In a couple of shows I did they were in the format of an installation. In terms of presentation they’re
always kind of … they have a format. And the format is that they always have a lot of information that
I try to categorize. That’s the formality and the way of how I present things. So to speak, the pieces
were very much research-based work, in that they gather a lot of data and then I represent this data
in a way that I could make sense of it. In the format of putting things in a cabinet, or putting on a
wall, or in a video. So, they are all having the same kind of pattern. And I think a lot of my work is
very much research-based. They have complex data and then I generate it into a work that I present
‒ where I present my analysis of all this data that I have been collecting.
I think when I was in Chicago, we had a group called „Nipporn“ instead of „Nippon“ which was kind
of a sex activist group which were all artists. We had parties that are art-engaging, we are making art
but also having parties, sex-related. So, a lot of audience were very much this kind of controversial,
cutting-edge people. I think it really shifts from time to time. When the work was censored, it started
to radically change: the audience was different.
Originally, it was a kind of school context but it goes to, expanded to different audiences, different
interests of the piece. I think after going back to Hong Kong it is a completely different interest by
people. I don’t think in Hong Kong the art scene is particularly interested in works about sex.