Wow, 5 hrs has gone when I last logged in and how things have developed!
Ok, after reading through the few pages, with Kay Chin the ex-curator's input, I think I've got something to say:
First of all, I'd like to acknowledge Kay Chin for his participation in this discussion here, and having to take some of the heat in the process. It is definitely within his perogative as to what goes up in the exhibition, and absolutely within his authority as to how the show should be presented.
However, I think while his decision not to inform the organiser as to the 'truth' about those photos is still within his perogative, I should say that this is a gross oversight. Perhaps he didn't know the seriousness of such an issue.
The way Xiao Kang has been portrayed, is not entirely accurate either. 36 rolls of film depicting the same scene, frame for frame? This to me, sounds more like an obsessive compulsive behaviour, which is not typical of schizophrenia. These patients usually have cognitive impairment, which results in delusions, and disorganised speech and thinking. Would they then have the presece of mind to take 36 rolls of film of similar scenes and setup, frame for frame?
Thus, when Kay Chin thought that they were quite accurate representation of schiz, and allowed it to be exhibited even though he knew they were just artwork, he should have done more research into signs and symptoms of a schiz, before letting them in. This is why I said it was a gross oversight on his part.
And this, I am sure, have also eluded the makers of this photos. They have not done enough research too, when they thought about this plot. And if you are serious about trying to depict a schiz and raising pubic's awareness to them, I'm sure you'd have put in more effort in studying your subject more carefully, and not carelessly portraying them to be what they are not. Such approach to the work, is totally irresponsible and exploitative, IMO.
I don't think for once, how an inaccurate depiction of the patients would help raise awareness ad increase understanding about them? Worse, such irresponsibilty would only fuel misconception and msunderstanding, and plunging these patients from marginalisation into the deep abyss of the misunderstood.
This is what makes me fume; people are just making use of any excuses to have their moment of fame and glory! I have doubts that these artist care, such bloody hypocrisy!
And if the present curator and the organiser have any good sense, and upon learning the truth about schizophrenia (please don't take my words for it, go do some simple research yourselves), they should have the good sense to remove these photos from the exhibition, it is only morally right to do so.
It was the 'beautiful story' behind those photos that make them outstanding, and now that the truth is out, they are just some technically and aesthetically competent photos to me, nothing more.
So where is the artform now? Deception???
Last edited by hobbit6003; 3rd July 2007 at 11:43 PM.
excellent analysis hobbit6003
i've emailed Phish and the artists to call for the cancellation of the coming exhibition, that's all i can do now, i'm not in singapore and cannot possibly monitor the development of events. i hope more people will do likewise, to call for the cancellation of the exhibition. i'm disturbed enough by this incident already, i feel sad for the art scene in Singapore if the exhibition is to continue.
you posted this and deleted this. what do you mean?Originally Posted by ziedrich
Well, I've read and re-read those ST articles, and not for once, did Robert nor his collaborators comes up to admit it, not to mention that they were sorry!
Hey organisers, they have made a Mickey out of you as well, and you still take it lying down and continue with the exhibition? Where's the integrity and dignity?
This is like someone gave you a false credential during an interview, and you still go ahead and hire them?
What kind of signal are you sending out?
So next time, I'll just go up to stage and piss on the floor, and I'll call this piece of artwork "Incontinence" ya? How about that?
Last edited by hobbit6003; 4th July 2007 at 12:01 AM.
Hobbit, I appreciate your kind choice of word - oversight. I can't control how others think - whether I am shifting blames or what. I am not here to make matters worse for myself and others. This has been such a nightmare for me as well.
From the time I first surfaced Wu Xiaokang as a candidate for Out of Focus 2007 to its acceptance by the organizer was quite a long time. In between there were little communication because Shirlene and I were both traveling. On the other hand, from the time adoseoflight's official acceptance to me being told I could leave or work for free was lightning short.
I left in shock and I would be lying to say I was happy to have worked so hard without being able to finish it. But as I told Shirlene, I approached all three exhibitors as MOP2007 curator and I did not think it was ethical for me to demand that they withdraw just because I am out.
Like it or not, the authenticity of the work was never part of the conversation between Shirlene and myself. We were both too caught up with getting sponsorship money in the run-up to this and most of our conversations were about money and the general plan.
If I had thought that it was important for me to inform Shirlene, I would have. But I never once thought about it.
I have told Robert and company I have no regrets selecting them and I will also say it here too. As to how I would manage it if I were still the curator, it is all academic lah. I don't think it will be fair to anyone for me to tell you what I would have done because honestly, I was not allowed to get to that point.
anyway i thought maybe i trivialized unintentionally so i deleted it no worries and no malicious intentions ~
 i understand temperatures r warm here so i think my spontaneous personal opinion is a bit misplaced!
Last edited by ziedrich; 4th July 2007 at 12:08 AM.