KOH PECK HOON Deputy Director (Corporate Communications & Marketing) for Executive Director National Arts Council
In "Give the arts free rein to bloom", (ST, Nov 21), Mr Kuo Pao Kun
contended that state domination is a "crucial impeding factor" in the
development of the arts in Singapore.
He argued that "the arts, as a dimension functionally distinct from
politics and economics, deserves its own autonomous space above
institutional politics".
The arts cannot be a sphere unto itself and artists should not arrogate
unto themselves the position of sole decision-makers and agenda-setters
in
the arts.
Artists are but one of the players in shaping and developing the arts
scene. The audience, the arts critics, the patrons and sponsors, the
tax-payers, the community and the Government are all essential players
as
well.
In playing its role, the Government consults and interacts with all
these
players.
Mr Kuo argued that artists should be empowered with authority and
national
resources to fund projects and confer national recognition.
However, this is the role of the elected Government as the
representative
of the people and the custodian of state resources.
Would the other essential players agree to the Government surrendering
its
custodial and national responsibilities to artists?
Would even the artist community agree, considering their diverse and
competing interests?
Specifically, Mr Kuo questioned the selection process for the Cultural
Medallion which is conferred by the Minister for Information and the
Arts.
This is a national award for artists, not unlike National Day honours,
as
opposed to recognition that is conferred by artists or patrons.
A panel of members from the arts community contributes inputs to the
selection process. It plays an advisory role and its recommendations
have
generally been adopted.
Artists and arts patrons, and other interest-groups for that matter,
are
free to award recognition to prominent members of their community in
whatever way they choose.
Mr Kuo acknowledged the merit of public projects like The Esplanade and
the
Singapore Art Museum but called for equal support for
"people-initiated"
projects such as The Substation.
The National Arts Council (NAC) gives an annual grant of about $76,000
to
The Substation. The Substation is also one of the beneficiaries of
NAC's
Arts Housing Scheme, which provides subsidised housing for 56 arts
groups,
28 individual artists and two arts institutions.
If The Substation were to be fully funded like a Government project or
agency using public funds, it would immediately be subject to full
public
accountability and lose several degrees of freedom.
We believe there is value in having a diversity and mix of public and
private initiatives in developing the arts.
Regarding Performance Art and Forum Theatre, the fact is that these art
forms are not banned in Singapore. Artists can seek sponsorship from
private sources and practise these art forms with licences from the
Public
Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU).
State funding has been withheld from these art forms considering the
impact
and development of these forms and their potential for abuse by
irresponsible people.
Like Mr Kuo, we recognise that the Singapore arts scene has made
tremendous
strides since the 1989 Report of the Advisory Council for Culture and
the
Arts. In Mr Kuo's own words, "many new artists asserted their presence;
many creative arts groups were founded; commercial galleries
mushroomed;
art auctions burgeoned; festivals doubled; funding multiplied."
These developments are certainly not the Government's sole doing but
surely
it must have contributed or done something right along the way.
The Government alone will not be able to take our arts and cultural
scene
to new heights in the next millennium. All the players in the
development
of the arts in Singapore must work together to help realise the full
creative potential of our nation.