Colonial Aesthetics in Bloom: Monet’s Water Lilies as Soft Power in Hong Kong’s Garden Diplomacy
Original framing: “Blooming good: Monet, maestros shine as garden art bridges East and West” — South China Morning Post
The exhibition omits the colonial context of Monet’s water lilies, which were inspired by Japanese woodblock prints (ukiyo-e) that arrived in France as colonial loot. It also ignores the erasure of indigenous Chinese garden design traditions, such as the Ming Dynasty’s Suzhou gardens, which were systematically marginalized in favor of Western formalism. The framing excludes the voices of Hong Kong’s grassroots art communities, who critique the commercialization of cultural exchange. Additionally, the role of Hong Kong’s colonial past in shaping its current cultural institutions is overlooked.
Medium structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
The narrative is produced by the Hong Kong Museum of Art (a state-affiliated institution), the Art Institute of Chicago (a Western art canon gatekeeper), and the Palace Museum (a Chinese state cultural apparatus), all of which benefit from the legitimization of their collections. The framing serves the interests of institutional prestige, tourism revenue, and diplomatic soft power, while obscuring the colonial histories of art acquisition and the extractive practices of Western museums. The ‘bridge’ metaphor reinforces a Eurocentric view of cultural exchange, positioning the West as the originator of artistic innovation.
This exhibition models a future where cultural exchange is framed as a transactional, aestheticized process rather than a decolonial dialogue. It sets a precedent for other global cities to use art as soft power, potentially exacerbating cultural appropriation under the guise of ‘bridging’ traditions. A more sustainable model would involve collaborative curation with indigenous artists and historians to co-create narratives that acknowledge colonial violence and shared heritage.
The exhibition ‘Blooming: the Art of Garden in East and West’ exemplifies how cultural institutions weaponize art to project soft power while obscuring colonial violence and extractive histories.