Blog Exercise 4 - Singapore Biennale 2008

The theme of the Singapore Biennale 2008 is "Wonder". As defined by the dictionary (and the guide to the Biennale), "Wonder" is a feeling of surprise and admiration caused by something beautiful, unexpected or unfamiliar. It is a feeling not only of curiousity or a desire to know, but is also to feel doubt.

This year's exhibition was jointly held at four seperate locations, at the City Hall, South Beach Development, the Singapore Flyer and at the Marina Bay.

I felt that the exhibitions at South Beach Development were slightly more interactive and interesting than the ones at City Hall. Perhaps the nature of South Beach Development (an ex-army camp) provided a raw, rustic feel to the experience of viewing the exhibits there. Experiencing intricate artwork in a non-airconditioned and sometimes non-ventilated environment certainly was quite an unique experience.

One piece of work which I thought was interesting was Location (6)(2008) by Hans Op de Beeck as seen below.



This is a 18 metre long installation which is housed inside the Containerart Pavilion created by Shigeru Ban at Marina Bay. One has to walk through a long, white corridor before he is greeted by the sight of a seemingly vast, snowy landscape. It is upon closer inspaction that one realises that the "depth" of the installation is created by the use of tilted angles and the manipulation of the sizes of the visual elements (the trees) in the installation.

Indeed, one does experience a sense of tranquility and wonder as he/she takes in the panoramic view of the snowy landscape in this environment. This is a work that transports the viewer from reality into another world, but as mentioned by its creator, the aim of the work is also to generate scepticism about one's location and to highlight the human ability to imagine being in other places.

This work seems to represent how our eyes seem to fool us sometimes, or how we seem to be able to make ourselves disillusioned and force ourselves to see things that we only want to see. Without the context of us entering the long corridor into this "alternate realm", would have even realised that we were actually enclosed in a 18-m long installation? I think the theme of this work would be "Don't judge a book (reality) by its cover".

A work which I thought was not so good at the Singapore Biennale was Bachelor - The Dual Body (2003) by Ki-Bong Rhee. I have no photos of this work as the exhibit was placed under low light in one of the rooms of City hall.

This work is an installation in which a book of philosophy is thrown into an aquarium. Jets of water are then used to create current to keep the book from rising to the surface or sinking to the bottom in the closed, isolated environment.

The "dancing" motion of the book represents Western logical thought having "fun" (as described by the artiste). The artiste wants the "dream-like image to be dominant over the meaning or the material".

Unfortunately, I guess the streams of water current did not really work as well as the artiste had expected. When I viewed the installation, the book did sink to the bottom quite frequently instead of it being suspended in mid-air. Perhaps the artiste could have used a less isolated style of presentation to keep the installation interactive. The writings on the book were not really visible while the dark settings and blue tone of the water creates quite a dull mood which does not seem to bring out the concept of "fun" nor "wonder".

Assignment 6 - Conceptual Photography

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Blog Exercise 5

Two interesting questions to ponder about:

1) What are the ways readers can judge the credibility of an image even in this era of digital manipulation?

I got to agree that in this digital age, almost any image can be manipulated using photo-editing software such as Photoshop, Lightroom or Aperture. Actually, even photos taken using film can be manipulated,as in the case of double exposures where one image can be super-imposed onto another.

I think there are a few ways that readers can judge the credibility of an image. One way would be to look out for photo manipulation errors or signs of "complacency". One can most probably spot repeated patterns or graphic elements which look out of place in the picture due to inadequate photo manipulation. This would be one of the most basic ways of spotting a manipulated picture.

However, for photos which have been manipulated by someone who is highly proficient in photo-editing software, perhaps the line between true and false depiction by an image will even merge. Often, photos are usually used together with video or words to provide news information to viewers.

I personally feel that unless we experience these events ourselves (meaning we were present at the place and time when a particular event occurred), one can never really have a good idea of what exactly happened. I don't mean to be cynical, but all we can do is to interpret images and words with a pinch of salt. This is not to say that we can't believe in EVERYTHING, but means that one should perhaps refer to a few more sources to gain a better understanding of a particular situation.

If an image looks too good to be true, it probably is haha... this probably applies a lot to the images we see in magazines which depict the aesthetical aspects of the human body. I guess this cynical view has to do with the perceived credibility of the medium itself, and magazines are usually read for leisure and as a source of entertainment.

Unfortunately, a lot of people do perceive images portrayed on news article (eg: The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao etc.) to be of high credibility. In this case, a manipulated image would probably be interpreted as being real without much thought from the viewer. The ethical views of the journalist/writer would then come into play here. If a journalist decides to be unethical and manipulate images in order to sensationalise or shock audiences, I wouldn't think that there would be a way to detect this form of "pseudo-forgerty", unless the journalist confesses.


2) Imagine yourself as a reader representative for a newspaper. What would you tell a reader who complained to you about a picture of a car wreck that was particularly upsetting?

I would tell the reader that actually that's the exact purpose of the newspaper, which is to report factual news and provide information and images which best represents a particular event.

I can understand how the reader feels, but if I were to have shown an image that was digitally manipulated, would that be ethical from a journalistic perspective? This reader feedback would definitely be reported to the exectuive management. Perhaps then the next best thing would be to not display any pictures at all for any news articles on car accidents.

A few other things to consider:
Perhaps the newspaper firm at which I'm employed could be one that is considered as tabloid. If I were to not display any images that leave readers in "shock and awe", would this affect readership and ultimately cost me my job?

This is the moral dilemma which plagues the minds of many journalists perhaps.