Who were the patrons of Nanyang art?

Today, “Nanyang art” is generally regarded as Singapore’s first local art movement that emerged in the 1930s and gained prominence during the post-war period from the 1950s to the 1960s. It refers to works created by early migrant Chinese artists themed on local subject matter, using a combination of Chinese and Western art traditions. The artists often described this East-West integration using phrases like “fusion” (融混), “bridging” (沟通) or “synthesis” (合并).

For instance, in 1955, the influential art educator Lim Hak Tai urged young artists to focus on, among other things, the “fusion of cultures of the different races” (融混各族文化风尚) and “bridging of Eastern and Western art” (沟通东西艺术). 

Broadly speaking, these elements reflected three underlying concerns, as recorded in Lim’s “Preface”, in The Art of Young Malayans (《南洋青年美术》, 1955). Firstly, regarding the subject matter, Nanyang art should convey the tropical colours and cultures of the region. Secondly, regarding technique or style, Nanyang art should fuse Western and Eastern art traditions. And thirdly, regarding the purpose of art, Nanyang art should reflect the aspirations of contemporary society and thereby fulfil an educational and social role. 

This openness to artistic “fusion” was unsurprising, since artists like Lim were among the first generation who had learnt both Western and Chinese art in China’s art academies in the early 20th century. During that period, artists debated over how China’s art should be modernised so as to better reflect her new status as a modern republic. In that light, a number of artists sought to synthesise Western and Chinese art by relating Western modern art to their understanding of Chinese ink painting. When these artists migrated and settled down in Singapore from the 1930s onwards, where there were relatively fewer restrictions on art-making, many continued to pursue such interests in their new home.

In fact, life in Singapore did much to consolidate these artists’ understanding of Western art and increase their exposure to a wider range of ideas and concepts than would have been available to them in China, especially after the communists came to power in 1949. In the newly formed People’s Republic of China, artists were expected to create works with a national character, addressing social and political concerns before individual needs. Modern art, emphasising individual subjectivity and foreign associations, was considered divorced from the people and discouraged by the state, as discussed by Shen Kuiyi in “Modernist Movements in Pre-War China”, an undated paper prepared for a symposium on Urban Cultural Institutions in early 20th century China.

Who were the supporters or patrons of such “fusion” art in Singapore then? Given that the works were created by Chinese migrant artists in a Chinese-majority society, it might be assumed that the patrons were local Chinese art collectors. Although there were important Chinese businessmen-turned-collectors such as Tan Tsze Chor and Low Chuck Tiew who occasionally bought works by local artists, their main interest was in classical or early modern works by Chinese artists, rather than local artists. This was likely because these collectors felt a strong affiliation with China and what they regarded as their ancestral culture. Such sentiments were prevalent among the Chinese in Singapore then, as many still saw themselves as “sojourners” or “guests” in Singapore who would eventually return to China.

Paradoxically, the strongest and earliest champions of such “fusion” art were local English-speaking colonial elites during the 1950s and the early 1960s. However, these patrons did not use the term “Nanyang art” for such works. This was understandable given that “Nanyang” was a Chinese term (meaning “south seas”) more commonly used by the Chinese-speaking to refer to the historic maritime trading region south of China that included peninsular Malaya and Singapore. Hence, such English-speaking patrons tended to describe such works as “Malayan art” (for reasons which will be elaborated below). Their art patronage may be best understood in light of the specific socio-historical circumstances of the time — a period when colonial authorities sought to forge a common identity in multi-ethnic Singapore, in preparation for a new nation-state. 

Calls for Malayan identity amid decolonisation in the 1950s 

In the 1950s, there were growing calls for Singapore to break free from colonial rule. The period coincided with a wave of decolonisation in Southeast Asia after the end of the Second World War. By then, the people in colonies such as Singapore, Malaya and the North Borneo territories felt that the British had lost their moral legitimacy to rule, and started seeking self-determination.

Singapore’s decolonisation was unusual in the context of Southeast Asia. Unlike the cases of Indonesia, Vietnam or the Philippines, there was no violent armed struggle in British Malaya (of which Singapore was a part). Rather, decolonisation was a managed process between colonisers and the colonised. These negotiations had to take several critical factors into consideration. Firstly, Singapore was a migrant society, comprising many groups of different ethnicities, languages and religious beliefs. By the early 20th century, the migrant Chinese had overtaken the indigenous Malay population to become the majority ethnic group, in a region where the Chinese were the minority. Secondly, even though the British were prepared to decolonise to avoid the high cost of maintaining their colonies, they wanted to ensure that the new nations would remain friendly to British interests. 

At the time, there were several communist uprisings in the region, such as during the Malayan Emergency from 1948 to 1960. As communism was regarded as being antithetical to Western capitalism and liberalism, the British then devised a plan known as the “Grand Design” (later replaced by the term “Greater Malaysia”) to ensure that their colonies (especially Chinese-majority Singapore with its important strategic naval bases) would not adopt communism as a means to obtain independence, particularly after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949.

The Grand Design sought to bring Singapore, Federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei together to create an expanded Federation of Malaysia. The British believed that such a grouping would be more stable when power was eventually devolved to them. At the same time, such a merger also served the interests of the political leaders in Malaya and Singapore who were, among other things, also concerned about communist insurrections. 

As part of the British Grand Design to promote a common cultural identity across Malaya to bring about an eventual Federation of Malaysia, the colonial government, particularly through the British Council, started to work more closely with local cultural organisations in the 1950s. One such prominent group was the Singapore Art Society (“SAS”).

Set up in 1949, SAS had a good relationship with the colonial authorities and maintained an active exhibition calendar, with many shows held at the British Council Hall. Art historians like Seng Yu Jin have highlighted that the colonial government’s strong support of organisations like SAS with their frequent displays of paintings of idyllic Malayan life, were part of “broader long-term cultural strategies of the British to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the diverse Malayan publics” by gaining the “confidence of the public in the British government’s ability to defeat the (communist) insurgents” during the Malayan Emergency. 

Patrons of ‘fusion’ art

Hence, in the lead-up to the formation of Malaysia in 1963, there were many calls for a new Malayan culture and identity, so as to unite the disparate ethnic communities in Singapore. Commentators in the local art scene promoted the idea of a new Malayan art that could reflect the ideals of a future nation. Many held that the new art form should be a fusion of different cultural styles, representing the union of the different races in Singapore. For instance, in 1950, Dr Carl Alexander Gibson-Hill, a curator at Raffles Museum and the inaugural president of the Singapore Art Society, hoped that the society would foster a distinctive style that was a “marriage between Eastern and Western painting styles”.

“Fusion” was a term often used by commentators and artists then to describe artworks that did not fall neatly into the conventional categories of “Western art” or “Chinese art”. In the 1950s and 1960s, such “fusion” works found a receptive audience, in particular with four influential patrons — Malcolm MacDonald (1901-1981), Frank Sullivan (1909-1989), Michael Sullivan (1916-2013) and Loke Wan Tho (1915-1964). Moving in the same elite social circles, these pre-independence era patrons shared some key commonalities. In addition to enjoying high public profiles and holding influential positions in government, media, academia and commerce, they were critical in four aspects of art patronage. 

i. Advocates of Malayan identity

Firstly, they were firm advocates of Malayan identity. One of the earliest and most influential proponents was Malcolm MacDonald, who served as the British governor-general for Malaya from 1946 to 1948, and commissioner-general for Southeast Asia from 1948 to 1955. He favoured a wider federation of British-controlled territories in Southeast Asia to create a larger economic and political entity that could compete with its neighbours, and facilitate eventual de-colonisation. His aspiration for a new Malaya was one that transcended ethnic boundaries. He championed breaking down communal barriers between the peoples of Malaya, so that they thought “progressively less of their distinctions of race, and more of their common heritage and character as people of Malaya”.

MacDonald’s hopes for a new Malaya were echoed by others such as Michael Sullivan, the noted art historian of Chinese painting who arrived in Singapore in 1954, where he was appointed Lecturer in the History of Art at the University of Malaya. Although friends had warned him against taking up a job in the “cultural desert” of Singapore, Sullivan believed that his work as an art history lecturer would be helpful in the building of a Malayan nation as the “development of a sense of cultural perspective often helps to unite different people”. 

For Sullivan, Malayan culture was “not first defined and then created, but created first, in the minds and imaginations of the Malayan people, of whom the artists, writers and musicians are the pioneers”, as captured in his article “Ten Years of Singapore Art” in the book Ten Years of Art in Singapore 1946-1956. Hence, local artists played a critical role in the creation of Malayan culture because they were “conscious of themselves as Malayans, with their roots in the past and their eyes on the future”, and were “searching for the means to express, in their own way, what they feel about the land and the people of Malaya”.

One of the most prominent SAS members then was Frank Sullivan, an Australian-born journalist who held influential government positions in Malaya since the late 1940s. At various times, he was deputy chief editor of the British Far Eastern Broadcasting Service, senior press officer in the Federation of Malaya’s Public Relations Department and later, press secretary to the Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman from 1958 to 1966. In 1957, he even obtained Singapore citizenship. During his time in Singapore in the 1950s, Sullivan was very active in the local art scene, especially in his capacity as vice-president of SAS. He was involved in various aspects of SAS exhibitions including artwork selection, writing articles, giving speeches and media interviews, and even contributing towards cash prizes for artists.

ii. Buying artworks

Apart from believing that local artists were well-placed to express Malayan identity, these patrons also actively supported them by buying their works and encouraging others to do the same. The presence of high-profile individuals like Malcolm MacDonald and business tycoon Loke Wan Tho lent prestige to exhibition openings, which in turn helped the sales of artworks on display. On such occasions, these patrons often took the lead to buy artworks, and also made public calls for greater support of local artists. 

Although better known as a collector of Chinese ceramics, MacDonald’s collecting interest extended to the visual arts. He was friendly with local artists and often accepted invitations to be the guest-of-honour at local exhibitions. For instance, his interest in the 1953 Pictures of Bali exhibition was so strong that he visited the show three times, bought six artworks and invited the four exhibiting artists, Liu Kang, Chen Chong Swee, Chen Wen Hsi and Cheong Soo Pieng, to his official residence for tea!

Rather than collect works of past masters, MacDonald preferred to buy paintings from living artists so that they could be supported with funds to continue painting. Apart from buying artworks as gifts for his friends, MacDonald also encouraged local organisations to buy artworks from local artists. 

Loke Wan Tho was also another much sought-after guest-of-honour for art exhibitions. Born into a wealthy Malayan family, Loke was educated in Kuala Lumpur, Switzerland and the UK. He was best known for leading the Cathay Organisation, which became a regional leader in the production and distribution of Malay and Chinese films in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Loke was interested in art and antiquities and he was an award-winning photographer. As a collector, his interests were eclectic, ranging from Chinese ceramics to modern art and photography. Loke was especially close to the SAS, having organised its first photography exhibition with his good friend and SAS’s president Dr Carl Alexander Gibson-Hill in 1950. Apart from serving as a patron of the society, Loke also graced many of its shows as guest-of-honour, and bought artworks at such events. To garner more support for artists, Loke constantly urged homeowners, businessmen and the government to buy local artworks for their homes, offices and public buildings.

Similar to MacDonald and Loke, Frank Sullivan was extremely supportive of local artists, particularly emerging ones. Despite Sullivan’s modest government salary, he often bought works from artists to encourage them. Sullivan derived great pleasure from supporting young artists as he felt that “there is no more important event in the life of any artist than the day he sells his first painting on his own merits”. Such encouragement would motivate artists to keep making art and boost their sense of confidence. He also frequently called on the public to collect local art, including making newspaper appeals to help raise funds for needy artists.

iii. Champions of ‘fusion’ works

In particular, these patrons championed art that depicted local themes using a combination of Western and Chinese styles. They regarded such “fusion” works as exemplifying the multi-ethnic nature of a new Malayan identity. 

For instance, Frank Sullivan believed that Malaya was “not only a home and a meeting place for four main races — Malay, Chinese, Indian and European — but also a bridge between the cultures of East and West”. In that light, he thought highly of artist Cheong Soo Pieng, and considered him to be a “bridge between two worlds, combining the delicacy and draftsmanship of the East with the techniques and outlook of the West.” 

Michael Sullivan also felt that it was inevitable that there would be a blending of various cultures in Malaya. He held that a mature Malayan art would “combine something of the Malay genius for decoration and craftsmanship, the profound Indian understanding of the transcendental, the intuitive Chinese feeling for the vitality of the natural world, and the restless European impulse to analyse and experiment”, as captured in his article “Ten Years of Singapore Art”. 

iv. Advocate of public museums and collections

Apart from championing and collecting Malayan art, these patrons also promoted the setting up of museums to promote and preserve Malaya’s artistic heritage. This was in contrast to the earlier situation in the late 1940s when there was some public interest to set up a museum for Chinese art.

Keen to expose students to their own cultural heritage, Michael Sullivan set up a teaching museum at the University of Malaya. The museum opened in 1956 and Sullivan was its founding curator. The museum’s primary role was to support the teaching and learning of the History of Art course, by providing students with “an opportunity for direct contact with original works of art, and to form the nucleus for the centre for the study of art and archaeology in Southeast Asia”. Hence, the museum sought to form a “representative public collection of the art of those civilisations that have chiefly contributed to the creation of a Malayan culture”. 

The collection eventually comprised contemporary Malayan art, Southeast Asian art (stone and metal sculptures), Malay and Islamic art, Indian (Hindu and Buddhist) art, and ceramic and minor arts including pottery from China, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. 

Generous benefactors supported the museum including Malcolm MacDonald and Loke Wan Tho who donated artworks, artefacts and funds. In terms of contemporary Malayan art, Sullivan’s intent was to build a “representative collection of works by modern painters who are creating a new national art for Malaya”, as captured in Sullivan’s “Introduction” in the University of Malaya Art Museum (guidebook), 1959. In that regard, works by local artists such as Cheong Soo Pieng, Chen Chong Swee, Lim Hak Tai and Chuah Thean Teng were acquired for the museum’s collection. This marked the first time in Singapore’s history that modern works by local artists were acquired into an institutional museum for study and public appreciation.

Frank Sullivan’s motivation to form a collection was prompted by his observation that most of the active art collectors then tended to be Western expatriates. When they left Singapore, their collections were also taken with them, resulting in Singapore losing its best artworks. Hence, Sullivan lauded Loke Wan Tho’s intent to set up a museum, as Singapore needed a place where “the finest works of art can be displayed as evidence of our national culture” and where people could “gain new perspectives of our home talent and a new understanding of artistic expressions”. Sullivan’s collecting fervour was such that by 1957, he had amassed 64 works, which was only second in quantity to Loke’s collection of 80 works. 

By the late 1950s, Loke was regarded as having Singapore’s largest art collection, comprising 80 works. This was later augmented by his purchase of 64 works from Frank Sullivan in 1957 before the latter left to work in Kuala Lumpur. At the time, it was reported that Loke had planned to build a museum for the public to see works by local artists whom he felt was on par with the best of contemporary artists. For undisclosed reasons, Loke’s museum was never realised. This was likely due to the federal government’s establishment of the National Art Gallery in Kuala Lumpur in 1958. Hence, it might have been difficult for Loke to secure support for setting up a separate museum in Singapore, so soon after one had been established in the federal capital.

However, after Singapore gained self-governing status in 1959, Loke decided to donate 99 paintings by 50 artists to Singapore’s Ministry of Culture in 1960, as captured in a Singapore government press statement of 18 October 1960. This was followed by another personal donation of 15 paintings in 1962 and a donation from his estate in 1964. Loke’s donation eventually formed the basis of Singapore’s national collection, currently under the custodian of the National Heritage Board of Singapore.

Post-independence developments 

These patrons were active in the period leading to Singapore’s independence but soon faded out of the scene for various reasons. MacDonald left Malaya in 1955 to assume other official duties. Frank Sullivan left for Kuala Lumpur in 1958 to become press secretary to Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and eventually returned to Australia in 1979. Michael Sullivan’s tenure ended in 1960 when he left to teach in London. Loke had an untimely demise due to an unfortunate flight crash in 1964. 

However, their efforts in promoting a new “Malayan art”, encompassing multi-cultural aesthetics, were continued by others in the ensuing years. In 1959, Singapore gained self-governing status, and the new Singapore government also promoted Malayan culture and consciousness. To avoid communal rivalry and conflict in a multi-ethnic society, it was believed that Malayan culture should integrate many cultural influences. S. Rajaratnam, the then minister for culture, called on local artists and groups to interact, learn and absorb from one another to facilitate the “cross-stimulation and exchange of ideas for the creation of a national or common culture.” 

Similar to the pre-independence era patrons, the new government acknowledged that the arts should be better supported. Hence, Rajaratnam also urged the public to “encourage artists by buying their works — while they are still alive and capable of creative work.”

Even after Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965, Singaporean artists producing “fusion” works continued to find support in the post-independence years. This was understandable given that multi-culturalism was regarded as a key tenet of Singapore’s national identity by the government. This was best exemplified by the words of the founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew when he declared in 1965: “We are going to have a multi-racial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion.” 

Moreover, while many post-colonial nations sought to erase their colonial past by renaming roads and buildings, the pragmatic Singapore government openly accepted their British legacy as it wanted to attract international investments by adopting a more Western-friendly position. Hence, it was unsurprising that the new national government had no objections to the “fusion” artworks and artists championed by the former colonial elites. 

By the 1980s, most of the artists such as Liu Kang, Chen Wen Hsi, Cheong Soo Pieng and Chen Chong Swee were officially recognised as “pioneer artists” who had contributed significantly to Singapore’s first local art movement. Over time, the term “Malayan art” was gradually replaced by “Nanyang art” for several reasons. Firstly, given that Singapore was no longer part of Malaysia, it was awkward to continue referring to the nation’s first local art movement as “Malayan art”. 

More importantly, scholars, such as Redza Piyadasa in “The Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts”, in Pameran Retrospektif Pelukis-Pelukis Nanyang (Retrospective Exhibition of Nanyang Artists) of Muzium Seni Negara, Malaysia in 1979, also recognised that Singapore’s first art movement should be more accurately attributed to early Chinese migrant artists like Cheong Soo Pieng whose impetus to create “fusion” art was primarily influenced by ideas of modern art-making in early 20th century China, rather than the decolonisation process of “Malayanisation” of the 1950s and 1960s. 

Hence, with “Malayan art” being downplayed in Singapore’s national narratives, the early patronage of Malayan art (or Nanyang art as it is known today) has less scholarly attention. It is hoped that future research can cast more light on the roles played by such colonial-era patrons in providing encouragement and support to the artists who eventually gave rise to the nation’s first art movement.

Related: What else besides Nanyang art? | This is what Nanyang art looks like