Abstract
Installation; a SIXHIBITION project; size varied; plywood & a gallery.
Architectural project suggests the conditions of possibility to be represented through a material presence. Usually, it suggests a form pertaining to building. Yet it is unbuilt, and never to be built. We see, on the one hand, its attempt to express the state of things in reality, and on the other, its ultimate detachment from it as a conception.
We made models; we produce drawings. Are they "architecture"? Or just architectural representation? If architecture does not lie within buildings nor models nor drawings, where is "architecture" then? Does architecture exist beyond the physical containment of building? If yes, how does it present itself?
-An exhibition space within an exhibition space. -Yes, the exhibit is itself. Its very nature takes itself as an exhibit. It exhibit itself. -Many have explored the issue of exhibition/exhibition space, exhibit/exhibitors. But taking exhibition space as an exhibit sounds quite interesting somehow. -Well I'm not sure. It seems there's nothing in the exhibition. We are making another kind of emptiness. -Another empty place. -Not a "place"! It is a conceptual space, though this one allows real experience. The synchronic presence blurs the distinction between an empirical experience and a conceptual one. -It creates double spatial experience(s). -Real experience takes place through our physical presence. But the concept of space is constructed through a grafting of past experiences, like reading an architectural drawing. We know this is a wall, this is a window. We began to decode the symbols and construct our new experience by connecting them with our past experiences. -That's why we have the 1:50 models. -There is no ambiguity between this model scale and the real scale. The models are representations only. However, they are 3 dimensional construct as the same time. They present themselves in the space. The shape the space as well. This dual nature of models is often neglected. When a model being blown up to 1:1.2, which allows a physical experience in it, the duality is reinforced. -It is not a property mock-up nor a stage set. It is not imitation, but representation. It is a model. -Isn't a model a copy? -No. Model is a materialized concept. It does not necessarily simulate the real. -It ends up with paper planes. A pure conceptualization. But through enlargement, you may also experience it.
Architectural project suggests the conditions of possibility to be represented through a material presence. Usually, it suggests a form pertaining to building. Yet it is unbuilt, and never to be built. We see, on the one hand, its attempt to express the state of things in reality, and on the other, its ultimate detachment from it as a conception.
We made models; we produce drawings. Are they "architecture"? Or just architectural representation? If architecture does not lie within buildings nor models nor drawings, where is "architecture" then? Does architecture exist beyond the physical containment of building? If yes, how does it present itself?
-An exhibition space within an exhibition space. -Yes, the exhibit is itself. Its very nature takes itself as an exhibit. It exhibit itself. -Many have explored the issue of exhibition/exhibition space, exhibit/exhibitors. But taking exhibition space as an exhibit sounds quite interesting somehow. -Well I'm not sure. It seems there's nothing in the exhibition. We are making another kind of emptiness. -Another empty place. -Not a "place"! It is a conceptual space, though this one allows real experience. The synchronic presence blurs the distinction between an empirical experience and a conceptual one. -It creates double spatial experience(s). -Real experience takes place through our physical presence. But the concept of space is constructed through a grafting of past experiences, like reading an architectural drawing. We know this is a wall, this is a window. We began to decode the symbols and construct our new experience by connecting them with our past experiences. -That's why we have the 1:50 models. -There is no ambiguity between this model scale and the real scale. The models are representations only. However, they are 3 dimensional construct as the same time. They present themselves in the space. The shape the space as well. This dual nature of models is often neglected. When a model being blown up to 1:1.2, which allows a physical experience in it, the duality is reinforced. -It is not a property mock-up nor a stage set. It is not imitation, but representation. It is a model. -Isn't a model a copy? -No. Model is a materialized concept. It does not necessarily simulate the real. -It ends up with paper planes. A pure conceptualization. But through enlargement, you may also experience it.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - 1999 |
| Externally published | Yes |
| Event | SIXHIBITION - 1aspace, Hong Kong Duration: 15 May 1999 → 13 Jun 1999 |
Keywords
- Visual Arts
- Architecture
- Installation