— UK-based doctoral research is often stereotypically described as emphasising rupture, critique, and individual positioning, while art education in universities in China - as grounded in lineage and transmission. How do you feel about these commonplace descriptions, and what more nuanced differences or similarities have emerged through your own experience?

Regarding these commonplace descriptions, I feel they capture some truths but are perhaps a bit rigid. I would like to share a more nuanced perspective based on my own experience.

Firstly, concerning the UK context, I disagree with the characterization of research as defined by ‘rupture’. While UK-based doctoral research indeed prioritizes critique and individual positioning, this does not necessarily imply a severance from tradition. Rather, critique functions as a methodological tool to construct new knowledge and establish an independent academic identity, rather than a mere act of rebellion or discontinuity. 

Secondly, describing Chinese art education solely as ‘lineage and transmission’ might be a bit of an oversimplification. While it is true that practice-based disciplines place a high value on foundational skills, the research landscape in China has evolved significantly. Many research topics are now deeply intertwined with social development and national policies, reflecting a sense of collective responsibility. This stands in an interesting contrast to the UK, where the scope for research topics feels remarkably open. I’ve noticed that in the UK, even a minute phenomenon from daily life can constitute a valid research project if the right question is posed. This openness and flexibility are something I particularly appreciate here. Finally, there is a practical difference in the research environment.  In China, PhD students are often integrated into a hierarchical system where they juggle their own research with teaching duties and administrative work for their supervisors’ projects.  In contrast, the UK system allows for a much more focused and immersive experience regarding one’s own research. This distinction in the daily routine, I believe, profoundly shapes the research journey.

— Working internationally often involves a form of constant self-translation – linguistic, cultural, and institutional. How do you decide what remains untranslatable in your work, and what must be adapted in order to circulate across different academic and exhibition contexts?

I fully resonate with this state of ‘constant self-translation’.  For me, this is not merely a linguistic conversion, but rather a reconstruction of context. 

Firstly, what needs to be adapted is the narrative framework and the research problematics. As I mentioned earlier, there are significant differences between the academic contexts of China and the UK. In China, art research often needs to be embedded within grand social backgrounds and national development narratives to carry weight, whereas in the UK, research can be approached from a micro perspective. Therefore, when sharing my doctoral research in a Chinese context, I must ‘adapt’ to local academic norms by actively integrating the broader social context to articulate its social value. This adaptation is not a compromise, but a necessary step to generate effective dialogue in new soil. 

Secondly, what must be negotiated is the interpretation of interdisciplinary terms. My research involves interdisciplinary content such as psychology, and I have found that simple direct translation often fails. Certain psychological concepts have specific discursive contexts in English but may not have been fully explored within the Chinese context. Therefore, I must position myself within the field of Fine Arts to offer a ‘secondary interpretation’ or ‘reconstruction’ of these terms, rather than rigidly transplanting them. This allows audiences from different backgrounds to understand how I define these concepts from an artistic perspective. 

Of course, there remains an ‘untranslatable’ core, the subtle perceptual experiences in art practice, or what might be called the ‘sense of presence’ when facing the work. Some nuances, rooted in local cultural intuition or personal life experiences, cannot be fully encoded into the logic of another language. For this part, I choose to preserve its inherent complexity and ambiguity, presenting it through the work itself rather than seeking complete textual equivalence. This is perhaps the essential ‘blank space’ that must be preserved in cross-cultural expression.

— Terms such as “fine art,” “drawing”, “illustration,” or “painting” seem to operate very differently within Chinese and UK art institutions, forming different institutional labels. How have you experienced these labels shifting meaning across countries, and what impact, if any, has that had on how your practice is positioned, funded, or understood?

— I believe these terms exhibit significant semantic shifts and differences in institutional boundaries between the two countries. In China, ‘Fine Art’ (‘美术’ in Chinese) acts as a relatively broad term. Within the institutional system, it is often specifically compartmentalized into medium-centric subjects such as Chinese Painting, Oil Painting, or Printmaking, which remain relatively independent of one another. This classification reinforces media-specific territories. In the UK, however, ‘Fine Art’ is a disciplinary category that emphasizes criticality and concept. It does not prioritize media demarcation but rather views Painting, Drawing, Sculpture, Photography, and others as parallel, expandable practices. This understanding is somewhat similar to the major of ‘Experimental Art’ that emerged in China after 2000, yet it still differs slightly from the UK’s Fine Art, which places an extreme emphasis on criticality and exploration.

This difference has prompted me, in my research here, to no longer confine myself to being a creator of a specific medium. Instead, I position myself as a ‘practitioner’ who utilizes various media for research, choosing the medium and method by considering which can best help me elucidate my ideas. I believe this fluidity is crucial for contemporary research, as it enables greater diversity in expression and possibilities.

Regarding labels like ‘Drawing’, I have experienced a shift from technical functionality to conceptual exploration. In China, drawing is more commonly associated with foundational training in the plastic arts. Therefore, it is often labeled as ‘studies’ (‘习作’ in Chinese), and its independent value is sometimes underestimated. In the UK, however, Drawing is regarded as an independent, exploratory thinking tool and art form. It can be conceptual, process-oriented, or even non-traditional. This shift allows me to view sketches and drafts created during the process as integral components of my research, rather than mere preparation. This recognition of the value of ‘process’ strengthens my conviction that the act of exploration itself constitutes the core outcome of the research.