Loading…
Performing Protest in Singapore: Performance Tactics in Brother Cane and Don't Give Money to the Arts
In the early hours of 1 January 1994, Josef Ng concluded his 25-minute performance artwork Brother Cane (1994) by snipping his pubic hair. The performance created a public furore, resulting in the cessation of public funding towards performance artworks for ten years. Undeterred by the backlash, Tan...
Saved in:
Published in: | Konsthistorisk tidskrift 2023-01, Vol.92 (1), p.36-55 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 55 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 36 |
container_title | Konsthistorisk tidskrift |
container_volume | 92 |
creator | Goh, Wei Hao |
description | In the early hours of 1 January 1994, Josef Ng concluded his 25-minute performance artwork Brother Cane (1994) by snipping his pubic hair. The performance created a public furore, resulting in the cessation of public funding towards performance artworks for ten years. Undeterred by the backlash, Tang Da Wu created and performed Don't Give Money to the Arts (1995) to protest the no-funding rule: during the opening of a state-sponsored exhibition, the artist approached the president of Singapore while wearing a jacket embroidered with the words "Don't Give Money to the Arts". Although it was as explicit in its criticism of the government and its policies, Tang was not penalised for his performance. In this paper, I conduct a comparative analysis of these two works to examine how protest art - with a focus on the performance art form - navigates the cultural hegemony in Singapore by comparing the tactics used in both performances by analysing how and why Tang managed to escape punishment for his scathing performance while Ng did not. Specifically, I look at how the performances navigated the "out-of-bound markers" and concealed their dissent, and how the artists controlled the documentations produced. The answers to this question provide us with important insights into how protest art continues to adapt to and resist the mutating systems of control within authoritarian states. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/00233609.2023.2181864 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_00233609_2023_2181864</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2823798718</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-9fd9b4d33c7482c849f2d573f4bf0e340dad0bcb9965e0c55fa91f510163b1f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QQh48LQ1H_uReLKuWoWKBes5ZLOJbmmTmqRK_71ZW6-eZgaed4Z5ADjHaIQRQ1cIEUpLxEckNSOCGWZlfgAGuCxwRgjPD8GgZ7IeOgYnISwQwgRxPgB6pr1xftXZdzjzLuoQYWfha5rl2nl9DfeAtErDuVSxU6EnbhP8oT2spdVQ2hbeOXsZ4aT70vDZWb2F0cFEwLGP4RQcGbkM-mxfh-Dt4X5eP2bTl8lTPZ5milIaM25a3uQtparKGVEs54a0RUVN3hikaY5a2aJGNZyXhUaqKIzk2BQY4ZI22GA6BBe7vWvvPjfpF7FwG2_TSUEYoRVnFWaJKnaU8i4Er41Y-24l_VZgJHqj4s-o6I2KvdGUu9nlOvtr5Nv5ZSui3C6dNz4J6oKg_6_4AVWAfDo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2823798718</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performing Protest in Singapore: Performance Tactics in Brother Cane and Don't Give Money to the Arts</title><source>ARTbibliographies Modern</source><source>International Bibliography of Art (IBA)</source><source>Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection</source><creator>Goh, Wei Hao</creator><creatorcontrib>Goh, Wei Hao</creatorcontrib><description>In the early hours of 1 January 1994, Josef Ng concluded his 25-minute performance artwork Brother Cane (1994) by snipping his pubic hair. The performance created a public furore, resulting in the cessation of public funding towards performance artworks for ten years. Undeterred by the backlash, Tang Da Wu created and performed Don't Give Money to the Arts (1995) to protest the no-funding rule: during the opening of a state-sponsored exhibition, the artist approached the president of Singapore while wearing a jacket embroidered with the words "Don't Give Money to the Arts". Although it was as explicit in its criticism of the government and its policies, Tang was not penalised for his performance. In this paper, I conduct a comparative analysis of these two works to examine how protest art - with a focus on the performance art form - navigates the cultural hegemony in Singapore by comparing the tactics used in both performances by analysing how and why Tang managed to escape punishment for his scathing performance while Ng did not. Specifically, I look at how the performances navigated the "out-of-bound markers" and concealed their dissent, and how the artists controlled the documentations produced. The answers to this question provide us with important insights into how protest art continues to adapt to and resist the mutating systems of control within authoritarian states.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-3609</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1651-2294</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/00233609.2023.2181864</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Routledge</publisher><subject>20th century ; Activist art ; Arts funding ; Authoritarianism ; Comparative analysis ; Ng, Josef ; Performance art ; Political dissent ; Tang Da Wu</subject><ispartof>Konsthistorisk tidskrift, 2023-01, Vol.92 (1), p.36-55</ispartof><rights>2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2023</rights><rights>2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-5499-5811</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30995,33461</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goh, Wei Hao</creatorcontrib><title>Performing Protest in Singapore: Performance Tactics in Brother Cane and Don't Give Money to the Arts</title><title>Konsthistorisk tidskrift</title><description>In the early hours of 1 January 1994, Josef Ng concluded his 25-minute performance artwork Brother Cane (1994) by snipping his pubic hair. The performance created a public furore, resulting in the cessation of public funding towards performance artworks for ten years. Undeterred by the backlash, Tang Da Wu created and performed Don't Give Money to the Arts (1995) to protest the no-funding rule: during the opening of a state-sponsored exhibition, the artist approached the president of Singapore while wearing a jacket embroidered with the words "Don't Give Money to the Arts". Although it was as explicit in its criticism of the government and its policies, Tang was not penalised for his performance. In this paper, I conduct a comparative analysis of these two works to examine how protest art - with a focus on the performance art form - navigates the cultural hegemony in Singapore by comparing the tactics used in both performances by analysing how and why Tang managed to escape punishment for his scathing performance while Ng did not. Specifically, I look at how the performances navigated the "out-of-bound markers" and concealed their dissent, and how the artists controlled the documentations produced. The answers to this question provide us with important insights into how protest art continues to adapt to and resist the mutating systems of control within authoritarian states.</description><subject>20th century</subject><subject>Activist art</subject><subject>Arts funding</subject><subject>Authoritarianism</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Ng, Josef</subject><subject>Performance art</subject><subject>Political dissent</subject><subject>Tang Da Wu</subject><issn>0023-3609</issn><issn>1651-2294</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0YH</sourceid><sourceid>7QI</sourceid><sourceid>8XN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QQh48LQ1H_uReLKuWoWKBes5ZLOJbmmTmqRK_71ZW6-eZgaed4Z5ADjHaIQRQ1cIEUpLxEckNSOCGWZlfgAGuCxwRgjPD8GgZ7IeOgYnISwQwgRxPgB6pr1xftXZdzjzLuoQYWfha5rl2nl9DfeAtErDuVSxU6EnbhP8oT2spdVQ2hbeOXsZ4aT70vDZWb2F0cFEwLGP4RQcGbkM-mxfh-Dt4X5eP2bTl8lTPZ5milIaM25a3uQtparKGVEs54a0RUVN3hikaY5a2aJGNZyXhUaqKIzk2BQY4ZI22GA6BBe7vWvvPjfpF7FwG2_TSUEYoRVnFWaJKnaU8i4Er41Y-24l_VZgJHqj4s-o6I2KvdGUu9nlOvtr5Nv5ZSui3C6dNz4J6oKg_6_4AVWAfDo</recordid><startdate>20230102</startdate><enddate>20230102</enddate><creator>Goh, Wei Hao</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>0YH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QI</scope><scope>8XN</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-5811</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230102</creationdate><title>Performing Protest in Singapore: Performance Tactics in Brother Cane and Don't Give Money to the Arts</title><author>Goh, Wei Hao</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-9fd9b4d33c7482c849f2d573f4bf0e340dad0bcb9965e0c55fa91f510163b1f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>20th century</topic><topic>Activist art</topic><topic>Arts funding</topic><topic>Authoritarianism</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Ng, Josef</topic><topic>Performance art</topic><topic>Political dissent</topic><topic>Tang Da Wu</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goh, Wei Hao</creatorcontrib><collection>Taylor & Francis Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ARTbibliographies Modern</collection><collection>International Bibliography of Art (IBA)</collection><jtitle>Konsthistorisk tidskrift</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goh, Wei Hao</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performing Protest in Singapore: Performance Tactics in Brother Cane and Don't Give Money to the Arts</atitle><jtitle>Konsthistorisk tidskrift</jtitle><date>2023-01-02</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>92</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>36</spage><epage>55</epage><pages>36-55</pages><issn>0023-3609</issn><eissn>1651-2294</eissn><abstract>In the early hours of 1 January 1994, Josef Ng concluded his 25-minute performance artwork Brother Cane (1994) by snipping his pubic hair. The performance created a public furore, resulting in the cessation of public funding towards performance artworks for ten years. Undeterred by the backlash, Tang Da Wu created and performed Don't Give Money to the Arts (1995) to protest the no-funding rule: during the opening of a state-sponsored exhibition, the artist approached the president of Singapore while wearing a jacket embroidered with the words "Don't Give Money to the Arts". Although it was as explicit in its criticism of the government and its policies, Tang was not penalised for his performance. In this paper, I conduct a comparative analysis of these two works to examine how protest art - with a focus on the performance art form - navigates the cultural hegemony in Singapore by comparing the tactics used in both performances by analysing how and why Tang managed to escape punishment for his scathing performance while Ng did not. Specifically, I look at how the performances navigated the "out-of-bound markers" and concealed their dissent, and how the artists controlled the documentations produced. The answers to this question provide us with important insights into how protest art continues to adapt to and resist the mutating systems of control within authoritarian states.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/00233609.2023.2181864</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-5811</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0023-3609 |
ispartof | Konsthistorisk tidskrift, 2023-01, Vol.92 (1), p.36-55 |
issn | 0023-3609 1651-2294 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_00233609_2023_2181864 |
source | ARTbibliographies Modern; International Bibliography of Art (IBA); Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection |
subjects | 20th century Activist art Arts funding Authoritarianism Comparative analysis Ng, Josef Performance art Political dissent Tang Da Wu |
title | Performing Protest in Singapore: Performance Tactics in Brother Cane and Don't Give Money to the Arts |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T21%3A08%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performing%20Protest%20in%20Singapore:%20Performance%20Tactics%20in%20Brother%20Cane%20and%20Don't%20Give%20Money%20to%20the%20Arts&rft.jtitle=Konsthistorisk%20tidskrift&rft.au=Goh,%20Wei%20Hao&rft.date=2023-01-02&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=36&rft.epage=55&rft.pages=36-55&rft.issn=0023-3609&rft.eissn=1651-2294&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/00233609.2023.2181864&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2823798718%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-9fd9b4d33c7482c849f2d573f4bf0e340dad0bcb9965e0c55fa91f510163b1f13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2823798718&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |