Deconstructing the map of the paradigm struggle: tracing a nationwide debate on “I do not get it” in Art Magazine (Meishu)

Abstract

Understanding the contemporaneity of non-Western art has gained significant attention from scholars across various academic disciplines and different countries. With respect to the notion of “contemporaneity” of contemporary Chinese art, the related theoretical struggles suggest a complex paradigm map that consists of the geographically distinct sociocultural, economic, ideological, political, historical, ethnic and gender characteristics of the PRC. Thus, if discourse is a “gene pool” for interpreting research outcomes, from which scholars can extract a specific range of knowledge, draw on statements and establish their theoretical frameworks, the shaping of discourse and the ensuing theoretical paradigm struggle are more likely to influence one’s scholarly judgements, particularly in his or her exploratory research. This study acknowledges Pierre Bourdieu’s understanding of discourse as an essential tool for exploring the invisible forces within a field, as well as his focus on the reproduction of power within the realms of cultural production and consumption from a cultural sociological viewpoint. On this basis, this study traces a large-scale academic debate sparked by a reader’s letter to Art Magazine (Meishu) when China underwent a series of significant cultural and social transformations in the early 1980s. Through thematic analysis, this article illustrates how the symbolic value and cultural meaning of the “internationalized” art discourse have changed among specific groups of artists and visitors within the Chinese sociocultural context. This article demonstrates that the debate among mainstream critical paradigms, including essentialism, postmodernism-structuralism, and deconstructionism, does not necessarily imply a consequence of a zero-sum game or a struggle for discursive hegemony. While each paradigm has paradoxical issues for understanding the “contemporaneity” of contemporary Chinese art, they may still be able to coexist.

Introduction

This research follows Gee’s (2015, 2018) conceptualization of Discourse (with a capital D), viewing Discourse analysis as a research field that examines not only instances of language in use (referred to as “little d” discourse analyses) but also how language “melt with bodies and things” to shape society and history. Specifically, this study focuses on Art Magazine (Meishu) in relation to a national debate aimed at defining the symbolic value, cultural meaning, and ideological vision of the “contemporaneity” of contemporary Chinese art. Based on this analysis, this research traces the discourse of contemporaneity in 1980s China (the PRC) to explore the complex interplay of competing power forces and the relationships underlying the cultural struggles between East and West at the geographical boundaries of the PRC. Thus, this research is guided by two central questions:

RQ1 To what extent do intercultural struggles and negotiations, alongside the influences of indigenous politics, contribute to the development of a regionally distinctive contemporaneity discourse in the modernization of Chinese art?

RQ2 Does the coherence among competing theoretical paradigms (e.g. struggles between essentialist arguments and deconstructionist claims) within specific theoretical “common ground” offer novel voices or a comprehensive understanding of the contemporaneity of contemporary Chinese art?

According to Osborne (2014, p. 44), art serves as the “privileged cultural carrier” of contemporaneity. In contrast to a mere temporal label of contemporaneity indicating the “current” or a periodizing category, Osborne (2014, p. 31) also observes that, with the “erosion” of territorial boundaries due to the flow of capital, migration, technology, and other forces in the international arena, global sociopolitical dynamics forge a complex form of “temporal unity in disjunction” that is characterized by performative and empirical dimensions. In line with Jameson’s (2012) and Osborne’s (2014) interpretations of postmodernism within the framework of capitalist totality, Robert (2015) similarly argues that contextualizing the proliferation of cultural differences within the ever-expanding global web of capitalism is crucial to avoid portraying seemingly “incommensurable spatialities” as mere heterogeneity. Thus, this perspective connects the visual expression of contemporaneity to an exploration of “how cultures around the world conceive and construct their present and the notion of presentness through visual means” (Persson, 2011, p. 103). When the study of contemporary Chinese art is integrated into global discourse, it emerges as a key component of the ongoing international critique of the intellectual foundations of Western modernism (Gladston, 2016), including theoretical frameworks such as Jonathan Hay’s “double modernity” (Hay, 2008), Juliane Noth’s “multiple modernities” (Noth, 2009), and John Clark’s “Asian modernity” (Clark, 2010a, b). In response to these arguments, the localized discourse articulated by Gao Minglu and Pan Gongkai embeds the concept of “contemporaneity” within the PRC’s national narrative of art, endowing it with regional significance. Gao (2011, 2021) understands the “contemporaneity” (often regarded as synonymous with or a substitute for “modernity”) of contemporary Chinese art as embodying the “spirit of an epoch” or as a value choice unique to the Chinese cultural context. This notion reflects a localized character within contemporary Chinese art that is consistent with the progression of indigenous cultural practices and traditions, which is, to some extent, different from the concepts of modernity and postmodernity in the Euro-American context. As a form of “total modernity” based on its “trinity principle”—the integration of art, religion, and morality (Gao, 2011, p. 3)—this alternative conception of contemporaneity emphasizes the aesthetic, cultural, and national distinctiveness of contemporary Chinese artworks. This clearly differs from Weber’s concept of modern rationalization, which is characterized by the separation of art, morality, and science (Habermas, 1983; Hunter, 2018). Pan (2010) echoes Gao’s argument, asserting that the distinctiveness of Chinese art’s modernity manifests in local artists’ creative responses to the specific contradictions, national crises, and spiritual-cultural milieu of 20th-century China. This “cultural consciousness” is a hallmark of the transition from tradition to modernity for the PRC’s artists. On the basis of this argument, he proposes “Four-isms” of Chinese art, including “Traditionalism,” “Syncretism,” “Westernism,” and “Massification”¹. He posits that the term “Four-isms” not only outlines the fundamental trajectory of China’s art modernization throughout the 20th century but also serves as a powerful expression of the transformations in the modernity of Chinese art (Pan and Zhang, 2015; Yu, 2021).

In contrast to Gao and Pan’s claims, other scholars (Gao, 2008, 2009; Wu, 2008, 2011, 2022; Hou, 2013, Cornell, 2019) have critically examined conventional binaries, including Western versus non-Western, colonialism versus imperialism, and the advanced-outdated dichotomy underling Western–China modernity and postmodernity, through a temporal lens. These scholars have highlighted a non-Western alternative beyond the development of (westernized) modernist and postmodernist art by seeking a pluralistic engagement with and interpretation of a concept of modernity characterized by synchronicity. For example, Gao (2008) rejects the notion of viewing contemporary Chinese art as an alternative (westernized) modernity or merely a localized version of Western cultural forms. Gao (2009) argues that contemporary Chinese art is engaged in an ongoing process of “dismantling and reconstructing” indigenous traditions. This process, which is characterized by a nation’s cultural creativity and the renewal of its subjectivity, contributes to the development of a historically significant identity constructed through self-reflection, and a possible world disconnected from nationalism is envisioned. Hou (2013, p. 75) agrees with Gao and emphasizes the importance of a “mid-ground” or “third space” that transcends the nation-state order and exists between the discourses of the local and the other. In this context, Wu (2008, 2011) suggests that contemporary Chinese art, within the Chinese context, is an art and theoretical construct imbued with specific intentions, aiming to endow artworks with a unique sense of localized temporality and spatiality.

