Two Nanyang(s)

 

I had the opportunity to attend both the talk "Two Nanyang Styles" by Kwok Kian Chow and the 100 Years of Singapore art exhibition at the Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre (SCCC) yesterday. 

Kwok's lecture Two Nanyang Styles

I learnt of two 'threads' of Nanyang Style (s) which both present very different approaches to the art. It was informative and reminded me of my own language limits and the untranslatable. More work must be done to better understand the artistic landscape and the range of artistic expressions during this time. 

The Q&A that followed the talk was quite interesting as it added another layer of depth to the overall session. There were a good number of questions emerging from the session. Glad to see the public interest in this subject. 

The question about defining art as "Singaporean" was particularly thought-provoking. Not the question itself, but I was surprised that there was a 'need to define 'Singapore art'. I guess it was staring in my face right? This is an event 'accompanying' the 100 Years of Singapore Art. So, of course, Singapore is always at the back. 

Yet, I wonder if this line of questioning is also nationalism at play. If so, the 'claim' of Nanyang Style as an expression of Singapore Identity becomes a marker of cultural identity. Something I am critical about - if nationalism and art only have this kind of relationship where art performs as a kind of marker of 'national' identity. We lose the ability to see the world in other ways.  

Another question was about the 'continuity' of Nanyang Style amongst younger artists is quite worth noting here for me in relation to the Post-Nanyang art project that I am working on now. I am still exploring, so it is at this point about art and artists performing modernity, the limits and what we cannot see from the cultural worker position. I would like to know if this question has anything to do with collecting art. 

I wish there were some discussions regarding the role of historians, institutions, and the broader implications of the Nanyang Style(s) in the art world.

Nanyang Style (s) is not just the work of artists but also the labour of historians and institutions. Naturally, there is an impulse for historians and institutions to unpack this further since there is increasing interest in these pioneering moments. That is worth thinking about too, but we should also be equally critical of the impulse to make history. 

Has art become a tool in nation-building? (of course, it has, but at what expense?) What are the tensions that arise from this? Or trade-offs that can arise when art is instrumentalised for nation-building purposes.

What is the contemporary value and perspective we gain from understanding this idea of the past? 

In addition, there is an interest from the art market since some of these artists performed well in auctions. 

Cont' part 2 on the exhibition.