-defining personage, and the special role that women played in those days. 

The cries of the people unable to breathe the air of freedom who lived through that era of long-term oppression and absurdity when the party controlled the nation, the injustice that pervaded nearly every sphere of life.

FC: What lessons can the rest of the world draw from the era of Taiwan’s history so vividly captured in your photographs? 

HTH: This decade was an important decade not just for Taiwan. In 1989 the whole world was undergoing structural changes. I think that everything local is international in nature, and if you analyze your own story at the deepest level, it is intimately related to the global context. This is why I’ve tried to present these photographs in a jump-cut style with a quasi-textual narrative, rather than using an expository approach. These photos were all discarded by the newspaper’s editorial desk at that time. Back then the Taiwanese news media were mainly dominated by texts, and photos were just tools for ornamentation. That’s why I took these photos from the perspective I did. It had a deep connection to the situation I was in—not just the absurdity of the times, but also the absurdity of my own workplace. 

As soon as I joined the profession, I was marginalized by the system and undervalued. This was because I didn’t have orthodox credentials, and because of the unsavory practices of the workplace in those times. Everyone at the newspaper had to form factions. People had to protect the common interests of their own little clique in order to score the good news stories, and I would definitely not get the chance to cover a major news story. For that reason, I had the spare energy to consider every photograph independently. I didn’t take these pictures at important news scenes. Instead, I thought about them, searched for them, or waited for them myself. This is why they are still thought-provoking when you look at them decades later. Actually, in my media career of more than 30 years, I rarely covered major news stories. Except for a few major events and some protests, I was mostly sent to shoot local community news. Sometimes they’d give me nearly 10 news pieces in one day and send me all over the place. But the next day, not a single photo would appear in print. And sometimes they wouldn’t give me a single assignment, and I was left to fend for myself. So I had to act on my own, analyzing or seeking out stories that called for both text and pictures. Eventually, I was forced to ask for an assignment as a matter of course. I started running stories for the most monotonous, boring team, the Economy section. But as it turned out, not long after that, the stock market crashed, and instantly I had the chance to showcase all my potential.

FC: So these life experiences in which you had to find joy in suffering became a unique visual language.

HTH: I believe that after the dust has settled from some big event, many good photos can be captured if you persevere and keep taking pictures. That’s also the easiest way to reveal the true nature of people in the moment: because they can’t hold back their feelings, and the body language of emotions does not lie. Likewise, those faces that are faking it in front of the camera will also be revealed.

FC: Have you ever changed the way you take pictures because you wanted them to receive greater exposure?

HTH: No, because I realized that even if one of my photos appeared on the front page of the paper, it wouldn’t be my work. It would only be meeting the requirements of the editorial desk. So I amassed my work from those photos that were rejected over and over, which I plucked out of the editorial desk trash basket one by one. But actually, the fact that the news stories I was covering then were all unimportant and I felt no pressure allowed me to take pictures with a free hand. This trained me to go to a news scene and take pictures that I could link together into a story, and it nourished my development. Later, when I left my newspaper job that I’d had for more than 20 years and became an independent photographer for foreign media, like Agence France-Presse and the Financial Times of Britain, that was actually the period when I progressed and grew fastest, because I was completely free from the constraints and control of the system, and I no longer had to use up energy battling it.

FC: Many photographers have tried to define what makes a compelling image. Cartier-Bresson’s “decisive moment” was one of the most famous expressions of what it means to capture the essence of a fleeting scene. How do you know when you’ve created a successful image?

HTH: The elements that form a good photograph are actually set. So as long as you combine these elements, as far as I’m concerned, “any flower petal falling on the surface of the water is a work of art.” There’s no such thing as so-called “important photographs,” only good photographs. Sometimes a “decisive moment” can take place very quickly, and sometimes you have to wait a long time. For me, the point is the depth of thought coming from within you, the capabilities you have fostered, and the richness of your imagination. It’s hard to achieve a positive response from everyone, but you must have something to say.

FC: What was it like for you to prepare this selection of works from images you’ve taken over the decades? Did anything surprise you in this process of reviewing work from your own past?

HTH: The four pictures I ultimately chose to get enlarged and the one with the person picking their nose—I could look at them forever and never get tired. They closely match the mental journey of my media career. They’re bitter and acerbic, but they bring a smile to your face.

FC: What about your mindset? Has it changed?

HTH: More hostile, I would say.

FC: You’re more hostile now or in the past?

HTH: I don’t know if I used to take photos with a hostile mindset in the past; I just used a more sardonic approach. It was only later that I understood that the camera must be hostile if the photo is to be any good. This “hostility” used to be the intent to penetrate the masks and disguises of the powerful and pull them down from their pedestal. But now that they are gone, my hostile intentions have turned into angry disagreement on social issues. I’m committed to opposing the unenlightened in society.

FC: So, you could say that your sardonic attitude in the past was aimed at those who instigated the overall atmosphere of the era, but your sardonic attitude now is aimed at the structural problems of society as a whole. Did this affect how you arranged the layout of your past works?

HTH: I was most satisfied with two series of stories at the beginning: “The 14th Party Congress of the KMT” and “The March for National Assembly Elections.” But I always felt that they lacked a more in-depth dialogue.

FC: I remember that when we were first selecting the photos, I had a hard time giving you an opinion, because I didn’t know the story behind each of the photos. I could only understand them from the people in the images. But perhaps I could represent the vantage point of most of the viewers who did not take part in this period of history. So it was from this kind of dialogue that we started discussing the method of presentation.

HTH: The two big groups of photos we chose at first captured stories that took place on the streets at the time. They run deep in my blood, and they’re an era of history I’m very familiar with. So tangled up within them were many political and social revolutions I personally experienced. What’s more, I had been sidelined and sent to photograph a bunch of ordinary people that weren’t important. So they contained a contrast that was very personal yet also reflected the larger sweep of the whole era.

FC: How do you think your work, which is very specific to Taiwan, relates to the international scope of the exhibition? Do you feel any particular affinity with other pieces on display?

HTH: This series seems to give everyone a down-to-earth feeling, and although the content of the images is very abstract, they exude an overall atmosphere that’s very infectious. This is an effect I hadn’t anticipated at the outset. I think my work has a deep connection with Jumana Manna’s Foragers: We both faced the same threat of a massive invader, were forbidden to speak our native language, and forbidden to forage. This work echoes our history in many ways. Now, we are liberated, but they are still embroiled. 

FC: I’m glad you chose this film as a point of comparison, because when we first thought to place your works together with the Cinema Program, we wanted to express how this chapter of Taiwanese history was entangled with other places around the world. No matter how far away, they all have commonalities and similar emotional experiences. And as you said before, local is international.

My final question is: Many of these photographs were taken in your capacity as a photojournalist and had one function as urgent, immediate reporting. How have these images changed, or how do we look at them differently, after decades have passed? 

HTH: Looking back on my work, I feel I was standing in the position of a spectator. The way I shoot now is more intrusive. Maybe that’s because I played the role of a documentarian back then, and there was a distance between me and each of my subjects. Now my mentality has changed. I’m more direct. In my past role, I was more disconnected. That had a lot to do with my mindset at that time of being suppressed by the system. I don’t want to shoot reportorial-style images. I don’t want to do photojournalism. I just want to enter people’s inner worlds for an instant, and then leave.

Translated by Brent Heinrich

1987年台灣結束長達三十八年的戒嚴時期（1949－1987），許村旭於1988年加入中國時報攝影組，開啟了二十多年的攝影記者生涯。此次台北雙年展收錄了許村旭從事新聞工作期間的攝影紀錄《當我們同在一起》，這些微觀的縮影見證了台灣社會的騷動變化和民主進步的歷程。在展覽即將閉幕之際，策展人周安曼與他回顧了當時影像捕捉的即刻瞬間，以及映照的時代氛圍。

周安曼（以下稱周）：我記得剛開始我們見面時，花了一段時間討論作品選樣以及年份的跨距。我問你如果回看這幾十年的記者生涯，哪一個時刻是最有趣或記憶猶新？你跟我說是解嚴後的第一個十年（1987－1998），因為那時什麼都很亂，但也是一個有希望的時代。這就讓我決定選擇這段時期作為作品的時間跨距，因為對我而言，現在我們身處的台灣，看似混亂，不知道該往哪裡走。

許村旭（以下稱許）：我們選了台灣歷史上關鍵的一個十年，這十年有趣是因為它是從大大小小的事件累積而成。為什麼沒有挑選單一事件也是因為有它的難度，因為新聞事件每天都在發生，雖然這個十年發生了三個關鍵的事件：萬年國會改選（1990）、廢除《刑法》第一百條的運動（1991）、第一屆總統直選（1996），但過程中，整個時代氛圍存在了很久的荒謬感，這是從國民黨1949年來台後就已經發生。從現在回頭看，台灣那時就進入一個十分荒謬的時代。所以一開始在想要如何呈現過去這段歷史時，我也抓不著頭緒。因為以前從事新聞工作我的角色是被動的，通常是被要求提供配合單一事件的照片。但現在因為展覽，話語權回到我手上時，我的滿足點被放大了，我希望由我出發，不受任何體制、老闆的主導。

周：我想先從作品之間的布局談起，此次類似「沙龍」的陳列方式，排除了以單一影像或單一歷史事件為主角，並用一種整體時代氛圍呈現在觀眾面前。你希望帶給觀眾是一個甚麼樣的意象？

許：當妳開始跟我討論作品，給了我詮釋的自由，我就開始思考如何可以把最完整的、不吐不快的面向、一直想要表達的東西呈現出來。我幾乎是跟這些照片睡在一起，睡了半年，每天跟它們對望，因為有時候你抓不到最想要的呈現方式，加上這些照片也放了三十多年，它既熟悉又陌生的原因在於我突然想拉高視野看待整體格局，回看我從年輕懵懂、用速度積累出思考深度的過程中，我到底從裡面得到了什麼。有一天突然頓悟，為何我不將它們分成幾個章節來談，而不是從事件來談，從大時代中的小人物經歷的事情。所以我剛提到的三段政治改革延伸出幾個歸類：民主運動萌芽，李登輝一個劃時代人物的出現，當時女性扮演的特殊角色，加上長期被壓抑、荒謬時代的黨國掌控下無法呼吸自由空氣的那群人的吶喊等等，幾乎所有領域都充滿了不公不義。

周：你覺得這樣一個台灣的脈絡對來自不同地區或世界的觀眾而言，能從作品中學習到甚麼？

許：其實這個十年不只是對台灣而言很重要的十年，1989年全世界同時都面對了結構性的改變。我認為在地性就是國際性，你把自己的故事剖析到最深，跟全球的脈絡就是息息相關。這也是為何我把這些照片嘗試用一種跳接式的類文字敘述，而非論說式的方式呈現。而這些照片其實都是當時報社編輯台淘汰的照片，因為當時台灣的新聞媒體主要是文字掛帥，照片只是點綴的工具。所以為何我會用這樣的觀點來拍這些照片，跟我自己設身遭遇處境有很深的關係；除了時代的荒謬，職場的荒謬也發生在我身上。

我是個ㄧ入行即被體制邊緣外，不受重視的人。因血統不純及時空背景的職場陋習，社內必須結黨結派，大家都為維護小圈共同利益，自己人才有好新聞跑，重大新聞絕對輪不到我。因為這樣，我開始有餘力去思考每張影像的獨立性，這些照片都不是在重要的新聞現場拍攝下來的，而是自己去思索、尋找或等待；也因為這樣，幾十年後回頭看仍覺耐人尋味。在我三十多年媒體職涯裡，重大新聞的參與其實鳳毛鱗爪，除了幾個大事件和一些抗爭外，當時多被派去拍社會新聞。他們會給我一天近十條新聞，大江南北地讓我去窮跑，但隔天一張照片都不會見報；要不然就是一條新聞都不給你，讓你去設法自生自滅。所以你就要自己去分析或尋找圖文新聞；被逼到後來，我就自動請纓，去跑單調又最無趣的經濟組的新聞，結果不久就遇到股市大崩盤。那個契機一時就把我的潛力全都激發出來。

周：所以這種苦中作樂的生活經驗也就成了你獨特的影像語言。

許：我認為許多的好照片都來自大事件平息之後鍥而不捨的捕捉，那當下也是最容易流露出人的本真性：因為無法抑制的情感、情緒的身體語言是不會說謊的，而同樣的，在鏡頭前那些偽裝出的面貌也會畢露無遺。

周：你沒有因為希望自己的照片能露出而改變拍攝的方式嗎？

許：沒有，因為我理解了就算我的照片出現在新聞頭版，那也不是我的作品，那只是符合編輯台的需求。所以我是從照片ㄧ再被拒用，再從編輯台的垃圾桶，一張張將這些被丟掉的照片撿起來，累積而成。但其實也因為我跑的這些新聞在當時都不重要，所以沒有壓力，也就可以放手去拍。這也訓練我知道如何在新聞現場找到我可以連結的故事及養分。後來離開二十餘年的媒體工作，之後成為獨立攝影師幫外媒打工，諸如法新社、英國金融時報等，反而是我進步成長最快的階段，因為完全脱離體制的束縛跟控制，也不需要再費心思去對抗。

