Performing Protest in Singapore: Performance Tactics in Brother Cane and Don’t Give Money to the Arts

Wei Hao Goh
{"title":"Performing Protest in Singapore: Performance Tactics in Brother Cane and Don’t Give Money to the Arts","authors":"Wei Hao Goh","doi":"10.1080/00233609.2023.2181864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the early hours of 1 January 1994, Josef Ng concluded his 25-minute performance artwork Brother Cane (1994) by snipping his pubic hair. The performance created a public furore, resulting in the cessation of public funding towards performance artworks for ten years. Undeterred by the backlash, Tang Da Wu created and performed Don’t Give Money to the Arts (1995) to protest the no-funding rule: during the opening of a state-sponsored exhibition, the artist approached the president of Singapore while wearing a jacket embroidered with the words “Don’t Give Money to the Arts”. Although it was as explicit in its criticism of the government and its policies, Tang was not penalised for his performance. In this paper, I conduct a comparative analysis of these two works to examine how protest art – with a focus on the performance art form – navigates the cultural hegemony in Singapore by comparing the tactics used in both performances by analysing how and why Tang managed to escape punishment for his scathing performance while Ng did not. Specifically, I look at how the performances navigated the “out-of-bound markers” and concealed their dissent, and how the artists controlled the documentations produced. The answers to this question provide us with important insights into how protest art continues to adapt to and resist the mutating systems of control within authoritarian states.","PeriodicalId":164200,"journal":{"name":"Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00233609.2023.2181864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In the early hours of 1 January 1994, Josef Ng concluded his 25-minute performance artwork Brother Cane (1994) by snipping his pubic hair. The performance created a public furore, resulting in the cessation of public funding towards performance artworks for ten years. Undeterred by the backlash, Tang Da Wu created and performed Don’t Give Money to the Arts (1995) to protest the no-funding rule: during the opening of a state-sponsored exhibition, the artist approached the president of Singapore while wearing a jacket embroidered with the words “Don’t Give Money to the Arts”. Although it was as explicit in its criticism of the government and its policies, Tang was not penalised for his performance. In this paper, I conduct a comparative analysis of these two works to examine how protest art – with a focus on the performance art form – navigates the cultural hegemony in Singapore by comparing the tactics used in both performances by analysing how and why Tang managed to escape punishment for his scathing performance while Ng did not. Specifically, I look at how the performances navigated the “out-of-bound markers” and concealed their dissent, and how the artists controlled the documentations produced. The answers to this question provide us with important insights into how protest art continues to adapt to and resist the mutating systems of control within authoritarian states.
新加坡的表演抗议:《凯恩兄弟》和《不要把钱给艺术》中的表演策略
1994年1月1日凌晨,吴国强剪下自己的阴毛,结束了他25分钟的行为艺术作品《Cane兄弟》(1994)。这次表演引起了公众的愤怒,导致行为艺术的公共资助停止了十年。唐大武没有被抵制吓倒,他创作并表演了《不要给钱给艺术》(1995),以抗议没有资金资助的规定:在一个国家资助的展览开幕期间,艺术家穿着一件绣着“不要给钱给艺术”的夹克走近新加坡总统。虽然它对政府及其政策的批评同样明确,但唐并没有因为他的表现而受到惩罚。在本文中,我对这两部作品进行了比较分析,通过比较两种表演中使用的策略,通过分析唐如何以及为什么能够逃脱对他严厉表演的惩罚,而吴恩达却没有,来研究抗议艺术(以行为艺术形式为重点)如何在新加坡的文化霸权中导航。具体来说,我关注的是表演如何驾驭“越界标记”并隐藏他们的异议,以及艺术家如何控制所产生的文件。这个问题的答案为我们提供了重要的见解,让我们了解抗议艺术如何继续适应和抵制专制国家内部不断变化的控制体系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信