Showing posts with label artforum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label artforum. Show all posts

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Suddenly Seeking Xu Zhen

Here is an outline of my process of trying to reach Xu Zhen/find out more about his work entitled "Impossible Is Nothing". In light of the insufficient source material on the piece, I attempted to create some discussion and awareness about the work only to find that it is incredibly difficult to do so.

Correspondence: An Attempt to Reach Xu Zhen by Normal Means (Email)

Below is my correspondence with Xu Zhen's assitant, Xiaomo, who rather unsuccessfully attempted to set up a meeting between Xu Zhen. I originally emailed a woman named Alexia (who we saw briefly during our visit to Bizart), but she referred me to Xiaomo. The beauty of email, super-fast communication!

From: xiaomo
Subject:
Date: November 28, 2008 11:17:16 AM GMT+08:00
To: alejandra

Thank you for your mail. Alexia forwarded it to me.
This is Xuzhen's assistant Xiaomo.

Xuzhen really appreciates your attention to BizArt and his own work.
He's looking forward to have a talk with you.

Could you please give me several days to arrange the meetting?
Xuzhen may not be in office lately.

Or you could send me the questions you need to know for the research project, if possible.

best,

xiaomo

Over the next two weeks, I basically sent Xiaomo three pretty desperate emails. The downside to email? The uncertainty of it. I kept checking to make sure I had the right email address, my email account was configured correctly, etc. It was all correct, I was just being ignored (in his defense I'm sure Xiaomo had much more important things to do, but still. Frustrating!) He responded only a week ago, almost immediately after I emailed him for the third time, finally asking if I could just have him forward my questions to Xu Zhen, as it didn't seem likely that Xu Zhen was going to be able to pencil me in.

From: xiaomo
Subject: Re:
Date: December 11, 2008 2:42:50 PM GMT+08:00
To: alejandra

XuZhen would not be in ShangHai this weekend and may be back in the end of next week.
He feels very sorry that could not have a face-to-face meet with you.
It would be great if you two could talk by mail.

If you have prepared the questions, please let me know.
I'll forward him ASAP.

For any question, do not hesitate to contact me

best,

xiaomo

I can't help but wonder if this squirly correspondence was the direct result of my inqiury to film my interview with Xu Zhen. Though I emphasized that it wasn't entirely necessary to my project (just desirable), I think that's what might have scared him away. I didn't think Xu Zhen would be camera shy.

Here is the list of questions I subsequently sent to Xiaomo, who hopefully forwarded them to Xu Zhen. Xu Zhen, if you are reading this, I eagerly await your reply.

1. Did you have any ethical concerns in the installation of your latest work, "Impossible is Nothing"?
2. What has been the public's perception and reception of the piece?

3. What was your goal in creating such a work?

4. Do you feel that the work has racial or political implications? If so, please elaborate on them.

5. What is it about Kevin Carter's photograph that inspired to you to recreate it in your
installation (i.e, why was Carter's photograph a good vehicle to express your message)?

6. In your opinion, what would a viewer gain from seeing "Impossible is Nothing" rather than simply seeing Carter's photograph? Why did your intent call for the creation of an installation rather than a mere two dimensional photograph? What does the "performance" aspect of this work add to your message/the implications of the original photograph?

7. Please elaborate on the title of the work.

8. How did the child's mother react to your work? How was she compensated?

9. How does the nature of this piece challenge typical perceptions of the term "artist"? What I mean to say is that, you are not performing, and this is a recreation of another artist's photograph, so what about the piece leads it to be qualified as authored by Xu Zhen? (*here I am trying to considerately ask if he is really the creator of this work, even though he just brought someone else's work to life in an artistic space.)

10. What were your hopes for spectators' interactions with the child and the exhibition space in general?

11. How do you think this work might be differently received in the West as opposed to its reception in China? Do you have any plans to further exhibit it/recreate it?


Survey- An Attempt at Discourse on "Impossible is Nothing"

I wrote my friends/family a short explanation of what to do (read the article, look at the photos, answer some questions), and provided the following links.

Article:
http://www.artreview.com/forum/topic/show?id=1474022%3ATopic%3A576706

Photos:
http://www.art-ba-ba.com/ShowPost_en.asp?ThreadID=19662&ForumID=10&Category=&lange=cn&pw=read

Here is the survey. I attempted to get people from various backgrounds to answer, but only my friends with art backgrounds decided to participate. However, this was interesting in and of itself, because many of them have backgrounds in performance, theater, and film. Others were painters, or art history majors, or writers. Ironically, a few of my most outspoken critics of Impossible is Nothing were actually the actors, who were quick to differentiate Xu Zhen's piece from the employment of a child actor, who (they argued) is not being manipulated for the sake of a political or social statement. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think the difference may be the business side of child acting (SAG requirements and all that) that would theoretically prevent any mistreatment on the part of the child, and ensure proper compensation for the role. I would be interested to know how much (or even how) the child and his mother were compensated. I also wonder how Xu Zhen convinced the mother that it was a good idea for her baby to sit in a barren room full of overzealous Chinese spectators for five hours a day (or was money enough?).

Impossible is Nothing: Art or Exploitation?

*1)Do you have any art background? Interest, training, job experience, etc.
Divider Bar
2)If you answered Yes!, please elaborate:
Divider Bar
3)Are you....
Divider Bar
*4)Do you feel that you got a good understanding of this piece through the article and photos I provided? Please support your answer with a few statements (full sentences not neccessary!)
Divider Bar
*5)If you had been in Beijing at the time of this exhibition, knowing what you know now, would you have gone to see it? Why or why not?
Divider Bar
*6)Based on the photos/review, do you feel that the artist's treatment and use of the child was ethical? Why or why not?
Divider Bar
*7)Do you believe this exhibition is racially exploitative? Why or why not?
Divider Bar
*8)Did the techniques used in this exhibition justify its effect?
Divider Bar
9)Were you offended by this exhibition?
Divider Bar
*10)If you are interested in art, do you often use the internet as a source for information? If you are not interested in art, simply respond with NO.
Divider Bar
*11)If you answered YES to the previous question, do you feel that the internet is a reliable source of information on art? If you answered NO, just respond to this question with NO as well.
Divider Bar
12)Had you heard of Xu Zhen before reading about this exhibition?
Divider Bar
*13)How likely are you to research other works by Xu Zhen after reading about "Impossible is Nothing"?
Divider Bar
14)Is there anything else relevant you think I should know?
Divider Bar
15)If you would like to provide your name for my reference, please do so below.


For the question that asks if the person would go on to further research Xu Zhen's work, about 80% of those who answered said "Probably Not". No one said "Very Likely", a couple said "Possibly", and the second largest group said "Definitely Not". 95% of those who answered said they felt that the internet was a reliable tool for researching art, and almost as many felt that they got as good an understanding of "Impossible is Nothing" through the article (criticism) and photos I provided. Almost no one felt it was necessary to have seen the exhibition in real life, and even fewer would have gone even if they had had the chance.

This leads me to question the necessity of the recreation of Kevin Carter's famous photograph, and the importance of performance art in general. It reminds me of the whole mix up between Zhang Huan and the people who photographed his performances. Who is the actual author, Zhang Huan, or the photographers? This is more a question of message, however, as I am unsure why someone might need to actually go to the space to comprehend Xu Zhen's message. I think a lot of the benefit of having this as an installation was specifically for the Chinese audience, as I am unsure of how exposed they were to the original photograph by Carter. Most of the people I polled had seen the photograph and were aware of the controversy surrounding it. To a Chinese person unfamiliar with the photograph, however, it might not even be clear that this is a reference to another piece of art. If Xu Zhen were to exhibit this work in New York, for example, I am sure there would be issues of ownership immediately raised, as the average New York intellectual gallery-goer is almost certainly familiar with the photograph. However, here in China, Xu Zhen was sort of free from that whole issue of the piece. I'm sure that by the average Chinese person seen in the photographs that have surfaced of the exhibition, Xu Zhen was merely recreating a stereotypical African scene in a Chinese artistic context. I actually like the implications of this reading better than anything that would possibly come of the whole recreation of the photograph, the controversy surrounding Carter and his ethical responsibilities as an artist, etc. I think from the Chinese perspective, Xu Zhen is raising questions of Sino-African relations rather than merely referencing someone else's work. He is suggesting the lack of exposure on the part of the Chinese to African culture and society despite the recent influx of Chinese companies into poor African countries for cheap industrial labor. In this context, by point to an African baby in a simulated African setting in a gallery in Beijing, Xu Zhen also suggests this phenomenon of reverse colonialism as China begins to see Africa in a new light from its newly seized perspective of an up and coming superpower. Hopefully, the Chinese people who went to see the exhibition and sat there taking pictures of the poor child in hindsight realized how screwed up the whole situation was and were able to apply this perspective to larger issues of globalization and colonialism.


Other Sources: A Minimal Response from the Blogging Community

The following quote was blown up to full illegibility in my film:

"If Xu Zhen revels in scenes of self-ridicule and awkward, mixed messages, The Starving of Sudan is a new triumph in absurdity. Not only is the work conceptually undeveloped, Xu's failure to address China's current involvement with Sudan begs the question of whether he is even aware of the discussion surrounding China's role in Africa, especially Sudan. To what degree is this work a cognizant reference to the 'mediated fiction' of reportage on Africa in the heavily biased and censored Chinese news media? Xu Zhen will perhaps prove less able to handle the scrutiny of audiences in Beijing than his hired child actor will deal with this strange tableau that will haunt his childhood memories." -Lee Ambrozy ( the full review can be seen here: http://www.artreview.com/forum/topic/show?id=1474022%3ATopic%3A576706)

Amusingly, this review by Lee Ambrozy is reproduced by many sources, none of which actually comment on it so much as simply copy and paste it. There was only one response to his review on all the websites I saw it published on (the review with comment was found on artreview.com). You can see the comment if you follow the link.

The reviewer has his own blog, where he wrote his own review of "Impossible is Nothing", which is similar to Ambrozy's and my opinions as well. However, there are no comments on his blog either. These are the only non "official" reviews/criticisms of the work that I was able to find after hours of scouring the internet, and I contacted "Robin Peckham" through his blog to no avail. Thus, I am beginning to understand why there is little discourse on this work. I mean, there seem to be about three English-speaking, internet using, people (including myself) interested in this piece, and two of them didn't seem particularly interested in initiating discussion on it. This seems to suggest that maybe blogging isn't the best way to share opinions/ideas with the general public (as opposed to friends and family), because there is the issue of credibility (i.e I don't know anything about this person, why the heck should I listen to their opinion/even converse with them on any intellectual topic?) Also, I'm sure that if we were in New York and this work had been done by a famous American or European contemporary artist, there would be a lot of online discourse available on it, namely because its exposure to the public would be a lot greater. I couldn't find any "official" material on "Impossible is Nothing" in English or Chinese (for example newspaper or magazine listings). Most sites that even mentioned it only did so as a "save the date" kind of thing, as the City Weekend listing did, only outlining the exhibition's basics as well as time and date information. I guess I am just too used to being able to read an informed article written by an educated person about a gallery exhibition in the Times before actually going to see it. The presence of such a source won't necessarily decide whether or not this is art that I want to see, but it usually at least provides another perspective and some interesting information about the work that I would otherwise be without. It is also nice to be able to consider other such opinions post-viewing, as I am trying to grapple with the meaning or signifigance of the art that I have seen. However, I think this mindset and practice might be a little too Western for the budding Chinese art world and its participants.

Edit: I have just found a useless blog entry on Impossible Is Nothing, which as far as I can tell is simply a copy and pasted excerpt from an official text on the exhibition, not the writer's own opinion.

http://www.alivenotdead.com/kintrala/Impossible+is+Nothing+by+Xu+Zhen-profile-401626.html

This doesn't even seem like a legitimate blog (if there is such a thing). However, I'm sure that anyone who googles "xu zhen" and stumbles upon this blog will find my ramblings' value equally questionable and incomprehensible as well....

Now there is nothing left to do but await Xu Zhen's responses, which will be interesting thanks to the (respectful) prodding nature of my inquiries. Until then...



Saturday, December 13, 2008

YOKO

http://mabzchina.blogspot.com/
Unedited version of the Artforum Diary pages, which were so glossed
up. This text is tad more critical than the final version.

Over the past two months Shanghai has experienced a flurry of
international art visitors. It started when Christian Marclay and
Eliot Sharp flaunted their NY downtown grandeur at the second
incarnation of the city government run eArts Festival; then there was
Shanghart's "Involved" exhibition, in which Bern Kunshalle curator,
Philippe Pirotte was accompanied by the likes of Luc Tuymans, Knut
Åsdam and many others for the opening festivities; just last week
James Cohan Gallery presented its third exhibition in Shanghai giving
the space over to Folkert de Jong and his jolly, Styrofoam sculpted
simians, who along with his entourage from the Office for
Contemporary Art in Amsterdam, met everyone that was anyone in the
local scene during their extended stay. But nobody was more
anticipated than the crowned queen of conceptualism, Yoko Ono whose
China debut took the form of FLY, a retrospective of her
instructional works dating back to the early sixties at the, barely
two year old, Ke Center for the Contemporary Arts.

"I feel like Marco Polo must've felt when he first came to China,"
exclaimed Yoko Ono during an anecdote of her arrival at Shanghai's
hypermodern Pudong Airport last Thursday. Besides being Ono's first
exhibition in China it also Ono's first time visiting mainland China.
Ono who, like most Japanese, was raised on classic Chinese culture,
admitted that she learned her strategies for life from Sun Tze's Art
of War at the lively press conference which ended with the artist
painting her Chinese name, not on the paper prepared for it, but on
the window curtain instead.

The next day's opening was even more comic when a twenty person per
viewing rule left hundreds stampeding the artists' Ex It, 1997 wood
casket pieces, which had been installed in front of the museum's
entrance, while overhead an Ono world peace promotional video blasted
John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance through a steadily building
drizzle. In the rear of the crowd Shanghart gallery's Lorenz Hebling
and artist Zhou Tiehai shook their heads at the potentially hopeless,
rain soaked wait and opted to head off early to the dinner instead.
As the evening's drizzle developed into a downpour the museum's doors
swung open and the wet masses funneled into an already overcrowded
exhibition. "A typical Shanghai scene" joked one local standing above
the crowds on a platform built into the gallery space.

While hundreds participated in Ono's instructional pieces including
the Blue Room Event, 1966 and Wish Tree, 1996, Ono herself was
upstairs in the museum's lounge area dancing "like a chicken on acid"
as artist, Rutherford Chang observed. Her short-lived dance
performance for the masses changed to a more serious tune at the
exclusive dinner attended by a select few at the recently opened Kee
Club. This Hong Kong nightlife classic had recently been transported
to Shanghai's Dunhill mansions complex, a spectacular courtyard in
the center of the city, which besides being blessed by the presence
of Jude Law just a few weeks earlier also sports a very handsome,
very Zen, Shanghart Gallery outpost.

After dessert Ono descended to the post-dinner cocktail for one last
photo op with the locals before heading back to her hotel to sleep
off the jetlag, leaving the dwindling crowd to soak up her blessings
of universal love—and also the pouring rain.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

500 words with Michael Wolf

http://artforum.com/words/id=21434
Michael Wolf
11.14.08

Left: Michael Wolf, Untitled, 2007, color photograph, 40 x 53 7/16".
Right: Michael Wolf, Untitled, 2007, color photograph, 20 x 25".
(Both works from the series "Transparent City.")

The Asian- and European-based photographer Michael Wolf is known for
his fine-art and editorial photographs depicting rapid growth in
Asian cities. A new series of photographs made in Chicago,
"Transparent City," goes on view this week at the Museum of
Contemporary Photography in Chicago and is collected in a book just
published by Aperture.

THE EXPERIENCE OF PHOTOGRAPHING in America was not much different
from photographing in Asia, really. The challenge was more
conceptual: After working so long in Hong Kong and China, I wasn't
sure I was capable of working somewhere else. I feel in tune with
what is happening in the East, and am so inspired by the
architecture, food, people, and flux of life there, that I was afraid
I'd feel disconnected from an urban landscape in another part of the
world. Luckily, when I came to Chicago in 2006 to install some
photographs, I rode an elevated train into downtown from the airport.
It was a wonderful visual experience, looking out and seeing everyone
through the office windows. I remember arriving at the museum and
meeting the curator, and by my third or fourth sentence they asked
whether they could arrange an artist residency for me. A year later,
the deal was done.

I had thought about working in New York, in part because I've worked
so long with what I call "architecture of density" in Hong Kong. But
there are logistic problems in New York that don't arise in Chicago.
In Chicago, the buildings are spread out, they're more loosely
structured, and ten- or twelve-story parking garages are interspersed
between them. From the garages, you can look into buildings. I would
go up onto the twelfth floor of a parking structure and get a nice
view into the neighboring building. To prepare, I went onto Flickr
and printed out every photo of the city's downtown Loop, then drew
red arrows pointing to all of the roofs to which I wanted access. In
Hong Kong, every building has guards and you must apply for
permission to get onto the roof, but researchers at US Equities, who
supported my residency, were able to get me access to 99 percent of
the rooftops from which I wanted to photograph.

I began my series "Architecture of Density" by photographing close-
ups of vernacular subjects in the back alleys of Hong Kong's downtown
high-rises. I enjoyed the photographs but thought the series of
seventy or so images was conceptually one-dimensional. I felt the
series would be enriched if I could bring in another layer of
meaning, so I began to take photographs of the buildings from a
distance. In Chicago, I worked in the opposite direction, beginning
with the architecture. I felt, however, that I was bumping up against
the same problem. Then one evening I was looking at a photograph I
had shot and I saw in it a man giving me the middle finger. In the
exact moment he made that gesture I pressed the shutter, even though
I had probably been standing there for twenty minutes.

It set off a chain reaction in me, and I began to look through every
file at 200 percent magnification to see what else was going on in
those windows. I saw hands on computer mice and family photographs on
the desks of CEOs; I saw people watching flat-screen TVs in the
evening. It was a bit lonely, particularly when I was photographing
corporate office towers during the first banking crisis in November–
December 2007—I could see through my telephoto lens the tension and
stress those bankers were feeling. By zooming in on details, I manage
to introduce a certain vernacular visual language as well as balance
the faraway with the up close.

I don't consider these works portraits; I'm not doing a portrait of
Chicago. In fact, the city's characteristics don't really figure into
my discussions of the series. It could be any large urban city. I
simply proceeded by answering the question, Which vantage point gives
me the ability to look into a building? One building that fascinated
me was the very big courthouse downtown. The judge's rooms are in the
corners of the building, and I wanted to catch a moment when lawyers
were standing in the hallways of seven or eight consecutive floors so
that the image would depict them locked into little cells, like a
Robert Wilson stage design. Despite the unpredictability of my
process, I have very specific images in mind as I work. Edward Hopper
was a particular inspiration for this series, and I was looking for
the types of images he specialized in. I was trying to translate an
idea—or, rather, to find it in reality.
— As told to Brian Sholis

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Yishu Journal: The Yan'an Forum on Art Education

The September 2006 issue of Yishu: Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art focused on the Yan'an Forum on Art Education. The conference was part of the Long March Project, a grassroots project begun in 1999. The Long March Project was not only an art project but also a social project using different types of mediums. It traces the path taken by the Red Armies during the Chinese Civil War between the Communists and the Nationalist Party. The Long March Project began as a way to fight back against the institutionalization of contemporary art in China, basically against having a defined space (an exhibition hall, a museum, etc) as the location of an art exhibition. The project includes many international and national artists as well as the local artists from each of the sites. The pieces are open to the public and not only uses the local arts and crafts of the exhibition sites (paper cutting, woodblock print, etc) but also the location itself (inside the Kailuan coalmine, etc).
In 2006, the Long March arrived in Yan'an where Lu Jie along with Cai Guo-Qiang decided to host a forum on the modern Chinese art education system. But why Yan'an? After all, it was the site of the 1942 Yan'an Conference where Mao made is speech about the purpose of art. After the 1942 conference, art was no longer something individualistic or entertaining. In fact, after Mao's speech, art and literature became something to propagate the voice of the party and the people. Despite its history, the organizers of the conference felt that Yan'an was the perfect setting for the forum as it used to be the creative center of China. They felt Yan'an's energy was what they needed in order to tackle the issue of the modern Chinese art education system. Many of the invited speakers felt that not only the Chinese art education system but also the old Western art education system were both based on the master-apprentice tradition. That is, a master artist would train and pass on all his knowledge to his apprentice. All the apprentice had to do was learn the technicalities of creating art. However, even though the Chinese art education system had changed due to international influences, it lacked one thing that the new Western art education system had: a humanitarian/liberal arts/creative aspect. The participants felt that the Chinese focused on the technicalities of art (notice the proliferation of art studios) and not enough on the create side. After much talk, the participants came up with some solutions as to how to solve this crisis. Beginning in 2006 and continuing until 2009, a training camp for art teachers would be created. The training camp teaches these art teachers how to teach creative art, not just technical art. One of the key events of the forum was when the leaders invited art students from Yan'an University to join the talk. This had not been done before (including students in the educational planning talks) but the participants felt it greatly helped them understand the students' opinions. After the participants talked about their teaching styles, the students offered their opinions about what they felt worked or did not work. This talk, even though it was two years ago, gave hope to the possibility of reforming the art education system so that China's future art could have more substance than what it has now.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

under luxun banner

Hi everyone, For your weekly blog entries, pick a night or two to attend.

 
Under Lu Xun Banner: body experience in East Asia
Performing and performance at under-construction new site of ddmwarehouse
Huai Hai Xi Road Shanghai, China
30th October - 3rd November 2008 
Solo Creations  (free)
Produce: Grass Stage Theatre (Shanghai)
30th Oct (Thursday) 19:30
Playwright & performing: Hou Qinghui, Wu Meng, Yu Kai, Qu Han, Fan Haoru, Lin Chen, Bao Wenlu, Leng Yu, Tan Yueming
Artistic director: Zhao Chuan
 
Lu Xun 2008 (50 yuan)
31st Oct (Friday) and 1st Nov (Saturday) 19:30
Co-produce: Grass Stage (Shanghai), Clash Theatre (Hong Kong), Body Phase Studio (Taipei), DA-M Theatre (Tokyo)
Director: Hiroshi Ohashi (Artistic Director), Wang Molin, Tong Sze Hong, Zhao Chuan
Performing: Takumi HaradaLee Chi Man, Cheng Chih Chung, Chen Cheng
 
East Asia Body Presentation Series  (free)
2nd Nov (Sunday) 16:30
Performing by: Takumi Harada (Tokyo), Li NingNa(Jinan), Changjin(Seoul), Watan Wuma (Taipei), Chu Sua Man (Hong Kong), Fengzi(Shanghai), Jiangnan Liguo / Lin Xia (Hangzhou)
 
Showtime (free)
3rd Nov (Monday)  Only for night starting at 20:00
Organized by:Biljana Ciric
Participants: Huang Kui, Jin Feng, Song Tao, Hu Yun, Lu Jiawei, Gao Mingyan,Tang Dixin, Li Mu, Feng Zi
 
*****************
Culture Outpost: Rebellion Youth under the Illusion Light
Nov (Saturday) 16:30 �17:30
Speaker: Li Chun Nei  (Hong Kong)
 
Forum: Theatre and Social Space � inspired by Lu Xun 2008
2nd Nov (Sunday) 14:0016:00
Guest speakers: Wang Molin, Paik Wondam, Wang Xiao Ming, Zhang Xian and Tao Qing mei
Chaired by: Zhao Chuan
**************
Booking is recommended for all activities.
Email booking: grassstage@gmail.com or Miss Leng 13916285188 (Chinese only)
For more information: www.grassstage .com or http://blog.sina.com.cn/grassstage
 
Project organized by Zhao Chuan and Biljana Ciric
Project supported by Down Stream Garage/ Arthub Foundation/ Anlian Taohuayuan Youth theatre Found/ Zendai MoMa Intrude Art Project/ Ruixue Art Community


雅虎邮箱,您的终生邮箱!


雅虎邮箱,您的终生邮箱!


Saturday, October 04, 2008

The Chinese Art Explosion

The Chinese Art Explosion

As works by Chinese artists fetch multimillion-dollar prices, the
international art world is waking to the power of the Asian market.
China has spawned hundreds of new galleries, 1,600 auction houses,
art fairs, and growing numbers of contemporary-art collectors, while
accusations surface that some are engaging in widespread speculation
by Barbara Pollack

The market for Chinese contemporary art has developed at a feverish
pace, becoming the single fastest-growing segment of the
international art market. Since 2004, prices for works by Chinese
contemporary artists have increased by 2,000 percent or more, with
paintings that once sold for under $50,000 now bringing sums above $1
million. Nowhere has this boom been felt more appreciably than in
China, where it has spawned massive gallery districts, 1,600 auction
houses, and the first generation of Chinese contemporary-art collectors.

This craze for Chinese contemporary art has also given rise to a wave
of criticism. There are charges that Chinese collectors are using
mainland auction houses to boost prices and engage in widespread
speculation, just as if they were trading in stocks or real estate.
Western collectors are also being accused of speculation, by artists
who say they buy works cheap and then sell them for ten times the
original prices—and sometimes more.

Those who entered this market in the past three years found Chinese
contemporary art to be a surefire bet as prices doubled with each
sale. Sotheby's first New York sale of Asian contemporary art,
dominated by Chinese artists, brought a total of $13 million in March
2006; the same sale this past March garnered $23 million, and
Sotheby's Hong Kong sale of Chinese contemporary art in April totaled
nearly $34 million. Christie's Hong Kong has had sales of Asian
contemporary art since 2004. Its 2005 sales total of $11 million was
dwarfed by the $40.7 million total from a single evening sale in May
of this year.

These figures, impressive as they are, do not begin to convey the
astounding success at auction of a handful of Chinese artists: Zhang
Xiaogang, Yue Minjun, Cai Guo-Qiang, Liu Xiaodong, and Liu Ye. The
leader this year was Zeng Fanzhi, whose Mask Series No. 6 (1996) sold
for $9.6 million, a record for Chinese contemporary art, at
Christie's Hong Kong in May.

Zhang Xiaogang, who paints large, morose faces reminiscent of family
photographs taken during the Cultural Revolution, has seen his record
rise from $76,000 in 2003, when his oil paintings first appeared at
Christie's Hong Kong, to $2.3 million in November 2006, to $6.1
million in April of this year.

Gunpowder drawings by Cai Guo-Qiang, who was recently given a
retrospective at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, sold for well
below $500,000 in 2006; a suite of 14 works brought $9.5 million last
November.

According to the Art Price Index, Chinese artists took 35 of the top
100 prices for living contemporary artists at auction last year,
rivaling Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, and a host of Western artists.

"Everybody is looking to the East and to China, and the art market
isn't any different," says Kevin Ching, CEO of Sotheby's Asia.
"Notwithstanding the subprime crisis in the U.S. or the fact that
some of the other financial markets seem jittery, the overall
business community still has great faith in China, bolstered by the
Olympics and the World Expo in Shanghai in 2010."

There are indications, however, that the international market for
Chinese art is beginning to slow. At Sotheby's Asian contemporary-art
sale in March, 20 percent of the lots offered found no buyers, and
even works by top record-setters such as Zhang Xiaogang barely made
their low estimates. "The market is getting mature, so we can't sell
everything anymore," says Xiaoming Zhang, Chinese contemporary-art
specialist at Sotheby's New York. "The collectors have become really
smart and only concentrate on certain artists, certain periods,
certain material."

For their part, Western galleries are eagerly pursuing Chinese
artists, many of whom were unknown just a few years ago. Zeng Fanzhi,
for example, has been signed by Acquavella Galleries in New York, in
a two-year deal that exceeds $20 million, according to a Beijing
gallerist close to the negotiations; William Acquavella declined to
comment. Zhang Xiaogang and Zhang Huan have joined PaceWildenstein,
and Ai Weiwei and Liu Xiaodong showed with Mary Boone last spring.
Almost every major New York gallery has recently signed on a Chinese
artist: Yan Pei Ming at David Zwirner, Xu Zhen at James Cohan, Huang
Yong Ping at Gladstone, Yang Fudong at Marian Goodman, Liu Ye at
Sperone Westwater. Their works are entering private and public
collections that until now have not shown any particular interest in
Asian contemporary art.

"The market hasn't behaved as I anticipated," says New York dealer
Max Protetch, who has been representing artists from China since
1996. "We all anticipated that the Chinese artists would go through
the same critical process that happens with art anywhere else in the
world. I assumed that some artists would fall by the wayside, which
has not been true. They all have become elevated. It seems like an
uncritical market."

One of the key artists buoyed by this success is Zeng Fanzhi, who is
best known for his "Mask" series. Five years ago his works sold for
under $50,000. Today he commands prices on the primary market closer
to $1 million, with major collectors Charles Saatchi and Jose Mugrabi
among his fans. Now preparing for his first solo show at Acquavella
in December, he is considered one of the more serious artists on the
Beijing scene because he works alone, without the horde of assistants
found in most other artists' studios in China. Still, his lifestyle
is typical of that of his equally successful peers. When asked if he
owns a mammoth black Hummer parked outside his studio, he answers,
"No, that's an ugly car. I have a G5 Benz."

This success has blossomed under the watchful eye of the Chinese
government. Movies, television, and news organizations are strictly
censored, but on the whole, the visual arts are not. Despite sporadic
incidents of exhibitions being closed or customs officials seizing
artworks, by and large the government has supported the growth of an
art market and has not interfered with private activity. In the 798
gallery district in Beijing, a Bauhaus-style former munitions complex
that has been transformed into the capital's hottest art center, with
more than 150 galleries, one finds works addressing poverty and other
social problems, official corruption, and new sexual mores. The icons
of the former China—happy workers and peasants and heroic soldiers
raising the red banner—are treated with irony, if at all, by the
artists whose works are on view in these galleries, which are private
venues generally not under the strict control of the Ministry of
Culture.

On the eve of the Olympics, however, the government asked one gallery
to postpone an exhibition until after the games. Considered
unsuitable was "Touch," a show by Ma Baozhong at the Xin Beijing
Gallery of 15 paintings depicting important moments in Chinese
history, including one based on a photograph showing Mao Zedong with
the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama in 1954.

The Beijing municipality spent enormous funds to renovate the 798
district before the Olympics, putting in new cobblestone streets and
lining its main thoroughfare with cafés. Shanghai, which has
benefited less from government support, now boasts at least 100
galleries. Local governments throughout the country are establishing
SoHo-style gallery districts to boost tourism.

One person who seems confident about the future of the Chinese market
is Arne Glimcher, founder and president of PaceWildenstein, who
opened a branch of his gallery in Beijing in August. Located in a
22,000-square-foot cement space with soaring ceilings, redesigned at
a cost of $20 million by architect Richard Gluckman, the gallery is
in the center of the 798 district. "We are committed to the art, and
we wanted to open a gallery where our artists are," says Glimcher.
Adding that he normally eschews the "McGallery" trend of setting up
satellite spaces around the world, Glimcher insists that it was
necessary to establish a branch in Beijing because there is "no local
gallery of our caliber" with which Pace could partner. He has,
however, recruited Leng Lin, founder of Beijing Commune, another
gallery operating in 798, to be his director.

Another Western dealer who has taken the China plunge is Arthur
Solway, who recently opened a branch of James Cohan in Shanghai. "I
started coming to China five years ago, and I was fascinated by the
energy," says Solway, who wanted to introduce gallery artists like
Bill Viola, Wim Wenders, and Roxy Paine to Asia but, like Glimcher,
could not find a public museum or private gallery that he considered
professionally qualified to handle such exhibitions. James Cohan
Gallery Shanghai is located on the ground floor of a 1936 Art Deco
structure in the French Concession, a particularly picturesque
section of the city. The building was once occupied by the military,
and red Chinese characters over the front door still exhort, "Let the
spirit of Mao Zedong flourish for 10,000 years."

"From 1966 to 1976, during the Cultural Revolution, people had
nothing, but now there are spas in Shanghai and people drinking
cappuccinos and buying Rolex watches—it's an amazing phenomenon,"
says Solway, who believes it is only a matter of time before these
same newly affluent consumers begin to collect contemporary art.

Chinese collectors—or the hope that there will be Chinese collectors—
are the key draw luring these galleries to Beijing. As recently as
two years ago, few could name even a single Chinese collector of
contemporary art. It was a truism that the Chinese preferred to spend
their money acquiring antiquities and classical works. Since then
several well-known mainland collectors have emerged on the scene.

Most visible is Guan Yi, the suave, well-dressed heir to a chemical-
engineering fortune, who has assembled a museum-quality collection of
more than 500 works. A major lender to the Huang Yong Ping
retrospective organized by the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis in
2005, he regularly entertains museum trustees from all over the
world, who make the pilgrimage to his warehouse on the outskirts of
Beijing. Now he is building his own museum.

Another noted figure is Zhang Lan, head of the South Beauty chain of
Szechuan-style restaurants throughout China; she also has assembled
an enviable collection and displays pieces from it in her chic
establishments. The film actress Zhang Ziyi is representative of a
new class of collectors from the entertainment industry, while Pan
Shiyi and Zhang Xin, chairman and CEO of the mammoth SOHO China real
estate empire, have commissioned projects for their upscale
residential properties.

