Chapter1

101

Cu ltura l Rebe llion in "5ia l196o - 1989

too young to recall what was happening th en.
But that , in fact , then spurred me to think about those who were actually born in 1989, an evenyounger generation. That's because recent ly in Singapore , there was a panel discussion that waspart of the larger 89Plus research platform initiated by Simon Castets and Hans Ulrich Obrist . The
panel organizer was Ho Rui An, who invited a number of young scholars and thinkers who wereborn in 1989 or later. And what's interesting to me is that this is a generation that is, by and large, ageneration of digital-natives ; most of them would probably not remember living in a time when theinternet was non-existent . For me, in fact, what was interesting about their thinking process is thatthey're a bit of a flaneur in the way that they bring informat ion together; it's very improvised andthey seems to come together as a bricolage , in a very playful recycling of historical material. I think
it's a reflection of an internet culture; an approach of seeing the world through the habit of drifting
through the internet. Not unlike the Situationists and their encounter with the city, except in thisinstance, it is a natural attitude to knowledge , not an acquired one.
To me that encapsulates, on some level, the spirit of experimentation that we have perhaps
touched upon with our case studies; perh aps more chronologically, nation-bound, and maybe
the little tedious case studies and exposit ions that we 've been thinking about. I don 't know ifwhat they've been doing is perhaps instru ctive in helping us think of a method or a form in resisting against this sort of historical amnesia . I think about that because , as Patrick mentioned yesterday, this idea of "Asia " is perhaps quite geographically restrictive and it's in tension with thisidea of the Third World . I'm afraid I'm not familiar with texts from the 1950s and '60s . So if you
think of earlier texts from the early 20th century, such as Okakura Tenshin's The Ideals of theEast, Tanizaki Junichir6's In Praise of Shadows or even Kuki Shuz6's The Structure of lki, we seethat those are very essentialist. Maybe Takamura K6tar6's text, Green Sun, is a bit more playful.
But , we talked a lot about the Third World yesterday, and the Third World brings, to my mind, ageography outside of Asia as well. It sort of broadens my sympathy to maybe Brazilian modernism, where you have a poet such as Oswa ld de Andrade talking about the Manifesto Antrop6fago(Cannibal Manif esto) . That kind of cannibalis m, that idea that we are able to consume cultures fromall over the world, regurgitate it, and spew out something quite different and unique is, I find ,quite productive in thinking about a more playful methodology or process that we might want tothink through this exhibition.
Also to bring the example closer to home, a few years ago I attended a conference that Patrick
participated in Sydney called "All at Sea: Piracy and the Trade Routes of Art History," organized by
the Sterling and Francine Clark Institute . One of the central themes of the symposium of art fromthe Indian Ocean was about this notion of piracy; about us as historians begging , borrowing, andstealing from different methodologies and recycling all these sort of different quirks in art history
and trying to bring it into our little cannibal soup pot and see what comes out of that. Something we
could ponder over tea.
Hayashi Michio

It's quite interesting to think about bricolag e, cannibalism , and piracy in this context so thanks forthat very interesting remark .
So now that we have shared the "1989 " experience , let's take a break and then resume thesession with more of the particular set of issues that we have.

The Exhibition: Periodization and Genre of Wo rks

Hayashi Michio

Suzuki-san, I hadn't asked you about the Japanese 1989 context , and also the periodization problem
which came up yesterday . I'm curious wha t your thoughts are hearing other people's presentations
and thoughts.
Suzuki Katsuo

In 1989, I was a college student and, to be frank, I was completely inattentive all the way
through. That was the time when Japan enjoyed the bubble economy prosperity and I also rode on
its many affluences . So I'm actually very surprised that I'm even talking about rebellion now.
I unfortunately am not as familiar with the situation of art after 1989, but I still would like to saya few things about how I imagined this exhibition to be, because I was the one who proposed the
DAY 3 October 2

PlenaryOiscussion:TowardtJ1eExhibition

"-t_(......,_,~
1_1_1_IIJ

102

Art Studies_Ol

title, "Cultural Rebellion in Asia 1960-1989."
Firstly, the Tiananmen Square incident came to my mind when I decided the end period of thisproject, in 1989, because I thought that incident symbolized the end of the pro-democracy movement of the 1980s, which spread over many countries in Asia, not only East Asia but also Southeast
Asia. The event which was especially significant was the Gwangju crisis in Korea in 1980, which Ms.
Park and Ms . Choi explained to us was the beg inning of the Minjung art movement . So in my mind,
it was during this decade, the 1980s, that many Asian countries experienced those kinds of prodemocracy movements, which were closely related to their art practices and productions.
I'm not sure if the events or art practices during the 1970s are related to those movements of
the 1980s. Recollecting the presentations from yesterday, it seemed many of you focused on the art
practices during the 1960s and '70s, I think . However, in the discussion this morning, many of you
talked about what happened during the 1980s. So I want to emphasize my position : that it is possible to see a continuity between the experimental art practices of the 1970s and those which were at
the height of the pro-democracy movement of the 1980s.
I also thought of another idea, another direction for us to think about this project, which is tofocus mainly on the 1970s. I don't know if it is the best way, so I just want to throw it out there. Do
you think including the 1980s would be much more productive? Or, as one of you suggested, would
including the 1950s be more productive for us to think about this era of revolutionary change? I'dlike to hear some of your opinions.
Pil,iMay I just say that I've very much enjoyed these two days of discussions, and I think this is avery important topic to touch upon now. There are a few ways: if we call "cultural rebellion" as apolitical structure or understanding, then I think we want to have 1989 as the ending year. That is
one way . But I'd also like to remind you all that after 1989 is really a new period for Asian art : the"China's New Art, Post-1989" show in 1993 in Hong Kong, the Chinese artists exhibited in the
Venice Biennale in 1993; and the Japan Foundation also start to work on exhibitions on Southeast
Asian art later on .
If we have 1989 as the critical time , like th e pre-globalized time, and also as the new wave for
the Asian art, that also could be a good reason for having 1989 as the end point . So that it is not only
from the political perspective, but also from the perspective of how art and information circulated.
For me, that is more important than the political dimension of 1989.
Secondly, although I don't know much about what is happening in other fields, but in my fieldof specialty, in Chinese art, there has been a strong tendency, especially after 2009 or 2010, to re-exam
what happened before 1989. 1989 is already act ing like a filter ; so many things occurred before 1989,
but there are still events and facts that are hidden and others that have become popular knowledge .
So, this show also could be an opportunit y for us to re-exam individual practices and experiments that were active before the so-called globalized period .
Hayashi Michio

I think that was the initial reason for Suzuki-san to come up with this idea, maybe. It's true; we know
so much about post-1989 because everything is globalized, the "Magiciens de la Terre" exhibitionand soon .
Patrick Flores

This period is, I think, fine; from 1960 to 1989. Except, maybe we can select a sharper point oforigin. Why 1960? Why not 1964 or 1965 or even earlier? There should be something significant in
the point of origin too, rather than just the beginning of the decade .
Suzuki Katsuo

Well, the reason why I picked up 1960 is because of the situation in Japan . There were manystrong reactions against the U.S.- Japan Secur ity Treaty, and the Neo Dada movement responding
to that situation. So 1960 is a very important year in Japan when thinking about rebellious movements in art.
Yu Jin Seng

May I suggest perhaps, then, we might want to look at 1955 and the start from the Bandung
Conference . That might be an interesting point to start in which China, Japan, and the Third Worldcame together in Bandung, Indonesia . I think that may set a good starting point .
Discussion

103

Chapter1

Cultural Hebellion in Asial1960- 1989

Hayashi Michio

I agree, that is actually a very good sugges ti on, because for Japan too, 1955 is the year in which all
the political parties were reorganized into t he two-party system between the Liberal Democratic
Party and Socialist Party, so the Cold War system really started in that year.
Patrick Flores

There is an initiative by the Haus der Kunst and Tate Modern to also curate the last century
through three exh ibitions: the post-war, postcolonial, and the post-socialist. I think the postcolonial is about the apartheid , I think , in Sout h Africa. So if we take Yu Jin's suggestion , then we will
also cover a significant part of the postwa r, which, I think, would demand a different methodology altogether. The 1950s is a different period conceptually, I think. It broadens it very signifi cantly and that might be curatorially too broad .
Hayashi Michio

Pragmatically it's very difficult to conceive .
Patrick Flores

We also have to think about the audience too ; how much they can take in one exhibition . So if
we had nearly a half-decade, from 1955 to 1989, I think it would be quite too much.
Hayashi Michio

Yes, it would be very ambitious, maybe a litt le too ambitious. Suzuki-san, your 1950s section of the"Art Will Thrill You!: The Essence of Modern Japanese Art" exhibition was already a little too much.
Suzuki Katsuo

Yes, you would have had to stay, maybe, four to five hours to see all of the materials on display
because we included many film works too .
Hayashi Michio

I realized also, after hearing everyone's presentation, that there are so many activities going on intheater, film, and documentary practices . So that also would require a different way of conceiving
the exhibition space: whether it is only in the museum site or we add a series of off-site events
connected to that , websites etc . But I realized that theater really played a very important role inmany places . So how are we going to deal with this problem of representing theaters in this kindof historical exhibition? I think this is also something that we have to really think about .
In terms of the practicality of the exhib ition, I'm curious what you think about including archival
DAY 3 October 2

Plena.i)' Discussion:Towardthe Exhibition

104

Art Studies_Olmaterials in the show? Do you think that's a necessary part of the exhibition?
In relation to that, Pi Li, you showed photographs from the 1970s in your presentation , but I
didn't see many photographs in the other presentations . We saw documentary photographs , but
did photography still play an important role in these rebellious practices? I feel like there is stillmuch to discover in that field .
PiliYes, in China, photography was the only private way to make art at that time . With the conser vatives, you have to create paintings and you have to show it to the people, but photography is quite
easy; you just take the shot and print it . So the first modern photograph movement, even earlier
than the Stars Group , was called the April Film Group who were the first to have their show in 1979.
So that's also quite important.
Regarding to your question, though , of whether to show archival materials or not, will be avery important issue for this exhibition because there are three different th ings in the artwork's
documentation and how you exhibit the archi ve. Do you want to: 11··· show the arch ive as the
documentation, 12··· show the archive as the artwork, I 3--- restage something , like the "When
Attitudes Become Form" exhibition done by the Prada Foundation last year. I think this should be
carefully thought through: in what way do you want to present the archive ; in what way do you
want to restage a certain theater etc .?
Hayashi M1chio

Literature, too . Yu Jin brought up contextual literature in the Indonesian scene, and Thi also
talked about the importance of poetry in the Vietnamese context . I think there are inter -media
connections, and I think literature plays a very important role in how to deal with them in the
exhibition context .
Suzuki Katsuo

There were also a number of symbolic poets during the 1960s and '70s , such as Kim Chi ha.
Kim Chiha's name was familiar in other nations , I believe, such as Thailand or the Philippines too
maybe. So this kind of intellectual circulation was very important. We have to trace those kindsof circulation in the exhibition .
So in that way, I would like to include some poets in the exhibition, such as Rendra who,
in Indonesia, was also a very important figure when thinking about rebellious movements inSoutheast Asia from the 1970s to '80s. So, possibly I'd like to include parts of their works andtranslate them into Korean, English , and Japanese to introduce those poets ' practices .

How to Define "Rebellion "Hayashi Michio

In addition to this question of how to conceive "rebellion" for this exhibition, I'd like to ask you,Prof. Lai, about Punta. You introduced this group and said it consisted of Italian, Japanese, andTaiwanese artists. I believe you also said they were based in Italy, but could we consider thosekinds of international alliances of artists in th is rebellious context or not?

