Wang Xiaosong The Berlin Wall and the Tower of Babel, two great historical structures of “exchange.” The Tower of Babel represented an expansion of the infinite human desire for communication, whereas the Berlin Wall stood as a harsh cleaving of interconnectedness. While these two structures have long since fallen, discussion of exchange and of the boundaries between exchange will never cease, and whenever the “Cross-straits Four-Regions” are mentioned, these subjects will always bear the brunt of the conversation. The Cross-straits Four-Regions Art Exchange Project follows the thread of “exchange”, and these three series have addressed to increasingly specific questions in a more direct approach. In turn, it cause greater unpredictability and difficulty for execution, and gives rise to the questions “we” or “they” didn’t realize before. For instance, in the exchange of Hui Nga Shu Rita (Hong Kong) and Yao Chung-Han (Taiwan), they both assume the notion “Cross-Strait Four-Regions” connotes political ideology. This kind of sensitive and art-irrelevant issues which we intentionally avoid from the very beginning, however, are the most distinctive elements of this exhibition. They have transformed from concerpt into cognition through abstract history and concrete life. Unfortunately seldom people bother to question the authenticity of their own sensibility, but all reduce to blind followers of media effects in an age of popularization and entertainment. Blindness seems to be a pervasive phenomenon under the slogan of globalization, and art creation are infected with such air. Art in Beijing copies art in New York; the “local art” of Guangdong and Fujian follows that in Beijing. In the end a pernicious logic circle is formed. For us who constantly pursue our positions in contemporary art, the reality transformations of Cross-Strait Four-Regions give us a chance to avoid such corruption and develop an art approach based on “exchange”. Unlike other exhibitions, these projects—from The Butterfly Effect to 1+1—have moved away from a focus on the artworks themselves. Instead, the Cross-straits Four-Regions Art Exchange Project increasingly concerns itself with the many factors that are at play before the artworks take shape. By observing each other, the participants are allowed to observe themselves. Only after this process of observation can the participants gain a true sensitivity, can other questions, like issues of identity, emerge. Confirmation of self-identity is always linked to the observation of others. Not only is identity not a fixed thing, but neither is it a seemingly simple matter of belief. Like the coffee lover’s opposition to garlic lover and, what latent innermost are the vulgar self-expansion, meaningless superiority complex and other cheap consciousness. For most people in an unusual circumanstance, such characters are the easiest and earliest to expose or explode. In the execution process of “1+1” project, most of the unanticipated inciddents which have nothing to do with sincerity, are due to such characters. Between people, the political boundary actually is the easiest one to cross. When the project plan was discussed, I proposed an idea that each pair of artists collaborate on one piece of work and create one on their own as well. Thus the juxtaposition of three works will give two levels of creation. What happened later proves that only if the artists could connect their difference or divergence through certain linkage mechanism and form a circulate channel for exchange, which is like the state of collaboration of Liu Liyun (Mainland) and George Wong (Hong Kong), otherwise the proposal is just an illusionary utopian idea. Social association and confrontation of ideas sometimes are intertwined and confusing. In the story about the friendship of Yu Boya and Zhong Ziqi, art is the starting point for communication exchange. In the “1+1” project, however, things happened that one identified with the concept at first but resolutely claimed for “independence” later, who is the victim of exaggerated personal independence or expansion by contemporary art. The northerner has a word “Jiao Qing” (affected or hypocritical). An “hypocritical” attitude toward “art” may bring overstated boundaries and obstacles. In the collaboration of João Ó Bruno Soares (Macau) and Ho Ming-Kuei (Taiwan), they avoid one-on-one collision and artfully find a post for transformation. Through relating the feelings and stories of space, they take their overlapping understanding as the basis of art creation. The parallax theory concerns outer factors, and their approach lies in the transformation and enhancement of the inner energy. In the collaboration of Wu Jian’an (Mainland) and Bai Qiang (Macao) where mutual restraint takes charge, what if “aladdin’s lamp” did not come out after “camel”? Accumulated energy fails to transform, which leads to another sudden suspending awkwardness. Unpredictable incidents run through the whole project; the stage is set, but the player treats it as a mere formality. Two weeks before the exhibition opening, a constantly disappearing artist remembered the unfinished work. The excuse of “free art” could not cover up the disrespectful attitude. After reading the documents of this project, I find that “affectation” has nothing to do with particular region, identity, age or gender. Ever since “The Butterfly Effect”, I treat the participating crossover artists--designer, photographer-- with awe, which is another way to play my cards. Based on the principle of presenting the real exchange ecology through details, I distributed most of the pages to documents, and even ignored the wrong spelling in artists’ emails. Such odd request made the translators and designers suffer. The artist and audience who equate artworks with the whole art may feel fooled. It offers people a chance to know stories behind the production of the work, while usually only modified art are accessible. Unfortunately, not all parts are documented, and not all thing could be preserved or presented, partially due to technical limitation, partially “relevant” reason, and others due to something latent in consciousness and unspeakable. Even though, from the incomplete documents, some unconcealable parts appear from time to time. As an outsider, I regard my work as a way of dealing with the pressure of “create results” and coping with anxiety. For more “outsiders”, they can review themselves while watching, questioning and criticizing others exchange. After all, art activity is merely a small profile of “exchange”.

Feng Boyi I. This strangely titled curatorial statement seems to have something to do with maths. I came across a passage in the postscript to Xu Ben’s Wither Cultural Criticism?: Chinese Cultural Discussion after 1989, in which he references Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground. Dostoevsky used “2 x 2 = 4” to symbolize a thoughtless, stifling, everyday world thoroughly controlled by outside forces and took “2 x 2 = 5” as expressing the promise of joy and defiance of authority embodied in an independent creative act. I was delighted to find a basis for the title of my essay. All I wanted was to use a mathematical shorthand to represent the process and outcomes of 1+1: A Cross-Strait Four-Regions Artistic Exchange Project or to formulate a descriptive analogy with a mathematical flavour for the exhibition. After all, mathematics is the most concise, accurate and pure form of description. II. 1+1: A Cross-Strait Four-Regions Artistic Exchange Project arose over the last few years within the framework of routine exhibition planning at the He Xiangning Art Museum. As the museum’s art director, I have long contemplated how to create a targeted relationship between the scholarly activities of a public art space and regional cultural practices. He Xiangning Art Museum is located in Shenzhen, a city of new immigrants and one that expanded in the wake of the Mainland’s reform and opening-up. It neighbours the Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan region. The history and realities of the Hong Kong- Macau-Taiwan region and its tension with the Mainland have come to form a relationship at once distinct, complex and rich with meaning. For that reason, strengthening artistic exchange is not only a duty and a responsibility of our museum but also a determination made by its scholarly orientation. At the same time, Our work in this respect differentiates our museum from others and is a concrete embodiment of the uniqueness of our museum’s development mechanism. III. Most artistic-exchange-based exhibitions—both past and present—have been built around a superficial thematic framework. They show how the work of artists from different nations and regions responds, in appearance, to a given theme. They achieve some degree of exchange. However, this curatorial approach only touches the surface of exchange and fails to initiate deep communication. It does not reveal the similarities and differences of artistic sensibility that exist in varying cultural practices. This kind of approach cannot lead to mutually-enlightening effects. Bearing this in mind, we attempted to treat the process of the exhibition—from planning to execution—as an experimental process to instigate what we saw as deeper or more meaningful exchange and communication. Exchange and communication between places and even between people can take three fundamental forms: unhindered, happy exchange, awkward compromise and attempted but unsuccessful exchange. We tend to idealize, delight in or promote the first type while neglecting the second and third. Nonetheless, in reality, the latter two normally characterize communication. They are among the primary themes in Xu Bing’s work. Telephone and Square Word Calligraphy, for instance, stand as artistic hints at the awkward state of East-West cultural communication. This exchange-based exhibition was given a prescriptive quality by the curators. To define our curatorial concept and approach, we first established “the rules of the game.” The five curators of this project invited young artists from each of their corresponding regions to participate, and six months Ago, these artists were brought together at the He Xiangning Art Museum, where they split off into self-selected 1+1 pairs, or what we jokingly referred to as arranged marriages. Once the pairs had become acquainted, they began the process of making a piece specifically created for the exhibition, initiated negotiation and “eased into a state of bliss”. Graphic designers from the Mainland and Hong Kong were also invited to participate as artists. They collaborated on exhibition-related graphic design that became part of the work on display. The work and process of making the exhibition, shared by curators from the four regions, was also integral to the concept of the exhibition. All of the project-related exchanges that took place between us came to form part of the unified whole. During this period, within the context of our common Chinese cultural and linguistic traditions, we engaged in dialogue: our histories, realities and futures; our individual backgrounds, memories, experiences, attitudes, personalities and training as reflected in our participation in the exhibition were laid bare in the process of exchange, in what resulted and in how each of us approached our work. And this, to varying degrees, manifested our commonalities and our divergent cultural imprints. It made us confront the question of isomorphism inherent in exchange. This was our original intention, our goal for this exhibition, a kind of utopian ideal, an ardent hope. IV. This also brought to the fore some of my feelings and judgements surrounding the question of curatorial principle and practice. First, as I have always believed, artists and the works they create comprise only one, albeit primary, aspect of contemporary art. Curatorial practice and exhibitions themselves are an indispensable node in the network of the art ecosystem, which includes critics, museums, galleries, the art market, the media and various other links. In the 1990s art historian and curator Wu Hung wrote Art and Exhibition: Wu Hung on Contemporary Chinese Art, in which he approaches the subject of contemporary art from the perspective of curatorial practice and the exhibition, exploring their value and function within the practice of contemporary art. I have gained much from this text. Second, there is a relationship of equality and mutual benefit that exists between artists curators and critics. They are only differentiated by their roles within society and the specifics of their work. There is no distinction of status or of who they serve. But, in truth, there is one distinction: artists will always appear to take the leading role. Therefore, in this exhibition, I have intentionally emphasized the function, effect and prescriptive aspect of the curator. If the artists could identify with this kind of curatorial approach, then they had accepted the rules of the game, which they could have simply rejected or ignored. This was a kind of exchange, a mutual choice, a move on the chess board. Third, in the last few years the Mainland has been teeming with every description of exhibition, driven in large part by the bubble effect of the art market. It has pushed contemporary art creation in the direction of a short-sighted rush for quick profits. The materialistic desires, the consumerism that so many artists judge, expose, question and mock in their artwork is exactly what they pursue and take limitless pleasure enjoying in their day-to-day lives. If it can be said that the early Mainland avant-garde art of the 1980s and 1990s possessed a critical, exploratory stand-point and attitude, then much recent art has been chasing the tide of officialdom and commerce. These artists wear the mask of the avant-garde artist’s identity, but what they truly covet is the fashion and celebrity of mainstream culture. To say something that nobody wants to hear, they have hung a sheep’s head over their storefront but are selling dog meat. Moreover, many of these large-scale contemporary art exhibitions are nothing more than parties, places to show off, with banks, entrepreneurs, galleries, auction houses and other groups from which the museums derive a benefit pulling the strings and creating hype behind the scenes. So many art world greats, including curators and critics, assume the guise of academia, while their ideologies actually wallow in the mire of mainstream culture. The deviations or paradoxes of the ultimate concerns and practical survival strategies of this kind of culture, as well as intoxicating binges on the temporal run rampant. Thus, in the context of the vulgarization of contemporary art exhibitions, it is my belief that curating an experimental, in-depth, pure exhibition of a small scale is even more socially relevant and much more urgent. V. In October of last year, in order to make exchange more substantive, we brought the artists together at the He Xiangning Art Museum for a site visit. They met with the curators and described their creative processes and representative works so that they could better identify with the curatorial concept and become familiar with the details of the exhibition. Importantly, under the coordination of the curators, the artists from the four regions had a chance to get to know each other and begin to pursue the subjects of their collaboration. In this first round we were truly surprised to find that the artists from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan were more reserved, more modest, more well-mannered and unassuming whereas the Mainland artists were more pompous, more ego-driven—they possessed an air of revolutionary sovereignty. This divergence has a direct connection to educational backgrounds and social environments. Since the inception of the New Culture Movement, Mainland culture has flowed in the direction of cultural radicalism, developing around rallying cries of art for humanity’s sake. When the Communist Party government was established in 1949, official co-option alienated this kind of left-wing cultural radicalism, transforming it into an ideology backed by political power. But a revolutionary cultural stance has nevertheless been passed down through the generations. Avant-garde art since reform and opening-up has flaunted this role. Challenging tradition, subverting order and criticizing reality have spread like wildfire and have met with an uninterrupted flow of encouragement and comfort from post-Cold War thinkers outside of China. It has also resulted in an overwhelming tendency for artists to engage in lawless opportunism, one reason that they have been subject to so much public reproach. Another fascinating situation emerged in the process of 1+1 pairing: artists from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan quickly saw eye-to-eye and were easily able to locate a desirable collaborative partner whereas artists from the Mainland appeared lazy and unmotivated. Perhaps they were not interested in the opportunity this exhibition presented or perhaps there were other reasons behind their attitudes. The curators attempted to mediate this issue without success. Thus two Mainland artists, Liang Yuanwei (Beijing) and Bai Xiaoci (Shenzhen), were joined together in an inbred union, which upset our prescribed principles of regional partnering. Clearly, an inescapable awkwardness still characterizes the latent tensions that exist between the four regions across the strait. VI. Even if we had anticipated the three forms and results of exchange, we still hoped