Since the Renaissance, the museum has attained its public nature as a cultural institution ‘dedicated first and foremost to the preservation, exhibition and research of culture-related topics, but gradually developing an extensive social function.’ [1] The widespread social function in progress recalls a lot in the contemporary world, and grows closely associated with the development of the public society. Over nearly two decades, China has witnessed leaps and bounds in the museum industry with achievements attracting worldwide attention. Nonetheless, the existing problems should not be ignored, from the confusion and vagueness of values, the inextricable connection with the state system, the declining professional ethos caused by the market manipulation, to the unsound regulations and management system, the insufficient intervention and influence in the civil society, and the underdeveloped museum culture. It can be concluded that, the art museum industry in China is at its preliminary stage in comparison with its counterpart in the West that has a long history and strong cultural roots. While the museum narratives play a part in the Western modern society, China is still making its way towards the museum age, let alone the so-called ‘post-museum age’ which is yet a mirage now. As yet, the discussion on the development of museums in China within the domestic museum industry and art-world has ignored some unique and important topics. Using the interconnection between the museum industry and the construction of civil society as a starting point, the essay seeks to investigate how one, within the ensemble singing of cultural values of museums, can make a different voice, a trumpet call of humanism for the civil society.

1. ‘Civil society’ and ‘civic culture’

In Janurary 2009, scholars in Peking University and Tsinghua University debated whether China stepped into a civil society. The Center for Civil Society Studies of Peking University claimed ‘the presence of China’s civil society’, whereas the NGO Research Center of Tsinghua University asserted that ‘China is far away from the civil society.’ [2] My opinion on this issue is in agreement with the scholars of Tsinghua University.

Civil society refers to the modern structure of political civilization that sets up on the actual establishment of a functioning democratic constitutionalism, and involves an inclusive participation of public administration among citizens and social organizations. The close connection with the democratic constitutionalism indicates that no civil society can develop before the existence of the former. In other words, democratic constitutionalism secures a strong and healthy civil society, in which citizens have the freedom of speech, the right to be informed of and supervise public affairs, and real participation in decision making in the framework of constitutionalism. In addition, that the state leaves the social realm in which citizens are autonomous to social organizations in order to resolve issues and deputes, also guarantees the democratic constitutionalism. In turn, the civil society is fundamental for the complete establishment of democratic constitutionalism.

Despite that some civil activities have emerged in the past few years including the sprouting social organizations and the more liberated means of communication in the Internet era, the verdict of the arrival of civil society cannot be given. The current situation in relation to the civil society as well as the democratic constitutionalism can be traced back to more than half a century ago, when the upheavals in the Chinese society suppressed the practice of constitutionalism and the possible birth of civil society. Social life as well as private life have been directly intervened by the state power ever since – without a radical change in this, any conclusion asserting the presence of China’s civil society is contrary to historical facts and the reality. In December 2010, the Municipal Party Committee of Shenzhen proposed in the 12th Five Year Plan that the government will ‘investigate the mode of public governance that involves a broader participation of the public and social organizations, and seek to pioneer in building a modern civil society.’ The official statement confirms the fact that we are still in a pre-civil society.

If the civil society is considered as the social fabric of a modern political civilization, what defines its key concept of ‘civic culture’? According to American political scientist Gabriel A. Almond, author of The Civic Culture, the literal sense of ‘civic culture’ is a democratic political culture based on communication and characterized as diverse (territorial, subject and participatory). [3] In my opinion, ‘civic culture’ can be understood in our context as a key cultural value that is extracted from the perspective of civil society, and the concept encompasses the following aspects. First, it is a core cultural concept based on civil society whose connotation includes the identification with the political and cultural values of democratic constitutionalism, the ethical values centered in equity and justice, and the cultural values of pluralism, inclusion as well as freedom. Any discussion on cultural construction would be impractical, empty words divorced from China's political reality or even intentionally leading cultural construction astray, if it is not linked to the essential question of civil society. Second, it is inseparable from citizenship rights. In the Handbook of Citizenship Studies edited by British scholar Engin F. Isin et al., one chapter is devoted to cultural citizenship, as relative to political and economic citizenship, addressing that ‘cultural policy has the mission of shaping citizenship. Today, both on the political left and on the right, cultural policy is linked to citizenship.’ [4] On this basis, cultural citizenship can be considered as interconnected and interdependent spheres with its political and economic counterparts. In other words, political participation, economic development and cultural shaping are mutualistic, and the state must respect the rights of individuals both as citizens and as members of a culture. Cultural citizenship accentuates justice and equity in the distribution of cultural resources and the right of citizens to be informed of and supervise public decisions on cultural development. Third, its primary concern lies in the improvement of the spiritual and cultural quality of citizens, emphasizing the enhancement of the spiritual and cultural life of all citizens. All of these, obviously, are essential issues that are closely related to cultural construction.

There is no doubt that a platform for the real development of contemporary culture can only exist in a democratic constitutional society, in which the social climate appears pluralistic, inclusive and free, whereas citizens enjoy the right to be informed of and supervise public resources for cultural development. It is important to emphasize that this is also a fundamental value in the cultural development of museum culture in modern society. The construction and operation of art museums, like other areas of culture including journalism, publishing, film and television, among others, must root in the structure of civil society in order to have a fair and just basis for legitimacy. Otherwise, without the safeguards of the three basic aspects of civic culture mentioned above, the so-called cultural construction of art museums could easily go astray and even grow a tendency of art monopoly, cultural plunder and spiritual distortion under the control of political power and capital – such ‘cultural construction’ is in fact a fleur du mal blossoming on a festering social body.

2. The relationship between art museums and the construction of civil society 

2.1 Art museums contribute directly to the cultivation of civic cultural values. The basic connotations of this civic cultural value are three identifications: identification with the political and cultural values of democratic constitutionalism, identification with the ethical values centered in equity and justice, and identification with the cultural values of pluralism, inclusion as well as freedom. Why, then, can art museums play a direct part in cultivating these values? When the Louvre opened its doors to the public in 1793, the catalyst was the establishment of the principle of public participation in all aspects of citizen life. In the late 19th century United States, museums sprouted in various parts of the country and were devoted to public art education, the main reason of which was to help ordinary citizens to establish and follow the values of civil society. [5] The late 20th century witnessed a more obvious public character of museums, the key idea of which was to construct a cultural space for free exchange outside the state and private spheres that embraces pluralistic socio-political ethics, and to preserve the spiritual dimension of public political pluralism.

2.2 The construction of art museums, closely linked to citizenship rights, forms an important part of the construction of civil society. In the construction and operation of museums, emphasis must be placed on justice and equity in the distribution of cultural resources, on the right of citizens to be informed of and supervise public decisions on cultural development, and on the inviolability of taxpayers' legitimate rights and interests in public resources. National galleries, museums and libraries must be open to the public free of charge, as this is an important move in relation to the rights of taxpayers, the equitable distribution of social resources and the improvement of people’s accomplishments. In recent years, cities and provinces have invested hundreds of millions or even billions into museums and libraries in order to meet the standards or flaunt their cultural achievements. From the surrounding spectacle of squares to the luxurious interior lobby design, such architecture reveals the unfairness and illegitimacy of the distribution of public resources, considering the fact that the urban and rural people in China still have very limited access to public cultural resource. In fact, admission is not the only ‘exterior wall’ of China's museums and libraries, and free admission only plays a prelude to a fair sharing of cultural and art resources. In the age of free access, has people’s quality of reading been improved notably by better access to borrowing books, a richer collection of books and more welcoming public service? Does the general public have more access to museum collections and national treasures? Are art museums setting foot more proactively in public life in the free age, rather than being spaces passively hosting exhibitions or renting out venues? In all, free access only indicates that the threshold has been crossed, and to return taxpayers' ownership and access to public cultural resources is of the most importance now.

