“Ai Weiwei ‘Literally’ Smashes China’s Traditions in Art and Architecture” - Really?!
Ai Weiwei, a contemporary Chinese artist, was widely reported to “literally” destroy
The article continues: “The urn is valuable only because the arbiters of taste and the art market have determined that this is so. In recording the act of its destruction, the meaning and value of the urn is transformed and co–opted into a contemporary, editioned art work that subverts and disrupts the prevailing value system to which it previously belonged.”
I am only highly suspicious of this kind of act towards their ends – whatever they are – because it rings so alarmingly similar to the rationale to destroy ancient architecture in 1950s’ Beijing (back to my topic of course). “When they decided to dismantle and demolish the city’s menlous (gate/ entrance towers) and pailous (ceremonial archways) in the 1950s, the government would gather the public in front of these structures to ‘denounce them for their evils’” (Fang, Ke. Contemporary Redevelopment in the Inner City of
The predecessors of Chinese architecture scholars in
Chinese architecture seems always in the need of protection against the above-mentioned intentions and actions of destruction, as demonstrated by Ai’s “performance”, that is based on an elitist assumption that the destructive means will somehow be recognized as necessary and constructive toward a higher, nobler end. Take the article’s claim that Ai’s act of breaking the urn was to “subvert and disrupt the prevailing value system to which it previously belonged” for example. It takes a leap of faith, or rather, an education in art theory and criticism or something similar, to make the connection between “destruction of an old and valuable urn physically” and “destruction of the value system”. I say it is based on an elitist assumption because to the general public, the message that does get through is simply that it’s OK to destroy the PHYSICAL thing, and that’s all they need and want to know, nothing more.
Or maybe Ai’s end is not so noble after all; the same previous article quotes him as saying: “It’s very important to use all possible means to express your ideas,” he told Cornell students. “I try not to guide myself — I try to, day to day, accept all the opportunities and to make a mark.” Ah, the noble and glorious end of “making a mark”! Aren’t they all doing that, the government officials who have their eyes fixed on “promotion projects”, and the so-called master architects and designers from internationally renowned firms! Of course this should always triumph over a stupid bunch of objects, no matter if they are 2000-year-old Han Dynasty urns or 600-year-old Ming Dynasty structures of ingenious design and masterful execution.
My interests surely are not only in the historic preservation aspect of Chinese architecture. But I do not want to research on Chinese architecture only as “history” for the next generation, as something of the past, something that is no more. I would allow myself a fleeting moment of optimism to believe that the reason I want to study Chinese architecture, apart from my love for it, is so that the next generation and the generations after them will be able to appreciate all the beauties I see in it in my time as they do in theirs.
I realize that I am talking mostly in terms of “Chinese architecture” now. When it comes to Chinese vernacular architecture, we still need to fight for its legitimate status as a valid branch of the discipline of Chinese architecture. It is not a promising sign to read that even the most renowned scholars of Chinese architecture consider that the only reason for the vernacular, the courtyard houses and hutongs in Beijing for example, to exist is so that they can “enhance the beauty and value of the Forbidden City and other important monumental architecture”. The Emperor needs his subjects to be Emperor. However, we don’t have an emperor anymore. We are citizens of equal rights now, even if only in theory.
I need not remind anyone what a complicated issue it is when it comes to how to treat a tradition and culture as ancient as the Chinese. Neither will I repeat the useless clichés we have applied too often to discussions of this matter: the quintessence (jinghua/精华) and the rubbish (zaopo/糟粕) of the Chinese tradition. I have found it always more helpful to be specific; here are but two examples: traditional architectural and engineering structures we have perfected in the past thousands of years as one, whether it is the Great Wall, the
The aspects of Chinese culture and tradition that do need “smashing”, are never really the art objects, or architectural structures themselves. Rather, it is the deep-rooted barbarous and brutal systems and concepts that have dominated the Chinese society and conscious for millennia. Contemporary scholar Yang Dongping has commented on this in his writing: “We see another kind of treatment toward traditional culture: complete destruction of heritage objects and customs on one hand, while conserving and reviving the backward and reactionary traditional systems and concepts on the other.” (Yang. Weilai shengcun kongjian: shehui kongjian [Future Space for Existence: Social Space], 1998).
By choosing to “smash” a fragile “heritage object”, the Han Dynasty urn, an object much easier for destruction, and a performance act much more dramatic and immediately attention-catching, and avoiding intentionally or unintentionally the real arduous task of reexamining and reconstructing the Chinese tradition, Ai Weiwei has shown himself as nothing more than another expropriator of the Chinese history, culture and tradition.
中国当代前卫艺术家艾未未在1995年砸碎一只汉代陶瓮的举动被媒体广为报道。一篇文章称他的表演为“颠覆偶像的行为”。艾未未本人称其举动之所以“具有震撼力是因为人们认为这一举动充满震撼力，因为人们对这只陶瓮注入价值。”
文章继续说，“陶瓮之所以具有价值是因为操纵艺术品味和艺术品市场的人决定了这一价值。破坏陶瓮使它的意义和价值被改变，它被同化成一件当代的，被编辑过的艺术品；这样就达到了颠覆和割断它此前所属的价值体系的目的。”
我对于这种企图通过破坏行为来达到某种目的 – 不管什么目的 – 的做法，抱有极度的怀疑，因为这种行为与五十年代破坏北京古建筑背后的思维如出一辙。“20世纪50年代拆除城门楼和牌楼时，政府都要组织群众在这些门楼和牌楼前集会，‘控诉它们的罪恶’。”（方可，《当代北京旧城更新》，2000）
中国建筑与建筑史的前辈学者，大都倾心热爱这一悠久的传统艺术形式。他们中的很多人终其一生都在为抵制和改变一般大众对于“中国建筑”的无知而奋斗。时值今日，同样的任务越来越艰巨，担子越来越沉重。譬如同济大学的阮仪三教授，就一再讲到要“教育决策者”，要让他们认识到尊重和保护传统建筑的意义和重要性。但是从今天的情形看起来，中国建筑的生存确乎是一场关系两方的权利斗争：一方是贪婪而有权有势的地产投资商、承包商、投机商与腐败的政府官员，只顾捞取名利的所谓建筑大师与建筑师事务所结成的联盟；另一方是由衷欣赏中国古建筑在历史、文化、科学和美学诸方面价值的有责任心的仁人志士。这场斗争的结果孰胜孰败，似乎一目了然。我们也许能够“教育决策者”，我们也许能够制定法律法规，我们甚至可能实施这些法律法规，但是我们如何保护中国建筑的优良传统不受来自人性的虚妄、贪婪和卑劣的伤害呢？
中国建筑在类似艾未未之流的破坏意志和举动面前，确乎时时需要保护。艾未未的“表演”，其实建立在一种精英思维模式上。这种思维模式认为，为了达到更高尚更光荣的目的，破坏性的手段和行为有时是必要的，甚至必须的，因而最终也是建设性的。就以上文所引的艾未未的举动是为了达到“颠覆和割断它【陶瓮】此前所属的价值体系的目的”为例。要在“从物质上破坏一件古老的有价值的艺术品”和“颠覆它所属的价值体系”之间，建立一种如艾未未所希望建立的联系，需要完成一次思维的跳跃，或者更确切的说，需要接受艺术理论与批评或类似的高等教育。我之所以说艾未未的思维是一种精英思维，是因为对于一般大众来说，他的破坏举动所传达的信息，只是“从物质上，从实体上破坏”是可以做到，应该做到的。一般大众所希望理解的，他们所能够理解的，不过如此。
也许艾未未的目的本来也并不怎么高尚。上面的文章引他自己的话说：“为了表达你的思想，必须不择手段。”他这么告诉康奈尔的学生，“我不试图指导自己，日复一日，我只是设法迎接机遇，留下自己的印迹。”对了，“留下自己的印迹”！这是何等崇高光荣的目的！眼睛只盯着“政绩工程”的短视的政府官员，捞钱捞名的建筑大师和他们的事务所，他们不也是都想“留下自己的印迹”吗？对于这些人的行为，吴良镛教授有一个形象的表达：“万箭齐发，箭箭伤的都是中国建筑。”自然这种“万古流名”的崇高目的应该压倒一切的所谓艺术品，管它什么2000年前的汉代陶瓮，管它什么600年前的明代建筑精品。
我的兴趣当然不全在中国建筑的保存和维护上，但是我不愿意把中国建筑只当成一部“历史”来研究，一件终究不复存在，过去时代的见证。如果我允许自己享受片刻的乐观情绪，那么我愿意相信，我之所以以中国建筑为终生追求的原因，除了对之满腔的挚爱以外，还在于，我愿意我的后代，以及他们的后代，都能够在他们的时代欣赏到我所欣赏到的中国建筑的大美。
我现在谈到的只是广义的“中国建筑”了，要具体到中国民居建筑，要让人们认识到中国民居建筑是中国建筑的一个不可或缺的，独立的，合法的分支学科，我们尚需为之付出巨大的努力。一种顽固的对民居建筑的地位与价值视而不见的态度和观点主宰着学术界，不能不让人为民居建筑的命运深为担心。连当代最负盛名的中国建筑（史）学家们，在提到中国民居建筑时，比如北京的胡同四合院，也认为需要保留和保护民居建筑的（几乎）唯一目的，不过是“烘托和强化紫禁城及其他重要建筑的壮观和价值”。换言之，帝王要有其子民才能成其为帝王。可是，我们并没有帝王了，哪怕仅仅从理论上来讲，我们已经算是地位平等，权利相当的现代公民了。
关于如何对待如中国一样悠久的传统与文化的这样一个千头万绪的问题，我没有资格在这里饶舌。我们一向烂熟的简单二元对立的词汇，所谓精华，所谓糟粕之类，在分析实际问题的时候，也是有百弊而无一利。不如把问题具体化，具体分析具体问题，只举两个我自己较为熟悉的具体例子。一个当然是中国传统建筑。我们在过去的几千年中，对于这项艺术的掌握确乎臻于化境，不管是长城，安济桥，还是宫殿建筑，寺庙佛塔，抑或是随便一座最不起眼的群山环抱中的民居村落，莫不如此。特别是民居，这些遍布祖国各地，土生土长的民间建筑，它们所体现的简洁实用，经济美观的特质，让人叹为观止。再举一个中国传统戏剧的例子 – 不单指京昆之类的国粹，而是统指包括由全国各地300多种剧种构成的中国传统戏剧的表演体系 – 中国戏剧是这样一种兼收并蓄、精深浩大的综合艺术门类。它把音乐、古典文学、歌舞、绘画、表演、杂耍、和其他艺术形式毫不费力的融合成一个完美无缺的整体。中国戏剧和中国建筑一样，是名副其实、当之无愧的中国古典美学的集大成者，实在应该得到全中国全世界人们最由衷的赞美和最高度的关注。
中国文化和中国传统中需要“砸碎”的部分，从来都不是艺术品或建筑物本身，而是这其中根深蒂固、统治中国社会和潜意识几千年的野蛮、残忍的制度体系和思想观念。当代学者杨东平对此早就做了论述：“我们看到了对传统文化的另一种处置：那就是在文物和风俗层面上全面摧毁、破坏传统，而在制度和观念层面上，则保留、复活那些反动、落后的旧传统。”（杨东平. 《未来生存空间、社会空间》1998）
艾未未避重就轻，选择“砸碎”一件脆弱的艺术品，何其信手拈来，轻而易举！并且，以这种令人震撼的举动来制造噱头，何其新鲜刺激、引人注目！他有意无意地避开真正的重新审视和建构中国传统的艰难任务，以对历史、文化和传统的极其不负责任的态度，所进行的破坏举动，其目的只为谋取一己私利。自诩前卫的艺术家，不过只是又一个中国历史、文化和传统的投机分子，可恶之极！
January 13th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Hi there,
I am doing a dissertation on the traditional identity of dwellings in particular, I am sorry to hear that the people who run the country are not interested in the history and beauty of traditional Chinese Architecture, what do you think about new developments done by new Architects such as Kengo Kuma and the Bamboo House near the Great Wall of China in Beijing, do you think that’s respecting the traditional aspects of Chinese architecture, do you think this is the way forward for chinese dwellings?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Hi,
Thank you for your message and questions. Those are very good questions. Unfortunately I’m not familiar enough with Kengo Kuma’s work to offer any insightful comment on the Bamboo house that he built at the Commune by the Great Wall (please share your knowledge of him and his work, if you don’t mind. Many thanks in advance!); I’m trying to be careful about making statements about a building I’ve never personally experienced. But from what little information I’ve gathered reading online so far, I would say that I respect his respect for the historic and physical features of the locality/site; I think that the kind of sensibility he’s shown in his design to the specificity of the site is very important whenever we think/talk about a work of architecture, as it is always located/situated in a specific location with a set of specific conditions, to which an architect cannot/should not just turn a blind eye.
Kengo Kuma seems to have created a “modern”, or “contemporary” - whatever you call it - house, both in its appearance and its spirit, which is also a highly relevant and important thing to remember, in discussing the future of Chinese vernacular architecture. The idea that we can, or should, somehow, magically “return” to a past of a better built environment, with its better-designed/crafted architecture, maintaining a better balance with nature, simply won’t work for me. What’s gone is gone; what’s done cannot be undone. We might still be figuring out what we can do about the future of Chinese vernacular architecture, but we certainly can not allow the practice of building “fake antiques” continue (Just to quickly clarify: here I’m not referring or alluding to Kengo Kuma’s work at all; simply pointing out a practice currently prevalent in China). We can’t! We live in a different world (a so-called modern world, whether that’s always a “better” thing, is another question); we need to build houses for this world, this life, this lifestyle, this generation.
But that’s not to say we have to always build something loudly jarring with what’s already there, whether stylistically, visually, or in any other way. I cannot think of any reason why an architect/designer would choose not to work WITH the (pre-)existing conditions other than his/her total incompetency. Again, I respect anyone who respects the specificity of the site and tries to integrate their work into the environment in such a way that it simply “fits” there.
I don’t know if I’ll say that Kuma’s house is the way forward for Chinese vernacular architecture. For one thing, his client was building a very high-end luxury hotel complex for the service of a very selected few (btw, the emerging Chinese “elites” are very proud and loud claiming their status as the social “elites”. According to the official website of the hotel, it costs RMB 24, 883 yuan, which equals about USD 3, 440/ night to stay at this house). It would take eh, forever if ever? for any ordinary Chinese man or woman, living in the country, to have that kind of space tailor-built for them.
One last thing I would add, I would always prefer any effort to house a homeless family over any creation of any art or architecture.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Dear Yan,
During WW2, Paris was under the occupancy of Nazi, Hitler had ordered to bomb the entire city of Paris, yet the German General who was in charge of Paris, was so much in love with the city of Paris, he couldn’t bear his heart to do so, so he refused to obey such order. Why? Because he understood and cared for beauty, despite the fact that these countries were at war and they were enemies.
Beauty is probably the only thing that can unite people together… and what has gone so wrong with Chinese these days? We Chinese can no longer blame the fault on Japanese, the western powers, now it’s our own problem.
I guess, Chinese people have been too poor for too long, and suddenly they don’t know what to do with their newly gotten wealth.
“Bourgeois” means not only a certain level of income, but also means a certain level of sophistication, education and background. So, these new “elites” from China are not qualified to call themselves “Bourgeois”. Don’t forget, the cultural revolution had destroyed the entire generation of scholars, artists, the affluent, we have literally lost a generation of educators, and the middle class in China has always been relatively small in number in the social pyramid comparing with the ones in the west, and the working class has always been massive in comparison also. Despite the abundance of Chinese architectural heritage, when it comes to destruction, it takes much lesser time than we think.
True, education is the key. The new privileged in China these days are the offsprings of the beggars and farmers when you look carefully into the recent history of China. They don’t have the appreciation for beauty in their blood to start with, so “educate the policy makers” is a good try, but I’d doubt it would change a thing.
As you have mentioned, the government gathered the public to demolish and dismantle the ancient architectures in Beijing in 1950’s, the similarity of such phenomenon had occurred in France after the French Revolution, yet the French had a very different mentality than the Chinese. The French had taken and popularized the luxury from the Bourgeois to share with the public, Chinese always feel bitterness, “if I don’t have it, neither could you have it”. For being within the more financially capable group, they just don’t have a sense of responsibility to preserve the beauty, our cultural heritage.
It’s just so ridiculous to see these new western style residential buildings rising up quickly on the horizon in China. Chinese are desperately pasting what they believe symbolize “luxury” and “beauty” onto the landscape. Don’t they see the absurdity and awkwardness in it??? No matter how wealthy we are becoming, we are nothing more than a bunch of culturally confused, no-self-esteem, sorry people.
I’m a young visual art student, and always feel I’m responsible to make a difference in this issue, this is definitely an uphill battle. We might not win by the end, but I will never shift my own ideology to conform with theirs as long as I live, so neither would they win me over to join “them”.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:07 am
Hi Jasmine,
Thanks a lot for your comment. I very much sympathize with your passion for preserving the best of what we have. You’ve touched on many things that I think could help explain the current dilemma for Chinese (vernacular) architecture. I completely agree with your feeling that many of us tend to harbor a narrow-minded and unhealthy bitterness towards other people’s “success”, whatever form that might take. And the fact that many prefer a gaudy (lousy and horrifying!) “western style” for their new properties also has to do with the same ignorance about the true value of Chinese (vernacular) architecture.
I once read about a nice and smart observation, which states that the reason we have so many new projects built up in “West-European” or “American” style (as if there were such things in the first place!) is that too many diplomats and government officials have had too much chance to travel to these places and see buildings in a style - any “style”, as long as it is different - they think far more superior than the traditional Chinese; what we don’t have much at present is fake (and lousy of course) Islamic architecture in China. Once these people have more opportunities to see the real thing that’s sure to catch their fancy, we’ll see “Islamic” buildings all over China. - Unfortunately I think this is quite a valid conclusion; can you believe that?! Not that I have anything against Islamic architecture, or any “western” style architecture for that matter, just that as far as new buildings and new “styles” go in China, we never seem to fail to produce the worst copies out of the best models.
I also agree that we have been deprived of a whole generation - more than that perhaps - of scholars and educators on virtually every aspect of the Chinese tradition that’s worthy of our attention and preservation. And we have been suffering from it. But I think what’s even more devastating than our ignorance is that we are ignorant of our ignorance and we’re bloody proud of it!
I wish I could share your optimistic view on the liberating and unifying power of beauty. In many situations however, this is unfortunately such a vague and ambiguous word. We are witnessing all the displacement and destruction of traditional Chinese vernacular architecture exactly, or at least partially, because we have such different views on what is beautiful (granted money and profit almost always come in to play a bigger role). The two of us, for instance, see only the most blatant ugliness in those “beautiful”, “western-style” buildings that many others simply cannot have enough of.
Strangely though, as hopeless and desperate as I sometimes see the situation in China, I still have a stubborn belief that that only means we have more work to do. - You might ask, to what end? I’m not quite sure; just that there might be, just might, a minute chance to change the scene a bit, if we actually do something, as there surely cannot be any hope if we simply give up. I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not ready to give up on the “beggars” and “farmers” that you’ve criticized so bitterly. After all, that’s where most of us come and have to start from.
I hope you’re enjoying your studies, and wish you the very best for everything. Thanks again!
February 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Thank you very much for your reply Yan, you have many good points worth contemplating on. To raise the awareness of protecting cultural heritage and artifacts on its own is a virtue and I can only wish this awareness will be widely spread throughout the country starting from the young, not just those decision-makers. Money alone isn’t the solution. This is definitely a uphill battle but regardlessly, we all need to do what we can with what we have, as long as we still care. Happy New Year and thank you for your reply once again!
February 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am
Happy New Year/元宵節 to you too!