In 2006, Singapore hosted the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation annual meetings. Among the many programs initiated for national image-building prior to these events was Singapore’s first biennale. Employing Asia’s ubiquitous star curator, Fumio Nanjo,[1] and spending a huge SGD 8 million (approx. USD 5 million)[2], the Singapore Biennale, unlike most other biennales did not slowly grow into prominence, but was thrust onto the world stage by an enthusiastic government keen on making an impression.
The use of a biennale for “growing cultural capital and national image building” as well as for “economic and tourism benefits”[3] is certainly not the ideal context in which to display contemporary art. Despite these criticisms, I believe that the Singapore Biennale is a tentative, yet important step forward in creating avenues for art and socio-political debates, in a society where previously few existed. This paper analyses the Singapore Biennale—particularly its first iteration in 2006[4]—and its critiques from some key cultural commentators to present my “Belief in the Singapore Biennale”.[5]
The Context
The Singapore Biennale is the youngest of the 10 biennales/triennials[6] that have cropped up in Asia in a cultural race of one-upmanship between the cities. In its second iteration, Singapore Biennale was also part of a neat tourism package, ‘Art Compass 2008’—the co-branding of biennales/triennials in Sydney, Shanghai, Gwangju and Yokohama—in response to Europe’s ‘Grand Tour 2007’.[7] The 2008 event also exploited the influx of tourists for the Formula One Grand Prix also held in the same month in Singapore.[8]
Singapore Biennale 2006 (SB2006) with its theme ‘Belief’ was the anchor cultural event for ‘Singapore 2006: Global City, World of Opportunities’, the umbrella event for upcoming IMF/WTO meetings.[9] The funding for this biennale also came from the budget for the meetings.[10] One of the original curators of SB2006, Roger McDonald[11] conceded that: “All of us are aware that we’re not just working in some utopian art bubble, we’re part of a state machine… and the Biennale is meant to show off Singapore to the rest of the world.”[12]
Another curator, Tobias Berger is one among many other detractors of SB2006 as another means in the government’s arsenal. He told ArtAsiaPacific, “Singapore is a biennale to celebrate the IMF, it’s totally (co-opted). Biennales have always had a touristic-political agenda behind them but I cannot remember a state or city doing a biennale to celebrate such a problematic event.”[13]
While this co-option certainly is problematic, SB2006’s coinciding with the IMF/WTO meetings was actually used cleverly by artists to raise pertinent issues questioning the workings of these organisations. As Fumio Nanjo explained, “Some artists are slightly linked to the concerns that the IMF represent, such as Korean artist Jeon Joonho… Hossein Golba. The artists are presenting difference values about monetary values.”[14]
Joonho Jeon's digital animations featuring U.S, dollar bills, referenced not only the IMF/WTO meetings but also its site during the biennale—the City Hall—which has historic links commerce and nation-building.[15] In another work, titled The White House, Jeon whitewashes the windows of the White House as it's depicted on the $20 bill.[16] Meanwhile, Hossein Golba presented limited-edition gold bars that could be purchased, with proceeds going to charity.
Other works could only be experiences through repeat visitations over the period of the biennale, clearly counteracted the jet-setting tourist-consumer that biennales are accused of attracting. For instance, writer Eleanor Heartney admits that Alwar Balasubramaniam’s Emerging Angels—two white cubes that slowly evaporated to reveal the forms of sculpted angels was “not yet evident on opening weekend.”[17] She also adds that light works such as Jaume Plensa’s Even Sethia (Foundation Stone) (2006) and Ashok Sukumaran’s conceptual work inviting artists to switch on the floodlights of the Armenian Church of St. Gregory the Illuminator were only visible at certain hours of the night. Sukumaran programmed the lights in a way that would sometimes turn on, and sometimes not—challenging our tendency to take electricity supply for granted.[18] The work also thus challenged the instant gratification of consumerism to which Singaporeans are accustomed.
In the temple of Singapore’s consumerism—Orchard Road—Takashi Kuribayashi created an interventionist window dressing for the Hermès boutique. A small stage occupied by a seal was surrounded by racks of designer-style ‘sealskin’ suits hanging alongside the boutique's own designs. Felicity Fenner explains, “By packaging a statement on consumers' disregard for the natural world within the polished gimmickry of a fashion boutique, Kuribayashi deftly critiqued Singapore’s consumer culture.”[19]
State Censorship
While commenting on SB2006’ state sponsorship, writers also often recall the Singapore’s cultural censorship. Alan Cruickshank writes about the withdrawal of funding from the National Arts Council after FOCAS (Forum on Contemporary Art and Society) announced publication of an issue devoted to the subject of regional censorship.[20] Jeanine Tang recollects the case of Matija Milkovic Biloslava, an exchange student at LASALLE-SIA College of the Arts, where newspapers were not allowed to publish images of her artwork which referred to the executioner’s traditional send-off.[21] Journalists were forbidden from talking to the student, in an obvious suppression of any dialogue about Singapore’s high death-penalty sentences.
Roger McDonald has argued that such criticisms “seem to be rooted in a stereotypical idea of Singapore as a repressive ordered regime” although such censorship can occur in any “biennale or state-sponsored exhibition.”[22]
So while Bikoslava’s artwork may have been suppressed, a few artists of SB2006 explored the theme of death-penalty sentencing—albeit in cautious ways. Swedish duo Bigert & Bergström, showed their hour-long film, The Last Supper (2005) about the tradition of granting a final meal of their choosing to prisoners on death row. The film included former prisoners, chefs and executioners from the USA, the Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Kenya, South Africa and Sweden, but none from Singapore.[23] In Jane Alexander’s Verity, Faith and Justice (2006), “death-row prisoners and kitsch antagonists glared in a dark courtroom strewn with fleshy piles of red gloves, hinting at foreboding skeletons in the legal system.”[24]
Another allegation leveled at SB2006 is religious censorship, often mentioning the loss of artist Xu Bing’s “artistic license”[25] when his work, Prayer Carpet was moved from the Buddhist Kwang Im Thong Hood Cho Temple to the the National Museum instead. Inscribed with a Buddhist sutra, the temple’s devotees found it offensive to lay their feet on the carpet. Although this may have “resulted in diluted content”[26], I believe, that this was a proper balancing of religious sensitivity with artistic freedom. As Gina Fairley suggests, “the local community – a.k.a. religious communities - carried weight in the curatorial decisions surrounding this biennale.”[27]
Site Specificity and Audience Engagement
Walking through the air-conditioned shopping malls of Singapore, one is reminded of what Marc Auge has called ‘Non-Places’—malls, hotels, airports around the world very similar in their architecture and services they offer.[28] Perhaps this is why Singapore Biennale, like many other such events globally, must so whole-heartedly adapt a suitable counterpoint—site specificity. As Miwon Kwon explains, “…specificity of the art-site relationship can be viewed as both a compensatory symptom and critical resistance to such conditions.”[29]
While SB2006 augmented its theme of Belief by utilising several religious sites, the second Biennale in 2008, with a much smaller budget showed works in South Beach Development, the old City Hall and Marina Bay. The upcoming Biennale in 2011 will be even more acutely focussed on site and community-specific works.[30]
SB2006 strategically took artworks into a carefully selected multitude of religious sites including a mosque, a synagogue, Hindu and Buddhist temples, and churches.[31] While these sites did work to promote the Singapore government’s claim of racial harmony,[32] they also helped debate an important aspect of Singapore’s socio-cultural life: religion. And considering religion often tends to be part of every aspect of Asian cultures, this theme and use of religious sites also helped make art of the everyday life. While the use of religious sites for artworks is not new, it takes on a special significance in a region where religion still tends to dominate society and politics. Gregory Burke writes about neighbouring Indonesia, where the only intenational biennial, the CP Biennial was discontinued due to protests by the Islamic Defenders Front over the inclusion of Pankswing Park (2005) which publicly displayed what were considered pornographic pictured.[33]
In India (my home country), for depicting Indian goddesses in the nude, artist MF Hussain has faced backlash from Hindu fundamental groups who have ransacked his studio, burned his paintings and prohibited his works being hung in galleries, so much so that he has finally decided to move permanently to Qatar. Events like the partition of India and Pakistan, the demolition of Babri Masjid, the Godhra massacre and ensuing country-wide riots have all lead to a certain silence on the artistic community’s behalf about all issues religious. Situated in this socio-religious milieu, I believe SB2006 took on a rather pertinent theme for the entire region.
Meanwhile, modernism virtually eliminated any intersection between art and religion in the West.[34] As Eleanor Heartney writes, SB2006 “addresses these crosscurrents with the incorporation of a set of religious sites as exhibition venues. In them, some of the ways that artists are attempting to open up a once-proscribed subject were on display.”[35] She also observed that artworks were suited to the artistic traditions already present in the religious sites—the contemporary works did not clash with the restraint of the church, and took on a more abstract approach when encountering the iconoclastic traditions of the mosque or the synagogue.
Directly referencing the lack of connections between art and religion in the West, Cristina Lucas’ My Struggle (2004), located in the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, included “satiric monologues that highlighted the vulnerable and volatile social position of both (art and religion).”[36] Addressing the issue Hinduism’s caste system, was NS Harsha’s mural on the roof of the Sri Krishnan Temple—a utopian scenario where members of various castes sleep peacefully together. Meanwhile Imran Qureshi accentuated the intrinsic beauty of Islamic architecture and design by painting delicate floral patterns on the walls and rooftop floor of the Masjid Sultan (Sultan Mosque).
As Felicity Fenner writes, while its site-specificity could certainly be stretched further, SB 2006 benefited from appropriating non-institutional sites, in contrast to the pristine museum spaces used by other big Asian Biennales such as Shanghai and Gwangju.
Revitalising the Singapore arts scene
Among the 198 artworks shown as part of SB2006, 111 were new.[37] It also helped to raise the profile of participating Singaporean artists and as a result, some were invited to exhibit in other international exhibitions—Ho Tzu Nyen’s The Bohemian Rhapsody Project was shown at the Yerba Buena Centre for the Arts in San Francisco, while Jason Wee’s photographic works went on to be exhibited at the Peer Gallery in New York.
The last two biennales also generated a proliferation of satellite events. In 2006, Singapore Art Museum's TeiahTerbit (Out Now): Southeast Asian Contemporary Art Practices During the 1970s provided crucial historical perspectives[38]. In 2008, LASALLE College of the Arts organised a counter-exhibition titled No Wonder (the theme of the 2008 Biennale was Wonder), a meditation over the real sense of wonderment which might not exist perhaps in the world perpetuating with diseases, wars, pollution and racial discrimination.[39]
Besides site-specific artworks, other usual strategies such as artist talks, education programs and audio tour were employed. In truly Singapore style, a television show was also developed with a local network featuring impromptu street interviews with biennale visitors.[40] Jeanine Tang writes, “…particularly in Singapore, where public exposure to contemporary art is marginal… the local Biennale buzz made a considerable impact,” writes Jeanine Tang of SB2006.”[41] And this was a considered approach undertaken by the curator, demonstrated in his 2008 speech: “I think that this Biennale, and contemporary art in general, is not for those who already know art… It is an experience for every single individual and it provides people with an opportunity to expand one’s knowledge of the world... It is about the very core of culture in each and every society, and it is about how it enriches our lives.”[42]
Bibliography:
Britton, Stephanie. ‘Biennales of the World – myth, facts and questions’ in Artlink, vol. 25, no.3, 2005, pp. 34-39Burke, Gregory. ‘Distance Up Close: The Asian Biennials’, ArtAsiaPacific, no. 50, Fall, 2006, pp. 86-89
Clark, John. ‘Three Recent Biennales in Asia’, Art & Australia, vol. 42, no.3 Autumn 2005, pp. 388-392
Cocks, Anna. ‘Lamborghinis ahead of Works of Art’ in Art Newspaper, Vol. 16 (182), 2007, p19
Cruickshank, Alan. ‘Remapping the Asia-Pacific Region’ in Art & Australia, Vol. 45, 2008, 534-536.
Fairley, Gina. ‘Belief in Biennales’, Art Monthly Australia, vol. 196, December 2006 pp. 35-38
Fenner, Felicity. ‘Report from Singapore 1: Religion, Law, Commerce, Art’ in Art in America, April 2007, pp 62-67
—‘Singapore Biennale’ in Art in America, Dec 2008, pp 101-102
— ‘My Place or Yours?’ in Broadsheet, vol. 3, no. 4, 2006, pp. 210-213
—‘Places and Contexts in Two Singapore Biennales’ in Artlink, Vol. 28 (4), pp 40-46
Heartney, Eleanor. ‘Report from Singapore II: Temples of Art’ in Art in America, April 2007, pp 70-75
Kendzulak, Susan. ‘Interview with Fumio Nanjo, artistic director of the Singapore Biennale’ in Yishu, Vol. 5 (4), 2006
Maerkle, Andrew. ‘Curating by Committee: Behind Asia’s Biennnials’ in ArtAsiaPacific, no. 50, 2006, pp 90-95
—‘Government Stays Steady On Singapore Art Development’ in ArtAsiaPacific, Issue 55, 2007, p 97
McNeill, David. ‘Planet Art: Resistance and Affirmation in the Wake of “9/11”’ in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art, Vol. 3 (2), 2002
Ministry Of Finance. 2006. Budget Overview [Online]. Singapore. Accessed at on 17 September 17, 2010.
Tang, Jeannine. ‘Spectacle’s Politics and the Singapore Biennale’ in Journal of Visual
Culture, Vol 6(3), 2007, pp 365–377
— ‘Belief in the Singapore Biennale’ in The Art Book, Vol. 14 (4), 2007, pp. 61-62
Teh, David. ‘Sweet and downsized: Singapore Biennale 2008’ in Art & Australia, no. 46, 2009, pp 380-381
Verhagen, Marcus. ‘Biennale Inc.’ in Art Monthly, no.287, 2005, pp 1-4.
Yoo, Jinsang. ‘Biennales of the City Itself, of the Genre Itself’ in Art in Asia, Accessed at <www.artinasia.kr/content/view/48/31/> on September 17, 2010.
www.universes-in-universe.de
Singapore Biennale, No Wonder (news release), Singapore, 2008. Accessed at
on September 17, 2010.
[1] Fumio Nanjo, director of the Mori Art Museum in Tokyo, has previoulsy curated biennales in Taipei (1998), Yokohama (2001) and Singapore (2006 & 2008).
[2] Tang, Jeannine. ‘Spectacle’s Politics and the Singapore Biennale’ in Journal of Visual Culture, Vol 6(3), 2007, pp 365–377
[3] Ibid.
[4] The second Singapore Biennale was held in 2008, while a third one is coming up shortly in 2011.
[5] This term is taken from the title of Jeanine Tang’s article ‘Belief in the Singapore Biennale’ in The Art Book, Vol. 14 (4), 2007, pp 61-62
[6] Gwangju, Busan, Seoul (Media Art), Shanghai, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Taipei, and Yokohama are the other nine biennales/triennials in Asia. Cited from Yoo, Jinsang. ‘Biennales of the City Itself, of the Genre Itself’ in Art in Asia
[7] Cruickshank, Alan. ‘Remapping the Asia-Pacific Region’ in Art & Australia, Vol. 45, 2008, 534-536.
[8] Fenner, Felicity. ‘Singapore Biennale’ in Art in America, Dec 2008, pp 101-102
[9] Other campaigns part of the Singapore 2006 included the ‘4 Million Smiles Campaign’ which was aimed at coaxing Singaporeans to smilingly welcome visitors, and lining delegate traffic roads with sunflowers. Cited from Tang, Jeannine. ‘Spectacle’s Politics and the Singapore Biennale’ in Journal of Visual Culture, Vol 6(3), 2007, pp 365–377 and ‘Belief in the Singapore Biennale’ in The Art Book, Vol. 14 (4), 2007, pp. 61-62
[10] Cocks, Anna. ‘Lamborghinis ahead of Works of Art’ in Art Newspaper, Vol. 16 (182), 2007, p19
[11] McDonald did not continue with the SB2006 curatorial team—the final team working with Nanjo included Eugene Tan and Sharmini Pereira.
[12] Quoted in Maerkle, Andrew. ‘Curating by Committee: Behind Asia’s Biennnials’ in ArtAsiaPacific, no. 50, 2006, pp 90-95
[13] Ibid.
