HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
63
development. We all remember that before the passing of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance the Colonial Government had quite a few laws to restrict the publication of works of art, especially films which had to undergo political censorship.
I talk about artistic freedom because it is closely associated with the transition in 1997. Article 34 of the Basic Law stipulates that residents of Hong Kong have the freedom of academic research, of literary and artistic creation, and of other cultural pursuits. Article 39 also states these freedoms are protected by two International Conventions, while Article 140 provides that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, on its own, formulate its cultural policy. Since the Basic Law has already clearly provided for the freedoms of literary and artistic creation and other cultural activities, and has stated that the future SAR Government can formulate its own cultural and art policy, what are artists still afraid of? Can we all ease our minds now?
In fact, what Hong Kong artists, or we, worry most is that the materialism and literary and artistic ideology of the Chinese Government would affect Hong Kong's cultural and art policy. Chairman MAO Zedong spoke at a forum on literature and art in May 1942 and very positively formulated the cultural policy of new China. He said, 'In the world today, all culture, literature and art belong to definite classes and are geared to definite political lines. There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics.' His policy of 'letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend' put forward in 1956 did not equate literary and artistic freedom. Under the leadership of socialist principles, Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong's thoughts, literature and art are a means to serve politics.
This viewpoint of literature and art belonging to a certain political line and serving the society is the theoretical basis which strangles artistic freedom. If this viewpoint prevails, all literary and art activities not favourable to the political line of the SAR Government will not be supported, if not banned. This worry is not unwarranted because the viewpoint of art or culture serving the society has its attraction and very often will affect the relevant policy to a certain extent. For example, the Urban Council was criticised by many people in the past for caring only about attendance rate and regarding art activities only as entertainment for the public, but failing to pay attention to raising the standard of art and its multifarious and diversified development.
We do not deny that art and society have influence on each other. The artists, being very sensitive, are often the first to become aware of the problems existing in society and they criticize, reflect and query through various art forms. However, this does not mean that the nature of art is to serve society. The premise of artistic freedom is that art is a conscious activity of mankind. It has its own profound significance as well as an independent pattern. I agree whole-heartedly with the saying that the responsibility of artists lies in art itself and artists tell the truth in
Page 349 of 195
Page 349 of 485
Page 349 of 485