Since February 19th, 1996
Toward Art as an Alternative Technology
( Speech at the Conference Under the Capricorn: Is "Art" an European Idea? in NewZealand Art Festival,March 1994, Wellington)
Japanese Art as simulation
I heard that, during this Art festival, the works of Yasumasa Morimura are exhibited at the City Gallery nearby. His works are regarded as a typical example of Simulationistic trend in the late 80's in its international aspect, and at the same time as something symbolizing the peculiarity of contemporary Japanese culture. They look like the very simulation of masterpieces of European Art. He reconstitutes the celebrated European pictures by the means of photograph, and then smartly put the image of his own body into them. He also simulates the traditional Japanese Art as Ukiyoe or Suibokuga elsewhere, and has just held an exhibition about Madonna and Michael Jackson in Tokyo. In his works, he always quotes his body itself as if it was a dress-up doll. However, this has nothing to do with narcissism in which he insists on his own Self in a work. On the contrary, his works are penetrated by the strong will to melt down and erase away his Self into a flood of images prevailing in the high-consumption society. He has never denied or criticized this flood of images by the logic of his Self. Rather, he is going to make a sensually delightful moment where all oppositions will disappear by positively accepting everything, and melting himself down in it and avoid any conflict between the world and the Self.
Indeed, this attitude of Morimura seems to be a little bit different from that of Western Simulationism, which is deeply influenced by the cultural theory of Jean Baudrillard and tries to make a certain critical distance from the consumption society. For Morimura's works are intended to diminish this distance into the unconscious, rather than to become conscious of it. Nevertheless, I think we can say that his works would belong to Simulationism in its broader meaning. It is simulationistic because 1) it tries to link his body into an enormous quantity of images in Art history and Pop culture which dominates our visual world , 2) in the next turn it circulates in the market in itself as one of those images, and 3) it makes copies without the original, both in its method and content.
But now, we should ask " What is Simulation in the first place?".
The term "simulation" was used, at least by Baudrillard, as a concept to abandon the dichotomy of original/copy. It is related to the historical situation which Walter Benjamin suggested with the idea of "the disappearance of Aura". Anyhow, it concerns with a certain "shift" -- the shift from "thing" into " sign", "production" into "consumption", or "representation" into " simulation" , related with the scheme of historical progress. So the simulation as abandonment of the dichotomy of original/copy which has been governing the western culture for a long time, can be thought as something to take us to the end of the principle which has been governing the modern art. Same is the case with the concept of postmodernity, which has been so often understood or misunderstood as the next historical stage of modernity.
In Japan, such hierarchical dichotomy of original/copy has been very weak from the beginning. The history of modern Japan has been basically one of importing European culture gradually into Japanese society. Then, Japanese culture has often thought just an imitation without any Originality in itself. It is thought as a copy of European culture which can never overtake its original by both Western people and Japanese intellectuals themselves. This sort of view is still applied in discourses about development of Japanese Art after World War II.
The contempt for the imitation began with the argument about mimesis by Plato. In his view, the Art was to be banished from his Republic, for it is just "copy of copy" which is separated twice from the world of Ideas. Later, Art has restored its trust with Aristotle's philosophy, but it is just just because Art is not a mere copy of the real world but an access to the ideal world as the origin. Since this argument, the whole discourse about Art in Europe has been governed deeply by the dichotomy of original/copy. And Baudrillard tried to describe our condition in the consumer society where communication technologies and electronic media cover all over the world, and the whole set of traditional concepts including the myth of the originality was upset, and it gives way to such notions as Simulation or Hyper-reality. According to his view, the concepts like the autonomous individual or expression have lost their ground, and the play of signs without neither beginning nor end come to be dominant. In short, he asserts that we are living in the simulation society without origin and direction.
Here, two questions occur. The first is; in Japan, has Art been nothing but simulation from the beginning? : the second is ; if we think carefully, isn't it that, even in Europe, Art has always been simulation in general?
Universalism and Localism
There is a myth that what is deeply local can sometimes attain universality. For example, it has been said that Yasujiro Ozu who are known as the most Japanese cineast or John Ford as the most American. Both has become universal though being totally local. But this kind of myth, made by such cultural institutions as "Film Festival", "Art Festival" or "Literary Award", is now widely doubted as mere fantasy. The member of judging committee is just selecting a small number of films and authors which would coincides with such myth in their universalistic ideologies. Or there occurs the reversed cases that the authors situated in such local place pretend themselves as such artists whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. In this view, one is thought to reach the international expression which transcends the border by pursuing their local identities completely. But this view has forgotten that such a way of thinking was historically created in the time of Enlightenment.
Modern western civilization made up the myth of the universal which is to be realized in the individual, by maintaining the individual character of European culture within diverse cultures in the world, but at the same time asserting themselves as the universal. Now, we should upset this whole myth of universalism. In order to do this, however, it is not sufficient to put individuality or locality in contrast with universality. That would only lead us to a composition that Edward Said pointed out as "Orientalism", making up another myth of individualism or localism in contrast with universalism. By admiring the cultural identities of Japanese, Chinese or Oceanian Art, or praising "the other" against the European universal civilization, nothing will be changed. It is in no way valid to regain the cultural identity, for example, as Japanese or Asian. We cannot compensate the absence of integrated principles with local principles. That is, every principle has now lost their self-evidence. The question is to modify the Frame itself of this dichotomy. If so, what is required for critical or theoretical activities would be to cut off in traverse the closure of this dichotomy itself. That is to open the field of Struggles/Sympathy which is the dialogical connection of each of various stories, instead of making a totalistic grand story which unites everything, or proliferating small and isolated stories of individuals.
In Japan, there has been existed the traditional Japanese arts for a long time. They have formed characteristic culture under the influences from China. But it is not clear whether we can call them "Art" or not. If you want to call everything including grotto painting, masks or decoration of daily necessities by the name of "Art", Japanese traditional architecture, crafts, painting, statues and poem would be of course Art as the Human inheritance. However, the idea of Art as the universal and perpetual domain of culture is just a fiction invented in European modernity. In Japan, this cultural project that registers the various esthetic fields into "Art", holds exhibitions, gives awards of painting or literature, introduces Art into the curriculum of university or collects works of Art in museums, began after the Meiji Restoration only 126 years ago. In addition to this, it was after World War II that the museums in the Western meaning not only for collection of historical inheritance but also for raising new cultural movements were born in Japan. And very recently in the 80's, art museums were drastically increased in number and at last they began to plan the exhibitions of the artists who are still alive.
I have to explain some on this point. In the development of Japanese modern Art, if limited in painting, there are mainly three domains which have been progressing separately. The first domain is called Nihon-Ga which means basically traditional Japanese painting but added with some modern sensibilities in it. That has purely Eastern style both in its materials and methods. But it would better be understood as a simulation of the traditional Japanese paintings. Another is called Yo-Ga, Western painting, however it has very limited simulation of certain styles of European painting, for example, Impressionism, Fauvisme, Ecole de Paris or Expressionism before World War II. These two streams -- Nihon-Ga and Yo-Ga -- was institutionally established and guaranteed before War and they have very powerful influence even now in the system of Japanese Art. Though they look very closed for the outside, for ordinary Japanese people, to be a painter would mean to be a member of either of these two groups.
The third is Gendai-Bijutsu -- Contemporary Art --which is much more minor both in power and in popularity than them. This is the only group which opens itself toward foreign countries but they have no institutional foundation and must rely upon evaluation from abroad. That is, there are very few chances for them to succeed, that is, to be estimated by foreign critics or curators and to be imported back from outside. While Nihon-Ga and Yo-Ga are bound to the domestic criterion, Japanese contemporary art are necessarily bound to the Western criterion or discourses. The only thing which supports artists in the field is just their confidence that they are working in international context of the current world.
It is quite easy to point out that Japan is falling behind of the West. However, one may think that it is very natural because Art as the autonomous cultural domain separated from other activities of religion or politics is just a fiction made by the West. So it would be unreasonable if you say Japan is less civilized because the social status of art museums or curators are lower than those in Western countries. Shortly, the look of situation depends on which point of view one takes.
The question is what has created such a situation in Japan?
It is needless to say that the economical condition of a country is deeply reflected on its cultural condition. The Post-war Art has been mainly supported by the capital of the United States. Japanese Art -- here, "the contemporary art", of course -- has been supported by artists who were able to succeed in abroad and developed by importing the critical discourses from outside. This is similar to the situation in which the only way to become an international pop musician is to be recognized by American or British music industries, or to become an international actor is to show oneself on Hollywood's films. The reason why the contemporary art has become acceptable in the 80's Japanese culture, was that larger number of Japanese interested in speculation began to find it profitable in the international market. We cannot think of the culture separately from the rule of market by any means.
In such movement, some exhibitions were projected in order to introduce Japanese artists to the foreign countries. But it is strange enough that those exhibitions are limited to so-called contemporary art and never concerned with Yo-Ga or Nihon-Ga. Why only "contemporary art" is thought as representative of Japanese Art? There is already a presupposition that there should be the identified domain of Art which is universal and international and such local arts as Nihon-Ga and Yo-Ga are to be banished.
This is not only the case with Japan. In many countries, a lot of paintings, theaters or films are produced for peoples in those countries. However, there are very few works which can be accepted in the so-called international scene. For example, the Indian films which have totally different consciousness about Time, or Japanese popular songs which have less intonation of melodies cannot be accepted outside of their natives. But then, is it universally right to evaluate Art as a certain limited works which can circulate in the market, mainly by the fictional principle of the ideal unification of universalism and localism ?
Art as an alternative technology
Now, the world is in chaos. What occurs now in Russia, East Europe and Islamic world etc., seems to be a symptom of the great change to come. The History, which had frozen in the structure of Cold War, began to move again. However, it is not the history as a linear progress of Humanity, but a history in its complexity of various local stories, that is, a rhizomic, plural and complicated history. In this History-as-complexity everything is closely related each other in a manner we have never experienced. The development of information network has made the world very small now. Every part of the world closely influences each other. Cultural synchronicity is also increasing by the electronic media and its unprecedented reduction of time/space. In this situation, what can we talk about Art as an idea as well as an institution?
Art is an institution founded in the modernistic ideologies and the homogeneity of international market. Art is no doubt just a cultural fiction or local custom which European civilization made up. There, non-European civilizations have three choices with this idea and institution of Art: disregarding it, simulating it by becoming a parasite of universalism, or changing it into a totally different thing. The most important is to abandon both the artistic internationalism and localism. So is it sufficient to destroy museums or to abandon the market system of Art? Of course, it is not such a simple story like that. If you break the container, the content itself will spill out and you can get nothing with it.
Here I want to suggest the possibility of transforming Art into an alternative technology.
Let us remember the condition for Art before it became the autonomous cultural fiction in modernity. Art was originally born as the religious or magical Technics as well as the eruption of Life impulse. Here, by the word "religious" or "magical" I mean all activities which try to open doors to another world outside of our daily life. If so, we can say that Art was and has been the Technic to mediate us to such another world or another reality since its birth. This doesn't mean it is an illogical or irrational technic. As Martin Heidegger wrote in his consideration on technic, the technic(in Greek teknee ) in its original meaning is always to make a path to the alternative world as such. So we can call Art, for example, old Indian Tantorism or Yoga as a technology to tune one's body to another reality.
If we carefully reconsider European modern Art, it has never lost such a function as all through its history. Modern Art has been trying to make paths to another or a truer world against the domination of reason and its system. Especially, since nineteenth century, Western Art has played the role of the avant-guarde counter culture against the scientific and rational world view and had the function of activating culture. What the avant-guardes have been creating is nothing but the alternative technology which open passages to the outside.
However, we should recognize that the whole frame of system is now drastically changing. The natural sciences after quantum mechanics have been radically transformed, and molecular biology and computer science are now deconstructing the modern science itself. This tells us it is also the time for Art to restore its original function. That is, we should understand the function of Art as an alternative technology to be recognized in the broader context of technological field we live in and that is not to be recognized as a mere function inside the limited social system. Now, only those activities which slip away from "Art" should be called "artistic", and it must be replaced by the field of technics or technology in its original meaning.
Therefore, we should ask again: In the current world, in which way is Art functioning? What kind of Art or Technic is needed? Everyone concerned with Art should realize that they are concerned with a field far broader than the cultural domain of modern Art. I think we should support all the thought, painting, literature, architecture, technology and science which resist against homogeneity imposed by industrialized media technologies and the global economical system. We should find seeds of all those activities which try to go beyond localistic and/or internationalistic point of view. In this meaning, it is necessary to reconsider Art not as antonym of technology, but an alternative technology or engineering to step outside from the dominating invisible system of our world.
Instead of giving any conclusion, I would like to share these questions with you, which I hope will provide us with some new place for our discussion.