th17 ifva Interactive Media Category Jury Meeting Minutes
Jurors in Attendance: Bryan Chung Wai-ching (CHUNG), Dr Lars Nittve (NITTVE), Ng Tsz-Kwan(NG),Dr Sarah Kenderine (KENDERDINE), Ip Yuk-yiu (IP).
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Kattie Fan (FAN)KWONG:We received around 30 works for the interactive media category this year. Last
December, Sarah, Bryan and Kwan went through all the entries and selected the10 finalists. The focus of this competition is creativity and independent spirit. This
category was founded 7 years ago and this year we are going to have 4 awards:
Gold Award, Silver Award, Honorary Mention and Best Concept. We can begin
by discussing Pixel Bite.

NITTVE:

When I read about its proposal, it sounds interesting but its execution is notconvincing at all. I did not get overly enthusiastic.

KENDERDINE:

There were a lot of people gathered around as the lady was speaking about it but
I could not understand what she was saying. Does it sound more convincing toyou guys?

IP:

To be fair, I think originally there should be a 3-D printer that can print out pixels
but she could not get the 3-D printer to function fully. I do like the work but I thinkits execution does not do justice to the proposal. It would be great if she could
build a box and hide herself inside and cook the pixels. It would be perhaps moreconvincing rather than to see someone cooking the pixels in its current form.

KENDERDINE:

So you think it is too literal?

CHUNG:

I think she could have packaged her work in a more convincing way. Her cookingthe pixels there seems a bit detached from the original idea that you want toautomate everything. Her presence disrupts this idea a little bit.

NITTVE:I think it had to be more stringent in terms of presentation. The execution was alittle loose. It is not serious enough or it is not funny enough; it is semi-funny orcute. It is a good idea that was lost along the way.

CHUNG:

There seems to be two versions of this work. The proposal was more virtual,
online and automatic whereas the actual work was more participative by nature.

KENDERDINE:

Its success depends on the community that it builds around that adopts pixels, if
it lacks that social input it would not work.

NG:

When I saw the proposal, I was curious to see what kind of inventions the artists
could come up. But the end product was rather literal as the pixel was the food. Iwas expecting something more than that.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Jsut Code.

KENDERDINE:

Technically it is perfect, it really works. I enjoy the introduction of the real timecomponent as opposed to the curated component. That is a nice mix up. Life anddeath is okay because these words have so many meanings. And they comethrough how ludicrously people take life and death in their everyday tweets. It isvery humorous and I enjoy it a lot.

NITTVE:

Me too. Good work.

CHUNG:

I just observed and did not use my phone to play around with it. I used the artist’s
phone to try a few of them and it worked perfectly. I noticed most viewers took
picture of the barcode; they enjoyed photo-taking more than the actual encryption
and decoding. I am not sure why that was the case.

NG:

I think most viewers see this as a performance.

CHUNG:

I do not see a lot of incentive to decode the message or to see what others thinkof the codes. I would expect the work to provide more incentive to engage theviewers to decode or to investigate. Based on my observation it seemed rather
decorative.

KENDERDINE:

I think that the desire to have photos taken depends on the backdrop. Someinstallations are just more conducive to photo taking.

NITTVE:

When you have that program up, your camera can choose either scanning ortaking photos. I got interested by all these ludicrous messages about death.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Reflection.

IP:

I think the concept is too literal and technically a little bit too simple. I saw it in its
previous form staged in Victoria prison. I did not see much differences anddevelopment in the current version. The documentation of the statement isinteresting though.

KENDERDINE:

I was surprised by how weak it was in isolation. Shadow has been used a lot in
media art.

NITTVE:

Delay has been used a lot in media art as well. The corner installation does nothelp because the movements are limited.

IP:

I think with more site specific setting it would have helped. When the work wasstaged at the prison, it felt like a carnival. It killed the seriousness of the work. It
is not the artist’s fault but this time it does not make much sense to put the workin the art center.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Suits Uncool.

NITTVE:Of course the suit is not my size so I could not try it on. In a sense you have tobelieve that it works the way as it describes rather than to experience it. You
could touch the shoulder and get a sound from it. Since you are asked to believethat it works, that comes across as a weakness. Otherwise the idea is pretty cool.

IP:

I agree that the work would have worked better if it has a performative element. I
trust the artist that the suit is working fine but I feel just demonstrating an object
is not enough. The relational aesthetic is missing. Like if you touch someone orbump into someone, something happens. It would be better if someone wears
the suit and asks people to touch it.

KENDERDINE:

Or you are invited to put it on and go around.

NITTVE:It says so on the sign to put it on but that is not the case.

CHUNG:

I do expect the artist to wear the suit and to do the demonstration of hugging.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Behind the Camera, who are you?

KENDERDINE:

I watched lots of people using it, which I hope was good. They had three camera
sessions. I think the database is quite big. I feel that the strength of this work is
partly by understanding why she did it and the video at the back helps
enormously in making it a powerful political statement, about the despot directors.

NITTVE:

That was something that I missed obviously.

KENDERDINE:

There was an interview with her done about why she did this work. She used towork in the movies and watched many directors torturing their actors. She gave
an example of a young child used as a young actor; he was supposed to have a
red face and got slapped in the face continuously. The whole experience wasquite traumatic for her. Whether that makes the work stand out is debatablebecause I see both sides of it. I quite enjoy it even though the technicalimplementation is really modest. She had to work with what she had available.

NG:

I find this a work of documentation, expanding the documentation of making amovie and turning it into a piece of media art. I am not too comfortable with that.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Squiggle.

KENDERDINE:

We are living in this world of nostalgia. It seems like dressing up technology tolook like something else.

NITTVE:

These pieces that you can create could look like 1920s or 1930s abstractions.
The odd thing is when you go to museums or art dealers, you always see thesemuch older frame that make them look more valuable or historical. It has to dowith dressing up old modernity. Overall I like it because it works; it is intuitive andit looks good. I am not sure about the frames because it was too tongue in cheek.

KENDERDINE:

You could buy the application online and the frame is irrelevant.

CHUNG:

I just ignore the frame because it is an iphone/ipad application, so I just focus myexperience of using the application. To me it is an interface that works perfectly. I
was expecting to get more from this framework as right now you can only getsound from drawing. It could generate more publicity and attention if it isconnected to social media sites.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Time Axis.

NG:

After seeing the actual work, I found it bigger than expected but the sound wassomewhat disappointing. It worked well when I tried it but the effects were not asstrong, since the thermal image did not stay very long.

IP:

The artist did mention that the temperature at the gallery was a little too low for
her piece to work properly.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Unreserved: Karaoke as Choir.

KENDERDINE:

I still have a query about the relevancy of taking it back into the street for the man
who is used as the center of the work. I find it a little odd. But everyone wasenjoying it and everyone loves karaoke; it has that popular appeal. I am
interested in the end point when it gets back onto the street and how interestingthat is.

CHUNG:

I do not like the enclosed area, the singing box. I was expecting them to sing inmore open area such as Mongkok, so more people could sing along and makethe experience more engaging. After seeing the work, I also have a doubt
whether there is a point to bring the work back to the original singer.

NITTVE:

But this box is part of the original intention, your isolation in the collective. You
are producing something that is collective but you are alone when you do it. Thatis very intentional and a core of the piece.

KENDERDINE:

Do you think that is an analogy of the man?

NITTVE:I thought so and that is the way I understand it.

IP:I think the project is interesting in terms of its social concern. The piece in its
current form might be a bit too simple. I just want one more element to make thepiece more complete. For example, it would be nice to come up with a file or aCD that could be made available to the public. The original intention is reallyinteresting but something is lacking. I do like the box and the analogy ofloneliness.

NITTVE:I agree with your point and that could add some complexity to this piece.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Magnetphonic.

NITTVE:

Unimpressive.

KENDERDINE:

Some of my colleagues tried to convince me about it. We read the proposal and I
gave it quite poor marks. The actual work is better than the proposal but still
unimpressive. It is a bit of a science experiment.

NITTVE:It does so little and it does nothing that you cannot just think. You do not have toexperience it, nothing happens to the experience to me.

CHUNG:To me the setup is better than the proposal suggested but the interaction of thesound and graphics generated by the magnetic force is too simple.

KWONG:

Let’s proceed to discuss Lawnmap Hong Kong.

KENDERDINE:

It is a curveball; it is social media and the question is whether this is art with thediscussion about if life is art. I think it is a nice work from the social media point ofview but it does not really hold up as an exhibition statement.

NITTVE:I agree. I definitely want to encourage the use of green lawns in Hong Kong. Thiswork is challenging the authority to doing it and that is interesting, but it does notnecessarily make it great art.

KWONG:

Could you please each nominate 3-4 works for award consideration?

NG:

My nominated works are: Jsut Code, Time Axis and Karaoke.

KENDERDINE:

My nominated works are: Jsut Code, Squiggle and Karaoke.

IP:

My nominated works are Pixel Bite and Karaoke.

NITTVE:My nominated works are Jsut Code, Squiggle and Karaoke.

CHUNG:

My nominated works are Time Axis, Karaoke and Lawnmap Hong Kong.

KWONG:We have nominated 6 works and can we leave out the 4 other works for award
consideration?

All:Yes.

NITTVE:

Perhaps we could rate each work (in the scale of 1-3, 3 for the best, 2 for thesecond best and so forth) and tally the total for each nominated work?

KWONG:

Sure.

KENDERDINE:

I would give 3 to Jsut Code, 2 to Squiggle and 1 to Karaoke.

NG:

I would give 3 to Jsut Code, 2 to Karaoke and 1 to Time Axis.

CHUNG:

I would give 3 to Karaoke, 2 to Time Axis and 1 to Lawnmap.

NITTVE:I would give 3 to Jsut Code, 2 to Squiggle and 1 to Karaoke.

IP:

I would just give 3 to Karaoke

KWONG:The tally is as follows, Karaoke 10, Jsut Code 9, Squiggle 4, Time Axis 3, andLawnmap 1.

IP:

Does everyone agree that we should only have 1 Gold Award recipient?

NITTVE:Now could everyone please nominate 1 work only for Gold Award?

IP:

I would vote for Karaoke.

CHUNG:

I would vote for Karaoke.

NG:

I change my mind and would vote for Karaoke.

NITTVE:I would vote for Jsut Code.

KENDERDINE:

I would vote for Jsut Code.

KWONG:

So that is 3-2 and that takes care of the Gold and Silver Award. The Gold Award
goes to Karaoke and the Silver Award goes to Jsut Code. Now let’s discuss therecipient for Special Mention.

KENDERDINE:

I nominate Squiggle.

IP:

I nominate Time Axis.

CHUNG:

I nominate Time Axis.

NITTVE:I nominate Squiggle.

NG:

I nominate Time Axis.

IP:

We can still discuss since I originally nominated Pixel Bite. But if I have tochoose between Squiggle and Time Axis, I would choose Time Axis because
Squiggle is too much like a generic application to me. It works well but does notgive me any artistic or poetic experience; it is more like a creative toy to me.
Even as an application it is not outrageously interesting; it is more of anadvanced exercise of programming. I want something more from the artistic side.
It is well made and well programmed but does not really give me genuine artistic
experience.

NITTVE:

Does Time Axis give you a sincere and genuine artistic experience?

IP:

I think the artist did make an attempt.

NITTVE:My problem with Time Axis was that it was clunky and it was too small to haveany kind of magic. The physical arrangement was not well-functioning and looked
like very homemade. It was a nice thought but the execution was not satisfying.
Squiggle could have been much more complex but at the same time it doeswork.

KENDERDINE:

I think Squiggle is an interesting piece of work, for it is the only commercial work
amongst the 10 finalists.

IP:

Based on my past experience with ifva, I have problems with the term Special
Mention this year as it should go to the work that might not be as complete andoutstanding overall but has something special that really stand outs anddeserves specific mention and encouragement from ifva. To me Squiggle andTime Axis are both good but do not fit that description.

NITTVE:

Would it work better if we call it Honorary Mention?

IP:

Yes, that would be wonderful.

KWONG:

Even though it is not written in the regulation, we are open to renaming the award.

IP:

Perhaps we could have a vote and decide this?

NG:

I suggest we stick to Special Mention.

NITTVE:

I am not passionate with either direction; therefore I would go with the one thatwould give you guys less trouble. So I would go with Special Mention.

KENDERDINE:

I totally appreciate this idea and think this could add drama to the event so I
would go with Honorary Mention.

CHUNG:I prefer Honorary Mention as well.

IP:

I would go with Honorary Mention.

KWONG:

So we will have 2 recipients for Honorary Mention, Squiggle and Time Axis. We
should now discuss the recipient for Best Concept and there are only two works
for consideration, Pixel Bite and Karaoke.

NITTVE:

Since Karaoke is the recipient of the Gold Award, it is naturally superior to PixelBite.

KENDERDINE:

I agree with that.

KWONG:

So that wraps up all the awards for this category. The Gold Award and Best
Concept go to Karaoke. Silver Award goes to Jsut Code. The two Honorary
Mentions go to Squiggle and Time Axis.

Interactive Media Category
Gold Award
Unreserved: Karaoke as Choir
WONG Yu-hin, LAM Chi-fai

Silver Award
Jsut CodeWinnie SOON, Helen PRITCHARD
Honorary Mention
Squiggle
Henry CHU
Time Axis
LAM Miu-ling

Best Concept
Unreserved: Karaoke as Choir
WONG Yu-hin, LAM Chi-fai