Where's the Development?

Popped by the NUS Museums today lunchtime, since it was just nearby, and ambled through their main exhibition, Constructed Landscapes: Singapore In Southeast Asia. It was about Singapore's links to Southeast Asia, as exhibited in visual art; most of the works were by Singaporean artists, though not all. The exhibition was interesting but rather small. Too small to be truly intriguing. I think an extract from the sparse commentary is indicative:
'Memory ... The works in this exhibition do not conform to a single ideal of landscape. They are perspectives engendered by particular experiential and perceived moments, some of which are contradictory to one another. Each work reflects the particular artist's sense of location and the prevailing milieu.'
Around there are scattered works by various artists in various styles. Like a series of snapshots, whose subjects, angles and treatment were chosen all at random. Not completely at random, maybe, but random enough, at any rate, for the pattern to be not easily comprehended. Or a small sample of what should be a much larger, more coherent, more organic body of work.
So now the question I would like to ask is: does that larger body of work actually exist, or is this apparent lack of development the result of larger and stronger factors than just bad, stingy curating?