War Slaves, Sustainability, The Great Wall, Cuba, Poverty and Chinese Art
November 24th, 2006
The New York Times has been publishing some interesting articles lately on China. (I assume you all took advantage of your freebie on-line subscription to this newspaper per the email Vicki sent out long ago. If ignored that email, you are out of luck and missed a great opportunity!)
For example, to catch a glimpse of why many northern Chinese still feel deep anger toward the Japanese and they in turn get upset with the US when we back the Japanese on economic and foreign policy issues, read “Wartime Chinese Laborers Sue Japan.” You might then ask Professor Anderson in your law course whether, if these Chinese plaintiff’s file and win their case in China, can they collect against Japanese assets located in China? (E.g., the Japanese currently own and run factories in southern China where the resentment toward them is not as high, as well as in the city of Dalian, which is actually in northern China/Manchuria but if you look at it on a map you will easily see geographically why the Japanese are there doing business.)
Next, during the winter quarter we will have a session on sustainability in China. Check out “Bring in the Green Cat“, “The Green Leap Forward” and “A Partner for Mr. Hu” for three very good Op-Ed pieces in the NY Times by Thomas Friedman (who also wrote one of the must-read books on your reading list, in my view: “The World is Flat“). Clearly, Friedman “gets” the importance of issues relating to the enviroment.
Also read the following NY Times piece on the Great Wall (”Saving the Great Wall from Being Loved to Death“), which is simply a must see if you travel to China. As your (and my) big-eyed American footsteps help further deteriorate the Great Wall when we walk on it, we can’t say we weren’t warned (this article, sadly, reminds me of what has already happened to a certain extent with Yosemite in California). That said, try to walk lightly! And, yes you will sweat that day … a lot as the Wall is steeeeep … so bring an extra t-shirt.
And remember Cuba? As you will see in this Wall Street Journal article they are now looking toward China as THE example of how to move their own system toward a market economy and prosper. Who would have of ever predicted that 15 years ago?! No political scientist I know. But what are some differences that will likely make Cuba’s successful transition to “capitalism with a socialist face” more problematic than some of the amazing things that China has accomplished?
Also check out the WSJ’s “As China Booms, the Poorest Lose Ground” - sheds doubt on the argument that a rising economic tide lifts all boats in China (and the US).
Finally, see also “Much More Than Meets the Eye” — an interesting WSJ article on Chinese decorative art that will help get you ready for our visit to the Shanghai Museum of Chinese Art (one of my favorite in the world, but as good as it is it still stands behind my favorite museum of all time — Paris’ Musee d’Orsay). See also the related article on museums in China, “Why China is Letting a Thousand Museums Take Root and Bloom.” After reading this last article, what business opportunities do you see in China that intersects between an MBA and a love of art? Could you see yourself learning some Mandarin and managing one of these museums for a year or two or three? If not, why not? (Don’t out-of-hand dismiss an idea like this — museums across the world desperately need people with business acumen to keep them afloat! It’s often all about the ability to spot an opportunity and dream, take a chance to move on it, and then, of course, you need to execute. And why not you? Who says such opportunities have to always go to the locals and the article makes it sound like there is not a plethora of people in China qualifed to run these museums that will soon be coming on line in advance of the 2008 Beijing Olympics).
Entry Filed under: Pre-Departure, Beijing, China, Misc.
3 Comments Add your own
1. Brian McCarthy | November 24th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Raul Castro has been in the spotlight since his brother Fidel became ill. As a result, there is focus on what Cuba may become. In looking at Raul’s actions over the last decade, we see he is open to free-market experiments
* traveled to China to study economic policies
* invited one of China’s economic advisors, who helped open China to foreign trade and investments, to speak in Cuba
* sent military officers for hotel management and accounting training
* led Cuba’s economic reforms in the 1990s
However, Fidel has not been a supporter of such actions. He has refused to attend discussions of open market ideas and has shut down free-market experiments with concern that such actions “were sullying the revolution.”
As it stands now, the military in Cuba has control of more than 60% of the island’s economy. The military runs business operations in tourism, sugar production, civil aviation, fishing, telecom, transportation, and cigars. In addition, the Cuban military has specific units that focus on joint business ventures with foreign companies.
