• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.59-85
• /
• 2019

The Hong Kong's Anti-Ordinance Amendment Movement is the most serious radical social movement since the 1997 return, which has served as the promotion of the 2014 Occupy Central Movement and broken through the violence baseline. The movement came from a criminal case committed in Taiwan,which gave a good reason and motivation for the HK government to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. The HK government has responded to the protests by strictly limiting the legal scope and transfer procedure, even giving up the legislative motion. But the protests still say no and develop into the constantly violent activities. Many of the protests have committed the crimes in HK laws,part of whom have been arrested,prosecuted and under judicially judged. It is necessary for the offenders to be punished to protect the authority of rule of law in HK. Two different paths for HK have fought against each other since the 1997 return: one is the "democratic-welfare" path taken by the Pan-Democratic Camp, the other is the "Legal-development" path taken by the Pan-Establishment Camp. The second path shares some nuclear characteristics of the so-called The China Model mainly shaped from the 40-years Reforms and Openness. However, the HK people can't understand the China Model very well and show great fear and distrust on the judicial system of Mainland China. The foreign powers such as US and UK have illegally interfered the HK issues which are deemed to be the domestic affairs of China. The so-called Sino-UK Joint Declaration can't serve as the legal basis for the interference. Taiwan, as a part of China, also plays a negative role in this movement for its electoral and political interest. Up to now, the movement has gone down and the HK government has the legal capacity to solve the problems under the supports from the central government and the HK people. The HK people love its rule of law and order under the constitutional framework of One Country Two System. After the movement,One Country Two Systems will be go on, and the integrated development under the policies of the central government will be the main stream. However, the relevant problems exposed by this movement muse be checked and solved legally and strictly,especially concerning the social inequality and youth development.

• The Journal of Art Theory & Practice
• /
• no.16
• /
• pp.41-69
• /
• 2013

The inauguration of the collective Reality and Utterance (Hy$\breve{o}$nsil kwa Par$\breve{o}$n) in 1979 and 1980 marked a watershed moment in Korean art. This is not only because the collective gave birth to the politically-engaged art movement that would come to be labeled "Minjung Art" by the middle of the 80s, but also because it enthusiastically embraced a wide range of images from the urban culture. With a special focus on the members' early work, my research explores an issue largely neglected in the dominant narrative of Minjung art as a form of activism against the authoritarian Korean government during the 80s. The issue is what was at stake in Reality and Utterance's exploration of contemporary urban visual culture. The aim of this essay is to recognize the engagement with the urban visual culture as central to the group's early project and to consider it at some distance from the anti-urban and anti-mass culture perspective which was endorsed by the Minjung narrative. Focusing on members' turn to urban visual culture, this essay instead argues that this turn was by no means merely a means to making art as social critique, but more importantly, it was an experiment with the shared image world, as opposed to the rarefied visual vocabularies of abstract modernism. Visual productions such as advertisements, billboards, posters, and kitsch paintings, which come from outside the narrow confines of fine art, were definitely ominous signs of the colonization of everyday life in the capitalist city, but at the same time they were anticipated to be a catalyst for redefining Korean art in a more communicative, accessible, and democratized way. In this regard, in the early 1980s-in particular 1980 and 1982-the members' gesture oscillated between critique and embrace, which allowed the group to occupy a unique domain in the realm of Korean art production.