When describing the incident in Crimea, Beuys said his plane crashed on the Crimean Peninsula during WWII, and it was a Tatar who saved his life. This experience of "rebirth" made a profoundly dramatic impact upon his artistic practice. To Beuys, the Tatars were literally his life-savers. 

I don't think it's necessary to verify the authenticity of the incident Beuys described. Nevertheless, this story was indeed of theological value to Beuys' "self-built persona". The tradition of building persona with theological nature dated back to Vasari's writing of history through a series of biographies, which came to the fore during Renaissance period in the 16th century. 

What does the presence of Tatars mean? According to anthropological studies and categorization, Tatars is an umbrella term for a variety of different ethnic groups bearing the name of "Tatar". But in Beuys' view, this specific Tatar represented a fable-like presence. On the one hand, he was primitive. It was more than natural that there was a distance between the presence of him and modern civilization. And on the other, he was like a "prophet" who was intricately related to Shaman. In a way, such complexities mirror the "overwhelming bemusement" embedded in contemporary art. 

Trying to find descendants of Tatars, do we intend to restore the linkages between Shaman, theology, politics and art? Or is it some kind of game? Essentially speaking, it is a test of how individuals would feel and react when confronting "face recognition", a power structure under the disguise of hi-tech, in the name of art and through the form of game. "Face recognition" in nature epitomizes the generalization of national reason. As individuals, do we have the freedom to choose whether to enter the field of "face recognition" or not?