There are these painters who draw with the canvas standing on an easel. And there are this new group of painters such as Jackson Pollock who draw with the canvas lying on the floor. You probably have to do a through phenomenological analysis in order to elaborate the differences in attitude between when an artist faces a canvas on an easel and when he looks down at one on the floor. However, a brief look could tell that there is a serious difference.
The act of drawing used to intend to show a better reality. But people came to realize that self-verification must precede to fulfill the intention. Now modern art puts so much stress on self-verification that the act of drawing has come to dissolve meanings rather than reproduce them. Then, the matter of using an easel or not carries a serious meaning. Placing the canvas on the floor could eliminate artificial factors and too personal emotions and discourage unnecessary imagination. That is why so many people have been following Pollock in placing the canvas on the floor.
It is hard to simply categorize Sunae Aum’s works into either one of the two ways: using an easel or not using one. However, it is easy to see her works trying to flee from artificial and purposeful brushwork. Her canvases are freely placed against the wall or on the floor. They are independent of objects and free from orientation and perspectives. Since they are free, they don’t have to care about reproducing meanings. Them her work testifies what frees her existence and work.
She leaves the marks of non-doing on the canvases which have achieved freedom. The marks are made complete by pieces of ripped rice paper. However, she draws outlines beforehand. They have curious tension with the ripped pieces, because the latter struggle to refuse the dictation of the former. The outlines are not intended for meanings. They are like shadows of real things picked up by accident from the deep sea of subconsciousness. The artist substantiates the shadows into extremely unstable pieces of rice paper, and repeats the action of pushing and obliterating their outlines with finger, which try to make a visual presence. She calls the action “a technique of non-technique.” This kind of negative-affirmative reasoning is often used for even physical beings. For example, F. Kapra says to the effect that the being which really exists is an uncertain one. The same things has been said by many wise men in the Orient.
Sunae Aum writes in her note, “To make my mind empty is not as difficult as to keep it that way. It is possible to make a good work without pretensions and self-assertion? How far can one flee from his or her prejudices about things? Those questions have been persistently in the way of my work.”
She seems to know that to empty mind does not mean to forget every thing. So she admits that it is more difficult to keep her mind empty than to empty it. To empty mind is not to secure an empty an empty space but to fill it with something unnamable, to achieve something unnamable and unobjective.
Chaungtze says, “Non-doing does not mean doing nothing and keeping silent. Leave everything as it is by nature. Then, its nature will be fulfilled.”
If to empty mind is like to get rid of a heavy backpack, there is no need for suffering. However, being in the state of non-doing by emptying mind is not that simple. The emptied space has the obligation of accepting something into it. There comes Sunae Aum’s Dilemma. Her statement that it’s harder to keep it empty seems to mean that it is hard to fill the empty space with something.
The Great Monk Sung Chul who passed away a while ago expressed the state in his famous statement that “a mountain is a mountain and a stream is a stream.” I wonder how he would have expressed it if he had been a painter. Would he have repeated the action of painting a mountain and a stream two times? It does not matter a mountain is painted two times. A mountain is still a mountain. It would be extremely convenient to think that the first mountain is painted with his mind not emptied and the second one is painted with his mind emptied. However, it is not the case. The mountain looks the same. If the great monk could have been only able to draw ordinary mountains and ordinary streams, where can one find the signs of his extraordinary enlightening? For a mountain to be a mountain and for a stream to be a stream, there should be one moment when they are nor a mountain and a stream. They can become a real mountain to be a mountain and a stream only after going through the process of negating and then affirmation can not exist in the same space at the same moment. Sunae Aum’s visual presence created by the the action of ripping rice paper and placing the pieces on the canvas is an attempt to solve the dilemma. It gives time elements to the two-dimensional space. Negation and affirmation did not happen at the same time, but their signs exist in the same space at the same moment.
What attracts our attention more to her paintings is her coloring. It totally depends on the method of Oriental painting. She creates unique sensation using Chinese ink over the ripped paper in one of the most important techniques of Oriental painting: blurring. On filling the space, she brushes quickly without any hesitation as an Oriental painter always does. It is not the physical act of filling the space with red but a way to draw our attention to the instant changes over time. Moreover, the color of red is a reminder of a seal or talisman and it seems to have magical and shamanistic power.
We can see how Sunae attempts to combine the wording of western art and the constitution of Oriental art though a sophisticated work process. It is safe to say that she has chosen acrylic paint instead of oil and had the trouble of using rice paper because she wants to come closer to Oriental art. She is not the only person who has over made the attempt. The meeting between oriental and western arts already began when Jackson Pollock first placed his canvas on the floor.
Park Young Suk (Art Critic)
