MUSIC

Another record shop

bucks the trend of
declining music stores
THE BUSINESS TIMES

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013

PAGE 50

52

Evolving stage: Kuo Pao Kuns The Coffin Is Too

Big For The Hole (1985,far left) dealt with an
everyman character harried by bureaucratic
apathy and regulation. Today, Kuos works are
regarded as classics. In recent years, other political
works have surfaced which include (clockwise from
left) Jason Wees installation No More Tears Mr Lee
at Singapore Art Museum; Alfian Saat's Cooling Off
Day; veteran artist Tang Da Wus installation of
hammers called Same Same And No Difference
Between Unity And Self-destruction; and Eleanor
Wongs The Campaign to Confer the Public Service
star on JBJ. PHOTOS: SINGAPORE ART MUSEUM, VALENTINE WILLIE FINE
ART, FILE

N the Singapore Art Museum (SAM), there

is a portrait of Mr Lee Kuan Yew made entirely of shampoo bottle caps. The title of
the work is No More Tears Mr Lee. (No
More Tears is a brand of Johnson & Johnsons baby shampoo that doesnt sting the
eyes.)
Created by artist J`ason Wee, its a clever piece of political art. On the one hand, the elegant, monochromatic portrait presents a dignified image of Mr Lee. Its No More Tears title
harks back to the 1965 moment when he cried
on TV while announcing Singapores separation
from Malaysia. It suggests that decades after independence and the islands sterling economic
success, Mr Lee need cry no more.
Yet on the other hand, on a more
tongue-in-cheek level, the fact that the artwork is
made of 8,000 plastic bottle caps echoes the criticism thats often been levelled at Singapore: It is
safe, sterile and artificial kind of like shampoo.
Deeper thought on Wees work yields even more
provocative interpretations.
No More Tears Mr Lee is witty, layered and
oblique enough to be acquired and displayed by
SAM, which belongs to the National Heritage
Board. And Wee continues to have a successful
career as an artist.
But not all artists have been equally adept at
navigating the tricky terrain of what is permissible and what is not. And when theyre not, they
risk running afoul of the law.
Two weeks ago, some of the leading lights of
the arts community got together to present A
Manifesto For The Arts to the public. Those who
helped craft the manifesto include Nominated
Member of Parliament Janice Koh, theatre director Kok Heng Leun, arts manager Tay Tong, playwright Tan Tarn How and sociologist Terence
Chong among others.
Their six-point manifesto includes the statements: Art is fundamental; Art is about possibilities; Art unifies and divides; Art can be challenged but not censored; Art is political.
It is the final two points of the manifesto
Art is political and Art can be challenged but
not censored that got some of the folk who
crafted the manifesto hot under the collar.
One of them, T Sasitharan, the director of Intercultural Theatre Institute, says: Weve been
told by bureaucrats and politicians that art is not
supposed to be political, that you cannot indulge
in politics through your art, and that the two are
different.
But it is not true. Singapore is perhaps one
the few countries in the world where, if art is political, its a problem. Few other societies even
bat an eyelid if an artist makes a work that has a
political implication.
Art is political. Its about life, about who we
are. Art addresses and challenges the status quo,
at least by implication so it is political.
Those who created the manifesto over the
course of months are convinced that Singapore
society has reached a specific formative moment in the culture of Singapore where people
are looking deeper into who we are and asking
questions about our future, about the kind of life
well be living 20 or 30 years from now, says Mr
Sasitharan.
The group felt it important to release a manifesto explaining the meaning of art instead of
lurching from one incident to another because
there is no clear vision for the arts.
Again and again, the community has been
forced to confront the question; Can Singapore
artists ever be given the complete freedom to examine, document, question and critique life in
Singapore as they see it? The manifesto hopes to
emphasise that all art political or not should
be regarded as legitimate and acceptable forms
of human expression.
As theatre director Alvin Tan says with resignation: It gets so tiring for the arts community
to have to repeat the arguments again and
again.
When asked by Business Times, Benson
Puah, Chief Executive Officer of the National Arts
Council, says the council agrees with the manifestos broad principles: The Manifestos broad
principles resonate with NACs mission, which is
to make the arts an integral part of the lives of
the people of Singapore. To this end, we are committed to providing space for our artists to express themselves creatively and growing a discerning audience that supports diverse artistic
expression.

Whats accepted, whats not

Earlier this month, Samantha Lo, aka Sticker Lady, appeared in court on charges of mischief.
The street artist had pasted stickers above buttons of traffic lights bearing cheeky Singlish slogans such as Press until shiok and Anyhow
press police catch, among other acts.
Her arrest, however, provoked unhappiness
in the arts community who felt that Ms Los
works were a valuable art form because they
were humorous, relevant and captured a sentiment close to Singaporeans hearts.
Concerns were also aired when Ken Kweks
film Sex.Violence. Family Values was banned

Can Singapore accept

political art?

