c u lt u r a l m e d a l l i o n
2020
Vincent Leow
Dr. Vincent Leow (b. 1961) is a visual artist known for his use of mixed media to interrogate the role of the artist and art-making in contemporary society, interspersed with his own personal observations and experiences. Vincent expresses his work through a range of mediums and genres, including sculpture, painting, printmaking, drawing, video, and more. With the various social and communal contexts integrated into his works, he was able to push his artistic practice to the public forefront and inspire others. After graduating from LASALLE College of the Arts (1987), he obtained an MA in Fine Art (1991) in the United States of America (USA) and completed his Doctorate in Fine Art in 2005 (RMIT, Melbourne, Australia). Vincent has spent close to 30 years educating the younger generation in visual arts. He was previously teaching at LASALLE College of the Arts, serving as Head of Sculpture Department from 1992 to 1996, and Senior Lecturer for the MA in Fine Arts programme from 2003 to 2007. From 2008 to 2013, he was Associate Professor at Sharjah University College of Fine Arts in the UAE. Currently, Vincent teaches at School of the Arts (SOTA). Vincent was active in The Artists Village (TAV), an artist collective that has been taking the lead in conceptual and experimental art-making in Singapore since the mid-80s. A decade later, he cofounded the collective Plastique Kinetic Worms (PKW) and served as its Artistic Director in exhibitions and programmes in Singapore and Southeast Asia.
Works by Vincent Leow, as part of ‘Tags and Treats’, an exhibition organised by Singapore Art Museum from 6 Aug 2010 to 17 Oct 2010
Vincent was the recipient of scholarships and awards from the National Arts Council, the Mount Royal Scholarship, as well as the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI) Culture Award (2002). In addition, Vincent’s works have been acquired by both private collectors as well as institutions such as the National Gallery Singapore, NUS Museum, Singapore Art Museum, and Fukuoka Art Museum. Vincent has participated extensively in various group exhibitions such as the ‘Chiang Mai Social Installation’ (1995); the 9th Indian Triennale of Contemporary Art (1997); and Singapore Children’s Biennale (2017), National Gallery Singapore. Some of Vincent’s prominent solo exhibitions since 1991 include ‘Tags & Treats: Works by Vincent Leow’ at Singapore Art Museum (2010); ‘For Andy’s Pranks & Swimming Lessons’ at Xin Beijing, China (2007) and ‘Vincent Leow: Recent Paintings’ (1991), USA. Vincent has also represented Singapore on numerous international platforms, most notably at the Singapore Pavilion of the 52nd Venice Biennale (2007).
Photo courtesy of Singapore Art Museum
Vincen t Leow
5
Vincent Leow: Impossible Rebel by Lindy Poh
A defining figure of Singapore contemporary art, Vincent Leow has been widely profiled as a vanguard artist at the forefront of Singapore’s cultural developments. His practice, spanning over 34 years (with some 29 years concurrently in education), is formidable in its breadth and diversity. An overview of his practice yields a sense of the artist’s pre-occupations— his tireless experiments across genres including sculpture, installations, painting, printmaking, drawing and performance art; his humour and irreverence, along with imaginative storytelling; and his unflagging commitment to education and belief in “the collective” as a dynamic force in the cultural life of any society. Vincent Leow is disarmingly agreeable in person, rarely exhibiting the traits of notoriety and antagonism expected of a country’s enfant terrible or one whom ‘The New York Times’ referred to as “Singapore’s unruly artist.”1 While press coverage has tended to dwell on certain controversies, Vincent’s “rebellion” resonates beyond the drama of a specific performance or painting, often manifesting in quotidian, selfdirected ways. He recounts being defiant of his training in architectural draughtsmanship, and counteracting his own tendencies to produce “accurate perspectival drawings” or “having to resolve feasibility issues before taking an idea forward.” The paradox of “unlearning what has been learnt” is what he advocates today, urging students to free their minds by cultivating certain habits, of “always thinking the impossible.” Vincent had also contended with his “pragmatic self ” and the weight of parental expectations when he enrolled in the then-newly established St Patrick’s Arts Centre (now LASALLE College of the Arts) in 1985. While both parents were broadly supportive, they were also skeptical about the arts as a livelihood. Vincent cites the Centre’s founder Brother Joseph McNally (Bro Jo), specifically his inspiring vision of “transforming art and sculpture in Singapore,” as the decisive force that led him to dive into fine art. At the Centre, Vincent studied printmaking under the canonical printmaker, the late Chng Seok Tin; he would return time and again to printmaking for its graphic effects and associations with activism and reform. Still, it was in the area of sculpture that Vincent found his stride, thriving under sculptors Bro Jo and Chong Fah Cheong. Vincent stood out even as a student for his sculptural efforts, enjoying his first commission, ‘Hands’, for a convent chapel in 1986 and assisting sculptor Han Sai Por with a corporate sculpture commission. As a finalyear student, Vincent won a much-publicised first prize in a Sentosa sculpture competition in 1987 with his winning design fabricated under the guidance of Dr Ng Eng Teng, using Ng’s hallmark material of ciment fondu. It was also during these school days that Vincent’s participation in an ASEAN Youth Workshop in Yogyakarta (1985) exposed him to the “crazy energy of artist collaborations.” The experience kindled in Vincent a life-long fervour for “the collective” and paved the way for him to join
cult ur al medallion
The Artists Village (TAV) as a founding member and to helm TAV in 1993–1995. Conceived by the iconoclastic Tang Da Wu, TAV was an artists’ colony sited in a kampung, a stubborn outpost in defiance of advancing urban redevelopment. Vincent was no stranger to the kampung, having been born and bred in one “with no television, hot water or electricity.” Still, TAV was a different type of kampung. More than a hive of activities (that included open studio days, poetry readings and performances), TAV came to embody a certain spirit or attitude in art-making, and many TAV artists would go on to become luminaries of contemporary art in Singapore. Vincent credits Tang as an unorthodox teacher and inveterate activist who elevated his awareness of humanitarian and environmental issues. Tang introduced the works and thought of Joseph Beuys and imparted to Vincent a sense of the beauty and power of “improvisations, accidents and the unplanned”– that were to become cornerstones of Vincent’s practice. It was during TAV days that Vincent had his first taste of media scrutiny, encountering heady heights of media validation as well as the sharp edge of its castigation. His taille directe (direct carving) sculptures won effusive praise for being “shapes of exquisite beauty” and for being “original and sensitive.” 2 Yet, his paintings and installations (in joint exhibitions with Ash Young and later Wong Shi Yaw) ignited press furore and disparagement. 3
‘Two Men’, 1989 Oil on board, 244 x 122 cm Collection of Singapore Art Museum
The spiralling outrage compelled art historian T.K. Sabapathy to publicly express his support for Vincent’s (and Wong’s) practice. He was emphatic that he did not see their works as “insulting or degrading to any aspect of man” and that despite their abrasive techniques and provocative imagery, the viewer could not be unmoved when confronted by their works.4 Vincent likens Sabapathy’s support to a “life-buoy,” that helped mitigate the effects of press denigration that were particularly traumatic for a young artist at the start of his practice. The experience not only struck at his self-esteem, it also brought home the realisation that his chosen path involved a high degree of “self-exposure” which would leave him and his works open to criticism, rejection and even ridicule. This was steered by a resolve to not allow others to define for him what art “ought to be” or what an artist “should be doing instead.”
