The Long Shadow of Giza: Total Space and Time
Shin Hyun Jung
Recently, Korean artist Shin Hyun Jung held an exhibition, characterized by most as “installation art” in a commercial gallery space in Seoul. Consisting of an eclectic assortment of goods easily purchased from any variety of retail shops and overshadowed by a large, colorful wall hanging symbolizing what seemed to be the great pyramid of Giza, the gallery space was converted into what appeared to be a bazaar or flea market. Visitors to the exhibit were confronted by an astounding array of objects arranged in small heaps throughout the space intersected by numerous aisles that had been fashioned between them like mini thoroughfares. Overhead, an assortment of garments of every kind and spools of sewing thread hung like stalactites from racks directly above the stalagmite mounds of articles on the floor consisting of multi-colored umbrellas, bottles, boxes and every kind of household paraphernalia.
Any visitor not conversant with art and its many permutations might be excused for thinking that they had taken a wrong turn and found themselves in a curious form of second hand shop, retail warehouse or cave. Conversely, at the extreme end, one could posit that they had stumbled into the lair of a “hoarder,” those poor creatures known for their inability to resist the temptation to collect both useful and more often-useless “trash” items. An attempt at an explanation is in order so that what was experienced is understood in the light of recent art history.
Understanding this art fixture requires on the part of the participant some knowledge of the artists’ past development and interests. The danger here is that it is possible to dismiss the exhibition as a room full of stuff after giving the space a cursory glance. Modern life has desensitized most urban dwellers with regard to an over abundance of things. We have seen places like this before so have little reason to question what we see. The obvious has been extracted and put into an art space and so becomes even less obvious. This is the current strategy in the evolution of Shin’s art practice, which has seen many changes over the last few decades involving process and materials as well as the development of a few central ideas. The artist has previously taken long standing archaeological, biological and anthropological interests and blended them into an art concerned with synthesizing lived human experience and natural forms using found and manufactured materials. Combining a fascination for mythology, the process of time, imagined worlds and diverse ethnic histories, Shin brings his syncretistic worldview into reality with a form of alchemical art practice where all possibilities can co-exist simultaneously.
Installation, or the use of a space in which to arrange objects so as to form an environment receptive to artistic vision has always been part of Shins’ strategy. The difference between the current exhibit and former shows seems to be how the objects are viewed in the space. Ilya Kabakov described the essential difference between a Western and Eastern perception of space. He states, “if in the West, the object is exhibited as the main hero and the surrounding space doesn’t exist at all, ‘we’ on the contrary should perhaps primarily exhibit ‘space’ and only then arrange objects in it … leading to the necessity of creating a special kind of installation – the ‘total’ installation”.1 It seems when compared to past exhibits: quite literally the utilization of space here has been inverted causing a radical perceptual shift from objects defining their space to space defined as an object. This total use of space is totalizing in its effect on all the objects in the gallery space. Floor, ceiling and walls meld to form a unified environment in which even the smallest objects serve to link everything else together thus creating multiple levels of complexity.
There is some uncertainty assessing what Shin’s final aim may have been or what this art piece is meant to represent because of the layering and intertwining of possible intentions by the artist. The observer might well ask: was the result incidental or arrived at by careful thought and planning? Looking closely we identify issues relating to the placement/displacement of objects and space, order and disorder, purity and hybridity, form and formlessness, the exotic and the banal, consumerism and the traditional, nature and the mechanical as well as a commentary on various histories alluded to in the strange collection of objects. This list is not exhaustive as there are also different methodologies, which could be employed for the purpose of interpretation such as psychoanalysis, deconstruction, socialist theory or structuralism among others.
Close observation can posit various positions for an interpretation of Shin’s installation. Though Susan Sontag argued against the fabrication of meaning in any artwork in “Against Interpretation” in order that ‘form’ might prevail against ‘content’ nevertheless some kind of overview should be attempted with an installation such as this. Sontag’s main contention is that the act of interpretation “is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of "meanings." It is to turn the world into this world. ("This world"! As if there were any other.) She continues, claiming that, “The world, our world, is depleted, impoverished enough. Away with all duplicates of it, until we again experience more immediately what we have.”2 If we were to follow Sontag’s edict then we would need foremost to show how it is what it is and even that it is what it is in order to make it more rather than less real to the viewer. This approach makes it difficult to write about art, as the emphasis must be on direct unmediated sensual experience. Accompanying text or captions are done away with and content or meaning becomes inaccessible or inadmissible.
It is apparent from the outset that Shin has gone to great pains and expense to collect his objects and then to situate them in the space in such a way as to create a certain effect on the viewer. This effect might be termed crowded, claustrophobic, confusing, haphazard, disorienting or aimless among others but is in fact “total.” The artist has carefully crafted his space using all three dimensions to maximum effect so that the gallery is transformed into a maze of narrow walkways bordered by personal and household objects of every conceivable kind. Larger than life sized plastic copies of classical statues or “gods” stand at strategic points at opposite ends of the space serving as signposts between the past and present. It is hard to distinguish if we are in a department store or flea market and whether it is in Korea or some foreign place. Have we found ourselves in a mini market in the shadow of the great pyramids in Egypt or at a bargain basement clearance of cheap surplus goods somewhere in the USA? The pervading sense of “commodity” and the “market” overwhelm the senses; in particular that pungent combined odor of fabrics and synthetic materials like polyester, vinyl and rubber. We find ourselves in a state of sensory overload, uncertain how to process all we sense and feel. The monumental vividly colored wall hanging of the great pyramid at the far side of the space also serves to disorient the senses and enhance the surreal nature of being “in” the experience.
Shin’s recent installation bears no resemblance to those of other artists working with space such as Olafur Eliasson who uses light, water and air temperatures to enhance the viewer’s sense of the natural elements. The vividly patterned psychedelic op art mirror installations of Yayoi Kusama dealing with visual culture, perception and obliteration also bear little resemblance visually to Shins work. James Turrell’s mysterious translucent glowing, installations of light and space also have little in common with Shin’s art. There are other artists too numerous to mention here that use space with different intentions, exceptional notables being Kurt Schwitters, Donald Judd, Dan Flavin, Ai Wei Wei and Louise Bourgeois.
Instead, Shins mass of everyday colorful manufactured objects and clothing items seem to describe a concern for the effects of commodity and culture on society over the passage of time. His work is more in tune it appears, with that of artists such as Kay Hassan, Kaarina Kaikonnen, Martha Rosler and Christian Boltanski, artists known for using clothing and everyday objects to critique commerce, social and cultural identity, attitudes and lifestyles. Of course form is important to the work of all these artists but if we are to understand the purpose for such work we must look for content in order to develop anecdotes or arguments to make sense of it. Sontag’s dictate to avoid looking for meaning in favor of only enjoying the esthetics was a final impassioned appeal for form left over from the 50’s and 60’s when formalism became a “secular religion,” a kind of absolute, a Platonic hyper-real beyond conceptual analysis.”3 To understand what Shin is saying we need to go past form and examine the underlying discourse, which the objects together create.
Leaping backward and forward in time has become standard practice for Shin in his quest to grasp an understanding of unknown and fragmented histories. Originating in the imagination and then fashioning his response in a space mediated by experience the artist attempts to bridge multiple worlds. With every attempt he hones his skills further and becomes a magician of space. Shin’s total space experience strikes the viewer “full frontal” with modern reality in hyperbolic fashion. Modern urban life has desensitized many to the point where they do not see or feel but stumble blindly from one empty commodity experience to the next. It seems the artist’s work performs a higher social function like the canary in the coalmine warning us of our condition and nudging us to wake up and take action before it’s too late.
William M Boot - Painter
2013
1 Art in Theory 1900 – 2000, Blackwell Publishing, page 1178, Malden, 2003.
2 Susan Sontag/ Against Interpretation, Farrar Straus and Giroux, 1966.
3 Capacity: History, the World and the Self in Contemporary Art and Criticism, Thomas McEvilley, G+B Arts International, page 44, Amsterdam, 1996.
