The Ninth Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art

215 ESSAYS Entangled histories From this turning point in global history it is possible to see the strong shift in artistic identities fomented by the entangled histories of the postwar period: Who made art? Where and why, and with what and how? 1 The Asia Pacific Triennial has been the site of repositioning and re-evaluation, beginning with its redefinition of Australia in relation to its geography and trade partnerships, rather than its colonial ties. As the Triennial has developed, it has also implicitly proposed the expansion of art histories by presenting artists, mediums and modes of practice that have often been overlooked, and yet have been essential to the development of contemporary art in the region. In past APTs, this repositioning has also addressed the work of ‘historical’ artists — for example, Len Lye (1901–80) in APT8 and Nasreen Mohamedi (1937–90) in APT5 — within developments in contemporary practice. In APT9, there are a number of these inclusions, such as Bougainville artist Herman Somuk, but of particular note is the work of three conceptual or post-minimal artists who are beginning to be known as founders or pioneers in their respective countries — Roberto Chabet, Hassan Sharif and Rasheed Araeen. Curator Okwui Enwezor’s quote, which begins this essay, points to the connections linking artists across geographical boundaries and artificial borders. Araeen, Chabet and Sharif developed uniquely local practices, which offer insights into the continuing relevance of Conceptual art across the region, and highlight some of the problems in the interpretation of global modernisms. The use of conceptual principles, relational seriality, quotidian materials and repetition and sequence are visible in the work of a number of APT9 artists. For example, Ayesha Sultana disrupts distinctions between drawing and sculpture; Mithu Sen uses language to subvert hierarchical codes and rules; and Qiu Zhijie, Sawangwongse Yawnghwe and Kim Beom reference conceptual indexes, plans and maps to critique mechanisms of power. Enkhbold Togmidshiirev’s performances draw on the shamanistic conceptualism of German artist Joseph Beuys (1921–86), while Peter Robinson’s discrete sculptural interventions create formal and spatial disjunctions within the gallery space. Much has been written about the historical emergence of Conceptual art in Australia and New Zealand; in Asia, it remains the subject of debate and contradiction. 2 As Isabel Ching notes, its close association with a period of independence from colonial rule and the increasing globalism of the 1960s and 1970s has meant ‘there is a history of contestations over the values of art that pit the expression of local flavour against the transmission of Western styles’. 3 Importantly, there is now an understanding that Conceptual art outside North America arose not as an appropriation or belated interpretation; rather, it developed from a series of cultural engagements, translations and entanglements from numerous sources, places and chronologies. Rasheed Araeen has been outspoken about what he refers to as the Eurocentric domination and racial bias of Modernism and its history, and is increasingly recognised as a diasporic voice. He arrived in London during the 1960s from Karachi, Pakistan, and while working as a structural engineer, he began to create three-dimensional works that took the form of open cubes, using balsa wood and house paint. It was only later that he was exposed to American Minimalism, through exhibitions such as Harald Szeemann’s ‘Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form’, which travelled to the Institute of Contemporary Art, in London, in 1969. In his ongoing practice, including his paintings, he has continued to engage with and extend a minimalist and conceptual vocabulary. His use of time-based and ephemeral media, non-aesthetic photography, and his resistance to the notion of the ‘exotic other’ and the commodification of the art object all link his work to the ideas of performance and Conceptual art. As Iftikhar Dadi states, although Araeen draws on his ‘South Asianness and Muslimness’, he has been resolute in situating his career ‘in the mainstream of modernism that he understands to be universalist and progressive’. 4 In contrast, Roberto Chabet was initially associated with a dominant and repressive regime. He was the inaugural director of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), an entity established in 1966 under the Marcos government, which promoted Conceptual, minimal and performance art as ‘global’ forms expressive of an ‘emerging Filipino modernity’. 5 As a result, Chabet’s Conceptualism has sometimes been viewed as a mimicry of international styles, or as not involved in the postcolonial critiques of the modern. Consequently, many of the subtle interventions of his practice have gone unremarked. 6 Roberto Chabet at the Dirty Room, UP College of Fine Arts, the Philippines, 1983 / Photograph: Soler Santos / Courtesy: King Kong Art Projects Unlimited