Discussion

105

Chapter1

Cullur a l ll~bell ion i11Asia l1960- 1989

Lai Yinq-yinq

I keep repeating myself, but the reason why I try to include that slide is because I believe art
frees individuals when they really try to move around either for educational purposes or when theyfind better opportunities for their artistic careers . At the beginning, they may stay in a group, intheir comfort zone. But they also create many forms of collaborations . Even for the first artist I
introduced, I think he was very good friends with the artist from the Philippines . So I think somehow this education or art groups will be an interesting point; how they communicate or exchange
and shared ideas.
Hayashi Michio

But at the same time, to go back to Suzuki-san's diagram from his keynote speech, when we talkabout rebellious practices , are we including practices that are rebellious only in terms of structuralor formal experimentation? Or are we focusing on artist movements that directly deal with politicalissues? I think that is a key issue to go back to. Moreover , if we extend the definition of "rebellion"toall the experimental practices , we need fou r or maybe more museums for that.
Suzuki Katsuo

Well, obviously I drew those diagrams before hearing your presentations, so as a starting point
I tried to open the space for the discussion to go into all kinds of directions. I don't want to focus on
one particular style or experimental movement because that would exclude the very key issues weneed to think about in trying to understand what happened during the period in question .
Despite this, however, practically speaking , we have to focus on some topics. Personally I
would like to insist that what was happening in the sphere I called "Documentary as Method " would
be a very critical element in thinking about th is period. Of course, we could simply select politicalworks for this exhibition, but I think it really depends on each piece. We choose works because we
discover significant elements in it; it speaks to us. So even if the piece is categorized as propaganda
or government-sponsored art, I believe that artists negotiated with the conditions they were put inand created something which are sometimes unexpected. Going back to the diagram, it may seemthat I have omitted the elements which these kinds of artists occasionally challenged, such as (political) authority or state-run activities on art, but that's not my intention. We can definitely include
propaganda film or propaganda paintings if it is necessary in our reconsideration of the history.
So I think we have to choose a certain point . For example, Adele showed a documentary, semifictional, film that dealt w ith the tragedy in Thailand from the sudden change from 1973 to 1976,
I think. And Simon also showed us photography that dealt with the 1969 collision between Chinese
descent and Malay residents. So it's possible for us to focus on those kinds of hidden memories or
those incidents that not many countries in Asia remember. Either way , I think we have to selectseveral points of focus.
Hayashi Michio

I think it's very important that you brought up the relationship between the socio-political content
and formal experimentation . I think we need both dimensions , really.
Suzuki Katsuo

Absolutely, because in the discourse of the art history, it is still prevalent to conceive periods inbinaries: Social Realism versus experimental art movement, for instance. So what I want to try is todeconstruct that kind of binary, and to con struct a new way of understanding the inter-relatednessof elements.
Hayashi Michio

It's also a good chance to show different angles on what exactly constitutes "rebellious " practices .
In the Chinese context, for example , we had abstract paintings or simple landscape paintings by the
No Name Group, which functioned as rebellious practices in that context . So we could also show
how the different historical contexts determine "rebellious" practices.
Suzuki Katsuo

I would like to hear from everybody about context -specificity: can context-specific movements
and practices be translated into other cont exts and countries? I personally think it could, but how
about everyone else?

DAY 3 October 2

PlenaryDiscussion:Towardthe Exhibition

106

Art Studies_Ol

Hayashi Michio

To expand the issue a little bit to a more theoretical register, one question that I had in mind, listening to a couple of the presentations, is on the references to metaphysics. In Simon's presentation,
there is the new integration of Islamic, religious ideas into practices; Ms. Park, you also mentioned
the Korean artists' interests in Nishida Kitar6; and Yu Jin, you mentioned "mystical" realism. How
do you think these metaphysical ideas fit into the category of cultural rebellion? I'm sure that theanswers differ according to the context but I ask this because in Japan, for example, what I see after
the 1970s and '80s was a gradual disappearance of politically rebellious practices from the surface
of art practices. On the other hand, there is also a sense of being entirely consumed into the capitalist system, allowing no room for escape. So the only way out, then, was to turn to metaphysics
or terrorism . In other words, there was a kind of extremist idea, a sentiment, of seeking a way tobreak free from this existing system of capitalism to which the answer was either metaphysics orviolence. I'm oversimplifying the history here, of course, but metaphysics can just as easily be a toolfor cultural rebellion, but at the same time it can be seen as escapist; escapist in the sense of completely severing the tie with society and just going into your own metaphysical realm.
Although it may not be of much relevance in our discussion, I'm still curious what yourthoughts are on this point.
Yu Jin Seng

For the "Towards a Mystical Reality" exhibition, Sulaiman Esa and Redza Piyadasa were turning towards Taoism and Zen. There is also a connection, actually, to America, because it was from
D. T. Suzuki (Suzuki Daisetsu) that they brought many of these ideas of Zen and Taoism. For them , I
think, the battleground is in the mind.
So they wanted to resist against the kind of scientific perceptual ism that was underpinning
practices that they saw across Asia and wanted to turn to the metaphysical, as you said, as a wayof decolonizing the mind. For them, the mind was really the thing. The hegemony of the West was
really something that they were fighting, resisting, and rebelling against, and for them, turning
towards what we've called multiple frames of reference or different references or alternatives,
including Zen, Buddhism or other things, was a way out. You could call it escapism but I think they
probably saw it as a kind of resistance, a kind of postcolonial moment in the process of
decolonization .
Simon Soon

If I may also add as a quick rejoinder: what is interesting to me about "Towards a Mystical
Reality" is the kind of tension that was sustained in the exhibition itself , because what was being
shown, if it wasn't clear from the photographs , were burned out mosquito coil or a bird cage; they
were objet trouve, "found objects." It becomes , I think, a very concrete litany of the locale , eventhough in the performative arena, which was the manifesto, it had a very metaphysical bend. The
form itself was mystical and real at the same t ime, so I think the tension there is quite interesting.
Hayashi Michio

How do you define that in relation to the "Magiciens de la Terre" exhibition? That is the combinationof magic and earth, and so, oftentimes, the "Magiciens de la Terre" was a revelation, but it was also
criticized by the postcolonial discourse at the same time because it was just another way of essentializing Asia through the image of magic and earth. So how do you define "mystical realism" inrelation to that?
Simon Soon

I think that was the criticism that was leveled against the show by having this poet actually
urinating on the manifesto during the opening of the exhibition itself because he found it a bit too
wacky. Essentializing, really, and drawing on the very D.T.Suzuki-esque model of what Zen is.
Adele TanA very Western model too which was also filtered through John Cage; not directly Suzuki.
Yu Jin Seng

I think, though, that they actually also tried to reconceive time and space. I think that was quite
important for the "Towards a Mystical Reality" exhibition; a kind of resistance against the tyranny oflinear time which was very much imposed from a Western-centric viewpoint. So, as Simon
Discussion

Chapter1

107

Cultural l\rl>t· llion in \sia 196o 1989

mentioned, many of the works are very tim e-based, ephemeral , and they try to think not in terms ofmaterial space but mental space, which comes back to the metaphysical.
So they had a lot of criticism, and I to tally agree with Simon . There was th is cr it ic, called
Zainon, who critiqued it very much to -the -point about essent ialization. But I still think it was animportant moment in which they challeng ed this .
Hayashi M_1chio

I think it's very important to think about the different structure of time for this exhibition. The Chinese
artists revisited Dada and Duchamp in the 1980s, for instance, so there 's this kind of productive
anachron ism here, wh ich I think we should really integrate into the key concepts of the exhibition.
Going back to this "mystical realism," another question I wanted to ask is on the notions of"hybridity " and "mimicry " by Hom i Bhabha et al. "Hybridity " was a key term in the 1980s to the'90s, I think, and it was really a catchphrase for many discussions . The same goes for "mimicry, "too . Do you still see the validity in these concepts or do you see them aspasse? Do we need toinvent new concepts to talk about these kinds of practices?

