Art should not be altered
When the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) unveiled a giant globe to the public, it was described to the student body as a “new sculpture on campus by Turner Prize-winning artist Mark Wallinger,” which is essentially an elaborate way of saying “a piece of art.”
How then, can the LSE defend its initial decision to rerepresent Taiwan as part of China in response to the political backlash from Chinese students? The main issue here is not the debate of who is and is not part of China, or who is or is not Chinese — but rather, the desecration of art.
All maps are political — this is a fact of life. However, if the school wishes to present a globe as a sculpture as opposed to a mere map, it must understand the difference. Maps can be changed and have been changed many times throughout history when nations and borders change. Art, however, does not and should not be changed. Although the concept of “what is art” has limitations and moral boundaries, the essence is that its creation is birthed through an artist whose decisions are conscious and intentional.
The facts in this case remain that Wallinger consulted UN maps, but ultimately still chose to represent Taiwan in a different color and named as the “Republic of China.” This is a decision that the artist took and we as viewers are not allowed to “correct.”
What we are allowed to do is to disagree with the artist’s choices, vision and presentation, but in no way are we within our rights to push for any modification of a work of art by superseding the artist’s decision.
The beauty of art is that it is long-standing; not only in the physical form, but also the message it sends. Art is in many ways, political and beyond our understanding of aesthetic beauty. We are allowed to disagree, dislike and even hate art, but rather than pushing for it to be taken away, torn down or altered, we should have a discussion.
One of the main purposes of art is to provoke discussion, as it is often a reflection on society.
The statement is there for us to take or leave.
The Chinese who pushed for the alteration without sincere discussion, as well as the school for bowing to this pressure, do not comprehend that merely entertaining this idea of changing any part of the globe is a violation of the sanctity of art.
In the Taiwan-China case, the situation remains complicated and gray, thus the right reaction would have been to open a real dialogue between the two sides to address the issue while respecting the artist.
Art does not simply exist to suit our own individual tastes. If I am offended by nudity, do I go covering up Michelangelo’s David? This situation sounds ridiculous and the same principle must be applied to Wallinger’s globe. In art, just because you do not like or agree with something does not entitle you to change it.
Before I am accused of bias, I must add that I have the most insight on this situation because I am literally half-Taiwanese and half-Chinese, as I have a parent from both countries. They have never let this issue come between them or negatively affect others, because they know that only through love and tolerance can divisive issues be overcome.
The LSE did not encourage proper discussion among its student body and rather than promote community, it promoted intolerance.
Sincerely
Disappointed
Name withheld on request
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)