Guggenheim UBS MAP Global Art Initiative No Country: Regarding South and Southeast Asia Part II Symposium at the Queens Museum of Art, Thursday April 18, 2013 Edited video presentation by Ly Daravuth In 2009, I was invited to be part of a symposium in Hong Kong organized by the Asia Art Archive. As I recall, one of the discussion topics revolved around the issue of the emergence of the Asian contemporary art scene as a new paradigm. One of the participants challenged that assumption, and asked the following question: What is, or what would be, the so-called Asian paradigm? What kind of discourse does it really produce? Is it really an alternative discourse to the global or Western discourse? Or is it just another version of it? But certainly, that question echoed one of my own regarding Cambodian cultural and art practices. What would that be? What would qualify Cambodian art practices today as “modern” or “contemporary”? What would qualify it as Cambodian, eventually? Is it defined within the European nation-state concept—geography, citizenship—or is there some sort of Cambodian paradigm to draw from? In an exhibition and publication called Cultures of Independence: An Introduction to Arts and Culture of the ’50s and ’60s, which was presented at, and published by, Reyum Institute in 2002, and curated by Ingrid Muan and myself, we tried to explore that question through the cultural production—cinema, theater, paintings, architecture, music—of the fifties and sixties, when a young generation of the newly independent Cambodia started to produce a discourse. And in the context of the ongoing Season of Cambodia Festival that is happening today in New York, along with the No Country exhibition and symposium, there is a growing interest in Cambodian contemporary art, and it’s good. And as a consequence, I assume, more and more Cambodian artists will emerge within the so-called global arts community. Therefore, I think the need for critical thinking around current artistic production, in the light of what constitutes Cambodian modernity, should become more and more urgent. What I would like to propose is to take this opportunity to maybe reflect or comment on the two artworks that you have chosen to be part of the UBS MAP Global Art Initiative. One is Sopheap Pich’s Morning Glory. The second work is by Vandy Rattana, a photographer, and it’s called Bomb Ponds. I’d like to look at these two works in terms of two aspects that are, I think, recurrent. These are the issues of the reference to or influence of traditional heritage or cultural identity—like, you know, the icons of cultural heritage. The second issue is the reference to, let’s say, historical events, war in particular—like, as a recurrent reference by artists, one way or another. So, the first work is Sopheap Pich’s Morning Glory. What Sopheap says about his approach, which I find interesting, is he thinks that he, for some reason, is not bound by the cultural weight [of heritage]. And therefore, he is able to express or develop his work more freely. On the one hand, I think he’s right, in this aspect. But on the other hand, I think that his work is all about that. It’s all about references to that. Transcript © 2013 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation (SRGF). All rights reserved. page 1 of 3 This is a picture that we took in Kampong Thom. It was part of an exhibition called Creative Cambodia, where we looked at popular production, and considered what people do as popular creative expressions. So, this is a fish trap. And the enlargement of the picture on the right is made of rattan, by the same process as Sopheap uses in his work. This artwork is by Prum Sam An. It’s an installation that was done at Reyum Gallery in 1999. And to give you just the context, ’99 was still a politically very unstable time. So, this installation was by far . because it uses the water jar. And it’s a little boat up there. This is called Air Bridge. And this is another example of an artist looking at cultural icons. This is a work by Than Sok, from way later. He’s from a younger generation. I mean, he’s younger than Prum Sam An. It’s from 2000. He refers to the house of spirits. These are, again, culled from popular productions, from visual materials made for other purposes. Here, you have a combination of different materials, like neon. He wants to address the issue of modernity, cultural heritage, et cetera. I find also, as an early work, it’s an interesting proposition. I’m going to jump to the second example, which is Bomb Ponds. This is a satellite image of the sites that have been bombed by the U.S., in red. I think Vandy Rattana refers to this as a background. I wanted to look at his work in relation to how other artists talk about the war, and how different their narratives can be. Svay Ken is a painter, an artist. There are 128 paintings; he paints the story of his life. The section regarding the Khmer Rouge is just one along with the others, like as you just talk about things in a continuity. You don’t emphasize a moment, like the previous narrative. The previous narrative just emphasizes a certain moment of, let’s say, wartime. The caption here reads, “The fires of war burn ever bright.” Each flower represents a province. This is Cambodia, the same map. With those pockets of people trapped in each of the provinces. I just want to show another example of how the narrative of war can be done. This is Vann Nath who, maybe some of you know, is one of the survivors of the S-21. When he was in the prison, or S-21, he used to paint what happened, like a testimony, a witness. He painted this for the Legacy of Absence exhibition we did in 2000. And this is what he said about this painting (The Village of My Birth is the title of this painting): “My picture wishes to show what life ideally can be like in the countryside. The cowherd lying under the tree is free in his heart. He is his own master and does not suffer from oppression or intimidation. He lives honestly by his own labor and in peace and harmony with his own surroundings. He has no fear of anything and is not afraid that anyone will steal his possessions or his animals. It is thus the opposite of my paintings of torture and sadness. While painting this painting I was happy and hopeful. The Tuol Sleng paintings I painted to document what had happened but their painting was difficult for me.” So, I think he talks more about the war in this painting. Just another narrative. Transcript © 2013 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation (SRGF). All rights reserved. page 2 of 3 I just wanted to share how different narratives are being proposed in different visual arts productions in Cambodia today. What maybe is needed, or what would be great, is that we try to find a way to look at that so that it shows the variety of discourse, and different aspects of it. There is a need for discourse. Thank you. Transcript © 2013 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation (SRGF). All rights reserved. page 3 of 3 .