An alternative perspective is presented by Gladston (2014, 2016, 2020), who focuses on the necessarily provisional and indeterminate status of postmodernist deconstructionist thought. Gladston (2020, p. 33) advocates relinquishing “an exclusive adherence to western(ized) post-Enlightenment discourses” when discussing the importance of contemporary Chinese art “as a locus of criticality”. Gladston (2016, p. 14) also proposes the use of “polylogues—intertextual multi-voiced discourses”—to open up diverse interpretive perspectives on contemporary Chinese art while simultaneously questioning and dividing their individual authorities. In this way, even though Gladston (2020) acknowledges the incompatible cultural discourse underpinning Chinese and Western sociopolitical and cultural outlooks, he opposes a single all-encompassing/separatist view of contemporary Chinese art (e.g. Gao’s total modernity).

The abovementioned interpretive frameworks of the contemporaneity of contemporary Chinese art continue to go in and out of use within the arena of various discursive systems, research objectives, and statement criteria. Since contemporary Chinese art emerged over forty years ago, questions regarding the understanding of its sociological and aesthetic value, as well as its cultural characteristics, have formed a theoretically paradoxical zero-sum game. Specifically, the acknowledgement of one perspective necessitates the negation of the other two. Thus, to further examine the effects of this competition on discursive power, this article aims to elucidate the extensive academic discussions surrounding high art in early 1980s China during a time of significant social and cultural crisis and unrest.

The context and theoretical framework

Although many scholars have acknowledged the importance of tracing the potential distinctiveness—if any—of non-Western discourses in intercultural discourse studies conducted in a non-discriminatory manner (Shi, 2007, 2009, 2017;Maier, 2007; Gunaratne, 2010; Pardo, 2010; Gamage, 2019; Craig and Xiong, 2022), the discourse surrounding the “contemporaneity” of contemporary Chinese art faces significant challenges as a marginalized research subject within the “internationalized” academic sphere. Various factors may have contributed to the emergence of this discursive crisis.

First, in an era of increasing transcultural interaction between Western and Eastern countries, any attempt to pursue a purely independent, separate, and distinct expression of values, attitudes, and behaviours risks being criticized for sharing essentialists’ views of cultural differences, especially given the growing influence of the global communication culture (Gülerce, 2007; Renkema and Schubert, 2018; Jin, 2021). Additionally, compared with discourse studies in a culturally separate mode, some scholars have questioned the hegemonic power and efficacy of western(ized) discourses of knowledge for interpreting diverse cultural experiences through juxtaposing Eastern-Western traditions, such as Crag and Xiong’s “Constitutive Meta-model” (2022); unifying incommensurate theoretical paradigms, such as Graves’s “Dialogic Enquiry” (Graves, 2019); or deconstructing and adapting a contesting research paradigm within a highly abstract and macro framework/solution, such as Gao’s “Total modernity” (Gao, 2011, 2021; Li, 2019) and Gladston’s deconstructionist’s claims on ever-changing discursive forms of global contemporaneity (Gladston, 2014, 2016, 2020). Even though the abovementioned studies have effectively elucidated alternative interpretations of non-Western cultural phenomena, some paradigmatic issues need to be examined further. Specifically, the former approach remains vulnerable to accusations of cultural bias and determinism (Shi, 2009, 2017), whereas the latter two responses fail, to some extent, to generate widespread interest in studying the complexity of cosmopolitanism-shaped cultural identity, which emerges through adjustments and negotiations among competing sociocultural agents from inside and outside the PRC and the specific way in which the interplay of competing discursive meaning links to the web of indigenous power relationships at the micro level.

Second, with the development of cultural sociology, the established and widespread scholarly focus on power struggles among different social classes and communities has left few interpretive spaces for understanding the “distinctive” features of cultural activities in the realm of incompatible cultural traditions. In empirical studies, especially in quantitative research, the use of common variables or indicators of social class, such as age, gender, and education level, sometimes guarantees the reliability of research findings while sacrificing the comprehensive understanding of cultural differences to that of “cultural distinction” in a transcultural sense. For example, when “mainstream” scholars consider the discursive meaning of contemporaneity (e.g. Smith, 2008, 2019; Negri, 2008; Clark, 2010a, 2010b), the PRC’s contemporary art is culturally hybridized with both local voices and Western notions.

Even so, some scholars (e.g. Li, 2020) have paradoxically traced the westernized aesthetic authority and symbolic value of Chinese contemporary artworks in an independent, monolithic, and transcultural sense. This also partially accounts for the relatively limited scholarly attention that has been devoted to the study of contemporaneity discourse in contemporary Chinese art. Specifically, in the sociology of art, the symbolic value of a cultural genre is determined by its position within the hierarchical aesthetic classification system or the field of artistic consumption and production, as outlined in Bourdieu’s theoretical framework of cultural distinction (Bourdieu, 1984, 1996, 1998; Bourdieu and Darbel, 1997). Bourdieu (1984) categorizes cultural genres and artworks into three taste clusters—high-brow (e.g. opera), middle-brow (e.g. folk dance), and popular culture (e.g. light music)—on the basis of their relationship with cultural capital and, more importantly, their legitimacy and power. The social significance of this artistic classification, as well as the strategic struggles among cultural genres for position-taking (to defend or improve their positions within power relationships), lies in its potential to reflect hierarchical social structures and the power complex that sustains cultural inequality. In this context, one can identify a homogeneous relationship between positions in the artistic classification system and those in social space. Owing to the nature of the artistic field, Bourdieu often adopts a negative stance towards cultural genres or products that have lost their privileged status. The loss of symbolic status for elite cultural genres or products is often accompanied by the generation of cultural misunderstandings, which may manifest either as top-down “devaluation” or “desacralization” owing to their popularity (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 6), or as bottom-up “cultural goodwill,” in which deprived respondents claim recognition of cultural legitimacy (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 318). In this context, some critics (e.g. Esposito, 2001; Carter, 2007) who treat contemporary art as a privileged genre tend to equate contemporary Chinese artworks either with political or ideological propaganda or with pragmatic art that has lost its avant-garde qualities. This occurs when the discourse of contemporaneity of contemporary Chinese art aligns itself with political ideology and public tastes (the so-called “People-Centred Approach in Art Creation”), rather than securing its own artistic autonomy.

