HIRANO KEIKO’S OFFICIAL BLOG

Following chapters 018, 019 and 020, I will continue with my appraisal of the review, tracing related records in chronological order.

—————————————————
(Mail-21)
■Email received on November 18 at 15:19
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Regarding the reason why the committee felt that “there was no need for me to re-examine the submitted works”, I received a reply that flatly denied there was any reason besides those that had been given so far; stating that it had nothing to do with what I had surmised in my sent mail (Mail-20) in Chapter 20.

The evaluators for this review would be checking to see if and how the works submitted by the persons whose participation was requested were handled differently from other works; if any method was employed to ensure such particular works would make it to the next round without notifying other judges on the selection panel. Furthermore, it was stated that, by conducting a thorough review, the committee believed it “would serve the purpose of the investigation” and that it fully acknowledged the importance of physical evidence—and would proceed accordingly.

In closing, the email sought my understanding and requested that I consider cooperating with the review.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-22)
■Email sent on November 18 at 23:09
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee 
Dear Mr. E,

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your email in response to my question. Because of this late hour, I would like to respond in full tomorrow.
Thank you.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-23)
■Email sent on November 20 at 21:53
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee 

Dear Mr. E,

I have taken time to reread your email I received the day before yesterday. According to the contents of your transmission, I understand that:

In effect, the investigation to take place will assess the events of the judging, but will not go into whatever happened from the time the invitations were sent out, to the actual judging that took place. Then, hypothetically speaking, if any exchange of information were to have taken place between the judge(s) on the selection committee and a particular creator, and the results were reflected in the work, as far as the investigators are concerned, that is something “not covered by this investigation”. Am I right? This is something incredibly important so please allow me to reconfirm. Before I decide whether or not I can take part in the review, there are three questions I need to ask of you.

The first question is regarding your reply, “obviously, we fully acknowledge the importance of physical evidence—and are having (investigators) proceed accordingly”. I would like to ask you to define the “importance of physical evidence”? I was a judge on the selection committee. And I have been requesting permission to view the top 14 works that I saw during the judging process, once again. That is only because I am fully aware of the “importance of physical evidence”. But my request to reconfirm such physical evidence has been denied, and refused. Then I am compelled to ask, what is the “importance of physical evidence” as envisaged by the organizing committee? I would like a specific explanation.

My second question regards these particular artists. Could I have the names? Based on other information sources, actually, I have a pretty sure idea of the names. That said, though I served as a judge on the selection committee, I have never been given the actual names (by the Organizing Committee) as of this day. Could you please give me the information now, which should have rightfully been given to me before the judging? If that is not possible at this time, please give me the reason. 

My third question regards who is cooperating and who is not cooperating with the upcoming survey. Am I allowed to know? If not, please tell me the reason why you cannot disclose the information.

I await your reply to the questions I have presented. 
Thanking you for your time and consideration,

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-24)
■Email received on November at 16:20
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano 

The gist of the reply was: points to be considered in my cooperative role was limited to the list of questions; which did not necessarily mean that the review would not address events that were not related to the judging. 

As for physical evidence: “regarding the contents of the questions, we are proceeding with care to attach confirmable evidence.”

The Organizing Committee was not at liberty to disclose the names of the persons to whom requests to participate in the competition were sent out. The reason was given as: requests to cooperate with the review on a voluntary basis have been sent out, and everyone has complied under the condition that their names would not be revealed.
—————————————————

◆In relation to (Mail-24)
As for the particular artists who were recipients of requests to participate in the competition, there were eight of them. The letters requesting participation was co-signed by two persons—which indicate that four artists were chosen by Mr. Kazumasa Nagai and the remaining four were chosen by Mr. Takuma Takasaki. This much I learned from concerned parties.

—————————————————
(Mail-25)
■Email sent on November 23 at 14:47
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

I appreciate it very much that you have taken time out of your busy schedule to respond to my questions. Thank you very much.

In regards to my cooperation with the review, I have six questions and four requests. If my requests are to be denied, I would like to hear the respective reasons.

————————–
(Question 1)
I cannot understand the meaning of the explanation that you have given me, “As for physical evidence, regarding the contents of the questions, we are proceeding with care to attach confirmable evidence”. Could you be a bit more specific? If you mean that the works are physical evidence and should be treated with care, does that mean you are going to actually address the works themselves? If you are going to assess them, please let me know the specific method you will be employing.
(Question 2)
My understanding is that Mr. F, as a former member of the Organizing Committee, would be receiving an investigative review, separate from that concerning the judges on the selection committee. Does that mean that Mr. F is being questioned as a judge on the selection committee, too?
(Question 3)
Has Mr. B, a former Organizing Committee member. agreed to be part of the investigation?
(Question 4)
I understand all eight guest artists are cooperating with the investigation. Does that mean that Mr. G has also agreed to be part of the investigation?
(Question 5)
I want to look at the video footage that was recorded during the judging session. If I am not allowed to watch it, please let me know the reason why.
(Question 6)
Mr. H is an artist who received a request to participate in the competition, but I have been told by multiple officials of the Organizing Committee that Mr. H was in fact, giving advice regarding the competition in his capacity as a graphic design specialist. So, will Mr. H be questioned as an advisor, in addition to being questioned as one of the particular artists who received a request to participation in the competition?
————————–
(Request 1)
For the hearing, I would like to bring a member from my company and my lawyer to sit with me during the session.
(Request 2)
I would like to make a video recording of the preliminary meeting in preparation for the hearing review.
(Request 3)
Regarding the hearing review report, I would cooperate with the premise that my name is attributed to all my statements.
(Request 4)
Regarding the hearing review report, I would like your word that as for portions related to myself, I will be able to check the manuscript beforehand and be allowed to make corrections as needed, and ensure such corrections will be reflected in the final report. In the past, during a press conference held by the Organizing Committee, there was a precedent where the committee released comments that were not made by myself, but were presented as if they were my own. That is why I insist on particular confirmation on this matter. 
————————–
I would like your response to the above questions and confirmation regarding my requests. Please be notified that this would be my last set of questions. I appreciate your time and consideration. 
Thank you.
—————————————————

—————————————————
■November 24 at noon
The Tokyo 2020 Emblems Selection Committee began accepting submissions for the new emblems. 
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-26)
■Email received on November 24 at 07:38
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

It was an acknowledgement of receipt of my email, and asked me to give him some more time.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-27)
■Email sent on November 24 at 09:21
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

I am fully aware of how busy you must all be, and I also want to stress that I have always wanted to participate in the evaluation process. Please understand that I would be the first one in line pledging my cooperation, if things were different. If you could read my Official Blog, my position should be clear enough and I am sure you would understand why I must continue asking my questions.
Best Regards,

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-28)
■Email received on November 27 at 14:20
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano 

I received a reply related to the questions sent in my email (Mail-25).
Regarding Question 1, the list of question items that were sent out by the Organizing Committee are the contents of the investigation at this time, thus the evaluation team members find “there is no need to review submitted works as physical evidence relative to the questions”.
Regarding Question 5, again, the members of the evaluation team “deem it is unnecessary” for me to view the video footage from the day of the judging in order for me to answer these questions. Thus I cannot view the footage.
I did not receive answers regarding my four questions, Questions 2, 3, 4 and 6. The reason given was that the investigation was ongoing on a voluntary basis, and therefore it was impossible to give out individual information such as who was questioned in which capacity.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-29)
■Email sent on November 27 at 20:43
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

I read your reply and have acknowledged the intentions of the Organizing Committee. I would like to ask for a little more time so that I may give the matter some consideration before replying to you. I appreciate your patience.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-30)
■Email sent on November 30 at 17:52
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

Thank you very much for taking precious time out of your busy schedules to go over my questions and confer with the evaluation team. I appreciate it very much.

I carefully studied all the replies I received from you including the latest one received, and tried to make a comprehensive assessment as to accepting the request to take part in the review. In regards to the contents of the replies towards my questions, and the subsequent impressions I received as to the direction the investigation is headed, and considering the fact that at this point it is only myself who is going public making personal statements, I have taken a comprehensive view and have decided to excuse myself from the investigation. 

As this is a grave matter, I will list the reasons why I have come to this decision to excuse myself.

●    Reasons for excusing myself
————————–
(1)    The hearing review is being conducted on a voluntary basis and participation must be kept anonymous
(2)    I am not allowed access to visual images of the top 14 works
(3)    I am not allowed to view the video footage of the actual judging
(4)    My name would not be attributed to records of my own statements
(5)    I was told that I would be informed of portions of the hearing survey report that pertain especially to me, but basically I would not be able to check the review report itself; and as a rule, even if I were able to check portions of the report before it is made public, in case there was something misquoted in the report and wrongfully attributed to me, corrections would not be possible
(6)    Though the official in charge of the investigation publicly alludes to “external advisors”, a “member of the emblem selection committee “ is taking part in the review; and to me, a “member of the emblem selection committee” cannot be considered an “external advisor”
————————–

●    Supplemental remarks related to the reasons for excusing myself
————————–
Supplement to (2)
I was thinking there was a need to review the images of the submitted works, especially since I felt there was sufficient reason to suspect that fairness of information was breached in case of some works. As far as I remember, I believe there were X pieces of such works. (More specifically, X pieces among the top 14 works, and X pieces including other works). In view of commitment to fairness, from the standpoint of a designer, I wanted to carefully assess the contents and reexamine the respective works. Though I was a judge on the selection committee, I feel I was not given sufficient credit to act on my beliefs. I deeply regret this outcome.

As for the first place emblem design, I felt it was necessary to check and confirm the similarities with the creations of Jan Tschichold and the poster designed for the “Jan Tschichold Exhibition”. Regarding this matter, right after revelations were made on the internet pointing to the similarities, on August 30, I contacted Mr. Yoshihisa Shirai, the graphic designer who took charge of designing the “Jan Tschichold Exhibition” and confirmed facts regarding the matter. I forwarded an email from Mr. Shirai requesting “to confirm the original design plan” to the official of the Organizing Committee on September 1. But the reply I received was “not possible”. I felt there may be some sort of issue related to the suit being pursued by the Belgian designer Olivier Debie. But how could the creator of the poster for the “Jan Tschichold Exhibition” be denied access to the work suspected of similarities with his own work? To me, it is beyond comprehension, even from an ethical viewpoint. Mr. Shirai teaches at an art university while conducting academic research on typography and editorial design. He is a person of high integrity who has asked to see and check the contents of a piece of work that has come under scrutiny and is clouded by suspicion—in relation to a design created by his own hands. It was not only Mr. Shirai who was denied a viewing. Even I, who had already seen all the contents during the judging, was denied a second viewing to reexamine the works. No matter how many times I went over the replies received from the advisors in charge of the review, nothing became clear to me. What is most disturbing is that the advisors do not seem to consider the need for views and opinions provided by design specialists.

Supplement to (5)
Disallowing revisions to be reflected in the final product, I believe, is the same as not being able to check the contents.
————————–

Maybe not all of my readers have read this, but at the end of my Blog segment 001, dated October 10, I stated that “I would like to reiterate my wish to cooperate: ‘Let me take part in the evaluation process.’” I had the strong wish to cooperate and take part in the review. However, due to the reasons given here above, in the end, I decided to excuse myself. I want to be part of the evaluation, yet I am unable to cooperate with the current review. I hope the findings will help drive away the suspicions held by the Japanese people. It is truly what I wish for—from the bottom of my heart.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————