Text written for Rimbun Dahan Resident Artist exhibition catalog 2002
introduction
It is my intention to highlight in my work issues related to space and temporality, the integration of technology and inspiration, truth and illusion affecting everything that we perceive as tangible and implied, in an attempt to establish a complex relationship between art and architecture. When considering my work, it is necessary to be aware that current thinking suggests that each domain may be addressed in isolation from one another, and that academically there are perceptible similarities and differences between art and architecture. However, for me any distinctions are becoming more difficult to distinguish from what was preconceived. It is at this initially conceptual level that an intangible idea (re)shuffles between what can be classified as art and architecture, and thus is materialized into the final body of work.
conception
Most of my work is derived from a sort of spontaneous, non-linear, seemingly non-sequential contemplation between what could be and what exists, what is meant to be experienced and what is actually felt. It is from our surrounding natural and built environment, and consequently the interactions or lack of them, that we acquire knowledge and inform our thinking, and it is from others that we learn about the self and how to nurture any talent that God has given us. At this stage, I have come to perceive the self as a composite that is often contradictory and internally incomplete. Perhaps this is one way to relate to my work, in a sense that it is conceptualised and manifested in fragments and aggregates that reveal a certain personal characteristic, which challenges the reader to engage with the work at various levels of interpretation.
conflict
I have always felt that the need to resolve and comprehend a seemingly simplistic two dimensional drawing in order for it to be properly developed into a three dimensional form is a daunting task. Hence, it has been a struggle for me to envisage a three-dimensional and non-planar composition such as a non-Euclidean design for a sculpture, which needs to be drawn on the two-dimensional plane in the form of sections, plans and elevations. Even more difficult perhaps, is the need to acquire a sort of paradigm shift from thinking in terms of large-scale projects such as buildings, to a more subtle language that is better suited for a sculptural undertaking, much smaller in scale by comparison. Hence, the problem with physical models is that you can only do so many and while computer-aided designs are better for the diversified repetitive tasks, the form is only virtual and lacks the inherent property of the finished material that could create a sense of scale and proportion. These concerns have been an ongoing personal conflict and the result, whether successful or not, is apparent in the work. My undergraduate studies in architecture have undoubtedly molded a certain way of thinking in conceptualizing the physical body of the work.
process
As a result of this particular mode of thinking, the process of realizing an idea can be scrutinized as rather architectural in its approach, yet does not have the constraint architects normally face. It is said that one way of differentiating art and architecture is their different responses to objective requirements. Hence, if art is seen as speculative thinking, then what I am doing must be art by default since everything I do is conjectural, non-functional, and self-directed - though I am not implying that architecture is already art, or vice-versa. Consequently, I do not design the final works themselves, but more oriented towards conceiving the possible relationship between solids and voids, positive and negative space, or the obvious and the hidden. I prefer to consider this process as parallel to generating an organized system in order for the tectonic idea to be workable. This would result in the actual fabrication to be more feasible and practical in a sense that wastage of material is minimized, ease of construction and assembly is achieved, while still maintaining the desired result that was originally conceived.
do-undo-redo
All of the possible generative sources are given adequate consideration during inception and this develops into a wide spectrum of architectural and artistic interpretation. Although difficult to describe, the work often begins from this infinite and productive intuition, which is challenged and tested both physically and mentally. It then matures from the intangible realm of thought, propelled by its own internal energy, in an effort to consciously make something out of nothing. This is an iterative methodology of working and reworking an idea at various stages of the design development, and perhaps a feasible justification on the continuity of form that is apparent from one work to another. In a way, the coherence is a result of the consistent use of this repetitive method, which evidently is carried throughout the physical aspect of the work itself.
tectonic
The works themselves are certainly ‘end products’ in their own respect. Basically, the final built objects are finite, well defined, and are more or less free from the imperfections of the production process. Nevertheless, I still consider the ‘finished works’ to be incomplete, schematic, trapped in the midst of their production, with potential to be further developed. Seen from this perspective, the work is left as if merely to engage other students and professionals within the field of art and architecture. However, as built and finished works they also have the opportunity to engage the public for whom they were meant and any subsequent unanticipated public. Therefore, the work is indeed offered with the intention of being read while addressing the reader with a multitude of interpretations, and to personally sustain the design process to be intellectually animated.
