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
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS