thThe 14 ifva Interactive Media Category Jury’s Meeting Transcript

Jurors in Attendance: Frederic Lichtenstein (LICHTENSTEIN), Ng Tsz Kwan (NG),Winnie Fu (FU), Jamsen Law (LAW), Bryan Chung (CHUNG)
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Mickey Choi (CHOI)

Leaf, Living Digit

CHUNG: There are more rooms for development in this piece of work. It is kind of some sortsof reactions. The plants, the organic stuffs will trigger the animated movements,and just stop at there. This should be something which can be explained andelaborated, like, to have more considerations of the form of life of the plant and therelated motion of those animation characters or text. This work now is just like asimple documentation of an action, reaction and relation.

LAW:

Maybe my interaction with the plant can be visualized or somewhat can be seen. I
would think how the object takes my actions? I am thinking what kind of interaction
between me and the plant. I want to see more interactions, like between the plants
and the cylinders, too. There are rooms for development. There should be morevariations between various movements instead of what we have now is just one
kind of movement.

FU:

I like the form of presentation. Compared to other works in the exhibition, it is quiteclean and tidy in the form of circle. The reaction is very sharp, a sound ‘ding’, thenturning out something very obviously. But again, like most of the works, it is just‘single-layered’. I also want to mention that he is using a real plant instead of an
artificial object. It is a bonus.

LAW:

when you talk about the clean layout, it makes me think that it is like a homepage,but I would like to see more pages of it.

FU:

Right, exactly.

NG:

When we saw the video, we can only see the three different animations, we were
not sure about the work, and we also wondered if there would be more variations
when it set up here. In this artist statement, he wants to do an experiment, but I am
not sure what kind of experiment he is doing and the purpose of doing it, or what heexpects.

LICHTENSTEIN: The result is pretty close to what we had seen in the video, and the shortcomings are the exactly what we had identified already. So, all the shortcomings bring together is that it is being a bit shallow, and at the same time
he has a very nice poetic interface. Even with the simplicity of the installation,
we like that organic kind of thoughts. For me, it is not a great piece. It is
showing a way, a path that we would like to see and being explored.

TextwormNG:

It is better than my expectation by the time we watched the video documentation,and it has similar problems as others. It is a game only and it would be nice to haveanother level of meaning. Destroying something is enjoyable things to do. But as anart piece, we expect a little bit more than just destroying something.

If it only let people to cut the characters and put them back together, I don’t knowwhat the point to do it. We can destroy something else as well. If those characters
can form some other things with meanings, it would be a lot better. And now it is justdestroying something, which is meaningless.

LAW:

I like the movements of those lines. It is poetic actually. However, the form doesn’t
go with the lines or the meaning of the title. If the form or movement, everything
goes more together, it will be more interesting. Maybe he can come up with otherimages or other text.

LICHTENSTEIN: I am very interested to know whether the speed that the text needs to take torecompose the pieces can be accelerated. If it is an artist’s choice, it is atechnical intention. If it is an artist’s choice, I would be scratching my head
and ask why it is so slow.

FU, NG:

Agree.

CHUNG: The intention is not the speed of the recombination, but he tried to let the pieces
collided together and then to be combined by themselves. So the chance ofcollision is quite rare, the auto combination mode is off in this case. I also
discovered some shortcomings in interaction when I saw the other viewer tried toplay around with this piece. The viewer used the laser to move very fast, and theinteraction is not supposed to put in this way according to then assigned. So, it is
not a very interpretive in expressive way to draw a straight line, to cut the piece oftext into pieces. But the way the viewer was working is a more interpretive forexpressive in a sense that to play around with interaction.

NG:

It also doesn’t need an instruction to tell you how to use that laser pointer.

LICHTENSTEIN: Every year, we have a few of the same kind of motives, either technicallyadvanced but then the concept might be weak, or the concept is strong but
technical set up is not enough. I have been relatively, pleasantly surprised by
the experience that you get. There is no documentation, that is not very
interactive, but when you see someone doing it, it comes pretty naturally of
having fun and reacts nicely, so as the simple set up. I just hope that in the
future, the balance (between the technical and concept development) would
be improved. It also reflects that education of interaction in Hong Kong.
Technical support has been easier for students nowadays to make an art
piece. We need to remind them that their minds not only taken into technicalmatter, and should be more focused on the concept.

CHUNG:

I have to declare that some entrants are my students and they have works
presented here. This piece is also done by my students. For this one I have to saythat they have the most sophisticated interaction design when compared to theothers. They way they can successfully to create a piece, while many others are
failed in most of the cases. For the others, they just obviously to spot some points
and have them to react to the system. Textworm is well produced, packaged.

Hexic: A Choreography of Multimedia and Interactivity

FU:

I do not spend enough time to see it through, but personally I think the presentationin this exhibition is worse than I expect. Because of the proposal and the way theylayout their work shown in the original proposal is much more sophisticated as it
seen now when been executed.

LAW:

I want to know whether there are episodes and themes, I want to see thedevelopment of the theme if it is a performance. So that I know there is also
development in this kind of narrative. If there are different modes, I can switch
between by jumping from this mode to another that with different theme, and there
would be a totally different experience for the visitors.

FU:

Exactly. This is a performance work with stage design, costumes and all the dancemovements; and from the way it is showing now, you cannot really get any sense of
those emotions. The artist should show some ways of how they interact. There aresupposed to be a performer’s movement constantly changes the background, but
we cannot see this from the video.

CHUNG: According to the documentation, it is some sort of motions interacting with thebackground projection, or projection on the floor, and that are the interactive
component of the performance. Maybe there are some other things else, but I
cannot observe those things from the video

LAW:

There should be two kinds of interaction in this piece. One is the performer interact
with the system, and the other one is interaction between the performer and theaudiences, also present another level of interaction. I cannot really feel that level byjust watching this video. It is really difficult to comment.

Stolen Times for Sale

LICHTENSTEIN: It was very important to go through the buying process. I like this piece verymuch. At the same time it is true that the buying process is boring.

I think the process could be faster, it could be more entertaining. This pieceis like a happening, a performance. For the first part, I am happy with what I
have purchased, but the process of purchasing is so blank, it needs moreenergy and planning.

NG:

In the first round of the competition, we have discussed the eligibility of this piece,
whether it is an interactive media. As an artist, it is a nice piece of art. But now whensitting on the jury panel, the piece itself is definitely not a traditional interactive work.
The interactions are made between the audience and the salesman. I concern if
this piece is suitable to be put into this category. It looks strange in this category.

LICHTENSTEIN: It is very much a matter of point of view. In an interactive festival that only
presents interactive media, maybe it would be difficult to define the nature ofthis piece. However, in the context of ifva, movie making is the foundation of
the festival, and now having added with interactive media category as anextension. With this background, I start to think that this piece of movie
making has two parts of interactive activities. Firstly, put a camera at theelevator and the passengers to interact with the camera. Then the buying

process is the second part of the interaction.

CHUNG: I accept it as a piece of interactive work. The way of participation is a kind ofinteractivity to me at least. There are some examples of this kind of participation ingallery or museum where the artist can create a hawker store in the venue andcooks some food and sells them to the viewers. Under this particular type ofconcept, I consider this as an interactive work. But I am not sure if it is an interactive
media work or not, the medium he has been using may not particularly fit into his
way of inviting participation. I have more expectation than what he has been shown
us in the gallery. His work is in fact about selling something, and that is kind of
virtual image or image in digital form. The way he sells the images and removes
images from the piece of artwork, which new owner of the image can again
duplicate the image in multiple forms. I guess he also has some remaining trails ofimage in his computer. This forms let me question about whether the image isdurable, or the image can totally transfer the ownership from the artist to the buyer.
He has not answered.

Those questions about selling in digital form, and those questions can be explainedand elaborated in a more challenging way. I have no comment on the quality of theperformance, as he might not an entertaining person to do that.

LAW:

However, if I take it as a performance, the whole process is very important. If I put it
as an interactive work, the interactions between buyers and sellers are important.
He should provide a better performance of the buying process. I am disappointed tothe setting of the shop. If the shop set up is more than a desk only, but to include
more interfaces and create more complex which the system can be operated
automatically, it would be more complete. I query why he has this desk or this kindof setting method, instead of doing it on-line or whatever in other form. I cannot
justify this form.

FU:

The way he is presenting the statement indicates that he is very conscious of sellinga product. What I like about this piece is the relationship of the commerce and theworld, there is a social meaning behind that. I also wonder why he bothers to havesuch setting; he can simply press the button and email the product to my account. It
can be done virtually without a person there to sell this.

NG:

It is not an interactive media to me. If he did it in an automatic way, like, using a
vendor machine and the people to buy it with credit card, then to get the productfrom the machine, this is more interactive.

The idea of selling time is that he filmed all the moments of he pressed the open
door button when the elevator door was about to closed. Usually people don’t press
that button at that moment, and he has stolen the time from others. Then he sells
those moments to someone else.

FU:

The visual design is clever too. I saw it in another exhibition in Hong Kong Baptist
University. They used one corner to show the lift images and you can see it fromafar, it is quite attractive that way. It is very spacious.

LAW:

That kind of image is always attractive. I still find it interesting, with the intention ofpressing a button and to disturb the others.

NG:

This is like what the commercial world do, like the monitor installed in the taxi,
showing you images, disturb the passengers and making money from it.

LICHTENSTEIN: Stealing people’s time in a lift is a very clever concept. Especially when thishappens in Hong Kong, since people in the lift usually don’t acknowledge
each other. Unlike other places in the world that people usually act nicely toeach other in the lift. People in Hong Kong spend so much time in the lift. They
go into a very intimate place and they would shut down the social activity. So,
stealing people’s time is quite a pretty strong idea. Every time you look at
those people’s faces when the open door button is pressed, it is like intruding
someone’s privacy. I like the piece very much as an art work, but the buying
process is not integrated into a piece itself. It could be many different things,
the image of the buyer can be part of the installation, and the buyer can
download the product to a disk. There are a lot more choices should be done.
It would not be a matter what he can or he cannot do. But it is the fact that hedoesn’t have a good experiment. He doesn’t have enough confrontation withthe reality. As said this work has been shown in Baptist University and Osage
Gallery, he has more experience already, he should refine his work.

LAW:

The way he steals people’s time is interesting. However as a buyer, I would
think what the fun of getting that footage. I still think that it is not about time.
What kind of time he is selling to me?

CHUNG:

I share similar impression.

LICHTENSTEIN: When you say it is not too much about time, I tend to disagree, because of
the time it takes to open the door and even when you press the button that
only costs minimum amount of time, you are still taking time from others
against their will.

LAW:

I can agree with that, the action between the people in the elevator and the cameraman. However, as a buyer, it is another process that what I got is the image and not
really the piece of time that has been wasted during the process.

NG:

It doesn’t make any sense at all. Nobody would think that he or she has one minutemore, it is impossible. But this presentation made it become an art work.

LICHTENSTEIN: Most of the pieces that we have selected are a bit shallow and at least thispiece echo many questions. Even it is not perfect, but it has a depth that theothers don’t have.

Forest, Tree, Wood, Man…

NG:

It is not as nice as the documentation presents when we read it in the first round
meeting. The documentation works better. I remember that we once thought itwould be a well-made exhibit for a museum.

FU:

Actually it looks very much the same.

CHUNG: I have some hesitations to consider that as a piece of art work. It is like theinformation display board for some venues or an environmental protection event.
No matter if it is responsive or not, unless the way of interacting with this particularpanel has some sort of more extraordinary ways to interact with, so it is qualified to
be an interaction with artistic creations.

LAW:

If I treated it as an information booth, not many information I can get from the boothin fact. There are only two pages, which is not enough to tell the relation of thegrowth of the trees and the pollution.

FU:

It falls into the same comment tonight for the single-layer artworks, which are mostof the entries. It can be further developed, but maybe because of the limitation oftime and space, they look like homework. They are failed in making variations interms of developing one concept into a more complex format.

LAW:

He can do something more, like touching the dusts and have the windows pop up. It
is now just simply clicking something and without showing the relation of the dusts
and trees. I question how these things are related to this one single screen.

A Couple of Irons

FU:

Originally I support this work to enter the second round, because it is very clean cut,in close circuit form. This is quite a new interpretation. Frankly, I am quite
disappointed to see it for myself. It looks more fun on the documentation. Now I
think it is boring. I think maybe the limitation of the space affect the movement. The
visual is just not what I expected.

LAW:

It is funny that if I don’t treat it as an interactive work, it can be a media sculpture.
This work can be interesting, but now I don’t know why I should play with the irons.
How those two objects related to the camera. If it is a sculpture, how should I look at
it? Now I don’t know what to think about it.

NG:

I tried very hard to put all the things together, the closed circuit TV and the irons,
but I failed to do that.

LICHTENSTEIN:In the proposal, it seems lot more interesting than the experience wehave tonight. In a context of larger exhibitions with many visitors, where
two visitors can meet very briefly and play with it, I think it still can work
pretty nicely. But in the context of ifva where has fewer visitors, andmore likely to be a personal exploration instead of group exploration.
Then you only play with yourself or someone you know, and it will beless fun. I am a little disappointed but it could be a nice experience when
it is in a different context.

LAW:

If there are dozens of couples of irons, it may be very interesting. There is one only
pair in the venue, I cannot find the fun from the image captured from the other end.

FU:

One to two, or one to five, that would be interesting.

LICHTENSTEIN:

As a control object, I still find it interesting. But iron should be very heavy
and it is a dangerous object that you won’t put it closer to your face oranyone’s face. But the fact that it is a lot lighter now, and more looks like a toy,
also likes the telephone in the 1980’s, or a shower spray. And it didn’t givefully artistic ballots that the object should be given.

FU:

I expect the screen image should have higher resolution. The iron can be
dangerous and could be close encounter to your body. If the set up is more invitingor the image can be a little more different, it would be better. Like when you use theiron to scratch on somebody else, it would be more fun. If it brushes on your finger
and you can have more close-ups and sharp images of the body, the texture. If I
play with you and put it on your body and you play with the other. It would mean lot
more in term of relationships.

LAW:

What you are suggesting is another movement and interaction. If I sit comfortably ‘with my friend and play with it, which is better than now looking like a sculpture that
I would only take it up and checking what it is. It would be better to be used tosuggest another kind of relationship with the other audience.

CHUNG: My first impression is the weight of the irons, which is much lighter than a common
iron. When I tried to make use of the iron to get some images, I use the common
way to press the iron on the piece of cloth and found the image unrecognizable.
The images are blurb and not in focus. The difficulty is the way to find out some sortof context when I make use of these two irons, somehow it fails in the exhibition at
this moment. The irons can be used or try to record some of my common use ofpractice of using the irons at home or whatever occasion. It is now difficult to makesense between that I have experience from the exhibit and the common use of aniron. I agree with what FU have said, it should be presented in more formats, putthem in different locations and to see images of other irons. I am more particularinterested in why he made the iron so light in weight. I had an expectation of holding
up a heavy thing, and the image would be heavier than what we come into contact
with a camera or a mobile phone. This kind of expectation also failed at the moment
when I played around with the iron.

The Happiness of the FishNG:

It is very different from the documentation.

LICHTENSTEIN:

I disagree. I find it very close to the documentation. Personally I
remember it as be more something spectacular. But at last it is shallow

as well. It was more like an astonishing staging piece, but for the way itworks now is not particularly interesting.

NG:

From what I saw from the documentation, the sound should be generative sound,right?

CHUNG: yes as in the final year project, there are three screens. And this one is single
screen. In the final year project, they presented combinations of generative soundwith live performance, with multiple screens and each screen take on different
fishes. There are three tubes with three fishes and each echo with one screen.

NG:

Then the image should be with more variations, the visual should have changed alot, but the one we saw is like a screen saver. The title is just a gimmick, the idea
cannot relate to it.

LAW:

Even if it is ok at one screen thing, the generated graphic, the movement of the fish
and the fish itself are totally not related. I mean the graphic, not the movement of
the graphic.

NG:

Even the fish moves, you expect the graphic should be changed along the
movement?

LAW:

That is one thing. Another thing is that if I see a still image or changed image, therelations between the square lines, gradation, colour or the life of the fish don’t
exist.

Black Box

LICHTENSTEIN: I am very surprised and a bit disappointed too for this piece. Because I think
the process of having a message that go through a complex process and to
give way to potential distortion or destruction is interesting. However, in thisset up, everything comes from one computer. If one computer is thebroadcaster and the other one is the receiver, it could have more surprises.
And now the same computer is doing everything and it looks silly. I would
think why not having just one computer to do all the work. Having a small
separation between the broadcaster and the receiver would help the piece tobe easier to be understood by the people seeing it for the first time. And we,the jurors have already known about this piece from the documentation andknew what to expect and interact, which are not obvious for first time viewers
at all. Also from the documentation that given to us, there were pixelated
images with all the distortions, but we don’t see that this time. I saw someother sound installation that you could push some buttons, and to see how thesound wave distorted. And this piece, you see the result but you don’t
visualize yourself as the interference. I think that is the dimension missing
from the work.

NG:

When I see this set up, it looks like an early video art work. It is so old fashion. I
agree that the functions of the two computers should be separated.

CHUNG: I have not read any documentation so I have some difficulties in the beginning,
until some of you explained the mechanism to me. I remember similar type ofartwork with one computer, like text to speech mechanism to read a piece of text
and the other computer uses speech recognition programme in order to understandthe other computer’s voice or speaking. It must have some errors or discrepancies
between the two pieces of article. The artist tries to play around the lost intranslation, but in form of encoding and decoding messages. He should have better
preparation for the audience to understand the mechanism or the way they intend
to do, like the piece of work I just mentioned. The artists have prepared writtenmaterial which is the source of the piece of message, or a poem printed along withthe computer which the computer is hidden. The audience knew the original pieceof text with the print out provided, and the communication through the opticalmedium is distorted by the presence of the audience and visitors. The audience
could also check the computer from the other side, to understand the messages, orto appreciate those distortions and errors along the communication. But in this case,at the beginning I found it difficult to make sense of those flashing characters andthe relation with the flashing encoding light in the other end of the installation. Forme, the separation between the two computers is also important, one party to do
the sending and the other to receive, which represent the two different parties
involved in the ways of communication. Technically it can be in one computer forthe sake of the presentation, but two -computer-setting is better for the audience.

LAW:

I am more interested to know about the meaning of the title, Black Box, or thereason of sending messages in this way. If you tell me it is about an accident, likesomeone sends off a SOS message, and I can make association to the title. It
would be more interesting. I accept those kinds of old fashion video works. But they
definitely can do something more, at least on the wall, like a frame on the wall

flashes and not just a short lighting on the edges of the floor. Make it like two
objects are in communication. The effect now is not enough to bring out thecommunication topic. As an installation, the spacing is very strange. I did not pay
attention to the one computer set up thing, as I spent all the time to understand the
work.

NG:

The idea of the computer getting a wrong message is very important. I found it
boring as there is only one kind of flashing style when people block thetransmission of the coding.

Nomination of awards

LICHTENSTEIN: Silver: Textworm; Silver or Gold: Stolen Times for Sale;
Special Mention: Leaf, Living Digit, A Couple of Irons, Black Box

FU:

I pick up 4 works first and without nomination. Leaf, Living Digit, Textworm,
Stolen Times for Sale, The Happiness of the Fish.

NG:

I pick up three works. Stolen Times for Sale, The Happiness of the Fish andLeaf, Living Digit.

LAW:

Stolen Times for Sale, Textworm

CHUNG: Textworm, Stolen Times for Sale and Black Box

Awards discussion
Stolen Times for SaleNG:

It is good to give The Stolen Times for Sale the gold or silver award. This is thebest work in the pool.

FU, LAW, CHUNG: Agree

TextwormNG:

I did not pick up Textworm as it is just technically well done, but the concept is notcompleted.

LICHTENSTEIN: This work meets all the requirement of the principles of this category.

Though it is not perfect, it is still something encouraging to the others.

NG:

Agree. Do we agree to give the silver award to this work?

LICHTENSTEIN, FU, LAW, CHUNG: Agree

IFVA:

We have only three special mentions, but it is ok to give four special mentions if you
all agree. The works are Black Box, A Couple of Irons, The Happiness of the
Fish and Leaf, Living Digit.

LICHTENSTEIN: I think we should take out A Couple of Irons.

NG: FU, LAW, CHUNG: Agree

Interactive Media Category
Gold Award
Stolen Time for Sale
Sum-yu FONG

Silver Award
Textworm
Ashley Chi-lung CHEUNG, Jason Chi-fai LAM

Special Mention
Black Box
Wai-yu CHAN, Yu-ho KWOK

Special Mention
The Happiness of the Fish
Hon-him CHEUNG

Special Mention
Leaf, Living Digit
Lawrence Ming-tat LAU