Political art seems more permissible when it is ambiguously or tastefully done,

but not when it is in-your-face, writes HELMI YUSOF

last year. In January, Elangovans Stoma which

tells the story of a Catholic priest defrocked over
sex abuse charges, was denied a performance licence because it contains sexually explicit, blasphemous and offensive references and language
which would be denigrating to the Catholic and
the wider Christian community, according to
the Media Development Authority.
And last year, the reading of political play
Square Moon by Wong Souk Yee, a former political detainee, was cancelled just days before the
event.
Her play was about a prisoner who escapes
from jail. In order to cover up the security lapse,
a fictional Homeland Security Department tries
to pass off one of their Marxist detainees as the
escaped prisoner.
The reasons for the cancellation of the reading remain unclear.
To be sure, though, several artworks have
been given the greenlight to deal with politics in
recent years from political plays such as Alfian
Saats Cooling-Off Day and Eleanor Wongs The
Campaign to Confer The Public Star on JBJ, to
the groundbreaking art exhibition titled Beyond
LKY that dealt directly with political themes.
Going back even further, Kuo Pao Kuns plays
in the 1980s such as The Coffin Is Too Big For
The Hole and No Parking On Odd Days dealt with
an everyman character harried by bureaucratic
apathy and regulations. Today, Kuos works are
canonised and revered around the region.
If one were to look closely at the works that
have been allowed to be staged or shown, three
patterns emerge:
Firstly, artworks that make political comments gently, sensitively, ambiguously and/or humorously are more likely to be given the greenlight than those that are more overt, crude, sensational and in-your-face.
Cooling-Off Day, for instance, showed real-life Singaporeans in all their various political
persuasions from the tudong-wearing makcik
who loves the Peoples Action Party, to a Chinese
ex-political detainee with bitter memories of her
arrest. Taken together, it formed an affectionate,
inoffensive patchwork of Singapores socio-political culture.
Secondly, artworks that are polemical and

Published and printed by Singapore Press Holdings Limited. Co. Regn. No. 198402868E.

The problem
with censoring
certain types
of works is
that it stops
society from
growing.
Society has to
evolve, and
works that are
supposedly
objectionable
should be
brought out
and discussed
instead of
being
censored.
Playwright Tan Tarn
How (above), whose
political play Fear of
Writing deals with
censorship

hard-hitting which have gotten the greenlight often present a broad range of viewpoints not
just one.
Chong Tze Chiens Charged was a savage and
racially-charged play filled with vulgarities. But
it was also a profound examination of racial ignorance that still exists among many Singaporeans. The play was staged twice to acclaim.
Thirdly, artists with a higher profile and longer track record of producing artistically significant work are more likely to be able to show provocative works compared to lesser-known artists.
Chew, Lo, Kwek and Lee are arguably less famous than the likes of Alfian, Wee and Chong
who have longer track records and whose works
routinely receive acclaim and attention.
Even then, higher-profile artists and arts companies still find the going tough sometimes.
Theatre company Wild Rice, for instance, was
allowed to stage political plays such as Wongs
The Campaign to Confer the Public Star on JBJ
in 2007. But it subsequently saw its government
funding cut first by $20,000 in 2010 and then by
$60,000 in 2011 because its works are deemed
incompatible with the core values promoted by
the Government and society or disparage the
Government, said the National Art Council
(NAC).
Earlier this month, however, NAC surprised
everyone when Wild Rice saw its funding return
to previous levels. It will receive $280,000 this
year, more than double the $110,000 it got last
year.
Not only that, local urban art collective
RSCLS, known for its edgy artwork in streetscapes, received $80,000. One of its members is
surprise, surprise the Sticker Lady.
Theatre director Tan concludes: Its so unpredictable.
Perhaps, that is why the Manifesto for the
Arts should have a place in the collective consciousness in understanding the arts in Singapore as it seeks a permanent recognition that art
may draw us together as much as it unveils
our differences and contradictions. And art
should allow for the process of conflict and contest of ideas. To date, the manifesto has almost
1,000 signatories online.

Is political art crucial?

Playwright Tan Tarn Hows 2011 play Fear of
Writing partly deals with censorship and its impact on the arts and creativity. He says: The
problem with censoring certain types of works
is that it stops society from growing.
Society has to evolve, and works that are
supposedly objectionable should be brought out
and discussed instead of being censored. Not
doing so damages or disadvantages not just the
artist, but also society.
Tan feels that all art good or bad, quiet or
provocative, ambiguous or in-your-face
should all have a place in the Singapore art
scene.
Art historian Louis Ho agrees with this view.
He adds: It is true that one can make art that
has no social or political value, art that is personal and subjective. But art that bites the bullet and engages itself in the broader social and
political sphere is far more interesting.
Ho, who pursued his art studies in New
York, says: We are a developed country and
we should learn to look at ourselves, criticise
ourselves and laugh at ourselves.
Indeed, many of the earliest signatories of
the manifesto feel that the judgment of good or
bad art, permissible or non-permissible art,
should not exist merely within the ambit of the
government. Many feel that these judgments
should be made by Singaporeans, who are mature and well-educated enough to decide what
they wish to consume or not.
Says sociologist Terence Chong: Perhaps,
the authorities shouldnt play the role of the art
critic. It should be up to the people to decide
what they want to watch.
Ultimately, the creators of the manifesto, as
well as the larger arts community, are searching for a way forward.
Mr Sasitharan concludes: Its not
far-fetched in todays context to meet a taxi driver whose daughter is studying film. Or a lorry
driver whose son is learning creative writing.
What are we to tell the young if we dont allow
for all kinds of art to flourish?

A member of Audit Bureau of Circulations Singapore. Customer Service (Circulation): 6388-3838, circs@sph.com.sg, Fax 6746-1925.