Feng Yuan Transcending Geo-culture

Depending on one’s perspective, the concept of geo-culture has two definitions. One is a view from the outside, from where geo-culture can be understood as the characteristics of a place or a region against a greater context. By this definition, geo-culture is a local one, or to be exact, a culture of the “Other,” and therefore indicates hierarchy. The other view, from the inside, understands geo-culture as an expression of identity and self-reflexivity that emphasizes difference, and thus, indicates exclusivity. Both viewpoints are products of modernity, and due to the fact that they have served as the foundation for the recognition of culture as such, it is difficult today to distinguish between the two. Hierarchy and exclusivity cannot but cloud our thinking and judgement.

The Pearl River Delta is a prime case to understand the difference between geo-cultural definitions from both perspectives. The basic condition for the formation of geo-culture is geographical proximity. While the Delta’s cities of Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong are all adjacent to one other, from a historical point of view, their alliance is not given, but rather the result of numerous entanglements. Therefore, the geo-culture of the Pearl River Delta, if it even exists, is actually comprised of three distinct cultures from these three cities. From a local perspective, we can understand Guangzhou as the center of the regional Lingnan culture; from a national perspective, Shenzhen as the center of modern culture; and from a global perspective, Hong Kong as the center of cosmopolitan culture. All three of these cultural definitions are the result of different proportions of different viewpoints, both inside and out. Yet if we put the development of Chinese contemporary art into the same framework as that of the Pearl River Delta’s purported geo-culture, it is not difficult to discover that they are incompatible with one another, and reveal a more fundamental, fallacious truth to geo-culture itself.