The Virtual Time Garden

The Contemporary Intellectual

Environment and the Arts

 

( At International Symposium of Print Art, Japan, 04/12/04 at Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music)

 

Hisashi MUROI

1. A Globalized World and Culture

 

     According to Paul Virilio, the 20th century was the century of "speed." Speed is something that　extinguishes distance and time. A variety of information devices and communication technology, which evolved out of the steam locomotive, the automobile, the airplane and a wide range of military weapons, have done away with the delay inherent in temporal and spatial distance.　 As a result, the century of "speed" has unified the entire world and given rise to a new form of culture that seems to be a single society.

 

     Yet, in looking at the real world, it becomes clear that globalization has not resulted in the removal of temporal and spatial walls, or created a world consisting of the unified "global society" or "global village" that we have so often heard about. Nor has it resulted in the disappearance of ethnic, religious and cultural boundaries or created a "global nationality," in which all human beings share a common set of values. What has actually happened is that multinational corporations' logics about capital have spread throughout the world via the development of transportation systems and communication media such as computer networks.

 

     Since the end of the Cold War, the world has moved toward a single "world market" based on the capitalist economic principles advocated by the U.S., and in the process, everything has come to be evaluated according to this standard, and the price and value things have on this market. Trading huge amounts of floating currency on the world's major stock exchanges and pouring sums that far exceed the average country's national budget into the investment game in turn exerts a tremendous influence on the lives and destinies of the world's people. Not only is this evident in the economic realm, it is also strongly felt in each country's educational and political system. An integrated control system, which seeks to evaluate everything in terms of a numerical standard, has come to be a part of every type of regional society. The necessary information is kept in a database; and the things that are not deemed worthy enough are eliminated from the system.

 

     Control is maintained with an almost automatically programmed "monstrous flow of capitalism." Within this simple globalized economy, every regional, social and cultural system is forced to undergo a tremendous change. Cultural confusion and increased mobility are not in themselves the fundamental problems. With the sole objective of ensuring a smooth execution of the program, everything else is thrown into chaos and conflict under the unitary control of this economic game, which is played according to a simple and uniform set of market rules. In this way, various cultures and societies are fused together, leading to a combination of conflicts, sympathetic feelings and new social mixtures. However, these facts are nothing more than the "effects" of singular domination by such an economy.　 Though observation may be possible, no one has the ability to predict where the world is headed or what sort of collisions and combinations will occur in the next phase. These types of changes are similar to those we face in describing "global weather" - it is impossible to separate the phenomenon into any clear "elements" or "forms."　 It is simply a "weather phenomenon" of localized chaos and conflict which is generated by "westerly winds" in the form of a globalized economy. It is at this point that we might propose an approach called "cultural meteorology." This approach is not a means of understanding cultural systems or structures, but something which will allow us to comprehend impenetrable "weather phenomena."

 

     In times like these, we must remember that the "cultures" and "communities" which we encounter and interact with are not "cultures" and "communities" in their original sense. In other words, by abandoning our understanding of "culture" as a "structure," we begin to see that it isn't something that can be expressed in numerical terms.　 It is also necessary to reconsider what is inherent to ideas like "cross-cultural exchange" and "intercultural understanding." It is impossible to discuss culture in a fixed framework such as "French culture," "English culture" or "Japanese culture." Furthermore, in attempting to discuss the "essence" of a "national culture," there is little that can be ascertained from only a few hundred years of history. Viewed over a long range of thousands or tens of thousands of years, though, a sense of continuity can be gained from the various phenomena and events that have arisen and vanished on a variety of levels. It follows then that what is necessary at this point is not a "system theory" but a "meteorological" approach to culture and society. Adopting this perspective is an important strategy for a new cultural understanding.

Just as Ferdinand de Saussure's concept of "structure" was nothing more than a methodological approach, the "meteorological" perspective I propose is nothing more than another viewpoint.　 By taking this approach, we cannot hope for a more "correct" or "truthful" cultural or social realization. It is important, however, to have an opportunity to see what was misunderstood or overlooked in the "structural" approach.

 

      For instance, in the 90s, there was what might be called a flood of "small stories," as oppressed minorities began to make their voices heard in a variety of fields. Among these were advocates of radical feminism and multiculturalism, gay theory and queer theory, and post-colonialism.　 What should be noted about these opposition voices is that they emerged as an internal criticism from within the Western modernist ruling system that had oppressed them. In other words, this was not merely a pre-modern or anti-modern statement of hostility, it was no less than a way of uncovering and denouncing the mechanisms of control and oppression from within Western modernism.　 In that sense, post-modernism was a prerequisite to these movements.

 

      At first glance, it might seem as if the assertions of postcolonialism and multiculturalism are irrefutably "correct." But on closer inspection, it seems obvious that these ideas are a logical part of an opposition position - that is, they stand against Western modernism for its support of colonialism and its universal, uniform mindset. In essence, though, these movements failed to go beyond the basic modernist issues and went no farther than settling the problem of colonialism or "post-colonialism." They preferred, instead, to remain a part of "multi"culturalism, and resist the oppression of other cultures. Put more precisely, this was simply a game of "musical chairs" designed to (re-)claim the places these people were once unfairly deprived of entering in an already established and fixed social system. To play a game of musical chairs, it is necessary to have a floor. This floor and the number of chairs that have been set up there must remain stable. Movements of this type, therefore, require a preexisting social system for their discussion. Is there an appropriate number of chairs? Are the people who get to sit on them representatives of special interest groups? Is every human being a member of at least one of these groups? These are the sort of questions advocates of minority politics never seem to try and answer.

 

      In addition, this sort of thinking presupposes a kind of "identity politics," which holds an essentialistic view of　 "culture" as a closed structure that overlaps with geography and ethnicity; or which sees "culture" as the cornerstone of ethnic and national "identity."　 Limiting concepts like hybridization and creolization are not sufficient to explain this perspective. In the past, a variety of cultures were gradually borne along by the wind and the sea, and eventually blended together. Over a long period of time, cultural changes occurred in a melting pot, not a salad bowl (the metaphor often used by multiculturalists); or to put it more precisely, in the ocean as its currents flowed together. National and traditional cultures are little more than fictions that have been created over a very short period in the modern era. The reason these have become linked to cultural identity-politics is simply because of the drastic acceleration of human and informational movement in the 20th century. The movement of huge numbers of people due to a variety of wars, created to satisfy security needs in order to maintain economic supremacy, has led to a tremendous amount of cultural and religious friction and conflict between the dominant group(s) and the subordinate one(s) because not enough time had passed to allow assimilation. Needless to say, in viewpoints such as hybridization or cultural blending, and multiculturalism, which advocates coexistence between multiple cultures, there remains a strong tendency to regard" culture and community as a constructive system. When one fixed "cultural construct" meets another, it is inevitable that they will exert an influence on each other. What must be examined are the fundamental reasons behind the discussion on cultural fusion and unification, and cultural separation and autonomy which respects distinctive cultural identities.　 Next, we must focus on the globalized economy as a huge global weather phenomenon which has given rise to all of these things.　

 

      Isn't the reason that" multiple traditions, ethnic groups and cultures should "coexist" without interference, and that the dominant culture should be united with the subordinate culture lie in the assumption that as long as they have a market theory and economic code in common, everything else will be easy to manage?"

 

      Similarly, in the 90s, concepts like "British cultural studies,” advocated by Stuart Hall and others, and media studies based on the same sort of ideas began to receive attention. These Marxist practices had originally been introduced as part of semiotics. By adopting Althusser 's ideological theories and Gramsci's hegemonical theories, Marxists who had given up on the revolution embraced Gramsci's nearly 100-year-old concepts and attempted to revive the movement through intellectual statements.　 However, this too was ultimately nothing more than a game of musical chairs played within the context of a stable Western social order. In short, it was merely an attempt to deconstruct an incomplete Eurocentrism from the standpoint of cultural meteorology.

 

      Our own perspective is one which attempts to protect difference and variety. And at first glance, multiculturalism, post-colonialism and minority politics might also appear to be advocating difference and variety. But in fact, these positions are simply involved in the distribution of profit within the dominant economy system.

 

  　 Or, if they are attempting to protect difference and variety, it is only in a half-hearted way. And because they are doing little more than playing musical chairs within the dominant system, both the left and the right, the ruling class and the minorities reacted with the same hysterical calls for a retaliatory attack when the game board was overturned in the September 11th　 Incident.

 

     Furthermore, academic, critical and scientific work is also a part of the same flat system.　 Specialization, which attempts to distribute intelligence within a society that is kept in check by the global economy; a programmed curriculum; and a uniform system of quality control and evaluation are all working to transform the world's universities into factories of standardized productivity. Science and learning become all the more useful when they are performed in these globalized, homogeneous sites, and under the guidance of a globalized educational administration, rather than cultivating critical thinking or sensitivity, the main emphasis is placed on manual- and reader-based courses such as "media literacy" and the fostering of specialists who will work well within the system like MBAs and lawyers. The amount of critical thinking differs according to the field of specialization. But real intelligence and critical thinking are limited and only a moderate amount of difference and variety that can be easily contained within the system are endorsed. It goes without saying then that in art education and cultural administration the same sort of domination exists. And one cannot help but think this is a truly dangerous thing.

