A Hong Kong department store took down a digital artwork that contained hidden references to jailed dissidents, in an incident the artist says is evidence of erosion of free speech in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.
It was unclear whether the government played a role in the decision to remove the artwork, it came just days after a slasher film featuring Winnie the Pooh, a figure often used in playful taunts of China’s President Xi Jinping (習近平), was pulled from local cinemas.
Patrick Amadon’s No Rioters was put on display on a billboard at the SOGO Causeway Bay Store for an exhibition that started last Friday, as the city was promoting its return as a vibrant cultural hub following years of pandemic travel restrictions. Art Basel Hong Kong, a prominent art fair in Asia, began this week, alongside other art events.
Photo: AP
Hong Kong is a former British colony that returned to China’s rule in 1997, promising to retain its Western-style freedoms. The city was rocked by a massive pro-democracy protest movement in 2019, which ended after China imposed a “National Security Law” that criminalized much dissent. The city’s government has since jailed and silenced many activists.
Amadon said he had followed the protests in Hong Kong closely, and he wanted his work to show solidarity with the protesters and remind people about the new reality of the city.
“It was too much watching Art Week in Hong Kong pretend the Chinese government didn’t crush a democracy and turn Hong Kong into a vassal surveillance state... because it’s a convenient location for a good market,” the Los Angeles-based artist said.
Photo: AP
Amadon said he knew the work would be controversial and was surprised it had been displayed in public for days. It featured a panning surveillance camera.
Flashes of Matrix-like text showcased the names and prison sentences of convicted activists and other prominent figures in the pro-democracy movement, including legal scholar Benny Tai (戴耀廷) and former student leader Joshua Wong (黃之鋒), who were both charged with subversion in the biggest case brought under the National Security Law.
These details were shown too fast to be seen by the naked eyes Amadon said, but viewers could see the details if they used a camera to capture stills. It also referred to journalist-turned activist Gwyneth Ho (何桂藍) who was assaulted when she was live-streaming a mob attack in July 2019 during the massive protests sparked by an extradition bill.
The gallery that arranged the exhibit did not know whether the government ordered the work taken down, Francesca Boffetti, CEO at Art Innovation Gallery said in an e-mail.
“Our intermediary told us that the owners of SOGO were concerned about the sensitive political content hidden behind Patrick’s work, so they decided to remove the work from the exhibition immediately,” Boffetti said.
No one mentioned any law or threatened them with fines, she added, but SOGO’s legal team asked the gallery whether it was aware of the content and message of Amadon’s work.
Local police and SOGO did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau said that it did not contact SOGO.
Amadon said the gallery told him in an urgent call that it was very concerned about its legal exposure after a conversation with SOGO.
Since the passage of the National Security Law, the city’s art and media communities have learned to be wary of crossing vaguely defined red lines. Pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily was forced to close after authorities arrested its top editors and executives and accused them of foreign collusion. Some artists known for their political work left Hong Kong under the shadow of the law. Some filmmakers have stopped showing their work in the city. Even those producing non-political content have become cautious. But the government insisted that its residents continue to enjoy promised freedoms after the enactment of the law.
Amadon said what happened to his work showed that the city had lost its freedom of expression and artistic freedom.
“This objectively shows that they are no longer here in the same way that they once were,” he said. “From a narrative standpoint, I mean, it did have to get censored and taken down, I feel like, to be a completed piece.”
For a time, it became popular to describe the tactics of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in encroaching on sovereignty and militarizing islands in the South China Sea as “salami slicing.” Those slices have been getting chunkier. The People’s Liberation Army has been increasing its navy and air force activities in the region. The Chinese Coast Guard has likewise been ramping up their activities, and the civilian paramilitary People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia has been backing up the navy and coast guard with alarming swarming maneuvers. The PRC claims most of the South China Sea through its U-shaped 10-dash
The comical bit of parachute journalism by Simon Shuster in the Atlantic last week under the title “Will Taiwan Just Give Up?”, drew much attention for its numerous minor errors, largely forgivable, its total lack of understanding of Taiwan and its history and its strange, pro-China interpretations, including taking Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) seriously. The laughter and indignation that essay generated among Taiwan aficionados is an indicator of how far Western journalism on Taiwan has come. Twenty years ago, it would have been another piece for the pile. Today, it is an obvious outlier. Shuster’s piece was
For a small nation, Taiwan has an unusually long list of territorial disputes. In part or in whole, it has disputes over the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. It also has another territorial dispute with Vietnam over the Paracel Islands, and with Japan over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyutai Islands, 釣魚台). Of course, the biggest territorial disputes are with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which not only claims all of the above, but also Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙島), Kinmen, Penghu and all of Taiwan itself. This creates considerable headaches politically for the government, especially
Sept 14 to Sept 20 Hwang Tae-im’s in-laws were among the many Korean families that congregated in Keelung after World War II, hoping to board a ship home. Japanese colonial rule had ended in both Korea and Taiwan, and many Koreans were eager to return to their newly-liberated homeland. Around 3,000 Koreans were recorded living in Taiwan in 1943, with Keelung hosting the largest population at 612. However, only one ship arrived to repatriate civilians, leaving many, including Hwang’s in-laws, stranded in Keelung. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, they gave up going home and settled in Keelung’s
RSS