The heirlooms in your closet

Growing up in a Gujarati household, I have seen the women of my family drape themselves in the choicest of Patola saris brought out for all religious ceremonies, festivals and weddings. I have one, passed down from my grandmother, which until recently lay wrapped away as an under-appreciated gift.

Earlier this year, a research assignment at the Asian Civilisations Museum (ACM) in Singapore gave me the opportunity to fully appreciate that forgotten Patola. There, a team of curators, led by Gauri Krishnan and David Henkel, the museum’s South Asia and South-East Asia experts, respectively, had been studying India’s textile exports, particularly those from Gujarat and the Coromandel Coast, for a large exhibition of Indian trade textiles. The exhibition, titled Patterns of Trade: Indian Textiles For Export, 1400–1900, opened at the ACM—one of Singapore’s four national museums—in November 2011 and will run until June 2012.

A girl from the Toraja tribe from Indonesia standing beside a locally made silk-screen imitation of Indian trade cloth.

The exhibition will showcase over 70 types of textile pieces exported from India to South-East Asia and Europe for over 500-600 years, until the 19th century. The textiles, which were acquired in 2009 from American collector Roger Hollander’s private collection, will be seen publicly for the first time. “Gauri and I saw the collection a year and a half before acquisition and we were both flabbergasted that such a collection was still available,” says Henkel. There are after all, he says, just half a dozen such collections around the world. “In the mid-17th century, an estimated 1.7 million textiles were being produced annually for trade. Today, though, only around 5,000 pieces made before the 19th century survive.”

The collection has a strong focus on the South-East Asian markets. “It has pieces that are representative of every era and from every production centre. It is a very thoughtful collection. Roger (Hollander) picked pieces that were not just attractive—he collected with an academic eye,” Henkel adds.

Apart from the heirloom Patolas, there will be block-printed cotton ceremonial cloths, some over 16ft wide, which were produced in Gujarat for Indonesian markets, where they were known locally as sarasa and ma’a cloths. One exceptional block-printed cotton piece features women holding parrots in one arm, in a style similar to that of Jain manuscript paintings. From the Coromandel Coast come the kain sembangis or skirt cloths produced for the Sumatran and Javanese markets, dodot skirt cloths for the Indonesian markets, and elaborate palampores for the European markets.

While the textiles promise to entice, the curatorial team has unearthed the stories behind their production, trade and use, and these are likely to be the most impressive aspect of the exhibition.

The Patola weavers of the Salvi family in Patan, Gujarat

Last year, the team travelled across India to document the ancient techniques and tools for weaving and pattern-making, which some families continue to use today. “In Gujarat, we met the Patola-wallahs in Patan and those who produce the single-Ikat variety in Rajkot,” says Henkel. “We also travelled down the Coromandel Coast through Masulipatnam, Chennai and Tindivanam to look at the remains of the Coromandel style in the present day painted and printed Kalamkari work.”

The Salvi family of Patan, for instance, claim to be the only surviving “true” Patola weavers who use the elaborate double-Ikat technique. They claim to repeat certain patterns only once in 150 years. And the natural vegetable dyes they use—turmeric, marigold flowers, onion skin, pomegranate bark and indigo—don’t fade. The Salvis take four-six months to make a sari, which are priced between $3,000-8,000 (around Rs. 1.44-3.84 lakh).

The team also studied historic sites such as the Sidi Sayed mosque in Ahmedabad, the Rani ki Vav stepwell in Patan and the Sun Temple in Modhera. “The motifs on these architectural sites often matched those used on textiles,” Henkel explains. Snippets from this documentary footage, as well as dye samples and tools, will be part of the immersive exhibition experience. The textiles have been dated using a dye-analysis technique that aids in carbon dating, revealing that the oldest piece in the collection was created in the mid-13th century.

Ceremonial heirloom hanging or ma’a, Gujarat, collected in Toraja, mid-15th-mid-17th century

Just as interesting as the production, is the story of the textiles’ appropriation into other cultures. Many cultures into which these pieces were imported preserved them as heirlooms of religious importance, believing that they were produced by their ancestors. These pieces have been especially well-preserved on the isolated Indonesian islands of Sulawesi and Sumatra. “I went to document a funeral ceremony of the Toraja community in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Traditionally, Indian trade cloths, known there as ma’a, were used as ornaments and display pieces for the funeral of aristocratic people. However, very few of the original trade cloths remain with the community now, but they continue to make new cloths that resemble the old ones,” Henkel recalls.

The exhibition fits within the larger narrative of India’s centuries-old textile trade. South-East Asia had lots of spices, but only roughly woven bark cloth. India produced the best quality, most dye-fast, brightly coloured and tightly woven smooth cloth. This facilitated a robust cloth for spice trade. The earliest evidence of textile trade from India has been found in El Fostat, Egypt—the 9th-15th century pieces there resemble those found in Indonesia. This important connection shows that Indian cloth was being traded all over the world as early as the ninth century.

Their textures and colours still vivid, the textiles that are being prepared for display at the ACM betray their age and provenance. They illustrate an old Gujarati saying, “Padi Patole bhaat, phate pan fitey nahin (your Patola may tear but it will never fade).”

Patterns of Trade: Indian Textiles For Export, 1400–1900 will run from 15 November 2011 until June 2012 at the Asian Civilisations Museum, Singapore. The writer was a research assistant at the museum from February-June 2011.

Photographs courtesy: Asian Civilisations Museum

http://www.livemint.com/2011/10/04200018/The-heirlooms-in-your-closet.html

Savita Apte on Learning and Mentoring for Arts Organisations

Savita Apte is an Art Historian specialising in Modern and Contemporary South Asian Art. She began her career in Sotheby’s where she was instrumental in founding the Sotheby Prize for Contemporary Indian Art. She is a director of Art Dubai, as well as a regular lecturer at the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS) and the Sotheby’s Institute.

What are the best personal strategies you have put in place to gain skills in your career?
The best strategy I have used is hands-on-learning, particularly from someone with a lot of experience in the area and that can act as a mentor. Those have been the most fruitful and memorable of my learning experiences.

How have you helped to develop those around you? Do you mentor and what value do you gain from that?
I went into mentoring without knowing it, and have developed deep relationships in the process. I supervise several research students and keep in touch with those I have mentored. They may sometimes correct the fallacies that I may develop over time and bring fresh and innovative ideas on board.

What role have you learnt from the most – the most challenging or the one that you have felt most out of your comfort zone?
Perhaps the most challenging role for me so far has been the one of a PhD student (Savita is a doctoral candidate with SOAS, studying modernism in Indian art). I have been out of the student mode for so many years. Particularly accessing electric journals and e-libraries is not something that is very easy for me. Some of my Master’s students have helped me navigate through these virtual references.

Do you feel the arts industry offers enough in the way of professional development?
The industry can perhaps offer more, it has so far been a contained industry, where galleries are handed down through families. However, these spaces are being reformed and renegotiated. Certainly auction houses, like Sotheby’s, are offering courses in arts management and arts business and there will be more development in the years to come. The industry can and should do more.

How different is the educational process when you are speaking to your students at SOAS or Sotheby’s versus the audience at Art Dubai’s educational program? What kind of programming has generated most interest at Art Dubai?
The student at SOAS is expecting more focused information and is much more receptive and critical of the information. When catering to a general audience, you have to provide all kinds of information and different levels of engagement. One-on-one conversations with the artists have generated the most interest. People were interested in understanding how the creative mind works and how that is translated into a visual medium.

More interviews for arts professionals at: www.artsinterview.com

Magnus Renfrew on Personality and Cultural Differences in an Arts Organisation

The Fair Director since the inception of ART HK, Magnus Renfrew has over a decade’s professional experience in the international art world. Before joining ART HK, Magnus was Head of Exhibitions for Contrasts Gallery in Shanghai. Previously Magnus was a London-based specialist with the auction house Bonhams. During his seven years there he was responsible for sourcing works internationally for Modern and Contemporary sales, as well as having been instrumental in bringing to fruition their first sale of Contemporary Asian Art in London.

How does cultural difference impact how you direct Art HK?
It affects the way you behave with people. My character is suited to work in Asia – I was brought up to respect people and to give people time. You need to physically give people time – have conversations, make them feel that they are important and valued. You need to develop personal relationships and friendships – business is based on how people get along and so it is important to set the ground for trust.
It becomes difficult to implement an international standard for selection (of galleries represented in the fair), because people assume that since they have a personal relationship with you, they have a better chance of getting in. And when they are not selected, they feel personally slighted.
You also have to deal with the intimidation factor – people often do not ask the question because they do not already have the answer. They do not want to ask the price because they do not want to lose face or look like they cannot afford it. We encourage galleries to be as forthcoming and un-intimidating as possible. And the fair also offers different levels of education through programming.

What is the difference in leading people in Asia vs. Europe?
We have a cross-cultural team and a flat management structure. We are not big into hierarchy and everyone’s role is equally important. It is a high pressure job, so you need to have a supportive environment. I am constantly travelling and so my work is often in parallel with the team in Hong Kong.
We also have a diverse advisory team that we use to seek introductions and build networks. It is important to have people who are respected in their own countries. Introductions are very important in Asia, so that you connect with the right people.
In China, it was quite difficult to manage people. Sometimes as a foreigner there can be resentment or questioning of your position. It becomes important to get an understanding of the culture and to gain people’s respect by working hard, rather than just bossing people around.

Is there a personality type in the arts? Is it different in administrative roles as compared to artists? Is personality a consideration when you are recruiting?
There are many stereotypes of the art world. The galleriests I have met have been demanding, intelligent, sensitive and have high expectations of themselves and others. In any organisation you need show horses and work horses. There are the ambassadors who win business and become the face of the organisation, versus those who are structured in their thinking. When recruiting, it is important for us to know how they will get along in the organisation. People here have to work as a team.

What is the personality of Art HK?
Humility – you are only as good as the last fair and the galleries that participate, so you take nothing for granted. Geographic diversity, accessibility and quality are defining characteristics of the fair.
We are an art fair that reflects and celebrates the diversity of the region. In the West, fairs are showing works to match the western aesthetic sensibility and have been slow to adapt to the changing world. Art means different things to different people and the purpose of art is not a universal concept. We want to be inclusive of the arts scene here, but not ghettoise it into ‘Asian art’. Artists do not want to be pigeon-holed as ‘Asian artists’.
Many other fairs in the region are run by local gallery associations or by people who are very powerful within the scene without having international credibility. They are not able to get international galleries that do not want to be seen next to galleries that are not the best in the region. We have broken that spell through the selection process and by getting galleries that are doing interesting things. We are balancing the flavour of the fair with 50% from Asia-Pacific and 50% from the rest of the world.

More interviews for arts professionals at: www.artsinterview.com

Russell Storer on Curatorial Collaborations

Russell Storer, alumni of COFA, UNSW, is Curator, Contemporary Asian Art, at Queensland Art Gallery (QAG). He has been working collaboratively to curate exhibitions such as the QAG’s Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) and the ongoing Singapore Biennale 2011. He was also visiting curator at Documenta 2, Kasel and Curatorial Comrade for the 2006 Biennale of Sydney. Among the exhibitions he curated in his previous role with the Museum of Contemporary Art Sydney, was Situation: Collaborations, collectives and artist networks from Sydney.

What was the experience of working across a geographically dispersed curatorial team for the Singapore Biennale 2011?
Working long-distance is a common situation for biennales today, with curators working from a home base as well as in the host city, often in tandem with others. It offers the possibility for new connections and to draw in different networks of knowledge, experience and information. It does of course also present major challenges in terms of time and communication. Fortunately Matthew (Ngui), Trevor (Smith) and I all knew each other and had worked with each other before, so we had an established understanding of each others’ approaches, and we shared points of reference. We communicated regularly via Skype and email, and every few months would come together in Singapore or Australia for intensive meetings. We also had a wonderful exhibition manager, Michelle Tan, who could co-ordinate with us and centralise information in Singapore, and we also had an online ‘cloud’ where we could share materials and documents.

For the APT too, you work with your curatorial team at the QAG as well as external curators. What were the challenges and benefits of working in this kind of collaborative environment?
The benefit of working collaboratively is that you expand your knowledge base, and shift the dynamic into a more discursive mode, rather than as a singular statement. There are benefits in that approach too, but I love the dialogue that takes place and appreciate the multiple perspectives that collaborative curating offers. In some instances, as in APT, external curators are essential if you are working in areas that are unfamiliar or inaccessible to gallery staff, where you cannot proceed without specialised knowledge and on-the-ground contacts. As with any relationship, there are negotiations and compromises to be made, which, depending on the spirit in which this is done, can be very productive, or can be very difficult, but fortunately I’ve only really had positive experiences so far!

What do you look for in a collaborative curator when embarking on such a project?
I think as with any collaboration, you look for the experience and knowledge that people offer, but what is also important is that they are people you can relate to and there is some kind of shared goal in mind. There may be different views on how to get there, and the goal posts may shift, but there needs to be a desire to develop something together that you can both contribute to and learn from.

The upcoming Sydney Biennale too, will for the first time, have a curatorial team, rather than an individual. Do you see collaboration, between artists, curators and institutions becoming increasingly important? \
That is true, although the 2000 Biennale did use a ‘curatorium’ of advisors/curators from around the world to develop the project. Artists and curators have been collaborating for decades, from early 20th-century avant-garde groups to the activist collectives of the 1970s and 1980s to the participatory projects of the 1990s and 2000s. There has been increased attention to and historicising of collaborative activity over the past decade, as well as expanding possibilities enabled by technology and new forms of organisation and production. With the enormous emphasis on the individual in society, and with the increased instrumentalisation of culture, the critical possibilities that collaborative work offers, in setting up alternative structures and approaches, will definitely continue to be significant into the future.

Any lessons learnt from your past collaborations—would you do anything differently the next time?
I see curatorial work as a constant process of learning, with each project teaching you so many new things. There are always aspects you might like to have done differently in hindsight, but that applies to everything in life I think! It’s important with collaborative projects to always be open and flexible, while having a clear sense of what you are trying to do. You can bring your experience to each new project, but there are always situations you have never encountered before, which makes it exciting and require you to think in new ways. Collaboration – with other curators, with artists, with audiences – is a significant way of developing these new ways of thinking.

More interviews for arts professionals at: www.artsinterview.com

The Singapore Biennale - an essay

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. 34-39

Burke, 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