Conclusion

I often receive questions concerning the social impact, efficacy, and sustainability of socially engaged art projects when presenting relevant case studies at conferences or in lectures. Among sincere curiosity to learn about how such projects can realize their declared aims and continue to function are explicit doubts about the practical benefits that the grassroots-style art-led social projects initiated by a few individuals could accomplish in the authoritarian Chinese political context. Underlying these doubts is a pessimistic message: if projects cannot bring immediate practical outcomes or if they have not acquired stable government support or reliable financial backup, there is not much future or value for such projects to continue. In this line of thinking, starting something progressive seems to be of little value itself unless clear evidence of practical benefits, and thus its sustainability, can be quantified to justify such an undertaking. It is understandable that people tend to look for measurable outcomes to assess any undertaking in a world that is increasingly dominated by the logics of businesses and a growing number of universities are being corporatized. ¹ However, such a pessimistic view inadvertently sides with the authoritarian political system that denies Chinese citizens the right to initiate bottom-up social changes. Here it is necessary to cite the critic Wang Nanming’s argument again in his rebuttal of those who question the usefulness of art for social change:

The question itself reflects the negative influence of political pragmatism and administrative exclusivism. These people believe that social change is meaningful only when it can occur within a short period … However, this is exactly the kind of grand and centralized politics that civic politics should resist; we should persist in a politics that is multifaceted and can thrive on everyday practice. ²