Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

Creative Journal needs a creative mind

Wednesday, April 18th, 2007

What is Creative Journal? Creative Journal had a negative denotation for me at the early stage. I took Creative Journal as a piece of homework at the beginning because I did not understand why should I keep writing it every week, and who am I writing for. So I treated it as something that I had a duty to do.

Why I am writing? The uncertainty of writing became my motivation towards writing. Now I have a very positive feeling towards it. I realised that I am not writing for anyone but rather for myself. Whenever I read a good article, come back from a fantastic exhibition or have had an exciting discussion with course-mates, they all become very good resources for it. Gradually, the creative journal became one of my hobbies which records my thoughts, builds up my ideas and also keeps my mind busy with controversial issues within contemporary society.

Creative journal helps me to think seriously about what I have perceived, heard and also when I have given my own opinions towards contemporary issues. It differs from essays, one can write freely without restrictions from particular topics.
However, the fact is that I found all the subjects of which I am interested, actually interact with each other. For example I have been interested in whether Chinese contemporary architecture has been influenced by the Western idea of modernity. Meanwhile, I also keen to research whether Chinese contemporary art has its own identity or if it may be seen as a copy of the Western phenomenon. Both topics are relevant to the study of visual culture, and both issues had obvious effects in the City in China today.

Creative Journals help me to review what I have studied in the past, and make connections with similar contexts. It naturally draws a visual mind map for me, which helps me to analyze my mind and thinking.

Nevertheless, I have also met difficulties through writing. It was difficult to talk about things objectively. A piece of creative journal can be from a very personal point of view. However, I think it is good to not repeat what has been said in history, instead, to develop one’s own thought further based on today’s issues in various situations.

Theories are still very crucial for supporting one’s ideas and also to help to reveal contemporary issues. I also enjoyed in studying thinkers with differing viewpoints. Researching on a very specific subject can lead one into depth in this study area. Moreover, through long-term research, one may gain unexpected knowledge and find more interests. For example I wrote a series of discussions about ‘YCA (Young Chinese Artists) is on its way’, which is quite different from my studies of feminism. These require different style of wiring.

Among various subjects, I have been interested in the Chinese contemporary art market, in terms of how it has dramatically developed through the last 30 years. It has many influences from within and also outside of China. When Chinese indigenous culture suddenly becomes a source of creative motivation for Chinese artists, and their artworks become products, and these products are brought to the international market, afterwards, this market becomes hotter and hotter. I really want to know the reasons behind this.

In terms of Chinese contemporary art history, it is fascinating to see who is making it and how it has been constructed.

With my language advantage, I am also able to compare and contrast different ideas and philosophies towards contemporary art from the West and China. I have found that language plays an important role in terms of exchanging ideas. From many articles in Chinese publications, I have discovered how the Chinese perceive contemporary art. As Chinese contemporary art gradually becomes popular in the West today, many Western critics have had their attention drawn to it. One can easily come across art reviews or critical essays in many famous English-language art and theory magazines today, such as Art Forum, Art in America, Radical Philosophy and so on.

I feel fortunate that I am studying art theory and am able to associate with various viewpoints from both the Chinese and the Western sides towards contemporary art. Since then, I have not been satisfied with just being an observer. I have tried to apply my knowledge to them by using what I have learned through this course. For example, in ‘A Fake Conversation’, I joined the conversation among art critics (in this case Richard Vine and Christopher Phillips) and presented my own opinions. Another example will be ‘ “Aftershock” shocked me’ – a series of criticisms on the YBA British Contemporary Art show which is held in China this year. I focused on the fact that Tracy Emin’s ‘my bed’ was ‘castrated’ when the Chinese version of it appeared, and I reviewed in English in how the Chinese media presented this show. With the aim of encouraging Young Chinese Artists to be more creative and groundbreaking, one may sense the new cultural imperialism is coming in by the back door with the show.

Feminism studies is also one of my favourite subjects. It was quite shocking after studying feminism in art in the West. Women were not included in the Art circle for a long term throughout art history. In my journal, I took the opportunity to compare two compelling thinkers to show the ‘sexual difference’ between Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler. This helped me to obtain knowledge about Western cultural background as well as to look at contemporary art through this perspective.

