Interfacing Realities

This is the original HTML-page with the text of the presentation of V2_ at dX (Documenta X) in Kassel on 21 August 1997.

Interfacing Realities

Presentation at 100 Guests series, dX, Kassel 21.8.1997

- Introduction
- V2_Organisation, the Institute for the Unstable Media
- V2's theoretical framework
- V2's interest in Technology
- Acceleration and networks
- Art and the Unstable Media
- TechnoMorphica
- Machinic Aesthetics
- Interfacing Realities

Alex Adriaansens


Some months ago, during a visit to Rotterdam, Catherine David kindly invited the V2_Organisation to present a new book project which we have been working on for a while, here at the documenta in Kassel. The book deals with the metaphors that are being used to design the virtual worlds in electronic networks, and about the interfaces that connect the virtual with the actual world. Interfaces offer us an opportunity to act in these worlds.

A presentation by Carla Hoekendijk, one of the producers of the book, will follow later. As the book has a rather specific topic, we first want to acquaint you with the framework of themes and concepts within which V2_Organisation is working, and what its interests are in the field of technology, art and society.

This introduction will be presented in two parts. First I will give a general introduction to the work and the motives of the V2_Organisation, and then Andreas Broeckmann, who also works for V2, will talk about a number of more specific projects and themes which we have dealt with recently. The video material and the slides that you will be seeing are from projects that have been presented by V2. They will help to support our presentation visually.


V2_Organisation, the Institute for the Unstable Media

V2_Organisation is a Rotterdam-based artists organisation which, from its beginnings in 1981, has been engaged with the relationship between art, technology and society. It emerged from the wish of a group of young artists to create a platform that was different from the self-referential and strictly organised art circles. The art world had little to do with the personal experiences of these artists who came mainly from the first generation of techno-pop youths and who grew up in a world dominated by the media which make little or no distinction between high and low culture. For them, the media had become part of everyday reality, but little of this reality could be found back in the art circles which mainly legitimised art through theoretical discussions on the ontology of the arts.

On the screen you can see the logo of the V2_Organisation. The sub-title of the organisation is the 'Institute for the Unstable Media', a phrase that derives from the Manifesto for the Unstable Media which was published in 1987. That manifesto was a paradox in terms of form as well as in terms of the content, as it had the definitive form of a written manifesto, while dealing with instability as a creative factor in thinking about and working with media technology. (You can see the manifesto projected on the screen.)

The manifesto introduces instability as intrinsic to social and cultural processes, both of which are viewed as heterogeneous rather than homogeneous. The manifesto affirms the dynamic character of society and culture. Instead of placing differences and anomalies within a larger, homogeneous context, it sees these differences as determining for relations and interactions in a wider context.

The manifesto is, as you may be able to see, an almost intuitive summing-up of remarks and observations about which a lot could be said, including its speed and incompleteness, but at the time it was a statement that we wanted to put out in this very form.

In 1987, the general reaction was that the term instability had a negative connotation because it was opposed to the idea that continuity and homogeneity are the determining factors for understanding social processes. The 19th-century museums, for example, present art as an almost logical sequence of innovations in stijls and movements wherein art can be seen as an homogeneous field.

In 1997, the word unstable will be approached differently, and certainly in the context of technology. For many it is now related to complex and dynamic processes which rule not only culture and society, but also technological, economic and natural processes.


V2's theoretical framework

V2_Organisation is an interdisciplinary centre which presents art as a process in which people from different disciplines work together on projects, focusing on specific topics which more or less directly deal with the relation between man and machine.

Working with media technology immediately places the artist in a complex relational field, because this technology always has social and cultural as well as economic and political aspects. To a certain degree, media technology defines our position in relation to these areas. Through the electronic machines we constantly re-organise these relations and thus construct ever new realities. Technology can't be looked at as an isolated phenomenon.

We define reality in order to have something to hold on to, it ensures that we do not lose orientation and drift off into chaos. Reality in this sense creates a certainty about what we can construct and what we can imagine. The extension and the redesigning of reality by constructing computer-based network environments and virtual worlds by means of media, then, is also related to our need to articulate the changing social and cultural environment.

The kind of reinvention of our approach to reality was much more carefree in 1987 than it can be today. The current situation allows and demands a much more specific investigation of, for instance, a term like interactivity and its meaning in different contexts of art and art reception. The exploration of the specific qualities of different media within their socio-cultural contexts is therefore a recurring feature of our projects. The programme called Machine Aesthetics, which V2 presented in Rotterdam last June and which dealt with the aesthetic dimensions of independent machine agency, is a direct result of such explorations. Andreas is going to talk some more about this topic in a moment.

Since 1992 we have been working on annual themes which we define and then elaborate in a series of programmes and projects which together form a sort of statement or research. In 1993 this was a series under the title The Body in Ruin, during which the body was investigated in relation to today's technological society. The programmes dealt with the makeability and the transformability of the human body, and with the construction and ruptures of identity.

[VIDEO: Erik Hobijn: Delusion of Self-Immolation, 3 min]

In 1994 and 1995 we dealt with the themes of Generated Nature and Interfacing Realities - both of these will be addressed later on in this presentation.


V2's interest in Technology

V2's interest in technology and art is closely related to the overwhelming role that technology plays in shaping and understanding contemporary forms of subjectification, and to the way in which the subject acts in the complex processes of which it forms part. Technology has become a prime element in the way we organise our environment. For many of us the media have become the windows to the world through which we stay in contact and interact with others. Such media construct new social and cultural contexts which determine a growing segment of our everyday reality.

As you can tell, the question of reality plays an important role in the theoretical framework of our current work. As Vilém Flusser once remarked, the question of reality is at sometimes put forward with greater urgency than at others. By reality I here mean the current understanding that we have of ourselves in relation to our environment. Extending and shaping this reality is currently, at least in part, taking place through the construction of network environments and virtual worlds.

I deliberately speak of only one reality and want to make no distinction between reality and virtual reality. The one reality which I am talking about is the point where different potential realities and virtualities meet, intersect or overlap. Reality is here an ocean of information in which the individual is positioned at the centre and where all the waves move towards the individual. The waves further away are more potential realities, while the closer they get the more real they become. As the waves overlap and flow over each other, ever new and unexpected realities can emerge. And as one wave approaches, it is already followed by the next one, so that there will never be one ultimate and definitive reality. - The metaphor of the ocean and the waves suggests that we might not have an influence on the way in which reality presents itself to us. But even though this may be partly true, it is more important for us to realise the possibility of throwing stones into the water.

For comprehending the way in which reality emerges, it is important to understand better the relations between the digital and actual domain. So let me proceed to talk about the relation and interaction between the city and the electronic networks, the Digital Territories, which were the topic of last year's presentations.

(VIDEO: Paul Virilio interview, ca. 4 min)

We have been looking at the urban and virtual domain as social, cultural and political spaces and looked at the way in which certain ideological models are transported from one to the other terrain. What are the specific qualities and relations of these different environments, and how do computer networks and the city mutually affect each other?

Such questions are also recurring in this year's programmes, because the topic is so wide and multi-facetted that it warrants our continued attention. The programmes provide an analysis of the mediatisation of modern industrial cities and, as Saskia Sassen calls it, the Global City, and they look at the populations and the individual whose positions are constantly changed under the influence of media and communication technologies. Digital Territories, then, is also an inquiry into the formation of individual experience in the exchange between virtual and actual worlds.

[VIDEO: Cortex: sense:less (4 min)]

Computer networks present us with a 'space' that can no longer be described in terms of Euclidean mathematics: everything and everyone is omnipresent, things that are far away seem close and things that are close seem far away. 'Locality' only manifests itself at the outer end of the network where we log in, but its meaning changes by being logged in. These networks have caused an ever increasing fusion and confusion of public and private domains.

The interaction between computer networks and the city takes place on many levels. It is a complex field of links, that continually show new formations and condensations of social and cultural relations in both spaces.

As a result of the industrial revolution, large industrial cities have emerged in the past 150 years. Technological innovation applied to the realization of ideals is one of the characteristics of this industrial revolution. Herein, the self-realization and self-determination of the individual are key concepts. These ideals are pursued by attempting to gain control over the environment. Applying technology is increasingly important in this context, as it renders the world 'makeable' and controllable. But technology is ambivilant and the technoknife cuts on two sides. While gaining control over our environment it also present us with an environment of growing complexity.

So simultaneously with the rise of large industrial cities we see a strong fragmentation of the city and the urban community. The fragmentation of a world view in a general sense had begun long before with the onset of modern reductive science, but through language and technology we are now able to construct reality from these fragments.

