In the beginning of 2021, the audio-based social app Clubhouse made a splash among the Chinese speaking communities as an unusual aggregation of public forums. I was invited to join Clubhouse by a friend on the occasion of some large-scale discussions in Chinese languages on political topics. In addition, the art community also constituted an active group on Clubhouse, providing rare opportunities for concentrated discussions about art and culture in the Chinese speaking world.
In deliberating a discussion with artists on Clubhouse’s brief yet impactful run in an online community otherwise insulated by China’s internet firewall, artist Aaajiao came up as an obvious candidate because his practice and thinking are tethered to our evolving online identities and the blurred boundaries between URL and IRL spaces. Aaajiao’s recent work focused on the evolution of our online identity from user, administrator to player–a term preferred by the artist as a more autonomous position to engage with cyberspace. Notably, his recent work Deep Simulator (2020)is a “meta” game that combines an algorithmic and a spiritual worldview. In this game, one would embody a “player” who can decode and find cracks in the game world’s operating logic–a set-up that’s allegorical to our IRL experiences.
As a vetaran netizen, Aaajiao shared his original observations on the state of cyberspaces and outside of the Great Firewall as well as the features of different social media platforms that dominate how we communicate today. Behind these insights is an earnest and lucid voice. I share with the artist an optimism for Clubhouse and the polyphonous online forums and more proactive user participation it heralds.
CLUBHOUSE & THE ARTS
MS: Could you describe your experience on CH so far?
A: I started using Clubhouse in January last year when a large number of the Chinese speaking community spanning mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Chinese diaspora also began joining the app. My friends and I also hosted Chinese topic rooms on Clubhouse. I recall some critical discussions about art that involved a significant amount of attendees.
One room that left a strong impression on me was one I hosted on art criticism. Among the 500 to 600 attendees were a number of established critics, curators, representatives of institutions as well as collectors. The discussion addressed why there was a vacuum of art criticism in the simplified Chinese context. We concluded that most writings are done in the format of instruction manuals and that writers are poorly compensated for their labor. We questioned whether this has more to do with the fact that institutions resist criticism or that artists are reluctant to receive criticism. The discussion lasted for a long time yet it remained inconclusive. The consensus seemed to be that criticism is welcomed yet good criticism is scarce. I felt that our discussion initiated a question that remained unanswered. After this discussion we hosted a few other smaller scale rooms about art. Ai Weiwei frequented some of these rooms and hosted Q&As about his work and career.
From January to March in 2021, discussions about art in Chinese speaking contexts flourished on Clubhouse. These earlier discussions had culminated in many topics about art that are yet to be continued. However, you can hardly find any targeted discussions about art in this format now. Recently, many Chinese speaking rooms on Clubhouse are prompted by current events, i.e. topics related to Xinjiang. This trend of immediate discussions following current events has made it more difficult to host discussion about art since the art world is less “eventful”. Meanwhile the English room on NFT and the Arts has continued to be active.
The more important factor is of course the censorship from mainland China that blocked Clubhouse. It’s increasingly difficult to register for an account. Even users with existing accounts are blocked from using the application. Before the censorship, you can easily find close to 2000 people in a room. After the ban I’d say only a third of the Chinese rooms remained active. In April, almost 90% of Chinese speaking users are beyond China.
MS: Given that the arts is a relatively mobile field where artists and professionals frequently engage in regional and international exchanges, were there any comparable online or offline spaces for artistic dialogues before a platform like Clubhouse emerged, or did Clubhouse open up a brand new format and influx of conversations?
A: I feel like in the simplified Chinese context, live conversations around art are often performative. True discussions and criticism are rare and most discussions IRL were centered around exhibitions. I think a lot of semi-public and public panels in the simplified chinese context held little value. We might as well host targeted lectures on a topic rather than a conference. In a live event, you have concerns about legality and institutional restraints that dominate what you can and cannot talk about. So the cost of hosting these events is high and the conversations are inefficient.
