Report: 1st Period of Stay in Tokyo

Posted on 2013/02/21 by admin

During my previous stay in Japan, the Lower House Election took place on December 16th, which became one of the central topics of discussion among the r:ead participants. The result, as predicted by the experts, was that the Liberal Democratic Party won 294 seats, more than half of the seats in Parliament and assumed the reins of government; Shinzo Abe became Prime Minister of Japan.

When r:ead was over and I went back to Korea, one day after my return, a presidential election was also held in Korea. As result, with a turnout of 75.8 % – higher than ever before – and an approval rate of more than 50%, Geun-hye Park was elected. Two days later, the day on which the Mayas had been predicting the end of the world passed by quietly. The prediction had evoked a peculiar sense of expectation all over the world, although people had not really believed in it. The world I know remained as unclear to me as before.

In his 2011 book “General Will 2.0” Japanese thinker Hiroki Azuma, borrowing the words of Rousseau, introduces a model of direct democracy that exhibits variety itself as “democracy without communication” as an alternative to representative democracy in which communication leads to a decrease of variety. By this Azuma is seeking a possibility to update the principles of democracy. “General Will 2.0” adds the 2.0 of the Internet to Rousseau’s “general will”, stating that when the use of search engines on the internet or the distribution of messages via Twitter by individuals is recorded and transformed into a database, this database becomes a collective unconscious and can be utilized as general will by the government.

“As communication has to reduce countless opinions to a certain number of axes of oppositional positions, it rather has a tendency to oppress variety. When it was possible to build consensus without communication, it would be possible to maintain the original variety and comprehend the general will of people. And, when you refer to the principle of general wisdom, in comparison to a simplified decision that has gone through communication, it might be able to lead us to a more precise judgement.” (Interview from “General Will 2.0”, Korean edition. English translation: r:ead editorial team)

But when we take a look at Naver, the largest Korean portal site, we see that through the compilation of search rankings and abusive intervention, the media consumption of the masses wields a large influence on mass opinion, which becomes a strong power in itself. Internet platforms that work out the statistical value of the collective unconscious are composed due to the logic of the market and exhibit a pre-defined political tendency. Even if we state that the statistical values are mirrored only indirectly by politics, they still remain dangerous beyond a doubt. Yet Hiroki Azuma emphasizes communication not aiming for agreement in order to seek a channel that enables the individual expression of wills to build up a database and its values to be mirrored by politics. I find his idea of seeking a re-definition of democracy very interesting in many aspects.

During r:ead’s second period of stay, I want to try to engage actively with the methodology of Hiroki Azuma in relation to the topic of East Asia. Based on a new setting of relations through re-defining the forms of tangency, the expression of volition and tools, I wish to seek a new platform referring to this “mass unconscious = the general will of expression” that Hiroki Azuma has defined.

Additionally, during the first encounters of the r:ead participants in the short one-week period we were concentrating on the factual situation in the East Asian region. I now feel that we might have been dealing with the problems in a way that was slightly inflexible. What would have happened if we had transformed the paradigms of dialogue and sharing itself?

The “House of Art” while war is just around the corner

Posted on 2013/02/21 by admin

Artists from four countries gathered and interaction arose among us. This is very interesting for me and the r:ead project raises my spirit. For example, as the Taiwanese artist Chia-En Jao and I are both racially Chinese, we had common topics to talk about, such as ancestors, culture, the Chinese Civil War of the past, the current process of democratization in both regions, and so on. We feel that we would like to understand mutually the circumstances of each other and the present situation of suffering caused by the “individual” and “society”. I was very attracted by the work of Jisun Kim, the Korean artist. I wonder what her real motive is. Is it to make society better? Or is it to show that one had the ability to defeat the monstrous authority that is the state, just like how rats can bring an elephant down? I felt a sense of intimacy towards the Japanese artist, Meiro Koizumi, as we have a common awareness and face the same difficulties. I was strongly impressed by his work and greatly stimulated.

In the next term of r:ead, I wish to deepen the interaction and the discussion we had in December. In the process, many questions should be brought up. I am curious what personalities appear in crucial moments or during situations of urgency. For example, would I kill others if a war occurred? Can people behave gentlemanly even when an earthquake occurs?

I would choose “beings full of life” over empty “justice” and “humanity”. Things I approve of as art belong to life experience that is lived. Therefore I would surely participate in war even if others and my reason tell me how sinful war is and how it can make you inhuman. Americans think they are the ones who maintain peace and justice, but of course I would not go abroad and start a war like they have done.

At this crucial time of deepening confrontation between the Chinese and Japanese governments, pure artists like us can debate seriously, just like students, whether art can prevent war. This is because we are all each of us individuals and understand that each of us is not representing our own countries. Furthermore, for us, there is only one “country” which we call “art”. In this “country”, relying on just the rule and discipline of art, each individual develops relationships sincerely.

After the session in December, I edited a short film about what I felt. I am intending to make a documentary about r:ead.

Democracy had let history repeat itself

Posted on 2013/02/21 by admin

During our short stay in Tokyo, we visited the Japanese parliament, the Yasukuni Shrine and the Imperial Palace. And by coincidence, we could also see the Japanese election. Below, I have listed the slogans of each party and the number of seats in parliament, they achieved.
What they all have in common is that they all emphasize that only they can solve all the complicated problems of Japan.

(294) Liberal Democratic Party of Japan:Take back Japan!
(57) Democratic Party of Japan: Making Decisions to Get Things Moving
(54) Japan Restoration Party: Restoration Now!
(31) New Komeito: Rebuild Japan
(18) Your Party: Fighting for Reform
(9) Tomorrow Party of Japan: For a Tomorrow with Hope for Everyone
(8) Japanese Communist Party: Making Proposals, Taking Action
(2) Social Democratic Party: Rebuild Life
(1) People’s New Party: Japan – Restart!
(1) New Party DAICHI. The Oath of New Party DAICHI (number one)
(0) New Renaissance Party: For a Japan to be Proud of in the Whole World！
(0) New Japan Party: For Amagasaki. For Japan.

Believing in democracy and counting on the institutions of the democratic system is considered one of the most common values today. It is also a symbol of progress. Thus, if a country does not apply the democratic system, this country is viewed as being behind the times and not modern. But can we really say that the “democratic” is actually so “avant-garde”?

The second argument from this short stay is “should a contemporary art practitioner long for being a architect of the age of imperialism? Take Matsunosuke Moriyama (1869-1949) and Georges-Eugene Haussmann (1809-1891) for example. Moriyama was involved with Taiwan’s architecture and city planning; Haussmann changed the shape of Paris. Through the strength of politics and imperialism, both of them implemented their creative ideals. With no doubt they contributed to big changes in the societies of their time. Creating something in this way from the very beginning, and achieving concrete results, could affect people and even very touching.

However, the value of contemporary art lies not in providing methods for solving problems. If that would be the business of contemporary art, it would like many political parties declare its manifesto in public spaces and simply believe that art can solve the problems of the country. Also, contemporary art functions without relying on power. The architecture of the age of imperialism does not criticise imperialism in the least, and the pyramidal shape at the forefront of the Japanese parliament building forms a motif of praise of power. But the value of contemporary art should lie in its critical nature.

Contemporary art is not deal with imperialism, but with the principles of democracy that came after the collapse of imperialism. After the end of World War II, the concept of democracy penetrated Asian countries, but actually it just built up a system of capitalism under the name of “freedom”. And the true meaning of the “democratic” does not lie in the destruction of empires and the emphasis of values of the individual; it lies in emphasizing the consciousness of the mass. Since voting is the only practice we can perform, it leads to violence and both sides competing for profits. In the midst of this system, the exception of contemporary art becomes extremely important because it does not count the criticism of individuals in numbers, but remains as testimony for historical reference.

The conclusion is although there are many historical examples, what we can say from the result of the Japanese election is that history repeats itself due to democracy.

Start of 2nd period of stay

Posted on 2013/02/21 by admin

Information on the participating curators & artist’s reports updated!

One of r:ead’s special features is, that the participating artists come to Tokyo twice. After the so-called dialogue and research period of one week the artists return to their countries once and have time, to consider their objectives for the 2nd period of stay in Tokyo, the creation period. During the 2nd period of stay, they will be accompanied by curators/dramaturges of their own choice, who serve as the intellectual partners for research and involvement with the topics set by the artists.
On the occasion of the start of the 2nd period of stay on Feb 22, we have updated the reports, the artists have written after their first stay in Tokyo in December 2012. Please also check the profiles of the curators/dramaturges, who will gather in Tokyo together with the artists and share their ideas on East Asia’s past, present and future.

Seeking a New Frame

Posted on 2013/02/21 by admin

In the r:ead session held in December, I came in touch with many varied artworks and opinions of the participating artists – Jisun Kim, Chia-En Jao and Ning Li, as well as the r:ead project team, including Ms. Soma. We had a great discussion over the relationship between art and politics. Having seen the diversified challenges each artist had attempted regarding this difficult problem, I was highly inspired and emboldened; at the same time, the issue of considering what is possible also arose inside me. If we literally have the intention to change things concretely through our creativity, there is no doubt that the frame of the art activities existing before us is inadequate. I am aware that it is too extreme to say that nothing can be changed specifically and effectively unless one takes part in the actual “power-and-money-moving” political world. However, if one seriously intends to make a social change, one should be conscious about the limitation of what could be done by showing resistance in the personal and micro-political horizons, the most comfortable place for artists to be. If one wishes to change the world in an effective way, and to exert one’s creativity/imagination in order to achieve this, the creation of a new frame is required.

To begin with, how about imposing “responsibility” on art by rearranging Yukio Mishima’s prescript – “literature (art) ＝ irresponsibility, no ethics, life”, “action (politics) ＝ responsibility, morality, death”. Is it possible for us to start by hypothetically proposing “politics ＝ irresponsibility”, “art ＝ responsibility”? Are we able to be in a frame/horizon where we do not focus on the political nature of art, but rather on the artistic nature of politics instead?

Maybe one catalyst could be considering art as technology rather than expression. Scientific/mechanical engineering technology surely has the power to renew human beings and society (or the concept of human beings and society itself). In the same manner, can we deal with art as a technology to renew society by creativity? And then, is it possible for us to handle the knowledge obtained from this research by not outputting it as an artistic expression nor presenting it in a symbolic form of creativity within the existing framework, but instead building a space where we can disseminate and utilize the knowledge practically in daily life? Putting it simply, can we discard art for appreciation/critique and carry it out through instrumentalism?

The important point is that this output should not be evaluated as “work” but as actual “social change”. There will not be evaluation criteria such as “critical” or “interesting”. The only standard here will be whether it is realistically “effective/ineffective”. Also, to be “more effective”, the participants must be cross-genre from the beginning. It is important to create a space where we can consider, practice and cooperate with various people who already possess or are researching the know-how for moving opinions (such as advertising agencies, politicians, businessmen, TV broadcasters, theorist, architects, designers, publishers).

I wish to consider and implement a case study for establishing this supposed new frame in the next session of r:ead in February and March.