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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath