Hasnul J Saidon
(Originally published in Timeline, National Art Gallery of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 2010)
For those who
subscribe to a very linear reading of time and notion of progress, contemporary
art in Malaysia
after 1990 may seem a bit puzzling. In fact, writer Ooi Kok Chuen uses a
colloquial term ‘syiok’ as a pun for future shock that the local artists had to
encounter as Malaysia engaged with globalisation, free market capitalism and
information technology during the 1990s.(1)
If one is willing to
forsake one’s dependent on the dominant master-narrative that has been used to
construct the history of Malaysian art, one may encounter a contemporary art
scene that is marked by ironies, paradoxes and contradictions, as much as
probabilities, possibilities and potentials. They are rather prevalent if we
look into the fact that even the notions of history, modernism, and
postmodernism are not spared from being ‘deconstructed’ and contested. It seems
like the discourses of contemporary art in Malaysia since 1990 until today
have been ‘under-deconstruction’ and in a state of flux.
Michelle Antoinette in her essay Different Visions: Contemporary Malaysian Art and Exhibition in 1990s
and Beyond describes the period during the 1990s as being marked by ‘a
climate of openness’ where ‘critique in art has emerged’. She further states
that it is a period where ‘constant flux and fragmentation is taken as a
defining feature of Malaysian culture and society’.(2)
Thus, the term ‘under-deconstruction’ for this essay
is used to represent a review or perhaps ‘hyper-view’ of such fragmentation,
other than signifying a postmodern’s state of flux that has characterised
contemporary art in Malaysia
after 1990.(3) This essay will survey some of key issues
that are pertinent in discussing about contemporary art in Malaysia after 1990.
1. From Master Narrative to Multiple Discourses
The paradox of deconstruction
Many institutions
have acknowledged the role of T.K.
Sabapathy and the late Redza Piyadasa, especially through Vision & Idea: Re-looking Modern Malaysian Art (VI), as ‘the
seminal art historians’ and ‘key individuals’ in driving the historical
narrative of modern Malaysian art. Their books and writings have been referred
to and quoted by many writers of the subsequent generations. In fact, Michelle
Antoinette has argued that in a certain sense, both Piyadasa and Sabapathy ‘may
be regarded as the pre-eminent ‘myth-makers’ of modern Malaysian art history’. (4)
Then again, such
‘myth-making’ recognition and fore fronting of art historians are rather ironic
or paradoxical. The irony is apparent if one considers Michelle’s proposition
that the ‘art-historical myth-making’ tendency itself has been contested since
the period of the 1990s. In reference to Krishen Jit, she uses the term
‘ruptures in myth-making’ to imply the ‘demythifying’ impulse of the younger generation
of Malaysian artists. Ironically, despite the demythifying impulse, Piyadasa
himself had defended the relevance of myth-making and the role of art museum or
institutions in constructing ‘hierarchical order in the discussion of art
works’ in his book Masterpieces from the
National Art Gallery.(5)
In this regards,
Piyadasa stated:
“We may be reminded
here that the post-modernist trait to resist and dismantle hierarchies is only
possible because properly constructed art traditions and art historical
contexts already exist!” (6)
Notwithstanding the
presence of deconstructive postmodern stance, the modernist myth-making, albeit
in various versions, still persists until today. The interest of the younger
artists-writers-curators in using art as a form of social critique and
commentary has seemed to ironically induce more myth-making. Despite their
fondness in shifting and shackling the master narrative of modern Malaysian art,
many more artists, events and moments have ironically been mythified.
Examples of the irony can be traced in several
contemporary artworks such as Youthful
Contention Not () to Detach from Parental Eclipse (2000) and…Who Gave Birth to the Great White One…?
(2002) by Yap Sau Bin, On Air (2002)
by Noor Azizan Rahman Paiman and Suhaila Hashim, Rumah (House) (2007) by
Susyilawati Sulaiman, and The Artist (2004)
by Ahmad Fuad Ariff. These works feature the use of postmodern ideas and
strategies such as appropriation, ready-mades, intervention, situational art,
mockery, parody, irony, satire and intertextuality in reassessing art history
and institutional role in myth-making.(7)
Sau Bin’s …Who Gave Birth to the Great White One…?
for example, through a small caption, questions
‘who should be the producer of meanings? Who, in fact, should provide/has
provided meaning to the piece of object? Who has conferred it as art?’. Noor
Azizan and Suhaila’s work comments on the role of institutions, ‘mythified’
individuals and also petty gossips in creating the narratives of Malaysian art
while Ahmad Fuad Ariff’s work ‘mythifies’ himself as a thinking artist. His
recent work Interior Design Products for
the Artsy and Fartsy People (2006) even made a (rather crude but frank)
mockery of modernist artworks by several seminal Malaysian artists, suggesting
the dissolution of modernist (or even postmodernist) rebellious impulse and
Malay-Islamic nuances into a mere interior product for consumerist end.(8)
Susyilawati’s Rumah (house) provides an intriguing mental pun in regards to the
dichotomy between the ‘personal’ and ‘official’ histories and memories. The pun
is made more apparent by the close proximity of the house with the dominant
presence of two official cultural myth-makers – the National Art
Gallery and Istana Budaya
of Malaysia.(9)
Another earlier work,
Fashion Parade (Smiling Van Gogh and
Smiling Gauguin)(1994) by Hasnul J Saidon, appropriates scenes from the
paintings of two important icons of Western art history, whilst making a parody
of how traces of their influence have been locally domesticated, neutralized,
commodified and ‘mythified’.(10)
These artworks
‘directly and indirectly implicate institutional roles in the increasingly
complex matrix of cultural contestation’.(11) In
questioning and deconstructing, they have now been infused into the history of
modern Malaysian art and may ironically themselves be ‘mythified’ in the
future. Thus, it is not a surprise ‘that even the most uncompromising dissident
and critic (within the context of Malaysian art history) can be framed, neutralized,
championed and ironically welcomed with a red carpet.’(12 ) Nevertheless,
beyond the paradox of deconstruction, these artists have shown an interest in
‘critical reassessments of the history that came before them’ as described by
Michelle:
“Evidently, the
examination of Malaysia’s
art history –that is, art production and reception in the Malaysian context –
has increasingly preoccupied many artists in recent times. In the process,
localised discourse of art history and theory have been appropriated as tools
for investigation by contemporary artists who seek to question existing
artistic and social histories which nevertheless continue to inform their
present-day art making context”.(13)
The ‘Other’ Narratives
Other than the
above-mentioned irony or paradox, several artists and writers have also
responded to, if not refuted Piyadasa and Sabapathy’s version of history. Their
efforts may imply that there is no singular master-narrative that can be taken
as the official or absolute history (thus seminal art historians or
myth-makers) of Malaysian art.
One example is Social
Responsibility in Art Criticism (Or Why Yong Mun Sen is the Father of Malaysian
Painting) by Dr.Tan Chee
Khuan. Whilst defending Yong Mun Sen as the ‘father of Malaysian Painting’ and emotionally
refuting some remarks in VI, Dr.Tan
Chee Khuan offers his own account on the history of ‘Malaysian painting’.(14)
Dr. Tan Chee Khuan himself was indeed very active in self-publishing
several books during the 1990s, perhaps signifying a different trajectory (from
Piyadasa and Sabapathy) in approaching the history of Malaysian art. Amongst
his long list of publications is 200
Malaysian Artists which contains A
Comprehensive History of Malaysian Art, written by Ooi Kok Chuen. Through
this essay, Kok Chuen narrates his version of Malaysian art history complete
with detail listings of seminal figures and important moments.(15)
Other prominent
Malaysian artists such as Jolly Koh and Lee Kian Seng had also published their
writings, providing yet other ways of reading and engaging with Malaysian art.
In his essay Some Misconceptions in Art
Writing in Malaysia, Jolly Koh criticises Piyadasa and Sabapathy’s explication
of abstract expressionism:
“It could be said
that T.K Sabapathy and R. Piyadasa have dominated art writing in Malaysia for
most of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. It could also be said that their writings,
especially as they pertain to the artists of the 60s, are inadequate. Also, up
till now, nobody has disputed their views regarding those artists of the 60s.
On the contrary, their mistaken views that the Malaysian artists of the 60s
were Abstract Expressionists are generally accepted.”(16)
Jolly Koh further
claims that:
“In the case of art
history as practiced by art historians, one of their main roles is to explain
how and why artistic styles evolved. In this sense of art history, Malaysian
art has no history, for any stylistic changes that occur in Malaysian art is
not a result of anything occurring within Malaysian art but is a result of
stylistic changes that occur abroad.” (17)
Jolly also refutes
Piyadasa and Sabapathy’s inclusion of academic and naturalistic painters such
as Raden Salleh, Abdullah Ariff, Lim Cheng Hoe and Hoessein Enas as modern
artists. He further proposes the need to properly distinguish Modern art from
Western art. The ethos of modern art, according to Jolly is ‘one of rebellion
against tradition and to forge something new and radical. Modern art is also anti-naturalistic
and is opposed to the rendering techniques of naturalistic painting.’(18)
Along the line of
providing ‘other narratives’ is a book written by Ahmad Suhaimi Mohd. Noor’s Sejarah Kesedaran Visual di Malaya (The History of Visual Awareness in Malaya) which contains well-researched materials on
other obscured narratives in regards to the early history of Malaysian (or
Malayan) visual culture.(19) Suhaimi’s thesis
proposes the importance of Malayan’s earlier illustrations as the catalyst for visual
culture awareness in Malaya, thus also a significant prelude for the infusion
of Western naturalism and modernist art in Malaysia.
Other than the late
Piyadasa and T.K. Sabapathy, even the role of the National Art Gallery (NAG) of
Malaysia
as the caretaker of history and major repository for Malaysia’s modern and contemporary art,
was not spared from being refuted, questioned and deconstructed.(20) In
addition, the emergence of internet-based forums, chats, and websites such as kakiseni.com has further fueled a
hyper-view of opinions and narratives about the Malaysian contemporary art
practice.
These are several
examples of ‘other narratives’ or discourses that suggest an impulse during the
1990s and beyond, to contest any ‘authoritarian’ and hegemonic approach towards
history. Even though some of their propositions and contestations can be
further argued, they may pave a way for further research and other ways of
reading the history of Malaysian art. They have also indicated a shift from
Piyadasa’s version of ‘master narrative’ to multiple narratives or discourses,
a shift that probably the late Piyadasa himself might have anticipated and appreciated.
Despite the shift from singular to hyper-view and regardless of whatever view
one may have about him, the name ‘Piyadasa’ will probably remain as an enigmatic
presence in the history of Malaysian art.
No comments:
Post a Comment