Embedded Files
From: Chung Nguyen
Date: 2009/1/11
For the first time, Lan Duong and Tram Le curate an exhibition of Vietnamese-American artists that includes the red starred flag of VN and the image of Ho Chi Minh, challenging the community to accept the artist's diversity of expression. They call it "@ the crossroads of Art + Politics + Community."
As covered in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vietarts10-2009jan10,0,4389762.story
For personal statements by Lan Duong and Tram Le, in English and Vietnamese:
http://www.vaala.org/090109-FOBII-Open.php
C. Nguyen
UMASS Boston
----------
From: Nguyen-Vo, Thu-Huong
Date: 2009/1/11
Dear anh Chung,
Thank you for your note on the exhibition. I will let Tram Le, Lan Duong, Mariam Lam, and others involved speak their views. But as an advisor and collaborator in this exhibition, my understanding is that the purpose of this exhibition is not to challenge the community with an image of Ho Chi Minh or the red flag to make people in the community accept anything. Rather, we would like to open up dialogues on the relationship between art, politics, and community in its many forms and complexities. We try to represent many different viewpoints. There are more than 50 artists whose works deal with themes ranging from memory, to guerrilla art, to identity politics, to sexual politics. There is a room that contains art that tries to address some the most sensitive political issues of the day. In this room, we also include a audio-visual loop of some of the visual artworks and writings that are censored by the government in Vietnam.
The FOB II exhibition is held at 1600 N. Broadway in Santa Ana, CA. It opened yesterday and will be on until next Sunday. We had a panel discussion today on the role of the media, chaired by Professor Mariam Lam. I will moderate another panel next Sunday at 3pm on the relationship between art and politics.
Best,
Nguyen vo thu huong
----------
From: Chung Nguyen
Date: 2009/1/12
Dear Thu Huong:
Regardless of how it is put, Bravo for the effort! My hat to Lan Duong, Tram Le, Mariam Lam and you for starting the dialogue so publicly.
I have noticed for a long time that important overseas literary figures such as Nguyen Mong Giac, Khanh Truong, Nguyen Xuan Hoang (editors or ex-editors of Van Hoc, Hop Luu, Van journals), etc. have been condemned publicly for not kowtowing to a fanatically adhered, rigidly enforced line imposed by a vocal militant anticommunist segment in the community. Most, if not all, "community leaders" have remained silent. This kind of fanaticism is, in my personal view, counter-productive to the democratizing process in Vietnam.
I'm especially touched by Lam Duong's statement:
"Yet, it is because of this painful past that I believe the most powerful pieces of art are the ones that speak to the political, interrogating politics for what it says, does not say, or cannot say. While war continues in the national and international arenas, we, as a community, must also address the war that burns inside our own borders. I am addressing the kinds of suppressions that occur within the Vietnamese American community, specifically the censorship of artistic expression that allows no other politics than anti-communist politics. I understand that this particular and political form of expression must have a place in American national culture because our voice has often been silenced and grossly misrepresented."
Charity begins at home. Perhaps we can all hope the community does what it preaches...
Best wishes for the success of the exhibition!
-Chung
----------
From: David Thomas
Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:14 AM
I just want to echo Nguyen Ba Chung's congratulations to curators Lan Duong, Tram Le and Miriam Lam for their efforts in putting together the exhibition "F.O.B. II: Art Speaks". This exhibition represents a very important next step in the healing of the Vietnamese-American communities. I have long felt that generation 1.5 or 2 would be the ones to continue this open dialogue in a more objective and meaningful way.
I only wish this exhibition could travel to other American and Vietnamese-American communities like Washington and my home town of Boston.
I wish you great success with the exhibition and related activities and look forward to future projects organized by the Vietnamese American Arts & Letters Association.
Best, David
C. David Thomas
Director, Indochina Arts Partnership
----------
From: Mariam B. Lam
Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Thank you to Nguyen Ba Chung, Thu-Huong Nguyen-Vo and David Thomas for this thread.
VAALA is operating on a shoestring budget with funds coming from the same said divided community. All artists paid for their own shipment and attendance, so I'm afraid it probably won't be a traveling exhibition at this point, David.
The protest thus far has come primarily from the group Thanh Nien Co Vang (Yellow Flag Youth) and the well-respected recent refugee/immigrant attorney Ms. Bui Kim Thanh (who has been active in the land rights events in Vietnam). They have not been militant.
They have used the venues scheduled for the exhibit, itself, such as the roundtable discussions, to express their views and belief that they need to continue educating the younger generations. Of course, rather than seeing the exhibition as an attempt to educate bidirectionally across generations about different lines of politics and communication in the U.S. and in Vietnam, such as historiographic battles, varied acculturation practices, educational difficulties, artistic communities, mainstream discourses and internal rhetoric, etc., they appear to negate and dismiss the knowledge production of this younger generation that they are also looking toward to help express their views and pain into the future in the U.S., and who they hope will continue advocating for the rights of their families and friends in Vietnam.
The vocal protesters have also tried to use the limited resources available to them in the public media, such as web blogs and ethnic radio to encourage demonstration outside of the exhibit. I have not seen any as of last night, but am in Riverside today. Notable protester of Nguoi Viet Daily News, Mr. Doan Trong, currently still embroiled in a civil suit with the paper, also stated at the panel yesterday that the treatment of VAALA and FOB II is different from the protesters' treatment of the Nguoi Viet incident of last year involving Huynh Thuy Chau's foot spa flag piece, because this organization has chosen to keep the lines of communication open, while Nguoi Viet closed those lines to them, and sued the protesters instead.
