Art Ablaze
In the fall of 1986 a group of postmodern Chinese artists called the Xiamen Dada put on an exhibition of their recent works, including paintings, sculptures, and found object pieces. At the end of the exhibition they collected sixty of their oil paintings, piled them up outside, and set them on fire. This final piece was entitled “Burning Works” and it was, for the artists, the cumulative and most potent statement of the exhibition. The Xiamen Dada called the bonfire an act of self-liberation, and a statement of protest and renunciation. The Dada were speaking to the state of art in their world, and its inseparable entanglement with the political climate of China.
Huang YongPing, a founder of the Xiamen Dada and the organizer of “Burning Works” put out an artist’s statement on the performance entitled “On the Burning” in which he elucidates the philosophy behind burning the works. The first issue Yongping addresses is the incredible material value placed on a piece of art, which leads to the apotheosis of the object as a product of creative genius: “It is always believed that works of art are the fruits of the artists painstaking labor and thinking. Once a work is created, the artist always takes great care to protect it from any possible damage. Only through their works can artists demonstrate their virtuosity and greatness. People ask us, ‘Let’s have a look at your works. And we say ‘They have been burned.’”
In this YongPing is expressing the frivolity of object worship in art, critiquing the notion that an artist is only as good as his best piece, only worth veneration so long as the object exists to validate that talent. The anxiety and occupation of preserving a work of art is often overlooked, though one can imagine the stress and anxiety an artist would feel in protecting the fruits of his labor. But to self-destruct, to burn the object before, as Yongping put it, “human or natural damage” could have their way, was for the Xiamen Dada a type of liberation. The artist labors in the production of an object, then worries about its reception and preservation perhaps interminably once it’s finished. Only when the object no longer exists can an artist be free of it. In burning their works the Dada were also destroying the possibility of judgment or critique of any kind: “The exhibits are already burnt. To sympathize with or to criticize them is already pointless.” To deny the opportunity for audience of critical interaction, Yongping and the Dada were closing the door for dialogue between art and audience, artist and critic, allowing the works only to exist, and then, when they were ready, to not exist.
An Art Without a Country
In his manifesto, Yongping also speaks to state of the Chinese contemporary art market, which was virtually nonexistent at the time: “Collecting art does not exist in China, and this may be a good thing, because artists can do whatever they like with their own works and not have to be careful with them.” While Yongping cites the liberation of an artist without an art market, there is a sharp poignancy in Yongping’s terse manifesto that imbues a deeper criticism into the statement. Though within the next decade there would be a market for contemporary Chinese art, and a flourishing one at that, at the time of “Burning Works” the Xiamen Dada, operating just 10 years after the death of Mao, were footing an uncertain path. It was a path away from the stark, institutionalized art world that was defined, validated, and regulated by the government and into a world of creative possibilities, leading to new era both in art and in country.
Celsae Vandenberg
Works Cited:
Köppel-Yang, Martina. Semiotic Warfare: A Semiotic Analysis, the Chinese Avant-garde, 1979-1989. Hong Kong: Timezone 8, 2003. Web.
Wu, Hung, and Peggy Wang. Contemporary Chinese Art: Primary Documents. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2010. Web.
Davis, Edward L. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture. London: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Performance Artists and Destruction 
I am interested how Yongping strives to make his work a fugitive experience. It is true that once burned, there is no reason to sympathize or excuse it, but then why create it in the first place? I think that his decision to burn it actually immortalizes it more than keeping it could ever. He also asks us to consider the use of art history in this strategy. What can be critiqued after the exhibit? What can be studied in twenty years? What can be put in a textbook in one hundred years? I think he comments on art fro art’s sake, not infamy and a place in history. The Impressionists, who painted for their own time, I think could not even fathom the evolution of their idea into this form. Yongping completely denied access to his art to any one not of his time. I wonder how much more artists can reduce their art to any other outside preconceptions or post criticisms after this?
I think the state of the art market in China as ‘non-existent’ is interesting to cover. Does not having an art market put less value on the art, especially if the art were made to be destroyed by the artist? Would the exhibition be more valuable if the audience knew from the beginning that the works will be destroyed?
This also connects to my blog topic of time as a destruction of art, when you said, “Once a work is created, the artist always takes great care to protect it from any possible damage.” In my blog research, the artist ,Michael Heizer, created a trench in the Nevada desert but instead of conserving the work, he let it erode and fade into nature through time. It is normal to expect the artist to want to keep his art looking just the way it is, but in this case, the lifespan of the work is also art to the individual artist.
‘Closing the dialogue’ is a key in this argument too. Heizer wanted to let his work fade into nature, thus closing any fights that the work is damaging natural environment. Yongping let his art exist, but closed the conversations it could have made by destroying it altogether. Perhaps he is trying to keep it safe from the government by destroying it himself. Maybe this is the only way it could exist and die peacefully without controversy surrounding its time alive.
Posted by Jennifer Hinh
I’m curious how the destruction of the dada art in “Burning Works” is supposed to free these artists, including Yongping, from the constructs of criticism and material value. In my opinion, the destruction of art in literal sense, burning it all to ash, is just an easy cop out for the artist who isn’t prepared to fight the intellectual and idealogical battles necessary to truly free art from an “inseparable entanglement with the political climate of China.” If the point of Yongping and others like him is to leave the art world, just to be artists and creators of art for the sake of loving art, than the exhibition where they destroy all the art is hypocritical. It’s hypocritical because this exhibition was viewed and most definitely will have had some impact where opinions about will have been formed. Wether or not the art actually exists in space doesn’t free it from time, because although the audience can no longer look at the pieces, they can form opinions about the artists who destroyed their works. I believe if the Xiamen Dada truly want art to be free from criticism and material value; than it’s necessary for the works exist in an environment where political, social, and economic influences don’t have any say, unfortunately with the exception of your basement there probably isn’t many places like this. There will always be criticism of art and monetary value placed on art that has some impact on society. This isn’t a bad thing! Art is a powerful tool that when used correctly can have all the society crap attached but also teach people and furthering societal understandings, bringing us to a place maybe some day where all of the listed above influences aren’t as powerful. Over all this post is well written and provides a very nice topic for contemplation and perhaps debate!
Wow, very interesting post! The Xiamen Dada remind me of the Situationist International which I wrote about, you may find it interesting.
I love the idea of burning your art and freeing yourself from the anxiety of preservation. And I love the criticism of the notion of an artist being judged by his greatest work. These statements raise fundamental questions concerning art’s purpose and meaning in society and for the artist. I personally believe that the formation of an “art world” as we know it and the anxiety surrounding art preservation are products of capitalism; the artist exploits his/her skills and becomes a merchant. I think that the “Burning Works” performance is a critique of the market-driven art world and is liberating because it reclaims the pleasures of creating back to the artists.
I’d like to know more about the Xiamen Dada. What kind of art did they make? When did they exist? I think it’d also be interesting to compare “Burning Works” to other performance art of the time. Was it typical for performance art to not directly involve people on the “stage”?
Great post! Informative, interesting, and well written.
It comes as a surprise to me that a contemporary art market was not distinguished in China around the time of Mao’s reign. While I am not well versed in the happenings of China’s history during this period, I do understand that the times can largely be described as tumultuous. I am intrigued to learn more. I wonder of the life experiences of Chinese people during this period. I am curious as to how the people went about daily life. What activities did the people engage in? Were the people oppressed? What were their outlets for self-expression? Ruling public art out of the program, I wonder why the people chose not to engage fully in the art world. Were they afraid of punishment? Did they know how to express individual identity?
Your post captivated my attention through the entirety, and I commend your well developed research, analysis and writing ability. While the post was extremely informative and provocative, it is difficult for me to move past the idea that contemporary art was not really in circulation at this time. This frustrates me because I am sure a great extent of history is hidden behind the lack of outlet for expression. I love Art History because it provides insight into the human experience as conditioned under a specific context in time and space. Without contemporary art, contemporary ideas cease to be preserved in time. An understanding of the past is lost, and this is quite a shame.
I think the work of the Xiamen Dada sheds an interesting light upon the way in which art is valued in the art world. In “Burning Works”, the fruit of the artists’ labor is destroyed. By lighting the work afire, the paintings cease to exist. In the art world, intangible concepts cannot be sold nor purchased. When the paintings cease to exist, is the value of the painting lost? I would argue that in many ways, the value of art is embedded innately within the idea through which the piece was created. By burning the paintings, monetary value is lost. Arguably, the piece has become richer in meaning through the destruction on the paintings.
Of their work, you have exclaimed that the Dada were speaking to the state of art in their world, and its inseparable entanglement with the political climate of China.” Under what conditions were the two inseparable? What state was the art world in and how was that state influenced by the political climate of China?
posted by Markie Miner