/marker and correction fluid on clipping/
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Branded stories
/text on clipping/
Advertisements tell stories. There's nothing wrong with telling stories. There's nothing wrong with selling products. The disturbing part is the great discrepancy between branded fantasies in advertisements and lifeless products in real life.
Monday, September 29, 2008
False story
/cut clipping from scmp/
A "fact" that is made must be false. But maybe, it is not much different from what is true. Thousands of facts are produced by newspapers each day. We just wouldn't know how they have been manipulated/manufactured. Including this one.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
I Give Therefore I Am
/correction fluid on clipping from scmp/
we dont only judge by how much we own, but how much we give.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Invisible Men
-
In response to dressless figures, *dresses are made and added to signs. Please join the activity if you are interested. We can also remove dresses from figures with dress (though it would be technically more difficult).
-
The idea started with No Men In Women's Washrooms
Figure on signs is often male rather than female. Some may say it's neuter, for signs other than toilet signs don't carry the function of differentiation. Some may say a figure without dress is simpler than a figure with dress, making a cleaner and more accessible sign. Then why do some such as escalator ones always include "female" figures, especially when it's about taking care of children? I remember one example told by a feminist: we call male doctors "doctors", but we call female doctors "female doctors", as if it's normal for doctors to be men - as if it's normal for women to be invisible. This kind of gender stereotyping shows it's not that we can't realize the invisibility of women (in the society) but more importantly, the invisibility of the (over)dominance of men.
*It is understood that dress may also be a type of gender stereotyping. But if, idealistically, it's not only women who can wear dress, why can't any random figure wear one? The above briefly stated the reason for adding dresses to signs, yet the topic is open for different views. The activity is definitely not intended to reinforce the dress stereotype. I hope it won't turn out to be.
It's important to keep in mind that there are more genders than two. What's mentioned is only about the general scene. Another concern would be figures with added dress may not look feminine due to the original form. For the same reason above, this would not be a problem. Though adding "female figures" to signs was the initial notion, the activity could simply be "adding dresses". Why can't male - or other "non-feminine" as you call - figures wear dress? Furthermore, there is no reason for women to look "feminine" in the first place.
In response to dressless figures, *dresses are made and added to signs. Please join the activity if you are interested. We can also remove dresses from figures with dress (though it would be technically more difficult).
-
The idea started with No Men In Women's Washrooms
Figure on signs is often male rather than female. Some may say it's neuter, for signs other than toilet signs don't carry the function of differentiation. Some may say a figure without dress is simpler than a figure with dress, making a cleaner and more accessible sign. Then why do some such as escalator ones always include "female" figures, especially when it's about taking care of children? I remember one example told by a feminist: we call male doctors "doctors", but we call female doctors "female doctors", as if it's normal for doctors to be men - as if it's normal for women to be invisible. This kind of gender stereotyping shows it's not that we can't realize the invisibility of women (in the society) but more importantly, the invisibility of the (over)dominance of men.
*It is understood that dress may also be a type of gender stereotyping. But if, idealistically, it's not only women who can wear dress, why can't any random figure wear one? The above briefly stated the reason for adding dresses to signs, yet the topic is open for different views. The activity is definitely not intended to reinforce the dress stereotype. I hope it won't turn out to be.
It's important to keep in mind that there are more genders than two. What's mentioned is only about the general scene. Another concern would be figures with added dress may not look feminine due to the original form. For the same reason above, this would not be a problem. Though adding "female figures" to signs was the initial notion, the activity could simply be "adding dresses". Why can't male - or other "non-feminine" as you call - figures wear dress? Furthermore, there is no reason for women to look "feminine" in the first place.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Colours
/correction fluid on magazine clipping/
dividing and tagging is wrong enough
narrowing recognition and concern to only a few of these groups makes it worse
Monday, July 16, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
No Men In Women's Washrooms
/marker on plastic sheet, placed on a sign in women's washroom/
text and image originally posted at iamsin 2007
Dress may be stereotyping and unnecessary, but if a dressless figure outside a women's washroom is odd, one inside should be odd too. So let it wear.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Preconception
they have preconceptions about us
and they have a preconception that we have preconceptions
in the end, preconception is what we all have
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Is This A Work?
text and image originally posted at iamsin 2006
/original pic from mag/
one turn upside down and the real becomes virtual n the virtual becomes real
its almost like alice in the wonderland, the matrix or rene magritte
the picture itself raises enough thoughts if one tries to think
so theres no need to replicate the turned image to depict the scene
yet does the mere signature make me the artist (of this "work")?
ok lets make things simple:
one turn upside down and the real becomes virtual n the virtual becomes real
its almost like alice in the wonderland, the matrix or rene magritte
the picture itself raises enough thoughts if one tries to think
so theres no need to replicate the turned image to depict the scene
yet does the mere signature make me the artist (of this "work")?
theres nth to question about duchamps work though...for it was a revolutionary challenge against the art scene n the whole thing almost conceptual. yet this would work only back then, for at present the sea is just a messy swirl of gibberish mingling with old thoughts like what im doing here so...r things like this (made today) still artworks? well they may be...just not meaningful anymore
/original pic from mag/
one turn upside down and the real becomes virtual n the virtual becomes real
its almost like alice in the wonderland, the matrix or rene magritte
the picture itself raises enough thoughts if one tries to think
so theres no need to replicate the turned image to depict the scene
yet does the mere signature make me the artist (of this "work")?
ok lets make things simple:
one turn upside down and the real becomes virtual n the virtual becomes real
its almost like alice in the wonderland, the matrix or rene magritte
the picture itself raises enough thoughts if one tries to think
so theres no need to replicate the turned image to depict the scene
yet does the mere signature make me the artist (of this "work")?
theres nth to question about duchamps work though...for it was a revolutionary challenge against the art scene n the whole thing almost conceptual. yet this would work only back then, for at present the sea is just a messy swirl of gibberish mingling with old thoughts like what im doing here so...r things like this (made today) still artworks? well they may be...just not meaningful anymore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
