We can make another future : Japanese art after 1989

33 32 WE CAN MAKE ANOTHER FUTURE: JAPANESE ART AFTER 1989 Kodai Nakahara / Japan b.1961 / Installation view of Untitled (Lego Monster) 1990 in ‘Homage Lego Age’, Heineken Village, Tokyo / Lego blocks / 280 x 320 x 210cm / Collection: Toyota Municipal Museum of Art, Toyota, Japan / © The artist ENDNOTES 1 For an overview of the social, political, cultural and economic changes underpinning this state of affairs in Japan since 1989, please refer to the essay by Reuben Keehan in this publication, ‘We can make another future’, pp.16–27. 2 See Suhanya Raffel, ‘A restless subject’, in The 6th Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art [exhibition catalogue], Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane, 2009, p.29; according to Raffel, in reference to artists working in Asia and the Pacific: ‘The work of these artists readily challenges assumptions about the stability of definitions within contemporary art discourses in the museum’. 3 Gutai (1954), Kyushu-ha (1957, practising from the previous year), Zero Jigen (1959), Neo-Dada Organizers (late 1950s), Group Sweet (1962), Jikan-ha (1962) and Hi Red Center (1963; launched happenings the previous year as Pre Hi Red Center); the Yomiuri Indépendant show (1949–63) formed their foundations. 4 By locating the characteristics of Japanese contemporary art in the flatness of the surface of Japanese painting and a lack of perspective, Murakami’s Superflat theorised a series of Japanese art styles from traditional painting of the eighteenth- century Edo era in the work of Ito Jakuchu (1716–1800) to contemporary painting, manga and anime. Based on the Superflat theory, Murakami organised a trilogy of exhibitions ‘Superflat’ (Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, 2001), ‘Coloriage’ (Cartier Foundation, Paris, 2002) and ‘Little Boy’. In the last chapter of the trilogy, ‘Little Boy: The Arts of Japan’s Exploding Subculture’ (Japan Society, New York, 2005), Murakami proposed a sensational theory — immaturity found in Japanese kawaii (cute) culture was rooted in the experience of the country being bombed by the United States, and therefore contextualised Japanese contemporary art from the postwar period to the 1990s. 5 See Midori Matsui, The Age of Micropop: The New Generation of Japanese Artists [exhibition catalogue], Parco Publishing, Tokyo, 2007. 6 Artists included: Noe Aoki, Toshikatsu Endo, Naoyuki Hikosaka, Susumu Koshimizu, Lee Ufan, Tomio Miki, Kodai Nakahara, Nobuo Sekine, Kishio Suga, Shigeo Toya and Kimio Tsuchiya. 7 ‘Conversations between Nakahara Kodai and Sekiguchi Atsuhito: 2 in Kyoto’, [moderator Tetsuya Ozaki], REALKYOTO , 3 November 2013, <http://realkyoto.jp/en/ article/conversation-between-nakahara-kodai-and-sekiguchi-atsuhito-2-in-kyoto/>, viewed 2 April 2014. 8 See Okwui Enwezor, ‘Modernity and postcolonial ambivalence’, in Nicolas Bourriaud (ed.), Altermodern: Tate Triennial [exhibition catalogue], Tate Publishing, London, 2009. 9 See Keiko Aso, ‘ Kei wo Umidasu Chikara: An essay on Shinro Ohtake’, REAR, no.31, 2014, p.127; see also Hiroko Shiozaki, ‘Sakka no Shogeki — Murakami Takashi’, Nikkei Art , March 1994, p.48. It was very early in his contemporary art studies that Murakami was excited by Ohtake’s show, and he stresses that being moved or excited is all very well, but when it comes to understanding contemporary art, context is critical, commenting: ‘It’s a matter of first grasping context, then how receptive one is to the visuals, the physical experience after that’. ‘Cross Talk — Nakahara Kodai x Murakami Takashi x Yanobe Kenji: Pop/Neo Pop no Genzaichi’, from the Commons of Imagination — Part 2 Symposium, Japan Media Arts Festival, 16 February 2014, published in Bijutsu Techo , vol.66, no.1002, 2014, p.102. 10 One of these figurines is Nadia 1991–92 (Private collection). 11 Hou Hanru, ‘Connecting people: Ozawa Tsuyoshi’s world of art,’ in Ozawa Tsuyoshi: Answer with Yes and No! [exhibition catalogue], Mori Art Museum, Tokyo, 2004, p.111. CAN WE MAKE ANOTHER PAST? | SHIHOKO IIDA