So some people are saying how my works are anti-nature..

I guess I’m not working against nature, but merely preserving it. I just wonder, does nature losing ephemeral quality necessary make it lose its value? So I’m just like trying should preserved nature be glorified as art? Is this considered art?

Look at Andy Goldsworthy. This guy works along with nature, working with its natural characteristics and uses it as his material. His works are usually temporary and made by chance and a lot, a lot of trial and error. "Each work grows, stays, decays – integral parts of a cycle which the photograph shows at its heights, marking the moment when the work is most alive. There is an intensity about a work at its peak that I hope is expressed in the image. Process and decay are implicit," he says.

So if his concept is simply to work along with nature and repackage nature into art, mine is simply to work around nature and repackage it into art.

Of course, I work with nature too. I use them as my material too, except instead of using their predetermined qualities, I used science and technology to alter or stimulate their properties. I alter nature, a mutilate nature forms, I question the fundamental definition of nature. So, my frozen garden isn't nature? How dare you? But they are indeed real flowers! So if I change the properties of nature, its no longer as significant?

Some ask, why are so many of my works frozen? I like the idea of how something beautiful or special should be preserved so that its beauty can last and transcend the the limits of time.But eventually, it loses its value. Nothing should last forever, especially beautiful things. I think I just contradicted my own works.

I guess the two of us explore about the same concepts; art and nature, but with different approaches. 

Perhaps I am more like Hirst, trying to preserve a shark, a bisected cow, a pickled sheep.

His works usually consist of concepts that has got to do with death, while mine usually steers clear of.

I explore more about what determines an identity? Must nature be determined by the presence of life and death? Is my identity determined by my blood and my appearance?

I am also amazed with the dualism that defines life; spiritual and physical, surface and depth, fleeting and lasting.