that the collaborations would proceed smoothly and happily. We hoped even more that through their collaborative efforts the artists would make great leaps in their creative practices, that through exploration and in continuity with the foundation laid by their past work, the artists would achieve mutual benefit, inspiration and greater beauty. After familiarizing myself with the artworks and proposals produced by the 1+1 groups, I personally felt that the exchange-collaboration of Liu Liyun and Huang Zhuoxuan achieved our ideal, a sentiment shared by all. The words amid and between do not merely imply geographic separation, but also cultural and personal gulfs. The doll, hanging in mid-air, formed of a light exterior and an inner heaviness, which Liu Liyun and Huang Zhuoxuan refer to in their written exchanges, symbolizes the weight and burden of culture and politics. The sands of Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Taipei that travel through the three public art spaces in a fine, uninterrupted drift represent the floating light and broken shadows of history and reality. This work reflects the concept of exchange transformed into art. It shows how seriously exchange entered into their approach to their work and the extent of their technical rigor. One could say that this project presents a visual example of a successful case study. Unsuccessful collaboration can be seen in the case of Zhao Zhao (Beijing) and Tan Kai-Ti (Taiwan). During the October matchmaking session, they thought very highly each other. Kai-Ti even traveled from Taipei to Zhao Zhao’s studio in Beijing to spend more time communicating face-to-face. The video presented in this exhibition depicts them as they began their collaboration, it includes scenes of Zhao Zhao showing Kai-Ti the Imperial Palace in Beijing. Then, perhaps because “little common ground exists for those of divergent principles,” collaboration stopped. As they were unable to produce a finished collaborative work, we had no choice but to exhibit their works separately. Kai-Ti continued with her own creation; Zhao Zhao provided a video work, which perhaps represents an accurate portrait of his state of mind. Unfortunately, it seems that the prophecy of “attempted but unsuccessful exchange” was fulfilled. Adequate 1+1 collaboration was carried out by Liang Yuanwei and Bai Xiaoci. While birth defects are the freakish inevitability of in-breeding (as noted previously), their work does possess its own strengths and points of interest. But any product “made simply for the sake of collaboration” will show its forced nature. What most caused me to lose face was the approach to 1+1 collaboration evinced by Mainland designer Liu Zhizhi—who participated in the exhibition as an artist—and Hong Kong-based Trilingual Design Group. As the graphic design deadlines for the exhibition drew near, Liu chickened out and unilaterally abandoned the collaboration. He left us unprepared to deal with the graphic design needs of the exhibition. I still don’t know what caused this situation. Perhaps it was a mentality of blundering competitiveness. Entangled in this mess, I was rendered speechless with shame. I had a sense of accountability to the sponsoring institutions and to the other brothers and sisters involved in the project. These descriptions only signify my personal judgements or presumptions and they should not imply that the other collaborations were unsuccessful. I single these out as representative case studies in order to explain the variety of results that can come from collaboration, just as we seek to derive and solidify our strange equation: is 1 + 1 = 2, or ≈ 2, or ≠ 2, or>2, or<2, or some other result of the infinite permutations of this uncertain calculation? VII. As I see it now, the process and results of exchange are of little importance. Instead, active involvement, the first-hand artistic experience of engaging the process is what matters. The various divergent results of these choices are rooted in the cultures, education, social practices, even in the individual interests an personalities, among many other factors, that differentiate the four regions. For this reason, the works that are exhibited in the galleries, the written record of the process and the moments captured in film and photographs are all means of portraying the four-regions exchange that took place between this project’s participants. So what of it? Perhaps people are unique, complex and cannot be characterized as standing in simple binary opposition. The relationship between things like history, reality, personal context and identity will always be more complex and subtle than what we imagine or presume or tease out. It is difficult enough for people who share the same context to communicate, let alone for people socialized in divergent cultural environments. Maybe this is the true state of deep or meaningful exchange, that the ideal utopia we speak of is only present in this very real dystopia. VIII. While drafting this curatorial statement I happened upon a report of the Davos Forum that was being held over the winter. It mentioned that the forum would focus on research and discussion of the conditions and background of the current global economy, with the goal of promoting international economic and technological cooperation and exchange. It predicted that global economic cooperation would produce the positive result of “1 + 1 = 11.” I had already become sensitive to this kind of numeric representation. But as I understood it, 1 + 1 was still just “1” and “1”.