The Validity ofH ybridi ty and .Mimicryfor the Asian Arts

Pra__pon
Ku.!Diim

For my doctoral studies , I spent years trying to think of a term that would best describe myposition based on my own experiences , and also this notion of cultural research as a field of study
that didn't really apply to me as much as perhaps some other countries or cultures . Eventually, I
came up with the term "cultural itinerancy " to articulate my own trajectory in terms of harnessingor mixing a number of variables for my own experiences .
I'm not sure if it's a reasonable way ahead, but I think in terms of what I was trying to do in mypractical investigation, it suited me well . But I trust that, with these kinds of terms, it's quite important to come up with some of our own variables according to our contextual parameters .
Ha'@ShiMichio

Could you elaborate a little more on your notion of " cultural itinerancy " in relation to "hybridity" or"magpie modernity," and also the eclectic ism that you brought up in your presentation?
Prapon Ku_!!llirri

I think in reference to what Simon said just before the break, I very much identify myself as a
product of a generation of shuttling around . I think quite a few important or at least a large numberof Thai artists now pretty much generate t heir creativity or livelihood from that idea of hoping to
make a living overseas. Because I think there isn't a serious living to be made in Thailand . I think, as
Ying -ying mentioned, artists do have to surv ive and wherever opportunities lie, that's where theywould go .
Also, if I may take this opportunity, one of the observers mentioned to me yesterday that hehad hoped that I would be talking about artist groups who were political activists . The problem that
I had - I'm not sure if anybody else had thi s problem-were to do with the fact of "now -and-then;"people change, people have to survive . And it's this idea of what they did or what was recorded atthat time which has very much changed over the years: some artists who were very leftist at thattime, in the early or mid-1970s, became m inisters who took all the money in the last government.
My friend and respected artist Vasan Sitth iket was very much about the people in the late 1970s,
but now (there 're rumors that) he owns a resort and it's quite a different story . So that's why I didn't
choose artist groups who represented any kind of ideology, because it risked that tripping over thecruel reality of survival.
Sil)1onSoon

I was wondering if you could seek out artists whose practices and sympathies were aligned totheir political convictions in the past. Because that was what I did in Thailand , actually ; hunting andlooking for all these artists . Santi lsrowut hakul, for instance, and also people like Sinsawat
Yodbangtoey . There were so many of the se artists who are still committed to a lot of these politicalcauses that they were invested in, I thought.

DAY3 October2

Plenary•Oiscussion:Towan:1
the Exhibition

'."H•,,i1111
Ill

108

Art Studies_01

Prapon Kumjim

But there's also that notion of rewriting and redefining aspects of history . I do try to widen mysource of information. Perhaps in Thailand there's a strange tradition in terms of how information isrecorded and passed on.
Simon Soon

Could you elaborate a bit on that? How is information recorded and passed on? What is so different from other regions?
Prapon Kumjim

Prapon Kumjim

I think with this idea of going to the horse's mouth, of going directly to the artist or their immediate colleagues and asking what they did and asking for the whole rationale, one would get onesided information. So from my experience, I tend to try to double-check and cross-check, so it's notentirely about going straight to the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Simon Soon

I understand where you're coming from. That's what I'm trying to do as well, and there areinformation in archives that we could go to. So, what I'm trying to figure out is what is so exceptional? What is so exceptional about the Thai context that makes normal historical research
impossible?
Prapon Kumjim
Simon Soon

I'm not reaching for the far extreme, that information in Thailand is completely untrustworthy .
But I'm just coming from the point of view of when I received the title for this particular topic, I
chose to respond through the lens of my own interpretation. That's merely what I'm trying to say.
Because I'm not a historian. So it's not really my interest, to be honest, to delve through the entire
historical archive and present it within the histo rical scope.

Addressing Other Factors: Medium, So uth Asia,1e rminologi es, and Class

Hayashi Michio

To diverge a little, a while ago, one of the observers raised a question on the absence of South
Asia in this seminar, and also on the anti-Asian spread of Lu Xun's woodcut print movement toSingapore and Japan . Would anyone like to response to that?
Suzuki Katsuo

Suzuki Katsuo

I understand how crucial South Asia is, especially for this kind of discussion . So, I confess,
excluding South Asia was basically for practical reasons. We could have broadened the region , but
this time, I wanted to create a bridge between Southeast and East Asia and for that, I felt, it wasnecessary and would be more productive to focus on the issues of communism and the Cold War,which is what I was particularly interested in. But since I'm not an Asian art specialist, I would liketo hear the other speakers' opinions . Can we still discuss "cultural rebellion" focusing on Southeast
and East Asia? Or would it be meaningless without South Asia in our frame?
Also, regarding the woodcut print movement, I included "woodcut" in the category of "Artas Activism" in my diagram. So I am aware that the woodcut movement prevailed all over Asia,
and I, too, found some examples in Singapore and took up these works in the small exhibition,"Experimental Ground 1950s." The Minjung art movement also made use of the woodcut style, so
I understand woodcut played a large role in these kinds of movements . Maybe, it could be one of
the topics in the exhibitions .
So I'd like for everyone to understand that it was merely coincidental that none of the presentations dealt with woodcut. I'm sure we all know that it was a very important movement during the1950s and '60s, and the 1980s in Korea in particular .
Hayashi Michio

I think South Asia is a very important point. We didn't decide to exclude and ignore South Asia,
but as Suzuki-san asked, I'm also curious what the others think . I think one of the determining
contexts for this selection of Southeast and East Asia has to do with Japanese colonization .
Discussion

109

Chapter1

Cuilural H,•lwllionin \sia 196o 1989

That issue didn 't really come up, but, in the 1970s for example, I think there are lots of anti-Japanese
movements in Southeast Asia . So what kind of attitudes or sentiments were expressed throughartistic practices against the Japanese economic expansion in the 1970s?
As for Lu Xu n's woodcut movement network, I also encountered many of those examples
from the 1940s and '50s while I was working on the "Cubism in Asia" exhibition research inSingapore and Malaysia. I think it is something that we can keep in mind . But, if we cut the timeframe from 1960 to 1989, we also have to consider how much and what kind of role Lu Xun's
woodcut movement played in cultural rebellious practices .

