Tianxin Hu spent around five years frequenting Nanting but only lived there for one year post-graduation. Interactions were limited to commercial transactions with shop owners, with no deeper social engagement. She views Nanting primarily as a practical “habitat,” providing daily necessities and services. While acknowledging that living there might subconsciously influence her creative mood or provide fragments of inspiration, her artwork does not consciously engage with Nanting as a subject or use its imagery. She observes that villagers are primarily focused on economic survival – they adapt their schedules to student habits (e.g., late-night snacks) for business, but show little interest in the content of student work or their artistic practices. This mutual lack of inquiry (students not explaining, villagers not asking) maintains the distance. If leaving, she’d remember the cheerful water delivery man and a departed food vendor, highlighting small, positive yet transient service-based connections.
Chaoyi Luo lived in Nanting intermittently for solitude and convenience, not for创作 (creation). He had minimal interaction with locals, seeing them as “not the same type of people,” citing busyness and lack of interest. He attributes the lack of deeper connection to the highly commercialized and transient nature of modern Nanting, which has lost much of its unique local character (“already played out”). He argues that most artistic activity there is individualistic and unrelated to the village itself; it simply uses the space. While past coursework involved deep research into Nanting’s history and culture (e.g., clan surnames, fishing past), leading to exhibitions that interested involved villagers, recent years have seen less of this. He believes genuine villager participation only happens when the art directly concerns them (like their clan history), otherwise, they remain indifferent spectators to student projects they don’t understand or care about.
Xin Wu, a GAFA artist, resided in Nanting Village for approximately five years. Her most significant relationships were with non-native shop owners, with whom she socialized extensively. In stark contrast, her interactions with native villagers were minimal and largely negative. She describes a strong undercurrent of exclusivity and xenophobia among locals, rooted in powerful clan structures and a distinct regional identity (identifying as Panyu people, not Guangzhou citizens). This division was starkly exposed during a controversial village-initiated pandemic lockdown, which sparked direct confrontations between students/migrants and villagers. Wu Xin also observed a clear linguistic bias; treatment was marginally better for Cantonese speakers, while Mandarin speakers or those from outside Guangdong province faced significant prejudice and derogatory labels. She concludes that most villagers view outsiders primarily as economic resources, not community members. This attitude extends to artistic interventions; even projects based on user research and intended for community benefit were often rejected or destroyed by villagers after completion. This deep-seated “us vs. them” dynamic leads her to believe that genuine collaborative creation between artists and native villagers is exceptionally rare, likely occurring in less than 1% of cases.
Leave a Reply