‘Yellow Field’, 1990 Oil and mixed media (with t-shirt) on canvas, 213 x 251 cm Collection of Singapore Art Museum. Both photos courtesy of Singapore Art Museum
Less than a year later, Vincent embarked on a scholarship for a Master of Fine Arts at the Maryland Institute College of Art in Baltimore, United States of America (USA) (1989–1991). The radical change of environment had a tremendous impact on his practice. Vincent cites his tutor, the late Salvatore Scarpitta, as an exceptional mentor who encouraged him to dip into his own lived experience as a primary resource. During this period, Vincent experimented furiously with material and scale, using broomsticks, sponges and rollers for paint application
Vincen t Leow
7
and creating massive canvases that were sometimes too large to go out his studio doors when he had completed them. His sketchbook brimmed with drawings and notations as he dived into different stylistic expressions in art history, often appropriating art movement styles but interpolating elements that would make the work entirely his own. He initiated a series of single-motif paintings where ordinary objects (such as a paint brush, a typewriter, or a life buoy) took centre stage and were sometimes juxtaposed to produce intriguing statements. It was also at this time that Vincent honed more incisive views of sociopolitical matters. His paintings responded to the Gulf War and bickering American political parties. His interest in an aggressive consumer culture and the dynamics of capitalist markets persisted upon his return to Singapore in 1992 and were the central ideas for many works including two notable pieces.
‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous: The Three-Legged Toad’, 1992; photographic documentation of performance at Hong Bee Warehouse, Singapore Photo courtesy of Koh Nguang How
In his performance ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous: The ThreeLegged Toad’ (‘Toad and Money Suit’) (1992), Vincent’s persona was a cross between the mythical toad, signifying good fortune in fengshui, and the brassy American Showman archetype for mass entertainment and gimmickry. Decked out in a suit, a top hat and shoes, all laminated with fake American dollar bills, Vincent, with theatrical flourish, leapt around like a toad, with counterfeit dollar notes stuffed in his mouth (alluding to the fabled gold coins in the mouth of the toad) – a satirical jab at the culture of money worship and hustling in both Asian and Western cultures. Close on the heels of ‘Toad and Money Suit’ was another performance piece ‘Coffee Talk’ (1992), part of a 12-hour group show called ‘Body Fields’ presented by the artists’ platform 5th Passage. In his performance, Vincent had urinated into a coffee cup and drank its contents.5 The performance was shaped by Vincent’s reflections on the art market, including its lack of representation of alternative art (alt-art, for short) that engaged performance, installation and conceptual works – that were in turn, not easily commodifiable for auctions or gallery sales. He had noted the consequential rise of a “mock market” where alt-art artists were buying and selling art to one another in a show of solidarity. Ironically, the creators were also the only consumers of such art, rarely enjoying support or patronage outside their community. This esprit de corps sometimes led to farcical transactions, with alt-art artists selling and then buying back one’s own artwork to broker a sale.
‘The Artist’s Urine’, 1993, Glass bottle with urine cardboard box Collection of the Singapore Art Museum Photo courtesy of Vincent Leow
cult ur al medallion
In the context of ‘Body Fields’, Vincent used his own body as a metaphor, as the “body politic” of the alt-art community. His performance suggested that the alt-art community, in consuming its own creations, was analogous to a physical body nourished through imbibing its “own flows” – much like drinking one’s own urine. This cycle would ultimately not be sustainable as the body-community would expire from such patterns of consumption. Vincent later editioned bottles of his urine for sale – a mischievous gesture that has been interpreted in multiple ways including as a proposition to alter or ride on market mechanisms typically reserved for mainstream art.
Vincent’s urine-drinking performance sparked the kind of media attention and polarising discussions reminiscent of the reception that had savaged his paintings in the late 1980s. The act, similarly, fuelled art discourse, igniting one of the most eloquently argued passages on “artistic contexts” by the critic T. Sasitharan. 6
‘Andy’s Addiction’, 1996 Oil on canvas, 129 x 150 cm Collection of Chua Soo Bin
‘Andy’s Pranks & Swimming Lessons’ 2007; exhibition onsite Xin Beijing Gallery, China
The performance also exposed the vulnerabilities of the alt-art community and amplified Vincent’s efforts to shift existing paradigms of “success” and representation for contemporary artists. His pursuit of a “third space” led him to set up Plastique Kinetic Worms (PKW) with his then-wife, Yvonne Lee, in 1998. Though defunct, the non-profit space and collective is credited for ushering in a hybrid approach, procuring “establishment support” through public and private funding without compromising the integrity of its experimental spirit. At its height, PKW curated international collaborations, artist residencies, organised its annual Worms Festival and published its own journal, ‘Vehicle.’ In the two decades since ‘Coffee Talk,’ Vincent honed his art practice concurrently with a profession in arts education. He returned to LASALLE, working alongside Bro Jo as a lecturer and later Head of the Sculpture Department at LASALLE (1993–1995). In his practice, Vincent broached the dilemmas of urban life, addressing topics such as escalating materialism, the proliferation of golf courses, suicide, cloning, power dynamics, and political rhetoric. In 2005, he completed a doctoral thesis based on his pre-occupations with expressing an “authentic Singapore identity,” one that was “a reception centre…bombarded with images and messages.” As much of Vincent’s art involved social observation and commentary, he was greatly influenced by the methodologies adopted by certain forms of Asian theatre and fiction as well as avant-garde filmmaking that averted literal readings and offered a range of interpretations. For Vincent’s art, it meant the extensive use of allegory and imaginative story-telling, or the injecting of humour and irreverence, sometimes in hyperbolic forms.
Photo courtesy of Tan Wei Ming
Vincent’s extensive travels through Asia were instrumental in sharpening his pictorial language. Prompted by mythical creatures such as Sun Wukong (Monkey King) and Ganesh (Elephant God), Vincent explored hybridity through “cross-breeding humans with animals,” often invoking symbolic traits to trigger associations and meanings. He was also inspired by an “old Indonesian jester mask” in developing his own jester persona, a figure who unveils unvarnished truth through mischief and absurdity. Andy Man Dog, widely believed to be the artist’s alter-ego, wore a mask-like maniacal grin and appears in various narratives including Vincent’s multi-room installation for the Venice Biennale (2007) and a solo exhibition in Beijing (2007). The close of the decade marked the ending of an era for PKW as its struggle to be sustainable reached a tipping point in 2008, with the collective’s formal dissolution in 2010. It also signalled the beginning
Vincen t Leow
9
of Vincent’s “Sharjah period” (2008–2013) as he accepted the position of Associate Professor of Painting (and later Head of Programmes) at Sharjah University’s College of Fine Art & Design, relocating to the United Arab Emirates with his family.
left
‘L.K.U.N.U’, 2009 Etching on archival paper Edition of 9 Collection of Chua Soo Bin right
‘On/Off exhibition’ 2020, Jendela, Esplanade – Theatres on the Bay Photo courtesy of Ken Cheong and Esplanade – Theatres on the Bay
1 Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop, ‘Singapore’s Once Unruly Young Artist, Still Poking at Social Norms’, ‘The New York Times’, USA, 17 Aug 2010. 2 Goh, Geraldine, ‘Human Form Transformed, in Top Form,’ ‘The New Paper’, 9 Dec 1988 T. Sasitharan, ‘On the Path to Discovery,’ ‘The Straits Times,’ 3 Dec 1988, p. 5. 3 Lee, Vanessa, ‘A Mix of Nightmarish Objects & Relaxing Prints,’ ‘The Business Times,l’ 13 June 1988, p 12. Lau Siew May, ‘Rage and Loathing at Artists’ Show,’ ‘The Straits Times,’ 1 Jun 1989, p.3.; Lo Tien Yin, ‘Art Obscenity,’ ‘The New Paper,’ 25 Sept 1989, p.14; ‘Split Views on ‘Obscene’ Art,’ ‘The New Paper’, 2 Oct 1989, p. 8.
