I became so interested in ancient Chinese mythology after playing black myth wukong. Also my cousin is watching cDramas all the time and she intends to marry Chinese guy… So I think the soft power is there already, whether we like it or not. but I think it’s good to have competing content instead of being fed whatever powers that be think is good fur us

I heard that game is great! This discussion reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCCRuUlJ_nA

It basically asks "Why can't China make a movie like this?" Kung Fu Panda was a love letter to Chinese culture, and it connected with people worldwide.

I think it comes down to government censorship. Art is expression and unapproved expression is seen as a threat to a dictatorship.

It makes me sad to think of all the Chinese art we have missed out on because of the insecurity of a government.

I'm not sure if this is a solid argument.

Most of the art, music, literature before the twentieth century were created under censorships of authoritarian regimes, and they don't lack vitality. Creativity often thrives under constraints.

The main difference is the classics were often created by a single person, while modern entertainment are created by large groups through industrial processes. The latter are capital-intensive, and investors are risk-averse. The bigger the market, the bigger the investments, the bigger the risks, and censorship is not insignificant a risk.

I think as the cost of production shrinks with technology, there will be an explosion of "high-production-value" works created by smaller groups or individuals, many from the "soft-authoritarian" countries. Traditional entertainment industries may gradually fade away, or pivot to some new medium.

The authoritarian goverments before the 20th century were child plays compared with the level of censorship modern governments can apply.

Especially when art and experimentation and expression is largely done online and you can create tools for near total control of online spaces.

Government can't create culture and art anymore than a tech company can. They can only allow it to grow and spread, or block it.

Mostly true but the exception is K-Pop, which as I understand was the creation of a project by the South eKorean government. There was a severe financial crisis in the late 1990s where the country almost went bankrupt. Desperately seeking sources of revenue, the government funded K-Pop groups which eventually become a global phenomenon (BTS et al). At least that is what some Koreans have told me.

Funding is one thing, but they didn't create any of it. The people did. A small but important distinction imho.

I think that’s what’s being implied by creating. Whatever people create and is allowed (or tweaked by) under a repressive regime that is. The government sets the guidelines and censorship and the subsequent content has some peculiar characteristics of the government policies.

I am Korean, and what you are saying is a lie created by anti-Korean people in Japan. Do you really think it makes sense for a government experiencing an economic crisis to desperately seek revenue sources and hope to overcome the crisis by funding a cultural industry that hasn't even succeeded yet?

I've always wondered about this, turns out there's a wikipedia entry for it

> To protect the South Korean culture industry, the South Korean Ministry of Culture received a substantial budget increase, allowing for the creation of hundreds of culture industry departments in universities nationwide.[21] It has justified its financial support for Hallyu, estimated to be worth US$83.2 billion in 2012, by linking it to South Korea's export-driven economy.[22]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Wave

It's completely different to say that the government took the lead in an industry that didn't exist before and to say that it provided support to an already successful industry. Of course, what I said was wrong refers to the former. In fact, the government supports all industries to some extent, so that can't be a label.