In Artificial Green by Nature Green 4.0 (2024), artists Bagus Pandega and Kei Imazu construct a hybrid environment where nature is simulated, disassembled, and algorithmically reassembled. This multi-sensory installation is neither painting nor sculpture, neither performance nor architecture—but all at once. It exists in tension: between organic and artificial, between Southeast Asian ecology and global consumer technology, between deep cultural memory and rapidly shifting futurism.

Composed of water-based paint on linen canvas, a modular synthesizer, LED screen, PC hardware, and even palm oil, the work becomes a living contradiction. It hums, glows, and pulses in its own synthetic ecology. Its materials are chosen not just for form or function, but for the semiotic load they carry—technological, environmental, historical.

Context: Emergence Across Systems

Bagus Pandega, known for his kinetic and sound-based installations, often employs modular systems—both in physical construction and in conceptual design. His practice interrogates how technology mediates human experience, drawing from musical structures, robotics, and performative feedback loops.

Kei Imazu, in contrast, builds painterly landscapes that reference post-human ecosystems. She blends 3D rendering, digital compositing, and traditional oil techniques to construct imaginary topographies populated by fragmented flora, fauna, and mechanical surrogates. Her canvases hover between stillness and simulation.

Their function fuses these methods into a system that behaves like a biome—a designed one. The installation is not simply a shared aesthetic output; it is a speculative proposition: What if nature were curated by machines? What if “green” were only ever an interface?

Material Inquiry: From Canvas to Circuit

The base material—water-based paint on linen—anchors the piece in the tradition of painting. It gestures toward organic medium and manual labor, an echo of centuries-old practice. Yet the painting here does not sit inert. It is wired, mediated, fed by data, and accompanied by digital feedback. It does not invite passive viewing but responsive presence.

The modular synthesizer introduces sonic complexity and mechanical rhythm. Modular systems resist fixed composition. They favor signal flow, patching, live modulation. In this context, it behaves like an artificial nervous system for the work. The synthesizer generates aural atmospheres not pre-recorded but emergent—tied to sensors, perhaps, or responding to light, movement, or internal triggers.

The LED screen and PC offer a constant flow of visual information—real-time, looped, or generatively produced. These elements act as the “thinking” component of the piece. They may simulate growth, glitch, replicate botanical structures through digital imaging. They position the viewer in a cybernetic ecosystem: observer and participant in a programmed green world.

Palm oil—a loaded material both economically and ecologically—serves as a potent signifier. It’s a reference to the commodification of natural resources, especially in Indonesia and Malaysia, where vast tracts of rainforest have been cleared for palm oil plantations. Its inclusion in this piece functions as both literal and symbolic pollutant. It calls into question the greenwashing of industries and the violence hidden behind images of sustainability.

Image, Sound, Substance: Aesthetic as Ecosystem

What does “green” mean in the era of synthetic biology and climate crisis? Is it a color, a code, a marketing strategy, a utopian memory? Artificial Green by Nature Green 4.0 deconstructs this notion across registers.

Visually, the piece mimics the layered density of a forest—one that has been recompiled in digital syntax. LED imagery might simulate chlorophyll processes, drone-filmed canopies, or microcellular animations. The painted surfaces resist traditional representation. They might show tangled roots, plastic leaves, or exploded views of plant structures. But they are intentionally fragmented—composite forms from both natural and machinic origins.

Sonically, the modular synthesizer avoids melody or repetition. Instead, it generates a responsive ambience: insect-like buzzes, processed birdcalls, low-frequency hums resembling soil vibration or wind through mechanical leaves. Sound becomes spatial, not narrative. It’s the ecology of listening that matters—not what is heard, but how space is shaped by it.

The installation likely shifts depending on how it is exhibited. The variable dimensions imply flexibility. The work could sprawl across walls, hang in a suspended network, or function as a self-contained biome. Its form changes, but its logic stays: modular, reactive, hybrid.

Critical Coordinates: Between Post-Nature and Post-Truth

The title itself—Artificial Green by Nature Green 4.0—offers a framework. “Artificial Green” suggests simulation, mimicry, perhaps even deception. “By Nature Green” could be read as either a brand, a slogan, or a corrupted phrase—something once organic, now claimed by systems. The “4.0” hints at industrial revolutions, smart systems, and next-gen automation.

The work plays in the space between post-nature and post-truth. Nature here is no longer untouched, if it ever was. It is designed, managed, optimized. Even its representations are suspect. What looks natural may be entirely artificial—fabricated for aesthetic comfort or economic value.

There’s also an implicit critique of how digital culture handles ecology. Stock footage of waterfalls loops endlessly on LED billboards. “Green” tech products are built with rare-earth minerals mined under exploitative conditions. Vertical farms and smart gardens sell a vision of sustainability that is inaccessible to much of the global South.

This installation doesn’t offer easy solutions. Instead, it makes visible the friction: between preservation and production, simulation and sincerity, organic life and synthetic systems.

Southeast Asia, Resource Politics, and the Digital Divide

To situate this work globally is to miss its specific regional weight. Both Pandega and Imazu operate with deep awareness of Southeast Asia’s complex entanglement with environmental crisis and technological development.

Indonesia, in particular, is a battleground for resource extraction and ecological preservation. Palm oil remains one of its most controversial exports—tied to deforestation, labor rights violations, and biodiversity collapse. Yet it is also an economic lifeline for many communities. To use palm oil in an artwork is not a neutral act. It is a gesture of confrontation.

Likewise, digital infrastructure in the region reflects global inequities. While urban centers thrive with tech startups and digital art scenes, rural areas remain underconnected. The dream of a “4.0” future is unevenly distributed.

The installation becomes a diagram of these tensions. It’s not just about aesthetics—it’s about circuitry and colonialism, sound and soil, spectacle and scarcity.

Art as System, Viewer as Variable

As with much of Pandega’s and Imazu’s work, the viewer’s role is not passive. The environment may respond to motion, proximity, or even temperature. The piece becomes semi-autonomous—alive in the sense that it perceives and adapts. This places viewers in the loop: not controlling the system, but contributing to it.

This mode of engagement mirrors the complexity of real ecosystems, where each presence alters the whole. It also challenges traditional museum behavior. There is no ideal viewing position. One must move, listen, re-orient. The installation doesn’t explain itself. It performs.

In Dialogue with Contemporary Practice

Artificial Green by Nature Green 4.0 shares conceptual terrain with the work of artists like Pierre Huyghe, whose living systems blur the line between biology and technology; or Refik Anadol, who uses data as a sculptural material. But Pandega and Imazu root their practice in regional specificity and material critique.

Their use of actual palm oil, rather than just referencing it visually or metaphorically, underscores the difference. This is not virtual commentary—it’s embedded critique. The installation doesn’t simulate a world—it is one, and one that’s deeply compromised, as real worlds are.

Impression

At a time when the word “green” is more likely to appear in marketing than in conservation, Artificial Green by Nature Green 4.0 offers a potent reminder: not all that grows is natural, and not all that’s natural remains untouched.

The installation stages a conversation that refuses to resolve. It is lush, glitchy, immersive, and haunted by its materials. It questions the viewer’s assumptions—about what nature looks like, how it functions, and who gets to design its future.

Rather than lamenting the loss of “pure” nature, the work suggests a more urgent task: learning to read and navigate synthetic ecologies, where code and chlorophyll exist side by side, and where every signal—visual, sonic, material—carries historical weight.

This is not a return to nature. It is an encounter with what comes after.

No comments yet.