Echoing and Responding to the perceived hegemony
of ‘Malay revivalist proclivities’
Piyadasa’s
proposition on what he perceived as the hegemony of Malay-centered
nationalistic forces has been further referred, quoted and reinforced by many
other writers (including by foreign writers). In representing the perceived
dominance of Malay revivalist proclivities in UiTM, Piyadasa’s interpretation
and its echoes by other English-speaking writers have turned into a seemingly
new master-narrative of contemporary art in Malaysia since the 1990s. Yet, one
may suspiciously ponder whether any of them has been in UiTM long enough to
make substantial primary research and claims about it. In addition, some may
not even be fluent enough with Malay language (used widely in UiTM as the
mother-tongue of artists that are linked to it) to decipher its subtle nuances
and complexity.
Anyway, here are
several examples:
June Yap quotes
Piyadasa:
“He would continue to
note how the policy would also affect the artists associated with UiTM’s School
of Art & Design set up in 1967 exclusively for Bumiputera, that resulted in
the institute becoming the “epicenter of Malay revivalist proclivities in art
during the late 1970s and 1980s”’.(32)
June Yap also quotes
Wong Hoy Cheong’s response to Krishen Jit’s interview:
“As artist and writer
Wong Hoy Cheong argues, figurative representation in particular for artists
from UiTM is a means to challenge the institution’s tenets, they are “not
against Islam as much as they are against the non-orthodoxy of the figure””.(33)
“Rebellion is quite
alien to a culture so ingrained in the ideas and practices of muafakat (negotiation), maruah (self-respect) and halus (refinement). Any form of dissent
– seen as an act of kurang ajar
(lacking education and understanding of cultural protocol) – sticks out like a
sore thumb.”(34)
Ahmad Mashadi also
refers to similar interview:
“The interview was
significant for its speculative yet productive discussion on abstract art, ‘new
art’ and the local context, and the return of the figure as a way to reinitiate
connections with a broader public discourses.”(35)
He further quotes
from Wong Hoy Cheong:
“The figure is one of
the the things that make the difference. (…) they want to assert themselves
into the mainstream. (…) Some are conducting a genuine rebellion, particularly
the young artists from ITM. They are tired of doing art totally through the
traditional and Islamic perspectives.”(36)
In asserting ‘the
return of figure’ and conservatism of ‘many artists affiliated to ITM’, he
writes about Bayu Utomo Radjikin:
“Bayu’s precarious
talent had been evident in his highly charged figurative works, to be seen in
contradistinction against the conservatism of many artists affiliated to ITM at
the time.” (37)
Wong Hoy Cheong
writes about the 1980s:
“The 1980s saw a
society that had become more stifling, conservative and smug. The country went
through cultural, economic, political and judicial crises one after another.
Art and education were petrifying under the National Cultural Policy and purist
interpretations in the name of Islam.”(38)
To further articulate
the above-mentioned point, and in referring to Piyadasa, J Anu writes:
“Redza Piyadasa
described the situation of Malaysian art as being a blinkered ethnocentric
perspective.”(39)
Echoing similar
sentiment, Valentine Willie gives his view of history:
“After the 1969 riots
and the Malay Congress of 1971 there was an increased focus (as well as government-directed
patronage) on Malay culture. This led artists and especially those who were
dependent on the government for employment to explore Malay themes to the
exclusion of all other aspects of Malaysian life”.(40)
“Whilst there is a
realization even in official circles of the need for self-reflection and
criticism, most government bureaucrats tend to view the community in blinkered
and one-dimensional fashion, thereby rejecting many Malay artists, such as
Tengku Sabri, Ahmad Shukri, Bayu Utomo Radjikin whose works challenge or at
least tweak the accepted pre-conceptions of what it is to be Malay.”(41)
These are several examples of English-speaking
voices at the forefront of Malaysian contemporary art discourses that represent
a reaction to the perceived ‘hegemony of Malay nationalistic forces’ (if not
Islam). The fact that the Malay revivalist proclivities could also be read as
another impulse to question Western discourses of art history (as proposed by
Michelle) has somehow been neglected.
Nevertheless, even
though these voices may have sweepingly implicated ‘many Malay artists that are
affiliated to UiTM’ as conservatives trapped within the ‘by default’
post-National Cultural Congress framework, they have significantly given a
glimpse of perhaps a much deeper anxiety and lingering resent towards
Malaysia’s political, educational, social-cultural and economic policies post
1969.(42)
They
may also signify a ‘climate of openness’ where ‘critique in art has emerged’
during the 1990s, as observed by Michelle Antoinette.
Malaysian art,
according to J. Anu, ‘is influenced by the racial polarity that dominates the
social, racial and religious make up of the country.’(43) The riots of May 1969 have always been perceived
as the starting point for the polarity between bumiputera / indigenous and non-bumiputera
/ non-indigenous Malaysians, Malay hegemony and later, ‘institutionalization
of Islamic aesthetic’. According to Niranjan Rajah, ‘the economic, educational,
social and cultural policies that followed from the tragic events of this day
effected the relative disempowerment and marginalization of the Chinese
community in Malaysian society’.(44)
The terms ‘relative
disempowerment’ and ‘marginalization of the Chinese community’ as far as the
Malaysian art scene is concerned, can be misleading, if not ambiguous.
Nevertheless, it has to be noted that such notions of disempowerment and marginalization
have usually been touched by several writers in tandem with the National
Economic Policy (NEP) and National Cultural Policy of Malaysia (45). The
Policies have been propagated, interpreted, and translated as well as responded
to in various different ways by several Malaysian artists. Despite the presence
of such Policies, the issues and debates over the alarming polarity and the
national cultural identity have been lingering indefinitely throughout the
history of modern art in Malaysia.
Malaysia
is a country blessed with hundreds of different ethnic groups (not just the
Malay, Chinese and Indian). Therefore, it is expected that any sign of
hegemonic enforcement in the arts will normally create a counter-reaction, if
not rejection.
Furthermore, not all Malaysian
artists are really concerned with a singular and monolithic notion of ‘national
art’ for Malaysia,
nor subscribed to the idea of marginalizing any community. In fact, modern and
contemporary art in Malaysia
has been very multi-cultural, eclectic and diverse, and at times very commercial
and global. On the other hand, interpretation of ‘Islamization’ in the arts or
the drive towards Malay-ness did appear in the Malaysian art scene including in
UiTM, as much as there were also interpretations of other spiritual traditions
and ethnic proclivities. But it is rather too simplistic to presume that the
focus on ‘Malay themes’ has excluded ‘other aspects of Malaysian life’ or other
ethnocentric proclivities. Instead, the focus, together with other communal
themes or forms of ethnic essentialism, have enriched the Malaysian art scene.
Unfortunately, by
politically confining the discourses of modern and contemporary art in Malaysia
within the framework of post-National Cultural Congress, Bumiputera and Non-Bumiputera
dichotomy and the so-called hegemony of Malay nationalistic forces, many
smaller and intertwined narratives might have been made obscured, including in
regards to UiTM during the late 1980s.
Hegemony Beyond UiTM?
Beyond UiTM, it has
to be noted that the perceived ‘dominance’ of ‘Malay nationalistic forces’, at
least in regards to the Permanent Collections of the National Art Gallery of
Malaysia (NAG), is rather questionable. The Gallery’s Collections feature a
diverse range of styles, medium and approaches, without any sign of the
perceived ‘forces’ at all.(46)
In fact, the Collections also feature a rather generous amount of
Chinese-centered proclivities.
Even artworks by
artists who were known to be politically-critical and not in tandem with the
so-called Malay nationalistic forces have been purchased to become a part of
the Permanent Collections. In fact, several Malaysian artists such as Roslisham
Ismail and those who might have appeared (or want to appear) to be on the
‘periphery’, had received generous grants or financial support from the National Art Gallery. Despite
whatever challenge or tweaking ‘of the accepted pre-conceptions of what it is
to be Malay’, Tengku Sabri, Ahmad Shukri Mohamed, and Bayu Utomo Radjikin were never
rejected. Other than having their (less seminal) works in the Permanent
Collections, Bayu Utomo for example, had received support from the National Art Gallery
for his solo exhibition.(47)
Certainly, not all
‘government bureaucrats’ perceive the world in a ‘blinkered’ fashion. The
notions of dominance and marginalization as far as the National Art
Gallery’s Permanent
Collections and financial support are concerned, are highly relative, if not
questionable. On the other hand, perhaps it is more pertinent to raise the
issue of relevancy, direction, coherency and quality in regards to the
collection and exhibition policies of the National Art
Gallery. Prominent
collectors of contemporary Malaysian art, Aliya & Farouk Khan for example,
observe that the Collections of the National
Art Gallery
‘are reminiscent of the past’ and that the Gallery itself ‘does not move with the development of the
local art scene.’(48)
In fact, there are
numerous other pressing issues that the National Art
Gallery has to resolve,
instead of the perceived dominance of Malay nationalistic forces. The National Art Gallery
is in a highly critical time and position to re-align itself with the realities
and imperatives of globalization, free market capitalism and information
revolution it order to maintain its relevancy and significance. It has to be
alert to changes or risked being regarded as a white elephant or worse, a relic
of the past. It needs to tackle real problems rather than the imagined ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment