|
Author Tay Kheng
Soon |
2002 Preamble My thoughts on the phenomenon of
apparent aesthetic dysfunction in South East Asia is derived from direct
observation and reflections arising from teaching architecture students in
Singapore, Malaysia, Jakarta and Hong Kong and from my architectural
practice. As a result, I have become aware how widespread the phenomenon is
and also how similar is the pattern of aesthetic response throughout. This
leads me to think that there must be similar factors at work in all these
areas. What are these? It is not enough to simple dwell on features that make
a particular aesthetic expression different or unique. It is necessary to
understand the nature of aesthetics as an epistemology in order to detach it
from the burdens of meaning and to be able therefore to make new but coherent
form. The context Traditional South East Asia had/has a
rich heritage of aesthetic achievement in all the arts. Some magnificent
relics and artistic practices exist into the present attest to this. These
aesthetic products and processes all display high degrees of consistency and
coherence within their respective idiomatic forms and all are encrusted with
rich meaning and significance. But they reflect their times. The problem is;
what has happened to such coherence and consistency in the aesthetics of
contemporary works in this period after WWII? Why is there a general
situation of aesthetic dysfunction resulting in widespread aesthetic disorder
in contemporary works? What is aesthetics? We have first to agree on what we mean
by aesthetics. Aesthetics is the order of form. It is the grammar which makes
form intelligible, coherent and consistent. In traditional societies,
aesthetics is indivisible from art, taste or beauty. In the contemporary
context, aesthetics is not so because form is hybridised. Thus, aesthetics
cannot be tied to any particular form of expression but be able to underpin
all forms. Aesthetics has thus to be regarded as a separate discipline. We are living in rapidly changing
hybridised times and arts producers are individualistic. Thus in the
contemporary modernising context, if one is to have any chance of aesthetic
success in making coherent and consistent products out of the hybridity of
influences one has to possess a deeper level of making formal coherence that
supervenes the multiple influences and unprecedented requirements. Few has
this capability. It is also not taught in art and design schools. Critics
also do not clarify the underlying formal order but proceed in commenting on
aspects and features primarily. The Grammatical constituents of aesthetics: tectonics,
colour, formal properties and proportional relationships. It seems to me that aesthetics has
three aspects. The primary level is the grammar of form. Secondly, there is aesthetics that is
socialised. This is grammar or property of form in materials and methods of
construction. There are proportional relationships that are inherent in
spans, thicknesses, rhythms and junctionings. These may not be violated.
These properties and relationships are objective. It applies to colours,
shapes and spatial articulations as well. Finally, there is a level of
aesthetics or grammar associated with recognisable styles and forms of
expression. It is a specific formal language as such. These three levels of aesthetic
grammar are often confused. Thus often, lacking the ability to distinguish
the primary aesthetic, the inherent socialised aesthetics and the stylistic
grammar, many arts producer are unable to progress beyond permutating within
a style of choice. They are unable to freely respond to new an unprecedented
artistic or design situations. This is the source of much aesthetic disorder
in states undergoing rapid and massive change. Primary level aesthetics This is the most important level. It
underpins all other levels. To avoid the constraints of aesthetics premised
on the grammars of style, what is needed is to understand aesthetics as
biology and not sociology. This refers to the notion that there is a deep
structure aesthetics that is constituted by evolution-selected propensities
because they have survival value. This could be why such propensities are
ingrained in the body/brain/mind. If such be the case, the task is to extract
aesthetics from its entanglement with meaning and social value, important as
these are. The cognitive categories which
constitute primary level aesthetics are: cognition of shapes which possess a
kinship in their forms, cognition of relationships in terms of what
constitute groups and collectives, what patterns of space possess properties
of connectivity, distinction, and continuity? When do rhythms get established
or destroyed? When does attenuation presist and when does it decay? Where do
confluences occur and how small or how large before they lose character? What extent of character establishes the
integrity of a form and when does it decay? How many elements and what degree
of kinship these possess before a direction is indicated or when a space is
defined? How big or small must objects be before they are unnecessarily large
or small or just adequate? These and many more categories constitute the
primary basis for the cognition of formal properties. Indeed, they are the
very basis of grammar. It would appear to me that these cognitions are
inherent and therefore objective. These are cognitive capabilities necessary
for survival. Emotional and the sentimental
attachments involved, though vital in social discourse, however, distract and
conceal the nature of aesthetic order or disorder. Simply adding desirable
icons one over another produces incoherence and inconsistency isf not guided
by primary level aesthetics. The Human Condition and its effects on Aesthetics Since it is possible to be clear about
the nature of aesthetics, why does aesthetic disorder persist? Why no desire
to acquire it or learn it? One possible explanation may lie in the nature of
human disequilibrium. Taking a cue from Buddhist philosophy, disorders in the
environment is a reflection of disorders in the human condition. The anxious
efforts of humans have an increasing impact on the environment. This is now
abundantly clear. Understanding the causes and dynamics of the human
condition is thus vital for a proper understanding of the causes of discord
and disharmony in the objects created by humans. In investigating this question, I
formulated a "hypothesis of the
dynamics of the human condition". It seems to give insights into phases and forces that act
on consciousness. It partly explains the distortions that occur in human
efforts including taste and aesthetics. The hypothesis is a combination of
Buddhist and Psychological thought. It proceeds thus: The human being when born is in a state
of undifferentiated consciousness. It's self is in being. Self is in a state
of bliss. In the Greek, this state is called Noia. Within 21 days, the little
self migrates to the edge of its being and makes a leap out into the world of
differentiation. Thus the self begins to recognises itself as distinct from
its parent. Thereafter, differentiation accelerates. Self enters the world of
ever greater differentiation. This characterises human consciousness as it
embarks on its journey of life. By definition this state of increasing
differentiation is thus a state of Para-Noia, that is, a condition of being
literally beside oneself. It is thus a state of constant existential anxiety,
of course, not amounting to clinical paranoia which is an extreme form of
though disorder. The state of existential anxiety peaks in adolescence and
thereafter, theoretically begins its return from its outward trajectory
towards the noiac state of its origin. This is a process psychologists call
maturation, Eric Ericsson calls it, "personality integration". There are two important points to be
noted. The first is that the self, it its state of existential anxiety,
weaves a protective image of itself to present to others. This
representational shell around itself, or constructed self is termed the
'persona' by psychologists. It is made up if all manner of status symbols and
posturings to bolster the fragile ego. This process is thus the motor of
life. It is the driving force of economy and human society. Were it
sufficient to merely fulfil human needs, the economy would not be inflated to
the extent it is. It is the fulfilment of wants and desires beyond needs that
hyper inflates the demands for more energy, material resources and appetites
for difference and identities. It is what drives the desire for bigger,
brighter louder and more. Societies are also at different situations and
stages of development. Indeed, state of development is the cumulative level
of human development in terms of the dynamic of maturation. Nation states,
such as S.E.A., which perceive themselves as being at the margins of the
metropolitan powers, have a sense of inadequacy and underdevelopment in
relation to their perceived master-cultures. This is an added anxiety such
societies superimposed and imported into their own self-manifest anxieties. Buddhists thus say that disorders in
the world are but projections of the disorders in the self. I would add that
disorders in the world are additions to disorders in the self. One triggers
the other. The other important point is that while the self is busily
fabricating the artificial representation of itself there is a longing for
the dim memory of bliss. This pulls in the opposite direction against the
self's desire to spin in the direction of greater differentiation and ego
manifestation. The longing for unity is the spiritual pull towards
authenticity and integration, the anxious ego pulls towards greater
consumption and yet greater anxiety. Disorder pulls against order. As persons mature, they tend to reverse
the outward trajectory and approach more closely their original self as the
artificial self falls off. Paranoia gets less. Artificiality and
superficiality, exaggeration, grossness, exhibitionist tendencies,
desperation for difference in itself etc. decline and is replaced by calmness
and exactitude. Formal order arises in the individual of its own accord as
the self approaches unity. This is the hope for the resolution of aesthetics
and other forms of disorder in the world. In South East Asia as in all new
states, the process is in its most virulent phase at the phase of rapid
development and identity crisis. Only when a measure of material saturation
and self-maturation arises will the human dysfunction in aesthetics finally
be resolved. From the discussion thus far, it is
clear that notions of beauty, art, taste, culture and identity are all social
constructs, as much subject to disorders in the maturation process as it is
to the confusions due to the breakdown of traditional patterns of order. This
is an important clarification because, one of the chief causes of aesthetic
disorder is the interference between desired meanings and the imperative for
order. When one is conscious of grammar one can consciously match meaning to
form and construct order consistent with the cultural messages such forms are
to carry. There is thus a potential dialogue between grammar and
culture. The difference between music and
literature and the plastic and graphic arts The aesthetic problems I speak of refer
primarily to the plastic and graphic arts. In the literary arts, there is
dysfunction in making coherent narrative because linguistic grammar is
relatively rare. This is because, the disciplinary basis for articulating
ideas and sensibilities despite vastly varied and unique contents has an
orderly basis. This is also the case in music. The inherent tonal scale and
rhythmical structure in music provides the orderly basis for even novel
compositions. This is so pronounced that where it is necessary to integrate
music from different traditions grammatical order can still be achieved
through the use of any one major formal order to provide the integrative
element. Let us not be misled here. Formal order is no guarantee of
exquisiteness in a work. Order simple provides the coherence and consistency
necessary for the work to have a wholeness. Greatness is dependent on the poetic
capability of the composer or writer. Whatever the quality of a work, the
legibility and articulate conveyance of the work depends on its grammatical
foundations. No great work can have shaky foundations. Thus the vital
necessity for grammatical structuring. If this is also the case with the
plastic and visual arts, then much of the aesthetic disorder will simply not
exist. As it is, visual and plastic arts are
beset with grammatical disorders. In these, arts, the burden of meaning and
the appetite for globalised imagery and iconography are unsupported by any
grammar. Indeed, the grammars inherent within traditional aesthetic
expressions are just not appropriate for contemporary usage. Moreover, many
contemporary works use new materials, need to be executed at vastly larger
scales, are of vastly more complex content and employ non-traditional
methodologies. Thus, the primary aesthetic grammar is non-existent, the
constructional grammar inappropriate and the stylistic grammars are
misapplied. All these explain why the aesthetic dysfunction that so painfully
surrounds contemporary life in the cities of South East Asia. Aesthetics as conveyor of meaning In this context, aesthetics could be
seen as the vehicle on which a burden of meaning is carried. It should also
be seen interactively in relation to the burden of meaning. There must also
be a degree of appropriateness in the aesthetic or grammar in relation to the
burden of meaning to be carried. But certain departures from the normative
structure of coherence and consistency may be necessary in certain cases.
There are however limits that cannot be exceeded in any such departure before
the burden of meaning begins to lose coherence all together. The most
challenging aspect of aesthetic departures is in the realm of poetics. This
is in those exquisite works where a new whole is created out of the
inseparable integration and synergy of grammar and content. It would be
already a great mercy should contemporary works be coherent and consistent
even without attaining the pinnacles of poetry! This paper will not be able to go into
any great detail in discussing the nature of the aesthetic vehicle except to
say that it is a form of ordering involving independent cognitive
categories. Some key concepts
are such things as: kinship of form, connectivity of forms and spaces, propensity of various line-types and
their ability to connect and cohere. It will include characteristics of
groups and collectives, i.e., what constitute groups and wholes and therefore
singularities. When is a shape sufficient, and extent enough, a size adequate
in itself without considering for the time being the value significance?
There are hundreds of these categories that are autonomous but may interact
with the burden of meanings they have both to carry and to articulate. The
making of legibility and coherent and consistent order to any composition or expression depends not
on the content but on its aesthetic. This is what aesthetics is all about. It
is a great mistake, especially in the contemporary context to confuse structure from content and vice
versa. Cultural studies and sociology tend not to distinguish the two.
Modernity and aesthetics One important aspect of modernity which
affects aesthetic intelligence directly is the ability afforded by modernity
to deconstructing reality into coherent and discrete parts. The ability to
reconstruct coherent and consistently expressed new things is thus dependent
on the degree of modernity in the contemporary context. In traditional
societies where cultural expressions evolve slowly through craftsman,
apprentices and enlightened patrons, aesthetics need not be an autonomous
knowledge but is embedded in the very works themselves indivisible from its
meaning and significance. Thus, traditional ideas and perceptions are limited
to traditional formulations. They are the very basis of the conventions from
which the means of articulation are derived. In the contemporary context
there is no such convenience. Beset by all manner of influences, usually of a
superficial kind aesthetics is utterly confused by the embarrassment of
choice. Moreover, size of projects, mega-city contexts, rapid change, fast
track implementation, division of labour between conceiver and multiple
executors and sustainability requirements etc. all require unprecedented
solutions. Unless there is the ability to step
back from the maelstrom of conflicting desires, there is no possibility of
any resolution. If only there was available a consistent and coherent means
to integrate all the disparate parts together. No such means is available,
nor is it desirable to artificially force incoherent and inconsistent parts
together. Only truly autonomous and the few stubbornly autonomous i.e.,
modern S.E.Asian creative spirits can and will strive to develop their
indigenous voices, neither referenced to the West nor even to their own
traditions because the old precedents though marvellous are not relevant to
the tasks at hand. Why is contemporary S.E.Asian aesthetics in a problematic
situation? The usual reason given for aesthetic
disorder is that contemporary Urban South East Asia is undergoing rapid
change after the colonial interlude post WW2 and that there is insufficient
time to adjust to the new situation. In this argument, aesthetics is regarded
as a matter of learning and exposure to the good and the beautiful. The
unconscious proposition is that more exposure to modern aesthetics will lead
to better local aesthetics. What is assumed is that Modern equals Western. Pride
does not allow many to acknowledge this assumption. It is excused away. The
first problem to overcome is to own up to the problem because then one can
pose other propositions. What If one does not subscribe to equating modern
aesthetics with western aesthetics, what does one do? One will have to
redefine what one means by modern, Western and what is aesthetics itself. Can there be a modern aesthetics that
is not referenced to Western cannons of taste? Surely, the sheer diversity
and richness of S.E.Asian history and geography and the complexity of the
unprecedented urban density and requirement for ecological sustainability
necessitate novel and unprecedented solutions which of course have
unprecedented aesthetic problems associated. Since these solutions in their nature cannot be found in
the Western cannon nor in the local traditions how then to articulate the new
ideas? Expressing new solutions with derived aesthetics is not satisfactory
because, the new aesthetic expression must be true to the nature of the new
innovation. How to make coherent and consistent form without references? This
is the dilemma and the challenge. An aesthetic that overarches or
underpins the new forms which allows these to fully blossom requires a
grammar that articulates the new forms fully is long overdue. The problem of post-coloniality in developing aesthetic
consciousness Let us clear away some debris first.
This is the post-colonial mentality which remains deferential to the mother
metropolis. This is the lingering intellectual and aesthetic subordination
that is self concealed among S.E.Asian intellectuals and designer/artists.
Thus, although the proposition is clear, S.E.A. is daunted by the task. If
S.E.A. is to tackle its unprecedented aesthetic challenges, it has to have
the courage to free its access to autonomous intellectual and aesthetic and
sensing capabilities. The barriers to such a renaissance has to overcome the
conventions and inertia presided upon by power elites whose legitimacy relies
precisely on the continuation of a traditional acquiescent and dependent
mass. The problem is therefore a problem of modernity. S.E.A. has
modernisation without much modernity. Since modernity is troublesome to the
post-colonial power elites, ther is no incentive to promote modernity.
Modernity is thus in limbo whilst modernisation rages all around. The
distraction and allure of new gadgetry and modernistic icons confuses the
mind and the senses. Free spirited modern artists and designers find
themselves marginalised by their would-be audience and regarded with
suspicion. Power, Modernity and aesthetics Indeed, all ideas and methodologies are
seen and acted out in the context of traditional perceptions and patterns of
power. Attitudes towards style and expression in contemporary S.E.A is
conventional. No deep innovation can be seen. Modernity is sparcely
distributed. Where it is to be found, it thends to be superficial in the form
of modernistic styling. It is just another stylistic gesture in a politics of
gesture which is to bolster the status quo and to give a semblance of
advancement. Another problem which affects aesthetic judgement is that of
natural inertia. Thus although modernisation has penetrated into all aspects
of life from the largest cities right into the smallest villages nothing has
really changed in terms of attitudes and scope of thinking and sensing. Kitsch and aesthetic disorder: products
of ersatz modernity Modernity is destructive and
constructive. Elites are therefore fearful of modernity. But modernity is
essential to society’s ability to renew itself. Modernity has the terrible
capability to deconstruct and reconstruct every cherished form and meaning.
And it can make new form coherently. Because modernity is analytical, it
enables grammar to be made conscious. In this way, modernity can make
coherence and consistency without the necessity to pattern after a precedent.
Modernity cannot of course guarantee poetry. Poetry comes from a perceptive
heart that has mastered grammar and transcended it. Modernity can however
guarantee coherence much needed in the contemporary age of unprecedented
change. Thus lacking modernity, or existing in a context of ersatz modernity,
the effect on the arts is dysfunction. Despite its modernistic trappings of
parliaments, professions, laws, big buildings, banks, schools, universities,
art galleries etc. ersatz modernity multiplies the distortions and disorders
it creates fuelled by its traditionalist yet modernist aspirations. Because
S.E.A is not able to deconstruct
itself, it cannot renew and recontextualise its own aesthetic heritage in
relevant and authentic ways neither can it be inspired by the West in any
liberative way. It only continuously creates poor resemblance of progress and
art. In fact, in the main, it produces a kitsch out of every aspiration be it
trivial or significant because it lacks the grammar to make things and
expression coherent and consistent.
When the autonomy of reason and sense
are subject to the dictates of power and piety and taste is driven by the
desire to “catch up” with others, aesthetics sensibility is therefore not
free. Thus, although the means are at hand, attitudes and mentalities are
still very constrained. Aesthetic confusion results between the poles of
modernity and tradition. Kitsch as narcotic and anaesthetic Thus, in the context of popular taste,
in a contemporary culture of alienation and aesthetic limbo, kitsch abounds.
Kitsch is the narcotic of the senses and of consciousness. It mollifies the
self. This is a double whammy. For the state, kitsch is a useful resource in
a state-craft predicated on placation and provision. Thus, kitsch is a useful
anaesthetic. It keeps the peace. It blunts extremism, be it racism, religion
or class conflict. Contemporary aesthetics and its expression in all fields
is thus a matter of arithmetic. A process of adding, subtracting, dividing
and multiplying desirable icons grafted onto most contemporary works such as
buildings, sculpture and painting. Why this is less so in the literary and audio
arts is interesting perhaps because of the presence of the discipline of
linguistic grammar and tonal scale and rhythm, grammar lacking in the plastic
and graphic arts. This paper will argue for the vital necessity of grammar in
architecture, plastic and graphic arts.
Modern Aesthetics in the midst of the
traditional There is a nexus between aesthetics and
modernity in the contemporary context. South East Asia is undergoing rapid
modernisation with little modernity. Indeed, modernity is a threat to the
power of the state because it empowers people. This threatens the rulers of
the state. It is therefore not encouraged. For the masses, modernity is a
terribly fascination but it is also feared for its dispassionate mentality. A
mentality which grates against the poetic imagination of wholeness. It is
thus only appropriated superficially. The Aesthetician’s Dilemma The problems that arise are not easy to
resolve. This because aestheticians in general and those in South East Asia
in particular are loath to separate the structure of expression from the
meaning content of cultural products. This attitude is a mistaken notion of
democratic rights of expression. In such a view, separation is regarded as a
violation of the aesthetic autonomy of the cultural producer. Moreover, it is
also viewed as an interference in the natural process of cultural evolution
even if this is despite the disorders inherent in expressions driven by the
many anxieties that beset society. The modern and the traditional are
juxtaposed uneasily. The modern is desired, yet there is a longing for the
traditional as authentication of identity. Thus, the modern is often held as
an exotic icon, a desirable, whereas, the traditional serves as
auto-stereotyping identification of community and self. This confusion is
another source of aesthetic limbo. Conclusion: What prospects are there for coherent and consistent
S.E.Asian aesthetics? In the meantime, as I have stated
earlier, disorders in the self are magnified by disorders in the environment.
There is thus a vital necessity for aesthetic order in terms of a grammatical
discipline to be applied and propagated so as to increase coherent and
consistent works in the environment. The paradox is that those who champion the
laise-fare evolution of aesthetics are actually prolonging the conditions of
disorder. Clarification of aesthetics and its underlying grammatical
structure in all disciplines of self expression need to be advanced. The
human condition persistence of the political/artistic/intellectual attitudes
aside, the challenge to aestheticians is to propagate aesthetics as a
distinct field of critical knowledge to act as an antidote and critic of the
existing disorder. |
|
|
|
|
|