Nguyên Hưng

Mai Chi


Welcome to our round table "Contemporary Vietnamese Art in the international context". We want to discuss and analyze different aspects relating to contemporary art in Vietnam. Tradition, potential, problems, the socio-political framework, state cultural policies, education and patronage, the system of museums, the business environment, etc. As the title implies, we specially want to see these issues in the relation to the international picture. I hope we will have a direct and constructive discussion.

As for the guests of the round table, I am very pleased to say that we have an ideal split between Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese, and that the participants come from very different backgrounds (for more details please see the introduction sheet). Probably, the only minus is that we miss a state official in charge of museum or cultural policies. But there is still hope that this person will be in the audience.

I would like to start with an observation.
In recent years, artists from developing countries have became more and more visible in the international museum and exhibition scene. One concrete example: in the exhibition documenta 11 in Germany last summer, which was one of the biggest and most important exhibition worldwide, 45 out of the 115 invited artists came from outside Europe and North America. In comparison, in documenta 10 five years ago, this number was 20 out of 138. I think the blame on this exhibition for being euro-centric is no longer valid. However, Vietnam, with the exception of Tran Thi Minh Ha, a Viet Kieu living in the USA, who sent two travelogue videos recoded in Africa and in Japan to the exhibition, was not present. On the other side, artists from countries, which have a similar socio-political climate and environment for creating art, like Cuba, or from countries with even more isolation and obstacles, like Iran, were all the more visible. How can we explain the fact that we still don't have individuals showing up in the international art scene? Are we not interesting enough to play in the "champion league", or Vietnamese art, although holding surprises inside, is not yet discovered by the international art machinery, and therefore, still left out by curators?

Nora Taylor, Veronika Radulovic, Kaomi Izu


Nora Taylor: Dear participants, I apologize in advance for writing in English, but it is simply easier for me to do so. I want to begin addressing the issues that Mai Chi raised. I will be going to Japan for a week starting on the 22 of October so I hope that I can say most of what I want to say before this date. I will be visiting the Fukuoka Museum as part of my research on Vietnamese art abroad so Mai Chi's questions are particularly relevant to me. Tran Luong partook in the Fukuoka Asia Pacific Triennial as the sole representative from Vietnam so I would both disagree that artists have rarely contributed to international exhibitions, take for example Truong Tan in 1995 Copenhaguen Containers show, Vu Dan Tan, Dang Thi Khue etc...at the Brisbane Triennial, and agree. In my research on Vietnamese art abroad, I have blamed the international art world for continuing to segregate artists from Asia and/or continuing to classify artists on the basis of their ethno-nationality rather than their identities as "artists." Vietnam is at once marginalized in international circuits and made special and therefore given preference in discussions about "primitive" and "other" art forms. Discourses about Vietnamese art in International art circuits perpetuate notions of Vietnamese art as "traditional" and "exotic" and therefore highlight their appeal to tourists and foreigners looking for "authentic" art. In America, whenever Vietnamese art is exhibited, and it is rarely exhibited, the country of Vietnam is emphasized more than the artists in catalogue essays and press coverage. For example, when the show "Winding River" toured three cities in the United States, Viet Kieu protested the show because they associated the artists with the communist government. Never mind that most of the artists in the show had no affiliation with the communist party. Similarly, American journalists preferred to discuss the show's country of origin by talking about the war in Vietnam rather than attempting to understand individual artists' concerns. Artists from Asia in general are considered somewhat "anonymous." They are "Vietnamese" first and artists second. This is a problem. It is a problem for those viewing Vietnamese art but also for those making it. Because many artists in Vietnam continue to speak about their work as "Vietnamese" rather than giving it some universal value. As long as the artists perpetuate these ethno-national notions, audiences in American and elsewhere will continue to see Vietnamese art as "Vietnamese" rather than simply "art".
(19.10.02)

Veronika Radulovic: Yes, Nora, I agree, we are very fast and simple with giving categories. And tourist ethnic art is an easily acceptable product for us. But I don't agree with you in the point you say, as long as the artists perpetuate these ethno-national notions... because this seems to be exactly the problem: The curators, the art historians and collector and last not least tourists in hordes creates with a high input of money this unpleasant picture of tourist ethnic art. Because we are just souvenier-hunter of our own unprocessed problems and longings. The artists worldwide want to earn money to start a beautiful life. And specially the vietnamese artists have recognized this problem - the reception of art in western country - very fast. As you know, they are really adaptable. Since years another strong and powerful art scene creates contemporary art in Vietnam - but a pity, the international mediator of art didn´t recognized yet.
Just another question, before starting our discussion: What means international value of art for you, if not the national and cultural and personal background?
(20.10.02)

Kaomi Izu: During the last 10 years, the number of Vietnamese artists going abroad (for exhibitions, to live…) and the number of foreign artists, researchers, critics going to Vietnam (to exchange, to inform…) have been not small. The magazine Asian Art News seems to have been founded only to promote Vietnamese art. Still, up to now, not many people, even Vietnamese, really know "where Vietnamese art is". Why?

I partly agree with Nora Taylor about the prejudiced view of the international art scene on Vietnamese art. It seems to be a general problem of human beings. Everybody looks down conservatively on everybody else. This is a perception, which excludes people. For sure.

But, on the other side, we should admit that Vietnamese art itself does not have enough substance to make a difference. First of all, the system of information and critique in Vietnam is too confused and unclear. Based on mass media, books, even on exhibitions in the museums, foreigners and even Vietnamese will be not able to get a good overview about what is happening in Vietnam. Second, there are things standing in the spotlight, and there are things left in the dark. Being in the spotlight are those, which conform with the mainstream supported by the state, and acknowledged by an audience who hardly understands art and don't really needs art. This "orientation" with the view of the mass is a filter, so that those areas, which are left in the dark, although strong and powerful, will stay where they are. In the last years, Vietnamese painters are encouraged to take part in the Asian competition of Philip Morris, but increasingly painters don't want to participate. They simply don't believe they can make the hurdle setup by the national art jury. Few foreigners, or supporting organizations have tried to find out painters who are not in the spotlight, but they are only able to tell the "leg", the "nose" but not the whole "elephant".