 

 

2. Art from the Viewpoint of Cultural Meteorology

 

     According to this viewpoint, under what circumstances does "art" exist in a globalized world?

 

     Once the wellspring of modernism had dried up in the 60s, the art world lost the progressive historical perspective that had once given it direction. And since the modernist myth of the "autonomy of art" was also lost, it became necessary to find a new support structure to create art. There was simulationism, with its "art-about- art" focus referencing past styles of art and art history itself, one movement which emphasized socio-political messages, another which stressed regionalism and traditionalism, as well as movements that attempted to introduce industrial art, ethnic performing arts, pop culture and fashion in art. All of these trends that emerged in the wake of post-modernism can be seen as responses to the end of "autonomous art." If art history until that point is thought of as one great flowing river, these movements might be seen as minute, web like channels trickling through the delta. Whether river or channel, both flow out into the sea, only in the case of the latter, they tend to lose direction, moving every which way and never really knowing where they are headed.

 

　　　 Beginning in the 80s, it became common to hear a variety of people use phrases like "the end of art" and "the end of art history. " Since "art," in the modernist sense of the word, became institutionalized in parts of Western Europe in the 18th century, and a similar thing occurred over a wider area as these countries came to make imperialist incursions around the world, it was only natural that the death or disappearance of art was welcomed.　 Peter Bürger, for example, insisted "that there was no such thing as post-avantgarde art in his "Theory of Avantgarde."　 Yet, at the same time, the fact remains that as "art" has developed over several hundred years and is closely linked to other modernist apparatuses, putting an end to "art" is no easy task. In this sense, "art" is something that will never end. It is like another sector of industrial society: Once a shop starts to expand, scaling back becomes out of the question. And to make another comparison, art is like a zombie that abruptly rises from the grave, and continues to writhe unabated around the world.

 

　　　 At this late date, it is impossible to wipe out art museums, art journalism, and educational facilities like art colleges, governmental organizations, international exhibitions and other cultural events connected to international cultural exchange. Neither can the importance these institutions hold in the globalized world market be ignored. To compensate for the lost ideal of "autonomous beauty" then, movements emerged that referenced art history, depended on socio-political messages, relied on regionalism and traditionalism, and introduced pop culture and non-art-related subjects. It might at first appear that the field of art grew larger and richer as a result. But as long as attempts to make up for the loss of meaning/direction in "art" continue, there is no hope of reactivating or revitalizing art. Perhaps what are most significant about these movements are the things they are trying to conceal.

It might be best to admit that in the narrowest sense of the word,　 "art" - that is, the cultural system that was constructed by Western European civil society and turned into a huge "market" by the U.S. - is on the verge of death or already deceased. Just as Japan tries to protect noh, kabuki and other traditional performing arts, in Europe and the U.S., attempts by the government and certain foundations to aid and preserve art are growing ever stronger. An increasing number of large-scale art exhibitions and other events are also being staged. It follows then that there is a necessity for Japan and other countries to comply with these trends - mainly on economic and political grounds - and improve cultural administration concerning art. More exhibitions and more art colleges are bound to follow. This will then allow Japan to survive by coexisting with other countries on the "world market."

 

     But what I want to discuss is not "art" as a business enterprise within the "zombie" market. I have no interest whatsoever in expanding, or promoting more Japanese artists for, that market.　 The question is how can we go about salvaging those things that fall under the heading of "art" and the "possibilities" they held in an era when "art" was still alive. The problem is not limited to art alone. The same is true of every subject in the cultural realm, including philosophy, ideology and science.

 

      Why?　 Because, unless something is commodity-controlled, labeled and bar coded as an item in the supermarket, it is not allowed to enter our society. A tremendous number of items are sold in immense supermarkets.　

      As the world market expands, the scale and the number of items will continue to increase. Yet, this is not the "whole world." There are always some things that are not allowed to enter the market - things that are difficult to display as merchandise, or things that are excluded from the market. It is my great fear that people are beginning to forget this and that young people have come to think of the world only as a giant supermarket.

 

      I am not saying that everything lining the shelves of the supermarket is without value; only that everything that's there is not all there is. To return again to the subject of art, at first glance, it would "seem that in the "global supermarket" of art, there is a rich and varied assortment of "art merchandise" on display. These items, with their radical political messages, references to pop culture and a variety of foreign cultures, and handicraft-like qualities, are arranged according to the amount of impact they have on the consumer. There is clearly one fixed rule in the arrangement of this merchandise. Items that have lost their impact and are no longer selling are gradually shifted into the corner, and new merchandise is always set out in garish displays in the most eye-catching location. But some things don't even make it to the shelf. Among these are human beings, who as flesh-and-blood creatures possess a reality which cannot be reduced to an artificial system. Now, it can certainly be fun to discover something of interest on the new merchandise rack, and I am not claiming that finding trends and contexts among these items is not a meaningful undertaking. But the things I tend to be interested in are the ones that cannot be found in these places; and the ones that manage to avoid this fate.

