paths to the middle 271 PATHS TO THE MIDDLE: A TENTATIVE THEORY FOR CHINESE CONTEMPORARY ART Peng Feng Chinese contemporary art can be divided into three stages: following the Other, being valuated by the Other, and finally getting its identity.1 Only in the third stage can Chinese contemporary art have its self- awareness or self-understanding, i.e., can Chinese contemporary art realize itself as Chinese contemporary art. However, according to Hegel and Danto, the history of art is at an end as soon as art has real- ized itself. By the same token, does Chinese contemporary art come to an end since it has realized itself in the third stage? Does art or Chinese or contemporary come to an end? What is the difference between them? If art comes to an end, it, according to Hegel and Danto, is sub- lated into philosophy.2 If Chinese art comes to an end, it, according to the scholars who advocate trans-cultural aesthetics, is substituted for by a new International Style.3 If contemporary art comes to an end, it, according to the scholars who advocate evolutionary aesthetics, welcomes “the return of beauty”.4 I propose to discuss the first issue in this paper and leave the others for other papers. If what comes to an end is not Chinese but contemporary art, it should be sublated into Chinese traditional philosophy. Ironically, once contemporary art takes shelter in Chinese traditional philosophy, it can refuse to come to an end and welcome a new beginning. With 1 Li Xiaofeng, “Preface for Chenxiang Exhibition,” in Chenxiang Catalogue (Shanghai: Shanghai Shipingxian Gallery). 2 See Stephen Davies, “End of Art,” in A Companion to Aesthetics, Edited by D. Cooper (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), pp. 138-141. 3 See Curtis Carter, “Conceptual Art East and West: A Base for Global Art or the End of Art?,” in Aesthetics and Culture: East and West, Edited by Gao Jianping & Wang Keping (Hefei: Anhui Jiaoyu Press), 2006, pp. 544-562; Curtis Carter, “Art without Cultural Borders: Reflections on Qin Feng’s Art,” in Qin Feng: To Badashan- ren, Catalogue (Beijing: Beijing Museum of Contemporary Art, 2008), pp. 83-84. 4 See Wolfgang Welsch, “The Return of Beauty?” Pilozofski Vestnik, No.2 (2007), pp. 15-25; Dennis Dutton, “Aesthetics and Evolutionary Psychology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, edited by Jerrold Levinson (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 693-704. 272 peng feng the new beginning, Chinese contemporary art would follow its special tradition, resolve its present problems, and, finally, save art from death. Artists and theorists should work together to deal with these issues. Here theory should not be understood under the ‘wrapper’ model whose motivating ideal is perfect coverage, but as dialectics or pragmatism whose purpose is not only to interpret but also to change the world.5 From my perspective, the theory of xiang or yixiang, which is the core of Chinese traditional thought on art, can help our thinking about these issues. The traditional Chinese division of ontological categories is a trifurcation, Dao, Xiang, and Qi, which is different from the standard bifurcation in western metaphysics. The ontology of works of art is one important topic in contemporary analytic aesthetics. According to these standard divisions, we cannot clarify the ontological status of works of art. But if we take the trifurcation in Chinese philosophy, the problem of the so-called ontology of works of art can be easily resolved. In short, a theory based on Xiang can not only link up with the tradition, but can also make constructive dialogues with contemporary analytic philosophy and phenomenology. An art based on Xiang can save art from its death. Chinese contemporary art should display or already has displayed the paths to Xiang, the middle. 1 Let me begin with the intractable problem of the ontological status of works of art. The ontology of art is a hot potato that attracts and ago- nizes the scholars engaged in it. The central question for the ontol ogy of art, as Amie Thomasson summarizes it, is this: What sort of entities are works of art? Are they physical objects, ideal kinds, imaginary entities, or something else? How are works of art of various kinds related to the mental states of artists or viewers, to physical objects, or to abstract visual, auditory, or linguistic structure? Under what conditions do works come into existence, survive, or cease to exist?6 5 See Richard Shusterman, Pragmatist Aesthetics, 2nd. ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), p. 40. 6 L.Amie Thomasson, “The Ontology of Art,” inThe Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, edited by Peter Kivy (Malden, Oxford, and Carlton: Blackwell, 2004), p. 78..