二十一世紀的亞洲承受著一種複合式的全球氛圍，包含著中國帶有強烈民族主義情感的崛起、新自由主義所引發的全球金融危機、個人主義式民主主義的矛盾、由經濟問題所引領出的新寡頭政策、M型社會中的階層差距拉大等等。其中社會關係的碎形化、概念思考的片段化、知覺經驗的點狀化和虛擬化，都使得我們無法找到「情結」的根源、看不到心神的景深，「情結」在紀澤克轉動佛洛依德的圖式並將拉崗的式子變成一種套層結構時，便意味著「差異」不足以作為徵候，來描繪這個時代，而是對於差異的「操作」──佈署與連結──以及操作所產生的「鬆脫」：變形。

表層關係與個體精神的片段化，導致的是佈署的內在化，或反過來說，內在佈署成為個體可能的操作。這個可能性不僅表達了一種多樣態的文化處境，同時也提供出某種創作狀態：流變中發生的混合與由混合所發動的流變。它呼應著尼古拉斯．布希歐藉由「文化移民」與「經濟遷徙」所表達的當代特性，但同時又不限於布希歐所藉以論證的實際經驗，其中最大的不同就在於「移民」究竟限於一種物理地理的實際經驗，還是能夠延展到文化地層的潛在經驗。當「變－結」成為一種「在地－移民」時，似乎能夠擺脫文化優勢者對他者的擬仿權力，更深刻地描述出實際存在於亞洲多數地區的創作者所擁有的處境。無疑地，林區、柯能堡、柯斯達與魏拉舍塔庫的電影比布希歐的描述更接近亞洲當代藝術的真實狀態。

所以，當國際雙年展變得將各個地區的視覺元素，操作為商品式的文化辨識性時，視聽知覺與意識型態的連結製造出一種消費性的文化認知；而這對於亞洲當代藝術的發展，一方面其商品化的差異性似乎獲得了進入全球市場的捷徑，但另一方面卻讓自身極為複雜的創作脈絡難有機會被認識，意即文化差異的溝通與理解是缺乏的。況且，這種文化批判與商榷空間的打開，不能自限於一種商品化的單向表達，而同時必要開發出創作狀態中向外敞開的空間，因此，「渾變」的文化混合、流變與內在佈署，既是亞洲當代藝術在這個世紀中顯現出來的特質，同時該特質也表現出一種動態式、突變式的空間，要求著一種能夠感受個體獨特文化經驗、以及能夠將文化經驗予以問題化的即將場域。

這一次台灣參展的作品，並非表現著藝術家對這個現象與問題的思考與詮釋，而是表達出各種不同的「渾變」狀態與歷程，逼現出一種混雜的本然與突變的不可區辨；若以「渾變」來看，亞洲藝術問題在藝術史與藝術理論中長久以來的難以言明，或說總是被置放在特殊文化的例外範疇裡，並非因為創作發展的偏差與建構的不足，而是因為脫離了潛在與實際的對稱式對應，「渾變」將此推進到極端不對稱的關係，意味著一種基進的「潛在化」，一種無法也不信任現實經驗之對應關係的「詭異」創作。這種「御宅論」的可突變不同於現今當代藝術流暢地穿梭在作品與論述之「同一化」中、卻又充滿著「穩定繁衍」的自動論。

​

Twenty-first century Asia is suffering through the complexity of globalization in the form of China’s fervent nationalism; neoliberalism’s global financial crisis; the paradox of individualistic democracy; oligarchical policies spurred on by economic problems; and the widening gap between social classes in an M-shaped society. At the same time, the fracturing of society, fragmentation of concepts and the pixelation and virtualization of perceptual experiences make it so we cannot find the source of this complex nor get a clear perspective on our collective psyche. As Slavoj Žižek reorients Freud's schema and turns Lacan's formula into a mise en abime, we realize that the existence of this complex makes it impossible for mere difference to serve as a sign of our era; as individuals we must operate our difference—dispositif and connection—and then looseness, or deformation of stereotype, can be generated by this operation.

The fragmentation of surface connections and the individual spirit leads to the internalization of dispositif, or on the other hand, internal dispositif becomes something that the individual can potentially manipulate.1 This potential not only expresses a kind of multitude of cultural conditions, but also provides a certain creative situation: blending that happens in evolution and evolution launched by blending. This is related to the contemporary properties expressed by Nicolas Bourriaud's ideas of cultural migration and economic movement, yet, at the same time, goes beyond Bourriaud's demonstration of actual experience. 2  Among these, the largest difference is that when the latter limits migration to the actual experience of physical geography, the former can extend to the cultural layer of virtual experience. As trans-plex prompts local-migration, it seems we can cast off cultural dominance's power of mimicry of the Other, and more deeply describe the actual existence of the conditions artists possess in many regions of Asia. No doubt, movies by David Lynch, David Cronenberg, Pedro Costa and Apichatpong Weerasethakul are closer to the real situation of contemporary Asian artists than Bourriaud's descriptions.

So, as international biennial exhibitions start to operate visual elements of each and every region, and brand them as commercial cultural identities, the joining of visual and auditory perceptions with ideologies creates an acknowledgment of cultural consumerism. Regarding the development of contemporary Asian artists, commodified difference seems to have found a shortcut into global markets, but also has made it difficult for individuals to introduce the complexity of their creative contexts, that is to say, understanding and communication across cultural differences is lacking. Moreover, the opening of this space for cultural critique and mediation cannot be confined to a unilateral expression of commodification, as the development of outward and wide-open spaces in creative states is also essential. Therefore, the cultural hybridity, evolution and internal dispositif found in trans-plex are specific properties of contemporary Asian art that have appeared in this century. These properties also express a dynamic and mutating space which demands a “champ a venir” that is capable of perceiving individual cultural experiences while  problematizing them.

Works from Taiwan included in this exhibition do not necessarily present the artist's consideration or explication of these phenomena or issues, but rather express various trans-plex states and processes which exude the nature of the mixture and indiscernability of mutation. From the perspective of trans-plex, the problem of Asian art—the long-term difficulty of articulating its significance in art history and theory, and therefore its fixed position as an exotic state of exception—is not necessarily because of deviation in creative development or insufficient structure, but because of its isolation from virtual and actual symmetrical correspondences. Trans-plex pushes this to an extreme of asymmetrical relations, becoming radical virtualization and uncanny creation that defies and distrusts actual experiences. This mutable “otakusm” is different from the automatism commonly seen in contemporary art which smoothly moves through the homogeneous construct of artwork and theory.

All of these works are trans-plex: Wu Si-chin representing the venue with the improper proportions between a real-life yardstick and its symbolic target; Chen Jing-yuan composing visual theater with fragments of information; Wu Chi-yu microscopically enlarging a real “polemic place” into a virtual dangerous scene; Liu Yu deconstructing and reassembling the various communicative modes of the space, language and visual elements touched upon in life; and Ruan Yung-han using everyday bodies to deduce heroic images and movements. They all are also related to the following in different ways: gaps between the imagination provided by consumption and everyday bodies; the fracturing and reorganization of language, bodies and images in space; and the mixing of multiple cultural elements to create combinations and avoiding expectations or any single identification with the tension between intrinsically heterogeneous elements. These mutations, which string together—as well as move among—bodies, spaces and features, produce the presence of a new organism, which is parallel to a vision tranformed by the delayed, layered reflections and seams created by unstable or even failed transmissions.