 

      Of course, even these may very well be assembled together and end up on the supermarket shelf. Or if the floor manager judges them unsuitable, they may be declared rejects. Except within a very small-scale community in our immediate surroundings, the distribution network seems as if is only able to exist within a capitalist market. But is this really the case? Despite all the things that seem to be under attack from media giants and vast stores of capital, hasn't communication technology like the Internet actually expanded the possibilities for individuals and small groups to exchange information? It's things like the Internet and the free-software movement that still encourage a flicker of hope in me.

 

      What is requested of every active individual is the same, whether artist or intellectual. The people who believe unconditionally in the value of art and "academic proclamations," and think that "liking" such things is self-evident, are satisfied to be allowed to live in one part of a huge temple. These are the same people who are subjugated to the supermarket theory. They are the people who merely live their lives as if they are merchandise o" the global market" Art and thought that is desired by society as something "avantgarde" has died. As an "excuse," though, it is still possible to reuse and recycle these things when necessary. This is nothing more than "art as excuse" or "thought as excuse." The most important thing is to create as large a communication network as possible outside the global supermarket.

 

     In this respect, I have never lost faith in the power of individual artists and thinkers.　 What I am most interested in at this point is how the remaining network of resistance and criticism against the system which was formed by these people can be maintained.

 

 

3. On the International Symposium of Print Art

 

     Finally, I would like to say a word about prints. Classifying prints (hanga in Japanese) as a separate genre is perhaps unique to Japan.　 Terms like "print art" or "graphic art" fail to explain the significance of the word hanga. In the magazine Hanga geijutsu, I wrote a series of articles called "Printing the World" (1996-1998). In the first of these, I wrote the following:

 

"The meanings that the word hanga has in Japanese can generally be classified under three categories:

 

(1) A reproductive technology

(2) A specific genre of art

(3) An art 'system'

 

     "There is a further need to carefully consider and examine each meaning, but one thing is clear: Though it originally only had the first meaning, with the passage of time, the word hanga soon came to have a more restricted meaning. The reason for this was that after first being almost the only method of reproducing pictorial images, with the development of photography and printing technology, hanga began to evolve into a purer expression that was an end in itself, eventually becoming what it 's today, an exclusive genre in the art world.

 

     "In common parlance, the word hanga isn't used to mean printed copies of computer graphic works or the fax experiments done by someone like David Hockney. And neither are Andy Warhol's silkscreen prints included in the hanga category. But why not?"

 

     How did all of this come about? At the very least, as a technology or art technique related to "reproduction," the "print' was meant to be the polar opposite of singularity and scarcity.　 Its essential nature was rooted in "duplication" or "multiplication,” as opposed to a painting, which was in principle a singular entity. It is likely that hanga's transformation into an "original" work featuring manual labor and rarity is a new phenomenon that occurred following the relatively recent emergence of mechanical reproduction technology, which due to its practicality and production efficiency displaced the traditional technique.

 

     If so, these hanga-related issues would seem to have a close relationship to the appearance of 19th century reproductive technology, which has been addressed in the past by Walter Benjamin, and the flood of digital reproductive media of today.　 In effect, aren't photography, "film, audio recording and reproductive media such as the computer, fax and copy machine all "print" technologies, and as such, infinite expansions of the hanga technique?

As is probably clear from my comments above, I have no interest in the "print" as a genre of art. However, if forced to talk about it, the thing that attracts my interest is the print's lack of　 "authenticity"; or as I mentioned in the quotation above, its ability to be "duplicated" or "multiplied." These are element" that are diametrically opposed to "originality," which characterizes modern art, and the various values associated with it.

 

     With this in mind, the "print" does not stand in opposition to photography, computer graphics and digital information.　 The "print" must be released from the prison of meaningless dichotomies such as high tech and low tech, digital and analog, commercial and artistic, and mechanical reproduction and the warmth of the handmade. The Internet and the "print" are on the same side. The issue is not the "kind" of "technology."　 It is the way in which we comprehend the relationship between human beings and technology.

 

     It is my sincere hope that rather than loudly asserting the authenticity of the print and trying to increase its value on the art market, this international print symposium will serve to encourage attempts to liberate the technical process by individuals who are not being recognized under the current system, with its troubling tendency to restrict acts of expression and thought.

 

(Translated and edited by Musashi Atsuhiko and Christopher Stephens)