Ethical and Political Problems of the Concept of Contemporaneity - Essay Example

The Concept of Contemporaneity upholds the Legitimacy of differing Perspectives on the meaning and direction of Modernity. Are there any Ethical and/or Political Problems associated with this Position? Student’s Name University Affiliation The Concept of Contemporaneity upholds the Legitimacy of differing Perspectives on the meaning and direction of Modernity. Are there any Ethical and/or Political Problems associated with this Position? Introduction Contemporaneity is one key theory of modernisation. It is an idea that describes cultural systems that are influenced by the particularities of historical periods. The historical periods consist of the past, the present, and the future. Why is this so? Yet the future or the present are yet to be historical aspects. One, conventional or traditional aspects characterise a scope, which goes on and on. It goes on and on and adds up many portions of contemporaneity. With time, they metamorphose into the past and become conventional. Hence, what has been practised over time remains a key part of the present and the future even after the changes. The traditional aspects are an important part of culture because they help in developing culture. Hence, there forms the past and future aspects of culture through the changes that take place over time. The result is a character of culture whereby there is an interlink of ideas from the past, to the present and into the future. Each of these ideas then evidences themselves at a particular period in time. What is outright here is that time is the defining factor here. It is what has formed the basis of contemporaneity. Through time; truths, occasions, and associations are wound up and controlled to form the foundation. Every feature of the past is designed into what it is by space and time. Hence, it can be said that contemporaneity arises from these traditional features. Further, contemporaneity is the evidence of the traditional features, which have existed. In the setting of modernisation, contemporaneity can be regarded as the capability of the components that comprise institutions, values, associations, experience, and knowledge to initiate and drive changes resulting in novel things. Once modernity and postmodern passes, then there has to be an aspect of contemporaneity (Bakeiva, 2007). Then, so many questions arise and exist once it comes to contemporaneity such that there has been some form of disagreement and misunderstanding. More so when it comes to the ethical and political relations. The main question of this paper is if contemporaneity does uphold the legitimacy of divergent outlooks on the direction and concepts of modernity, does it result in any political or ethical problems? The term contemporary has been used to mean the transiting present. Nevertheless, the term goes beyond this transiting present. As stated earlier, the term has a deep association with time whereby a range of discrete but interconnected means of being with and in time does exist. In addition, it also includes been out and in time concurrently. As many definitions exist, the outstanding thing is that there is the existence of the current. However, in order to get the main idea behind contemporaneity, its definition has to be understood. It can be said that contemporaneity includes specifically in the steadiness, the speeding up, and the uniqueness of sudden disconnections in the outlook, the different ways of viewing and valuing the same aspect. It also comprises the real occurrence of the temporalities that are not in synchronisation with each other, along with the ever challenging of different social and cultural collections that have been put into one in means that show the disparities that are between and in them. Wu Hung and the idea of Contemporaneity Hung (2008) has a certain view of contemporaneity whereby he uses Chinese art to articulate his points. The view of contemporaneity as provided by Hung can be critiqued or appraised while answering the question if there are any legal or ethical problems that arise with contemporaneity allowing the different dimensions and directions of modernity. Hung (2008) begins by explaining why Chinese art has been chosen. He describes that Chinese art has unknowingly evidenced itself as contemporary. However, according to him, many authors have been oblivious to this. He notes that the contemporaneity in Chinese art does not involve the current. No, it involves the wanted artistic construct, which affirms a certain spatiality and form of been temporary for itself. The contemporaneity that is described by Hung (2008) has been articulated by evaluating the form of been temporary and the spatiality within it through the manner it has been circulated, the medium of the art, the organisations that have developed and boosted it, along with the substance that is contained in it. The key argument of his work is that contemporaneity in Chinese art is concurrently built in varying spaces that are interconnected. As part of this