I remember reading that by 1966, I think, there was a big woodcut exhibition held in Singapore .
By then, it was already a form that was perhaps co-opted and exhibited at the National Library ona large scale to depict tropical sceneries and things like that. So by the 1960s, I think it had lost its
political edge that was more prevalent in the 1940s to '50s at least. So within our timeframe, unless
we consider that as a cultural rebellion against its political origin-twisting the thing around-then
I wonder if it's that relevant to bring woodcut into our discussion. Probably that's why we have leftout woodcut in Southeast Asia at least, from the papers that we've presented on.

In China, the woodcut totally developed in the opposite way. Lu Xun introduced this kindof German Expressionist woodcut in China in the 1930s as a part of leftist activity in Shanghai.
Then, during the Japanese War or end of the 1930s or early '40s, most of the leftist students or
woodcut artists moved to Yan'an, and they began with this creation . But this kind of modernist
style was widely criticized because the workers and farmers could not accept this kind of style,especially the very clear-cut , black-and-white contrast. Traditional woodcut was very flat andbased on the line.
We have another woodcut movement in China after 1942 by Li Hua which is called the
Yan'an woodblock . So this Yan'an woodblock scene moved to Shanghai, Beijing, and to theCentral Academy and became the mainstream of Chinese woodcuts after 1949. Basically, they
combined modern life with the very tradit ional language of Chinese woodcut.
The Lu Xun-esque left-wing produced these kinds of woodcuts as the resources, only having been picked up in 1976 and later in 1977- 78 by the Stars Group as a way of re-chasing theearlier instances of modernism . I showed several slides in my presentation of the Stars Group toshow their strength in picking up that kind of the style. Not to mention that that is the only influence of modernism that has remained due to Lu Xun.
YuJin Seng

To follow-up on Simon and a quick comment about India and South Asia . I agree with Simon
that the so-called "Six Men Show" which was held at the National Library in Singapore in 1966,
back then, marked a shift towards woodcut being, in some sense, institutionalized and co-opted
because it showed a lot of scenes of Singapore's progress, which was really the main, dominantnarrative in Singapore at that time . All the while, if you compare it to, for instance, the woodcuts in
Singapore of the 1950s, they're very much anti-authoritarian; there are lots of questions about resistance against the bourgeois, against capitalism etc. So that was a shift back then.
Also, a quick comment about South Asia, which I also think is very, very important. If you
were to look at, for example, the movement of artists in Southeast Asia and India centered in
Santiniketan, we have artists from Thailand such as Fua Haripitak; from Myanmar or Burma we had
Bagyi Aung Sae; from Indonesia, we had Affandi and Rusli. And they started in Santiniketan in India
under Rabindranath Tagore where there was this whole idea of pan-Asianism with Okakura Tenshinthat Simon mentioned earlier as well. So there were some imaginations of Asia.
The main thing that came back from that, if you look at the works of Bagyi Aung Sae and Fua
Haripitak and if I were to kind of oversimplify and distill it, were two things; first, tradition . Tradition
became an important part of an idea of multiple modernity. Fua Haripitak, for example, shifted torubbings of temples in Thailand . So that also was a kind of return to tradition-kind of traditional
motifs-as a way of reinventing a different modernity . It was the same for Bagyi Aung Sae, whoused a lot of Sanskrit and also turned to Buddhism as a way of reinventing modernism . And the second thing is copying, actually, as a way for a different modernity; as a resistance against the authentic. Fua Haripitak was, in fact, investigating the process of copying through his rubbings. So copying
itself, was a way in which one could have access into a different concept or idea of modernity .
DAY3 October2

Plenruy Discussion:10wardthe Exhibition

110

Art Studies_Ol

I believe that was what he took from Santiniketan; from what was taught there .
Hayashi ~1chio

Was the copying manual or mechanical?
Adele_Tan

It was mechanical frottage.
Park Hyesun9

Can I also confess: I only wanted to focus on the 1960s and '70s because in the narrative of
Korean art history, Minjung art is now situated as one of the grand art history; these 1960s and'70s activities were simply overlooked. So I wanted to reread these activities as precursors, roots
or seeds of the 1980s Minjung art, because in the early 1980s we already had some genre-decon structive artists besides Minjung art that were symptoms of postmodern art.
So frankly speaking, mainly in 1989, many theories and "-isms" were imported from the West:
postmodern ism, post-structuralism etc . At that time, Minjung art was reread within that frame ofWestern theory; so it read Minjung art, not just as a political, critical attitude to society but also as areturn of reality told by the West-a little like Neo-Expressionism in Europe. There were many readings of Minjung art but postmodern theorists or scholars still felt it was a rich arena for investigation .
In this context, I would argue that young artists of the 1980s, who are in fact distanced from Minjung
art, are kind of the children of the 1960s or 70s phenomena . So I think this movement, these young
artists of the 1980s, is just as important as Minjung art. All kinds of movements are parallel in thisarea; it is not only Minjung art or monochrome art. So I wanted to talk about this situation; the multiple phenomena and diversities co-existing simultaneously .
Another question I want to share is about "mimicry" which you mentioned earlier. Yesterday,
Ms. Choi and I visited the "Lee Mingwei and His Relations" exhibition at the Mori Art Museum.
There, I think he talked about the relationship between time and space, family and the self. But inthe exhibition there was also a work by John Cage who is among those who studied Zen and D.T.
Suzuki . There are also others like him such as Lee Utan, On Kawara, and Yves Klein. To be frank, I
was a little surprised, and it also made me wonder, "what is mimicry?" You [Prof . Hayashi] showed
Shinohara Ushio's work in which he mimicked Robert Rauschenberg's . How about Yves Klein? He
mimicked the concept of Suzuki. And John Cage? What is the difference? If we reverse the situation, maybe some curators or art theorists will be interested in Korean lnformel or 1960s and 70s
Korean movement. At a first glance, they may be surprised and rush to the conclusion that theirstyles are influenced by Gutai or Japanese lnformel; their influence is great. Unfortunately, I didn't
see the "Gutai: Splendid Playground" exhibition held at the Guggenheim Museum; it must havebeen great. But at the same time, I want to suggest discussing about the 1960s and 70s without
subordinating them to the Japanese activities. I understand that mimicry is a very important issue,
even now. But I want to look at past situations and conditions prior to the importation of postcolonial theories . I believe that there were many critical attitudes and practices before Homi Bhabha
and Edward Said; there were many practices . That is what I wanted to investigate .
H~ashi Mic_hio

I think that's really an important point . One thing we have to discard is the linear, progressive historical model that we have inherited through modernist ideology. So, "productive anachronism," if
I may bring that phrase up again, is, I think, the temporal model that we should have.
To shift the question to "hybridity" and also the sheer diversity of rebellious practices, one
thing I wanted to raise is the point that these rebellious practices were usually done in the name ofthe people; people who were against authority or the political system . I raise this because during
the 1950s to '60s in Japan, there were so many different coexisting terms that referred to "people." For example, there is taishu(*~) which usually means "urban mass," minshu(a;~) is in fact
connected to minjung. Minshu, I think, is a broader term that could include farmers, for example,
living in the village etc. There are others such as shomin(fff..a;)which embodies the connotation of
the vernacular, and there is alsoj6min (~a;) which literally means the "usual" or "ordinary" people. These different terms coexisted in order to refer to "people" in the 1950s and '60s discourse inJapan. Which term to use, I think, slightly reflects the thinker's political stance or imagination, andsince there are so many different terms used in Japan, it can create confusion. So I wonder if thatkind of discussion about "people" and the different references to "people" existed in other culturalcontexts or not. When you talk about "people ," are you referring to the urban mass, middle class
Discussion

Chapter1

111

Cultu ral 11<bl'lliou in \.sia 1900 1989

people, people in the rural and suburban areas, the lower class etc.?
Park H.Yesung

What about women?
Hi!Yashi Michio

Well, those terms are gender-free.
Park f±@sung

In the era of Minjung art, some female artists said that they were excluded from Minjung art,so there are many layers of subjects and subjectivities which need to be discussed . Minjung art was
declining when I started college, but even then, I saw some flags hung on the walls of the university .
I felt it looked very exotic. For whom and to who were they addressed? I respect Minjung art and its
artists' first intentions; their practices were very brave, unique, and dangerous. It was very effective
and moving. But it also lacked the question of "for whom," as you said. I think that farmers or shomin, or the working class didn't really participate in the making of this . It was primarily some of theintellectuals who led this movement .
Hax'_aShl
Mich10What about other contexts? Ms . Park just mentioned the female artists were frustrated by being
excluded from this Minjung movement, but are there similar divides in other rebellious movements
where some minorities felt excluded from the practices and expressed frustration? Or were there
identity politics issues?
Park H_yeSUIJ9

To add, this was the time of nationalism; Korea participated in the Vietnam War as a goodfriend where so many youths entered the army and died . At that time, there may have been somesentiments of wanting to protest against participating in the Vietnam War, but many people felt
pressured not to and it was prohibited because of the financial benefits of helping out in the war .
It is only afterwards that artists, especially novelist, dealt with the Vietnam War from a psychological perspective . Nowadays we have many Asian workers in Korea, but at the time there were notso many foreign workers . I think that Minjung art focused on a single subject, or a single mass ofpeople. There is not much on the other types of mass who have been overlooked. So for me,
I think it is meaningful to deal with Minjung art at this juncture from a different view and fromdifferent reference points .
Adele_Tan

If I may go back. This is really to do with the earlier question about the absence of India which
made me think about the Indian artists outside of India in the diaspora . Then, I started thinking
about the Indian artists in London. Earlier, we were talking about the terms of reference for "people"
and it reminded me that they, the Indian artists in London, decided to call themselves "black artists."
The silly thing about the British categorization is that "Asian" actually means you're from the subcontinent, and "Chinese" would be separately categorized. So I was thinking whether we could
segue out from thinking about "Asia" defined geographically and instead look at the movements ofall these artists outside of it and use the terms they used to refer to themselves . I say this because I
was personally quite interested why the Indian artists in London would suddenly have allegianceswith the term "black artist ."PraQO_n_Kumjirn

I was categorized as "oriental" as a schoolboy in England.
Park HyeSUIJ9

How about the term dongyang (:ili:lt) or East Asia? This is another different problem we face,dongyang and "Asia." For "Asia," in Korean we use the term dongyang, actually .
Ha_yash1
M1ch10Do you use that term in an English context?

DAYJ October2

Plcnar:' Discussion:·loward tl1e fa.hibition

112

ArtStudies_Ol

Park Hyesunq

No, we use it only in everyday conversation . For example, we have a game called "Asian
Game," but in conversations we usually call it dongyang ( ie. East Asia). In Japanese, I think it's t6y6
(lb$), meaning "East Pacific." I think it was a concept made in the middle of the 1930s or '40s?
Hayashi Mich10

It's much earlier. In Japan, t6y6 began to be used already before the modern period.
Park Hyesung

So, I do feel sorry that we excluded India or other Asian countries this time , but for me it is very
meaningful to call this Asia, not dongyang .
Choi Eun1u

Did we deal with Indian modern art for the "Cubism in Asia" show?
Hayashi Michie

Yes, we did. Sri Lanka, too . That's obviously a big question that we should keep asking . I think it's
still not too late to include India, I think.
PiJ.,1

I was just suddenly reminded of something from Ms. Park's mentioning of these terms and
Minjung art. When we talk about cultural rebellion before 1989, I think we can see from the twoday discussion that this kind of the rebellion is more urban-elite based . It's not the kind of social
engagement of labor we are now talking about in factories, for example. So you can see thatwhat has happened in Japan is very different from what's happened in China or Southeast Asia
because of the booming of the economy in the 1970s; the whole Japanese production industry
turned to China and now to Southeast Asia. So the cultural rebellions of each country really facea different schedule . That's something I think is a very important dimension when we're talking
about cultural rebellion. We should keep in mind the recycling aspects of globalization and economy. That's quite an interesting part because artists from movements during the 1980s in China
were mostly from families who were officials of the communist government. For instance, Ai
Weiwei. His family is really from a high-class family so they have access and the means to study
abroad, just like in Taiwan as Ying-ying explained . That's very different from these kind of social
resistance after 1989.
Hayashi Michie

That issue of class is actually part of the reason I was interested in photography, theater, and filmsof each context. Because photography, for example, is the most democratic medium ; you don't
need professional training to take pictures. So I think there must be these kinds of photographic
practices that still need to be discovered from different regions .
Pi Li

In Chinese modern photography, the members of that group were all from the high class.
They at least had cameras.
Prapon Kumjim

From my perspective, Chavalit Soemprungsuk, one of the artists who I presented on, owned
a Rolleiflex (professional medium format camera) as a student. He was also from a very wealthy family.
So he was the one photographing Sil pa Bhirasri but he took and was given no credit at that time .
He did quite a lot of his own photography at that time .
Adele TanI just want to return to the idea of the masses or the question of "for whom" which Hyesung
mentioned. I think one of the things that is troubling me, or maybe could help us sharpen our
thinking is the question, "for whom is this exhibition?" Who is the audience? What are we trying
to address in this exhibition? Are we trying to change something in the social psyche of the people
who come, especially in relation to the discuss ion about capitalism and its ever-reaching hand?
What do you want visitors to get out of this exhibition?

Discussion

Chapter1

113

Cullura l Hl'IX'llion in \s ia 1g6o- 1g89

Su; u~ Kats,

My basic aim of this project is to seek an exchange of historical referential points with other
Asian nations . So this exhibition itself, if it is realized, may play different roles in each country andvenue - in Japan, Korea, and Singapore. And naturally, each venue has different audiences . So I
don't want to suggest or insist on making one, single exhibition that is the same throughout thevenues . I think the intentions and conceptualizations of each curator will also differ, so I th ink it
would be best if we can structure it so that it can reflect the histories and visitors of each local area.
Plainly put, my ultimate goal is to show a history of Asia during the 1960s and '70s that is still
unfamiliar or unknown to Japanese audien ces while triggering the notion of multiple frames ofreferences for each visitor ; to raise the self-awareness of Japan's colonization and imperialism on
Southeast and East Asia . Japan, and by extension the Japanese subjects, played a constitutive rolein the history of Asia, I think . So I'm hoping t hat this exhibition will generate multiple subjectivities for visitors in rethinking a more comple x history of Asia . I also think it is a good opportunity torelativize the history of Japan too . I think it is important especially in the present situation in Japan
where historical revisionists have an author ity . So I myself want to resist, or rebel, against this atmosphere of forgetting or negating the import ant elements and histories of Asia .
H ,yash Mict,iQ

Especially given the political tension mount ing in East Asia at the moment between China-Japan ,Korea-Japan, and China and Southeast Asi a. In that context, I agree with Suzuki-san that to havethis kind of exhibition is a meaningful endeavor . And I think professionals like yourselves are reallythe important blockade against those nationalistic tides that sweep over Asia .
I also think , though , it's important to realize that in the 1960s and '70s , in the Cold War context ,the presence of the nation-state had very powerful regulations against cultural practices , both forand against, maybe . So in the 1980s and '90s, you see globalization and the infiltration of capitalism
into every corner of our daily lives leading to transnational connections . We believed that th is movement will actually continue and lead to a more peaceful coexistence of nation -states, but it seems
like the opposite is happening in the 2000s , especially in the last five or six years; the nation -state isagain becoming a much more powerful element in people's political imaginations.
In that sense, I think it is very meaning f ul to look back at the 1960s and '70s where the nation state was a very much regulatory element in the people's imagination and to examine how people
reacted to this situation .
Also, I'd like to point out that exhibition -projects do not consist only of the exhibition itself . It
is also the catalogue, symposia, and many other related-events ; and these are the elements thatwill remain as important landmines for people 's imaginations in the future.
In the "Cubism in Asia" show, for inst ance, one of the great positive repercussions that happened is that later "Cubism in Asia " was recognized , really, by international audiences and also
generated many new connections between curators across Asia . And these repercussions contin ued in a very positive way, I think; so I'm hoping for similar effects from this project.
U h11

OJIM,

h

If I may very quickly add . "1989" in Japan was the year the Showa Emperor, Emperor Hirohito ,passed away . And since periodization in Japan is determined by the Emperor's reign, it meant thatthe period of "Showa," the years of war and invasion, had ended . Obviously , the emperor as a politi cal authority had already died in 1945, but the fact that the Showa period ended in 1989, in the yearthat marked a pivotal year in terms of world history too, I think, is very symbolic for Asian countries
that experienced immense impact from th e war that was in the name of the Emperor.
Su uk1Ka

Thank you very much indeed . I'd forgotten about that completely.
_a,Ying-yin

I think the personal is political. We have been trying very hard to explore the historical, political,
and cultural background of each country. However, since this project is eventually going to be realized in the form of an exhibition, I think it would be much easier to talk about history from the perspective of each individual , and their art as a reaction to their times . How they suffered or witnessed
the time . So I think the personal can be very political ; through their artworks we can try to tell a big
story, the larger history. So to develop a good mapping of the large history and the artists living inreality, I think, is vital.
DAY3 October2

Plenary'Discussion:TowardtJ1e Exhibitio n

114

Art Studies_Ol

Hayashi M1ch10

Obviously it becomes a very difficult and challenging job to f ind the fine line or interface between
these individual trajectories of the artists and also the cultural-historical determinations . But, I
agree, I think we have to be really mindful of that .
Choi EunJu

Suzuki-san proposed the diagram to stimu late our thinking about the concept of rebellious
practices, which I think is very useful. After the seminar and we return to our countries, I think it willserve as a good springboard for our own brainstorming in creating a more detailed and precise diagram which we could all combine at a later date .
Hayashi Michio

I also think that we need to expand our discussions and investigations from the national historicalcontext to the regional and global historical con text: how these different levels of histories interact
with each other. I think that is the crucial point for this kind of project .
Choi Eunju

In the case of the "Cubism in Asia" project , the terminology "Cubism" came from the West.
However, "rebellion " is universal. So I think we can definitely expand the concept for this project.
Che Kyongfa
Che Kyongfa
Curator,Museum of Contemporary Art,Tokyo

If I may add a comment. I was thinking about the Cambodian context. In the Vietnam War,
Cambodia suffered the dual structure of being in between both Vietnam and China . Furthermore,
under the Khmer Rouge regime they practically lost the majority of their culture . Now in the present,
however, there are attempts to try to regain wh at was lost in those periods whereby documentaryfilms and photographs are gradually being discovered. In those times, the voices of the artists werecompletely suppressed and were treated as though they did not exist, though . So I'm very interested in how we should or can deal with this phenomenon; what possibilities can we pursue in handling these historical and tragic factors is something that I'm very much interested in.
Suzuki Katsuo

That's exactly why we have invited Thi, an artist , to join us today . We, as art historians , canof course approach the 1960s and '70s using documentations and resources that remain fromthen. However, there are histories where documents have been lost ; you just precisely mentioned
Cambodia, but in addition to Cambodia , I'm sure there are other areas where the historical memories have been erased . So, precisely in order to raise the awareness of those lost memories, I think
the sensibilities and imaginations of currently-active artists will be a necessary component in thisexhibition . That is why we wanted to have Thi w ith us for this seminar.

Hayashi Mich10

Unfortunately, it is time to wrap up this seminar . I would like to thank all of you for the lively discussions. This seminar presented and exposed a multitude of issues which I think were all very important and necessary points in thinking about and structuring the exhibition . Obviously , there is stillmuch work to be done in preparation for the project, but I think it has provided us with a very productive basis for our brainstorming from now on . Thank you again for your participation.
Organizer

Thank you to all of the panelists and observers , for your ardent attention over the past three days.
I believe we've been fortunate to have people who'd been working in Asian regions in the past andalso people who are planning to organize projects in and on Asia here today . Thank you very much.

D1scu!..,on

115

Chapter1

Reflecti11g on tl1e Seminar

I think it could be said that, through thisseminar, the assembled researchers wereable to share with each other the significanceof using comparative research to investigate
the channels of transnational cultures behindthe history of avant-garde activities in Asia in
the period 1960 to'89-a
period which laid
the foundation for the global rise of Asian art
since the 1990s. I would like to use this space
to express my gratitude to all the participants,
who each brought a constructive consideration to the seminar while generously displaying their stimulating knowledge.
Needless to say, the complex histories
experienced by each country and region during the period in question -which
could becalled an age of tumult in Asia- each possess a specificity that does not allow facile
comparisons. Even so, we were able to establish a number of political, social, and culturalcommonalities particular to the Asian nations
that pushed forward its modernization under
Cold War conditions. Extending to a reexamination of the concepts themselves, it is hard tosay whether we were successful in putting forward, as the primary themes of the seminar,
the concepts of "cultural rebellion" and "Third
World solidarity," which are inscribed into theunique historicity of the 1970s. However, giventhat each presentation focused on practices
that critically questioned "modernity" andmodernism in art, although the points of discussion were broad and diverse in scope, we
did not lose site of our objective.
More than anything, the discovery ofnumerous, concrete topics that can provide
the seeds of future comparative research was
the greatest achievement of the seminar. The
emergence of the "theater" as a site for talentsfrom diverse fields to gather, the reception of
Brecht and Beckett, and also the connections

between pedagogical theater and democracy
movements seem to be phenomena thatspread synchronously throughout the region .
The problematics surrounding diaspora andgender, both of which intimately relate to theidentity of the creative subject, also havepotential for opening up transnational perspectives . Or there is the connection between
the intentionality informing graphic practices- including printmaking, illustration, andphotography-that
relativized an artistic
outlook inclined toward the tableau, and the
proposition of an "art for the people." And
there are also the contact-points between
experimental art movements like conceptualand video art, and leftist and Eastern thought .
The next task is the thorough researchrequired for delving deeper into these topics.
I believe that by working to collect as manycase studies as possible, and through theanalysis of distinct expressive forms and theaccumulation of socio-historical, ideologicalhistorical observations, we can convincingly
outline the dynamism of cultural creation thattranscends national borders. At the same time,in touching upon visual culture in its entirety,
which cannot be objectified by conventionalart history, this project will naturally provide an
opportunity for rethinking the concept of "fineart" in Asia.
It is my hope that this seminar will
become a springboard for international, collaborative research into the art of Asia during
the Cold War period.

Suzuki 1'.alsuo
Curator, National Museum of Modern Art. Tokyo

Translated by Andrew Maerkle

117!11~3'tit~~Y:1Y-l?1/~-j;_j10):$.-l?~-r-t;t, 2014~9JB0B[*l-l0iJ28[*l0)38111l,®~3'tiilf~~t:.t:,\,"(, 8:$.ffi·*ffiO)lllJllYiUR-c'rrbn!lt.:.

•:ti:m~,,J,ft;.ff,'f t:.::"1'£:tJ\•t.:t.!~iM.::$.N-r-O)liffl!iii~t;t, M1Bft11!:'f,
0:$.ffl'a-.t;t, -l?~-r-O)~fH•lli;!JlU.:bO)-c',al.O).f.Et:?Ul"(t;t, ®~3'tiilf~~y :17-l?)l~-t:1.,1)!-t
0:$.ffl'a-.t:.t:.tt~.Al::'-;b-O)~~t;t, -l?~-r-~t:.Al::'-:b-BI) ilfcl!T
ht.: bO)~.i~ ffilflc 1.,.Jtau 1.,t.:.

_,:J:/ ~-•J.AJ-O)Plill·N•t;t,2014~ I0JI;!Jl:O:O)t,0)-(-t.

Af.0)8:$.lll·*ffi~lct: ?\ •"(t;t,~l!R:lil
MtifitHn~ffl\,, t;:\ •tifit;t~~t:.t:.
\•"(~-t.,!t.,t.:.
i:rm, #lJJ, Oil®,B* t:"?\ ,n;t, tt+f.O)
M!t:t.,n,i-t.

118

IN~~~j-- 2014 Cultural Rebellion in Asia 1960-1989
Day I 20141f.9JB0A'1d
Day2 2014'.flOJHEl[J)cDay 3 2014'.fl0/12[1[*~fl,½ (EJ~xfm).(;~JFIC

18:00-19:'>0
10:00-18:'>0
10:00-13:00;f;-;1,, [~(C, lF.illit~~xi"mAA~r:1r~:;.,~-Art Studies_Ol