“The land enclosed is no longer a presence, as if what was displaced or destroyed at these sites no longer matters. Memory has been traded for development. What will be erected with a strict belief that the future is the only concern? These fences are wrapping the future, standing in place of what was forgotten or never even known.”

Fences. Makeshift enclosures. Dividing lines. These increasingly present indicators of change define much of Phnom Penh’s topography today. Since the onset of heightened urban construction in 2009, Lim Sokchanlina has been concerned with the border-making practices of national development schemes that promise a better “New Phnom Penh”.

With both archival and artistic impulse, Lim repeatedly photographs these temporary partitions at especially contentious sites, seeking to provoke questions about real and representational borders, their physical and psychological ability to divide public and private, past and future, known and unknown.

Carefully composed under the brightness of midday sunlight, Lim’s corrugated color fields flatten the imposing fences into mundane facades. Colors, patterns, dents, rust, dirt, and markings invite a painterly inspection. His titles serve to keep a record of what was where when. The ghost of a landmark colonial building is remembered in Former Ministry of Tourism, Sothearos Boulevard and Sisowath Quay, 2009. Cambodia’s iconic Corbusier-trained architect Vann Molyvann’s work is mourned in Former Preah Suramarit National Theatre, National Assembly Street, 2009. Communities of displaced people are honored in Former Borei Keila, South side, 2012.

Isolated to the image, away from their bustling surroundings and ephemeral fate, the fences become permanent, recorded landmarks. As such, what they conceal, and ultimately what they will reveal, can be called into question.

 |  1/26

LSL2009W0004-390-2Phnom Penh. Cambodia. 2009: Former Dey Krohom, East Wall, between Sothearos Boulevard and National Assembly Street.

One thought on “WRAPPED FUTURE

  1. Reblogged this on the displaced city and commented:
    This post reminded me of the essay ‘Quant’ by Richard Sennett, and the need for active and inclusive urban environments to bring about social harmony in cities.
    “One spatial distinction which helps us engage actively with the changing context of time lies in the difference between borders and boundaries. This is an important distinction in the natural world. In natural ecologies, borders are the zones in a habitat where organisms become more inter-active, due to the meeting of different species or physical conditions. The boundary is a limit; a territory beyond a particular species does stray. So these are two different kinds of edge. For instance, in the border-edge where the shoreline of a lake meets solid land there is an active zone of exchange; here is where organisms find and feed off other organisms. The same is true of temperature layers within a lake: where layer meets layer defines the zone of the most intense biological activity. Whereas the boundary is a guarded territory, as established by prides of lions or packs of wolves.

    Not surprisingly, it is at the borderline where the work of natural selection is the most intense; time is productive of evolutionary change in this edge condition. The boundary establishes closure through inactivity, by things petering out, not happening; to say that the edge-as-border is a more open condition means it is more full of events in time. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: