The Search for Common Sense in 21st Century Art

Politics already occupies too great a portion of reportage and opinion columns. Art, on the other hand, has always been relegated to newspaper "supplements." One friend, a culture and arts reporter, often complains to me of being unable to find any "art news," since the mayor writes no white papers on culture and there are never any photo ops of the President at art festivals.

Beginning in the mid-19th century, the ranks of British bureaucrats, charged with "looking after" art in the sense that they were responsible for issuing licenses, assessing taxes, regulation, and offering various incentives and support, expanded at all levels. The inflation of this complex system inexplicably subverted the "artistic common sense" of the 18th century, to borrow a term from Dr. Johnson (1709-1784). In the previous century, common sense about art allowed for discussion of the latest plays, novels, and paintings in pubs and cafes as deliberation about the arts again became fodder for public debate. Art did not exist to satisfy the perceived needs of the bureaucrats, but was a part of British lives, growing with the public's needs. In contrast, in the world of modern art an arts event that becomes the focus of bureaucratic activity and the national political scene is often the only kind of event that can get off the ground.

In order to reduce fiscal expenditures, reduce climbing unemployment rates, and create job opportunities, in the 1980s the British government began encouraging artists and architects to devote themselves to "public art." Meanwhile, the government also looked to private industry to make a contribution to society by sponsoring "public art", whereupon the government and private sector began "investing" in works of art associated with public spaces. This stimulated the growth of arts groups, and successfully lifted the burden for subsidizing the arts from the British government and onto the shoulders of private industry. Looking at the participants in the movement, most were architects with the dual status of artists. The long-term sluggishness of the construction industry triggered the emergence of a crop of public art "pioneers" in towns and cities all over the UK.

According to a 1992 survey by Westminster University, most local governments had no confidence in the public art they were ostensibly promoting, instead concerning themselves merely with what connections, if any, the functions and qualities of art had with culture and economics—excellent indices for gaining funds. What is more, the nebulous definition of "public art" reflected the general lack of "common sense" at the time throughout England's cultural agencies. Art critic Peter Dormer noted that, unable to attract public interest and capture imaginations, most public art failures could not even measure up to the achievements of a 45-second television commercial. The lack of consensus reached its apex with intense public criticism and provocation.

In contrast, an examination of Taiwan's version of a public art movement in the 1990s reveals that it failed to elicit tangible support from private industry, neither contributing to the alleviation of budgetary pressure on the government, nor creating a stage for artists, architects or citizens at large. Rather, it created opportunities for exhibition curators and government officials to demonstrate their "beneficence" toward the arts environment. The continuation and development of this general community construction, in conjunction with the methods of "public art," clearly demonstrated that art itself was still nonexistent, and that all that existed were policies and strategies for art.

It was not just the central government that invested so ardently in the arts; local governments naively assumed that when art was transplanted to various depressed sectors it could attract tourism and subsequently create job opportunities. Even words to the effect that the arts could fire up local industry recovery were frequently heard during televised election campaign events, once again showing the misplaced confidence of bureaucrats.

Of late, various scholar-officials have devoted their efforts to the creation of a ministry or bureau of culture in Taiwan. Yet the concept of bureaucrats of the arts in each town and city is frighteningly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's cultural collectivism. For instance, Hitler's Third Reich included 8000 local arts officials who, like those in other authoritarian governments, engineered assorted five-year and four-year development plans, including the setting of cultural targets.

As common citizens we are naturally pleased to see government support of arts activities, yet at the same time we must be aware that governments are as a rule motivated by the urge to look good by eliciting international recognition for their own country's fine cultural taste. One such example is England, which despite owing the United States billions of pounds in the aftermath of the Second World War decided to hold a national arts festival, centered on the unveiling of the Royal Festival Hall. And while this facility helped stimulate temporary prosperity, it has remained a money-losing investment. Seoul, Korea is a city similar to Taipei in many respects. The South Korean government, ignoring its bankruptcy, resolved to build an additional international arts center in Seoul as part of its showcase for the 1988 Olympic Games.