Third, painters themselves have limitations. I don't agree with Natalie Kraevskai saying recently in Talawas "not the state, not the association for artists, but the foreigners dictate what should be painted by the painters…". Veronika Radulovic also said something similar in the round table. Don't blame on the foreigners. If painters are easy to be "dictated", to "loose themselves", then they are not painters. We have to say clearly and frankly: Vietnamese painters are inferior. We are having a crisis of awareness here, even a crisis of ethics and integrity in general. Vietnamese painters are not "dying" with their "ethno-national" view as Nora Taylor said, but they are dying in the trap of self-created symbolism with a false notion about their "village culture". This is wrong, self-delusion, sleep-inducing. It does not reflect the Vietnamese reality. It does not bring a new perspective. It is close to a Fata Morgana…

Vietnamese art needs a principial surgical operation to determine where it is and what is its place on the world art map. I agree with Nguyen Hung: Vietnamese art will have no substance if there is no art critique (see article published in Talawas).
(21.10.02)

Nora Taylor, Natalia Kraevskaia, Nguyễn Như Huy


Nora Taylor: Thanks to your thoughts, Veronika. I agree with you. I did not mean to imply that artists perpetuated the "tourist" label because they created "mediocre" art or because they complied with the demand. Of course artists should make a living and I would never suggest that artists who make a good living from their art are in any way "inferior" morally or ethically from those who chose not to. In Vietnam, there are quite a few problems generated by the influx of money from foreigners into the local market but I also think that it is to the credit of the artists that the local market has been successful. This said, I fault the international community for placing "Vietnam" first in their discussions of Vietnamese art rather than seeing something more individual about the artists themselves. You are right national culture is extremely important but when art critics and art collectors start talking about Vietnamese art simply because it is Vietnamese, I think there is a problem. I personally would not want my own work or research or personality be reduced to my own ethnic-nationality so I imagine that Vietnamese artists are the same.
(22.10.02)

Natalia Kraevskaia: First, if we shall take Documenta as a point of counting out, would there be many/any Vietnamese artists whose work will correspond to Documenta level? I think Nora is right: the artists' perpetuation with the ethno-national notions binds their creativity. The art from such show like Documenta deals mostly with global concepts and ideas, if there are national or local issues they are connected to the global context and thus attract the worldwide public. In Vietnamese contemporary art concepts of national identity and concept of beauty (dep) prevail and make the artists' vision quite narrow. The question of international value of art proposed by Veronica is quite complex, but as she mentioned herself there are a few components: cultural, personal - not only national.

Second, why the question "have we really the individuals showing up in international art scene" arises? Yes, we have a few such individuals. But who knows about them in Vietnam and who cares? Narrow circle of artists-friends? Their success is hushed up - not enough press-coverage, no promotion. Their inclusion to important art events is not appreciated because nor art community(in general) neither art administration can distinguish level/ range/ importance of that or another show. For majority of artists and clerks from Ministry of Culture "Documenta" or small show in a cafe in Paris is almost the same since both are "abroad"!!!!

Third, and even when some artists had been invited to big Asian exhibitions, why later only a few of them get international exposure? Here we can again address to Nora's conclusion. Who of them can overstep national limitations? I can give only 2-3 names of those who don't exploit their " vietnameseness" and don't build up their career on Vietnamese themes.

Finally, what's about the international curators, not many of them come to Vietnam to
discover local talents. And since contemporary Vietnamese art got a bad reputation because of its commercialization, they, probably, apriori decide that here they can't find something fresh and exciting.
(22.10.02)

Nguyen Nhu Huy: To not waste any time, I'll go directly into the issue.
As a working artist, I have a few subjective observations. To me, what is lacking in Vietnamese art is the fact that it is not recognized and approached in its own language. It can be said that the making of art and the appreciation of art in its own proper language is a matter of the utmost importance for the artist as well as the public. Artists need to understand clearly the language they are using so as not to waste materials and emotions while getting to what they are saying in the most direct way. The public needs to understand the language they are appreciating so as to recognize the message that the work (in whatever form) is trying to communicate.

An advance in any form of art is an advance in the language of that form of art. And similarly, a regresssion in any form of art is the obsolescence of the language of that form of art.
It is no different from the case of a farmer needing to know the weather, the seasons and his plow. An artist also needs to understand the means that he is handling. (I apologize to those who would rather not have farmers compared to artists, that was only a coincident).

The approach (in making and appreciating) of art using an improper language creates an artistic climate that is unprofessional, with false values that inevitably lead to false solutions.

Only a view from within, an examination of the progress in the language of art, will help artists to find solutions to push their art forward, and to help critics and the public correctly identify the relevant issues. I have a feeling - through the postings in this forum, through the disappointments and hopes conveyed - that the main issues concerning contemporary Vietnamese art have not been remarked upon.
(22.10.02)

Veronika Radulovic, Mai Chi


Veronika Radulovic: Thanks Nora, and sorry for my English, I am not a native speaker and want to answer as fast as possible. Hope everything will be clear. Yes, first was the political opening of Vietnam and afterward foreigners realized there is an art scene. This might explain our political and mostly national reception of Vietnamese art. Maybe? Everything is more multilayered as we can see. It reminds me the opening of Hungary or the Soviet Union. There was a lot of Hungarian art and Glasnost art and whatever. The names of the artists were mostly forgotten. To describe Kabakov today as an Russian artist would be strange. And would we ever talk about Picasso as an spanish artists?
And in Vietnam? Even in our short discussion, we are using few names of artists, the personalities, the unique and innovations. Mostly we are talking about an mass of individuals, called vietnamese artist, without any difference.
Kaomi, you mentioned Philip Morris, however, do you believe that this price is taken seriously, and the artist in Vietnam can´t see a difference between exhibitions, which are organized by curators, and advertising campaigns? This of course could be an interesting discussion as well. There are more funny and disparaging notices even under the students of the university for art Hanoi about it... For some artists it´s a challenge, few artists take part, few not. But not because of fearing a national hurdle. The orientation of this price is clear. Everybody knows. And you don´t have to explain to vietnamese artist how a electric bulb works. They are critical enough.
(23.10.02)

Mai Chi: Sofar a lot of important issues were raised. We will discuss each of the raised issues in more details as the talk goes on. Especially, I hope the frank judgements of Natasha and Kaomi about the quality and integrity of Vietnamese artists will lead to a heated but interesting debate.

As we continue to talk about Vietnamese art, I would like make one remark that for me the thing called "Vietnamese art" has no clear contour. Who is making Vietnamese art? Do the Vietnamese living abroad, like Tran Thi Minh Ha in the previous Documenta example, or Nguyen Dai Giang, our round table guest, contribute to Vietnamese art. On the other side, do foreigners residing and working in Vietnam belong to Vietnamese art? I remember visiting one exhibition about modern Mexican art, and one fourth of the artists participating in the show were non-Mexican living in Mexico.

Natasha mentioned the term "Vietnameseness" and I would suggest we take a closer look on it. This term is used by many people and groups in Vietnam, so I guess there are different meanings to it. Maybe we can be more specific about what really Vietnameseness is, in our context. And why using "Vietnamese themes" would be a hinderance for making good art. Does it have something to do with the "village culture" mentality mentioned by Kaomi? I guess these questions also relate to the question about "international value", or I would take the original wording of Nora, "universal value" of art.

I hope that everybody, but especially our Vietnamese guests, would share their thoughts on these issues.
(23.10.02)

Birgit Hussfeld, Hoàng Ngọc Tuấn

Birgit Hussfeld: Mai Chi, why is it so important for you to determine what exactly is to be considered Vietnamese art? Tran Thi Minh Ha, for example, is recognised as an artist, writer and film maker for her work. She happens to be of Vietnamese origin. Her personal history in Vietnam and as an immigrant to the United States both have a some bearing on her work, as do other aspects as well. Why not leave it at that? Why should anyone be interested in classifying her work in terms of "Vietnameseness" or "American-ness"? I am tired of this question. While I was living in Hanoi and writing on Vietnamese art there, many artists spoke of 'tinh dan toc' as a main concern in their work. 'Tinh dan toc' was written endlessly about in Vietnamese art criticism. I cannot believe that it really is such a major concern of artists in Vietnam to create some nationalistic art. They might merely be lacking the language to talk about and appraise art in different categories. Maybe I am wrong, your comment makes me think, that it is a major concern after all. In that case, however, one has to say that art currently functions in Vietnam to carve out some national identity. Maybe there is some heartfelt need to replace the state sanctioned symbolism with something else. Let it be buffaloes or rice-felds, village romanticism, whatever ... The art doing that, however, would not be interesting to anyone beyond the national boundaries of Vietnam. Why should curators of international art shows care about this very local and specific need of the urban middle classes, some tourists in Vietnam and last but not least the Viet Kieu abroad? If it exists at all (the need) - it's just a guess, after all. At the same time, there are plenty of other artists who take their 'Vietnameseness' as a given, as a matter of fact, and just go on making their art without being obesessed with it. Don't get me wrong. I am not thinking that 'Vietnamese themes' as such are a hindrance to making good art, but what are Vietnamese themes? Take Kabakov (just because Veronika mentioned him). He first made his entry into international audiences as a "Russian or Glasnost artist". Now, he belongs to the "Champions League", to use your term, and no-one refers to him any longer as Russian. His work, though, reflects the reality of him having lived most of his life in a Moskow communal appartment. (His obesession with flies and dust, for example.) The question is HOW artists approach their work, whether they dwell on clichees, try to debunk them or - probably most interesting of all - don't even bother. (24.10.2002)

Hoàng Ngọc-Tuấn: The fact that Vietnamese art is not treated fairly by the "international art world" (or perhaps more correctly, the eurocentric art world) does not surprise me at all. Vietnamese art will still exist on the "margins" until it can really re-write parts of the "international history of art" to include itself in it.

During the last nearly 20 years, I have witnessed how the white Australian art world has treated Aboriginal art. I think Salman Rushdie observes very correctly that history is just a report of "an interview with the winners." Aboriginal art (including both traditional and contemporary works) had been seen as things done by the outsiders, the ones existing on the margins, until the late-1980s, when the re-writing of history became a popular movement within the postcolonial, postmodern milieu. Before the Aborigines could re-write parts of the Australian "official" history, most contemporary Aboriginal works, no matter how highly original they are, had been mainly treated as artifacts from a "primitive" world that could only serve to satisfy tourists' exotic appetite or trivial cultural curiosity.

By the late-1980s, contemporary Aboriginal art had gather momentum and achieved unprecedented success. However, by the mid-1990s, only a few names could "leak" beyond national boundaries: Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri, Rover Thomas, Abie Jangala, Ginger Riley Munduwalawala, and such women artists as Queenie McKenzie and Emily Kame Kngwarreye.

The first time contemporary Aboriginal artists could have their works placed in the context of contemporary "international art world" was only 5 years ago, in 1997, at the 47th Venice Biennale, where paintings by Emily Kame Kngwarreye and Judy Watson, and weavings of Yvonne Koolmatrie (after the Ngarrindjeri traditional styles), were hung in the Australian pavillion. Another not less interesting aspect is that among the three Australian curators at the 47th Venice Biennale, two are Aborigines (Hetti Perkins and Brenda L. Croft), the other one is white Australian (Victoria Lynn).

Having witnessed such things, I think that Vietnamese art can only become "international" if Vietnamese artists are able to re-write parts of the "international history of art". Of course, we have seen that a number of Vietnamese artists, at various degrees, and through different ways, could do a little bit of the re-writing of that "history" to include themselves in it, and make themselves appear before the "international" eye.

Let's take T. Minh-ha Trinh (Trịnh Thị Minh-hà), for instance. (By the way, I'd like to remind Mai Chi that the correct surname of the Vietnamese-American artist is not Tran, but Trinh.)

At "Documenta 11", in Kassel, Germany, Trinh presented 3 works (not 2, Mai Chi):
1/ Surname Viet Given Name Nam (1989), on identity and culture through the struggle of Vietnamese women; duration: 108 minutes; language: Vietnamese and English, plus subtitles. This film was shown 15 times at the event.
2/ Shoot for the Contents (1991), on culture, arts, and politics in China;
102 Min.; English. This film was shown 7 times, together with the following film:
3/ Reassemblage (1982), on filming in rural Senegal and a critique of the anthropological I/eye; 40 Min.; English.

As we see, in the 3 works presented by Trinh, Surname Viet Given Name Nam is the longest and most important work. And it deals with racial and cultural identity through the struggle of Vietnamese women. Here, Trinh not only takes as her subjects her "Vietnameseness" but also her "womanliness". Doing so, she seems to double her marginalized position. But it does not matter: she is recognized by the international art community as an artist rather than a "Vietnamese" or a "woman". How could Trinh achieve this recognition? She achieved it because the notions of "being Vietnamese" and "being woman", though frankly and frequently dealed with by her, only existed as subjects in her art and did not overshadow the uniqueness of her art. Let us read what an American critic wrote about Trinh:

"Trinh T. Minh-ha in her unique and beautifully composed films is a lyricist of the first order, an imaginative see-er and thinker whose art radically remakes narrative modes of filmmaking by invoking then reinventing the tools of the anthropologist, the poet and political witness, the visual artist and the musical composer" (from Steve Dickison, the Poetry Center).

There is not a single word about Trinh as a "Vietnamese woman". All words are about her art, and about her as an artist.

And it is here that I do not agree with a particular idea expressed by Nora:

"As long as the [Vietnamese] artists perpetuate these ethno-national notions, audiences in America and elsewhere will continue to see Vietnamese art as "Vietnamese" rather than simply "art"."

Let us reverse the idea:

"As long as the American artists perpetuate these ethno-national notions, audiences in Vietnam and elsewhere will continue to see American art as "American" rather than simply "art"."

