Hit hard and I feel like this is one of the things I'm going to have to come back to and read a few times - from anecdotes to tidbits of history to arts vs policy to just a reminder for myself to not give up!! Thank you for this Xue
thanks for writing this, it was a pleasure to read. could i ask how you think institutions like the state should measure "success" or "progress" for the arts industry -- given that output-oriented KPIs aren't good enough? i agree that focusing on output in the arts leaves a lot to be desired...but what would a process-oriented KPI actually look like? would love to hear your thoughts.
100% agree. I think your framing makes sense. And I think we all know this to some extent. So I wonder in this case of “the odds are stacked against us” how do artists talk to / reach “the state” with their needs and desires if the system is unlikely to change. I also don’t quite know what the appropriate channels are myself. Since they don’t seem to be extended to artists accessibly.
But yes I think arts could be regarded as/or put in the bracket of state welfare perhaps or a human right then perhaps the conditions will get better? However I actually think that Singapore does prioritize the arts as bettering society as seen by a lot of family friendly / children’s art. However the issue here is that only *some art is worth giving those resources too and those that are seen as a threat aka experimental art is punished or made obsolete.
Hey thanks for this, I wonder if every project could have a designated on-the-ground person — someone with the right expertise and genuine open-mindedness — to track progress, iron out or identify any red flags or blind spots on the project and facilitate real dialogue from the ground up. That person would help develop metrics based on the shared goals of both the project and the institution. This perhaps to a certain extent reflects the role or additional contribution of a good producer / curator or dramaturg but those roles also have other objectives.
An alternative worth considering: let the artist decide their own KPIs entirely. Because it's not the KPIs that affect the project — but what actually holds value.
So perhaps the state's real job isn't to impose a general metric scale, but to fund and train the human infrastructure (the on-the-ground person) and the reflective culture that makes metrics actually meaningful and useful.
thanks for your thoughtful response. i think the overarching challenge in your vision would be to have a state apparatus which treats art as a public good, and makes it part of its mandate to develop the "human infrastructure" like you envision. as of now, the state views art as an output of the creative economy, and hence state funding goes towards small creative business, the operative word being businesses. hence the application of these KPIs. the state inherently views the arts as part of the larger economy, and the contribution of these small businesses is that they stimulate the economy through consumption. this commodifies the work that artists do, to differing levels of success.
this is why there is a need for creatives to justify why they should have access to taxpayers' money -- you as the artist are justifying the tradeoffs which the state is making (this money could go into other parts of the budget). if enough people do not consume the artists' output, it's difficult to justify this allocation of resources to the artist -- this is a feature of the mechanism.
right now the state's goals are twofold -- 1) to hold onto power and 2) increase the welfare of the people it governs. right now, the issues you identified regarding censorship stem from the incumbent's treatment of cultural policy as a vehicle for constructing a myth of the singaporean nation state. this does little for the second aim above but is quite instrumental for the first (not commenting on whether this nation state myth is effective, in my view, it's a waste of resources, but that's a whole other conversation).
if we can shift the goal of art (as viewed by the state) towards #2, then i think what you envision is possible. if the state can view artistic appreciation and embedding arts into public infrastructure as a part of human dignity, then what you are suggesting will be much easier.
Hit hard and I feel like this is one of the things I'm going to have to come back to and read a few times - from anecdotes to tidbits of history to arts vs policy to just a reminder for myself to not give up!! Thank you for this Xue
thanks for writing this, it was a pleasure to read. could i ask how you think institutions like the state should measure "success" or "progress" for the arts industry -- given that output-oriented KPIs aren't good enough? i agree that focusing on output in the arts leaves a lot to be desired...but what would a process-oriented KPI actually look like? would love to hear your thoughts.
100% agree. I think your framing makes sense. And I think we all know this to some extent. So I wonder in this case of “the odds are stacked against us” how do artists talk to / reach “the state” with their needs and desires if the system is unlikely to change. I also don’t quite know what the appropriate channels are myself. Since they don’t seem to be extended to artists accessibly.
But yes I think arts could be regarded as/or put in the bracket of state welfare perhaps or a human right then perhaps the conditions will get better? However I actually think that Singapore does prioritize the arts as bettering society as seen by a lot of family friendly / children’s art. However the issue here is that only *some art is worth giving those resources too and those that are seen as a threat aka experimental art is punished or made obsolete.
Hey thanks for this, I wonder if every project could have a designated on-the-ground person — someone with the right expertise and genuine open-mindedness — to track progress, iron out or identify any red flags or blind spots on the project and facilitate real dialogue from the ground up. That person would help develop metrics based on the shared goals of both the project and the institution. This perhaps to a certain extent reflects the role or additional contribution of a good producer / curator or dramaturg but those roles also have other objectives.
An alternative worth considering: let the artist decide their own KPIs entirely. Because it's not the KPIs that affect the project — but what actually holds value.
So perhaps the state's real job isn't to impose a general metric scale, but to fund and train the human infrastructure (the on-the-ground person) and the reflective culture that makes metrics actually meaningful and useful.
thanks for your thoughtful response. i think the overarching challenge in your vision would be to have a state apparatus which treats art as a public good, and makes it part of its mandate to develop the "human infrastructure" like you envision. as of now, the state views art as an output of the creative economy, and hence state funding goes towards small creative business, the operative word being businesses. hence the application of these KPIs. the state inherently views the arts as part of the larger economy, and the contribution of these small businesses is that they stimulate the economy through consumption. this commodifies the work that artists do, to differing levels of success.
this is why there is a need for creatives to justify why they should have access to taxpayers' money -- you as the artist are justifying the tradeoffs which the state is making (this money could go into other parts of the budget). if enough people do not consume the artists' output, it's difficult to justify this allocation of resources to the artist -- this is a feature of the mechanism.
right now the state's goals are twofold -- 1) to hold onto power and 2) increase the welfare of the people it governs. right now, the issues you identified regarding censorship stem from the incumbent's treatment of cultural policy as a vehicle for constructing a myth of the singaporean nation state. this does little for the second aim above but is quite instrumental for the first (not commenting on whether this nation state myth is effective, in my view, it's a waste of resources, but that's a whole other conversation).
if we can shift the goal of art (as viewed by the state) towards #2, then i think what you envision is possible. if the state can view artistic appreciation and embedding arts into public infrastructure as a part of human dignity, then what you are suggesting will be much easier.