The Asian Artistic Tradition

The Power Of Narratives.

There has been an interesting discovery of prehistoric art made in caves of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi that has thrown some doubt on the long-accepted narrative of how art originated as a practice and as an indicator of the development of abstract thinking in the evolution of the human mind. Until this most recent discovery, the oldest examples of cave art had only been found in Western Europe and have been dated back to around forty-thousand years. The Sulawesi cave art is at least as old - if not older - than all of the cave art found in Europe.

Although interesting in and of itself, there is another aspect to the phenomenon of prehistoric cave art that is worth talking about. I have written many times about how history and the historical experience are cornerstones of culture and identity. Personal history defines our individual view of the world and is further shaped and given context by the norms outlined by cultural narratives of society that are drawn from the historical experience. For instance, our American historical experience of fighting against unjust British rule contributes to the ongoing cultural narratives of  freedom-loving American individuals who reject and stand up to tyranny at home and in the world, fostering a national identity of a society of individuals who are fundamentally on the proper side of moral choice who make personal decisions based on an internal mechanisms of reason, and not some social conditioning determined by factors beyond our immediate consciousness. It's all about the narrative.

As this interesting documentary from the BBC suggests, cave art marks a point in human cognitive development when the race began to see, and express through art, deeper meanings in the objects and things around them and thus expand their understanding of their place in the world through abstract thinking about the real world. In other words, cave art reflects an awareness of differences between humans and other animals, hence, art is the indication of an evolving or developing agency. In Western thinking, this notion of personal agency has been a huge influence on social and political ideas.

On the positive side, personal agency lies at the root of the idea of individualism and the concept of individual rights. At the same time, imperialism and white supremacist thinking have justified themselves partly by denying or downplaying the existence of, or potential for, personal agency among the world's non-white races. Although these ideas existed long before the discovery of prehistoric European cave art, the idea that Europeans "invented" art and, thus, became the first group or race to make the cognitive leap into a more sophisticated conceptualization of agency, fits nicely into the narrative of the mature and superior agency of the white race.

As this BBC article covering the story suggests, European cave art marks a significant milestone in human cognitive ability, the implication being that there was some kind of tradition of European reason that can be traced all the way back to the prehistoric era......

For decades, the only evidence of ancient cave art was in Spain and southern France. It led some to believe that the creative explosion that led to the art and science we know today began in Europe.

Similarly, the BBC documentary proposes a narrative that implies a continuity of creative lineage from the cave art of prehistoric France to the remarkable sculpted megaliths of Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey several thousand years later, that extends further back into antiquity the more familiar  narrative of Western Civilization beginning in what is now Iraq - a region that somehow was "western" in antiquity, but is now Middle Eastern.The narrative implies continuity and associations that can only be described as hopeful and tenuous. But it all supports the narrative and that is what is important.

The BBC article again.....

The discovery of 40,000-year-old cave paintings at opposite ends of the globe suggests that the ability to create representational art had its origins further back in time in Africa, before modern humans spread across the rest of the world........"That's kind of my gut feeling," says Prof Stringer. "The basis for this art was there 60,000 years ago; it may even have been there in Africa before 60,000 years ago and it spread with modern humans".

The cynic within wonders if the idea of an Asian origin to art and reason is such anathema to the western narrative (and present-day political sensibilities) that accepting Asia as the birthplace of creative expression is like daylight to a vampire. No, if Europe can't be the birthplace of art (and subsequently science), then the Asians certainly won't be allowed to claim it! They would rather give it to Africa.

Yet, the BBC documentary contradicts this hypotheses that there needs or is likely to be  common African origin. According to it, the imagery of cave art is the result of stimuli on the human brain that is experienced during "trance-like" episodes. That's why, it is suggested, cave art from 30,000 years ago in France resembles cave art from Africa 2,000 years ago - shaman enter the trance-like state and return with trippy ideas that they then paint onto the walls of caves. Similarity between cave art as distant as France is from Indonesia need not mean a common origin elsewhere - it could be the result of a common human physiological response to trance-like states possibly induced by hallucinogens (why else would - or could - anyone crawl into the deepest, darkest, recesses of prehistoric caves to draw polka dot covered animals and stencils of their hands unless they were fucked.up).

But cynicism aside, it is hard not to notice the parallel of the white-washing of Asians out of this country's  cultural narrative (itself occasionally a feat of historical revisionism) and what seems to amount to a similarly aversive ad-hoc denial of Asia as the birthplace of art. If it makes people feel any better about it, it is likely that the Asians who produced this ancient rock art were of a different ilk to present-day Asians.

