Singapore's Pull-out from 2013 Venice Biennale

Sir, Singapore has participated in six editions of the Venice Biennale since 2001. The cost of participating in each edition averaged more than three-quarters of a million dollars. The last edition in 2011 cost the National Arts Council (NAC) $850,000 to showcase one artist and one curator. As a comparison, the grants budget for the whole visual arts sector in FY2011 was only $1.78 million, but benefited more than 135 artists and visual arts groups. For FY2012, NAC has increased this grants budget by more than 20%, with the intent of helping even more artists.

Sir, as I had mentioned in my written reply to Members in July this year, the Venice Biennale has been one of the platforms at which the NAC has profiled Singapore's artistic talent globally. However, despite the millions of dollars spent on the Venice Biennale, only a handful of our artists and curators have been able to capitalise on the opportunities and prestige that their participation has brought. For the vast majority of our artists, there is still much room to improve the basic level of support.

NAC's budget for supporting the entire visual arts sector in Singapore is only about $7.3 million this year. This budget, which was increased by 10% from the previous year, funds a range of visual arts platforms and a variety of grants to visual arts groups and artists. The Government is mindful of the need to periodically review and ensure that public funds are well-spent, and that benefits to our local arts community are maximised. Having taken part at the Venice Biennale for over 10 years, it is timely for the NAC to undertake a stock-take. In view of this on-going review, the NAC has decided not to participate in Venice Biennale 2013.

Sir, the impetus for the review stems from the need for the Government to improve its long-term strategy for international profiling and exposure of our arts talent. Given the limited resources and competing needs, we must strive to maximise outcomes for all our artists. Based on our previous models of participating at the Venice Biennale, only 20% goes towards benefiting artists directly, with 80% of our funds going towards venue rental in Venice and associated logistics and administrative costs. A review, Sir, will help us determine how these funds can be made to work harder for our artists; for instance, through creating more commissioning opportunities for our arts practitioners, whether in Venice or at other platforms such as the Art Stage Singapore and the Singapore Biennale.

Page: 605

Sir, while the review is on-going, the NAC will invest in more strategic developmental opportunities for the local visual arts community. Among the initiatives being explored are:

(i) ramping up support and presence at a variety of major international events, including the Venice Biennale curated section;

(ii) ramping up support and participation in international residencies for our artists;

(iii) profiling local artists at international platforms held in Singapore, such as the Singapore Platform at the international art fair, Art Stage Singapore;

(iv) supporting the commissioning and curating of more ambitious local works that can reach both domestic and international audiences;

(v) growing the capabilities of independent visual arts institutions, as intermediaries for international showcasing of Singapore talent; and

(vi) working with visual arts groups to offer more experimental platforms for artistic development and professional practice.

As part of NAC's on-going consultation for its long-term Visual Arts masterplan, NAC had sought feedback from Visual Arts stakeholders in the public sector and arts community. In arriving at the decision not to participate in Venice Biennale 2013, NAC had also taken into consideration key findings and observations from our previous involvement in Venice, including, Sir, feedback from the Venice Biennale Selection Panel.

The NAC received mixed views from the various stakeholders regarding Singapore's participation in the Venice Biennale. On balance, we decided that it would not be prudent to proceed with participation in the next Venice Biennale without first addressing the concerns of how public money is best used to maximise benefits for all our artists. As part of this review, NAC will consult its visual arts advisors and seek the views of members of the arts community and the public, including the hon Member Ms Janice Koh.

Sir, in conclusion, let me assure the House that the Government is committed to helping develop our visual arts sector. The key issue is how public money should be spent to achieve the greatest impact, and to benefit the most artists.

The NAC recognises that the Venice Biennale continues to be a desirable platform for international profiling of our artists. Besides some countries' independent efforts to rent a space and present a "Country Pavilion", an important focal point of the Venice Biennale is the high-profile curated section where artists are selected and presented by the Biennale's curator that year. In this respect, even as NAC reviews our participation via a "Country Pavilion", NAC will extend strong support and facilitation to Singapore artists who are selected to participate in the curated section of the upcoming and future editions of Venice Biennale.

