新世紀(jì)以來，當(dāng)代中國藝術(shù)在全球視野中崛起，幾乎成了不爭的事實。與歐美一些藝術(shù)中心城市和老牌的國際藝術(shù)展會相比較，北京、上海等地的中國藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場屬于新興國際舞臺。但是，就中國藝術(shù)而言，歐美展場畢竟是客場，難以充分實現(xiàn)自身價值。中國國內(nèi)的現(xiàn)場才是主場。
中國作為當(dāng)代中國藝術(shù)的主場，其實先天條件并不優(yōu)越。上世紀(jì)末，當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在中國社會幾乎還是一種意識形態(tài)屏蔽下的地下藝術(shù)。但是，2000年以來，隨著當(dāng)代藝術(shù)展覽不斷沖撞社會公共視野，當(dāng)代藝術(shù)才逐漸獲得公開、合法的文化身份。隨之而來，居然是當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在中國主場的茁壯成長，以及始于2005年的勃興和爆炸性增長。
先前，在客場語境中，藝術(shù)家對中國身份的自我焦慮幾乎變成一種無意識控制，使其創(chuàng)作不得不與外部需求和外部口味作所謂的“國際接軌”。作為國際藝術(shù)消費餐桌上的一道文化春卷，當(dāng)代中國藝術(shù)往往跟地緣政治、意識形態(tài)和異國情調(diào)等等因素密不可分。2005年后，中國藝術(shù)又被異化為投資對象、市場泡沫或票房毒藥。
Chinese Contemporary Art（縮寫為CCA）這個詞組在全球的流行就是一個問題，這個詞組對應(yīng)的中文是“中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)”。但這個CCA的概念，它在國外客場的看法和在中國本地主場的看法有巨大的差別。在國內(nèi)的語境中，中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)被認為是一個很正常的詞匯。它可以被用來描述、覆蓋多種含義。最大的公約數(shù)就是描述當(dāng)代中國的藝術(shù)現(xiàn)狀。它既可以是當(dāng)下藝術(shù)的總量，又可以是極具現(xiàn)在進行時特征的藝術(shù)。它還被用來聚焦一些比較實驗、比較前沿的藝術(shù)現(xiàn)象。中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)這個概念雖然有各種解釋和定義，但是它在國內(nèi)認知和解釋重復(fù)率比較高，而且有一種約定俗成的、互相覆蓋的特點。但是在歐洲，或者在美國，人們一用Chinese Contemporary Art一詞，馬上就特別奇怪地跟那些中國熱、藝術(shù)泡沫市場、藝術(shù)中流行的中國元素有關(guān)系。這實際上是跟歐美從1980年代起舉辦、接受一些中國藝術(shù)展覽時慣常摻入意識形態(tài)和價值觀思維有關(guān)。那些一水兒紅色封面的畫冊、鑲嵌CHINA字樣的展覽主題，形成了一種針對當(dāng)代中國藝術(shù)的固定視角。許多歐美人甚至只把中國藝術(shù)當(dāng)作反射中國政治現(xiàn)狀的一面鏡子、或解讀中國社會的一把鑰匙。說是有色眼鏡也好，說是偏見、口味也好，總之CCA成了一種歐美與當(dāng)代中國價值觀外交的產(chǎn)物。CCA這個外在的概念，曾經(jīng)給中國藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)作和國際交流帶來種種圍繞中國身份的陣痛和焦慮。近二十年來，在歐美藝術(shù)圈的諸多國際藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場，中國藝術(shù)在跟老外進行客場交流時，CCA有色眼鏡往往先入為主，影響所及，中國藝術(shù)家容易被想象、被設(shè)定，或被動地產(chǎn)生一種曲意迎合、對號入座的心態(tài)。
好在，當(dāng)下中國藝術(shù)家的作品正在走出CCA概念的怪圈。中國本土的藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場也逐漸被藝術(shù)家認同為自身創(chuàng)作、展出、交流、生效的主場。近幾年來，藝術(shù)家的作品強調(diào)個性化，個人意識和語言取代了集體意識和社會性敘事，其視覺元素和表述方式有了諸多新的特點。單看作品，觀眾已難以判斷藝術(shù)家的國籍、年齡等身份特征。究其原因，有二：其一，藝術(shù)家的中國身份焦慮逐漸淡化和消失。中國藝術(shù)家的視野豁然廣闊，不但自由討論全球問題，也會深度切入歐美話題。他們關(guān)注和追究的人性問題，更具有普世價值和意義。打中國牌往往成了藝術(shù)家不自信、不成熟的表現(xiàn)。其二，藝術(shù)家的狀態(tài)讓人沒法給他做年齡段的歸類和劃分。實驗、創(chuàng)新不分先后，在許多作品現(xiàn)場，人們看不出藝術(shù)家到底是60后、還是70后；更看不出作品對于哪一個年代的集體記憶、意義和使命有一個承擔(dān)。
從當(dāng)下藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的表象看，主場的動力一是來自野蠻生長，二是來自體制化慣性，三是來自開放性成長。但究其實質(zhì)，主場的動力來自一種當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在中國的文化自覺，一種文化主體性的自我建構(gòu)。
當(dāng)代中國藝術(shù)的主場境遇也不盡理想。藝術(shù)家職業(yè)化的努力其實是決絕于舊有體制，先于圓明園、后到宋莊“落草”的藝術(shù)家們分明是一個個自我雇傭者的生存群落，甚至連自由棲居的權(quán)利有時也會被政治權(quán)力話語或城市化運動所干預(yù)。好在叢林原則和社會達爾文主義的極限磨練，激發(fā)了藝術(shù)家的求生、甚至求發(fā)展的能力。野蠻生長無疑是所有體制外藝術(shù)家的生存秘笈。野蠻生長使藝術(shù)家歷練出不拘一格的本領(lǐng)和一種善于打破各種條條框框的成長經(jīng)驗。
時至今日，野蠻生長成為當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在中國發(fā)展的某種硬道理。缺乏官方政策和資本的推動，缺乏主流社會的認同、反饋和滋潤，缺乏基金會制度的后援，當(dāng)代藝術(shù)還是在中國大陸幾大中心城市極為頑強地存活下來了，并在798等一些創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)區(qū)域興旺起來。當(dāng)代藝術(shù)還在藝術(shù)市場和社會流行文化層面確立了一定的正統(tǒng)地位以及價值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。海外包抄本土、都市影響外省和鄉(xiāng)村，中國藝術(shù)家的生存機智和曲線戰(zhàn)略，在一定程度上造就了當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的社會神話。山寨式的野蠻生長，是藝術(shù)家在中國主場尋找生存空間和精神家園的原始動力。
當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在中國的體制創(chuàng)新和體制更新，其實也是一種體制化慣性。新世紀(jì)以來，藝術(shù)體制的健全、藝術(shù)生態(tài)環(huán)境的完善早已成為當(dāng)下中國藝術(shù)自我建構(gòu)的基本方向。體制雖常摻有惰性，卻能鞏固根基，盤活社會資源，解放藝術(shù)生產(chǎn)力。因此，沒有主場體制建設(shè)的動力，當(dāng)代藝術(shù)就難以構(gòu)成引領(lǐng)中國社會的主流價值，更難以營造綿綿不斷的增長勢頭。
開放性成長是當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在中國新的國際語境，也是推動主場建設(shè)的動力源之一。中國主場無疑也是國際主要藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場之一，被賦予、被代表、被希望，便是主場情結(jié)在全球化時代的開放社會中不斷滋長的必然結(jié)果。中國主場的開放既是對國際藝術(shù)社會的開放，也是對未來的開放。
從實踐角度來看，中國的藝術(shù)家虛擬了一個當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的自身界限，即一種文化主體性建構(gòu)的邊界。中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)要解決的問題非常多。藝術(shù)家在個體性層面、空間層面、觀看制度層面、方法論層面、價值觀層面等等都存在著這樣或那樣難以回避的問題。中國藝術(shù)家試圖介入、并解決這些問題的努力，使他們的實驗現(xiàn)場成為整個全球當(dāng)代藝術(shù)實踐一個重要而不可分割的部分。中國藝術(shù)家所面對的前沿問題其實就是全球的問題、就是人性自身的問題。但是，藝術(shù)家針對文化主體性建構(gòu)的虛擬情結(jié)，卻凸現(xiàn)出一種當(dāng)代性的追究。即，有沒有中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)自身的元問題？有沒有中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)自身的前沿問題？伴隨著詰問和各式回應(yīng)，中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)建構(gòu)自身價值的理性努力，在切切實實的當(dāng)代性積累中透析、凝聚為一種深具文化自信的主場動力。
這幾年，中國藝術(shù)家邊創(chuàng)作、邊討論，實踐的推進和理論的建樹互為表里、互為印證。于是，藝術(shù)家在諸多藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場的討論形成了一些話語云霧，關(guān)于藝術(shù)元問題，關(guān)于藝術(shù)前沿問題，以及兩者關(guān)系問題等等。中國藝術(shù)的主場平臺已經(jīng)有非常多的討論、非常多的實驗、非常多的方案。其中還有許多大型個展、許多小制作、許多持續(xù)性的小成本、小規(guī)模的群體展覽行為。這些藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場積累了藝術(shù)家相當(dāng)可觀的自我創(chuàng)新經(jīng)驗和話語。在話語云霧的伴隨下，中國主場這個新國際平臺的活力是不言而喻的。藝術(shù)家討論的問題既有操作、實踐層面，又有意識、精神層面，尖銳而又實際。藝術(shù)討論的語境本身就是一種藝術(shù)理論的話語準(zhǔn)備。充分的理論準(zhǔn)備使得藝術(shù)家獲得一種強勁的精神實驗力量。他們在人類已知和未知領(lǐng)域交匯的許許多多臨界點上，做出了跨越邊界、或拓展邊疆的努力。
其實，2009年，在中國本土現(xiàn)場發(fā)生了一些被稱為具有重量級影響的藝術(shù)家個展，如隋建國個展《運動的張力》、顧德新個展《2009-05-02》、孫原+彭禹個展《自由》、MadeIn個展《看見自己的眼睛：中東當(dāng)代藝術(shù)展》，這些展覽和許多頗具實驗性的群展現(xiàn)場一起，建構(gòu)了一個非常開闊的實證式語境，預(yù)示了當(dāng)代藝術(shù)一個影響國際觀瞻的中國現(xiàn)場的出現(xiàn)。
對于方法論的梳理和批判，現(xiàn)在卻幾乎成了中國前沿藝術(shù)家的一種自覺。批判的武器，與對武器的批判，不再是二元對立的結(jié)果。藝術(shù)家在靈活應(yīng)用武器時，在思維方式上尋求解放。他們實際上還是想回到藝術(shù)問題的“根”上去，尋找中國藝術(shù)自身的元問題。諸如國家權(quán)力問題、集體無意識問題、法律和道德底線問題、空間權(quán)力問題、觀看制度問題等等。其中，有些是屬于全球藝術(shù)的共同問題，有些卻僅僅是中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)自身的問題。而觸及藝術(shù)自身的元問題，有助于藝術(shù)家的理論探底工作，更有助于他們在鞏固理論基石后的再次彈跳。中國藝術(shù)家通常并不是有意識地去考慮中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的元問題，只是在工作當(dāng)中遇到了一些困惑，在尋求解決方案的時候才會展開一些反思，從而觸及這類元問題。因此，藝術(shù)家對中國藝術(shù)元問題的追究反倒成為學(xué)術(shù)前沿。畢竟，中國藝術(shù)的前沿問題仍然是主體性的建構(gòu)和自身價值的建設(shè)。這是中國主場建設(shè)最迫切的工作。對比而言，批發(fā)一些歐美時髦、或曾經(jīng)時髦的文化議題，如奇觀、后殖民、帝國等等，用以武裝自己，并不有助于主場的自我創(chuàng)新和自我建設(shè)。這只是一種錯把他鄉(xiāng)當(dāng)故鄉(xiāng)的時空錯亂而已。
當(dāng)下，一些中國藝術(shù)家積極挑戰(zhàn)、解決內(nèi)心空間羈留的一個個藝術(shù)元問題。他們深知藝術(shù)元問題也是藝術(shù)的核心問題。在藝術(shù)家的文化應(yīng)對策略上，他們不斷更新的藝術(shù)形式和方法，畢竟跟以前藝術(shù)工具論的老手法、老準(zhǔn)則拉開了距離。其實，藝術(shù)家這種覺醒也許來自身體內(nèi)部的下意識，也許來自一種思想內(nèi)部的自省風(fēng)暴。從藝術(shù)元問題出發(fā)，他們對既有的藝術(shù)行政體制、展覽體制、觀看制度、乃至策展制度等做出反省，甚至在反省中換跑道出發(fā)，打破路徑依賴。這構(gòu)成了現(xiàn)在不少中國藝術(shù)家工作的新線索。這些線索有可能在幾年后歸入美術(shù)史的范疇，然而，也有可能只是一種一時而終的思潮和現(xiàn)象。中國藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)作有時呈現(xiàn)較大的跨度、有時呈現(xiàn)對自身積累的背離或超越。但這并不是壞事，這說明他們對于更換跑道的變化已經(jīng)駕輕就熟。他們覺得不能老是畫一個LOGO圖式，秀一種形式，追究一種方法，或者表達一種世界觀。他們一旦發(fā)現(xiàn)哪條線索已然構(gòu)成線性邏輯慣性，就開始有一點警覺，然后跳開，找到新的可能性。不斷跳線、不斷跨界之后，一些中國藝術(shù)家的現(xiàn)場經(jīng)驗和現(xiàn)場思考甚至超越了當(dāng)下的知識系統(tǒng)，變得連自己和他人都難以把握、甚至難以定義。在這樣一個情形下，藝術(shù)家在創(chuàng)作上獲得的是一種更加陌生、卻又更加自由解放的精神狀態(tài)。因此，就中國主場而言，如果尊重藝術(shù)家追究中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)元問題的這樣一種經(jīng)驗、一種現(xiàn)象，然后再把這種經(jīng)驗、現(xiàn)象放在一個恰當(dāng)?shù)奈恢蒙?，?dāng)代中國藝術(shù)的主體性也許就會浮出真實的海面，而非僅僅沉默在虛擬的邊界。CCA的概念也許需要詞語的新老更替。CCA完全可以讓位給英文的Chineseness，中譯為“中國性”這樣的一個詞匯；或者替換為Chinese Value，即“中國價值”這樣的詞匯。那么，這些詞匯雖具臨時性的特征，卻有可能把一些歐美語境中的老概念及其附加值替換掉，從而讓舊有的CCA概念所形成的精神控制以及藝術(shù)家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化作業(yè)式的創(chuàng)作灰飛煙滅。詞語更新，有助于中國主場語境的自我廓清，更有助于藝術(shù)主場概念的理論筑底。主場根基的培育和鞏固，不僅需要觸及、解決中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的元問題，而且需要刷新價值取向、創(chuàng)造性地構(gòu)建文化主體性。
伴隨中國的大國崛起，國際和國內(nèi)的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)圈自身也形成了一個名利場社會，藝術(shù)權(quán)利再分配體系更導(dǎo)致了一個個新的成功學(xué)途徑。因此，中國的一些藝術(shù)元問題的理論追究也有現(xiàn)實層面的針對性。它們不但與中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在國際社會的定位、價值取向和權(quán)利分配發(fā)生關(guān)系，而且與當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在中國社會的體制建設(shè)、價值觀和權(quán)力話語發(fā)生關(guān)系。當(dāng)下，有些現(xiàn)狀并沒有改變。比如中國藝術(shù)體制和生態(tài)建設(shè)必須達到一個什么樣的程度，才能被歐美接受為具有國際貢獻的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場？中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)需不需要這種接受面？這些問題也需要探討。中國藝術(shù)很多層面上的理論問題，實際上是中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)在國際現(xiàn)實格局中不斷發(fā)展、博弈而產(chǎn)生的應(yīng)用對策，是在一個個見招拆招的應(yīng)急狀況下產(chǎn)生的即時方案。理想的理論建設(shè)環(huán)境并不存在，長線的文化建設(shè)藍圖只能被一而再、再而三地修改、更換。因此，在中國藝術(shù)家紛繁復(fù)雜的藝術(shù)實踐面前，策展人和批評家要做的首要工作就是及時跟進。在理論跟進之中，藝術(shù)家對一些中國藝術(shù)元問題的追究才會生效。
還有，中國的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的定價權(quán)實際上也不在中國主場手上。雖然中國有這么大的藝術(shù)圈子、這么大的藝術(shù)品生產(chǎn)規(guī)模，但是當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的價值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和定價權(quán)仍然操控在歐美少數(shù)人的手上。也許，只有藝術(shù)主場的國際化建設(shè)能夠強大到主導(dǎo)價值取向、輸出價值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的時候，中國當(dāng)代藝術(shù)才能自己說了算，而且還能影響一大片。主場的動力不僅受制于自身的資源，當(dāng)然也會回應(yīng)外在的壓力，參與內(nèi)外力量的循環(huán)和平衡。中國主場不是一個精神孤島，它是國際藝術(shù)權(quán)力話語此消彼長的一個鮮活的現(xiàn)場和舞臺。
主場不僅是中國的主場，也是世界的主場。中國主場的打造，既要擁有主體性構(gòu)建的價值支撐，又要納入全球當(dāng)代文化力量的參與。唯如此，中國大大小小的藝術(shù)現(xiàn)場才能成為立足于中國本土的、有中國風(fēng)骨的國際藝術(shù)主場。
主場的真正動力其實是中國的藝術(shù)家，是藝術(shù)家身上革故鼎新的非凡創(chuàng)造活力。
策展人顧振清
2009年10月12日草場地
The Power Dynamics of the Home Court
By Gu Zhenqing
In the 21st century, the rise of Chinese art at a global scale is a self-evident fact. Compared with the mature American and European art centers and related art fairs, China’s new art scenes, including those in Beijing and Shanghai, are emerging platforms for art. Having said that, China is still the ‘home court’ for its own art, while America and Europe provide only a “visiting field”, which is insufficient for an appreciation of the full scope of Chinese art.
China at the outset, in providing the “home field” for its art, was structurally handicapped. At the end of last century, Chinese contemporary art existed within the underground, diminished by official ideologies. Beginning in 2000, contemporary art exhibitions restlessly challenged these restricting boundaries, entering into public life, and with this contemporary art gradually gained greater legal standing and public cultural identity. It is no surprise that the Chinese art scene has developed as an independent art world, and was subsequently followed by an art boom in 2005.
In the context of being a visitor or guest within the international art community, Chinese artists are inevitably anxious about their Chinese identity. This anxiety develops into an unconscious effort to control, with their artistic creativities shaped into certain stylized languages that met the aesthetic demands from the outside (the so-called “internationalized” process). As a “Cultural Springroll” on the dinner table of the international art party, Chinese contemporary art is always associated with regional politics, ideologies, and exotic experiences. After 2005 more negative notions emerged, such as market-oriented subjects, economic bubbles, and box-office drop-off.
Chinese Contemporary Art (abbreviated as CCA) is the new popular phrase globally. The popularity of the phrase itself is a problem. The outsider’s idea of CCA is significantly different from how Chinese understand the phrase. Within the Chinese art community, CCA is a generic term that covers different situations, but is mostly used to refer to the current in Chinese visual art. It is the general sum of what has been happening in Chinese art, and the ever-changing reality in the art world. It can also refer to some of the more experimental or ‘edgy’ activities in the art world. The specific understanding of CCA can vary from person to person, but a certain consensus has been built around it, and it is widely accepted and used. In European or American however, CCA has very different connotations. For reasons that can be dated back to the 80s, it is usually, and awkwardly, associated with ‘China Hot’, economic bubbles, or some specific Chinese iconographies. At that time Chinese art exhibitions were presented in America and Europe based on a criteria that was filtered by ideologies. Accompanied by red cover catalogues and big ‘CHINA’ signs, the exhibitions from that period are primarily responsible for the stereotypes the west created about CCA. CCA was understood as a mirror of Chinese politics, and the only key to understanding Chinese society. Call it a filter, a cultural bias, or just matter of taste; the understanding of CCA became the product of a diplomatic battle between American and European culture and contemporary Chinese culture. This outsider’s understanding of CCA has bought anxiety and difficulties to Chinese artists as they communicate with international audiences on issues of Chinese identity. When Chinese artists presented their works in exhibitions outside of China, the western ideology of CCA pigeonholed their work as artistic gestures aiming to please or emulate.
Luckily, today Chinese artists are stepping out from the restrictive cycle of western ideas on CCA. China as a home base, both geographically and culturally, has been widely accepted by artists. They use it as a place for inspiration, exhibition, communication, and broad engagement. In recent years, Chinese artists have used their individual visual languages to replace collective awareness and the grand social narrative. In many cases, one cannot identify the artist’s identity including age and nationality. Two reasons likely contribute to this tendency. Firstly, the anxiety over Chinese identity has been reduced and faded-out. Chinese artists have a broader vision, and are interested in commenting freely on global issues and expressing their concerns on American and European issues. They started to seek more universal values and meanings, with a greater focus on humankind as a whole. To play the Chinese card, on the contrary, has become a sign of immaturity and lack of confidence. Secondly, artists cannot be easily categorized by age. Being a particular age doesn’t indicate superiority in experimentation and innovation. In many exhibitions, audiences can hardly tell who is the post 60s age group and who is not. Nor can one tell which artist’s works are emotionally informed by collective memories or social missions.
At the first glance, the engine for the “Home Court” is fueled by the following three sources: firstly, a grassroots-kind of determination; secondly, the regrouping of the existing system; thirdly, a new openness. But at its core, the real source comes from the awareness of contemporary art within Chinese culture. It is an active and constructive cultural rebuilding process.
The Chinese art scene has encountered difficulties; its condition is not even close to the ideal. The attempt to make practicing art a profession is absolutely not possible in the old sponsorship system. Ranging from the Yuan Mingyuan art village to the Songzhuang art village, the hardship of surviving these artists’ residences clearly demonstrates that artists are a self-employed group with few rights over their production and living spaces. Their residences are regularly disrupted by political decisions or urbanization. Thanks to the skill of surviving with the minimum, cultivated by socialist training, the artists’ determination has been more strengthened, and their flexibility has developed into a highly sophisticated art. “To grow independently and wildly as barbarians” became the secrete creed for success; artists now are daring and unrestrained, equipped with the necessary experience for breaking existing rules.
“To grow independently and wildly as barbarians” has become a rule of thumb for the development of Chinese contemporary art. With little support or financing flowing from governmental policies, little recognition, feedback or attention from the mainstream, and with few art foundations in the system, Chinese contemporary art survived from a tenacious effort carried out in some major metropolitan centers in Mainland China. The 798 Art District is a good example. Contemporary art legitimizing itself within the broader art discourse, and established some new value standards for the art market and pop culture. The use of a foreign veneer on indigenous practices and the use of urban influence in the countryside; Chinese artists’ survival skills and flexibility to a certain extend created the legend of contemporary art.
A shoddy way of thriving was the required process in this campaign for the sovereignty of one’s art practice. Chinese artists were desperate in searching for a breathing space and a spiritual homeland. The process of contemporary art generating its own synthetic framework was an act of self-fulfilling inertia. As we enter a new century, the construction of a healthy and sophisticated art ecology has become the goal for the Chinese art world. Although system has its own laziness, it can be helpful when it comes to consolidating the base, activating resources, opening up creativity, and increasing productivity. That is the emphasis needed to the build an ecology based on a “home court” philosophy. Without a sustainable system, contemporary art will not be able to lead as a primary value standard for Chinese society, nor will it maintain its increasing impact.
Our appreciation can grow with an open-minded perspective, contextualizing contemporary art in China within a broader international context, and this one of the motivations for constructing our “home court”. The art scene in Mainland China is undoubtedly engaged with the international art community. To be enriched, to be represented, and to be acknowledged are the goals of the “home court” complex, the very things constantly encouraged in an open, globalized society. As the hosting country, the openness is toward the international art community, as well as to the future.
Chinese artists restrain themselves within an artificial cultural border that arises in the construction of the cultural self. Many problems in Chinese contemporary art remain unresolved; artists are challenged at personal and geographical levels. They have to face the differences in the understanding of methodology, value, and the concept of spectators. Chinese artists’ attempts at engaging with and solving these problems make their creative landscape a crucial part of global contemporary art scene. The most prominent questions for Chinese artists are the questions shared with the rest of global community; they are questions about the human condition. But Chinese artists’ obsession with building a cultural selfness reflects an urgency in defining contemporary. One is left to enquire; is there a primary question in Chinese contemporary art itself? Is there a ‘frontier’ question for Chinese contemporary art? Through this questioning and attempts at answering, a rationalized search for the cultural selfness will accumulate into a solid and confident motivation for our “home court”.
For Chinese artists, the recent years have brought parallel developments in theory, criticism, and studio production. As result, artists’ discussions have formed a new environment around topics such as “the primary question for Chinese contemporary art”, “what are the frontier questions in Chinese contemporary art”, “what is the relationship between these two questions”. Many discussions, experiments, and proposals have occurred in the Chinese art scene, together with many ambitious solos, or small-scaled .small-budget exhibitions. All these art happenings offered a considerable amount of experience and discourse. This new climate bought the Chinese art scene, a newly formed player in the international art scene, a new blast of energy.
The context for art discussion is a preparation for art discourse. A developed theoretical knowledge helps artists gain a powerful intellectual force. Artists are those who make contributions to exploring and expanding the boundaries between the known and unknown.
In 2009 there have been some exemplary exhibitions presented within the art scene in mainland China including “Motion/Tension” by Sui Jianguo, “2009-05-02” by Gu Deixin, “Freedom” by Sun Yuan and Peng Yu, and “Seeing One's Own Eyes -- Middle East Contemporary Art Exhibition” by MadeIn. These exhibitions, together with many other experimental shows, created broader evidence and discourse, and indicated the emergence of a Chinese “home court” on the global map of contemporary art.
To criticize and systemize methodology has become a self-aware act for the most frontier of Chinese artists. The methodology of criticism and the criticism of methodology are no longer counterparts. While developing their own agile methodologies, artists are looking for open creation, freedom from existing ways of thinking. In fact, they want to return to the base art questions, the primary art question for Chinese art. We have many current issues in front of us including governmental power, collective unconsciousness, the fundamentals of law and ethics, the authorship of space, and the different concepts of the role of spectator. Some of these issues are shared concerns with the global community, while some remains particular to the Chinese art world. To ponder the primary questions in art could help artists in exploring different strata of art theory, offering a possible breakthrough after establishing a solid base. Chinese artists usually don’t from the outset initiate investigative approaches into primary art questions, instead they only start to reflect on this after encountering difficulties in the process of finding solutions. So the primary art question becomes the frontier question. The frontier question is the construction of cultural selfness and a self-referenced value system. To recycle cultural terms such as spectacle, post-colonialism, and empire, and use those former popular terminologies to equip oneself provides no help in building our “home court”. It is an anachronistic illusion using other people’s homeland as our own homeland.
There are some Chinese artists actively investigating this primary question in art. They understand this primary art question is the essential question. In terms of a strategy for responding culturally, their artistic approaches broke away from the old concept that took art expression as the medium. This awakening might come raise from unconscious, or might come from a stormy self-reflective process. Using the primary question in art as the starting point, these artists reflect on art managing systems, exhibiting systems, spectator systems, and even curating systems. Some of them changed their paths. This process provided some clues or models for many Chinese artists. These clues might be understood by art historians as impulsive movements or art phenomenon. But having ambitious coverage of subject or medium, or even to betray and surpass one’s own heritage or experience is not a bad thing at all. This action of breaking away shows that these artists are getting comfortable in changing their strategies, and exploring new artistic approaches. They chose to not paint only one logo, show one perspective, offer one way of presenting, or formulating one kind of worldview. They are alert to signs of lineal thinking, and react by jumping out from the circle to find new possibilities. After constant challenges from different boundaries, Chinese contemporary art and the discussions around it have gone beyond our knowledge. It has started to become something unaccountable, indefinable, and uncontrollable for the artists and the others. As result, artists gain a refreshing unfamiliarity and a more liberated spirit from their artistic creation. If curators from our “home court” could continue to examine the primary art question in the contemporary scene, and at the same time position it in an appropriate context, the cultural selfness of contemporary Chinese art will slowly and powerfully emerge from the edge of a delusional world. It will break out from the silence and become a fully formed reality. Possibly CCA needs to be replaced by ‘Chineseness’, or ‘Chinese Value’. Although these two replacements might sound temporary, they would be sufficient to replace the old concepts (and their side effects) about China in American and European discourse. This change in phrasing will free artists from past restrictions and standard machine-like producing. It will also help clarify china identification as the host of her own discourse in the “home court”. The nurturing and protection of the “home court” requires challenging and solving the primary question in Chinese contemporary art. It also requires a redefined value system, and building the cultural selfness constructively.
Along with the rise of China in general, the contemporary art world has become a place of money and frame. The regrouping of power gave birth to a new profession in how to be successful instantly. So this pursuit of the primary question in art has its social meaning in reality. It is closely related to the positioning of Chinese contemporary art in the international art scene, the value system, and the regrouping of power. At the same time, it has to do with Chinese art systems and discourse. Some questions still remain, for example, “how mature and developed is our art policy, and is it developed enough for American and European standards to be considered as contributing to the international contemporary art scene?” “Does the Chinese contemporary art community need to set this international standard as our standard?” Chinese art has many challenges in its art theory development. The Chinese contemporary art situation we have now is a practical and instant reaction to the process of negotiating with international players. This is not an ideal environment for developing theories. The long-term cultural plan was forced to be revised again and again. In a complex situation such as this, the curator’s and art critic’s primary task is to be spontaneous. Only through the process of following up with considered art theories can the artists’ pursuit of the primary art question will be effective.
Our “home court” doesn’t have the authority in pricing. Regardless how big our art world is, and how massive the art production is, the value standard and pricing system is still controlled by a small group of people from American and Europe. It is only when Chinese art scene grows strong and international enough that we can establish our own value standard. That will establish the time when we can define the discourse, and also extend our influence widely and meaningfully. Our engine will be restrained by its own limits in resources in responding to the outside pressure, and participating in the circulation and balance of exchanges. Chinese “home court” is not an isolated island; instead, it is live dancing stage for international dialogue. It is an interactive platform for power dynamics.
The “home court” is not a Chinese “home court”, it is also the “home court” of the world. In building our “home court”, we need not only the support from the cultural selfness, but also contemporary culture from all over the world. That is the only way that China’s various art scenes can all be elevated into an international field that is still rooted in there own culture.
The ultimate engine of the “home court” is Chinese artists, and the exceptional creativities imbedded in their spirit.
【編輯：霍春?！?/span>