周：許多攝影師都在嘗試定義如何製造令人驚豔的影像，布列松的「決定性瞬間」，經典定義了如何捕捉轉瞬即逝且有意義的瞬間。你是如何知道你拍下了一個成功的畫面？

許：一幀好照片構成元素其實是固定的，所以只要這些元素搭配在一起，對我而言是「落花水面皆文章」，沒有所謂重要的照片，只有好照片。這個「決定的瞬間」有時可以很快產生，有時也需要很長時間的等待。對我而言重點是來自你的思考深度、植基你各方的素養和豐富的想像力。要取得所有人的共鳴很難，但需要言之有物。

周：可以分享在為北雙篩選這些影像畫面的心路歷程嗎? 在回看自己過去的那段歷史時，是否有哪些令自己驚奇的時刻？

許：我想就是最後選的四張大照片以及挖鼻孔那張，這幾張我百看不膩，很貼近我的媒體職涯的心路歷程，苦苦酸酸的，但又使人會心一笑。

周：心態上呢？有不一樣嗎？

許：我覺得是更不懷好意。

周：是現在更「不壞好意」還是當時？

許：我其實不知道我當時帶著「不懷好意」的心態在拍攝，我只是用比較戲謔的方式。是後來才體悟你的鏡頭一定要不懷好意，照片才有意義。這個「不懷好意」是希望穿透那些權貴人士的面具和偽裝，將這些人拉下神壇。但現在他們都不存在了，我不懷好意的意圖也轉化成對社會議題別有居心時的憤怒，堅持站在社會理盲的對立面。

周：所以可以說，以前的戲謔是針對那個大時代氛圍下的始作俑者；現在的戲謔是針對全面的社會結構性問題。那這有影響到當時在安排作品的畫面佈局嗎？

許：我最滿意是一開始的兩組故事：《國民黨十四全會》、《國會全面改選大遊行》，但還是總覺得少了一些比較深入的對話。

周：我記得一開始我們在選件時，我很難給意見，因為我不知道每張照片背後的故事。我只能從畫面人物來理解，但我也許可以代表大部分沒有參與那段歷史的觀眾的一個視角。我們於是從這樣的對話開始討論呈現方式。

許：一開始的兩大組照片多捕捉當時街頭發生的故事，那些已經深入我的血液裡，是我非常熟悉的一段歷史。所以裡面交雜了很多我親身經歷的政治社會變革，還有我因為被邊緣化而被派去拍一些無關緊要的市井小民。所以這裡有一個很私人又反映大時代的對照。

周： 你是怎麼看待你的作品，一個十分台灣脈絡的作品，出現在一個國際大展中的位置？是否與展覽中的哪些作品產生共鳴？

許：我想這系列作品帶給大家一個接地氣的感覺，儘管影像內容很抽象，但整體氛圍的展現是很有感染力的，這是我當初沒有預想到的效果。我覺得自己的作品跟放映單元裡茱瑪納 · 曼納（Jumana Manna）的作品《野食採集者》有很深的連結：我們都同樣面對一個龐大入侵者的威脅，禁止說母語、禁止採集，這與我們的歷史有很多重的呼應。現在我們解脫了，但他們還在糾纏中。

周：我很高興你選了這件影片來做對照，因為當時我們把你跟放映單元放一起時，我們想要表達的就是台灣的這段歷史跟世界各地其他地方的糾葛，不管多遙遠，都可以找到共同或相似的情感經驗。而如同你先前所說，在地化就是國際化。

周：我最後想問，你大部分的作品是在跑新聞時拍攝的，那是一個即刻、快速的瞬間。在幾十年過去後，你是如何重新看待這些影像？它們是否產生了變化？

許：我覺得回看當時的作品，那時自己是站在一個旁觀者的位置，現在的拍攝方式會比較具有侵略性。可能因為當時是一個紀錄者的角色，跟每個被拍攝者之間是有距離的。現在自己的心態上有所改變，我會比較直接，以前的角色比較疏離，那跟當時跟被體制打壓心態很有關係；因為我不想拍報導式的影像，不想做圖文式的新聞，我只想瞬間進入那些人的內心世界，然後就走了。

訪談與整理：周安曼、施維麟（William Smith)

編審：沈怡寧

本次訪談發表於小世界線上誌