To elucidate this issue, this research values the use of Bourdieu’s theoretical framework in uncovering the reproduction of class contestation within the artistic field while simultaneously acknowledging the potential issues that may arise.

First, Bourdieu’s concept of cultural distinction has been criticized for its structuralist deterministic tendencies and sociologically reductionist understanding of the correlation between the objective positions of classes and subjective cultural tastes (Archer, 2007; Rancière, 2014; Sayer, 2017), so there is little room for the development of new meanings in discourse. Although the aim of this research is not to take a side between strictly instrumentalist manipulation and absolute freedom of social action, it acknowledges the insightful findings achieved by scholars who advocate for a perspective of “soft, relative determinism” (Wodak et al., 2009, p. 32).

Specifically, this research is inspired by Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (one’s internalized social structures) and Gee’s (2015) distinction between primary Discourse (early-life socialization, which is vulnerable to change and hybridized with other Discourses) and secondary Discourse (which is acquired through socialization later in life). It emphasizes the potential impacts or degrees of constraint that the field (or the structured space of capital distribution) imposes on means of expression (Bourdieu, 1993) while also highlighting the opportunities and space one has to reflexively and critically resist or go along with dominant values or particular directions of change.

Second, even though Bourdieu’s empirical research findings have been challenged by cultural consumption patterns such as cultural individualization (Bellavance, 2008; Falk, 2008, 2011) and cultural omnivorousness (Peterson, 2005, 2007; Van Eijck, Leivens (2008); Snowball et al., 2010; Yu and Margolin, 2021; Voronin, 2023), this research aligns with Bourdieusian scholars, who maintain the validity of Bourdieu’s theories. However, the abovementioned scholars have acknowledged that these theories need to be supplemented and adjusted, as demonstrated by quantitative studies on cultural tastes conducted in various locations worldwide at different times (e.g. Bennett et al., 2009; Flemmen et al., 2018; O’Brien and Ianni, 2023; Hanquinet, 2013; Hanquinet and Taylor, 2025).

Art Magazine and the issue of “I do not get it”

Art Magazine (Meishu), as a mainstream media outlet under the auspices of the official Chinese system, has significantly influenced the development of Chinese art since its inception in 1950, particularly following its reorganization in 1979. Specifically, Art Magazine is an academic publication supervised by the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles (Zhongguo wenxue yishujie lianhehui) and sponsored by the China Artists Association (Zhonguo meishujia xiehui), which functions effectively as an extension of the CPC’s publicity department. They are directly involved in all matters related to art education, creation, and public exhibitions. This involvement is not merely administrative; it also extends to the ideological realm (Gladston, 2013, p. 16), and the Art Magazine thus somewhat functions as a “barometer of the ideological climate” (Köppel-Yang, 2004, p. 52). Particularly during the formative and evolutionary phases of the historically significant “85 Art New Wave” in modern Chinese art history, Art Magazine played a crucial role, and it contributed to the development of modern art in China to some extent (Gao, 1991, p. 496). It extensively introduced western(ized) artworks and art theories, and as one of the organizers, it staged the China/Avant-Garde Exhibition at the National Art Museum of China, an event that garnered worldwide attention. Furthermore, as a prominent cultural and public opinion space in China, Art Magazine actively promoted and articulated the national cultural policies of the CPC, thereby guiding the multifaceted development of Chinese art amid the confluence of Eastern and Western cultures to some extent. This guidance was particularly evident in the 1990s cultural phenomenon of the concurrent development of a “main melody”² and “diversity” in the Chinese art (Zou, 2014).

Since 1985, Art Magazine has initiated a significant four-year debate on the theme of “I do not get it” (“Artworks should be easily understandable”) through “reader inquiries”. This national academic discussion took place in the context of the rise of the “85 Art New Wave”. When new aesthetic ideas and experiments exert a significant effect on existing artistic notions and practices, an issue arises. Avant-garde artists tended to question the metaphysical essence of art, along with its philosophical or sociological issues, and thereby challenged aesthetic standards that prioritize beauty; these artistic practices effectively created intellectual and aesthetic barriers for museum or gallery visitors. This new art genre, in turn, undermined the cultural capital or cultural competitiveness (Bourdieu, 1984) of visitors, who still relied on traditional modelling styles to “decode” artworks. This aesthetic anxiety stemming from difficulties in understanding avant-garde artworks continues to provoke conflicted sentiments among visitors. Addressing this issue, Art Magazine published a letter in its fourth 1986 issue from a grassroots artist in Chengdu, Sichuan, expressing confusion about understanding recent modernist art. The artist (Anon, 1986a) expressed bewilderment over some Chinese artists’ artworks influenced by Western modernism. He or she noted that it was difficult or even impossible to comprehend the content, theme, or artistic language of those artworks³, reaching a point of being “stunned and speechless” and thus sought guidance from Art Magazine to better understand these specific pieces. This letter inspired numerous critics to reflect on the matter and share their perspectives.

This discursive competence needs to be examined for two reasons:

First, in the last ten years, scholars’ interest in examining the complex influences of the recontextualization of contemporary art discourses in the PRC has declined. For example, a search of the A&HCI (Arts & Humanities Citation Index) database with “contemporary Chinese Art” and “Discourse” as keywords revealed only four articles (Walden, 2019; Li and Lu, 2024; Yang and Jiang, 2020; Kang, 2024) indirectly related to this topic during the last decade (from 2014 to 2024). This lack of interest among scholars reflects the disadvantageous position of the non-Western-centric paradigm in this field of study to some extent. In this context, this research attempts to provide a novel understanding of regional discourses on contemporaneity by bridging incompatible research paradigms.

Moreover, owing to the strong relationship between social change and discourse studies (Agustín, 2015), this public debate, along with the crucial moment of the PRC’s social, political, and cultural changes (e.g. the Third Plenary Session of the CPC 11th Central Committee’s decision to implement the Reform and Opening-Up Policy), reveals the value of studying this public debate to explore the localized expression and interpretation of a global voice. The significant role of Art Magazine in promoting the development of contemporary art in 1980s China (Yu, 2020), along with its crucial aesthetic, political, and social influences as integral components of the PRC’s art institutions (Li, 2024), highlights the substantial research value of both the magazine itself and the public debates it facilitates.

Methodology

To fulfil the theoretical objective, this research acknowledges the value of interdisciplinary studies in providing a more complex and in-depth understanding of discursive issues (Gunaratne, 2010). To this end, it seeks to highlight the regionally distinct uses and presentations of contemporaneity discourse in the PRC by introducing the theoretical framework of the aesthetic classification system from cultural sociology into discourse analysis. Numerous studies have demonstrated the validity of this research methodology.

For example, in a cross-disciplinary study, Kranert (2019) conducts a comparative politico-linguistic analysis by situating the discourse of the Third Way within the cultural contexts of Germany and the UK. He argues that the distinct developmental trajectories of political histories and the differing contexts of political cultures in these two countries contribute to the evolution of discursive changes, particularly in terms of lexis, argumentation, and the use of metaphor. Van Venrooij and Schmutz (2018) seek to understand the relationship between popular art genres within the aesthetic classification system by analysing data from an electronic archive of critical reviews of popular music. According to Van Venrooij and Schmutz, the combination of semiotic theories and the sociological model of the structured cultural field allows for a deeper understanding of the meaningful side of possible boundaries between cultural genres that share overlapping positions within the popular taste category, which are often overlooked in large-scale quantitative research.

This research uses thematic analysis (TA) to trace, evaluate and interpret potential themes in the data. As a theoretically flexible research method, TA does not “require adherence to any particular theory of language, or explanatory meaning framework for human beings, experiences or practices” (Braun and Clarke, 2021, p. 1). Owing to the inductive nature of this research, an inductive coding method was chosen to extract and identify regionally specific meanings and textual elaborations from the recontextualization of contemporaneity discourse within China’s cultural and political context. This method allows for the exploration of “what is revealed in the data set” instead of a reliance on predetermined codes (Tsindos, 2023, p. 183). The theoretical independence of TA enables this research to identify the indigenous meaning (if any) of contemporary art’s contemporaneity in the PRC without entangling in struggles between established theoretical frameworks and paradigms. To ensure the validity and reliability of the data analysis findings, this research strictly follows Braun and Clarke’s six-phase guidance within the data mining process: 1. familiarization; 2. coding; 3. data mining; 4. themes reviewing; 5. defining and naming themes; and 6. writing (Braun and Clarke, 2021). The qualitative data analysis software NVivo (version 14) was used in this study to explore the themes in the data.

Using the database of Art Magazine on the CNKI website (www.cnki.net), articles from the Art Magazine published between 1980 and 1990 that are connected to the national debate on the issue of “I do not get it” were collected for this study. A total of 73 articles (see Table 1) were selected from 145 publications, constituting the analytical database for this research. Through the process of collating and reviewing the data, 15 core clusters of codes (see Table 2) emerged from the textual materials and included ideological indicators, political agendas, cultural and economic openness, and cultural consciousness. The following key themes emerge from the intersection and reconstruction of these core clusters: (a) chinese culture matters discourse; (b) public matters discourse; and (c) conceptual renewal discourse. The visualization of the theme analysis map (see Fig. 1) highlights the complex and intimate relationship between selecting literature and analysis findings. Some articles connect to more than one theme and vice versa. Figures 2–4 highlights links (or overall network) across themes A, B, and C, respectively, as well as the selection of studies. On the basis of these identified themes, the following sections focus on the newly or partially distinctive meanings and characteristics of contemporaneity discourse within the sociocultural context of the PRC.

Table 1 Collection of related articles in Meishu from 1986 to 1989.

Table 2 Core clusters.

Fig. 1

The visualization of the theme analysis map.

Fig. 2

Overall network of Chinese culture matters discourse.

Fig. 3

Overall network of public matters discourse.

Fig. 4

Overall network of conceptual renewal discourse.

Chinese culture matters discourse

Chinese culture matters discourse is particularly evident in the texts that were collected for this study. A large majority of scholars (50 out of 73 from the collected articles) participating in the debate view the competition between elite cultural works—namely, indigenous artistic products such as ink painting and calligraphy and westernized contemporary artworks with their underpinning avant-gardism—as a struggle for legitimacy in the field of position-taking, framing it as a cultural crisis. These scholars tend to employ resistance as a discursive strategy to reinforce the unquestioned status of ideological claims within the discourse on Chinese cultural matters. Specifically, the westernized Contemporaneity discourse, which struggles to integrate into the mainstream discourse tradition of indigenous art, was considered immoral and subsequently excluded from the mainstream discursive space.

In this debate, authors (e.g. AM40, AM42, AM57, AM58, AM 59, AM 60, etc.) who support the idea that “artworks should be easily understandable” exhibit a hostile attitude towards elite “imported” art. This hostility is not driven primarily by concerns about a lack of cultural competitiveness among Chinese visitors, which might induce cultural anxiety. Instead, it arises from a heightened sense of cultural self-awareness aimed at advancing the modernization of indigenous culture. In this context, some artists’ attempts to pursue freedom in artistic expression through obscure and difficult-to-understand artistic language are often perceived by certain critics as a form of “artificially” created unintelligibility. In the eyes of these authors (e.g. AM63, AM11, and AM38), this type of artistic practice is ultimately seen as opposition for the sake of opposition, characterized by a tendency towards “destruction without construction” (Shao, 1989a), a lack of theoretical depth and social relevance, and the embodiment of a form of formalism.

In these art critiques, a heightened sensitivity towards the cultural perspective of “the other” has increasingly positioned cultural ideology at the forefront of artistic practice. For example, Lu (1986) argues that, to construct modern art that is socialist, representative of the Chinese nation, and suited for the new century, the visual revolution must go beyond superficial criticism and negation of inherent Chinese traditions. Rather, it should further explore the inheritance and integration of China’s indigenous culture, particularly that of the Loess Plateau (see AM12). Fang (1986) examines the relationship between conservatism and tradition, stating that the real purpose of anti-traditionalism is not to oppose the reasonable core of tradition itself but to counteract the rigid and constraining characteristics that have been imposed on tradition by conservatism (see AM11). Fang (1986) insists that some avant-garde artists have confused the concepts of tradition and conservatism and “naively” hoped to completely negate tradition by simply “copying” or “appropriating” visual languages of Western artists, expecting applause from peers and shock from visitors. The practices of these artists are problematic, as their artistic endeavours create a paradoxical cycle of formalism. In this cycle, Western traditions are used to replace Chinese traditions, whereas certain “tormented, impotently rebellious” Western art forms are employed to challenge the decaying traditions of Chinese painting (see AM11). Similarly, Cheng (1987) holds a negative attitude towards the supremacy of “intuitionism” in creation. He believes that this tendency towards “indifference and detachment from life” will have a negative impact on painting reform—damaging the inherent standards of art and the vitality of national culture (see AM41). Thus, according to Cheng, the absorption and assimilation of modernist thought should focus on exposing the regressive elements of traditional culture to promote the self-strengthening and renewal of national culture rather than adopting a self-centred approach that “despises the worldly”.

Public matters discourse

Public matters discourse is another significantly preservative discourse. In this discourse, authors position themselves as representatives of a betrayed public, viewing Westernized discourses of contemporaneity as obstacles to the realization of idealized cultural policies—specifically, an art policy guided by the People-Centred Perspective on the Modernity of Chinese Art. Public matters discourse is evident in the statements of critics and scholars (e.g. AM52, AM53, AM48, etc.), who, paradoxically, advocate for the autonomy of indigenous artistic practices while simultaneously rejecting the notion that the authority-challenging characteristics of westernized contemporary art criticism should be the sole standard for artistic evaluation.

For example, in their reflections on extreme realist painting, characterized by the principles of “content dictates form” and “subject matter determinism”⁴, some avant-garde artists (such as Gu Wenda and Xu Bing), while accentuating the significance of contemplation of a rational spirit or an utterly personalized “intuition” in the artistic creation process, are rebelling against the collective aesthetic experience through forms that defy interpretation. Those (e.g. AM47, AM48, AM52, and AM53) who are sceptical of the principle that “artworks are not easily understandable” contend that some avant-garde artists unilaterally and artificially created the potential for ambiguity, obfuscation and unintelligibleness in their artworks. They argue that this tendency leads to confusion about “artistic creative thought” and a marked lack of exploratory spirit in foundational theoretical research. In addressing this confusion, Fang (1988) posits that its root lies in the deliberate choice of some artists not to seek audience understanding. This principle of “artworks are not easily understandable”, as he defines it, is distinct from the natural and temporary “phenomenon of misunderstanding” and is characterized by an attribute of perpetual incomprehensibility (see AM52). Shen (Shao et al., 1988), while not opposing the use of philosophical expressions in artworks, disapproves of some avant-garde artists’ practice of metaphorically draping a veil between the subject and the object, artificially creating distance. He remains doubtful about whether this creative tendency can truly facilitate rational analysis (see AM53). Thus, Shen (Shao et al., 1988) emphasizes the importance of “immerse in life”, shifting the focus of rational art criticism to confronting concepts antithetical to democratic and scientific principles, such as notions of Chinese Lineage (Zongzu), Petty Bourgeoisie mentality, and ignorance or backwardness, rather than the “modernity” of artworks that are affected and melodramatically overwrought. From the perspective of Chinese aesthetic philosophy, Gao (1988) demonstrates a negative attitude towards the practice of some avant-garde artists who sever the connection between imagery and the real world in their creative process. He believes that the “artistic conception” (Yijing) is neither equivalent to the philosophical abstraction pursued by some rational artists (as the artistic conception is the perception of philosophical abstraction) nor completely synonymous with a philosophy devoid of emotional appeal and interest (see AM48). Both the artists’ pursuit of artistic conception and the appreciator’s perception of it must be founded on respect for the “inherent attributes and connotations” of imagery, the physical form most suited for expressing philosophical ideas and emotions. If this understanding and consideration of the artistic conception are lost, artists, while elevating their self-awareness, often exhibit a tendency towards “diagrammatic” philosophical theories in their creative processes characterized by a paucity of thought content and inadequate theoretical preparation. Thus, for Gao (1988), artists who have both strong artistic sentiment and expressive skills, as well as a keen rational judgement, are needed for the arts to prosper and develop.

On the basis of the above discussion, the subject and boundaries of art criticism have gradually evolved with the ongoing development of the debate. Some critics (e.g. AM18 and AM28), in their reflection on elite art characterized by exclusivity, have begun to focus on the conflict between the internationalization and popularization of Chinese art. Moreover, the China-centric perspective has also begun to form a close connection with the concept of “popularity” among the people. Some authors (e.g. AM31, AM42, AM39, AM57, and AM61) believe that certain avant-garde artists, by adopting “artworks should not be easily understandable” as a creative principle, forcibly strip art of its social attributes. This approach is somewhat considered an act of alienation and disrespect towards the audience. In response to such artistic works that contravene the principles of “serving the people and serving socialism”⁵, Wen (1987) has even raised the following question: “Should art serve the people, or should the people serve art?” (see AM42). Moreover, Shen (1987) notes that while the proposition of artistic ontology can help artists and audiences better understand the inherent laws of art, it is ultimately unimaginable to completely reject the utilitarianism of art in real society (see AM39). After observing the development of Chinese art in the global market, Wu (1988) uses the metaphor of “cooking with rice” to suggest that artistic creation must be firmly rooted in real life. He argues that only by strengthening “the deep connections between the land and its people” in Chinese art can it truly develop and establish a strong position on the global stage” (see AM57). Shao (1987) has a similar perspective, suggesting that the creation of fine arts encompasses various levels, ranging from popular to sophisticated (see AM31). However, he demands that all experimenters and explorers consider making their work comprehensible and acceptable to the audience as one of their primary objectives. From the perspective of social systems, Cai (1988) and Lu (1987) express similar views when they interpret the principle that “artworks should not be easily understandable”. They argue that the principle asserting “the less comprehensible an artwork is, the better it is” does not appeal to the public (see AM59 and AM40). Moreover, they criticize the practice of a small group that promotes “incomprehensible” art within limited areas while disregarding the masses, stating that such an approach will ultimately be rejected by the people.

The above perspective might be seen as supporting a “typical” act of political interference in artistic autonomy. Such interference could cause contemporary art to lose its avant-garde characteristic of challenging authority, thereby making it easily perceived as a form of commercial art, a decadent elitist culture (Bourdieu, 1984), or art with specific political-ideological traits. However, this does not imply that the scholars participating in this discussion are ignorant of the western(ized) post-Enlightenment aesthetic principles shared by contemporary visual art.

Conceptual renewal discourse

For authors (e.g. AM28, AM22, AM33, etc.) who maintain an open attitude towards the principle of “artworks should not be easily understandable”, it is important to focus on the reflection and subversion of avant-garde art on “conservative” aesthetic hegemony with a more inclusive perspective, a learning attitude, and an open-minded concept. Their contributions to this discussion can be summarized into three types, emphasizing the crucial importance of maintaining conceptual renewal for both artists and visitors.

