Jan. 10, 2025

中译

The Flies*

Visit the Venice Biennale, Art Basel, or contemporary art museums like MoMA, Guggenheim, Tate Modern. You might ask: How did we get here? Who decides what counts as Art? 

Two forces loom large: ideology and market—in other words, power and money.

1. Ideology

In the aftermath of World War II, American-led Liberal ideology reshaped Western art. Its stated mission—to democratise art through movements like Abstract Expressionism—masked deeper ambitions: to counter Soviet influence and, more boldly, to supplant Europe as the centre of cultural authority. America craved artistic leadership but lacked Europe’s millennia-old cultural substrate and the caliber of talent to build upon it. Abstract Expressionism, celebrating “artistic freedom,” was not merely an aesthetic revolution—it was a geopolitical gambit. Pollock and de Kooning were elevated as icons of the “free world”, contrasted explicitly against Soviet Socialist Realism.

From the 1970s onward, as the U.S. dollar assumed global hegemony, a new ideology emerged: Neoliberalism—which privatises and deregulates the “free market” by idolising it (“Market Fundamentalism”). This shift exacerbated wealth inequality and accelerated the commodification of the art world. Asked about Warhol, I often reply, “He championed QE—Quantitative Easing.” Dada’s irony was repackaged into market-friendly “anything goes” aesthetics, and Postmodernism quickly became institutionalised.

Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union and China, art—under Socialist Realism—functioned solely as a political mouthpiece. The fall of the Berlin Wall compelled both nations to integrate into global capitalism. Their art has since reluctantly and uncritically followed the lead of the “free world.”

Today, capital-driven trends such as ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)—manifested as woke movements and identity politics—define our cultural zeitgeist. Yet why would profit-driven capital champion altruistic goals? Perhaps the answer lies in “divide and conquer.” Consider the capitalist’s eternal dilemma: the specter of class solidarity—that unified proletariat demanding redistribution. The solution? Fragment the opposition. Elevate secondary struggles (gender, race, identity) to primary status, splintering the traditional Left into a mosaic of competing grievances. Fund think tanks to rebrand this fragmentation as "progressivism," diverting energy from wealth inequality toward performative activism.

Now, as U.S.-centered Neoliberal supremacy wanes, art is poised to shift again—but toward what? Could the rise of a China–Russia-led Global South and an emerging multipolar order offer a meaningful alternative capable of challenging Postmodernism’s cultural dominance? How might resurgent Nationalism and emerging "Techno-Feudalism" reshape the art world?

2. Market

Under Liberalism, government intervention at least attempted to preserve the distinction between cultural value and commercial imperatives. Neoliberalism, however, has obliterated this boundary, subordinating cultural production entirely to capital accumulation. Price is no longer merely refelects underlying value; it has become the sole recognised measure, severing art from authentic or independent standards. Consequently, art becomes a speculative financial instrument or symbolic tool reinforcing capital’s ideological and material interests. Driven by profit maximisation, the market systematically promotes art forms most conducive to speculative gain. The boundless relativism of Postmodern Art—dismissing all meaningful distinctions of quality and authenticity—conveniently offers capital with the perfect vehicle for value manipulation.

Unlike the film or music industries, the contemporary art market rarely addresses the general public; instead, it primarily caters to wealthy collectors and institutional interests, who determine price and monopolise cultural discourse. Thus, these collectors’ taste and cultural sophistication dictate which works flourish. Historically, this pattern holds true: during art’s golden ages, patrons typically possessed exceptional cultural knowledge and artistic discernment. The Medici family nurtured the Renaissance, and Chinese civilisation reached its zenith during the Song dynasty.

In short, the interplay of ideology and market continues to shape contemporary art, from mid-century Liberalism’s democratic aspirations to today’s commodification and global power plays. As geopolitical tides shift, so does our collective vision of what art should be—and who decides.

Philosophical Perspective

Setting aside the calculus of power and money, Postmodern Art reveals itself as a philosophical insurrection against existence itself. Through relentless deconstruction of meaning, Postmodernism poses a radical question: When "art" boundaries vanish entirely—when Duchamp's urinal equals Michelangelo's Pietà—are we truly liberating creativity, or dismantling art's foundation as a beacon of the human spirit?

Postmodernism’s paradox lies in triumphantly declaring "anything goes," trapping art in a condition where "anything can be co-opted by capital." This philosophical self-annihilation might well define our nihilistic age.

I need to believe that Art remains the eternal flame of human aspiration. A Chinese verse lingers: “Man may live like an ant, yet be as beautiful as a god (人可生如蚁而美如神).” Modernism exalted the individual, but Postmodernism reduced Art to a flickering shadow.

Modernism’s individualistic focus originates in Romanticism's ideal of the creative self—the Hegelian "I." For Hegel, the "I" is the concretised universal—a synthesis of the universal (collective truth, thesis) and particular (private vision, antithesis). It is the universal dimension enabling artist–viewer communion, an "I–You" connection.

Postmodernism shatters this link. Sartre introduced "l'être pour-soi," suggesting existence solely for oneself. Beyond myself lies nothing, emphasising the individual's absolute freedom and profound isolation. When “Being” (thesis) encounters “Nothingness” (antithesis), synthesis becomes impossible. The universal dimension that once allowed the artist and the viewer to connect—through shared meaning—has dissolved; their relationship degenerates into an "I–It" interaction. Today, only the artist fully comprehends the work. The artwork’s meaning vanishes with its alienated creator, leaving only a price tag. Consequently, Postmodern Art becomes inherently fleeting and transient.

“God is dead, everything is permitted.” “It’s art if I say so, because I’m the artist.”** We’ve finally reached “absolute freedom”…

…When the pendulum swings to its extreme, the return begins (物极必反).

*Stealing the title from Sartre’s existential play—for fun. No offense intended.

**More accurately, “It’s art if I say so, because I’m the artworld.”