I believe that the greatest tragedy of government spending towards integrating arts organizations is the inadequacy of the cultural administration personnel structure caused by the vacuum in cultural management and organizational structure over the years. Further, today Taiwan's arts environment must confront the challenges of competition from other new recreational forms such as Internet games, and theme parks, which is why the arts community must abide by the "challenge of accountability" described by Peter Drucker. In other words, artists must be accountable for all that they do, planning thoroughly, listening openly to their audience, and continuing to create without interruption—not waiting around for others to respond, or for the government structure to improve and company stock prices to rise.

Our fears are about to come true in Taiwan, as the overriding notion that the formulation of arts policy must place priority on government financial support gains ground. This is in fact the most inefficient, if not dangerous, kind of approach. Often, such policies merely outline sums or guidelines for money allotted, while the public's needs, the substance and content of art presentations, and quality of facilities and equipment are overlooked or contested.

Most disheartening of all is the thematic disorder shared by formulaic arts policies. These policies avoid interpretation of the real importance of art. Their limited knowledge about arts in their own community contrasts with their expertise in the existing bureaucratic structure. An aboriginal sculptor who creates products for the tourism market will soon be forced to give up his tribe's carving spoon or the honor of using a primitive spear while hunting. And while the "commodities" on display in the duty free shop of an international airport can be exchanged for money, they cannot bring back lost culture. The scope of art events is also often exaggerated, as policies are ludicrously inflated to serve claims that art can cure certain illnesses, salve social tensions, or promote economic prosperity, and that it can transport people to higher glory. However, as we witness the methods employed to achieve these lofty goals—the meager funding, inadequate venues, temporary facilities—perhaps we should become alert to how the "policies" proposed by various political parties can accomplish the lofty aims they claim to achieve.

First Published in The Newsletter of National Open University, Vol. 86,
January 2000 © Yupin Chung

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior permission of the author. Queries may be made to : clc.worldculture@yahoo.co.uk

Ping Tan Tales 评弹传说

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


Auf die andere Seite, wo die Menschen über Kopf, durch die Weltkugel, viel früher. Viel später. Eine Reise machen. Pflaumenblüte und Kai Li. Boomtownklötze staunen und hinesischen Papierdrachen kraulen, der ist aber immer im Sprung. In Brandenburg soll dafür ein Chinatown gebaut werden. Jeweils leidenschaftlich begutachtete allerfernste Daseinsform in Einkaufspassagen, die sind manchmal noch fast wie wir, dahinter aber geht es immer viel höher und weiter, ins weiße Fade mit Schriftzeichen an Hochhauslandschaften und dann fahre ich immer noch, und da ist immer noch Stadt und dann ist da aber noch etwas ganz anderes. Keiner soll schlafen aussteigen was auch immer. Ich nicht. Aber diese Kulturrevolution muß doch einen Sinn machen, fragen die Darsteller in Godards La Chinoise mit sehnsuchts-angst- vollem Blick nach Osten. Mit Ping Tan wird dafür viel früher die Soap vorweggenommen. Ohne Blick nach Westen. Schneller sein. Wie kann man leben.
*
Architektur als Symptom, die ist aber eine Kulisse. Gartenlandschaft und Überlebens- strategien. Gegenwechselseitige Projektions- und Kopiermeisterschaften.
*
Aus Recherchereisen über und durch Peking, Suzhou, Shanghai, Qingtao und westliche Randphänome entsteht eine Theaterinstallation eines chinesisch-deutschen Ensembles.

去另一边， 横穿地球，人就站在了头上。那里什么都早得多、晚得多。进行一次旅行。李花和凯丽。惊奇地看着中国的新兴都市街区，轻挠纸鸢，但是它总是匆匆忙忙的。在德国勃兰登堡那里，一个中国城将拔地而起。双方都在热切地勘察着这个遥远购物中心里的生存方式。有时候他们和我们都差不多一样。但是在这背后一切总是上升得更高远，一直到那些泛着淡白的，以汉字命名的高楼风景中。我还在火车上，外面无边无际的城市景象,而且还有着另外的一些什么。没有人睡觉、下车或做着任何的事情。我绝对不。在戈达尔《中国姑娘》电影里, 那个文化大革命应该是有道理的。去问电影里的演员们，那些对东方怀着渴望和恐惧的人们。而评弹却像早已先行的肥皂剧。目光不是向西方看过来的。更快一些。我们会活得怎么样？
*
建筑作为一种征兆，这种建筑风格就像舞台侧幕。花园与存活战略。互相复制与投射竞赛。
*
旅行和调查北京、苏州、上海、青岛以及那些西方无关紧要的话题，筑成了“评弹传说”，一种中德剧团的戏剧装置。(翻译: 歌安娅 Anja Goette)
*
中德合作的当代剧场作品“评弹传说”，将于四月三日在柏林的 Sophiensaele 进行全球首演。

联系: Julia Schreiner
schreiner.julia@gmx.de

Creative China? 有原创吗?

