luddock, I have stood by my choice. Kindly read my previous post. I had no problem with the original understated Wu Xiaokang. I got upset with them about the fake petition.
Wu Xiao Kang - A Dose of LIES
- Thread starter synapseman
- Start date
- Status
luddock, I have stood by my choice. Kindly read my previous post. I had no problem with the original understated Wu Xiaokang. I got upset with them about the fake petition.
I did, by telling Adeline Chia, the Life! reporter in the interview. She asked if I would go on the record to say it is a hoax and I said yes, but to let Robert and company have the chance to admit it themselves first. When we could not find them, I told Adeline to go ahead
i believe Robert should realise by now that those works of mediocrity received the accolades because of the clever packaging crafted to capitalise on people's sympathy. they are not good works, but no one can deny that the choreography online is very skillful, attractive, somewhat beautiful. personally, i cannot accept their reasoning that all the lies were for their conceptual art's sake. it's too convenient to abuse that term like this. these works, or their clever choreography, should not be publicly celebrated.
coreblocksystem
Member
That's a very interesting line. So there's only two persons in the collective?
I have never met Angeline Pan. I understand that she is not in Singapore. Song represented the collective at the meeting.
hobbit6003
Senior Member
Wow, 5 hrs has gone when I last logged in and how things have developed!
Ok, after reading through the few pages, with Kay Chin the ex-curator's input, I think I've got something to say:
First of all, I'd like to acknowledge Kay Chin for his participation in this discussion here, and having to take some of the heat in the process. It is definitely within his perogative as to what goes up in the exhibition, and absolutely within his authority as to how the show should be presented.
However, I think while his decision not to inform the organiser as to the 'truth' about those photos is still within his perogative, I should say that this is a gross oversight. Perhaps he didn't know the seriousness of such an issue.
The way Xiao Kang has been portrayed, is not entirely accurate either. 36 rolls of film depicting the same scene, frame for frame? This to me, sounds more like an obsessive compulsive behaviour, which is not typical of schizophrenia. These patients usually have cognitive impairment, which results in delusions, and disorganised speech and thinking. Would they then have the presece of mind to take 36 rolls of film of similar scenes and setup, frame for frame?
Thus, when Kay Chin thought that they were quite accurate representation of schiz, and allowed it to be exhibited even though he knew they were just artwork, he should have done more research into signs and symptoms of a schiz, before letting them in. This is why I said it was a gross oversight on his part.
And this, I am sure, have also eluded the makers of this photos. They have not done enough research too, when they thought about this plot. And if you are serious about trying to depict a schiz and raising pubic's awareness to them, I'm sure you'd have put in more effort in studying your subject more carefully, and not carelessly portraying them to be what they are not. Such approach to the work, is totally irresponsible and exploitative, IMO.
I don't think for once, how an inaccurate depiction of the patients would help raise awareness ad increase understanding about them? Worse, such irresponsibilty would only fuel misconception and msunderstanding, and plunging these patients from marginalisation into the deep abyss of the misunderstood.
This is what makes me fume; people are just making use of any excuses to have their moment of fame and glory! I have doubts that these artist care, such bloody hypocrisy!
And if the present curator and the organiser have any good sense, and upon learning the truth about schizophrenia (please don't take my words for it, go do some simple research yourselves), they should have the good sense to remove these photos from the exhibition, it is only morally right to do so.
It was the 'beautiful story' behind those photos that make them outstanding, and now that the truth is out, they are just some technically and aesthetically competent photos to me, nothing more.
So where is the artform now? Deception???
Ok, after reading through the few pages, with Kay Chin the ex-curator's input, I think I've got something to say:
First of all, I'd like to acknowledge Kay Chin for his participation in this discussion here, and having to take some of the heat in the process. It is definitely within his perogative as to what goes up in the exhibition, and absolutely within his authority as to how the show should be presented.
However, I think while his decision not to inform the organiser as to the 'truth' about those photos is still within his perogative, I should say that this is a gross oversight. Perhaps he didn't know the seriousness of such an issue.
The way Xiao Kang has been portrayed, is not entirely accurate either. 36 rolls of film depicting the same scene, frame for frame? This to me, sounds more like an obsessive compulsive behaviour, which is not typical of schizophrenia. These patients usually have cognitive impairment, which results in delusions, and disorganised speech and thinking. Would they then have the presece of mind to take 36 rolls of film of similar scenes and setup, frame for frame?
Thus, when Kay Chin thought that they were quite accurate representation of schiz, and allowed it to be exhibited even though he knew they were just artwork, he should have done more research into signs and symptoms of a schiz, before letting them in. This is why I said it was a gross oversight on his part.
And this, I am sure, have also eluded the makers of this photos. They have not done enough research too, when they thought about this plot. And if you are serious about trying to depict a schiz and raising pubic's awareness to them, I'm sure you'd have put in more effort in studying your subject more carefully, and not carelessly portraying them to be what they are not. Such approach to the work, is totally irresponsible and exploitative, IMO.
I don't think for once, how an inaccurate depiction of the patients would help raise awareness ad increase understanding about them? Worse, such irresponsibilty would only fuel misconception and msunderstanding, and plunging these patients from marginalisation into the deep abyss of the misunderstood.
This is what makes me fume; people are just making use of any excuses to have their moment of fame and glory! I have doubts that these artist care, such bloody hypocrisy!
And if the present curator and the organiser have any good sense, and upon learning the truth about schizophrenia (please don't take my words for it, go do some simple research yourselves), they should have the good sense to remove these photos from the exhibition, it is only morally right to do so.
It was the 'beautiful story' behind those photos that make them outstanding, and now that the truth is out, they are just some technically and aesthetically competent photos to me, nothing more.
So where is the artform now? Deception???
Whether WXK is real or not, I don't really care. What I'm pissed about is digital art being passed off as slides. This is totally unacceptable in my POV. So much for the story that he put in so much practice to get it perfect.... Unfortunately the DI artist didn't practise long enough to spot what we have spotted in the pictures.
excellent analysis hobbit6003 :thumbsup:
i re-read this again, and now i'm suspecting the real intentions of these artists. is Robert trying to test water here? it seems to me that he is deliberately toying with people's feelings because of his own artistic struggle, and in this case disguising the entire thing as a movement to promote the understanding of mental illness. this is not good at all.
i re-read this again, and now i'm suspecting the real intentions of these artists. is Robert trying to test water here? it seems to me that he is deliberately toying with people's feelings because of his own artistic struggle, and in this case disguising the entire thing as a movement to promote the understanding of mental illness. this is not good at all.
actually i suspect DI was deliberately done that way.
i've emailed Phish and the artists to call for the cancellation of the coming exhibition, that's all i can do now, i'm not in singapore and cannot possibly monitor the development of events. i hope more people will do likewise, to call for the cancellation of the exhibition. i'm disturbed enough by this incident already, i feel sad for the art scene in Singapore if the exhibition is to continue.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
hobbit6003
Senior Member
Well, I've read and re-read those ST articles, and not for once, did Robert nor his collaborators comes up to admit it, not to mention that they were sorry!
Hey organisers, they have made a Mickey out of you as well, and you still take it lying down and continue with the exhibition? Where's the integrity and dignity?
This is like someone gave you a false credential during an interview, and you still go ahead and hire them?
What kind of signal are you sending out?
So next time, I'll just go up to stage and piss on the floor, and I'll call this piece of artwork "Incontinence" ya? How about that?
Hey organisers, they have made a Mickey out of you as well, and you still take it lying down and continue with the exhibition? Where's the integrity and dignity?
This is like someone gave you a false credential during an interview, and you still go ahead and hire them?
What kind of signal are you sending out?
So next time, I'll just go up to stage and piss on the floor, and I'll call this piece of artwork "Incontinence" ya? How about that?
an artist did that before....he peed and drank it up in front of an audience :sweat:
Hobbit, I appreciate your kind choice of word - oversight. I can't control how others think - whether I am shifting blames or what. I am not here to make matters worse for myself and others. This has been such a nightmare for me as well.
From the time I first surfaced Wu Xiaokang as a candidate for Out of Focus 2007 to its acceptance by the organizer was quite a long time. In between there were little communication because Shirlene and I were both traveling. On the other hand, from the time adoseoflight's official acceptance to me being told I could leave or work for free was lightning short.
I left in shock and I would be lying to say I was happy to have worked so hard without being able to finish it. But as I told Shirlene, I approached all three exhibitors as MOP2007 curator and I did not think it was ethical for me to demand that they withdraw just because I am out.
Like it or not, the authenticity of the work was never part of the conversation between Shirlene and myself. We were both too caught up with getting sponsorship money in the run-up to this and most of our conversations were about money and the general plan.
If I had thought that it was important for me to inform Shirlene, I would have. But I never once thought about it.
I have told Robert and company I have no regrets selecting them and I will also say it here too. As to how I would manage it if I were still the curator, it is all academic lah. I don't think it will be fair to anyone for me to tell you what I would have done because honestly, I was not allowed to get to that point.
From the time I first surfaced Wu Xiaokang as a candidate for Out of Focus 2007 to its acceptance by the organizer was quite a long time. In between there were little communication because Shirlene and I were both traveling. On the other hand, from the time adoseoflight's official acceptance to me being told I could leave or work for free was lightning short.
I left in shock and I would be lying to say I was happy to have worked so hard without being able to finish it. But as I told Shirlene, I approached all three exhibitors as MOP2007 curator and I did not think it was ethical for me to demand that they withdraw just because I am out.
Like it or not, the authenticity of the work was never part of the conversation between Shirlene and myself. We were both too caught up with getting sponsorship money in the run-up to this and most of our conversations were about money and the general plan.
If I had thought that it was important for me to inform Shirlene, I would have. But I never once thought about it.
I have told Robert and company I have no regrets selecting them and I will also say it here too. As to how I would manage it if I were still the curator, it is all academic lah. I don't think it will be fair to anyone for me to tell you what I would have done because honestly, I was not allowed to get to that point.
hobbit6003
Senior Member
Haha, I remembered that. Didn't he got busted in the end?
But these guys now, are pissing all over everybody and is getting away with it!
nothing to serious really. dun worry lah. i mean, sometimes its interesting to take a step back and observe the world like how we look at fishes in a tank, like a piece of art in itself.
anyway i thought maybe i trivialized unintentionally so i deleted it no worries and no malicious intentions ~
[edit] i understand temperatures r warm here so i think my spontaneous personal opinion is a bit misplaced!
they are only pissing on you if you let them.
not sure about that artist. i guess he did get censured :bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