After Fidel passes away, the future economic direction of Cuba is unclear. There are signs that point to a Chinese-model of regulated capitalism, and other signs point to continuation of a military controlled communist state.
Two key determinants of Cuba’s future economy are relations with the US and the role of Cuba’s military in business. The US trade embargo on Cuba and the strained relations between the countries will continue to be a hindrance to Cuba’s increased economic prosperity. If cooperation and open trade between Cuba and the US are possible, it will help Cuba in any pursuits of a regulated capitalist economic model. In addition, Raul will have to be wary of the military’s role in the future economy. As the article mentioned, if the military has too much freedom in business operations, there will be possibilities for corruption that do not bode well for fair competition in any of Cuba’s future markets.
2. Kristin | December 15th, 2006 at 9:11 am
It is probably because of my accounting background that I find the fiscal side of the museums the article talks about fascinating. It seems like the old model was to rely heavily on government funding and generous donations to cover the costs of bringing art to the common man. However, it seems like museums have begun to ’sellout’ in the US and Europe and have decided to go the way of Disney - just go to any museum and you can see the commercialization everywhere. You cannot get in or out of the museum without walking through the gift shop, where you can buy a mug of the Mona Lisa or a t-shirt with Whistler’s mother on it. Not to mention that you probably paid upwards of $20 for admission in the first place, then just getting admitted isn’t enough, if you want the tour or a visit to the ’super rare and limited time only’ exhibit, you can wind up spending more than $70 for such enlightenment. I recently had the opportunity to visit Italy. Wow! I probably walked through at least 20 different museums and each one without fail led me down a winding path, eventually to end up in the gift shop. Don’t get me wrong, if given the opportunity I would do it the same all over again. I just thought it was interesting how art, so beautiful and rare, could be replicated onto so many different objects. Essentially, museums are becoming a business like any other. However, it will be interesting to see if China is able to adopt the same model. It would be somewhat hypocritical given that China believes strongly in bringing art to the masses. I think it will continue to shed light on just how much China is shedding it’s socialistic roots and beginning to come to terms with capitalism.
3. James Towers | December 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I have to say, having studied Chinese art and history, China has enough material to fill hundreds of culturally significant museums. However, reading the article, it seems like China has instead tried to fill its museum walls with quantity not quality. In China you could spend the day inhaling knowledge at the Museum of Smoking or you could have a romantic date at the tuberiffic Tree Root Museum. These kitschy monuments to tourism for tourism’s sake remind me of dust bowl towns in the US. Seeing the World’s Tallest Thermometer in Baker, Ca is not any better than learning about the history of tea leaves from a Chinese curator. The sad thing is that with this giant push before the Olympics to show the world China’s great accomplishments; they are neglecting some of their most recent artistic accomplishments. Since the Cultural Revolution, there has been a mass exodus of talented artists from China (in some cases even exile). Chinese modern art is some of the best in the world, but it is being excluded from a lot of the museums because a lot of it deals with the conflict between government and the people. Recently there has been more of a movement to include contemporary art (in Shanghai especially), but for the most part the exhibitions are from either foreign artists, or are watered down, and don’t really depict the exciting and daring aspects of modern Chinese art. It is sad to think that if you want to see some of the best modern Chinese art, you have to go to New York or San Francisco.
This rant was a little unfair because China is making the effort and has taken huge leaps forward in only twenty years. The quantity not quality approach, while misguided, stems from an acknowledgement that China up until now has not been doing everything possible to share its rich heritage and future with the world, and this should be revelation enough. By having this large quota for museum production may be adopting an assembly line approach to cultural dissemination, at least it is moving in the right direction.
As for Dr. Carr’s question, right now there are huge opportunities for businessmen in the art world in general. The New York Times recently had an article which talked about how the Guggenheim and the Whitney have hired hedge fund managers to head up their board of directors. With so many venues for entertainment and with the proliferation of the internet, galleries are seeing a need for business minds to run an increasingly cutthroat and capitalistic industry. The only way to get bigger and better pieces of art is to increase funding, and the only way to increase funding is to have better art. So as you can see there is a definite need for intelligent, creative business minded individuals to takeover the museums of the world in general.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed