A recent visual display by local arts group TheatreWorks, which consisted of a few live chickens, frogs and terrapins around a steamboat, landed it in hot soup. It has been accused of cruelty to animals and the creator of the art work, a foreign artist, has been questioned by police.
Many find the situation hard to understand since control over the arts has already been very much eased. Go to a play, not only are you likely to hear vulgar words, you are also likely to be greeted by plenty of semi-nudity, naked backs and homosexual scenes. And they may not even be graded R （A）。 （Chinese-language play “Bird of Same Feather” which portrays a homosexual family positively is graded PG） . So what are the artists grumbling about？ Do they ever become satisfied？
This remark has hit the nail right on the head - artists will never be satisfied or they will not be artists in the first place, or so they think.
The human society can never be perfect and human beings are far from being flawless. Being idealists, it is not unusual for artists to be dissatisfied. The question is what are they unhappy about and how to deal with this “discontent”。
After several decades of developments, the number of Singaporeans with insight and different views on national affairs is on the rise. People are beginning to question the ideology and lifestyle which they have been used to.
Moreover, artists from different backgrounds do not raise their doubts in similar manners. Those from the minority communities, as they do not feel strong enough, may opt for ways that are more drastic and extreme. Just look at examples overseas, minority groups which want attention will bomb an embassy - they see the use of violence as the best way to ensure that they are heard.
The frustrations and unhappiness of some artists, especially performing artists, are understandable. They are concerned and hold unique views about the future of the nation. They have something to say, yet often feel the channels are lacking.
To address the doubts and concerns from artists in a way that does not give rise to social problems and affect national unity, is a challenge that the society must overcome.
Fortunately, the government by and large appreciates the freedom artists need to express their views in artistic ways, as evident in the greater leeway enjoyed by the performing arts over the years.
However, in handling individual disputes, the departments involved have sometimes shown themselves to be impatient and rash.
Take, for instance, the Agni Kootthu incident, it was really unnecessary for the police to turn up at the Drama Centre and to place the head of the arts group under arrest. Foreign journalists who were present snapped pictures of the scene and made them available all over the world. The damage that has been done to our national image will take lots of public relation spending to repair.
While the government has been stressing the importance of the arts, how to respond to the increasingly adventurous and non-traditional arts forms is a great challenge.
The recent quarrels in the artistic circles will put both sides to the test. If the government could use its authority more appropriately and show more tolerance towards the artists, this should be conducive to the overall environment. As for the performing artists, we would like to see them display more wits and strategies in achieving their aims.
Regrettably, the government appears to be the keenest audience of action by the artists. For the man in the street, it is not that they do not agree with the views of the artists, they are just not bothered. Is it because the works of the artists have failed to touch them or is it just the usual apathy of Singaporeans？ Whatever the reasons, the phenomenon makes a mockery of claim by artists that they care about the society and government plan to make Singapore a Renaissance city.
（The writer is Lianhe Zaobao's zbNow reporter. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
本地藝術(shù)界為何風波不斷？
韓詠紅
本地劇團劇藝工作坊的視覺藝術(shù)展,因為用了幾只活雞、青蛙和烏龜在滾沸的火鍋周圍活動,被投訴虐待動物,結(jié)果勞動警察上門調(diào)查,該展品的外籍作者還被請到警局協(xié)助調(diào)查。
許多人很不解,藝術(shù)的尺度不是已經(jīng)比過去開放多了嗎？踏進劇場,別說是粗話,半*、背*、同性戀的場面都比比皆是,而且還不一定R（A）（對同性戀家庭有正面評價的華語劇《假鳳虛凰》就是PG級）。藝術(shù)家們還在嚷嚷什么？難道他們永遠都不會滿足的嗎？
這句話說對了——藝術(shù)家永遠都不會滿足,否則就不成其為藝術(shù)家。
因為人類社會永遠不可能完美,人本身就有很多缺陷。藝術(shù)家是理想主義者,不滿足是相當正常的。問題是,他們不滿足的是什么？如何處理這個“不滿足”？
新加坡經(jīng)過幾十年的發(fā)展,今天,越來越多有識者對國家大事有新的看法。一些深入大家血脈的意識形態(tài)和生活的方式,不再被視為理所當然。
再者,不同處境的藝術(shù)家,提出質(zhì)疑的方式又很不同。屬于少數(shù)社群的藝術(shù)家,因為力量特別微弱,所以采取的方法可能更激烈、更極端?？纯赐鈬睦?少數(shù)族群要引起注意,會安置炸彈炸大使館——他們認為,使用暴力是確保自己的聲音得到重視的途徑。
關心社會、對國家未來有特殊看法；有話想說又時而感到“欲說無門”,部分藝術(shù)家,尤其是表演藝術(shù)家的煩躁不滿,是可以理解的。
如何妥善地處理藝術(shù)家各種質(zhì)疑和挑戰(zhàn),以不使它引起社會問題、影響國家團結(jié),是整個社會必須共同面對的問題。
慶幸的是,今天的政府基本上理解藝術(shù)家需要通過藝術(shù)手法表達看法的自由,近年來,表演藝術(shù)的尺度放寬,就是明證。但是有關部門,在處理個別事件時,手段有時似乎顯得急躁、莽撞。
比如《火劇場》事件,搞到警察封禁戲劇中心,逮捕藝術(shù)總監(jiān),實在犯不著。上述場面讓外國攝影記者拍下,照片傳送到世界各角落,給國家形象造成的打擊,真不知要花多少公關費才能挽回。
政府最近頻頻表態(tài),強調(diào)藝術(shù)的重要性,但在藝術(shù)越來越蓬勃的今天,面對藝術(shù)家進行非傳統(tǒng)的嘗試,政府如何恰當?shù)膽獙?是個挑戰(zhàn)。
藝術(shù)界近日的紛爭,是場非常好的考驗。在政府的一方,如果能更適當?shù)乩檬种械臋?quán)力,對藝術(shù)家有更多容忍,對整個大局應該更有利。在表演藝術(shù)者的方面,是否能用更多智巧、謀略來達到目的,也是我們的期待。
可悲的是,藝術(shù)家的各種動作,最殷切的觀眾卻是政府。社會大眾對藝術(shù)家的質(zhì)疑與其說是不贊同,不如說是不關心。是藝術(shù)家的作品無法觸動人心,還是新加坡人不關心社會已成為習慣？不論原因是什么,這個現(xiàn)象,對于自稱關懷社會的藝術(shù)家,或是極力提倡建設文藝復興城市的政府,都是的諷刺。
Many find the situation hard to understand since control over the arts has already been very much eased. Go to a play, not only are you likely to hear vulgar words, you are also likely to be greeted by plenty of semi-nudity, naked backs and homosexual scenes. And they may not even be graded R （A）。 （Chinese-language play “Bird of Same Feather” which portrays a homosexual family positively is graded PG） . So what are the artists grumbling about？ Do they ever become satisfied？
This remark has hit the nail right on the head - artists will never be satisfied or they will not be artists in the first place, or so they think.
The human society can never be perfect and human beings are far from being flawless. Being idealists, it is not unusual for artists to be dissatisfied. The question is what are they unhappy about and how to deal with this “discontent”。
After several decades of developments, the number of Singaporeans with insight and different views on national affairs is on the rise. People are beginning to question the ideology and lifestyle which they have been used to.
Moreover, artists from different backgrounds do not raise their doubts in similar manners. Those from the minority communities, as they do not feel strong enough, may opt for ways that are more drastic and extreme. Just look at examples overseas, minority groups which want attention will bomb an embassy - they see the use of violence as the best way to ensure that they are heard.
The frustrations and unhappiness of some artists, especially performing artists, are understandable. They are concerned and hold unique views about the future of the nation. They have something to say, yet often feel the channels are lacking.
To address the doubts and concerns from artists in a way that does not give rise to social problems and affect national unity, is a challenge that the society must overcome.
Fortunately, the government by and large appreciates the freedom artists need to express their views in artistic ways, as evident in the greater leeway enjoyed by the performing arts over the years.
However, in handling individual disputes, the departments involved have sometimes shown themselves to be impatient and rash.
Take, for instance, the Agni Kootthu incident, it was really unnecessary for the police to turn up at the Drama Centre and to place the head of the arts group under arrest. Foreign journalists who were present snapped pictures of the scene and made them available all over the world. The damage that has been done to our national image will take lots of public relation spending to repair.
While the government has been stressing the importance of the arts, how to respond to the increasingly adventurous and non-traditional arts forms is a great challenge.
The recent quarrels in the artistic circles will put both sides to the test. If the government could use its authority more appropriately and show more tolerance towards the artists, this should be conducive to the overall environment. As for the performing artists, we would like to see them display more wits and strategies in achieving their aims.
Regrettably, the government appears to be the keenest audience of action by the artists. For the man in the street, it is not that they do not agree with the views of the artists, they are just not bothered. Is it because the works of the artists have failed to touch them or is it just the usual apathy of Singaporeans？ Whatever the reasons, the phenomenon makes a mockery of claim by artists that they care about the society and government plan to make Singapore a Renaissance city.
（The writer is Lianhe Zaobao's zbNow reporter. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
本地藝術(shù)界為何風波不斷？
韓詠紅
本地劇團劇藝工作坊的視覺藝術(shù)展,因為用了幾只活雞、青蛙和烏龜在滾沸的火鍋周圍活動,被投訴虐待動物,結(jié)果勞動警察上門調(diào)查,該展品的外籍作者還被請到警局協(xié)助調(diào)查。
許多人很不解,藝術(shù)的尺度不是已經(jīng)比過去開放多了嗎？踏進劇場,別說是粗話,半*、背*、同性戀的場面都比比皆是,而且還不一定R（A）（對同性戀家庭有正面評價的華語劇《假鳳虛凰》就是PG級）。藝術(shù)家們還在嚷嚷什么？難道他們永遠都不會滿足的嗎？
這句話說對了——藝術(shù)家永遠都不會滿足,否則就不成其為藝術(shù)家。
因為人類社會永遠不可能完美,人本身就有很多缺陷。藝術(shù)家是理想主義者,不滿足是相當正常的。問題是,他們不滿足的是什么？如何處理這個“不滿足”？
新加坡經(jīng)過幾十年的發(fā)展,今天,越來越多有識者對國家大事有新的看法。一些深入大家血脈的意識形態(tài)和生活的方式,不再被視為理所當然。
再者,不同處境的藝術(shù)家,提出質(zhì)疑的方式又很不同。屬于少數(shù)社群的藝術(shù)家,因為力量特別微弱,所以采取的方法可能更激烈、更極端?？纯赐鈬睦?少數(shù)族群要引起注意,會安置炸彈炸大使館——他們認為,使用暴力是確保自己的聲音得到重視的途徑。
關心社會、對國家未來有特殊看法；有話想說又時而感到“欲說無門”,部分藝術(shù)家,尤其是表演藝術(shù)家的煩躁不滿,是可以理解的。
如何妥善地處理藝術(shù)家各種質(zhì)疑和挑戰(zhàn),以不使它引起社會問題、影響國家團結(jié),是整個社會必須共同面對的問題。
慶幸的是,今天的政府基本上理解藝術(shù)家需要通過藝術(shù)手法表達看法的自由,近年來,表演藝術(shù)的尺度放寬,就是明證。但是有關部門,在處理個別事件時,手段有時似乎顯得急躁、莽撞。
比如《火劇場》事件,搞到警察封禁戲劇中心,逮捕藝術(shù)總監(jiān),實在犯不著。上述場面讓外國攝影記者拍下,照片傳送到世界各角落,給國家形象造成的打擊,真不知要花多少公關費才能挽回。
政府最近頻頻表態(tài),強調(diào)藝術(shù)的重要性,但在藝術(shù)越來越蓬勃的今天,面對藝術(shù)家進行非傳統(tǒng)的嘗試,政府如何恰當?shù)膽獙?是個挑戰(zhàn)。
藝術(shù)界近日的紛爭,是場非常好的考驗。在政府的一方,如果能更適當?shù)乩檬种械臋?quán)力,對藝術(shù)家有更多容忍,對整個大局應該更有利。在表演藝術(shù)者的方面,是否能用更多智巧、謀略來達到目的,也是我們的期待。
可悲的是,藝術(shù)家的各種動作,最殷切的觀眾卻是政府。社會大眾對藝術(shù)家的質(zhì)疑與其說是不贊同,不如說是不關心。是藝術(shù)家的作品無法觸動人心,還是新加坡人不關心社會已成為習慣？不論原因是什么,這個現(xiàn)象,對于自稱關懷社會的藝術(shù)家,或是極力提倡建設文藝復興城市的政府,都是的諷刺。