Comments on: War Slaves, Sustainability, The Great Wall, Cuba, Poverty and Chinese Art http://calpolymbatrip.com/2006/china/war-slaves-sustainability-cuba-poverty-and-chinese-art/ The MBA Graduate Program at Cal Poly Fri, 18 May 2012 15:32:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: James Towers http://calpolymbatrip.com/2006/china/war-slaves-sustainability-cuba-poverty-and-chinese-art/#comment-771 James Towers Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:39:17 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/2006/china/war-slaves-sustainability-cuba-poverty-and-chinese-art/#comment-771 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. 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.

]]> By: Kristin http://calpolymbatrip.com/2006/china/war-slaves-sustainability-cuba-poverty-and-chinese-art/#comment-766 Kristin Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:11:07 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/2006/china/war-slaves-sustainability-cuba-poverty-and-chinese-art/#comment-766 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. 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.

]]> By: Brian McCarthy http://calpolymbatrip.com/2006/china/war-slaves-sustainability-cuba-poverty-and-chinese-art/#comment-590 Brian McCarthy Sat, 25 Nov 2006 04:43:21 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/2006/china/war-slaves-sustainability-cuba-poverty-and-chinese-art/#comment-590 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. 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.

]]>