How to Understand Shanghai's Art Ecology

By Jin Feng

One needs to be idealistic to pursue a study of the art ecology in China because the subject itself remains largely a theoretical concept. An art ecology is based on the assumption that there is a system that regulates or monitors all aspects of art production. Yet, in reality, the art world has little regard for such a concept, and such a system is nonexistent in the current Chinese art world. If we were to define the art ecology of a city like Shanghai, where culture is generated by speculative bubbles, how many artists, galleries, non-profit art organizations, and centres would be needed to foster a healthy environment? This question remains unanswered, for there are so many unknown variables. Hence, research pertaining to an art ecology can only be imagined.

Certainly, theoretical propositions may help us to imagine, or even anticipate, an art ecology provided that we know how to contextualize and localize the discourse. Contemporary Chinese art has always remained an autonomous entity. The mobility of artists and the proliferation of art spaces are currently propelled by the frenzied art market. In this sense, Shanghai can never become a counterpart to Beijing. Five years ago, when one talked about contemporary Chinese art, one would always focus on what was emerging from Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Today, Guangzhou is no longer considered one of the epicentres of visual culture. Many Guangzhou artists are moving north in search of better opportunities. Without the support of the Guangzhou Triennial, Guangzhou would definitely disappear from the art map. And Beijing, in the midst of all these changes, undeniably has transformed into the art capital of China.

One may wonder why Shanghai, being the financial center of China, hasn't really picked up on the momentum of the art market. It's been estimated that Shanghai-based artists in total are equivalent to 1% of the artist population in Beijing. Beijing’s Songzhuang Art Village alone—however small it may be—houses 3,000 artists as well as 1,000 unregistered tenants. These statistics support an interesting phenomenon related to artists' mobility, that many artists formerly based in Shanghai have chosen to take up residence in Beijing. Recently, I attended an exhibition opening at the 798 Art District that attracted seven to eight hundred visitors, an attendance level that is rarely seen in Shanghai. Again, this demonstrates why many artists have chosen Beijing to further their careers.

It is perhaps a bit narcissistic to say that Shanghai does have an independent art scene. The city's skyrocketing land values have dissuaded many artists and art collectors from moving to Shanghai. It's exceedingly difficult for young and emerging artists to make a living there. For the more established artists, many of them are renting studio spaces in Beijing so that they can broaden their professional networks in both of the cities' art communities. This trend is driven by commercial interests as well as the underlying principle that art production in China is generally market driven. Intensely market-inclined and opportunistic, the Chinese art world affords little room for art criticism to make any substantial impact.

It's naive to ask whether Shanghai has its own art intelligentsia despite having its own art market. Amongst the city's small population of artists, there are only a few who are interested in intellectual pursuits. Even in Beijing, where there is a large community of artists, not many are keen on studying theory or criticism. The paucity of scholar-artists living in Shanghai makes it difficult for the city to develop its own unique visual identity and genres, although there once was a Shanghai abstract art movement. For the younger generation of artists, their intellectual scope is susceptible to many influences, unlike their teachers or masters who have a strong allegiance to the Shanghai School (haipai) of the late nineteenth century. So employing a historical narrative to decode the meaning of these young artists' works is difficult as there is no way to ascertain which school or group these artists might belong to. It is manifestly clear what issues are facing the development of contemporary Chinese art; in fact, in Shanghai (as well as in the rest of China) there are few artists truly concerned with questions about the art ecology.

If one were to approach the question of Shanghai's art ecology, a good place to begin would be BizArt, an artist-run centre that focuses on facilitating intellectual discourse concerning the visual identity of Shanghai's contemporary art. The centre's mandate is to create an open forum for the artists and the public to communicate, and, at the same time, allow the artists to develop their own visual language and creative autonomy. Public discourse about art or art development is rare in Shanghai because the city has never had the right venue or format to facilitate such discussion. Public forums or private conversations that aim to bring critical reflection or analysis of the artworks are scarce in China.

Given all these problems, one needs to tackle them before one can proceed with a discussion about the Shanghai art ecology. The study of an art ecology is not simply about attaching place names to the artworks, but, unfortunately, this is a pervasive practice. It is imperative that we recognize this crisis and strategize how we as cultural entities can collaborate on finding solutions.

Translated by Chunyee Li

怎样理解上海的艺术生态

文//金锋

严格来说，对艺术生态的关注是非常理想与学究化的课题，在现实的境遇中，现实是无视生态的。像上海这样的国际都市，在中国今天的泡沫文化中，究竟需要多少艺术家、多少画廊、多少非营利美术馆与艺术中心算是合适的？这始终将是一个一直可以去追问的问题，但答案也将始终是一个变数。生态这个概念是需要制度来协调控制的，由于今天这个制度的建设还遥不可及，学者的研究也许就只是在纸上谈兵了。

当然，作为一种期待式的纸上谈兵也未尝不可，但这也要看我们在怎样的格局中来期待。中国的当代艺术生态其实一直是自主式的，艺术家的流动与艺术空间的泡沫性建设其背后的动力是艺术市场，就这一点而言，上海一直是无法抗衡于北京的。五年前，要谈论中国当代艺术的城市格局，肯定是说北京、上海与广州。而今天的情形，广州已经被很少提及了，广州的艺术家也在北漂。假如没有广州三年展在支撑，广州的出局是在所难免的事情。眼前，北京毫无疑问实际地占有着中国当代艺术的中心地位，这是这个时代的诸多因素所决定的。

也许我们一直会纳闷，作为经济大都市的上海，艺术市场的风头为什么始终不东移呢？我觉得，问题还是与艺术家人数的流动有关。有人曾经粗略地统计过，上海艺术家人数在今天是北京的1%。一个小小的宋庄，被登记的居住艺术家人数为3000人，据说没有登记还有1000人左右。一个有意思的现象从侧面也在说明一些问题，许多在北京居住的艺术家曾经也在上海生活与工作过，但最终还是选择了北京。我刚参加的一个在798的展览，开幕式大致来了7、8百人，而这个观众人数在上海是非常难得的。所有这些数据无不在说明，北京在今天依然是艺术家发展的首选之地。

所以在上海谈艺术生态有些过于自恋。上海寸土寸金的地价无疑限制了艺术家在上海的发展与投资。年轻的或刚起步的艺术家要想在上海求发展，实际的境况是非常艰难的。稍许有些实力的上海艺术家，也正悄然地在北京租赁工作室，以图双向发展。而在我看来，这个发展更多依然是偏向于市场的。好像存在着一个潜规则，艺术市场在哪里，艺术生态就在哪里。这个生态是自然的，市场的，甚至于是投机的。学术对于生态的合理建设在今天只是一种书面想象。

市场生态之外，在上海是否存在着一种学术生态？这个问题也是幼稚的。因为上海艺术家人数有限，爱好学术的艺术家就更是少而又少了。北京艺术家多，爱好学术的艺术家也不见得就多。“物以类聚，人以群分”，所以，学术终究只是一种小范围的“爱好者”的归类，现在上海很少会去营造一种所谓的上海符号或上海形式，过去有过所谓的“上海抽象”，现在更年轻的艺术家在思考的视野上并没有像前辈那样在乎“海派”，因为历史证明这样的形式，强行制造是非常虚弱的。中国的当代艺术究竟走到了哪一步，这是个心知肚明的问题，不要说上海，就是中国，真正深入在这个问题之中的艺术家为数不多，而真正懂得这个问题的艺术家就更加少见了。

上海以比翼为中心的艺术家群体，基本反映着上海当代艺术在学术上的气质与品位。它的特点是开放式的民主讨论与交流，同时保持艺术家的独立性与自主性。交流的话题很少是上海的，讨论与逼迫的方式是问题性的，所以，群体交流或私下讨论经常带有自我批判的性质。这点，在今天的中国我觉得是难能可贵的。

综上所述，讨论上海的艺术生态可能不是一个实在而急迫的问题。生态不是做个艺术地图就生态化了。市场生态与学术生态在今天都在糊弄这个现实，清醒地意识到这个问题，务实地做好自己的工作，这比什么都要实在。