Shin Hyun Jung
Recently, Korean artist Shin Hyun Jung held an exhibition, characterized by most as “installation art” in a commercial gallery space in Seoul. Consisting of an eclectic assortment of goods easily purchased from any variety of retail shops and overshadowed by a large, colorful wall hanging symbolizing what seemed to be the great pyramid of Giza, the gallery space was converted into what appeared to be a bazaar or flea market. Visitors to the exhibit were confronted by an astounding array of objects arranged in small heaps throughout the space intersected by numerous aisles that had been fashioned between them like mini thoroughfares. Overhead, an assortment of garments of every kind and spools of sewing thread hung like stalactites from racks directly above the stalagmite mounds of articles on the floor consisting of multi-colored umbrellas, bottles, boxes and every kind of household paraphernalia.
Any visitor not conversant with art and its many permutations might be excused for thinking that they had taken a wrong turn and found themselves in a curious form of second hand shop, retail warehouse or cave. Conversely, at the extreme end, one could posit that they had stumbled into the lair of a “hoarder,” those poor creatures known for their inability to resist the temptation to collect both useful and more often-useless “trash” items. An attempt at an explanation is in order so that what was experienced is understood in the light of recent art history.
Understanding this art fixture requires on the part of the participant some knowledge of the artists’ past development and interests. The danger here is that it is possible to dismiss the exhibition as a room full of stuff after giving the space a cursory glance. Modern life has desensitized most urban dwellers with regard to an over abundance of things. We have seen places like this before so have little reason to question what we see. The obvious has been extracted and put into an art space and so becomes even less obvious. This is the current strategy in the evolution of Shin’s art practice, which has seen many changes over the last few decades involving process and materials as well as the development of a few central ideas. The artist has previously taken long standing archaeological, biological and anthropological interests and blended them into an art concerned with synthesizing lived human experience and natural forms using found and manufactured materials. Combining a fascination for mythology, the process of time, imagined worlds and diverse ethnic histories, Shin brings his syncretistic worldview into reality with a form of alchemical art practice where all possibilities can co-exist simultaneously.
Installation, or the use of a space in which to arrange objects so as to form an environment receptive to artistic vision has always been part of Shins’ strategy. The difference between the current exhibit and former shows seems to be how the objects are viewed in the space. Ilya Kabakov described the essential difference between a Western and Eastern perception of space. He states, “if in the West, the object is exhibited as the main hero and the surrounding space doesn’t exist at all, ‘we’ on the contrary should perhaps primarily exhibit ‘space’ and only then arrange objects in it … leading to the necessity of creating a special kind of installation – the ‘total’ installation”.1 It seems when compared to past exhibits: quite literally the utilization of space here has been inverted causing a radical perceptual shift from objects defining their space to space defined as an object. This total use of space is totalizing in its effect on all the objects in the gallery space. Floor, ceiling and walls meld to form a unified environment in which even the smallest objects serve to link everything else together thus creating multiple levels of complexity.
There is some uncertainty assessing what Shin’s final aim may have been or what this art piece is meant to represent because of the layering and intertwining of possible intentions by the artist. The observer might well ask: was the result incidental or arrived at by careful thought and planning? Looking closely we identify issues relating to the placement/displacement of objects and space, order and disorder, purity and hybridity, form and formlessness, the exotic and the banal, consumerism and the traditional, nature and the mechanical as well as a commentary on various histories alluded to in the strange collection of objects. This list is not exhaustive as there are also different methodologies, which could be employed for the purpose of interpretation such as psychoanalysis, deconstruction, socialist theory or structuralism among others.
Close observation can posit various positions for an interpretation of Shin’s installation. Though Susan Sontag argued against the fabrication of meaning in any artwork in “Against Interpretation” in order that ‘form’ might prevail against ‘content’ nevertheless some kind of overview should be attempted with an installation such as this. Sontag’s main contention is that the act of interpretation “is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of "meanings." It is to turn the world into this world. ("This world"! As if there were any other.) She continues, claiming that, “The world, our world, is depleted, impoverished enough. Away with all duplicates of it, until we again experience more immediately what we have.”2 If we were to follow Sontag’s edict then we would need foremost to show how it is what it is and even that it is what it is in order to make it more rather than less real to the viewer. This approach makes it difficult to write about art, as the emphasis must be on direct unmediated sensual experience. Accompanying text or captions are done away with and content or meaning becomes inaccessible or inadmissible.
It is apparent from the outset that Shin has gone to great pains and expense to collect his objects and then to situate them in the space in such a way as to create a certain effect on the viewer. This effect might be termed crowded, claustrophobic, confusing, haphazard, disorienting or aimless among others but is in fact “total.” The artist has carefully crafted his space using all three dimensions to maximum effect so that the gallery is transformed into a maze of narrow walkways bordered by personal and household objects of every conceivable kind. Larger than life sized plastic copies of classical statues or “gods” stand at strategic points at opposite ends of the space serving as signposts between the past and present. It is hard to distinguish if we are in a department store or flea market and whether it is in Korea or some foreign place. Have we found ourselves in a mini market in the shadow of the great pyramids in Egypt or at a bargain basement clearance of cheap surplus goods somewhere in the USA? The pervading sense of “commodity” and the “market” overwhelm the senses; in particular that pungent combined odor of fabrics and synthetic materials like polyester, vinyl and rubber. We find ourselves in a state of sensory overload, uncertain how to process all we sense and feel. The monumental vividly colored wall hanging of the great pyramid at the far side of the space also serves to disorient the senses and enhance the surreal nature of being “in” the experience.
Shin’s recent installation bears no resemblance to those of other artists working with space such as Olafur Eliasson who uses light, water and air temperatures to enhance the viewer’s sense of the natural elements. The vividly patterned psychedelic op art mirror installations of Yayoi Kusama dealing with visual culture, perception and obliteration also bear little resemblance visually to Shins work. James Turrell’s mysterious translucent glowing, installations of light and space also have little in common with Shin’s art. There are other artists too numerous to mention here that use space with different intentions, exceptional notables being Kurt Schwitters, Donald Judd, Dan Flavin, Ai Wei Wei and Louise Bourgeois.
Instead, Shins mass of everyday colorful manufactured objects and clothing items seem to describe a concern for the effects of commodity and culture on society over the passage of time. His work is more in tune it appears, with that of artists such as Kay Hassan, Kaarina Kaikonnen, Martha Rosler and Christian Boltanski, artists known for using clothing and everyday objects to critique commerce, social and cultural identity, attitudes and lifestyles. Of course form is important to the work of all these artists but if we are to understand the purpose for such work we must look for content in order to develop anecdotes or arguments to make sense of it. Sontag’s dictate to avoid looking for meaning in favor of only enjoying the esthetics was a final impassioned appeal for form left over from the 50’s and 60’s when formalism became a “secular religion,” a kind of absolute, a Platonic hyper-real beyond conceptual analysis.”3 To understand what Shin is saying we need to go past form and examine the underlying discourse, which the objects together create.
Leaping backward and forward in time has become standard practice for Shin in his quest to grasp an understanding of unknown and fragmented histories. Originating in the imagination and then fashioning his response in a space mediated by experience the artist attempts to bridge multiple worlds. With every attempt he hones his skills further and becomes a magician of space. Shin’s total space experience strikes the viewer “full frontal” with modern reality in hyperbolic fashion. Modern urban life has desensitized many to the point where they do not see or feel but stumble blindly from one empty commodity experience to the next. It seems the artist’s work performs a higher social function like the canary in the coalmine warning us of our condition and nudging us to wake up and take action before it’s too late.
William M Boot - Painter
2013
1 Art in Theory 1900 – 2000, Blackwell Publishing, page 1178, Malden, 2003.
2 Susan Sontag/ Against Interpretation, Farrar Straus and Giroux, 1966.
3 Capacity: History, the World and the Self in Contemporary Art and Criticism, Thomas McEvilley, G+B Arts International, page 44, Amsterdam, 1996.
