Conference paper, Saturday, October 20th, 11.15 a.m.
Eugene Tan: New Art Environments in Singapore and Southeast Asia
The effects of globalization for the art environment of Singapore and Southeast Asia cannot be overstated. One important consequence is the significant role that financial flows and investments play today. Among other things, this can be seen in the growing interest in Chinese and Indian art in recent years. There is a strong correlation between the economic power that a country wields and interest in the art that its produces. It is no coincidence that interest in contemporary art from China and India has increased in recent years, which has been fuelled in no small way by the growing economic interest in these countries, where their large, as yet untapped and increasingly affluent populations are seen as potential markets for multinational corporations and investors. Sadly, this has had the opposite effects for Southeast Asia. Since the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s, which was precipitated by currency speculation and resulted in the massive out-flows of speculative capital from the region, and leaving many economies in Southeast Asia weakened and vulnerable in its wake. As a result, there has been a discernible lack of economic interest and the waning of interest in art of the region. The director of a museum in America recently intimated to me that even though he wanted to do ex exhibition of art from Southeast Asia, it was difficult to do so, just because he would not be able to find the sponsorship that is necessary, on the other hand, it would be much easier to secure sponsorship for an exhibition of Chinese or Indian art.
So regrettably, Southeast Asia is better known internationally these days as one of the breeding grounds for Muslim extremists, in the American-initiated ‘global war on terror’.
The correlation between economic potential and interest in a country’s or region’s art also demonstrates the importance of the market for the art world. This situation highlights the relationship between economic power, the art market and the development of contemporary art, which reflects the importance of the art market for the development of art in the new global art system. While the market has always played an important role in this respect, in recent years, the market’s role has come to assume a new and greater significance, one reflected in the ways in which contemporary Chinese art and Indian art have developed in recent years due to the rapidly growing demand for the work, fuelled not doubt to some extent by speculation. This is in effect a conflation of economic globalization and cultural globalization, where art has now attained the status of an international asset class. The importance of the market has resulted in the disproportionate power that collectors now hold, in the complex and intricate power relationship between gallerists, curators, art critics and collectors that determines the way the art world functions. While this is a power balance that changes over time, where one group will exert more influence over the others, for example, in the 1950s, it was the critics that were influential, while it was the curator in the 60s and 90s, and the galleries in the 80s, in recent years, it has definitely the age of the collectors.
Another effect of globalization is the desire by many governments to develop cultural tourism. Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and China are some of the countries in Asia that have explored having a Guggenheim Museum in their cities. This is undoubtedly inspired by the success of the Guggenheim Bilbao, and the desire of these countries to have an instantly internationally recognized cultural institution, one which will put them on the world cultural map and hence attract tourism to their countries. Here, art is seen as a tool and instrument for economic development and progress. However, as it has been highlighted, this can also lead to problems for art development. One consequence is the way this strategy leads to a kind of cultural homogenization, the establishment of an international language of contemporary art, or more specifically, a reinforcement of the hegemony of art discourses that originate from Europe and America.
This further affects the perception of art from regions outside of Europe and America, both from the outside as well as from the inside. Singapore and other countries in Southeast Asia also have to deal with the complex situation with the West which other post-colonial societies are also coming to terms with, one of which is relationship of influences in art. As with much art from Asia, Africa and other post-colonial societies, due to its diverse histories and traditions there has always been difficulty contextualising the art that is produced in Southeast Asia. Part of the problem lies in the relationship contemporary art in the region has with art in Europe and America. It is generally accepted that despite isolated incidences where artists have attempted to introduce contemporary practices and discourses in their respective countries, contemporary art in Southeast Asia emerged in the 1980s and 1990s; sometime later than it did in Europe and America. It has also been acknowledged that contemporary art, or at least the Euro-American derived version of it, developed in Southeast Asia largely through artists who lived and worked in art centres in Europe and America, before returning to their respective countries and introducing conceptual and other post-modernist discourses and practices there. Therefore, in the West there is the difficulty of understanding how artistic styles that have developed through linear art historical modes function when they are removed from this genealogy and inserted into unfamiliar contexts. Furthermore, this is a difficulty faced by both sides. For Southeast Asian artists, there is also the burden or baggage of having to either explain away or affirm their belated adoption of an artistic style or language derived from the west. While post-colonial theories have been used to explain this relationship and the art that is produced, it has not resulted in more relevant ways to understand and perceive the art from Southeast Asia.
