<No Fucking Tissue>
NFT

 

Arming water

Melancholic time

splashed in million dust

Rock thy splendid characters on earth,

on nothing

 Yesterday is Tomorrow

紫退

淒迷輕奏ㄧ輪碎綠亂黃，飲不盡日月，色無顏，只剩秋紅

飲咖啡

紅粉飛落在白色的冰冷，吱聲破黑，流進壺裡，飄起縷縷灰白

只是月未圓

夜燈暗，影還淡，殘筆話盡，怎不見昨日歷歷 ？路旁靜，月未明，欄柵無人，只聽風說往昔

秋分寄

切割新聞

Q. To begin with, could you describe this work?

A. Yes, of course. What I’ve done is change a glass of water into a full-grown oak tree without altering the accidents of the glass of water.  Michael’s full-grown “oak tree” BACK into a glass of water by adding toilet paper into it.

Q. By altering The accidents of the “oak tree”?

A. Yes. The colour, feel (very much), weight (especially), size …

Q. Do you mean that the glass of water is a symbol of an oak tree to reinstate Michael’s “oak tree” into a symbol?

A. No. It’s not could never be a symbol. I’ve changed the (physical? ) actual substance of the glass of water into that of an oak tree. Michael’s “oak tree” into a glass of water by putting toilet paper in it.

Q. It does looks something like a glass of water (or like Michael’s “oak tree”?) from the very beginning.

A. Of course it does. I didn’t really change its appearance from Michael’s claim (oh?). However, it’s also not just a glass water. But it’s not a glass of water, it’s an oak tree. no longer Michael’s “oak tree”, but a glass of water changed from Michael’s “oak tree”.

Q. Can you prove what you’ve claimed to have done?

A. Well, yes and no. I claim to have maintained the physical form of the glass of water the original form of Michael’s “oak tree” by adding toilet paper into it. As a matter of fact, I created such a reversible “if, and only if” situation to prove the validity of Michael’s claim and, as you can see, I have. However, as one normally looks for evidence of physical change in terms of altered form, no … such proof does exists.

Q. Haven’t you just simply called this glass of water an oak tree broken Michael’s claim?

A. Absolutely not. It is was once Michael’s “oak tree”, and now it is a glass of water but not just a glass of water anymore. I have changed its actual substance. The immersed toilet paper took away the weight (water…) from the “oak tree”, but at the same time, added its weight into it… forming a looping process to reveal the change between “oak tree” and the glass of water. It would no longer be accurate to call it an “oak tree, or just a glass of water. One could call it anything one wished but that would not alter the fact that it is was an oak tree. What I have done is to CHANGE Michael’s “oak tree” into a glass of water, but not to deny the fact that it was once an “oak tree”.

Q. Isn’t this just a case of the emperor’s new clothes repeating Michael’s idea by using the same way to change his “oak tree” into a glass of water?

A. No. With the emperor’s new clothes people claimed to see something that wasn’t there because they felt they should. Yes and no. I would also be very surprised if anyone told me they saw an “oak tree” turning into a glass of water. But at the same time, I have to add the looping process to change the “oak tree” to the glass of water base on Michael’s idea, for sure.

Q. Was it difficult to effect the change?

A. No effort at all. But it took me years of work before I realised I could do it.

Q. When precisely did the glass of water become an “oak tree” turn to the glass of water?

A. When I put the water toilet paper in the glass oak tree.

Q. Does this happen every time you fill put a glass with of water with toilet paper?

A. No, of course not. Only when I intend to change do it into an oak tree.

Q. Then Your intention causes the change?

A. I would say it precipitates the change.

Q. You don’t know how you do it?

A. It contradicts what I feel I know about cause and effect.

Q. It seems to me that you are claiming to have worked a miracle. Isn’t that the case?

A. I’m flattered that you think so.

Q. But aren’t you the only person who can do something like this?

A. How could I know?

Q. Could you teach others to do it?

A. No, it’s not something one can teach.

Q. Do you consider that changing the glass of water into an Michael’s oak tree into a glass of water constitutes an art work?

A. Yes. Precisely, the description of the process of an artwork.

Q. What precisely is the art work? The glass of water? The “oak tree”? The toilet paper…?

A. There is no glass of water anymore.

Q. The You mean we can see there is the process of change?

A. There is no process involved in the change. But there is process of artwork.

Q. The “oak tree” changed into a glass of water ?

A. Yes. The “oak tree”.

Q. But the oak tree only exists in the mind.

A. No. The actual oak tree is was physically present but in the form of now change back to the glass of water. As the glass of water was a particular glass of water, the oak tree is also a particular oak tree. To conceive the category ‘oak tree’ or to picture a particular oak tree is not to understand and experience what appears to be a glass of water as an oak tree. Just as it is imperceivable it also inconceivable.

Q. Did the particular oak tree exist somewhere else before it took the form of a glass of water?

A. No. This particular oak tree did not exist previously. I should also point out that it does not and will not ever have any other form than that of a glass of water.

Q. How long will it continue to be an oak tree … an “oak tree”… or what?

A. Until I change it… By the way, the toilet paper is made of tree.

It’s pointing to somewhere.

Seduction

This is rather an endless loop of question and answer

If we are to please ourselves that we are engaged in the task of making intelligible intelligent speech, 

then we should find ourselves contemplating a hierarchy of ends - a hierarchy, because it is immediately evident that philosophy becomes impossible in a horizontal world.

Is aesthetic theory in the sense of a true definition or set of necessary and sufficient properties of art possible?

ghost library: 早安，同學早！

ghost library: 早安，同學早！: Author: 急急子 Title: 早安，同學早！ 香港 : 日閱堂出版社, 2012. Location:  New Asia College Library, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.