thThe 12 ifva Single-Screen-Based Interactive Media Category Jury Meeting Transcript

Jurors Present: Bryan Chung (CHUNG), May Fung (FUNG), Frederic Lichtenstein(FRED), Ray Chung (RAY), Pong Lam (LAM)
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Chelsea Man (MAN)KWONG:We are going to have the jury meeting for the Single-Screen-BaseInteractive Media Category. Today is the second round, which means we will
choose the awards for this year and this is the main objective for today. During
the meeting, we are going to do some audio documentation. The reason forthat is the discussion you guys are going to have will be very important for the
finalists, especially when you give comments and advices. We are going totranscribe this audio documentation, and post it on the web so that the finalists
can see it in April.
I just go through briefly the objective: the reason why we have the ifva
competition is to discover and nurture the next current of moving images bothin Hong Kong and Asia. And we also hope to encourage the exchange within
the Region. For the regulations for the jury members, the criteria will base on
the content, creativity, form and all the technical details. This year, we haveeight finalist works. We have already seen them a moment ago in the exhibition.
I have to tell you first about the awarding structure. What we propose is, for thiscategory, we will have one gold award, and the winner will be entitled to have
$30,000 and software. The silver award will have $20,000. There will also be
three special mentions, who will only be given a certificate. So this is the
structure that we propose, but of course we are very flexible. Maybe you guys
can decide this year, we may give out two gold awards, or two silver awards, orsomething like that. We will redistribute the cash prizes according to theoriginal ratio among specific awards assigned to this category. We will takecare of that. So that’s the introduction.

FUNG:

What is the software?

KWONG:

It is sponsored by Adobe, the latest version. So may I propose five of you to
discuss about each of the works. Then maybe we can do some voting for thesecond round to decide the awards.

Her home.
FUNG:

The gate, the iron gate. We open the gate and nothing happened.

CHUNG:

Some of the buttons do not work.

FUNG:

It’s an incomplete work, or to be explored further.

KWONG:

Full stop?

FUNG:

Yes. (Laugh) Because you guys will definitely have something to say.

FRED:

I remember that in the first meeting, obviously, it had some technical problems,and I am expecting to see a fixed version today. It’s embarrassing because I
don’t think I would have selected it if it is not to be fixed. I tried it in Mac, insome of the platforms, and in one of the platforms – I don’t remember which
one - I can see more.

FUNG:

Yes, there are some words, some texts. There should be something more,KWONG:but today, it doesn’t happen.
So, any advice for improvement?

All together:Fix it! (Laugh)

All about Ho Chung
FUNG:

A work with content, to a certain depth, various kinds of, for example, sounds
images, documentary…there are all kinds of visual variations, I should say,there is style. In some parts, it foretells something. It’s not only the pass or thepresent, but also about the future. So it’s quite developed – I don’t know if I
should use the word – but it is.

LAM:

It’s kind of completed.

FUNG:

Yes, kind of completed.

RAY:

I clicked out a video, and when I tried to click on another video, it didn’t work.
You have to close the opened video first. You can only see the videos one byone. The work can be developed better, technically.

LAM:

I think we should first decide how we judge these pieces; because I see thatsome of them (the finalists) are professionals from the industry. They may bevery good technically. So it may not be fair for the others – for sure, if they did
not fix the works, it’s their faults. But it may still be not fair to talk about thetechniques, because some of them have been doing it for a long time in theindustry. I want to ask if we should find a method to judge.

FUNG:

So there should be two dimensions, the content and the technique. Should
there be a percentage? I don’t think so. At the end, we will combine the twothings, to see if the work is technically well-supported to reflect the content.

LAM:

Right now, we are talking about content, because at first, you(Fred) areaddressing the contents, and then you(Ray) talk about the technical issues. So
I think we may first talk about the content, and then the technical aspects.

RAY:

I think the first two works have too many technical problems, so that’s why it’sdifficult to talk about the content. We cannot see some of the scenes, andsome buttons didn’t work. So it’s difficult to talk about the content.

FUNG:

But All About My Ho Chung is not that bad! I think, technically, it’s not
excellent, but it’s manageable. And Her Home? What should we do about Her
Home?

FRED:

For All About My Ho Chung, I still consider it as a nice work. It’s not great,but I think it fits rather nicely to the identity of ifva that it’s also built a bridge
between movie-making and interactivity. In this sense, it is one of the few
in-depth works we’ve seen that are more exploratory in using video andinteraction. And obviously it’s not a very great piece neither, but it’s touching…I
love the grannies.

CHUNG:For All About My Ho Chung, I tried to approach it as similar to a
documentary film which is more related to research of ethnography or otherkinds of social researches. The author has done a lot in collecting information
for the content, in reflection of her opinions about the area where she has lived
for long. The way to present it may not be very technically convincing, in termsof the creative interface or the interactive design. But the work is kind of acarrier to let the audience to access the different materials that she has

collected for years and months. I try not to focus too much of the technicalissues like the use of programming, but rather to see the approaches she used
to present the materials collected.
FRED:

If I may suggest something, I think it is a bit too long, (Laugh) because you
can appreciate it only if you spend a bit of time. Most of the other pieces, few
seconds or a few minutes are enough. It would not give many credits to thedepth of All About My Ho Chung. It’s inviting people to stay. Obviously, thework was not great for its graphic design or interactive fun, but for its in-depth
content.

The Sound of Market
FRED:

I still like it very much. It’s so relevant to Hong Kong.

RAY:

The graphic is nice, I think. It’s somewhat creative, but I think it can be further
developed, like, when the price drop, then you can hear some tragic sound…I
think it may be just too simplistic to associate just the stock price with thenotes.

FRED:

The convention of music in a system is rather complex to talk about, but theoverall idea is very good. The other thing to add as information about that pieceis that it’s assuming live from the internet, but it’s not real-time. It needs thestatistic of a whole year in order to have enough data for the fluctuations tocreate the music. I think that should be explained a bit better…I would also beinterested to see some historical events had affected the market, like the 97
handover, the financial crisis and some other positive elements. The work candisplay them on and off. It’s more interesting to know more.

CHUNG:

I have similar thoughts. I think this work, and also Henry’s pervious works,
are very nice programs about visualization and consolidation of data. What
Frederic mentioned is the content – what facts these data has reflected oursociety as related to a broader sense of the life of the people…I think this work
has stopped at the point of visualizing the data, in real-time or not, in which thevisualization of or the mapping between the data/information and thevisual/sound seems to be feasible for anything.
In a sense, it can be anything which seems to be detached from the content
of historical moments which are actually reflected from the data of the stock
market.

Meta-fishpond
LAM:

It has nothing special for me.

KWONG:

No comment on the content?

FRED:

I think the Meta-fishpond is a nice and of a certain type of interactive
installation. I don’t think it can really go further. I see more and more of thesedevices in shopping malls. I am sure that he has found a nice way to make it,
and it’s relevant to China…it’s nice, it’s visually pleasing, it’s relaxing…but it’salmost a decline of a certain type of interactive exploration. If next year
someone proposes something like that, what are we going to do? We aregoing to turn it down, but in fact, it’s something that’s already been done formany many times. It’s just that he has found a nice way to display.

LAM:

And all the interactions are not what the artists made – it’s the software. A goodwork should be able to make good use of those skills to speak your ideas. Andmaybe it will become another transformation, but I don’t see suchtransformation in such case. For example, The Sound of Market, as you see it,is data transformation from numbers to music. I would say that was the gooduse of technology, making use of technology to transform your idea. But in the
Meta-fishpond, I see so many fishes. My job is to make such things so I knowhow easy it is. So I would say the Meta-fishpond is good, pretty, but what else
it brings to us?
Musical Loom
FRED:

Even if it is in simplistic form, I was totally amazed by the initial piece, and I
understand all the logistical problems, because the original piece is a massive,industrial work. And it would be very costly and it would take all the space toexhibit it.

KWONG:The space is not a major problem, but also the cost and insurance.

FRED:

It’s now presented in a bare-bones way, and it loses part of the poetic
values. We did suggest that we could have a kind of a simple Loom of some of
the Asian countries like Burma, Cambodia and Laos where they have Looms
and the factories. They do have looms…The loom presented in the pieceshould be pretty different from any others…So, it would not be exactly thesame thing, but it’s just very bare to present it like that. It’s not giving the full
depth of what it could be. What I really like about the piece is the music
generated, and the force of the users’ immersion.

RAY:

So do we judge from this work or from the original piece?

FRED:

Very good question! What has been submitted for the selection was thewritten one. What we are given today is the piece presented. So I have also
thought of your question: what are we judging? The piece submitted, or thepiece we saw today?

KWONG:

I think this kind of questions is also related to other works, like the TV Clocklast year. The ideal presentation was not what we saw last time. We have justpresented the idea. We have discussed with the artist about the MusicalLoom. At the end, because of limited budget, he chose to present his work inthis way. Maybe we should judge the works in reference to the example of the
TV Clock.

FUNG:

I don’t know, but for this moment, we will see the completeness, or at least
the incompleteness of the works, because it’s really their choice. For ifva there
is such limitation, and actually they should consider how much of their work
could convey to the juries. And now we have to use our imagination. Is it fair? I
don’t know. Of course we can. There is a Loom, and then it’s very poetic.
Honestly speaking, it’s the best work, but it’s not completed.

FRED:

To add a little money to display also the original piece, so that the people canreally understand how the best original piece is. Because of the technical andlogistic problems, it is not possible to have it entirely seen in Hong Kong. So
you can only experience a lower version of it. In this way they can still be able
to have a vision of the original work that they may only be seeing 10% of what
it is…So is it possible to spend a small amount of money to add a DVD player
to loop on the side? So for the visitors of the exhibition, they can at least view
the video (of the original concept).

KWONG:

Yes, we will look into it. That’s the question we will discuss about, but for thistime we can only present the bare bones of some of the works. Actually wehave the intentions to discuss with other partners in Hong Kong to show someof the works in their ideal set-up.
The Peeper
FRED:

The Peeper is one of my favorite pieces, and I still like the concept very
much, although the display is disappointing…But more than anything else thepicture that we view is not sharp enough. Unless you actually take the video
and review the whole picture, it’s very difficult to have an idea of what the
picture would become. It questions the whole piece itself, because if people
can’t understand what is behind, then they would not be interested in playing.
And if they are not interested in playing, they would not get that sense oferoticism.

FUNG:

It’s okay; they cannot really be the peepers!

FRED:

Exactly! They don’t get teased.

CHUNG:My question is whether the set-up is done by the artists of the students of IVEor the organizers?

KWONG:

It’s done by the designers, which is the students from IVE.

FUNG:

Was it under the instruction of the artist? So the artist would just let thepeople to treat his work like this? Who was the designer of the whole set-up?

KWONG:The original concept was designed by the students, but the artist has
participated in the discussion.

Bloated City/Skinny Language
RAY:

This one is not creative, except of the morphing of Chinese characters. It’s
similar to the Meta-fishpond, there are too many of this kind.

FUNG:

But I think the content of it is a little bit more. I can appreciate the title “Skinny
Language”, but I don’t quite see “the Bloated City”, to be honest. I think it’s alittle bit more than the Meta-fishpond, I mean, intellectually. It’s also because
the characters go with the human beings. So it adds a certain kind of
dimension.

LAM:

The Meta-fishpond also goes with human…

FUNG:

But it’s not that. I don’t know how to explain.

LAM:

That’s what I am trying to say.

FUNG:

There is certain kind of – if I could use the word - transcendence. But for the
Meta-fishpond, it’s just interesting and that’s all. You stop there. For the
Bloated City/Skinny Language, you can think a little bit more.

LAM:

I think the artist to do with the Chinese characters is clever.

FUNG:

Clever, but not intelligent? (Laugh)

LAM:

I agree with you that, as comparing with the Meta-fishpond, it does convey
more things.

FUNG:

But when the characters cover you all up, it gives you a certain kind of
psychological discomfort. I tried to stand there that all the words cover me andsubsume me and you feel that you are not in existence. Although you say thatthe artist is clever, to be honest, I didn’t like his works. But his time he is better
than before. He has really thought a little more. He gives a scary psychologicalexperience. I looked at you when you played and I found it very scary. And thenI stood there by myself, it was really scary.

LAM:

I don’t have that feeling… (Laugh)

FUNG:

It goes with you. But the work is actually fragmented, not completed. I worked
a little bit more in my mind; it’s very spontaneous that I don’t want to try tointerpret his work. That’s my reaction, and it’s definitely different from theMeta-fishpond, which is very shallow.

CHUNG:

One of the misreading or misunderstandings is the use of the double
screens. Is it the original designs?

KWONG:

I would like to explain that. Originally the artist requested for a bigger screen,
but by that time we could not get it. So that’s why he presented it in double
screens. He did some adjustments. Last week, we finally found a bigger one,but he did not have enough time to readjust everything. So that’s why hepresents in this way.

FUNG:

But initially, were there always two screens? When I stood in front of the twomonitors, it’s kind of swinging. Sometimes I wanted to go from one side toanother side. I really felt a kind of tension. But you have to be patient with thework.

CHUNG:The interesting things about this piece are, firstly, the single projection. The
other point is that the interaction between the player and the Chinesecharacters is much more complicated than the Meta-fishpond. When you
move or stop, it is reflected in those animated characters. It takes some time tofamiliarize with those movements of the characters. I guess it will be more
impressive if it was with only one screen.

FRED:

I think the artist has found something very interesting and very relevant with
Chinese characters. In Chinese characters you have the strokes and you
also have the empty spaces between the strokes. I found that the motion andstillness are very much related to Chinese characters. At the same time, a bit
like Meta-fishpond, I think we are saturated with this kind of installation. I am
kind of worried about what are we going to see next year. It’s just repeating thatpeople make small adjustments to explore different things, but the basic
vocabulary is very limited in this kind of setting. I kind of like this piece, but I do
not push the next contestants to explore this very stereotype interactive setting.

FUNG:

It’s just like the development of film. In the beginning, there would definitely
be technical copying, if you’d like to use the word, but then people would find it
necessary to develop a theme or something like that. So it’s kind of a gradualdevelopment of a new media, and, again, I cannot see the bloated city! It’s too
big a name…it’s exaggerating.

Homage to Ando Tadao
FRED:

Homage to Ando Tadao really raises the question of what we propose fornext year. What we have discussed previously is that, if the competition should
open for pure simulations or documentations. Then the piece does not have tobe presented, or even visible, because there is something that technicallycannot be achieved, for money or whatever technical reasons. But at least, theidea will be there. I personally believe that, like what I wrote for the catalogue, itwill open up creativity and enable more artists to join this category. Since wehaven’t decided this year; it’s very difficult to judge these pieces, in comparison
to the others. Additionally, I don’t think they are very well-documented neither.
We don’t understand what is interactive and what is not. It’s totally fine for me
to have an interactive DVD and an interview with the artist to explain theconcept and technical problems. Also we can have a simulation or adocumentation of these. But now, we are only confronted to images which are
not clear and it’s up to us to decide what happened. If next year, thecompetition is open for simulations and documentations, the participating
works should also be better documented.
FUNG:

There should always be a section for these simulations and documentations,but there should also be a different category for those which can actually,physically be presented…

KWONG:

So there should be two divisions?

FUNG:

If we really want to have more simulations for creativity, it’s a good idea. Also
it does not take a lot of resources for us to do. But still it’s different from what
we can really see as physically set-up.

FRED:

For that it’s very much like in the academic world. Most students’ assignments
do not have to be finalized, but at least they have to present it well enough sothat the teacher can really understand…although if we really have the pieces,
we will all be stopped. If we neither have the piece nor a good documentation,it’s like neither here nor there.

KWONG:

Do you think you are ready for the nominations?

RAY:

Do we have a conclusion of if the Musical Loom be considered?

FRED:

The question is should we consider it as the submitted work or the final work.

FUNG:

The Homage to Ando Tadao may have a good idea…I would try to put theMusical Loom as better than All About My Ho Chung. But All About My Ho
Chung is more localized than the others, it’s good…for the Musical Loom, if
the whole piece is set up, it will probably get the gold award.

FRED:

Why don’t we just vote for each of them?

RAY:

Actually I don’t really like All About My Ho Chung. I think there are notenough layers. For example, when I clicked on the hoist, nothing went further.
And I clicked the “back” icon, it just went back.

LAM:

For All About My Ho Chung, the problem is the technical insufficiency, but theworst, in terms of technical issues, should be Her Home.

FRED:

I like All About My Ho Chung, it’s nice, but it’s only average. Frankly I don’t
see any future of this kind of works like All About My Ho Chung. I would liketo see some works with really good movie-making, really good graphic andin-depth content… like the Meta-fishpond or the Bloated City/Skinny
Language, which are technically better. However, All About My Ho Chung is
like a book. Books will be there after a thousand years. A format like that of All
About My Ho Chung is a format that I don’t think I will ever get bored of. But
for the Meta-fishpond or the Bloated City/Skinny Language, in a few more
years, everyone will not play with it anymore. At the same time, I don’t think it’s

graphically, or in terms of video-making, editing, graphic and storytelling, I don’t
think that it’s deep enough.
LAM:

In some pieces, we don’t see love inside. There is no passion and love. But All
About My Ho Chung got it. It’s very intense.

FUNG:

I never knew Ho Chung, not even of such a name. But after this piece, I want
to see more of the place; I want to go to Ho Chung. It’s quite athree-dimensional description of the people and the space.

KWONG:

How about Her Home?

FRED:

She could have fixed it for the exhibition. I remember that, in the pervious
meeting, we would consider it in the exhibition assuming that it would be
fixed…

FRED:

Technically, Meta-fishpond is not very satisfying in the display.

FUNG:

I support it.

KWONG:

Shall we then go immediately to nominate the gold award or you want tohave more discussion?

FRED:

Instead of just voting, I would suggest us to vote for the titles…gold, silver orthe special mentions. For All About My Ho Chung, I would definitely vote for
special mention. But not for gold, you see what I mean.

FUNG:

Works should be really completed in order to get gold, as to be fair to thefestival. It’s a pity that Her Home is not fixed…

RAY:

Even if it fixed, it is still not very creative.

LAM:

I think I can give The Sound of Market the gold award.

FUNG:

But technically it’s not very good…the sounds do not change fast enough,isn’t it?

LAM:

It’s quite smooth. If you type in a set of 4-digits code, it will work.

FUNG:

How can you know it should be 4-digits? It is not clearly instructed.

LAM:

If you are an insider of the Stock Market, you would definitely know…

FRED:

It’s not the clearest part, but I figured it out pretty quickly.

KWONG:

So there are two works to be nominated for the gold award – Musical
Loom and The Sound of Market.

FUNG:

You really have to convince me because I see several imperfections in The
Sound of Market It is not user-friendly. It doesn’t create a lot of variations; itdoesn’t transform a lot, only from data to musical notes. You cannot feel its
relation with the Stock Market.

LAM:

I have listened to the stock codes from four corporations. I heard that thework, apart from just transforming, it has added something. It does not follow
merely to the trends of the Stoke price. I heard the layers in the music, which is
not directly reflecting the up-and-down of the Stock Market. He is playing withthe figures. He is trying to transform the figures to something in-depth. He is
telling us the possibilities after the numbers.
FUNG:

But it’s called The Sound of Market. It framed the work. It’s not like “TheSound of Digits”, or “The Sound of Numbers”…it’s fine. It’s reasonable in thatway, but not now. The Musical Loom is much better in the sense that it givesme the feeling of transcendence. You can feel something of higher level.

FRED:

The two pieces are the most related to the environment. The Musical Loom
is an interpretation of the French city that the artist lived in where was thethtextile industry in the 19 Century. It was an industrial centre, but it declined
because of globalization and urbanization. The piece is responding the current
situation of the city: the quotation mentioned that there is a 44% unemployment
rate. As it’s difficult to find jobs, there are also alcoholism and family problems.
The Sound of Market is also very much related to the city, the environment ofHong Kong. I really appreciate this dimension and The Sound of Market atleast presents in a way that it works fine without bug in the flow. If the Musical
Loom was really presented physically, it would obviously be more achieved.
For The Sound of Market, we hear the sound but we don’t know which
company it is creating the data to form the music. However, it’s working very
well! In the way it’s presented, it’s working very very well. So I don’t think it isvery unfair to give the gold award to The Sound of Market.

FUNG:

So you think that it’s perfect?

FRED:

No, I am saying it’s perfect.

LAM:

It’s nothing perfect here. (Laugh)FRED:

If you judge on the documentation, I will place the Musical Loom muchhigher. But by what we have seen in the exhibition, The Sound of Market is a
bit better. I would give a slight advantage to the Musical Loom. But, again, do
you think it would be possible to add a little screen to show the documentation,
so as to be justice for the piece?

CHUNG:

Did the artist know that they could only have a discounted version for theexhibition? The artist may want to only show the work with full content, that if
they could not do, they would only show the documentation; or the artist may
prefer showing the discounted version, in the way that he thinks the discounted
version would still show an impression of the work.

MAN:

He wanted to put a TV there to show the documentation, but as the TV was
too large, so we asked him to put it away.

FRED:

But even a small one will do!

MAN:

Maybe he wasn’t able to find a smaller one, but anyway, he did want to show
the documentation.

FUNG:

I still think that the name “Sound of the Market” is not appropriate…he should
be more careful naming the work.

RAY:

I don’t find it inappropriate. It’s really the Stock Market and the Stock Price

FUNG:

But it needs to be accessible!

RAY:

For the Musical Loom, as it is a documented version, it has avoided all thepractical problems. Maybe it is actually difficult to play with it, but as it is just a
documented version, you cannot tell.

CHUNG:

One more comment on the Musical Loom: it’s site-specific to the area where
he selected to show the work. It’s about the textile industry (of the Northern
France). But when it is transported to Hong Kong, all the contextual meanings
would be absent for the Hong Kong audience. It’s similar to the Homage toAndo Tadao, which is also a site-specific work that if it is transported toanother area, there will be another kind of interpretation. In this case, it’d bebetter if he allows the showing of another version in our own context, but still
relating to or reflecting his original idea. It’s not contextually suitable to show
this work in Hong Kong, as it talks about a French city since the industrial
revolution. That’s the problem of creating site-specific works; the artist shouldhave considered these problems.

FRED:

I think that it will lead to deduction or loss of the context, but he made his
choice to present the work their way. It’s really depending on the artist. We
have no doubt about the potential of this work. In this case, Kingsley has madea decision which is lowering his work, so as to speak.

KWONG:

As we are discussing only these two works, shall we give one of them gold
and another one silver, or two gold awards?

FUNG:

Both of the two artists are locals?

KWONG:

Yes, Kingsley has studied in France and is just back in Hong Kong. And
Henry studied in New Zealand.

FRED:

I would vote for the two of them to share the gold award.

FUNG:

It’s a little bit reluctant for me. A gold award for me is something perfect, butthese are not really perfect.

FRED:

You know, in the Races of Olympic Games, the one who wins the gold medal
is not the perfect one, he just wins the race! So a gold award never means
perfect!

FUNG:

Good metaphor! (Laugh)

KWONG:

So we have two gold awards, and the rest will be awarded as special
mentions.

FRED:

As a matter of fact, it is very difficult to outstand one out of the three left.

KWONG:

So, we now have the results!
This category is still very young; it’s only the second year to have this category.
And the interactive media is very complicated. I really appreciate your advice of
how to make this category better next year. Last time Frederic has given a very
good suggestion in his article that we can put the focus on the concept andidea that we will accept the documentation. At the same time May alsosuggested that there can be two divisions in the category that we also open forworks of realizations. Given these two suggestions, I am thinking of the logistic
details. For example, for the participants who would join with the simulations,
we should give them the guidelines of what materials we are looking for, and towhat extents. I can imagine that the judging criteria will pretty much depend on
how well the artists prepare for the presentation. You have been talking aboutthe Homage of Ando Takao, and criticizing the video documentation of it. I am
thinking if we should have some briefing sessions with some more experienced
artists, maybe during the period when we call for entry, to tell the people whatmaterials we are looking for and all the related details.
FRED:

I think there should be a fixed format. If we have a very complex, boring
website or paper-work, it’s not engaging for the audience, it takes too long andit’s not fun. A DVD would be a good format. The artists can build as many
chapters as he can. There can be 3D (graphics), drawings etc., as long as they
are in a fixed format. Because in the past, the most difficult part is to compare
apples and oranges (the different formats).

RAY:

What about the 3D simulations? Some may make a 3D simulation but theactual work is not done and not documented, should it be in another division?

FRED:

It doesn’t matter if it is 3D, as long as they can explain their works, maybe invoice-over or in subtitles.

RAY:

What if the artists do not do the works that they only have some plans andillustrations…a kind proposal.

FRED:

Yea, exactly. So we have simulation or documentation. Documentation is thework has really existed, it has been realized, but for whatever reason, you can’t
have it exhibited here. It’s only documented, but we can really appreciate theconcept. The simulation is that the work did not really existed, but the idea isthere. For some documentation, we don’t even know it did really exist, but tosome extents, I don’t really care if it did! In the future, we would not have to be
worried whether it existed or not.

RAY:

So should there be three categories? The first one is the real work, the second
one is the documentary, and the third one is the just the proposal. Like thecompetition of Microsoft Software, they only need a proposal.

FRED:

Theoretically, having three categories is the most logical way, but we may nothave enough works for each category.

KWONG:

Next year we hope that we will find a better space to display the work as
well.

Single-Screen-Based Interactive Media Category
Gold Award
MUSICAL LOOM
Kingsley NG
Gold Award
The Sound of Market
Henry CHU
Special Mentions
All About my Ho Chung
Jessey TSANG Tsui-Shan
Special Mentions
The Peeper
LAM Wai-keung

Special Mentions
Bloated City|Skinny Language

HUNG Keung and innov + media lab