"Purging": Xiao Lu’s "Subversion" of „Subversion“ / by Juan Xu

Xiao Lu's "Purging" at the Parallel Exhibition of the 55th Venice Biennial sparked an intense online debate. Much of my reflection on this work, particularly regarding the church's taboo, was not shared due to limited internet access—it's regrettable that Mr. Wu beat me to it.

"Nakedness" and the Power of Speech

The discussion centered on whether it is meaningful for Xiao Lu to be "naked," and whether her art conforms to rules: a. Can the church's taboo be removed with "nakedness" without the slightest hesitancy? b. Can the curatorial program be changed at will for "being naked"? c. "Nakedness" is not a "wise" artistic language (with supporters included). Conclusion: It is no more than "skinny dipping.“

Firstly, this is not mere "skinny dipping." Admittedly, challenging social norms through "being naked" is a formidable task in Europe—consider the 1968 student movement and nude sunbathers in parks or on beaches. However, Xiao Lu's performance didn't take place on a beach; it occurred in a public space called "The Grand Canal," to be more precise, an "art space" rented from the church. Had Xiao Lu engaged in mere "skinny dipping" at an outdoor bathing place, it would have made as little sense as Duchamp's placing a urinal in a washroom.

Su Jian questioned Xiao Lu's "transgression" in an article titled "The First Thing Xiao Lu Should Do Is 'Brainwash'." "...in the free capitalist world, a lasting holy city, there must be rules. There isn't, I believe, sufficient time or room to delve into the reasons behind the sacred rules of religious art. However, these rules must apply in permissible places. So, what kind of place is this 'antique church museum' with a 12th-century corridor? Without much contemplation, it's clear that there must be taboos in this 'religious site'; otherwise, it wouldn't be deemed a holy city!" Su's notion of sacred rules is rooted in the power of speech within a Catholic/patriarchal society.

It's no secret that the Catholic Church historically wielded its theocracy and ecclesiastical courts to suppress dissent. Even today, the Catholic Church still imposes significant limitations on women, excluding them from important religious positions. As the world becomes increasingly secular, the Catholic Church is becoming marginalized, leading its power mechanism to become one of "discipline." Drawing from Foucault's "Discipline and Punish," this power manifests through control over others. Disciplinary power mechanisms control or even generate people's actions through normalized training—a control that doesn't rely on violence or cruel torture, but on routine discipline, checks, and training. Discipline and training turn people into objects and tools of power manipulation.Zhang Qiongfei astutely notes that while Xiao Lu, growing up in a Socialist country, may not have directly experienced Catholic Church oppression, she has nonetheless been subjected to its power. The church "rented" a place for a contemporary art exhibition but imposed regulations on what could be displayed. Isn't a naked challenge a rightful response? In this sense, Xiao Lu's "skinny dipping" has no bearing on the "naked sunbathers," and it is not affected either. She was challenging the power of speech in the church's „discipline."

"Subversion" of „Subversion"

Throughout art history, many artists have turned to "transgression" to expand the boundaries of art, its form, and language. This practice was more common in the 20th century, when avant-garde artists resorted to extreme transgressions to push the boundaries of art.

In general, avant-garde art aims to challenge orthodox art, introducing new concepts and orders. Simultaneously, it seeks to redefine art's role and societal position. Through extreme "anti-art" measures, modern and post-modern art revolutionize our visual habits, challenging societal conventions. "Shock," defamiliarization, disharmony, and abstraction are their most common tools, meant to expose the disharmony within reality through "the ugly." It's revolutionary in that it revolts against conventional art's established power, refusing to accept history or art's authority, and satirizing the inefficacy of art. This is why avant-garde art sometimes becomes synonymous with "anti-art" or "non-art." These aesthetic experiments often find allies in social politics, aligning in form and content.

