Spectacle:To Each His Own

DURATION: 2009-02-14 ~ 2009-04-12
OPENING: 2009-02-14
VENUE: museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei

Spectacle: To Each His Own Curator:Gu Zhenqing 1. In the 1980s, artists who came out from the training regime and arena of the communist ideologies lacked anything but collectivism. Collective memory, collective consciousness, and collective spirit unavoidably dominated artists’ individual expression or even covered up the existence of their individual selves. The most extreme examples were the Young British Artists (YBA) overseas and the contemporary art in China. The shaping of the collective concepts imbedded in these two circles actually contributed to their explosiveness that made them stand out and to the increased levels of attention paid to them globally. Since the 1990s, there have been a number of international exhibitions that built on or made use of these two concepts, which has itself become a hotspot in art in the world. But the key is, among the blurred contours of the groups of artists governed by the collective concepts, how many of them have a unique and recognizable face? Can they replace or offset the traditional and out-of-date art collectivism with their unique individuality? Until now, the phrase YBA has already been replaced by names of individual artists, such as Damien Hirst, Marc Quinn, Tracey Emin, Douglas Gordon, Sam Taylor-Wood, and Jake & Dinos Chapman. This group of artists eventually broke up into individual ones that have shone on their own. And what happened to China’s contemporary art? From the young artist groups that gained fame following the 1985’s New Wave, 1989’s political pop art, cynical realism, and “gorgeously vulgar art,” to the “international biennale syndrome,” the cartoon generation, Chinese artists have immersed themselves in the conceptual labyrinth of China’s contemporary art and actually become more and more mature along the way. This has been demonstrated by one art movement after another and the recurrent baptism of new art trends. What is rarely seen over the years, however, is the trace of the shaping of artists’ individual style and the continuous innovation of their personalized use of language. What is even rarer is aesthetic logic and endless creativity behind these individual artists. Since the 1990s, “China fever” that has continued to gain ground in America and Europe seems to have given birth to new art momentum and values. The bursting of China’s contemporary art market in 2008 seems to prove that myths are destroyed within myths themselves. From over-reliance on textbooks in education, to the adherence to traditional practices in implementation, Chinese artists, who have realized the double predicament of “difficult to know and difficult to do,” have still chosen to take comfort by sticking to tradition in style, methodology and concept – an extension of the old habits once prevalent in the collectivistic past. The “China cards” have been used up, and everything has to be “reshuffled.” Chinese should participate in the “smart poker game.” And by “reshuffling” itself once again, China may experience another “perceptual shock.” China’s contemporary art, after waves of “collective crises,” is continuing its path on internal integration. Having a collective spirit is like having an octopus govern its system, an octopus that not only governs but integrates the rebellious passion and imagination of the young and the younger artists. It must be said that China’s contemporary art is a product of its 30 years of reform and opening up. But having “China” as its attribute, China’s contemporary art seems to be different from today’s contemporary art that embraces cultural universality. Through the lenses of Europeans and Americans, “China” is a label that highlights the uniqueness of contemporary art in modern-day China. But it also implies the demonization of China’s art as a whole. For example, between 2005 and 2008, when “China fever” was at play in Europe and America, China’s contemporary art, in the eyes of Europeans and Americans, implied a market bubble, an investment target, and a fake and outdated “innovative” culture. China’s contemporary art became a code name for its collectivism, arousing the outside world’s complex cultural anxiety toward China’s status, geopolitics, ideology, and exoticism. Amid such collective allegations, the faces of China’s individual artists became blurred, making it difficult for them to demonstrate their individual style and charisma. So, by simply omitting “China” from “China’s contemporary art,” which is itself an old label of self belittling and self marginalization, can the “collective consciousness” and the “collective spirit” that are prevalent among China’s artists be gotten rid of? Can this act serve to liberalize the artists in the developing countries who have made so many efforts to stay connected with the American and European art circles? Or will this lead to another detrimental herding effect? Or in today’s China where the language and style of the artists have become more and more individualistic, and if the “China model” is an irreplaceable experience, then what does the accumulated experience of the contemporary art in other developing countries represent? Does it represent a kind of universality, or a kind of restraint? 2. Following the inception of contemporary art in the beginning of the 20th century, Europe for a long time kept the authority to speak first. After the Second World War, with decades of relentless efforts, America finally built the City of New York into an international center for contemporary art during the 1960s and 70s. With such an establishment, America, along with Europe, controlled the mainstream language and values of contemporary art. Entering into the 21st century, as Asia, Latin American, and Africa emerged as new powers in art, the authority to have the final say in contemporary art unavoidably faced another shake-up. In 2008, the world was struck by a global financial crisis, paving the way for the biggest change for contemporary art since the end of the Second World War. The superficial outcome following the end of the Cold War in 1989 was the triumph of the long-standing Western capitalism over Eastern socialism. But such a victory was just an illusion. And the unipolar world that was dominated by America was just a temporary scene. The 911 attack and the financial crisis were unprecedented, and the collapse of the absolute hegemony of America seemed unavoidable. And along the way, it is evident that Europe and America have gradually lost their authority to have the final say, and at the moment, China, India, Russia, and other major emerging powers all look like possible contenders for the control of the “cultural speech right” in the world. The Cold War ended in as early as 1989. But the real end to the conflicts between the Cold War’s two camps should be 2009, when both Europe and America find themselves in deep trouble. Eventually, the legacy of the Cold War will be gone. Since 1990, the status as the world’s leading art center of New York City has been challenged by London, Berlin, and Beijing, and it is now moving closer to its demise. Year 2009 can be seen as the end of an old age and the beginning of a new one. The appearance of distinguished artists bring with them transcendent changes. Contemporary art masters like Marcel Duchamp, Joseph Beuys, Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst often change existing art standards and rules, break old art concepts and create new artistic expressions and forms with their art. Their art are the engines that propel culture forward. They view themselves as indicators, and look at their own art as a watershed of change. Take Andy Warhol’s pop art for example: Andy Warhol used the power of American consumer culture to make pop art the center of focus for the media and society through mass copying the images of famous people and popular products, thus transforming American art. After World War II, contemporary art was completely transformed in the US. Before Andy Warhol, American contemporary art had a “colored” label on it, and it was afraid it would be left behind by the “original” European contemporary art. But with the rise in its political and economic status, America’s strive for cultural independence and power increased accordingly. In his 1984 work Triumph of the New York School, the American conceptual artist Mark Tansey depicts the fanaticism of the American society for cultural dominance in the 1950’s. In the painting, the artists Jackson Pollock, Arshile Gorky, Barnett Newman, A. Reinhart, Willem De Kooning, Mark Rothko and Robert Rauschenberg all wear with the pride of victors, and the losers depicted in the painting are actually famous artists belonging to the Paris school, such as Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Henri Rousseau, Henri Matisse and others. This style of imagination found in the work was just a type of spiritual victory at that time. During the Cold War, America kept striving for cultural dominance, and its government invested massive amounts of resources and manpower to support abstract expressionism. Many government and private art museums and funds as well as the CIA took part in this endeavor. With the support of US policy, abstract expressionism became a global success. America successfully established its own art tradition, and the concept of “American contemporary art” was accepted by US art societies. However, the truth is that in the 1950’s, American art was at a crossroads. “American contemporary art” was not a part of contemporary art, and it did not even belong to the same league as true contemporary art. The labels of “redneck” “follower” and “uncultured” had not been completely removed, and the center of Western art hand not yet completely moved from Europe to the US. In the 1960’s and 70’s, Andy Warhol and other pop artists created something truly historical in the area of artistic innovation. They completely changed the then Europe-centered contemporary art, and Andy Warhol proclaimed his studio to be the innovation center of global contemporary art. With the engine in place, the mechanism and systems of this new art developed at a rapid pace. When Andy Warhol became the spiritual leader of contemporary art, American society’s passion for art innovation increased dramatically, and the avant-garde trend become very popular in New York. Thus, American art become the core language and mainstream value of the contemporary art world, and from then on contemporary art created in the US ceased being “American contemporary art” and became “contemporary art.” Massive amounts of innovation in art standards, rules and programs and the establishment of a series of artistic hardware and software allowed contemporary art to take root. The US had become the center for global art trends, and the winds of change in the US art world became a barometer for the development of contemporary art in the Western world. Europe still had the La Biennale di Venezia, the Kassel Documenta and other international exhibits, and it still had art masters like Joseph Beuys. But the leadership position in contemporary art had shifted over to the US. The rise of Damien Hirst and the YBA formed a new challenge to the existing order. History repeated itself, and contemporary art became a multi-centered and diversified art form, and it entered the “Damien Hirst” age. The year 2009 gave many developing countries favorable circumstances to develop art. Because of the rapid rise in the cultural competitiveness of China, India, Russia and other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, international contemporary art may go through another big change, one that might be even bigger than the change in the 1960’s and 70’s when the US took over the global art world. The new top-notch artists will become new watersheds of this age, and may bring out more artistic watersheds and completely rewrite the face of contemporary art. 3. Contemporary art has always been expanding the realm of human perception and continually renewing the structure of human self-consciousness. The human self-consciousness can perform acts of self-awakening, self-decision making and self-introspection. However, performing self-renewal and self-action is sometimes hard to achieve. A person’s self-consciousness usually includes aesthetic mindsets, inertial thinking and path dependence. Existing art standards and rules can result in path dependence, existing art views, forms and methods can result in inertial thinking, and art materials and techniques can form aesthetic mindsets. Thus, the self-renewal and self-action in an artist’s self-consciousness is not decided by the continuity of existing art standards, mechanisms and rules, but by his adaptability to the future standards, mechanisms and rules of art. Continuous and effective self-renewal and self-action is the only way for artists to experience things outside the realm of human perception, and thus give artists access to original innovation. Thus, innovation of contemporary art rests in the liberated thinking and free will of artists. How can the shackles of outdated standards and rules be broken and new ones created? It not only requires rebellion, questioning and an ability to manipulate and analyze the old standards and rules, but also requires continuous breakthroughs out of the limiting framework within the self-consciousness and use the vitality of feeling to embrace unknown things and experiences. If artists can rationally utilize the borders of human knowledge, the context of contemporary art, vivid sensibility will be able to transcend borders, original innovation be realized and the future of art known. Breakthroughs in the views of contemporary art, innovations in forms and methodological critique are all within the possibility of original innovation. The future of art is not formed through continued development but built from ground-up innovation. Of course, the advancement and changes in contemporary art relies on the hard work artists put in innovation as well as forward-looking trends. Quantitative changes lead to quality changes, with the final ingredient being distinguished artists. There is a time-limit for innovation. It can make art forge ahead in certain stages of history. Innovation is about the individual, it requires distinguished artists to be continually excellent and do different things. Innovation has a context, it does not appear out of thin air, and there is no such thing as innovation for no reason or innovation without limits. The advancement and reform of contemporary art does not happen naturally, it happens because of decisive well-planned actions. In 2009, international politics and economy has gone through massive changes, and the global capitalism value system has faced its biggest crisis yet. The giant art market bubble in 2005-2008, caused by the consumerist society, finally broke. These changes are caused by changes in the standards and rules of human society. These global changes have given the rising Chinese contemporary art world a new context. Times are changing, and will contemporary art change as well? Will new artists come out and replace Damien Hirst, who today sits at the lofty but dangerous top of the contemporary art world? Looking at the essence of contemporary art and the humanist spirit of human beings, and it is apparent that they share some problems. Contemporary art uses the power of modernism and globalism to absorb all original cultures of humans to use as nourishment, making them a part of the contemporary art “octopus” system. In order to stand out from the crowd, all contemporary artists, whether they are in large areas like China, India, Russia, Latin American countries, or smaller areas like Japan, Koran and Taiwan, need to rely on the overall impact of local cultural structure and art reforms and their own sense of unique individual innovation and reform that lies deep within their self-identity. In contrast to the giant contemporary art system, the light of individual artists is weak, but it flickers on and off, leading the liberalized personality of humans to future spiritual development. Thus, To Each His Own is how individual artists break out of the nightmare, that is, generality and communal personality, and they also break out of the existing systems and rules of contemporary art. To Each His Own is the attempt of artists to break out of the continuity of the existing art system and a rebellion against assimilation by the system. To Each His Own means that artists are moving away from one another and going to their own personal extremes, using action to verify the rediscovery of themselves. To Each His Own is a type of perceptual advantage that transcends the group conscious and unconscious. To Each His Own allows artists in developing countries to transcend local art concepts and return to the virgin oceans of contemporary art as well as transcend the academic logic, game rules and operating mechanisms of contemporary art and return to the origin of art. For an artist that wants to self-digest everything, starting from scratch will help him realign himself on the coordinates of individual art. To Each His Own is a spectacle of contemporary art. In reality, it is an attitude that emphasizes the future of art, because that is what art should be like.