Hello,
This essay has 2 main functions.
1. As a short(-ish) introduction to my painting practice.
2. As a blueprint/script to develop a two-person show about painting.
It's chronological in most parts, but does stroll off tangent here and there. These meanderings can be accessed by clicking on their #headers. Otherwise they will remain collapsed. Happy reading.
Cheers,
Gan
Ghost Don't Cast Shadows
Notes on reference with a few side quests.
(July 2024)
A gouche study from one of my sketchbook, 2018
1. Reference
In my painting a reference is an image that I refer to when painting.
Traditionally these can be drawings, sketches or direct observation from life. But it’s common to also reference images from print and screens. Not all painters work this way. Some just paint. Particularly abstract painters. Rothko and Agnes Martin come to mind. And there are others that do some combination of both. I make mainly figurative, representational paintings. My paintings reproduce images of things in real life. That’s one reason I use references.
Friendship,1963
Agnes Martin
(Image from theguardian.com)
1993 -1996
Art School
For as long as I can remember I’ve always used references when I paint. I’ll have to go back to art school days for instances when I painted from life. Huddled around a small arrangement of still objects with my classmates. Those were probably the few memories I have of painting with others. It’s almost a social event. This is in 1994. Before the internet, AI and 58 gender options. Painting has since become more and more a private act.
Example of setup for Plein Air (outdoor) painting.
(Image from marcdalessio.com)
Not many students continue painting from life. I think the difficulty in maintaining the “scene” made it unpopular. Even when it’s indoors with still objects. Studio spaces in my art school are shared and rearranged constantly. Plein Air (outdoor) painting is probably worse. Lugging around tools in the Malaysian weather is not an appealing proposition. Depending on the scene, one probably has less control. And the occasional attention from the public definitely puts me off. Painting in public is definitely a social activity. Likely a performative one. And yours truly don't dance.
Malaysia Institute of Art (circa 1990s)
TMI
A still image (usually, a photo) solves most of those problems. Which may be why it’s the reference of choice. A photo condenses time and space to a single two-dimensional instance. Something representational paintings seeks to do. In most cases-lah. The multi-spatial views provided by observing something from life can be a chore. Because, TMI.
I didn't have a camera back then. So, I usually use photos from magazines or books. Combining them with preparatory drawings and sketches I made.
But Cezzane certainly used this multi-spatial view for his groundbreaking works. And those works, apparently, set the stage for Cubism and everything modern to come through. So, merci monsieur Cezzane.
Paul Cezanne, The Kitchen Table (1890) as analysed by Erle Loran
(Image from creatureandcreator.ca)
But we were students. And quite busy ones too. Producing groundbreaking work like Cezanne is not an expectation. Having sufficient grounding in technical abilities was deemed more urgent. I remember churning out paintings, drawings or whatever else every week. But yet, time doesn’t feel as compressed as it is today. There was time and head space to let our hands and material lead the way.
Malaysia Institute of Arts (MIA) Fine Arts Department. Final year assessment, class of 1996.
Photo courtesy of Leng Teng Chai
It seems to me, nowadays it’s concepts, expressions and (unexpectedly) data above all else. Technicalities are seen as a means to an end. But techniques or other aspects of working with one's hand can be a direct and rich source for development in any practice.
I suppose an oil painting major would say that. It sounds old fashioned. Something from an era when art is learned by specialising in a particular medium. But my art school training is something I’m increasingly grateful for. Patience and practice is the game.
A gouche study from one of my sketchbook, 2018
When I was younger I was told that techniques, which are associated with the hands (read, manual labour) are inferior in comparison to concepts. Because concepts are something to do with the head and therefore denotes intelligence. And apparently both are mutually exclusive. The brainiacs vs the crafters. Fortunately, this is one of those dumb truisms that has faded. But unfortunately, I still hear people link an artist's command of English with their credibility as a serious artist.
Quantum Memories, 2020
Refik Anadol
(image from refikanadol.com)
It seems to me, nowadays it’s concepts, expressions and unexpectedly, presentation of data above all else. Technicalities are seen as a means to an end. But techniques or other aspects of working with one's hand can be a rich source for development in any practice.
My Instagram account. Give us a follow and behold my falling trees.
I think artists have to be both and more these days. In fact, being our own marketing guru seems to trump both. The public’s perception of who we are as artists has become more important than the art we make. Perhaps that’s always the case. Making art is one thing, being an artist is something else. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to Instagram it, did it really happen?
1997 -2006
2. Making Reference
I cannot remember who taught me to make references or studies before making paintings. Maybe it wasn’t taught formally. And is just an old and obvious practice. I mean, there were plenty of precedents. And copying is a big part of learning how to paint. In fact, how we learn anything. So mimicking another artist’s method is part of the process. I remember loving Holbien’s work. Especially his studies. So efficient, clean and precise.
(Right) Studies for Sir Henry Guildford, Black and coloured chalks, and pen and ink
Hans Holbein the Younger
(Left) Sir Henry Guildford, Oil on canvas (1527)
(image from bbc.co.uk)
A painting in Holbein’s time is a different beast. Paintings are likely more laborious and expensive to make. Before the industrial revolution there were no mass produced tubed colors. Oil paints were more expensive. And are usually grind and mixed in the artist’s studio in small batches. Using pigments sourced from faraway places. For example the Cinnabar mineral used in making Vermeer's Vermillion. That’s likely true for other painting material and tools. So, it’s logical to be efficient and prepared before making paintings.
(Left & right)
Vermillion in mineral and pigment form.
Image from naturalpigments.com
The Wine Glass, 1660
Johannes Vermeer
Image from essentialvermeer.com
All great artists from that era were also entrepreneurs. For them, painting’s first priority is likely not self-expression. I don't know of any artists before the 19th century who made a “series” to critique the systemic oppression of whoever. They make paintings to make a living. And they usually do so by taking commissions. And not by doing solo exhibitions featuring a ‘series of personal works’ in commercial galleries. Because for a large part of art history, there were no commercial galleries or solo exhibitions. And working in a series is a relatively recent approach. So, the purpose and function of art has changed. And we’ve come a long way.
Making The Same Picture Twice
So, the painting we see in a gallery may have, in parts, been re-made at least twice. Because making preparatory drawings/sketches were a common way to study an image before painting. Sometimes these studies become references for paintings. Other times they don’t. But they can be fun to make.
Gouache study from a photo, for an unrealised painting. (circa 2017)
My studies are usually done on paper. With an emphasis on training the eye to see the scene/image in isolated parts and as a whole. Figuring out the tone and ambient of the picture. Necessary details are studied more closely. While other elements on the periphery are simplified. It’s a way of shaping the interplay between the negative and positive spaces.
Pencil study from life for Jungle Parade (2008)
Jungle Parade, 2006
Gan Siong King as N.Juliastuti
Drawing
I don’t make drawings only as studies. It’s an enjoyable act on its own. There’s an immediacy to sketching and drawing that’s different to painting. Maybe back then, dry mediums were more familiar to me compared to canvases and oil paint. And certainly cheaper.
Untitled (Aziz, former housemate), 2005
4 Corners
Another concern when making references is boundaries. Where the actual scene ends and a picture begins? I used to draw or paint a frame over my studies. There’s a pictorial logic to image making. Which is different from the reality I’m trying to represent. Certain shapes, colors and shades need to be adjusted to better fit the canvas. Which is usually a rectangle. But it can be any other shape for that matter.
The edges of the canvas assert a kind of pressure on all the other shapes contained within it. Particularly around the 4 corners if it’s a rectangle or square. The conventional expectation of image making is to find a harmonic tension, so to speak. Therefore a need for composition. So, automatically this becomes something I want to mess with. Just because conventional expectations are usually a rich source for play and development.
Testing possible composition by painting a frame around an image.
Study for Nice Cleavage, Badly Painted, circa 2003
I think my recent exploration with painted cardboards comes from this instinct. This need to muck about. Instead of trying to interpret or worse, replicate whatever that’s considered standard or proper painting. I use 'standards' as a reference and not a blueprint. Because standards are context specific. Who’s standards and serving what purposes?
I think crafters use standards as blueprints. Where any deviation from the standard disqualified it automatically. I mean, a Persian rug needs to be made in a certain way, with a certain material, incorporate certain patterns or motifs and what have you. Otherwise it’s anything but a Persian carpet. Surely this cannot be the only approach for contemporary painting.
Because of my formal training I inevitably follow some of these standards. And thank goodness I did. It'll be difficult to survive as a full-time artist if I didn't. But it’s never my thing to only work in one way. In hindsight, I didn’t change my approaches to painting earlier because it serves a purpose. But any approach will impose a limit on the scope of my work. So, I thought using various approaches should widen the scope and purposes of my work.
Colors As Objects
My interactions with paint or color were mostly with brushes. And it starts mostly on my palette or a primed canvas. These colors are arranged with brushes to form lines, shapes and shades to create an image. I’ve done this for a while now. So, I wanted a different experience of handling lines, colors and shapes.
Perhaps because I paint quite thinly, paint feels more like colors than a thing. Actually it’s both depending on how closely we examine them. At a far enough distance both disappear into an image. I tell you, painting is a normalized form of alchemy. Because t switches forms imperceptibly.
RaRa, 2024
Landscape In Mars
After art school, I usually use photos from magazines and newspapers as reference. Now it includes images from the internet. Partly because some subjects are harder to study through direct observation. Y’know, sometimes I want to paint landscapes from Mars. Fantastical and faraway things. Other times, events from the past. So, I have to use other people's photos.
In Search of Meaning in Faraway Places, 2014
Which is why sometimes my paintings are seen as lacking a sense of place. Meaning, it could have been painted by a non-Malaysian. But this doesn’t bother me as much as some of my friends on my behalf. Because I’m not looking to represent Malaysia when I make art. Nor Kuala Lumpur, or my ethnicity and its sub-group, Hokkien. Or my gender, sexual orientation and whatever else that’s important to the art crowd these days. Most times, my paintings are mainly about play. Identity politics, or politics in general is not a priority.
I think this is partly a response to what I felt was an all consuming but inane preoccupation with national identity in my 20s. In both the Malaysian art and political discourses. Specifically, the importance and proper way to visually represent Malaysian-ness. I felt seeking a definitive definition for multi-faceted concepts is a fool’s errand. Malaysian politicians use this ambiguity to serve their political agenda. But this is not useful to me as an artist.
What is Malaysian culture? What is Malaysian imagery? Should we only use images of paddy fields, traditional costumes, iconic geological formations etc. Obviously those are things of this place. Indonesians will rightly say of this ‘region’. But in any case, those images would meet expectations and “work” for a tourism campaign. But should this theme park attraction method be the only way to frame Malaysian-ness in art? Is our culture of co-opting other cultures any less Malaysian?
Promotional material from Tourism Malaysian
(image from tourism.gov.my)
I’m interested in finding other ways to look at ourselves. The wallpaper landscape that came with Windows XP is a more familiar view to me than Mount Kinabalu. It can be framed as a PC user’s landscape, and that’s certainly a part of my identity. An inclusive identity that connects me with the majority of people in the world. But boring and uncontested. In a time where confrontations and conflicts gets the most clicks, it’s unsexy.
Ignorance is Bliss, 2005
Also some Sabahan might just say I have no claim to that majestic mountain anyway. Because I’m from peninsula Malaysia. So, I’m non-Borneonian. Much like I'm non-Bumiputera, non-Singaporean, non-mechanic, non-insect etc. And that inane discourse on identity politics spirals on.
View of Mount Kinabalu, Sabah
Image from cabinzero.com
Studio In Bologna
I have nothing against representing whatever that’s local. I have love for Morandi's paintings. A deep respect for the continuity in his practice. But also because his paintings were made at room temperature. I mean, no drama, big budget or discourses. And at scale that’s human and intimate. But I haven't felt the need to paint images of my immediate surroundings for a while now. Until recently.