How do we feel about it? The reversed idea sounds like a joke, doesn't it? Because, apparently (and how ironic!), the contemporary "history" has defined the term "American" as "international", "global", "universal", and the term "Vietnamese" only as "local". History is "an interview with the Americans", isn't it? (I am paraphrasing Rushdie)
(to be continued...)
(25.10.2002)

Đao Mai Trang, Kaomi Izu

Dao Mai Trang: Dear friends,
I regret not having followed and participated in this forum from the beginning due to time constraints. There is a certain accuracy in all the ideas that I've read, in so far as they relate to the present and perhaps the assumed future position of contemporary art of Vietnam. Nevertheless, when we talk about the Vietnameseness, how many of us participants can fully feel this 'Vietnameseness' in its minute details - feelings that can not be easily expressed in words? Is there anyone among us who can comfortably say, with certainty, that we know the real life environment in which contemporary Vietnamese artists are living and creating? That we know what the art-patronage and art-lovers milieu that surrounds them is like? That we can appreciate the crux of the matter - how the need to survive, to make a living, is constantly playing on the minds of the artists even if just on a subconscious level, which makes it very difficult to pursue art on a non-consumerist basis? That we can touch the raw inferiority complex of a young Vietnamese artist, with broken English or French, when he/she faces the big vast stage of the art of the world, not knowing what to touch, not knowing where to look? ..

Vietnam is a minnow of a nation, and the Vietnamese people have had to learn how to live with a flexibility concomitant with their situation, in order to avoid being oppressed to the point of extinction. This very fundamental aspect exerts a common pressure on all Vietnamese in general, and the Vietnamese artist is not an exception, when Vietnam participates in the world stage. Regrettably, in the present situation of Vietnamese contemporary art, as the materialist pressure on the artist has ceased, what has replaced it is the psychological pressure caused by prejudices, lack of information and differences in mind-sets. However, the core question is that we'll never know when this pressure will fade and alleviate from the conscious and subconscious minds of Vietnamese artists. That will be the time when Vietnamese artists can feel al ease and natural, and can interact with others in a confident and comfortable manner even beyond the nation's boundaries. That will be the time when, returning to their own country after a trip overseas, the artist's face does not glow with a bit of pride because they've just been to The West. That will be the time when Vietnamese artists can provide coherent explications of their work through their thoughts and feelings, desires and genesis that's contained in their works.

In order to arrive at that juncture earlier, the present generation of Vietnamese artists must equip themselves with so many new qualities, the two most important of which are initiative and a firm self-control when facing life challenges and new developments in the art world. I would like to ask you, how well equipped are the Vietnamese artists in these two respects?
(26.10.2002)

Kaomi Izu: I am really supprised of Veronika's reaction. I don't know why you lost your cool as such. Don't you know that, I mention Philip Morris simply as an example to illustrate the point "Second..." in my opinion? Whether this prize is taken seriously or not is not important. The main point is: whether there is a "hurdle" setup by the national art jury - to determine which to let go, and which to stay - and, whether there is a belief of not making that hurdle among quite a lot of artists? Don't you think there exist such things? Thus, the point "Second..." in Natalia's opinion in October 10 is not correct, is it?

Yes. I don't have to explain to anybody "how the electrical bulb works...." However, I would like to remind you that, we, the foreigners in general - the electrical bulb - no matter how bright, would not help the one who could not see with his own eyes! The knowledge that we are fortunate to have been acquired, from education, from books, etc., which is like the electrical bulk carried with us, would not help us to understand the real art life in Vietnam. After many years observing it, I have doubted the ability to "discover" of foreign curators. To attract a few artists to do installation, performance... is not the same as to discover! The artist Vo Dinh, a Vietnamese living in America, is not without reason when he said "just like an art dealer or a Ph. D. candidate knows us more than we know ourselves" (Vo Dinh interviewed by Pham Thi Hoai in Talawas)...

Now back to the topic we are discussing. In my opinion, judging Vietnam art only superficially - the "Vietnamese-like" image - is the foreigners' near-sightedness. If Vietnamese artists create art based only upon such stylized, images-arranging, "Vietnamese-like" motifs, it is only because of their childishness, misunderstanding, or opportunism. "Vietnamese-like" is not the same as "Vietnamese-characteristic". Nora's efforts are only successful against the "Vietnamese-like" things, but when ruling out the "national character" you are mistaken. And so are you, Veronika. Pointing out the "background" (in the discussion on October 20), but failing to differentiate the "national-like" and "national-characteristic," you are confused. The government art administrators and quite a lot of Vietnamese artists, until this day, still have such confusion. This very confusion, not the "national-characteristic" or "Vietnamese-characteristic," hinders the creativity. I think that the artist Nhu Huy's opinion is right. Yes, in Vietnam, art is still considered a means for other things. Yes, in Vietnam, "making of art and the appreciation of art in its own proper language" is not considered important. Art, mostly, "has only the false appearance." Artists, mostly, "don't know who they are," etc. If we cannot explain this problem from its cultural or social roots, we cannot have a common ground to discuss the national or international value of Vietnamese art. I agree with Nhu Huy that we have not touched the most essential issues of contemporary Vietnamese art yet.
(26.10.2002)

Veronika Radulovic, Dương Phúc An

Veronika Radulovic: Minh Ha is a good example to speak about the western art world mechanism. In our discussion she seems to be specified as an Vietnamese artist, who has claim herself to an Real-artist and not only as an Only-Vietnamese-artist. Right. I appreciate her work. But, sorry to say this, she is American for me. She could develop and work out her artistic concepts under totally other political conditions as the vietnamese artist. And this is exactly an aspect which we often ignore: political and economic conditions. Yes, it sounds like I would like to give a "bonus" to vietnamese artists.

But my question is: isn't she successful because she lives in the USA? She works with video. She is a femal artist - all this circumstances are virtually predestinedly to success. She is successful because she is an American working on vietnamese issues. Yes, she speaks our language, our talks, understands the market and much more, is disposed of contacts. She fits in our structure. Please don´t missunderstand my words: I am not talking about her work.

We should handle more carefully with the national inheritance. It´s everything but also nothing at all. It goes also very fast to become "Blut und Boden" - specially for me as German in a direction: Are you always Vietnamese or German only because you were born in a national ground? How about artists who are living for a long time in another country? Am I a Vietnamese artist? Weren´t the political situation in Vietnam, the education system, the self-control, the fear and pressure of the artists etc. more important issues to talk about when we are discussing Vietnamese art? Why we are not talking about Vietnamese art and the conditions? Because they weren't on the documenta? Inside an international circle? Do the international values of art develop beside conditionen?
And Natasha, yes, it´s perhaps the same, a café house exhibition and the documenta. In fact it is one of the biggest international tourist events in Germany. Thanks for the praiseworthy mention as an international art exhibition. Indeed it is. Interested in global concepts. Around 120 artists took part. And - what a surprise: 13 artists were Germans, 32 artists from other European countries, then of course USA and Canada with 24 artists followed by South America with 10 artists, Asia ten artists, Australia just 2, same China, and really Natasha, what a shame, Russia: 1 artist! Seems to be a good cooperation between Europe and the USA? Of course, for an exhibition like the documenta, the curator shouldn´t check the nations off numerically after artists. The curator never had the obligation to do so. But the center is clear. Yes, my nation together with the USA are representing most strongly! By chance or an expression of quality?

And back to Minh Ha, shall I count her as one of the Americans or is she one of the successful Vietnamese femal artists? This is the question? Another example is Jun Nguyen Hatsushiba who makes a great career as a Vietnamese artist. I wonder in all seriousness, isn't it a marketing strategy?

Natasha, some Vietnamese artists absolutly could move on the level of a German documenta, however, it´s a bit like Duchamp already said: the context makes the art, and everything is feasible. The painted cows - made by 15 or 20 Vietnamese artists 2 years ago in Hanoi. The cows could have done the world sensation at the documenta, for example. And not only the cows, many art works, videos and installations and more. Yes, I am sure about it. And Natasha, at least one person at the department of foreign relations in Hanoi should know the documenta. I mean the person who gave a permission to an danish artist (participant of documenta 11) to install few electric street light bulbs from Hanoi and inspiring in Kassel. And the other way round. Kassels electric light is shining in Hanoi. I think he will never forget this international request. And the lights hopefully put an noticed sign of a worldwide dialog. I am afraid nobody even realized them. Could you find out if they are in work?
(25.10.02)

Duong Phuc An (from the audience): Nathalie suggested using Documenta as a reference to discuss the current status of Vietnamese art. At this exhibition, as Mai Chi has pointed out, the only Vietnam-born artist was Trinh Thi Minh Ha, with two video works, "Naked Spaces: Living is Round" (1985) and "The Fourth Dimension" (2001). It can be said that these are ethonological investigations, the first focusing on Africa, the second on Japan. Both belong to the video genre, which is one of the major emphasis of this Documenta. They appear to seek an insider's perspective, an un-eurocentric one, consistent with the decolonization movement, and with the orientation of Okwui Enwesor, the Nigeria-born artistic director of documenta 11. However, in contrast to "Sin Titulo" from the series "Igeniero de Almas" of the female Cuban artist Tania Bruguera, for example, they did not make any special impression or provoke any particular emotion. And in contrast to "Gallantry and Criminal Conversation" of the female South African artist Yinka Shonibare, for example, they did not succeed in provoking a sort of smile of discovery in the mind. Observing art made inside Vietnam, Kaomi Izu has spoken of "the trap of self-created symbolism with a false notion about their village culture." But once freed from a nationalist perspective, would Vietnamese art arrive at the "global ideas and concepts" desired by Nathalie? Or would it become a faint copy of the progressive mainstream, of "politically-correct avant-garde ideology"-thereby guaranteeing for itself a place in international exhibitions. From Documenta 10 of 5 years ago to Documenta 11 of this year, is there anyone who still expects anything more from this sort of international exhibitions? Must Vietnamese artists be represented at these exhibits to be considered relevant on the world scene, and to confrom to a "global aesthetics" that is both so classy and so boring? Or should they do things that no First World will pay attention to, but may contain discoveries relevant to the environment directly nourishing them that is Vietnam?
(27.10.2002)

Natalia Kraevskaia, Hoàng Ngọc Tuấn

Natalia Kraevskaia: When I mentioned that Vietnamese artists exploit the " vietnameseness", I meant that what was earlier described in one article by Birgit Hussfeld as artists' "ongoing search for a national visual language" and their desire "to invent an "indigenous art" that would carry the unmistakable stamp of its country of origin, Vietnam". I think that it's not only (at least now) concern "to liberate art from French legacy" or from any other influences. The stamp of "made in Vietnam" is used mainly for the market promotion. My statement that many artists follow the market demands and that this trend is very destructive doesn't contradict with the ideas of Kaomi Izu. It's not blame on foreigners, it's accentuation of a fact that most of the artists can't resist to/go along with/ and even themselves favour the growing commercialization in art. Moreover I totally agree that there a crisis of awareness and of ethics. But this thesis will lead us to necessity of analysis of society's recent history, it's development, it's values and so on...

I think our critical statements are not about a few individuals (as Veronica may feel), but about general art scene, about the process, about the predominant trends. I understand that the structure of the process is multilayered, that there are some against-mainstream currents, that there always will be some "rebels", but, Veronica, I am curious and sorry to ask: where are they, your young talented students with the wide opened eyes to the world, just 2-3 years after the graduation? Don't tell that they have to survive. Artists have not so easy life in any society. By the way, why you had never painted buffaloes? Stable income in Hanoi.

I find that our whole discussion about "Vietnamese art" and "vietnameseness" and ethno-national notions is not in any way an attempt to separate all these issues from "art". Yes, we can continue to see Vietnamese art as Vietnamese (Hoang Ngoc Tuan), we can be interested in Vietnamese themes if there is something else behind them (Birgit). The problem is that these ethno-national notions are overemphasized with the purposes, which are too far from the artistic ones.

The question of absence of a proper language within Vietnamese art (Nguyen Nhu Huy) is not a point at discussion. Any language - verbal, musical, and visual - is only an instrument to express thought, idea, emotion, message... The ideas and thoughts - this is exactly what is missing in the mainstream Vietnamese art. During a gallery walk in Hanoi or Saigon I can read only one message expressed in a proper language: "Look here, you, stupid foreigner, with my excellent technique from fine Art Academy I will make you to pay for my meaningless buffalo, a girl in ao dai or whatever..." There is a lack of profoundness in Vietnamese art, a lack of the intellectualism, a lack of curiosity, of adventurism, of a natural for every creative person desire to understand and to reflect the life, to give own judgment on that or another event or phenomenon.
Speaking about Vietnamese artists from abroad and considering the case of Minh Ha or similar, I agree with Veronica - she is an American artist. But in the case like June Nguyen Hatsushiba, if we'll pose a question " isn't it a marketing strategy?" then we can continue: and all foreign artists living in Vietnam and trying to build up their career from here, isn't it a marketing strategy? And then next step: all these European and North American artists who went to Paris through 20th century. Was it not also partly a marketing strategy?

Many questions from Veronica's last message are extremely interesting for our further discussion. Replicas for Veronica:

I made a wide research in Hanoi on Hanoi-Kassel streetlights exchange project. Nobody from the art community has ever heard about it except the director of Goethe institute and some people close to him.... Sure, other people (non-artists) have not heard as well. And then, even if the lights are in work and nobody knows about them and the project itself, can you call it a dialogue? Is this work has any meaning for anybody else except the artist himself?


Thank you for sending a catalogue of Documenta. Very informative. From there I learned that this 1 Russian nomination - is a couple which for a long time already live between Berlin and New York. And if you check "born" and "live in", the statistics you or Mai Chi give changes a little bit - will be twice less.

Yes, an expression of quality. And a chance. And the curator is not obliged to check and to represent all the nations. And may be a lack of information on that or another place. And may be something else?
(27.10.02)

Hoang Ngoc-Tuan:
1. Is Trinh T. Minh-ha an American artist or a Vietnamese artist?
- If she is a mediocre artist, she would be seen as a Vietnamese woman artist belonging to the Vietnamese community in the USA.
- If she is a average artist and achieves a little recognition in the American mainstream, she would be seen as a Vietnamese-American woman artist.
- If she is an above average artist and achieves some notable recognition in the American mainstream, she would be seen as an American woman artist.
- If she is an excellent artist and achieves international recognition, she would be seen as an American artist.

Additional thought:
The richness and liveliness of the contemporary American cultural and artistic landscape today does not only exist in the mainstream and is not only born in the mainstream. Without contributions from the American Indians and the migrants, and their offspring, from around the world, especially since World War II, it would be very much poorer. Nevertheless, standing at the centre, American people do not want to acknowledge those contributions. They only want to swallow them and deny their origins.

2. Could she achieve such success, if she has only lived and worked in Vietnam until now?
- Never. Because of one or more reasons as follows:
a. inconvenient living conditions (she might have quit her artistic career to pursuit a better job to earn a living).
b. not being able to catch up with new ideas of the art of the world (only from the 1990s, thanks to the "openness", that she could start to look through the gaps to see something outside).
c. having become conditioned to the ethnocentrism established by unending series of government's propaganda campaigns. (Please note that during the last 70 years or so, ethnocentric values have been always propagated by the government due to different reasons: in war time, it is used to gather people's power against the enemies; in peace time, it is used to make people believe that paltry national pride is much more precious than food, jobs, and human rights. It is also a tranquillizer for people to avoid having inferior complex while looking out to see dizzy developments of the free world).
d. having become conditioned to working as artistic servant of the Party, the State, and the People.
e. even if she could make the same art works of the same quality (as she has done in America), she might still be unknown due to limited promotion, or she might have been punished by "critics", or even banned by the government for having "daring" ideas.

Additional thought:
Art in Vietnam today needs more open doors and open air so that artists can inhale and exhale more freely. It is then that ethnocentric smells fade slowly and a true health and confidence are gained. Cultural identity is what should not be discard and can never be rid of because it is a natural part of the artist's being, but paltry national pride is a type of illness that should be treated. Paltry national pride can make a Third World country, like Vietnam, poorer and more narrow-minded. Paltry national pride can make a First World country, like the USA, more arrogant, more aggressive, and even more dangerous.
(28.10.02)

Nguyên Hưng

I was looking forward to participating in an free and open forum in order to look deep into the problems of contemporary Vietnamese art, into its future, etc. But frankly, I am really disappointed with this "roundtable".

Disappointed, because, taking part in the "roundtable" are all "famous names," "internationally well-known experts" of Vietnamese art, and everybody is enthusiastic…, but strangely, the issues which have been examined and discussed - at least, up to this day - are just like those of the "dull roundtables" in Vietnam among the "art administrators." There is nothing new but the old discussions around "national" versus "modern," "exchange" versus "integrate," etc., and when someone speaks of an idea, then another claps, etc. Are these issues universal problems, impossible to be missed when discussing about art? To me, anyone with a good enough knowledge of art history knows with certainty: this is not so.

Then, why?

In Vietnam, the "art administrators" concern themselves with these matters, simply because they consider art as a means. This view, partly exists because of political motive, having been assigning fine art (and art in general) the duty to create the symbols full of romantic meanings, in order to support "common mutual affects," to "unite the people," to "unify the whole population" (1); but more importantly, it exists because of the outdated, superficial vision. Outdated, because the above view is the continuation of the "wartime thinking." Superficial, because "art is not appreciated by its own language" (in Nhu Huy's words), because the coordinate system is still "realism" (2), use "realism" as a ruler to measure art, etc. The artists of the "doi moi" period also commit themselves to these same mentalities, because, in reality, they are not better than those art administrators. Most of them limit their visions to such viewpoint. "They lack the language to talk about and appraise art in different categories" (in Birgit Hussfeld's words). The difference, if it exists at all, is the motive, their personal motive. This is the fastest way to gain fame and fortune. As in Kaomi Izu's direct words, they are "opportunistic,". And what about this forum? Isn't it true that Nora Taylor "threw" (on October 19) and Veronika Radulovic "caught" right after that (October 20), and then everyone has been involved into this "game of throw and catch." If the international art world sees Vietnamese art in the order "Vietnam first", "art second," as a way of judging, then I would not hesitate to tell them: they need to re-educate themselves, from the starting point. And if that is a conclusion based on the positivistic mind, then Nora Taylor's "critic" only lead herself to a fallacy trap. As a result, it just confuse others (who lack independent minds) and undermine her credibility. Isn't it true that in this very opinion, you criticized the Vietnamese artists "continue to speak about their works as 'Vietnamese' rather than giving it some universal value?" And if the Vietnamese artists express themselves that way, then why complain the way the international scene looks at us. Nora Taylor's "efforts" is only acceptable, as she sincerely acknowledged that "Every art body has both gold and brass. Very often, there is more brass than gold. If one just examines brass and makes a conclusion about that art body, it is too hasty! Here, this is gold! Don't you see it? Let take back your opinion! ...." But to me, I am afraid that the gold pieces you presented are gold-plated pieces, with brass cores! I am afraid so, because the word "universal value" in the quotation, which is consider an artistic standard, is not proper at all, especially right after that you ruled out "ethno-national notions." Which artistic mind is not a combination of many "universe-society-humanity" bonds? When an artist reaches the freedom in his thinking, his art will contain all: a personality, a people, specific humanity… When people claim a nationality of an artist, they just claim the right to be proud (this will encourage the search for creativity of young artists, and stimulate the development of a culture…). A true artist is the common property of humanity. The only fear is that they are "manipulated by the surrounding conditions" to become the "temporary/short-lived beings," or "temporary artists," who only make "temporary products!" In short, if the discussion goes on like this, I want to repeat Birgit Hussfeld: "It is tiresome". The discussion will go nowhere. And it is for nothing. Even not clearly written out, the opinion of Dao Mai Trang implies the same thought. Nhu Huy and Kaomi Izu were correct when they stated, "we have not touched the most essential issues yet."

In the essay "Criticism of Vietnamese art" which started the discussion "Where is contemporary Vietnamese art?" in this forum, I wrote: "Vietnamese art is an unfortunate art body." Many people have disagreed. But think about it, the contemporary Vietnamese art, in reality, is nothing but a "temporary/short-lived art body," which includes "temporary artists," who in turn, make arts which only have "temporary values". All of these, unfortunately, have not been realized, and have not been the subjects of criticism. Contemporary Vietnamese art, therefore, has no chance to exist in reality. Its foundation, speaking symbolically, is a "swamp". On that "swamp" nobody could build a castle. It is even impossible to stand and to walk upright. Floating on this surface currently, there are only attempts to "crawl" or "hold on to something". In Vietnam, I have brought up this opinion numerous times, in newspapers, everywhere, but it has never been examined. There is not even a reaction against it. This silence is not hard to understand. There are many reasons. One reason is the fear of "being persecuted because of honest criticism". This is the innate fear belonging to Vietnamese people. Another reason, more "harmful" is the loss of the thinking of "the common responsibility, the common future." The thought of "life is short" is widespread, so that everyone is smart in the sense of "first to a fun party, last to a hard duty". The idea of "when fatherland is in danger, the lowest man has a responsibility" is seldom mentioned... Another reason, very essential, is the limit of viewpoint. In Vietnam, everybody knows that the discoveries of the Theory of Relativity by Einstein, and of Psychoanalysis by Freud, etc. have changed the human thinking of the 20th century; however, what they have contributed to the antecedents of these thinkings, and what these thinkings are really about, etc. are still "fuzzy." This still sounds too "abstract". The reality is more "tragic". A high school graduate nowadays does not know General Psychology, General Sociology or Logic, etc. at all; then the ideas of knowing thyself, of independent thinking, do not exist at all in their minds. Even among the "so-called intellectual", "well-known" quite a lot still cannot distinguish between "freedom inside" and "freedom outside". Thus, some of them, if restrained, because of the need to exist, "keep their high spirits", but when "tasting the Western wine," they are "drunk," and confused... etc. and etc. Tons and tons of reasons. With all these reasons, and the main one is that one does not have the spirit of a free person, then what is there to hope for! If Trinh Thi Minh Ha lived in Vietnam, she would live the same obscure life. Abroad, no matter how much she has done, she remains unknown to our compatriots... In general, contemporary Vietnamese art exists as an illusion. It cannot go far. It cannot leave an imprint anywhere. Not even in the mind of Vietnamese people. As a Vietnamese, I am not happy to speak out the above words. (Furthermore, living in Vietnam, I know that the responsibility of my words is heavy...). But, it is a truth; and I believe that, not only I but also every Vietnamese sooner or later will have to face it. Face it, and then assign himself new responsibilities. Otherwise, he exists only as an illusion too.

------
Note:

That which Kaomi Izu called "the trap of self-created symbolism with a false notion about its unique "village culture" - which are understood to be "the village-cultured mentality" by Mai Chi is incorrect; and it is wrong too when one equates it with the "nationalist perspective" as Duong Thuc An did.
These words "realism", I place in quotation marks, because in Vietnam, it has a very different meaning...

(29.10.2002)

Patrick Raszelenberg


Mai Chi's original point of departure, "[h]ow can we explain the fact that we still don't have [Vietnamese] individuals showing up in the international art scene?", appears to be the wrong question in my eyes, since it is more concerned with prestige - the presence of Vietnamese artists at international exhibitions - than with substance. Far from intending to rephrase the entirely legitimate idea behind this question, I would recommend to look at it from the point of view of the actual work presented instead of indulging in statistics - i.e. two 'Vietnamese'/'overseas Vietnamese'/'Vietnamese American' etc. works at the Documenta, or was it three? - or pondering the artistic value of these works in terms of political entities ('Vietnam') instead of artistic concepts.

The intuitive and natural reaction against such reasoning (Nora's "[a]s long as the artists perpetuate these ethno-national notions, audiences in American and elsewhere will continue to see Vietnamese art as ‚Vietnamese' rather than simply ‚art'") left aside, it actually seems to be a matter of what concerns whom in our discussion about the state of art in Vietnam, and I will take it goes without saying that depending on each of our individual interests and divergent interpetations of something considered to be not always one and the same yet quite real - ‚Vietnamese art' - we are prone to come up with widely disparaging views on how the artistic value of something produced either inside Vietnam or by Vietnamese minds outside the country should be assessed in terms of its relation to its political, cultural and social point of origin, since some of us are seemingly more interested in those questions than a discussion about the actual content of some of the works displayed at, say the Documenta or elsewhere [so much for run-on sentences].

Kaomi's intervention at this roundtable appears to corroborate this point: Admonishing us to admit (my italics) that "Vietnamese art itself does not have enough substance to make a difference", his underlying premiss (that Vietnamese art exists, is alive and well) impedes us to retort that it is often not a matter of substance, since we will be hard pressed to explain what exactly this ‚Vietnamese art' is supposed to be and hence can't readily talk about ‚making a difference' while it is unclear what it is that should or should not make this difference. And once the difference is made, who cares about its Vietnameseness, or how to elucidate the subtle gradations of just how much the 'difference' owes to it? When Kaomi professes that "Vietnamese painters are not ‚dying' with their ‚ethno-national' view as Nora Taylor said, but they are dying in the trap of self-created symbolism with a false notion about their ‚village culture'", I find it hard to perceive much of a contrariety, for issues of village culture are traditionally regarded as 'national' (Vietnamese) elements and while it takes some nerve to classify such artistic tendencies as "false", Kaomi obviously intends to make a point transgressing the discussion of an artist's tendency to portray village themes by charging the entire artistic community with doomed concepts, a point I will not subscribe to.

Perennially circulating an obsessive 'Vietnameseness' relegating the actual artistic realm to second division doesn't promise much in terms of inspiring intellectual perspectives. True, Vietnamese art may be heavily imbued with 'national' symbols and focused on topics we tend to identify as traditional, national, ethnic, parrochial etc., but even though scholars of art history like Nora, through her work on Vietnamese art, have alerted us to the linguistic occupation of Vietnamese art by its governing institutions - e.g. the IInd Congress of the VAA in 1962 propagating that curious 'national character' which, according to the same organization, defies definition - we should nonetheless be aware of the fact that moving toward establishing discursive devices more closely tied to the actual work of art itself is but one step in the direction of a not merely linguistic but also cognitive retreat from that tendency (of politicized discourse) in order to arrive at a form of art discourse simply taking into account yet not exaggerating national and cultural components, since working with equivocal analytical categories will hardly allow us to grasp the quiddity of their denotation - at least not in terms of their consequences for Vietnamese works of art.

Hence, Birgit's overdue question, "Mai Chi, why is it so important for you to determine what exactly is to be considered Vietnamese art?" pinpoints exactly the kind of misunderstanding that arises when art in Vietnam (or by Vietnamese artists residing somewhere else) is discussed as 'Vietnamese'. Or, to contradict Hoàng Ngọc Tuấn, American art is not necessarily recognized as 'American' seperately from being 'art' (at least that's not its primary concern), not even in the provocative expressions of archetypical 'Americanness' such as Jasper John's flags. Quite the contrary: as something coming out of America including (!) the various European traditions weighing pretty heavily upon American art until at least the fifities. The redundancy of reiteration notwithstanding, I believe Birgit's question was more than overdue.

Another point I'd like to add is in response to Kaomi's affirmation that "there are things standing in the spotlight, and there are things left in the dark. Being in the spotlight are those, which conform with the mainstream supported by the state, and acknowledged by an audience who hardly understands art and don't really needs art. This 'orientation' with the view of the mass is a filter, so that those areas, which are left in the dark, although strong and powerful, will stay where they are." This kind of 'mass line' argument doesn't really work, be it in the Vietnamese or any other context, since 'the public' doesn't, cannot and need not 'know': It has 'learned' most of its concepts about art from seventh or eleventh grade textbooks plus a few articles in the papers (I deliberately discount those who take an active interest in art and thus don't fall within this group). Artists' access to the public is not a mere organizational but a cognitive problem related to reflective processes which in turn depend on the public's ability to disregard what it has 'learned'. Even though a piece of art may be officially sanctioned, the public may still deny it any artistic value. Oldenbourg's notorious 'Tube Supported by its Content' might gracefully redefine the public space this sculpture occupies. It does, however, receive more attention as an eccentric curiosity than as a thoughtful artistic statement about toothpaste and the commercialized world of superfluous yet venerated gadgets we live in.

For an artist, communicating with the Vietnamese (art) public is not a matter of mere access to the art market, relations to gallery owners or patrons, associations or museums. The average art consumer sees precisely what he 'knows', and reliance on existing tendencies of interpretation might actually succour and aid if not guide the artist in his search for means of communication. The codex of fixed attributes may change (e.g. in the christianization of ancient gods whose representation continued to be 'classical' though now they appeared with new religious content), the system of hidden allusions and concealed references depending on it remains. Once the canon of 'art knowledge' transmitted and handed down to the public through the education system is challenged head-on or discarded outright, the average viewer doesn't 'know' anything anymore and cannot, with regard to his own perception of and approach to art, act independendently and self-consciously in his relation to an exhibited piece, not unless he possesses the rare inquisitorial mind so scarce among the (art) public. Whenever an artist places excessive demands on a viewer - and most contemporary art presupposes at least a basic familiarity with the art historical past, even when deliberately ignoring parts of it - the result will be resistance or rejection. This holds true for curators and Natalias's "art clerks" as well. Most of all, it holds true for ourselves (well, myself anyway). Watching Truong Tan's performance at Hang Chuoi in late 95 where he had spilled red tempera symbolizing blood all over his body, one couldn't help thinking - and I know of several people who did - 'I've seen that one before', the show being vaguely reminiscent of the Klein and Nitzsch performances. Sensing one's own limited, prejudiced and eurocentric understanding of Tan's performance is a result of acquired 'knowledge' and the inability to apply it creatively while at the same time ignorant of whether a particular idea figured prominently in the artist's mind as a matter of deliberate intention to allude or refer to. Utterly befuddled by a corresponding inability to interpret other acts of creative intention, people are forced to rely on simple enjoyment. On the other hand, the public would be wrong in demanding sheer functionalistic forms of art, since how is an artist supposed to enrich and inspire an audience if he keeps moving within established conventions, incapable of influencing the (dominant) forms of creative production?

Therefore, Nguyen Nhu Huy's concern that "what is lacking in Vietnamese art is the fact that it is not recognized and approached in its own language" appears to be less of a trite truism than a valuable assessment confronting our prejudices head-on. After all, Birgit is right in arguing that "I cannot believe that it really is such a major concern of artists in Vietnam to create some nationalistic art. They might merely be lacking the language to talk about and appraise art in different categories". Painting a village's bamboo hedge may be no less an intuitive reflex than the thoughtless mainstream of endless video installations at this year's Documenta. To couch such painting in terms of politically charged lingo pertaining to another, political form of discourse superseding and permeating Vietnamese art discourse appears similar to discarding the Documenta's installations as a closed discursive circuit.


The Talawas roundtable seems to reflect the isolation some Vietnamese artists feel they are working in, cut off from the international scene and condemned to fight it out with conservative art institutions. Natalia's point - that the success of those who do exhibit abroad is "hushed up" and not appreciated, partly because the "art community" and administration can't "distinguish [the] importance of that or another show" and that the "clerks from [the] Ministry of Culture [regard the] 'Documenta'" as essentially equal to a "small show in a café in Paris ... since both are 'abroad'"- appears well taken, since it illustrates the pervading sense of seclusion hovering over the Vietnamese art community, probably exacerbated by the recurrent discussions about ethnic and cultural identity. If Birgit avers that "one has to say that art currently functions in Vietnam to carve out some national identity", this is evidently true of all recent Vietnamese art periods and forms part of a larger picture of Vietnamese artists' and intellectuals' tendency to revel in continuously relating their work to themselves as a collective entity, hence ostensibly contributing to a form of autogenerated cultural solipsism not always transformable into creative and inspiring works of art.

Hoàng Ngọc Tuấn's query (if that's what it was), "which way can an artist give his/her art 'some universal value'?", and "who has the right to define what has 'universal value' and what does not?" has already been answered by himself. [This part of Hoàng Ngọc Tuấn's contribution will be posted onto the round table soon] Whether or not there are such things as universal values I will not engage in deliberating here. What can be said, though, is that they're consensus oriented and consensus dependent, and that consensus itself is heavily influenced by structures which attain to impose themselves over others. Such 'standards' may naturally be set by a or the Vietnamese, too. As Tuấn himself advocates, "Vietnamese art will still exist on the 'margins' until it can really re-write parts of the 'international history' of art to include itself." I wouldn't go that far yet believe the essential idea points in the right direction, that exclusion and isolation are more than relative and that even the most powerful traditions can be challenged by asking the right questions, such as Pollock's 'why not squeeze it right onto the canvas' or Gould's 'who says the Partitas require legato'?, both examples of American and Canadian attempts to overcome a European tradition suffocating individual (not national) expression.

Finally, if T. Minh-hà Trịnh's work is truly 'universal', as Hoàng Ngọc Tuấn suggests, it's because she might be consciously thinking about yet refuses to be obsessed with her Vietnameseness, instead allowing it to organically pervade her work. To put it another way, if Nam June Paik had wasted his time asking whether he's Korean or German, he might still be searching for some ephemeral 'Koreanness' in his work - which undoubtedly would have suffered heavily in the course.