今天，亚洲当代艺术倍受国际广泛关注，亚洲认同（身份）也随之得到提升。这种文化转变显然与“冷战”后尤其是全球化带动的亚洲国家经济迅速发展和民族意识的不断增强有关。那么，为什么亚洲艺术问题要被提出呢？尽管亚洲艺术开始在国际上受到广泛关注，但还是缺乏对亚洲艺术所包含的差异、传统、民族、宗教、习俗的细察和深究，基本上停留想象的亚洲。因此，问题的提出也就是思考和行动的开始。倘若要认清亚洲当代艺术在国际上的独特性，就需要将亚洲当代艺术置于历史语境与现实发展的联系中加以考察。
实际上，谈论亚洲问题，一个主要针对的是欧洲中心主义的取向，因为亚洲地区的历史是被西方中心主义的历史观所笼罩的；另一个针对是在亚洲内部发现超越民族国家的政治结构的想象空间。对于民族国家的预设和想象则是要把国家作为一个重要的核心。如果要想象一个超国家的空间，那就应采取一种批评以民族国家为中心的民族主义取向。这种以一种区域政治结构来迎接和抗拒全球一体化的思路无疑是受到了欧盟模式的启发和影响。欧洲已形成了超越原来民族国家的新的经济和政治结构，以迎接全球化带来的巨大挑战。当然，欧洲的文化发展也正是建立在这样一个超民族国家的整体政治架构之上的。因此，在这种对照之下，亚洲问题就显得非常的急迫和重要，既然艺术是一种文化理想的形式，那么以艺术想象来解释和建构超越亚洲性的可能性就显得格外具有现实意义。
今天，对亚洲当代艺术的研究，它仍要被置于一个历史范畴的概念来思考——它蕴涵了差异和身份、传统与现代、里与外、包容与排斥相关联的多样性和复杂性。
事实上，如果要认识亚洲的当代艺术，应以理解“亚洲”一词的历史内涵为前提条件。虽然“亚洲”在地理上很容易描述它的位置，但它在文化上是个难以澄清其内涵的概念。这主要由亚洲文化包含的丰富而复杂的多样性所决定，因为无论是在宗教、文化、传统习俗，还是在现代化进程和社会体制上皆存在差异性。倘若以历史角度看，亚洲一词最早不是由亚洲人提出的，而是由欧洲人提出的概念。Asia一词最早是指希腊以东的地区，包括了今天的土耳其一带。在早期欧洲的概念中，亚洲就等于是东方之意，后来就衍生出了远东和近东的概念。17世纪以后，亚洲与欧洲的殖民主义扩张的地理概念相联系。可以说，19世纪以前亚洲人对自身归属亚洲的概念是含糊不清的，准确地讲，亚洲一词来自它之外的世界，即来自西方殖民主义对一个不同时间和空间位置的定义，也就是说，西方借此用以区别于自身的一种设定。今天的亚洲地理版图是以苏伊士运河划分亚洲和非洲的边界，以乌拉尔山脉划分亚洲和欧洲的边界，以印度洋和太平洋的交界为其东南边界。这种亚洲地理概念也是伴随近代欧洲殖民主义的地理不断扩张才逐渐形成的。从文化史的角度看，“亚洲”概念与民族关系模糊及专制主义的基本特征相关，并通过与欧洲国家之间的对比才建立起来的。因此，亚洲既是一个在政治体制、经济体制和文化传统上截然不同于欧洲大陆，又是一个内部高度分化的区域。
关于“亚洲”概念在亚洲国家中的具体提出和运用，我们可以追溯到1885年3月16日日本近代变革先驱福泽谕吉（1835-1901）在《世事新报》上发表的“脱亚论”，即“脱亚入欧”的观点，其主要意旨在于摆脱以中国为代表的儒教主义的封建关系（朝贡体系），以图将日本建设成欧洲式的民族国家。实际上，福泽谕吉的思想深受1884年朝鲜李氏王朝发生“甲申政变”的影响，由于李朝的“开化派”试图采纳西方近代国家、社会、权力的思想模式进行改革，最终仅持续了三天便告失败。福泽谕吉洞察了这种政治变化，并非常认同开化派的进步思想，但这个事件给他很大震动——对这种改革失败进行反思，并认为朝鲜李氏王朝改革失败的原因就在于深受儒教文化的长期掌控。① 于是，他明确提出了脱亚的主张，这就意味着日本要走向改革之路，必须先要摆脱儒教文化的影响，才能建构具有欧洲式的“自由”、“人权”、“国权”、“文明”和“独立精神”的民族国家类型，其目的就是日本不再依赖在亚洲内部以中国为中心的儒教文化。1885年前后，整个日本的政治界和思想界已弥漫着求变的思潮。初任总理大臣的伊藤博文就极力推行欧化政策，尽管也有以西村茂树为代表在《日本道德论》一书中提倡儒学道德复兴的主张，但文部大臣森有礼支持伊藤博文的主张，他明确提出：“在现代提倡孔孟是迂腐的。”他的理念代表了一种价值取向，脱亚实质上就是脱儒。因此，“脱亚”表达的改革思想，确立了日本近代国家的自我意识。与此同时，“脱亚入欧”成为了日本民族主义兴起的重要口号，并被日本的极右翼势力和日本的殖民主义政策所利用，也就是将“入欧”的民族国家逻辑与“入亚”的帝国主义逻辑之间相混淆。在具体行动上，他们则转变成了“入亚反欧”，最终借“解放亚洲”之名发动了对中国、朝鲜和东南亚地区的侵略和殖民统治。实质上，日本以“亚洲主义”彰显了“日本主义”。
“亚洲”概念与社会主义运动有关，它本身就具有革命性的内涵。20世纪上半叶，社会主义革命运动在世界范围内蓬勃发展，在反抗殖民主义和反对资本主义扩张的过程中，社会主义明确提出了亚洲概念。如果回顾近现代历史，可以发现19世纪源于欧洲的社会主义运动实际上是一个国际主义运动，它在思想和主张上批判民族主义。第一次世界大战前，社会主义者们面临着一个非常严峻的问题——各国无产阶级和工人阶级能不能支持本国政府去打击另外一个帝国主义国家，以及工人阶级在民族冲突中所处于怎样的位置。在这个特殊的社会背景下，列宁提出了民族自决权的理论。列宁关于民族自决权的观点主要针对了像俄罗斯这样的大国内部的革命者和知识分子如何对待弱小国民族自决的要求——俄罗斯人怎样对待乌克兰的独立和波兰的独立的问题。因为列宁将社会主义运动既视为是一个民族主义运动，又看成是一个国际主义的革命运动，他进而又从伦理的高度提出了要求，认为大国的革命者在这个关头不能站在大国沙文主义的立场和态度上支持本国政府，而应支持小国的民族独立运动。他的这种批评观转化成了民族自决权的思想。在这样的背景下，列宁开始关注亚洲，并在俄国革命前夕细察了1911年在中国爆发的“辛亥革命”，他在这个历史时刻发表了《亚洲的觉醒》和《落后的欧洲和先进的亚洲》（1913年），他在盛赞“中国的政治生活沸腾起来了，社会运动和民主主义高潮正在汹涌澎湃地发展”②的同时，又鲜明地批判了“技术十分发达、文化丰富、宪法完备、文明先进的欧洲”正在资产阶级的领导下“支持一切落后的、垂死的、中世纪的东西”。③ 依照他的观点，资本主义进入帝国主义阶段，世界各地的被压迫民族的社会斗争就被组织到世界无产阶级革命的范畴之中。在这个意义上，他对为何亚洲是先进的和欧洲是落后的做了界定，亚洲被纳入世界范围去看待，它代表了在帝国主义阶段的世界革命的斗争。
1924年11月28日中国近代革命家孙中山（1866-1925）在日本神户的一个商会上发表了题为《大亚洲主义》④的演讲，在这一著名的演讲中，他比较含混地区分了两个不同的亚洲概念：一个是“没有完全独立的国家”和作为“最古老文化的发祥地”的亚洲；一个是即将复兴的亚洲。显然，从这种区分来看，前者是指亚洲尚未建立新的民族国家的政治结构，这是被否定的亚洲；后者则是指复兴的亚洲，它是以日本作为起点，因为日本废除了与西方的不平等条约，成为了第一个亚洲的独立民族国家。换言之，亚洲复兴的起点不仅仅指的是日本，而是指的是民族国家。当孙中山看到了日俄战争以日本的胜利而宣告结束时，他欢欣鼓舞地指出：“日本人战胜俄国人，是亚洲民族几百年来第一次战胜欧洲人”。⑤ 他还以带有种族主义的语言区分白种人欧洲人和黄种亚洲人的民族主义的概念。非常有意思的是，孙中山有意地把作为白人的俄国从欧洲分离，因为在他看来俄国人主张的王道符合亚洲文化传统。与列宁的论述相比，孙中山更把视角深入到亚洲内部国家间的文化关系，他发现亚洲内部的国家交往关系是依赖于封建的朝贡关系来维系近代政治和近代经济的。他采用中国的“王道”和“霸道”的概念，强调一方面亚洲复兴的前提是建立民族国家，另一方面建立民族国家又正体现了欧洲殖民主义扩张的一种形式——霸道文化。对于王道的叙述，他提到了封建的朝贡，具体以尼泊尔和中国的关系做了充分的例证说明⑥。孙中山提倡的王道试图将其融入到列宁主张的世界主义文化中去。所以，这种论述在某种程度上超越了亚洲的观念。这种思想也反映了当时的知识分子对俄国革命抱有非常理想化的理解，他在“大亚洲主义”中说：“现在欧洲有一个新国家，这个国家是欧洲全部白人所排斥的，欧洲人都视它为毒蛇猛兽，不是人类，不敢和它相近，我们亚洲也有许多人都是这一样的眼光。这个国家是谁呢？就是俄国。俄国现在要和欧洲的白人分家，他为什么要这样做呢？就是因为他主张王道，不主张霸道……”⑦
他以种族主义的观念把俄国人定义为欧洲人，又从现实的压迫关系将俄国革命运动则看成是亚洲的组成部分，构成了“大亚洲主义”的同盟。
在这个意义上，无论是“脱亚入欧”，还是“大亚洲主义”，亚洲仍是超越民族国家的范畴，每次提出的新议题都与民族国家和民族自决密切联系。倘若对这两种思想加以比较，我们就会发现，福泽谕吉所想象的亚洲和东亚具有高度的文化同质化的范畴，都是儒教背景下建立起来的文明，而孙中山提出的大亚洲主义不是这样的，他特别强调了亚洲是所有宗教（基督教、佛教、伊斯兰教、儒教）的发源地。所以，他甚至把俄罗斯和土耳其归入亚洲范畴，以民族国家解决内部的差异性，但并没有形成内部文化上完全一致的亚洲观念。也就是说，孙中山理想中的亚洲景象应建立内在统一性，这种统一性并不是类似于儒教式的单一文化，而是一种平等的政治文化，能够包容了不同宗教、信仰、民族和社会的形态。他的“大亚洲主义”以“王道文化”反对“霸道文化”，以恢复亚洲的民族地位和寻求一种平等解放的文化。基于这些论述，“亚洲”既是一个实体的地理概念，又是一个与历史相连而又存在差异的想象空间。
因此，亚洲不是一个绝对的隔绝的总合体，亚洲概念总是处于一种带有模糊的游离状态——具有暧昧性和内在矛盾性的特征。亚洲概念交织了二重性，亚洲既包含了殖民主义和非殖民主义的内涵，又蕴涵了保守和革命的特征，更具有民族主义和国际主义的意义。可以说，它是欧洲人提出的概念，既界定了亚洲，也塑造了欧洲人的自我理解。它与民族自决和帝国的视野相联系。
今天，全球化给亚洲带来的影响，不仅仅体现在快速发展的亚洲经济，而且还体现在重塑亚洲的文化认同。尤其是在建构亚洲认同的过程中，亚洲正在由以经济为中心的时代逐渐向以文化为重心的时代转变。⑧
与“冷战”后亚洲地区紧张的国家关系相比，亚洲当代艺术则超越了各种各样的界限呈现出生机蓬勃的活跃景象，这种新的文化现象都是经过许多策展人、评论家、艺术家长期共同努力和奋斗的结果。如果考察这种现象背后的动因，它在本质上依然来自亚洲外部的作用和影响。在现代艺术史中，20世纪70年代，欧洲和美国出现了对以西方中心主导的20世纪艺术潮流的一元中心的质疑，但这股思潮并没有在广泛的领域中得到展开，甚至没有波及或影响到整个东方，尽管日本是个例外，但绝大多数的亚洲国家与西方之间是隔绝的。然而，1989年在巴黎举办的“大地魔术师”展是一个重要转折点，它第一次向西方文化中心介绍了非西方国家的艺术，这不仅暗示了西方中心文化之外存在着未被认识和未被发现的共时性的现代艺术观念，而且也预言了多元主义文化时代的降临。与此同时，它无疑在艺术实践上动摇了西方中心主义的价值体系，从而导致了以西方中心的视点向多元文化视点的转移。这种非中心的艺术实践无疑预示了“冷战”之后国际艺术发展的新走向——严格划分的“中心”与“边缘”的文化版图逐渐被溶解，并带动了非西方艺术的多元艺术的崛起。尤其是90年代以来，随着全球化的加剧，非西方国家/地区的社会政治体制变化和经济迅速发展不断强化了“他者”的文化自觉意识。尽管东方和西方都面临作为自身文化建设的战略选择，彼此都采用了多元文化的国际展览的形式，以实现相互间的对话与交流。于是，新的展览模式以惊人的速度在世界范围内不断蔓延。亚洲也积极参与和回应了这种文化变化，吸收或引进国际流行的展览机制来建构自身文化体系，也提高了自我意识和文化身份的伸张，重新审视自身文化的价值。亚洲各国从内部改善艺术环境，建立起了紧密的交流关系。
20世纪90年代以来，在多元主义文化的背景下，亚洲策展人、评论家和艺术家获得了前所未有的机遇和文化使命，他们借“非中心”、“身份”、“跨边界”的概念寻找与西方相“对比”、“差异”后的潜在可能性，力图把被动的选择扭转成主动的自决。他们还在艺术实践上超越了东西方之间的对立概念，尽可能摆脱作为西方想象的“异国情调”，以表明亚洲文化身份的自觉意识。一些中国、韩国、日本、印度、泰国、新加坡等国的评论家、艺术家、策展人充分发挥了各自的才智和能量，超越了现实的种种局限，提升了亚洲艺术在国际上的位置和影响。值得注意的是，亚洲的策展人、评论家和艺术家在方法论和实践上给予了这样的暗示，亚洲当代艺术面对欧美为中心的艺术价值体系，怎样摆脱西方系统的模式而确立一个新的亚洲艺术形象？
事实上，自20世纪90年代以来，尽管层出不穷的亚洲当代艺术活动在亚洲或西方引起了广泛关注，并获得了比较广泛的学术影响。亚洲艺术展在西方展示并得到认识，逐渐发展和建立起了亚洲的“双年展”、“三年展”机制。虽然采用“移植”西方模式有一定必要的参考性，但这绝不意味着要生搬硬套，而是充分体现一种独立思想和自觉意识，更重要的是在展览组织和交流中探讨不同艺术间交流和影响的相通性，这才是实现跨文化交流的关键性所在。事实上，如果从现代艺术史角度看，可以发现艺术“移植”不仅存在亚洲艺术之中，而且也存在于西方艺术之中。二战之后美国重要的艺术家贾斯柏·琼斯、约翰·凯奇、莫尔斯·库宁汉、罗伯特·劳生柏等人就曾深受日本禅学大师铃木大拙的影响，禅宗思想曾在美国著名的黑山艺术学院盛行，当时该学院聚集的凯奇和劳生柏等艺术家都认识到东方与西方的思维差异，由于禅宗包含了宇宙是如何形成及如何解读时间和空间等东方观念，他们产生了浓厚的兴趣，既研读又实践。特别是凯奇就直接把禅宗观念具体应用到他自己的行为表演中, 涉及感性音乐的复兴和创新的可能性。
从现代艺术史的经验到今天全球化的现实来考察，我们根本不可能寻找一个纯粹和本质的亚洲，亚洲并不是一个隔绝的停滞地带，而是一个交流的动感区域——吸收、融合、影响和发展。那么，策展人是否能从亚洲内部出发掘出一条新路呢？他们是否能从亚洲艺术与亚洲社会、政治和文化的联系中找到亚洲艺术的本质？
从东亚的日本、韩国、中国的发展来看，它们在总体上表现出一种儒教资本主义的文化特征，这与三国的现代化进程有关：日本早在“明治维新”就确立了君主立宪制；韩国是在80年代中后期走上了民主化；中国在80年代初推行的“改革开放”政策具有“后社会主义”的特征。当然，这种文化表征正反映三国间的共同性和差异性。
在亚洲政治经济条件下，谈论亚洲立场是一个耐人寻味的问题——在国际艺坛中亚洲当代艺术的民族性与“他者”如何建构，以及它们之间的关系。它们又直接引出了最本质的问题：什么是亚洲？亚洲在哪里？亚洲人怎样认识自身？因此，这些复杂的问题似乎被亚洲艺术家在实践中所证明。
面对现代化进程中意识形态的差异和重重困难现实，无论是历史传统，还是现代国家的关系，亚洲还没有建立起欧盟模式的超级民族国家的先决条件，因为它的内部包含了各种不同的文化传统、习俗、宗教和政治因素，像佛教、犹太教、伊斯兰教、基督教、印度教、道教、锡克教和儒教等都起源于亚洲，用任何单一的文化来概括亚洲都是难以有说服力的。与欧美相比，亚洲更具多元文化的特征。它的差异性基本源于两个方面：一方面是历史发展延续的结果；一方面是殖民主义、地区战争和冷战等遗留的影响。
尽管全球化时代早已降临，但亚洲在殖民主义时代和“冷战”时期遗留的矛盾和冲突仍在延续，并在新的国际环境条件下衍生出新的问题，诸如“巴勒斯坦与以色列的冲突”、“伊朗核问题”、“朝鲜核问题”、“印度与巴基斯坦之间克什米尔领土纠纷”、“中国、韩国与日本间关于历史问题争论”、“阿富汗战争”和“伊拉克战争”等。
虽然这些各种各样的复杂现实性阻碍或限制亚洲艺术的交流，但艺术作为一种乌托邦理想和一种自由的表现形式，它往往超越国家疆界和意识形态的约束，以宽容的态度去吸收和融合别的文化。亚洲艺术正是在这样的基础上建构和发展的。实际上，“亚洲性”指的是在艺术创作中的亚洲主体性，是一种铭刻了文化身份的表现形式，是一种建立在语言、传统、宗教基础上的差异性的文化话语。在这个意义上，超越“亚洲性”的艺术理想应该是超越民族国家的边界，重新建构一个想象的文化空间，它的基本前提就是必须确立两个明确的目标，即对内消解国家“中心”，对外则抵抗西方文化的“话语霸权”，对亚洲艺术实践者而言，这既是一种文化策略，又是一种文化使命。
21世纪的亚洲在现代民族国家的发展过程中，它建构了由语言、信仰、历史组成的想象空间，并鲜明地区分了自我与他者的认同基础。在亚洲区域，只有尊重不同的语言、不同的价值和不同的思维方法作为共存的前提条件，才能实现多样文化的生长，才能使文明价值得以延伸和发展，才能看到丰富而生动的亚洲文化图景。
实际上，亚洲国家的现代性不是单一的，而是包含了各种各样的模式。这恰恰证明了亚洲想象的文化空间所蕴涵的复杂性和多样性。
如果考察一下当代亚洲艺术的新动向，不难发现亚洲艺术家具有共同或相同的特征，他们都试图创造一个超越“亚洲性”的空间，即一种互主体性（inter-subjectivity）的空间生产，这种艺术生产不仅建构了作品与观众、观念与社会、自我与他者之间的互动关系，而且扩张和延伸了艺术观念的表现形式。他们的目的主要在于表现亚洲艺术家的自尊、信心、想象力和创造力。
今天，亚洲的主体意识并不是表现时髦的文化风格，而是再现了深刻的历史文化内涵。亚洲策展人、评论家和艺术家具体通过对亚洲传统、宗教、社会、政治、文化和日常生活问题的揭示，提高了亚洲艺术的高度和深度。我想，认清亚洲这一历史概念内涵和艺术现象的目的，也就是为了进一步实现亚洲当代艺术的理想。我们必须通过行动促进亚洲内部与外部的文化互动。亚洲已从抵抗和苦恼、偏见和歧视中走出来，并正在迈向协调和发展，亚洲人既重新思考亚洲新的秩序，又重新定位亚洲文化。因此，与以历史观念的角度思考亚洲相比，作为方法论的亚洲或建立交往机能的亚洲在今天就显得尤为重要。
注：
① 福泽谕吉这样说道：我日本国土在亚洲东部，但国民之精神已经摆脱亚洲的固陋而移向西洋文明。然而……为今日谋，我国不能不等待邻国之开明，一道振兴亚洲，与其脱离其伍而与西洋文明国度共进退，还不如接引支那、朝鲜……。参见《福泽谕吉全集》第十卷（东京：岩波书店，1959）第238-240页。
②“亚洲的觉醒”见《列宁选集》第2卷，人民出版社，1973年，第447-448页。
③“落后的欧洲和先进的亚洲”见《列宁选集》第2卷，人民出版社，1973年，第449页
④“对神户商业会议所等团体的演说”见《孙中山全集》，北京，中华书局，1986年，第401-409页。
⑤同上，第402页。
⑥在晚清和辛亥革命前后，晚清中国的国力已走向极其衰弱的状态，小国尼泊尔仍坚持向中国朝贡，由于当时英属印度阻断尼泊尔的南面传统朝贡路线抵达中国，他们于是选择了翻越险峻的喜马拉雅山北麓，把朝贡的东西带到中国。孙中山认为尼泊尔的朝贡实际上与王道文化有关。
⑦ 见《孙中山全集》，第409页。
⑧除了以往出现的众多的电影节（香港电影节、上海电影节、新加坡电影节、东京电影节日等），90年代以来，亚洲还出现了许多国际性的艺术双年展，包括：光州双年展、上海双年展、釜山双年展、台北双年展、福冈亚洲三年展、横滨三年展、广州三年展、北京双年展、新加坡双年展及南京三年展等。这些事件都预示了亚洲文化的转向。
Where is Asia?
