- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
I refer to Ong Keng Sen's comments in Adeline Chia's article, Ong Keng Sen Criticises Local Theatre (Life!, June 2). His contention that Singapore theatre has become a theatre of text and naturalism misses the point entirely of what is wrong with Singapore theatre.
The fact is that the National Arts Council (NAC) has been funding 'physical' theatre and Ong's productions under TheatreWorks and Theatre Practice, among others, to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. These companies are well known for their emphasis on physicality in theatre.
On the other hand, although funding for text-driven plays has been huge as well, as evidenced by government support for companies such as The Necessary Stage and Singapore Repertory Theatre, the general quality of writing has never matured and has remained on the level of gesticulation and histrionics.
I do agree that Singapore theatre and art in general is an abysmal failure. The crux of the problem lies in the policy/money-driven arts scene. The problem is triple-pronged.
First, the extensive and selective funding apparatus has created an artificially pumped-up scene with a few large groups that are given astronomical amounts of money. This perpetuates a situation where smaller groups that are doing interesting and cutting-edge work are snuffed out in the process and not allowed to grow. The Singapore Government does not understand that diversity of views and opinions fosters creativity.
The vision of the Renaissance City a decade or more ago implied that we need to have it and 'have it now'. As is the case, the NAC decided it was incumbent upon it to build up a few 'flagship' companies in theatre. The result is an arts bubble that would pop once the money goes. Such a situation is not sustainable.
Second is the huge import of foreign productions, which rank high mostly on commercial and sometimes artistic value, thus displacing the potential audience base for local productions. The establishment of the Esplanade has done irreparable damage to the local arts scene. In the 1980s and 1990s, theatre was seen as an exciting projection of Singapore's identity. This is no longer the case.
Third - and this is no one's fault - is the development of digital films as an affordable expression for the young and hungry. Theatre, in a sense, has become largely irrelevant in the 21st century and has degenerated into entertainment for the rich and privileged, although it retains value as an educational tool.
The truth of the matter is that the arts policies of the two decades have been a total failure as they have neither cultivated a sustainable, commercially viable scene, nor have they created an environment where a true sense of Singapore culture can germinate. The responsibility for this lies as much with the artists as with policymakers.
Wong Kwang Han
Aporia Society
The fact is that the National Arts Council (NAC) has been funding 'physical' theatre and Ong's productions under TheatreWorks and Theatre Practice, among others, to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. These companies are well known for their emphasis on physicality in theatre.
On the other hand, although funding for text-driven plays has been huge as well, as evidenced by government support for companies such as The Necessary Stage and Singapore Repertory Theatre, the general quality of writing has never matured and has remained on the level of gesticulation and histrionics.
I do agree that Singapore theatre and art in general is an abysmal failure. The crux of the problem lies in the policy/money-driven arts scene. The problem is triple-pronged.
First, the extensive and selective funding apparatus has created an artificially pumped-up scene with a few large groups that are given astronomical amounts of money. This perpetuates a situation where smaller groups that are doing interesting and cutting-edge work are snuffed out in the process and not allowed to grow. The Singapore Government does not understand that diversity of views and opinions fosters creativity.
The vision of the Renaissance City a decade or more ago implied that we need to have it and 'have it now'. As is the case, the NAC decided it was incumbent upon it to build up a few 'flagship' companies in theatre. The result is an arts bubble that would pop once the money goes. Such a situation is not sustainable.
Second is the huge import of foreign productions, which rank high mostly on commercial and sometimes artistic value, thus displacing the potential audience base for local productions. The establishment of the Esplanade has done irreparable damage to the local arts scene. In the 1980s and 1990s, theatre was seen as an exciting projection of Singapore's identity. This is no longer the case.
Third - and this is no one's fault - is the development of digital films as an affordable expression for the young and hungry. Theatre, in a sense, has become largely irrelevant in the 21st century and has degenerated into entertainment for the rich and privileged, although it retains value as an educational tool.
The truth of the matter is that the arts policies of the two decades have been a total failure as they have neither cultivated a sustainable, commercially viable scene, nor have they created an environment where a true sense of Singapore culture can germinate. The responsibility for this lies as much with the artists as with policymakers.
Wong Kwang Han
Aporia Society
Last edited:
