Discussion Over Local & Western Art Scene
- Thread starter Punkd
- Start date
I think this has more to do with Media Imperialism than anything else. We've all been nurtured/brainwashed into thinking that products from western countries (especially America) is far superior than similar products from Asia. Constant advertisements with subliminal message works wonder for brand retention which anchors quality with that particular brand. One such example is that 'counterfeit guitar' thread, people tend to dismiss those guitars that are made in China even before trying it out. Although I'm not saying that these guitars are better than the real thing I'm just trying to say that the media postulates that Western* will always be superior.
Coming back to music, I think the proliferation of the internet is helping all local bands everywhere, because of this, the audience have the power to choose the type of music they want as opposed to the older times where people's only source of music is either from MTV or the radio. I think the only thing that's hindering the local scene is the perception of the majority of people, change that and everything will move faster.
Coming back to music, I think the proliferation of the internet is helping all local bands everywhere, because of this, the audience have the power to choose the type of music they want as opposed to the older times where people's only source of music is either from MTV or the radio. I think the only thing that's hindering the local scene is the perception of the majority of people, change that and everything will move faster.
AverRal
New member
I would prefer to attribute it to the clause of the case of a first world nation with third world citizens who have not evolved with the times. In other worlds, they do not have the mental capacity to appreciate abstract art and prefer to patronise xia xue as a form of entertainment.
rottenramone
Active member
imo great art does not need mental capacity to move.
when i see a painting, watch a play, see a gig... if it moves me, and i learn the story behind it, then i'm very appreciative of the different perspectives and questions it raised.
Actually, to think about it, western culture has overtaken most of the world. We're hearing about liberation in the most conservative country.
Anyway, art is subjective. To some, xiaxue, mrbrown, some other local bloggers are art(although I'll think it's really kind of bullshit). To some, Mozart, Beethoven mean more than anything. To some, Kerry King, John Petrucci might be art. To others, food might be considered as the greatest art around.
We shouldn't compare. Commenting is okay, but to compare... It's just unfair and you won't reach an agreement at all.
hifi_killer
New member
Art is still very much treated as a luxury, not as a way of life. To change the mindset, you've gotta address the other more important issues in life, not just solely on developing the arts scene
and
i would prefer xiaxues blog to the very typical , cynical, self righteous , narrow minded ' i'm so highly educated and i hate the system' type of bloggers. The ones who can write very well, but have zero ability to make a proper judgement.
and
i would prefer xiaxues blog to the very typical , cynical, self righteous , narrow minded ' i'm so highly educated and i hate the system' type of bloggers. The ones who can write very well, but have zero ability to make a proper judgement.
rottenramone
Active member
3 hit combo!
EnochianVerbalInstrument
New member
I can probably bring up some instances of "1st world nations" discovering the art and cultures of "3rd world citizens" and is able to appreciate it and adapt it as a lifestyle even. One example would be African-American music (blues, jazz, hiphop etc) and how in early years of it's history, the "1st class" Caucasian-Americans adapted the "3rd-class" slave citizens' art and culture to become the popular art form that it is today.
But that's not the point of this thread.
The problem with art (and to a certain extend, music) in SG is among the many selves that proclaim themselves as artists forget the very basic of what the makes a piece of art work; the bridge between the art and the audience.
I personally believe that a good art that can bridge itself to a wide audience has strength in three things: message, medium, method.
It is one thing to make an art piece to express one's self. ANYONE can do that, artist or not, cos everyone can express themselves anyway they want to. I can write the words "I am" on a piece of bus ticket and call it art, because I have expressed myself by means of a medium, method and message.
It's another thing to make that piece of expression powerful enough move audiences. Is writing (method) the words "I am" (message) on a bus ticket (medium) a strong enough art piece to make an audience connect to it?
That is the trap that most artist get into; they have something to say, they say it through a medium, and they sit back and just wait for the message to get across with minimal effort, hoping that their "message" gets across. But if the medium or the method is weak, the message doesn't get through.
Eg how many times have you been disappointed by a movie that has a very promising plot but in the end it is just really bad and you feel disappointed about it? Message is strong to entice you to watch it, but if the method of executing it sucks, it sucks.
Sometimes, the message is only put into an art piece AFTER the "art" piece is made. So we have a lot of pieces that are more like self-indulgent use of really cool medium or method without a strong message.
Eg I feel like doing a painting on canvas. Dab a little red here, splash some orange there, sprinkle a little blue, and it's done. After that, I admire my piece of art then suddenly realises it needs more meaning to it. So I start justifying what each colour, stroke, and splash say, putting meaning to a piece where it would otherwise be deemed as "amatuer" or "child's painting" if we have it in a different context.
Art with no real strong message to begin with = sucks.
A good concept (message), executed beautifully with good skills (method) but done on coastal sand during low tide (medium). This is probably the most tragic form; only few people get to be its audience; if there is even any. It's almost the same anology where, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it means there is no sound. Nobody to see the art = there is no art.
This is pretty much a trail of thoughts and opinion of mine, which is pretty generic, which IMO can apply to all form of art and expression. I hope this post is useful enough, though.
But that's not the point of this thread.
The problem with art (and to a certain extend, music) in SG is among the many selves that proclaim themselves as artists forget the very basic of what the makes a piece of art work; the bridge between the art and the audience.
I personally believe that a good art that can bridge itself to a wide audience has strength in three things: message, medium, method.
It is one thing to make an art piece to express one's self. ANYONE can do that, artist or not, cos everyone can express themselves anyway they want to. I can write the words "I am" on a piece of bus ticket and call it art, because I have expressed myself by means of a medium, method and message.
It's another thing to make that piece of expression powerful enough move audiences. Is writing (method) the words "I am" (message) on a bus ticket (medium) a strong enough art piece to make an audience connect to it?
That is the trap that most artist get into; they have something to say, they say it through a medium, and they sit back and just wait for the message to get across with minimal effort, hoping that their "message" gets across. But if the medium or the method is weak, the message doesn't get through.
Eg how many times have you been disappointed by a movie that has a very promising plot but in the end it is just really bad and you feel disappointed about it? Message is strong to entice you to watch it, but if the method of executing it sucks, it sucks.
Sometimes, the message is only put into an art piece AFTER the "art" piece is made. So we have a lot of pieces that are more like self-indulgent use of really cool medium or method without a strong message.
Eg I feel like doing a painting on canvas. Dab a little red here, splash some orange there, sprinkle a little blue, and it's done. After that, I admire my piece of art then suddenly realises it needs more meaning to it. So I start justifying what each colour, stroke, and splash say, putting meaning to a piece where it would otherwise be deemed as "amatuer" or "child's painting" if we have it in a different context.
Art with no real strong message to begin with = sucks.
A good concept (message), executed beautifully with good skills (method) but done on coastal sand during low tide (medium). This is probably the most tragic form; only few people get to be its audience; if there is even any. It's almost the same anology where, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it means there is no sound. Nobody to see the art = there is no art.
This is pretty much a trail of thoughts and opinion of mine, which is pretty generic, which IMO can apply to all form of art and expression. I hope this post is useful enough, though.
Last edited:
serialninja
New member
i think it's simply a matter of economic scale.
singapore has 4,608,167 people, of which the retiree group of 50-80 year olds, have the largest spending power. they make up roughly 1/3rd of the population.
so what generates growth in industry?
Simply, an increase in market demand. This will result in either:
1) an increase in supply to meet the demand, in cases where the supply is elastic, or
2) an increase in prices where the supply is inelastic.
In art, entertainment, and all other industries that have the "cool" factor, there is a lot of competition because a lot of people love the glamour that comes with being an artist or musician or DJ or film producer, as opposed to saaay running the company that collects your rubbish every morning (even though SembCorp's CEO makes way more than anybody in the radio industry).
So now we know the supply is very elastic - for every starving artist who fails, there are 10 who pop up eager to take his/her place.
And, people are willing to invest in art only during periods of economic growth, because art is a luxury. When an economic downturn begins, the first things people will stop purchasing are art pieces, concert tickets, and generally things they can live without. This demonstrates that the demand is VERY elastic.
Let us, for the purposes of this argument, assume that the economy is at its best, and demand for art will be at its highest. The question now is, is there enough demand to sustain this supply? Does that 1/3rd of the Singapore population with spending power care enough about your work to purchase it so that you earn enough to survive on it?
If you take half the population with spending power to be humanities-inclined, and half to be disinterested in the arts, that's 50%.
Now if you take that 50% and 1/4 are willing to invest in thespian pursuits, 1/4 in music, and 1/4 in literature, and 1/4 in art, that's 12.5% who have spending power, who are interested enough in art to invest in it.
So 12.5% of 1/3rd of Singapore's population is approx 191,667 people who will consider purchasing your art. Also take into account that the percentage purchase rate is nowhere near 100%, and you have a population size that is by default not large enough to sustain an entire industry.
And this is when the economy is assumed to be doing its best. Obviously if the economy is doing badly, this population size that is willing to consider purchasing art will shrink even more.
In conclusion, our population size cannot, even during the best of times, sustain without external aid, the local art industry in Singapore.
This is nobody's fault. It's just simple economics.
(it as nothing to do with mental capacity for appreciating art, that's such an extraordinarily pompous statement that it blinds me with its sheer stupidity)
singapore has 4,608,167 people, of which the retiree group of 50-80 year olds, have the largest spending power. they make up roughly 1/3rd of the population.
so what generates growth in industry?
Simply, an increase in market demand. This will result in either:
1) an increase in supply to meet the demand, in cases where the supply is elastic, or
2) an increase in prices where the supply is inelastic.
In art, entertainment, and all other industries that have the "cool" factor, there is a lot of competition because a lot of people love the glamour that comes with being an artist or musician or DJ or film producer, as opposed to saaay running the company that collects your rubbish every morning (even though SembCorp's CEO makes way more than anybody in the radio industry).
So now we know the supply is very elastic - for every starving artist who fails, there are 10 who pop up eager to take his/her place.
And, people are willing to invest in art only during periods of economic growth, because art is a luxury. When an economic downturn begins, the first things people will stop purchasing are art pieces, concert tickets, and generally things they can live without. This demonstrates that the demand is VERY elastic.
Let us, for the purposes of this argument, assume that the economy is at its best, and demand for art will be at its highest. The question now is, is there enough demand to sustain this supply? Does that 1/3rd of the Singapore population with spending power care enough about your work to purchase it so that you earn enough to survive on it?
If you take half the population with spending power to be humanities-inclined, and half to be disinterested in the arts, that's 50%.
Now if you take that 50% and 1/4 are willing to invest in thespian pursuits, 1/4 in music, and 1/4 in literature, and 1/4 in art, that's 12.5% who have spending power, who are interested enough in art to invest in it.
So 12.5% of 1/3rd of Singapore's population is approx 191,667 people who will consider purchasing your art. Also take into account that the percentage purchase rate is nowhere near 100%, and you have a population size that is by default not large enough to sustain an entire industry.
And this is when the economy is assumed to be doing its best. Obviously if the economy is doing badly, this population size that is willing to consider purchasing art will shrink even more.
In conclusion, our population size cannot, even during the best of times, sustain without external aid, the local art industry in Singapore.
This is nobody's fault. It's just simple economics.
(it as nothing to do with mental capacity for appreciating art, that's such an extraordinarily pompous statement that it blinds me with its sheer stupidity)
Last edited:
AgingYouth
New member
Fwah, bro serialninja bro, your calculator must be working very hard.
Hehehe...
Hehehe...
serialninja
New member
haha the math was easy. the difficult part was that i couldn't comprehend how anyone could attribute a weak art industry to lack of mental capacity. you know how sometimes things are so incredibly stupid that it's beyond comprehension? that was one of those moments.
rottenramone
Active member
reason why i like reading her posts!
serialninja
New member
I don't think his calculator has been working hard enough. The correct answer is 4,608,167 / 24 = 192006.958333333
lol thank you for the correction, it is 192,006. as it turns out, it's even lower than the amount i originally stated.
Last edited:
dear me your maths is not strong today. 192,007 is larger than 191,667. lol
serialninja
New member
Similar threads
