On the opening day of Yuz Museum’s exhibition In Production: Art and the Studio System, the curator Rita Gonzalez as well as participating artists Cayetano Ferrer, Julie Orser, Mathias Poledna and Jennifer West gave an in-depth talk about art and film and the stories “behind the scenes” of exhibition creation. The record of the dialogue is as follows:

Anqi Xu: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the opening lecture of the new exhibition In Production: Art and the Studio System of Yuz Museum. I’m Anqi Xu, today’s moderator from Huasheng Media group. We are honored to have the curator and four participating artists to give us a deep talk. They represent a body of creators behind the Hollywood films and play crucial yet hidden roles in the art and film industry that we seldom see their real images or hear them talk about their own concepts. But today we get a rare chance to know their stories behind-the-scene. 

To start with the conversation, could you briefly introduce yourself in one or two sentences? And perhaps just bring on an extra gig, choose one of the works in the exhibition that you really would love to share with the audience?

Opening Talk scene, from left to right: Anqi Xu, Rita Gonzalez, Mathias Poledna, Jennifer West, Cayetano Ferrer and Julie Orser. Photo by Wang Qing

Rita Gonzalez: Welcome everybody and thanks Anqi for moderating. I am Rita Gonzalez, Terri and Michael Smooke Curator and Department Head of Contemporary Art at LACMA. I am also the curator of In Production: Art and the Studio System which is opening today and launching the relationship between Yuz Museum and LACMA in terms of exhibition exchange. I have been at LACMA for over 10 years, really seeing its transformation physically and otherwise programmatically. This gives you a little sense of an area that we’ve been developing and collecting in time based media for about 10 years, the videos, films and installations that we’ve been able to bring into the collection.

Mathias Poledna: I am Mathias Poledna. I am very happy to make the show. I was born in Vienna, Austria and I’ve moved to Los Angeles since 2000. I work mostly on film and film related portraits, but I don’t necessarily see myself as a filmmaker. I feel I’m located in contemplative art world.

Jennifer West: Hello, my name is Jennifer West. I’m an artist but I work with film celluloid and span it directly on analog film strips by putting materials directly onto the film strips themselves. So I have this kind of relationship that brings art ideas and uses film, but entirely within art context, and that’s how I locate what I do in terms of being an artist.

Cayetano Ferrer: Hello everyone, I am Cayetano Ferrer. I am an artist also based in Los Angeles since 2008. But I also lived there when I was younger. I’m more focused as a sculptor, but I use projections quite often. So there is a connection between cinema in a sense. Just now Anqi asked to share an artwork from the collection, I was thinking of Amanda Ross-Ho’s work OMEGA, which is also a big sculpture. It is a film enlarger that’s oversize. I really like this connection to set design, because I know she works with a set builder.

Amanda Ross-Ho, OMEGA, 2012

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, gift of Andrea and James Gordon in honor of David Bohnett

© Amanda Ross-Ho, courtesy the artist and Shane Campbell Gallery, Chicago 

Installation view at "In Production: Art and the Studio System",  Yuz Museum, 2019

Julie Orser: Hi, I am Julie Orser. My work in this particular show is animation. I work in animation and video art. Pretty much all of my work responds to cinema, Hollywood cinema in different ways, sometimes also targeting sculpture. For me, the work in the exhibition I would like to share is Made in Hollywood. That piece has been a big influence on my work over the years. The piece deconstructs Hollywood, but also media in general, commercials, even narrator tropes, which is very interesting.

Anqi Xu: Thank you so much. It’s interesting to hear your background, and how this exhibition has gathered such a diverse group of artworks and so many different opinions and perceptions. My first question will be posted to Rita. What initiates the exhibition? What’s the conversation going on from your side behind the scene? 

Rita Gonzalez: It’s a long interest of mine because of my background. Many contemporary art curators don’t necessarily or directly do art history, although that’s something I had studied, but I was most essentially located in film studies. So I have been interested in the intersection between visual arts and movie image arts. Also the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which most people know from Oscar ceremony and the Academy Awards, are already opening up a museum that will be sharing the campus next to LACMA. I was just thinking about that relationship that we have to the history of objects in cinema and how these objects tell various histories of film. So many artists that I admire here who did an exhibition, in some way or another engaged with that history of film or the history of media production, that’s why I’d love to show this. Los Angeles is a place that has brought in many people to study art. We have an incredible amount of art schools and MFA programs where artists come and stay and teach. The concept of art studio has changed from the twentieth to the twenty-first century. The idea to dislocating artists’ work, decentering or expanding beyond the studio is something I want to play with, because that’s also happening in Hollywood studio production with digital filming that’s decentralized and globalized as well. 

Anqi Xu: LA is such a critical space for artists who work in both film and art. It provides institution for academia, and the industry itself, and it’s where the conversation is going on. I prepared a little Hollywood Sign, which really brings us here. I want to ask Jennifer, I know that you grew up in California, why did you choose to stay there, what was the critical attraction to you? 

Jennifer West: I was born there, but I actually moved around to other cities. Then I came back to LA for graduate school and stayed there after that. So it was through this whole system where I returned to LA. Simultaneously, I started working with film in this specific way I do and since then I have developed these long relationships with the various film labs and vendors located in LA, who are quite supportive and helpful to artists who work with film. Most of the film you see in my piece was given to me from the film labs. So it’s all recycled materials from Hollywood machine and I reinsert them in some ways back, sometimes through the process of digitizing. 

In terms of the Hollywood Sign, it is a cliché symbol for us, it’s very much a tourist destination. I actually made a film at the Hollywood Sign in 2009. As you know, people are not allowed to go back to the sign itself, so the idea was like we snuck in through the fence and got as far as we could, filming with flashlights in order to try to climb on the letter “O” at the Hollywood Sign. I had this sort of film. It deals with the history of the sign itself through thinking about, for example, when the transition happens into sound film, there were a lot of people who worked in the industry, who were either actors or directors so forth, who couldn’t make the transition very well. There’s an actress, Peg Entwistle, who jumped from the letter “H” to her death, because she couldn’t stand the disappointment of life and her career flop in 1932. So it’s kind of a symbol. I want to bring in that history in thinking about not only what it means today, but what it was meant in terms of the city. Film celluloid is a very key component in the creation of what we called the booster myth of the economy that created the city.

Anqi Xu: That’s interesting. On the one hand, it’s such a cliché that everyone knows the Hollywood Sign, but on the other hand, there is some distance physically and also emotionally, because it can be a very abstract concept as well. It cannot be very concrete. There’s so much “inside” Hollywood. So, on top of that, I am curious, Mathias, as you said, you were born in Vienna just now, then how has LA attracted you?

Mathias Poledna: I think it was a random choice, but I ended up there. LA is the last city that I wanted to move at that time on my mind. It was at the period when my wife and I wanted to move away from Austria, Vienna, and we didn’t think about going to LA actually, we preferred to move to west Germany. But it just happened that it came upon the rent to stay in LA. I had to admit that I had a very bad preconceived notion of LA, but I found it is a very different place than I anticipated it would be. It worked quite well for me, but perhaps also in a sense, it is a place in the distance to where I come from. The distance allows me to engage with and think about things from my own culture perspective together with local background. It’s sort of an alien land that allows me to engage with the subjects in a more complicated and different way. 

In terms of the Hollywood sign, which is very funny, because to me, it was a very quotidian element that I used to live closed to up to until three months ago actually. I walked there, and there’s a park where I used to walk my dog, and rode bicycles around the Hollywood sign. It is not only the symbol, but the actual routine that is there.

Anqi Xu: Thank you very much for sharing this with us. Cayetano and Julie, would you like to jump in as well? 

Cayetano Ferrer: I didn’t have a choice, because my parents moved me there when I was a young kid. When I moved back, I went to the graduate school in LA. But also I guess geographically the mythology of the American West was a subject matter that I was working with, particularly as it’s kind of made, concrete in architecture. The landscape that I knew from my youth, I also want to re-integrate and explore it as a student. I think it’s a very good place for artists. There are a lot of resources and a big community there. I am not as interested in the Hollywood film industry as much as the mythologies that are created through that industry and the images that get projected throughout the world from that landscape. 

Julie Orser: I also came for graduate school. I think that’s a pretty common thing and immediately you wanted to stay. The history of the city and how much of it is intertwined with film history was really interesting to me. I moved to Silver Lake and I was driving back to CalArts where I was going to graduate school. And I was living a few blocks from the Music Box Steps, which is a famous staircase that was in a silent era film. Constantly investigating the city through the history of cinema became very important to me. I think some of my very first work in the subject matter was again about the American West, but more from the perspective of narratives and characters constructions within the genre.

Opening Talk Scene

Anqi Xu: LA has provided such a critical background for all things that are happening, for the artists creations, for the cinema creations and intersection of both. Perhaps we are seeing the exhibition history goes on in the art and studio system. How about jumping in and comment on what do you think is an “art” and “film studio”? What’s the difference and what are the functions of stakeholders? How do they intersect in some way?

Rita Gonzalez: When it comes to the construct of a studio, CalArts that Julie just brought up is famous place where John Baldessari started to use the term “post studio” for studio practices. So that’s something I had in mind and of course that happened with the conceptual term in art. Artists not necessarily need a physical site, a laptop/computer site or a library/archive might be the site of artistic production. So less and less artists rely on concrete space of production. Similarly they really wanted to ruminate on the passage of time and the way that we are not relying on physical studio and back lab to produce the entirety of a film. The films we see are amalgamations of labor that takes place all across the world, especially CGI, Marvel movies, that I am sure are constructed by thousands of people on four different time zones, and then they are put together digitally, displace in our mind. There are beautiful photographs about movie studios in this exhibition. They were taken by two photographers: Robert Cumming and Anthony Friedkin. They spent some time at Universal Studios in the 1970s documenting the back lab. You can get to see these pictures to a generational turnover from the old classical Hollywood film production to what was going to becoming with science fiction narratives that they were documenting in those photographs. Strategically, the artists here still choose to use celluloid films. Celluloid film is really a dying material. The different ways that Jennifer and Mathias are using are really fascinating to me. They are both using re-animating, bringing it back to life in film traditions, but in completely different ways. I think I’ve responded to the artistic practice, but I don’t know if you all want to talk a bit about your notions of artistic practice in relationship to a particular physical site and the idea of an artist studio. 

Mathias Poledna: I guess in some ways it does play a role in terms of the tradition. The notion of the studio system is a traditional system, which is something quite historical or something quite specific that developed over a period of time. And it does not exist anymore in the same way. And I think it’s very fascinating, contradictory, and complicated set of circumstances. Within the system, it was of course completely commercial oriented. At the same time, it allowed the production of things that were of enormous artistic brilliance that still resonates until today. You can also see how the studio system broke down. Old forms are dying away and no longer used. The animation in this exhibition is a good example. The studio system from Disney broke down because of labor comfort, and once it broke down, they could no longer produce films of that quality. The mix and the labor assignment, the defined sophistication that they have achieved over the period of time was gone within the decade. 

Jennifer West: If I am making these pieces that I considered to be art pieces, not necessarily programing them as films at a traditional sense of watching them in theater, I like to think about playing around with, for example, working on vacation. So for me, there are times where I’m working in specific locations with various aspects of my work the same way that film or movie set would be using different locations and sites as backdrops, as a construction of spaces and characters in the same way. And on occasions, flipped that script and we think about a specific genre like a travel film. I literally take a roll 70 mm and then submerge it in the Dead Sea. It physically corrodes from the salt. And I think a lot about time, so for example, I might put that film aside for five years, and actually it corroded. And then I take it to another site. So this idea of using location as a physical space, but perhaps not as a representational space, and sometimes I use it as representational space as well. So flipping these ideas around, at times, we’ll work in a studio situation. I do have a studio and I often like to invite large groups of people to my studio to fabricate the film together with me, say over one night, for example. And you’ll see some of this film that I have in the show. There are sections that were done with lip prints and nipple prints of large numbers of people that I invited to my studio. Instead of seeing their image, you will essentially see the representation of their mark. So at that point they become the film crew, but within the art. I like to go back and forth and think about the terminology and play with that within how I’m thinking about the work.

Anqi Xu: They are showing layers of space. We can think of a space as a concept, but also as a physical or material space. Especially for Cayetano, your work in the exhibition is Endless Columns, which is really playing upon the idea of space both as a concept and as a material, physical space. Do you want to comment on the studio and how it translates into your work?

Cayetano Ferrer, Endless Columns, 2014

Cayetano Ferrer: I still use the studio a lot actually, but it does vary from work to work. There’s examples that I do work in other locations. A couple of years ago, I made a work at the Warner Brothers Studios. They have a big collection of architectural molds that are used in plaster. They’re kind of old and they don’t use them anymore, but they’re from the sort of time when the copies of these different ornamentations would be used for the sets, and I made copies of those molds with vacuum form plaster at the movie studio for an artwork for instance. The idea of working onsite is really interesting, it’s like a particular location that has this sort of archive of materials that I can work with. In that sense, I think the studio does get kind of decentralized in what you’re talking about, whereas finding sort of materials or working site specifically in different places.

Julie Orser: For me, I’ve been thinking a lot more about the Hollywood studio system than its physical meaning, which is representing in my animation in this show. What’s been on my mind is thinking about the power structures and who controls the stories that we hear. How can we alter that in some way? And certainly a lot of things happened in our culture, like Me Too and Harvey Weinstein allegations. All of these things created that work I have done. I actually have been worked a lot more in my studio, which is interesting because I think my work is about taking down the larger Hollywood Studio.

Anqi Xu: I appreciate conversations about the studio, because returning to the exhibition, what we are really focusing on is that the works that has been created an intersection of film and art, and a lot of works in the exhibition are also done in collaboration with the professionals and are working on site. I’m curious to know how did the conversation arise between art and film in your perception? Rita, do you want to start?

Rita Gonzalez: Maybe you can take that, Mathias, because for Imitation of Life, you worked with an incredible number of composers, orchestra and animators.

Mathias Poledna, Imitation of Life, 2013

Mathias Poledna: It depends from project to project. Most of my film projects involve collaborators. Usually, they do depend on very specific professional divided tasks and people involved in different fields, and that had to be integrated in different aspects of the production. In some ways, the project involved a small scale, a replication of the Hollywood studio system. It requires very specific skills for each sector of the process. For instance, raw animation, and thinking of the lines, the coloring, the watercolor background, all those things are created by specialized individuals. The animation itself is a very short scene that was done by a big group of people. 

Jennifer West: Mostly my experience is through film labs in LA and other vendors where I get my films printed and digitized. Film is Dead… has blow-ups and the 70 mm films have images on it. I worked with the film lab. There’s only one place in the entire world that knows how to do this. And there’s one person, who just had open heart surgery; he was then training the next person. And this is the only place where we can get this done now in the entire world. There’s no other machine that can do this process. Some of it is about just getting the film printed. As a professor, I meet a lot of students and oftentimes they want to come and work in my studio. So I worked with some of them who I trained to paint film with me. Utilizing this older tradition, which was before colored film, there was tradition of hands tinting and painting film that goes back. And traditionally, it was done with a very gendered role, which was done by women mostly in large factory situations. To taking up that history again, training people what is entirely obsolete, I was telling them we will not be able to use this again. 

Then, I also created a different way of working with digitizing films. I created this kind of DIY process of scanning the film in my studio and then animating it in a software program called After Effects. So for me it’s like various project to project on which parts, but often time it is about working with the film lab called FotoKem in LA and utilizing that part of the system, but not in terms of hiring these professionals as what Mathias does.

Cayetano Ferrer: My work relates to Hollywood more conceptually. I am not speaking for everyone, but because the system is so big, many of us don’t actually work in the system and don’t want to. Those times when I might be utilizing some feature of that, it’s probably more falls under that category of a critique or deconstruction what is happening in that space. And I think that’s kind of a pretty typical role of an artist because we don’t operate with these large groups of people directing and making images within the same framework and within the same constrictions in terms of needing to feed a popular culture narrative that is somewhat limited. I think maybe that’s something you were bringing up to, thinking about that kind of massive aesthetic machine as something separate and something that’s borrowed from but in the mode of critique in a sense. 

Mathias Poledna: I think it’s interesting that once you engage with professionals within a studio, from the framework of the art world and from the framework of an artist, there’s sort of a translation, which becomes a huge amount of work in terms of what you are trying to do. Once you are not on the same page, it becomes very difficult. So I think the aesthetic of communication can be conveyed. That can be very challenge.

Julie Orser: The piece New Narrators… was done by myself, but my other works, I do work with smaller crew sometimes. I have actors and hire talented people. I haven’t shot videos for a couple of years, so I had just hired a DP now. I really liked that process because it’s a type of collaboration similar to what Jennifer said with her students. They often bring a different perspective, something that I didn’t see. And I enjoyed that process a lot. But I do agree that sometimes communication is hard, especially with an actor to communicate what you’re looking for because it might not be the same as a constructive, or a traditional Hollywood actor. But it just depends. 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, purchased with funds provided by LENS: Photography Council, 2019

© Julie Orser, courtesy of the artist

Rita Gonzalez: And I should just add too, because we were talking about art schools earlier in Los Angeles, there are still very fine boundaries. I went to UCLA where there are very defined boundaries between the art students and the film students. Even in CalArts, there are differences between the animation, and the feature, more like mainstream movie type of students, art students, and art students who use film. So they’re very strict boundaries that they carry over professionally. 

Julie Orser: I agree, because even when I was applying to grad school, there was a question about like where do I fit in all these categories? It’s confusing.

Anqi Xu: There’s also this fine line between performance and being like directing your work as an artist in some way. It kind of categorizes distinction between an artist in terms of fine art and an artist who works in cinema photography. So there are a lot of intricacies that you find different sectors, but the sectors themselves are very much interlinked. As Julie said, sometimes the professionals that you have on your team may not communicate exactly the message you want to communicate. And that arrives a very critical question about communications, not only within the team, but also to the general public. In terms of the gap between film and art, a lot of films are created for mass consumption; it’s facing a greater public. Art is also facing the public but in a very different way. So perhaps we could jump into this question and see how much aware of the public are your creations and how do you think of the interaction of art and film in terms of that perspective? 

Rita Gonzalez: That’s definitely something I was thinking about with this exhibition. It is predominantly drawn to the collection. Of course, I’m imposing on the thematic selection of works from the collection. I’m posing these ideas about the studio and nature of artistic production. At the same time, the larger issues were certainly for museums or cultural space in LA. There’s this landscape of amusement parks, and the movie museum that I mentioned to you earlier; there’s also a museum that’s devoted to automobiles across the street from us as well. I do think about the audience and the ways in which we are competing for attention. Artists have been engaging with popular culture, vernacular culture, mass culture, and their works represent a very particular slice of that kind of typical engagement. I love that Julie also noted the work Made in Hollywood made by Yonemoto brothers. Through that, I was trying to give you a sense that those who have been more invested in independent media, avant-garde media and experimental media, have often taken up the role of providing a critical take on mainstream forms of entertainment. And Bruce and Norman Yonemoto did in such a brilliant way because they were trying to use the language of Hollywood, a particular archetypal story of a young girl from a small town coming to Hollywood to make it fit, and then quickly take that apart, dismantle it and bring in a lot of critique, racial and sexual critiques about the industry. The show is a selection of the collection, it’s just one attempt to tell a particular strand of takes on media representation and ongoing debates, fine arts versus popular arts.

Julie Orser: I think that I can’t help but not think about the audience when I am making any project. The difference in viewing is a key thing and the difference in time, thinking about what Jennifer said about the way she uses time to make the work, I’m thinking about the way of the viewers’ experience of time. It’s also more multichannel works, but the use of screens, how many screens are engaged, where do they look, how do they sound to instruct the environment that we’re supposed to be listening to, all these things are tied about who is viewing the work.

Jennifer West: I like to think about the kind of space that will give a relief when you go to a movie theater and sit down in a chair and just give it for a couple of hours to this experience, which is very different than how people going through a museum and an art context. But that system in particular is also changing very much in the last 15 years. Just think about the relationship to how you view in popular culture in this cut-up form where people are creating images from movies all the time in order to reuse and create all these new genres that are in screen space. So a lot of this viewership, like you are in bed and watching movies on your laptop, you have an intimate experience with the screen. It’s personal and you might think about how you will relate to this material. It’s very different than when you’re in public, when you’re in this dark space, and all these things that took place in public space, then shifting to private space. I think about this a lot because we’re witnessing it. I just heard this quote on the radio a month ago about video games, which for a long time have made much more money than Hollywood films. It sort of took me aback and fell over. How many people play video games in the world? How is this possible? To me, it’s such a small demographic. It was kind of a shock and it made me think that maybe Godard is right, film is over. You hear these statements all the time about this, but what is actually happening? So, I think in that way we can also make critical statements about these sorts of issues, around viewership, around distribution, around communities; and how it affects our culture; and then in terms of having something to say about it, we’re doing that within an art context. So I think in that way it is not necessarily a competition and it’s very different kind of space that we are able to engage with these ideas and being through what instead of doing to the culture, to the communities, to representation. For example, through the digitizing process, it’s crucial that what gets digitized in film history and what is not, and how is that catching up, how generations of films were never digitized, so people don’t see them and new generations don’t even know about that work. We could think about it in a global context too, like what do we see and how do we see in China or US.

Cayetano Ferrer: About how audiences relate to my work? I think of audiences in a way like I enjoy looking at artworks. I think I enjoy experiencing work that asks a lot of me actually, and that can create complication. The most dominant and popular films, of course within film industry, that’s sort of range and complication in there, but this sort of dominant mode is very easy to digest. I think that I prefer working opposite of that in a sense that it’s not giving you a clear answer, it’s psychologically or ideologically trapping you in a certain way of thinking.

Anqi Xu: In terms of creations, I’m very curious how do you see your role as a creator? Do you see yourself invisible to the audience as a behind-scene creator or do you see your role in a different way, and what are the other constraints that you have to face when you create?

Cayetano Ferrer: That’s a good question. For the work that I’ve done in this show in particular, I think that you cannot see the process very much. I was addressing before about these psychological spaces which cinema can produce. I think I’m playing with that which includes illusionism of the mirrors and uses the projector as a way to create false space or false texture. The material of this column, the sculpture in the center, is almost obliterated by projection that sort of flattens it and might create false steps with projection. I’m playing with these features that have special effects. I want the viewer to look at it in a different way. The piece is endless, on a loop that it’s more like a clock than anything. It doesn’t have that linear sense of time where a narrative will take you up and down and change. It’s just more of a solid state. 

Anqi Xu: I guess there’s also a notion of the cycle that’s being placed here in terms of consumption and creation for the creator who works behind the scene, but also to the audience in a direct and indirect way.

Julie Orser: I’m always behind the scenes but in front of the scenes at the same time. I don’t think you can ever get away from your own subject position. My subjectivity, my point of view, my thoughts on these different subjects might be in this case, like the Me Too event, and all these thing that I was thinking about, it’s there, it’s always there. So maybe I’m behind the scene and the maker is not about me, but my subject position is here. 

Anqi Xu: To conclude, if we could hear one more thing from our panelists, what do you think of this exhibition? What does this notion of In Production mean to you?

Douglas Gordon, Déjà-vu, 2000

Rita Gonzalez: One thing I didn’t talk about was the Douglas Gordon’s piece in this exhibition called Déjà-Vu. Quite literally, it’s this idea of cyclical time, and then they’re engaging with the narrative or an archetype of narrative in which you are forever looping within it. There’s also this kind of underlying meditation on mortality as well as I addressed before with the studio production, which is pretty much in its dying days. What is the next phase? And I think the artists in the exhibition are proposing some other than spaces, and not just like in the physical location of the theater or the physical location of the museum, but they’ve been talking about registering for their practice outside of their spaces and bringing some of those orientations to extra institutional spaces.

Anqi Xu: It gave a great spin to the question like what’s the complication about In Production? It’s always about the next. And what is afterwards? For artists, what is the next for you? 

Jennifer West: In terms of the exhibition, especially thinking about Rita and their interest in the movie industry in the art context, I think that we have been talking about some kind of version of this show since 2009, so that’s 10 years of time. Now you have this particular angle on it that has to do with the studio system. I really think about how images themselves have become disassociated with their original context. There’s an image of something, and someone is using it in a work, but they don’t know where it comes from. To me, that’s an interesting turning point. I would want to know the source. I think there’s something happening and we don’t really know it; we are in the middle of it right now. Everything is very fragmental at this very moment and there’s a lot of reproducing and proliferation of images all the time that become more divorced from the original context. How will that play out? We will see overtime. Maybe there is something about this in the show to think about and talk about, like the death. 

Julie Orser: I’m working on something really related to this, so I’m happy to talk about it. It’s a much larger animation that uses earlier Hollywood machine. It is a drawing diagram of a Hollywood studio as an actual physical machine and produces images and then it’s destroyed. 

Anqi Xu: Thank you so much for sharing. I think when we talk about the places, we’re really talking about the context and the context in this globalized world is so critical. It’s what matters in terms of production and audience. So just coming back this exhibition as well, it’s about the kind of interaction, but also the integration of different contexts. Thank you all for having us and hope you enjoy this exhibition. It’s going to be a great journey for you to explore.

作者：余德耀美术馆