Skip to content

An Aesthetics of Empathy: João Vasco Paiva

First published on Eyeball.
Text by Robin Peckham

In João Vasco Paiva’s most recent major exhibition, entitled Experiments on the Notation of Shapes (2010), two projections and a video monitor trace sonic and visual routes through the streets and across the skyline of Hong Kong, simultaneously mediating and abstracting the architectonic composition of the city. This immersive environment, constructed through the arrangement of framed screens and speakers, serves to implicate the viewer in the translation of a scaled physical logic into a perceptual text: on the one hand, the pure visual flatness n of the vertically projected still shots is algorithmically processed into generative linear sound, while on the other the mobility of the camera on the horizontally oriented monitor understands the terrain of the street as a “sculptural playground,” in the words of the artist. This last element, the engine of inertia for the installation as a whole, actually grows out of another earlier project by the artist, a particular type of sound walk called “Ecological Reduction.” In that piece, presented as a field recording, Paiva built an instrument out of one of the pushcarts commonly used to haul freight on the streets of Hong Kong; with the aid of both contact and stereo microphones, a physically strenuous walk plays the role of a needle on an oversized record of improvisation. For “Experiments,” the addition of a video camera further converts the space of the city to a set of parameters ripe for mediation.

This transition towards ever further abstracted parameters of exploration lends itself well to formalism, the interrogation of which can function both within and through the frame of artistic practice. In his latest project, currently untitled but referred to as “Forced Empathy,” Paiva takes this development literally, attempting to configure the relationship between frame and lens in a choreography of conceptual syncopation. A series of objects, typically unrecognizable geometric shapes, are placed on platforms floating offshore, thus subject to wind, waves, and other factors that cause these objects to bob and sway, sometimes gently but other times rather wildly; a stationary camera records the movement. When edited, the object of recording is computationally “forced” to remain stable and equidistant from all edges of the frame, such that the background environment inversely adopts the motion of the floating platform and takes on the role of visual noise. There is again a process of architectonic abstraction at work here, as the entire system of representational object-functions is reduced to a setting blithely following the forceful object at the center of the frame. And the valorous commitment to an evaluation of the limits and potentials of visual strategy through the mechanisms of environmental instrumentation is again key to this project; what is new with this video work is an implicit critique of the status of the monument, ideologically delimited by a reversal of the conventions of framing. As with the process of algorithmic abstraction implied by “Experiments,” here it is the ideal of modernism that almost humorously becomes subject to a certain process of liquefaction through the rigidity of the framed screen. Importantly, “Forced Empathy” itself grew out of the earlier piece “Sea of Mountains, which, like “Ecological Reduction,” turned environmental input into a generative composition. In this case, however, a changing image of harbor water is taken as the origin, while output is conceived as a rather unstructured piece piano music. The major aesthetic flaw of this work, perhaps obviously, is the lack of relationship between input and output; in “Forced Empathy,” on the other hand, input is analogically equivalent to output, freeing up the visual track of the final result to suggest an open range of cultural associations beyond the predictable if randomized one-to-one correspondence of the earlier component. This ambiguity places the artificially stabilized monument of the modern firmly within the compositionally static but parametrically evolving frame of contemporary vision: a concentrated assault on the very origins of this mediated practice.

From ‘Resonant Forms’ to ‘Resonance’

“Resonant if Unsound: Concept, Style, Execution”
First published in Hong Kong Gallery Guide. This text describes a general critical framework.
Text by Robin Peckham, with thanks to Venus Lau and Rachel Connelly.

Marcel Duchamp inaugurated one of the manifold lineages of experimental art in the twentieth century with a push towards what he termed “non-retinal art,” launching a plea for the conceptual and the contextual; clearly, these were fertile seeds indeed. Duchamp’s thesis called for a break with art that functioned primarily on a visual level, if such a thing existed at all, but it was not long before a counterpoint emerged in the parallel narratives of minimalism and, ultimately, op art. But the non-retinal for Duchamp was more than this guarded dualism; in fact, this phrase was coined with particular reference to art that took as its primary concern the making and definition of art, a history that, in some models, reached its apex between the 1913 Armory Show and Malevich’s 1921 monochromes. Although this latter painter may have been working at the notion from the opposite direction, Duchamp insisted on the primacy of the mind, if not concept itself, over the visual plane.

It would be absurd, of course, to suggest that the visual plane was categorically dominant throughout Western art history prior to Duchamp’s intervention. Likewise, the field of music, from classical through to the avant-garde, rarely ever entailed a purely aesthetic experience. Nevertheless, it found its iconoclast in the person of John Cage, even if his revolution proved to enact a different situation entirely. This revolution was later wrapped up in the phrase “sound-in-itself,” although Cage himself rarely if ever employed the term, and it offered a wholly transcendental proposition: that “pure sound,” distinct from both music and noise, could mobilize a universalizing function. (This may be one of the root concepts behind Boris Groys’s oft-cited “weak universalism,” which, appropriately enough, discusses the monochromatic Malevich works as a major influence.) Cage also wished to dethrone the privileged status of the visual, resisting the popular model of sensation in which most auditory composition must invoke or emerge from some corresponding visual phenomenon.

This restitution of the aural found an unlikely second wave in Derek Jarman, the cult film director known within the art world as much for his garden as for his collaborations with sound artists and pop musicians on projects that could only loosely be termed music videos. Most pertinently, his haunting last film, Blue, consists of seventy-nine minutes of saturated blue and poetic audio narration; composed as the artist himself was going blind due to AIDS-related complications, the piece represents a struggle with the hegemonic terms of visuality, seemingly closing off the painterly films of Jarman’s earlier career. Derived from the monochromes of Yves Klein, themselves a lush if psuedo-spiritual rejoinder to the non-retinal Malevich, this continuous frame of blue has come to occupy an iconic position in the trajectory of queer theory. One critic has even set the soundtrack-oriented film in opposition to the opening lines of the Metaphysics: from Aristotle’s “above all others the sense of sight” to Jarman’s “pray to be released from the image.”

This last critical attempt may come across as hyperbolic, but there is no denying these ruptures in the narratives of genre and style. Potentially equaling these incidents in terms of gravity and import is Seth Kim-Cohen’s 2009 publication of the tome In the Blink of an Ear. Therein, the artist and scholar argues for a rereading of sound art history, looking towards a “non-cochlear” approach to sound art that would owe more to Duchamp than to the currently dominant justifications of sound-in-itself. Kim-Cohen cites the militant medium-specificity of high modernism as a key culprit in the transformation of sound art into a form of music culturally acceptable independent of context, and in response gestures towards the intertextuality of virtually all sonic artifacts produced today: the friction between sight and sound is collapsed, instead productively giving way to a biologically but not conceptually phenomenological model of perception.

The thesis may seem overwrought to observers of contemporary art, who will be familiar with the use of sound as a component of any number of artists otherwise working in the rhetoric of the conceptual. Indeed, sonic moving parts and, increasingly, speaker cones have become an often requisite element of such installations in the expanded field: one need only recall Bruce Nauman’s “Days,” which premiered in the 2009 Venice Biennale with several rows of whispering speakers, or, closer to home, Adrian Wong’s talking ducks and mumbling stuffed figures, or even the collaborative project recently installed by Vito Acconci and Ai Weiwei. But, like video art that happens to include an audio track, these projects do not consciously or rigorously engage with the notion of sound as medium, nor do they operate within the history of the last half-decade of what has become known as sound art.

Unfortunately, any use of sonic properties within contemporary art practice is often handed the mantle of successful sound art, even if the work in question more properly belongs to another genre entirely. In mainland China, for example, experimental musicians, noise performers, and sound artists are quite often all included in the same festival programs, live shows, and exhibitions: excluded by the art establishment on the one hand and the institutions of classical music and the performing arts on the other, this motley crew has successfully created a scene, but all at the expense of serious engagement with the material itself. In the midst of a deluge of field recordings and patches for the absurdly pervasive (and almost always pirated) Max/MSP/Jitter software package, critics have begun to wonder: Why are all of these artists using sound in the first place? How do they differentiate their practices from music or sculpture? What are they discovering about sound and how this material fits into the narrative arcs of the conceptual and the retinal?

At the limit case of “non-cochlear sound” or conceptual sound art, we approach the asymptotic value of sound without sound. Sound, removed from sound art, does not necessarily lead to the purely conceptual; indeed, it could be an intensely sensory experience in its own right, as with Stephen Vitiello’s “Fear of High Places and Natural Things” (2004). In this installation, a set of speaker cones hang from the gallery ceiling, emitting no tones audible to the human ear but nevertheless vibrating constantly. There is a sense of the uncanny at work here, imparting a feeling of nervous terror that functions physically through sound waves but aesthetically through both the visual and the tactile. Clearly borrowing the vocabulary of sound art in the form of the speaker cones, the piece nevertheless moves beyond sound proper–or perhaps defines the territory at stake in this distinction.

Similarly, former rock musician turned multimedia dramatist Feng Jiangzhou transforms sound into pressure with his installation “The Discipline in Four Parts” (2008). In a darkened cylindrical space, the visitor sits passively on a short stool surrounded by a steel cage on which some twenty speakers are positioned, emitting vast multi-channel compositions designed to disorient and construct an alternative sensation of space. Sound remains very much present in this project, but moves from a one-dimensional sonic experience to a hacking of auditory sensation for the purpose of building an invisible architecture defined by a medium rarely called upon to play such a role. Confidence in a knowable conceptual origin is disoriented in tandem with the simultaneous displacement of sonic origin. Visual deprivation may be a simplistic maneuver, but here the psuedo-musical compositions that recreate the space can be analogous to the psueo-poetic narration that recreates the visual for Derek Jarman.

Although critic-cum-musician-cum-curator-cum-artist Yan Jun launched his artistic practice with the a series of field recordings transferred directly from released on his experimental record label to the exhibition space in a darkened room, he has since moved on to an increasingly interesting series of ventures into the space of sound within contemporary art, aided by the curators of Vitamin Creative Space. In one sculpture formally resembling the Stephen Vitiello installation noted above, a lone speaker cone sits perched on top of speaker case housing; the cone vibrates and even jumps to the low rumbling sound of a heartbeat of some kind, but it is visually unclear whether this sound is actually emitted by the housing below or the cone above. This sense of ambiguity frees the piece as a whole from becoming too closely tied to the auditory experience, drawing forth an almost physical compulsion to touch the vibrating elements personally.

Approaching the sound barrier from the other direction, Hong Kong composer and artist Samson Young strips down music to some of its most basic elements, ultimately transforming it into sound. For the installation “Beethoven Piano Sonata, nr.1 – nr.14 (Senza Misura)” (2010), the artist has programmed forty-seven exposed circuit boards, each one simultaneously ticking and blinking to the tempo of a single movement of all of Beethoven’s early fourteen piano sonatas. The effect is mesmerizing both visually and sonically, recalling the aesthetics of György Ligeti’s Poème Symphonique for 100 metronomes more than anything else, but simultaneously stripping down such musical experiments in timing and composition to a naked framework of pure temporality, creating a totalizing experiment that verges on pure sound without reducing itself to the exercises in taste typical of sound-in-itself.

The goal of this curatorial program, writ large, is to reexamine the underpinnings of the characteristic styles, concepts, and devices that have come to represent the genre of sound within the field of contemporary art. In this vision, sound moves from medium or material to a more historically and contextually loaded territory, an object that can no more reject the lineages of both Cage and Duchamp than it can avoid participation in the carnival of post-conceptualism altogether. The hope shared by the artists and writers described above, however, is that this notion of sound can find a possibility for expression and consideration in an anti-essentialist space defined as much by the cognitive as by the aural, and as much by critical reflection as by enthusiastic volunteerism. It is a goal that should resonate with other once-struggling genres, and it will no doubt continue to resonate through the gallery spaces that propose to contain it.

“Resonance: Exhibition, Performance, Talks”
Published as publicity materials by Input/Output Gallery. This text describes the specific exhibition program that emerged from the critical discussions mentioned above.
Text by Robin Peckham and Rachel Connelly.

Resonance is an exhibition about the word sound. It is about the sound of the word, the meaning of the word, and the usage of the word; that is to say, it asks what sound is, how sound is used, and what sound can do. One may wonder why an artist would choose to work with sound, as opposed to music or visual art, but would find that answers are rarely forthcoming.

Resonance attempts to present an abstracted territory for this dialogue, stripping sound down to its most basic elements; the same elements that contribute to the other creative modes and methods in question. Just as Seth Kim-Cohen, working in the Duchampian conceptual tradition in his book In the Blink of an Ear, has called for an art of “non-cochlear sound” opposed to the “sound-in-itself” associated with John Cage, this project wonders what happens when the sound is removed from sound art. As an exhibition, it engages in the transformation of music into sound, of sound into pressure, and of the sonic into an anti-essentialist conceptual program.

The goal of this curatorial program, writ large, is to re-examine the underpinnings of the characteristic styles, concepts, and devices that have come to represent the genre of sound within the field of contemporary art. In this vision, sound moves from medium or material to a more historically and contextually loaded territory, an object that can no more reject the lineages of both Cage and Duchamp than it can avoid participation in the carnival of post-conceptualism altogether. Input/Output Gallery presents the works of two artists currently working through this problem: Samson Young, the Hong Kong composer, scholar, and artist known for his contributions to everything from game art to new classical performance, and Yao Chung-Han, the Taipei-based sound artist widely recognized for his research into the breakdown points of the technological matrix that surrounds us. Both are representatives of the new wave of emerging sound cultures across greater China and into the international sphere, offering new points of entry into these questions.

Yao Chung-Han here includes the installation, “I Will Be Broken” (2010), a floor-to-ceiling suspended column of circular fluorescent lamps tied together in a mesmerizing totem with its own power cords. As the piece slowly strangles itself into forced obsolescence with the surges of electricity through both body and frame, its lighting sources fluctuate along with a soft, uncanny buzzing. Although the visual spectacle and conceptual nervousness are at first domineering, the work functions primarily on the level of and through the medium of sound, emitting an atonal and unpredictable sound that requires attention by virtue of its low volume and commands consideration based on its ever-evolving almost organic state. Here, sound is a by-product that comes to both lead and stand in for an abstract choreography of relevance and terror that plays out on the stages of perception, ultimately creating an un-composed cacophony through physical experience.

Approaching the sound barrier from the other direction, Samson Young strips down music to some of its most basic elements, ultimately transforming it into sound. For the installation “Beethoven Piano Sonata, nr.1 – nr.14 (Senza Misura)” (2010), the artist has programmed forty-seven exposed circuit boards, each one simultaneously ticking and blinking to the tempo of a single movement of all of Beethoven’s early fourteen piano sonatas. The effect is mesmerizing both visually and sonically, recalling the aesthetics of György Ligeti’s Poème Symphonique for 100 metronomes more than anything else, but simultaneously stripping down such musical experiments in timing and composition to a naked framework of pure temporality, creating a totalizing experiment that verges on pure sound without reducing itself to the exercises in taste typical of sound-in-itself.

I/O Gallery is proud to offer a stage for these explorations of physical sensation, cognition, composition, temporality, and destruction. Conceived in collaboration with the Society for Experimental Cultural Production, this exhibition–along with an associated series of performances and talks featuring Yang Yeung, Cedric Maridet, and Yao Dajuin among others–hopes to throw into relief the problems that mark discourses of sound, art, music, and new media today, contributing to an ongoing conversation.

At the Node: A Conversation with Doreen Heng Liu

First published in InMagazine.
Conversation carried out by Robin Peckham and Venus Lau with Doreen Heng Liu.

Doreen Heng Liu, the principal of NODE Office and a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, began her architectural career with something rare in that field: a blank slate for the design of a new urban space, located on the Nansha peninsula south of Guangzhou. Now, she maintains a level of independence for her Shenzhen-based office, investigating and responding to the changing conditions of urbanism in the Pearl River Delta through urban planning, building design, installations, and research. Her work is based largely around a series of keywords that delimit the theoretical problematic of her practice: abstraction, antigravity, assemble, average, collage, concrete, contradiction, contrast, critical, crowded, dimension, double meaning, experiment, frame, installation, lightness, multi-viewpoints, neutralism, node, research, slowness, solid, space, temporary, texture, transparency, uniform, and void.

Your office begins geographically, conceptually, and technically with the Nansha area at the very center of the Pearl River Delta, unique for its status as both a gateway and border left largely untouched despite the rampant urbanization occurring around it. Besides the elements of vernacular architecture and location, can you tell me how your practice has grown out of the development of Nansha as a so-called new town? What further work will you do with the Nansha development project?

I started working on Nansha as an in-house architect for the Hong Kong-based Fok Ying Tung Group, which approached the development project during the phase of rapid construction in the Pearl River Delta, seeing it as a blank slate to engage in. Nansha represents a certain desire for Guangzhou, which has always been a river city that nevertheless desires some relationship to the ocean, imagining itself in competition with places like Shanghai and Hong Kong. So Nansha is a container port in some ways, and Guangzhou’s maritime link to the outside world, but it is also seen as an international leisure town with many second homes for people from Hong Kong and across the Pearl River Delta. Unfortunately, this leaves it in danger of being an empty city much of the time. I was involved with the development of Nansha in two stages. Initially, I was designing single buildings out of context for already-designed plots of land. Later, after finishing my Ph.D. at Harvard, I was more interested in urbanism, and in negotiating these connections between a broader environment. Nansha is unique in that it is around one hour away from Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and even Macau in various methods of transport, positioning it in the center of the region, but from all of these places it is also already on the edge.

One of your recent projects is an urban planning design for Yangjiang South. Yangjiang is familiar to many outside of the Pearl River Delta solely because of one of its most famous artistic residents, Zheng Guogu. How do you see his ongoing “Empire“ piece, which illegally and somewhat virtually develops a physical proeprty on the edge of the city? How would you compare and contrast your approach to redesigning Yangjiang with his?

Zheng Guogu and I met very early on, working on the “Canton Express,” Guangzhou Triennial, and other major projects during that period when so many of the figures that have become known for their work on the Pearl River Delta were just emerging. We had many disagreements at that time, perhaps because as an architect I tended to think more rigidly whereas he, as an artist, comes from a rather different perspective. There was a period with little contact, but then recently my office was awarded this contract to design the new city of southern Yangjiang, which is approximately the same scale as Nansha, and we came back into contact, hitting it off right away. The government sees villages in the path of development as a cancer of sorts, wanting to exterminate them outright, but I asked Zheng Guogu to come up with a proposal that would integrate these already-existing villages into the new urban design in a creative way. Unfortunately, the government rejected his involvement, still seeing him as some kind of strange person on the fringes of real society. Being an architect in China requires a lot of negotiation with this kind of bureaucratic vocabulary, and the courage to face up to their frequent misunderstandings. Zheng Guogu and I of course have very different understandings of design, and his architecture is far from the urban planning in which I have been involved, but we are all working on similar and interesting problems.

You have also recently completed work on the Guangxi Museum in Nanning, in addition to other art and science museums in Shenzhen and Nansha you had previously completed. What special factors must be incorporated into museum design? Hong Kong is currently preparing to choose a design for its upcoming West Kowloon Cultural district projects, with the solicited proposals made public this August. If you were given the commission to design the museum, what unique features would you bring to the project?

The Guangxi Museum was intended to be about the museum as an object, more about form, but I have also been influenced by my collaboration with Rem Koolhaas on the Times Museum, a branch of the Guangdong Museum of Art located in the north of Guangzhou. In that case the developers had requested a standard exhibition space, but Koolhaas resisted, complaining that he could build that kind of project anywhere in the world, so concept became most important, and the design of a form to complement that concept. Ultimately the museum space was distributed over the “excess space” of several floors in a residential tower, a unique model for a museum. I think a new concept like that could be interesting for West Kowloon.

Unlike many architects who begin working with interiors and only later graduate to buildings and then urban planning, especially in Hong Kong, where opportunities are few, NODE began by directly engaging with government commissions for major urban planning projects. How does this affect your relationship to building design, and what role does scale play in your practice?

It was only later that NODE was officially founded as an independent practice, and we have become smaller since recently moving our main office from Nansha to Shenzhen. We still consider ourselves an outgrowth of Nansha development, but the Shenzhen government is much better for supporting small, more creative practices, inviting us to enter its competitions. Guangzhou and Hong Kong are both more difficult environments right now, but it is this grouping of three cities that makes the Pearl River Delta a very interesting system in which to work. It is a difficult time for small practices in general right now, and I think more and more employees and contracts will end up with the largest state-owned enterprises, especially in this region. Here there used to be space for a wide range of medium-sized studios, but it seems that these will be broken up, and those wishing to spend more energy on creative, avant-garde projects will need to shrink, while those with high overhead will need to take more and more uninteresting design and build commissions.

Multiple and Repeating: Duoxiang Studio

First published in InMagazine.
Interview carried out by Robin Peckham with Jia Lianna

Duoxiang Studio, a comprehensive conceptually oriented design office founded by a group of architects, has long been a household name in Chinese design circles, particularly after their well-received work with the And Art Lab, a pioneering gallery space in Beijing’s 798 art district, and participation in the “Get it Louder” exhibition initiated by curator Ou Ning, then seen as an arbiter of forward-thinking local design. Within the last year, however, the visibility of Duoxiang has multiplied on the international stage, particularly after its principals have found opportunities to engage in their true speciality: architecture. During the Milan Design Week earlier this year, furniture designs by the studio were included in curator Beatrice Leanza’s exhibition “Supernatural! The Secret Life of Things in Chinese Art and Design.” Closer to home, Duoxiang also designed the corporate pavilion for Vanke at the Shanghai Expo, an important commission signalling a measure of success in a corporate field spanning China that places the studio on a level with architects like Steven Holl, who recently completed the Vanke headquarters complex in Shenzhen.

Robin Peckham: First, could you describe the special aspects of the composition of Duoxiang Studio? Do the four of you come from different backgrounds or take responsibility for different aspects of the studio?

Jia Lianna: Duoxiang Studio consists of four partners and four other employees. We are all architects, and all were formerly employed at Atelier Feichang Jianzhu; in addition, three of us were university classmates. Mutual identification with a shared system of values has allowed us to work together. All along our “master-style” education has caused us to habitually accept a certain point of view: that of the architect as “the one who knows” and is therefore elevated or elevating. We, on the other hand, are normal people without any sense of the elite, and enjoy a common style of life. If you consciously observe and contemplate throughout life, you will be forced to ask: Why is something the way it is? How should I attempt to understand it? Is it possible to make something for “us”? Daily life is the source of all of our design impulses.

Our work originates in collective wisdom. Everyone will engage in discussion at every important stage of a given project in order to determine the direction of the next step. Each of the four of us will separately take responsibility for different projects, but the establishment of this “person in charge” is primarily to guarantee the high quality realization of every project.

Could you describe the work you exhibited in Milan? It seems that the aesthetic logic of this chair continues what has become a trademark visual style of Duoxiang: that is to say, the repetition of straight vertical lines, also evident in “No Clip” in the “Get it Louder” exhibition, “Metamorphosis” for the Art Now Hotel Beijing, and “No Clip” again on Nanjing Road. When did you begin using this style, and how was it developed? Is there a particular theoretical origin to this porous architecture?

Your understanding comes from an analysis of the formal result, but we do not wish to establish a “trademark visual style,” as our working methods do not allow for presupposed formal results; we are more interested in excavating the productive mechanisms behind things themselves. The “No Clip” series actually interrogates the opposition of “the wall” and “the hole,” as well as that between “to pass through” and “to cut off.” The work for the “Fragment” exhibition at Chagang in Shanghai, on the other hand, and the later “Comb Furniture” are more microscopic investigations, something like the production of a new material. We began by attempting to make a solid piece of wood “loose” through a series of cuts, causing this originally rigid material to achieve flexibility, but of course this flexibility is not the same as that of other materials like sponge. At the beginning we intended to use this new material to create flooring because the motion walking would upset a portion of the sticks in a reaction of sorts to the pedestrian, and on returning to their original positions the sticks would produce a crisp noise upon impact. Also, different shoes, walking speeds, and postures would all deliver different reactions. Later, we started to use this same material to create furniture, seats, chairs, and sofas; different uses create different forms of flexibility. The piece exhibited in Milan is a sofa from this series.

Duoxiang only recently began to design complete buildings, including the Vanke Pavilion at the Shanghai Expo and the IVYKKI Factory. How do you see the transition from your previous exhibition design and retail interior design projects to this stage? How does your practice understand the idea of scale?

When the studio was first established there were very few clients asking for home designs, but there were opportunities for interior design and even graphic design. For example, our first project was the And Art Lab in 798, the scope of design of which included architectural renovation, interior deign, product design, graphic design, and exhibition design. Although we did not design any full buildings during that period we were still doing energetic and substantial work, so you could say that our experience of that period allowed us to see ourselves much more clearly. One of our desires ever since beginning was to “start from small things,” and the smallest thing we ever designed was a set of office products for And Art Lab later called “Pod.” That belongs to the category of graphic design, but we discovered our point of entry to that kind of project differed from that of the typical graphic designer. We never initially thought about whether anything was good looking or not, or whether it looked like “design.” Instead, we wanted to begin from observation of ordinary life and the production doubt towards the habitual use of things, making the final product an optimization of use habits. That practice caused us to more clearly realize the value of our own work outside of obsolete categorization in terms of an essential difference: a difference in styles of thinking rather than objects of production. We have defined Duoxiang as design by architects, emphasizing a process of “construction” after “interrogation,” but the object of this construction need not be solely architectural. From this perspective we might appear to be attending to our proper duties, but if we emphasize the aspect of “construction” itself we discover that production of “Pod” office supplies and the building of a house are actually quite similar.

After two years of operation, we have slowly accumulated a few opportunities for architectural design, of which the Vanke Pavilion was our first project to be realized. The difference between “small” and “large” may perhaps be this: if you build a building, more people will know about you, and this might bring more opportunities. We do not reject large projects, but “big” is not our ideal.

What kind of incomplete projects are you working on? What kind of projects do you hope to work on in the future?

We expect to complete two buildings this year, and hope for ever more interesting and challenging projects.

A Latent Force: Recent Work by Yaohua Wang

First published in InMagazine.
Interview carried out by Robin Peckham with Yaohua Wang.

Yaohua Wang captured the imaginations of forward-thinking sectors of the architectural world while still a student in Los Angeles, releasing a series of increasingly radical projects in terms of both politics and aesthetics, all delivered in a set of neat animations that quickly circulated through a global network focused on the architecture of emerging media. In one of these, entitled “Latent City,” Wang narrates the story of an architect who, contracted to design an industrial manufacturing district in the Chinese interior, subversively embeds the infrastructure of a city of the future within his design, recognizing that time is on the side of the built environment and awaiting the latent potential of this structure. In another, “Project Carbon,” Wang inverts the current processes of form-driven digital design, discovering new architectural styles based on the potential of an unexploited building material. Recognizing the obstacles of politically-motivated planning decisions, Wang is poised to make a difference even as he launches his career.

Where are you from originally, and where are you headed now that you’ve completed your thesis project? Your education has been split between Beijing and Los Angeles.. How do you think these two different approaches to design education have affected your work?

My hometown is in Shanxi. After studying at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCIArc), I am planing to work for one year in Los Angeles and then go to graduate school on the east coast of United States. I will be working at Eric Owen Moss’s office, who is now the director of SCIArc, and also at the office of Wes Jones, who was one of my thesis mentors. Indeed, my study at SCIArc affects my work the most. However, my studies at Beijing Jiaotong University were also important to me. I gained a fundamental understanding of architecture there, which helped me take a more critical position when I was suddenly facing the overwhelming digital trend after coming to the U.S.

Tell me about your architectural and theoretical influences. What designers do you admire, especially among those working in greater China?

The architectural theories of Rem Koolhaas and Wes Jones have exerted the greatest influence on my thought. Equally important are the influences from all of the instructors I had at SCIArc, including Peter Cook, Hernan Diaz Alonso, and Peter Testa. I also pay close attention to a range of contemporary architects like Tom Wiscombe, Patrick Schumacher, Thom Mayne, Sou Fujimoto, and so on. I can’t say that I have already decided on a certain type of architectural style yet, and I do believe that a good a student should open his eyes and keep an open mind to diverse thoughts in the world of architecture. In terms of Chinese architects, I like Ma Yansong and Wang Shu, because in China, when you stand in front of a client, it is hard to hold your own as an architect, but they manage to do that.

You say your understanding of architecture is “against capital … against constraints … against power.” Can you describe precedents for this oppositional architecture? Do you see architecture functioning this way anywhere in China today?

Maybe I should say “against the irresponsible power.” I don’t think architecture functions in this way anywhere in China, or even elsewhere in the world. This is not because Chinese architects don’t have dreams, but rather because it seems that this is the way that the world operates now: under the control of people who have the real power based on the principle of maximizing profit. Up against this rule, the architect seems powerless and can do nothing but watch irresponsible decisions being made one after another. That’s why so many utopian architectural dreams have died. That’s why the world is are still running on the same old track.

Under such conditions, some architects choose not to see reality and keep on enjoying their sweet dreams of the so-called academic utopia. Others retreat back to make beautiful object-buildings without any political attitude. But for me it make no sense to be stuck in either of these positions, which is why I really want to find a third way. That’s the moment at which the notion of latency came to my mind.

Your notion of latency seems like it can be a very powerful tool, if it can avoid the trap of delayed social responsibility. Could you describe how this concept works in the “Latent City,” and perhaps provide other hypothetical examples of how this could work in the real world?

I am certainly not the creator of the concept of latency. For example, the [rejected Miami Performing Arts Center] theater project Rem Koolhaas did in Miami, where he hid his derision of the bourgeoisie within his design, or Wes Jones’s idea of “smartness,” which require designers to find a loophole in the system use it to reverse the negative condition into a positive one. Although they haven’t mention the idea of latency outright, this attempt at the oppositional inspires me.

As the story goes, the architect has a dream of “a city with no dead end” that would have great spatial and architectural advantage, but the problem with his ambitious idea is that it would require significant investment into infrastructure without really bringing the developer more profit, so construction seems impossible. Then, he noticed shifting trends of industrial China in 2010 and made a plan to hide the infrastructural system for this new city into an energy-saving design proposal for a new industry city needed at that time. With the passage of time, after the downfall of this industry city, the architect emerges and declares his secret plan to the government, so the city with no dead end can be reborn from the ruins of the old industrial complex in 2030.

Because of this, people named the new city “Latent City.” But the hidden story that no one knew is that, at the very outset, the deal had already been made between the architect and the government. He demonstrated to the government that they could not only get a great city without any investment for infrastructure, but also could earn a great amount of money. They then set the whole plan up together and made the industrial enterprises pay the bill for the infrastructure of the new city without knowing about the the deal. This hidden agreement is the real latency behind latent city.

