During the recent talawas roundtable discussion on the problems of Vietnamese art, many of the participants drew attention to the role of art criticism and writing within the framework of contemporary art development. There is no doubt that the situation of art criticism is tightly connected to the state of a country’s art history & theory as well as its study of cultural history.

Looking at the writings on Vietnamese culture, I noticed that culture is basically regarded as a storage of information, not as the complex cognitive mechanism that it is. To focus on a definite period or a dry chronological description of culture neglects historical dynamics and appropriateness. The same holds true for an analysis of cultural change in the period of social cataclysm or of the replacement of cultural strata in the time of transition. Within this context, Nhu Huy’s concern about foreign criticism of Vietnamese art (“Vietnamese art only exists from the point of time they began watching it”, 04.01.03) is understandable. But indisputably these words can be addressed to Vietnamese art critics as well, as they can to many other writers on culture, since they consider culture as a structure but not as a process, and art analysis is often excluded from the methodological frames of other cultural processes.

To obtain systematic information on Vietnamese fine arts is quite difficult if not impossible. One has to go through numerous articles, books and catalogs. Even this short period of development of art, when it became non-anonymous, non-religious and non-folkloristic (20th century) is not really explored. We can thus say that Vietnamese art history has yet to be written.

From what I understand by looking through Vietnamese writings, art is seen as a form of reflection but not as cognition, a form of thinking or a means of communication. Therefore I agree with Nguyen Hung’s conclusion that “what is needed most in Vietnam are critics of theories, methodology and culture” (24.11.02).

A static way of approaching the subject of contemporary art in Vietnam is typical for other genres as well: books, catalog essays, art magazines or newspaper articles. It’s probably time to change the publishing concept and move from books which don’t contain any texts except for short introductions with hundreds of pages of bad reproductions of mediocre works to those which provide the reader with relevant information on the subject. There are perhaps only two books to date which provide a broader view of the contemporary Vietnamese art scene: “Young artists of Vietnam” by Pham Cam Thuong and Luong Xuan Doan ^[1] with its attempt at a sociological analysis of the nature of artistic creativity, and “New Vietnamese Art in the 90s ” by Bui Nhu Huong and Tran Hau Tuan ^[2] which classifies contemporary Vietnamese art according to styles and trends.

Nobody argues that catalogs are not the right place for criticism, but Vietnamese catalog essays are mostly written in the same manner – sickly-sweet praise without a profound analytic regard of the artist’s work. It is difficult to find enthusiastic, simple and personal writings like Le Corbusier’s on Gaudí ^[3] or a totally different way of presenting the artist’s work like Carlos Franqui’s writings about Jorge Camacho – highly poetical yet reflecting, in chopped phrases, all relevant aspects: The artist’s national identity and mentality, his involvement with surrealism and the nature as well as source of his work – Cuba. (“Cuba is known as a surrealist country. Subversion and freedom. The rumba’s struggle against bureaucracy. Negro rhythm. Dancing death. Sadistic and masochistic torture. The box that imprisons, the freedom that illuminates. Draws. The murdered memory appears. The unconscious can be seen. The surreal turns into painting. To draw is to follow paths. To draw is to walk along dancing. To recognize ourselves. To discover ourselves. To be. To remain…” ^[4] Among Vietnamese catalogue essays it’s rare to find one which would be philosophically deep or naively moving – only highly decorative and pathetic. Perhaps Bui Quang Ngoc is right when he talks about a lack of artistic sensibilities in creative art writing in contemporary Vietnam (17.12.02).

Art criticism in specialized magazines is mainly descriptive, not problematic, not conceptual and without passionate presentation. At the same time, one may pose the question: How analytic can an exhibition review be when featuring shows entitled “A year of the Horse/Mouse/Pig etc.”, “Flowers”, “Spring Exhibition”, “Women’s Exhibition” or even “Contemporary Concept”, “Artists from 25 to 35”, “Artists from 35 to 45”, “Artists from 45 to 55”? The last three exhibitions were held at the Hanoi Contemporary Art Center over the last two years and we can easily predict the title of the next one. Compare, for example, the titles of exhibitions in other Asian countries: “Alter ego”, “Imagining Selves”, “Landmarks”, ‘Not be a Puppet”, “Dilemma”, “Story of the I”. Do artists provide the critics with enough interesting material to dig into? Are there enough profound issues in Vietnamese contemporary art to be discovered and discussed? This is the other side of the problem.

One can also see that Vietnamese art criticism in general is not critical at all. In those rare cases where the author touches upon controversial topics, negative phenomena or trends, usually no names are given. It’s not in the Vietnamese tradition to offend people publicly, especially in writing, even if criticism has a positive perspective. There are no discussions or controversies on art in the press, a vestige from the times when unity of views had been inviolable. At a workshop on criticism organized in January 2003 by the Goethe Institute in Hanoi in conjunction with a big German installation exhibition QUOBO, some Vietnamese art critics tried to justify the absence of exciting critical writing by censorship and explained that the Western public doesn’t know about good Vietnamese critics because of the language barrier. I can’t agree with these arguments. My own very critical speech at a conference organized by the Hanoi Art Research Institute in 2000 had been published in numerous magazines and newspapers without any changes to the original text, and there are some other examples of a free atmosphere for criticism – the appearance of some articles which do not reflect the official ideology in “Van Hoa Nghe Thuat”. Why not to try to step over the admissible borderline? They may exists only in our heads, since we have become accostumed to restrictions which are actually part of the past. And the language barrier is not a real obstacle – if there were outstanding writing in Vietnamese, it would get noticed and translated. with critics and the nature of the texts

In art journalism the situation is even worse. The level of writing is usually very low (there are always exceptions, of course). Curious to know how it is in other Asian countries, I asked some critics in the region. Their answer demonstrates that the situation varies considerably throughout Southeast Asia, depending on the critics and the nature of the texts. Iola Lenzi, a Singapore-based curator, art writer and critic for the Art Asia Pacific and Asian Art News magazines, writes that “in Singapore, few people are aware of the distinction between a critic and an art journalist and most ‘art reporting’ is in fact written by journalists who know very little or nothing about art. Most art journalism here is either purely descriptive, or even worse, written completely from a poorly drafted press release because the journalist does not visit the exhibition he is writing about. Here in Singapore there are a few exceptions but real critics tend to write for foreign periodicals rather than local ones so that the public has little opportunity to compare poor writers with better ones”.

Lenzi and the Thai critic Thanom Chapakde both say that the situation is better in Thailand where the press enjoys more freedom than in Singapore and, as a result, newspapers such as the Bangkok Post assume critical role in day-to-day political and social discourse. This approach extends to the art scene and often one can see articles of international standard that raise questions and evaluate art on several levels.

In Indonesia there are also a number of respected critics who are active in the ‘scene’. According to critics, in this country with a long history of indigenous art, art is generally understood and recognized by the population at large, and a vibrant and politically provocative art scene in Indonesia stimulates articulate critical views.

In India, art criticism is a British colonial import and has been known for 150 years. British writing has stimulated art criticism in the regional languages since the 19th century. Going through the tensions of colonialism and nationalism, through debates on national values and modernity, through different theories, concepts, group manifestos, Indian criticism has reached the level where the polarities of internationalism and indigenism are no longer in conflict ^[5]. Generally, Indian art criticism, with its long and dramatically developing tradition, is one of the most respected and strongest in Asia.

Meanwhile, some critics and curators highlight that there is a lack of good critics and curators in Asia, since this tradition has been more strongly developed in the West.

From this brief survey of Asian art criticism one can conclude that criticism is flourishing in the politically less restricted countries. On the other hand, isnt’t there more art and culture to discuss? An artist friend who looked through my writing assumed that differences in Vietnamese criticism are avoided or minimized in the name of social harmony. I wonder whether it actually continues to do so in the post-doi-moi era. Is a strategy of ‘saving face’ in criticism an official line or is it a sign of notorious self-censorship, the same as in producing art? Meanwhile, many Western critics and artists complain that in their countries real art criticism is getting replaced by art journalism as a result of marketing policies in the intellectual field, and that the selection of publications in many Western art magazines is not free anymore but depends on the power of certain advertisers. Are there many Asian international magazines where this is not the case?

In closing, I don’t intend to provide conclusions. I suppose that the great number of problems and questions of Vietnamese art criticism are still open-ended. How do art and culture interact in modern Vietnamese society? Can art criticism ignore the historical changes and social forces? Can modern art criticism break away from bland conventional aesthetics? Do Vietnamese art critics possess the tools with which to critique? Why do we continue to exclude from art writings the ethical examination of art? Does contemporary art criticism have any didactic effect? These and dozens of other questions await comprehension, study and discussion. Why not in “Van Hoa Nghe Thuat” or the new ” Nghien Cuu My Thuat”?

© 2003 talawas

^[1] Pham Cam Thuong, Luong Xuan Doan. Young artists of Vietnam. Fine Arts Publishing House, Hanoi 1996.

^[2] Bui Nhu Huong, Tran Hau Tuan. New Vietnamese art in the 1990s. Fine Arts Publishing House, Hanoi 2001.

^[3] Gaudi. Text of Le Corbusier. Ediciones Poligrafa, Barcelona 1967.

^[4] Carlos Franqui. Jorge Camacho. Ediciones Poligrafa, Barcelona 1979.

^[5] Gayatri Sinha. Art criticism in India – A brief Overview. Paper for the AICA, The Tate Modern 2000.