press
Lam's New Paintings |
| press >> Reviews |
 There is an ambivalence in Lam’s method of depicting images of wildlife staged in seemingly unusual environments. Painted in succession from the grizzly bear to the gibbon to the peacock, the strongly defined backdrop of urban landscape in the bear painting (Goodbye) fades away in the gibbon painting (Illusion), leaving only spots of light faintly surrounding the gibbon, an ambiguous clue for lit buildings in the distance. Unlike the first painting, where the creature and its surroundings are clearly defined from one another, the gibbon is rendered almost like its background, blurring the two elements and confusing subject with object.
The painting of the peacock (Timing) is a further investigation of man’s aggressive activities on nature, where the peacock can be seen as a clear representation of nature reacting towards the presence of man. The peacock has its plumage in full display, which may be a paradoxical result of attraction and self-defense directed towards the gaze of the viewer (man) himself. The feathers simultaneously look like vegetation in full bloom, while the “eyes” of the feathers recall the lights of the buildings depicted in the gibbon painting (Illusion), but are now much brighter, more strongly articulated and also harsher. In a sense, the peacock is a representation of the manmade fully immersed into a supposedly untouchable part of nature.
As with other paintings in this series, there is a poetic, almost cheery surface to the work yet there are also blatant signs that reflect a melancholic self-destructive environment in which these creatures inhabit. As is often with Lam’s work, the literal depiction of subject and object is perhaps secondary in its significance to the hidden metaphor that conveys the experiences of living as a human being in a world where consequences are often unavoidable and unpredictable. The presentation of this new series of paintings suggests the artist’s deliberation over such consequences and an inclination to leave things open-ended for our own interpretation.
Christine
2008 |