I believe that creative journal needs a creative mind. A creative mind is not about thinking randomly, it will be developed little by little by continually writing it and being passionate, active and critical about one’s interests.

A fake Conversation

Monday, April 9th, 2007

The following two quotes are taken from the March 2007 edition of Art in America, to which I have responded.

Richard Vine: Before the market explosion, critics like Li Xianting and independent curators like Fei Dawei, Feng Boyi and Gu Zhenqing played vital roles in identifying – or inventing – significant movements and highlighting the work of selected artists. What has become of those functions today? Does intellectual validation still matter, or has criticism become primarily work done for hire?

Christopher Phillips: As is the case in many places where contemporary art institutions are in their infancy, art-community members in China inevitably wear many hats. Someone who is an artist may also be writing critics, organizing museum exhibitions, running a commercial gallery, advising foreign collectors on a commission basis and teaching in an art academy. There is only a grudging awareness that these overlapping roles might involve conflicts of interests. All this will probably change as the Chinese art world becomes more professionalized in the coming decades. Nevertheless, at the moment enormous temptations are presented by the flood of money that’s rushing around in the Chinese art scene, and I think that very few curators now refrain from privately buying and selling works.

Shi Li: I don’t see why an Artist cannot also be critic, curator, collector, dealer or whatever they want to be at the same time. Especially, among today’s international art practice, it does not surprise me if one plays different roles in his or her life. In terms of becoming a ‘professionalised’, it seems to me one will be more likely to restrict oneself from accessing other interacted fields. ‘Conflicts of interests’ may occur, such as a scholar may be distracted from teaching by putting too much effort of curating exhibitions – however, theory and practise are good to be preformed at the same time. This is similar to why a good course in a university should be combined with a lab. Another example could be more serious than arranging one’s schedule, which is about the evaluation of a piece of art. This concerns one’s morality towards art, as one may argue that a curator may select artworks by their prices, or artists may produce their art by the whims of the art market. However, Chinese contemporary art environment may have its own function and system depending on its own situation. Perhaps, what the Chinese contemporary art needs is not a judgement but encouragement and advice.


Wednesday, March 14th, 2007


Culture colonization the relationship between the colonizer and the colony

Having been very much inspired by Edward Said, Gandhi pointed out that ‘Postcoloniality, we might say, is just another name for the globalization of cultures and histories.’(Gandhi, 1998, p.126) As nineteenth-century colonization has faded from our memory of history, post-colonialists are well aware of a new kind of cross-cultural ‘postcoloniality’, which without hostilities, pillage and occupation but rather cultural, educational and spiritual influence implanted in contemporary society, which can be regarded as an invisible form of cultural imperialism. Regarding cultural imperialism, Ella Shohat and Robert Stam argue that,

… the third world always seems to lag behind, not only economically but culturally, condemned to a perpetual game of catch-up, in which it can only repeat on another register the history of the ‘advanced’ world. This system ignores the ‘systems theory’ that sees all the ‘worlds’ as coeval, interlinked, living the same historical moment (but under diverse modalities of subordination or domination). (Shohat and Stam, 2002, p.38)

They elaborate this point further, ‘ like the sociology of “modernisation” and the economics of “development,” the aesthetics of modernism (and postmodernism) often covertly assume a telos toward which “Third world” cultural practices are presumed to be evolving.’ (ibid.)

From Shohat and Stam’s point of view, the so-called ‘first world’ Modernisation system and its effects on other cultures should be questioned. It cannot be seen as an advanced goal, which the rest of the world (non-western countries) has to follow. The debate here will be centred on the concept that a Modernized ideal is not necessarily the same as a modern ideal. There is still a relationship of cultural colonization between the colonizer and colony.

The identity of Chinese contemporary art
I will now turn to Chinese contemporary art to show how colonization has affected its identity.

In China, there has been a dramatic increase in interest in contemporary art in the last 30 years. There is a question whether contemporary Chinese art is a replication of the western contemporary art or whether it has its own Chinese identity.

In relation to Chinese contemporary art practice, there seem to be three aspects of contemporary postcolonial thought which appear to have influenced it.

Establishing an international image and reputation
First, a growing body of Chinese contemporary art attempts to follow similar western patterns of establishing an international image and reputation. Accompanying the rapidly developed economy in the last thirty-years, there has been a realization of the influence of cultural colonization upon major cities in China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou The thriving contemporary Chinese art scene has reflected some kinds of western art world ideologies, and many contemporary institutions such as Shanghai Art Museum have followed similar institutional traditions as Europe since the end of the 20th century. For instance, the Venice Biennale has successfully been held in Europe for more than 100-years. In recent years, the major cities in China such as Beijing, Guangzhou and Chongqing have all held art biennials, which the Chinese government has encouraged in order to attract attention from all over the world.

Who is more familiar with Chinese contemporary art
Secondly, it seems that the westerners are more familiar with Chinese contemporary art than the Chinese by looking at certain phenomena.
After searching and observing many Chinese art institutions and artists’ websites, one phenomenon is that their websites are generally translated into English. By looking at their biography in these websites, the exhibitions are held equally overseas and in China, or often they hold more international exhibitions than ones in their own country, places such as America, Japan and many countries in Europe.

Furthermore, there are foreign collectors, museums and galleries, many from the ‘first world’ especially America and Europe, who have been collecting numerous outstanding Chinese contemporary artworks in recent years. And this tendency is increasing every year, as there are more people from the art circle or even outside paying attention to Chinese contemporary art. For instance, many contemporary Chinese artworks can be found in the well-known Christies and Sotheby’s auctions today. Both of these companies established overseas offices in major cities of China. This might be because on the one hand, the Chinese art market is becoming increasingly popular; on the other hand, it has become another major resource for them. For example Sotheby’s in New York put Chinese contemporary art on the block as an individual sales category for the first time just one year ago (Richard Vine in Vine, 2007, p.50).

However, there are positives and negatives if Chinese contemporary art practice remains the same. The fact is that there are less Chinese people collecting contemporary art than westerners. The reason could be either people cannot afford these artworks (perhaps because these works are brought to the international market where western buyers are willing to pay a higher price than Chinese collectors) or even those who are wealthy have no intention of collecting contemporary art, owing to the fact they are not aware of its significance and value.

Another reason could be the absence of an aesthetical education of what is contemporary Chinese art by which I mean having a culture of aesthetic appreciation of contemporary art in general. This may be because of the lack of world-class museums in China and the major movement of Chinese artefacts to the west in the 19th century.

The well-known Chinese artist Chen Danqing reminds us that among what is preceived to be the best ten museums, such as the Berlin Museum in Germany, the Maya Museum in Mexico or the British Museum in the UK, there are none of in Asia which has the largest population in the world. (Chen, 2005, p.19) Without more local facilities, the next generation will have the same ‘destiny’ as the Chinese now.

They will also have to fly almost half the globe to visit places such as the British Museum to look at the art from their ancestors. So instead of permanently working individually, Chinese contemporary artists should encourage and help the government construct an aesthetical education system to collect contemporary art works in order to provide an artistic environment and also educate young generations. It will help change the sense of art of the nation. Chen Danqing says, art is visual culture, if we cannot perceive it originally, is just like deaf men talking about music. (Chen, 2005, p.18)

Understanding theory

Thursday, March 1st, 2007

Understanding theory

I question why I temporarily gave up art practise, and studied in art theory.

The aim of this journal is to emphasize what theory is and why studying theory is significant in culture and history studies. Theory is usually defined as explanations, and concepts organized together. Theories help analyze and uncover the veil of phenomena and events that occur in contemporary society.

The study of theory is both crucial and political. For instance, it can be a way ‘to oppose utilitarianism and anti-intellectualism of the government’s approach to education’. The idea is to encourage citizens to be more critical and aware of how the society is composed. According to Gramsci’s concept of the ‘organic intellectual’, everyone is an intellectual but not all possess the function of it. In other words, all men should not only have a role in the market but also be a critical and involved member in the society.

Theories do not exist for the sole purpose of being studied. They are studied because it stimulates critical thinking and because they relate to broader issues that are political, social and historical. Theories substantiated by our predecessors can be related to contemporary issues and thus support current day intellectuals as they speak to persuade the population.

Successful application of theory in one’s argument makes it more reasonable and harder to question and provides evidence of affinity with other academics. A clear understanding of theory can open one’s mind to the very essences of the subjects studied. In order to propose a new theory, one is required to take into account existing theory in order to be substantiated and eventually become persuasive.

Feminism studies: Compare and contrast two competing accounts of ‘sexual difference’ – between Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler

Thursday, February 22nd, 2007

Part – 5 Bringing new thoughts

‘Sexual difference’ as a ‘burning issue’ has been controversial since the end of last century. Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler are two of the most influential feminist thinkers who hold different opinions of how society has changed the concept of ‘women’ and also deconstructed ‘sexual difference’ among humanity. I have been studying those differences by analyzing key terms such as ‘culture over nature’, sex and gender and ‘sexual difference’. It seems that Irigaray’s theory was based on a historical point of view, which rejected Freudian theory of binary opposition of ‘women’ and ‘men’. She emphasises women’s value and position in the western society in the 1980’s. Conversely, Butler focuses on the ‘multiplicity’ of ‘gender identity’, whose argument seems more relevant to ‘sexual difference’ in general (with respect to racism and homosexuality) today.

While Irigaray and Butler are fundamental to Western thought, in my opinion, Globalization has broken the boundaries between people who have different identities and come from different cultures. In this sense, people who are from non-western cultures may have various opinions about ‘sexual difference’, which may bring new insights to the discussion.

Feminism studies: Compare and contrast two competing accounts of ‘sexual difference’ – between Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler

Monday, February 19th, 2007

Part 4 – Sexual difference

When P. DE Sagazan questions Irigaray about how men and women are different, Irigaray’s answer was that ‘they are corporeally different’. She articulated that this ‘biological difference’ leads to other differences such as constructing subjectivity, connecting to the world and relating (Irigaray, 2000, p.96). In contrast to ‘biological difference’, Butler argues that these ‘corporeal styles’ (differences) are a sedimentation, which has been produced over time. It appears in sexes that sit in ‘a binary relation to one another’. (Butler, 1988, p.407)

‘Sexual difference’ for Irigaray is heterosexually based, which is the major distinction between her and Butler. Irigaray stated later in conversation that ‘…two genders have different forms of consciousness: one remaining more faithful to the body and to her sensibility, to the concrete environment, and to intersubjective relationships, …the other, constructing a universe of non-natural objects…’ It seems that she clearly separated the idea of ‘sex’ into two genders. Conversely, Butler rejects the heterosexuality of sex/gender division, she claims that heterosexuality (the same as gender) is, as mentioned above, ‘culturally produced’ and can be ‘subverted and dismantled.’ (Stone, 2006, p.7)

Furthermore, Irigaray believed that ‘sexual difference’ is a universal difference, which can serve as a standpoint for understanding other differences. According to her, ‘there are traces of instincts derived from animality and human passions in the relations between women and men’, such as respecting other gender. For her, this can be seen as from the ‘most instinctive to the most spiritual’ – the most spiritual being that which bring humans to respect other differences such as race, generation, culture and so on. (Irigaray, 2000, p.99) So ‘sexual difference’ (which by her means sex difference) obviously was a fundamental difference for her, which Butler denies. Butler stresses the ‘multiplicity’ of ‘sex’ and ‘gender performativity’, which bear cultural meaning with it.


Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution. In Conboy, K., Medina, N., Stanbury, S. eds. Writing on the Body: Female Movement and Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Irigaray, L. and Lotringer, S., transl. Collins, C. (2000). Why Different? New York: Semiotext(e).

Stone, A. (2006). Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feminism studies: Compare and contrast two competing accounts of ‘sexual difference’ – between Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler

Thursday, February 15th, 2007

Part 3 – sex and gender

It seems that Irigaray and Butler’s interpretations of ‘sexual difference’ are based on different starting points. Irigaray focuses on the rejection of female sexuality in cultural theory, and claims that gender is sex based. However, Butler states that it is extremely limiting if one understands gender as a separated model, which is based on sex, and does not take into account other bases of gender identity and different forms of sexuality (Long, 2006). She articulates Merleau-Ponty’s reflections on the phenomenology of perception on “the body in its sexual being”, saying that the human body is “an historical idea” rather than “a natural species.” She is also inspired by Simone de Beauvoir’s notion of “woman”, for which ‘any extension, and gender, is an historical situation rather than a natural fact.’ Butler explains that ‘[Beauvoir] clearly underscores the distinction between sex, as biological facticity, and gender, as the cultural interpretation or signification of that facticity’ (Butler, 1988, p.403).

According to Butler’s theory of sex and gender, one can argue that biological sex does not oppose performative gender. Sex and gender can be seen as an interacted relationship (sex/gender). Sexes can be seen as gendered bodies, which are created by culture. Butler elaborates gender as an aspect of identity, which are created through ‘a stylized repetition of [performative] acts’ (Long, 2006). In this sense, gender can also be defined into multiple assumptions. As Butler states

‘…there is neither an “ essence” that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender creates the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis’ (Butler, 1988, p.405).

Even through both Irigaray and Butler agreed that patriarchal power has been influencing and controlling human interpretation of ‘sex’ and gender, one could argue that Butler reveals more possibilities for the understanding of sex/gender. Butler’s notion of sex/gender is sublimated to an intellectual level, which free individuals to define their own sex/gender.


Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution. In Conboy, K., Medina, N., Stanbury, S. eds.

Writing on the Body: Female Movement and Feminist Theory

. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997
Long, V. (2006). Subjectivity and Gender: Luce Irigaray’s, Judith Butler’s and Riot Girl’s Gender Challenge. Internet (last viewed 10 January 2007).

Feminism studies: Compare and contrast two competing accounts of ‘sexual difference’ – between Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler

Saturday, February 10th, 2007

Part two – Why ‘culture over nature’

Both Irigaray and Butler agree that culture is ‘over’ nature. Similarly, both of them reject the ‘given truth’, and believe that humans are cultural beings. We engage in activities of transforming ourselves in the material world. However, the term ‘culture over nature’ was elaborated in different ways by these two thinkers.

For Irigaray, ‘culture’ indicates the notion of ‘man’ (the ‘only one sex’) who revalued ‘woman,’ which is therefore a culturally constructed idea (of what it is a woman should be) that appears ‘natural’. Irigaray claimed that, traditionally, the need for a representation of ‘nature’, was seen as good or bad depending on whether it is created by men or engendered by women (Irigaray, 1987, p.96). It seems that Irigaray was trying to describe the power relationship between culture and nature, and also self-awareness among ‘women’. In her book This Sex Which Is Not One, she claimed that ‘ “women” always remains several, but she is kept from dispersion because the other is already within her and is autocratically familiar to her, which is not to say that she appropriates the other for herself, that she reduces it to her own property.’ She focused on the female position in human society and emphasized that women should create their own systems in terms of language, discourses and sexuality.

Stone argued that Irigaray could be seen to use the concept of nature in two main senses. ‘Firstly, the ‘nature’ of something, for her, denotes its defining character or essence – in the sense men and women are said to have different natures.’ (Stone, 2006, p.5) Besides that, Irigaray denoted ‘nature’ as character and essence of human – she believes that men and women have different natures.

One could argue that by encouraging and also emphasizing female positions, ‘sexual difference’ for her is to distinguish male and female identities or positions.

However, Judith Butler questions the notion of natural, biological or true gender identity. She stepped further than Irigaray’s analysis by explaining the hidden ‘reason’ behind why ‘nature’ was understood as natural. She claims that culture is continuously changing and gender is a constructed idea. As Long stated,

Butler contends that culture requires gender to be inscribed upon the body…gendered bodies are created. Gender is a facet of identity created through a stylized repetition of acts. Gender performance and prescription is internalized as a form of self-discipline. (Long, 2006)

For instance, Butler also argues that ‘heterosexuality is a cultural artifact, which can be subverted and dismantled’. She explicated ‘Phenomenological theories of human embodiment have also been concerned to distinguish between the various physiological and biological causalities that structure bodily existence and the meanings that embodied existence assumes in the context of lived experience.’ (Butler, 1988, p.403) This explanation reflects what Stone stated about Judith Butler’s idea that bodies do have a natural character, but one of multiplicity (Stone, 2006, p.6).


Long, V. (2006). Subjectivity and Gender: Luce Irigaray’s, Judith Butler’s and Riot Girl’s Gender Challenge. Internet (last viewed 10 January 2007).

Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution. In Conboy, K., Medina, N., Stanbury, S. eds. Writing on the Body: Female Movement and Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Irigaray, L. (1987). Sexual Difference. Transl. Hand, S. In Whitford, M. ed. (1991). The Irigaray Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Stone, A. (2006). Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feminism studies: Compare and contrast two competing accounts of ‘sexual difference’ – between Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler

Friday, February 2nd, 2007

Part 1 – The notion of ‘sex’

In order to compare and contrast the term ‘sexual difference’ between these two thinkers, it is necessary to define Irigaray and Butler’s notion of ‘sex’. In ‘This Sex Which Is Not One’, Irigaray criticized Freud’s concept of the ‘binary opposition’ of sexuality. She theorized, ‘another system is needed, a system that will privilege the feminine as much as the masculine and will be based on the multiplicity of sexuality’ (Harmon, 1996). By pointing out the ‘multiplicity of sexuality’, Irigaray explained that from the historical interpretation (Freud’s concept of Binary opposition), if male sexuality is based on having a penis (a single sex organ) and female sexuality is based on having ‘nothing’, and then the binary opposition could be one of ‘penis/nothing, clitoris, vagina’ (Harmon, 1996). It is clear that the ‘sex’ for Irigaray is not only ‘one’ – the ‘one’ indicates an active, male, patriarchal culture. What she argues against is the historical idea that women are passive, whose desire and pleasure have been situated in males. As Harmon stated, Irigaray suggested constructing a new system for women, which ‘will privilege the feminine as much as the masculine and will be based on the multiplicity of female sexuality.’

Judith Butler does not draw a clear line between sexes. She agrees that humans have natural characters but also claims that ‘sex’ reveals multiplicities to humans, who then need to be considered as ‘cultural products’. She contends that:

…there is a sedimentation of gender norms that produces the peculiar phenomenon of a natural sex, or a real woman…this is a sedimentation that over time has produced a set of corporeal styles which appear as the natural configuration of bodies into sexes which exist in a binary relation to one another’. (Butler, 1988, p.407)

Butler focuses on the relationship between ‘natural’ sex and ‘performative’ gender. She believes that sex is a gendered body, which bears cultural meanings. She states that ‘the acts by which gender is constituted bear similarities to performative acts within theatrical contexts’ (Butler, 1988, p.403). It seems that ‘cultural products’ play an important role in constructing different sexes. For her, sex is also not ‘only one’, but also not only two – it is the multiplicity. Sex is never ‘natural’ for her, but can be seen as a culturally transformed gender. ‘Gender performativity’ can be seen as a way to represent different sexes. Irigaray responded to and rejected the historical consequences (the binary opposition of sex), whereas for Butler’s ‘multiplicity’ this is irrelevant, but now it directly explains it’s own genesis.


Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution. In Conboy, K., Medina, N., Stanbury, S. eds. Writing on the Body: Female Movement and Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Harmon, B. (1996). Luce Irigaray. Internet (last viewed 10 January 2007).

why do I chose Sexual Poetics as my special subject

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

Since I chose Sexual Poetics as my special subject, I have been considering writing about female art in China. Or to be more specific, the application of feminist theory to art in China as feminism is an exclusively western phenomenon.

In order to find more information in relation to feminist theory in China, I have observed some of the websites which introduce this theory to China, especially how Chinese women deal with this western philosophy. Many important philosophers have been introduced to China, such as Simone de Beauvoir, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva and Judith Butler. However, it seems that the essays that introduced these writers generally attempted to introduce western thoughts directly from translations rather than elaborate them from Chinese perspectives. The critical articles on the subject of feminism in Art are also difficult to find.

I hope I can study this subject matter in depth, to be able to understand more contemporary theories which are happening in the west. However, my aim is not to apply these theories to the Chinese side. Instead, I think one should encourage oneself to be critical toward contemporary issues in order to develop one’s own thoughts.