Versions

Hmm. Certainly prefer Gina Fairley's review of Selamat Datang ke Malaysia on Universes in Universe to the 'same-same but different' version that's been posted on Kakiseni. This one is much longer, and by turns apologetic and sharply pointed - inconsistent, IMHO. There was also a sobriety and professional distance in the Universes version that's sorely missing in this one, which is a bit self-pontificating:

'The only faux pas (and a pedantic one on my behalf) was using the derogatory term “cultural expo” to describe this contemporary survey. It was a serious, extremely professional presentation, right down to VWFA’s folders of support material on each artist. It had little to do with trade-show kitsch. Quiet the contrary; I am excited by this show as a collection of individual artists rather than an exposé of Malaysia Boleh. Maybe viewing it outside Malaysia allows one to engage with the work rather than the rhetoric?'

Why the difference in voice for different audiences/readers? (I.e. Universes = international audience, Kakiseni = Malaysian audience) They are not different essays - they are versions of each other as the new one has whole paragraphs lifted verbatim from the other. I confess to be puzzled and detect hints of a certain self-importance in the new version. It is also quite unbalanced, concentrating too much and too long on only a few works ('Pole Positions', Vincent's 'Run Malaysia Run' and Ise's lightboxes) without mentioning others - which she did in her other essay.

Maybe it's just me, but I smell a implicit wish to be slightly controversial and create 'comment' in the local scene for its own sake, something I personally don't appreciate.