2015.12.05 Saturday

019 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.2

Following chapter 18, I will continue to focus and reflect on matters related to the review.

As a way of discussion, I will trace the events in a chronological order, and also draw on emails sent from myself to organizing committee members, adding notes where necessary. Basically, I will refrain from quoting the replies received from the organizing committee, but will show brief summaries.

I will start by backtracking to September 18, two and a half months ago.
---------------------------------------------------
■September 18
The Organizing Committee held its first meeting of the “preliminary committee” that would initiate an emblems selection committee for the Tokyo 2020 Games. After the meeting, Ryohei Miyata, chair of the preliminary committee, told the press that (…) he felt that there was “no need for” and was “not considering” a hearing for the creator of the previous emblem or members of the selection committee. 
(September 19, 2015, The Asahi Shimbun, digital online edition)

■On September 18, Ryohei Miyata, chair of the preliminary committee (…) said that the committee is ready to examine issues related to the selection and ultimate withdrawal of the previous Games emblems. However, according to Miyata, the committee would not be conducting a hearing for Kenjiro Sano, or other members of the selection committee including Kazumasa Nagai. He said, “We will certainly evaluate past events, so that it can be used as building blocks for new things,” maintaining that the committee would not be pursuing the responsibility issue.
(September 19, 2015, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, digital online edition)
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
■September 24
I learned from an entrant that the Organizing Committee had sent out notifications by email to participants of the competition that the committee would like to return their submitted works.
---------------------------------------------------

On September 24, 2015, an entrant who took part in the competition told me of receiving an email from the Organizing Committee—it was a first time communication since submitting the entry. According to the letter that was attached to the email, the entrant learned that the Organizing Committee had launched “a preliminary committee that would initiate an Emblems Selection Committee for the Tokyo 2020 Games” and that the Organizing Committee was ready to return all submissions. This entrant had not even be told about the unveiling of the first place winner, which was held on July 24; had spent ten months without hearing a word from the Organizing Committee; and now, the first piece of communication received was a curt notification that the entrant’s work would be returned. It was a terrible discourtesy. It pained me to think about the entrants’ feelings. In my role as a judge on the selection committee, I believed it was necessary to reexamine the submitted works as a way to make sure the judging was undertaken in a completely fair manner. Thus the returning of the submitted works was something that I could note let pass. I sent an email (Mail-01) to Mr. A, the person who had signed the letter notifying the return of the works, on October 3.

---------------------------------------------------
■September 28
A press conference was held to report on issues related to the Tokyo 2020 Games emblems. Tokyo Organizing Committee Chief Executive Officer Toshiro Muto expressed his views that it was necessary to conduct an investigation regarding guest artists.
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
■September 29
The first meeting of the “Tokyo 2020 Emblems Selection Committee” was held in Tokyo during which time attendants traded opinions regarding the concept, qualifications and requirements for participating in the competition. (…) Regarding a hearing for “the creator of the previous emblem and selection committee judges”, Ryohei Miyata, chairperson of the Selection Committee commented that he felt “there was no need and there are no plans.” 
(The Asahi Shimbun, digital online edition)
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Mail-01)
Email sent on October 3 at 16:55
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. A, Organizing Committee

The Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
Attention: Mr. A

Please let me introduce myself. I am Keiko Hirano, Executive Director of Communication Design Laboratory, and I served on the selection committee of the 2020 Olympic Games Tokyo emblems. 

Ever since problems regarding the emblems surfaced I have been unable to receive responses to my emails from Mr. B (with cc to Mr. C). I am writing to you today, to this email address I got from one of the entrants to the competition. During my communications with Mr. B, I have expressed my intentions to cooperate with review, but to this day I have not heard back from Mr. B. I learned that Mr. Muto has voiced the necessity to conduct an investigation. As one of the judges on the selection committee I would like to fully cooperate with the investigation. I would like to hereby reconfirm my intentions to cooperate. 

Furthermore, I heard from an entrant that submissions are going to be returned. It is my feeling that if an investigation is imminent, returning the works may be a hasty decision. My reasons are, that in hindsight, there were a few designs that I found questionable. If the matter is going to be investigated, I think this is something that should be looked into. Therefore I request that the returning of the works be held back until the investigation is fully completed.

I am well aware of your busy schedule, but I would appreciate it very much if you could respond to the above given two items. 

Thanking you in advance for you time and consideration, 
Keiko Hirano
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
There was no response to my email sent to Mr. A (Mail-01).
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
■Telephone call received on October 6 at 13:02
From Mr. D, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

I received a phone call from a Mr. D, who I presume, was making the call on behalf of Mr. A. Unfortunately I was not at my desk at the time and could not respond. My associate asked the caller to contact me by email rather than phone.
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
■There was no email communication from Mr. D, so I sent an email to Mr. D. (Mail-02)
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Mail-02)
■Email sent on October 6 at 21:44
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. D, Organizing Committee

The Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
Attention: Mr. D

I was waiting to hear back from you by email, but have decided to write to you instead. I sent the following two requests to Mr. A, as follows, and have been waiting for a response:
“During my communication with Mr. B, I have expressed my intentions to cooperate with review, but to this day I have not heard back from Mr. B. I learned that Mr. Muto has voiced the necessity to conduct an investigation. As one of the judges on the selection committee I would like to fully cooperate with the investigation. I would like to hereby reconfirm my intentions to cooperate. Furthermore, I heard submissions are going to be returned. It is my feeling that if an investigation is imminent, returning the works may be a hasty decision. My reasons are, that in hindsight, there were a few designs that I found questionable. If the matter is going to be investigated, I think this is something that should be looked into. Therefore I request that the returning of the works be held back until the investigation is fully completed.”

Today I am contacting you with an additional request. Regarding the guest artist(s) and the works created by the guest artist(s), there is a piece that I have qualms about, regarding its contents. Therefore, I would like to review the works of the guest artist(s) and the 14 designs that made it through to the final review, as soon as possible, before the submissions are returned. If that is possible, I am available, even tomorrow to visit you. I will be awaiting your response. If there is a reason that prohibits a judge on the selection committee from viewing a piece of work that he or she has already seen, please let me know.
I definitely want to fulfill my responsibilities regarding this situation—prompting me to make this request. 
I look forward to hearing from you.

Keiko Hirano
---------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------
(Mail-03)
■Email received on October 7 at 17:21
From Mr. D, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

The email included no specific answers to my questions or requests. It was a general notice that a council of advisors will be summoned soon, and asked me to be patient.
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Mail-04)
■Email sent on October 7 at 21:43
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. D, Organizing Committee

The Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
Marketing
Attention: Mr. D

I apologize for my lack of comprehension, but when you say “please be patient”, does that mean, in the meantime, while I am waiting patiently, you will not be returning the submitted works? I hope my interpretation is not incorrect. I would appreciate a reconfirmation on this matter, whether or not the works will be returned or not, just to make sure.
Keiko Hirano
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Mail-05)

■Email received on October 9 at 15:26
From Mr. D, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

There were no specific answers to my questions or requests; again, I was told about the council of advisors which would be soon summoned and a further note that the returning of the submitted works would probably left to the discretion of the council, pursuant to its investigations and findings.
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Mail-06)
■Email sent on October 10 at 20:41 
Keiko Hirano to Mr. D, Organizing Committee 

The Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
Marketing
Attention: Mr. D

I read your response.
I understand that this means—what happens remains undecided.

Keiko Hirano 
---------------------------------------------------

I despaired in the limitations of trading such emails with the organizing committee; which seemed to lead to nowhere. 
Thus I started my personal Blog on October 10; the day actually coincided with the first day of the Olympic Games which was hosted by Tokyo in 1964.

