“And I think censorship takes many, many forms. It may not be as blatant as cutting your words but they certainly give you a rating, which severely limits your audience. And ratings prevent you from reaching out to a younger audience who may also need to hear these things. But this is the whole idea of nanny-ing, isn’t it? You are not old enough. You are not capable of making these decisions cause you may make the wrong decisions and then where will we be?”
These words which come from theatre director Ivan Heng just weeks ago become uncannily prophetic given the recent turn of events. As reported by The Strait Times on 6 May 2010, the National Arts Council (NAC) has cut the annual grant given to W!LD RICE, the theatre company which Heng helms as Artistic Director.
It will get $170,000 this year, down from the previous $190,000, effectively the smallest annual grant it has received since 2006. TheatreWorks, a company led by artistic director Ong Keng Seng, also experienced a similar decrease, receiving $280,000 this year, as compared to last year’s $310,000. A group of artists from the theatre community, which includes Heng, Ong and The Necessary Stage artistic director, Alvin Tan has since issued a statement and has requested for a meeting with the NAC.
While the issue of funding cuts is not new, it deviates from the council’s usual practice of cutting funds for specific productions. In a reply to The Online Citizen (TOC), Heng has described the measure as “punitive and vindictive”.
“This cut did not occur for a specific production, but is a signal to express NAC’s displeasure, and also a warning against transgressing the arbitrary boundaries that it has laid down. In effect, it is an action that is both punitive and vindictive.”
The veteran theatre director was told that funding was cut because the company’s productions promoted alternative lifestyles, were critical of government policies and satirised political leaders. In the words of NAC’s arts development director, Elaine Ng, ”funding guidelines clearly state that we will not fund projects which are incompatible with the core values promoted by the Government and society or disparage the Government”.
The blatancy of the statement is a cause for alarm. It abandons the usual euphemisms and excuses to disseminate a self-righteous, unabashed and undisguised call for conformity, or in other words, for self-censorship. (Or are we supposed to feel relieved that at least it has not given the economic downturn as a convenient excuse?) As it seems, this is the state that our censorial society has degenerated into: protracted arguments are no longer necessary for censorship has become the de rigueur. Is this what all the talk about reviewing censorship has amounted to? In fact, in a separate article in The Strait Times a week later, Ng even called NAC’s issued statement a move towards “greater transparency”. How is it that an official articulation of a problematic policy can be construed as progressive change? If anything, it serves only to reinforce that council’s self-imposed blindness towards its own systemic failures.
Perhaps what is most pitiable is really the folly and self-deceit at the heart of the issue. The council appears indifferent to the sheer gravity and moral deplorability of its proclamations. Does it not realise that such a statement is tantamount to an official disapproval of political critique, which happens to be the very raison d’être of contemporary art? Are they not even remotely aware of its Orwellian overtones?
It is indeed incredulous that an organisation consisting of educated individuals, some of whom have worked in the arts and culture industry, would be oblivious to the connotations of their official statements. One is reminded of Alex Au’s critical piece, Sucking Demigod’s Toes (http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1081.htm) which speaks of the “sycophantic prose” civil servants and the like have been conditioned to produce. This is a systemic flaw that permeates all levels of society.
A flawed method based on a flawed philosophy
However, the more specific problem at hand here is the relationship between the artist and the state, which has been historically fraught with anxieties. The artist needs the financial support from the state as much as it needs to maintain its integrity. Meanwhile, the state needs the creative culture generated by the arts as much as it fears that it will eventually undermine its powers. It is a delicate balancing act that Singapore has yet to master – an impossibility, perhaps, in a country where the state is only determined to engage the arts in its own, mono-logic terms. The only strategy it has adopted thus far is that of willing, authoring and managing creativity as opposed to truly engaging it. Such a contractual relationship has negated the chance to negotiate and reconcile the inherent tensions and has only served to escalate them.
In this particular instance of funding the theatrical arts, it is really a case of a flawed method based on a flawed philosophy.
_______________________________
By: Ho Rui An
______________________________________________________
The ‘arts’ community is sg is a joke, and that’s coming from an insider. Basically, the govt holds all the funding, and chooses to support artists who support the PAP voice, or artists well-connected to the elite circle. Since it’s impossible to make a living on your own here as an artists, any sensible artist who wants a full-time career will toe the line, for the needed funding.
There are almost no true artists on this island. A true artist will state his mind, IN SPITE OF opposition from the govt or authorities.
And on the other hand, art galleries here are busy selling Chinese contemporary art* with a critical eye on Chinese policies…
“business as usual” in Singapore….
Charles
*is it me or the art galleries selling those Chinese artefacts have been transformed in standardised chinese manufactured goods supermarkets**?
** of course this could remind us of Dali selling, many, many liquid clocks.
There are still in existent various rules for media in Singapore which I find to be outdated and pass their initial purposes. One is the banning of any or all tv shows, films and documentary that uses dialect. I believe that the existent of dialects in the use of art and documentaries have their rightful places and purposes, if there is still concern for racial tensions or issues they should be reviewed a case by case basis rather than a blanket no. Eg, a documentary on the older generation of Hakkas, or Hokkeins, would involve interviewing subjects that might only speak those dialects. As a documentary maker, I would choose to leave the subjects voice intact and attached subtitles rather than VO more than 90 percent of the documentary. But even such films would get ban or not be allowed to be shown.
I think the cut in funds is already a goodwill gesture on the part of the government. Ivan, unlike Glen is solely dependant on the funds allocated to him. To bite the hands that feed you is definitely not an art form of any kind.
-
Consider this, if the government had continued with the same funding, or increased it, what would be the message it is construed to be sending? Yup! You got it! That Ivan is doing a real good job at promoting alternative lifestyles as an art form, and that slapping the same government with the cash it puts in his hands is being artistic.
