Polit-Sheer-Form
2007.10.30 - 11.24
Contemporary art is becoming more visible, disseminating its existence to more and more people and thereby increasing its influence. Within this context, contemporary art is constantly engaged in the processes of production, exhibition, and consumption and becoming more and more quotidian. Globalization is creating a new relationship between contemporar art (works) and its location of production, however many of these interactions which cross national and cultural borders
merely create a superficial vision of the global. Contemporary art needs to be newly assessed and moreover in a various regions and various dimensions establish a new structure and form new strengths for itself.
China, as a newly developed region, with its strong historical and cultural color and special fervor for pursuit of the "contemporary" devoted itself into its "contemporary" construction. China in this construction is not merely a country, but also a new placeholder for the "contemporary." China’s participation in "contemporary" construction extends the "contemporary" vision to non-Western cultures. With its participation, the dimension of those cultures' history (and their native features) is inserted into the new "contemporary" vision. In appearance, that dimension forms the structure of socalled "multiculturalism". During the 1990s, the entire art world was centered around this framework of "multiculturalism." Today, the system of biennales has spread from Europe to Asia. In the spread of this system, geoculture is doubly reinforced and encouraged.
Upon entering the 21st century, Chinese contemporary art took major steps towards moving in sync with market mechanisms. One by one, artists changed directions from pursuing ideals and experiments and to a stance of adapting and popularizing. The market has placed an emphasis on art's material value and thus stimulated a new stage of development. In doing so, it has shown to have such a powerful stimulating force that it has become an indispensable dimension of art. Although we don't know the reasons for this or its future impact, we are sure that we are experiencing some power which is changing the world. These changes seem to make our intelligence and desires only focus on the material level. Ideals, mental life, and the pursuit of utopia are actually branded na?ve, immature, and hopeless
and consequently forgotten and abandoned. The society is only a place for individuals to struggle for resources. Yearly economic growth rates of eight to ten percent fill society with optimism, self confidence, and nonchalance, thus renouncing a mindset that is prepared for difficult encounters. Within the context of this optimism, self confidence, and expansion of private desires allowed for by the market economy, the individual, without the literal and metaphorical support of the collective, is isolated within the course of development. In the vacuum created by the not yet fully formed new social system of the future the individual has no way to form a new and sound social relationship with others. This is the situation we currently encounter, and also the basis on which we reestablish the relationship among individuals.
Based on the above sentiments, we began to recollect a sense of cooperation and collectivism, bringing into a play a new sort method of perception and open a new door onto the future.
In 2005, when we started this endeavor it was probably to compensate for personal shortcomings. In our initial discussions we were without direction, but our enthusiasm for the need for this sort of discussion was filled the vacancy left by our intellectual meandering. We soon realized that "being together" should or was becoming our way of life. "I" and "we" become more and more intertwined, but not within the context of some religion or ideology, but in eating, drinking, and playing. When "I" started to realize that "we" is a part of "I", and that the connection between "we" and "I" can in fact liberate "I", it is clear that this is not the generally supposed relationship in which "we" stifles "I." Of course this is dependent on how "we" is composed as well as the limitations imposed by the scope of "we."
"We" can experience things that "I" cannot, and in this sense, "I"'s desires and imaginations are strengthened. When "we" becomes a dimension of "I", the "I" in "we" often becomes impractical or irrelevant, and the "I"'s imagination is likewise unclear. "Being together" has already become our form and "eating, drinking, and playing" has become our content. We suddenly discover that this is a form of society. And so between this idealism and the reality we are stuck in a type of
schizophrenic state. Now, we realize that we can put into practice this form of society which involves a reunderstanding of the form and content of "I." The "future" looks as if it is a process of seeking "truth," and "development"actually is a process of opening up the "I."
Polit-Sheer-Form Office
[ Hong Hao, Xiao Yu, Song Dong, Liu Jianhua, Leng Lin ]
September 2007