Where Are You From?

An Asian-American Anthology.

Last year I received an e-mail from Byron Wong - owner of the bigWOWO blog - who offered me the opportunity to take part in an anthology that his activist (Thymos) group was putting together. The idea was to gather together Asian-Americans from different walks of life, with different perspectives, and ideas, and to allow them to "let loose", if you will, with their creative potential and contribute a piece of written work on a subject of their choice. I liaised with Byron's co-activist and writer Val Katagiri who had taken note of a couple of blog posts I had written as part of a dialogue with Simon Tam of rock group, The Slants. 

In brief, Tam had asked for community support for his band's efforts to trademark their band name - "The Slants". Tam's position was that words only have offensive power if we allow them to and, thus, by making racial slurs commonplace - like African-Americans have done with "N"-word - they lose their power to offend. As such, trademarking their name is a step in this direction of diminishing the offensive power of this particular slur. My position was (and continues to be) that racial slurs are not intended to offend and that if we are merely offended by racial slurs, then we miss the point of their purpose, and even worse, the opportunity to meaningfully address the profound, centuries-old, casual, and comfortable, foundation of anti-Asian prejudice. In the Western world, slurs of all kinds, but especially racial slurs, serve as a means to dehumanize individuals by assigning derogatory characteristics and qualities to the entire group which can then be distilled down to a single word that represents all of these negative characteristics. 

Thus, "slant", or "chink", or "gook" are not commentaries on the shape of Asian people's eyes, they serve as a means of putting Asians people "in their place" by reminding us and the people using them, that we are not humans who deserve respect and dignity, but creatures of a lower order whose actual individual names are not even worth knowing. Racial slurs serve as a record of the injustices inflicted on people of colour throughout America's history, and to be a slant meant that you were subject to oppression, abuse, and violence. So, being offended by racial slurs is a childish response to name-calling, because it is far more than childish name-calling. To truly see the absurdity of Tam's position, consider this; spitting in someone's face serves the same purpose as using a racial slur. Spitting on someone means that you have so little respect for them, and so little regard for their humanity that they are only worthy to receive your spit. With this in mind, should we also spit on ourselves to remove the "offensive" power of it?

With this in mind, my participation in the anthology is included as part of the dialogue between Tam and myself. You can read the general gist of the dialogue in these two posts, but the anthology contains pieces by both of us that greatly expand on the opinions expressed on this blog. So far Tam's efforts have been (and continue to be) denied on the grounds that the term "slant" is considered derogatory by Americans of Asian descent - it is a racial slur, after all. So in short, casually using a derogatory word does not challenge the profound underlying prejudices that enable the word to exist or the culture of racism that produces it. By coincidence I came upon this hilarious video of Russell Peters talking about how the word "Mondays" is (according to him) being used by white people as a devious way of referring to black people. It illustrates my point - the N-word isn't openly used by most white people but the underlying culture of racism obviously thrives and is finding more creative ways to express itself. In short, my position is that it is fundamentally a bad idea to try to persuade a government agency to take derogatory terms and make legitimize them. 

It is also worth remembering that the N-word is as "offensive" now as it ever was despite having been re-appropriated by African-Americans and becoming common usage amongst them. If you do not believe me, then I invite disbelievers to go up to the next African-American you see and address him with the N-word. Let us know what happens - my guess is that you will cause offence.

The anthology was published last year, but due to postal difficulties (things tend to get lost in the post, or might sometimes take weeks or even months to arrive), I only received my copy a few weeks back - hence my tardiness in mentioning it. The work is a collection pieces, including poetry, personal testimonials, essays, as well as intellectual pieces, all contributed by both men and women with backgrounds from all over Asia. This book is self-published and, perhaps, represents the beginning of a new avenue for Asian voices to be heard in print media that is free of the limitations, self-recrimination, and requirements of exotica, so often required of Asian-American writers hoping for publication in the mainstream. It was nice to read something from both Asian men and women that didn't lapse into the tired "pay attention to me mainstream America" cultural contrition characteristic of some works that cater to mainstream America.

The highlights, for me, were Byron Wongs' (author of the bigWOWO blog) essay on Asian-American masculinity, a piece by Sapna Cheryan on the effects of the perpetual foreigner stereotype on the Asian psyche, Robert Francis Flor's piece on his "manong" heroes, and Val Katagiri's touching piece called "Hikabusha" in which she describes her close connection with her grandmother. These are just the highlights -  the whole book was a joy to read and I thank Thymos, Byron, and Val, for including me and kudos for the idea to bring together diverse voices and opinions. The list of writers includes published authors and poets, activists, academics, and even no-bodies like me! My piece is called "What a Difference A Word Makes".

You can find the book on Amazon......Buy it! Now!!

Asian-American Movies.....

....Are They Bad?

The 8Asians blog has an article posted recently in which the post author, Edward Hong, asks the question; "Why Are Asian-American Films Bad?" That, I think, is a very good and valid question, and one which when posed, will most often elicit some response of defensiveness or even attack on behalf of those being criticized (which is probably understandable). Hong's post suggests that pervasive and beyond-tired "Asian-American" themes of identity crises and inter-cultural confusions may be so self-limiting that the end product can only be repetitively mediocre at best.

I would have to agree with Hong - sadly, the Asian-American themed movies that I have seen have been mostly dull or unengaging. As I explained here, what seems to be lacking in Asian-American film  is a worldview, or point of view that acts as a foundation upon which to derive meaningful ideas - a film without ideas is a poor film. Maybe it is because of this that there isn't much that I have ever taken away from an Asian-American movie that has made me think, or challenged my beliefs in any way - which to me is the difference between a great movie experience and a pointless one.

Why this state of affairs exists is difficult to say. I do maintain that there is a lack of autonomy in Asian-American creative endeavours in the sense that there seems to be an underlying axiom that the product of an Asian artist's work only has value if it is appreciated by mainstream (yes, that means white) audiences. What this translates to, perhaps, is that Asian-American films are deliberately non-threatening or non-provocative for the sake of mainstream audiences, so maybe there is some degree of self-censorship that debilitates the Asian-American film-making process. This, of course, is sad because I believe that the Asian experience in the modern world (both within the US and outside of it) is hugely significant both historically and for the future.

I have come to believe that the basis for culture - and perhaps the basis of creative honesty - are to a great degree derived form the individual and communal experience of historical circumstances. I maintain that the Asian-American voice is fundamentally out of step with this history, and is instead informed by the biased version of our historical experiences as propagated by mainstream America. This is my the biggest issue with Asian-American film - its uncritical acceptance of the mainstream historical perspective which, effectively, stifles an autonomous viewpoint or opinion. Asian history of the past couple of centuries and our experience of racism necessarily places our stories into an oppositional stance to mainstream American culture, yet this doesn't manifest in Asian-American films.

Maybe this is why Asian-American films just seem not to be saying anything and why they seemingly lack the strong point of view that I look for in movies that might make me think or perhaps even challenge my view of the world.

My Brother's Keeper

Asian Representation By Asians.....

The YouOffendMeYouOffendMyFamily blog published a post recently about a movie project that is in the works from one of the blog's writers, Quentin Lee. The project is being described as a "slasher" movie, in which the protagonist is an Asian man who has been driven psychotic as a result of pervasive racial denigration and stereotyping throughout his life. As you can see from the comments section of the post, this premise has elicited some degree of opposition. But what most interested me was some of the dialogue in the comments section in which a couple of points are made with which I happen to disagree. This is the first comment of interest...

“White” films are able to tell whatever stories they want. Because no one film portrays their race. There’s enough of them that it’s not an issue. Asian films from Asia are the same. So in order for this to stop being an issue for Asian-American films, there must be enough, where the variety and volume of films won’t warrant the discussion. But we can’t achieve that without supporting ALL works, regardless of what it’s about.

I simply disagree with this because "white" films well and truly do represent the white race on many levels. The industry's machinations seem set up to ensure that white actors land most of the meaty roles and production funding and hence the story-telling most often reflects all the good things that white America wants to believe about itself. Although it is certainly true that white movies show some white characters as evil, their negative qualities are always off-set by other white people who possess the "right" values that exemplify the awesomeness of white culture and its values. Surely, this is "representing" the white race.

Furthermore, discrimination, as well as societal chauvinisms mean that the American film industry is monopolized by predominantly white producers and investors who favour white actors and "white" stories. This results in discrimination against Asian actors - particularly Asian men - which is a well-established and accepted practice within the industry. So to claim that mainstream (white) film-makers do not, as a matter of course, positively represent their race is a dubious claim at best.

The same commenter goes on to say the following.....

.......I strongly feel that Asian-American films are not obligated to be responsible for representing our race. Their only obligation is the representation of the Asian-American artist making it. The VOLUME of Asian-American films is going to determine and represent our culture. Not a single film. The aggregate will create the culture we’re all so concerned about representing...

This  idea that the Asian artist has no obligation to represent their race is a point of view that I have heard voiced by several Asian artists (mainly writers and film-makers). The suggestion seems to be that works of creativity carry with them an implicit freedom that cannot and should not be molded into a pre-packaged framework that might limit the very creative process itself. Often this defence is offered in response to criticisms that the work of Asian artists often focuses on the negative aspects of Asian cultures and people (in much the same way that the mainstream media does) so instead of promoting an alternative and positive representations it simply reinforces existing stereotypes and characteristics created by non-Asians that limit the definition and concept of what it might mean to be Asian.

In some cases - many cases, perhaps - this is a valid and accurate assessment of the way that, what is termed "Asian-American arts" conceives of itself and its work in relation to the mainstream. It seems to me that there is often a drive to produce work that is palatable to mainstream America, and thus commercial considerations (i.e. the sellability of a product to mainstream America) play a major role in how Asian artists may seek to portray Asian people. Yet, this is something of a conundrum that I've never really heard anyone address. Allowing one's work to be defined by mainstream sensibilities - something that many Asian artists seem happy to do - is itself limiting and no less so (and possibly even more so) than the expectation that artists should represent the community. Surely the pressures of commercial aspirations are as much of a compromise of creative expression as is any obligation to represent the race?

Perhaps this is why Asian-American creative output has generally been somewhat irrelevent in the broader context of modern western artistic endeavour - it seems that it all too often chooses the path of least resistance which may also happen to be the most limiting compromise. A significant issue in discussing this subject is one of definitions. When we say "Asian-American arts", what exactly does that mean? What exactly does it mean to "represent the race" and why on earth would anyone do such a thing?

It is entirely possible (probable even) that the term "Asian-American arts" is meaningless, yet it is used routinely and habitually to describe something, or a group of things, for which it is hopelessly incapable of describing. It is a catch-all phrase that says nothing about a point of view or a worldview. There is no Asian-American stylistic character (except perhaps a rather droll penchant for a fatalistic angst and cultural self-flagellation) and "Asian-American arts" doesn't describe a "movement" devoted to an idea or point of view and driven by a group of like-minded thinkers. Certainly the term does imply some kind of Asian-American worldview (which without a commitment to represent the race may actually be an oxymoron), but ultimately the term is so all-encompassing in its vagueness that it has no meaning.

This is important when considering the the idea of "representing the race". Why Asian-American artists would seem to be so vehemently opposed to this idea is bewildering, and their opposition explains why Asian-Americans have a "roll-your-eyes" attitude towards their own cultural "elite". After all, few people within the community would deny that negative media representation and hostile stereotyping have caused immense harm for the Asian minority. So, the simple response to the question of why Asian artists should represent their race is that we are in dire need of being fairly represented. Isn't that reason enough?

Furthermore, much of the endeavours of Asian-American activism involves complaints and protests against the media, and the hostile-to-Asians celebrities it regularly produces, in which it is demanded that mainstream America portray Asian characters respectfully and fairly.Yet, why should the mainstream be obliged to represent the Asian race fairly, when many - and sometimes well-known - Asian artists themselves see no reason to? This attitude itself enables mainstream apathy and cynicism in tackling the issue of fair and balanced media representation of Asian people and is a contradiction of one of the most widely supported tenets of Asian activism - the struggle to combat the propagation of anti-Asian attitudes and xenophobic political rhetoric by a hostile media.

Is it surprising that there seems to be such distrust and cynicism towards Asian-American artists from within their own community? Even more surprising is that Asian writers and film-makers are themselves shocked (and indignant) that Asians react negatively to the news that they don't have a commitment to represent their community, and that they might, indeed, be supplying mainstream America with more ammunition for their prejudices.

I think that ultimately, it may all come down to this idea of what it means when we use the term "Asian-American" in relation any creative endeavour . To me it doesn't mean anything, and much confusion would be averted if we dropped the term altogether when discussing work produced by Asian-American artists. That way there wouldn't be the expectation of some kind of representation and the artist could assert their creative identity. Perhaps this simple act would initiate the beginning of actual creative "movements" informed by the Asian-American experience (perhaps), that reflects an autonomous worldview and historical perspective, that relies less on squeezing the Asian narrative into restrictive mainstream American sensibilities and more on the power of its own original creative value to attract a following.