The Dilemma of Chinese Contemporary Art | CVSZ Issue 39
中国当代艺术：何去何从？第39期线上讨论记录
Translator|Editor : Ziqiao Wang
How would we understand the notion of “Chinese contemporary art?” Is the term “Chinese” capable of summarizing its generality or rather restricting the visions when applied in discussion?
Wu Yue:
Today’s topic is related to “Chinese contemporary artists”. There are many fellows in our community who study art and are contemporary artists now or in the future. I think it is better to listen to the views of the artists in the group before the official start. Would you like to define yourself as a “Chinese contemporary artist”? Do you accept this title or have a second thought of it?
Jin Yu:
I think this involves a “identity” problem, like “tagging”. It is because many people in the contemporary era like to identify themselves with tags. It is believed that once they are being labelled, they would acquire certain rights to speak and influence in this field, which making them more unique. But sometimes, your labels are tagged by others in the society. I personally do not like this label, the contemporary artists, nor do I like any labels like female artists — they are being gendered and being racialized in a strong sense.
Cai Yixuan:
I feel that the identity of “Chinese contemporary artist” will bring you certain resources and career opportunities at instances, especially in the United States, where many exhibitions or events respect and emphasize on the racial diversity. However, it also happens to people who do not want to be labelled being racialized as inevitable.
Wu Yue:
I agree. There is no such an exhibition titled, “French contemporary art” or “American contemporary art”. It must be considered in advance that a certain type of person or art does not belong to the mainstream in prior to the exhibition, then finding the necessity to emphasize its characteristics as a stunt. But reconsidering it carefully, these artists exhibit Guggenheim, their works in early times did convey a strong Chinese nativeness (like Mao Zedong, the Cultural Revolution, etc.). And, what they may have in common in the group is “all born and raised in China.” Thus, would also be a bit awkward to intentionally ignore or “China”.
Chen Hanzhi:
“People who do not want to be racialized are racialized…” I think this is identity politics that we cannot escape from. The paradox here is that if we do not emphasize our identity, our (Asian/female) art will not be understood; but if we emphasize it, our art will be restricted to it rather than being universal. Thus I think here is the issue that whether the universal art and angel existed free from ethnicity.
Wu Yue:
The paradox about identity and limitations does exist, with making sense. It works in the similar theory that applying to solutions of racial discrimination: in order to eradicate it, you have to first recognize the existence of race at foremost, and this kind of recognition is like a second injury: the intention to erase would actually deepen people’s impressions, but if you don’t do this, it would never change. I think this is also what the Guggenheim Museum wants to do — pursuing the globality in Chinese contemporary art. This model of “from China to the world” transition is particularly evident in the second half of the exhibition. The nativeness of China is gradually disappearing, and the work is grander and more international in nature. The aforementioned Mushroom Cloud series by Cai Guoqiang is actually an insightful example; Cai evaluates the international issues (nuclear weapons/wars) that affect humanity in his overlapped dual identities: A Chinese and a citizen on earth. The domesticity is reduced, and the universality is highly elevated and being prominent.
Lao Xian:
The nativeness is not all-bad; meaning that the artist had earned a special “capability”: the work of art can reflect the history, culture and politics of a country, etc.; moreover, the medium can also be unique (such as Xu Bing’s text, Cai Guoqiang’s fireworks, Ai Weiwei’s porcelain sunflower). But at the same time, the national identity is also a stereotype. I think that the curpus by Sun Yuan and Peng Yu’s water pipes is universal. In fact, regardless where and where they are, everyone will face the problem of freedom.
20th Century & Contemporary Art Evening Sale, Hong Kong.
Wu Yue:
I would like to add a little more information about “Zi You”(freedom), which is the part of the article that was shot. Sun Yuan Peng Yu’s corpus “Zi You” seems very international. It seems that “freedom” goes beyond national boundaries. However, if you pay attention to the year it was first exhibited, this work is actually the 10th anniversary of certain student movements. Freedom is of special historical significance here. Going back to Cai Guoqiang’s mushroom cloud, we will find that the material he uses, the gunpowder, implies to the Chinese characteristics (Four Great Inventions). Therefore, most of the examples introduced in the quotations seem to be international, but in essence they imply distinct local characteristics. Let me introduce another example.
Artist Xu Bing collected the dust from the original site of the ruins of Lower Manhattan after the 9/11 incident and smuggled the dust to the Britain. However, due to the difficulty of carrying the dirt and other things by air (due to the risk of disturbing local ecology), Xu several small toy puppets by these dust with mixing water, took it to the UK, and grinded it into the powder. On the ground, Xu spelled out “Ben Lai Wu Yi Wu, He Chu Re Cheng Ai (As there is nothing from the first, where does the dust itself collect)?” Unfortunately, the pictures of the dolls are posted on the wall, and the space in the house is very small, many people do not see these introductions.
Which touches me in the deepst in this “Why Bothers the Dust”, is the process that Xu made the dust into a clay doll and smashing them — returning to the dust. It seems futile, but if you contemplating it — is it not the same with the fact of the World Trade Center? It originates from reinforced concrete to a skyscraper, and then vanished in the attack. Xu adopts a universal perspective to elevate the whole work to a philosophical level, but it is easy to be overlooked that “there is nothing originally, where is the dust” from the poetry of Hui Neng from Sixth Ancestor. This is thoroughly rooted in the study of Chinese Zen culture.
Jin Yu:
I can contribute one more point of Xu Bing’s corpus. He had done this work for a long time, he actually had this dust for a long time. His original intention was not to collect the dust, but it was the artist’s subconsciousness while seeing the 9/11 building fell, to collected it, and many years later, he had decided to fit them as a work.
Wu Yue:
To sum up, for Cai Guoqiang’s Mushroom Cloud; Xu Bing’s “Why Bothering Dust”, Sun Yuan & Peng Yu’s “Zi You” and other works like these, due to the grand spectacle of their content, it seems that the label of “Chinese Artist” can be abandoned, but after studying these works in depth, we found that they still carry a deep Chinese element. The gunpowder, Zen, and other historical events, these Chinese artists are still adopting Chinese elements.
Question Two: Which year is the first year of Chinese contemporary that we should consider? Is 1989, the date drafted by Guggenheim Museum of Art reasonable and acceptable? Is it apt to a year with political implication appropriate — for catering western audience or enforcing us to confront our history?
H:
I would like to ask how would we define contemporary art, mainly based on chronicle? or on the nature of historical events? If we choose the latter, what kind of historical events and their nature are qualified to be called the contemporary art?
Mo Fan Mo Fan Mo Fan:
If we define the period in historical matter, Leonardo Da Vinci was also considered as “contemporary” in his time, so did Claudie Monet. The later generations gradually classified these masters’ experiences as the genres, so I think the so-called “contemporary” is just an inclusive term for the art in current that awaiting categorization.
Dong Yu Xiang:
Contemporary art is not divided by time. It is a by-product in the development of the history of art discipline. Periodization as a method of art history research is basically the result of the inversion of chronicle. In the issue autumn 2009, October, there was a questionnaire on contemporary “Questionnaire” on “The Contemporary”. It invited many historians and curators were invited to talk about what is contemporary. It is hard to claim that contemporary is a concept of time. At the beginning of art history developed as a discipline, it had neve been seen that Johann Winckelmann, Lessing, and Hegel, who clearly stated that the works of art in their time were contemporary art. Even in the future, there will be substitutional words for “contemporary”.
H:
The categorization based on history is a process of securitizing history. But now the controversial question about Chinese contemporary art is, what is the outset of Chinese contemporary art?
Wu Yue:
Taking it specifically, it is controversial for the belief that Guggenheim’s exhibition defining the year of 1989 as the onset of the Chinese contemporary art. Previously Mo believed that whether the contemporary art and national boundaries all had not been defined. This view is confirmed by many officials in academia. The Getty Center in the United States (Getty) defines that contemporary art must be created by living artists, the British Tate Museum of Art claims that contemporary art is avant-garde works created today or recent; Oxford Dictionary combines modern and contemporary art. Into a reference book called “Oxford Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art” to avoid disputes — which I would go with. Because at present we are still living in a time frame that is continuous process, and there have not been any breaking news that would constitute an elapse in the historical stage and become a symbol of a stage. As the term Modern Art is defined due to the distinct events such as World War I and World War II to perform as the joints of division. The division of the Impressionism was also due to the first independent artist salon in 1874, as ths was regarded as the beginning of Impressionism. Therefore, the Guggenheim Museum is also looking for such an iconic, representative event to mark the beginning of Chinese contemporary art.
H:
I personally think that what is most important in contemporary art is not what it does, but “what is contemporary”. Because of the ambiguity of the definition, looking back the “New Wave Movement” in 1985, the Star Art Exhibition, or the Grand Exhibition in 1989, their nature is vague. Despite the research materials of these are plenty, most of them were overshadowed by the larger historical backgrounds. I can only be put in that the people struggling from the “Cultural Revolution” ushered in a relaxed and open era, and the contact with the outside world has made the people in a state of fervent excitement. At the same time, people started reflecting and rebelling.
Zhang Xiao Han:
I believe for the burry temporal definition of Chinese contemporary art; a heavy reason was the mis-adoption for Western modern art by Chinese contemporary art after the reformation. As these Chinese artists did not encounter and undergo the history of western art, a series of social status-quos were reflected by artist in different regions.
Wu Yue:
I was initially skeptical of the answer of 1989. Because any Chinese living in the Mainland, 1989 had a specific political meaning yet standing for nothing else. But if you think about it carefully, this year is indeed better than the Star Art Exhibition or the Eighth Five-Year Trend of Thought. Because it is not only important in China, for student movement, but there is the beginning and end of China/Avant-garde. This China/Avant-garde exhibition is very critical-it did not only summarize all the avant-garde arts before, but also signify a new outset after being disconnected/traumatized from the Western forces. At the same time, this era also has important influence in the world, such as the drastic changes in Eastern Europe — such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and so on. As if I were a curator, maybe I would choose this year too.
The article does not mention the 1989 China Modern Art Exhibition in detail, but just sweeps it through generally The detailed introduction is here.
China Modern Art Exhibition in 1989
This is the first contemporary art exhibition to receive national support and sponsorship.
Although it is modern art, it is actually contemporary art — caused by the modern/contemporary interoperability in Chinese. This exhibition attracted most of the artists at the time. Those who were not selected to participate, such as performance artist Wu Shanzhuan, also ran outside the exhibition hall to sell shrimp. Wu selling shrimp is not only performance art. According to his own memories, he also wanted to earn a vote at the time, so it also reflected the phenomenon of capital flow after China’s reform and opening up. However, Wu Shanzhuan’s shrimp was confiscated by the city management in the end, and he also lost a lot. This event along with other similar emergencies, the exhibition had to be suspended. In the second half, female artist Xiao Lu triggered a gun without warning, and shot at her illusion in the mirror in her work “Dialogue”. The gunshot apparently made the official being nervous. Given this, the exhibition was ceased for the second time and permanently banned. It became the only “dual suspensions” exhibition in the history of Chinese art exhibitions. The first official support became the last. It is worth mentioning that Xiao Lu was born into the army family, so she could get the gun. After this her boyfriend went to jail for her crime.
Dong Yuxiang:
“One could almost say that the 20th century was summed up a little early, in 1989, even as history since has proceeded apace.” — Wang Hui. This sentence basically explains why this year was picked.
Jin Yu:
I think the choice of 1989 is a relatively obscure method, it not only means the student movement, but also standing for the end of the Western Cold War. If it is necessary to make a turning point for Chinese contemporary art, perhaps 1989 is the only choice. However, the events such as the Star Art Exhibition were also very important, it had already appeared around 1980.
H:
Gao Minglu is the author of the book “History of Chinese Contemporary Art: 1985–1986”, which is regarded as China’s first contemporary art history book in China. In this book, he set the beginning of Chinese contemporary art to 1985. That is, the beginning of the 85 new wave, and 89 years as the end of the “85 New Wave Movement”.
Mo Fanmo Mo Fan Mo Fan:
In fact, in a literal way, the 1985 was like a nascent, premature baby, it cried twice and dying.
H:
In the late period of research of Gao Minglu, “avant-garde” was used to define Chinese contemporary art. However, I personally think the “avant-garde” describing one’s way of expressing the emotion embedded in the heart deeply for a long time, since one encountering new things; fear, and other uneasy emotions. It is a central catharsis of dissatisfaction and anxiety for the past. The “Avant-garde” then is a form of expression that cannot be regarded as an artistic essence to define the boundaries of artistic events.
Zhang Xiao Han:
The “85 New Wave Movement” sometimes means a concentrated outbreak of the accumulation of the social issues, and the 1989’s was an accident. One should acknowledge that the contemporary Chinese art and the foreign art have changed tremendously in the two years of 1988 and 1990.
Jin Yu:
Indeed, the Situationalist International and the French May Revolution; along with the “85 New Wave Movement” and the 1989 student movement in China; Soviet-American Cold War & Cultural Revolution, such the historical and artistic parallel comparison are interesting.
LYNN: At that time, I was watching the exhibition of “Sigg Collection: Forty Years of Chinese Contemporary Art” at M+ in Hong Kong, I was interested in dividing the history of Chinese art. The starting point of Chinese contemporary art was set to 1974. Most works on the history of Chinese contemporary art take 1979–89 as the initial stage (Modern Art) and 90–99 as the second stage (Contemporary Art). M+’s curator Pi Li wrote the reason for this: in 1974, the “Underground Artist Group” held a secret rally in the apartment, and young people have begun to contemplate on the rationality of the Cultural Revolution with eliciting various artistic practices. Although many oil paintings of the “Anonymous Painting Society” shared many elements of Impressionism and Soviet and Eastern European Realism, they bore little relevance to what we usually think of as “contemporary” art. But if we placed in the “style climate “ of China after 1949, these works have far deviated from the corpus that expressing revolutionary feelings at that time, and are “rebellions against political kitsch in public life and artistic creation” (Pi Li, 2016), so they are regarded as the beginning of contemporary Chinese art. Only in this way can there be a retrospective exhibition of “40 Years of Chinese Contemporary Art.” I think this is actually more appropriate to describe the circumstance of China, which also recognizes the attempts and practices of the earlier Chinese artists.
Wu Yue: M+ is new for defining the beginning of contemporary China. I know a little about the Anonymous Painting Society. They were active at the end of the Cultural Revolution as they took great risks to create. This is why their works reflect the “Impressionist” style- the outdoor sketches are relatively short to draw, avoided being caught or observed. It produced the same effect of Impressionism at that time in order to capture the ever-changing light and shadow. In fact, I think that textbooks in Mainland often do not distinguish between the modern and contemporary. To instantiate this, the Opium War could be seen as a starting point is a separation from the royal palace painting. The Shanghai School, the School of Lingnan painting, etc. all appeared. Many scholars of modern/contemporary Chinese art will say that Ren Xiong’s self-portrait is the most important work.
LYNN: Is your word means the division of self-expression and exploration? Contemporary is more “all-inclusive” in my opinion. Plus, in our previous discussions, we specifically discussed Arthur Danto. According to his writing, contemporary art has no unified style, classification standards, and identification basis, and even unified narrative. It is no longer belonging to the official discussion and chronological development, instead of entering the “post-historical epoch”. It gets out of the category of art history. It is just because of the unique social environment and history of Chinese contemporary art, the Chinese contemporary art earned the possibility of being “narrated”, regardless of the official coming from China or Guggenheim.
Cai Yi Xuan: I think it is futile of Danto’s words. The existence of every art is a production of a capital power; since multiple capital powers are different, some want to buy Chinese painting, some want to buy ink painting, some want to buy realistic, some want to buy sculpture, Companies or urban squares desire multimedia art for commissions sound and light, and electricity; higher taste-holders need avant-garde art (performance, video, etc.), and political movement working hand in hand with performances. So, should the dynamic of the development of contemporary art be confused with the distribution of the art market?
LYNN:I think on the explicit level, what you can see is already being moderated by market, even being advertised. But it cannot be true that there is no art that does not emerge to the public. It can only be said that the current art enterprise has to rely on the market and conforms to the logistics of the market, for the public spectatorship.
Jin Yu: So what exactly is innovation, and what is avant-garde? In other words, the artists have analyzed the law of “innovation”, so now there is a sweet spot as long as it is being new. I remember that Qiu Zhijie had written an article called “Ten modes of Student Speaking”, which contained many “jargons” of contemporary art.
Wu Yue: Avant-garde implies a sense of relativity. In fact, it is not only post-historical art but also the “old” works in the history book are being considered as having avant-garde pedigree. Impressionism was considered as avant-garde for the nineteenth century, and abstract expressionism was avant-garde for the twentieth century. Ren Xiong’s self-portrait also uses the shadowing on his face. It is obvious that he was influenced by western oil painting, which is regarded as an innovation of traditional ink portrait painting in China. I think there are no particular very new works at current. I often think, what is totally different from the works in 2000 recently? There seems to be nothing particularly surprising.
Mo Fan Mo Fan Mo Fan: In fact, there is no shortage of good works, what is lacking is a good platform. Ge Yulu is relatively a new one.
Wu Yue: Let me summarize the information that you have just contributed: there are now divergent opinions pursuing the beginning of Chinese contemporary art
1. The “World Theater” exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum in the United States, with 1989 as the starting point;
2. Gao Minglu, “History of Contemporary Chinese Art: 1985–1986”, believed that the Eighth Five-Year Trend of Thought was the starting point;
3. Hong Kong M+ “Forty Years of Chinese Contemporary Art”, thinks that the 1974 Anonymous Painting Society shows a huge difference from the previous art;
4. Lu Peng “Chinese Art in the Twentieth Century”, the modernity emerged from the Opium War.
5. Danto, contemporary art belongs to the “post-historical epoch” and is out of the category of art history.
3. What can be a representative icon of Chinese contemporary art? In the trend of globalization, what are the boundaries of Chinese contemporary art? Should it be necessary that people titled “Chinese Contemporary Artists” be the one in yellow skin and dark hair? What role does the artist’s nationality, provenance, background, and education play here?
Cai Yi Xuan:
I recalled at the issue of “racialization” at the beginning of this discussion; along with there were cultural origins in artworks perpetuated with international elements. I think the native culture of artists (for example, Chinese culture) merged in methodology, but as long as the work reflecting contemporary social issues, it is universal. For example, after the economic bubble situation in Japan in the 1990s, Kengo Kuma proposed the concept of “Architecture without Architecture”. In comparison with the high-rise buildings of reinforced concrete, the architecture follows this theme does not pursue symbolic meaning and visual desire; it also responds to a global urban issue, yet the concepts of solutions proposed by architects in different countries are different. Recently, I have also visited some art organizations that are fighting against political regional gentrification. Because the community forces are strong and meaningful, thus the works are always regional bound, but the questions they respond to are “under the neoliberal economy, the combination of government and business, the possession of land resources and the neglect of community culture. Therefore, the strategy and methods are always regional, because they have to engage a certain audience/context, but they always answer global questions.
Mo Fan Mo Fan Mo Fan:
The requirement of other studios for our graduation exhibition two days ago: 1. Try not to paint foreigners; 2. Do not involve religion; 3. Try not to paint nudes. I guess this is why the decrease in sensitive works in recent markets.
Wu Yue: I think “race” is a very interesting question. It combines with the painting standard that Lao Zhai told us, “Try not to paint foreigners”, who is a foreigner? How to count as a foreigner? They look different or do they not speak Chinese, or the nationality on the legal ID is different? To be honest, many of the most famous contemporary Chinese artists have emigrated long ago, mostly in the mid to late 1980s. Are they native Chinese? Comparing with the artists who were born and raised in China, they do obviously not belong to the official pedigree.
Mo Fan Mo Annoy Mo Hu:
Personally, I think it depends on the artist’s own attitude and self-consciousness. Wu Shanzhuan’s nationality is Iceland, but his mantra is: I am a real Chinese.
Wu Yue: I think this is a very ironic reality, and it is not only in the field of art but in all aspects, even in our group. A large group of people educated in the West tried to re-examine the problems of their country with the theories they learned in the West. Cai Yi Xuan just said that architects from different countries will adapt to local conditions and propose appropriate solutions, but are the most famous of these architects also recognized by the West? This is the dilemma of Chinese artists on the international stage: they need global recognition, but they don’t agree with the ideology from the West. They want to start from the core, but they have been invisible. So, what makes Wu Shan Zhuan think he is Chinese? From a legal point of view, he is obviously not of Chinese nationality.
Wu Yue: Before diving into this topic, let’s look at one of the simplest questions: who is Chinese? Can we suggest a few generally accepted conditions that can be considered Chinese? Imagine this, we are curating an exhibition of Chinese contemporary art. Who can we take account?
Cai Yi Xuan: This question is so profound.
Jin Yu:
But why this problem is important here? Who will define the question of “Who is Chinese?” Law? Pedigree? It is very complicated to answer in this global context.
Wu Yue:
I think it’s important. If there is no way to distinguish, does it imply that the national boundaries have disappeared? If “China” does not exist in the first place, then why does “Chinese contemporary art” come from the Guggenheim exhibition? The exhibition does not only include Chinese natives but also immigrants, and even Americans who loved Chinese culture and went to China. If all this is to be established, there must be several conditions/communities that are sufficient for this group of people to be put into an exhibition. If there is nothing, then we can make a critique of the idea of the Guggenheim exhibition as a vague one. But I think this exhibition still has meaning because I still believe that even in the era of globalization, the native still exists and is more important.
Let me start first: I think I must speak Chinese. Linguists must have a theory that language implies a sense of belonging.
Mo Fan Mo Fan Mo Fan:
Anyone who can make tomato scrambled eggs works under the same theory, seriously. I think diet habits are an important basis for this distinction. No matter how long he is not in China, as long as he has a nerve for making Chinese food, he is considered Chinese.
Wu Yue:
Yes, eating habits are also part of the tradition, just like language, culture, customs, morality, and religion. Even Kris Wu (Wu Yi Fan) said that he has a “stomach for Chinese food”.
Chen Hanzhi:
In order to form a cultural identity, I think, on the one hand, it needs to be more subdivided and inclusive in the internal strata. For example, for ethnic minorities, the construction of “China” and “national territory” are nuanced; on the other hand, externally, in order to establish an international in order to unite and speak out, there is an urgency to summarize the general experience. I think the formation of Chinese character is the working progress of the two forces working together.
Wu Yue:
These two points are very important. When studying Chinese contemporary art or curating exhibitions, people seem to have unconsciously adopted the vague concepts of “Global Chinese culture” or “Great China” and fantasize about the myth of a community. To put it more satiric, China has basically relied on contemporary art to achieve great unity.
Here I quote a copy of Weng Xiao Yu’ s words: Borrowing the theories of French scholars Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (CFSlix Guattari), which is what they described as “de-domain” and “re-domain”, These different levels of reality have constructed a lasting game between the continuous dissolution of the “boundary” and the resetting of anxiety. In this process, China — no matter what we understand of this term, it is always facing the threat of being dispelled by the global community. It is this threat that has inspired an urgent impulse to sew this country back to its original state. With a sense of crisis, China is “complete” and “unique” in so-called culture, territory, and identity.
Cai Yi Xuan:
There was a previous issue discussing the current state of Jean Clair’s art — — a critique of modernity. He quoted Johann Schiller’s words: Art cannot be modern, and art will always return to its origin. This origin refers to a sense of cultural belonging. If art wants to resonate with the audience, address the audience, and penetrate into human nature, it must return to culture/customs/food and even historical events. This is the sense of vernacular vitalizes art, as being fundamental reason why art can talk to the audience. Claire constantly mentioned the change of “genesis” in the book, and we discussed at the time that it was referring to human nature. It is the lower level of humanity under cultural belonging, which allows artworks across cultures and fields to have commonality.
Soas:
This is a question of choice and being chosen, self-identity, and social identity. Because these can be subdivided, and there is no absolute boundary. There is also China where there is no tomato and egg in traditional dishes. Even what a “complete” China is complicated.
Wu Yue:
In addition, I think it needs to be pointed out that globalization is not the only left situation now. Anti-globalization also has obvious voices: radical nationalism prevails now-Donald Trump’s power, and Brexit, terrorism, etc., all these events can all be seen as events that run counter to globalization.
LYNN:
Anti-globalization is a by-product inspired by globalization, but I fully agree that the result of globalization may not necessarily be homogeneity, and it can also bring confusion.
Wu Yue:
Globalization does not necessarily mean all good things. In this wave, the borders are especially important. The border protects the “authenticity” of traditional culture and region. I am dedicated to finding the definition of “China”, just like Jane Jacobs’s search for the “authenticity” of existence for New York’s East Village: It is so boring that having a world full of McDonald’s and Starbucks.
LYNN:
However, the concept of authenticity can easily and strategically be taken by international organizations and governments to put pressure on local agencies. For example, to preserve it, erecting a living museum, and enter UNESCO’s list of world cultural heritage, it will become a state-to-state competition.
Although in the era of globalization provides the convenience of communication, people may accept more and more similar information and business shocks, the previous way of defining oneself by the identity of the country and the region may not have changed. The situation has intensified under globalization, and of course, it welcomes some people who prefer the status of global citizenship.
Wu Yue:
Moreover, the locals are also prone to fall into a single, label “authentic.” Tourist attractions are particularly prone to give people an unbearable feeling because they emphasize authenticity too much and appear as monotonous. The label “China” is also perilous. If you lose the essence of “China” and blindly pursue internationalization, there will be the possibility of a rootless lack of roots and insufficient depth. However, if you put too much emphasis on “China”, it will be like Ai Weiwei’s anti-communist clichés.
Chen Han Zhi:
Maybe there is real globalization, maybe there is a real human community, but the globalization we are talking about is based on the background of Western capitalism and colonialism and contains a lot of violence and aggression against the third world. After acknowledging this aggression, perhaps we can truly see the embryonic form of globalization.
Wu Yue:
The topic of globalization can be completely discussed anew. So now, should we clearly demarcate the boundaries and promote the development of artists from within, rather than waiting for recognition, so as to truly break the Anglo-centrism of contemporary art and gain international discourse? My feeling is that China is now trying to promote local artists to the West in order to realize a kind of globalization under China’s leadership, the “Chinese Dream”. The official approach is, as Lao Zhai said before, to simply and rudely prevent foreigners from painting (only to paint Chinese, presenting local Chinese things, emphasizing localization.) The Chinese contemporary art market is still guided by Western aesthetics. Affected. Artists whose paintings are particularly expensive, such as Yue Min Jun, Zeng Fan Zhi, Zhang Xiao Gang, etc., whose oil paintings clearly cater to the taste of Western contemporary art. Zeng Fan Zhi’s early works were obviously influenced by German expressionism. Under the aura of the “Chinese Dream”, whether local art can rise, everyone can put a prospective attitude.
Cai Yixuan:
This question is too huge. We can do a special issue, answering the question about breaking the western center and gaining the right of speech, discussing the possible factors restricting the development of contemporary Chinese art, art education, political oppression, lack of foundation support for young artists; and how to adjust this situation from the internal organization, are there some cases that can be used for referential purposes, and those new ventures Although many things (such as the biennales that emerged in various third-tier cities) have been criticized in the form of emergence, they cannot be viewed critically from the perspective of sustainability, and more possibilities can be discovered from them. And how did Chinese galleries/cultural departments promote Chinese artists, and what is the strategy inside.
Question Four: Can the Guggenheim Museum’s cancellation of the three animal-related exhibits be considered another form of censorship? Is there a better solution?
Chen Han Zhi:
Is the cancellation of three animal works of art a kind of censorship? I think that when Asian artists enter the “World Theater”, their perspectives have to accept Western scrutiny. This kind of scrutiny is democratic and modern, and the result is usually that the perspective that conforms to the Western political tradition (such as the yearning for democracy and freedom, and the contemplation on the reality of China) is affirmed, but parts of this violate (such as about animal rights) criticized. I think we need to be aware of its limitations when discussing whether Chinese artists need to “learn” modernity. In the book “Provincializing Europe”, Chakrabarty proposed that we should treat modernity as a shell, while western tradition is only one of the fillings, and the third world should have new fillings for modernity from us. This “should” be said not only to the mainstream of the West but also to the third world whose language has been taken away. I hope that the three artists mentioned can find the explanation of “woke” in the Chinese world while being criticized for “it does not wake enough”.
Wu Yue: Indeed, the entry of Chinese art into the West is subject to scrutiny from their traditions. Let me add some other ideas. When I originally raised this question, I thought that this revealing incident revealed the facts of the West’s own censorship system and limited freedom of speech. Although the United States always talks about “freedom of speech”, it is actually a weapon used to attack other authoritarian countries, and it has not been able to implement it well. The reason why I am angry and disappointed about the dismantling is mainly because of the indifference and superiority of the American extreme white left behind it. The word “dog” can cause a huge accident in American society because Americans have long-held prejudice against Chinese dog-eating diet habits, so the conflict is on the verge of triggering a petition by 100,000 people in just 12 hours. Did they really listen to the voice behind this work? Do they really care? They didn’t even know that this was nothing more a video, and no real dog would appear in the art gallery. Isn’t it ironic?
Chen Han Zhi: The white left is false, racists are true; nationalists are false, and oppressed fighters are true.
Cai Yi Xuan:
I went to see the “World Theater” once, and the overall feeling is that there is a lot of resentment and depression, and there are a lot of emotions that I can’t express. The Guggenheim exhibition wants to express not only Chinese contemporary art, but also China from 1989 to 2008, otherwise, the works displayed in the last exhibition hall will not be works from the Cultural Revolution period [“We killed men and women”], I feel that the last exhibition hall is the end of the exhibition, it makes a political statement.
Wu Yue:
I agree. The bottom part is particularly depressing, and the content needs to be carefully observed/read the label to understand, and even a bit “exclusive”. Many works are in Chinese, and there is no English translation, such as Geng Jian Yi’s form. If you cannot understand Chinese, the audience cannot understand the work.
LYNN:
Regarding this kind of “exclusion”, at the Chinese art exhibition in New York, we would feel that most of the audience may not understand Chinese, the content of the form, and the work. But the same content is exhibited in Hong Kong, and few people question the understanding problems brought by Chinese. This may show that we ourselves have different expectations for exhibitions in different museums and locations, and it also involves what we think of as the “purpose of the exhibition”.
I have also been to this exhibition once, and after visiting it for a long time, I was actually not very satisfied with the end. Browse in order, go up to layer by layer, especially after seeing the last few words that are more interactive and attractive to the viewer (such as RMB City), and then step into the closing exhibition hall. I saw Song Dong, Gu De Xin, and Xu Bing. I think this ending it very vehement. It gives me a sense of distinction between works, not in a harmony, the previous works forming a sense of gap.
Jin Yu:
In the exhibition, it is not difficult to see that there are many watersheds in time, but not because of changes in the works, but because of vicissitude in history, such as the one-child policy, the 2008 Olympic Games, and the Wen Chuan Earthquake.
I thought of when I was doing independent space research with Yi Xuan, I interviewed Li Bo Yan of Tianjin’s Renewable Space. I agree with what he said, that is: maybe we can’t bring nothing to art, but inversely, if we can offer something to art from life, it would be very great.
关键词：
Agency在社会学语境里的意思是：“the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices”。白话说就是一中能自由选择并自主选择的能力。自主选择可以是在无压力情况下的，也可能是被迫，困局求变的结果。在CVSZ 39期的讨论中，几位同学就中国当代艺术家的title是否合理，中国当代艺术元年定位1989是否准确，中国当代艺术的边界定位问题旁征博引，集思广益。本文就主题展开，但是总体译者看出了时间性：期间包括各个艺术家对于国际的，国内的政治事件，潮流所作的一系列的对“中国当代艺术”的探索与实践。譬如无名画会，星星美院等，从这一系列的梳理，我大致认为这其实是对中国当代艺术从1980年来所作的事情进行梳理，探讨其未来，是对“中国当代艺术Agency”所作的探讨。
Conversazione is a non-profit art organization based in New York and Beijing, with focus on architecture, urbanism, films and media technology, theater and performance. Through forums, screenings, experimental theater, exhibition and publication, we aim at fostering discussion and research on contemporary spatial and cultural phenomenons. With practices in different axis, we hope to build a research-based community and discover ways to initiate changes in practice.
Conversazione是一个基于纽约/北京两地的非营利艺术组织，关注建筑、城市、影像、剧场及表演之间的问题，通过 论坛、放映、实验戏剧、展览、研究及媒体出版推动关于当代空间/艺术及文化现象的讨论。我们希望通过不断提问、深入调研、促进不同层面的对话，构建研究型社群，并在实践中发现变革的可能。
