Yenti Hsu builds a language of form where discipline frames impulse and Perfect Imperfections carry the mark of making. Geometric structures hold seams, cuts, and subtle unevenness as evidence of labor, allowing process to remain visible and alive. Pause functions as practice, silence as reset; sculpture returns with new breath after distance. Numbered titles open interpretation, while space, light, and movement turn viewing into dialogue. The studio becomes a site for presence, where clarity meets chaos and precision carries memory.

✧✧✧

How do you reconcile the tension between raw, innate creativity and the discipline required to master your craft? 

For me, that tension — between raw instinct and careful refinement — doesn’t feel like something  that needs to be "solved". Instead, it’s something I consciously hold within my work. In fact, one of  the core ideas in my artistic practice is what I call Perfect Imperfections — the idea that marks,  flaws, and process traces are not just acceptable, but essential. 

We often talk about art as either intuitive or technical. But I think that’s a false divide. Real artistry  exists in the space between those two extremes — when instinct meets discipline, when emotion  is given form through skill, and when precision carries a memory of spontaneity. That’s the place I  aim to work from. 

My sculptures — many of which are geometric and minimal — might look "clean" from afar, but up  close, you’ll often find marks left intentionally visible: cuts, joints, seams, subtle unevenness. These  aren’t accidents. I leave them there as part of the story. They are evidence of the process. They  show the human hand, the physical labor, the trial and error — all the things that make a piece feel  alive rather than sterile. 

This approach helps me balance the two forces that define creativity: the uncontrollable spark and  the discipline to realize it. That initial vision, the moment of raw imagination — that’s vital. But  without discipline, it stays intangible. And without allowing space for imperfection, discipline can  kill the very life of that idea. 

So instead of seeing discipline as a limitation, I try to see it as a container. It’s what allows the  chaos to take shape. It’s not about control for the sake of perfection — it’s about structure for the  sake of expression. The same way music needs rhythm to carry melody, my work needs technique  to carry meaning. But it also needs texture — moments that aren’t smoothed out, places where  the unexpected is allowed to remain. 

This is where the idea of Perfect Imperfections really guides me. When I leave a small uneven  surface, or expose a weld, or allow asymmetry to exist within an otherwise precise form, I’m  reminding myself — and the viewer — that this object was made by a human, not a machine. 

Especially nowadays, with advanced technology, most of the production can be perfectly made. On  the other hand, that the creative process is not just about the end result, but the journey it took to get there. 

There’s a kind of vulnerability in that. It’s tempting to polish everything until it disappears behind a  surface of perfection. But I don’t want to erase the evidence of making. I want my sculptures to  carry memory — not just conceptual meaning, but material memory. That’s why I don’t over correct. I allow tension, contrast, and even a bit of discomfort to exist in the final piece. 

At the same time, none of that would be possible without years of refining my craft. Geometry,  visual balance, spatial awareness — these take real effort to master. And I respect that discipline  deeply. But it’s not the goal in itself. It’s a tool — one that lets me serve the idea, not dominate it. 

This mindset allows me to flow between intuition and control. Some days, the raw idea leads, and I  follow. Other days, I spend hours on small technical adjustments. But I don’t force either mode. I  trust that both are necessary — and that real creativity happens in their conversation, not their  conflict. 

Ultimately, I think the most powerful work comes from a dialogue between chaos and clarity.  When something feels both deliberate and spontaneous — that’s when it’s alive. And that’s what  I’m always chasing in my practice. 

So yes, the tension is real. But I’ve learned to stop resisting it. Instead, I hold it — in my hands, in  my process, and in the final form. 

And often, in the imperfect mark, something honest, maybe even perfect, begins to speak. 

How do you reignite creativity during those inevitable periods of self-doubt or stagnation? 

To be honest, my best way and maybe the only way, to reignite creativity is very simple: I stop. Entirely. 

No sketching. No sculpting. No planning. No thinking. 

I deliberately walk away from the work, no matter how uncomfortable that silence might feel at  first. I stop looking for ideas, stop questioning what’s not working, and most importantly, stop  pressuring myself to solve it. 

This might last a few days, sometimes even weeks. But I’ve learned that this kind of pause isn’t  procrastination — it’s necessary distance. Just like your eyes need to rest to refocus, creativity  needs space to breathe again. It’s not about laziness or giving up. It’s about trusting the cycle.

When you’re stuck or filled with doubt, your vision narrows. Everything starts to feel off. You  second-guess every decision. You stare at a half-finished piece and it just stares back, refusing to  speak. And the more you push, the more it resists. I’ve found that trying to force creativity only  deepens the frustration. 

But when I let go — when I really detach from the pressure to be productive — something strange  happens. The mind starts to reset. Ideas begin to simmer quietly in the background, like forgotten  seeds growing without light. And then, when I finally return, the shift is almost shocking. 

The work that once felt flat suddenly looks new. I can see things I couldn’t before. My perspective  has shifted, simply because I gave it time to do so. This is the beauty of stepping away. 

It’s almost like rebooting a system. We often underestimate the importance of creative silence. But  creativity isn’t a factory line — it doesn’t thrive under constant output. It’s more like a tide: it  recedes and returns. I’ve stopped seeing those down periods as failures. Now I see them as  essential parts of the rhythm. 

During these breaks, I don’t try to “stay inspired.” In fact, I try not to consume any art at all. No  museums, no other artists’ pages, no visual stimulation. Because sometimes, even looking at good  work by others can deepen the spiral of comparison and self-doubt. 

Instead, I do very ordinary things — walk, cook, travel, sleep more, or just do nothing. These non art activities are actually where some of my best shifts happen. Because they remind me that I  exist beyond the studio. That I’m a full person first, and an artist second. And it’s also true, creative  art comes from human beings. That’s also where real ideas come from — not from forcing them,  but from living fully enough that something quietly begins to stir again. 

I know some artists use discipline to push through stagnation, and that works for them. Although  it’s essential, it cannot always work. For me, creativity isn’t about control. It’s about alignment.  And when I’m out of sync, I don’t try to fix it by tightening my grip. I let go completely. I trust that  the spark will return — not on my schedule, but on its own terms. 

And it always does. 

Sometimes, the work that comes after a break is the most honest and alive. Because it’s no longer  trying to meet expectations — it’s simply emerging, clear and raw. That’s the kind of creativity I  want to serve — not one that performs, but one that reveals. 

So yes, when I hit that inevitable wall — when nothing flows and doubt creeps in — my response is  not to fight. My response is to walk away.

And then, return with new eyes, new breath, and an entirely different energy. Because sometimes, the best way to move forward, is to stop. 

What do you think is the most meaningful role an artist plays in society today? 

I believe art is a language — one that speaks without needing translation, one that can connect  people across cultures, time zones, and ideologies. It’s not just about aesthetics or decoration. It’s  about communication — the kind that goes beyond words and reaches something deeper in the  human experience. 

In today’s world, saturated with noise, algorithms, and short attention spans, artists have a unique  role. We offer a different kind of dialogue — one that encourages reflection instead of reaction.  We create spaces for pause, for emotion, for ambiguity, and for complexity. That in itself feels rare,  and maybe even revolutionary, in a time when everything is expected to be fast, direct, and  optimized. 

Art allows people to feel something they didn’t know they needed to feel. It can ask questions  without demanding answers. It can create meaning in a world that often feels fragmented. I think  one of the most meaningful roles an artist plays today is to reconnect people with themselves — their emotions, their inner world, and their ability to see differently. 

Because art is a language, it can also translate experiences that are hard to express. Think about  grief, joy, trauma, hope, identity, longing. These are not easy to put into words. But a piece of art  — a sculpture, a painting, an installation — can express all of that in a moment of presence. It can  move someone without explanation. That’s the powerful of art. 

Artists also serve as witnesses to the times we live in. While some respond directly to political or  social issues, others — like myself — engage in more subtle, open-ended ways. I may not work  with explicit narratives or symbols, but I believe abstraction and spatial experience can still speak  to the human condition. Even geometry can hold emotion, even minimalism can carry meaning.  The most meaningful art doesn’t always shout. Sometimes, it whispers — and people listen  differently to a whisper. 

Another important role of the artist is to challenge conventions — not just in form or technique,  but in how we think and feel. We can question norms, break boundaries, and expand what is  possible — both in art and in culture. This doesn’t mean art has to be confrontational. But it should 

be alive. It should have a pulse, even if it’s quiet. As artists, we have the capacity to imagine  alternatives — new ways of seeing, of being, of relating to each other. In that way, artists are also  visionaries. 

But perhaps one of the most important roles we play is to keep something human alive. In a world  increasingly driven by technology, data, and efficiency, art reminds us of something slower,  messier, and more emotional. It gives us permission to feel. To not have all the answers. To just be  present. 

That’s why I don’t assign fixed meanings to my work. I trust the viewer to engage with it on their  own terms. I see that as part of my responsibility — not to dictate what the work is about, but to  offer a space for discovery. Art doesn’t need to explain itself to be meaningful. Sometimes, its  meaning lies in the experience itself. 

In short, I think the most meaningful role an artist can play today is to offer something real — something that invites connection rather than consumption. Whether that’s through beauty,  discomfort, curiosity, silence, or emotion — it all matters. Being a universal language, because at  the heart of it, art is still one of the few ways we can speak to each other soul to soul. 

How important is it for viewers to understand the intended message of your work? Does  ambiguity add value, or do you seek clarity in your expression? 

For me, it’s not important, or even desirable, for viewers to “understand” the intended message of  my work, because I don’t set out to give my work a fixed message. Instead, I intentionally leave  space — both physical and psychological — for viewers to bring their own meaning, emotions, and  interpretations to the experience. 

This approach is not about evading clarity or avoiding responsibility. It’s about honoring  subjectivity — the fact that every person brings a different lens, shaped by their own history,  emotions, and cultural background. Why should I force a specific message onto something that has  the potential to become a mirror for the viewer’s own thoughts? 

That’s also why most of my pieces are titled with numbers rather than descriptive names. These  numbers aren’t random, but they’re not sequential either. They carry personal meaning to me, but  that meaning is not disclosed. This allows the viewer to encounter the work without the baggage  of language or instruction. Numbers are neutral and open — they don’t dictate how you should  feel or what you should see. They invite curiosity, not certainty.

I see this ambiguity not as a limitation but as a gift. It adds value by creating a space of openness.  When viewers approach my work, especially my geometric sculptures, I want them to pause — not  to search for a predefined message, but to reflect on what they’re seeing and feeling. What does  this form evoke for them? How does it change as they move around it? What associations or  emotions arise without being told what to think? 

In a world overflowing with direct messages, visual noise, and ideological positioning, I think  there’s something quietly radical about making work that refuses to tell you what it means.  Ambiguity gives room for introspection, and in a way, it invites collaboration. My work doesn’t end  when it leaves my hands. It begins again each time someone views it and engages with it. 

This doesn’t mean that my work lacks intention. Every line, surface, proportion, and material is  carefully considered. But the intention is to provoke presence and perception, not to impose a  narrative. Sometimes, clarity can actually limit how art is experienced. It answers the question  before it’s even asked. Ambiguity, on the other hand, keeps the door open. It keeps the viewer  involved. 

Also, the fact that my work is often abstract or geometric plays into this naturally. These forms  resist easy interpretation. They don't refer to specific people, events, or ideologies. Instead, they  act as visual triggers, sparking different responses depending on how they are seen, from what  angle, and under what light. The meaning of the work shifts as the viewer moves around it, both  literally and mentally. That dynamic, that openness, is the essence of the experience I’m trying to  create. 

There’s a deeper trust in this process as well — a trust that the viewer doesn’t need to be guided  step-by-step. That they are capable of bringing their own depth to the encounter. I don’t see  ambiguity as confusion. I see it as a form of freedom. 

Of course, there are times when viewers ask me, “What is this about?” or “What does the number  mean?” I usually smile and return the question: “What do you see in it?” More often than not,  they offer an insight or feeling that surprises me — something I hadn’t consciously intended, but  which makes total sense in the context of their perspective. That, to me, is beautiful. That’s the  point. 

So no, I don’t seek clarity in the traditional sense. I don’t want to resolve the mystery. I want to  protect it. I want my work to remain a space where people can pause, wonder, and reflect — not  because they’ve been told what to think, but because they’ve been given the space to feel.

Describe a piece you’ve created that has held the most emotional weight for you. What makes it significant? 

I would say the piece that has held the most emotional weight for me is the largest installation I’ve created so far, not just in terms of physical scale, but in terms of what it represented in my personal sculptural journey. 

There’s something incredibly vulnerable about working large. When the piece is bigger than you, it becomes more than an object — it’s a space, an atmosphere, a statement. For me, this particular installation felt like a culmination of everything I had been exploring for years on a smaller scale — geometry, perception, space, and the silent interaction between form and viewer. 

Creating something of that magnitude forced me to confront a lot of emotions: ambition, fear,  exhaustion, excitement. It’s one thing to sketch an idea or build a model. But when that idea starts  rising in real space — when steel or wood or whatever material you're working with starts  surrounding you — it feels like stepping into your own mind made real. And that’s both exhilarating and terrifying. 

This installation was deeply personal because it wasn’t just about showcasing technical ability. It  was about trusting my intuition, about letting the form grow into something that could hold  emotional resonance without the need for narrative or figurative symbols. I wasn’t just telling a story, I was creating a presence. A structure that people could interact with, walk around, through,  and within, and hopefully feel something they couldn’t quite explain. 

What made it significant was not just its size, but the way people responded to it. I remember standing off to the side during an opening, watching viewers interact with the piece. Some walked around it in silence. Others took photos from odd angles. Some children crawled underneath.  There were no instructions, no labels telling them how to feel, but still, they engaged. They moved with it, around it, and through it. And to me, that was everything. The work was doing what I  hoped it would: creating a space where perception and experience could unfold in real time. 

There was also a very physical aspect to this work that left an emotional imprint. Constructing something so large demanded long hours, physical labor, problem-solving, and endurance. There were setbacks, such as materials that didn’t behave, measurements that failed, and moments where I  doubted the entire idea. But through that process, it reflected my limits, but also my persistence. It tested my patience, but also affirmed my purpose. 

Looking back, I realise that installation wasn’t just a sculpture. It was a turning point. It marked the moment I truly stepped into the scale and scope of the work I had always wanted to do. It pushed 

me to believe in the power of presence — in the idea that a non-verbal, geometric structure could carry emotional weight, even if it didn’t “say” anything in a literal sense. 

That piece still lives in my memory like a place I once visited, or maybe a place I built so I could  understand myself differently. It reminds me why I do what I do: not just to make things, but to shape experiences. To offer viewers a moment of quiet reflection, disorientation, or wonder. To build something that doesn’t impose a message, but invites one. 

So this large-scale interactive sculpture holds a lot of emotional weight for me, not just because of  its size, but because of the emotional, physical, and conceptual territory it allowed me to enter. It reminded me that art doesn’t need to shout to be powerful. Sometimes, the most profound thing you can offer is space — the space to feel, to question, to move, to pause. 

Do you feel that a personal connection to your subject matter is essential? How has this connection shaped your work? 

Definitely — a personal connection to the subject is not just important in my practice, it’s foundational. But in my case, the “subject” is not a fixed object or theme. It’s a relationship. A  tension. A space between what I create and how others experience it. That space, the interaction between viewer and form, is where my work truly comes to life. 

Most of my sculptures are geometric in nature. On the surface, they may seem minimal or even impersonal. But geometry is not cold to me; it’s an open space. A way of exploring perception,  reflection, and multiplicity. The shapes I work with aren’t meant to dictate meaning; they are meant to invite interpretation. Depending on how you view the sculpture — your position, your  mindset, your context — the subject itself changes. 

In that way, the subject is fluid, not static. And that’s precisely where my personal connection lies: I  am deeply invested in creating pieces that don’t deliver a singular message, but instead provoke awareness of subjectivity. The viewer completes the piece. Every person who interacts with the work brings a different gaze, and that difference reshapes the entire experience. 

This is not accidental. It reflects how I see the world — not as a series of fixed truths, but as constantly shifting depending on perspective. Geometry becomes a metaphor for that. A triangle is a triangle, but in the right light or angle, it becomes a line, a void, a prism, or even a question mark. My sculptures behave the same way. What looks solid from one side may dissolve into  negative space from another. What seems sharp might reveal softness. These shifts are small but powerful. They reflect how we engage with others, how assumptions can dissolve if we just change  our point of view. 

So, while I may not work with overtly biographical or narrative subjects, my connection to the work is deeply personal. It’s personal in the sense that I’m invested in the conditions that allow openness to emerge. I want the viewer to slow down, to look again, to move around the piece, not just physically, but mentally. That movement, that curiosity, is what the work is really about. 

This connection has shaped both my materials and my methods. I often work in forms that  challenge stability, that ask the viewer to walk around and engage from multiple angles. In a sense,  each sculpture is a conversation frozen in form, but only temporarily. The conversation continues every time someone sees it, questions it, or sees something new in it. 

I believe that art can’t be static if it’s going to stay alive. And personal connection, to me, means  staying attuned to that living process, not just during creation but long after the work leaves my  hands. I don’t want to control how my work is understood. I want to set the stage for understanding to happen in a multitude of ways. 

Personal connection is essential, not just to the subject matter also to the experience that the subject enables. My connection is to the act of perception itself. And that connection, that dialogue between viewer and form, is what I hope to cultivate in every piece. 

Is art created for the artist, the audience, or somewhere in between? 

I would rather believe art is born for the world. 

Not in a possessive sense, not given to the world, as though owned by the artist. But born into it,  like rain or wildfire or breath. Art begins somewhere inside us — a vision, a memory, a pressure building — but the moment it takes form, it belongs to something greater. To time. To space. To the shared consciousness we all live within. 

When I create, I do not always feel like I am creating for myself. Yes, the act is personal, often intimate, raw, even healing. But if I were truly making art only for myself, I wouldn’t need to shape it into something that others can see, feel, or touch. The minute I begin choosing a color,  composing a frame, making a mark, I’m entering a dialogue, with the world, with history, with whoever may encounter the work now or decades from now.

At the same time, I don’t believe art exists solely for the audience either. The idea that art must be understood, liked, or validated by viewers can become a trap — one that sterilizes risk and imagination. If we’re constantly looking over our shoulders for applause, we lose the ability to explore things that are difficult, uncomfortable, or unpopular. Some of the most meaningful works I’ve made have been misunderstood or ignored. Some of the most transformative work I’ve seen didn’t make sense at first glance, but left a residue I couldn’t shake. 

So where does that leave us? Somewhere in between or perhaps somewhere beyond. I believe art is created by the artist, but not owned by them. It is shaped in solitude, but completed in the space between self and other. Sometimes that “other” is an audience. Sometimes it’s nature.  Sometimes it’s silence, or memory, or a future the artist will never see. 

There’s a word I return to often: witness. To create art is to offer a witness to the world, and to invite the world to witness back. The audience doesn’t need to “get it” for the art to be real. The artist doesn’t need to explain it for it to matter. It exists, and in its existence, it becomes part of a much larger, ongoing conversation that spans generations, cultures, and mediums. 

Art has always been this: a bridge. Between inner and outer. Between one human and another.  Between the moment it was created and the moment it’s discovered again, in a different time, a different body, a different state of mind. 

So I don’t think art is only for the artist, or only for the viewer. And I don’t think it’s exactly in between either. I think it lives beyond both — born for the world, shaped by many hands, many eyes, many silences. It outlives us. It evolves without us. 

Maybe that’s the beauty of it. Once art is born, we no longer get to control what it becomes. It belongs to grief, to beauty, to protest, to joy. It becomes part of how the world sees itself and how it dares to change. 

Do you think the boundaries of what can be called "art" are being stretched too far, or is this evolution necessary? 

To answer whether the boundaries of what we call “art” are being pushed too far, we first have to  confront an age-old, slippery question: What Is Art? And perhaps more importantly, who decides? 

From the beginning, art has never been static. In the moment, art died, for some. And was reborn,  for others. This cycle repeats through history. Art has been declared dead countless times — by 

critics, philosophers, market forces, or even artists themselves. Each “death” marks a disillusionment with previous forms or definitions. Each “rebirth” is a radical expansion, not a  collapse. 

So, are the boundaries being stretched “too far”? That depends on whether you view boundaries  as protective walls or open doors. Of course, not everything that claims to be art necessarily holds depth, risk, or value. But the danger isn’t that the definition is too wide, it’s that we lose our  willingness to engage critically with new forms. Evolution is not the enemy of meaning; it is often its source. 

As an artist, I find this expansion both necessary and liberating. It reminds me that art isn’t a fixed genre; in contrast, it’s a gesture, a relationship, a way of translating something internal into something perceptible. That translation might come through oil paint, fabric, algorithms, or even silence. What matters is not the medium but the intention, the why behind the what. 

That said, I also believe that as artists stretch boundaries, we inherit a responsibility. Not necessarily to justify every experiment, but to ask ourselves what we are contributing to the conversation. Are we creating something that opens new ways of seeing, feeling, or understanding? Are we pushing boundaries out of curiosity and necessity or just to provoke? 

There’s a fine line between innovation and spectacle, but crossing that line is part of the process.  Some works will fail. Some will offend. Some will seem trivial now, only to be rediscovered decades later as visionary. That’s the nature of a living, breathing art world. 

We often forget that even the most “traditional” forms were once radical. The idea of painting on canvas? Sculpting marble to resemble flesh? Creating images without a religious function? All of these were once disruptions. Today’s boundary-stretching is part of that lineage. 

In my own work, I often reflect on thresholds — between body and space, between material and absence. The tension between form and idea excites me. I need the freedom to define art for myself, to let it take shapes that may not fit within current trends or definitions. And I want others to have that same freedom, even if their definition of art differs wildly from mine.

Because at the end of the day, the question is not just what art is, but what it can do. How it moves us, disturbs us, invites us to question, or simply makes us stop and see the world slightly differently. So let the boundaries stretch. Let them fray, bend, or blur — just as they have for centuries. That tension between tradition and disruption is not the death of art, but its ongoing,  necessary metamorphosis.

If you could live anywhere in the world to further inspire your creativity, where would it be? 

Mars or the Black Hole. 

Not metaphorically, I mean it quite seriously. 

While it may sound fantastical, this answer isn’t about escapism or science fiction. It’s rooted in  how I think about space — not just physical location, but the space within space, the unseen  dimensions that surround us and shape us. Much of my work explores this idea through what has  been told Surrealism Space — the act of creating an environment, sensation, or condition that  exists within another space, quietly bending how we perceive and relate to it. 

When people encounter my sculptures, they often describe a sense of altered perception, of  entering something slightly unfamiliar, even within a familiar setting. That’s intentional. I aim to  reveal that space is never neutral; it’s always charged with potential — visual, emotional, and  psychological. 

So why Mars? Why a Black Hole? 

Because they represent the ultimate spatial unknowns. Mars is a real, reachable planet — barren,  silent, but full of possibility. It’s untouched by the visual and emotional clutter of Earth. Imagine  the rawness of standing in a place with no history of human meaning, no inherited symbolism, just  dust, horizon, and light. To make work there would be to work in absolute pure relation to form  and gravity. It would be about inventing space, not only responding to it. 

And the Black Hole is something even more profound. It’s not a place, but a phenomenon. A space  that bends time, light, and matter. What could be more aligned with the goals of sculpture — to  shape perception, tension, mass, and absence — than a space where the very laws of the universe  dissolve? In some ways, the Black Hole is the most sculptural concept I can imagine. It is form and  void at the same time. It devours and creates. It’s unknowable, and yet we feel its pull. 

I’ve always been drawn to that paradox — solidity versus emptiness, clarity versus ambiguity,  presence versus disappearance. These themes run through my practice, even when I’m working in  something as grounded as steel or wood. To live or work near a Black Hole, if that were even  imaginable, would be to enter a space that constantly defies expectation, that resists language, and that demands feeling over logic. That, to me, is where the deepest creativity lives. 

Of course, I know these places are far beyond current possibility. But in a way, that’s the point. The  artist’s mind doesn’t stop at reality. We’re constantly reaching for the unseen — the unknown  idea, the unseen angle, the impossible space. Thinking of Mars or the Black Hole isn’t escapism; it’s a way of thinking more expansively. It pushes me to question what space really is. How it behaves.  How we inhabit it. And how we can change it, simply by shifting perception. 

Even in my daily life on Earth, this cosmic curiosity shapes how I create. I don’t build sculptures just  to fill space, I try to reveal it. I try to shape voids, edges, thresholds, the in-betweens where energy  collects. If I could live on Mars, I wouldn’t just build forms — I would listen to silence. If I could  float near a Black Hole, I wouldn’t just study its physics — I would feel its gravity, try to translate  that sensation into structure. 

My answer is unconventional but so is creativity. As artists, we don’t live only in the cities or  studios where our bodies reside. We live in questions, in curiosity, in the spaces we haven’t yet  reached. 

 

And right now, for me, those spaces look a lot like Mars. Or like the edge of a Black Hole.

✦ ✦ ✦