text by Jo Hsiao
What Is on Display?
In 2007 Tate Modern held its first theatrical art exhibition, “The World as a Stage.”[1] The exhibition brought together static art forms (installation, sculpture) with performances and participatory events, exploring a new perspective on theatre (performance) and gallery (display) within the context of an exhibition. Juxtaposing different categories of works, it broke free from ingrained approaches to space and form. What this revealed, unmistakably, was a flat ontology, where many disciplines – conceptual art, participatory art, theatre, dance, music – coexisted in equality. Broadly speaking, this places all the objects that make up the world on the same plane, be they live performances, bodily displays, or inanimate objects. Here, art has a transcendent character. It provides a certain experiential space, and continuously subverts and disrupts the many predetermined limitations of a place.
As part of the 2016 Taipei Biennial, Taipei Fine Arts Museum invited Xavier Le Roy to exhibit his classic work “Retrospective.”[2] In it, the artist and his performers engaged in a private dialogue, collaborating to develop a “retrospective” of their own making. In the midst of this mutual collision, Le Roy pulled his works back into the center, asking the participants to look for, and look back on, what each of his past works meant in relation to a certain moment, a certain fragment in their own personal life history. “Retrospective” created a remarkable corresponsive relationship between people and art. For this reason, Le Roy chose to present it in the form of an exhibition, rather than directly moving it onto a stage. Using their bodies, voices and words, participants repeatedly “agitated” visitors, whose roles had previously been restricted to simply “viewing” exhibitions. The entire performance placed viewers within an incomprehensible scenario, thus pushing their nerves and spirits into a state of disquiet and excitement, suspension and consternation. In the exhibition context, this work posed a spectrum of questions, about the retrospection of individuals and artworks, the media and materials of a contemporary art exhibition, the structure of performance and dance, the relationship between viewer and viewed, and the social and public nature of art institutions. “Retrospective” can be understood as a relationship of symbiosis and dialogue between the artist and participants, and between participants and spectators. Moreover, by inserting the work within time, it evokes time as a concrete feature of people’s real existences.
Within the context of this new structure, artists shift their focal point, endowing viewers with equal power and allowing them to participate in creating, destroying or becoming the artwork. The contemporary art critic Claire Bishop has plotted the complex genealogy of what she terms “delegated performance,” which has arisen in exhibitions over the last decade through new performance forms.[3] Here, we are not discussing the “aesthetic preference for the heterogeneous, for the mix, for the crossover,” which Boris Groys contends in his book Art Power to be the characteristics of the postmodern art of the late 1970s and '80s, which rejected styles that were reductionist, homogeneous, repetitive, geometrical, or minimalist.[4] Unlike the artists of the 1960s and 1970s, who used their own bodies as the medium for their artworks, Bishop argues that “delegated performance” employs other people, either professionals or amateurs, to engage in continuous performance or display. This should not be understood as merely a formulation in which an artist produces their work transforming human beings into objects in order to expose economic globalization, turning the entire world into a latent commodity. But in fact, in many works composed of people, the artists all attempt to shift directions, starting with the bodies and minds of individuals and choosing a group of people to convey a method of performance with greater complexity, directness and presence, to stir up the relationship between viewer and performer (interpreter) or, one might say, to construct a world commonly owned by “us” and “them.”
From the outset, “Arena” has clearly aimed for ongoing exhibition, a model of exhibition with an open framework, not the typical paradigm of binary opposition between “exhibit” and “viewer.” It develops discrete, autonomous realms, such as installation, painting, sculpture, performance art, theater, music, dance, and the human body. Whether as static displays, participatory actions, projects or performances, their objective is to explore the symbiotic relationship between “display” and “performance.” More significantly, whenever art exhibition and performance mix – whether drawing within close proximity to each other or mutually intersecting – they engage in a kind of creative “symbiosis.”
This exhibition encompasses an exchange exhibition between Taipei Fine Arts Museum and the Gwangju Museum of Art. At a certain dimension, the Taiwanese artists seek to “interpose the viewer,” causing a structural transformation to take place in a single theme (work), to engender a real experience for the viewer, and not merely an experience existing in the viewer’s consciousness. Meanwhile, the Gwangju Museum of Art presents seven Korean artists at the height of their careers. Through a variety of art forms such as painting, sculpture, installation and video, they demonstrate the diversity and value of Korean art. Through this “Arena,” both the Taiwanese and the Korean artists endow their works with a distinctively present-tense significance, engaging in a dialogue on the societal level in conjunction with the Summer Universiade currently taking place in Taipei, and seeking out a highly hybridized social milieu, either outwardly manifested or lying latent within contemporary existence.
Art as Sociability
Breaking the established mold of exhibitions as “displays of artworks,” this generation of artists yearns for art that is not suffocated by classification. They experiment with the form of exhibitions to attain greater openness and not be mired in convention. In pursuit of the contemporary experience on which they are focused, they seek to produce an emotional connection with viewers. The artist and the viewers may share their perspectives or interpretations of the contemporary experience, and such sharing may even be full of ambiguity and inconsistency. Some artists view the exhibition place as a miniature social arena. What is on display is not merely clearly defined “works,” but works formed collectively by both participants and spectators, including unpredictable processes and outcomes. The foundations of such works are relationships of dialogue and collaboration, and only through them can the appearance of the works take shape. Thus, the work itself creates a kind of sociability.
Entering the main lobby of Taipei Fine Arts Museum, visitors immediately see an installation of 8 large-scale football tables, each made from two four-player tables. The site is also equipped with two spectator stands, on the bottom of which are LED marquees reading, “I Am Here Last Summer When You Weren’t.” This slogan is also the title of the work. Here, the artist Yi-wei Keng is presenting a metaphor about time, to determine its paradoxical symbolic meaning. Visitors can choose to join the next game or to sit in the stands and watch. The philosophical contradiction is that table football is a collaborative competition, requiring the participation of eight people. In this work the artist implies that participatory behavior is mastered through “collective action,” and such collective action is founded not on self-interest but on cooperation with others. The meaning of this work lies not in its political nature, but rather in the “sociability” it conveys, employing a game as a medium that allows participants and spectators to become part of the work and collectively complete it. Only in this way can one respond to Hans-Georg Gadamer's proposition regarding the artistic experience – that play cannot take place in isolation but is a whole formed by participants and viewers, and that only when the viewer has entered into a work does it truly exist.[5]
Te-yu Wang has created a complex space. An inflated nylon tube occupies a corridor, and visitors can only see this large-scale balloon-like object from above, while standing on a viewing platform. If they want to enter the interior, they must circle around to the other end of the corridor. This work offers viewers a tempting fantasy that they possess the choice to take action. But even when standing on a tall platform looking from a distance, they may sense something is happening inside the object, and at least experience the thrill of fantasy. Or, if they do enter inside, they must carefully twist their bodies in order to move, providing a fantasy of both physical suffering and the enjoyment of cruelty, satisfying a certain mixture of fear and excitement when their own bodies are pushed to the extreme, in a pageant of disaster aesthetics. In this installation we are merely spectators, and as we spectate, we expand our imagination regarding the events transpiring before our eyes.
The installation we’re all in this together ingeniously transforms viewers into “items on display,” conveying an intriguing perspective. As ordinary people insert themselves into the artwork, they alter its appearance. They may become creators, but they also may not possess any creative power. This is a work about people, and not merely an installation. Yet it must be viewed not as a collective work, but as many individual works. Craig Quintero turns viewers into a series of living paintings, or tableaux vivants, not to bear witness to the people who assist in creating the work, but to imagine the nature of art. Indeed, behind this work of “self-entertainment that entertains others” lies a trenchant question. Meanwhile, Shih-hue Tu explores the five traditional roles of Chinese opera – Sheng (male), Dan (female), Jing (painted-face male), Mo (old fool), and Chou (clown) – to weave imaginary relationships of people to people, people to puppets, and puppets to puppets. Do people have the power to step outside this fictional narrative and view the world? Or do they become marginal figures hiding in their own private worlds? This artwork considers the joys and sorrows of ordinary people, discussing the meaning of existence within the insignificant details of daily life.
Art as Vehicle
In this exhibition, several performance works employ a strategy that breaks with conventional theater, abandoning the “stage” either by engaging a certain issue or by deploying a scenario. To draw art into closer proximity with the viewer, we must reconstruct the environmental relationship between the viewer and the work. The underlying motivation is not merely to arouse the viewer’s active consciousness and ability to act, but also an experiment in shifting art toward political ends. One example noted by Claire Bishop is the Brazilian director Augusto Boal (1931-2009). In “Invisible Theater” he used art as a tool in a public space, plunging viewers into a fabricated yet realistic situation. The actors engaged in a stealth performance hidden amongst the general public, discussing labor issues and cleverly forming a clandestine stage that served as a public forum. And in his “Forum Theater,” Boal constructed a scenario in which actors tossed out questions to the audience. In the process of asking and responding, they joined together in brainstorming how to change the real world.[6] Both of these works employed performances in public spaces as a means to communicate about public issues. In uncertain situations or designed scenarios, Boal used performance to provoke spectators into expressing their stances on issues, achieving a strongly politicized atmosphere.
Snow Huang's large-scale “graphical notation” installation is also a musical instrument. A music score / dance score incorporates a business organization chart and data analysis to translate the bodies of office workers into sound events. By physically acting out labor, this performative work combining installation and sound theater attempts to reproduce the human predicament of labor in the real world, launching a merciless attack on the valuation of labor within the structure of capitalism. At the same time, it intimates the alienation of labor producers and “objects” (commodities) amidst the full-scale commodification of consumer society. Ultimately, within such a natural process of materialization, we have all become commodities. Meanwhile, the work If We Do Not Exist, How Could Our Memories Remain and Not Pass into Silence. uses objects to construct a “memory map.” These objects imply the sum of human activities, becoming a statement of reality connecting personal memory, historical memory, geographical memory, and local memory. And a collection of sounds found in the natural environment reverberate throughout the exhibition space, conveying the traces of images from certain places. Behind these objects and sounds, extremely complex personal, social and historical specters are projected. Viewers may perhaps become lost in the maze of the work’s own meaning.
Compared to the two aforementioned works allowing the political perspectives underlying the works to surface, Cheng-ta Yu and Voleur du Feu Theatre straightforwardly express their concerns regarding certain public issues in real life. Yu directly adopts the name of the performer as the name of his work. He has invited Tai, a dancer and a model of mixed ethnicity, to dress androgynously, so that he/she becomes an exhibited artwork in the museum. They are also filming a music video, presenting a catwalk show, and holding a dance competition (a Voguing mini ball), and they are sharing these events with a global audience through a webcast and such social media as Instagram and Tumblr. TAI appropriates both the performer’s true identity and his false (cross-dressing) identity, providing both a real space and a virtual space for the work to take place in, and thus stimulating viewers to more spontaneously express their viewpoints about gender identity and body politics. Voleur du Feu Theatre, meanwhile, takes the real world as their theatrical setting. A real community serves as their performers. Six new residents of Taiwan relate their own life experiences, honestly expressing their situations as wanderers in a foreign land. This work employs creative methods customarily used to documentary theater, highlighting the authenticity and historical sense of the subject matter through interviews and first-hand statements. This gives the work a marginal tone and the ambiguous character of art/non-art. The work seeks to express a state approaching genuine criticism of the real world.
Collective Community in the Society of the Spectacle
In his 1996 essay collection Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, cultural theorist Arjun Appadurai proposed that mass media and migration had loosened the concepts of “ethnicity – nationality” that people had long believed in, causing an enormous impact on modern identity. He observed how electronic media had condensed news, politics, lifestyles and entertainment into audiovisual content altering the previous world’s models for exchange and communication in a completely new manner. Our way of life may be supplied by mass media, which constructs an “imagined” self and world. Thus, mass media has created an empty “global village” and its social communities. In this imaginary world in which we collectively live, the real and the unreal are now both figments of the imagination of modern media, as if refractions in a prism.[7]
In the current era, Appadurai’s argument sounds like a fable. In just the past decade, digital technology has come to influence our intellects, physicality and the environment we depend on to live. Humankind is experiencing an overwhelming and unprecedented transformation. We have entered the “Second Machine Age.”[8] Present-day society has long gone beyond the state described by French Marxist theorist Guy-Ernest Debord (1931-1994) where life itself has been transformed into a spectacalized “consumer society.” Indeed, after injecting the drug of technology, we have become ever more dependent on the world produced by technological infrastructure. We collectively live in a “technological landscape” through which we interact with the world. This is the new motive force to which we look and upon which we build our lives. And the cruelest reality is that our new faith has pulled us into a collective imagining of the world, and we have lost the ability to communicate and dialogue with the real world, resulting in collective social dysfunction. Chien-yang Wang directly hand-paints on images from the social media platform Instagram, imitating the stained glass windows of a church. The contents of the images come from mobile phone selfies made by members of the public. Such images tend to be kitschy, exaggerated, and alienating. Seemingly inexplicable, they reveal the illusory nature of social media. Meanwhile, the visuals in Wan-jen Chen’s films are all real scenes, yet they seem unreal, like computer simulations. And his film has been enlarged to such a size that the swimmers in it seem overstated, leaving viewers with no bearings to judge its authenticity. This again verifies that image technology is generating the spectacle of an imaginary world.
A Place for the Human World
French theater director Joël Pommerat (1963-) believes, “The theater is a place that can make everyone re-experience the human world. There, reality can be reconstructed at many levels, the material, the concrete, and the imaginary.”[9] For this theatrical artist who has always insisted on writing and directing his own plays, stories allow readers to experience life at a richer array of levels. In other words, they can be both real and imaginary, or they can serve as an intermediary host for the human world. However, this generation of theater makers does not stop at text in their search for the concept of “the world,” but enters the institutional framework of an art exhibition, questing for many different possibilities for artistic experiments, embedding themselves at multiple levels within the concrete concepts of humankind and the world. In “Arena” seven live events penetrate the many levels of “exhibition” and “performance.” The artists are not confined to the traditional paradigm of stage performance, so that their works can draw closer to the viewer, forming a real world in greater proximity to human life. In terms of effect, these performances attempt, through consciousness of form (exhibition and performance), to “stir up” a group of art viewers – the viewers assume they are merely watching a performance, but they are surprised to discover themselves inserted into a real situation! To say that the situation is real means that it provides viewers with a site in which to act without telling them they have become the material of the work. And these performances are an attempt to explore the actions of the viewers to find out how ordinary people can start with themselves and express their own states or circumstances; they are also a way of understanding the world. Of course, this mode of presentation also attempts to create an alternative exhibition space, manifesting a more dynamic manner of exhibition. It transforms the subject/object relationship between the viewer and the work, or directly adopts the real world as its setting, in order to put forward a viewpoint.
Mao-kang Chen and Clockwork Noses employ person-to-person linguistic communication to demonstrate how everyday social relationships introduce absurd situations into the world. In Being and Time, Martin Heidegger contended that most people talk to others based on their own self-centered understanding. Consequently, in the act of speaking we may have already lost the connection with the person with whom we are interacting. Yet this understanding dominates our understanding of everyday relationships with the world and others.[10] How Did It Come To This considers the knots of everyday linguistic exchange that tangle people up in the world. The group Co-coism, meanwhile, rejects utopian expressions, believing that an artwork can express a more realistic life experience. In Waiting for Godot participants are directed to take a number and stand in line to enter a tent to watch a performance. But while they are waiting, actors deliberately stand in the queue among the visitors, or emit screams or laughs from inside the tent. At this moment, a fictitious play is acted out, as the visitors standing in line begin to whisper among themselves, wanting to find out all the things that are taking place. This drama crosses the lines of performance, designing a sensorial experience (sounds, smells, lights). The participants are unwittingly acting in the play, but are completely unaware. Three co-creators unintentionally manufacture a deception and manipulate disguise as reality, performing a story about “waiting.” The work feels somewhat like a practical joke, but highlights a real experience intimately related to daily life.
Choreographer Shang-chi Sun reconsiders the body itself. Dancers pass through a variety of spaces, their actions seeming to collectively interpret a series of events. Visitors moving freely through the spaces also seem to be incorporated into some kind of happening. At the same time, the installation made of corrugated metal sheets and metal rods in the gallery space and the inconspicuous objects in the corridor suggest a sense of suffering arising from daily life. In this context, bodies enter into a real world that is more vital and real. They begin to speak, and alongside this narrative of the body, an “internal” spiritual level rises to the surface. River Lin has designed an improvisational performance, inviting nine artists to join him at the museum in expressing the everyday state of people in real time, blurring the boundaries between everyday life and performance. They stand on the escalators in poses imitating classical sculptures. They doze in place or crawl around, or wipe the exhibition walls with rags. They yell loudly, acting as exhibition guides, using readymade materials in the space to create a series of events. And throughout eight days of consecutive performance, how this work intersects with other works in the exhibition, how it interacts with visitors, and the differences between one performance and the next form the foundation of this performative landscape.
New media is seen as a tool for the free flow of information, and today our lives have been condensed into a virtual world fabricated by the internet. On such social media as Facebook, Instagram and Flickr, everyone can manufacture knowledge, upload videos, or share messages with all the people of the world. In this space composed of computer programs and industrial devices, a host of imagined communities have formed, and these communities are producing new ways of collective expression. To determine the imagined self and world created by new media, Wei-yuan Ma directly asks the big question of how “new media” shapes the “me” that the public perceives. Likewise, if the scene of a disaster can be delivered into the palm of each person’s hand, if vast quantities of information can be rapidly disseminated through televisions, monitors and smartphones, how will the disparity between what we imagine and the realities of society be borne? Common Tragedies is a continuation of Baboo Liao’s exploration of “things.” Using objects, he signifies events that have taken place in everyday society. Lying in the background behind these objects – eggs, megaphones, umbrellas, scattered clothing – are hints at certain incidents, and Liao uses them to revisit scenes from history. Through such recursive referencing, he disassembles these objects in order to reassemble a tragic scene, attempting to clearly see sequences of events and to reexamine how the world manufactured by the broadcasting tool of mass media dominates our lives. Thus, humankind has always rationalized their ability to use “technology” to create, and effectively master, value. An age defined by technology has begun! Using a 3D printer, Tung-yen Chou prints out models of two cities, Taipei and Groningen.[11] He also uses such equipment as processers and transmitters to completely destroy them on one end and rebuild them on the other. In the constantly recurring act of creating and destroying these cities, what do we truly make? By what methods can we build a new external world? Or are these series of new worlds merely samples that technology has reproduced?
Live Exhibition
Not only do these seven live exhibitions involve the corps of the spectators and the position of the spectators within the spaces, but certain situations and durations conveyed by the objects within the spaces must also be incorporated within their rubric. In other words, whether considered in terms of “theatricality” or “live exhibition,” time, space and bodies comprise three elements of performance, and only when they are conjoined and constructed in this way can a relationship form among bodies, objects and linguistic or non-linguistic states within a specific space. The American performance studies scholar Peggy Phelan proposes what she terms the “Ontology of Performance,” that a performance exists as an independent entity in its own right possessing a “live presence” that ceases when reproduced as a video recording.[12] Tino Sehgal, who is best known for his “constructed situations,” takes a similar view, insisting that no work of his be recorded. When a work is placed within a certain context, it becomes a situation that integrates even the viewer within it. We must acknowledge that a “live exhibition” is a living interface created in the art museum. Art with such a “live presence” engenders a more powerfully direct and infectious effect on the viewer, influencing all aspects of the person – the body, psyche, emotions and mind. If we investigate its meaning structure, live performance is conceptually identical to live exhibition. And because these kinds of works are placed within the structure of an art exhibition and repeatedly performed by the participants during the exhibition period, they possess the feature of continuous and circular display. But instead of merely using visual expression, they approach the form of a live performance.
Conclusion
This clearly indicates that placing performances within the context of an exhibition involves an endeavor to conceptualize. The concerns of these performances, or the risks they take, are an attempt to explore contemporary experience, taking a wider more overall view while the school of theater advocates an epistemology of multiple sensory perceptions. In essence, this category of performance uses the exhibition as a form of expression, to produce a corresponsive relationship among people (individuals/groups), society, culture, nature, and objects. Here, any specific form of art serves to overturn or mix up our habitual way of understanding exhibitions. And worth pondering deeply is that artists use performance as a material, responding at various levels to the zeitgeist of the age. Using a fully open mode of expression, they seek to initiate a vision different from the past, composed of a wide variety of artistic experiences, and to communicate about the real world with greater power and creativity in a contemporary manner suited for the needs of the present moment. When it comes to the progression of time, art – unlike science or technology – does not develop or change according to a precise method of classification or deduction. Yet art is not motionless. It does progress and move. In a general overview of art history, time possesses the significance of passing on heritage from generation to generation. Through historical dating we may define various trends of artistic thought within certain time parameters, or discernible models or features of art full of historical reference.
Ultimately, through its works “Arena” presents a real-world scenario to its viewers, allowing them to act as the protagonists. The denouement may be a state of ever greater openness and inclusion or one of disorder, but undoubtedly it will push the situation toward a hidden arena of social interaction. This social arena is a complex network of human activities, forming a culture and a society. It resembles the human condition in the real environment, and makes us cognizant of the wide variety of models for existing in the world. These models reflect the many states in which we, in the context of globalization, interact with the world as beings that exist in a collective environment, genuinely connected to the world. The exhibition attempts to imagine the world as a stage. And on this world stage there exists a wealth of human activities (both individual and public): Concrete or abstract, material or immaterial, affirmative or skeptical, comprehensible or incomprehensible, they all signify the modes of activity of the people most familiar to us. This exhibition is a tailor-made stage, on which people and artworks, one after another, act out a world of display and performance.
---------------------
[1] The Tate Modern art gallery held The World as a Stage from Oct. 24, 2007 to Jan. 1, 2008. Featuring contemporary artists from around the world working in a variety of art forms such as large-scale installations, sculptures, performances, participatory art, and a series of performative events, it incorporated performance within the exhibition structure of “site-specific creation.” This groundbreaking dialogue between theater and exhibition pondered the possibilities for performance and exhibition to produce change and also to cause collisions between artists, artworks and viewers.
[2] Xavier Le Roy presented “Retrospective” at the Taipei Biennial from Dec. 9, 2016 to Jan. 8, 2017. For a month, performers manifested “time” through a choreography of actions, suggesting that the viewers themselves engaged in a variety of understandings of how people exist in time. “Retrospective” was first presented in Barcelona in 2012 at the Fundació Antoni Tàpies-Barcelona. Le Roy more than once described his work as a “mode of production” expressing the process of creation, which transported dance from the theater to the art museum as a living exhibition.
[3] Claire Bishop, Artificial Hells – Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship (London: Verso, 2012) pp. 219-239
[4] Boris Groys, Art Power (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008) p. 148
[5] In his book Truth and Method, Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) argued that the concept of play serves as a means to reveal the ontology of art.
[6] Bishop, op. cit., pp. 106-128
[7] Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)
[8] Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age, (New York: W. W. Norton, 2014)
[9] Joël Pommerat is a French contemporary playwright and theater director who always directs his own works. This quote is from the foreword to the Chinese-language translation of his fairytale trilogy Le Petit Chaperon Rouge, Pinocchio, Cendrillon, tr. by Wang Shih-wei & Chia Yi-chun (National Taichung Theater, 2017) p. 5. Here, Pommerat also notes that what these stories convey to readers is far richer than what the stories themselves say.
[10] In Being and Time the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) proposed that in everyday life people employ three modes for expressing themselves and the world and engaging with others: “idle talk,” “curiosity” and “ambiguity.”
[11] Groningen is a university town in the northern Netherlands.
[12] Peggy Phelan stresses that performance is “representation without reproduction.” Performances only exists “in the present.” They possess “live presence,” and recording them via any medium should not be viewed as “performance.”
---------------
Arena
An Art Arena for Taiwanese and Korean Contemporary Art
Date: July 8 - September 17, 2017
Opening: July 8
Venue: Taipei Fine Arts Museum Galleries 1A, 1B
Co-Curator: Jo Hsiao, Lim Jong-Young
Artists:
Wang Chien-yang, Tu Shih-hue, Riverbed Theatre, Chen Wan-jen, Huang Snow
Sang-hwa Park, Seung-mo Park, Lee-nam Lee, In-sung Lee, Yong-hyun Lim, Joo-lee Kang, Soo-min Bae
Exhibition×Performance:
Baboo, Wang Te-Yu,Yu Cheng-Ta, River Lin, Co-coism, Chou Tung-Yen+WERC Collective (NL) +Grand Theatre Groningen (NL), Keng Yi-Wei, Sun Shang-Chi, Ma Wei-Yuan, Chen Yow-Ruu+AU Sow-Yee, Voleur du Feu Theatre, Clockwork Noses |
|
