Whenever I hear the name Andy Warhol, the first images that comes to mind is the stack of Campbell’s Noodle Soup cans and a pipe with the words “This is not a pipe” above it. Some of you might have seen his other works, such as the upside down urinal or a portrait of 8 Elvis Presleys. As simple as some of his artworks are, Warhol’s was the “bellwether of the art market.” His works included some of the most expensive art ever sold.
An article dated quite a while back but still featured on the front page of the New York Times Arts website was about an Andy Warhol exhibition that was held in China. It was called “Andy Warhol: 15 Minutes Eternal.” This phrase is quite aptly used as Andy Warhol was the artist who coined the term “15 minutes of fame” in 1968 by saying, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.”
The main problem with the exhibition was the Chinese ban of Andy Warhol’s Mao Portrait. After President Richard M. Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, Warhol visited the country himself in 1982 and created portraits of Mao. Eric Shiner, director of the Pittsburg Andy Warhol Museum, argued that the replication of Mao’s face can be found in the art works of many Chinese artists. It is a very commonplace aspect of Chinese art. The Chinese government to place a ban on Warhol’s depiction of Mao seems irrational. Shiner relented and took the Mao portrait out of the Warhol exhibition. He believed that displaying Warhol’s works to the Chinese public was more important than fighting to include the Mao portrait.
It is easy to accuse the Chinese government for being unreasonable, if we solely use what was written in the New York Times article. However, if we look closely, we can see that the article does not go into details why the Mao portrait was banned. There’s a perfectly logical explanation as to why the Chinese government did what it did.
To many Chinese citizens, the mere mention of Mao Zedong is a taboo. It is easy to understand why Mao Zedong has become a rejected figure if we go through the Chinese history during its Communist Era. Near the end of his reign, many of Mao’s plans such as the “Great Leap Forward,” failed. The number of people who died from starvation during the Great Leap Forward is astronomical, not to mention the disasters that occurred in the Chinese countryside. During this campaign, approximately 6 million people were wrongly punished.
The New York Times article made it seem as if the Chinese government was disrespecting Mao and Andy Warhol’s art. Eric Shiner did not grasp the reason as to why the Chinese government did what it did. Mao Zedong is the emblem of, to many Chinese citizens, an era they want to forget. To glorify him as a pop icon is not considered appealing. Compare it to the Germans glorifying Adolf Hitler in an exhibition targeting Jews. It is absurd to say the least.
Instead of writing a short article summarizing the event biasedly, Patricia Cohen, the author of the article, should have researched into the situation. She should have looked at both sides rather than taking the side that was easily explained. The way she backed up her article with quotes from Shiner and none from the Chinese is unfair. It creates misunderstandings for the reader. The exhibition is as much commercial as it is political. There are reasons as to why the Chinese government did what it did. To exclude their justifications only creates misunderstandings and wrongly-directed abhorrence.
The comparison that you used with Germans glorifying Adolf Hitler was really powerful. It shows the extent to which people may not be the biggest fans of Mao, and makes the Chinese government’s decision more understandable. I also think that Cohen should have done more research rather than being biased. She should have provided information for both sides and let the reader decide if the Chinese government was right or wrong rather than taking one side and making it seem like that side was the correct side. Many people may come across that article and begin to have ill feelings towards the Chinese government and walk away without even thinking about the rationale behind the government’s actions.
This article seems extremely interesting because it brings up the ideas of censorship in China. I think Warhol’s art pieces are amazing and should be shared around the world, although I do see why the Chinese government wants to ban his work, I don’t agree with it. I believe people should have the freedom to look at whatever art pieces they want. You mentioned how the government was trying to repress the ideas of Mao because he reminds them of bad feelings such as the Great Leap forward, but from what I learned in history class the Chinese were taught to adore Mao. They were in a way brainwashed into thinking he’s an amazing figure. Instead of trying to repress bad feelings about Mao, I think the Chinese government banned Warhol’s work because they felt that Mao shouldn’t be depicted that way. In their minds, maybe Mao is too great to be depicted in pop culture art.
I don’t know the intentions of the Chinese government when it banned the Mao portrait. What you and Christine said are both viable. But I feel that the ban is unjustified. Art should not be censored. Leave it up to the viewers to interpret the piece. As far I as know Warhol’s portrayal of Mao is just a colorful rework of the original painting. No harm, no foul. Here’s another interesting perspective though: http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/47149
I wholeheartedly agree. Very often we only see America’s point of view on things, and people completely ignore the other aspects that go along with certain stories that are featured in our newspapers. Take for example Time magazine. Have you looked at the front covers? Everywhere else in the world, Time magazine shows the same picture, and generally it is about something related to the world. In the United States however, the front cover is always different, relating it to something happening in the United States.
Well first off I would like to mention that I LOVE the works of Andy Warhol specifically his collection entitled “Jewish Geniuses”. If I am ever successful enough I hope to own the portrait of Albert Einstein, but that is just a side point. I really enjoyed your blog post, it is interesting that you were able to do the research and give the reader a totally different approach then would have been had upon reading the NYT article alone. I completely agree with you and I support the Chinese Government for trying to defend the feelings of its people. I only wish the journalist who wrote the article would have had the foresight to do the reach like you have so eloquently done.