Below the Radar Transcript
Episode 207: Enchantment, Criticism, and the Activation of Art — with Yani Kong
Speakers: Kathy Feng, Am Johal, Yani Kong
[theme music]
Kathy Feng 0:02
Hello listeners! I’m Kathy Feng with Below the Radar, a knowledge democracy podcast. Below the Radar is recorded on the territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples. On this episode of Below the Radar, our host Am Johal is joined by Yani Kong, a writer, editor, and SSHRC Doctoral Fellow of Contemporary Art at SFU’s School for the Contemporary Arts. Yani talks about her doctoral research on enchantment and her journey into writing arts criticism. Am and Yani also discuss Canadian art at the 2022 Venice biennale and the relationship between public art and real-estate development in Vancouver. We hope you enjoy the episode!
[theme music fades]
Am Johal 0:45
Hello, welcome to Below the Radar. Delighted that you could join us again this week, we have a special guest, as always. This week we have Yani Kong with us. Welcome Yani.
Yani Kong 0:55
Hi, thanks for having me.
Am Johal 0:57
Yani, wondering if we can begin with you introducing yourself a little bit.
Yani Kong 1:01
Okay, I'm a writer and editor and a critic for publications in Canada and the US, as well as galleries and museums. I'm an instructor of art history at Langara College and Simon Fraser University. And I am a doctoral candidate in Contemporary Arts at Simon Fraser University.
Am Johal 1:25
Before we talk about your doctoral work, I'm wondering if you can speak a little bit to the work you did in your Master's program. I know you gave a talk at the Vancouver Institute for Social Research a few years back around spirit photography, but wondering if you can sort of talk a little bit about that period prior to starting your doctorate.
Yani Kong 1:44
Yeah, of course. So I did a Master's in Critical Theory at Trent University. And there, I started a project which was a cultural history in American spiritualism. And I was really focused on the photography of William Mumler, which was a portrait artist who would effectively double expose imagery to reveal images of ghosts, you know, behind these, behind these portraits of people, usually, you know, mourning loved ones. There's the really famous image of Mary Todd Lincoln with a photo of her— of dead Abraham Lincoln kind of like, gracefully resting on her shoulders there. So usually, these are items that were made for, you know, mourning and contact with deceased loved ones. And so my plan with that was to think about it in terms of disenchantment and re-enchantment. And so disenchantment is kind of like the... something that happened, post Protestant Reformation in which that certain sort of belief in Christianity kind of annexed spirit and magic from the world. So I think the term itself is like 'entzauberung', which means de-magification. And I'm pretty sure that's the term, off the top of my head. So spiritualism, I said, was like an opportunity to re-enchant the world by finding spirits in the imminent world as it is. And using like the technology of photography, which is kind of like a disenchanted technology, to re-enchant the world.
Am Johal 3:15
Seeing some of those images, it's just fascinating to look at. You can see the kind of... kind of entrepreneurialism that people must have used at the time, and it was a phenomenon for a period of time.
Yani Kong 3:28
Yeah, absolutely. And it is still sort of like, you know, you see sort of trickles of it. And, you know, Spiritualism is still practiced today. But it was really interesting, because it's one of the earliest examples of trick photography there are. And William Mumler actually went not quite to trial, but there was a hearing to debate the veracity of these images and whether or not he was a shyster, you know, which he undoubtedly was. But what was so compelling about that story are the, you know, very, like believing mourners, who are saying, it doesn't really matter if trick photography is being used, it doesn't mean that the spirit's not in this image.
Am Johal 4:04
So I mean, Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster. Fraudulent.
Yani Kong 4:10
They— It could mean that they're fraudulent for some. Maybe if it's very important to you, then you know, it doesn't mean that they're not still alive in some way.
Am Johal 4:24
Now, when you decided to take up doctoral work, what are some of the questions you were looking at? And kind of where you ended up? Because oftentimes, people enter a doctoral program with certain ideas of where— questions you want to ask and projects you want to take on. And by the time you start doing courses, reading materials, you end up in a very different place.
Yani Kong 4:44
Yeah, absolutely. I feel like I had a sort of meandering, like, way of entering into my PhD too, because at the time, I wasn't really sure if I was going to do it. And I feel in a way, like very much plucked, you know, kind of like, out of what I was doing and put into this PhD program, because I had supervisors who really cared about making sure that I went on. And the thing with the doctoral programs is that they always try to make sure that there's some string of continuity from one degree to the next or from one set of research to the next. So the piece that I thought that I would pick up is this piece of enchantment, or, you know, I'm calling it enchantment now and not re-enchantment, which was something that I was using more in my Masters. And really, enchantment is like pointing back to a period in time in which there was some kind of continuity between living—I want to say people—but like living bodies in the world and all other bodies which are nonhuman. And that can be, you know, like the, the trees outside, the dirt in the ground, the sky, the air, everything is very imminent and together. And that is really pointing back to like pre-modern ideas of animism. So I was trying to think about how to develop this idea of connection or interconnection, but still thinking very much about art. With the spirit photography project that is kind of in itself a practice of disenchantment, and all academics is kind of a practice of disenchantment. But it felt like there was something singular in our connections with art that could engender maybe a practice of interconnection. And I was looking mostly at works that are developed out of political crisis, or other kind of political or social global crisis and seeing what happens in those encounters with work. Can we use our bodies as a source of learning? What is this data that we're getting? And how can we move it other ways? And in that, is there a practice of interconnection which is useful?
Am Johal 6:55
And where is the state of your dissertation now?
Yani Kong 7:00
Well, I'm pretty damn close. I have just a little under a chapter to complete. And then I can, you know, finish up those revising. How I've been approaching it is to look at what I've been calling these motifs of enchantment, things that pop up, you know, either in the encounter with art, the things that art makes us do, or are, you know, in itself a visual type of motif that kind of beckons these kinds of ideas of enchantment. So the chapter that I most recently wrote on is looking at breath or air as a medium. And when I think about these kind of ideas. Enchantment, which is like in that pre-modern sense, this kind of shared suffusion of a shared animus, then air to me seems like a really nice, almost literal idea of enchantment, because it is a shared exchange between bodies. It also flows all around us. It's this thing that is between us, but it's also really intangible. So it picks up really nicely on this idea of the Spirit. So I was mostly looking at the artwork of Paul Chan for this. And he makes these kinds of air sculptures that are kind of based on the sky dancers that use car parking lots, but he's found a way to, you know, use fabric in such a way that he can choreograph the air through it. And in that way, he says he's expressing a kind of spirit of our time, which is really fascinating, because he also is like, made these sculptures which make you think about some of the issues that instigated the Black Lives Matter movement, for instance. All those police brutality and police murders that were happening in the United States and in Canada. So that's just one instance.
Am Johal 8:44
Alongside your doctoral work, somehow, you're been finding time to embark on a prolific art criticism in writing for magazines, online pieces, and all of that. And I'm wondering if you could speak to a little bit your interest in the importance of art criticism, particularly in a city where it sort of has had stops and starts in moments of art criticism where it's been here, but not. And, you know, important magazines like Fillip magazine sort of was birthed out of Vancouver. But there's never the kind of stable zone, because oftentimes, there's not really an economy behind it either. And, and so wondering how you first came into this work?
Yani Kong 9:29
Yeah. Well, it started out because I— Well, I'm no longer the managing editor. But I was the managing editor for the Journal of Comparative Media Arts, which is an open access academic journal that's run out of the School for Contemporary Arts. And I had had one of my articles published, which was a conference paper, which was based actually on a work— on a group exhibition that you were part of at SFU galleries in response to Trump becoming the United States president. And so I had written a conference paper based on this exhibit. And that paper then got published in the journal that I edit. And somebody found me and said, you know, I— it was for Akimbo magazine. And so they invited me to publish some criticism. And that really started me on a path because they actually needed the Vancouver writer. And so I would, I would, you know, send a few dispatches in on things that I'd seen before. And it has just really grown out of that. And what has been really great is that because I am thinking always about a practice of viewing and this practice of viewing, you know, not to just throw him in there, but he's really based on the philosophies of Spinoza and really thinking about how encounters can activate us and activate other non human bodies. And you know, in this case, the art. So I'm always trying to ask these Spinozan questions on what is this work doing to me? And, you know, does it affect my capacities? And in what way? So these are these questions that I'm always entering into these gallery situations with. So I do feel like I'm having these really activated experiences, when I'm going to do the criticism. So that's its significance for me is that I get to see a lot of art and I get to practice this thing, which I am preaching so to speak. In the wider sense, though, it's hard to know what the reach of these, you know, small scale critiques are in this age of the internet. We have to write succinctly, you know, you have about 500 words to give your hot take. And I'm not really sure who reads them, although there does seem to be a readership because I keep getting contracts to write more reviews. But, you know, like, friends tell me that they find it really useful. I'm still like, I wonder too, like, do you read reviews before you go to galleries? Like, I find it's more useful, I suppose if it's something that I don't intend to see or don't have the ability to see, then reading someone's reviews feels really helpful.
Am Johal 12:05
I tend not to read them before I see something, but certainly afterwards, I still find them clarifying, or they present the work in a new way that I might not have seen myself. So it allows it to be seen through that prism, and it ends up being a kind of a conversation of the work that continues on. So I find it very useful. And certainly, you know, you have journals like e-flux and others who are not necessarily doing art criticism, per se, but are putting ideas that are coming out of the art world into broader circulation that does illuminate and places into conversation, artists, with theorists and other kinds of things that can be an encounter between disciplines in a space like that.
Yani Kong 12:49
Yeah, it does help I think, very much because there is so much work out there, there's so much to see. So it does really help to contextualize and even to highlight small, small things you might not have noticed.
Am Johal 13:03
And in some of the, say, the more recent pieces that you've seen, what are some works that have been particularly memorable for you or have raised questions in a way that you still remain kind of puzzled, coming out of the work and writing about it?
Yani Kong 13:19
For works that I've reviewed. I mean, I feel somewhat limited because I'm often reviewing at the local level. But I did get assigned to review Canadians at the Venice Biennale. And I found that to be a kind of unique challenge, mostly because a lot of Canadians who are presenting work, with the exception of Gabrielle L'Hirondelle Hill, are not actually living in Canada any longer. Most are expats. So it's really hard to gather them together. And, you know, under this banner of so called Canada, and then say, okay, well, here were the Canadians there. And this is a primary theme. I suppose I would say that I was perplexed by Stan Douglas' entry point, or like, offering for the Venice Biennale, only because I found it just a little bit out of place, among all the other works, which really highlighted traditional knowledge and craft. And then here was Douglas' piece, which had, you know, like the gloss of technology. And I think still I am considering, what is this connection between 2011 and 1848. So, you know, in that sense, he really got me but I did love his installation. I thought it was tremendous. Also, because it was such this like, beautiful, really refined piece inside, you know, 1000 year old salt factory. I don't know if you saw it, when you were there—
Am Johal 14:40
I did see it. I started dancing. So it was... got me too.
Yani Kong 14:45
Yeah, yeah. So I would say that was perplexing in a way that I still haven't landed on, you know, an opinion about it. And I did mention that, in my review, where I'm, you know, it's still making me think. In some cases, when I go out to review pieces, it can be really hard to know how I'm going to, you know, attack it or— not attack it but you know, how am I going to approach this piece? So I really use my body, I suppose, as an indicator. And most work is, is really good. It's very rare if something doesn't... if I can't respond to something. And I'm kind of grateful for my background in art history, because I'm able to sort of see the through lines
Am Johal 15:28
And Stan's work in the Canadian pavilion as well, it's not the easiest place to install. And so that was also quite interesting. Wondering in reading art criticism yourself if there's particular writers or other critics that you're drawn to their approach, or see them as an, as an influence.
Yani Kong 15:50
I really enjoy Roberta Smith's criticism in the New York Times just in a popular way. I think she's somebody who's writing really smart criticism and doing a really good job of just talking about art. You know, like we can get really carried away by significant political issues, we can get really carried away by theoretical or philosophical thinking. But Roberta Smith is really good at just focusing on the work and the way that it's guided. So that's somebody who I really admire. I really like the work of Didier Morelli, who is a writer and an editor who's living in Montreal right now. I just collaborated with him for his magazine, and I'm finding him to have— him and I to have a similar approach. Even like for him, he's functioning as my editor. But he's, I've felt that he's very generative, and very collaborative. And that's been really great.
Am Johal 16:47
I wanted to speak as well just you know, you have your art history background, so you have a way of coming into a work, but also you bring up social political dimension, a theoretical dimension with the other work that you're doing. How do you, in your own work, try to layer these pieces into your criticism?
