Wasserstrom notes that China has enough wealth to assist other countries in disaster situations and high enough food production rates to export to other countries. (pp. 120) In this chapter he notices the contrast between China’s current economic condition and predictions that China will be the next economic power and the problems China faced feeding its own population just 50 years ago. Wasserstrom often analyzes changes in China’s internal policies in conjunction with China’s relationship to outside countries. This is the strength of the book because this context allows information about China’s history to be understood in context to similar developments and policies in Western countries. China’s relationship and context with other countries including the United States is developed in Wasserstrom’s book usually in the context of economic and state relationships. I would like to consider how the development of cultural resources in China is being developed in exchange with resources in other countries. I included a link to an article in the New York Times about consulting work Lincoln center will be doing for a performing arts campus in Tianjin. Can we think about cultural development in similar terms to economic development and relationships between China and other countries? Especially in the context of the exchange between Lincoln Center and the Chinese government (which is based on a contract and payment of an unknown sum of money to Lincoln Center) how is the relationship between cultural and economic exchange best examined?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/arts/lincoln-center-to-advise-china-on-cultural-project.html?_r=2&ref=arts

There is a growing emphasis by the Chinese state on public access to cultural resources which is demonstrated by the growing number of museums which allow free access to citizens. (Article link provided below) How is free access to artworks linked to the growing access to other cultural materials? Wasserstrom develops the current use of Confucius and other imperial cultural traditions by the current regime. (pp. 13) He notices there is a popular revival of interest in Confucius and the use of Confucius as a tool used by the regime to promote harmony. Therefore, there is both an interest by the populace and an interest by the state in promoting certain cultural resources. Free access to work in the National Art Museum and Shanghai Art Museum allows a greater number of people access to the materials held in these museums and educational materials. Free access to these museums (and a growing number of other museums) allows access to traditional works of art and contemporary work. There is variety of materials, from ceramic work from the 1600s to contemporary painting, accessible to the public from the information I can access on these museum’s websites. Similar to the state’s use of Confucius as tool for unification, that Wasserstrom notes, works of traditional Chinese art can also be tools of unification and economic development. There seems to be an interest in promoting contemporary artist works, of a specific nature, for this goal and general public interest. How can we think about the intersection of popular demand and state sponsored requests for access to cultural materials in the context of contemporary art and the presentation of historical artifacts?

http://artforum.com/archive/id=27714