bi- meets Fully Funded Residencies
bi- is the first international art biennial Milo-Térénez. bi- has no budget, no exhibition venue, no curator, no pavilion, no communication, no competition, no attendants, no entrance fee, no website, no catalogue, no opening, no age limit, no nationality, no experience, no visitors, no opening hours, no institutions, no ambition, no future, unprecedented. bi- offers a recreational space, in two places at different times, conceived as a villégiature. Villegiare, litterary “to be at home”, introduces the paradox of a time and space out of the ordinary but yet familiar, a homey feeling at the end of a journey. It is the invention of a shared moment dedicated to slowness, to an active rejection of any urgency, it is the common creation of a vacant space of enjoyment: generous and productive. |
FFR: bi- residency or artist on vacation, what is bi- exactly?
What was your motivation to start and organize bi-?
E: The story goes like this: Jérôme and me were fed up of applying to open calls (or other applications) that were at the same time standardised and too demanding. Creating a developed application demands a certain amount of work and this work is (almost) always invisible -- therefore not recognised, not remunerated. A work that in most of the cases does not bring to the acceptance in the residencies -- but that's fine.
At the same time there was the wish and need to spend some time with some people -- mostly friends of us or people we briefly met and with whom we wanted to spend some time to get to know each other better. The combination of this wish and the fed-up feeling about residencies in general made us think of the resources we could use and share. We both have a summer house that belongs to our families which is often unused -- one in Brittany, one in Sicily. That has been the first resource we could share easily and very quickly.
So one day we started wondering what the ideal open call would be. We came out with this joky and not demanding open call. At first we wrote it in order to "invite" the people we thought we would enjoy meeting in the residency frame but when we finished it -- and it took us some work -- we wanted to open it up and share it to anyone and see what could happen. We did not expect to receive 75 applications for a residency that only offers accommodation and some meals and therefore asks participants to cover all the other expenses.
J: I completely subscribe to that narrative. Maybe just to add to this, probably from a more personal perspective: I think I'm interested in stating that artists don't have to make art all the time. That there are times when we don't work, and we don't need to justify our activity by the fact that it's always, more or less, related to an art practice; this is a tale that was broadly used to harvest productivity in a neoliberal context. So these residencies became a way of defending this inactivity, while playing with the expectations related to art residencies and art practices. And as a matter of fact, people that joined the residencies seemed perfectly happy with not doing art for a week, and inventing different ways of engaging with others.
E & A: I think on average we re-write the "presentation/definition" text every two to three months which owes the fact that we keep doubting of what we (don't) do and how we (don't) do it. Basically, almost every time we are asked to present bi-, we go back to our previous texts, try to recycle them (to avoid too much work). But then we end up rewriting the existing text towards a slightly different direction which takes double the time since we reflect again on everything. bi- as a series of residencies, started within the framework of a fictional biennale happening in two places (that's where the name bi- comes from: an incomplete biennale); but now it is getting lost in many places, with more people, for example Angeliki who joined bi- around a year ago. There is nothing certain about bi- apart from the desire to welcome the unexpected, in every form and temporal frame.
E: We are always asked what is the difference between bi- and a vacation. I'd say that at the beginning it was not that different. But when we opened it up to strangers something beautiful happened: we were in a place (most of us) did not know, with people that (most of us) did not know. We often say that already this tiny amount of risk to take is what makes bi-. That became also a sort of criteria for the acceptance: if you're willing to take this risk you're probably already ready to partake bi-.
J: Also, I find it interesting to not resolve this uncertainty between definitions. One of the way we formulated that at the beginning was stating all these questions in very literal terms, and see what happens when you take it seriously: deciding that an art residency is simply a time and place where artists reside together. And that what we propose is merely a framework of vacancy, where then everything can happen, without deciding if it should be named art, residency, vacations, work, leisure, otium, meeting, convention…
I also like something that happens in many conversations when I present these residencies outside the art context. People take the "art" aspect of it very seriously actually, while at the same time they point out this fact : "so it is a bit like holidays?" "Yes, why not?". And while many people go on holidays, the fact of inviting strangers and calling it "residency" sounds then problematic, triggers interest, curiosity, or disbelief.
FFR: Your open call sounds too suspicious at the first look. No requirements, no attachments - one can ask themselves what is the catch? Why this format of an open call?
E: The open call is a form we like to explore. We consider it as one of the main expressions of our "work". Its performativity is a strong element: it essentially is a call, if there's no answer it is a failure. The application emails we receive are actually part of the same performative work we then build with other people. Regardless which one we select afterwards or not. Selection criteria are a strong floating issue in our work: not because we are against it in principle (would you blindly unconditionally? invite anyone to "your place"?), but because most of the time we do not have space/time to host all the people we would like to meet! There are many nice people around.
J: Yes this aspect of performativity is very interesting for us. It's an experiment that keeps going in directions we cannot predict, and the format of the "open call", which has its codes and tricks, is a good way of playing with artists expectations while being really clear on what we want to state.
You ask what's the catch: I think that this format allows for some kind of suspicion, that you have to overcome when applying. It looks too easy to be true, but still not everyone dares to take it seriously. As Enrico says, you have to take a small risk and maybe if there is one selection criteria that we know works, it would be this one.
It has an aspect of fiction in it also, some kind of suspension of disbelief: "what if there were a residency asking nothing to artists? what if you could apply by sending a blank email?" The catch is just to believe it and try something.
Another example of the same process: in Brittany, we decided that we wanted to see a folk dance party. There were none happening during the week, so we decided to organise one just by placing hand-written signs stating a place and time. And you could rip a handwritten coupon for "One free drink". No-one dared to try, but we were at the said bar, waiting for people to come with their coupon claiming their drink to offer them one.
E: The catch is both for applicant as much as for the organisers. For the organisers the problem we had to face is to have many mute-funny-opaque-unintelligible applications to deal with. It demanded a lot of work -- 98% of it being internet stalking -- for the jury to make a selection. This is a very important point: because the only resources with whom we started the residency were two houses we could access, we had to select people for the simple reason that we did not have room for everyone who applied. Furthermore, since bi- could also be read as a condition of hospitality, a host has the choice to do so, as much as a guest has the choice of accepting the invitation (in this regard we are kind of wary of the "unconditional hospitality" myth that Derrida formulated). There is a selection even though the very open format often misguides and we often were asked why so.
But the main catch for applicants is the financial one: we did not receive any financial support (for the first 6 chapters) therefore we only offered a shelter and one meal. Participants are asked to fund travel and visa costs and to contribute to the common groceries. This is a crucial point that we keep on discussing since the end of the second chapter in 2018 and we did not solve. We wish to offer thorough funding and ideally a fee for the loitering during the residency. The collaboration with PARADISE AIR in Matsudo is a step towards this direction and we will probably have new elements to reflect on after that experience in October-November 2019.
What was your motivation to start and organize bi-?
E: The story goes like this: Jérôme and me were fed up of applying to open calls (or other applications) that were at the same time standardised and too demanding. Creating a developed application demands a certain amount of work and this work is (almost) always invisible -- therefore not recognised, not remunerated. A work that in most of the cases does not bring to the acceptance in the residencies -- but that's fine.
At the same time there was the wish and need to spend some time with some people -- mostly friends of us or people we briefly met and with whom we wanted to spend some time to get to know each other better. The combination of this wish and the fed-up feeling about residencies in general made us think of the resources we could use and share. We both have a summer house that belongs to our families which is often unused -- one in Brittany, one in Sicily. That has been the first resource we could share easily and very quickly.
So one day we started wondering what the ideal open call would be. We came out with this joky and not demanding open call. At first we wrote it in order to "invite" the people we thought we would enjoy meeting in the residency frame but when we finished it -- and it took us some work -- we wanted to open it up and share it to anyone and see what could happen. We did not expect to receive 75 applications for a residency that only offers accommodation and some meals and therefore asks participants to cover all the other expenses.
J: I completely subscribe to that narrative. Maybe just to add to this, probably from a more personal perspective: I think I'm interested in stating that artists don't have to make art all the time. That there are times when we don't work, and we don't need to justify our activity by the fact that it's always, more or less, related to an art practice; this is a tale that was broadly used to harvest productivity in a neoliberal context. So these residencies became a way of defending this inactivity, while playing with the expectations related to art residencies and art practices. And as a matter of fact, people that joined the residencies seemed perfectly happy with not doing art for a week, and inventing different ways of engaging with others.
E & A: I think on average we re-write the "presentation/definition" text every two to three months which owes the fact that we keep doubting of what we (don't) do and how we (don't) do it. Basically, almost every time we are asked to present bi-, we go back to our previous texts, try to recycle them (to avoid too much work). But then we end up rewriting the existing text towards a slightly different direction which takes double the time since we reflect again on everything. bi- as a series of residencies, started within the framework of a fictional biennale happening in two places (that's where the name bi- comes from: an incomplete biennale); but now it is getting lost in many places, with more people, for example Angeliki who joined bi- around a year ago. There is nothing certain about bi- apart from the desire to welcome the unexpected, in every form and temporal frame.
E: We are always asked what is the difference between bi- and a vacation. I'd say that at the beginning it was not that different. But when we opened it up to strangers something beautiful happened: we were in a place (most of us) did not know, with people that (most of us) did not know. We often say that already this tiny amount of risk to take is what makes bi-. That became also a sort of criteria for the acceptance: if you're willing to take this risk you're probably already ready to partake bi-.
J: Also, I find it interesting to not resolve this uncertainty between definitions. One of the way we formulated that at the beginning was stating all these questions in very literal terms, and see what happens when you take it seriously: deciding that an art residency is simply a time and place where artists reside together. And that what we propose is merely a framework of vacancy, where then everything can happen, without deciding if it should be named art, residency, vacations, work, leisure, otium, meeting, convention…
I also like something that happens in many conversations when I present these residencies outside the art context. People take the "art" aspect of it very seriously actually, while at the same time they point out this fact : "so it is a bit like holidays?" "Yes, why not?". And while many people go on holidays, the fact of inviting strangers and calling it "residency" sounds then problematic, triggers interest, curiosity, or disbelief.
FFR: Your open call sounds too suspicious at the first look. No requirements, no attachments - one can ask themselves what is the catch? Why this format of an open call?
E: The open call is a form we like to explore. We consider it as one of the main expressions of our "work". Its performativity is a strong element: it essentially is a call, if there's no answer it is a failure. The application emails we receive are actually part of the same performative work we then build with other people. Regardless which one we select afterwards or not. Selection criteria are a strong floating issue in our work: not because we are against it in principle (would you blindly unconditionally? invite anyone to "your place"?), but because most of the time we do not have space/time to host all the people we would like to meet! There are many nice people around.
J: Yes this aspect of performativity is very interesting for us. It's an experiment that keeps going in directions we cannot predict, and the format of the "open call", which has its codes and tricks, is a good way of playing with artists expectations while being really clear on what we want to state.
You ask what's the catch: I think that this format allows for some kind of suspicion, that you have to overcome when applying. It looks too easy to be true, but still not everyone dares to take it seriously. As Enrico says, you have to take a small risk and maybe if there is one selection criteria that we know works, it would be this one.
It has an aspect of fiction in it also, some kind of suspension of disbelief: "what if there were a residency asking nothing to artists? what if you could apply by sending a blank email?" The catch is just to believe it and try something.
Another example of the same process: in Brittany, we decided that we wanted to see a folk dance party. There were none happening during the week, so we decided to organise one just by placing hand-written signs stating a place and time. And you could rip a handwritten coupon for "One free drink". No-one dared to try, but we were at the said bar, waiting for people to come with their coupon claiming their drink to offer them one.
E: The catch is both for applicant as much as for the organisers. For the organisers the problem we had to face is to have many mute-funny-opaque-unintelligible applications to deal with. It demanded a lot of work -- 98% of it being internet stalking -- for the jury to make a selection. This is a very important point: because the only resources with whom we started the residency were two houses we could access, we had to select people for the simple reason that we did not have room for everyone who applied. Furthermore, since bi- could also be read as a condition of hospitality, a host has the choice to do so, as much as a guest has the choice of accepting the invitation (in this regard we are kind of wary of the "unconditional hospitality" myth that Derrida formulated). There is a selection even though the very open format often misguides and we often were asked why so.
But the main catch for applicants is the financial one: we did not receive any financial support (for the first 6 chapters) therefore we only offered a shelter and one meal. Participants are asked to fund travel and visa costs and to contribute to the common groceries. This is a crucial point that we keep on discussing since the end of the second chapter in 2018 and we did not solve. We wish to offer thorough funding and ideally a fee for the loitering during the residency. The collaboration with PARADISE AIR in Matsudo is a step towards this direction and we will probably have new elements to reflect on after that experience in October-November 2019.
FFR: Why should an artist apply for bi-? Or why artists should not apply for bi-?
E: If you're lazy, apply; if you like to cook and share a meal, apply; if you like to discuss, apply; if you like to sleep, apply. A: You only need one thing to join bi-: no expectations. If you don't expect a career growth, any visibility nor institutional acknowledgement (always speaking for the right-now) then you are already half-way there. bi- is almost entirely based on human and non-human relationships which to a big extent happens outside the art-world. J: You said it all. |
FFR: In what ways do artists’ residencies in non-art industry context add value to the artists, the possible audience and to the host? (Subquestion: Do you consider yourself a host?; Who is your possible audience, if any?)
J: I'm very suspicious of the fact that anyone outside the art context needs any art to solve problems. The point is that artists are often required to do educational or social work -- which is fine, some do it really well and it can have a great impact, don't get me wrong, and this often gets confused with their art practice. We wanted to escape this bargain, which presents itself as follows: if an art activity is to be valuable in a given context (and therefore receive funding or any sort of support), it would be because of its benefits outside of art for a given audience (add value to the city -- meaning gentrification --, teach something to local population, entertain kids or elders, etc...).
The problem of "adding value" is a central one for me. The whole idea is not so much to create a response, but to propose a certain context that puts it into question. No-one can decide if this art residency is valuable, worth it, interesting or successful in those terms, because it proposes nothing in exchange of anything. We do not sell anything, we don't ask, we don't expect much.
E: I would try to say the same thing from a different perspective. I think the problem is that we consider all this issue in a mercantile exchange point of view that dries out any relation. And this will join the point of "accountability". I don't like the funnel we're put into lately. Because of the ultra-violent financial pressure that states/public entities receive from monetary/financial actors, public funding is constantly reviewed, reduced, asked to be more efficient. And this is presented to the public as a better way to spend their tax money. Therefore if some activity (as an art residency) does not add value (financial and/or symbolic) it is not worth supporting it. This of course is valid only for countable value, and -- on top of that -- of a significant amount in a big scale. I guess bi- tries to dodge all these issues by its small scale, by some attempts to reformulate this notions of value in longer terms and in not do ut des dry exchange.
And then the question of "adding value to the context" is also very tricky. Because if this translates into "contributing to the gentrification of the context", bi- should try to avoid so. Not sure we can. Currently we do bi- in liminal places, which are not included in this fabrication of value for a real-estate exploitation, but we never feel totally safe in what we do. On the other hand, if "adding value to the context" means contributing to independence which is not isolation, solidarity that does not hide a patronage system, an economy that is an ecology, we are for it but whether bi- does contribute to it we are not sure.
J: Yes of course, we are completely open to different kinds of exchange that take place in this minuscule context of the residency.
E: Besides the residencies, bi- exists in public -- even though it is not much noticed -- calls and mostly in conversations. With anyone. Of course bi- exists in the art world but one of the most interesting remarks we hear is when we speak with people that do not work in the art field and say "Oh, so I could partake too?". "Of course".
J: Someone in the last residency remarked that this context blurs the usual positions of artists/audience/hosts, and that's quite true. Many guests proposed to host a residency in the future, and we are all actors and audience of what happens inside the residency. The question of the audience outside is even more blurry: in informal conversation or formal presentation, we adopt the position of a univocal narrator. But what about "guests" telling around that they applied, and what happened in the residency, hence participating in this narrative? What about people in Palermo seeing leaflets inviting to a water fight, and deciding to join, not knowing at all why, who or how?
J: I'm very suspicious of the fact that anyone outside the art context needs any art to solve problems. The point is that artists are often required to do educational or social work -- which is fine, some do it really well and it can have a great impact, don't get me wrong, and this often gets confused with their art practice. We wanted to escape this bargain, which presents itself as follows: if an art activity is to be valuable in a given context (and therefore receive funding or any sort of support), it would be because of its benefits outside of art for a given audience (add value to the city -- meaning gentrification --, teach something to local population, entertain kids or elders, etc...).
The problem of "adding value" is a central one for me. The whole idea is not so much to create a response, but to propose a certain context that puts it into question. No-one can decide if this art residency is valuable, worth it, interesting or successful in those terms, because it proposes nothing in exchange of anything. We do not sell anything, we don't ask, we don't expect much.
E: I would try to say the same thing from a different perspective. I think the problem is that we consider all this issue in a mercantile exchange point of view that dries out any relation. And this will join the point of "accountability". I don't like the funnel we're put into lately. Because of the ultra-violent financial pressure that states/public entities receive from monetary/financial actors, public funding is constantly reviewed, reduced, asked to be more efficient. And this is presented to the public as a better way to spend their tax money. Therefore if some activity (as an art residency) does not add value (financial and/or symbolic) it is not worth supporting it. This of course is valid only for countable value, and -- on top of that -- of a significant amount in a big scale. I guess bi- tries to dodge all these issues by its small scale, by some attempts to reformulate this notions of value in longer terms and in not do ut des dry exchange.
And then the question of "adding value to the context" is also very tricky. Because if this translates into "contributing to the gentrification of the context", bi- should try to avoid so. Not sure we can. Currently we do bi- in liminal places, which are not included in this fabrication of value for a real-estate exploitation, but we never feel totally safe in what we do. On the other hand, if "adding value to the context" means contributing to independence which is not isolation, solidarity that does not hide a patronage system, an economy that is an ecology, we are for it but whether bi- does contribute to it we are not sure.
J: Yes of course, we are completely open to different kinds of exchange that take place in this minuscule context of the residency.
E: Besides the residencies, bi- exists in public -- even though it is not much noticed -- calls and mostly in conversations. With anyone. Of course bi- exists in the art world but one of the most interesting remarks we hear is when we speak with people that do not work in the art field and say "Oh, so I could partake too?". "Of course".
J: Someone in the last residency remarked that this context blurs the usual positions of artists/audience/hosts, and that's quite true. Many guests proposed to host a residency in the future, and we are all actors and audience of what happens inside the residency. The question of the audience outside is even more blurry: in informal conversation or formal presentation, we adopt the position of a univocal narrator. But what about "guests" telling around that they applied, and what happened in the residency, hence participating in this narrative? What about people in Palermo seeing leaflets inviting to a water fight, and deciding to join, not knowing at all why, who or how?
FFR: How does the individual artist’s characteristics, i.e. their personality, skills, etc. affect the ‘success’ of the residency?
J: The idea of "success"in this residency is a bit complicated to frame.
A: I agree with Jerôme. We often struggle to find paths in order to avoid falling in linguistic traps that will lead us to political traps, especially when we write our open calls, one of the most challenging parts of what we do. When it comes to selecting the future participants we try to keep in mind what Sara Ahmed calls encounters and the amount of tricky assumptions that the word “stranger” implies. I imagine a bi- residency more as a spontaneous performance between strangers: it happens only once, there is no rehearsal even if the "performers" are skilled and it could also work the other way around: the more someone improvises the more things come out of the body with ease. However the residency has no result, as nothing comes out of it. The idea of "success" even though I do not like the term happens only inside us, for both residents and hosts (we are wary of the binary distinction) and is different for everyone, every time.
E: I guess we started by being hosts and now we are floating between the two positions of host and guests. Successful or not, the residency is pretty much based on the relations of the individuals.
J: Yes, the question of "success" put aside, these individual characteristics that you mention, (i.e. their personality, skills, etc.) are everything that makes the residency. Then, there are as many situations taking place that we would consider successful as there are people and personalities. Different periods have been "successes" for very different reasons. Still, if we were to name a few aspects that makes it worth repeating the experiment: cooking good food and drinking together is nice. Not letting someone in discomfort in a group is important. People caring for each other is nice. witnessing beautiful things together is nice. Hearing different languages and talking from different perspectives is beautiful.
FFR: In what way bi- residency adds value to the city or region in which takes place?
E: Currently bi- does not engage in the surrounding area if considered under the private/public sphere point of view as it is formulated in the North. The scale of bi- is microscopic therefore I doubt its current functioning could be measured in terms of social impact, cultural value on local scene, etc... I personally hope that some forms of interaction and reciprocity would emerge in other chapters. This should not necessarily jump into a greater scale or addition of value (especially if considered through a tourist industry lens) but I would be interested in less bubbly forms.
J: I'm not sure we want to defend the position of adding value. The rhetoric of "adding value" places the discussion in the realm of profitability, utility, etc. Maybe once we refuse to be valuable, or useful, we can start seeing different values emerge. That we do not "add", but rather grow, notice, defend, enact... And I agree with Enrico, it doesn't mean that we should not engage more in and with the surroundings.
J: The idea of "success"in this residency is a bit complicated to frame.
A: I agree with Jerôme. We often struggle to find paths in order to avoid falling in linguistic traps that will lead us to political traps, especially when we write our open calls, one of the most challenging parts of what we do. When it comes to selecting the future participants we try to keep in mind what Sara Ahmed calls encounters and the amount of tricky assumptions that the word “stranger” implies. I imagine a bi- residency more as a spontaneous performance between strangers: it happens only once, there is no rehearsal even if the "performers" are skilled and it could also work the other way around: the more someone improvises the more things come out of the body with ease. However the residency has no result, as nothing comes out of it. The idea of "success" even though I do not like the term happens only inside us, for both residents and hosts (we are wary of the binary distinction) and is different for everyone, every time.
E: I guess we started by being hosts and now we are floating between the two positions of host and guests. Successful or not, the residency is pretty much based on the relations of the individuals.
J: Yes, the question of "success" put aside, these individual characteristics that you mention, (i.e. their personality, skills, etc.) are everything that makes the residency. Then, there are as many situations taking place that we would consider successful as there are people and personalities. Different periods have been "successes" for very different reasons. Still, if we were to name a few aspects that makes it worth repeating the experiment: cooking good food and drinking together is nice. Not letting someone in discomfort in a group is important. People caring for each other is nice. witnessing beautiful things together is nice. Hearing different languages and talking from different perspectives is beautiful.
FFR: In what way bi- residency adds value to the city or region in which takes place?
E: Currently bi- does not engage in the surrounding area if considered under the private/public sphere point of view as it is formulated in the North. The scale of bi- is microscopic therefore I doubt its current functioning could be measured in terms of social impact, cultural value on local scene, etc... I personally hope that some forms of interaction and reciprocity would emerge in other chapters. This should not necessarily jump into a greater scale or addition of value (especially if considered through a tourist industry lens) but I would be interested in less bubbly forms.
J: I'm not sure we want to defend the position of adding value. The rhetoric of "adding value" places the discussion in the realm of profitability, utility, etc. Maybe once we refuse to be valuable, or useful, we can start seeing different values emerge. That we do not "add", but rather grow, notice, defend, enact... And I agree with Enrico, it doesn't mean that we should not engage more in and with the surroundings.
FFR: How do you see AIR concept of working in the future? Or what would you like to see more in the future?
J: Maybe we'd also like to see how we can further engage with people that took part in bi-, and want to stay around and get involved, in many different manners. Hosting another residency, as it happened with Louise, is a possibility that many people think of, and propose. Joining the organisation as Angeliki did is also a possibility, but it takes a lot of time and energy, and not everyone can commit to that of course. So maybe there are different ways to be invented, in order to open the functioning of the residency in news ways, and escape the model where 2, now 3 people organise everything and host strangers, and then pass to a new place and invite a new group. We would like to see what are the bonds that we create with people coming to bi- that can be tightened, expanded, etc.. I don't know if that makes sense. You Mila, you applied but couldn't join at the end, but opened a discussion with Enrico, and proposed us to reflect on the residency for this interview. This is also something that could be taken into consideration in that regard. How can we welcome and expand these kinds of participations on the making of bi-? A: We would like to have enough money and resources to cover all expenses -- in other words get closer to what you call a FULLY FUNDED residency. Further, we would like to gain some more time to dedicate to bi- which to reflect more on the way we host and how we call/invite/ask for attention. Last but not least -- we wish that one day Childish Gambino will finally reply to our call: “bi- is looking for idle artists, paperback writers, vernacular architects, abstract practitioners, self-taught librarians, full-time karaoke singers, monolingual translators, limping archaeologists, bilingual woodworkers, ill-mannered ballet dancers, social-media deserters, left-handed flight attendants, employed poets, communist polyamourous yogis, childish gambino, all repentant managers and cursed insurance inspectors, real-estate road-runners, non-binary hackers, anarchist lawyers, ayurvedic thugs, organic-fair-trade-permaculture-eco-sustainable stutterers, impatient waiters, zapatist nuclear physicists, blind video-game referees, augmented-reality marroons, dyslexic high-frequency trading algorithms, claustrophobic lift operators, witches and bakers, sankarist horse-riders, jobless bailiffs, whistle blowers, cosmetic interventions, unoccupied domains, etc...” |
Interview with:
Angeliki Tzortzakaki
Jérôme de Vienne
Enrico Floriddia
By Mila Panic
More about Bi-
Photo credits: Bi-
Angeliki Tzortzakaki
Jérôme de Vienne
Enrico Floriddia
By Mila Panic
More about Bi-
Photo credits: Bi-