Conclusion: Japan's Imperial Art World
Such macro investigations of the empire are fraught with their own problems. First, the emphasis on proximity/intimacy of Japan's and Taiwan's art worlds should not detract us from recognizing particular developments and specific conditions of each place. Second, . As Aimee Nayoung Kwon pointed out, the semblance of an imperial "imagined community" created by the Japanese language mass media circulating throughout the empire belied the violent repressions of conflict and difference (Kwon emphasizes that this "image of an imperial community" was accessible only to the colonized elites and Japanese settler community and so it was highly unlikely that it could have been shared by the general population. Book, 163-164, 240). Scholars have also demonstrated the double-faced character of assimilation policies, according to which colonial subjects were given Japanese citizenship (kokuseki), yet were differentiated on the basis of their origins (koseki); they had to meet the obligations of imperial subjects, yet were denied many of the rights (Leo Ching, Morris-Suzuki, Oguma Eiji, Suh Serk Bae).
The concept of the imperial art world implicates Japanese artists in the project of empire. Furthermore, it highlights the emergence of shared professional practices, knowledge, and institutions. It draws attention to a brief moment in the history of East Asian art, where the boundaries between the arts of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan were being policed in new ways. And by doing so, it challenges our preconceived notions of place.