thThe 13 ifva Single-Screen-Based Interactive Media Category Jury Meeting Transcript

Jurors in Attendance: Ellen Pau (PAU), Frederic Lichtenstein(FRED), Draughtzman(DRAUGHTZMAN), Bryan Chung (CHUNG), Endy Fung (FUNG)
Organizer Representatives: Bobo Lee (LEE), Mickey Choi (CHOI)

LEE:

There‟s some regulation here. For every year, people say that it‟s quite flexible forthe jury to discuss on the prize for we don‟t have a strict regulation, just aframework. You can also be creative on your judgment. Judges should ask theentrance on content, creativity, form, structure, technical or media application, or
overall fitness for the purpose etc. You can be everything, but of course all should
go back to the objectives if we can‟t unify our opinons. So we can start our
discussion for the final six selected works. …

PAU:

I think we have kicked 9 works out due to their immaturity, mostly on content, that
includes technology too.

LEE :Why don‟t we go through the opinions about the works.

Alliance

FRED:

I do like Alliance very much … . I think it is a real pity that the capture device is notworking too well, clearly two spots, two angles … making it difficult to really …

PAU:

I think the space is just too little.)

FRED :

Yes, I think is the lighting, you should look carefully, … there are two spots where
the light is too strong, and the camera is not…. The light … very well picture…. But
that‟s a technical problem. I think the concept of … I like the first one very much.
Though I cannot read Chinese I can at least understand the concept very well, it
must be fun to place the characters, there‟s still a linear sentence yet you can placethem with different associations. However, I find the interaction is not very clear
where you can place your character and then press „enter‟ and kind of missing thisconfirmation [ process]?

DRAUGHTZMAN : You are talking about the Alliance?

FRED :

Yes, because as you are moving, the characters appear, but you are not sure when

it is going to be fixed, it seems the process is still not totally refined, it is more of atechnical issue. On the concept I like it very much.

CHUNG: Regarding concept I have one question about this work: how did the artist come up
with those selection of Chinese characters, and under what type of context doesthat collection of characters be applicable to this piece of work. The second
question is the alignment of the two surfaces – the projection which is vertical, andthe horizontal movement of the human body on the ground, which is kind of indirect
in a sense that it could be better if the projection of those characters is also on the
ground of the horizontal surface. And the movement of the audience/visitors would
form a very direct correlation between the movement and the appearance of thosecharacters.

And also I agree with Frederic that the confirm[ation] , it is quite difficult to call out
from the software, we don‟t have the kind of visual feedback to identify how long weshould wait for the letter to confirm at that particular location. How long we should
stand over there for a couple of seconds or how many seconds.

Another suggestion is the messiness of the whole presentation, whether the artist
would consider, for a couple of minutes, some of those words can disappear, andjust keep some of those most recent ones to make it more tidy for the wholepresentation.

DRAUGHTZMAN :I found that to me I don‟t find the confirmation of the action is a problem,
as you can stay there for a little bit longer, and then you can have theletters coming up from your body. This is my impression. Second thing isthat when we get away from there for a while, there are just lines, nomore words there. You said they are still messy. Do you mean that thelines still give you a messy feeling?

CHUNG: Without much related to the intent, which I‟m not sure about the intention of theartist, those messy, zigzagging lines, whether they are intended to be there as
something for the visitor to experience without those characters. It‟s not exactly
clear, I‟m putting it into the design of the original work, I‟d try to keep some of themost recent ones, previous ones or more ancient ones. Or you can change theshade or different transparency to keep the overall presentation more tidy orpleasant.

DRAUGHTZMAN :First of all I‟m not saying I like that piece. But one thing I found,technically, it is much more difficult than Pixsonic Playground.
Pixsonic Playground is very candy sweet. However, when you walk
down there your shadow actually is one of the problems. That is why theartist used two projections, one on top one on the horizontal I think hewanted to get rid of the shadow and just wanted to capture theaudience‟s route or movement only. This is my opinion. If he can solve
the problem of keeping on the horizontal and also getting rid of the
shadow, this will be better.

FUNG:

For Alliance, technologically I‟m not very clear about it, but I think about concept
maybe he got a very good concept, but as a user, just a normal user, I justexperience the work.

Actually I can‟t find the logic or what he wants or what I can

get from it … cos the Chinese characters, whenever I jump or move, thecharacters seems to be theirs characters … I can‟t follow the logic about when thischaracter will be here or another group will be … he said is construct of thisconstruction, but I can‟t see the logic within it. Or just for a few minutes I playaround it … I think it is not just a matter of confine making of this model, just theoverall experience, I can‟t get what he wants me to take away.

I think this is my

opinion about the work.

FRED :

In fact for me it‟s not the first time that we encounter this kind of problem. Last year
we had a piece you had a lady in a shower, and through the white steam out of theglass the naked body is revealed, it is a Peeping Tom kind of process revealing theimage very interestingly. The concept was right, but the motion tracking was totally
faulty, it was detrimental to the viewer‟s experience.

So we had been devising if there was a possibility for IFVA to give technical support
on the motion tracking. However it seems that many of the projects are developed
within an academic framework, and that often means that the teachers encourage
the students to develop their own tracking system… That is very valuable from andacademic standpoint, but ultimately I don‟t care whatever tracking system wasselected, I just want it to work well! It seems that it is a repetitive pattern. I evensuggest that next year there should be a budget allocated to help improving thepieces technically All pieces using motion-tracking device should be carefully
evaluated, and sometimes another device proposed just for the exhibition. Because
on the perspective of user experience, even if the concept is right, you as an
audience get very little out of it.

FUNG:

I don‟t know if it is just a matter of motion-tracking, or also the logic behind, how hecame up with the words.

PAU:

Just want to make a conclusion.

Conceptually we appreciate the concept of thework, but there‟s one quite important thing that the artist may not indicate well, iswhere the text comes from. That also affects the concept, but still I think we are veryloose or generous, we still think that the concept is quite outstanding. About thetechnology, from the written description of the work, and with the interactive
experience of the work, we can see that the interaction logic is really very blurred.
We cannot really identify how the interaction makes sense to us as an audience,and there are a lot of problems with how we stand in front of the work, that means
how the motion-tracking technology is being used, how it is being fully utilized. And
then the third thing we discussed is about the aesthetic point of this work. Basically
it is a black and white projected screen-based work, and aesthetically it is reallyminimal, and because it‟s minimal, the lines are really dominant, but the indicationof why the lines are there is not so prominent, and because it is black and white, it is
not as sweet or attractive as other works. So this is the conclusion that I draw, And I
totally agree with you.

FRED :

I think it‟s better to go through the works and then give marks …

LEE :If we do not have further comments on Alliance, then we can go to Colour Trend.

Color Trend

CHUNG: Maybe I try to compare this with, and I also mixed it up with the Pixsonic
Playground. Why because both of them tend to obtain the content from figure orfrom online material. In terms of this particular aspect I think this one is a bit better
than Pixsonic Playground in terms of using figure as the source of content andmaterial because in Pixsonic Playground, the user is to type the name of the tag, I
think it‟s more artificial action or gesture in order to access the content, but this one
it tries to pick up the colour of the clothings from the audience, which interpretingthe colour coding and then uses it as a key or tag to locate material from figure. It is
more, not exactly intuitive, but is more subtle than typing the names in the tag fields.
And the problem I tried to look into this piece of work is, whether this work issuitable for gallery display or not, and also whether it is suitable for just one single
display or whether it will be better, for example, if it is an online work, which the usercan just stay at home, and [people from] different geographic locations in the world
can interact through the colours in front of the webcam, and at a particular locations
it will make more sense to try to look for the colour similarity across different
geographic

locations and cultural backgrounds.

Because I read the material

provided by the artist in the first round of assessment, she mentions some sort ofmore GPS related information, location related information in terms of usage ofcolours in different locations in the world or different cultural backgrounds. I can‟t
see this type of material reflected in just one single installation location in a gallery
but if it turns into a more online material can be much more interesting in this sense.

PAU:

I‟m a bit disappointed with this work. If it is a network, I always envision a work thatplays with the internet should play around with all the data that is happening in realtime and usually that will be massive [amount of] data, but now this work only deals
with a tiny volume of data, comparing the tiny volume of data that is collected on the
exhibition site with the massive volume of data online. In this comparison, I can‟tfind any meaning for comparing these two databases together. I‟m disappointed
with the lack of visual indication of the real time happenings. I agree that the work
could be better displayed as an online work, but still this quietness of the visuals
seems to be not very attractive, but at the same time, I don‟t see the meaning of
doing this, why it has to be so quiet, and I can‟t dig up any meaning from theinterface design. Conceptually, I also see no meaning in interpreting or relating
colours to adopting a topography of colour use in different locations or online
virtually and in real space. I don‟t see the reason in doing this. So conceptually I
also feel some sort of incompleteness in it.