Modern avant-garde art's political demand often stems from a utopian ideal of reshaping societal reality. Its extended artistic boundaries are closely tied to the search for societal and cultural meanings and functions. It seeks to blur the line between art and life, notably critiquing political and societal realities. In such circumstances, artists take up the role of social and political reformers, serving as "revolutionaries." The 20th-century Russian avant-garde artists and Italian Futurists exemplified such reformist ideals.

The alliance between art experiments and politics, however, often ends up with politics’ abduction of art, and art loses its freedom. Xiao Lu, an avant-garde artist famous for her “Dialogue” in the 1980s, has started a series of “subversion” of “subversion,” overturning the existing social politics and power of speech based on gender. Her spirit of “subversion” runs through her art from “Dialogue” to “Purging.”

“Dialogue”: At the First National Art Exhibition in 1989, Xiao Lu sparked debates by shooting at her work. “Dialogue” was considered an important event about freedom that represents strong social criticism, a challenge to the existing social order. When the art community was about to reach an agreement, however, Xiao Lu published her own autobiographical novel, "Dialogue," to clarify, saying that the work had been intended to release her own emotions. Therefore, the grand narrative of social politics was not her intention. Her “subversion” really annoyed those “subverters.” To the VIPs in contemporary art, “Dialogue” and the ensuing events were embarrassing.

“Sperms”: A challenge to gender-based ethics and roles. When it was interpreted as post-modern Queer feminist art, however, Xiao Lu again subverted that typical way to interpret contemporary feminist art by considering it as women’s attachment to life and family.

“Wedding”: According to Li Xinmo, this work is about breaking away from our convention based on heterosexuality to find the “original self” and union with the self. According to Xiao Lu, however, she hoped to have a normal family, so this work only showed her unfulfilled dream.

“Bald Girls”: Considering that Xiao Lu has interpreted several of her seemingly feminist works as an individual rebellion from an emotional perspective, the art community comes to label her as an “emotional” artist. An encounter with feminist art, however, led her out of her private world to embrace feminism. Interestingly, the art community and the media became reluctant to hear her talk about “feminism” and wished her to keep talking about her sentimental and private life. The "bald head" subverted the so-called "normal" for another time.

“Purging” at the Parallel Exhibition of the 55th Venice Biennial in 2013 again led to debates in the art circle. Those in favor and those against reached an agreement: the expression was sentimental and superficial and showed little respect for the church and the curator. “Artists are born with rationality to challenge political power, like what Xiao Lu did in 1989: shooting at her work because challenging political power is the responsibility of modern citizens. But the offense to the local religious mores does not fall into this category. Some religious rules are rational for their own sake, so if one opposes it for the sake of opposition, it means running amok.” (Zhang Yu’s words at an international seminar)

What Zhang Yu said led us to a consensus contemporary art in China has reached: it is alright to oppose the political structure, but the “subversion” of “subversion” needs deeper reflection. If “Dialogue” is aimed at challenging the mechanism, then “Purging” is the “subversion” of the “subversion” of the church. “Snowden” is a good example. He violated American law on national security, but almost all the world’s public opinion took his side and considered him a fighter for freedom. Snowden questioned the core of American values. Is it “power by the rule” or “human rights,” including concepts like freedom and democracy? Can the American government violate the Constitution and urge public servants to violate human rights, but the public servants have no other choice than to obey? When the government and the private sector run into conflict, which side has more say?

Any “genuine” “criticism” is about an individual’s choice and attitude. To safeguard the purity of criticism, a real “dissident” has nothing to do with the vulgar concepts of nation, nationality, and class.” Xiao Lu’s works are remarkable not for their grandeur and craftsmanship. From “Dialogue” to “Purging,” Xiao Lu offers us a simple and strong experience, keeping the tradition of “subverting” the “subverted” and starting a new perspective in contemporary art in China. Whether  social criticism or personal emotion, Xiao Lu’s art is unexceptionally directed at “freedom,” the nature of life. She is a real “dissident” and pioneer of “subversion”.

Huaian,China  June 27, 2013