82 finalist projects.
23 awards to be presented.
6 international categories.
Three special mentions to be awarded.
A colossal task awaited the jury’s co-chairs, Catherine Mathys and Marie du Chastel, for this 17th edition of the NUMIX Awards. Fortunately, we couldn’t have hoped to find better people to take on this challenge.
Drawing on her experience as an exhibition curator and producer of artistic experiences, Marie du Chastel served as chair of the international jury. It is worth noting that she currently serves as artistic director of the KIKK Festival and ikii.
For her part, Catherine Mathys, co-founder and partner at La Société des demains, was in charge of the Quebec leg of the competition. With a track record that includes stints as a columnist at Radio-Canada and director of strategic monitoring for the Canada Media Fund, she was the ideal choice to chair the Quebec jury.
We asked them to comment on the difficult choices they had to make, offer advice to future participants, compare projects here and elsewhere, and speculate on what the future holds for digital creativity.
Their responses, submitted in writing, were compiled and lightly edited for clarity. They reflect a dynamic sector that is open to the world and in step with a time full of twists and turns.
People always say that it’s hard to choose finalists and winners… What makes the task so complicated? The high standard of quality? The different approaches? The dynamics within the juries?
Catherine Mathys: The challenge is real—and that’s a good sign. If the projects were weak, the decisions would be easier. When you see the number of high-quality works submitted, you can tell the industry is doing well!
Marie du Chastel: What makes the decisions so complicated is, above all, that the projects are not on a level playing field at all. You might be comparing a small-scale project created for a local museum with a massive international project backed by enormous budgets. So the jury’s challenge is to not let itself be swayed solely by technical or financial resources.
Catherine Mathys: There’s also the dynamics of the jury. Each juror brings a different perspective, expertise, and set of criteria. That’s not an obstacle—it’s an asset—but it takes work to find a common language and agree on what we truly value. Do we reward technical innovation? The impact on users? Creative boldness? Often, the best projects excel in certain areas and are weaker in others. That’s when the discussion gets really interesting.
Marie du Chastel: Ultimately, what really matters is the project’s relevance, its emotional impact, its originality, and the way the technology is used. And that can’t be measured by a point system.
The NUMIX Awards shine a spotlight on the best in digital creativity from here and around the world. But where there is light, there is also shadow. What would you have liked to see more of in the submitted projects? Is there a blind spot that creators would do well to consider?
Catherine Mathys: It’s not really a blind spot—it’s more of a reflection. The projects submitted this year often bore the weight of the times. Many of the works were dark, permeated by anxiety, menace, and uncertainty. It’s honest. It’s consistent with what we’re experiencing collectively.
When you see so many projects converging on these themes, you wonder what that says—not about the creators, but about the times. The digital creative world acts like a seismograph. And right now, the ground is shaking.
Marie du Chastel: I’d like to see more projects where technology takes a back seat to the project’s intent. Sometimes you sense a very strong desire to showcase technology, but what moves me personally is above all the message, the storytelling, the emotion, or the experience that a project manages to create.
I also think curiosity plays a huge role. Creators would benefit from taking a closer look at what already exists—not just in digital arts, but also in the performing arts, film, design, contemporary art, and even the circus. The strongest projects are often those that manage to blend multiple influences and create their own unique language.
Since 2021, the NUMIX Awards have included international categories. How do local projects compare to productions from other countries?
Catherine Mathys: What strikes me is that we have nothing to be ashamed of. Quebec productions hold their own very well. We have a culture of storytelling, a recognizable approach to content—there’s a unique sensibility to our projects. We really have a lot to be proud of.
Marie du Chastel: Internationally, it seems that many of the projects still come from networks that are already closely tied to NUMIX or Xn Québec. So there’s still a lack of representation from certain regions of the world and a lack of true geographic diversity among the submissions.
But I see this as something very positive for the future. The NUMIX Awards clearly have the potential to become a major international benchmark. It will just take a little more time, more promotion, and greater visibility abroad.
The NUMIX Awards were launched in 2010. Over the years, as the awards have evolved and technology has advanced, some categories have been added while others have been discontinued. How do you see the future of this constantly changing industry?
Marie du Chastel: For me, transformation is an integral part of the DNA of digital creativity. Technologies are constantly evolving, so formats, categories, and uses are evolving as well. We see this very clearly today with the rise of immersive experiences and the advent of artificial intelligence.
Catherine Mathys: Technology will continue to change faster than our classification systems. What won’t change is the need to identify what truly matters in a work.
Marie du Chastel: The most successful projects are often those in which the technology becomes almost invisible, because we are completely absorbed by the experience the project creates for us.
How were you able to support the jurors to ensure that the NUMIX Awards remain a true mark of quality?
Catherine Mathys: The quality of an award is measured first and foremost by the quality of its judges. And for that, you need jurors who give it their all—who come prepared, who stand by their convictions, and who are open to being challenged by a project they didn’t see coming.
Marie du Chastel: The main idea was to create a space where everyone could express themselves freely, where different points of view were heard, and where the discussion could move forward when it reached an impasse.
For me, the strength of a jury lies precisely in this diversity of perspectives. It’s not just one person who decides what’s good or not; it’s a collective intelligence that emerges through discussion.
Catherine Mathys: My role as co-chair was to create the conditions for those conversations to take place. Not to reach a quick consensus, but to ensure that we had truly examined what each project was trying to achieve—based on its own logic and its own ambitions. Because the trap with a jury is to reduce everything to a single standard. But creative digital work resists that. These projects aren’t easily compared—and that’s a good thing.
What ensures the label’s long-term value is precisely the refusal to simplify this complexity. It’s about embracing it. It’s about seriously engaging with it, with every release.
Photo credit: Merryl B. Lavoie
This text was translated from the original French with the help of DeepL.