I Polunin | the 'exotica'

we are always intrigued by those different from us. the exotic other. they fuel the imagination, offering a glimpse into a reality of the alternative. wedged in Colonialism and in the study of Anthropology, this concept of the other is one that hosts companions such as romanticism, nostalgia, the exotica, and 'the past'. although the I Polunin exhibition was meant to be reflective of the I, the self, some fragment of being 'Singaporean', i could not help but feel extremely othered.

we walked into the gallery and instantly, we were caught in both excitement and awe. there were photos of three men, each shot in the manner shown above. each a specimen. each with a number labelled onto their bodies. markings. documenting. it reminded me of the kind of photos i saw in my introduction to Anthropology and the Human Condition module. the beginnings of the study of 'race', as determined by the physical. the biological makings of a man. stereotypes. the first two were photos of 'native men', as clearly recognized and marked by their othered faces. the Asian. the tribal. the exotic. the third photo however, caught us by surprise, for it was a photo of the filmmaker himself. the Western male. ironically, without a loincloth (for no Western man wears that), but also rather comically, covered modestly only by socks and shoes. unsettling. but also potently symbolic.

walking further into the gallery, we were then greeted by panaromic shots of old Singapore. 'old' being a mere 60 years ago. and yet, a 60 years ago we could not recognize, or imagine. it was vastly different. more vibrant. we also caught sight of something in one of the old photos. something so inconsequential, and yet, historical, existing both then and in our present day. something that ought to be historical, and yet, often unnoticed.

there were also old objects. most of which, recording devices owned by the Dr. Polunin himself. snapshots. documents. notes. we then came to a film reel. old footages of what is perhaps a village in the 1950s, Singapore. again. it was starkly different. unimaginable. how could 60 years change so much? they had a baby bear as 'pet'. a real one. the made their own boats. children carrying coconuts, pineapples, jackfruits. some children these days do not even know how these fruits look like on the outside. we sat there for the duration of the film. watching. gasping. wondering. where are these people now? the children in the film would be about 70-80 years old by now. why don't they look like any of the ethnic selves in present today? where did they go? how did they accomodate such a shift in their living environment? would we have been able to live like that? if we were born in such a reality, of course we would. socialization. a part of me felt a huge wave of nostalgia. nostalgia for a world so divorced from me, and yet deeply felt for it was 'Singapore'. the mere reference to a name. a superficial emotional affinity. othered.

the exotica. that became the main motivation, the main 'visual tool' for the capturing of what was then Singapore. to the eyes of a Western man, the mundane everyday of this world was exotic to him and thus, worthy of capture. and in time, these mundane captures became fragments of what we now deem as 'history'. our history, as shaped by this other. how do we look, consume, and manipulate it? what does this say about the makings of our history? how does this reflect upon the method(s) upon which we thus begin to historicize our today?

i do not deny the importance of the mundane, the everyday, as essential aspects of historicizing. but i also know that to be consciously aware of its existence and importance as a part of what will be archived as history, is something that might be hard for the self to be actively realize, for there is nothing sensational in the mundane. only the sensational is often remembered. only the sensational is documented. history is often made up of only the sensational. the mundane, is remembered, by others. there is thus perhaps a need for the presence of an other in order to exoticize what we would deem to be mundane. unless, we possess within a self-reflexive thought and emotive system which would allow us to nostalgize, in advance, the things that would soon be deemed ‘ancient’ or historical, and to make that effort to memorialize it, now.

look around you. and look at the rate of change that exists within the world right now. is there anything you can imagine being gone, depleted, or erased of its use in the near future? if the world that is presented within the films and documentations of Dr. Ivan Polunin is but 60 odd years ago from our now, what can we envisage to change in 60 years to come? at the age of 80, would my generation of people be nostalgizing about the pencil? would handwritings become a thing of the past? would laptops? and what of certain rituals. with the advent and presence of media that can replace these older traditions, along with the influx of the visual media, would nobody tell stories anymore? would all the bards be silenced? or perhaps, they already are. have we documented them? or are they already gone.

how long does it take to museumize a generation of objects, rites, moments? how long to realize that there is a need to museumize it?

and with a world that is each advancing in a mirroring pace, is there even an othered reality? or has everything become the same? selfed.

I Polunin
NX Gallery, NUS Museum
more info here