| |
Jue Heuy Chay
Waves in serenity
Waves in serenity, Acrylic on paper with mixed media, 107 x 54 cm
2005 | | |
The Painting Effect
"The Stamens effortlessly fall, rise, lean or stand in various directions in the Painting. My friend analogized the Stamens to a human sperm and ovum where not only does it exist as a tangible object, but also represents the origins of J.H. Chay's conceptual thoughts. These images represents the initial encounter between these objects or the original concepts, as the case may be, whether individually or the meeting through the Butterfly, a flamboyant player, looks leisurely as it teases the Stamens. Whatever object or original concept it may be, it appeals to the Butterfly, but the Butterfly, without reservation, attempts to encounter the object/ original concept irrespective of the subject matter."
As quoted in Sun Yong Hwang's, "Before Playing in the Courtyard":
"It is truly an admirable yet sorrowful process in which [each flower] attempts to have its alter ego, its pollen, make contact with a pistil in order to bear the perfect fruit and leave its seed. The patience portrayed by their effort to disseminate every last pollen while repressing their own yearning feeling is truly sorrowful. It is that same irrepressible yearning that is contained in J.H. Chay's Stamens. The beauty displayed by each Stamen transcends mere visual beauty. Since it is only through self-destruction that it is able to forego destruction, and only through self-sacrifice that it is able to save itself, it is this enigmatic balance between nature and life that fosters this profound and powerful beauty. It may be said that it is this beauty that is the beauty behind every truth."
As quoted in Sang Yong Shim's, "A Discussion between Color and Meditation, Pattern and Symbolism:
"During my ten years of writing, I have never taken my career lightly. That does not, however, mean that those ten years were always steady and consistent. Not only has my writing style changed, the way that I critique and perceive art has also changed over the years. For someone who considers 'reading the arts' as his primary job, I, for one, believe ever so disappointingly, that there is no right or wrong in 'reading' these artworks. The same way that there is no right or wrong in the way of life."
As quoted in readers, "Living Furniture":
The stamens effortlessly fall, rise, lean or stand in various directions in the Painting. Sun Yong Hwang views, without any suspicion, J.H. Chay's Painting as images of acrylic 'Stamens' and 'Butterfly.' And Sang Yong Shim observes a self-propagating 'Stamens' which contains both the pistil and the stamen. But does J.H. Chay's Painting really portray such images?
Although I may be able to accept the 'Butterfly' which Sun Yong Hwang had mentioned, I cannot agree with his interpretation of the images of the 'Stamens.'This does not, however, mean that I can view the 'Stamens' from the eyes of Sang Yong Shim. Then how do I view these images you ask? Well, although I am not certain how best to describe them, these images remind me of green beans or coffee beans (especially those outlined images of coffee beans you commonly see at cafes).
Of course, the same image may, in the eyes of a being, just as well be taken for a flower petal, eggplant cucumber. According to J.H. Chay, one entomologist perceived such image as an egg of a honeybee. Why would the painter's 'Stamen' be perceived in so many different images? What exactly does this entail?
It may very well be that Sun Yong Hwang may have been distracted by the presence of the Butterfly in J.H. Chay's Painting and perceived the subject filling the entire Painting as images of Stamens. This would mean that the Butterfly and Stamens were read in context. This may also me the Painter's way of instructing me to look at the flowers with more care. Why? Since then I may be able to see how the stamens look like.
Sun Yon Hwang viewed the Stamens as representing the human sperm and ovum. However, in J.H. Chay's Painting, are there not only stamens and no pistil? As you know, the stamens and pistil can only be "propagated/ fertilized by the Butterfly."If that is the case, should not the Butterfly better be seen as a 'matchmaker' rather than a player?
The stamen seems to be seducing the Butterfly with the honey to "have its pollen make contact with a pistil in order to bear the perfect fruit and leave its seed." From the Butterfly's perspective, however, it is not the Stamen that seduces the Butterfly. This is because it is the Butterfly that sought the Stamens to feast on the honey. Does this then not mean that the Stamen (pistillate stamen) and the Butterfly both mutually benefited from each other? What's more, would the fertilization process between the stamen and pistil to bear the perfect fruit be considered to be the 'butterfly effect?' What? What is meant by the 'butterfly effect?'
The movie, The Butterfly Effect, starts with the application of the chaos concept that the flapping of a butterfly's wing could create a tornado. This, however, only means that it 'may cause' a tornado, which could also mean the reverse that the flapping of the butterfly's wing 'may not cause' the tornado. Is it not?
But the movie, The Butterfly Effect, however, proceed sunder the assumption that the flapping of the butterfly's wing could create a tornado. Does this not mean that the movie, The Butterfly Effect, undermines the chaos theory and follows the non-chaos theory? Do not fret. I do not intend to criticize the movie at this point. My interest is with "The Painting Effect." To effectively explain the 'Painting Effect," however, I will need to imitate the "Butterfly Effect."
The Painting Effect? That 'the flapping of the butterfly's wing'(an image in the Painting) could have a large effect on the observer? That an image in the Painting can be read differently by the observers? That an image in the Painting may have multiple interpretations to the observers? That an image in the Painting could stir up a debate among the observers?
Sun Yong Hwang once mentioned that J.H. Chay's Painting is an image of Stamens and a Butterfly. But is not the encounter of the Stamens and Butterfly like the encounter between the pea and the butterfly, the encounter between the coffee bean and the butterfly, the encounter between the flower petal and the butterfly, the encounter between the eggplant and the butterfly, the encounter between the cucumber and the butterfly, and the encounter between the honeybee and the butterfly? As if Evan's presents have been relied on his pasts.
The readers on "Living Furniture" once said, that there is no right or wrong in the way in 'reading a pictures.' Even if we were looking at the same object, it can be perceived in different ways by each individual. Of course, the various opinions may derive from the individual observer's viewpoint. A particular painting may bring an enormous change to the observer or not. That is what I would refer to as "The Painting Effect."
No matter how you perceive a painting, whether such painting is considered to be an amusing one or have no effect at all will depend on the standpoint of the individual viewing the artwork. However, one cannot dismiss the fact that there exist the vast opinions of the people viewing the artwork as well as the fact that the artwork has a certain feeling to it. This is, of course, not an attempt to draw any sort of conclusion by determining the majority opinion of the artwork. This is because I do not believe that the majority opinion is necessarily right or that the minority opinion is necessarily wrong.
J.H. Chay's Painting may bring an enormous change over me and, at the same time, may not necessarily bring such change. Why? That is because the images (particularly the 'Stamens") in J.H. Chay's Painting, at minimum, have caused me to experience the "painting effect." If, however, the same images in her Painting were perceived merely as "Stamens" by everyone, myself included, then no such 'painting effect' would have occurred.
Of course, in the most Painting done by J.H. Chay I have witnessed, the "constructed" Stamens coincide with the "drawn"Stamens. (Sun Yong Hwang's comments are from the year 2002 on J.H. Chay's paintings that have been exhibited at her solo exhibition held at the Insa Gallery. Those paintings also contained "Stamens" and a "Butterfly." The comments by Sang Yong Shim were made in 2004 on J.H. Chay's paintings that were on exhibit at the Cigong Gallery. At that time, the paintings the Butterfly is absent and only contained pictures of Stamens.) By "constructed"Stamens, I mean those that have been made out of painted cotton-swabs to have been made part of the flat surface. And the previously mentioned "drawn" Butterfly, which seemed to be a preserved African butterfly, is placed over the "constructed" cotton-swab Stamens. Why?
Why did J.H. Chay place the "drawn" Stamens and the "constructed" Stamens on the same plane? Was it because the "drawn" Stamens were not perceived the same by all the observers? Then were the "constructed" cotton-swab Stamens meant to supplement the "drawn" Stamens? Then why did she decide to choose the preserved Butterfly and decide to forego the "drawn" Butterfly? Could the reason be to have the preserved Butterfly, it being a dimensional object, propagate the "constructed" cotton-swab Stamens as opposed to the "drawn" Stamens? (These deductions forecast the possibility that J.H. Chay's artwork may introduce only dimensional images rather than both flat and dimensional images in her work.)
Then what do these transformations (i. e from "drawn" Stamens to "constructed" Stamens and the preserved Butterfly in the picture with the "drawn"Stamens) imply? What has J.H. Chay intended by introducing 'dimensional' images to the audience? (This may also stir further curiosity. If we were to compare the size of the "drawn" Stamens with that of the preserved Butterfly, one can see that such Stamens are larger than the Butterfly. The fact that the "drawn" Stamens are larger than the Butterfly shows that the flower to which the Butterfly has flown to is a very large flower. What kind of flower could this be? Another point of curiosity could be raised. Why would an African butterfly fly to Korea? Why did J.H. Chay choose to use an African butterfly over a domestic one?)
To me, the "constructed" Stamens, as opposed to the "drawn" Stamens, and the preserved Butterfly, as opposed to the "drawn" Butterfly, seem to be more detail-oriented. Moreover, if the previous paintings of J.H. Chay is considered to be an "unfamiliar" encounter (i. e. an encounter between the green bean and the Butterfly, encounter between the coffee bean and the Butterfly, the encounter between the flower petal and the Butterfly, the encounter between the eggplant and the Butterfly, the encounter between the cucumber and the Butterfly, the encounter between an egg of a honeybee and a Butterfly), then the encounter between the "constructed" Stamens and the preserved Butterfly could be seen as a "familiar" one.
In my opinion, most observers would not experience the "painting effect" if the encounter was one that is 'familiar.' (Would it?) How much of an effect would a drawing portraying a 'familiar' encounter have on the observer? Could such drawing be open to several interpretations? Would such drawing be capable of becoming a source of controversy between the observers?
Would not the point of transforming a 'familiar' encounter into an 'unfamiliar' encounter what would be called the "painting effect?" I wonder if my ramblings of the 'painting effect' in my writing will be unable to produce a 'text effect.' If, in fact, my writing could produce a 'text effect,' would not a dispute be inevitable? I'll come back for you.
Ziyi Zhang (art critic Byunghak Ryu's pseudonym) |
Send E-mail
.jpg "Contemporary Istanbul")