The city is a matrix of varying structures and relations. These express themselves in the city's infrastructure, architecture and design that among them constitute the territory of the urban environment. It has become a field of force with constantly changing centers of gravity and a scarcely defined core, much like a hypertext in which temporary connections exist between many points and many developments. A world of variables with complexity and chance as its underlying structure.


Acceleration and networks

People are connected in time and space. Their relationships are shaped by the organization and experience of time and space. Until almost a centry ago, this experience was defined by our physical movements. Communication technologies like radio and television have changed this dramatically, placing the individual in a totally different context, in a world that is forever coming towards us without the need for us to move ourselves. 'Place and time' that form the context of the sounds and images that come to us through the electronic media are not the same 'time and place' in which the viewer or listener is moving physically. The computer networks that we see arise in the last years are even more extreme if we talk about time and space and the experience of the subject in understanding reality. They offer us the timeless, spaceless virtual environments of digital networks. The context of words, images and sounds seems to have been completely lost here as they don't fall in the somehow continuous context of our physical experiences in time time and space.

The impact of digital networks is felt in the dissociation of individual experience that no longer is solely formed by the physical time and space continuum. This leaves the individual in a fragmented world with a complex structure, and redefines the way in which individual experience comes about. The individual, being active in the networks, has become both receiver and transmitter, constantly switching among many frequencies, in a continually changing matrix of connections between fragments. The individual's articulation of experience and perception in time and space are discontinuous here. Language and media are the tools with which to construct our reality over and over, according our needs and possibilities.

This is not a smooth and homogeneous media reality, but a reality that deals with the complex relations and interrelations between the digital and actual world. It has to be able to offer us an experiential space in which we can act and co-operate or disrupt and oppose.

The artworks that are produced and developed by artists in this field show a wide variety of ideas to deal with the different aspects related to the interfacing of the digital and actual. The arts play an important role in this and offer us insight and possible directions of dealing with this reality by taking into account its specific charateristics in which instability plays such an important role.

Andreas Broeckmann will now show and talk about some of the projects that we have been doing during the last year. Seeing these works will make them somewhat better comprehensable as many of these works have hardly been seen by larger audiences, nor have they been reviewed in a critical sense by the art press.

Andreas Broeckmann

About: Current projects and themes: TechnoMorphica, Machine Aesthetics, Interfacing Realities


Art and the Unstable Media

When developing the programmes at V2_Organisation, we frequently start out with a theoretical or practical question that emerges out of the discourse and the practical experience of working with technologies today. The Body In Ruin, for instance, which was our annual theme in 1993, tackled the question of the precarious relationship between the human body and technology. And in the following year, 1994, we did a number of projects about artificial life forms and a new, technologically induced evolution under the title Generated Nature. Without sticking to these themes too slavishly in our programming, we try to develop series of exhibitions, presentations, lectures, performances, workshops and publications, which explore the themes in different directions. Each of these programmes stands on its own as a public event, but the preparation as well as the actual presentation of these projects then form a kind of research programme which we organise for ourselves, and which we also invite our audience to follow.

The problems that we are dealing with always have different facets, they combine aesthetic and technological with social, economic and political enquiries. Our fascination is very much with the shifting borders between the social, the artistic and the technological. How do artists deal with a certain new, socio-technical phenomenon like the global data networks? How do industrial companies react to the idiosyncratic ideas and demands of people who automatically pick up a screw driver when they see a computer, in order to see what its intestines are? And how do you find a new aesthetic language in a world where the tools of engaging with that world are changing as fast as today? What are the anthropological consequences of the construction, in only the last hundred years, of the cinematograph, the automobile, nuclear submarines, space flight, public radio and television, digital computers and computer networks, genetic engineering and the human genome project, and so on? What is the meaning of humanistic ideas about the individual and its place in the world at a time when the triangle of work, language and biology, which heralded the `birth' of Man around 1800, is under serious reconstruction? Human work is taken over by robots and computers; human language is losing distinction as a cultural signifier and is juxtaposed with a series of socially influential machinic languages like PERL, UNIX, JAVA, VRML; and human biology is deconstructed and analysed to a degree that the technological fabrication of Unique Human Individuals seems well within reach. How do we conceive of ourselves in a world like this?

The environment in which we live is so heavily formed and reshaped by such technologically derived social, cultural and economic phenomena that the inquiry into these and a host of other questions seems rather urgent. We have chosen to do this in an art context and to focus on media technology and their articulations in different social and cultural arenas. In our work we find that artists dealing with these media technologies are very often able to ask very pertinent questions or find powerful images and metaphors which help to understand the current, over-complex situation. The processual nature of the work of these artists, their collaborative approach, the incessant struggle with the instability of the technological tools and apparatuses, learning to accept a new artistic medium in its specificities and limitations, taking friction and instability of the technology not as an obstruction, but as a necessary quality of our contemporary socio technical environment, the political and ethical dilemmas which frequently occur in dealing with technologies that are, at least partly, heavily coded by the nastiness of the global economic players or local media laws - all these are factors that make our work in the field of art and media technology critically interesting and exciting.

I would like to give you just a few examples of the themes and questions that we have been dealing with in the last year or two. In each of the three cases, I can only raise some of the key issues and show a small number of artistic projects which were developed in relation to these themes. The first is called TechnoMorphica and deals with the dissolution of the boundaries between biological and technological systems. The second is Machinic Aesthetics, which is an inquiry into the aesthetic potentials of autonomous machine agency. And the third one will return us to the problem of the interface and the use of metaphors under the title Interfacing Realities. This will also form an introduction to the final section of our presentation here today, in which Carla Hoekendijk will be talking about our latest book project.



The blurring of borders, their becoming indistinct or even their disappearance between areas which were once distinct and often opposites, appears to be accelerating constantly in our time.
Scientific disciplines overlap more and more. The classical modern distinction, for instance, between the humanities and the natural sciences is replaced by an interdisciplinary approach through which the scientists discover more and more connections between their disciplines. The same is true for the relation between biology and technology, between the living, the organic, and the mechanical in the widest sense. In architecture, in the medical sciences and in the media the notion of inside and outside are merging in relation to buildings, bodies and communication spaces.

Cybernetics, the science of steering and controlling automatic mechanisms and of feedback processes, has over the last fifty years had a crucial influence on the question of the relation between biology and technology, and of the position of humans in this context. Computers and computer-controlled robots which are slowly becoming intelligent, and less and less dependent on human intervention, the related increase in implantations of human, animal and artificial organs, as well as the development of Virtual Reality technology, which allows humans equipped with the necessary instruments to enter Cyberspace, all these are examples for biotechnological applications which have an immediate impact on human existence and the conception of reality.

Ever since the Romantic Age, the relation between human and machine, and the possibility that machines might be able to 'live', has been associated with utopian desires as well as with nightmares. They are based on the vision and reality of the anthropomorphisation of machines, and of the technomorphisation of humans.

According to the French writer Paul Virilio, the more important of these two strands is technomorphisation, the reorganisation of the organic according to the model of intelligent machines. Virilio claims that in our time evolution is entering a technologico-scientific phase. He describes how humans no longer develop through natural processes, but that the human body is being adapted to the age of the absolute speed of electromagnetic waves by means of technological parameters. This metadesign, as Virilio calls it, penetrates the human neurological structure more deeply than older formations. Metadesign regenerates the impulses of neural transmissions in a living subject and thus creates sort of a cognitive ergonomics. The result is a new anaesthetised relation between human and machine. Metadesign is a way of dumbing the infrastructure of human behaviour. Nanotechnological developments, recent developments in robotics research, the discussion about the cyborg, and more generally the phenomenon of hybridisation of natural and artificial elements, all these contribute today to the metadesign of humans.

It becomes clear that the recent technological developments call up important questions about the need to conceive of a new understanding about nature, about humans, and about their notions of self and of reality. Put differently: if biology and technology were in the past understood as opposites, and if together with this binarism the related concepts of life, human and machine are now subject to change, what will take the place of what nature, the human, and the self have been? Our investigations into the theme of TechnoMorphica point us in the direction of a new anthropology which takes into account the irrevocable disappearance of the concept of Man as it has been developed since the eighteenth century, and which can still attempt to find an answer to the question, what we are in our own actuality.

Is technomorphisation a dominant mode of being and becoming of this time? Does technomorphisation reconfigure the impulses of neural transmissions in a living subject and thereby create a sort of cognitive ergonomics? The book publication which has resulted from this line of investigation and which will come out in October this year contains original essays in English and Dutch by people like Paul Virilio, Detlef Linke, Humberto Maturana, Gerburg Treusch-Dieter, Manuel De Landa, Stelarc, Mark Dery, NOX architects, Knowbotic Research, Louis Bec, and others. It explores the terrain in which art and technology are merging and dissolving. It offers both a critical analysis of this new synthesis, and a vision of what its cultural, social and aesthetic consequences might be.

[visuals: video: Stelarc (Ping Body, 1996), NOX video]


Machinic Aesthetics

Today's social environments are fully permeated by technical apparatuses, tools and infrastructures which form complex assemblages of objects, spaces and behaviours. Our bodies are fitted with cyborgian extensions (glasses, walkman, car, elevator, pace-maker), and the way we work, rest and play is intertwined with our machinic environment. We are ourselves part of the machinic assemblages that surround us.

Machine art has, for quite some time, dealt with the technological apparatus as something that is exterior and `other' to the human body. Here, the machine is an autonomous object, or a tool for working on or representing the human body.

The notion of the `machinic' relates not so much to particular technological or mechanical objects connected to or independent from the human body. `Machines' can be social bodies, industrial complexes, or psychological or cultural formations, such as the complex of desires, habits and incentives that create particular forms of collective behaviour in groups of individuals, or the aggregation of materials, instruments, human individuals, lines of communication, rules and conventions that together constitute a company or institution. These are examples for `machines' which are assemblages of heterogeneous parts, aggregations which transform forces, articulate and propel their elements, and force them into a continuous state of transformation and becoming.

As an aesthetic principle, the machinic is associated with process rather than object, with dynamics rather than finality, with instability rather than permanence, with communication rather than representation, with action and with play. The aesthetics of the machinic does not so much concern itself with the intention or result of artistic practices, but with the translations and transformations that occur within a machinic assemblage. For instance, it is not so much interested in the drawing as a representation, but in the transformative processes (cognitive, neurological, anatomical) that occur in a drawing human body and in the drawing as one of the potential result of those processes.

Artists are exploring the machinic in a multiplicity of ways. In Gebhard Sengmüller's TV Poetry (1994), a computer programme scans television images for representations of words, records and re-edits them, and replays them as a stream of `poetic' statements. Daniela Plewe's Muser's Service (1996) is a multi dimensional database of logically interlinked concepts which, on request, produces a sentence as an apparently random, though logically derived pathway through this associative meshwork of words and ideas. Nox's Soft Site (1996) translated the activity of visitors to the DEAF96 website into mutating, ever changing `soft scrapers' growing over a representation of the city of Rotterdam. In Ulrike Gabriel's Terrain (1994) the intensity of the brain waves of a user steers the intensity of light sources which `feed' the light sensors activating artificial bugs. Seiko Mikami's Molecular Informatics (1996) traces the movements of the user's eye and translates them into virtual molecule structures which the user can see as they evolve. For the project Anonymous Muttering (1996), Knowbotic Research have designed an assemblage in which a computer set-up, users at several locations in the urban space, and users on the Internet, can collectively manipulate and perceive a continuous live-stream of digitised audio signals. In the project Refresh (1996), a large group of net artists created webpages which were linked together in a loop by means of a `refresh' command built into each page, so that any visitor of the project would automatically loop through the entire ring.

All these projects make use of the forces and parameters of the machines and limit the aspect of interactivity and control to an input function and the reception, while the actual creative process is delegated to a complex and heterogeneous disposition of forces, codes and functions which are partly determined by the material quality of certain machinic elements (friction), while others result from given programmed or planned processes. The outcome of these machinic processes is characterised by a high degree of unpredictability, although they are seldom random. The heterogenic logic of the machinic creates unpredictable, yet organised results, to which the human user can contribute as one agent among others.

The forces operating within machinic assemblages are not chaotic, but can be described as tendencies. Knowbotic Research claim:

"One should not try to control these tendencies from the outside by discovering their regularities or by evaluating them otherwise. Instead one could develop modes of agency which are based on the understanding that one forms part of the machinic assemblage. Then it is possible to decide whether one wants to cooperate with the dispositive or whether one wants to resist, whether one wants to pick up the tendential forces, amplify or divert them. Obviously one never has full control but always acts in relation to things happening elsewhere in the assemblage. (...) One never rules the system and will never reach a position from where it would be possible to overlook the entire system from the outside."

