In the exhibition of Four Eras (《四個時代》), the portraits of the four political figures are displayed. Only a half body and the facial close-up are shown in each portrait. The
reputations of the four political leaders are diverse in different times and places. In their heydays, they had significant contributions to the society. However, it is unavoidable that they are under criticism. The four political figures, Mao Tse-tung, Deng Hsiao-ping, Chiang
Kai-shek, Chiang Ching-kuo, in the series are the most important leaders in Chinese
contemporary history21. Mao Tse-tung, whose icon is considered a sacred image in China, is the founding father of People’s Republic of China. Mao’s and Deng’s portraits can be seen everywhere in China. The phenomenon unfolds the new age when portraits are not only to serve the purpose of sacredness. The political icons actually replace sacred images at this time while the religious icons are forbidden in Cultural Revolution. Chiang Kai-shek built up his own orthodox and wanted to consolidate the legitimacy of Republic of China in Taiwan. The icons of Chiang’s family, including him and his son Chiang Ching-kuo, are the products of the grand narrative22. Both father and son’s portraits are hung in all official buildings and public schools.
These four figures became a popular subject for criticism for Chinese contemporary artists to challenge the ideology of deification after the late 80s. The new sacred images they created bring forth a dialogue between the old and the new. The images also give the viewers a critical distance to think about the differences between each figure. In addition to Wu’s Four Eras, some artists during the same period also make political figures for the purpose of
criticism. Take Mei Dean-E’s23 (梅丁衍) Three Principles of People Unite One China (《三民 主義統一中國》)(1990) (Fig.10) for example. Mei selects the founding fathers, Mao Tse-tung
21 Mao Tse-tung established People’s Republic of China, which resulted in KMT’s retreat to Taiwan. Guarding against the Communist Party of China, Chiang Kai-shek took over Taiwan in 1949. Chiang claimed his
government as the only legitimation of Chinese political entity. However, the society was conservative under his authoritarian regime. Especially during the period of martial law, people were restrained from freedom of speech, publication, and organization of parties. In 1966, Mao started Cultural Revolution, which also silenced the people. Their successors, Deng Hsiao-ping in china and Chiang Ching-kuo in Taiwan were different from them.
There were many economic reforms under Deng’s leadership. However, the protest in Tien-an Men Square in 1989 caused unknown number of dead. On the other part, Chiang Ching-kuo led an impetus to the major construction projects in Taiwan and accelerated the progress of economic growth. In 1979, the Formosa Incident happened during his period shocked the masses. But martial law is lifted in 1987 during his period as well.
22 “In Taiwan, the grand narrative is legitimated and rationalized through a temporal (historical) association to the theory of orthodox of Chinese culture. Replying to an inquiry about the origin of his philosophy from Ma Lin, who had joined the organization Third International, Sun Yat-sen used the southern Song Neo-Confucian scholar Zhu Xi’s system of orthodoxy and explained that he succeeded the five thousand years of orthodoxy starting from the legendary rulers Yao, Shun and Yu, to historical personages Tang, King Wen, King Wu, Zhougong, and Confucius. The statement became crucial to Chiang Kai-shek and his government in their effort toward
consolidation and legitimation both Taiwan and in the international arena. […] In Taiwan [Chiang Kai-shek] was the ‘the hero of knowledge,’ the vehicle that rationalized and legitimated this orthodoxy on the island- he was worshipped as the savior of Chinese people” (Pan, 2005: 49).
23 “Mei Dean-E” is the English name Mei uses for all his works.
and Sun Yat-sen24 to make fun of the orthodoxy constructed in Taiwan. By placing Mao’s face in the center of Sun’s, Mei tries to imply that the ROC has already been replaced by the PRC. Hence, the slogan “Three Principles of People unite China” trumpeted in Chiang’s periods becomes ironic and infeasible25. When Li Teng-hui26 (李登輝), the first president elected by the people of Republic of China in Taiwan, resumed his presidency, Mei makes a portrait of Li with Japanese samurai hairdo and use the Japanese Fuji Mountain as the
background in order to produce an image of Li’s personal experience of Japanese colonization (Fig. 11). Li has the experience of living under the Japanese colonial rule for more than 20 years. For him, China being the mother land of Taiwan is an unacceptable concept before Taiwan restoration27. His image in the portrait, though, is not deformed. All the original features of his are kept and the portrait looks just like him.
There are dissimilarities between Mei’s portraits and Wu’s portraits when they are dealing with the political icons. Unlike Mei’s figures that are symbolically deformable, Wu’s grotesque portraits are expressionistically deformable. After Wu’s reproduction, Mao, Deng and the Chiangs look different from what they are in the photos. Moreover, Mei produces his pictures based on the real photos. Although Li looks just like what he is in the portrait, there are supportive decorations or texts in the portrait (Fig. 11) to assist Mei to present his ideas. In contrast, Wu completes his series of the political icons all by the method of traditional
oil-painting. Despite their differences in style and political ideas, their works combine both
“national heroes” and “public enemies” to “indicate[s] that the authoritarian era had collapsed, and it was inevitable that the mystique and cult of personality surrounding such leaders would
24 Generally speaking, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen is esteemed to be the founding father of Republic of China before the split.
25, Tai-sung Chen, “Mei Dean-E’s Political Iconography,” Displacement: Mei Dean-E Solo Exhibition (Taipei:
Museum of Contemporary Art. 2003) 42.
26 Li has his education under Japanese colonial rule, and experiences the restoration of Taiwan after WWII.
27 Pan An-yi, “A Moving Memory: A Special Exhibition of Contemporary Taiwanese Art,” on-line post, 2006, The Fine Line in the Between: Humanities and Sciences in the 21st Century Conf., 18 Jul. 2007,
<http://mingching.sinica.edu.tw/text/amovingmemory_english.pdf >.
be challenged” (Pan, 2004; 89). Their breakthrough in art works “can be regarded as an omen signifying the ending of the period of ‘grand-narrative’ period, and can be seen in artistic attempts to de-deify, de-mystify, and humanize the so-called Great Men” (Pan, 2005; 44).
There is another example which is Guo Jen-Chang’s (郭振昌) painting of the president and the vice president (Fig. 12). It is much later published than the works of Wu’s and Mei’s works, but it is more like the make-up of the masks in Chinese opera that Wu’s Four Eras is also referred to. Guo shares the same idea with Wu to mix the sacred images with the folk elements. However, his works are not as grotesque as Wu’s. The Chinese opera masks worn by Guo’s figures almost cover the whole faces. The viewers can not recognize which
president or vice president the icon is in Guo’s work (Fig. 12). Although he intends to satirize the political situation in Taiwan, he does not show any comical or ridiculous elements to make his works good example of the grotesque images. The mask-covered faces are referring to the
“Taiwanese politicians who ‘speak human language to people and devil’s language to ghosts’”
(Pan 117). This is different from the grotesque countenances of the politician in Wu’s works that show the changes and the subjective comments from the artist. Guo puts on the masks to cover the faces of the figures (Fig. 12), but Wu unfolds the masks. According to many
previous and my own interviews, Wu claims that the way he paints these figures is following to their behavior and characteristics. Therefore, the audience can tell the inherent personality from their looks. Among the Taiwanese artists who are dealing with the political issues, Wu is more forthright in his art works which directly display the figures with deformation. In
addition, the grotesque images are nicely presented in Wu’s works that they deconstruct the majesty of the contemporary giants.
The images of political giants are one part of Wu’s exhibition. The frontispiece of
Leviathan (Hobbes, 1651), which is named after the monster in Bible, would be the prototype for reference (Fig. 13). Abraham Bosse, the French engraver, creates the image of the giant
according to Hobbes’ inputs. The "politische illustration” (Using illustrations to demonstrate the political situation, in English.) about Leviathan embodies Hobbes’ idea that a nation should be like a giant composed of innumerable people28. It is supported by the absolute power and the social contract, which may correspond to Foucault’s elaboration of the moral monsters, especially of the political monsters—the sovereign. Wu’s series about the rules of the four political leaders is also an example for the political giants. With reference to the half-body portraits, the size of each painting is larger than 250 cm square. However, each figure of in such a huge size has an unbalanced upper body. Everyone has a small head and a huge body which reminds me of the figure Foucault cited. It is the “Ubu-esque” (Foucault 11) which “describes someone who, by his grotesque, absurd, or ludicrous nature, recalls the figure of [Ubu], the play by Alfred Jarry” (28). In the four giant paintings, the social events are clearly inscribed in the body part. The social events inscribed in the body part of the portraits represent the terror which is like what Foucault talks about in the lecture of the moral monsters. To quell a riot, the policemen always exceed the rioters in armed might. It has to be a kind of surplus, so it accomplishes the end to consolidate the power of the authoritarian.
Hence, Wu creates his figures with huge bodies, which represent the overwhelming power of the authority and inscribes anonymous crowd in the bodies to recur the events. In each figure’s body part, there are many small army-like people or distorted bodies. Unlike the distinct facial features of these four political icons, the small people painted in the body part are faceless. The countless people shown in Leviathan, the giant, are also faceless. They are the embodiment for Hobbes’ political philosophy, but not the subject for him to discuss the ill treatment they may face. Different from the faceless crowd in Hobbes’ Leviathan, Wu’s faceless people in the portrait of Chiang Kai-shek, or in Tien-an Men Square Event in the portrait of Mao Tse-tung connote how the people suffer in White Terror era. During such
28 A.P Martinich, introduction,. Leviathan, by Hobbes Thomas, (Peterborough Ont: Broadview Press, 2002).
chaotic periods, there are so many victims that the authorities are not willing to release the number of casualties to the public. The contrast between the head and the body part reinforces the traumatic effects of the political oppression through these grotesque images. The viewers perceive the incongruity between the comic form, the warm-color tone and the cureless suppression. As Foucault’s response to the ethnologists’ analyzes about the power shown in the rites and ceremonies, I consider that Wu’s figures “to whom power is given is at the same time ridiculed or made abject or shown in an unfavorable light” do not present “power to be abject, despicable, Ubu-esque or simply ridiculous” (13). To make the authority ridiculous or Ubu-esque is not to “limit the effects of power in archaic or primitive society [,]” but to “[give]
a striking form of expression to the unavoidability of power” (13). The works during Wu’s first period respond to Foucault interpretation of power, especially to the power of the
sovereignty. It is the unavoidable power that Wu shows in his portraits, including the portraits of Chinese patriarchal tradition or the icons of the facial close-up. In addition to the huge size of the canvases, the high-contrast color tone and the rough contour in these series reinforce the grotesque of his unusual portraits.
This series discloses the disgrace of the absolute power. The monstrous feature is displayed in the authoritative icons as visualization of the power relations. The leaders’
images have to be despiteful or they can not be presented. Prior to the lifting of the martial law in 1987, tons of great men statues and portraits had been made. The “great men” are restricted to Chiang’s family at that time. Their portraits are hung in every public organization and school. Wu thinks this is the one of the functions of portraits—making viewers feel being monitored. The four sets of political strongmen displayed to the viewers remind people of patriarchal relationships in a family. They replace the traditional patriarchal figures and serve the purpose of surveillance. All these constructs a unique “great-men culture” in Taiwan. The political leaders are molded into national idols or national liberators. People should respect
and worship them as if they were Gods. To challenge and question this kind of value, Wu makes fun of them by distorting their former representations and reconstructs them in grotesque style so that they become his own “great-men portrait.” Wu questions Taiwanese viewers on the concept of democracy by juxtaposing the leaders in Taiwan (Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo) with the ones in China (Deng Hsiao-ping and Mao Tse-tung). As in Foucault’s discussion of the moral monsters, Wu’s works during this period also parody the moral monsters into Taiwanese context.