Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art, 1993 : Exhibition report

APPENDIX I INTRODUCTION - FROM EXTRAREGIONALISM TO INTRAREGIONALISM? he first Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art brings together nearly two hundred works by seventy-six artists from twelve countries and Hong Kong. TheTrienniai is an ongoing project which will see two further exhibitions in this decade — in 1996 and 1999. The title Asia-Pacific’ for this project is not conceived as suggesting a common cultural identity or a perceived homogeneity. Yet this part of the world is establishing contexts for intraregiona! cooperation and, given its growing political, strategic and economic significance, it is inevitable that its contemporary cultures and art, which in turn mirror the dynamic changes now so characteristic of the region, should receive greater global attention. While there have been exhibitions of South-East Asian and East Asian art within Asia, and in particular in Fukuoka in Japan, this is the first exhibition of this scale to focus on the Asia-Pacific region. As Doug Hall suggests in the Foreword, in the context of Australia’s geographical proximity and developing relations with the countries of Asia and the Pacific, it seems logical and appropriate, given that Australia in its world view is no longer solely a Euro-Americentric country, that an Australian art museum would take up the challenge of a major series of exhibitions and forums concentrating on the vitality and diversity of the region’s contemporary art at the beginning of what is undoubtedly a new era for both Australia and the region. Fundamental to the Triennial’s philosophy is that it is impossible to predetermine the outcomes of such a project, but that intellectual and artistic exchanges of ideas are of the greatest importance. It may not be until after the third Triennial in 1999 that any clear pattern will emerge. The Asia-Pacific Triennial is intended to initiate a dialogue between artists and art experts in the countries of the region. The project has evolved over two and a half years of research as an integrated process of consultation with those artists and art experts. The selection process has been the most rewarding aspect of the entire project and a genuine voyage of discovery for the staff of the Queensland Art Gallery. The Gallery could not have undertaken this project without the assistance given by a growing number of Australians who have considerable expertise in the region. Chief among these are the members of our National Committee — Alison Carroll, who has undertaken a major curatorial role in developing visual arts exchanges between Australia and Asia; Neil Manton, who has been an inspiration and guide to many Australians; and David Williams, who has contributed extensively in the areas of craft, visual art and academic exchanges. However, the selections for this exhibition have not been made by Australian curators going into the region and selecting only the work that interested them. From the first, it was central to the Triennial’s curatorial philosophy that the selections would also reflect what experts in those countries believed were important issues within the art of each country. This has been a project of genuine collaboration based on mutual respect, and we thank all of those who have generously shared their knowledge and ideas. We have been delighted by the extraordinarily enthusiastic response in the countries which we have visited and the fact that artists and critics in those countries have welcomed Australia’s involvement as well as the concept of the Triennial itself. The focus on contemporary art has been especially applauded as an opportunity to put aside pre-existing stereotypes and initiate discussion based on the realities of current developments. The issue of whether there should be a theme for this exhibition was raised very' early. The selection for 1993 has been based on showing the dynamism and diversity of art practice within the region. It may be that in future Triennial exhibitions a theme or themes will be developec but our approach for this Triennial was not to attempt to impose ar theme but to explore that very diversity as well as concepts of identiv tradition and change. The extensive scale of the project has allows us to see the artists reflecting a range of experiences relevant to th countries in which they work. There was no specific age grou designated for the Triennial. The selection concentrates mainly o younger artists in their thirties and forties, but there are artists in thi exhibition who have been working for over fifty years. There were, c course, many artists of outstanding merit whose work could not t included in the first Triennial. No art medium was excluded from t!~ Triennial, although in the end the emphasis has been on paintinc sculpture, photography, performance and installation. Installation ha emerged as a particularly vital and interesting component of the ar We did approach this exhibition through national contexts, whic itself raises significant questions. It is our hope that further countrie wiil be induced in the next Triennial. In the future the art may als be selected other than nationally, but these are issues which will t canvassed at the 1993 Conference. What is apparent is that the artis within this region are confident in their local and regional specificity r well as in incorporating ideas which cross national boundaries — an e which engages with international art practice but is not dependent c international ideas imposed from a ‘centre’. The focus on contemporary art rather than traditional art approach*; was seen as essential from the beginning. While recognising tf enduring achievements of the traditional art of the region, and th traditional art continues to co-exist with contemporary art today, the ai of this project has always been to focus on the vitality and diversity contemporary art practice. Nevertheless, people and nations bring th* past with them into the future, and the historical context is fundamen; to an understanding of contemporary art. The Gallery has address* this through the publication of a major book, Tradition and Chanc Contemporary Art of Asia and the Pacific , with essays by experts frc each of the countries involved and also from India and Taiwan. It is surprising but perhaps highly revealing that there has been little scholarly attention paid to the development of the modern art of t Asia-Pacific region. Yet as Malaysian artist Redza Piyadasa reminds a significant engagement with Western art dates from last century. 1830, for example, the Javanese prince Raden Saleh left Indonesia the Netherlands where he became Court painter to the King. After t Meiji restoration, large numbers of Japanese artists studied in Fran Umehara and Fujita being two of the best known. From the Philippin Juan Luna and Felix H idalgo won the gold and silver medr respectively at the Grand Exposition of painting in Madrid in 1864. In t twentieth century, the achievements of Asian modernists are not wic known in the West, yet there were pioneer artists of great importer, including Amrita Sher-Gii from India, Soedjojono, Affandi and Hem Gunawan from Indonesia, and Victorio Edades, Carlos Francisco a Vicente Manansala from the Philippines, to name only a few.1This la of knowledge of the twentieth-century achievements of the art of region can be partly attributed to the absorption of the West with historical and classical art.T. K. Sabapathy from Singapore has no the bias of Western scholars of South-East Asian art to Hindu-Budd^ classical art, and the lack of interest in the centuries that follow.2T later era coincides with the beginning of Western colonisation in m of these countries and colonisation depends for its legitim on assumptions of cultural superiority.