As a Taiwanese born artist, I am deeply concern about the political situation of my homeland. The motivation to make the project, Horizon, or, do Fish Drink Water was that ever since I started studying abroad in California, my relationships to home and family have gradually becomes more distant. At the conception of the piece, I knew it was some kind of pro-Taiwan, pro-independence project. The country has been fighting for international recognition on many fronts: the media, the UN, the US government, and China. Nauru, been the smallest country in the world, is Taiwan's ally and thus recognize Taiwan as an independent state. From here, I knew there is already some heavy-handed irony to start with.
Jumping ahead to one month after my thesis screening.
Did my video project, though itself is deeply suspicious of the genre of documentary, helpless fall into the same trap I tried to avoid? One of my intentions to make the project was clear to me: to relay the message that Taiwan, with 23 million people, a democratic society, should deserve to be recognized as a country. Second half of the title would suggest so. “Do Fish Drink Water”: of course fish does not drink water (drink is the wrong verb here); in way it is an overly redundant question, but so is the question of having nationhood. Taiwan, in the video is portrayed in an ambiguous state of being; it could, and probably will, continue to exist. But in what form? Under what name? In the beginning of the video it is set up as a traditional documentary, but throughout there are moments where I undermine statements that I made previously; at one point I even voice-over myself talking. Since I knew an objective position is no longer possible in the post-modern, then why did I disguise it as such then only to tear it apart later? Even after all that, it still functions as a sort of propaganda medium to get my message through.
Let's jump ahead again.
Recently I start thinking about the construction of identity beyond border (the third culture). Perhaps that's why I feel the autobiographical element is important. The video project slightly touches upon the filmmaker's identity (me and not me). He states that he “grew up in Taiwan” but “lives in Los Angeles now”. He also made an analogy of his situation to the “Boston Red Sox playing away games where they still have a lot of fans”. It is obvious that in our globalized cultural today the identity of a subject is no longer directly indexical of one's skin color or country of origin. For my future projects I would like to further investigate Taiwan as an ambiguous state of existence (an island), and the author (me) that questions ideas about history, recognition, and relationship of power. I know that I am biased politically, and would like to make works that underlines the importance of Taiwan's independence, but at the same time I do not want to be didactic.
How does one proceed from there?
Maybe I could go back and explain a bit about the first half of the title “Horizon”. It is somewhat a grand title. For me it has to do with the basic ideas about documentary genre. The viewer that approach a documentary has the expectation to learn about a particular subject matter, perhaps something that is unusual, or in a remote location. “Horizon” also suggests a subjective position. Mathematically speaking, the distance of the horizon dependents on the height of the subject. I thought this works well as the over-all themes for my thesis: how one looks at a particular situation has to do with the location of the individual, physically and metaphorically. Nauru people see no one on their horizon and thus reflect only themselves. Taiwanese people see beyond the horizon and see reflection of themselves only because the presence of China. I like the expansiveness of single word, and the associations that form the narrative.
***