-
By the cut in funding, the government is essentially telling Ivan to make better use of the funds he receives freely, to be less one-dimensional, while at the same time, give him the opportunity to be more creative and artistic in other areas. Does he have what it takes outside of the area of alternative lifestyles?
-
Well, of course, being the person that Ivan is and the message he is propagating, it cannot be helped that the reason for his argument is solely based on the government not open enough to accept alternative, creative and artistic opinions.
-
In this instance, the government has shown us its own version of artistry, by cutting the funds instead of stopping it. Ivan should do the grateful thing and thank them.
-
I agree with the angry one too that our art industry is a joke, or, what I would call: the Fandi Ahmad syndrome. We depended on Fandi for too long until the whole soccer fraternity suffer till today.
-
For those not familiar with Fandi Ahmad, Gurmit Singh, Hossan Leong, Kumar, Tan Kheng Hua and the likes would do just as well as examples.
-
Imagine Tan KH showing off flesh as if she is so sexy and seductive? A real joke! Or, Hossan spewing the same jokes over and over again. It’s so tiring listening to him.
-
A newbie will find it hard to get a foothold in it no matter how good he is. The established bunch of people (I refrain from using the word ‘artiste’)jealously guard their rice-bowl to the detriment of the industry as a whole.
-
It is SOOOOOOO boring!
A grant is a grant is a grant.
You gotta know what is your position. There is no absolute right for anyone to demand getting a grant. They could give you a reason or not, it is up to them..
You are receiving a grant, remember.. it is not your right to demand one..
shhheessh…
Gemani, Joe
I wonder what if one day the authorities decide that plays which promote conservative values go against what a liberal govt stands for and decides to cut grants…what then would these conservative people say?
A grant for the arts is precisely that – for the arts. And artworks, besides being created for artistic beauty and aesthetic reasons, has throughout history, been a commentary and critique against those in power or on society. If you want to provide grants to artists, then you have to accept their artistic integrity and license to do whatever they produce as long as they don not break the laws.
What the authorities are doing now is just as good as censoring and throwing in jail those who agree with their position. What they are promoting is a rule that is very much the same as what is happening in Vietnam, North Korea and China. These cuts are just a more subtle form on discrimination and censorship.
What’s worse is that these grants are funded by taxpayers and I for one would WANT to have my taxes channelled to such artistes. So why should the govt discriminate on my behalf, based on their prejudices, especially since these artistes have broken no laws?
And Gemani you right. The ‘arts’ and entertainment scene is sooooooooo boring thanks to the paranoid rules of MITA and the arts council. So ironically you are criticising the very same hand whips these artistes to produce such mediocre work. the minute they try something eexperimental, daring or different – well it against the values of our society and govt. So so back to being boring!
Actually, i disagree with the premise of the article. i think whoever funds (be it govt or private) has a right to decide how the money is used. The premise of the article implies that artists are ENTITLED to the funds and they can spend it whatever way they want.
I appreciate that the art community has diverse views and offerings. But it should seek donors that are compatible with its offerings and are happy to fund them instead of demanding existing donors to like and fund what they are offering.
If there is no one else interested in funding these alternative, non-mainstream shows, maybe we should relook at the reasons for that.
It will get $170,000 this year, down from the previous $190,000, effectively the smallest annual grant it has received since 2006. TheatreWorks, a company led by artistic director Ong Keng Seng, also experienced a similar decrease, receiving $280,000 this year, as compared to last year’s $310,000. A group of artists from the theatre community, which includes Heng, Ong and The Necessary Stage artistic director, Alvin Tan has since issued a statement and has requested for a meeting with the NAC.
While the issue of funding cuts is not new, it deviates from the council’s usual practice of cutting funds for specific productions. In a reply to The Online Citizen (TOC), Heng has described the measure as “punitive and vindictive”.
–
People give you money still not grateful, so many VWO also need money.
Not profitable means you must do something else.
Well i have to agree that the giver of grants should have some authority to determine what the artist expresses, unless it’s agreed he gets free reign beforehand.
The problem with here is, the main giver of grants is the PAP govt, and this power gives them full control of what artists communicate. Dissenting artists will find it impossible to practise full-time without the NAC’s endorsement.
In the early days and even now, arts for the PAP served 2 purposes – defending our culture from ‘corrupted western values’, and portraying sg as a vibrant city to attract investors/talent.
In truth, true artists are always the most rebellious and anti-establishment by nature. They highlight the most difficult issues of a society. The more reason the PAP must control the arts.
Frankly, looking at S’pore Inc., what does Ivan Heng expects? Commercially, if he receive a grant from say, Coca-Cola, will they be happy if he inevitably markets Pepsi Cola? He takes money from the Devil and he thinks he can include gospel passages in his productions?? It is a general rule that the paymaster has the final say of things.
The larger question is of course why there is only one Devil that can provide any fundings. Compare with HK, our entertainment industry looks rather pale & largely dependent on state-sponsorship to survive (or revenues from TV license). Have we concentrated too much on GLCs in the past to the detrimental of other aspects of our society?
I find nothing wrong with the nac’s action. Would you pay someone to criticise you?
Moreover, the whole idea of govt funding for the arts creates a crutch mentality and dependency. Yet the very people who complain about such lack of state support for the arts are usually also the ones who complain most loudly about the nanny state. How ironic!
There is freedom of expression in the us. Do you think the us govt funds every theatre group on broadway? If you want to take someone’s money, don’t be surprised if it comes with conditions. If you want to be free, don’t rely on others’ money.
It’s as simple as that.
This govt does not defend free speech, freedom of assembly or any kind of freedom. So there’s no reason to expect them to provide you funds free of encumbrances.