Some Misconceptions in Art Writing in Malaysia
I
Most catalogues of solo exhibitions have some kind of an introduction to the works of the artists concerned. This introduction usually amounts to little more than a soft sell. In this catalogue exhibition I would like to provide something more substantial – hence the following essay. This essay is an amended version of a talk I gave at the Petronas Gallery, Kuala Lumpur, in 2005. I hope this essay would contribute to the intellectual life and debate in our art world.
Malaysian art history is a short one. The facts are few. It is largely a matter of interpretation and providing insights and understanding for what has been happening in art in Malaysia. (In the ensuing discussion I shall confine myself to Modern paintings in Peninsular Malaysia only without Singapore.)
I do not believe that it is too intellectually challenging for someone to provide a decent account of the history of Malaysian art. Neither do we need a brilliant intellect, say of Robert Hughes or Gombrich, to give us an adequate account of the history of Malaysian art. However, up till now, no such art writing exists.
It could be said, without exaggeration, that two writers, T. K. Sabapathy and R. Piyadasa have dominated art writing in Malaysia for most of the 70s, 80s and 90s. It could also be said, without exaggeration, that their writings, especially as they pertain to the artists of the 60s, are inadequate. Also, up till now, nobody has disputed their views regarding those artists of the 60s. On the contrary, their mistaken views that the Malaysian artists of the 60s were Abstract Expressionists are generally accepted.
II
As is well known, Low Kway Song and O. Don Peris were amongst the earliest Malaysian artists to produce Western styled paintings in the 1920s. Thus began the history of Malaysian art. They were Western styled paintings and not Modern. Modern art in Malaysia did not begin until the late fifties with the paintings of Tay Hooi Kiat and Syed Jamal, two artists who had their formal art training in London. Before these two artists, Modern Art simply did not exist in Peninsular Malaysia. In this context, I am holding firm to the distinction between the concept of Western painting and Modern Art, for it is patent that not all Western styled paintings can be categorised as Modern Art.
My claim above, on the origins of Modern art in Malaysia is to be contrasted with the views of two other well-known art writers in Malaysia, namely, T. K. Sabapathy and R. Piyadasa. T. K. Sabapathy stated that Abdullah Ariff and Lim Cheng Hoe, among others, signalled the beginnings of Modern art in Malaysia (Modern Artists of Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1983, p. 1). Needless to say, neither Abdullah Ariff nor Lim Cheng Hoe were part of modernity. To continue with that error, Sabapathy further states, apropos the works of Hoessein Enas and his followers that,
“They are the closest approximations to naturalism in modern Malaysian art.” (ibid., p. 12).
Let it be clearly said that to claim that the works of Hoessein Enas and his followers are part of modern Malaysian art is a mistake. Then we have R. Piyadasa with more surprising claims. First he claims that modern art in Asia is more than a century old (Modern Art Activity in Asia. A paper presented at the Art Symposium, 3rd Asian Art Biennale Bangladesh, Dhaka, April 1986, p. 7). Let it be first noted that modern art which began in France is just over a century old - thus it is just not possible for modern art to arrive in Asia at about the same time given the social and economic conditions of that time. He then goes on to assert that the nineteen century Indonesian painter Raden Salleh is part of the modern art tradition in Indonesia (ibid., p. 10). This is just another error. Again, let it be noted that Raden Salleh was a nineteen century academic painter and it is incorrect to describe him as a modern artist.
In the light of such claims by T. K. Sabapathy and R. Piyadasa regarding who the modern artists were, it might be in order to remind ourselves of some fundamental and simple facts about modern art. “Modern art” is not a layman’s term but it is a special term used by art historians to refer to a group of artists and art movements that began in the early twentieth century. The seeds of Modern art were sown by the post-impressionists Cezanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh. They came to full bloom with the works of Picasso and Matisse. Some of the major Modern art movements were Cubism, Expressionism and Surrealism. The ethos of modern art is one of rebellion against tradition and to forge something new and radical. Modern art is also anti-naturalistic and is opposed to the rendering techniques of naturalistic painting. Thus it is not correct for T. K. Sabapathy and R. Piyadasa to describe academic and naturalistic painters such as Raden Salleh, Lim Cheng Hoe and Hoessein Enas as modern artists. Their errors in all these lie in them not properly distinguishing Modern art from Western art.
III
I shall digress briefly from the Piyadasa and Sabapathy issue to give a very brief interpretive history of Malaysian art.
There is history and there is history - there is history as a mere sequence of events and there is history that explains those sequences of events. In the case of art history as practiced by art historians, one of their main role is to explain how and why artistic styles evolved. In this sense of art history, Malaysian art has no history, for any stylistic changes that occur in Malaysian art is not a result of anything occurring within Malaysian art but is the result of stylistic changes that occur abroad. In other words, Malaysian artists are influenced by whatever artistic style that may be current at the time in Europe or the USA.
Thus the artists of the late fifties and sixties were influenced by the mainstream art of that period in Europe. They draw mainly on the stylistic idioms of Cubism and Expressionism and they were also anti-naturalistic. (It is this anti-naturalistic style that brought about the antagonism of Hoessien Enas and his followers and ironically condemning those artists for being westernised and foreign influenced. Needless to say, Enas’ own paintings were westernised and hence foreign influenced.) However what was specially significant of the artists of that period – artists such as Tay Hooi Kiat, Syed Ahmad Jamal, Ibrahim Hussein, Latiff Mohidin, Yeoh Jin Leng, Cheong Laitong and Jolly Koh – was that those artists were a heterogeneous group. They were individuals in so far that they were not influenced by any single artistic movement or style. In short they were eclectic.
Syed Ahmad Jamal, especially in the late fifties, was influenced by the expressionistic ethos together with a vaguely cubistic style of execution. Latiff Mohidin was also influenced by the expressionistic ethos but whose works take on a dark and brooding Germanic mood in contrast to the more colourful Syed Ahmad Jamal. Latiff, after returning from art school in Germany, soon added a local theme to his work resulting in the Pago Pago series. In contrast to those two artists, Yeoh Jin Leng and Jolly Koh were influenced by the mainstream English landscape tradition. Three artists influenced Jolly Koh: Peter Lanyon, Ivon Hitchens and Nicholas de Stael. (This fact about my artistic life was ignored by Piyadasa and Sabapathy for the unfortunate reason that neither of them ever interviewed me before they characterised me as an Abstract Expressionist.)
Ibrahim Hussien’s work, while eclectic, incorporated pop art idiom in the sixties. As might be noted, Pop Art was the rage in London then. Those were the days of eclecticism, diversity and individualism. The personal association of the artists of that period culminates in a group exhibition called the “GRUP” in 1967, held at the then AIA Insurance Building on Ampang Road.
While the artists of the sixties were content to work individually without any attempt to create an art movement nor to form a common ideology, a big change occurred in the seventies when a group of artists attempted to put up a common front. Their leader was R. Piyadasa who organized an exhibition called the New Scene. The so-called New Scene unfortunately was nothing new but was an imitation of the Hard Edge School, a style of painting that was current in London at that time. Furthermore the local proponents of the New Scene had the intention to usher in a new era of painting in Malaysia. Needless to say that never happened. It would appear that Malaysians would not copy one another but would only copy from foreigners.
Having not been successful to bring about a “new” school of painting that was imported from London, R Piyadasa then abandoned his very own “new” art movement and gave up working in that hard edge style.
His next move was to once again attempt to create a “new” artistic movement in Malaysia, this time with the aid of Suleiman Esa. This time, R. Piyadasa and Suleiman Esa staged an exhibition in 1974 with a manifesto, called Towards a Mystical Reality, which was a total change from the New Scene. This abrupt turnaround should be contrasted with one where an artist pursues a vision doggedly all his life despite all obstacles.
Once again neither the works produced nor their manifesto of Towards a Mystical Reality were inherently Malaysian. They were imitations of conceptual art of the kind produced in Hippy California with all the trappings of Zen Buddhism and Eastern “spiritualism”. Yet once again, the local Malaysians here failed to embrace the pseudo Zen philosophy of R. Piyadasa and Suleiman Esa.
Since then, R. Piyadasa has given up trying to instigate “new” art movements in Malaysia, movements that in the first place, had originated either in England or the U.S.A. And since then, that is, from the mid-seventies, Malaysian artists have simply followed whatever was going on abroad. The influence from abroad continues till today when video and installation art are all the rage now.
IV
In drawing attention to the fact that Malaysian art has no indigenous artistic movement, I do not imply any condemnation. On the contrary, I believe it to be an advantage. By not having to focus on new artistic movements, one’s focus could be properly directed at the artist and the art works themselves.
Artistic movements, while important in so far that they rejuvenate artistic forms, are ephemeral. They come and they go while the artists remain together with new forms of artistic expression. While art historians are more interested in the origins and evolutions of artistic styles, art lovers and art connoisseurs are interested in the works of art themselves and the artists who produced them.
Artistic movements are ephemeral and they do not survive. Artists survive long after the artistic movements to which they belong. Thus Monet, Picasso and Matisse continue to be artists while all the artistic movements surrounding them disappear. Thus also, the history of Malaysian art could remain focused on the works of art themselves and the artists who created them. And thus also, it is the artists who are revered and idolized as they are in all high culture.
In any case, new artistic movements, or more specifically, the avant garde is over-valued. J.S. Bach one of the greatest musicians of all times was considered old-fashioned in his time. Artists, from Auerbach to de Stael, could be innovative without being avant garde.
V
We can now return to the Piyadasa and Sabapathy issue, or more accurately, their writings. My interpretation of Malaysian art history, especially of the artists of the 60s, is in stark contrast to the one given by Piyadasa and Sabapathy. I shall show that their views are mistaken. Such is the state of our lack of criticalness, those views have remained unchallenged. I shall now dispute their interpretations of Malaysian art of that period.
We can all agree that the period between 1958 to1967 is highly significant because that was the time when a small group of Malaysian artists returned from Europe and thus a new artistic era began in Malaysia. It was highly significant because for the first time Modern art was brought to the then Peninsular Malaya through the works of those artists.
Since 1974, Piyadasa has been propagating the view that those artists were Abstract Expressionists. In l981 Piyadasa had this to say:
“The move towards abstraction by local artists during the mid-sixties was synonymous with an acceptance of the Abstract Expressionist aesthetic… The works of those abstract artists were subsequently shown in such exhibitions as the Sao Paolo Biennale, … The group of artists who contributed to the new sophistication within the Kuala Lumpur art scene were Syed Ahmad Jamal, Yeoh Jin Leng, Abdul Latiff Mohidin, Jolly Koh, Lee Joo For, Cheong Laitong, Ibrahim Hussein, Anthony Lau and Ismail Zain.” (The Treatment of the Local Landscape in Modern Malaysian Art 1930 – 1981, - Muzium Seni Negara, Kuala Lumpur, 1981, p. 41)
The above claim was reiterated in 1983 in Modern Artists of Malaysia (Modern Artists of Malaysia, T. K. Sabapathy and Redza Piyadasa. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka – K.L 1983, p. 116) where he refers to Abstract Expressionism as an “art movement” (ibid., p. 85), and where he also reiterates who the Malaysian Abstract Expressionists were (ibid., p. 116). Of myself he states,
“While essentially subscribing to the Abstract Expressionism philosophy, Jolly Koh was, however, more inclined toward investigating the interactions of subtle colour relationships in his paintings” (ibid., p. 116).
And so it goes on in many more places where Piyadasa and Sabapathy claimed that this group of Malaysian artists were Abstract Expressionists. It is interesting that in subsequent National Art Gallery monographs on Yeoh Jin Leng and Ismail Zain by T. K. Sabapathy, all talk about them being Abstract Expressionists was conveniently forgotten. In the Ismail Zain monograph, Piyadasa has a short essay on Ismail Zain where Ismail became the good boy with Piyadasa claiming,
“Having never been attracted to the emotive approach of the Abstract Expressionist aesthetic, Ismail remained a somewhat detached observer during this period, standing aloof from the growing intrigues and maneuvers already taking place then.”
We not only witness a contradiction here since he had earlier claimed that Ismain Zain was an Abstract Expressionist but we are left in the dark as to what those “intrigues and maneuvers” were. And here comes Krishen Jit, joining in the fray with “In the production of art itself, the hold of Abstract Expressionism appears to be strong….” – (Vision and Idea, Relooking Modern Malaysian Art, National Art Gallery, Kuala Lumpur, 1994, p. 7) and he further bemoans the fact that:
“Piyadasa and Sulaiman Esa’s exhibition called Towards a Mystical Reality, have not been sufficiently compelling to inspire dissenting art movements powerful enough to nudge Abstract Expressionism from its hegemonic position.” (ibid., p. 7)
ssThe claim that Abstract Expressionism is a movement with a common philosophy and that this group of Malaysian artists who returned to Malaysia in the early sixties were Abstract Expressionists is simply not true. To begin with, Abstract Expressionism is not an artistic movement nor does it represent a common artistic style. It is merely a term first used by a New York critic, Robert Coates, to group together a number of stylistically diverse group of individual American artists working in New York during the forties and fifties.
This group of artists were not only a diverse group, but they also do not subscribe to any common artistic credo. Two of the most authoritative books on Abstract Expressionism have these statements in them:
“Seitz (who is one of the authorities on Abstract Expressionism) does have difficulty in finding an essential Abstract Expressionist manifesto…” (Robert Motherwell in Abstract Expressionist Painting in America , William C. Seitz, 1983, Harvard University Press, p. XIII)
and from another authoritative book,
“although numerous statements, interviews, and panel discussions involving these painters surfaced in the late 1940s and 1950s, nothing resembling a manifesto or program ever resulted.” (Abstract Expressionism, Thomas and Hudson, 1987, p. 11)
I said earlier that the Abstract Expressionists were a group of diverse painters. Just consider: the style of Pollock is quite different from the style of de Kooning albeit they are both autographic. Furthermore, if one brings to mind the styles of Barnett Newman, Clifford Still and Mark Rothko, then their stylistic diversity could not be more obvious. Thus the claim that this group of Malaysian artists were Abstract Expressionists is incomprehensible since it is not clear as to which of the American Abstract Expressionists our Malaysian writers were referring to.
As to what exactly were the credo and thoughts of the Abstract Expressionists, our three Malaysian writers were not able to spell out simply because there was none.
Let us summarize our discussion so far.
- Abstract Expressionism was not an art movement.
- Abstract Expressionist artists did not have, stated or otherwise, a common artistic agenda.
- ‘Abstract Expressionism’ was a mere label to a group of disparate individual artists – from Pollock to Barnett Newman.
Thus given the above facts, for anyone to claim that the group of Malaysian artists of the early sixties were influenced by the Abstract Expressionism is logically not possible and incomprehensible. That is to say, one cannot be influenced by a non-existent art movement, nor by a non-existent art ideology.
There is a further logical problem with the claim that this group of Malaysian artists of the sixties were Abstract Expressionists. The claim implies that this group of Malaysian artists either have a common style or that they subscribe to a common artistic manifesto such as in the case, say, with the Surrealists. Yet as I have explained in section III above this is not the case. Thus the claim that these artists were Abstract Expressionists, thereby implying that they have a common style or ideology cannot be true.
Thus, for the various reasons stated above, the claim that this group of Malaysian artists were Abstract Expressionists is unsubstantiated and not true.
VI
I now wish to examine other aspects surrounding the issue of the so-called Abstract Expressionists in Malaysia, namely, what drove Piyadasa to make such a claim. One may well ask: Why would Piyadasa make such a claim regarding Abstract Expressionism in Malaysia without any supporting evidence? Since the context of justification is non-existent, one has to go into the causal factor or factors that might explain the matter. The story began with Piyadasa’s art education at the Hornsey College of Art, London, where according to Sabapathy,
“his approach to artistic activity was shaped by the education he received at this college … This new approach in art education inspired by the experiments of the Bauhaus artists emphasized methods of analysis into the formalistic aspects of visual perception and the structure of visual design.” (Modern Artists of Malaysia, p. 129)
In another context Sabapathy had this to say about the Basic Design course that Piyadasa took at the Hornsey College of Art:
“The drastic shift from an expressive approach to a more investigative one which was constructive in outlook was best reflected in the introduction of Basic Design course which was founded upon analytical considerations“ (ibid., p. 136).
