Beyond the Future: Papers from the Third Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art

SOME ISSUES ON ART PROJECTS FOCUSING ON 'REGIONS' Akiko Mi ki The situation surrounding contemporary art in Asia or the Asia-Pacific reg ion has changed remarkably in the last ten years . As a matter of fact, most panel ists in the sessions of th is symposium are not specialists in Asia-Pacific art. This fact itself seems to testify that in ten years of development, Asia-Pacific art has become an important part, in the world context, of contemporary art. It is of course due to the emergence of creative talents and artistic developments of the region , but it should be noted that various art projects focusing on the reg ion actively held in the 90s such as the APT have also contributed to activate the whole scene. Recognising the important role that these regional projects have played , I would like to raise some issues on regional art activities in order to clarify any problems or points to be reconsidered , eventually, through the discussion with today's panel ists as well as the aud ience, for the further development of art in the region in the future . Ms . Alison Carrol l, the chair of our session , has previously given u s an abstract for th is session of 'regionalism'. This includes key points wh ich seem to be the basis for the discussion . Therefore, I will try to raise some issues by making personal statements on some of these points . Asia-Pacific art - does i t exist? Talking about the current development of Asia-Pacific art in the world context of contemporary art, one can probably say that this year's Venice Biennale symbolically ind icates this situation with the participation of a number of Chinese artists. I was reading Mr. Szeemann's press document which emphasises the importance of includ ing 'Asian' artists . Although it does not say 'Chinese', practically all Asian artists he presented in his exhibition are Chinese. We can guess that the term 'Asian' may be equal to 'Ch inese' for many European people, and whether 'Asian' or 'Chinese' is mentioned it does not affect the high qual ity of the exhibition itself. But this small thing in the press document just rem inded me of 'old' but 'eternal' questions; What is Asia?' and "What is Asian Contemporary Art?' The answer may differ depending on how one interprets 'Asia' or 'Asia-Pacific Art'. If this means the art created in the regions, or created by the artists who carry nationalities of the countries included , or the artists originally from the region , the answer would maybe be 'Yes' . However, if this refers to certain characteristics common in the works reflecting 'Asianism' or 'Asian-ness', wh ich can only be seen in the region , the answer should be 'No'. Here, the questions are what is the criteria of the grouping, or what is the definition of Asia or Asia-Pacific contemporary art? Exactly, which countries do Asia or Asia-Pacific reg ions include? What is the definition of art in this region? Can the same definition of art as in the western world be applied to the works in these regions or not? It seems to me that this matter has been generally avoided , or not deeply discussed , in a number of projects in the past, except for certain institutions for wh ich th is issue relates to their raison d 'etre. Of course, the notion of 'Asia-Pacific' or 'Asia' itself is abstract and ambiguous. And there are no single answers for such questions. But I think we need to continue to discuss how to handle this ambiguous notion. I am not saying we should establish a kind of 'Asian-ness ' or firm framework of Asia or Asia-Pacific art as opposed to, for example, Euro-American a rt. I don't think such things are possible to figure out or to frame . And I even doubt if such perspectives are meaningful. However, can't we say that the lack of serious consideration about this issue has served to further mystify the notion of Asia or Asian art? And also, can't we say that it results in promoting a stereotyped image of them? 1 1 2