ICC “10 Years of Open Space”

HATANAKA｜“Open Space” was started in 2006 as an exhibit of forming the basis of activities for the ICC, an establishment dedicated to a broad introduction to media art. In the begining, easy to understand works that could be displayed for long periods were chosen from past five years. But since 2010, it was expanded to bring a broader perspective and bring renewed focus on redefining media art itself and its historical position, including current trends on its periphery, bringing us to where we are today.
As this has happened, the so-called media art that has been introduced by the ICC thus far as current trends has been displayed at other museums of modern art without much conscious thought from the creators themselves of the differences between contemporary art and media art. Over these ten years, while Open Space was supposed to introduce, first and foremost, just what “media art” actually is, the awareness of media art may have ended up getting diluted.
With these issues in mind, I thought today to discuss with FUJIHATA-san and KUBOTA-san their thoughts on what media art has been over the last ten years and what it will be over the next ten.

What is “media art”?

KUBOTA│Last spring, there was an event organized by MANABE Daito called “Roppongi Dark Night.” It was professed to be a technology art conference, but from the outset, the question of just what “media art” is was raised in the “Japanese Media Art Scene” session. Since there’s no end to people saying “This is media art!” and “This isn’t media art!,” I instead thought I’d ask people there to say what media art was to them individually. However, unfortunately, nobody was able to directly answer that. For me, media art is expressed in several of the works of MIKAMI Seiko and FUJIHATA-san.
*Note: My slide for this point linked below.
http://www.slideshare.net/AkihiroKubota/ropponngi-dark-night

HATANAKA│The gist of your question may not have gotten through to the attendees at that time. For instance, to your saying that MIKAMI-san and FUJIHATA-san are media artists, a segment of the attendees thought “What is their larger meaning as artists beyond that of media artists?”

KUBOTA│What I wanted to ask for there were definitive exemplar of works, not artists. For instance, MIKAMI-san’s “gravicells - gravity and resistance” is called a work of media art, but I think it’s appropriate that she simply be called an artist, not a “media artist.”

FUJIHATA│But doesn’t that just lead to your saying “there are artists who make media art”? While it may be called art, for various reasons, an artist who works in video could one day suddenly paint a picture. The idea that “It’s an artist’s job to discover new forms, and to be an artist is to keep improving over a lifetime,” is the paradigm for the 20th century. But in actuality, that’s not the case. Forms may change, but I think the artist’s identity continues.
This is a major theme of the book I’m working on now (“Anarchive Nº6—FUJIHATA MASAKI”), but since I’ve worked in a number of mediums, there are those who view my work and say “I just don’t get who this FUJIHATA guy is.” That’s mainly because, while I make works in 8mm, I also make interactive works. In other words, this idea that “the form equals the artist’s identity” is an exceedingly 20th century framework.
However, if some artist starts with media art, I doubt they’d want to stick with that their whole lives. Mainly because I wouldn’t want to meet someone like that. (Laughs)

KUBOTA│(Laughing) For me, what I’m doing at Tama Art University now hasn’t changed from what I was doing at the University of Tokyo, but when seen from the outside, I get asked “Why did you change?”

HATANAKA│It’s true that the style itself of some works assumes the identity of the one expressing it.
However, from the late 80s to the early 90s, artists who’d worked in painting and sculpture began working with computers. Like SEKIGUCHI Atsuhito or NAKAHARA Kodai.

FUJIHATA│I think it was extremely natural for them to do as artists. But there are two types of artists. One type takes an interest in a new medium, while the other has the interest but doesn’t act on it. I think most artists are essentially interested in new things, but don’t pursue the new mediums when they think “I’ll never be able to master this well.”
For instance, there isn’t a painter who wasn’t interested in photography. Digital cameras get released, and pretty much every painter buys one. Finally, what they end up making may be paintings, but the artists give a vivid reaction to the change in that era’s medium. On top of that, there are those who don’t dare try the new mode, while others take up the challenge.
However, speaking in terms of the paradigm of the 20th century that I mentioned earlier, the mode isn’t readily changed. So long as there are a certain number of people selling the old form, that’s only natural. Rather, within the old form that’s holding you back, there’s a way to introduce a new medium and it’s a powerful means of expression.

KUBOTA│Right. It’s natural for an artist to take an interest in different mediums over the course of his life, but as a specific style becomes fixed as his identity, even as he tries out other things, it gets spoken of as a “hobby.” Like someone who mainly does paintings will have works done in photography or video referred to as hobbies.

FUJIHATA│In the 19th century and before, the definition of art’s worth came from the discerning eye of a virtuoso, but from the 20th century onward, it became market oriented. The value of a work of art became how much money it was worth. In doing so, identity became vital, which is why PICASSO never became a photographer. He probably took lots of photos, but never published them as works of art. The same goes for MAGRITTE. That’s because they were clever enough.
Another thing... As an artist, there’s a question of “Do I exhibit the result of working in a new medium or not.” There are those who intentionally consider this and quite a few who don’t. In short, are the art activities of those people conscious or not? That’s a fairly vital question... Still, even if you think “I wanna be an artist!,” just thinking about it doesn’t make you one. There was once a person from the field of science who said to me “FUJIHATA-kun, I don’t understand art. Could you teach me about it? If you teach me, then I’ll be able to do it.” I have a feeling that, within his own paradigm, nothing springs out of nowhere. Everything has a reason, and proceeds from that. Nothing has no pretext. But, in the end, what we call creativity is pregnant with things that spring from nowhere. Things where you say “One day, this idea just came to me.”
Of course, I think there are things like that in the field of science as well, where individuals as an artist undertake something without any need for proof. They make something and it ends up opening the door to a new world. They make money from it along the way, but the opportunity to do so sprang out of nowhere.
And so, that brings us to whether or not we establish the term “professional artist.” 80-90% of 20th century artists were so-called “professional artists” that studied it. Among the remaining 10–20% were people with natural genius. But for most of them, they didn’t understand very well the meaning of what they were doing.
Looking at it from the framework of social value, artists don’t serve much purpose. However, I think it was admirable that Europe saw people like that as vital. I don’t need to explain how this ended up affecting the foundations of modern society, with the general concept of “professional artist equals artist in general” really being a hundred or two hundred years old.

The Connection Between New Media and Art

KUBOTA│Considering what FUJIHATA-san was saying now, I think the most essential thing concerning media art is the idea of “There must be new forms and methods in new media that we haven’t yet seen before.” That’s why we can’t restrict forms of expression. When we discover it, it might be n-dimensional, neither material nor data. By no means will it be done by subjectively or emotionally doing whatever you want. Rather, for that part, I have a feeling it will be self-consciously and rationally examined, in terms of thought and the basis of the work.

HATANAKA│And in that meaning, artists nowadays don’t see it as particularly important anymore to restrict themselves to a specific medium. You could call it polystylicism. And so these post-medium artists searching for undiscovered modes of expression hidden in various mediums could rather be called media artists.

FUJIHATA│What I’ve been saying for the last ten years is that, starting with being “medium conscious,” the act of “making new media” can itself be called art. When you go back through the history of painting, there are people like that.
One example of this is (Lucio) FONTANA, who would actually cut up his paintings’ canvases. Because of that, the canvases would be surfaces made of linen, and so one couldn’t help but become aware of how the image clung to them. At a movie theater, if someone stands up between the projector and the screen and casts a shadow onto it, it’ll likely trigger angry shouts of “You’re in the way! Get lost!” That subsequent exposure of the fact that “the image is projected onto the screen” is the “FONTANA State,” so to speak. In a certain type of his works, there’s just that sort of component. Similarly, as we go back through the history of art, I think that those artists who showed medium consciousness could be called media artists.

KUBOTA│By the way, starting with FUJIHATA-san, what do you think of the use of the term “new” media? For example, there are people like Lev MANOVICH who refer to digital media as new media.

FUJIHATA│But everything gets called “new” at some point, so...

KUBOTA│Right, so I’m asking what “new” media is in the 21st century. We’re long past the time the computer could be considered “new” media.

FUJIHATA│I suppose there are two types of new media, such as discover or invention then. One is the purely technological invention, where you find radio waves and then say “This could be made into a radio.” The other where you change the way a past medium is used. Radio DJs began a now common practice of attaching the medium of postcards to radio broadcasts. The point is that by adding the medium of postcards to radio and by, a radio DJ discoverd the intercommunication media. That’s an incredible expression of media art, isn’t it? I think there are many discoveries along those lines yet to come.

