Category: Arts

How far should artists be allowed to push boundaries?

One of the defining pieces of art of the 20th century is literally a toilet. Marcel Duchamp’s piece of “fountain” was simply a functioning toilet that he had bought from a store. The piece was displayed for just a day, before a cleaner threw it out, thinking it was trash. However, in it one day of existence, “fountain” managed to completely obliterate every single boundary governing the nature of art, instantaneously ignite a firestorm of controversy, and essentially spawn the entirety of the modern art movement, breathing new life into an art form many considered dead. Art is something that needs to evolve or die, and for art to evolve, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as they want.

Some, however, would argue that artists should not be allowed to push boundaries too far, as they will inevitably push it into the realm of bad taste. These people argue that boundaries in art serve a clear purpose: to delineate acceptable moralities. To these people, for artists to push boundaries too far would constitute an act of moral deviancy and public indecency, and thus denigrate the very nature of art, which they believe to inspire and reflect good values. These are the people who will protest against films such as “Hostel” for its perceived excessive violence, artists such as H.R Giger for his hyper sexually art pieces, or bands like Iron Maiden for their “Satanic Imagery”. To these people, art, above all else, needs to be moral. Without proper morality, the entire piece of art is invalidated to them.

While it might be true that some artists do not reflect very good morals, I also believe that that is entirely irrelevant. Art, above all else, must seek to reflect life honestly. To inaccurately represent life due to boundaries concerning morals and taste is, I believe, a far more grievous sin then not reflecting appropriate morality. Life is hard and scary, and people sometimes are filled with violence and cruelty. These are not things we like to think about, and yet it is precisely why artists need to incorporate them into their work. To forget about the harsher facts of life is not just a failure on the part of the artist, it also does a disservice to the consumer who is no longer challenged and brought out of their comfort zones. This is precisely why we require filmmakers such as Harmony Korrine and Nicholas winding Refn, whose films push various boundaries and are eminently controversial. Without the ability to push boundaries as far as possible, art loses a great portion of its verisimilitude, and hence also its power to engage us. Thus, for art to reflect life honestly, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as they want.

There is also another group that believes art should not push against political and religious boundaries. These people believe that political and religious beliefs are a private and personal thing, and thus art has no business attempting to influence the use and change our opinions. Art, while entertaining, should, in their eyes, remain apolitical as politics and religion are too controversial and messy to be discussed in such a manner. These are the people who decry filmmakers such as Oliver Stone, or Michael Moore, for making what they consider to be fundamentally biased and untruthful political films. To these people, politics is simply too dangerous a topic for art to tread upon, and thus they believe that artists should not push boundaries, but rather seek to entertain.

While it is true that politics and religion are deeply personal, I believe it is extremely important for art to discuss it, so as to start conversations about it. For us all to be better, more enlightened human beings, we need to be able to confront our biases and prejudices and learn to fully argue for our own personal beliefs. Art, in presenting its own views on politics and religion, creates conversation and forces us to examine our own ideas. This is present in films such as “Four Lions” which presents a harrowingly realistic depiction of how ordinary youths can be radicalized into terrorists, thus refuting the simple caricature many have of terrorists as evil religious fundamentalists. In this way, as we confront our own opinions, we can refine them and thus emerge as fuller people with more informed and cohesive thoughts. This visceral confrontation occurs also in games such as “This war of mine” which through placing the player in the role of a civilian in a warzone, invites one to think about the true cost of war. Art, by pushing boundaries, also causes people to start conversations about issues and thus move to fix them. This can be seen in how Kendrick Lamar’s 2015 album “To pimp a butterfly” intensified discussion of racism in America, and brought awareness to the issue. Thus, for art to challenge, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible.

Fundamentally, artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible in order to evolve. What boundaries represent is a hard limit on what artists can think? To be able to consistently create new material and evolve, artists should and must push the boundaries and evolve their thinking. This has always been how art evolves, from the ’60s when the Beatles released their album Sergeant peppers and ushered in psychedelic rock, to James Joyce’s Ulysses which broke many taboos and define the modernist novel, to 1968’s Bonnie and Clyde, Which completely disregarded Hollywood’s codes of morality, and ushered in the modern filmmaking system. Art always requires pioneers to break the mould and push the boundaries. Only then will the rest follow and new things can be made. Artists thus should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible or art will simply stagnate and die.

The art throughout history has always held a unique ability to challenge, excite, and entertain us. It has always been changing, yet the only constant is the ability of artists to push the boundaries. As Frank Zappa once said: Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. Thus artists should be allowed to push boundaries as far as possible, as that is how art stays relevant.

Is public funding in the arts ever worthwhile? Discuss the question with reference to your country.

“Art is the lie that enables us to realise the truth”, as quoted from Pablo Picasso, the world-renowned artist. This quote represents how art allows and provides us with a perspective to look at the world. Art is a body of the Arts, which is the creative and imaginative embodiment of the distinctive disciplines, be it artwork or architectural designs, brings about both pros and cons. In Singapore, being an economically driven country would rather spend a larger portion of its public funds towards businesses and enterprising which is deemed more profitable towards the economy due to its practicality. However, I agree that there should be public funding for arts as it can attract tourists to boost the economy, allow the freedom of subject choices to groom local talents and to allow Singaporeans to return to their roots.

Some may argue that the Arts is largely only for the rich and spending public money on events would only affect the rich. This is largely a waste of public resources as in Singapore, public funds are supposed to help and push for further growth in Singapore, alongside with those who are less well to do. For example, the Affordable Art Fair and Arts Place are government-funded events to allow local and foreign artists to sell their works. Even though it is named the Affordable Art Fair, the lowest price of an art piece sold is nearly $8000, which in no way is affordable to any commoner around. This means that money spent may not have any returns to the government and only the wealthier are able to participate in such events. This also means that in fact, the less fortunate people do not reap any benefits from the public fund for arts when those funds could have been dedicated towards healthcare subsidies which are necessities for the society. However, this may not be fully true as with such events held locally, Singapore has gained placing in the Arts industry, allowing for the generation of more government revenue to tackle bread and butter issues with greater abilities.

Public money should be used towards supporting the Arts as it would attract tourists, allowing for greater tourist expenditure and thus greater revenue. For example, with the recent Night Festival event, where different types of art installations and performances were staged, it has attracted crowds of tourists to visit and enjoy the vibrant festival. This means that due to such unique events held in Singapore, it would attract tourists from all around the globe to grab a glimpse of the events. This is even more so as it is free to the public. Singapore, being an economy which gross domestic product is largely dependent on tourism of nearly twenty per cent, would reap the benefits of greater tourist expenditure. This would mean to say with such returns, the public funds are not wasted in a sense that it would attract tourists to generate more funds to help the needy.

Next, public funds are not considered to be wasted in terms of expenditure on Arts education in Singapore. This means that with expenditure on Art education in Singapore, students are exposed to a totally different disciplinary in such a heavily scientific education in Singapore. For example, with government-funded art institutions like Lasalle and Nanyang Academy of the Fine Arts, students who are interested in the field of the Arts are given the opportunity to take up Art education if they are keen to. Additionally, with Arts play in place in Secondary School, compulsory subjects like Combined Humanities act as an introduction to students about a disciplinary in the field. This would allow the students to be groomed to have alternative thinking and allow students who are less scientifically inclined to succeed and prosper in this largely scientific educational system. This means that with the expenditure of such public funds, students’ potential in the arts are fully utilised and maximised, allowing students to dwell into their potential and achieve, allowing everyone to be stretched and groomed to their fullest potential. This could not have been possible without such avenues and such talents may go to waste in the long run. Thus, public funds should be utilised in the Arts to allow people to discover their potential and prosper to contribute to society.

Lastly, public money should be used towards supporting the Arts as it would allow us to return us to our roots. This means that the arts in every individual’s culture in Singapore would give descendants a better understanding of one’s race. For example, in Singapore, distinct places of cultural background like Chinatown and Little India, have funds allocated in presenting important and distinct characteristic like architectural designs and religious places of worship that bring individuals back to their roots. This is additionally important for Singaporeans as being the social quilt, where there is a large diversity of races and religions in Singapore, it is important for citizens to return to their roots to have and know their placing in life. Thus, the Arts expenditure in terms of presenting cultural evidence would be largely beneficial to allow citizens to return to their roots of origin in terms of value and faith.

All in all, even though public funds could have been directed towards necessities like healthcare or education, the Arts should be funded in the case of Singapore where most of our bread and butter issues have been settled and where the Arts industry would generate benefits too. Additionally, the investment in the arts may be a sine qua non to my society’s status, bringing my society towards greater heights.

‘Public money should not be wasted on supporting the Arts.’ Discuss this view in light of your society today.

The arts allow people to express, to learn, and to live. It broadens perspectives and fosters understanding among different and diverse groups of people, which is especially essential in today’s society. Government-funded programmes and initiatives provide the youth in Singapore with a more holistic education, creating more opportunities. Additionally, to allow for easier and more affordable appreciation of the Arts, subsidies have been implemented to increase cultural awareness in this modern society. Furthermore, not only is the funding to support the Arts, not a waste, it may also be an investment for the country. Therefore, to improve this society we live in, the use of public money for supporting the Arts should be encouraged.

Some sceptics may argue that the Arts industry is very competitive, and only a handful of particularly talented individuals would have the ability to succeed in the Arts, hence many would not support the money being invested in a field whereby only a minority would benefit. For example, there are few local singers who have managed to break into the global market, such as The Sam Willows and Gentle Bones, out of the many who have been in the industry. The small percentage of those who are successful reinforces the stereotype that the Arts is not practical and only talented individuals should have an interest in the Arts. Hence public money should probably be invested in the facilities that benefit the larger majority, such as transport which has been so often complained about. However, in today’s modern society, to ensure that students are all-round and provided with ample opportunities to find their interests, the Government has introduced programmes to create a more holistic education, as opposed to a very rigid curriculum. For example, in publicly funded schools, there is the Arts and Music Elective Programme, which would allow students to have more options in the subjects they can take. In addition, there is the Singapore Youth Festival, organised every two years to take part and compete in. Since these are initiated from a young age, and it is compulsory for all children to attend Primary and Secondary school, approximately 10 years of formal education, creativity is encouraged by young and instilled. These programmes create a more holistic education and encourage youths to dare to pursue their interests, creating a larger talent pool for the Arts. In addition, recently, Nathan Hartono has achieved success in entering Sing! China, a singing competition held in China. He is one of the many local singers going global to pursue their dreams, proving that given the right support, it is possible for Singaporeans to break into the international market. Therefore, public money should continue to be used in supporting the Arts, to allow Singaporeans a chance to realise their aspirations.

In addition, the Arts can be used to increase cultural awareness, foster understanding in today’s society. For example, to allow Singaporeans easier access to the Arts, the government has subsided visits to the National Gallery of Singapore, where Singaporeans are able to enter for free. This would encourage more Singaporeans of all ages to try to appreciate and understand the Arts. There is emphasis placed on the importance of cultural awareness as the Arts helps to broaden perspectives and foster understanding. A single work of art can evoke different emotions and alternative viewpoints, and the Arts is a viable platform for people to interact and understand differences. In today’s world, it is even more essential to rid the tunnel-vision many of us possess, especially with all the controversial issues happening around the world. To ensure that the racial harmony and social cohesion in Singapore is not compromised, but strengthened instead when such controversial issues on discrimination and equality are brought up, the government has very rightfully used money to support the Arts as in the long-run, Singapore would be a more compassionate and graceful society with people who encompass empathy, which is key in the strengthening of a county which has so many different cultures and religions.

Furthermore, today, Singapore is a fast advancing society and with the influx of foreigners, the Arts industry is a viable job sector. Though in the past, when there was a lack of support for the Arts industry, many believed that a job in the Arts scene would not be practical nor sustainable. However, now, with increased competition, the Arts industry can be a considerable option with increased public funding, and the skills picked up in learning the Arts in schools, such as being detailed and precise, freedom of expression and so on, can be applied to many job sectors. For example, doing mass communication and design. Many forget that the Arts can come in many forms, such as photograph, literature, theatre, singing and the list goes on. With public money invested to support the Arts, many Singaporeans are given the opportunity to find their passion and have a sustainable job. With more people being able to find a job, there is less burden on the government to provide financial aid for the unemployed. Hence, though at the beginning, using public money to find the supporting of the Arts may seem to be a waste, in the long-run, the benefits of having a stronger economy and less people having to depend on the government, and hence money originally meant for aid, can be used in other sectors such as healthcare, therefore the government should support the Arts to see the potential benefits the Arts can bring for the people, and the economy. In addition, the government encourages the elderly in society to stay relevant when they take part in free activities such as arts and craft, and Zumba at community centres nationwide.

To conclude, in today’s society, mindsets are changing, and the Arts creates a bridge between the people and the Government’s ideals, such as fostering social harmony. In this competitive we live in, there is still a need to learn new skills to remain relevant, and the Arts functions to do that. Therefore, not only should public money be used to support the Arts, it should be continued, and even more could be put in for a brighter future.