093

Chapter1

FromTraditionto ModernitYln his published lecture, Road to Nowhere, thepreeminent historian of modern Southeast Asianart T. K.Sabapathy recalls his early encounters withstandard textbooks on Southeast Asian art andculture, finding that most have focused squarely
on traditional art and architecture . Q1 He observes,of Philip Rawson's classic TheArtofSoutheast
Asia (1967),that modern art is given a mere twoparagraphs of reflection at the close of the bookwith mention of only one modern artist, the revered
Indonesian painter Affandi. ~ Besides this exceedingly brief textual reference to modern art of theregion is the inclusion of only one modern art reproduction on the very last page, referencing Affandihimself: a "Self-portrait by Affandi" from 1947,
left without further context or explanation except
for the caption text, which declares Affandi to be"modern Indonesia's best-known painter." This is
the only hint of the wider array of artistic modernities in Southeast Asia, which have their genesis
as far back as the late 19th century (notably, despite
being revisedand republished in the 1990s,Rawson's
history of art remains unchangedand thoroughly
outdated in this respect). Perhaps, as Sabapathy
implies , this condition (not confined to Rawson)stems
from the inability to articulate the connections
between the traditional and the modern but also
from unease at the challenge of coming to termswith modern art emerging from Southeast Asian
contexts which overlap and intersect with artistic
forms of Euro-American colonial inheritance-art
which demands a questioning of notions ofauthenticity and encourages visions of multiple
modernities and worlds of art-making with sharedinfluences and connectivities, yet also marked bySoutheast Asian difference.
With the vital emergence of contemporary
Southeast Asian art on the international landscapeat the close of the 20th century, two long-standing
impasses are finally surmounted: first, that locales
such as Southeast Asia, once imagined as peripheral
to the project of modernity and thus perpetuallyand exclusively marked by supposedly unchanging
practices of tradition, are finally recognized as
significant contexts of modern and contemporary art
production; and, second, recognition that culturally
cognate, and similar but different, processes andpractices of modernization, occurring in the Westand elsewhere, activate different manifestations ofmodern and contemporary art . By this reckoning,
the notion of "tradition"can no longer be regarded
simply as antithetical to modernity but must be
seen, rather, as a constitutive part of what forges
such modernity . In this vein, "contemporary art"
must acknowledge the plural and manifold artistic
practices of people the world over and recognizethat the "traditional" may exist contiguously
and even find presence in contemporary art andlife. ~ Thus, contemporary Southeast Asian art

2016

offers the potential for pushing the parametersof contemporary art more generally(the meansby which we define it, including its modes, media,
styles and conditions of reception, among otherformalist and affective considerationsof aesthetics)
so as to encompass those kinds of living "folk"or"traditional" art that are less readily translatable
into pre-existing frames of "internationalist"
avant-garde art practices with their Euro-American
inheritances and biases. As the Philippine art
historian Alice Guillermo has observed, theprevailing internationalism of the 1990s often"privileged forms and styles deriving from theWest and marginalized the vital arts of the region
by sustaining the academ ic distinction between'fine arts' and 'applied ' or 'folk arts,' thereby
making 'fine arts' an elite and exclusive preserve
set apart from the arts of the people." ~ Moreover,as Sanento Yuliman observed in theorizing modern
art development in Indonesia, "avant-garde"
tendencies might also be seen to coexist alongside
the traditional, revealing a different set of discourses
for modernist development within Southeast Asia.
As Jim Supangkat also suggests,
Indonesia's modernist discourse did not include
the rejection of tradition .... In Indonesia, modernism developed without tension alongside
many other kinds of art that remained within a
traditional framework. Q.l!
The belated acknowledgement of Asia's "living"artistic cultures occurs after a largely exclusive ,Orientalist interest in premodern forms of Asian art
such as Buddhist and Hindu stone carvings fromJapan and Indonesia, trad itional wooden masks
and puppets from Malaya, Chinese ink woodcuts
and calligraphic paintings , embroidered textilesof South and Southeast Asia, and ukiyo-e prints
from the Edo and Meiji periods of Japan. Throughthe historical prevalence of these representations,"Asian art" has become anchored to a traditional
past that continues to govern popular notions
about "authentic" Asian cultures. In particular, Asia
comes to signify the "prim itive,"the "barbaric,"the"spiritual,"the"timeless," and/or the "traditional." By
contrast, artistic movements of early modernity in
the West regularly appropr iated art styles and forms
from Asian and other cultures ~ -culminating inWestern modern art styles such as Chinoiserie
and Japonisme, and in art influenced by Japanesetraditions of ukiyo-e, for instance. However, if theWest acknowledged its ultimate sources for theseas foreign, it concurrently-and problematicallyclaimed exclusive originality and authorship in thesubsequent application of these foreign influencesin generating artistic modernity: that is, in creating
and advancing the new field of modern art.
As the art historian Geeta Kapur remarked of
the situation in tracing modern art currents for India,"Non -Western nations, though struggling with the

TheShlftlngArt-Hl1torlcal

FleldforSoutheastAsla: Tradition, Modernity and"The Contemporary"

01
T.K.Sabapathy, Road to Nowhere:
The Quick Rise and the Long Fall of
Art History in Singapore (Singapore:
Art Gallery at the National Institute of
Education, 2010), 1-2. See also T.K.
Sabapathy, "Continuity: The Shapesof Time," in 4th ASEAN Art Exhibitionof Painting and Photography: Current
Approaches in the Art of the ASEAN
Region, ed. Organising Committee
ASEAN (Singapore: ASEAN 1985), n.p.

02
For more on Affandi, see the essaysin
Fukuoka Asian Art Museum, Modern
Artists /: Affandi, exh. cat. (Fukuoka:
Fukuoka Asian Art Museum, 1999).

03
Nicholas Thomas has made compelling arguments for renewed definitions of "contemporary art" against thecontemporary Pacific art context. See
Thomas, "Contemporary Art and theLimits of Globalisation;· in TheSecond
Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary
Art, ed. Queensland Art Gallery, exh.
cat. (Brisbane: Queensland Art Gallery,
1996), 17-18; and Thomas, "Our History
is Written in Our Mats: Reflections on
Contemporary Art, Globalisation andHistory," in The 5th Asia-Pacific TriennialofContemporaryArt,ed. Lynne Seear andSuhanya Raffel, exh.cat. (South Brisbane:
Queensland Art Gallery, 2006), 24-31.

04
Alice G. Guillermo,"The Importance ofLocal Cultural Influences in 'Southern'Contemporary Art and Their Contribution
to International Contemporary Art
Development," in Seminar Proceedings:"Unity in Diversity in International Art,"
Jakarta, April 29-30, 1995 (Jakarta: 1995),
39. The "Unity in Diversity in International
Art" seminar was held in conjunction
with "The Contemporary Art of the NonAligned Countries Exhibition,"Jakarta,
April 28-June 30, 1995.

OS
Jim Supangkat, "Multiculturalism/
Multimodernism," in Apinan Poshyananda
et al., Contemporary Art in Asia:
Traditions/Tensions, exh.cat. (New York:
Asia Society Galleries & Sydney: Fine
Arts Press, 1996), 74. Regarding localized theories of modern art for Indonesia,
see also the writings of the late Sanento
Yuliman, collected in Dua Seni Rupa:
Sepilihan Tulisan Sanento Yuliman, ed.
Asikin Hasan (Jakarta: Yayasan Kalam,
2001). Counter to the story of Western
art history, Yuliman theorizes Indonesian
modern art development as a nonlinear
narrative, entangled in multiple cultural
systems, and therefore also characterized
by diverse material culture.

06
Outside Asia, other well-known examples
are the influence of African arts (beginningwith Cubism); and the flat technique of
those such as Gauguin and Matisse deriving from Asia-Pacific aesthetic traditions.

07
Geeta Kapur, "Contemporary Cultural
Practice: Some Polemical Categories," inThe Third Text Reader on Art, Culture andSociety, ed. Rasheed Araeen, Sean Cubitt
and Ziauddin Sardar(London & New
York: Continuum, 2002), 19.

In-Bhllplngthe~ofArt

08
On the sub1ectlh1stories of modern
Asian and especially Southeast Asian art,see : Modernity and Beyond · niemes inSoutheast Asian Art, ed. T.K. Saba pa thy,
exh.cat . (Singapore : Singapore Art
Museum , 1996); John Clark , Modern
Asian Art (Sydney : Craftsman House
G+B Arts International. 199B); Geeta
Kapur, When Was Modernism : Essays
on Contemporary Cultural Practice inIndia (New Delhi : Tulika, 2000) ; Apinan
Poshyananda, Modern Art m niailand :Nineteenth and Twentieth Centunes(Singapore : Oxford University Press,
1992); Alice G. Guillermo, "The History ofModern Art in the Philippines," in AsianModernism : Diverse Development inIndonesia, the Philippines, and niailand,
ed . Furu1ch1Yasuko and Nakamoto
Kazum1, exh . cat. (Tokyo: JapanFoundation Asia Center, 1995), 224 - 231 ;Redza Piyadasa, "Modernist and PostModernist Developments in Malaysian
Art in the Post-Independence Period,"in Modernity in Asian Art , ed . John
Clark (Sydney : Wild Peony, 1993),169181; Piyadasa, "Modem Malaysian Art,
1945-1991: A Historical Overview ," inTradition and Change: Contemporary Art
of Asia and the Pacific, ed . Caroline Turner(St. Lucia : Univers1tyofOueensland
Press, 1993), 58-71 ; T.K.Sabapathy
and Redza Piyadasa, Modern Artists of
Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka(Kuala Lumpur : Ministry of Education
Malaysia , 1983); Kwok Kian Chow ,Channels & Confluences: A History ofSingapore Art (Singapore : Singapore Art
Museum, 1996); the collected writingsof Sanento Yulim an in Dua Seni Rupa
(Jakarta, 2001 ); Jim Supangkat, "TheEmergence of Indonesian Modernism
and its Background, " inAsian Modernism :Diverse Development in Indonesia, thePh1/Jppmesand niBiland, 204-13; Jim
Supangkat, Indonesian Modern Art and
Beyond , exh .cat. (Jakarta : Indonesia Fine
Arts Foundation , 1997); Astri Wright, Soul,
Sp,rit, and Mountain : Preoccupations ofContemporary Indonesian Painters (Kuala
Lumpur & New York: Oxford University
Press, 1994). Claire Holt's groundbreak ing book Art m Indonesia: Continuities
and Change (Ithaca : Cornell University
Press,1967) 1san important precedent tothe aforementioned modern Indonesianart scholarship, recognizing the emer gence of modern art practices in a changing Indonesian society, as 1sKusnadi's
study of the development of " fine art "in Indonesia, Seni Rupa Indonesia dan
Pemb1naannya (Jakarta : Departemen
Pend1dikan dan Kebudayaan, 1978). See
also various essays in Turner, Tradition
and Change .

09
See John Clark , " Open and Closed
Discourses of Modernity in Asian Art ,"in Clark , Modernity m Asian Art, 1- 17.

10
Sabapathy, Road to Nowhere .

094

processes of modernization, are excluded fromclaiming modernism. Or they are seen as incidental
to it:•.QZIn seeking to redress this imbalance, in thelate 1980s and throughout the 1990s, key historiansof modern Asian art forged new, vital platforms
and frameworks for recognizing Asia's modern art
histories. They dedicated their work to correcting
anachronistic perceptions of Asian art and asserting
the unique and manifold developments of modernity
and modernism across the Asian region ..Q!! Since
the emergence of their important contributions to
the field of Asian art history, modernity in art has
been recast not as an exclusively Western idea or
phenomenon but one which is also born out of andinfluenced by Asian cultural currents.
With respect to writing that has been
produced by art historians, curators, critics, andart writers from the region, T.K.Sabapathy, Redza
Piyadasa, Sanento Yuliman, Jim Supangkat, Apinan
Poshyananda, Emmanuel Torres and Alice Guillermo
are among a formative group of first-generation
scholars who have paved the way for rigorous
scholarly meditation on modern Southeast Asianart. Theirs were pioneering attempts to activate andinspire new methods and perspectives, reflecting
especially these scholars' own locales, but somealso considering the region as a whole . Importantly,
a key objective of this pioneering generation of local
writers was to excavate the suppressed or ignored
art histories of indigenous modernisms throughout
the region so as to develop a locally informed art
scholarship, on Southeast Asian terms. Their efforts
challenged the lack of attention in (Euro-American) art
history to the specific existence and conditions ofmodernity and modern art in Southeast Asia ..Ql! As
much as this challenge responded to Euro-American
dominance, it was also, as Sabapathy argues inRoad to Nowhere, directed at local agencies within
Southeast Asia itself who retain their own stereotypical visions of modern art and its Euro-American
histories and thus remain resistant to understanding
the relevance and significance of establishing arthistory training programs in Southeast Asia ..!.Q
The "Nanyang" (South China Seas or Southern Seas)
artistic style, for instance, was articulated formodern Southeast Asian art-historical discourse by
Piyadasa and Sabapathy in the 1970s, subsequent
to the work of the art critic Koh Cheng Foo.!! In theirarticulations, Piyadasa and Sabapathy recall thesignificant role played by the Nanyang Academyof Fine Arts (founded in 1938 in British Malaya) in theformation of a particular and localized development of modern art within the region and one with
relevance to and for the region. With respect toour present-day thinking on contemporary art, byforegrounding these currents of modern art history
within the region, we perforce reconfigure our
encounters with contemporary Southeast Asianart over a longer localized art history, even as it is indialogue with international art beyond the region.
Thus, modernisms within Southeast Asia are

Michelle Anto inette

ArtStudies_03

revealed to be not the mere mimicking of European
or American modernizing projects, but unique intheir own various manifestations . Moreover, theygain currency as a potentially influential force inshaping Euro-American modernisms.
In asserting the specific development ofmodern art in Thailand, Poshyananda argues that"to understand Thai art it is necessary to trace thestages and layers throughout which modernism
in the Thai context developed and dispersed:' B
Similarly, in his seminal book, Modern Asian Art,
pioneering art historian John Clark points to theexistence of localized histories of modern art in Asia
that trace contextual trajectories of modernizationand should not be viewed as a simple transfer of"Euramerican" modernities but are, rather, "parallelmodernities:· B In his tracking of the genealogies ofmodern Asian art, Clark theorizes a world of "parallelmodernities" based on internal or "endogenous"
forces at play with external or "exogenous" demands
and models . In his subsequent scholarship Clark
takes this further, proposing comparative models
for studying Asian art intraregionally and on Asianterms. ~ Clark delineates parallel modernities not
merely between Euramerica and Asia but also
between Asian societies themselves. This intraregional platform, which is the practice of "Asia as
method," enables comparisons of parallel modernities across Asia itself. By contrast, Supangkat
advances the idea of "multi modernisms" to describe
Asia-based modernisms that might have initiallybeen influenced by Euro-American models of modernism but were subsequently transformed within
and by their local Asian contexts in non-synchronousdevelopments. 1!!This sees the decentering of ahegemonic modernism through its application tomultiple, localized contexts.
As has been famously argued by Edward Saidand taken up by others, !!! the idea of the "progress"of Western civilization underpins the Orientalist
construction of the West's positional superiority,
hence its Western-centric version of the history ofmodernity . While Western master-narratives suchas these have since been problematized and largely
discredited, there are some areas in which thecontinuing dominance of Euro-American paradigms
may be witnessed . For Clark, this is registered, forinstance, in the uneven positioning which occurs indiscussions of modern and contemporary Asian art
that rely exclusively on Euro-America and valorize
discursive terms that originate there, !!'. thereby
perpetuating the myth of Euro-American modernity
as the primary and therefore universal model forunderstanding developments of modern andcontemporary art in non-Euro-American locales)!!
As Wang Hui argues in tracing the "West's"
construction of "Asia" as an imagined cartography
different from Europe's, "The question of Asia's
modernity must eventually deal with the relationshipbetween Asia and European colonialism and modern capitalism." 1!! Drawing on Miyazaki lchisada's

Chapter
1095

scholarship on the Song dynasty, Wang asks:
If the politica l, economic and cultural featuresof "Asian Modernity" appeared as early as thetenth or the eleventh century - three or four
centur ies earlier than the appearance of comparable features in Europe-were the historicaldevelopment of these two worlds parallel orassociated? ~11

16

Piyadasa cites Koh Cheng Foo's (aka"Ma-Ke") art criticism as an important influence in popularizing art inSingapore. His was the first book on
Malayan art, written in Chinese, and used
as a core text for the Nanyang Academyof Art teaching curriculum. See Redza
Piyadasa, "The Nanyang Academy of Fine
Arts," in Pameran retrospektif pe!ukispe!ukis Nanyang , ed. Muzium Seni
Negara Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur: Muzium
Seni Negara Malaysia, 1979). 31.

Edward W. Said, Orienta/ism (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978). Said's
highly influential arguments in this bookconcern the Occident's construction of
the Orient as an oppositional image: that
is, a reflection of the Occident itself. In
this sense, the Occident's treatment of
the Orient, especially in colonial projects, is a phantasmic projection of the
Occident's own construction of the Orient.

17
See Clark, Modern Asian Art, 290.

Wang foregrounds the early networks of trade,migration, infrastructure building and artistic andcultural exchange forged between Europe and Asia
in order to make a compelling argument for theirintermeshed histories of modernity .
Indeed, Western-centric narratives of modernity often erroneously assume a simple transfer or
reproduction of modernities in Southeast Asia inthe mimetic image of the West , especially followingcolonial encounter . Anne McClintock has argued ,with regard to the use of postcolonial theory, thatthe continuation of scholarship based on a dialogue
between colonizer and colonized simply replicates thehegemonic position of the West on such matters. ~Similarly , in formulating local histories of art , insisting on a supposedly postcolonial moment might
only serve to reassert colonialism as a primary pointof reference for developments in Southeast Asianart. By contrast, Susie Ling ham sees a need toacknowledge the "seductions" of the colonial past in
the present :That South East Asia navigates its direction,en route to "identity" and "national identities;·
through constant reference to the historicaland mythical West as its "North" is inevitable .
It bears the scars, the traces of the events thatprecipitated the cultural evolution over centuries of colonization. Let us say that it is one
symptom of a shared colonial experience to bemagnetized around an enchantment of desired
influence , because the colonized imagination isa seduced one. ll

12
See Poshyananda , Modern Art in
Thailand, 28-29.

13
Clark, Modern Asian Art. Specifically,
Clark characterizes this through patternsof "open"and "closed"discourses ofmodernity. See Clark, "Open and Closed
Discourses."

But prior to Western colonization, South East
Asia was under the influence of other Asian
immigrant and imperial cultures, religion andphilosophical thought. Western colonial rule
did not efface these earlier marks of influence.
The heritage of the region is rich and varied,
accruing over time and gradually , strata bystrata, translated, transposed, rediscovered andassimilated into a still evolving "selfness." llThrough the process of retracing the contingent
construction of Asia and the West as mutually2015

For a comparative perspective, seeJames Elkins, Chinese lEndscape
Painting as Western Art History (HongKong: Hong Kong University Press, 2010),
which, using Chinese landscape painting
as an example, argues for the purported
universal institutionalization of Western
art history across different culturalcontexts.

14
Clark, Asian Modernfties: Chinese andThai Art Compared, 1980 to 7999(Sydney:Power Publications , 2010).

15
Jim Supangkat, "Contemporary Art:
What/When/Where,"in Queensland Art
Gallery, The Second Asia-Pacific Triennial,
26-28.

19
Wang Hui , " Imagining Asia: A
Genealogical Analysis," in Edges of
the Earth: Migration of Contemporary
Asian Art and Regional Politics, ed. Xu
Jiang, trans. Gao Jin (Hangzhou: China
Academy of Art, 2003), 381.

20
Wang Hui, "Imagining Asia;· 381.

21

dependent cartographic imaginaries , we areprompted to reorient our conceptions of world history and review the estab lished story of modernity.
By recall ing the world processes and cultures thathave permeated each othe r in shaping modernity
across the world, and by acknowledging thatmodernity is not an exclus ively Euro-American
project but the result of my riad cultural interactions,we participate in the project of "provincializing"
Euro-America .~ The Euro-American meta historyof modernity and modern art is thereby unsettled
and must admit the reality of multiple contributions
to modernity that are the histor ical consequence of
cultural alignments and co nt ingencies .

Anne McClintock,"The Angel of Progress :Pitfalls of the Term 'Post-Colonialism,"'
Social Text 31/32 (Spring 1992): 1-15.

22
Susie Lingham,"The Crisis of Context:
What Holds Heterogeneities Together,"in Text and Subtext: Contemporary Art
and Asian Woman, ed. Binghui Huangfu(Singapore: Earl Lu Gallery, 2000).164.

23
Ibid .

24
See Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing
Europe: Postco!onial Thought andHistorical Difference ( Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2000).

25
T.K. Sabapathy, "Continuity," n.p.

Precedentsof the SoutheastAsian Contemporary
While admitting the continuing entanglementsof historical colonialisms, Lingham also points toprecolonial influences and their part in present-day
cultural transformations in Southeast Asia :18

The pioneering work of earlier-generation historiansof modern Asian art not on ly carves a space for the
documentation of modern art pract ice in Asia anddraws attent ion to its distin ctiveness, but also indicates that today's art pract ices to be found acrossAsia have art-historical precedents of their own,with continuities and relat ions to local pasts-for
all their concurrent inherita nces from and affinities
with Euro-American curren ts of contemporary art
practice . As Sabapathy argues, this suggests thatmodern Asian art ("the traditions of the new") does not
emerge from a vacuum , but is the result of historicalcontinuities, relational disc ourses which "do notrespect neat, cultural, histo rical, artistic boundaries
and territories ."~ ( It is precisely thesecontinuitiesof
historiesthat Piyadasabringsinto view in his artwork,

TheShlftlngArt•Hlatortcal

FieId forSouthea1tAa la : Tradition,Modemityand"TheContemporary"Shaping the Historyof Art
in southeast Alla26
See Supangkat's discussions of con temporary Indonesian art wrthin " postavant-garde " currents in the section" Contemporary Art , Development Beyond
the 1970s," in Supangkat, IndonesianModern Mand Beyond , 64-89 .

27
Ahmad Mashadi , " Southeast Asian Art
During the 1970s," in Te/ah Terbit (OutNow) : Southeast Asian Contemporary M
Practices Dur,ng the 1960s to 1980s, exh.
cat. (Singapore : Singapore Art Museum,2007), 14- 24 .

28
Redza Piyadasa and Sulaiman Esa,
Towards a Mystic,,/ Rea/tty: A Documentof Jointly Initiated Exper,ences by Redza
Piyadasa and Sulaiman Esa, exh . cat.
(Kuala Lumpur · 1974), 1- 31 .

29
See Cecily Briggs and T.K.Sabapathy,
Cheo Cha1'Hiang : Thoughts and Processes(Rethinking the Singapore River)(Singapore: Nanyang Academy of Fine
Arts and Singapore Art Museum, 2000) .

30
See T.K. Sabapathy, " Contemporary Art,n Singapore: An Introduction," in Turner,

Tradition and Change, 83-92

31
See Raymundo R.Albano, "Installations :A Case for Hangings," inASEAN M
Exhibition : Third ASEAN Exhibition of
Painting and Photography 1984, ed.
ASEAN Committee on Culture andInformation (Manila : Cultural Center of
the Philippines, 1984), n.p . (originally published in Philippine M Supplement 2,
no .111981): 2-3); Julie Ewington,"Five
Elements: An Abbreviated Account of
Installation Art in South -East Asia," M
andAsiaPacific 2, no .1 (1995): 108-115.
ISee also pp.35--39 of this volume.)

32
See Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational
Aesthet,cs (D11on: Les Presses du reel,2002) ; andAltermodern : Tate Triennial,ed. Boumaud , exh. cat. (London : Tate
Publishing , 2009) .

33
On this, see, for instance , FX Harsono 's
discussion in 1993 of the type of sociallyengaged art installation which emerges
from the Indonesian social context : "Theresulting art installation is known as participative art . In this type of art, the participation of the public is vital." FX Harsono,"The Installation as the Language ofSocial Concern, " in The First Asia -Pacrfic
Tr,ennial of Contemporary M.· Identity,
Tradition and Change: Contemporary
MoftheAsia
Pacrfic Region(OAG ,Queensland Cultural Centre, South Bank,
Br,sbane, 17-20 September 1993) (conference paper, Queensland Art Gallery,
Brisbane , 1993): n .p. For broader regional
discussions of this, see also Iola Lenzi,"Negotiating Home, History and Nation, "and Tan Boon Hui, " Four Propositions :Looking at Contemporary Art fromSoutheast Asia ," in Negotiating Home
History and Nat,on . Two Decades ofContemporary Min Southeast Asia
1991-2011, ed . Iola Lenz,, exh .cat.
(Singapore : Singapore Art Museum ,2011), 8-28 ; 29-38 .

096

Entry Points,of 1978.)In the context of Southeast Asian art history
itself, selected art practices of the 1970s might moreaccurately offer specific instances of the initial
ruptures or tensions with modernist art traditions(alignedto nationalart histories)and a turn to experimental, "postmodern;· or even "post-avant-garde" ~ventures into the contemporary . In his exhibition"Telah Terbit"(2006), the Singapore-based curator
Ahmad Mashadi traced the local currents of contemporary art in Southeast Asia to seminal artistsof the 1960s and 1970s.ll Indeed, during this period
significant artists dared to break new ground in theirlocal art contexts, including : Redza Piyadasa andSulaiman Esa of Malaysia (with their joint conceptualart exhibitionproject of 1974,"Towardsa Mystical
Reality"),advancing Eastern philosophies as a basis
for art practice in Asia; ~ the Kaisahan Group of thePhilippines (establishedin1976),with their particularbrand of social-realist styles promoting a Philippine
nationalism in art; the radical artforms introducedby the Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru ( New Art Movement) in
Indonesia (1975-79),which expressed urgent social
concerns at a time of political repression underSuharto's Orde Baru or New Order government(1965-98);in Singapore, Cheo Chai-Hiang, with his
experimental conceptual art practices (of the mid1970s),~ and Tang DaWu's innovative installationand performance art practices addressing environmental and social concerns (from the late1970s);~and, in Thailand, the activist art groups Dharma Art
Group (1971)and Artists' Front (1974)were influential,
both emerging from the Bhirasri Institute of Modern
Art in Bangkok and engaged in experimental art
practices driven by political protest . In examiningart practices of this earlier period, the genres of
installation, conceptual and performance art, often
presumed to be indices of internationalist contemporary art practice marked by Euro-American
art traditions, must also be seen as emerging in
dialogue with their own local contexts and social
concerns, some arguing for even deeper andlong-standing Southeast Asian cultural influencesin cultivating such art, including Filipino sculptural
traditions and the Indonesian performing-arts traditions of wayang kulit theater and puppetry. ~ While
the art of Rirkrit Tiravanija-often linked to the Thaicontext-has been given prominence in the early
21st century as part of a wider international engagement in "relational aesthetics," ~ we should not
overlook prior regional currents of differently configured, "socially engaged,""participatory art" -inclined
practices situated in Southeast Asia itself, which
stem from the 1960s and 1970s, but by the 1990s
coincide with wider international interest in similarkinds of contemporary artforms . ~ Importantly also,
as Patrick Flores has discussed, in this earlier context of the 1960s and 1970s, the instrumental hybrid
figure of the Southeast Asian "artist-curator" ~ also
emerges, with important future consequences forthe future exhibition of contemporary Southeast

Michelle Antoinette

Art Studies_03

Asian art in the decades to follow , especially against
a backdrop of rising Asian curators with increasingpresence in international exhibitions .~ Significantly ,Flores regards this regional pattern of professional
turning-from artist to curator-as one current
marking an emblematic shift from "the modern" to"the contemporary" in Southeast Asia. ~Importantly, however, as I have previously
intimated, the contemporary art of Southeast Asia
is not always a "break" with modernity following achronology of avant-garde developments, but finds
overlap with and oppositionality to modernity in its
concurrent constitution and existence in Southeast
Asian contexts. In other words, modern art may
coexist alongside contemporary art in Southeast
Asia, as elsewhere. ~ As the Malaysia-based artist
Wong Hoy Cheong observed in the context of an
ASEAN COCI conference in 1989,
In the West, modern necessarily precedes
contemporary . And modern or modernism
refers to a period, a sensibility essentiallydifferent from that of the past, the classicalperiod . In our context, both words are not thatclearly differentiated chronologically .... For us,
contemporary art is a reaction to modernism
while contemporary art in the West is a resultof modernism .~Similarly, Indonesian art critics have also pointed
to the different meaning and changeable utility ofthe term "contemporary art" when applied in theIndonesian context. ~ Sumartono observes a difference in "the popular use of the term Icontemporaryart) to signify both modern and alternative art, which
are seen as one and the same thing" against a viewof contemporary art as, more specifically, "alternative art": that is, a "counter to modern art" referencing"installations, happening and performance art
pieces" in particular .!!! Meanwhile , Asmudjo
Jono lrianto encourages a view of contemporary
Indonesian art through a paradigm of "postmodern
art" that need not refer to a modern art narrativethat came before it. For lrianto, this opens the wayfor engaging with contemporary Indonesian art
now as an immediate presence while the narrativeof modern Indonesian art continues to be probed
and defined . It also provides a means of "positioning
Indonesian contemporary art in the larger constellation of the international art world ." ~Supangkat, on the other hand, demarcatesa clearer beginning for contemporary art inIndonesia stemming from significant changes
in the Indonesian art scene in the 1970s:~ more
precisely, this is underlined by a tension between
modernism (and its formalist avant-gardeimpulse)
and artists ' renewed commitment to representing
Indonesia's "social context"or "cultural identity ."After the so-called depoliticization of art from thelate 1960s following the alleged communist coup
attempt and the anti-communist mass killings inChapter1097

1965-66 ,~ a new generation of Indonesian artists
increas ingly sought to recuperate the socia l signif icance of art. In this sense, for Supangkat, who nods
to Klaus Honnef's scholarship, contemporary art ispostmodern and post-avant -garde and (at leastfor
Indonesiaof the 1970s)emerges from a "questioningof the tradition of modern (Western)thinking and its
domination, discussions of diversity, differences ,plurality, localness , traditions of 'the other ."' ~ It
is also, for Supangkat, necessarily related to thedevelopment of modern art in Indonesia, and to theacknowledgement of modernism as a plural development in the world. ~ Notably, while Supangkat
underlines the socio-political significance of"contemporary art," he is also careful to recognize
the essentializing capacity of the socio -political indistinguishing non-Western contemporary art from
Western art . In the context of the sem inal exhibition"Contemporary Art of the Non-Aligned Countries,"
held in Jakarta in 1995, Supangkat remarked :A perception that places too much emphasison the socio-political content of artwork whenobserving the creations of Third World artists
will inevitably return to the domination of theEuro-American perception .... Whereas there
was once a distinct ion made between "modern
society" and "traditional societies" using progress as parameter, now the division is that of"developed societies" and "not-yet -developed
societies" using democracy as parameter. ~In other words , Supangkat draws attention to the"potential that the analyses of [culturaland sociopolitical] difference will be trapped in elaboratingotherness :'!?: In his catalogue essay for the exhibition,
he observed the responses of outside audiences:
After seeing the works exhibited, after analyzing them, after judging them, most curators ,critics and art historians who have been
involved in international art events came to thequestion: Is this contemporary art? ... For them
the works were difficult to identify . Are they
modern art works, do they show Modernist
principles, are they [a) continuous developmentof traditional arts? ~The social dimens ion of contemporary art is also
registered by Ismail Zain in observing the application of the word "contemporary" to descr ibe
Malaysian art . In his review of the 1998 Californian
exhibition "Contemporary Paintings of Malaysia,"
Zain highlights how a lack of curatorial agency inforegrounding the specific relevance of the term
"contemporary" to the Malaysian context can leadto misleading generalizations and misperceptions
on the part of outside audiences:
The usage of the term "contemporary" in art
or culture varies considerably from its lexical

2016

34

38

Patrick D. Flores, Past Peripheral."Curation in Southeast Asia (Singapore:
NUS Museum, National University ofSingapore, 2008); and Flores, "Position
Papers: Tums in Tropics: Artist-Curator," inThe 7th Gwangju Biennale: Annual Report:
A Yearin Exhibitions, ed. Okwui Enwezor(Gwangju: Gwangju Biennale Foundation,2008), 262-285.

