Towards a practice oｆ history going beyond politics

Posted on 2013/06/10 by admin

At first I was interested in how the goal of this project “to share awareness regarding the problems of society and art in East Asia” could trigger new perspectives through the participants confronting the concrete situations of their own countries. But, on the other hand, I was also a little concerned about how the history and political situation of East Asia, whose countries are interconnected through mutually complex relationships, would affect the platform of our dialogue. Once the system of “state” gets involved with this project’s aim of building up a platform, the participants must be aware of the relation to their nationality and state. In this situation, their subjective views are identified with those of the respective states and the dialogue between individuals quickly turns into a dialogue about the interests of states and an endless argument on “justice”. However, I think that the participants were – as these conflicts are comparatively intense right now – carefully exploring how they can act as one person engage with the cultural sector without being absorbed by the dynamics of politics.

The residency was divided into two periods of stay. First, we discussed the themes and interests that form the axis of every artist’s activities. Next, in various situations and through various approaches – presentations, film screenings, shared meals and train journeys – we shared the research that every participant was conducting in Tokyo. What was interesting about this process was that the shared experiences the participants had during their short stay in Japan came to be an occasion for relativizing one’s own interpretation of and internal response to Japan, and regard it from a more objective perspective. Of course, this held true as well for Meiro Koizumi and myself, who reside in Japan. I feel that, like Jinjoo said in the final presentation, the experience of how much you don’t know of the other, although you thought you knew him or her very well, generated a disparity throughout the process. Or rather, to pull out the discourse and feelings on Japan that oneself has internalized from my own subjectivity – they are one’s identity strongly connected to discourse, history patriotism, and democracy, and how this is all connected to exclusivity. This became an occasion to become aware of that.

During the research period, Meiro Koizumi conducted an experiment with film. He did interviews with people at various locations in Tokyo, asking them about Japanese wartime history. When they were speaking he filmed only their mouths. As the interviewees remained anonymous, we could see stories, information, beliefs and emotions, as well as “absence” like disinterest and ignorance – all told in an undisguised manner. While I watched this random manner of talking, I could not help but focus my thought on the question, “What is history?” There is intense controversy over historical issues between states, ranging from territorial questions to the content of school textbooks. In times of globalisation when it is necessary to maintain an imaginary collective of the state, this becomes an increasingly important tool, but on the other hand, it is fair to say that for the market-driven life of the individual, there is almost no necessity to confront the past in the shape of “history”. Nevertheless, in the midst of various history-related discourses rising and falling through the diversification of media, we should not overlook the fact that even if this history does not generate individual experience directly, it has the capability to stir up strong hate and exclusion of the “other”.

I believe that Meiro Koizumi’s experiment raises one important question this residency project will have to consider in the future. This is the question of whether, in order to create future connections in this area, sharing awareness of artistic and social problems in East Asia can provide a space for verifying the discourse and subjectivity of oneself and the other, directed towards history as a new practice of knowledge, such as moving beyond the scope of states and politics. Going forward, when not only East Asia but the entire world will probably be more mobile, the creation of a space where inner negotiations of oneself and the other become possible is an issue that not only this project but culture-makers in general will have to think about.

What comes after

Posted on 2013/06/10 by admin

To believe that you know something exactly is perhaps dangerous. At least, it is for me. In Jean-Luc Godard’s “Film Socialisme” [English title: “Socialism”], children say they won’t speak to people using the verb “to be” and instead try to use the verb “have”. During the residency period, I made an attempt to leave behind the potential for a new system by avoiding using the verb “to be” with regard to a number of keywords and Japan.

Keywords
The ideas that occupied most parts were “democracy”, “virtuality”, “mental cosplay”, “Otaku”, “surplus”, and “catastrophe”. As I wrote in my previous text this was because the presidential election and the Mayan prediction of the end of history at the end of last year had generated a strong disbelief and reflection on the system, and a peculiar power of imagination. At the same time, I was interested in the abundant energy created by this situation.

Research
At the start we conducted our research through interviews we had been setting alongside our thematic keywords. The interviewees were Hajime Matsumoto, Yasuo Ozawa, Hiroki Azuma, and Joo An. Furthermore, we participated in events at the Genron Café, which is run by Hiroki Azuma, watched performances, and did research by hanging around in several areas of Tokyo. But the more we evolved, the more the keywords we had in our minds at the beginning were dismantled and becoming useless. (This is what I thought at that point in time.)

Presentation
When I had to make a public presentation of the process that was not yet structured in my own mind, I was not sure about the form for the presentation, as it was still the first stage of the creative process. Moreover, much of what I had been researching for this program in advance had lost its shape after arriving in Tokyo. As a kind of last-ditch measure, I remembered a quiz that I had seen at the Genron Café and had found interesting. I made a collage with my own questions, but if I am honest, I do not really know what meaning it was supposed to have.

What comes after?
In the beginning, it seemed a little vague to me what the outcome could be after two residency periods of respectively one and three weeks. But when I returned to Korea a few things became the opportunity for some ideas that had existed solely like islands to finally come together. Based on this, I am now working on a new project together with a travel agency that offers nomadic tours without moving. I will not explain my new project that was born out of r:ead. I prefer to show an image rather than words. A quiz….?

Understanding/Thinking through Encounters

Posted on 2013/06/10 by admin

I am very glad that I could participate in r:ead for two weeks in March 2013. I am always busy with preparing exhibitions so this was a rare opportunity for me. The small but precise and deliberate residency created – more than other residencies I knew of – the opportunity for an “encounter” that sticks in the memory, and for exchange in a true sense. Speaking from my ten years’ experience as a curator of contemporary art, there are many opportunities to get to know artists or other curators, but places where you can engage in exchange on a high level are less than you would think. This is even more due to the fact that our work becomes more and more stereotypical.

In general, the encounter between curator and artist often starts with a work. But r:ead consciously and purposefully turned around the model of the “curator-artist-artistic creation process”. This not only had a very special meaning to me, it also matches with the direction of the approach and development of the independent art space that I am currently running, The Cube Project Space. That is, the exploration of ways to develop long-term collaboration with artists.

Chia-En Jao and I participated in r:ead, which gave us this kind of opportunity. There was dialogue between the four Asian countries China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan – and in this frame I truly felt the uniqueness of interchange that went beyond existing geographic interpretations, and knowledge relating to history between neighboring countries and culture. In this process where persons who were strangers at the beginning gradually started to understand each other, we could further develop our cultural viewpoints through communication and debate. These viewpoints vitalized the perceptions and actions we usually take for granted.

This dialogue supplemented what is lacking most in our current work and production processes, the “real-experience”. Over the two weeks, from various perspectives we thought about the Second World War, the history of the Cold War in Asia and the present, where regional economies are globalizing. While this includes a countless number of historical memories, we shared our experiences as a single contemporary human being, from the experience and angle of one living individual. And through this special occasion we asked ourselves if in the so-called “era of globalization” the earth really has become flat, and by that we caught a glimpse of a different worldview.

I felt that the project Chia-En Jao worked on in Tokyo was also a concrete reaction to the experience and thoughts described above. Through observing Japanese history and democracy he confronted the questions the project participants raised through a kind of nonlinear interrelation and dialogue. (In the final presentation on March 11th, he let the participants select and read newspapers from March 11th five years ago, and through this exhibited his views on history and experience.) And with this methodology he also invited the non-Japanese participants to indirectly reflect on their own democratic experience and our relationship to other regions in Asia.

The theme of Chia-En Jao’s project was the re-rethinking of “democracy” and “history as repetition”, due to his observation of immanent changes in Japanese society following the 2012 general election and the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. But this actually is a topic that not only relates to Japan but also in a broader sense mirrors a common problem/crisis faced by contemporary society as a whole. Therefore we could see that our mutual “relationship” from first to last is interwoven. We learn how much we are depending on each other, not only in the past but also in the present capitalist economy.

For his project, Chia-En Jao’s strategy was the creation of a time process that emerges through displaying and enlarging a visualized material (past newspaper articles). By this he exposited his question. The result of his observations was that history repeated through democracy. Simultaneously, due to this inquiry Chia-En Jao confronted us with – that is, the topic of his re-thinking – he invited every single participant to think together with him, and thus initiated even deeper reflections and responses.

During the presentation the participants did not understand at first why they were holding newspapers from the past in their hands, but through the readings one after another and their mutual reflection, they became aware of Chia-En Jao’s intention of a “space for re-thinking”.

Chia-En Jao’s project is like a foreword. During the two weeks’ residency in Tokyo and through debate and exchange, we started to think latently about the changes to Japanese society after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Further, from what I saw and heard during short trips to Osaka, Kyoto and Yokohama, I understood that actively reflecting on society is increasing now in Japan. For example, Meiro Koizumi’s work shows that too. More and more people from the younger generation are connecting with artistic and cultural creativity, and engaging with social activities. We could say that this observation is the most important harvest for me following the residency. From r:ead I learned about the possible significance of a new model of artistic production and its praxis.

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.