First, in contrast to critics, who emphasize the social function of art, particularly its educational role, authors (e.g. AM24, AM28, AM33, AM22, etc.) who identify with avant-garde art believe that adhering to the “Double hundred” policy—“letting one hundred flowers blossom and one hundred schools of thought contend”⁶—involves the need for specific actions in art criticism. Sun (1986) posits that regardless of whether the lack of understanding of avant-garde art by its audience is perceived positively or negatively, the avant-garde artists’ complete repudiation of traditional aesthetic forms should be regarded as a stumbling progression, a consequence of the “urgency and explosive nature of China’s cultural renewal” (see AM24). Specifically, this kind of “incomprehensibility” should be viewed as a nascent state of a new culture and an opportunity for “conceptual renewal”. Especially in understanding the concept of the “overpass” (Hang, 1986) within the context of the art world, it is essential to recognize its symbolic representation of the mutual inclusiveness and coexistence of diverse artistic schools, forms, and styles in contemporary art (see AM28). Furthermore, Mao (1986) notes that it is equally important to acknowledge and embrace the avant-garde artists’ boldness and their steadfast commitment to artistic exploration and innovation (see AM22). Pi (1987) introduces the slogan “long live the understanding!” as a rallying call to express his solidarity with and support young avant-garde artists. Pi (1987) further emphasizes that China’s visual revolution demonstrated that Chinese fine arts pivoted towards a focus on the ontology of art rather than merely serving as a tool for education and morality (see AM33). Under this trend, understanding, empathy, and support for the artist’s expression of discontent, resistance, and ambition, as well as their quest for lost roots, assume greater urgency than debating the merits and demerits of the two propositions: “the demise of ancient culture and the rebirth of ancient culture.” When discussing the youth art groups featured in the 1985 International Youth Art Exhibition and the Huangshan Oil Painting Art Symposium, Zhang (1987) also addresses this issue (See AM44). Zhang (1987) suggests that rather than artificially exaggerating the disparities between artists of different eras, it is more beneficial to acknowledge one’s own artistic contributions while simultaneously recognizing the creativity of other artists or the artistic endeavours of different artistic groups. According to Zhang, this approach is an indispensable part of the cultivation and demeanour necessary for a “great artist or one aspiring to greatness”. Huang (1989) also emphasizes the importance of “creating a tolerant environment for criticism” (see AM68). He believes that the “mission of cultural transformation” and the “intensely strong social ethical hue” borne by Chinese artists render their modern art experiments and diverse artistic styles incongruous. In the absence of an open spirit of criticism and essential, as well as a tolerant democratic attitude, many artists’ works reflect a metaphysical attitude of aloofness and a preoccupation with the abstraction deviating from the “inherent propositions of art”.

Second, according to some scholars, the idea of utilizing education to facilitate “conceptual renewal” among audiences is deemed a primary method to address the issue of “I do not get it”. In this article, Fan (1986) introduces Gu Wenda’s artworks, such as Mythos of Lost Dynasties—Modern Meaning of Totem and Taboo and Changshen and emphasizes that Gu’s “troublesome and perplexing” artistic language⁷ serves as the artist’s primary means of transcending mundane aesthetic experiences to achieve conceptual liberation (see AM13). Fan (1986) argues that because of this specifically, audiences need to maintain enthusiasm for the artwork and trust in the artist’s serious creative attitude. Only through this engagement can viewers capture “a certain sensory quality” in the process of reading the artwork, thereby attaining aesthetic pleasure (Fan, 1986). According to Gao (1986), the inability of artists to explain their creative motives should not be considered deliberate obscurity because the meanings conveyed by verbal language and painting, belonging to different systems of representational symbols, are not entirely consistent (see AM15). Consequently, even if artists wish to explain their artworks, they may not always achieve their intended purpose. Under such circumstances, when viewers do not attempt to understand the artist’s new artistic concepts, confusion and misunderstanding are inevitable in their reception and interpretation of the works. Thus, on the one hand, theorists should engage in “referential explanations” and “demonstrative interpretations”; on the other hand, viewers should rely on themselves to change their interpretative and reading approaches towards the artwork. Wu (1986) adopts a more straightforward stance, asserting that “humble learning” is the sole method to resolve the issue of “nonunderstanding” (see AM23). The artist Wang (1988) also introduces readers to theoretical books related to his artworks by providing a bibliography (see AM51). This includes works such as Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations.

Finally, some scholars and artists (e.g. AM21, AM1, AM29, AM45, etc.) posit that the rupture of avant-garde art with previous aesthetic standards—such as the primacy of aesthetics—is not intended to exclude the public. In contrast, it is aimed at “returning art to the people”. For example, in evaluating group creation, “No. 1, Yang Style Tai Chi Serie” by Pond Society (Chi She), Zhu (1986) offers a positive assessment. He suggests that this piece embodies one of the essences of modern art: the new relationship between the author, the work, and the audience (see AM21). In this new relationship, the author no longer holds the sole interpretative authority over their work. As visitors engage with artwork in public spaces, they continuously enrich its meaning with their personalized life experiences and aesthetic perceptions, thereby intervening in and altering the artist’s creative intentions. In other words, the visitors’ role shifts from being mere spectators to being active participants in constructing the content of the work. This contrasts with the traditional Chinese aesthetic, which overly emphasizes utilitarian purposes and neglects the logic of aesthetic theory and individual character—tending towards a literary theory that merely “provides general principles for specific methods” (Zhang, 1986). Shi (1986) and Deng (1986) suggest that avant-garde artists often encourage viewers to break the boundaries of specific realities and social and historical contexts, effectively “returning the human world and human relationships back to the individuals themselves” (see AM1 and AM29). Zheng (1987) echoes a similar sentiment when discussing “fuzziness” in modern art creation. She argues that the “fuzziness” exhibited in the themes and creative process of painting art does not equate to obscurity or immature “vagueness” (see AM45). A key characteristic of “ambiguous art” lies in its ability to attract audiences by presenting symbolic forms that transcend real life, thereby affording viewers ample space for reflection. Zheng’s perspective highlights the distinction between intentional artistic ambiguity, which invites interpretation and thought, and mere indistinctness, which lacks depth and maturity.

Art Magazine as a cultural context

Faced with this enduring intellectual debate and the series of issues it has generated, Art Magazine has not only provided a platform for the exchange and clash of ideas but also actively introduced relevant cultural policies of the PRC and guided the ensuing discussions. Between 1986 and 1989, Art Magazine disseminated the cultural policies of the PRC through summaries of conferences or extracts from symposium speeches, communicating the spirit of these meetings and steering academic discussion.

For example, in 1986, Art Magazine published an article titled “A Comprehensive Report on the National Theoretical Work Conference”, which conveyed the key opinions expressed in the conference. These included the continuation of the “Two Serves” and “Double Hundred” policies following the 3rd Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, as well as the importance of preventing “leftist” thoughts and avoiding undervaluation or one-sided understanding⁸ of art theory work. Similarly, Art Magazine, in its February 1987 issue, published articles introducing the conference held by the Chinese Artists Association in Xi’an in 1986. The articles specifically highlight the resolutions passed in the Sixth Plenary Session of the 12^th Central Committee, titled “Guidelines for Building Socialist Spiritual Civilization”, which are emphasized as the central guiding principles for the work of the Artists Association (Zhou, 1987). Moreover, in the same year, Art Magazine published an article titled “The editorial department of our magazine holds a symposium to discuss the situation in the art world and improve editorial work” to introduce national cultural policies, conveying the spirit of these meetings and guiding academic discussions (Anon., 1987). Other articles, such as “National Oil Painting Art Discussion Held in Beijing: exchange, understanding, coexistence, and competition promote the development of Chinese Oil Painting Art” (Anon., 1986b) and “Self-examination and Outlook of Art Theory: summary of the Hangzhou conference” (Sang, 1989), Art Magazine also presented retrospective reviews of significant academic conferences, combed through mainstream academic views on pressing issues, and guided readers in their understanding and engagement with these topics.

Following the “85 New Wave Art”, the discussions surrounding the issue of “I do not get it” (“artworks are not easily understandable”) and the active guidance provided by Art Magazine have significantly impacted the development of modern art in China. Beyond the dual viewpoints of affirming or negating the principle that “artworks should not be easily understandable”, a third voice has increasingly gained prominence. Influenced by relevant policies and Art Magazine, this emerging perspective advocates the establishment of a new artistic discourse system that is distinctly Chinese and aligns with the contemporary stage of cultural development. In other words, this viewpoint aims to explore a new form of socialist art through the hybridity of cultural identity and cultural tradition. Shao (1989a) argues that this new form of art, while striving to catch up with Western artistic achievements, should also implement a process of “breaking and establishing” within its own national artistic traditions. This implies that innovation should be pursued while preserving and promoting traditional elements. Thus, he emphasizes that artistic creation should not be subservient in politics, but it cannot be detached from politics. Only through this strategy of balance can artists actively participate in social transformation, showcasing the artistic creativity and innovative spirit that arise from creative freedom. Shao (1989b) further notes that modern art, rooted in a profound understanding of traditional culture and characterized by the integration of Chinese and Western elements, is the only way forward for the revitalization of Chinese art. In another article, he mentions that only art that reflects the thoughts and emotions of Chinese people and is suitable for China’s national conditions can truly take root in China. This viewpoint markedly differs from Shu’s advocacy of the “old bottle, new wine” concept (Shu,1986), where conceptual renewal is prioritized over changes in artistic language, as well as Pan’s “dual deepening, complementary coexistence” concept (Pan, 1987), elucidates the crucial value of traditional culture in the face of the inevitable impact of Western culture. Thus, Shao’s perspective highlights a new method of studying avant-garde artistic practices, aiming to achieve an integration of Chinese and Western art. This new artistic language, characterized by both “double affirmation” and “double negation”, rejects any attempt to completely sever the established connection between content and form in artistic creation in the PRC.

Conclusion

In summary, China’s Open-Up policy creates space for symbolic struggles between discourses that are aligned with people-centred cultural policies and artistic institutions, which have an intimate relationship with national/indigenous cultural identities and socialist cultural ideals on the one hand. At the same time, it resonates with the “internationally standard” understanding of artistic practices in post-Enlightenment aesthetic modernity on the other hand. This research highlights the effectiveness of applying Bourdieu’s theoretical framework of the field in (1) bridging once “incompatible” research paradigms and (2) exploring the complex sociocultural characteristics of a localized discourse of contemporaneity that emerged in the process of cultural intersections in the PRC. For example, considering the specific structure of cultural consumption and production in the PRC, the symbolic struggles in the space of position-taking highlight the subtle yet significant differences between the Chinese cultural matters discourse and the public matters discourse, without oversimplifying (e.g. reducing the contemporaneity discourse of contemporary Chinese art to mere ideological initiatives) or overcomplicating these distinctions. In this context, this study highlights structural resistance within Chinese contemporary art institutions towards a westernized discourse. The struggle between competing discourses renders contemporary artworks a dual identity: as both a westernized avant-garde art form and an imported cultural good closely tied to the creative industry. It is the latter identity that has been officially legitimized by local cultural authorities. From this perspective, this study aims to capture the dynamics of indigenous expressions of artistic and aesthetic reflexivity, as well as critiques by economically and culturally marginalized individuals—specifically, Chinese artists and their visitors in the 1980s—in comparison with their Western counterparts. It focuses on their geographically characterized responses to the imposition of Western hegemony in global culture, a perspective that is often overlooked in Bourdieusian studies.

The research findings reveal that Chinese culture matters discourse and public matters discourse dominate the national debate by framing the tensions between indigenous and westernized elite arts as a national and public crisis. Being marginalized, artists who fully align with westernized art and aesthetics are often regarded as opportunists or unqualified artists. This research also identifies counter-discourses that are closely linked to conceptual renewal discourse. The goal of these discourses is to provide an opportunity to achieve the total westernization of Chinese art, under the guise of knowledge advancement and the blurbification of artistic practices. In the following paragraphs, the second question mentioned at the beginning of this study is addressed (also see Fig. 5).

Fig. 5

A theoretical map.

On the basis of the analysis of the extensive debate, the findings illustrate that, within the conflict between internationalization and popularization discourses, one’s advocacy for promoting the popularization of contemporary art—characterized by historically transcendent features—aims to find a “harmonious” position for “radical” western(ized) aesthetic modernity discourses within the local field of cultural consumption and production, ultimately seeking to facilitate a gradual transformation of Chinese discourses. This stance stands in opposition to the calls for immediate and radical change towards complete Westernization. In this regard, exploring and defining a culturally monologic notion of “contemporaneity” inherently entails certain risks and is likely to engender cultural biases—particularly when scholars aim to examine the coexisting plural modernity and their fragmentary images through a single research paradigm. For example, when the PRC’s cultural authorities promote the collective elaboration of westernized contemporary art in a popularized form, attempting to recontextualize westernized contemporaneity discourses in the Chinese discourse, they face opposition from scholars advocating for cultural westernization and globalization. At the same time, some moderates strive to find a balance between these two extreme positions. In such a scenario, one may experience difficulties in achieving a comprehensive understanding of this localized version of a global discourse within a single research paradigm.

