John Clang from Singapore and currently one of New York City's hottest fashion photographers is holding an exhibition of his personal non-commercial works at home in the Esplanade. Its very different from his fashion theme imaging works and this has sparked off a tremendous debate of his style of shooting and his exhibited works.

Comments for and against came in fast and furious and made for interesting reading as to 'what is art?' and and 'what if it doesnt appeal to you?'

What surprised me was the maturity in which forum members conducted themselves .....save for a couple of unnecessary snide and rude comments ...... that a discussion on what defines art, a topic that is so personal and potentially explosive.... still be argued in a rational manner. This reflects a local art appreciating public that is much more mature these days which can only signal a growing environment of independent non-conformist and uncensored thinking

Some sample comments

From Streetshooter...Quote"...I really appreciate hearing from the horses' mouth, and things are now a bit clearer. I especially appreciated the explanation of "Ghosts". Honestly, though, I would have expected a better technical execution of the concept (eg blobs of water hanging in the air rather than just a stream of water down the frame).

And I suppose that's what it boils down to. I went down to see technically superior photography (being a photographer myself, that would be what I would be interested in). There was none of that, only artistic sentiments expressed through ordinary snapshots. Even then, I would have expected these sentiments to be expressed with some photographic flair. After all, the artist's claim to fame is as a photographer. I suppose there must have been some reason to withhold the commercial talent in expressing artistic sentiment, and I would be curious to know what that reason was.

There is too much interpretation required. The work of art should be able to speak for itself. Otherwise it's like a silly, irritating game my kids have picked up from their classmates, where they pose an impossible situation, and ask you to explain it. When you are unable to do so, they give you an answer which you could only have arrived at if you had been aware of a piece of information which had not been previously supplied"......end Quote

Another from Streetshooter....Quote"....He calls his protagonist Beon, which is derived from the frequent army exhortation to "Be on the ball".

Is he telling Singaporeans that we should be "on the ball" and go-getters (like him, one presumes), or is he mocking the whole futility of being "on" in the army? I know many people who would share the latter viewpoint.

In his series "Asleep" he declares that his message to Singaporeans is to slow down their fast pace of life, to take time to smell the roses and, yes, get some sleep. This, from someone who moved to New York because it was more "happening" and the place to be. NYC, the city that never sleeps. Forgive me for experiencing some dissociative dissonance here. So are we supposed to "be on" or to slow down and get some sleep? Or both?

The "SARS" exhibit was very very cliched. Just the mask, and a half naked man. One photo would have gotten the message across. Probably more strongly. But a series has to be a series of photos right? So much for thinking out of the box....."end Quote

From Meepokman... Quote "....To appreciate a piece of art, you definately have to understand it. But to fully appreciate it, you critize it. An artist must be able to 'defend' his visions and ideas.

Like JC said himself, art is a 2-way communication. He did some work, we gave some feedback.

Oh... one more thing which is bothering me.

NY is indeed the fashion hub of the world. It is the 'most happening' place on earth. BUT that doesn't mean places other than NY is 'backward'.

Why did I make such a comment?

I sense a few of the photographers have the mentality that whatever is accepted, loved or popularized in NY means it is accepted else where. If peeps in other places don't like it, it just means that are not 'contemporary' enuff or just not as creative or are just plain backwards.

I beg to differ. Yes, many interesting and creative idea do fly ard in NY. But what is accepted there only applies to that particular American culture.

For our instance, this is Singapore. If your stuffs didn't work here.... it didn't. It didn't work here not because this island is not contemporary enuff etc. But you overlooked the difference in the culture and social environment. Don't assume what works there will work here.

I think it is a good idea that we have fellow singaporeans to bring in fresh ideas from overseas. ANd I don't see why a few critisim is gonna bog any of you down...." end Quote

From Mattlock.....Quote".....sometimes it's hard to understand the impact of a certain piece because alot of artwork is shown in retrospect. there was this russian artist who put a white square on a white canvas. and a white cross on a black canvas. now looking at it it's hard to see why anyone would call that art. but when it as shown (early 20th century) people were still caught up in representing objects like flowers and still lifes and portraits. This guy came up and did something totally different that questioned the boundaries of art.

Now when we see it it seems normal because it's become commonplace, we see a minimalistic magazine cover with alot of white space and we're ok with it cause now we're used to it. Do something like that back then and you'd cause an uproar. Or something like MTV, it's easy to appreciate fast cut scenes in videos, but this sort of thing was thanks in part to avant garde film makers testing boundaries too in an era where movies were long and linear.

