|
| The Institutionalization of Chinese Photography |
| By Gu Zheng |
 |
  ditorial Note: Beijing Three Shadows Photography Art Centre held a Symposium on Chinese Contemporary Photography in June, 2007. including Contemporary Photography Forum featuring "Research and Public Communication of Contemporary Photography" and open discussion. Specialists presented were: Alison Nordstrom, Ruan Yizhong, Kotaro Lizawa, Gu Zheng, Christopher Phillips, Karen Smith and Fei Dawei, etc. Art critic and Professor Gu Zheng gave a speech titled on "The Institutionalization of Chinese Photography" :
 hank you for inviting me to participate in this momentous occasion. The title of my talk today is “The Institutionalization of Chinese Photography.” I actually thought of this topic while looking at some brochures about Three Shadows. Is it possible to examine the last twenty years of contemporary photography in China from the angle of the institution, in order to reconsider its state today?
I can see a very clear sense of purpose and comprehensive structure from the brochures about Three Shadows. This kind of structure is what I consider an “art institution.” Of course, here it includes photography, but it also seems like a microcosm of institution building. From this point of view, I think the establishment of Three Shadows provides us with an opportunity to consider the concept of the “institution” in Chinese contemporary photography, including the relationship between institutions and Chinese photography since 1949, as well as the possible effects of the so-called institution on Chinese photography in the future.
 So, what is an “institution”? I think an institution is a structure with cultural authority, and at the same time, a kind of control. Each cultural form possesses qualities that are specific to its medium, and an institution has two effects on them. Cultural forms can accept the standards and structures that have been imposed upon them from the outside, but at the same time, they can also overturn the institutions or even subvert them through artistic development, thus creating new institutions – institutional innovation. So in terms of the institution, we discover that true cultural production has another kind of impetus, possibility, or force for breakthroughs. That is the desire for subversion and reconstruction against the institution. Culture and society are standardized, interactive institutional forms that are always in tension with artistic creation. The institution seeks to organize, specify, and set the relationship between form and concept, as well as make it into a method of production that can be mastered – a process. This is what I understand to be an institution.
Now what is an institution specific to photography? The topic that I brought up today revolves around China. There has been a Photographers Association in China since 1949. “Institution” includes broadcasting and other activities, such as the increasingly popular photography festivals, biennales, and triennials.  Of course, the term also encompasses the fine art museum, museum, library, image collections, archives, and galleries working in the market, as well as the critics, curators, and image managers who have intimate relationships with these museums and galleries. We need to look at the idea of photography from a larger scope, beyond just a form of artistic expression. There’s also mainstream media with its image market. Today’s market and auction houses can also be seen as a kind of institutional organization that is exploding in China now. We’ve also already entered the 21st century; the effect of the digital age and photography websites is another facet of the institution. We of course cannot forget the institution of art criticism, art education, photography criticism, and photography education. Can we also include meetings about photography – all forms of discussion about photography? There’s one other factor that should be added into the survey of artistic institutions. As French sociologist Pierre Bordieu pointed out in his sociological survey of art institutions, even with the audience, collectors, etc, the most important factor is still the effect of the artist as an art producer in the system. Now what is the effect of each of these institutions on contemporary photography? Or rather, what is most effective about the institutional design that has survived from post-1949 up until today? Where is its legitimacy? What role can the new institutions take today? Included among them is Three Shadows, which is actually an institution outside the institution. In China, trying new forms of institutions outside the ordinary institution is relatively new, but in Western countries, this kind of experimentation is already well established.
In discussing these questions, I always think back to the situation post-1949. First, I want to examine what kind of institution we had post-1949 and its subsequent effects. The Chinese Communist Party is a Leninist Party. So, what are the principles of Leninism? For Lenin’s take on the ideology of China and the Soviet Union, there’s an important, influential essay entitled “Party Organization and Party Literature.” This essay provided the most basic theoretical foundations (according to Mao) for how to fully control ideological cultural production, and how to design a series of institutions that relates to the way artists and cultural producers should work. We can quote a passage from Lenin’s “Party Organization and Party Literature.” On this occasion, in the 21st century, reading Lenin may seem anachronistic, but I feel it is necessary. He said:
Literary work cannot be the moneymaking tool of the individual or group. Moreover, it cannot be the business of individuals who have nothing to do with the proletariat. Down with writers with no party ethic! Down with writers who think they are above people! Literary work should be a part of the entire proletariat undertaking, becoming the great, integrated “nuts and bolts” of the socialist democratic weapon, motivated by the most avant-garde thought of the working class. Literary work should be organized and planned – a cohesive and essential part of the work of the socialist democratic party.
I don’t know whether listening to these words today seems strange or fresh. The Chinese Communist Party inherited these kinds of ideological aims, which emphasize party principles, from Lenin after 1949. At the time, Mao Zedong followed the Soviet Union completely and rounded up all the artists and intellectuals to create numerous cultural organizations, such as the National Literary Union, Photographers Association, Fine Art Association, Dancers Association, and even associations for popular art forms like crosstalk. These kinds of institutions controlled resources and later began to allocate resources. Only through these institutions could one enjoy benefits. By allocating resources, it was possible to control art and artists, and distinguish between so-called enemies – you are my enemy, you are my friend, you are someone I should take advantage of, you are someone I should praise, you are someone I should attack, you are someone I should reject, even to the point of physical elimination... This was a very comprehensive, tightly planned institution.
 Of course, this kind of institutional design inherently includes contradictions. Contradictions arose between the individual and organization, ideology and cultural production. There were also problems of individual creative freedom, uniformity, and diversification. All resources were unilaterally held and allocated, much like the allocation of apartments. Under this mechanism (and of course, the mechanism is also a kind of ideology), artistic creation was mainstreamed. How long could the legitimacy and effectiveness of these institutions last? Originally, I didn’t give much thought to this question. However, I arrived on Tuesday, and had to buy Tuesday’s edition of Cankao Xiaoxi. Why? Because Tuesday’s Cankao Xiaoxi was cheap – it has the most issues – and I have this bargain-hunting habit. In the newspaper, a German Sinologist named Kubin strongly criticized Chinese literary figures. Again and again, he pointed out the year 1992. I think the year 1992 is just as important as the year 1989 in China’s contemporary history. Of course, we can say that 1989 is the most important year in China’s contemporary history, but after thinking carefully about what Mr. Kubin said, I think the year 1992 is a very important year for Chinese contemporary art. After Deng Xiaoping’s southern tour, everyone wholeheartedly joined the reform. Because of this fundamental change, the institutional design from 1949 faced a huge challenge. The allocation of resources – the whole institutional reward and punishment system – entered a different space with the  addition of public capital and afterward, international capital. The system’s original effectiveness and appeal were weakening. This was a huge change. In the midst of this change, artists began to take action. There only had to be a possibility – artists are fundamentally “opportunists” – because under strict institutional controls, individual creative freedom was very difficult. However, one could say that what came after 1992 was a double-edged sword. Business became an “‘ism” and the collapse of the institutional control that had been so carefully designed was caused by gradual erosion from the inside. It was an embarrassment at the time. We believed that we were a socialist democratic market economy. If we were to fully accept the principles of a capitalist market economy, then how much longer could the previous institutional design remain effective? The ruling party was not too happy to see their control lose effect, but if they did not move out of the economic recess and move forward politically, then how could they open up what we have now? They faced a huge problem. So under these circumstances, I believe that the year 1992 launched a very important change. Before changes actually happened in ideology, the focus of ideology, including economic development and movement of the center, etc, initiated fundamental changes in the institutions. The old institutions of the past were destabilized and their legitimacy put into question.
