MATAHATI: For Your Pleasure - unresolved thoughts

This is a long post I am writing to hopefully clear the confusion in my head.

Writing a concise review about the recently concluded Matahati retrospective is turning out to be a torturous, laborious exercise. I've heard that your brain hurting is a sign that it's working, but I do wish it wouldn't hurt so bad.

Basically I am trying to weave about 5 or 6 related ideas together, but they keep slipping through my fingers. If I compartmentalize maybe it will make more sense. Any comments are very much welcomed. Here we go:

On institutionalism and scale:
The mega scale of this exhibition and the fact that it's hosted by an institution (as opposed to being a commercial or independent endeavor) means two things: accessibility and recognition. Both mean different things to the public and the arts community.

On accessibility and recognition:
Both accessibility and recognition signify Matahati being situated in the 'mainstream'. It's important to distinguish the between the two because it gives us a clearer notion of what 'mainstream' really means - it's not some monolith center characterized by popularity, but is actually very complex.

Recognition acknowledges the importance of Matahati in an art historical context. When they emerged in the 1990s, their work (along with contemporaries like Tan Chin Kuan and Zulkifli Yusof) was seen to be a reaction against state-sponsored Malay revivalism and Islamisation. If during the 80s and 90s, forms of expression that embodied Malay-muslim culture were seen to be the 'mainstream', then Matahati's use of the figure, the straightforward expression of social, political and economic issues was seen in opposition to that - they were in the periphery.

This huge retrospective seems to indicate that Matahati has moved from being 'alternative' into the 'mainstream', but only in a limited sense! It is true that they are celebrated in the arts community, and their works are highly sought after by collectors. But what does this mean for the general public? I'm willing to wager that for the majority of Malaysians, this retrospective is their first contact with the works of Matahati.

Which tells us that this idea of 'mainstream' has changed drastically since the 1970s. Let me explain. The 1971 National Cultural Congress and resulting National Cultural Policy in effect proscribed what our culture should embody: it should be Malay and it should be Islamic. For all its flaws, it put forward a proposal that culture should be at the very center of society, that it played a vital role in the forming of communities.

The fact is that, today, due to the failure of public art institutions and art education, art has become marginalized amongst the general public. However misguided it may have been, NCP's championing of abstract and decorative art (as opposed to social-realism) was truly socially engaged. The long-lasting effect of this cultural policy on the nation's public as well as artistic psyche is testament to the possibility of artists playing a central role in their community.

The situation today: you have art that is socially engaged in CONTENT (exemplified by this Matahati exhibition), but is unable to engage with its audience. Economic, cultural and critical vitality has migrated to the former 'periphery' (evidenced in the growth of commercial galleries, private collectors and art initiatives), leaving the mainstream institutions hollow. Don't kid yourselves, however! The center remains, it's simply dead. This is no reason to rejoice. While the vitality of the art scene means great things for artists - growing opportunities coming from the international and regional scenes, as well as the private art market means that increasingly, artists can be independent - it is the audience who are losing out. The gap between the arts and its audience is widening every day. It is ironic and rather heart breaking that as the art scene grows bigger and stronger, our audience is not growing with us. No one who is an artist or who loves art likes seeing people poke at paintings, but can we really blame them?

Which is why this exhibition is significant. To a certain extent, it bridges the vast gap between socially engaged art and the actual society it is trying to engage. It implicitly demonstrates the importance of and hitherto vacuum that has been left by public art institutions because of incompetence, mismanagement and apathy.

So, what now for art practitioners? Will you easily abandon the freedom of independent practice and channel your energy and talent towards the institutional center where it is much needed? Certainly it wasn't very long ago that Galeri Petronas was simply another white elephant hosting the occasional desultory exhibition on nature photography.

So when we talk about 'mainstream', let's just be sure we're not cutting that pie too small.