I started in 1979 when I was first there with Schindler, but I wasn’t really excited with what I saw at the time. I looked at a lot of work, but I didn’t collect it. But then by the late eighties I started to look at it a little deeper. I felt that art had found its own language. It wasn’t until the nineties that I really started collecting. By then I moved around China very freely. I moved everywhere, even though a lot of art was semi-underground. The constraints were not like the eighties where I was always observed and followed. In the nineties I could just get in my car and travel where I wanted to different artists’ studios.
Yes. I’m a researcher by nature, and I was fortunate enough to buy the results of my research. Of course, maybe that’s the difference to the people who move exclusively in the art world. I was in China as a businessman and diplomat so I saw very different realities, and contemporary art was just another access for me, but I always thought about how to integrate it into the full Chinese picture. So, I was always able to contextualise the work, not just within art, but also in Chinese society and all of this. Which was very important for me, personally.
Well, in the earlier years—and you also see it in the collection—I found a lot of the art derivative of Western art, because it was the first time artists could do autonomous art. They could decide what to do, they could leave the language of socialist realism, so they experimented with the little information they had about Western art. So, for us it looked very boring. It took quite some time until a language appeared that was not derivative. And at first I was looking with a Western eye: I was looking for art that could contribute to the global artistic discourse. But of course that is what I couldn’t find. Everything was 50 years too late, 70 years too late. Only when I decided to take a more documentation approach—a collection which allows you to read the story of Chinese contemporary art, because nobody had been doing this—only then did I start looking for works which were very important to Chinese art history. But they didn’t have to contribute to this global art discourse at the forefront of Western art. So, that became a very different focus, and that had me collect very different things. I was collecting backwards, like the No Name Group. It made more sense. But before, if you were looking for the forefront of contemporary art, all this was not of much relevance. So that’s really the difference. I had to change the focus to whatever was important for Chinese art history. Of course ideally it would also contribute to the history of global art discourse, and there are many works that do, but there are also many works that don’t.
Well now of course artists have fully caught up. Where once there was a time lag, of course they have now mastered all media, they have no issues with techniques and have access to information. And this is all reflected in the art. And some of it, as we discussed earlier, comes across like this global mainstream.
And tradition, or dealing with tradition has gained a lot of weight. In the ‘eighties nobody would ever want to hear about tradition—it was all about Western conceptualism—whereas now a lot of artists are disillusioned with this Western conceptualism. That’s a trend emerging from the last few years. Very diverse directions and strands and all media.
There are a million moments, but there’s this work in the exhibition by Ai Weiwei—an installation with 4,000 axes [Still Life]. I wanted to offer Weiwei more money than he actually wanted. He wanted a really ridiculously low price. I felt it should have been much higher, and he said to me, ‘It doesn’t really matter if you or I own it. That’s irrelevant and just a blip. These axes have been here for 10,000 years, so what’s the human life span? What does it matter who owns it? You take it.’ So I did and now I have passed it on to M+. I also don’t matter. It was an interesting way of thinking about art and its long-term relevance, if it ever has one.
A number of reasons. But mainly, I’m very much a fan of the public institution. I think only the public institution can provide the long-term guarantee that it will continue to exist and it will be ‘the’ public memory. I have seen a number of private museums come and go in China. Maybe the owner goes bankrupt, maybe the owner decides to hang around with film people, not the art people, so then the money goes there. And you are hostage to the taste of the one person. Maybe that’s the main issue. I’d much rather have a whole institution decide how to deal with the collection, rather than just me myself. And there’s also a question of means. I have decided I’d rather put my resources into collecting than building this great monument to myself. I’m not so important in this. The collection is much bigger than me.
Of course I built it and there are traces of me in that collection, but it is much bigger than I am. I think it’s an important document to the Chinese culture, whereas I personally am not.
I think M+ is negotiating to take the show to Japan, Korea. It will travel in Asia.
Yes, but the Hong Kong collection is more chronological while the Bern exhibition is an overview of the collection in the last ten years. In Bern it’s a much more recent and younger exhibition, going back only to 2005.
It was an issue early on when I created the Contemporary Chinese Art Award in the very early stages in 1997. There was a debate that I, as a foreigner, shouldn’t be able to decide what’s meaningful art or less meaningful art in China—because there was no art award then. This was the first one and I did it to create a more domestic discourse and to bring in important foreign curators [such as Swiss curator Harald Szeemann who went on to include 20 Chinese artists in the 1999 Venice Biennale] so they would see Chinese contemporary art, because at that time nobody had a clue about Chinese contemporary art. That’s hard to imagine today. But that was a debate then. I had to explain myself, why I did this and why I should have a say in this—not the only say, but a say, because I had seen more of China than most Chinese back then ever could. In the eighties and nineties people couldn’t travel freely around. I had to go around everywhere, but they couldn’t. And I had seen and met with thousands of Chinese artists, many hadn’t. So I did this award to collect a lot of material at the time when there were no books, no catalogues, no internet. So I saw more material than almost everyone I know. I had to explain all this so everyone would understand. So yes, there was a moment where it was a problem, whereas today nobody disputes this. —[O]
M+ Sigg Collection: Four Decades of Chinese Contemporary Art
23 February to 5 April, 2016
ArtisTree, 1/F Cornwall House, Taikoo Place, 979 King’s Road, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong