[IN PRESS. Expected date of Publication – Dec 2017]
Ong, Emelia. “Book review: Contemporary Artists of Malaysia: A Biographic Survey,” in Narratives in Malaysian Art. Infrastructures. Vol. 4. Soon, Simon et.el. Kuala Lumpur: RogueArt.
Contemporary Artists of Malaysia: A Biographic Survey [should there be an essay title for each of these Simon?]
Book review: Contemporary Artists of Malaysia: A Biographic Survey Emelia Ong
In 1972, Dolores Wharton published the first survey ofn Malaysian artists in English.[i]Thirty-two artists, interviewed in 1966 and 1968, are featured in the book.
Arriving in Kuala Lumpur in 1959[ii], Wharton was captivated by theMalayan, and subsequently Malaysian art scene, and began to acquaint herself with artists, art collectors, art educators and the like. The book is a culmination of her knowledge and experience as an art advocate and, art collector[iii], and her familiarity with the featured artists, some of whom she knew on a personal basis.
Intended then as a traveller’s companion to art[iv], Wharton is frank about her impressions of the artists and her enthusiasm for the Malaysian story of art during the post-Independence period. Factual accounts of Malaysian artists are punctuated with casual anecdotes about her first encounters with these artists, —describingSyed Ahmad Jamal as “‘dashing… bright, fastidious, ambitious”’[v] and Yeoh Jin Lleng as “‘casual, friendly, yet serious and intense”.’ Through these accounts, we are offered a biography,ical or “‘personality sketch”’ as she puts it, of each artist, so that the identity of the artist is accentuated as an important aspect of the art.Thus, she suggests that the best way to know Malaysian art is to know Malaysian artists.
Underlying this approach is the assumption that the creative act for these artists was a decidedly personal undertaking and an extension of the artists’temperament and intellect. In this sense, it is not different from Vasarian art historical writing where art is introduced through the biographies or lives of the artists. However, she stops short of giving a critical analysis of the works, or ranking them, stating that,“‘it is a mistake for foreigners to take on the mantle as the[any reason for underlining here? It’s better without “the” but presume quote is correct; if it’s for emphasis, should italise] arbiters of taste”.;[vi] Her role as author is thus downplayed in order to amplify the voices of the artists.
She does this by arranging the artists’ responses inthe form of aa dialogue, so that they enter into “‘conversation”’ with one another with herself as narrator, interjecting to highlight different aspects of Malaysian art. She asks questions like, “‘Wwhat is the role of the artist?”’, ‘“Wwhat are the needs of Malaysian art?”’oror“‘Iis there a Malaysian school of art?”’By answering them, the artists raise related issues in art such as —the need for proper art education, the need to expand the art market or the importance of good art criticism.
However, in the organiszation of the book, her authorial voice is revealed in the way she contextualises the artistsm within the narrative of identity formation in the newly independent Malaysia. In this sense, she contends that art should also be understood beyond the personal histories of the artist.[vii] She does this in a 26-page introduction on the Iindependence of Malaysia and the development of art, and in subsections,titled,“‘Influences”’ (local and foreign influences) and “‘Opinions”’(controversial artists’ comments on various issues).
Even though the book provides an overview, rather than a comprehensive description of the Malaysian art scene, Wharton’s inclusion of factual details is sufficient to make it a useful source of information, both for the casual reader as well as the art historian. For instance, she points out that as early as 1954, Eastern and Western art history was being taught at the Raffles College by Dr. Michael Sullivan. She highlights the role of the United States Information Service in art development—housing meetings of The Society For Art Education, and starting the Children’s International Art Classes as well as an art library. She also describes in detail the opening of Samat Gallery (by Frank Sullivan in 1966) that caused such a buzz in town that even,“‘amahs were distracted from their toddling charges”’[viii] and “‘hawkers… slowed down their jaunty-gaited walk”,’ all to pause and look into the gallery! These inclusions bring us back in time, and enable us to envisage the kind of energy art had ignited within the Malaysian public.
It is not an overstatement to say that Tthe book became a resource for subsequent art writers and art historians who refer to the artists’ interviews as a record of their candid responses to the exciting period that was the 1950s and 60s. More than being reflective of that time period, Ttheir responses were also thoughtful statements about art itself and reveal highly personal reinflections on Malaysian art that remain relevant today.
Eleven years after the publication of Wharton’s book, T.K. Sabapathy and Redza Piyadasa wrote the Modern Artists of Malaysia[ix]. Out of the 26 artists featured in the latter, 18 were those that had been introduced in Wharton’s publication. And out of this, 8 of them referenced Contemporary Artists of Malaysia directly, which demonstrates the usefulness of published interviews as a primary source of information.
On a different note, there is a matter of contention that may be highlighted—which is the fact thatthat is W—Whartondistinguishseparates Malaysia from Singapore distinctly, and writes of Singapore as a separate entity from the beginning. While she acknowledges the historical links between the two countries[x], the subsection of the book, titled,“‘Singapore Iinfluences”’ may be rather misleading for those unfamiliar with the history of Malaya. This is because the use of the phrase conveniently segregates the artists according to national boundaries and can eclipses the fact that, until 1965, Malaysian and Singaporean artists viewed themselves as Malayans or as “‘fellow countrymen”’. Additionally, she makes little mention of Penang as one of the art centres of the Malayan Peninsula where early artistic activity haddeveloped.
Having said that, this book is more than a noteworthy contribution to the writing of art history.During its time, iIt representedis a necessary and fundamental step towards art education and development in Malaysia. Today, some of the artists featured in the book have passed on, but many of the issues debated remain relevant. This is where Contemporary Artists of Malaysiaserves as a valuable diary that can be revisited again and again in order to re-map or re-contextualise some of these considerations.
[i]Marco Hsu authored A Brief History of Malayan Art, in 1963. Written in Mandarin, it was translated into English by Lai Chee Kien in 1999.
[ii] Dolores Wharton accompanied her husband, Clifton Wharton to Malaysia and Singapore from 1958 to 1964.
[iii]See “Collections” at Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University, where at least eight paintings were recorded as being donated by the Whartonsto the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University, in New York in 2002. TheseItincludes Cheong Soo Pieng’sMalay Fishing Village(1957/58) and LatiffMohidin’sTanpa Nama.(Pago-Ppago Series).(1968).
[iv]See Dolores Wharton’s video-taped interview by the National Visionary Leadership Project, titled,Clifton Wharton: Dolores Wharton’s Career, where she mentions her interest in Malaysian art leading up to the publication of the book. National Visionary Leadership Project,. 2002-2013.
[v]Dolores D. Wharton, Dolores D.Contemporary Artists of Malaysia: A Biographic Survey,.Petaling Jaya: Asia Society, 1971,.p.Pg 38.
[vi]Wharton, Dolores D. Ibid., p. Pgiv.
[vii]Ibid., p. Wharton, Dolores D. Ibid. Pg 14.
[viii]Ibid., p. Wharton, Dolores D. Ibid. Pg 91.
[ix]Sabapathy, T. K. SabapathyandRedzaPiyadasa,.Modern Artists of Malaysia,. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa danPustaka, 1983.
[x]Dolores D. Wharton, Contemporary Artists of Malaysia, p. Wharton, Dolores D. Ibid. Pg 12.