First, the China-centric paradigm (represented by Gao’s Total Modernity and Pan’s Fori-sms), owing to its intimate connections with local politics, history, culture, and everyday life, offers a significant critical intervention for exploring the aesthetics of estrangement on the basis of the Chinese discourse. It is important because it demonstrates the complex regional models of power reproduction mediated by art within the local context. In other words, when contemporary artworks share the status of “Western goods” with other imported cultural products, neglecting the distinction between cultural—culturally indeterminate boundaries, as one might put it—and artistic—e.g. ontological indeterminacy and other aesthetic techniques designed to distance established power relationships—defamiliarization, as well as the impacts on different stakeholders in the PRC, may lead scholars to make reductive judgements. For example, within Bourdieu’s hierarchically stratified field of cultural consumption, there are a series of homological relationships between social positions and clusters of cultural products (Bourdieu, 1984). Sharing the same position within the field, whether it is modernist avant-gardes or “foreign” contemporary artworks that are closely related to public taste-oriented neoconservative postmodernism and commercialization, they all bear the characteristics of emerging art in the sociocultural context of the PRC. In this regard, one may misunderstand and misinterpret the symbolic values of artworks using a single critical paradigm dominated by dichotomous struggles between heteronomy and aesthetic autonomy.

In this research, facing the collision and convergence of Chinese and Western cultures, Chinese artists and scholars demonstrate a sense of urgency and anxiety in their efforts to swiftly construct a “geographical-properly” discursive space of artistic and aesthetic discourses represented by western(ized) post-Enlightenment construction of contemporary art in the PRC. In addition to the historical choices that artists have made in this endeavour, one can also identify the political intervention of the cultural authorities of the PRC. In this regard, any statements imbuing contemporary Chinese art with distinctive national-specific characteristics will, more often than not, run the risk of being perceived as cultural exceptionalism or essentialism, thereby rendering themselves theoretically vulnerable. However, the significance of such (suspected) essentialist paradigms and theories lies in interpreting and receiving the western(ized) post-Enlightenment aesthetics-dominated contemporary art in another version: a foreign imported, semipopular-cultural product that takes a “better” position (as one genre from the middle taste spectrum) in the field of cultural consumption than its indigenous counterparts (e.g. popular art). This form of art—whether characterized by commercialization, traits of neo-conservative postmodernism or something in between—maintains an intimate and vague relationship with indigenous politics, history, culture, daily life, and localized and western(ized) post-enlightenment discourses. Since their understanding of the complexity of contemporary Chinese art is restricted or they fall into a form of political criticism, scholars who support the binary opposition of politics versus artistic avant-gardism may have difficulty deciphering this ambiguous identity. Because of this, the often-criticized theories of Chinese scholars (e.g. Gao Minglu and Pan Gongkai), when serving as critical paradigms, can, to some extent, effectively identify the localized characteristics of contemporary Chinese art.

Second, it does not imply that post-Enlightenment discourse and poststructuralism–postmodernism have lost their value in evaluating the contemporaneity of contemporary Chinese art. On the one hand, Western art theory undoubtedly exerts a profound influence on the construction of discourse surrounding contemporary Chinese art. This is evident not only in response to the impact of modern art concepts and experimental art practices on existing critical subjects and values but also in the artists’ presentation of courage in engaging in discursive limits of indigenous theories, practices, and criticism of art, along with a spirit of “seeking truth from facts”⁹ that drives their continuous and in-depth theoretical and practical exploration of the themes and contents of (westernized) aesthetic modernity. Moreover, this influence is also reflected in the Chinese government’s periodic openness to Western theories through its policies. Under the influence of cultural policies, such as the emphasis on the “freedom of art creation”, avoiding administrative intervention in artistic disputes, and the implementation of the “Double Hundred” policy, as highlighted by Hu (1985) in the 1985 congratulatory speech at the Fourth Congress of the Chinese Writers Association, cultural communication institutions (taking the Art Magazine as an example) have significant influences on the flourishing of westernized literature and art. On the other hand, even if such interpretations risk falling into a pragmatic-essentialist dilemma of the postmodernist-poststructuralist perspective, the established critical paradigms of postcolonialism (colonized-colonizer), postmodernist/deconstructionist (uncertainty), power relations (dominance-oppression), and Sino-centrism-Western centrism still hold significant value for art criticism and related studies, especially in critical studies concerning local characteristics of contemporaneity in Chinese visual art, which continue to be a primary focus of scholars’ attention.

Alternatively, employing a deconstructionist perspective, one may view “change” itself as a shared research or theoretical basis for studying the diversity of aesthetic modernity in different sociocultural contexts (Gladston, 2021). However, the unequal distribution of power within the international discourse space makes it difficult for this regional privileging interpretation of Westernized culture to become a transcultural phenomenon, especially for Western countries. Moreover, the dynamic attitudes of non-Western countries towards European–North American culture constitute another significant variable for challenging the universal accessibility of this theoretical “common ground” for analysing the deconstructionist ever-changing modernity.

Thus, the discussion in Art Magazine demonstrates how contemporary visual art—as an “internationalized” cultural product—interacts with, negotiates, and ultimately integrates into the field of Chinese cultural production and consumption when it crosses the PRC’s geopolitical border and cultural boundaries facing tripartite challenges (namely, as the reproductive forces of localized, Westernized and hybridized aesthetic modernity). On the one hand, from a “bottom-up” perspective, the discussion shows how, from the standpoint of art criticism, Chinese art critics have intervened in these “imported” (or “exogenous”) artworks on the basis of a pluralistic scheme of multiple critical paradigms during a specific cultural‒historical period after China’s Reform and Opening-up. On the other hand, from a top-down perspective, the discussion demonstrates how Art Magazine, as a crucial part of cultural institutions, responds to national cultural policies, guiding the direction of contemporary art discourse’s institutionalization and localization in mainland China. On the basis of the above discussion, this study also provides an opportunity for critical reflection on the pressing issue of how to interpret “contemporaneity” in the current academic field. As exemplified by the diverse and multilayered critical perspectives held by the participants in the discussion presented in this article, various theoretical and critical paradigms reveal, to a certain extent, dynamic and complex power relationships underpinning region-specific cultural issues in relation to the discursive structure of art modernity in China. This study presents various localized forms of contemporary visual art in China, which are challenging to encapsulate within a single critical paradigm. Consequently, this research posits that a theoretically inclusive paradigm map needs to be established. Such a framework would provide scholars with more effective and robust research tools as they engage with different cultural paradigms and phenomena, particularly when interpreting those discourse elements that lie at the boundaries of discourse and whose meanings are constantly subject to change.