Natura Morta, 1955
Giorgio Morandi
(Image from slash-paris.com)
1997 - 2007
3. Soft Copies
Photos as references were always a source of reference. Earlier on, these photos were translated into drawings as studies. After a while the study phase is merged with the painting process. By referencing the photo directly without making studies. Everything is resolved on the canvas. I mean, I’m not Holbein grinding paint in my studio. I have tube paints and more room to make mistakes and change course.
Later these photos are edited with software before use. Which started my process of making references digitally. Affordable internet and personal computers helped. I remember loving the scalability of high resolution photos. And the different options to tweak images digitally. All this happened around 2001.
The Persistence of Why, 2014
(collection of Chuah Chong Yong)
Post-production
I think I learned more about lighting through digital post-production in photography than painting. The ability for unlimited “undo” coupled with a narrowly defined set of control helped. I learned how to see and process images according to their exposure, contrast, saturation, color balance and more. Step by step and one thing at a time. In comparison, painting, earlier on, felt like driving a manual car for the first time. It was chaotic with multiple things happening all at once.
In terms of image making, painting and photography have overlaps and parallels. But both have different approaches, logic and expectations. This divide is not something I’m concerned with. I just apply whatever I know across the board whenever I need to.
Adopting the lingo of both painting and digital image processing created a different way for me to look at images. A desaturated painting or a painting with deep focus, are not thoughts or descriptions I would use prior to this. And this is important because making paintings is my way of figuring out what a painting is. What else can it be? How can I make this medium my own? How can I use it in a meaningful way? So, different ways of looking and describing paintings, their productions, reproductions, aesthetics, purposes, functions etc are things that interest me. Later on I would realise words have a way of connecting ideas in unexpected ways.
Examples of various control panels from an image editing software.
Switch
It’s no surprise that digital photography played a big part in the ginormous amount of photos and media we have today. But photography wasn’t as available in the past. I remember a time when it was reserved for special moments. Taking a flight from Sabah in the late 70s certainly qualifies as one. And from the looks of it, also a moment worth dressing up for.
Yours truly (circa 1980).
Photo courtesy of my mother
I don’t have any old photo reference that I’ve used. But I didn’t take many in the first place. Because I’ve never owned a 35mm film camera. I only started actively shooting around 2007. Nearly a decade after I graduated. When I bought my first digital camera. It was an entry-level point and shoot. But even then, I was more preoccupied with learning how to make photographic images. Rather than actively using it as a painting tool. Partly because I wasn’t painting my surroundings at that time.
Ready-made Images
I remember earlier on in art school, a teacher asked us to consider why our images, those in our heads and those we will make, need to exist in the world? It was an odd question. Because it implies there’s a certain responsibility to image making. And images, specifically my paintings, have a transformational impact on society. Nope, I don’t think so.
One only has to look at great paintings from the past to infer their limited impact. And we're excluding the gazillion not so great ones. Politics and religion will always trump paintings in this region. Perhaps everywhere else. I suppose if one wants to affect change in society, choosing painting as a platform is likely a futile idea.
The Art Dealer Told Me This Fake Rothko Would Make me Feel Rich, 2017
CB Hoyo
(image from cbhoyoart.com)
I suppose that question is meant to get us to think about the images we make. Which is fair. And about 10 years after graduation. I decided not to make new images with my paintings. There are enough ready-made images on the internet to say what I needed to say. The question is not what imagery, but how they are used.
Thank you Mr. Liew. I have a feeling it’s not what you intended but it’ll have to do for now.
Malaysia Institute of Art, Fine Arts Department’s Orientation Day (1993)
Photo courtesy of Leng Teng Chai
I don’t worship at the altar of originality. I admire it from afar. Like I sometimes do with some orang kaya’s house. This might be a counterintuitive position to take in the arts. But copying is or has become part of Malaysian culture. So, this phenomenon deserves some representation. Southeast Asians, or I should say, Malaysians are rarely innovators in contemporary art. We are usually end users. Variation of theme-r. And we should own that aspect of who we are or perhaps who we’ve become. This is likely another original idea, although, again, not sexy.
Adidas Kampung (Village Adidas) - A popular, entirely rubber shoe used by hikers and in the agricultural sector.
Photo from sunnyoutdoors.blogspot.com
Copying is an infinitely more interesting theme or phenomenon as far as I’m concerned. I mean, we all learn by copying. Or I should say, by replicating a set of standards. I got my diploma in Fine Arts, majoring in Oil Painting after my painterly “demonstrations” were assessed and deemed worthy. Maybe, instead of the word “copy”, just use 10 dollar words like mimicry, representation, appropriation or aggregation. Multisyllabic words. The trick I was told is to say it with exuberant confidence.
Digital Photography
But digital photography did change my painting workflow. I make less and less drawings. Then one day I just stopped. This coincided with my research into photography as a medium. Camera, lenses and lights took up more of my resources. This went on for a few years until digital video-making took its place.
Some of my books on photography.
Photography, like drawings before it, took on a life of its own. I think I painted less in those 2 years I was learning it. And my infatuation with it was subsidised by the freelance work I did and the occasional sales of my paintings. For a few years, I always have my DSLR wherever I go. Shooting only with a prime lens. Because that’s apparently the best way to learn photography. Don’t zoom in, get closer to your subject was the motto. And to be honest, the 24mm f2.8 was the only lens I had.
Photos I took (2002 -2012)
Internet
Affordable internet provided me with access to all sorts of things. It’s the motherlode for references. Obviously I use the internet to find reference images. Especially images that are (for me) not usually painterly subjects. For example scholarly photo documentation of used silicone implants. Or catalogue photos of a model of human eyeball from a science equipment company. I like the quality of light in both images.
Example of a found photo
(image from semanticscholar.org/)
I imagine it’ll be fun reproducing those images in oil paint. And it’s usually fun. But sometimes it doesn’t work and it’s not fun. That’s how painting is for me. The model eyeball image was fun to paint. But I’m not sure what I’ll use this painting for just yet. For me, the possible meaning of images has become modular or fluid. They are not necessarily fixed or definitive. Sometimes they are, but other times they are shaped by how I eventually use them. Whether in an exhibition or on its own.
This is how I work these days. Usually paint first, review regularly, then develop and curate.
(Top) Eye.Test. (tentative), 2024
(Bottom) Reference for Eye.Test (tentative)
Home Printing
Around 2016, I started printing my own photo references. Instead of viewing them only from my computer screen. Maybe I missed holding onto a hard copy as I paint. Perhaps a print reproduces color more similarly to a painting compared to a screen. One reflects color, the other projects them. CMYK and RGB. It’s definitely cheaper to make full color prints at home by then.
RGB vs CMYK
The additive and subtractive approach to create black & white on screen and in print.
Another reason is I tend to magnify images when they are on screen. An old habit I’m trying to break. By zooming in on an image I see and paint only a small section of the image at a time. It’s a slower and more orderly way of working. Which took a while to relearn. Because a few years before that I made quick, gestural and often large paintings. But as soon as I’m sufficiently adept with this method my *kwai lan instinct was to relearn painting an entire image all at once. If that makes any sense.
Untitled, Circa 1998
Approximating Distance
One way I do this is by referring to a fixed size reference. Usually using a printed reference no bigger than half an A4. Later, I also printed thumbnail size references as a way to omit details. This approximates the experience of looking at an image from afar. I do this to force myself to simplify what I paint. And I make an effort to only use bigger brushes. All this slowly wean me of my attachment to painting details. I have made some progress. But nothing to shout about.
A Disease
My need to re-examine various aspects of my paintings is not only about aesthetics. It’s about thinking and trying different approaches. To uncover blind spots in my painting process. Which are usually things I learned in art school. Fundamental and unspoken things. For example, painting is about image making. Which I’ve somehow taken to be a basic truth of painting when I was younger. But there are other ways to see paintings.
