In The Name Of Art
Sally Lai interviews Cai Yuan and JJ Xi
Yishu Journal Contemporary Chinese Art, Issue of December 2004
Original from China, Cai Yuan and JJ Xi have been living and working in the United Kingdom since the 1980s, having trained at Goldsmiths and Royal College of Art. They achieved notoriety in the late nineties for the their action Jumping on the Tracey Emin’s Bed (1999) at Tate Britain’s Turner Prize Exhibition. Their work to date has included antics such running naked across Westminster Bridge with Tony Bear (a pun on British Prime Minister Tony Blair; 2000), swimming across the river Thames (2000), arresting the curator Hou Hanru (2000), Soya sauce and Ketchup fights (1999,2000,2002), and creating a penis wine (2003).
Recently Cai Yuan and JJ Xi staged their first full-scale exhibition, Happy and Glorious (2004), at the Chinese Arts Centre, Manchester. The interview with the artist reflects on how this project came about and places it with their practice.
SL: The two of you have been working together over the last five years. How did this partnership come about? Up until this point, what kind of work were you doing?
Cai & JJ: We have collaborated since Jumping on Tracey Emin’s bed (1999) at the Turner Prize exhibition. The partnership came about by chance. Up until then we had been doing a lot of abstract and conceptual work. When we saw the bed it excited us. We realised we could be doing something more interesting. To stage such an action needs a lot of courage; you need to be mentally and physically prepared for an unpredictable result. Our real motivation was to make a more significant work. Our attitude towards the establishment is important. We started a year-long campaign by doing a series of performances in London inside and outside the British institutions, including pissing, fighting, swimming, crawling, and running – a series of action-based performances.
SL: How do you see your work in relation to what is going on in the Chinese art scene?
Cai & JJ: We are working in different directions in a different contexts. Our position and experience are moulded by our existence in the Western world. What we do is completely separate from what is going on in China. It would be impossible to do what we do in China, as it would be interpreted as a political action. Something we still participate in the Chinese art scene.
SL: The body has been a site for expression historically in live art. What role does the body have in your work?
Cai & JJ: We use our bodies as a vehicle of communication. On most occasions, the body appears as a symbol of our identity. The body acts like a piece of original material. As Mao said, you can paint the newest, most beautiful picture on a blank piece of paper.
SL: Do you think that Chinese artists have a different way of treating the body from contemporary artists in the West?
Cai & JJ: Yes and no. They interpret the body in different ways, using it as a means of expression. Chinese performance is a gesture, while performance in the West involves lots of discussion. It combines the subjective and the objective…the body in relation to ideas. Having said that, the Chinese use of the body has historical reasons behind it. Sometimes the body has been used to confront an oppressive regime. In that sense the body can be used as a site for protest against corruption, reflecting the human spirit of freedom.
SL: One work that was particularly shocking to British viewers is the Penis Wine (2003) in which an alcoholic drink was made with a penis lift over from a transsexual operation. Do you think that this is a difference between UK and Chinese attitudes to the body or does this work have as much potency in China?
Cai & JJ: In China, the attitude towards the body is cannibalistic, historically speaking. The body is not respected in the same way as the West. This is really shocking. Our penis spirit is to do with the spirit, not the body. We did that work in China, as it would impossible to use a body part from a transsexual operation in the UK. One or two people in China might understand this work, but most obviously wouldn’t.
SL: The media, in this case Channel 4, was used as a means of the disseminating this piece to a wide audience and as a means of generating hype about the work. Quite often things in the media take on a life of their own. How have you found this? Have you been able to deliberately utilise this?
Cai & JJ: The media does what it wants to do. What we want to do is raise questions about the Chinese art practice and Western commercialism in the Chinese context. That’s why we did it (the penis wine piece) in the Sanlitun district, in the heart of the Westernised bars where artists and Westerners go to drink. Ironically, the street which was called “bar street” has now been demolished. It’s like Pissing on Duchamp’s urinal (2000) -it’s celebrating the original spirit of the avant-garde. The work is highly metaphysical. Drinking the penis wine gives energy and gives you health. Drinking this in China was a gesture to remind artists in China that they have lost their values, prioritising capitalist and commercial values. The original value of art has been left behind.
SL: With the Penis Wine work it is now difficult to know what to believe; some people say it was really a human penis and others that it was purely faked for the programme. Does the truth behind the project matter to you, or is it interesting that all these contradictory stories simultaneously exist?
Cai & JJ: We took part in the film made by Channel 4, which was looking at extreme art in China in which artists used real body parts in their work. We got the penis from an artist in Beijing. It is an original piece. It has to be true. You can’t fake it and fool the Beijing’s “top art circle.” The stories are always interesting to hear because it shows the stories evolve as they circulate around different people.
SL: The performance-related photographic project Paradox is also about contradictions, with its deliberate juxtaposition of contrasting images. What is the significance of positioning yourselves in front of , for example, Buckingham Palace naked?
Cai & JJ: The Arts Council of England supported Paradox, a series of twelve images in which we positioned ourselves as Chinese against British settings – places like the Houses of Parliament, symbols of British national identity. The significance is the contrast between us, as barbaric Chinese bodies, and the respectable British monarchy.
SL: Your work has often involved institutional critique questioning the boundaries of institutionalised artwork. What to you is the importance of doing this?
Cai & JJ: We are keeping an eye on certain institutions. We are interested in what they are doing, their programmes, etc. It is like a process of democracy, like people keeping an eye on their government. If the government decides to go to war for wrong reason, we are going to protest. This is very important. Without it, our critique would not function. If people do not criticise their government, society becomes unhealthy. The majority of works of art and institutions are very unhealthy, due to self-indulgence and lack of social-political awareness, which often means no critique at all within the institution. They are very limited for various reasons.
SL: Over the last year there has been a different and more formal relationship with institutions, e.g. the Monkey King Creates Havoc at the Heavenly Palace (2004) at the British Museum and Chinese Arts Centre. How has this come about, what relation does this have to your past work, and what impact has it had on your practice?
Cai & JJ: We are not against institutions. Working with institutions is not going to change the nature of our work. In fact, institutions can help us realise our practice. The only problem is: are they going to take us? Are they prepared to open up to different forms of practice? The British Museum and the Chinese arts Centre are different. They are both concerned with cultural diversity; that’s maybe why they have taken us on.
SL: Much of your work is based on spontaneous live interventions. What life do you think these actions have beyond the actual moment? How important is documentation to your work?
Cai & JJ: We create our own history. Our actions are very important for our future. We live in a moment when the world appears to be ever so surreal. At the same time, it is very real. As artists the only thing we can do is depict the time. Our documentation is like grabbing the moment of our lives. There is the meaning of art and the meaning of life.
SL: In the past you have been most recognised as the two artists who jumped on Tracey Emin’s bed. At the time when you did it, were you aware of quite how much controversy it would cause? What role does controversy and shock have in your work?
Cai & JJ: We never expected such a lot of media attention about this piece. Jumping on the bed gave the bed life. It will go down in history because people will always remember it. People see Bed as a controversy, but to us there’s nothing new in Bed. The real controversy is jumping on it. We gave the bed life and transformed its meaning. It challenged the institution and its perception of what is art, in the same way what Duchamp presented his Fountain. Duchamp’s Fountain will always be remembered. It’s a true masterpiece.
SL: It was five years ago now. Has it become a hindrance that it has stuck with you for so long?
Cai & JJ: Not at all; we are proud of it. It reminds us to continue in this direction, to keep the real spirit going. It’s placed us in British popular culture and we have been questioned on Have I Got News for you, University Challenge, Private Eye, and even the Tate Quiz.
SL: The exhibition Happy and Glorious, at the Chinese Arts Centre, was your first full-scale exhibition. How has preparing for this differed from your other work, which has been seemingly more spontaneous and action / intervention based?
Cai & JJ: We are trained as visual artists and have had work in other exhibition, of course. We always prepare and discuss the ideas, whether it’s a performance or installation. We are able to do both large-scale work and spontaneous work using different forms. In fact, doing something quick is more difficult. With Happy and Glorious the installation took place over a week, compared to Pissing on Duchamp’s Urinal, which only lasted one minute.
SL: How did you go about researching and developing ideas for the exhibition?
Cai & JJ: Research began with illegal immigrants and the Morecambe Bay tragedy, looking at why Chinese people want to work here and obtain British passports, it then developed into the idea of becoming British. This crossed over with our real experience. We developed the idea of subversively performing as loyal citizens, happy and glorious British subjects. We used to have loyalty to Chairman Mao and the communist party; now we can manipulate this loyalty with our new imagined leader, the Queen.
SL: The exhibition consists of three different elements, an installation, projected video documentation of past performances, and the documentation of a new performance piece performed at the opening of the exhibition. How do the different elements relate to each other?
Cai & JJ: There are three elements to the show. In the giant coffin ( In the name of Art; 2004 ), a letter from the Tate is displayed which bans us from entering or being on their premise. In the letter we are accused of harming their staff, “threaten (ing) the health and well being of …visitors,” and damaging works of art. We use the letter to create our work, inviting everybody to read it, displayed in a coffin-room, decorated in traditional British style. The story of becoming British is the performance piece when we sing the National Anthem hanging upside -down and naked in front of a picture of the Queen at her coronation. The large-scale video projection shows documentation of our live interventions and performances in public spaces. The way these different elements work together brings out our story and shows the irony of the situation. To put it simply, you become a British citizen, you live in a free society, then you are banned from its institutions. This is all in the name of art.
SL: At an obvious level the coffin, In the name of art, can be read as a symbol of death with many readings, such as a reference to the death of art and museum as morgue, but also assign a more positive< reading to it. Can you tell me about this?
Cai & JJ: The death of art and museum is an old story. We are more interested in bring it to life. Most of time you can’t save museums and art – the only way to do it is to infuse some action and make things happy in a more optimistic way.
SL: Can you explain the significance of the title of the show, Happy and Glorious?
Cai & JJ: It has a double meaning . In China, under the party’s leadership, the significance is the idea of living a happy and glorious life of communism. Since we have become British, the words are from the national anthem. People are sheep under communism and capitalism alike.
SL: The black -and -white photographs of past performances have a grainy quality. How deliberate is this? It seems to me to be newspaper-like; is this to historicize the work?
Cai & JJ: Yes; a sense of the importance of historical documentation. Newspaper have used those image many times. It would look better in larger size; then you really feel you are standing in front of the road of history – a history written by our bodies.
SL: What role does an audience play in your work? Are they a necessity to the performance?
Cai & JJ: We don’t choose the audience. We just let it happen when we are there. You never know what the audience will consist of. They witness something which they have never seen before and have to confront their feelings about it. In the recording of jumping on the bed, there is dialogue between a mother and daughter in which the mother says how exciting it is and the daughter says, “Yes, it is”! We prefer the audience to be unprepared. Most of the time, they are forced into a difficult situation in which they have to react immediately without much information. We value their quick judgement. This is more truthful for us.
SL: Looking at the question of repetition, how do performance evolve you change when repeated? For instance you have performed a number of works several times in different contexts, such as Soya Sauce and Ketchup (1999, 2000, 2002) and also a version of the performance Happy and Glorious.
Cai & JJ: On May Day, 2000, we performed Soya Sauce and Ketchup, witnessed by activists and demonstrators and the police. In this situation it was amidst chaos and thousands of people and no control. In Liverpool at the Bluecoat, we performed it in a Perspex box on a Sunday afternoon, a sunning day-then it appeared to more entertaining. Obviously the context changes the work. Before this exhibition, we did a slicker version of Happy and Glorious, the performance in Beijing, at a performance festival. This version was called Think UK. It was deliberately taken from the British Council marketing strategy in China. We wore formal suits and the title made the work have a different kind of appeal.
SL: Happy and Glorious is very much a continuation and development of institutional critique in your work. It challenges and jibes at in many ways what is seen as very “British”. How do you think audiences in other contexts and countries would receive this work?
Cai & JJ: It will be interesting to see people’s reactions from other countries. That’s why we’d like it to tour and hear different opinions.
SL: What are you working on at the moment?
Cai & JJ: We are working with the Munch-museum in Oslo, on a large-scale video installation to recreate the lost Scream. Another project is a sound installation of the lorry tragedy, which refers to the fifty-eight Chinese who died in a lorry transporting tomatoes from China. We are also producing a limited edition Penis Spirit, bottled and labelled from our earlier performance work, Penis Wine, carried out in Beijing. Another new work is a monkey cast in porcelain for a large sculptural installation based on the legendary monkey king story.