The notion of latency is general, but the methods must be very specific to the context, which means that I can’t provide any other hypothetical examples without doing deep research and thinking carefully. Because this was a thesis project, the most important thing for me was to make a conclusion to the end of my five years of study: that is, do I still believe that architecture is powerful? If so, how could this power work?

Much of your previous research has revolved around the rise of inland industrial districts that you believe will be made possible with the ever-expanding road and rail infrastructure coming together in China. The first wave of inland development in China occurred in the Republican period, largely with British funding and expertise, while the second wave grew out of Maoist paranoia of aerial attack on seaboard industrial areas. How does this current third wave differ from its predecessors? How do you see the design of these new industrial districts differing from the high-technology manufacturing around the Pearl River Delta and the low-end product manufacturing around the Yangtze Delta?

The current wave is happening because coastal areas like the Pearl River Delta need to upgrade their industrial bases, while conventional labor-intensive industry is moved to the inland area. For my story, the design of the new inland industrial district relocated from the coast needs to satisfy two sets of requirements. One is the infrastructural system needed for the “city with no dead end.” The other is an environmentally friendly industrial district, newly created but still containing the operations of labor intensive conventional industry. Most importantly, the first one must be hidden within the second one.

Since I got the idea of the form of the city with no dead end quite early on, much of my previous research has been about this second set of requirements. Based on that research I learned what an environmentally friendly industrial district would require. And by combining both sides, I managed to design a dual layer industrial district.

From what I understand your “Project Carbon” marks a significant technical advance, building upon the work of Peter Testa and others. What kind of new forms will this allow, and how could they differ from the parametric design that dominates the so-called avant-garde today?

It’s kind of like trying to find a new type of “box” for our time. We build the conventional box not only because it is easy to use but also because it is easy to build. This is one of the reasons that some doubt has been cast on form-driven digital architecture recently. The main concern of this digital architecture is form; only afterwards do they try to find materials to complete the building of the form. To the contrary, what I did with “Project Carbon” was to reverse this process: to find the new materials of today, in this case carbon fiber, to analyze its advantages and disadvantages, and then to find out what new forms this material can create. And contemporary robotic technology makes it possible that free-form building with carbon fiber structures can be made even easier than the process of constructing the conventional box.

My project is just one possible application of this material, which has great potential. Instead of saying that this project is different from parametric design, I prefer to say that contemporary parametric design is not yet a comprehensive concept. It still need to be supplemented. Thus I see this project as one attempt to consummate that concept from a material point of view.

Many of your major projects are presented in the form of concise, didactic, and technically proficient animations. To what extent does the cinematic mode affect your design process? How did you arrive at this form of exposition?

My idea for “Latent City” appeared in my head a long time ago, so since I was quite sure that I wanted to tell a long story and that animation might be the best way to do it, I began to accumulate the skills and experience for animation. That’s when I started to use animation as the major tool for my other presentations as well, as I found it the clearest way to explain my ideas. In the other projects, animation is mainly a tool for presentation and did not really affect my design process. But for the thesis project, it affected my design in a major way.

Where and when does your next project begin?

I am working on several competitions right now, one of which is in China, and the deadlines are all quite close, but nothing is public yet.

Revolving Vision: Rob and Nick Carter

First published on ArtSlant.
Text by Robin Peckham.

Rob and Nick Carter: Revolve
15 June – 31 July
The Cat Street Gallery
222 Hollywood Rd., Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Hong Kong is an interesting city in which to play with light, essentially constructed our of varying glass and steel rectangles perched between verdant hills and the reflective harbor. Many an installation has productively toyed with the glimmers that manage to break through the rows of skyscrapers and into the gallery cubes below, most recently perhaps Masato Kobayashi and Au Hoi Lam. Most significant of all, however, is the Chinese painter Yan Lei, who spend several years in Hong Kong in the 1990s. During that period, he developed his “Color Wheel” series, which satirically deconstructed the notion of painting in parallel with paint-by-number images. Influenced by the pervasive neon signs that dominate the streetscapes of Mongkok and Wanchai, these wheels have always felt somehow more alive than his later detached irony.

Rob and Nick Carter have struck upon a similar method of composition in their latest works, currently exhibited at the Cat Street Gallery. Most impressive is the series “Spectrum Circles” (2010), which exist gracefully in the ever-diminishing territory between photography and the painterly. Produced through a unique process in which light is directly applied to photosensitive paper, the final images are irreproducible and absolutely mesmerizing, consisting of a series of glowing concentric rings that could just as easily be computer-generated paintings or photographs of neon lights. This is the ultimate distillation of photography, incorporating a technique that captures the evanescent while maintaining its uniqueness to a single specific point in space and time.

Besides the obvious precedent in the artists associated with the light and space movement, from Robert Irwin and James Turrell to Larry Bell and DeWain Valentine, these images recall nothing so much as the work of the late painter Kenneth Noland. In a moment of appropriate symmetry, Noland’s formalist oeuvre is marked by two similar bodies of work related to what some see as his trademark bullseye pattern, one positioned in his last decade and one during the decade that launched his career. The Carters demonstrate a high degree of sympathy for this legacy, reflecting this same sensitivity to the play of natural light while channeling it through a primal interpretation of the lens- and screen-based realities that mark art production today.

A Biennial Only in Etymology

First published in ArtSlant.
Text by Robin Peckham.

Hong Kong Contemporary Art Biennial Awards 2009
21 May – 1 August
Hong Kong Museum of Art
10 Salisbury Rd., Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Biennial, a name many in the local are scene are loathe to voice, fortuitously changed its name recently to the Hong Kong Contemporary Art Biennial Awards, announcing its set of “winning” works from a pool of over two thousand works selected with much red tape and gnashing of teeth by a committee appointed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. The jurors for this year consisted of several notable mainland Chinese critics, specializing mostly in traditional painting, alongside cultural experts of the government department also responsible for public pool maintenance. Tellingly, few of the award winners are recognized or widely known members of the local art community, and, as it turns out, the new title appears to be a misnomer after all: traditional ink painting is actually the dominant aesthetic. Contemporary ink wash has been something of a hot topic in recent years, but none of that stylistic hodgepodge here: young painter Koon Wai-bong, for example, even titles his carbon copy compositions “Reworking the Classics” (2008) Others, like Alexis Ip Ka-wai, are recognized for straightforward documentary photography that records, unsurprisingly, disappearing street scenes across multiple images. Most egregious of all, video artist Hung Keung panders to the obvious predilection towards insular spiritual concepts with the multi-channel installation “Dao Gives Birth to One” (2009), which appears as a swirling mass of black ink that nods towards a range of concepts but ultimately demonstrates little more than proficiency in flocking animation.

Fortunately, a handful of passable projects offer relief. Kingsley Ng’s “Record: Light From +22 16’14″+114 08’48″” (2008) is indeed one of the strongest multi-media installations to be showcased in recent years, translating the visual patterns of camera flashes from Victoria Peak into the concrete music of a spinning metal disc–although one might suspect this was selected at least in part for its tourist-friendly vision of the Hong Kong skyline. Equally compelling is the photographic series “Into Light” (2008) contributed by Ho Siu-nam, depicting pedestrian underpasses as abstracted and elongated tunnels of pure light, bringing a touch of that otherwise insipid bureaucratic spirituality into composition rather than presenting it overly conceptually. Tang Kwok Hin, as has become typical, presents a theoretically-sophisticated project that certainly arouses interest but nevertheless fails to follow through visually, creating a collaged world out of Google image searches in his “Photo Book of Mu Mu Dao” (2009).

It’s Not Quite ALiVE: New and Other Media

First published on ArtSlant.
Text by Robin Peckham.

Opening ALiVE: Discover the Future of Creativity in Hong Kong
26 June – 29 June
Applied Laboratory for Interactive Visualization and Embodiment
Hong Kong Science Park, Pak Shek Kok, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong

Long home to the pioneering moving image alternative space Videotage, Hong Kong has recently seen a flurry of interest in new media as a component of mainstream contemporary art. Following the opening of Input/Output Gallery last year, the City University Applied Laboratory for Interactive Visualization and Embodiment has now arrived to make its mark. Founded by Jeffrey Shaw, the laboratory wisely avoids reference to art proper, instead announcing itself within the vocabulary of cinema, architecture, gaming, media, design, and research. This is fortunate; though Shaw played an integral role in the early stages of the evolution of the media art discourse, that particular style of work has appeared increasingly irrelevant as artists working with technology have voiced a desire for greater inclusion within the commercial and archival institutions of contemporary art. Indeed, nothing presented in this inaugural exhibition could conveniently be interpreted as art per se: Jeffrey Shaw and Bernd Lintermann have installed “Cupola: Look Up,” a suspended semi-spherical projection screen that mimics dome architectural features; Shaw and Sarah Kenderdine present “Eye of Nagaur,” which allows touristic explanation of an historical archaeological site; the collaborative project “T_Visionarium,” with contributions from Neil Brown, Dennis Del Favero, Matthew McGinity, Jeffrey Shaw, and Peter Weibel, encourages viewers standing in an immersive cylinder to arrange thousands of television clips into new narratives.

But the question remains: if the new media discourse has moved beyond such pedestrian demonstrations of technological capability, what more can such an exhibition contribute? If it isn’t art, what is it? Artist and writer Golan Levin recently noted a paradoxical situation in which media organizations fail to see value in media art research, while simultaneously appropriating the general aesthetics and innovations inherent to that culture. It may follow that much of this new media research should not be termed art at all; if so many media artists accurately predicted and even produced the applications for later corporate developments, perhaps it is time to allow such experimentation to migrate back to the territory of design. The collapse of new media art as a discourse could be a highly productive move that would pull issues of technology and media into the art world while encouraging the less aesthetically and conceptually oriented aspects to find space within the categories named above–cinema, architecture, gaming, and so on–in hopes that these legacies could be both preserved and respected within the proper genealogy.

A Roller Control

First published on World Wide Pop.
Text by Robin Peckham.

Cantopop may have been revolutionary back in the days of Sam Hui, the godfather of the Hong Kong sound, but today a younger generation of new irascibles is looking to make a change in the musical landscape of the island metropolis. A Roller Control, which counts among its members DJ and label boss Alok Leung as well as leading local contemporary artist Nadim Abbas, is well-poised to make it happen. With a sound somewhere between disco punk, modulated noise, and knob-fiddling sound art, ARC–as they are known in the hipster colloquialism–has been taking a certain segment of Hong Kong’s population by storm, opening for acts like Peaches and headlining after parties for major events like the Hong Kong art fair and the benefit for local arts magazine C for Culture.

Although A Roller Control has yet to release a proper album, you’re likely to hear them at any given major gig in Hong Kong. And while we’re waiting for the group to hit the studio and give us something solid to hold on to, we’ll have plenty of time to enjoy their solo contributions. Alok Leung has recently been concentrating on a series of sound art performances, including a high profile piece that explored connections between music and architecture, while Nadim Abbas has been showing visual art related to psychogeography and scale around town. Then there is Steve Hui, the man behind the moniker Nerve, whose new media art and music pieces are also widely exhibited around China. Throw in Sebastian Seidel and it’s clear that this group is brainier than most pretenders at the pop throne–ARC is going places.

On stage the quartet line up like so many technicians, each one absorbed in the boxes and machines arrayed in front of them. After long blasts of bass and instrumentation, lead culture vulture heartthrob Nadim is prone to augment the bobbing heads with a lithe intonation of what we’re certain must be a literary reference of some sort; then the fun begins.

Catch them next at the Venetian in Macau on 31 July.

A Half-Decade of Buddha Boxing

First published in DigiMag.
Interview carried out by Robin Peckham with Zhang Jian.

FM3, the experimental music group whose productions examine the relationship between composition, art, and everyday life, consists of original members Zhang Jian and Christiaan Virant. Prior to releasing the object for which they are best known, the plastic loop-playing device known as the Buddha Machine, they worked on a series of fascinating albums that range from the anthropological pop compilations of Virant’s “Radio Pyongyang” (2005) and documentary field recordings of Zhang’s “Streets of Lhasa” (2005) to compilations with heavy-hitters of the Chinese music world like Dou Wei and Yan Jun. Since 2006, however, much of their work has been related to the Buddha Machine, which builds on inspiration from the automatic mantra- and prayer-chanting recording devices common in Asian temples, replacing these original loops with the composed elements with which the group has continuously worked. The Buddha Machine has passed through two generations so far, in addition to a collaborative special edition authored by Throbbing Gristle and an iPhone application, not to mention upcoming iterations. The Buddha Machine also changed the sense of live performance for FM3, giving way to an activity they refer to as “Buddha Boxing” in which Zhang and Virant sit on stage with an arsenal of Buddha Machines, taking turns adjusting and relocating them in order to produce new and fascinating harmonies. The device has become a cult new media toy in some parts of the world, but recently has seen a resurgence of interest on a more profound level. During a quiet period in between releases for FM3, I approached Zhang Jian to describe the evolution of the Buddha Machine so far, hoping for some insight into upcoming changes in the group’s work. The following interview was carried out in Beijing and Hong Kong during 25 June.

Releasing the Buddha Machine was an enormous step for FM3. Looking back, how has it changed the way you work as a group? Looking forward, in terms of performance, do you see FM3 continuing the “Buddha Boxing” style? How else has the Buddha Machine influenced your work as a musician?

The Buddha Machine exerted a huge influence on FM3. You could even say that it is the core spirit of the group, since even today none of our work has surpassed it. On the other hand, the commercial success of the Buddha Machine was unforeseen, but because of this, FM3 can continue to survive as an experimental band for another ten years or more; that counts as a miracle. For this reason, we are extremely proud, and, for this same reason, we will continue the miracle of FM3.

“Buddha Boxing” could be called the specialty performance style of the Buddha Machine, and it is also one of the works with which we are most satisfied. Although we’ve already performed it some hundred times, continuing will require further rehearsal and on-site control. As you know, it’s not a standard performance, not like a rock band playing a few songs that could be repeated over and over again. The downside of Buddha Boxing is that it is not suitable to be repeated in the same venue for a similar audience.

As a musician, emotion is more important than technique… I still have a large amount of feelings to add to this machine.

Do you think Gristleism was successful? Obviously it didn’t have nearly as much of an impact within China as the original Buddha Machine. Can you explain what the differences might be, and discuss how the two projects are related?

Gristleism is a cooperative project initiated by Christian Viraant in the United Kingdom, and it was primarily his work. It was not distributed within China, so the fact that it didn’t receive a great amount of attention is within reason. This was largely a trial run, and we will continue to maintain an attitude of making the Buddha Machine for its own purposes rather than for other music or other musicians, but in order to preserve an open set of unlimited possibility, we will also develop a series of special topics. Gristleism (which I translate [phonetically] as geweisuo zhuyi, or the “song of the wretched thing-ism”) is a new topic chosen by Christian, related to the development and history of modern music.

One reason the Buddha Machine felt so intuitively interesting back in 2005 was because that was the heyday of the iPod; this plastic, looping box just felt so justifiable opposed to that gadget mindset. How has this changed in the past five years? Does the Buddha Machine function more independently now? What do you think of the iPad?

An unexpected instance of beauty developed into an intended beauty–this is not easy. FM3 has always been very independent, so much so that for a while no one in China even asked about it. I had to spend two years just to develop some ten points of sale–the situation was not ideal–and even the best store only sold around ten units annually, plus most of the buyers were foreign. The Buddha Machine still belongs to a rather illusive state of existence, but I am willing to make the assertion: our Buddha Machine will have a longer lifespan than most music. About the iPad, I like it, but I haven’t bought one yet. We are current;y researching and developing Buddha Boxing software specifically for the iPad, a simple application that would let a single user simultaneously control six units in their own Buddha Boxing match…

How would you describe the relationship between your Buddha Machine and the “real” buddha machines given out at temples? Can you explain your leanings towards Buddhism?

The traditional buddha box is a prototype, a small household appliance or automatic recording device; there is no art to it, and the producers improved upon the requirements of scripture only superficially. The FM3 Buddha Machine is both music and low-technology art, its energy far exceeding that of ordinary scripture. Almost all of its tracks, even at this short length, require three to four months of quality control even after completion. The loops seem simple, but the affect and attention therein goes far beyond random excerpts… When it comes to Buddhism I’m a layman, but it seems that the Buddha has always been at my side… for this reason I will be personally funding the production of a standard buddha machine: “Mantra of Manjusri,” for which I will select all of the scriptures. There is no time limit on production–it will be finished when the time comes–restoring a standard buddha machine for use in the temple…

For me, one of the most exciting things about the Buddha Machine was its “objecthood,” especially juxtaposed with the spiritual context and aural immateriality. How do you understand it: as an object, a series of compositions, a sonic experience, or what?

I basically agree with your analysis, but I think what you refer to as its “objecthood” could be better described as its utility. People grow flowers, keep dogs, and raise children, and I recommend the use of the Buddha Machine to raise a house. Occasionally its low-technology produces indeterminateness in the audio frequency, and as long as you find the resonance of auditory perception this simple music will produce energy. As soon as this kind of energy appears between ear and mind, in this space, you become the host…

It has been five years since the release of the Buddha Machine, and we’ve seen two distinct generations. What is the next development for the Buddha Machine?

We are currently preparing for the third generation of the Buddha Machine, scheduled to be released before the end of the year, continuing pure FM3… At the same time, we also have a set of special projects. I am currently working with performer Wu Na on a [seven-stringed instrument] guqin-themed version of the Buddha Machine. This is an original pure music machine that takes the guqin as its theme, which could be called the sound of nature, an ecological music with no additives. Primarily targeting the idealized space of Chinese classical culture and those with some perception of this kind of space, I hope that the work will be able to meet with approval within China. That will be released towards the end of fall this year.

How do you and Christian work together these days, especially with him in Europe much of the time? How often do you perform together, and how much do you work on new things? How do you see FM3 evolving over the next five years?

This year we have performed very little, and the division of labor has become more clear in the ongoing carrying out of these new projects. We have many plans for the future, and are moving ahead slowly.

What do you think of the experimental music scene in Beijing in general, and how have you seen it change over the past few years?

Compared with ten years ago there has been vigorous development: the quality of audiences has been raised significantly, and the idea of experimental music as a form has become established within the city. Nevertheless, it remains a small group of people.

We are beginning to notice a generation of young musicians and sound artists influenced by FM3 and especially the Buddha Machine ethic. How do you see these new artists?

If we can help some young musicians, that is our good fortune. On the other hand, we too are still young…

In terms of FM3 and the Buddha Machine, what kinds of misconceptions still exist for your audience? Is there anything you would like to explain about the project that has been widely misunderstood?

As for the existence of misunderstanding, I believe it is the existence of vitality.