{"id":27841,"date":"2006-06-15T11:03:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-15T11:03:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/?p=27841"},"modified":"2024-07-04T14:19:33","modified_gmt":"2024-07-04T06:19:33","slug":"talk-is-action-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/artikel\/2006\/06\/talk-is-action-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Talk Is Action"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n

There will be some among you who\nbelieve that talking about problems, about crises and about rights is a passive\nact. All talk, no action. I disagree with those sentiments. Talk, conversation,\ndialogue, argument and general discourse ARE actions. Identifying problems and\nthe responses to those problems are important diagnostic activities too. A\nsurgeon does not cut you open without knowing what it is they are looking for.\nLikewise artists and activists need to theoretically and critically analyse the\nconditions within which they are forced to endure. It can also be a cathartic\nexperience as anyone would have ascertained had they heard the ‘public’\nresponses to these issues at the public forum called Panic Buttons – Culture and Crisis in Malaysia and the Region<\/em> at\nThe Actors Studio Bangsar last Sunday (11 June 2006). It ended a preceding\ntwo-day Roundtable Forum on “Crisis, Performance, Rights” at\nValentine Willie Fine Art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the recent and regular\ncrackdowns on artistic practice and expression here in Malaysia it was timely\nthat this regional gathering took place here in Kuala Lumpur. It was organised\nby Ray Langenbach, Sharaad Kuttan (Malaysian intellectuals), Lee Weng Choy and\nPaul Rae (Singaporean intellectuals). They brought together art practitioners,\nwriters, activists, filmmakers and academics from around the region, all\nsharing stories surrounding moments of actual crisis in the arts from\nIndonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Burma. These case studies were\ncontextualised and reflected upon in a rigorously engaged manner, and in a\nspirit of regional and creative solidarity. The two events over three days\nattempted to answer, among others, the following questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is crisis? Are crises\norchestrated? What happens when an artist or a work of art is situated at the\ncentre of a crisis — perceived or actual — that is orchestrated by second and\nthird party players? Are these crises initiated as part of a larger and more\ninsidious agenda? Is the state the only censor? What might a cultural worker do\nin response to such attacks? How can communities of practitioners across the\nregion galvanise to support the integrity of the artist and the artwork when a\nwork is arbitrarily banned or when the broader human rights of an artist are\nimperilled or withdrawn by state, institutions or individuals within the\nbroader social fabric?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rupture: “There is no real social fabric”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first workshop at the two-day\nroundtable discussion was ‘Rupture’ which was chaired by Ray Langenbach. The\norganisers utilised the theoretical modelling of anthropologist Victor Turner’s\n“social drama” and the manner in which crisis emerges from a\nrecognisable breach within the social fabric. It was a model that proved\nfruitful, even when it was critiqued as it was by doyenne of Indonesian\nliterature and thought Goenawan Mohamad, who found the bias towards a\nformalised social fabric to be at best problematic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is an interesting question to\nhave asked. Is there a recognisable social fabric that can indeed be ruptured?\nGoenawan was concerned that the term in fact hides something more serious and\nthat ultimately “there is no real social fabric in the first place.”\nTo give that argument some concrete support he cited in detail the broader\nimplications of the proposed Anti-Pornography Bill in Indonesia, of the\ncampaign against it and the multiple sites of contestation that surround it.\nRather than a homogenous social fabric that is occasionally transgressed\nproducing such crises, there are, he argued, competing sectors within society\nwho struggle to either maintain or oppose larger hegemonies. His analysis also\ntouched upon a recurrent theme of the three-day event when he talked about the\npower of language, and of the need to reappropriate and reignite meaning that\nhas been otherwise subverted for hegemonic and perhaps sometimes sinister purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The personal accounts of ‘rupture’ —\nof censorship and bans and acts of creative defiance were grounded firmly in\nMalaysia with the testimonies by Amir Muhammad surrounding the chronology of\nevents leading up to the arbitrary ban of his film Lelaki Komunis Terakhir<\/em>, from Arahmaini about her sense of fear and\nvulnerability following the closure of the Satu\nKali<\/em> event in Kuala Lumpur recently and from Fahmi Fadzil who spoke about\nthe state\/federal battle over the banning of Mak Yong and other traditional Malay\narts in the state of Kelantan. The question of the arbitrary nature of most\ncensorship within the region was reiterated a number of times by Weng Choy who\nclaimed that the act of censorship is ALWAYS arbitrary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reaction: The new democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next workshop, chaired by Paul\nRae, further explored what a crisis may actually mean while giving shape to a\nvariety of differing possible responses. Indonesian writer Laksmi Pamuntjak\ngave a valuable account of how she personally responded to the attacks and physical\nthreats of religious extremists on Utan Kayu in Jakarta. She also spoke of the\nproblems inherent in getting information out to the wider community about what\nis happening on the site of crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The workshops and public forum\nengaged positively with the idea of what might constitute a ‘public’ and how\nthat ‘public’ engages with works of art, with state hegemonies and with other\nruptures created by non state institutions and forces. The ‘public’ is itself a\nvague and problematic construction, grounded in the falsehood of generics and\ndefying ultimately attempts at homogeneity, and therefore of course broad based\nconsensus. Can we start to imagine a series of shifting publics that have a\nporous fluidity about what they might at any given time be made up of?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was amongst the round table\nparticipants an accord when it came to the argument that states create crisis\nin order to maintain their hegemonic supremacy. The creation or production of\ncrisis is in itself a performative act. Raiding black metal concerts, banning\nexhibitions on world religions, cancelling screenings of films at FINAS and not\nprotecting the free assembly of people gathered to discuss Article 11 are in a\nsense all orchestrated acts of crisis that serve to not only engender fear, but\nto bolster the hegemony of shifting power bases. The state falls back on a\ndefence of its hard won status quo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kathy Rowland also pointed out the\ninteresting shift away from direct state censorship. She mentioned that the\nMalaysian state has actually not banned a theatrical performance — not before\nthe play’s opening night anyway — since the ban on Madam Mao’s Memories<\/em> in 1990. Now the municipal or the federal bans\nor closes a performance based upon a complaint or objection by one or more\nmembers of the ‘public’. The state has so successfully produced a sense of\nperpetual crisis — that ‘we, the nation’ are under constant attack from ‘the\nWest’, secularism and communism, to name but three — that it no longer needs\nto generate the crises itself. Broader society has internalised this fear and\nstate generated crisis and now many feel capable of serving that state as self\nappointed moral guardians. Caught in the middle are art practitioners,\nfilmmakers, writers and so forth whose claims for freedom of expression and the\nright to articulate difference are smothered by a newly self-righteous\n‘democracy’. This new ‘democracy’ claims it responds to the concerns of the\n‘public’ even if that public is perhaps a public of just one person. As is the\ncase with the banning of Amir Muhammad’s Lelaki\nKomunis Terakhir<\/em>, a truly Monty Python-esque affair. But it remains\nultimately a state generated crisis even if the trigger was the campaign of one\nparticular journalist who manipulated his coverage to create a perceived\ncampaign of opposition. In fact, this crisis appears only to further highlight\ndivisions within the ruling elites, if not within the ruling party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rites, Reflections, Resolution, Renewal: The failure of criticism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third workshop, ‘Rites and\nReflections’, chaired by Lee Weng Choy of Singapore’s The Substation,\nacknowledged that rites (as opposed to ‘rights’) have an important role in both\nmaintaining the status quo as well as in generating possible change. It was\npremised on the idea that certain institutions such as universities perform a\nseries of rites — such as the articulation and preservation of liberal values.\nBut such institutions are increasingly hampered in their capacity to use those\nrites to generate change and are often sidelined when it comes to responding to\ncrisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea of reflexion therefore\nsignifies the possibilities and potential of intellectual activism. This\nworkshop explored such things as what constitutes a critical imagination. It\nlooked at the failure, in contemporary culture and society, of the performance\nof criticism per se and its apparent inability to truly engage with the greater\npublic. Particularised case studies again proved useful for this discussion and\nthe session itself was a particularly good segue into Sharaad Kuttan’s open\nroundtable discussion on ‘Resolution\/Renewal’. How do we respond? How do we\nactively engage with the public? What new ways of strategising could we think\nabout? Can we give new life to old strategies and methods of action and\nactivism? How can we build bridges to other activist networks? How do the\nproblems faced by cultural practitioners impact upon or relate to the broader\nrights issues of women, workers and other sectors of society who also feel that\nthey experience crisis and rupture when confronted with hegemony and ruptures\nwithin a perceived social fabric? What role can the media play in these crises\nand how is the media complicit in crisis generation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public Forum: More than mere talk<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer to the question of how\none might actively engage with the public was given a performative and concrete\nresponse last Sunday when a panel from the roundtable addressed a public\nmeeting at the Actors Studio at Bangsar. Hosted with considerable panache by\nintellectual Sharaad Kuttan, the panellists Kathy Rowland, Thai artist-activist\nChumpon Apisuk, Goenawan Mohamad, translator and scholar Jennifer Lindsay, Lee\nWeng Choy, Malaysian artist Yap Sau Bin and PR consultant John Pang\ncollectively distilled much that was discussed in the previous two days and\nopened that discussion up to the public for their critical engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If I were to characterise the mood\nof a Malaysian ‘public’ who gave up a sunny Kuala Lumpur afternoon to deal with\nsome very serious and current issues then I might just mention three other words\nthat begin with the letter ‘R’ – Race, Religion and Rights. Matters of\nidentity, or rather perceived threats to identity, are often the triggers of\ncrisis. In Malaysia, the very contested notions of identity that are so\nthoroughly laced with the inherent complexities of your own bountiful diversity\nlie at the heart of such contestations — ethnicity, religion and class mixed\ntogether with all the apparent divisions that indeed lie within each one of\nthose rubrics. This dynamic and somewhat fluid state of affairs appears to be\ngoverned and controlled largely by a desire to keep it all perpetually static.\nThe ruptures and responses are perhaps spat out occasionally and then the\nbruises are later concealed to fester below the surface in the sanctuary of fear\nand marginality. While the current state and cultural hegemony might appear\ndivided, even fractured, it does however appear to be resolute in maintaining\nits hegemonic status and a semblance of the status quo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was some debate as to whether\nthere was an active and cohesive arts community here at all and an equally\ninteresting argument that a networked community all working together is not\nnecessarily either achievable or desirable — the community itself is diverse\nand the creation of a united front has the potential to become another\ninstitutionalised power base that could itself exclude and marginalise. A\ncommitment has been made by the organisers to continue the dialogue further and\nto begin a process of monitoring and disseminating information to fellow\npractitioners and activists when a particular incident arises in a particular\nplace. This is a sound and proactive outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The audience appeared pleased to be\nable to articulate their fears, their desires and their uncertainties — not\njust with a crisis in the culture of the land as is so demonstrably evident in\nthe recent attacks on the arts — but also with the discourses on power,\nhegemony, place, space and control. It was a healthy thing to witness people\ndiscussing these issues and listening to each other. It was more than just mere\ntalk — it was a sharing and a convergence and confluence of ideas that gave\npeople a chance to proactively utilise their right to democratic spaces while\nalso articulating their positions. It might not save the next film that is\narbitrarily banned, the next book that does not get published, nor will it\nsafeguard the rights of artists and performers to break new ground and to tread\nwhere others wished they wouldn’t. What this meeting achieved was an informed\nand articulate defence of diversity and difference and an affirmation of the\nimportance of art and culture to the health of a society and of a nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To those who practice moral policing\nand censorship and to those who support such actions, Panic Buttons<\/em> proved that you are not speaking for everyone.\nDemonstrating that proof was indeed action and I look forward to seeing more\ncritically informed public engagements throughout the region in the near\nfuture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

~~~<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panic Buttons<\/em> was organised as a local prelude to Performing Rights: the 12th<\/sup> Annual Conference of Performance Studies International (PSi)<\/em> to be held at Queen Mary University of London from 15-18 June. This South East Asian chapter is supported by Valentine Willie Fine Art, The Actors Studio Bangsar, Kakiseni.com and Singapore’s The Substation.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benjamin McKay is finalising his PhD dissertation on Malay film history and in 2006 is lecturing at Monash University Malaysia at Sunway. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

First Published: 15.06.2006 on Kakiseni <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There will be some among you who believe that talking about problems, about crises and about rights is a passive act. All talk, no action. I disagree with those sentiments. Talk, conversation, dialogue, argument and general discourse ARE actions. Identifying problems and the responses to those problems are important diagnostic activities too. A surgeon does […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"iawp_total_views":2,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7758,7781,7765,7770,7767,7762,7779],"tags":[4309,245,3073,3074,844,4307,712,3064,501,867,635,990,508,709,3065,3067,564,686,3070,3066,485,3926,4308,3068,4306,3072,502,3063,266,4243,550,2791,3071,827,3047],"language":[7785],"writer":[7828],"class_list":["post-27841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-artikel","category-seni","category-penapisan","category-budaya","category-filem","category-teater","category-bengkel","tag-activism","tag-amir-muhammad","tag-arahmaini","tag-article-11","tag-arts","tag-burma","tag-censorship","tag-chumpon-apisuk","tag-culture","tag-fahmi-fadzil","tag-finas","tag-forum","tag-goenawan-mohamad","tag-indonesia","tag-jennifer-lindsay","tag-john-pang","tag-kakiseni","tag-kathy-rowland","tag-laksmi-pamuntjak","tag-lee-weng-choy","tag-mak-yong","tag-malaysia","tag-myanmar","tag-paul-rae","tag-queen-mary-university-of-london","tag-ray-langenbach","tag-religion","tag-sharaad-kuttan","tag-singapore","tag-thailand","tag-the-actors-studio-bangsar","tag-the-substation","tag-utan-kayu","tag-valentine-willie-fine-art","tag-yap-sau-bin","language-inggeris","writer-benjamin-mckay-ms"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27841"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27841\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38859,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27841\/revisions\/38859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27841"},{"taxonomy":"language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/language?post=27841"},{"taxonomy":"writer","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/writer?post=27841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}