Apropos the values of Abstract Expressionism Piyadasa believes that its “art activity is made up of grand and heroic gesture, shaped by personal and spontaneous acts.” (ibid, p. 90). Thus Piyadsa’s view of Abstract Expressionism is that it is all about the emotion and expression while he and the Basic Design course which he undertook at Hornsey was all about analysis and the intellect.
There are many other places where Piyadasa has contrasted expressiveness with cerebral analysis. In one instance he even rebuked the artists (i.e. those artists of the sixties) who worked with “ossified attitudes pertaining to an indulgent, emotive – expressive syndrome in art making rather than a re-questioning, dialectical approach….” (Vox, July 30 – 2000, p. 13).
Piyadasa’s aversion to art as expression culminates with the following claim, quoted with relish by T.K. Sabapathy.
“But until we see artists begin to equip themselves with a wide and meaningful understanding of the ‘spirit of modernism’, we should never regard anyone who masturbates in front of a canvas as a creative individual.” Piyadasa, National Art Gallery, 2001, p. 56 (exhibition catalogue)
From all the above quotes one can discern Piyadasa’s over preoccupation with the Intellect and his aversion to expression and the emotion. That art is expressive in nature and that it involves expression in so many ways are such obvious facts that it is surprising that anyone can ignore that data. Let me quote three statements from Bridget Riley, a Hard-edge artist of enormous intellect who Piyadasa claimed was one of his teachers at Hornsey (ibid., p. 112):
“I think Abstract art should try to be as resourceful and as expressive as the great figurative art of the past … If Abstraction is going to win its case and prove its viability it has to be more concerned with the real issues of painting than with concepts and theories.” - The Eye’s Mind, Bridget Riley, p. 132.
And, here is Bridget Riley’s advice to young artists:
“Best of all you work with love and desire, next with will, and finally, if all else fails, it is bloody obstinacy!” (ibid., p. 29)
Finally, here is Bridget Riley on her work:
“… I want people to enjoy my paintings, I want to give them that elation and freedom. I want them to feel as I do, or can sometimes, to have this particular joy.” (ibid., p. 27)
Thus we see the contrast between the views of Bridget Riley where she stressed the emotions and expressiveness and the views of Piyadasa where emotions and expressions have no place in art. Of course Riley’s views on the place of the emotion in art is only the tip of the iceberg. The literature on the linkage of the emotion/feeling with both art and the creative process is of course massive.
There is another major error of Piyadasa that I shall address in this paper, namely, his erroneous belief that the Basic Design course that he undertook at Hornsey College of Art, London, was a course that totally emphasizes intellectual analysis to the exclusion of the emotions. This mistake of his was uncritically accepted by Sabapathy in his monograph on Piyadasa.
I also took the Basic Design course at Hornsey under the supervision of Maurice de Saumarez; thus I have a first hand experience with it. But I shall show that Piyadasa’s understanding of the Basic Design course at Hornsey which he took is erroneous by simply quoting Maurice de Sausmarez himself who was in charge of that course and who was also the author of the classic book Basic Design: The dynamics of visual form, Studio Vista, London, 1975.
Here is what Sausmarez said:
“It cannot be too often reiterated that Basic Design should be:
a. an attitude of mind, not a method …
b. emphatically not an end in itself but a means of making the individual more acutely aware of the expressive resources at his command, a fostering of … personal reactions and preferences,” (p. 11-12)
And, again from Sausmarez:
“… the psycho-physiological properties of lines, shapes and colors will be a large part of the substance of one’s work, but for the painter it is vitally important that he does not accept this as more than the mutual preparation for the pictorial or plastic statements he wants to make about his existence in the world and his reaction to it. ‘A painter paints to unload himself of feelings and visions’ – Picasso” (p. 96)
It is patent from the above quotes that the Basic Design course at Hornsey was very different to what Piyadasa understood it to be. Sausmarez even went to the extent of quoting Picasso to reinforce his belief in the role of feeling in art and specifically
in the Basic Design course. One may well ask, “How could someone who has undertaken the Basic Design course overlook some of its central components such as the role of feeling and expression?
Dr. Jolly Koh
|