It is a difficult and painful situation for all involved. Unlike previous reports by mainstream press, such as Frank Mickadeit of the Orange County Register or Nick Schou of the OC Weekly, who have labeled such protesters "fanatical," "sick" and "stupid," most of us came to maturation within these same communities and within perhaps similar households, and we can understand their conflicted biases and scorn for a vexed and distorted history, one which they lived through and continue to survive. While we all recognize the need for these discussions to continue for decades to come, none of us are at all self-congratulatory about the present case and just trying to remain as sensitive as possible to all injured parties.
Thank you again for your words of encouragement,
Mariam
Mariam Lam
UC Riverside
------------------------
From: Minh Tran
Date: Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:14 PM
The exhibit in Santa Ana is a monumental occasion and I hope to visit
it soon. However, the protest on Saturday was horrendous; spreading
like wildfire. Although the protest was horrific, it was not
surprising. We were expecting it, eventually. The VAALA exhibit, as I
have read on LA Times, has been closed by the building management,
citing a firestorm.
Will this event discourage future call for freedom of expression for
Vietnamese in America? I hope not. Even as one man courageously waves
a Red and gold star flag down the street before being surrounded irate
protestors, Santa Ana police (or sheriff) immediately apprehended him
for stirring the violence. I hope this is still a nation of free
speech. It would seem that Little Saigon is not ready to discuss
anything that is connected to communist Vietnam.
In addition, My-Thuan Tran has done a superb job covering the event
during the past week.
Minh Huynh Tran
PhD Student
----------
From: Anthony Le
Date: 2009/1/19
As part of the 1.5 generation myself, I don't question VAALA's intention to create discussion in the Vietnamese community. Nor do I question the statement that VAALA never intended to hurt anyone in the Vietnamese community with their exhibition. However, I question the wisdom of VAALA to use art as the means for this discussion (albeit VAALA is about Art and Letters).
The reason I say this is art has always been a rather high-browed sort of field. Common people don't understand art. Common people work, eat, drink, sleep and defacate.. They don't sit around trying to look for profound meanings in abstract pieces of artwork. Members of VAALA work, eat, drink, sleep, defacate, and also create artwork. That's one level higher than the ordinary people.
Telling common Vietnamese people who have suffered under communism to look at supposedly thought provoking pieces of artwork depicting communist symbols is like taking a mechanic to a classical opera and ask him to interpret the content.
Don't get upset at the common Vietnamese people because they cannot grasp the aesthetic and critical aspects of the artwork exhibition.
I think if VAALA wants to create discussion in the community, try using some means that they can relate to.
Giving them art is not a good idea. And since they respond negatively to what has been presented to them, they are now being blamed for being barbaric and not having the ability to appreciate art. To me that's quite condescending.
----------
From: Minh Tran
Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Our main inquiry is that is the people of Little Saigon, Orange
County, CA, ready to have an open dialogue regarding Vietnam, either
art, science, culture, history, etc. If not, it is recommended that
the exhibit be moved elsewhere. I heard that Assemblyman Tran Thai Van
and other Westminster officials sent a signed letter in objection to
the event.
If the Vietnamese-Americans of this area are not ready to discuss the
future of Vietnam, what are they willing to discuss? Politics and only
politics?
----------
From: Nguyen-Vo, Thu-Huong
Date: 2009/1/19
Dear Minh Tran and list,
Thanks for the thread on the exhibit, and thank you for the sympathy. I really appreciate the support.
I want to say first that the exhibit wasn't about Vietnam. The dialogues we tried to foster were not about Vietnam. It was mainly intended as a conversation in our community about how art and politics could overlap or impact each other, in order to give nuance to that understanding. We weren't trying to use art to discuss Vietnam or its politics in order to bring about reconciliation of any sort, as that project if it is at all desirable, will demand a lot more from all sides, particularly more from those in power.
Of course there are issues of race and class involved in the ensuing conflict. But I wouldn't assume that art means nothing to, or is beyond the reach of, "simple folks." If that were the case, VAALA shouldn't exist. What kind of art, on the other hand, can become a contentious issue. And we did see that play out here.
Regarding the mainstream press coverage including the LA Times', many of us were and are very disappointed. Too much sensationalism placed on protests. Too many inaccuracies and distortions. It was exactly this kind of coverage in the mainstream presss that we tried unsuccessfully to address with the exhibit and a whole panel devoted to media coverage of community events. The protests are important and interesting, but they must be seen in all their complexities (class relations, race relations, as well as history, and state-people power relations), not in the narrative of some kind of backward people who have yet to understand the bedrock American (or worse the civilized world's) value of free expression. I am not saying that it felt good to have people scream abuse in your face in all its possible metaphorical and linguistic splendors. I did feel like a punching bag. Nor is it fun to be at the receiving end of intimidation, and target of defamation campaigns. Of course we must try to fight that. But I still ask that such phenomenon be understood differently, more complexly than is in the usual sentiment of self-affirming reprimand and tutelage we see too often in the mainstream press regarding a group of ethnic others. Such sentiment, besides its uselessness, is also threadbare and uninteresting.
As for the various players--community personages (with variable motivations), groups (some with very complex transnational ties now beyond the more traditional community groups), elected officials (who often pander to votes from different constituencies in different ways), the city and its politics (we were shut down by the city, not building management), and even the Vietnamese government--all want a piece of the action, twisting things to fit their agendas. That is to be expected. Nothing unusual there. It's just part of the fight.
A press release statement given at the press conference on Friday morning announcing the end of the exhibit can be found at:
http://www.vaala.org/
thank you,
Huong
----------
From: Anthony Le
Date: 2009/1/19
Yes, I understand your point as well as Michelle's point. But what I am saying is that when you use a particular instrument to address a situation, it must be something familiar to the people with whom you aim to have in the discussion. I don't believe the art exhibit as created by VAALA is something familiar to the average Vietnamese refugee/immigrant of the first generation and even 1.5 generation who have been through very traumatic experiences with Communism. Yes, people who haven't suffered like them can resort to abstract symbols and instruments to have intellectual conversations. But to expect people who have had first hand experience to think abstractly is not easily done because they are still haunted by very concrete and real experiences that have not been resolved.
I wonder if there are efforts to try to appreciate, affirm, and assure this particular group of people in what they have gone through before telling them to "get over it".
I myself believe that I have "gotten over it" but I read comments from the press describing the protests and the people and I feel sorry for them. I also feel angry that people who would be my parents, uncles, aunts are being described by the press and by Vietnamese Americans described as professors or Asst. professions as out of control mobs. Yes, it would have been great if they could come to look at the exhibit, to talk about it, rather than protest it and forced it to be closed. However, the fact that they can only try to harm the exibhit and force it to close down tells us that the instrument used to create discussion is not the right instrument. After all, you cannot blame the people you are trying to talk to for not understanding you if you are not using their language. If you are the one inviting them to enter into the discussion, it is your responsibility to provide the proper tools.
I simply feel that the art exhibit was not the proper tool for the Vietnamese American community at this time and place. It is perhaps a proper and effective tool for members of VAALA, some members of the 1.5 generation and the non-Vietnamese community. But looking at the reaction of the other group of Vietnamese, you have to say that it was not effective. And I think it is better to admit that it was not effective rather than saying they should have understood what we wanted to say.
anthony
------------------------
From: Anthony Le <leductony@yahoo.com>
Date: 2009/1/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I also feel that in the overall VIetnamese community, if you have this attitude like. Well, we're in America now. Everyone has the right to free expression. We're going to speak how we feel, and you have to accept it whether you like it or not. You can speak how you feel, but don't rob me of my right to speak.....
I think this attitude will not get us very far because it forces the community into a very uncomfortable position. It will make them react violently because this sort of in-your-face shock value is quite contrary to the traditional Vietnamese mentality. Yes, Vietnamese have been in the U.S. for over 30 years. But the people have been shaped and informed by a culture that has been around for 4000 years.
It does not mean that the community can never change or should not change. However, we have to reject the comments saying that "the community is wrong for doing what they are doing". I don't believe they are wrong or right. They are what they are. And the more we try to make them something else by forcing ideas and theories on them, the more violent they become.
----------
From: Minh Tran <mtran.csulb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:52 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Regardless of where an event takes place, from Oxnard to Dana Point,
the Vietnamese-Americans will march their foot-soldiers to the step of
the festive occasion and scold the organizers for all purpose
intended. But as I see it, if a person has the rights to carry a
yellow with three strips flag then another should be able to another
flag of different colors. If not, then they are being hypocrisy. How
could one carry a flag of a dead nation be superior to a flag of a
live nation?
Art has taken a new meaning in this event. Denizens of Little Saigon
do not see art, they see something else. Give them a CD of Mozart with
a sticker of a red flag (VN) and they will start a bonfire.
Minh
----------
From: Anthony Le <leductony@yahoo.com>
Date: 2009/1/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I think it will never be possible to have a true dialogue with the Vietnamese community if we view them in this light. We can only have antagonism. That's why we see language of "fight" and "rob" being expressed by the very same people who wish to have dialogue.
If the true intention is to fight against the community who are viewed as not upholding the spirit of freedom, then there is no need for euphemisms such as "dialogue" and "conversation". To have dialogues and conversations requires a different sort of attitude and approach.
anthony
----------
From: Anthony Le <leductony@yahoo.com>
Date: 2009/1/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Minh,
I have never gone to a demonstration in the community and have never held any flag of either red or yellow. But by your comment regarding the flag below, for me the deeper significance of what you are saying (and if it reflects the attitude of VAALA) is that you espouse to appreciate art, but you don't seem to appreciate or desire to appreciate the experience of the other. You might argue that they need to appreciate your experience too. And you'd be quite correct in saying that. However, in this particular situation, is "fairness" the highest value that needs to be attained or "sympathy", "compassion", and "understanding"? Sometimes, we fight for a particular value only to see other equally important, or even more important values neglected.
----------
From: Anthony Le <leductony@yahoo.com>
Date: 2009/1/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Mike,
There is a difference between not asking them to give up their experience and attempting to understand their experience. By certain actions, you can end up indirectly rejecting others' experiences even if you don't mean to do so.
----------
From: Lan Duong <lduong@ucr.edu>
Date: 2009/1/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Anthony and all,
Along with Tram Le, I am a co-curator of the show and I have to say that there are many things I disagree with you in terms of your postings but I will just address here some salient points.
We set out to facilitate dialogue and provide a platform for the artists to showcase their works. I would have to say that we achieved on many levels. There was an overwhelmingly positive response to the exhibit by those in the community who feel alienated by this vocal faction of the community. These community members cross the boundaries of age, gender, and ethnicities. Besides a community of artists who are currently in the US and abroad, we wanted to address these groups as well. Meaningful conversation was found, then, in more ephemeral ways -- in personal communication and in our interactions with people -- but also recorded in our guest book.
As for the protestors, we expected that they would protest. We believe that they have a legitimate political voice in American culture, particularly because they have no other platform upon which to speak in the dominant culture or in Viet Nam. They have established a form of politics here that is a critical voice against the human rights abuses and lack of freedoms in Viet Nam. As I wrote in the press release, we respect this voice. But we, as art advocates, should be afforded to have a voice as well.