 We then discovered that artists were beginning to use their own unique methods to work against the institution. Here I want to emphasize that anti-institution does not necessarily mean anti-ideology. I don’t want to expand this discussion into politics; at least on a surface level I want everyone to think that when we’re talking about art, we’re talking about art. These so-called experimental artists, avant-garde artists, vanguard artists – just what kind of artists were they? I think that from an institutional point of view, we can say that they were “anti-institutional” artists. The art system – including traditions, history of photography, art history, etc. – falls within the scope of the institution. Chinese artists, including Chinese photographers, produced a new vision of the institution through their experimental and avant-garde artistic creations. Another change was in the identity of the artist. Before, artists published and circulated their works and ideas through official organizations like the Fine Art Association, Photographers Association, and Artists Association. In times like the Cultural Revolution however, we hand-printed, engraved, and circulated our own works; this was a challenge to institutions such as the publishing industry. We now discover that, in reality, examining and confronting the institution really begins with the individual. After 1992, much civil or public capital appeared, and when that public capital reached a certain amount, it had a say in the financial support of the arts. This created all kinds of possibilities for institutions outside the institution. But I still think that “anti-institution” does not necessarily mean “non-institution.” This concept might be a little confusing. In other words, if you always work against the institution, you might  enter into a paradox: you go against this institution, only to enter another kind of institution; you go against the institution strictly designed by the Leninist party in the previous ideology, only to enter the commercial institution today. Of course, with regards to these two types of institutions, each ?person has a right to weigh out the pros and cons themselves. Which has productive, constructive characteristics with regard to personal artistic development is an individual choice. At least it’s encouraging to see that the possibilities that individuals can choose from have grown. Now in this situation, we face a larger question – the creation of a new institution. Of course this is too large of a topic, but is there this kind of possibility
The art institution is actually so complicated and interesting. We will discover more things by looking at Chinese contemporary photography from the angle of the institution. Perhaps I will continue doing research on this, with some specific examples or rather worries about problems in art that I recently saw and felt. For example, in China a new, gratifying phenomenon is the possibility of institutions outside the institution. Yet at the same time, what kind of problems came up? A problem of official versus civil. What plainly came from civil affairs – such as a photography festival – can be co-opted by the official for the purpose of raising political achievements. What originally was a public thing was slyly stolen to become an official thing. In the context of the realities of China, institutions that are outside the institution must face risks that many of us need to treat with caution. Another example is the biennales. It seems that China still has some biennales, but in specific areas, biennales actually have a very intimate relationship with the entire national ideology. This category of institution might produce a false image. In terms of economics, it’s capitalism, but in terms of ideology it’s still using the methods of the Leninist or Stalinist party of before. Thus it needs a holiday, such as a biennale, to produce an economic reform, as well as the image of political and artistic reform. The co-opting of the institution is a very interesting topic. Another point has to do with a key element in all of China’s institutions. China still seems to lack a vehicle for foundations. It’s still very difficult for a foundation to enter China, especially since the Russian President Putin mandated that Western foundations cannot enter Russia because of the possibility that these foundations will subvert the Communist government. In China, is it  possible for small capitalists to put their own profits into funds aiding contemporary development? These kinds of people are still very few. In official affairs, there are a few officials even younger than me that have already very smartly established their own foundations. If an overseas foundation enters China, then it has to find a way to incorporate itself into the existing framework for foundations. This is the creation of another new kind of institution. What use can the so-called NGO have on Chinese contemporary art? Can Three Shadows interact with all aspects of society in the role of an NGO? I have formed an expectation today. Let Three Shadows promote photography art – this is very important – but how can it enrich its own role? If it can have a healthy interaction with society and public elements such as the NGO, I think it can build a more solid foundation for growing and have bigger prospects for the future. Yet one has to master this well, because it’s very subtle and the realities of China are really too complicated, perhaps even surpassing the imagination of many of our overseas friends. My head can only complicate itself up to this.
Today, I just wanted to share with everyone a little bit about “the possibilities of Chinese contemporary photography from the angle of the institution”.
 Gu Zheng: Professor of Journalism School at Fudan University. Photography Critic. 
|
|
|