Four-Eyes Bastard, 2022
(Collection of Gabrielle Low)
I have little desire or ability to make something completely new in the world. But it’s a recurring pattern in my practice to seek change. To attempt something that I’m not familiar, or have lost touch with. I am curious about the outcome from different approaches. It’s a disease. But one of the positives from this affliction is I’ll always have something to work on. And a practice that doesn’t rely on inspiration.
2008 - Present
5. Current References
Nowadays, I might have the screen, a half A4 and a thumbnail print as reference when I paint. I still tend to follow the color on screen because it has a bigger color gamut. And the screen color is more or less consistent over time. Because prints on cheapo color papers are not permanent. But sometimes, I like the unexpected ways these prints fade. I once repainted a completed work using its faded reference. Maybe because in my mind, the reference has transformed. From an image into a faded object.
Thumbnail photo reference on my studio wall
Volume and Time
Nowadays, I might have the screen, a half A4 and a thumbnail print as reference when I paint. I still tend to follow the color on screen because it has a bigger color gamut. And the screen color is more or less consistent over time. Because prints on cheapo color papers are not permanent. But sometimes, I like the unexpected ways these prints fade. I once repainted a completed work using its faded reference. Maybe because in my mind, the reference has transformed. From an image into a faded object.
JPEG file icon.
A JPEG is purely an image. Or one of the many image formats out there. And an image is a visual representation of something. An image is a concept. A ghost. And as Asians, we know ghosts don’t cast shadows.
Function of Art :
1. Bearing Witness (tentative), 2023
The physicality of painting as an object comes from making and priming my own stretcher and canvas. This is something I have done since my art school days. Fretting over the rigidity of the construction and the quality of the surface comes first. Before an image consisting of a thin layer of oil paint is layered. So the kind of representational paintings I make definitely casts shadows.
They use symbolic, iconic and indexical images as visual metaphors, analogies and similes. Usually there’s an interplay between the images with words through the painting’s title to convey meaning. So, both images and words are important in my painting.
The physicality of painting as an object comes from making and priming my own stretcher and canvas. This is something I have done since my art school days. Fretting over the rigidity of the construction and the quality of the surface comes first. Before an image consisting of a thin layer of oil paint is layered. So the kind of representational paintings I make definitely casts shadows.
They use symbolic, iconic and indexical images as visual metaphors, analogies and similes. Usually there’s an interplay between the images with words through the painting’s title to convey meaning. So, both images and words are important in my painting.
It’s Showtime, 2007
Partly because the paintings appear to be playing a game of hide-and-seek with the audience. For me, this reinterprets what realistic, representational paintings can be. But it also puts in focus the ambiguous nature of painting both as an image and object. Is the clock a painting, a painted sculpture or an art installation? I suppose, this depends on whether we see it first as an image or an object in space. And following that, can a painting exhibition be seen as an art installation with painted objects? Can an exhibition be defined as a medium instead of an event?
Ambiguity
At its fringes, art definitions can get ambiguous. Because language as a representational tool can be imprecise and subjective. Definition and meaning can unravel and shift depending on how we read, understand and think about them. The thoughts in our head are based on language. So, the limits of our language are likely the limits of our thoughts. I wonder if the limits of our thoughts then limit the way we see and behave.
Comments on the opening attire for the Malaysian Olympics contingent, titled “Malaya”. Designed by by Rizman Ruzaini
Image from Olympics Council of Malaysia FB
Images as a representational tool can also be imprecise. Because it relies even more on interpretation than language. The recent hooha about what imagery represents Malaysian-ness in regards to the Malaysian Olympics contingent’s attire is an example. With complaints circling around what are not visually referenced and represented.
Metric and Imperial scale rulers.
I suppose only numbers are precise. But measurements might not be. Or rather, they are only as precise as we need them to be. Depending on what the measurement is for. A carpenter and a machinist would have different standards of precision. And the world rolls just fine despite the difference. Which is similar to the way we use language.
WhatsApp abbreviations
This is fascinating to me because it implies that many things we consider definitive and unchanging are to a degree, ad-hoc. They are there because they “work” or are fit for a particular purpose at this particular time. They are useful. And not because they are some eternal truth like physical laws. They are often representations of an ideal. An image of an image. A reference.
Illustration of Democracy by John Carlo Mandapat
Image from pewreserach.org
Especially when it comes to complex ideas like identity, morality, justice, equity, democracy etc. These are ideals with as many references and interpretations as there are observers. I’m not interested in finding the definitive definition for anything. But I am interested in why and how we define anything the way we do. And this includes art.
Because ideals are not something that exists physically in the world. I mean, not like how a durian exists in the world. And they are not always consistent like the physical laws. A durian will always fall in accordance with the law of gravity. Ideals and ideas are mainly language based concepts. Ghosts. But yet, most of our lives are organised around these ideas. The same with art. In a way, we are living in a world bewitched by ghosts. With language as one of the main interface. I mean, even when exorcising ghosts we use language. It might as well be "The power of language compels you!".
Screenshot from The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973)
So Q4U, what is contemporary painting? What are the references that appear in your head when you think about this question? Because the more I paint the less I know. Or maybe I’ve become less interested in the conventional definition of that word. But I think, just like how we define words, your answer will depend on your relationship to painting. Or how you use paintings and for what purposes.
ARTISTS WHO MAKE “PIECES”,1976
Edward Ruscha
Image from tate.org.uk
The Reader
I think this perspective underpins an aspect of my creative practice. My interest in different imagery instead of focusing on a distinct iconography is an example. I’m interested in images as a subject, particularly painted images. And not images of a particular subject. Most certainly not in a particular style or aesthetics. I’m interested in ideas surrounding representation. The references we use in art and life. Those images, words and sounds we use to make meaning. How and why is it used? How else can it be used? What does this say and mean for us?
6. Reference for An Exhibition
This led to my current interest in making exhibitions. Using my paintings and video works as building blocks. Treating exhibitions as a medium in itself. And not as a by-product of a series of completed works. The key difference is the making of the exhibition precedes my paintings and videos. Much like how a reference is made first, before painting starts. Or at least they are developed together at the same time.
As I type these words, I have little idea of what I’ll be making and how I’ll show them. Especially along with TY’s works. And moving this writing process to the beginning of the exhibition making process is deliberate. And this text will continue to evolve alongside the art that will come.
Most text that accompanied my previous exhibitions always come after the art is done. This reversed approach is part of the development for this show. My plan is to make works that circle around this text. Which is a workflow I adopted from my video making practice. Where the script comes first. I hope something interesting will emerge. So again, we’ll see.
It’s still early days. “Belanda masih jauh (The Dutch are still afar)” is how Agung Kurniawan puts it. Agung and Neni are the owners of Kedai Kebun Forum (KKF). The venue TY and my show will be held. Unfortunately, TY and I will never be as relaxed as our Jogja friends.
Old Network
Agung, coincidentally, is the first artist from Jogja that I met. This must be around 2003. He was in Kuala Lumpur for an exhibition at Valentine Willie Fine Arts, if I remember correctly. I was working on a regional conference/workshop on community arts and wanted his advice on who to meet in Jogjakarta. Most of the Jogja artist friends came from this meeting.
During my hectic and short first trip to Jogjakarta in 2014, I met many art collectives and artists at KKF. The KUNCI gang, Ruang MES 56 boys, Anak Wayang, Cemeti Art Foundation, GEDEBOOK, Sigit, Iwan & Ria and many others.
Photos from my first trip to Jogja, 2004
Jogja is, unsurprisingly, different place today. But the solidarity among artists I witnessed in my 20s, remains. Even a friend from Bandung once said to me, and I paraphrase, “I don’t know how they do it, Jogja is just different. Maybe there’s something in the air ya.” It’s still a city of good vibes and refuge for artists. But, if not for Ries, another unsung Jogja art worker, the idea of doing a painting exhibition with TY here would not have crossed my mind. It’s an oversight not to act sooner. But I am grateful that TY and my show will be in KKF. To be able to reenergize an old network in my 50th turn around the sun.
Promotional photos for TY and my show.