from the Trends of Modern Art in the R.O.C. to the Taipei Biennial, 1986 – 1992
This chapter describes the period from 1986 until 1992, the period from the abolishment of martial law until the first democratic elections. This political transformation induced also a major transformation of the museum world: in 1986, thanks to an international jury, the TFAM wrote local art history by awarding a first prize to a highly political and rather post-modern painting in the style of the Italian Transavantgarde, only to retreat to overly safe and conservative standards in the years to follow. The day after that first prize had been awarded to Wu, a local performance artist, Lee Ming-sheng, was arrested at home, much to his complete surprise. In the following years he staged several series of performances, some on the streets, some at the museum. In an era when protesters on the street challenged the police every day, those performances challenged the very standards of museum representation- from the sterile bureaucratic approach to art, to the fiction of presenting merely a-political aesthetic objects. While Lee challenged the museum standards head on, many other artists chose to abandon the official competition-style exhibitions organized by the museum, and rather presented their most significant works in newly founded independent galleries or even in the basement of the very same TFAM, a “minor” space designated to be set apart for “experimental” exhibitions.
In 1992 the loss of credibility of the aesthetic standards of the “Trends” exhibitions resulted in the abolition of the former and the inauguration of the Taipei Biennial. The
immediate goal of the new Biennial, one of the first in Asia, was to recognize and exhibit artists, not simply single works of art. This apparently simple gesture implied a radical epistemological change of the status of the work of art: implicitly this abolished the former standards of mere aesthetic appreciation single objects, rather favouring objects that were part of cultural discourse. This new approach to the work of art even called for a new intellectual figure: the art curator, the mind behind the critical narrative of an art show.
Chinese modernity contested:
the end of Martial Law in 1986, the rise of Transavantgarde painting
The year 1986 marked a decisive turning point in Taiwanese politics: in March, president Chiang Ching-kuo created a committee that studied the end of martial law, parliamentary reform, and the possibility of allowing the freedom to find opposition parties.1 This same year also started off a hot period characterized by numerous political demonstrations, which often clashed violently with police, even though hardly anyone was killed in these clashes. Many of these clashes and demonstrations are documented in a book by photographer Song Long Chyuan (Song Longquan), for whom this period of politics of the street started with the police encirclement of Taipei’s Lungshan temple in May 1986.2 In this highly contested atmosphere, in September the new opposition party DPP was founded, in circumstances of a cat-and-mouse game with the secret police. Chiang Ching-kuo decided to tolerate the new party, and in October announced the lifting of martial law for January 1987.
This was not only a period of political confrontation, it was also a time characterized by
1 Hu Ching-fen: “Taiwan’s geopolitics and Chiang Ching-Kuo’s decision to democratize Taiwan,” in:
Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Volume 5, N. 1, Winter 2005, available online at:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/china2.pdf
2 Song Long Chyuan 宋隆泉 (Song Long-quan): 見證 1986。519 1989。519 台灣街頭運動影像錄 (Jianzheng 1986.519 - 1989.519 Taiwan Jietou Yundong Yingxianglu) Witness 1986.519 - 1989.519, Taiwans peoples power, Taipei, 1992.
constant change, which could be felt almost with every day and every month, when standards would be constantly challenged and changed, a period when taboos were contested, and seemed to go through constant flux and transformation.
Chinese Modernity contested:
Michel Foucault´s observed spectator
This period of political transformation from the lifting of martial law to the introduction of democracy is characterized by an effort of the museum administration to uphold certain standards of “modern art”, especially that of an “aesthetic object”, but saw itself challenged on the very grounds of the modernity it promoted. A period, therefore, where the “soft power“ of the museum deployed by the government showed its full ambiguity:
as a lure to the artists, but also as a potential platform to challenge the standards of the museum.
To analyse the complexities of this period, and to point out the driving force behind it, I will use Foucault’s3 notion that the “entire space of the representation” shall ultimately relate to a “corporeal gaze”, and his concept of the “observed spectator”. This idea has been used by New Museology author Tony Bennett4 to describe the contradictions inherent in the public museum:
“The museum, it will be argued, also constructs man … in a relation of both subject and object to the knowledge it organizes. Its space of representation....
posits man – the outcome of evolution – as the object of knowledge. At the same time, this mode of representation constructs for the visitor a position of achieved humanity, situated at the end of evolutionary development, from which man’s development, and the subsidiary evolutionary series it subsumes, can be rendered intelligible. There is, however, a tension within this space of representation
3 Michel Foucault: The Order of Things (Les mots et les choses, Paris 1966), Vintage books reprint, New York 1994, p. 312.
4 Tony Bennett: The Birth of the Museum, Routledge, London 1995, p. 7.
between the apparent universality of the subject and object of knowledge (man) which it constructs, and the always socially partial and particular ways in which this universality is realized and embodied in museum displays. This tension, it will be suggested, has supplied – and continues to supply – the discursive co-ordinates for the emergence of contemporary museum policies and politics oriented to securing parity of representation for different groups an cultures within the exhibitionary practices of the museum.”5
In the following, I will therefore highlight this tension, and point out how many of the challenges brought against the museum administration have been inspired by the very claims to modern liberation from traditional forms of art made by the museum itself. I will describe this as a continuous process of interaction, which has finally resulted in the demise of the modernist system of aesthetic judgement of single objects, and which has brought the artist, as well as the new social and intellectual figure of the curator, to the centre of contemporary museum practice.
Chinese Modernity Contested: the Taipei Group
The year 1986 not only marked the beginning of a profound transformation in Taiwanese politics from martial law to a multi-party democracy, it also witnessed the beginning of an equally dramatic transformation in the field of contemporary art.
In the years 1984 and 1985 “Chinese modernism” as represented by the minimalist group and lyrical abstraction had dominated the exhibitions of the TFAM, yet there already were other contenders in the field. The most important was a group of young artists who all had studied Western-style realist oil painting at the Chinese Culture University, a private university which also accepted those students rejected by other state-run institutions, thus unwittingly becoming a meeting place for many creative and
5 Tony Bennett: The Birth of the Museum, Routledge, London 1995, p. 7.
critical minds. Several small groups united themselves under the umbrella “Taipei Group”, who were united stylistically by their passion for post-modern painting inspired by the Italian Transavantgarde and international Neo-Expressionism, and ideologically by their drive to re-discover their own identity, grounded in their experience as citizens of Taipei and inhabitants of the island Taiwan, thus the name “Taipei Group”.
This group understood themselves as a challenge to the existing standards of the appreciation of art objects as embodied by the museums standards of Chinese modernity. An instance for this criticism is the artistic statement of Wu Tian-zhang (Wu Tien-chang) on the catalogue of the 1986 Trends, where he challenged mainstream Chinese modernity, centred around notions of science and the use of certain materials:
“Any kind of art that includes reason, technology, and material sources, can never stimulate a viewers interest. Paintings that illustrate sensibility, human
psychology, and the reflection of life, will be honored”.6
Chinese Modernity contested:
February 27, 1986, first prize to Destroyed World Symptom group
In 1986 for the first time a politically highly charged canvas, “Destroyed World Symptom Group”, painted by Wu Tian-zhang (often transcribed as Wu Tian-chang or Wu Tien-chang), won a first prize at the Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986.
It is easy to understand why this single painting created such a stir: the prize-winning canvas could easily be interpreted as a description of Taiwanese history as crime scene.
Dominating this scene are images of injured, only temporarily bandaged human beings – an open allusion to the period of White Terror and the 2.28 incident, where numerous persons simply disappeared, their bodies dumped in anonymous graves. This allusion is
6 Wu Tian-zhang, in: Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986 , TFAM, Taipei 1986, p.
21.
made even more direct by the numbers written on different spots of the scene, seemingly indicating a crime scene, a scene of an unsolved crime, whose traces still have to be documented, after decades of officially imposed taboo.
Yet this was only the first level of criticism. A closer look revealed that all symbols deployed by Wu invoked different, local traditions: icons relating to Taiwanese aboriginal tribes, imagery stemming from local folk culture.
In contrast to that, hardly any symbols of a grand Chinese tradition, or of the KMT-led entity called R.O.C. can be found on his canvasses of 1986. These allusions to the various local tradition can also be read as a first step toward a complete de-construction of official Chinese nationalist ideology or “de- sinification,” echoing similar debates that were taking place in underground literature:7
Not only literary circles were moving in the direction of de-constructing the foundations
7 Hsiau A-chin: “`De-Sinocizing´ of Taiwanese literature: the early 1980s,” in: Hsiao A-chin, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism, Routledge, London, New York 2000, p. 96-105.
傷害世界癥候群 Destroyed World Symptom Group, Wu Tien-Chang (Wu Tian-zhang) 1986.
Source and copyright: Wu Tian-zhang 1986.
of nationalist ideology, so did several other artists of the Taipei Group.
A sensation of all-out power struggle characterized the canvasses of another participant at the 1986 Trends, Yang Mao-lin, and a co-founder of the Taipei Group and its forerunner 101. The title of Yang’s paintings invoked Chinese mythology such as in After Hou Yi Shooting the Sun, yet underneath this re-discovery of Chinese mythology lay hidden a challenge to the powers to be: Yang’s canvasses showed battle scenes between heroic challengers to the powers to be, albeit in their moment of failure. Yang’s artistic statement already alluded to the earthquake that was announcing itself in Taiwanese politics: “I use the methodology of art history to monitor the dynastic differences”.
Chinese Modernity contested: on the back of the catalogue
While the front cover of the exhibition catalogue was reserved to “Minimalist” artist Zhang Yong-cun’s ink and paper installation Unceasing II, Wu Tien-Chang’s (Wu Tian-zhang) canvas Destroyed World Symptom Group decorated the back. At the first edition of the Trends in 1984, there had been two first prizes, awarded to Tsong Pu (Zhuang Pu)
后羿射日之後 After Hou- Yi Shooting the Sun, three canvasses combined, 160x130cm, 160x130cm, 192x130cm, Yang Maolin 1986, Source, copyright: Yang Maolin 1986.
and Chen Xing-wan; in 1986, the jury awarded three: one first prize to Zhang Yong-cun, one to Wu Tian-zhang, and one to Huang Hung-te (Huang Hong-de). Thus the previously established equilibrium of forces between minimalism and lyrical abstraction was not disturbed; the huge canvasses of transavantgarde painting were simply added as a third force to the official canon of prize-winning works. The jurors emphasized in their statements that the outcome had been the result of democratic voting. Yet the very emphasis indicated that the entrance of the transavantgarde painters in the ranks of the TFAM’s prize-winning art forms had stirred serious discussions within the jury, and between the jury and the museum.
Chinese Modernity contested: discussions of the jury
The statements by the director and the several jurors seem to reflect a discussion whose ultimate point of reference for the choice of artists and prize-winning works had become artistic originality.8 In her preface, director Su claimed: “The works to be exhibited are all excellent, only a few of which have been influenced by Western schools”.9 The jurors offered a different view. Takeshi Kanazawa, vice-director of the Hara museum in Japan, observed: “In this exhibition, much to our regret, we found that many of the works are similar in style to these of renowned artists”.10 French-educated professor Wang Zhexiong made a similar statement:
“... if the New Trend really represent this generations professional attitude toward and ideal art, I have mixed feelings towards the future of our artists – “half worried and half pleased”. I am pleased to know that the contemporary Chinese artists follow in the footsteps of the new trends because they are unwilling to be
8 “Before initiating our evaluations operations, we five judging members discussed the criteria for judging a work. The 1st criterion is the ‘creation’ of a work”. Takeshi Kanazawa: “On judging the
‘New Trends’”, in: Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986, TFAM, Taipei 1986, p. 7.
9 Su Rui-ping: “Preface”, in: Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986, TFAM, Taipei 1986, p. 3.
10 Takeshi Kanazawa: “On judging the ‘New Trends’”, in: Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986, TFAM, Taipei 1986, p. 7.
behind the trends in the front line. However, I am also worried that this kind of following is only a wild goose chase”.11
After a brief recount of the history of modern art in Europe, he stated:
“I am surprised to see the plagiarism of some art works at such an important art exhibition. … We can’t but ask ourselves the question: when will we be able to create something that can represent “the trends of contemporary Chinese art”?”.12 He supported his statement with a list of European artists who in his view had been the models for some local artists. More down the page, he became even more outspoken, launching an attack on the dominance of minimalism in the local official art scene:
“The existence of Minimal art doesn’t indicate that all other art forms should be declined. If we make a conclusion that Minimal art can represent the mainstream of contemporary Chinese art, it is improper. It shouldn’t be like that”.13
As it appears from these quotes, the selection of art works at the 1986 Trends must have been highly contested, and on more level than one: beyond the question of purely artistic originality, there was also the question of ideological correctness. In her preface to the exhibition, director Su explained her view what constituted modern Chinese art, even claiming that this was the very formula already adopted by “prominent artists”:
“In my personal opinion, Chinese arts must be founded on Chinese culture.
Viewing the trends of modern art, we find that the prominent artists strive to base their painting on traditional arts reflecting society and the essence of life.”14 After that explanation, she used strong words to exhort the participating artist to stick to the guidelines of nationalist ideology, spelling out a “warning” to those who did not:
11 Wang Zhe-xiong (Wang Jer-hsiung): “Observations from the competition of Contemporary Art Trends in the R.O.C.”, in: Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986, TFAM, Taipei 1986, p. 8.
12 Wang Zhe-xiong (Wang Jer-hsiung): “Observations from the competition of Contemporary Art Trends in the R.O.C.”, in: Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986, TFAM, Taipei 1986, p. 9.
13 Wang Zhe-xiong (Wang Jer-hsiung): “Observations from the competition of Contemporary Art Trends in the R.O.C.”, in: Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986, TFAM, Taipei 1986, p. 9.
14 Su Rui-ping: “Preface”, Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986, TFAM, Taipei 1986, p. 3.
“This give an exemplary warning to those who despise Chinese traditional art, believing that western styles are all worthy of imitation regardless of what they are”.15
The reader cannot but detect a certain nervousness in these words, in which there was hardly much left of the proud spirit of discovery of a Chinese modernity that had dominated the first two years of the TFAM. Not only the certainties of local politics were changing in the year that led to the abolition of martial law. It appears from the lines of these jurors, that the mood was changing also inside the halls of the museum.
1986 did indeed sign an ideological turning point for many artists: the question of Taiwanese versus Chinese identity had not been openly put forward yet, but the consensus on the founding blocks of nationalist ideology was crumbling.
Chinese modernity contested: a singular event, thanks to an international jury It has to be pointed out that 1986 featured one of the most internationalized juries of all Trends exhibitions between 1984 and 1991, featuring at least two foreigners, Alexander Tolnay from Esslingen, Germany, and Takeshi Kanazawa from Hara Museum in Japan.
This prompted even the “local” jurors to point out their international accolade: Wang Zhe-xiong claimed to represent France, Hsiao Chin represented Italy, and Zhuang Zhe (Chuang Che) emphasized that he had just returned from the USA.
The result of this exhibition – a politically highly critical work winning a first prize – probably was not planned for by the administration of the TFAM.
The international composition of the jury, and the radical choice of prizes made by this jury of the 1986 Trends remained a singular incident. In the following years, the TFAM did not repeat this experience: only local professors were invited as jury members to the 1987 Sculpture Exhibition as well as at the next two Trends exhibitions in 1988 and
15 Su Rui-ping: “Preface”, Contemporary Art Trends in the Republic of China 1986, TFAM, Taipei 1986, p. 3.
1990. Only well outside the field of painting, at the 1989 and 1991 Sculpture Exhibition, thus safely outside the home turf of any political painter or any performance artist, did the TFAM again invite jurors from outside the R.O.C.
As a result, only with the abolishment of the Trends and the inauguration of the Taipei Biennial in 1992 did another member of the Taipei Group, or any artist with a political agenda, win a first prize in an official show of the TFAM.16
This sidelining of one major trend, the Transavantgarde painters of the Taipei Group, and of any political art in general (as performance art was completely outside the official picture), as far as first prizes were concerned, was no doubt due to an ideological bias of the museum, considering that these painters represented not only a
This sidelining of one major trend, the Transavantgarde painters of the Taipei Group, and of any political art in general (as performance art was completely outside the official picture), as far as first prizes were concerned, was no doubt due to an ideological bias of the museum, considering that these painters represented not only a