I think „process“ is the thing that I am most interested in because I think the story didn’t end there
I was back in Hong Kong and then I was invited to speak in a medical school about sexuality. So, I
was completely in a different context to situate my work. It just brought me to … It’s kind of like the
beginning of my academic life, too. Because I was more invited to speak in conferences, rather than
in an art context. Art galleries in Hong Kong were interested in my piece but I think academics were
much more interested in these issues that are brought up by technology and sexuality, humanities.
It leads to my second research project: About sex machines. I did a two-year research on robotic sex
and went to 13 cities to interview production of sex robots.
And I also made a documentary which I didn’t leave my artistic practice, creative output. And I am
still in the process because I am still busy of making of that.
And then my PhD project was about art market and art institutions and ‒ that was very much
influenced by my experience of being an artist by that time ‒ that I was very much interested in the
whole ecology of art (laughs) rather than only focusing on artwork. So to speak: What does it
represent? What are the relationships of people? What are the relationships between institutions?
What are the stories behind?
Without this experience, I don’t think I could do these kinds of research. And that also goes to the
first question of roles: It is just very complex.
You really need to be there and hang out with them and to live with them or do projects with them
together in order to know how things work. So, I think being an artist and curator and also a scholar,
this multiple identity helps me to earn a ticket to be or to having an excuse for being part of the
people that I completely didn’t know before.