My work over the last 25 years has been about this question of monstrosity, the monstrosity of historical narratives. But I think in this particular case, the piece on Stuart Hall, the unfinished conversation is really about the traffic of history. The traffic between the past and the present of ideas of identities, how we move in time. So there's a very direct connection between the unfinished conversation and the theme of the show. We're both concerned with the conundrum, the paradoxes of history. And we're trying to ask the same questions, which is what is a historical narrative, how is it constructed, what are the elements of that narrative, and in what ways does the elements of a historical narrative shape human action and responses. So the unfinished conversation is a three screen piece, three channel moving image piece. And the point of departure for it is the work of a very influential cultural theorist in England called Stuart Hall. Stuart Hall was one of the founders of cultural studies. The man whose life is the point of the piece is one of my mentors. He helped my generation, the young people whose parents were from immigrant families, who became like 1819 in the seventies, people like me in England, helped us a lot to think about who we were and what we want to do with our life. Because when I was a young person in the late seventies, early eighties, to hear him talk about what it is to be different in a society was very, very important. It gave you a sense of not simply of self, but of agency, you know what I mean, of what you could do with your life. So it seemed like a fitting tribute to be able to at some point use that life, my life, to do something on his life. It's really a dialogue about how human beings come about, what we are and I suppose where our identities come from. Because it's a conversation between him, his world and the images of his world. So you've got three different things happening at the same time. So let's say for instance, he's interviewed in 1962 and the interview is about poverty. So you see him speaking about poverty in the middle screen, on the left screen you might see some images of poverty from that period, but you could also see at the same time on the other screen images of poverty in the present. So it's a, that the three screens are trying to get images to talk to each other. Most conventional understandings of history presuppose that history is unfolds, if you like, sequentially. One thing leads to the next and so on and so on. The theme of the show suggests otherwise, suggests that the relationship between the past and the present is slightly more dynamic, much more fluid, much more ambiguous and that where there are relations between human beings and historical events, it's not a direct or if it is direct, it's not simple. So I think this, this way of making our sense of the historical complex and complicated, if you take Taiwanese history let's say over the last 60 years, most people who consider themselves Taiwanese have a complicated relationship to that history. That's not unique, it's not unique to Taiwan, just about everywhere you go on the planet. To intervene in that process, the process by which on the one hand you have history and on the other hand you have identity. To intervene in the middle and try and make that complicated as part of a show, I think it's important because that's the real relationship the people have.