Mao wanted to reflect life from the proletariat point of view--allowing the voice of the voiceless to be brought to the forefront through art and literature. When discussing this in class I was struck between the similarities of Mao's "renaissance" and the Harlem Renaissance--which was occurring in America. I am a big fan of Langston Hughes and his work. One of the things that made him so popular was his use of regular vernacular and giving a voice to the common man.This is also much of the appeal of the art, music, and literature of the Harlem Renaissance. Since both of these changes were going on at the same time but in different countries that had minimal contact with each other--I would like to understand what was happening at the time to bring on these changes. Prior to this time period novels, poetry, etc. were written by the highly educated and in the voice of the highly educated.

When evaluating the new art and literature, one of Mao's questions was "who does it serve?" Sadly, he quieted the voices of those that didn't say what he deemed appropriate which is how Ding Ling went from the highly favored to being jailed.
edited by thatch on 11/22/2016

Seeing the two sides of Nixon visiting China is revealing. The article written by a Chinese woman juxtaposed with the audio by Ted Koppel (aired in 2007--talking about the 1972 visit) showed how China tried to make itself look perfect. From the article's standpoint--the people of their small village had to make everything look perfect--school and work was suspended the day before so everyone could pick weeds, tend lawns, and take down their drying racks. It was interesting to see the fear from the one woman that refused to take her drying rack down. She received multiple visits--even veiled threats. All because the government wants to look like everything is perfect. From Ted Koppel's perspective the country was "profoundly depressing". He spoke of the indoctrination and almost rabid desire of self sacrifice (he hadn't met Chen Ruoxi). The story he told of the picnics were very telling. The press corps was taken to a park and he thought it was awfully cold for so many families to be out there picnicking and snapping pictures. He and his cameraman waited until most of the press was gone and watched as trucks pulled up and collected the cameras and "actors". Chen Ruoxi saw through what the government was doing--didn't anyone else find it odd to pretend so much?

One has to sit back and chuckle at the level of commercialization that has been applied to the Chinese Mid-Autumn Festival. Talk about pie-in-the-sky (pun intended) as regards to moon cakes. It's actually somewhat comforting to think that we in the United States are not alone when it comes to a basic premise of human nature. Just as we take our own holidays and come up with hundreds of different ways to make them into a profitable endeavor, so to do the Chinese. The variety of styles and symbols put into and onto this celebratory crusty confection confers considerable commercial content to the conundrum of communist and capitalist confrontation concerning creative cooking.

Mao’s views on art and literature were a reaction to what he felt was the function of art in “capitalist” societies. He decried “art for art sake” because he felt that it ultimately served the interests of the bourgeoisie. “But all classes in all class societies invariably put the political criterion first and the artistic criterion second...What we demand is the unity of politics and art, the unity of content and form, the unity of revolutionary political content and the highest possible perfection of artistic form.” Mao wanted to codify artistic expression into the aforementioned criteria: unity of politics/ art, unity of content/ form. This monolithic view reminds me of the medieval orthodoxy that limited artistic expression to religious content. In a sense, Mao’s Talks at the Yennan Forum accomplishes the same goal; by uniting the role of art and literature with the goals of the revolution, Mao creates a vehicle for evangelizing his communist ideology.

Exploring a culture through the arts makes accessible qualities that cannot be quantified in the black and white texts of historical fact telling. The Film To Live was window into a world that is the mirror opposite of Western Culture. It helps to not just understand the what but the why, the subjective and the visceral. Without giving away plot points that were sometimes heartbreaking, this film is a great way to travel through the milestones discussed in class such as The Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution or even to look at ways being labeled a “capitalist” impacted citizens much in the same way being labeled a “communist” destroyed lives here in the U.S. The film really makes the hardships of The Cultural Revolution accessible to those who would otherwise not have a point of reference. Zhang Yimou was banned from making films for two years after this film was completed. When I think of Zhang Yimou’s work I automatically default to House of the Flying Daggers. These films are so visually different I think that its not only a testament to how he’s evolving as a filmmaker, but also how he is being shaped as a storyteller evolving as an artist within the confines of Chinese Censorship. What I find interesting about the film is that the lead character Fugui (Ge You) is not featured on the movie poster, but is replaced by his wife Jiazhen (Gong Li) who was also banned from making films as a result of her role in this film. Ultimately, the film does a wonderful job at taking an intimate look at the human beings caught in the middle of an ideology who simply want To Live.
edited by rcharles on 11/27/2016