I had the opportunity to attend the opening of the exhibition 'The Neighbour At The Gate' in National Art School here in Sydney. I've been wanting to visit a proper exhibit with intention and I'm glad to report that I found a lot of inspiration from being around art and being able to use my art brain again.
The opening started at 6 PM, but I arrived late because I'd realized that I left my cards at home when the bus arrived. I was feeling myself that day and was so ready to go out, I truly can't just slay fully huh. I ended up arriving 10 to 15 minutes late. Fortunately, I found out later that the opening speech started at 6.30 PM.
The venue was a lot more crowded than I expected. Easily 100 or more people were around. The crowd was kind of what you would expect. I had envisioned a mix bag of colorful, fun attire and brooding neutrals, though in reality it was more the later.
The speech itself was just a standard opening speech by people who were behind the events, like the school board and curators. One notable thing that happened was the smoking ceremony that preceded the speech. It was followed by acknowledgement of native people and native land which is good. However.. I find this experience to be a bit performative and hollow. Even appropriative to be frank. I do realize that Australia is quite conscious of occupying native land as well as acknowledge native peoples in the past and present. Although that is a good sentiment in theory, I think more action could be taken to support natives who actually needs assistance.
Anyway, this exhibition tells stories of Asian Australian artists and their work deals with the theme of immigration and the diaspora. The exhibition overall was pretty enjoyable.
I had fun dissecting the works from the materials used, the process, and the meaning behind the works. But upon further reflection of the whole experience, I went down a path of thought that I want to talk about today.
I find that artists of backgrounds and cultures that are the minorities often get pigeonholed into doing works that promotes or commercializes their culture by portraying it in a way that is palatable to the masses. I'm not saying that that is what's happening in this instance, but I can't help but be reminded of this notion.
It's almost like if you are an artist who is not white or of the majority, you are "encouraged" to create artworks that are more "personal". The artwork you create can't just exist on its own. If I were to make artworks in relation to my own cultural background, of course I would approach it with a sense of sensitivity and consciousness that I would be representing something bigger than myself. And with that, works tend to take on a more serious and critical tone (sometimes even political). It dispels so many other possibilities and characteristics an artwork might take, such as whimsy, fun, camp, light-hearted. I'm not saying that these qualities can't co-exist, but it can't just be whimsical or fun or light-hearted. The artwork also has to satisfy a certain quota of this element of selling out your culture, cultural/collective trauma or oppression.
I'm not exactly sure what I want to say with this. But I'd imagine it would be extremely emotionally draining for myself if I were to make this element the center of my works. Not only in the process, but having to explain it times over.
I wonder what you think, dear reader. Do you feel the same way that I do?
No comments:
Post a Comment