In my photographs, I am acutely aware of the tension between a clarity of the thing itself and a vagueness toward what it represents. The photos often have a literal or figurative translucence, adding to or diluting intrinsic meaning. Objects are redefined by each other, in the midst of an ongoing investigation of architectural space. Defined spaces or items — street paraphernalia, window displays — are turned into abstract portraits, but their true functional nature, and those of the places I capture — slums, housing projects, horse stables — remain like echoes. The real slips into the unreal, or surreal. At the same time, these depictions are also a conscious way of addressing poignant historical and cultural contexts and conflicts.
The subjects of my photographs are drawn from concerns arising out of my immediate environment, first in South Korea and now here in Chicago. In South Korea I was particularly concerned with capturing the social and political complexities arising as consequences of the fast economic development and the controversial effects of the contemporary, capitalist paradigm. My recent photographs in Chicago continue these same concerns and explore spaces of political and social tension. I see traces of modernist, utopian experiments, for which Chicago was the testing ground, and I see the reminders of their failure thrown into contrast by a contemporary reality in which there is still so much injustice and inequality.
I enjoyed the parts about connecting your work to the history of Chicago and the various places you make work. I would like to see more of this history being explored in the actual work though if this is your area of interest. Words like conflict, inequality, utopia, and context need to become more apparent in the actual images. So far, I've only seen the aspect of the surreal, the abstract portrait, and the echo in the work, not the political stance necessarily. This is fine, but I would need to see more of that conflict in the work if you want to bring it up in a statement.
ReplyDeleteI would reconsider having "In my photographs, I am acutely aware of the tension between a clarity of the thing itself and a vagueness toward what it represents." as your first sentence (maybe move it to a later part of the statement?) just because it and the word "thing", specifically, is so vague. Maybe put the first two sentences after your third sentence that talks about objects redefining each other so you have a more clearly directed start. Other than that, your statement reads well and has interesting ideas that your work is beginning to reflect. I agree with what Rashayla said about some of it not being shown in the work yet, but I think it's getting there.
ReplyDeleteI love the idea about "echoes". I wish you would elaborate more on that. I believe your work contains many of these echoes, those of your past in Korea, and those of a type of confusion of space in Chicago.
ReplyDeleteI'm also intrigued by "reminders of failure" of the utopias that once seemed within reach. I was wondering if you knew much about the Chicago World's Fair in 1893, in which Daniel Burnham tried to create the perfect utopian environment which he called the "White City". Maybe it would benefit you to visit the area in which they tried to build this utopia. Only remainders of it remain, the museum being the only structure.
this first paragraph risks too much poetic license and you lose your audience. it is too vague...shorten and make more clear?
ReplyDeleteIn my photographs, I am acutely aware of the tension between a clarity of the thing itself and a vagueness toward what it represents. The photos often have a literal or figurative translucence, adding to or diluting intrinsic meaning. Objects are redefined by each other, in the midst of an ongoing investigation of architectural space. Defined spaces or items — street paraphernalia, window displays — are turned into abstract portraits, but their true functional nature, and those of the places I capture — slums, housing projects, horse stables — remain like echoes. The real slips into the unreal, or surreal. At the same time, these depictions are also a conscious way of addressing poignant historical and cultural contexts and conflicts.
this second paragraph is much stronger and direct. you need to end strong...why show failure/inequity? what is your purpose/goal/hope/question for continuing?
The subjects of my photographs are drawn from concerns arising out of my immediate environment, first in South Korea and now here in Chicago. In South Korea I was particularly concerned with capturing the social and political complexities arising as consequences of the fast economic development and the controversial effects of the contemporary, capitalist paradigm. My recent photographs in Chicago continue these same concerns and explore spaces of political and social tension. I see traces of modernist, utopian experiments, for which Chicago was the testing ground, and I see the reminders of their failure thrown into contrast by a contemporary reality in which there is still so much injustice and inequality.
This is a very interesting statement but I'm having a very difficult time connecting it to your work. You mention the modernist utopia, social and political complexities, the consequences of capitalist expansion, and I'm not sure any of this can be seen in what you present aesthetically. I'm also seeing a very poignant break between such widespread cultural concerns and your mention of the real/unreal and clarity/vagueness (these latter two dichotomies being a little more apparent in your actual photos). It seems to me you could go in one of two directions from here... either edit this statement to narrow in on your interests that are present in the work (surreality/reality) or start really pushing your sociopolitical agenda in contrasting South Korea with Chicago. Right now this statement seems to express a vigilance or powerful conviction that is just not present in your actual work and this is really throwing me off.
ReplyDeleteAs people mentioned above, I see this statement link much closer to your work prior of this last months. So maybe you need to address the new developments in it?
ReplyDeleteBut concerning about the statement itself, it seems to me in the first paragraph you raised the problem of representation in images while in the second one you were addressing concrete issues in real life. Maybe something that explains how you turn the vagueness of representation, as you said, into asset in portraying your concerns?
The use of 'I am acutely aware of' doesn't seem right ...
ReplyDeleteIn the first paragraph i got a a little lost where you are talking about the photos and objects.... may be if you talk about them in a more simpler way... the way you talked about the Chicago and Korea experience in the second paragraph that might be helpful...and i really liked the second paragraph of the statement.