The other frequently used line of complaint about our arts scene and our media is about censorship and regulation. It’s claimed that our government and our society are too prudish about pushing artistic boundaries with regard to taboos like sex, homosexuality, and racial and religious issues. Those liberal-minded artists and youths argue that these restrictions are excessive, and that they need to be relaxed in order to foster a more vibrant society.
I think this particularly angry blogger (Singapore = Arts hub? Srsly?) sums up some of the complaints quite well. In summary, she goes on a rant about how the arts in Singapore have been stifled by these boundaries and taboos; and then, after being inspired by an obviously crazed teacher of hers from her Scriptwriting class and after parroting and touting a hackneyed list of Western definitions of what art is supposed to be, she draws the conclusion that there is no way the arts could flourish in Singapore because we’re too concerned about making sure nobody gets offended and angered! What an immature rant. I can safely say this attitude is reflective of the much of our liberal younger generation today – their dream is to offend the sensibilities of our nation’s conservative majority (including their grandparents, parents, relatives, of course) in order to see raunchier stuff deemed by them as “true art”.
First, has the exclusion of certain taboo topics such as explicit sex, alternative lifestyles, race and religion really limited the growth and the quality of our arts scene? It doesn’t seem that way in reality. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, Singapore’s arts scene has always been pretty active, and has grown noticeably over the years in spite of those supposed restrictions on the arts. In my opinion, if you NEED to rely on explosive issues to produce something good, then you’re probably not much of an artist, are you?
Want proof? How about the hundreds of Hollywood movies that are regularly screened in Singapore cinemas every single year without fail? If they're screened here, it means they've successfully stayed within our boundaries - yet many of them, instead of being bland, textureless failures, go on to win Oscars and Golden Globes even though they don't push racial and religious boundaries, for example. They take a universally acceptable topic and do it well - that's what a good artist does. Why does art need to talk about those controversial topics to be art? That's a fatal assumption that so many youngsters blindly make.
Hi there, I think you have sort of missed the mark at where the angry blogger was trying to hit (no offence).
ReplyDeleteIt's not that we NEED to rely on explosive issues to produce art. It's the fact that art, in itself, is largely about pushing boundaries, expressing creativity and generally being free to explore aspects of our imaginations and beyond. What Singapore is doing however, is telling us that "hey, you can make art, but only within these lines." This basically results in a sort of half-baked version of what people COULD produce had they been given full artistic freedom.
Artists don't rally against exclusion of taboo topics because they specifically think that these ideas are necessary to produce art. It's the basic principle of knowing that they have the freedom to approach the topics if they so wish. And perhaps you don't view art in the same way as others do, but to some artists, topics like explicit sex, alternative lifestyles, race and religion are things which are important to them. Just as painters use certain pictures and images to relay a specific point that they want to make, some artists may only be able to relay their messages through concepts which are considered "taboo" in Singapore society.
I must also say that Hollywood movies are definitely not a good example of "good art" or even art at all. Hollywood movies are produced for commerical success and hence are infused with elements to make them marketable to the masses from the get-go. Artists, on the other hand, are usually not ridiculously concerned with commercial profits. Sure, they still need to make a living, but to them, getting their work out there is the most important and it is okay if not everyone likes it. And also, Singapore censors hundreds of movies every year and even bans some, so 'successful' screenings isn't a good indicator that those movies can be considered 'good art'.
For that matter, there are no good artists and bad artists. Which is the fundamental issue here. There is just art and people who like to make art. Some people don't accept certain forms, but that doesn't mean it isn't good.
So really, overall, I think you're being overly critical of the younger generation. We are not sex-crazed maniacs who want to parade naked on the streets just for the heck of it. Neither do we want to offend our families just for the sake of doing it (who would want to do that?). All we ask for is the freedom to do what we want and say what we want (within reasonable limits) without having to always look over our shoulder and wonder if the police are going to show up at our doorstep the next day for corrupting the public morality or something equally ridiculous.