Musings: the Seeds of Creativity

Just a quick sketch that is loosely based on the happenings in Hong Kong these days, especially the issue of the government trying to push for a copyright law this July, in the interest of 'protecting creative property'.

Hong Kong does need some form of a copyright law, I have no issue admitting to this. But not one that is poorly drafted, poorly explained, and offers no clear delineation as to the material it covers. (And always be in doubt of a proposed law when the government resorts to the sales pitch of "pass the law now, we'll sort through the details later.")


Although not explicitly mention by the government (then again, when does the HK government ever issue a fully transparent statement?) one can't help but feel as though this law is an attempt to muffle one important avenue of political expression in this city; that of parody. Parody (known as 惡搞) is a way for it's users to attain the ability to voice out a critical-- and oft opposing-- viewpoint towards something purported by the mainstream and/or the authorities. The key elements of this involves humour and a degree of abstract representation of the issues at hand, which makes it easy to 'consume' for the wider public (as opposed to providing a hardline statement which may turn people away. A very likely case in Hong Kong), and offers a degree of protection from persecution as long as all references remain indirect. (Think of the role of parody as akin to the court jester of the medieval courts. It may be appear as a trivial role of entertainment, but jesters are protected from whatever they say due to their status as a bearer of humour. Thus these jesters are vital when it comes to conveying news that may not be savory for those who listen-- for example the 14th century French royal court heard about their defeat in a naval battle with the English after the jester hinted at their loss through a joke. No other official dared to speak up lest they incur the wrath of the royals-- and were an important mouthpiece for the difficult-to-stomach truths.)


So just how rampant is parody in Hong Kong, and what form do parodic works take? Unsurprisingly, given the proliferation of the Internet in most Hong Kong homes, it is mostly online. And thanks to social networks, it is easily spread to a mass audience, and most works are well receive by them. There are a lot of popular culture references (possibly due to the age of the parodic work maker and the destined audience), some of the most popular being movie posters from local Hong Kong cinema and Hollywood. A fantastic example emerged a month or so ago, when the faces of The Avengers poster was replaced with those of unpopular government officials (the lineup includes Fan, Leung, Lam, etc.) under the aptly renamed team of The Suppressors. Another great poster had the face of Tang superimposed on the poster for The Iron Lady with a caption for 'selling the wife' (a pun that makes sense in the Chinese version of the poster), a response to Tang's wife facing the media for the illegal basement structure debacle. And then there are the numerous versions of Leung's face being superimposed on chairman Mao's propaganda posters, alluding to Leung's ties with the communist party...


But the ability to link an issue at hand, and the people involved, to another piece of existing work that allows for a comedic representation of all these elements is a skill in itself. Can one not say that this process of visual articulation is in itself a valid form of creativity? And if so, does this not render moot the need to combat parodic works under the guise of 'protecting creative property'? (So where does the the justification of a copyright law lie? That the makers of parodic works don't give credit to the creators of the original piece? Would issuing a disclaimer/attributing credit resolve such an issue? And to what extent will the parodic work have to differ from the original material to avoid such a necessity, in the sense that the parodic work becomes something 'new' in its own right?)


But asides from speculating what this law will do to the parody scene, the notion of 'creativity' in itself needs to be examined. The argument in support for the law proposed by the government is lacks an understanding of the issues of 'creativity'. As pointed out in June's edition of CUP magazine (check out pages 65-67), even works of seeming originality can trace its 'inspiration' from an older work. Has there ever been something such as 'pure originality', something that makes no reference from another work and emerged in its own totality? Is this feat even possible, given how most individuals of this society are bound to be exposed to the works of others on a conscious and unconscious level? How do we, and how should we, understand and define 'creativity' at all?


I think, the problem is in how we determine whether the link between two pieces of work is that of acceptable 'inspiration' or that of exploitative 'plagiarism*'. (Plagiarism within writing and academic work is easy to define and identify. Same goes for evident plagiarism such brand-name knock-offs you see in Fa Yuen Street. In these examples there is a direct one-to-one replication of the traits embodied by the original, and a matter of personal gain. The problem is the application of this term to works that make a reference to another in a manner of 'allusion'.) Is there a spectrum in which to measure whether a piece or work fluctuates from one label to the other? I'm not sure what the criteria for judgement is, but it is certain that this is not something that should be determined by the government.


