The fundamental problem bothering scientists for hundreds of years is the way of observing and documenting. To me, the foundation stone of my practice is the approach of seeing I choose. Rather than being a participant, I would like to be a spectator keeping certain distance from my subject. By saying to be a spectator, I incline to compare my creation process with scientific experiments process. Scientific experiments process requires a series of precise operations within rigidly structured environments: depositing particles on silicon slice, gathering signal reflection from sample’s surface, and analyzing data through computer program. As a scientist, one needs to gather every group of information in order to draw a proper conclusion. As an artist, I choose to document every detail so as to unfold the panorama. On this level, I become a spectator as both scientist and artist.
In most cases, science is based on collecting images or data from experiments and uses them to conclude or demonstrate theory, which means a process from concrete to abstract. In the realm of art, photography is concerned as the most realistic way to capture concrete views. But consider the way it cuts out a fragment from real life, eliminates all other information from environments, that is a way of abstracting. They both devote themselves to reveal the real entities of an unintelligible world, behind phenomena. When I am using a camera to see the world, it is always like the way a scientist uses microscope observes his samples. Quoting Nabokov’s words, “by minifying the huge and magnifying the tiny, we get to the equilibrium point between knowledge and imagination. And that is where art lives.” Photography gives me this ability to dissect what appears in front of my eyes and reconstruct the connections under my own understanding. It is not a looking at or a looking through but a looking with.