'Subconscious-cape'
Clear mind, confusing perceptions
Over the few years since he graduated from Silapakorn University, Noraset Vaisayakul has produced – one could almost say « handcrafted », given the attention he has been paying to detail - a limited number of meaningful works which, although diverse in form, appear highly consistent. Interestingly, while definitely a conceptual artist, Noraset clearly derives pleasure from physically handling the materials he uses to create his model landscapes.
For such landscapes have been a major recurring item in his work so far.
Although he has the skills to build urban models, Noraset prefers natural settings, combining the four basic elements (earth, air/wind, water, fire) or highlighting one of them, and relying on the spectator to provide the"ki" or “chi” element (breath of life). Incidentally, here, in view of the proactive role he expects the public to play, instead of « spectator », it might be more appropriate to speak of "spectaCtor".Untypically for sculptural works, the chromatic issue is an important one, colour vs non-colour. Blue, the largest expansion of colour, is omnipresent and vital for revealing reality, yet it is invisible. Other colours are exaggerated, like masks or the make-up of actors on stage. As colours, do they have a symbolic value? Is their meaning broader and more far-reaching than their limits?
The models are not meant to be realistic but to appear as such when seen on monitors. Rather than reproducing or idealizing actual landscapes, they seem to be a conglomerate of distorted images, fragmented memories. Somehow, they transcend the visible to include aspects of the artist’s mental landscape, hence the intrusion of violent components (soldiers, fire, ruins), as if he were settling accounts with his demons.
Now, what is it that prompts Noraset to re-construct the world, or, at least, the appearance of the world? Is his purpose to show a « better » version because he is dissatisfied with the existing one or is it the expression of a will to dominate and master it? More likely, Noraset is an idealist on a spiritual quest. Looking for the essential truth, he attempts to go beyond the obvious by demonstrating that the image one is confronted with is not necessarily a representation of the reality one sees.Building upon Platonicism, Hinduism and Buddhism, this leads us to wonder what is THE reality and whether, half way in-between or beyond the one we see and the one we may conceive, there might be a third one, essential, that we cannot apprehend.
To paraphrase today’s IT-influenced terminology, what you see, in Noraset’s installations, is NOT what you get or, rather, what you get is NOT what you see. The reality we see is an illusion of the reality as filmed by static machines or moving robots, yet, on monitor, it appears more real than the actual/factual reality.
The robots or machines designed to help us see reality, or any of its avatars, are they better equipped because they are mechanical devices? Or is reality a non-factual element that, on the contrary, is more easily accessible through/because of the imperfection/bias inherent to our vision or capacity to see?
At this juncture, it may be relevant to stress the predominance of the human factor in Noraset’s work despite the major role assigned to electronics. Indeed, it is the involvement of the viewer that makes it meaningful.
Noraset is constantly playing with perceptions, interposing multiple layers or screens to distract (« dis-track ») the spectactors. The latter, who are given no instructions, have to make autonomous decisions based on illusory premices, not unlike driving in the dark. There is no obvious link between their action and the end-results: they are invited to manipulate remote controls without a monitor to see what they are doing. The notion of causality is twisted. Causes still have effects but, whereas effects can/should normally be anticipated and responsibility thereof assumed, in Noraset's installations, they are unpredictable for lack of visibility. An impression of rushing forward heads down right into a wall; possibly a reminder of daily life, where we keep moving without necessarily having a sense of direction.
Noraset’s work, with its multiple facets and possible readings, appears to reflect accurately his personality – rich, complex and paradoxical. The screens, traps and other deceiving devices may be there to protect himself from revealing too much. Yet, there is an evident wish to communicate (as in "Dialogue" or "Sorry", for instance) althoug h seldom or never directly. When he shows his living space and invites people into it, Noraset accumulates signs of his presence but avoids to be there...Is it because of his modest and reserved nature or because he has understood that the real power is elsewhere, backstage, behind the scene, behind the seen?
Clear mind, confusing perceptions
Over the few years since he graduated from Silapakorn University, Noraset Vaisayakul has produced – one could almost say « handcrafted », given the attention he has been paying to detail - a limited number of meaningful works which, although diverse in form, appear highly consistent. Interestingly, while definitely a conceptual artist, Noraset clearly derives pleasure from physically handling the materials he uses to create his model landscapes.
For such landscapes have been a major recurring item in his work so far.
Although he has the skills to build urban models, Noraset prefers natural settings, combining the four basic elements (earth, air/wind, water, fire) or highlighting one of them, and relying on the spectator to provide the"ki" or “chi” element (breath of life). Incidentally, here, in view of the proactive role he expects the public to play, instead of « spectator », it might be more appropriate to speak of "spectaCtor".Untypically for sculptural works, the chromatic issue is an important one, colour vs non-colour. Blue, the largest expansion of colour, is omnipresent and vital for revealing reality, yet it is invisible. Other colours are exaggerated, like masks or the make-up of actors on stage. As colours, do they have a symbolic value? Is their meaning broader and more far-reaching than their limits?
The models are not meant to be realistic but to appear as such when seen on monitors. Rather than reproducing or idealizing actual landscapes, they seem to be a conglomerate of distorted images, fragmented memories. Somehow, they transcend the visible to include aspects of the artist’s mental landscape, hence the intrusion of violent components (soldiers, fire, ruins), as if he were settling accounts with his demons.
Now, what is it that prompts Noraset to re-construct the world, or, at least, the appearance of the world? Is his purpose to show a « better » version because he is dissatisfied with the existing one or is it the expression of a will to dominate and master it? More likely, Noraset is an idealist on a spiritual quest. Looking for the essential truth, he attempts to go beyond the obvious by demonstrating that the image one is confronted with is not necessarily a representation of the reality one sees.Building upon Platonicism, Hinduism and Buddhism, this leads us to wonder what is THE reality and whether, half way in-between or beyond the one we see and the one we may conceive, there might be a third one, essential, that we cannot apprehend.
To paraphrase today’s IT-influenced terminology, what you see, in Noraset’s installations, is NOT what you get or, rather, what you get is NOT what you see. The reality we see is an illusion of the reality as filmed by static machines or moving robots, yet, on monitor, it appears more real than the actual/factual reality.
The robots or machines designed to help us see reality, or any of its avatars, are they better equipped because they are mechanical devices? Or is reality a non-factual element that, on the contrary, is more easily accessible through/because of the imperfection/bias inherent to our vision or capacity to see?
At this juncture, it may be relevant to stress the predominance of the human factor in Noraset’s work despite the major role assigned to electronics. Indeed, it is the involvement of the viewer that makes it meaningful.
Noraset is constantly playing with perceptions, interposing multiple layers or screens to distract (« dis-track ») the spectactors. The latter, who are given no instructions, have to make autonomous decisions based on illusory premices, not unlike driving in the dark. There is no obvious link between their action and the end-results: they are invited to manipulate remote controls without a monitor to see what they are doing. The notion of causality is twisted. Causes still have effects but, whereas effects can/should normally be anticipated and responsibility thereof assumed, in Noraset's installations, they are unpredictable for lack of visibility. An impression of rushing forward heads down right into a wall; possibly a reminder of daily life, where we keep moving without necessarily having a sense of direction.
Noraset’s work, with its multiple facets and possible readings, appears to reflect accurately his personality – rich, complex and paradoxical. The screens, traps and other deceiving devices may be there to protect himself from revealing too much. Yet, there is an evident wish to communicate (as in "Dialogue" or "Sorry", for instance) althoug h seldom or never directly. When he shows his living space and invites people into it, Noraset accumulates signs of his presence but avoids to be there...Is it because of his modest and reserved nature or because he has understood that the real power is elsewhere, backstage, behind the scene, behind the seen?
Jacques Carrio
Geneva, December 2008