1980 Born in Beijing, China 2002 Graduated from Beijing Broadcasting Institute, received B.A. degree 2005 Graduated from Central Academy of Fine Art, Beijing, received M.A. degree Currently lives and works in Beijing. Solo Exhibitions 2008 The Heaven of Nine Levels, Chambers Fine Art, Beijing, China 2006 Daydreams, Chambers Fine Art, New York, USA 2005 Searching for Piyingxi (Shadow Play), Oil Painting Department Gallery, Central Academy of Fine Arts,Beijing, China Group Exhibitions 2009 Live and Let Live: Creators of Tomorrow—The 4th Fukuoka Asian Art Triennale, Fukuoka Asian Art Museum, Fukuoka, Japan Always—As It Was, Tang Gallery, Bangkok, Thailand 2008 Another Lonely Planet Revisited, Chambers Fine Art, Beijing, China A+A’ 2008 The Third A+A, Duolun Museum of ModernArt, Shanghai, China 2007 Net: Reimagining Space, Time and Culture, Chambers Fine Art, Beijing, China A+A’ 2008 The Second A+A, Gallery of Central Academy of Fine Arts, Beijing; Sichuan University Museum, Chengdu, Sichuan; Chongqing Art Museum, Chongqing, China 2006 Coming from Daily Life---1st Academy Documentary of Experimental Art, Zhulou Art Space, Beijing, China New Folk Movement---The Reconstruct of Commonality Living, U Space, Beijing, China Painting and Handwork, PIFO New Art Studios, Beijing, China 2005 Archaeology of the Future: the 2nd Triennial of Chinese Art, Nanjing Museum, Nanjing, China

Born in Taipei, Taiwan, 1988
2006-2010 B.F.A. in Fine Art, Taipei National University of the Arts,
Taipei, Taiwan
Exhibition
2010 The 8th Taoyuan Creation Award, Taoyuan ,Taiwan
2010 2010 Outstanding Art Prize, Taipei National University of the Arts, Taipei, Taiwan
2009 「The 23th Exhibitions of TNUA 」, Taipei National University of the Arts, Taipei, Taiwan
2009 “I flit, I float, I fleetly flee, I fly.” Pei-Ju Lee, Zi-Juan Lin, Kai-Ti Shan. group exhibition, Nan Bei gallery, Taipei National University of the Arts, Taipei, Taiwan
2008 「The 22th Exhibitions of TNUA 」, Taipei National University of the Arts, Taipei, Taiwan
2007 The Second Grade Exhibitions of TNUA, Taipei National University of the Arts, Taipei, Taiwan
2006 「The Edge Of Communication」, Art Site of Chiayi Railway Warehouse, Chiayi, Taiwan Award
2010 The 8th Taoyuan Creation Award, first award. 2010 Outstanding Art Prize of Art Department, selected. 2009 「The 23th Exhibitions of TNUA 」, second award.

1979 born in Yunlin, Taiwan, graduated from Taipei National University of Arts, Graduate School of Arts and Technology in 2007, and is now a member of the art group: Luxury Logico. Chen is skilled in creating video pieces by mechanic devices controlled by self- made software, combining it with interactive installation and real time programming. Portraying the fleeting moment of time-space in a poetic way, Chen aims to discuss issues of time, space and perception structure.

An active member of the new generation of sound artists in Taiwan. Born in Taipei in 1981,Works mostly with sound, while searching for the true connections between video, installation, space and various media. Biography 2010 Artistic Director - i/O Lab. Education 2008 Graduate School of Art and Technology, Taipei National University of the Art 2005 Department of Interior Design, Shih Chien University Group Exhibitions 2010 Resonance Exhibition, IO Gallery, HongKong, China 2010 "Non-places_Architecture of Pheromonal Presence" Architecture Exhibition in SCU, Taipei, Taiwan 2010 Emergencies!014(エマージェンシーズ！014), NTT ICC, Tokyo, Japan 2010 TOKYO STORY(レジデンス成果発表展), Tokyo Wonder Site, Tokyo, Japan 2010 Look if you like, but you will have to leap(見るまえに跳べ), 3331 ARTS CYD, Tokyo, Japan 2010 SuperGeneration@TAIWAN, Beijing Today Art Museum, Beijing, China 2009 SuperGeneration@TAIWAN, Shanghai Art Museum, Shanghai, China 2009 The 4th Fukuoka Asian Art Triennale 2009, FUKUOKA ASIAN ART MUSEUM, Fukuoka, Japan 2009 TranSonic-Sounding Objects, Galerie Grand Siecle, Taipei, Taiwan 2009 Horizon of Voice, Gallery100, Taipei, Taiwan 2009 The Organic Flux, Digiark, Taichung, Taiwan 2009 New Faces all Together in Digital Art, Digital Art Center, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 Taipei Arts Award, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 SuperGeneration@Taiwan, MOCA, Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 BLINK, JIN-ZHI GALLERY, Miaoli, Taiwan 2008 The Light Enters You, ISSEY MIYAKE, Taichung, Taiwan 2008 Digital- Digital Art Exhi-perietion, Digital Art Center, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 Digital Art Festival Taipei, MOCA, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 Sensory Topology - Bodily Perception of Taiwan Contemporary Art, Gwangju Museum of Art, Gwangju, Korea 2008 VERY FUN PARK,Eslite Dun-Nan B2 Art Space, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 ART OSAKA, Osaka, Japan 2008 The 6th City on the Move Art Festival 2008, MOCA, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 Beijing Summer Digital Entertainment Jam, Beijing, China 2008 New Stars, Gallerie Pierre, Taichung, Taiwan 2008 Feigning Movement 3, Galerie Grand Siecle, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 trick3r, Nan-Hai Gallery, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 Sound Room, Bridge PAI, Charlottesville, U.S.A 2007 Digital Art Festival Taipei, The Red House, Taipei, Taiwan 