文/ 夏季风

进入21世纪以来，中国受到世人前所未有的关注已是不争的事实，究其原因，似乎不外是中国综合国力日益增强——其中最主要是经济持续性增长起到了一个热点效应的作用。与许多西方学者一样，美国哈佛大学历史学教授尼尔•弗格森(Niall Ferguson)也在探究和反思中国为何崛起以及西方社会相对衰落的根源。他在最近为英国《金融时报》撰写的专栏文章《全球力量格局向东倾斜的十年》（THE DECADE THE WORLD TILTED EAST）中失落地承认，“我们正在经历500年西方统治的最后阶段”。一如之前别的文章，他也是从经济的角度入手来对比中西方的反差，不管是好的还是坏的例子，作为西方中心代表的美国始终是一个必定的参照对象。“在美国霸权的核心存在着三大致命不足：人力不足，注意力不足，以及最重要的一点，财力不足。” 有趣的是，当这位现代历史学家以带有武断嫌疑的口吻指出以美国为代表的西方社会相对衰退症结的同时，却谨慎地回避了原本同样需要交代的中国崛起的具体答案。对于一个谜一样神秘的东方国度，或许这个答案不那么容易找，或许找到了也很难在一篇概述性短文中给出一个即详尽又令人信服的结果。

答案显然不好找，即便是中国本身——当众多的聚光灯突然集中投向自身，刚刚步入全球性舞台的中国似乎还有些不适应，难饰内心的紧张和小小的慌乱——至少到现在为止还没有准备好一套圆滑的、无懈可击的应对说辞。但是，这并不妨碍可以从弗格森的论点反向推断西方对我们的看法：中国的崛起原因是不是恰恰自我满足了所谓美国“三力不足”的条件？

如果这就是弗格森潜在的答案，那么这是个多少令人尴尬的答案。换而言之，中国的崛起是暴发户式的崛起：是靠富余而廉价的劳动力资源（人力足）；大家一心一意搞建设求发展（注意力足）；不管是国家还是民众，货币储蓄量不愁（财力足）。这样的崛起能否持续或者说持续多长时间是值得质疑的。在我看来，弗格森反向指出的都是些一个国家崛起的必不可少的硬件，更像一场战役后清点需要那些武器才能制胜一样，而没有提及的，恰恰是促使三力成因的、也是最为重要的文化价值观。我无法知晓他闭口不谈文化价值观是出于什么样的考虑，事实上近十年中国在国际上获取的名声以及成为世人关注的热点，至少可以肯定地得出结论，排在首位的显然不是有着悠久传统的中国文化以及迥然有别于西方的文化价值观本身。

自中国改革开放以来，我们仔细梳理分析就会发现在社会上通行的现代性文化标准和规则，基本上是由西方社会来制定的，尤其是中国的当代艺术，其形式和标准差不多全盘肇始于对西方现代性的模仿和借鉴。当然，这有其历史主观和客观的原因，但简而言之是由于东西方不同文化观的冲突，西方文化中心论与地缘文化的碰撞，以及不同意识形态下所产生的文化理念与策略等等，导致许多问题只能停留在被悬置的状态，无法进入有实质意义的交流和讨论。如果继续保持这样的现状，毫无疑问是不可思议的，也是和崛起中的中国不相匹配的。好在随着中国与世界各国之间在社会、政治、经济和生活的一体化趋势加快，对自身文化身份的认知和定位以及对文化价值观的传播和推广，越来越引起人们的重视。

如何构建自我独特的文化价值体系以及标准，展示自身独立的文化身份和地位，是一个系统性的、庞大繁复的文化生态修正或者说重建的社会工程，显然需要国家形态和民间层面达成共识并且共同发力实施。具体到一些旁枝末节——单就文化艺术机构为例，我个人认为首先要做的是建立自己完整收藏脉络和展览系统，其次减弱甚至脱离我们对于西方现代性的模仿和依赖，逐步打造一个和西方平等态势对话、交流的平台；而对于艺术家来说，则意味着需要确立作为中国艺术家的思维方式、观察方式和表述方式，而不是习惯性地停留在以西方商业价值作为评判的标准之中。

即便如此，仅靠艺术机构或艺术家本身的力量，是远远不够的。不管是从西方相对完善的经验来看，还是从中国有据可依的历史来看，文化艺术最具活力最为繁荣之时，基本上都和经济资本的介入有着密不可分的关系——似乎这是艺术发展到一定阶段后无法回避的必由之路。虽然这个过程可能是漫长的，需要时间去证明，但其意义的重要性不言而喻：既能让中国丰厚的民间资本介入到当代文化中，帮助文化完成现代性的自我书写，彰显了企业对精神文化传承之社会责任的担当；又能让文化艺术介入到企业序列，共同构建企业文化，提升企业自身的品位和价值，甚至重新梳理当代社会的财富支配伦理。这大约也是中国文化和经济在共时的架构中，有着统一的自我表述和自我阐释的精神诉求。

由伊比利亚当代艺术中心和北京锡恩企业管理顾问有限公司共同推出的“亚洲路标：丰田艺术计划”，就是这一系列具有战略性意味计划实施的开始。正如展览主题，我们试图通过当代艺术来概括和阐述眼下在世界格局中越来越重要的中国，探究自身的文化地理、方向，以及文化与社会、经济等等的关系。尤其是身处亚洲，中国社会特别是当代艺术能否起到“路标”的功能和效用，一直以来是我们感兴趣和不断推进的学术课题。

当这种探究行为的计划与结果由中国的艺术界和实业界共同给出和实施，在我看来显得尤为意味深长。

2010年1月2日

China: Potential Asian Landmark

Xia Jifeng

It is an undeniable fact that China has captured unprecedented worldwide attention since the beginning of the 21st century. The reason seems to lie in nowhere other than the growing overall national strength, the ongoing increase in economy, in particular. Like a lot of Western scholars, Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard University, is trying to explain why China is emerging in contrast to the relatively declining Western countries. In one of his recent column in Financial Times under the title The Decade the World Tilted East, he admitted disappointedly, “…we are living through the end of 500 years of ascendancy.” As is in his other articles, the contrast between the East and the West was made from an economic perspective, and America, as representative of the West, was invariably referred to as a case in point, both favorable and unfavorably. “There were three fatal deficits at the heart of American power: a manpower deficit, an attention deficit and above all a financial deficit.” Interestingly, when pointing out the reasons for the relative decline in the Western world, in a tone not completely free from assertion, this modern historian cautiously avoided offering a much expected full answer. It might be that, for such a mystic Eastern country as China, such an answer is difficult to give, or that it is difficult to give an exhaustive and convincing explanation in a short introductory article if he does have one.

Obviously, the answer will not be an easy one, even for China itself. When suddenly thrust into the limelight, China, as a novice on the global stage, does not seem to be at ease, failing to cover its nervousness and even reacting with a flap—nevertheless it has not found a flexible and unassailable reply. It does not, however, prevent us from making from Niall Ferguson’s argument a retroactive inference about the Western view of China: is it that China, with his own effort, has eliminated the “three fatal deficits” America is suffering from?

It might be embarrassing to some extent if it is the underlying answer in Ferguson’s article. Put differently, Chinese emergence is not quite different from that of upstarts: surplus and cheap labor (manpower surplus), common devotion to development and progress (attention surplus) and adequate savings in the bank, both on national and private levels (financial surplus). It is questionable whether such kind of rise can stay or how long it can persist. What Ferguson has listed in a reverse manner, to my mind, constitutes the necessary conditions for the rise of a country. After a battle, we have to check off what weapons are essential for victory. Now we find one point is missing and it is the basis of the three forces, also the most important factor—cultural values. I have no way of knowing the reason why he avoided mentioning cultural values, but judging from the acclaims China has received in the international community in the past ten years and the attention it has attracted worldwide, one can safely draw a conclusion that the overriding factor is by no means the Chinese culture handed down from ancient times or its cultural values that are different from its Western counterparts in every way.

A careful analysis will lead to another conclusion that, since the opening-up policy was adopted, the prevailing standard and rules for modern culture have always been established by the West, and this is particularly true of Chinese contemporary art, which copied almost every detail of form and standard in Western modernity. Historically speaking, there are, of course, various reasons, both subjective and objective, but basically, it resulted from the conflict between Western cultural values e Eastern ones, between Western cultural centralism and geoculture, and between different cultural concepts and strategies due to ideological differences. Therefore, the discussions about a lot of issues are suspended and there are great obstacles to constructive exchange of ideas. If things do not improve, the result will surely be undesirable and out of tune with the rising China, where, luckily, the accelerating trend toward integration into the world on the social, political, economic level, and in the field of life as well, demands more and more stress on understanding and establishing their own cultural identity and promoting their own cultural values.

To build their unique system of cultural values and standard and show their independent cultural identity and status requires a large systematic and elaborate social project for the revision or reconstruction of cultural ecology, which is undoubtedly, based on the agreement between the government, the public and their common effort. In regard to minor factors，cultural and art institutions, for example, I personally believe that the first and foremost task is to create their own comprehensive system of collection and exhibition. Next, it is necessary to reduce or to stop copying and depending on Western modernity for the establishment of a platform for dialogues and communication with the West on the basis of equality. As far as the artists are concerned, they need to develop their own style of thinking, observation and expression, rather than sticking to the standard based on Western commercial value.

It is far from enough if we rely on art institutions and artists alone to reach our goal. Both the relatively rich Western experience and recorded Chinese history can prove that the flowering of cultural and art is closely connected with the intervention in the form of capital, which seems to be something unavoidable when art enters a certain stage. Admittedly, it takes time to reach that stage, but its significance is indisputably self-evident as it allows the enormous nongovernmental capital to join in contemporary art and, further, to facilitate the self-definition of cultural modernity, showing hence their role in passing on cultural heritage as enterprises on one hand, and encouraging culture and art , on the other, to approach enterprises and contribute their share in creating enterprise culture, improving enterprise image and value, or even reanalyzing the ethics of wealth distribution in contemporary context. In a synchronic structure of culture and economy in China, there might be a common denominator of pursuit for self-presentation and self-interpretation.

Asian Landmark: Toyota Art Project, jointly organized by Iberia Center for Contemporary Art and Beijing CN Management Consulting Co., Ltd., will mark the beginning of a series of strategic projects. As the theme indicates, we aim to introduce and interpret a rising China in a global context in terms of modern art and focus on its cultural geography and orientation in addition to the relationship between society and economy. Whether China, its contemporary art, in particular, can work as an efficient “landmark” in Asia has always been a fascinating academic topic for us to explore.

I believe it will be all the more significant when this exploratory behavior can be jointly planned and performed by the art community and enterprises.

January 2，2010