Simple and geometrical, sleek and clean-cut, the first thing that comes to our mind when we see Sun Yu-Li’s sculpture is that it is “abstract”.

But “abstract” is a rather ambiguous word. It can mean “to remove”, “to draw away”, or “summary”. If so then “abstraction” must be a process of reduction, simplification, or even fragmentation with regard to a basic subject or object – since “to take away”, “to remove”, and “summary” all entitled to the preposition “from” or “of”. In this sense many ancient and primitive creations are “abstract”, such as the expressive masks produced by the Africans, or the motifs found in ancient Chinese ornamental jades. 

Picasso’s cubism was abstraction with representational references. But with Mondrian’s and Malevich’s final non-objective creations and Clement Greenberg’s later avocation of “flatness” in painting, the word has gradually become an umbrella term that describes any non-representational art which is based purely on colour and form. Mondrian, Malevich, as well as Greenberg’s advocacy all aimed at artistic pureness. Modern sculptors too, were inspired to explore the possibilities of formal absolutism through simplification.

But what is Sun Yu Li’s abstraction about? Is it a modernist’s quest of “art for art’s sake”?

A Taiwanese who had settle down in Singapore for more than 20 years, Mr Sun has produced numerous sculptures in the “abstract” fashion since he gave up architecture for art in 1985. I was, first of all, curious about a present day sculptor’s passion for abstract forms and his conception of it, given that postmodernism seems to have proven the limitation of abstraction and its inevitable repetitiveness.

In fact, what Sun is up to have been clearly manifested in many of the press write-ups and the publication of his article “The Formal Language of the Metaphysical”. His sculptures are his attempts to concretize his philosophical findings, which had occupied him for the past 30 years.

In “The Formal Language of the Metaphysical”, Sun tries to establish a co-relation between the I-Ching and the theory of form in space that is informed by Western topology and geometry. The article succinctly articulates the logical, spatial consequences of the development of the dot, the line, and the plane, and its affinity with the fundamental principles of the I-Ching. For example, the consequential pattern of the interaction between two dots corresponds exactly with the bar-grams of the I-Ching, which is based on the interplay between the yin and the yang energy*. Sun regards this as a discovery of the “universal language” – the secret rules that govern the universe. This inspired him to create a body of works which forms are based on the interactive paths and patterns of the dots to lines and the lines to planes. In this sense, his sculptures are not mere simulation of existing forms or expressive abstractions for the sake of aesthetic ends, but a quest to arrive at the most basic, original state of form through logical reasoning. It is expression of instances of genesis.

Sun’s interest in philosophical enquiry precedes his interest in the arts, according to him during our recent meeting. Since young he is fascinated by the idea that there is an order behind everything. Mainly inspired by thinkers rather than by artists, he spent most of his life probing into books of philosophy, topology, geometry, archeology, linguistic, and the I-Ching etc, in order to comprehend the “universal language” he believe hidden behind things. However, I am eager to know: what about “art” itself? What about “sculpture”? He spoke about the universal language as a means to overcome the fragmentary situation of today’s intellectual field, but is art the best way to deliver this discovery? Sun is soft-spoken, but his answers are firm.

“I think so…[it] sounds a little stupid but I believe it is the only way. There are so many ways…people dance, people perform, people [do it] through praying, through science...but all these attempts are for the same thing…we are trying to understand who we are…when we see something that we think is real, [we try to find out] what is real. No matter what form of expression, the fundamental issues are asking the same question… I still firmly believe that this is the answer.”

While sculpture is simply a form of art, a vehicle from which he communicates his ideas, he also sees art as a necessary expression of human’s need to search for answers – an urge that is comparable to but different from science:

“Basically [in] knowledge fields, people’s expressions are divided into only two big areas: one is science and one is art. Science is sequential… you are making assumptions [and] explanations [through logics]… Art is different. Art is holistic feeling. You are not making assumptions but just describing an overall feeling. The analytical mind is not at work… Art is searching inward, into our inner world, but science is study and research of the phenomenal world…In art you are setting your own agenda; you are setting your own research area, and you are not asked and obliged to work on bigger topic. But in science even thou you can find your own research topic or something, but the motivation is urged by a request or by evidence in the outside world…Science and art are things of different level. When you asked what is art, the next question is what is science… We are split into two selfness, one is the artistic and holistic side, the other is the scientific and sequential side, adding the two together makes a complete you…”

But if we come back to look at his work and the intention behind, there lurks the question of how perception and conception can come to play effectively for the intender and the interpreter? How does one become conscious of the primordial, “original state of being” that he is driving at? I then asked him how important is it for the viewers to know his theories on viewing his works:

“Like Picasso said, art is a lie...To me, when I look at a piece of art, the art itself is never important. What is important is through the work you created, people can see the mind behind... because without the intermediate, without the expression, people won’t understand you, you are as well as non-existing…”

And on how people of different backgrounds have perceived his works, he expressed an uncompromising attitude that reveals his conscious indifference to the grand discourses of the art world.

 “…frankly speaking I don’t care, and I never worry what is people’s feeling about me … I am also interested in other artist’s works [and] what they are trying to do, and I take every opportunity to talk to younger, budding artists, I try to do my share. But as for the so-called art theory, art concept, or exchanging of artist’s ideas, this and that, I felt it is very one-sided… I take every opportunity to explain what I believe [in] but [what others are doing] doesn’t influence me at all…”

He also made it clear that the essential thing for him is his discovery of the “universal language” which he is eager to share with the world:

“…being the so-called artist, I am actually barely an artist… I need something to express myself, and I don’t know the scientific formulas [and other methods]. So using art, doing sculpture and painting is easy for me, that is why I do art. It is not because I love art, or people say art for art’s sake…no, it is just a vehicle for me, I will rather give up all my art to trade for people to understand my mind.”

“Art for art’s sake” is after all, a Western game. In viewing Sun’s powerful geometries, it is easy to misunderstand it as modernist expression, until one realizes that abstraction is not what he is after. However, that seeming synonymy here is not coincidental – Mondrian for example, was after all searching for a transcendental, “universal language” that the world could share. But Mondrian’s theosophic ideal was a problematic one; in spite of his successfully realized artistic vision, he bemoaned that the full realization of what he called “neo-plastic reality” in the physical world, was too dear and difficult a task to achieve. Although Sun’s concern is different, he gave up his profession not for art, but for his passion in finding the ultimate answer, however, as he works toward the final version of his “Formal Language of the Metaphysical”, he does face predicament of his sort:

 “… I am half blessed, half haunted because I can’t get out of it…”

The autonomy of art as a medium has allow him to convey his found language, but as artistic autonomy is not what Sun is pursuing, the artwork itself could therefore only contain a singular message. Sun has admitted that his sculptures “have not changed”, and that they are strictly speaking “not sculptures” but “prototypes of sculpture”.

In Sun’s present studio, his brightly coloured sketches can be found scattered on his tables and shelves. These are very vibrant, freely done works with images that has a kinship with Miro’s work. It is interesting to learn that Sun, the rational minded, admires the surrealist whose images were mainly achieved through subconscious “automatism”. But than Sun has a very soft, sensuous side as a person, as he frequently mentioned his childhood memories and his love for the nature. In this way, his recent venture into grand-size paintings might provide him an even more limitless space to convey his ideas. I would like to imagine that the vastness of the picture plane would carry his beautiful thoughts even further.