Michael J. Hatch on Curatorial Dilemmas at the ICCA and UCCA

2008.04.30

Liu Wei, The Rock, 2008, books, 322 x 285 x 230 cm. Installation view, Iberia Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing, 2008.

Art-ba-ba, 2008

Earlier this month, two shows opened in two of Beijing’s larger and higher-profile contemporary art venues, both located in a dug-up 798 Art Zone now in the throes of pre-Olympic construction. Community of Tastes at the Iberia Center for Contemporary Art and Stray Alchemists at its neighbor the Ullens Center for Contemporary Art take rather divergent views on what an “international” show is and ought to be here in Beijing, the capital of Chinese contemporary art. Both also offer sites of reflection on two critiques constantly leveled upon the Chinese art world: that its curatorial concepts are weak; and that work by Chinese artists is somehow shallower, less mature than, or derivative of work by their foreign counterparts.

The newly opened Iberia Center for Contemporary Art (or ICCA) is a private art center with a grand vision, seeming to spring from a similar mold to the UCCA. It was founded by Gao Ping, a Zhejiang merchant who made his fortune in Spain. According to press materials, the center’s opening salvo addresses the way in which “a community of tastes comprises of such a plurality of manifestations as ‘the luxurious taste,’ ‘the prudent taste,’ ‘the vulgar taste,’ ‘the taste for freedom,’ and so on. The extent of differences, contradiction, and even ‘opposition’ among them mirrors the current state of the expanded concept of Chinese contemporary art.”

Matt Bryans, Installation 6, 2006, dimensions variable. Installation view, Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing, 2008.

In practice, this means a grouping of works by top-tier Chinese artists (as determined by spin and sales) known for their conceptual or multimedia approaches. Artists like Ai Weiwei, Yang Fudong, and Cao Fei are here exhibited awkwardly alongside a handful of Spanish artists. Plainly, the show lacks any curatorial stance, blanketing that responsibility with an amorphous pluralist acknowledgement of the diversity of contemporary art. In this case, curatorial responsibilities have been foregone in favor of a show that seems only to boast of founder Gao Ping’s strength as a collector. This is not an uncommon “strategy” in the Beijing context, and is often how even the largest and most resource-rich venues operate—after all, here even the National Art Museum is for rent. If the ICCA plans to follow the trajectory of local peer institutions such as the Today Art Museum, its activities will soon boil down to a simple for-hire exhibition space. In a humorous way, by using the word “taste,” the show actually lays clear the subjectivity and bias with which the many private museums and collections in Beijing parade in curatorial guise.

In contrast, Stray Alchemists at the Ullens is curated around a very particular theme, that of process-intensive art. Stray Alchemists includes six artists: Robin Rhode, Matt Bryans, Sterling Ruby, Lim Tzay Chuen, Amy Granat, and Takeshi Murata, all more or less established up-and-comers of the last five years, and all in their early thirties. According to the show’s leaflet, these artists are “united through the emphasis they put on process in the development of their practices.” Kate Fowle, the UCCA’s international curator and the organizer of Stray Alchemists,” justified the choice of this group of artists in the exhibition press conference, saying “I’ve been looking at their work for a long time. Both as people and practitioners, there is a resonance with artists in China in terms of a genuine interest in developing a strong art practice,” and this is “a great opportunity to bring artists from around the world to collaborate and communicate with artists here.” The question arose at the press conference, however, as to whether a certain amount of criticality is lost in this sort of process-based curating.

Cutting the ribbon at the opening of the Iberia Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing, April 15, 2008.

When one considers the UCCA’s high media profile and lofty pedagogical aims—its desire, in Baron Guy Ullens’s words at the same press conference, to be “the ultimate meeting point in Beijing for artists from around the world,” a new reading of the show emerges. Given the pressure the UCCA must have placed on itself to mount a solidly curated and multifunctional first international show, it’s hard not to find an undertone of criticism in Fowle’s comment. The implication, either intended or so deeply rooted in approaches to contemporary Chinese art as to be subliminal, is that Chinese artists who have “a genuine interest in developing a strong [process-based] art practice” need exposure to and guidance from artistic practices from abroad, as contemporary Chinese art practice does not involve enough process.

This is not a new critique of contemporary Chinese artists. For examples of art that is weak in this sense, one only has to look at the artists that have been paraded around Europe, North America and Asia in shows like Uli Sigg’s collection extravaganza Mahjong or the recently auctioned Estella Collection. Star artists like Fang Lijun and Yue Minjun now struggle to move beyond financially successful, specific-image-based, and flatly painted formulas to develop their contemporary relevance as artists.

While this is, in part, taking the curatorship of Stray Alchemists out of context, the implied critique of the state of affairs here in Beijing is nonetheless present. It’s a common view even in the mainstream media these days, evident in the tones of astonishment and disbelief at the meteoric rise in auction values for Chinese artists (as if there were some inherent and necessary relation between price, importance, and impact).

Amy Granat, Midnight Walker, 2006, film projector installation. Installation view, Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, Beijing, 2008.

After seeing these shows—two of the larger events on the spring art calendar—I’m a bit disappointed, but not with the art. I’m disappointed with the ICCA for being yet another limp for-hire venue that presents us with fine art, but fails to put it in a meaningful context. It makes me wonder why simply showing good artists is all that is required of institution of such scale and ambition. And I’m disappointed visiting the UCCA, if only for having been reminded of the fact that Beijing, China, and Chinese artists are still perceived as needing an education.

After these visits, I’m left feeling that perhaps both of these criticisms are more correct than not. I wonder at the fact that, as hot as Beijing is on the international arts circuit at the moment, how is that I still feel wanting for some substantial Chinese art, presented in intelligent curatorial guise, to brighten up my spring.

— 文/ Michael J. Hatch