• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

AHMAD ZAKII ANWAR TO SENSE There is a telephone, but there is nothing to The artist describes an intriguing episode concealment, and self-defence. Figures con- THE DEPTH say. There is a television, but there is nothing concerning cigarettes in his artist’s state- cealed by cigarette smoke gaze at something. OF A SURFACE to watch. Perhaps someone does not wish to ment. It is known that he first painted the Their staring eyes turn inward, not outward. speak or watch anything. Ahmad Zakii An- smoking figure after getting into a serious These depictions can be thought of as the BY PROF. CHOI TAE MAN war’s triptychs consist of three factors that argument with his friend because he smoked artist’s self-portraits despite being portrayed connect and separate one another. Let us first while driving a car in Singapore in 1995. One by other models. It is for this reason that I de- examine Nothing to Say. This work features a example is his 1995 work Anonymity fea- fined them as descriptions of a mindscape. matchstick placed between a telephone on a turing two smoking men who are facing in The matchstick placed in the middle of the round table and a man smoking a cigarette. different directions. The figures in this work scene represents not only a medium between The three scenes can be captured at a glance, have clear contours as the background is in a thing and a figure but also the gap that true, but the direction in which I take them in monotone, reminding viewers of a film scene. splits them apart. This intermediation refers is perhaps of little importance. Why was the The artist once said he was inspired by a to a symbolic association of an event that telephone placed there? Does it ring? Seeing movie he had watched as a child. He men- occurred or is likely to happen between an as how the phone is connected, a kind per- tioned he was greatly influenced by the blank object and a figure. It is through this that a son could potentially call. Why does the man space that appears when two people have a work of art forges a narrative structure. Like have his head turned in the direction of the dramatic confrontation and the empty scene an arrow, the matchstick may immediately telephone as he smokes? Moreover, why is his that causes psychological tension in a Sergio link subjects according to its position. As the face hidden by cigarette smoke? Perhaps it is Leone movie. A span of time exists between three scenes are together by metaphor, this a sort of camouflage that portrays his psy- these two smoking figures who seem part work attains a literary quality, but it might be chological state while disguising his physical of a cinematic sequence and a narrative in- trapped in a limited narrative. We thus need identity. This disguise could be a device that trudes in the passage of this time. The void to perceive this matchstick as a gap between masks the character’s emotional state or a of negative-space thus becomes a site where objects and figures. That is to say; this acts as means of further reinforcing his isolation. narrative emerges. both a pitfall that traps viewers in the narra- tive and a device that disturbs our eyes. This work then seems to be a sort of mind- The smoking man he depicted in 2017 scape. Faithful to a realistic representation, appears either standing alone or sitting on This gap is reminiscent of “inframince,” this painting stresses isolation and sever- a sofa. As in the work Anonymity mentioned a portmanteau of “infra” (infra) and “mince” ance using subdued tones and connotations. above, this figure does not seem to allow any (slim) coined by Marcel Duchamp. This term What does this work mean? Suddenly, I find space for a narrative since he takes up the refers to a difference that is too small to rec- myself wondering what role the already burnt center of the scene, filling the frame. How- ognize. Duchamp mentions that it is hard to matchstick situated between two different ever, discourse is not entirely ousted from define and that only examples can be given. objects serves. Is it a channel between the the scene however, as it manages to form a Its physical dimensions can be thought of as telephone and the person whose face is cov- new narrative structure. A telephone, televi- similar to that of a thin membrane and gap 2 ered by smoke? Or is it an object that deter- sion, hung shirt, and a closed door all serve or as having the thickness of a shadow. This mines a separation between the two objects? as reminders of speaking, seeing, relaxation, gap is both an ideological site where imagi- nation is molded, and a sphere of open po- not inferior fakes. They are potential beings ratives as they exist on an infinitely condens- tential. Similar to its title I’m Not at Home, a that enable us to see that which is invisible. ing surface. matchstick horizontally linking a closed door to a man who is turned around is not a mere What enables us to cross the boundaries We have to pay heed to the voyeuristic reference or implication of absence: it also in- between reality and imagination is not our space within each scene in Zakii’s work. The duces viewers to envisage a space that goes eyes but our gaze. Faith & Doubt featuring seemingly unoccupied planes present glanc- beyond this. Positioned in a place where psy- the Virgin Mary, statues of Indian deities, and es into the depth of each surface. A shadow chology is visually undetectable, the match- a man bowing his shaved head alludes to has no thickness, but we can imagine it. We stick deconstructs the boundaries of our im- viewers conceptions of religious practice. And can discover that Zakii’s paintings vibrate in age-triggered associations. Thus, disturbing yet, these are nothing but one-dimensional the boundaries between origin and repre- our habitual interpretations. For instance, if a images captured by our eyes. So, we ask our- sentation as we imagine the cerebral depth habitual interpretation associates the seven selves; what does the horizontal band cutting which exists on an impossibly thin surface. pebbles in There’s Someone In My Head But across the man’s head mean? Why does that It’s Not Me with the Creation, a week, and the keenly divide the black-and-white space? Is – Choi Tae Man, Art Critic Big Dipper, the possibility that “inframince” this figure who closes his eyes as if meditat- provides opens from the deconstruction of ing like Sisyphus who was punished by hav- such a relationship. ing to roll an immense boulder up a hill again and again? He may be if we liken Sisyphus’ Most representations are dictated by the toil to human life. principle of resemblance. In other words, this concept works to uphold the sense of oneness This work is a reflection of the artist’s self, between originals and reproductions through and the man in this painting may be his self- represented images. In contrast, similitude portrait. Therefore, this work can be thought brings out their differences. This well-known of as a metaphor for anguish and for Narcis- assertion was made by Michel Foucault in sus’ pool as it entices the gaze. All the same, This Is Not a Pipe in which he interpreted we should not be confined or absorbed by the Rene Magritte’s works. An image that takes magic these images weave. The more we fix- after a matchstick is not a mere reference to ate on a single interpretation, the more ones’ a matchstick. The matchstick does not dwell scope of understanding is limited. However, in the space of representation but, instead, we are perhaps able to realize that Zakii’s floats in a scene. The eight bees inBloodlines works enable us to envisage thing beyond and the seven pebbles in There’s Someone In their immediate representation. Each piece My Head But It’s Not Me are simulacra, im- drives us to carefully examine the membrane ages without the substance or qualities of the between image and surface, the void be- 3 originals. As Plato mentioned, simulacra are tween illusion and negative-space, and nar- 표면의 깊이를 감각한다는 것 전화기가 놓여 있지만 말할 게 없다. 텔레비전이 놓여 있지만 볼 게 없다. 아니면 말할(볼) 수 없 거나 말하고(보고) 싶지 않을 수도 있다. 자키(Ahmad Zakii Anwar)의 삼면화는 서로 연결되면서 분리된 세 개의 요소로 구성되어 있다. 먼저 <말할 게 없다(Nothing To Say)>를 보자. 둥근 테이 블 위에 덩그러니 놓인 전화기와 담배를 피우고 있는 남자를 사이에 두고 가운데 막 사용한 성냥 개비가 그려져 있다. 이 작품을 보는 나의 시선은 습관적으로 왼쪽으로부터 오른쪽으로 수평적 이동을 한다. 세 개의 화면이 한 눈에 포착되므로 시선의 방향은 상관없을 수 있다. 그런데 전화 기는 왜 저기에 놓여 있을까. 그것은 과연 울리기나 하는 것일까. 전선이 연결되어 있으므로 언젠 가는 반가운 사람으로부터 전화가 올지 모른다. 그런데 오른편의 남자는 왜 담배를 피우며 전화 기가 놓인 방향으로부터 고개를 돌리고 있을까. 게다가 그의 얼굴은 담배연기에 의해 가려져 있 다. 연기는 이 인물의 얼굴은 물론 표정조차 숨기고자 하는 심리상태를 반영하는 일종의 위장막 일 수 있다. 이 위장은 화면 속 남자의 성격과 감정 상태를 숨기는 장치이자 그의 고립을 강화하 는 요소이기도 하다. 이 작품은 내게 일종의 심리적 풍경으로 비쳐진다. 사실적인 재현에 충실하지만 가라앉은 색조에 의해 고립과 단절이 강조되고 있는 이 작품은 무엇에 대해 말하고 있는 것일까. 문득 이 작품 가 운데 놓인 저 성냥개비, 즉 두 개의 서로 다른 대상 사이에 놓인 이미 타버린 성냥개비의 역할이 궁금해진다.

Load more

  54

Copy Link