Installation of the Open Call. 

Opening of the exhibition complete. 

“Is that a temple?” 

The task of introducing the exhibition has fallen upon me today. It is, hence, with the greatest pleasure possible, with the utmost gratitude for your presence, that I welcome you to “Is that a temple?”, an exhibition organized by the author, in collaboration with Gilles Massot, Wayne Lim, Ruben Pang and Siah Tiong Hong, and in association with the artists of the Open Call.

Perhaps it would be best if I were to set out the premises of the exhibition, beyond what is already included in this publication. This is an experiment, the first in my life, to explore the possibilities of the “exhibition”, and to understand the processes behind it. This is an experiment, but also a piece of art in itself. I refuse to let an exhibition simply be. Instead, it is an installation, treat it as such, view it as such, walk through it as such, experience it as such, think of it as such. There are other artists in this installation, there are pieces of work original to them that constitute the installation, but everything falls under the title of the exhibition, within the constraints of the space and the theoretical foundations of the event, becoming only parts of the installation as they maintain their distinct objecthood.

When I say that this is an experiment, it is not with the intention of dismissing failures or faults as run-of-the-mill, unavoidable occurrences that, by way of experimentation, inevitably manifest themselves. It is with the strongest fear and anxiety that I take on responsibility for each aspect of the exhibition-installation. I become, in essence, only an extension of the installation which I originate. Surrendering myself to the whims of the installation, the autonomous artist dead and rotting, stuck to her throne sinking in the quicksand, is slowly dragged back to life by the autonomous art. The installation-exhibition lends itself, or rather designates itself, as such fluidly, the artist, the author, yours truly, becomes a facilitator, directing the funds, the procedures, the constraints, then allowing everything else to “fall into place”—but let this not be a testament to fate, let this not be a surrendering to chance.

For there is no chance beyond that which we may (not) examine in the natural world, or in the abstraction of mathematics, in the blind spots of reality which wrap around our oblivious being. Everything is pre-determined, not by a higher, metaphysical being as some may have you believe, but by the functions of our relations. Our predispositions are molded by the conditions of our existence, yet not our “existence” in the purely ontological sense. This existence is not of “being”, but of being within, of living (surviving) day-to-day within our particular localities, our particular beliefs, our particular stances, our particular politics, our particular spiritualities, our particular neuroses, our particular exchanges, our particular interactions, our particular emotions, our particular oppositions and identities.

Our material conditions guide us, but we shall not be led astray by such lofty words. What do I mean? It seems that the culmination of all these ideas would undoubtedly end in an unquestionable embrace of determinism. But with determinism, the lack of free will in itself is a lofty concept indeed. Perhaps we need to be reminded of the fact that we are speaking now of a particular incident, a particular event on the horizon, an exhibition-installation, an empirically verifiable occurrence that perhaps you reader will be or are a participant in. And by fact of being this empirical occurrence, as, we can say, a real event, we must be aware of how determinism fails by way of tautological absurdity in these conditions. Were we speculative, this problem would not arise. But in introducing this installation, I must make clear that everything of course must be causally determined by a prior occurrence. For the artist, for the everyday man, for the artist-everyday-man, everything is determined anyway—one works so one can eat, one eats so one can live, one lives because one’s drives force this desire, and so on. This is not determinism, but a simple observation that brings us down to the material conditions of empirical incidents.

What has this all to do with the exhibition-installation? Let us dance between speculation and empiricism, materialism. Not in a duality, but in a fugue, a dialectic, if you will. But of course not a formal one. Don’t transcend! Stay where you are and fight! But let us dance, not fight, let us dance for the sights and sounds where we never know what comes next, but where we know, or believe, that everything must run in a course. A particular course, of course, your course, but a course, a set inscription, a rivulet that runs through the particularities of stones and sticks downhill, reaching outwards upwards and downwards at the same time towards art in general. Then let us shout at ourselves, feel a sharp sensation of superego interference as we, as our speculation, run in themselves the course we have been prancing along.

A sharp prod to the side to remind ourselves that we are not just one opposition, not Antigone against Creon, not simply just that which we fight against. A sharp prod, an angst, anxiety, that we cannot live up to the existentialist claims, that we are left floundering between the destruction and construction, that we are left flopping like fishes on the deck. Don’t transcend! Don’t fight! I say. Enjoy! But don’t. Art is not to be enjoyed by the artist. Art is difficult. But art is not only for you, art is for your relations, your material conditions. The effective, affective art is directed not for you, not for me, not for the gallerists, not for the museums, not for the Biennales but for functions of the economy, people, empirical participants and viewers, not the People in general or humanity as a whole.

There is no need to be confrontational! Don’t transcend! Don’t fight! Confrontational art is dead, over-exhausted and ridden with failure-disease lies down next to the dying hearth, feels the last warmth of support fading and closes its eyes, sighs once more and dies unceremoniously, farting one more time in the air for good measure. It was left to rot by the hearth, and one wonders who first lit the flame and set loose the now-dead art.

Why laugh at incompetence, at inconsistencies, at inadequacies, when one does not laugh first at oneself in the mirror? Don’t transcend! Don’t fight! Don’t be serious! Take yourself as a tool, but a tool You wield, first free yourself from sad loneliness, binary oppositions, then set your gaze on the wholly other. Fear the other, then approach her. Leisure! Be free! Play! Appropriate your own subjectivity from the collective gaze, unplug and unzip.

What has this all to do with the installation-exhibition? This is the introduction. Let me attempt to formulate the empirical occurrence in the imaginary terms above. As is mentioned elsewhere, the exhibition is in two parts.

First, an Open Call, a creative misreading of the Society of Independent Artists exhibitions of the 1910s, where artists can present work without monetary contributions. In this aspect, I become the mode of facilitation, the medium, one who both adds constraints while providing the opportunity, the space, the audience. But the artists who choose to participate also work from their own position, with their own modes of facilitation, their own functioning personas and their own desires and wishes. It is a risk for them, and this risk translates into a risk for me. This part of the installation becomes a site of bilateral negotiations, a mutual approach of recognition and identification, a particularly volatile interaction. Don’t fight! Yes, don’t. Don’t transcend! Yes, don’t. The installation exists as the most base form of exhibition and does not become simply a theoretical construct. It may take on its own theoretical significance but much of this significance is still predicated upon the basic principles of formulation: the offering of an opportunity for artists from anywhere, doing anything, to show work.

The second part of the exhibition works on a different approach to art. In this case, what is in question is not the formof the exhibition, but the work itself that is exhibited. Refer to the statement for “Is that a temple?”; here, I cannot offer anymore insight than to direct you to the statement which the work attempts to negotiate.

I say that, but really, I can. But I cannot in the context of the introduction. The responsibility that had befallen my sorry fingers and tired mind slowly relieves itself over my back. An analysis of the work, of the statement, of the mentioned negotiation can only occur after the exhibition. And it is on that sad note that I have to close this passage.

“Is that a temple?” as an exhibition is not fixated on the visual, on the object, but chooses to turn its gaze onto the constantly receding existence of the visual, the object, and the possibilities surrounding, and permeating, the questions and intents stated above. It may seem that there is no coherent statement to be made, that there is no coherent course of action—-that is true, for the deterioration of ideas, into other ideas, into non-ideas, the constantly flowing path, diverging, converging, drying up or surging with new streams, this motif of alterity and inconstancy is the very concept that the exhibition attempts to approach, and to think of this statement as constant and unalterable would be to undermine the very excursion, the very genesis, of the thought. “Is that a temple?” we ask, we ask of ourselves and of others, not expecting an answer, but expecting, accepting, the impossibility of that reply.

Y.J. Wu

Singapore, 2010

“There is no more original art—-the Dadaists have done everything any artist today can do, better.” We must move away from traditional art, from painting, from photography, from drawing, from any inscriptions, and creation of objects, towards a more abstract form, not in the terms of abstract painting or art, but the creation of a critical art—-not narcissistic, not overtly self-reflexive with no end in sight, but a model of art that produces the motifs, the concepts, the theoretical structures by which society, literature, architecture, philosophy, politics, and religion can be thought of. It is necessary to provoke, to start with fear, to terrorize the gallery-goers and artists, to assure them that nothing they do matters only to see their reaction, to see how they decide to act. It is only by clearing debris can the reconstruction take place. 

Beginning with the idea of Tracing, of movement, of evolution, of time, we move to examine the idea of temporality, of decay and the slow deterioration of ideas, images and eventually, Art. For the most part, the world refuses to examine the slow process of deterioration, instead choosing to focus on the past (the past as present, the past as it was to those living in the past), the present (the present as it is present), and the future (the future as present, the future as it will be to those living in the future). 

Tightly involved in the ideas of deterioration and decay is representation, layers, the creation of the views of things, that is, the description of objects and events. Using the concept of layers, we see that everything in the world that arrives at us has to undergo a series of transformations as dictated by the layers of representation. Literature, photography, television, radio… Everything we “consume” in the media is ultimately the result of distortion upon distortion, screen upon screen, smoke upon smoke. So that the deterioration of ideas and deterioration of images becomes an instantaneous process which Art, artifice, can reveal, which can examine cultural production and religion—-not religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism or Islam per se, but the religion of art, the religion (the worship, the codification, the authority, the legitimization, the ethicization) of artifice, our daily lives, and representations. 

“Is that a temple?” as an exhibition is not fixated on the visual, on the object, but chooses to turn its gaze onto the constantly receding existence of the visual, the object, and the possibilities surrounding, and permeating, the questions and intents stated above. It may seem that there is no coherent statement to be made, that there is no coherent course of action—-that is true, for the deterioration of ideas, into other ideas, into non-ideas, the constantly flowing path, diverging, converging, drying up or surging with new streams, this motif of alterity and inconstancy is the very concept that the exhibition attempts to approach, and to think of this statement as constant and unalterable would be to undermine the very excursion, the very genesis, of the thought. “Is that a temple?” we ask, we ask of ourselves and of others, not expecting an answer, but expecting, accepting, the impossibility of that reply. 

“There is no more original art- the Dadaists have done everything any artist today can do, better.”

I would like to extend an invitation to all interested to view “Is that a temple?” an exhibition in two parts organized by Yu Jie, Wu, in conjunction with Gilles Massot, Ruben Pang, Wayne Lim and Siah Tiong Hong, and in association with the artists of the Open Call. 

Examining concepts of cultural production, the “religion” of commodification, and the levels of representations that constitute our reality, “Is that a temple?” aims to explore the potential of critical art in Singapore through the medium of the Open Call and an exhibition-installation. With five artists represented in the exhibition and 14 artists presented through the Open Call, both the medium and content of “Is that a temple?” are investigations into the issues raised by the state contemporary art in this country.

We look forward to your presence at the opening and exhibition. 

Venue: Evil Empire, 48 Niven Road

Dates: 17th to 22nd December 2010 (Excl. Monday, 20th December)

Time: Daily 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.

The opening reception will be held on the 17th of December at 6 p.m. 

“Is that a temple?” An exhibition in two parts.

Open Call for Entries

The Society of Independent Artists was an association of American artists founded in 1916 and based in New York.

Based on the French Société des Artistes Indépendants, the goal of the society was to hold annual exhibitions by avant-garde artists. Exhibitions were to be open to anyone who wanted to display their work, and shows were without juries or prizes… The first show in 1916 displayed 2,000 pieces from artists around the world.

 – Wikipedia

Deadline

The deadline for opting in to the exhibition is the 10^th of December 2010.

Introduction

One critical aspect of “Is that a temple?” is a re-enactment of the Society of Independent Artists exhibitions of the 1910s, as a platform for artists of any style, any caliber, to present their work in an exhibition format for no monetary cost. As mode of validation, this portion of the exhibition revolves around artists contributing their own work in the construction of a mode of presentation that can be replicated and redesigned for years to come in Singapore.

The Committee of Con(tra)ceptive Sculptors & Artists (C.o.C.S.&A.), organizers of this event, request that artists in Singapore, amateur or professional, consider exhibiting work in this upcoming exhibition. Any artist who wishes to present work may do so. Note that the curators will be in charge of arranging the pieces, and the artist may only offer suggestions as to the final installation.

The exhibition will take place from the 17th-22nd of December 2010.

Procedure

Please begin by emailing itat.curatorial@gmail.com, with the following information,

1. Name
2. Date of Birth
3. Telephone number
4. Size of work, number of pieces
5. Installation comments (optional)

You will be issued an identification number. Please keep this identification number for reference as this will be the means by which we keep track of your participation.

Then, bring your piece(s) down to Evil Empire (address below) on the following dates:

December 15th, December 16th

Evil Empire

48 Niven Road, Singapore 228396

Deadline

The deadline for opting in to the exhibition is the 10th of December 2010