KUBOTA｜Just the other day, I saw a news story about a quantum annealing computer called the Google D-Wave, which has a hundred million times the performance of current computers, and I really got the urge to try it out. (Laughs)

FUJIHATA│I don’t think that’s any different from when a new camera comes out and I think “I’d like to take pictures with that.”

HATANAKA│The thing is, new media is different from new media art. With the former, the entry of the media serves as a major opportunity for a change in human consciousness and behavior. On the other hand, the latter is using the new media to make art. There’s a bit of a difference there.

FUJIHATA│In general, with media art, including technology art, high tech art, digital art... Whatever you call it, you inevitably have to answer the question “Do I use a new technology as a tool of expression?” The danger at that point is that many works end up as nothing more than tech demos. Beyond the wonder of the technology, is there something in it that needs to be expressed by the artist? 99% of the time, there isn’t.

KUBOTA│That’s what Apple and Google do when they show off new technology, gradually turning it into brainwashing. You get caught up in the hype of how “this new iPhone is so innovative,” when the truth is that, for the most part, nothing is new about it at all. That’s why, as opposed to the majority, it becomes vital to say “Wait a minute,” or, to use the example of the radio DJ from before, to actively look for ways to combine existing forms of media and say “this can be used like this.” Like McLUHAN said, art is anti-environment, making it also anti-technology. In FUJIHATA-san’s work “Unreflective Mirror,” which I like, it’s not supposed to properly reflect an image, and in doing so exposed cracks and gaps in perception and cognition.

FUJIHATA│In that work, I definitely wasn’t trying to show a new technology. I made it intentionally fragile, if you go close the mirror, the system can’t track properly your position.
The thing is, I’d previously exhibited it in Manchester in the UK, and was told “It’s built very poorly,” likely because of their preconceived notions about Japanese artists. (Laughs) Rather, there was a meaning in the parts they say are fragile, but he didn’t read it out for me, so they perceive it as “technology = perfection.” But that’s not how I see it. Sometimes, I want to say that technology doesn’t care about others, and that it can be violently grotesque. Technology can also be used for weapons and arms, which is vital to the capitalist. It’s because of that I think I want to set technology free.
For instance, a Formula One car is a good example. There are those who’d say “An F1 is art,” and that makes for an interesting thesis. As it’s a collection of technology, it has meaning as a piece of industrial art.

HATANAKA│As FUJIHATA-san said before, there’s an idea that “Media art isn’t just a demonstration of new technology, but must also have an aspect of some sort of media or technology criticism.” On the other hand, what we call technology isn’t readily accepted unless it’s highly transparent. For the things we call “well made” in the sense that they’re immersive, the transparency should be as high as possible. Although that might be something more appropriate to talk about in the entertainment field.

KUBOTA│However, there’s a practical question. For example, when I hear a clucking sound from a notebook PC, I think “Ah, the hard drive’s working.” But since an SSD makes no sound, it conversely feels inconvenient to me. The business and entertainment worlds are both headed in this direction of silencing things, and I think that may actually be a dystopia.

FUJIHATA│On the subject of “Unreflective Mirror,” another aspect of that work was for the user to search for “How best to recognize yourself,” and from there, that gave the user the opportunity to consider the meaning of technology. But if it worked perfectly, they’d never think about that.
So, the content, whatever it is, has nothing story-like about it. But then entertainment people will tell me “The content should be such and such” while those from the art world tell me “It’s made poorly.” (Laughs)

Things that can only be called media art.

HATANAKA│For instance, media art in the 90’s was widely talked about because of its interactivity, but at the same time, that interactivity was pointed out as being formulaic and hackneyed. And further criticism noted that, although interactive, since the works could only react in a limited way, they could only let the audience respond to them through a limited number of scenarios.
Thinking along those lines, FUJIHATA-san’s “Unreflective Mirror” doesn’t guide you through that sort of interaction, but rather becomes a critique of it. And now, as we’ve left behind the 2000’s era of “media art = interactive art,” we’re entering a new paradigm for media art criticism. Looking at the period of 2000 to 2010, the aspect of media art is changing yet again.
Perhaps that’s related to how prior media art-type works which are to a degree “gadgets” are now being re-exhibited more as works for entertainment. I have a feeling that made media art lately harder to understand.