Clubhouse has solved some of these problems because, for example, we rarely had any opportunity to talk about the lack of written criticism in the Chinese art context. The benefit of Clubhouse is that it follows an open mic logic. A moderator can open a room on a topic without knowing who will be attending. So suddenly you have people who have different levels of expertise in a room. Compared to IRL discussions, Clubhouse convened people who would otherwise never be found on the same occasion whose opinions would inform and confront one another. Because of its openness and anonymity, the conversations can develop in depth.
MS: Can you say more about the state of criticism?
A: There is a consolidation of power in the art world that has provoked resistance from the artists community. I also saw an emergence of platforms for art writing. I think art criticism plays a crucial role in an art ecosystem in which art workers have grown increasingly discontented with. Of course it’s not enough to just point out the issues. We need real actions to support art writers.
THE APP
MS: Do you think some of Clubhouse’s features that encourage listening and the confrontations of different opinions are lacking in other social media applications and platforms?
A: Again, in the simplified Chinese context, Clubhouse was the first exclusively audio-based, hence low-budget application that maintains a level of anonymity and was unaffected by internet censorship. There’s no surprise that good topics and possibilities for dialogues emerged on Clubhouse. Needless to say, all other text-based applications are strictly monitored by censorship screening systems. Conversations on platforms like Weibo are very fragmented. [1]
Weibo is China’s largest information commons (广场). Unlike twitter that allows users to congregate previously disseminated discussions into trending topics, Weibo intentionally forgoes this feature to hinder discussions. Its own algorithm generates trending topics that dictate users’ feeds.
WeChat, on the other hand, is used for socializing with one’s close acquaintances. The social groups on WeChat are restricted by its available topics and capacity. Its scroll design also dilutes the volume of information and makes conversations very linear and ineffective.
Clubhouse filled these gaps in the simplified Chinese internet especially given the ensuing topic-based discussions following its quick rise to popularity. On Clubhouse, you can hear the whole narrative of an event from a wide range of perspectives very efficiently because the content delivered in spoken language is much more identifiable. And of course you will also hear conflicted opinions. Unfortunately the going-ons in the art world is less fitting with this event-centered format.
MS: Your practice has addressed the problem that in digital spaces, algorithms often precedes and dominates content. Content became sidelined by the number of views, likes or followers. How do you see this issue play out on Clubhouse?
A: This is a good question. Of course the topics and rooms you see on CH’s homepage are driven by algorithms. But the people who are participating in the conversation don’t have to be influencers or verified users (大V). What and how one expresses oneself is the only thing that matters. If you have something interesting to share, no one would care about the fact that you only have two followers.
On text based media platforms, the statistical popularity of select users can result in clout-chasing. Clubhouse, on the other hand, quickly sorts out the users with large numbers of followers but have no substantial content to share.
MS: I feel that I can receive information more effectively on Clubhouse whereas on Youtube I have to search for content and find my “niche”, so to speak. Being an audio app, Clubhouse is also less demanding of my attention and is more flexible than other audio media like podcasts.
A: Youtube is a commons in the more general sense, but Clubhouse is like the gathering place in your own neighborhood. Whereas Youtube operates on content, the basic unit of Clubhouse’s operating system is the individual user. I think people always generate more trust than content. We tend to follow the people we trust.
CLUBHOUSE, CHINA & CENSORSHIP
MS: Before the censorship, there was a very active Chinese speaking scene on Clubhouse. Multiple media platforms have characterized Clubhouse’s popularity in the Chinese speaking community as a spectacular phenomenon. One journalist described her experience as a “binge on free speech,” another journalist coined “clubhouse spring” and a NYTimes headline described the Chinese users as becoming a “people” on Clubhouse. What do you think of these comments?
