Even “socialism with special characteristics” has its downside, and according to Hu Jintao, in an address to his comrades at the CPC’s 22nd “collective study” session on the 23rd of July, that downside is threefold, a triumvirate of debased culture: san su. The result is the “anti-vulgarity” (反三俗) campaign.

Urging politburo members to promote “the development and glory of socialist culture,” Hu launched a fight against vulgar (庸俗), cheap (低俗) and tasteless (媚俗) cultural content. These have various interpretation in the English press, although I prefer philistine (庸俗),  tasteless (低俗) and kitsch (媚俗).

The cause of debased culture seems to be money worship, and is framed as a negative result of China’s move to a market economy. The BBC has some coverage here. Some television dating programs accused of propagating “debased” culture were already taken off the air, and the immense popularity of the TV serial remake of “Dream of the Red Chamber,”  which showed near naked ladies in their boudoir fanned the flames. The 18th Century novel, although written in the vernacular, and was certainly not literati reading material, is definitely sacred territory in the Chinese cultural heritage department (can’t wait for the boxed set).

On August Culture Minister Cai Wu addressed the “vulgarity” in the cultural sector, with a “Confucian classics-thumping” fury not unlike conservative traditionalists of a century ago: “We produce some 400 movies and hundreds of TV drama programs each year, but how many of them will be recognized as classics?”

And further, “In today’s world, a country’s culture and economy are inseparable. A government must pay more attention to culture and originality if it wants to improve the quality of economic development.” (source China Daily)

Some are saying that all this moral crusading is leading up to a new cultural revolution. Although that seems like a steep accusation,  its clear that “Cultural Sector Reforms” are approaching (see the official break down on Xinhua here), and will first be reflected in mass media outlets like television and magazine publishing.

But what does this mean for contemporary art? Well, Liang Shuo should watch his back. The artist’s “kitsch” aesthetic seemed constantly under attack from Chinese critics who feel his work is merely performing a “Chineseness” to foreign audiences. (Pauline Yao has a review of his recent show here on eFlux) But I somehow feel my favorite brand of “red kitsch” isn’t in danger at all…

(more…)

In honor of Evan Osnos’s “Pardon Me, Would You Have Any Pabst Blue Ribbon?” post in the New Yorker blog, I dug up this carefully preserved, very old photo of PBR “兰带” bottled water.

Perhaps it is the ideal thirst quencher for those hipsters smoldering in the Beijing heat this week…

英国的左派文化批评者特里·伊格尔顿（Terry Eagleton） 评论著名后殖民理论家佳亚特里·斯皮瓦克 （Gayatri Spivak）的新书《在俗丽的超市里》时，描述了后殖民话语的特征：“在某处，一定存在着给一本后殖民批评家准备的手册，里面的第一条是“以拒绝后殖民主义的整体概念为开始。”

如果这就是真相的话，高士明在开始他的后殖民批评家之路时，则选择了一个很正确的方向。在2008年，高士明担任第三届广州三年展的 “与后殖民说再见”的总策展人，本文中，我将探讨他在该展览的画册中所撰写的策划人文章：《“后殖民之后”的观察和预感》。

全球化的困扰

作为大展背后的观念和理论的先行本，三年展的重要文章之一《读本一》，本人将对高士明与许江合编的文章《‘全球概念’与中国当代艺术的境遇——写在卡塞尔文献展艺术策划人访华之际》（2000）进行概述 。此文已在不同杂志发表过多次，并且在网络上广泛传播。    上述文章认为，后殖民主义并不适用于中国，中国的艺术家需要在多文化的平台上展示出自身的创造力。二人的争论围绕了2000年第十一届卡塞尔文献展艺术总监奥奎（Okwui Enwezor）和六位国际知名艺术批评家、策划人杭州的杭州之行进行了讨论。他们第一站是中国美术学院，第一天的讨论会上，他们就问道：“西方意味着什么？”

杭州的学者原本希望奥奎等人会问到中国本土的艺术状态，但恰恰相反的是，他们好像只对中国本土文化作为西方文化的反射镜而感兴趣。当被迫地被推到了后殖民主义的话语中后，作者二人开始在文章里进行解构，对后殖民理论的建立在中国为什么无效的说法进行阐述。

首先，他们认为中国与有过殖民历史的国家是不同的，中国艺术家经历的是一种“非西方的西方化”，这点与其他后殖民国家的“反西方的西化”有所不同，中国从一开始对西方的接纳是积极的，自愿的，这一过程是“以反省本民族文化为目的”的。第二，与后殖民国家的“防御的现代性”不同的是，中国的现代性是“反思着的现代性”，其本质是为了本土文化进行深刻批判与再认识。

西方的“全球化”概念与艺术界对身份的认同和对独特性、本土性、差异性的重视不一定是本土艺术界所关心的话题，但是这些因素引起了西方艺术界对“身份”、“他者”以及多文化主义的讨论。 策展小组从来没有提出最相关的问题：后殖民的话语究竟是否适用于中国的文化语境？ (more…)

“Observations on and Predictions for ‘After Postcolonialism’” was a Gao Shiming’s curatorial essay printed in the catalog for the 2008 Third Guangzhou Triennial. It collects and builds upon the rejection of Postcolonial interpretive strategies that was put forth in Xu Jiang and Gao Shiming’s “Globalization,” (see a post on that article here) and provides the framework for Gao’s curatorial strategies in the 3rd Guangzhou Triennial. Almost an decade lies between the first article, and this consequent official “farewell” to Postcolonialism, or what is perceived as Postcolonialism as a factor influencing the production of art. How has a prominent critical discourse in the West, likewise a broad field that might be effectively put to work in China, come to be rejected here? Perhaps more importantly, what comes next?

Key Concepts: Globalization, Postcolonialism, Westernization
Key words: “After Postcolonialism,” “two-fold colonization,” “Self-Othering”

概念：全球化、后殖民主义、西化
关键词：“后殖民之后”、“双重殖民”、“自我他者化”

Anticipating the flurry of discussion surrounding the provacative exhibition title (“Farewell to Postcolonialism”), Gao rounds up a few key criticisms of his thesis in the introduction to his article: with no former colonization to speak of, why do the Chinese even need to bid farewell to postcolonialism? (From the Chinese side.) He nods to “multiculturalists,” who find the notion politically incorrect, reeking of a return to new forms of colonialism (with the colonizers being the Chinese), or who see the notion of rejecting Postcolonialism as a the rise of new forms of cultural superiority.

But Gao has no interest in debating Postcolonial theory or politics. His purpose here is to express his personal dissatisfaction with the politicization of art and the evident harm that this process (understand to be a by-product of Postcolonial) has done to art.

In his first footnote, Gao expounds on some interesting thoughts about “colonization” in China, stating that she has undergone a “two-fold colonization” (shuangchong zhimin): Westernization and then Anti-Westernization; a technological and then utopian colonization. “Social experiments eliminated “traditional” China, and the experience of the Cultural Revolution left deeper scars on the collective Chinese psychology than colonial memories ever could.” Thus, “Art in the 1980s was unrelated to the so-called Postcolonial experience, the Chinese were rising against the social system and the ‘new traditions’” created in this unique context that had been formulating over the past few decades.

To Gao, Postcolonial is a discourse that is available to everyone, but China’s local discourse is not based in a “Postcolonial reality” and neither does she have a historical experience with colonialism. (He says that China’s 20th century discourse is based in the battle of East-West cultures.) China is familiar with Postcolonialism through experiencing it as a framework, an ideology.

Postcolonialism in the visual arts is a “system for viewing” art (guankan zhidu), and it has its drawbacks: “As a mechanism, it is like a net, only catching that which it is able and willing to catch. Sometimes, it transforms into a productive mechanism, penetrating into the artist’s thoughts.” Later Gao states that his curatorial impetus is to collect the things that fall between the holes in the Postcolonial net, and outside of this “system for viewing.”

Here, in his second footnote, Gao makes some more important points: “China’s 20th Century context is the clash of Eastern and Western cultures. In the beginning of the 20th Century, Chinese intellectuals intermingled various “self-othering” terms into cultural discussions, such as Guocui, and New Confucianism. He asserts that  Mao’s “Theory of New Democracy” was extremely similar to Postcolonialism, which he equivocates as the theory of postcolonialism in actual terms as being present in mainstream China much earlier than in the West.

And why should Chinese artists care about Postcolonialism? In a global context––doesn’t matter if you’ve heard of it or not––once an artist participates in any international exhibition, he/she is thrust into this “system for viewing.” To some degree, all artists are caught up in it. (more…)

I’m celebrating this July 4th national day with the “Soldier’s Pocket Guide to China,” published by the US War Department in 1943. (No bbq’s for me, but as American as one can get at S.I.T., I’m enjoying an omelet slathered in ketchup and Tabasco with a cup of joe, black.)

This guide is deftly written, and delightfully full of insight and sympathy for the Chinese, “our gallant ally.” It comes replete with analects of Confucius––characters included––tips on shopping, girls, racial superiority complexes and more, and how much of it still rings true! (Aside from some predictable cartoonish characterizations of Chinese.)

For all of my American friends in China, remember, “Forget your old notions,” you’re on Chinese turf now, and “You are our Ambassador.” Happy Fourth of July!

“The Chinese are like Americans,” they laugh at the same jokes, and the “Chinese have their great men who were born in cabins” (Chiang Kai-shek).

And tips aplenty, on visiting traditional families: “the quieter you are, the better.”

How to eat in a restaurant: “If you want a good meal in a Chinese restaurant, take your buddies with you.”

Shopping: “If you pay what is asked, the shopkeeper will not respect you for it. If you argue him down too much, he will prefer not to sell it to you at all… But above all, keep good humored throughout. In China it is a sign of bad breeding to grow heated over a purchase.”

Learn about the “squeeze” [this isn’t the same “squeeze” as trying to exit the subway, but commission], and the use of “servants… who are smoothers of your way.”  And discover that “Chinese have ways of getting information which has nothing to do with newspapers or organized sources of information.”

“Important things to remember: …By following these suggestions, you will not only avoid difficulties, but you will guarantee your own popularity.”
“…China is the oldest nation in the world and its civilization is in many ways the greatest. As a natural result, the Chinese will not bear any assumption of superiority on the part of a white man because he is white.”
“…Discourage anyone who acts as though the Chinese people are queer. They are not queer.”
“…Try not to lose your temper. You will see plenty of Chinese lose theirs, but they are looked upon as lower class when they do so.”
“…Bear in mind that many refined and well educated Chinese––professors, students, government employees––are today poor and underpaid. … Do not be too quick, therefore, in judging by appearances.”

Images of the introduction below. (more…)

读许江与高士明的《“全 球概念”与中国当代艺术的境遇——写在卡塞尔文献展艺术策划人访华之际》 的一些感受

The following are some thoughts and some translations while reading Xu Jiang and Gao Shiming’s essay, “‘Globalization’ and Chinese Contemporary Art” (The Chinese title translates more literally as “the notion of Globalization” and the circumstances of Chinese contemporary art.”) I hope to outline the framework of their argument. This text was first published in 2000, and reprinted in the 2008 Third Guangzhou Triennial “Farewell to Post-Colonialism” reader No. 1 (读本一), a Chinese version can be found on the exhibition’s homepage. This text has been circulated widely on the Internet, and the question is, is this a work of “criticism,” or a manifesto of sorts?

Authors Gao Shiming was a curator of the Third Guangzhou Triennial: Farewell to Post-Colonialism” (2008) and is currently on the curatorial team of the 2010 Shanghai Biennial, “Rehearsal.” Xu Jiang is the Dean of the China National Academy of Fine Arts, and one very lively orator.

关键观念：全球化、后殖民主义、 身份、文化多元化、文化他者、“中国性”、“西化”关键词：非西方的西方化，反思着的现代性，沉默的声 音

Key Concepts: Globalization, modernization, Westernization, Post-Colonialism, Multicultural, Identity, Cultural Other, Chineseness.

Key Words: non-Western Westernization, introspective modernity, silent voices

For the sake of brevity, Postcolonalism has been abbreviated to Po Co. The general idea is that Po Co is not applicable in China, and Chinese artists need to creatively assert themselves on a multicultural stage.

“Globalization has caused the West to introspectively reflect on its modernity, especially the various universalisms that this includes.”

“But, amidst the multiculturalism promoted by ‘globalization,’ the strategic misinterpretation and use of Po Co cultural theory to interpret and Chinese contemporary culture and art still exists.”

“Chinese art is facing fortunate opportunities for development like never before, and is likewise experiencing cultural circumstances both of unprecedented complexity and full of paradoxes. In view of the present world’s cultural pluralism, Chinese artists must devote themselves to establishing a new Chinese art rich in imagination and creativity, and not the characteristic monotony of a cultural other.”

So Po Co theory is not applicable in China ( a sentiment that I’ve heard echoed from some students at CAFA, who have said, “why should we apply foreign theories to what’s happening in China?”), and likewise Chinese artists need to make new art that defines them on a multicultural stage.

My reading of this statement sees art creation endowed with a mission to promote a “new Chinese art,” one free from the Western gaze, or free from the “West” as a determinant factor in establishing cultural value. This argument is not new, but here is placed within a framework of Po Co theory and globalization. One valid question that arises is whether or not the same terminology in translation is being interpreted or understood in the same ways across contexts. Po Co as an interpretive model has been looked upon with suspicion in Chinese academia, I believe that it falls outside what ever may be called the mainstream of critical literature, film, and cultural studies in China.

Their argument centers around Okwui Enwezor and the arrival of the Documenta 11 curatorial team in China, a now China-art-world-legendary encounter. Their first stop was the Hangzhou China Academy of Art, where they met with authors Xu Jiang and Gao Shiming, among others. Their question to them was: “What is the West?” The authors are shocked and seem insulted that upon arriving in China, their first question is West-centric (and we assume he should have asked what is ‘China’?) (more…)

No, this is not a Chinese equivalent to Twilight. This is Komi, an “Uber-Internet Beauty” 网络超强美女. In case you weren’t aware, big, round eyes, with their giant irises and enormous pupils glinting with anime shine, white skin, pointy almond chin, and pursed rosebud lips are ke’ai, cute. They are cute that has crossed to the other side. Thus,  the “Post 90s” generation strikes fear in me. And Komi’s photos caught my eye in the sidebar of some Chinese web portal, a bizarre consequence of the social/technology machine driving self-photography. What were the many stages of production that created this photo, what contributes to the collective failure in recognizing the disturbing nature of this image? (more…)

Deferring comment on the works themselves, and not knowing enough about the context in which they arrived in China’s most prominent arts district, I’d rather tell you about my joyous discovery of other art within––DPRK stamps! While “Korean jewel painting” and the realist ink and wash landscapes depicting craggy mountains might not appeal to Western tastes, I don’t know who could resist the wonderfully rendered ratus norvegicous found on the pleasingly designed “Rodents” sheet of stamps.

Amidst political themes fawning on the P.R.C. (a plethora of stamps depict Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and more recent visits by the “dear Leader” to China), there was also a fascinating visual interpretation of the “History of the Earth” in which the planet swells like a bubble, and a equally reality-bending 1997 skyline view of Hong Kong, surely a commemoration of her return to Chinese rule. Mushrooms and alpine life sit high on the list of muses for DPRK philatelic society artists, and in the small books for sale inside the museum (13-31RMB), you can find their issue date in both the Western calendar, and in the Juche year (0 = 1912, the year of Kim Il-sung’s birth).

2008 主编《’85美术运动》“The ’85 Movement” （上下卷）[Chinese]

高名潞的《’85美术运动》全面透视并呈现了中国当代艺术史上最令人激动、最富乌托邦色彩、最具青年造反气质，又最为广泛生发的 艺术运动。全书分两 卷：上卷“80年代的人文前卫”是高名潞与周彦、舒群、王小箭、王明贤、童滇等人所著《中国当代美术史：1985—1986》（上海人民，1991）的修 订版。下卷“历史资料汇编”则是高名潞将’85美术运动的原始资料按照时间和理念结构整理编辑而成的一部资料集。上下两卷逾千页，文字与图像交相辉映，浩 繁卷帙映衬出历史的重量。
　　高名潞是’85美术运动的积极参与者与理论旗手，他以“85”为美术新潮命名，意在呼应20世纪初的“五四”新文化运动。 因此，’85美术运动不仅仅是一次当代艺术运动，更是一次思想运动，文化运动。在高名潞看来，’85美术运动的成就不在造就出了哪几位大师，而在这个潮流 之发生发展的活生生的过程。

从编撰时间来看，上下两卷相隔近二十年。在亲历者的书写与历史家的回溯之间，一以贯之的是高名潞的理想主义情怀和平民意 识。理想主义赋予历史家以批判的视角，而平民意识则让历史家的眼光从“大师”转向“艺术平民”。高名潞强调新潮艺术的“群体”特性，而非代表性人物。所 以，在“历史资料汇编”中，才会保留那么多自今日视点看来无足轻重甚或转瞬即逝的艺术群体与艺术运动。然而，这便是历史的实况。“我们不以其泯灭而遗憾， 亦不以记录泯灭者而自愧自惭。”高名潞在80年代末写下的这番话，依然宣示着他二十年后的信念。
　　这套《’85美术运动》的出版，接踵于尤伦斯85新 潮艺术展和有关星星画会的“原点”展之后，其价值却超迈其上。艺术史家巫鸿评价说：这部著作丰富的原始资料将为未来的历史研究奠定根基。艺术家徐冰则认 为，这部书体现和倡导了一种我们逐渐失去的、真正的、作为中国知识分子的很完整的态度。

目录：
‘85美术运动 VOL 01

修订版序
高名潞
　初版序 高名潞
导论 作为一般历史学的当代美术史
第一节 历史的意义
第二节 历史学的标准
第一章 新时期美术概观(1976—1984)
第一节 人的觉醒
第二节 艺术——“真、善、美”的复归
第三节 “文革”后的理论批评(1979—1984)
第四节 一个创作时代的终结——“反精神污染”和“第六届全国美展”

第二章 面对’85前卫思潮的冲击：80年代的学院艺术和传统艺术
第一节 从“唯美”到“新学院主义”
第二节 观念更新：学院中的新一代艺术家
第三节 “中国画已到了穷途末日的时候”——李小山的《我见》
第四节 中国画的现代转型？
第五节 传统的应战

第三章 理性之潮
第一节 人文理性、本体理性和思维理性
第二节 北方艺术群体
第三节 从“江苏大型现代艺术展”到“红色·旅”
第四节 “’85新空间”展览与“池社”
第五节 非群体性的上海美术角
第六节 浙江“红黑白展览”与“红色幽默”
第七节 谷文达等个体美术家
第八节 其他具有理性倾向的群体

第四章 生命之流
第一节 生命本体、自然意识与宗教情感
第二节 从“云南、上海新具像”到“西南艺术研究群体”
第三节 “十一月画展”和京津新潮美术
第四节 江苏“新野性画派”、“徐州现代艺术展”及深圳“零展”
第五节 西北的群体与画家
第六节 西南的群体与画家
第七节 中原与各地的群体和画家

第五章 超越与回归——后’85的新潮美术
第一节 珠海会议——对’85美术运动的第一次检阅
第二节 “厦门达达”系列艺术活动
第三节 行为参与和作为文化活动的艺术
第四节 湖南“0艺术集团”与“湖南青年美术家集群展”
第五节 湖北青年美术节

第六章 80年代的建筑思潮
第一节 中国建筑的现代性理想
第二节 现代环境艺术观念的兴起
第三节后现代主义在中国
第四节 建筑民族形式的光环

第七章 现代美术与文化
第一节 中国现代美术运动之景观
第二节 新文化价值与现代中国美术的历史回顾
第三节 中国现代美术运动与新文化价值
第四节 文化选择与语言形态
第五节 80年代的美术报刊
中国当代美术编年纪事：1977—1 989
外国人译名对照表
初版跋
初版编后记

‘85美术运动 VOL 02

序 高名潞
第一章 “文革”后自发的画会和展览
新春画会
无名画会
星星画会
十二人画展
北京油画研究会

第二章 ’85美术运动的总结和检阅
全国油画艺术讨论会
’85青年美术思潮大型幻灯展暨学术研讨会(珠海会议)

第三章 理性之潮
北方艺术群体
江苏青年艺术周与“红色·旅”
“’85新空间”与“池社”
非群体的上海美术
吴山专与“红色幽默”
谷文达及其他个体艺术家
其他具有理性倾向的群体

第四章 生命之流
“新具像”到“西南艺术研究群体”
“十一月画展”与京津新潮艺术
“新野性主义”画派和“南京人”
徐州现代艺术展
深 圳“零展”
西北的群体
西南其他群体
中原各地的群体
湖南群体
湖北群体

第五章 观念与行为及“反艺术”活动
厦门达达
行为、观念和“反艺术”活动

第六章 《当代新潮美术》电视专题片剧本

(more…)