12 Jul 2007, ST
By Adeline Chia
HOW many ways can art offend? Let us count the ways.
Azhanti High Lightning, an installation artwork at the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (Nafa) which ended last week, drew public ire for its video which showed the artist slaughtering a pig.
The 21-minute video was part of a large installation spread over seven rooms by British artist Simon Birch, and included a large robot head sculpture and seven oil portraits.
In a short and artily edited clip in the video, he is shown striking a samurai sword at the pig's throat and beheading it in a few strokes.
Animal lovers saw red; but the artist didn't blush.
Then there was the controversy generated by a photography exhibition where art collective A Dose Of Light concocted an elaborate tale for a 'conceptual artwork'.
The group's website claimed that the 36 pictures which were to go on show at the Out Of Focus exhibition in City Hall were taken by a schizophrenic photographer named Wu Xiao Kang, who later killed himself.
It even started an online petition for the return of Wu's roll of film from an unnamed German institute, which gathered about 100 signatures.
When it was revealed in a Life! report that Wu didn't exist and the photos were actually taken by the three photographers in the collective, there was a public outcry.
The organiser of the ongoing exhibition, who had also been duped, pulled out the pictures from the show.
So, cruelty to animals, check. Public deception, check.
In the eyes of some folks, both works breached ethical boundaries in the name of art.
So, is there a line where cutting-edge art falls over the edge into something that's in bad taste or just plain unacceptable?
When Life! put this question to artists and critics, some maintain that challenging norms is the lifeblood of searching pieces of art.
But others say that there are some clear lines not to be crossed, such as taking an innocent life or taking the mickey out of the public.
Squeals of disgust
ARTISTS and critics Life! contacted are mixed on where the lines should be drawn for 'decency' in art, but they tend to go easier on lying than killing.
Audrey Wong, 39, the artistic co-director of The Substation, says there are certain universal ethical boundaries that art should have, and one is to avoid taking a life.
'How can you justify killing to make a point? It's so unnecessary,' she says.
'And if you're making an animal snuff film to talk about snuff films, then it's hard to know when to stop. What's next, human snuff films?'
Multimedia artist Heman Chong, 30, also draws the line at drawing innocent blood.
He also criticises that particular installation as bad art. He says: 'Want to show violence, so kill something - it's so uncreative. Even taking a piece of paper and shredding it with a razor would have been more interesting.'
Animal lovers agree.
Ms Deidre Moss, 55, executive officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, dismisses the artist's intention to show violence as an essential part of life.
'People have always been doing mean things to each other, we know this. It doesn't have to be demonstrated through the killing of an animal,' says Ms Moss, who also wrote in to Life!'s Mailbag page to register her unhappiness.
Yoga teacher Balakrishnan Matchap, 38, who saw the exhibition, was also outraged. He says: 'If you look at how the pig was killed - a jab in the throat, then three strokes to chop off its head - it's very cruel.'
But there are some who say there may be a case for killing animals in art if just to push the boundaries of what is acceptable.
Nafa director of art and corporate knowledge Bridget Tracy Tan, 34, said in a letter to Life!'s Mailbag page: 'We note that the scene of killing and violence is disturbing to some viewers but this is in keeping to a fact of life in human civilisation.' She declined to be interviewed for this story.
Contemporary artist Brian Gothong Tan, 26, says that challenging boundaries can be potent material for art.
'Killing has a different impact and meaning in art. Sometimes some form of violence and trauma is required for the artwork to work,' he says, though he says that he will not harm animals for his own art.
He adds: 'Toeing the line is important because the line can be arbitrary and based on what the consensus is. Killing for food is okay, commandos ripping birds' heads off for practice is okay. But for art, suddenly it's not.'
Contemporary artist Ho Tzu Nyen, 30, also feels it is hypocritical for people to get worked up about the pig.
He says: 'Azhanti is as controversial as the taking of animals' lives in the service of the human diet and the taking of human lives in war. Ethical boundaries should be applied across all domains of human activities and not be invoked only in the case of art.'
Not a big deal
AS FOR lying for art in the case of A Dose Of Light's elaborate hoax, most artists feel that it is no big deal.
Multidisciplinary artist Jason Lim, 41, who represented Singapore at the Venice Biennale last month, says the only crime the artists committed was getting busted.
'There's nothing wrong with creating a fictional character. Many writers write under pseudonyms too,' he says.
'They should have stuck to their story to the end, but I guess some artists can't keep secrets,' he adds with a laugh.
The hoax drew the fiercest criticism from Clubsnap, a local photography forum, which had more than 20 pages worth of comments mostly condemning the artists for lying to the public and exploiting the mentally ill.
Some forum members even wrote to Phish Communications, the organiser of the exhibition, to pull A Dose Of Light out of the show - which it eventually did.
Dental surgeon and shutterbug Kenny Poh, 39, thinks that Phish did the right thing.
But he adds: 'That said, everyone makes mistakes. The photographers in the group are still young, they probably didn't see the consequences.'
Still, it would seem that lying and pig-killing are pretty minor assaults on 'decency' compared to what some artists have done overseas.
A textbook case happened in the 1960s and 1970s when a group of artists known as the Viennese Actionists used animal carcasses, entrails and self-mutilation in their performance art pieces.
In 2000 in Denmark, goldfish were placed in blenders and visitors were told they could press the 'on' button if they wanted. At least one visitor did, killing two fish. Chilean-born Danish artist Marco Evaristti was apparently trying to test visitors' sense of right and wrong.
Animal groups campaigned against the exhibit, and the curator was fined for cruelty to animals.
Closer to home, examples are less dramatic. But one of the most controversial pieces was done by artist Josef Ng, who snipped off his pubic hair as an act of protest on media reporting of gay issues in 1994.
There was a public outcry, and it led to a 10-year no-funding rule for performance art by the National Arts Council.
But generally, Dr Eugene Tan, 34, director of the Lasalle College of the Arts' Institute of Contemporary Arts, prefers to keep an open mind about controversial art in general.
'Killing animals in the name of art and lying to the public are strategies that have been used by many artists. As with issues of ethics and belief, there is no right or wrong,' he says.
'One of the roles of artists in society is to make the public question assumptions about our society. If what an artist does achieves this in a meaningful way, then perhaps the use of certain strategies can be justified.'
However, as important as it is for art to probe and question, curator and art consultant Lindy Poh thinks that the public should revise its expectations of what artists can do nowadays.
Says Ms Poh, 38: 'We've come to expect that the really cutting-edge artists have insights that transform the way we live our lives.
'If we stop expecting artists to be gurus and geniuses, maybe we would be less outraged, less disappointed, and more responsible for how we ourselves can shift norms.'
---------------------------------
Why the 'hoo-ha' over ham?
DESPITE the uproar over his killing of a pig on camera, British artist Simon Birch claims he is an 'obssessive animal lover'.
Birch, 37, who is also a vegetarian, says: 'I'm absolutely against cruelty to animals. I treated the situation very humanely and in a controlled way.'
His installation work at the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, which ended last week, included a video that featured a clip of him beheading a pig.
The bloody scene lasted a few seconds, but the outcry lasted much longer.
Three letters were shot to The Straits Times' forum pages condemning it as an unnecessary act of violence.
Reader Tan Lay Khim, for example, wrote that the pig-killing was 'a misguided attempt' to depict the themes of life and death.
She added: 'A wanton disrespect and disregard for life is an extremely poor excuse for symbolism in any creative expression.'
But Birch, who is based in Hong Kong and well known there for his portrait paintings and as a deejay, thinks the hoo-ha is absurd.
He says: 'Get over it. If you had a broad mind and saw the world of art, and saw what else is going on, you will see that this is nothing.'
He adds: 'Pigs are things that people eat. They're not panda bears.'
He says that the scene was shot on a pig farm in Hong Kong under the supervision of an experienced farmer. Birch's meat-eating friends barbecued the pig afterwards and ate it.
He says: 'What's annoying is that this is the least interesting of the whole exhibition. The exhibition outside of this is complex, fascinating and amazing, and like nothing ever seen before in Singapore. And for the focus to be shifted into this silly little thing, it's a bit frustrating.'
He says that the installation, which cost almost $200,000, will be shown in Beijing in about six months' time.
His parting shot to enraged animal lovers?
'There are way more important things that we should be writing letters to the press about, the war in Iraq, for example. These are things that are really newsworthy. Killing a little piggy? No. Put the bacon sandwich down and then come talk to me.'
By Adeline Chia
HOW many ways can art offend? Let us count the ways.
Azhanti High Lightning, an installation artwork at the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (Nafa) which ended last week, drew public ire for its video which showed the artist slaughtering a pig.
The 21-minute video was part of a large installation spread over seven rooms by British artist Simon Birch, and included a large robot head sculpture and seven oil portraits.
In a short and artily edited clip in the video, he is shown striking a samurai sword at the pig's throat and beheading it in a few strokes.
Animal lovers saw red; but the artist didn't blush.
Then there was the controversy generated by a photography exhibition where art collective A Dose Of Light concocted an elaborate tale for a 'conceptual artwork'.
The group's website claimed that the 36 pictures which were to go on show at the Out Of Focus exhibition in City Hall were taken by a schizophrenic photographer named Wu Xiao Kang, who later killed himself.
It even started an online petition for the return of Wu's roll of film from an unnamed German institute, which gathered about 100 signatures.
When it was revealed in a Life! report that Wu didn't exist and the photos were actually taken by the three photographers in the collective, there was a public outcry.
The organiser of the ongoing exhibition, who had also been duped, pulled out the pictures from the show.
So, cruelty to animals, check. Public deception, check.
In the eyes of some folks, both works breached ethical boundaries in the name of art.
So, is there a line where cutting-edge art falls over the edge into something that's in bad taste or just plain unacceptable?
When Life! put this question to artists and critics, some maintain that challenging norms is the lifeblood of searching pieces of art.
But others say that there are some clear lines not to be crossed, such as taking an innocent life or taking the mickey out of the public.
Squeals of disgust
ARTISTS and critics Life! contacted are mixed on where the lines should be drawn for 'decency' in art, but they tend to go easier on lying than killing.
Audrey Wong, 39, the artistic co-director of The Substation, says there are certain universal ethical boundaries that art should have, and one is to avoid taking a life.
'How can you justify killing to make a point? It's so unnecessary,' she says.
'And if you're making an animal snuff film to talk about snuff films, then it's hard to know when to stop. What's next, human snuff films?'
Multimedia artist Heman Chong, 30, also draws the line at drawing innocent blood.
He also criticises that particular installation as bad art. He says: 'Want to show violence, so kill something - it's so uncreative. Even taking a piece of paper and shredding it with a razor would have been more interesting.'
Animal lovers agree.
Ms Deidre Moss, 55, executive officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, dismisses the artist's intention to show violence as an essential part of life.
'People have always been doing mean things to each other, we know this. It doesn't have to be demonstrated through the killing of an animal,' says Ms Moss, who also wrote in to Life!'s Mailbag page to register her unhappiness.
Yoga teacher Balakrishnan Matchap, 38, who saw the exhibition, was also outraged. He says: 'If you look at how the pig was killed - a jab in the throat, then three strokes to chop off its head - it's very cruel.'
But there are some who say there may be a case for killing animals in art if just to push the boundaries of what is acceptable.
Nafa director of art and corporate knowledge Bridget Tracy Tan, 34, said in a letter to Life!'s Mailbag page: 'We note that the scene of killing and violence is disturbing to some viewers but this is in keeping to a fact of life in human civilisation.' She declined to be interviewed for this story.
Contemporary artist Brian Gothong Tan, 26, says that challenging boundaries can be potent material for art.
'Killing has a different impact and meaning in art. Sometimes some form of violence and trauma is required for the artwork to work,' he says, though he says that he will not harm animals for his own art.
He adds: 'Toeing the line is important because the line can be arbitrary and based on what the consensus is. Killing for food is okay, commandos ripping birds' heads off for practice is okay. But for art, suddenly it's not.'
Contemporary artist Ho Tzu Nyen, 30, also feels it is hypocritical for people to get worked up about the pig.
He says: 'Azhanti is as controversial as the taking of animals' lives in the service of the human diet and the taking of human lives in war. Ethical boundaries should be applied across all domains of human activities and not be invoked only in the case of art.'
Not a big deal
AS FOR lying for art in the case of A Dose Of Light's elaborate hoax, most artists feel that it is no big deal.
Multidisciplinary artist Jason Lim, 41, who represented Singapore at the Venice Biennale last month, says the only crime the artists committed was getting busted.
