You have no idea how happy this makes me:
Not so long ago Chinese authorities were in the business of closing down contemporary exhibitions. Curators and artists organised shows furtively: at the 2000 Shanghai Biennial, for example, the official State-subsidised exhibition was accompanied by a crop of impromptu “underground” shows in warehouses and basements, most of which were announced just a few days before they opened to avoid pre-emptive moves by the police. Now Chinese authorities have become enthusiastic champions of domestic contemporary art; last week they inaugurated the first Chinese pavilion at the Venice Biennale and there is talk of a permanent Chinese pavilion to be built in time for the next biennale in 2007.
So what accounts for this volte-face? To say that money is the driving factor would be simplistic. The real reason is a desire to be taken seriously on the international cultural stage. “The Chinese want to be big in Venice and Basel. Compared to a few years ago, there is a generation of no less repressive but more subtle generation of leaders in power. They realise that contemporary art does not seriously threaten their authority,” says Jonathan Napack, a Hong Kong-based advisor to Art Basel.
He cites the example of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin who was embarrassed on an official State visit to France in 2002 by his inability to discuss paintings with president Jacques Chirac; no sooner had he returned to China than he promptly organised remedial lessons in modern art with Fang Di’an, now vice president of the Central Academy of Art in Beijing and the commissioner of the Chinese Pavilion at the current Venice Biennale.
The coup de grace to the legacy of the Cultural Revolution was delivered shortly afterwards when the the ruling Communist Party changed its platform at the prompting of President Jiang and his allies: “The Party no longer represents the workers and peasants but the advanced forces of society,” he said. He was referring to entrepreneurs and other groups such as contemporary artists. “There is probably a desire to co-opt these people now,” says Mr Napack.
OK, so stay with me on this. If the Chinese government wants to co-opt its better known artists, it must do so on their terms. AND, it must give them the latitude to make work that will be taken seriously on the world stage. That means, very bluntly, their art must pass the litmus tests of we progressive, leftist, avant garde, artsy-fartsy types. Chinese artists will therefore tend toward the increasingly more progressive and more openly refect the reality of their country, good and bad, on an international stage the government cannot control, in doing so. The first indication that their work is being used to spread state-sponsored propaganda, and the doors to the art world will shut in their faces, and there ain’t sweet f*ck all the Chinese government can do about that.
This makes me nearly giddy. And not just because I want to see China open up. To a large degree, the Chinese government’s desire to be taken seriously on the international cultural stage is not in the hands of the extreme right-wing folks running our government, but rather those who nearly unanimously opposed them in the war, the election, and their current agenda. I don’t expect this to translate into more respect for the arts in the US—heaven forbid Bush’s America should turn away from NASCAR or the lastest Damsel in Distress Drama to think about art—but it’s beautiful to see the power the arts have to change the direction of a country. Especially one as big and oppressive as China.
“They realise that contemporary art does not seriously threaten their authority” Hehehe…
That’s right! Art is not subversive. It’s completely indifferent to human experience, especially so when the experience in question is one of repression, denial of basic human rights and disconnected, authoritarian leadership.
Hehehe…Not subversive at all, no siree…
There’s a pretty big gulf for me between opposing Cultural Revolution and similar repression, and celebrating the fact that the “Party no longer represents workers and peasants.”
Now that it’s official that Chinese workers have no one representing them but themselves… look for open warfare. And look for severe repression of any ‘advanced forces’ who might support them. Not that I expect that to happen. I can’t decide if Andrew’s serious or not, but I don’t have much faith in the subversiveness of art or artists these days.
“Art is nothing more than advanced market research.”
An old artist who spoke to my video art class long ago in the mists of time said that. It’s scary how close to true it is.
“Art is nothing more than advanced market research.”
I love that!
The up side to it though, is that by being advanced, it’s still serving some common good.
“…but it’s beautiful to see the power the arts have to change the direction of a country.”
Um, possibly you’re getting a little ahead of yourself? I understand the obvious reasons for feeling that way, but you seem, on the face of the mere evidence on offer, to be begging the question. When we’ve actually seen the power of arts have such an effect in China, I will certainly join you in celebrating. Mere prediction doesn’t quite get us there. Although possibly I’m missing some facts not stated in the article, but which you have in mind?
It is a very dramatic cultural change when the role of art stops being the voice of the government and becomes instead the voice of the individual. I’m not sure the artists caused the change, however.
When we’ve actually seen the power of arts have such an effect in China, I will certainly join you in celebrating.
Read the article Gary. It might not be obvious to everyone, but these are huge, previously unheard of developments with regard to the art market.
“It might not be obvious to everyone, but these are huge, previously unheard of developments with regard to the art market.”
What you said in the first place: “…but it’s beautiful to see the power the arts have to change the direction of a country.”
Edward, perhaps I’m not keeping my eye on the prize, but I consider what’s worth changing in the “direction of a country” would be things like human rights, a just legal system, fair democratic elections, and a lack of interest in threating reunification through force.
I realize you’re in the art business, but I find news of changes only in the art business in China as interesting as news of changes in their tiddly-winks business, until either one has some greatly larger effect. Neither has yet to have a significant effect on the “direction of [the] country,” has it? Or did I miss something? This was my point. To repeat: “When we’ve actually seen the power of arts have such an effect in China, I will certainly join you in celebrating.”
No offense intended to anyone in the art market; I don’t fault the art market for not having a powerful effect on democracy or human rights in China; nor do I fault you for being pleased that the art business there is becoming a bit more integrated with the rest of the world’s; I simply don’t equate the importance of what gallery is showing what or what the price of a work in Hong Kong is with, say, allowing legal unions in factories, or having decent environmental laws, or allowing legitimate national elections, or having an independent court system; I assume you don’t actually disagree, and may have merely been getting a bit understandably enthusiatic with your words.
Gary, I believe this will result in progressive goals being more widely discussed in their country by this. Opening up the dialog is step one. The government cannot both keep the artists under their thumbs and ensure they get a place at the international art table. They’ll have to censor the artwork for the home audience, which is possible, but even that will then become an embarassment, as their goal is to be proud of the accomplishments of their artists, and they won’t reach that without letting them speak freely.
Edward_
I’m curious if you see the notion of art markets driving/indicating civic freedom as something that has been going on throughout history or if there is something different involved. I want to draw connections to things like the notion of patronage and linkages to specific schools/movements and the like, but my art knowledge is dilettante-ish in the extreme. You also seem to suggest that drive for international acceptance will force a good outcome, (which may be possible and I’m certainly hoping for this as well), and I wonder if you have other examples that parallel this.
Edward: this is a cool post. Thanks.