SUBSCRIBE TO OUR MAILING LIST



index




    • open call
    • Open Call #2 Open Call #2 for collective research residency
      20 August 2024
      posted by: Kristof Van Hoorde
    • a.pass
    • 20 August 2024
    • 13 October 2024
    • Open Call #2

       

      ******------*****  IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO APPLY FOR THIS 2ND CALL ******------*****

       

      What could be LEARNING GROUND or GROUND lying fallow  WITHin the COLLECTIVE arts ?

       

              This is the second call for a 2 months paid artistic research residency for collectives, existing or newly established on the occasion of this call, ideally 5 persons (min.3 max. 10 - NOT for individuals nor duo’s).

       

      CONTEXT ? 

      “In a world in constant motion there is an ecological imperative to embrace the value of idleness” Michael Chieffalo and Julia Smachylo in Lying fallow: the value of idleness

       

              By the end of 2023 a.pass (‘advanced performance and scenography studies’) entered a period of (self-)reflection and reimagination, a period of lying fallow: a field when it lies fallow - seemingly 'doing nothing' but in fact engaging in a deep process of rejuvenation and enriching as Rajni Shah says, a space for attention and transformation. Due to the ministry’s decision to end their financial support (based on radical savings and political choices) we were forced to end both of our educational programs: the Postgraduate Program as well as the Research Center that were at the heart of our co-learning environment for research-based practices came to an end, and by this also the educational institution a.pass has been for 15 years. The organisation entered a transition process, and an integral aspect of this process involves opening it up by inviting others to participate, to think together, to be together, to re-imagine a sustainable way forward for artistic research practices and their pedagogical aspects. Therefore, we are extending invitations to three collectives for a two-month paid residency to reimagine our fallow land and its implications for collective artistic research practices, methodologies, and sustainable harvesting. The first collective, One Field Fallow, has been selected in the first round in July and they will start their residency in September 2024. This call is to invite a second collective into this process.


       

      CONDITIONS ? FRAMEWORK ? EXPECTATIONS

       

              This call invites a second group for a collective research residency that serves as a reflection period on institutional frameworks within the field of artistic research, acting as an experimental pedagogical platform where collectives can propose new models, methodologies, and ways of exchanging knowledge and practices. 

       

              The selected collective will be tasked with developing a reimagination of a possible institutional framework grounded in their own research focus and interests, while taking into consideration the concept of lying fallow. What kind of container, institutional framework, is necessary for artistic research, both as a practice and a field, and how can it be facilitated in a sustainably radical way? The collective research residency should consider the following two questions:

       

      • How does your collective include artistic research within your (collective) practice? Which methods do you use or do you want to explore during this residency to organise (collective) artistic research? 

       

      • How does your collective share the process of artistic searching to inspire others? What kind of methods does your collective want to explore during this residency in order to be able to share artistic research with others? How to learn from each other?

       

      “I do not mean to phrase this as some kind of utopian ideal, but to begin an attempt at articulating the ways in which the work of lying fallow lay in relationship to the world around it, without assuming the nature or texture of that relationship.” Rajni Shah on Lying Fallow

       

      WHAT DO WE OFFER ?

      • PERIOD: 2 months (or 8 and a half weeks) spread over a maximum of 5 months (December 2024-May 2025). Please indicate which period(s) would be most convenient for your group within the timeline. There will also be 2 return moments after the residency (to be organised later). 
      • SALARY: 3 to 5 persons: €10.000 per person for the whole residency (2 months or 8,5 weeks, all costs and VAT included). In case of 6 to 10 persons: the total salary budget (€50.000 in total for the whole residency, all costs and VAT included) as well as the working time (8,5 weeks) will be divided, making sure people are paid correctly for the time they invest.
      • TRAVEL + ACCOMMODATION COSTS: for people coming from outside of Belgium to Brussels, 3 to 5 persons: a maximum of €2.000 per person for the whole residency will be available for travel and accommodation (refund based on receipts). In case of 6 to 10 persons coming from outside of Belgium: the whole travel budget (€10.000) will be divided. ATTENTION: we don't have any accommodation to stay, we only provide collective workspace.
      • PRODUCTION BUDGET: €2.000 for the whole residency (on top of the salaries). Basic technical equipment is available. You will have access to the a.pass library and access to the archive and an update about earlier steps made in this transition process.
      • SUPPORT: a conversation partner/dedicated mentor will be in touch with the collective for at least 3 moments during the residency and will also be in dialogue with a.pass (board and General Assembly). Our general coordinator is also present in Brussels to give administrative and productional support.
      • SPACE FOR THE RESIDENCY: the residency will take place in Brussels, but since the nomadic character of the organisation at the very moment, now a.pass no longer exists as an educational institution, this place might change. Collaboration with other organisations, to create intersection with other worlds, other realities is possible too. You can also indicate in your application what specific conditions this workspace must meet for your residency. 
      • PERSONAL NEEDS: in case you have questions regarding specific personal needs (family, accessibility,...) please contact our general coordinator.


       

      WHO CAN APPLY ?

      • COLLECTIVES: the residency programme is aimed at collectives from ideally 5 persons (minimal 3 - maximal 10) ( ATTENTION: this call is NOT for individuals, NOT for duo’s) preferably having experience with artistic research, or with reflecting on institutions, or pedagogical or anthropological experience, all disciplines are welcomed though. You can either work with an already constituted collective or with a newly and for this occasion only formed collective.
      • VOICES LESS HEARD: During the selection process of the 1st call we noticed a tendency to focus on local collectives from Brussels/Belgium. With this 2nd call we want to encourage collectives from the Global South to apply for this residency, since we are very open and interested in hearing non-European voices on this topic. We warmly invite you to make your group a multitude of voices, with different perspectives and different disciplines and different expertises gathered around the table.
      • TRANSDISCIPLINARY APPROACH: creating intersections with other worlds, other communities, other realities (social practices, farming or cooking, or other fields like the political, ecological, economical, juridical, urbanistic, subcultures, etc…). 

       

      FOR WHICH PERIOD CAN YOU APPLY ?

              The period for the 2nd residency will be December 2024-May 2025 

       

      DEADLINE ?

              The deadline for the application for the 2nd group (period December 2024 -May 2025) is Sunday October 13th 2024 (23:59 CEST)

       

      HOW TO APPLY ?

      ******------*****  IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO APPLY FOR THIS 2ND CALL ******------*****

              You can only apply by filling in the APPLICATION FORM here below (emails will not be accepted as application).  We request you to upload 4 PDF’s (or combined in 1 PDF - please name each PDF or chapter clearly) : 

       

      1. APPLICATION LETTER: (max 5 pages or 15 min of recording) this can be in writing or via an audio or video recording. We would like to know how you would take care of the fallow ground? Which methods would you like to explore to do artistic research and to share your experiences with others? What would be a desirable outcome for your group? What is your motivation, how do you imagine working together and why would you make a good group? Who is part of the group, have you worked together before, and in what fields is each of you active? Also good to mention briefly the collective and individual need in (artistic) research and your relation to it, as well as your relation to a.pass and/or Brussels. 
      2. TIMELINE: (max 1 page) indicate your favourite periods (2 months or 8,5 weeks spread over max 5 months) and give us a more detailed planning or timeline of your residency.
      3. BIO’s + CV’s: (max 2 pages per person) of all the people involved in the group
      4. PORTFOLIO: portfolio of the collective or per person, extra info, website, other links

       

      ******------*****  IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO APPLY FOR THIS 2ND CALL ******------*****

      ******------*****  IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO APPLY FOR THIS 2ND CALL ******------*****

       

      SELECTION ?

              The selection will be made by 3 members of the board and the General Assembly of a.pass and 3 external jury members. Please be aware that our advisory committee always reflects a diversity of fields, gender identity, and geographical knowledge.

       

      • PROCEDURE:

      1) a first selection will be made by the general coordinator, based on the following very basic criteria:

            - is all the information requested in the form present? 

            - is it a collective (3-10 pers.) applying or not ? (individuals and duo’s will not be selected)

            - is it a research application or not? (project and production applications will not be accepted)

       

      2) a second selection will be made by the jury: each eligible application will be read by at least 2 jury members (each time a duo consisting of an a.pass member and an external jury member), they will look into the following criteria:

            - how the notion of artistic research has been dealt within the proposal

            - the pedagogical aspects of the proposal

            - the proposed methodologies

            - diversity of backgrounds, gender identities, and/or expertise within the groups

            - the recognition of today’s challenges

       

      3) a third selection will be made by all jury members: maximum 5 groups will be selected and invited for an online talk with the jury to elaborate on their application before a final selection is made.

       

      4) a final selection will be made after the talk with the 5 groups, the jury will discuss the group they selected with the board and General Assembly of a.pass

       

             All groups applying for this 2nd call will receive a reply by mid-November 2024

             Upon final selection, an agreement will be signed between the group and a.pass. In case of any changes in the composition of the group members (like the withdrawal or replacement of one of its members) a.pass must be informed and has to agree before the project can continue.

       

      QUESTIONS ? AND MORE INFO ?

              Check out our website or send an email to the general coordinator at kristof@apass.be

       

              Every application will be offered a copy of the a.pass publication In These Circumstances: a collection of methodologies, insights, experiences, ideas, researches from 15 years of a.pass. In case you want it sooner, to get inspired to write your application, you can ask for the PDF or order a physical copy of the book (€15, shipping within Europe included). Just send us an email.

       

       

      The research is an artistic practice, the practice is an artistic research. The research is guided by the questions arising in the artistic practice and, at the same time, the formulations of the research, its theories and methodologies, are feeding back into the practice which will return with new questions to the research.” Veridiana Zurita in In These Circumstances


    • open call
    • Open Call #1 Open Call #1 for collective research residency
      07 April 2024
      posted by: Kristof Van Hoorde
    • a.pass
    • 09 April 2024
    • 09 June 2024
    • Open Call #1

      ******------*****  IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO APPLY FOR THIS 1st CALL ******------*****

       

      What could be lying fallow in the arts?

       

      This a call for a 2-month paid residency for collectives (existing or newly established on the occasion of this call, ideally 5 persons). The period of 2 months can be spread over a maximum of 5 months. Read more about the practical details further below. First we would like to give you more info about the context and the framework of this call.

       

      CONTEXT? WHAT? MISSION?

       

      “In a world in constant motion there is an ecological imperative to embrace the value of idleness” Michael Chieffalo and Julia Smachylo in Lying fallow: the value of idleness

       

      For about 15 years a.pass has been hosting a co-learning environment for research-based practices, focusing on collaboration, performativity, self-organisation and transdisciplinarity. a.pass is an acronym for ‘advanced performance and scenography studies’: ‘performance’ refers to how practices act in their surroundings, ‘scenography’ is the production of space and context, ‘studies’ stands for a co-learning pedagogical approach and the prefix ‘advanced’ is a dedication to challenge the frames of existing disciplinary determinations.

       

      In 2022 however, the Flemish Ministry of Education decided to end their financial support of a.pass by the end of 2023. a.pass managed to get a transition budget and after a period of conversations with different partners (Schools of Arts, workspaces, universities, places for artistic research), and working on a new plan in order to make a restart. Nevertheless, due to the financial inflation, the tight budgets and even budget cuts in the other institutions, the budgetary framework needed to make an adapted restart was impossible to reach without any structural support from the Ministry of Education. 

       

      To make a virtue of necessity we chose for a more radical, more riskful path towards a possible future. Both programs, the Postgraduate Program as well as the Research Center, came to an end in 2023. We chose to embrace the fallow land that lays before us and a.pass entered a period of reflection, reimagination, and ultimately reorganisation: a field when it lies fallow - seemingly 'doing nothing' but in fact engaging in a deep process of rejuvenation and enriching as Rajni Shah says, a space for attention and transformation. An integral aspect of this process involves opening it up by inviting others to participate, to think together, to be together, to imagine a sustainable way forward for artistic research practices and for a.pass as a re-generated soil for collectivity and research. Therefore, we are extending invitations to 3 collectives (existing or newly established on the occasion of this call) for a 2-month paid residency to reimagine our fallow land and its implications for collective artistic research practices, methodologies, and sustainable harvesting.

       

       

       

       

      Recognising the socio-economic challenges facing collective arts, wherein artistic research is fully embedded into its soil, a.pass hopes to carefully and responsibly re-plant our fallow land in the coming years, to develop and articulate frameworks, methodologies, and possible vessels that can empower sustainable collective studio environments of the near-future.


      The research is an artistic practice, the practice is an artistic research. The research is guided by the questions arising in the artistic practice and, at the same time, the formulations of the research, its theories and methodologies, are feeding back into the practice which will return with new questions to the research.” Veridiana Zurita in In These Circumstances

       

      If research is intrinsic to artistic practice, what constitutes this fallow land, and how can it be filled with sustainability and radical institutional re-imagining, how can it be maintained responsibly and collectively? In other words, how can we nurture this space and ensure its sustainability? Are there methodologies, economic models  and networks that can support this? Are there philosophical frameworks that can inspire this? Allowing land to lie fallow offers a transitional moment outside the circuit of capitalist value creation and destruction, as Michael Chieffalo and Julia Smachylo suggest. Recognising the profound impact of an ideology of continuous progress on urban infrastructure, social dynamics, ecological processes, and the climate at large, this open call would like to seriously consider the concept of institutional lying fallow, beyond the capitalist logic of perpetual construction and deconstruction for the sake of scaling up.


      Embracing the collective, collaborative, and shared spaces, along with the exchange of research practices, is essential for sustainable artistic work. This call invites collectives whose practice is grounded in reflection and collaborative efforts to make lying fallow feasible on an institutional level. What kind of institution could embrace the value of idleness? What institutional framework is necessary for artistic research, both as a practice and a field, and how can it be facilitated in a sustainably radical way?

       

      “I do not mean to phrase this as some kind of utopian ideal, but to begin an attempt at articulating the ways in which the work of lying fallow lay in relationship to the world around it, without assuming the nature or texture of that relationship.” Rajni Shah on Lying Fallow

       

      CONDITIONS? FRAMEWORK? WHAT IS EXPECTED? 

       

      Each collective residency period serves as a reflection on institutional frameworks within the field of artistic research, acting as an experimental pedagogical platform where collectives can propose new models, methodologies, and ways of exchanging knowledge and practices. Each group is tasked with developing an institutional reimagining grounded in their own research focus and interests, while taking into consideration the concept of lying fallow. Each collective residency will need to devise a way. The hope is that the three residency periods will create a palimpsest of possibilities for a sustainable and radical artistic research institution, and a possible future for a.pass. Each collective research residency should consider the following two questions:

           How to nurture a process of searching within a (collective) artistic practice? Or, how to do artistic research?

           How does the process of (collective) artistic searching inspire others? Or, how to share artistic research with others?

       

      WHAT DO WE OFFER?

      We foresee a paid residency for 2 months for ideally 5 persons (min.3 -  max.10 persons). There is a salary for 5 people (in case of 10 persons: the salary as well as the working time will be divided by 10, making sure people are paid correctly for the time they invest) (in case of less than 5 persons: the salary per person remains the same). The period of 2 months can be spread over a maximum of 5 months. You can indicate which periods would be convenient for your group. There will also be 2 return moments after the residency (to be organised later). 

       

      The salary will be €5.000/month/person (all costs & VAT incl.) It is also possible to be on the payroll with an artist contract, in that case the gross salary will be €3.250 (according to the official scale of PC 329) and a.pass will pay the extra costs for social security, holiday pay and taxes.

       

      For people coming outside of Belgium, a maximum of €1.000 per month per person for travel and accommodation will be available (refund based on receipts). We don't have accommodation to stay, we only provide collective workspace.

       

      Production budget per group: €2.000 for the whole residency (on top of the salaries). There will also be administrative/productional/ technical support with basic technical equipment. You will have access to the library and access to the archive and the update about earlier steps made in this transition process.

       

      Space for the residency: depending on the period the place might change, since the nomadic character of a.pass at the very moment, but it will be in/around Brussels. Also collaboration with other organisations, to create intersection with other worlds, other realities could be possible. You can also indicate what kind of place you would need for this residency in your application. 

       

      Personal needs: in case you have questions regarding specific personal needs (family, accessibility,...) please contact our general coordinator.

       

      WHO CAN APPLY ?

      The residency programme is aimed at collectives from about 5 persons (minimal 3 - maximal 10) preferably having experience with artistic research, or with reflecting on institutions, or pedagogical or anthropological experience, but all disciplines are welcome. You can either work with an already constituted collective or with a newly and for this occasion only formed collective.

       

      We call for voices less heard until now in the context of a.pass, and invite you to make your group a multitude of voices, with different perspectives and different disciplines and different expertises gathered around the table. With a transdisciplinary approach: creating intersections with other worlds, other realities (social practices, farming or cooking, or other fields like the political, ecological, economical, juridical, urbanistic, subcultures, etc…).

      We value artistic research that is without hierarchy within methodologies, where every methodology is taken seriously (e.g. a dream equals statistics as methodology).

       

      FOR WHICH PERIOD CAN YOU APPLY?

      The period for the 3 residencies runs from September 2024 until August 2025. 

      We start with a first call for a first group for the period September 2024-January 2025

      The period for the 2nd group will be December 2024-April 2025 (call will be out in July) and for the 3rd group it will be April-August 2025.

       

       

      DEADLINE

      There will be 3 different calls. The calls could possibly be adapted according to the inputs from prior chosen collectives during this period. Interaction with the other chosen collectives is encouraged. 

      Deadline for the application for the 1st group (period Sept '24-Jan '25) is June 9th 2024.

      Deadline for the application for the 2nd group (period Dec '24-May '25) is October 13th 2024. Call will be published on July 9th

      Deadline for the application for the 3rd group (period June-October 2025) is February 28th 2025. Call will be published on January 9th

       

      HOW TO APPLY?

       

      ******------*****  IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO APPLY FOR THIS 1st CALL ******------*****

       

      You can only apply by filling in the application form here below (emails will not be accepted as application).  The application form consists of 4 parts:

      1. application letter: this can be in writing or via an audio or video recording. We are happy to read or listen to you in Dutch, French or English (max 5 pages in writing or max 15 min of recording). We would like to know how you would take care of the fallow ground? What would be a desirable outcome for your group? What is your motivation, how you imagine working together and why you would make a good group. Who is part of the group, have you worked together before, and in what fields is each of you active? Also good to mention briefly the collective and individual need in (artistic) research and your relation to it, as well as your relation to a.pass and/or Brussels. 
      2. your favourite period (max 5 months) in which you would like to have the residency and a more detailed planning or timeline.
      3. short bio’s + CV of all the people involved in the group (max 1 pages per person)
      4. documentation: website, video links, portfolio (limited to 3 pages per person - 10 MB )


       

       

      SELECTION

      The selection will be made by the board and the General Assembly of a.pass and 2 external jury members. Please be aware that our advisory committee always reflects a diversity of fields, gender identity, and geographical knowledge. In the selection we pay attention to the complementary expertise, the diversity/multivoicedness within the collectives and the recognition of today’s challenges

       

      All groups applying for the first call will receive a reply by email by mid-July. Shortlisted groups will be invited for an online conversation to elaborate on their application before a final selection is made. Upon final selection, an agreement will be signed between the group and a.pass. In case of any changes in the composition of the group members (like the withdrawal or replacement of one of its members) a.pass must be informed and has to agree before the project can continue.

       

      QUESTIONS? AND MORE INFO?

      Send an email to the general coordinator at kristof@apass.be

      Every application will be offered a copy of the a.pass publication In These Circumstances: a collection of methodologies, insights, experiences, ideas, researches from 15 years of a.pass. When you would like to receive a copy of this book beforehand, in order to use it for your application, it’s possible to order it for €15 only (shipping included), just send us an email.

      www.apass.be

       

      GOOD TO KNOW!

      In case you need space to come together and to prepare your application, you can always reach out to us, we’re very happy to help and share a.pass-spaces.

       

      *********************

    • postgraduate program
    • bleed is inevitable
    • block 2021/III
    • Role Play Intensive
    • LARP "Identities" by Amélie Orsel
      26 September 2021
      posted by: Kristien Van den Brande
    • 27 September 2021
    • 28 September 2021
    • LARP

      Identities is a science-fiction LARP in which aliens of humanoid appearance from various planets are gathered for a very special experiment.

      If you could become the person you dreamt to be, or at least someone who would function in harmony with the world around you instead of bumping into it, would you be tempted?

      Whether it's a dream or a necessity for you, the people of Cori, a type IV planet in the Omega 9 galaxy, can help you. Indeed, the Coriphes have psychic powers that allow them to durably modify one’s spirit and personality.

       


       

      Identities is a science-fiction LARP in which aliens of humanoid appearance from various planets are gathered for a very special experiment. It is in this context that characters will integrate a session of the mysterious and expensive Cure. How does this Cure work? The characters know almost nothing. They arrived in the center the previous evening and briefly introduced themselves before getting some rest. The LARP itself begins in the morning, during the first activity related to the Cure. These activities will be repeated in a rather monotonous way, the goal being to transform the personalities of the characters in small increments, gradually modifying their reactions to a limited number of exercises. Alien artifacts will also be used. During the individual final scenes, each character will play the conclusion of their own story, happening elsewhere and in a near future.

      Repetitive activities do not mean you'll be bored. This LARP offers strong roles, emotions and questionings. One does not intend to give up a part of their personality without reason.

      Friendship, fidelity, idealism, love, duty, revenge, despair .... What is the price of your identity? Is it ethical to sacrifice who you are if you do it by your own free will? Is it better to be modified with insidious softness or pain, whether physical or psychological? Since we are asking some questions, how do you define identity? Would a personality remodeled according to your wishes make you less real, less free?

      More about the LARP.

       


       

      Amélie, aka Saki Jones, great consumer of narrations of all kinds, and a weakness for science fiction and strictly no scientific training. What interests her in the future is the freedom to reinvent social frameworks, thus raising new questions, or very old ones that can be considered in a new light. She wrote, co-wrote and organized a dozen LARP of various formats, ranging from the multi-month campaign (Bloody Old Town) to very short formats (Oracle, Aymard's Shortbread ...). Her obsessions: creating group dynamics and keep LARPing accessible, while sipping a good chamomile with a pressed lemon juice.

    • FORMS OF LIFE OF FORMS brings artistic research into form – not merely as an aesthetic question but as a social and political one. Indeed, there are no politics without form! With Forms of Life, Rob Ritzen curated several “Moments” that assembled works, collective readings, and other references into a single installation. This publication reshuffles documentation of these “Moments” as a visual reflection of the trajectory of this research.

      Rob Ritzen works as a curator with a background in philosophy. His curatorial practice is focusing on self-organized and cooperative formats. Consciously positioned at the margins of established institutions and outside of market-oriented spaces, his practice is placed in close association with communities of cultural practitioners. His initiatives are attempts to reconfigure the politics of making art and alternative forms of production and presentation.

      https://www.robritzen.info/actions/forms-of-life-of-forms/

      price 12 Euro

       
    • performative publishing
    • research center
    • associate researchers Cycle 1
    • PUBLISHING ARTISTIC RESEARCH research center associates Cycle 1
      17 February 2020
      posted by: Steven Jouwersma
    • Isabel Burr Raty, Antye Guenther, Adrijana Gvozdenović, Sara Manente, Rob Ritzen, Sina Seifee and a.pass
    • 01 February 2020
    • 35 euro = 4 publications + Annex
    • PUBLISHING ARTISTIC RESEARCH

      Documenting, archiving, and publishing are intrinsic to the ongoing practices of a.pass. They are seen as research tools that enable critical reflections through their exposure of artistic research processes. The program seeks to find public formats or outlets for research in the course of its ongoing development, and facilitates an understanding of the politics of such processes.

      With these concepts in mind, the a.pass Research Center (RC) began a new program in 2018 that hosts six Associate Researchers in cycles of one year as a platform for exchange in artistic research. Cycle I hosted Isabel Burr Raty, Adrijana Gvozdenović, Antye Guenther, Sara Manente, Rob Ritzen and Sina Seifee. They contributed to the platform through concerns, concepts and “ways of doing” inherent to their practices.

       

      PDF of the ANNEX you can read HERE

      a printed annex is added for free with every purchase
      of the Research Center Cycle I publications.

       


       

       

      ROT is a publication reflecting the research “Wicked technology/Wild fermentation,” by Sara Manente that focuses on forms and practice of fermentation as ways to rethink bodies and their making. This glossy magazine performs research, aiming to infect the reader, and questioning how to spread, publish, and help the work survive.

      Sara Manente is a performance artist, dance maker and researcher born in Italy and living in Brussels. She is interested in narrowing the distance between the performer, the audience, and the work. Her research starts from a dance practice that problematizes perception, translation, and ways of doing. Her work comes out in hybrid forms: book launch, 3Dfilm, written text, interview, choreographic piece, workshop, telepathic experience, collaboration, et al.

      Price 14 Euro

      ORDER HERE


      FORMS OF LIFE OF FORMS brings artistic research into form – not merely as an aesthetic question but as a social and political one. Indeed, there are no politics without form! With Forms of Life, Rob Ritzen curated several “Moments” that assembled works, collective readings, and other references into a single installa- tion. This publication reshuffles documentation of these “Moments” as a visual reflection of the trajectory of this research.

      Rob Ritzen works as a curator with a background in philosophy. His curatorial practice is focusing on self-organized and cooperative formats. Consciously positioned at the margins of established institutions and outside of market-oriented spaces, his practice is placed in close association with communities of cultural practitioners. His initiatives are attempts to reconfigure the politics of making art and alternative forms of production and presentation.

      https://www.robritzen.info/actions/forms-of-life-of-forms/

      price 12 Euro

      ORDER HERE

       

      ZOOLOGICAL VANDALISM by Sina Seifee in collaboration with editor Renan Lauran and designer Foad Farahani, is immersion in the compiling and composing of Seifee’s notes on medieval bestiaries, and placing them in sequential order. It is the first chapter of a series that creates context and opens small descriptive steps towards (what Latour might call) “knowing interestingly” about bestiaries. It is a speculative adventure in bio-techno tales and old styles of knowing. As an “ecology of obligation” with Iranian sensuality and its ardent materiality, somewhere in the menagerie of found and feral animal videos on Whatsapp and Telegram, is Seifee’s undisciplined grounding in visual crafts.


      Sina Seifee researches as an artist in the fields of narrative, performance, and knowledge production. He has been working on the question of technology and storytelling in the arts and sciences of the middle ages and the past-present of material reading practices in collective life. He studied Applied Mathematics in Tehran, received his MA in Media Arts in KHM Cologne. In 2017 he finished an advanced research program in performance studies in a.pass.

      Price 5 Euro

      ORDER HERE

       


      NEOCORTEX is a textile poster publication. It can be used as a head or neck scarf, a hairband, a veil, a belt, a table cloth, an arm sling, a disguise in political demonstrations, a laboratory sieve, or a tool for receiving and transmitting alien thoughts. This scarf is the second materialization of ongoing research on neuroscientific visualization practices and questionable conceptualizations of our brains. Referring to the current trend in the scientific community to print posters on textiles rather than on paper, it combines reconstructed MRI data of the artist’s brain with various text fragments from science and science fiction.


      Antye Guenther is a visual artist and artist-researcher, born and raised in Eastern Germany. Drawing from her background in medicine, photography, and in the military, her artistic practice treats themes like (non)biological intelligence and supercomputing, scientific representations of cognitive processes and mind control, body perception in techno-capitalist societies and fictionality of science. Guenther studied at the art academies of Leipzig and Karlsruhe, and at the Jan van Eyck Academie in Maastricht. In 2019 she received the first Mingler Scholarship for Art and Science.

      https://aguenth.de/

      Price: 155 Euro

      ORDER HERE

       

       

       

      www.archivingartisticanxieties.me by Adrijana Gvozdenović in collaboration with Sina Seifee, Pia Louwerens, Kristina Gvozdenović and Goda Palekaitė, is a noisy visual archive and online publication that takes the form of an essay. This platform is a way to reflect and diffract from the different activities and events realized in the past year. The writing and editing processes are exposed and show the different steps of the collaboration and their constructive agencies.


      Adrijana Gvozdenovic has been for the last two years a researcher at a.pass. She proposes activities that push the borders between research, mediation and production as well as examine new formats of publicness. Naming these activities ‘Otherwise Exhibiting’, is an attempt to shift the focus from the object to relations. During the last year, her research project “Archiving Artistic Anxieties” was supported by the Royal Academy of Antwerp, which resulted in this online publication in collaboration with a.pass Research Center.

       

       

      BEAUTY KIT – AN ECO-EROGENOUS ART PROJECT by Isabel Burr Raty with contributions by Kristin Rogghe, Elke Van Campenhout, Gosie Vervloessem, Pablo Diartinez and Tim Vets, is an experimental catalog summarizing Isabel Burr Raty’s research on conceptualizing and manufacturing eco-erogenous para-pharmaceutical products. It tells the story of the BKFF, a mobile farm where she and other females harvest their orgasmic juices to produce beauty bio-products, used for treatments in the BK Spa, critically discussed in the BK Focus Group and moving forward into becoming a village, where every-body harvests each other. The catalog comes with contributing text, “Harvesting bodies – The Farm as Paradox” by Elle/Elke Van Campenhout, and other reflections on the project.

      Isabel Burr Raty is a Belgian-Chilean artist, filmmaker, and Media Art History teacher in ERG (École de Recherche Graphique), living between Brussels and Amsterdam. She is currently developing her second feature film, about the colonial impact on Easter Island, and creating live art and new media installations that queer production understandings, such as the Beauty Kit Project. Her works have been shown internationally.

       

      Price: 10 Euro

      ORDER HERE


      4 publications + Annex = 35 euro
    •  

       

       

      DIALOGUE

       

       

      I have a proposal to deal with this portfolio: both of us will sit at our tables and we will write to each other on a common document. The conversation will be slowed down by the timing of the writing while we will look back together to this year and a half in A.PASS, from September 2018 until January 2020. In this period we have been leading a continuous conversation between us, which is maybe the smallest brick of the whole process. And I love small talk.

      Let’s try. In time we have been asked many times to show the process of our reciprocal editing. We were sort of reluctant to be explicit about it in the beginning. Or we just thought that the two voices were already very clearly different, that they didn’t need to be further explicated. Or maybe we thought that it was just impossible to say who did what. 

      We’ll see if we’ll manage to enter some small talk in here!

       

       

       

      I Block//School of Love

      curated by Adva Zakai

      (September-December 2018)

       



      What do you remember about the beginning?

       

      I think that we started from the end. At the beginning we stopped. Maybe we were supposed to start but we didn’t. 

       

      We first tried to see where were we. What and in which shape, through which language we could relate to the context. We observed our practices, questions, our doing in relation to the new context of A.PASS and of the researchers that were there in that moment.

      We used the first four months to suspend our doing. We looked back at our artistic practice and research, we renamed it, we rephrased it.  

      Do you remember what was the question when we started?

       

      We had many questions, actually. At the beginning our work consisted mainly in formulating questions. Most of them would concern time, attention, peripheries, noise and translations.

       

       

      What is there?

      Is it possible to transform the perception of the instant in the construction of a duration?

      What is such a translation?

      What is noise?

      Why should the periphery of the perception become the center of the research?

      How can the center remain open?

      What is sacred?

       

       

      Are some of these words still with us? Did some of them change?

       

      Now that you brought back these questions I can see again that we started from the end. From this last question. 

      What is sacred?

      If I look back to it, I think that we tried to stay close to what was sacred to us. 

      I would say that what was sacred was the distance between us. We didn’t know how to name this alterity which is the unknown space between me and you.

       

      The distance is what allows being together.

      The distance is the space/time in between things.

      The distance is the space and the time between me and the other. If we can look at the distance, if we can perceive it, we can look at what we share. All that we share is this “in between” which is the distance.

      It is not only possible being together despite distances, but it is possible being together only thanks to these distances.

      The distance is what determines the relationship.

      Walking is a measure maybe.

      When I walk without knowing where I am going, without knowing the path, with no project, I accept the existence of an other, something I don't know.

      Not knowing is an obstacle between me and the other.

      It is the obstacle that allows me to see the other as different from me.

      Not knowing is a distance between me and the other, that I can run across.

      I can run across this distance thanks to its opacity.

      If it were transparent I would not see it, I could not run across it. I could only pass through it, without noticing it and without reflection, with no clash.

      Not knowing is a distance.

      A distance is opaque.

      Opacity allows me to meet the other.

       

      “Space was holy to

      the pilgrims of old, till plane

      stopped all that nonsense”

      (W. H. Auden)

      “Distance” and “opacity” are two specific concepts that influence very much our work. They were related to the problematic relationship between “center” and “ periphery”, which caused us many discussions. Actually for us these terms were time-related concepts. I can consider the peripheries only if I take the time to distance the usual path. The operation we were interested in was the dilation of time which allows previously unconsidered possibilities to emerge. Between our artistic practices, indeed, artistic research is for us a tool for self-critique. We got then interested in framing self-critical institutions, which would be institutions that are conscious about their situatedness and complexity, that allow space for self-sabotage and reframing. 

      A is not equal to A.

       

      We wrote the following two texts for a writing score Adva proposed at the beginning of the block: “How would the future be, if your artistic research would have taken over the world?”

       

       

      The world will exist in the interrogative form.

      The end will be close to us

      and we might be friends.

       

      We will learn from flowers:

      the truth about every man is that 

      he/she is about to die.

       

      Nothing will be equal to nothing.

      Everything will be 

      incommensurable

      irreplaceable

      incontrovertible

      irrecoverable

      irreparable

      irredeemable.

      -Money will be the principle of irreality-

       

      The dance of the dead will shape the light of the fire of the living ones.

       

      There will be no evolution, no revolution. We will keep on turning.

       

      We will wander in those utopian regions, placed somewhere and nowhere, between an infinite tenderness and an infinite solitude.

       

      Every road will be a cemetery

      and, in the crackles of the asphalt,

      there will be our little fallen flowers

      our masters

      our dead.

       

      There will be a desire hidden in every thing.

       

      We will become small

       - small, in order not to lose each other.

      ---

      Revolution is going on.

      It will walk in the forest. 

      It will breath, smell, look.

      It will be as an idiot. It will not know, like now, as a pioneer. It will say: I will not know but I will believe.

      It will be an animal. It will look around modifying the shape of its body to enter the forest.

      Attentively it will touch and get touched by the other. With no name, it will mutate and multiply, and it will continuously reverse the point of observation during its dance of attention.

      It will be multidimensional, it will be inhabited by a multitude of spectres corporeal and impalpable at the same time.

      It will not do a lot. It will not have anything to add.

      It will move with caution through words, bodies and light. It will be mostly silent.

      It will be stumbling, transforming judgement into motion.

       

       

       

      II Block//Troubled Gardens

      curated by Nicolas Galeazzi

      (May-August 2019)

      I would say that with the video “And the woods all around” we framed our use of the words center and periphery and, thanks to this restriction, something else broke in the scenario. 

      How did this framing transform these words? Would you say that, looking at it now, it made us move to the structure of the frame itself?

       

      We wanted to get rid of a problem we didn’t know how to solve. The dichotomy center/periphery seemed inadequate but still we wanted to use those words out of that geometrical/hierarchical relationship. According to the curatorial proposal of the block, we had to embody a question we were struggling with, give it in “adoption” to someone else and then eventually receive it transformed somehow by the “adopting researcher”. We created this video in order to hand our question to someone else and, in the moment we made it, the supposed content disappeared. What emerged instead was the problematic relationship between the artistic research and its documentation, which brought us back to the practice of framing self-critical institutions.

       

      This is how we started to look at the frame and observed where and how it would raise questions. We looked at the framed document as a "material", in Tim Ingold's terms: not as a fixed object that would encapsulate and preserve a point of view from the past, but as a malleable flux of possibilities. We tried to understand what kind of relationship it could open for the future. What did it do, for example, to call this video a "document"? What did it do to us, to observe it through its institutions (e.g. the video format, the website on which its accessible...etc)? What did it do to look at it from the situated context we were working in during the block - the "troubled" Zsenne Garden?

       

      Talking about self critical institutions, in this case the video attempts to show the complex cluster of media involved and the situatedness of their performativity. There is not a single possible mapping of this material, it aims to be open to critique and it does not pretend to have a “form” different from its “content”. For sure there has been a strong relationship between this operation and the fact that we were working in a permaculture garden.

       

      Twelve Permaculture design principles articulated by David Holmgren in his Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability:

       

      1. Observe and interact

      2. Catch and store energy

      3. Obtain a yield

      4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback

      5. Use and value renewable resources and services

      6. Produce no waste

      7. Design from patterns to details

      8. Integrate rather than segregate

      9. Use small and slow solutions

      10. Use and value diversity

      11. Use edges and value the marginal

      12. Creatively use and respond to change

      We realized that there is no map from the outside and as soon as we try to create a document, a map, we are changing the landscape we are in.In the book "What would the animals say if we would ask to them the right questions?” Vinciane Despret observes how observers observe the animals. The way the observer position him/herself in the landscape changes the reality itself.

      I remember you wrote a story when you were at highschool. Can you write it down here?

      I love your stories.

       

      Which story? 

       

      The one about distance.

       

      It would have worked well before, actually, when we were writing about distance!

       

      Now we are far enough to read it.

       

      You are right.

       

      One day, the teleportation was invented. At first it was possible to transport datas anywhere, instantaneously and with no mistake. Then it became possible to teleport objects and eventually human beings too. That day humanity faced extinction.

      You are particularly concerned by the future...

       

      My affect towards the future is related to the fact that at a certain moment I started to realize that this word, “future”, wasn’t used anymore.I remember the future as science-fiction: it is amazing to think of unpredictable possibilities to come, to imagine them. For a long period, in Italy at least, we didn’t use that word anymore. Many generations of children without the word future in their bodies. In that moment I started to use it again, to say it, to see if it was possible to feed it and open for it new directions/horizons.

      What I love about your story is that it shows how errors are those that allow us to relate to something, to engage with it - until death. The story also suggests that when the space-time is reduced to zero, there is no more other to relate to. This reminds me of what Byung Chul-Han calls "the society of transparency", where the "dictatorship of the self" doesn't allow any otherness to exist. If there is no otherness, there is nothing I can imagine anymore...This is the way I perceive things now, at least.

       

      It seems that without accident there is no event. Without error there is no possible development. We are stuck playing the same scene again and again, if nothing goes wrong. The point is that we don’t have any direct access to the future, of course. In the present we have only access to the past and this means that in order to introduce some difference, we have to mess it up, lose something and highlight something else. We have to edit it. We actually do this anyway, since we are not omnipotent and omniscient. It’s about recognizing that any “closed” view of/from the past is not only impossible, but also undesirable.

       

      We can design maps for the future. These are not meant to be "true", neither as objective points of view from the past, nor as consistent pre-views of the future. Once we have them, though, they will start to influence us.

       

      Maybe they are not “true” now, but by drawing them they might become true in the future!

      A chair is not so much designed by the way my body “spontaneously” sits, but rather it tells me how to sit.

      This is exciting. And it works the same for the way we look at things, the way we formulate questions, the way we perceive things...etc. These activities are also designed by what surrounds us,

       

      And it seems logical that documents are especially involved in designing future practices. This turns a little upside down the cause-effect logic and the linear perspective of time. Sometimes I feel that something “comes from the future”, that it is not related so much to a “now” that has already been, but rather to a “now” that is yet to come. Like in Aristotle's “final cause” theory - which appears quite bizarre to our actual common sense. Talking about things from the past that seem to come from the future...

       

      There comes my fascination for the figure of the augur. For the ancient italic populations the augur was a priest that  would read the will of the gods in the flight of the birds. He would go to the “templum” to do so. The “templum” was a portion of time and space from which he could read the birds flights.The “templum” was actually each one of the lines traced by the augur to frame the sacred space, a "cut" into space and time, a temporary suspension that allowed a reflection, a reading - the word "temple" comes from "templum", which derives from the ancient greek "temno=to cut". Also "tempo" (“time” in Italian) has the same origin. The augury embodies the action of taking a position from which, by observing what is there, it is possible to relate with different kinds of time simultaneously. You have to go in that position though, you have to move towards that place. An effort is needed. This is the frame where a suspension can happen. It is a time inside the time itself. It is what Agamben calls “Messianic time”. The time of contemplation. Contemplating is then holding this position. It is about staying with what is there, with what comes, through a specific frame. If the way I position myself can transform what is there - and therefore the future itself -, then the contemplation is a active and political state of being. I like to talk of “contemplative activism”.

       

      I can see a strong relationship between artistic research and faith. You have to believe that something good will come out of it even if you can’t say exactly what and how. Nicolas’ proposal for the block, the “Adoption”, was very precise in this sense. To give away a piece of your work and to believe that it will be fruitful for it to be put in someone else's hands, you need faith. You can only take care, give all your attention to what you receive, and hope that the others will do the same. 

       

       

      A: Adopting is a big challenge.

      B: To receive back the material we left.

      A: To give up expectation of realization.

      B: Can the documentation be originated by a script?

      A: We wanted to avoid narration.

      B: Why?

      A: The narration tends to identification, often.

      B: “This” is “this”.

      A: To put things in one line.

      B: How to avoid to do what we would have done anyway?

      A: I don't know what this book is.

      B: We don't know what it will be.

      A: We didn't finish it, yet.

      B: It's about avoiding linearity as the only option.

      A: What I wanted to do was not only to write a book, but also to create an experience...

      B: The problem is to translate these experiences we worked with.

      A: When we entered this space we really felt “home”.

      B: We are translating one's experience to the other.

      A: We are translating each other's experience to the other.

      B: We didn't see each other's presentation.

      A: But I slept in your bed...That's very intimate.

      B: How to translate something that's so close to me?

      A: To work with someone else's project and not mine-still working on what I am interested in.

      B: I have a strong tendency in reacting.

      A: To embrace something that doesn't belong to me even when it starts hurting.

      B: “Maybe it's still possible, maybe it's still possible...”

      A: To work with the resistance, not against it.

      B: To move out of the landscape, to see how can I relate to it and then to move back in.

      A: It's not only to zoom in and out, but also to blur the lines.

      B: You don't know what belongs to whom.

      A: I like this a lot.

      B: To show the responsibility in the adoption.




       

      III Block//A looming score_sharing politics of damage;

      curated by Lilia Mestre and Sina Seifee

      (September-December 2019)

       

       

      Our third and last block has also been centered on an “adoption” process. This time, though, we would share some materials and we would adopt the other’s questions. The first thing we shared was a video which put together some shooting we did at Zsenne Garden during the summer and a text that we developed later on. 

       

      This video is a translation of a map we realised to observe the garden. This map would put in relation the landscape with the words we wrote about what our research would do in the future. My affect, when I arrived in Zsenne garden, was a portion of sky in between the trees. Being inside, immersed in the industrial area of Brussels, I could still have access to a vertical horizon. Then we imagined a conversation of the Augur with the birds.

       

      I liked the question Rui wrote for us after seeing the video:

       

      In the video, there are treetops framing the sky with clouds and the birds’ flight (frame inside the frame). There are dialogues between 2 non-visible characters (A and B) written on the surface of the image (these characters are around, in a place out of the frame but close to the borders, or not)? There are sounds of things out of the frame, but these things belong to that environment (a sound of something out of the frame could be from what is around or not). Is this set of things made for us to see the birds and the sky in a proper way or to see something else? The strength of your frame is centripetal (to the documented objects, even if it is multicenter) or centrifugal (there is an idea of whole, “from here_to_there”)? Is the documentation about something in the frame… or something around… or something else?

       

      I wouldn't be able to give him a singular answer. I liked though the idea of a centrifugal force, which preserves the possibility to have a central object of attention, but at the same time it indicates the presence of vectors - within the same system - that tear it apart, that spread it all over the place. Being the frame of the camera an institution, that looks like the description of a self-critical institution to me. 

      What got less clear, then, was if this had to be considered a “document” or not...but at this point investigating the definition of “documentation” was not the main issue for us...

       

      We wanted to re-open these documents, to see if and where there was space for us to enter. We slowly throughout the block tried to create space between the materials, between the documents, among the way they were translating each other in order to observe what kind of movement, what kind of dance they would bring.

       

      If the “form” and the “content” of the document cannot be separated, the documentation corresponds to its staging. We moved from “documentation” to “memory”, not as the ability to preserve in one’s brain the image of past objects and events, but as a highly performative operation that makes the past and the future converge in the present experience.  

       

      I have all the ages at the same time in my body. Memory is an agent on the present. Memory enlarges the space of what is here and now transforming a linear perception of going forward, of flowing, of proceeding, in a multidimensional and multitemporal landscape.

       

      Memory embodies distance and opacity.

      Before A.PASS we had been working a lot with games. How did they come back in?

       

      I always used games. It is a way to be with others. A game is a way to be fully involved and light at the same time. Whoever knows the rules can have access. And accessibility was an important point of our discourse as well.

       

      And rules also have very often the form of a “map”

      a game is a map

      a frame

      a self-critical institution

       

      you can put the game there, in the middle

      it’s clear that even if it is your game once you play it is not about you, it is about this middle space which is in between you and the others

      and I need the others to be different

      and see the difference

      which is the distance that allows us being together

       

      We were very happy to work with scores during this block: I would say that scores are a specific kind of games. To design scores was a great way to work on the staging of a map. The score draws a specific landscape, but - if it’s well designed - something unexpected will often emerge. The rules of the score are the “templum”, the suspension in space and time that dilate time and nourish our faculty of attention, just like the frame of the camera and the limits of the stage.



      NAME IT/Writing Score

       

      [There is a table. Two laptops on it. Two silent writers facing the public. One projector shows a blank page with the text on the wall behind the table. The public is witnessing]

       

      - You look, you sense, you feel everything which is happening in the room. Everything means 

      everything that catches your attention. Everything that emerges through you in relation with what is around you. Your writing is not traveling too far nor too close from where you are.

      - You can take your time, trust and write it down. 

      - You have to write 1st person, singular or plural - for example, if you see someone entering the space and saying hello to a friend you could write: "I entered the space, I said hello to my friend".

      - If by looking, smelling, sensing, perceiving the way you want what is around you a memory or a thought emerge, then take it as part of the space and write it down. Through this digression, you can distance yourself from what is around you and then come back.

      - The other writer is at your side writing with you on the same page. Try to consider it.

       

      I AM HERE. 

      ARE THOSE VOICES, THAT I AM HEARING?

      I AM READING. 

      I ENTERED BY THE ENTRANCE DOOR, AND NOW I'M IN. SITTING. 

      I REMEMBER STANDING FOR SOMETHING. 

      CAN I STAND FOR SOMETHING NOW? NOW SITTING? 

      I CAN FEEL YOU AT MY SIDE I CAN SEE YOU. 

      HOW MANY METERS OF AIR OVER MY HEAD? 

      I'M FLOATING, THE HEAD IN THE AIR. 

      I'M MOVING MY HANDS.

      I BREATH. THE HEART IS BEATING. 

      ONCE I SAW MY HEART IN THE ECOGRAPHY SCREEN. 

      BEATING. OPENING AND CLOSING. 

      LIFE IS STRANGE THROUGH A SCREEN.

      I'M WRITING. 

      MY GAZE WANDERS ACROSS THE DETAILS

      IS IT GOING TO END SOON?

       

       

      A fellow researcher in A.PASS, Adriano, asked us:

       

      A promise of observation. Observation from you - of what concerns most of us.

      You were sitting next to each other. Soft, patient, listening. An analogue complicity situated between one big and two smaller screens.

      Descriptions turn "poetic" "I'M FLOATING, THE HEAD IN THE AIR." "I REMEMBER STANDING FOR SOMETHING.

      CAN I STAND FOR SOMETHING NOW? NOW SITTING?" "HOW MANY METERS OF AIR OVER MY HEAD?".

      Not much is written, is this writing an excuse for sharing time/presence? For sitting next to each other and in front of us, while the laptops offer a small protection from full exposure and/or transparency.

      If that is so, what is the minimum of text and screen needed to give a cover for presence?

       

      We are interested in situations that are at the same time an exposure and a concealment. We wanted to show something that was clear and incomprehensible, intimate and universal. We imagined that “what is there” from my unique and ephemeral point of view, could be at the same time a paradoxical Manifesto.

       

      We tried to write a text that would manifest the operation we were doing through the score. That’s why it is a manifesto. It manifests a reality from a specific point of view, which is a map, or a game. In the score the sabotage is included. 

       

      To explore further the idea of “sabotage” we wrote an actual manifesto informed by our documentation criteria and created an “editing score” to make other people enter into it, moving it away from us and making it opaque again.

       

      WE ARE IDIOTS - MANIFESTO FOR NOW/Editing Score

       

      [There is a table. Two laptops on top of it. There are two people: the “writer” is facing the public; the “reader” is sitting with his laptop facing the writer. Two projectors overlap their projections on the wall behind the writer. One of the two is projecting a very slow motion video of an almost invisible, overexposed, white goat. The other one projects the white page on which the writer is writing a text - which occupies exactly that one page:

       

      I AM HERE NOW

      I TAKE A POSITION

      I REVEAL MY POSITION

      I AM AT THE ENTRANCE THE DOOR IS OPEN I ENTER

      I CAN RUN FROM HERE TO THERE FOLLOWING  STRAIGHT LINE

      I AM CLEAR NOW

      I AM THE SHADOW I MAKE

      I AM HERE

      I LOOK THROUGH THIS FRAME

      I AM IN THE FRAME

      I AM THE FRAME

      I MAKE THE FRAME

      I FRAME INSTITUTIONS

      I MOVE BORDERS AGAIN AND AGAIN

      I AM ONE

      I AM MANIFOLD

      I AM MULTIPLE

      I AM FOCUSED

      I AM PERIPHERAL

      I TAKE TIME IF NECESSARY

      I TAKE TIME

      LA VACHE EST UN HERBIVORE QUI A DU TEMPS POUR FAIRE LE CHOSE

      I TAKE THE TIME IT TAKES

      I AM AN IDIOT

      I AM A PIONEER

      I  DO WITH WHAT IS THERE

      I UNDO WITH WHAT IS THERE

      I MANIFEST WHAT IS THERE

      I ACCEPT WHAT IS THERE

      I ACCEPT NOISE

      I NEED NOISE

      I TRUST OPACITY

      I TRUST YOU

      I TRUST

      I BELIEVE IN THE PRESENT AS A PROMISE

      I BELIEVE IN THE FUTURE AS A LEGACY

      I BELIEVE IN COMPLEXITY

      I BELIEVE IN MAGIC

      FORSE L'AMORE E' CONTINUARE IL DISCORSO DI UN ALTRO



      After the writer finishes to write the text, the score starts.]

      - When the writer stops writing the “manifesto”, the public can start editing it

      - One by one, the people in the public can whisper in the writer’s ear up to 5 elements to cancel choosing between words, letters and empty spaces. The writer cannot discuss if the indication is not clear: he/she has to find a solution alone.

      - The reader keeps on reading out loud the “manifesto” while it is being edited, following its transformations until the end of the score. When he/she reaches the end, he/she starts back from the beginning.

      - When the public stops editing, a new text is done and the score ends.


      [21st November 2019, Bruxelles]

       

      I AM NOW 

      POSITIVE THE DOOR THERE FOLLOWING A STRAIGHT LINE

      I AM CLEAR NOW, I AM THE SHADOW I MAKE

      HERE

      THROUGH THIS FRAME

      ME

      I AM THE FRAME

      I MAKE THE FRAME

      I BODER AGAIN AND AGAIN

      I AM ONE OLD PERIPHERY

      I TAKE TIME

      DU TEMPS POUR FAIRE LES CHOSES

      IT TAKES AN IDIOT

      I AM WITH WHAT IS THERE

      I UNDO WITH WHAT IS THERE

      I MANIFEST WHAT

      I ACCEPT NOISE

      NOISOPACITY

      US

      THE PRESENT AS THE FUTURE MAGIC

      FORSE L'AMORE E' CONTINUARE    

       

      “Maybe love is continuing the discourse of another” wrote the Italian poet Milo De Angelis.

      I think that our experience in A.PASS had a lot to do with this. Giving attention to the other, adopting the other’s work, letting the other’s work enter yours, in a dialogue. 

      It is so precious to nourish our critical sense by continuing a discourse, without burning it.

      In the end it is really not about me and you, nor the others. It is about the discourse. 

      And, as always, it is a matter of love to make it last a little longer.

       

      Thanks to A.PASS. Participating has been a big privilege.

      Thanks to: Lilia Mestre, Nicolas Galeazzi, Pierre Rubio, Vladimir Miller, Joke Liberge, Steven Jouwerma, Michele Meesen. Thanks to all the mentors and participants and fellow researchers present, past and future.

      This is not the end.

       

       

    • newscaption

       

      CYCLE I: PUBLISHING ARTISTIC RESEARCH

      7 books launch

       

      Documenting, archiving, and publishing are intrinsic to the ongoing practices of a.pass. They are seen as tools for research and enable critical reflections through the exposure. This kind of "performative publishing" opens to other forms of doing and reflects the speculative attitudes of artistic research as a witnessing process of creation, contextualization, and doubt.

      With these concepts in mind, the a.pass Research Centre opened a new program that hosted in Cycles I (2018-19) six Associate Researchers as a platform for exchange. Isabel Burr Raty, Adrijana Gvozdenović, Antye Guenter, Sara Manente, Rob Ritzen and Sina Seifee contributed to that platform the perspectives and practices inherent to their research through individual publications.

       6 publications plus one Annex will be launched 

      27th February 2020 

      @ Level5  - Rue Paul Devauxstraat 5, 1000 Brussel (5th floor)

      Doors open at 18:00

      we will read, perform, discuss and open the famous bar of Level5

      The rile* bookshop will open its doors in parallel to that launch.


       

       

      Sara Manente is a performance artist, dance maker and researcher born in Italy and living in Brussels. She is interested in narrowing the distance between the performer, the audience, and the work. Her research starts from a dance practice that problematizes perception, translation, and ways of doing. Her work comes out in hybrid forms: book launch, 3Dfilm, written text, interview, choreographic piece, workshop, telepathic experience, collaboration, et al.

      ROT is the publication for "Wicked technology/Wild fermentation:" artistic research focusing on forms and practices of fermentation as ways to rethink bodies and their making - as much as wilderness and domestication in art. Not asking why do we ferment today, but where does it stop? The glossy magazine performs the research by wanting to infect the reader, while at the same time, it's questioning how to spread, publish, and make the work survive.


      Rob Ritzen works as a curator with a background in philosophy. His curatorial practice is focusing on self-organized and cooperative formats. Consciously positioned at the margins of established institutions and outside of market-oriented spaces, his practice is placed in close association with communities of cultural practitioners. His initiatives are attempts to reconfigure the politics of making art and alternative forms of production and presentation.

      FORMS OF LIFE OF FORMS artistic research into form - not merely as an aesthetic question but as a social and political one. Indeed, there is no politics without form! Concerned with forms everyday, artists can bring the kinds of forms into being that generate (un)foreseen effects on those forms dictating our everyday life.  With Forms of Life, Rob Ritzen curated several Moments that assembled works, collective readings, and other references into one single installation. This publication reshuffles the documentations of those Moments for a visual reflection on the trajectory of this research.

      SINA SEIFEE researches as an artist in the fields of narrative, performance, and knowledge production. He has been working on the question of technology and storytelling in the arts and sciences of the middle ages and the past-present of material reading practices in collective life. He studied Applied Mathematics in Tehran, received his MA in Media Arts in KHM Cologne. In 2017 he finished an advanced research program in performance studies in a.pass.

      ZOOLOGICAL VANDALISM is the result of being immersed in the process of composing and compiling notes by Seifee on medieval bestiaries and putting them in sequential order. It is the first chapter of a series, to set up context or to open in small descriptive steps, towards (what Latour might call) knowing interestingly about bestiaries. It is a speculative adventure in bio*techno tales and older styles of knowing. Working out an ecology of obligation with Iranian sensuality and its ardent materiality, somewhere in the menagerie of found and feral animal videos on Whatsapp and Telegram, and Seifee's undisciplined grounding in visual crafts.


      ANTYE GUENTHER is a visual artist and artist-researcher, born and raised in Eastern Germany. Drawing from her background in medicine, photography, and in the military, her artistic practice treats themes like (non)biological intelligence and supercomputing, scientific representations of cognitive processes and mind control, body perception in techno-capitalist societies and fictionality of science. Guenther studied at the art academies of Leipzig and Karlsruhe, and at the Jan van Eyck Academie in Maastricht. In 2019 she received the first Mingler Scholarship for Art and Science.

      NEOCORTEX is a textile poster publication. It can be used as a head or neck scarf, a hairband, a veil, a belt, a table cloth, an arm sling, a disguise in political demonstrations, a laboratory sieve, or a tool for receiving and transmitting alien thoughts. This scarf is the second materialization of an ongoing research project on neuroscientific visualization practices and questionable conceptualizations of our brains. It features a combination of MRI data of the artist's own brain and text fragments from science and science fiction. It refers to the upcoming trend in the scientific community to print posters on textiles rather than on paper and combines reconstructed MRI data of the artist’s brain with various text fragments from science and science fiction.

       

       

      ADRIJANA GVOZDENOVIĆ has been for the last two years a researcher at the a.pass, proposing activities that push the border between research, mediation, and production and examine new formats of publicness. Naming these activities 'Otherwise Exhibiting', is an attempt to shift the focus from the object to relations. During the last year, her research project "Archiving Artistic Anxieties" was supported by the Royal Academy of Antwerp, which resulted in this online publication.

      www.archivingartisticanxieties.me is a noisy archiving online publication that takes the form of an essay. This platform is a way to reflect and diffract from the different activities and events realized in the past year. The writing and editing processes are exposed and show the different steps of the collaboration and their constructive agencies. Researchers, friends, and family make up the editorial team: artists Goda Palekaitė, Pia Louwerence, and the linguist/political scientist Kristina Gvozdenović together with artist Sina Seifee, developer and designer of the website. 

       

       

      ISABEL BURR RATY is a Belgian-Chilean artist, filmmaker, and Media Art History teacher in ERG (École de Recherche Graphique), leaving between Brussels and Amsterdam. She is currently developing her second feature film, about the colonial impact on Easter Island, and creating live art and new media installations that queer production understandings, such as the Beauty Kit Project. Her works have been shown internationally.

      BEAUTY KIT - AN ECO-EROGENOUS ART PROJECT is an experimental catalog that presents a summary of the research with the same name. It’s made in collaboration with dramaturge Kristin Rogghe, performance artist Gosie Vervloessem, graphic designer Pablo Diartinez, artist Tim Vets, and advised by designer Miriam Hempel. It also bestows a text contribution “Harvesting bodies – The Farm as Paradox” by Elle/Elke Van Campenhout. The researcher and the BK Patrona conduct the catalog by bringing conceptual perspectives and representing the frictions that this project entails.

       a.pass
      p/a de Bottelarij
      Delaunoystraat 58-60/p.o. box 17
      1080 Brussels/Belgium

      tel: +32 (0)2 411.49.16
      email: lilia@apass.be
      web: www.apass.be

       
    • performative publishing
    • RRadio Triton
    • Trouble on Radio Triton
    • RRadio Triton audio publication
      18 January 2019
      posted by: Lilia Mestre
    • online: https://rradiotriton.apass.be/
    • 01 July 2019
    • case of: Pierre Rubio
    • RRadio Triton

       

       

       

      RRadio Triton is an intentionally hybridised dispositive, operating within a grey zone between archiving, documenting, publishing, performing and broadcasting. Different modes of relating to the past events are called for, and these modes determine different definitions of the very nature of present time, future outlook, and of what an archive can be. The diverse audio objects it produces all relate to the politics of imagination and speculation, here envisaged as cultural and ecological instruments operative on the real.

       

      RRadio Triton is supported by a.pass (advanced performance and scenography studies - platform for artistic research), a young institute for artistic research based in Brussels, that currently reflects on experimental modes of documenting, archiving, publishing and sharing. These modes try to mirror the institute’s criticality, its singular modes of operation, agonistic environment and ongoing reformulation of tools, practices and research. Moreover, the institute is concerned with a complex equation: how to develop a specific attitude towards archiving and dissemination that combines both a critique of the usual institutional ‘archival reason’ and the production of readable (structured) ‘forms of knowledge’? Or, in other words, how to avoid and/or assume commodification, reification and authority while documenting and publishing polymorph artistic research practices and discourses? Ultimately a.pass engages with documenting, archiving and disseminating independent and experimental artistic research practices to produce an ecology of text critique and to find inventive modes of co-operation and fair technological practices interlacing politically in ways that are non-innocent and the least toxic as possible.

      The project RRadio Triton is one of the many current expressions of this endeavor.

       

      Nourished by its participants, RRadio Triton is an after effect of the artistic research seminar named Trouble on Radio Triton ((((((( changing (the) world (s) )))))) that was held in Brussels between January and April 2017 curated and organised by Pierre Rubio within the institution a.pass. The seminar gathered artists-researchers, lecturers, cultural workers and curators around the thorny problem of the relations between imagination and political agency and was concerned with issues addressing the potential (in)capacity of art in general to produce actual social changes and the (im)possible contribution of art to collective empowerment by means of artistic imagination and fictional speculation. Among other research topics, the seminar at large focused on a few main transversal questions : Do you -as artists- through your research contribute to changes in contemporary culture? And if so, what are the cultures generated by your research? Which alternative worlds does your artistic research/practice contain? What is the operative link between your artistic research and the future?

       

      A full list of involved practices and participants in the seminar includes: +++The artists-researchers who participated in the seminar with their projects, ideas and practices as Aela Royer, Luiza Crosman, Sina Seifee, Zoumana Meite, Sana Ghobbeh, Sven Dehens, Marialena Marouda, Ekaterina Kaplunova, Juan Duque, Esta Matkovic, Sébastien Hendrickx, Pierre Rubio, Eunkyung Jeong, Lili M. Rampre and Esther Rodriguez Barbero. +++ Lectures and reading sessions with Sol Archer, Peggy Pierrot, Edward George, Laurence Rassel, Fabrizio Terranova, Sina Seifee, Sébastien Hendrickx, Michiel Vandevelde, Wouter De Raeve, Marialena Marouda and Caroline Godart. +++ Workshops and ateliers with Myriam Van Imschoot, Alice Chauchat, Helena Dietrich and Christian Hansen that intersected sound art, speculative embodiment and worlding. +++ Theoretical references on speculative fiction with Suvin’s Cognitive Estrangement, Goodman and Eshun’s Afrofuturisms, Gilroy’s Black Atlantic identity politics, Le Guin’s feminist and anarchist science fiction, Donna Haraway's notion of the tentacular, situated knowledges and reparative strategies, Accelerationism, and Benjamin’s theory of language as magic. +++ Screenings revisiting SF cinema curated and hosted by Ekaterina Kaplunova and Sven Dehens.+++ Inputs by the seminar mentors Veridiana Zurita, Kristien Van den Brande, Peggy Pierrot and Caroline Godart.

       

      Not merely archiving, rather activating a labor-intensive work of memory elaborated by the notion of radio as an instrument operative on the real, the RRadio Triton project is a compost of all these contributions and their transformation in the present time. The broadcasting agenda of the RRadio Triton to come will be structured around by three kind of shows. Three main programs. Three playlists. The first consists of multiple forms of interviews with the numerous actors of the seminar. The second of more or less fictional experimental sound pieces produced with or by the seminar’s participants. The third being a series of edits of the lectures, reading sessions and workshops that were part of the theoretical/practice based body of the seminar. The radio will be online soon on a digital interface that will assemble in an elegant and complex way all the “pieces” and will perform live in different contexts different kind of broadcasts in collaboration with different institutions/hosts. . Determining fluidly the critical nature of the fictional radio and within its intentionally heterogeneous and plastic landscape, all the RRadio Triton 'pieces' will collectively activate different types of issues engaging the problems of the operativity of speculative fiction and of, at large, political art. But not only.

       

      The audio publication RRadio Triton is the outcome of the voluntary contributions of all the actors of the 2017 seminar and their recomposition in the present time. RRadio Triton is an a.pass production initiated, curated and hosted by Pierre Rubio, and is technically, artistically and dramaturgically supported by Christian Hansen and Sina Seifee.

       

      A beta version of RRadio Triton audio publication here

      A comprehensive presentation of the 2017 seminar here .

       

       

    • performative publishing
    • RRadio Triton
    • Trouble on Radio Triton
    • Broadcasting RRadio Triton 18 January 2019
      posted by: Lilia Mestre
    • by OFFoff, a.pass and Domes FM
    • Kunsthal, Ghent
    • 25 January 2019
    • 26 January 2019
    • broadcast
    • case of: Pierre Rubio
    • Broadcasting RRadio Triton

       

       

      Art Cinema OFFoff is a platform for experimental cinema and audiovisual art. OFFoff searches for films from the past and present that enter into cinematographic and narrative experiments, often navigating between cinema and the other arts. During the opening weekend of Kunsthal,Ghent, ArtCinema OFFoff puts up a broadcast on Domes FM around RRadio Triton, a collective and experimental research project produced by a.pass. The broadcast circles around relations between artistic research and speculative fictions. What kinds of futures do artistic research practices imagine? Which fictions are needed? And what voices do we need to bring those fictions up? The program for and the performance of the broadcast is a collaboration between ArtCinema OFFoff (Kunsthal Ghent), RRadio Triton (a.pass, Brussels) and Domes FM (Bidston Observatory Artistic Research Centre, Liverpool). With and by Deborah Birch, Edward Clive, Sven Dehens, Edward George, Christian Hansen, Pierre Rubio and Sina Seifee.

       

      [audio mp3="https:///www.apass.be/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/soundcloud_excerpt.mp3"][/audio]

      excerpt from the broadcast.... soon online in full...

       

       

      Interviewer :
      What is RRadio Triton?

       

       

      RRadio Triton :
      A seminar, 'Trouble on Radio Triton ((((((( changing (the) world (s) ))))))' was held in a.pass between January and April 2017 curated and organised by Pierre Rubio, gathering it forces and resources around the question of artistic imagination and political agency. Among other enquiries, some of the main questions that were raised during the seminar were: Do you--as artists--through your research contribute to changes in contemporary culture? And if so, what are the cultures generated by your research? Which alternative worlds does your artistic research/practice contain? What is the operative link between your artistic research and the future? Following that initiative, now the project RRadio Triton sets out to dream of operating like a time machine carrying its protagonists through time back to the 2017’s events and returning them as new narrators. By adopting the identity of an ad hoc fictional radio station, it records, edits, samples, remixes and releases pieces of audiowork and soundscapes that originated at the 2017 seminar. RRadio Triton is becoming a hybridised dispositive about the politics of imagination and speculation, not merely archiving, rather activating a labor-intensive work of memory elaborated by the notion of radio as an instrument operative on the real. This way of approaching archive and dissemination mirrors the current expressions of a.pass’s criticality as an institution that is committed to the ecologies of critique and the reformulation of its research-tools and practices.

      The audio publication RRadio Triton is the outcome of the voluntary contributions of all the actors of the 2017 seminar and their recomposition in the present time.

       

       

      Interviewer :
      In response to the invitation of ArtCinema OFFoff to interact within the (re)opening event of the Kunsthal Gent in January 2019, RRadio Triton collaborates with curator Sven Dehens and will structure its first broadcast with two selected pieces that both perform complex critical dispositives around ideas of memory, reparation and worlding.
      Through OFFoff webpage we can access to a lot of informations about the event, but how a radio station -even fictional like RRadio Triton became involved with a cinematic event?

       

       

      RRadio Triton :
      Some shared views on reparative fiction for sure… And a lot of the audio objects/pieces constituting RRadio Triton relating more or less directly to cinema. Thematically first with a strong relation with science-fiction cinema genres and subgenres and critical questions around utopia/dystopia -central nodes in S-F cinema. There is also a more practice based link with film and more specifically with film soundtracking as some pieces are made after sound research ateliers called “Foley your Research” that were performed around the question “how does/could your research sound like?”. As well, some pieces relate directly to existing films, whether because of the central thematic of one of the recorded live lectures, or because of a structuring cinematographic reference/quote/appropriation. And last, some pieces engage with convoking cinematographic images/bodies through sound. They channel bodies, affects, voices and presences through different use of sound and they ‘produce’ images without any actual camera.

       

       

      Interviewer:
      Could this be seen as a different form of worlding? One of RRadio Triton’s main endeavours?

       

       

      RRadio Triton:
      One of the justifications for worlding -imagining and situating the world otherwise- is that the stories of this world are getting toxic as they are mere instruments for social reproduction. Re-imagining the erased stories -erased by economical, colonial, patriarchal, ideological or cultural instrumental power orders and determining modes of governance- and speculating other stories can produce (and not only reproduce) other social orders and thus other worlds. The two pieces we are proposing in dialogue with Cinemas OFFoff both try to tackle the very possibility of imagining differently and thus create the necessary conditions for re-invention and speculation. They world.

       

       

      Interviewer:
      Can you present the pieces shortly?

       

       

      RRadio Triton:
      The first piece is a montage of a live lecture given by Sina Seiffe during Trouble on Radio Triton ((((((( changing (the) world (s) )))))) -a seminar held by a.pass in 2017, it focuses on a ‘problematic’ social media video and puts it back in motion critically, rebroadcasting it in a way. The second piece is an edit of a rare live communication -part of the same seminar- by Edward George revisiting his research work developed for the iconic film Last Angel of History.

       

      Interviewer:
      The radio will be hosted by Domes FM, an online radio station set up in the basements of the Bidston Observatoy Artistic Research Centre (BOARC).
      What is BOARC?

       

       

      RRadio Triton:
      Located in the outskirts of Liverpool, BOARC is a not-for-profit study centre, focused on providing artists, writers, academics, performers etc with a cheap, temporary place to dictate their own methods of work, allowing them to come together and stay, to develop projects that require time and space, in a non-pressured environment.

       

       

      Interviewer:
      On Saturday the 26th of January, between 12h and 18h, one can follow and attend the live broadcast from Kunsthal Gent. There will be space for participation in diverse conversation formats held between the recorded audio pieces. In addition, on Friday the 25th of January, between 20h and 22h, there will be a Domes FM broadcast from the basements of the Bidston Observatory by Edward Clive, one of the hosts of the space. What will Edward Clive do?

       

       

      RRadio Triton:
      In reaction to RRadio Triton, he will bring a mix of soundtracks and queer experimental foley from the depths of science fiction cinema.

       

       

      Interviewer:
      Is it possible to listen to the broadcast online?

       

       

      RRadio Triton:
      Yes! One can follow the broadcast online during the announced hours. The URL for the broadcast will be announced in time.

       

       

      Interviewer:
      Can I get the credits of RRadio Triton’s pieces?

       

       

      RRadio Triton:
      Of course, here you go...

      RRadio Triton is an a.pass production initiated, curated and hosted by Pierre Rubio, and is technically, artistically and dramaturgically supported by Christian Hansen and Sina Seifee. The pieces we will broadcast on the 26th of January from Kunsthal Ghent on Domes FM Liverpool are:

       

          ‘An Animal Escape Case’
      an audio editing of a live essay-performance, 70’, 2019
      Author and Performer/Lecturer Sina Seiffe
      Editor Pierre Rubio / Sound Christian Hansen / Production a.pass
      The lecture was performed in March 2017 in Brussels within the lectures series “Book Club/Trouble on Radio Triton” at a.pass (advanced performance and scenography studies - a platform for artistic research)

       

      In his essay-performance ‘An Animal Escape Case’, Sina Seifee opens one object. He unpacks the destiny of a social media video file about a feral cat, that, in anthropomorphic terms, adopted a kitten, and the reactions of Sina’s family in Tehran towards these shared social-media digital images. This object and relational event is transformed into a landscape of observations, philosophical concerns, sociological anthropological and historical analyses. The complex arrangement relates diverse notions as, greeting, encounter, understanding, friendship, technology and most importantly, a destabilizing reality for humans, that of wildness. Sina performs as the narrator of a kind of film in which he is both the witness and the main actor. The edited audio piece tries to bring back his (intense) presence and incarnated storytelling, as well as the many references and borrowings to popular and not popular culture both from Iran and the West.

      The essay/performance investigates the fragile intersections of friendship between digital avatars and trans-animals in the social media in Tehran’s landscape. Through personal animal-findings and fairy-tale associations the An Animal Escape Case interprets the epistemological openings and closings in cross-species sociality, exemplified by the everyday use of mobile phones where images of pets circulate and different species meet in mediated formats. By analyzing everything that anthropomorphism can perform and contain, and seen through the animality in the situated conditions of contemporary domestic life, the essay/performance addresses the relationships between people, animals and their surroundings in a socio-technological milieu as complex as Tehran’s urban environment. (Sina Seifee)

      Sina Seifee is an artist-researcher-storyteller working on poetics of animal description (ecological cosmologies of nonhumans-with-history). Born in Tehran (1982), he studied Applied Mathematics in Beheshti University and Visual Arts in Charsoo Institute of Art in Tehran. After moving to Germany in 2011, he graduated in Cologne with master diploma in Media Arts from Kunsthochschule für Medien Köln (2014) and received his postmaster in Advanced Performance and Scenography Studies from a.pass in Brussels (2017).
      His work, realized in different forms of lecture-performances, reading group, workshops, image making, video and writing- is centered around the questions of technology, storytelling, globalism and intercultural mythologies in the heterogeneous knowledge-worlds of art and sciences, with attention to the premodern era.

       

       

          ‘Last angel of history’
      an audio editing of a live lecture, 3 episodes of 30',  2019
      Author and Performer/Lecturer Dr. Edward George
      Editor Pierre Rubio / Sound Christian Hansen / Production a.pass
      The lecture was performed in March 2017 in Brussels within the lectures series “Book Club/Trouble on Radio Triton” at a.pass (advanced performance and scenography studies - a platform for artistic research)

      Dr. Edward George is the writer, researcher, and narrator of the seminal fiction-documentary film The Last Angel of History. In a rare live communication he shares the research processes and thinking that supported the creation of the film. The audio piece revisits George revisiting his work of revisiting the lineage of Afrofuturism.
      The Last Angel of History is one of the most influential video-essays of the 1990s influencing filmmakers and inspiring conferences, novels and exhibitions. Black Audio Film Collective’s exploration of the chromatic possibilities of digital video is embedded within a mythology of the future that creates connections between black (un)popular culture, outer space and the limits of the human condition. The influential Black Audio Film Collective crafted this experimental blend of sci-fi parable and essay film, which also serves as an essential primer on the aesthetics and dynamics of contemporary Afrofuturism. Interviews with esteemed musicians, writers, and cultural critics are interwoven with the fictional story of the “data thief,” who must travel through time and space in search of the code that holds the key to his future.

      Dr. Edward George is a founding member of Black Audio Film Collective (1982-1998), the multimedia duo Flow Motion (1996-present), and the electronic music group Hallucinator (1998-present). He lives in London.

    • postgraduate program
    • block 2018/I
    • Making / Conditions
    • BLOCK DIARY / SLOW, RANDOM & LINKED WRITING & THINKING Nicolas Galeazzi
      24 January 2018
      posted by: Geert Vaes
    • 01 January 2018
    • 29 April 2018
    • case of: Geert Vaes
    • BLOCK DIARY / SLOW, RANDOM & LINKED WRITING & THINKING

      24 JANUARY 2018 at the TOPOS, close to my INTAMISILLY ROOM

      The space is being formed. Slowly it's taking shape. Slowly the condition emerges by itself. Where did it come from? Hard to say. It's a collection of memories, past actions and future musings and possibilities. It's at the crossroad of then and then. Maybe it's even now. But to be able to say that, to make such a statement, more time should be spent in and with the actual space/room/condition. I am creating a condition for myself. But it's a very liquid one, in the sense that nothing is being set in stone. Two walls have wheels, one wall is a curtain, the door is aluminium spaghetti,... But the mental space is quite set... This condition. I create. I am that condition. Why am I creating this condition? Out of habit. That's true... It's an habitual environment. It's the kind of place that brings me to results. BUT! Results I know / like. Is that helping my research? It's a way. A tool. Let's stay open for other options, possibilities, methodologies...

      So. The space I am forming. My plan for this block is action. Action in my case leads to form. Shaping. I need the material to gain insight. I need to use my body. Put it in shapes, forms, molds. Shapes that are not me. Performing. Acting. Shapeshifting is my 'métier'. That's the backpack I am carrying. The words I was shaping in the previous block seem to be lost. Somewhere. In the new space I'm building? I know my research had something to do with You and I, with 'using masks as tools of awareness'. That sounds so good. 'A tool of awareness...'. But I lost what it means or even meant. I don't know anymore what I'm doing. But I'm not worried. I'm in the dark building a space. And I'm confident working and doing will bring clarity. At times my thinking and theorizing in the last block seemed so clear, especially talking to Peggy and sometimes to Heike too. The words and theoretical understanding went on a holiday. I hope they will send me a postcard soon...

      All is set. Almost. The coming days I will become others. They will interact with other researchers at a.pass. Maybe my colleagues will shine bright or bring their flashlights.

       

      25 JANUARY 2018 at the TOPOS, at the dining table next to the kitchen

       

      Today I wanted to bring a record player. There's one in my basement. I wanted, but I didn't. I was looking at it and thought: why? It's an extra tool, an extra asset, an extra thing to toy around with, to help me find meaning. But I'm often using the same tools. I guess that's not such a problem since a painter tends to use paint and a canvas, and a carpenter uses wood. But what do I use? Tools to create something I can show. But I'm doing research. I'm searching for ways to eliminate the distance between Me and You. Well... Eliminating sounds drastic, let's call it: make the space between you and me as tiny as performatively possible. That's another piece of information I'll have to chew on. I'm writing for writing, I'm practicing automatic writing, so what comes out, comes out...

      Instead of the record player I brought an old newspaper. 'La Nation Belge' from 17 December 1931. Inhabiting another skin through masks may feel similar as inhabiting another time, the thirties! It's always striking to see how little has actually and effectively changed. I have lots of these newspapers. I found them under the linoleum on the second floor of the house I'm living in. During renovations I stumbled on them and just started reading...

      Now there's one in the Topos. Feel free to read.

      I plan interviews. On the Intamissily stage and TV-Studio. Next week. Have to think about that. About the how. How to get closer to the other's researches...

      I'm reminded of 'Swimming' by Martha and the Muffins. Especially the phrase: 'We're afraid to call it love, let's call it swimming'. Hmmm. Sounds usefull. Listen here:

      https://youtu.be/LnUDRtPAWsE

       

      AND I re-read the first lines of my research proposal. It helps (!):

      The proposed research aims to investigate how hyper-realistic silicone spfx-masks can be used as tools of awareness to shed more light on race, gender and class issues in an experiential, sensual and non-mental way. How to help performers and non-performers create another persona and let them experience how it feels to literally be in somebody else’s skin, wearing another one’s face in non-theatrical daily situations. How does this change their perspectives? Or doesn’t it change anything? How does this, in a broader sense, affect the notions of ‚I’ and ‚You’? How does it affect one’s outlook on one’s own community, conditionings and beliefs?

    • postgraduate program
    • seminar
    • Book Club
    • Trouble on Radio Triton
    • BOOK CLUB #8 ACCELERA.PASS Book Club Series / Michiel Vandevelde & Wouter De Raeve curated by Sébastien Hendrickx
      24 February 2017
      posted by: Pierre Rubio
    • a.pass
    • 16 March 2017
    • BOOK CLUB #8 ACCELERA.PASS

       

       

       

      Book Club #8 with Michiel Vandevelde and Wouter De Raeve

       

       

      Accelera.pass

      A seminar-presentation by Michiel Vandevelde and Wouter De Raeve curated by Sébastien Hendrickx

       

      How to render our future habitable again, without resorting to the false paradise of disembodied utopias? The societal challenges of the 21st century urge to re-think tactics, methodologies and productions of knowledge how to challenge the prevailing hegemony. In 2013 the Accelerationist Manifesto by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams emerged, aiming to do exactly that. It questions the traditional Left and demarcates a renewed relation with capitalism, while its provocative aura generated a whirlwind of pros and cons.

       

      During this seminar we will not merely read excerpts of the manifesto. By means of a genealogy of the concept, we'll try to frame this tendency within the larger philosophical evolutions of the past decennia and nuance its “accelerating” characteristic.

       

      Michiel Vandevelde (Belgium, 1990) began his dance career at an early age with the Leuven-based company fABULEUS. Since graduating from P.A.R.T.S. in 2012 he has been building up his own practice as a choreographer, curator and writer. A political and artistic activism is the common thread running through his work. He is a member of the Bâtard festival’s artistic team and of Etcetera’s editorial team. Michiel has previously appeared at Kaaitheater with Antithesis. The future of the image (2015).

      From 2013 to 2017 Michiel Vandevelde will be artist in residence at Kaaitheater.

       

      Wouter De Raeve (BE, 1982) studied landscape architecture and is currently pursuing a master degree in visual arts at KASK (Ghent, Belgium). An interest in the interaction between the spatial realm and how society is thought is the leitmotif running through his projects. He recently co-initiated the platform Perhaps it is high time for a xeno-architecture (of knowing) to match, a Brussels-based curatorial and research platform that seeks to examine the possibilities for re-radicalizing spatial practice.

       


      March 16th, 10am-1.30pm

      @ a.pass 4th floor

      Participation to the costs : 5 euros

      Map

    • project
    • BUBBLE SCORE SESSION #1 13 January 2016
      posted by: Gerald Kurdian
    • 13 January 2016
    • 13 January 2016
    • BUBBLE SCORE SESSION #1

      PARTICIPANTS : Arianna, Tinna, Isabel, Juan, Ricardo, Esteban , Lilia, Yaari, Juan, Anouk, Brendan, Gerald, varinia, Sana, Agnes, Pierre, Luiza, Sofia, Aela, Christian, Lili.

       

      PERFORMANCE > QUESTION > ANSWER

      1) P) Arianna >  Q )Sana >  A)Pierre

      2) Yaari > Christian > Gerald

      3) Christian > Isabel > Arianna

      4) Sofia > Lilia > Yaari

      5) Ricardo > Varinia > Esteban

      6) Esteban > Ricardo > Christian

      7) Anouk > Esteban > Luiza

      8) Gerald > Tinna > Sebastian

      9) Lili > Yaari > Varinia

      10) Luiza > Brendan > Sana

      11) Agnes > Anouk > Tinna

      12) Brendan > Luiza > Anouk

      13) Sebastian > Juan > Lili

      14) Tinna > Gerald > Aela

      15) Juan > Sofia > Juan

      16) Aela > Aela > Sofia

      17) Sana > Arianna > Brendan

      18) Isabel > Pierre > Agnes

      19) Pierre > Sebastian  > Lilia

      20) Lilia > Lili > Ricardo

      21) Varinia > Agnes >  Isabel

       

      QUESTIONS: 

      1) Sana asks Arianna (reply Pierre)

      Is the disfigured, anonymous body approachable through its spontaneous reactions to it's surroundings?

      If yes, to what extent?
      If no, what is the alternative?

       

      2) Yaari > Christian > Gerald

      Your text is beautifully hovering at a mental state where situation has merged into timelesness, an energy that could last for a split second or 80 years. 
      I am in this connection curious to know if it would be possible to tie the situation to an ideal geographical location (city, desert...) one that would include year, space ( i.e. mountain top, café, bus), tools for writing?
      (Of course this question assumes that you're willing to feed in to a parallel fictional universe, if you're not already there.)

       

      3) Isabel asks Christian (reply Arianna)

       

      The maori people have amazing techniques for dialoguing with the sea. In fact in Easter Island elder women teach their grandchildren how to make the waves get smaller. Thus, they avoid being taken away by the gigantic waves when they go collecting shells and exotic seafood on turbulent rocky seashores. I imagine there must be a symbiosis between hypnosis and molecular water cells in the human body interacting with the molecular water cells of the sea. When we were talking about the performance you presented in bubble score # 1, you mentioned the paradox between hypnosis and property, as hypnotizing the landscape as a property means (I hope to have understood well?). My question is: Could the notion and practice of private property be a result of hypnosis and why?

       

       

      4) Lilia To Sofia (reply Yaari)

       

      The first thing that came to my mind was the idea of  falling in love. And mostly the Falling in the Love. The vertigo towards the other, the ecstasy of becoming blurred with the other, indeed like a suicidal flirt that creates a third space for fictional reality, that constructs reality itself.  I think I have question in two folds. They concern the romantic idea of love and the fictional aspect of it anchored in the falling. How do you relate the idea of love with the idea of life? And how do you think the the idea of love builds community? This can be seen in a literary way, philosophical or...

       

       

      5) Varinia to Ricardo (Reply Esteban)

       

      And if all the various body operations would halt in a single and inoperative - but nontheless expressive - act, or if all variations would manifest as sameness, how could we then still call the body the body?

       

       

      6) Ricardo to Esteban (Reply: Christian)

       

      Something that I got out of your proposal is that the element of sound blurs or obscures meaning. You have been working on the idea of the subject narrating itself through language and through cultural practices such as cooking or weaving. I understand that the text that you chose is of interest to you since it works through the relationship Lucrecia Martel has found between her sensory, affective and biographical memory, and the tool she articulates through her filmic work. In this case, the tool is sound and its power to pierce the body. This short narration that you are appropriating is of relevance since it evidences the poetic power of Lucrecia's films, which is your point of interest.

      In which way do you think the action you presented creates a link between your interest in the subject narrating itself, its displacement in a series of cultural, collective practices, the idea of artistic tool and poetic efficacy and finally, the concept of appropriation in the construction of the subject?

       

       

      7) Esteban to Anouk (Reply Luiza)

       

      Dear Anouk
      For me it was clear that we were dealing with traces, material traces and spatial configurations that were having a second life.
      During the performance, however, it became very much about our presence and present time experience, about inhabiting the fragment and the impossibility to see it-all. There was such a calm, open presence in your performance and subsequently we all became performers/onlookers/witnesses at the same time.
      Besides the blurring of time frames and your interest in trace as present experience, and perhaps a preoccupation for preserving something of the experience for future performers/onlookers/witnesses; do you also see a blurring of the subject-other happening? are we regarded as our own sensorial world, or, how do you understand the subject-other interface within this experience of blurred temporality?

       

       

      9) Yaari question to Lili (reply Varinia)
       
       
       About stretching or attracting the physical capacities of your body because of an immediate contact with an-other body. About a moment of endurance vis-a-vis intimacy. About a necessary need which can not be fulfilled unless repeated, and even then. How breathing can obey the effort and produce a signifcant change in the procedure? 
       
       
       
      10) Brendan question to Luiza (reply Sana)
       
       
      Luiza
       
      I was mostly swept away by your scenography. Which was dictated by the text and achieved quite simply by killing the lights. First leaving just the 4 or 5 glowing apples in the room, then later beautiful silhouettes accompanying only one's self and the voice of the page, backdropped, for me, by the glass wall and the brussels skyline. Feeling at ease and carried away. 
       
      Recalling my experience and re-reading the text, I conceived and noticed many change of planes, shifting points of view, view points, from the horizontal to the vertical, to and fro, internal/external, etc. It occurred to me, after thinking about this changing of planes for awhile, that it could have been nice to have a glass ceiling for the prophecy of the glass ceiling, but how!! In the end, I admit to being very pleasantly distracted from the text by what I was experiencing as caused by the windows that I faced (and am now also considering how those whom I faced, those silhouettes I looked upon experienced things in a different darkness), and worked to not feel guilty by my failure to studiously follow the complex text. Now i realize this was not the fault of me being a poor student !!  But it was my body being hypnotized by the text and the glass ceiling! Which here, was experiencing vertically as a window, a glass wall !! Oh the twisting embodiment that escapes my frontal consciousness !!   My body working to join the fold of the changing planes, the shift of view points anchored by my eyes stuck in a head. Body seeking the horizontal, mind in the vertical. I need to lay down before the glass, and make it my ceiling !!! 
      But! 
      There is a part of the text that is a bit more unclear for me, how does all this, the presentations and suppositions made by the poet (as well as mine) amount to the conclusive line "To remember will become a thing of the past ... i can imagine that light effects negatively the capacity to remember, but this is not the realm of the text i believe.  So, i guess my question is, how does the author reach this conclusion that results from what he/she proposes, "to remember will become a thing of the past"? Or maybe more broadly what do you feel contained in this poem, is consequential on memory/remembering/forgetting?
       
      eeeeek! i think i just figured it out! But am very interested to hear the correct answer from Sana. 
       
       
       

      11) Anouk  question to Agnes (reply Tinna)

       
      Dear Agnes, the world "reality" is appearing one or several times in each the text fragments.
      Do you think "reality" is something that can be shared ?

       

       

      12) Luiza to Brendan (Reply Anouk)

       

      Hey! So I remember the sound of the can of coke being opened before your reading. It was for me a very well known sound that could set up a space. The way you positioned it made me think of sacred and profane symbols. Also, that speech sacralized america as a way of apologizing for misconduct, for profaning america and its figure of power, the president. So, I would like to know what is for you (the) sacred and what is (the) profane and how is, if there is any, your relationship to both?

       

       

      13) Juan To Sebastian (Reply Lili)

       

      How accurately can one transfer verbally the intrinsic physical characteristics of an object ?

       

       

      14) Tinna to Gerald (Reply Aela)

       

      In the frame of your bubble performance, we collectively agreed on a partially wrong information.
      Why do you need our trust to language to be hijacked?

       

       

      15) Sofia To Juan (Reply Juan)

       

      When you brought the material from Youtube it felt to me as an act of quoting. So then I wondered how do you use quoting and citing in your practice? How do you quote?

       

      16) Aela to Aela (Reply Sofia)

       

      Languages and artistic, political and media representations model, determine, freeze, valuate, judge, catalogue the body using subjective parameters dictated by society.

      Is it then possible to de-determine the body ? To think the body as a moving and liquide entity, able to metamorphose endlessly without deteriorate what is considered as individuality ?

      Or do we have to give up on individuality as a fixed and safe marker and to reconsider it as something alterable and altering ?

      In this case what is individuality ?

       

      17) Arianna to Sana (Reply Brendan)

       

      At the beginning of your writing, you create the almost cinematic atmosphere of an ancient tale.
      It's a tale of growth and change, and I think it is telling us about roots.
      I could feel the wind - or, more precisely, I could imagine this wind of history: a wind whose strength comes not only from its physical force but also from the distance it has to pass through to come to my face, and to face my body.
       
      Is resistance something that we grow with time, like a plant grows roots that go deeper and deeper into the ground?
      Is resistance something superficial - that acts and is effective at and from the level of the skin?
      How deep resistance grows into the body?
      These are more general questions I have - they do the groundwork for what I'd like to ask: 
      Imagine the strongest wind you can think about. It is so strong that blowing against your body, it keeps it suspended in the air, preventing it from moving. Not a step is possible.
      What would you do with your body (physical strategy) in order to be able to keep moving in spite of this wind?
       
       
       

      18) Pierre to Isabel  (Reply Agnes)

       

      Dear Isabel,

      What you offered last Wednesday to the Bubble Score community was a text, precisely the beginning of a chapter entitled "Goddess of the Witches" from a book called "The Great Cosmic Mother".
      The text is about the multiple prehistoric and historic cults around the figure of Diana/Artemis/Ishtar/Hecate that produced knowledges in the past associated with feminine power and later on were condemned, banned, erased by, first, the greek patriarchal turn, then by Christianity, culminating  with hunts and burnings of witches in the 16th and 17th century. The text ends with the following line "The witch persecutions were not simply aimed at 'Devil-worshipers', but at ancient human knowledge of the world".
      Later on in a discussion with me  you said "but what have women done to men to deserve that ?"
       
      If I share with you the idea that today's situation can be enlightened by studying the past, that we must practice an archeology of the occidental way of thinking and that a decolonisation of the mind is necessary to prevent more shit to happen in the future, my reaction to the text's positioning was more doubtful, concerning the way the text is written and the assertive tone of some of your remarks.
       
      In fact, I do think that the text is over dichotomising the issue, reducing its complexity and is using the same tools that authoritarian knowledge : the "there is no alternative" leading to an injunction to think in a dichromatic way : black or white. Period.
      Concerning women, I do not think that women did anything to men, but that the power shift happened for political and economic reasons in societies growing in scale and in need of a general order, a pre-globalised order disqualifying the local more and more. A "general way of thinking", a way to generalise everything, to universalise, leading to the interchangeability of the humans where, under the ancient localised order, the communities were more singular, particular and not replaceable.
      I do not want to continue today as I have to ask you a question, but would like to continue discussing with you about this book statements and your relation with it. (you know that I like witches as you do, but may be differently?...)
       
      My question is inspired by your text in relation with another text.
      It's a text written by Isabelle Stengers called "The Cosmopolitical Proposal" where she proposes ways to actualise and produce real changes. 
      She, and I agree with her, shows that denunciating is not enough to shift, to dismantle the authority associated with knowledge.
      I attach the text to this mail. I glossed some lines. hope we can find a moment to read and discuss them together.
       
      My question now.
      In fact I have two. Couldn't choose.
      "What "taking magic seriously" can do for you today?" or "What do you hope for by "taking magic seriously" today?
      You pick.
       
      Hear from you,
      see you next week
      amicalement,
      Pierre

       

       

       

      19) Sebastian to Pierre (Reply by Lilia)

       

      Which artistic experience changed your way of thinking? And how?

       

       

      19) Tinna to Gerald  (Reply Sebastian)

       

      In your performance you made a live remix of the past, with recordings of us talking and the song Lithium with Nirvana.  What connection is there between these 2 sound-sources?

       

       

      20) Lili to Lilia (Reply Ricardo)

       

      If internalizing camera functions in how we think is mostly stemming from „manipulating time“ (jumps, cuts, continuity, fast forwards etc.), which other notion is being manipulated/influenced by haptic information? Or is it simply subordinate to visual/audio neural processes?
      Can you imagine whole room with all the people moving around you, running underneath your fingertips instead of you moving in the space?
      How would that inform you differently?
      (receptivity in relation to various body positions - e.g. "gallery with beds")

       

       

       21) Agnes to Varinia (Reply Isabel)

       

      I remember the walk of two black gloves, strong like ants that can sustain a weight five thousand times greater than their own body weight. thinking about ants I guess the ability to support a multitude of the own heaviness does not mean that it is also a pleasure to do so. I imagine it could be quite annoying, which reminds me of a question that was posed to you already last week. I will reformulate the question and ask what makes you more angry, cold or dirty hands?

       

       


       

      REPLIES:

      2) Brendan > Luiza > Anouk

      Preparation: I write a draft of text on my computer then I finish it writing it on a positive visual field, on the materialized form of my visual filed at a certain moment. I write SACRED on one side and PROFANE on the other. I finish writing my text by passing from one side of the “page” to the other. I have the object/page in my hands, I am manipulating it. My manual activity (writing, holding, turning) supports my intellectual activity and the process of articulating my thought. I have to put numbers and arrows to help me find the next sentence when I turn to the other side of the page. I read the text in front of the group, kneeling on the cardboard floor, holding the object in my hand in front of my eyes (face). I am turning the object/page to read one side and the other.

       

      IMG_6666 IMG_6668

      Performance of the text

      1 - PROFANE: The root of profane is the Latin profanes which means “ what is in front of” which means “out of the temple”, non-initiated, ignorant.

      2 - SACRED: The word "sacred" descends from the Latin sacrum, which referred to the gods or anything in their power, and to sacerdos and sanctum set apart. It was generally conceived spatially, as referring to the area around a temple. The English word "holy" dates back to at least the 11th century with the Old English word halig an adjective derived from hāl meaning "whole" and used to mean "uninjured, sound, healthy, entire, complete".

      3 – PROFANE: What I keep from profane is non-initiated, ignorant.

      4- SACRED: What I keep from sacred is and from sacred entire and complete.The shift from the profane space to the sacred space happens when I PAY ATTENTION. Then I see the sacred in the profane.

      5 – PROFANE: For me sacred and profane are the two sides of the same coin. They are not intrinsically different. The sacred is when I listen and the profane is when I don’t. There is nothing to change, nothing is better. As Cage would suggest…

      6 – SACRED: “ CHANGE YOUR MIND!”

      7 – PROFANE: I AM OSCILLATING BETWEEN THE TWO. It is an OSCILLATION. I put the sacred is the realm of sensoriality and the profane the realm of words. For me the sacred cannot be expressed with words.

      8 – SACRED: The sacred is a matter of ATTENTION. It is in the realm of EXPERIENCE. The sacred ineffable, it is beyond discourse. The sacred is for me a NON-time/space, NON-time/space of no escape. I am rarely there, though I love when it happens.

      9 – ROFANE: I made a mistake while typing, SACRED became SCARED. Did we made this separation because we where scared? Scared of what? Is the profane the realm of fears?

      10 – SACRED: The dictionary says that that one can pass from the profane dimension to the sacred dimension through RITUALS. I am a bit scared of the word ritual. I find it too heavy, too serious. Still I am looking for the sacred through my work.

      11 – PROFANE: but for me the sacred is very much connected to SIMPLICITY and to the concrete and daily world, the “ NOTHING SPECIAL”, the “ PLAIN”, some could say the “BORRING”.

      12 – SACRED: I find duration useful, duration and repetition. I practice observing myself, jugging and labeling. I practice observing my internal WAR.

       

      3) Christian > Isabel > Arianna

       

      dizzy spells

       

      Climbing the scaffold and laying down on the platform on top, face downwards.

      Reading

       

      CHAPTER 1

      (Present. Remembering)

       

      My mother suffers from dizzy spells.

      She prefers not to go climbing mountains. She stays on plain horizontal surfaces, where she can see everything at the same level.

      When I was a kid and we went visiting a city, we would go up the highest tower of that city.

      She would come with the rest of us, but would stay far from the view of the terrace. If we moved towards the edge, she would scream and grab the tip of our sweater, or the skin of our elbow if she had the chance, and prevent us from the risk of approaching the risk of falling.

       

      Pause.

      Reading

       

      CHAPTER 2

      (The remembering materializes, coming back into the present in a specific form)

       

      stream of consciousness

       

      Opening a bottle of water previously placed on top of the scaffold. Leaving the stream of water going down by the force of gravity through a hole in the platform.

      Water falls on the ground from the height.

       

      Pause.

      Reading

       

      CHAPTER 3

      (It's night. The sky is clear, of an opaque dense black colour. I can see the full moon and the stars.

      I am laying down on the top of something of uncertain nature. I am very close to the Moon. I can see it even with my eyes closed. I can almost touch it.

      I think about the ones who are still on the ground)

       

      What do you do when the tide rises

       

      1 - When it comes up, it takes your elbows and brings them more and more towards your ears.

      Be careful then - protect them using a thick sweater, or wearing water wings.

       

      2 - Climb somewhere high and stay there for a while.

      Tides are caused by gravity.

      They can occur as two high waters and two low waters each day.

      However, these periods do not happen at the same time. This is because the Moon takes its time to line up again exactly with the same point on the Earth.

      Check it out with the Moon for more info.

       

      3 - If the swirl is right above you, you cannot do anything more than waiting for it to come down. You can also try to bring it down yourself through the use of your hands.

      Singing might help. Hypnosis is the last resort, for hypnotizing a tide requires you not to be afraid of the risk of approaching the risk of falling.

       

       

       10) Brendan asks Luiza, Sana replies

       
      Borders are frigid
      Distances wrapped in a time, lost
      Borders are frigid
      Distances covered in colors, pale
       
      Feeling confused
      We dream out of synch
      Light bounces off your skin
      Reminds me of distorted past
      Shattering into pieces
      Memories remain less of debris

      I turn ubiquitous
       
       
      Conquering the time
      Let’s play a game
      When I am the hours
      You play days or years
       
       
      Borders are frigid
      Distances fill in you and me
      marching on our flesh
      Hear ‘em breath
      Feel ‘em float
      Like a sorrow
       
      Now turning thicker
      Like a forest
      Vast meadow covers the distances
      Ah,
      Such a wonder!
       
      14) Tinna to Gerald (Reply Aela)
       

      From an english and objective frame of reference, putting aside any daltonic possibilities... well we could argue on an objective way to describe the wrong colour with the good name or a subjective way to be objective ??? That sounds already messy...

      SO... from an english and objective and human-being frame of reference, I am eating a green apple. Considered lonely, in a completely abstract context, an apple is a thing. But in an objective context, THIS apple is an object constituted by many different objects, its colour, its pips, its core, etc.

      Objectively eating this apple I'll find its pips and its pips are black. Everyone is following ?

      So from now on it appears that the green apple is also constituted by black pips. From here it is a very easy abstract jump to say that at some point the green of the apple is made by the black of the pips contained by this very apple and an even easier one to say that green is black ! Probably as much as green is blue and yellow !!!

      And even easier !!! Green equal black !

      Let's study a bit this affirmation. When I say green equal black, I am doing what is called an abstraction ! The process of abstraction is used in many domaine and specially in mathematics to make easier operation ! The system of abstraction works by simplifying a complicated reality to be able to deal with ! Same process with objectivity ! Every time we assign a name to a thing we reduce every possibilities of different subjectivities in favour of a common objectivity !

      So it is very important to notice that objectivity is only a collective agreement on how to reduce individual subjectivity, A=B under a certain frame of reference but under another one, A is absolutely not equal to B !!!!

      Let's go a bit further :)
      An apple is as black as an orange !
      In terms of blackity an apple is actually equal to an orange even if not a single one of them is black (once again from a non-daltonic point of view) !
      I could have also said an apple is as NOT black as an orange ! But what happens when we use the negativity ! If I say an apple is NOT black, the mind will picture first the apple and then the black colour: result = an apple is black ! Why, because the mind can't picture negativity but only what is viewable and negativity is not a viewable object but a substraction of viewable object from viewable object !

      Let's go on the funny side of this discovery !!!
      The delay created by the mind trying to remove the black colour from the apple it pictured is the origin of irony and the one of laugh !!!!
      Demonstration: joke + delay or time of understanding = laugh hahaa...
      Irony and laugh come from a very short misunderstanding or a little awkwardness

      and uncomfortable situation, that is a tiny excess of subjectivity in an objective discourse ! A tiny excess which is fortunately possible due to the process of abstraction I described earlier !
      If there was no common objective reduction of subjective reality there will be no surplus of subjectivity to use and then no laugh and so a very sad society !!! In which one everyone would be able to communicate entirely with anyone else, boring....

      Now... how to make a black apple revolution !!!?
      Working with abstraction once again, I am gonna make an equality between the Foucault's relations of power and the objectivity I described earlier. Relations of power as objectivity exist in any domaine, political, institutional, relationship and so on, this objectivity appears when one tries to direct someone else's behaviour. But this objectivity is only possible among a certain amount of liberty corresponding here to subjectivity ! If there was no possibility of expressing subjectivity, there will be no objectivity at all.
      The practice of liberty or the practice of subjectivity is an individual way one has to play with objectivity, to play among the rules of common objectivity !
      Most of the time, as we saw it, the game of subjectivity among objectivity leads to irony or laugh !
      A black apple revolution is a revolution everyone can practice on its own, discovering its own subjectivity, applying it to many domaine and sharing it ! That is knowing oneself or to use the words of Foucault: taking care of the self !

      A black apple revolution is a ironic revolution a revolution that shows the limits of objectivity and power through laugh, through a tiny delay of misunderstanding !

      One is not free from its own definition as soon as one remains understandable ! A peri-understanding is the most powerful tool of a funny revolution and a black apple is already in itself a revolution ! A displacement of the domination of objectivity upon subjectivity !

      This is a revolution !!!

       

      17) Arianna to Sana (Reply Brendan)

       

      Text For Vacuuming

      This force gives you body, your face, eyes, voice, and skin.

      and now it wants it back

      this is how you will live and how you will die

       

      But, even in the strongest, most paralyzing wind possible

      there is always a way to move.

       

      Resistance is a space between the giving and the taking, it is you.

      every possible move is contained by you, and amongst the you's that approximate.

       

      freedom of movement is always accomplished through shifts of the body into the potentials of force.

      with this we can open doors in the wind and fly

       

       

      19) Pierre > Sebastian  > Lilia

      Hmmm I think all artistic experiences have changed my way of thinking. Or as Willem James puts it, (if I understand well) the nature or substance of experience is not different from the consciousness of that same experience. The two realms of experience and thought are separated in a pure functional way in order to process the continuity of experiences in our memory. So if I follow this thought it would be impossible to not change my way of thinking constantly.

      I often asked my self if is the experience of the arts that opened my mind, or if my mind open up the art experience? If one is not ready for change can change happen? Either way through out the years my experience of the arts has changed a lot. My deep love for the performing arts has maybe a say in this (my addictive behavior as well). 

      The temporality of the performing arts connects both the realms of experience and thought in a one to one relation, in the back and forth between the now and the immediate memory of it, together with the memory of other experiences and thoughts about it, in a very direct very fast way. The processes are mingled and refer to the complex act of perceiving and maybe in that exact moment of the present the ‘fake’ dichotomy between experience and thought collides. There is just the moment of the moment. At a first instance I don’t remove myself from the moment, I don’t create a distance that allows me to categorize my experience, or do I? 

      This makes me think now of a text of Bojana Kunst about the temporality of performance, which speaks about the political: http://www.stedelijkstudies.com/journal/the-troubles-with-temporality/

      I quote:

      Performance can be thought of namely as an antagonistic knot of various temporal practices, a conglomerate of contradictory forces (human, non-human, spatial, natural, etc.) that constitute the moment of the present and the invention of its political potential. Performance is not a liminal practice because it is an act of the individual subject being subversive of its own context (that is to say, the figure of a militant artist), but because it is a sum of contradictory, complementary, or causally related micro-actions and events that must invent the form for the temporal condensation of actions, moves, energies, materials, and things, and in that way open the creation of performance to the intensity of life.

      If change occurs and I think it does, definitely due to its inherent political conditions I would like to mention a performance that came first to my mind: Jerome Bel by Gerome Bel. Many questions emerged from that performance I saw in 1995 in Gent in a rather small theatre. I think I connected strongly to the questioning of dance and to the stripping down of the performance tools to their strict minimum: bodies, light, music and space. There was a sort of back to the basics strategy that enhanced very complex questions of authorship, agency and capitalism. What are we seing when we are seing performance? What kind of mechanisms hide behind the protocols of theatre as a place for the production of entertainment? 

      I’ve never seen consciously something like this before, poetical and critical simultaneously. Those bodies, light, music and space were not naked in the bareness but filled with codes, intentions, manipulations and emotions part of our collective consciousness. We were not looking at alienated bodies deprived feeling and meaning but to bodies relating in their sensuality and knowledge to the apparatus where they were performing.

       


       

      GIFTS:

      YAARI
      And your Eye – where does your Eye dwell?
      down onto you,
      in you
      will you believe my
      Mouth
      I speak of love
      How did we live until here?
      the body of each of us were
      your body
      It gleamed
      I open your leaves, forever
      only there did  you enter wholly the name
      that is yours
      the Listened-for reached you
      It cast an image into our eyes
      and the Dew of your thought 
      (not in the eye for the tear
      but seven nights higher
      when I attended the orchids
      when I was audible)
      it shivered 
      We 
      have drunk
      The blood and the image that was in the blood
      we drink it and we drink it
      as if I were this:
      your Whiteness,
      as if you were
      mine,
      as if without us we could be we
      The place of angels
      was written there too
      How
      did we touch
      each other - each other with
      these hands?
      we could not let go, and it came at us
      came through us at the last membrane and
      your eyes
      they dwell and dwell
      they speak
      they sing 
      an acoustic thought  
      speak 
      the Prayer:
      Come, come.
      Come a word, come,
      and something believed the eyes and the mouths
      and obeyed

       

      KEYWORDS :

      fiction; embodiment; memory; disappearance; disturbance; transparency; liminal body; tentacle; noise; threshold; come; crocky; microwave; time (now just passed); universal knowledge; fairytale; estrangement; inhabiting the ruins of the body; unidentifiable; hybrid nature; unnamed.

      REPORT : the shot gun (coming soon)

      Every person contributed a key word after seeing all the presentations. We did a collective constellation practice to relate and organize the key words. The image formed by the squared papers on floor was a shot gun. Aside of that image, there were floating  three papers with the key words: unidentifiable; hybrid nature; unnamed.

      I remember three main focus:  Memory, (fiction, embodiment, disapearence, disturbance,) System ( crocky, microwave, come = universal knowledge, fairy tale, estrangement ) and Body ( inhabiting the ruins of the body). Out of the shot gun a free floating constellation contained the keywords:  unidentifiable; hybrid nature; unnamed.

    • project
    • Bubble Score
    • BUBBEL SCORE SESSION # 9 11 January 2016
      posted by: Juan Duque
    • 09 March 2016
    • BUBBEL SCORE SESSION # 9

      PARTICIPANTS

      Sofia, Sana, Chris, Agnes, Mala, Aela, Varinia, Arianna, Isabel, Lili, Robin, Lilia

      PERFORMANCES > QUESTIONS > ANSWERS

      1. Sofia > Sana > Lilia
      2. Sana > Lili > Mala
      3. Chris > Aela > Isabel
      4. Agnes > Sofia > Varinia
      5. Mala > Isabel > Chris
      6. Aela > Arianna > Agnes
      7. Varinia > Lilia > Sofia
      8. Arianna > Agnes > Aela
      9. Isabel > Mala > Robin
      10. Lili > Robin > Sana
      11. Robin > Cris > Arianna
      12. Lilia > Varinia > Lili

       

      1. Sofia > Sana > Lilia

      Dear Sofia

      I read your performance as an attempt to link the urban spaces to the surrounding environment, to where ever we are, to the air we breathe in, to what we feel, to the seen and the unseen, to the heard and the unheard.

      It was a game with words to create vague images while the new perceptions require new words.

      My question was about hope in a city. You shattered the city into pieces and installed each piece somewhere around. You created a new city which could exist anywhere: In our mind, in our heart, in our voice, in our memories...

      Dear Lilia

      Is there any possibility to create a new city through memories?

       

      2) Sana > Lili > Mala

      The pure image in your video, Sana, makes me feel I should get over or beyond it quickly to „see“ more, to see what´s behind it.

      Instead I imagined being you on the other side. In one of the last week´s sessions I was moving around with a pullover over half of my face to replicate your framing in the video. As an audience I am constantly left to imagine the covered part of the image in your video, attempting to be you in my little experiment however doesn´t require from me to imagine any part of my environment except the environments´ own imaginations perhaps.

      The „framing“ element, or the veil in between is different from the two perspectives -

      which veils do you use that would be hard or impossible to remove because they are essential to your work?

      A direction of the upper question that interests me even more is  using a lack or absence of a certain veil/interface/disturbance…

       3 Chris > Aela > Isabel

      Hey Christian, Isabel,

      sorry for my late question, I completely forgot the bubble score !

      So this question will be an extract from a book I just read : Chaos-phonies, from jazz to noise, the coronation of Chaos. It is in French, so I'll try to translate it.

      “Divorce between singing and talking.

      [] the archaic cousin of Sapiens and Neanderthal, Homo Heildelbergensis (500 000 years ago...) was already physiologically able to sing (its anterior condylar canal was as large as the one of Homo-Sapiens allowing then a production and a control of the sound produced by the vocal cords. It was as sophisticated as what we do now, while talking). Some scientists developed a these from this discovery: an original musilanguage. A long way ago, we were singing-talking. According to this theory, we can see some remains of this musilanguage in tonal languages (such as Vietnamese), in which the note and the accent are as meaningful as the phoneme itself. Meaning that this divorce is posterior, it comes from separation of the singing task from the talking one. This separation would have appeared in a larger context of civilisation (to be civilised), and of controlling the body and its drives”

      Do you think art is a way to find back what civilisation took away from us, from our animal instinct ? Could art be a way of rediscovering and so connecting to a more visceral being ?

      Cheers,

      Aela

      4) Agnes > Sofia > Varinia

      Each proposal has a life time, which in our times often goes from idea to realization, to than reverberation. Some proposals do not need long periods for their realization, staying more focused in the idea and reverberation parts (one example of this are the propositions of Ono in her book grapefruit and other American conceptual artists from that period). This is a particular mode of art production, nowadays questioned for its capacity of recuperation by late capitalism. How would you describe your most common mode of production? My question is a proposal: to reverse or change radically the order in which you usually produce for the bubble score. For example, if you go from idea to realization try to go the other way around.

       

      5) Mala >Isabel > Christian

      Hello dear Mala:

      The practice that you proposed made me think of the Mapuche indigenous people, the original inhabitants of the south of Chile that have survived colonialism and now struggle transnational dictatorship. They conceive imagining and dreaming to go hand in hand. They believe that both are tools to reach the magic held in symbols and archetypes, or rather power tools in our ontological configuration that enable us to transform and transmute our 3d reality. They are also places of communication, of travelling, of reaching. The Mapuche Cosmo vision is mostly based in messages transmitted by the dead through a dream. For example: a medicine woman heals and also makes political decisions in a tribe (or community). This role is passed on through female blood lineage. If the last medicine woman alive dies leaving no descent behind, the community waits until an ancestor manifests in the dream of the matriarch. Usually a girl is pointed to be the next doctor but she needs overcoming a challenge. If she is able to eat a coin and through digestion transform it in a silver egg (that she shits), then she is the next medicine woman in her community and a celebration follows.

      I read some words by Jeremy Taylor, Doctor in sacred Theology, that I would like to share with you:

      "If I can convince you that the products of your imagination are worthless or trivial, then I can make you my slave. If I fail to persuade you that your imaginative life is substandard, and then no matter how much economic, social, or political oppression I put you under, you will never be entirely enslaved".

      My question to you is: Do you conceive dream as a tool for resistance?

      Much love to you Mala from Isabella.

      6) Aela > Arianna > Agnes

       

      hi Aela and Agnes.

       

      we were standing in a circle. we were part of something.

      Then, something anomalous starts to happen.

      heavy breathing, rooted movements coming from deep down the belly. A change in the facial expression.

      Or, better: face stops existing. The face becomes just a part of the body as any other one.

      We are not in the social anymore.

      Words are spoken but it is their sound and their origin that matters. Not the meaning.

      They are breaths and movements more than acts of communication.

       

      It is perhaps when language stops making sense, because there is no need for sense anymore.

      We assist to a phenomenon.

      Among the definitions of this word, we have:

      an extra-ordinary event

      a freak

      a wonder

       

      when I was there, I stopped being part and I started witnessing.

      It was a shift in perception as well as in position.

      I could barely look anymore..

      it made me feel as being present to a transformation..

      A monster.

       

      Then, going back to that feeling of being/becoming/witnessing the presence of a monster, my mind went to the figure of the bearded lady.

      I remembered this picture:

       

      I have always been fascinated by the social stigma on women having hairs, most notably facial hairs. To be socially accepted as being women means not to have a beard or mustache, for example.

       

      But how comes?

      ..I would really like to have a beard.

      what is it to be a monster?

       

      7) Varinia > Lilia > Sofia

       

      And, and - also also - and -what else what else -instead of the uni -only only -seems to me to be a fundamental entry into thinking and perceiving the world. It's very evident that we are loosing the capacity of engaging with the other out of fear..

      And then came the stillness that  allows us to just be there, close to what is around one's own body revealed or hidden experiences. The making of non-linear history, a history of invisibilities where the several collides. Take time!

      The being there implies the expansion of empathy or the awareness of the complexity of things. We are social beings, no worries we are not made to be only or lonely. Attention is maybe the biggest capacity we have to listen to what is there to be able to communicate with what / whom we don't know yet. And also what else? My wish is: could you design a travel we could follow to feel the space between us? A sort of contagion awareness that could just make that inherent empathy smile.



      8) Arianna > Agnes > Aela

       

      In my memory you are playing this card game called Concentration or Match Match. In your game the pair was not to be found on another card but in Varinia’s mind. The game slowly turned into a riddle. It seemed there was right answer, a goal, an expectation? I will pose my question together with a song

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9XQw9iAl_Q

      Tell us oh how do we

      Catch a ghost in the

      Dark

      ?

      11 Isabel mala robin

      Dear Isabel, dear Robin
      Thank u for yr proposition. I didn't become sun powder, but I did become stardust. Or rather: I remembered I already am stardust, we already are stardust. Made in the matter of stars. When I am, we are a matter of stars everything is different. The universe breathes much slower, so slow, that a breath measures the almost of eternity. I wonder how such a collective rite like one u propose makes us remember how to dwell in the almost forever of the stars while trading the earth in time. For a moment I sink into cosmic memory to reemerge as stardust. Is such an imprint, an experience outside of time and lasts forever?
      Thank u! Xm

       

       

       

       

      12) Lilia > Varinia > Lili

      Hi Lilia,

      i read somewhere that the main reason why western culture appears as an oppressive force in the middle east, is because the notion of time in the middle east is circular,  and that the notion of progress is not measured in terms of before and after as in the West. In the middle East progress means reinterpreting, reconsidering and being in a constant dialogue with the past. But also i read that even within Europe the meaning of time changes from country to country. For instance the south of Europe a date at 4 pm means that it is then that we start thinking to go to the meeting, while for a German that would mean that you are late. According to that article this because in the south of Europe time is measured not by the clock but by moments, so i wont think of the next moment until this one is over, so if i am having a really exiting conversation, the moment will be over when the exiting conversation is over, not before.

      So we have minutes, circular time (maybe based on the rise and sunset), moments....if they give you the possibility of setting up your own measure of time, based on what would that be?



       

    • xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
      xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
      xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

       

      href="file://localhost/Users/macbookpro/Documents/Apass/2nd%20Block/self%20interview.docx">


       

       

      Self interview

      Blue & Black <span
      style='color:#3366FF'>March 2015

      Green & Pink July 2015

       

       

      Why art?

      I like the different ways that art can
      touch someone, it can appeal to the logic, to the body, to something
      untouchable, to that which cannot be explained rationally, it can undress things.
      It can use metaphors or very literal and logical statements and it can do both at
      the same time.

       

      Art is for me the ideal way of accessing
      and creating mythology, something I am very interested in.

      Why? I like very much Joseph <span
      class=SpellE>Campel’s
      explanation on the importance of mythology,
      mythology being that which transcends the individual to the universal, to the
      unseen, to its ultimate potential or vice versa convince him of his superiority
      over nature, of his twisted nature etc., depends on the belief system it
      supports.

      It is a very powerful tool to shape
      reality, according to the mythology people believe in, you shape society and
      vice versa of course.

      In addition to that I am interested in
      mythology because it makes the whole universe alive, the personification of the
      world is not something to be dismissed lightly, by understanding that the river
      has a spirit, a vibration, that it is alive our relationship with it changes
      and it cannot be a commodity anymore.

      It is easier to sell a pair of shoes
      than your friend in a way,

      So there, art is a way to access
      mythology, invent or awaken myths and thus challenge society.

       

      What are you currently working on?

       

      I am trying to create ceremonies. I am
      interested in mythology and particularly fertility and the way mythology is
      changing in our society with the assistance of science.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      These days I am thinking about the bees
      as the pollinators and also as the creatures that are getting affected through
      the use of pesticides, the development of gmo
      agriculture and the increase of monoculture agronomy, our current commercial
      way of dealing with fertility in farming.

       

      Well in terms of appearance, I have a
      video that I shot in Brazil, that is a form of prayer, I have a pair of new age
      paintings that I hope to continue, there is a barely started macramé piece, and
      a few performances/ rituals that took place the last few months, sliding
      between artistic documentary and ceremonial collective moments.

      In terms of thematic, fertility and
      mythology are weaving the connections.

      Fertility from the physical point of
      view, the earth’s and humans fertile ability, but also fertility in thought and
      in action.  Fertility
      as a way to celebrate life, and the interconnection of the human and the earth.

       

      What do you mean?

       

      Well, with the use of science we can
      control fertility in ways that we were never able to do so before. That I
      believe is changing the way we view life and I am interested in that change.

       

      Well, for example I find that the
      violence that vibrates at this point on earth is a very unfertile <span
      class=GramE>field,
      it stimulates pain, depression, blind anger,
      alienation, death (death not only on the physical realm but also in the
      vibrational realm, like a living dead social body). So I am interested in
      finding ways to reclaim that space and make it fertile.

       

      How?

      Well this is what I am trying to find
      out. By creating collective moments of prayer, by bringing awareness to certain
      acts, by creating a new cosmology, and by understanding what are our needs from
      science.

       

      How did it start about?

       

      Of course there is not one moment, but
      let say my first proposals had to do with Theogony,
      the birth of the Earth from the god Eros (the creative, passionate, sexual and
      sensual force of nature).  Then I
      continued my inquiring on mythology and on contemporary mythologies (<span
      class=SpellE>gmo
      , eugenics, authoritative systems on life), the questioning
      of archetypal memory. For example one of my questions was and somehow still is
      that if we forming our memory and our connection to the primal archaic
      existence through food (among other things) how is this lineage to our ancestry
      affected if our seed loose that memory (with the invention of <span
      class=SpellE>gmo seeds for example).<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes">  How is our own fertility affected when <span
      class=GramE>our the food that we nourish ourselves is sterile? And then
      these questions expanded to the fact that technology is used very much to
      create commodities and a social body that views life as a commodity.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes">  For example we are creating coral reefs
      that can withstand the climate change, gmo is
      proposed as a way to fight the famine of the planet and the overpopulation,
      eugenics as a way to create a species that is more intelligent and can conquer
      the universe, but the real issues on human greed, the distraction of the environment,
      the insanity of colonization are bypassed, because it is too hard to address
      them.

      Etc<span
      style='font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:green;mso-bidi-font-weight:
      bold'> etc etc

       

      And now where do you find yourself?

       

      I am in place that I am wondering how
      the different elements of my work can come together, I am not so much interested
      in that which I find poisonous, (like gmo, eugenics,
      authoritative systems on life) but of what on the beautiful in the potential of
      the human being.

      I have picked up some words that I have
      found interesting,

      Like city shamanism, Joy and Desire, I
      have felt my creative castle falling on the ground, and I am trying to see how
      and what this work means for me, what are the perfomative
      aspects of this act. What is moving forward, and I feel I need a pose for a
      bit.

      I crave spending time in Greece.

       

      Why is Greece important?

       

      It is very important, it is the <span
      class=GramE>mother land
      .

      The smell of my bones.<span
      style='font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:green;mso-bidi-font-weight:
      bold'>

      My interest on the human and mythology
      that I always come back in my work comes from there, the love and the beauty of
      the human being.

      Also I think that Greece at this point
      played the role of unveiling the matrix, this of course we can talk for a
      while…

       

      And what is your trouble?

       

      Well I feel I need to make a leap and I
      am not sure in what direction. Last cycle/block/ season I was saying I do not
      have enough tools in terms of spiritual knowledge and techniques, this time I
      feel the same but in an artistic way.

       

      Why?

      I see this change of genetic control
      as a continuation of our need to control life.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      And I also think that it calls for
      further authoritative power in our lives. 
      I do not want to live in such a society.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes">   Maybe our need to controlled
      engineering is another blindfold, without dismissing the amazing advances that
      technology is doing, there is a world that treats life as an object, as a
      commodity and the human as the creature that holds authorship in this. If that
      does not change in its base then controlled engineering will become just a way
      to reinforce this attitude.

       

       

      That sounds very confusing

       

      Well the idea that we can choose
      the genetic traits that we desire is a way to control and create
      uniformity.  Remember the 80’s
      haircuts, great but who wants an 80’s hairdo today. It is like the tomatoes,
      there had been a law in the EU until recently that all vegetables need to look
      in a certain way, that created a market that only wanted a specific look in the
      vegetables and everything that did not meet that standard was thrown out of the
      selling basket, without necessary being worse, as a result people prefer to buy
      a tomato that is wrapped in a plastic case and looks “perfect” than a tomato
      that smells like a tomato but has a few marks on it and maybe a hole from a
      warm.

       

      The same can
      happen with gene control. 

       

      It is the way of thinking that
      this selection creates that I want to put into attention.

       

      Is it about Morals then?

       

      I hope that it is not about <span
      class=GramE>morals,
      morals create a hierarchy which is also problematic.

       

      And ceremonies?

       

      I believe shamanism is a
      powerful tool to accessing archaic ways of viewing life.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      There has been a strong rejection in the
      west of the magical but I think that it is important to be re
      –introduced.

      Shamanism as a science creates a
      different balance in life, that is why I think it is a
      very important tool.

       

      I saw a show recently about the
      Lascaux paintings and there was a 3-D video that illustrated how the cave
      paintings were viewed then.  It was
      this representation were the paintings, which are huge by the way, were lit up
      with fire and the trembling of the fire made them look alive.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      It made me feel that the way the animals
      were represented made the “visitor” feel in awe towards them. <span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> The paintings, huge over the head of the
      visitors in combination with the darkness of the cave, illuminated only by
      trembling fire, created a mystical environment that glorified these creatures. <span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> I think this point of view creates a
      different balance to life.

      The same way Greek theater was
      used as a tool for democracy.  It
      was presenting the viewer with questions and moral/ethical values,
      it was creating and supporting the society. (sometimes
      in support of the state some times as a critic to it, democratic Greece had its
      flows also)

      This is the value that I am trying
      to find in art I think.

       

      So you want to pass your values
      and ethics?

       

      I do not like the way this sounds,
      but probably yes, you could say that.

      Of course the
      work is created by me
      so it is made by my way of thinking, but instead of
      me passing my values I want to think of it as me creating platforms for a
      collective experience. A place for people to discover and
      bring forth their own ethics.

       

      Why collective?

       

      Well, I find it strange that we go
      to a museum to see a painting and we do not talk to each other.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      I have had an experience many times of
      being in the museum trying to listen to what the guide is saying, and being
      told off.  I do not understand how
      we can look at art and at the same time be so separate to each other.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes">  This does not hold life in it for me.

       

      What is life?

       

      The highest
      vibration.
      Our
      highest potential.

      Maybe it is not a very clear
      definition but I do not have a better one at the moment.

       

      So you want people to take part in shamanic experiences?

       

      Yes or even better create them.

       

      Do you still believe this?

      Yes and no, I am starting to feel
      the need to even revisit or re-evaluate the word shamanism.

       

      You talked about city shamanism?

       

      Yes, the way I understand this
      term, it is about finding ways in the rural environment, in the industrial
      world, in the cities to connect with the elements of nature. To practice with
      them, to get information from them, to have a conversation in these ecosystems
      that have forgotten about the complexity and the mystery of life and that they
      tent to exclude nature in its wild form.

       

      The relationship to ritual and
      shamanism seems to be very attractive in art these days,
      Do you feel part of it?

       

      J<span
      style='color:green'>
      Maybe this is why I do not like the word shamanism so much.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes">  It is already
      appropriated by the matrix
      . 
      Like anything that could possibly shake the matrix the <span
      class=GramE>idea of shamanism has been quickly adapted by the matrix.

      There is fashion that is inspired
      by shamanism from Zara clothing to high couture tribalism, but it is not very
      interesting in the way that it affects someone’s life.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes">  
      My interest in shamanism, magic
      and ritual is to find tools, relationships, ways of living and creating that
      can be used to connect to the vibrancy of life.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes">  Ways to make reality escape The Given
      structure and bring awareness on the distraction of nature in its raw
      form.  How many people today, how
      many kids have drunk water that comes from the mountain and how often?

      How can we respect our resources
      when we do not know where they are coming from?

      So yes,

      I am interested in bringing those
      values and practicing them within a performance or even more important bring
      those practices in our contemporary life.

       

      Don’t you
      think that this “shamanism” can be a constraint for some people?

       

      It is very possible.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      But I want my “viewer” to have to take a
      personal risk.

      There is no change happening
      otherwise.

       

      And I would also like to add, I
      find this restriction very very interesting, it is a
      point to be very present!! What is it exactly that makes us feel uncomfortable
      with shamanism, and magic?

       

      So it is about change?

       

      For sure

       

      How do you create these ceremonies then?

       

      Well this is what I am in the
      process of understanding.  I think
      the best way I have found until now is to be open to information to come to me,
      this happens either by using shamanic journeying (accessing other realities
      through the sound of the drum) or signals or random moment of inspiration and
      also by scientific research, which is very difficult to come around maybe the
      most difficult.  I hope soon to open
      that process also to others and try to find collective ways that we can create
      a ceremony.

       

      Well this is what I am in the
      process of understanding.  I have
      been trying different things and now I am at the moment of realizing how it can
      tight up.

      I am interested in leaving enough
      space I think for people to wonder in diverse worlds, I am interested in the
      elements that people can bring in and add to the work.

       

      And your paintings what is
      happening in and with them?

      I started by drawing my shamanic
      journeys, (travelling with the power of your imagination accompanied by the
      shamanic drum to access your reality and find tools to bring to your reality).
      So I would travel and then make a drawing that was somehow inspired by my
      journey.

      The last two are <span
      class=GramE>different,
      they are very much influenced by my recent trip
      to Brazil.

      The rising bird is a calling that
      I think is happening at the moment for a new generation of people that walk on
      the Earth with love and respect.

      This generation is not only our
      kids, it is our selves and our ancestors that still walk through us.

      So the bird is making the calling,
      a calling to the earth. It has elements of different mythologies, some
      conscious some unconscious.

      The second painting with the
      snakes came after, as a way to tame the unbalance or to call for balance.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      The last weeks I felt that the hunger of
      the monster has been so big that all inhibitions were dropped. <span
      class=GramE>From the Greek crisis, to the public rapes in Africa, to the
      extreme weather conditions and the destruction of the rainforest, to name a
      few.  Sacredness is becoming
      a taboo word, and this is where shamanism, magic, ritual etc
      become important again. As a way to acknowledge the sacredness of life to the
      present to art, to challenge the “rational” thinking, and to affect the emotion

       

      Sacredness?

       

      Yes! Life is sacred. I like a
      definition from Starhawk on sacredness, respecting
      something or someone for its own being.

      The Cycladic phases <span
      class=GramE>that are
      looking at the sun.

       

      So this year you went to Brazil,
      how did it work on you?

       

      Brazil was very playful and my
      time there taught me even deeper the necessity of joy.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      So in a way it liberated the place from
      which I create.  The idea of
      suffering, of being an artist martyr in order to create left me and creating is
      coming from a place of joy and pleasure. 
      It also brought me back to video art, which I haven’t touched for a
      while!!!  And somehow it’s the first
      time that I am painting just for the sake of painting.

       

       

      Why is scientific research so difficult?

       

      Because it is a very sensitive
      subject and one that is connected with a multi billion dollar industry, so on
      one hand there are business issues that tend to obstruct real information
      coming through, and on the other you have very passionate activism against,
      which also is not very accurate most of the time.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      So for example it is very hard to find
      information on gmo technology that is detached from
      the companies that are associated with it. 
      On the part of humans there is a strong sentimental part that is also
      hard to overcome, why not make sure that your kid will not will not develop a
      lethal disease and why not overcome sterility, on the other hand there is a
      strong claim that we are overpopulated and that this is causing huge imbalance
      etc.  So it is not an issue that is
      easy to tackle scientifically either.

       

       

      And the city
      life?
      How you see those values stand
      in the city life?

       

      Here I have a conflict.<span
      style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
      There are important choices to make in
      the city from the way we shop, to the way we behave, the way we look at each
      other, our capacity to share love and joy, to keep our vibration high by the
      means that each of us finds appropriate. 
      I see the fight in the city more important or as important as anywhere
      else.  On the other hand I remember
      when I was living in New York, I had a friend that was making fun of my
      vegetarianism, he was asking how living in a city like New York could be an
      ethical choice.  Just the existence
      and sustenance of this city means the death to other life forms.

      It is complicated but urgent. A
      very difficult task

       

       

    • I would like to start with a recapitulation of the substantive points made last Tuesday. The purpose of these lectures is to follow the implications of Amerindian "perspectivism": the conception according to which the universe is inhabited by different sorts of persons, human and non-human, which apprehend reality from distinct points of view. This conception was shown to be associated to some others, namely:

      (1) The original common condition of both humans and animals is not animality, but rather humanity;

      (2) Many animals species, as well as other types of "non-human" beings, have a spiritual component which qualifies them as "people"; furthermore, these beings see themselves as humans in appearance and in culture, while seeing humans as animals or as spirits;

      (3) The visible body of animals is an appearance that hides this anthropomorphic invisible "essence," and that can be put on and taken off as a dress or garment;

      (4) Interspecific metamorphosis is a fact of "nature" - not only it was the standard etiological process in myth, but it is still very much possible in present-day life (being either desirable or undesirable, inevitable or evitable, according to the circumstances);

      (5) Lastly, the notion of animality as a unified domain, globally opposed to that of humanity, seems to be absent from Amerindian cosmologies.

      Let us go back to the conception that animals and other ostensibly non-human beings are people.

       

      Animism, or the projection thesis

      You will have probably noticed that my "perspectivism" is reminiscent of the notion of "animism" recently recuperated by Philippe Descola (1992, 1996) to designate a way of articulating the natural and the social worlds that would be a symmetrical inversion of totemism.[37] Stating that all conceptualisations of non-humans are always "predicated by reference to the human domain" (a somewhat vague phrasing, it should be said), Descola distinguishes three modes of "objectifying nature":

      (1) Totemism, where the differences between natural species are used as a model for social distinctions, that is, where the relationship between nature and culture is metaphorical in character and marked by discontinuity (both within and between series);

      (2) Animism, where the "elementary categories structuring social life" organize the relations between humans and natural species, thus defining a social continuity between nature and culture, founded on the attribution of human dispositions and social characteristics to "natural beings";

      (3) Naturalism, typical of Western cosmologies, which supposes an ontological duality between nature, the domain of necessity, and culture, the domain of spontaneity, areas separated by metonymic discontinuity.

      The "animic mode" is characteristic of societies in which animals are the "strategic focus of the objectification of nature and of its socialisation," as is the case amongst indigenous peoples of America. It would reign supreme over those social morphologies lacking in elaborate internal segmentations; but it can also be found coexisting or combined with totemism, wherein such segmentations exist, the Bororo and their aroe/bope duality being such a case.

      Descola's theory of animism is yet another manifestation of a widespread dissatisfaction with the unilateral emphasis on metaphor, totemism, and classificatory logic which characterises the Levi-Straussian concept of the savage mind. This dissatisfaction has launched many efforts to explore the dark side of the structuralist moon, rescuing the radical theoretical meaning of concepts such as participation and animism, which have been repressed by Levi-Straussian intellectualism.[38] Nonetheless, it is clear that many of Descola's points are already present in Levi-Strauss. Thus, what he means by "elementary categories structuring social life" - those which organise the relations between humans and natural species in "animic" cosmologies - is basically (in the Amazonian cases he discusses) kinship categories, and more specifically the categories of consanguinity and affinity. In La pensee sauvage one finds a remark most germane to this idea:

      Marriage exchanges can furnish a model directly applicable to the mediation between nature and culture among peoples where totemic classifications and functional specializations, if present at all, have only a limited yield. (Levi-Strauss 1962b: 170)

      This is a pithy prefiguration of what many ethnographers (Descola and myself included) came to say about the role of affinity as a cosmological operator in Amazonia . Besides, in suggesting the complementary distribution of this model of exchange between nature and culture and totemic structures, Levi-Strauss seems to be aiming at something quite similar to Descola's animic model and its contrast with totemism. To take another example: Descola mentioned the Bororo as an example of coexistence of animic and totemic modes. He might also have cited the case of the Ojibwa, where the coexistence of the systems of totem and manido (evoked in Le totemisme aujourd'hui) served as a matrix for the general opposition between totemism and sacrifice (developed in La pensee sauvage) and can be directly interpreted within the framework of a distinction between totemism and animism.

      I would like to concentrate the discussion on the contrast between animism and naturalism, for I think it is a good starting point for understanding the distinctive stance of Amerindian perspectivism. I will approach this contrast, however, from a different angle than the original one. Descola's definition of "totemism" also deserves some comments, which I shall present for your consideration after contrasting animism and naturalism.

      Animism could be defined as an ontology which postulates the social character of relations between humans and non-humans: the space between nature and society is itself social. Naturalism is founded on the inverted axiom: relations between society and nature are themselves natural. Indeed, if in the animic mode the distinction "nature/culture" is internal to the social world, humans and animals being immersed in the same socio-cosmic medium (and in this sense, "nature" is a part of an encompassing sociality), then in naturalist ontology, the distinction "nature/culture" is internal to nature (and in this sense, human society is one natural phenomenon amongst others). Animism has "society" as the unmarked pole, naturalism has "nature": these poles function, respectively and contrastingly, as the universal dimension of each mode. Thus animism and naturalism are hierarchical and metonymical structures.

      Let me observe that this phrasing of the contrast between animism and naturalism is not only reminiscent of, or analogous to, the famous gift/commodity one: I take it to be the same contrast, expressed in more general, non-economic terms.[39] This relates to my earlier distinction between production-creation (naturalism) and exchange-transformation (animism).

      In our naturalist ontology, the nature/society interface is natural: humans are organisms like the rest, body-objects in "ecological" interaction with other bodies and forces, all of them ruled by the necessary laws of biology and physics; "productive forces" harness, and thereby express, natural forces. Social relations, that is, contractual or instituted relations between subjects, can only exist internal to human society (there is no such thing as "relations of production" linking humans to animals or plants, let alone political relations). But how alien to nature - this would be the problem of naturalism - are these social relations? Given the universality of nature, the status of the human and social world is unstable, and as the history of Western thought shows, it perpetually oscillates between a naturalistic monism ("sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology" being some of its current avatars) and an ontological dualism of nature/culture ("culturalism" and "symbolic anthropology" being some of its recent expressions).

      The assertion of this latter dualism, for all that, only reinforces the final referential character of the notion of nature, by revealing itself to be the direct descendant of the theological opposition between nature and super-nature. Culture is the modern name of spirit - let us recall the distinction between Naturwissenschaften and Geisteswissenschaften - or at the least it is the name of the compromise between nature and grace. Of animism, we would be tempted to say that the instability is located in the opposite pole: there the problem is how to deal with the mixture of humanity and animality constituting animals, and not, as is the case amongst ourselves, the combination of culture and nature which characterise humans; the problem is to differentiate a "nature" out of the universal sociality.

      Let us return to Descola's tripartite typology.[40] Given the nature/culture polarity, Descola distinguishes three "modes of identification" (these being our familiar triad of totemism, animism and naturalism), then three "modes of relation" (predation, reciprocity, protection), then an indefinite number of "modes of categorization" (left nameless and undetermined); the combinatorial possibilities within and across the three modes are not totally free. Now, I believe that the absence of any specification of the "modes of categorization" is more than a temporary vacancy (but I can always be surprised, of course); it points to a conceptual problem related to the definition of "totemism" used by Descola.

      The typology seems to suggest, correctly I think, that the pre-eminence of the nature/culture opposition in our anthropological tradition derives from the joint privilege of the totemic and naturalist modes, both characterized by dichotomy and discontinuity (the first supposedly typical of "savage thought," the second of "domesticated thought"). Descola's emphasis on the logical distinctiveness of the animic mode - a mode he considers to be far more widespread than totemism - is intended to correct this distortion; it also destabilizes the totemism/naturalism divide and the nature/culture dualism common to both modes.

      Descola appears to adopt an institutional reading of totemism, whilst Levi-Strauss had taken it as a mere example of the global style of the savage mind; the cognitive form exemplified by totemism is considered by Levi-Strauss as much more important than the contingent conceptual and institutional contents to which it is applied. We are accordingly led to infer that animism is also conceived by Descola in an institutionalist key, and that it would be then possible to reabsorb it in the sacrificial pole of the famous Levi-Straussian contrast between totemism and sacrifice, if we interpret it as a general cognitive distinction and not in terms of its somewhat ill-chosen institutional labels.

      If I am right in drawing these conclusions, where does totemism stand? Totemism seems to me a phenomenon of a different order from animism and naturalism. It is not a system of relations between nature and culture as is the case in the other two modes, but rather of correlations. Totemism is not an ontology, but a form of classification - it would not belong, therefore, to the category of "modes of identification," but rather to that, left vacant by Descola, of "modes of categorization." The totemic connection between the natural and the social series is neither social nor natural - it is purely logical and differential. By the same token, this connection is not metonymic and hierarchical as is the case with animic and naturalist modes of relating and defining nature and culture - it is a metaphoric and equipollent relation. This would explain why totemism, as a form of classification, can only be found in combination with animic systems: even the classical totemisms suppose more than a set of symbolic correlations between nature and culture; they imply a relationship of descent or participation between the terms of the two series (Levi-Strauss called this latter relationship the "imaginary side" of totemism - but this does not make it any less real, ethnographically speaking).[41]

      In sum, I believe that the really productive contrast is the one between naturalism and animism as two inverse hierarchical ontologies. Totemism, as defined by Descola, seems to be a different phenomenon. However, let us suspend our judgement till we explore more fully the notion of animism, for it may be the case that totemism and animism reveal themselves to be related by more significant similarities and differences.

      Problems with projection

      The major problem with Descola's inspiring theory, in my opinion, is this: can animism be defined as a projection of differences and qualities internal to the human world onto non-human worlds, as a "socio-centric" model in which categories and social relations are used to map the universe? This interpretation by analogy is explicit in some glosses on the theory, such as that provided by Kaj Arhem: "if totemic systems model society after nature, then animic systems model nature after society" (1996: 185). The problem here is the obvious proximity with the traditional sense of animism, or with the reduction of "primitive classifications" to emanations of social morphology; but equally the problem is to go beyond other classic characterisations of the relation between society and nature.

      I am thinking here of Radcliffe-Brown's 1929 article on totemism, where he presents the following ideas (1952: 130-31):

      (1) For "primitive man" the universe as a whole is a moral and social order governed not by what we call natural law but rather by what we must call moral or ritual law.

      (2) Although our own explicit conception of a natural order and of natural law does not exist among the more primitive peoples, "the germs out of which it develops do exist in the empirical control of causal processes in technical activities" - we find here the "germs" of Leach's distinction between technical and expressive aspects of action, and perhaps also of Bloch's distinction between cognition and ideology.

      (3) Primitive peoples (in Australia, for example) have built between themselves and the phenomena of nature a system of relations which are essentially similar to the relations that they have built up in their social structure between one human being and another.

      (4) It is possible to distinguish processes of personification of natural phenomena and natural species (which "permits nature to be thought of as if it were a society of persons, and so makes of it a social or moral order"), like those found amongst the Eskimos and Andaman Islanders, from systems of classification of natural species, like those found in Australia and which compose a "system of social solidarities" between man and nature - this obviously calls to mind Descola's distinction of animism/totemism as well as the contrast of manido/totem explored by Levi-Strauss.

      Some ethnographers of hunter-and-gatherer economies have appealed to the ideas of an extension of human attributes to non-humans and a metaphorical projection of social relations onto human/non-human interactions. Such arguments have been put forth as weapons in the battle against the interpretation of these economies in ethological-ecological terms (optimal foraging theory, etc.). As Ingold (1996) most convincingly argued, however, all schemes of analogical projection or social modelling of nature escape naturalist reductionism only to fall into a nature/culture dualism which, by distinguishing "really natural" nature from "culturally constructed" nature, reveals itself to be a typical cosmological antinomy (in the original Kantian sense) faced with infinite regression. The notion of model or metaphor supposes a previous distinction between a domain wherein social relations are constitutive and literal and another where they are representational and metaphorical. Animism, interpreted as human sociality projected onto the non-human world, would be nothing but the metaphor of a metonymy. [42]

      The idea of an animist projection of society onto nature is not in itself a problem, if one abides by the doctrine of "particular universalism" (the term comes from Latour [1991]), which supposes the privileged access of one culture - our culture - to the only true, real Nature. This particular universalism would be, says Latour, the actual cosmology of anthropology, being in force even among those who have "cultural relativism" as their official creed. It would also be the only possibility of arresting the infinite regression that Ingold rightly sees in the relativist cliche "Nature is culturally constructed." Particular universalism brings such regression to a halt because it subordinates the Nature/Culture dualism to an encompassing naturalism, according to which our culture is the mirror of nature and other cultures are simply wrong. But all forms of constructionism and projectionism are unacceptable if we are decided not to let "animism" be interpreted in terms of our naturalist ontology.

      Allow me a further comment on Latour's idea that particular universalism is the practical ideology of anthropologists - their official or theoretical one being cultural relativism. While agreeing with Latour, I would just remark that the really characteristic relativism of anthropologists seems to consist less in a clandestine appeal to particular universalism than in a kind of distributive inversion of it, which carefully distinguishes culture (as human nature) from (cosmological) nature. Since every culture studied by anthropology is typically presented as expressing (and recognizing) some deep hidden truth of the human condition - a truth forgotten or denied by Western culture, like, for instance, the very inseparability of nature and culture - the sum total of these truths leads to the dismaying conclusion that all cultures, except precisely the (modern) Western, have a kind of privileged access to human nature, what amounts to granting Western culture an underprivileged access to the universe of culture. Maybe this is the price we feel we have to pay for our supposedly privileged access to non-human nature.

      Now, what is Ingold's solution to these difficulties he found in the projection argument? Against the notion of a social construction of nature and its implied metaphorical projectionism, he proposes an ontology founded on the immediate "interagentive" engagement between humans and animals prevailing in hunter-gatherer societies. He opposes our cognitivist and transcendental cosmology of "constructed nature" to a practical, immanent phenomenology of "dwelling" (sensu Heidegger) in an environment. There would be no projection of relations internal to the human world onto the non-social, i.e., natural domain, but rather an immediate inter-specific sociality, at the same time objective and subjective, which would be the primary reality out of which the secondary, reflective differences between humans and animals would emerge.

      Ingold's inspirational (and influential) ideas deserve a discussion I cannot develop here. In my opinion, his perspicacious diagnosis of metaphorical projectionism is better than the cure he propounds. For all their insightfulness, these ideas illustrate the inversion of "particular universalism" I alluded to above. Ingold never makes it quite clear whether he takes Western constructionism to be absolutely false (that is, both unreal and malignant) - I feel he does think so - or just inadequate to describe other "lived worlds," remaining true as the expression of a particular historico-cultural experience. But the real problem lies not with this. My structuralist reflexes make me wince at the primacy accorded to immediate practical-experiential identification at the expense of difference, taken to be a conditioned, mediate and purely "intellectual" (that is, theoretical and abstract) moment. There is here the debatable assumption that commonalities prevail upon distinctions, being superior and anterior to the latter; there is the still more debatable assumption that the fundamental or prototypical mode of relation is identity or sameness. At the risk of having deeply misunderstood him, I would suggest that Ingold is voicing here the recent widespread sentiment against "difference" - a sentiment "metaphorically projected" onto what hunter-gatherers or any available "others" are supposed to experience - which unwarrantably sees it as inimical to immanence, as if all difference were a stigma of transcendence (and a harbinger of oppression). All difference is read as an opposition, and all opposition as the absence of a relation: "to oppose" is taken as synonymous with "to exclude" - a strange idea. I am not of this mind. As far as Amerindian ontologies are concerned, at least, I do not believe that similarities and differences among humans and animals (for example) can be ranked in terms of experiential immediacy, or that distinctions are more abstract or "intellectual" than commonalities: both are equally concrete and abstract, practical and theoretical, emotional and intellectual, etc. True to my structuralist habitus, however, I persist in thinking that similarity is a type of difference; above all, I regard identity or sameness as the very negation of relatedness.

      The idea that humans and animals share personhood is a very complicated one: it would be entirely inadequate to interpret it as if meaning that humans and animals are "essentially the same" (and only "apparently" different). It rather means that humans and animals are, each on their own account, not the same - they are internally divided or entangled. Their common personhood or humanity is precisely what permits that their difference to be an inclusive, internal relation. The primordial immanence of myth (never lost, ever threatening) is not absence of difference, but rather its pervasive operation in a "molecular" mode (Deleuze & Guattari 1980), as difference not yet "molarized," i.e., speciated. Immanence is not sameness, it is infinite difference: it is (molar) difference preempted by (molecular) difference.

      Among the questions remaining to resolve, therefore, is the one of knowing whether animism can be described as a figurative use of categories pertaining to the human-social domain to conceptualise the domain of non-humans and their relations with the former, and if not, then how should we interpret it. The other question is: if animism depends on the attribution (or recognition) of human-like cognitive and sensory faculties to animals, and the same form of subjectivity, that is if animals are "essentially" human, then what in the end is the difference between humans and animals? If animals are people, then why do they not see us as people? Why, to be precise, the perspectivism? We might also ask if the notion of contingent corporeal forms (clothing) is properly described in terms of an opposition between appearance and essence. Finally, if animism is a way of objectifying nature in which the dualism of nature/culture does not hold, then what is to be done with the abundant indications regarding the centrality of this opposition to South American cosmologies? Are we dealing with just another "totemic illusion," if not with a naive projection of our Western dualism? Is it possible to make a more than synoptic use of the concepts of nature and culture, or are they merely "blanket labels" (Descola 1996) to which Levi-Strauss appealed in order to organise the multiple semantic contrasts in American mythologies, these contrasts being irreducible to a single massive dichotomy?

      Ethnocentrism, or the rejection thesis

      In a well-known essay, Levi-Strauss observed that for savages, humanity ceases at the boundary of the group, a notion which is exemplified by the widespread auto-ethnonym meaning "real humans," which in turn implies a definition of strangers as somehow pertaining to the domain of the extra-human. Therefore, ethnocentrism would not be the privilege of the West, but a natural ideological attitude, inherent to human collective life. The author illustrates the universal reciprocity of this attitude with an anecdote:

      In the Greater Antilles, some years after the discovery of America, whilst the Spanish were dispatching inquisitional commissions to investigate whether the natives had a soul or not, these very natives were busy drowning the white people they had captured in order to find out, after lengthy observation, whether or not the corpses were subject to putrefaction. (1973 [1952]: 384)

      From this parable, Levi-Strauss derives the famous paradoxical moral: "The barbarian is first and foremost the man who believes in barbarism," which, as Aron (1973) noted, may be taken to imply that the anthropologist is the only non-barbarian on the face of the earth. Some years later, in Tristes Tropiques, Levi-Strauss (1955: 82-83) was to retell the case of the Antilles, but this time he underlined the asymmetry of the perspectives: in their investigations of the humanity of the Other, whites appealed to the social sciences, whereas the Indians founded their observations in the natural sciences; and if the former concluded that Indians were animals, the latter were content to suspect that the whites were divinities. "In equal ignorance," says our author, the latter attitude was more worthy of human beings.

      The anecdote reveals something else, as we shall see; something which Levi-Strauss came close to formulating in the Tristes Tropiques version. But its general point is quite obvious: the Indians, like the European invaders, consider that only the group to which they belong incarnates humanity; strangers are on the other side of the border which separates humans from animals and spirits, culture from nature and supernature. As matrix and condition for the existence of ethnocentrism, the nature/culture opposition appears to be a universal of social apperception.

      At the time when Levi-Strauss was writing these lines, the strategy for vindicating the full humanity of savages was to demonstrate that they made the same distinctions as we do: the proof that they were true humans is that they considered that they alone were the true humans. Like us, they distinguished culture from nature and they too believed that Naturvolker are always the others. The universality of the cultural distinction between Nature and Culture bore witness to the universality of culture as human nature. In sum, the Levi-Straussian answer to the question of the Spanish investigators was positive: savages do have souls. (Note that this question can be read as a sixteenth-century theological version of the "problem of other minds," which continues to this day to feed many a philosophical mouth.)

      But now, in these post-structuralist, ecologically-minded, animal-rights-concerned times, everything has changed. Savages are no longer ethnocentric or anthropomorphic, but rather cosmocentric or cosmomorphic. Instead of having to prove that they are humans because they distinguish themselves from animals, we now have to recognize how in-human we are for opposing humans to animals in a way they never did: for them nature and culture are part of the same sociocosmic field. Not only would Amerindians put a wide berth between themselves and the great Cartesian divide, which separated humanity from animality, but their views anticipate the fundamental lessons of ecology which we are only now in a position to assimilate (as argued by Reichel-Dolmatoff [1976], among many others). Before, the Indians' refusal to concede predicates of humanity to other men was of note; now we stress that they extend such predicates way beyond the frontiers of their own species in a demonstration of "ecosophic" knowledge (the expression is Arhem's [1993]) which we should emulate in as far as the limits of our objectivism permit. Formerly, it had been necessary to combat the assimilation of the savage mind to narcissistic animism, the infantile stage of naturalism, showing that totemism affirmed the cognitive distinction between culture and nature; now, as we have seen, animism is attributed once more to savages, but this time it is proclaimed - though not by Descola, I hasten to note - as the correct (or at least "valid") recognition of the universal admixture of subjects and objects, humans and non-humans, to which we modern Westerners have been blind, because of our foolish, nay, sinful habit of thinking in dichotomies. Against the hubris of modernity, the primitive and post-modern "hybrids," to borrow a term from Latour (1991).[43]

      It looks like we have here an antinomy, or rather two paired antinomies. For either Amerindians are ethnocentrically stingy in the extension of their concept of humanity, and they "totemically" oppose nature and culture; or they are cosmocentric and "animic" and do not profess to such a distinction, being (or so has been argued) models of relativist tolerance, postulating a multiplicity of points of view on the world.[44]

      I believe that the solution to these antinomies lies not in favouring one branch over the other, sustaining, for example, the argument that the most recent characterization of Amerindian attitudes is the correct one and relegating the other to the outer darkness of pre-afterological anthropology. Rather, the point is to show that the thesis as well as the antithesis of both antinomies are true (both correspond to solid ethnographic intuitions), but that they apprehend the same phenomena from different angles; and also it is to show that both are "false" in that they refer to a substantivist conceptualization of the categories of nature and culture (whether it be to affirm or negate them) which is not applicable to Amerindian cosmologies.

      The subject as such: from substantive to perspective

      Let us return to the observation by Levi-Strauss about the widespread character of those ethnic self-designations which would mean "real humans" or some suchlike myopic conceit. The first thing to be considered is that the Amerindian words which are usually translated as "human being" and which figure in those self-designations do not denote humanity as a natural species, that is, Homo sapiens. They refer rather to the social condition of personhood, and - especially when they are modified by intensifiers such as "true," "real," "genuine" - they function less as nouns then as pronouns. They indicate the position of the subject; they are enunciative markers, not names. Far from manifesting a semantic shrinking of a common name to a proper name (taking "people" to be the name of the tribe), these words move in the opposite direction, going from substantive to perspective (using "people" as a collective pronoun "we people/us"; the modifiers we translate by adjectives like "real" or "genuine" seem to function much like self-referential emphases of the type "we ourselves"). For this very reason, indigenous categories of identity have that enormous variability of scope that characterizes pronouns, marking contrastively Ego's immediate kin, his/her local group, all humans, humans and some animal species, or even all beings conceived as potential subjects: their coagulation as "ethnonyms" seems largely to be an artefact of interactions with ethnographers and other identity experts such as colonial administrators. Nor is it by chance that the majority of Amerindian ethnonyms which entered the literature are not self-designations, but rather names (frequently pejorative) conferred by other groups: ethnonymic objectivation is primordially applied to others, not to the ones in the position of subject. Ethnonyms are names of third parties, they belong to the category of "they," not to the category of "we."[45] This, by the way, is consistent with a widespread avoidance of self-reference on the level of onomastics: personal names are not spoken by their bearers nor in their presence; to name is to externalise, to separate (from) the subject.[46]

      Thus self-references such as "people" mean "person," not "member of the human species"; and they are personal pronouns registering the point of view of the subject talking, not proper names. To say, then, that animals and spirits are people, is to say that they are persons, and to personify them is to attribute to non-humans the capacities of conscious intentionality and agency which define the position of the subject. Such capacities are objectified as the soul or spirit with which these non-humans are endowed. Whatever possesses a soul is a subject, and whatever has a soul is capable of having a point of view. Amerindian souls, be they human or animal, are thus indexical categories, cosmological deictics whose analysis calls not so much for an animist psychology or substantialist ontology as for a theory of the sign or a perspectival pragmatics. (In a previous version of this argument, I used the expression "epistemological pragmatics" where now I prefer to talk of perspectival pragmatics. This is because in the meantime I developed a deep mistrust of "epistemological" interpretations of Amerindian ontological tenets.)

      So, every being to whom a point of view is attributed would be a subject; or better, wherever there is a point of view there is a subject position. Whilst our constructionist epistemology can be summed up in the Saussurean formula: the point of view creates the object - the subject being the original, fixed condition whence the point of view emanates - Amerindian perspectival ontology proceeds along the lines that the point of view creates the subject; whatever is activated or "agented" by the point of view will be a subject.[47]

      This is why terms such as wari' (a Txapakuran word), masa (a Tukanoan word) or dene (an Athapaskan word) mean "people," but they can be used for - and therefore used by - very different classes of beings: used by humans they denote human beings; but used by peccaries, howler monkeys or beavers, they self-refer to peccaries, howler monkeys or beavers (Vilaca 1992; Arhem 1993; McDonnell 1984).

      As it happens, however, these non-humans placed in the subject perspective do not merely "call" themselves "people"; they see themselves anatomically and culturally as humans. The symbolic spiritualisation of animals would imply its imaginary hominisation and culturalisation; thus the anthropomorphic-anthropocentric character of indigenous thought would seem to be unquestionable. However, I believe that something quite different is at issue. Any being which vicariously occupies the point of view of reference, being in the position of subject, sees itself as a member of the human species. The human bodily form and human culture - the schemata of perception and action "embodied" in specific dispositions - are deictics, pronominal markers of the same type as the self-designations discussed above. They are reflexive or apperceptive schematisms ("reifications" sensu Strathern) by which all subjects apprehend themselves, and not literal and constitutive human predicates projected metaphorically (i.e., improperly) onto non-humans. Such deictic "attributes" are immanent in the viewpoint, and move with it. Human beings - naturally - enjoy the same prerogative and therefore see themselves as such: "Human beings see themselves as such; the Moon, the snakes, the jaguars and the Mother of Smallpox, however, see them as tapirs or peccaries, which they kill" (Baer 1994: 224).

      We need to have it quite clear: it is not that animals are subjects because they are humans (humans in disguise), but rather that they are human because they are subjects (potential subjects). This is to say culture is the subject's nature; it is the form in which every subject experiences its own nature. Animism is not a projection of substantive human qualities cast onto animals, but rather expresses the logical equivalence of the reflexive relations that humans and animals each have to themselves: salmon are to (see) salmon as humans are to (see) humans, namely, (as) human. If, as we have observed, the common condition of humans and animals is humanity not animality, this is because "humanity" is the name for the general form taken by the subject.

      Let me make two remarks by way of conclusion. The attribution of human-like consciousness and intentionality (to say nothing of human bodily form and cultural habits) to non-human beings has been indifferently denominated "anthropocentrism" or "anthropomorphism." However, these two labels can be taken to denote radically opposed cosmological outlooks. Western popular evolutionism, for instance, is thoroughly anthropocentric, but not particularly anthropomorphic. On the other hand, animism may be characterized as anthropomorphic, but it is definitely not anthropocentric: if sundry other beings besides humans are "human," then we humans are not a special lot. So much for primitive "narcissism."

      Marx wrote of man, meaning Homo sapiens:

      In creating an objective world by his practical activity, in working-up inorganic nature, man proves himself a conscious species being. . . . Admittedly animals also produce. . . . But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, while man produces universally. . . . An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of nature. . . . An animal forms things in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance to the standards of other species. (Marx 1961: 75-76 apud Sahlins 1996: 400 n. 17)

      Talk about "primitive" narcissism. Whatever Marx meant by this idea that man "produces universally," I would like to think he is saying something to the effect that man is the universal animal - an intriguing idea. (If man is the universal animal, then perhaps each animal species would be a kind of particular humanity?). While apparently converging with the Amerindian notion that humanity is the universal form of the subject, Marx's is in fact an absolute inversion of it: he is saying that humans can "be" any animal - that we have more being than any other species - whilst Amerindians say that "any" animal can be human - that there is more being to an animal than meets the eye. "Man" is the universal animal in two entirely different senses, then: the universality is anthropocentric in the case of Marx, and anthropomorphic in the Amerindian case.[48]

      The second remark takes us back to the relationship between animism and totemism. I have just said that animism should be taken as expressing the logical equivalence of the reflexive relations that humans and animals each have to themselves. I then proposed, as an example, that salmon are to salmon as humans to humans, namely, human. This was inspired by Guedon's paragraph on Tsimshiam cosmology:

      If one is to follow the main myths, for the human being, the world looks like a human community surrounded by a spiritual realm, including an animal kingdom with all beings coming and going according to their kinds and interfering with each others' lives; however, if one were to go and become an animal, a salmon for instance, one would discover that salmon people are to themselves as human beings are to us, and that to them, we human beings would look like naxnoq [supernatural beings], or perhaps bears feeding on their salmon. Such translation goes through several levels. For instance, the leaves of the cotton tree falling in the Skeena River are the salmon of the salmon people. I do not know what the salmon would be for the leaf, but I guess they appear what we look like to the salmon - unless they looked like bears. (1984a: 141)

      Therefore, if salmon look to salmon as humans to humans - and this is "animism" - salmon do not look human to humans and neither do humans to salmon - and this is "perspectivism."

      If such is the case, then animism and perspectivism may have a deeper relationship to totemism than Descola's model allows for. Why do animals (I recall that by "animals" I always mean: each animals species) see themselves as humans? Precisely because humans see them as animals, and see themselves as humans. Peccaries cannot see themselves as peccaries (and then speculate that humans and other beings are really peccaries behind their species-specific clothing) because this is the guise in which peccaries are seen by humans.[49] If humans see themselves as humans and are seen as non-human (as animals or spirits) by animals, then animals must necessarily see themselves as humans. Such asymmetrical torsion of animism contrasts in an interesting way with the symmetry exhibited by totemism. In the case of animism, a correlation of reflexive identities (human : human :: animal : animal) serves as the substrate for the relation between the human and animal series; in the case of totemism, a correlation of differences (human ≠ human :: animal ≠ animal) articulates the two series. It is curious to see how a correlation of differences (the differences are identical) can produce a reversible and symmetric structure, while a correlation of similarities (similarities differ, for animals are similar to humans because they are not humans) produces the asymmetric and pseudo-projective structure of animism.

      37 Descola's inspirational articles on Ameridian "animism" were one of the proximate causes of my interest in perspectivism.

      38 To remain on an Americanist ground, I might mention: the rejection of a privileged position for metaphor by Overing (1985), in favour of a relativist literalism which seems to be supported by the notion of belief; the theory of dialectical synecdoche as being anterior and superior to metaphoric analogy, proposed by Turner (1991), an author who like other specialists (Seeger 1981, Crocker 1985) has attempted to contest the interpretations of the nature/culture dualism of the Ge-Bororo as being a static opposition, privative and discrete; or the reconsideration by Viveiros de Castro (1992a) of the contrast between totemism and sacrifice in the light of the Deleuzian concept of becoming, which seeks to account for the centrality of the processes of ontological predation in Tupian cosmologies, as well as for the directly social (and not specularly classificatory) character of interactions between the human and extra-human orders.

      39 "If in a commodity economy things and persons assume the social form of things, then in a gift economy they assume the social form of persons" (Strathern 1988: 134 [from Gregory 1982: 41]). The parallels are obvious.

      40 Let me say I have nothing against typologies as such, which I deem an important step in anthropological reasoning: typologies are like rules - we need them in order to break them. And butterfly collecting is a most honourable and rewarding occupation - if carried with ecological circumspection - unjustly reviled by one of our eminent forebears.

      41 Totemic orderings can also be found in combination with naturalist schemes, as shown by modern genetics and its correlations between genotypical and phenotypical differences (the "more natural" series of the genome and the "more cultural" series of its expressions), or by linguistics - the formal model of Levi-Straussian totemism - with its vast repertoire of differential correlations between signifier and signified, physico-acoustical and mental-conceptual series, etc.

      42 In the article referred to above, Radcliffe-Brown also proposed, in contrast to the Durkheimian idea of a “projection of society into external nature,” that “the process is one by which, in the fashioning of culture, external nature, so called, comes to be incorporated in the social order as an essential part of it” (1952: 130–31). This is an interesting anti-metaphorical remark, which Lévi-Strauss (1962a: 84–89) interpreted quite unfairly as a kind of utilitarian argument. Radcliffe-Brown’s point reappears almost verbatim in Goldman (who does not mention Radcliffe-Brown’s article): “To Durkheim . . . it was easy to imagine that ‘primitive’ people projected their own natures onto the rest of nature. It is far more likely that Homo sapiens sought to understand himself and all other realms of nature through a dialectic of interchange, of understanding the outer world in terms of his own nature and his own nature in terms of the outer. If Kwakiutl attribute human qualities to the grizzly bear, they have also learned to define and to regulate their own qualities of physical strength and fearlessness in terms of their knowledge of the bear. . . . Kwakiutl do not merely project themselves on the outer world. They seek to incorporate it.” (1975: 208; emphasis added).

      43 Latour has provided here only the term, not the target: I do not intend his work to be identified with anything I say in this paragraph. By the way, there is another familiar variant of this change in the way "we" think "they" think. At the time La pensee sauvage was written, it was deemed necessary to assert, and to provide abundant illustration thereto, that primitive peoples were endowed with a theoretical cast of mind, showing an authentic speculative interest in reality - they were not moved by their bellies and other such purely practical considerations. But this was when "theory" was not a word of abuse. Now, of course, everything has changed. These peoples have returned to practice; not, it goes without saying, to practice because of an incapacity for theory (well, the "oral vs. written" or the "cosmological disorder" schools would disagree here), but to practice as anti-theory. Be that as it may, not all contemporary primitive peoples seem to agree with our current interest in practice; perhaps because they are no longer primitive (but have they ever been?). So, in Fienup-Riordan's latest book (1994: xiii), we can read the following introductory remark from a Yup'ik man: "You white people always want to know about the things we do, but it is the rules that are important."

      44 The uncomfortable tension inherent in such antinomies can be gauged in Howell's recent article (1996) on the Chewong of Malaysia. Chewong cosmology is paradoxically - but the paradox is not noticed - described as "relativist" (p.133) and as "after all . . . anthropocentric" (p.135). A double mislabelling, at least if carried to the Amerindian universe.

      45 An interesting transformation of the refusal to onomastic self-objectification can be found in those cases in which, since the collective-subject is taking itself to be part of a plurality of collectives analogous to itself, the self-referential term signifies "the others." This situation occurs primarily when the term is used to identify collectives from which the subject excludes itself: the alternative to pronominal subjectification is an equally relational auto-objectification, where "I" can only mean "the other of the other": see the achuar of the Achuar, or the nawa of the Panoans (Taylor 1985: 168; Erikson 1990: 80-84). The logic of Amerindian auto-ethnonymy calls for its own specific study. For other revealing cases, see: Vilaca (1992: 449-51), Price (1987), and Viveiros de Castro (1992a: 64-65). For an enlightening analysis of a North American case similar to the Amazonian ones, see McDonnell (1984: 41-43).

      46 It has become quite fashionable to drop traditional Amerindian ethnonyms, usually names given by other tribes or by whites, in favour of more politically correct ethnic self-designations. The problem, however, is that self-designations are exactly this, self-designations, which when used by foreigners produce the most ludicrous referential problems. Take the case of the Campa, who call themselves "ashaninka," and who accordingly are now called "Ashaninka" by well-meaning NGO people (I thank P. Gow for this example). The root shaninca means "kinsperson"; ashaninca means "our kinspeople." This is what Campa people call themselves as a collectivity when contrasting themselves to others, like viracocha, "Whites," simirintsi, "Piro," etc. It is easy to imagine how strange it may sound to the Campa to be called "our kinspeople" by a viracocha, a white person, who is anything but a relative. It is more or less like if I were to call my friend Stephen "I," because that's what he calls himself, while "Stephen" is a name which someone else gave to him, and which other people, rather more frequently than he himself, use to refer to him.

      47 This idea comes from Deleuze's book on Leibniz (1988: 27): "Such is the foundation of perspectivism. It does not express a dependency on a predefined subject; on the contrary, whatever accedes to the point of view will be subject." The Saussurean formula appears on the beginning of the Cours de linguistique generale.

      48 Be that as it may, Marx's notion of an universal animal - capable of "producing in accordance with the standards of other species" (whatever this means) - is an accurate anticipation of another universal metaphorical being. I am referring of course to the universal machine, the machine capable of simulating (i.e., re-producing) any other machine: the Turing-Von Neumann computer.

      49 This would be our version of "perspectivism," namely, the critical stance regarding anthropomorphism (here crucially and mistakenly conflated with anthropocentrism) as a form of projection. It was advanced two and half millenia ago by Xenophanes, who memorably said (though what he meant is very much open to debate) that if horses or oxen or lions had hands, they would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, oxen or lions - a point which reappears under many guises in Western tradition, from Aristotle to Spinoza, from Hume to Feuerbach, Marx, Durkheim, etc. Characteristically, our problem with "anthropomorphism" relates to the projection of humanity into divinity, not animality.

    • end presentation
    • performative publishing
    • postgraduate program
    • it's not me, is it? 23 May 2014
      posted by: Elke van Campenhout
    • Maite Liébana Vena, Julia Clever, Daniel Kok, Gaja Karolczak, Carolina Goradesky
    • 23 May 2014
    • case of: Miriam Hempel
    • it's not me, is it?

      What is the relation between the researcher and his research, between the artist and the world, between the body and the body of work? Today’s ideology of contemporary arts condemns the narcissism of the artist-genius as as an old-fashioned marketing strategy that affirms rather than critiques the status quo.

      price: 2 euro

      But nobody probably doubts that the quality of an artistic research is largely dependent on the individual desire of the researcher, on the spark of necessity that turn mere research data into a work of genuine reflection. In an invitation that has the power to instigate interest and a dialogue that extends beyond the safe limits of the research environment.

      In this booklet we look into the work of five artist researchers: Daniel Kok, Gaja Karolczak, Julia Clever, Carolina Goradesky and Maité Liébana Vena. In their (very diverse) cases, each of them explores a possible strategy to deal with the ‘I’ of the researcher: as a ‘problem’ to address the needs of the European community and rethink the public as a simultaneous singular and plural body (Daniel Kok). As a constantly shape-shifting ground for the experience of the phantom body (Gaja Karolczak). As a foreigner in search for spatial re-cognition (Carolina Goradesky). As a performer healing the self through dialoguing with a plant, inviting the spectator to share in the experience (Maité Liébana Vena). Or as a discrete witness to the playing out of History in WWII reenactments (Julia Clever).

      All of them put their bodies and self-constructions at risk, expose themselves as historically, geographically, racially or otherwise bent relational territories on which the larger narratives of aesthetics and politics cross and intertwine. Their stories in all their small-scale intensity are mirroring fragments of larger forces that can not so easily be grasped or experienced: the violent manipulations of commerce, migration, politics and global economics. But especially also the artificial - because always mediated, manipulated and accidental - coming-into-being of the self. 

      This booklet contains artistic statements of all of the artists, as well as individual interviews on their relation to the topic





APPLY TO THE A.PASS PROGRAMMES

Unfortunately we no longer have applications. Both programs: the Postgraduate as well as Research Center have come to an end due to the decision of the ministry of education to stop financing a.pass. At the moment we look into new plans for the future. More news soon on our website.

Alternativly you can upload your Research proposal, Portfolio, CV and other documents here.

Maximum file size: 50 MB, maximum 5 files.

X  

add file..


Open Call



Contact person.


Every application will be offered a copy while stocks last of the a.pass publication In These Circumstances: a collection of methodologies, insights, experiences, ideas, researches from 15 years of a.pass. If you like to receive a copy then please provide an address below.




We request you to upload all materials combined in 1 PDF - please name each chapter clearly :

Upload your file(s) here:
X  

add file..


SIGN UP TO EVENT
selected :
yes
no
ex-participant


ORDER