25th ifva Awards Media Art Category Jury Meeting Transcript
Jury Members ：Bryan Chung (Chung), Tamás Waliczky (Tamas), Kingsley Ng (Ng), Joseph
Cutts (Cutts), Takahashi Mizuki (Mizuki)
Organizer representatives：Kattie Fan (Fan)Fan:

Due to the COVID-19, we are not able to stage our exhibition this year. This is thefirst time we use this way to assess the artworks, through mainly the documents andthe materials that you received. Hopefully we can get to the point and understandabout the artworks without seeing its presence in the exhibition space. Today, ourmission is to select the awards. The awards for the Media Arts category include one
Gold Award, one Silver Award and one Special Mention. The 10 finalist works wereselected by Bryan, Tamas and Ip Yuk Yiu earlier this year.
We will begin with the first artwork, As You Were Here. I would like to invite Tamasor Bryan to take the lead, because you chose the 10 finalists in the first round.

Chung: I chose this in the first round as one of the ten finalists because it is not common tohave wearable technology or wearable artwork, especially in Hong Kong. In a lot of
media art festivals, we usually see installation or screen-based material. I am
interested in the link between the artist and her mother, and also the use of very
everyday-life routines and interactions between mother and daughter, and how that
could be packaged into some wearable technology that helps her to keep the memoryof the interaction between herself and her mother. The downside of this work is that
because of the budgeting and DIY approach, the knitwear is not wearable andsometimes too bulky because it needs to incorporate those motor or other devices
inside the knitwear, and because of the DIY production, it is not very functional. I likethe idea about using the everyday-life interactions in this piece of work.
Tamas: I also like this work. I agree that this is quite a unique piece. Most of the time I see
works in media art exhibitions that are screen-based or electronics device-based. It isquite rare that you see some interactive type of textile. Also, it’s very feminine, I also
like the whole point of view of a young girl, the personal connection with her motherand the remembrance of the mother. I think the whole piece has a very charming
humor, it’s funny how that knitwear reacts to the movements of the girl. I really likethis work, and from my point of view, I can imagine it as one of the winners. For me,
it’s quite unique.
Cutts:

I would echo that. Although it was one of the first works that I went through, it was
one of the strongest for me. One of the reasons being how heart-warming it felt, eventhough I am only reading and seeing imagery about it. Not just the relationshipbetween the mother and the daughter, but the impact you felt afterwards. Not being
in the room with it, but just seeing the video aspect of it and seeing the materials, andunderstanding that it’s not a giant technological conglomerate that we need to get our1heads around, impact played the biggest role for me. It really got to the point in a very
basic way, and that left me the most powerful message. I didn’t have to try very hardto understand what was going on, and therefore my level of participation, or lackthereof, was really cemented with this. You can feel something that is so subjective,
the relationship between the artist and her mother, that it opens outwards and you canfeel how that resonated with you, so I started to feel how I was as a child, having mymother say certain things to me. The work is very well-conceived from atechnological and textile point of view. For me, it was one of the highlights of the 10
finalists.
Ng:

I agree with most of the comments. The work is warm, touching and original. Because
I’m with the Academy and we have a lot of youngsters. Many of them like to deal
with family subjects, so this way of thinking is not too new because I see students tap
into this often, with different approaches, such as jewelry or ceramics. The
juxtaposition of technologies in this work is interesting, however I also echo Bryan’s
point a little bit that there is a kind of clumsiness in the work and an unfinished DIY
quality, maybe it’s something the artist intended, but I had just seen Mizuki’s
exhibition which was very well curated. While this work is still somewhat wearable,
we should take into consideration the attention paid to the materials of the textile. I
think it’s an excellent work, but it is still for me a little bit like a student project, andI can see great potential in furthering her endeavor. Works don’t have to deal with big
issues like climate change or politics, rather, something that is so close to you andsincere, about your own human relationships, this is something we highly value at the
Academy.

Mizuki: When I saw this work, I thought I was invited as a juror because of this work, since I
work in the Centre for Heritage, Arts and Textile. This is also one of my favorite
works, because there are many points that allow the audience to engage in the artwork.
In fashion and media arts, there are many wearables today, but you don’t know why
these artworks need to be wearable, but in this work, there is a very strong reason. It’sfor the artist to physically sense her mother, which makes sense for me. I also quite
like the bulky finishing, it successfully imparts the sense of tactility of this work, andthat’s also justifies why she needs to use knitting.
Cutts:The video aspect that we see in the application, is that part of the installation as well,or is it primarily the material tools? Is the video an instructional narrative that comeswith it? Is it part of the artwork, or is it purely for jury purposes?

Fan:

She has the little screen to showcase with the artwork.

Cutts:I recognize the video quite well, and saw it as the two-layer aspect of the work. Not
that I thought it needed instructions, but the level of editing involved in how you’re
wearing certain things, the relationship between your body and the putting on of thosematerials was quite important.
2

Fan:

Let’s move on to the next work, Bystander.

Tamas: I think it’s a nice work, mostly based on photogrammetry technology. It’s quite poetic
and has a strong visual impression. I also liked the personal connection between the
topic and the artist’s own self-healing idea. My problem is I learned photogrammetry
by myself, and in the past few years, I have seen a few works based on
photogrammetry technology, and my problem with most of these works is they
concentrate on the problems of photogrammetry, instead of trying to make it
professional and using the technology on a high level, they concentrate on the failuresof this technology. Sometimes this can be nice, and sometimes it can be wellconnected with the message of the work, but here for me it’s a bit weak to only see
the point cloud of these objects instead of the real photogrammetry surfaces. But stillit’s a nice, poetic work. It’s well-made and interesting.
Chung: I echo what Tamas mentioned. I also like the work and the connection with thedramatic experience of the artist’s childhood. I particularly like the sound design of
the work, compared with what Tamas mentioned about the glitch of thephotogrammetry technology. One thing that gave me a bit of hesitation is the use of
the images of Hong Kong, and those Hong Kong settings are quite tongue-in-cheekin a sense, like when we are referring to come exotic location, we always show thoseareas of Mong Kok and those kinds of neon lights. In this case, I’m not particularly
sure whether her own traumatic experiences were related to those contextual settingsof those real or virtual locations in Hong Kong. This is one thing I am not so sure
about the work.
Cutts:

Going from the first project that we talked about, which is basic in its methodology
and the narrative it is trying to put out, this work deals with a serious subject matterand a difficult one to get across because it uses many different elements, with VR andwider audio projection. The work suggests what is the relationship between those twoelements, the VR and the wider impact of the audio aspect, which may have been lostto me as a participant because we’re talking about something that is so mind-rooted,
and not presented as a physical thing in front of you. In terms of the impact of audio
and projection, it resonated with me quite a lot, it kept me there for some time. I feelthe work could have impact primarily from the audio projection-based work as well.

Ng:

I don’t have much to say about the work because for me, the documentation was not
sufficient for a VR work. I understand the constraints, but seeing that the artist said
this was about her own traumatic experiences, this narrative was a little hard for me
to understand. I don’t know if it’s because I don’t have a full picture of the work, or
if this is what one would see when engaging with the VR work. That’s why mycomments were not so much about the VR work itself, but I appreciate that the artist
was thinking about the physical exhibition space and to link the physical and thevirtual, I find that thoughtful. For the VR work itself, from the video it’s hard for me3

to put a critique on it because I don’t think I have enough information.
Mizuki: I’m impressed with the visuals, but I am confused about the objectives of this work,
because in some parts, she says she wants to use this work to heal the traumatized
memories that other people may have, but in other parts she says she just wants topresent her traumatized memories. I wonder which her key objective in making thisartwork is. If she wants to use this artwork for healing purpose to help others, sheneeds to involve professional art therapists to seek for the proper advice in making
this artwork. She also needs to be a bit more sensitive about using VR technology
because it can be manipulative. The immersive experience will give a psychologicalimpact on the viewer. Does she use VR technology for the viewer to simulate thetraumatic experience? I am not sure.
Fan:

Is there anything else? If not, we can move on to Connection Disturbance.

Tamas: I’ve seen this work at the School of Creative Media, at the graduation show. The artist
is not my student, but since the artist was a student at SCM, I have a certain connection
to him, even though I don’t know him personally. When I saw the work, my
impression was that it was very professionally made, all the elements such as themetal parts, the movements of these elements, the painting, the installation, soundlevel were all clean and perfectly made. The black and white contrasting forms andhow they divided the space were all very aesthetic. The music or the noise generated
was not my cup of tea, but I’m not a musician. It was a very professionally made work.
Chung: The work is extremely neat, tidy and clean. In the House Programme, I also wrote
about the work’s similarities with other artists who create mechanical reproductionsof sound in this situation. The forms and shapes of those objects, the majority of themare quite geometric and simple, to the extent that it is too minimal that I cannot get
any contextual ideas about the work. If I also read the description, and I sense thediscrepancies between what the artist wrote in the artist statement and the work infront of me. I did not see it in the SCM show, just in the documentation and the video.
Cutts:

This work is one where you have to be there in the space and it responds to thesurroundings. It’s very gorgeous and beautiful in its form, it resembles a lot of
sculpture-based works here in the UK. The materials are essential to the output of thesounds in relations to the space, and there is a beautiful algorithmic process, orwhatever the process is. I felt the level of impact of the piece with the space, animmediate form of impact; how you feel when you come away from the piece issomething that is removed from my responses. I was left with looking at it, the visual
aspect of it and what I felt then and there at that time, compared to say the first or
second work that we have spoken about, where you come away with additional
thoughts about it as well. Maybe the level of participation from the impact and thoughtprocess point of view was removed a little bit from it.

4

Ng:

In this case, it’s hard to do justice to a sound work, so I will comment more on thevisual presentation. It was also very hard to understand the relationship of the soundbroadcasted from the monitor speakers and the sound coming out from the sculpture,from the sound of the recording it is very hard to tell what is going on. I also thought
the placement of the work at SCM on the upper floors with the angle of the view of
Kowloon gives it an interesting context, the window as a kind of backdrop isinteresting, but I don’t know how the artist will translate this work into the Arts Centre
space, and this may not be the consideration of the awards.

Mizuki: My comments are based on the short clip provided by the artist. As a kinetic sculpture,
this work is very beautiful, but I’m not sure about the sound or noise created by the
sculpture. For me, this kind of kinetic sculpture with noise sound is a bit too familiarin recent contemporary art practices. Besides the finishing, the aesthetics of the
sculpture I was not too excited about, even though it is beautiful. I wonder if the artist
can contextualize this artwork with other kinetic sculptures in art history.
Fan:

We can move on to Devenir Space.

Tamas: This work is not judgable for me based on the video and description, which is clever
and the video is quite nice. I try to imagine how this work would look like in an
exhibition space, and I’m afraid that this work is nothing more than some plastic
sheets hanging from a metal structures with beams projecting on it. If there is a large
space with semi-transparent surfaces and some green laser beams on the surface, thenit’s not really original, new or deep for me. The description suggests something moreinteresting and deep, I would love to see this work somehow in reality, but based on
the video, I can’t really judge.
Cutts:

I have a similar thought process here. I projected the video a couple of times aroundmy house, on different walls to try to get a different understanding, and I found it had
a lot more to do with the lines potentially creating social spaces within isolated spaces.
A lot of artworks like this works in a similar manner, so I was looking for somethingwith a bit more abstract forms and projections. Unless you are deeply rooted within
the space, and maybe there’s a sound element related to the work which would haveto be very ingrained in that environment.

Chung: The bodily experience in the space is essential in order to feel or understand the work,
which is a very immersive experience. I also predict that the navigation of the routethe audience is walking around the space is also important and a factor in determining
the illusion of that rigid space is transformed into a more fluid, light environment.
Without those, it is difficult to imagine, and I just try to imagine from the
documentation video, and it is difficult to judge at this moment, especially the
projection needs to be bigger than human size in order to create this illusion. At thispoint, I can’t make a very definite judgement about the quality.

5

Ng:

Likewise, I think it’s very hard to judge through the video, but like Tamas was saying,from the plans and the documentation, I would guess it’s something like Anthony
McCall’s works. It deals with something that has been explored by many others, it’s
not something totally new.

Mizuki: My views are the same. I am also very careful about videos capturing an exhibition.
The artist says he will use a metal mesh as a screen to project the video, I try tounderstand and simulate in my brain. I think this work is a very beautiful and artistic
piece but I can’t see the artist tries to introduce any critical comments about thedichotomy between real space and virtual space, as he says in the descriptions.
Fan:

A note to everyone. We wanted to review all the artworks in the exhibition space. For
some of the artworks like this one, you have to experience it and feel what it is, that’s
why we always invite jurors to come to the exhibition before jury meeting, except thisyear. We asked the finalists to resubmit all the material, hopefully to let you
understand what it would look like in a real space. You may also find some of theworks have extra supporting materials while others only have the initial applications.
For this jury meeting, we have to judge based on the documentations. The next work
is InkFlux – Freeland.

Tamas: For me, it’s a nice, aesthetical work. I appreciate that the artist sent some extra
supporting material, and it’s very interesting, but for me the work is rather simple.
Chung: The extra materials helped quite a lot. Without it, it’s quite difficult to understand thecontextual information related to it. I don’t have too much comments, apparently it isrelated to the use of tear gas in different geographical locations in Hong Kong. Since
it is related to geographical locations, the use of the map is quite natural. According
to the documentation, the locations on the map have some sort of zoom-in effect tosome particular geographical location, I’m not sure whether it will happen in the realexhibition, I suspect because of the resolution limitation in the temperature changing
images, it may need to have this zoom in effect in order to have the higher resolutionsof the streets. The surface is a little bit rough and I think the artist is trying to create
the illusion of showing a piece of painting work, and so the choice of texture can besome other one than the existing one.
Cutts:

The work is about stillness and movement, and you’re looking at something thatappears to be still in its form, like a photograph, is actually transcends over a periodof time so it questions the form and output. As we say in the UK, how long does ittake for you to watch a video work before you tune out and decide to go and get a cupof tea. Usually it’s 6-10 seconds before we start to question something, so there’s avery strong ethics of participation that impacts the direct relationship with somethingthat’s concrete and flat or something that is a moveable item, and it’s important tounderstand how that provokes you.

6

Ng:

I agree with Tamas and Bryan that the supporting material provides the context to thework that transforms how one reads the work. So, for me that video stream isimportant. For those who are connected with the social movements of Hong Kong in
the past months, the work may resonate with them or it may not. The work is open
enough for multiple readings, and I appreciate a work like that.

Mizuki: I also like this work. He appropriates the ink painting and tries to interweave thedifferent subject matter into the simple format. I can see that he studied about ink
painting and its philosophy, and connecting it to contemporary social awareness.
Tamas: I also appreciate that he changed the original work of ink painting and tried to connect
it to the protest movement in Hong Kong, and I would be very happy to see a good,interesting work about the protest that happened. But for me, this is a bit too simple
to show the points where the police used water cannons or I don’t know what. It
doesn’t tell you anything about the movement, it just tells where tear gas was used,
but why it was used, whether it was used well or not well, who used it for whom, what
was the background? For me there was not enough information. I would like a more
complex opinion or visualization or impression from an artwork. Still, it was a very
nice artwork, nice in a minimalist way, but for me, it was not complex enough,technically and artistically as well.
Fan:

The next work is Life/Time .

Tamas: This is another one of my favorite works out of the 10 works. It’s not really new, it
uses zoetrope and these old animation equipment or movie devices, and it uses orrefers to them in a unique, poetic and professionally-made way with these glassworks
and lighting and shadow. Based on the video, the movements are really nicely
animated, the whole work has a very strong atmosphere, it’s really is a bit magical.
As I can judge based on the video, it’s really well-made, every detail is well-thought.
This is one of my favorite works and I would suggest it for one of the prizes.
Chung: I think this is a very good piece of work. It is an application of early cinema device
into a more complex and participatory form. The audience has to do something inorder to generate sound. The only comment I have is about the animals and those
figures running in the animated images. It seems to me they are like demonstrations
rather than the artist wanting to talk about something related to a zoo or some type of
performance related to animals. I don’t know whether there’s any narrative that theartist wants to communicate to us through those moving figures or animals, so this is
the only one point I want to make. In general, this is a very well-made piece of work.
Cutts:

I love this work. We’re judging something in a media art category, but what I’m takenwith this work that feels more like early cinema of the late 19th century. It felt less to
do with something technological and more to do with what you can do with basic
appliances, with objects and a form of light rotation and position them all in the right7

ways to make maximum impact. I actually desire to be in this room; instead ofwishing there was more information to go on, I can visualize what it would be like to
be in that room and see that basic elements and symbols create a maximum impactbased installation. For me there’s a nice harmony that comes with that, it made me
feel quite happy to see it, it’s very child-like as well because it is very experiential,
without the severity of an intense subject matter that you may think about. With thiswork, the impact was immediate. I resonated with a very positive feeling towards thesuper basic forms. For me this ranks the second.
Ng:

I agree with Bryan, this piece works for me as well, I was hoping the illustrations thatgo with the work could provide a more coexistence of readings. On one hand it is very
playful and everyone can engage with the logical aspects of the work, but maybe theselection of the animated objects—I was hoping to get a little bit more on why certain
things were chosen so that there can be more complex readings to the work. I am
thinking of William Kentridge’s work on shadows, which are very beautiful on its
own and also tell much more.

