Lost
in Translation? — Not
if you create an alternative space for exchange
Aki Hoashi
The Urge to Connect and the Rules of Engagement
Cultural exchanges have a long history, although at the official
level, they have long been mostly part of cultural 'diplomacy'
among diplomats and elites. The importance of cultural
'relations' in
promoting culture at mass level, with a touch of propaganda
in some cases, was acknowledged after the First World War,
and increasingly so during the Cold War. Today, with the
surge of new technologies that make communication and exchanges
instantaneous,
in real-time, cultural 'relations' have become
cultural 'exchanges,' encouraging broad and diverse
interactions at multiple levels, from high to low, fast to
slow, mainstream to alternative.
But with a broader range
of exchanges, information has become a tool for competitive
edge, and its sources, media, and
propagation, effective strategies for communication. Therefore,
whether
or not one has a platform or forum for exchange becomes inevitably
decisive in some ways for the propagation of cultural information
and, in some cases, for the establishment of hegemony in
discourse.
With particular reference to the Asian region, arts communities
in many of the countries have struggled to position themselves
within, along with, on a par with, and independent from Western
discourses. Academic and practitioner alike have sought to
grasp themselves in the contexts of postmodernism, postcolonialism,
and other theories so as to make sense of what exactly they
are doing, and to present and assert themselves in the face
of those who confront them about their identity.
In the case of Japan, its global economic success from
the late 1970s to the '80s urged the Japanese on to
assert their position and respond to international events.
Spending
a substantial amount of money in support of the Gulf War
was certainly one move towards being admitted to the 'club.'(1)
Saying 'no' to
the Americans became something fashionable to wear to the
argument.(2) But these phenomena tended to be a calling for
're-action' than 'pro-action,' and
would never have occurred without referring to the 'West'
as a crutch for legitimacy.
This sociopolitical climate affected
the Japanese cultural climate. It urged us to voice contemporary
ideas, and let
the world know that we are not just economic animals, but
our culture
actually had had a life after ukiyo-e, equally as
influential as our mighty economy. Exhibitions like Against
Nature: Japanese Art in the Eighties (1989–91), A
Primal Spirit: Ten Contemporary Japanese Sculptures (1990),
and Japanese
Art after 1945: Scream
Against the Sky (1994) were organized at a time when
such presentations were much in demand. These shows were
significant
in the way
they showed contemporary and avant-garde Japanese art as
curated or co-curated by the Japanese, projecting our most
recent perspectives
on our own culture. But it projected images of Japan that
'corresponded to the flavor favored by the international arts
community.'(3)
Today, with the manga and anime boom in popular culture and
the
celebrity of Takashi Murakami on the contemporary art scene,
as well
as its design and fashion in general, perhaps Japan has finally
left behind being a market follower and become one of the
market leaders, or at least a trendsetter.
The shifting Japanese
attitudes in grappling with the global context and its consequences
demonstrate how every non-Western
country and culture deals with ‘engaging’ with
the world, particularly with the West. What should be our
rules of engagement? Should we assimilate to or isolate from
them?
Could we possibly take the best of both worlds? What are
the options?
Many countries and cultures in Asia have to a greater or
lesser degree shared this dilemma of 'seeking' the
best way of defining and positioning themselves. Little were
we 'Asians' aware
that 'Asia is necessary for Europe because, without
positing it, Europe could not be marked as a distinct and
distinguishable
body.'(4) The Japanese have always felt the need to shout
from the periphery or lure the West with exotic perfume to
gain recognition But the fact is we had been acknowledged
by the West from the outset, as Naoki Sakai confirms:
And let us not be negligent of a historical verity that
such a situation did not exist until the late 19th century,
so
that, before that time, the majority of residents in Asia
did not
know they were living in Asia and referred to as Asians
by Europeans. Only in the late 19th century did a few intellectuals
begin to seriously consider the plausibility of turning
the
objects 'Asians' into the transnational and regional
subjects of Asia.(5)
So why have we been struggling to posit ourselves against
the West, when they already know about us? What is the sense
of
this duplication of effort?
The issue is, thus, one of hegemony, not category, according
to Yasuko Furuichi:
Until then, Asia had been seen in a temporal and spatial
context, but a hierarchical value was applied as we entered
the modern
era. As result, an idea of Asia based on Western modernism
that perceives it as a region 'other than' the
West prevailed over the idea of Asia represented by Asians
themselves.(6)
Hegemony is what determines the rules of engagement,
and any culture or entity would rather play the game by
its own
rules
than those set by others. Asians very much needed to cooperate
so as to make themselves visible, a theme commonly discussed
in economic forums like ASEAN. But with so much historical
baggage on our backs, it was not until the 1990s, particularly
with the postcolonial mood so prevalent in the region,
that Asian countries took a serious interest in engaging
with
their neighboring countries.(7) Setting the Stage
I have had the opportunity to assist visual arts programs
of the Japan Foundation Asia Center (hereafter Asia Center)
planned
and organized by its exhibition coordinator Yasuko Furuichi
since 1997, and have found the experience to be illuminating
with regard to the way the programs have been planned and
implemented.(8) The Asia Center's mission and efforts
have certainly not been to play the hegemony game. Nonetheless,
many of the
projects were aimed at balancing the cultural hegemony of
the West or of Japan in Asia by building platforms and forums
for
mutual exchanges where peers in the region could find face-to-face
engagement.
The Asia Center's visual arts programs,
whose the actual contents ranged from exhibitions to projects
and symposiums,
aimed not only to introduce the contemporary art of the region
to Japan, but also to make efforts to foster a platform for
earnest mutual exchange. It goes without saying that the
success of these endeavors in the later stages were the fruit
of trial
and error. I would like to highlight some of those activities
of the Asia Center as I describe the process of building
platforms, and at the same time touch on concurrent events
that created
synergy in promoting the region.
Breaking the Mold: Alternative 'Discoursing'
Whereas the exhibition programs were mainly intended to
put different aesthetic and curatorial concepts into
practice,(9)
the symposiums were organized to complement these practices
and provide a framework for discourse. Four international
symposiums, bringing together prominent and active members
working in the
field of Asian contemporary art have been organized in the
past decade: the Contemporary Art Symposium in 1994, The
Potential
of Asian Thought; the Symposium in 1997, Asian Contemporary
Art Reconsidered; the International Symposium in 1999, Asian
Art: Prospects for the Future; and the International
Symposium in 2002, Asia in Transition: Representation
and Identity.
The first symposium concluded with the
participating panelists completely exhausted from being 'lost
in translation.' Hideki
Nakamura, a Japanese art critic who chaired two sessions,
analyzed the causes of his exhaustion as the difficulty of
translating
or interpreting the complex discussion simultaneously into
three languages, Japanese, English, and Chinese, the differences
in the participants' backgrounds, and the complexity
of establishing a common context for concepts like 'modernism'
and 'realism.'(10) Modernism
and realism were discussed at times as philosophical ideas,
and at others as an artistic style accepted and appropriated
from the West by Asian countries. The participants were unable
to reach a consensus in how these terms were to be used in
their debate. For example, Ichiro Hariu, a prominent Japanese
art critic, frustrated by what he observed in the sessions,
criticized the use of the term 'realism' as follows:
[T]he 'contemporaneity' of
art in Asia comes from the contradiction of reality, and
the center of sociocultural
contradiction. In effect, it tries to reflect these social
contradictions. Furthermore, it is not trying to fulfill
empty wishes of paintings
and sculptures, but trying to become an art of reality.
I see realism as exactly that, and not as an artistic
style….
I am very frustrated with the fact that realism has been
described as a 'school'…. (11)
The participants thus urgently needed to define the terms
they introduced into their debates before they could even
begin
to exchange ideas, and make those exchanges worthwhile. Some
of the participants accepted these terminologies in a dichotomous
framework of East and West, while others resisted such a
simplification of perspectives around this issue. Having
acknowledged the
problems with initiating the symposium by seeking to establish
'the potential of Asian thought,' Toshio Shimizu, a curator
who chaired one of the sessions, commented in the post-symposium
session, 'There is a need to establish definitions
(of terminologies and ideas) through a collaborative process.'(12)
The organizers acknowledged this, and sought a new starting
point,
as well as a new direction, for the forum.(13)
To reassess how this kind of forum should be managed,
and to further pursue the potential for mutual understanding
and exchange
of ideas, a second symposium was organized in 1997. By then,
the Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art had been held
twice (in 1993 and 1996), Singapore Art Museum had been inaugurated
(1996), the first Kwangju Biennale in Korea had been held
(1995), and the Fukuoka Asian Art Museum in Japan was in
the preparatory
stages for its opening in 1999. Such developments at the
institutional and local-government level had encouraged more
frequent exchanges
within the region and improved the level of communication
among members working in the field. Accordingly, the main
theme of
the second symposium was examining how Asian contemporary
art was regarded in the exhibition and museum systems of
the late
1990s. Curators were identified as 'cultural sentinels'(14)
by Apinan Poshyananda, who described them as mediators, selectors,
who, in the worst cases, were criticized for being 'brokers
whose power and position allow them to mediate in areas of
economic exchanges, namely cultural goods.'(15) The main
thrust of his assertions contained two layers. First, he
pointed to cultural hegemony in Asia, mainly exercised by
Japanese
institutions, who gathered from neighboring Asian countries
to 'show works for "their" Japanese audience.'(16) They
were then joined by Australia and Singapore who contributed
to multiplying the gazes in this region. Secondly, he pointed
out the fact that the financial hierarchy had affected representations
of Asia in the international art circuit, particularly as
funding ‘tends
to be confined within the scope of the nation-state.'(17)
He went further, proposing that cultural institutions in
Asia
'combine their efforts and improve the representation of
Asian artists
in international art circuits.'(18) Debate about whether
or not this would create another cultural hegemony followed.
As
result of these exchanges of views regarding institutional
support for contemporary art in Asia on a practical level,
this time the organizer was able to conclude that communication
had improved:
Although the views and positions of the participants
still differed, the clarification of these differences,
and the
heightened awareness of the issues that resulted, made
the discussions
both lively and profound. Communication between participants
was much smoother than in the previous symposium. This was
also largely due to the tremendous effort in the intervening
years on the part of a number of countries to mount more
exhibitions of contemporary Asian art and to make information
on the art
of this region more available.(19)
In the rapidly changing
environment of Asia, three years had provided the opportunity
for a
leap in terms of mutual
exchange.
Jim Supangkat's presentation in the 1999 symposium
in pushed the exchanges further, to a more pro-active discussion
of 'discoursing.' He took the case of Indonesia,
where 'in the early 1990s even the term contemporary
art was still confusing to most artists and critics, let
alone a vision on contemporary art in Indonesia.'(20) He
described how the understanding of contemporary art improved
as Indonesian
artists came to be more represented in regional exhibitions,
and explained how understanding of contemporary art had been
deferred from its initial emergence, commonly identified
with the Indonesia New Art Movement in 1975, to the 1990s.(21)
The argument for 'discoursing' was emphasized by
Supangkat's
recognition of its importance, as exemplified by the Indonesian
artists 'brought in' to regional forums initiated
by Japanese and Australian institutions. Their inclusion
heightened the awareness and consideration of discourse among
Indonesian
artists, and perhaps those of other Asian countries as well.
The
symposiums from 1994 to 1999 initially highlighted issues
of representation by seeking to assert 'Asian' thought.
But too many disparate elements were being considered, and
participants could not reach a point where these issues like
identity could be debated in a constructive manner. But by
1997 discussions of curatorial intention, strategy or tactics
emerged from common experiences shared in participating in
these regional endeavors. Debate gave way to considering
cultural hegemony and the financial hierarchy that influenced
representations
from a practical standpoint. Instead of trying to share a
common definition of ‘modernism’ or ‘realism,’ the
realities of exhibitions and practical issues provided examples
that shaped the definition of these terms. As realities and
examples of Asian contemporary art accumulated, a need was
felt to establish a forum for ‘discoursing’ and
find a framework to understand these realities were much
in need.
When the International Symposium 2002, Asia in Transition:
Representation and Identity, was organized, it aimed to further
develop such a theoretical framework. 'Asia,' its
representation as well as its identity, were to be discussed
from multiple perspectives so as to establish a reference
point for our practices. The symposium opened with Naoki
Sakai's
presentation, entitled 'Asia: Co-figurative Identification,'
which provocatively stated, 'It is safe to say that today
the West as an analytic concept is bankrupt and generally
useless
in guiding our observation about certain social formations
and people's behavior in many loci in the world,' a
position based on the understanding that the West is 'far
from being unitarily determinable on empirical grounds,'
and thus 'a mythical construct.'(22) Tony Bennett
described how identity is relational, and how it was being
questioned
not only in Asia today, but also in Europe, as a result of
the enlargement of the European Union.(23) This particular
symposium not only provided intellectually stimulating
exchanges, but
also a forum at a level high enough that issues could be
examined from the point of view of various disciplines, including
cultural
theory and sociology. It is also true there was a complete
lack of awareness of religious factors prevalent in the region,
as David Elliott pertinently pointed out in the post-symposium
comment.(24) But the new level of communication and the breadth
of topics it covered was significant, especially compared
to the earlier discussions.
Reconstituting the Mold: Networking among 'Alternative'
Spaces
In the late 1990s, contemporary voices of younger generation
of Asian artists became more visible because of their activities
in alternative spaces. In many parts of Asia, public and
private financial support for contemporary art had been generally
scarce,
and in countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines,
where a solid and established infrastructure to support the
arts endorsed by the State is not available as it is in Japan,
Korea, and Singapore, artists have pursued ways of expressing
contemporary ideas and ideals in independent spaces. Their
will to survive was demonstrated during the turbulent climate
of the late ’90s, when they weathered the Asian financial
crisis, which started in Thailand in 1997 and hit South Korea
and Indonesia particularly hard, concurrently triggering
the fall of the Suharto regime in Indonesia in 1998, and
reinforcing
the long-lasting economic decline of Japan.
In recent years,
even in countries like Japan and Korea, the withholding of
public spending for museums, and on art
in general,
because of fiscal constraints, has affected the attitude
of such spaces to artists’ practices. While capital
spending for the construction of museums decreased (and program
budgets
dwindled) in these countries, public spending shifted towards
supporting less costly independent spaces. In Korea, three
new spaces, funded by public bodies, Alternative Space Loop,
Alternative Space Pool, and Project Space SARUBIA, were initiated
in 1999, forerunners of the many successful alternative spaces
that were to be established after them. In Japan, a 'Law
to Promote Specified Nonprofit Activities' was promulgated
in 1998. It encouraged the non-profit organization (NPO)
as a means of providing for alternative spaces and services
at various social levels. A number of arts organizations
seized
this opportunity and established such NPOs. In October, 2003,
ART NPO Forum was held to encourage exchange among arts-related
NPOs, which came from all over Japan.
In the case of Japan
and Korea, public support, however small, has always been
available to support the contemporary arts.
But in countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines,
alternative spaces have always been the main avenue for contemporary
art. If one wished to do research in these countries, public
institutions would hardly be useful resources; one would
be encouraged to visit individual artists and curators who
run
alternatives spaces.
Such a situation had prompted the Asia
Center to publish Alternatives: Contemporary Art Spaces
in Asia in 2001. This
booklet introduced
some of the contemporary art spaces in Asia that could be
the base for research and networking among young artists
and arts
professionals in the region.(25) The publication coincided
with other activities in the region that heightened awareness
of these spaces. For Example, Hou Hanru and Charles Esche
co-curated 'Project
1: Pause' a component of the Gwangju Biennale in 2002,
and invited alternative spaces to be part of the 'works'
showcased in this international exhibition. Jonathan Napack
summarized
their attempt as follows:
Hou and Esche seemed to want to
subvert both Eurocentrism — with
its fellow traveler, a certain patronizing exoticism — and
'the museum' as an institution. In much of Asia, these
two issues are deeply intertwined. Recent years have seen
a proliferation
of artist-run or alternative spaces; they fill the gap
left by museums, which occupy a less central position here
than
in the West.(26)
He attributes this trend to the position
of the arts in the Asia as compared to the West:
Museum-going
as a habit — long connected to peculiarly
European notions of urban planning and leisure — never
took root in most Asian societies, where secular public
space is associated with commerce, not culture.(27)
Many of
the alternative spaces filled a gap for young emerging
artists, allowing them to find places to exhibit their
work, as well as explore new ideas with fellow artists,
and they
have also attempted to build a network for further collaboration
with each other. The first large-scale conference of alternative
spaces, IN-BETWEEN: International Conference-Exhibit
Program on Independent Art Space 2001, was held in
Hong Kong, followed by a second one in Seoul in May, 2004.
The first meeting
was complemented by a 'suitcase' project (where
participating organizations were to represent themselves
using only one suitcase),
and the second was complemented by a video exhibition.
In both years, the conference was well attended by organizers
of alternative-spaces,
who convened to present their activities and propose projects
and workshops for collaboration. Between 2001 and 2004,
some of the spaces have shifted their interest from organizing
exhibition
series and workshops to running residency-oriented programs,
as with Big Sky Mind in Manila and BizArt in Shanghai.
This trend they are starting to commit themselves to becoming
spaces
where production, discussion, and experience are combined
to build a firmer and more stable basis for artistic development — and
a commitment to realizing exchange at a profound level.
The
Urge to Connect Revisited and the Ubiquitous Nodes of
the Network
If theoreticians on Asian contemporary art have been
attempting to break the mold of discourses constructed
by the West,
practitioners have been picking up their own pieces among
the grassroots
to construct images of the realities of Asia. A monolithic
image of Asia was abandoned long ago, but creating a
new shared vision have been a struggle. The inclusion
of alternative
spaces
in the Gwangju Biennale in 2002 heightened the awareness
among Asians that such spaces could be platforms for
expressing individual
identities. This new construct encourages the devolution
of power once enjoyed by a few select arbitrators and
provides a potential for more democratic representation.
Alternative
spaces could function as ubiquitous nodes that do not
require strict protocols or rules of engagement. Exchanges
at this
level should minimize the risk of contexts being lost
in layers
of translation within the hierarchical construct of the
arts system. Yet much remains to be done to reinforce
such platforms,
and financial and linguistic gaps remain a barrier to
entry by some countries. We must continue to explore
a sustainable
space that best demonstrates the capacities of our experimental
and creative minds.
1. The Japanese government disbursed
$13 billion in support of the Gulf War in 1991.
2. The Japan That Can Say No, co-authored by Akio Morita and Shintaro Ishihara
(Kobun-sha, 1989). Akio Morita is the former chairman of Sony, and Shintaro Ishihara
is currently
governor of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and known for his right-wing nationalist
stance.
3. Comment by Apinan Poshyananda in his presentation for the Contemporary Art
Symposium
1994, The Potential of Asian Thought, Report, p. 76.
4. International Symposium 2002, Asia in Transition: Representation and Identity,
Report, p. 224.
5. Ibid., p. 223.
6. 'Asia: The Possibility of a Collaborative Space — Under ConstructionProject,' Under
Construction, exhibition catalogue, p. 13.
7. Yasuko Furuichi, ‘The Future of Arts Exchange in Asia,’ presented
at the Asialink Arts Forum in 2002 (for transcripts see: http://www.asialink.unimelb.edu.au/arts/projects/forum2002/furuichi.htm).
8. The Japan Foundation is a semi-governmental body attached to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs (reorganized as an independent administrative agency as of
April
1, 2004 under Prime Minister Koizumi’s governmental reform). Accordingly,
its mission of cultural exchange has always had a political edge. The predecessor
of The Japan Foundation’s Asia Center, the ASEAN Cultural Center, was established
in 1990 with the purpose of introducing the cultures of Southeast Asia to Japan.
It received government funding to invest in ASEAN-related projects. In 1995,
it was reorganized as The Japan Foundation Asia Center in commemoration of the
50th anniversary of the end of World War II, and together expanded its mandate
to include other countries of Asia (for details of its history and organizational
mission, see http://www.jpf.go.jp).
9. As exhibitions are the most common and effective way of introducing contemporary
arts in Asia, the Japan Foundation Asia Center organized one to two of them a
year. Up until 2000, thematic group shows were a well-worn device for introducing
the multifaceted aspects of the arts in this region. But after a decade of showcasing
Asia at a somewhat superficial level, observing the creativity at a more profound
and individual level seemed necessary, and a solo-exhibition series was planned.
This coincided with the long acknowledged fact that Asia is not monolithic, and
individuals residing in the region each have different perspectives and creative
languages for express their contemporary lives.
Also, curators were identified as those who shape the contemporary-arts landscape,
and programs were devised to involve them in different ways. One was to invite
Asian curators to show Asian artists in the solo shows, so as to bring an ‘Asian’ perspective
to the exhibitions. Until the solo show of Heri Dono curated by Apinan Poshyananda
in 2000, the shows had been curated by Japanese curators, as they were naturally
considered more knowledgeable about the Japanese public.
Another was to invite curators of younger generations who grew up listening to
the same kind of music and watching TV programs popular in the region. To work
with a generation of similar sensibilities was particularly important, as more
up-to-date exhibitions were needed to present an 'Asian' view that
was not a reflection of the West, often the approach by more senior curators,
but as a self-projection of the realities in Asia.
The most ambitious and experimental project was Under Construction, a project
which spanned two years and involved 9 curators from 7 countries (China, Korea,
India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand). This was a long-term project
which consisted of both research and exhibition components. Since the very final
output, an exhibition in Tokyo, was a collaborative effort on the part of all
the participant, members had to deal with not only the concept, but also budget,
gallery layout, logistics, catalogue production, and all the actual steps involved
in putting together an exhibition. To work together at this level of task-sharing
was not easy, as working styles and individual interests varied, but it offered
a platform for negotiation at both the regional and national level in a true
sense.
10. Comment by Hideki Nakamura, Contemporary Art Symposium 1994, The Potential
of
Asian Thought, Report, p. 123.
11. Comment by Ichiro Hariu, ibid., p. 104.
12. Comment by Toshio Shimizu, ibid., p. 128.
13. The organizer commented that this symposium ‘confronted the reality
that
the participants could not find but one commonality among them for the discussion,
and experienced an unexpected level of difficulty.’ Ibid., p. 134.
14. Symposium 1997, Asian Contemporary Art Reconsidered, Report, p. 177.
15. Ibid., p. 178.
16. Ibid., p. 177.
17. Ibid., p. 179.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., p. 221.
20. Jim Supangkat, 'Discoursing in Regional Contemporary Art in Asia — The
Case in Indonesia,' International Symposium 1999, Asian Art: Prospects
for the Future, Report, p. 119.
21. Ibid.
22. Naoki Sakai, ‘Asia: Co-figurative Identification,’ International
Symposium
2002, Asia in Transition: Representation and Identity, Report, p. 229.
23. Comment by Tony Bennett, ibid., p. 341.
24. Comment by David Elliott, ibid., p. 442.
25. The spaces listed wre not necessarily ‘alternative’ spaces,
as we also included commercial galleries. The booklet was published
with the aim of guiding visitors to places where they could
find the most recent developments in the contemporary arts in
each country.
26. Jonathan Napack, 'Alternative visions: in a provocative
curatorial gesture, this year's Gwangju Biennale was
largely dedicated to — and determined
by — independent artist groups and alternative spaces — Report
From Gwangju — Critical Essay,' Art in America, November 2002.
27. Ibid. |