A Case Study On Ai Weiwei’s ‘Remembering’ A Political Approach And Statement Piece

A Case Study On Ai Weiwei’s ‘Remembering’ A Political Approach And Statement Piece Brought On

By The 2008 Sichuan Earthquake Stephanie Evelyn Blundell

Intro (250) What is the particular historical, social, cultural and political context of your case study?

Why can your example be considered dissent? (what about it makes it an act or image of dissent or ressistance) What does it seek to do/what is its purpose?

How well does your example work. Ie what are the dificaulties, challenges and linits to this? (consider limitation of strategy chosen, control, repression, reception, recuperation…)

What is the particular historical, social, cultural and political context of your case study?

In the first stage of this analysis we shall attempt to outline the historical context in which the installation was produced, in doing so it is hoped that we will be able to better access the piece in not only a historical but also social, cultural and political context as we move forward. It is important to do so as Hollander and Einwohner (2004) outline; “Resistance is a deeply sociological concept it debates issues that are the heart of sociological concepts including power, control, inequality, difference and social context and interaction” (1) and by better understanding this we are able to properly examine Remembering as a notion of dissent.

On the afternoon of May 12th , 2008, a 7.9-magnitude earthquake hit the Sichuan Province, a mountainous region in Western China, killing about 70,000 people and leaving over 18,000 missing. In the direct aftermath it became clear that thousands of the initial quakes victims were children, it was apparent that many of the school buildings where poorly constructed and had crushed under the quake (2).

It was argued and later confirmed that many of the schools across China had been rushed to construction and could not be deemed as safe, the earthquake exposed extensive, fatal problems that exist in architectural design and construction in China (3).

Tofu construction and tribute projects had been exposed in the years leading up to the quake.

The term “tofu project” was nick named by Premier Zhu Rongji in 1998 following a visit to the flood dykes on the Yangtze River. The lack of quality in construction was said to be as weak as tofu dregs, the remains of the tofu making process. The term would go on to be used to describe shoddily and hastily built buildings in China affected by the quake. In 2007 a bridge intended to open in time for the anniversary of the founding of the local prefecture collapse killing 64 people (4). Corruption tying local governments to massive incentives to promote rapid growth coupled with low funding and bribery had created a system where much infrastructure was built on shaky ground (5).

In the aftermath of the quake the Chinese government refused to release the number of children that had died or their names, this sparked protest from family members and parents seeking answers. The Government response was to attempt to silence the protestors and monitor or arrest any human rights activist that championed their story and cause in China’s Olympic year (6).

Within a year many of the mothers who had lost their children were pregnant once more, China’s policy of limiting most families to one child was coupled with incentivising parents to move on with fertility advice, reversing sterilizations, a payment and pension. An attempt to defuse the anger that had been left (7).

In response Chinese political artist Ai Wei Wei held the So Sorry exhibition in Munich in 2009 that featured the piece Remembering. In an attempt to create an identity and voice for

the students that died Ai Wei Wei along with fellow activist Tan Zuoren accumulated a list of the still un named child victims and posted them online first and then on the wall of his office at FAKE Design in Beijing, May 2009 (8).

This was followed by an installation on the façade of the Haus der Kunst, constructed of 9000 children’s backpacks the wall piece spelled the sentence “She lived happily for seven years in this world” in Chinese characters a sentence that was spoken to Ai Wei Wei by a mother whose child died inthe earthquake (9).

Why can your example be considered dissent? (what about it makes it an act or image of dissent or ressistance and social) (700) Before engaging the installation and its position within the debate of dissent the manner in which it came to being produced must first be analysed as this in itself shows clear and overt techniques that can be characterised as resistance and dissent.

Ai Wei Wei along with fellow activist Tan Zuoren actively sought to give the passed children of the quake an identity. With the Chinese government refusing to release the names of the deceased children Tan Zuoren created the 5:12 Student archive documents. This was a to be used to conduct a independent survey that would allow parents to give the names of the children that had passed away and in doing so a list of the children would be created. This grass roots activism was partnered with the use of the Internet to distribute the surveys online into the affected areas. This was not tolerated by the government who jailed Tan for “inciting subversion of state power” (10).

Ai Wei Wei bravely continued Tan’s work despite clear opposition posting the list online and on the wall of his office. It is clear here that at the very core of the piece the artist has tackled obstruction and intimidation. This has been in an attempt to disrupt the message of the government by providing information that they did not want to be public. Prasad and Prasad (1998) argue that Action directly intended to damage or disrupt the functioning of an organisation can be deemed resistance (11) and here we are seeing this dissent in action.

The most obvious introduction to the piece is its aesthetic appearance. Spanning the façade of the Haus der Kunst the piece is made up of 9000 green yellow and white rucksacks. The message written in Chinese is bold and clear. Here it is clear that the very use of Chinese can be viewed as dissent, Ai Wei Wei is introducing language in a manner to show a message that he feels has been lost in his homeland. It is a Chinese message that has been quashed by the Chinese government and by writing it in this typographic installation he engages the viewer to question what it says and question its meaning. It is overt and directly “accusing” China’s corrupt politicians whom he blames for the collapse of the schools that were not built according to the regulations (12). Language is further used in the title of the show So Sorry, a play on the apologies that had become all too frequently uttered by the Chinese government and large companies when their inattention had led to catastrophe. It may be argued that this is a sarcastic title and in doing so the use of dark humour directed at the Chinese government, a method of resistance that Griffiths, (1998) and Scott (1985) suggested.

