Gaozhi Hong views Nanting through a pragmatic lens of transactional relationships. He sees interactions with local shopkeepers as primarily commercial, where familiarity is built on repeated consumption. He describes Nanting as a “satellite city” to GAFA’s “main city,” a zone where students fulfill desires or undertake activities not permitted on campus (smoking, drinking, parties). He categorizes the village dynamic into three groups: native landlords (wanting profit), businesses (serving students), and students (the economic engine). He perceives an underlying tension; villagers tolerate student activities within unspoken boundaries but can become hostile if those boundaries are crossed. While he acknowledges rare acts of neighborly kindness (sharing drying space), he fundamentally sees the relationship as based on mutual benefit and tolerance, not deep connection or understanding.
Jiongda Li sees Nanting as a crucial “youth culture gathering place” for GAFA students, offering a sense of community and belonging after graduation. He values the social aspect, preferring group living. His tenant-landlord relationships are purely transactional. His filmmaking work is sometimes set in Nanting, like a project in a massage parlor where the owner was accommodating without payment. He notes that documentary students often film migrant shopkeepers, who sometimes try to influence their portrayal for a better image. If leaving, he’d告别 (bid farewell) to a successful Teochew老乡 (fellow townsman) restaurant owner with whom he has a genuine friendship, including playing pool together. He describes Nanting as a filter, with new students entering yearly and only a small percentage (artists, graduates) staying, creating a transient yet persistent community.
Baixiang Lin actively considers the ethics of artistic intervention in communities. He highlights the importance of respectful daily coexistence (e.g., observing noise rules during renovations) as a foundation for interaction, where practical knowledge is exchanged naturally with villagers. He critiques most “artistic interventions” as self-centered, treating villagers merely as audience or subject, often leading to exploitation without benefit to the community. He argues that “contemporary art” is irrelevant to villagers whose daily reality and aesthetic needs are different. He advocates for a humble, collaborative approach that respects local culture, uses understandable language, and addresses the community’s actual needs and aesthetic sensibilities (e.g., traditional patterns with good寓意/yìyù, meaning auspicious meanings). For him, true integration requires mutual understanding and benefit, not imposing an external artistic agenda.
Leave a Reply