• Arts Residencies
• Reciprocal Residencies
• Arts Map
• Arts Management
• Writing
• Performing Arts
• Visual Arts
• Exhibitions on Tour
• Utopia
• Special Projects
• Arts Events
  • Exhibition Openings
  • Annual Forum
  • Writers Events
  • Performance & Workshops
  • Special Events
• Publications
• Partners

Knowledge in working with the arts
and Asia

Transcripts

Kanaga Sabapathy, Contemporary Asian Arts Centre, Singapore

Knowledge in the Arts
(click here for PDF version)

The topic is wide-ranging, of vital importance and by no means settled. For this occasion I have nominated 3 matters for discussion, matters that surface from more than thirty years of researching, teaching and curating Southeast Asian Art, within the region and beyond. Even as my observations spring from such particulars, their implications are not exclusive to them.

The 3 are:

1. national/inter-national
2. access/excess
3. projects/collegiality.

There is a fourth, which must be mentioned, namely: the public. No doubt this matter is of interest to all constituents.

What follows is a summary of a presentation made in Melbourne in July, 2003.

1 National/Inter-national

In this instance, the designation inter-national points to the endeavours in constituting regions or conceptualising region-ness.

The tendency to map the world in regions attained marked prominence after the Second World War, especially with the onset of the cold war. Southeast Asia has been mapped and re-mapped throughout the twentieth century. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is the most recent manifestation in constituting the lands and seas between India on the west and China and Japan on the northeast into a distinct region. It is a configuration that floats on shifting parameters and tremulous desires. On the one hand there is an insistence on timeless commonalities that are not quantifiable; on the other, there is insistence, equally emphasized, on the sovereignty of individual nation-states, underlined by reminders that region-ness is constituted by an association of nations whose discreet boundaries (i.e. reinforcing separateness) are to be upheld. Claims of region-ness are advanced and wobble along these trajectories.

The ramifications of such a situation in determining the formation of knowledge in/for the arts are marked; they are consequential. Presentations of art practices and productions, their designations and identities are largely secured along national grounds/criteria. When these are clustered under the rubric of a region, the national stake prevails there is little movement to peer across borders and speculate on extra territorial affiliations or connections. For instance the ASEAN Art Exposition, which is the most extensive undertaken by the association's cultural office, observed diplomatic protocols; art works are displayed along country/national designations while artists convene as bearers of national flags. In accompanying symposia, there never is any curiosity in goings on in neignbourhoods.

Nations do not exist as totalities; indeed, the dangers of claiming such exclusive, privileged autonomies and acting on those claims have been more than vivified recently (i.e. the war on terrorism). Nations are inter-locking entities, re-defining their designations and spheres of determination. This is especially evident in cultural/creative practices. In these regards, it is vital that levels of knowledge, experience and engagement between nations is raised and maintained at enhanced degrees. Within Southeast Asia, such inter-nation relationships and connections are to be advanced with acquisition of language skills, continuous and frequent inter-residencies, gaining familiarity with cultural institutions as well as practitioners and scholars. These facilitate access to resources and engendering collegiality.

2 Access/Excess

We are familiar with the following refrain: it is difficult to gain access to materials; an equally familiar, somewhat shrill complaint is that there are no materials. Do these allegations bear scrutiny? They do in so far as that materials are not systematically, categorically archived. In this regard, resources by which materials are assessed as germane to particular interests are not developed. This, in turn, highlights insufficiency, insufficiency in institutional foundations for supporting, developing and shaping studies of cultural/creative practices in Southeast Asia. Here is a domain that needs to be developed.

The allegations do not bear scrutiny when juxtaposed with extant materials; indeed, the reverse appears to be the case, namely: there is excess of materials, in raw and uncooked conditions! I have deliberately cast the matter in inflated terms in order to call attention to circumstances in which study/scholarship have to be advanced. Research entails tracking materials (texts and artifacts) on the assumption that they exist, rather than the other way around. In other words, and borrowing a term from anthropology, field work encompasses surveying, collecting, collating and scrutinizing art works as well as writings on art at primary levels. Yes, these are exhausting actions and many of us who are trained primarily as bibliophiles may not be sufficiently prepared to undertake such arduous, multi-disciplinary engagements. In my view, such engagements are unavoidable Researchers have to develop skills/methods for dealing with materials at this level.

3 Projects/Collegiality

This matter is related to those raised in 1 and 2, most especially the latter. Projects are usually mooted and developed by individuals and institutions, working in tandem with one another. From time to time, projects are initiated and advanced collaboratively, i.e. involving inter-institutional engagements across national boundaries, although this is uncommon. A cursory survey of the domains of practice and of critical scholarship repeatedly points to spotty knowledge and scant awareness of the range of work conducted in the diverse fields of cultural practice and of individuals/institutions engaged in them. In other words, there is insufficient collegiality. Consequently, individuals involved in projects in the region are unknown to one another; completed projects gather dust in basements of institutions and are largely forgotten. Knowledge is cumulative. Yet, gains that can be accrued through accumulation are never manifest as there are no schemes by which projects and individuals are pressed into webs of connection.

The insufficiency hampers (a) rigorous appraisals of fields of enquiry (b) determining cultural and creative policies (c) planning or furthering programmes that widen the scope of practice (d) ascertaining interests of practitioners (e) advancing research and scholarship. Such outcomes are of great concern for policy makers, funding bodies, administrators, managers, curators, teachers and scholars/writers.

In these respects it is recommended that agencies and institutions incorporate in their mandates facilitations for collegiality.

Back to top