Frankly speaking, I have been quite surprised by Natalia Kraevskaia’s comments about the Philip Morris Art Award and even stunned by Mrs. Schwalbe’s reaction to these comments.

To be honest, I have not seen the selection for Vietnamese artists this year but I had the opportunity in the past to see the Asean Art Award and the works illustrating Natalia’s article seem to be in line with what we have seen before.

To summarise, it is clear for long that this prize has nothing to do with art and, as long as you understand it, this contest is not really disturbing and does not deserve Natalia’s condemnation from an artistic point of view. Actually, when I say not disturbing, I mean not more – but not less – disturbing than the annual election of Miss Vietnam or the election of the Cattle of the Year in a provincial agricultural contest. As such, this prize should be regarded as a “beauty contest”, and no more – or more exactly if you look at the selected works, a “horror contest”. I have never seen any artist putting forward any participation in this prize (also known as the “Nicotine Prize”) and I can hardly imagine any art critic or serious curator having any sense of artistic value, which should also go with a certain sense of moral values, feeling at ease by taking part in a masquerade financed by the tobacco industry – but I am sometimes too optimistic about human nature or too naive.

Still, I understand we should not idealize artists’ material life and participating can still be justified if you want to change your motorbike, visit with your family your uncle in Toronto or repair your roof with the USD 5000 reward for national prize and I also understand that some people might feel self-valorised to participate in a jury.

Regarding Mrs. Schwalbe’s comments, I would like to say that anybody interested in contemporary art and having landed in Vietnam two days before, is normally already aware that Natalia Kraevskaia who is running the Salon Natasha for 14 years now is not exactly prone to promote in Vietnam (or abroad) “romantic tourist art”, “for living rooms” and “which provokes pleasant feeling”. Having defended such artists as Truong Tan in the 90’s – whose works were clearly more artistically “shocking”, strong and powerful than anything ever displayed in the Philip Morris Prize – Natalia can by no means be seen as someone particularly conservative.

I had enough discussions with Natalia’s about her desperate search of local Avant-Garde – which, depending on my mood, does no longer or not yet deserve such efforts – to feel free to recognise her audacious and pioneering spirit. This is so obvious for anybody having the slightest idea of the Vietnamese art scene that I do not feel necessary to elaborate any longer.

Besides, Mrs. Schwalbe might have missed another step: shocking is not enough to define a work of art and that the barbarian-kitsch-works selected are in fact not shocking at all in an artistic way. On the contrary, there are unbearably predictable. As predictable as the pagodas, Hanoian old streets, young girls in ao dai displayed in the tourist galleries. The same “bad taste” to take the words of Mrs. Schwalbe. If you want to be selected to the Philip Morris prize, please do not hesitate to refer heavily to society modern evils (but not too political still) or environmental problems, even if there is no serious background and only basic messages, and strictly avoid any aesthetic tendency. Of course, you can distort faces and bodies, express distress, solitude and fears, show harm and death and reach an unprecedented and sincere masterpiece. Francis Bacon is not “pleasant” but deeply disturbing and moving – while mentioning Bacon I understand how disproportionate it is to use such a reference to discuss about Philip Morris’ selection which is sadly never disturbing. The ability, which most artists having been through the Vietnamese Fine Art schools cursus have to an extent or another, this ability so praised by Mrs. Schwalbe, is nothing if you do not have anything sincere to say. This does not mean that the artists are not gifted but in fact they are (alas!) gifted – for example, as long as artists such as Le Quang Ha, winner in 2001, do not feel entrusted with a political/social message they are not always mastering (cf. Ha’s supposedly scandalous participation in the International Workshop at Contemporary Art Centre in 2001), works are very acceptable.

If the aim of such a contest is to provoke “shocks” and “strong feelings”, I would suggest to the art consultants running this prize to simply display next year the lungs radiographs of Philip Morris local best clients and select the best cancer. This will save time and energy and will not create any debate. On the contrary, such an initiative might be extremely useful to dissuade smokers and will help the winner to finish his days in good condition.

I am not a medical pundit and do not belong to any league of virtue but I would like to remind the artist Tran Tuan Luong (one of the national prize-winners this year with his work “SARS”) that in a country where, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 70 percent of men regularly light up, with an average consumption of 600 cigarette per person per year and an age of smoking constantly declining over the past decade, cigarette will kill much more people in the coming years than SARS. In fact, WHO estimates that around eight million people or 10 percent of the country’s population will die early due to serious smoking-related ailments.

Thus, the problem is that the only thing really shocking and disturbing in this pseudo-art contest lays undoubtedly in this reprehensible mix of false philanthropy and hypocrite sponsorship, used to promote corporate image under the art banner. As the anti-tobacco regulations in the Western countries are getting more and more stringent with hopefully soon positive effects on tobacco use, developing countries are perceived as missionary territories for cigarette makers. Hence, recent studies have established that, given current trends, the Southeast Asia region will have the most smokers in the world and eventually will bear the greatest public health consequences. Yet, Asian countries are progressively adopting adequate measures banning tobacco advertising. Vietnamese authorities have notably in 2002 ordered Philip Morris to stop all forms of advertising and to immediately recall all advertising materials they planned to distribute – more than 80,000 lighters and thousands of boxes of matches bearing the Marlboro logo. This year, the Vietnamese government has approved the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) with cigarettes packs having at least 30 to 50 per cent of their surface covered by warning on health damage – some works rewarded by Philip Morris can be used even if, as mentioned by Natalia, they are artistically less impressive than the usual posters hanged in the streets against drug use.

In the same way, it is interesting to note that, end 2003, Vietnam’s Committee of Sports and Physical Training has asked the Organisational Board of the 22nd South-East Asian Games (SEA Games) not to receive any assistance in whatever form from cigarette-concerned advertising companies. Apparently, the cultural field is not following the same rigorous positions. But art is less strategic than sport.

I let the Vietnamese authorities and lawyers checking if this Philip Morris prize complies with local regulations in terms of advertising – yet, I am wondering how it could be the case for a show displayed within a Fine Art School with, at the entrance, as mentioned by Natalia, “big letters on a huge sign that stops every passer-by” announcing “Philip Morris ASEAN Art Awards Vietnam” – but I personally feel particularly disturbed by this quest of moral virginity which relies on such cynical behaviours (“ok we give cancer but we also support contemporary art or educational projects!”).

Having said that and having not yet joined any anti-tobacco lobby, I would like to repeat that this contest has in terms of art no real meaning but still testifies to the confusion too often prevailing in artistic values and criteria in Vietnam and Asia – the only comfort being that this confusion is, sadly enough, not limited to Asia. A sudden awareness might still happen in the years to come without any involvement of corporate giants’ manoeuvre. Meanwhile, all the Philip Morris Prizes would have probably vanished in the air. Like cigarettes’ smoke.

January 2004

© 2004 talawas