[14] Quoted in Kendzulak, Susan. ‘Interview with Fumio Nanjo, artistic director of the Singapore Biennale’ in Yishu, Vol. 5 (4), 2006
[15] Fenner, Felicity. ‘Report from Singapore 1: Religion, Law, Commerce, Art’ in Art in America, April 2007, pp 62-67
[16] Ibid.
[17] Heartney, Eleanor. ‘Report from Singapore II: Temples of Art’ in Art in America, April 2007, pp 70-75
[18] Fenner, Felicity. ‘Report from Singapore 1: Religion, Law, Commerce, Art’ in Art in America, April 2007, pp 62-67
[19] Ibid.
[20] Cruickshank, Alan. ‘Remapping the Asia-Pacific Region’ in Art & Australia, Vol. 45, 2008, 534-536.
[21] Tang, Jeannine. ‘Spectacle’s Politics and the Singapore Biennale’ in Journal of Visual Culture, Vol 6(3), 2007, pp 365–377
[22] Quoted in Maerkle, Andrew. ‘Curating by Committee: Behind Asia’s Biennnials’ in ArtAsiaPacific, no. 50, 2006, pp 90-95
[23] Fenner, Felicity. ‘My Place or Yours?’ in Broadsheet, vol. 3, no. 4, 2006, pp. 210-213
[24] Tang, Jeannine. ‘Belief in the Singapore Biennale’ in The Art Book, Vol. 14 (4), 2007, pp. 61-62
[25] Tang, Jeannine. ‘Spectacle’s Politics and the Singapore Biennale’ in Journal of Visual Culture, Vol 6(3), 2007, pp 365–377
[26] Tang, Jeannine. ‘Belief in the Singapore Biennale’ in The Art Book, Vol. 14 (4), 2007, pp. 61-62
[27] Fairley, Gina. ‘Belief in Biennales’, Art Monthly Australia, vol. 196, December 2006 pp. 35-38
[28] Auge, Mark. Non-Places: Inroduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, Verso, London, 1995. Cited in McNeill, David. ‘Planet Art: Resistance and Affirmation in the Wake of “9/11”’ in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art, Vol. 3 (2), 2002
[29] Kwon, Miwon. One Place After Another: Site Specific Art and Local Identity, MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass., 2002. Cited in Fenner, Felicity. ‘Places and Contexts in Two Singapore Biennales’ in Artlink, Vol. 28 (4), pp 40-46
[30] Matthew Ngui discusses his curatorial emphasis on site-specificity of works for the 2011 Singapore Biennale in a press release - universes-in-universe.org/eng/bien/singapore_biennale/2011/statement, accessed on May 30, 2010.
[31] Gina Fairley, ‘Belief in Biennales’, Art Monthly Australia, vol. 196, December 2006 p. 35
[32] Felicity Fenner, ‘My Place or Yours?’, Broadsheet, vol. 3, no. 4, 2006, p. 213
[33] Burke, Gregory. ‘Distance Up Close: The Asian Biennials’, ArtAsiaPacific, no. 50, Fall, 2006, pp. 86-89
[34] Heartney, Eleanor. ‘Report from Singapore II: Temples of Art’ in Art in America, April 2007, pp 70-75
[35] Ibid.
[36] Fenner, Felicity. ‘Report from Singapore 1: Religion, Law, Commerce, Art’ in Art in America, April 2007, pp 62-67
[37] Tang, Jeannine. ‘Belief in the Singapore Biennale’ in The Art Book, Vol. 14 (4), 2007, pp. 61-62
[38] ‘Singapore’ in Annual Almanac Edition 2007, ArtAsiaPacific
[39] Singapore Biennale, No Wonder (news release), Singapore, 2008.
[40] Fenner, Felicity. ‘My Place or Yours?’ in Broadsheet, vol. 3, no. 4, 2006, pp. 210-213
[41] Tang, Jeannine. ‘Spectacle’s Politics and the Singapore Biennale’ in Journal of Visual Culture, Vol 6(3), 2007, pp 365–377
[42] Nanjo, Fumio. Speech by SB2008 Artistic Director, Fumio Nanjo, at the SB2008 Opening Reception (news release), Singapore, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment