Tuesday in the Tropics 158

Dear friends and colleagues

Alas, I could not send this on Tuesday last week as we were hit by a typhoon. Not bad enough to blow the house down or indeed blow trees down, but enough to force a leak in my library roof and cover the ground outside with sodden leaves and small branches. As you can see it was strong enough to make the bamboo goes nearly horizontal. Also, inevitably it knocked out the electricity and the internet.

Anyway, apart from my wry view of the re-enactment of José Mecada’s Cassettes 100 as expressed last week, what did I think of the Biennale? The three main sites were The National Gallery, the ICA at LaSalle College of Arts and Gillman Barracks. I went to Gillman Barracks first where the work of 21 artists was shown. I regret to say my first impression was “lots of good intentions and lots of third rate art.”

There were two pieces I did like very much. Firstly, an installation by Zhao Renhui (Robert to friends), though it seemed rather crammed into a corner, like kitchen into a bed sitter. Three other artists were in his space – too many. Installations by artists normally look best if they are given an entire space or room. The presence next to Zhao of the Thai artist Dusadee Huntrakul was particularly problematic.

He showed copies of pots made 4000 years ago on top of IKEA type display units with admonitory labels attached. To be honest, I’d love to have seen the original pots instead! I found the work confusing, though the wall label told me what I was supposed to think. As so often, it tended to be a biennale of labels.

The Second work I liked very much was a double screen video by the Thai artist Korakrit Arunanondchai, but this was difficult to see because it was in a room with a large central pillar always blocking part of one’s view.

Now, two qualifying admissions. Firstly, I had other obligations in Singapore so only had a day and a half to see the biennale. There were, a lot of videos – too many, but more of that later – and I did not have the time to sit through them. What’s new! How many days would I need? Several were over an hour long. Secondly, I was not there at the opening so did not see the early performances. In particular, I missed, key apparently to the concept of Patrick Flores the curator, the performances by an artist I like and admire very much, the Singaporean Amanda Heng, whose work is normally collaborative, social and in a discreetly Singaporean way, political.

Back to first principles. A basic question: What is the Singapore Biennale for? What is its purpose or role?

OK, let’s have a bit of history:

The first Singapore Biennale in 2006 was curated by Fumio Nanju and entitled “Belief” Sugimoto, Xu Bing, Imran Qureshi, N.S. Harsha, Yayoi Kusama, Liu Jianhua, Mariko Mori, Mark Wallinger, Barbara Kruger, Jenny Holzer. With many artists making works in temple, churches, mosques and other places it was the biennale that really took you into urban Singapore. The second biennale was equally international.

The third biennale in 2011 as well as 9 artists from Singapore included works by several artists from outside Asia including Phil Collins, Martin Creed, Elmgreen & Dragset, Omer Fast, Ceal Floyer, Simon Fujiwara (whose work was famously censored), Tracey Moffatt, Matt Mullican, Mike Nelson, Martha Rosler, Taryn Simon, Nedko Solakov, Superflex, Ryan Trecartin & Danh Vo. Not all the works they sent or installed may have been great, but it was a fairly impressive list.

Since then the Biennale has, under the aegis of the Singapore Art Museum been committed to a focus on art from South-east Asia, and to a lesser extent Asia at large. It has become a regional biennale. Which makes it odd that in this biennale we get for no apparent reason works by Petros Moris, Veronica Troncoso, Sandu Darie, Wu Tsang, Larrie Achiampong, Muf architecture, Kahil Robert Irving, Tracy Rose and Marie Vognier, none of whom are either Asian or live here. Not an impressive list of “foreigners” compared to 2011 or 2006. I am sorry but there are artists working with ceramics in South-east Asia who are far more interesting than Kahil Robert Irving – and so on, and so on.

If the role of the Singapore Biennale is to bring some of the best art from around the world it has to be judged a failure.

Is the role of the Singapore Biennale, especially now it is (sort) of focused on South-east Asia, to show the best and most vital of South-east Asian art? To be a showcase or platform for both South-east Asians and those from outside who want to know what is going on?

I have a penchant for lists (yes, I know it is anal, but I can’t help myself). So, I gave myself an hour to make a list of major artists from South-east Asia who have never been shown in any of the six Singapore Biennales so far. Here it is:

1. POKLONG ANADING
2. ANGKI PURDANDONO
3. ARAHMAIANI
4. AY TJOE CHRISTINE
5. HERI DONO
6. NONA GARCIA
7. HAHAN
8. GERALDINE JAVIER
9. JOMPET
10. MARK JUSTINIANI
11. ZAI KUNING
12. JASON LIM
13. MARYANTO
14. MELATI SURYODARMO
15. MOELYANO
    WAWI NAVARROZA
16. EKO NUGROHO
17. GARIN NUGROHO
18. PINAREE SANPITAK
19. AGUS SUWAGE^[1]
20. TANG DA WU
21. S. TEDDY^[2]
22. UGO UNTURO
23. UMIBAIZURAH
24. MARK VALENZUELA
25. TINTIN WULIA
26. MM YU

These are all artists who either do not make paintings or if they do devote as much attention to installation or some other medium. If you include people who are predominantly painters you could include

1. DJOKOPEKIK
2. ARIN DWIHARTANTO
3. ALFI JUMALDI
4. MANUEL OCAMPO
5. MILENKO PRVACKI
6. GUOLIANG TAN
7. NATEE UTARIT
8. IAN WOO
9. GEDE MAHENDRA YASA
10. YUNIZAR

Those 37 would be make a pretty powerful biennale! Yes of course you want to see artists you have never heard of, artists from unexpected places or ethnic groups. It is great that, for once, there artists from those marginal countries of South-east Asia, Brunei, Laos and Timor Leste! It is nice to see an artist, Busui Ajaw, who as the blurb said was “an Akha, a nomadic ethnic group from the highlands of mainland South-east Asia, and is from a family of artisans. Coming from an oral culture, the practice of image-making was initially foreign to her.”

Her paintings are indeed crude. Why can’t we also have the more sophisticated works of the painters listed above? It sounds like the notorious 1989 bias towards ‘les magiciens de la terre”again!

I must also add that the awful earnestness of some of the captions and the admonitory texts scattered around the site were a massive turn off. The “go this way labels” on the pathways outside probably won the prize for curatorial bossiness. Their heavy-handedness reminded one of how subtle Barbara Kruger actually was.

But enough for this week. I will carry on thinking about the Singapore Biennale next week. Maybe the other sites had better art?

See you next week

Tony

1. Was present in first biennale 2006, but only with a collaborative work. ↑
2. Alas no longer with us but should still be shown. ↑