On this point, however, I have never told anyone to "get over it" or have characterized the groups of protestors as "barbaric," or as "angry mobs." These misrepresentations were but one of the original impetuses for doing the exhibit: to counter how the protestors have been misrepresented in American media outlets. Through this exhibit, we tried to provide as much context and historical background as possible for why this group of protestors needed to have their voices heard. We also had a panel discussion that addressed this very topic. Further, both the co-curator and I have tried to invite as many discussions as possible about the traumas and the violence that mark the history of the Vietnamese diaspora. But all of these efforts were lost in the din, particularly because these quiet efforts do not make for good spectacles in print.
As Thu-Huong has observed, we have been mischaracterized both by English and Vietnamese language presses. On the one hand, the Vietnamese language media want to discipline us -- especially as young women -- for being "unruly children" who do not respect their elders. Another idea that has been circulating via personal email to me is that as academics (again, mostly women), we are not in touch with our roots, that we have been inculcated by communism, and that our fathers did not teach us well enough. In effect, they will "teach" us how to understand our history better. On the other hand, the English-language press want to applaud us for being assimilated, educated, articulate in English, and for being able to teach the community about issues around the first amendment. I wholeheartedly reject all of these patronizing claims about my role in the process, all of which touch on issues of immigration history, race, gender, sexuality, and class -- the very things that I emphasize in my research. As Thu-Huong has commented on this listserv as well as Mariam Lam, we did this project in order to initiate a meaningful and hopefully sustained conversation around the issues of art and politics within the community, not outside of it.
As I continually state in my interviews and press releases, Tram Le and I set out to show the diversity of the community. There were 50+ artists in this show whose works spoke to an array of political issues. If you are interested in knowing more about the exhibit and the event, please feel free to email me. Or visit the vaala website for our curator's statements and press releases. The information that we have put out is out there, and I invite you to interrogate what we say more closely.
Lan Duong
Lan Duong, Assistant Professor
Department of Media and Cultural Studies
CHASS Interdisciplinary Building, Rm 3141
University of California, Riverside
----------
From: Minh Tran <mtran.csulb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Anthony,
To be fair, the American Constitution says that All Men are Created
Equal, but this is not always practice. I support all types of protest
as long as it is fair: to protest your employer, to protest the rights
of immigrants, etc. but I have never protest in my life. I supported
art wholeheartedly but I have never produced anything in my life. So
my experience is a bit irrelevance.
I am not judging anyone here but only to say that this is a free
country and I have the rights to carry an American flag without
tomatoes flying this way. As a 1.5 generation and born after the war,
I've never met my relatives that perished in the war. Again my
experience is irrelevance.
I don't plan to parade any flag in the streets of America or Vietnam.
If I do, it would be in the comfort of my home. so I have no
experience in performing any parade.
"Fairness" is such a subjective word, it carries much connotations.
You must ask the residents of Little Saigon that question. I decline
to submit my subjective opinion.
Minh Huynh Tran
Garden Grove, CA
----------
From: William Noseworthy
Date: 2009/1/19
VSG,
I have been following this discussion closely today and I have found it both interesting and quite provocative! Huzzah for VSG!
Alright, so as coherently and concisely as possible, here is my two cents, as a young artist and historian.
While I may agree with the ideolological assumptions of some Anthony's most recent comments, I am not sure about their application in this particular case, as Mike pointed out.
First in response to "Yes, people who haven't suffered like them can resort toIt seems to me that in fact in people who are haunted by first hand experience are in fact MORE naturally inclined to respond with abstract concepts. When was the last time an artist decided to depict how happy they were using the abstract?
Furthermore, in response to " However, the fact that they can only
> try to harm the exhibit and force it to close down tells us that theWhile it is certainly most unfortunate that the exhibit was closed, as today as evidence, the exhibit, if it was intended to create a discourse, has managed to do so QUITE successfully!
Furthermore, based on my experience in Viet Nam, to simply look at modern Vietnamese identity as a simple division of North and South, is quite a bit more inaccurate then in the Korean peninsula (Although, I would argue that this is a bit oversimplified for Korea as well I will do you the favor of saving that for ANOTHER listserve!)
After all, there must be a reason that Uncle Ho, if I may call him that WANTED (and I say wanted because his death wish was unfulfilled! Leninized! What a fate!) to have his remains kept in urns in THREE parts of the country. Furthermore, I would say that to think of Vietnamese identity as even partitioned regionally, such as Ho Chi Minh conceived of it, would have been a gross oversimplification at the time.
I would like to applaud this comment
> "It does not mean that the community can never change or should not change.for its due consideration of social dynamics and the ideal of pacifism,
and conclude by saying that we probably should not assume that the actions of one group, represent the consensus view of the whole community, no matter how prominent and popular the members of that group are. No? If we do so, the more reactionary and violent we become OURSELVES as well.
William B. Noseworthy, B.A.
Oberlin 2007
----------
From: Anthony Le <leductony@yahoo.com>
Date: 2009/1/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To Lan Duong,
Thank you for your extensive reply.
First, let me clarify that some of my comments on the forum are in response specifically to comments made by 1) Minh Tran 2) Newspaper articles 3) Individuals quoted in the articles and not necessarily to VAALA itself.
Second, I would like to ask a few questions. You maintain that the purpose of the exhibit was to showcase the plurality of voices and to provide a platform for conversation. However, you also say that you expected that there would be protests. This would therefore hinder the conversation process because protesters cannot be dialoguers.
It seems to me then from the getgo, you had already eliminated this group of people out of your equation because you knew they would protest. Perhaps you knew it would be useless even to convince them otherwise. However, you wanted to give a chance for others in the community to speak their voices.
At the same time that I applaud your decision. And as I said in the beginning, I don't at all doubt your sincerity, I still question why is it that you would so quickly eliminate this vocal group out of your equation when they are by far the most affected by the experience of communism.
Why do you not want to enlist the would-be protesters into your conversation as well? If a more subtle, clever, or ingenious method were used, perhaps would-be protesters would turn into dialoguers.
Is there a possibility that in wanting to allow for a plurality of voices, you have intentionally eliminated a group of people who should not and cannot be eliminated out of any discussion regarding the communist experience?
Can you accept the fact that when you did this, you did hurt those people whether you meant to or not? When they say that they have been hurt by your action, can you believe that their words are genuine?
I believe we have to recognize people as people and not necessarily only as a "fraction" or "sect" or "group". Fractions don't have feelings. People have feelings.
For me, whether you are academics or women is irrelevant to the issue. You are who you are, and you do what you do. What I am concerned with is whether in your praiseworthy intention to create a platform for conversation, did you intentionally leave out and antagonized a group that in your intellectal assessment, seems "hopeless" because they cannot dialogue, but can only protest? I would also be interested in how this group of people was referred to in behind-the-scene conversations.
In all, I don't think what you did was wrong. However, as I said before, as a platform for conversation on the issue of communism in the community, it cannot be judged as effective if the very people most vocal about communism and are most affected by communism are not able to enter into that conversation but can only protest to shut it down. I think artists and intellectuals would be better to rethink about how they can engage these voices rather than eliminating them out of the equation or worse as a force to be reckoned with and fought against (e.g. Kieu Linh Valverde's comment in the press).
anthony
----------
From: Nu-Anh Tran
Date: Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:02 AM
Dear list,
I hesitate to comment on this, but I also wonder if, as a member of the Vietnamese-American community (of the 1.5 generation) and an academic w/ professional interests in Vietnam and a soft spot for thought-provoking art, I have a duty to do so. I should also confess up front that I will not be seeing either the exhibit or the protests, as I am out of the country at the moment.
First, although Anthony Le's comments may have displeased many list members, they contain a grain of truth to them that reflect at least my individual experience growing up among Vietnamese refugees and immigrants. Most Vietnamese adults I knew - including those who received a lot of formal education and those who barely received any and who came from a variety of class backgrounds - did not visit this type of art exhibit. If they went to any at all, it was the museum-style exhibit with aged, cultural artifacts or perhaps contemporary crafts, which my adult acquaintances appreciated aesthetically and historically but did not consider politically significant. Perhaps as Anthony Le was getting at (though I could be misreading him), we have to raise the issue of whether the specific form of an art exhibit, esp one that engages political (and other) issues with a plurality of voices in dialogue with one another, is something with which the community is culturally familiar. Maybe the meaning of an "art exhibit" is different to the protesters than it is to non-protesters. Now, that said, I think the exhibit's curators are right on the mark when they point out that many have failed to seriously consider the stated purpose of the exhibit when making assessments of it.
Second, I think the deeper issue is what Lan Duong so carefully and, I would argue, sympathetically pointed out: "As for the protestors, we expected that they would protest. We believe that they have a legitimate political voice in American culture, particularly because they have no other platform upon which to speak in the dominant culture or in Viet Nam. They have established a form of politics here that is a critical voice against the human rights abuses and lack of freedoms in Viet Nam. As I wrote in the press release, we respect this voice. But we, as art advocates, should be afforded to have a voice as well." The protesters represent a community that has for too long felt their traumatic experiences to have been ignored and their voices to have been marginalized, and this perception will condition their response, whether to this exhibit or any future attempt at dialogue. I wonder whether any effort at dialogue that does not directly confront their marginalization can succeed. I don't claim to have any solutions nor do I suggest that the curators or anyone else have an obligation to confront decades of political and discursive marginalization, but I question if it would be realistic to expect fruitful dialogue until the community perceives that they actually have an equal place at the table as the voices that disagree with them (in the mainstream media, in scholarship, in America, in Vietnam, wherever, etc.). This is not to say that they are always right or always wrong, but it is about the complex power dynamics that will be the location of any dialogue, regardless of the intentions of those calling for dialogue.
Nu-Anh Tran
Graduate student
UC Berkeley
----------
From: Nguyen-Vo, Thu-Huong
Date: Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Dear Anthony, Nu-Anh, and list,
As Lan Duong has so clearly pointed out, and Nu-Anh has quoted her, VAALA and the two curators fully acknowledge individuals and groups who would have passionate reaction to certain interpretations of works in the exhibit. Not only that, Anthony, that has been one of our main goals designed into the exhibit itself. We had originally conducted conversations and extensive interviews with protesters to make video loops for the exhibit. Unforeseen to us, we ran into legal complications that had the potential of jeopardizing the integrity of the interview materials and putting the interviewees at risk since there are court cases pending on their past or on-going protests elsewhere. In the interest of protecting our ethical obligation to our interviewees and the integrity of the interview materials, we were advised by our board attorney not to use the interview footages. We followed this advice after exhausting all other alternative solutions. This was an extremely unfortunate development. In addition to those interviews, we also invited some representatives of protest groups to be on our panel discussions. One of the representative of a protest group, Mr. Doan Trong, said at the close of Mariam Lam's panel the previous Sunday that he thought VAALA has opened up good channels of communication with protest groups, and therefore there were no protests outside the exhibition its first weekend after openning. Anthony, your questions are posed on your assumption that we discounted these groups as unworthy interlocutors "from the getgo." The contrary has been true in both our intention and action.
Best,
Nguyen-vo thu-huong
UCLA
----------
From: Minh Tran <mtran.csulb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To clarify what is suggested on the side of the protestors, there is
no safe method to circumvent this or that protest group. Once you have
assuaged one group, there will be others. Will there always be such a
predicament? I agree that Doan Trong acknowledges the importance of an
open dialogue and presented a channeling effect but is this person or
any other person claiming to represent protestors hold credential to
represent the whole?
Some protestors are beyond an organize protest groups, thus they
cannot be controlled.
Even if one wants to extend his/her hand to the community, how would
it be possible? We know the history of protests in Bolsa, what
alternative avenues are available? While an elected official is chosen
by the people, that doesn't mean the people to listen, so speaking to
an official seems futile.
UWest
----------
From: Lan Duong <lduong@ucr.edu>
Date: 2009/1/21
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Anthony and everyone,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments everyone. However, I again take issue with Anthony's points.
Co-curators Tram Le and I (as well as VAALA) did not eliminate anyone's voices from the beginning. As Thu-Huong mentioned in her last post, we tried our best to include their voices within the exhibit through various means. Our hands being tied in the end, we could not go forward with it -- but not because of a lack of desire.
I refuse to admit that we did anything but provide as much context as possible for the images that were misperceived to be hurtful. The works in question were cordoned off in one room called the "Black Room." We had bilingual descriptions for each room in fact.
On the main floor, there were very large pieces of refugee stories by established and notable artists like Long Nguyen, Ann Phong, Nguyen Trong Khoi and Binh Danh. This portion of the exhibit clearly stated that the art was done by first generation artists who were preoccupied with the reconstruction of memory and trauma. Through this display we also retold their stories. On the same floor, we featured artists who dealt with the politics of racism, human rights, democracy, youth culture in a post-9/11 context. On the second floor, we had a graffiti artist, a collective painting that was done by community members and children who were asked to paint circles on a mural to show how inter-connected we all were, and a room devoted to the politics of sexuality and gender. We also featured performers who were going to deal with issues like Prop 8 and women's sexuality, among other things.
What everyone has emphasized, however, is the Black Room. For this room, it was stated outside of both sides of this room that there was highly political material. The art work here tried to have us rethink national symbols like the southern Vietnamese flag and the communist flag. However, in this room, there were also the writings and audio files of dissident writers and poets. Accompanying this were the images of banned artists in Viet Nam. Other works include the videos of Hong-An Truong whose films deal with colonial warfare and that history of suppression. All of the works in this room spoke to issues of censorship and self-censorship -- historically and up to the present moment, in Viet Nam as well as in the US.
The idea that we were not sensitive to history and trauma, I think, does a disservice to the belabored ways that Tram Le and I wrote each description for each wing of the exhibit (and had them translated), crafted our curatorial statements (also bilingual), wrote up press releases, did walk-throughs, tried to organize panels, conducted interviews, and in general, attempted to facilitate dialogue between community members and artists. This was a project that was 7 months in the making.
In effect, this was not like other exhibits.
If you saw it, I think you would agree.
On this note, I will do my best to try to put images of the exhibit on the VAALA website in order to emphasize the multiple ways that artists in the exhibit are grappling with the political.
On the issue that we were wielding a form of cultural capital like art that was too incomprehensible for the common people is simply untrue. Art and literature are deeply appreciated in Viet Nam and here.
On whether or not this was an 'effective means,' I advocate for art and literature inside the classroom and outside of it; this is what I do and I will not cede any definitions of community, art, and the political by one vocal faction of the community. Otherwise, there is nothing left to struggle for.
Finally, I refuse to see the crowd of protestors as my elders to whom I should be held accountable because I object to the idea that I inherently belong to this family/community/national family, even though I recognize the class issues and power dynamics that undergird not just the protest but the exhibit itself.
But my being a female academic is very relevant to this discussion because that is how I am claimed within this space. As a daughter of the community and of the nation, I am somehow more traitorous because of my education, articulation and assimilation. It goes almost without saying that this is simply not the case.
Lan
----------
From: Frank
Date: 2009/1/21
I for one would welcome Lan's generous offer to post images of the exhibit on the website. Of course not all of the works would be easily transmuted into digital form, but developing this further as a virtual exhibition would enrich VAALA's already-impressive website and continue--in other media and other channels--the conversations that were intended by the curators but interrupted by events. An online exhibit raises its own questions about self-selecting audiences, exclusion of certain voices/viewers who might have limited access to internet or limited comfort with surfing the web, differential access by class and age, etc. - not new problems, but the same as those in a 3-D physical exhibition. I daresay a comment section of the website (hopefully, one moderated in favour of constructive dialogue) would be a further way of extending the conversations.
Best,
Frank Proschan
37 place Jeanne d'Arc
75013 Paris
FRANCE
----------
From: Anthony Le
Date: 2009/1/23
To Lan and others,
Thank you for sharing about the process that you have undertaken to put on the exhibit. I think you have tried to do what you think was necessary and important in order to have a quality exhibit. I then would like to ask you these questions in an objective manner:
1) If your goal was to create dialogue in the community, what is your assessment then when the exhibit was shut down after a short time by protest from a vocal part of the community?
2) When I talked to a middle-aged women (non-protester) about the exhibit and the most controversial work in the exhibit, her first reaction was: "What are they [VAALA] doing at that for?" I told her to go see for hersellf. She said, "Why should I go to see a communist flag?" I am not saying whether she was right or wrong. That is just a reaction of an average Vietnamese woman (who has never gone to an anti-communist protest before). How do you address this "silent" group?
3) Is it possible for artists to engage the issues of communism in the community without using symbols that draw attention to itself rather than pointing to the essential issue? For example, can one attempt to talk about issues of sex without having a picture of two people engaged in intercourse? In which case the people that you want to engage in the dialogue would be less likely too have knee-jerked reactions but are more comfortable to enter into dialogue? This speaks to the artist's sensitivity to other's experience and state of mind and not just satisfying his own need for personal expression.
Again, I am not at all critiquing your intention or desire. What I am attempting to point out is if you could accept the possibility that despite everything you have done to be sensitive and constructive, you have resorted to one thing that offsets everything other good thing that you did.
You are saying that everything else you did should be enough to justify your inclusion of the communist symbols in your exhibit. But that is your thinking and assessment. However, when you put on an exhibit for the public, in the end, it is up to the public to decide if they would accept it or not. Again, I am not saying whether the public was right or wrong. I am only saying that not all accepted. And as curators, you have to sit down and look at who accepted and who didn't and whether those accepted were in your goals. If those who didn't accept weren't a part of your goal, then their non-acceptance would not mean failure for you. That is something that only you can do.
However, from my judgment, if you say that you never wanted to exclude this particular group from the discussion, then you have to evaluate your effort based on the fact that they refused to enter into the discussion but protested to shut it down. In this case, you have two options. You can either say, "We did all we could. Those people are just beyond help." Or you can say, "We could have done it differently." If you choose the latter, then you can go ahead and think about how you could have done it differently in order to obtain a different set of outcome.
My feeling is increasingly, this group of protesters and their silent supporters are being seen as 'the other'. Lan seems to have reflected this sentiment herself in the comment below. Their experiences and their stance is becoming more and more undesirable to the new Vietnamese American generation. And they are being viewed as a destructive force, preventing progress and community harmony. Perhaps all of that is true. And as Lan says, she refuses to see them as her elders. I just raise the question: Will we somehow be better off if these people were out of sight and out of mind?
Anthony
MPH HIV/AIDS Center
NBL, Thailand
----------
From: Minh Tran
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM
I would have to agree with Anthony on this point. I was always taught
to "know your audience," and this exhibit is avoiding this aphorist
statement. Especially in the heart of the largest Vietnamese
population outside of Viet Nam, one should consider the community's
rancorous predilection. By shuning this maxim, the exhibit is sure to
bear dire ramification. Not to disregard the tremendous work of the
artists, however the their works is only as good as the audience that
see it.
Should future curators plan to forge a dialogue with this community,
they should consider the community's sensitivity. One should be able
to open a public exhibition without goading portraits or symbols that
erupts vicious commotion. If asked if this exhibit could have been
presented in a different way, then the answer is obvious, every
performance can be perform different. One can discuss culture, art,
or history without alluding political connotation, implication, etc.
In regard to one portrait by Brain Doan, he is depicting life in a communist country in his art, which can be open to wide criticism in
this specific community.
UWest
------------------------
From: Janet Hoskins
Date: Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Dear commentators,
I was very disappointed to hear that the VAALA exhibit had closed, since I had hoped to bring a group of USC students to see the exhibit, as part of a class that I am teaching on "The New Vietnam" which just started last week.
I was encouraged, however, by Lan's statement that she will put images of the exhibit on the VAALA website. Perhaps going on line is the best way to make what would seem to me to be the many contributions of this exhibit (which I regret that I cannot see) available to a wider audience. There could also be an on line dialogue in response to the materials through blogs and comments, more or less like what we have been able to read these last few days on VSG.
Many important issues have been raised, not only for Vietnamese-Americans but also for many others concerned with history, representation and freedom of artistic expression, both here and in Vietnam. I hope that through the VAALA website some of these issues could be shared with my students.
Janet Hoskins
Professor of Anthropology
University of Southern California
----------
From: Thuy Vo Dang
Date: 2009/1/21
I would like to echo Janet's comment below! I am teaching a course called "Comparative Filipino and Vietnamese American Identities and Communities" at UCSD and had encouraged my students to go to FOB II as part of a class assignment. I had planned on attending the last day of the exhibit before I heard the news.
This dialogue on VSG has been very energetic and inspiring. I want to throw in a brief comment about art and politics in response to Anthony Le's comment about this being the wrong site for THIS community. I disagree. I worked in the Viet-Am community in San Diego for a number of years and found that first generation Viet-Ams (refugees and immigrants) have a very complex view of how art and politics are entangled. Obviously, many saw the political stakes in representing the past and present, Vietnam and the diaspora through art, otherwise there would not have been protest. I don't see Lan's comment about anticipating protest as dismissive but rather grounded in a historical understanding of Viet-Am community formations. Certainly, despite the shut-down, this exhibition has already done important work. I hope we will continue these discussions beyond academic circles.
Thuy Vo Dang, Ph.D.
Department of Ethnic Studies, UCSD
----------
From: Christoph Giebel
Date: 2009/1/21
My hat is off to the organizers of this important exhibit! The thoughtful ways in which they articulated their goals and their work on VSG are inspiring and moving. Yet it seems to me that those participating in the conversation assume a factual knowledge of events that I believe the larger VSG community might not have. I remember Mariam, Thu-Huong and Chung posting when VAALA had gotten under way, and then a rather startling turn in the exchange after the exhibit was closed prematurely. What happened in between? Did I miss something? Could someone please explain (again?) how the disturbing and grave matter of an art exhibit being "shut down" came about? There were some fleeting references in the discussion, but I do not recall detailed explanations. Who ordered the "shutting down"? Why? On what (legal) grounds? Are there plans to reopen and protect bedrock principles that are at stake here?
Many thanks for any clarifications,
Christoph
C. Giebel
UW-Seattle
----------
From: Bill Hayton
Date: 2009/1/21
From my reading of the LA Times there was a rather ironic parallel with Vietnam. According to the article
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vietart18-2009jan18,0,1933859.story
"the owners of the building ordered the exhibit closed, saying the organizers lacked the proper business license."
This reminded me of the way that an artwork was removed from an exhibition organised by the Goethe Institut in Hanoi in 2007. It was a giant baby's nappy/diaper made out of traffic police uniform pockets (a comment on their absorbency...) When the then Ministry of Culture demanded its removal it wasn't on the grounds of it being an offensive work of art. Just that it didn't have the correct licence...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6303101.stm
Bill Hayton
(unaffiliated)
------------------------
From: Chung Nguyen
Date: 2009/1/22
The online magazine Da Mau (http://damau.org) has just announced that it will open a forum to continue the discussion that the VAALA Exhibition intends to start but has been unable to continue because of the shutdown. It strongly supports the objectives of the organizers, but regrets that they have to close it.
The magazine invites all those interested to voice their opinions. It begins with "Nan Nhan" (Victims), an article by Phung Nguyen (http://damau.org/archives/3422 <http://damau.org/archives/3422> ), one of Da Mau founders, analyzing the event, critiquing the various reactions by local Vietnamese-American politicians, protesters, interested parties, and responses by the exhibition organizers.
C. Nguyen
UMASS Boston
----------
From: Nguyen-Vo, Thu-Huong
Date: 2009/1/23
Dear Chung, Christoph, Thuy, and Janet,
Thank you so much for your interest and support. Janet, I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to converse with your students. Thuy, we met some of your students, and one of them participated in the first panel discussion run by Mariam.
We're discussing putting up accounts of events, discussion, analysis, and hopefully obtaining artists' permission to post their works on VAALA's website. Presently, press releases concerning the openning, curators' statements, and closing could be found at vaala.org as I mentioned in an earlier post.
We had hoped that Mariam's, Lan's and my posts on the events informed our list of the main gist of the developments and also some of the issues we faced. And we hope to continue to discuss them with you perhaps on VAALA's site. As for Phung Nguyen's article on Damau that Nguyen Ba Chung has recommended, I hope you read it as one observer's commentary on the events as opposed to an accurate account of what happened. I would take issue with his representation of events and our decisions.
best,
Huong
t. nguyen-vo
UCLA
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: 2009/1/24
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I believe that human suffering and human rights are universal. Suffering and rights are not limited to any group, any country or any culture; they are without boundary in space and time.
Vo Van Kiet, the late Prime Minister in a 2005 interview to commemorate the fall of Saigon, said that after the April 1975 event, there were millions of Vietnamese happy and there were millions of Vietnamese sad. This is a reality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/forum/story/2005/04/050417_vovankietinterview.shtml
If one is expected to respect the suffering of Holocaust victims, one is expected to respect the suffering of millions of Vietnamese.
However, one is also expected to respect rights of others, among which, freedom of expression. While one should remember the past, living in the past does not help move a community forward. Respecting rights of others is a step in the right direction to build a better and stronger community.
I hope the exhibit organizer and the local community can work towards a long term solution:
1. Have a balance for the exhibit
2. Re-open the exhibit to general public in Orange County
3. Open the same exhibit to general public in Hanoi and Saigon
Nguyen Minh Triet and Nguyen Tan Dung, President and Prime Minister respectively, while traveling to the United States or to Europe, have publicly called on overseas Vietnamese community to let the past behind and work together for a bright future of Vietnam.
Let us make this happen on both sides of the ocean. Let us focus our energy and resources on a common goal.
If the exhibit organizer and the local community can work together for an exhibit to promote art voices, we should expect no issue between the exhibit organizer and people in Saigon and Hanoi, per Vietnamese leader's call.
In my humble opinion, by reaching out to each other, the overseas Vietnamese community and exhibit organizer not only honor those who died or suffered in the war but also serve the best interest of the people inside and outside of Vietnam.
Calvin Thai
--------------------
From: Lan Duong
Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:48 AM
Dear all,
Thank you to many of you who have commented on the exhibit and who have expressed your interest in seeing it online.
Please note that the "FOB II: Art Speaks Exhibit" is on the vaala website (www.vaala.org) under "FOB II Exhibition" and "Photos and Media." I've converted the slideshow of all of the works and other photo displays into quicktime movies. Hopefully you can screen them on your computers without problems.
There is also a commentary that I had written, a timeline for the exhibit, and interviews with myself and co-curator Tram Le, with questions posed by damau.org. Under the same tab, I've also posted a letter that I received from State Assemblyman Van Tran; it requests that VAALA take down Brian Doan's work. This letter was sent to me at my university address but was addressed to Ysa Le, the Executive Director of VAALA. In fact, all the VAALA Board members received this exact letter. As you may know, we were asked to shut down soon after because the city of Santa Ana contended that we were unpermitted.
Also online are commentaries and write-ups by artists featured within the exhibit and by other writers who knew of and/or visited the exhibit.
As a continuation of our program, after we were shut down, we were pleased to put on the "One Mic: Uncensored" performance two weeks ago at UC Irvine. This show will be posted online soon. Right now, Jenni Trang Le's poem and interactive performance does not feature the audio yet (of protestors' voices and voicemails) but we're working on this.
Unfortunately the performances by Lan Tran (Smaller T*ts, Tighter P*ssy,) and the musical "Kiep Nao Co Yeu Nhau," which deals with Prop 8, have yet to be staged. Please check back for periodic updates if you are interested.
Lan
Lan Duong, Assistant Professor
Department of Media and Cultural Studies
CHASS Interdisciplinary Building, Rm 3141
University of California, Riverside
Page updated
Report abuse