Two collectors who are cheerleaders for the Beijing art scene are
Yang Bin, an automobile-franchise mogul, and Zhang Rui, a
telecommunications executive who is also the backer of Beijing Art
Now Gallery, which took part in Art Basel in June, one of the first
Beijing galleries to appear at the fair. These two do more than
collect art. They have hosted dinners for potential collectors,
organized tours to Art Basel Miami Beach, and brought friends with
them to sales in London and New York. Zhang Rui, who owns more than
500 works, has lent art to international exhibitions, most notably
the installation Tomorrow, which features four "dead Beatles"
mannequins floating facedown, created by artists Sun Yuan and Peng Yu
for the 2006 Liverpool Biennial, which rejected it.

Zhang is now building an art hotel, featuring specially commissioned
works and artist-designed rooms, outside the Workers' Stadium in the
center of Beijing. "I am trying to think of ways of changing my
private collection into a public collection," Zhang explained to
ARTnews through a translator. It isn't financially advantageous to do
this in China, as no tax benefits accrue from donations to museums or
other nonprofit institutions.

Zhang Rui represents the handful of Chinese collectors who are public
about their activities and are building noteworthy collections. Far
more typical of buying activity in China is the rampant speculation
taking place in the mainland auction houses. There are 1,600
registered auctioneers, and their sales attract hundreds of bidders.
Chinese buyers are more comfortable with auction houses, which have
been in business since 1994, than with galleries, which weren't
licensed to operate by the government until the late 1990s.

These auction houses run by their own rules, generating what
sometimes seems like a "wild, wild East" atmosphere. It is, for
example, fairly common for a house to get consignments directly from
artists, who then use the sales to establish prices for their works
on the primary market. More often, now that China has hundreds of
galleries, dealers come to a sale with buyers in tow, publicly
bidding up works to establish "record prices" and advertise their
artists. This kind of bidding ring would be considered illegal in the
United States, but in China it is viewed as a savvy business
practice. There is little regulation of auction houses and few
developed legal norms in the field, so that even when buyers have
grievances—with fakes and forgeries, for example—they do not feel
they can resort to the law. Bidding is a social as well as a business
activity, and buyers are happy to flaunt their status by paying
record prices or quickly flipping artworks, not only for profit but
so they can boast of their short-term gains.

As the domestic market for contemporary art matures, however, many of
these practices are coming into question. "Two years ago it was more
necessary for me to bring my artists to auction," says Fang Fang,
owner of Star Gallery in Beijing, which specializes in young emerging
artists such as Chen Ke and Gao Yu. "Now that the gallery market has
increased, I find it is better to keep my artists out of the auction
rooms, and there is much less reason to sell there."

Two mainland firms, Beijing Poly International Auction Company, and
China Guardian Auctions Company, dominate the field of contemporary
Chinese art. Their combined 2007 total of more than $200 million in
sales represented nearly two-thirds of all auction sales in this
category in mainland China for the year. Last spring Guardian
achieved $142 million in sales of classical artworks, furniture,
ceramics, silver, and coins, and $40 million in sales of contemporary
material. The latter figure included the $8.2 million fetched by Liu
Xiaodong's Hotbed No. 1, a record for a painting sold on the
mainland. In a similar range of sales last spring, Poly sold $130
million worth of works, including $27 million in a single evening
contemporary-art sale. (These figures represent a slight decline for
the year because both houses held benefit sales for Szechuan
earthquake victims, raising more than $20 million to support relief
efforts.)

Poly and Guardian reflect two vastly different perspectives on the
domestic market in Chinese contemporary art. Guardian is the oldest
and most respected auction house in China, founded in 1993 by Wang
Yannan, daughter of Zhao Ziyang, the former Communist Party leader
who was placed under house arrest after opposing the government's use
of force against demonstrators at Tiananmen Square in 1989. If Poly
is known for its vast resources and willingness to make deals to nab
consignments, Guardian is known for its respected specialists and
long-term client relationships. For example, when the Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston, decided to sell 20 pieces of Qing dynasty porcelain in
mainland China, it consigned the collection to Guardian.

The atmosphere of a sale at Poly or Guardian is surprisingly similar
to that in the salerooms of Christie's or Sotheby's. The catalogues
are identical in design, and the bidding proceeds in an orderly, even
sedate, fashion, despite the crowds of spectators in the room.

"From our beginning, we studied what the principles of an auction
house should be, and we stick to these principles," says Guardian
president Wang. She also serves on the board of the new nationwide
auctioneers' association, which hopes to enforce regulations on the
auction market.

Poly is an enterprise within the China Poly Group Corporation, a $30
billion conglomerate that is the privatized branch of the People's
Liberation Army. Established initially to repatriate artworks and
antiquities, Poly has spent $100 million buying objects such as the
bronze animal heads from a water-clock fountain that were looted from
Beijing's Summer Palace by British and French troops in 1860; the
pieces later turned up in the West. The repatriated objects are
showcased in the Poly Art Museum in the sparkling New Beijing Poly
Plaza, a glass-enclosed tower designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

The more freewheeling Poly is known for practices such as putting up
for auction works from its own collection or having consignors
guarantee that they will bring buyers to the sale to meet low
estimates. Still, even here there are signs that the market is
maturing and has become too expensive for casual speculators. "These
collectors that you are talking about are actually quite small
collectors," explains Zhao Xu, senior consultant at Poly. "They
bought for several years at very affordable prices, but now that
prices are skyrocketing, the only way they can afford to buy is to
sell. The collectors that I know already come from a high social
status, and they can afford to buy pieces worth $1 million or $2
million and are looking for the best works, the masterpieces, to add
to their collections."

When asked if Poly follows the rules of the Western auction houses,
Zhao sharply retorts, "Sometimes even Sotheby's doesn't follow the
rules." Or as Gong Jisui, an art-market specialist who is a professor
at the Central Academy of Fine Arts in Beijing, says, "The Chinese
learned this game of speculation from the Westerners who played it
first."

The incident to which both men are referring is the sale of the
Estella Collection at Sotheby's Hong Kong on April 9 of this year.
The event reaped $18 million for 108 works. (An additional 80 works
will be up for sale this month at Sotheby's New York.) The collection
was put together from 2003 to 2006 by New York dealer Michael
Goedhuis for a group of investors that included Sacha Lainovic, a
director of Weight Watchers International, and Raymond Debbane, CEO
of the Invus Group, a private equity firm.

Last year the collection of approximately 200 works was sold to
William Acquavella, who consigned it to Sotheby's. Auction house
officials will not discuss financial details, but Sotheby's had a
stake in the collection. After the sale it was widely reported that
many of the artists were angered by the auction because, they said,
they had sold their works to Goedhuis at discount prices in exchange
for promises that the collection would remain together for public
display.

"The idea was to keep the collection intact and to see it safely into
some institution," says Goedhuis, who denies that any promises were
made. "The ideal situation was to see it with an institution in
China, because there is no such collection." The collection was
published in a book, China Onward, with an essay by leading China
expert Britta Erickson, and it was exhibited at the Louisiana Museum
of Modern Art in Denmark and the Israel Museum in Jerusalem shortly
before the sale. According to Goedhuis, because of the rapid rise in
prices, the investors chose to sell the collection with hopes that it
would not be broken up.

"Since the museums in China aren't mature enough nor are they rich
enough to do an acquisition like this, my hope was that Steve Wynn
would do so for his sophisticated casino complex in Macao," Goedhuis
says. He turned to Acquavella because, he says, he believed the
dealer would bring the collection to Wynn; Acquavella paid a reported
$25 million. Acquavella director Michael Findlay laughs at the
suggestion that there was any indication that the collection would go
to Wynn. "I think this whole thing is surrounded by so much rumor and
speculation," he says. "We bought a group of paintings, and we sold a
group of paintings, and that's the whole story."

According to Maarten ten Holder, Sotheby's managing director for
North and South America, the firm received inquiries before the sale
from several artists in the collection, wondering why the works were
to be auctioned. There is disagreement about whether Goedhuis made
firm promises to keep the collection together or merely made a sales
pitch to artists that inclusion in the collection would enhance their
reputations. Yue Minjun, who had two works in the sale, says no
promises were made. And Goedhuis bought Zeng Fanzhi's Chairman Mao
with Us from Hanart T Z Gallery in 2005 for the asking price,
$30,000, no discount given. It sold for $1.18 million.

"You have to understand that there was no market for this work when I
was buying," says Howard Farber, whose collection brought $20 million
at Phillips de Pury & Company in London last October. Farber
assembled 100 choice works by assiduously visiting artists' studios
in Beijing in the late 1980s, accompanied by the Beijing-based critic
Karen Smith, a leading author and curator in this field. A work for
which he paid $25,000 in 1996, Wang Guangyi's Great Criticism: Coca-
Cola, was sold at Phillips de Pury for $1.6 million. The buyer was
Farber's son-in-law, Larry Warsh, who bid on several works at the
sale, according to newspaper accounts. "I really didn't actually know
I was going to buy the Wang Guangyi until that moment," says Warsh.
"Howard has his collection, and it's not my collection, and there
were many pieces I wanted from that collection that I would have
wanted to buy but couldn't afford."

Many Beijing artists had agreements with Warsh to produce work for
his collection and his art advisory business, which began in 2004,
inspired by Farber's example in the field. "I was enamored by China,
and then I was enamored by the art of China as I learned about
important artists," says Warsh. "But what really hit me first was how
the pricing did not make sense to me at all—everything was out of
whack."

Warsh, who amassed a collection of works by Jean-Michel Basquiat,
Keith Haring, and Kenny Scharf in the late 1980s, was the publisher
of the now-defunct Museums Magazine, which he sold to LTB Media in
2004. He stated at one point that his collection totaled more than
1,200 works; now, he says, he owns approximately 400 paintings and
photographs. Part of his collection is managed by his new business
venture, AW Asia, which has a gallery in Chelsea and intends to
assemble collections of Chinese contemporary art for museums and
major private collectors. The Museum of Modern Art in New York
recently acquired 23 photographs from AW Asia.

With Farber and Warsh circulating in Beijing for a variety of
purposes, it was easy for Chinese artists to become confused about
who was buying for whom and for what purpose. In recent interviews,
several artists—most notably Zhang Xiaogang, who had an agreement
with Warsh—pointed to him as an example of a speculator.

Warsh replies, "While some artists are not so pleased with their
decision to have sold quantities of artwork at what was then their
current values not so long ago, there are many artists who are not
resentful and actually pleased that someone has taken an interest in
their work."

New York dealer Jack Tilton, who has worked with Chinese artists
since 1999, says, "All of these artists are hoping that their work
finds good homes rather than getting churned in the commercial
market. But they have also played a part in this market, embracing
capitalism more than we have, in funny ways. They are not naive about
any of this stuff."

When asked about the artists' reactions to the sale of his
collection, Farber was flabbergasted: "So what? Now I am the bad guy.
That pisses me off!"

A number of major collectors of Chinese contemporary art who have
been in the field for some time are holding on to their collections.
Uli Sigg, Swiss ambassador to China, Mongolia, and North Korea from
1995 to 1998, has built a collection of key works that he has toured
in the exhibition "Mahjong" to museums throughout Europe and, most
recently, the University of California's Berkeley Art Museum
(September 10–January 4). Belgian collectors Guy and Myriam Ullens
have used their resources to establish the first nonprofit
contemporary-art center in Beijing, where they are currently
exhibiting their historic collection. So far, collector Charles
Saatchi has been hanging on to his purchases in preparation for
opening his new gallery in London on the 9th of next month with a
show of Chinese contemporary art; he has also launched a Chinese-
language Web site on which mainland artists can post their works.

In comparison with Western buying, mainland Chinese participation
pales. Though there are many rumors about the power of the new
Chinese buyers, their presence has not been felt in the major auction
houses, where most of the records are being set. "Hong Kong right now
covers the global buyers, especially those from across Asia," says
Eric Chang, Christie's international director of Asian contemporary
art. "I am not really seeing mainland Chinese buyers—less than 10
percent—a drop from around 12 percent." Dealers in China also have
seen few mainland collectors among their regular clients. "I don't
know yet about collectors," says New York dealer Christophe Mao of
Chambers Fine Art, which recently opened a branch in Beijing.

Despite the current shortage of mainland art collectors, China is
emerging as a major art center, having become a hub for buyers from
South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, and Southeast Asia, and
for overseas Chinese from all over the world. Reflecting this
diversity is the wide range of foreign dealers among the 300
galleries in Beijing, including Continua from Italy, Urs Meile from
Switzerland, Arario and PKM from South Korea, Beijing Tokyo Art
Projects from Japan, and Tang from Indonesia.

"In Beijing it's getting increasingly difficult to talk about the
Chinese market as a separate entity from the broader Asian art market
or the international art market," says Meg Maggio, an American who
came to China in 1988 and ran one of the first galleries in the
country, CourtYard, in Beijing, from 1998 to 2006. Now she has her
own gallery, Pékin Fine Arts, where she represents an international
stable of artists. "How do you describe the market for a Korean
artist showing in China or a Chinese artist living in New York?" she
asks, noting that her business can come from South Korean collectors
visiting Beijing or European companies doing business in China.

One factor in China's development as a center for contemporary art is
the proliferation of art fairs. Beijing has two, the China
International Gallery Exposition and Art Beijing; Shanghai has the
newly created ShContemporary, now in its second year; and Hong Kong
just launched ART HK. CIGE director Wang Yihan says her fair
attracted 40,000 visitors this year, while the more high-toned
ShContemporary brought in 25,000 and ART HK 08 had 19,000. These
numbers may seem small in comparison with the 60,000 who crowd Art
Basel, but dealers believe that the fairs in Asia are worthwhile
because they attract new buyers and make Asian collectors feel more
comfortable about acquiring art from galleries.

"Anywhere else, a fair is just a fair," says Lorenz Helbling of
ShanghART, one of the oldest galleries in China and a participant in
Art Basel. "But in Shanghai a fair feels like so much more because
only there can it make an impact on several million people." He is
referring not only to attendance but to the intensive publicity and
official recognition given to ShContemporary in its inaugural year.

Just a few years ago it would have been impossible to try to sell
contemporary art to Asian buyers, let alone mainland Chinese
collectors, in the public forum of an art fair. Now, with the
astounding success of Chinese contemporary art, collectors from
across the region—and more than a few from the United States and
Europe—are targeting China as a destination. According to Nick
Simunovic, who has opened an office and showroom for Gagosian Gallery
in Hong Kong, it is only a matter of time before these regional
buyers turn their attention to Western contemporary art.

"My sense is that wherever you have tremendous wealth creation, the
collecting cycle goes through three phases," he says. "First, people
collect their cultural patrimony, and then they collect their own
contemporary art. I think the final stage is when they gain a more
globalized contemporary-art approach."

Gagosian first considered opening an office in Shanghai but
encountered obstacles to doing business on the mainland. The most
formidable of these is a 34 percent luxury tax on art, which foreign
galleries that participated in ShContemporary found difficult to
avoid. Hong Kong, by comparison, is a duty-free zone. And Simunovic
found that even Jeff Koons was a tough sell in Shanghai, whereas Hong
Kong offers more possibilities for Western contemporary art. Just a
year ago Hong Kong billionaire Joseph Lau paid $72 million for Andy
Warhol's Green Car Crash (Green Burning Car I). In May Christie's
brought a Warhol portrait of Mao, valued at $120 million and for sale
privately, for viewing in Hong Kong. (At press time it had not yet
been sold.)

"Sure, China is hot, but that's just the peak of the iceberg," says
Lorenzo Rudolf, former director of Art Basel and cofounder of
ShContemporary. "This is not just about a group of Chinese painters.
It's about a growing market going on in this continent."

With the sheer abundance of galleries, auction houses, and art fairs
in China, the larger art world is recognizing the power of the Asian
market. Standing in an auction house in New York or London watching
paintings by Chinese artists sell for millions, one can grouse about
this boom and hint that it will turn out to be a bubble. But
strolling in a bustling gallery district in Beijing, with students
and tourists crowding the cafés and boutiques and filling the huge
art showrooms, few would predict a downturn in the near future.

Barbara Pollack is a contributing editor of ARTnews.


Order This Issue | Subscribe to ARTnews
< Back to September 2008
Home Advertise Links Customer Service Privacy Policy Terms of Use
Contact Us
© 2008 ARTnews LLC. All Rights Reserved. Website by Analog Method.
ARTnews® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Shanghai Calendar

September 3, Sh Contemporary party at Bund 18, 6-midnight (their invite below)
September 6, Shanghart and Shanghai Gallery of Art openings (Yang Fudong and Michael Lin respectively)
September 7, Song Dong opening at Zendai Museum + Ke Center Opening
September 8, Shanghai Biennial opens (Sept 9-Nov 16)
September 9, ShContemporary VIP Preview (Sept 10-13)
September 10, 2 pm - Arthub presents at ShContemporary: Zhao Chuan, an art historian from Shanghai, will talk about his book on the “Birth of Avantgarde in Shanghai.”
September 10, Yishu launch at Zendai
September 11, 2 pm - Arthub presents at ShContemporary: Shanghai-based Curator Biljana Ciric will launch and talk about her book “Rejected Collection” with CHARTA.
September 12, 2 pm - Arthub presents at ShContemporary: Birdhead (artists Song Tao and Ji Weiyu) will be on site to sign their limited-edition books.
September 12, 7.30 pm, Chinese Contemporary Art collector Sylvain Levy will speak to FCC. (venue TBD- will keep you posted)
September 13, 2 pm- Arthub presents at ShContemporary: A presentation of Asia Art Forum, an educational initiative for young collectors, art professionals and
enthusiasts.
October 17-22, E-arts festival (a city-wide celebration of new media)
October 22, Christian Marclay with Elliott Sharp, Wu Na, Ben Houge, Bruce Gremo, etc.


MOCA, James Cohan, Bizart missing.

Painting Seized by Chinese Customs; China Detains Graffiti Artist

From Artforum

Birds Nest, in the Style of Cubism, a painting by Zhang Hongtu, is now at the Lin & Keng Gallery in Taipei, awaiting shipment back to New York, reports the Wall Street Journal’s David d’Arcy. The ashen-brown piece shows the gleaming new Olympic stadium, designed by the Swiss architects Herzog and de Meuron, as Picasso might have painted it—as a decaying ruin rendered in fragmented angled forms. On the canvas, cubist-style, are inscriptions in English letters and Chinese characters: TIBET, HUMAN RIGHT, and the Olympic motto, ONE WORLD, ONE DREAM. The painting was supposed to be in Beijing during the Olympic Games, in the exhibition “Go Game, Beijing!” organized by a Berlin marketing firm and displayed at the German Embassy. But it was seized by customs on arrival and denied entry as “unacceptable” for its color, its depiction of the stadium, and its inscriptions. The artist, Zhang, has lived in New York since 1982, when he left China to study at the Art Students League. His work, which blends Chinese and Western styles, often satirizes Chinese political icons, as when he put the image of Mao Zedong on Quaker Oats boxes. Speaking about Zhang, Jerome Silbergeld, a professor of Chinese art at Princeton, said, “This is part of his own dialogue with China and the Chinese government, and he got an answer.”

The Wall Street Journal also reports on its blog that James Powderly, an American graffiti and laser artist, has been detained by the Chinese government. Powderly was planning to debut a new “laser stencil” in Beijing that would have beamed words and images up to three stories high onto large flat surfaces such as billboards and building facades. On Tuesday, Students for a Free Tibet received a message that Powderly had been detained since 3 AM, his whereabouts unknown. Previously, the group that Powderly founded, Graffiti Research Lab, was disinvited from a group exhibition on new media art at a Beijing museum. In a statement Powderly said he was “proud to have been kicked out of the ‘Synthetic Times’ new media art exhibition in Beijing because he wouldn’t censor his little art project.” Powderly’s work still managed to be seen in Beijing, albeit on much smaller (and briefer) scale. Last night, a group of five activists affiliated with Students for a Free Tibet used one of Powderly’s inventions, LED “throwies” to spell out FREE TIBET in English and Chinese in Beijing’s Olympic Park. The five were detained by security personnel after displaying the banner for about twenty seconds.

Shanghai This Fall

September 3, Sh Contemporary party at Bund 18, 6-midnight (their
invite below)
September 6, Shanghart and Shanghai Gallery of Art openings (Yang
Fudong and Michael Lin respectively)
September 7, Song Dong opening at Zendai Museum + Ke Center Opening
September 8, Shanghai Biennial opens (Sept 9-Nov 16)
September 9, ShContemporary VIP Preview (Sept 10-13)
September 10, 2 pm - Arthub presents at ShContemporary: Zhao Chuan,
an art historian from Shanghai, will talk about his book on the
"Birth of Avantgarde in Shanghai."
September 10, Yishu launch at Zendai
September 11, 2 pm - Arthub presents at ShContemporary: Shanghai-
based Curator Biljana Ciric will launch and talk about her book
"Rejected Collection" with CHARTA.
September 12, 2 pm - Arthub presents at ShContemporary: Birdhead
(artists Song Tao and Ji Weiyu) will be on site to sign their limited-
edition books.
September 12, 7.30 pm, Chinese Contemporary Art collector Sylvain
Levy will speak to FCC. (venue TBD- will keep you posted)
September 13, 2 pm- Arthub presents at ShContemporary: A presentation
of Asia Art Forum, an educational initiative for young collectors,
art professionals and
enthusiasts.
October 17-22, E-arts festival (a city-wide celebration of new media)
October 22, Christian Marclay with Elliott Sharp, Wu Na, Ben Houge,
Bruce Gremo, etc.


MOCA, James Cohan, Bizart missing.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Artforum- Sean Keller on the BEIJING OLYMPIC GAMES

Summer 2008
Beijing Olympics

THE OLYMPIC GAMES as we know them were born out of a late-nineteenth-century marriage of classical mythology and political science fiction. They decree that every four years all the nations of the world will set aside their political struggles and come together to compete in proxy battles of sport; everyone will watch. Yet such a premise naively denies both the relentlessness of politics and the equally irrepressible need for political power to be represented, to be made into images. Having stubbornly refused to follow their script, the modern Olympics stand in collective memory as a series of political—not athletic—events: Berlin '36 (Nazis), Mexico '68 (murdered protesters and censured Black Power salutes), Munich '72 (Middle Eastern terrorism), Montreal '76 (boycott against apartheid), Moscow '80 (boycott against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan), Los Angeles '84 (boycott against the previous boycott), and now, controversial already, Beijing '08.

As the latest addition to this lineage, Beijing '08 presents a new variety of Olympic propaganda, one that reflects the ambiguities of the post–cold war world. Like its present mixture of socialism and capitalism, the Chinese government's motivations for hosting the games are apparently contradictory. Beijing competed for the Olympics in order to stage a coming-out party as a global superpower, but it simultaneously needs to demonstrate that this power is benign (in both geopolitical and environmental terms). The games have thus become a very public test for the complex compromises that define contemporary China as it faces serious internal and external pressures.

The context for this global examination will be a massively reshaped Beijing. Since the decline of World Expositions, the Olympics have provided a unique opportunity for political representation on an international scale; and for host cities such as Beijing, they are primarily an architectural and urban-planning event—the physical environment serving as the medium for the host's message. At the level of domestic politics, the games provide an excuse for otherwise unrealizable civic acts, as the neutral forms of the fields, tracks, and pools become embedded in a field of ideologically charged urban design.

Given Beijing's desire to send a global welcome message via its orchestration of sport, spectacle, and architecture, and given its own history of occupation by Japan, one of the Axis powers in World War II, it seems scarcely believable that the name behind its new urban plan is Albert Speer—son of Albert Speer (himself the son of an Albert Speer). Immediately, one must say that the current Speer has had a long and respectable career as an architect and urban planner, and that he appears guilty of nothing more than choosing the same profession as his infamous father. Yet more than the name has provoked comparisons to Berlin circa 1936. Like the grandiose scheme envisioned by his father for Hitler's Berlin, Speer's plan for Beijing is organized around a monumental north-south axis anchored by a large new train station. The correlation is certainly tempting. But again, one must resist and acknowledge that, historically, the monumental axis is so widespread as an urban device, and has been hitched to such a range of political wagons, that it would be a mistake to assign any inherent political "meaning" to the grand axis in abstracto.

Speer himself rejects the comparison to Berlin and emphasizes the deep Chinese roots of his plan. Drawing on centuries of tradition, it reasserts and extends the axis of the Forbidden City, which, after the end of imperial rule in 1911, was progressively weakened in favor of the east-west axis of Chang'an Avenue—itself a highly symbolic new "axis of the people" elaborated by both Republican and Communist governments. But even within this specific context, an assessment of the master plan remains elusive. What value to give to the decision by the current leaders of the Communist Party to reject their own urban planning legacy and return to the imperial axis? Is it, as Speer has claimed, a progressive renewal of the traditions of the Chinese people? Or is it a repackaging of the party's power in the guise of the historical authority it once claimed to reject?

Perhaps more telling than the return to the imperial axis is the manner of its extension, and here the historical comparisons are useful. If axiality has traditionally been used as an unambiguous sign of centralized power, in contemporary Beijing the symbolic effect has been deliberately tempered. The Beijing planners are using the axis as a fundamental principle, and at a vast scale, but—through displacements, asymmetries, and curvilinear landscape elements—they have modulated its northern extension as it passes through the Olympic Green and dissolves into a large park (the Green is the work of US-based Sasaki Associates). The urban effect is "soft power" on a grand scale. The dilemma this raises—and it is a fundamental problem in thinking about China today—is whether it is better to deal with an autocratic political system that clearly represents itself as autocratic, or with an autocratic political system that partially dissimulates itself with gestures toward openness.

Practically, the rebuilding of the city has been achieved through the application of unambiguously "hard" power. The Chinese government has admitted to displacing fifteen thousand residents; human rights groups estimate the actual number may be as high as 1.5 million. Much of the city's traditional urban fabric, based on the narrow alleys called hutongs, has been demolished to make way for the modern hotels, apartment buildings, offices, and parks that the government wants as a backdrop for the games; and in the frenzied sweep of construction equipment many historical sites have been unearthed and built over faster than they can be recorded.

Click to enlarge

PTW Architects, China State Construction Engineering Corporation, Arup, National Aquatics Center, 2003–2008, Beijing. Interior. Photo: PTW Architects.

At the scale of individual buildings, the Chinese Olympic committee has chosen to sponsor the most advanced forms of international architecture. Flanking the central axis near the park are the architectural icons of the Beijing games: the National Stadium, designed by Swiss stars Herzog & de Meuron, and the National Aquatics Center, by a partnership of Australia-based PTW Architects and the Chinese group CSCEC (China State Construction Engineering Corporation). Both buildings have involved substantial collaboration with Arup, the engineering powerhouse behind so many famous new buildings. Better known by their popularizing nicknames the "Bird's Nest" and the "Watercube," the two projects—a bowl of steel bands and a box of blue bubbles—are examples of the particularly effective soft-power tactic of naturalization: the ascription of natural qualities to man-made entities. By describing architecture in terms of nature, naturalization can make design choices seem both inevitable and neutral. In Olympic history, the precedent for this approach is again German. Given the terrible legacy of Berlin '36, Munich '72 faced the difficult problem of creating a nonthreatening national monumentality. It solved this representational conundrum with a "landscape" of enormous tentlike roofs developed by Frei Otto and based on the forms taken by soap films in tension—forms that seemed to represent nothing more than the laws of nature.

Soap bubbles are back for Beijing '08 at the National Aquatics Center—and with a similar rationale. This complex building is essentially a large hollow box carved out of a foam of giant "bubbles," each roughly ten feet in diameter. More precisely, the bubbles are twelve- and fourteen-sided polyhedrons packed together in a regular three-dimensional array. Their arrangement is based on a recently discovered solution to the problem of efficiently dividing space into cells of equal volume (like bubbles in an ideal foam). In the Aquatics Center, this geometry is embodied in twenty-two thousand steel members that mark the edges of the polyhedrons. On the exterior and interior faces of the building the edges are spanned by thin sheets of plastic, creating a deep, sealed envelope of space around the perimeter. This perimeter is slightly pressurized, causing the sheets to bulge like hundreds of taut balloons and turning the building into an energy-efficient greenhouse. According to the designers, the building is both environmentally responsible and conceptually tied to natural forms such as crystals, cells, and, of course, water bubbles.

Engineers and architects have long taken cues from nature, but one aspect marks the Aquatics Center as a particularly contemporary design, suited to the contradictory demands of Beijing '08. Although the ideal "bubble" array itself is entirely regular and repetitious, the volume that the Watercube cuts through this array has been arbitrarily rotated on all three axes. The result is that the array appears to be irregular as it reaches the exterior and interior faces of the Aquatics Center. This choice can only have been driven by representational desires, since it greatly complicates the construction process. Even from the point of view of representation, it would have been an unthinkable decision until just the past decade or two. Rather than celebrating the well-ordered solution to the efficiency problem on which the building is based, the architects have willfully skewed and sliced it in order to suggest a pseudonaturalistic disorder. The widely publicized blue face of the Watercube is, then, a disarming mask for the thoroughly optimized and repetitious array that lies behind.

Herzog & de Meuron's "Bird's Nest" National Stadium is technically less advanced than the Aquatics Center—but architecturally more ambitious. Collabo­rating with Chinese art star Ai Weiwei and the Chinese Architectural Design & Research Group, the Pritzker Prize–winning firm conceived a monolithic concrete bowl that seats ninety-one thousand, resting within and partially beneath a saddle-shaped lid formed by an irregular weave of steel bands. To explain the project, Herzog & de Meuron have offered two principal metaphors. First, the firm relates the overall form of the stadium to that of a Shang dynasty vessel, suggesting that, although entirely contemporary, the stadium also draws on the ancient traditions of Chinese art. This metaphor expresses the desire for an "archaic" form that would overcome the hodgepodge of ticket gates, snack shops, and Jumbotrons that make up a typical contemporary stadium. The second metaphor comes from the structural concept of the project: Like twigs in a bird's nest, each element would support and be supported by the others, producing a nonhierarchical structure. The steel bands would also be fully exposed, thereby acting as both the building's facade and its ornament. The result is just the sort of twist on high-modernist principles that has become characteristic of Herzog & de Meuron's work. Here the distinction between structure and ornament is collapsed à la Mies, but instead of the master's calm Neoclassical order, we are given a taut sense of barely contained chaos. The underlying desire was to work against the great size of the stadium, to de-monumentalize it through the erratic web of bands. In the New York Times Magazine in 2006, Pierre de Meuron spoke of trying to ensure that "this huge structure is not oppressive." Again, the tendency is to soften the power of what is ostensibly a monumental project. (Herzog & de Meuron achieved this softening effect quite literally in the firm's much-celebrated Allianz Arena in Munich, where the unitary drum of the building is given a quilted skin of air-filled pillows—technology that Arup has transferred to the Watercube.)

Given the enviable sophistication of the firm's practice, it is not surprising that, despite the use of these nearly contradictory metaphors, the architects have largely got what they wanted. The Bird's Nest is both unitary and scaleless, primitive and novel: a massive urban device that denies its own weight. In the wake of this undeniable achievement, the pressing question that remains is whether these motivations are appropriate for Beijing '08. The point becomes especially acute when one considers the conditions in which the metaphorical nest was constructed. Jacques Herzog remarked enthusiastically in 2006 that "such a structure you couldn't do anywhere else." Why not? Because, as the architects estimated, "construction costs in Beijing are one-tenth the amount in the West." For despite its lightweight metaphor, the one archaic aspect of the Bird's Nest was its dependence on a sheer mass of poorly compensated manual labor. As many as seven thousand workers, mainly migrants from the countryside, worked for about $4 per day to raise and weld the forty-two thousand tons of steel on time. While it would be unfair to blame Herzog & de Meuron for the hardship of the Chinese builders, they have taken advantage of the conditions that produce this suffering—as have all of us who benefit from the inexpensive labor and lax regulations of the world's fastest-growing major economy. The stadium, then, does not represent the value-free world of nature (as its nickname suggests), nor even the timeless values of traditional Chinese art. Instead, it represents the use of authoritarian politics and raw capitalism to produce a desirable product. Which is to say that it is a monument to the relationship that we in the West have to China today.

If Herzog & de Meuron imagine the stadium as an ancient Chinese vessel, the firm also surely knows that Ai Weiwei has made a name for himself by smashing such antiquities. Having played an instrumental part in the design of the stadium that will host the opening ceremonies, the artist has since disavowed the games entirely: "I hate the kind of feeling stirred up by promotion or propaganda. . . . It's the kind of sentiment when you don't stick to the facts, but try to make up something, to mislead people away from a true discussion," he remarked last year in The Guardian. Yet Ai says he does not regret his involvement in the project, suggesting that its value lies in some future contribution to Beijing, not in its present use by the state. While seemingly erratic, his shifting position is in fact an honest reflection of the aporia presented by the choice of engagement or boycott that defines the politics of Beijing '08.

Finally, the Olympic buildings may provide one other cautionary lesson. Encouraged by these and other recent projects—especially Rem Koolhaas and Ole Scheeren's nearby CCTV Television Station and Headquarters—Western architects and critics have been celebrating the opening of China to their most advanced designs. One may even be tempted to see this as a sign of a more general political tolerance. However, a less encouraging interpretation is also possible: Perhaps architecture is given latitude only because of its capacity to remain representationally vague (in contrast with journalism, for example, which remains tightly controlled). The Bird's Nest and the Watercube, as well as Beijing's overall reconstruction, suggest a China that is more open and less authoritarian than it is. This slippage between architectural representation and political reality can be seen either as a mask or as a projection—as a cover for the abuse of power, or as an image of China's emerging better self. Thus, for those concerned with reform in China, the real challenge posed by Beijing '08 is not to artificially separate the Olympics and its architecture from politics, but to force the Olympics to become a political projection; and then to get the reality to match the representation.

Sean Keller is an assistant professor of architectural history and theory at the College of Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.