Lama dah aku tak memblog ni. Just came back from JB utk bantu IMCAS yang aku pun tak tahu apa. Aku buat pun atas arahan sebab kapasiti aku dalam Bahagian Penyelidikan dan Khidmat Pameran di Balai bukan kerana menyokong. Secara peribadi bagi aku tempat tu memang tak sesuai, Seperkara lagi aku sentiasa tertanya-tanya makna contemporary art khususnya di Malaysia. Adakah ia benar-benar karya kontemporari atau pun karya artis yang hidup dalam zaman kontemporari. Bagi aku secara peribadi lagi ia lebih kepada makna yang kedua tu. Apa-apa pun bagi aku semua punya hak nak fikir dan kata apa tapi aku tetap berpegang kepada pendirian aku. Lately aku banyak mencari apa jer yang berkaitan dengan benda ni. Few days back aku temui beberapa artikel yang boleh kita kongsi untuk mendapatkan jawapan. Dan aku harap essay2 ni boleh kita kongsi untuk debat dan bantu untuk beri penjelasan makna sebenar seni kita dan mengurangkan eksploitasi oleh 'mafia-mafia' yang take advantage atas kebodohan masyarakat tentang seni dan sistem pemerintahan yang mengambil sikap sambil lewa terhadap bidang ini.
ARTS MARKET HARMFUL TO THE ROLE OF CONTEMPORARY ART AS THE MOST EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION TOOL.
by Tsakaludis Adamantios
I am denouncing the role of arts market as simply promoting subculture and an unhealthy environment, instead of assisting contemporary art.
Since the most important role of contemporary art should be to assist the artists to communicate as effectively as possibly with the rest of the world – since visual arts is the most effective communication tool – the arts market stops this procedure as soon as art is bought and it is withdrawn from the public view, which downgrades it to a simple commodity – like iron- and is only used to increase another sales’ index.
Would be, for example, of any use theatre plays, music concerts or movies that are created, performed or reproduced only for the pleasure of their producers or proprietors?
Finally, I would like to emphasize the key role of arts in culture and in promoting peace in times when dazzling, superficial, short-lived , commercial, confusing glamour has surrounded our every day lives in every possible aspect.
ART- SHOWCASE OR PRACTICE?
by Narendra Raghunath
Although it is bizarre to be judgmental in art, time and again the prevailing art of the times has always forced the artist to make a choice. On one side, the artist suffers from ambiguity over the objective of art—whether it is a representation or a subject itself. But on the other side, the artist also suffers from an even greater ambiguity about his/her own existence —that is, whether “art is a career to showcase or a practice in self expression”?
With the radical developments in communication, medium and avenues in the last one quarter of the century, while the former ambiguity has positively contributed to the world of art with inferences and experiments, the latter one has unfortunately not done much in terms of a formidable conclusion. It always remained as an open-ended debate in the minds of artists. Although there are many, who have taken a clear stand of practice over showcase like Van Gogh, Gauguin etc, some others like Dali opted for showcase over the practice. But fortunately or unfortunately, among the majority of artists, practice is seen to be taking an upper hand over showcase as a conscience prick. Even at the height of showcasing, Picasso did Guernica and Goya did his Maja and black paintings. These instances of “conscience prick” could be seen resurfacing again and again in every master. Renoir’s Luncheon of the Boating Party, Vermeer’s The Little Street, Poussin’s The Funeral of Phocion, Holbein’s The Ambassadors. Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People, Rosetti’s Monna Vanna, Hopper’s Nighthawks, Munch’s The Lonely Ones and Constable’s The Hay Wain are few among the lot. Interestingly, often these works were the ones that at a later date survived as the best of these masters. It doesn’t, however, imply that these were the only works that are best in terms of skill, craft and composition. It only means that these were the ones that stand tall in terms of human expression in treatment — the meaning of art.
Hence at a time when art is judged by its price tag, the question whether art is a showcase or practice becomes very important since price tags are mostly led by the shockwaves of showcase. Art showcases are often performances and if we draw a parallel with cinema –the ultimate performance —the most successful revenue generator of the day will be dumped as an old flick in a couple of years while Eisenstein, Vittorio De Sica, Akira Kurosawa and Chaplin will be rewound again and again for the ages to come.
Film can make a killing as a gross earner for its investment in its short life with its mass subscription but art with its limited subscription will never make a killing. Either we accept art as an investment that requires well-defined artistic merit or carry on to create a ‘tulip bubble’ of 1637. Then the answer for our question ‘art – showcase or practice’ will be self-explanatory.