Chinese International TV Station report (reporter Man Ling): May 4, 2004, London is abnormal these days. The reason being it has China. Up the road, the England National Library is celebrating Britain’s 2000 year history of trade with Asia, dating back to the Silk Road; and just down the road, the Institute of Contemporary Art is hosting the Beijing-London Creative Entrepreneurs bilateral dialogue, where representatives are face to face, inquiring into today to create a tomorrow. London has received several high level visits (the Chinese president is about to visit Windsor Palace), and has also been witness to a large amount of commercial interaction between the two countries. London has also hosted cultural exchanges in the form of performances and exhibitions. However, what is occurring in the Institute of Contemporary Art is something completely new. The topic is about entrepreneurial spirit and creative businesses, but the idea itself is also quite creative.

If not for the substantial assistance provided by the mayor of London and the English Trade Council in helping to construct an exchange platform for the Silk Road exhibition and the Beijing-London Creative Entrepreneurs dialogue, the former would not have been able to be organized so successfully, and the latter would probably not have been organized at all. Because of this, in England, “China Fever” began at highest levels. Or, in the words of a professor from London Economic School, “England is currently experiencing a large promotion of Sino-British exchange.”

Eight “ambassadors” representing China’s creative entrepreneurs were invited to London to participate in the dialogue. The representatives came from several different industries including; publishing, public relations, fashion, art, music, and real-estate. They represent China’s so called “most fashionable, contemporary, most interesting” lifestyles. As I was sitting in the small theater in the Institute of Contemporary Art, listening attentively to the representatives describe contemporary China and watching them present images and films about contemporary China, my emotions were quite complicated. It was difficult to determine if I liked what they said, or if I was more concerned about it. However, there was one emotion that was very clear from their speech and from their actions, that was; the old image of China could no longer be seen. “The sick man of East Asia,” an antiquated image of China that is so strongly imprinted in the minds of Western powers is beginning to fade. Aside from this, the entrepreneurial spirit of the representatives has already brought new life to the Chinese people, and at present is actively pushing China onto the international stage.

A Chinese peer asked if I noticed anything particular about this group. They were all young and beautiful he said. Actually, they were not necessarily amazingly young or amazingly attractive; rather, their youth and beauty came from their self confidence. It was a lively and deep type of vigor, whose substance could not be eroded by the passing of time. They spoke fluent English and were able to converse with the world without hindrance. They smoked, drank alcohol and coffee, lived a Chinese/Western lifestyle, were meticulous about fashion, discussed the market, spoke of innovation, and lived fashionable and changing lifestyles. In China, they would promote international name brands for such things as automobiles, Western-style buildings, fashion, magazines, and music. They have traveled the globe, seen the world, and have, following the old adage, extensively made “Western things serve China.” They have also traveled the world and have described China as it is to the world. They are creating a fashionable lifestyle for the developing Chinese middle class, and have instilled ideas of conceptual and sexy lifestyles in the young consumers by creating more lifestyle choices. They have also enriched contemporary Chinese art and culture and have strived to create an undisputable global position for China in contemporary culture and art.

But, cultural dialogue should also be bilateral. That night, despite feeling elated, I still could not dispel the feeling that China clearly imports more than it exports, that China understands the world more than the world understands it. The reason why these individuals were invited for this exchange was because they were each leaders in their respective fields. However, most lamentable was that their successes were primarily based on “import;” what was promoted was foreign automobiles, what sold the best were those buildings designed by foreign architects, what was published were foreign bestselling magazines, and what was made were films that pandered to foreign audiences. For the purpose of avoiding being labeled as subscribing to nationalist thought, I will quote a phrase from what English architect Tom Backe, who just returned to England to participate in this conference, had to say about Chinese architecture: “China does not have its own architecture industry. The Imperial Palace and the hutong’s are representatives of the past. However, modern buildings, especially contemporary buildings in China, are blank. ‘What does not stand cannot fall’ is a disease that all developing countries have caught, Russia, Malaysia, etc. are similar. This is a disgrace for the country and the people.” I was surprised that he was so extreme, so I asked him: “Will there be a Chinese architecture in the future?” Without hesitating he replied, “What is lost is forever lost.” I could not readily accept his viewpoint, and I reminded him that there are several old cities in England that undergoing an urban revival in the past 10 years, for example: Birmingham and Manchester were pushing over the monotonous factory spaces and remaking themselves. Aside from this, European culture can have a “Renaissance,” why can’t the Chinese architecture industry have one as well? In the end, he grudging agreed to this view. However, I was still smarting from his assertion, and felt a pained distress for my own country.

It is true that “Westernism” does not necessarily represent modernism, and it is even less able to represent modern China. It looks as if these entrepreneurs who take it as their duty to “import” ought to take up the responsibility of preserving China’s individuality. China’s thousand year history and culture is admired by many people, but we (Chinese) are not necessarily good at preserving its legacy, or even innovating upon its traditional foundation. I remember the sigh that Hu Jintao heaved when he looked down at the perfectly preserved capital of Switzerland, Edinburgh, from atop a mountain overlooking the city: “Look at how many unique buildings there are. It is too bad that several of China’s old buildings cannot stand the test of time.”

For the past three years, I have seen that England has continuously being tinkering, from the buildings down to the taxis. The taxis in London appear old-fashioned and comical from the outside, they seem as if they are two hundred years old, but interior of the cars are extremely advanced, with things such as GPS systems and the newest high-tech gadgets. Furthermore, the design pays particular attention to comfort. The sights and sounds of England often remind me that tradition, modernization, and contemporary should not conflict. Rather, they should be mutually penetrating, holding aspects of each of the others in themselves.

Another feeling is that the current world is a name brand world. What the representative creative entrepreneurs discussed the most was name brand and individuality. But, what is lamentable is that most of the brands that they exhibited were other people’s name brands and other people’s individuality. In actuality, China is in serious lack of its own name brand and individuality. On the platform erected in London’s Institute of Contemporary Art, only the chairman of the Long March Foundation, Lu Jie, introduced a contemporary artwork that was thoroughly “Chinese.” Artists followed the path of the historic Long March, and by exhibiting visual artwork, they returned art to the public realm. I was deeply moved. According to his introduction, Lu Jie not only went to the wild recesses of China, but he also adamantly pursues Chinese innovation. They were very successful. The artworks from the Long March are currently entering the international realm. In April, they entered Oslo, Norway, and at the end of June they will arrive in Lyon, France. This is a Chinese name brand that is currently being accepted by the world. This was definitely something to be excited about!

I believe that among the projects presented by the Chinese representative creative entrepreneurs, only the Long March artwork had an awareness of Chinese name brand. What is more gratifying to learn is that a Chinese creative industries are becoming more and more aware that culture and art should be an important aspect of life, and that the Long March is currently using their method to actively promote and popularize this type of concept. Although the Long March has left a deep impression, it still requires time and patience. In an opening speech representing the group, publisher Hong Huang cited a group of comparative statistics. Beijing only has 62 movie theaters and 31 theaters, but has over 3000 restaurants. In one year, it only hosts 50 art exhibitions or lectures, but holds over 300 business expos. To a person from London whose life is abundant with cultural activities, Beijing is truly a cultural wasteland (at the very least to the average Beijing citizen it is a reality), but a restaurant heaven. The British people living in China, who returned to England, all had a strong impression about the amount and variety of food choices in Beijing, as well as the modern high-rises in Beijing. If modern high-rises are not distinguishing features of China, does that mean that the only thing left of Chinese individuality is food!!! The time has come to introduce culture and art into people’s lives. Life has never been purely about benefits and profits. Thank goodness that there is this recognition, and that there are people who are actively promoting this view. They will enrich and add color to the lives of the Chinese people.

Finally, what must be emphasized is, if there are creative people who will continuously express this view, the lifestyle choices of numerous Chinese people would no longer only be concerned about benefits and profits, but would turn towards pursuing idealistic, conceptual, interesting, and emotional forms, and thus pursue individuality, name brand, and creativity. I agree with and even support such a lifestyle, but I believe that the addition of cultural elements ought to have name brand and individuality. However, this not only means the individuality of a person, but also ought to include the individuality of a nation. This is because culture and art is what humankind uses to express its inner most feelings. The logic is simple: Your experiences and feelings are not necessarily the same as mine. We cannot overly ignore our own feelings and experiences. The impetus for creating and forging a name brand is to express and establish oneself. Industries manipulate name brands, Chinese people blindly chase after Western name brands, but they overlook creating their own name brands. In the end, it results in the loss of individuality. A nation without individuality is a tragedy. The developing world seems to have entered into this type of “strange name brand circle.”

Thus, exchange requires a platform; the more the better. But in the midst of exchange, it is even more important to express individuality; the clearer the better. I hope that, in the future, China will have more of its own name brands and individuality. I also hope that China will have less and less of those who blindly pursue name brands. But most of all, I hope that the youth will become lost sheep in the midst of name brands and fashionableness.

England Bureau, May 6, 2004