Wong HoyCheong,"Contradictions andFallacies in Search of a Voice:Contemporary Art in Post-Colonial
Culture," in First ASEAN Symposium on
Aesthetics: Proceedings of Symposium
Held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, National
Art Gallery, October 24-271989, ed.
ASEAN COCI and Balai Seni Lukis Negara(Kuala Lumpur: ASEAN COCI, 1989), 118.

35

39

Among the most renowned Asian curators of international profile are Hou Hanru,
Furnia Nanjo, Apinan Poshyananda and,more recently, Flores himself. Interestingly,
Poshyananda and Flores perform thehybrid capacity of art historian-curator.

See the essays in Jim Supangkat,
Sumartono, Asmudjo Jona lrianto, Rizki
A. Zaelani and M. Dwi Marianto, Outlet:
Yogyakarta Within the Contemporary
Indonesian Art Scene (Yogyakarta:
Cemeti Art Foundation, 2001 ).

36

40

Notably, Flores examines four artiststurned-curators working in the Southeast
Asian context at this time: Raymundo
Albano(the Philippines, 1947-1985); Redza
Piyadasa (Malaysia, 1939-2007); Apinan
Poshyananda [Thailand, lives in Bangkok);
and Jim Supangkat (Indonesia, lives in
Bandung). See Flores,"Turns in Tropics,"
262-285.

Sumartono, "The Role of Power inContemporary Yogyakartan Art," inSupangkatet al., Outlet, 17.

Asmudjo Jona lrianto, "Tradition and theSocio-Political Context in Contemporary
Yogyakartan Art of the 1990s," inSupangkat et al., Outlet, 72.

37

42

The German art historian Hans Belting
argues that the history of art as a linear
narrative of sequential developmentin periods of art style has come toa close. See Belting, The End of theHistory of Art?, trans. Christopher S.
Wood (Chicago & London: University of
Chicago Press, 1987).

Supangkat traces the emergence of"contemporary art" in Indonesia in relation to changed socio-political and arthistorical conditions for the production ofart, which serveto distinguishcontemporary art from the modern art currents
before it. See Supangkat, "Contemporary
Art, Development Beyond the 1970s."

41

43
Ibid., 64--89.

meanings. In art or culture , the term implicitly
imposes unto itself, most crucially , a notion ofcurrency . In essence, it is a societal state ... it
is not a measure of linear time but of space, .. .
a zone in which impinging new values within asociety are beginning to man ifest themselves
as conceptually and contextually relevant .~As with Piyadasa's conce rn to recognize Malaysian
art's temporal and spatial dimensions, Zain discerns
a new consciousness by artists of the socially situ ated contexts of art produ ction and reception in
Malaysia which is, in turn , reflected in art itself fromthe late 1980s.
lndeed ,"the contemporary"in Southeast
Asia is a developing field of diverse and contesting
manifestations. ~ Historically , the "modern " andthe "contemporary," as we ll as the "postmodern, "have often been used synonymously in Southeast
Asia. Accordingly , a neat periodization can neverfully capture the currents and temperament ofcontemporary Southeast Asian art, at least for
now . Nevertheless , the chosen period and art
practices central to this book aim to register a moreforceful coalescence and converging pursuit of"contemporary art " endeavor by artists from acrossthe region more broadly, even as it remains an
ongoing and differentiated project , characterized
by the specific coordinates of individual artists'
localities in Southeast Asia and beyond . This notion

TheShlftlngArt-HlltorlcalFleldforSoutheutAsla: Tradition,Modemityand'TheContemporary"44

lbid.,65.
45

See Jim Supangkat, "Introduction:
Contemporary Art of the South,"in Contemporary Art of the NonAligned Countries: Unity in Diversity inInternational Art: Post-Event Catalogue,
ed. Edi Sedyawati, A.D. Pirous, Jim
Supangkat and T.K. Sabapathy, exh.
cat. (Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, Projectfor Development of Cultural Media,
Directorate General for Culture, Dept. of
Education and Culture, 1997), 20--31.
46

lbid.,23.
47
lbid.,24.

48
Ibid., 21-22.

49
Ismail Mohd Zain,"Malaysian paintings: Lack of focus spoils exhibition
in California;· New Straits Times, June
12, 1988.

Shaping the History of Art
lnSOU1heutAsla

50
On the complicated task of defining"contemporary art" in Southeast Asia,
see Patrick D. Flores, "Presence andPassage: Conditions of Possibilities
in Contemporary Asian Art," in"Aesthetics and/as Globalization,"special issue of lnternatJonal Yearbook of
Aesthetics 8 (2004): 43-57; Supangkat,"Contemporary Art, Development
Beyond the 1970s,"64-89; Supangkat,"Contemporary Art:What/When/Where";Supangkat et al., Outlet; Lee Weng Choy,'Toe Distance Between Us/Comparative
Contemporaries/Cnt1c1sm as Symptom
and Performance," in Knowledge+
Dialogue+ &change: Remapping Cultural
GlobaltSmsfromtheSouth, ed. Nicholas
Tsoutas (Sydney: Artspace, 2005), 51-65;"Comparative Contemporanes: A Web
Anthology ProJect,"Asia Art Archive,
accessed October 10, 2012, http-J/www.
aaa.org.hk/Programme/Details/290;
and'Toe And: An Expanded Questionnaireon the Contemporary," Field Notes, no.1
(June 2012), hosted by Asia Art Archive,
accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.aaa.
org.hk/FieldNotes/Details/1167.

51
See the range of essays on this in Art
and Social Change: Contemporary Art in

Asia and the Pacific, ed. Caroline Turner(Canberra: Pandanus, 2005).

52
Fora more extensiveaccountof thisrivalry, see Helena SpanJaard,'Toe
Controversy Between the Academies ofBandung and Yogyakarta," in Modernity
in Asian Art, 85-104.

53
See, for instance, Kenneth M.George's
wor1<related to this, including "The
Cultural Politics of Modem andContemporary Islamic Art in Southeast
Asia," in Modern and Contemporary
Southeast Asian Art: An Anthology,
ed. Nora A.Taylor and Boreth Ly ( Ithaca:
Cornell Southeast Asia Program
Publications, 2012), 53-67.
54

The" new art history" refers broadly to thechanges in the institutionalization andpractice of art history that have occurredsince the 1970s, which seek to acknowledge the "social history of art history,"
especially concerning issues of gender,class and race. See Jonathan Harns, nie
New Art History: A Critical Introduction(London & New York: Routledge, 2001 ).

55
As a means of alleviating this situation, a web anthology focusing on contemporary art wnting in Southeast
Asia has been developed by Lee Weng
Choy as part of the Asia Art Archive's"Comparative Contemporaries: A Web
Anthology Project:· See "Comparative
Contemporaries: A Web Anthology
Project," hosted by Asia Art Archive,
accessed October 10, 2012, http-J/comparative.aaa.org.hk; and Lee Wong
Choy, "Position paper on 'Comparative
Contemporaries,"' Asia Art Archive,
accessed October 10, 2012, http://www.
aaa.org.hk/Programme/Details/290.
Furthermore, as I was completing themanuscript for this book, a rare collectionof essays focusing on Southeast Asian art
was published-Nora A. ;,091

of a gathering density in contemporary Southeast
Asian art has been confirmed since the 1990s by
its parallel institutionalization (museumcollections
and art exhibitions,art writing and scholarship)andcommercialization (interest by art marketsand private
collectors), as well as by the concurrent developmentof contemporary art and its histories worldwide.
What we may more confidently discern as acharacteristic of contemporary Southeast Asian art
is its revaluation of established modernisms in theregion and a reconsideration of the significance,
purpose and means of art practice for rapidly changing Southeast Asian societies. ~ Dominant concernsof early contemporary art practice include thequestioning of "internationalism" as a hegemonicframework for art practice, particularly in its preoccupation with the fashionable styles of abstraction
and formalism, a consequent turn to social andpolitical contexts, and an insistence on reflexivity as
part of the very constitution of art. What becomes
clear in undertaking art-historical inquiry into
the region's art is that the range of contemporary
Southeast Asian art during the period concerned
should also be viewed against the tremendous
political, economic, social and cultural change
across the Southeast Asian region itself and in thelight of its shifting local art histories.
As Southeast Asia underwent the massive
political changes that accompany decolonizationand struggles for independence, along with theglobal politics of the Second World War and the riseof communism, art in Southeast Asia reflected amultitude of antinomies and intersections about the
proposed course for art development in the region.
By the 1960s and 1970s, as students returned fromart institutions in Europe and the USA, a turn to"internationalism" and "formalism" saw the dominance of abstract and conceptual, non-figurative
artforms. However, this trend provoked a backlashby the late 1980s from other artists concerned tocommunicate the local socio-political realities ofSoutheast Asia through realist representation.
The infamous rivalry between the Bandung andYogyakarta art schools in Indonesia from the mid1960s through to the late 1970s exemplifies this.
While the Bandung art school promoted abstractionism as the cutting edge of art in Indonesia, andin line with international trends, the Yogyakarta
art school promoted social themes in art throughfigurative forms that sought to reflect the realities
of Indonesian society. g But a re-examination ofthat history reveals that the situation is further
complicated by abstract forms whose contexts
were not the West but were inspired by local
spiritual and religious traditions, seen especially in
Islamic-inspired paintings of the time .~ Coinciding
with developments in the "new art history" ~ anda renewed engagement with the international art
world, by the 1990s the social contextualization ofart had become the dominant point of interpretative
entry into contemporary Southeast Asian art . The

MJchelleAnto4nette

ArtStudies_03

decorative and geometric tendencies of abstract
painters lost favor within the currents of international art practice, while forms of installation andperformance art gained popularity, particularly with
their addressing of local traditions and indigeneity
within these internationally accessible forms .
Enmeshed in the worldly circuits of international art
in the 1990s, Southeast Asian art found itself being"rediscovered" by new audiences outside Southeast
Asia with generally scant knowledge of the region
and its existing modern and contemporary art andthe developing art histories associated with them.
While it gained global visibility as a valid area ofcontemporary art practice, it was also acutely mindful of doing so on its own terms, in tension with thehegemonic Euro-American exhibitionary gaze andits exoticizing lens.
Thus, the cultural tensions implicit in themodern art histories of Southeast Asia carry throughinto the latter half of the 20th century, with debates
about contemporary Southeast Asian art reflecting
the overlaps, intersections and antinomies of local
and worldly concerns, form as opposed to content,
art in contrast to craft, social-realist and abstract orconceptual concerns, and colonial and indigenous
inheritances. Path-breaking artists of the 1960s and1970s, with interests in experimental performanceand in conceptual and installation art, opened new
avenues for rethinking these tensions and the values
and modes of art-making for postcolonial Southeast
Asian societies. In so doing, they challenged
hegemonic aesthetic codes and conventions, often
explicitly questioning the production of art itself
and its relevance for Southeast Asian societies.
Accompanying this was the introduction of newthemes expressed in art reflecting the changing
Southeast Asian social landscape: issues of politics,
gender, religion, the environment, urbanism, social
inequality, violence, capitalism and commercialism
were conveyed through a return to figurative andnarrative forms. As already mentioned, others
pursued more abstract geometric and decorative
styles to reflect spiritual or religious tendencies
and/or aesthetic concerns.
A more recent generation of scholars and art
writers from the region, whose work concentrates
more on the contemporary art that has emerged
there since the 1990s, includes Patrick Flores,
Marian Pastor Roces, Flaudette May V. Datuin, Dwi
Marianto, Sumartono, Asmudjo Jono lrianto, Hendro
Wiyanto, Rizki A. Zaelani, Agung Hujatnikajennong,
Ahmad Mashadi, Lee Weng Choy, Susie Lingham,
Ray Langenbach and Niranjan Rajah. In many ways,
their writing is a mandate from the pioneering workof the earlier generation . Across both generations,the history of modern and contemporary Southeast
Asian art has been accorded its own trajectoryand its own methods, rather than being sited as an
adjunct to the art practices and histories of China orIndia, or as a mere derivative of Portuguese, Dutch,
English, American or other colonial influences .

Chapter1

099

As with the earlier generation, more recent
writing has tended to be undertaken by locals commenting on their respective national art contexts.
Other than the important work of this collection ofindividuals, there has been a relative lack of sustained and vigorous scholarly attention to Southeast
Asian art (whether nationallyor regionally),and while
there is now a significant accumulation of writing,it largely remains scattered and sporadic, hence
little referenced and studied as part of a continuing
discourse for Southeast Asian art. ~ Much extant
writing takes the form of light exhibition reviews
and reportage, with in-depth exhibition catalogue
essays by "curator-art historians" also a regularoutlet; more recently, we see a gradual increasein art criticism within the frame of scholarly international art journals . Lee cites "the persistent lackof support for art publications and the consistentlack of interest from the mainstream media inreporting seriously on the arts" as key reasons forthis situation. ~ Against this backdrop, a numberof committed individuals dedicated to promoting
the art of the region have recently harnessed theliberating potential of the Internet to activate afreely available space for public art discussion andthe dissemination of art writing, and a handful ofSoutheast Asia-based art-focused publishers haveemerged. ~ Nevertheless, as Sabapathy and Clark
have cautioned, we must not dismiss the substantial
and important body of art-historical writing whichhas paved the way for a developing contemporary
art history for the region . There is sometimes "historical amnesia" ~ when addressing contemporary
art from the region, displaced from its historicalmodern-art contexts so as to support new ideological or political positions of one kind or another.
Writing about contemporary art has occurred almost
simultaneously with the documentation of modern
art histories of the region, reflecting the overlap of
the modern and the contemporary in Southeast
Asia . It is perhaps because of this situation of
concurrent art currents that, insofar as art-historical
documentation is concerned, contemporary
art has often continued to be positioned within
national frameworks that are the legacy of modern
Southeast Asian art histories with their connection
to the modern colonial institutionalization of art
throughout much of the region but also the anticolonial nationalist movements . The vexed issue
we are forced to address here is how to distinguisha differentiated field of contemporary art which, on
the one hand, allows us to situate contemporary art
within a longer legacy of local modernisms which
emerges in the context of colonial and postcolonial
nation-building, and, on the other, to recognize
those instances of contemporary art that are bornout of an oppositionality and intended rupture withmodernism and which at the same time find strong
resonance in the new "global-art" context of thelate 20th century. But there is also a third stream
we might distinguish, which is the combined effect2015

of these dual currents, whereby Southeast Asianmodernities might actually be regarded as a concurrent, vital and contingent force in the ongoing
constitution of the Southeast Asian contemporary .
This bears deep implications for a larger universal
project of "contemporary art" history, challenging
the neat chronological narrative of changing avantgardes with its basis in Euro-American histories
of art. It demands a much more differentiatedart-historical field for understanding contemporary
art as a practice with relevance for the world but
which at the same time retains very specific sociohistorical and locative conditions of production.

A ChangingRegion,in a ChangingWorld

Taylor and Boreth Ly, ed., Modern andContemporary Southeast Asian M(2012)-which makes another important contribution in this regard; a collection of essays on Indonesian fine art
has been edited by Bambang BuJono
and W,caksono Ad,, entitled Sem Rupa
Indonesia. Oalam Knt1kdan Esai(Jakarta:
Dewan Kesenian Jakarta. 2012); and thefirst of an important four-volume collection of historical materials on developments in the visual arts ,n Malaysia has
been published in NarratNes m Malaysian
M: Volume I Imagining Identities. ed
Nur Hanim Khairuddin and Beverly Yong
(Kuala Lumpur: RogueArt, 2012).

56
Lee Weng Choy," Position paper on'Comparative Contemporaries."'

57

The beginning date for this enquiry-"after 1990"-indicates the enormous socio-political shifts
occurring internationally at this time, reflectedin the "art world" itself with its postmodern turnto non-Western contemporary art practices anda shift from Euro-America to "Other" localities
once considered peripheral to the project of contemporary art . Prior to the 1990s, there was scantart-historical, curatorial or market interest in earlier
forms of contemporary art practice from Southeast
Asia. Instead, only first- and second-generation
modernists and "traditional" artists from Southeast
Asia were given attention and, as I have previously
intimated, often to suggest a mimetic influence ofEuro-American modernism on the development ofmodern art in Southeast Asia, or, in the case of the
traditionalists, to reify exotic artistic traditions. The
influence of conservative governments and national
galleries in Southeast Asia itself was also a determining factor in the suppression of contemporary
art and the elevation of modern and traditional arts,
not least because of contemporary art's potential forsymbolic and actual political radicalism .fill
By the early 1990s, however, externally based
art curators, collectors and institutional officials
began to circumvent the direction of government
institutions by travelling to Southeast Asia to meetcontemporary artists independently; fil! this has
much to do with the subsequent international
publicity granted to artists with more progressive orpolitically sensitive orientations, who would otherwise have had to devote their ingenuity to evading
the net cast for artists by conservative government
institutions. This period marks an unprecedented
degree of energetic engagement with contemporary Southeast Asian art in international exhibition
contexts, particularly in Japan (exhibitionsundertakenby the FukuokaArt Museum/FukuokaAsianArt Museum
and the Japan Foundation),as well as in Australia (theBrisbane-basedQueenslandArt Gallery).
Alongside these developments, the privilegingof Western modernism came to be vehemently
contested; art historians and curators increasingly
sought to revise the Western bias of modern art history so as to also reflect the intercultural exchanges

ThoShlftlnvArt-HlltoricalfleldforSout!MutAsla:

Tradition.Mooemityand"TheContemporary"

For instance, C-Arts· Asian Contemporary
Mand Culture magazine (since 2007,
online and print), Ctrl+P: Journal forContemporary M (online since 2006). and
SEARCH (Southeast Asia Art Resource
Channel. online since 2011) established by
RogueArt (established in 2011, RogueArt,s also dedicated to hard-copy publishingof modem and contemporary Southeast
Asian art matenals). The English-language
pnnt magazine sentAp! was founded in2005 in Malaysia to encourage wider art
criticism on Southeast Asian art. The journal FOCAS Forum on Contemporary
M & Society (2000-07) offered criticalessays on Southeast Asian art and culture. At the national level, Javafred .net has
been a long-standing electronic databasefor Indonesian art, while more recently theIndonesian Visual Art Archive (established
1995, formerly Cemeti Art Foundation)offers both an online and a physical spacefor documentation and d1scuss1onof
contemporary Indonesian art; the Journal Pananaw (since 1996) is dedicated tothe development of discourses around"Philippine Visual Art"; S,ngaporeArt.
org is an online, nonprofit art researcharchive for Singapore art (1999). Other
Journals which have come and gone but
remain important documents of contemporary Southeast Asian art include
Veh,cle(Singapore); Transit andM
Man,ia Ouarter/of (the Philippines); andM
Corridor and Tanpa TaJi.Jk(Malaysia).

58
See Clark, 'The Contemporary," inModernAsianM.
esp. 283-284.

59
For instance, Ray Langenbach notes that
officials from such government ministries
and national gallenes often selected art-

ists from their own generation for international exh1b1tions.See Langenbach,"Performing the Singapore State 1988-1995" (doctoral dissertation, Centre forCultural Research. Un1vers1tyof Western
Sydney, 2003), 186.

60
Nonetheless, for exhibitions such as APT
1-3. contacts in government inst,tut,ons
remained a crucial spnngboard to further
scouting of artists. particularly throughthe cultural embassies of ind1v1dualcountries (especially Australian d1plomat1c
missions ,n these countries) and public
education institutions (public universities
and art schools.)-------

Shapingthe Historyof Art
in Southeast Asia

61

See Emmanuel Torres's observations
on the artistic and social climate at thistime in relation to Southeast Asian art in
the international sphere , in EmmanuelTorres, "Internationality : Towards a New
Internationalism ; Art and AsiaPactfic 1,

no .1 (1993): 42-49 .

62
See "Asian Century ," Wikipedia,
accessed September 25, 2012, http ://en .wikipedia .org/wiki/Asian _Century .

63
Affandi was included in the Sao Paulo
Biennial (established 1951)in 1956,theVenice Biennale (established 1895)in
1954,and the first Biennale of Sydney in1973 . Significantly , the Triennale-lnd1a
included a larger gathering of Southeast
Asian artists from ,ts first edition in 1968
(Burma, Malaysia, the Philippines andVietnam) . Similarly, also included in thefirst Biennale of Sydney alongside Affandi
were Joseph Tan of Malaysia, Solomon
Saprid of the Philippines , and Sawasdi
Tantisuk of Thailand. Established in
1984, the Havana Biennial has includ ed Southeast Asian artists since 1986
Iincluding the Ph1lipp1nes-born artists
Lani Maestro in 1986 and Roberto Feleo,n 1989) . The Venice Biennale included
the Philippines for the first time in 1962,
with participation by Jose Tanig Joya andNapoleon lsabelo Veloso Abueva.

100

which have shaped modern art and to acknowledge
its unique trajectories of development in non-EuroAmerican societies such as those of Asia ; and the"art world" showed an increased engagementwith Asian artists, a heightened exposure ofcontemporary Asian art on the international arts
scene, and a turn in international curatorial practice
to a postmodern politics of "inclusion " rather than"exclusion ." fil. So, too, the late 1990s and the 2000s
saw the establishment and dramatic proliferationof Asia-based biennales and triennales as wellas unprecedented growth in Asian art markets,the latter a consequence of new Asian economic
prosperity, a rising Asian middle class and the newcultural capital attached to Asian art .
Certainly, strengthening economies in Asia during the mid-to-late 20th century also helped to bringrenewed global attention to the region, with Japan ,Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia all
experiencing phenomenal economic growth in thisperiod. In the 2000s , following the earlier open ing
of its economy to the world, China became an economic and political force to be reckoned with, as did
the next most populous country in the world , India.
By the beginning of the 21st century, China's art
market had overtaken that of the USA, and it became
impossible to ignore the significance of Asia andAsian art to the world, with some heralding the 21st
century as "the Asian Century ." ~ The combined
new might of China and India has no doubt again
unsettled any presumed Euro-American economic
but also cultural authority in the global landscape,including the sphere of art .
With regard to Southeast Asia in particular,
there was very little participation by Southeast
Asian artists in international exhibitions prior to the1990s. However, earlier if often limited exposureof modern Southeast Asian art occurred in exhibi tions including the Sao Paulo Biennial, the Venice
Biennale, the Triennale-lndia, the Biennale of
Sydney and the Havana Biennial, notably with theIndonesian painter Affandi a frequent participant. ~Large-scale exposure of modern and contemporary
Southeast Asian art did not occur until the late1980s with the Fukuoka Asian Art Show series
in Japan, and not until the early to mid-1990s did
contemporary Southeast Asian art receive significant Euro-American and Asia-Pacific exposure

MlchelleAntolnett•---------Art Studies_03

w ith the international exhibitions the Asia-Pacific
Triennial of Contemporary Art (APT, from 1993),"Contemporary Art in Asia:Traditions/Tensions "(1996- 98), and "Cities on the Move " (1997- 2000).
While not includ ing Southeast Asian art, the 1989
exhibition "Magiciens de la terre " is now commonly
cited as a watershed in the international exhibit ionof contemporary art for its conscious positioning ofmultivalent , coexisting forms of "contemporary " artpractice from different cultures of the world and forengaging with issues of globalism in art exhibitions .
Thus, it was from the early 1990s that contem porary "Southeast Asian " art first gained sign ificant
international visibility as part of a broader global
interest in the contemporary art of Asia . While
the art of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indian
artists dominated most contemporary "Asian " artselections, there was a steady rise in internationalart exhibitions that included art by Southeast Asianartists . Indeed, a number of Southeast Asian artists
are now among the most prominent Asian artists
internationally(such as Heri Dono, Navin Rawanchaikul,
Jun Nguyen-Hatsushiba,the late Montien Boonma,and
RirkritT iravanija). However , international group exhibi tions focusing exclusively on contemporary art bySoutheast Asian artists remain fewer in number andthe art of Southeast Asian artists often continues
to be subsumed under the broader rubric of "Asia"
in many As ia-focused exhibitions . Significant
exceptions to this are found in the exhibiting andcollecting practices of the Fukuoka Asian Art
Museum (FAAM, Fukuoka,Japan),Queensland Art
Gallery IGallery of Modern Art (OAGOMA,Brisbane,
Australia),and Singapore Art Museum (SAM,
Singapore), unrivalled for their attention to Southeast
Asia . Besides the important work of these inst itu tions, in the past two to three decades Southeast
Asian art has been gathering momentum , as scholars, curators and critics , mostly from or based in theregion, draw increasing attention to the region 's art .
In exploring contemporary Southeast Asian art
and its representation , Reworlding Art History traces
a formative stage in the development of Southeast
Asian art history . It responds to the vital presenceof "contemporary art" in Southeast Asia, but also in
the global context, where invocations of the region's
past offer powerful intervent ions into the rootlessand disorienting tendencies of global art.

Shaping the History of Art
InSoutheast Asia

102

Art Studies_03

Afterword

Although the idea of compiling an anthology of texts on art
in Southeast Asia had long been under consideration, wewere always held back by reservations about the politics
inherent in entrusting someone to make editorial decisions
based on some overarching principle . But social conditions
change so quickly . With the rising importance of building
knowledge both in Southeast Asia and beyond, and inlight of the Japan Foundation's engagement in Asian art
so far-especially in terms of relations between Japan andSoutheast Asia-we set to work on this third issue of Art
Studies motivated by a sense of responsibility to create a"document" that future generations could reference .
Meeting at every opportunity, guest editors
Patrick D.Flores and Kajiya Kenji established the direction of
the anthology in reflection of discourses both in Southeast
Asia and in Japan . Continuing their discussions over email,they eventually selected 15 key texts for inclusion here. We
acknowledge that this is hardly a definitive number, but ourintent was to choose texts that would be indispensable tothis moment. It is our hope that, when read in tandem withthe experiences and reflections of art practitioners in theregion collected in Art Studies vol. 2, these texts will allow
for a more three-dimensional image of the era. We lookforward to the frank opinions and comments of our readers .
Over the year spent preparing this anthology, the texts
were reviewed multiple times not only by our guest editors
but also by the translators, starting with Hirayoshi Yukihiro .
Throughout the entire process, we received tremendous
support from Hoashi Aki and Kurokawa Ran, while thework of Andrew Maerkle, who joined the team as ourEnglish editor, was also essential. I would like to express mythanks to all here.
I would like to conclude with the words of theJapanese art critic Nakahara Yusuke (1931-2011),who was
speaking as a commentator at the symposium organizedby the Japan Foundation Asia Center in 1997,"AsianContemporary Art Reconsidered":
In my way of thinking, "Asian art" is not a valid
concept . Of course, there are works of art made byartists living in the countries that are part of the region
known as Asia .... There are reasons, though, forwanting to say, or wanting to have others say, that it
does exist . Q1
It has already been 20 years since the symposium . Perhaps
now "Asian art" could be replaced with "Southeast Asianart." We remain constantly aware of the prudent and levelheaded caution in Nakahara's statement about the violence
that hides beneath the surface of words like "conviviality ,""collaboration" or "network'.' And for all the more reason,
we believe we still have much to contribute going forward .

Furuichi Yasuko
Art Coordinator
The Japan Foundation Asia Center

01
Symposium: "Asian Contemporary Art
Recons,dered" Report {Tokyo: JapanFoundation Asia Center, 1998).187

Shaping the History of Art

104

In SoutheutAlla

Art Studies_03

TheJapanFoundation
AsiaCenter
Art Studies
031:-:>,,-c

OO~xl.m~i:71/7-1?;.;~-l;t, Jlfiw71/7:l:'!k~O)~ffix1,mO)~ft~§ (191:
rTheJapanFoundationAsiaCenterAn StudiesJ~ffH'rl -n ,;t-t0m1%Ii, 71/70)6O-8O~RO)IWJt'i$iffii'HJ;O)iiffffl~ll,ij:tl'l:-tot..:&'),
71/
7~000)liJf~t'Hll~Vr00~-!!~j--~~~l,rcultural Rebellionin

Asia196O-1989J<20151fH:l-Cii::&')ilt..:m2%t;t, 9O~f~.l.x~iiH~l:t.t?
0t..:71/7:;t.:>Jti$:l:'!k~O)~ffixi.m0)'1J(tij~;\'-.:,.v-~-~**-)'cfta~t<O)tJl~iPt;ffdiEl, rtu:.tlJl;t 9Os:W:m71/7;JlR~ffi~-=><oJ<2016~>
i::l-Ci/::&'),tlt.,:o.fl -r, m3~r'*'>o*ff1;t, m2% u.t~~-ttO)-r:~ffiiiJJJ1::JlJJJl-rmmi~ht.: l\'iJ~RO)JRi¥J71/7~ffi~&')(' o WlUti::.f0)1,mh~il!!o""C
71/7:;t.:'Jl-i$:l:'!k~O)liJf~:t',:f-.:i.v-~-1:J::o~~ 15fii~.i1Ull, rW:m71/7~ffiO))!t,e~m--:f<oJi::l -r1 /::&')t..:tO)-r""tooo~:x1.m~i:,; 1w:m71/7i::O)~ffixi.m1=*mM,1:oohoJ::11:t.to0)1;t,1)70)
199O~7-1?7;.;)'c{t-t?;.;~-O)illt}t.l.j~-('-to ~~l\',J t::(l -C*-A 1--7~*ffi""'.wr,*:tloo~m, tw~ -liJf~, ~*~•~lit::-rW:m71/7i::~<OOboJ::-j1:t.tlJ.t-tit.: 1996~1:l;tW:lw71/7~1;/;JI:~;.;
jf;f--Jv~ffiffi
Oi111fflffil*i"o9O~R~lit::-r~kl:•{i~ht..:~ffi$JJJti::71/7:;t.:'Jl-j$0)~-·>-r'7-71i, 90~f~1f*O) ITf:iffi0)/:1:!;J'li::i::U:%,~t.tffi.t--f.i::~~15it~Ji{flffO"la91:~mU-to~m,~l;/;JO)~ffi:Xi.ittO)i!JEifl;t
ASEANOlliwr::JrMtooil.g.>O)t'r~~smft-tot..:&')O)~ffixi.mmi::l -r~.tlJ, B*"°"*-

Ar7'J7t.tU~ill:l:'!k~O)f:IU1ta9001i-"°",
a1~a9t,t:l:'(k~fll{;t0)
fjffiw71/7 J
i::tllJhl,fW:m71/7~ffiJi::t ,-jffl~~fff-J<IJ-=>-=>M,~8-(l;t, 7'0-/,
1v•7-I--0),~1'/J~'Wiitl:,AA*O)~ffi5!:!*·ffl:~*,;,i:,tli}f~"°"ffl:ilf0)1;f8l
i::l-rt,IEA.(,h-n ,.t-t o001111-xi.m~i:71/7-l!;.;~-l;t,.fO)J:-jt_t~iRkiW.tA.,.:h.trW:m71/7~ffil:-:>t ,-cMf(,h -CM.:~im~.t/::&')t.,:7;.;>101/-0)&,~tt ~-~l,*~)'c-~8:?itfi!ij1ijJ!f-($fjf'f::-to.:i::1:l.tlt..:oPlrlfXlt..:15filO)~~l;t,3O~.l.jJ:l:bt..:oWrnm:,~kO)"fi.'t·fi'.tlliJ•(,.:O):l:'(k~O)~ffiJJ;(tij1:~<00h?L
M..:1:,40).l:~t.t~~-(ttf~~h,:&ii!ii~~O)/{r'J-;.,7·D·70-v.A, 1.nli~

itM!'l,Jfilij~O),f;.;t--0~'7~3;.;/::~illtl;t~ili}~~a9Gll::$1-#rl,.fO).f:ft~*~>C-i1