Huang Du
In recent years, the contemporary Asian art has been concerned internationally, and the Asian identity has also been enhanced. Such a cultural transformation is obviously related with rapid economic development of Asian countries and the continual enhancement of national awareness, which were brought about by globalization. Why, then, the Asian art issues to be raised? Although the Asian art was received widespread, but there still lack of understanding and comprehension of Asian art, includes differences, traditions, ethnics, religions, customs, and stick on an imagined Asia. Therefore, the raising of questions is the beginning of thinking and action. If they have a clear understanding of the uniqueness of the Asian contemporary art in the international arena, they shall be able to place the Asian contemporary art in a historical context, and examine with the development of reality.
In fact, when one is talking about Asian issues, he is aimed at the orientation of major European egocentrism, because the region is clouded by the history view of Western egocentrism; another view is to found the imagined space for a political structure beyond national states inside Asia. The pre-assumption and imagination for a national state takes the national state as a core. If we imagine a supra-national space, it should take a nationalist orientation which criticizes to centre the nation state as the core. Such a thought of receiving or disputing the idea of globalization by regional political structure, undoubtedly is impacted and inspired by EC model. Europe has shaped a new economic and political structure beyond the original national-states, to face the challenges brought about by globalization. Of course, European cultural development is the established upon such a whole political structure of super-national state. Therefore, in this contrast, the Asian issue seems very urgent and important; since art is a form of cultural ideals, then it has particularly practical significance to explain and build a possibility of supra-Asia in artistic imagination.
Today, research of the contemporary Asian art still has to be placed in a historical context-it contained a diversity and complexity which linked to difference and identity, traditional and modern, inside and outside, inclusive and exclusion.
In fact, if we want to recognize the contemporary Asian art, as a precondition, we shall understand the historical connotation of the word "Asia". Although geographically it is easy to locate the Asia, it is culturally difficult to clarify its meaning. It is determined by abundant and complex diversity of Asian culture, because they are different in religion, culture, tradition, custom, or in the process of modernization and social system. In a historical perspective, the concept of Asia is not brought forth by Asians firstly, but by Europeans. Asia originally referred to the area to east of Greece, including the region of Turkey today. In the early European concept, Asia was equal to the East, and then it was derived concepts of Far East and Near East. After the 17th century, Asian was linked with the geographical concept of colonial expansion among Europeans. It can be said that Asians own concept of Asia was ambiguous before the 19th century. Accurately, the notion of Asia came from the outside of Asia, that is, from a definition for different time and spatial location by Western colonialists. In other words, the Westerns discriminated others from themselves with such an assumption. The geographic territory of Asia today is divided by the Suez Canal, which became the border between Asia and Africa; and Ural Mountains became the division between Asia and Europe; the common boundary between Indian Ocean and the Pacific as its southeast borders. Such a geographical concept of Asia had been formed with geographic expansion of modern European colonialism gradually. From the perspective of cultural history, the notion of ‘Asia’ is linked with fuzzy ethnic relationship and despotism, and is built through the contrast with countries in Europe. Therefore, Asia is not only different from European continent in political system, economic system and cultural tradition, but also a highly divisive region inside.
Concerned with the bringing forth and application of the ‘Asia’ concept in Asian countries, We can be traced back to March 16, 1885, when Fukuzawa Yukichi, the modern Japanese transformation pioneer (1835-1901) announced a theory of "from Asia", that is the view of ‘breaking away from Asia and joining Europe’, in Under the Hong Kong Daily News. Its intention is to rid itself of the feudal relations representative by Chinese Confucianism (tributary system), and to intend to build Japan as European-style nation-state. In fact, this idea was influenced by 1884 Coup in Korean Lee Dynasty. The civilized faction in Lee Dynasty "uncivilized faction" tried to adopt modern Western ideological model of the country, the society and the power to reform their own society; ultimately, the coup lasted for only three days before its failure. Fukuzawa Yukichi penetrated such a political change, and agreed with the enlightened thinking of civilized faction, but this incident gave him a great shock; he reflected this unsuccessful reformation, and thought that the reason of failure of Korean Lee Dynasty lied in long-term control deeply by Confucian culture[1]. Therefore, he clearly put forward the idea of deviating from Asia, which means that if Japan want to move toward the path of reform, it must shake off the influence of Confucianism at first, in order to build a nation-state type with the European-styled ‘freedom’, ’human rights’, ‘State’, ‘civilization’ and ‘independent spirit’. Its purpose is to make Japan no longer to rely on Confucian culture which centered in China within Asia. His idea represented a value orientation, and deviating from Asia is in essence deviating from the Confucianism. Therefore, deviating from Asia expressed the reform ideas, and established the modern Japanese national self-awareness. Meanwhile, ‘deviating from Asia into Europe’ has become an important slogan for the rising of nationalism in Japan, and has been adopted by the extreme right-wing forces and the Japanese colonial policy, that is, confusing a national state logic of ‘joining Europe’ with the logic of imperialism of ‘joining into Asia". In concrete action, they had been transformed into ‘Joining into Asia against Europe’, and Japan launched aggression and colonial rule in China, Korea and Southeast Asian region by the pretext of ‘liberating Asia’. In essence, Japan demonstrates Japanese egotism with Asian-ism.
The concept of ‘Asia’ is linked with the socialist movement and bears revolutionary connotations. In the first half of 20th century, the socialist revolutionary movement had thrived full of vitality; during the process of against colonialism and capitalist expansion, the socialism explicitly put forward a concept of Asia. If we trace back the modern history, we can found that, socialist movement originated from 19th century in Europe is in fact an internationalist movement. It advocates and criticized nationalism in thinking. Before World War I, Socialists had to face a serious problem – if or not all the proletariat and the working class in a country can support their government against another imperialist nation, and the position of the working class in their own ethnic conflict. In this special social background, Lenin made national self-determination theory. Lenin’s views on the point of national self-determination mainly targeted at how the revolutionaries and intellectuals in a large country as like Russia to treat of the demands of national self-determination in some weak nations -- the Russian people how to deal with the issues of independence in Ukraine and Poland. Lenin regarded the socialist movement as a national movement, also an internationalist revolutionary movement, hence he further made an appeal in a high ethical level, that revolutionaries of major nations at this juncture cannot support their own government with a position and attitude of chauvinism, and shall sustain the national independent movement of minor countries. His critic has been transformed into an idea of national self-determination. In this background, Lenin began to pay attention to Asia, and scrutinize the Revolution of 1911 broken out in China in the eve of the Russian Revolution. He published The Awakening of Asia and The Backward Europe and the Advanced Asian (1913) then, and praised that ‘the political life is boiling up in China. And social movements and democratic upsurge is developing full of vitality’[2]. Meanwhile, he also criticized that ‘a Europe with advanced technology, rich culture, complete constitution and civilization’ is ‘supporting all backward, dying and medieval things’[3] under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. According to his view, capitalism has entered the stage of imperialism, and social struggle of the oppressed nations around the world has been organized into the category of world proletarian revolution. In this sense, he defined why Asia is advanced and Europe is so backward, and Asia had been view with a world view, it represents the world revolutionary struggle in the imperialist stage.
In November 28, 1924, Sun Yat-sen, the modern Chinese revolutionary (1866-1925), delivered a speech entitled ‘Great Asia-ism’[4] at a Chamber of Commercial in Kobe, Japan. In this famous speech, he made vaguely distinction between two different concepts on Asia: One is ‘not fully independent state’ and as ‘the most ancient cultural birthplace’; another is the forthcoming rejuvenated Asia. Clearly, in such a distinction, the former refers to Asia which had not yet to establish a new political structure of national-state; it is the negative Asia; the latter refers to the rejuvenated Asia, which is based on Japan as a starting point, because Japan had abolished all unequal treaties with the Western, and became the first independent nation in Asia. In other words, the starting point for the rejuvenation of Asia, not just in Japan, but refers to the national state. When Sun Yat-sen saw that the Russo-Japanese War ended in Japan's victory, he happily pointed out, ’The Japanese defeated Russia; it is the first time when the Asian nation defeat Europeans for centuries’[5]. He also made distinction between the white Europeans and the yellow Asians with racist language. It is interesting that Sun intended to differentiate Russians as the white from the Europeans, because in his view, the Russian people stand with Asian cultural heritage for their kingcraft (wang dao). Compared with Lenin's exposition, the Sun Yat-sen deepened his view into cultural relationships among intra-Asian countries, and he found that relation of intra-Asian countries is dependent on feudal relations of tributes in order to sustain modern political and economy. He used traditional concepts of ‘kingcraft’ and ‘hegemony’ (ba dao) to stress that, establishment of national state is a prerequisite for the revival of Asia, meanwhile the establishment of the national state embodied a another form of the European colonial expansion – that is hegemonic culture. During the analysis of kingcraft, he referred to the feudal tributary, and illustrated by an example of the relationship between Nepal and China[6]. The kingcraft advocated by Sun Yat-sen tried to combine it with Lenin's ideas of cosmopolitism culture. Therefore, to some extent, the discourse transcend beyond the concept of Asia. Such a thought reflected also the idealistic understanding of Russian revolution by some intellectuals at that time. In Great Asia-ism, he said, "Now there is a new country in Europe, which is rejected by all the whites in Europe, and regarded as poisonous snake and wild animal, not humans, and dared not to approach. There are also many people in Asia who hold such a view. What is this country? It is Russia. Now, Russia will separate itself from Europe of the whites. Why does he do so? It is because of he claims of the kingcraft, not the hegemony...[7]
He defined the Russian as European by racist perception, and regarded the Russian revolutionary movement as a part of Asia from the real relationship of oppression, and it constituted an alliance of great Asia-ism.
In this sense, whether "deviating from Asia and joining with Europe", or Great Asia-ism, Asia still remains a category beyond the national-states; each new issue should be linked with the national states and ethnic self-determination. Comparing these two ideas, we will find that the Asia and East Asia imagined by Fukuzawa Yukichi were civilizations built upon the Confucianism with a cultural homogeneity; however, great Asia-ism put forward by Sun Yat-sen is not the case. He particularly stressed that Asia is the birthplace of all religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Confucianism). Therefore, he even brought Russia and Turkey into Asian category, in order to resolve the internal difference with national states, but he did not form the same concept of Asia at internal culture. In other words, in his ideal, the Asia shall establish an internal uniformity, and such unity is not the single culture similar with Confucianism, but an equal political culture, to be inclusive of different religions, beliefs, ethnic and social forms. His great Asia-ism opposed the hegemonic culture with kingcraft culture, in order to restore the national position of Asia and to seek a culture of equality and liberation. Based on these discussions, ‘Asia’ is a noumenal geographical concept, as well as an imagined space linked with history and existed in differences.
Therefore, Asia is not an absolute and secluded synthesis; the concept of Asia is in a fuzzy and dissocialized state – with a characteristic of ambiguous and contradictory natures. This concept interweaved a duality. Asia contains both connotations of colonialism and non-colonialism, with implications of conservative and revolutionary features, also with both nationalist and internationalist significances. It can be said that, it is put forward by the Europeans, defining the Asia and shaping the self-comprehension of the Europeans. It is linked with national self-determination and the vision of empire.
Today, influences brought forth by globalization to Asia, not only in the rapid development of the Asian economy, but also reshaping of the Asian cultural identity. Especially, in process of the construction of Asian identity, Asia is transferred into an era focusing on culture, from a time centered on economy.[8]
Compared with tensional national relationship between Asian regions after the Cold War, contemporary Asian art goes beyond all kinds of boundaries, and presents a thriving scene full of vitality. This new cultural phenomenon is the result of long-term concerted efforts by many curators, critics and artists. If we study the motive behind it, in essence, still comes the external influences outside Asia. In the history of modern art, in the 1970s of 20th century, there appeared a question on the unitary centre of art trend led by the West in Europe and the United States. But it does not spread in a wide range of fields, not even affect or influence the whole East, although Japan is an exception; but the vast majority of countries in Asia were isolated from the West. However, in 1989, the Magiciens de la Terre hold in Paris became an important turning point, for it introduce at the first time the arts from non-western countries to the center of Western culture. This is not only implied that there exists modern art concepts had not been recognized and discovered, but also predicted the coming of an era of pluralistic culture. Meanwhile, it undoubtedly shook the value system of western center-ism in artistic practice, which led to a transformation of the view of focusing on the west to a multicultural perspective. Such non-center art practice undoubtedly indicates a new trend of international art development after the Cold War, that is, dissolving of a strict separation between the ‘center’ and ‘fringed’ cultural territory gradually, and has led the rising of non-Western multicultural arts. Especially since the 1990s, as globalization intensifies, changes of non-Western countries / territories social and political structure and rapid economic development continue to strengthen a cultural consciousness of the others. While the East and the West still confront with their own strategic choice of cultural construction, both adopt a multi-cultural form of international exhibition in order to achieve dialogue and exchanges. So, a new exhibition model spread around the world in an alarming rate. Asia is also actively participating in and responds to such a cultural change, absorbing or introducing the international fashionable exhibition mechanism to build their own cultural system; it also raises the self-consciousness and promotion of cultural identity, re-examines their own cultural values. Countries in Asian improve the art environment from the inside, and establish a communicating relationship.
Since the 1990s of 20th century, Asian curators, critics and artists have gained unprecedented opportunities and cultural mission in a context of cultural pluralism; they seek for a potential compared with the West by the concepts of ‘non-center’, ‘identify’ and ‘cross-border’, attempted to reverse the passive choice into an active self-determination. They also transcend beyond concepts of opposition between the East and the West, get rid of the exotic one imagined by the West as far as possible, to express the self-consciousness of cultural identity. In some countries, as like South Korea, China, Japan, Thailand, Singapore and etc, critics, artists and curators exert their talent and energy, get over a number of limitation of reality, elevating the international position and influence of Asian art. It is worth noting that Asian curators, critics and artists grant such a hint in methodology and practice, that confronting with the artistic value system centered in Europe and the United States, how can the contemporary Asian art get rid of western system and model, and establish a new image of Asian art?
In fact, since the 1990s of 20th century, while the emerging Asian contemporary art activities had caused widespread concern, and gained broadly academic influence. Asian art exhibitions initially show and get understanding in the West and gradually established a mechanism of Biennale and Triennial. Although it is necessary to transplant the western model, it does not mean rote mechanically. It shall fully reflect an independent thinking and self-awareness. More important is to explore the communication and influences among different arts in the organizing and intercourse of exhibitions. This is the key to realize trans-cultural communication. In fact, if viewing from the history of development of modern art, one shall find that the ‘transplant’ exist not only in Asian arts, but also in Western art as well. After World War II, the important United States artists, such as Jasper Johns, John Cage, Merce Cunningham, Robert Rauschenberg and others, have deeply influenced by Suzuki Daisetsu the Japanese Zen master and the thought of Zen has been popular in the famous institute, The Black Mountain College, when some artists gathered in the institute had recognized the difference in thinking between the East and the West; as Zen contained the oriental concepts of formation of universes and interpretation of time and space, they were interested in both reading and practicing. Cage, in particular, applied the concepts of Zen directly into his own performances, involving with the revival of emotional music and the possibility of innovation.
Viewing from the experiences of history of modern art to the realities of globalization today, we impossibly to find a solid and essential Asia for Asia is not an isolated zone of stagnation, but a dynamic regional of communication-absorption, integration, impact and development. Then, if or not the Asian curators could exploit a new path from within Asia? Whether they could find out the nature of Asia art from the connections of Asian art with Asian society, politic and cultures?
Viewing from the development of Japan, South Korea and China in East Asia, they generally expressed a cultural nature of Confucian culture of capitalism, and it is linked with the process of modernization of these countries. Japan established the constitutional monarchy in Meiji Restoration; South Korea embarked on democratization in the late 80s; when China implemented the "reform and opening up" policy in early 1980s, it has a strong feature of post-socialist-the combination of socialistic market economy and socialist ideology. Of course, such a culture reflects the commonality and differences between the three nations.
In the Asian political and economic conditions, talking about Asian position is a thought-provoking question – how to establish the national characters and others in the international contemporary art scene and how about the relationship between them. They also directly lead to the most essential question: What is Asia? Where is Asia? And how do Asians recognize themselves? Therefore, these complex issues seem to be proved in the practices of Asian artists.
Faced with ideological differences and numerous practical difficulties in the process of modernization, no matter the historical tradition or modern inter-national relationships, countries of Asia have not yet establish a prerequisite of super national-state in European model, because of it contains different cultural traditions, customs, religions and political factors, such as Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism and Sikhs have all originated in Asia; it would be convincing to sum up Asia with any single culture. Compared with Europe and the United States, Asia is characteristic of more multi-cultures. The basic difference stems from two aspects: one is the continuation of the historic development, while there still are impacts left aft by colonialism, regional wars and the Cold War.
Despite the globalization era has arrived, the conflicts and contradictions left from the era of colonialism and the "Cold War" still continue, and derive into new forms in new international circumstances, such as ‘Palestinian-Israeli conflict’, ’Iran's nuclear issue’, ‘the Korean nuclear issue’, ‘disputation between India and Pakistan in Kashmir territory’, ‘controversial among China, South Korea and Japan on the issue of history’, ‘war in Afghanistan’ and ‘the war in Iraq’, and etc.
Although such a wide variety of complex reality hinders or limits the communication of Asian art, as a Utopian ideal and a form of free expression, art is often transcend beyond national borders and ideological constraints, and assimilates other cultures with the attitude of tolerance and integration. It is on such a basis that the Asian art has been established and developed. In fact, the ‘Asian’ refers to the Asian subjectivity in artistic creation, that is, a form of expression to the cultural identity, a cultural language based on the differences of languages, traditions and religions. In this sense, the artistic ideals beyond the ‘Asian’ nature should be a transcendence beyond the national borders, re-construct an imaginary cultural space, and its premise is to establish two clear objectives, that is the internal dissolving of national "center" and externally resisting of the language hegemony in the Western culture; concerning with the Asian art practice, it is a cultural strategy, as well as a mission. In the 21st century in the development process of modern national states, it constructed a space of imagination by language, beliefs and history, and distinct clearly the identifying basis between self and the others. In the Asian region, only by respecting the different languages, values and ways of thinking as a prerequisite for co-existence, it will be able to see the rich and vivid Asian culture. In fact, modernity of Asian countries is not a single, but contains a variety of models. This just proves the complexity and diversity implicated in imagined cultural space in Asia.
If we investigated on the new trends of contemporary Asian art, it is not difficult to discover that Asian artists have common or similar characteristics, and they all tried to create a space transcend beyond the ‘Asianess’. Main purpose of new contemporary Asian art exhibitions and art events is to express the self-esteem, confidence, imagination and creativity of artists in Asia.
In the age of global mobility, Asian awareness of subjectivity is not the popular cultural style expressed of fashions, but depicts the profound historical and cultural significance. Asian curators, critics and artists improve the height and depth of Asia art through the revelation of issues, such as Asian traditions, religions, politics, societies, cultures and daily lives. I think that, the purpose of a clear understanding of the connotation of Asian the historic concept and phenomenon of art is to realize further ideals of Asian contemporary art. We must adopt action to promote the cultural interaction of Asia with the outside. Asia has got out from the resistance and anguish, prejudice and discrimination, and is heading in the direction of coordination and development. Asians not only rethink about the new Asian order, but also re-position the Asian culture. Thus, comparing with the thinking about Asia with a view of historical perspective, Asia as a methodology or establishment of communication function appears to be most important today.
Notes：
[1] Fukuzawa Yukichi said, ‘Japanese land is in the eastern part of Asia, but the national spirit has freed itself from Asia's habits and shifted to Western civilization. However ... for today's interests, we have to wait for the enlightened in neighborhood and revitalized Asia. It would be better to guide China and Korea rather than to be divorced from them and to be associated with western civilized nations…’ See The Complete Works of Fukuzawa Yukichi Vol. X (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1959), pages 238-240.
[2] ‘The Awakening in Asia’, see Selected Works of Lenin, volume 2, the People's Publishing House, 1973, pages 447-448.
[3] ‘The Backward Europe and the Advanced Asian’, see Selected Works of Lenin, volume 2, the People's Publishing House, 1973, pages 449.
[4] Speech to the Kobe Meeting and other commercial organizations, see The Complete Works of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, Beijing, China publishing house, 1986, pages 401-409.
[5] Ibid, p 402.
[6] In the late Qing Dynasty and after 1911, China's national strength had been plunged into an extremely debilitating condition. Nepal as a minor country adhered to tribute to China. Since then British India blocked to the south of Nepal the traditional routes by which tributes arrived in China, so they chosen to traverse the north steep cliff of the Himalayas, and brought tributaries to China. Sun believed that Nepal's tributary actually is linked with the culture of wang dao.
[7] See The Complete Works of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, pages 409.
[8] Other than the large number of film festivals (Hong Kong Film Festival, the Shanghai Film Festival, Singapore Film Festival, Tokyo film festivals, etc.), there are a number of international Biennales since the 1990s in Asia, including : Kwangju Biennale, the Shanghai Biennale, Busan Biennial, the Taipei Biennial, Fukuoka Asian Triennial, Yokohama Triennial, Guangzhou Triennial, and Beijing Biennale. These incidents have foretold the shift of Asian culture.
(Translated by David Mao)
