Robert Leonard talks with Gina Fairley, Jacqueline Millner, David Teh, and Lee Weng Choy about the 6th Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art (APT6).
It’s like he wants us to be liked by everyone. I mean, Led Zeppelin didn’t write tunes everybody liked. They left that to the Bee Gees. Wayne Campbell
It’s like he wants us to be liked by everyone. I mean, Led Zeppelin didn’t write tunes everybody liked. They left that to the Bee Gees.
Wayne Campbell
Robert Leonard: With its spectacular, crowd-pleasing, interactive, G-rated exhibits, its reggae concerts, and ‘happy robot’ kids’ art activities, APT6 clearly embodies a post-critical turn in art and museology. Do you think that, in this form, the APT is still doing important work with contemporary art? And if not, what is left for a ‘critical’ APT to do?
Gina Fairley: The APT redefined itself in 2006 with the opening of the Gallery of Modern Art (GoMA). APT5 reportedly drew 700,000 visits—more than the four previous APTs combined. While that redefinition may connect with a global post-critical shift, it was largely brokered on local conditions. Deputy-Director Lynne Seear admits the Gallery is ‘very audience focused’, and it’s hard to argue against an exhibition that engages so many people. But I’m concerned that the need to sustain massive attendance figures taints curatorial decision-making, leaving little room for the prickly irreverence of critical enquiry or a more probing cross-cultural dialogue.
David Teh: The APT situates itself at the interface of two shifting spheres: the once nascent, now extensive stage for Asian contemporary art and, as Gina says, an ascendant, more parochial public culture. Sure, APT can still do important work, but does it work for the artists or for the taxpayers? I’d like to think it could work for both, but at this scale I can’t see how. There may be plenty left for a ‘critical’ APT to do, but there can be little motivation to lead that horse to... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline