The Orange Grove

Art and Politics

Vietnamese paintings create a public clamor at Bowers Museum

By LAN QUOC NGUYEN, ESQ.

The Bowers Museum's exhibition of art works from Vietnam may falsely present the nature of art from a country that does not tolerate freedom of expression. ["Is it art or politics?", News, June 21] The Vietnamese-American Community objects to the display, which opens Saturday, not for what it shows, but for what it does not show. When purchasing a pair of shoes, one may want to know where those items came from or how they were made. It is the same case for art.

Twenty years ago, as a junior high school student in Vietnam, I was prohibited from singing songs that were publicized before the fall of Saigon in April 1975. In school, we often secretly exchanged children's story books which were popular before 1975 but outlawed by the new revolutionary regime.  If caught, one may earn a mark of "clinging to anti-revolutionary ideas" in school records.

At the same time, we were required to read state-published children's newspapers and demonstrate proof of completion  in weekly group or individual self-criticism sessions.  Failure to do so may be grounds for an entry in school records which would read something like "Failure to demonstrate revolutionary spirits."  In a wall paper contest, my very own teacher yanked out a center piece drawing on the paper on the eve of the contest because he thought the picture looked like "Uncle Ho riding a cyclos."  We lost the contest, of course, but we had already lost the very essence of our being to begin with, the right of children to express ourselves.

At the same time in the adult world, it was commonplace that most of the artists from pre-1975 were banned from engaging in their trade unless they succumbed to the "revolutionary spirits" and had their works sanctioned by the state.  Many artists were imprisoned in "re-education camps" for years to answer about the works they produced before the change of regime.

All art works generated after 1975 must comply with the revolutionary criteria and be approved by the censorship agencies installed at all levels of the government structure. In short, all art forms must be used to further the causes of the people and the state.

Twenty years later, those phenomena are still accepted as "ways of life" for the people in Vietnam.  Today, all literary works in any medium must be inspected and approved by the Information and Culture Bureau on entry or exit from Vietnam.

The entire Internet network in Vietnam is isolated from the rest of the world with a firewall which screens all messages or materials traveling in and out of the country.  No art can be displayed in public unless approved by the state. Section 99 of the Vietnamese Penal Code provides that circulation of objectionable cultural materials is a crime punishable by prison sentences ranging from six months to twelve years. In such a controlled environment, no person can expect to have freedom of expression in any meaningful way.

It is perfectly within the rights of the American public to enjoy the art works from Vietnam, as they did when they abandoned the Vietnamese people during the Vietnam War and looked the other way to the onslaught of the southern people by the northern invading army. But the Vietnamese people who lived and suffered at the hands of the communist regime cannot help but see only the suppression of freedom of expression and the suffering of the artist community which still continues today.

The Bowers Museum contends that this exhibit is about art which is apolitical.  But in Vietnam, art is a major instrument used by the government to further its political message.  The proposed display, even without any political connotation, can very well be used to show to the outside world that there is genuine art in Vietnam and that the people do have freedom of expression.

The museum argued more than once that it had complete freedom in selecting the art works and there was no interference by the state.  But such freedom is not relevant if the art works are selected from the officially available pool.  Not only that, the selected works may be allowed to exit Vietnam for display abroad solely to convey the false image that there is freedom of expression in Vietnam.

The exhibit proponents insist that a cultural exchange such as this exhibit is a first step in the positive direction to promote understanding among various communities from different political spectrum. Such a novel concept is misguided when the exchange only goes one way and art works from the overseas communities are still prohibited from entering Vietnam.

Should the Vietnamese-American community forget the past and get on with the future?  How can they forget when the suppression of freedom of expression continues.

The objection is not against the past policy, but it is truly against the current policy which still continues each and every day of the Vietnamese people's life.

The Vietnamese-American community would only ask Bowers Museum and the public to be aware of one thing - the exhibit does not represent the genuine creativity of the Vietnamese artists or people.  The American public may enjoy the display. But Vietnamese-American community has the duty and the obligation to voice its objection to the display, not only for what it shows, but for what it does not show.