argument, he asserts that it finely alters its definitions when the creators, such as artists, intermingle with these spaces. In the case modernity, the aspect of differing meaning is articulated by noting that there is a unification of the illustration and the demonstration of contemporaneity in the international sphere. Hence, rather than discuss for a parallel connection between contemporaneity and modern, the discussion permits the legality of contradictory outlooks on the direction and meaning of modernity. He uses the Chinese avant-garde art to describe the contemporary turn that occurred in Chinese art. Most importantly is the statement that indicates that there is no issue with modification from modern to contemporary. In addition to the indication that it was not just a change due to lack. As per his evidence, the contemporary turn in Chinese art occurred in the Nineteen Eighties and Nineties. During this contemporary turn, there was the aspect of modernisation where the avant-garde Chinese artists viewed themselves as individuals who were part of an overdue movement of modernisation. According to them to them, the form of modernity that they were in at that moment had already been there before. To them, time was ahead of them in terms of modernity. In fact, many of the Chinese artists of that period had the idea of putting into use, Western styles into their art in order to rejuvenate their culture. To them, application of the Western philosophy and ideas into their art would make it modern. Yet in real sense, the ideas and philosophy that they were applying in their art had been used years before in the West. An example is given of avant-garde artists who defined themselves as being modern. Why did they identify themselves as modern? During that period, the avant-garde artists viewed themselves as modern because they were contributors of a movement that was historical and one that had been stopped by Communism. Hence, the argument for modernity is that, because there occurrences in the past of China that aimed at leading the nation to a modern period of advancement in science along with principles, which were democratic. Then the artists were themselves modern and in an era of modernity. Hence, the artists expressed themselves as modern due to their want and urge to recover that outright spirit of a revolution in the Chinese society. The want and urge, which would lead to some kind of humanism in the existing culture during that period. Nevertheless, the Nineteen Nineties allowed for sudden and abrupt changes that lead to the end of an era. In essence, the end of an era and the beginning of a new one; could in itself imply modernity. However, thinking of the ethical and political issues that may arise due to the permitting of different perspectives on the meaning and direction of modernity. Then political issues are nonetheless going to arise. Hung (2008) holds that artists in the Nineteen Eighties came to the sudden understanding that for one they would do nothing when faced with the reality of politics. The realisation was in spite of the exhibitions that the artists put up. Moreover, it has been observed that the artists have had to redevelop themselves in the face of changes that have taken place especially in the political space. They have had to rejuvenate themselves and come up with new ideas because for one, going back to a certain space or time could render their developments null and void. The reason being that after each major occurrence, the outcomes have always presented them with dissimilar group of considerations, which are controlled by varying spatiality and temporality. The utilisation of Western art in China by artists in a sign of modernity presents another perspective. The artists were allowed access to Western art that had been used long before in the West. Art that had become obsolete in the West brought new meaning to the Chinese artists. The result was an increase in interest among younger artists and it deed inspire them. The case is seen as one where art that was regarded as modern many years ago in the West, was now seen as modern in China. Hence, the modernity in the Chinese art because of Western art impact on them was not due to the importance of these arts in the times when it existed in the West. No, it was due to the transmission of the ideas and concepts to another place, which is China, in a different time. Hence, another perspective of modernity arises from this event. Modernity can be considered when there is transfer of certain ideas that influence the native perspective of the influenced group when they embrace these novel ideas, which at the current time are regarded as obsolete in the source place. However, in these new place, they are seen as new ideas that can be incorporated into the existing system to make it different from what it was before. In such a case, political issues would arise if the native political ideals do not conform to the newly accepted concepts obtained from another system and culture. In this case, the Western concepts presented in the accepted ideas would be at loggerheads with the Chinese ideals of Communism. The result of such form of modernity is expressed in the Tiananmen Square demonstrations for democracy. Something that had not been experienced before in China. Before this event, the Chinese artists in the clamour for modernity, as per their perspective, viewed themselves as followers of the Western artists who had developed the arts that were in their possession long before they even came to existence. However, after this event, there was the creation of a gap that resulted to a sudden shift and disengagement from the historical knowledge that existed before the event. Consequently, the artists developed a novel association with native Chinese art and with the rest of the world. As contemporaneity supports the rightness of different outlooks on the direction and meaning of modernity, the political issue that arises as a result is evidenced by the trial of artists to form a cohesive movement to challenge Yundong, the wide-ranging ideological and political movements that had been formed by the Communist Party, which wanted to accomplish certain aims. After Nineteen Ninety and onwards, Yudong ceased to exist as it was disengaged from the Chinese artists. Smith (2009) agrees with Hung (2008) on the aspect of understanding contemporaneity. He states, just as Hung (2008) indicates, there has been a generalisation of contemporaneity. The result has been the lack of a clear idea on contemporaneity. The lack of a precise perspective on contemporaneity has been noted by Smith (2009) to stem from the reprieve of doing away with theories and ideologies that had or have been enforced, a dread of essentialism, and the amusement of newly acquired pleasures. Smith indicates that the contemporaneity in art has overwhelmed it, but that has yet to be accepted due to differing views on the meaning of contemporaneity. He notes that after the repercussion of modernity art has to become temporary. Nevertheless, contemporaneity according to him and in agreement with Hung (2008) goes beyond the aspect of the current. It must be agreed that every new art as of now is of the current and the present period. Nevertheless, in contradiction of this is that the art of present times is inclusive of numerous concepts in one such that the only aspect that differs is say, the currency (Smith 2009). However, Smith is supportive of the arguments presented by Hung that contemporaneity in present times is collective. It is collective but its demands is solitary. The reasoning being that it needs reactions that are dissimilar to those that brought about the forms of Nineteenth and Twentieth century modernisms. These are the form of modernisms that Hung (2008) has looked at in Chinese art to develop his argument. Smith (2009) argues that art is the result of disjointedness. What does he imply? He gives an example that states that we as human beings come into this world at a time when others have already developed it. Others in the sense that they are contemporaries, who form another aspect of contemporaneity, whereby they are also in a situation where they are trying to understand and comprehend the organisations of the systems in between the existing spaces. Most conspicuously is the co-occurrence of distinctive temporalities. These divergent temporalities relate differently with time along with the feeling that there are many forms of time that are expiring, the result is, contemporaneity. Hence, as shown by Hung (2008), arts, such as those of Chinese artists, the arts exhibit forms of contemporaneity because they exist in a way that only they themselves can express it and their occurrence in a way whereby they are repetitions of others but in different ways. Bhabha (2005) talks of the boundaries that exist when it comes to culture. Art is part of a certain culture as the one presented by Hung (2008). Bhabha, (2005) concurs with Hung (2008) in respect to Contemporaneity. The author notes that the existence of a thing is characterised by the living on the boundaries of the current. Bhabha (2005) indicates that there is no right term for the present. All there is is debate on the shiftiness of the present. The reason being, the point at which modernity is termed to be at, is one where there is always a transition. Transition from one form to the other; from one space to the next; and from one period to the next. Thereafter, what was modern ceases to be termed as modern but a part of history. Hence, contemporaneity permits the diverging outlooks on the definition and direction of modernity. Therefore, there is the initiation of intricate dimensions of identity and diversity. The current and the former; the insertion and the barring; internal and the external all in one collection leading to the intricacy. Thus, the modernity aspect has a sense of confusion in terms of definition, while its direction seems to be unstable and in some kind of disruption. As Hung (2008) reasons, the contemporaneity of certain projects that are related to destruction have to be differentiated