Một cách nhìn về phê bình mỹ thuật Việt Nam

lusion that "what is needed most in Vietnam are critics of theories, 
methodology and culture" (24.11.02). 
A static way of approaching the subject of contemporary art in Vietnam 
is typical for other genres as well: books, catalog essays, art magazines 
or newspaper articles. It's probably time to change the publishing 
concept and move from books which don't contain any texts except for 
short introductions with hundreds of pages of bad reproductions of 
mediocre works to those which provide the reader with relevant 
information on the subject. There are perhaps only two books to date 
which provide a broader view of the contemporary Vietnamese art 
scene: "Young artists of Vietnam" by Pham Cam Thuong and Luong 
Xuan Doan [1] with its attempt at a sociological analysis of the nature 
of artistic creativity, and "New Vietnamese Art in the 90s " by Bui Nhu 
Huong and Tran Hau Tuan [2] which classifies contemporary 
Vietnamese art according to styles and trends. 
Nobody argues that catalogs are not the right place for criticism, but 
Vietnamese catalog essays are mostly written in the same manner - 
sickly-sweet praise without a profound analytic regard of the artist's 
work. It is difficult to find enthusiastic, simple and personal writings 
like Le Corbusier's on Gaudí [3] or a totally different way of presenting 
the artist's work like Carlos Franqui's writings about Jorge Camacho - 
highly poetical yet reflecting, in chopped phrases, all relevant aspects: 
The artist's national identity and mentality, his involvement with 
surrealism and the nature as well as source of his work - Cuba. ("Cuba 
is known as a surrealist country. Subversion and freedom. The rumba's 
struggle against bureaucracy. Negro rhythm. Dancing death. Sadistic 
and masochistic torture. The box that imprisons, the freedom that 
illuminates. Draws. The murdered memory appears. The unconscious 
can be seen. The surreal turns into painting. To draw is to follow paths. 
To draw is to walk along dancing. To recognize ourselves. To discover 
ourselves. To be. To remain" [4] Among Vietnamese catalogue 
essays it's rare to find one which would be philosophically deep or 
naively moving - only highly decorative and pathetic. Perhaps Bui 
Quang Ngoc is right when he talks about a lack of artistic sensibilities 
in creative art writing in contemporary Vietnam (17.12.02). 
Art criticism in specialized magazines is mainly descriptive, not 
problematic, not conceptual and without passionate presentation. At the 
same time, one may pose the question: How analytic can an exhibition 
review be when featuring shows entitled "A year of the 
Horse/Mouse/Pig etc.", "Flowers", "Spring Exhibition", "Women's 
Exhibition" or even "Contemporary Concept", "Artists from 25 to 35", 
"Artists from 35 to 45", "Artists from 45 to 55"? The last three 
exhibitions were held at the Hanoi Contemporary Art Center over the 
last two years and we can easily predict the title of the next one. 
Compare, for example, the titles of exhibitions in other Asian countries: 
"Alter ego", "Imagining Selves", "Landmarks", 'Not be a Puppet", 
"Dilemma", "Story of the I". Do artists provide the critics with enough 
interesting material to dig into? Are there enough profound issues in 
Vietnamese contemporary art to be discovered and discussed? This is 
the other side of the problem. 
One can also see that Vietnamese art criticism in general is not critical 
at all. In those rare cases where the author touches upon controversial 
topics, negative phenomena or trends, usually no names are given. It's 
not in the Vietnamese tradition to offend people publicly, especially in 
writing, even if criticism has a positive perspective. There are no 
discussions or controversies on art in the press, a vestige from the times 
when unity of views had been inviolable. At a workshop on criticism 
organized in January 2003 by the Goethe Institute in Hanoi in 
conjunction with a big German installation exhibition QUOBO, some 
Vietnamese art critics tried to justify the absence of exciting critical 
writing by censorship and explained that the Western public doesn't 
know about good Vietnamese critics because of the language barrier. I 
can't agree with these arguments. My own very critical speech at a 
conference organized by the Hanoi Art Research Institute in 2000 had 
been published in numerous magazines and newspapers without any 
changes to the original text, and there are some other examples of a free 
atmosphere for criticism - the appearance of some articles which do not 
reflect the official ideology in "Van Hoa Nghe Thuat". Why not to try 
to step over the admissible borderline? They may exists only in our 
heads, since we have become accostumed to restrictions which are 
actually part of the past. And the language barrier is not a real obstacle 
- if there were outstanding writing in Vietnamese, it would get noticed 
and translated. with critics and the nature of the texts 
In art journalism the situation is even worse. The level of writing is 
usually very low (there are always exceptions, of course). Curious to 
know how it is in other Asian countries, I asked some critics in the 
region. Their answer demonstrates that the situation varies considerably 
throughout Southeast Asia, depending on the critics and the nature of 
the texts. Iola Lenzi, a Singapore-based curator, art writer and critic for 
the Art Asia Pacific and Asian Art News magazines, writes that "in 
Singapore, few people are aware of the distinction between a critic and 
an art journalist and most 'art reporting' is in fact written by journalists 
who know very little or nothing about art. Most art journalism here is 
either purely descriptive, or even worse, written completely from a 
poorly drafted press release because the journalist does not visit the 
exhibition he is writing about. Here in Singapore there are a few 
exceptions but real critics tend to write for foreign periodicals rather 
than local ones so that the public has little opportunity to compare poor 
writers with better ones". 
Lenzi and the Thai critic Thanom Chapakde both say that the situation 
is better in Thailand where the press enjoys more freedom than in 
Singapore and, as a result, newspapers such as the Bangkok Post 
assume critical role in day-to-day political and social discourse. This 
approach extends to the art scene and often one can see articles of 
international standard that raise questions and evaluate art on several 
levels. 
In Indonesia there are also a number of respected critics who are active 
in the 'scene'. According to critics, in this country with a long history of 
indigenous art, art is generally understood and recognized by the 
population at large, and a vibrant and politically provocative art scene 
in Indonesia stimulates articulate critical views. 
In India, art criticism is a British colonial import and has been known 
for 150 years. British writing has stimulated art criticism in the regional 
languages since the 19th century. Going through the tensions of 
colonialism and nationalism, through debates on national values and 
modernity, through different theories, concepts, group manifestos, 
Indian criticism has reached the level where the polarities of 
internationalism and indigenism are no longer in conflict [5]. 
Generally, Indian art criticism, with its long and dramatically 
developing tradition, is one of the most respected and strongest in Asia. 
Meanwhile, some critics and curators highlight that there is a lack of 
good critics and curators in Asia, since this tradition has been more 
strongly developed in the West. 
From this brief survey of Asian art criticism one can conclude that 
criticism is flourishing in the politically less restricted countries. On the 
other hand, isnt't there more art and culture to discuss? An artist friend 
who looked through my writing assumed that differences in 
Vietnamese criticism are avoided or minimized in the name of social 
harmony. I wonder whether it actually continues to do so in the post-
doi-moi era. Is a strategy of 'saving face' in criticism an official line or 
is it a sign of notorious self-censorship, the same as in producing art? 
Meanwhile, many Western critics and artists complain that in their 
countries real art criticism is getting replaced by art journalism as a 
result of marketing policies in the intellectual field, and that the 
selection of publications in many Western art magazines is not free 
anymore but depends on the power of certain advertisers. Are there 
many Asian international magazines where this is not the case? 
In closing, I don't intend to provide conclusions. I suppose that the 
great number of problems and questions of Vietnamese art criticism are 
still open-ended. How do art and culture interact in modern Vietnamese 
society? Can art criticism ignore the historical changes and social 
forces? Can modern art criticism break away from bland conventional 
aesthetics? Do Vietnamese art critics possess the tools with which to 
critique? Why do we continue to exclude from art writings the ethical 
examination of art? Does contemporary art criticism have any didactic 
effect? These and dozens of other questions await comprehension, 
study and discussion. Why not in "Van Hoa Nghe Thuat" or the new " 
Nghien Cuu My Thuat"? 
© 2003 talawas 
[1] Pham Cam Thuong, Luong Xuan Doan. Young artists of Vietnam. 
Fine Arts Publishing House, Hanoi 1996. 
[2] Bui Nhu Huong, Tran Hau Tuan. New Vietnamese art in the 1990s. 
Fine Arts Publishing House, Hanoi 2001. 
[3] Gaudi. Text of Le Corbusier. Ediciones Poligrafa, Barcelona 1967. 
[4] Carlos Franqui. Jorge Camacho. Ediciones Poligrafa, Barcelona 
1979. 
[5] Gayatri Sinha. Art criticism in India - A brief Overview. Paper for 
the AICA, The Tate Modern 2000.