2012.11.21 Wed, by Translated by: Fei Wu 吴一斐
Playing the Marginalization Card:
More Mainstream than Sub-Culture

The Central Academy of Fine Arts Museum recently held an exhibition entitled “The First CAFAM Exhibition of the Future: Sub-Phenomena — A Report on the State of Young Chinese Artists.” Though true to the subtitle of the exhibition, they lacked a certain sense of appeal as many have appeared in CAFAM graduation shows over the years (in fact, some of them have even popped up in various galleries). Of course, this is not to say that one does not experience anything new when seeing a piece a second time — the same artwork exhibited under a different concept can take on new meanings. Case in point, the layout and planning of the recent exhibit at the Guggenheim Museum involving Alexandra Munroe was superbly meticulous; the sequence of pieces made sense, but the curators were also mindful of the viewer’s freedom to choose.

However, one of the problems with the CAFAM show happened to lie in its concept. Like other large-scale CAFAM exhibitions in the past, it was big and bold. The heavy-handed curatorial team appended the exhibits with numerous conceptual frameworks. Additionally, they took pieces and grouped them into ambiguous categories like “Growth,” “We-Media,” “Micro-Resistance,” and “Otaku Space” in an attempt to express these concepts. It must be said that the relationship between the exhibit and the subject of “subculture” might have been over-determined. Though the content of the exhibition and its topic did not contradict each other outright, any similarities they might have had were purely superficial. Perhaps this contradiction was for the best, as it allows us to question what constitutes the “sub phenomena” of subculture and to scrutinize this concept.

One could say that this exhibition encapsulated nearly every creative idea and visual strategy that the current generation of young artists possess in its varied repertoire. The topic of personal nostalgia could be seen in the images of old-fashioned dresses and plastic sandals of Chen Wei’s “Diary of a Scavenger – A Lingering Song” (2012). Nostalgia was also reflected again in Ye Funa’s classic 1960s group photo entitled “Home, Spring, Autumn – A Family Photo of Mother and I” (2012). In “Bells and Whistles,” Chi Ming uses oils to recreate the effect of old photos while other artists chose to work in the minutiae, creating artwork that resembled craft, as in Chen Fei’s “Strangers” (2012), Huang Yan’s “Material, Spirit, Sustenance” (2012), or Wang Sheng’s “The Myth of 32” (2012). Of course, there was also the obligatory array of visually exhausting political-pop art.

It might pay to consider how these works could have been called “sub phenomena” as so many of them fell into similar categories. The root of this misnomer may lie in the inherent ambiguity of the term “subculture,” which makes it a difficult term to understand and grasp. According to Stuart Hall, subculture must be expressed through a distinctive form; it must be differentiable from the larger culture in its form or structure; and it must focus on some sort of unique activity, value, object, or materiality of space. Clearly, most of the artworks and movements that currently call themselves “fringe” do not meet these criteria, but are still seen as “sub-phenomenal.” This lack of distinction has occurred because subculture flows quietly back into “mainstream culture,” along with two even more magnetic concepts, one being “youth culture” and the other, the “avant-garde.”

Subculture relates to the distinctive activities and concerns of fringe groups. However, this type of cultural phenomena does not exist in a vacuum; rather, they can be seen as loosely distributed “ecosystems” within the larger culture. The term “youth subculture” only applies when age and generational factors are added to these “ecosystems.” Nowadays, the term “youth subculture” has already become a cliché; very few will ponder how a certain subculture came into existence. Like other cultural phenomena, subculture also forms within the contexts of society and cultural activities; therefore, it inherits many of the ideas of social class from the mainstream such as the oft-seen “culture of rebellion” in the young working class. Other subcultures only appear at certain times in history, when groups of people form movements to draw the attention of the mainstream. For example, the graffiti and street art movements of the 80s led by artists like Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat which gave voice to victims of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the struggles and demands of marginalized ethnic groups.

The core value of subculture is its negation of the symbols and rituals of the mainstream, as in Hall’s “resistance through rituals.” Paradoxically, anything — from art to literature, drama to film, living spaces to music — that carries the prefix “sub” now gains an instant cachet, and becomes sought-after by the masses. More importantly, most of the individuals who wrap themselves in the mantle of subculture are young, emerging professionals. Although subculture becoming mainstream is a logical progression, “subculture” and “the merging of subculture” are not the same, even if the latter is often seen as the inevitable destiny of the former. Once a subculture is subsumed into the mainstream, all symbols that once belonged to it become consumer products and objects to be gazed upon by the mainstream.

As Jonathan Schroeder says, “compared to looking, gazing implies more — it represents a type of power relation; the one gazing is greater to the one being viewed.” The gaze endows the viewer with voyeuristic possession of and power over the one being viewed. This type of power relation often exists in gender and class differences. [1] If subculture is an object to be gazed upon, it becomes consumable, and once it is consumable, the signifiers of identity can be purchased. When purchased, it is possible to reveal one’s “secret” identity as a skinhead or a punk, and convey hidden meanings.

Another concept that seems related to subculture is the avant-garde which, as a term, appears to be oft-used by the “subculture” to describe the state of young artists. In actuality, “avant-garde” was initially a term that implied exclusivity, whereas in Chinese “sub” (ya) implies being cast off or abandoned. The former was an active provocation of mainstream culture, whereas the impetus for the latter’s symbolic revolt through aesthetics was initiated by external forces.

[1] With regards to gender, the right to gaze is often viewed as the sole and natural prerogative of men. Historically, in male-dominated societies, women have always been gazed upon by men. John Berger believes that at least from the seventeenth century, paintings of female nudes reflected the woman’s submission to “the owner of both woman and painting.” He noted that “almost all post-Renaissance European sexual imagery is frontal — either literally or metaphorically — because the sexual protagonist is the spectator-owner looking at it.” Many oil paintings reflect the image of women in a patriarchal society, and the desire of men to possess them. There are countless paintings like “The Elders and Susanna,” “The Judgment of Paris,” numerous depictions of various rapes of helpless women, and equally abundant portrayals of women bathing which give strong evidence in favor of Berger’s theory. Females are illustrated as objects to be taken, possessed, and owned — fundamentally no different from the glimmering jewels and exotic beasts also depicted in the paintings.

Truly, titles like “avant-garde,” “emerging,” and “subculture” belong to the few, and what each term references is essentially different. “Avant-garde” and “emerging” represent a value judgment. This kind of value judgment could be found in the Realist movement of mid-19th century Europe. The avant-garde arguably began in the wake of Gustav Courbet’s anti-bourgeois tastes. The reason the avant-garde is so highly praised in the realm of art is that it represents exclusivity and supremacy, an attitude of criticism and of contemplation about the progress of society. Therefore, to call these young artists members of a subculture, and therefore lead many to think they are avant-garde, is the perpetration of a lie. Although it cannot be said that true avant-garde spirit does not exist anywhere in China, it definitely exists outside of artistic circles. In truth, these CAFAM graduates or soon-to-be graduates of China’s highest institute of artistic learning are not individuals who have been marginalized by society. Therefore, to call them “young artists” is more than sufficient, and there is no need to add the grand and sympathetic prefix “sub” in front of the title.

“Subculture” attempts to bundle its values with those of the “avant-garde,” and therefore share in the glory of being “avant-garde.” In other words, the term avant-garde has been kidnapped by subculture, and has begun to regress from avant to après — which is another topic altogether. Artists, art institutions, and critics have created a collective “myth” about the avant-garde nature of subculture, and replaced the concept of subculture with the concept of avant-garde. The art world and other cultural domains have come to assume that avant-garde is something that artists should freely pursue, and the results will inevitably be well received, whereas subculture has not gained the same prestige and can only achieve the same effect by being placed in the same category as avant-garde.

As these concepts are continually theorized and confused, some issues have become obscured; artists who use “sub” material to express subculture and directly or indirectly claim to be protecting it are actually being aggressive toward and psychologically “gazing” upon the very thing they are claiming to protect. In general, the pieces on view at the CAFAM exhibition cannot be called examples of “subculture,” to put it bluntly; perhaps they should be described as “mainstream.” The artists’ reliance on mainstream culture is immediately obvious in form and subject matter. These young artists’ anxiousness and eagerness to become successful is much more apparent than any so-called marginalization.

The only commonality between avant-garde and subculture is that they both become subsumed by the mainstream. Regardless, in the current artistic atmosphere, it is very rare for us to see true “sub phenomena;” similarly, it’s extremely rare to discover the “avant-garde” — these terms cannot co-exist with contemporary art, but their imitators do abound.