So leave parody alone, Hong Kong government. And do what you do best; continue to supply people with abundant material to continue the making of parodic works.


-----------------------------------


*I also find plagiarism to be problematic from a cultural standpoint. In some Asian societies (also applicable to the old painting masters of Europe), the art tradition is passed through a process of copying, reproducing, imitating existing work as a means to refine and hone skill sets. It was/is considered a legitimate means of propagating the art discipline. And imitation itself can be considered to be a form of flattery and a show of appreciation in certain contexts. In present day Japan, you have fanart being sent to authors of popular manga and anime works, with some authors thanking their fans and even publishing such works for public viewing. Doujinshi (a fan-made manga volume) may sometimes appropriate the characters of another piece of work for use in a different setting, but there seems to be little qualms about this issue.

Event: 這一代的六四

For the older generations in Hong Kong who witnessed June 4th 1989 through real-time feed from the media, it leaves an emotive memory even twenty three years later. But for the younger generations, such as those born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, what does June 4th mean for them? Children of these three decades were too young-- and perhaps not even born yet-- to have had the emotional and memory capacity to remember and feel the implications of 1989.


only learning about it through oral narratives from older family members, the calls from democratic political parties (don't be fooled by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, the DAB, despite them having the word 'Democratic' in their name. They are incredibly pro-Beijing, and in 2007 their ex-chairman Ma Lik tried to play down the killings that took place in Tiananmen), the media, and from the internet. Unlike in mainland China, the term '六四' (Chinese for June 4th) is not taboo, nor risky to use in the face of authorities; one could say that the current youths grew up alongside this term, and thus June 4th is cemented within the youth psyche. 

But what exactly does June 4th mean for youths? Without bearing direct witness and only relying on secondary sources, can the meanings from 1989 transcend into the present day? Or is it even important to keep the same meaning from the past; can the youths of today's Hong Kong create their own connection towards June 4th? (And is it enough to just be aware of the killings, and not to engage with it?)

This is what some Hong Kong youths try to address; one such effort manifests as an art performance on the streets of Causeway Bay, known as 這一代的六四. (Having to use the phrase 'art performance' as a way of describing it shows the limitations of the English language. The word 'performance' denotes a show meant for an audience, and contains a degree of entertainment value. The Chinese phrase used is '街頭藝術活動' which can be roughly translated to 'action of art' on the streets.) This is its third year in the running, where a group of youths (and some non-youths with a youthful spirit) with and without art training will stand on the street for two hours expressing their views and understanding of June 4th. There are a range of different art practices at play; performative art, contemporary dance, choir song, poetry reading, and paintings placed on the roadside for view. 

Some displays leaned towards the literal (harkening to the imagery of the Tiananmen tanks), others more abstract. Some worked together in groups, others alone. Some appeared to be a commentary on the killings and repression of 1989, others touching upon a more personal narrative. Some spoke of Beijing, others transcended the matter of site and focused on the practices of the Hong Kong mentality. Check out some photos:

People who encountered this performance may not necessarily understand or interpret what is going on (nor will I profess to have encompassing insight about all of it either), but then it seems superficial to assume that the various happenings of the night is only devoted to the entertainment or gratification of the passing public. (And so leads to a much bigger issue of about the nature of art itself, and the state of art education in Hong Kong...topics that I'm nowhere near qualified to ramble on about.) 


The street performance shouldn't be construed as a separate way of remembering June 4th, breaking away from the annual candlelight vigil at Victoria Park organized by formalized organizations, institutions, and political parties; many of the performers will also take part in that as well (this art event took place on the 3rd of June, so that there will be no clashes.) You could call it a supplement to the more 'mainstream' ways of remembering 1989, allowing a new avenue to explore and interact with this bit of unresolved history.