Art, particularly performance based art, is always changing. Each time a performance is given an audience it is interpreted and reinterpreted within different contexts, making it a special experience every time. Canadian performance artists Hong Kong Exile have been touring with their acclaimed work Foxconn Frequency (no. 3) – for three visibly Chinese performers since January 2018, but global events has given their work further contextual layers in recent months.

We spent time with Remy Siu from Hong Kong Exile to capture his views on performance art, working with technology in art creation and what he hopes will come of Hong Kong Exile’s performance at the NUS Arts Festival 2020: Ways of Seeing.

The theme for this year’s NUS Arts Festival is ‘Ways of Seeing’. In what ways do you think ‘Foxconn Frequency no. 3’ is aligned to the Festival’s theme and what were your inspirations for the show?

This work heavily relies on the audience being able to “read” the real-time game mechanics occurring during the performance. We do our best to show causality without being too didactic, but in my experience touring the work, there is a generational gap.

Younger audiences, who are more used to “reading” game mechanics and algorithms, often interface with the work more naturally than audiences who do not have much experience with interactive media (eg. software, video-games, VR experiences).

The ability to “read” these game mechanics, I believe, is a “way of seeing”. I also believe this “way of seeing” is becoming increasingly important to citizens all around the world as companies, governments, and other entities employ algorithms in new (and sometimes dangerous or unethical) ways.

What do you want your audience to take-away from the performance?

I would like the audience to think about how the content of the work and the software system go together. From a formal/structural place, one of the largest goals with this work is to communicate ideas through game-mechanics. These mechanics are what make this piece possible.

Outside of this, I would very much like the audience to think about their own questions! Sometimes, in talk backs, I try not to “close the loop” – to give them the permission to stop thinking about a work because the artist “answered their question”. So, I do not have something firm I hope the audience “takes away”. But I do hope they think about it after the performance is finished and to try and look at the work from as many angles as possible!

Every performance differs for Foxconn Frequency no. 3. Why did you choose this style of production to present the performance?

Every performance is different because of the very nature of the work. One of my goals with game mechanics is to give the performers “presence”. My hope is that the audience can witness the performers problem solving, learning, competing, and co-operating in real-time.

To do this, their tasks always need to change, otherwise they will either be too good at it or too bored with it. I wanted the challenge to be real and the “stakes” to be real. The piece does not end until all the tasks are complete.

It is also an interesting dramaturgical challenge and kind of risky. As a composer—or artist—I have to relinquish a lot of my control.

To a certain extent, it is a very—I’m not sure what the right word is for this— “known” to make a fixed work. A fixed work that is “good” or perhaps “fine”, but the same every time it is performed.  That kind of endeavour is boring to me. Especially in new media works, composed of algorithms, why should they be fixed? If this truly is a new kind of medium or way of working, I think we have to embrace the material that it is made of.

If we say that one value of art is to reflect life, then how can we continue to make fixed works when the world around us is increasingly digital and in flux? How can a fixed piece of work properly critically engage with this society?

Technology is used in a major way in this performance. Is there a message you want to convey in support of the message of the performance?

Technology is used very functionally in this performance, in a very utilitarian way. I like to think that every piece of technology and how it works has a function in the system, and that the technology is not used for pure spectacle.

For example, the lights flash when the performers play so that you can see or feel their fingers at work. The projectors function very much as a “heads up display” for the audience and for the performers.

Each aesthetic experience is tied directly to how the piece functions and how the performers are given their instructions.

There so many points of commentary embedded in this work. Would you like to share some of these points and how you have developed them in the performance?

One interesting point I would like to focus on is the “competition” between pianists. Often, people ask me “how can you make them compete like that?” My response is that, either you have not been paying attention, or you have been wilfully ignoring the fact that pianists compete with each other all the time. Pianists—including the ones who perform in this work—develop anxiety over this. Pianists are judged against each other. They must be perfect all the time.

There is a bit of contradiction that this work—while making their failures apparent for all to see—allows the pianists to celebrate their differences. Also, the performance requires their failures. The piece would not work if they were not human and never failed.

Why did you choose to use the piano as a medium to convey this programme?

Part of this work is to criticize the classical / new music project. To make a link between neoliberal economic agendas and the practice of piano playing and classical music production. Also, to expose the tension between all things related with the piano and the “Chinese” body.

Maybe that’s all I’ll say about that for now! No spoilers.

Out of curiosity, which pianist has won the most rounds of this programme?

I think while the system spits out binary results (succeed and fail), I think that “winning” in this work is very subjective for the performers. I also think that the work is designed so that the attention is drawn to all the “in-between” actions that the performer makes—even if their efforts are declared a success or a failure.

All the pianists are quite even and good at different things. The tragedy is that the system doesn’t care.

Foxconn Frequency (no. 3) – for three visibly Chinese performers is part of the NUS Arts Festival 2020: Ways of Seeing. Visit the festival online for more details.