The artist, the state and the market

Singapore's arts scene is at a tipping point, with a vibrant community of artists and sophisticated audience. But three challenges remain: the deficit of trust between state and artist; moderating the influence of the market on the artists; and the penchant for experimental, inaccessible art

By Tommy Koh, Published The Straits Times, 6 Feb 2013

AS THE son of a book- loving father and an art-loving mother, I sometimes think that I was fated to play a role in our country's cultural development in the past two decades.

From 1991 to 1996, I served as the founding chairman of the National Arts Council (NAC). In 1992, I was appointed to chair the Censorship Review Committee.

I was a member of the steering committee which conceptualised and oversaw the building of the Esplanade theatres and served, subsequently, on its board from 2000 to 2007. I was the chairman of the National Heritage Board (NHB) from 2002 to 2011.

Culturally, Singapore has gone through a paradigm change since 1990. The change is both quantitative and qualitative. Today, Singapore has a rich, year-round, calendar of cultural activities. They span the whole spectrum - exhibitions, art fairs, auctions, recitals, concerts, plays, musicals, dance, theatre, film and writers festivals, book launches, lectures, workshops, conferences, etc. The quality has also risen and, in many cases, met international standards.

World class

WE HAVE some world class arts infrastructure such as the Esplanade theatres and the soon to be completed National Art Gallery. We have museums such as the Asian Civilisations Museum and the Peranakan Museum. Our two arts colleges, Nafa and Lasalle, and the Yong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music, have become internationally respected. We have the world's best collection of South- east Asian art.

We have a vibrant and growing community of writers, composers, choreographers, actors, dancers, singers, musicians, artists, curators, conservators, designers, arts administrators and gallery owners. Artistic freedom, a culture of tolerance and the acceptance of diversity, have grown stronger although they are still not optimal. The social status and incomes of our cultural workers have risen, but could go higher.

Most important of all, we have nurtured a new generation of culture-loving and heritage-loving Singaporeans. Our investments in arts education and in the brilliantly successful School of the Arts have yielded rich dividends.

Although we have made tremendous progress in the past two decades, many challenges remain. Let me briefly discuss three of these challenges.

The artist and the state

FIRST, we should try to reduce the deficit of trust between the artistic community and the Government. The problem is partly a legacy of the past, when the Government practised heavy censorship. Some artists, such as the late theatre pioneer Kuo Pao Kun, were detained. It is also partly the result of more recent actions, such as reducing the funding of an arts group or a festival, because the Government did not like a certain play or plays.

We need better communication between the artistic community and the Government. The communication should be two- way and based on mutual respect. We also need policymakers and administrators who have domain knowledge and have an affection for culture and the arts.

When I was the chairman of NAC, I hosted a different group of artists to tea each month. My purpose was to befriend them, to earn their trust and to convince them that my agenda was to help them to succeed. Problems were often sorted out over a cup of tea.

When an attempt was made to stigmatise forum theatre and The Necessary Stage, I wrote to this newspaper to defend them. If I had not done so, my narrative that the chairman of NAC is a patron and champion of our artists would have been shown to be just empty talk. I failed, however, to protect performance artist Josef Ng from the wrath of law enforcement agencies.

The artist and the market

SECOND, many of our artists find themselves caught in a moral dilemma. They need money to survive. They need to sell their works to collectors and the art market. At the same time, they fear that by seeking to cater to the needs and preferences of the collectors and the market, they will be seduced by money and lose their integrity.

On balance, however, the market serves the interest of the artist and should not be demonised. The public sector plays a balancing role. When we acquire the works of artists for our museums, we do so based on artistic merit and not market value. We confer awards on our artists based solely on their artistic achievements and not their commercial success.

The state has an important role to play as a patron of the arts and as a balance to the power of the market. For example, theatre and dance companies are finding it increasingly hard to stage performances because of rising rentals. The state should step in to help and do so more generously. Ideally, we should try to create a virtuous triangle, consisting of the artist, the state and the market.

High art or popular art

THIRD, one of the ongoing debates in Singapore is over whether our cultural policy should be populist or elitist. I think this is a false choice. I believe that there is no contradiction between supporting high art and popular art. Indeed, we should do both. In music, for example, we should support classical music as well as other genres such as popular (pop) and jazz. I was, therefore, very pleased when the NAC conferred the Cultural Medallion on popular performer Dick Lee and jazz pianist Jeremy Monteiro.

What we need is balance. In recent years, we may have lost that balance and veered too much towards what I would not call elitist, but the cutting edge or experimental. For example, in recent editions of the Festival of the Arts, there were too few mainstream items and too many from the sidestream.

I also think that the Singapore Biennale should refocus on South-east Asia because we cannot possibly compete with the older and well-established biennales of Venice, Sao Paolo, etc, which have a global focus.

Our comparative advantage is in presenting South-east Asian art to the world. I also think that the curators should include more works which are accessible and fewer works which are comprehensible only to experts in contemporary art.

The pendulum should come back to the centre and not swing to the other extreme. We should not dumb down the activities of NAC and NHB. We should not underestimate our citizens. We should continue to push forward and build up our intellectual and cultural capital. We should commission new works and support our talented young artists even when we find their works to be unfamiliar or uncomfortable.

When confronted by a work which provokes puzzlement or negative reactions, I always remind myself that when the Impressionist painters made their debut, they were denounced by the French artistic establishment. The lesson learnt is that we should always have an open mind.

Culturally, Singapore has passed the tipping point. The cultural renaissance of Singapore has taken off. Going forward, the Government should concentrate less on building hardware and more on building software.

This means investing more money in acquisitions, in training and human capital and in the development of our intellectual and cultural capital. The vision of remaking Singapore into the cultural capital of South-east Asia is within reach.

To reach this goal, the artist, the Government and the community will have to work even more closely and harmoniously.

The writer is a special adviser at the Institute of Policy Studies.