Ilza Burchett – Art Book Review
Since the 80’s and especially at present the postmodern theory is a basic educational requirement as well as its concrete application in creating works of art for undergraduate students in Visual Art faculties in Universities all over the world.
Here is the opening paragraph from the editorial titled “Artistic Research and the Poetics of Knowledge” by Kathrin Busch[1], in the Art&Research / A Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods.
“One of most intriguing aspects about art today is its entanglement with theory. In fact, contemporary art practice is now so highly saturated with theoretical knowledge that it is becoming a research practice in and of itself. Artists have not only taken up art criticism and negotiations, they now also integrate research methods and scientific knowledge into their artistic process to such a degree that it even seems to be developing into an independent form of knowledge on its own. If this tendency is reinforced by the growing transfer of theoretical knowledge in the course of restructuring art academies and establishing so-called artistic research projects, such a blurring of the lines between art and theory could no longer live up to the classical philosophical notion that art is ultimately a sensual form of truth.”
Contemporary artists that claim or happened to have no interest, access or exposure, or do not wish to engage in any way with philosophical thought for whatever reasons, are nevertheless subject to our “contemporary” world, which is infused with information of all sorts, unavoidably impacting on their work.
One can safely say that today artists are completely saturated with their contemporary world.
The book touches upon the social and cultural difficulties and controversy surrounding the acceptance of the then new to Vietnam contemporary art forms like performance, installation, etc, as practiced by the Vietnamese artists at the time, explaining that “… it was also a shock to the senses as it challenged traditional aesthetic ideals.” and “… in contemporary art’s social contents, its becoming “Pop”, and finally its direct intervention into political, social, environmental and human issues in the age of globalization.”
The Part II / Contemporary Art In Practice in Vietnam / leads the reader through a thorough chronological investigation of the art events and artists expressing their ideas, creative thoughts, feelings and understanding of their society and the world in general through these previously unfamiliar in Vietnam contemporary art forms and new creative formats.
The book faithfully acknowledges the ongoing support of Vietnamese and foreign cultural exchange organizations, the impact of collaborative work between Vietnamese artists and artists from abroad, the new important local gallery spaces.
The Authors trace the evolutionary development of these movements, outlining certain distinct periods in time marked by events and progressive boldness and self-assuredness in the performance art, installation and video art genre in the spirit of experimentation.
In this and the following Part III of the book they demonstrate intimate knowledge of the art scene in Vietnam, artists’ output as well as passionate engagement with the subject mater of their research efforts, keeping track of the chronology of the art events, describing them with interest and outlining the historical, socio-political and cultural conditions and peculiarities which impacted the development of contemporary Vietnamese art and promoted better understanding, recognition, familiarity and acceptance of these aspects of contemporary Vietnamese artists’ practices as well as painting and printmaking, which evolved in terms of content affected by the forming artistic awareness of critical, social and political role of content in art.
In Part III / Artists — Artworks /, the book catalogs and profiles thus engaged contemporary artists “… who had demonstrated very unique practices, had artworks that left a deep impression on the viewers, and had also contributed to the development of contemporary art at one time or another.”– according to the Authors’ learned assessment.
Each artist is comprehensively represented with robust analysis of their individual artistic concerns within the established by the Authors engaging view of Vietnam’s art world, illustrated with an excellent selection of photos of a number of artworks that allow the reader to assess for themselves artists’ output, as well as their contribution to contemporary art in Vietnam.
If only every book review were this incisively written! It is scholarly, but also helpful in a practical sense. It is descriptive, but also analytic. What were the book’s authors trying to do? Did they succeed? Does it matter?
This his review is helpful to the purchaser/consumer at two levels. First, to help me decide if I want to go out and buy it. Second, to help me get the most out of the book once I own it.
It is also helpful to the authors, for their next effort, if they are open to constructive criticism. The best example is the Table of Contents being placed in the back of the book, rather than the front (where European readers expect it). This is common in VN books. It would seem a wise move to include two Tables of Contents, one at the front and one at the back, to make the book user-friendly for both domestic (VN) and foreign readers. Why go to all the trouble of translating the book into English language and then fail to format it in a way that helps people who are accustomed to the non-VN way of setting up books?
So, a review helpful to just about everyone. Who could ask for more?
Many thanks Mark — truly appreciate your assessment and feedback.
Ilsa’s review of a Vietnamese sculptor’s works, also on Hanoi Grapevine not long ago, revealed the mind and sensibility of a sharp art critic. This book review confirms them. Many thanks to you, Ilsa, and to Grapevine, for such a reading pleasure.
For me, the location of that Table of Contents is not a problem. Our habits should not be taken for granted as “should be” things. While in Hanoi, just see things the Hanoi ways. We should not complain that the grapevine here is so different from the grapevine in the Napa Valley or other places in this world. Change our habits, and we’ll be able to enjoy, even ourselves.
Why in English and not Vietnamese first? Perhaps that’s one way to get the book out safely first – the Vietnamese version might get stuck in the censorship here, or born as a child badly maimed by the Agent Orange.
One last note: the English of this book is the best of all the art books published so far by and in Viet Nam. Congratulations and many thanks to the translators.
Many thanks Trinh Lu.
Your advice is taken — one never stops learning…
Comment on Ilza Burchett’s review of “Vietnamese Contemporary Art”
Nguyen Dinh Dang
In the first section of the recent review of the monograph “Vietnamese Contemporary Art” by Bui Nhu Huong and Pham Trung, Ilza Burchett blamed the authors that they confused definition with description of contemporary art but she failed herself to give a proper definition of contemporary art as well. As a matter of fact, the paragraph she cites from Kathrin Busch is not a definition of contemporary art, but only points out some aspects (not the essence) of contemporary art such as its high saturation of theoretical knowledge, that contemporary art becomes a research or an independent form of knowledge itself, etc. But these aspects are so generic as they can be applied to Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Impressionism arts, etc, as well. We all know that the theory of linear perspective was worked out in the treatise by Piero Della Francesca, that the paintings and drawings by Leonardo da Vinci are based on his pioneering and outstanding knowledge of human anatomy. In this sense, the “definition” by Kathrin Busch has the same quality as that by the authors of “Vietnamese Contemporary Art”. These authors have already pointed out the difficulties, which on faces when attempting to give a “definition” to contemporary art. In fact, a definition as such does not exist. What we have is just a diversity of notions.
Next, by stating that “Contemporary artists that claim or happened to have no interest, access or exposure, or do not wish to engage in any way with philosophical thought for whatever reasons, are nevertheless subject to our ‘contemporary’ world, which is infused with information of all sorts, unavoidably impacting on their work,” Ilza Burchett contradicts herself. Her statement effectively means that contemporary artists may actually not need any theoretical background or philosophical thought at all, but are nonetheless “contemporary” simply because they live and create in our time.
Contemporary art is not the postmodernism as a philosophical concept. The fact that one may have to study the mimesis theory of art by Plato and Aristotle and/or postmodern theory in art colleges does not mean that mimesis and/or postmodern theory define contemporary art[1]. According to J.F. Lyotard, “the text he (i.e. the postmodern artist) writes, the work he produces are not in principle governed by preestablished rules, and they cannot be judged according to a determining judgment, by applying familiar categories to the text or to the work. Those rules and categories are what the work of art itself are looking for. The artist and the writer, then, are working without rules in order to formulate the rules of what will have been done.”[2] In other words, postmodern art is like traffic in Hanoi, where the only rule is no rule.
Moreover, contemporary art, understood as art of our present time, is no longer postmodern either. The postmodern time has effectively been finished at the end of the Cold War (around 1990). The invention of the internet and world-wide web in 1992 – 1994, the digital age, and the new situations in the world including the collapse of the communist bloc, the fall of dictatorship and totalitarian regimes, the worldwide blossom of democracy, the war on terrorism, the rise of nationalist expansionism in East Asia, global warming, the recession of the nuclear power plants after the Fukushima disaster, etc. are just some developments, which actually turned a new page in human history. The present condition in the world forces us to deeply question our attitude we bear since the postmodern time, where truth and justice were replaced with group consesus, good performance, commodity, and profits. Artists are not exempted from this common tendency because, before being an artist, one is a human being, a citizen notwithstanding a citizen of the world, or a cosmopolitan. Once again, we see that the artistic values that the artist puts into the creation of an art work are becoming important apart from its commercial value. The reverence for the artist’s skill is growing. We see more and more appreciation for the painters, who can actually draw and paint, the sculptors who can actually sculpt, the novelists who can actually write.
10/1/2013
[1] One should be very careful in selective reading to avoid falling into the pseudoscientific nonsense written the works by the postmodern “intellectuals-geniuses” like Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze or Felix Guatarri.
[2] J.F. Lyotard, The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Manchester University Press, 1984).
I found at least 2 typos in my previous comment. I would like to ask you to kindly correct them, namely:
1) In the last paragraph:
group consesus -> group consensus
2) In the footnote [1]:
nonsense written the works… -> nonsense written in the works…
Thank you.
Dear Nguyễn Đình Đăng,
… I am sorry, but I do suggest you re-read my text more carefully as there is no point for me repeating what I have already said — in defense of the said…