How do you walk the line between documentation and art? Is there even a line? And should viewers be aware of this?
I think we’re in a time of blending and bleeding, but there are different methodologies, distribution platforms and, more importantly, ethics, that come with either. I think as long as one is fully transparent and honest about how the work is made and what the intention is, it’s all good.
I’d say the ways and ethics with which I make the work is - so far - all documentary. I’ve started to experiment with ways of presenting the work which might be of another form. And I’m grappling with the tension in my practice between the history-trained mind + 15 years of (writing) journalism, and now the growing questions in my mind about truth, fact, memory and the thoughts of taking leaps into the much more metaphorical, allegorical.
As a former journalist, does there remain a space for text in your images?
I was a text journalist for 9 years at The Straits Times and The New Paper. Yes, text remains important to me, and my captions are often the longest — such that the photo agency staff tell me their archiving systems can’t ingest it all because of length!
But I am of course now a visual practitioner and I tell myself with each project that the visual language now comes first. I try to better myself with each work. I write text to contextualise the images or provide an additional layer of understanding should the viewer want it. In the last few shows I’ve done, I’ve asked for text not to be plastered on a wall next to the image, but to be printed in an exhibition guide people can dip into if they wish to. So they can look at the work just visually, aesthetically, and if they want more they can read the words. My text also doesn’t necessarily prescribe meaning but just provides factual context.