The artist uses rucksacks in reference to an early visit post quake; he says “The idea to use backpacks came from my visit to Sichuan after the earthquake in May 2008. During the earthquake many schools collapsed. Thousands of young students lost their lives, and you could see bags and study material everywhere.”(13) By using rucksacks he is not just transferring a message but giving the message an identity. This in itself is a form of decent and resistance. The Chinese government worked very hard in its Olympic year to hold the silence of the victims families (14). Breaking the silence with this piece is

empowering the parents and in doing so as Sanger (1995:179) outlines reclaiming a “rhetorical power in their life saga” (15). Moreover simply by giving voice and attention in a subject that was wished to be kept silent Hughes (1998) would argue that the artist is resisting.

The location and scale of the piece selected by the artist is by no means an accident. Covering the vast external wall of an historically significant building with an overt public statement available for everyone to question. The Haus of Kunst was the first monumental structure built by the Nazi regime in 1937 and by placing this message on the wall of such a structure the artist is placing a message directly about his home Government to the Government and to the world. This is not to suggest that the Chinese government is the same as the Nazi regime rather to make people absorb his message that a single person can make a statement against a regime. This is something echoed by Ai Wei Wei himself who states 'I have to speak for people who are afraid' (16) and goes in line with Schaffer (1995) who suggests that people who may privately feel oppressed do not feel safe publically expressing it and once more shows the artist projecting a message of dissent and resistance.

At this stage it is important to view Ai Wei Wei’s use of the Internet in a nation with controlled media outlets as a further method of dissent. All work is published on the blog of the artist, a blog that is frequently shut down and blocked for users in China. By creating a piece of work that can be readily photographed and posted across the world the artist is directly challenging the governments authority on this. Ai Wei Wei has expressed this in an interview in 2011 where he stated; “The Internet is such a beautiful miracle for the society here, like China, because we are still living under a very restricted dictatorship. You know, we are still dealing with a very restricted control on freedom of expression.

And the Internet probably is the only vehicle for people to even sense there's another person who shares the same idea or who can offer different information about what is happening.

And that is the foundation for civil society.”(17) That this message and piece is coming from this particular artist should also be mentioned. Ai Wei Wei designed the Olympic stadium and so it is clear that he is held in high regard in China as an artist, this is why his message is particularly poignant and strong as a message of dissent. He is in a position to be able to speak for his nation and be listened to, the message throughout Ai Wei Wei’s work is one based on the idea of speaking for those whose voices have been taken from them.

In the next part of this debate we will explore and analyse what the underlining message and point the artist is trying to put forward is before evaluating his successes and limitation in this.

Fundamentally this piece is an argument on power, its distribution and failure to serve those who are in a weak part of society. Going forward he is trying to show the power an individual can have over shaping popular consciousness whilst also making a statement on the lack of pride and quality in workmanship being produced in China. In attacking the economic exploitation in China Ai Wei Wei also engages Gene Sharps (1973) notion of power and attempts to empower the people of his nation; “If consent is given it can also be withdrawn” (18). He implores the Chinese people to have a voice and question their government by answering the questionnaire and standing up to be counted. With this he is asking the Chinese people to question and object their leaders, Modigiliani and Rochat (1995) argue this as a form of resistance and this is very much the feeling the artist is trying to duplicate. It should also be noted that the piece is meant to be delivered as an educational message to ensure that the people both within China and outside do not forget, indeed this fear was outlined by Ai

Wei Wei himself “the lives of students disappeared within state propaganda and soon everybody will forget everything” (19).

The piece is not simply built on the foundations of tragedy but also surrounded by challenges and limitations. In order to create this piece Ai Wei Wei was subjected to surveillance and harassment whilst researching the quake. Indeed during the trial of Tan Zuoren he was unable to attend the trial and was held under house arrest by state police, he claims to have also been the subject of physical violence at this stage. It may be argued that by going through this difficulty the artist was able to give a real and raw account of the cultural and political dynamic in China. Although the message is very real and powerful who can view it and question it may be argued as a limitation. The piece was widely documented and covered around the world, however as it was outside of China and moreover the Chinese state monitors the blog of the artist the people for whom the piece is supposed to provide a voice for have limited access to it and are unlikely to witness it first hand and experience its true aura. This is clearly a limitation of the installation although also one that the artist is unlikely to be able to overcome. Finally Ai Wei Wei is also battling the people he is trying to speak for, he is fighting against the power the state has to influence their lives. This was clearly seen by the amount of mothers that had fallen pregnant within a year of the quake and the role the state played in encouraging this and buying their silence.

In April 2013 an earthquake once more hit the Sichuan Province (20). It is interesting to see that the government were keen to outline that much had been done since 2008 to ensure that structures were built of a higher standard and made a point to state that no schools collapsed.

This can be viewed as a success of this installation and the work carried out by the artist and fellow activists, by putting this message into a position that the world could see it also put the government into a position to feel that they could not again been held accountable and change was required.

In conclusion it has been argued throughout the analysis of Ai Wei Wei’s Remembrance that dissent and resistance have played a central role. From the very research that lead to the installation the artist has challenged state power, questioned government reasoning, encouraged people to break social norms and spoken for the human rights of people he feels have been unspoken for. By gathering their own information the artist has immediately challenged the state by demanding the names of the child victims, and in his piece he goes beyond this by giving them a voice and giving opportunity and encouragement to use their voices to challenge the state authority. Throughout this analysis we have explored the meaning of dissent and have seen that this can be viewed in not only the piece itself but also in its distribution and the research that lead to it. We have tried to place this debate within the wider context of power and introduced similarities between the message the artists wishes to convey to that of Gene Sharp and Michel Foucault and the attempt to empower and provoke thought and resistance. In doing this we can also see how the work of activists and resistance has played a functioning role in effecting state policy and possibly even saving lives in the latest events, an overall aim of the piece and artist we are sure.