Monday, September 24, 2007
Session 1 / Chang Tsong-zung
Hong Kong Art History Written from the Outside
The present discussions about Hong Kong art history has partly been provoked by the appearance of publications written by non-Hong Kong writers, especially by mainland scholars. In fact the real problem at stake is less about outsiders’ perspectives, more about the pack of local writings. Taking a wider view, one should recognize that to varying extents, history is always written from the outside: it is written from memory, or researched at a later period. Also, history represents a detached (outside) look at a bracketed sphere of experiences.
Two main complaints about ‘outsiders’ writing about local art are:
Firstly, the usual issues about the gaze of the Other, which may constitute a ‘colonial’ perspective and control.
Secondly, the misunderstanding of contextual meaning; disputes about which selected ‘typical’ examples to use for illustrating the narratives; disputes about interpretation and the focus of importance.
These complaints point to problems about how the reading of a regional culture may be subsumed by or absorbed into a wider context; and about how ‘accurate’ or ‘significant’ an interpretation can be, and from whose point of view.
A great deal of work needs to be put into the research of local situations, and sympathetic interpretations must necessarily represent the interest of those whose history is being discussed. However, there is a great deal to be said about being interpreted from the ‘outside’.
To stretch and broaden the significance of Hong Kong art history, it must be made available to other for interpretation from the ‘outside’; it needs to make itself ‘useful’. Strategically, to be incorporated and appropriated by others expands ones own reach. Furthermore, apart from cultural strategic interest, it is not possible to write a history without outsider’s views: history is like a face, it is both a self projection and a visage being seen, and the visage agreed upon is the outcome of a dialogue between oneself and others.
The relation between Hong Kong and Chinese art histories reflects problems facing writers of ‘world art history’, of which there have been a number of attempts in recent years. For a balanced view, concepts of art should ideally be translated both ways, and be read from multiple points of view. But realistically we are all aware of the leadership and creative energy of cultural scholarship and cultural industries in the West to know this proposed equal bilateral reading is at best an ideal vision. Then there is the problem of translation, especially in the descriptive and conceptual language of art. For example the title of an exhibition opening later this afternoon: ‘qi yun’ (‘energy rhythm’); this term cannot be rendered into English without losing certain aspects of its connotations. Then there is also the problem of translated terminology taking on a life of its own, leaving misunderstanding as it departs from its native origin. The one word that used to battle me for a long time was the Chinese term ‘yu jing’, one day it was pointed out to me that it is simply the standard translation of the English word ‘context’.
Having said these, the positive point to make about a ‘total’ history is the implied faith in certain master narrative. It reflects the faith in the possibility of order, of common ground, and perhaps even common aspirations. On the surface it also goes against the grain of Multiculturalism. What is at stake here is not ‘completeness’, which is often the focus of critics of world histories; neither is it the problem of language and translation. What is at stake is the choice of canons and narratives that constitute the master narrative of the moment (accepting the need to re-write and re-interpret as times change). In China what has always haunted the Confucian scholars (and perhaps most Chinese people) is the issue of ‘tong xu’ (‘lineage’). In the 20th century Chinese reformers and Communists laughed at the idea of ‘tong xu’ when in fact they had unwittingly been indoctrinated into the lineage and ideologies of the West. For modern China Communist doctrine has worked exactly like the traditional ‘tong xu’, but taking a special European perspective. Today we are fortunate to be able to start rethinking this issue, and for Hong Kong, as a Special Administrative Region of China, probably the most important contribution it can make is to contribute to the rethinking the ‘tong xu’ of Chinese art.
The present discussions about Hong Kong art history has partly been provoked by the appearance of publications written by non-Hong Kong writers, especially by mainland scholars. In fact the real problem at stake is less about outsiders’ perspectives, more about the pack of local writings. Taking a wider view, one should recognize that to varying extents, history is always written from the outside: it is written from memory, or researched at a later period. Also, history represents a detached (outside) look at a bracketed sphere of experiences.
Two main complaints about ‘outsiders’ writing about local art are:
Firstly, the usual issues about the gaze of the Other, which may constitute a ‘colonial’ perspective and control.
Secondly, the misunderstanding of contextual meaning; disputes about which selected ‘typical’ examples to use for illustrating the narratives; disputes about interpretation and the focus of importance.
These complaints point to problems about how the reading of a regional culture may be subsumed by or absorbed into a wider context; and about how ‘accurate’ or ‘significant’ an interpretation can be, and from whose point of view.
A great deal of work needs to be put into the research of local situations, and sympathetic interpretations must necessarily represent the interest of those whose history is being discussed. However, there is a great deal to be said about being interpreted from the ‘outside’.
To stretch and broaden the significance of Hong Kong art history, it must be made available to other for interpretation from the ‘outside’; it needs to make itself ‘useful’. Strategically, to be incorporated and appropriated by others expands ones own reach. Furthermore, apart from cultural strategic interest, it is not possible to write a history without outsider’s views: history is like a face, it is both a self projection and a visage being seen, and the visage agreed upon is the outcome of a dialogue between oneself and others.
The relation between Hong Kong and Chinese art histories reflects problems facing writers of ‘world art history’, of which there have been a number of attempts in recent years. For a balanced view, concepts of art should ideally be translated both ways, and be read from multiple points of view. But realistically we are all aware of the leadership and creative energy of cultural scholarship and cultural industries in the West to know this proposed equal bilateral reading is at best an ideal vision. Then there is the problem of translation, especially in the descriptive and conceptual language of art. For example the title of an exhibition opening later this afternoon: ‘qi yun’ (‘energy rhythm’); this term cannot be rendered into English without losing certain aspects of its connotations. Then there is also the problem of translated terminology taking on a life of its own, leaving misunderstanding as it departs from its native origin. The one word that used to battle me for a long time was the Chinese term ‘yu jing’, one day it was pointed out to me that it is simply the standard translation of the English word ‘context’.
Having said these, the positive point to make about a ‘total’ history is the implied faith in certain master narrative. It reflects the faith in the possibility of order, of common ground, and perhaps even common aspirations. On the surface it also goes against the grain of Multiculturalism. What is at stake here is not ‘completeness’, which is often the focus of critics of world histories; neither is it the problem of language and translation. What is at stake is the choice of canons and narratives that constitute the master narrative of the moment (accepting the need to re-write and re-interpret as times change). In China what has always haunted the Confucian scholars (and perhaps most Chinese people) is the issue of ‘tong xu’ (‘lineage’). In the 20th century Chinese reformers and Communists laughed at the idea of ‘tong xu’ when in fact they had unwittingly been indoctrinated into the lineage and ideologies of the West. For modern China Communist doctrine has worked exactly like the traditional ‘tong xu’, but taking a special European perspective. Today we are fortunate to be able to start rethinking this issue, and for Hong Kong, as a Special Administrative Region of China, probably the most important contribution it can make is to contribute to the rethinking the ‘tong xu’ of Chinese art.
Comments:
<< Home
gucci outlet, christian louboutin, longchamp outlet, ugg outlet, ray ban sunglasses, cheap uggs, burberry outlet, prada outlet, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, ray ban sunglasses, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, jordan shoes, longchamp handbags, louboutin shoes, tory burch outlet, michael kors outlet, replica watches, michael kors outlet, louis vuitton handbags, nike free, rolex watches, louboutin outlet, polo ralph lauren, michael kors outlet, nike shoes, tiffany and co, air max, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet online sale, chanel handbags, prada handbags, louboutin, polo ralph lauren outlet, ray ban sunglasses, uggs, ugg boots clearance, air max, oakley sunglasses, cheap oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses cheap, louis vuitton outlet, louis vuitton outlet
air max pas cher, polo lacoste, oakley pas cher, michael kors, michael kors outlet, nike air force, nike free pas cher, converse pas cher, true religion outlet, nike tn, polo ralph lauren, sac hermes, replica handbags, nike roshe run pas cher, coach outlet store online, air max, north face, sac longchamp pas cher, nike blazer, mulberry, new balance pas cher, sac burberry, hogan outlet, louboutin, longchamp, michael kors uk, nike air max, true religion jeans, lululemon outlet online, hollister, ray ban pas cher, ralph lauren, ray ban sunglasses, north face, nike roshe, true religion jeans, vanessa bruno, air jordan, kate spade handbags, nike free, coach outlet, true religion outlet, hollister, michael kors pas cher, air max, coach purses, timberland, abercrombie and fitch, sac guess, vans pas cher
ray ban, toms shoes, moncler, pandora jewelry, barbour, converse, canada goose, moncler, doke gabbana, ugg, canada goose, moncler, sac louis vuitton, sac lancel, canada goose, canada goose, barbour, moncler, ugg, louis vuitton, thomas sabo, canada goose uk, pandora jewelry, gucci, moncler outlet, moncler, louis vuitton, juicy couture outlet, wedding dresses, supra shoes, canada goose outlet, swarovski, karen millen, air max, marc jacobs, rolex watches, pandora charms, juicy couture, ugg boots, hollister, louis vuitton uk, sac louis vuitton, abercrombie, converse shoes, vans, montre homme, moncler, links of london, coach outlet store online, canada goose jackets, moncler
Post a Comment
<< Home
