projects
sponsors
supporters
links|artists|curators|institutions


back to main page

Sustainable Imagination | 可持续幻想

Wang Jianwei Vs Li Zhenhua

Interview

Interviewer: Li Zhenhua
Interviewee: Wang Jianwei

Editor: Jiang Di
Proofreader: Li Zhenhua

Li: The “unlimited judgment” that you are referencing is which sort of unlimited judgment?

Wang: Not passing judgment at all. Currently contemporary culture was basically not appreciated; moreover, there is a large subtext behind this kind of unlimited appreciation. Even before it was appreciated I thought this kind of appreciation was meaningless. The meaninglessness was twofold--firstly it was bringing a kind of profit, secondly there is nothing inside. Those two states are the new shape of the blend of capitalism and post-communism. This is the new theme that I am currently researching.

Li: I recently saw two films, “Babel” and “Blood Diamond.” Later on I felt that these two films really got to the root of reality, even capitalists are discussing these kinds of problems.

I’ve only see one film in the series “Living Elsewhere.”  Your work “Everyday Architecture” and other films also touch upon a myriad of problems; can you talk a little bit about how you choose the issues that will form the core of your research?

Wang: Actually, seeing that film today, exactly ten years have passed. “Living Elsewhere” was just one work among them, and some of the issues touched upon in “Everyday Architecture” have still not changed. At the time, my overall feeling was that I had many ideas. The first was, at that time in contemporary art we were all drunk on the idea of certain Western traditional styles. For example, the point of installation art was to materialize something; video was in the style of Viola Gavi Hode. Also, I think during that period Chinese society was changing so fast that art works, including the so-called sociological, where were they hiding? In actuality, that was my reason for ten years of my work. At the time I was reading many books like: Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, etc. and was beginning to get a complete grasp on the relationship between objects, and see if it was possible to start work in a complete and relative environment. I think that the work “Produce” at the time was the beginning of this, then you will feel that the scope is much broader, your objective of research is the city, but then in the investigative process you realize that the traditional city you thought was there doesn’t exist.

I want to destroy the traditional definitions and concepts of the city, through written and field investigations, asking: what kind of relationship does a methodological approach to the city and the existence of art have? “Everyday Architecture” was actually also produced in this kind of environment, it has ten large portions; at the time I also wrote an article describing this point. If we believe that architecture and a city are produced on a socialized platform, then any form of simple reduction could possibly transform into various visible manifestations provided by social relationships. My interest is in seeing if I can find a more comprehensive way to understand the city, simply stated, isn’t it like paying attention to what the city is like? And “why” is it like that, this is also a portion that the city and the architecture cannot see. At the time the work was produced with that background, and I also think that in ten years, I believe art, especially contemporary art actually has still not deeply crossed the threshold or become involved in the entire process of socialization. First of all the ‘problem’ is still produced at the heart of art, of course I still believe that I am in the process, ten years, there is absolutely no time for retrospection, I still feel there are so many things that haven’t even been started. For example, I wanted to start a new work this year called “Contagion Intersection,” perhaps it is generally the same thought pattern as that ten-year foundation. 

Li: I think you are an interesting individual case: a social responsible artist who is uniquely concerned with his social environment. Maybe I’m being too simple, but you are an artist who has a few characteristics of the intellectual. I think this is relatively obvious on your person, but, to speak concretely on the ‘intellectual’ problem, I’ve also sought for many explanations, and it seems there are many. There is one that I think might be more closely related: “Being an intellectual, the first thing you must have knowledge of is yourself,” and then maintain a relatively cool attitude when examining society, observing the origins and results of situations, then going on to formulate questions. 

Wang: We can’t always talk in big concepts, such as this or that social phenomenon. I think that the artist’s interest in society in itself is not a problem. If you look at it from a historical perspective, Chinese artists pay similar attention to societal problems, what I am focusing attention on is, how do you pay attention to society, what kind of world view do you use to observe it? We can’t forever be making Qing and Ming Dynasty style paintings. Actually, we have used neither artistic methods nor intellectual methods to examine society, this is a problem that we have been avoiding for a long time, using social problems to avoid knowledge and culture, what kind of problems will this engender?

Once we say ‘concern for society’ everything becomes immediately sentimental, as if that is the only way we can appreciate society. But you discover over one hundred years, the way we observe society marks the time, the basic complexity is veiled over and in the end becomes a sort of symbol that spreads to drama, novels, and literature. So I believe, the attitude you employ in your concern for society is even more important, moreover if you are an artist, they method you use to express your concern will become your artistic method. I don’t think that merely having this concern is enough, if you don’t back it up with practice then its possible it will just look like opportunism. Because when an artist says they are concerned for society, he is just borrowing it as his background; sometimes society can provide us with an exceptionally large reason, truthfully it is just to make people ‘shut up’ and sometimes it is an opportunity. You can often find a drama or a novel that was sloppily written, but the author will write pages and pages on how he is concerned with society, I don’t believe that game is worthy of participation. Add to that the fact that China lacks a normal critical mechanism, there is no public criticism or third person style of language, so take the artist and society and make it an artwork, from it you can derive some sort of criticism. But we can only discuss these problems after we’ve had our fill of food and drink, or in the end it becomes a kind of socialized news, and then we use entertaining methods to report on it.

The second problem is that of knowledge, as you mentioned, stated simply its one’s worldview and how one looks at issues and what kind of power that has given you; it is not how many books you have read that determine your ‘intellectual’ status. I think that as for our universities, they must have an understanding of critical knowledge, as for our intellectuals--they must be able to use critical thinking. That kind of critical attitude ensures that you must always maintain a distance from the mainstream; you never want to let yourself become ‘very useful.’ From a sociological perspective, ‘very useful’ implies you have managed to have a tacit understanding with some kind of profit mechanism, just like you see our architecture, including how we critique images, and wonder why it is so weak. Actually, it has become extremely useful, for me a useful thing these days is a new kind of ideology, proactively managing to share in commercial profits.

Li: We were just talking about the concern of the artist for society. Most people can define it. I think this is a dangerous thing, perhaps many people think it’s a very simple thing to define something. Do you think this is a problem? Especially because you are making art… now its making doctrine. To give an example, many universities are giving definition to “new media.” I think this is hard to understand, how are they able to do that?

Wang: That is Chinese tradition, that tradition is the hope that one can use the simplest method to understand the world. At the same time this brings about why we didn’t learn about the complete foundations of abstract art, let alone to say contemporary art. Our basic education and our cultural education basically took anything classified as ‘uncertain’ and removed it, we have no way to construct and use ‘uncertain’ experiences or understanding, and this is precisely the most important knowledge of contemporary art. How do we negate the ‘uncertain?’ Commercial interests are against the ‘uncertain,’ the government is against the ‘uncertain,’ thus showing that these two entities are actually in cahoots, the both require certainty; but to culture this is lethal, and that is also to say that we use this attitude to approach all objects and events. For example, in art criticism the most often used approach is “I don’t understand,” which is to say you must find certainty, but I think in this world, from the approach of a multivariable mechanism we should permit ‘uncertain’ things to exist, and we should also permit people to embrace ‘uncertain’ knowledge.

It’s too early to even begin talking about how people will use this kind of knowledge and experience, what we need to talk about is the ‘legality’ of utilizing this uncertain’ knowledge. We have talked about artists for a long time, pausing on the opposition of ‘artist’ and ‘public,’ but we don’t discuss whether or not there is a ‘public.’ I always refute the word ‘public’ because the word itself is flashy and unsubstantial; it was created, like the word ‘citizen.’ What do you think, are the two of us sitting here doing an interview the ‘public?’ If we say no, what is that based on? According to what standards and quantifications are you asserting that we are not the ‘public,’ aren’t ‘citizens’? If we ‘are’ then the problem is more closely related, then ‘we are citizens’ and ‘I make art’ then that resulting art is ‘art for the citizens.’ We can’t tackle the problem of understanding this problem even with basic logic. What ‘public’? What ‘citizen’? I think these words have caused a great amount of disorder, they made the question much broader, within this generality there is no need for more knowledge to clear up the problem. It looks very complicated, but actually in the end it is very simple.

Li: Superficially.

Wang: Looking back it is just like you just said; it becomes that no one can first define anything, but then within limited boundaries makes a verdict. But the problem is still very complicated; after making a definition, all the reading just stops there. I will continue to advocate uncertainty in my work. I think that it is a new language system; that is what I’m interested in. Without it there would be no discussion of experimental art, of course I also think that art should permit the non-experimental, but I’m personally interested in it.

Li: We were just talking about the problem of ‘language,’ what do you think that is?

Wang: In March I had a lecture at the Ullens Foundation on that subject. My topic was “Brain Design.” Nineteen years ago I read a book called “Brain Design” that inspired me a greatly. “Brain Design” implicates two methods. The first is that you completely put aside the object discussed by the system. The second is that you maintain this attitude, and from the beginning to the end maintain a kind of attitude of possibility.

Li: Maintain what kind of attitude?

Wang: That is, continuously questioning the nature of things, for example the latency of order, regulations, standards, and how to implement this in your knowledge, language, and behaviors. So, many things influence me, what that author believes are behaviors, location, language comprehensively become a new ‘field.’ I think this kind of thing is very interesting, or to say when we want to confront this problem, we must approach it from a relevant attitude, perhaps this question will produce some sort of relationship, but this relationship has many elements. You cannot only ask, “which factors?” Our previous history’s theory of the Philosophy of Materialism only stresses that you can see that portion, what you cannot see is the Philosophy of Idealism, this inertia continues on in just the same way as we still use class struggles to talk about society. What rich man, poor man? This is almost exactly the same as the attitude of  ‘landlords’ ‘wealthy farmers’ and ‘poor farmers.’ The architects of today are often talking about “building homes for the poor” and occupying a vantage point besides the citizens, the interesting thing is that I’ve suddenly discovered the concept of the ‘public citizen’ is changing to indicate ‘the poor.’ Go and study this in that context, its very interesting. In addition, the reason why I want to discuss the concept of “Brain Design,” is to extricate myself from the macroscopic, the plausible, the snare that in the end can make people become ‘opportunists.’ So I’m talking about it as my personal state of mind, at the same time it is my position towards my work, you can find all these attitudes in my works.

Li: So what you are saying is the “Brain Design” we were talking about just now, was discussed in relation to a few circumstances of thought. I still want to return to when we started talking about “Living Elsewhere.” In 1997, when you started on the piece, what was your original intention?

Wang: Simply put, the first intention was that I wanted to see if I could use a new method to handle art, that method was the one I was just talking about, an attitude of approaching problems from the angle of their relationships. Whether or not that attitude is art is not of importance to me, but if you want to do that kind of work, what kind of conditions are required for it? How do you look at problems, what kind of skills are you working with, what is your position, what kind of issues are you dealing with in your position? I’m interested in these questions.

Secondly, it was changes in China’s Socialism, I think it’s already an enormous change, but I had no idea that these changes were still happening. Ten years ago I started to pay attention to the city, territory, status, the conflict and contradiction between farmer and city dweller, including all aspects of city development, the profit it brings and the relationship of people and the city. We had a concept of the city long ago, we have a concept of what art is, we have a concept of farmers, but after these concepts are automatically unraveled what will remain? But this automatic unraveling is not letting it unravel and the problem solves itself. Its like when I finished making the work “Produce,” I wanted this questioning of the essential nature to continue.

Third, it was my interest in film, but it was only the film. At the time I thought, is it true that our knowledge systems and methodology could undergo some kind of change? How could you make a relationship between these changes and China’s plan? On that foundation it is your technique system. As a video artist, where do your works come from? How do you produce them, at the time I called it “Visual Investigation,” suggesting some kind of relationship between method and photography together, but at the same time producing a new kind of reading, many people were also suspicious. One time I read an article that said artists using the experience of technology were “mysterious,” saying that these works were a “mysterious thing.” The author believed that it was some kind of religious belief, so I think that even the most foundational concepts are lacking, you tell me, how can we discuss the possibilities of contemporary art? This is just the beginning of initiatives.

Li: Do you feel like only “Living Elsewhere” could be edited and screened from the ten problems that you filmed at the time?

Wang: No. There is another, “The Unpredictable Space,” that is a thirty-minute work. That plan is also very interesting: there is a real estate developer who wants to build a ‘mansion’ in the city. Through various connections he legally obtains a piece of land in Chengdu’s most famous park, and it’s located in the parks plum wood forest. He got rid of all the people in order to build his ‘mansion.’ Not long after they had broke ground on the project I went to interview him, he was describing how the landscape planning was this and that, but in the end, only three months later when I went again, the project had stopped. There were all kinds of people sitting there quietly there, but they all represented different interests. One group represented the religious, they said that below this plum wood forest there was a historic Daoist burial ground, digging was not permitted, they said it was a threat to religion. The other group was the people who come here every day to do their daily exercises, they believed this was a public park, and the project was ruining the law of the forest. The developer maintained his stance that this was a legal operation. Each group had their own point according to law, but what was the real relationship? Aside from various profit relationships, and the various elements tangled together, they produced or instigated even more complexity.

Li: Those connections are interesting.

Wang: I’m also in the process of editing the third portion, a street called “Guanyin Alley” which was once a very important alleyway in Chengdu. The government put up a notice: this alley was to be destroyed in order to connect two larger roads. When I went there, from watching the people putting up posters in protest to the road’s final destruction in, the entire process was 40 days. I was heartbroken to edit this film, even though the material is from ten years ago, to this day I still believe there are some things that need to be understood anew. I often watch that material, in the process I have edited it three times before, but the third take at editing I stopped. It was not such an easy thing as I had imagined it to be; I must go beyond the method of examining problems that I used in “Living Elsewhere” because there are so many kinds of relationships in that film.  The first is the government, the sound, that sound comes from demolition, from the building committee, from how the street could convey this kind of system? What was it based on?  And everything has an order, everyone acts according to their personal file. The second kind of relationship is the relocated (demolished) persons; there are all sorts of relationships, but are unanimous in the “demolish” and “demolished” relationship. There is also the third relationship of the development quotient, hiding invisible behind these two relationships. You know that at that time the developers and the government have an agreement, they cannot demolish these homes, they can use the name of demolition to destroy the buildings and when its over both sides will compensate for the economic losses. That is something that you cannot see… so I find these relationships interesting. Later on I see so many people photographing the city, they make it romantic, or they make it look cool, and they only concern themselves with the details, it is so visual and trendy.

Li: Its also saying that when you put these problems in the light of today, they are still very interesting?

Wang: In my opinion, many problems seem to have only just begun.

Li: When do you think these kinds of problems can be solved?

Wang: I don’t know.

Li: Are you saying that once the entire city is demolished the problem is solved?!?

Wang: I don’t want to give people a kind of feeling, what problems have I solved? I’m also facing this progressing world.

Li: Are you saying that you haven’t found a complete solution to the problem?

Wang: I have only my own methods to deal with my thoughts, I’m not saying that I am searching for solutions to society’s problems, there’s a difference there and I think that is important. Sometimes there is a person who emerges to solve society’s problems, and he wants to speak for the people, in the process maybe he will earn a place in society and even make a profit, I think this game is already played out.

Li: Actually many people are still outside of these conditions. Like the rise of China’s silicon valley, even a farmer can go buy software. Isn’t that a problem?

Wang: We just talked about ‘intellectualism,’ where one important point is that he wants to maintain a continuous questioning of authority, but not only through the methods of questioning authority will he make everyone listen to what he has to say, or know who he is, or turn that into some sort of stance. To be approved by the popular media, to be a literary capitalist and then use that kind of culture to earn profit. This kind of game in China has passed repeated tests and proven to be a success, because there is no powerful enough noise to supervise it, only the encouraging sounds, there is no sound to supervise him or stop him from doing it. They will also appear as that kind of “intellectual,” write a book, turn it into a film, that is just like taking one person’s capital and turning it into a public capital. Actually, public funds are also maintained in one person’s hand, in that sense it is just producing a new cultural product.

Li: A very obscured structural relationship.

Wang: At last join some large operation, turn it into a commercial capital… that is exactly the “intellectualization” that you thought you couldn’t see. The things to call into question are invisible--do you think there is something to be critical of there? Even the universities are lacking this kind of atmosphere, but to not even talk about the students, the teachers don’ t even think that way.

Li: I think that I am in general agreement with your idea, because it seems now that these superficially “intellectual” people are all making a show. Under the guise of “wisdom” and “original creation” they are criticizing bigger profit groups, and then over here they are rushing to sensationalize their own publications.

Wang: Using the name of ‘criticize’ to bring attention to the matter.

Li: Exactly. And finding profit relationship in diametric opposites.

Wang: I think the funniest example is, just before Christmas, suddenly there were a group of professors who started calling ‘Christmas’ the ‘collective unconscious,’ they used their knowledge on how to analyze political trends, social hot spots, and found the most attractive channel on how to enter the capitalist market. In the end, the attention it gained was all abandoned into cyberspace.

Li: Perhaps they were too slow to know how many hits they had.  For so many people this is already something so familiar.

Wang: There is a strategy now, but it is too primitive, a completely commercial mechanism. Taking someone’s personal sound and a public, the thing most able to attract people’s eyes and adhere them together, no matter in what way, endorsing is still against connectivity.

Li: I just ran into a similar thing. There was a reporter who was interviewing on the problem of the creative industry. I thought it was interesting, they were asking a lot of questions on what the creative industry was lacking. I said, I don’t think that it’s about what the creative market is lacking, but do we have an industry? Do we have creativity?

Wang: First of all, what is creativity? Then go on to talk about the industrial level.

Li: “What else does it lack” already implies that we have one.

Wang: You forgot, when we participate in any creative activity, from the beginning to the end of the meeting, various leaders are giving speeches, the profit department gives a speech, their analysis reports, operations---then they discuss their profits. You discover that the entire creative industry has absolutely no relation to creativity.

Li: It’s a little like riding a horse in circles, shouting slogans from horseback and then running another circle.

Arario Gallery

Press Articles