from idea of the current, born as a form of interconnection between one transformation to the next that distinguishes the future from the past. Martin and Nakayama (2010) discuss cultural space. Space is an integral part of contemporaneity as discussed by Hung (2008). However, as the authors point out, they note that as individuals, the place where a person comes from is important. Nevertheless, the personality of the individual is defined from the association that he or she is in. The outstanding thing is that each place has its precise means of life and history. Hence, the identity can be recognised, it forms the boundaries of the spaces that exist. The authors are in agreement with Hung (2008) as they infer that the cultural spaces are not static. They change and evolve over time and at no one time are they stationary. The evolving and changing nature of these spaces contributes to the upholding of the differing views on the direction and meaning of modernity, based on contemporaneity. The issue that arises from these is the complication. No ethical thing is noted now in whatsoever way. However, the political ideal of the society, these spaces are transiting in could be affected. Negri (2008) deliberates on the contemporaneity of modernity. Firstly, the author notes that contemporaneity brings about issues. According to Negri (2008), modernity, when viewed in the context of contemporaneity, brings up the notion of a forward drive, which has resulted in a linear and an inflexible meaning. Hence, it can be inferred that the author proposes that the direction of modernity is linear or forward moving. The suggestion agrees with that put forward by Hung (2008) in his development of a model that can out rightly help in defining contemporaneity. Nevertheless, the author questions if there could be the possibility of the existence of an extra modernity. Negri (2008) identifies the incident that has also been identified by Hung (2008), the Tienanmen square event in the Eighties. As per the presented argument, the event was a signal, not in defence of the West, but one of articulating another kind of advancement. Negri (2008) agrees with Hung (2008) that the clamour by the Chinese artists was influenced by the context of the Western art and not the period and historical aspect of the art. A political issue led to the sudden creation of a different art. Gladston (2014) opines that modernism is based on the necessity of defiance with the conventional in order to create a rational and liberal society. Much like Hung (2008) has argue in his paper where Chinese artists incorporate Western concepts into their art and then break away with the same in the prospect of producing a form of art that represents what they truly wish. Ross (2009) approves the concept that Hung (2008) provides by noting that not all people or even art can occur in the same now. Thus, if modernity does imply anything, the author says that it is in contemporaneity. The author goes on to describe the concept of contemporaneity, which maintains the lawfulness of the divergent outlooks on the definition and direction of modernity. In the description, he specifies that modernism does not just recognise the independence of an art; it accepts the concurrent independence and amalgamation of time. In conclusion, it can be said that the concept of contemporaneity in the upholding the correctness of the divergent views on the definition and direction of modernity does not result in any ethical issues. However, it does result in political issues that arise due to the incorporation of other concepts into the existing and accepted ones in society. As depicted by Hung (2008) where he tries to construct a systematic approach towards contemporaneity. References Bakeiva, G. A. (2007). Social Memory and Contemporaneity (Vol. 3). (M. Donobue, Ed.) Washington, D. C.: CRVP. Bhabha, H. K. (2005). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge. Gladston, P. (2014). Somewhere (and Nowhere) between Modernity and Tradition: Towards a Critique of International and Indigenous Perspectives on the Significance of Contemporary Chinese Art. Tate Papers Issue(21). Retrieved from http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/somewhere-and-nowhere-between-modernity-and-tradition-towards Hung, W. (2008). A Case of Being "CONTEMPORARY": Conditions, Spheres, and Narraties of Contemporary Chinese Art. In T. Smith, O. ENwezor, & N. Condee (Eds.), Antinomies of Art and Culture: Modernity, Postmodernity, Contemporaneity (pp. 290-306). Durham: Duke University Press. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Intercultural Communication in Contexts (5 ed.). London: McGraw Hill. Negri, A. (2008). Contemporaneity between Modernity and Postmodernity. In T. Smith, O. Enwezor, & N. Condee, Antinomies of Art and Culture: Modernity, Postmodernity, Contemporaneity (pp. 23-28). London: Duke University Press. Ross, S. (2009). Modernism and Theory: A Critical Debate. London: Routledge. Smith, T. (2009). What is Contemporary Art? London: University of Chicago Press. Read More