A Cambodian “Leitkultur”? Cambodian Concepts of Art and Culture
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin (dir.) World Heritage Angkor and Beyond Circumstances and Implications of UNESCO Listings in Cambodia Göttingen University Press A Cambodian “Leitkultur”? Cambodian Concepts of Art and Culture Aditya Eggert Publisher: Göttingen University Press Place of publication: Göttingen University Press Year of publication: 2011 Published on OpenEdition Books: 12 April 2017 Serie: Göttingen Studies in Cultural Property Electronic ISBN: 9782821875432 http://books.openedition.org Electronic reference EGGERT, Aditya. A Cambodian “Leitkultur”? Cambodian Concepts of Art and Culture In: World Heritage Angkor and Beyond: Circumstances and Implications of UNESCO Listings in Cambodia [online]. Göttingen: Göttingen University Press, 2011 (generated 10 septembre 2020). Available on the Internet: <http:// books.openedition.org/gup/308>. ISBN: 9782821875432. A Cambodian “Leitkultur”? Cambodian Concepts of Art and Culture Aditya Eggert Introduction During my field research in Cambodia from May to September 2010, I took part in the “National Amateur Play Writing and Directing Workshop”1 that was realised by the Cambodian government in preparation for the annual “National Arts Festival”2 in 1 The “National Amateur Play Writing and Directing Workshop”, which was also called the “Advanced Training Course on Public Arts Writing and Directing”, was organised by the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts (MCFA) between July 28 and 30, 2010, in Phnom Penh. Its aim was to provide amateur artists with “up-to-date knowledge” on play writing, theatre directing and classical dance choreography (MCFA 2010a). The workshop comprised speeches by high government officials and representatives from the Royal University of Fine Arts (RUFA). Final “discussions” allowed the participants to ask questions that were subsequently answered by the speakers. The conference hall was organised in such a way that the invited speakers and the moderating chairs were placed on the elevated podium at the front of the hall, while the participants were seated on a lower level in the audience space. The workshop was filmed by representatives of the MCFA. 2 The “National Arts Festival” was held in February 2011 for the second time in association with the annual “National Cultural Day” (March 3). According to the Prime Minister (Hun 2010), the goal of this 70 Aditya Eggert 2011. Discussions were held during this workshop between governmental actors, university scholars and artists on the current challenges and norms in writing and directing theatre plays. I realised in the course of these discussions – and throughout my whole research in Cambodia – that the terms “art”3 and “culture” are strategically applied in the framework of the national cultural politics and are charged with corresponding meanings and values. This triggered several questions which I consider fundamental to understanding the processes and structures of how Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH)4 is constituted in the Cambodian context. These questions are the following: 1. What concepts of “art” and “culture” are used on the level of the Cambodian government? 2. What is its role in the framework of Cambodian politics? 3. Which values, norms and codes are attached to these concepts and who defines them? 4. What are the consequences of this environment for artists and the artistic landscape in Cambodia? I propose that the negotiation, control and development of what is understood by art and culture in Cambodia influences essentially the way the concept of Intangible Cultural Heritage is understood, implemented and actively used by different actors. The reflections here are, therefore, fundamental for looking at and understanding the constitution of ICH on its different levels and in its various dimensions. I will take observations from the “National Amateur Play Writing and Directing Workshop” as a festival was to celebrate and to promote the variety of existing art forms in Cambodia and to give an opportunity to artists to exchange and develop their artistic expertise in new creations of performing arts. A representative from the Cambodian-American NGO Cambodian Living Arts (CLA) added to this that it served “to evaluate the quality of the various art forms at this point – over 30 years after the fall of the Khmer Rouge – and determine ‘how many forms are still alive’” (Phnom Penh Post March 1, 2010). Further names of this festival are, among others, the “Khmer Performing Arts Festival”, the “Cambodian National Theatre Festival”, the “National Khmer Dance Festival” or the “National Drama Arts Festival”. 3 “Art” forms are discussed in this paper as creative and “living” forms of human expression, such as dance, music or theatre, that the government of Cambodia considers as potential elements for nomination as Intangible Cultural Heritage by UNESCO. I will concentrate in this essay on these living art forms and will treat only secondarily material artistic expressions that belong to the tangible cultural heritage of Cambodia, for example, the temple of Angkor Wat, which was inscribed by UNESCO on the World Heritage List in 1992, the Preah Vihear Temple, which was listed in 2008, or other forms of mobile and immobile material expressions, for example, handicrafts, etc. 4 ICH is a concept that was created by UNESCO within the framework of its 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. It is defined as “practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage” (UNESCO 2003). The objectives of the convention are to safeguard, ensure respect, raise awareness, and provide international cooperation and assistance for this kind of heritage. The UNESCO 2003 Convention was ratified by Cambodia in 2006. A Cambodian “Leitkultur”? 71 basis for the treatment of the questions above.5 For my analysis, I will, firstly, introduce the theoretical approach, which I apply subsequently to analyse current perspectives and notions of art and culture in Cambodia. I will then put these perspectives into the framework of the politico-cultural environment in which the UNESCO 2003 Convention is implemented. Culture and Concepts of Culture As the aim of this paper is to investigate the political use of the concept of art and culture in Cambodia, I consider it meaningful at this point to introduce the view of culture from which I emanate in this context as a cultural anthropologist. Throughout the historical development of cultural anthropology, scholars have extensively discussed the meaning, the purpose and the use of the culture concept within and beyond the discipline (see, for example, Kroeber/Kluckhohn 1952; Wagner 1981; Geertz 1983; Abu-Lughod 1991; Kuper 1999; Brumann 1999; Sahlins 1999; Müller 2003; also Lentz 2009, who discusses the suitability of the culture concept as a bridge between the disciplines of sociology and ethnology).6 These discussions have gone so far as to plead for the total renunciation of this concept (see, for example, Abu- Lughod 1991) because of the boundedness, homogeneity, coherence, stability, and structure which this concept allegedly implies. These attributes conflict with the constructivist approach that is held by many anthropologists today, which underlines the principal openness, dynamism, and the manifold breaks, conflicts and discrepancies that are inherent to such a system (Appadurai 2003).7 Other scholars, such as Brumann (1999) or Sahlins (1999), consider these criticisms a bit of a stretch. In their opinion, it would be better if anthropologists developed an approach to the culture concept that made allowance for current developments in its use on the international platform. Marshall Sahlins, in his article “Two or three things that I know about culture” (1999), stresses the enduring significance of the culture concept as an object of anthropological inquiry. He points out that the concept of culture is still of relevance, just because of the explicit use of this concept – in the sense of a closed, bounded and well defined, stable entity as it was once suggested by some anthropologists – by local and national actors around the globe in order to pursue their own political, social or other interests (Sahlins 1999:401-403). According to him, culture is increasingly being instrumentalised by different groups of actors for the means of cultural distinction, 5 I was admitted to the workshop as an observer and was assisted by a simultaneous interpreter, who translated the conversations from Khmer to English. Interviews with the organiser and speakers of the workshop as well as documents that were either distributed during the workshop or given to me by interview partners complemented the data from the workshop. 6 As a detailed description of the historical development of the concept of culture and its various positions in the discipline of cultural anthropology would go beyond the scope of this paper, I refer to Kuper (1999) for further reading. 7 For a more extensive treatment of this issue, see Brumann (1999) or Sahlins (1999). 72 Aditya Eggert assertion or empowerment to gain autonomy in a world of rapid change and transition.8 Precisely because of this instrumentalisation, which he calls “modern culturalism” (1999:401, 415), he stresses the need to investigate the manifold use and interpretations of this concept around the globe. The aim is to understand the strategies,