Mizuki: It’s interesting to hear Bryan and Kingsley’s comments. I agree with them, it’d bebetter if the artist can justify the use of this motif to be animated in this work. I am
still intrigued with the well-balanced beauty of the technology and the quality aspectin the artwork. Sometimes, it is not easy to engage in so-called media artworks. In
this regard, this artwork is very open to everyone, and it successfully stimulate interestin the origin of animation.
Fan:

Next one, Mind Cut.

Tamas: It is the third work I like from the 10 selected work. It is very well-made technicallyand aesthetically, and I really appreciate that the artist sent us some supporting
material, because from one of the videos, we can see how precisely the work was
designed. In the video we can see how he recorded with eight cameras around the faceof somebody. It’s a very professionally-made work, although it’s very technical andone can see the naked screens and cables and all these metal and electronic elements,
it’s surprisingly poetic with the shadowy faces that appear on the screen and therotations of the screen that go from one element to another. I think it’s a good work.

8Chung: For me, it’s a very good representation of the persistence of vision, and also precisely
designed and engineered into this version. I like the work and I saw it at a realexhibition last year. I like the preciseness and I like the two images coming together
with the rotation. One thing I’d like to artist is that according to the documentation,
he set it up so that the majority of the machinery, the connection of the cables andthose parts are visible. I wonder if the work will be more powerful with those parts
carefully hidden away from the audience so that we are just left with the images androtating parts and LED lights, it would leave more room for the audience toexperience, rather than having to pay attention to the cables connecting the motors,
etc.
Cutts:

I find this project to be the most technically savvy out of all the projects. It’s very
well executed and very minimal but contains a lot of sophistication in trying to get tothe point. For me, its gorgeousness lies in its structure, by that I mean the rotation oflights surrounding it; there are two layers, the internal and external lights which also
play a key role. As a participant, your level of involvement of thought is “blink andyou miss it”, like having a thought, but it’s too fast and the moment is gone and you
have lost the concept of what is happening, versus how long you are given to retain athought. The piece kept me questioning and remembering quite some time afterwards,
after the experience of what a thought could be and how long it remains. For me thisis one of the more powerful pieces of works; I would love to have experienced it.

Ng:

I also agree with most of the comments. I think the work is very well-made. I know
the artist, I am not close with him but I have known his works for a good number ofyears, and I can see this as a continuation of many of the things he has been exploring.
When I compare this work with Connection Disturbance or As You Were Here, thislevel of finishing and rigor is certainly much stronger. The level of seriousness,
craftsmanship and level of attention is something we should promote. This work iscertainly a good candidate for awards.

Mizuki: The comments of other jurors really help me understand this work, which is the mostdifficult one for me to understand without looking at the real work. I like the aesthetic
beauty of work and complicated structure but it’s just hard to imagine and understandcomplicated engeneering of this work without real experience.
Fan:

Let’s move to the next one, RUINLIZATION I: Signal 2.0.

Tamas: I’ve seen this work at the School of Creative Media graduation show, I was very
impressed with the work. It’s nicely made. The artist is again not my student, but hecame from our school. The work has some kind of strong presence, it is heavy andwith the noise that it makes. It’s not a bothering noise, it’s really basic noise, and thematerials are beautiful, these old, rusty materials, and the whole installation is wellmade.

9Chung: I wish I could have a chance to feel or experience the work, but unfortunately, I didn’t
go to the School of Creative Media graduation show. I also consider it a good pieceof immersive sound or audio work, the sound making devices of the metal and theruins remind me of the industrial era. The only thing that I find annoying at thismoment is the pair of speakers, they seem to be quite good-looking, sleek and brandnew, which stands out from the rest of the installation.
Cutts:

I think the installation is very beautiful, and in a similar manner to the third project,it’s very well made in terms of the use of objects. It’s the first project today that
responds to the surroundings, the heritage and history association with that. It’s down
to not being in the room with it to feel the maximum impact, but I have enough of anunderstanding of what it would be about, and it’s got to do with the impact of soundin relation to the building or territory you are in. In that way, it becomes a social
experiment as well as an architectural one. In terms of participation, it’s quite key forthis work. I think it’s beautiful, I just wish I was there to dissect the sound further andunderstand what it would be like if it was in a different space as well.

Ng:

I agree that it is a little hard for me to judge when I’m not there. I would look forward
to a version in which the speakers are more deconstructed and incorporated into thesetting. Acoustically, it would also be more integrated in that regard. Now, there seems
to be a disconnection between the speakers and the so-called ruin, so I look forward
to a version 3.0.

Mizuki: My comments focus more on the subject matter addressed by the work. Ruin has
been polular, significant subject matter especially in paintings and photography in art.
Therefore I wonder what his motivation to address the ruin today is. It would be niceif the artwork can justify why the subject of ruin is the matter today.
Fan:

The Dream Machine.