Artistic practice in this sense is not so much directed at particular results, but describes an attitude which is aimed at the creation of open, operative zones, at preparations towards the facilitation of a process during which temporary events and experiences can take place. Machinic art acts as the facilitation of aggregations of bodies and forces in which no meaningful differentiation can be made between human and machine. The functionality of the machinic itself becomes the core of the aesthetic force it exerts, creating a phylum that does not distinguish between human and machine agency.

In practical applications of the machinic, such as in interface design, computer agents or the development of interactive multi-user environments, the challenge is to devise strategies of coexistence with other forces within the assemblage, of understanding the tendencies of territorialisation and self-organisation which are present in any machinic environment. It is one of the great challenges of artistic practice that deals with such dispositions, to design the integration of machinic tendencies, of aspects of collective creativity and social processes, and to determine the possible and productive degrees of agency and of intervention.

[visuals: video: Knowbotic Research (Anonymous Muttering, 1996), Nicolas Baginsky (Three Sirenes)]


Interfacing Realities

Machines are not merely sophisticated tools devised and used by humans. Their development especially in the modern era has provided ever new perspectives onto and access to the world, machines have served us to transform the world and have shaped our understanding of it. As machines are becoming more important for our lives, the relationship between humans and machines becomes an increasingly relevant factor in social and cultural contexts.

Human-machine interfaces are designed to lay links between human users and mechanical apparatuses. Understood in the broadest sense, the interface is a coded matrix which allows for the communication between different systems. In the case of the human-machine interface, it is determined by the physiological, psychological, and cultural conditions of humans, and by the technical, mechanical and electronic, make-up of machines. Both the human cognitive and sensory apparatus and the mechanical and electronic apparatus of machines are subject to historical, social and cultural conditioning, a fact that makes for a complex map of functions and modes of interaction between the two. Information engineers, confronted with the difficulties of devising a system of interfacial metaphors that can transcend such cultural differentiations, are increasingly collaborating with artists and graphic designers to find viable and creative solutions.

The predominant notion of the interface assumes a dualistic opposition between human individuals and machines. A crucial question is how the human individual with its cognitive apparatus can best learn to interact with machines, and how machines are made to understand what humans want. The interface is conceptualised as a representational screen between human and machine through which they are enabled to communicate with each other: for example, on the remote control of a television set, a series of buttons with coded signs, icons and numbers allows the human user to control the technical apparatus of the tv. Such patterns, codes, or languages, are based on a deep reservoir of historical, cultural and social determinants which were part of human communication long before the computer. The computer, however, appears to radicalise the problem of the interface. In the case of recent computer technology as well as its application in, for instance, medicine or biotechnology, the interface as a separate matrix tends to disappear in favour of an ever closer interlinking of the human body and the machine in increasingly immersive virtual and physical environments.

The commercial and semi-commercial, scientific research and development institutes like to talk about the need for the development of intuitive interfaces between human and machine, between physical and virtual reality. Their work aims at the 'smooth' linking of real and virtual actors. Instead of such intuitive interfaces we should work towards developing counter-intuitive interfaces, interface which make the differences between the clashing systems visible and open them up to human experience. As the Dutch artist Erik Hobijn puts it: "The message should not be: don't feel the pace-maker, but: feel the pace-maker!" The task of artistic practice should not be to smooth over the breaks, but to highlight the cracks and breaks, which allows for the unbounded unfolding of multiplicities. The discussion of interfaces should not stop at the questions of smoothness and comfort, but it should point us towards what Félix Guattari has called 'Heterogenesis', "i.e. a permanent process of re-singularisation. The individuals have at the same time to become ever more solidary and ever more different. - The multiple practices should not only not be homogenised and interconnected [...], but they should sensibly be led into a process of the generation of dissimilarity."

The interface, then, is not only a technical problem, but a problem of how humans represent to themselves their relationship towards a world in which they strive to experience themselves as separate and autonomous individuals. What happens if this separation between the self and its symbolic representation is inverted and the human individual experiences itself as a symbolic representation, or as an interface?

This was a question which we first asked during the symposium of the Dutch Electronic Art Festival in 1995. Out of this symposium developed the idea for a book project which has recently been completed and which is now going to be introduced by Carla Hoekendijk, one of the editors of this project.

[visuals: video: Stacey Spiegel: Crossings (1995), Safe Harbour (1996)]

Carla Hoekendijk


Document Actions
Document Actions
Personal tools
Log in