Page: 606

Sir, the on-going review allows the Government to carefully map out a longer term strategy and approach to visual arts, that will best support our local talent and maximise the benefits for Singapore's visual arts development.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, if the concern is about return on investment, then can we look at it this way? Each time a Singapore artist is successfully showcased at the Venice Biennale, we promote Singapore, we promote arts businesses, the very ones that we want to market including Art Stage, Affordable Art Fair and the upcoming Gillman Barracks. If we are concerned about whether or not our participation in the Venice Biennale will make a systematic and effective contribution to arts development, then may I have the Ministry's view on how they measure this value of our participation?

The second supplementary question is the Venice Biennale is not just one of many international biennales around the world. It is the oldest and the most prestigious art platform. If Singapore is going to continue participating in other biennales, including Gwangju and dOCUMENTA, then why are we pulling out of the most prestigious and important one?

My third supplementary question is whether or not the Ministry can undertake its review while we continue to participate in the 2013 55th edition of the Venice Biennale, especially in view of the fact that despite MICA's consultation, there is still widespread concern amongst art-makers in Singapore – over 200 have signed an open letter to the Ministry – about having to have this four-year gap if we intend to participate in 2015, and the difficulty of having to restart our engines again if we have this gap. Can we not build on our previous success from 2009 and 2011?

I thank the Member for the three supplementary questions. I will try my very best to answer as much as I can, given the limited time.

First, we have consulted widely and the feedback that we have received from the artistic community is mixed, as I mentioned in my reply. It is very difficult for us to do two things at the same time. The Member would know, and I think all Members would know, that the Venice Biennale is the oldest and the most prestigious biennales, and we have to do a proper job at it. We have done this for 10 years, and so having looked back at how we have performed and consulted not only the artistic community but also the Selection Panel, we realised there was no clear indications one way or another. As I mentioned in my reply, there were mixed reactions and mixed reviews. So, we took a judgement call, if I can say so, to say, "Let us suspend this while we do a deeper study."

As the Member rightly mentioned, we want to come back by 2015 – which is when we celebrate our Golden Jubilee – and we hope that when we have done the review thoroughly and when we re-enter Venice Biennale, we can enter with perhaps a lot more pomp and grandeur that will bring the kind of success that the Member mentioned in her first question. We are looking towards how Singapore is looked at internationally. We have a vision to build Singapore into a dynamic and artistic hub for people to come here and for our artists to be recognised.

I think the Member must recognise that it is also very difficult for us to give a quantum to that particular success. A particular artist, after he was showcased in one of the Venice Biennales, in fact had received a lot of offers after that, which is great for him and great for Singapore. But as I mentioned in my reply, we have to relook at this not just based on one artist but for the experience over the last 10 years. How do we therefore measure the best use of the resources that we have which is somewhat limited?

Page: 607

I agree with the Member that Venice Biennale, being the oldest, and compared to the other biennales, we should take a very, very careful look before we make that decision. Bear in mind that for the other biennales, we do not spend a lot. In fact, some of the artists are invited by the biennales. Our commitment to the artists is that when they are invited to other biennales, we will continue to support them. The Venice Biennale is where we actively participate in it. We spend a lot of money. We spend a lot of resources not just over there but over here. And we bring a very large team over there. So, the resources are tremendous.

Given all that has to take place for us to be able to mount a very successful campaign in Venice, we think it is timely for us to take a very hard look. I am confident that we can come back with a big bang because I think we need the inputs of the artistic community to tell us how best we can use those limited resources so that we can achieve the bang that we want for our investment in Venice.

The answer is that we are not pulling out entirely at one go. We are going to study this. We want to re-enter at some point in time. The most important thing is let us take a good look at this over the longer term rather than a shorter horizon. I empathise with her and other members of the arts community that there could be a sense of loss of momentum. As I mentioned in my reply, there are other opportunities that we are creating to increase the international profile of our artists. So, we will continue with our other efforts. But I hope that she can support this process entirely because really we want to be able to do this properly and correctly because the image of Singapore is very important for us too.