FUNG:

I quite like the concept itself. I see some potential in it, but actually I think that theexecution is bad, it can‟t bring out what it can do or the potential it has. I thinkchecking the colours and then find the internet base and get some photos shouldhave a better way to present and to lead the audience to a further experience.
Maybe if you are going to check the colours of my clothes, maybe it is something
about trend or fashion, so the relationship about two databases should be stronger
in this kind of sense. Also I think now the experience of the interface as we see
now is too static, it doesn‟t have the meaning of why we got some not so related
photos in the scene. So what I want to say about this concept is I think it is better
than that Pixsonic Playground in the thinking of using the internet database, but
the execution is too bad and just let the good potential go.

DRAUGHTZMAN :Personally I took sometime to understand the work, trying to figure outwhat is happening, because I didn‟t know what was happening, when I
stood in front of it and see nothing happens, and eventually I discovered
the camera. And as a user, the computer took some time to scan thecolours, and it took a lot of time to download some images. And then I
found some wordings like… actually I was wearing black, but it‟ssomething related to white, and I tried to relate that it‟s working with the
opposite colour. Then the things displayed are not related to white either.
Therefore I was just figuring, and thinking what is the logic behind andhow the artist grabbed or analysed images that related to the colour
scanned, I couldn‟t find the strong relationship, and even from the visual
being displayed, It was quite difficult, maybe the message was quite
hidden that I can‟t really relate the statement above and the visualdisplay. And then I tried again and this time was black! Then the visual
images displayed was actually very close to the previous one, and I don‟t
see what is the difference between the first white part, and thensuddenly the same scanned pattern, same black and grey thing, andthen it was related to black the second time. I think over half of theimages are overlapping. Maybe the source of the images is limited sothey sought out the similar thing. Therefore to me I don‟t quite
understand… I think I understand her intention, but from the work I can‟treally depict the intention. It is not being carried out.

FRED :

Personally I don‟t have anything to add, you have said exactly what I think in ColourTrend and I had exactly the same experience.

LEE :Shall we move on the Fingering?

Fingering

DRAUGHTZMAN :Ok, the concept behind is interesting, however, I think technically, first ofall, when you got there, the motion tracking was not working. Mickey
tried to fix it and I think it was fixed, but I found that what I was expecting
is, I don‟t know whether you have this experience or not, the guys or theladies just points like this and this [from left to right horizontally and via],
but when I get down [shooting downwards], she cannot get this, andcannot get this [shooting upwards]. What I expect is more in-depth of a 3
dimensional enhancement of the motion, and I don‟t have it. Second

thing is that I waited for a long time and a long time, then BANG! And
that‟s it.

LEE :Then why didn‟t you try to escape?

DRAUGHTZMAN :I think also we have a problem when three of us just stand [separately]
here and there, it crashed and could not work! To me I understand his or
her intention which is quite interesting when we look into the HK kung fu
movies you find these things which are most dynamic and energetic, but
I found nothing here. If the artist wants to express this to me, then I
cannot catch it. What I can catch is when I read this [the work description
and artist statement]. To me personally I don‟t like this work.

FUNG:

I don‟t have much to say about this work, It is simple enough to understand, but is
too simple for me. And this type of stuff doesn‟t have new execution or new way topresent. Personally I don‟t think this is a good work.

FRED :

I have a similar experience of finding the motion-tracking erratic.. and then when it
eventually worked it was very disappointing in the sense that it has no depth neither
up and down, nor front and back. But I think it also echoes in the content itself,
because it is very aggressive. But you don‟t get much more than that, what I
understand in the end, she gets kill . But what I would expect is something slightly
more sophisticated into the message. And not only the interface was flat, but thecontent behind is very mono-dimensional, there‟s nothing else, so it doesn‟t give me
desire to play with it. I think it is aesthetically disappointing since an aggressive
behaviour has so many different origins and so many different outcomes as well.
You might be aggressive because of your parents and social pressure or maybe
you are like that, maybe you are medically sick, there are different backgrounds of it.
Also the way you express that violence can also go into shooting people or goingsuicidal etc. There are so many things to say about violence than just having thesepoint finger and, boom! It is very flat.

DRAUGHTZMAN : This reminds me there‟s some kind of static portrait, when you walk there,
it seems that the portrait is looking at you, even it doesn‟t have that kindof scary feeling.

CHUNG: To me I like the work, but I agree with the deficiency in the technical execution, andalso one of the major shortcomings I try to pinpoint from the viewing experience isthe element of kind of missing and disappearance. The reaction of the images is the
only reaction, it reacts to the direction you move left or right but I expect if I stand in
front of a real human being pointing a finger towards me, there should be some sortof emotional exchange between that guy and myself which could be revealed bypeople‟s facial expression or gesture. But somehow I cannot exchange at such kindof emotional exchange because the image is always kind of similar, the only
difference is the pointing direction. But I like some of those elements in the way she
dresses up or trying to make-up, is kind of ambiguous, similar to be on stage, astage that is so empty and void. This kind of ambiguity I tried to figure out from thevisual images. The other thing is, because the original display was in public space,which she mentioned in her documentation, one question I pose is that thecharacter dies in the end, I am not sure why she can come back to life in a couple ofseconds, finger pointing again. I try to make sense of this kind of looping which isvery often in these interactive works, and most artists can do this kind of looping to
put it into more concrete context, why something can loop, not just because oftechnical efficiency.

FRED :

I just don‟t agree on one point, the emotional feeling or feedback, because it is partof the violence when you have a serial killer like what happens in … it is also a factthat you cannot engage in anything. The guy shoots you , you can scream, you canshout, you can beg you do whatever, it‟s … It doesn‟t .. engage, that word makes it
so scary, so the fact that she is not showing any emotion is didn‟t go with me at all. I
kind of like the setting. Just there‟s nothing else. But I wouldn‟t necessary needsomething else to have an emotional exchange, but more … something more.

PAU:

The first time that I saw this work was in San Diego. And I think when I saw it, it was
the premiere. I guess the context of the work is to be put in a window in a shop front,
the artist expected to see audience or pedestrians walking by on the street, so she
expected linear movement of the audience, rather than they stay on and than lookat the image. So I guess she hadn‟t decided on the up and down movement
because she didn‟t expect people to move up and down. And then I first saw it fromthe other side of the street, so I could see the screen and the pedestrians, thewhole environment of the street. I could see [something] very interesting, like a
stage performance image to me, because I could see people walking and I could
see there‟s someone dressed up like a clown, someone like a killer in Kubrick film,and [she was] pointing at the pedestrian and never shoot them, and then she died.
It seems to be a very funny and entertaining performance when I watched it fromthe other side of the street. But when I went in, I crossed the street and thenstepped in front of the work, then I came across all the disappointment that you said,
that it was not so interactive, what‟s the point at just pointing at other guys. So I
think the context of the work is really important, because my first experience
watching the work from the other side of the street is quite entertaining, but when I
went to be the audience myself, then it was not so good an experience. So I think
this is a very delicate work, the visual image does not give me a lot of reading as
the artist statement had said. The artist statement said a lot of things that I don‟t seeon the image or on the context, but because she brings up body and technology, I
can relate to performance that I saw including the artist and the pedestrians, thatmaybe if she turns the tone a little, the whole thing will become more successful.
But now it seems that what is successful is just by chance, not really intentional.

DRAUGHTZMAN :I think we agree on a very essential point is that who is going toexperience the interaction. Is it the audience, or the artist? Actually we
did something [that was a ] failure in a place that we had made a lot oflighting, and a lot of people passed by, the lights tried to change.
However the pedestrians or audience could not feel it because when you
pass by, he couldn‟t feel the light change. However, the outsider will see
the experience. I think this is another interesting point. If you know thecontext please let us know. Actually I think the work down there is a little
bit out of context to us.

PAU:

But I think we have to judge the work from its context downstairs rather than fromthe context we know, because it so happened that I went to the show.

Pixsonic Playground

FRED :At least one interface that is working smoothly! But that makes a big difference
because I found the work pretty basic and enjoyable, but still it is too basic intracking motion, tracking colours, nothing new. I don‟t think there‟s anything further
than that. It is just the way the pixels move and it has paid attention to a number ofdetails that do make the audience‟s experience a lot more enjoyable, that deeper
work, that would be better from the academic perspective, but I‟m not …live up to
their expectation in terms of their making. In fact last year we have already beentalking about is there any better technical support or …it is often part of theacademic syllabus to take away that out of the programme so it is difficult to go any
further. However I do worry about what is the future of that category if we arealways being pulled back by the same technical problems. In ten years are wegoing to talk about the same problems?

PAU:

I feel that if we could give more support to the artists technically then we will havebetter works. We would still be discussing the technical part, because we arelooking for innovative technology. Right now we are in the stage of – I think a lot ofthings are very immature, the technical part is still exploring things that have been
done in foreign places.

FRED :

Even in Hong Kong….

PAU:

But they are all students …

FRED :

Exploring motion-tracking is .. should not be even be exploring!

PAU:

They are students. To them it‟s totally new. If we expect to see artists with 5 or 6
years experience in motion-tracking, I don‟t think you‟ll find the technology
problems. But now all these entries came from students. I think the biggest
technical support is from their school, which is the City University.

FRED :

They arrive pretty late in the making.

PAU:

I agree that we should give more technical support to all these entries to thecompetition, one sources is from the school, the other, not really support, butanother thing I would like to see is to have more experienced people to join thecompetition rather than just students. This will be much more important than justasking the Arts Centre which does not know how to help in terms of technology
while asking them to do the technical support for the work. If they can do a lot,
maybe in some special marketing strategy in order to draw attention to people whoare already in the industry and people who have been doing digital work for sometime, then we will see more mature work.

FRED :

I think your concern in marketing will be much appreciated, I‟m sure.

LEE :We do like to hear more comments on the development of the category…

PAU:

Originally, I tried to write the essay [for ifva], but I couldn‟t finish it as I was too ill
before… the main point of the essay that I was trying to write is about the Single
Screen Based Interactive Media Category, the Category should be reformed, weshould really think about reform the term “Single Screen Based” in future, becausewhen we think of this term “Single Screen Based” like 5 years ago, that was where
the CD Rom was more popular, the whole work could be really appreciated fromjust one single screen, but now it is not a single screen work, it is an installation withother material outside the screen. So it is a different consideration. There ismotion-tracking, meaning you have to give them a really decent space for thecamera to capture the motion, a well-lit room, at least, for example, in order tocapture the colour right. The colour as captured now I don‟t see it‟s right because,
as in Colour Trend, the colour that is captured is a bit dark. I give them my t shirt [awhite t shirt], that is not white, but is grey.

FRED :You should have washed it better…

PAU:

I know the white balance should be checked, but I expect the room is really a room
without any disturbance and the light source should be enough so that we canreally know whether the interface has any problem or whether the camera ispointing at the right direction or whatever. There are a lot of problems with this sortof installation based work, rather than a being single- screen based, it‟s more than asingle screen now. Of course I still stress on the interactive media. If we just ignore
the single screen based, if we just look at all these work as interactive media,
there‟s some sort of interaction using the mouse and keyboard, that you know thatyou are controlling something. Now there is a lot of control is not so… now thecontrol is, you pass by, and control part has a new definition.

LEE :As a consultant, we care much about the development of the awards, and we allknow why we have this category. You can refer to the title of the award, which isFilm and Video, starting from like 15 yrs ago, it used to be just film and video, and it
has a lot of room to improve and also I would suggest to have another meeting totalk about it, e.g. there are a lot of aspect, like marketing.

FRED :[on Pixsonic Playground] It is enjoyable …

PAU:

Actually when I first saw the written artist statement, I really doubt about the soundwhether it is interesting, and whether the interface is clean and meaningful. The
only thing that I don‟t know how to interpret is why there is a 3 D frame doing thisand that, I just don‟t understand why there are some images like that on theinterface. Because if it is an interface, I would appreciate a clean one, but if it is ascreensaver doing this and that, but then I was interacting with it and I hear music,
and then I suddenly see this …I just don‟t know why. Is it supposed to… because it

is not entertaining enough in the interface so they put on those things? I just don‟t
understand. Maybe it is more than just music and colour and interactive, there issome comment on other things, maybe visuals, but I just don‟t understand.

CHUNG: I try to approach it in a number of ways. The impression is they tried to integrate alot of stuff into one single piece of work. They work on the motion detection andinteractive music making. And also some sort of network media by using Flickr as
the source of the image to locate, and I can‟t see the reason why they tried to put indifferent types of material in one single piece of work, and the other thing is I try toapproach it is whether this is a piece of art work or a game like toy, or something
like a software tool, I tried to approach it from different directions. And for example I
tried to approach it as an interactive art, it is quite difficult for me to understand why
or how they would like to convert the images into music notes by something like aformula. And how come this particular formula is related to the agenda they put
forward as something intergated or arbitrary. It is difficult to tell whether this isarbitrary, just mapping one piece of images by analyzing the pixel information, andimmediately convert it into another number such as the MIDI notes or something
like that. There is quite a lot of those mapping like creative or art works that may not
make sense to the audience. The other thing is, if I try to approach it as a game or atoy, it is quite successful as it can deliver some music making or noise making tools
or toy, and if I approach it as a software tool to create music, or a software to
generate images, I‟ll try to look into the purpose of making this software and why
this is different from those in the market or in the art scene to create images ormusic. Because I do not have a judgment on how to develop a software as a pieceof art, in this particular context, so I try to drop this notion or this way to consider it
as a software, but the overall impression is that they have great technicalcompetency in terms of integrating everything together, but as a piece of work or
something they put in an art context, I do not think it is a very mature way toconsider a piece of art work.

PAU:

Actually when I experienced the work I really see it as a game. I don‟t think there is
any higher content of the work. I simply see… because the artist statement statesvery clearly that they want to deal with the visual and the audio, and interchange
more way between these two data. And how we can interact with this relationship. I
think they have done it quite successfully as a game. But as a game I don‟t
understand why those images come in. So there is still something that we cannot
solve.

FUNG:

I think it is relatively a more enjoyable experience with this work. I agree if this is agame, I can make my standard a bit lower… not too emphasis on thecommunication why they are doing. But I think the reason why they put all thethings together is they are too ambitious, they want to show that can do all these, I
think this is the only reason they are doing this kind of integration, and also thequestion Ellen said about that flying graphics is also another way of seeing they are
too ambitious to make the visuals like that. Actually if I don‟t question about theintended communication it wants to have, I don‟t have too much question about thework. It‟s just another not new stuff, enjoyable interaction, just sort of a game.

DRAUGHTZMAN :.

I agree that they are ambitious. They want to do a lot of interaction.
However I found that just randomly throw out the data, a kind of random
reaction to the human body, like I hear no music, I just see noise,
although this is music. Noise can be music, but music can‟t be noise, I
found it right here. And I think this kind of interaction technology is quite
common nowadays. However, what kind of reaction we throw out is kindof design which they can think about. Although they can use this kind ofmuch more easy techniques to do so. I found that they just randomly
throw out, not in-depthly think of the way they present, going to you andthey are just going to have a series of pictures going from here to there,
they just want to make it interesting. Although technically I like this work
because this is the most successful, however if you ask me to give theGold award, this could not be the one.

FRED :

I would go even further. The artist submitting works should really question himself
about what is the minimum level of requirement because now you see in shopping
malls pretty amazing things, very good working, well-thought, attractive pieces.
They are working on the same model line, like an indication of similar way of
thinking … [they can be changed into] fish, footballs, basketballs, but they work very
well, kids love it and play with it. If you ever take the train to Guangzhou, and in theplatform there is such thing. What is the difference, what is it that the artist wants toraise the level of self-expectation. I don‟t think he lives up to that.

Rubbing Tool

PAU:

We go to Rubbing Tool. The Chinese title is totally different from the English.

DRAUGHTZMAN :The Chinese characters are “meaning of insects”.

LEE :

They chopped up the word. If they are put together it should be “ant”. But if you
separate them into 2 individual characters it is “insect”, and “meaning”.

PAU:

I couldn‟t play with this, but I understand them when I read their documentation, butwhen I came here I couldn‟t play it. I don‟t know whether you [Mickey] have fixed it,
But I still understand the work. If the documentation was done in a comic book thenI think I‟ll appreciate more than the real interaction. Actually I appreciate how theybuilt the low-tech touch screen.

All these handmade screen thing along the frame

which I think they have done a lot of work. But conceptually I think the work isquite … it‟s real comical, and I really think that the idea should be more like a comicbook rather than an interactive work because it‟s kind of stupid for the audience to
see the ants have bubbles saying things to you. The whole thing is comical andfunny. But it is kind of stupid to do this sort of interaction.

FRED :In 2 or 3 years ago in Microwave Festival, there was a piece where you put down
your hand and it would get whipped. [that work is called] Pain Station. It was pretty
strong, many people got burned, some got bandaged. I think it is an amazing piece,
and because why would the audience interact with that, and yet they did. But I didn‟t,
I used my right not to injure myself. I took great pleasure at seeing the people
inflicting pain on themselves just for the sake of experimenting art! But I love thecynicism and very deep understanding of human nature, where the city can be thatinsane, very ambiguous use of what is the goal of an art piece, what is the
motivation of the user trying that. And in here, Ants seems to have this kind of very
cynical denotation of the aggressiveness of nature and of human beings killing ants
just for the sake of …. Instead of that, we had … Hello Kitty … bubble speech etc! I
think he or she missed the point. I even think that the artist has a duty, just taking anaesthetic point of view, if they want to do a bit more than just using colours andshapes. They should be ahead of the audience into that kind of thinking. They
should be philosophers instead of worshipping Hello Kitty. So I‟m not disappointed
but more like a deviant into …motivation… It is ethically questionable.

CHUNG: The only point I like is the directness of the interaction, the finger actually points
towards the ant, and this is where the interaction happens. It does not have theproblem with the other pieces of work which for example they need to have twointerfaces or one on the other side of the projection. I expect them to have asarcastic way to talk about solving the food problem. I can‟t see exactly how theyquestion, but they posed the question and what might be the solution in a comical

way. But it is not funny enough or sarcastic enough to make me think more or enjoy
besides rubbing my hand on the top of the table. I‟m not sure about the roughnessof the installation is purposely introduced or they have run out of money.

PAU:

But actually one very important thing that suddenly came up to me is the title
Rubbing Tool is actually one of the computer tool that we found on many
interfaces. That finger. So I think the artist has this image of doing this on thescreen. I really appreciate the interface of the touch-screen. I only agree with what
Bryan said, the interface is simple and is the only work that really thought about
how to interact with the artwork without a keyboard or a mouse, and using the body
is sometimes difficult in a place like the experimental gallery, but if you stick on the
single screen, it can be touch-screen now, which is good in utilizing your category. Itfits into this category perfectly. And it‟s also a handmade touch-screen, which I
really appreciate. To do very simple interface that is very intuitive that anybody
without the knowledge of using the mouse or keyboard can use, is also the trend ininteractive media, secondly it also really makes the line between the virtual screen
and real screen start to blur. It is not like controlling through a mouse and a
keyboard. So I appreciate this arrangement.

CHUNG: One more thing, if they could have some audio response.

FUNG:

I totally agree with Bryan, I think it‟s the only point that I like. Throughout all the work,it‟s the only one that when I interact [with it], I get a concrete response and I knowwhat I‟m doing. I think is not of a very high level, just a very common or base kind ofinteraction. …The concept itself. If I don‟t know that they are students …to me when
I read the description, I think they are too pretentious.

PAU:

But I really appreciate the broken paper around the edge of the screen.

DRAUGHTZMAN :Actually we cannot play this so that we don‟t know … However, only thisone arouses me [to think about] whether I am a serial killer. Yes I am aserial killer. According to the ants. And I kept on rubbing them, and to me
this is the one work that questions myself to the surrounding, much morethan just technically talking about colours, typography etc. But I don‟tknow if they set this title is because they really wanted to shock you ornot, but to me this is my impression. This is kind of anti-war statement
because if you are going to kill somebody and the food of the world you
can have it. This kind of thinking comes to my mind. And I like theprimitive and low-tech feeling, which means that they just want to show,
very primitively, just one idea and that‟s it. I like it.

We Didn’t Expect Him

DRAUGHTZMAN :I try to trigger it several times, and I found the opening device is kindof … actually you open this one [door] and this one [another door] you
can see the same video, however it just turns up if you trigger each time.
Actually I don‟t get so much feeling on this one, because it is the samething you have been seeing in a lot of movies before. It just turns out thatyou can use one view and another view and a third view like this. And I
cannot find the meaning behind or if I should stay long enough to see thewhole story. This is my feeling. I cannot grab too much.

PAU:

I think what upsets me in this piece is that why we have to open the door to peep
into a tiny video. If we open all three doors, we see the same video actually. It‟sreally upsetting for me because I don‟t like peeping.

FRED :

Generally the indication of someone who likes peeping is to deny it. [Laugh]

PAU:

I tried to watch the one minute video and I think it‟s not really telling me a lot about
the relationship as said in the artist statement. I guess it is just a one-minute videoof many people, I can‟t figure out the relationship. I only see people come in and sit
there, maybe motionless, maybe just doing things that I don‟t understand. So it‟s
not really absurd, but it‟s just things that I cannot interpret from such little
information provided.

And so the peeping becomes the major interaction and the

major thing in my memory. I think peeping is the main part of this work, then I
really … forget it then. If peeping is the main trunk of the reason for doing thisinstallation rather than giving me 3 one-minute works on a DVD, because the DVD
can also provide me with different angles and all the information. If you talk about
relationship, you can just give me a DVD, I can still choose my angle. But if you
need me to peep into a tiny door and then see the same moving image, then I think
there‟s a problem.

LEE :It reminds me of a work by Anson Mak …called “din gei ham lan”… it provides aseries of tapes, the viewer has to pick up the tapes by himself or herself, there‟s noorder, a very low-tech interactive. It‟s a very different work …

FUNG:The movie itself is not exciting, is quite boring. Maybe they got some concept, they
just want a simple installation and then you can see three angles of the story. It‟ssimple enough to understand, but actually I agree with you is that why don‟t you
give me a DVD. One simple suggestion is that they can put three holes in threedifferent positions, that you can see different things from different angles, not threeside by side. A very simple and low-level suggestion.

CHUNG: My question is in what way did the artist try to question the role of the audience or
the participants and why or how she can anticipate the reaction of the audience aspart of the installation work, because it is not just a single channel view of the threedifferent clips of video. According to the documentation, the doors are separated ina bigger distance, they were not put together in one tiny box, and they happened to
be in different corners in a room the size of this panel. And the viewers cannot see
two holes together at the same time. You need to peep at one and then close it and
go to the other one to peep the other, which maybe different from the settings
downstairs, which you open three of them at the same time and you found they are
just the same image and same screen. My problem is the role of the audience. Are
they going to have some intimate [contact] as mentioned by the artist relation in thestory or related to someone else in some of those characters or situation in thevideo? I found that it is quite difficult, because you peep through the hole as an
outsider trying to understand or to comprehend what is going on within the video
clips, but it fails most of the time because they don‟t have those information as towhat was going on in the story, so it is quite difficult to make those comment
according to content and context material, the only way I try to relate it is how I canrelate myself with the way of interacting with the 3 doors and also the peeping
actions which is something quite detached from the content material.

FRED :I was really looking forward to experience the installation and I had a lot of
expectations because, from what I had read about it, and previewed in the DVD thatwas provided, it seemed a lot more interesting. It would have been a very good
example of something between the film and video sides of this festival: on one side
a lot of talented directors, and on the other side talented interactive artists. Until
now it seems that there are virtually no bridges between the two different worlds. I
was also looking forward to experience the installation because it had goodreferences to previous artists:

Marcel Duchamp, Kieslowski . This is where it

fails … flat, it does not have the extension of movie making, very short, very basic.
It showed me exactly the same thing three times in just three different angles. While
I would be a lot more interested to see three different variations, or every time Iopen the same door I see something slightly different versions of the same angle,
and exploring what is the truth and from different angles, the subjectivity of thecamera and using the interaction to explore. I was very disappointed from acinematic perspective, … the three doors that are so close to each other, the simple
fact of having distributing the view points a lot more, also introduce the idea of manyscenes slightly different, but here is the same screen, and the characters didn‟twork so well, they were just doing the same thing. ..You had a lot of good promises,
but it falls short of expectation.

That‟s a pity because; frankly there is a lot more interest in the potential of a work
like that rather than in motion tracking. That‟s my personal view.

[voting]

1st round voting:Gold

SilverSpecial Mention

Ailliance121

Color Trend

--

--

2

Fingering

--

--

2

Paxonic Playground

1

2

1

Rubbling Tool

--

3

1

We Didn’t Expect Him

--

--

--

[Jury decided not to present Gold award for this year and took the 2nd round voting for SilverAward among the top 3 works: Alliance, “Panoxic Playground” and Rubbing Tool .]SilverAilliance

3

Pixsonic Playground2

Rubbing Tool

3Single-Screen-Based Interactive Media Category
Gold Award
Nil

Silver Award

Alliance
Wing-fat WONG

Silver Award
Rubbing Tool
Yu-ho KWOK, Wai-yu CHAN

Special Mention
Pixsonic Playground
Hon-him CHEUNG, Jason Chi-fai LAM