My Life, My Decision: The Political Nature of Chinese Contemporary Art
Pi Li

In 1998, the movie "Red Corner," a typical story combining American individualistic heroism and orientalism, stood at number 6 in American box office charts. In the movie, the male protagonist ultimately defeats Eastern tyranny and wins the love of a local woman. At the end of the movie, the woman, a Chinese lawyer, says to the American official who gave her freedom, "It was you who made me understand the meaning of democracy and law. It was you who opened up my life." This line very much reflects the West's basic understanding of contemporary Chinese culture. It can even be said that since China's society opened up in the 1980s, the West's select introduction to Chinese culture and art has been carried out from this kind of basic starting point.

The 20th century is a Western century. The West, with Europe and the US at its core, has been the primary player on the stage of 20th century history. Further, the basic structures of economy, government and culture have been determined in the West. The West's understanding of contemporary Chinese culture is primarily based on the changes occurring around the 1990s. The end of the Cold War led to changes in structural relations between every part of the world. This kind of change, on the one hand, originated from the structuralist trend of thought within the Western system of culture and knowledge. On the other hand, it originated from the multi-polar development of world politics and culture. This kind of change, however, did not bring to Chinese contemporary art the opportunity to transcend racial, political and geological factors and realize equal world dialogue. On the contrary, a new relationship between subject and other, center and periphery appeared in exhibitions regarding China.

On the whole, the introduction of Chinese culture to the West, as well as to Chinese intellectuals who received western influence, can be divided into two basic forms. First is the "Impact/Response" form. This form asserts that the primary reasons for recent developments in Chinese culture are due to the impact of the West. Thus, the "Western impact/Chinese response" form explains changes and developments in Chinese culture. The most typical representation of such developments are the two large-scale exhibitions, "Post '89: New Chinese Art" and "Inside Out" which marked the West's first contact with Chinese art. In accordance with the impact/response form mentioned above, what was exhibited in these two exhibitions, for the most part, were highly politicized works of contemporary Chinese art.

The second thought process takes the form of "Traditional/Modern." The basic premise of this form is that recent modern Western society is the true model for every country in the world. As a result, Chinese society must develop according to this model from a "traditional" society to a "modern" society, and thus carry on this kind of thought. What we see is basically a kind of Chinese contemporary art of folk customs. This can be illustrated by the German exhibition "China!" This exhibition gave the impression that only with the introduction of Western culture will Chinese society be able to travel along the path already traveled by the West, and advance toward a Western-styled, "modern" society.

These two kinds of thought refelct a Western logo-centric, essentialist point of view. Because they all follow the premise that the recent industrialization in the West is a good thing, and that in there has never been a way to produce such modernization in Chinese society, all changes with historical meaning that China could pass through are Western style changes. It is as if China could only bring about these changes under the influence of the West. It is little wonder, therefore, that severe limitations have been put on the movement of Chinese contemporary art toward a more profound nature under the guidance of these thought processes.

Any understanding of Chinese contemporary art must be built on a careful assessment of both exterior and interior critiques. The "exterior critique" of Chinese contemporary art refers to the challenge to Chinese art made by the Western contemporary new-style art structures. Because of this interaction, Chinese contemporary art will continue to absorb new cultural experiences and knowledge sources, and raise questions of artistic intention in contemporary art. This approach may also enrich art's true contemporary nature, and essentially establish relations of equal human dialogue. However, we must also pay attention to the "inner critique" within Chinese contemporary art. If we say that all the knowledge sources and rational value used in cultural critiques of Chinese contemporary art are defined by Western standards, then it is important to be aware of what those are, and the principles used to carry out such a critique.

Chinese art and Chinese artists guard against all the knowledge power and cultural pressure led to from the "universality" and "truthfulness" of these principles, as well as the obvious differences between this sort of critique, and recent nationalistic ideology and cultural conservatism.

Recently, the development of the "political nature" of Chinese contemporary art, and the position within the world cultural pattern stemming from this, will be the only channel through which such internal critiques will be understood. Although the development of Chinese contemporary art began with the legality within governmental language of constructing formalist art, however, Chinese contemporary art's development is still a cultural activity closely related with politics.

During the 1980s, the work done by Chinese contemporary artists served to overturn the emphasis on the "socialist realism" of ideological propaganda. Specifically, what they were overturning was not a kind of artistic style, rather it was the cultural authority that this style represents. During the 1980s, because China's economy was based on a kind of collectivist structure, artists still had no way to win economic independence. They could only rely on a kind of idealistic attitude and collectivist-styled, art groups. As a result, the spearhead of internal critiques of Chinese contemporary art at that time was pointed at collectivism in socialist life and centralization of power in the political structure. However the style of the critiques was still that of the collectivist style.

The political events of 1989 caused artists to realize that within their society there was a power that, at least temporarily, could not be contested, and that they really did not have the ability to carry out their own artistic convictions. Thus, low morale began to spread. More precisely, behind the style of cynical and political art, there was also a kind of conviction that nothing would change. This sort of conviction manifested itself in the style of "irony." The basic logic of this time was to use "popularity," "vulgarity" and "meaninglessness" to dispel the "nobility" and "meaning" of societal rule. Furthermore, under this sort of situation, it represented an attempt to regain the dignity of one's dreams.

Hence, the substantial changes in the world political structure in 1992 caused cynical and political art to appear even more appealing to the West, and to win commendation from the Western world. Large scale economic increases, however, caused these "socially constrained" artists to enjoy all sorts of luxury in China's new market economy, and become the new rich in Chinese society.

In terms of the West, this form of artistic style, which ultimately points towards non-western ideology, established the label and standard for Chinese contemporary art, and initiated the process of cultural understanding and sharing on these foundations. The success of cynical and political art encouraged even more young Chinese artists to embrace the status-giving image of "supporting different political views." The "Gaudy Art" from the middle of the 1990s is clear proof of this. They completely and indiscriminately apply Western artistic forms, jumbling symbols of China's political and folk customs, and presenting a "China" that a Westerner would be willing to see, but which actually has nothing to do with the life of urban residents in the midst of the complicated changes brought about by a market economy. Chinese artists and Chinese art may suffer injury and distortion within China. But if that which injures them is merely a reflection of narrow-minded and warped images, then this can similarly damage Chinese art by constituting a new form of pressure, and imprisoning Chinese art in a false, distorted existence. Furthermore, it can increase false, narrow-minded political propositions for China.

The brilliance of Chinese art in the 1990s lies exactly in its special character of speaking at the same time to political and cultural structures, of questioning China's own ideology, and questioning the West's authority to select culture. Regarding these questions, this view will no longer focus on party politics or political structure, rather it will expand to questions of individual existence.

But questions of individual existence again combine the West's authority to select culture, with such questions as differences, plurality and points of views. If we must give a description of Chinese contemporary art's "political nature," then we can describe it in this way: it represents vigilance against Western logo-centrism and shifts towards narrow-minded ideology. This sort of new political standpoint can only develop in such a direction. Yet, it does not have subversion or destruction of any system of government as an objective, rather it emphasizes striving for concrete or real meaning. Its political aspirations are often expressed in shouting for the legality of plural culture, in striving for the right to speak of world problems.

This sort of "political nature" is an important result of Chinese contemporary art's internal critiques, and ultimately combines together with external critiques. Its basic objectives are proposing research of China's cultural problems from a Chinese point of view, not a Western one; critiquing the meaning of Chinese cultural images using internal criteria, not external; shaking off the labeling and sightseeing attitude toward Chinese culture; positively promoting the stratum of what is regarded as society's basic unit and the understanding of the individual. In terms of Chinese art, only after this kind of "political" concept, within the scope of a world cultural structure, is set up together with differences, freedom and plurality, can the original purpose of the principles be narrated for the future. Only then can the ability to question Chinese contemporary society and culture be truly attained, thus preserving a certain scope of individual characteristics and the quality of dialogue between China and the West.