In all of my travels across Asia, I've been able to encounter a great divide in the schools of thought accepted and appropriated throughout the artistic communities. There seems to be some kind of popular definition-battle between critics, artists and galleries who are on one of two very opposite sides. On the one hand, there are the classicists otherwise known as the purists or traditionalists. This group proudly associates historical and ancestral art with a higher form of culture in their society. I've observed this trait to be most true in some areas of China, where the elder generations all but venerate the calligraphic-looking 'mopit' paintings of olden times. They put such a high regard on the idealism of these artists from past time periods, that any deviance from the prescribed standard insults the way art is supposed to be viewed. Not that everyone is like this- but there are extremists in every field of human culture, art included.



On the other end of the range, we see a bunch of people who love to experiment with combinatory learnings from different sources. They possess eclectic tastes that govern their direction when creating new artworks and exhibition pieces. Many people describe them as post-modernists or contemporary practicioners, and a majority of them belong to generations significantly younger than the group I previously mentioned. Milenials are also often times a part of this second category of artisans. A greatly appreciating view towards westernized movements can sometimes drive many artists to integrate into their works- values, messages and even techniques foreign to their forefathers' cultures.

It's just an observation that I've made, nothing else. There are of course, middleground people who simply appreciate that art can actually be one thing, while being another. There is no real limit to creativity. We can't predict it by putting it into a a set of definitions and restraining people to follow our schools of thought.