Tamas: I’ve seen this work in an exhibition, and it is a very impressive and interesting work.
I think it is the only one of the selected works that is made by a group of artists andnot just one. I think this is a very interesting, active and good artist group. It’s acomplex installation using many complex machines, there are lots of video and audio
materials. In the exhibition, it was really good to walk around and listen and watch
the different materials in the space. This is the interesting and unique aspect of thework, but for me this is also the weakness of the work, that perhaps there are too manythings put together in one complex installation.
Chung: I saw the installation last year at City Hall, I also tried out different patchings of thevideo cable. It’s a good piece of work with a good level of sophistication in terms ofthe collection of the old monitors, the design of the patch panel and also the cabling
system. The only thing I’d like to see a bit more is the viewer experience. This is an
installation work, and when we enter and leave, it does not make that much difference10

no matter how you engage with the work. I would like to see an orientation area where
the audience can better prepare themselves before they enter into the main area, andif they decide to leave, what kind of concluding remark can the installation provide.
This is one of my suggestions.
Cutts:

I have mixed feelings about this work, on the one hand because of the complexity of
it, and on the other hand because it doesn’t try too hard in its form to look too pretty.
They sent a wealth of documentation and supporting materials to go along with it,
which is always beneficial, but at the same time, is it necessary to send so muchbecause it’s such a complex installation, it warrants participation and support fromthe artists in order to drive it. The second point is that it doesn’t try to hard to fit intoa white wall gallery space, with the cables everywhere, it lends itself to a more relaxed
approach to making a piece of work; it’s got less to do with what a piece of work look
like than to your level of engagement with the content on the screens and the othercomponents as well. It looks like a performative piece of work that desires, wants andinstigates your participation to be a part of it. It’s hard to understand where thebeginning, middle and end is, and it would benefit from some documentation
regarding user experience. It is performative in the sense that it wants you to be there
to get some form of output, and it’s very much a time-based work, and the complexity
I can’t doubt for scientific purposes, and coupled with the surreal purpose, it creates
something very unique. I think abstract is the appropriate word to use.

Ng:

I also echo Joseph’s point on this work’s performative aspect, which could be further
explored. It’s hard to understand the participation in a work like that. I didn’t see thework first hand, so I can only read from the documentation

Mizuki: Whenever I encounter the participatory work, I cannot stop asking why theparticipation is necessarily to complete the work. Sometimes the participatory works
just consume the time and energy of the participants but give very small return to theparticipants. What can the audience gain through the participation? Or what does theparticipation contribute to the artwork? I admit the visual of this work is very strong
but I’m wondering if this artwork is something beyond the prop of Dream Machine,
as inspired by the novel.

Fan:

The last one, Vacuum Cleaners.

Tamas: This is a game. The concept is interesting, and of course, it is important to think aboutsuch environmental problems. The game is quite well-made, although quite simple.
I’m not sure as a game, it’s really interesting enough for the audience to play for along time. My problem with the work is that it seems to me a bit didactic and not
really exciting or artistic enough. Maybe I need to play with it to judge it better to see
if it is playful, or if it has any humor or irony in it, or just this very simple connectionthat if I see there is big smoke or dirt, I can turn on my vacuum cleaner and clean the11air around me. It’s an interesting work, and I appreciate someone sent us such a video
game, because it’s not so easy to produce such an interactive video game.
Chung: This work is a well-designed and well-made VR game. I enjoyed the seriousness of
the artist and designer, and in the video, they looked very serious and acted in a serious
way. I’m not sure if they intended to have this kind of seriousness as a performative
element.
Cutts:For me this work is something produced for educational purposes and raisingawareness, but the severity of its subject matter and its execution is the antithesis tothat. It’s more to do with the setting that the work is put in, and that plays a big rolein it as well, because in a similar context to contemporary and media art and otherforms, then we question our level of engagement with something like a really complex
video art. I watch a lot of VR work as well, and we must ask ourselves how much do
you need to watch something before you get the point, and therefore duration within
this game will play one of the biggest aspects for me, because if you can convey thesame thing in 40 seconds that you can convey in 10 minutes and it’s doing the samething, unless there is substantial change for the game in terms of the levels orsomething serious happens, or it’s really related to what’s happening in that territory
on a daily basis. Because we’re judging the work based on the narrative, it is thebiggest aspect for me, and has less to do with the form.

Ng:

You have all spoken about what I wanted to say. Compared with the awardees overthe last 25 years, the layering of meanings and poetry is not what the creators wanted
to put together.

Mizuki: I agree with most of the jurors. I am wondering, in the game, the player needs topeople suffering from polluted air and after rescuing those people, the text and voiceover coming out. But the video doesn’t show what happen after rescuing. I am also
curious about what would be the ending of the game. Does anything big happen? Does
Mother Earth become clean again?
Fan:

If there is no more to add to the comments, we have already walked through the 10
works. Let’s move on to talking about the prizes. I see that some of you have alreadyhave ideas about prize nomination.

Cutts:

Shall we say our top three each and see if we have any correlation? I had a preunderstanding before this deliberation, and now I have a different one. In no order, I
have As You Were Here, Mind Cut. and Life/Time.

Tamas: My favorite three in no order are As You Were Here, Life/Time and Mind Cut.
Chung: For me, I have three selections but I don’t have the order: As You Were Here,
Life/Time and RUINLIZATION I: Signal 2.0.
12

Ng:

For me, I would pick Mind Cut and InkFlux – Freeland, just two.

Mizuki: I pick As You Were Here, InkFlux – Freeland and Life/Time.
Fan:

Four of you have selected As You Were Here, two of you picked InkFlux – Freeland,
four selected Life/Time, three selected Mind Cut and one for RUINLIZATION I:
Signal 2.0. We can narrow down our discussion on these five works. The works withmost votes is not necessarily the best, so hopefully you can talk about that. As You
Were Here and Life/Time both received four votes, so maybe you can begin withthese two works?

Cutts:

Even the two have very different outputs, the synonymous thing with these works thatthey have basic narratives and basic intentions, but they really get to the point. They
have very mixed variables involved in both of them, but I have a clear understanding,and it’s not just because of the documentation and supporting materials, but because
I really could understand and resonate with what is going on. There was a level ofstrong engagement through simplistic forms, not necessarily simplistic in how they
were made, but simplistic in terms of their arrangements. For me, those are therelationships between the two works.

Chung: Life/Time is very sophistically made, and is a good candidate for exhibition as well.
Imagine you have a space it can occupy and with a target area for performance. As
You Were Here is not easy to exhibit, as was my experience with wearing the wearable,
in a lot of cases it’s not easy to manage. The video documentation is also a nice pieceof work. The two works are equally good, for Life/Time, I have one hesitation, which
is about the selection of those images and I still have some query about it. With As
You Were Here, I don’t have any queries about her intentions or implementation.
Ng:

Is there any possibility of awarding more than three works?

Fan:

Yes, but it depends on the reasons. We have flexibility to rearrange the prizes. It would
be good to have the order that we have now. For your information, sometimes we canhave two Gold Awards but no Silver if you find two outstanding works that are equally
good. Sometimes, we have two Silver and no Gold, as we did just two or three years
ago, which is a statement as well. For Special Mention, it is just a certificate without
any cash prizes, so for administrative reasons it is easier to grant more than one. I
hope that you will give the prizes you want to give. If the works have equal standards,
we can give out more than one after discussion, but let’s see if it’s needed.

Ng:

For me, the works are very diverse and so are the media and form. The works all havetheir merits, I hope that we can award four of them.

13

Mizuki: I’m not a Media Art specialist, my background is in contemporary art. The question
is about whether media art experts want to champion the existing genre of media art
or break through the given category. Is the objective of the awards encouraging fresh
perspectives, to question what is media art? I chose As You Were Here, because forme, this artwork shows me new dimension of media art by integrate tacile texile
medium and technology. I also like InkFlux – Freeland because the work represents
how Hong Kong artists digest their experiences last year in metaphisycal way. I like
Life/Time because it successfully draw the interests into the question of what makes
the thing animate with the poetic beauty of work. The work looks simple but poseboth philosophical and technical questions about the moving image.
Tamas: For me, it’s hard to decide which work out of the three will be first, second and third.
As I am listening to the different opinions, I start to think perhaps As You Were Herewould be my favorite because the other two works that I like or the other works you
have suggested, they all used typical forms that you see nowadays in media
exhibitions, they are all well-made and have their own personal uniqueness, but they
all make use of monitors, projections and sound installations, but As You Were Hereis different because it is based on this tactile layering of the work, this knitted work
really touches the body and makes something with the body, and it doesn’t just workwith sound and videos. One thing that is important to me is humor, and I really misshumor when an artwork takes itself too seriously. Most of the works, not just here,
but in general, mostly takes themselves seriously, maybe there is a serious message
or aesthetic view, but this work, maybe because it’s a little bit like a student work, as
Bryan said, has a nice humor. It doesn’t just have a poetic background with thepersonal connection with her mother and remembrance of her, it’s also funny. That’s
why I would honor it by giving it the Gold Award.
Fan:

So Tamas nominated As You Were Here as Gold Award, and Kingsley also put his
vote on this one, so altogether we have 5 votes on this work. Are there othernominations for Gold Award? Or you all agree that As You Were Here will be theGold Award winner?

(Cutts and Mizuki consent)
Fan:

Next will be the Silver Award. From the number of votes, it should be Life/Time, but
let’s see if you have other suggestions.

(All the jurors voiced their consent.)
Fan:

So Life/Time is the Silver Award. Now for Special Mention

Ng:

I’d nominate 2 Special Mention, Mind Cut and InkFlux – Freeland.

Cutts:For me, it’s just Mind Cut.
14

Chung: I can also change my vote to Mind Cut. The reason I voted for RUINLIZATION I:
Signal 2.0 is because the artist had just graduated from SCM last year, while the artistof Mind Cut is more established.
Mizuki: I cannot judge because I don’t think my understanding is well enough. I know there
are a lot of things the artist needs to consider and input, but I also want to encourage
the artist who try to reflect about things going on. I want to vote for InkFlux –Freeland, but I don’t know how good it’d be from the technical aspect.
Ng:

Special Mention is a form of encouragement, and for both Mind Cut and InkFlux –Freeland, they both deserve encouragement for different reasons, so it is difficult forme to choose just one.

Mizuki: I can see that Mind Cut is technically very sophisticated, but for freshness of theme,
I want to go for InkFlux – Freeland.
Tamas: For me, Mind Cut would be the Special Mention, but I don’t have any problems if
we divide it between Mind Cut and InkFlux – Freeland. I think it would be a gooddecision.
Ng:

Thank you, Tamas.

Tamas: As you said, Special Mention is a kind of support, so I think it’d be good to divide it.
Mizuki: I think it’s a good decision to encourage both ways.
Chung: I’m also fine with including InkFlux – Freeland, my hesitation is because I was his
teacher, and he’s a very established artist at this moment, I expect a little bit morefrom him compared with others. But in terms of the work, it’s okay.
Fan:

To round, up, that means we are still going to give out 2 Special Mentions.

Fan:

One additional note, when you talked about Life/Time earlier, you asked about thereason for using the animals. My colleagues have just pointed out that in some
supplementary material that we have, he had explained it. The elephant represents
energy, and the tiger is the king. I will show you the powerpoint.

Mizuki: So, it’s Thai symbolism.

