Venkanna drawing his comments on his booth after he was asked to stop his act
Indian artist T. Venkanna's performance artwork, where he sat naked in front of a copy of Frida Kahlo's The Two Frida's (1939), inviting visitors to his booth to sit next to him for their photograph taken for a price token of $250 came by differently for different individuals. Some disagreed with his intention and art, while some others supported him. But eventually, his work was asked to be taken down after protests against it.
Personally, I do not find an issue with the "first-hand" nudity most Singaporeans are against since there were precautions taken such as having Venkanna sit behind a black curtain and a sign placed in front of the booth, warning viewers of the content and restricting viewers to those who are 21 years and older only. If the concern is that children might be influenced or learn the wrong behavior, there certainly is nothing to worry about. Not only are there precaution measures so that people would not unknowingly chance upon the work, it is also responsibility on the part of the parents to educate the children with proper mindsets, not only with regards to the nudity behavior but also to view it as art. Protestors have failed to realize the context the work is in, where this is a proper international platform for the showcasing of artworks. Hence, the viewers ought to see the works from the point of view of the circumstance it is in, and not simply adopting a narrow-minded perspective.
Also, I am disappointed that an official of Art Stage Singapore
asked Venkanna to stop his act after protests. Quoting the Art Stage Singapore site, Art Stage Singapore Director Lorenzo Rudolf said:
“Asia is on the way to become an important platform of the international art market. No other continent has a comparable potential and comparable perspectives. Art Stage Singapore is the perfect response to its demands and needs. It is an international top event that supports and enables the connection of the rising art scenes of Asia, inclusive its galleries, collectors, art institutions and art fairs, with those worldwide and serves as an important cultural bridge between the Eastem and the Western hemispheres.”
Singapore, having said to attempt to head towards an "Art Renaissance" city, doesn't seem to be firm in her goals. Since Singapore, as mentioned, is striving towards the incorporation of arts in the citizens' everyday life. However, simply with protests, the act to take down the artwork seems to be too obliging of the criticisms of the people. If this were to continue, it might probably lead to a diminish of any possible chances for the citizens to start appreciating and learning how to accept artworks, and also widening their perspective to what is art since they would never be exposed to any more of it. Singapore has been trying to create this view of liberal arts scene, especially to foreign artists and arts advocates, but this can only be possible when people become receptive to different cultures and arts, and are willing to step out of their boundaries, which I am now question its possibility.
At the same time, to put the blame of taking down the artwork on the fact that it could be against Singapore's law to appear naked in public, in my opinion, is merely an excuse. Since, according to the deputy director of Art Stage Singapore, Mr Jose Tay, 39, permission was sought from the Media Development Authority (MDA) before Venkanna's exhibit was given the go ahead.
Towards Venkanna's exhibit, there were questioning "if the performance has to be considered as art" and "the artist an exhibitionist". Probably, some may conjure such a conclusion due to the monetary exchange ($250) involved in Venkanna's artwork, since it would appear commercialized. However, I believe that there is a certain message Venkanna is trying to convey through his work, be it the monetary exchange between the artist and the viewer, or his act of nudity. Like what he has said, posing naked and taking photographs is a part of his art installation about "removing the trappings of identity". Do not be so quick to judge Venkanna's exhibit, view the entire work as a whole, the monetary exchange; the nudity; the act of holding the viewer like in Frida Kahlo's The Two Fridas; and also the photography.
Frida Kahlo's The Two Fridas, speaks of her divorce with Diego, and the painting reflects two of herself. An utterly miserable Frida whose husband has left here sitting on the left, and a happy Frida whose husband still loves her sitting on the right. Frida's present on her left, and past on her right. In this painting, Frida uses many different symbols to represent her emotions. On the left, shows Frida's torn heart displayed to the viewer, holding a scissors with blood dripping down her white dress. Using the scissors, she tries to 'sever' the struggles she was undergoing- to step out of her sorrows, but the same time, entrapped in her misery when all she desires is for her husband, who would never return to her. And the linking vein and connected hand to the Frida on the right, suggests the act of sharing of emotions and memories. In this case, Venkanna uses monetary exchange and the clasped hands to depict the connectedness between the viewer and himself, since money may possibly be the only thing he has in common with the viewer. And to be dressed only in his "birthday suit" would be a literal way of portraying the pureness and truthfulness on the part of Venkanna in face of his viewers.
To use Kahlo's painting as his "backdrop" though may draw unwanted attention, gaining criticisms. However, Venkanna wanted to use the meaning behind that work to express himself- to share about himself to the viewer. Also, looking at Venkanna's past works, he has used works as a supplement to his work, be it an influence, an incorporation or remake. Examples would be Dream in Dream (2007) where it is based on Henri Rousseau’s The Dream(1910)and Two Moon (2007), which is based on an original work by Rousseau's The Sleeping Gypsy (1897).
Two Moon (2007)
Dream in Dream (2007)
Taken from: http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/t_venkanna_resources.htm
And lastly, I was reminded of the closure of Simon Fujiwara’s Welcome to the Hotel Munber at the Singapore Art Museum, an artwork of the Singapore Biennale 2011. Fujiwara's work was altered without consent by the Singapore Art Museum because it had graphic homosexual content, and having unable to come to agreements with the artist after he found out about the change, he decided to have it permanently closed. Fujiwara's work, like Venkanna, also deals with issues and ideas that are still unable to be accepted by most Singaporeans. Quoting Mr Olivier Henry, 38, a Singapore-based photographer and gallery owner, who said: “If there are censorship issues, these should have been brought up prior to the work being showcased." Yes, I agree to what he says to full extent. It seems unorganized that such details would probably be missed out when the artists first decide to have their work exhibited here.
Simon Fujiwara, Welcome to the Hotel Munber
"It sets a horrible precedent – what other international artist is going to be fool enough to show his work here after this?
-- Mr. Ng Yi Sheng (Link below)
Read more about Frida Kahlo: http://www.pbs.org/weta/fridakahlo/worksofart/index.html#
Read more about Simon Fujiwara’s Welcome to the Hotel Munber and its closure:
http://blogs.todayonline.com/forartssake/2011/05/25/s%E2%80%99pore-biennale-2011-a-final-word-from-our-sponsors/
http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2011/03/25/10744.simon-fujiwara-censored-at-the-singapore-biennale-2011
No comments:
Post a Comment