Contemporary Chinese Art - Essay Example

Contemporary Chinese Art Profession Introduction Avant-garde simply refers to a group of people that creates and promotes innovative ideas in a particular field of study such as arts. Almost fifty years ago, Renato Poggioli, one of the initial authors of the avant-garde commented on the lack of adequate scholarly work relating to the subject. The eloquent writer echoed his concerns about the failure of the academic field to address avant-garde art that is a conspicuous phenomenon in modern day culture. However, since these concerns were put through, the situation changed for the better. The somewhat problematic contribution by Poggioli led to an ever growing Avant-garde debate hence triggering an array of correctives of this phenomenon. Modernism, the futurist moment, decadence, mass culture and faces of modernity are just but a few of the works that have changed our conception concerning avant-garde. Figure 1 modernism in 1959 Hans Hofmann, "The Gate" In agreement with Schulte-Sasse (1984), Poggioli talks of the bourgeois and technological society that did not start off with the times of historical avant-garde that took place in the twenties. His derivation of avant-garde puts him in a tight spot since it did not occur in the 1950s period of postmodernism either. Therefore, the parallel drawn by Poggioli in terms of the disqualification of language and the avant-garde’s skepticism directed towards language is invalid. The disqualification of Poggioli’s explanation is as a result of his version to distinguish between symbolisms, romanticism, avant-garde and aestheticism. Figure 2 Peter Burger’s Explanation of Avant-Garde Although Peter Burger understanding of avant-garde differs from the others, his explanations are more theoretically exact and by far historically concrete. He described three qualitative variations that empower him to give a clear image of three stages of art history in bourgeois society. Peter Burger further explains that the historical transition that established the first stage of bourgeois art was as a result of the loosening of artists. The historical transition was also determined ultimately through serving of the dependence of artists on patrons. Finally, the replacement of patrons by an unknown structural reliance on the market along with the principles of maximization of profits also determined this historical transition. According to Peter Burger, the shift handled the change of county representative culture that was replaced by a bourgeois culture as the eighteenth century progressed. There came a time in which optimistic euphoria characterized the early enlightenment. During this period, writers were supporting centralized planning to plan for the future as well as suppress what was spatially marginal high bourgeois culture. This culture was defined by a series of internal gestures of resistance and the separation from commerce. Ideologically at this moment, the artistic, clever minds isolated themselves from the market as well as the masses. On the other hand, art distinguished itself during this phase from the society. During the initial period, the autonomy of art that was established was not developed as a stage of absolute separation. It was rather regarded to as autonomous in the late 18th and 19th centuries where it critically reflected upon the society. The reconstruction of art history by Peter Burger was exemplified by Schiller’s dramas where they derived their substance from a philosophical as well as a historical tension. Such tension is within the present that is considered as negative and the unknown future that is perceived to contain the hope for change (Schulte-Sasse, 1984). The antagonism between the present and the future expectations outlines the structure of the artistic works themselves. The protagonists of these works aspire through their demise to the moral harmony principle1. The psychological and aesthetic force gives sensuality and a morality conditions to the reader or spectator2. For Peter Burger, the ambiguous status of art in a bourgeois society is responsible for having a good understanding of the logic included in the recent history of art. The contradiction between affirmation and negation implicit in the independent mode in which art dwells leading to a feeling of impotence in writers. The impotence feeling leads to an achievement of the social ineffectiveness of their medium. The effects that artists aspire to make were greatly influenced by the newly acquired elements of affirmation and compensation in the readers. These new elements also had an effect on the means used by artists to make those effects3. The traditional narrative modes only make sense when the narrative refers positively or critically to norms and values that are essential to the society. This correlation is perceived by almost every critic of modernism. Peter Burger does deny that the radical turning that was set traditionally in the mid-19th century does indeed exist. The author supports a more radical shift from aestheticism to the historical avant-garde in the 21st century. To him, the developing skepticism directed towards language and the variation in form and content trait of symbolism was from the start of the art institutionalization in bourgeois society (Schulte-Sasse, 1984). Differences of Peter Burger’s explanation from other conceptions of Avant-garde. Julia Kristeva states that he does not give a critical analysis of the capabilities that are contained in modernist texts to deconstruct ideological closures. According to Kristeva, aestheticist art acts as a medium for an experience that is purely aesthetic ( (Kristeva, 1980)4. Clement Greenberg differs from Burger by stating that when turning the attention away from the topic of common experience, the artist or poet turns it upon a medium of his design. According to Burger, the development of the avant-garde does not include a critical consciousness about language. The avant-garde is not a continuation of tendencies that are present in aestheticism. Peter Burger believes that the turning point obtained from aestheticism to avant-garde is defined by the extent in which art comprehended to the mode in a bourgeois society (Greenberg, Fall, 1939). Avant-garde art in 1980s China In China, Postmodernism did not play a much significant role in the 1980s.Also, postmodernism was not a period that fit into the temporal succession logic. Instead, it was a magnificent consciousness of a new criticism of culture that campaigns for certain pragmaticcultural strategies as well as an iconoclastic attitude. Figure 3 Slogan from the 1989 China/Avant-Garde exhibition There exist two absences that define the Chinese modern cultural history. First, is the vivid idea of a temporal succession through which modernism was followed by postmodernism. Unlike in the west, the Chinese modernism and postmodernism did not include a worldwide philosophy of history. It is rather a matter of personal subjectivity within a culture that is embroiled by a strong sense of nationalism. The avant-garde in China, therefore, had two versions, one postmodern and the other modern. The second absence that affected avant-garde is the absence of a boundary that divides high and low culture. This boundary is one of the vital differences that exist between modernism and postmodernism. Figure 5 The two avant-garde movements in China included a humanist tendency and a conceptualist tendency. The humanist aspect campaigned for utopian art notions as a reference for developing a new society with a great modernist tone. The communist tendency, on the other hand, has an anti-utopian art critique as a cultural deconstruction through which traditional Chan Buddhism was combined with several post-modernist strategies (Minglu, 2003). Figure 5 Conclusion In conclusion, the essay gives a vivid explanation of avant-garde as described by Peter Burger. The various criticisms put across by other writers such as Julia Kristeva and Clement Greenberg have also been outlined. The last section gives the conceptions of avant-garde in China as well as the problems addressed during class lectures. Bibliography Burger, P. (1984). Theory of the Avant-Garde. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Greenberg, C. (Fall, 1939). Avant-Garde and Kitsch. Partisan Review, 34-49. Kristeva, J. (1980). From One Identity to An Other. Desire in Language. New York: Columbia University Press. Minglu, G. (2003). Post-Utopian Avant-Garde Art in China. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Schulte-Sasse, J. (1984). Foreword: Theory of Modernism versus Theory of the Avant-Garde. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Read More