(c) 2008 All images copyright Sharon Chin and Lydia Chai

Chin Chai installation overview

EM: I'd like to know the conceptual underpinning of the show and the visual relationships.

LC: I think the visuals came much later. It all started with Hush, I think, was it? [asks Sharon]

SC: I think that was the first work.

LC: Yup, that was the first work that we made. Hush is Sharon's personal diary and it was written in 2006 in the course of one year. At the end of 2006, Sharon gave her diary to me, but that wasn't an artistic gesture [laughs]. It was more of a personal thing, and I decided to make it an artistic gesture, and started making incisions into the book. Much later, I had the idea for the show. We always took it for granted that we would work together but we didn't know what we would work on. And so, my idea was to have a really organic show that would be about relationships or something you couldn't really pin down. We wanted the chemistry [between us] to take centerstage. And we wanted the show to be a by-product of our friendship - instead of a 'proper' work, so to speak.

I also wanted to create a space where things would happen, where relationships formed or broke up, and dramas were played out. My inspiration for this was the English bohemians, like Virginia Woolf et al. They would get together, have parties, read and write plays together for themselves; not for other people. They were living their lives artfully and having their lives play out in a space. So, my initial interest was the form of the show, to diverge from a formal-looking white space gallery show.

EM: So, how are the relationships created between the works - is it a personal journey for the viewer to extract? How are the works in this room speaking to each other? Sharon's work has this poetic side to it and [Lydia's] kinetic pieces are sorta nihilistic and ludicrous, so there's a jarring effect there. Whereas [Lydia's] wall paintings are very loose and free-flowing. The kinetic works are quite punctuating, in terms of the rest of the works, so how do they speak to each other?

LC: Besides the obvious circular motif that all of them have, the kinetic works add some humour, or light-heartedness, into the show, because when we were making the show or talking about it, it was getting too sombre. Sharon's work takes that tone most of the time, I think, and I just wanted to be playful and fun.

BY: Did you do the moon video after Sharon's Paper Moon?

LC: Yes.

SC: I think that my work (not Lydia's kinetic works) is nihilistic because there is no action; everything's petrified… versus Lydia's work in which the idea of flow is more natural.

EM: The reason we're using this rather strong word 'nihilistic' is that [the motors] turn without a purpose. I suppose all art practices can be said to have an essence of nihilism. The motors are desperately turning, echoing the movement of the ceiling fans in a light-hearted way. Whereas the lunar references and the cartography [of the tarp installation which has the shape of Klang River cut out from it] have an evocative quality that is multi-layered, so it creates a whole spectrum [of tones] in that way.

Plastic river by Sharon Chin, tarpaulin

LC: I like describing the motor pieces as existing in their own little orbits and it connects with the moon works because, obviously, the moon is a satellite for the Earth and so, there are these two orbits influencing each other. That's where the moon comes into my work. It complements the Arcs video because the moon itself forms an arc in the sky, when it travels from the bottom to the top of the tv screen.

BY: One question I have to ask is what have you two gleaned out of this collaboration. Did you start making the works independently and brought them together, or sat down and said to each other "this is what I'm gonna do, this is what you're gonna do"? One thing that comes off from this show is a sorta 'howling at the moon', about love and relationships. Was it your intention for you both to create a story together?

LC: No, it's more like this gallery is a field of play and whatever happens in here is the work. I don't think we had a narrative going on because, in a way, Sharon and I are the narrative. If that makes sense.

BY: But then are you telling the story of the both of you?

LC: Yeah, but we want it to be a universal story, not to be pinned down.

BY: About any relationship.

LC: Yeah. The most interesting part was observing how things came together in the end because we were very much working separately, even though there was a constant bouncing to and fro of ideas. That involves a great element of trust, which is related to the compass works and how much trust one places on the needle of a compass. I think we trusted that it would come together in the end.

SC: It was really challenging for me because of the distance, for that collaboration to occur across the distance.

LC: I think it would have been challenging even if I were living here.

SC: That's true. Our contexts are so different and audiences are different. It didn't occur to me how different one's context might affect the work. That's one thing that I learnt. How one is affected by one's surroundings.

YSB: You mean that when you were doing the work, you were reflecting on where you were?

LC: I don't think we talked about place very much. To me, there's always this great chasm between two people. Distance is by default, it's there, whether you live together or not.

[To Sharon] I'm not sure if you're trying to say I'm making light-hearted work because is my work more 'positive' because I'm making it there, in New Zealand?

   


From the Pulse series by Lydia Chai, motorised sculptures

Sharon: No. Whether it's more positive/lighthearted or not, where we were, where we came from or where we made the work has influenced what it looks like eventually, and hence what it looks like when it comes together, the parts of convergence, the parts where it comes together. For me, that forms the spirit of the show.

LC: What are the differences that you see in our works?

SC: On every level, from the visual resources, the tarp is such a localized material, the way flow is arrested. All these things form the tension.

[A dog howls at the call to Azan]

BY: Howling at the moon!

What have been the reactions so far?

LC: I haven't spoken to people deeply about it but I assume they are puzzled because they keep asking me "what are the paintings about?"

SC: Are you guys puzzled?

BY: No.

YSB: [On Lydia's paintings] I just like to see them as forms.

BY: Obviously, there is a level of intrigue in the show. It does poses a challenge to the audience. First of all, calling it 'chin chai' (local slang for 'slipshod' or 'fun') - it's cute, corny and talks about being casual, which is odd for a show. Shows normally have their own pretensions...

My first impression was that it's about love and relationships. It's very poetic and the publication adds to that sort of poetry. The question I thought the essay asked was, 'is it okay to bare emotions?' Is there a sense of embarrassment that underpins what you're trying to do?

LC: Most definitely. It's a by-product of what we're doing. I don't think we realized how embarrassing it would be [laughs]. I don't mean it in the simple sense. That's a good word because it is very much about exposure but we wanna do it in a way that is not corny.

EM: To me, the show has the sense of an evasive intimacy but it's just that the visual rhetoric is at times a bit deluding. I think it would benefit from something tighter but I'm not quite sure. I don't know if that's the success of the show. The publication, to me, rather sits in the middle, and it either needs to be beautiful and poetic-

BY: Well, it is poetic!

EM: It is! There's sort of like a critical distance juxtaposed with the poems. Seems to me the crux of the show doesn't come across which, again, could be the success of the show or something you might wanna work on.

LC: We couldn't have made it any other way. To me, it is successful in that sense because it evades intimacy.

EM: It is intimate, though.

LC: Yes, but I think the minute you point what it is, it would fail. That's why I like the idea of the arcs. I think people touch each other in arcs and tangents all the time. Maybe that's how I feel with Sharon in particular. But I see what you mean how it comes through.

SC: I think that's a typical tension, as an artist: you're torn between communicating an idea and here you have an emotional relationship. How do you reconcile it? I don't know. It's a challenge.

EM: I don't think it needs to be reconciled. That kind of process needs to be understood as well. The show's not about what best friends you are, how well you know each other, how well your practices complement each other, but it is also about the gaps between those things, and being aware and being able to discuss that.

LC: In terms of form, do you think the diversity is more of a problem than a success?

EM: Success is such a loaded word. It's more about confidence. There are certain aspects that are incongruous and yet there are certain aspects that complement each other beautifully. It's just being able to discuss or saying these are the questions, not the answers. It's about the different connotations that don't go from A to B but go off into the ether. It's understanding what those are as an artist.

Pull II by Lydia Chai, watercolour on paper

CN: Um, you know my background's not in Art, it's in Literature. I generally don't like to talk to the artist when I'm reviewing the work because there is a tendency to attribute an idea or dialogue. I think the best word to use for this show is 'elliptical' because there are lots of gaps. When you enter the space, it's a rather cavernous space, but at the same time there are attempts to fill it but not too much. So for an audience there is a sense of giving us space to inhabit the space, trying to guide you in certain ways and at the same time letting you make of it what you will. [To Lydia] I think I told you about how I see the connections between the work. I like Paper Moon because when you look at it, it doesn't seem much but when you look at the numbers, there's more. That captures concretely the idea that what you see is not always there. The moonscape is like a metaphor for how you two are coming together but at the same time you're separated. There's a kind of tension there between what you want people to see and not to see. And also what you yourselves may make of the same space that you're in and not in at the same time. I agree with Bev that it's poetic because it's not concrete. That's a trigger for me to constantly push to make links of my own which may or may not be parallel to ones that you've made. I really like it, but I like it in a way that is not conventional. Certainly I think the fact that both of you have wall works and installation works complement each other even though the works are very different.

SC: This matter of our relationship (Lydia and me), if you took that out, could you divorce the work?

BY: Not in your case because you're so much a part of your work. But if the premise of the project was your relationship, could it possibly be seen in the abstract? I don't think I came thinking it was about a particular relationship because your work is so much about romance that it's not necessarily about the friendship. I think [people] can come in thinking that it's two sets of works about relationships.

YSB: I wonder if you can look at it this way. As Lydia says, [the Pulse work] is made up of little robots and spin and create little orbits. Meanwhile, Sharon's doing maps with the tarpaulin. It seems like Sharon's mapping something and Lydia's little robots are mapping Sharon's materials. And if you look back at the personal diary which was a gesture of friendship, Lydia again reacts [to what Sharon presents her]. That might reveal how your relationship with each other works. And I leave that for you two to...

Hush, Sharon's personal diary sculpted by Lydia with a craft knife

LC: Sort out.

SC: [Laughs] Don't psychoanalyze us!

YSB: It's like Sharon's probing KL and Lydia's probing Sharon's probes.

[Laughs]

LC: That's so true. I'm always trying to make Sharon look at things in a different way, because I think she gets a bit stuck and I think she really did look at the diary in a totally different way after I sculpted it. The content of the diary is only for me but it was pretty tumultuous. That's all I'll say about the content, but that's why we called it "Hush" because the action of carving it was a consoling act.

EM: So you answered your question whether you can divorce your personalities from the show. Say you knew nothing about the fact that it was about the relationship between you two, and it was a two-person show. No one would know what that carving gesture was. The back story makes it more interesting.

LC: I think the embarrassment is very much a part of it now.

ZS: It does seem as if it's just about you two wanting to do something together and exploring something for yourselves. But I wonder if there is anything significant beyond that.

LC: Anything more to add? In terms of the history of exhibitions in Malaysia? Where does this one sit? Are there any references that you could give us to look up, any similar shows?

EM: I agree with Zedeck that it seems you two wanted to just explore certain things together. In a year's time you may want to reflect on it again. Simon mentioned in his essay Nauman and Whiteread and the mapping of negative space.

This is a very vulnerable thing for artists to do, a closed door discussion.

Would you work together again?

LC: We're still thinking about it. [To Sharon] It's been a painful journey for you, though.

SC: At some point we were like, "Why do we have to do a show? Why can't we just hang out like normal friends?" [Laughs]

LC: Have you seen My Best Fiend? Werner Herzog made this movie about Klaus Kinski and their friendship. They made five films together and it was a tumultuous relationship. After Kinski died, Herzog made this documentary about their friendship. There was no plot to the movie, it was just an exposition of how they worked together. The whole movie is summed up by what Herzog says about their relationship. He says that Kinski is like a magnet who draws people to him and Herzog herds them together and keeps them there. We screened it here on Saturday.

EM: How do you feel in terms of the reception of the show, and what you've achieved?

LC: I'm very happy with what we've achieved. As for audience reception, this session is the first time I've gotten proper feedback because most of the time people have come in from the front door, stopped at the video and settled at [Sharon's] big work here, Paper Moon. So they haven't really been looking at stuff in the main room.

EM: It seems like this art scene is a very commercial saturated scene, so people are used to looking at paintings on the wall. So naturally, they would eventually settle on the 'big painting'. Whereas the setup of this show is quite haphazard and organic. Maybe people are not used to that.

LC: I thought people would be ready for this sort of setup. Maybe they're not. I don't know.

EM: It might be something you can't quantify, too. Maybe the visual of Paper Moon is quite striking so people focus on that.

LC: That's why I've been shifting the motors around to play with the arrangement.

YSB: I was thinking it would be nice if the moon video was on the ground [instead of on a plinth]. That might get everything on the same plane.

LC: I just wonder if the format of the show is different enough to provoke thought among viewers here. I think it would be seen as a really conservative format in New Zealand.

EM: You worked on the show as curators as well, so maybe getting someone else to curate who has that distance from your work would help.

SC: That's a valuable suggestion.

Paper Moon by Sharon Chin, paper soaked in water from Klang river and ink

LC: I wanna say something about your painting, Sharon. The more I look at it, the grimmer it looks to me. I didn't realize how emotionally dark it was, because when you first talked about doing this work, it seemed a very romantic idea of the moon, as if we were imposing our psyche onto the moon and exploiting the moon for our own romantic notions. But it has become quite, um... I don't like resting my eyes on it because the tears seems like gaping wounds. They're not romantic anymore, in fact they're quite brutal. I wanna say 'obscene' but that's too strong a word. And if you don't mind me saying, and I may be saying this because I'm your friend, but I think if you looked at this work in ten year's time I think you will not like what you see.

SC: Who's to say I like it now?

LC: [Laughs] These works started out quite optimistic, didn't they? In one of Sharon's previous shows, she had cement clinging on to strips of Perspex ie material clinging on to some sort of support. But for this work she wanted the wash the ink away, so it was about not looking outwards but looking inwards within your homeland and yourself. It was quite an optimistic slant. But it didn't turn out like that at all.

EM: Did you two keep diaries?

LC: Yeah.

SC: No.

LC: We had a private blog, though, where we bounced ideas off each other.

[Transcript truncated]

Moon River by Sharon Chin, ceramic discs with sections of
Klang River's silhouette carved into each disc

(c) 2008 All images copyright Sharon Chin and Lydia Chai