I just came back from the 5th Singapore Forum on Politics and while I only made it to the Question-and-Answer session, something that Dr Kevin Tan said to wrap up the conference really struck me. It went something like:
“Amidst all the apathy and antipathy,
let us have some empathy and sympathy as well.
After all, it’s not all about the head,
but also about the heart.”
Edward Burtynksy is a fine art photographer who explores how industrial action has transformed the landscape and this is one of his photos of an old factory in China. In a documentary, “Manufactured Landscapes”, one gets to hear about him talk about his works and his idea of showing people environments that seem shocking and at the same time man-made seems interesting.
On the issue of manufactured, I made two really curious observations the other day. I was at a McDonald’s and it struck me that the whole row of counter staff were non-Chinese but were all wearing a Chinese caps (those bowl-shape ones that you expect man to wear in China a long time ago). It was a Chinese New Year accessory to add to the “festivity” in the restaurant but strangely the Chinese manager was not wearing one.
A day later, I was out visiting and I saw a Lion Dance troupe and all the performers were Malays. What has been traditionally a Chinese cultural activity has curiously become a non-Chinese one.
In both observations, they were essentially manufactured Chinese symbols and it seemed quite hollow to me. On the exterior (for the Lion Dance troupe especially), it seemed like the continuing of some grand Chinese tradition, but inside, they were being performed by non-Chinese. I suppose I’m wondering how does it come across as meaningful and not simply a manufactured product? It feels like surrounding us with things that remind us of the past when inside it has already changed to something else.
“Why everything also need meaning?” asked a friend the other day.
Somehow my insistence on creations with meaning does not go down very well with a lot of people, and a very big reasons is it stifles the creative process. That aside, I think even if you don’t set out to create something with a meaning in mind (after all it is meaning not how it is derived that I am stressing here), being able to explain your creation and its relevance beyond your own world is something I deeply admire in works. Moreover, being able to show your creation came through a thoughtful process really shows how critical and meticulous you are.
This was one photo that I took and actually planned for it. It is a multiple-exposure made up of cranes from the construction of new buildings near Outram and in opposition, is Pearl Bank Apartments. The latter was at one time Singapore’s tallest residential building when it was completed in 1976 and today oddly stands alone opposite Outram MRT station. Late last year, the site that the locally-design horse-shoe shape building sits on was put up for en-bloc sale and it meant the building would likely be demolished too. I’m not sure what is the latest update on its status, but like all things in Singapore, I’m not optimistic it will outlast my time. There are various architecture and heritage merits to why this building should be preserved and you can find out about them just by googling. Perhaps more importantly, Pearl Bank Apartments represents a lag in preservation policy as most things that are preserved currently do not go beyond the date of Singapore’s independence.
It seems our history after independence is still very much up in the air, awaiting the dust to settle.
On another note about photos, here is a shameless plug for a friend’s photo site, some nice potraits there. Also, I’m keen in submitting my photos for the 2nd Singapore young Photographer Award 2008. If I’m not wrong, when I was first introduced to film photography with a bag of film as a birthday present, I was also given a form for the inaugural competition, but I felt I was too new. This time around, I think I actually have some photos that I’ll like to share. I will give it some thought.