In Sharjah, Vincent grappled with first-hand accounts of the casualties of the Syrian civil war and the Arab Spring. He also had his first encounters with students wearing the niqab (face-veils). These personal experiences set in motion a strong body of works which engaged with the subjects of conflicts and hostilities, mortality and loss, as well as ruminations on anonymity and identity. If Vincent’s paintings and drawings some 20 years earlier had bellowed and hissed against the ugly realities of life, his works from the Sharjah period simmered with a different heat. Many of these works expressed a new sobriety and pathos, while retaining touches of humour. By the time he was conferred the Cultural Medallion in 2020, Vincent had navigated some of the most polarising passages in Singapore art. His works have since entered museums and corporate collections, and are installed as public art including at the Buangkok MRT Station. He has also forged a significant trajectory in arts education. In many respects, his rebellion involves being intrepid and unapologetic for his choices as well as honing a resolve not to let others define his artistic identity and directions. While Vincent’s controversial works still command attention, we lose considerable insight if we do not take better note of his larger oeuvre or artistic journey that has elevated the quality of art discourse and practice as well as progressive arts education in Singapore. Artist Milenko Prvacki distils the essence of Vincent’s practice as “his struggle against stupidity,” “a form of empowerment, a laugh against death.” 7 Indeed, Vincent’s aesthetic ruminations have shaped not just an exuberant, provocative practice but also a mindful, reflexive one. It has set precedents that empower other artists, and has tilled and loosened the ground to accommodate new thought and aesthetic life which can then germinate and sprout.
4 Ibid (Lau S.M., Rage and Loathing at Artists Show); and Sabapathy, TK, ‘Two in One and Both for Art and also Change,’ ‘The Straits Times’, 23 May 1989, p. 5. 5 ‘Coffee Talk’ was covered in various publications, including Langenbach, Ray, ‘Vincent Leow: Coffee Talk’ (1992) in Chew, David (ed.) ‘Singapore Contemporary Artists Series: Vincent Leow,’ Singapore Art Museum (Singapore: 2010) and Lui, John, ‘Artist Urinates on Stage, then Drinks urine to Make Statement,’ ‘The Sunday Times’, 10 Jan 1993, p. 22. 6 Sasitharan T, ‘See It in Context’, ‘The Straits Times’, 25 Jan 1993, p. 5. 7 Milenko, Prvacki, in Chew, David (ed), ‘Singapore Contemporary Artists Series: Vincent Leow,’ Singapore Art Museum (Singapore: 2010), p. 26.
cult ur al medallion
Lindy Poh is a consultant, curator and writer in art and cultural subjects and lawyer in intellectual property.
words of appreciation I am grateful to my parents for their support and encouragement for me to pursue the arts. The whole idea sounded foreign to them when I started my art education at St Patrick’s Arts Centre. Nevertheless, their open-mindedness fuelled my passion in the arts. I appreciate their patience and how they allowed me to craft my own path in pursuing my artistic endeavours. To my mentors Tang Da Wu, Sal Scarpitta and Chua Soo Bin: a heartfelt appreciation for their inspiring words and encouragement that kept me going and finding purpose in my art-making and practice. A special thank you to Brother Joseph McNally who is sadly no longer with us. He opened the doors for me into the art world 35 years ago at St Patrick’s Arts Centre, and now, in one of those amazing cycles of life, it is LASALLE College of the Arts that has nominated me for this award. I also wish to express my gratitude to the Cultural Medallion Panel for recognising my work in the development of the arts and culture of Singapore. My heartfelt thanks to the individuals who supported my nomination. I thank all who have been critical to my practice at different stages: fellow artists at The Artists Village (TAV); Yvonne Lee and the Plastique Kinetic Worms (PKW) “family” of artists; Milenko Prvacki and former colleagues at LASALLE; and my colleagues at the School of the Arts (SOTA). A special note of appreciation to writers and historians who affirmed my practice when it was difficult to do so: Mr T. K. Sabapathy, T. Sasitharan and K. K. Goh; as well as the curators, including Lindy Poh, Khai Hori, David Chew and the many writers who have engaged with my practice. Last but not least, I am most indebted to my family and children, Elliotte, Adriel and Seth, for their love—love that gives me and my practice, all its inspiration, motivation, purpose and meaning. It is my honour and pleasure to receive this award.
Vincen t Leow
11