30
Dec 00
Taking
Stock
The
irony of no art
What
a way to cap 2000. Rather than No Art, More Arts was the real buzzword this
year. However, quantity did not always mean better works
By
Clarissa
Oon
A
LOOSE grouping of Singaporean artistes decided to observe a No Art Day (NAD)
yesterday, but at least one dance choreographer was left in the dark about the
point of the event.
The
Southern Arts Society Dance Troupe's Tay Hee Ngerng moaned that the lighting
designer of her concert, held last night, quit because of NAD. She had to hire a
new one at the last minute.
Nor
could she cancel the show because some tickets had been sold even before the
idea of NAD was announced last month.
The
concept of not producing art in order to reflect on its value was lost on her as
well as others like a cappella group Es'Choir and Action
Theatre.
Both
went ahead with their concert and rehearsal, respectively, last
night.
As
a collective action by mostly theatre and visual artistes against what they saw
as a history of censored art works and art forms here, No Art Day was a
milestone in Singapore's arts scene, especially given that the authorities did
not censure, but in fact condoned, it.
But
its too-clever, ironic nature - akin to saying no when you really mean yes -
also made it very exclusive, understood only by a select group of artistes and
individuals.
A
FLOURISHING OF THE ARTS HERE
AS
AN event rounding off 2000, No Art Day was ironical in another, unintended
respect - this year was really one of unprecedented activity in the Singapore
arts world.
BIGGER
FUNDING
First
came the windfall in arts funding - a $50 million increase over five years,
according to the Renaissance City Report.
Announced
in March, it was the first systematic plan by the Ministry of Information and
the Arts to turn Singapore into an arts city.
With
the money, the National Arts Council (NAC) was able to beef up arts scholarships
and create a new fund for Cultural Medallion winners.
Its
biggest pay-off this year was the $3.8 million given to 17 theatre, dance, music
and visual arts organisations to cover up to 30 per cent of their expected
annual budget.
Observers
note that this marks no less than a paradigm shift in arts funding: investing in
the long-term growth of arts groups and not just individual
productions.
In
addition, the Singapore International Foundation also launched a new grant
scheme in July to promote Singapore's image overseas.
It
was the arts which reaped the most from this scheme. TheatreWorks'
inter-cultural production Desdemona and the Singapore Literature Society were
among the recipients of more than $60,000 disbursed in total to travelling arts
projects.
MORE
PERFORMANCES
There
was also the sheer volume and range of arts activities going on
here.
Throughout
this year, there were 10 different arts festivals including the major Singapore
Arts Festival. Singaporeans had a total of 3,900 performances and 500
exhibitions to choose from. This was an increase from a total of 4,171
performances and exhibitions in 1999.
This
year's magic date was Oct 18 - a Wednesday.
That
day, three productions - Under The Last Dust, a wordless physical theatre piece
by The Necessary Stage; a stage version of homegrown film Mee Pok Man; and A
Theory Of Everything, an Asian-American play by the Singapore Repertory Theatre
- opened at three different venues.
At
the same time, for the indie-hearted, there was the second annual Worms Festival
- a freewheeling medley of short film screenings, poetry readings and
installation art exhibitions - over at the artist-run Plastique Kinetic Worms
gallery. Arts lovers were spoilt for choice.
FREER
REIN
Just
as the authorities were prepared to loosen the purse strings for the arts, they
also exercised a lighter touch in managing it.
In
January 1994, when artist Josef Ng caused a stir by snipping off his pubic hair
in a performance, funding for an entire art form - performance art - was cut by
the NAC and Ng was - and is still - barred from practising his art
here.
There
was also a similar de facto ban on forum theatre - a form in which audiences
could act out changes to the plot - on the grounds that both were scriptless
public performances.
It
was a time of fear and uncertainty for artists.
Just
six years later, however, in the year 2000, R(A)-rated plays were performed in
the Housing Board heartland without too much fuss, and sex- and gay-themed
productions were produced by theatre groups everywhere.
But
out-of-bound markers still exist. The authorities made it clear that the one
no-go area, in Singapore's multi-racial society, were works that could offend
racial and religious sensibilities.
The
case in point was Talaq, a play about an Indian Muslim woman in an abusive
marriage. It was denied a licence to perform in English and Malay in October so
as not to offend Tamil Muslim sensibilities. It was first performed in Tamil two
years ago.
Despite
the authorities' stand on the play, however, no action has been taken against
its theatre group, Agni Koothu, so far.
Nor
were attempts made to stop a group of artists from setting up a proposed website
to document censored works for research and discussion, including the English
script of Talaq.
The
Talaq case also sparked off a government review of whether the Public
Entertainment Licensing Unit (Pelu), which licenses all events ticketed or held
in a public space, is the best body to make judgement calls on something more
specialised like the arts.
Artistes
hope that, instead of Pelu, licensing calls can be made by a citizen body,
including representation from the arts community, next year.
COMMUNICATION
- MORE NEEDED
'MORE'
was, in essence, the buzzword of 2000.
But
there is a third irony here because more does not equal better art.
Certainly,
that was the case with large-scale productions. Mainstream musicals like the
Mandarin Mr Beng and Sampek Engtay - an Indonesian-Singapore collaboration -
were let down by a lack of craft and poor singing.
More
experimental works like Desdemona, devised in inter-cultural workshops, were an
awkward half-way house between didacticism and freewheeling
process.
This
year, too, saw more newspapers covering the arts than ever before, with news
reports and reviews.
Yet,
the gap between artistes and the media remained as great as
ever.
When
news of No Art Day first broke, for example, participating artistes accused the
media of sensationalising a day of individual reflection on the arts by calling
it a 'protest'.
But
with a slippery concept that both takes a public stand and tries to play itself
down as a private activity, NAD was not framed clearly to journalists from the
start.
Sure,
there has been a hive of activity in the arts scene: better arts housing, more
full-time performers.
But
amid the rat-race for funds and grants, Singapore is still streaks away from a
mature, developed arts scene.
Writing,
whether for the stage or books or even arts criticism, has generally languished
in terms of funding and attention.
Hopefully,
2001 can be more than a year of Art Days - with better communication across
artistic cliques and art forms, and more honesty about the works produced.