Yani Kong 17:07
Hmm, um, let me think about that. Well, I would say like politics is something that, that we can never escape. Politics, race, this tends to be the frame from which I'm, I'm standing always and from which I'm approaching the work. Race in particular, I think about a lot. I find some of the larger galleries and museums to still be catering to the desires of wealthy white collectors, and patrons. So I don't know that what we're seeing in the large scale, galleries, museums, are necessarily reflecting what's happening in the world. But then on the other hand, I was assigned to review the last show at the Rennie gallery. And I find, you know, his place in this neighborhood and the Downtown Eastside is contentious. You know, he's connected very heavily to development. His headquarters is glossy, in the middle of what is a turbulent area for many people. And I remembered when, you know, there was that petition so that Solange wouldn't play her show in his museum. But I've also seen a lot of great work. And so when I went to this show, I actually was, you know, like pleasantly floored by the deftness to which he is collecting, in which very much reflects what's happening in the world. I don't know that I've ever seen such a large collection in this town of Black art that fundamentally reflects what feels like a race war. So I was really impressed with that, and the commitment to challenging museum goers. So I really, really liked that. I think Justin Ramsey at the Polygon is doing a really good job. I'm really impressed with that as well.
Am Johal 19:03
Now, in terms of, you know, the times when artwork enters into a broader controversy or public play, and wondering, you know, your own sort of takes on it. We've had public art here, for example, Rodney Graham's piece under the Granville bridge, or the more recent piece of Ken Lum's that was supposed to go up in Edmonton, it's generated a lot of media attention and articles, in that it won't be put up and I think there's a lawsuit coming as well. But wondering if you wanted to comment either on those or any other, like when art all of a sudden ends up into a full public zone where all of a sudden, it's being adjudicated outside of the art world in some sense? These phenomenons say something about art, but also this sort of perplexed notion that a public does have a lot to say about art, but oftentimes, is coming at it from a different perspective.
Yani Kong 20:06
Yeah, I think that this issue raises some really significant and, you know, not easily solvable ideas. The first thing with the Rodney Graham piece was that people were really upset because of its connection to the West Bank development company. Now, I mean, I'm sure you're familiar as well, that, you know, development companies have to pay a certain amount of their costs towards public art. So naturally, when you're driving around the city, which is rife with development, we're seeing lots of work by lots of artists, you know, many of whom are doing really cool things. But also, there's this sort of issue with public art, which is that it has to be kind of... hit the right kind of neutral. So we're not seeing necessarily thought provoking work, it's rare that public art goes up and anybody really has a, like a strong opinion. Then Rodney came up with the chandelier. And it was, you know, I think, highlighted an issue, which was that there was funding that was being allocated to public art that was not being used for other things. In one case, it was really useful. And I'm not sure about the development company, but I know that the artists studios connected with 221A, on how that is a, you know, a public, or that as a development company funding artists— and art and artists. So that I think is really beneficial. With this Rodney thing, I think it raised this issue, which I struggle with, which is why is there public art, and not more libraries? As if the two can't be together. Why can't we have public art and libraries? So I think we have this issue of this kind of like necessary neutrality. And then when the work is not neutral, then it's raising this issue of where should the money go. And art coming out, you know, particularly among activists who are doing good work, but are, you know, like, finding art to be the first thing on the chopping block. And then when I saw Rodney’s piece, I thought to myself, maybe because I know him a little that it, it was so purposefully fake, like, the thing that was being attacked was that it was a chandelier, and it is itself a symbol of opulence, and that it is so big, but then you go to see it, and it's, it's very clearly the fakest thing you could imagine. And something about that fakeness felt really purposeful to me. You know, like, like that it's meant to... it's meant to nudge itself and the funding that created it, you know, it's tacky in a kind of way. And that tackiness is a significant part of its materiality and the way we receive it. So you know, to have this kind of, like, giant piece of public art, which is so you know, contentious, but is in itself like really tacky, I think points to the tackiness of the whole ordeal. The Ken Lum thing, though...
Am Johal 23:10
Or the whole city, for that matter—
Yani Kong 23:12
Yeah.
Am Johal 23:12
In some ways. And if, you know, in terms of people that I know, 90% of people criticize it, it might even be a higher percentage. But if one were to mount a defense of the piece, it's also a piece that doesn't give two fucks, right? It spins every hour, it's a spectacle in your face that... One could read it that it is attempting to provoke a certain type of condition in the city as well, if one were to read it generously.
Yani Kong 23:36
I suppose that, you know, I... My concern is that the area, that whole Vancouver House development, I think it did unsettle people who had found themselves living under the bridge in an unhoused condition. So that, you know, that in itself, it spurs a few good questions, if we're trying to be generous. But then it also, you know, leaves us with this really unsettling disquiet, which is, where do people go? Yeah.
Am Johal 24:08
In that connection to the developers contribution, and all of that can obviously be read in that direction as well.
Yani Kong 24:16
But I do like, I was going to say that one thing that I find is that art is not particularly effective at these kind of like, you know, state of... it can't be activism with a capital A, but it does do this thing where, you know, to paraphrase Guattari like it activates one time, this thing that you might want to see in the future. So that's something that I think it's really effective is like a Laura Marks' Small File Media Festival, where she's asking artists to make small file media art, which is a moving image, so that it can stream without a carbon footprint because streaming media is, I think close to 4% of the world's total global greenhouse gas emissions. So asking artists to experiment and, you know, create this small file media image, it's not a— it's not capital A activism in the sense that it's not necessarily contributing to an immediate policy shift. But I do really like that it's using imagination in a really purposeful sense. And asking us to make a— make cut, you know, see what it looks like.
Am Johal 25:30
I know that you've, you do a lot of teaching as well. You've done courses around art and activism, and also around cli-fi films with Joe Clark. I'm wondering if you can speak a little bit to sort of your approach to teaching around these topics and what you find interesting about them?
Yani Kong 25:48
Well, often what I notice and what I'm a little bit surprised at is that students aren't as familiar with, you know, the terminology of the Anthropocene in the way that I am as invested in it. So I'm always a little bit surprised when I have to teach them what it means to live in a human centered epoch. Because of my philosophical leanings, and thinking about practices of interconnection, I actually think the environment is a really nice place to kind of stage a set of thinking. A set of conditions for thinking, because it asks you to invest yourself in the world and find things that are still useful or look for what can be renewed and examine what is not worth using any longer. With teaching, I think part of it is cultivating students towards an idea that you might not make change right away, but that you can always chip away at this thing that is unsettling. With the climate, I actually think art offers us a really interesting way to intervene with climate, kind of in the way that I just said with the Small File Media Festival, because we have to imagine that we are in the shit. And we have to imagine a way out of it. So you know, small file films being one way or also starting on the path to thinking about how, you know, for instance, cinema is already an object of the Anthropocene and can intervene in the Anthropocene.
Am Johal 27:26
You know, when I, when I think about art critics when they venture into areas outside the art, I always appreciate that Roland Barthes has this great essay on professional wrestling in the 1950s. That's, like remarkable and super interesting to read. John Berger, of course, wrote about, you know, very many topics outside of art. But wondering if you can imagine either yourself writing about things outside of the art world or other critics that you've seen, write, sort of outside of the field of art that you appreciated?
Yani Kong 28:00
Oh, what a good question. Gosh, well, for me, I have been like, so immersed in just the last like three years with writing and thinking that is art all the time. Let me think about this. So I read a lot of fiction. And it's funny, because I actually did it because I don't sleep very well. So I just crushed novels at nighttime. But interestingly enough, I have been reading this set of books, which does, I think it must be like the intellectual woman's pulp. Every woman that I have met recently has been surprised that I hadn't read this set of— it's called the Neapolitan Quartet by Elena Ferrante.
Am Johal 28:46
I've read them.
Yani Kong 28:47
Have you read them? I can't put them down. I'm on the third book, and I'm like, yeah, no, seriously reading. But what's interesting about it, and what it did for me is, it really raised my understanding of the events of May 1968. But from this other perspective, you know, like I have read Deleuze and I have read Foucault and I'm very familiar and well versed in the issues of that day. But I liked how these characters in this neighborhood who are really struggling in lots of different ways, but in particular, financially, and this idea that only some only the very privileged have access to education and education being so centre to the debate of 1968. But the way that they looked at that, from the lens of these two women, each with different access to education and to funding and the ways in which they did and didn't side with what was happening with the student rebellions. I thought that was fascinating. And I did bring it up in my class yesterday when I was trying to teach Deleuze.
Am Johal 30:00
It always comes back to Elena Ferrante.
Yani Kong 30:02
Yeah, I just, so yes, this so I'm gonna say Elena Ferrante, for me right now is the most influential non art writer. Yeah.
Am Johal 30:09
Yani, is there anything you'd like to add?
Yani Kong 30:13
I suppose— I suppose I've said my piece. Yeah. Thank you so much for having me.
Am Johal 30:17
Thank you for joining us on Below the Radar.
Yani Kong 30:20
What a pleasure.
Kathy Feng 30:25
Below the Radar is a knowledge democracy podcast created by SFU’s Vancity Office of Community Engagement. Thanks for listening to our episode with Yani Kong. To learn more about Yani’s work, check out the show notes below. Don’t forget to subscribe to Below the Radar on your podcast listening app of choice. Thanks again for listening, and we’ll catch you next time on Below the Radar.