http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/04/vandalism-cenotaph-tocs-statement/
This vandalism really brought questions to my mind. Is this art or prank? The resident alternative view point website The Online Citizen seems to feel that this is not funny, after all this is war we are talking about.
Graffiti is not tolerated in Singapore. A wall can be quickly painted over when there're unwelcomed intrusions. Sometimes I wonder if my town council has spare paint of all shades in reserve so they can easily whip something out in events such as these.
In any case, the graffiti in this case is quite unique. Instead of the usual "suck ass" or "fuck you" quotes, this simply wrote "Democracy". I find it quite poignant, because these people who fought for the freedom of Singapore against the Japanese and invaders who wanted to take over because of the abundance of resources and strategic position that Singapore was in. It was seen as a fight against the oppressors, and indeed, while the British colonisers did lose to the Japanese in WWII, from an embarrassing attempt since the Japanese cycled from Malaya instead of coming up from Sentosa as the British predicted. Well, the running joke is that we were attacked from our buttocks.
I digress.
The problem with graffiti, is that it is out of place, and therefore not welcomed. After all, most Singaporeans find that it is "unsightly", and not "pretty". However the point of graffiti is not about aesthetics, although there are some very beautiful works. The issue here is that it is a form of intrusion, it is meant to be. This attempt on the war memorial, is not about disrespecting the dead, but to remind us why we fight and what are the stakes of freedom. To recall, we were colonised by the British, and there were also injustices upon us, but why is they glorified while our malay forefathers wiped off from the landscapes of our little island? Where are the sultans? Where are the cenotaphs to commenmorate the lost of Singapore to the British? Is colonialism really that good?
I hope to bring questions rather than answers, to bring doubt rather than judgement to this incident.
America has an evolving relationship with graffiti. When I was a kid, it was a symbol of punk rebellion-- mindless, immature, rebels without a clue who defaced property to scratch an itch a self-respecting person would've dealt with more intelligently. Graffiti was simple vandalism. Over time, a type of graffiti "artist" emerged, and some of them produced paintings that were, if not great art, at least easy on the eyes and interesting to look at. Along with these came "taggers," graffiti artists more interested in personal fame, who would "tag" objects with an embellished, stylized signature.
ReplyDeleteVictims of graffiti vandalism developed two deterrent approaches. The first was practical but boorish. High schools, such as the new one I first attended in the 1980s, sported stone walls with rough, unpainted edges that could be easily and repeatedly sandblasted to destroy graffiti. More interestingly, starting perhaps in the 21st centuries, shopkeepers and businesses with conspicuously blank walls that would make for potential graffiti canvases paid artists to cover them with elaborate, colorful murals. Some of these are quite beautiful and even inspiring. Needless to say, a graffiti vandal would have to admit that they had no respect for beauty if they were to assault them, so they seldom do. I'll have to post some pictures of local murals.
Yeah the culture of "tagging" and graffiti is unheard of here, due to strict laws against what is seen as "vandalism" and the police's persecution of it. In any case, the problem with the above is that the vandal's acts can also be seen as a political one. I am not sure how others see it, but I think it's rather befitting in light of the recent events of the arrest of a political cartoonist Leslie Chew.
Delete