1, :EJU:EO)~ffi,eliJf~l:~lj.-to$'c:t'l:bil•IJ""'-t<~A.-n-1-toi::i::U:,it! j!lt.l.~\'J*O)ffi.t-.f-0):1:,kl:t)ilizr,f)t}t-:>.:i::~fl.?-n,.t-to

liHt1:t.t1J.t-t,; 1, *~x•1=•.mt.t~~O)f'i~~-=-·~:ih-t..:t!zi.tlt..:tJi.tif,f,:•1:ttUlLt.:»~1:-:>~·1:U, if:lf!::~fi:n;O)•;lliO)t,!::ft3tiL-rM. ll·O)•ffl:-:,:UL -rl.:t,00rt}.3(it~~71/7'-e:1/~-1:l:>IJ,H.
:ff,;gO)Wf»1·~81.t,20171f
2fl 1JU£0)t,O)-r'-t.
A~O)B4>:ffi
1:iltMtJ.m.,:-:>(•·n.t. r-:;-,1
1l:>~Af!l:-:>\•-rlH
Al-~,-.L.!::Lc>E'.%R:6
1t,.( •t1.g.1.t.111rtJ.-xiilf~
11.~m(•,>E'.~:0~l:M•-rja/c-L!Lt.:

0ll'OOA,OHIA. BJf;:Al:-:>\•-rl.:t,tt+~O)Q !::t,.:-c,-n•t-t.

t'i::1:1:!ll&t±O)irl\1,:&ii!ii'iiHlO)/{rlJ,y7•D•70-v.A~i::1.JD~itfttWJ~,~)'cl1$l0)7;.;r·•J.:i.-·7-7/v~i::lfll1Rif0):1:,kl:l;t, al-~~-(V-i::il•t..:t_t(,lt.l..:''J'f-tJ
1::.:··tatJ~t ,t..:t!zi.tU..:o .:.:1:~&')-rJJ<~tL $ lJ:IH To

20171f3Fl00'-i!3(iilf~~71/7-e:1/~-/{f,,•J•~~·D·7 • -vA:/JIJ~~flfpj[KK][PF]Chapter2

Introduction 01

107

Jlfwi7::J7t:-::>t,-r0).:0)7::,,1/0::J-t:~thQj-7;,.

•il7~7~t;Ut-5•-.•~·-!!
.
*
iliftf.J~4>0>0>IIN•

1-t.:ttJ'

fl:hn ' QO)t;t,it)Qffi;t..:"?:iJ•U,t&.~~7-.:\=-::Y7' T Q!:t,-j~Q~~-~rit)Q

o .fO)i:lk,~!:t;t, 5 i$0) :~Ueit)Qt,t;tffi~t&NiJt

iat:J: "'.)
-roovi.tt-ilf t u.:m~""O)#t'J!IJvi::r-m7{ 1:t..:Qt&t.i:t!

0,f-jU.:t;fl.~tJl#gt,f,:' ;f fi~l}!U!f,i:.,O)*ffl:~1:i!EP91:,'!lt ,t1etHJ:-jl:T Qf.:&'J-c"it)Q
o wtJ•h~LtJ•h,.fO)J:-jt,.:*ffl:tJlJ$::jlf~h,QO)l;t' iliRagt,.:LO)O)i!HW.O)L!::-c'LtJ•t,.:t,O)tJ•
bLht..:t ' o iliRpgt,.:LO).:.ftJl, f'AiWi~~sltJ•h,t,.:tJ1i;,ti, ,:0)

*illit J:!:t ,-jJ±jJ, ~Mffl'~tt~lrt~T

Qf,-\'::Y;,.~1:~~i;,.:t~itn 'QO)f!tJ•i;,o ** T Q, ffi;'j!IJT
Qb '?:lE:~.fO)bO):iJ
li
Q::::·!:.jij::jlft.,-jQJ:-jt:t,.:Qf.:&'Jt:tt,
i~t:.:O)~Mffl'~ttt:ffi;tfi
V..:lthtit,.:i;,t,.:t ,O)t.:·vi iliRtttt.:-jU.:.:!:~**V..:t,fJO

ltt:ttt ,tJ•t,.:t, m-fl::fffl'~t..:•h0!:1§f~pgt..:ilt~PO)*g*O),

jilij~O)ilil!:HlU-r, 5.JIJO)!:'.:tJ•-c'1:~t..:tthtit,.:i;,t,.:t,O)f!!::U.:i;,o ,:O)jlj:Rpgt,.:LO)l:l;it ,tJ,t..:Q~$Lt..:t ,O):iJ•U.,n,t,.:t,o it)
QO)l;tl;/;JilldO)M:fRO)lfi:t..:9,t ,fJ ti~~T

Ql;/;J$t!lt, -::>i9l;/;J

agt,.:ffiitfit!ltt..:O)t! o m:Rt..:QbO)O)ffi;'j!IJt;t~'lli'.
~f-lJ.n 'QClilJ~t:~M~n-c'it)9,~~-~-c"it)Q!:lil.l~t:5}1tfi~h -Ci;9,~~~TQ!:lil.l~t:llln-Ci;9, ~$0) J!h.RJftt:t,Q!:lil.l~t:-::>t,.::i)l9~*"'.)
n 'Qo iliR!:lt~!.'liti't:l;tt,i;,n,t,.:t,J:-jt..:LO)t,.:O)°("it')Qo.:O)ffi;'j!IJl;t,
5 i$!:#r9irt ' ~-=>ltQ.:!:-c'it)Q!:lil]~t:,llllm{tL.IE{tLm!~{tL:tlk:1i{tLIEi'i!<{tLIEll$Htt..tlk~{tL7'o/ {;v{t-t Q;;¾'•J.:c.::,,,z•J~ LO)~tf&9~N'.li::T
Q.:!:-c'Lit)Q
o it.:
lil.l~t:, .:O)N'.,E'.~jlj~iJJ:iJ•T LO)- Jlllmpgt.:LO),•oopgt,.:bO), mf~pgt.:LO), t&1f P11t.:LO),
IEiiJ<P9t..:LO),
OO~agt..:L0), t&~agt,.:LO), 7··0-/{Jvt ,.:LO)-l;t~~l.,,.:ni;,O)lil]t

jljiJJ:tJlj$:~{tl..i1HHtTQirutJ!l:Lt,.:Q.:O)N'.lE'.1HUfff9t:
0

Ii, 5 ftpgt,.:LO)O)i!H91-~IU!.~it°Q.:!::iJl'("~, 5?fff9t..:LO)§~-c't;tt,.:t ,:iJ•Lt..nt,.:t,L0)0)1:i!EO)-j-;t:~~ibt'/{f-.fL -r,N:.i:'.P11t..:~~!::L-rt! lt-c't..:<,t' L01:;tpgt,.:jJt:~~TQbO)

J,y7·D·70-vA1

7-i 1)l'.°1/**-r',i 1)-;,:,,~¥:ii,l:j*flll¥!cMt,llll**ff.Ji,;,'-,11;;1f7,¥:ii,l:jfi'll,t-.1

v-;-.

0

,;,:.,;1;•,f--11,00JL.¥:ii,l:jfi'll<gJ,t,t-.1v-;-tni<l'.lo.

:w-mtW:wi7Y70) ili:l=JU\;¥tii,l:j~.

:,tt.::iH!f!:f Paint-

ing History: Revisions in Philippine!:L-rffl;'J!IJ~;flJfflTQ
oO!:-::>O)i:lk~!:L"[O)Jlfwi7::J7!:t,-jffl~.f h§ff>:iJl, .:O)::fti'.li:'.t..:m:RP11t..:LO)O)- '.i;/i!{91J-c"it)Qo tlk~!:L-CO)Jkm7::J71i,
16ffl:~I: Mii Qfi jf O)flff~tiklll,£~1:J:"?"[:i)• t,.:90)$5}:tJlm{'l=Colonial Ard (7.::'7.k'ttlll:!L I999lf),i;,n,t.:o ft!!!:~9lft~nt.:§~pgt.:{r ~~;;¾':t'::J.r. !:L-r~Ui~

f Past Peripheral: Curation in South-

tJU'.ili!8TQJ:-jt:t.:"'.)t.:O)lt,
M~tik±jl~iffi.L -CO).:!:-c'M,

east AsiaJ ( ~;., :lf;Js-1v® ll.,k't1'1iiftll.

2ooslf)t.:t:l.>'ibo020115f,, ,;;'37:,,-'l--/:: fThi rd TextJO)fJ!f\;JRJ¥i7Y7¥:ii,l:j!l\l'#,·IH•ii~Lt:.

:)\';ffllt .r.:,,-t-v(2ooslf)O)if:ii!n/il:fl!lbl),,;,':i:.

;l, 'f 7 · t··.r.:,,-t-v0)7-i')l'.°:,,fi'll<2015lf)O),t-;1.1,--j!-!,f;i<l')o.

7',y'f:,,1v(

1.¥:ii,l:jfi'll7,;;'7fl!lr,-\'>ZKMO)if:ii!n7

F,;,'-,1-if'--r't,M.

liUfpgt:t;t.f.:tJ•i;,ffi~M~ffi~xev

1m~~nt.:O)-c"it)"?t.:o.:O)m~1:M.:"?-C@!::t..:"?t.:~lt7-l-;,.7-1v-c',O)tt•~~;t·~~~~~t

1: •~t#,••.f .:-c'1f.'.ili!
0)1:•«!:$~~tJ•i;,t,.:Q7-l-• 'J-1vF:iJ1~~L-::>-::>it)QO)l:ir
bit-r,.f.:t'O)ff~±ff>!::t.:Q~<"11-ri;,nif!1x.i;,nt.:O)-c"it)Qo M~tlk±
jlt;t, MR:tlktJ11:ihtfiQf,:&')O)ffi~{4'~{1=9tfiU.:tJl,.fh!:lntroductlon 01

Art Studies_03

108

Qtt ,-j.:t:b1m.ttt "ft 'Qo

f,,J~l:;r-At-ttff.tV-'l!!"-O)ilU1ib-:)ltt.:o ;f-A 1-ttff~i'l!!:b'-ydl)~ ~Mtml~tt~lll!~ft-t
t t,i:-:,-C;JlhQ0)l;t, iii Ra{] -r'it.>07t "t Qllit,,

tiff~ii!!

-:)ti),~fll'IO)g~1:~t ,, iliRa{Jt,i:tiO)t;t132.ffl;~J~tfJl.ttL-rlJJ.-

jji 'ii; :b•~ Wf!b.-~h, 00iit~ 00~ 00* ~~ *-t Qlilt , 0) 1ft-r'it.>U.::b1, fhl;t5i$0)-t-rlvl:

Qo 19-tlUcO)fO)J:-jt,i:{ihl;t,imtlliliRtttff:b'~ff~hl<J><

ht.:bO)t',b-:,t.: o 3-0:i:R~~~.tt.:o H ,--rfhtHI:,t L"fO)-t~ '-=.;;(L tiiliR-fiO)~f;tia{Jt.i:ffi~tt.i:9,S:O)fxiflj~

ffi®~iilt.:~a{JfHJl~~rf, 5ifO)~A~'lWttL, lll!mftO)ffl:~JHrt-, 5if0)1{7~
1 LO)fi~~iit.., -r~Ui9:!"-0)~·A:b'ff bht.:0)-r'it.>Q o ttff~

i1!!5lffii!:b1#tEV.t:b•-:,t.:i;§Plr-r'l;t,,'t~-r',M~ltQt.:dl)t!ltt:t,i:~,:,,J{ Ut*l:.:tolH~Aa{Jv;{-1- 1)-7-.,t-;,,7··-t ,5tJO)tL-r:iili~ttUm~ftO):tfmHHltlt.:o tifiO)Jfii¥J7:170)00~ OO*t;t,;f,J!!.£0)/±::fJ
t, $\';Jla{Jgitt"-

iliR-ttl;t, ~j/c~:j:1}~13)1 t~•L tt!:ff.0)~~/¥1:~J.- t'~ QJ:-jl:t.i:Q&,~1:W:ilii"t-51:-t Q, it.:ffi%'00 O)jo;ffll:J:-:,-C;(fifi~~'.)E'.~ht.:,
J:9/At,ttt;&A,t', /:A,/:A,U!l!~.±~p{Jt:t,t-:,"[l'-:>t..'. S:h,~O)ffijJ;bli/i0o 00*-\"> Ra{Jt,i:tJO)~N~LN~-t Qt.:dl)O)~l1,!!~ft-:,t.:O)t'it.>Qo iliRff.0)-mitt.i:Q.:t~Tm-tQb'-j~t'IJttEfb~ht.:

i'l!!~:b1iliRa{]t.i:tJO)O)flfiffltjtt,i:~h,Q- 1i' iliRa{]t,i:tJO)O)

1ffit.:b-:,Ll 'QO):b•?f ht;t~ifljb ,-jiftp{Jt,i:tJO)O)lilJS:-jt:{iiJ:b

fl-=J-l;t,ftgO)i;§pJit:tifflt:b•h"fl ,t.::b•tJL,h,t,i:t'o -:)19, ~ i ~ i

ifEO)~tf a-r'.t.>01:b•?.t.>Qt•t;t,'t~ ·;,,-7-t--0)*9*H1Ut.:t

t.i:A.4:1;1mi~-tt-\"'::1~.:2.-=-T--<~~~-t Mirii!ii, m1!1i,~~a.:01: 1PI:b•:b1it)QO)t! 0-j:b•?70~Rt: Jolt Q~~;b{ ~ tt.:O)l;t

l:Jot ,-r-r'it.>QoS:O)~ al:Jot.:0)71/1/o:1--r-1;t, iliRa{]t.i:tiO)tt -1r..uuH 1, 5itta{]t.i:tij-;,,;f-7 1J-tl!fli h -rM.:1iit.-r'iliRa{]t,i:tJ0)0)*11t0), it)Qt,t;t%'00a{Jt,i:tJO)O):t<_jUfU.i:w;fl'tL"f,~-i#5lii<~~~L,n ,t.: S:O)~~t.i:~fit:Jot ,--rifi:~t.i:~~l;t, -t~ ' 1/•7-I-

h n-<t!

01 0 f L--riliRa{Jt.i:tJO)l;t,
llffitia{Jt',b-:,t.:fO):fo,--rt'M, fO)~~t;t;r-Al-

0-t ~' 1/,bQt,t;t::1;,,~-ydl)if-0~O)ffi$!J/t~ffl;~J-tQ,7-j-,<Al-.±2'0)m•0)7-=.7.r.AI-,:1.r.71-Hft~J"tQtt ,-j~t._:t,i:~(m~lj.;t~h,QS:tl:t,i:Qt..''0-30

Ur~~~•t.i:Qf±-Ji-r-m-fl-t Qjtiiu:-:)t •-r, mJt~~m•

WllffitNllffi0)~~0)::1-1"~1if(f--r

LT7Al-~$Jt¥-tQ 7-j-,<A 1-=-:t-.:2.v-~-O)#t£-r'1>Q o ~iliRa{]t.i:tJO)l;tfhl<J>it,_:O)~WJt:~~Lt.:o1~, ft!!1i:too,11t1:,- 1i-r' rmmO)~fll'IJO)Q1:ili£Ht#fiv.i::1;

At~~O)t,b:b•O)~~Mt.:,-r'JmllffiH~HR"tQo _:O)fn1i~l:i#tt,t.:il!Uil:.:tot,-r, ~Urf-1:

Jtiiw7:170);JlR~UiV-1/l;t~fiM-r',

7-j-,<AI-,~*-m.fAl;t~~ft-tQAfifil]t:,M,fO) f~ttJ t;tw;f)'O)jct:ifi:/Jt:t,i: ~Efif1t;, ffl:ff*, -:t-.:2.v-~-, ii!iililiit>Cft$~1:tttbQ~,~± f1t;,f h.f h,O)~~t:J:-:,-riiim.

QO)t!:b1, f,,J~t:, fJilffl-tQ#tEfn1iJ
l:iI[ffiiL,-rft<t.i:Q
0 :ti:O)ft!!0)7-l-· '7-Jvl- •O)ff

f:b 1, T·.K:-t}-1{1{V-:b'- -Jil:~;Jl~i,~ft!!-Jil:l.l\li.l~.:tot,-r,-:ft,n'Q o 90~Rl-::J.~, ~lfftrfililtiN'.'eftL--r, ;JlR~Uif h,~O)fll'IO)-:)f,t;bl9~ftiH"tQf±-Jit,i:O)"('it)Q f hl;t, /!l9;!

:b1~]4t~9~bQ1itffO)~*':MLJ:9~~"(',bQJ:-jt:l;IHt0fil~~llffi-tQf!Hif-1:Jflt'.M, .:O)J:-jt:~Ur~/!l9:!0)-jt,t:.t.> W:Ln 'Qo f,,J~t:7-j---<Al-t.:t,Ui.SiJI:,~/ff:b•~b rlilil:b•~
QbO)tL-ril~-t QO)l;twJ~O);/~~-r'bit.>QO)t! :b1, f-jlt.:ilb~31:Ln-M•,~l;tiliRa{] t,i:tJO)O)IJft-O)~fttjtt.i:~hQ--<-~-r't;tt,i:t,

Hr-:>-rt 'QJ:-jt.i:1-r~O)-t-fiv-\"', ::1~.:2.-=T--<tO)~~a{]t.i:mJb

v.i::1;1~ ::J31/•77-7t;t,

0 L:b•

iliRa{]t.i:tJO):b' r~u-J!l9:!a{Jlffiffi
Jt>L<l;tf0)$fj/t0)7:1.r.1/~'tffl:~Jp{Jt,i:;,J-lli;

9~m1*L -r~t.: o .:O)J:-jt.i:
iii3ltit.>Qf!Hi
ff !fl :b•~~t-rt 'QO)

1#t1:-tQJ:-jt.i:llt~&1tu.:.:t~.:l::fflL, r~mittJ t r7'1-illtlJ:1;t;t, ~RO)~~~&"-IZ~LJ:-jtt"Q~Ur~~hl:HLW/l.l\l~-tt~~:b 1WJ91ffl:b•h,t.:t"tQ 0 S:O)jilij~O)~;/;'ffii
TffiifJr~h,M

1iflii-:,t.:tt!~tL-r, ~~­Q::11/T7Al-t'it.>Qo S:O)J:-jt:iiil/J:b

H 1, iliRa{]t,i:tJO)O)H~~iiitf.tQ

1~!i~~lf-rM.:O)
mJ~, m)-9-, fl, -rJ;tlfflO)~i~ ' ;tt.i:-aJ:ru!:b&L-rt ,Q;bl, t.:t!L,~~t/;tMto f.l.l;t.:O)f,,Jtr..,&*t:-g

t ,-jjJljO),f7°,<;t
L~iiL -r' ii!!

t',M, fht;t~tiffi40)M*~~L~ttn•QO)t'it.>Q
o ~Urff-Jia{]t,i:tJO)t5ifa{]t.i:tiO)tO)rJ10)#ili£it.~*9~UQJ:-jt.i:W:l!l

tH-ti-tMffi~a{Jt:t.i:-:,-r~-r.:too,~f1t.U;,<-:1-:1<00)ffi~~f_:t:{i~"t Qo

t:.:totH~htL-r, 11/ A~v-V31/ff{]it.:1{7,t-71/Aa{]t,i:

iffi#W:ffitli7:17~ f~lJta{Jt,i:l')J~
J O)ffi~t:it)QbO)tL-r~-!l.t~9,17'..{j-";t-\">PJ!:ii!ii,
fL--rnfJiliRa{Jtt' -j.:1:t:t,i:-:,"[l'QbO)~-t QS:tt', F,,J-tt~)'cfta{Jffiru!ftO)/±::fJ:b•~M~L,.:0):1:R O)l,~t<~t ,n 'QI~O){_ij/cO)ffiiJltliliit~£LJ:-jtL-rt 'Qo~~~~t:*-i!~t:-t -5.:tt:il~a{Jt' it.>Qo ~l;t 7 :17 ~ /!l9:! ft~ht.:,

M-~~{tt:J:Qf,,J - {tl:fl~~;t,fllXO~t..,0)-:):b•t,i:t,J t!t~i1!!~ffl~ll~-t;f-A 1-tlff~i'l!!tt~
QbO)tjtt.i:-tof

it.:, -r·:1~1v~ti:b

1iJI~~.:U.:~jRtF,lJ~t:,;,j<->Jla{]t.i:mm~iiU.:ffll[Jl~O)~!t\W,
OO)jilij-Jj~~~~-\t"[~t.:0~ifljO)Jll!~t.f-M

0O)J:-jt,i:~fflmtU:t;t,t ,:1;,t,tQfttff~i1!lj/c'/i;l:$\';ff-tQ{iiJ~:b• Jfim7:170);JlR~ifliO)iiim.O)ict',
O)~iJa{]t.i: F,,J
- ttJ ueim-t Q.:t ti~Q.:tti -r-~t.i:t,O)t! 0

l:: 7-Y-t"70).:O)i'l!!O)~iflit;tOO~t:-r, ~~l:l;tf hHH.t --r,m!,i:,W:13~~:m Jot •-r, i1!!~~ffilffiL,

Ji p{J"('~'.)E'.ff{Jt'.1")-5~U,;f-A I-•::Jo-=.7JvO)=icfn1ibllf It Q

1:,-1:fjl,-r~t.:

0

Jfim7:17~ifli:b'S:O)J:-jt:il~~h -rt 'Qtt ,-j