Abstraction
“Having attained the ‘national’ by way of independence, the artists in Southeast Asian countries were anxious to prove themselves ‘international’ as well. Part of abstraction’s complexity was that it functioned both as an expression of the modern nation as well as of its international aspirations. It reflected the reality of modernisation that countries in Southeast Asia were undergoing and also demonstrated artists’ awareness of international trends in which they were keen to participate. Going against traditions which had become trite images, artists turned to abstraction as the conduit to assert their modernity and cosmopolitanism as citizens of newly independent nations and of the world. A result of aiming to be current and on par with world trends was that they opened themselves to accusations of being derivative and un-nationalistic. Artists defended the practice of abstraction and also sought ways to nationalise it and make it their own.” (Clarissa Chikiamco, “Manifesting the Nation: Abstraction and the Inter-National,” Between Declarations and Dreams, 44)
see also: Internationalisation
“In 1963, artist Ho Ho Ying said, ‘Realism has passed its golden age; Impressionism has done its duty; Fauvism and Cubism are declining. Something new must turn up to succeed the unfinished task left by our predecessors.’ The new artistic language, he might have added, was abstraction. Ho was the first Chairman of the Modern Art Society (MAS, established in 1964) and their intellectual vitality was formidable. This was a call to engage with the ‘new’ as part of an international dialogue that had registered a shift in perceptions and value systems towards the non-representational, which also alluded to a sense of artistic adventure. Brian O’Doherty, describes this period (albeit in the Western context) ‘as always suffering from the pride that demands the testing of limits.’” (Low Sze Wee & Shabbir Hussain Mustafa, “Some Introductory Remarks,” Siapa Nama Kamu? Art in Singapore Since the 19th Century, 20)
“Suffice to say, the 1960s marked a shift, led by loosely organised artist associations such as the Alpha Gallery (established in 1971), which argued publicly that the medium and materials of the artwork were by themselves the reality and that a work of art ought not to refer to anything other than itself. These artists called for a fresh perspective of what a painting or sculpture could mean. These ‘new’ artworks were stripped-down, and made of materials with smooth, shiny surfaces such as steel, cement, and fabric. These artists also showed an increasing concern to individualise these materials as their own expressions. These explorations tended to be based on personal experiences, local contexts but also a broadly ‘internationalist’ ethos. For the members of the Alpha Gallery, the site of the gallery was critical in the reception of its art. It not only presented artists based in Singapore, but also artists from Southeast Asia. Critics labelled these artworks as minimalist or reductive art, but often these labels were rejected. For Alpha Gallery, one thing remained certain: Realism was not a sufficient criteria for the future of art and did not speak to the essence of the region’s industrialisation process.” (Low Sze Wee & Shabbir Hussain Mustafa, “Some Introductory Remarks,” Siapa Nama Kamu? Art in Singapore Since the 19th Century, 21)
“When Abstract Expressionism made its way to Singapore, there was a lack of understanding and acceptance among the public which led many artists to improvise their methods of persuassion [sic]; chiefly by means of tilting artworks. This is against the more important of the two arguements [sic] put forward by the abstract expressionist movement i.e. the removal of a conscious thought process, and these works should have been made redundant.
“Lack of effort to impart to the public with background to the movement was replaced with pacifications intended to sooth [sic] the anxiety of ignorance. (Ahmad Abu Bakar, “Title Sells,” Bread & Butter, 4-5)

