홍콩 공공미술의 정치화(I): 홍콩인의 ‘삶의 방식’ 견지를 위하여 (Politicisation of Public Art in Hong Kong (Part I): for the Sake of Hong Kong People’s ‘Way of Life’)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 현대미술사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 현대미술사연구 / 29호 / 101 ~ 125페이지
· 저자명 : 조지훈

초록

Britain agreed to return the sovereignty over Hong Kong to Mainland China on 1 July 1997 and Mainland China agreed to ‘preserve Hong Kong’s dynamic capitalist system and way of life’ for 50 years under the principle of ‘one country, two systems’. The process of formally ending British colonial rule, which had lasted for about 150 years, and the history of colonial domination duly ended in 1997. However, the end of the British colony did not mean the end of domination and the start of Hong Kong’s autonomy. This dramatic historical event has rather raised the question: does the handover entail either decolonisation or re-colonisation by the new master, Mainland China? These incompatible views on handover have created a complete crisis in Hong Kong society and it is mainly derived from Hong Kong people’s view on Mainland China. Hong Kong people formed their own ‘way of life’ during the colonial times, which are different from those of Mainland Chinese,and they identify Mainland Chinese as ‘inferior’. It is hard for Hong Kong people, having this sense of superiority, to simply accept their return to Mainland China, and, hence, there have been controversies surrounding the handover in society.
The attempts to preserve Hong Kong people’s ‘way of life’ is clearly displayed in public art in Hong Kong. Public art since the Tiananmen Square Incident has been deeply involved in the issues of politics, society, culture and identity in the context of the handover and it indicates the fact that public art has been politicised for purposes. Firstly, it is found that public art is politicised by the press for the sake of reinforcing Hongkongness and Hong Kong Tripod is the significant example of it. The symbolism of Hong Kong tripod , which is the most representative manifestation of legitimacy and centrality of Chinese political power, was fatally damaged by the press coverage due to the negative interpretations of the press. The negative and superstitious interpretations about the tripod’s damage and wide transmission to the people by the press stirred up the people, and thereby created a collective sense of fear and ridicule against Mainland China. This gave a chance for Hong Kong people to concentrate them and reinforce Hongkongness in the collective sense created by the press. Furthermore, the press coverage reflects the situation of Hong Kong press around the handover years. In the competition between the pro-Hong Kong press and the pro-Mainland China press, many of the press companies tried to court the taste of the ‘Hong Kong’ people, who identify themselves in the sense of Hongkongness and are main collectivity in identity, and so hold hegemony in the post-handover Hong Kong. For the reason, the press produced those negative articles on the Tripod and that situation played an important role in inciting negative perceptions of Mainland China/Chineseness and reinforcement of Hongkongness. It shows the press reinforced Hongkongness and attempted to hold the hegemony in Hong Kong by politicising public art.
Secondly, public art in Hong Kong is politicised by people for freedom and democracy and the most important and representative example is Pillar of Shame. This work tests the ‘validity of the new authorities’ guarantees for human rights and freedom of expression in Hong Kong’ now. The refusal of the installation of the sculpture in a public place by the municipal councils in 1997 for the reason of its appearance and message related to the Tiananmen massacre provoked a heated debate on whether freedom of expression and democracy can be ensured in the post-handover time. After the rejection, the work became homeless and roamed about the city for two years. Through this journey,however, the meaning of the work as symbol of freedom and democracy became specific and consolidated. The symbolism is still alive in Hong Kong today; Ceremonies to commemorate Tiananmen Square Incident have been held every year where the pillar stands, and the difficulty of the artist’s entry into Hong Kong happened in 2008 and 2009is looked upon as censorship of the freedom of expression and democracy. Since arriving in the city, the ‘foreign’ object has become a truly ‘Hong Kong’ democratic commemorative monument gauging freedom of expression and testing democracy in Hong Kong in the post-handover times. And it is the result by people’s spontaneous politicisation of public art for the sake of their freedom and democracy.

영어초록

Britain agreed to return the sovereignty over Hong Kong to Mainland China on 1 July 1997 and Mainland China agreed to ‘preserve Hong Kong’s dynamic capitalist system and way of life’ for 50 years under the principle of ‘one country, two systems’. The process of formally ending British colonial rule, which had lasted for about 150 years, and the history of colonial domination duly ended in 1997. However, the end of the British colony did not mean the end of domination and the start of Hong Kong’s autonomy. This dramatic historical event has rather raised the question: does the handover entail either decolonisation or re-colonisation by the new master, Mainland China? These incompatible views on handover have created a complete crisis in Hong Kong society and it is mainly derived from Hong Kong people’s view on Mainland China. Hong Kong people formed their own ‘way of life’ during the colonial times, which are different from those of Mainland Chinese,and they identify Mainland Chinese as ‘inferior’. It is hard for Hong Kong people, having this sense of superiority, to simply accept their return to Mainland China, and, hence, there have been controversies surrounding the handover in society.
The attempts to preserve Hong Kong people’s ‘way of life’ is clearly displayed in public art in Hong Kong. Public art since the Tiananmen Square Incident has been deeply involved in the issues of politics, society, culture and identity in the context of the handover and it indicates the fact that public art has been politicised for purposes. Firstly, it is found that public art is politicised by the press for the sake of reinforcing Hongkongness and Hong Kong Tripod is the significant example of it. The symbolism of Hong Kong tripod , which is the most representative manifestation of legitimacy and centrality of Chinese political power, was fatally damaged by the press coverage due to the negative interpretations of the press. The negative and superstitious interpretations about the tripod’s damage and wide transmission to the people by the press stirred up the people, and thereby created a collective sense of fear and ridicule against Mainland China. This gave a chance for Hong Kong people to concentrate them and reinforce Hongkongness in the collective sense created by the press. Furthermore, the press coverage reflects the situation of Hong Kong press around the handover years. In the competition between the pro-Hong Kong press and the pro-Mainland China press, many of the press companies tried to court the taste of the ‘Hong Kong’ people, who identify themselves in the sense of Hongkongness and are main collectivity in identity, and so hold hegemony in the post-handover Hong Kong. For the reason, the press produced those negative articles on the Tripod and that situation played an important role in inciting negative perceptions of Mainland China/Chineseness and reinforcement of Hongkongness. It shows the press reinforced Hongkongness and attempted to hold the hegemony in Hong Kong by politicising public art.
Secondly, public art in Hong Kong is politicised by people for freedom and democracy and the most important and representative example is Pillar of Shame. This work tests the ‘validity of the new authorities’ guarantees for human rights and freedom of expression in Hong Kong’ now. The refusal of the installation of the sculpture in a public place by the municipal councils in 1997 for the reason of its appearance and message related to the Tiananmen massacre provoked a heated debate on whether freedom of expression and democracy can be ensured in the post-handover time. After the rejection, the work became homeless and roamed about the city for two years. Through this journey,however, the meaning of the work as symbol of freedom and democracy became specific and consolidated. The symbolism is still alive in Hong Kong today; Ceremonies to commemorate Tiananmen Square Incident have been held every year where the pillar stands, and the difficulty of the artist’s entry into Hong Kong happened in 2008 and 2009is looked upon as censorship of the freedom of expression and democracy. Since arriving in the city, the ‘foreign’ object has become a truly ‘Hong Kong’ democratic commemorative monument gauging freedom of expression and testing democracy in Hong Kong in the post-handover times. And it is the result by people’s spontaneous politicisation of public art for the sake of their freedom and democracy.

참고자료

· 없음