In an effort to dispel false impressions regarding China’s artistic community, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum collaborated with seventy Chinese artists to create “Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World.” This exhibit was the largest of its kind in New York since the Asia Society’s 1988 “Inside Out: New Chinese Art.” The purpose of “Art and China” was to correct the misconception perpetuated by Western media that Ai WeiWei (undeniably China’s most well-known contemporary artist and activist) was China’s single prominent visual artist. Additionally, the museum attempted to document the social impact of Chinese artists throughout the period from 1989-2008, and particularly their political activism, both domestically and internationally. However, in their effort to promote this message, the museum found itself in the midst of controversy and faced intense criticism.
Three submissions in particular, created by artists Huang Yong Ping, Xu Bing, and team Sun Yuan and Peng Zu, respectively, faced public disapproval even prior to the opening of the show. The first of these was Huang’s experimental art piece titled “Theater of the World”, in which hundreds of insects and reptiles were displayed over a three month time period. First introduced in 1993, this work is intended to capture China’s ever-evolving nature. As some bugs and animals survived while others perished, the ultimate goal of the composition was to encapsulate the constantly changing “order” in China. The underlying intention of the work was to express the hardship its creators experienced during the time period in question. “Theater of the World” has a history of controversy – in 2007 this work (then including scorpions and tarantulas) was removed from the Vancouver Art Gallery, after Huang Yong Ping, in an effort to preserve artistic integrity, failed to comply with an order from the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The next work to provoke protest was a video piece by Xu Bing titled “A Case Study of Transference.” First assembled in 1994, this production was initially meant to feature two live pigs engaging in intercourse; however, the Guggenheim opted to use video from a Beijing performance. One pig was imprinted with characters from the Roman alphabet assembled into nonsensical words, and the other imprinted with “fake” Chinese characters. Xu revealed that the work reflects his conception that “animals are completely uncivilized and Chinese characters are the expression of supreme civilization.” Through the work’s mixture of pseudo-Western and pseudo-Chinese words, Xu also encourages his audience to question China’s relationship to the West. The final unit of the trio of controversial installments was Sun Yuan and Peng Zu’s “Dogs That Cannot Touch Each Other.” This 2003 video depicted eight pit bulls, facing each other in pairs, each strapped to a treadmill. The dogs, who had been trained to attack each other, became exasperated as their restraints prevented them from fighting. Their physical exhaustion becomes increasingly evident as the shocking video continues.
Inspired by protest marches against the three pieces outside the Guggenheim, an online petition called for “cruelty-free exhibits” to be promoted at the museum. The petition attracted a great deal of attention, accumulating over 812,000 signatures. Eventually, the Guggenheim gave into the criticism and removed these works from the show. Though the pieces are no longer on display, their story compels one to wonder why Chinese artists had such a different view of their legitimacy and value than US animal rights activists. An answer can be found in popular Chinese artist Ai WeiWei’s response to the controversy during a telephone interview in which he stated, “when an art institution cannot exercise its right for freedom of speech, that is tragic for a modern society.” Many other Chinese artists share this perspective, and believe that the Guggenheim’s choice to remove the three installations send a concerning message about a future in which free speech is easily given up when faced with pressure from activist organizations. The viewpoint of the artists is a reflection of China’s communist history, in which censorship had been the norm and freedom of speech had been limited.
Cultural art is the product of the fusion between an individual and their culture. In a climate like Mao’s China, in which art is used as by the government as a political tool of manipulation, the artist becomes repressed by their own leaders. Tragically, artists of the Cultural Revolution were forced to utilize “revolutionary romantic” designs rather than their preferred folk and personal styles. For years, the government stole from these individuals the right to create and imagine as they desired, and in doing so, robbed the world of what could have been the artistic gems of this generation. This devastating political impact on art prompts the public to question whether or not art and culture can survive governmental oppression. Considering the historically tumultuous relationship between art, culture, and government in China, the differing viewpoints between Chinese and Western artists regarding artistic freedom becomes more understandable. American artists simply have not come from the same background of forced censorship as their Chinese counterparts, and thus may not share their immediate fears and anger over this issue. Overall, the Guggenheim “Art and China” controversy forces us to consider when or whether artistic freedom can become excessive and possibly dangerous, and sparks conversation about the connections among art, history, and ethics.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/arts/design/guggenheim-art-and-china-after-1989.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/arts/design/guggenheim-museum-art-and-china-review.html; https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/art-and-china-after-1989-theater-of-the-world; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/arts/design/guggenheim-art-and-china-after-1989-animal-welfare.html; http://kennedy.byu.edu/art-politics-in-maos-china/