A: I do agree that the rapid progressions on Clubhouse have been quite Utopic. We realized suddenly that many topics can be discussed in depth in Chinese. We have missed out on too much time and too many opportunities. It was a wonderful period that has restored people’s confidence that we have the ability to share information and be on the same page somehow. However, these discussions also revealed some internal conflicts among people that can’t be resolved simply by talking about them on Clubhouse.
Clubhouse’s near five-month run in the Chinese speaking community has demonstrated in full view the contradictions and complexities of our societies on the one hand, and the possibility of reaching a consensus and resolving problems through dialogues, on the other.
I have encountered many scholars and professionals in the Humanities and social sciences fields residing in the Chinese diaspora on Clubhouse. By engaging their theoretical knowledge with lived realities in the society, they have contributed to many intriguing discussions. These genuine exchanges are full of opportunities. But the fight for rights for such a platform that enables these exchanges is very difficult.
MS: In many of your recent work you’re considering the evolution of our online identities from a user toward a “player”. Clubhouse is a good example of this in that people are coming up with myriad topics and creative ways to participate in the app.
A: In one of the rooms I frequent on Clubhouse, we started using profile pictures as an alternative communication tool. The profile picture’s visual feature is definitely not a priority of Clubhouse’s design, as the app intentionally avoids text and images. Yet people are discovering creative ways to use the app. This is akin to what I discussed in my work about the user becoming a player who actively takes advantage of the glitches and discovers improvised use of media.
Deep Simulator, aaajiao, 2020.
MS: Is the transition from user to player a linear one, or does it depend on the media and modes of engaging and operating the media?
A: In most cases, behind a user or a player is a human being. What matters is the operating logic of a given program and the way one chooses to use it. Because Clubhouse is based on spoken language, it signifies a return to the value of human beings that’s not driven by data. To me, a player bears more similarities with a human being than a user.
MS: Could you tell us about your new project, Deep Simulator (2020)?
A: Deep Simulator consists of two main worldviews. I told the game developer that I wanted people to understand who a player is. To me, players can see through the world. They can see the world they exist in or the world of those who control them. If we assume that the world is made of algorithms, do we then have more opportunities to see through its glitches and avoid our present being dominated by it? The game designer was knowledgeable about Buddhism and he wanted to adopt the Buddhist concept of Bardo–an intermediate state between life and death. The game combines six stages of Bardo with six algorithms.
I want to invite everyone to participate in a game in which we, as players, are constantly confronted with where we are and what we’re doing. It’s like a meditation permeated with random texts and visuals. We’re constantly asked in the game whether what we see consists of algorithms and if it is, how we can break through its reality.
MS: Earlier you mentioned your concern with the lack of art criticism in the simplified Chinese world that more or less results from censorship. Do you think there’s a way to get around censorship while still getting one’s message across?
A: It’s naive to believe that you can beat around the bush while still getting your message across, at least in terms of writing. Trying to get around censorship only results in self-censorship. We need to find new contexts and platforms to speak out. By yielding our rights to speak we eventually become silent in our familiar spaces. I believe truth has the power to pierce through. Truth is more powerful than any other ways you can imagine to get around it.
MS: The future of Clubhouse?
A: I think right now the use of Clubhouse in the Chinese speaking community has hit a bottleneck. In the future I see more discussions unfolding around the accumulation of topics. But if there isn’t an effective way to engage mainland China users in these exchanges, the app’s influence in the Chinese speaking world will be very limited.
MS: Earlier you mentioned your concern with the lack of art criticism in the simplified Chinese world that more or less results from censorship. Do you think there’s a way to get around censorship while still getting one’s message across?
A: It’s naive to believe that you can beat around the bush while still getting your message across, at least in terms of writing. Trying to get around censorship only results in self-censorship. We need to find new contexts and platforms to speak out. By yielding our rights to speak we eventually become silent in our familiar spaces. I believe truth has the power to pierce through. Truth is more powerful than any other ways you can imagine to get around it. — [SCR]
[1] Microblogging platform.