2.3 The development of the art museum industry facilitates the realization of civil liberties. ‘Fundamentally speaking, all civil rights are legal and political.’ [6] Both politically and legally, the values of freedom in civil rights, encompassing the areas of religion, speech, choice, and identity, are the most protected and affirmed: this lies in the center of civil liberty. Throughout the history of ideas, ‘freedom’ as a value has always permeated human activities of social construction and spiritual production, and has the greatest potential to become a core demand and a priority choice among the various value systems. Liberalism as a political ideology and economic theory has been a field of concern for the intellectual circles in China over the past a hundred years, but in the course of Chinese history, liberalism has always moved with difficulty, and the actual construction of civil liberties is still a long way off.

Theoretically, art museums can certainly play a number of roles in pushing forward the historical process of realizing the rights of citizens to freedom, such as providing a platform for exchange to dispel political self-containment in a spiritual and psychological sense, and call on citizens' awareness of their rights to liberty, awakening people's memory of history and politics and awareness of cultural conflicts through thematic exhibitions and documentary exhibitions, or discussing art issues in relation to socially sensitive issues in academic panels. These are specific extensions of museum values on the public-political dimension, and reasonable responses to the urgent demands of contemporary life.

It is meaningful to consider the following quote from Herbert Read on art and politics: 'Art is always the index of social vitality, the moving finger that records the destiny of a civilization. A wise statesman should keep an anxious eye on this graph, for it is more significant than a decline in exports or a fall in the value of a nation's currency.' [7] Unfortunately, not all statesmen who stare at this index are wise. 'All ideologies, whether from the political left, the right or the center, inevitably lead to social patterns that destroy humanity. In light of such concerns, Read tries to propose another way, namely a "politics of the apolitical", by which he refers to a social life in which the individuals need not submit themselves to social currents or external ideologies." [8] Thus, he points out three things that are most needed for the growth of an artist: appreciation, patronage and freedom. [9] In fact, it is these three things that are most needed for the development of art museums: an appreciative public and society, the ability to receive patronage both from the government who controls the public resources and from various social organizations, and the independence and freedom to carry out activities and express oneself.

We would not by any means consider the three things above as being of equal weight, as appreciation and patronage would have no place without the presence of freedom. Upholding a libertarian faith against all forms of cultural control, Read argues that 'we can assert - not only according to the broad modern experiment, but also according to the broader experiment of human evolution - that art can only thrive in an atmosphere of freedom.' [10] He also profoundly reveals the complicity between art and politics. 'Authoritarian regimes may result in the spring up of artists, and most dictators, aware of the importance of historical evaluation, attempt to create a cultural veneer to conceal their crimes.' (Ibid.) Consequently, the art that grows out of the struggle between freedom and despotism is bound to have multiple natures and values, and Read believes that history will choose and eliminate.

Read's cultural views appear radically critical, and his criticism not only directs at the Nazi totalitarian culture but also reveals the inferiority of capitalist culture, noting that 'the whole of our capitalist culture is one immense veneer: a surface refinement hiding the cheapness and shoddiness at the heart of things. To hell with such a culture! To the rubbish-heap and furnace with it all! Let us celebrate the democratic revolution creatively.' [11] More importantly, Read's cultural opinions are profoundly inspiring for considering the critical role of art museums in building civil society. Today, the multifaceted critical thinking and values are exactly what is missing in the construction of culture.

In terms of artists, it is not uncommon to see artists with a strong focus on public politics, whose work often requests for the realization of civil liberties. The question is how art museums should take on their creative output. In the 1970s and 1980s, the acclaimed German artist Joseph Beuys promoted his ideas and principles for the realization of civil liberties in every exhibition and performance of his, and every possible occasion. For 100 days in 1972, he stayed in his 'Office for Direct Democracy by Referendum', received the visiting public and argued with them seriously and patiently. [12] The American artist Hans Haacke placed two ballot boxes in the 1970 exhibition entitled 'Information' at Museum of Modern Art, asking the audience to deposit their pro or con answers on Rockefeller's support for President Nixon's Indochina Policy, which resulted in two-thirds of the people opposing Rockefeller.[13] Such artworks, in the form of voting, directly present civil liberties as the audience's expression and choice-making in relation to social events, and employ art as a medium to enable the experience of legal and political civil rights. These artworks, in comparison to the practice of real public political life, are often labeled as 'utopian'. However, in Adorno's view, all art contains an element of utopia, and that is why it is radical. In our understanding, because of art's natural connection with contingency, sensuality, non-conformity, and so on, and because of its role in evoking memory, individuality, and the courage to break through repression, art inevitably collide with the dominant reason of society. We, therefore, are able to understand Adorno's statement that 'art may remain the only remaining medium of truth in an age of incomprehensible terror and suffering.' Terry Eagleton later added that 'in it, the hidden irrationality of a rationalized society is brought to light. ' [14]

3. How museums can become a cultural bridge towards civil society

It is particularly worth contemplating how art museums should manage their relationships with artists and the public in order to advance the building process of a civil society. In today's China, the birth of civil society is premised on the social transformation resulting from the reform and opening up, marked by the re-emergence of the public sphere. It has also been seen by sociological scholars as an 'intermediary structure', referring to the institutions that lie between the individual and the macrocosm (state or market), such as families, Christian and Jewish churches, voluntary associations, neighbourhoods. The structure is 'essential to the vitality of a democratic society, because only via their assistance can individuals in isolation find their place in a complex and competitive society. In a sense, when confronting the outside world, individuals have to join associations to find the means to justify and express themselves.' [15] And the simplest and most essential statement related to public policy is that 'public policy must reinforce intermediary mechanisms and see the citizen as the true soul of society.' [16] In terms of the museum as cultural intermediary and its public policies, the statement claiming that 'the citizen as the true soul of society' is equally meaningful for thinking about how the museum can be a bridge to civil society. The statement demonstrates that a museum's public policy should uphold the core values of reaffirming human kindness and the willingness to live together, acknowledging the irreplaceable position of democratic values for social justice and stability, and re-advocating values of pluralism, inclusion and mutual care. Nowadays in China, social transformation has generated a new social class, that is, the middle class which is growing in number. While the middle class has become the main force of cultural consumption, it is certainly also the main group that museums must target in their public policies. However, at the moment, the so-called middle class in China is only a product of a Chinese context, not the middle class in a universal context. Historically, the middle class first emerged in Western countries around the 1940s as a relatively independent social group in terms of economy and values. Its appearance then indicated a new change in the social structure of the West, as the class mainly consisted of 'white-collar' people who were engaged in intellectual work in the economic structure of companies, as opposed to businessmen, freelancers and farmers in the traditional sense; the lifestyles and ideologies of the middle class had a clear appearance of 'post-industry'. It is very important to note that the middle class that has developed in the West is by no means merely a symbol of a new spending power and lifestyle, but also a mature defender and promoter of political democracy. In China, however, when one describes the definition of the middle class, it is difficult to connect them with a passion for democratic politics, or a critical approach to traditional ideology. Quite on the contrary, there may be more of an indigenous political cynicism, or slavery, in them. In the meantime, the business strategies of many Western multinational enterprises tend to exploit this localized middle-class consumerism in a utilitarian way, which leads the Chinese middle class astray. When investigating the relationship between the public policy of art museums and the middle class is studied from this perspective, we should undoubtedly put more effort in the enlightenment of spiritual values such as independent personality and critical consciousness developed in the aesthetic form of art. In conclusion, museums should see civil society building as the most important value in their public policies, and become the most active voices in promoting it. Public policy has become one of the core issues for art museums in the era of globalization, with its position defined as a strategic function of art museums, while increasingly interacting with the cultural policies of the state. Public policy refers to the values, system management, and operational strategies based on the relationship with the public. It involves the evaluation, expectations, service of the public, as well as the realization and enhancement of the essential function of the museum as a public cultural institution. In particular, public policies centered on building civil society should move towards the core of the forward-looking museum programs, and should become the guiding principle for coordinating the needs of artists and the public. Such public policies would also enable the museum to become a central force in public art education beyond the academy, making the cultivation of civic culture, aesthetic values and artistic creativity an important aspect of citizen quality enhancement.

In fact, the idea of fighting for civil liberties can be presented in almost innumerable ways in contemporary art, and the audience's expectations and participation are not entirely passive - the crucial part is that galleries should have values and professional vision that are consistent with the establishment of a civil society. For some top management staff, allowing the display of works addressing civil liberties would be risky, when in fact such expressions have long been presented with increasing clarity and frequency in the local public media, and the so-called risk is but the result of people's inertial thinking of the image and function of art museums. "What matters is the intelligence and independence of the person in charge", writes Hans Haacke insightfully. He also argues that it is not necessarily the case here that those outside the system are necessarily more open or strategic than those within it.[17] The museum's insistence on the freedom of exhibition is a prerequisite and a means for artists to insist on their right to make art freely and the public to insist on their right to free exchange. This is also particularly where art museums should make a voice based on free exchange and independent operation.

In fact, the double economic and political pressures on the museum's business are exactly the same pressures on pursuing civil liberties in any sphere of social life. The realization of civil liberties necessarily relies upon public environment and public resources. Especially in the contemporary national tax system, the reliance is reasonable in the first place. Nonetheless, 'unfortunately, citizens and intellectuals are not prepared to use this right of freedom against the state,' but rather to cling to it and willingly accept its control.[18] Tony Bennett argues that museums transform another kind of civilian into citizen who learns to see the world with the gaze of power.[19] This is important for art institutions to become bridges towards civil society, which emphasizes criticism, dialogue, and an inclusiveness that allows for multiple perspectives and arguments. Museums are exactly resisting systematization with free and pluralistic exhibitions, resisting intentional forgetting of history for political purposes with cultural memory, and promoting human rights and humanity with heterogeneity. In a sense, access to art museums is access to the arena of public political life, which then leads to the shift from civilian to civic.

It is with the hopes above in mind that we walk into art museums in our quotidian life, as we expect to shape ourselves and our society with civic cultural values. It is also in this sense that the art museum should make its own voice heard: a trumpet call of humanism for civil society.

By Li Gongming (Professor, Department of History of Art, Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts)

Originally published in Issue 5, University and Art Museum

——————————————————

Endnotes:

1 Jeffrey Abt, ‘The Origins of the Public Museum’, trans. Li Xingyuan, Art Museum, Guangdong Museum of Art, issue 2, 2002.

2 The discussion started from the launch conference of Blue Book on Civil Society Development in China (part of the Civil Society Studies of Peking University Book Series, edited by Gao Bingzhong and Yuan Ruijun, The Center for Civil Society Studies of Peking University, Peking University, December 2008), in January 2009. 

3 Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, Gabriel A. Almond, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Hangzhou: Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, February 1989, pp.7-10.

4 Engin F. Isin, Bryan Turner et al., Handbook of Citizenship Studies, trans. Wang Xiaozhang, Hangzhou: Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, May 2007, pp.328-329.

5 Abt, ‘The Origins of the Public Museum’.

6 Isin, Turner et al., Handbook of Citizenship Studies, p.17.

7 Herbert Read, Preface, To Hell with Culture, trans. Zhang Weidong, Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, January 2012.

8 Read, Introduction, To Hell with Culture (Routledge Classics), p.7.

9 Ibid., p.84.

10 Ibid., p.71.

11 Ibid., p.28.

12 Heiner Stachelhaus, Joseph Beuys, trans. Zhao Dengrong et al., Changchun: Jilin Fine Arts Publishing House, June 2001, p.116.

13 Jonathan David Fineberg, Art Since 1940, trans. Wang Chunchen, Ding Yalei, Beijing: Renmin University of China Publishing House, October 2006, p.460.

14 For the original quote from Theodor Adorno, see Aesthetic Theory, p.27. Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic, trans. Wang Jie et al., Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Publishing House, June 1997, pp. 349-350.

15 The Essential Civil Society Reader: The Classic Essays, edited by Don E. Eberly, trans. Lin Meng et al., Beijing: The Commercial Press, June 2012, p.21.

16 Ibid., p.27.

17 Pierre Bourdieu and Hans Haacke, Free Exchange, trans. Gui Yufang, Beijing: Joint Publishing, June 1996, p.73.

18 Ibid., p.72.

19 New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction, edited by Janet Marstine, trans. Qian Chunxia, Nanjing: Jiangsu Fine Arts Publishing House, August 2008, p.128.