29th ifva Awards
Media Art Category Jury Meeting Transcript
Jury Members: Bryan Chung (Chung), Jessey Tsang Tsui Shan (Tsang), Kingsley Ng (Ng),
Ulanda Blair (Blair)
Organiser representative: Roxane Tsui (Tsui)
Post meeting note: Nóra Ó Murchú (Murchú) is unable to attend due to unforeseen
circumstances.

Tsui:

Under the Media Arts category, we will have one Gold, one Silver and one
Special Mention award. Of course, if you all think there should be more thanone Special Mention, we can discuss that. For the judging criteria, we havealready stated in the document that we would like to find works that have
independent spirit, creativity and originality, flexible for exhibition, innovativeuse of technology and the overall excellences for all the awardees. I now pass
the time to you for discussion. I recommend that we go through each work sothat we can have some recommendations for each of the work, and then we
can have our votes for the, for the Gold, Silver and Special Mention awards.

Blair:

Bryan, Kingsley and I discussed what our top three picks were, and it seems
we are already aligned. I don't know if we want to go straight into that
discussion. I want to hear from you about whether or not you agree ordisagree with those selections or if you prefer to go through each one.

Tsang: Does every artist expect us to mention a little bit on their works?
Tsui:

We can go through each work quickly and jump to the awards nomination.
Let’s start with the first one, My Inner Ear Quartet.

Tsang: This VR work is very well-made. It has nice visuals. This is the first time for theartist to do VR. I have experience making films, and I also have experience
with VR, but I’ve never made these kinds of 3D motion graphics. I feel it’s very
beautiful but maybe in the Media Arts category, this is not really satisfactory.
I did enjoy this work, it’s definitely crafted well.
Blair:

I thought this was a really beautiful piece. I love the visual language. The story
I found really compelling. I thought that the way that the audience interacts
through the story by flipping the pages was sort of novel, but it was also quite
helpful to know where in the in the story or journey we are situated at any
1one time. I just thought it has a magical realism that really resonated with me.
It’s creative and original. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Chung: I also enjoyed viewing that one. The real first-hand experience is moreengaging than reading the documentation. I consider this to be the mostimmersive work in the selection that we have. I also like the visual impact andintegration of different parts into one piece of work.
Blair:Is this work among your top three?

Chung: Yes.
Tsui:

How about we go to the next one, I work, therefore I am.

Blair:The technology and the structure of the installation looked very impressive,
but I was just less convinced by the interactivity and the overall audience
experience. It just felt a little bit disconnected for me. I was also unclear about
what I was supposed to be doing afterwards, you set up to begin immediatelyinteracting with the work, but they never explain what you are doing. I was alittle bit disoriented.

Chung: At the beginning, I spent a little bit more time on that piece of work and theinteractive experience was not very coherent in a sense that we can findsomething out from engaging in the work. From the appearance of the work,
what I understand about it is that we create something like a conveyor belt
aesthetics, like in Modern Times, the Charlie Chaplin film. We have to punch
the card ourselves and I see my face in the display. I understand the absurditythat your mark is drawn over here and erased over there and the cycle begins
again, but my participation seems to be not well explained in this piece ofwork. Also, the process is too slow
Tsang: I think the process can be a lot longer and more complicated. Now it's quite
simple. The concept is clear from the beginning, and the end it vanishes andit is quite a sharp journey. For me, it’s got a concept but cannot deliver fully.
The audience at the beginning will be happy to see their faces being engaged
in the work.
Blair:I was waiting for my face to move along to the next screen but it was so slow.

Tsang: I have a question for Bryan about the work. It has collected many faces. Is it
really hard to do that?
Chung: I think in this case it's only for display. When new visitors come it will be2

replaced with new ones. I believe this is the logic.
Tsui:

The next work is NEVER HAVE I EVER.

Chung: I enjoyed this one. Most of the things are well crafted in terms of the choiceof the display and the choice of the speakers, the arrangement in space, theinstallation and also the voice coming out of the speakers. The only thing that
I would like to see a little bit more is about the thing generated by the AI as
narration. I wonder whether it would be possible to have some form ofconsequence, a kind of cause-and-effect relationship between those images,
because the images actually connect with the life of the of the artist, frombeing a young child to growing up as an adult. As mentioned in the artist
statement, there is one lie told at the beginning that has consequence to her
future, and this kind of cause and effect seems to be missing as a form of
narrative. This kind of thing can be done nowadays by AI. I am hoping thatgoing through her life will reveal something.
Tsang: I quite enjoyed this piece. It is very simple, clear, delivered well and is very
realistic. I like the AI generating from different stages of the portrait. And
because I don't know games well, I'm not of that generation, I needed morebackground information from Audrey. I needed to see the transcript to help
me to understand more about the work. Maybe the artist doesn’t want toshow because they want it to be more lyrical or not have any text in it, but
may be there should be some more hints or language to let the text become
more exposed. The sound is very low and I feel it should be more so that we
can understand the concept and the sequence, and the relationship between
different stages of her life. If I can’t hear the text, it takes more time for me toread it and understand if there is any story or linkage.
Blair:

I also, I thought this was a very strong piece in the mix. I really enjoyed theexecution. I thought it was really beautifully presented. I really enjoyed theintimate scale, the sort of intimacy that it creates, with the domestic school
portrait format. I thought the fakeness was very convincing and I was justreally happy to see an artist using AI, given how prevalent it is in the public
consciousness at this time with deep fakes and things like that. I was justpleased to see an artist using that technology in an interesting way. I also
agree with your comments about the narrative needing to be a little bit morethought through in terms of the structure and slightly better expressed
through the narrative structure.

Tsui:

The next work is Kazokutchi.

Blair:

I don't have a whole lot to say about this one. It looked fabulous, very playful
3and engaging. Conceptually, I really enjoyed this kind of the satire that hascome through. But I do think that this was one of those examples where it'squite difficult to see the concept. It's such a busy work that looks really great,but it's difficult to get a handle on what's actually happening. Audrey wasshowing me how to interact, and even then I needed further explanation
about how these ideas about reproduction and family units was actually
being expressed through the work.
Tsang: I don't have a very strong connection with the work. The robot city isinteresting and playful but it’s a bit messy with a lot of things and I can't really
get much. I know the concept but it can’t really touch my emotion. With thesekinds of artwork like NFT and blockchain, I find it very hard to connect withthem. It can’t really hit my emotions as an audience.
Chung: The artist tries very hard to materialize those virtual things like NFT and
artificial life of this kind of simulation games in a tangible fashion. The gameseems to be quite complex, too complex to be put in the exhibition and played
through the whole process. It is not always easy in an exhibition context toexperience this type of work in terms of the virtual encounter of this kind of
artificial life subject matter. That's why we may have this disconnection to thiskind of game. I think it's similar to another piece of work by another group ofJapanese artists relating to text and the search for sound. I'm not sure thatthe exhibition format would be the best way to present this work, which takes
time to experience and present. In the early days of Net Art, it was also quitedifficult to exhibit those works in a gallery.
Tsui:

Let’s go to the next one, Rehab.

Chung: This is a good piece of work, and I have a little bit more expectation with thiswork in terms of where to place it. The work should be in the center of theroom or area, then can be a bit more interesting than attaching it to a wall.
I'm not sure whether this is a safety concern or some other kind of concerns
by the artist that makes it not possible to stand alone in the middle of thegallery, and attached it to a wall so that it doesn’t fall down easily. The otherthing is about the scale. The scale of this one is like a furniture and the impact
seems to be less powerful. I believe it can be more impactful to have a bigger
scale or smaller scale, smaller like miniature furniture, but with the same levelof detail, so that this creature may be more impactful to the audience.
Tsang: When I first saw the work, and I had to double confirm if this is a real disasterthat the artist experienced, if yes, I would give it more marks. It can be more
powerful. It's interesting that the ceiling things will make it come alive, there
should be more props in the set up and it will be more stunning to see and4more cinematic. I like the concept, but it’s not as powerful as I expected. I’m
not sure if the presentation is well enough.
Blair:

I have a similar feeling, but for me it's actually the materials that are letting
the work down. I imagined that when he was talking about the debris falling
onto the family dining table, that it would be a wooden domestic table. I feellike the choice of materials, which are very industrial, kind of undermined thismessage about technology, to a small degree. I also agree with the point
about the placement and the scale of the work that factor into a slight feelingof being underwhelmed.

Tsui:

Let’s move on to syncrowd. This work could not be shown in Hong Kong due
to some logistics issue.

Chung: I expect to have first-hand experience to view the work. I like the work andalso the concept behind the synchronisation and how you can get in-sync andout-sync to generate the sound. I think the only jury member who has seen
the work is Kingsley, who saw it in Japan. We chose this one from the lastround, and we have an expectation to experience it in a real environment.
Blair:

I have the same comment, the documentation is never going to be able tocompete with the real experience, particularly when it's obviously a very
experiential work, particularly the sounds that accompany the motion, theway that they describe it is a kind of minimalist music, which he just didn't get
through the video documentation. I completely understand why it couldn’t
be shown. It's a shame because it was, I think, one of the strongest proposals.

Tsang: This work really needs to be seen.
Tsui:

Let’s move on to the next work, Media of Langue.

Tsang: I quite like it. I feel is quite lyrical, but not the presentation in the room. I feelit’s quite interesting to make the dictionary in a three-dimensional way and,the translation and so on. As a net art, I quite enjoyed it although when I
played it, I had expected more. But then the introduction and the video isquite well done. The artist last year was very outstanding and strong, but thistime, I expect better projection or lighting for this lyrical linguistic mapping.
Chung: This is the second work I mentioned that it is difficult to exhibit this kind of
software art in a gallery setting. One part is the lack of participation is if we
had multiple people interacting. The way to properly set up the projection
may help or destroy the mood. For me, if I was trying to recreate it, I’d put it
in a darker environment and try to hide away all those details and just have a5

projection screen with sound. It would be a bit more poetic.
Blair:I was surprised to see all of these different installation elements when I
received that proposal for this software-based, browser-based work I neverimagined seeing exhibited in that way. One sticking point for me was thedecision to put embroidery on a Bible, because a Bible is such a loaded object,
and that felt a little bit left field given that the work itself was aroundtranslation and the universality or not of translating meaning acrosslanguages. I thought that was just a strange decision. I didn't know if I was
surprised to see it exhibited this way. Given that there is this inherent poetry
in the impossibility of translation, I actually did like the way that it was
exhibited in this very ethereal projection screen.

Tsui:

We move on to the next work, Self-control Removal System.

Blair:For me, this is another work where the narrative was lost for me in thecomplexity of the game. I didn't understand how my collection of the tokens,the interactive component, was related to school bullying. And I was also a
bit confused by the imagery that I was seeing inside the digital space.

Tsang: It seems it has many symbols that I can’t really digest. The artist has many
points he wants to share, but as an audience, I can’t really engage with it.
Chung: I also got lost in this piece of work. I guess the artist is a gamer and is trying
to use games as a metaphor to tell the story. The connection with the
gameplay and the use of AR and also the ideas about this school violence are
not integrated into one coherent direction. We get lost in the middle.
Tsui:

Let’s move to the next one, Dancing without Touching.

Tsang: I just saw Hitchcock's Rear Window again recently. I don't know this street. Is
it a historical, famous street in Singapore? A Red-light district? For me I don't
have very strong feelings, but I tried to understand what the artist wants toshow us different stories, different characters in the imaginary street.
Blair:The videos themselves were very nicely executed with high production values.
It reminded me of little dioramas, and we were entering these dense, layered
worlds. I remember the proposal itself had a lot of sculptural components, so
I think we must be missing some of the experience. I do like that kind ofdiorama type of experience. The performances themselves, I thought weremaybe a little bit uneven.

Chung: I also like this piece of work and also the video. In the beginning the artist
6

proposed an immersive installation that comes with rooms and spaces, andin each of the rooms there would be some kind of performance. For me, I canconnect because I have the experience of going to Lai Yuen (an amusementpark in Hong Kong). In those amusement parks you had these circus things inwhich you can also see Cantonese opera and magic shows that can be quite
exotic. The way it’s arranged in a horizontal screen probably will defeat thisparticular exploration by pulling open the curtain and going to a room andseeing some unexpected performance. It is a little bit different from what she
proposed at the very beginning.
Tsui:

The last work is Almost There.

Tsang: I like it. I think it’s a very simple work that uses the screen and uses the space.
It’s simple and memorable. I enjoyed this piece.
Chung: I also liked this one. The artist was a student in our school who just graduatedlast year. It is impressive and powerful. Its theme is also common among a lotof young artists who’ve gone through the last couple of years. They havethese repressed emotions that they channel through their artistic practice.
This work is one of the typical pieces coming out in recent years.
Blair:

I feel similarly, I think it’s really important that work like this is included and I
like the fact that it’s really quite a modest display, but it’s still extremely
powerful. I enjoy the combination of materials and textures, the screens,chalk, charcoal and balloons. The emotion in the work is very tangible. I also
really enjoyed the use of sound. It’s quite a minimal installation, but it’s still
very powerful. I enjoyed the black and white effect.

Tsui:

Kingsley has already given his suggestions on the top three. Would you like tospend a few minutes to choose your top three? And then we will select thenominee. You can give us your votes for Gold, Silver and Special Mention
awards when you are ready.

Blair:My Inner Ear Quartet for Gold, NEVER HAVE I EVER would be Silver and Almost
There would be Special Mention.

Tsang: For me, My Inner Ear Quartet for Silver, my Gold is NEVER HAVE I EVER andmy Special Menton is Almost There.
Chung: My Gold is My Inner Ear Quartet, Silver is Almost There, Special Mention is
NEVER HAVE I EVER.
Tsui:

Kingsley’s vote is Gold for My Inner Ear Quartet, Silver is NEVER HAVE I EVER
7

and Special Mention is Almost There.
Blair:For me, my Silver and my Special Mention are neck and neck.

Tsang: This is my first year in this category. As a newcomer, I have some question in
my mind. I’ll share why I made this decision. The craft of My Inner Ear Quartet
is very super and nice, but why I put NEVER HAVE I EVER first is that I always
felt this category is more an exhibition, and in this case I feel is that this pieceis intimate, the installation is quite well-made, that’s why chose it as Gold. I
chose Almost There Special Mention. I don’t compare it with the two VR
works, and just as an installation piece, and I feel just maybe the craft in
NEVER HAVE I EVER is a little bit harder than Almost There and that’s why I
chose the latter as Special Mention.
Blair:

Rightly or wrongly, I picked Almost There as Special Mention instead of thesecond prize because I was thinking this being a media art category, this work
doesn't scream media art to me. Outside of this exhibition I would never havethought of it as being media art. I don't know if that's a helpful or correct way
to be approaching it.

Chung: For me I also hesitate between Silver and Special Mention and they are similar
in terms of quality. We talked about innovative use of technology, so probably
NEVER HAVE I EVER experiments with the use of AI technology and this kindof generative things to try to complete the work. I also try to evaluate theoverall excellence, the overall performance in addition to the use oftechnology. For me, the impact and the power and also the emotion I sensein Almost There is more than NEVER HAVE I EVER. I think the latter work is a
bit cool, and there is a distance between myself and the work. The other thing
I'm not sure how we so approach is the independent spirit, so I'm not sure if
the big production of My Inner Ear Quartet should count against it.
Tsang: For both of you, you don’t mind that it is a VR piece in a gallery without a veryfull installation set-up?
Blair:

I hadn't thought about that before you mentioned it and I think you bring up
a very valid point.

Chung: We have that issue in the last couple of years. I think last year they had aseparate VR category. The VR part was judged according to a separate set ofcriteria. Before that we also had a number of VR works submitted in theMedia Arts category.
Blair:

I guess maybe it's unfair to mark them down because there's no other8

category for them to go in.
Tsui:

In this special situation, how about if the four jury members come to anagreement, and if Nóra has still not appeared, we can tell her about it. I’msure she’ll understand.

Blair:For the exhibition in the Goethe-Gallery, do I understand that we have tochoose between Almost There and NEVER HAVE I EVER.

Tsui:

The prize will go to the top one. If the result is like this, the top one will be
NEVER HAVE I EVER because she is going to have Silver award. If all of you
think that Almost There is more valid for the prize, then we can discuss it as
well.

Chung: That exhibition will be a solo exhibition for the artist.
Tsui:

It's a chance for an artist to show at the Goethe-Gallery at the Goethe-Institut
Hong Kong on the 14th floor at the Hong Kong Arts Centre.

Ng:

I was looking at the criteria of independent spirit, it seems like it is quite asubjective thing. Given that the VR work has such a big production company
behind it and made within an industry workflow, does it capture independent
spirit? We don’t have many VR works in this competition, and as the only VR
work, is it right to judge it alongside other works? It’s like a blockbuster
Hollywood film competing against indies. Obviously, the VR work is a smallscale production compared with other VR works, but still it’s something the
public may want us to be clearer about in terms of our positions. I’minterested to hear Jessey’s rationale for putting is NEVER HAVE I EVER as Gold,and her perspectives on growing up as a young woman in Hong Kong. It’s agood chance to have one more round of discussions before we finalised theawards.

Tsang: I agree with most of your sharing. Last year there was a separate VR category
and this year they are combined. I didn’t vote for this work as Gold at first
because I felt there was not a full installation set-up, but it’s well-crafted. I
liked NEVER HAVE I EVER because it is a very nice, clear and intimate work. I
also liked Almost There, the storytelling is very strong and hit me more. Afterhearing your views, I agree that maybe the VR work should not be Gold.
Maybe we can vote again.
Blair:At the first vote I put NEVER HAVE I EVER as second. After the discussion, I
saw that it was a deadlock. Both NEVER HAVE I EVER and Almost There werevery strong for different reasons, and so I turned around to get us to a9

resolution. Also, Jessey felt that My Inner Ear Quartet would be stronger if it
had installation components and as a gallery-based exhibition, it was a bit
lacking, and given that VR doesn’t have its own category anymore, it’d be a
bit unfair to pose that limitation on top.
Chung: In previous years when we had this kind of deadlock, we looked at the fivecriteria. But it’s not like a marking scheme in our school, we can’t have 20%
for independent spirit, 20% for innovative use of technology, etc. For ifva, we
try to look at the works in a holistic way. For example, in the past we had astop-motion animation work and we considered whether it should be in the
Animation category but in the end, we gave it the Gold award that year. For
me, I ask myself whether a work leaves something in my heart after I left thevenue, and that work is My Inner Ear Quartet. The sophistication of thenarrative, the images and interaction. The other work is Almost There in termsof the impact of the sound, the installation still echoed in my heart when I leftthe exhibition. I also liked NEVER HAVE I EVER, but compared with the othertwo, the effect seemed to have terminated after I left the venue, it may nothave any lingering effect.
Ng:

According to the judging criteria, ifva embraces these key words: independent
spirit, creativity, originality, feasibility for exhibition, innovative use oftechnology, overall excellence, but there is no indication about thepercentage. This is a question we can ask: how do we interpret these judging
criteria? Do we think that a successful work should tick all of the criteria? Or
if one excels in particular criteria and not so strong in the others, that it's also
okay? Bryan mentioned the other stop-motion animation work. That is also avery interesting precedent. If we compare apples to apples between Almost
There and NEVER HAVE I EVER we will have to come up with quite a strong
reason why Almost There can score better than NEVER HAVE I EVER in termsof innovative use of technology. That may be difficult to answer. Independent
spirit is quite subjective and so is creativity and originality. I think both works
are very creative and original. As for feasibility for exhibition, the VR work
certainly would be a bit lower, but the other two, I think that would be quite
similar. Overall excellence is just an average of the others, right? I think thetricky one in terms of judging criteria is innovative use of technology, if wecompare apples to apples between Almost There and NEVER HAVE I EVER.

Blair:As I said in the meeting, if I was to catalog this at the museum, Almost There
would be a video installation, it wouldn't make it into media art. For me,
NEVER HAVE I EVER would definitely score higher as a work of media art andusing technologies of the day.

Ng:

NEVER HAVE I EVER has very strong use of innovative use of today's
10

technology and the whole idea of deep fake and the concept of what is thetruth; the choice of technology is quite convincing, and also the display of the
OLED and how that correspond to the formats of the passport photos. In
terms of the use of technology, there’s quite a lot of delicate thoughts that
goes behind it. In the initial proposal it was displayed on iPad, and I think
there’s quite a big leap of improvement from what was in the submission andwhat was shown at the exhibition. That sways me more to sympathize withthe work because from the proposal to submission, the artists do haveanother stage of improvements and are very rigorous about that with thisdisplay, so that was also very admirable.
Blair:The production values in the installation were top notch.

Ng:

Almost There is also a very good work. It is very powerful, but in the context
of the innovative use of technology, it may be difficult to justify it being the
top work. My ranking would be NEVER HAVE I EVER as Gold, and Silver can be
Almost There. My Inner Ear Quartet would be a Special Mention.

Tsang: For me Silver is the VR piece.
Tsui:

Jessey, may I double confirm that your Silver is My Inner Ear Quartet, right?

Tsang: I will stick with my original order. NEVER HAVE I EVER is my Gold, My Inner Ear
Quartet is Silver and Special Mention is Almost There.
Ng:

My ranking is the same as Jessey.

Tsui:So, for Kingsley NEVER HAVE I EVER is Gold, My Inner Ear Quartet is Silver andSpecial Mention is Almost There.

Ng:

Yes.

Blair:

If I'm to change mine, I would make it NEVER HAVE I EVER as Gold, keep
Almost There as Silver and have My Inner Ear Quartet as Special Mention.

Chung: I may not change because it's difficult to judge independent spirit, we are notsupposed to know how much budget they have. We understand this may be
a big production and we judged similarly for another one, the Singaporean
submission, that it may also be a big production in terms of the aesthetics. I
also understand some of the Japanese project are funded by the University
research grant, which can also be a big production project. We do not actually
ask them their funding source in the submission as a way to evaluate how
independent they are. Independent spirit is more or less toward the spirit.
11

We actually don't have the source to assess and we cannot even evaluate
whether they are big production or not. I try not to discredit a lot from the VR
work, and the other two are comparable. I agree that that NEVER HAVE I EVER
have a little bit more on the adoption of technology and also the reflection
on the latest A.I. or machine learning technology. But it is an adoption of thattechnology to support what she would like to communicate in the projectrather than critical reflections about that technology in itself. For Almost
There, I agree there's close to zero innovative use of technology as I draw theexample between this one and the example from a few years ago, that we try
to look at the holistic performance of the work and in terms of the work’s
effect on the general audience. That is something I try to use to compare thetwo works. I don't have a spreadsheet to come up with the percentage
between the three of them. I look at the work as a whole so that I come up
with this ranking at this moment.
Blair:

I looked at the five criteria again and was a little bit more categorical about it.
As we've already discussed, I deducted points from My Inner Ear Quartet forindependent spirit and feasibility for exhibition, so they lost two points. I
deducted one point from Almost There for innovative use of technology,
whereas NEVER HAVE I EVER ticks all boxes. That explains why I changed, andthe kind of rationale I used.

Ng:

That very fruitful discussion and it cleared up a lot of the questions I had.

Chung: Among us four, NEVER HAVE I EVER has the best selection for Gold, but for
Silver and Special Mention, I'm not sure we have a priority that we can comeup with.
Ng:

Meaning that we agree that Gold goes to NEVER HAVE I EVER. Then let’sdeliberate and see who will get Silver and Special Mention.

Tsui:

As Bryan said, we haven't asked them about their budget, and whether they
are really big productions or if they supported themselves.

Blair:

It really is a very subjective term. Somebody working independently within a
Hollywood system, is very different to someone working independently whojust graduated from university.

Tsui:

I think it should be the whole thing, the background, the research, the storyor the whole team.

Ng:

It is very subjective how we interpret what independent means.
12Tsui:

Jessey raised one question, that My Inner Ear Quartet was just showing in the
Google glass, it is just a video showing format, it is not an installation or an
exhibitions format. So maybe you can consider about that. But at the sametime, Bryan also shared that some ifva works in previous years were also VR
works, and their viewing was also by the Google glass.

Chung: For the award winners in the VR section last year, how did they show theirworks?
Tsang: There was a pop-up VR cinema to showcase the Gold award and some works
in the VR theatre. There was no installation set-up.
Ng:

If we look at the score sheets again. Bryan chose My Inner Ear Quartet as Gold,then maybe there may be extra points for the work as Silver, if that makes
sense. What do we need to discuss more in depth about the two choices?

Chung: In terms of the overall quality of the work, I prefer My Inner Ear Quartet. The
prize for the local award will go to NEVER HAVE I EVER, and they are eligible
to attend the foreign trip.
Chung: The current set up may discredit the work because it looks like a booth in a
trade show.
Ng:

How do we proceed? Do we think because Bryan chose My Inner Ear Quartet
as Gold, then its score is slightly higher? Should Silver go to My Inner Ear
Quartet?

Jessey: I’m okay with this.
Blair:

I’m also fine with that.

Chung: Yes, sure.
Tsui:

So Gold award goes to NEVER HAVE I EVER, Silver for My Inner Ear Quartet
and Special Mention goes to Almost There.

(The jury members agree.)13

29th Media Arts Category Award Winners
Gold Award
NEVER HAVE I EVER
Natalie Isdoingokay (Hong Kong)
Silver Award
My Inner Ear Quartet
Koji Yamamura (Director) , Yoko Ogawa (Original Author) (Japan)
Special Mention
Almost There
Au Kin Wai (Hong Kong)

14