I guess when you walk into an art gallery you expect to see "art", but perhaps our ideas of art are vastly different from an artist's idea of art and perhaps we have osmething to learn if we keep our minds open

I do believe that many of us can do the so called art that doesn't seem like art, and so can a child, those seemingly pathetically easy things like a circle on a piece of paper. But perhaps sometimes it is necessary to understand why the person drew a circle on a piece of paper instead of an elaborate painting that could have shown off his technical skills. Is his reasoning sound? Does it make us question anything or see something in a different way?

This artist named Marcel Duchamp presented a toilet urinal as a piece of art. Why was it considered so important? and why was it art? There is more to a piece of art than the superficial physical nature of it, but it's not so easy nowadays to understand it, we have to take the effort to interact with the piece. It's not as easy as looking at a piece and if you don't feel anything it means that the piece has failed. Personally I don't find it easy but it's very rewarding when you come across artwork that makes you think anew.

I think as photographers we must go beyond just taking pretty photos. Think of it this way, our beautiful photographs of sunsets and bugs and flowers and landscapes are about prettiness, which is very similar to those pretty landscapes and still lifes of fruits painted by artists in the past. Or those chinese paintings of koi. Is there anything that we're doing that hasn't already been done to death? Is there something deeper to what we're doing than just capturing a documentary picture that anyone could have taken? Do we have anything to say through our work?....."end Quote

Again (my favorite read in this thread) from Mattlock.....Quote "....You have shot (photographed) people from the back but you never had a concept of shooting people from the back, never followed through with a dedicated idea and reason for shooting people from the back

If you had a concept and had a thread of thought running through and had bothered explaining it I'm sure people would actually give you the benefit of a doubt that you actually had some thought in your work.
Hell I'm sure lots of people are trying to say something. Too bad they aren't telling anyone whether they're trying to say anything, apart from what lens and filters they use.

Look, the discussion now is not just the physical nature of the work itself, it's also about the questions it raises by John Clang putting up an exhibition with technically "simple" work. everyone has their own opinion on the physical nature of the work of course (be it "it sucks!" or "it works", but you have to agree that the exhibition has been successful in raising debate right?
don't worry, alot of singaporean artists are already moving out of Singapore. it's a sad sad state of things.

and now....To diss Mondrian and Yves Klein! do you even know the logic behind Yves Klein's work? Do you know the significance of that blue? the act of patenting that blue was one thing that questioned certain ideas of art, and also that blue was his trademark that he used through his career. and that blue is such an intense beautiful blue! it's not just "oh it's blue". It's hard to do a physical thing such as paint justice on a book page or a computer screen. To the naked eye it is just paint on a canvas. but there's historical significance behind it! so I guess a expensive terracotta figure from the 2nd century in china is not worth it's price, simply because it looks like a cheap knock off from Haw Par Villa?

And Mondrian! it's not just LINES. it's the concepts that he helped push, perhaps you don't realise that Mondrain's work dealt with many ideas that are now taken for granted in layouts in magazines and newspapers. Take a look at a Mondrian painting and take a look at a newspaper layout, you will see the similarities!

It may have been squares on a page, but more important than just the colours and squares are the ways the squares interact and create space on a page.

There is a lot of artwork around that doesn't make sense to a lot of people, sometimes a lot of artwork is understood better by certain groups of people, as these artworks deal with issues that these groups of people deal with.
Many architects, fashion designers, art directors, among other groups of people deal with intangible issues like space and emotions and ambiguity, and to the layman who doesn't usually have to deal with these issues it means nothing to them. So I guess consider that art may be very subjective, but it's useful to keep an open mind, because one day when we are more familiar with the ideas that these artists who we dislike are dealing with, we may learn to appreciate them then. It is like the point I raised earlier, about how there have been pictures which I never liked in the past and one day, years later, I realise how good the piece actually is.

Or a book that you can't understand at first and later on you realise that it's actually got alot of depth which you couldn't latch on to when you were younger!

I'm not saying all art is so deep, so meaningful, but it's worthwhile giving more benefit of a doubt to "art".

Look, many of these artists can do technically superb works. Picasso started off doing realistic works. Mondrian was known for his beautiful Dutch landscapes. Why do these artists decide to do something else which seems like something anyone else can do? Maybe perhaps they have gotten over thinking about technicalities and actually expressing what they feel needs to be expressed in whatever form it takes, not necessarily the most 'cheem' or most technically difficult method.

There are so many things you can't judge about art just by looking at a pricetag and looking at the difficulty level of a painting....."end Quote.


Clang looked into the thread in question, took it in his stride and replied thus...

Quote "....Hi Everyone??This is Clang, writing from NYC. A friend of mine refers me to this interesting page. It seems that a majority of you really dislike my artwork. A few of you actually feel that I?ve wasted your time. And one is not impressed with my attitude in the 8 Days interview. I do apologize for all that.

My main purpose for putting a show in Singapore is to try to have my own fellow mate understand who I am. There is no doubt I?ve become a very successful photographer but that does not make me a lesser artist. I do not want to defend my work as I appreciate your critique.

I do feel a bit discourage by your response. It was my decision to show in Singapore despite many objections from my Singapore friends. They warned me that many Singaporeans are not ready for this form of contemporary photography. I knew then and now I know. And also, by doing this exhibition, I do not ?laugh all the way to the bank? as one suggested. I have to finance a big portion of it as Singapore is still really new in the contemporary art scene. This is one area I hope we can push further. I thought I could contribute a bit to this development. But I?m probably wrong.

My work is based on my mental visual diary and they sort of work as a filmstrip. When I look at a photograph, I do not critic its ?prettiness? or if ?I can also shoot this?. I don?t try to challenge the artist motive. I try to feel where he or she is coming from. I do not judge images at a surface level. A seemingly simple image or an image that one quickly dissed as ?a waste of time? may surface more voice and nuance if one choose to truly listen with his heart. Good work requires attention and sometimes, we miss out by not paying enough attention to subtleties.

The ?process? of creating an art (not technique) is as important as the art itself. When I look at an image, I also see the artist himself. I can also imagine the moments when the image is being taken. These ?Self-portraits? have also demonstrated the true friendship and trust I have with the sitter, Beon. He was a very awkward and extremely inferior guy. Through the process of creating this artwork for the last 4 years, I?ve managed to slowly help him to gain that self-confidence. And I don?t think we do this trying to impress anyone.

I can?t change your chosen perception of me, especially I?m no longer an underdog that live in a 3-room HDB flat but a new millionaire that everyone loves to hate. But I hope we can all learn to ?listen? to every piece of art we encounter, especially one from your fellow Singaporean. Only then we can grow strong together internationally. At this moment, Singaporeans does not qualify for the art program in Moma PS1 in New York.

And for those who seems unimpressed with other work on my website, I apologize too. It is just my diary that I?ve chosen to share. The people with their backs facing the camera are my parents & parents-in-laws. Not just various people. It is a continuation of my earlier series where their facial features are blurred and deleted. In these images, I was trying to convey how much I miss them, especially now that they are in their golden age. I?m frightened I may not remember their faces in my mind one day. Do check up the earlier series at www.bank-art.com/clang/clang/

And as for the ?NYC Ghost?, the water represents a human on the street without their flesh and bones but only the 70% water we contain. This is a reflection of how I feel after 911. I live two blocks away during the tragic event and have witness the 2nd plane crash and the towers collapsing.

Finally? I think communications should be both sided. I feel that art is not a language that we can instantly use to communicate with one another. It requires patience and willingness, with open mind to see beyond.

I don?t think I will be doing another show in Singapore in the near future. However, I will continue to support the Singapore art scene.

Thank you so much for hearing me out. I appreciate it...."end Quote


..... so..... armed with the various opinions and prejudices from this thread I dropped by the Esplanade during lunchtime today and had a look for myself.

On the first pass after a very initial cursory glance, I understood what SS, Minoxman and the other naysayers were saying.

On subsequent .....and slower examination and contemplation .... I also understood what Mattlock was trying to say in his replies.

But most importantly I saw a piece of JC beyond his public image ..... and to me that was important.

Ironically there seems a subtle veil that perhaps reflects John the recluse (incredible, against the world of high fashion he is involved in ) and in Beon, some of his Heartland spirit.

Without going through all this debate, in all honesty I might have breezed through the images with impunity and wondered if I could not have done a better job.

But armed with all these opinions both positive and negative, it truly enriched my time. To be honest, I'm still befuddled in certain ways which I'll try to put in words after my 2nd go at it tomorrow.

1 July

I dropped by the Jandela gallery again to have a 2nd look at Clang's works. This time, I noticed that his giant prints were mounted not like a regular image but its back in a cleverly art deco style.

This time, I got really attached to his small 3R prints of Beon in various cat/dog poses which showed alot of fluidity from one image to another.

I had a good laugh on my 2nd review of the Sleeping series of images. They were good. Apparent sleep in the heart of Singapore's busy midday no less, the images struck deep. Sleeper at a traffic crossing, Sleeper with a bewildered lady walking past and Sleeper in front of a cab at a taxi stand were personal favorites.

I hope I have the privilege of seeing another of his shows.

end