- Email: [email protected]
Wall dressed up: Graffiti and street art in Singapore
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
City, Culture and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs
Wall dressed up: Graffiti and street art in Singapore T.C. Chang Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, Singapore
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Graffiti Street art Artists Singapore Cultural policy
To be a ‘Renaissance City for the Arts’, Singapore has long relied on worlding devices such as iconic infrastructure and international cultural events. Since the early 2010s, a shift towards the public interests has emerged alongside the recognition of non-mainstream groups in the cultural life of the city. This paper considers graffiti and street art in Singapore, and their recent acknowledgement as an emergent subculture in the country. The scope is two-fold, firstly focusing on state policies on public art and the embrace of graffiti and street art in recent years, and secondly the artists' responses to government embracement. While some artists resist incorporation, others have strategized opportunities to showcase their work under official license. The conclusion highlights three particular issues attending subcultural embracement in Singapore, pointing the way ahead for further research on subcultural change in globalizing cities.
1. Introduction In 2017, two pieces of ‘art’ stirred much interest in Singapore not only for what the works looked like, but also for how the government responded to them. The first, created by Or Beng Kooi in 2016, was an installation of toys and figurines he had collected over the years, and was erected in a common space at a residential block of flats in Yishun housing estate. The second produced by art student Priyag eetha Dia in 2017, comprised gold leaf pasted onto a flight of stairs in a Jalan Besar residential block. Both pieces drew positive public acclaim, the first for its kitsch appeal and the second for brightening a utilitarian environment. However, as both works were installed without government permission, they were cleared in February and March 2017 respectively. In discarding Or's work, the Nee Soon Town Council explained: “the items pose a fire and safety hazard and we advise residents not to store their items at the void decks or social gathering points” (Zaccheus, 2017, p. B10). The Jalan Besar Town Council which cleared Dia's work advised that art works were not permitted under the Common Property and Open Spaces By-laws (Tan, 2017). Dia was regretful to see her work dismantled but stood her ground in not seeking official license. She explained: “People now come to this space, they look at the staircase in a different light now, they admire the staircase. In a way, they are giving respect to the space …. As an artist, I wonder why everything needs to be licensed. If I (had sought) permission, there wouldn't be a thrill in doing it; I need that adrenaline in
my art-making process” (cited in Tan, 2017, p. A6). Dia and Or are not graffitists or street artists by strict definition, and their works may be described as illegal public art rather than graffiti or street art.1 Nevertheless, the spontaneous installation of their works and the swift dismantling resonate with several issues central to public art in Singapore. They include the legalization of art in public spaces, the role of government regulation and the response of artists towards state sanction. Singapore has long relied on infrastructural investments in the form of museums and arts districts as well as international events in propelling its cultural vision (Chang, 2016; MITA, 2000). Since the early 2010s, a shift towards meeting the interests of the mass public has emerged alongside the recognition of non-mainstream groups. Many cities have co-opted subcultural scenes as indicators of worldly creativity and urban cool; such embracement also provides avenues for social inclusion of marginal groups. This paper considers the recent phenomenon of graffiti and street art in Singapore, and government acknowledgement of these artists as an emergent subcultural group. Of relevance to this study are ‘public art’, ‘street art’ and ‘graffiti’. In the next section, distinctions between these terms will be clarified along with a conceptualization of subcultural embracement in worlding cities. The reasons for and process of embracement are also discussed. Following this, the research methodologies of the study are explained and the two specific case sites justified. The substantive part of the paper is then devoted to a two-fold empirical exegesis: (a) state policy and motivations in embracing public art in general, and graffiti and street
E-mail address: [email protected]. Conceptual distinctions between ‘public art’, ‘graffiti’ and ‘street art’ will be made in the second section of this paper. We should note that Dia and Or are not the only people in Singapore to be penalised for illegal works. They are introduced in this paper as examples rather than exceptional cases of how artists are dealt with in the country. 1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2019.100329 Received 3 July 2018; Received in revised form 28 May 2019; Accepted 1 December 2019 1877-9166/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: T.C. Chang, City, Culture and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2019.100329
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
A second form of embracement is the creative approach in which graffiti and street art are acknowledged for their contributions to a creative society. Economic valorization by way of jobs and public project commissions are some forms of recognition. Rather than “transgressive actors”, artists are viewed instead as being “generative of new ways of conceiving of spaces in the city as creative” (McAuliffe, 2012, p. 204). In China for example, graffiti art has been embraced by different municipal governments as symbols of a burgeoning creative economy, examples being Beijing's 798 Art Zone and Shanghai's Moganshan Road, creative clusters that have prominently featured graffiti in their premises. In Chongqing's Graffiti Avenue, proclaimed as the world's largest public art spanning 1.25 km across several buildings, Pan (2014, p. 145) notes that the focus is “not wholly intended to evoke aesthetic contemplation” but to celebrate the spectacle of public involvement, state mobilization of the masses and proclamation of the city as a creative destination (see Lu, 2014). Legislative and creative programs may be regarded as part of a larger project in worlding people and places (Roy & Ong, 2011). At its broadest, worlding is understood to be a process of becoming global, with a particular focus on “problem-solving and spatializing practices” (Ong, 2011, p. 10). The graffiti programs in Melbourne Denver and Chongqing, with their crime fighting and urban redevelopment goals, may be regarded as worlding schemes aimed at improving the urban stakes. Worlding is also “aspirational, experimental, and even speculative”, comprising different actors and institutions inventing and aspiring “to new ways of being global” (Ong, 2011, pp. 10 & 23). As cities struggle with graffiti, legal wall programs serve as experiments to channel criminal energies into productive purposes. How cities market their art scene to attract tourists and creative businesses is also part of the urban worlding experiment. Worlding projects range from “high abstractions” such as government plans and programs, to what Ong (2011, p. 12) calls “actual human projects and goals” and “situated everyday practices”. From urban objects (infrastructure, amenities) to city subjects (people, practices), efforts are expended to develop the city as ‘world-class’. Worlding can have different goals (worlding of objects and subjects) and operate at different scales (worlding from above and from below). Government schemes involving iconic projects may be regarded as worlding from above while “regimes of subject-making” involving people is worlding from below (Roy, 2011, p. 312). Such a regime compels ordinary folks, including the marginalized, to be involved in an “everyday experience of world-class aesthetic discourse” (to use Ghertner's words, cited in Roy, 2011, p. 313). How people and artists in cities respond to these compulsions provide insights into the contested process of urban worlding. The embracement of graffiti and street art helps to project cities as culturally vibrant and socially tolerant (Dovey et al., 2012). The challenge, however, is how to capture the creativity of insurgent artists without compromising on their need for self-expression. Creswell (1996) theorises that space plays a role in this process. Out in the streets, unsolicited art is considered a crime whereas in galleries and museums – “sites of legitimate creativity” – it acquires new meaning (Creswell, 1996, p. 55). Feelings of anger and civil disobedience are thus interpreted differently because of the spatial contexts in which art is being presented. The same “geomagic” (Creswell, 1996, p. 58) is expected to happen when urban spaces are legislated as creative zones and artists are allowed to draw as they please. This dual act of legislation and permission portrays cities as safe and well-planned, but also liberal and tolerant at the same time. Thus while graffiti and street art may continue to look subversive, under official license they are amendable to new interpretations that are far less trenchant. Dickens (2008) theorises this new art form as post-graffiti. As authorities reach out to artists, some artists also engage the state and private sector to negotiate opportunities to continue working. Inevitably the art work takes on “new directions” – stickers and stencils replace spray cans while logos and icons are preferred over tags, and
art more particularly; and (b) artists' responses toward government regulation and worlding ambitions. While some artists oppose any form of government incorporation, others strategize opportunities to showcase their works in public spaces. The conclusion charts further avenues to better apprehend the evolution of subcultures under contexts of urban worlding and socio-cultural globalization. 2. Embracing artistic subcultures in worlding cities To understand the different artistic subcultures in cities, distinctions between graffiti, street art and public art must first be made. Graffiti may be defined as unsolicited writings on public surfaces in the form of ‘tags’ (signatures) and ‘throw ups’ (signatures with bubble-shaped letters), and often using markers and aerosol sprays (Ferrell, 1993). First identified in the 1960s in U.S. cities, graffiti came to be associated with urban youths spray painting as an expression of anger or for the purpose of staking-out territory (Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974). Municipal responses to graffiti have generally followed a ‘Broken Windows’ theory, believing that an unrepaired window in a building will invite crime and hence graffiti is something to be removed and criminalised for fear of further public desecration (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). It was not until the late 1980s that the artistic merit of graffiti was recognized, and terms like urban or street art surfaced (EllsworthJones, 2012). In the early 1990s, street art came to be appreciated for its creative use of stencils, stickers, posters, woodcuts, wheat-paste as well as objects like metal bolts, knits and yarns in public projects (McAuliffe, 2012). While graffiti and street art are sometimes used interchangeably (as both are created without permission), there are discernible differences in their ‘publicness’. While graffiti is written for other writers to read and understand, street art with its decipherable alphabets and pop-cultural images is meant for wider public consumption (McAuliffe & Iveson, 2011). While graffiti uses its own ingroup coded expression, street art produces “images that are instantly understandable – a gallery on the street that is inclusive rather than exclusive” (in the words of a former graffitist, cited in Ellsworth-Jones, 2012, p. 39). If graffiti is exclusive and street art is for the community, public art goes one step further by incorporating the ‘public’ in its conception and production (Young, 2014). More than just an end-product, public art is an approach towards art making in which the artist responds to his/her environment, sometimes even engaging the public through consultation and hands-on involvement (Courage, 2017). In the Singapore examples, Dia and Or may be described as creating public art by virtue of the public locations of the works, their consideration of site (in Dia's golden stairs) and the incorporation of public-donated items (in Or's toy tower). Without having sought permission, however, their works were regarded as illegal public art. Legality is thus at the very core of how art forms are defined, perceived and responded to. In Singapore, the crossover from illegal to legal works involves state regulation and artists' buy-in, affording an insight into the “metamorphosis from crime to art” (Creswell, 1996, p. 51) that attends the subcultural embracement process. The embracement of illegal art may take different forms. The first is a legislative approach in which illicit works are legalized by the state as a way to combat vandalism. In Australia, the Queensland Department of Justice was the first to distinguish between “graffiti vandalism” and “graffiti art” in 1988, the latter deemed legal if officially or commercially commissioned (Lombard, 2013, p. 261). In 2004, a proposal was made in Melbourne to consider “tolerance zones” and “nominated laneways” for graffiti, with the Lord Mayor even regarding illicit works as a “forum for comment” (MacDowall, 2006, p. 477). In the U.S., one of the earliest ‘graffiti art’ scheme was in Denver in 1988 when the Mayor proposed a zone called “Artway”. Described as “authorised public art projects to channel talented artists away from destructive graffiti vandalism” (Ferrell, 1993, p. 131), Artway also provided an opportunity for young graffitists to be involved in formal urban life. 2
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
works are created to be “appreciated rather than despised” (Dickens, 2008, pp. 473–474). Instead of grassroots influences, post-graffiti artists are “more conscious in their efforts to organize and promote themselves within more formal art and commercial spheres” (Dickens, 2008, p. 476). While Dickens' focus was mainly on the commercial sphere, this paper considers the formal public sphere. In his field work involving 20 writers in New York City, Queens and Brooklyn, Kramer (2010) similarly revealed that as artists mature with age, many may not want to partake in risky activities anymore, turning to formal means such as legal graffiti. These writers do not consider themselves as selling out, but are instead transitioning to a new phase of their artistic evolution. To insist that graffiti must remain ‘angry’ and ‘illegal’ to be authentic is to condemn the subculture and its agents to one-dimensional passivity. In their eyes, those who sell out are those who have either given up writing or who only write for money (Kramer, 2010, p. 248). A two-way process of change/adaptation by authorities and writers thus occurs in subcultural embracement. As government policies evolve to embrace non-conventional art forms for urban worlding purposes, writers also evolve under changing socio-political conditions. Instead of being marginal and static, post-graffiti subcultures can be viewed instead as “open social formations” offering opportunities for “creative and transformative collaborative engagements” (Daskalaki & Mould, 2013, p. 6). It is these new formations and collaborations that are taking place in Singapore, and to which this study is directed.
former, and the strong public appeal of the latter. While the two sites are by no means representative of the graffiti/street art scene, they provide an accessible glimpse into the legalization process and its social and spatial consequences in Singapore.2 Secondly regarding criminalization, Dia and Or were not the only artists to have fallen foul of the law in Singapore. Others have also been charged over the years, the most infamous being Samantha Lo who was arrested in 2012 for stencilling on public roads and pasting stickers on traffic posts. Public support and an online petition saw her vandalism charge commuted to mischief, and an imposition of 240 h of community service. Other incidents have not turned out as well. In 2010 and 2014, three foreigners were charged with trespassing and spray painting on commuter trains. The two Germans who committed the offences in November 2014 were sentenced to nine-months jail and given three strokes of the cane each. While the government has remained resolute in its zero-tolerance on trespassing and illegal tagging, the pardon of Lo – whose works were widely considered as decorative rather than destructive – and the subsequent non-charges against Dia and Or suggest a shift in government attitudes. The next section charts policy transitions over the years with a particular relent on graffiti/street art, and the motivations behind this about-turn. 4. Art and worlding place: planners’ intent The evolution in government plans and policies are examined in this section.3 As there is no one policy governing street/graffiti/public-art in Singapore, various policies and programming affecting these art forms are introduced. Over the years, a narrow conception of public art in Singapore (including only sculptures) has been expanded to embrace non-conformist works that are located in unconventional spaces. The earliest plans on public art were the Public Sculptures Masterplan 1991 and 2002, by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA, 1991; URA, 2002). The plans focused mainly on suitable locations for sculptures and tax concessions to encourage public donations. At the launch of the 2002 Masterplan, the Minister of National Development emphasized the urban benefits of art. In his words, public art helps to inject “character and renewed vigour to a city” and provides “an avenue for us to relax and enjoy ourselves” (MITA, 2002). The importance of public art was also acknowledged in the Renaissance City Report (MITA, 2000). The idea of ‘worlding’ emerged at this point, with the arts being recognized as a means to create a world class home for an increasingly sophisticated populace. The report noted: “As our population becomes more affluent and as our society matures, culture and the arts will become more important if we are to succeed in developing Singapore into a world class home for Singaporeans” (MITA, 2000, p. 27). A thriving cultural scene was also lauded as attractive to tourists and foreign talent, thereby benefitting the economy as a whole. The “soft power” of the arts in worlding Singapore was thus celebrated:
3. Research methodologies The Rail Corridor and Haji Lane (in Kampong Glam) are two key sites of emergent street art in Singapore. The Rail Corridor is a 24-km strip that once served as a railway line connecting Singapore to Malaysia, with its closure in 2011 allowing for new uses. In 2014, the government permitted two walls along the corridor to be used for art works, with RSCLS (a local street art group) chosen in 2014 to curate programs and public works. Kampong Glam is a historic neighborhood dating back to the founding of Singapore in the early 19th century. Street art has appeared on privately-owned buildings and side lanes along Haji Lane since the early 2010s. The works are a mix of graphic shapes and figurative designs commissioned by building owners, and in some cases without government approval. In 2014, three officers from two government agencies – the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and National Arts Council (NAC) were interviewed regarding state policies on public art. The interviews were supplemented by government documents (plans, policies and ministerial speeches) detailing the state's evolving attitudes particularly towards graffiti and street art. A total of seven writers/artists were also interviewed on their involvement in both study sites between 2014 and 2015. The founding director of RSCLS, who played a pivotal role in the Rail Corridor, was also interviewed. Questions about regulation, curation and working with fellow artists were asked to better understand the process of and responses to state co-option. In 2018, the Brand Manager of The Singapura Club (an eatery featuring art works on its façade/side wall) was also interviewed for a business perspective. For confidentiality reasons, all the interview quotes in the paper are anonymized. Before proceeding to the empirics, two contextual issues in Singapore must be flagged. Firstly regarding art spaces, the Rail Corridor and Haji Lane are not the only sites where graffiti and street art have been permitted. Today, three other spaces have been approved by the NAC: Goodman Arts Centre, Aliwal Arts Centre and *Scape, a youth-oriented centre managed by a non-profit organization. Other earlier locations with legal graffiti include the Somerset skatepark, Bukit Batok Block 178 skatepark, the National Youth Council office, and The Substation. Graffiti has also been permitted in buildings slated for demolition, for example at Eminent Plaza in 2014 and The Mill in 2015. This study, however, is confined to the Rail Corridor and Haji Lane because of the highly experimental nature of wall curation in the
Our arts and culture have the potential to help us project Singapore's “soft power” in the global marketplace. The value of a country's national image can be an important contributor to foreign customers' purchasing decisions. Described as the halo effect, a high reputation in one area can create a halo for other attributes, giving a nation a perception advantage. (MITA, 2000, p. 35)
2 We should note that the sanctioned spaces for graffiti/street art in Singapore are either privately-owned and commercially-operated (e.g. Haji Lane walls), or state-owned and managed by government-linked agencies (e.g. *Scape). The lack of ‘truly free’ wall space is thus a key constraint for the practice of street art. I thank one of the reviewers for pointing this out. 3 I am grateful to one reviewer for suggesting the Public Sculptures Master plans and other policies and programmes in Singapore, that are reviewed in this section.
3
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
The definition of the arts was widened considerably with the Report of the Arts and Culture Strategic Review (NAC, 2012). Moving beyond sculptures, the Report advised that “activities that do not conform to common perceptions of arts and culture” such as community singing, drumming and getais (live performances during the annual Hungry Ghost Festival) should also be encouraged. Although graffiti and street art were not mentioned, the government advocated “an inclusive approach” which included novel locations for art activities (NAC, 2012, p. 8). Apart from museums and galleries, new locations were suggested including “upcoming spaces such as the old KTM railway corridor” (NAC, 2012, p. 36). This suggestion later evolved into Singapore's first curated graffiti walls along the Rail Corridor. At this point, we should take note of the Vandalism Act in Singapore (Chapter 341, Section 2aii, originally 1966). Revised in 2014, the Acts spells out vandalism as “writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing on any public property or private property any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing” without permission of an “authorised officer or representative of the Government” (Attorney-General's Chambers, 1966). The act also covers posters, advertisements and notices. Although no specific mention is made of art, the act is broad enough to define any form of illicit artistic works as vandalism. Permitted art works in Singapore have traditionally been sculptures and murals created by recognized artists, school students and resident committees. Most recently in 2013 and 2014, two government programs with direct implications on graffiti and street art were announced. The PubliCity program, launched as part of the URA's Draft Master Plan 2013, spoke of how public spaces may be made more inclusive with art. The Rail Corridor was again noted as a potential site. In 2014, the Public Art Trust (PAT) was set up by the NAC and two new spaces were introduced: “public spaces” and “practice spaces” for street art (PAT, undated). In public spaces, artists could propose what they like to draw and the NAC will match their proposals to site owners who had also applied for their walls to be used. ‘Practice spaces’, on the other hand, were six pre-chosen walls at Goodman and Aliwal Arts Centres, and *Scape, for which the NAC had already obtained prior permission. All the artists had to do was to propose their works to the individual centres for approval. A direct outcome of the PubliCity program was the designation of two blank walls along the Rail Corridor for artists. A multi-agency approach led by the NAC and URA, along with the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) approved the walls for graffiti and street art4 (Fig. 1) (URA, 2014). NAC's Director of Arts and Youth explained why this genre was approved:
Fig. 1. The Rail Corridor's art walls (note its location below a main road and walkway).
government remains resolutely against illegal tagging. The legislative approach to legalizing graffiti in select spaces helps to contain it from appearing elsewhere. This is an important reason for the Rail Corridor: The whole project started off because we realized there was a lot of graffiti there. Our definition of graffiti is something that pleases themselves [artists], so they were drawing things like “I love you” and they etched it at the bridge. It was very recent and it really upset us, so that is vandalism clearly. We thought why not have a proper space where people [who] want to do graffiti, they can do so freely? When we surveyed various sites, we noticed one had the most wall surface and it is not that visible, even though it is quite accessible. (Interview with URA, 24 October 2014) The selection of accessible yet “not that visible” walls (below a main road and walkway) highlights the government's strategic oversight on graffiti, particularly where it may appear and how it may be presented. Curation of the Rail Corridor was deemed necessary. Rather than a free-for-all approach, RSCLS a local art collective was offered a grant in 2014 to oversee activities on the Corridor walls. In addition to selecting the artists, RSCLS was also responsible for facilitating community participation through art jams. The choice of RSCLS was highly strategic. Its founding director was the first street artist to be awarded the government's Young Artist Award for significant contributions to culture in 2013. With his pedigree, the government felt it could entrust “ownership” of the space to him according to a URA officer,
Street artists and their work are an exciting part of Singapore's diverse and vibrant arts scene. We hope that by facilitating dedicated art spaces, like the one along the Rail Corridor, street artists can have the physical and artistic room to express themselves and practice their craft. This is critical to the development of the Singapore street art scene, which the Council will continue to support through grants, spaces and public engagement about the value of street art (URA, 2013; emphasis added).
RSCLS is like the leader for the street artists and they are quite established. When we went to them, they helped to disseminate the information [to other artists]. We wanted this space to be self-owned as well. Even though it is owned by the government, we wanted them to be able to take ownership of this space. We told them to take charge and they were keen to do so. Curation was also up to them, and everything was up to them to plan so long as they adhere to our terms of usage. (Interview with URA, 24 October 2014)
Recognizing the “value of street art” underscores the government's strategic intent. On the one hand street art can add to the cultural vibrancy of a world city; on the other hand giving artists “physical and artistic room” means that such works will be confined to designated walls rather than throughout the city. During an interview with a URA officer, she explained that the
Ownership, however, did not mean total freedom. As they were funded by the government, RSCLS had to abide by specific terms of use of the walls. These included prohibitions to: advocate lifestyles seen as objectionable by the general public; denigrate people on the basis of race or religion; and undermine the authority of public institutions (interview with NAC, 3 October 2014). The URA added that since the Rail Corridor is a “community space”, there should be “no vulgar themes” or “works that are too obscene” (interview with URA, 24 October 2014). The Rail Corridor project was also experimental and temporary. RSCLS had a two-year period to conduct its activities, which
4
Although graffiti and street art are distinct, both terms are used interchangeably here at the Rail Corridor because the government officers I had interviewed had done so. In the next section, at least one of the artists interviewed also used graffiti and street art as synonyms. The discussions thus acknowledge the views of the interviewees. 4
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
entrepreneurs have deployed wall art to good effect for purposes of advertisement and self-publicity. The commercialization of graffiti and street art cannot be more aptly captured. To conclude, worlding has different goals (worlding of objects and subjects) and operates at different scales (worlding from above and from below). By legalizing graffiti and street art, Singapore's goal is to infuse urban spaces with a myriad of works and project itself as a culturally vibrant and tolerant city. The worlding of the city and its urban walls (objects) is accompanied by the participation of artists, building owners and members of the public (subjects), all of whom are instrumental to the success of the project. Worlding also operates at different scales, with government plans representing strategies from above, and “regimes of subject-making” involving participation by RSCLS and artists as worlding from below (Roy, 2011). However, government oversight on what may be painted and where it can be done remain stark reminders that graffiti and street art are regulated and strategized, even as they are embraced. How artists feel about such state embracement is an issue we will now explore. Fig. 2. Street art along Haji Lane.
5. Art and worlding people: artists’ experiences if deemed successful by the URA and NAC, will lead to more walls being made available in the future. While the legislative approach emphasizes the legal obligations of artists, the creative approach underscores the benefits of art for the whole society. It is noted that while the government was strict on imposing rules of engagement for artists starting out at the Rail Corridor, works that have already been completed were viewed more sympathetically. Haji Lane offers a good example. Because most of its street art were drawn on buildings and back alleys before the 2013 PubliCity scheme and 2014 PAT plans were introduced, the URA had to inspect the works for retrogressive approval. In 2012, the URA had imposed strict color guidelines for shophouses in historic neighbourhoods. Buildings could only be painted in pastel colors, and any deviation (including art on buildings) had to be approved (Lim, 2012). The interview with URA revealed that the government took a less stringent stand in Haji Lane because the works here were extremely popular with the public (Fig. 2). Hence while the strict color guidelines remain a legislative constant, how the public perceives the art works plays a more important role in the government's stance. The importance of the “public eye” was emphasized by a URA officer:
The concept of post-graffiti (Dickens, 2008) captures the effects of legalization and subcultural embracement. Not all artists are affected in the same way by the changing policies. While some regarded the legalization of walls as government endorsement of their work, others felt disempowered by the process. Responding to the Rail Corridor plan, one artist noted that there were two types of reactions: For some, their main focus is just to vandalise, so they are against commissioned works because they feel this is going against graffiti. They are the purists, but we are the fun type, we need to earn money at the same time. So, when we get this kind of project, it can cover our bills while still allowing us to do what we love, so that's awesome. (Interview, 22 June 2014) An outcome of government embracement is therefore the division of the subculture into two groups: the ‘purists’ who are opposed to any form of co-option and the ‘pragmatists’ who welcome the policy changes. For the pragmatists, legal walls not only provide practice spaces, they also help artists reach out to the public. By working with the state rather than against it, RSCLS for example takes a pragmatic stance hoping that through government embracement, the negative stigma of graffiti and street art may be dispelled. Responding to URA's PubliCity program, an artist for example said: “Corridor space could be used to help educate the public about street art. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether the Government is involved or not. As long as it is on the street, it is street art” (cited in Feng, 2013). Such artists hope to continue drawing not only for themselves but also for the community. A sentiment like this is in line with the notion of post-graffiti artists who draw to be “appreciated rather than despised”, creating works that “directly engage with urban audiences” rather than to turn them off (Dickens, 2008, p. 474). The state's avowal of graffiti and street artists, however, runs the risk of fracturing the subculture. While some artists and groups like RSCLS open themselves to the policy changes, others are disdainful of the process as well as those who succumb to it. Legislative and creative approaches cannot satisfy everybody as some artists feel constrained working under a system of state patronage and private commission. Embracive programs like Denver's Artway, for example, have thus been viewed as government “soft control” and a “p.r. scheme” (Ferrell, 1993, p. 131). The same sentiments have appeared in Singapore. The pragmatists and purists stand on opposite sides of the ideological divide regarding legal art. To those opposed to subcultural embrace, legalized works lack ‘street cred’. Hence while such works might appeal to the public, they are dismissed by the purists as wall decoration. An artist thus spoke of her dismay of state policy and the works
Sometimes we just close one eye. Even the Haji Lane works, so long as the owners are okay and we don't get any complaints from the public, it is okay. They have to follow certain guidelines, but for some buildings that have been around for a while, and they are painted, we tend to close one eye unless the public starts to complain, then we will come in and enforce. The public eye is usually what alerts us to these buildings. (Interview with URA, 24 October 2014) Instead of strict adherence to the letter of the law, therefore, the spirit of the law is accommodated through public receptivity of the works. Before we end, it would be helpful to briefly mention how business owners at Haji Lane feel about the wall art. It is noted that all the works here are commissioned and hence, strategically business-appropriate. The Blu Jaz Café, for example, is painted in shades of blue while at Piedra Nega (a Mexican bar), colourful Aztec-inspired designs dominate. Similarly the Brand Manager at The Singapura Club acknowledged that the paintings of multi-ethnic people on its exterior walls are a reflection of ‘Singapura’ (old name of Singapore) and an advertisement of its Chinese and Indian food in the restaurant (Interview, 11 December 2018). An estimate of 100–200 photographs are also taken of the art every day, providing unexpected but much welcomed publicity (Said, 2016). Just as government policies have been strategic in using public art to market Singapore's cultural status, likewise savvy 5
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
on the wall. There's more to graffiti than painting; it's about interacting with each other, it's like family. (Interview, 22 June 2014)
resulting from it: Originally street art is at worst vandalism. And now it has been coopted and I have negative feelings about it … publicly sanctioned street art has no power at all, because it is just mural decoration and there is nothing that connects it to the street. It is about the decoration of frontage …. Personally I think it is good for the public, it adds interest. It is not interesting for me as an artist as I feel it doesn't add anything to the discussion and it doesn't change the way I think about that space. (Interview, 12 September 2014)
A sense of family and familiarity between the state and artists has yet to emerge. Because policy changes permitting graffiti and street art have only been recent (since 2014), many artists remain wary of the government's intent. As harsh punishments continue to be meted out to vandals and trespassers, including the incidents featuring Or and Dia noted at the start of the paper, many artists remain concerned about crossing the line between legal and illegal works. Such a concern, according to the founder of RSCLS, has affected even the way artists work on sanctioned walls. For example, when RSCLS invited overseas artists to paint at the Rail Corridor in 2014, even the most “hardcore artists” tamed their works for fear of transgressing the law (Interview, 6 August 2014). The culture of fear will only diminish as more legal walls are made available. In conclusion, when Ong (2011) spoke of worlding projects as emergent ideas for cities, what constitutes a ‘good idea’ differs across the state and artists. While the government embarks on urban projects, it is often to remedy a problem or to make things better for the city and its people. The economic development of a place and the social progress of its people are its key goals. On the other hand, artists are more concerned about creativity and freedom of expression. Rather than make a mark on the world, their focus is on improving the life-world of artists. In a television documentary, RSCLS founder expressed a “sense of responsibility to the grassroots” and his desire to be a “role model” for young artists. In his words, “I'm not here to change the world …. I'm here to change the immediate spaces around me” (Channel News Asia, 2 March 2014). For him, legal walls are intended to serve artistic and individualistic goals rather than national agendas of worlding and global city making. The rift between the government and artists cannot be more eloquently expressed.
Anti-establishment artists reject any form of societal co-option whereas those wishing to beautify the environment welcome the opportunity. In the words of the same artist above: “coming from the POV [point of view] of an artist, the question for us is whether these rules affect the way and mindset in which we make art. If it is made for an almost publicly sanctioned purpose and we kind of fall into that, I think it really dilutes the purpose of what we do” (interview, 12 September 2014). The purists thus view the pragmatists as prey to state agendas rather than free and independent. Another interviewee similarly reflected that while artists once drew out of rebellion, many today do so for commercial reasons (e.g. commissioned work) or public acclaim (e.g. social media publicity). The government's embrace has worsened the situation, dividing the subculture more than before. Dismissing those who draw on state-sanctioned walls as tamed zoo tigers, the artist opined: … it is this spirit of rebellion and an urge to express oneself in an unauthorised manner which drives an artist to push his [sic] limits …. In the 90s, we painted on walls as a form of expression and we didn't think that any form of commerce can come out of it. [The] street artist now does a mural and posts it on social media, so the whole nature of unauthorised murals has changed. There are sanctioned walls but I do not have the urge to express myself there ever. The only sanctioned walls are commissioned murals. It is a great space that the authorities created, almost like a zoo to display all the tigers. (Interview, 10 September 2014)
6. Conclusion … like everything else, once the counter culture becomes mass, and widely accepted, it no longer becomes cool and loses its edge. That is what I feel is happening to graffiti in Singapore. (Artist interview, 10 September 2014)
When asked whether he continues to draw illicitly, he explained that many do so in secret locations (which he did not divulge) and abroad where rules are less strict. There are also other artists who draw on sanctioned walls even as they continue to do illicit works on the quiet. Rather than strictly purist or pragmatist, there are therefore multiple artist subjectivities emerging from responses to government plans. These flexible identities confound the legal/illegal and art/crime divides that authorities often impose on artists. The tension between the authorities and artists is also evident in the way that each group defines ‘support’. While government planners regard support in terms of legal and legislative provisions (e.g. setting aside walls for art, authorization of works on historic buildings), some artists feel that support can be better rendered through more personal ways. This distinction became clear during my interviews with government officers and artists. For example, while a URA officer explained that government officers refrained from visiting the Rail Corridor for fear of creating concern among artists, an artist expressed the opposite when he lamented that government officers should attend street art events more regularly as a means of support. Having government presence is the best proof of endorsement:
This paper began with Or and Dia, two self-proclaimed artists whose works in Singapore's residential spaces were dismantled by the government. It ends on a semi-sweet note when in January–March 2018, Mr. Or was granted space to re-install his ‘tower’ of toys and figurines in Chong Pang Community Club. In resurrecting the tower, Or “toned down his trademark cheeky style … to suit a wider audience”, doing away with topless dolls and smoking Buddhas (The Straits Times, 2018). He explained: “The authorities told me I can't use deities because people from different religions will be at the CCs”. In 2019, Dia was also nominated as a finalist for the IMPART Art Award, which recognises emerging talent in visual arts in Singapore.5 Official recognition of Or and Dia, a year or two after their first brush with the law, offers a perspective on the embracement of subcultural forms by the state and the possible consequences of such embracement. In this conclusion, three avenues are sketched of ways in which we might better understand the evolution of subcultures under contexts of urban worlding. Firstly in considering how and why subcultures evolve, we must differentiate between evolution that is externally imposed and internally generated. This paper has highlighted the former as government plans and policies in Singapore are changed to accommodate
When we ask for support, we are asking for genuine support from the heart. When we have events like this [art jam] we want people to come, to appreciate us. In other countries, people come up and talk to you about the work, and not just about financial or spatial support. When they support their artists, the ambassador of France actually sponsored their artists to go all over the world to paint. In Singapore, we don't see any ambassador coming to our events or talking to us. We want that kind of human-to-human interaction. When we talk about graffiti, it's not just about painting our own stuff
5
The IMPART Awards are organized by Art Outreach, an educational nonprofit organization set up in 2003. Art Outreach was granted Institute of Public Character status under the government's National Arts Councilʼs “Support for the Arts” Central Fund in February 2004 (http://www.artoutreachsingapore. org/). 6
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
new art forms befitting a ‘Renaissance City for the Arts’. Artists' responses to these changes have been varied, with some hesitating to participate and others viewing it as an endorsement of their work. An art collective RSCLS was also government-funded to curate two walls along the Rail Corridor. The multiple responses reveal a subcultural divide as artists adopt different ideological positions in response to the legalization process. The division between the purists and pragmatists is one manifestation of this subcultural rift. A second avenue to understand subcultural evolution is to acknowledge the dual approaches under which legalized art comes to be. The legislative approach legalizes works with the main purpose of diverting writers from illicit activities to permissible works, while the creative approach de-criminalizes illicit art and re-brands them as symbols of urban cool. World cities often incorporate both approaches in a dual-pronged strategy of capturing and channelling creativity for public ‘good’. McAuliffe (2012) similarly speaks of legal walls as a “dual valuation” of art. Not only are graffiti and street art valued for their transgressive and innovative spirit, they are also embraced for what they can bring to a post-industrial economy by way of tourism and creative businesses. Hence under conditions of urban worlding, graffiti and street art are “simultaneously ‘good’ and ‘bad’ … both productive and destructive” (McAuliffe, 2012, p. 203). A final avenue compels us to appreciate the “entanglements of the aesthetic and political realms” in subcultural embracement (Pan, 2014, p. 150). This study has shown that art is not just about aesthetics but also issues of urban identity, place making and claims to space. The evolution and fate of subcultures is very much, therefore, a metaphor of how minority groups are embraced or marginalized in global cities. Different cities have their own rules regarding the use of space, and punishments for abuse of public property. How subcultural artists negotiate these rules while also challenging and transforming them to their own benefit are topics worthy of further scholarly consideration.
37(1), 1–18. Dickens, L. (2008). Placing post-graffiti: The journey of the peckham rock’. Cultural Geographies, 15, 471–496. Dovey, K., Woolan, S., & Woodcock, I. (2012). Placing graffiti: Creating and contesting character in inner-city Melbourne. Journal of Urban Design, 17(1), 21–41. Ellsworth-Jones, W. (2012). Banksy. The man behind the wall. New York: St Martin’s Press. Feng, Z. (2013). Street artists get two walls along Rail Corridor as canvas. The Straits Times. 26 December, 2013 http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/street-artists-get-twowalls-along-rail-corridor-canvas Accessed 10.10.14 . Ferrell, J. (1993). Crimes of style. Urban graffiti and the politics of criminality. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc. Kramer, R. (2010). Painting with permission legal graffiti in New York City. Ethnography, 11(2), 235–253. Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban graffiti as territorial markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64(4), 491–505. Lim, J. (2012). Such graffiti allowed on selected conserved shophouses on case-by-case basis. The Straits Times 28 September 2012, page unknown. Lombard, K. J. (2013). Art crimes: The governance of hip hop graffiti. Journal for Cultural Research, 17(3), 255–278. Lu, P. (2014). Who is occupying wall and street: Graffiti and urban spatial politics in contemporary China. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 28(1), 136–153. MacDowall, L. (2006). In praise of 70K: Cultural heritage and graffiti style, continuum. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 20(4), 471–484. McAuliffe, C. (2012). Graffiti or street art? Negotiating the moral geographies of the creative city. Journal of Urban Affairs. The Journal of the Urban Affairs Association, 34(2), 189–206. McAuliffe, C., & Iveson, K. (2011). Art and crime (and other things besides…): Conceptualising graffiti in the city. Geography Compass, 5, 128–143. MITA (2000). Renaissance city report. Culture and the arts in Renaissance SingaporeSingapore: Ministry of Information and the Arts. MITA (2002). Speech by minister for national development on the launch of the public sculptures masterplan 2002. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/viewhtml?filename=2002092004.htm, Accessed date: 1 December 2018. NAC (2012). Report of the arts and culture strategic reviewSingapore: National Arts Council. Ong, A. (2011). Introduction: Worlding cities, or the art of being global. In R. Ananya, & A. Ong (Eds.). Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons. Pan, L. (2014). Who is occupying wall and street: Graffiti and urban spatial politics in contemporary China. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 28(1), 136–153. PAT (undated) Public art Trust. https://www.publicarttrust.sg/Home, Accessed date: 1 December 2018. Roy, A. (2011). Postcolonial urbanism: Speed, hysteria, mass dreams. In A. Roy, & A. Ong (Eds.). Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Roy, A., & Ong, A. (2011). Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Said, N. (2016). Murals spread colourful cheer to businesses and HDB estates. https://www. straitstimes.com/lifestyle/murals-murals-everywhere, Accessed date: 15 December 2018. Tan, A. (2017). It's art, it's not. The Straits TimesA6. The Straits Times. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/yishun-retiree-or-beng-kooiinvited-to-create-and-exhibit-his-latest-toy-tower-at-chong 25 February 2018. URA (1991). Public sculptures masterplan. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority. URA (2002). Public sculptures masterplan. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority. URA. New independent space for street art as part of the Rail Corridor experience. (2013). http://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/media-room/news/2013/dec/pr13-88.aspx Accessed 19.11.17. URA. Street art comes alive at the Rail corridor, skyline, June/July 2014. (2014). https:// www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyline14/skyline14-01/article-09.html Accessed 19.11.17. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety, 249, Atlantic Monthly29–38. Young, A. (2014). Street art, public city. Abingdon: Routledge. Zaccheus, M. (2017). ‘Artistic’ tower of items at HDB void deck trashed. The Straits TimesB10.
Acknowledgements I wish to thank the National University of Singapore for funding the research project from which this paper is derived (HDRSS R-109-000198-101). References Attorney-General’s Chambers (1966). Singapore statues online. http://sso.agc.gov.sg, Accessed date: 2 May 2019. Chang, T. C. (2016). ‘New uses need old buildings’: Gentrification aesthetics and the arts in Singapore. Urban Studies, 53(3), 524–539. Channel News Asia (2014). Art off the walls, telecast on 2 March 2014. Courage, C. (2017). Arts in place. The arts, the urban and social practice. London and New York: Routledge. Creswell, T. (1996). place/out of place. Geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Daskalaki, M., & Mould, O. (2013). Beyond urban subcultures: Urban subversions as rhizomatic social formations. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
7
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
City, Culture and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs
Wall dressed up: Graffiti and street art in Singapore T.C. Chang Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, Singapore
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Graffiti Street art Artists Singapore Cultural policy
To be a ‘Renaissance City for the Arts’, Singapore has long relied on worlding devices such as iconic infrastructure and international cultural events. Since the early 2010s, a shift towards the public interests has emerged alongside the recognition of non-mainstream groups in the cultural life of the city. This paper considers graffiti and street art in Singapore, and their recent acknowledgement as an emergent subculture in the country. The scope is two-fold, firstly focusing on state policies on public art and the embrace of graffiti and street art in recent years, and secondly the artists' responses to government embracement. While some artists resist incorporation, others have strategized opportunities to showcase their work under official license. The conclusion highlights three particular issues attending subcultural embracement in Singapore, pointing the way ahead for further research on subcultural change in globalizing cities.
1. Introduction In 2017, two pieces of ‘art’ stirred much interest in Singapore not only for what the works looked like, but also for how the government responded to them. The first, created by Or Beng Kooi in 2016, was an installation of toys and figurines he had collected over the years, and was erected in a common space at a residential block of flats in Yishun housing estate. The second produced by art student Priyag eetha Dia in 2017, comprised gold leaf pasted onto a flight of stairs in a Jalan Besar residential block. Both pieces drew positive public acclaim, the first for its kitsch appeal and the second for brightening a utilitarian environment. However, as both works were installed without government permission, they were cleared in February and March 2017 respectively. In discarding Or's work, the Nee Soon Town Council explained: “the items pose a fire and safety hazard and we advise residents not to store their items at the void decks or social gathering points” (Zaccheus, 2017, p. B10). The Jalan Besar Town Council which cleared Dia's work advised that art works were not permitted under the Common Property and Open Spaces By-laws (Tan, 2017). Dia was regretful to see her work dismantled but stood her ground in not seeking official license. She explained: “People now come to this space, they look at the staircase in a different light now, they admire the staircase. In a way, they are giving respect to the space …. As an artist, I wonder why everything needs to be licensed. If I (had sought) permission, there wouldn't be a thrill in doing it; I need that adrenaline in
my art-making process” (cited in Tan, 2017, p. A6). Dia and Or are not graffitists or street artists by strict definition, and their works may be described as illegal public art rather than graffiti or street art.1 Nevertheless, the spontaneous installation of their works and the swift dismantling resonate with several issues central to public art in Singapore. They include the legalization of art in public spaces, the role of government regulation and the response of artists towards state sanction. Singapore has long relied on infrastructural investments in the form of museums and arts districts as well as international events in propelling its cultural vision (Chang, 2016; MITA, 2000). Since the early 2010s, a shift towards meeting the interests of the mass public has emerged alongside the recognition of non-mainstream groups. Many cities have co-opted subcultural scenes as indicators of worldly creativity and urban cool; such embracement also provides avenues for social inclusion of marginal groups. This paper considers the recent phenomenon of graffiti and street art in Singapore, and government acknowledgement of these artists as an emergent subcultural group. Of relevance to this study are ‘public art’, ‘street art’ and ‘graffiti’. In the next section, distinctions between these terms will be clarified along with a conceptualization of subcultural embracement in worlding cities. The reasons for and process of embracement are also discussed. Following this, the research methodologies of the study are explained and the two specific case sites justified. The substantive part of the paper is then devoted to a two-fold empirical exegesis: (a) state policy and motivations in embracing public art in general, and graffiti and street
E-mail address: [email protected]. Conceptual distinctions between ‘public art’, ‘graffiti’ and ‘street art’ will be made in the second section of this paper. We should note that Dia and Or are not the only people in Singapore to be penalised for illegal works. They are introduced in this paper as examples rather than exceptional cases of how artists are dealt with in the country. 1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2019.100329 Received 3 July 2018; Received in revised form 28 May 2019; Accepted 1 December 2019 1877-9166/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: T.C. Chang, City, Culture and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2019.100329
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
A second form of embracement is the creative approach in which graffiti and street art are acknowledged for their contributions to a creative society. Economic valorization by way of jobs and public project commissions are some forms of recognition. Rather than “transgressive actors”, artists are viewed instead as being “generative of new ways of conceiving of spaces in the city as creative” (McAuliffe, 2012, p. 204). In China for example, graffiti art has been embraced by different municipal governments as symbols of a burgeoning creative economy, examples being Beijing's 798 Art Zone and Shanghai's Moganshan Road, creative clusters that have prominently featured graffiti in their premises. In Chongqing's Graffiti Avenue, proclaimed as the world's largest public art spanning 1.25 km across several buildings, Pan (2014, p. 145) notes that the focus is “not wholly intended to evoke aesthetic contemplation” but to celebrate the spectacle of public involvement, state mobilization of the masses and proclamation of the city as a creative destination (see Lu, 2014). Legislative and creative programs may be regarded as part of a larger project in worlding people and places (Roy & Ong, 2011). At its broadest, worlding is understood to be a process of becoming global, with a particular focus on “problem-solving and spatializing practices” (Ong, 2011, p. 10). The graffiti programs in Melbourne Denver and Chongqing, with their crime fighting and urban redevelopment goals, may be regarded as worlding schemes aimed at improving the urban stakes. Worlding is also “aspirational, experimental, and even speculative”, comprising different actors and institutions inventing and aspiring “to new ways of being global” (Ong, 2011, pp. 10 & 23). As cities struggle with graffiti, legal wall programs serve as experiments to channel criminal energies into productive purposes. How cities market their art scene to attract tourists and creative businesses is also part of the urban worlding experiment. Worlding projects range from “high abstractions” such as government plans and programs, to what Ong (2011, p. 12) calls “actual human projects and goals” and “situated everyday practices”. From urban objects (infrastructure, amenities) to city subjects (people, practices), efforts are expended to develop the city as ‘world-class’. Worlding can have different goals (worlding of objects and subjects) and operate at different scales (worlding from above and from below). Government schemes involving iconic projects may be regarded as worlding from above while “regimes of subject-making” involving people is worlding from below (Roy, 2011, p. 312). Such a regime compels ordinary folks, including the marginalized, to be involved in an “everyday experience of world-class aesthetic discourse” (to use Ghertner's words, cited in Roy, 2011, p. 313). How people and artists in cities respond to these compulsions provide insights into the contested process of urban worlding. The embracement of graffiti and street art helps to project cities as culturally vibrant and socially tolerant (Dovey et al., 2012). The challenge, however, is how to capture the creativity of insurgent artists without compromising on their need for self-expression. Creswell (1996) theorises that space plays a role in this process. Out in the streets, unsolicited art is considered a crime whereas in galleries and museums – “sites of legitimate creativity” – it acquires new meaning (Creswell, 1996, p. 55). Feelings of anger and civil disobedience are thus interpreted differently because of the spatial contexts in which art is being presented. The same “geomagic” (Creswell, 1996, p. 58) is expected to happen when urban spaces are legislated as creative zones and artists are allowed to draw as they please. This dual act of legislation and permission portrays cities as safe and well-planned, but also liberal and tolerant at the same time. Thus while graffiti and street art may continue to look subversive, under official license they are amendable to new interpretations that are far less trenchant. Dickens (2008) theorises this new art form as post-graffiti. As authorities reach out to artists, some artists also engage the state and private sector to negotiate opportunities to continue working. Inevitably the art work takes on “new directions” – stickers and stencils replace spray cans while logos and icons are preferred over tags, and
art more particularly; and (b) artists' responses toward government regulation and worlding ambitions. While some artists oppose any form of government incorporation, others strategize opportunities to showcase their works in public spaces. The conclusion charts further avenues to better apprehend the evolution of subcultures under contexts of urban worlding and socio-cultural globalization. 2. Embracing artistic subcultures in worlding cities To understand the different artistic subcultures in cities, distinctions between graffiti, street art and public art must first be made. Graffiti may be defined as unsolicited writings on public surfaces in the form of ‘tags’ (signatures) and ‘throw ups’ (signatures with bubble-shaped letters), and often using markers and aerosol sprays (Ferrell, 1993). First identified in the 1960s in U.S. cities, graffiti came to be associated with urban youths spray painting as an expression of anger or for the purpose of staking-out territory (Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974). Municipal responses to graffiti have generally followed a ‘Broken Windows’ theory, believing that an unrepaired window in a building will invite crime and hence graffiti is something to be removed and criminalised for fear of further public desecration (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). It was not until the late 1980s that the artistic merit of graffiti was recognized, and terms like urban or street art surfaced (EllsworthJones, 2012). In the early 1990s, street art came to be appreciated for its creative use of stencils, stickers, posters, woodcuts, wheat-paste as well as objects like metal bolts, knits and yarns in public projects (McAuliffe, 2012). While graffiti and street art are sometimes used interchangeably (as both are created without permission), there are discernible differences in their ‘publicness’. While graffiti is written for other writers to read and understand, street art with its decipherable alphabets and pop-cultural images is meant for wider public consumption (McAuliffe & Iveson, 2011). While graffiti uses its own ingroup coded expression, street art produces “images that are instantly understandable – a gallery on the street that is inclusive rather than exclusive” (in the words of a former graffitist, cited in Ellsworth-Jones, 2012, p. 39). If graffiti is exclusive and street art is for the community, public art goes one step further by incorporating the ‘public’ in its conception and production (Young, 2014). More than just an end-product, public art is an approach towards art making in which the artist responds to his/her environment, sometimes even engaging the public through consultation and hands-on involvement (Courage, 2017). In the Singapore examples, Dia and Or may be described as creating public art by virtue of the public locations of the works, their consideration of site (in Dia's golden stairs) and the incorporation of public-donated items (in Or's toy tower). Without having sought permission, however, their works were regarded as illegal public art. Legality is thus at the very core of how art forms are defined, perceived and responded to. In Singapore, the crossover from illegal to legal works involves state regulation and artists' buy-in, affording an insight into the “metamorphosis from crime to art” (Creswell, 1996, p. 51) that attends the subcultural embracement process. The embracement of illegal art may take different forms. The first is a legislative approach in which illicit works are legalized by the state as a way to combat vandalism. In Australia, the Queensland Department of Justice was the first to distinguish between “graffiti vandalism” and “graffiti art” in 1988, the latter deemed legal if officially or commercially commissioned (Lombard, 2013, p. 261). In 2004, a proposal was made in Melbourne to consider “tolerance zones” and “nominated laneways” for graffiti, with the Lord Mayor even regarding illicit works as a “forum for comment” (MacDowall, 2006, p. 477). In the U.S., one of the earliest ‘graffiti art’ scheme was in Denver in 1988 when the Mayor proposed a zone called “Artway”. Described as “authorised public art projects to channel talented artists away from destructive graffiti vandalism” (Ferrell, 1993, p. 131), Artway also provided an opportunity for young graffitists to be involved in formal urban life. 2
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
works are created to be “appreciated rather than despised” (Dickens, 2008, pp. 473–474). Instead of grassroots influences, post-graffiti artists are “more conscious in their efforts to organize and promote themselves within more formal art and commercial spheres” (Dickens, 2008, p. 476). While Dickens' focus was mainly on the commercial sphere, this paper considers the formal public sphere. In his field work involving 20 writers in New York City, Queens and Brooklyn, Kramer (2010) similarly revealed that as artists mature with age, many may not want to partake in risky activities anymore, turning to formal means such as legal graffiti. These writers do not consider themselves as selling out, but are instead transitioning to a new phase of their artistic evolution. To insist that graffiti must remain ‘angry’ and ‘illegal’ to be authentic is to condemn the subculture and its agents to one-dimensional passivity. In their eyes, those who sell out are those who have either given up writing or who only write for money (Kramer, 2010, p. 248). A two-way process of change/adaptation by authorities and writers thus occurs in subcultural embracement. As government policies evolve to embrace non-conventional art forms for urban worlding purposes, writers also evolve under changing socio-political conditions. Instead of being marginal and static, post-graffiti subcultures can be viewed instead as “open social formations” offering opportunities for “creative and transformative collaborative engagements” (Daskalaki & Mould, 2013, p. 6). It is these new formations and collaborations that are taking place in Singapore, and to which this study is directed.
former, and the strong public appeal of the latter. While the two sites are by no means representative of the graffiti/street art scene, they provide an accessible glimpse into the legalization process and its social and spatial consequences in Singapore.2 Secondly regarding criminalization, Dia and Or were not the only artists to have fallen foul of the law in Singapore. Others have also been charged over the years, the most infamous being Samantha Lo who was arrested in 2012 for stencilling on public roads and pasting stickers on traffic posts. Public support and an online petition saw her vandalism charge commuted to mischief, and an imposition of 240 h of community service. Other incidents have not turned out as well. In 2010 and 2014, three foreigners were charged with trespassing and spray painting on commuter trains. The two Germans who committed the offences in November 2014 were sentenced to nine-months jail and given three strokes of the cane each. While the government has remained resolute in its zero-tolerance on trespassing and illegal tagging, the pardon of Lo – whose works were widely considered as decorative rather than destructive – and the subsequent non-charges against Dia and Or suggest a shift in government attitudes. The next section charts policy transitions over the years with a particular relent on graffiti/street art, and the motivations behind this about-turn. 4. Art and worlding place: planners’ intent The evolution in government plans and policies are examined in this section.3 As there is no one policy governing street/graffiti/public-art in Singapore, various policies and programming affecting these art forms are introduced. Over the years, a narrow conception of public art in Singapore (including only sculptures) has been expanded to embrace non-conformist works that are located in unconventional spaces. The earliest plans on public art were the Public Sculptures Masterplan 1991 and 2002, by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA, 1991; URA, 2002). The plans focused mainly on suitable locations for sculptures and tax concessions to encourage public donations. At the launch of the 2002 Masterplan, the Minister of National Development emphasized the urban benefits of art. In his words, public art helps to inject “character and renewed vigour to a city” and provides “an avenue for us to relax and enjoy ourselves” (MITA, 2002). The importance of public art was also acknowledged in the Renaissance City Report (MITA, 2000). The idea of ‘worlding’ emerged at this point, with the arts being recognized as a means to create a world class home for an increasingly sophisticated populace. The report noted: “As our population becomes more affluent and as our society matures, culture and the arts will become more important if we are to succeed in developing Singapore into a world class home for Singaporeans” (MITA, 2000, p. 27). A thriving cultural scene was also lauded as attractive to tourists and foreign talent, thereby benefitting the economy as a whole. The “soft power” of the arts in worlding Singapore was thus celebrated:
3. Research methodologies The Rail Corridor and Haji Lane (in Kampong Glam) are two key sites of emergent street art in Singapore. The Rail Corridor is a 24-km strip that once served as a railway line connecting Singapore to Malaysia, with its closure in 2011 allowing for new uses. In 2014, the government permitted two walls along the corridor to be used for art works, with RSCLS (a local street art group) chosen in 2014 to curate programs and public works. Kampong Glam is a historic neighborhood dating back to the founding of Singapore in the early 19th century. Street art has appeared on privately-owned buildings and side lanes along Haji Lane since the early 2010s. The works are a mix of graphic shapes and figurative designs commissioned by building owners, and in some cases without government approval. In 2014, three officers from two government agencies – the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and National Arts Council (NAC) were interviewed regarding state policies on public art. The interviews were supplemented by government documents (plans, policies and ministerial speeches) detailing the state's evolving attitudes particularly towards graffiti and street art. A total of seven writers/artists were also interviewed on their involvement in both study sites between 2014 and 2015. The founding director of RSCLS, who played a pivotal role in the Rail Corridor, was also interviewed. Questions about regulation, curation and working with fellow artists were asked to better understand the process of and responses to state co-option. In 2018, the Brand Manager of The Singapura Club (an eatery featuring art works on its façade/side wall) was also interviewed for a business perspective. For confidentiality reasons, all the interview quotes in the paper are anonymized. Before proceeding to the empirics, two contextual issues in Singapore must be flagged. Firstly regarding art spaces, the Rail Corridor and Haji Lane are not the only sites where graffiti and street art have been permitted. Today, three other spaces have been approved by the NAC: Goodman Arts Centre, Aliwal Arts Centre and *Scape, a youth-oriented centre managed by a non-profit organization. Other earlier locations with legal graffiti include the Somerset skatepark, Bukit Batok Block 178 skatepark, the National Youth Council office, and The Substation. Graffiti has also been permitted in buildings slated for demolition, for example at Eminent Plaza in 2014 and The Mill in 2015. This study, however, is confined to the Rail Corridor and Haji Lane because of the highly experimental nature of wall curation in the
Our arts and culture have the potential to help us project Singapore's “soft power” in the global marketplace. The value of a country's national image can be an important contributor to foreign customers' purchasing decisions. Described as the halo effect, a high reputation in one area can create a halo for other attributes, giving a nation a perception advantage. (MITA, 2000, p. 35)
2 We should note that the sanctioned spaces for graffiti/street art in Singapore are either privately-owned and commercially-operated (e.g. Haji Lane walls), or state-owned and managed by government-linked agencies (e.g. *Scape). The lack of ‘truly free’ wall space is thus a key constraint for the practice of street art. I thank one of the reviewers for pointing this out. 3 I am grateful to one reviewer for suggesting the Public Sculptures Master plans and other policies and programmes in Singapore, that are reviewed in this section.
3
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
The definition of the arts was widened considerably with the Report of the Arts and Culture Strategic Review (NAC, 2012). Moving beyond sculptures, the Report advised that “activities that do not conform to common perceptions of arts and culture” such as community singing, drumming and getais (live performances during the annual Hungry Ghost Festival) should also be encouraged. Although graffiti and street art were not mentioned, the government advocated “an inclusive approach” which included novel locations for art activities (NAC, 2012, p. 8). Apart from museums and galleries, new locations were suggested including “upcoming spaces such as the old KTM railway corridor” (NAC, 2012, p. 36). This suggestion later evolved into Singapore's first curated graffiti walls along the Rail Corridor. At this point, we should take note of the Vandalism Act in Singapore (Chapter 341, Section 2aii, originally 1966). Revised in 2014, the Acts spells out vandalism as “writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing on any public property or private property any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing” without permission of an “authorised officer or representative of the Government” (Attorney-General's Chambers, 1966). The act also covers posters, advertisements and notices. Although no specific mention is made of art, the act is broad enough to define any form of illicit artistic works as vandalism. Permitted art works in Singapore have traditionally been sculptures and murals created by recognized artists, school students and resident committees. Most recently in 2013 and 2014, two government programs with direct implications on graffiti and street art were announced. The PubliCity program, launched as part of the URA's Draft Master Plan 2013, spoke of how public spaces may be made more inclusive with art. The Rail Corridor was again noted as a potential site. In 2014, the Public Art Trust (PAT) was set up by the NAC and two new spaces were introduced: “public spaces” and “practice spaces” for street art (PAT, undated). In public spaces, artists could propose what they like to draw and the NAC will match their proposals to site owners who had also applied for their walls to be used. ‘Practice spaces’, on the other hand, were six pre-chosen walls at Goodman and Aliwal Arts Centres, and *Scape, for which the NAC had already obtained prior permission. All the artists had to do was to propose their works to the individual centres for approval. A direct outcome of the PubliCity program was the designation of two blank walls along the Rail Corridor for artists. A multi-agency approach led by the NAC and URA, along with the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) approved the walls for graffiti and street art4 (Fig. 1) (URA, 2014). NAC's Director of Arts and Youth explained why this genre was approved:
Fig. 1. The Rail Corridor's art walls (note its location below a main road and walkway).
government remains resolutely against illegal tagging. The legislative approach to legalizing graffiti in select spaces helps to contain it from appearing elsewhere. This is an important reason for the Rail Corridor: The whole project started off because we realized there was a lot of graffiti there. Our definition of graffiti is something that pleases themselves [artists], so they were drawing things like “I love you” and they etched it at the bridge. It was very recent and it really upset us, so that is vandalism clearly. We thought why not have a proper space where people [who] want to do graffiti, they can do so freely? When we surveyed various sites, we noticed one had the most wall surface and it is not that visible, even though it is quite accessible. (Interview with URA, 24 October 2014) The selection of accessible yet “not that visible” walls (below a main road and walkway) highlights the government's strategic oversight on graffiti, particularly where it may appear and how it may be presented. Curation of the Rail Corridor was deemed necessary. Rather than a free-for-all approach, RSCLS a local art collective was offered a grant in 2014 to oversee activities on the Corridor walls. In addition to selecting the artists, RSCLS was also responsible for facilitating community participation through art jams. The choice of RSCLS was highly strategic. Its founding director was the first street artist to be awarded the government's Young Artist Award for significant contributions to culture in 2013. With his pedigree, the government felt it could entrust “ownership” of the space to him according to a URA officer,
Street artists and their work are an exciting part of Singapore's diverse and vibrant arts scene. We hope that by facilitating dedicated art spaces, like the one along the Rail Corridor, street artists can have the physical and artistic room to express themselves and practice their craft. This is critical to the development of the Singapore street art scene, which the Council will continue to support through grants, spaces and public engagement about the value of street art (URA, 2013; emphasis added).
RSCLS is like the leader for the street artists and they are quite established. When we went to them, they helped to disseminate the information [to other artists]. We wanted this space to be self-owned as well. Even though it is owned by the government, we wanted them to be able to take ownership of this space. We told them to take charge and they were keen to do so. Curation was also up to them, and everything was up to them to plan so long as they adhere to our terms of usage. (Interview with URA, 24 October 2014)
Recognizing the “value of street art” underscores the government's strategic intent. On the one hand street art can add to the cultural vibrancy of a world city; on the other hand giving artists “physical and artistic room” means that such works will be confined to designated walls rather than throughout the city. During an interview with a URA officer, she explained that the
Ownership, however, did not mean total freedom. As they were funded by the government, RSCLS had to abide by specific terms of use of the walls. These included prohibitions to: advocate lifestyles seen as objectionable by the general public; denigrate people on the basis of race or religion; and undermine the authority of public institutions (interview with NAC, 3 October 2014). The URA added that since the Rail Corridor is a “community space”, there should be “no vulgar themes” or “works that are too obscene” (interview with URA, 24 October 2014). The Rail Corridor project was also experimental and temporary. RSCLS had a two-year period to conduct its activities, which
4
Although graffiti and street art are distinct, both terms are used interchangeably here at the Rail Corridor because the government officers I had interviewed had done so. In the next section, at least one of the artists interviewed also used graffiti and street art as synonyms. The discussions thus acknowledge the views of the interviewees. 4
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
entrepreneurs have deployed wall art to good effect for purposes of advertisement and self-publicity. The commercialization of graffiti and street art cannot be more aptly captured. To conclude, worlding has different goals (worlding of objects and subjects) and operates at different scales (worlding from above and from below). By legalizing graffiti and street art, Singapore's goal is to infuse urban spaces with a myriad of works and project itself as a culturally vibrant and tolerant city. The worlding of the city and its urban walls (objects) is accompanied by the participation of artists, building owners and members of the public (subjects), all of whom are instrumental to the success of the project. Worlding also operates at different scales, with government plans representing strategies from above, and “regimes of subject-making” involving participation by RSCLS and artists as worlding from below (Roy, 2011). However, government oversight on what may be painted and where it can be done remain stark reminders that graffiti and street art are regulated and strategized, even as they are embraced. How artists feel about such state embracement is an issue we will now explore. Fig. 2. Street art along Haji Lane.
5. Art and worlding people: artists’ experiences if deemed successful by the URA and NAC, will lead to more walls being made available in the future. While the legislative approach emphasizes the legal obligations of artists, the creative approach underscores the benefits of art for the whole society. It is noted that while the government was strict on imposing rules of engagement for artists starting out at the Rail Corridor, works that have already been completed were viewed more sympathetically. Haji Lane offers a good example. Because most of its street art were drawn on buildings and back alleys before the 2013 PubliCity scheme and 2014 PAT plans were introduced, the URA had to inspect the works for retrogressive approval. In 2012, the URA had imposed strict color guidelines for shophouses in historic neighbourhoods. Buildings could only be painted in pastel colors, and any deviation (including art on buildings) had to be approved (Lim, 2012). The interview with URA revealed that the government took a less stringent stand in Haji Lane because the works here were extremely popular with the public (Fig. 2). Hence while the strict color guidelines remain a legislative constant, how the public perceives the art works plays a more important role in the government's stance. The importance of the “public eye” was emphasized by a URA officer:
The concept of post-graffiti (Dickens, 2008) captures the effects of legalization and subcultural embracement. Not all artists are affected in the same way by the changing policies. While some regarded the legalization of walls as government endorsement of their work, others felt disempowered by the process. Responding to the Rail Corridor plan, one artist noted that there were two types of reactions: For some, their main focus is just to vandalise, so they are against commissioned works because they feel this is going against graffiti. They are the purists, but we are the fun type, we need to earn money at the same time. So, when we get this kind of project, it can cover our bills while still allowing us to do what we love, so that's awesome. (Interview, 22 June 2014) An outcome of government embracement is therefore the division of the subculture into two groups: the ‘purists’ who are opposed to any form of co-option and the ‘pragmatists’ who welcome the policy changes. For the pragmatists, legal walls not only provide practice spaces, they also help artists reach out to the public. By working with the state rather than against it, RSCLS for example takes a pragmatic stance hoping that through government embracement, the negative stigma of graffiti and street art may be dispelled. Responding to URA's PubliCity program, an artist for example said: “Corridor space could be used to help educate the public about street art. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether the Government is involved or not. As long as it is on the street, it is street art” (cited in Feng, 2013). Such artists hope to continue drawing not only for themselves but also for the community. A sentiment like this is in line with the notion of post-graffiti artists who draw to be “appreciated rather than despised”, creating works that “directly engage with urban audiences” rather than to turn them off (Dickens, 2008, p. 474). The state's avowal of graffiti and street artists, however, runs the risk of fracturing the subculture. While some artists and groups like RSCLS open themselves to the policy changes, others are disdainful of the process as well as those who succumb to it. Legislative and creative approaches cannot satisfy everybody as some artists feel constrained working under a system of state patronage and private commission. Embracive programs like Denver's Artway, for example, have thus been viewed as government “soft control” and a “p.r. scheme” (Ferrell, 1993, p. 131). The same sentiments have appeared in Singapore. The pragmatists and purists stand on opposite sides of the ideological divide regarding legal art. To those opposed to subcultural embrace, legalized works lack ‘street cred’. Hence while such works might appeal to the public, they are dismissed by the purists as wall decoration. An artist thus spoke of her dismay of state policy and the works
Sometimes we just close one eye. Even the Haji Lane works, so long as the owners are okay and we don't get any complaints from the public, it is okay. They have to follow certain guidelines, but for some buildings that have been around for a while, and they are painted, we tend to close one eye unless the public starts to complain, then we will come in and enforce. The public eye is usually what alerts us to these buildings. (Interview with URA, 24 October 2014) Instead of strict adherence to the letter of the law, therefore, the spirit of the law is accommodated through public receptivity of the works. Before we end, it would be helpful to briefly mention how business owners at Haji Lane feel about the wall art. It is noted that all the works here are commissioned and hence, strategically business-appropriate. The Blu Jaz Café, for example, is painted in shades of blue while at Piedra Nega (a Mexican bar), colourful Aztec-inspired designs dominate. Similarly the Brand Manager at The Singapura Club acknowledged that the paintings of multi-ethnic people on its exterior walls are a reflection of ‘Singapura’ (old name of Singapore) and an advertisement of its Chinese and Indian food in the restaurant (Interview, 11 December 2018). An estimate of 100–200 photographs are also taken of the art every day, providing unexpected but much welcomed publicity (Said, 2016). Just as government policies have been strategic in using public art to market Singapore's cultural status, likewise savvy 5
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
on the wall. There's more to graffiti than painting; it's about interacting with each other, it's like family. (Interview, 22 June 2014)
resulting from it: Originally street art is at worst vandalism. And now it has been coopted and I have negative feelings about it … publicly sanctioned street art has no power at all, because it is just mural decoration and there is nothing that connects it to the street. It is about the decoration of frontage …. Personally I think it is good for the public, it adds interest. It is not interesting for me as an artist as I feel it doesn't add anything to the discussion and it doesn't change the way I think about that space. (Interview, 12 September 2014)
A sense of family and familiarity between the state and artists has yet to emerge. Because policy changes permitting graffiti and street art have only been recent (since 2014), many artists remain wary of the government's intent. As harsh punishments continue to be meted out to vandals and trespassers, including the incidents featuring Or and Dia noted at the start of the paper, many artists remain concerned about crossing the line between legal and illegal works. Such a concern, according to the founder of RSCLS, has affected even the way artists work on sanctioned walls. For example, when RSCLS invited overseas artists to paint at the Rail Corridor in 2014, even the most “hardcore artists” tamed their works for fear of transgressing the law (Interview, 6 August 2014). The culture of fear will only diminish as more legal walls are made available. In conclusion, when Ong (2011) spoke of worlding projects as emergent ideas for cities, what constitutes a ‘good idea’ differs across the state and artists. While the government embarks on urban projects, it is often to remedy a problem or to make things better for the city and its people. The economic development of a place and the social progress of its people are its key goals. On the other hand, artists are more concerned about creativity and freedom of expression. Rather than make a mark on the world, their focus is on improving the life-world of artists. In a television documentary, RSCLS founder expressed a “sense of responsibility to the grassroots” and his desire to be a “role model” for young artists. In his words, “I'm not here to change the world …. I'm here to change the immediate spaces around me” (Channel News Asia, 2 March 2014). For him, legal walls are intended to serve artistic and individualistic goals rather than national agendas of worlding and global city making. The rift between the government and artists cannot be more eloquently expressed.
Anti-establishment artists reject any form of societal co-option whereas those wishing to beautify the environment welcome the opportunity. In the words of the same artist above: “coming from the POV [point of view] of an artist, the question for us is whether these rules affect the way and mindset in which we make art. If it is made for an almost publicly sanctioned purpose and we kind of fall into that, I think it really dilutes the purpose of what we do” (interview, 12 September 2014). The purists thus view the pragmatists as prey to state agendas rather than free and independent. Another interviewee similarly reflected that while artists once drew out of rebellion, many today do so for commercial reasons (e.g. commissioned work) or public acclaim (e.g. social media publicity). The government's embrace has worsened the situation, dividing the subculture more than before. Dismissing those who draw on state-sanctioned walls as tamed zoo tigers, the artist opined: … it is this spirit of rebellion and an urge to express oneself in an unauthorised manner which drives an artist to push his [sic] limits …. In the 90s, we painted on walls as a form of expression and we didn't think that any form of commerce can come out of it. [The] street artist now does a mural and posts it on social media, so the whole nature of unauthorised murals has changed. There are sanctioned walls but I do not have the urge to express myself there ever. The only sanctioned walls are commissioned murals. It is a great space that the authorities created, almost like a zoo to display all the tigers. (Interview, 10 September 2014)
6. Conclusion … like everything else, once the counter culture becomes mass, and widely accepted, it no longer becomes cool and loses its edge. That is what I feel is happening to graffiti in Singapore. (Artist interview, 10 September 2014)
When asked whether he continues to draw illicitly, he explained that many do so in secret locations (which he did not divulge) and abroad where rules are less strict. There are also other artists who draw on sanctioned walls even as they continue to do illicit works on the quiet. Rather than strictly purist or pragmatist, there are therefore multiple artist subjectivities emerging from responses to government plans. These flexible identities confound the legal/illegal and art/crime divides that authorities often impose on artists. The tension between the authorities and artists is also evident in the way that each group defines ‘support’. While government planners regard support in terms of legal and legislative provisions (e.g. setting aside walls for art, authorization of works on historic buildings), some artists feel that support can be better rendered through more personal ways. This distinction became clear during my interviews with government officers and artists. For example, while a URA officer explained that government officers refrained from visiting the Rail Corridor for fear of creating concern among artists, an artist expressed the opposite when he lamented that government officers should attend street art events more regularly as a means of support. Having government presence is the best proof of endorsement:
This paper began with Or and Dia, two self-proclaimed artists whose works in Singapore's residential spaces were dismantled by the government. It ends on a semi-sweet note when in January–March 2018, Mr. Or was granted space to re-install his ‘tower’ of toys and figurines in Chong Pang Community Club. In resurrecting the tower, Or “toned down his trademark cheeky style … to suit a wider audience”, doing away with topless dolls and smoking Buddhas (The Straits Times, 2018). He explained: “The authorities told me I can't use deities because people from different religions will be at the CCs”. In 2019, Dia was also nominated as a finalist for the IMPART Art Award, which recognises emerging talent in visual arts in Singapore.5 Official recognition of Or and Dia, a year or two after their first brush with the law, offers a perspective on the embracement of subcultural forms by the state and the possible consequences of such embracement. In this conclusion, three avenues are sketched of ways in which we might better understand the evolution of subcultures under contexts of urban worlding. Firstly in considering how and why subcultures evolve, we must differentiate between evolution that is externally imposed and internally generated. This paper has highlighted the former as government plans and policies in Singapore are changed to accommodate
When we ask for support, we are asking for genuine support from the heart. When we have events like this [art jam] we want people to come, to appreciate us. In other countries, people come up and talk to you about the work, and not just about financial or spatial support. When they support their artists, the ambassador of France actually sponsored their artists to go all over the world to paint. In Singapore, we don't see any ambassador coming to our events or talking to us. We want that kind of human-to-human interaction. When we talk about graffiti, it's not just about painting our own stuff
5
The IMPART Awards are organized by Art Outreach, an educational nonprofit organization set up in 2003. Art Outreach was granted Institute of Public Character status under the government's National Arts Councilʼs “Support for the Arts” Central Fund in February 2004 (http://www.artoutreachsingapore. org/). 6
City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxxx
T.C. Chang
new art forms befitting a ‘Renaissance City for the Arts’. Artists' responses to these changes have been varied, with some hesitating to participate and others viewing it as an endorsement of their work. An art collective RSCLS was also government-funded to curate two walls along the Rail Corridor. The multiple responses reveal a subcultural divide as artists adopt different ideological positions in response to the legalization process. The division between the purists and pragmatists is one manifestation of this subcultural rift. A second avenue to understand subcultural evolution is to acknowledge the dual approaches under which legalized art comes to be. The legislative approach legalizes works with the main purpose of diverting writers from illicit activities to permissible works, while the creative approach de-criminalizes illicit art and re-brands them as symbols of urban cool. World cities often incorporate both approaches in a dual-pronged strategy of capturing and channelling creativity for public ‘good’. McAuliffe (2012) similarly speaks of legal walls as a “dual valuation” of art. Not only are graffiti and street art valued for their transgressive and innovative spirit, they are also embraced for what they can bring to a post-industrial economy by way of tourism and creative businesses. Hence under conditions of urban worlding, graffiti and street art are “simultaneously ‘good’ and ‘bad’ … both productive and destructive” (McAuliffe, 2012, p. 203). A final avenue compels us to appreciate the “entanglements of the aesthetic and political realms” in subcultural embracement (Pan, 2014, p. 150). This study has shown that art is not just about aesthetics but also issues of urban identity, place making and claims to space. The evolution and fate of subcultures is very much, therefore, a metaphor of how minority groups are embraced or marginalized in global cities. Different cities have their own rules regarding the use of space, and punishments for abuse of public property. How subcultural artists negotiate these rules while also challenging and transforming them to their own benefit are topics worthy of further scholarly consideration.
37(1), 1–18. Dickens, L. (2008). Placing post-graffiti: The journey of the peckham rock’. Cultural Geographies, 15, 471–496. Dovey, K., Woolan, S., & Woodcock, I. (2012). Placing graffiti: Creating and contesting character in inner-city Melbourne. Journal of Urban Design, 17(1), 21–41. Ellsworth-Jones, W. (2012). Banksy. The man behind the wall. New York: St Martin’s Press. Feng, Z. (2013). Street artists get two walls along Rail Corridor as canvas. The Straits Times. 26 December, 2013 http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/street-artists-get-twowalls-along-rail-corridor-canvas Accessed 10.10.14 . Ferrell, J. (1993). Crimes of style. Urban graffiti and the politics of criminality. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc. Kramer, R. (2010). Painting with permission legal graffiti in New York City. Ethnography, 11(2), 235–253. Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban graffiti as territorial markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64(4), 491–505. Lim, J. (2012). Such graffiti allowed on selected conserved shophouses on case-by-case basis. The Straits Times 28 September 2012, page unknown. Lombard, K. J. (2013). Art crimes: The governance of hip hop graffiti. Journal for Cultural Research, 17(3), 255–278. Lu, P. (2014). Who is occupying wall and street: Graffiti and urban spatial politics in contemporary China. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 28(1), 136–153. MacDowall, L. (2006). In praise of 70K: Cultural heritage and graffiti style, continuum. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 20(4), 471–484. McAuliffe, C. (2012). Graffiti or street art? Negotiating the moral geographies of the creative city. Journal of Urban Affairs. The Journal of the Urban Affairs Association, 34(2), 189–206. McAuliffe, C., & Iveson, K. (2011). Art and crime (and other things besides…): Conceptualising graffiti in the city. Geography Compass, 5, 128–143. MITA (2000). Renaissance city report. Culture and the arts in Renaissance SingaporeSingapore: Ministry of Information and the Arts. MITA (2002). Speech by minister for national development on the launch of the public sculptures masterplan 2002. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/viewhtml?filename=2002092004.htm, Accessed date: 1 December 2018. NAC (2012). Report of the arts and culture strategic reviewSingapore: National Arts Council. Ong, A. (2011). Introduction: Worlding cities, or the art of being global. In R. Ananya, & A. Ong (Eds.). Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons. Pan, L. (2014). Who is occupying wall and street: Graffiti and urban spatial politics in contemporary China. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 28(1), 136–153. PAT (undated) Public art Trust. https://www.publicarttrust.sg/Home, Accessed date: 1 December 2018. Roy, A. (2011). Postcolonial urbanism: Speed, hysteria, mass dreams. In A. Roy, & A. Ong (Eds.). Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Roy, A., & Ong, A. (2011). Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Said, N. (2016). Murals spread colourful cheer to businesses and HDB estates. https://www. straitstimes.com/lifestyle/murals-murals-everywhere, Accessed date: 15 December 2018. Tan, A. (2017). It's art, it's not. The Straits TimesA6. The Straits Times. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/yishun-retiree-or-beng-kooiinvited-to-create-and-exhibit-his-latest-toy-tower-at-chong 25 February 2018. URA (1991). Public sculptures masterplan. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority. URA (2002). Public sculptures masterplan. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority. URA. New independent space for street art as part of the Rail Corridor experience. (2013). http://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/media-room/news/2013/dec/pr13-88.aspx Accessed 19.11.17. URA. Street art comes alive at the Rail corridor, skyline, June/July 2014. (2014). https:// www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyline14/skyline14-01/article-09.html Accessed 19.11.17. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety, 249, Atlantic Monthly29–38. Young, A. (2014). Street art, public city. Abingdon: Routledge. Zaccheus, M. (2017). ‘Artistic’ tower of items at HDB void deck trashed. The Straits TimesB10.
Acknowledgements I wish to thank the National University of Singapore for funding the research project from which this paper is derived (HDRSS R-109-000198-101). References Attorney-General’s Chambers (1966). Singapore statues online. http://sso.agc.gov.sg, Accessed date: 2 May 2019. Chang, T. C. (2016). ‘New uses need old buildings’: Gentrification aesthetics and the arts in Singapore. Urban Studies, 53(3), 524–539. Channel News Asia (2014). Art off the walls, telecast on 2 March 2014. Courage, C. (2017). Arts in place. The arts, the urban and social practice. London and New York: Routledge. Creswell, T. (1996). place/out of place. Geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Daskalaki, M., & Mould, O. (2013). Beyond urban subcultures: Urban subversions as rhizomatic social formations. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
7