ART & COUP: FOUR YEARS AND COUNTING
Talking with Silpakorn University’s art historian about the aesthetic shifts caused by political turmoil
Yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of the May 2014 coup d’etat. While it continues to underpin the political landscape, the coup also sparked an unprecedented rise in Thai artworks with political messages. A new political art exhibition took place almost every month since May 2014.
Is it a fad or a reflection of the country’s socio-political situation? Who are the actors or groups behind these exhibitions? Can art be a powerful tool in raising questions about issues that are off-limits for a large part of the population living under military rule?
looks back on the artistic happenings of the past four years through a discussion with Silpakorn University art historian and lecturer Thanavi Chotpradit, in an attempt to determine if 2014 has marked the beginning of a new period for Thai artists.
How has the Thai art scene evolved since the 2014 military coup? Is this date a relevant marker, or did shifts begin to appear earlier — in, say, 2006, 2010 or 2013?
I find it hard to talk about this coup without mentioning the one that took place in 2006. Today, I see a new generation of artists tackling political issues, notably artists belonging to a different group than older artists — for example, Vasan Sitthiket or Manit Sriwanichpoom — who had already gained recognition through their political works.
These young artists, most of them under 40, grew up under this political situation, where the polarisation of Thai society and tensions were particularly intense. We didn’t see them being so active following the 2006 coup — perhaps they were too young then — but they are definitely taking centre stage today.
Are there other factors that contributed to the rise of this new generation of artists, such as the multiplication of art spaces in Thailand?
New art spaces provide opportunities for emerging artists to showcase more experimental or critical works, and act as channels for this kind of art to be exhibited. But I think that after 2006, politics has become part of Thais’ daily lives. You don’t have to have a particular interest in politics to come across political news.
Following the 2014 coup, dissenting voices in Thailand have been silenced for the most part. While many activists, academics and civic groups became stifled, artists have continued to comment on sociopolitical issues. Is art the last resort, the last bastion?
I once said, ‘Art can be a vector when everything else fails’. But then, if art could really change society, then such change would have happened long ago already.
I think the question should be framed in these terms: what factors enable contemporary art to discuss issues that are off-limits for most people under military rule?
For people who are not part of the art scene, or people who don’t look at art on a regular basis, contemporary art is difficult to understand. It requires interpretation, but even so, tools are needed to decipher and decode hidden messages in art.
Other artistic practices were censored rapidly following the coup, such as stage performances, films, literature and even academic seminars. The art world was largely spared until last year. One of the reasons artists weren’t censored is that most people don’t understand art.
In some cases, if you only look at the works’ physical aspects, you have no way of knowing they’re about politics unless you read the artist or curator’s statement. I’m thinking of Paphonsak La-Or’s Far From Home series [mountain landscapes that symbolised the condition of Thai political exiles] or Mit Jai Inn’s ‘Beautiful Futures’ exhibition [colourful canvases hung as panels]. If people don’t necessarily understand your work at first glance, then you can hide any messages you want. The authorities won’t get it.
However, this is a limitation in itself. If nobody understands your work, then what’s the point? It’s both an advantage and a weakness.
At the same time artists are tackling socio-political issues, artistic practices have become powerful tools used by political activists as well.
We must still distinguish art from political or social activities that use artistic practices as a medium, as well as art that has an activist side to it. I think these three practices must be looked at separately.
If you’re an activist and choose to use art to campaign for something, you must make it easy to understand because you need to reach a wide audience. Then, of course, authorities will catch the meaning too.
Art, on the other hand — we must admit that it has a very specific and limited audience. Not all political art is political activity. Tada Hengsapkul’s work, for instance, is just an artist giving his views on a given political situation. [Tada’s exhibition “The Shards Would Shatter At Touch”, at Cartel Artspace in 2017, featured photographs of political prisoners, exiles and individuals who were mistreated for their political dissent.]
It’s almost impossible to speak about the Thai art scene without mentioning its political division. Do you think it has intensified or shifted in the last few years?
This division is simply a reflection of the multiple opinions found in society. I don’t believe the new generation is more anti military than the old guard. But the division is now stronger than before, not only due to artists’ works but also to social media.
Before the widespread use of social media, people didn’t necessarily know what their peers thought. Not all artists’ works are political, but that doesn’t prevent them from engaging with politics as individuals, as citizens. And they express their views through other channels, especially online.
Some critics have noted that political art in Thailand has become a trend, and that some artists could be using the deteriorating political situation as a way of attracting attention to their works. What is your feeling on this?
It must be looked at case by case. But it’s a fair question. We can’t refute that it’s an interesting ‘marketing element’, especially for artists who come from a country regarded as ‘third world’. Especially at the global level, a lot of art viewers look at artistic productions from a Eurocentric viewpoint. Nobody wants to know how modern your life is. People want cultural specificities or comments on a specific political situation, especially when there are tensions.
But one cannot say that all artists seek attention.
Finally, would you say that the political situation gives artists more elements or issues to comment on?
There are definitely more things happening today — more shows, more events — compared to when the political situation was calmer. But maybe this has nothing to do with politics.
Importantly, I think people have become more outspoken, less kreng jai, or less obsequious, than in the past. The debates are more heated, and I find it’s a positive element. Having arguments isn’t a bad thing. It just means that people on both sides are expressing their views.