Having been writing about Malaysian art for at least nine years, I know that I shouldn’t be, but I am still surprised by the sheer vacuousness of what currently passes for some art writing in Malaysia. I make a distinction, however, between the two types of art gallery - the one which is highly professional and entreats good writing from people prominent in the field of art, and those that do are not, and do not.
It is to the latter that I address the following……..
There are convoluted and confused catalogue or brochure prefaces, their un-insightful introductions and un-energised essays on art which dare to show their faces in those very same gallery catalogues and brochures, are often unintelligible to the reader of English. In Malaysian newspapers (especially) and Malaysian magazines, poorly informed writers shame the whole concept of art writing. Hastily written paragraphs flaunt ill-informed drivel and worse, are poorly constructed in the English language. Is it, therefore, not time that art historical and art critical writing was taught on English Writing courses, and compulsory (in which ever language) on art history/criticism courses in Malaysia, to overcome what has become the misnomer of art writing here.
To their credit, some Malaysian writers are very good at turning a sentence but, sadly, the best do not venture into the writing about art, but confine themselves to politics and social commentary. Moreover, there many more ‘writers’ who are barely adequate in the English language but muddle through because their editors are worse. Those that are good have scant knowledge about art, while those that are bad have no knowledge about art or writing. It is not hard to tell that much of the Malaysian art writing we see in public is Google translated from Malay or Chinese. The result is the worse kind of Manglish, or Chinglish, pretending to be English. But, because editors have little experience and/or knowledge of the English language, let alone Art History, these dire diatribes pass muster in which ever media is proud to publish them.
Google translations are easily spotted by their convoluted content; overly florid use of language and bizarre, often antiquated, English idioms are thrown in for good measure. This occurs because those who may be knowledgeable about Malaysia art have poor English language skills, and are unable to write coherently in the language. This is a pity, as it limits their audience to either Chinese reading or Malay reading peoples, and closes those article/essays off to an International (English reading) audience. Surely, if translations are necessary, it would be better to hand the original script over to a human translator who has the capability of an accurate translation, from whichever language, rather than rely on mechanical translators which have no ‘feel’ for the languages they are translating into. I once stood in an art gallery, on an island off the coast of peninsula Malaysia turning an exhibition catalogue upside down, round and round because the ‘English’ was, to me, undecipherable.
Sadly, Malaysian art articles e.t.c. are frequently written by ‘writers’, and especially writers in newspapers, who have only a passing knowledge of art, while many do not even have that, but simply ‘wing it’. Few of that ilk of art writers have attended art school, even fewer art schools outside of Malaysia. Practically none of the current newspaper or magazine art writers have attended courses on art history, art theory or art writing, especially at Post-Graduate level. It is because of this that writers confuse multi-coloured with ‘psychedelic’, Expressionism with Impressionism, Futuristic with Futurism and seem to have very little knowledge of anything beyond those. Dada, Surrealism, and even Cubism, are scantly mentioned except where it overlaps with the writer’s recognition of Picasso, and contemporary art seems to elude them altogether. Malaysian gallery owners are equally as guilty, as many have no academic background in art but only a desire to profit from it, and so are unable to recognise good, bad or ugly art writing.
It has become a modern truism that Malaysian articles must praise (fan) their subjects, rather than be objective and critique. Too much Malaysian art writing is simply ‘advertorial’ (advert dressed up as editorial), where the writer (or newspaper/magazine) is paid to praise an artist, his/her work or an exhibition. No critique is involved. It is not objective, but subjective in the worse possible way, and maybe this is due to the writer’s lack of art education or unfair expectations of the art world.
It is only through critique, the art of analysis and assessment, that artists may move forward with their work, Constant praise only holds back an artist’s momentum, inhibits their growth as an artist. It is therefore the purpose of an art writer to decipher the work of art, to bring his/her experience and knowledge to bear on the unravelling of the mysteries inherent within each artwork, and report their findings. It is the opposite of the fawning and fanning which currently occurs. Critiquing is a valued but hefty task, requiring specific skills and not just a passing fancy for the art object. Critics must be knowledgeable, learned, impartial, careful but nevertheless judgemental in a way which feeds back to artists where aspects of their work need attention.
Malaysia needs art courses which will make distinctions about things, ask fundamental questions about art, life, philosophy. Students need grounding in the philosophy of art as well as art history and art criticism. Proposed studies would include wide-ranging knowledge of the arts, giving students an opportunity to sample many different areas of art, writing and thesis preparation as well as a chance to study visual imagery in its myriad forms from the graphic art of design, sequential art, art of indigenous peoples as well as art and art histories of the East and the West. The study of art and the practice of writing should be studied side by side, to produce well rounded art critics for all our futures.
