To be fair, the government has invested considerable efforts and money in cultural development over the last few decades. The bill for the Esplanade - Theatres On The Bay alone is $600 million. The National Arts Council also deserves praise for being much more generous now in sponsoring performances, exhibitions and publications.
Yes, money makes the world go around. The availability of funds is a must in promoting the arts and culture. Yet money is not the only answer. The mentality of the nouveau-riche - money will buy us the arts that we want - is an attitude that we should guard against.
Sure, money can buy the artworks of late master painters such as Xu Beihong, Qi Baishi and Li Keran, but can you use it to “clone” Xu Beihong, Qi Baishi or Li Keran？ And if you neither appreciate nor treasure Xu Beihong's famous paintings of horses, you might as well buy some real horses instead.
An arts centre that offers state-of-the-art equipment can make Singapore a world-class venue for cultural events, but not a city that can create and produce world-class art performances. Likewise, you can pay a few million dollars for a much-sought-after violin but this will not turn you into a renowned violinist. A dearth of local talent, a reliance on imports and being contented as a venue for cultural activities are indications that what we lack is not money, but a vision and a good grasp of what is needed to promote the arts.
Not only should officials who are responsible for nurturing the arts and culture understand arts production, but they should also know how to make sure that money is well spent.
They should thus be receptive to the views of artists. There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, artists are experts in their field. They can tell a good production from a bad one and will not miss out on a gem. The key is to seek expert opinion before the die is cast as what is done cannot be undone.
Secondly, thrift is a habit of outstanding artists. A master painter will not draw more lines or use more colours than necessary. A great poet will also not use a single redundant word.
You can argue that this habit may not extend beyond artistic pursuit. The truth is that there are few well-off Singaporean artists. By and large, they live a frugal and simple life and are not given to extravagance. In fact, they are more likely to help save rather than spend money.
The Chinese saying that “it takes 10 years to grow trees but 100 years to nurture a generation of good men” which highlights the process and importance of education is equally applicable to the development of the arts and culture. We should not attempt to hasten the pace and hope for quick success. A conducive and supportive environment is needed to produce talent in the arts.
Our key weakness is that an overall environment where Singaporeans love and respect the arts has not been created. Now that we have the resources, we must make sure that we also have the vision and knowledge to use them in a way that will produce the desired results.
As for according artists the respect they deserve, we have yet to develop a system that will provide them with a stable life that allows them to make full use of their potential and creativity. Our society is still obsessed with the number of “A”s one can score in examinations. Even if we had a little “Beethoven” among us, he probably would have been thoroughly demoralised when he failed to get any “A” in examinations. In a system that tests the ability to pass examinations with flying colours, I wonder how many creative cells have been destroyed.
（The writer is a correspondent of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
公平地講,近十幾來年,我國政府在文化建設(shè)方面出力不算小,花錢不算少。旁的不說,單單建濱海藝術(shù)中心就投入6億元。國家藝術(shù)理事會出錢贊助演出、展出與出書,也比過去慷慨,值得來個掌聲鼓勵。
現(xiàn)在常聽人說錢多好辦事,要發(fā)展文化藝術(shù),沒錢是萬萬不能,但也別以為有了錢就什么都能?！袄献佑绣X,還怕沒有好的藝術(shù)？”這是一種暴發(fā)戶心態(tài),我們要警惕與防止的就是這種心態(tài)。
你有的是錢,徐悲鴻的奔馬,齊白石的小蝦,李可染的水牛,你統(tǒng)統(tǒng)可以買下來,沒錯。但你只能買到人家的產(chǎn)品,不能用錢造個徐悲鴻、齊白石、李可染出來?；ㄥX買來外國名家的作品,如果不會欣賞,又不懂得珍惜,擁有幾幅徐悲鴻的奔馬,還不如養(yǎng)幾匹真馬。
有了世界設(shè)備一流的藝術(shù)中心,可以使我們成為世界一流的文化碼頭,但那絕不等于擁有世界一流的藝術(shù)。你可以花幾百萬元買一把世界一流的小提琴,但你不會因此就自動成為世界一流的小提琴家。缺乏本土產(chǎn)品,老是靠進口,滿足于文化碼頭的地位,這說明我們不缺錢,缺的是遠見,缺的是對藝術(shù)規(guī)律的了解。
發(fā)展文化藝術(shù),負責的人不僅要了解創(chuàng)作的藝術(shù),還要懂得花錢的藝術(shù),什么錢該花,什么錢不該花,要有個原則,要按照藝術(shù)規(guī)律辦事。
這方面,不能不多聽藝術(shù)家的意見,理由有二：一、畢竟人家是內(nèi)行,會分別什么是寶什么是草,也不會走寶。聽取意見在事前,不要在事后。生米已經(jīng)煮成熟飯了,叫達芬奇再世也沒法把熟飯變回生米。
二、優(yōu)秀的藝術(shù)家都善于節(jié)約。高明的畫家不會畫多余的線條,也不會亂加不必要的顏色；高明的詩人用字非?！傲邌荨?詩里頭多一個字都不行。
當然你可以說,藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作上善于節(jié)約,不等于做任何事都懂得節(jié)約。但我要說新加坡的藝術(shù)家沒幾個是大富大貴的,一般上生活都十分儉樸,粗茶淡飯過日子,奢侈浪費不是他們的長處。讓他們教你怎么花錢,實際上是教你怎么樣省錢。
古語說十年樹木,百年樹人,說的是教育事業(yè),其實文化建設(shè)也一樣,不妨說“十年樹木,百年樹文”。文化藝術(shù)事業(yè)不能拔苗助長,不能急于求成。尤其是藝術(shù)人才的培養(yǎng),講究的是良好的氣候與土壤。
新加坡發(fā)展藝術(shù)的弱點是：我們還沒有在全民當中營造愛好藝術(shù),尊重藝術(shù)家的大氣候。新加坡的藝術(shù)土壤不肥沃,我們現(xiàn)在有了錢可以施肥,但金錢本身不是肥料,花錢買肥料,沒有眼光,會買錯肥料,沒有知識,會用錯肥料,將肥料變成廢料。
再說說尊重藝術(shù)家。我們現(xiàn)在還沒有建立一個讓藝術(shù)家生活安定,并充分發(fā)揮才華的機制,整個社會仍舊籠罩在兩眼只看會考多少個“A”的氣氛中。如果我們有個小貝多芬,叫他參加會考,他很可能會被“烤”到體無完膚,一個“A”也拿不到。在這種考你會不會“考”的體制下,不知多少個藝術(shù)細胞被扼殺。
Yes, money makes the world go around. The availability of funds is a must in promoting the arts and culture. Yet money is not the only answer. The mentality of the nouveau-riche - money will buy us the arts that we want - is an attitude that we should guard against.
Sure, money can buy the artworks of late master painters such as Xu Beihong, Qi Baishi and Li Keran, but can you use it to “clone” Xu Beihong, Qi Baishi or Li Keran？ And if you neither appreciate nor treasure Xu Beihong's famous paintings of horses, you might as well buy some real horses instead.
An arts centre that offers state-of-the-art equipment can make Singapore a world-class venue for cultural events, but not a city that can create and produce world-class art performances. Likewise, you can pay a few million dollars for a much-sought-after violin but this will not turn you into a renowned violinist. A dearth of local talent, a reliance on imports and being contented as a venue for cultural activities are indications that what we lack is not money, but a vision and a good grasp of what is needed to promote the arts.
Not only should officials who are responsible for nurturing the arts and culture understand arts production, but they should also know how to make sure that money is well spent.
They should thus be receptive to the views of artists. There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, artists are experts in their field. They can tell a good production from a bad one and will not miss out on a gem. The key is to seek expert opinion before the die is cast as what is done cannot be undone.
Secondly, thrift is a habit of outstanding artists. A master painter will not draw more lines or use more colours than necessary. A great poet will also not use a single redundant word.
You can argue that this habit may not extend beyond artistic pursuit. The truth is that there are few well-off Singaporean artists. By and large, they live a frugal and simple life and are not given to extravagance. In fact, they are more likely to help save rather than spend money.
The Chinese saying that “it takes 10 years to grow trees but 100 years to nurture a generation of good men” which highlights the process and importance of education is equally applicable to the development of the arts and culture. We should not attempt to hasten the pace and hope for quick success. A conducive and supportive environment is needed to produce talent in the arts.
Our key weakness is that an overall environment where Singaporeans love and respect the arts has not been created. Now that we have the resources, we must make sure that we also have the vision and knowledge to use them in a way that will produce the desired results.
As for according artists the respect they deserve, we have yet to develop a system that will provide them with a stable life that allows them to make full use of their potential and creativity. Our society is still obsessed with the number of “A”s one can score in examinations. Even if we had a little “Beethoven” among us, he probably would have been thoroughly demoralised when he failed to get any “A” in examinations. In a system that tests the ability to pass examinations with flying colours, I wonder how many creative cells have been destroyed.
（The writer is a correspondent of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
公平地講,近十幾來年,我國政府在文化建設(shè)方面出力不算小,花錢不算少。旁的不說,單單建濱海藝術(shù)中心就投入6億元。國家藝術(shù)理事會出錢贊助演出、展出與出書,也比過去慷慨,值得來個掌聲鼓勵。
現(xiàn)在常聽人說錢多好辦事,要發(fā)展文化藝術(shù),沒錢是萬萬不能,但也別以為有了錢就什么都能?！袄献佑绣X,還怕沒有好的藝術(shù)？”這是一種暴發(fā)戶心態(tài),我們要警惕與防止的就是這種心態(tài)。
你有的是錢,徐悲鴻的奔馬,齊白石的小蝦,李可染的水牛,你統(tǒng)統(tǒng)可以買下來,沒錯。但你只能買到人家的產(chǎn)品,不能用錢造個徐悲鴻、齊白石、李可染出來?；ㄥX買來外國名家的作品,如果不會欣賞,又不懂得珍惜,擁有幾幅徐悲鴻的奔馬,還不如養(yǎng)幾匹真馬。
有了世界設(shè)備一流的藝術(shù)中心,可以使我們成為世界一流的文化碼頭,但那絕不等于擁有世界一流的藝術(shù)。你可以花幾百萬元買一把世界一流的小提琴,但你不會因此就自動成為世界一流的小提琴家。缺乏本土產(chǎn)品,老是靠進口,滿足于文化碼頭的地位,這說明我們不缺錢,缺的是遠見,缺的是對藝術(shù)規(guī)律的了解。
發(fā)展文化藝術(shù),負責的人不僅要了解創(chuàng)作的藝術(shù),還要懂得花錢的藝術(shù),什么錢該花,什么錢不該花,要有個原則,要按照藝術(shù)規(guī)律辦事。
這方面,不能不多聽藝術(shù)家的意見,理由有二：一、畢竟人家是內(nèi)行,會分別什么是寶什么是草,也不會走寶。聽取意見在事前,不要在事后。生米已經(jīng)煮成熟飯了,叫達芬奇再世也沒法把熟飯變回生米。
二、優(yōu)秀的藝術(shù)家都善于節(jié)約。高明的畫家不會畫多余的線條,也不會亂加不必要的顏色；高明的詩人用字非?！傲邌荨?詩里頭多一個字都不行。
當然你可以說,藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作上善于節(jié)約,不等于做任何事都懂得節(jié)約。但我要說新加坡的藝術(shù)家沒幾個是大富大貴的,一般上生活都十分儉樸,粗茶淡飯過日子,奢侈浪費不是他們的長處。讓他們教你怎么花錢,實際上是教你怎么樣省錢。
古語說十年樹木,百年樹人,說的是教育事業(yè),其實文化建設(shè)也一樣,不妨說“十年樹木,百年樹文”。文化藝術(shù)事業(yè)不能拔苗助長,不能急于求成。尤其是藝術(shù)人才的培養(yǎng),講究的是良好的氣候與土壤。
新加坡發(fā)展藝術(shù)的弱點是：我們還沒有在全民當中營造愛好藝術(shù),尊重藝術(shù)家的大氣候。新加坡的藝術(shù)土壤不肥沃,我們現(xiàn)在有了錢可以施肥,但金錢本身不是肥料,花錢買肥料,沒有眼光,會買錯肥料,沒有知識,會用錯肥料,將肥料變成廢料。
再說說尊重藝術(shù)家。我們現(xiàn)在還沒有建立一個讓藝術(shù)家生活安定,并充分發(fā)揮才華的機制,整個社會仍舊籠罩在兩眼只看會考多少個“A”的氣氛中。如果我們有個小貝多芬,叫他參加會考,他很可能會被“烤”到體無完膚,一個“A”也拿不到。在這種考你會不會“考”的體制下,不知多少個藝術(shù)細胞被扼殺。