---------------------------------------------------
■October 10
I started “HIRANO KEIKO’S OFFICIAL BLOG” through which I called for a thorough investigation on the issue in a public platform and expressed my intentions of full cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
■October 20
A competition entrant informed me of receiving an email notice from the Organizing Committee stating that they were revising their former position of returning submitted works; the returning of the works would be postponed for a review by external advisors.  
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
■October 29
It was officially announced that an investigation committee made up of external adviors was set up, and that the first meeting was held on the same day. 
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Mail-07)
■Email received on October 29 at 08:45
From Mr. E to Keiko Hirano

I received an email request to take part in a review conducted by external advisors.
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Mail-08)
■Email sent on October 29 at 19:58
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Please feel assured, as a judge who was on the panel for selecting the Olympic emblem during the previous round, I am ready to give my full cooperation.

Keiko Hirano
---------------------------------------------------
 
Keiko Hirano
 
Keiko Hirano:
Designer/Visioner, Executive Director of Communication Design Laboratory
Hirano served on the panel that chose the official emblem for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics, which was ultimately withdrawn.

五輪エンブレム問題の
事実と考察
001 責任がとれる方法で 002 公募期間の短さ 003 『展開』『展開性』『展開力』 004 知らされなかった招待作家 005 ブログを読んで下さっているみなさまへ 006 利害優先の土壌 007 修正案承諾拒否の経緯と理由 - vol.1 008 修正案承諾拒否の経緯と理由 - vol.2 009 『公』の仕事 010 専門家の盾 011 秘密保持誓約書という密室 012 いまこそ、私心なき専門性を問う 013 判断の論拠 014 最終の審議 015 金銭感覚と敬意の相対性 016 表現におけるモラリティと表現者のモラル 017 言葉のちから 018 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.1 019 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.2 020 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.3 021 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.4 022 願い 023 摩訶不思議な調査報告書 024 負の遺産とならないように 025 出口なき迷路 026 届かぬ思い 027「社会に位置づくデザイン」という観点 028 無責任主義の村 029 審査委員として知り得た情報のすべて 030 新聞寄稿文への異論 - vol.1 031 新聞寄稿文への異論 - vol.2 032 1対3の構図 - 「A案」VS「BCD案」 033 今を生きる 034 負の連鎖……を断つために 035 欲望の公害 精神の断絶 036 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.1 037 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.2 038 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.3 039 事実はひとつ 040 新世界へ 041 JAGDA文書への意見と要望 ― 法律の専門家による分析 042 JAGDAの回答 JAGDAへの要望書 043 「要望書へのJAGDAの回答」に対する更なる質問 044 「意見書へのJAGDAの回答」に対する質問と提案 045 ブラック・デザイン
Tokyo 2020 Olympics Logo Controversy--Facts and Observations 001 My way of taking responsibility 002 Duration of contest was way short 003 “Development” “Development Capabilities” “Development Power” 004 Guest artists I wasn’t told about 005 To My Readers 006 A culture where special interests take priority 007 How and why I refused to accept the modified design - vol.1 008 How and why I refused to accept the modified design - vol.2 009 Strictly “public” work 010 Specialists as shields 011 Behind closed doors-secrecy surrounding a non-disclosure agreement 012 Time to put selfless expertise to the test 013 Rationale behind my decision 014 The final review session 015 Is the money mindset relative to paying respect? 016 Morality of expression and the morals of its creator 017 The power of words 018 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.1 019 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.2 020 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.3 021 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.4 022 My wish 023 Mystifying investigation report is out 024 In order to prevent a negative legacy 025 Stuck in a maze with no exit 026 A voice unheard 027 A viewpoint that calls for “design with a place in society” 028 A village with a policy of irresponsibility 029 Every piece of information that I garnered as a judge on the selection committee 030 Objections to a newspaper contribution - vol.1 031 Objections to a newspaper contribution - vol.2 032 The underlying picture of one against three - “Plan A” versus “Plans BCD” 033 Living in the moment 034 Putting a stop……to a negative chain of events 035 Pollution by greed and discontinuity of the spirit 036 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.1 037 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.2 038 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.3 039 Every fact has only one version 040 Toward a whole new world 041 Opinion and request regarding JAGDA document―An analysis by a legal specialist 042 Reply from JAGDA Request letter to JAGDA 043 More questions re: "Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter" 044 Questions and proposal re: "Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter" 045 Rogue design