CREATIVE CHINA:
Visual Culture,
Architecture and Design
International Conference
6–7 June 2008

10.00-17.00

*

A two-day international conference, organised in association with King’s College London, exploring current developments in Chinese visual culture, design and urbanism in relation to rapid economic development and social change.

*

*

*

The conference will feature a range of presentations by leading academics and professional experts from China, Europe and the UK. Looking at fine art, photography and film as well as graphic design, fashion, product design, architecture and urban planning, a series of panel discussions will further explore themes highlighted in the China Design Now exhibition, including changing cultural identities and emerging new practices in art and design.

Speakers

Bao Mingxin, Fashion, Art & Design Department, Donghua University, Shanghai
Stefan Landsberger, Sinological Institute, University of Leiden
Ou Ning, Designer, Filmmaker and Curator
Hans Ulrich Obrist, Director of International Projects, Serpentine Gallery
Zhang Hongxing, Co-Curator, China Design Now
Neville Mars, Dynamic City Foundation, Beijing
Xiaolu Guo, Writer and Filmmaker
Sir Michael Bichard, Chairman, Design Council
Freeman Lau, President, Hong Kong Design Centre
Gao Shiming, Director, Centre of Visual Culture Research, China Academy of Art
Charles Knevitt, Director, RIBA Trust
Jiang Jun, Editor-in-Chief, Urban China Magazine, Shanghai

£110 for 2 days, £55 for 1 day, Concessions available
To book, email bookings.office@vam.ac.uk or call 020 7942 2211

Victoria and Albert Museum
Tube South Kensington
Buses C1, 14, 414 and 74
http://www.vam.ac.uk/

Image: Preference, front cover artwork for Vision Magazine,
February 2004 © Chen Man

福州也有 奥斯卡“小金人”

“2009 年美国第81届奥斯卡金像奖颁奖典礼上, 将采用我提供的‘小金人’! ” 中国美术学院教授王鸿说。 转载自[东南快报] 王进报导
Here is a link !

The Golden Trophy

[SOUTHEAST EXPRESS, 1 April 2008] It is announced, “the Academy statuettes” that will be awarded at the 81st Oscar Annual Academy ceremony in 2009 are designed and sculpted by Chinese artist Wang Hong, a professor from China Academy of Art, has signed a long-term agreement with Mr. Thomas Jacobi from Oscar committee to design and produce “the golden trophy” in Fuzhou, China.

The agreement formulates the producing procedures and quantity, the new technique to produce “the golden trophy” in particular. Different from the old technique, the new “golden trophies” will not be cast by alloy with one colour, instead, Chinese artist will adopt Fuzhou traditional lacquer techniques to make it more colourful. Different colors statuette signifies different branches of the Academy.

Professor Wang points out, this is an important symbol that Chinese traditional hand cast techniques are adopted in the modern art. From the aesthetic perspective, he proposed to adopt the Chinese traditional lotus base to replace the current over-simplified statuette base. This proposal was approved by the Oscar committee, who think the new design makes the statuette look more beautiful. Apart from this, the new design conveys the merge of eastern and western culture as well as Oscar’s cultural tolerance.

Wang Hong said, the first batch of “golden trophies’’ are being produced at a hundred-year-old traditional studio in Fuzhou, the capital city of Fujian Province in southern China.

The officer from Fuzhou municipal government and other Chinese artists express their great interests and attentions to this cooperation agreement. They said it is a good opportunity to further develop local traditional handcrafts and create some famous brands in the name of “Chinese hand-made” in the context of modern life and multi-culture.

Wang Hong smilingly said, “it is not just a dream....Ah, Happy April Fools' Day!”