15

25th ifva Awards Media Arts Category Award Winners
Gold Award
As You Were HerePan I-an
TaiwanSilver Award
Life/Time
Witaya Junma
ThailandSpecial Mention
Mind Cut
Tung Wing-hong
Hong Kong
InkFlux – Freeland
Chris Cheung (h0nh1m)
Hong Kong

16

25th ifva Awards Media Art Category Juror’s Comment
As You Were Here
Tamás Waliczky: Charming, nice project, it has a personal background, it has nice humour. It
is quite unique, I appreciate the fact it is different from most of the media artworks. Feminine,
too. One of my favourites.
Bryan Chung: It is a very personal piece of work using wearable technology and knitting as abridge to communicate the love between the artist and her mother. The devices do not serve any
important functions but everyday life mundane interaction among family members. Owing to
the form factor of the LilyPad and the associated sensors and actuators, the devices are a bit
bulky.
Joseph Cutts: The project holds a strong sentiment to upbringing, personal relations andintimacy in material. I find it to be very heartwarming through the narrative and material/audio
aspect and yet it manages to be less personal and general through the participatory aspect. It
therefore breaks a barrier of being too subjective and is opened out. From the material I haveseen I find this to be a well-rounded multidisciplinary installation.
Kingsley Ng: Witty, sincere and highly personal. Somewhat falls under field of speculative
design.
Mizuki Takahashi: Interesting to use e-textile as props in the short film. Bridging digital andanalogue technique in knitting, artist metaphorically imply the cross-generational relationshipbetween her mother and herself.
Bystander
Tamás Waliczky: Nice work, based on photogrammetry technology. It has a strong atmosphere,
an artistic vision, which I like. Technically it’s not so unique, even at ifva we had a few artworks
based on the artistic failures of photogrammetry.
Bryan Chung: It is a very good attempt to relate the artist’s childhood traumatic experience inthe artwork as a form of reconciliation and therapy. The sound design can be a very crucial
factor in the artwork and which is effective as demonstrated in the video clip. The use of thelocal Hong Kong 3D scan images seems to carry too much contextual information about theplaces. I am not sure if it helps to associate with her personal experience.
Joseph Cutts: The project holds many layers to its overall installation and is rich within content.
I found the audio/projection aspect to be extremely provocative in my role as a participant, thetiming was perfect. Due to the fact that there are a number of immersive layers involved andjudging it by the whole artwork, the relationship between the VR aspect and theaudio/projection I find to be a lost one in terms of user experience. I feel the work could benefit
even without the VR element involved. However the overall subject matter in terms of
subconsciousness is not an easy one to convey in a linear manner.
17

Kingsley Ng: Thoughtful consideration of the exhibition's physical space, despite it is inprinciple a VR work.
Mizuki Takahashi: The graphic looks very beautiful and powerful. However, I wonder if thework is made for traumatised people to heal, or for general public to enhance theirunderstanding of trauma of child abuse, or to represent the artist’s inner states coming fromtraumatised past.
Connection DisturbanceTamás Waliczky: I’ve seen this installation at SCM. Professionally made, very aesthetical.
Strong visual composition based on black-and-white forms. The audio part is not my cup of tea,
but it’s a well-made project.
Bryan Chung: The work is very clean and tidy. It will be suitable for gallery display. It goeswith a sense of machine aesthetics as majority of the parts are geometrical forms that detachedfrom all contextual settings.
Joseph Cutts: A wonderful use of innovation within technology and the impact lies there withthat and the newly created relation between user and object. However in terms of impact, I find
my response to be left with the work at that very moment of interaction (or imagined within thespace) and less re-consideration in the narrative once walked away.
Kingsley Ng: Minimalistic and sculptural. The windows in SCM provides a good context for
the reading of the work. It is unclear how the artist is thinking of adapting the work for HKAC's
space.
Mizuki Takahashi: The installation looks beautiful with minimal aesthetic. But the idea ofsculpture making noise is not new. I don’t think the works embody the concept that the artist
wants to deliver.

18

Devenir Space
Tamás Waliczky: This is one of the works I would like to see in a real exhibition space. The
description and the video seem interesting, but I’m afraid the real installation is simply
transparent plastic surfaces on a metal wire mesh, with laser projection on them. If this is thecase, for me it is not complex and original enough.
Bryan Chung: I think the work attempted to move from the wireframe striated space into asmooth space, aided by the navigation of the participants. It is not easy to experience justthrough a documentation video. The embodied experience will be an essential part for thisimmersive work.
Joseph Cutts: Visually stimulating through testing the boundaries and contours of rigid lines
within a special setup. Due to me not being there in person, it is difficult to understand just how
immersed I felt however I projected this here and on loop. It also suggests and questions a social
space and an isolated individual space.
Kingsley Ng: The work is mesmerizing, while it does not need to rely on very complicatedsetup and visual effects. It is like an Anthony McCall without the smoke machine and in anarrower space.
Mizuki Takahashi: The artist’s understanding about dichotomy between virtual and real spaceis very simple. The immersive installation will not pose any questions about the border between
virtual and real space to the audience.
InkFlux – Freeland
Tamás Waliczky: Aesthetical, well made. Technically it’s too simple for me. The extra
supporting video is quite impressive.
Bryan Chung: The extra material added more contextual information related to the visualization
project. It is not easy to isolate the gradual ink diffusion effect, especially on the rough surface.
As the project is now related to geographical data, the use of map is a natural choice. It seems
that from the video, there is a zoom-in effect to highlight the geographical regions. I am notsure if it is necessary or primarily due to the resolution limitation of the display surface.
Joseph Cutts: A strong use of Chinese ink making with a contrast of time as an agenda is very
key here when bearing witness to something that once may be rigid in its form as a painting but
then allows for movement within stillness. Very relatable and enduring in terms of engagement
whilst loaded with history in its narrative.
Kingsley Ng: A subtle and contemplative work with substantial social relevance.
Mizuki Takahashi: I like the artist provides a new way of interpretation of ink painting throughhis digital image based on his understanding of Zen philosophy, reflecting contemporary social
concern. The work looks rather simple but it forms a new style of ink art.
19

Life/Time
Tamás Waliczky: Very well made, complex, professional work. One of my favourites. The ideaof modern zoetrope isn’t new, but the realization is original and very high level. It combineslaterna magica, zoetrope, animation, sound, glasswork into a fascinating installation.
Bryan Chung: It is a creative interpretation of the early cinema devices, such as thepraxinoscope, with the combination of the sound making property of the individual glasses
functioned as musical instruments. At the moment, the images seem to serve as demonstration
show reel similar to the movement studies from Eadweard Muybridge’s. It may be better toelaborate the justification of including those running animals in the displays. Are there any
narratives to communicate to the audience through playing with various revolving glasses?
Joseph Cutts: Really strong use of participation in body, water and object. Basic in its outline
but thorough in its sophistication. Beautiful in its form and resembles imagery of early filmic
content from the late 19th century.
Kingsley Ng: The artist adds a bit of twist and delight to the zoetrope. It would be wonderful
to see hundreds of these turning objects in a gallery space at once.
Mizuki Takahashi: The artist successfully updated the primitive technique of moving image /animation with poetic manner. The visual effect generated by the shadow shows the artist’s
insightful understanding of the meaning of “animation”.
Mind Cut
Tamás Waliczky: Well made, complex installation. One of my favourites. Aesthetic, technicallyprofessional, scientific but poetic at the same time. The extra supporting videos are very
impressive, they proof how precisely the work was planned and developed.
Bryan Chung: It is a very good use of the persistence of vision to orchestrate the precise
movement of the screens and the LED light. The artist can consider whether to expose thetechnical details such as the current setup or hide away the machinery and expose only thenecessary parts.
Joseph Cutts: A gorgeously created structure, technically savvy and with a basic outline ofnarrative. The moment of thought disappearing contrasting with the speed of light rapidly
creating an unsettling moment of remaining in the moment but questioning holding onto athought. Very well executed.
Kingsley Ng: The juxtaposition of being graceful and violent at the same time is very powerful.
Mizuki Takahashi: Technically interesting but I cannot see the artist’s motivation behind the art
work other than his interest in the combination of kinetic movement and digital image.

20

RUINLIZATION I Signal 2.0
Tamás Waliczky: I’ve seen the installation at SCM. It gives strong impression. Well made,interesting work.
Bryan Chung: It is a good piece of immersive sound work. The artist found clever ways togenerate the sensation of a site of ruin through different sound making devices. There is
obviously a distinction between the ruin like metal structure and the sleekness of the speakersystem. I wonder if it may be better to consider a whole piece as a sculptural form andappropriate the speaker system to blend with the structure.
Joseph Cutts: An extremely beautifully engineered structure that responds to its physicalsurroundings and transcends that into an environment of further engagement beyond contours.
Due to not being there in person it’s hard to understand the level of impact through sounds but
I can gain enough of an understanding through the documentation.
Kingsley Ng: It is a work that focuses on materiality of sound and of the associated physicalobjects. It would be wonderful to see a 3.0 version where the 'ready-made' speakers are further
deconstructed, appropriated and incorporated into the ruin itself.
Mizuki Takahashi: In fine art, the subject of ruin has been featured in Romanticism movementin the 19th century. Even today, ruin is preferred subject matter in paintings and photography.
It would be more interesting if the artist tries to contextualise his “Ruinlization” in relation withthe art presented by his former generations.
The Dream Machine
Tamás Waliczky: I’ve seen the work at the exhibition. Complex, well made, interesting work. I
appreciate the fact it has been made by a young artist collective. The extra supporting materials
show how much work included into this installation.
Bryan Chung: It is a good installation artwork using the outdated technology of video cable
patching. The space is well designed as a coherent unit. It may be better to consider the ideal
viewing experience for the audience, whether it needs preparation/orientation when theaudience enter, or if a concluding gesture is needed when the audience leave.
Joseph Cutts: The project contains a multiplicity of properties questioning the relation amongart, science and participation. It contains sub genres of moving image and neuroscience alongwith a dream like surreal setup. Pinning you in the epicentre of the work is a direct but naturalrequest for your involvement. Strong use of contemporary systems with a surreal ideology anda desire for a futuristic output.

21

Kingsley Ng: The slightly out-of-place, out-of-time aesthetic projects a strong while hidden
narrative. It is as if one walks into a science-fiction setting, awaiting for things to unfold. Thereis great potentials in expanding this work into some kind of immersive theatre or experiential
piece.
Mizuki Takahashi: I cannot see how the visitor interact with the work from given concept anddescription of the work. The work looks interesting but it seems to render the prop of dreammachine inspired by the novel “Nebula Suite”.
Vacuum Cleaners
Tamás Waliczky: Nice concept, simple but well-made computer game about environmental
damages. For me a bit didactic.
Bryan Chung: It is a well-designed and crafted VR game with educational purpose.
Joseph Cutts: Though a ‘playful’ VR experience in its element of participation and design, it
outlines a very serious subject matter and raises awareness, the work therefore holds a great
deal of impact and provokes in both its narrative and form.
Kingsley Ng: A no nonsense game about our everyday situation.
Mizuki Takahashi: I like the idea to apply the gamification to enhance the awareness of air
pollution. The graphic is also sophisticated. Wondering what the player can learn after
rescuing the people from air pollution and the ending of game.

22