'There's nothing wrong with creating a fictional character. Many writers write under pseudonyms too,' he says.
'They should have stuck to their story to the end, but I guess some artists can't keep secrets,' he adds with a laugh.
The hoax drew the fiercest criticism from Clubsnap, a local photography forum, which had more than 20 pages worth of comments mostly condemning the artists for lying to the public and exploiting the mentally ill.
Some forum members even wrote to Phish Communications, the organiser of the exhibition, to pull A Dose Of Light out of the show - which it eventually did.
Dental surgeon and shutterbug Kenny Poh, 39, thinks that Phish did the right thing.
But he adds: 'That said, everyone makes mistakes. The photographers in the group are still young, they probably didn't see the consequences.'
Still, it would seem that lying and pig-killing are pretty minor assaults on 'decency' compared to what some artists have done overseas.
A textbook case happened in the 1960s and 1970s when a group of artists known as the Viennese Actionists used animal carcasses, entrails and self-mutilation in their performance art pieces.
In 2000 in Denmark, goldfish were placed in blenders and visitors were told they could press the 'on' button if they wanted. At least one visitor did, killing two fish. Chilean-born Danish artist Marco Evaristti was apparently trying to test visitors' sense of right and wrong.
Animal groups campaigned against the exhibit, and the curator was fined for cruelty to animals.
Closer to home, examples are less dramatic. But one of the most controversial pieces was done by artist Josef Ng, who snipped off his pubic hair as an act of protest on media reporting of gay issues in 1994.
There was a public outcry, and it led to a 10-year no-funding rule for performance art by the National Arts Council.
But generally, Dr Eugene Tan, 34, director of the Lasalle College of the Arts' Institute of Contemporary Arts, prefers to keep an open mind about controversial art in general.
'Killing animals in the name of art and lying to the public are strategies that have been used by many artists. As with issues of ethics and belief, there is no right or wrong,' he says.
'One of the roles of artists in society is to make the public question assumptions about our society. If what an artist does achieves this in a meaningful way, then perhaps the use of certain strategies can be justified.'
However, as important as it is for art to probe and question, curator and art consultant Lindy Poh thinks that the public should revise its expectations of what artists can do nowadays.
Says Ms Poh, 38: 'We've come to expect that the really cutting-edge artists have insights that transform the way we live our lives.
'If we stop expecting artists to be gurus and geniuses, maybe we would be less outraged, less disappointed, and more responsible for how we ourselves can shift norms.'
---------------------------------
Why the 'hoo-ha' over ham?
DESPITE the uproar over his killing of a pig on camera, British artist Simon Birch claims he is an 'obssessive animal lover'.
Birch, 37, who is also a vegetarian, says: 'I'm absolutely against cruelty to animals. I treated the situation very humanely and in a controlled way.'
His installation work at the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, which ended last week, included a video that featured a clip of him beheading a pig.
The bloody scene lasted a few seconds, but the outcry lasted much longer.
Three letters were shot to The Straits Times' forum pages condemning it as an unnecessary act of violence.
Reader Tan Lay Khim, for example, wrote that the pig-killing was 'a misguided attempt' to depict the themes of life and death.
She added: 'A wanton disrespect and disregard for life is an extremely poor excuse for symbolism in any creative expression.'
But Birch, who is based in Hong Kong and well known there for his portrait paintings and as a deejay, thinks the hoo-ha is absurd.
He says: 'Get over it. If you had a broad mind and saw the world of art, and saw what else is going on, you will see that this is nothing.'
He adds: 'Pigs are things that people eat. They're not panda bears.'
He says that the scene was shot on a pig farm in Hong Kong under the supervision of an experienced farmer. Birch's meat-eating friends barbecued the pig afterwards and ate it.
He says: 'What's annoying is that this is the least interesting of the whole exhibition. The exhibition outside of this is complex, fascinating and amazing, and like nothing ever seen before in Singapore. And for the focus to be shifted into this silly little thing, it's a bit frustrating.'
He says that the installation, which cost almost $200,000, will be shown in Beijing in about six months' time.
His parting shot to enraged animal lovers?
'There are way more important things that we should be writing letters to the press about, the war in Iraq, for example. These are things that are really newsworthy. Killing a little piggy? No. Put the bacon sandwich down and then come talk to me.'
No comments:
Post a Comment