The 21st ifva Media Art Category Jury Meeting Transcript
Jury Members: Bryan Chung (Chung), Eve Tam (Tam), Erkki Huhtamo (Huhtamo),
Maurice Benayoun (Benayoun), Ng Tsz Kwan (Ng)ifva representative: Kattie Fan (Fan), Emily Ng (Emily)
Huhtamo:When I was trying MinkeyFamily.com with a mouse, the only thing I was able to do
was modifying the viewpoint, but I didn’t find any hotspots. Do you think I missed
something?

Benayoun: There are many layers to this work, but the navigation is not easy. There are many
elements put together, and I’m not totally sure about the coherence of the whole thing.
It’s just a catalogue of possibilities of interpretation of personal data.
Tam:

It’s not that there are different layers, there are many different pages. But how you
navigate it with the mouse...there are technical issues to be explored.

Benayoun: One page is rotating slowly. Other pages you have a map, photo albums. For me it’s ascattered possibility of interpretation, without having each path going as far as possible,
and without connecting them together in a holistic vision of what is family.
Huhtamo:

The work is interesting, but I was unable to get very far into the work.

Ng:

It was definitely difficult to navigate, and it seems like there is no direct connection
between the different pages. I don’t know if it’s intentional, or if the mouse is notworking.

Tam:

When we selected the work in the first round, there is a video showing how it works,
and it’s more interactive than it is now. I don’t think it’s very well adapted to the gallery
setting.

Huhtamo:Is it playing in offline mode?

Fan:

It’s online.

Tam:

It’s supposed to be a lot more interactive and interesting than what is presented here.

Huhtamo:I wanted to start with discussing this work because it raises a big question. Can we saythat the work is not installed properly, that there’s some promise in it, but that doesn’tcompletely reveal itself in all its complexity?

Benayoun: We have to assess what we see, there is no other option. We cannot just fantasize about
what it could be, we can perhaps give some advice about how to make the navigation
better. This is how a work becomes weak, is when you have a feeling that the artists
don’t make choices, but say, “I can do that, and that, and that...” I can tell you for whichproject I have this feeling: Light Barrier. You see the first image, that of a mirror witha concave image, it’s very nice and subtle. It’s a catalogue of possibilities: you see what
you get with a square projected, a line projected...
Huhtamo:The other issue I have is that because this is shown as a documentation of a very large
work, it’s very hard to give an award to a work that’s not shown in the proper way. Thisis a common problem in juries when doing pre-selection work based on DVDs or
YouTube videos. I have been in juries where mistakes have been made because the final
outcome is very different from the submitted video, and the final version doesn’t live up
to the promise.

Tam:This issue applies to most of the works. When we assessed the proposals in the firstround some of them are meant to be an installation rather than an interactive work. Whenthey arrive in Hong Kong, they have to adapt to the space, and have only a limited budget,
so they have to present it in another way. But in the end it’s up to the artist whether they
accept this alternative way of presentation, and he or she has to resolve how to maketheir ideas come across in another way aesthetically. For smaller works it is easier toachieve what they set out to do in the proposal.

Benayoun: In the same room as Light Barrier, we have Ming Jing. One is physically present andthe other is in video. The video is very nice with nice lighting, whereas with Ming
Jing, the lighting could be better. It could be better in the dark. I think Ming Jing is somuch more interesting because it’s about behavior, society and collective relation.
Huhtamo:What’s happening is triggered by things happening in Beijing, by somebody entering agallery in Beijing, which makes this work even more interesting.

Benayoun: This is a strong work because of its visual qualities. There is an emotional impact, which
is something you have to take into account.
Huhtamo:I also found Ming Jing to be a very strong work, and I viewed it for 40 minutes, during
which time there were two or three strong reactions in sound, and also smaller, subtle
reactions with light. There are magnetic processes going on, which I find very interesting.
The work creates a presence that is bigger than the visual presence. It is tempting
standing next to it and wait for something to happen. It may also have some politicalrelevance or make a commentary about telematics. On the surface it looks like a formal,
quiet installation, but hides deeper layers, which is usually a sign of a good work.

Benayoun: The statement is a bit disappointing, because I wonder why a gallery, what is its
significant. On the other hand it’s a sort of butterfly effect: something happening in
Beijing will have an effect on the other side of the planet. For me, the work is like living
cells that are separate from each other, and sometimes the magnet puts them together.
For me it’s the best work in the exhibition.
Chung:

I would like this work more if it was not attached to the wall.

Ng:

I find this work too calculated and thoughtful.

Benayoun: I agree that it is very professional, and ready for integration in the art market. The
repetition of forms is something we see more and more in Asian art, especially withphysical objects. At the same time, it works. I agree with your point, connecting Hong
Kong and Beijing is a big symbol.
Tam:

This work is complete in its idea and presentation. I like the idea that it is presented inuniformity, and when you look at each bowl, the bean is in a different position and you
feel very subtle movements in each bowl. It builds up some kind of tension, andsuddenly when the beans jumped up, it results in a very strong reaction, a sort of surpriseand climax.

Benayoun:

What you say is important, the point about expectations. We can take some other works
in which this is not so obvious, and where there is a lot of expectation, but the final result
I’m not so sure about. For example, Black Moves—I like the way it’s animated, thesoundtrack is well done. The tribal perspective and perception of space is pretty well
done.

Ng:

Why is it not in the animation category?

Fan:

The entrant applied for this category. The most important difference is that animation
category works will be seen in a theater, while this work is seen in a gallery. We also
have a lot of video art being entered in this category. For this artist, she also has different
versions of the work in the application, like a domed version, 360 degree and otherversions.

Huhtamo:

I wonder why the artist did not make the approach larger, now it feels a bit like a window.
I don’t think combining that with the surround sound really compensate for the fact thatthe video is within a visible frame. It should be larger than our field of vision. But evenas it is, the work is still effective. When you concentrate on the image, the 3D effect canbe quite magical. The issue is that I don’t find the work highly original. You see a lot ofstudent work like that, especially if the student is interested in certain 3D software. This
work is abstract and formalist in its approach. For me it’s a nice work, but not installedin the most effective way. Technically it’s well realized, and I can imagine that this artist,
if she follows this line of work, can achieve something very interesting. The work is not
yet on that level, it is on the level of promise rather than true achievement.

Tam:

In the proposal, it’s supposed to be a more environmentally immersive work, the person
is meant to be embraced by the animation, so it’s a completely different experience. I
agree that the screen is now in an embarrassing size which does not work very well. I
agree that the concept may not be very original, and that independent spirit should be
one of the criteria for this competition.

Benayoun:

The artist could have built a dome.

Tam:

A dome does not make it any more independent.

Benayoun: To get an immersive effect, we could project from the ground to the ceiling, or take up
the whole wall. In this way it takes up all of your field of vision, which gives a totallydifferent effect.
Chung:

I agree that this is a scaled down version of a more epic work, but I try to adjust my
distance from the projection screen, and the closer I get the more powerful the effect. I
am not sure whether she may adopt some sort of stereoscopic approach where theaudience can wear something in order to block out other images, rather than in a gallery
setting.

Benayoun:

But you cannot wear a stereoscopic device on your head for a long time.

Huhtamo:

She could do something with the use of motion in relation to the masses of elements you
see. This is nothing original, it is something the artist Woody Vasulka was already
exploring in the 1970s with his famous video works. He created 3D effects with different
speeds of motion.

Benayoun: To be successful, the work has to create an ambiguity in space, in which there are many
inversions of perspectives, where you first have a feeling that you are over it, and thenunder it. It happens not by going systematically through something, but by changing
how the shapes are moving. If this artist could explore this capacity more deeply, of
disturbing our perception of space, that’s what at stake in this work, for me.
Ng:

Did the artist request to install the work like this? Is she okay with the space and thescale?

Fan:

Of course there is spatial limitation in the gallery, but as the competition organizer, we
could not give her too much suggestion on how to install it, because you have to assess
how she does it. But we had some mild suggestions for her, such as obtaining equipment
support and also how to mask the area. We also assigned her a room that she requested.

Ng:

I spent a lot of time sitting there. I agree that it is not a very new approach to animation,
but after sitting there for a while, I found it a bit like a Chinese painting. I thought thesound was taking over the whole thing, I would suggest that the artist pays attention to
the sound. While the images change, the sound is always the same. To take it above thelevel of a student work, she should pay more attention to what kind of message she’s
trying to deliver.

Huhtamo:

The Elusive is a different work from any other because it has this flipbook approach.
For me the most interesting element is when you look at the stop-motion that’s
happening within the flip-book animation, during the flipping process, part of what you
see seems to be reversed and upside-down. What I find strange is that when it stops
momentarily, it always stops in the upright position, so what kind of message is it
sending? The artist is saying that understanding of humanity can happen through alandscape, which may explain why the image always stops in the correct manner. The
elusiveness is referred to by the installation’s structure itself, so that when you look at itfrom the front, you can only see one of the devices in motion. I don’t think it is fully
resolved. If you move to the side, you can look at all these things from an oblique angle.
The artist forces you to make choices with your viewing position, so that you are playing
with the landscape while your own body is moving. The work has a lot of promise, but
is not completely satisfactory. Two points: first, I’m not sure if this straight line –like
presentation is the most successful form, and second, I don’t think this flipping action
does as much as it could do. It does not create enough dynamism between the stopping
and the flipping movement. It’s an interesting work that tries to talk about interestingand important issues, but it’s not yet fully resolved.
Benayoun: The reverse image that you talk about, I think it’s because you are taller, that you see theimage that’s over it before it arrives in the correct position.
Ng:

This is like a flip board that you see at airports in the old days. It seems that the artist
framed it too loosely, whether or not it’s intentional.

Benayoun: There are two things: the device and the content. I saw this work at another venue two
weeks ago for another exhibition. I also came across another work the week before using
exactly the same technique, automatic flip-book, with butterflies. There the integration
between content and device is amazing and it works. Here the problem you have is thecontent. I don’t get the point. It’s just something moving without motion to present. The
stop frame should be a kind of climax and surprise, and should bring you another
understanding of the motion. For me, the work is on the way to doing somethinginteresting, but stops there.
Chung:

I try to ask why the devices are the same height and the frame size is the same. Also thetime that they start and stop is the same.

Tam:

I think the artist is using the analogy of a tunnel that soldiers use to escape undergroundto say something. The photos are taken at borders and are related to the army and thehistory of Hong Kong. I agree that there is a disconnect between the presentation andimages, and what he tried to bring with the flip-book is not very clear.

Benayoun: Imagine a microphone recording the sound of flipping pages, like a machine gun firing,that could be interesting. We expect some integration between the medium and thecontent.
Huhtamo:

If the artist is trying to suggest a tunnel, then the frames should be of increasing size as
you go further back. Right now it doesn’t work because the frames are hidden behindeach other. The only way you can see it as a tunnel is by going to the side, whichmeans that you are, in a way, outside the installation. For me, the work is not developed
enough to be fully interesting.

In Spring up II – Coexistence, we have a work in which the sound resonates withmirrors, and takes environmental sound affecting the visuals around it. The problem I
find with this work is the resonating reflections of little mirrors on the walls are kind of
messy, and they don’t seem to be changing much. For me the visual world around it is
not super interesting. The other issue is that the installation itself makes quite a lot ofnoise, and it’s difficult for me to understand how that noise the mechanism makes
combine with the ambient noise that’s supposed to happen here. It would be moreinteresting if the installation itself was more quiet to give audiences the chance to playwith the visual work we see here. It’s definitely a work that’s fully realized, but I don’t
find the effect is highly successful.
Benayoun: I agree. I see no clue in the work anything related to the sound capture. It’s impossible
because of the noise it makes. The visual effect is not that interesting, and the motion is
not surprising. If it was a perceptive machine that is sensitive to the environment, thenit would be the starting point of something interesting. But this is not in the work, I justsee something moving and making noise.
Tam:I think it would work better if the environment is dark. What I would call noise, notsound, is disturbing. If the work was presented better, I’d imagine it’s like an animatedmachine, and the reflections of the mirror is like butterflies or insects flying in space.
It’s like the jelly fish room in Ocean Park, but here I don’t see the idea executed
effectively, it’s just mirrors reflecting light. It does not give the sense of animated life.
The noise upsets the poetic quality of the work.

Chung:The motor noise of the machine is defeating the purpose of the work, which is about thepoetics of life and the ecology of co-existence. I could see little relations between mypresence and the machine’s reaction.

Huhtamo:voice from the root, reclaiming speaks about important issues, about language in
relations to identity and the disappearance of identity. The choice of chairs is deliberate
and represent the multiplicity of cultures and points of view. You are forced to makechoices between those seats, which affects your identity. Also there is the aspect of thedisappearing language. The thematic aspect of the work is quite interesting. It has many
implications not only for Hong Kong, but also for China and the world. The only issue
I have is that aside from the chairs, it is difficult for me, as a foreigner, to get into thework and follow the whole process. Another issue is the monitor, loud speakers andchairs plus the table and desk, the two parts of the work did not quite work together. I
have an interest in the idea behind it, though. I didn’t find the balance between the idea
and the presentation quite perfect as an installation.

Tam:

I like this work because it’s local, but the down side of being local is that it speaks only
to certain audience, but not an international audience. When I look at the work, I wonder
how English-speaking people would understand it, because it is about colloquial
Chinese dialects. The artist is trying to learn from his father the dialect that he speaks,
and so it’s not just a study of language but also the history of his family, his identity. But
for a colloquial work, some of the idea would be lost in translation. The primitive nature

of the work and the use of all those chairs, which are just simple chairs you can find inany family, as opposed to business chairs that reminds you of certain authority. The
chairs are very low and suggests humbling yourself to take a very informal lesson—hesets it up like a classroom. I do agree that the two parts of the installation don’t work
very well as a whole, but he is recording the whole conversation between him and his
father in the booklet, while on the other side in the informal classroom, you hear the
dialogue going on between the speakers. It’s a low-tech work, but I like the primitivenessand also the human side of it.
Benayoun: On the one hand, we mentioned that Ming Jing is suited for the art world, while thiswork is exactly the opposite. Hakka culture is the primitive culture of Hong Kong. The
presentation is appropriate to the topic: the TV set is a cheap old one, the chairs are thesame. It’s not just the good will behind the work, but also how it’s structured. For
example, the comparison of words, and even though I am not native, I understand what
the process is. There is something missing, and might be related to light. Imagine
something more intimate. This is not a work where there is a degradation between
medium and content, to me they are totally appropriate. I don’t understand why hedoesn’t use video.
Tam:

I think he wants you to concentrate on the voice. Even though he uses Chinese words,
it’s an alliteration, it doesn’t make sense at all, I can just pronounce the sounds that issimilar to the dialect, so there is no difference between you and me.

Benayoun: Even a blurry video would be good. There is a difference between a good documentary
and a good artwork. For me this work still lacks something.
Chung:

I agree. I think what’s missing is because he’s talking about his father teaching him, it’sa personal experience with his father, and that part is missing in the work. It’s notnecessary to show the father, but to give a hint of the intimate and specific relationshipbetween himself and his father, that’s important in this case. It’s important to see
something that reminds me that he’s learning from his father, and how the relationshipplays out through the learning process. Nowadays they are talking about the unificationof dialects in Hong Kong and China, and phasing out Cantonese, so preserving dialects
is a hot topic.

Huhtamo:With regards to Rekion-crepitation, I was told that this work exists as a kind of
performance, and the supersonic wave sound recording is amazing. I’m not sure if thevarious elements are match each other perfectly well, and I also wonder how seeing theperformance would change our perspective.

Fan:

We invited the artist to do an opening act, but when he arrived, we discovered that themachine would either work on him or in the installation, but not both in this setting, andhe decided that the exhibition part is more important.

Benayoun: It would be good to have the video presented next to the robot. We need the
documentation to understand. To me it’s totally fake, it would be magical if we can really
get the sound from the body.
Ng:

I don’t think it’s a good representation of the performance, which is more interesting
than the robot itself.

Huhtamo:It’s a pity, because there is more potential there.
About SEMI-SENSELESS DRAWING MODULES Trilogy, I didn’t see the full thing.
I saw the work at the ICC in Tokyo. I saw the portrait version. It was on two opposite
walls, the portrait videos behind you, and the robots in front, and you are standing
between the two. I’m not sure I understand the logic, in what sense are the robots taking
something from the projected videos and turning them into some kind of drawing? The
work is ambitious, but there are a lot of works with drawing robots around, so it is notvery original. Also I don’t understand what it’s trying to do. The three elements make itless interesting for me, because it adds a sense of randomness. I understand it is trying
to make a connection between humans and robots/cybernetic creatures, but I am not sure
if it’s totally original.

Benayoun: For me, there are different elements: tracking the hand with colors, migration between
watching the video and drawing, and writing. It is interesting what people put in Artist
Statement. When I read “Explore the meaning of human creativity”, I say, “What is themeaning of human creativity? I have no idea!” Just because of that, I have to say no!
Chung:In the first round, I had high expectations of this work. Not only the sophistication oftechnology, but I expect that they invite some community to work with that machine inorder to explore co-drawing between children and machine. What we see is simply
recreating our drawing or writing on the notebook and with some randomness creating
the marks on paper. When we chose this work as a finalist, we were expecting some sortof package with the community and a participatory approach with this work.

Fan:

This work is a trilogy, and in the first part, they invited children to participate, but there
is no participatory element in the proposal for this part.

Tam:

I think when they provide the book for you to write about Hong Kong, that’s theparticipatory element.

Benayoun: This shows how hard it is to be a media artist—it’s difficult to do something that’s not ademo, or haven’t been done by many other people, and to create something coherent.
This work is not very convincing.
Chung:

With iFerrum, I saw the work in the graduation show, which had the real fluid. Here
there is only the documentation, a collection of the equipment supporting the experiment,
but not the real work shown to the audience.

Ng:

When I look at works like this, I look at whether the result is interesting, and secondly
whether the concept is meaningful. This work has a lot of possibilities in the future, butright now it stops at the first level and is not pushed forward the next.

Huhtamo:I have seen works in the past that use magnetic particles, there is a tradition of these kindof works. For me, using the magnetic process to draw those abstract paintings is themost interesting aspect, rather than just the manipulation of those fluids. I haven’t seenother people doing that.

Benayoun: For me, it’s very close to what you get with ink and stroke, so it’s not surprising.
Huhtamo:

I vote for Ming Jing for the main prize. For me it’s the most outstanding work.

Benayoun: It’s the most complete work.
Ng:

It looks like a grand prize work.

Benayoun: Do we have any alternative?
Huhtamo:I like voice from the root, reclaiming. I think there’s an honesty to the work and abalance between the low-tech form and the artist’s relationship with his father.

Ng:

I’m confused why this work is in the media art category. It’s a simple video installation,with no interactivity and not much technology, so I am a little hesitant about it. It’s anice work, and the Hakka dialect is politically correct in the art world. “Innovative useof technology” part is a bit weak.

Huhtamo:

The creativity and originality works, also feasibility for exhibition. I think it has
independent spirit. What other nominations are there? Rekion-crepitation or iFerrum?

Chung:

If you compare the two, I think Rekion-crepitation is more complete.

Huhtamo:We recognize the work is both a performance and an installation, and even though theperformance is not shown here, the two create an interesting interplay and complement
each other. But even judging from what we can see, the sound quality is extraordinary.
It’s amazing to hear the soundscape the system creates.

Benayoun: That’s just a technical aspect, about the use of super-directivity of sound, and there areplenty of people working with that. The technology works, but the performance is weak.
It uses the body more to synchronize the motion of the robot, rather than taking
something from the body.
Huhtamo:

What about Black Moves? We all found it nice, even though it’s not very original, andit’s not a perfect installation. Nobody has any strong objections against Rekioncrepitation, it’s just that it’s not presented right?

Benayoun: It’s not presented as it should be. The original intention was something more immersive.
Tam:

Would you consider not giving Silver?

Fan:

It is possible. You just need to consider which is the best work to give the awards to. If
you think nothing fits into that award, we can skip it. For Gold Award, the recipient gets
$50,000 cash prize, software and trophy. Silver Award gets $30,000, and Special
Mention gets no money and a certificate. For Best Local Work, the highest ranked
finalist will get this award. That means if the Gold Award winner is from Hong Kong,
he will get this also. We allow changes and suggestions with reasons. For example, youmentioned that voice from the root, reclaiming embodies independent spirit, in someways, maybe this can be a new definition for Best Local Work.

Benayoun: For Rekion-crepitation, we find the sound disturbing because we are referring to thestatement, which says it takes sound from around. If we forget the performance, it’s acoherent work if we accept that the sound produced is my body in action. It’s not a weakversion of the performance, but something that is a statement in itself that is quite
coherent. It is not designed to please the art field, but the community.
Chung:

I consider it performance, but not by a human being.

Tam:

One of the objectives of the competition is to nurture, and if we see an artist who’s still
missing something…

Fan:

For your information, our original definition of the Best Local work is the highest
ranking Hong Kong work, which should be the Gold Award winner, but you can also
use this award to recognize other local works. However, you should explain it in yourstatement on stage at the awards ceremony.

Benayoun: Maybe we should give something to The Elusive. Can it be the Hong Kong prize?
Huhtamo:

It cannot be called Best Local work…

Tam:

I like the name Emerging Talent.

Media Arts Category
Gold Award
Ming Jing
Chan Kiu-hong / Hong Kong
Silver Award
Rekion-crepitationKatsuki Nogami / Japan

Special Mention
voice from the root, reclaiming
Yip Kai-chun / Hong Kong
Emerging Talent Award
The Elusive
Siu Wai-hang / Hong Kong