KUBOTA│When I hear criticism of interactivity, I always think how half of the value of a work’s interactivity depends on the audience. So, in the case of FUJIHATA-san’s mirror piece, if all you do is boringly wave your hands at it, you need to say “It’s not the work that’s boring, it’s you that’s boring.”

FUJIHATA│Right. The principal point of interactive art really is the process the audience goes through in analyzing it, so it must be discouraging for people who approach it as they might traditional paintings, where they get a one-way experience of something interesting from it. Still, since 20th century art does to an extent require you to study it if you hope to understand it, when you come to the art museum to stand in front of a work of art after studying up on it, you can now confirm for yourself if you do or not.

KUBOTA│That’s what I mean by how you must give a work of art the power to let you experience something that’s already been put into words and let you discover something new for yourself.

FUJIHATA│Perhaps a weakness of current media art is the lack of wonder. Some of them now play to expectations.

HATANAKA│And an audience can tend to be satisfied with a certain amount of precision and spectacle.

KUBOTA│To get back to what we started out discussing, that’s why I wanted to think about works that could only be called media art. For instance, when the idol group Perfume is performing on stage, while you can say that’s not media art, but rather “an idol performance that uses technology,” that doesn’t change its value or meaning. But FUJIHATA-san’s “Unreflective Mirror” couldn’t be called a game or entertainment.
To apply the archive question that’s become current lately, perhaps media art can be defined as “Works of art which cannot be archived using current methods.” (Laughs) Already, methods for archiving some forms of these works are already established.

HATANAKA│Since the works themselves cannot be archived, they preserve them by video recordings or by taking photos of them. But, in the end, the “work itself” is impossible to preserve. Thinking of it that way, I have a feeling that brings you to the question of how does one archive the experience itself?

KUBOTA│The other day, I met with people from a game preservation society on behalf of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan. In the end, what they arrived at as a satisfactory game archive was to preserve the software data with an emulator with which to play it along with videos of the games being played. So long as those existed, you can say that the games “exist.”
But with works of media art, you can’t say that they exist just by doing that. Perhaps how that form and method doesn’t preserve it illuminates an essential part of media art.

FUJIHATA│To add to what we’re talking about now, a work may end up being interesting because a programmer has pushed the specs and abilities of a type of technology at a certain time to its very limit. But in doing so, it’s no longer able to be preserved for posterity.

KUBOTA│Exactly. A game just has to run without failing, so an emulator is just fine for that. But works of media art assault a sort of crack in in that technology. That’s basically what art is, when you get down to it.

FUJIHATA│Also, its “retroness” makes it quaint, instead.

KUBOTA│The slowness and low resolution of the graphics gets baked into it. And now, when you also consider how the technology itself that makes it possible is changed, you get the so-called meta-archive controversy.

FUJIHATA│Do you preserve it, set it aside, continually update it, or just leave it as is.

KUBOTA│Like MIKAMI-san’s “Molecular Informatics,” where the visual input hardware, display device, and software all keep being updated, so even after she dies, she’d like to have it updated further.

FUJIHATA│To give an extreme example, when they now repair the pictures drawn on a support medium (Silk used in artwork) that was woven in the Heian period, in order to match the wear of the silk from that period, the people doing the restoration intentionally expose silk to radiation. The thing is, the people in the Heian period didn’t draw those pictures thinking that people 1,200 years in the future would be looking at them.
So, when you think about what’s really important, even 500 years in the future, think that people will be making this from nothing out of 500 year old iPad parts that they collect. When you do that, the duty of the artist is to think “How do I make something that will leave that much behind?” Not “It won’t be left behind,” but “What if there are people who will want to see it, despite that.”
By the way, my standpoint is that anything written as a program can be recreated centuries from now. Some might say that’s unreasonable if the OS changes, but that’s not true at all.

KUBOTA│As long as the source code and the programming language are preserved, you can recreate it. Just like with ancient Japanese and Chinese literature.

HATANAKA│For example, with the original conception of the ICC, there was this idea for a “museum that had no physical location and without a collection of things.” It really was this point of view that “You can preserve the work so long as you kept the program.” But when you consider what FUJIHATA-san wrote before that “One of the reasons video art is acknowledged as art is due to how it’s exhibited as installation,” if even the ICC opens a center, just preserving the source code won’t be enough.

FUJIHATA│Peter WEIBEL of ZKM said of the virtual museum concept that it was the collection of algorithm. In other words, so long as you have the algorithms and a support system, you can recreate it. However, the support system can change according to the era.
The algorithms we’re talking about now can be thought of as a musical score. In the world of music, musical notation has been established in the 17th century. Since then, musical piece has become free from musical instruments. So, as long as you have that musical score, you can perform it over and over. And it’s all right if someone shows up and performs some music on the saxophone even if it was originally written for the harpsichord. Similarly, it doesn’t matter if in the future a work I programmed in Macromedia Director becomes something else. What’s important is that it be preserved.

KUBOTA│If you think of the work’s core as being the software, after that I think what’ll be important is to refer to the technical rider for the exhibit to make certain there’s an repository that allows for the display and devices to be rebuilt. I think “preserving this repository” will be vital for the Archive. Orchestras nowadays are nothing like they were in Mozart’s day, but no matter which one performs his work, the identity of “Mozart’s music” is maintained.

FUJIHATA│That’s what’s so amazing about Mozart. In other words, even if you view algorithms are equal to a musical score, the essence of Mozart is still transmitted. In that sense, there are two types of people involved with media arts now: the obsessive types who are all, like, “It has to use this particular CRT display or nothing!” and have no interest in these so-called support systems. The other types are those who want to treat it like a musical score.

HATANAKA│The thing is, for the current collections of media art in art museum, either way you look at it, the “thing” itself is the main subject.

KUBOTA│For instance, I think ZKM sees their mission as buying up CRTs no longer in production from online auctions.

HATANAKA│When Bernhard SEREXHE, the chief curator for ZKM, gave a talk at the ICC, he stated his opinion that “When a work no longer functions, you must repair and replace it while basically maintaining as much of the original as possible.”

FUJIHATA│When previously exhibiting “Beyond Pages” in Pittsburgh, when a NuBus video card broke down, they said “We have so many spares, it’s fine.” So, they must be buying a lot of video cards... That level of fetishism does have an appeal, though.

HATANAKA│The Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan is proceeding with its archiving of works of media art, and this year (2015) they’re repairing FURUHASHI Teiji’s “LOVERS.” I think the objective is the avoid harming the original.

KUBOTA│For instance, I may not be able to recreate a work unless the bright projectors we have now have a lower black level. The conventional wisdom of today’s makers is that “For projectors, brighter is better,” so the act itself of reproducing one that isn’t because there’s a value that poses a problem with regard to technology and society. If I decided to make this “projector with lower blacks,” then I’m going to make one.

HATANAKA│If you do that, you end up very close to FUJIHATA-san’s statement that “The artist is not so much one who uses media as one who makes it.”

KUBOTA│In the end, the artist who directly commits to the media itself will be able to discover new forms and methods in doing so and then make it for himself as the situation demands. Consciously setting about doing that is, I believe, the most essential part of media art. Starting from that, the individual artist’s awareness of the issues and the art gallery’s support system allow for its discussion.

FUJIHATA│The idea of a form of media that doesn’t support the expression, in other words, expression that isn’t dependent upon a support system, is a radical notion. It’s paying attention to the algorithm. But, at the same time, media art that references net space raises doubts with the form of the space, and while that becomes an issue in the experience of touching the work, it simultaneously becomes a vital part of it. These two points, which seem contradictory at first glance, may be what allow you to read the creative something that poses questions through an unusual piece of media.

Creativity that can change society

FUJIHATA│What’s been of interest to me over these past ten years are Processing (NOTE—A visual arts programming language created by the MIT Media Lab) starting in 2002 and the first development of the Arduino in 2005. These two entries were huge.
After that, the comparatively recent release of the Raspberry Pi, and how the OS and C language environment have become essentially free have also been major. As these external devices have come out, they now let a user feel “I can do this, too!” That’s had a huge effect relating to media art.
In the first place, the relationship in media art of “What I can do and what I assume I can do” is one that arises between the computer and the user. The idea of “If I hit a key, a letter appears” may be almost too obvious, but in the early days of teletype terminals, hitting the “A” key and having the letter “A” appear on a screen felt shockingly interactive.
For most people, this theme of “what sort of connection is there between computer and human” has fallen to a level of obviousness. And it’s from there that media art begins to be a cultural phenomenon, which relates to recent activities by Rhizomatiks and teamLab.
In that respect, can we make it clear from the standpoint of the ICC how it views creativity in relation to media art? In other words, the ICC seems to be a bit vague on “creativity with regard to technological development” and “creativity for the meaning of art.”
Maybe it’s because that was the general zeitgeist when it was established in the 90s (This is not only speaking of the ICC case). In other words, “Media art uses technology creatively, so we spread it to become popular in society, link it to business...” Wasn’t there that sort of expectation for it? It’s a delicate point, but for instance there would be talk like “How would media art be usefull for the development of new mobile phone?”
However, should we really mark a clear distinction between “creativity with regard to technological development” and “creativity with regard to art” here? People who use Processing language and those who propagate through open source code for the Arduino board are both doing incredibly creative work, aren’t they?
The unforgettable case in terms of creativity of engineering reseachs is that of Winny’s developer. When such creative people are expelled from the society, the next generation won’t arise. It’s extremely troubling, but that’s the sort of nation Japan is.
It’s for that reason that places like the ICC are so interesting, as they’re one of the places that serve to socialize creative technological development. Processing was developed by the MIT Media Lab, while the Arduino was developed in Italy. Why Italy? Because the taxes are low there?

KUBOTA│Ivrea, where the Arduino board was developed, was a town which was once supported by the Olivetti typewriter company. The town’s marketplace, which had shrunk, is now overflowing with people who have found new employment making the Arduino, so it’s apparently turned into a regional promotion enterprise. In that sense, the Arduino has become an archetype for something not only useful to culture but to society, as well.

FUJIHATA│We need to think about how there’s not one place in Japan that’s ridden a similar wave. We should take some kind of action.
On another point, with the question of creativity with regard to art, it has an intimate relationship with the modern. There is art which acts as a symbol of individualism in modern society. A single person’s creativity can change society. Without the creativity of individual’s, modern society couldn’t be renewed. Within this premise, fine art and other arts are exalted. But art in Japan is still stuck in the Edo period concept of being “skillfully made,” and in that respect hasn’t caught up with modern society.

KUBOTA│New media like the computer has made the process personal, and what aries from that is interesting. For my part, I feel that things holding the avant-garde spirit still very much exist for art.

FUJIHATA│As avant-garde is a European concept, that sort of throws up warning signs for me... Basically, you’re saying “Individual free expression can change the world,” right?
In any case, American west coast ventures definitely feel that way, which is why when new technology is introduced, I think the people who started Voyager and Apple do it with the conviction of “Let’s change the world with this.” Since they started with the general premise of the computer revolution, we picked up that vibe and bought Macintoshes that cost one million yen at the time. (Laughs) As we use the tools born from that, Japanese people aren’t basking in that “wind” at all.
To the contrary, I think INOKO Toshiyuki of teamLab and SAITO Seiichi of Rhizomatiks are trying hard. They seem to be asking whether things really should remain as they are. But what they’ve been most successful at for now is how they defiantly say “Nothing that Japanese people make has to conform to Western standards of taste,” taking MURAKAMI Takashi’s position.
It’s not as though we’re particularly aligned with them. I’d rather say that we don’t need to be dragged along by that sort of past. Except we can’t convey that well. I think that’s why young people are in such a state of chaos.
People of the 20th century, especially those who came out of the experiences of the 60’s and 70’s, basically claimed “We don’t have to live the lives our parents did.” That so-called “setting free of the consciousness” was in the hippie movement. In that sense, too, we should re-examine the concept of “free.”
The Processing language and Arduino we mentioned before are similar, in that they release high technology to the general public. In other words, they’re not just for high society; anybody can get their hands on them. By doing that, when technology falls into your hands, it changes your consciousness. In my case, when I got into CG in the 80’s, it was monopolized by those who could afford three hundred million yen computers. Nowadays, though, that price has fallen to five dollars for a Raspberry Pi Zero.
When that happens, as certain as I am that peoples’ consciousness and worldview will change, most will be satisfied with the dimension of convenience. In other words, they view technology only in terms of “With this technology, we can make goods more cheaply, sell more, and make more money.” In that case, I think one of the most important roles an artist has is to make a work of art that can physically realize the potential it has to change human consciousness.

[Recorded on December 10, 2015 at the ICC]