Samsui Cigarette | Discussing Controversy | Art in Singapore
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- #WheeTeckArtThoughts #SamsuiCigaretteMural
Artist: Sean Dunston
Disclaimer: I don’t smoke, and I don’t condone smoking. I also like Yip Yew Chong’s works.
Ref: www.channelnew...
Photo: www.pexels.com...
Buy me coffee here ko-fi.com/whee...
*****************************
Painting should be fun and relaxing and not stressful, there's no objective other than learning and having a relaxing time. Painting should be easy, based on the skill level that you are at, no stress, but rather enjoyable.
*****************************
#sketching #wheeteck #adultlearningarch
Art plays a crucial role in reflecting the times we live in, representing our identities and preserving our memory.
That is no question absolutely true🥰
Uncomfortable conversations are very necessary for people who are at odds with one another to gain insight into one another's point of view. I see art as an expression of individual views and values. I don't like all that I see, but I do believe in freedom of expression. It's that freedom that makes art what it is.
Indeed! I don’t smoke, I don’t do opium but a piece of art depicting it should not be banned in my view! I think our values are similar ha!
I find it disturbing that the opium war is white washed and most SG kids have never heard of it, not even in our schools. Whereas in HK there's a whole museum telling about this uncomfortable part of history.
I think a lot of our history is angled, although in recent years it’s loosen up. More can be done!
U r wrong and the comments are not helpful either.
URA is going to leave the mural alone.
This is a wrong decision for the following reasons.
1. The depiction of the Samsui woman is most inappropriate. True, most of them smoke but that’s not what they are most known for. They are most known for their hard work in construction. This was shown in a TV serial which ended recently.
Many buildings in Singapore, especially those older ones, bear the evidence of their labor. It is most insensitive to depict them as a smoker, health risk message aside. Why not show them as hardworking construction workers. For example, one balancing two baskets full of building material on a pole over her shoulder? This would have paid homage to their contributions to the building up of Singapore and their place in Singapore’s history.
2. Why use an American artist? How much does an American know about Samsui women? A local Chinese artist would be better suited for the work.
3. Now we know that the mural was done without approval from relevant authority, URA. This should not be passed just because it has been done. It would set a wrong precedent. In future, people will draw public murals or complete a construction without official approval in the belief that once it’s done, it will not be taken down.
4. Indian male laborers also have a place in Singapore's construction history. They are known for their drinking habits too. Would a mural of an Indian laborer consuming alcohol be appropriate?
The right thing to do now is to white wash the mural, allow the building owner to apply for another one, this time with a copy of the mural on paper. This one should pay proper tribute to the hard work of the Samsui women in building up Singapore.
Thanks for you comments, I welcome the challenge.
I think URA finally did the right thing to leave it alone. I think I am right for these reasons:
1) While I agree the cigarette element in the mural might be seen as inappropriate, it's important to remember that Samsui women were also known for smoking (and we agree on this). Yes, that shouldn't be their defining characteristic. They were, after all, celebrated for their incredible contributions as construction workers, which is how they're portrayed in most media (almost 99%). But, is it insensitive to show them in any other way than carrying heavy loads? Does art have to be limited to such a narrow image? Limiting their portrayal in this way feels restrictive and controlling, almost like something out of a dystopian novel. We shouldn't shy away from learning about history through art, but art can also be about looking forward and sparking creativity, a skill we definitely need now. History is important, but so is creative expression. Therefore, I don't believe your first point holds much weight.
2) That's an interesting point, but I actually think it raises a broader issue. If we limit artists to depicting only cultures they share an ethnicity with, it creates a closed system. Imagine the flip side: Western critics dismissing Singaporean artists because they're not Western. That's exactly the kind of racial bias we should be moving away from. Great art can transcend cultural background. The artist's ability to capture the essence of the subject, their skill and vision, are far more important than their ethnicity. Therefore, we should not use this point at all.
3) You raise a good point about obtaining proper approval. URA absolutely has a responsibility to ensure public art meets certain standards. However, I think their communication could have been handled better. Focusing solely on the unapproved nature of the mural, without mentioning the anonymous complaint, might have led to a more productive discussion with the artist and landlord. As for setting a precedent, it's important to remember Singapore's commitment to racial and religious harmony. Art that disrupts this will likely be removed regardless, precedent or not. However, well-meaning art that sparks public debate can be a positive thing. Perhaps a clearer approval process, combined with open communication, could avoid situations like this in the future. Ultimately, we want to encourage public art while maintaining Singapore's core values.
4) You're absolutely right that Indian laborers played a vital role in Singapore's construction history, and their contributions deserve recognition. It's also true that some laborers enjoyed drinking after work. However, the question of portraying alcohol consumption in art is a bit more nuanced. While shying away from reality altogether isn't ideal, art can also be sensitive to potential social messages. A mural depicting laborers enjoying a drink after a hard day's work could be a celebration of their camaraderie. However, it's important to consider the portrayal as well. Does it glorify excessive drinking? Does it reinforce stereotypes? Context is key. Open discussion about these complexities is what allows art to spark meaningful conversations. Ultimately, the appropriateness of such a mural would depend on the specific execution and the message it conveys.
Ultimately, I believe art should be allowed to be art, within the reasonable boundaries established to maintain Singapore's racial and religious harmony. These boundaries are essential, but they shouldn't stifle creative expression.
In the case of Sean's mural, I don't see any disrespect towards the Samsui women. Instead, it sparked a valuable conversation about how we portray historical figures. This is exactly what art can do at its best: challenge perspectives and make us think critically.
Let's encourage more thought-provoking art that pushes boundaries in a healthy way, sparking public discussion and debate. Moving forward, as we mature as a society, we assume not that Singaporean are simpletons, we can have more edgy art that challenges our assumptions, make us critical thinkers, I think will foster a more vibrant artistic landscape in Singapore, which leads us to a better place.