Between the  “Here and There”, are Time-Zones the only Difference Left?

                                                                                                                                                                            Gu Zhenqing

   In international exchanges, the most active force behind events is the difference in cultures, while the most irreversible force is the process of assimilation. Under globalization, every popular culture element can explain itself. Even when keeping multi-culturalism in mind, the huge difference between the culture 'here' and the culture 'there' can be eclipsed, overshadowed, and averted, under the notion of the “appreciate the exotic”. As the world goes flat, so does its culture.

   There are significant differences between the Sino-French and Sino-Korean relationships. Historically, China, Korea, and France have developed from different civilizations and cultural traditions. France's cultural influence on both went up and down as their political influence grew and declined. The cliché perspectives about the East and the West reflect a bias approach of competition between different political powers.  

   “Travels of Marco Polo”, the 13th-century travelogue, is an adventure narrative, a preview from the European perspective on what is “from here to there”. The East is defined as “the other”, something that is not “us”. It is indeed another version of “Alice in Wonderland”. The world of “the other” can be a paradise or an underworld. From the Age of Discovery to the end of colonialism, the world is filled with examples of exploitation, distortion of the local cultures, cultural invasions, and forceful cultural assimilation from old Europe. The tendency is to be led by stereotypes first, and only draw on actual experience and analysis later. European-centrism either depreciates all other cultures, or designates them as disasters (for example using the term “Yellow Terror”). It is the iconography of Dr. Fu Manchu, together with this process of Orientalism, that forms a complex historical background for international exchanges.

   But from China and Korean’s perspective, to examine the West’s history, to analyze today’s France, is a different concept of “from here and there”. The author of “Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms”, Wei Yuan, is the first person to see the world with open eyes, to break through the dualism of the East and the West, and to discard the idea China had as the “Middle Kingdom”. Based on pragmatism, his theory of learning the advanced technologies from the West in order to resist the invasion from the West opened up a new perspective in Chinese at the time. A similar history can be found in Korean; in 1866, the conflict between Korea and the French troops and Christians can be seen as a cultural conflict, with Korean reacting passively. More and more, the idea of “here and there” was manifested as a student-teacher type of exchange, especially for China and Korea.   

   Since the creation of the concept of a “nation”, the map of the world has been divided between the territories of countries, and from these divisions come the problems of the last 100 years. But recently globalization seems to have blurred the boundaries between nations. Following the end of the Cold War, globalization has developed unexpectedly, and exchanges in various levels between China and France, and between China and Korea have stabilized after centuries of continuous change. The idea of “the other” in different cultures has merged more and more into daily life for the Chinese. The peaceful rise of China and Korea has gradually become the new context for international exchanges.

   No matter which cultural context one wants to use to see the world, globalization and the Internet have turned our earth into a global village with increasing international exchanges. From one place to another around the earth, there should be difference, but now there is not anything new. Some international artists even express that time-zones differences are the most distinguishing event they experience when they travel from one place to another.
  For many cultures with rich, ancient histories and memories, how to engage with the forces of globalization is an inevitable challenge. Coming from a more open-minded and international vision, these lengthy civilizations drive towards consistent renewal and the construction of new identities. They are consolidating their cultural influence and inner strength. Artists from China, Korea, and France, as well as other countries, all address specific social issues, moving towards their unique realities and cultural histories. This approach signals the vital initiative in generating and disseminating new discourse. It is an artistic strategy to avoid or settle both anxiety and illusion when facing a national cultural heritage. When this artistic strategy is adopted politically, it will become a long-term strategy for both developed and developing countries in sculpting their own multi-culturalism, and provide a challenge to American’s singular culture hegemony. It will help more people to be self-aware, and to think independently and critically about possible solutions to social challenges provided by different cultures.

   In the exhibition “Magiciens de la terre”, as one of the few shows with an international vision, French curator Jean-Hubert Martin, presents the idea of contemporary art and modern art co-existing within a multi-cultural context. Artists from China, Korea, and France started to share this international stage, appreciating each others “exotic” offerings and commentaries on modernity. Within this context no one is at center and no one is at margins. When contemporary and modern art becomes an cultural expression from artists as insiders or observers, the international art scene is transformed into a competition for power between the different kinds of “others”. Globalization is turning into a self-explanatory event for different nations and cultures. However, the previous political mode of sharing still has influence, resulting in us focusing more on how we are the same, rather than on how we are different. Overall, assimilation dominates over difference.   

   Will an artist that comes from this side of the world make sense in contexts different than his/her own culture? What is the real international influence? Should one globalize oneself and make a quick but strong presence in the international art scene? I think it is   about how innovative and visionary the artwork is in dealing with contemporary issues.

   Some art works by Chinese and Korean artists work well when they are shown within their own culture, but they lack innovation and uniqueness when they are transported into a more international context (mostly because their expression or concepts don't look similar to their counterparts in Europe and the States). Art needs to be specific, and needs to target specific realities within its historic period. Context offers art a reason to be presented or represented. I don’t think similar approaches in art adopted by different artists are necessarily intentional copying, but it seems the odds are there. The value an artwork lies in how well it challenges the most urgent issues with a visionary and unique approach. When it was made, who was the first person to make it; these questions help us to see if a particular work is the most innovative. But the advantage of being the first person doesn’t mean everything, the acceptance of the public is important as well. We see many examples of artists managing to achieve importance by adopting other artist's inventions, and refining or improving them. Artists who come from a bigger range of culture influences may enjoy more notoriety in claiming certain styles or approach compared with artists from less diverse cultural environments (even though the later might have achieved the earlier artistic innovation).

   In the face of the global consumerism and an attention-oriented economy, is the here or there mingling together? No matter where you are, if you are good enough, you will shine through. 

   More and more frequently French artists are coming to China and Korea for cultural exchange, and at the same time, Chinese and Korean artists travel to France for residencies and exhibitions (and these exchanges occur between China and Korea as well). In some cases, artists deliberately move their art between countries without concern that the cultural contexts might have shifted by this the change in locations. I see this as a blunt and forceful form of exchange. That is why more and more artists tend to use residency programs to develop exhibitions. Joining residencies to make work has proved to be a fundamental way of creating art that is responsive to a specific location. But it seems the shift in locations is becoming less and less helpful in inspiring artists because of the lack of difference between places. Art events are presented everywhere and they tend to have only minor differences in appearance. Gauguin's story of fleeing to the tropics to escape European civilization, will not work well in today’s world.

   The context for international exchange is becoming a trans-cultural and unified context, and the important content of this context is communication influence (how powerful, how fast, and how wide the influence can be). That is why the originality of art creation is threatened by the hierarchy influence. When artists from here are competing with artists from there, it is no longer a competition of “who invent what first”. It is a competition of who resides in the culture that has the most powerful communication system to influence other cultures. The one that is strategically placed internationally and has best position to influence others, will be considered the most valid and powerful.

   No matter where you are, an artist will be challenged by the issue of “who gets to explain your work”. If you remain silence, others will speak on your behalf. No matter how objective others try to be, they are still providing their own view (other than the artist’s). That is why artists need to make works that talk for themselves, and place themselves into an international forum where different contexts can come into play in establishing the value of their works. To be able to explain and describe is only a starting point for artists, but if they are innovative and persistent enough, their ideas and value will gain importance through time, with the possibility of becoming part of history.

   As things are today, “here” and “there” are similar to each other. People from different cultural background are facing very similar cultural challenges and agendas, and communication seems easier and more effective. It concerns me that possibly only time-zone differences are left between different parts of the earth. I don’t know which group of people will worry, and which group will celebrate.