2007 Asian Art Biennial 2007, National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts, Taichung, Taiwan 2007 Feigning Movement 2, Huashan Culture Park, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 CO6 Taiwan Avant-Garde Documenta III,National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts,Taichung, Taiwan 2006 Digital Art Festival Taipei,Chung-Shan Hall, Taipei, Taiwan 2005 B!AS International Sound Art Exhibition,audio work,Taipei Fine Arts Museum,Taipei, Taiwan Live Performances 2010 Resonance Exhibition - opening performance, IO Gallery, HongKong, China 2010 LLSP at TCAC, Taipei Contemporary Art Center, Taipei, Taiwan 2010 Sound, Image installation organized by GRAME - opening performance at TFAM, Taipei, Taiwan 2010 "Non-places_Architecture of Pheromonal Presence" - opening performance, Taipei, Taiwan 2010 Sound Bit, Legacy, Taipei, Taiwan 2010 OPEN SALON, NTT ICC, Tokyo, Japan 2010 LLSP at KYUGAI, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan 2010 ONTAMA(おんたま) vol.8, Gallery Conceal Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan 2010 FRAGMENT THEATRE(フラグメントシアター／断片化の解消), 3331 Arts CYD, Tokyo, Japan 2010 Test Tone vol.55, SuperDeluxe, Tokyo, Japan 2010 EXPERIMENTAL SOUND, ART & PERFORMANCE FESTIVAL,Tokyo Wonder Site,Tokyo, Japan 2009 LLSP (Laser-Lamp-Sound Performance), Fukuoka Asian Art Museum, Fukuoka, Japan 2009 Lacking Sound Festival 28, Nan-Hai Gallery, Taipei, Taiwan 2009 The Pier-2 Ichi Art Fair, Pier-2 Art Center, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 2008 tranSonic, Guling St. Avant-Garde Theatre, Taipei, Taiwan 2007 5th 2pi Festival 2007, Hangchow, China 2007 Sound from Taiwan, KULLBB, Hong Kong, China 2007 ZONE V2 Opening Reception,Museum of Contemporary Art Taipei, Taiwan 2007 Lacking Sound Festival, Nan-Hai Gallery, Taipei, Taiwan 2007 RinascimeNTU,National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 2007 SOUNDS OFF,Nan-Hai Gallery, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 PUSH PARTY,TADA CENTER, Taichung, Taiwan 2006 CO6 Taiwan Avant-Garde Documenta III,National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts,Taichung, Taiwan 2006 MIW,National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Forever Design Computation Interaction Workshop,Aspire Park, TaoYuan, Taiwan 2006 Digital Art Festival Taipei, Chung-Shan Hall, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Sonic Bloom,Kuandu Museum of Fine Arts, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 \^o^/ SIGHT─2006,Huashan Culture Park, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Lag Jam,VT Artsalon , Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Sound of Silence,National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 [ click + ] Sound-Visual Live ,Nan-Hai Gallery , Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Creative Commoms Love Share,Nan-Hai Gallery , Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Her-Party,under Hua-Chung Bridge , Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Maelstrom,the wall , Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Tape -Live in Taiwan,Nan-Hai Gallery , Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Second , Sound Performance,Nan-Hai Gallery , Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Weather in My Brain Sound-Visual Art Festival,Eslite Book Store, Taipei, Taiwan 2005 i/O SoundLab. Un-Equalize,Taipei National University of the Art , 2F Cafe , Taipei, Taiwan 2005 CCparty,Taipei NGO , Taipei, Taiwan Collaborations 2009 Funky Light Opening Performance, The Red House, Taipei, Taiwan 2008 The Light Enters You, ISSEY MIYAKE, Taichung, Taiwan 2008 Rush Hour on MULITE Boulevard, National Chang Kai Shek Cultural Center, Taipei, Taiwan 2007 Sunlight after Snowfall, National Chang Kai Shek Cultural Center, Taipei, Taiwan 2007 Tong Yang-Tze Digital Calligraphy, Eslite Book Store, Taipei, Taiwan 2007 NIDO Fashion Show, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 Eslite Drama Festival, Taipei, Taiwan 2006 SlowMerge, Museum of Contemporary Art Taipei, Taiwan Awards 2008 Taipei Arts Award, Selected, Taiwan 2008 Digital Art Festival Taipei, sound art prize, Taiwan 2008 Beijing Summer Digital Entertainment Jam, Best Concept Design, China 2007 S-An Art Award, Taiwan 2007 Digital Art Festival Taipei, sound art selected, Taiwan 2006 Digital Art Festival Taipei, sound art selected, Taiwan 2006 Seoul New Media Festival 2006, sound art selected, Korea 2006 Weather in My Brain Sound-Visual Art Festival, audiovisual work selected, Taiwan 2005 B!AS International Sound Art Exhibition, sound art selected, Taiwan Workshop 2009 Imazu Special-need School, Fukuoka, Japan 2009 Department of Architecture, Shih Chien University, Taipei, Taiwan Residence 2010 Tokyo Wonder Site, Tokyo, Japan

Ho, Ming-Kuei, was born in Chiayi, Taiwan in 1978.She received her MA degree on Fine Arts at Sheffield Hallam Univertsity in the U.K. Her works had been exhibited internationally such as England, Thailand, Taiwan and Japan. In recent years, she has focused on the impact of natural disaster and the reception of spectacles in everyday life. By using the ignorant sense of humour, Ho tries to inspire the common experience on viewers. With this concept, she uses instant drawings or model structures in her art practice.

Born in Macao in 1970s, Graduated in Design from the School of Arts of Macao Polytechnic Institute, majoring in graphic design. Works as a freelancing graphic designer，illustrator，photographer and a vocalist of Blademark which is a Macau local band . Solo Exhibition: 2010 Off the Wall – Live Painting by Pakeong (Beijing, China) WHITE PAPER - solo exhibition by Fortes Pakeong Sequeira (Macao, China) 2005 Mad!Mad!Mad!Fortes Sketches Solo Exhibition (Macao, China) Group Exhibitions: 2010 Fortes Live Drawing at The 3rd China (Xiamen) International Cultural Industires Fair, Macau Creative Pavilion (Xiamen, China) Fortes Live Drawing at The 6th China (Shenzhen) International Cultural Industires Fair, Macau Creative Pavilion (Shenzhen, China) ART BEIJING Art Fair - Art For All- Fortes Pakeong Sequeira Live Drawing Show (Beijing, China) Aroma of Art Multimedia Exhibition (Macao, China) 2009 Aroma of Art Multimedia Exhibition (Macao, China) Borderless Arts Members Exhibition (Macao, China) Blademark Multimedia Concert (Macao, China) Ox Re-Exhibition in the Year of the Ox (Macao, China) 2008 WINDS OF COOL: sixteen Macao Comtemporary Artists Summer Show (Macao, China) Prelude to the 10th Anniversary of 1999 Macao Handover"Art Exhibition (Macao, China) 2007 Life and Death (Macao, China) 2006 Nikiland (Macao Museum of Art, Macao) Macao New Wave - Exhibition of Contemporary Art (Macao Museum of Art, Macao) 2005 Macao Northern District Public Art Project 2005 (OX Warehouse, Macao) We are from the 70’s - Art Exhibition of Young Artists from Macao (Macao, China) Ruins' Flowers - Contemporary Photographic Exhibition (Macao, China)

Born in Xinjiang, China, 1982. 2003 graduated from the xinjiang institute of arts Lives and works in Beijing. EDUCATION 2000 XinjiangFineArtsUniversity, BFA in Painting, Xinjiang, China SOLO EXHIBITIONS 2009 “5113” Exhibition, TaiKang Gallery, Beijing, China 2008 “Da Quan Gou” Exhibition, CAW Gallery, Beijing, China GROUP EXHIBITIONS 2010 interpret out of context，T Space, Beijing Moving, Li Space, Beijing The Burden of Representation, Osage Gallery, HongKong Also Space, C Space, Beijing Archives, Osage Gallery, Hongkong 2009 Art Economies beyond Pattern Recognition, Osage Gallery, Shanghai, China Personal Space, 24 HR Art-Northern Territory Contemporary Art Centre, Darwin, Australia How Do Artists Work, Iberia Center for Comtemporary Art, Beijing 2008 Delirious Beijing, PKM Gallery, Beijing, China Insomnia, BizartArtCenter, Shanghai, China Landscape Topology, MageeArtGallery, Beijing, China Chinese Freedom, T Space. Beijing, China Interposition 366, Zendai Moma, Shanghai, China

Female 1977.12.27 born in Xian, China 1999.7 graduate from School of Design, China Central Academy of Fine Arts,B.A 2004.7 graduate from School of Design, China Central Academy of Fine Arts,Master's degree of Visual Communication Design now working and living in Beijing China Exhibitions of Art Works: 2000 "Time of Er Chang", Beijing, China 2003 "VV2-Recycling the Future", Venice, Italy 2005 "Naughty Kids", Star Gallery,Beijing, China 2006 "Diffusion of International Contemporary Art Exhibition" Kwangju, Korea 2003-2006 "N12"1st-4th Annual Exhibition, Beijing, China

Jeff Leung Chin Fung and Wang Te-Yu Wang Te-Yu: According to your observation, is collaboration something new in Hong Kong? Jeff Leung Chin Fung: Visual artists are mostly independent. With multi-media and topic-specific art becoming mainstream, sound artists, designers and new media artists are inclined to work with their peers. The word “crossover”, to me, reflects the vibrancy. The level of collaboration is the key. For new media art, sometimes it is more about technical support than artistic collaboration— when artistic exchange is more subtle. Looking at how new media and public art is taking shape, I believe collaboration is certainly the next step. Wang Te-Yu: Young artists and designers working as a group are rather common in Taiwan, and it’s a strategy. For new media artists, it is an excellent alternative to conventional arts clubs and art spaces for it is more flexible and beneficial. It is not unlike being in an organization or professional studio; as peers, they would support each other to scout and share resources, such as technical and artistic support and inspiration. In the capitalist society we live, survival of the artists often depend on their ability to be versatile. I think this is one of the differences between artists from Taiwan and those from the Mainland. We think the individual self isn’t absolute, but there is more possibility. What is your observation on Hong Kong? Jeff Leung Chin Fung: My impression is that post-2000 young Hong Kong artists tend to help each other out. For the sake of resources and mutual benefit, they adjust themselves and work together as a group from time to time. Most of the time they work on an individual basis, though. Like the artists based in the Fo Tan industrial area, they co-host the annual “Fotanian Open Studio Programme”, but they aren’t working as an official organization. On the contrary, in the 1990s, artists were more keen on the idea of setting up art groups to run their own art spaces. The term “art space” represents both the exhibition space and individual art group. 1A Space, Para/Site Art Space, Artist Commune and Videotage are still active in the scene and responsible for popularizing the culture of curatorial practice. Speaking of curating, I feel that curating in the form of a team is common in the West but not so on the Mainland and in Hong Kong. What’s your view on Taiwan in this respect? In this exchange, what is our role as a curatorial team? Wang Te-Yu: The controversial Taiwan Biennial co-curator scheme comes to my mind instantly. Co-curating is not a new concept to us, but in fact, there is always one dominating. Sometimes, we assume the curatorial role in the form of a consultation committee. It really depends on the scale of the show and the resources it allows. In Taiwan, which is not at the center of the international art world, collaboration (in aspects including curating and exhibition marking) attracts more resources and helps extend existing art platforms. In addition, the trend of cross-media or inter-disciplinary art practices is also part of the reasons for increased collaboration. Collaboration could be a strategy or a realistic consideration. Sometimes it is a curatorial scheme and even the exhibition itself, like the Taiwan Biennial last year. In Taiwan, curators have more internal and external network and resources. Most of the time, curators handpick artists for an exhibition. The Kuandu Museum of Fine Arts has reversed the practice in its Kuandu Biennale since 2008, with their artists inviting official, public or independent curators and critics to be involved. I suppose this is one of the characteristics of the Kuandu Museum of Fine Arts. In this exchange, I think Mr. Fung is more of a traditional curator, being the main force driving the exhibition. My involvement is more on administration and coordination, as an observant and “conductor” for communication. Jeff Leung Chin Fung: My observation on this exchange is that, the “Hong Kong + Taiwan” pairs were fast in getting into action because they know many common friends. The work, however, displays their differences. How do you see the different chemistry of the “Hong Kong + Taiwan”, “Macau + Taiwan” and “Mainland + Taiwan” teams? Wang Te-Yu: “Friend” is the key word here. I believe these exchanges are based on friendship, which then extend to other possibilities in terms of both idea and action. “Field” is crucial, especially when “two shores and four regions” are involved. A “site” is relatively important as well. However, cloud computing technologies have changed the definition of a venue. For those who seem to grow up in similar political backgrounds, their similarities surprisingly highlights their differences. Chen Chih-Chien and Wenyau’s collaborative art piece is a pinhole vision seen through a handmade camera, showing an empty memorial square, which looks relevant to political events at first sight. This brought to my mind that the positioning of Hong Kong people has become increasingly blurred after 1997, whereas Taiwanese never stop inquiring recognition for their identity after 1949. Now the two squares share only one common thing they are tourist landmarks, and no one really cares about what actually happened there before. Yao Chung-Han and Rita Hui’s collaboration is a familiar one in terms of technique and concept. They completed a perfect performance together. One would imagine it all started with sound and visual art, but the truth is surprisingly quite the contrary after reading their emails and msn messages, one would see the obvious differences derived from their backgrounds, where they were born and now live and their financial status. Ho Ming-Kuei and João Ó Bruno Soares had their initial meeting in Shenzhen, and throughout the project, neither of them were in Taiwan or Macau.Their written record of different scenes and details were translated into a physical work in the end. The result was found to be both real and surreal and was stored in cloud computing, a place unidentified even with a satellite—it is only an IP address in transit. Shan Kai-Ti, the only non-Mainland participant paired up with a Mainland artist, had to give up in the end. There was chemistry between Zhao Zhao and Shan Kai-Ti, but not the type that would lead to an artwork. I can only be diplomatic and say “I’m deeply sorry…” like a politician. This is also a core element of exchange. and “this is an adventure and we are open-minded about the result,” as Mr. Chu said. Jeff Leung Chin Fung: In this collaboration, an adventure in art, I hope those unexpected incidents also involve pleasant surprises. Art experiments are valuable for this very reason. Postscript: Because of this exchange, Yao Chung-Han is taking part in an event organized by Rita’s friend, performing in Hong Kong at the end of March. Ho Ming-Kuei eventually gets to collaborate with an architect. Shan Kai-Ti made friends with a friend’s acquaintance and became a witness of various moments of this exchange.