This exhibition review was published on Widewalls Magazine on February 9, 2022.
Take a Step
Phil Zheng Cai on the opening of the M+ Museum
Installation view of a triptych by Li Shan, on view at the M+ Museum Hong Kong. Photo by Sophie Guo.
The Premise
Hong Kong’s much anticipated M+ Museum finally opened its doors to the public earlier this month. Almost all Western media took on the story with a political spin. The New York Times titled its article “Hong Kong's M+ Museum Is Finally Open. It's Already in Danger.” CNN’s headline reads “Hong Kong's Extraordinary M+ Museum Opens Amid Ongoing Censorship Fears.” Artforum came up with “Hong Kong’s M+ Museum Opens Its Doors as Beijing Tightens its Grip” while the Smithsonian Magazine followed up its main tagline with an elaborative subtitle: “M+ promises to be a leading cultural destination, but China’s new national security law threatens its curatorial freedom.”
On the one hand, these takes seem one-dimensional and prejudiced. On the other hand, the political dynamics have long been wired and interlaced with the works produced by Chinese, Hong Kongese and Chinese diaspora artists for the past four decades which staged the region’s most notable art movements in seek of modernity. Given US institutions’ long history and increasing interest in treating the facts of social history as art, this political angle of covering this event seems only reasonable and poignant. However, regardless of the political position being favored or disfavored, a trap has already been laid: in either opposing or supporting the original position, a dichotomy in perceiving the event has been established in an irreversible fashion. Any following conversions are almost forced to be categorized into either Camp A or Camp B with no grounds left in between.
One might naturally ask: Are we wrong in tackling an issue (the opening of M+ Museum) from the most obvious and direct angle (political)? Is offering a more neutral analysis really more favorable?
A collection of screenshots from major media headlining the event.
Socratic Circle
A group of students is structured to form two concentric circles: an Inner Circle and an Outer Circle. The Inner Circle is asked to discuss a particular topic while the Outer Circle remains silent and observes. Soon after, the Outer Circle is asked to discuss and comment on that very discussion generated by the Inner Circle. Students in the Outer Circle seek to remark on the methods, approaches and quality of the previous discussion, but are not allowed to directly mention the initial topic.
The great Greek philosopher Socrates reportedly invented and popularized the Circle, empowering his students with the then eye-opening mindset of stepping back from a particular issue to inquire on the grand scheme of things. This mindset of “abstracting” was then planted in the students of philosophy and many other studies for thousands of years to come.
An antique mind exercise itself, the Socratic Circle is of course basic and imperfect in today’s standards, but is unequivocally valid and the deviation and elaboration of which might shine valuable light on our contemporary treatment in criticizing art, social events and particularly the dynamics amongst the two.
Socratic Circle, illustrated by Mengyao Zhang
The Inner Circle
On the opening of M+ Museum
Hong Kong’s much anticipated M+ Museum finally opened its doors to the public earlier this month. When the museum was first conceived over a decade ago, hopes were high. It was envisioned to be a haven for those high-profile, politically charged artworks that aren’t allowed in Mainland.
This March, Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam promised to enforce China’s newly-passed national security law which deemed art a potential threat to the government. M+ officials who originally promised not to jeopardize the integrity of art for political reasons yielded. Henry Tang, chairman of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority, which oversees M+ commented: “The opening of M+ does not mean that artistic expression is above the law.”
The M+, aspiring to become the MoMA and Tate of Asia, has now dismounted numerous works due to censorship concerns, among them is Ai Weiwei’s iconic Study of Perspective: Tian’anmen, 1997. With freedom in art display now compromised, the museum’s future remains uncertain.
The Outer Circle
On the Analysis of the Inner Circle
The analysis provided by the Inner Circle is one-dimensional. It failed to capture the other aspects of the event, such as positive cultural influences, or in essence, the art on display itself. Quotes and examples were cunningly selected and curated only to support its biased arguments and reinforce its overall negative tone. The juxtaposition of the subject against the other two most prominent museums’ names brought this sardonic comment to its climax. The word “uncertain,” which the short critique ended on, now only seems to foresee much certainty in the Museum’s ominous future.
A traditional Socratic Circle study session would end here. Nonetheless, the classic approach of “stepping out to abstract” wouldn’t stand the test of time if it can’t be applied repetitively. What if we now treat the discussion of the Outer Circle once again as a subject for commentary rather than an end-game? Let us gather and form a “Third Circle” to see what happens here.
A Third Circle, illustrated by Mengyao Zhang
A Third Circle - the Circle that lies outside the Outer Circle
On the Analysis of the Outer Circle
Ironically, the Outer Circle’s critique on the Inner Circle’s analysis being biased and one-dimensional is itself biased and one-dimensional. It found one point of penetration and went all-in. It failed to consider other possibilities of breaking down the Inner Circle’s analysis. All of its evidence was carefully selected, curated and planted in support of its argument of the Inner Circle being biased. The mentioning of the juxtaposition of museum names brought the Outer Circle’s accusatory critique to its climax, with the aid of a word-play on “uncertain” and “certain”. Lacking any material reinforcements on the argument, this word-play provides fantasized literal legitimacy to its readers and self-augmentation to the commentators themselves.
Installation view of a Wang Xingwei painting, on view at the M+ Museum Hong Kong. Photo by Phoebe Yiu Yin
Installation view of a Wang Guangyi painting, on view at the M+ Museum Hong Kong. Photo by Phoebe Yiu Yin
Take a Step
The first time we stepped out and observed, from the Inner Circle to the Outer Circle, it seemed all so mighty. We identified what wasn’t done well and even provided supporting arguments on why it wasn’t done well. Only when we reached the Third Circle did we come to realize that the second time of “stepping out to observe” did not actually offer as much insight philosophically as did the first one. Nevertheless, what’s most valuable might not lie in the upgrades provided by moving from one circle to yet another outer-more circle. Rather, the most valuable actually lies in what’s happening repetitively every time.
For any arguments, critiques or analysis to be made, there is always a “first mover” when you take an initial step. Sometimes this step is directly making a point, sometimes it’s picking an angle of penetration, or at other times it’s simply looking at a direction with your eyes, pens, or thoughts. All our experiences and expertise are then to be poured tirelessly into fulfilling the initial step. Once this possession is claimed, what it creates is not the possibility for the direct opposite counter-argument to be made, as many would have thought. What it actually causes is the fact that ALL other possibilities were denied now that one position has occupied the only initial slot. It wasn’t like a coin that has the “heads” and the “tails” - it is that when you possess the “heads,” you are not looking at “anything not the heads.” Even the seemingly safest argument, as long as it is made, creates the denial of all other possibilities: The argument “the opening of the M+ has its goods and bads” would immediately eliminates both the arguments of “the opening of the M+ is so very good” and “the opening of the M+ is so very bad.”
Now that every step carries the similar quality of denying all other steps not taken, finding no optimal way out of this paradox, near nihilistic thoughts might begin to brew in our heads. However, to move against a state of static is arguably the most time-tested human innateness. It is only human nature for us to take that step, no matter how flawed, despicable, or uncalculated that step might be. The follow-up consequences and debates are not to inhibit and discourage our innateness to move, to change and to re-construct, which we are born and entitled to. Knowing how our choices are made with the cancellation of other possibilities should empower us to understand that the utmost historical importance only co-exists with the utmost historical forgiveness behind each step we take. It is historically important because it takes the possession of all other possibilities, but at the same time it is historically forgivable due to the exact same reason.
Divided and backed according to political and capital resources, major media nowadays tend to take extreme angles on its commentary. In observing those commentaries, one would eagerly adopt a direct hard-counter to the original argument. The two forces might appear to be the direct opposite of one another, but perhaps similar levels of historical importance and forgiveness are due to each side. Behind the display of animosity on the thought level, humanity becomes more accessible.
Political decisions, for one, is a terrific example of us taking that step as a collective. I would argue that all political issues are Trolley Problems where no policies come without corresponding sacrifices. However it is the fact that decisions were still made knowing the downsides and prices to be paid that allow rulers to experiment with different political approaches which construct the richest of our social histories. Old policies might be deemed “outdated”; enemy policies might be advertised as “wrong and inhumane”; but we should measure the limit of all regulations against those few unfortunates on that chosen rail, with the standards of collective benefits per current social moral hierarchy in mind. The exercise of Three Circles appears to treat politics and art as its subject, but the process of the exercise itself ultimately exemplifies the very definition and essence of art, politics and society.
We ought to take a brave step, owning and honoring it, embracing the paradoxical coexistence of its importance and forgiveness, no matter if it's for the M+, art criticism or any arguments. All steps are human; all steps are forward; and all steps are historical.
❝
Jacques: All right, then. I want you to lead me … forward…
Master: Very well but where is forward?
Jacques: Let me tell you a great secret. One of mankind’s oldest tricks. Forward is anywhere.
Master: Anywhere?
Jacques: Anywhere you look, it’s all forward! ❞
- Milan Kundera