VALENTINE WILLE FINE ART

Introduction

50 years is a long stretch in any modern art history, and indeed in any modern history. The intensity and pace of change and development, the tumultuous progress of the 20^th century into the 21^st, have caused most aspects of our experience of the world to transform seemingly overnight, or at least in one generation shift. Visual art practice has largely followed suit, reacting to and growing out of that experience.

The 50^th anniversary of Malaysia’s independence is as much a time to pause and think as it is a time to celebrate. It is an occasion to reflect on the trials and lessons of our country’s nascent years, and on where we stand in relation to this now, no less in the visual arts than in any other field.

Between Generations: 50 Years Across Modern Art in Malaysia is not an attempt to chart a linear, evolutionary art history. Rather this exhibition explores interconnections between the modern pioneers of art practice in our new nation, and Malaysian artists, born after Merdeka, working today. Although they are really only one generation apart, they might at the outset seem to come from different worlds, due perhaps to the transformation of our environment in the past few decades, but also to the rise of new technologies, methodologies and thinking in the visual arts in general. This exhibition brings the works of 25 key modern pioneer artists face to face with a broad spectrum of contemporary works, drawing on what binds and differentiates them in terms of their ambitions and strategies, in the context of what seem to be prevailing themes and disciplines in Malaysian art practice. At the same time, we have invited a group of contemporary artists, many of whom also work as art writers, curators and administrators, to share their personal responses to the role and influence of the artists of that earlier generation. By doing so, we hope that the centrality of our roles as curators for this exhibition can be negated while the readings on the influence of our pioneers can be further personalized, expanded and enriched by the participating artists themselves. It signifies a much organic collaborative approach between curators and visual artists in providing multiple contexts for an art exhibition.

So this project is prompted, first of all, by the recognition of a need for more expansive dialogue in Malaysian art practice, and getting contemporary artists to engage with the work of their predecessors seems a step towards this. Concurrently it seems timely to assess and bring to the public light two important pioneering collections of modern art in Malaysia – belonging to Universiti Malaya and Universiti Sains Malaysia, respectively. Their historical contexts are telling. The collection at Universiti Malaya (UM) began as early as 1955, making it the first institutional collection of fine art in the c0untry (1), which was later divided between UM and what had become the National University of Singapore in 1966, after the two countries parted. Universiti Sains Malaysia’s (USM) collection was born in 1972, at a crucial, volatile, fertile juncture in Malaysian life and culture, shortly after the events of 1969. Issues of nationalism, modernity, identity were at the fore. Around the world, the 1970s marked a revolution in attitudes and ideas.

On a broader level, we hope that this exhibition and publication offers to a wide public, which includes university students from different disciplines, the opportunity to consider our modern art heritage and its relation to the contemporary, to identify and relate to the prevailing concerns that have occupied artists in Malaysia and the different ways in which they have sought to deal with them.

A generation of pioneers

Satu Generasi Perintis

While modern art practice in the country cannot be said to begin with Merdeka, it was during the short run-up to independence and the two decades to follow that saw the coming together of an idea of a Malaysian art scene, and a Malaysian art discourse.

Prior to the 1950s, art activity in British Malaya was predominantly centred around Chinese artists, largely new immigrants, who set up studios and artists’ associations in Penang and Singapore, and founded the first art college, the Nanyang Academy of Art (1938), while there were a few local artists like Abdullah Ariff, who had also set up a professional practice.

In the 1950s, various new factors began to give a firmer shape to the practice and appreciation of art around the country. Key artists’ groups emerged. Local private collectors in Kuala Lumpur began to play a supportive role for artists. UM initiated their collection of local art. An Arts Council was formed (1952) and the National Art Gallery was established (1958), spearheaded by a forward-looking committee dedicated to promoting local modern art. Promising talents were sent abroad to study art and art education, who would later come back to practice, and develop art education around the country. In the 1960s as some artists returned from studies abroad, together with other professionals, activity expanded – more exhibitions were held, reviews were published, institutions like Bank Negara and the LNN (2) (now Tenaga Nasional) began collecting.

The “pioneering” generation of Malaysian artists we refer to in this project were mostly born between the late1920’s and late 1940’s. Coming of age and forging their careers in the 50s and 60’s, their work developed in this busy and interesting context of the building of a nation and the shaping of an art scene, which became more complex as the nation headed into the 70s.

For this project, we have tried to identify 25 artists who best represent this generation, whose works have somehow become iconic in our appreciation of Malaysian art, who forged new approaches, developed original interpretations of the Malaysian subject, who through their work, organisational activities and teaching influenced their peers and to some extent the work and thinking of younger Malaysian artists.

We do not claim that our selection is definitive, and there are significant and interesting figures who may seem to have been missed here. Our understanding of the art scene from this period is necessarily influenced by what has been previously published, by the choices made by key institutional and private collections, and the views and recollections of the art community. One key publication we have referred to is “Modern Artists of Malaysia”, a collection of articles written by the late Redza Piyadasa and TK Sabapathy (who also edited the book), published in 1983 (3). Sabapathy and Piyadasa, through their research and efforts, have somewhat defined our picture of Malaysian art development up to the 80s. While we await further studies on the subject, we may use their findings and propositions as a template on which to posit new readings.

The majority of the artists we have identified are included in that 1983 publication, with the exceptions of Joseph Tan and Lee Kian Seng. While each of the 25 artists has made their individual contribution to Malaysian art practice, our point here is to look at their work in the context of the time in which they were working, representing the many different interests and developments in play. We do not mean to re-instate or reinforce a “canon” of modern Malaysian artists, but rather to enter this into discussion. The texts provided by several participating contemporary artists may serve as an appetizer for us to discuss the pioneers outside the framework of both Piyadasa and Sabapathy.

What did those pioneering years of the nation mean for the artists who were working then, and how did this translate into their artistic vision? What was the role or perception of the artist at the time? The very choice of art as a career must have seemed daunting in a new society with no real fine art tradition or infrastructure. Artists came from many different backgrounds, having trained abroad in the West (mainly the UK, but also the USA, France and Germany), in China or India or Indonesia, or locally in the Nanyang Academy which taught both traditional Chinese and early 20^th Century European approaches, or independent study under other local artists. A nation was being born, its head full of ideals of democracy, independence, and a new patriotism. Society and lifestyles were changing as we modernised, looked abroad for ideas, set up models for governance, civic life, commerce, education. We were open to new trends in architecture, design, fashion and popular culture that had spread throughout the world. At the same time, the various communities that make up the nation wished to maintain and express their cultural identity.

The formation of artists’ groups must have been an important source of support, creating opportunities for the sharing of ideas, and critical exchange. Looking back, the character of these groups also tells us something about the dynamics of the early art scene. One example is The Society of Malay Artists (founded in 1949 in Singapore), with Mahat Chaadang as president. The Wednesday Art Group (founded 1952) and Penang Art Teachers’ Council (founded 1952 and later changed to Penang Teachers Art Circle in 1965) were spearheaded by British artist Peter Harris, and Tay Hooi Keat respectively. Both were educators who championed artistic freedom, encouraging their members (4) to develop individual styles and approaches, while also providing informal training in technical skills, art history and aesthetics. The APS (Angkatan Pelukis Semananjung), later known as as Majlis Kesenian Melayu and Angkatan Pelukis SeMalaysia was established in March 24, 1956 by Indonesian-born artist Hoessein Enas and Yaacob Latiff, had a different agenda, focusing on the celebration of Malay culture in figurative depictions of kampung life, Malay beauty, family and community values. Meanwhile, the Chinese Nanyang artists remained active. Another important group that emerged was Anak Alam, a haven for young Malay poets, artists and thinkers (5).

In his essay “Merdeka Makes Art, or Does It”, in “Vision and Idea: Re-looking Modern Malaysian Art” (6), TK Sabapathy neatly sums up the situation: “….artists in the mid-50s developed diverse, competing aesthetic positions and continued to do so at the time of Merdeka and the years following political independence”. During those years, we see the introduction of a brand of “abstract expressionism”, self-consciously adopted by some artists as the ideal mode of expressing individual freedom, or even the spirit of independence. Syed Ahmad Jamal, Cheong Laitong, Yeoh Jin Leng, Anthony Lau, Ibrahim Hussein, Latiff Mohidin and Jolly Koh made up a loose group of abstract artists who would come to be seen as the heroes of Malaysian modernism. At the same time, we also see many powerful and distinctive interpretations of the Malaysian figure and Malaysian life (in the work of Zulkifli Dahalan as just one example), artists probing cultural traditions (such as Nik Zainal Abidin) and the sort of nostalgic romanticism epitomised by Hoessein Enas.

The late 60s, going into the 70s, saw a new wave of groundbreaking ventures. The Merdeka honeymoon ended abruptly with the race riots of May 1969. Issues of nationalism and ethnic agendas threw a shadow over many aspects of society, not least culture, and in 1971 they convened the National Cultural Congress (7). At the same time a new group of “returnees” from art schools abroad were itching to bring something new to the local scene. The likes of Redza Piyadasa and Sulaiman Esa set out to shift approaches to art, introducing new theories and strategies, and the use of alternative media. Exhibitions like the New Scene (1969) brought this to the public eye. Nirmala Dutt Shamughalingam, and Lee Kian Seng began working with installation, photography and performance. Artists like Ismail Zain, Joseph Tan, Choong Kam Kow, Long Thien Shih to name just a few, were exploring Op, Pop and other new approaches to painting.

So the early decades of art in the new nation were exciting times, a melting pot of approaches and ideas. There were competing ideologies, aesthetics, the western and the local (whether indigenous or inherited) and efforts to bring these together. Our “modern pioneers” covered a spectrum that went from realistic social narratives to conceptual installations. They were interested in our people, our lives, our landscape, how we think, what our art practice should be like.

While a number of the artists mentioned continued doing important work through the 80s and in some cases the 90s through to today, by and large activity quietened down in the years that followed this formative period. The 80s and 90s saw the continued popularity of abstract and gestural modes of painting, producing most notably artists like Sharifah Fatimah Zubir, Fauzan Omar, Awang Damit Ahmad and Yusof Ghani. In terms of infrastructure, more money flowed into the arts, with corporations purchasing works for their buildings and even starting galleries. A few more commercial galleries began to appear. Importantly, local art education would have become quite established, with schools such as ITM (now UitM) and the Malaysian Institute of Art (MIA) generating their own conventions or innovations, particular to their modes of teaching.

Contemporary practice

It is only a short step from this point to today. How much has changed on the art scene since the Merdeka years?

The most notable change is one of demographics – the number of artists working today has multiplied manifold, as has the number of art students. The opportunities for these artists to show their works are also greater and more diverse, while the climate is also more competitive. The art market has grown tremendously with many new commercial galleries, and with the globalisation of the art scene, there are increasing numbers of residencies and international exhibitions that can open doors for emerging artists.

While, in terms of institutional infrastructure, we might lack some of the enthusiasm of the early years, there are more independent initiatives by artists. A new breed of artists’ groups, such as Five Arts (a multi-disciplinary body begun in 1984 by visual and performing artists), the collaborative Matahati which has been going since 1989, and artist-run spaces such as Rumah Penan, Rumah Air Panas, Yayasan Kesenian Perak, Akal di Ulu, Spacekraft, Gudang and Lost Generation Space, have attempted to create an alternative sphere for practice, exhibition and discussion.

The makeup of the artist community has by and large kept its character. While it would be harder now to define the dynamics of the scene by specific groups and agendas, the unfortunately racialised aspect of art education has drawn some divisions and hampered discourse. A number of artists still choose to study abroad and come back to practice, and continue to straddle the lessons of their overseas training, and more local concerns. However, the fact that there are now very different sorts of audiences for art – international curators, art collectors, the younger masses, the general public, for example - helps to check easy divisions.

Moreover, the sheer proliferation of artists, coupled with the great openness of contemporary art, with its access to new technologies, methodologies, a plethora of visual and conceptual approaches, means that independence of mind is key to artistic survival. In the current climate, issues of culture, identity and tradition, while still important, have seemingly become less “imperative”. Ironically, it has also at the same become more complex and difficult, than during the nation-building years. The Malaysian reality has changed in very many ways. Many local artists have sought ways to translate this reality, at the same time pushing the possibilities of their practice in formal and conceptual terms. Artistic production has, perhaps, lost the “earnestness” of its early years, but makes up for it in being often witty, critical and sometimes brave.

Our selection of contemporary works, again, does not intend to create a definition of Malaysian contemporary art. We hope they represent some of the many approaches in current practice, and we particularly chose works we felt would relate in some way to the efforts and concerns of the preceding generation of Malaysian artists.

For the exhibition and this publication, we wanted to move away from the chronological approach which has often been employed in the reading of modern art in Malaysia. We have therefore chosen to organise this exhibition into flexible thematic “clusters” of works from both the pioneer and contemporary generations. Artists and artworks may not necessarily be placed according to their appearance in the time-line of history, but according to certain prevailing and changing themes.

The “clusters” or “themes” are based on several prevalent characteristics that have surfaced across 50 years of modern art in Malaysia, such as the figure, abstraction, the landscape, sculpture, cultural traditions, the search for new strategies and social consciousness. Our selection of works began with what was held within the UM and USM collections, and was extended to works from other institutional, private and artists’ collections. We chose works which we felt best represented prominent tendencies of the artists, and also for their suitability to a chosen theme, considering also their physical condition. We particularly chose contemporary works that we felt might instigate dialogue if placed in a particular cluster.

We wanted to keep the exhibition modular, open-ended and fluid, to instigate multiple narratives that could be further explored in different trajectories by other curators, visitors and readers. The exercise is experimental and hypothetical, we hope it will provoke questions and different ways of reading the history of modern art in Malaysia – how certain artists or artworks can be related or associated or inter-connected in many different ways with other artists/artworks across generations, allowing for multi-dimensional, overlapping discourses.

We hope that the framework we have attempted reflects the hybrid, organic character that we feel has characterised the Malaysian art scene in both its founding years and today, with the proviso that we are functioning within certain limitations. We hope that the exhibition as a whole supports an argument that modern art in Malaysia has always been plural, multi-cultural, diversified, trans-disciplinary, cutting across borders (including geographical borders), and thus dynamic. That there is no frozen, monolithic, or ‘absolute’ way of representing ‘modern Malaysian art history’, or for that matter ‘modern Malaysian art’ or ‘Malaysian identity’ in either the local or the international art scene is implied by the diversity of the exhibited artworks.

We would like, finally, to suggest that there are many intertwining, inter-connected and inter-locking ‘faces’ of modern art in Malaysia, and that these different faces (or inter-faces) may put forward contradictory pictures, which eventually have to be acknowledged, and even celebrated and respected (or debated and contested in a civilized way).

Beverly Yong and Hasnul J. Saidon

Penang and Kuala Lumpur, August 2007

Notes

(1) Refers to TK Sabapathy, “Past-present : A History of the University Art Museum” in TK Sabapathy (ed) (2002), Past, Present, Beyond – Re-nascence of an Art Collection, Singapore : NUS Museums, National University of Singapore

(2) LLN is a Malay acronym for Lembaga Letrik Negara

(3) Piyadasa, Redza & Sabapathy, TK (1983), Modern Artists of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur : Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka

(4) The Wednesday Art Group included Cheong Laitong, Patrick Ng Kah Onn, Syed Ahmad Jamal, Jolly Koh, Anthony Lau and Dzulkifli Buyong among others, and the Penang Art Teachers’ group, Abdullah Ariff, Kuo Ju Ping and Lee Joo among others.

(5) including Latiff Mohidin.

(6) TK Sabapathy (ed) (1994), Vision & Idea : Relooking Modern Malaysian Art, Kuala Lumpur : National Art Gallery

(7) National Cultural Congress was held in Universiti Malaya in 1971